[0:03] All right. I'd like to call the Bruce County Council
[0:11] meeting for September 7 to order. And we'll begin with
[0:16] a declaration of Pecaria interest. Hearing? None. Move on to
[0:22] the confirmation of Council minutes. Look for a mover in
[0:27] a seconder. Councilor sharboneau Councilor Craig that the minutes of
[0:30] the August 3, 2023 Council meeting be approved as circulated.
[0:35] All those in favor. That's carried. We have communications there.
[0:45] From Minister Thompson, Increasing Debt Stock Capacity Initiative and Ministry
[0:51] of Infrastructure red tape reduction for broadband. We'll move to
[0:55] Item six, and we'll begin with our delegations. We'll start
[0:59] off with delegation. A. We'll welcome the Director of Policy
[1:04] and Partnerships from the Nuclear Innovation Institute. Chad Richards. Welcome
[1:09] to the Meeting. Chad. Am I on now? There we
[1:17] go. Now. We're good. Well, thank you very much, warden
[1:19] and Council members of the public. It's great to be
[1:21] here today and give a bit of an update on
[1:24] some of the work that we're doing at the Nuclear
[1:26] Innovation Institute through the Clean Energy Frontier Program. And so
[1:30] before I get into some of the specific work that
[1:33] we would like to talk to you about today, just
[1:35] to kind of set the stage. And talk about the
[1:36] program. Itself, the Clean Energy Frontier Program is a public
[1:41] private partnership between Bruce Power and Bruce County that is
[1:44] hosted at the Nuclear Innovation Institute and now falls under
[1:47] My purview as the Director of policy and Partnerships at
[1:50] the nii. The Clean Energy Frontier Program is really meant.
[1:55] To amplify and highlight the economic benefits that we receive
[1:58] as a region due to the significant nuclear and clean
[2:02] energy sector that we have across. The regions of Bruce,
[2:07] Gray and here on counties, we work with Gray and
[2:10] huron kind of to take this regional collaborative approach to
[2:14] economic development to amplifying again those economic benefits of the
[2:17] clean energy sector and to tackle common challenges as we
[2:21] move forward with really supporting the clean energy sector here
[2:24] in the region. Some of the ways that vision becomes
[2:29] practical work that we do. We make a number of
[2:32] resources available to you as county councilors and. To elected
[2:37] officials across the region. One of those that we did
[2:41] recently was our economic impact report. Really looking at again,
[2:45] what does the economic impact of large scale nuclear operations
[2:50] and the clean energy sector in the region look like?
[2:52] What does that mean for local businesses. That operate here
[2:56] in the region. And what does that mean for you,
[2:58] as a municipal government. And the tax implications of those
[3:02] operations here in the region. Now. We're not working. If
[3:10] we can just advance the slides one the clicker doesn't
[3:13] seem to be working. There we go. We also recently
[3:19] made a plain language toolkit available to local elected officials
[3:22] from across the region. Really, what this plain language toolkit
[3:25] was meant to do is provide elected officials with the
[3:29] ability to talk about these really complex topics in simple
[3:32] ways. So really giving elected officials the information that you
[3:36] need to communicate effectively. About topics like isotopes, about nuclear
[3:40] waste, about energy storage. How do we communicate about those
[3:43] really complex things in a really effective way? And I
[3:46] would just like to take a quick moment to highlight.
[3:48] I really appreciated the support that the Clean Energy Frontier
[3:51] Program had from members of County Council. At the most
[3:54] recent amo Conference, we were able to participate in a
[3:58] sponsored break. Breakfast at amo and highlight all the success
[4:02] that we're seeing because of the program here. To municipalities
[4:05] from across Ontario and really appreciated all the support that
[4:07] we received from county councilors that attended that the reason
[4:12] that I'm here today is to provide an update on
[4:14] a study that we recently did through the Clean Energy
[4:16] Program called the Nuclear Sector Sustainability and Growth Study. And
[4:20] what this study was was really an opportunity for us
[4:23] to go out, communicate. With. Senior business executives in the
[4:28] nuclear sector. And talk to those suppliers. Those key suppliers.
[4:32] About challenges, opportunities, threats, what's on the horizon for them,
[4:36] as we move forward, as the kind of clean energy
[4:39] sector moves forward here. And the mcr major component replacement
[4:43] project at Bruce Power continues, as well as some of
[4:46] these new topics that are on the horizon. So really
[4:48] an opportunity to connect again right in with that supplier
[4:51] base and learn about some of those key. Things that
[4:53] they found. And we wanted to share some of those
[4:56] findings with you today to really again, just provide that
[4:58] information to you. And I'm happy to communicate with members
[5:01] of Council afterwards, if there are specific topics that we'd
[5:03] like to dig out a little bit deeper in. But
[5:06] some of the key things at the highest level. When
[5:08] we communicated with the supplier base here in the region,
[5:11] the key themes that emerge from those interviews were. That
[5:15] really the regional energy sector requires some vision and some
[5:18] planning. That there is a significant competition for workforce across
[5:22] the supplier base here in the region. Positively that the
[5:26] sector is poised to thrive in this net zero environment
[5:29] and really tackling meeting those climate change challenges that we're
[5:33] all seeing across the provincial and federal governments. And that
[5:38] Indigenous suppliers and relationships within our Indigenous communities is a
[5:41] top priority for our supplier base. And now my clicker
[5:45] stopped working. There we go. And that collective advocacy is
[5:49] also a priority or an opportunity area that the suppliers
[5:52] see here in the region. So kind of drilling a
[5:54] little bit deeper into what each of these mean, really
[5:57] with regional sector vision and planning. We're talking about ensuring
[6:01] that we advocate for ourselves collectively as a region, that
[6:04] we're tackling challenges collectively and that we don't take this
[6:07] kind of siloed approach to growth here in the region.
[6:11] Suppliers talked about the need for open dialogue around housing
[6:14] and ensuring that those municipal services are there for their
[6:18] employee base here in the region and again working as
[6:20] a region rather than. On a siloed basis, and that
[6:23] we continue to collaborate with respect to competition for workforce
[6:27] suppliers. Were very clear that this was the top challenge
[6:30] that they're facing. There is immense competition for talent locally
[6:35] and oftentimes suppliers are finding that they're required to bring
[6:39] some specialized skill sets up. From other urban centers or
[6:43] even internationally. And that comes with challenges around spousal employment,
[6:47] ensuring that spouses of those employees can find employment here
[6:51] outside of the nuclear sector, if that is the case
[6:53] for those suppliers. So really, I know that workforce is
[6:56] really a top of mind issue across the board for
[6:58] every sector. But again, just kind of underscoring that remains
[7:00] a significant challenge here. For nuclear suppliers operating in the
[7:03] region. Again positive on a positive, really positive note. And
[7:08] I think we saw this over the summer. Suppliers were
[7:11] very optimistic about. The opportunity for the sector to continue
[7:15] to grow, that there are significant business development opportunities here
[7:19] locally, with respect to the nuclear sector and even beyond
[7:22] that, branching out into other clean energy sectors here in
[7:25] the region. They also talked about the importance of public
[7:28] awareness and support from governments like yourselves and how critical
[7:32] that is to the growth of the community. I think
[7:34] we saw that quite clearly, particularly from this County Council,
[7:37] with respect to some of the submissions that the County
[7:40] Council made with respect to the iso's pathways to decarbonization
[7:44] report and all of those topics. That the County Council
[7:48] has been quite supportive of in the past, and suppliers
[7:51] recognize that they see that and appreciate that and really
[7:54] see it as key to growth going forward. And suppliers
[7:57] also talked about again, the need to continue to really
[8:00] come together and tackle challenges by networking, more trade shows,
[8:04] more. And really tackling that workforce challenge together. If we.
[8:11] Hope to achieve the success that they envision is on
[8:13] the horizon. Again, another key challenge, Indigenous suppliers and relationships.
[8:19] So a suppliers really put this front and center as
[8:22] a topic that was important to them. They expressed interest
[8:24] in working with those Indigenous suppliers that have sprung up
[8:28] here in the region. We're quite blessed that we have
[8:30] seen. Indigenous owned businesses come. To fruition to support the
[8:35] nuclear sector like Makwakal makwa Development those corporations. So there
[8:39] was a keen interest from suppliers to work directly with.
[8:44] Those Indigenous owned suppliers moving forward and to continue to
[8:47] support healthy relationships with our Indigenous communities here in the
[8:51] region. And finally again on those key themes, that collective
[8:55] advocacy, which I think is a really great platform. For
[8:59] the Clean Energy Frontier Program and really connects to I
[9:02] think some of the things that the county is looking
[9:04] to do with that collective advocacy for the region and
[9:07] really putting an emphasis on telling our story at different
[9:09] levels of government. The suppliers also see a need for
[9:12] that. As a really important way to continue growth in
[9:17] the region here. One thing that was really neat. Suppliers
[9:21] were also asked to provide some insights into what business
[9:25] is like, what doing business is like here in the
[9:27] region. I won't read through all of these, but suppliers
[9:30] identify these as the significant regional advantages here. Lifestyle, obviously
[9:34] being one that's really great. And you can read through
[9:39] these at your leisure. But these were really again highlighted
[9:42] as the significant advantages that suppliers saw to doing business
[9:45] here. That said they were also asked if they could
[9:48] change one thing about the business environment. In the region,
[9:52] what would it be? And these were. The three themes
[9:56] that emerged from asking suppliers that question. There was the
[9:58] need for planning for the future again, that workforce challenge
[10:01] that we're seeing across the board and support for business
[10:04] development. So I'll dig a little bit deeper into those
[10:07] planning for the future. Was somewhat of a specific call
[10:11] to the municipal governments that operate here in the region.
[10:14] Improved infrastructure, so ensuring that we can have the same
[10:18] amenities as larger centers and really ensuring the same level
[10:20] of service was identified. Suppliers as. A significant challenge or
[10:25] one thing that they would change with respect to the
[10:27] business environment here on Cell Service. If you've lived in
[10:30] Port elgin over the last month and you're a Bell
[10:32] customer, I think. That would be clear. The other thing,
[10:36] the supplier saw showcasing the region as a center of
[10:40] excellence, which, I think again is a really strong point
[10:42] for the Clean Energy Frontier Program. That's something that we
[10:44] do day in and day out. By planning for the
[10:48] future for more industrial space. And we're seeing that in
[10:50] municipalities across the region, I know industrial parks are springing
[10:53] up. In all kinds of municipalities across Bruce County, and
[10:58] that's really great to see. I think that's something that
[11:00] suppliers welcome significantly and obviously just to kind of again
[11:03] more on the public amenities as well. We talked a
[11:07] lot about workforce again, highlighted as one of the significant
[11:09] things that they would change about the business environment. And
[11:12] suppliers are really looking to leverage local programs. And institutions
[11:16] that we have here in the region, like georgian College,
[11:18] like different advanced training centers that we can leverage and
[11:22] really just ensuring that we are able to offer become
[11:25] an attractive place for workforce attraction and retention. And then
[11:30] finally on business development support. So really looking, this was
[11:33] more geared at. Some eppers power really looking at again,
[11:37] leveraging those relationships with Indigenous communities, ensuring that we can
[11:41] build those positive relationships, more networking opportunities, which is something
[11:44] that nii sees. And we can be a platform for
[11:47] providing that and then kind of at the municipal level,
[11:49] ensuring that. There are incentives for increased investment in the
[11:54] region and incentives to continue. And continue an expanding business
[11:57] here in the region. So I'll wrap up. I know
[12:01] that was a lot of information all at you once.
[12:03] This was meant to be an opportunity to provide you
[12:06] Council with this information. And we're happy to I'm happy
[12:09] to take questions following this. And I'm also happy to
[12:12] communicate with counselors one on one. If there's any particular
[12:15] pieces in here that you see. As digging a little
[12:19] bit deeper. Digging deeper into. To wrap up some of
[12:23] the things that we will continue to do. We'll obviously
[12:25] continue to work with our municipal partners. We regularly, through
[12:29] the Clean Energy Frontier Program, hold quarterly meetings with economic
[12:32] development staff to ensure, again, these messages are reaching the
[12:35] right people at a staff level, and that action can
[12:38] be taken at that level. We'll continue to coordinate all
[12:42] of that stuff through the Clean Energy Frontier Program and
[12:45] happy to continue to be a resource for County Council
[12:48] as you move forward. So finally, we'll also continue to
[12:51] build awareness. I think that's one thing that emerged through
[12:54] our interviews with suppliers is oftentimes they weren't necessarily aware
[12:58] of some of the great things that municipalities are doing
[13:00] on these key topics. And we'll continue to take that
[13:02] message back to them as well. So with that, warden,
[13:05] thank you very much for your time. And I'm happy
[13:08] to take any questions, questions from Council. No. Okay. Hearing
[13:16] none. Thank you very much, Chad. Excellent. Thanks so much.
[13:20] All Right, our next presenter will be. Virtual. And there
[13:26] she is. So welcome. From the Western Ontario wardens Caucus,
[13:31] Kate Gallagher, to our meeting. And she's going to give
[13:35] us an update on the advocacy. That the wardens caucus
[13:40] does, and the staff does. And I'm new to the
[13:43] warden's caucus. And I've been welcomed there. It's a great
[13:47] group. And I'm very impressed with what. A strong advocacy
[13:51] group. They are. They put together a lot of position
[13:53] papers on some very important issues. For all of the
[13:56] counties in southwestern Ontario. So let's hear what they're up
[14:00] to. Welcome to the meeting, Kate. Thank you, Warren peabody,
[14:04] through you to County Council. It's a pleasure to join
[14:07] you all today to give you an update on who
[14:10] the Western terrier warrens Caucus is and the work that
[14:13] we do. And a little bit about what we did
[14:16] at amo just a few weeks ago. So next, Slide,
[14:21] please. My name is Kate Gallagher, and I'm the executive
[14:23] director of the Western Ontario warden's Caucus. And who is
[14:27] the wwc or wow C. As we say, we are
[14:31] the 16 upper and single tier municipalities in Western Ontario.
[14:35] And you may see 15 highlighted in the map, but
[14:39] just east of Norfolk County is haldeman county and they're
[14:42] trying us on for size this year and we are
[14:44] hopeful that they will join us. In complete southwestern Ontario.
[14:50] In membership. This year, we represent 300 communities, more than
[14:55] one and a half million residents, which equals 20% of
[14:57] the population of the province half million square kilometers. And
[15:01] really the glue that binds our region together. And I
[15:04] can't say this enough is that we are 90% rural.
[15:07] Our region is rural. We have some urban centers. But
[15:11] what really binds the Western Tier warren's Caucus together is
[15:14] our rural roots. Next, slide, please. So what is the
[15:18] purpose of the warren's Caucus caucus? Well, we are that
[15:21] great big region with 20% of the population. And so
[15:24] when we speak with one voice, we have 16 heads
[15:27] of Council speaking together on, like issues. There is political
[15:33] power in that. And so when we go to the
[15:36] province and the. Federal Government. We have that one voice.
[15:41] We work together to find. Issues that are relevant to
[15:46] the entire region, that aren't just issues for an individual
[15:50] county or community, but to the entire region. So we
[15:53] look at those big issues that affect all 16 counties.
[15:57] And we try and implement positive change in the region.
[16:00] Next slide. Thank you. And how do we do this?
[16:04] Well, we do this with an amazing team. Through our
[16:08] membership. So we have the caucus, which is represented with
[16:12] the elected officials. So Warren peabody has joined us this
[16:15] year, and we are so thrilled to have him around
[16:17] the caucus table. And we are supported by a great
[16:20] team of caos. So that's your cao Derek, who has
[16:24] been an invaluable resource and a great staff team. I
[16:28] am a full time executive director. We have a part
[16:31] time manager of government relations, Justin bromberg, and a part
[16:34] time administrative coordinator, Charlotte Gravloff. And we are fed information
[16:39] from our subject matter experts. And that helps develop and
[16:44] flush out our advocacy work and really give us the
[16:46] data and information we need to make an impact. At
[16:50] the upper levels of government. So our Economic Development Committee
[16:53] is comprised of elected officials, economic development professionals, and Ministry
[16:58] and stakeholder representatives, and then our subject matter expert groups.
[17:03] Are the 15. Individuals. From. These different departments. So for
[17:11] planning, you have Claire dods, from Bruce County, who. Is
[17:15] just simply amazing. We couldn't do our work without her
[17:18] social services. I cannot say enough about Christine McDonald. We
[17:22] wouldn't be where we are with our work on mental
[17:25] health, addictions and homelessness. Without Christine and her invaluable knowledge.
[17:29] Communications. We have Adam Ferguson, who has been fantastic, and
[17:35] we always appreciate all of the communications he provides us.
[17:38] And likewise, sharing our information. And then on economic development.
[17:42] There's Jeff loney and Pierre valet, who have been incredible.
[17:47] And we also partner quite closely on government relations with
[17:50] the government relations work that you're doing at Bruce County
[17:53] as well. Next, slide. So when it comes to advocacy,
[17:58] how do we do what we do? We meet with
[18:00] ministers at amo and roma and really key to our
[18:04] work is we meet with the deputy ministers and Assistant
[18:06] deputy ministers before and after and in between those conferences.
[18:11] That's where a lot of our work and our advocacy
[18:14] gets done. We also meet with Ministerial staff. And a
[18:20] key to our success was prior to launching our strategic
[18:24] Priorities. This year. In April, we got together. All the
[18:28] MPs and mpps from the region. And showcased their strategic
[18:33] priorities to them before any meeting released before any launch,
[18:36] so that our partners at both Queens Park and Parliament.
[18:40] Hill knew our strategy, strategic priorities before anyone else, so
[18:44] that they could also take those to Queens Park and
[18:46] Parliament Hill for us. And. Okay. I'm stumbling on my
[18:50] word. There. Are other elected officials could also sing from
[18:57] the same song book when it comes to advocacy. We
[19:00] also monitor government legislation. So. We're constantly having pre budget
[19:05] submissions and submissions. As the warda mentioned. And we can
[19:09] do it without amazing partnerships with Swift amo scm in
[19:13] Eastern Ontario. One's caucus next, slide. So what did we
[19:18] go to amo to talk about? I'm sure it's not
[19:20] a surprise to anyone, but we want to talk about
[19:22] housing. In Bruce County, you have an amazing housing strategy
[19:26] and work that you've been doing. And that has informed
[19:30] a lot of the work that we've been looking at
[19:31] as well. One of our asks that we approach the
[19:35] province with was how you're going to keep municipalities whole
[19:38] without those development charges? What does that look like. As
[19:43] a whole for us. They did announce the bff that
[19:47] Building Faster fund. And 10% of that has been reserved
[19:51] for rural communities. However, we represent 20% of the population.
[19:56] So. There needs to be some work on that bff.
[19:59] And Secondly, those 29 fastest growing municipalities were identified to
[20:05] have numbered targets. And in June, 3 of our municipalities,
[20:09] Chad and Kent, Norfolk, and haldeman, were asked to provide
[20:13] their numbers for targets for housing. So. We've asked at
[20:16] amo what is the province expecting of US upper tier
[20:20] municipalities, as far as targets? And how can we contribute?
[20:24] So that's what we asked at ammo. And we are
[20:27] waiting with beta breadth the answers on those questions. Next,
[20:30] slide. And you can't have housing without workforces and as
[20:34] Chad alluded to. The nuclear industry looking for workforce and
[20:40] all of our industries across the region, looking for workforce.
[20:44] And so we've really honed in on the Ontario Immigrant
[20:47] Nominee program. This program was a pilot in chatham, Kent,
[20:51] with great success and. It's a project that brings new
[20:56] immigrants specifically to Ontario based on occupations that we need
[20:59] in our region. We completed a workforce strategy that identified
[21:03] the occupations we need in our region. The top two
[21:06] are already included. So that's horticulture and health services. Now
[21:09] we need retail sales. And cleaners and drivers. So we
[21:15] are trying to get. Those occupations included in the oimp
[21:19] as well. Next, slide. And last but not least when
[21:23] we're looking at our strategic priorities, mental health, addictions, and
[21:25] homelessness is one that we've been actively involved in. And
[21:30] our first ask has been to ensure that the mobile
[21:33] crisis Response Teams receive permanent funding so that our police
[21:37] services come April 1 every year aren't wondering whether or
[21:40] not. They can send out a social worker with their
[21:43] police teams. So we're asking for permanent funding for those
[21:46] mobile crisis response teams. And Secondly, we're asking for permanent
[21:51] funding. Rural funding for the Homelessness Prevention Program. Our urban
[21:55] counterparts have. A very different mental health addiction to homelessness
[22:00] crisis than we do in our urban, rural communities. Rural
[22:02] homelessness looks different. And the way we approach it is
[22:07] very different. So we need dedicated funding in our rural
[22:10] communities to address homelessness. And so that's one of the
[22:13] asks that we approach the government. With this Amo. Next
[22:17] slide. And so those are the top three strategic priorities
[22:21] that we are actively working on. And in the background,
[22:25] we continue to support Swift. Swift will have the fiber
[22:29] in the ground this fall. We are very excited about
[22:31] that. And there will hopefully be more to come with
[22:35] Swift in the coming months. And we'll leave that to
[22:38] Barry to announce, hopefully here shortly, next, slide. And as
[22:43] I mentioned, we have our Economic Development Committee, and they
[22:46] are actively working on our Workforce strategy. Alluding back to
[22:51] Chad and the workforce development work, the expansion potential expansion
[22:57] at Bruce Power. Then we've got Stalantis and Windsor and
[23:00] Volkswagen and St. Thomas and elgan. So we have three
[23:03] very huge projects in our region that are happening. So
[23:06] workforce is top of mind and the Economic Development Committee
[23:10] is actively working. On actions to ensure that we have
[23:13] a workforce to meet the growing demand in our region.
[23:16] Next slide. And we couldn't do this without amazing partners.
[23:21] First and foremost, we have to mention the Community Futures
[23:23] of Western Ontario. They are an investor. In our economic
[23:28] development work and workforce Planning West. All of the workforce
[23:32] planning boards are incredible partners. And we also work incredibly
[23:36] closely with the Ontario big City mayors. Our Canon parts
[23:38] are in Eastern Ontario. And emo and all of the
[23:41] other organizations at the bottom on project specific work. Next
[23:45] slide. If you're looking for more information on who we
[23:49] are and what we do and staying on top of
[23:52] all of those great submissions that we do make. Everything
[23:56] is posted on our website. Wwc. Ca we have monthly
[23:59] newsletters and frequent press releases. We are on Twitter or
[24:04] X, and also on Facebook. Next slide. So what are
[24:08] the benefits for Bruce County around the wowc table. Is
[24:14] that regional table, as we mentioned, is that one voice?
[24:17] It's the power of 16 counties representing our rural communities.
[24:22] There's an advocacy to both the provincial and federal governments.
[24:26] There's that staff support for the subject matter expert teams.
[24:28] Those SMEs are not only feeding information up to the
[24:31] caucus, but it's also an opportunity for R and D
[24:34] as we like. To say, robbing and duplicating amongst our
[24:36] peers. And then there are the regional projects we have
[24:39] the Connected mapping Tool, as well as our upcoming Rural
[24:43] Housing Information System that we're working with the Rural Ontario
[24:45] Institute on Next slide. That is a really quick overview
[24:50] for you of the Western Here warren's Caucus. I'm happy
[24:52] to take any questions. And there's my email and phone
[24:55] number if you'd like to reach out anytime. Thank you
[24:58] so much for your time. Thank you, warden. Okay. Thank
[25:01] you. Kate. And. The Meetings at Amo. That the Western
[25:07] wardens Caucus head were excellent. There were four Cabinet Ministers.
[25:11] There. And the group was very well prepared and made
[25:16] a good case. Disappointed. The one thing the mobile crisis,
[25:22] full time funding didn't really get a concrete answer on
[25:25] that. And we've all been advocating that for a year
[25:29] or more now and still haven't received an answer from
[25:31] the government. But county and lower tiers and the wardens
[25:36] caucus will keep pushing on that. Among other issues, questions
[25:39] from Coun. Council. No, yes. Councilor Hamill. So thank you
[25:47] very much for the presentation. When I reviewed the priorities,
[25:52] I was hoping to see emergency departments and healthcare as
[25:57] a priority this year. I know it's a priority all
[25:59] the time, but it's getting worse. So. I believe that
[26:04] just wanted to say hopefully it's a large priority for
[26:07] next year, just more of a comment. But that's how
[26:10] I feel. Okay, thank you. It's good in pit. Further
[26:16] questions. Okay. Well, thank you very much, Kate. Thank you
[26:22] for all your work. Bye, Bye, bye.
[26:43] Okay, we're moving on to item seven. We have a
[26:45] staff report, and we're going to call to order. Public
[26:51] meeting. On Development Charges this public meeting is being held
[26:55] in accordance with the Development Charges Act. The purpose of
[26:58] the public meeting is to provide for a review of
[27:00] the Development Charges proposal and to receive public input on
[27:03] the proposed policies and charges. The county of bruce's Development
[27:06] Charges Consultant Watson Associates economists while presenting the report with
[27:11] recommend. Recommended charges, followed by questions from the public. So
[27:17] we have Director henley. He's going to kick the meeting
[27:20] off. Thank you, warden. Welcome, members of the public and
[27:24] those present and online. My name is Edward henley. I'm
[27:27] the Director of Corporate Services and the County's treasure. And
[27:30] I'll be presenting the first presentation, which is discussing why
[27:34] the county is looking at collecting development charges. And then
[27:37] shortly after that. There'll be more of a technical presentation.
[27:43] From darryl Labs, manager at Nation Associates. Economists presenting that
[27:47] information. And we encourage all questions and comments from the
[27:52] public. So we'll start off with. Why does the wanting
[27:58] the county want to collect development charges? Essentially, funds are
[28:01] needed for growth related infrastructure. Otherwise, service levels will decrease
[28:05] without growth related improvement. The county does not currently have
[28:09] sufficient funds to pay for the replacement of our existing
[28:12] infrastructure and has had to levy large tax increases over
[28:16] a 15 year. Period of 2.1%, and there's still a
[28:20] shortfall that needs to be addressed. We'll discuss that shortly.
[28:24] So if we don't have sufficient funds. For our existing
[28:29] infrastructure. And we're trying to resolve that. Adding on the
[28:33] costs of the new growth related infrastructure is also going
[28:37] to be a challenge. And development charges are an alternate
[28:40] revenue source that mitigates having to raise property taxes. For
[28:44] 2023, Council approved the Strategic Plan, which outlined. That one
[28:50] of the goals financially was to reduce the county's reliance
[28:53] on property taxes. For the cost of operating the county.
[28:59] So this is addressing one of those goals. Now in
[29:02] 2023, our budget theme was fiscal sustainability being resilient to
[29:06] change building reserves and workforce attraction and retention and development
[29:10] charges. Really speak to three of those. So here's a
[29:13] little bit of a snapshot of our capital situation. So,
[29:18] our asset management Plan when we take into account all
[29:21] of our infrastructure, our roads, our buildings, our bridges. Especially
[29:26] we found in 2022. Ideally, we should have been setting
[29:29] aside up to $30 million. And. That's represented by. The
[29:35] red area there. The blue area shows how much we
[29:39] were actually setting aside or spending. That was 12 million.
[29:42] So there was an $18 million shortfall. Now with the
[29:45] asset management plan that's showing the blue area slowly going
[29:48] up over time so that eventually. By 2038. Will be
[29:55] collecting the appropriate funds to cover off our existing infrastructure.
[29:58] But of course, in that time there's still inflation. As
[30:01] you can see. And the red area that's shown represents
[30:06] the shortfall. So to fund that we would have to
[30:10] either defer repair, repairing and replacing infrastructure closing, increased borrowing
[30:15] or increased taxes. So the green area on this chart
[30:20] shows the cost of the growth related infrastructure. Now we
[30:24] only looked at it going forward from 2023, but. The
[30:28] growth related infrastructure that we would like to collect development
[30:31] charges to pay for because otherwise. That unfunded area becomes
[30:35] even bigger. So this is an alternate way that does
[30:38] not involve. Including increase in property taxes or borrowing. Now,
[30:45] development charges are an alternate revenue source that reduced the
[30:48] need to increase property taxes. But how much. We're looking
[30:51] at collecting approximately $3.2 million per year, plus inflation from
[30:56] development charges. And that would pay for new or expanded
[31:00] county infrastructure due to growth. So currently we're looking at
[31:05] $621,000 is equivalent to a 1% tax liability increase. So
[31:10] if we were to collect that $3.2 million per year
[31:13] starting this year, we would have to increase property taxes
[31:16] over 5%. And that is what we are trying to
[31:20] avoid. The alternative again is to not expand infrastructure to
[31:24] accommodate growth. And allow service levels to decrease. So let's
[31:30] take a look at the numbers. Here. Over ten to
[31:35] 14 years. So the 14 year outlook is for highways
[31:38] and fleet that's required by the regulations governing how development
[31:42] charges are calculated and ten years for everything else. We're
[31:46] looking at approximately $105,000,000 in infrastructure that could be growth
[31:52] related or have growth related component. Components over that time
[31:56] frame. So the majority of it is in highways, and
[31:59] then a lot of it is in the ambulance sector.
[32:03] So. With the Orange Column. What we've got is $44
[32:08] million of that 104,000,000. Could be attributed to development charges
[32:14] and growth, so that's the amount that we could recover
[32:17] over that time frame. If we collect it from DC,
[32:20] then that would be coming from. The new growth. And
[32:25] otherwise, we'd have to collect that 44 million from the
[32:28] taxpayers. So what does new growth mean? So essentially, the
[32:32] existing properties, the people that live here have already really
[32:34] paid into the service levels that they have, whether it
[32:37] be. The roads. Our facilities and Parklands long term care
[32:45] if you increase your population another 10% or 20%. Then
[32:49] presumably, you need to improve the number of spaces in
[32:52] your long term care. Your Child care. Improve the highways
[32:57] with more efficient ways to move around, maybe roundabouts or
[33:01] widening the highways or the bridges. And so who should
[33:04] pay for that cost? Should it be the existing taxpayers
[33:09] who've already paid in? Or should it be the new
[33:12] growth. That should contribute also to the cost of expanding.
[33:19] So that's really the real question there who should pay.
[33:22] The last two columns with residential dcs, about 34 and
[33:26] a half million would come from. Of that, 44 million
[33:29] would come from residential, and about 9.4 million would come
[33:32] from non residential. Now what would the $44 million be
[33:38] spent on? Let's take a look at a few items.
[33:40] The Development Charge study, which is about 180 pages, details
[33:45] all of the items and. Provides more additional financial numbers
[33:52] for it. But let's take a look at the high
[33:54] level. We're looking at. An expanded paramedic station under construction
[33:59] right now in Port elgin. And that's looking outwards, 40,
[34:03] 50 years. For the future. And then holly rood, we're
[34:07] looking at a new paramedication in and around that area.
[34:13] And there currently isn't one in that Southern part of
[34:16] Bruce County. And what it essentially means is that. The
[34:22] paramedics would be able to report to that station and
[34:26] start their day there instead of starting somewhere else and
[34:28] then spending half an hour driving there and driving back
[34:31] so provide better quality level of service for that area.
[34:36] Roads and bridge widenings. There is a portion, although a
[34:40] small portion. For the paisley and WALKERTON Bridges, so the
[34:43] paisley is currently under construction in WALKERTON. Is under review.
[34:51] And so that could involve widening sidewalks or widening the
[34:54] road a little bit for active transportation as well. We've
[34:56] got some roadway roundabouts to make. Things better with the
[35:02] increased traffic traffic and hopes bike lanes to get the
[35:06] bikes off of the main roadway to make it safer
[35:09] for both. Cars and. Bike provision for trails, expansion and
[35:14] machinery. We're looking at bringing a master plan later this
[35:19] year. Hopefully that will provide some more additional information on
[35:21] that long term care expansion. Our neighbor, Gray County, is
[35:25] expanding their long term care, and they're borrowing tens of
[35:28] millions of dollars to pay for it. And it's certainly
[35:31] a financial challenge for them. And. That's even after collecting
[35:34] development charges for long term care. So it's very costly.
[35:38] And we're hoping to collect that for the future. Where
[35:42] would the dcs be raised from? So let's look at
[35:45] it geographically. This is broken out by municipality. Local municipality
[35:51] in Bruce County, and it's also then broken across left
[35:55] and right by the type of. Construction. This is just
[35:59] residential. So I'll just point out a couple sogging Shores,
[36:03] you'll see on the far right with the total amount
[36:06] would be about $744,000 per year. Soggins Shores is the
[36:11] growth center for. Bruce County. And that is where the
[36:17] majority of the money would be collected. At least for
[36:21] individually out of the 2.4 million per year. Now when
[36:25] you look at. The type of homes they're looking at
[36:30] approximately. 26 single and semis per year. But then when
[36:34] you look at. The multiples about 53 year that would
[36:38] be apartment buildings and then. You've got our town home
[36:41] complexes. And then you've got apartment buildings 31 and 31.
[36:46] Boat 62 per year. When you take another look at
[36:51] say Northern Bruce Peninsula. They're mainly singles and semis with
[36:56] 17.4. But then on the far right you're going to
[36:59] see that they've got quite a number of seasonal units.
[37:02] So the seasonal population is also included in the calculations
[37:06] and development charges because they're all driving the roads and
[37:09] using our. Facilities in Bruce County, as well. Now, if
[37:14] we take a look at the nonresidential, it's a little
[37:16] bit of a different story here. So. The total on
[37:22] the right hand side would be about 800,000 per year,
[37:25] and over 431,000 or more than half would be coming
[37:28] from the King cardan area. And that is the area
[37:31] that. Has large industrial areas that are ready for development.
[37:35] And so that is really the driver there with other
[37:38] municipalities being a little bit less. Now if we take
[37:42] a look at comparing. Development charges to taxes. So right
[37:48] now, without development charges, all the costs would come from
[37:51] taxation and. That is the green columns on the right
[37:55] hand side. At the bottom, it shows 62 million. That
[37:59] is the total levy. That. The county collected in 2023.
[38:04] 62 million. And if we divide that out by which
[38:07] municipalities paid which amounts, or at least the amount was
[38:10] collected from the different municipalities, you'll see that for example.
[38:15] Sogging shorts the growth center is paying the source of
[38:19] 23% of the county levy tax levy. And with development
[38:24] charges, which is on the left hand side. 27% of
[38:29] the development charge revenue each year would come from sogging
[38:32] shores. So that's an example of the growth centers really
[38:37] paying for the growth areas. For the growth cost, so
[38:41] 27% of the development charges would come from. The new
[38:46] construction, not from the taxpayers. Where in sogging shores as
[38:50] an example whereas. 23% of property taxes if we did
[38:55] it through the property taxes instead, by not having development
[38:58] charges would come from sogging shores. Now let's contrast that
[39:02] with for example. South Greece Peninsula. So with South Bruce
[39:06] Peninsula. What you're looking at. Is about 15% of the
[39:12] property taxes comes from South Bruce Peninsula. Whereas. 5% of
[39:20] development charges would come from South Bridge Peninsula because the
[39:23] growth isn't quite as strong there. So that is an
[39:27] example of how the dynamics would work financially. On the
[39:30] right hand side, it's the taxpayers that pay in that
[39:33] manner on the left hand side. Is how the new
[39:37] growth would pay. With the new construction. And that split.
[39:43] There. And there is more information. Available on our Development
[39:49] Charges webpage. All of the information that's presented at all
[39:53] the meetings is there. And there should also be links
[39:55] to the videos. Of most of the Council meetings. And
[40:00] in my email and phone number there I'll turn it
[40:03] over to my colleague. Darryl lapse to make the other
[40:08] presentation. Thank you. Thanks, Edward.
[40:18] All right. And thank you to the warden. And thank
[40:21] you to Council for having me here today. I'm going
[40:27] to undertake a little bit of a presentation, a little
[40:30] Slideshow. On the results and the findings of the development
[40:35] Charge Background Study process. As part of this formal public
[40:39] meeting. So for the format of this public meeting. So
[40:46] I'll kind of go over a little bit about the
[40:48] purpose. We'll talk about the study process and the timelines
[40:51] that we undertook. Provide a little bit of a development
[40:55] charges Overview Along with some of the legislative changes that
[40:58] have occurred over the last couple of years. We'll present
[41:02] the proposed policies and charges. And then I will be
[41:06] here to listen to the presentations from the public. And
[41:09] answer any questions and then as well answer any questions
[41:12] from Council before. We formally conclude the public meeting. So
[41:18] the public meeting is really to provide. The public with
[41:24] a chance to provide their feedback so that they can
[41:27] hear about the policies and charges that are proposed as
[41:31] part of the background study. This is a mandatory requirement
[41:35] as part of the Development Charges Act. And as well,
[41:40] prior to Council's consideration of the bylaw, we had to
[41:43] prepare a background study and put that on the county's
[41:46] website, a minimum of 60 days. Before. Council can consider
[41:53] the bylaw. So as part of the study process, we
[41:57] began back in March of 2023 and through may. We
[42:04] met with staff. We undertook the Policy review. And started
[42:08] preparing the calculations. We've held Council workshops on April 21
[42:14] and June 15. We held a stakeholder meeting on July
[42:18] 5, and then we released the background study on July
[42:21] 20. Today, we're holding the formal public meeting and then
[42:25] September 21. Its anticipated Council will consider the recommendations set
[42:31] out in the study. And then on October 5, that
[42:34] Council would consider the bylaw now, given the requirement of
[42:40] 60 days from release of the background study, Council could
[42:43] consider the bylaw as early as September 1 or sorry,
[42:47] September 21. So development charges are really a revenue tool
[42:52] for municipalities to recover the capital costs associated with growth
[42:57] and development in your communities. So with new developments, new
[43:01] residential developments, new non residential developments, there comes the need
[43:05] to build infrastructure. New roads or road widenings or intersection
[43:12] improvements, et cetera. And so development charges are used to
[43:15] recover the cost. Of this infrastructure. Now these costs are
[43:20] in addition to what would normally be constructed as part
[43:23] of a subdivision. So the developers and builders will have
[43:26] to construct the internal roads, sewers, water mains, et cetera.
[43:31] But really development charges are to collect for the broader
[43:33] infrastructure to connect the network. So municipalities are empowered to
[43:38] impose these charges. By passing a bylaw under the Development
[43:42] Charges Act and Development Charges are typically collected just prior
[43:47] to issuance of a building permit. So, the Development Charges
[43:51] Act lists 19 eligible services for which municipalities can recover
[43:57] costs. What we've highlighted in the teal Color is what
[44:01] we've considered as part of this background study process. So
[44:04] services related to a highway which is really a transportation
[44:08] or road. Roads related infrastructure, along with public works, ambulance,
[44:15] long term care, parks and recreation, which in this case
[44:18] is trails and childcare and earlier services. You'll notice we've
[44:23] crossed out housing services as a result of Bill 23
[44:27] that was passed last year. They removed that as an
[44:30] eligible service. In the Act. So just a brief overview
[44:34] of some of the changes that have occurred since 2019.
[44:38] There were a number of bills. Passed in the legislature.
[44:45] Before Bill 23, which I'll talk about in a moment.
[44:48] And they've added some changes to the application of DCs.
[44:54] So there's the requirement for installment payments for certain types
[44:57] of developments. So if you have rental housing or institutional
[45:01] development, you pay your development charge. In. Six equal installments
[45:06] over five years. And if you proceed through a Site
[45:11] Plan, Application or zoning bylaw Amendment applications. There is a
[45:16] rate freeze on the development charge. So when I submit
[45:20] my site plan application. The DC rate is frozen as
[45:24] of the date that I submit my complete application from
[45:27] there. Once the municipality approves the applications, I then have
[45:31] two years to pull my building permits and my rate
[45:34] is frozen at the time I submitted my application. So,
[45:37] for example, if I submitted my application today. The development
[45:41] charge in effect is zero so my rate will be
[45:43] frozen at zero if I build within that time frame.
[45:47] Villa, 97, came in 2020. Some minor changes in addition
[45:53] to those other changes. Provided for removal of a mandatory
[45:57] deduction we had to do in the calculations and then
[46:00] provided that list of eligible services rate in the Development
[46:03] Charges Act. As well. There was some other minor changes,
[46:09] an exemption for universities, and some reporting rules for the
[46:12] annual Treasurer statement. So on November 28, 2022. The province
[46:21] passed Bill 23, the More Homes Built fastracked, which provided
[46:26] a number of changes to the Development Charges Act. Some
[46:29] exemptions, et cetera. And I'll go through what some of
[46:31] those changes are, as they would apply to a bylaw
[46:35] if the county passed a development Charge bylaw as well.
[46:39] They brought in some changes to the Planning Act. With
[46:41] respect to community benefit charges and Parkland dedication. But that
[46:44] doesn't apply here. So in terms of mandatory exemptions. The
[46:52] province has introduced a number of additional mandatory exemptions, and
[46:56] we split them into two sections. Here the top, which
[47:00] is outlined in Orange. These are not yet enforced, and
[47:04] I'll talk about that in a second and then the
[47:06] green at the bottom. Those are in force. So what's
[47:09] not enforced right now. Is affordable rental units and affordable
[47:13] owned units. So if I were to develop these type
[47:15] of units. They would be exempt from development charges. And
[47:20] the definition proposed definition set out in the act is
[47:24] where the rent or purchase price is no more than
[47:27] 80% of the average market. Which would be defined by
[47:31] the province. By the bulletin. They would post. Now, most
[47:36] recently at the amo Conference, I know there was a
[47:40] statement by the Minister that they were looking. At revising
[47:43] this definition and making it more of an income based
[47:47] approach. But we're yet to see what the details are
[47:50] on that. In addition. There's also attainable units, which again
[47:55] have yet to be defined. They're not necessarily fall under
[47:59] the definition of affordable units or rental units, but they'll
[48:02] have their own separate definition of what attainable is. For
[48:07] all of those exemptions. To get that exemption. The municipality
[48:12] would have to enter into an agreement to ensure that
[48:16] those developments remain affordable or attainable for 25 years. For
[48:21] the exemptions that are currently in force. If there are
[48:26] affordable housing units required through inclusionary zoning, those would be
[48:30] exempt. Nonprofit housing developments are exempt from development charges. And
[48:36] additional residential units. So if I have a single detached
[48:40] home, semidetached home, or a townhouse. Or I can put
[48:45] up to two apartments in the basement or one apartment
[48:48] in my basement and one in an ancillary building. Let's
[48:52] say on top of a garage. And I don't have
[48:54] to pay development charges for those additional units. As well.
[48:58] Bill, 23, brought in some discounts. So if I am
[49:02] building rental housing, get a discount based on the number
[49:05] of bedrooms. So if I have one bedroom or less,
[49:08] I get a discount of 15%, two bedrooms, 20% and
[49:12] three bedrooms or more. 25%. Discount. As I mentioned earlier.
[49:19] Housing was removed as an eligible service. From the Development
[49:24] Charges Act, and there was some refinement to the definition
[49:28] of capital costs, which removed studies as being eligible for
[49:32] recovery. As well. There's the requirement for a mandatory phase
[49:36] in so whatever charges are calculated and in the background
[49:41] study. Only 80% of those charges can be imposed in
[49:45] the first year, and the second year would be 85%,
[49:48] then 90, 95, and 100% after five years. And then
[49:53] lastly, there were some refinements to the historical level of
[49:56] service calculations. You'll find those in appendix B, to the
[50:00] background study. We now have to look at those over
[50:05] 15 year historical period previously it was ten. For those
[50:10] developments that proceed through site plan or zoning bylaw amendment,
[50:14] or the rental or institutional developments that get to pay
[50:17] in installments. There is the ability to impose interest on
[50:23] those payments. Bill 23. Has now set a maximum interest
[50:28] rate that you can impose, and that's the average prime
[50:31] rate plus 1%. There is also the requirement to allocate
[50:35] 60% of the monies in the Reserve fund. In each
[50:40] year. So for services related to a highway. If the
[50:42] bylaw was to be passed each year, 60% of the
[50:47] monies that are sitting in that reserve fund will need
[50:49] to be allocated to projects. And then the dcu bylaw
[50:54] previously, they had a life of five years that's now
[50:57] been extended to ten years. So with respect to the
[51:02] Development Charge calculation, there's something like 60 or 70 clauses
[51:07] in the Development Charges Act and many years of tribunal
[51:11] cases that kind of set the precedent on how to
[51:13] calculate these charges. But to put it very simply, first,
[51:17] we need to. Identify the amount, type, and location of
[51:22] growth. So is it residential, non residential. Where is it,
[51:26] and how much. From there, then we need to identify
[51:30] the servicing needs to accommodate the growth. So if we
[51:32] need to accommodate. Additional traffic. Let's say from there we
[51:37] need to identify the capital costs to provide the services
[51:41] to meet those needs so that would be specific Lane
[51:44] widenings or intersection improvements to accommodate that increase in traffic
[51:48] arising from the development. So once we have all of
[51:51] the capital costs identified, we need to make a series
[51:54] of deductions. And so if we know of any grant
[51:57] subsidies or other contributions. We need to net that out
[52:01] of the calculations, any share of the projects that benefit
[52:05] existing development. So, for example, if I'm replacing an existing
[52:09] facility, there is a benefit to the existing community of
[52:12] that facility that was there where we're just replacing it
[52:15] and maybe building a bigger one. So just. The larger
[52:18] component of that facility would be development charge eligible. The
[52:22] rest would be a deduction of benefit to existing development.
[52:27] We also have to deduct any amounts in excess of
[52:29] the historical service level calculation we have to do. And
[52:32] then we also need to net off any balances in
[52:34] the DC Reserve funds, if that's applicable. From there we'll
[52:37] have the net costs related to growth. Then we allocate
[52:41] that between residential and nonresidential benefit, and divide it by
[52:45] the growth. To calculate the DC. So very simply, we
[52:49] take the costs associated with growth divided by the growth.
[52:52] And we come up with a development charge per unit
[52:55] for residential development and development charge per square foot of
[53:00] gross floor area for non residential development. So, the Development
[53:05] Charges Act I mentioned a number of the mandatory exemptions.
[53:11] That were added from Bill 23, and those are highlighted
[53:14] in Orange, so won't go over those again. But in
[53:16] addition, the act does provide some further exemptions. So upper
[53:21] tier, lower tier governments. So the county wouldn't impose a
[53:25] development charge on a lower term municipality when they build
[53:28] a facility and vice versa. Similarly, school boards are exempt
[53:32] from development charges. If you have an industrial building and
[53:36] you expand it up to 50%, you don't have to
[53:39] pay a development charge anything. After that 50% expansion you
[53:44] would be subject to the development charge and then as
[53:47] well an exemption for universities. Now, in terms of discretionary
[53:53] exemptions, Council does have the ability to provide for discretionary
[53:58] exemptions. You can reduce in part or in hold the
[54:01] charge for different types or classes of development. So places
[54:04] of warship, for example, or industrial development. You can phase
[54:09] the charge in over time at a lower rate than
[54:12] what's required. And then as well as part of this,
[54:15] you would provide redevelopment credits for existing facilities that are
[54:20] redeveloped. So. If I have a single detached home and
[54:24] I knock it down and build four townhomes, then I'm
[54:27] only paying four townhomes worth of a DC less a
[54:31] single detached DC, so I get a credit for what
[54:33] was there. In terms of the proposed discretionary exemptions that
[54:37] are unceded in the draft bylaw as part of the
[54:40] background study. We've included places of warship, cemeteries, railroad grounds,
[54:47] hospitals, nonresidential accessory buildings, and temporary use buildings. These are
[54:53] some of the most common exemptions we see across the
[54:55] province. But. These are up for Council's consideration. As part
[55:01] of the background study. And this will be provided in
[55:04] appendix E to the background study. We've identified this local
[55:08] service policy and really what this does is it sets
[55:12] out. What's the developer's responsibility to construct and pay for,
[55:20] and then above that what would go into the development
[55:22] charge studies. So if we're looking at local roads, and
[55:25] as I mentioned earlier at the beginning of the presentation,
[55:28] if there's internal roads, water, mainstream, et cetera. Within a
[55:32] development that's typically paid for by the develop. Developer what
[55:36] we've done as part of this policy is just set
[55:39] out for all the different types of infrastructure at the
[55:42] county level. What would be the developer's responsibility versus what
[55:45] would be included in the development charge. So in terms
[55:51] of. Using a development charge. I mean, you're not required
[55:55] to pass the development charges by law. However, do you
[55:58] like to show this kind of relationship between. The funding
[56:02] sources. So if you have new developments and you have
[56:05] growth and it's going to require you to spend money
[56:08] on infrastructure to accommodate that growth. The money has to
[56:11] come from somewhere. And so to the extent it's growth
[56:13] related, you can use development charges to fund that infrastructure.
[56:17] Otherwise, you'd need to use existing taxes. Or existing reserves
[56:23] to pay for that infrastructure. So in terms of the
[56:27] background study information. The growth forecast that we were looking
[56:33] at. We used two time Horizons. Ten year forecast and
[56:38] a 14 year forecast, which we used for the transportation.
[56:43] And so over the tenure, we're looking at growing by
[56:45] just over 8900 people. In just under 4300 Residential units.
[56:51] For non residential floor space, we're looking at 2.7 million
[56:55] sqft for the longer term. The 14 year, we're looking
[56:59] at just over 12,000 people in just under 5800 residential
[57:03] units and just over 3.2 million floor space. In terms
[57:09] of the unit mix for residential development, you can see
[57:13] we have 38% are anticipated to be low density, so
[57:17] you're single or semi detached homes, 21% will be medium
[57:20] density, so your town homes are row houses and 27%
[57:24] being high density, which would be your apartments, 12% would
[57:28] be. Seasonal and 2% would be conversions from seasonal to
[57:32] permanent for nonresidential floor space. For industrial, we're looking at
[57:38] about 65% of the floor space and non industrial uses
[57:41] being 35%. I mentioned earlier on the services that we
[57:46] were including. Services related to a high race so, roads
[57:51] and Public works. Trails long term care services, child care
[57:56] in early years and ambulance services. As part of the
[58:00] study, you'll see, we've spoken to something that's called a
[58:03] class of service. We've called that fleet, and it really
[58:06] is a combination of roads, trails, vehicles, and. Long Term
[58:11] Care Services, vehicles. So in terms of the proposed calculated
[58:17] charges. For all Services for a single detached home, the
[58:22] charge. Is about and I apologize for the size. I
[58:27] think it's 76, 65. I don't want my glasses. I
[58:33] think. And what we've shown below, that is 80% of
[58:38] the calculated charges, because as I mentioned. With the phase
[58:44] in requirement, we can only impose 80% of the charge,
[58:47] so that would be $6,132, which would be imposed in
[58:52] the first year. And then that can escalate over the
[58:55] subsequent years. For. The remaining schedule charges there. We have
[59:01] categories for other multiples. And that's really your townhomes or
[59:04] your row houses. We have apartments, two bedrooms, plus apartments
[59:09] that are studio and one bedroom. And then your special
[59:12] Care special dwelling units. Which typically have persons per unit
[59:18] of about just over one for nonresidential charges. We've calculated
[59:25] two point ninety four cents per square foot. But 80%
[59:29] of that calculator charge equates to $2.0.35. As part of
[59:35] the background study process. One of the items was identified
[59:42] was to look at the nonresidential development charge calculation on
[59:46] two different bases. And so we looked at it on
[59:50] this blended. We take all of the non residential floor
[59:53] space and divide that into the cost we are covered.
[59:56] And that's how we came up with the $2.94 per
[59:59] square foot or 235 at 80%. In appendix Age to
[1:00:04] the background study. So at the very back we've provided
[1:00:06] an alternative calculation for Council's consideration. And this is where
[1:00:11] we've calculated industrial versus non industrial uses separately. And you
[1:00:16] can see for industrial, the calculated charge would be a
[1:00:18] dollar 60 for non industrial uses. It would. Be $5.33
[1:00:24] per square foot. So how do these charges compare. Across
[1:00:31] the counties. So we looked at a number of counties.
[1:00:37] And so you can see Bruce County. They fully calculated
[1:00:40] charge at the 7665 and even at the 80% 6132,
[1:00:46] being at about the middle. So simcoe county being the
[1:00:50] highest, that's just over $13,000 per single attached unit. You'll
[1:00:54] see, huron county doesn't have a development charge, so that's
[1:00:57] zero. But duffering county being at the lower end at
[1:01:00] just over $3,200 unit. For non residential comparison, we've used
[1:01:07] that blended rate as the comparator, but. For commercial charges
[1:01:13] per square foot, you'll see the fully calculated charge of
[1:01:16] 294 just under peterborough and just over county of Wellington.
[1:01:22] But with the 80% of the charge being implemented, it
[1:01:25] would actually put us under the charge for Wellington County
[1:01:28] at $2.35. In terms of industrial, you'll notice peterborough, Oxford,
[1:01:34] and huron Counties all exempt industrial development, so there's no
[1:01:39] industrial development charge. There. So $2.0.94 puts us below simcoe,
[1:01:45] which is at but above Wellington County at. So within
[1:01:53] the county if we were to apply. The County Charges
[1:02:00] to the lower tier municipal charges. We've kind of put
[1:02:04] this into a graph so you can see. The arrows
[1:02:08] are denoting the lower tier municipalities so on the far
[1:02:12] left we have sogging shores. If we were to include
[1:02:14] the county charge fully calculated, the total development charge for
[1:02:19] a single detached unit would be around $40,000. And for
[1:02:26] King cardin, it would be around $30,000. And then you
[1:02:29] can see some of the other municipalities off to the
[1:02:32] right. That don't have development charges currently. It would just
[1:02:36] be the county charge that would be imposed. In terms
[1:02:40] of the commercial development charges, again using that blended rate.
[1:02:47] You can see on the far left we have sogging
[1:02:50] shores in Concardin. The dark blue component of the bar
[1:02:54] graph is the county calculated charge. And then you can
[1:02:58] see in the middle. We have South Bruce Peninsula, Middle
[1:03:01] left. And then. We have some of the other municipalities
[1:03:04] that don't have development charges off to the right there.
[1:03:08] And then similarly, for Industrial Development charges. Similar kind of
[1:03:14] layout we have on the left. We have sogging shores
[1:03:18] or Sorry, we have King cardin and then we have
[1:03:21] South Bruce Peninsula and then we have the remaining municipalities
[1:03:25] don't have industrial development charges or they're exempt. So in
[1:03:30] terms of the next steps in the study process. So
[1:03:33] after this formal public meeting, Councils anticipated to consider the
[1:03:38] recommendations in the report and the draft bylaw on September
[1:03:43] 21, and then consideration of the actual bylaw as anticipated
[1:03:48] for October. Fifth. But Council does have the ability to
[1:03:52] consider the bylaw as soon as September 21. And with
[1:03:57] that, that ends my presentation. Thank you very much.
[1:04:10] So at this point. With the award. Permission
[1:04:20] will open up. The area. The public meeting to comments
[1:04:25] and questions from I guess the public initially. Yes. Go
[1:04:29] ahead. Linda, yes. I'd like to offer some guidance in
[1:04:34] this. So I appreciate all of the input that we
[1:04:37] have received. And we have members of the public from
[1:04:39] the Municipalities of King cardan here in Kinlos and brockton
[1:04:43] that have joined us in the Chambers. Some of which
[1:04:46] would like to speak. We have members that have of
[1:04:49] the public that have joined us remotely. So we'll be
[1:04:52] starting with the members that are in the Council Chambers.
[1:04:55] So the first to speak would be Alex Bugnadovic. I
[1:04:59] apologize. So come to the podium. If anybody else wanted
[1:05:04] to join you there, you're welcome. And if you could
[1:05:07] just introduce yourself, we'd appreciate that. Hello. So I'm Alex
[1:05:11] bogdanovich. This is Ali vera bogdanovich. And this is Steve
[1:05:16] over here. He's my dad. So we're a family run
[1:05:20] business where builders and developers and we've worked. In Bruce
[1:05:24] since 2007. We primarily build in King Card and here
[1:05:29] on kinloss, and we've done work in Port elgan and
[1:05:33] brockton as well. So our first question is directly related
[1:05:39] to our development of crimson Oak Valley, which is located
[1:05:43] in Huron. Loss so our development as developers, we paid
[1:05:49] our development charges in full. Those are Parkland fees as
[1:05:54] well as our Parkland fees in 2020. Yeah. So that's
[1:05:58] when we got the plan approval, we paid off everything.
[1:06:03] So our question to the Council then would be with
[1:06:07] the increase of development charges. Would we be affected even
[1:06:11] though we've completely paid out. Our development fees. Thanks. Okay.
[1:06:17] Yes. Director henley will answer that for you. Thank you.
[1:06:20] That's a good question. A lot of people are bringing
[1:06:23] that up. So there's four municipalities in Bruce County out
[1:06:27] of the eight that currently collect local development charges. And
[1:06:30] here on kinloss is one of them, along with King
[1:06:34] cardan, sogging Shores and South Bruce. Now. In some of
[1:06:42] those places, it's only certain areas that the charges apply
[1:06:46] to. So what I hear was it was that subdivision
[1:06:50] stage approval. So we paid out when we had plan
[1:06:54] approval, the Parkland and the development chart. Okay. We've already
[1:06:59] completed. We paid two years ago. Okay. If you didn't
[1:07:04] get it on the microphone, the bugdanoviches state that they
[1:07:08] paid two years ago. For the development charges. And likely
[1:07:14] it was the local development charges. So there would be
[1:07:18] what we're proposing is a county level of development charges.
[1:07:21] Municipality Some municipalities are split into two types. There's the
[1:07:25] lower tier that provides certain municipal services, and then there's
[1:07:29] the upper tier, the county that provides other services. So.
[1:07:33] We provide the county provides the larger roadways, the county
[1:07:37] roads and bridges. Library Long term care, paramedics, et cetera.
[1:07:44] So the development charges that the county are collecting would
[1:07:47] be for services that are separate from the local municipality.
[1:07:52] Now, in terms of whether they would apply, there's two
[1:07:55] things that we could take into consideration. The county has
[1:07:58] not defined yet at what stage the development charges would
[1:08:02] be collected? There's two options. Subdivision. Stage or Building Permit
[1:08:07] stage. We're looking at collecting at the building permit. Approval
[1:08:13] stage, which is the later period. From the Development subdivision
[1:08:18] approval stage. So only when. A developer is acquiring the
[1:08:23] building permit. Would that come into question whether development charges
[1:08:27] should be paid. Now, my colleague darryl ABS mentioned that
[1:08:32] there are a number of exemptions and reductions that are
[1:08:35] proposed by. The province. Or for effect in the future
[1:08:39] are already in effect, but. One thing I'd want to
[1:08:43] point out is. One exemption, which would be site plan
[1:08:47] approval if the site plan for the project was approved.
[1:08:51] Within two years prior. To the approval date. Of the
[1:08:56] building permit, then the development charges at that two year
[1:09:00] period or somewhere within that would apply. So say, if
[1:09:04] the site plan was approved. One year ago. Then one
[1:09:09] year ago the county did not have any development charges.
[1:09:14] So then they could pay either the current or the
[1:09:17] development charges one year ago, whichever is less. And if
[1:09:21] it was zero, then they would pay zero. And that's
[1:09:24] the province's promotion of building right away. Instead of waiting
[1:09:29] a number of years. The other situation. Would be zoning
[1:09:36] plan. Bylaw approval. Zoning amendment by law approval. And that
[1:09:40] is also two year period. So there will be for
[1:09:44] the first year. So probably quite a few. Property developments
[1:09:49] that would be exempted. And I believe in this case.
[1:09:52] If it's a property that's already built, it's not retroactively
[1:09:55] applied. It's only moving forward. Thank you. So just to
[1:10:00] clarify, we have 47 lots remaining within the subdivision. Are
[1:10:04] you saying that now, when we apply for a building
[1:10:07] permit, that's going to be on top of what we've
[1:10:09] already paid for. So the short answer is Yes.
[1:10:20] The development charges that were already paid were the local
[1:10:22] huron kin loss development charges. There are three types of
[1:10:27] divo and charges that could apply. There's the local municipal
[1:10:31] development charges, county development charge and an education development charge.
[1:10:36] Currently, the school boards in Bruce County are not collecting
[1:10:40] education development charges, so that doesn't apply in many other
[1:10:43] areas of the province. There are education development charges. So
[1:10:47] currently. Only four of the local municipalities collect these seas.
[1:10:53] And there are no current county development charges. So, yes,
[1:10:57] moving forward, county development charges would apply. But again, if
[1:11:01] the site plan approval was within the last two years
[1:11:05] of the date of the building permit approval date. Then
[1:11:10] likely they would be exempted. Okay. So, for example, our
[1:11:15] subdivision is septic. And one of your dcs inquires about
[1:11:19] water waste water services. So is that deducted from the
[1:11:23] dcs that you're offering to our subdivision to have to
[1:11:26] pay. That's again, another great question. So this speaks to
[1:11:30] the division of the services that different municipalities provide. The
[1:11:39] local municipalities generally provide in Bruce County generally provide water.
[1:11:46] Sewer, drainage. And Parks and rec and some other services.
[1:11:54] For the county, we're only looking to collect development charges
[1:11:58] for roadways. Long term care. Certain Parklands primarily trails. Childcare
[1:12:08] and paramedic or Ambulance services. So wastewater. Drinking water and
[1:12:17] drainage water is not a development charge that we're collecting
[1:12:20] for. So there's no money that's going to be collected
[1:12:22] from us relating to that service. Okay. I think right
[1:12:27] now we have a number of people online. So we're
[1:12:30] going to take questions from them. And certainly the baganoviches
[1:12:36] have some questions. They need a lot more clarification. So
[1:12:40] I think Edward. Staff will need to arrange to talk
[1:12:45] to them on the phone or meet with them because
[1:12:46] they do have some quite legitimate concerns. Thank you. We've
[1:12:51] got to get those answers for you. But we do
[1:12:54] have other developers online. So right now we're going to
[1:12:58] hear from wt. Land, Josh Martino. Hi, There. How
[1:13:09] are you. Okay. Mr.
[1:13:19] Martino, we can hear you if you would like to
[1:13:21] provide your comments. Hi there. I submitted a written letter
[1:13:25] on behalf of the ownership group here, but. We own
[1:13:31] approximately 242 units in walkerton, 120 units in paisley, and
[1:13:37] 40 units in Mild May. They're all at the various
[1:13:39] stages of development. But I guess the biggest question would
[1:13:43] be. For the parcels we own, they're all apartment blocks
[1:13:47] that are site plan approved in Walker jen, specifically, where
[1:13:50] we have. A Site Plan agreement signed. Would that. I
[1:13:58] guess be applicable to this or are dcs kind of
[1:14:02] frozen since we've signed that agreement as per that bill.
[1:14:12] Hi. Yeah. So if there's site plan approved the Development
[1:14:16] Charges Act says that. Once this site plan is approved
[1:14:21] by the municipality, then the DC rate is frozen at
[1:14:25] the date you submitted the application. So in this case
[1:14:28] the county development charge would be zero, so it's frozen
[1:14:31] there for two years from when the municipalities approved the
[1:14:36] site plan. So once that application was approved, you have.
[1:14:40] Two years to pull the building permits and then no
[1:14:42] charge would be applied at the county after that, any
[1:14:45] building permit pulled after that would be subject to the
[1:14:48] charge. Okay. Do you have a further question, Mr. Martino.
[1:14:59] No, I think that was a big question Mark that
[1:15:02] we had that we definitely needed some clarification on. And
[1:15:05] I think. When it comes to acquiring land in the
[1:15:09] future, for us, it would definitely be something that we
[1:15:11] need to take into consideration for our group. In terms
[1:15:15] of future acquisitions of land and how we proceed with
[1:15:19] developing in the County. Thank you. Now call upon Mr.
[1:15:25] Wade Roberts. Followed by Keith battler. So Mr. Roberts, if
[1:15:33] you can unmute yourself. And introduce yourself. That would be
[1:15:36] appreciated. Yeah, Hi, there. I'm developer with the Good Life
[1:15:44] Building Co. We also have site plan approval for an
[1:15:48] apartment block in WALKERTON. So you guys actually just answered
[1:15:53] my question there with Josh as well, so I don't
[1:15:56] have any other further questions from my site at this
[1:15:58] time. Okay. Thank you. Next. Mr. Butler, would you like
[1:16:05] to unmute yourself. As we give him an opportunity
[1:16:15] to unmute himself, I'd also like to comment that we
[1:16:18] have the chief building official from the Municipality of South
[1:16:21] Bruce, and the chief building official from brockton. So in
[1:16:25] that order, if you'd like to unmute yourself. You're welcome
[1:16:31] to make comments to Council. Good morning,
[1:16:41] Council. Thank you for the welcome there, Linda. Just a
[1:16:44] quick question. From the lower tier perspective here. What kind
[1:16:53] of compensation. Will be granted to the lower tier for
[1:16:57] collecting the fees and doing the administrative portion on that
[1:17:01] and second parts of that. What legal kind of enforcement
[1:17:06] mechanism is there. To make us collect these fees on
[1:17:12] county's behalf. Hey, Edward. Yes. Thank you. That's a good
[1:17:21] question. The development. Charge Regulations were implemented and passed by
[1:17:30] the provincial Government and have been in place for several
[1:17:33] decades and. It has always been. In municipalities where there's
[1:17:37] a split upper and lower tier. It's always been assigned
[1:17:43] to. Whichever municipality or municipal government that issues the building
[1:17:48] permits if it's done at building permit stage, that's the
[1:17:52] legislation that's provided by the province. And there's a requirement.
[1:17:59] For local municipalities to collect those funds. Similar to how
[1:18:03] property taxes are collected. Without. Paying a fee to. The
[1:18:12] county. And the reason for that is it saves taxpayers
[1:18:14] money. Instead of having two different levels, the government collect
[1:18:17] taxes. Having one send one bill out. And that's how
[1:18:21] the province does property taxes. And they follow. The same
[1:18:25] format with development charges. So really, if one level of
[1:18:29] government charges another, it's just going to raise the costs
[1:18:32] for the people that are paying the fee. In terms
[1:18:36] of what if the local municipality does not choose to
[1:18:40] collect the funds. That's something that the legislation provides some
[1:18:44] remedies for, and I'm certain that that won't be the
[1:18:47] case. And won't have to review those options. Okay. Who
[1:18:56] has the next question, Linda. Okay. So I think Mr.
[1:18:59] Butler. Had. A time commitment there, so I don't see
[1:19:04] him online anymore, but we will reach out to him
[1:19:06] to ensure that we receive his comments. I believe the
[1:19:08] chief Building official of brockton is here. To get information,
[1:19:15] and we'll submit any comments that he has directly to
[1:19:19] our director. We do have a representative. Of the Bruce
[1:19:24] Gray District School Board, and they're watching virtually as well
[1:19:28] as can do homes. So unless there is any member
[1:19:30] of the public that's in the audience in the Chambers
[1:19:33] here wishing to speak, I believe that concludes our public
[1:19:36] comment. Okay. Yeah. You can have one more question. Go
[1:19:42] ahead. So those costs were mainly based off of, for
[1:19:49] example, like roadways and the ambulance and such at the
[1:19:52] county level. But as a developer, we finance our entire
[1:19:57] development and pay for our own roadways. So if. Anyone's
[1:20:06] paying for the roads and such it would be US
[1:20:09] developers. And then on top of that, to pay even
[1:20:13] further for roadways for the rest of the county. It
[1:20:16] doesn't seem reasonable to US developers. At least I'm speaking
[1:20:20] at my own personal perspective. For example, we did 77
[1:20:25] properties and we're already paying for 1 Road. So now
[1:20:32] to pay for development charges on 77 additional properties of
[1:20:37] the increase. That would be a lot of money. Okay.
[1:20:44] We'll take that comment into the record. Thank you. I
[1:20:48] wanted to provide some additional information. With regards to the
[1:20:57] County. So with regards to collecting development charges, again, I
[1:21:02] previously mentioned that in the county of Bruce, there are
[1:21:05] eight local municipalities, four of them currently collect development charges,
[1:21:09] and the other four have not had that experience. So
[1:21:12] the county is going to be providing some education and
[1:21:15] some assistance with calculating the amounts and. Other assistance in
[1:21:19] terms of that. But again, the County. Is not collecting
[1:21:24] the development, the building permits or evaluating them. So we
[1:21:28] would require the cooperation of local municipalities, but we will
[1:21:31] be providing assistance there. Okay. Now we'll open it up
[1:21:35] for questions from County Council who would like to go
[1:21:39] first. Councilor Hamill. Thank you, warden. And I believe to
[1:21:48] Darryl. If a demolition permit is taken out and a
[1:21:52] house is taken down, and then a house is built
[1:21:55] on the same spot. Do they pay a development charge.
[1:21:59] No. So they wouldn't pay a development charge. You have
[1:22:02] the ability in the bylaw to kind of restrict the
[1:22:06] time horizon. So most municipalities restrict that to five years.
[1:22:09] So if you have a house that Burns down and
[1:22:12] you build another one within five years, you're not going
[1:22:14] to pay a development charge on it. Usually there's a
[1:22:17] restriction in there on the time horizon. Because you don't
[1:22:20] want someone if they demolish a house and it sits
[1:22:23] there for 15 years. And then all of a sudden
[1:22:26] they build a house tracking that. And then also they're
[1:22:29] not in the plans for adding to the servicing and
[1:22:31] stuff. So typically, there's a time horizon that's limited on
[1:22:35] that. But if it's within that Tom razin typically five
[1:22:37] years, they wouldn't have to pay a development charge. If
[1:22:40] I could add a little bit more clarification. So there
[1:22:43] are the odd circumstances where especially in. The more commercial
[1:22:48] areas where there's an old house that's torn down and
[1:22:51] replaced with a commercial. And in that instance, there's going
[1:22:54] to be something in the bylaw called credits. So basically.
[1:22:59] If a house was torn down and then replaced within
[1:23:02] that time frame with a commercial structure. As an example.
[1:23:07] Then the amount that would normally be paid. For. The
[1:23:13] residential would count as a credit towards whatever. So if
[1:23:17] say. The. House. 's development charge would be $7,000. As
[1:23:25] an example. And the new commercial structure would only would
[1:23:29] have to pay 6000. Well then that 7000. Is more
[1:23:33] of a credit against the 6000. If the new commercial
[1:23:37] building would have had to pay 10,000, well, then they
[1:23:40] would only have to pay the difference between the 10,000
[1:23:42] and the 7000 within that five year time frame. It's
[1:23:45] very rare, but there is that also. For conversions of
[1:23:50] building types. And then follow up would be if you
[1:23:54] took down a ten unit apartment building and put up
[1:23:57] a 20 unit apartment building. The credits would therefore give
[1:24:01] you credits for ten, so to speak. That's correct. Yes.
[1:24:07] Okay. Who'd like to go next? Luke. Yeah. Thank you,
[1:24:14] warden. And. Thank you both to our presenters and to
[1:24:18] the members of the public who spoke to us this
[1:24:21] morning. Appreciate everybody's time and inuit. I guess I just
[1:24:24] wanted to reiterate the comments that were submitted by the
[1:24:27] town of Saga and Shores, which are important to those
[1:24:30] of us who are currently collecting development charges within the
[1:24:34] county. It's critical. I think that. As we develop the
[1:24:37] final bylaw. That. We ensure that the timing for collection
[1:24:43] is aligned between the lower tiers and upper tiers. In
[1:24:48] terms of a process that's functional for the lower tiers
[1:24:51] who have to collect these dcs, we need to have
[1:24:54] the same timing of collection. And I would say too,
[1:24:59] that. I think we can cooperate on getting to the
[1:25:01] right spot if the lower tiers need to adjust or
[1:25:04] I can speak for the town sogging shores at least
[1:25:06] if we need to adjust. To come into alignment in
[1:25:10] a way where we can meet in the middle. I'm
[1:25:12] sure that the town socking Shores would be open to
[1:25:14] that. The other thing and the more important thing in
[1:25:16] my mind is these non statutory exemptions and ensuring so
[1:25:20] the town is hiking chores through our development charges, implementation.
[1:25:24] Have set up non statutory exemptions. Including ones focused on
[1:25:30] affordable and attainable housing. These are critical exemptions for us.
[1:25:36] So. We have a DC. We've had a DC for
[1:25:39] a long time that DC has been very successful at
[1:25:44] bringing in revenues, which have allowed us to build the
[1:25:47] infrastructure which support the growth that we're experiencing. I firmly
[1:25:51] believe that one of the reasons we're one of the
[1:25:53] fastest growing communities in Ontario today is because of the
[1:25:57] DC that we have. But we have balanced that with
[1:26:02] non statutory exemptions, which incentivize the construction of the type
[1:26:06] of housing that we need. Affordable and attainable housing. And
[1:26:12] I understand the Province is bringing in. Or has already
[1:26:16] brought in and is still rolling out. Mandatory exemptions, which
[1:26:21] will cover off affordable and attainable housing. I guess I
[1:26:23] would say. That I would like there to be alignment
[1:26:28] between the county's bylaw and the saging Shores bylaw and
[1:26:31] all other bylaws across the county for DC so that.
[1:26:35] We have similar or. Most preferably exemptions that are exactly
[1:26:40] the same and so that we don't. So there's in
[1:26:43] confusion, it becomes very difficult, I think, to implement. Those
[1:26:46] non statutory exemptions. If the county has some and we
[1:26:50] have other ones and they're different, right. So I'm hopeful
[1:26:54] that our staff. Will work together. With our staff at
[1:26:58] the lower tier, to find a way to make sure
[1:26:59] that those do align. And as I say. Just. As
[1:27:04] with the timing of collection, I think there's a willingness
[1:27:07] from sogging drawers, at least to adjust as required to
[1:27:11] meet the county in a place that works. As we
[1:27:15] implement. An upper tier development charge. So those are very
[1:27:19] important issues for us. And I wanted to put them
[1:27:23] on the table. Thank you, warden. Ken. Through you, warden.
[1:27:33] I would concur with my colleague, Mayor sharboneau. I think
[1:27:37] harmonization is a crucial factor in implementing this and making
[1:27:42] it workable for our staff. But I want to take
[1:27:44] a little step back farther than that. The implementation. Of
[1:27:50] the development charge is crucial for the financial well being
[1:27:54] of our County. To even go back to that very
[1:27:58] fundamental question. Are we doing this well, from my perspective,
[1:28:01] yes. And. I appreciated the charts indicating. The differences between
[1:28:10] the municipalities in Bruce County. Some do, some don't. And.
[1:28:16] There's gut instinct about what the effect of development charges
[1:28:21] do. Whether they do or don't implement. Affect growth.
[1:28:31] Some municipalities say yes. Some say no. That's for your
[1:28:35] municipality to figure out yourself. The other chart that I
[1:28:39] noticed. There's. A significant. Difference for sogging Shores for residential
[1:28:48] housing unit construction. Significant difference in King cardan for Industrial
[1:28:53] development. So I look at this and I say, Holy
[1:28:57] Schmolies King cardan is going to take a whack on
[1:28:59] this one. As far as industrial challenges go convincing people
[1:29:04] that this is a really good place because. We desire
[1:29:07] to increase the industrial construction in Concardin. Having said that,
[1:29:11] I still think the development charges are the right way
[1:29:15] to go to. Build our future and the counties. So
[1:29:21] I'm on board for this. Will it be perfect the
[1:29:23] first day? Of course not. But we'll get it right.
[1:29:27] Don. Thank you, warden. Through you, I guess a little
[1:29:33] clarification first and then a concern. I have the clarification
[1:29:38] on the crimson Oak subdivision, and I have a couple
[1:29:41] of other subdivisions going on in my municipality. The site
[1:29:44] plan approvals have been done. And the zoning bylaws have
[1:29:48] been done. So is it everything from two years ago
[1:29:53] if they had a building permit for two years. They're
[1:29:55] good, but anything new, they will be charged. The DC
[1:29:59] charge. Yeah. So through the warden. So. Once the site
[1:30:04] plan or zoning bylaw amendment application is approved by the
[1:30:07] municipality that starts the clock. So from there, then you
[1:30:10] have two years to pull the building permits and then
[1:30:13] they don't pay the county DC because it's frozen at
[1:30:16] zero. Any building permit pulled after the two years from
[1:30:19] the approval would be subject to the county's development charge
[1:30:23] at the day. Basically one would anything built out there'd
[1:30:26] be nothing in there to be moving forward. My other
[1:30:30] concern is the hard sell of this being the municipality
[1:30:34] that's on the south end of the county, neighboring a
[1:30:37] county that doesn't have development charges. What the industrial park
[1:30:41] coming online. Some mckenz comment says, how do we attract
[1:30:46] people to come to Bruce County, just over the border
[1:30:49] of harrington county when they have no development charges? And
[1:30:53] that's a concern. I have just where our municipality is
[1:30:56] situated, every other municipality. Has borders with counties that have
[1:31:01] development charges. That's a good question. I'll give two examples
[1:31:08] one residential and one non residential. So starting with the
[1:31:11] non residential. Certainly here on county does not. Have development
[1:31:17] charges and Great County does now. Great county currently their
[1:31:22] non residential charges and also their residential charges are much
[1:31:25] higher than. What we're proposing even before the phasing. And.
[1:31:34] There are a lot of reasons why. Someone might build
[1:31:37] something in one place or another. And if we're comparing
[1:31:43] Gray County to Bruce County, certainly. The nonresident the non
[1:31:48] residential or industrial charges. Would be consistently less than Gray
[1:31:52] County. But sometimes what builders will look at is not
[1:31:56] just that, but they'll look at utility costs, ongoing cost,
[1:32:01] availability of labor in the local area, or even availability
[1:32:03] of land to be developed for whatever size that they're
[1:32:06] looking at. So there are. More than one type of
[1:32:11] criteria. Certainly. If. Your County. Was with zero or even
[1:32:20] Perth County. If development judges were the major factor and
[1:32:25] the deciding factor, then perhaps then there would be no
[1:32:28] growth in Bridge County. So let's take a look at
[1:32:31] the residential so, for example. I personally live in King
[1:32:35] carden and the street over from me. There's houses being
[1:32:37] built for a million dollars. There's development charges in King
[1:32:41] cardan right now. Why wouldn't they just be a little
[1:32:45] bit south in huron county? Well, perhaps the type of
[1:32:48] people that would buy a million dollar home aren't in
[1:32:51] here on county or don't want to live there. So
[1:32:53] there's the attractiveness of the communities that is also a
[1:32:56] factor. And also if we look internally. We've got say
[1:33:01] sogging shores that has the highest local development charges of
[1:33:05] the four local municipalities that do charge development charges. Why
[1:33:10] is there so much development going on there? And very
[1:33:12] little going on, say in neighboring Aaron Eldersly. Where there
[1:33:17] are no development charges locally. So that also is a
[1:33:20] question. And so the reason why. Developers build in certain
[1:33:23] areas isn't solely focused on development charges. There are a
[1:33:27] lot of other factors that are involved. Okay. Further questions.
[1:33:36] Okay, I have just a few comments. I agree with
[1:33:44] Luke on the non statutory language for exemptions. I think
[1:33:48] we need to see that. What staff would propose. I
[1:33:54] don't think we can wait for the province to come
[1:33:56] up with some language on those exemptions regarding attainable housing.
[1:33:59] I know the Minister did mention that amo, but now
[1:34:02] he's gone along with the associate Minister. I don't think
[1:34:05] that will be a priority for the government right now
[1:34:08] to clarify that for us. So I do think I
[1:34:12] agree with Luke. We do need to clarify. That on
[1:34:14] our own. Certainly do support exemptions for those builders doing
[1:34:19] the attainable housing. Especially, for example, in the rental market.
[1:34:23] We haven't had a lot of rental apartment blocks constructed
[1:34:26] in Bruce County. And I'm not sure. We should be
[1:34:32] taxing those given the need for rentals along with the
[1:34:37] rental townhouses. If those townhouses. The rents are within the
[1:34:44] 80% that the province proposed. I think we should give
[1:34:47] them exemptions and I think it would be up to
[1:34:48] us to come up with that language. We're not going
[1:34:50] to be able to wait for the province. On the
[1:34:53] industrial land. I am very concerned. As councilor Murray is
[1:34:57] about our neighbors in both Huron. And. Gray. The numbers
[1:35:04] I have here, Edward. I just copying off the chart.
[1:35:08] Bruce Industrial would be $3 a square foot. Versus Gray
[1:35:13] at. Am I correct in reading the chart. So the
[1:35:18] difference. Is. In Great County, they go by square meter
[1:35:26] and that's their charges are by square meter. And they
[1:35:28] have to. Be what do you call calculated out to
[1:35:33] the square foot. So the other issue that you have
[1:35:38] to look at is with Gray County is they did
[1:35:41] not collect development charges for non residential for the longest
[1:35:45] period. So they've had development residents for a while, but
[1:35:48] it was only recently. In. 2022 when they decided to
[1:35:54] when they passed their most recent development charge bylaws, they
[1:35:57] would begin collecting non residential. But what they did was
[1:36:00] they did it in a phased way where they passed
[1:36:03] the bylaw in 2022. I think it was in December,
[1:36:06] so there was 0% for 2022, and then 2023 was.
[1:36:11] 25% of their destination rate plus inflation. And for 2024,
[1:36:18] it's going to be 50% of their destination rate. And
[1:36:21] then 75, and then 100%. The province is now defined.
[1:36:27] The phase in is 80%, 85, 95, and then 100.
[1:36:34] So we would likely be proposing to be about 60%
[1:36:38] for the first year. Instead of 80% and that would
[1:36:43] bring us equivalent to the phased in amount in Gray
[1:36:47] County or just under. And then the following year, when
[1:36:53] they bump it up to 75%, it'll be well above
[1:36:56] what our rate would be. And then following it would
[1:36:58] continue to be well above the rate of breach. County.
[1:37:01] Okay. I'd like to maybe see some more numbers on
[1:37:04] that. Reading the chart if we're going to be according
[1:37:07] to the chart, we're far ahead of Gray County. And
[1:37:12] of course, there are numerous reasons, as you mentioned, why
[1:37:14] a business would locate, but certainly. A very attractive feature
[1:37:19] when you're selling land either in ripley or in Suggesting
[1:37:24] Shores or Concardner. Walkerdon. Is saying that we don't have
[1:37:29] development charges. And then if we were to say that
[1:37:32] we're four times higher. Than Gray County. That would be
[1:37:37] an influencing factor in attracting somebody to this area. And
[1:37:41] we are in competition. With wingham has a lot of
[1:37:45] land empty down there now. And godrich, and hanover, no
[1:37:50] one sound. I think as Don originally pointed out, we
[1:37:53] need to be very cognizant of those numbers. On the
[1:37:57] industrial. Can you, Luke, just make a comment and follow
[1:38:00] up to your comments, warden. And I certainly agree with
[1:38:03] your assessment that we need to be. Competitive, particularly to
[1:38:09] attract industrial investment. We have a lot of opportunities in
[1:38:12] Bruce County for industrial investment coming up. I think because.
[1:38:16] Of a lot of initiatives happening in our region, particularly
[1:38:19] those in the nuclear sector, but other ones as well.
[1:38:22] We want to be able to seize those opportunities, but
[1:38:24] I think there's a couple of ways to go about
[1:38:25] it. One would be to look at. The Industrial and
[1:38:31] Commercial Charges as part of the DC bylaw itself. Either
[1:38:36] choose not to implement an industrial charge or to implement
[1:38:39] a reduced charge has been laid out. The alternative approach.
[1:38:43] And the one that I prefer, I guess. Is. To
[1:38:48] identify. In which commercial activities we want to incentivize and
[1:38:53] then do that through community improvement plans. Right. So we
[1:38:59] implement. The industrial and commercial charges at the full rate
[1:39:05] as part of the bylaw, and then in a subsequent
[1:39:07] bylaw and a community improvement plan bylaw. We say these
[1:39:11] are the types most likely high employment, industrial. Developments that
[1:39:17] we want to have in Bruce County, or we want
[1:39:19] to ensure. Receive a competitive rate and then. We incentivize
[1:39:24] them by rebating the development charge through the community improvement
[1:39:28] plan. So that's what's talking that's the approach talking chores
[1:39:31] has taken. I like it because it's not just a
[1:39:33] blanket. Reduction. It says, this is who we want. This
[1:39:38] is who we want to incentivize. And then we target
[1:39:41] them specifically. And then in effect give them a zero
[1:39:44] rate. So that's the approach I like I'd be very
[1:39:47] interested to hear back from staff when this comes back
[1:39:51] about which approach they recommend. And mechanisms for implementing that.
[1:39:58] But I do agree. With the outcome that you're looking
[1:40:01] for and hope to see some good recommendations on how
[1:40:04] to get to that outcome. Thank you, Warren. Yeah, that's
[1:40:08] a great idea. The high employment incentive. We could have
[1:40:12] a lot of warehouses and two or three jobs. And
[1:40:16] then not worth giving that an exemption, but certainly high
[1:40:19] employment. Okay. Further questions. Okay. So hearing none.
[1:40:30] We'll ask Edward to recap the next steps. Thank you,
[1:40:36] warden. So the next steps would be. Staff will take
[1:40:42] into account all the feedback that we received today. Any
[1:40:46] additional questions or comments that we might receive after this
[1:40:50] meeting and. Also. We held the county held a number
[1:40:57] of. Meetings, three sessions with local municipalities and then also
[1:41:02] a stakeholder session, and the comments from the stakeholder session
[1:41:06] are also included in the Agenda package. From the questions
[1:41:10] that were asked, some of which were again asked today.
[1:41:13] So you got a good flavor of that. We'll then
[1:41:18] bring a recommend. Recommendation for amendments to the proposed bylaw
[1:41:25] the Consultants generally provide the maximum options and. We'll provide.
[1:41:30] Recommendations. So we're looking at recommendations for the date that
[1:41:33] it would start. If there's any adjustments to the Provincial
[1:41:37] recommended implementation percentages, and again. Some discussion regarding
[1:41:47] exemptions potentially and the impact and financial cost of these
[1:41:50] exemptions. And. Proposed Options for cips. That will be on
[1:41:58] the 21 September. And from there, we're looking for guidance
[1:42:03] from Council to direct. How the bylaw should be shaped
[1:42:10] and amended. We're looking at bringing the bylaw back to
[1:42:14] Council on October 5. For review and consideration. There is
[1:42:20] a reason why we have that date. And currently. There
[1:42:25] is the paramedic Building that's under construction. In Port elgan.
[1:42:31] And to ensure that we're able to capture that and
[1:42:35] gain development charges for that project to help reduce the
[1:42:38] total cost to taxpayers. It's important that the bylaw would
[1:42:45] be approved, not necessarily implemented, but approved before. The substantial
[1:42:51] completion date. And we're looking at end of October right
[1:42:54] now for substantial completion. So that's where we're headed. And
[1:42:59] September 21 will be the additional information. Thank you. Okay.
[1:43:02] Thank you. Motion to adjourn the public meeting. By Don.
[1:43:07] The meetings now adjourned of the public meeting. Now we'll
[1:43:11] move to the committee meeting minutes. Look for a mover
[1:43:14] and seconder on the minutes moved by milt. Seconded by
[1:43:17] Mark that the minutes of the following committee meetings be
[1:43:18] approved as circulated August 3. Corporate Services, Human Services, Long
[1:43:22] Term Care Homes, Committee of Management, Museum Paramedics Services, all
[1:43:26] those in favor. That is carried. We have bylaw to
[1:43:32] confirm proceedings. A mover and seconder, please moved by Ken.
[1:43:35] Seconded by dawn that bylaw 33 being a bylaw to
[1:43:38] confirm proceedings with the Council of the county of Bruce
[1:43:40] at its meeting held the 7th day of September 2023
[1:43:44] be approved. All those in favor that is carried. Our
[1:43:47] next meeting date, October 5. Mot. Motion to adjourn at
[1:43:52] 1115 made by Steve meeting is adjourned now with Council's
[1:43:57] permission, I would like to. Take a quick break as
[1:44:00] well as to amend the agenda. We have some people
[1:44:03] waiting for item three on the agenda. So if we
[1:44:06] could bump planning and development up. And then Human Services
[1:44:10] below that after a quick break. That's okay with Council.