Post

In exchange for a ~40 month reduction in DC rates, the City will get $1.5 billion to fund this big list of projects over next ten years. These are not new projects, but previously they were funded with dev charges — now they'll be funded by provincial and federal funds.

The City estimates the development charge reductions will spur the construction of about 18,750 more units over 3 years. CFO also points out the program creates "funding certainty" as city was worried, with bad RE market, it wouldn't make much from development charges over next three years anyway.

The deal seems like a lopsided win for the city: 10 years of capital funding for ~3.5 years of DC reductions. But also doesn't really solve the dev charge problem in a sustainable way. We could be right back to square one in 2030s, with city overly reliant on development charges for infrastructure.

Councillor Shelley Carroll asks what happens after the three-year term. CFO says there's a "comprehensive review" of development charges underway, which will set the stage for the next ten years.

Perks asks if it's true that the city had to rely on DCs because prov and feds reduced their infrastructure funding. "Municipalities are responsible for 60% of public infrastructure in this province, and generally collect about 9% of all taxes and fees," says CFO Stephen Conforti.

The development charge deal is also giving the city the financial certainty to launch phase two of their Purpose-Built Rental Incentive Program. They call it their "PBR" program, but it's not a beer thing. Incentives to build 10,000 more rental units, with 20% affordable.

Councillor Stephen Holyday's Zoom background features models of the CN Tower and, perhaps surprisingly, an old CLRV streetcar.

Councillor Brad Bradford moves to defer a development proposal for Woodbine Ave by another month. He says conversations are continuing with the developer and the community. Motion to defer to July CARRIES via show of hands. secure.toronto.ca/council/agen...

Council breaks so they can attend Constable Pinizzotto's funeral. Back at 3:30 p.m. to continue the DC debate. See you then.

Council is back. Sort of. Councillor Paula Fletcher, the deputy speaker, is in the chair. Several councillors appear to still be on a bus heading back from the funeral. Bravo and Perks are sharing a phone, which is nice.

Fletcher decides to just recess the meeting until the mayor and councillors get back, rather than try to hold a meeting where nearly all of council is riding a bus.

When they get off the bus, Council will return to their debate about the development charge reduction, including, presumably, how to cash this cheque. It's never going to fit in an ATM. Maybe photo deposit will work.

More scenes from the Council Bus.

Councillors appear to be off the bus, finally. They’re filing back into the chamber, which is full of people wearing high-viz vests.

Dealing with some quick items now. Council votes 19-1 to APPROVE a 12-storey project in Councillor Amber Morley's ward. secure.toronto.ca/council/agen...

Now back to the Development Charges reduction item. "The federal and provincial governments have, very deliberately, over the last two generations, got away with what I call 'the great download.'", says Perks, on why Toronto DC rates went up.

Councillor Holyday has four motions. I am confused by many of them. 1. Make the DC reduction program a rebate program. 2. Identify eligible developments in application reports 3. Identify "commensurate reduction in density" (???) 4. Annual progress report.

"If the incentives program is reducing the fixed cost the developer faces to create a project, then somewhere in that equation the reduction of fixed cost must have resulted in a reduction of density," explains Holyday. My brain is not galaxy enough for this.

I think Holyday's idea is that since developers sometimes ask for more density to offset the high cost of development charges, lower development charges should mean developers ask for less density. And he wants staff to quantify this and report on it. And he hopes it shows a reduction in density.

Mayor Olivia Chow points out these are "as of right" reductions to development charges, so Holyday's language about "eligible developments" and "approvals" is weird, since all developers will be eligible.

"We should be jumping up and saying 'thank you, thank you, thank you!' instead of debating this item," says Nunziata, of the development charge reduction item. "Say 'thank you' and let's go on and build all this housing we need to build in this city."

Councillor Carroll urges council to reject Holyday's "poison pill" motion re: density, pointing to a community waiting for projects that will bring affordable housing. "If we move a motion that is quite frankly GOOFY and scuttle the deal, what will that community think of us then?"

"There's not enough property taxpayers in this city to pay for what's needed in this city!" declares Councillor Michael Thompson. He credits Chow for getting this deal done and getting the $1.5 billion. "Although her stature is small, she is mighty in nature!" says Thompson.