Industry Voice

0

How Much Does New Growth Contribute & Where Does it Go?

How much does the City collect in developer contributions, levies, acreage assessments and donated assets from new communities every year? First of all, let me say you may be surprised at how difficult it is to find this information compiled in one place. I dare you to try the search bar on the City of Calgary site and punch in any word combination of levies, acreage assessments, budgets and the like. I guess my mind doesn’t filter information in quite the same way the Google search function does.

The best information came from the City of Calgary 2009-2011 Capital Analysis report that breaks down the major sources of capital plan funding for the 2009-2013 plan. Based on these numbers, the city expected to generate a significant amount of money from new growth through levies, off site assessments and other contributions.

These projections were published prior to the levy increase passed by Council last year. With these significant increases, we should be able to assume these projections would be on the low side for any subsequent evaluation under the new Development Agreement.

So how much are we talking about exactly? How does $630 million sound?

• $77 million in a ‘Community and Recreation Levy’ based on a calculation of $40,000 per hectare to contribute to the funding of fire, police, and EMS stations, public libraries, regional recreation facilities and shuttle buses in new growth areas. (2012- increased to $75,644/per hectare)

• $157 million in ‘Private Contributions’ as developers contribute to the costs of building infrastructure such as traffic signals, drainage trunks, arenas & parks in newly developed areas. (increased in 2012 but difficult to find a concise breakdown)

• $396 million in’ Transportation Acreage Assessments’ based on a calculation of $43,000 per hectare to fund new roads in growth areas. (2012 – increased to $121,543/per hectare)

• Also worth mentioning is that a new assessment is now charged for water and sanitary sewer that was not part of these 2008 calculations. The 2012 amount is a combined $69,940 per hectare.

While these total numbers are helpful, it is next to impossible to align them with the ACTUAL capital projects they may have helped fund.

Unfortunately it’s not exactly a straight line from the contribution dollars to the infrastructure investment lists.

By the way, on top of these large monetary contributions from new growth, there are also a host of donated assets that developers turn over to The City each year. These assets are not included in The City’s Capital Plan as they have already been paid for in full by the land developer (if you’re interested in a full breakdown of who pays for what in a new community, see previous Vote Calgary article).

This is fascinating stuff, so let’s take a look at some of the projected donated assets from just ONE year (2008, found in the same 2009-2011 Capital Analysis report).

Parks

• 5100 Street Trees

• 14 kilometres of Pathways

• 21 hectares of Environmental Reserve Land

• 27 hectares of Municipal Reserve Land

Roads

• 100 kilometres of Roads

• 1400 Streetlights

Water Resources

• 3 Ponds

• 50 kilometres of Sanitary Mains

• 65 kilometres of Water Mains

• 615 Water Catchbasins

• 185 Hydrants

This isn’t even an exhaustive list, just the highlights.

One of the things the Industry has been asking for is an open and transparent accounting of the dollars collected from the various revenue sources new growth provides, a clear correlation to the projects funded and recognition of the valuable assets the City gains in return. While it shouldn’t take an exhaustive website search, hours of investigation and an accounting degree to find those numbers, at least most of the information is there. That’s a start.

What about redevelopment you ask? Where are the numbers regarding how much those new projects in established areas contribute to City coffers? Well that’s a good question and one I had hoped to answer. I would love to share that information with you...if only I could find it.

1

Where and How We Grow

On Wednesday, April 11 Administration’s latest progress report was heard by the Council Standing Policy Committee on Planning & Urban Development. Many Stakeholders were on hand to speak to the report including representatives from UDI and CHBA-Calgary Region.

The City of Calgary is in the midst of an ambitious plan to better prioritize its infrastructure funding. The Framework for Growth and Change is attempting to create improved alignment between financial commitments for infrastructure investment and City Council decision making on new growth areas. This will fundamentally change the processes by which these growth areas are currently planned and approved.

Industry offered support of a more open and transparent process for growth management decision making while at the same time highlighting some areas of concern. There were several items Industry felt needed further work prior to progressing towards a finalized prioritized list of growth areas. These included better disclosure of the methods used to calculate the prioritization of areas through scoring of the criteria, a more robust land supply strategy and the pressing need to work on funding & financing options for both the City and current landowners.

Stakeholders were not given an opportunity to see what calculations went on behind the scenes using the metrics to generate a score for each area. Having that information is critically important because right now the fear is that the dashboard as presented with its shaded pies and 1-5 rankings will become the de facto shortcut for City Council to evaluate future growth priorities. Administration has assured all stakeholders this methodology will be available for analysis in the near future.

Even if we get those metrics ‘right’, it’s not enough. We still need the benefit of other tools to adequately evaluate these prioritized areas. Enhancing our current land supply strategy to look at issues such as competitiveness with surrounding municipalities is a good start. We must also undertake a detailed analysis of the various funding and financing options available to ensure landowners in all areas of the city understand what may hinder or accelerate their ability to move forward and at what cost. These additional pieces of information are necessary when it comes time for City Council to decide where and how we grow.

Without those additional components, there is a danger of investing heavily in many of the same types of projects that will score highly on a prioritized list but would not provide a timely return on investment due to potential oversupply and/or lack of market absorption. It was made clear at Committee by Administration and some members of Council that the city requires all types of growth (Industrial/Commercial, New Residential and Redevelopment) to keep our economy healthy and actually meet the goals of our MDP. In other words, turning off the tap in one area of growth is not an acceptable solution.

The report now goes to City Council at the end of the month and if approved, Administration will be directed to begin the next phase of the project which should deal directly with the issues raised. It includes work on the funding & financing piece along with the land supply strategy and refining the calculations informing the metrics. This report would be due back to Committee in October 2012.

0

Benefits of new growth

First let’s start with some big numbers. Did you know the Residential Construction Industry was responsible for approximately 36,400 jobs in new construction, renovation and related fields last year alone? That makes us one of the largest employers within the Calgary region. Those jobs equate to about $2.2 billion dollars in wages which then further benefits the local economy through increased consumer spending. The majority of those who work in the industry also live in Calgary communities. Many of these individuals contribute to the City’s economic health by owning their own homes, paying property taxes and utility/user fees.

So those who supply the materials, decorate and furnish the interiors, market the products and actually build the condo towers, the new houses and new communities are obviously a positive force in the economy.

What about the new communities themselves? What do they provide? We decided to seek our answers from some trusted sources.

One of the most important things new development provides is ‘choice’. A City of Calgary report, “Calgary & Region Social Outlook 2010-2015”, talks about new communities and their continuing popularity from 2009-2010 even as population growth in the city slowed overall.

Population in the downtown core grew by 1.1 per cent and in the developing communities by 6.7 per cent. While the population in most of the rest of the city declined by 8,489 people, in the developing communities it grew by 14,374. The developing communities thus accounted for 237 per cent of Calgary’s population growth between 2009 and 2010, accommodating not only new growth, but also residents from more established areas who moved to the developing communities. As a result, the share of the city’s population living in the developing communities continued to rise, increasing from 20.2 per cent to 21.5 per cent.

That’s a pretty clear indication that an increasing number of Calgarians have found a lifestyle they prefer in a new community. As the report stated, that encompasses both new residents and those who moved from other neighbourhoods. Without that choice available, would they have stayed in Calgary?

In fact, as Calgary Economic Development looks to woo even more people and businesses to Calgary, the fact that those choices exist is a huge selling feature. According to their website;

Quality of life is easy to find in Calgary. Whether you’re looking for a great suburban neighbourhood to raise a family or want to live the urbanist life in the heart of the city, Calgary has award-winning communities and vibrant spaces…Calgary has both of these lifestyles in its communities, and everything in between.

From a recent City of Edmonton report, “Costs and Revenues for New Areas”, we find some very specific benefits that new communities provide.

The current form of new residential neighbourhood development leads to lower housing prices and more diverse choice in housing. This in turn makes the City more able to maintain and attract a skilled and talented work force. Together with an appropriate supply/expansion of jobs, this creates a double dividend situation in which individuals both reside (paying taxes and spending income) and work (contributing to commercial/industrial taxes and creation of wealth) in Edmonton.

The factors mentioned above play a large role when employers are looking to relocate their offices or expand their current operations. Sometimes it can be easy to get sidetracked by the problems that ‘growth’ in all its forms (economic, population, size) can present but the solution isn’t to end all new development. The benefits new growth provides are simply too great to ignore.

Of course, in the end, we need balance. Sensitive redevelopment of our established neighbourhoods is important. More multi-family, urban development is also a key to future prosperity. Let’s just not forget that over 21 per cent of our citizens today call our brand new communities home and many more will come to Calgary in the hopes of following in their footsteps.

For all the reasons already mentioned, the ability of these new communities to continue to attract new Calgarians truly benefits us all.

Do you think new growth benefits Calgary or should we stop building new communities? Your voice matters; vote in our new poll.

2

If the City of Calgary gets a ‘new deal’, will homeowners get one too?

You may have heard about the need for a new deal for cities, one that presents the municipality with the ability to not only keep more of the property tax it currently collects but also to potentially tap other funding sources to meet its financial obligations for services delivery and infrastructure investment.

As illustrated by the recent Council discussions on potential changes to the property tax rate in order to accommodate the Provincial government’s increased portion, a consistent, reliable source of funding (in good times and bad) is critical in order for municipalities to plan efficiently, set goals and execute timely decisions.

Read more

0

Mission Road Update #2: No end in sight for the long and winding (Mission) road

We haven’t reached the end of the long and winding (Mission) road just yet. On February 27, City Council continued to debate about the future of the Mission Road Innovation Project.

The meeting started off with the majority of Council denying the request for an additional $90,000 over and above the $430,000 that had already been spent. Of course the irony is that it is Council’s own fault that Administration was saddled with the unenviable task of requesting these additional funds in the first place!

It was on Council’s direction from the January 9th Public Hearing that staff should take the necessary steps (these were all clearly spelled out by Council, see our previous update for details) to assess the feasibility of the final plan coming out of the charette process. The fact that those steps would equate to an additional $90,000 price tag seems to have finally pushed the majority of Council to the brink. Now with the additional dollars not being approved to fund the very work Council had asked for in January, the aldermen had to go back and rescind their original direction to Administration and swap it out with a new one. What’s the new direction?

In May, Administration will bring forward options for amendments to the Area Redevelopment Plan and the bylaws that had received first reading at the January Public Hearing. As newly directed by Council, these amendments must incorporate some of the ‘benefits’ of the Mission Road Innovation Project. The rationale behind this direction was to ensure any good ideas coming out of the charrette process were not lost, particularly after the decision below made it clear there would be no further work done on the project itself.

The second recommendation up for debate on February 27 was the idea of giving the Mission Road Innovation Project priority status in the Land Use Planning and Policy Work Plan if additional staff time and resources were going to be devoted to this initiative. That too was defeated by the majority sending a clear signal that other projects are likely higher priorities going forward.

There is one last report coming as a result of Council’s decisions on February 27. Administration is also working on an evaluation report to Council on the key learnings from the project and highlighting any best practices that could be adopted in future planning exercises. This document is headed for Council sometime in September. What now? May’s Council meeting will certainly be one to watch as there will (hopefully) be a final decision made on the original land owner application along with a clear decision on the future of the Mission Road Area Redevelopment Plan and Charette associated bylaws.

On a side note, Alderman Lowe also put forth a Motion Arising that has Administration outlining a process to ensure competing applications on the same or similar properties are NOT presented simultaneously to Council. While it seems like a no-brainer going forward given the original landowner frustrations and procedural mess everyone has been witness to, it obviously didn’t occur to anyone the first time around. Having a policy in place to make sure it never happens again can only be seen as a prudent, proactive measure.

VoteCalgary.ca will continue to follow this story and bring you additional updates as new information becomes available.

0

Up, Out and In is better than Us vs. Them

The release of the Federal Census numbers showed that recent growth across Canada has largely occurred in the suburbs and bedroom communities. There is a renewed interest in the media on why that might be, especially considering the ongoing policy push for less outward growth and urban renewal.

The Calgary Herald is currently asking readers to share their reasons for living in Calgary’s suburbs. What is clear from the comments even at this early stage is that just as Calgarians are a diverse group of people, so too are the reasons that have led them to settle in one area over another. Perhaps as this conversation continues, it will help debunk a few of the myths regarding suburban life. The kind of stuff that those living in these communities already know; not everyone works and commutes to downtown, open front attached garage doors actually function like front porches inviting casual conversations with the neighbours and the ethnic diversity of those neighbours can put many ‘urban’ areas to shame.

Read more

1

If a tree falls in an infill property, does it sound the same as the one that falls in the next door neighbour’s yard?

If a tree falls in an infill property, does it sound the same as the one that falls in the next door neighbour’s yard? Judging from a recent survey of Calgarians, apparently not...

Certainly we can all agree that trees make our physical environment more enjoyable, not to mention healthier. Many Calgarians are lucky enough to enjoy the benefits of trees in their own backyards all year round. If we can all agree on the benefits of trees, why is a preservation bylaw a bad idea?

While there are a variety of concerns regarding the City of Calgary’s report coming to SPC on Community and Protective Services on February 8th, the biggest one for the residential construction industry should be fairness and equity. The Executive Summary attached to Wednesday’s report is very telling on this point.

In the key findings it is noted that 53% of Calgarians agreed that land owners should be able to remove mature healthy trees without permission of the City. And a further 25% somewhat agreed. This brings us to the central question in any private tree bylaw debate. If a homeowner decides to take down a tree or two to foster greater enjoyment of their property, should the City be able to weigh in on that decision, perhaps requiring costly third party reports or levying a charge for a removal permit? It seems the majority of Calgarians surveyed would say ‘no’.

But here’s where it gets interesting. Judging from these survey results, there is a distinct lack of understanding of the word ‘land owner’ and who it might apply to as evidenced by the following statement in the report; “Calgarians express strong support, on the other hand, for the implementation and monitoring of regulations for developers and infill developments”.

Apparently it is ok for the owner at 123 Cherry Tree Lane who just moved in two years ago and is doing some landscaping, to take down a few mature trees without paying a dime to the City. But what about the fellow who owns 125 Cherry Tree Lane and intends to take down some trees in order to prepare the site for redevelopment? Judging by the above statement, he should pay dearly for the privilege.

It seems that taking down trees for any personal reasons (more sunlight, less maintenance hassles, more grass, better place for the trampoline, etc) is perfectly acceptable, while removing trees to facilitate redevelopment is clearly not. That’s making a distinct value judgment in the application of the rules and a slippery slope to be sure. Why is one neighbour’s reason more valid than the other’s? Who decides?

Private trees are just that, privately owned and subject to the care and attention of their owners. If the City wants to operate in a fair and equitable manner, then any rules being contemplated must either apply to all owners, regardless of present or future intentions, or be abandoned completely.

0

Update: Mission Road Project

Council did not make a final decision on the outcome of the Mission Road Innovation Project at the January 9th Public Hearing. It was decided by a majority of Council that the project merited further consideration but it was thought that perhaps more study was required on key issues prior to proceeding to final acceptance. Those voting against the first reading of the bylaw and as a result, the continuation of the project, were Ald. Stevenson, Chabot, Colley-Urquhart and Demong.

Read more

0

Understanding report CPC2012-003, Land Use Redesignation (Windsor Park)

While the Mission Road Innovation Project got all the attention at the January 9th Public Hearing; another land use item on the agenda also had interesting implications. See how Council voted and what it could mean to future redevelopment.

CPC2012-003 Land Use Redesignation (Windsor Park) and Bylaw 3D2012

As described in the CPC report, the subject parcel to be redesignated is located on a narrow parcel on Elbow Drive SW within the community of Windsor Park. The area is characterized by a mix of low density residential dwellings to the north and south and multi-residential dwellings to the east and the Calgary Golf and Country Club to the west.

The applicant was looking to redesignate the subject lands from R-C2 to Multi-Residential (M-CG) (M-CGd21) to accommodate a maximum of 5 dwelling units. So in other words, going from the already permitted 2 units on the parcel and adding a maximum of 3 more.

Read more

10

Anticipation mounts as controversial Mission Road Project comes to council

UPDATE: Council has asked Administration to collect more detailed information prior to making any final decisions on the land use applications concerning Mission Road. As soon as the Council Meeting minutes have been officially published, VoteCalgary.ca will have a more detailed update available on this important project.

What happens when idealistic expectations on urban design collide with the harsh economic realities of redevelopment just as change is rapidly knocking on the door of an established community? Those in the know might say that just describes another day in the trenches as we work towards the implementation of Plan It. The Mission Road Project heading to Council on January 9th is an excellent primer on this perfect storm.

It all began over 4 years ago when a group of landowners requested a land use redesignation to rezone their properties on Mission Road from single family to multi-family allowing for an increase in density. This also seemed to align with City goals as it was initially supported by Administration as an opportunity to increase density within proximity of an LRT station while at the same time providing an appropriate transition to the existing community. In other words, this was Plan It before Plan It was cool.

Read more