Weighing All Costs of Development Cost Charges

From the Government web site:
http://www.cscd.gov.bc.ca/lgd/finance/development_cost_charges.htm

Development Cost Charges
Urban expansion and development often leads directly to an increase in the demand for sewer, water, drainage, parks and roads.


Development cost charges (DCC's) are monies that municipalities and regional districts collect from land developers to offset that portion of the costs related to these services that are incurred as a direct result of this new development. The demand created does not always relate to works that are located adjacent to the property being developed. For example, new development may require a local government to increase the size of its water storage reservoir. Developers pay DCCs instead of the existing taxpayers who are not creating the demand and are not benefiting from the new infrastructure.


Using DCCs, local government can apply a common set of rules and charges to all development within a community. DCCs are applied as one-time charges against residential, commercial, industrial and institutional developments. They are usually collected from developers at the time of subdivision approval or at the time of issuing a building permit.


Although written for elected officials this document is available and may be interesting to some.
http://www.cscd.gov.bc.ca/lgd/intergov_relations/library/DCC_Elected_Officials_Guide_2005.pdf


Comment
Cranbrook's DCC's have been considerably lower than those in other BC cities.  In fact DCC's were only introduced to Cranbrook in the 90's.  The City is reviewing current DCC rates and have as one proposal very modest increases from 8 years ago when they were last set.  No change in current assist factors is also one proposal.
The document can be read at:
https://cranbrook.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentList.aspx?ID=1923


Considering rates of inflation, the resulting increase in infrastructure costs and the known major infrastructure upgrades that will be required to partly accommodate future growth, should DCCs not be raised substantially? 

The argument for keeping DCCs at a lower rate with a high assistance factor from the City is that it will attract more development and business.

However we must ask - At what cost to taxpayers long term?  Will not increasing the DCCs by a larger amount cause the City to continue to lag behind in tackling its serious infrastructure problems? 

The cost of upgrading Cranbrook's Sewage Disposal System has doubled since initial estimates.  Higher DCCs might have helped pay for the increase in capacity to accommodate more recent development.

It is known that costs to upgrade our water delivery system to help accommodate new growth will be high but current estimates are likely to also double by the time the work is done.  A higher DCC rate might contribute to the costs incurred due to development.

Roads have been neglected for years - yet  new subdivisions have been built which put more wear and tear on the current road system.  A higher DCC rate might have alleviated the extra costs due to extra development - sidewalks, lighting.  14th Avenue, for example, still does not have sidewalks in an area of new development.  Would an appropriate DCC rate not have paid for sidewalks?

In the new subdivision of Mount Royal (a Summit West Development), the roads have problems.  Manhole covers are raised out of the road surface. Areas of asphalt have already been removed and surfaces are uneven.  One must ask if appropriate standards were adhered to in initial construction and if not a higher DCC rate might help pay for the necessary upgrades as new development becomes dependent on that current infrastructure.  One must also ask if the current standard of new road construction is adequate given issues such as that illustrated below.

road condition, Mount Royal

If Cranbrook is to attract business and the resulting residents, surely quality of roads and infrastructure play a large part. Isn't it time to get real with the costs of doing that business? Shoddy roads, lack of sidewalks, incomplete parks, ongoing infrastructure issues are not attractive and do not showcase a quality place in which to live.

The deterrent in the long term to business and economy needs to be considered and weighed against the short term deterrent to developers.