By Mark Piel
Progress in
development charges Gross population methodology violates the Development Charges Act of 1997.
E
ffective urban planning and infrastructure devel- opment does not occur without effective reve- nue-producing tools. At
the same time, a municipality's use of available revenue-producing tools, such as realty taxes, service charges, and devel- opment charges, must be prudent and fair so the cost associated with building
and maintaining our communities is pro- portionately shared by existing and new property owners alike. A recent decision of the Ontario
Divisional Court will help maintain this proportionality without having the cost of building and purchasing a new home increase solely because a municipal- ity used a certain method when it set its development charge rates.
The Town of Orangeville had adopted
a development charge bylaw that includ- ed charge rates to finance "soft services" — recreation facilities, parks, libraries, transit, police, fire, and other similar serv- ices — which were determined using the "gross population" method. This method established charges by referencing the estimated gross population of a new development and then estimating the costs of services to meet the needs of the residents of the new development. The Orangeville District Home
Builders Association appealed the bylaw to the Ontario Municipal Board on the grounds that it contravened the 1997 Development Charges Act.
Employment and Labour Lawyers Experience Counts. Referrals respected and appreciated. Shields O'Donnell MacKillop LLP 416.304.6400 65 Queen Street W, Suite 1800, Toronto, Ontario Canada M5H 2M5 8 • JUNE 2011 Shields_IH_Apr_11.indd 1 INHOUSE 3/1/11 10:04:56 AM
