Hello folks,

March was a bit slower in terms of meetings; for the first time, we did not have Council meetings over spring break, but committees and other work continued. We also celebrated breaking ground for the Inlet Fieldhouse - a very exciting project for our city, which will bring much-needed change rooms, storage, office and community space at Inlet Park/Favelle Field.

In this newsletter:

The city has a webpage called Council Highlights that shares the “Coles’ notes” version of recent regular council meetings, along with links to the relevant video and agenda sections – a useful resource if you want more details on any of the topics covered at a council meeting. Below are a few that matter the most to me.

At the March 31 City Initiative and Planning Committee meeting, staff presented their extensive work on Development Cost Charges (DCCs) and Amenity Cost Charges (ACCs). After hearing some misunderstanding of Council’s decision that night, Councillor Lubik and I wrote a blog post with more details. You can read that in full on Cllr Lubik’s blog.

Amenity Cost Charges (ACCs) and Development Cost Charges (DCCs) are the mechanisms local governments use to fund amenities (libraries, rec centres, childcare, etc.) and development-related infrastructure (roads, bike lanes, sewer and water, parkland, etc.). Developers pay these, and these fees are included in the cost of new homes (as these are included in the full cost of the newly built home, you are also paying GST on them, unless you are a first-time homebuyer).

ACCs: “ACCs are one-time charges that allow local governments to collect funds for amenities such as community centres, recreation facilities, libraries, daycares and public spaces from new development that results in an increase in the population of residents or workers.” [2]

DCCs: “DCCs are one-time charges that allow local governments to collect funds for providing, constructing, altering, and expanding facilities needed to accommodate growth.” [4]

ACCs and DCCs have separate and defined purposes (see image below), though they share similar implementation processes. Both are included in the purchase price of new homes. These fees cover capital costs, i.e., the cost of building, not the cost of operating or maintaining. Operation and maintenance costs are paid through the city's operating budget. The primary source of revenue for the operating budget is property taxes.

At that meeting, Council approved the proposed rates for ACC program and deferred the DCC rates back to staff. However, I think there is some confusion about our reasons for this (Cllr Lubik and I address our reasons in the blog post).

Since writing the blog with Cllr Lubik, I’ve seen a few more things that need clarification.

Our ACC rates are the lowest in the region. ACCs are not directly comparable across municipalities. Each municipality has identified a suite of amenities (unique to its context) that are then included in the calculation. Staff did excellent work identifying the projects we need and want: new Rec Centre ($42M), Aquatic Centre ($102M), Library improvements ($132.5M), and park improvements ($3.5M, not for land acquisition). These are based on the Recreation Master Plan (2025) and the Library Master Plan (2025).

Other communities have different amenity needs/wants and therefore have a different calculation. ACCs are amortized over a 25-year timeframe, and consider the estimated population in 25 years.

Moving forward with ACCs for consultation at reasonable rates isn’t “putting profit first.” It follows provincial timelines while leaving room to negotiate for childcare, grocery, employment space, and other important components of a complete community. Important note: the recreation study estimates the full cost of the aquatic centre to be approximately $103 million. By including 99% of the cost in the ACCs, we are asking new development to pay for amenities that I know we all will use.

This also does not include inclusionary zoning or density bonusing programs. From the staff report: “Density bonusing can also be used to secure additional amenities not on the list.” I think density bonusing will be more challenging to achieve, given the mass upzoning undertaken by the housing legislation, which reduces the ‘bonus’ Council can offer in exchange for amenities.

I understand the urge to compare to others, to find a benchmark, but in this case, we aren’t comparing apples to apples.

Low rates shift costs to taxpayers. I am assuming that commenters are referring to the comparison between Port Moody’s proposed ACC and DCC rates. But excluding parkland acquisition costs for a moment, the rates for transportation, water, drainage, sanitary sewer, fire and solid waste are relatively straightforward - the need for this only exists if new housing is built. The municipal assist factor is 1%, meaning 99% of the infrastructure is funded by new development, not existing taxpayers.

Parkland acquisition DCC options are a result of staff pricing out the cost of delivering the Parkland Strategy goals over the next 10 years.

Council is deferring responsibility by sending DCC rates back to staff. I know that is not either my nor Cllr Lubik’s intent with agreeing to refer back to staff. We both want to find creative solutions to the parkland DCC challenge – what options do we have to minimize the initial impact while still achieving our goals? We have some ideas and hope workshops with staff will identify alternative options. It is possible to have different DCCs in different parts of the city (for example), but we need staff to do some more modelling of all options, so we can balance the parkland needs with the current economic environment that we live in.

It is important to note that we didn’t previously have water DCCs. This is because until the enactment of the Small-scale Multi-unit Housing legislation, we didn’t need it. Port Moody is a relatively young city, and the water system has sufficient capacity in most areas. But when you add in the potential for 3-6 units on every single family lot in the city, you run into some serious capacity issues, especially adequate flow for firefighting purposes.

I fully expect to have the DCC discussion soon and make further decisions on updating this important infrastructure funding mechanism.

One more thing: Comparing DCCs + CACs (current) to future DCCs + ACCs is again not quite apples to apples, even for our own city. For example, with the Inlet Centre development, the city negotiated to receive (indexed to CPI), in addition to an estimated $25.6 million, of which 89% is for parkland acquisition:

With the introduction of ACCs, while this gives certainty about what the contributions are for, it may also limit the negotiation of amenities like the pedestrian overpass or the civic facility. CACs could have been used to fund affordable housing, but ACCs cannot. The shift to ACCs gives predictability, but removes the flexibility for the city to negotiate site-specific amenities.

Bottom line: I agree we should not bend over backwards for private company profits. But setting rates so high, driven largely by parkland acquisition goals, that it stalls housing supply and makes homes less affordable, isn’t going to help us get the amenities we want either. Council’s job is to serve residents and make decisions in the best interest of the city. Sometimes that means avoiding symbolic wins that lead to real-world losses, while going back to the drawing board to find smarter, more creative solutions.

More reading:

Port Moody was recognized, along with 282 other communities, by the Arbour Day Foundation and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. This program recognizes cities that fulfill five core standards: establish responsibility for the care of trees; enact a law or policy that governs the management of trees and forests; maintain an updated assessment of local tree resources; allocate resources for a tree management plan; and hold an annual celebration of trees to educate local residents.

Learn more about other recognized cities.