Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCSD-17-018 - Development Incentives for Affordable Housing Phase 2 REPORT TO: Council Strategy Session DATE OF MEETING: February 27, 2017 SUBMITTED BY: Alain Pinard, Director of Planning, 519-741-2200 ext. 7319 PREPARED BY: Lauren Nelson, Planning Analyst, 519-741-2200 ext. 7072 Brandon Sloan, Manager, Long Range & Policy Planning, 519-741-2200 ext. 7648 WARD(S) INVOLVED: All Wards DATE OF REPORT: February 14, 2017 REPORT NO.: CSD-17-018 SUBJECT: Development Incentives for Affordable Housing – Phase 2 _____________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATIONS: For discussion. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The provision of affordable housing is a priority in Kitchener. Often, one of the barriers to building affordable housing units is financial. Although other levels of government are always encouraged to provide more financial support to help shorten the waiting list for needed housing, this report highlights several development incentives and implementation strategies that could be used at the local level. The provincial definition of ‘affordable’ sets a rent threshold at a high monthly amount for our market area that many developments could achieve. Staff recommend that municipal incentives offered should set a more robust standard to target units that are truly affordable, especially given that incentives offered are above and beyond the typical role of a lower-tier municipality. Municipal incentives should be available to Not- For-Profit or charitable organizations building affordable rental housing, and should support lower rental rates. Specific development incentives for affordable housing are considered in this report. A summary for each incentive, including how it is implemented and the next steps required, is provided in Table 1. Input from Council will inform some of the next steps. *** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. *** Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance. Table 1: Summary of recommended next steps of development incentives for affordable housing Incentive Recommended Implementation Next Steps Reduced Continue to implement reduced parking rates in the Tabled 2016; Parking Zoning By-law through the CRoZBy process, and on a Statutory Requirements site-specific basis using Transportation Demand Public Management through the development process. Meeting Spring 2018 Density Continue to implement density bonusing for affordable Tabled 2016; Bonusing housing through the CRoZBy process, and in the Central Statutory Transit Corridor through the PARTS and Secondary Plan Public Review processes. Affordable housing is one of the most Meeting significant bonus values in the proposed framework. Spring 2018 Property Tax Should the Region of Waterloo initiate a regional Tax Direction may Increment Increment Grant, the City could partner to deliver a joint be related to Grants tax incentive. Implementation would occur via a Region of Community Improvement Plan (CIP). Council Waterloo authorization to proceed would be required. Planning Exempt Not-For-Profit and/or charitable organizations Consider Application building affordable rental housing from the payment of funding; and Building Planning Application fees and Building Permit fees. policy could Permit Fees be delivered in 2017 Timing of Staff are considering an additional option to incent Not-Direction on Development For-Profit and/or charitable organizations building preferred Charges affordable rental housing, by requiring the payment of approach; Payment development charges at the occupancy permit stage policy could instead of building permit. Similar to taxes, the Regional be delivered portion is much greater and there are different options for in 2017 implementation. Discussion questions for Council’s consideration are included in Appendix A. BACKGROUND: On November 2, 2015 report CSD-15-085 was presented to Kitchener’s Community & Infrastructure Services Committee outlining the roles of various levels of government with respect to affordable housing, examples of affordable housing programs offered in other Ontario municipalities, and highlighting development incentives options that the City of Kitchener could consider to support affordable housing. Seven incentives were presented and discussed. Ultimately, the Committee resolved that staff be directed to focus their efforts investigating development incentives for: 1. Reduced parking requirements (primary focus); 2. Expanded density bonusing to nodes (primary focus); 3. Property tax exemptions or grants (primary focus); and, 4. Waiving application fees (secondary focus). Of note, no specific direction was given with respect to staff undertaking an investigation into ‘exempting, deferring or reducing development charges’ as part of the Council Resolution from the meeting held on November 16, 2015. To close the loop, staff have included some context on a new type of development charge incentive, and have discussion questions for consideration as part of this report. An initiative was added to the Corporate Business Plan for 2016 and 2017 to undertake a detailed analysis of these four development incentives in order to provide an implementation plan to help deliver development incentives for affordable rental housing. The province recently implemented the Promoting Affordable Housing Act, which will provide municipalities with a new planning tool – inclusionary zoning. Inclusionary zoning would allow a municipality to require developers to provide a certain amount of affordable units within their developments. Regulations under the new Act are not yet available, but are expected later in 2017. The scope of this report is focused on development incentives, and does not include new information about potential regulatory changes for inclusionary zoning. REPORT: Shelter is a basic human need. A lack of affordable housing is an important issue of public interest, and there is a responsibility for every level of government. While the provision of affordable housing is a priority in Kitchener, the challenge is that one of the barriers to building new dwelling units is financial. The Region of Waterloo, as the Service Manager for Housing, has established programs to help fund affordable housing developments throughout our region; however there are still things that can be done at the local level to help make it a little easier to construct new rental units. This report highlights specific development incentives and implementation strategies that could be put in place, or are already in progress, to complement existing services and programs offered for affordable housing by the Region. The scope of this report is focussed on ‘rental’ housing and not affordable home ownership. Applicability of City Development Incentives Definition and Scope of ‘Affordable’ The current provincial definition of affordable rental housing is broad and depends on the average income or average market rent in our area. a) When calculating based on average income, rental units under $1,250 per month 1 would be considered affordable under the provincial definition. However, this threshold does not account for varying household sizes and needs. 1 Provincial Policy Statement Housing Table – Renter household incomes and affordable rents, 2015 http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/AssetFactory.aspx?did=15077 b) When calculating based on average market rent in our area, rental units under $704 per month for bachelor units, $850 per month for one-bedroom units, $997 per month for two-bedroom units, or $1,150 per month for three bedroom units 2 are considered affordable under the provincial definition. These thresholds assume that housing affordability and market rates are linked, when in fact, market rates fluctuate based on competition amongst buyers and sellers in the marketplace. It is not always appropriate to assume market rates are correlated to housing affordability. The provincial definition could capture quite a large number of units given the fairly high monthly amount. There is also a high level of complexity in securing that rental rates will meet this definition for a given length of time, including the need for extensive legal agreements. This is a role that the Region of Waterloo already facilitates through its affordable housing programs. Scoping the definition of ‘affordable’ for the proposed incentives in this report would have the benefit of complementing existing Regional programs, and streamlining new processes. Staff recommend that targeted City incentive programs could set a more appropriate standard, especially as any incentives offered would be above and beyond the typical role of a lower-tier municipality. For the purpose of implementing any specific incentives (for property taxes, application and permit fees, and development charges), and for the discussion questions in this report, staff recommend that the eligibility criteria include:  That the housing provider is a Not-For-Profit or charitable organization;  That incentives apply to affordable rental housing; and,  That rental rates must be set lower than the provincial definition, for example the majority of the dwelling units must be at least 15% below market rate. Incentives for reduced parking and density bonusing would be available to the private sector. Timeframe for any Incentives It is staff’s recommendation that any incentives should be established for a period of five years and evaluated at that time to confirm the long-term approach. It is likely that over the next five years, more will be known about the potential use of inclusionary zoning. Geographic Scope The City should strive to ensure a balance of affordable housing throughout the city (and preferably the region), including a good distribution of all housing types and 2 Provincial Policy Statement Housing Table – Average rent by bedroom count, 2015 http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/AssetFactory.aspx?did=15078 Downtown: 55 5 50 ZoningProposed 88 13 75 ZoningCurrent Total Visitor Resident following number of parking spaces.n would require the suburban locatioexample, 50 residential units in a For and even in suburban locations). (lower rates along transit corridors locationparking rates that vary by introduceProposed zoning regulations would Outside the Downtown: 18 0 18 ZoningProposed 120 0 120 ZoningCurrent Total Visitor Resident following number of parking spaces.units in the downtown would require the requirement. For example, 120 residential development to be built with no parking the first 100 residential units in a allow Proposed zoning regulations would tenures. It is important to ensure that any incentives apply to the right areas of the city. There are a number of options to consider and further direction from Council would assist in targeting the incentives, and providing more detailed financial implications (if necessary). One option is that development incentives could be targeted towards land within walking distance (450 metres) of a light rail transit (LRT) station and/or transit corridors (existing and future iXpress routes). These areas often are subject to gentrification and increasing housing prices. Another option is to simply apply all incentives city wide and allow it to happen wherever the opportunities exist. Another variation is that each incentive could have its own geographic scope. The question about where an incentive should apply will be part of each discussion topic. Reduced Parking Requirements Reduced parking requirements would have the effect of increasing feasibility of building affordable housing units and potentially increasing unit yield, and is effective where units can be built in areas with alternative transportation options such as walking, cycling or transit. This initiative is currently being implemented by Planning and Transportation Services staff via the Comprehensive Review of the Zoning By-law (CRoZBy), which includes a statutory public review of parking regulations. A first draft of new parking regulations was tabled publicly on June 30, 2016, featuring reduced parking requirements that will benefit all types of development, including affordable housing. Defining and administering affordable housing as a separate use in a zoning by-law is problematic along with the inability to deal with tenure. It is more appropriate to consider the parking requirements for residential development in relation to the available transportation options and site context. Sample parking calculations illustrate the reductions introduced in the proposed zoning regulations. Example 1: Sample Parking Rate Comparison: Current and Proposed Zoning An additional option is to use the City’s current Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Checklist to reduce the amount of parking spaces required by the Zoning By-law, in exchange for measures such as additional bicycle parking, or subsidized transit passes for residents. Depending on the measures selected by a land owner, significant reductions to the parking rates can be achieved, while ensuring adequate transportation options for future residents. Implementation of Reduced Parking Requirements Implementation of reduced parking requirements that benefit affordable housing is occurring through the existing work program for CRoZBy, and significant public and stakeholder consultation is already being conducted as part of the CRoZBy process. Staff recommend continuing to implement reduced parking rates in the Zoning By-law through the CRoZBy process, and on a site-specific basis for TDM measures through the development process. The current schedule is to deliver the new Zoning By-law to a statutory public meeting in the spring of 2018. Density Bonusing Density bonusing allows buildings to exceed maximum height and density zoning requirements in exchange for community benefits. Density bonusing for affordable housing can have the positive effect of increasing the supply of affordable dwelling units built in eligible areas of the city. This initiative is currently being implemented through CRoZBy, and via Planning Around Rapid Transit Stations (PARTS)/Secondary Plan Review processes. With new proposed regulations built right into the draft Zoning By-law, a development proposal would be able to provide several community benefits to increase the permitted Floor Space Ratio (FSR) or density. Density bonus values are relative and are aimed at broad city objectives. The first draft of new bonusing regulations for the downtown indicated that the highest priority is given to new residential development and affordable housing. Bonusing for locations beyond the downtown that are within 450 meters of an LRT station was recommended through the Council approved PARTS: Central Plan and will be implemented through the subsequent review of Secondary Plans and zoning in the Central Transit Corridor/LRT areas. This process involves statutory public review and is currently underway. Implementation of Density Bonusing for Affordable Housing Given that action is already occurring regarding the implementation of density bonusing for affordable housing through the existing work programs for CRoZBy and the review of Secondary Plans, and since they involve significant public and stakeholder consultation, no additional action is recommended at this time. Staff intends to move forward with getting the new framework in place, monitoring, and then considering whether to expand density bonusing to other areas of the city. The current schedule is to deliver both the new Zoning By-law and the Secondary Plan Review to statutory public meetings in the spring of 2018. Property Tax Increment Grants A Tax Increment Grant (TIG) is a grant provided to a landowner equal to the full amount, or a portion of the amount of the tax increase (or increment) in City and/or Regional property taxes after a property is redeveloped. The intent of a TIG is to support the rehabilitation or renovation of existing buildings, the redevelopment of previously developed sites that are now vacant, or under-utilized sites, resulting in the creation of affordable housing units. A current example is the Brownfield TIG program. The existing tax structure can be seen as a barrier to private investment in affordable housing as the taxes payable increase with redevelopment, thus impacting the long term operating costs of affordable housing projects. A TIG may offer a small benefit to housing providers, and it is generally positive for the City because existing sites currently sit underutilized with tax contributions that reflect their depressed values. Without any incentive to invest, the situation would be unlikely to change. While a TIG program would cause the City to forgo the tax increases associated with development of affordable housing projects in the short term, the investment encourages economic activity, provides much needed housing, revitalizes the building stock and will contribute to higher levels of taxation in the long term. Preliminary Financial Analysis of a Tax Increment Grant Samples of past projects were assessed to determine the potential financial impact to the City if a TIG program were implemented. Sites selected for this analysis included affordable housing developments that received funding from Region of Waterloo affordable housing programs, and that completed planning and building processes over a 10-year period between 2007 and 2016. Seven sites (with 150 units combined) in Kitchener met these criteria (see Table 2). Project locations varied with two sites located in the downtown, two sites located in transit corridors and three sites located in other areas of the city. In the future there could be new locations along iXpress or LRT routes, or other parcels of land that are economical for affordable housing development. Table 2: Recent Regionally-funded affordable housing developments in Kitchener 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 1 site -- -- 1 site -- -- 2 sites 1 site -- 2 sites 16 units 21 units 51 units 6 units 56 units Two sites were excluded from the analysis below as one site (from 2016) has not yet been assessed for taxes, and one site (from 2009) is exempt from paying taxes. Table 3 shows that the average increase in property tax revenues for the City has been roughly $7,000 for the five sites analyzed. Table 3: Estimated change in tax assessment before and after redevelopment Site Annual City Taxes Pre Annual City Taxes Post Change Development * Development Site 1 $1,816 $11,757 $9,942 Site 2 -- $13,849 $13,849 Site 3 $478 $2,645 $2,168 Site 4 $254 $4,216 $3,963 Site 5 $4,508 $8,325 $3,816 Total $7,055 $40,792 $33,733 Average $1,411 $8,158 $6,748 *2016 tax rates were applied to both pre and post development assessments Typically, TIG programs offer an incentive that is applied over a period of time, where a percent of the increase in the City’s portion of taxes is waived. Table 4 provides examples of five year and 10 year programs. Table 4: Typical payment structures for tax increment grant programs 5 Year TIG Program 10 Year TIG Program Year 1 80% of the increase waived Years 1-5 100 % of the increase waived Year 2 60% of the increase waived Year 6 80% of the increase waived Year 3 40% of the increase waived Year 7 60% of the increase waived Year 4 20% of the increase waived Year 8 40% of the increase waived Year 5 Owner pays full taxes Year 9 20% of the increase waived Year 10 Owner pays full taxes Using the selected sites and the payment structures outlined, the costs of a five year or 10 year program in Kitchener are shown in Table 5. There is currently no budget for this type of program, so any new approval by Council would need to be funded by the tax base and considered through a separate report or budget process. Table 5: Estimated financial impact of a 5 or 10 year tax increment grant Site 5 Year TIG Program 10 Year TIG Program Site 1 $19,884 $69,594 Site 2 $27,697 $96,941 Site 3 $4,336 $15,174 Site 4 $7,925 $27,738 Site 5 $7,633 $26,715 Total $67,475 $236,163 Average $13,495 $47,233 Annual Average $2,699 $4,723 The potential impact to the City will depend on the payment structure as well as the type and size of projects that meet eligibility requirements in the future. Based on the information in Table 5, if a TIG program was to be considered, it is likely that a budget provision in the range of $3000 - $5000 per year would be prudent. An initial lump sum may also be required to support the program as it is likely that some years would receive requests for funding for multiple projects of different scales. This is a preliminary assessment only, and there is no certainty that the City would receive the same type and size of development applications in future years. Implementation of a Tax Increment Grant This initiative is implemented via a Community Improvement Plan (CIP). The legislative framework for a CIP is set out in The Planning Act and The Municipal Act. In accordance with the City’s Official Plan, Council can establish a Community Improvement Project Area (which could include a portion or all of the lands within the city) for several reasons, including the need for affordable housing. Staff have had initial discussions with the Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs regarding the potential of a CIP for affordable housing. A high level outline of the process is shown in Example 3. Example 3: Community Improvement Plan Process This process will require significant staff resources from Planning, Finance, Legal and other divisions to complete. At a minimum it could take eight to nine months to prepare the CIP. Ongoing staff resources from several divisions would also be required to review the applications and administer the program. A complete assessment of the financial impacts and administration of a tax increment grant is typically addressed through the legislated process to prepare the CIP. It is also a formal public process that requires official Council authorization to proceed and to approve. The value of proceeding with a City-only TIG program for this purpose is questionable at this time. The incremental difference of the City portion of taxes is much lower than for the Brownfield program and is questionable whether the significant staff time required to implement and administer the program would counter its benefits. Given that the Regional portion of taxes is much higher, there may be greater value added if the Regional of Waterloo would consider pursuing such a program. In this regard, Planning staff have been in discussions with the Region and other local municipalities regarding this possibility and so far the indications are positive. The City of Cambridge has recently adopted a TIG for their jurisdiction and has asked the Region to partner with their program. Regional staff are in discussions about the potential to pursue an affordable housing TIG and other incentives and expect to bring a report to Regional Council later this year. Similar to the process mentioned above, Regional Council would have to authorize proceeding with such a program. A discussion question regarding the potential timing and geography as it relates to the Regional consideration of a possible TIG incentive is in Appendix A. Planning Application and Building Permit Fees Development proposals trigger various types of fees that can vary greatly depending on factors such as the type of application, or whether a change in land use or zoning is required. During the development application process, two of the primary application fees that are often considered in a municipal incentive program are the building permit and planning application (i.e. zone change, site plan, etc.) costs. While planning application fees and building permit fees are just a component of the costs incurred for municipal development application processes, the benefits of exempting these fees are that it may provide some financial relief up-front to affordable housing providers who are often challenged with their funding formula and timing. Although reducing or eliminating these fees alone may not be the highest and best incentive, it is an additional cost savings that could ultimately go towards the provision of more additional affordable housing units and help reduce the Region of Waterloo housing waiting list. Staff have also heard from providers that it could be of some assistance (although through Regionally funded programs, most of these fees are covered). At a minimum, deferring the payment of the planning pre-submission consultation fee to the time a complete application is submitted, was cited as a helpful benefit to affordable housing providers given the timing mechanisms of their funding. Based on consultation with various business units in the City, concerns and risks associated with exemptions to planning application and building permit fees were identified, including that:  There is no certainty that applicants will complete all projects and build new affordable units;  It is difficult to predict the timing/amount of future fees exempted, as this is dependent on the development industry. A financial analysis was conducted based on projects from previous years, but there is no certainty that the City would receive the same type of development applications in future years;  It will lead to challenges with balancing City operating budgets as there is no revenue to offset operating costs of core business services;  It may have the effect of increasing the number of applications, which typically require considerable staff resources to review, especially intensification projects as these require extensive community engagement;  It would require a definition of who would be eligible, which could raise issues of fairness with other development proponents; and,  Legal agreements would be required to demonstrate proposals will meet the definition of affordable. Financial Analysis of Exempting Planning Application and Building Permit Fees A sample of past affordable rental housing projects was assessed to determine the potential impact to the City if fees were exempted. Again, the seven affordable housing sites selected for this analysis received funding from the Region of Waterloo and completed planning and building processes between 2007 and 2016. Table 6 shows the total costs for planning application and building permit fees if the sample affordable housing applications were filed under 2017 approved fees. Table 6: Application fees for sample sites (2017 fees applied) Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 Site 6 Site 7 Number of Units 16 21 21 30 6 50 6 Pre-submission $915 $853 $853 $853 $853 $853 $853 Consultation Zone Change Application $10,842 Committee of Adjustment $1,165 $1,165 $1,165 Site Plan Application $4,457 $4,790 $4,790 $5,391 $3,789 $6,726 $3,789 (Planning) Building Permit $17,582 $20,920 $17,080 $43,068 $16,372 $48,397 $5,845 Total per Site $33,796 $27,728 $22,723 $49,312 $22,179 $57,141 $10,487 Total: $223,367 * *Assumes past development trends continue, and that 2017 rates still apply in the future. If the City proceeded with exemptions for planning application and building permit fees, the potential costs would be approximately $225,000 over 10 years, assuming past trends continue and municipal fees do not change. Implementation of Exempting Planning Application and Building Permit Fees Typically, the appropriate implementation tool for exemptions of planning application and building permit fees for all types of affordable housing would be a Community Improvement Plan, under Section 28 of the Planning Act. This process requires extensive work prior to adoption and thus could not be in effect for some time. However, Section 106 of the Municipal Act does not preclude a municipality from providing incentives to Not-For-Profit and charitable organizations building affordable housing (Planning staff’s recommended eligibility criteria). Therefore, a targeted incentive for these groups would not require a CIP process. Planning fees are established under the Municipal Code in Chapter 380 ‘Tariff of Fees – Planning Matters’. Building fees are established under the Municipal Code in Chapter 710 ‘Building Permits and Fees’. A Council Policy could specifically exempt the payment of planning application and building permit fees for Not-For-Profit or charitable affordable housing providers. In order to implement an exemption, additional funding in the range of $25,000 per year would need to be added as part of the 2018 budget process. A Council Policy could be prepared in short order to implement this incentive and refer funding to the 2018 budget process. A discussion question regarding the confirmation of this potential incentive is included within Appendix A. Payment of Development Charges Development charges pay for the necessary infrastructure to support growth. Most affordable rental housing developments typically are in areas with sufficient infrastructure, and for a Not-For-Profit development, represent a significant cost. The benefits and drawbacks of development charge exemptions were discussed in the phase 1 report CSD-15-085, however no specific direction was given with respect to this incentive. Since that time, at least one affordable housing proposal has initiated a request to pay the development charges prior to occupancy permit instead of at the building permit stage. Upon review of the request, it was discovered that over the last 10-15 years there are only a finite number of instances where a development charge payment occurred at a different milestone – and these were all for affordable rental housing sites (typically by Not-For-Profit housing providers). Through further dialogue and consideration, Planning staff believe the establishment of a proactive, consistent, and predictable arrangement would be of meaningful benefit to all Not-For-Profit and charitable affordable rental housing providers (and many have cited as such). As an example, if a 60-unit multiple dwelling on full services was proposed using 2017 rates, the City portion of development charges would be approximately $186,000 and the Regional portion would be approximately $693,000. Paying this cost slightly later in the development process is known to help affordable housing providers bridge their finances. In order to consider this proactive option, there would be several risks that would have to be managed. Mechanics of the incentive, integration with the development process and administrative procedures would also need to be given careful consideration to support an implementing Council Policy, including:  A clear definition of who is eligible;  Preparation of application forms, eligibility criteria, and procedures;  Legal agreements to be executed and registered on title of the property prior to building permit issuance and ensuring that development charges will be paid upon occupancy; and,  Collection penalties or mechanisms, and reporting of outstanding fees. Other municipalities in Ontario have dealt with these challenges and have a development charge-related incentive program in place. Implementation of a formal program would require Planning, Building, Finance and Legal staff to follow through with the preparation of a Council Policy. Given that the Regional portion of development charges is much more significant, and given that the Region has indicated their interest in further considering affordable housing incentives in the near future, there may be greater value in combining local level and upper-tier efforts. A discussion question regarding the potential timing of pursuing this incentive related to the Region is included within Appendix A. ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN: Strategic Priority: Safe and Thriving Neighbourhoods Strategy: 3.4 Facilitate and promote housing developments that provide options for a diversity of lifestyles and household types Strategic Action: NB16 Development Incentives for Affordable Housing – Phase 2 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Financial implications of development incentives for affordable housing are addressed within each applicable section of the report. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: INFORM – This report has been posted to the City’s website with the agenda in advance of the council / committee meeting. REVIEWED BY: Ryan Hagey, Director, Financial Planning, 519-741-2200 ext. 7353 Alicia Italiano, Senior Financial Analyst, 519-741-2200 ext. 7442 ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Michael May, Deputy CAO (Community Services) Attachments: Appendix A – Discussion Questions APPENDIX ‘A’ – DISCUSSION QUESTIONS PROPERTY ‘TAX INCREMENT GRANT’ PROGRAM Question 1a: If the Region of Waterloo authorizes their staff to proceed Max. 20 with a tax incremental grant program, should the City also participate at minutes that time? Question 1b: If so, what geography or locations should be consulted on during any Community Improvement Plan process (city-wide, LRT areas, transit corridor areas, other)? PLANNING APPLICATION FEES AND BUILDING PERMIT FEES Question 2a: Should staff prepare a policy for Council’s consideration to Max. 20 exempt planning application fees and building permit fees for Not-For- minutes Profit and charitable organizations building affordable rental housing and establish a budget of $25,000 for this initiative through the 2018 budget? Question 2b: If so, where in the city should it apply (city-wide, LRT areas, transit corridor areas, other)? TIMING OF DEVELOPMENT CHARGE PAYMENT Question 3a: Should staff prepare a policy for Council’s consideration to Max. 20 make development charges for Not-For-Profit and charitable organizations minutes building affordable rental housing payable prior to occupancy instead of building permit, subject to certain conditions spelled out in an agreement registered on title? Question 3b: Should this occur prior to, or concurrently with, any similar Regional incentive? Question 3c: Where in the city should it apply (city-wide, LRT areas, transit corridor areas, other)?