Transcript - Building Fee Increase Deferred - Public Meeting - Building Fee Review

Building Fee Increase Deferred - Public Meeting - Building Fee Review - April 1, 2026

Okay, we will get started. So, good evening and welcome to our public meeting for the building fee review. Uh the purpose of this meeting is to provide the opportunity for input uh on the proposed recommendation and this meeting is being held pursuant to section 7 of the building code act. Uh just for awareness, this meeting is being recorded and we'll upload it to YouTube later. It is not being livereamed right now. Uh just a reminder that there's no final decisions at this time and the recommendations uh being discussed tonight will come forward to council on April 27th. And at this time I will turn it over to Stefan to from Hempson to give his presentation and then we have two registered speakers and if anyone else would like to speak they're welcome to do so at the end as well. So okay um thank you very much. Um I'm Stephan Jeternovich. I'm a partner at Hemsome Consulting. we've been retained by the town uh to undertake two studies. This is so what I'm speaking about this evening is the first of those two and it relates to uh building permit fees. Um and as you heard this is a a sort of a statutory public meeting being held under the building code act which is required prior to town council making any changes to these fees. Uh so just to be clear, these are fees that are imposed to recover the costs of reviewing construction drawings and conduct conducting inspections uh during building construction. Um that the town's responsible for as the administrator of the building code. Um oh, I think I need you to forward the slides, right? Yes. Thank you. Uh so I'm going to I'm going to take about 12 to 13 minutes. Um but I just wanted to summarize the uh cost of the operation, the building code operation that we're looking to um pay for through these fees and the fee revenues associated with the service. Um and then I'll show you the fees the town could impose to recover those costs. uh and we'll see how those fees stack up against the fees that are currently in place and and the fees that other municipalities in the in the region charge as well. Uh and all the information you see on the screen is set out in more detail in a report that was released last month and that reports on the on the on the town's website and then we'll finish up with a bit of Q&A. Uh next slide please. Um, so just the legislative basis for what we're doing here is under the building code act and you can see on the top left there that's what the building code act says that you can impose the fees for. Uh I won't repeat it but basically as I said it's the plans reviews inspections and enforcement during that period of building construction. There's a public process that's required before any changes to these fees are take place. uh and that's what this public meeting is for and notice of the public meeting went out on March the 6th which is more than 21 days in advance and then the information that's required as I say is set out in our report there's no right of appeal of these fees so um unlike the second part of our retainer which will deal with the uh planning and development fees where there is a right of appeal to the land tribunal there's no right of appeal for these fees uh what the what the town is required to do if you look on the right? They're they're uh um under this regulation, it does have to annually report on its costs and the fee revenues it raises in in an annual report. And um you can see that those reports have to distinguish between the direct cost of service, the indirect cost of service, and then any funds that the town has in in its building permit fee reserve fund. And I'll deal with each one of those three components uh in the coming slides. Uh next slide, please. So here I just wanted to lay out what the what the cost of this operation is to Grimby. So we've looked at costs over the next 5 years. Um we don't really want to do this exercise every year. So we're looking at costs over a 5year period. Um and the average annual cost of uh the operation is around $865,000. Right now there are full five full-time staff involved in uh the fee reviews. Uh and given the uh amount of growth that Grimby is planning for, which is quite considerable under the official plan and its infrastructure plans, we estimate that towards the end of that period um an additional staff is going to be required, a permit coordinator. So that's uh been factored into the analysis. Um, and you can see if you look at the pie chart on the left of that $865,000 up, twothirds of that is related to staff salaries. Uh, and then in the gold component, that's that's covering the operating costs of the department, including the vehicles that are used for the inspections. And then the gray and the red components of the pie chart, those are the indirect costs. And so those are costs that are incurred by the corporate departments of the municipality to support the building. um division operation. So that's going to pick up costs like IT support and finance and HR and legal and insurance and that sort of thing. Uh and then finally there's that space component as well which is just sort of keeping the lights on in the offices and that kind of thing. Um and then the black component of the of the pie chart is a provision included in the fees to ensure that the reserve fund uh is maintained uh at an appropriate level. And I'll I'll speak a little bit about that in a second. um um as we get towards the end. Next slide, please. Uh so that's the sort of the cost side of things and then we also sort of need to understand the kinds of revenues that might be raised under the current fee rates to see whether they're sufficient to pay for those costs. And so if you just look at the top line of of figures there, that shows you the revenue that's been raised from building permit fees over the last five years. And I guess you know the the most obvious thing is you can see it goes up and down quite substantially from one year to the next. So you know this this revenue stream um fluctuates with construction cycles and you know what goes on on any given year. Um and you know on average it's about $600,000 that's raised but you know in 2021 uh 2023 they're about 60% below that. So in those years they did not collect enough revenue to pay for the operation and then in 2022 and 2025 in particular the town overcolcted compared to the cost of the operation. And so this is why it has a reserve fund. This is why municipalities need these reserve funds. In years where there's a surplus you sequester the funds in the reserve fund. And in years where you don't have the funds you don't have to draw on the tax levy. You can draw from the reserve fund to pay for the operation. That's sort of the the theory behind having a reserve fund. Uh and then the second uh row of figures there shows you the revenue projection under the current fee rates with the growth that is being planned for moving forward. And uh what you can see is that you know it's fairly it incrementally increases um per year and the reason for that is the is the sort of growth trajectory of the town. Uh recognizing we're in a quite a slow growth period right now. Um and but you know this growth trajectory is certainly consistent with the official plan work that's been done uh and the infrastructure plans of the town. So we haven't sort of departed from that through this exercise. Uh next slide please. Uh so when we compare the two we see that the full cost is $865,000 in this all in current dollars and the average annual revenue under the current fee rates is $727,000. Uh there's a difference there. There's a shortfall there of 138,000 and so uh the town under the building code act could u increase its fees by 19% to to cover that gap. Now I just want to be clear it's under no obligation to do so. Um but without the increase um it will in fact be subsidizing this operation through the tax levy. there is no other funding source to to pay for these kinds of costs. The next slide please. Um so we've done a fairly extensive uh benchmarking exercise really. We want to understand how the the new fee rates and the current fee rates compare to um what other municipalities charge recognizing that you know this is a pretty standardized operation. there's not too much difference between how municipalities um you know conduct these kinds of uh provide these kinds of services. But a couple of things to note before I show you the next slide when you when you see the comparisons. First of all, these comparisons say nothing about the standard of service that you get in any one municipality. So one municipality may have higher fees, but they're they're providing you with a permit twice as quickly. So it doesn't say anything about the standard of service you're getting. And the second thing is that there may be a number of municipalities particularly in Niagara region that have low fees because they're not charging full cost recovery fees either because they haven't done a study in years or or they do it as a matter of policy. But don't assume that other municipalities have low rates because magically they can produce the same service at at a lower cost. It doesn't it it doesn't quite work that way. Uh next slide please. And uh I suppose I I somewhat apologize for having so many figures on one slide, but um again it's a lot more detailed in the report and I I just felt it was important to tell the overall story. We can talk about details if you if there are questions. Um just one final point before I get into some of these figures. Um the town hasn't actually indexed its building permit fees for the last two years. Um which which means that of the 19% increase that we are um we have identified only about 13 or 14% of that is actually related to bridging the gap. About five or six% of that is actually catching up on inflationary increases that have occurred over the last couple of years. So the effective fee increase um to use sort of finance terms is is more like 13 or 14%. Um so what this table does here on the left there is it uh these are classifications under the building code of different building types. um assembly buildings, the sort of large hospital kinds of things. Uh institutional buildings, residential buildings, uh business and personal services, which is offices, mercantile, which be commercial, retail, industrial, and then the alterations and renovations. And the first column of figures are the fees per square foot that are charged for all those different types of building types. And I've bolded what's in I've bolded the residential because that's overwhelmingly the biggest revenue generator. So that's the one that really matters to get to get right. And then the second column of figures is the fees that could be imposed with a 19% increase. And then the third column of figures is the median fee of all the benchmarked municipalities that I showed you in the previous slide. And then we have the minimum fee of all those municipalities and the maximum fee of all those municipalities. So um I guess if we just look at the current fees first of all the current fees are either the lowest of all the benchmark range um or very near the lowest. So if you look at the assembly institutional for example the first two lines they are they are the minimum and the residential is I think second lowest um or if they're not at the lowest or very near the lowest they're at or or below the median. So the key takeaway here is that the town's current fees are quite low in in the in the general context. the full cost recovery fees are very close to the median fees. Um some some some are slightly above, some are slightly below. Um and the office and and commercial retail and the industrial and the alteration and alterations and renovations. So the bottom four rows there are actually a little bit higher than the median. Um so I mean that's comforting to see that um even at full cost recovery uh the town is quite competitive with with other municipalities and and just a reminder that not all other municipalities are charging full cost recovery. Uh next slide please. Uh so just on the reserve fund uh matter um so the the current reserve fund balance and we're talking year-end 2025 here is around $1.5 million. Um because of the slowdown we're currently in the town is actually funding a lot of its operations from that reserve fund. It's being depleted quite at quite a clip to be honest. And uh the 2026 budget um projects a draw of the reserve fund of around $472,000. So you know that reserve fund is projected to be about a million dollars um by the end uh during the 2026 year. Um we think the reserve fund target should be around about 1.5 million 1.4 million actually. Um and that's a fairly standard target for municipalities and particularly in Grimby where where you remember those fluctuations from one year to the next are are quite s substantial uh we would say the minimum you would want is uh a $1.4 million reserve fund. Um and in order to achieve that uh over the next 5 years an annual transfer to the fund from the fee revenues of around $63,000 is required. So that's that 11% in the pie chart earlier that uh that's incorporated in in the 19% increase. Uh next slide please. So I just finished wanted to finish off with a summary of our recommendations in our report. The first recommendation is that we think that this kind of service um lends itself to a fullcost recovery approach. The beneficiaries of this service are very easy to identify. there people who need building permits that are going to benefit their own properties. Uh there's no reason not to impose a full cost recovery fee on on that basis. It's a very equitable approach um unlike perhaps some other fees that the municipality charges. Uh the second would be to introduce for the most part the fees um capture all of the work that's done by the department but there are one or two areas where the services are provided and a fee isn't charged and there are some fees particularly on the enforcement side that that need beefing up. These are very minor changes uh they don't generate a lot of revenue. So um these are very as I say minor recommendations. Third one would be to index the fees annually um because when you don't index you fall behind and if it's persistent it can cause sort of broader financial issues. The fourth uh and the fifth bullet uh are recommendations that relate to the internal corporate financial management of the municipality and they are uh intended to review uh the way the municipality allocates indirect costs to the department and really trying to improve the transparency of that activity and to ensure that um the fees the building permit fees only fund building code related costs. Uh and then finally um to you know make sure you monitor your benchmarks against other municipalities so you always know where you stand. Uh and then in 5 years time you will want to undertake a similar review to make sure things are aligned again. Um thank you very much and and I'm happy to answer I think there are delegations but I'm happy to answer questions in whatever order you you want me to. Sure. Sure. Um, why don't we do the two delegations and then if there's open form questions, we could do that after. Is that okay? That's okay. For sure. Mike, did you want to go first? Left the mic on. Thank you. Good evening. Uh, thank you for the opportunity to speak. Uh my name is Mike Collins Williams, CEO of the West End Homebuilders Association. We represent 300 member companies uh involved in residential construction, renovation, and development across the Hamilton Census Metropolitan Area and we work in collaboration with our friends and colleagues at the Niagara Homebuilders Association. I'm here today representing our members concerns that increasing fees while we're in the wor sharpest downturn in a generation and some would say that this is even worse than the 1990s. Um this increase unfortunately creates conditions to make it even more difficult to recover. We understand the town's need to fund services appropriately, but we have serious questions about the proposed 19% fee increase for building permit fees. It's critical to be clear about who this increase really impacts. Uh our industry has come to a grinding halt. New housing applications have dropped dramatic dramatically, 85% in recent years, according to uh the report being discussed here this evening. And yet, despite the economic conditions and the whopping 85% reduction of these types of applications, the town's proposed a 19% increase in building permit fees. I also want to ground this discussion in who the town is actually collecting fees from by and large because there's a common assumption that building permit fees primarily affect developers and large builders. But the data contained in this report is pointing to something else. We're in the middle of a significant downturn in residential construction. New home applications have fallen off a cliff. In fact, in 2024, there were only 17 new residential applications submitted. So, if new home construction slowed to this extent, then who's applying for the permits? It's not large-scale developments. It's everyday residents. It's the homeowner who wants to build a porch. It's the family putting in a deck. It's somebody uh trying to add a pool or renovate part of their home. So, when we talk about a 19% increase in fees, we need to be very clear. This increase is falling overwhelmingly on regular everyday taxpayers, not developers. and it's happening at a time when affordability is already a major concern to those same residents. Probably a very major concern on an election year. So, let me bring this back to our members. As we mentioned, the construction industry is under significant pressure. We're dealing with tariffs, elevated material and labor cost, development charges, and a steady rise in municipal fees such as being discussed today. The cumulative effect of all of this has made conditions nearly impossible. We're seeing projects being cancelled, units sitting unsold, and we're seeing massive job losses across the sector. The Altus Group has forecasted up to 100,000 job losses in our sector across the GTA and Hamilton areas, which Grimby is a part of, over the next 5 years if the current trends are not reversed. So, introducing a fee increase in this moment doesn't just add costs, it risks prolonging the downturn. It's harder for the industry to recover and puts the town further away from housing goals. There's also a fundamental question of logic here that we think deserves attention. If new residential activity has decreased by approximately 85%, how is it that the cost to administer and enforce building permits have increased to the point where a 19% hike is being proposed? That it's a disconnect that's difficult to reconcile. raises questions about whether current cost assumptions truly reflect today's level of activity and whether staffing and operational models have been or potentially need to be adjusted to match that reality. And let's also be real here. Inspecting and reviewing applications for a deck or a small renovation are a lot less complicated than a condo tower. So, not only has your volume gone down, your complexity has as well. The final point I want to leave with you tonight is about the reserve fund. The report notes that approximately 7% of the building permit fee structure is intended to go towards contributions to the building permit reserve fund. It also confirms the town already has a reserve fund with a balance of about 1.5 million or perhaps at the end of this year down to 1.1. I think that's worth pausing on. We are currently in one of the most challenging periods the residential construction industry has faced in decades. And yet at this exact moment, the proposal here is not only to increase the fees, but to do so in part to add more money to an already substantial reserve fund. That approach is impossible to justify because a reserve fund exists to manage exactly this kind of volatility. It exists to help municipalities navigate downturns without shifting sudden financial pressures onto residents. So instead of increasing fees on residents trying to improve their homes, we'd strongly urge council to consider using the reserve fund to stabilize operations during this downturn. Not as a permanent solution, but as a measured and responsible response to current conditions. The reserve fund should be reviewed as the first option, not the last. So, in closing, we respectfully ask the city to the town to consider the timing and necessity of this fee increase, and we propose to council to consider deferring this decision for one or two years to give the opportunity for this industry to recover, to find efficiencies, and to ensure that it's not just residents trying to make improvements to their home that are paying the bill. During a proposed deferral period, the town can utilize the existing reserve fund to manage the variability and protect residents during a downturn like the one we're experiencing today. I'll say that we remain committed to working collaboratively with the town to support housing supply, economic stability, and sustained growth in the community. Thank you very much. Great. Thanks for your comments. Uh why don't you go next, Chuck? And then we can have a bit more of an informal uh Q&A as longer than Mike. He's long-winded. So anyways, okay. Um sorry, you're going to have to go through this because uh I normally start off with this. Uh for those of you that don't know me, my name is Chuck McShane and I am the proud to serve as the chief executive officer of the Niagara Home Builders Association. I would like to begin by thanking the town of Grimby for this opportunity to speak with you this evening. Our association represents 170 member companies, builders, developers, professional consultants, and service providers who have been the voice of the home building industry and the new home purchaser in the Niagara region for more than 70 years. We're also affiliated with both the Ontario Homebuilders Association and the Canadian Homebuilders Association. As you know, Niagara has been at the forefront of provincial discussions around amalgamation and the need to find cost savings for residents and businesses. At the same time, the home building industry's experienced one of its lowest points in decades. In Grimby, only 172 residential building permits have been issued since 2020. 172. That's in six years. On average, that's 29 per year residential units were built right here in Grimby. The background study projects a decline in revenues from 2025 to 2026 of approximately $200,000 with an average reduction of $130,000 per year over the proposed 5-year period. that's written in your study. This aligns with what we were seeing across the industry, a significant drop in building activity. As a result, companies have had to make the difficult adjustments to their workforce, overhead, and operating budgets. Many employees have been laid off, placed on reduced schedules, or have lost their jobs entirely. This brings me to a key key question. When the town's income and workload are decreasing, why are fees increasing instead of efficiencies being found just as every other business has been forced to do? Your own study indicates that future workloads will be reduced. If that is the case, why has the town not exam examined its overhead costs, staffing levels, operational efficiencies before propose before proposing fee increases at a time when the province is, and I'm a Niagara resident, all right, and have been all my life. At this time, the province is actively exploring amalgamation to reduce red tape and improve costs efficiencies. An unjustified fee increases only strengthens the argument for intervention and forced change here in Niagara. Both the provincial and federal governments are working hard to make housing more affordable. We've heard in the last week the incredible announcements that have been been brought forth and we appreciate their efforts. The question now is does the town of Grimsy want to be part of the housing solution? raising fees at a time when the industry is struggling and without clear justification sends the wrong message to the Minister of Municipal Housing and Affairs and Housing as well as the premier's office. I will close with a recommendation that the town of Grimby follow the example set by the city of Thoro just a couple of weeks ago and pause the proposed fee increase for one year, giving the industry time to regain stability. Thank you for your time and I welcome any questions. Great. Thank you, Chuck. So, um, just for the purposes of, um, the recording, if you have any questions, I just ask that you go up to the mic and then the appropriate either staff member or, um, Stephan from Hemson can respond. Did anyone want to ask any questions? And did anyone in attendance have anything else they'd like to say? Sure. Uh, you can actually just use the mic there if you'd like. Thank you. Um I I'd like to know what are other what are our neighboring municipalities charging for the same service more or less like are are we can can you give me an idea what is Lincoln charge? What does West Lincoln charge? So, I have an idea. I'd like my question answered if that's all right. Thank you. Yes. Um so I'll just give you a few examples counselor and if you want more I I can expand more but um so for a um for a low density so single detached unit uh if you're building a new unit um the town currently charges uh $148 per square foot to do the building permit review. So that's review of the construction plans by the the plans examiners and then inspection of the building at various stages of construction. Um the median I want to know what Lincoln charges and I want to know what West Lincoln charges. Okay, that's um you're going to have to give me then a few seconds just to dig that up. or where I'm going with this are are we have we been undercharging and for that reason not you know not cost recovering uh so um the town of Lincoln charges the same $148 for a single family or a semi- detached or a town home or a duplex or a row. Um, and then for apartments, it charges $151. And Grimby, it's $148 across the board for all all unit types. Um, I don't have West Lincoln. It wasn't on our list, but I have a number of other municipalities in in Niagara region for you. And and I I guess what I'd like to know in terms of the kinds of things that we're that we're building and and maybe Paul you're can answer this. How much of it is sort of new development versus people building fences and pools and what have you like what what's sort of the ratio? So, can I I just want to um I just wanted to just make clear of I know that discussion sorry uh councelor I just want to u mention something that was talked about earlier the 85% um that the builders feel that the construction has been reduced over the last 5 years. I just wanted to um mention that the the numbers from 2016 I think to 2019 that's we were and again this is it wasn't really clear in the report but I just want to make it uh bring it up now was we were issuing building permits for each individual apartment unit. So for example, we had um an apartment building with 207 units. So in 20 2019, I think it was we ended up by um it it appears that the numbers are inflated, but we were issuing individual permits for each unit. So that's how our software was set up. But as of 2020, we're issuing just say there's one building with 150 units. That's one building permit. So, I just uh I know Michael, you you were um kind of focusing on that 85% decrease. So, that's why it it appears there's such a such a wide range of permits from 2015 to 2019 and then the reduction since then. This is being recorded so it has to be fully and and before you jump in if we could just finish answering councelor Vart's question before we jump to a new question. Yeah. Relative to work. I think it's less than 10%. Okay. So yeah, councelor Vardy. So it's um you were asking about new home builds versus the overall volume of work roughly. So, I would say probably around 10% of our volume is is new home builds versus our overall permits. We don't do permits for fences, but we do for um pool enclosures, signs, um additions, renovations, commercial renovations, you know, but um it's probably around 10%. And and if you can help me, Paul, is it how does the workload vary? I mean, does is the workload a lot I'm assuming it would be a lot heavier for an apartment building than it would be a new home. Am I right? Or or how does that kind of work? I just want to understand it better. Okay. So, our currently our minimum fee is $195 and that does um like a deck or a a shed or whatnot. Those are typ those are the typical fees. We we actually we so-called lose money on those because that you know with with the plans review with the inspections there's probably three or four inspections of correspondence. So I there's there's as much work in some of the smaller permits as there is in a residential dwelling for example. So there may be less inspections, but the administrative part of it to to do plans review um it's and a lot of times with homeowners, you know, doing work themselves, they we have to kind of guide them a lot more than if it was a professional uh you know, designer that brought us drawings. Okay. So, I I guess what I'm wondering is 19% is a is a pretty it's a pretty big jump, but you know, if you're telling me your your building permit is roughly $190, $195, uh 20% on top of that is really just another like $40. It's not it's not really that pressing, but why not consider sort of ramping up just sort of do a do an incremental um fee charge sort of, you know, start off with 5% and then kind of bring it up there over the next 5 years. and that might address some of the concerns from our um homebuilders associations. Uh yes, councelor. So I mean certainly you have the option to do that. I mean there's many different ways to skin that cat. Um um but any any phase in of the increase or deferral of the increase as Thorald has done um that's going to have to be subsidized in some part from another funding source and that will be the tax levy. So, our um our goal with this report was to present to council what the full cost recovery fee uh could be. Um recognizing that council's ability to charge whatever it wants and implement things however it wants is um you have full flexibility to do that. Okay. But I'm still I guess I'm still I still wonder a bit if we're comparing apples and oranges here in terms of what other communities are doing. Do they have the same volume? Are they dealing with the same trends? Like I'm I just feel like I don't have quite enough data in in all of this. Counselor, in the appendex of the report, there is a comparison table. So I think that might help you when you're looking at it. um I can send you the link or it'll also be on the um the final council report. So I think that might help a little bit um with comparing ex it has the exact data. So um in theory I agree people should pay what it costs, right? But but I think we also have to recognize we're in a certain economic time. So maybe there's a balance in there. Okay. Uh councelor Freight, go ahead. Do you mind going to a mic though? Just Do you mind going to a mic? Your presentations as well. Um, I've been following this all along and I I know there's a lot of confusion around what these charges are. I want to clarify that first of all, but I also want you guys to respond to the concerns that the home builders associations have. And I think there's seems to be a little bit of a a difference of how you're comparing these these costs and and where they where they end up at the end. Uh, couple of questions. I might be all over the map a bit here. Uh so when it comes to the building department, Paul uh or Sarah, do the cost of running the building department come from the tax levy or does it all come from the fees that are collected for for the for the for the for the various applications? That's can you can you clarify that? So I just want to clarify that first of all. Yeah. I'm just concerned that I just want to make sure that the taxpayer is not paying for this. It's it's the actual user that I'm Yes. Yeah. So, yeah, councelor Frank. So the um the building code statute act is is clear across the province that and I think uh Stfan mentioned it in the report that building departments let's call it across Ontario should not be funded through the tax levy at all. So any any of our expenses, our our you know salaries, our vehicles, everything is is not does not affect the tax levy. So it's it's um it's yeah, it just it doesn't affect the tax levy. Yeah, cuz that was one of my first concerns is is that you know is this going to end up being a taxpayer burden? And it's not. Now I the these um increases these 19% sounds fairly substantial. I know other municipalities are looking at this as well. Uh and there I think in a lot of cases some of them are even more than 19%. Even though I think you said thorough is thorough was decided has decided not to have any increase at all. So if I just want to understand you mentioned Paul that if if it's if it's a condo building or an apartment building with 100 units, 200 units, whatever the case might be. In the past we were charging a fee per unit. Did I get that right? You you would inspect every unit and then there would be a fee attached to every one of them. And now we're doing it a little differently by how we're not we're not inspecting each unit. were doing the whole building all at once. Can you explain that to me a little more? Okay. Sorry, councelor fake. It might not have been clear. So, no, it was it was just the number of permits that we issued. So, we the the whether it's a 10 unit condo or a 200 unit or unit condo. It's it's based on per square footage the entire building. But it was the the number appeared to be um taken as misleading for the number of permits issued. So when it said new residential from 20 2016 to 2019 I think it was those numbers were elevated. We did I think there was four condo buildings over at Grimsby on the lake in that time frame which which amounted to hundreds of units. So, but now since 2020, we issue one permit for a 200 unit apartment building. So, it used to be 200. It used to be 200. So, that's that was nothing to do with um the the cost of the permit. That was just that table simply um was only speaking of the number of new residential permits. We could have clarified that in the report that the um from 2016 to 2019 was per dwelling unit, let's call it, and then from 2020 onward is per permit, per building. So I think I get it. The tax taxes are, you know, taxes and fees get very complicated sometimes. So I guess when I first heard about this 19% increase, my biggest concern was I mean we're looking the timing is just terrible. I mean the the optics are terrible when you look at what's happening um with you know the feds and the province um making it more uh cost effective for more home building which we're all trying to do better and and and encourage more of. uh at a lesser cost because at the end of the day, whatever costs are incurred by home builders is going to end up with the homeowner in the end. I mean, it's not that's where it's going to end up. But I I I just just want to make sure that we're not going to these these numbers these costs are so prohibitive that it's going to discourage building within the town. Uh and I I I don't quite have my head around that yet, but uh let me take let's take an example. Uh let's a 200 condo building. Um, how would you base the cost of of a permit around that? I mean, how does that work? Can you just take me through it? Where how how does where does the cost come from and how much would that be, for example? I mean, okay, so um I'll give two examples. There's the um the condos, uh you know, let's say there's 100 units in one building. Um it's and single family dwellings, let's say they're all calculated the same. It's cost per square foot. Then there's some flat rates such as a plumbing or an occupancy permit built into that. That's standard whether you're a high-rise or a lowrise. Um to put it in perspective, um does it uh hinder builders? Is it going to steer them away? Hinder is not the word I'm looking for. What I'm talking about is the cost. So, uh, as an example, let's say you have a 500 600 square foot condo, you're looking at an additional $200 to $300 per unit. If if you're single family dwelling, they're larger, 2,000 ft², let's say, you're an extra $500 permit. This is just for building permit fees. This is not development charges, park land, any anything else. Just I understand. Okay. But yeah. So you you said it's it's about5 or $600 per condo unit. Uh 500 foot unit. No. Well, $2 to $300 per condo unit because they're usually 500 600 ft². I'm just saying a one bedroom. A small unit. Small. But then the house or obviously a house is much bigger. Typically three bedrooms, four bedrooms, much larger. That's the $500 one. A 3,000 foot house. 2,000 That's a 2,000 foot house. What would that What would that permit be with? With Well, no. I Yeah. So, with the 19% increase, it is an additional 500. So, you're looking at about I think we're at 5,000. Like, let's say um if my memory serves me, it's in the report here. So, this is an example of 20960. So 2,960 to 3,520 um an increase of approximately 560. So that's in Yeah. So So So the builder gets charged that the builder gets charged that Yeah. And that gets passed down in the in the price of that particular condo. Yeah. Or whatever. Yeah. The home sale price they would pick up. They move it into that. Yeah. So that's that's where my concern lies. Okay. Now we're talking about uh increasing the price of a condo which affects the market. So people are going to see another extra charge on top of their I I mean everything gets passed down to the buyer at some point. The the user the buyer is usually where all this cost ends up with. So is that going to be sub substantial enough to to kind of discourage people from buying homes? That's where my concern comes from because you know if the province and the feds are trying to create an environment where we can build more of these homes and this comes into play is that going to start dis discouraging people from buying because now the prices are gone up or going to discourage the home builders from building for that matter that's where my concern lies. I'm trying to find the the balance here where I can it makes sense to me. Is it like is it a one-time charge that gets handed down and that's the end of it or is that charge for a condo for example does it continue forever and ever in a condo fee uh one time fee see where it gets confusing but we need to we need to understand that well it there's a question in there somewhere you're asking will it discourage buyers of a brand new house my personal opinion there's a bigger conversation making housing affordable, which I understand. Would it would $500 turn someone away from a house? I think we're already at a point where these concerns are already existing. Um, you know, just as an example, we're seeing a lot more rens in addition show up because people are not purchasing as much. But yes, I would say adding $500, I don't think is going going to make or break a deal on a house. I don't think it's going to make or break the $900,000 average sale price in Grimby. Um I I I don't believe that would be the case. Um and I think the bigger question is if not that then what do you have a like is do if not that then what do we do? And I want to say that Grimby has we don't have a lavish department currently there's there's four one vacancy. We we run a slim crew. Our numbers are steady despite the 85% decrease. It's a steady Grimsby I think is unique that way where we're situated but there's a steady amount of work and I think we we're not asking for the moon. We're just trying to get current and we're not trying to get expensive. We're just trying to hit the basics. So my question would be if you don't raise it then what? There's suggestions of this deferral. I think Chuck has worked with oral something to that effect. You go back to legislation. I don't you know it's very clear that building permits cannot be funded by the tax levy. So what what is the solution? It is what legislation says and it is we have to be cost recovery to be sustainable not just for home builders but for our industrial builders our commercial our home owners who are on their CPP trying to build a deck like for us to defer in one avenue then we're pushing it on to another sector. So, if not that, then my question is what is I I haven't heard of any solutions yet, but I think I know the solution of cost recovery and I think it works. Yeah, don't get me wrong, I want to do I want to make sure we do the right thing and I don't want to see the town lose money and we we don't want to we want to keep Paul and and because he's doing a great job. But, I mean, yeah. So, so this is just basically a cost recovery only. There's nothing else in there but cost recovery and the cost of running a building department is but mostly staff related I would think. You don't have to get into that. I'm just assuming. Okay. So, yeah. Okay. Um, but now I' I'd like for you guys to respond to some of the questions and concerns they had to ensure we didn't we're all on the same hem sheet here because I I think there seems to be a little bit of a difference in opinion and and and analysis. And I just want to make sure we we we cover that gap in there and and we all walk out of here tonight exactly what it all means so we can make so council can make a decision at the next meeting when Victoria brings the report. Sure. Why don't if I if I may, why don't I suggest that um uh that we have the consultant respond first and then I know Chuck had a couple additional comments and if Mike wants to add anything else, we can do it that way. But perhaps just addressing the delegations first from the consultant would be a good first step. Yeah. I just want to make sure the building industry is and and and what you're suggesting we're both understanding it because we don't want to lose money. There's no question about that. And they don't want us to lose money. And if we become more efficient, that probably could be good for them, too. But I just want to make sure that we're all playing with the same numbers here. Anyway, thank you very much. Uh, okay. Well, thank you, counselor. Um, so I'm going to do my best to respond to the issues you raised and then I will also do my best to respond to the issues raised by um, uh, Mike and Chuck. And forgive me if I miss things. I'm I'm happy to follow up if if I do miss things. So I guess just first of all just to be clear that um, if it wasn't already stated, the fees that we're talking about are there to recover the cost of the service and that's it. Um in our view without the 19% increase a portion of the cost of that service will have to be funded from a nonfee source and that non-fee source will be the property tax levy. Um so you know to the extent that a significant amount of what the building division is doing is dealing with applications to renovate existing homes or build porches or enclosed pools. Um the cost of the permits associated with that kind of work. If someone comes in and wants a permit to build a porch or a deck, um if if at the current fee rates, um a portion of what that permit cost would be funded by their neighbors rather than themselves. So that's sort of the the framework under which we're operating here. Um I just if I may, Matt, just um just just to be clear, the legislation doesn't require the town to have full cost recovery fees. The vast majority of municipalities in Ontario have or strive to have full cost recovery fees for this particular uh operation. Um because it is very much a fee for service kind of thing. It's not like development charges. We've seen in in recent uh and Chuck alluded to it, there's been a lot of federal and provincial initiatives to try and reduce development charges. Uh and I want I don't want to get into that this evening. that is that is a very different kind of um uh charge framework than what we're talking about here because here you're talking about the cost of a individual payer for a service that relates to their property. Um and so I don't I think there is a distinction between the the um when we talk about the impact on affordability. I think there is a distinction with what the province and the federal government are doing with respect to development charges and what municipalities are doing with respect to building permits. There is a very clear distinction between the two. Um notwithstanding that it's this is part of the cost of development. I I understand that. Um, so and I I agree with Matt's point, uh, that, you know, in isolation, a $500 increase in the building permit fee for a for a new single detached home is probably not going to deter somebody from building a single detached home in isolation, but I I recognize that's in combination with a lot of other charges and fees. Um to uh some of Mike's points, I think the issue of um you know the the building permit record data that's been recorded in the past has been addressed. Um just on the question of the reserve fund, um I think it is the case that the town is using the reserve fund right now for the purposes for which it was set up. It is it has been and will continue to be drawing down the reserve fund through this period of time. But the point about it is not that um it needs to use it and it's not using it. It is using it but at a certain time you reach a point where you need to address the fact that it is reaching a point where it needs to be rebuilt again. And particularly when we are heading into a I mean we are in a slowdown right now but we are planning for uh growth. That's one of the reasons why these provincial and federal initiatives are being um rolled out right now is because there is a plan to stimulate housing growth. I mean, every effort we have is to make that happen. So, I don't think we should be assuming that we're going to be in this stagnant situation for the next 5 years. So, we need to be properly staffed. We need to have the right reserve fund amounts to cope with what is coming. Uh because if we don't, then we're not ready for it. And that that's a separate problem. Um and then just in terms of um I suppose Chuck's point which is a a valid one which is why are fees increasing and efficiencies not being found? Uh and I just wanted to make a couple of points. First of all, this is already a very efficient operation in the context of other municipalities. 18% of indirect costs is quite low. So I I just did a study in Markham for planning fees a couple of years ago. their indirect costs are 25%. Which means their sort of corporate overhead is is much higher relative to the actual service than it is here in Grimby. There are no costs being funded in other departments. So when it I mean this is extremely unusual in most places where where I do these studies. A portion of the costs of the planning department or the public works or the fire department is being funded through these fees because those kinds of staff get involved in the permit review process for various reasons which Paul will can explain better than I. Here we are only funding costs of this the full-time staff that are operating in the building division. So it is quite a lean operation. Um and um you know I I think that uh that's reflected in the low fees that are currently charged and the low fees frankly the the low fe the relatively low fees that would be um imposed under a full cost recovery scenario. Um so I I did want to make that point and I guess just the other thing about Thorald is not has not cancelled its fee increase. It is simply um having worked on the study uh as Chuck knows it it is holding a public meeting um and it is it has deferred a decision on an increase uh for for the moment. So I I just just it's semantics but I just wanted to be clear about that. Yeah. Thank you. Mr. McShane, do you want to go up and speak? Go ahead. Is that the right one? Okay. Thanks so much for uh for some of your answers. You know, I I found something that was uh quite interesting or a couple when when I was listening to some answers. Um, so when we're looking at permitting fees on condo buildings and permits for condo buildings, um, does each condo have a separate permit in a building? each condo if it's a condo building. So as as uh we're describing table two page 12 of the report 2015 to 2019 in a condo building we were issuing permits per unit within the condo building. Okay. Okay. So in order to find efficiencies in building permit process we worked with builders. We said do you want to apply for 200 permits at a time or do you want to apply for one permit at a time? Okay, I get it. So, so anyways, to to your answer, currently as of 2020, moving forward, yeah, it's it's one permit unless we phase it. We work with the builder, sometimes it's three because we do foundation, super permit, but each one of them is broke down in the condo corp because each one of those units has to be covered by Terrion. Um, moving forward, each one has to be registered if it's a condo, right? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. All right. Okay. Thank you for that. So the numbers are a little bit skewed there. Um uh second of all the other thing I found uh quite interesting was um when you said that decks, fences, residential landscaping projects are just as much work as a new home on average. Why is the new home paying or the new home purchaser paying for the existing citizen to get their deck built? What? So, so the existing So, the new home purchaser is actually by what you had stated is subsidizing the fees for the person who's building the deck. as you said, it takes just as much work to sometimes to do a deck than it does to do a new home. Um, if you want me to I I think what Paul was saying is um if you look at the volumes um in order to proc the fees are relative to the workload that goes into the plan review, the admin, the inspections, I'd say obviously we're we're seeing a lot more decks. Um uh so depending on where we're at, pool enclosures, things like that, the volume is significantly higher than home builders. As I said earlier, I think the home building permit quantity is less than 10% of our residential uh building permits. So I think it's more how much volume cost uh it's typically our minimum like our minimum permit fee, but it's relative to the individual permit. But I think the workload it seems I I understand where you're going with the subsidy perception. However, it's the volume of permits which appear like it's a larger amount of workload um because of the volume. But I'd say the fees are relative to the workload that goes into the individual permit. Okay, that's not what I understood. So I apologize for that. Um, but it still looks to it still sounds to me that when we're talking full cost recovery, this is what has been stated all night and and every one of these these studies and you and I have had these conversations. I haven't seen anything that provides me with a full cost recovery. nothing that shows me a breakdown of time. What it takes to to to process a permit, what it takes to do such and such and such and such and such and such. And I do believe um when you get a a a permit for a new building uh is part of that uh fire inspection. No. Alo in Grimby the fire department um I know in some municipalities can you hear me? Can you shut me your mic off? Yeah, I can hear him. Oh, okay. Oh, sure. No, the um in some municipalities across Ontario, the fire department does do services for the building department for plans, review, and inspections, but that doesn't that doesn't happen here in Grimby. So, everything stays within the building department. Okay. But does the fire department who so who signs off on the fire approvals and all like the sprinkler systems and all that on and a building permit? Yeah, we we do the building the building department. Once a building is occupied, then it falls under the Ontario fire code. Our fire the fire department does ensure that there's a fire safety plan and that kind of thing in place once a building's occupied. But as far as um inspections, it's solely within the building department. Thank you very much for that. And I'm just going to add one more thing. Um I did meet with the mayor and the CA author last week. um the their permitting fees will not come to the table until either December or January of or December of this year or January of next year. So, well, thank you for the information. You you know more than I do, Chuck. Thank you. Thank you. And that's all I'm asking for. for the town of Grimby to be partners to get more people in the homes, help keep the cost down, help move things forward, and defer this increase for a year. 100 * 19% or 0 * 19% is zero. Let's work together and let's build some homes. Let's increase the property tax revenues. Can't forget about that. Somebody moves into a condo that's paid all the development charges and everything else, they're paying taxes right off the bat. So, let's bump our industry. Let's get everybody to work and let's make Grimby grow and be the town that it can be. So, I would ask that you would defer these charges until uh the beginning of 2026. Thank you. Is there anyone else that wanted to say anything? Any questions? Yeah. You mind if I let him speak and then he can Yeah. Yeah. I'll be 30 seconds. Just just a point of clarity just so it's crystal clear. We understand the building code statute act uh that these are not to be funded from the tax levy. So to be crystal clear and exactly Chuck's point earlier, we are not asking for a penny from the tax levy. There is a significant reserve. We understand that in 2026 you're dipping into the reserve already. Um, we are simply asking for one year or or to Chuck's point earlier, get December, January into 2027 and hopefully we will be on our way out of this and we have eyes wide open that there will likely need to be increases at that time. We're we're asking for a deferral or a pause to get through this period of time. Use the reserve, not one penny from the tax levy. and then we come back to this when hopefully we're on a better path forward. Thanks. I've got a question for you, Mike, or just something to bring to short. We're only ask asking for the deferral of the increase, not asking for a deferral all just Thank you. Thank you. Go ahead, councelor By. Uh, thank you. Excuse me. you know, in some ways it's a little bit disingenuous uh by saying, "Well, we're going to defer it till December or January because basically you're just kicking the the problem down the road to a new council because we've got an election in the fall." And um you know nothing's if this is really cost recovery nothing is going to change between now and you know 7 8 months from now. We're we're there's still going to be a shortfall. So I'm not in favor of pausing just you know speaking out loud but I do think we should do this incrementally. Um that's it. Okay, seeing no other questions, we will end this public meeting. Thank you for coming. Thank you uh to staff and to Hemson for being here. And we appreciate uh the members of the public coming out and speaking as well. So, thank you and have a great rest of your evening.

Full Transcript