Report questions data in proposal

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 21/09/2016 (3054 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Much of the financial information used to support city hall’s argument for development fees is exaggerated or not found in any published civic document, a report commissioned by the local residential development industry concluded.

An analysis carried out by consulting firm MNP said the data city hall used is problematic for two reasons: it includes projects that haven’t been approved by council and whose budgets are greater than previously reported, and projects that have already been completed and don’t appear to have a connection with new development.

“There is a significant amount of detail that appears to conflict with published budget and plans,” MNP’s Kathryn Graham told Mayor Brian Bowman and members of his executive policy committee Wednesday.

MNP had been hired by the Manitoba Home Builders Association and the Manitoba branch of the Urban Development Institute to assess the findings of Hemson Consulting, the Toronto firm hired by city hall to study the cost of growth in Winnipeg and whose final report proposed a series of fees for the residential and non-residential development industries to help offset the related infrastructure costs. Those fees were adopted into an administrative report and a draft bylaw.

The industry groups presented the 78-page MNP report to support their argument there are serious problems with the reasoning behind the city’s claim growth hasn’t been paying for growth-related costs.

“There are many instances were costs have been inflated significantly beyond budgeted or planned amounts without any explanation,” the report states.

“There are also costs included that are questionable in their relationship to future development.”

The MNP report found project amounts cited in the Hemson report, which had been provided by civic officials, were higher than published reports. Some examples included:

• The Kenaston widening between Ness and Taylor Avenues — Hemson placed the cost at $259 million, whereas the transportation master plan put the cost at $129 million;

• The Chief Peguis Trail extension from Main Street to Route 90 — Hemson placed the cost at $380 million, where the transportation master plan put the cost at $240 million.

MNP found the costs cited by Hemson for the five additional corridors of the bus rapid transit were so much higher than public civic documents, it appeared Transit was using light rail vehicles instead of diesel buses.

Hemson listed some projects that have yet to be approved by council, including the construction of several recreational facilities and a major expansion to Kil-Cona Park.

“The lack of detailed, approved plans and supporting studies undermines the city’s ability to effectively support growth and severely impedes the ability to attribute costs in a responsible way,” the MNP report states. “There is no supporting detail for the listed projects regarding the purpose of the project or demand created by various populations or economic activity to support the attribution of costs.”

MNP also found fault with the administrative report and the draft bylaw, which were released Sept. 16.

MNP questioned the city’s claim it has the power to impose new fees, stating city officials may be attempting to “subvert the authority of” legislation governing the City of Winnipeg.

MNP also questioned the decision to give the city’s chief financial officer the ultimate authority to determine which infrastructure projects will be funded through the new development fee and said the bylaw simply reproduces the same dollar amounts Hemson had proposed in its Aug. 31 report without establishing a “rationale, basis or principles for the amount.”

While the impact fee is supposed to recover the costs linked to new development, the draft bylaw exempts home renovations and affordable-housing projects from the fees, but the administrative report suggests exemptions may be made for government buildings, public schools and universities and colleges.

MNP said Hemson had recommended the proposed fee amount applied to all projects and argued, MNP said, the fees need to be recalculated to take into account the exemptions.

“If the development is excluded, so must be related costs,” MNP states. “If there were no costs considered associated with the development, the entire underpinning of the analysis is flawed.”

The MNP study also disputed the city’s claim new development hasn’t been paying its share of growth-related costs. The report found new homes built between 2000 and 2015 have added $200 million in new assessment revenue and will add $33 million annually in property taxes.

aldo.santin@freepress.mb.ca