The city is sticking to its guns in asking the developer behind the fourth phase of the River Mill subdivision on Speedsville Road to help alleviate the city's affordable housing deficit.
As per the city's official plan, developers are required to commit to giving a $500 per-unit donation to the affordable housing fund prior to registering the plan of subdivision, or commit to providing 20 affordable units for a period of at least 20 years.
The fourth phase plan will add more than 2,000 units to the city's housing stock and includes a mix of housing types and retail space, a block for a new Catholic elementary school, a road network, green spaces, including a five acre park and 4.6 kilometres of trails.
City planning staff recommended the development go ahead, but the main debate stalling council's decision Tuesday came after the consultant expressed concern over the city's requirement for affordable housing.
River Mill Development Corp. wanted the requirement removed as a condition of approval.
"There were concerns from the owner in terms of the impact it would have on the financial feasibility," said Edward John, a consultant for the developer. He said based on the magnitude of costs that would be borne by the developer it would likely be spread to the end user, arguably making homes in the subdivision less affordable for others.
That point stuck with Coun. Helen Shwery who said she'd rather see more housing built and worried the city's condition around affordable housing could stall the project.
She also referred to a letter in the meeting agenda package from the developer's lawyer, Fogler, Rubinoff LLP.
It claims a requirement to build affordable housing or offer cash in lieu is not a legal requirement according to the Planning Act. The letter also claims it's not an appropriate condition and that affordable housing requirements should only be applicable to major transit station areas.
Deputy manager Hardy Bromberg, however, said it's the city's goal to provide affordable housing and the city has the authority to require those contributions.
"We're very confident that complies then with our city's official plan," he said.
Coun. Ross Earnshaw agreed. The retired lawyer told council that letters from lawyers like the one in question are typically used as scare tactics and often don't stand up to the scrutiny of the court.
Coun. Mike Devine said he would much prefer the developer be asked to contribute $500 per unit, which based on the unit-count projection would work out to about $1 million to the fund.
Either condition would meet the requirement of the city's official plan, but by choosing one over the other it would be a change to what was proposed in the motion, Bromberg said.
The typical negotiated duration developers are asked to offer affordable units is 20 years or more.
Devine questioned the equivalency of those conditions.
"There's something totally wrong with that math," he said.
He then tabled an amendment to staff's recommendation asking for the cash instead. That motion failed in a tie vote.
Bromberg later explained the condition is not equivalent at net present value and the greater benefit to the community comes from built, affordable units.
Money in the affordable housing fund, however, could be used to provide affordable housing on a permanent basis, he said.
"It's very difficult to assess that net present value today," he said.
Coun. Sheri Roberts said after crunching the numbers, using the definition of affordable housing set at 80 per cent of market rate for a period of 20 years, it appears the financial benefit to the community would far outweigh the money the city would get up front on a per-unit rate.
But she said she'd support either knowing the developer has a choice.
Roberts also recommended telling this developer the city is asking new developers for $1,000 per unit, "so I think at this point $500 might be a bit of a bargain."
"We could also ask for a $1,000 a unit of this developer," Mayor Jan Liggett said with a smile. "I'm just saying. I'm just saying. As shivers go down the back of the consultant over there."
She and Devine later voted against the motion supporting the zoning and official plan amendments and the recommended contribution to affordable housing.