Discussions

Brandon is proposing a development charge to pay for new roads and pipes as the city expands. The charge for developers would be $7,656 for a single family home and $4,953 per apartment. The charge for industrial and commercial builds would be calculated on a $2.37 per square-foot basis.  
 
http://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/city-of-brandon-eyes-new-development-charges-1.3287211

Another way to tax us. Totally ridiculous. With all the housing assessments way up how can the city even think of taxing us more.

I have no plans on moving, especially into a new development. Our house taxes, school taxes, and every other tax are high enough just where we are. I guess it's the cost of "movin' on up" If you buy in a new development, I guess you have to pay the price.

are we just paying for our roads or expansion in general

Dune said "Another way to tax us. Totally ridiculous. With all the housing assessments way up how can the city even think of taxing us more. "

This would be charged for new development. If the city keeps sucking up the costs of expansion, it gets passed along to the existing tax base.

Good. Winnipeg is having troubles paying for all the expansion and infrastructure out at the edge of the city. I'm glad that Brandon took a lesson and is planning ahead. Suburban developments are expansive to service.

Some of the condo associations already own the street and infrastructure below it and even pay for the snow removal on these streets. If there is another fee tacked on to builds perhaps we should expect something in return other then a larger mortgage payment.

It makes sense to me for the developer to pay some of the costs upfront. If seven grand added to a half million mortgage will break the budget... they shouldn't be buying/building new. Maybe this will start a trend in building inwards toward the city instead of always outwards. This might slow down some of these rip-down and build a fourplex developments from happening in the established neighbourhoods. Nothing makes me more disappointed in seeing single family homes in the 60's neighbourhood(s) getting replaced with these rentals with no yards and crappy parking. Maybe people need to put that seven grand towards the tear-down or renovation costs of that old house sitting on a sixty foot lot in ares like Green Acres. ...Instead of bellyaching how expensive it is to live South(west) and have no schools nearby. You aren't forced to build there. Just saying, that "you-know-who" will snatch it up and build rentals or ugly condos where your kids could be walking to school. And the bonus part is that even with a new build, the city taxes will be cheaper in the old areas. (Maybe that's one of the reasons "you-know-who" is snatching up all those properties) You just need to be on your game to beat that guy out and buy into these 50's, 60's and 70's school zones.  
 
Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

the outgoing City Manager would have had a control on spending like he says then maybe this wouldn't have happened.Brandon is not Winnipeg so we can't compare that City to not keeping up with infrastructure.They have not increased the number of street clearing machines only replaced when necessary at a time when Brandon has pretty much outgrown its borders.That's only one example but all the while increased salaries as we all know among department managers,assistants and so on.  
Is this perhaps the reason the City Manager is leaving town?Before blunders come to the forefront?Why would anyone just up and leave a $206K job.I can guarantee that won't be the salary in the private sector out in B.C.Back in 2010 with all the rain and subsequently all the snow in early 2011 former Brandon Mayor SDH and council saw the dangers of flooding and prepared for it.But with the growth since 1999 when Maple Leaf opened up they did nothing to prepare for expansion.Only expand their salaries.Now it's catch up and they are behind the eight ball big time.

city planning is looking and renewing single family housing inward as well as expansion outward. That is all I am going to say......anybody that reads this can fill in the rest of the blanks! Brandon is a small enough city that we all have our own opinions of the situation in one degree or another. Agree or disagree, it is up to our city planners to come up with the best situation that suits the whole city to sustain the long term growth and maintenance of this city. Not just the best interests of the few.

snowman5 said "It makes sense to me for the developer to pay some of the costs upfront. If seven grand added to a half million mortgage will break the budget... they shouldn't be buying/building new. Maybe this will start a trend in building inwards toward the city instead of always outwards. This might slow down some of these rip-down and build a fourplex developments from happening in the established neighbourhoods. Nothing makes me more disappointed in seeing single family homes in the 60's neighbourhood(s) getting replaced with these rentals with no yards and crappy parking. Maybe people need to put that seven grand towards the tear-down or renovation costs of that old house sitting on a sixty foot lot in ares like Green Acres. ...Instead of bellyaching how expensive it is to live South(west) and have no schools nearby. You aren't forced to build there. Just saying, that "you-know-who" will snatch it up and build rentals or ugly condos where your kids could be walking to school. And the bonus part is that even with a new build, the city taxes will be cheaper in the old areas. (Maybe that's one of the reasons "you-know-who" is snatching up all those properties) You just need to be on your game to beat that guy out and buy into these 50's, 60's and 70's school zones.     Just my opinion, I could be wrong. "

Your opinion is one of truth, and I fully agree with it. Wish more people around here understood . The same "you know who's" creating the most development should have been nailed with these fees years ago. Long before those entire developments went up. Before the overpriced, under built super houses in Brookwod broke ground. And they will be right on top of squashing this initiative, just watch.  
 
These guys are furious they have to leave room in these areas for school or public development as it is, you know as soon as they can guarantee the province won't make them release that held area for a school build, they will cram in as many condos as they can.  
 
I also hate all the beautiful single family homes being needlessly demolished and infilled with ugly, urban dense and poorly build junk homes.  
 
I think the city is too late to have this be effective unfortunately. I also think that due to the old boys club still running this town, this won't see the light of day.....sad really, they missed the boat -the Brookwod area alone should have contributed over 3milion towards inafstructre, but the rest of the city is now forced to cover all that extra. As said, 7000 on these huge mortgages would be nothing.

In order to justify this tax on new construction, we need to know the facts.  
 
Is this proposed tax on new developments only or on all new construction (including infill)? This answer may change some arguments above about infill vs new developments.  
 
When the developer is installing water, sewer, power, street lighting, curbs, sidewalks and paving into a new development, who pays for the materials and labour? If it's the developer already, what is the proposed tax going towards?  
 
We also need to know who owns the infrastructure after they are installed (City, Condo Corp, or Third parts). In the case of most condo corps, the roads and services underneath are owned by and maintained by the condo corp or a 3rd party.  
 
We've had a mayor in the past that increased taxes for infrastructure only to see minimal reinvestment in infrastructure. What assurances would be in place from council that this new tax revenue would stay out of general coffers (for labour) and stay to pay for infrastructure as proposed?  
 
Would the value of the proposed tax decrease as the infrastructure needs of the City start to be met?

But I don't think the city pays for the Streets, curbs, sewer, etc...that's already paid by the developer...now I admit I have no clue if that's true but I have a buddy who trenches and he says it ain't the city paying for it. So you argue all those houses mean more labour for snow removal, water treatment etc? Well I pay $6800 and my house isn't the biggest in Brookwood. So I would argue I pay for your snow removal. 2 points about Urban renewal...first, you have to buy the house for $250,000 just to tear it down at additional cost and then build a new home...or you just buy a lot for $120,000 and build a new home in a nice area surrounded by other nice homes that won't make selling your $400,000 dollar investment impossible. Second, does the fee not apply to ALL new builds? so aren't you still paying the fees even if you build in downtown/core area?