Staff report - DCC Bylaw 1517, 2026 for 1st and 2nd reading
Golden, British Columbia
· No. 1517
· summary & facts
This is the exact embedded text of the captured official document.
Snapshot f079999b2e41 · verified 2026-10-26 ·
original document ·
archived snapshot ·
unofficial consolidation, the official version is held by the municipal clerk.
Staff Report
P L A N N I N G AND D E V E L O P M E N T D E P A R T M E N T
To: Council
File:
5260-20-Reports - Development Cost Charges
3900-20 - Bylaw 1517, 2026
From:
Phil Armstrong, Dir. of Planning and Development
Date: 2026-07-21
Subject:
Bylaw No. 1517, 2026 Town of Golden Development Cost Charges
RECOMMENDATION
THAT Council give first and second reading to Bylaw No. 1517, 2026 Town of Golden
Development Cost Charges.
CAO COMMENTS
Having completed a comprehensive analysis of all relevant information, including
stakeholder feedback, additional consideration of options, and project deferment, a bylaw
has now been developed for council consideration with an accompanying technical
background report. The bylaw, according to relevant legislation, is intended to ensure
development-related costs are balanced fairly between new and existing taxpayers and utility
rate payers. I support the recommendation as presented.
BACKGROUND
Below are relevant information and milestones regarding development related infrastructure
and the development cost charge program update.
February 25, 2025 - Urban Systems presented the Standing Committee on Finance (SCOF)
with two DCC scenarios and draft rates for info.1
March 18, 2025 - Council considered a staff report and passed a resolution approving an
application to the Canada Housing Infrastructure Fund (CHIF) Program, to increase the
capacity of 600m of sanitary pipe on 5th Avenue South to the 12th Street Sanitary Lift
Station, at an estimated cost of up to $4,034,000. If successful, 50% of the cost will be funded
by the BC Growing Communities Fund (GCF)2 and 50% will be funded by the CHIF grant.
April 29, 2025 - Urban Systems presented the SCOF with the Development-Related Offsite
Infrastructure Capital Cost Recovery Guide3 explaining additional financing tools for
developers and the Town.
May 6, 2025 - The SCOF re-considered the two DCC scenarios and draft rates and passed a
resolution accepting the proposed DCC Scenario 2 rates and directed staff to proceed with
developer and public consultation.
1 golden.ca/dcc
2 Town of Golden holds in reserve a BC GCF grant of $2,269,670. The funds are intended to "increase the local
housing supply with investments in community infrastructure." This funding is intended to be utilized within five-years
of receipt or by March 31, 2028.
3 golden.ca/business-development/development-services/development-related-infrastructure-funding
2 | P a g e
July 7, 2025 - The Town published a new webpage titled Infrastructure and Growth
Update4 outlining some of the major projects required to align with best engineering practice
for development within the Plans growth horizons. Revisions to the following Master Plans
were also added to the website:
Sanitary Sewer Model and Master Plan (June 2025)
Integrated Water Strategy (May 2025)
October 21, 2025 - Council approved front-ending the 12th St. S Lift Station Pumps and
Pipes Capacity Increase Project and the new connection fees were included in the Sanitary
Sewer Collection Rates and Regulations Bylaw update adopted on December 17, 2025.
December 17, 2025 - New water and sewer rates were introduced including a 25% increase
for water rates and a 15% increase for sewer rates based on non-growth related infrastructure
needs in the next ten years as outlined in the November 18th staff report.
January 19, 2026 - Town staff and Urban Systems hosted a developer stakeholder session
and conducted a community survey on the proposed development cost charge rates.
February 17, 2026 - Council increased the budget for the growth-related Pine Drive Sanitary
Main Alternative Alignment Replacement and directed the project be re-tendered.
March 17, 2026 - Council reviewed a staff report and authorized:
-
Proceeding with detailed design and tendering for the $2,574,600 12th Street Lift
Station Pumps and Pipes and to utilize sewer capital reserve funds and the remaining
available Municipal Finance Authority (MFA) long-term borrowing of
approximately $1,500,000.5
-
Using the Growing Communities Fund grant for Well 7 as the Town received notice
that the CHIF grant for 5th Ave S sewer pipes was unfortunately, unsuccessful. The
existing Growing Communities Fund (GCF) grant, totalling $2,355,099 was
intended to support the required 50% match funding for the 5th Ave S project;
however ground-truthing and model updating will allow this project to occur in
2031, but the GCF funds need to be spent by March 31, 2026.
April 7, 2026 - Council reviewed the What We Heard Report and directed staff to present
four more scenarios deferring $5 and $10 million in the project costs associated with the
Sewage Treatment Plant projects and to present these in both low, medium and high
residential categories as well as a square meter rate for residential.
June 25, 2026 - Council received and considered a presentation by Urban System and
directed staff to prepare a bylaw for first and second reading based on deferring $10 million
in projects cost associated with the Sewage Treatment Plant and pivoting to a square meter
rate for residential.
DISCUSSION
Enclosed with this report is Bylaw No. 1517, 2026 Town of Golden Development Cost Charges and
the DCC Background Report. Following proposed first and second reading, the bylaw will
undergo legal review and be circulated to the Ministry of Finance for preliminary review.
4 golden.ca/infrastructure
5 authorized by Town of Golden Loan Authorization Bylaw No. 1444, 2021.
3 | P a g e
Subsequently, any updates will be brought back to Council for third reading as amended and
then be sent back to the Ministry for final approval.
In conclusion, staff is recommending Council provide readings to this new DCC bylaw to
ensure meaningful funds for growth related infrastructure are collected moving forward.
DECISION FACTORS
Council Context
Strategic Lens (Alignment to OCP, Bylaws, Existing Legislation)
Official Community Plan excerpts:
P.68 Through direct provision by the development industry, and through application of
Development Cost Charges, require new development to provide for the extension of municipal
infrastructure services and to share in the costs of new growth.
Council's 2025-2028 Strategic Plan
Goal:
Sustainable growth to meet community needs.
Objective:
Development Cost Charges (DCC) - Adopt a new DCC bylaw that reflects
updated infrastructure costs and includes stakeholder and public
consultation.
Corporate Lens (Indigenous Relations and Climate Resilience)
N/A
Communication (Scope and Tactical Outputs)
Updates were provided to the development community and residents throughout 2025.
Please refer to the What We Heard Report.
Further updates will be provided to the development community as appropriate.
Financial (All Term Budget Impacts/Asset Management Impacts/Practicality)
It should be noted the Town supports development in many ways not limited to; master
planning, building a new well (#7), front ending the 12th St S lift station pump and pipe
upgrades, and potentially front ending the Pine Drive Alternative Sewer alignment as well.
DCC programs are specifically designed to ensure growth contributes to growth-related
infrastructure, however, we are also required to ensure that existing users contribute an
appropriate municipal portion. In this regard, it is noteworthy that implementation of this
Bylaw will result in the collection of $18.9 million, with $15.4 collected from developers and
a municipal portion of $3.4 million collected from property tax and utility rate payers over
the next 20 years or more, depending on the speed of development.
Administration Context
Administrative (Policy/Procedure Relevancy, Work Plan Impact)
This is a project that is part of the Director team's work plan.
4 | P a g e
OPTIONS
1. Give first and second reading to Bylaw No. 1517, 2026 Town of Golden Development Cost
Charges.
2. Direct staff to prepare additional scenarios.
3. Postpone a decision to a definite or indefinite time.
Respectfully Submitted,
Phil Armstrong MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning and Development
Enclosed
-
Bylaw No. 1517, 2026 Town of Golden Development Cost Charges
-
DCC Background Report
Page 1 of 7
TOWN OF GOLDEN
DEVELOPMENT COST CHARGES
Bylaw No. 1517, 2026
Page 2 of 7
TOWN OF GOLDEN
BYLAW NUMBER 1517, 2026
BYLAW NO. 1517, 2026 TOWN OF GOLDEN DEVELOPMENT COST
CHARGES
This being a Bylaw to impose Development Cost Charges pursuant to the Community Charter and
Local Government Act.
Pursuant to the Community Charter and the Local Government Act, the Council of the Town of
Golden, in open meeting assembled, HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. CITATION
1.1 This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as "Bylaw No. 1517, 2026 Town of Golden
Development Cost Charges".
2. DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS
2.1 For the purposes of this Bylaw, the definitions of words or phrases that are not included in
this section shall have the meaning assigned to them in the Local Government Act or the
Community Charter, as the case may be.
2.2 The headings given to the parts and sections in this bylaw are for convenience and reference
only, and do not form a part of this Bylaw and will not be used for the interpretation of such.
2.3 The Schedule as attached hereto is deemed to be part of and forming this Bylaw.
2.4 Any reference to a statute or regulation refers to an enactment of British Columbia and any
reference to a bylaw refers to a bylaw of the Town of Golden, as amended, revised,
consolidated, or replaced from time to time.
2.5 In this Bylaw:
"Accommodation Room" means one or more habitable rooms within a Commercial
Accommodation building used or intended to be used for sleeping, or sleeping and living
purposes, and do not include associated cooking facilities.
"Accommodation Unit" means one or more habitable rooms within a Commercial
Accommodation building used or intended to be used for sleeping, or sleeping and living
purposes, and include associated cooking facilities.
"Building Permit" means a permit issued by a building official conforming to the Town of
Golden Building Regulation Bylaw.
"Commercial Accommodation" means one or more buildings containing one or more
Accommodation Rooms or Accommodation Units that are used primarily to provide temporary
accommodation for the travelling public or long-term accommodation of staff and any other
spaces providing services on-site to individuals utilizing the Accommodation Units. This use
includes but is not limited to hotels, hostels, motels, lodges, guest cabins, but does not include
short term rental or bed and breakfast.
Page 3 of 7
"Commercial" means a commercial development used or intended to be used for the operation
of any business, including the sale or provision of goods, entertainment, meals or services.
Commercial includes, but is not limited to, the following; office, personal services, restaurants,
retail, financial services, liquor establishments, bakery, animal clinics, animal grooming,
business support services, or similar uses.
"Dwelling Unit(s)" means a self-contained accommodation for one or more persons containing
cooking, eating, living, sleeping, and sanitary facilities used or intended to be used permanently
for a household.
"Dwelling, Multi-unit (multi-unit dwelling)" means a residential building or cluster of
buildings containing three or more Dwelling Units on a Lot.
"Gross Floor Area (GFA)" means the total area of all wholly enclosed floors of each storey in a
building on a Lot, including storeys below grade, measured from the exterior of the main walls
of such buildings. The Gross Floor Area includes unfinished areas such as basements and all
areas giving access such as corridors, hallways, landings, foyers, staircases, and stairwells but
excludes cellars or crawlspaces less than 1.5m in height and areas used by vehicles for parking
and loading.
"Industrial" means an industrial development used or intended to be used for the processing,
fabricating, manufacturing, assembling, storing, transporting, distributing, testing, servicing or
repairing of goods, materials or things, and includes the operation of transportation or shipping
terminals, docks other than those used as marinas for pleasure craft, railways or warehouses, or
similar uses.
"Institutional" means an institutional development used or intended to be used for utility
services, child care, education services, religious assembly, emergency or protective services,
extended care residences, government services, health services, hospital and care services, public
exhibit, assembly halls, entertainment and recreation, or similar uses.
"Lot" means any parcel, block or other area in which land is held or into which it is subdivided
whether under the Land Title Act [RSBC 1996] Chapter 250 or the Strata Property Act [SBC 1998]
Chapter 4.
"Mixed-use Development" means a development that features a mix or integration of different
land uses.
"Mobile Home" means a single or multiple section single detached dwelling built to CSA Z240
standards, in a factory environment, for residential occupancy and intended to be occupied in a
place other than its manufacture but excludes recreational vehicles.
"Residential" means a building that contains Dwelling Unit(s). Residential includes, but is not
limited to, the following residential development types; single detached dwelling, secondary
residential dwelling, detached secondary residential dwelling, duplexes, townhouses, cluster
housing, apartment buildings, and Mobile Home(s).
"Town" means the Town of Golden.
Page 4 of 7
3. DEVELOPMENT COST CHARGES
3.1 Every person who obtains a Building Permit authorizing the construction, alteration or
extension of a building or structure, including a permit authorizing the construction,
alteration or extension of a building that will, after the construction, alteration or extension,
contain fewer than four self-contained Dwelling Units and be put to no other use than the
Residential in those units, shall pay to the Town the development cost charges set out in this
Bylaw.
3.2 Any person required to pay development cost charges must pay the charges prescribed in
Schedule 'A'.
3.3 When charges imposed by this Bylaw are over $50,000, they may be paid by instalments in
accordance with BC Reg. 166/84 to the Local Government Act, being the Development Cost
Charges (Instalments) Regulation.
4. EXEMPTION OF CHARGES
4.1 Despite any other provision of this Bylaw, a development cost charge is not payable if any of
the following apply in relation to a development authorized by a Building Permit:
a. The Building Permit authorizes the construction, alteration or extension of a building or
part of a building that is, or will be, after the construction, alteration or extension,
exempt from taxation under Section 220(1)(h) or 224(2)(f) of the Community Charter;
b. The permit authorizes the construction, alteration, or extension of self-contained
Dwelling Unit(s), where the Gross Floor Area of each Dwelling Unit is no larger than
29 m2, and each Dwelling Unit will be put to no other use than Residential use;
c. The value of work authorized by the Building Permit does not exceed $50,000;
d. The development does not impose new capital cost burdens on the municipality, related
to the particular development cost charge category;
e. The particular development cost charge has previously been paid for the same
development and no new capital cost burdens will be imposed on the municipality
related to that particular development cost charge as a result of further development.
5. CALCULATION OF APPLICABLE CHARGES
5.1 The amount of development cost charges payable in relation to a particular development
shall be calculated using the applicable charges set out in Schedule 'A', based upon the
following:
a. For an application for a Residential Building Permit the charge is calculated based on
the Gross Floor Area for each Dwelling Unit multiplied by the applicable rate per
square metre.
b. If development cost charges have been paid previously at subdivision stage for
Residential use, the owner shall receive a credit for the amount paid per Lot or the
equivalent of one 120m2 Dwelling Unit per Lot, whichever is greater.
Page 5 of 7
c. For an application for a Building Permit to construct Commercial, Industrial, or
Institutional buildings the charge is calculated based on the Gross Floor Area of the
building multiplied by the applicable rate per square metre.
d. When a Building Permit authorizes the alteration, addition, or extension of Residential,
Commercial, Industrial, or Institutional buildings, the charge is calculated based on the
difference in Gross Floor Area between the original building(s) and the building(s) after
the alteration, addition, or extension.
5.2 The amount of development cost charge for Commercial Accommodation uses shall be
calculated as follows:
a. Each Accommodation Room will be charged the Commercial Accommodation
development cost charge per room.
b. Each Accommodation Unit will be charged the same rate as Residential based on the
Gross Floor Area of the unit.
c. For Commercial Accommodation with Accommodation Rooms and Accommodation
Units each room type will be charged according to the applicable development cost
charge outlined in (a) and (b) above and the total development charges payable shall be
the sum of the charges payable for each type.
d. The remaining Gross Floor Area, based on taking the Gross Floor Area of the building
and subtracting the area of the Accommodation Rooms and/or Accommodation Units,
will be charged the Commercial rate.
5.3 The amount of development cost charges payable in relation to Mixed-use Development
shall be calculated separately for each portion of the development, in accordance with
Schedule 'A', based on the mix of uses included in the Building Permit application and the
total development cost charges payable shall be the sum of the charges payable for each type.
5.4 Where a type of development is not specifically identified in Schedule 'A', the amount of
development cost charges to be paid to the Town shall be equal to the development cost
charges that are payable for the most comparable type of development.
5.5 The Parks DCC will be payable by all landuse categories.
6. TIMING OF PAYMENT
6.1 Development cost charges imposed by this Bylaw must be paid to the Town at the time of
approval of a Building Permit authorizing the construction.
7. SEVERABILITY
7.1 Unless otherwise provided in this bylaw, words and phrases used herein have the same
meanings as in the Community Charter as the context and circumstances may require. A
reference to a statute in this bylaw refers to a statute of the Province of British Columbia and
a reference to any statute, regulation, bylaw or other enactment refers to that enactment as it
may be amended or replaced from time to time. In the event that this bylaw is inconsistent
with the Community Charter or other governing statute, the statute prevails. If any portion of
Page 6 of 7
this bylaw is found invalid by a decision of a Court of competent jurisdiction, the invalid
portion is severed without effect on the remaining portions of the bylaw.
8. REPEAL
8.1 The following bylaw and any amendments thereto, are hereby repealed in their entirety:
Town of Golden Development Cost Charge Bylaw No. 1304, 2012.
READ A FIRST TIME THIS
DAY OF
2026
READ A SECOND TIME THIS
DAY OF
2026
MAYOR
CORPORATE OFFICER
Page 7 of 7
BYLAW NO. 1517, 2026
SCHEDULE 'A'
Land Use
Unit of Charge
Transportation
Water
Sewer
Parks
Residential
Per m2 GFA
$20.23
$36.22
$105.60
$2.77
Commercial
Accommodation
Per room
$2,458
$1,970
$5,743
$151
Commercial
Per m2 GFA
$44.25
$16.11
$46.99
$1.23
Industrial
Per m2 GFA
$24.58
$16.11
$46.99
$1.23
Institutional
Per m2 GFA
$60.96
$16.11
$46.99
$1.23
TOWN OF GOLDEN
DEVELOPMENT COST CHARGE BYLAW
NO. 1517, 2026
BACKGROUND REPORT
JULY 14TH, 2026
PREPARED FOR:
TOWN OF GOLDEN
810 9 Avenue South
Golden, BC
V0A 1H0
PREPARED BY:
URBAN SYSTEMS LTD.
Jenn Waite
E: [email protected]
T: 778.370.7223
DATE:
July 8, 2026
FILE:
0404.0258.01
This Background Report is prepared for the sole use of the Town of Golden. No representations of any kind
are made by Urban Systems Ltd. or its employees to any party with whom Urban Systems Ltd. does not
have a contract. Copyright 2026.
Development Cost Charge Bylaw Background Report 2026 | i
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.0
DCC KEY ELEMENTS ............................................................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3
2.1
Context.............................................................................................................................................................................. 3
2.2
Drivers ................................................................................................................................................................................ 3
2.3
Legislative Context .................................................................................................................................................. 4
3.0 DCC CALCULATION METHODOLOGY AND KEY FINDINGS ........................................................................ 5
3.1
Scope of Program ...................................................................................................................................................... 5
3.2
Estimating Growth ................................................................................................................................................... 5
4.0 PROJECT LIST ............................................................................................................................................................................ 10
4.1
Interest on Long-term Debt .............................................................................................................................. 11
5.0 DCC RATES .................................................................................................................................................................................. 12
5.1
Program Costs ........................................................................................................................................................... 12
5.2
Proposed DCC Rates ............................................................................................................................................. 12
6.0 CONSULTATION....................................................................................................................................................................... 13
6.1
Interested Parties Consultation ..................................................................................................................... 13
7.0 POLICY CONSIDERATIONS AND DECISIONS ...................................................................................................... 15
7.1
Bylaw Exemptions................................................................................................................................................... 15
7.2
DCC Waivers and Reductions ......................................................................................................................... 15
7.3
Collection of Charges ............................................................................................................................................ 15
7.4
Collection of DCCs on Redeveloped or Expanded Developments ........................................ 15
7.5
In-Stream Applications ........................................................................................................................................ 16
7.6
Payment by Instalment ....................................................................................................................................... 16
7.7
Continuous Improvement Recommendations .................................................................................. 17
Development Cost Charge Bylaw Background Report 2026 | ii
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: DCC PROGRAMS AND CALCULATIONS
APPENDIX B: WHAT WE HEARD REPORT
APPENDIX C: EXISTING DEVELOPMENT COST CHARGES BYLAW NO. 1304, 2012
APPENDIX D: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT COST CHARGES BYLAW NO. 1517, 2026
TABLES
Table 1: DCC Key Elements ............................................................................................................................................................. 1
Table 2: Land Use Categories and Definitions .................................................................................................................. 6
Table 3: Residential Growth by Dwelling Type (20 years) ......................................................................................... 7
Table 4: Residential Growth in square metres GFA(20 years) ...............................................................................8
Table 5: Non-Residential Growth by Land Use (20 years) .........................................................................................8
Table 6: Equivalency Factor Methodologies ...................................................................................................................... 9
Table 7: Equivalencies ....................................................................................................................................................................... 9
Table 8: DCC Projects Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 10
Table 9: DCC Program Overview and Capital Costs ................................................................................................... 12
Table 10: Proposed DCC Rates .................................................................................................................................................. 12
Development Cost Charge Bylaw Background Report 2026 | 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2025, the Town of Golden (Town) initiated the process of updating their Development Cost Charges
(DCC) Bylaw. The Town 's last major update to the DCC Bylaw was completed in 2012. This update is in
response to changes in legislation, updated master plans, changes in growth patterns, and construction
price increases.
Given the availability of growth information from the Town 's ongoing Official Community Plan update,
information on required projects identified through master plans, assessments, studies, the Town 's 5-
year Financial Plan, and staff discussions, the Town is well positioned to undertake the development of
this DCC Bylaw. The development of this DCC Bylaw consisted of the following elements:
-
Developing residential and non-residential growth estimates;
-
Determining eligible DCC projects, calculating cost estimates, and identifying appropriate benefit
allocation factors;
-
Developing equivalencies to allocate costs fairly across land use types;
-
Identifying land use categories to align with impact on infrastructure and current and future
development trends in the Town; and
-
Incorporating Provincial legislative changes into the Town 's development finance practices.
Note: The material provided in this Background Report is meant for information only. Reference should
be made to Town of Golden Development Cost Charge Bylaw No. 1304, 2012, for the specific DCC rates
until the new DCC Bylaw has been adopted.
Table ES- 1: Proposed DCC Rates
Land Use
Unit of
Charge
Transportation
Water
Sewer
Parks
Proposed
Rate
Residential
per m2
GFA*
$20.23
$36.22
$105.60
$2.77
$164.82
Commercial Accommodation
per
room
$2,458
$1,970
$5,743
$151
$10,322
Commercial
per m2
GFA*
$44.25
$16.11
$46.99
$1.23
$108.58
Industrial
per m2
GFA*
$24.58
$16.11
$46.99
$1.23
$88.91
Institutional
per m2
GFA*
$60.96
$16.11
$46.99
$1.23
$125.29
*GFA = Gross Floor Area
Development Cost Charge Bylaw Background Report 2026 | 1
1.0 DCC KEY ELEMENTS
The Development Cost Charge Best Practices Guide (Best Practices Guide), prepared by the Ministry of
Housing and Municipal Affairs (the Ministry), stipulates key elements that should be considered when
determining DCC rates. Table 1 outlines the key elements, decisions, and supporting rationale used in
this DCC program. The table also indicates whether the approach aligns with the Best Practices Guide.
Table 1: DCC Key Elements
Key Element
2026 DCC
Program
Rationale
Aligns
with Best
Practices
Guide?
Time Horizon
20 Years
- Aligns with key planning documents, recent
infrastructure assessments, and plans
Town -wide or Area-
specific Charge
Town -wide
charge
- All DCC projects are components of Town -
wide infrastructure systems and, therefore
provide a Town -wide benefit
Grant Assistance
No
- No identified DCC projects include grants.
Developer
Contribution
None
- No identified DCC projects include a developer
contribution.
Financing
No
- No identified DCC projects include financing.
Benefit Allocation
31-100%
- For projects where both new and existing
residents will benefit, benefit has been
calculated based on capacity, population, or
rule of thumb.
Municipal Assist
Factor
1%
- A 1% MAF
Development Cost Charge Bylaw Background Report 2026 | 2
Key Element
2026 DCC
Program
Rationale
Aligns
with Best
Practices
Guide?
Units of Charge
Per room,
and per
square metre
gross floor
area
- Per room for Commercial Accommodation
uses. DCCs are levied at time of building
permit when the number of rooms is known.
- Per square metre of gross floor area for
Residential, Commercial, Institutional, and
Industrial uses. DCCs are levied at time of
building permit for these uses when the floor
area is known.
Development Cost Charge Bylaw Background Report 2026 | 3
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 CONTEXT
The Town of Golden's (Town) existing Development Cost Charges Bylaw No. 1304, 2012 was last updated
in 2012.
Since 2012, there has been a shift in development growth patterns within the Town, changes in estimated
growth, and changes to Provincial legislation. The Town has also various infrastructure assessments and
plans, housing needs report, as well as the 5-year Financial Plan. The Town is also undertaking an update
to their current Official Community Plan (OCP). Together, these documents provide new information on
anticipated growth and infrastructure needed to service future development. With this updated
information the Town is therefore in a strong position to update the DCC program and bylaw.
The development of this updated DCC bylaw consists of the following elements:
-
Developing residential and non-residential growth estimates;
-
Determining eligible DCC projects, calculating cost estimates, and identifying appropriate benefit
allocation factors;
-
Reviewing equivalencies to allocate costs fairly across land use types;
-
Identifying land use categories to align with demand for service and the impact on infrastructure
as well as the development trends the Town is experiencing now and into the future; and,
-
Incorporating Provincial legislative changes into the Town 's development finance practices.
The proposed DCC program includes DCC charges for the Town 's transportation, water, sewer, and parks.
In setting the rates, Council has considered all feedback received and the impacts of the program on
development.
Please note that the material provided in this background report is meant for information only.
Reference should be made to the Town of Golden Development Cost Charges Bylaw No. 1304, 2012, for
the current DCC rates until the new bylaw is adopted.
2.2 DRIVERS
Many municipalities across British Columbia (BC) use DCCs as a cost-recovery tool to support municipal
financial sustainability. The advantages of implementing a DCC bylaw include:
-
Clear and consistent rules, which give developers a predictable and transparent framework to
follow.
-
Sustainable funding, which helps the Town collect money to pay for the services and
infrastructure needed as the community grows.
-
Fair cost sharing to ensure that developments benefiting from new infrastructure help pay for
it, following the "growth pays for growth" principle.
-
Transparency, with the Bylaws making it clear how much growth-related infrastructure costs
and how those costs are funded.
Development Cost Charge Bylaw Background Report 2026 | 4
-
Reduced financial risk by allowing the Town to plan and save for future infrastructure, thereby
avoiding large, unexpected expenses.
The DCC update captures current infrastructure costs for capital projects that are driven by growth. The
proposed rates ensures that those who will use and benefit from the services provided by the Town pay
their share of the growth-related costs in a fair and equitable manner.
2.3 LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT
This DCC update aligns with the legislative requirements outlined in Part 14, Division 19 of the Local
Government Act, the Community Charter, and the Best Practices Guide.
This DCC program was also developed to be consistent with the following legislation, plans, and policy
guides:
-
Local Government Act
-
Development Cost Charges Best Practices Guide, Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs
-
Town of Golden Official Community Plan (2008; currently being updated)
-
Town of Golden 2026-2030 Financial Plan
-
Town of Golden Housing Needs Report (2025)
-
Town of Golden building permit data
-
Town of Golden infrastructure plans, including:
o
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan (2025)
o
Integrated Water Strategy (2025)
o
Transportation Plan (2023)
o
Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrades Feasibility Study (Draft)
Development Cost Charge Bylaw Background Report 2026 | 5
3.0 DCC CALCULATION METHODOLOGY AND KEY FINDINGS
This section outlines the technical inputs and analysis used to determine the costs of the DCC program
and the infrastructure required to support future growth:
-
Scope of the program: Establishing whether DCCs will be applied across the entire jurisdiction
or to specific areas, identifying the services eligible for DCC funding, and determining the
planning time frame.
-
Estimating growth: Projecting population and development growth, classifying development
by land use categories, and applying equivalency factors to ensure consistent and fair cost
allocation.
-
Identifying project lists: Listing growth-related capital projects, determining how much each
project benefits new versus existing development, and identifying the portion of costs to be
funded by the Town rather than through DCCs.
These technical components, together with Council's discretion in setting the MAF, are used to calculate
the proposed DCC rates.
3.1 SCOPE OF PROGRAM
JURISDICTION-WIDE VERSUS AREA-SPECIFIC CHARGES
DCCs can be applied on a jurisdiction-wide and/or area-specific basis. Through discussions with staff, it
was determined that the Town would continue to carry forward its Town -wide DCC framework to ensure
alignment between development-related capital costs and the growth expected across the Town.
DCC PROGRAMS
The following services were included in the DCC Bylaw:
-
Transportation
-
Water
-
Sanitary Sewer
-
Parks
All projects in these programs were vetted against the information provided in the LGA and the Best
Practices Guide to ensure eligibility. There is no DCC-eligible drainage, fire facilities, police facilities, or
solid waste and recycling services projects included as part of the Bylaw update.
3.2 ESTIMATING GROWTH
LAND USE CATEGORIES
The proposed DCCs are based on different land use categories that reflect the impact of different built
forms on infrastructure services. The definitions in Table 2 apply to the land use categories used in the
DCC Bylaw.
Development Cost Charge Bylaw Background Report 2026 | 6
Table 2: Land Use Categories and Definitions
Land Use
Inclusions and Definitions
Residential
Means a building that contains dwelling unit(s). Residential
includes, but is not limited to, the following residential development
types; single detached dwelling, secondary residential dwelling,
detached secondary residential dwelling, duplexes, townhouses,
cluster housing, apartment buildings, and mobiles homes.
Commercial Accommodation
Means one or more buildings, containing one or more
Accommodation Rooms or Accommodation Units that are used
primarily to provide temporary accommodation for the travelling
public or long-term accommodation of staff and any other spaces
providing services on-site to individuals utilizing the
accommodation units. This includes but is not limited to hotels,
hostels, motels, lodges, guest cabins, but does not include short
term rental or bed and breakfast.
Commercial
Means a commercial development used or intended to be used for
the operation of any business, including the sale or provision of
goods, entertainment, meals or services. Commercial includes, but
is not limited to, the following: office, personal services, restaurants,
retail, financial services, liquor establishments, bakery, animal clinics,
animal grooming, business support services, or similar uses.
Industrial
Means an industrial development used or intended to be used for
the fabricating, manufacturing, assembling, storing, transporting,
distributing, testing, servicing or repairing of goods, materials or
things, and includes the operation of transportation or shipping
terminals, docks other than those used as marinas for pleasure craft,
railways or warehouses, or similar uses.
Institutional
Means an institutional development used or intended to be used for
utility services, child care, education services, religious assembly,
emergency or protective services, extended care residences,
government services, health services, hospital and care services,
public exhibit, assembly halls, recreation, or similar uses.
Municipalities can structure DCCs to account for the varying impacts that different types of development
have on the demand for capital infrastructure. The current DCC Bylaw charges residential land use types
by development type on a per lot or dwelling unit basis. The current list of land use categories is provided
below:
-
Single Detached Dwelling
-
Single Detached Dwelling (Small Lot)
-
Duplex Residential
-
Triplex Residential
-
Multiple Dwelling and Mobile Home
Due to the changes enacted through Bill 44 and the prioritization of small-scale multi-unit housing and
the change in form for residential dwelling types the Town has decided to convert these residential
categories into one residential category charged on a per square metre basis. Based on the Town's
current growth patterns, multi-family residential developments are the greatest proportion of residential
Development Cost Charge Bylaw Background Report 2026 | 7
development that is forecasted, therefore charging on a per square metre basis best reflects the
anticipated impact of use on the Town's infrastructure systems.
DEVELOPMENT FORECAST
Residential Growth Projections
Residential growth projections were prepared using multiple sources and references, including:
Unit Projections
-
The Town 's Housing Needs Report (2025)
-
Recently completed Infrastructure Master Plans:
o
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan (2025)
o
Integrated Water Strategy (2025)
o
Transportation Plan (2023)
-
BC Stats
-
A combination of historical Town Building Permit data along with information on residential
developments currently in progress
Residential growth projections were determined for the DCC program's 20-year time horizon. Total 20-
year household and population growth are based on BC Stats household and population projections
from the Housing Needs Report.
Residential growth projections by density type for the 20-year time horizon are shown below in Table 3.
Table 3: Residential Growth by Dwelling Type (20 years)
Dwelling Type
Number of New
Units
Low Density Residential (Single-
Detached/Duplex)
90
Medium Density Residential
(Townhouse/Triplex/Fourplex/Mobile
Home)
60
High Density Residential
(Apartment/Detached Suite)
300
Total
450
To facilitate the generation of a per square metre rate charge the number of new units per dwelling type
were converted to anticipated square metres based on average unit sizes for each dwelling type. The
residential growth projections by density type converted to square metres of GFA is shown in Table 4.
Development Cost Charge Bylaw Background Report 2026 | 8
Table 4: Residential Growth in square metres GFA(20 years)
Dwelling Type
Average Unit Size
Square Metres GFA
Low Density Residential (Single-
Detached/Duplex)
185
16,650
Medium Density Residential
(Townhouse/Triplex/Fourplex/Mobile
Home)
110
6,600
High Density Residential
(Apartment/Detached Suite)
80
24,000
Total
-
47,250
Non-Residential Growth Projections
Non-residential growth projections for commercial, industrial, and institutional uses are based on:
-
Recently completed Infrastructure Master Plans:
o
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan (2025)
o
Integrated Water Strategy (2025)
o
Transportation Plan (2023)
-
BC Stats
-
A combination of historical Town Building Permit data along with information on non-
residential developments currently in progress
Growth projections for commercial accommodation, commercial, industrial and institutional uses are
based on the growth utilized in recently completed Infrastructure Master Plans. These numbers were
also supported through Town historical building permit data, input from Town staff, and expected future
development trends.
Non-residential growth projections for the 20-year time horizon used in this DCC update are shown in
Table 5.
Table 5: Non-Residential Growth by Land Use (20 years)
Land Use
New Development
Unit
Commercial
Accommodation
560
room
Commercial
3,000
m2 GFA
Industrial
2,000
m2 GFA
Institutional
800
m2 GFA
Total
5,800
m2 GFA
560
room
Development Cost Charge Bylaw Background Report 2026 | 9
EQUIVALENCIES
Different land uses have different impacts on infrastructure. To reflect these differences, equivalent units
are used to allocate DCC costs across land uses.
The equivalencies used to calculate DCC rates have been reviewed in detail in this update and revised
based on current information to reflect changes in expected relative impact. Statistics Canada Census
Data (2021) was used to inform people per unit assumptions as well as recently completed Master Plans
for ICI. Equivalency methodologies used are include in Table 6 below.
Table 6: Equivalency Factor Methodologies
Water
For residential demand, occupancy rates were used to project demands for water
and sewer services. For non-residential land uses, equivalent populations per
square metre are established.
Sewer
For residential demand, occupancy rates were used to project demands for water
and sewer services. For non-residential land uses, equivalent populations per
square metre are established.
Transportation
For roads projects, the cost of development is distributed based on the trips
generated by each land use. Trip ends are based on the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual.
Parks
Parks improvement equivalents are also based on residential demand, occupancy
rates since increases in parks usage are generally reflective of overall population
growth.
The above methodologies were used to determine the equivalency factors for each land use category
and service, as summarized in Table 7 below.
Table 7: Equivalencies
Land Use
Transportation
(trip rates)
Water
(population)
Sewer
(population)
Parks
(population)
Low Density Residential (Single-
Detached/Duplex)
(per dwelling unit)
1.15
3.30
3.30
3.30
Medium Density Residential
(Townhouse/Triplex/Fourplex/Mobile
Home)
(per dwelling unit)
1.00
2.10
2.10
2.10
High Density Residential
(Apartment/Detached Suite)
(per dwelling unit)
0.75
1.90
1.90
1.90
Commercial Accommodation
(per room)
1.00
1.10
1.10
1.10
Commercial
(per m2 gross floor area)
0.0180
0.0090
0.0090
0.0090
Development Cost Charge Bylaw Background Report 2026 | 10
Land Use
Transportation
(trip rates)
Water
(population)
Sewer
(population)
Parks
(population)
Industrial
(per m2 gross floor area)
0.0100
0.0090
0.0090
0.0090
Institutional
(per m2 gross floor area)
0.0248
0.0090
0.0090
0.0090
4.0 PROJECT LIST
DCC PROJECTS
The proposed projects in this DCC update align the DCC programs to reflect current construction and
material costs and were vetted for eligibility according to the Ministerial requirements for DCCs. Capital
costs for projects are based on information from the existing project lists, new master planning, capacity
modelling, and additional information provided by staff. All costs include contingency and engineering
allowances.
A summary of each program is included below. A complete list of detailed projects, cost estimates, and
rate calculations is provided in Appendix A.
The Town of Golden will own and control all projects in the DCC program.
Table 8: DCC Projects Summary
Transportation
-
Roadway upgrades
-
Active transportation projects
-
Master Plan
Water
-
Booster station Upsizing
-
Well generator
-
Master Plan
Sanitary Sewer
-
Gravity main upsizing
-
WWTP capacity upgrades
-
Master Plan
Parks
-
Master Plan
DETERMINING BENEFIT FACTORS
Project benefit allocations are used to determine to what extent a proposed project benefits future
growth versus existing users and are determined on a project-by-project basis.
Some DCC projects may benefit the population at large, in which case the capital costs (or a portion of
them) should be shared by the entire community. Other projects will only benefit new growth, in which
case the new users benefiting from these services will pay most of the project costs.
The benefit allocation of each DCC eligible project was evaluated on a scale of 31% to 100%. Factors
considered when determining benefit allocations include:
-
Proximity to areas experiencing new growth and /or redevelopment for some active
transportation;
-
Population growth (new vs. existing population); and,
Development Cost Charge Bylaw Background Report 2026 | 11
-
Project triggers and timing.
The benefit factor of each DCC eligible project was evaluated on a scale of 31% to 100% using two
approaches:
1.
Rule of thumb:
o
50% - Benefits both existing development and new growth by adding capacity that
benefits and supports the current and future population of the community.
o
75% - Allocated to projects that primarily benefit growth, but will also support the
existing population (e.g., new projects on primary transportation routes in projected
high-density areas).
o
90% - Allocated to projects that almost exclusively benefit growth (i.e., this project would
not be built without growth).
2.
Technical Analysis: Based on utility modelling and capacity analysis.
4.1 INTEREST ON LONG-TERM DEBT
No interest on long-term debt is included.
Development Cost Charge Bylaw Background Report 2026 | 12
5.0 DCC RATES
DCC rates are determined by applying the key elements, growth projections and equivalencies,
described earlier in this report, to projects that are DCC eligible and expected to be built within the
specified DCC timeframe.
5.1 PROGRAM COSTS
Table 9 below summarize the capital costs, DCC recoverable, and municipal contributions for the
proposed program.
Table 9: DCC Program Overview and Capital Costs
Across the Town -wide DCC program, the total capital costs amount to $18.9M--of those costs, $15.4M
are eligible for recovery through DCCs (i.e., paid by the development community) and $3.4M must be
funded annually through Town revenues (i.e., from general tax revenue or other revenue) over a 20-year
time horizon. This is a key consideration for Council when considering the Town 's financial sustainability
and the costs to the development community and existing taxpayers.
5.2 PROPOSED DCC RATES
A summary of the proposed DCC rates is provided in Table 10.
Table 10: Proposed DCC Rates
Land Use
Unit of
Charge
Transportation
Water
Sewer
Parks
Proposed
Rate
Residential
per m2
GFA*
$20.23
$36.22
$105.60
$2.77
$164.82
Commercial Accommodation
per
room
$2,458
$1,970
$5,743
$151
$10,322
Commercial
per m2
GFA*
$44.25
$16.11
$46.99
$1.23
$108.58
Industrial
per m2
GFA*
$24.58
$16.11
$46.99
$1.23
$88.91
Institutional
per m2
GFA*
$60.96
$16.11
$46.99
$1.23
$125.29
*GFA = Gross Floor Area
Service
Total
Capital Cost
($ Millions)
Benefit
Allocation
Municipal
Assist
Factor
DCC
Recoverable
($ Millions)
Municipal
Contribution
($ Millions)(1)
Transportation
$5.2
31-100%
1%
$2.6
$2.7
Water
$3.9
100%
1%
$3.8
$0.04
Sewer
$9.5
75-100%
1%
$8.8
$0.7
Parks
$0.2
100%
1%
$0.2
$0.002
Total(2)
$18.9
$15.4
$3.4
(1) Includes municipal assist factor and portion allocated to existing development.
(2) Figures may not add due to rounding.
Development Cost Charge Bylaw Background Report 2026 | 13
6.0 CONSULTATION
6.1 INTERESTED PARTIES CONSULTATION
The Town used a multi-channel engagement approach to inform and gather feedback on the proposed
DCC update. The engagement program combined education, online survey, targeted stakeholder
engagement sessions, and opportunity for written submissions. A summary of the engagement process
including responses from stakeholders is summarized in the What We Heard Report, included as
Appendix B.
The Town established an online DCC project webpage and issued public notices on significant points of
the project. The webpage included information regarding:
-
The purpose of DCCs and frequently asked questions;
-
Existing and proposed DCC rates;
-
The project process and timeline;
-
Supporting technical studies and Council reports; and
-
Survey and engagement opportunities.
A public webinar was hosted via Zoom on January 19th, 2026. Targeted invitations were sent to local
developers and development stakeholders. This webinar included an overview of the DCC update
process, presentation of proposed rates, and opportunities for questions. A total of 20 participants
attended the webinar.
The Town conducted an online survey between January 19th and February 2nd, 2026, to gather community
perspectives on growth funding, proposed DCC increases, affordability, and municipal funding options.
In total there were 163 survey responses, 88% of which respondents identified as Town taxpayers and 5%
identified as members of the development community. During this same period the Town accepted
written submissions.
Engagement revealed support for the growth pays for growth principals. Concerns were raised regarding
the magnitude and timing of the DCC increases, potential impacts on housing affordability and
development feasibility. All feedback gathered from the engagement process is included in Appendix B.
The engagement feedback resulted in the following considerations for the DCC update:
-
Consideration of phased implementation
-
Area-specific and/or tiered DCC rate structure
-
Consideration of density and per square metre approaches for DCC charges
-
Program MAF consideration for each program.
The What We Hear Report was presented to Council on April 7th,2026. Per the Best Practices Guide,
Council considered whether the proposed DCCs would:
-
Be excessive in relation to the capital cost of prevailing standards of service;
-
Deter development;
-
Discourage the development of reasonably priced housing or reasonably priced serviced land;
and
-
Discourage development designed to result in a low environmental impact.
Development Cost Charge Bylaw Background Report 2026 | 14
In addition to the above, Council considered all feedback received and directed staff to explore
alternatives to the DCC charges rate types. The proposed DCC rates were then adjusted to a per square
metre charge for residential land uses.
Development Cost Charge Bylaw Background Report 2026 | 15
7.0 POLICY CONSIDERATIONS AND DECISIONS
7.1 BYLAW EXEMPTIONS
The LGA is clear that a DCC cannot be levied if the proposed development does not impose new capital
cost burdens on the Town, or if a DCC has already been paid in regard to the same development.
However, if further expansion for the same development creates new capital cost burdens or uses up
capacity, the DCCs can be levied on the additional development to capture costs.
The LGA further restricts levying DCCs at the time of building permit issuance if:
-
The building permit is for a place of public worship as per the Community Charter; or
-
The value of the work authorized by the building permit does not exceed $50,000 or a higher
amount as prescribed by bylaw; or
-
Unit size is no larger than 29 sq. m. (or a greater area prescribed by bylaw) and only for residential
use.
As noted in the DCC Bylaw, the Town has chosen not to adjust the exemptions as prescribed in the LGA.
Legislation allows local governments to charge DCCs at building permit on residential developments of
fewer than four self-contained dwelling units, if such a charge is provided for in the local government's
DCC bylaw. Per the proposed DCC Bylaw, the Town will charge DCCs on fewer than four self-contained
dwelling units at building permit.
7.2 DCC WAIVERS AND REDUCTIONS
The LGA provides local governments the discretionary authority to waive or reduce DCCs for certain types
of development to promote affordable housing and development with a low environmental impact. The
Best Practices Guide specifies the DCC program must remain whole after the issuance of any waivers or
reductions. As a result, for any waivers or reductions the Town provides, this same value must be paid to
the DCC reserves from municipal funds, and not be paid for by the rest of the development community.
Waivers and reductions are typically defined in a separate DCC Waivers and Reductions Bylaw, as it does
not need approval by the Inspector of Municipalities. At this time, the Town does not have a waivers and
reductions bylaw in place.
7.3 COLLECTION OF CHARGES
Local governments can choose to collect DCCs at time of subdivision approval or building permit
issuance, whichever comes first. Due to the proposed unit of charge being either number of rooms for
Commercial Accommodation or per square metre for all other uses the Town will collect DCCs at time of
building permit when the number of rooms or floor area will be known.
7.4 COLLECTION OF DCCS ON REDEVELOPED OR EXPANDED DEVELOPMENTS
When an existing building or development undergoes an expansion or redevelopment there is usually a
need for additional DCC related infrastructure. The new developer / builder should pay the applicable
DCCs based on the additional floor area for commercial, industrial, or institutional land uses at the DCC
Development Cost Charge Bylaw Background Report 2026 | 16
rates in the then-current DCC bylaw. The Town will work towards drafting a policy per section 7.7 below
to clarify any nuances to the applicability of DCC collection at redevelopment.
7.5 IN-STREAM APPLICATIONS
Once the new DCC Bylaw has been adopted, the LGA provides special protection from rate increases for
development applications that are submitted prior to the adoption date. There are two ways a developer
can qualify for exclusion from the new DCC rates:
1.
Pursuant to section 511 of the LGA (subdivision).
If the new DCC Bylaw is adopted after a subdivision application is submitted and the applicable
subdivision fee is paid, the new DCC Bylaw has no application to the subdivision for 12 months
after the DCC Bylaw is adopted. As such, if the subdivision is approved during the 12 months' in-
stream period, the previous DCC rates apply. This only applies in cases where DCCs are levied at
subdivision.
OR
2.
Pursuant to section 568 of the LGA (building permits).
The new DCC Bylaw is not applicable to a construction, alteration, or extension if: (a) a building
permit is issued within 12 months of the new DCC Bylaw adoption, AND (b) either a building
permit application, a development permit application or a rezoning application associated with
the construction (defined as "precursor application") is in stream when the new DCC Bylaw is
adopted, and the applicable application fee has been paid. The development authorized by the
building permit must be entirely within the area subject to the precursor application.
The above is a summary of sections 511 and 568 of the LGA and not an interpretation or an explanation of
these sections. Developers are responsible for complying with all applicable laws and bylaws and seeking
legal advice as needed.
Note: One-year in-stream protection is based on the adoption date of the DCC bylaw, not the effective
date.
7.6 PAYMENT BY INSTALMENT
To create more flexibility for the development community, the Province is set to update the existing
regulations regarding the payment of DCCs by instalment.
Effective January 1, 2026, qualified developers and homebuilders paying greater than $50,000 in DCCs
to a local government will be able to:
-
Use on-demand surety bonds province-wide; and,
-
Pay 25% of DCCs at permit approval and pay the remaining 75% at time of occupancy or within
4 years, whichever is earliest.
Information on the current regulations can be found in section 559 of the LGA.
Development Cost Charge Bylaw Background Report 2026 | 17
7.7 CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
Rebates and Credits
The Town should establish a policy to guide staff in the collection of DCCs and the use of DCC credits and
rebates as stipulated in the LGA and referenced in the DCC Best Practice Guide. There may be situation
in which it is not in the best interests of the Town to allow an owner to build DCC services outside their
subdivision or development. Building such services may start or accelerate development in areas where
the Town is not prepared to support, or DCC reserves are not sufficient. Policies for DCC credits, rebates,
and latecomer agreements are often drafted to assist staff in development financing.
DCC Monitoring and Accounting
The Town should enter all the projects contained in the DCC program into a tracking system to monitor
the DCC program. The tracking system would monitor the status of the project from the conceptual
stage through to its final construction. The tracking system would include information about the
estimated costs, the actual construction costs, and the funding sources for the projects. The construction
costs would be informed by the tender prices received, and the land costs based on the actual price of
utility servicing and or other land and improvements required for servicing purposes. The tracking
system would indicate when projects are completed, or partially completed, their actual costs, and would
include new projects that are added to the program.
DCC Reviews
To keep the DCC program as current as possible, the Town may review its program annually. Based on
its annual review, the Town may make minor amendments to the DCC rates. Municipalities may apply a
CPI inflationary factor, as permitted by legislation, annually (to a maximum of four years). Typically, a
major amendment to the DCC program and rates is recommended every three to five years. All DCC
Bylaw amendments require approval from the Ministry, except for CPI adjustments. The Town intends to
review the DCC program annually and undertake major amendments when further infrastructure or
growth information is available or every five years, at a minimum.
Waivers and Reduction Bylaw
Local governments are granted the authority to waive or reduce DCCs for specific eligible
developments. These discretionary waivers and reductions include:
-
Not-for-profit rental housing
-
Supportive living housing
-
For-profit affordable rental housing
The Town may choose to consider establishing a bylaw to waive or reduce charges for certain types of
eligible priority developments.
APPENDIX A
DCC Program and Calculations
DRAFT
TOWN OF GOLDEN
TRANSPORTATION DCC PROGRAM
7/13/2026
Col. (1)
Col. (2)
Col. (3)
Col. (4) = Col. (2) x
Col. (3)
Col. (5)
Col. (6) = Col. (4) -
Col. (5)
Col. (7) = Col. (2) -
Col. (6)
Municipal Assist
Factor
1%
T-001
Selkirk Hill - Bear's Paw
Roadway Upgrades
$3,180,000
50%
$1,590,000
$15,900
$1,574,100
$1,605,900
T-002
Alexander Park Elementary Connector
(#48)
Active Transportation Network
Expansion
$30,800
50%
$15,400
$154
$15,246
$15,554
T-003
Golden Donald Upper Road (#18 from
Lafontaine Road to Granite Drive)
Active Transportation Network
Expansion
$1,350,000
50%
$675,000
$6,750
$668,250
$681,750
T-004
7th Street N MUP Land Acquisition
Active Transportation Network
Expansion
$93,211
31%
$28,895
$289
$28,606
$64,605
T-005
14 Avenue S (#39b)
Active Transportation Network
Expansion
$415,800
31%
$128,898
$1,289
$127,609
$288,191
T-006
Transportation Master Plan - One
Updates
Master Plan
$150,000
100%
$150,000
$1,500
$148,500
$1,500
TOTALS
$5,219,811
$2,588,193
$25,882
$2,562,311
$2,657,500
Notes:
Description
Total Municipal
Responsibility
DCC Project
ID
Project Name
Benefit to New
Development
DCC Recoverable
Benefit Factor
%
Net Cost Estimate (2025$)
(Incl. Funding + Contingency)
Urban Systems Ltd.
U:\Projects_CAL\0404\0258\01\D-Design\D1-Calculations\2026-04-13-Golden-DCC-Scenario 2-Rev 4 Option 2 - Background Report Formatting
DRAFT
TOWN OF GOLDEN
TRANSPORTATION DCC RATE CALCULATION
7/13/2026
Col. (1)
Col. (2)
Col. (3)
Col. (5) = (4) / (a)
Estimated New Development
Unit
Wt. Trip Rate
% Trip Ends
Low Density Residential
90
primary dwelling unit / lot
1.15
104
10%
Medium Density Residential
60
dwelling unit
1.00
60
6%
High Density Residential
300
dwelling unit
0.75
225
22%
Commercial
3,000
m2 gross floor area
0.0180
54
5%
Commercial Accommodation
560
room
1.0000
560
54%
Industrial
2,000
m2 gross floor area
0.0100
20
2%
Institutional
800
m2 gross floor area
0.0248
20
2%
Total Trip Ends
1,042
(a)
100%
Net Transportation DCC Program Recoverable
$2,562,311 (b)
Existing DCC Reserve Monies
$0.00 (c)
Net Amount to be Paid by DCCs
$2,562,311 (d) = (b) - (c)
DCC per Trip End
$2,458.23 (e) = (d) / (a)
DCC Revenue Estimates
Residential
Represents a weighted average of
all residential growth
$20.23 per m2 gross floor area
(e) x Col. (3)
$955,868
Low Density Residential
$2,827.00 per primary dwelling unit / lot
Medium Density Residential
$2,458.00 per dwelling unit
High Density Residential
$1,844.00 per dwelling unit
Commercial
$44.25 per m2 gross floor area
(e) x Col. (3)
$132,750
Commercial Accommodation
$2,458.00 per room
(e) x Col. (3)
$1,376,480
Industrial
$24.58 per m2 gross floor area
(e) x Col. (3)
$49,160
Institutional
$60.96 per m2 gross floor area
(e) x Col. (3)
$48,768
Notes:
A: Traffic Generation Calculation
B: Unit Transportation DCC Calculation
C: Resulting Transportation DCCs
Land Use
Col. (4) = (1) x (3)
Trip Ends
Urban Systems Ltd.
U:\Projects_CAL\0404\0258\01\D-Design\D1-Calculations\2026-04-13-Golden-DCC-Scenario 2-Rev 4 Option 2 - Background Report Formatting
DRAFT
TOWN OF GOLDEN
WATER DCC PROGRAM
7/13/2026
Col. (1)
Col. (2)
Col. (3)
Col. (4) = Col. (2) x Col. (3)
Col. (5)
Col. (6) = Col. (4) - Col. (5)
Col. (7) = Col. (2) - Col. (6)
Municipal Assist Factor
1%
W-001
NE Booster Station Upsize
$3,523,000
100%
$3,523,000
$35,230
$3,487,770
$35,230
W-002
Well 4 Generator
$188,000
100%
$188,000
$1,880
$186,120
$1,880
W-003
Water Master Plan
$175,000
100%
$175,000
$1,750
$173,250
$1,750
TOTALS
$3,886,000
$3,886,000
$38,860
$3,847,140
$38,860
Notes:
Total Municipal
Responsibility
DCC Project
ID
Project Name
Benefit to New Development
DCC Recoverable
Cost Estimate (2025$) (Incl. Contingency)
Benefit Factor %
Urban Systems Ltd.
U:\Projects_CAL\0404\0258\01\D-Design\D1-Calculations\2026-04-13-Golden-DCC-Scenario 2-Rev 4 Option 2 - Background Report Formatting
DRAFT
TOWN OF GOLDEN
WATER DCC RATE CALCULATION
7/13/2026
Col. (1)
Col. (2)
Col. (3)
Col. (5) = (4) / (a)
Estimated New Development
Unit
Person per unit (residential)/ Equivalent
Population/m2 (other land uses)
% Population Equivalent
Low Density Residential
90
primary dwelling unit / lot
3.30
297
18%
Medium Density Residential
60
dwelling unit
2.10
126
8%
High Density Residential
300
dwelling unit
1.90
570
34%
Commercial
3,000
m2 gross floor area
0.0090
27
2%
Commercial Accommodation
560
room
1.1000
616
37%
Industrial
2,000
m2 gross floor area
0.0090
18
1%
Institutional
800
m2 gross floor area
0.0090
7
0%
Total Equivalent Population
1,661
(a)
100%
Net Water DCC Program Recoverable
$3,847,140 (b)
Existing DCC Reserve Monies
$872,710 (c)
Net Amount to be Paid by DCCs
$2,974,430 (d) = (b) - (c)
DCC per Person
$1,790.53 (e) = (d) / (a)
DCC Revenue Estimates
Residential
Represents a weighted average of all
residential growth
$36.22 per m2 gross floor area
(e) x Col. (3)
$1,711,395
Low Density Residential
$5,909.00
per primary dwelling unit / lot
Medium Density Residential
$3,760.00
per dwelling unit
High Density Residential
$3,402.00
per dwelling unit
Commercial
$16.11 per m2 gross floor area
(e) x Col. (3)
$48,330
Commercial Accommodation
$1,970.00 per room
(e) x Col. (3)
$1,103,200
Industrial
$16.11 per m2 gross floor area
(e) x Col. (3)
$32,220
Institutional
$16.11 per m2 gross floor area
(e) x Col. (3)
$12,888
Notes:
C: Resulting Water DCCs
A: Water DCC Calculation
Land Use
Col. (4) = (1) x (3)
Multiple
B: Unit Water DCC Calculation
Urban Systems Ltd.
U:\Projects_CAL\0404\0258\01\D-Design\D1-Calculations\2026-04-13-Golden-DCC-Scenario 2-Rev 4 Option 2 - Background Report Formatting
DRAFT
TOWN OF GOLDEN
SANITARY SEWER DCC PROGRAM
7/13/2026
Col. (1)
Col. (2)
Col. (3)
Col. (4) = Col. (2) x
Col. (3)
Col. (5)
Col. (6) = Col. (4) -
Col. (5)
Col. (7) = Col. (2) -
Col. (6)
Municipal Assist Factor
1%
S-002
5th Ave S (12th Street to 11 Street S)
Gravity Main upsizing
$420,700
90%
$378,630
$3,786
$374,844
$45,856
S-003
5th Ave S (6th Street to 11 Street S)
Gravity Main upsizing
$2,452,000
75%
$1,839,000
$18,390
$1,820,610
$631,390
S-004
WWTP Capacity Upgrades
WWTP Increased Capacity
$6,500,000
100%
$6,500,000
$65,000
$6,435,000
$65,000
S-011
Sanitary Master Plan
Master Plan - One Update
$150,000
100%
$150,000
$1,500
$148,500
$1,500
TOTALS
$9,522,700
$8,867,630
$88,676
$8,778,954
$743,746
Notes:
DCC Project
ID
Project Name
DCC Recoverable
Description
Benefit Factor %
Total Municipal
Responsibility
Benefit to New
Development
Cost Estimate (2025$)
(Incl. Contingency)
Urban Systems Ltd.
U:\Projects_CAL\0404\0258\01\D-Design\D1-Calculations\2026-04-13-Golden-DCC-Scenario 2-Rev 4 Option 2 - Background Report Formatting
DRAFT
TOWN OF GOLDEN
SEWER DCC RATE CALCULATION
7/13/2026
Col. (1)
Col. (2)
Col. (3)
Col. (5) = (4) / (a)
Estimated New Development
Unit
Person per unit (residential)/
Equivalent Population/land area (other
land uses)
% Population Equivalent
Low Density Residential
90
primary dwelling unit / lot
3.30
297
18%
Medium Density Residential
60
dwelling unit
2.10
126
8%
High Density Residential
300
dwelling unit
1.90
570
34%
Commercial
3,000
m2 gross floor area
0.0090
27
2%
Commercial Accommodation
560
room
1.1000
616
37%
Industrial
2,000
m2 gross floor area
0.0090
18
1%
Institutional
800
m2 gross floor area
0.0090
7
0%
Total Equivalent Population
1,661
(a)
100%
Net Sewer DCC Program Recoverable
$8,778,954 (b)
Existing DCC Reserve Monies
$105,528 (c)
Net Amount to be Paid by DCCs
$8,673,426 (d) = (b) - (c)
DCC per Person
$5,221.18 (e) = (d) / (a)
DCC Revenue Estimates
Residential
Represents a weighted average of all
residential growth
$105.60 per m2 gross floor area
(e) x Col. (3)
$4,989,600
Low Density Residential
$17,230.00 per primary dwelling unit / lot
Medium Density Residential
$10,964.00 per dwelling unit
High Density Residential
$9,920.00 per dwelling unit
Commercial
$46.99 per m2 gross floor area
(e) x Col. (3)
$140,970
Commercial Accommodation
$5,743.00 per room
(e) x Col. (3)
$3,216,080
Industrial
$46.99 per m2 gross floor area
(e) x Col. (3)
$93,980
Institutional
$46.99 per m2 gross floor area
(e) x Col. (3)
$37,592
Notes:
C: Resulting Sewer DCCs
A: Sewer DCC Calculation
Land Use
Col. (4) = (1) x (3)
Multiple
B: Unit Sewer DCC Calculation
Urban Systems Ltd.
U:\Projects_CAL\0404\0258\01\D-Design\D1-Calculations\2026-04-13-Golden-DCC-Scenario 2-Rev 4 Option 2 - Background Report Formatting
DRAFT
TONW OF GOLDEN
PARKS DCC PROGRAM
7/13/2026
Col. (1)
Col. (2)
Col. (3)
Col. (4) = Col. (2) x Col. (3)
Col. (5)
Col. (6) = Col. (4) - Col. (5)
Col. (7) = Col. (2) - Col. (6)
Municipal Assist Factor
1%
P-001
Parks Master Plan
$230,000
100%
$230,000
$2,300
$227,700
$2,300
TOTALS
$230,000
$230,000
$2,300
$227,700
$2,300
Notes:
DCC Project ID
Project Name
Benefit Factor %
Benefit to New
Development
DCC Recoverable
Total Municipal
Responsibility
Cost Estimate (2025$) (Incl.
Contingency)
Urban Systems Ltd.
U:\Projects_CAL\0404\0258\01\D-Design\D1-Calculations\2026-04-13-Golden-DCC-Scenario 2-Rev 4 Option 2 - Background Report Formatting
DRAFT
TOWN OF GOLDEN
PARKS DCC RATE CALCULATION
7/13/2026
Col. (1)
Col. (2)
Col. (3)
Col. (5) = (4) / (a)
Estimated New Development
Unit
Person per unit (residential)/ Equivalent
Population/m2 (other land uses)
% Population Equivalent
Low Density Residential
90
primary dwelling unit / lot
3.30
297
18%
Medium Density Residential
60
dwelling unit
2.10
126
8%
High Density Residential
300
dwelling unit
1.90
570
34%
Commercial
3,000
m2 gross floor area
0.0090
27
2%
Commercial Accommodation
560
room
1.1000
616
37%
Industrial
2,000
m2 gross floor area
0.0090
18
1%
Institutional
800
m2 gross floor area
0.0090
7
0%
Total Equivalent Population
1,661
(a)
100%
Net Parks DCC Program Recoverable
$227,700 (b)
Existing DCC Reserve Monies
$0 (c)
Net Amount to be Paid by DCCs
$227,700 (d) = (b) - (c)
DCC per Person
$137.07 (e) = (d) / (a)
DCC Revenue Estimates
Residential
Represents a weighted average of all
residential growth
$2.77 per m2 gross floor area
(e) x Col. (3)
$130,883
Low Density Residential
$452.00 per primary dwelling unit / lot
Medium Density Residential
$288.00 per dwelling unit
High Density Residential
$260.00 per dwelling unit
Commercial
$1.23 per m2 gross floor area
(e) x Col. (3)
$3,690
Commercial Accommodation
$151.00 per room
(e) x Col. (3)
$84,560
Industrial
$1.23 per m2 gross floor area
(e) x Col. (3)
$2,460
Institutional
$1.23 per m2 gross floor area
(e) x Col. (3)
$984
Notes:
C: Resulting Parks DCCs
A: Parks DCC Calculation
Land Use
Col. (4) = (1) x (3)
Multiple
B: Unit Parks DCC Calculation
Urban Systems Ltd.
U:\Projects_CAL\0404\0258\01\D-Design\D1-Calculations\2026-04-13-Golden-DCC-Scenario 2-Rev 4 Option 2 - Background Report Formatting
APPENDIX B
Consultation Materials
APPENDIX B
What We Heard Report
GOLDEN DEVELOPMENT COST
CHARGES - PUBLIC FEEDBACK
WHAT WE HEARD REPORT
March 27, 2026
Suite 101, 134 - 11 Avenue SE, Calgary, AB T2G 0X5 | T: 403.291.1193
This report is prepared for the sole use of Town of Golden. No representations of any kind are
made by Urban Systems Ltd. or its employees to any party with whom Urban Systems Ltd. does
not have a contract. © 2026 URBANSYSTEMS®.
File: 0404.0258.01
Suite 101, 134 - 11 Avenue SE, Calgary, AB T2G 0X5 | T: 403.291.1193
PREPARED FOR:
Town of Golden
810 9 Avenue South
Golden, BC V0A 1H0
GOLDEN DEVELOPMENT COST CHARGES -
PUBLIC FEEDBACK | i
CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 2
1.1
BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................................................... 2
1.2
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ..................................................................................................................................... 3
2.0 OUR APPROACH ............................................................................................................ 3
2.1
HOW WE INFORMED ..................................................................................................................................................... 3
2.2
HOW WE ENGAGED ...................................................................................................................................................... 4
3.0 WHO WE HEARD FROM .................................................................................................. 4
4.0 WHAT WE HEARD .......................................................................................................... 5
4.1
KEY THEMES ......................................................................................................................................................................... 5
4.2
CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................................................................................................ 6
5.0 SURVEY RESULTS ......................................................................................................... 8
6.0 CLOSING .................................................................................................................... 17
APPENDIX A: WEBINAR CHAT & VERBAL QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS ................................ 18
APPENDIX B: VERBATIM COMMENTS FROM TOWN ONLINE SURVEY .................................... 25
APPENDIX C: WRITTEN FEEDBACK ...................................................................................... 44
APPENDIX D: SURVEY CONTENT ......................................................................................... 45
2
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
In September 2024, the Town of Golden (the Town) initiated an update to the current Development Cost
Charges (DCC) Bylaw No. 1304, which was adopted in 2012. The current DCC Bylaw includes rates only
for water and sewer services. The Development Cost Charge Best Practices Guide (Best Practices Guide),
prepared by the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs (the Ministry), recommends updating DCC
programs at minimum every five years to reflect changes in costs and community project needs.
With the recent completion of the Transportation Master Plan, the Integrated Water Strategy, Sanitary
Sewer Master Plan, and Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrades Feasibility Study, the Town now has
updated information about projected growth, servicing requirements, and long-term infrastructure
needs. This new data provides the foundation for updating the DCC Bylaw and ensuring the rates reflect
current conditions and future demands.
In preparing for this update, the Town made it a priority to provide multiple opportunities for education
and engagement with community members, stakeholders, affected parties, and Town staff. This
proactive approach aims to ensure transparency, build shared understanding, and gather meaningful
input to inform the development of the updated DCC rates.
DCC Bylaw Update - Project Timeline
3
1.2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Though not mandatory, public consultation is a vital component of the DCC update process. Legislatively,
the DCC Bylaw updates require Ministry review and approval. This review ensures that the DCC Bylaw
adheres to the legislative requirements and aligns with the Best Practices Guide. Input from community
members, stakeholders, affected parties, and staff helps the Town make well-informed decisions about
future development charges and demonstrate that the Town has considered whether the DCCs:
-
Are excessive,
-
Deter development, or
-
Discourage the construction of reasonably priced housing.
The factors listed above are reviewed by the Inspector when considering approval of a DCC Bylaw.
The input collected through consultation will be carefully evaluated and incorporated into the
formulation of the DCC Bylaw. This approach ensures that decisions accurately represent the interests
and perspectives of all stakeholders while considering the broader needs of the community.
Furthermore, the DCC Bylaw will comply with legislative requirements and be consistent with the Best
Practices Guide.
This What We Heard Report provides a summary of the feedback gathered through engagement for the
DCC Bylaw Update.
2.0 OUR APPROACH
2.1 HOW WE INFORMED
Webpage
The Town's DCC Webpage, which typically outlines information related to the applicability and collection
of DCCs, was updated to reflect the update being undertaken. The webpage outlines the following
information:
-
what DCCs are,
-
the current DCCs,
-
the DCC update process and important dates,
-
documents referenced as part of the update,
-
links to Council presentations and reports,
-
project timeline,
-
details of the engagement events,
-
a link to the survey, and
-
frequently asked questions.
News releases related to the project were also linked to the webpage. The webpage information provided
individuals access to all the information related to and informing the DCC Bylaw update.
4
Notices
Multiple notices were released via the Town's webpage. Following the first Council presentation on March
6th, 2025 a Notice was posted discussing the DCC Bylaw update project. The notice outlined the reason
behind the DCC Bylaw update and provided a high-level project timeline. The second Notice was
released on January 19th, 2026, at the start of the engagement period requesting input on the proposed
DCC rates and provided a link to the survey for responses. Both notices provided links to the Town's DCC
Webpage.
Social Media
The notices were shared to social media on the same dates listed above. The survey was also shared on
social media between January 19th and January 29th, 2026.
Direct Invitations
Invitations to attend the developer information session were sent via email to local developers. A save
the date email was send on January 5th, 2026, and an invitation email was sent on January 15th, 2026, to
stakeholders prior to the event hosted on January 19th, 2026.
2.2 HOW WE ENGAGED
Webinar
A webinar was held via Zoom on January 19th, 2026. The webinar included a presentation describing the
DCC update, outlining the update process, and a Q&A session with Urban Systems and Town staff. There
were 20 webinar participants. Questions and comments provided by webinar participants have been
summarized below. Verbatim questions and comments from the webinar are included in Appendix A. A
recording of the webinar was posted on the Town's webpage as well as a copy of the webinar
presentation.
Survey
An online DCC survey was created by the Town to gather input on key topics and community priorities,
including the DCC update. The survey was available from January 19 to February 2, 2026. A total of 163
surveys were submitted.
Key findings from the survey have been summarized in this report. Verbatim comments from online
survey are included in Appendix B.
Open Feedback Submissions
The Town provided an email for individuals to submit further written feedback. Written feedback was
accepted between January 19 to February 2, 2026. The written feedback is appended to this report in
Appendix C.
3.0 WHO WE HEARD FROM
Through the engagement we heard from a wide range of community members, including residents,
developers, business owners, and people from the surrounding communities within Columbia-Shuswap
Regional District Electoral Area A.
5
4.0 WHAT WE HEARD
Through the several engagement activities described above a good amount of feedback on the DCC
update was collected to help inform the update. All feedback collected across the different engagement
methods has been collated, reviewed and summarized into key themes below.
4.1 KEY THEMES
Across all engagement methods, several key themes were heard:
-
Broad support for updating DCCs to fund growth-related infrastructure.
o
Demand that the Town needs to address water and wastewater capacity and other
growth-related systems, and that DCCs are an appropriate tool in principle.
o
Feedback tailored less around whether to update and more on how to structure and
implement changes.
o
Over 50% of survey respondents agreed that growth should pay for growth.
-
Concern about the scale and abruptness of proposed increases.
o
Need to reevaluate the increase (respondents characterized increase as ~25× or ~2,500%)
and the speed of implementation.
o
Concerns of risk to development feasibility, housing delivery, and competitiveness with
peer communities.
o
Concerns around sharp changes in DCC rates and how it could pause or cancel
near-term projects, reducing both DCC inflows and impact the expansion of the tax base.
o
Demand phase-in periods of DCC rate increases (respondents noted 10-15 years) to avoid
"shock" to projects and allow the market to adjust.
o
Demand a benchmarking/competitive positioning analysis to ensure the Town's DCC
rates remain investable relative to peers
o
40% of survey respondents felt that the magnitude of increase to the DCCs was "much
too high"
-
Preference for more nuanced DCC rate development and design
o
Desire for DCC rate structures that better match cost causation and market realities:
o
Area-specific (benefiting area) DCCs to reflect the Town's mountain-valley conditions
and avoid cross-subsidization from lower-cost areas to higher-cost areas.
o
Tiered rate structures that recognize differences across product types (e.g., SFH /
STR-capable units vs condos vs purpose-built rental).
o
Per-m² or density-sensitive approaches to avoid disproportionately penalizing smaller or
more compact homes.
o
Alignment with "growth pays for growth" while ensuring upgrades not attributable to
growth are funded appropriately by the Town.
-
Discussion related to development feasibility & housing affordability impacts.
o
Respondents generally linked front-loaded DCCs to end-user pricing and rents
(capitalized into unit costs, then financed over mortgages), with specific examples of
townhouse and condo projects rendered marginal or unviable at proposed levels.
o
Concerns noted compounding effects from remote-community construction costs,
interest rates, and longer absorption in smaller markets.
6
o
Demand for targeted assist factors, deferrals, or exemptions (especially for purpose-built
rental).
o
Desire to spread costs over time (e.g., staged recovery, later timing of payment) to reduce
front-end burden on pro formas.
-
Demands to revisit the Municipal Assist Factor (MAF)--especially for sanitary sewer
o
Concerns around using a minimum assist factor across all programs, arguing that
essential, system-wide sewer investments benefit the broader community and may
warrant a higher MAF to reflect shared responsibility.
-
Concern over impact of DCCs on property taxes or utility fees
o
Over 50% of survey respondents would not support any increase to property taxes or
utility fees to reduce the amount of DCCs paid by developers/builders.
o
Approximately 20% of survey respondents supported a small percentage increase.
-
Timing of payment and credits
o
Desire for payment at occupancy rather than at permit/approval.
o
Formalize a DCC credits process where developers construct growth-related
infrastructure the Town would otherwise fund.
o
Provide clear protections for in-stream applications to maintain fairness and trust.
-
Approvals timelines and service standards
o
General concerns on delays and uncertainty in development applications being cost
drivers that compound any DCC increase.
o
Demand the Town to publish service standards for approvals and enable concurrent
processing where feasible.
-
Transparency and engagement quality
o
General concerns about survey framing, perceived bias in cost illustrations, and the need
for more neutral, transparent communications (e.g., reporting how DCC funds are
allocated and spent, neutral survey questions, and clearer cost examples)
-
Broader fiscal and market risk
o
Concerns that if high rates stall development, infrastructure needs would remain while
DCC revenue falls short, increasing the likelihood of reliance on property taxes,
borrowing, or grants.
o
Some concerns around borrowing capacity constraints and the risk of investment
shifting to other communities if development feasibility erodes.
-
Policy coordination with STR and other levers
o
Desire for Council to coordinate DCCs with short-term rental policy and other municipal
levers to avoid unintended impacts on product mix, tourism-driven housing demand,
and economic development.
4.2 CONSIDERATIONS
Overall, there was a broad range of feedback provided by proponents engaged through this process. It is
important that decisions related to the DCC Bylaw update must align with the LGA, the Best Practices
Guide and the Town's infrastructure plans. Due to this, only components of the feedback provided can
be adequately addressed through the DCC Bylaw update process, whereas some feedback will have to
be addressed through other mechanisms or procedure improvements.
The feedback gathered for consideration directly related to the DCC Bylaw update included:
7
-
Phased implementation (multi-year) for DCC rate increases.
-
Area-specific DCC rate structure.
-
considering density- and per-m²-sensitive approaches for DCC charges.
-
Program-by-program MAF review, potentially higher for sanitary sewer.
Other feedback provided that can be addressed through mechanisms outside of the DCC Bylaw update
included:
-
Formalized DCC credits procedure for developer-built, growth-attributable works.
-
Improve development approval service standards and concurrent application processing to
reduce holding costs.
o
Enhanced transparency (neutral engagement materials, DCC fund reporting,
plain-language cost examples).
o
Explore targeted affordability tools (e.g., deferrals or exemptions for purpose-built rental
or missing-middle forms), subject to bylaw authority.
8
5.0 SURVEY RESULTS
The survey included introductory information related to the project background and DCC information
to help ensure the survey respondents were well informed when answering the survey questions. The
survey content in its entirety is included in Appendix D. This section summarizes the results of the
survey questions.
1.
Question: Are you a taxpayer in the Town of Golden? (i.e., do you pay town property taxes either
directly as a property owner, or indirectly as a renter?)
Findings:
Most participants (88%) indicated that they are taxpayers in the Town of Golden. Some
participants (12%) shared that they are not.
Response rate: 163 responded, 0 skipped.
88%
12%
0%
Yes
No
I don't know
9
2.
Question: What is your connection to Golden? Please select all that apply.
Findings:
A strong majority live in the Town of Golden (57%), with notable participation from business
owners (22%) and residents of CSRD Area A (14%). A small share identifies with the development
community (5%).
Response rate: 163 responded, 0 skipped.
Of the 2% of participants that selected 'other', the following themes were identified:
-
Prospective buyers or would like to live in Golden.
-
Former residents with family or business ties but not currently living in town.
-
Landlords for long-term rental properties.
57%
14%
22%
5%
2%
I live in Golden
I live in CSRD Electoral Area A
(ex. Nicholson, Habart, Parson,
Blaeberry, Donald, etc.)
I own a business in Golden
I'm a developer or associated
with the development
community
None of the above (please
specify)
10
3.
Question: Who do you think should pay for the roads, parkland, sewers, and water infrastructure
needed because of growth? Please select the response which most suits your beliefs.
Findings:
The majority of participants (53%) favour the "growth pays for growth" principle that would
have new developments absorb majority of the infrastructure costs determined for service
growth. About one quarter support an equal split of costs. Only 7% of participants felt that existing
taxpayers should pay all costs.
Response rate: 163 responded, 0 skipped.
12% of participants chose to provide additional comments on who should cover service costs, and
the following key themes were identified.
-
Split costs: Many participants indicated the desire for shared costs between taxpayers and
developments highlighting various split, and timing options.
53%
28%
7%
12%
Growth should pay for growth.
New development should pay
for the vast majority of the costs
of infrastructure required to
service growth.
Existing taxpayers and new
development should share
equally in the costs of
infrastructure required to service
growth.
Existing taxpayers should pay for
all of the costs of infrastructure
required to service growth. New
development should not have to
pay a charge per unit to cover
the costs of infrastructure
required to service growth.
Other (please specify)
11
-
Benefit-Based Allocation: Many respondents felt costs should be proportional to who
creates the need and who benefits most from new infrastructure.
-
Historical Under-Charging Concerns: Some noted that past municipal under-charging and
planning decisions contributed to present funding pressures and should be considered.
-
Infrastructure-Type Splits: Several comments suggested splitting responsibilities by
infrastructure type, such as developers covering water/sewer upgrades while roads or parks
are shared.
-
Gradual Implementation: A few respondents recommended phasing in DCC increases to
reduce financial shock.
-
Developer-Pays-All View: Some individuals argued that developers should be fully
responsible for growth-related infrastructure costs.
-
Vacancy-Tax Suggestion: One respondent proposed taxing vacant or derelict buildings as
an additional funding source.
-
Regional Contribution Idea: One comment suggested that Area A or other regional and
tourism beneficiaries should also contribute to infrastructure costs.
-
Different Treatment by Housing Type: Several respondents thought high-density or
community-oriented developments should receive more favourable DCC treatment.
To review the verbatim comments of participants, please refer to Appendix B.
12
4. Question: What do you think about the magnitude of these increases to DCCs?
Contextual information included with question:
Increases in DCCs
Because of increases in costs since 2012, new masterplan information and growth projections,
DCCs are projected to increase, for example:
-
The DCC for a single detached dwelling lot is paid at the subdivision stage and proposed
to increase from $1,410.99 to $34,820.00. An increase of $33,409.01 which is about 3.5% of
the price of a $950,000 home.
-
The DCC for an apartment unit is paid at the building permit stage and is proposed to
increase from $1,157.34 to $23,500. An increase of $22,342.66 which is about 3.7% of the price
of a $600,000 apartment (condo).
DCC costs are paid by the developer or builder.
Findings:
Many participants feel the increases are much too high (40%), or slightly too high (17%), while
about one quarter say they're about right (26%) and a smaller group see them as too low (6%).
Response rate: 145 responded, 18 skipped.
11% of participants chose to provide additional comments on the proposed cost increase, and the
following key themes were identified.
-
Increase Seen as Reasonable or Overdue: Many respondents felt the increase was
appropriate and necessary due to historically low DCCs.
-
Increase Viewed as Too High or Sudden: Others believed the increase was excessively
large or rapid and could discourage development.
-
Affordability Impact Concerns: Many noted that higher DCCs would likely be passed on to
buyers, increasing housing costs and mortgage burdens.
40%
17%
26%
6%
11%
Much too high
Slightly too high
About right
Much too low
I don't know
13
-
Density-Focused Concerns: Some respondents felt higher-density units were being
unfairly impacted, conflicting with affordability goals.
-
Need for Comparators and Context: Several participants requested clearer background
information or comparisons with similar municipalities.
-
Past Planning Shortfalls: A few comments pointed out that inadequate long-term
planning or reserve building contributed to the need for steep increases.
-
Survey Framing Issues: Some respondents felt the question was unclear or misleading,
limiting their ability to assess the increase.
-
Support for Phased-In Increases: A small group advocated for a gradual or staged rollout
to mitigate impacts.
To review the verbatim comments of participants, please refer to Appendix B.
14
5.
Question: Would you be willing to pay higher property taxes or utility fees to reduce the DCCs paid
by developers/builders?
Contextual information included with question:
Increases in DCCs
Because of increases in costs since 2012, new masterplan information and growth projections,
DCCs are projected to increase, for example:
-
The DCC for a single detached dwelling lot is paid at the subdivision stage and proposed
to increase from $1,410.99 to $34,820.00. An increase of $33,409.01 which is about 3.5% of
the price of a $950,000 home.
-
The DCC for an apartment unit is paid at the building permit stage and is proposed to
increase from $1,157.34 to $23,500. An increase of $22,342.66 which is about 3.7% of the price
of a $600,000 apartment (condo).
DCC costs are paid by the developer or builder.
Findings:
A majority of participants would not support any increase (55%). About one quarter would
support a small increase (24%), a smaller share supports any amount (12%), while 3% didn't know.
Response rate: 145 responded, 18 skipped.
Given the opportunity to provide additional comments, 6% of participants chose to share their
thoughts on increasing property taxes or utility fees to decrease developer and builder DCC's, and
the following key themes were identified:
12%
24%
3%
55%
6%
Yes, regardless of the amount
required.
Yes, but only a small
percentage increase. (ex.
around 2%)
I'm not sure
No, I would not support any
increase to property taxes or
utility fees.
Other (please specify)
15
-
Question Clarity Issues: Several respondents said the question felt unclear or misleading,
especially regarding what a "2% increase" represents.
-
Targeted Support for Affordable and High-Density Builds: Some comments supported
reducing DCCs specifically for higher-density or affordable housing.
-
Concern About Hindering Development: One respondent warned that excessive DCCs
could halt development, harming the community.
-
Preference for Very Small Increases: A few respondents indicated that only minimal tax
increases--less than 2%--would be acceptable.
-
Prioritize Existing Infrastructure: One comment suggested tax or fee increases should
primarily target existing infrastructure needs, not subsidize new growth.
To review the verbatim comments of participants, please refer to Appendix B.
6.
Question: Do you think the Town should reallocate funds from existing services (ex. recreation
services, fire protection, etc.) to help increase the municipal assist factor and reduce the DCCs paid
by developers/builders and the final buyers? Noting that reallocating funds from existing service
levels would lower service levels in those areas.
Findings:
A majority of participants (55%) would not support reallocating funds away from existing
services to lower DCCs. Smaller groups support reallocating as much as necessary (19%) or a small
amount (10%), and some are unsure (8%).
Response rate: 145 responded, 18 skipped.
19%
10%
8%
55%
8%
Yes, the Town should
reallocate as much as
necessary to reduce DCCs
significantly.
Yes, but only a small amount
to slightly reduce DCCs
Not sure
No, I would not support any
reallocation of funds.
Other (please specify)
16
8% of participants chose to provide additional comments on the Town reallocating funds from
existing services to increase the municipal assist factor, and the following key themes were
identified:
-
Concerns With Question Framing: Some respondents felt the question set up a false
choice and was emotionally framed.
-
Focus on Affordability and Sustainability: Several comments suggested any municipal
assist should prioritize affordable housing or environmentally beneficial projects.
-
Call for Efficiency and Cost Review: Some participants recommended auditing programs
or improving efficiency before reducing services.
-
Vacancy-Tax Proposal: A few respondents suggested taxing unused or vacant buildings to
generate additional revenue.
-
Protect Essential Services: One respondent stressed that key services, especially fire
protection, should not be reduced for the sake of lowering DCCs.
7.
Question: Do you have any other thoughts on Development Cost Charges and who should pay for
the costs of infrastructure improvements required to serve new growth?
Findings:
71 open comments surfaced several recurring themes spanning who pays, affordability,
implementation pace, and governance/long-term planning. Below are key themes that were
identified:
-
Affordability Risks: Many respondents expressed concern that higher DCCs will worsen
housing affordability as costs are passed on to buyers and renters.
-
Historical Management Challenges: A large group identified long-term under-charging
and planning shortfalls as contributors to the current infrastructure deficit.
-
Preference for Beneficial Development Types: Many participants emphasized supporting
higher-density and affordable housing while scrutinizing growth that does not serve local
needs.
-
Support for Benefit-Based Cost Allocation: Numerous respondents felt DCCs should align
with who benefits from new infrastructure, referencing rational-nexus ideas.
-
Developer-Majority Cost Responsibility: Several respondents reiterated that developers
should pay most growth-related costs, though often alongside a preference for phased
increases.
-
Interest in Phased Implementation: Many comments supported gradual or staged
increases to avoid sudden cost escalation.
-
Need for Alternative Funding Sources: Some participants recommended exploring
options such as vacancy taxes, MRDT allocations, tourism revenue, or provincial/federal
support.
-
Regional Competitiveness: Several respondents stressed the importance of keeping
Golden competitive with communities like Revelstoke, Invermere, Fernie, and Canmore.
-
Protection of Existing Taxpayers: A smaller group indicated that existing residents cannot
absorb further increases due to already high living costs
17
6.0 CLOSING
This report has been prepared for Town Council as part of the consideration of the DCC Bylaw Update.
The findings from this report need to be considered in relation to the standards provided in the LGA and
align with the Best Practices Guide. Council must consider whether the proposed DCCs will:
-
Be excessive in relation to the capital cost of prevailing standards of service;
-
Deter development
-
Discourage the development of reasonably priced housing or reasonably priced serviced
land; and
-
Discourage development designed to result in a low environmental impact.
Overall, the engagement feedback provided that can be directly considered as part of the DCC Bylaw
update process included:
-
Phased implementation (multi-year) for DCC rate increases.
-
Area-specific and/or tiered DCC rate structures
-
considering density- and per-m²-sensitive approaches for DCC charges.
-
Program-by-program MAF review, potentially higher for sanitary sewer.
This "What We Heard Report" will be presented to Council at their upcoming meeting on Tuesday, April
7th, 2026.
18
APPENDIX A:
WEBINAR CHAT & VERBAL
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
19
Webinar Chat Questions And Comments
Response
1)
Asset Renewal does not qualify for DCC money
What happens in the situation where there is an asset renewal that is required and it coincides
with a growth related project that should technically qualify for the use of DCC funding?
2)
Has the impact of the proposed DCC rates been reviewed against the Golden Housing Needs
Assessment?
3)
Allocation of Frontage Fees - is that going to be used for the municipality contribution?
4)
Affordability issues - the town expects developers to pass these fees along in the sales cycle,
but the market dictates what is reasonable. Is the town amenable to phasing in these fees,
similar to how they did with tax raises? It seems counterintuitive to go from $1500 to $30,000+
5)
Is the town willing to decrease wait/response times with these increased fees? It's hard to pay
this much in DCC's on top of the times it takes to get a BP and DP in town
6)
What is the value of the projects in pipeline that are exempt of these fees?
7)
What is the future DCC anticipated recovery on future projects on vacant land of which no
application has been submitted?
8)
Developers should have some clarity, transparency on if a complete building permit is
submitted prior to the deadline to be grandfathered into the old dcc on what a reasonable cut
off should be.
9)
I believe that there is a significant level of ignorance to the fact that a 25x proposed rate
increase is not a guaranteed collectable item. Many projects have not proceeded, due to
numerous factors, including Town requests that put projects outside of financial viability. If the
Town chose to increase DCC's to $100K per lot, a zero is still a zero
10)
For the record, I urge council to phase in with a graduated assist over a 5-year period.
11)
10 year*
12)
20 year
20
Webinar Verbal Questions And Comments
Response
1)
Understanding that density is more favorable for residential development within the town of
Brooklyn, is there a reason why you went from a per dwelling unit instead of a per square meter
cost charge for residential. I'll put a little bit of context to this is that we're proposing a 143
dwelling unit apartment complex and that will put my DCCs at $4 million. And that would be,
you know, was it 10% of the whole entire DCC contribution or requirements? So with a lower
square footage or a square meter cost charge that encourages developers to have more efficient
apartment buildings or townhouses and whatnot. So I'll leave that to council. With commercial
accommodations, we're at $17,806. So we're proposing 180 room hotel, and that's $3 million or $3
million plus million in DCCs.
2)
As we head into the new year and the frontage fees are going to be gathered by the town are
you looking to reallocate those frontage fees towards your municipality sorry municipality
contribution or is that going to be used in kind for additional projects that are needed
throughout the community?
3)
Between your sidewalks, water, sewer, like it's capturing, you know, there is overlap between the
two, which is kind of what the majority of the needs for the community are. So my question is, is
100% of those frontage fees going to go towards this? Or is that going to be, hey, we're going to
do our 1% or whatever that contribution ends up being out of those funds? Or is it going to be
going towards, you know, hey, the broader spectrum of, hey, we collected this from DCCs, the
DCCs go directly toward this?
4)
Is the town willing to phase this in, like it seems excessive going from, you know, and I heard
councils say this, when it comes to the taxpayers, you guys are willing to phase in, you know,
increasing taxes over a certain period of time is is there any amenability from the town to say
okay this is where we're going to be in the next three to five years as opposed to hey we're
adopting this in one year unless you have in-stream protected you're paying thirty thousand
dollars like we are your taxpayers too at the end of the day and it seems that a lot of
consideration is given to municipal residents and consideration for their pocketbook but that
same kind of approach isn't being taken with us
5)
To add to that comment you know I know that the general consensus is that as developers you
know we're going to be passing these fees along to our purchasers at the end of the day but you
know [Name] can tell you this [Name] can tell you this everybody else in this room that's a
developer you know [Name] it's pretty hard to get $35,000 extra given the cost of building in
Golden. So it's not necessarily a cost that you're passing on to your end purchaser. It's going to be
coming out of our pockets in the interim. And, you know, with the, the affordability study and
everything that's been pushed by the town, I think it's quite difficult. I think it's quite difficult for
the town to expect us to swallow this. You know, if I'm doing 50 units, $1.5 million on top of my
booster station upgrade, I have to do on top of, you know, all the other stuff that's going on in
town and I have to contribute to, you know, water and sewer issues all over the place. So I just
think taking the same approach that you take with municipal residents with developers would
be appreciated.
6)
You know, [Name] had an example. I know his group has a number of large projects in the
pipeline. I think, you know, and then [Name] was doing a calculation of what the DC fees would
21
be for that development if they weren't exempt. It'd be important to understand with the group
what projects I understand and there's a huge contingent of developers in the room or in part of
the conversation who've had projects in the pipeline for a number of years and have had
applications in with the city. So, you know, one of the things [Name] mentioned in his comment,
you know, he's doing a calculation on how much percentage of their project, their DCCs are
contributing to them, just rounding numbers off to that $30 million. I think there's a gap here as
a resident and as a developer. I think it's important for us to know and understand if there's a $30
million of DCCs we're trying to recuperate from developments create the infrastructure that we
require for the growth, how many projects are currently in the pipeline that are going to be
exempt, that are not going to be contributing to this $30 million pie? Because from what I
understand, there's quite a significant amount of applications in pipeline, and that's going to
leave, I think it's going to do two things. There's a remaining number of developments who have
not yet submitted, who are going to be bearing potentially the brunt, or there's going to be a
shortfall of DCC revenue that comes in um and then another thing separately i think you know i
think i think there's needs to be significantly more conversation and discussion around these
numbers i mean when you when you put on you know to course at 1.5 million dollars on a on a 50
unit project you know i i have a hard time seeing how any projects financially feasible moving
forward(0:40:54) But, you know, I think [Name] had a good suggestion. You know, if there's some
sort of phasing in over, I don't think, three to five years is, I think that's too fast. I think it needs to
be a longer cycle. Otherwise, I think we could stagnate the market. I think nobody, it'll be
completely shut down all, I think it'll shut down all development. Projects will just not become
feasible if it's stagnated. And I disagree with [Name]. I think all of the costs are going to be borne
by the consumer. We're going to have to tack on the $30,000 per, in DCCs to each resident
apartment unit, that's going to increase that fee. I think if we can roll that in and as, I mean, we're
going to forever be selling units for more and more money, construction costs are only going to
go up. You know, if we're phasing that as $5,000 units are coming on this year, they're $5,000,
$10,000 more than they were last year and over five or six or eight years, you know, we're rolling
that $30,000. I think it could be something the market could absorb.
7)
Just some feedback from my own perspective if the town could commit to shorter turnaround
times for BP's and DP's and just responsiveness it helps us decrease our hearing costs which
makes this more feasible so you know with this dcc increase I know you can't take money for this
to say hey we want to increase the size of our planning department but I think you have to give
serious consideration to that because the only way for us to decrease our overall costs of our
projects meaningfully has to do with carrying costs and interest rates and what we're bearing
and if it's taking us years or you know the water and sewer project was a couple years uh coming
up with it where everything's on hold those carrying costs matter to us so I think one key person
like the key thing that I would like you to take to council is if you expect to do this and you want
to do it successfully the turnaround times on comments and um getting any permitting done
needs to be a commitment where we'll get comments back maybe in two weeks on the long
scale of things. When it gets turned in, we have certain timeframes that we're going to be
expecting to get it back. Because take, for example, if you have a $30 million project and you're
waiting a month or two or whatever it is, and your initial cost are $5 million, sitting at 8% with the
bank right now is a lot of money on a monthly basis that we're having to incur on top of these
expected DCCs. And with that being said, Rav, just to your point, with the DCC and in-stream
protection, I don't put too much thought into that because I think what's going to happen is if
everybody who has a project tries to rush to beat this, you're going to get stuck in a situation
where the market becomes so saturated that nobody's going to sell. So I think people are going
to be guarded in that approach as well. So even if Chris comes out with 100 units, I'm 50 units,
22
you have something else going on. I think the town just remain cognizant of that. Although
there's people who are in-stream for this, I don't necessarily think all of them are going to come
to fruition.
8)
So clarification, as developments are a little bit larger, there is other complications that come
along with them. So for example, if the city gives us a development permanent, however, there
are still conditions on title that have to be worked through engineering or other professionals,
but we still have will solve those on upon our building permit submission. Sometimes that takes
a little longer to be able to solve. But then that window, if we submit our building permits under
provincial bylaw that states on the 357th day of the year, then we now have to amend to the new
DCC bylaws. Is there flexibility between that window between the entitlement of development
permit to building permit to be able to submit so that we don't incur the new DCCs? so we're in-
stream right now for development permit. Hopefully we'll get a development permit here soon.
After our development permit, you say that it's expected to pass the new bylaw by April, May,
June. It might take me a year to finish my, you know, our construction drawings and finish up
maybe some conditions that are still on title that we need to be able to achieve before we
submit a building permit. Now is it hard and fast that on the 357th day of the year or within that
waiting period that we now have to enjoy the new DCCs directly or are we still considered in
stream. Now, if there is commentary back and forth between the city on the file to determine
conditions on the file, we have a special provision on ours. And some of us will have those two
that are a developer-contributed offsite front-ended agreements. Does that muddy the waters,
or is it a gray area, or is there relaxation within that so we can continue on the work?
9)
And with the BC government looking at possibly delaying your DCC payment on possession of
the home, you guys think that's going to be a municipal decision, right? The town can't adopt
that as well, saying, hey, on possession, we'll take the contribution of the DCC?. Is that an
autonomous decision from the province? Did the town have any say on that? But the province
says no, but the town says yes, for example.
10)
I think on something [Name] said, you know, if, if there are people trying to get in, get an
application in, you know, it's important. It should be fair and transparent if there's, if it takes, you
know, it should take a reasonable amount of time to receive comments back and for that
application to be processed. You know, if you submitted a project today and it took two or three
years to get building, you know, it took a significant amount of time to receive building permit
and communication back and forth, you know, beyond what's reasonable and expected and you
end up falling into the new DCC's, I think there should be some communication and discussion
around that to ensure that that doesn't happen.
11)
I mean, obviously it's a personal comment, but I've been here long enough and listening to
enough developments that don't move. And it's more than frustrating for sure, especially once
things do get a little bit personal and you get your own dough punched in there. You watch folks
that have been doing it for generations of their family here. And I just think that there's a very
high level of misunderstanding at best to be polite about it within council chambers and the
town hall to the significant amount of costs. I mean, you know, we've just seen probably three of
the largest buildings get built, one that [Name] knows really well in town. And then to be, you
know, we're talking three or four years later. I mean, from talking from my own personal project,
which has been kind of in the works dealing with the town for four and a half years and have an
initial feasibility study go from a 2.1 build to a 4.3 to then think if I don't push ahead to go more
and find another 900 grand well it doesn't take too much math you can put three numbers
together and divide it by 26 lots and know that that's a zero you could charge whatever the heck
23
you want but the town and the engineers have killed the project you know if debatably before
this happened. My point is, you know, you could make DCCs whatever you want, but if nothing's
going to go because you've killed it, then it's a zero. So you're not going to collect any money for
all the problems that exist. And there's going to be minimal growth, which in my personal
opinion, in 28 years here, it's been pretty minimal to this date that, yeah, I get it. You're chasing it.
You're trying to fix it, but yeah, you can't, if the market's not going to bring people with the
money to pay, then this particular solution is pretty heavy handed to go 25 times the current cost
in a very short period of time. So I guess I'm just reiterating a bit what [Name] and [Name] were
talking about and [Name] as well. I guess everyone that spoke is just, it's a very, very heavy hit
regardless of the time everybody's been working in the pipeline or how they've been working
with the town, how we've all pivoted. I know the town's line is always, well, this thing changed or
that. You know, the longer things take, the more time you have that you have to change, you
have to pivot and things do change. But when you're trying to work in a cooperation, some form
of a partnership with the town that you're trying to do business in, then that should be an
expected part of the process. I don't have a whole lot more to add. I mean, disheartening, terrible.
I got lots of words, but I think I'll just leave it at that. I mean, ultimately, I think for a lot of folks on
this call, not much has changed, only it's gotten worse. And that's kind of the direction you're
headed. So I'm not sure what else I could add. And I think I'll just leave it at that. I'm working on
keeping my language together today.
12)
I think the town, like, I think part of the frustration that everybody has is, like, a submission is
never complete. And I think the approach that would be appreciated by the development
community of getting through the permitting process is like an 80-20 rule. You know, like we
don't have to have everything ironed out and all the I's dotted and T's crossed. I think it's just like
get it to 80% and we'll work through the final details through the building, like as we go from DP
to BP. And I think that's what happens to a lot of us is that we get buried in these things and you
come back, you need 10 different reports. You're getting, you know, geotechnical people on the
phone. You get 10 different engineers on the phone. You're paying six to $10,000 an hour for
these phone calls and you just don't have any real traction anywhere. So just one comment and
another thing to take away. Just along with the time to process is just, it'd be nice if the town
took the approach of, yeah, get this to 80% and then we'll work through the final details to help
development move along. And I don't think a lot of the general public realize how long those
little details can take while you're working on all the other stuff as well. But that also shows the
traction that banks want to see to start to finance this stuff. So just a comment that 80% of a
project's kind of altogether get it to DEP phase would go a long way for all of us as developers.
13)
I mean, from my own experience, you guys adopted a step code one year ahead of it being
brought in with the BC government, right? So those little things that you're, hey, you know, this
is by the time you go to build, although we're planning around a time where a step code hasn't
been adopted, those little things that are brought in, that all adds cost to it. You know, we plan
according to what's currently there and then we adopt this. It's like, hey, by the time [Name] said,
by the time you guys are ready to build, you should be building according to the spec. Like those
little things, do add up. And I get what you mean, that there's small details, you know, it's the
bare minimum in terms of it. But there is a lot of stuff that comes back from the town that's like,
hey, we have to get into the nitty gritty of it. Get the conceptual stuff in space. And if it's, hey, we
have to work on this structural aspect of it or, you know, your fast calculation, we need to work
on this a little bit more. I think if you could get to the point where you can issue that DP and it's
80% there and you have commitments from developers, it'll lessen the burden on you as well as
us.
24
14)
Developers, you know, I speak for myself, but, you know, we can work with things. We
understand that DCCs are required. We understand that, you know, there's infrastructure needs
here. I think that, you know, we can work with a lot of things. The main thing that we need is
certainty. You know, we need certainty on timelines. We need certainty on costs. You know, if I'm
paying... pending 1.5 million, if it's you know, if I'm spending one point i need to know if I'm
spending 1.5 million or 1 million on the DCCs what are my costs what are my frontage costs you
know every project we've done they've kind of they've been very different there's no certainty
you don't know exactly what you're going to pay until you're in the middle of a project and that
doesn't work you know you need to know you need to know what your costs are going to be and
you know if it's if it's And the rest of the things, I mean, development's hard. We got a lot of
challenges. You know, there's a lot of other things to be worried about, but not having certainty
at the municipal level on timelines on when you're going to receive a development permit or
building permit on what that timeline looks to touch, you know, to reiterate what [Name]
said you know, it greatly impacts our carrying costs. And so, albeit that the DCCs are significant,
you know, I don't want to minimize they're not significant. You know, a lot of these projects, once
you get into the bigger projects, they're $15, $20 million projects. You know, when your carrying
costs will eat up, you know, is significant. If these get delayed an extra year, I mean, a lot of these
costs are eating up and the cost of construction rises by 10%. So on $20 million project, it takes an
extra year before you get your building permit. You know, you're spending $2 million more in
construction costs and you potentially pre-sold these units at a discounted rate. I mean, that's
the number one thing that makes it hard to, you know, move a project forward is the
uncertainty. So I think that's more than anything, you know, more than any comments on DCCs.
It's just a request for, you know, some level of, you know, progress towards helping, bring
certainty and making the developers feel more comfortable and confident that there is a process
and you can rely on the process.
15)
On top of the DCCs that are being proposed here of $35,000, I think it's important that council
realize a lot of us are being asked to pay for growth within the municipality as well. Front ending
costs of, you know, between two to seven or $10 million. So I just think that should be taken into
context. And again, when talking about, hey, we have this, all these immediate needs that are in
front of us and we're going to get the developers to pay for it I do think it's important to take that
into consideration these front-ending fees and what we're having to pay with hopes of
recouping it that's probably it'll never happen I'll never recoup a dollar on my projects because
I'm the only one developing there but I think it's important for you guys to realize that that's also
why we would like to see this phased in is that we're having to do these upgrades for the
community where we're fronting this much money and we're already going to have to pay
interest on, you know, between two and seven million bucks with the banks at 8%. And then
we're going to have to pay these DCCs as well. So I think, you know, all things considered a
phased approach would go a long way for all of us.
25
APPENDIX B:
VERBATIM COMMENTS FROM
TOWN ONLINE SURVEY
26
VERBATIM COMMENTS
Contextual information included with questions:
Increases in DCCs
Because of increases in costs since 2012, new masterplan information and growth projections,
DCCs are projected to increase, for example:
-
The DCC for a single detached dwelling lot is paid at the subdivision stage and proposed
to increase from $1,410.99 to $34,820.00. An increase of $33,409.01 which is about 3.5% of
the price of a $950,000 home.
-
The DCC for an apartment unit is paid at the building permit stage and is proposed to
increase from $1,157.34 to $23,500. An increase of $22,342.66 which is about 3.7% of the
price of a $600,000 apartment (condo).
DCC costs are paid by the developer or builder.
Question 3) Who do you think should pay for the roads, parkland, sewers, and water infrastructure
needed because of growth? Please select the response which most suits your beliefs.
Response
Response Theme
1)
It is misleading to only present the options of 50/50
taxpayers and new development pays for the "vast majority".
The reality of infrastructure costs and maintenance and the
sources and uses of town taxaction revenue is more
nuanced than that.
Dev-majority
2)
In think costs should be split between the taxpayer and the
developer, but not equally. I think the developer should pay
more than the taxpayer, maybe a 60/40 or 65/35 split
Dev-majority
3)
Loaded question. Existing taxpayers and new development
should share the cost equally especially if we are gathering
more tax revenues and services from that growth.
Equal share
4)
New developers should pay for it all. At the beginning at
least until the development is well established. Then maybe
phase in where the developer still pays the vast majority and
the taxpayer can contribute a small portion.
Dev-majority
5)
The TOG should have had a healthy reserve built up over the
past 25 years to accommodate for growth. Very bad
management and planning. Too many high salary positions
not doing their job!!
Reserves
6)
I think a new tax for decrepit buildings that are owned but
not up keep or used should be taxed extra after a time frame
of not used and this tax could help contribute to future
growth. New development can also help contribute but
something has to be done with the building that give the
town an eyesore and if they at least have to pay extra to help
Vacancy tax
27
contribute to the development upgrades needed for our
town
7)
It should be proportional based on the project. Infrastructure
costs should be split based on who creates the need and
who benefits. Developers should fund growth-related
infrastructure while taxpayers cover existing repairs or
community-wide upgrades.
Benefit-based
8)
Both existing tax payers and new development should be
responsible. But the TYPE of new development should be a
primary factor. Development that meets the needs of our
community (higher density, built for residents not short
term rental) should pay lower DCC than a brand new
detached single family home
Type-based
9)
I feel Tippy from Legends Diner should pay for all DCC costs
Dev pays all
10)
I would chose the last option but you are trying to segregate
it. Growth is not 100% or even 50% of the issue. When you
look at this, you need to look at how much the new project
represents of the upgrade needed. For example, if there are
200 homes, and a developer is doing 100 homes, the
developer should be responsible for 33% and the tax payer
66%
Other
11)
I think developers should pay the majority with some small
support from taxpayers, but don't agree with it being equal.
My reason is that I think growth is not the only reason we
make infrastructure updates and upgrades. And as a matter
of fact, it's not feasible for developers to pay for all that and
still turn a profit, so they're less likely to develop and golden
will not be a town of investment and opportunity.
Dev-majority
12)
Growth should pay for most of the growth. The benefits of a
larger tax base should not be underestimated. What i have
not heard through this is the impact that more units have
on the tax base. For example I own a commercial building
and pay $30,000 a year in property taxes plus water, sewer,
and employ people. The overall benefit to the town is large. If
these fees scare people away they should be adjusted. A
larger tax base allows us to get pools and better facilities. If a
developer is adding a multi story unit with commercial they
could be adding a couple of hundred thousand or more to
the tax base per year and with a DCC paying all of the
associated costs. So the town wins and the developer has to
pay the entire bill. I think slightly more cost sharing makes
sense.
Benefit-based
28
13)
In between 1 and 2; not equal, perhaps 75% developers 25%
taxpayers, to still have incentive to build, as we will likely
benefit from the growth ourselves too
Dev-majority
14)
Water sewage should be on the developers, street tax payer
and parkland should be split.
Other
15)
NA
Other
16)
I think growth should pay for the majority but for shared
roads/parks etc. the town and existing tax payers could
support. We all benefit from growth. Maybe 20-30% covered
by existing tax payers. I would be interested in what other
small communities do that want to encourage
development.
Dev-majority
17)
Existing taxpayers should pay a portion of the infastructure
costs, but developers should pay the majority. (ex. 25/75 or
33.3/66.6)
Dev-majority
18)
Depends on the development and if it fits zoning etc
Other
19)
More money should come from area A
Ext contrib
20)
Growth should pay for growth though local government and
the community should be held accountable for electoral and
administrative decisions that have resulted in a current
infrastructure deficit that deters future investment from
developers and investors. Municipal direction and ambitions
and administrative goals should be clear and transparent.
Other
Question 4) What do you think about the magnitude of these increases to DCCs?
Response
Response Theme
1)
It should be approximately the same percentage as 2012.
Other
2)
It is misleading to suggest that DCC costs are paid by the
developer or builder. Developers and builders only invest if
they can make the appropriate return on capital hurdles.
DCCs are a captial cost. They are necessarily passed through
100% to residential buyers in the long term, although some
builders and developers might be sunk in the near term.
Pass-through
3)
What is the average home and apartment worth in Golden?
Ask this question as is a 24X increase is reasonable and will
prevent all development in our community.
Too high
4)
According to the housing needs report published 2023
average single detached home sold for $560,516. The
percentage DCC to average priced home is higher at 6.3% of
Other
29
the cost. Typicaly the new cost is mortaged with the home
purchased, so that 6.3% plus GST equates to 6.4%. That is a
tax on tax. Then consider this fee will be mortgaged with
interest rates of the day. A tax on tax that is financed.
5)
They are too high, too fast. Just because the ToG is late to
the party on managing Town assets, the burden cannot be
directly downloaded to developers in the course of 1-2 years.
The proposed implementation timeline is completely
unreasonable.
Too high
6)
These fee increases seem high when we look at the dollar
amount, but low when you look at the %. Maybe this is
pocket change to a developer. The general public need
more background on DCCs before we can give an accurate
opinion or answer your questions effectively. This survey
seems like its not going to give you accurate answers
because you need to provide more info first.
Other
7)
A bit low
Too low
8)
Seems a bit high. But maybe that's just to give us a little
buffer the next time we have this chat 14 years from now.
Other
9)
I think the single detached home feels appropriate. But the
cost on the appartment or other higher density dwellings
feels unnecessarily punitive. We should be encouraging
higher density builds and making these spaces as affordable
as possible for people who want to live in our community
Density impact
10)
Do a comparison with other municipalities in BC
Other
11)
You're going to kill development and all businesses in town
are going to suffer that service the development community
Other
12)
Developer fee can see that increase but a single
homebuilder, that is too great and increase
Other
13)
How would i know if that's too high or too low? It seems like
a huge amount, but I wouldn't know the need.
Too high
14)
The increase seems actually quite high, but only because I
think they were much too low
Other
15)
Only the upper income bracket can afford to build or buy
new~stunts growth for a town.
Other
16)
Developers had it too good for too long its about time they
pay their fair share
Other
17)
Costs are much too high. It appears the town is trying to
charge new growth for previous undercharging, such as
footing the cost of long neglected upgrades that previous
Too high
30
housing units should have been paying into. It'll stifle
growth in Golden to charge new development to such an
extreme, which is short sighted because Golden would be
better to have the growth, than to slow it down from
overcharging.
18)
I think there should have been incremental increases to
DCCs all along and the Town council and staff should have
undertaken appropriate increases before it became a crisis.
Other
19)
City didn't charge right amount ti previously
Other
20)
The current costs are too low, so it is a huge difference. Why
were they so low??
Other
21)
This miss information to really be able to take a stand. There
should be comparable of other town. No current tax payer
will accept higher tax and will vote for pushing the
developers to paid
Other
22)
Make it higher
Too low
23)
The question lacks insight into a broader topic. It is
concerning that apartments are quoted at 600,000.
Other
24)
Another reason housing will be unaffordable for locals here
Other
25)
Seems too high, Increasing more than 22x in one go is too
much
Too high
26)
When looked at from a % perspective that seems a
reasonable amount.
Other
Question 5) Would you be willing to pay higher property taxes or utility fees to reduce the DCCs
paid by developers/builders?
Response
Response Theme
1)
Again, this is an embarrassingly misleading and simplistic
framing of the issue. The real question we are asking as
taxpayers in Golden is: "where have our taxes been going up
until now if our infrastructure is in such poor shape?".
Perhaps public attention will be retrained on that
discussion...
Framing
2)
Loaded question. How much more will we need to pay if
development stops and infrastructure needs to be replaced.
Framing
3)
Golden's property tax is too low, and has not risen with the
cost of maintenance, hence this the current state of our
current infrastructure.
Tax context
31
4)
Yes, a reasonable amount - whatever that turns out to be.
This question is misleading... 2% of what?
Framing
5)
Not for single detached dwellings or town homes but I
would support a reduction in DCCs paid by developers who
are developing high density housing like apartments
especially if they are more affordable.
Density
6)
It needs to be fair both ways. This is way too high and things
just won't get built
Too high build
7)
Yes, but not to support the growth of the systems to support
new growth. But to support the required improvements to
existing infrastructure
Existing infra
8)
Yes but even lower than 2%
Other
Question 6) Do you think the Town should reallocate funds from existing services (ex. recreation
services, fire protection, etc.) to help increase the municipal assist factor and reduce the DCCs
paid by developers/builders and the final buyers? Noting that reallocating funds from existing
service levels would lower service levels in those areas.
Response
Response Theme
1)
Again, this is an embarrassingly misleading and simplistic
framing of the issue. Whoever wrote these questions is
intentionally trying to frame the issues as being the Town
residents against developers. This is disingenuous and
unprofessional.
Framing
2)
Loaded question. See answer for 5. What happens if
development stops.
Framing
3)
Suggesting moving from recreation services and fire
protection is misleading inciting an emotional response to
heartfelt municipal services. A pragmatic approach would to
review all services, find efficiencies, moderately raise taxes
and review low ROI programs and invest the difference.
Framing
4)
What about a vacancy tax there is so many buildings in
town that are not being used that is not helping with our
town
Vacancy tax
5)
Too many new fire trucks?
Other
6)
The town should only be reallocating funds to significantly
lower DCC costs for affordable housing and environmental
sustainability projects. (Looks like I'll never be able to buy a
house here so we might as well have recreation services and
fire protection lol.)
Affordability
32
7)
You should ask David Eby and that guy Mark carney for
some money. I mean if Carney gave Ukraine $2.35 billion, Im
sure they will give us Canadians $100,000,000 million for
improving the town of Goldens infrastructure.
Other
8)
Yes the town should reallocate as much funds as possible
because the developers are going to increase the tax base to
offset the numbers as well that we collect for existing
services. It is a calculation that needs to be looked at - if the
developers anticipated contribution to the tax base is 50
million dollars, how much of that is realized by the
community through taxes?
Other
9)
Taxes should not go up significantly, reallocate funds for
this. New developer should pay
Other
10)
Reallocation of funds for developments that benefit the
community (like affordable housing). There is no need to
subsidize more STRs
Affordability
11)
The town wastes a lot of money now. For example, the town
spendings money sprinkling gravel all over the town in the
winter including on flat roads where it is not needed, and
then they spent weeks in the spring cleaning it all back up
again. Should dial this way back.
Other
Question 7) Do you have any other thoughts on Development Cost Charges and who should pay
for the costs of infrastructure improvements required to serve new growth?
Response
Response Theme
1)
Maybe new growth is not needed if it cannot be done
affordably. Growth should not impact residents.
Affordability
2)
Developer should pay the fee
Dev pays
3)
Everyone should pay to grow as if we get more residences
we have more tax base to help with infrastructure
improvements. The main issue is these haven't been
increase in some time and there is no growth happening in
the community and infrastructure has not been updated
regularly. I feel if you increase to above revelstoke or any of
the other growth townships listed you will end development
in our community and end up with a larger issue.
Competitiveness
4)
Probably should have had a plan in place long before now if
the required increase is that significant. It seems to me
those increases will make developers find elsewhere to
build. It needs to be split between developers and existing
Dev pays
33
tax payers and potentially some reallocation of funds (I don't
know the details of the budget to say for sure)
5)
Yes, new growth should contribute to immediate services
that help support the growth. However, with that, upfront
mortgaged tax on tax is not practical, and goes against the
verry thing that council is trying to achieve, to support policy
for affordable housing and inventory growth. Stop stepping
on your own foot. I suggest to consider a DCC assist phase in
process, shift market sale residential to /sqft fee, market
rental to develpements to have a redcued or DCC or an
ongoing increased services fee for a set amount of time.
Explore elevated municipal connection and operations
services fees to support reserve funds and community wide
infrastructure refurbishment and upgrades.
Affordability
6)
It is true that growth should pay for growth - but only to a
certain/fair extent. Your proposed DCC policy is going to
decimate the working class fabric of Golden and drastically
alter who can live her in the future. What is already a
precarious housing situation for locals is about to get a lot
more expensive and quickly. You cannot expect the
purchaser of a new housing unit to take on full responsibility
for the cost of the DCC which is what happens; the
developer will pass it along to the consumer. A DCC
contribution like this should spread across decades, not
upon permitting a new build and born by the buyer.
With your proposed DCC policy every new housing unit is
now $22-34k more expensive than it should be. Existing
housing units will soon follow suit in their valuations,
whether real or perceived. Soon the selling price of all the
housing stock in Golden is further inflated and the cost of
living continues to grow to keep up with increasing utility
costs, increasing property tax, and all the other necessities of
life that are outside municipal control.
While the ToG is stuck between a rock and a hard place to
generate the funds you need to catch up to the
infrastructure deficit, downloading it onto developers and
ultimately residents under the guise that it's "only for new
growth" is not helping the situation. If our community
wasn't in such an infrastructure crisis to begin with, we
wouldn't be so desperate for additional funds to support
growth. The Province and Feds are downloading onto you
and you're doing the same to the residents. While increased
DCCs are one tool in the tool box, they can't be the only tool
and they need to be more carefully calculated than what is
being proposed and implemented responsibly over a much
longer period. Growth = tax revenue and more people and
businesses to share the load. Please don't squash Golden's
Affordability
34
ability to grow and flourish with this short sighted policy
recommendation. We are already known as one of the most
difficult municipalities to develop in within the Province of
BC, maybe we can finally start work on improving our
development environment rather than sealing our fate with
the proposed DCC structure.
7)
Please provide better background information first before
asking the people of Golden to answer questions on
something that is not explained enough for us to give an
opinion on, thank you.
Other
8)
New development should pay the majority of infrastructure
improvements cost. It's still very cheap to develop here and
it doesn't reflect the current costs that will be inferred by the
town to bring everything up to the level where it should be.
Our taxes are already high and we are still lacking
recreational facilities (pool!!!)
Other
9)
It seems that a substantial amount of proposed new
development benefits non residents. These are adversely
affecting local residents both now and long term. There
should be careful consideration before approving projects.
Other
10)
If the people coming in want to develop in Golden I feel they
need to contribute to our town in more ways then just
building. I've lived in Golden my whole life almost 42 years I
have a business and I pay extra water sewer even with it
being within my own home. My property taxes in the last 5-6
years have doubled I've paid my fair share to stay living here.
The new comers can start to help with our infrastructure
which is already in such poor condition.
When I bought my second home almost 15 years ago I was
told by the realtor that our street was in the works of getting
repaved and a side walk being put in. All we got about 6-7
years ago was the pavement our little town needs to really
sort out the spending and start to do better for the locals not
just the new developments and tourism.
Other
11)
Reallocate the planner, as they obviously weren't capable of
for seeing that a tourist town would grow.
Not sure why we're paying any of you. If it was your business
or your personal budget would you care more?
Other
12)
We need a vacancy tax there is so many building not being
utilized that's where we should get the extra money for
infrastructure!!!!
Vacancy tax
13)
New large developments need to pay period. The taxpayers
and full time residents of Golden already spend
approximately 60% of their income back into the
Affordability
35
community. There is a cost of living crisis. If you put more on
the backs of local families they will leave. Some already have.
Taking their skills and families with them.
14)
I would propose and new tax law for unused buildings in
town. If a commercial or house is just being held and not
used and no upgrades or plan is in place for these buildings
tax them or fine them and put that money towards new
infrastructure and then also tax new development but not
as high as proposed and also a small amount to the
residents if needed but they should be last. The amount of
decrepit, unused buildings that do nothing for the town of
Golden is unacceptable and something needs to be done.
Other
15)
Cost should be to the developer
Dev pays
16)
You need to increase the market. How can I move
there/invest there with the punishment of having to pay this
much extra? Do the current residents not benefit from new
roads? Do they not benefit from increasing the tax base?
Furthermore, if there's STR zoning, would it not be beneficial
on the taxes? They don't even really put stress on the
services
Other
17)
Development should pay for itself and cover all costs
including costs associated with extra use of the municipal
services. Why make the developers richer already?
Also, I am still not happy that the Sky Bridge is on our
municipal Services overloading our municipal wastewater
treatment facility with thousands of daily users. Please keep
to the municipal boundaries.
And please collect extra taxes from anytime vacant houses
and buildings to lessen the need to develop and build more.
We need to put a cap on growth. We need a strict bylaw on
new developments as we also need to keep green space
within and around our community.
Thank you.
Dev pays
18)
I imagine it already works like this to some extent but: I've
read about a"Rational Nexus" that acts as a framework to
measure benefit from development to the taxpayer, future
residents or a combination. Seems like a reasonable way to
determine the split. Growth should pay for most growth,
taxpayers should help out when it also benefits them.
Rational nexus
19)
The DCC are an effective tool and should be implemented to
help support the cost of a growng community. However,
they are also an important planning tool, one that can
encourage the right kind of development, more affordable
spaces to live in Golden, paid for by those who can afford a
single family home.
Affordability
36
Commercial rates, need to be seen as attractive to
encourage investment in Golden. There are already so many
extra costs just to operate a business in Golden, we should
not be adding additional costs to building new commercial
spaces - we already have incredible high tax brackets for
light industrial that has discouraged many wonderful
employment opportunities out of this town (Kicking horse
coffee... among others). Let's keep Golden as an attractive
space to bring a great business idea. Commercial spaces
should be lower or on par with the communities around us -
not hgher as the current plan has laid out (Revelstoke,
Invermere, Fernie)
20)
you'll continue to drive away all the developers if you
increase the DCC by $33k.
Dev pays
21)
The lack of growth has increased property values to a point
where housing in Golden is unaffordable. How do young
people expect to stay in town? Too many feel they have to
leave in order to get ahead. Golden has done a poor job with
growth and left itself in a position where growth is
unaffordable. It is poor management at a local planning
level. And now the answer is to make growth even more
unaffordable? Not smart.
Affordability
22)
I cannot believe that the Town of Golden put this survey
forward. I am truly frightened if our town leaders use a
deeply skewed survey to make long lasting decisions.
Other
23)
I don't support zoning amendments that rezone medium or
high-density residential land to short-term rentals, especially
when infrastructure upgrades are used as leverage.
Housing-zoned land should remain focused on long-term
housing needs. Infrastructure should be planned equitably,
not traded in exchange for rezoning that undermines
community housing goals.
Other
24)
Tippy from Legendz Diner
Other
25)
If we want the town of Golden to keep up with the
development and growth of the surrounding towns and
cities, we need to support development in the town. Our
town is beautiful and unique and it's important to always
stay authentic to who we are, but that doesn't mean we
need to make it so difficult to grow our town and create
more business and opportunities- that's what will make
people stay and make people want to move to Golden.
Other
26)
Tax payers should pay for DCC's
Other
37
27)
At the end of the day, development will bring in more tax
money with hotel's and other businesses. Current tax payers
should be contributing significantly towards dcc's
Other
28)
If DCC causes prices of new development to be too large, no
housing can ever become affordable from it.
Affordability
29)
Developers should pay for that cost.
Dev pays
30)
Every other town shares this according to the percentage
that the developer is bringing versus the existing population
that utilizes the services.
Dev pays
31)
Requiring a developer to pay for a previous lack of
investment by the Town of Golden is only going to drive
more developers away from Golden. An ongoing theme.
Dev pays
32)
Most of the issues regarding growth are due to ageing
infrastructure. Residents should have to pay their share for
those asset renewals.
Other
33)
Yes. I would like a report and accountability for what has
happened to get us in the jam. The previous mayor had a
plan. It was not executed.
Other
34)
Again just that the property tax benefit of a development
should not be overlooked or entirety discounted.
Other
35)
Most of the Development Cost should be paid for by the
Developer and future fees attached to those development.
IE GDUR needs to be upgraded before anymore
development is done in that area with the new
Campground and The Sky Bridge traffic is a major issue
along that road and new development with only increase it!
Dev pays
36)
Change is inevitable, it will happen whether we choose to
engage with it or not, if there is not more meaningful
contributions by current property owners then we will have
no control over the future of our community. People care
about "the character of their neighbourhood" but through
an unwillingness to contribute then no one like them will be
able to move in to keep the character. Instead it will go to
outside buyers, small investors and large corporations.
Young families DO NOT have the means to move into family
neighbourhoods as is, and absolutely cant handle more DCC
cost charges placed on them (because they pay it not the
developers in reality). People obviously dont want to pay
more but surveys like this only ask that, not are they willing
to accept the consequences of if they dont. This survey is
biased to skew towards more costs burdened on young
professionals wanting to start families, and to keep costs off
of current property owners. Gatekeeping housing security is
Affordability
38
not the answer, it extrapolates the problem. Change will
happen, like it or not, if you dont contribute to development
costs you lose control of the direction into the future we are
heading. I want a home to start a family, I live and work here,
I am the definition of who locals want to move in to "keep
the character of their neighbourhood" but I cant afford a
$950,000 home, and especially cant afford an additional
$33,409.01 onto of that, dont patronize me telling me
developers pay that cost, thats not how the market works.
Whomever examines these numbers and think this is a
solution to bring young families into town is out of touch.
37)
I think we should lobby for parts of the monies collected
under the MRDT to be allocated to infrastructure as part of
the effect of tourism on existing resources, or an increase in
the 3% and have the additional resources go directly to
infrastructure.
Other
38)
This is an unfortunate situation that should have been
addressed years ago so that the increases could be more
gradual. I do generally agree that the cost of growth should
be covered by new growth, however I do think there is value
in reducing the DCC on secondary suites as likely one of the
more affordable options moving forward. I also think that for
any development like BC housing, where it is subsidized or
below market rate, the DCCs should be much lower.
Affordability
39)
I think if the development is intended for local businesses or
local renters who are looking to move into the housing
market, then having a shared cost, makes a lot of sense,
particularly if parks or shared roads are part of the
infrastructure which is shared by all residents.
If the development is for Airbnb's or other businesses that
do not serve our communities growth plan or directly
benefit residents then I think the developer should pay.
Dev pays
40)
Growth pays for growth. New developers should be factoring
the cost required to service new growth & perhaps include
that in their strata fees. This should not be supplemented
through property tax increases or utility fees. Golden is
already expensive enough to live in.
Dev pays
41)
Instead of a big increase do in increments. Anyways this
should have been done years ago (30years ago)
Other
42)
WHY are the costs so high? Did the TOG not charge enough
in the past decades to create a contingency fund to help pay
for DCC.
Other
39
43)
As a taxpayer who is already appalled at the cost of property
tax and utilities, furthering my costs to pay for new
developments which have no direct benefit for me or any of
my friends/family would likely be the nail in the coffin that
would drive me to uproot our family and move. Developers
need to be investing in their own infrastructure growth, and
the town needs to use that funding accordingly. We've
heard for years that the sewage and water treatment
system couldn't handle any further developments but then
they continue to pop up (5th Ave Rocky Pointe, OSO & new
build on the same street, 11th Ave N the Kaur Building, etc.)
without seeing any real improvements to vital infrastructure
from the DCC funds. As it stands, Golden barely offers the
recreation services that we see offered in other towns, the
parks receive very little upgrading or beautification, and the
funding that goes into bylaw enforcement is a mystery as I
rarely ever see bylaws actually being enforced/updated to
meet current needs.
Dev pays
44)
Ideally, the previous few decades of Goldenites and
Developers would have built a contingency fund due to
planning and forethought. But, previous leadership within
the Town pandered to LOCAL developers, and allowed them
to make a lot of money without appropriate development
fees. Which, as usually, leads to future generations of
taxpayer having to pay for the profit of others.
Sorry, tangent. The proposed increase for the DDCs is
astronomical, and could lead to developers continuing to
overlook Golden as viable destination for development. But,
taxpayers should only pay a small portion if any. If the Town
was a private entity, and this survey was geared toward a
group of investors, the investors would not cough up the
money due to the negligence of the Town. They would likely
tell the Town to pound sand, and walk away with their
money.
This Town needs to do better. Management needs an
overhaul in Planning Dept., and some experience needs to
be brought in. The same could be said of one or two other
departments.
Dev pays
45)
This is a very poorly written, biased survey that will produce
biased results. Shocker...
Other
46)
No matter what growth will never cover the eventual cost of
replacement of the infrastructure they need for growth so
the tax burden will eventually spread to all the rate payers
later
Other
40
47)
I think increases should be made to DCC. The current
amounts are insane, and it is embarrassing that after 4 new
condo builds town is finally considering raising. Our sewer
system is over capacity and town has charged $1100 per unit
to developers who are making MILLIONS on their buildings.
However, this should be carefully considered as housing
prices continue to be exorbitant compared to many similar
communities and we run the risk of turning into western
Canmore if it continues.
Dev pays
48)
This was predictable (maxed out / failing infrastructures) and
has been looming for a long time. Inactivity and indecision
have put us all in this position. Small increases over time
and there'd be reserves for these capital projects, zero future
planning... Classic golden move. Nice job TOG.
Mgmt issues
49)
Developers.
Dev pays
50)
It is essential for healthy growth that costs are properly
amortized. Right now, it feels like the town is trying to
hugely charge the next wave of development after
undercharging in the past. New development should pay
fair costs but not be excessively charged for past
undercharging. Raising the per unit fee by 2500% is way too
much. It is short sighted and won't bring in more money -
it'll just cause development to be cancelled.
Other
51)
Developers
Dev pays
52)
The Town of Golden needs to find real solutions to support
long-term local residents so they can continue to afford
living here. New developments should not be funded on the
backs of long-time residents. For years, the Town of Golden
has failed to adequately support its residents, and as a result,
many locals are being forced to move away due to the
increasingly high cost of living.
Affordability
53)
Would have been nice to have those in charge who would
have prepared for growth and not turned a blind eye to the
inevitable infrastructure problems. A competent group of
individuals with a broad focus.
Missed opportunity of Taxation, Airbnb/rental property fees,
fines and fees for all dilapidated properties, grants and
development assistance could have been in the works for
the past 20 years in preparation for the cost to further
develop the water sewer etc.
Obviously some taxation to community is necessary with a
significant cost to the developers. The larger the project and
the bigger the draw on resources and space should pay
accordingly. Protect your community members first. Our
cost of living and resources should not be negatively
Affordability
41
impacted by future development as that development rarely
benefits the locals who live and work here. Stop wasting our
money and resources. Create a margin of taxation for future
development and learn from past mistakes (such as: not
charging rental properties and short-term rentals for
resource usage and recreation taxes, bridge to bridge waste
of money, indoor pool waste of money, all of the 'study's'
waste of money, letting apartment buildings in before
having infrastructure in place to support. Not using the
existing buildings for redevelopment. Letting our drinking
water suffer because you can't be bothered to put out to the
public landowners to find a better location for the future
well site...for a start...)
54)
I think that Town Council should not let any major projects
be approved until the new DCC bylaw is updated. It is not
fair for the developers that are trying to get large projects
approved before these DCCs take effect to download all of
these charges onto future developers, probably stall
investment in our community and take advantage of the
situation by putting undue pressure on the mayor, council
and staff.
Dev pays
55)
Should put the ski hill into city taxes
Other
56)
Growth should pay for growth, and the increase would not
have to be so high if it was done this way in the past. The
current residents shouldn't have to pay for it.
Other
57)
There should be more information to compare what other
town does. I won't support tax increase because the tax
already increases more than double in less than 10years. This
isn't sustainable and will put people out of their own home.
Other
58)
yes it is a large increase, but Golden is now seeing large
developments, and this is great and they should pay. They
profit.
Other
59)
The town missed the boat on this one, all the units in the
Oso building and new Riverfront property (I assume the new
low-income apartments the town is developing) did not
have to pay these increased fees but contribute to a large
amount of growth and usage of resources. To raise DCCs for
all future developments will only increase costs for everyone
and in the end stunt any growth in Golden. It should be a
graduated program where price increases happen over time
and there are more variables in place vs just per unit.
Other
60)
Development and new infrastructure should be tied
together. It makes no sense for an existing taxpayer to cover
someone's new house.
Other
42
61)
The town should undertake a strategic review of all town
operations and costs. An dcc increase of this magnitude
carries the risk of hindering growth and benefits associated
with it. If town budgets can be reviewed honestly and excess
costs eliminated possibly the increase can be minimized.
Golden is competing with other resort municipality's we
need to be competitive and not at the top of the list cost
wise.
Other
62)
From what we understand, we are behind on infrastructure
needs, so we need to get into better financial shape. For
general infrastructure used by all, we are willing to have a
tax increase. For new development, developers should pay
for the growth.
Dev pays
63)
I think that incrementally increasing DCC costs over time
would be far more palatable for the development
community.
Other
64)
I would like more information on why DCC's were previously
set and maintained to lower values and what long term
planning was in place to tackle this factor? Has the
municipality determined a direction or long term plan for
desired development? Has the community been involved in
these decisions directly or indirectly. Have conversations
with the surrounding regional district or tourism golden
been undertaken with how development could be
encouraged or funded versus specifically development
funded or tax funded. Does the town have healthy reserve
funds to help manage some of these upgrades or complete
projects in parallel?
Mgmt issues
65)
Developers typically realize sizable profits from their
developments (10% overhead, mark ups on sin trades etc), I
believe they should. Contribute more than the tax payer
Dev pays
66)
The town pays someone a wage to provide workout classes
when we have businesses in town to do this. We have many
areas like this where money is wasted and could be
reallocated to help make Golden updated and still
affordable to residents and developers to come here. Do not
reallocate fire protection or safety protection. But audit the
departments and see where money can be saved and
reallocated. Developer should pay too but if it's too high it
becomes unaffordable to develop.
Affordability
67)
Why has the cost gone sky high? We do need development
and if it is a benefit to the community then the community
should share the burden. But if the development doesn't
Dev pays
43
help the community then the developers should cover the
costs.
68)
Fixing current roads rather than wasting time planning for
new
Mgmt issues
69)
Due to the deficiency of the existing infrastructure, it would
be unfair to charge DCCs on to developers alone. This town
needs infrastructure to grow!
Dev pays
70)
Our taxes and utilities go up every year and they are already
to high, if you keep raising them your chasing us out of our
homes as it is
Other
71)
Growth doesn't mean progress.
Other
44
APPENDIX C:
WRITTEN FEEDBACK
1
Shirley Liu
From:
Adriana Ratzlaff
Sent:
January 29, 2026 12:43 PM
To:
Town of Golden - Engage; Mayor Ron Oszust; [email protected]
Subject:
DCC Update: Fairness, Feasibility, and Accountability
[External Email - Use Caution & Verify Links]
Dear Mayor and Council,
Thank you for the work being done on this important update to Golden's Development
Cost Charges. I am writing as a resident of Golden, and I would also like to be transparent
that my husband is part of a long-standing custom home building family business in the
community. I work outside the development industry at Salesforce, and I bring a different
perspective shaped by living in Golden, watching housing affordability tighten, and wanting
to see the Town grow in a way that is both financially responsible and sustainable for
residents.
I agree that the Town cannot move forward without addressing the real cost of growth-
related infrastructure, particularly wastewater, and I support the need to update DCCs.
That said, I have concerns about fairness, feasibility, and long-term accountability.
Golden's current DCC bylaw dates back to 2012, meaning rates went more than a decade
without a major update. In contrast, many comparable communities have updated their
DCCs within the past five to ten years. Given that best practice recommends updates
approximately every five years, it seems inevitable that Golden's rates would fall out of
alignment with actual infrastructure costs. The scale of today's proposed increase
therefore appears to reflect not only current needs, but the cumulative effect of many
years of under-collection, a foreseeable outcome rather than a sudden one.
Recent master planning work, including the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan completed in 2024
and updated in 2025, confirms that significant upgrades are required to support future
growth. While these reports are recent, the magnitude of the required investments
suggests that capacity pressures have been building over time, not emerging
unexpectedly.
I am particularly concerned about the use of the minimum 1% Municipal Assist Factor
across all programs. This effectively places 99% of growth-related infrastructure costs on
new development. Given that sanitary sewer infrastructure is the dominant cost driver and
is essential public infrastructure that benefits the entire community, I question whether
sewer projects should carry a higher Municipal Assist Factor to better reflect shared
responsibility.
I would appreciate Council's consideration of:
2
-
Whether a higher Municipal Assist Factor for sanitary sewer infrastructure is
appropriate
-
How different MAF levels would affect DCC rates, taxes, and utility fees
-
How the Town acknowledges its role in maintaining very low DCC rates for many
years, and how that history is reflected in today's funding model
I also have concerns about feasibility and sufficiency. DCC rates at the proposed level
may risk stalling residential development, particularly housing. If growth slows
significantly, the Town may still face the same infrastructure needs but with reduced DCC
revenue. At the same time, even with substantial increases, most DCC funding is directed
toward water and sewer infrastructure, leaving limited capacity to address other pressing
community needs such as roads, transportation safety, and parks.
I understand that DCCs cannot be used to fund recreational facilities such as a
community pool, which would require other tools. My concern is simply that even very high
DCCs largely address basic system capacity rather than meaningfully advancing broader
community goals.
Ultimately, this feels less like a technical exercise and more like a values question: how do
we fairly divide responsibility for essential infrastructure while ensuring our funding tools
are realistic, equitable, and sufficient to support the kind of community Golden wants to
be?
Thank you for considering these questions and for your continued work on behalf of the
Town.
Sincerely,
Adriana Ratzlaff
--
Adriana Ratzlaff
DEMAND, SUPPLY & KEY MUNICIPAL LEVERS
Demand for residential accommodation - driven by tourism, seasonal employment, recreation
and in-migration - combined with limited housing supply, puts upward pressure on prices and
rents. What is often overlooked is that every municipal policy, process or measure that
restricts, delays, or increases the costs and/or market risks of building new housing products of
any type, necessarily magnifies that upward pressure on prices rather than relieving it.
1. Approvals Timelines and Uncertainty
While prudent planning and approvals are necessary, there is no getting around the
adage that time is money. The longer capital is tied up in land awaiting approvals, the
higher the price of housing needs to be to generate a return on the investment. While
private landowners might take below market returns or losses to complete projects,
larger developers and investors will simply leave and/or avoid the Town entirely.
2. Amount and Structure of DCCs
The proposed 25-fold increase in DCC rates would shift Golden from one of the most
cost-effective communities to develop in to among the most expensive in its peer group
- despite Golden having the lowest population growth of any Town in that group (a key
consideration for developers). It is tempting to believe that these charges are simply
"absorbed" by developers however, reality is that they directly increase housing costs
and prices in ways that can render residential development entirely uneconomic and/or
reshape the types of residential producst that are economically viable in a town.
The structure of DCC schedules is equally as important as the amount. Golden is a
mountain-valley town with significant variability in the geographical and topographical
requirements to support development. Applying a single, flat rate DCC rate across these
very different conditions creates cross-subsidies, with lower cost areas effectively
paying for the infrastructure required to develop higher cost areas. This misaligns costs
and causes, undermines the "growth pays for growth" principle mandated in BC law. It
can distort development patterns away from existing well-serviced areas.
3. STR Policy and Residential Product Viability
Policies that discourage or prevent homebuyers from renting their properties can have
negative effects - particularly on tourism-based towns - and can serve to increase
housing costs rather than reduce them. Further, they tend to make certain residential
products--such as townhomes--less feasible from an investment and marketability
perspective, and tilt the economics toward higher-density apartments, purpose-built
rentals or hotels and luxury homes. Without careful thought and targeting, STR
restrictions can undermine residential development, increase prices and displace
tourism demand in ways that may not align with community planning goals.
REQUESTS OF COUNCIL
In light of the above, we respectfully request that Council consider:
1. Reconsider the magnitude of the proposed DCC increases with particular attention to
Golden's competitive position against its peer markets and the potential to discourage
moderate-priced forms of housing.
2. Phasing the implementation of any DCC increases, rather than large step changes, to
avoid abrupt shocks to project viability, investment and housing delivery.
3. Adopting area-specific DCCs that reflect Golden's mountain-valley geography and the
real and significant differences in the infrastructure and ongoing service costs required
to support development in different areas.
4. Tying DCCs to occupancies instead of approvals or development permits to allow
developers to better align their costs with their project revenues.
5. That DCC bylaws should include provision for DCC credits if developers directly construct
and deliver the necessary infrastructure that would otherwise be funded by DCCs.
6. Coordinating DCC and STR policies with approvals and infrastructure planning in a
manner that recognizes that certain areas of the Town are well suited to supporting the
tourism economy that is so critical to achieving balanced growth throughout Golden.
7. Establishing standards of service for the development approval process. For example,
Revelstoke publishes the following standards: Subdivision: 2-4 months (simple) or 4-6
months (complex), Development Permit: 1-2 months (delegated) or 4-6 months
(Council) and the applications can run concurrently. Viable developments are approved
in under 12 months.
We appreciate the substantial effort that staff and Council have invested in this review. Our
goal is to provide constructive feedback and we thank you for considering our perspective.
We would welcome the opportunity to discuss these comments with Council or staff in more
detail.
Respectfully,
Brad Chorley, President
RESLAND Development Group
c/o Kicking Horse JV
Direct: +1 (403) 242-6002
Email: [email protected]
2
ultimately shift to taxpayers, supplemented only by whatever grant funding may, or may not, be
available.
The intent of DCC credits, as articulated in the Town's own policy language, is to offset situations where
a developer constructs infrastructure that the municipality would otherwise be required to fund,
particularly where that infrastructure is driven by growth. In this case, the Town has clearly stated that
The Sevens/BPH will not qualify for a DCC credit solely because the SE Booster Station was not included
in the five-year definition of eligible works. While I appreciate that not every project can be included, I do
believe the Town has a responsibility to recognize where development is most likely to occur and to work
collaboratively with developers who are effectively delivering, and in my case, permanently absorbing,
major infrastructure investments in areas where no further development is likely to follow.
From my perspective, this creates a scenario where the Town benefits twice: critical infrastructure is
delivered, and DCCs are still collected on 50+ units, without recognizing the infrastructure contribution
that made that development possible. Not to speak on Mike Burns behalf, but I am sure he feels the
same sentiment that I do because the 12/13 street upgrade that he would prove to be a solution for the
entire town, should also be considered in this approach that the town has chosen.
I am respectfully asking that the Town reconsider this approach and engage with us on how alignment
might be achieved. As I have stated previously, it is not sustainable for developers to absorb every newly
identified infrastructure requirement, particularly when those needs stem from long-standing asset
mismanagement issues identified by Urban Systems. Now more than ever, I believe the Town should be
considering a measured acclimation period for DCC increases (for example, a 15-year phase-in), with a
primary focus on encouraging development, expanding the tax base, and attracting more developers to
share in these costs, rather than discouraging development altogether.
I also continue to have concerns regarding transparency with Council and the broader community. It is
my understanding that the Town is at or near its statutory borrowing capacity of 10%, (roughly $3.6MM)
and that Council approval would be required to extend this limit to 25%. If the Town proceeds with DCC
increases of the magnitude currently being discussed, on the order of 25 times current rates, there is a
very real risk that development will stall entirely. In that scenario, there will be no meaningful DCC
revenue to fund the very projects these increases are intended to support.
I am not convinced that Council or the community has been adequately prepared for what happens
if development slows or stops altogether. With borrowing capacity constrained and aging
infrastructure systems already under strain, it is important to ask where funding will come from
when additional infrastructure failures arise. In that scenario, the burden will inevitably shift to
property taxpayers. Simply saying "development needs to pay for development" is not the
approach that should be used because developers simply will explore development opportunities
outside of Golden, and the TOG will have been forced to front end these compounding issues.
The community, including developers, deserves to understand the implications if development does not
proceed and how the Town intends to fund its infrastructure obligations in that event. We continue to
hear from Council that multiple reports have been provided outlining the community's needs, and we
share the view that substantial development is required to address the housing needs identified in those
reports. However, that reality must be balanced against a fundamental question: how can the Town and
Council reasonably expect developers to deliver affordable housing options when they are
simultaneously being asked to front-end millions of dollars in infrastructure, absorb significant DCC
3
increases, manage the higher costs of building in a remote community, and contend with longer sales
and construction cycles, challenges that are further compounded by limited planning department
capacity and extended permitting timelines?
I raise these concerns not to be adversarial, but because the long-term financial health of the Town
depends on striking a realistic balance between infrastructure delivery, development feasibility, and
affordability for residents.
I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss this further and explore whether there is a path forward
that better aligns the Town's infrastructure objectives with economic reality.
Best,
Gur
David Ratzlaff
[email protected]
Cell: 250-272-5100
www.hrpacific.com
Office: PO Box 1304, 901 10th Street N, Golden BC V0A 1H0 | Toll-Free: 1-877-461-4267 | P: 250-344-4999
Subject
Development Cost Charges (DCC)
To Whom It May Concern,
HR Pacific Construction Management has been a general contractor based in Golden, BC for
over 20 years. We originally came to Golden to build the Daylodge at Kicking Horse Mountain
Resort and quickly fell in love with the community. We saw -- and continue to see -- long-term
potential here.
Today, we own several properties in and around Golden that were acquired specifically with
future development in mind. We remain committed to investing locally and contributing to the
town's growth in a responsible and sustainable way.
We understand and support the need to update the Development Cost Charges (DCC) program,
and we agree that growth must help fund the infrastructure required to support it. However, we
are concerned that the proposed flat-rate increase to DCCs does not reflect the current economic
reality of Golden's development market.
A flat-rate DCC structure may be workable in fast-growing communities where residential lots,
homes, and multifamily units are selling at strong market values. That is not the case in Golden
today. Compounding this challenge are recent setbacks related to sewer and water infrastructure
planning, which have already created uncertainty and hesitancy among developers. The revised
DCC proposal, as currently structured, risks further discouraging investment rather than enabling
it.
To provide a real-world example: we are currently evaluating the purchase of a 10-unit
townhouse site that already requires infrastructure upgrades. Under the proposed DCC changes,
an additional upfront cost of approximately $14,000 per unit would be required. Given that these
units would likely sell in the low $400,000 range, this added cost renders the project financially
unviable. As a result, we have placed this opportunity on hold.
It is important to be clear: all development costs are ultimately passed on to the end purchaser.
HR Pacific has historically reinvested capital earned from projects outside of Golden into this
community. However, under the current proposal, we are now forced to reconsider that strategy
and our long-term vision here.
David Ratzlaff
[email protected]
Cell: 250-272-5100
www.hrpacific.com
Office: PO Box 1304, 901 10th Street N, Golden BC V0A 1H0 | Toll-Free: 1-877-461-4267 | P: 250-344-4999
Golden needs to find a practical "way to yes" when it comes to development. Without that,
proposals such as this risk driving investment elsewhere. We have already seen this occur with
major developers such as Basecamp, who invested in the community, purchased property, and
ultimately chose to exit and move on.
Golden is fortunate to have a number of capable, committed developers and builders who share a
long-term vision for the community. We believe the current DCC proposal requires
reconsideration and adjustment to better align with market realities and to support sustainable
growth rather than unintentionally stalling it.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback. We hope this perspective is helpful as the
Town reviews and refines the proposed DCC changes.
Sincerely,
David Ratzlaff
HR Pacific Construction Management Ltd.
26-01-30
Dear Mayor and Council
The Town of Golden faces a familiar challenge: funding growth-related infrastructure while
keeping housing attainable for current and future residents. I recognize the Town's
responsibility to manage infrastructure sustainably. At the same time, Development Cost
Charge policy must be evaluated not only on cost recovery, but on how those costs ultimately
affect housing affordability once they reach the consumer. Attainable and affordable housing is
a stated priority of Council, and DCC policy plays a direct role in achieving or undermining that
goal.
This submission is not an argument against infrastructure investment. It is a call for careful
calibration of how that investment is funded. Development Cost Charges that are high, abrupt,
or heavily front-loaded do not simply transfer costs to developers. They shape housing prices,
supply, and feasibility in lasting ways.
Golden's Housing Needs Report confirms that the community will require significant new
housing supply in the coming decades, much of it delivered by the private market. The
feasibility of that supply is directly influenced by municipal charges applied at the front end of
development. When those charges increase materially, the impacts flow through pricing,
taxation, and financing in ways that are often underestimated at the policy stage.
Golden's housing market is constrained. Inventory growth is limited, incomes are lower than in
major urban centres, and the range of housing types is narrower. In larger cities, a broader mix
of housing forms can better match varied incomes. In smaller communities like Golden, added
costs translate more directly into higher prices, reducing attainability across the market.
Development Cost Charges are not absorbed by developers over the long term. They are capital
costs that must be financed and recovered through the final sale price or rent. In Golden, where
construction costs, land constraints, municipal processing timelines, and financing costs are
already high, there is little room to absorb additional charges without affecting project viability
or end pricing.
Once embedded in the purchase price, DCCs are subject to sales tax. This in esssences creates a
tax-on-tax effect where municipal infrastructure costs are taxed again simply because they are
recovered through market housing prices. National housing research, including CMHC analysis,
consistently shows that front-end fees are capitalized into prices and rents rather than
absorbed by the development industry.
The affordability impact extends further. Because DCCs are embedded in the purchase price,
buyers mortgage those costs over 25 to 30 years. At current interest rates, this significantly
multiplies the real cost of the original charge. A one-time municipal fee is effectively repaid
many times over the life of the mortgage. This increases monthly housing costs, reduces
purchasing power, and disproportionately affects first-time buyers and moderate-income
households. While largely invisible to consumers, the impact is very real.
Evaluating DCCs on a per square metre basis provides a clearer picture of their effect on
housing outcomes. While charges are often discussed per unit, affordability is more closely tied
to cost per unit area. Uniform per-unit-charge mean smaller homes carry a higher cost per
square metre than larger ones. This penalizes compact housing, discourages density, and
conflicts with both local and provincial housing objectives.
Golden's proposed DCC scenarios, prepared by Urban Systems, represent a significant increase
relative to existing rates. When converted to a per square metre basis, these increases add
meaningfully to total residential cost per square metre. In smaller markets, even modest
increases can be the difference between a project proceeding or being delayed indefinitely.
Comparative benchmarking supports this concern. The Canadian Home Builders Association
Municipal Benchmarking Study shows that municipalities with higher development charges
relative to peers tend to experience slower housing starts, reduced project viability, and greater
affordability challenges, particularly outside major metropolitan areas. While Golden's absolute
DCC rates may appear modest in isolation, their relative burden when measured against local
incomes, prices, and construction costs is often greater than in larger cities.
Another material factor is the interaction between municipal processing time, holding costs,
and Development Cost Charges. Senate report testimony show that prolonged approval
timelines directly increase housing costs through land carrying charges, interest, consultant
costs, and delayed revenue. In smaller communities, where margins are thinner and absorption
is slower, these impacts are proportionally larger.
Holding costs compound when paired with rising DCCs. Capital is tied up longer at higher
interest rates, while higher upfront charges increase the principal value that must be recovered
and eventually mortgaged by the end consumer. From an affordability perspective, longer
processing times magnify the real cost of DCCs without delivering additional infrastructure or
housing outcomes. Reducing approval timelines and aligning DCC implementation with realistic
delivery schedules would lower both holding costs and the compounded burden passed on to
buyers and renters.
National policy direction increasingly recognizes these dynamics. In its January 2026 report on
housing affordability, the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy
identifies development charges as a contributor to rising housing costs. Recommendation 5
calls on governments to reduce reliance on front-end charges and explore alternative funding
models such as time-based cost recovery, user fees, municipal borrowing, and greater use of
senior government infrastructure funding. Development charges are framed as a policy choice,
not an inevitability.
For the Town of Golden, this guidance offers a practical path forward. Phasing DCC increases
rather than implementing large step changes would allow the market to adjust while
maintaining housing delivery. Shifting a portion of infrastructure recovery to user-based or
time-based roll-out would reduce compounding effects. Targeted assist factors or deferrals
during transition periods could support housing-enabling projects without undermining long-
term infrastructure funding. Clear per square metre reporting would also improve transparency
and public understanding of how DCC decisions translate into real housing costs.
Golden's Housing Needs Report highlights that housing prices have grown far faster than local
incomes. In this context, policies that further increase the cost base of new housing, particularly
through mechanisms that are taxed and financed over decades, risk worsening the very
problem the community is trying to solve.
By aligning its DCC framework with national research, federal policy guidance, and comparative
municipal experience, the Town of Golden can continue to fund necessary infrastructure while
protecting housing affordability. Doing so will support housing delivery, economic resilience,
and the long-term livability of the community.
Sincerely
Kristopher King
REFRENCES
STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON BANKING, COMMERCE AND THE ECONOMY:
Out of Reach: Unlocking Canada's housing affordability crisis
https://sencanada.ca/content/sen/committee/451/BANC/Reports/2026-01-
20 BANC Housing e.pdf
CANADIAN HOME BUILDER ASSOCIATION MUNICIPAL BENCHMARKING STUDY 2024
https://www.chba.ca/assets/pdf/CHBA+Municipal+Benchmarking+Study-3rd+Edition-2024/
CMHC: We built this city on... Development charges, and it's been rock and
rollhttps://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/observer/2025/we-built-this-city-development-charges
TOWN OF GODLEN : Housing Needs Report 2025
https://www.golden.ca/sites/default/files/2025-09/2025-09-
05 Town%20of%20Golden%20Housing%20Needs%20Report Final%20from%20UM.pdf
TOWN OF GOLDEN: Rate Review Presentation February 25, 2025
https://www.golden.ca/sites/default/files/2025-02/2025-02-25-Golden-Council-Workshop-
DCC-Rate-Scenarios-REV%202.pdf
2
is that Golden faces serious constraints related to water, sewer, and long-term
capacity for growth. I understand that upgrades are needed, and I do not believe
anyone is arguing against the principle that development must contribute fairly to the
infrastructure it relies upon.
That said, I do have concerns about the proposed approach currently under
consultation.
1. The Need for Infrastructure Investment Is Real -- and Supported
First, I want to be clear: infrastructure investment is necessary, and updating DCCs is
an appropriate tool to help fund growth-related upgrades. Golden cannot expand
sustainably without ensuring that water, sewer, roads, and community amenities keep
pace.
The issue is not whether DCCs should increase -- the issue is how they increase, how
they are communicated, and what the unintended consequences may be by going too
far.
2. The Survey Framing Risks Undermining Trust
In reviewing the public survey currently being circulated, I was concerned that many of
the questions are either:
-
Leading, in the sense that they present unrealistic alternatives (for example, asking if residents
would prefer to pay higher taxes or if they feel developers should pay), or
-
Misleading, particularly in how cost impacts are framed. (Suggesting that proposed DCC
increases represent only a small percentage of housing prices 3-4%. In practice, the proposed
increases are not marginal -- they are effectively a 24-fold jump from existing rates.)
A consultation process must be built on neutrality and transparency. Otherwise, it
risks eroding trust among both residents and the development community.
3. Golden's Growth Depends on Attracting Investment -- Not Discouraging It
Canadian Timberframes is actively evaluating plans to grow our business significantly
over the coming years. That growth will require:
-
Hiring more staff
-
Bringing new families to Golden
-
Supporting demand for new housing supply
3
-
Our business also relies on developers and builders' that this decision will impact the
most
That housing can only be delivered if developers and builders are willing to invest in
projects here.
My concern is that a sudden DCC increase of this scale sends a signal to the
investment and development community that Golden may not be the place for them.
Golden is not currently a market where home prices are high enough to easily absorb
tens of thousands of dollars in additional upfront charges per unit. Developers operate
within tight feasibility margins, and when costs rise too quickly, projects are delayed,
cancelled, or redirected to other communities that are growing faster and providing
clearer pathways for investment.
If development stalls, the Town will not collect any of the proposed DCC revenue it
needs -- and the infrastructure challenges will begin to become more challenging . We
require more people moving to golden, paying more taxes to be able to grow the towns
infrastructure and services.
4. Local Builders Are Already Raising These Concerns
In speaking with members of the community and reviewing statements from
experienced local builders and developers, it is clear that these concerns are widely
shared.
Golden is fortunate to have capable, long-term builders who have invested here for
decades. When those individuals express that projects are becoming financially
unviable under the proposed framework, it should be taken seriously.
Closing Thoughts
Golden faces an important balancing act:
-
Funding infrastructure upgrades responsibly
-
Maintaining housing affordability
-
Ensuring that development remains feasible
-
Supporting local business growth and workforce expansion
I support an increase in DCCs, but I strongly encourage Council to reconsider the
scale, structure, and implementation approach to ensure it does not unintentionally
stall the very growth needed to sustain Golden's future.
4
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input, and I look forward to continuing to
engage as we become more integrated in this community.
Sincerely,
Mark J. Wrightman
Mark Wrightman
Co-Owner, Canadian Timberframes Ltd.
P (705) 646-4217
E [email protected]
W canadiantimberframes.com
1
Shirley Liu
From:
Mike Burns <[email protected] >
Sent:
January 20, 2026 10:16 PM
To:
Town of Golden - Engage
Subject:
dcc proposal feedback
[External Email - Use Caution & Verify Links]
To whom it may concern,
I am strongly against the approach being taken by the Town of Golden, and its advisors to increase the
DCC rates by as much as 2500% from the current rate in a mere 7 month timeframe.
It is well understood that the Town of Golden has existing infrastructure issues which need significant
funding to rectify, but the solution is not by making good projects and developments no longer
viable. Effectively killing projects does not bring in money to solve immediate issues requiring funding,
nor does it provide the increase in tax base to adequately address the future needs of the Town and its
residents.
This municipality is already well known as one of the most difficult municipalities to develop property in
all of British Columbia, and the increased requirements to pay very large sums of money for existing
issues which is now to be compounded by a potentially massive DCC increase is incomprehensible. If
the goal of the Town officials and engineers is to eliminate the possibility of solving our current housing
crisis, then this would be a major step towards mission accomplished.
Sincerely,
Mike Burns
--
Mike Burns
Owner
Phone: 1-250-344-3992
Mobile: 1-250-344-0290
Email: [email protected]
www.dogtoothlogandtimber.com
M
m
m
1
Shirley Liu
From:
Ned Johnson <[email protected] >
Sent:
February 2, 2026 10:41 AM
To:
Town of Golden - Engage
Subject:
DCC Feedback
[External Email - Use Caution & Verify Links]
Hi Planning Team,
I hope you're well. I'm reaching out because we genuinely want to keep building in Golden
and contribute to the community's growth. However, the scale of the proposed DCC
increases would make future projects financially unworkable, especially given the
already higher costs of building in a remote community.
My goal isn't to push back for the sake of it--I'd like to find a balanced approach that
supports infrastructure needs while keeping development viable. A phased-in increase or
more equitable cost-sharing could help maintain momentum, expand the tax base, and
ensure the Town meets its housing goals.
I'd appreciate the chance to discuss options that align with both the Town's objectives
and the economic realities of development here.
Thanks for your time,
Ned
Ned Johnson
Managing Partner
250-344-8530
[email protected]
innovationbuilding.com
Feedback on Proposed Development Cost Charge Increases
To Whom It May Concern,
The Soomal Family has over 40 years of development experience in Golden & surrounding
area with over 100 homes built in the community in the last 8 years. Notable projects include The
Petro Canada, Tim Hortons, Rocky Pointe, Riverstone, Kaurhaus, Commercial units 806 9th st. & the
Golden Skybridge. Additionally, The Soomal family currently or has previously owned and operated
The Travelodge, Copperhorse Lodge, Best Western, Ponderosa, ABC Restaurant, Sawmill
Restaurant, Pillars Restaurant, Petro Canada Service Station, and others.
We support the principle of Development Cost Charges as a tool to fund necessary
infrastructure and ensure that growth contributes fairly to the community. However, the manner in
which the proposed increases are implemented is critical to ensuring they do not unintentionally
stall development or worsen housing affordability in Golden.
Any increase to DCCs should be introduced in a calculated and proportional way. A flat-rate
structure disproportionately impacts lower-priced and more affordable units, driving up their
relative cost far more than higher-value single-family homes. DCCs should instead be structured
relative to the cost or value of the specific unit so the burden is shared more equitably.
DCCs should also be structured using a tiered approach that reflects differing market demand and
development economics:
-
Tier 1: Single-family homes and C2-STR zoned properties. There is significantly higher
demand for short-term rental properties, which often command a $20,000-$50,000
premium. These units are better positioned to absorb higher DCCs.
-
Tier 2: Condominium developments, which play an important role in attainable ownership
housing and should face a lower DCC burden than Tier 1.
-
Tier 3: Rental buildings should be exempt from DCCs. The economics of purpose-built
rental development are already largely unfeasible, and additional charges further
discourage this much-needed housing type.
Additionally, any DCC increases should be phased in gradually over a 10 to 15 year timeline to allow
the market to adjust without causing abrupt shocks to project feasibility.
Finally, there must be a fair and transparent process for in-stream applications. Clear rules and
timelines are necessary to ensure there is no perceived or actual delay in processing applications
to capture higher DCCs, as this would undermine trust in the approval process.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback. I encourage Council to adopt a balanced
approach that funds infrastructure while supporting sustainable growth and housing development
in Golden.
Sincerely,
Rav Soomal
1
Shirley Liu
Subject:
FW: Concerns Regarding Bias and Framing in the DCC Survey
From: Rav Soomal <[email protected] >
Sent: January 19, 2026 8:16 PM
To: Jeremy Denegar <[email protected] >; Mayor Ron Oszust <[email protected] >;
Councillor Kristi Cooper <[email protected] >; Councillor Richard Dale
<[email protected] >; Councillor Joy Guyot <[email protected] >; Phil Armstrong
<[email protected] >; Councillor Chris Hambruch <[email protected] >; Councillor
John Manuel <[email protected] >; Councillor Wes Routley <[email protected] >
Subject: Concerns Regarding Bias and Framing in the DCC Survey
[External Email - Use Caution & Verify Links]
Dear Phil, Jeremy, and Ron,
I am writing to formally express my concern, disappointment, and frustration with the Development Cost
Charges (DCC) Survey currently being circulated to residents through SurveyMonkey. In my view, this
survey is disingenuous and materially biased in its framing. The questions are clearly--and
purposefully--written to elicit support for increased DCCs being borne almost entirely by developers,
rather than to genuinely seek balanced public input.
Misleading Cost Comparisons (Page 2)
The survey states:
"The DCC for an apartment unit is paid at the building permit stage and is proposed to
increase from $1,157.34 to $23,500. An increase of $22,342.66 which is about 3.7% of the
price of a $600,000 apartment (condo)."
Using a $600,000 condo price is misleading. Riverstone represented the highest condominium pricing
ever achieved in the Town of Golden, and not a single unit sold for $600,000 or more. In fact:
2
-
11 units sold in the $300,000-$400,000 range
-
The average sale price was approximately $473,000
This framing materially understates the true impact of the proposed DCCs. For a typical one-bedroom
unit, the proposed DCC represents closer to 7% of the unit price--nearly double the percentage stated
in the survey. Presenting the increase as "only" 3.7% significantly misleads respondents regarding the
actual magnitude of the cost burden.
Biased Question Framing (Questions 5 and 6)
Question 5 asks:
"Would you be willing to pay higher property taxes or utility fees to reduce the DCCs paid
by developers/builders?"
Question 6 similarly asks whether residents would support reallocating funds from core services (such
as fire protection or recreation) to reduce DCCs.
Respectfully--seriously?
These questions present respondents with false and emotionally loaded trade-offs that strongly steer
them toward rejecting any alternative to higher DCCs. This is not neutral consultation; it is advocacy
disguised as engagement.
I have seen this pattern repeatedly in municipal communications. When proposing tax increases to
residents, the Town often uses a much lower median home price and language minimizing the impact
(e.g., "the cost of a cup of coffee per day"). Yet in this case, the framing does the opposite--minimizing
the impact of DCCs while exaggerating the consequences of alternatives.
Both residents and the development community deserve an honest, transparent, and good-faith
process. I firmly believe the outcome of this survey would be materially different if the questions were
not structured to elicit a predetermined response.
Examples of More Neutral and Unbiased Questions
Below are examples of questions I believe would be far more appropriate, balanced, and aligned with
accepted survey-design best practices:
1. How do you view the proposed increases in Development Cost Charges, considering potential
impacts on housing prices, rental supply, development feasibility, and municipal finances?
Too high given potential impacts
Somewhat high
Reasonable given infrastructure needs
Too low to adequately fund infrastructure
Unsure / insufficient information
Other (please explain)
Optional follow-up:
Which impacts concern you most? (Select up to two)
3
Housing affordability
Availability of rental housing
Municipal tax levels
Infrastructure quality and timing
Economic growth
Environmental outcomes
None of the above
2. In your view, how should the Town balance development charges and other funding sources
(e.g., property taxes, utility fees, grants, borrowing)?
Prefer higher DCCs and lower taxes
Prefer lower DCCs and higher taxes or utility fees
Prefer a balanced approach using multiple funding sources
Prefer increased use of senior-government grants
Unsure
Other (please explain)
3. How should the Town prioritize funding for growth-related infrastructure relative to existing
services?
Protect existing service levels and fund growth primarily through new revenues
Allow limited reallocation from existing services if impacts are minimal
Be open to reallocating funding where community benefits outweigh service reductions
Reassess all service and capital priorities together
Unsure
Other (please explain)
4. Do you believe Development Cost Charges are ultimately paid by developers, or passed on to
homebuyers and renters through higher prices?
Mostly paid by developers
Mostly passed on to buyers and renters
Shared between developers and end users
Unsure
5. How important is it that infrastructure funding policies support the financial feasibility of new
housing and commercial development in Golden?
Very important
Somewhat important
Neutral
Not important
Unsure
6. What level of transparency should the Town provide regarding how DCC funds are collected,
allocated, and spent?
Detailed public reporting on all projects
High-level annual summaries
Reporting upon request
No preference
Other
4
Closing Question
Please share any additional comments on how growth-related infrastructure should be funded,
including perceived benefits, concerns, or alternative approaches the Town should consider.
I respectfully urge the Town to reconsider both the framing and content of this survey and all future
communications. Meaningful public engagement requires neutrality, transparency, and a willingness to
present trade-offs honestly--not questions designed to justify a predetermined policy outcome.
Sincerely,
Rav Soomal
2
density changes the calculation in most DCC bylaws. Not like Alberta with impost fees, but similar.
More density, less cost per unit is how DCC Bylaws work.
So rebuilding the Towns infrastructure although needed and a good thing, must be funded from the
Town when the upgrade can not be related to development. On the flip side, it is realistic to pay
something toward services in development.
Regardless what the results of the survey are, the Town is required to defend its position with real
honest costs associated with development. Every municipality is required to do this work.
I expect the Town will follow the rules with DCC's here. Maybe some parts of Town or all parts of Town
do require developer related upgrades. But Cities have had to repay the DCC fund when they raided it
for payment not related to development. Abbotsford is a case in point where they had to repay $26.5
million. Even when the payment was written into the bylaw!
It is the Developers job to ensure fairness if the Town is not going to be fair. And I am sure this group will
make sure the Town is fair when using and calculating DCc's.
I am also absolutely sure the Town will follow the rules and be fair here.
Never seen a municipality go to the residents like this. Probably not the right path, but hey, as long as
they follow the rules and they grant permits quickly, we developers are just conduits of the taxes. The
people buying into a Town will have a head tax. And hopefully this is part of the solution the Town has
been seeking.
For the record, I do not believe the number is fair or right to only have one number. Too high for the
community and without looking at what is included, probably has things the Town is currently
responsible for. Over charging DCC's stops development and therefore never raises the money
required for the work. Nanaimo is a case in point being away out ahead on ridiculous fees for the time,
passed a new bylaw cutting the fees to one quarter to kick start or restart development. It worked.
DCC's have to be a balance. Too high and no revenue comes in from DCC's. Too low and the Town can't
keep up.
3
Golden would be good to get this just right. The first time, not after the first effort fails.
I expect a sober second thought will happen here and Golden Staff and Council will do the right thing,
because that is what they strive to do every day.
Rarely do the first Staff numbers for DCc's survive this process. A balance is struck and rarely do staff
and developers agree. The Town has to have developers and their lenders buy in to make this work.
Steve Dunton for 1332150 BC Ltd planned development 1321 Granite Drive.
45
APPENDIX D:
SURVEY CONTENT
Development Cost Charges (DCC) Feedback
Development Cost Charges (DCCs) are fees that municipalities charge developers of
subdivisions or new buildings, these fees help fund the infrastructure required to
support the new developments. DCCs help facilitate development by providing a
method to finance some of the capital projects needed to keep up with growth: for
example, increased sewage treatment facility capacity, increased pipe and pumping
capacity, and transportation improvements (example Selkirk Hill and a multi-use
path on Golden Donald Upper).
The fees are placed in reserve funds to contribute to future capital projects
identified within the Town's DCC Program.
DCCs do the following:
Help ensure growth pays for growth;
Meet the beneficiary pay principal (developers are charged in proportion to how
much the development benefits);
Provide greater certainty to developers;
Fairly distribute growth costs across developments
Help communities save for growth-related infrastructure; and
Reduce the potential for tax burden on residents.
Background: DCCs in Golden
The Town's current Development Cost Charges Bylaw No. 1304 was adopted in 2012
and includes DCCs for water and sewer.
Proposed DCC Program
Following the completion of transportation, active transportation, water and sewer
master plans, a new DCC program is being proposed. The new program will continue
to include DCCs for water and sewer, and as proposed, will also include two new DCC
categories: transportation and parks.
Visit www.golden.ca/dcc to learn more about the DCC program, including links to
masterplans, previous Council presentations and a copy of the slide deck and
recording of the recent stakeholder virtual session.
When creating a DCC program benefit allocation is determined. Some projects
benefit growth entirely and some DCC projects include a municipal benefit allocation
(portion to be funded by the taxpayer or water/sewer utility; however, all projects
include the legislated minimum municipal assist factor of 1% (funded by the
municipality),
For example, the Selkirk Hill Transportation Project estimated at $3,180,000 is 50%
allocated to growth ($1,590,000), with a 1% municipal assist factor ($15,900) so the
amount recoverable by DCCs (from development) is $1,574100 and the existing
taxpayer portion would be $1,605,900.
An example that is 100% allocated to growth are upgrades at the sewage treatment
plant. A proposed project is the Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR) estimated at
$13,800,000. The existing taxpayer portion would be only the 1% municipal assist
factor of $138,000
Besides the DCC program the Town (the taxpayer) has supported growth related
infrastructure in many ways including Master Plans, development related
infrastructure financing guides, a new water well, front-ending the 12th St Lift
Station and pipes and proposed cost sharing on Pine Drive Alternative Sewer
Alignment.
Now that you've reviewed this project, please share your opinion by answering the
following 6 questions about the DCC update. This survey should take approximately
5 minutes to complete. Your feedback will be used to inform Council's decisions on
the DCC program.
* 1. Are you a taxpayer in the Town of Golden?
(i.e., do you pay town property taxes either directly as a property owner, or indirectly as a
renter?)
Yes
No
I don't know
* 2. What is your connection to Golden? Please select all that apply.
I live in Golden
I live in CSRD Electoral Area A (ex. Nicholson, Habart, Parson, Blaeberry, Donald, etc.)
I own a business in Golden
I'm a developer or associated with the development community
None of the above (please specify)
* 3. Who do you think should pay for the roads, parkland, sewers, and water infrastructure
needed because of growth? Please select the response which most suits your beliefs.
Growth should pay for growth. New development should pay for the vast majority of the costs of
infrastructure required to service growth.
Existing taxpayers and new development should share equally in the costs of infrastructure required to
service growth.
Existing taxpayers should pay for all of the costs of infrastructure required to service growth. New
development should not have to pay a charge per unit to cover the costs of infrastructure required to
service growth.
Other (please specify)
Development Cost Charges (DCC) Feedback
Increases in DCCs
Because of increases in costs since 2012, new masterplan information and growth
projections, DCCs are projected to increase, for example:
The DCC for a single detached dwelling lot is paid at the subdivision stage and
proposed to increase from $1,410.99 to $34,820.00. An increase of $33,409.01
which is about 3.5% of the price of a $950,000 home.
The DCC for an apartment unit is paid at the building permit stage and is
proposed to increase from $1,157.34 to $23,500. An increase of $22,342.66
which is about 3.7% of the price a $600,000 apartment (condo).
DCC costs are paid by the developer or builder.
Much too high
Slightly too high
About right
Much too low
I don't know
Other (please specify)
* 4. What do you think about the magnitude of these increases to DCCs?
* 5. Would you be willing to pay higher property taxes or utility fees to reduce the DCCs paid
by developers/builders?
Yes, regardless of the amount required.
Yes, but only a small percentage increase. (ex. around 2%)
I'm not sure
No, I would not support any increase to property taxes or utility fees.
Other (please specify)
* 6. Do you think the Town should reallocate funds from existing services (ex. recreation
services, fire protection, etc.) to help increase the municipal assist factor and reduce the
DCCs paid by developers/builders and the final buyers?
Noting that reallocating funds from existing service levels would lower service levels in those
areas.
Yes, the Town should reallocate as much as necessary to reduce DCCs significantly.
Yes, but only a small amount to slightly reduce DCCs
Not sure
No, I would not support any reallocation of funds.
Other (please specify)
7. Do you have any other thoughts on Development Cost Charges and who should pay for the
costs of infrastructure improvements required to serve new growth?
APPENDIX C
Existing Development Cost
Charges Bylaw No. 1304, 2012
TOWN OF GOLDEN
BYLAW NUMBER 1304,2012
DEVELOPMENT COST CHARGES
Being a bylaw to impose "Development Cost Charges"
The Council of the Town of Golden, in open meeting assembled, IIEREBY ENACTS AS
FOLLOWS:
A. CITATION
(a) This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as "Town of Golden Dettelopment Cost Charges
Bylaw No. 1304, 2012".
B. DEFINITIONS
1. In this Bylaw, including Schedule "A :
"Commercial Accommodation" means hotel or motel as defined in the Town of Golden
Zoning Bylaw 1294, 2011.
"Commercial" means a commeÍcial development used or intended to be used for the
carrying on of any business, including the sale or provision of goods, accommodation,
entertainment, meals or services, but excludes an industrial, institutional or residential
development.
"Development Area" in respect of industrial premises means that portion of a lot on
which are located any improvements to accommodate or facllitate an industrial use
including any building, structure, parÄng ot storage alea, orlandscaped arca.
"Duplex" means a residential building designed exclusively to accommodate two
households living independently in separate dwelling units above, below or beside
each other, each having a separate entrance; designed and constructed as two dwelling
units that share a common foundation and roof structure; and which could be located
on either one or two lots.
"Dwelling unit" means a single room or series of rooms operated as a housekeeping
unit, used as a domicile by one or more persons and usually containing cooking,
eating, living, sle ep ing and s anítary facilitie s .
"Floor AÍea" means the total area of all floors in a building measured to the outside
surface of the exterior walls, but excluding areas provided for parking of motor
vehicles.
"Industrial" means a use of land ot water for the processing, fabricatrng,
manufacturing, assembling, storing, transporting, distributing, testing, servicing or
repattngof goods, materials or things, and includes the operation of transportation or
I jPage
shipping terminals, docls other than those used as marinas for pleasure craft, railways
or warehouses.
"Mobile Home" means a single or multþle section single detached dwelling built to
CSA 2240 standards for residential occupancy and designed to be ffansportable on
wheels.
"Multiple Dwelling" means a residential building or cluster of buildings containing
three or more dwelling units on a lot and may include: row housing, cluster housing,
townhouse and apartment building uses.
"single Detached Dwelling" means housing on a single titled lot consisting of one
dwelling unit intended for use by one household, and may include a secondary suite
where provided for.
"single Detached Dwelling (Small Lots)" means housing on a single titled lot, with a
minimum lot size of 400 m2, consisting of one dwelling unit intended for use by one
household, andmay include a secondary suite where provided for.
"Town" means the Town of Golden.
"Triplex" means a building consisting of three dwelling units each of which has direct,
separate access to grade and is occupied or intended to be occupied as the permanent
home or residence of one household.
C. SI.]B STANTIVE PROYISIONS
l. Every person who obtains:
a) approval of a subdivision as defined in the Land Title Act ot a subdivision under the
Strata Property Act; or
b) a building permit atthoizingthe construction, alteration or extension of a building
or structure, other than:
i) a building permit aathorizing the construction, alteration or extension of a
building that will contain fewer than 4 self-contained dwelling units and be put to
no other use than the residential use in those dwelling units;
ii) a building permit authoizing work of a value of less than $50,000, based on the
information contained in the building permit and the fair market value of any
mobile home or prefabricated building being placed or erected; or such other
maximum amount as may be established by regulation under the Local Government
Act;
iii) a building permit authoriztng the consffuction, alteration or extension of a
building or part of a building that is, or will be exempt from taxation under the
Community Charter as aplace of public worship, or
2lP a ge
iv) a building permit aathorizrng the construction of a dwelling unit no larger than
29m2,
shall, at the time of the approval of the subdivision or the issue of the building permit,
as the case may be, pay to the Town the applicable development cost charges in the
amounts set out in Schedule "4".
2. Where a building permit application is made in respect of a development that, on a
single parcel, includes residential, commercial and industrial development, or aîy
combination of these, the development cost charges shall be the sum of:
a) the applícable rute for residential dwelling units, if any, multiplied by the number of
proposed dwelling units;
b) the applicable rate of commercial space, tf any,
Ð for commercial accommodation, multiplied by the number of rooms, and
iÐ otherwise, multiplied by the number of square metres of proposed commercial
space;
c) the applicable rate for industrial space, lf any, multþlied by the number of square
metres of proposed industrial space;
3. 'Where a building permit application is made to construct, alter or extend an existing
building, the development cost charges will be calculated based on the increase in
building floor area for commercial land use, except for commercial accommodation,
which shall be based on the number of rooms, and the increase in developed arca for
industrial land uses. The development cost charge must be paid pnor to issuance of
building permit at the rates set out in Schedule "4".
4. Despite section 2, if:
a) arl application for a subdivision approval, and all required supporting
documentation for a complete application, is received by the Town's approving
officer in a form satisfactory to that officer; or
b) an application for a building permit and all required supporting documentation
for a complete application, is received by the Town's building ofücial in a form
satisfactory to that official,
prior to the date of adoption of this Bylaw; and
c) allapplicable fees arepaid,
then for aperiod of 12 months after the date this Bylaw is adopted, the development
cost charges payable upon approval of the subdivision or issuance of the building
permit, as applicable, shaf be the lesser of the amounts payable under this Bylaw and
3lPage
1
the amounts payable under Town of Golden Development Cost Charge Bylaw No. 1066,
2001.
5. Schedule "4" is alfached to and forms part of this Bylaw.
D. SEYERABILITY
1 . If any portion of this bylaw is found invalid by a decision of a court of competent
jurisdiction, the invalid portion is severed without effect on the remaining portions of
the bylaw.
E. REPEAL
Town of Golden Deuelopment Cost Charge Bylaw Na 1066, 2001 and all amendments
thereto is hereby rescinded in its entirety,
READ A FIRST TIME THIS
26TH DAY OF
JI.INE
,2012.
READ A SECOND TIME THIS 26TH DAY OF
JUNE
,2012.
READ A THIRD TIME THIS
26TH DAY OF
JI.INE
,2012.
RECEIVED APPROVAL FROM THE INSPECTOR OF MLINICIPALITIES,
THIS 15TH DAY OF
AUGUST ,20T2.
ADOPTED THIS 4,H DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2OT2,BY A
UNANIMOUS DECISION OF ALL MEMBERS OF TOWN COUNCIL PRESENT
AND ELIGIBLE TO VOTE.
OFFICER
Town of Golden Bylaw 1304, 2012
Development Cost Charges
4lPage
Town of Golden Bylaw 1304, 2012
Deuelopment Cost Charges
TO'IüN OF GOLDEN
BYT,AW NUMBER 1304, 2012
DEVELOPMENT COST CHARGES
SCIIEDIJLE (A' - FEES
Land Use
Single Detached Dwelling
Single Detached Dwelling
(Small Lot)
Duplex Residential
Triplex Residential
Multrple Dwelling and
Mobile Home
Commercial
Commercial Accommodation
Industrial
Purpose
'Water
Sewer
'Water
Sewer
Water
Sewer
Water
Sewer
'Water
Sewer
'Water
Sewer
'Water
Sewer
Water
Sewer
Development Cost Charge
Sl,l77 .21 per dwelling unit
5223.78 per dwelling unit
51,07 4.84 per dwelling unit
5204.32 per dwelling unit
SL,l77.2l per dwelling unit
5223.78 per dwelling unit
Sl,l77 .21 per dwelling unit
5223.78 per dwelling unit
5972.48 per dwelling unit
$184.86 per dwelling unit
$3.07 per m2 of floor area
$0.73 per m2 of floor area
$563.01 per room
$107.03 per room
per m'of development area
per m' of developmentarea
$3.07
$0.73
5lPage
APPENDIX D
Proposed Development Cost
Charges Bylaw No. 1517, 2026