The City of Vancouver plans to release in late June its first-ever report detailing how it spends the tens of millions of dollars in community amenity contributions (CACs) obtained annually from developers.
The report is in part a response to complaints from critics who have charged that the city is secretive about how it spends CAC funds.
The Vancouver charter requires the city to release a report each year documenting how it spends the roughly $25 million in development cost levies (DCLs) that it rakes in through charges of about $10 per square foot on all new development applications. No such requirement exists for CACs, which are charged when properties are rezoned. CACs equate to about 75% of the rise in land value that developers gain.
Unlike the pre-determined DCL fee, CACs are negotiated between city staff and developers. They’re described as “voluntary payments” because the city is not supposed to sell zoning. By law, DCLs can be spent only on parks, housing, child-care and engineering infrastructure.
“CACs can go toward the same things as DLCs, and then some,” said assistant director of planning Randy Pecarski. “[For example], they could also be spent on things such as heritage conservation, libraries and community centres.” But he denied that CACs could be funnelled into general revenue. “Both DCLs and CACs are accounted for separately and outside of general revenue in all instances.”
Sometimes the city’s amenity needs are clear even if their value isn’t.For example, when it voted May 9 to allow developers to build 12-storey buildings along the Cambie corridor and even taller buildings around SkyTrain stations, council made it clear that developers would have to build market housing in the corridor.
Because that housing is less valuable than condominiums, the cost difference between the two will be considered a city amenity.
But that idea drew fire from councillor Suzanne Anton: “Public benefits are for public facilities and the public good, like parks, child-care centres and publicly owned social housing. Private market housing is not a public benefit.”