period that is a development charge in all but in name and legal authority. The
arbitrary nature of thecalculation and how it is being applied is a serious problem
Again, stories that has been in the paperssuggests developers who contribute early (and often) will pay less or get some kind of break on the amountthat they have to pay because being a "charter member" in good standing is somewhat like becoming amember of an exclusive club to enjoy "the privileges of membership"...the primary benefit is to avoid beingtargeted for inequitable and discriminatory treatment by the City of MarkhamWhat happens down the road when sewer allocation is not a problem? The developers or at least onedeveloper may take Markham to the OMB or court claiming the "compulsory
voluntary contribution isillegal? I believe there was a meeting on March 18
, 2012 held in the Canada Room, hosted by the CAOand Mayor, where several members of the development community and a representative from BILDattended. The developers
attend, the CAO had separate meetings to update them. Several of the developers were told in the meeting if they didn't go along with the "compulsory voluntarycontribution
schema (levy), that their subdivision agreements may take longer to process and sign off. Thedevelopers told me that they had no choice as they wanted to do business in the City of Markham. Councilwas briefed of the
voluntary contribution plan on April 16, 2012. I had already heard aboutthis from several developers but
it.My concern is in a couple of years, the developers challenge the "compulsory
voluntary contributionschema (levy) in the courts and win. The Judge declaring the "compulsory" voluntary contribution schemaas illegal and orders Markham
s "compulsory" voluntary contribution practice stopped immediately and allmonies collected returned back to the developers with interest. This could be a huge financial liability tothe taxpayers of Markham.What liability does this put Members of Council in who vote for the "compulsory" voluntary Contributionschema (levy) and even council members who vote against it? Especially, if they knowingly are aware of the illegalities of the "compulsory" voluntary contribution levy and the potential financial commitment theywould be committing the taxpayers of Markham.When a municipality sets development charges it must do so through a strict process regulated by the
Provincial Government all of which is subject to appeal. Just because the Upper Unionville developers orLiberty have agreed to make a certain payment to expedite their current applications, don't count on it inthe
future from everyone. And once one challenge is successful all the rest will follow, it’s just good
business after all.The matter of liability is something our CAO, all senior staff, legal and auditors should be advising councilon. At the very least we need a proper independent due diligence done on this proposal:1.
to comment on liability of taxpayers if GTA Sport Facility defaults2.
to comment on viability
to review and comment on viability of arena4.
independent advise on contract and DC By-Law