HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLN 10-26
Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: PLN 10-26
Date: May 4, 2026
From: Kyle Bentley
Director, City Development & CBO
Subject:
Development Application Approvals Process (DAAP) Fee Review
Proposed Building, Planning and Engineering Service Fees
File: L-1100-031
Recommendation:
1. That the Development Applications Approvals Process (DAAP) Fee Review prepared by
Watson and Associates Economists Ltd. included as Attachment 1 be endorsed;
2. That the recommended amendments to the City Development - Building and Planning Fees
and Development Services Fees included in Attachments 2, 3 and 4 to Report PLN 10-26
to establish fee adjustments, be approved; and that the draft By-laws to adopt Fees be
finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment;
3. That the recommended fees outlined in Attachments 2, 3 and 4 to Report PLN 10-26 take
effect on July 1, 2026;
4. That all Planning, Building, and Development Services Fees continue to be indexed
annually, based on the City‘s annual budgeted cost increases or other appropriate index
(i.e., the Municipal Price Index) to maintain the proposed level of cost recovery; and,
5. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions
necessary to implement the recommendations in this report.
1.0 Executive Summary:
The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the recently completed Development
Application Approvals Process (“DAAP”) Fee Review. The report summarizes the tasks
completed as part of this review, outlines the findings of the DAAP Fee Review Report,
prepared by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. (“Watson”) (see Attachment 1), and
presents proposed fee changes for Building, Planning, and Engineering-related services with
the objective of obtaining full cost recovery.
On February 24, 2025, through Resolution #665/25 (see Attachment 5) the recommendations
and associated implementation of Streamlining the Development Application Review Process
(“DARP”), including a recommendation to conduct a future DAAP fee review, was endorsed.
PLN 10-26 May 4, 2026
Page 2
As a result, staff engaged Watson to conduct a comprehensive review of City Development
(Building and Planning) and Engineering Services (Development Services) fees to ensure the
services provided result in full cost recovery.
Staff recommend that Council endorse the DAAP Fee Review, as set out in Attachment 1,
approve the recommended fees as outlined in Attachments 2, 3 and 4, and that the draft By-
laws to adopt the recommended fee increases be finalized and forwarded to Council for
enactment, taking effect as of July 1, 2026.
2.0 Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan:
The recommendations in this report respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priorities of:
Champion Economic Leadership & Innovation; and Advance Innovation & Responsible
Planning to Support a Connected, Well-Serviced Community.
3.0 Financial Implications:
On average, the City's annual costs to process development applications are $11.5 million,
while annual development application fee revenue is $9.6 million. This creates a $1.9 million
shortfall, which must be funded either through the municipal tax base or, in the case of building
permit revenues, by drawing on the City’s Building Permit Reserve Fund. These cost estimates
include direct, indirect, and capital expenses associated with processing development
applications, based on average historical application volumes between 2022 and 2025.
While current fee revenue covers some service costs, adjustments are required to align fees
with actual processing costs. Some application fees will need to increase, others will need to
decrease, and some will remain unchanged. The recommended fee increases are intended to
cover current costs and the level of effort required to process development applications, and
reduce the financial burden on taxpayers. If the proposed fees are not adjusted, the funding
shortfall will need to be addressed through the tax base and/or the Building Reserve Fund.
The current and proposed development application fees are outlined in Attachments 2, 3 and 4
of this report and reflect cost recovery for development review services based on the number
of business units and staffing effort involved (direct costs), as well as indirect and capital costs,
and process changes. If approved, the new fees would come into effect on July 1, 2026, and
the budget impacts would be incorporated into the 2027 budget process.
Furthermore, it is recommended that all Building, Planning, and Development Services Fees
continue to be indexed annually to the City's budgeted cost increases or to another suitable
index, such as the Municipal Price Index. Annual indexing ensures fees keep pace with
inflationary pressures on expenses and avoid significant increases during future
comprehensive fee reviews.
Based on both historical and forecasted application volumes, fee recommendations have been
provided, which are expected to generate:
PLN 10-26 May 4, 2026
Page 3
$238,000 in additional annual planning fee revenue, increasing cost recovery from 73% to
79%;
$175,000 in additional annual engineering fee revenue, increasing cost recovery from 90%
to 100%; and
$895,000 in additional annual building permit fee revenue, achieving full recovery and
contributing to the reserve fund to support long-term sustainability.
4.0 Discussion:
The purpose of this report is to outline the recommendations provided by Watson on the DAAP
Fee Review, summarize the tasks completed as part of this review, and recommend the
proposed changes to Building, Planning, and Development Services Fees with the objective of
obtaining full cost recovery for processing planning and building permit applications, and
engineering review.
5.0 Background:
Development application fees, along with Development Charges, are crucial for funding
growth-related costs and minimizing impacts on the municipal tax base. A key principle in
establishing development-related fees is to fully cover the costs of processing development
applications and providing building code enforcement services within City Development, and
development-related reviews in Engineering Services.
Municipalities regularly review their fees to adapt to changes in development cycles,
application characteristics, and cost recovery goals, while also seeking fee structures that
more precisely align with processing levels.
Planning application and Building permit fees are updated every year through indexing.
Furthermore, in 2021, fees were approved under the General Municipal Fees and Charges By-
law after two reviews. The first review was prompted by provincial legislation relating to Bill
109. It introduced new fees related to the “pre-submission" phase, while also adjusting the
timing of fee payments to match the stage of the process better when the work is done. The
second review, unrelated to Bill 109, involved increasing development application fees to
better reflect the effort required of City staff. Before this, the most recent comprehensive Fee
Review was conducted by Watson & Associates in 2018.
On February 24, 2025, Council approved the recommendations for Streamlining the DARP and
the related implementation work plan (see Attachment 5, Directive Memo - Resolution
#665/25). A key component of the work plan was to conduct a thorough review of the DAAP
fee structure to incorporate future improvements and to ensure the City has the financial
resources needed to meet performance standards and regulatory review timelines.
Consequently, in June 2025, Watson & Associates was engaged to assist staff in carrying out
a detailed review of the DAAP fee structure.
PLN 10-26 May 4, 2026
Page 4
The DAAP fee review is necessary to ensure that development application fees (building,
planning, and engineering) accurately reflect the City’s current costs and the level of effort
required to process applications. The review also achieves the following:
responds to changes in the scope, complexity, and type of development applications in the
City of Pickering;
compliance with changing provincial legislation;
alignment with industry best practices;
refinement and streamlining of the development review processes resulting from the DARP
review, while also supporting the long-term financial stability of the development application
review function;
establishment of a fair user-fee structure for services rendered;
cost recovery for new planning responsibilities delegated to the City from the Region of
Durham;
demonstration of the City’s commitment to affordability, transparency, and excellent
customer service; and,
reduction of the portion of development review costs funded by taxpayers, while
considering stakeholder impacts.
6.0 Legislative Requirements:
Development-related fees are levied under the authority of the Planning Act, the Municipal Act,
and the Building Code Act.
6.1 Planning Act, Section 69, Planning Services Fees
Allows municipalities to impose fees through a By-law, and the expected costs of these
fees must be justified by application type as outlined in the Tariff of Fees By-law (e.g., fees
for processing application types such as Official Plan amendments, Zoning By-law
amendments, etc.).
Defines the requirements for determining Planning Fees. For example, they are designed
to recover the expected processing costs for each application type, reflecting the estimated
expenses for that type.
Fees can account for direct costs, capital-related costs, and support function costs directly
related to the service provided, and general overhead costs.
Cross-subsidization of planning fee revenues across different application types is not
allowed. For example, if Site Plan application fees are set below full cost recovery, this
discount cannot be funded by application fees that exceed full cost recovery and may need
to be covered by other general revenue sources, such as property taxes.
The payment of Planning Act fees can be made under protest to the Ontario Land Tribunal
(OLT) if the applicant believes the fees were inappropriately charged or are unreasonable.
Unlike other fees (e.g., Development Charges), there is no legislated appeal period related
to the timing of By-law passage, mandatory review period, or public process requirements.
PLN 10-26 May 4, 2026
Page 5
6.2 Municipal Act, 2001 Part XII, Development Services Fees
Allows municipalities to impose fees via the passage of a By-law, under Section 391(1):
a. For services or activities provided or done by or on behalf of it;
b. For costs payable by it for services or activities provided or performed by, or on behalf
of, any other municipality or local board.
c. For the use of its property, including property under its control
Allows municipalities to charge for capital costs related to services, including costs incurred
by the municipality, such as administration, enforcement, and the establishment,
acquisition, and replacement of capital assets that benefit residents and the public.
The statute does not allow for the appeal of fees to the OLT; appeals can be made to the
courts if municipalities exceed their legal powers.
The Act does not require public consultation or a mandatory term for the fees By-law.
6.3 Building Code Act, 1992, Building Services Fees
Section 7(1) of the Act grants municipalities the authority to impose fees via the passage of
a By-law, specifying:
(c) requiring the payment of fees and prescribing the amounts of those fees:
i) on application for and issuance of permits,
ii) for maintenance inspections,
iii) for providing information under subsection 15.10.4
iv) for providing information under subsection 15.10.6(2);
(c.1) requiring the payment of interest and other penalties, including payment of collection
costs, when fees are unpaid or are paid after the due date;
(d) Providing for refunds of fees under such circumstances as are prescribed.
The Building Code Statute Law Amendment Act, 2002, introduced additional requirements
for municipalities in setting fees, specifying that fees must not exceed the reasonable
anticipated cost for the principal authority to administer and enforce this Act within its
jurisdiction. Furthermore, the amendments also mandate that municipalities:
Reduce fees to reflect the portion of service performed by a Registered Code Agency;
Prepare and make available to the public annual reports with respect to the fees
imposed under the Act and associated costs;
Undertake a public process, including 21 days' notice and public meeting requirements,
when a change in the fee is proposed;
Fees must not exceed the anticipated reasonable costs of providing the service and
establish a cost justification test at the global Building Code Act level; and
Municipalities are required to report on annual direct and indirect costs related to fees,
which include general corporate overhead, indirect costs related to the provision of
service and related to future compliance requirements or fee stabilization reserve fund
contribution.
The Building Code Act recognizes the legitimacy of establishing a municipal reserve fund to
ensure service stability and reduce financial and operational risks associated with a
temporary slowdown in building permit activity. A reserve fund should be maintained to
PLN 10-26 May 4, 2026
Page 6
address staffing and budget challenges caused by cyclical economic downturns and
ongoing legislative compliance requirements. Without a reserve fund, reduced growth and
permit volumes during a downturn could lead to significant budget pressures, affecting the
City’s capacity to enforce the Building Code Act and the Ontario Building Code.
The Building Code Act does not require a specific method for establishing an appropriate
reserve fund. However, municipalities typically establish building permit reserve funds to
maintain service levels. During Watson's previous fee review, it was recommended that the
City set its reserve fund budget at 1.13 times the yearly cost of administering and enforcing
the Building Code Act. This target was based on an analysis of past housing downturns,
which showed that building permit activity and related revenue can decline significantly
relative to long-range historical averages. It was determined that approximately 1.5 years of
building permit revenue would be lost during an economic downturn, indicating that the
reserve fund should have 1.5 times the annual cost of service to maintain staff capacity
during those periods.
7.0 Process, Methodology and Analysis:
A Project Kick-Off Meeting was held on June 25, 2025, to introduce the consulting team,
confirm the scope and methodology, and review the work plan. The following tasks were
completed:
preliminary information was provided to Watson, including organizational charts, current fee
schedules, reserve fund policies and balances, annual development application volumes,
and annual building permit data and revenues;
more than 55 City staff involved in processing and reviewing planning applications
(including Engineering review) participated in meetings and interviews;
City Development staff participated in over 35 working sessions to establish categories for
assessing the full cost of service, identifying the resources used in delivering services, and
recording the time and effort spent per task; and
additional meetings were held to summarize key findings discussed at previous meetings,
and to analyze the data provided by City Staff.
Watson then applied an Activity-Based Costing methodology to this data. This approach
identifies the specific costs associated with processing each application to support full cost
recovery of development application fees. The costs assigned to processing activities and
application categories include:
Direct Costs – operating expenses tied to staff directly involved in service delivery activities
(including salaries, wages and benefits, materials, services, and contract services costs
assumed by the City that are directly related to the application processing);
Indirect Costs – operating expenses associated with departments that support direct
service delivery (e.g., Human Resources, Information Technology, Facilities and Fleet,
Finance, Corporate Services, etc.); and,
Capital costs – costs related to the replacement of capital assets and the proportional use
of City facilities.
PLN 10-26 May 4, 2026
Page 7
When developing the fee calculation categories, several factors that affect review and
processing effort were considered, including:
Planning Applications
standard and complex applications (e.g., Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law
Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision);
number of proposed units and gross floor areas for Site Plan applications;
submission of concurrent applications (e.g., Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-
law Amendment);
multiple variances within a single minor variance application;
consent applications, including those delegated from the Region of Durham; and,
other application types, such as Draft Plan of Condominium, Minister’s Zoning Orders
and Ontario Land Tribunal appeals.
Development Engineering Review
initial Engineering Review versus resubmissions; and,
inspections.
Building Permits
varying sizes of high-density development;
new construction versus alterations; and,
effort required for application review, inspection, enforcement, and administration.
This approach helps ensure that fees reflect the level of effort required and the associated
costs. Watson used the costing model results to support recommended changes to the City’s
fee structures and to develop the recommendations outlined in the final report (see Attachment
1).
PLN 10-26 May 4, 2026
Page 8
8.0 Annual Processing Costs, Existing Fee Revenues and Recommended Fees:
The City’s annual costs of reviewing development applications, annual revenues, and cost
recovery levels, in aggregate by service area, are shown in the table below. The estimated
annual costs reflect the organizational direct, indirect, and capital costs associated with
processing activities at average historical volume levels, and average annual application
between 2022 and 2025 and existing 2026, as well as fee calculation categories for these
applications (e.g., building area and number of residential units).
Annual Application Costs
and Revenue
Planning
Application
Fees
Development
Engineering
Fees
Building
Permit
Fees
Total
Direct Costs $ 3,211,728 $1,262,553 $4,530,239 $9,004,520
Indirect Costs $ 816,449 $372,559 $1,186,050 $2,375,059
Capital Costs $ 24,799 $10,772 $34,852 $70,422
Total Annual Costs $ 4,052,976 $1,645,884 $5,751,142 $11,450,001
Total Annual Revenue at
Existing Fees
$ 2,960,296 $1,474,290 $5,155,645 $9,590,232
Surplus/(Deficit) ($1,092,680) ($171,594) ($595,496) ($1,859,770)
Overall Cost Recovery %
(with no fee increase)
73% 90% 90% 84%
*Total revenues and processing costs are calculated using forecasted
average volumes and based on review of volumes and revenues from the
years 2022 to 2025.
Overall, the total annual costs of development review activities are $11.5 million, consisting of:
direct costs represent 79% of annual costs (approximately $9.0 million);
indirect costs represent 20% of annual costs (approximately $2.3 million); and,
capital costs represent 1% of annual costs (approximately $70 thousand).
In aggregate, revenues from current fees and average annual applications total $9.6 million, or
84% of costs, resulting in $1.9 million of the development fee review costs being funded by the
municipal tax base or drawn from the building permit reserve fund.
The current deficit of approximately $1.9 million indicates that the City Development and
Engineering Services Departments are not achieving full cost recovery. The primary goal of the
DAAP Fee Review is to determine appropriate fees that ensure full cost recovery. Accordingly,
Watson has provided recommendations for fee adjustments, as outlined in the following
sections.
8.1 Planning Fees
The planning application costing categories include all activities from Pre-Consultation through
final approval and file closure. These activities also account for time spent by Engineering staff
PLN 10-26 May 4, 2026
Page 9
on detailed engineering drawing reviews and the preparation of subdivision and site plan
agreements.
The table below summarizes current development application fees and the full cost-recovery
amounts.
Application
Type/Costing
Category Group
Total Costs Annual
Revenue
Surplus/(Deficit) Current Cost
Recovery (%)
Committee of
Adjustment
$983,977 $147,006 ($836,970) 15%
Official Plan &
Zoning By-law
Amendments
$1,022,506 $1,108,584 $86,079 108%
Draft Plan of
Subdivision
$717,791 $679,861 ($37,931) 95%
Draft Plan of
Condominium
$122,584 $67,088 ($55,497) 55%
Site Plan $1,078,341 $827,881 ($250,460) 77%
Other Planning
Applications
$127,777 $129,876 $2,099 102%
Subtotal –
Planning
$4,052,976 $2,960,296 ($1,092,680) 73%
The largest portion of the annual revenue shortfall comes from planning application review
fees (about $1.1 million annually), which are estimated to recover 73% of the yearly costs.
The proposed fee recommendations aim to enhance cost recovery within the legislative limits
of the Planning Act, while considering the affordability of fees, and general alignment with
other municipalities fees. The table below summarizes the proposed fee changes (proposed
increases or decreases) and comments by planning application type to strive for full cost
recovery. A complete list, including specific fees and proposed fee differences, is provided in
Attachment 4. Currently, for Zoning By-law Amendments, Draft Plan of Subdivisions, and Site
Plan Applications, the fee calculation includes a base fee and a variable fee per dwelling unit,
with no maximum cap on the number of units to which the fees apply.
Application Type Fee
Increase
Fee
Decrease
Comments
Major Official Plan
Amendment
Revenues currently generated from
these fees are recovering slightly
PLN 10-26 May 4, 2026
Page 10
Minor Official Plan
Amendment
above the full cost of service,
indicating that reductions to the fees
are needed to balance cost recovery.
Neighbourhood
Development
Guideline Amendment
Fee increased to achieve full cost
recovery. Currently, these fees are
below cost recovery, with costs being
recovered from Official Plan
Amendment fees.
Zoning By-law –
Removal of Holding Fee increased only for Removal of
Holding Fees, Extension of
Temporary Use and Minister’s Zoning
Order Fees. The per-unit variable fee
is capped at 400 units.
Zoning By-law –
Removal of Holding
(Complex/Block Plan
Required)
The fee has been increased to
improve cost recovery while remaining
comparable with other municipalities
fees.
Zoning By-law –
Extension of
Temporary Use By-law
The fee has been increased to align
with the base fee for a major Zoning
By-law Amendment.
Minister Zoning Order
Amendment – Major
Minister Zoning Order
Amendment – Minor
The Minister Zoning Orders fee
reflects the significant staff time and
effort involved in policy review and
associated report preparation.
Site Plan The base and variable application
fees increased to recover the full cost
of service. Variable fee capped at 400
units per application.
Revision to Draft
approved plan (redline
revision)
Draft Plan of
Subdivision
Minor decreases in per-unit fees to
align with cost recovery. Variable per-
unit fee capped at 400 units per
application, serving as the maximum
application fee. Minor decrease
proposed to variable per-unit fees.
Condominiums Fees for Draft Plan, Common
Element, Conversion, and red-line
revisions have been increased to full
cost recovery levels.
Committee of
Adjustment - Consent Fees were increased to the top end of
comparable municipalities' rates to
move closer to full cost recovery. In
addition, a per lot fee is introduced for
each new lot created after the first
(base fee).
PLN 10-26 May 4, 2026
Page 11
Committee of
Adjustment – Minor
Variance
Fees increased for accessory
buildings, structures, decks, platforms
and driveway widenings to keep fees
comparable with other Durham
Region municipalities.
Fees for other types of variances
have increased to recover a greater
share of costs.
Request for Zoning
Information Fee increased to achieve full cost
recovery.
Part Lot Control Fees The fee decrease is toward the
variable per-lot fee, not the base fee.
A new Fee Structure has been proposed for combined application submissions
In addition to the aforementioned fee changes, new fees are proposed when an Official Plan
Amendment (Major or Minor), Zoning By-law Amendment (Major), Draft Plan of Subdivision
and Draft Plan of Condominium Applications are submitted concurrently; a 20% reduction will
be applied to the total combined fee. The per-unit rate would still apply to up to 400 units.
The newly proposed combined fees also promote housing development by lowering the
application fees for the combined Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment
(major or minor), Zoning By-law Amendment, Draft Plan of Subdivision and Draft Plan of
Condominium, and by setting a maximum of 400 units for calculating the fee per residential
unit for Zoning By-law Amendments, Draft Plan of Subdivision and Site Plan applications.
Proposed Fee Adjustment Impacts
The above-mentioned fee adjustments would raise the average planning application fee
recovery rate from 73% to 79%, resulting in an additional $238,000 in annual revenue. The
table below shows the cost impacts based on the new fees.
Application
Type/Costing
Category Group
Total Costs Annual
Revenue
Surplus/(Deficit) Adjusted
Cost
Recovery
(%)
Committee of
Adjustment
$983,977 $282,126 ($701,850) 29%
Official Plan & Zoning
By-law Amendments
$1,022,506 $877,173 ($145,333) 86%
Draft Plan of
Subdivision
$717,791 $716,645 ($ 1,146) 100%
Draft Plan of
Condominium
$122,584 $122,833 $ 249 100%
PLN 10-26 May 4, 2026
Page 12
Site Plan $1,078,341 $1,079,120 $779 100%
Other Planning
Applications
$127,777 $119,975 ($7,802) 94%
Subtotal - Planning $4,052,976 $3,197,872 ($855,104) 79%
The remaining shortfall of $855,104, even after the recommended fee adjustments, is
attributed to the following:
A shortfall of $701,850 relates to the Committee of Adjustment Fees (Consent and Minor
Variance Applications), which are set below full cost recovery. When the City of Pickering
received delegated approval authority for Land Division from the Region of Durham, it
adopted the fee structure previously used by the Region’s Land Division Committee.
Although the DAAP review recommends increasing these fees to remain comparable with
other Durham Region municipalities, the adjusted fees will still not fully recover costs. Staff
recognize that in practice, minor variance applications associated with small projects
remain below cost recovery, this is intentional to ensure the financial burden on private
homeowners to bring their properties into compliance, is not overly burdensome. Watson
has recommended adjustments in future years to improve cost recovery;
The $145,333 shortfall for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications is a
result of City-initiated amendments, which do not generate fee revenue; and,
The remaining $7,802 is attributed to other miscellaneous applications.
In addition to the items listed above, all other planning application fees are set at full cost
recovery.
8.2 Development Services Fee
The engineering costing categories include time spent on inspection and other non-Planning
Act reviews led by Engineering Services. These activities include lot grading review, additional
subdivision review and inspections, additional site plan reviews and inspections, and land
division review.
The table below summarizes the current development application fees and their corresponding
full-cost recovery amounts.
Application
Type/Costing
Category Group
Total Costs Annual
Revenue
Surplus/(Deficit) Current Cost
Recovery (%)
Lot Grading $216,414 $139,646 ($76,767) 65%
Subdivision
Additional
Reviews
$49,209 $107,891 $58,682 219%
PLN 10-26 May 4, 2026
Page 13
Subdivision
Inspections
$799,071 $752,066 ($47,005) 94%
Site Plan
Additional
Reviews
$42,712 $12,762 ($29,950) 30%
Site Plan
Inspections
$305,165 $295,971 ($9,194) 97%
Land Division
(Consent)
$55,128 $51,580 ($3,548) 94%
Other Engineering $178,185 $114,375 ($63,811) 64%
Subtotal -
Engineering
$1,645,884 $1,474,290 ($171,594) 90%
The table below summarizes the proposed fee changes and explanatory comments by
application type to achieve full cost recovery. A complete list, including specific fees, is
provided in Attachment 4 of the Study.
Application
Type
Fee
Increase
Fee
Decrease
Comments
Subdivision
Additional
Review
The maximum fee will be decreased to 15% of
the engineering design review fee as the fees
were over-recovering costs. The fee for
additional submissions will be increased to a
minimum of $8,000 to increase the minimum
cost recovery of each review.
Subdivision
Inspections
Fees need to be increased to attain full cost
recovery. A minor increase to the inspection fee
is also proposed to achieve full cost recovery.
Site Plan
Additional
Review
The proposed fees are required to achieve full
cost recovery. A minor increase to inspection
fees is proposed.
Land Division
– Consent
(Clearance of
Conditions)
The engineering fee will remain unchanged, but
a slight increase is proposed to clear conditions
and allow for full cost recovery.
Lot Grading
and Infill Lot
Grading
Fees are proposed to achieve full cost recovery.
Miscellaneous
Engineering
Fees
Increases are proposed for Curb Cut, Municipal
Consent and Pool Enclosure Permits.
PLN 10-26 May 4, 2026
Page 14
Proposed Fee Adjustment Impacts
The above-noted fee adjustments would raise engineering review fees from 90% to 100% cost
recovery, resulting in an additional $175,000 in annual revenue. The table below shows the full
cost impacts of the proposed plan based on the recommended fees.
Application
Type/Costing
Category Group
Total Costs Annual
Revenue
Surplus/(Deficit) Adjusted Cost
Recovery (%)
Lot Grading $216,414 $216,510 $96 100%
Subdivision
Additional
Reviews
$49,209 $63,085 $13,876 128%
Subdivision
Inspections
$799,071 $800,203 $1,132 100%
Site Plan
Additional
Reviews
$42,712 $43,333 $621 101%
Site Plan
Inspections
$305,165 $305,643 $478 100%
Land Division
(Consent)
$55,128 $55,400 $272 100%
Other
Engineering
$178,185 $165,106 ($13,080) 93%
Subtotal -
Engineering
$1,645,884 $1,649,281 $3,397 100%
8.3 Building Fees
The building costing categories include all time spent on the administration and enforcement of
the Building Code Act, totaling approximately $5.8 million. Based on the City’s current fee
structure and average historical activity levels, annual revenues are estimated at $5.2 million,
which covers about 90% of costs.
The table below summarizes current building permit fees and the corresponding full cost
recovery amounts.
Application
Type/Costing
Category Group
Total Costs Annual
Revenue
Surplus/(Deficit) Current Cost
Recovery (%)
Demolition Permit $21,507 $5,083 ($16,424) 24%
New Residential
Building Permits
$4,556,928 $4,612,399 $55,471 101%
PLN 10-26 May 4, 2026
Page 15
New Non-
Residential
Building Permits
$128,004 $334,225 $206,221 261%
Residential
Alterations
$363,214 $48,872 ($314,342) 13%
Non-Residential
Alterations
$89,454 $19,619 ($69,836) 22%
Other $592,035 $135,448 ($456,587) 23%
Subtotal -
Building
$5,751,142 $5,155,646 ($595,496) 90%
As noted in Section 6.3 of this report, it was previously recommended that the City maintain
the policy of setting the Building Reserve Fund at 1.13 times the annual cost of service.
However, it is now recommended that the Building Code Act Reserve Fund be revised for
service stabilization at 1.5 times the annual cost of service. Based on current annual costs, the
2026 reserve fund balance would be $8.6 million. However, the actual reserve fund balance at
end of year 2025 was $4.5 million, which is only 53% of the reserve fund target.
An analysis was completed for the 2026 to 2035 forecast period to determine whether current
and proposed fees would fully recover the cost of service and maintain stability of the building
fund. The analysis was based on projected costs and revenues and assumed that permit
volumes would remain at historical averages. It also assumed that new residential construction
permits would decline by 10% in 2026, as anticipated by staff, before returning to average
levels for the remainder of the forecast period.
Further analysis was also conducted to understand the potential impacts on the reserve fund if
greater decreases to building permit activity were witnessed and these decreases were
sustained over a longer period of time. The analysis indicates that if annual historical
residential permit volumes were to decrease by 20% over the time period of 2026 to 2030, the
City would be able to sustain and fund the costs of building permit review from the reserve
fund. In this scenario, the reserve fund would decrease to approximately $1.8 million by the
end of 2030.
The figure below illustrates the forecast reserve fund position if current fees, plus inflation,
were applied to either average historical permit volumes or forecast permit volumes. In either
case, the reserve fund would be in a deficit position of between $2.2 million to $4.5 million by
2035.
PLN 10-26 May 4, 2026
Page 16
Proposed Fee Adjustment Impacts
The proposed fee adjustments assume an annual indexing rate of 3% beginning in 2027. The
key proposed changes to the building permit fees are summarized below.
New residential construction permits – 17% increase
New non-residential construction permits – 25% increase
Sign fees – 10% increase
Additional inspections (e.g., inspections related to deficiencies)
Base fee to cover up to four hours
An additional per-hour fee of $120 for time exceeding four hours
Increase the minimum fee to $180, including minor residential structures
Other annual City fee increases for 2026 to be maintained
Based on the recommended fee increases and historical application volumes, the reserve fund
could grow to $8.5 million by 2035. Under forecasted permit volumes, the reserve fund
would reach approximately 5.8 million, or 0.77 times annual costs by 2035. Under both
scenarios, the adjusted building fees would move the reserve fund closer to the target
threshold. The recommended fee adjustments would also align the City more closely with other
municipalities fees in the Region of Durham and across the Greater Toronto Area. The figure
below illustrates the reserve fund position, including the recommended fees and annual
inflationary increases.
PLN 10-26 May 4, 2026
Page 17
9.0 Municipal Fee Comparisons and Sample Analysis:
Watson also completed an interjurisdictional review to assess the affordability of the increases
and the City’s fee competitiveness relative to neighbouring municipalities in Durham Region
and the surrounding area. This review compared the City with 12 other municipalities to ensure
the recommended fees align with industry standards. Generally, municipalities regularly review
and update their fees every four to five years. Below identifies the comparable municipalities
included in Durham Region and across the Greater Toronto Area, and the known year in which
the municipality completed their last fee review:
City of Toronto – planning fees update (2025)
Town of Ajax – all development fees update (2023)
Town of Whitby – all development fees update (2024)
City of Oshawa – building fees update (2025)
Municipality of Clarington – planning fees update (2025)
City of Mississauga – all development fees update (2016)
City of Brampton – planning fees update (2023), building fees update (2025)
Town of Caledon – Unknown
Town of Halton Hills – planning and engineering fees update (2025)
City of Burlington – planning fees update (2022), building fees update (2019)
Town of Oakville - all development fees update (2014)
Town of Milton – all development fees update (2022)
PLN 10-26 May 4, 2026
Page 18
The results indicate that the proposed increases to building permit fees would align with the
fee range of other Durham Region municipalities. With respect to Planning & Development
Services fees, aside from Site Plan application fees, the results indicate that the proposed fees
would not be the highest compared to other municipalities and, in most cases, would remain
unchanged or drop in ranking. It is also noted that some of the comparative municipalities are
due for a comprehensive fee review, which may further adjust the comparison analysis.
Watson also performed an impact analysis across two development scenarios (e.g., a 200-unit
residential subdivision and a 400-unit residential site plan). The analysis assessed the
potential cost implications for each scenario. The results show that the City would rank
approximately 6th out of 12 municipalities for subdivision development review fees and 5th for
site plan development impacts, placing the City near the midpoint. The analysis also confirms
that the proposed fees are consistent with the cost-recovery practices and policies of the
comparable municipalities.
Overall, the findings support and validate Watson’s Fee Review.
10.0 Public Engagement Process:
Building Code-related fees and the process for establishing them are governed by the Building
Code Act, which requires at least one public meeting and a minimum of at least 21 days' notice
to all interested parties.
On March 5, 2026, the City created a webpage outlining the DAAP review (pickering.ca/daap)
and notified over 65 key stakeholders. Stakeholders were directed to the City’s website for
additional information, including Watson’s report and the draft fee schedules, and were invited
to provide comments and feedback. Notice of a virtual Stakeholder Meeting was also posted
on the City’s website, and staff shared information about the DAAP Fee Update on the City’s
social media channels.
On Monday, March 23, 2026 the virtual Stakeholder Meeting was attended by 31 individuals,
including 20 members of the building community, including but not limited to the Durham
Region Home Builders’ Association (DRHBA), the Building Industry and Land Development
Association (BILD), the Residential Construction Council of Ontario, among other private
developers and interested parties. At the meeting, Watson presented the preliminary findings
of the fee review, followed by a question-and-answer period. The table below outlines the
comments and questions which were received at the Stakeholder meeting and additional
correspondence received via email, along with Staff and Watson’s responses.
Comments/Questions Response
Is it correct that currently the review of
Zoning applications accounts for a cost
recovery of 108%?
The combination of Official Plan
Amendments and Zoning By-law
Amendments results in a 108% cost
recovery. As a result, the recommended fees
have been adjusted to not achieve a surplus.
PLN 10-26 May 4, 2026
Page 19
What other processes will the City be
undertaking to streamline the development
review process?
The City completed a Development
Application Review Process (DARP) last year
to streamline and improve the efficiency of
development approvals. Council endorsed
the recommendations arising from this
review.
This fee review was one of several initiatives
implemented as part of the DARP
recommendations, which took a
comprehensive approach to improving
service delivery, transparency, and cost
recovery.
Additional improvements to be implemented
in the coming months include:
Launching an online portal for
development submissions
Enhancing the City’s AMANDA system to
improve internal workflow, data tracking
and automation
Developing standard operating procedures
to ensure consistent and efficient
application review
Enabling online payment for development
applications
Creating a public-facing dashboard to
provide access to planning development
application information.
There needs to be a more focused effort to
reduce costs for developers, allowing
construction to occur in Pickering.
As part of this study, was there a trend
analysis of the fees developers have paid
historically, from 5 to 10 years ago?
No, the trend in developers' costs has not
been analyzed over a 5- to 10-year period.
However, development application fees in the
City of Pickering were examined from 2017 to
the present, reflecting the City’s progress
toward full cost recovery.
As part of this study, historical application
volumes, costs, and revenues were also
examined for the period from 2022 to the
present.
Has there been any consideration provided
to implement retroactive pay for
development application fees (i.e., fee
refunds?)
The City could consider this option. However,
the City did not meet its cost-recovery
objectives over the last couple of years, so
PLN 10-26 May 4, 2026
Page 20
fee refunds would be difficult to justify to the
taxpayer.
The proposed fee for draft plan of
subdivision includes a maximum variable fee
for up to 400 units. Would a per-unit variable
fee be required for an associated redline
revision to an approved draft plan of
subdivision?
That is correct. Under the proposed fee
recommendations, if a draft plan of
subdivision is submitted, a maximum variable
fee of 400 units would be applied in addition
to the base fee.
If subsequently, a red-lined revision is
submitted for the approved draft plan of
subdivision, the red-line fee would also
include the base fee and a variable fee of up
to 400 units.
When looking at recovery relative to
applications, was future tax revenue
considered in the calculation? Were market
considerations considered? For example,
how will the proposed fee recommendations
affect the market?
Tax revenue was not considered as part of
this review. This review only examined
development fees associated with planning
and engineering applications and building
permit fees.
One of the goals of this fee review was to
ensure that minimal tax burdens were placed
on the public. Historically, the City’s fees
have been low, requiring taxpayer subsidies;
this is no longer the City’s approach.
The final report from Watson presented the
development fees for 2 sample developments
within the scope of this review. The total
increase in per-unit development fees
proposed was between $559 and $683. As
these fee increases would represent less
than one-tenth of a percentage of the sales
price of new units, it is not expected that
these fee increases will have a meaningful
impact on the housing market.
The approach taken for the Building
Reserve, is this ‘reserve approach’ also
being taken for Planning and Engineering?
No, the building reserve is only being
undertaken for Building Permits, as permitted
by legislation.
Planning and Engineering fees are not
intended to generate surpluses for a reserve
fund to support future service sustainability.
PLN 10-26 May 4, 2026
Page 21
The City also received formal comments from DRHBA on April 2, 2026 and from BILD on April
6, 2026, these comments are included in Attachments 6 and 7. The letter from BILD formally
requested that the City of Pickering, along with other municipalities across the Greater Toronto
Area, forgo any increases to costs associated with residential development including
development application fees in 2026, which would allow short-term relief and help to support
project viability under current market conditions. Watson provided a formal response to the
below comments and questions dated April 9, 2026, (see Attachment 8).
Both DRHBA and BILD had similar questions. Watsons response is italicized:
1. Question: Clarification on the basis for the 400-unit cap on variable fees for Zoning By-
law Amendments, Site Plan and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications.
Response: The 400-unit cap, along with the decreasing block structure of the residential
per-unit fee, is recommended to achieve multiple objectives:
a. Recognize that as applications increase in size, the marginal costs typically do not
increase on a linear basis
b. Provide a maximum fee for larger applications
c. Increase revenue stability for the City to fund the anticipated processing costs.
The 400-unit cap was determined through a review of historical application sizes to
capture the majority of applications received. This policy would also align with the City’s
past practice.
2. Question: Whether the above cap on variable fees relates only to per unit fees, or
whether the cap is also intended to include other variable fees such as per-hectare fees
for development blocks or non-residential land area that may be part of the same
planning application?
Response: The cap relates only to residential per-unit fees. In a review of historical
application data, the development applications received containing development blocks
and non-residential floor area have been smaller and do not necessitate a maximum
fee.
3. Question: Whether the fee structure for Residential Lot Grading has changed – the
existing fee for Residential Lot Grading is $87.00/unit; however the proposed fee within
the background report prepared by Watson is $160. Clarification is requested on
whether this is intended to be a flat fee, or a rough doubling of the per unit fee.
Response: The proposed fee is $160.00 per unit.
Comments were also received from BILD regarding the impact of the proposed fee increases
on development costs. BILD requested that the City pause the fee increases, if possible,
further reduce fees or limit the size of any increases.
The City’s fee recommendations proposed would decrease fees in some cases. Where fees
are increasing, the impact is less than a 1% increase on overall development costs.
PLN 10-26 May 4, 2026
Page 22
In addition, the Federal and Provincial governments have recently announced the removal of
the Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) on new homes (or reduction for more expensive homes), as
well as the Canada-Ontario Plan to Build, which may require 30% to 50% reductions in
development charges (DC) for a 3-year period for select municipalities.
These HST reductions, along with the potential DC reductions, are expected to have a greater
impact on overall development costs in the City and on the final price paid by the homebuyers.
Given these recent announcements, and recognizing that a thorough review has been
completed and fees have been adjusted (and in some instances decreased) to ensure full cost
recovery, staff recommend approval of the revised fees.
11.0 Conclusion:
Report PLN 10-26 summarizes the DAAP fee review process, outlines the current and
proposed fees for Building, Planning, and Development Services, compares these fees with
those of other municipalities, outlines the public engagement process that was followed, and
presents Watson’s recommendations with the objective to achieve full cost recovery.
The recommended fee adjustments are intended to ensure that development-related services
are fully funded or moving in the direction of fully funded through user fees, without reliance on
property tax revenue, thereby reducing the burden on taxpayers.
Based on the analysis and findings presented in this report, staff recommend that Council
approve the new Development Application and Building Fee structure, with implementation
effective July 1, 2026.
Attachments:
1. Development Applications Approvals Process (DAAP) Fee Review, prepared by Watson
& Associates Economists Ltd.
2. Proposed Planning Services Fee By-law
3. Proposed Building Services Fee By-law
4. Proposed Development Services Fee By-law
5. Directive Memo - Resolution #665/25
6. Durham Region Home Builders’ Association Letter dated April 2, 2026
7. Building Industry and Land Development Association Letter dated April 6, 2026
8. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Memorandum dated April 9, 2026
Prepared By: Amanda Dunn, Principal Planner, Development Review
Prepared By: Carl Kolbe, Manager, Building Services & Deputy CBO
Prepared By: Nilesh Surti, Division Head, Development Review & Urban Design
PLN 10-26 May 4, 2026
Page 23
Prepared By: Raghu Kumar, Senior Financial Analyst, Finance
Prepared By: Paal Helgesen, Division Head, Water Resources & Development Services
Approved/Endorsed By: Catherine Rose, Chief Planner
Approved/Endorsed By: Kyle Bentley, Director, City Development & CBO
Approved/Endorsed By: Richard Holborn, Director, Engineering Services
Approved/Endorsed By: Stan Karwowski, Director, Finance & Treasurer
Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council, By:
Marisa Carpino, M.A.
Chief Administrative Officer
Attachment 1 to Report PLN 10-26
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. 905-272-3600
April 14, 2026 info@watsonecon.ca
Development Application Fee Review
City of Pickering
________________________
Final Report
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Table of Contents
Page
1. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background Information .......................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Legislative Context for the Imposition of Development Application
Fees ........................................................................................................ 1-1
1.2.1 Planning Act, 1990 ..................................................................... 1-2 1.2.2 Municipal Act, 2001 .................................................................... 1-4 1.2.3 Building Code Act, 1992 ............................................................ 1-5
2. Activity-Based Costing User Fee Methodology ............................................ 2-1
2.1 Activity-Based Costing Methodology ...................................................... 2-1
2.2 User Fee Costing Category Definition..................................................... 2-2 2.3 Process Map Documentation .................................................................. 2-3 2.4 Processing Effort Estimate Collection, Reasonability Check, and Cost Allocations ...................................................................................... 2-4
2.5 Full Cost of Providing Development Application Review Services .......... 2-6
2.5.1 Direct Costs ............................................................................... 2-6 2.5.2 Indirect Costs ............................................................................. 2-7 2.5.3 Capital Costs .............................................................................. 2-8 2.6 Building Code Act Reserve Fund Policy ................................................. 2-8
3. Development Application Full Cost Assessment and Fee Recommendations .......................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 Full Cost of Providing Development Application Review Services .......... 3-1 3.2.1 Full Cost of Planning Application Review ................................... 3-2
3.2.2 Planning Application Fee Recommendations ............................. 3-4
3.2.3 Full Cost of Engineering Review .............................................. 3-15 3.2.4 Engineering Fee Recommendations ........................................ 3-16 3.2.5 Full Cost of Building Permit Review ......................................... 3-20 3.2.6 Building Permit Fee Recommendations ................................... 3-22
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
4. Impact of Recommended Fees on Sample Development Types ................. 4-1
4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................. 4-1
4.2 Subdivision Development Impacts .......................................................... 4-2 4.3 Site Plan Development Impacts .............................................................. 4-3
5. Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 5-1
Appendix A Planning, Engineering and Building Permit Fee Municipal
Comparators ................................................................................................... A-1
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Chapter 1
Introduction
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 1-1
1. Introduction
1.1 Background Information
The City of Pickering (City) retained Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. (Watson) to
conduct a review and update of its user fees relating to Building, Planning and
Engineering reviews. The ultimate goal of the user fee review is to develop an activity-
based costing (A.B.C.) model to substantiate the full costs of each service area within
the scope of the review. The full cost assessment (i.e., direct, indirect, and capital
costs) will be used to inform potential rates and fees to increase user fee revenue and
decrease the burden on property taxes. Planning and Engineering fees are imposed
under the authority of the Planning Act and the Municipal Act, respectively, while
building permit fees are imposed under the authority of the Building Code Act. This
review builds off the work that was previously completed by Watson in 2018 and 2021
when the City’s development application fees were last reviewed.
This update study consisted of the development of an A.B.C. user fee model to first
substantiate the full cost of service before fee and policy recommendations were
developed with regard for statutory requirements, the affordability of the fees, the City’s
market competitiveness, fiscal position, and internal/historical fee setting practices.
The following chapters of this report summarize the legislative context for user fees, the
user fee methodology developed, policy review, public consultation, and the findings
and recommendations of the user fee review.
This analysis and resulting recommendations are denominated in 2026$ values unless
otherwise stated. Unless explicitly stated in this report, the recommended fees within
this report should be indexed annually each year based on the City’s annual budgeted
cost increases or other appropriate index (i.e., the Consumer Price Index).
1.2 Legislative Context for the Imposition of Development
Application Fees
Development application fees are governed by multiple statutes, each with specific
requirements. The City’s statutory authority for imposing planning application fees is
provided under section 69 of the Planning Act. Building permit fees are imposed under
section 7 of the Building Code Act. For municipal services where specific statutory
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 1-2
authority is not provided (i.e., engineering fees), municipalities can impose fees and
charges under Section 391 of the Municipal Act. This section provides a summary of
the applicable legislative authority for the imposition of fees within the scope of this
review.
1.2.1 Planning Act, 1990
Section 69 of the Planning Act allows municipalities to impose fees through a by-law for
the purposes of processing planning applications. In determining the associated fees,
the Act requires that:
“The council of a municipality, by by-law, and a planning board, by resolution, may
establish a tariff of fees for the processing of applications made in respect of
planning matters, which tariff shall be designed to meet only the anticipated cost to
the municipality or to a committee of adjustment or land division committee
constituted by the council of the municipality or to the planning board in respect of
the processing of each type of application provided for in the tariff.”
Section 69 establishes the requirements that municipalities must consider when
undertaking a full cost recovery fee design study. The Act specifies that municipalities
may impose fees through by-law and that the anticipated costs of such fees must be
cost-justified by application type as defined in the tariff of fees (e.g., Subdivision, Zoning
By-law Amendment, etc.). Given the cost justification requirements by application type,
this would suggest that cross-subsidization of planning application fee revenues across
application types is not permissible. For instance, if Minor Variance application fees
were set at levels below full cost recovery for policy purposes, this discount could not be
funded by Subdivision application fees set at levels higher than full cost recovery. Our
interpretation of Section 69 is that any fee discount must be funded from other general
revenue sources, such as property taxes. In comparison to the cost justification
requirements of the Building Code Act, where the justification point is set at the
aggregate level of the Act, the requirements of the Planning Act are more stringent in
this regard.
The legislation further indicates that the fees may be designed to recover the
“anticipated cost” of processing each type of application, reflecting the estimated costs
of processing activities for an application type. This reference to anticipated costs
represents a further costing requirement for a municipality. It is noted that the statutory
requirement is not the actual processing costs related to any one specific application.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 1-3
As such, actual time docketing of staff processing effort against application categories
or specific applications does not appear to be a requirement of the Act for compliance
purposes. As such, our methodology, which is based on staff estimates of application
processing effort, meets with the requirements of the Act, and is in our opinion, a
reasonable approach to determining anticipated costs.
The Act does not specifically define the scope of eligible processing activities and there
are no explicit restrictions to direct costs as previously witnessed in other statutes.
Moreover, amendments to the fee provisions of the Municipal Act and Building Code Act
provide for broader recognition of indirect costs. Acknowledging that staff effort from
multiple business units is involved in processing planning applications, it is our opinion
that such fees may include direct costs, capital-related costs, support function costs
directly related to the service provided, and general corporate overhead costs
apportioned to the service provided.
The payment of Planning Act fees can be made under protest with appeal to the Ontario
Land Tribunal (OLT) if the applicant believes the fees were inappropriately charged or
are unreasonable. The OLT will hear such an appeal and determine if the appeal
should be dismissed or direct the municipality to refund payment in such amount as
determined. These provisions confirm that fees imposed under the Planning Act are
always susceptible to appeal. Unlike other fees and charges (e.g., development
charges), there is no legislated appeal period related to the timing of by-law passage,
mandatory review period, or public process requirements.
1.2.1.1 More Homes for Everyone Act, 2022
The Province approved the More Homes for Everyone Act in 2022. One of the
amendments to the Planning Act now requires municipalities to refund Zoning By-Law
Amendment and Site Plan application fees if legislated timeframes for
decisions/approvals are not met. This requirement has subsequently been repealed by
Bill 185, Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024.
1.2.1.2 More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022
The More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022 received Royal Assent on November 28, 2022.
The Act imposes a number of changes to the Planning Act, and other growth
management and long-range planning initiatives at the municipal level, amongst
changes to other pieces of legislation. Some of the planning related changes include:
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 1-4
• Increased housing targets by municipality;
• Removal of planning policy and approval responsibilities for certain upper tier
municipalities in the province (as of January 1, 2025, Durham Region became an
upper-tier municipality without planning responsibilities) ;
• Integration of Place to Grow and Provincial Policy Statement; and
• Changes to expand/support rental and affordable housing supply opportunities.
1.2.1.3 Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024
Bill 185 received royal assent on June 6, 2024, which amended various acts, including
the Planning Act. In particular, Bill 185 removed the refund requirements for Zoning By-
law Amendment and Site Plan applications that was imposed by the More Homes for
Everyone Act, 2022. Furthermore, Bill 185 removed municipal Council or planning
boards ability to pass a by-law requiring applicants to consult with the municipality prior
to submitting a formal application.
1.2.2 Municipal Act, 2001
Part XII of the Municipal Act provides municipalities and local boards with broad powers
to impose fees and charges via passage of a by-law. These powers, as presented in
s.391 (1), include imposing fees or charges:
• “for services or activities provided or done by or on behalf of it;
• for costs payable by it for services or activities provided or done by or on behalf
of any other municipality or any local board; and
• for the use of its property including property under its control.”
• This section of the Act also allows municipalities to charge for capital costs
related to services that benefit existing persons. The eligible services for
inclusion under this subsection of the Act have been expanded by the Municipal
Statute Law Amendment Act. Moreover, the amendments to the Act have also
embraced the broader recognition for cost inclusion within municipal fees and
charges with recognition under s.391(3) that “the costs included in a fee or
charge may include costs incurred by the municipality or local board related to
administration, enforcement and the establishment, acquisition and replacement
of capital assets”.
Fees and charges included in this review, permissible under the authority of the
Municipal Act, would include development engineering fees.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 1-5
In contrast to cost justification requirements under other legislation, the Municipal Act
does not impose explicit requirements for cost justification when establishing fees for
municipal services. In setting fees and charges for these services, however,
municipalities should have regard for legal precedents and the reasonableness of fees
and charges. The statute does not provide for appeal of fees and charges to the OLT;
however, fees and charges may be appealed to the courts if municipalities are acting
outside their statutory authority. Furthermore, no public process or mandatory term for
fees and charges by-laws are required under the Act. There is, however, a requirement
that municipal procedural by-laws provide for transparency with respect to the
imposition of fees and charges.
1.2.3 Building Code Act, 1992
The City’s statutory authority for imposing building permit fees is governed by the
provisions of section 7 under the Ontario Building Code Act. This section provides a
summary of the legislative authority for building permit fees imposed by the City.
Section 7(1) of the Building Code Act provides municipalities with general powers to
impose fees through passage of a by-law. The Act provides that:
“The council of a municipality…may pass by-laws
(c) requiring the payment of fees and prescribing the amounts of the fees,
(i) on application for and on issuance of permits,
(ii) for maintenance inspections,
(iii) for providing documentation, records or other information under section
15.10.4, and
(iv) for providing information under subsection 15.10.6 (2);
(c.1) requiring the payment of interest and other penalties, including payment of
collection costs, when fees are unpaid or are paid after the due date;
(d) providing for refunds of fees under such circumstances as are prescribed;
Section 7(2) imposes additional requirements on municipalities in establishing fees
under the Act, in that:
“The total amount of the fees authorized under clause (1)(c) must not exceed the
anticipated reasonable cost of the principal authority to administer and enforce this
Act in its area of jurisdiction.”
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 1-6
In addition, section 7 of the Act also requires municipalities to:
• Reduce fees to reflect the portion of service performed by a Registered Code
Agency;
• Prepare and make available to the public annual reports with respect to the fees
imposed under the Act and associated costs; and
• Undertake a public process, including notice and public meeting requirements,
when a change in the fee is proposed.
The Ontario Amendments to the National Building Code provides further details on the
contents of the annual report and the public process requirements for the imposition or
change in fees, including:
• With respect to the annual report, it must contain the total amount of fees
collected, the direct and indirect costs of delivering the services related to the
administration and enforcement of the Act, and the amount of any reserve fund
established for the purposes of administration and enforcement of the Act.
• It is also required that notice of the preparation of the annual report be given to
any person or organization that has requested such notice.
• Prior to a change in fees, municipalities must hold at least one public meeting
and that at least 21-days’ notice be provided via regular mail to all interested
parties. The notice shall also include, or be made available upon request to the
public, an estimate of the costs of administering and enforcing the Act, the
amount of the fee or change in existing fee and the rationale for imposing or
changing the fee.
The Act specifically requires that fees “must not exceed the anticipated reasonable
costs” of providing the service and establishes the cost justification test at the global
Building Code Act level. With the Act requiring municipalities to report annual direct and
indirect costs related to fees, this would suggest that Building Code Act fees can include
general corporate overhead indirect costs related to the provision of service. Moreover,
the recognition of anticipated costs also suggests that municipalities could include costs
related to future compliance requirements or fee stabilization reserve fund contributions.
As a result, Building Code Act fees modeled in this exercise include direct costs, capital
related costs, indirect support function costs directly consumed by the service provided,
and corporate management costs related to the service provided, as well as provisions
for future anticipated costs.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Chapter 2
Activity-Based Costing User
Fee Methodology
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2-1
2. Activity-Based Costing User Fee Methodology
2.1 Activity-Based Costing Methodology
An A.B.C. methodology, as it pertains to municipal governments, assigns an
organization’s resource costs through activities to the services provided to the public.
Conventional municipal accounting structures are typically not well-suited to the costing
challenges associated with application processing activities, as these accounting
structures are business unit-focused and thereby inadequate for fully costing services
with involvement from multiple business units. An A.B.C. approach better identifies the
costs associated with the processing activities for specific application types and thus is
an ideal method for determining the full cost of processing applications and other user-
fee activities.
As illustrated in Figure 2-1, an A.B.C. methodology attributes processing effort and
associated costs from all participating municipal business units to the appropriate
service categories (user fee costing categories). The definition of these user fee costing
categories is further explained in Section 2.2. The resource costs attributed to
processing activities and user fee costing categories include direct operating costs,
indirect support costs, and capital costs. Indirect support function and corporate
overhead costs are allocated to direct business units according to operational cost
drivers (e.g., human resource costs allocated based on the relative share of full-time
equivalent positions supported). Once support costs have been allocated amongst
direct business units, the accumulated costs (i.e., indirect, direct, and capital costs) are
then distributed across the various user fee costing categories, based on the business
unit’s direct involvement in the processing activities. The assessment of each business
unit’s direct involvement in the user fee review processes is accomplished by tracking
the relative shares of staff processing efforts across the sequence of mapped process
steps for each user fee category. The results of employing this costing methodology
provides municipalities with a better recognition of the costs utilized in delivering user
fee processes, as it acknowledges not only the direct costs of resources deployed but
also the operating and capital support costs required by those resources to provide
services.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2-2
Figure 2-1
Activity-Based Costing Conceptual Flow Diagram
2.2 User Fee Costing Category Definition
The City’s business units deliver a variety of user fee related services; these services
are captured in various cost objects or user fee categories. A critical component of the
full cost user fees review is the selection of the costing categories. This is an important
first step as the process design, effort estimation, and subsequent costing is based on
these categorization decisions.
The City’s A.B.C. user fee model allocates the service channel defined costs (i.e.,
direct, and indirect costs) presented in the following sections across the defined user
fee categories. Categorization of user fees occurred during the project initiation stage
of the study and through subsequent discussions with staff. Costing categories
developed as part of the City’s prior development application fee reviews, were used as
the starting point, with new/augmented categories created to reflect current application
types and review processes The user fee costing categories included in the A.B.C.
model and later used to rationalize changes to the City’s fee structure are presented in
tables throughout the report.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2-3
Efforts included under planning application costing categories include all related
activities from pre-consultation through to final approval of applications and file closure.
These efforts also include time spent from engineering staff on detailed engineering
drawing review and agreement preparation for Subdivision, Site Plan, and
Condominium applications.
Efforts under engineering costing categories include time spent on inspection activities
and other non-Planning Act reviews that are led by the engineering department, such as
engineering review for Consent applications, Municipal Consents, and lot grading
review and inspection.
Efforts under building costing categories include all time associated with administration
and enforcement of the Building Code Act, and are primarily associated with staff from
the Building division.
When constructing the costing categories consideration was given to application
characteristics that may impact the processing efforts required to complete the review.
This approach ensures that complexity of review and revenue generation are closely
aligned. We assessed differences in process intensity based on permit type (e.g., new
construction vs. alterations), development type (e.g., residential vs. non-residential),
location (Oak Ridges Moraine/Greenbelt and vs. infill), and complexity (e.g., minor vs.
major applications).
2.3 Process Map Documentation
Once the user fee costing categories have been established, the next step in the
process is to create a link between the direct service departments and the costing
categories. This is done through documenting the City’s review activities and
generating process maps/steps. The process maps for planning application review
were developed based on the 2018 and 2021 studies and were updated to reflect
process changes that have occurred. Where no prior process maps existed, new
process maps were developed in consultation with City staff to reflect their
current/anticipated processes.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2-4
2.4 Processing Effort Estimate Collection, Reasonability
Check, and Cost Allocations
To capture each participating City staff member’s relative level of effort in processing
activities related to user fees, staff were first asked to identify which departments and
individuals would be involved in each of the processes being analyzed. City staff then
estimated the amount of time each individual involved spends on any of the given
process steps for each costing category. This process was informed by referencing the
departments that had involvement in the processing of applications in the City’s 2018
and 2021 studies as well as their levels of involvement to guide staff in providing
estimates of time spent reviewing applications. Particular attention was paid to areas
where the process or level of involvement had changed, such as pre-consultation and
public consultation.
The effort estimates received were then applied against average annual user fee
volumes for the 2022-2025 period to assess the average annual processing time per
position spent on each user fee category. The time range used for historical
applications was assessed for each service to ensure the average annual
applications/permits was representative of the average applications that the City is
currently staffed to accommodate.
Annual processing efforts per staff position were then measured against available
processing capacity to determine overall service levels. The results of the initial
capacity analysis were reviewed with staff to ensure that the effort on an annual and per
application basis was appropriate. Time spent on non development review activities
was also discussed to ensure the responsibilities of each position was assessed across
all areas of involvement. This review ensures only the time associated with
development review is considered for cost recovery and gave an opportunity for any
further refinements to be made. Table 2-1 summarizes the utilization by department or
division and by major fee review category (i.e. Planning, Engineering, Building). The
utilization is presented as a percentage of available time by department/division and
also expressed in utilized full-time equivalents (FTEs).
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2-5
Table 2-1
Staff Capacity Utilization by Department and Business Unit
Across the organization 62.0 total FTEs, are utilized on development review activities.
50% of that effort (30.8 FTEs) is related to the administration and enforcement of the
Building Code Act, 35% (21.8 FTEs) is related to Planning Applications and 15% (9.5
FTEs) is related to engineering reviews. Of the total staff involvement, 85% is
contributed from the Planning, Water Resources & Development Services, and Building
divisions. The involvement of these divisions is discussed in greater detail below.
Of the 28 individuals within the Planning division, 51% or 14.3 FTEs are utilized on
planning, engineering and building reviews. 12% of the staff complement or 3.3 FTEs
are utilized on building permit reviews, this is primarily driven by the involvement of the
Planning division’s zoning staff on new construction building permits. With respect to
the planning division’s overall utilization of 51%, this reflects the significant amount of
staff time spent on non-planning review activities, such as policy development and
defense of applications at the OLT.
Of the 25 individuals within the Building division, almost 100% or 24.9 FTEs are utilized
on planning, engineering, and building reviews. 7.1% of the staff complement or 1.8
FTEs are utilized on activities that are not directly related to individual permits, but are
necessary to ensure the administration and enforcement of the Building Code Act.
Of the 16 individuals in the Water Resources & Development Services division, 86% or
13.8 FTEs are utilized on planning, engineering and building reviews. 33% of the staff
complement or 5.3 FTEs are utilized on planning application review alone. This reflects
Planning Engineering Building Total
Capacity
Utilization Utilized FTEs Capacity
Utilization Utilized FTEs Capacity
Utilization Utilized FTEs Capacity
Utilization Utilized FTEs
Office of CAO 1.00 3.7% 0.04 0.0%- 0.0%- 3.7% 0.04
City Admin.8.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0%- 0.0%- 0.0% 0.00
Corporate Services 1.00 7.5% 0.08 0.0%- 0.0%- 7.5% 0.08
Legal Services 3.00 4.4% 0.13 0.0%- 0.0%- 4.4% 0.13
Legislative Services 10.00 3.2% 0.32 0.0%- 0.0%- 3.2% 0.32
IT Department 5.00 6.5% 0.33 0.0% 0.00 10.7% 0.53 17.2% 0.86
Fire 10.00 1.0% 0.10 0.0%- 8.9% 0.89 9.9% 0.99
Finance 23.00 1.3% 0.29 0.0%- 1.2% 0.27 2.5% 0.57
Public Works 129.00 0.0%- 0.0% 0.03 0.0%- 0.0% 0.03
Engineering 3.00 16.6% 0.50 25.0% 0.75 0.0%- 41.6% 1.25
Capital Projects 11.00 0.2% 0.02 0.7% 0.08 0.0%- 0.9% 0.10
Landscape and Parks Development 4.00 3.0% 0.12 0.9% 0.04 0.0%- 3.9% 0.16
Transportation and Traffic 5.00 4.0% 0.20 0.0%- 0.0%- 4.0% 0.20
Water Resources & Development Services 16.00 33.4% 5.35 53.0% 8.48 0.0%- 86.4% 13.83
City Development 6.50 39.8% 2.59 0.0% 0.00 11.4% 0.74 51.2% 3.33
Planning 28.00 39.4% 11.04 0.0%- 11.7% 3.29 51.2% 14.33
Sustainability 5.00 12.4% 0.62 0.0%- 6.3% 0.31 18.6% 0.93
Building 25.00 0.1% 0.03 0.4% 0.10 99.1% 24.78 99.6% 24.91
Total 293.50 7% 21.75 3% 9.48 10% 30.81 21% 62.05
Department # of Staff
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2-6
the fact that the efforts of the staff related to engineering review of subdivision and site
plan applications have been captured under planning reviews. Any efforts related to 4th
or 5th resubmissions to the engineering review process have been captured under
engineering review. This approach was used to allow for proper cost recovery of
subsequent resubmissions which are imposed under a separate fee to discourage
incomplete submissions. 53% of the staff complement (8.5 FTEs) are utilized on
engineering reviews, which is primarily related to inspection activities for Subdivision,
Site Plan, and Lot Grading.
2.5 Full Cost of Providing Development Application Review
Services
As defined in Section 2.1, the full cost of providing development application review
services consist of direct, indirect, and capital costs. The following sections define each
of these cost objects and how each of these are allocated to the individual costing
categories.
2.5.1 Direct Costs
Direct costs refer to the employee costs (salaries, wages, and benefits), materials and
supplies, services, and rents that are typically consumed by directly involved
departments or business units. To identify the amount of direct costs that should be
allocated to the user fee categories, cost drivers have been identified. Cost drivers are
the non-financial operational data used to allocate shares of the defined costs across
multiple user fee categories. Ideally, cost driver data documents the relative intensity of
effort multiple employees deploy against a single cost object/fee category or the relative
intensity of effort a single employee deploys against multiple cost objects/fee
categories. For the purposes of a full cost user fee analysis, the cost drivers in an
A.B.C. user fee model presents the need to distribute multiple employee positions
(direct costs) across multiple cost objects. The cost drivers for direct costs are the
allocations of staff time to the individual user fee costing categories, which have been
summarized in aggregate in Table 2-1 above. The City’s budgets for the departments
directly involved in the development review processes were also examined to remove
costs that are not related to development review, such as consulting and professional
costs related to the City’s Official Plan and Zoning-By-law updates or studies related to
development charge eligible capital projects.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2-7
2.5.2 Indirect Costs
An A.B.C. review includes not only the direct cost of providing service activities but also
the indirect support costs that allow direct service business units to perform these
functions. The method of allocation employed in this analysis is referred to as a step
costing approach. Under this approach, support function and general corporate
overhead functions are classified separate from direct service delivery departments.
These indirect cost functions are then allocated to direct service delivery departments
based on a set of cost drivers, which subsequently flow to the user fee categories
according to staff effort estimates. Cost drivers are a unit of service that best represent
the consumption patterns of indirect support and corporate overhead services by direct
service delivery departments or business units. As such, the relative share of a cost
driver (units of service consumed) for a direct department determines the relative share
of support/corporate overhead costs attributed to that direct service department. An
example of a cost driver commonly used to allocate human resource support costs
would be a department or business unit’s share of FTEs. Cost drivers are used for
allocation purposes, acknowledging that these business units do not typically participate
directly in the delivery of services, but that their efforts facilitate services being provided
by the City’s direct business units.
Table 2-2 summarizes the support and corporate overhead functions included in the
user fee calculations and the cost drivers assigned to each function for cost allocation
purposes. The indirect support and corporate overhead cost drivers used in the fees
model reflect accepted practices within the municipal sector.
Table 2-2 Indirect Support and Corporate Overhead Functions and Cost Drivers
Department:Driver(s):
General Government City Budgeted Expenditures
Council City Budgeted Expenditures
Corporate Services City Budgeted Expenditures, Number of Full-Time Employees
Human Resources Number of Full-Time Employees
Finance City Budgeted Expenditures, Number of Full-Time Employees
Culture and Recreation
Budgeted Culture and Recreation Expenditures, Assigned
Square Footage
Public Works
Budgeted Public Works Expenditures, Number of Buildings
,Number of Vehicles
City Infrastructure Budgeted City Infrastructure Expenditures
Engineering Services Budgeted Engineering Expenditures
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2-8
2.5.3 Capital Costs
The inclusion of capital costs within the full cost user fees calculations follows a
methodology similar to indirect costs. Replacement value of assets commonly utilized
to provide direct business unit services have been included to reflect the capital costs of
service. The approach used in estimating these costs includes the identification of the
proportion of capital assets by direct department (e.g., City Hall facility square footage
occupied), the estimation of annualized capital costs by employing sinking fund
replacement value or amortization, and the allocation of these annualized costs to the
cost objects/user fee categories based on the respective departmental effort deployed.
With respect to the City’s model, capital costs have been identified for use of facility
space and work stations. The annualized costs have been based on the Civic Centre’s
and work stations’ replacement cost, useful life, and square footage per department.
These costs have been allocated across the various fee categories, and non-user fee
activities, based on the underlying effort estimates of direct department staff.
2.6 Building Code Act Reserve Fund Policy
The Building Code Act recognizes the legitimacy of creating a municipal reserve fund to
provide for service stability and mitigate the financial and operational risk associated
with a temporary downturn in building permit activity. Specifically, a reserve fund should
be maintained to reduce the staffing and budgetary challenges associated with a
cyclical economic downturn and the requirement for ongoing legislative turnaround time
compliance. Without such a reserve fund, reduced permit volumes during a downturn
could result in severe budgetary pressures and the loss of certified building staff, which
would be difficult to replace during the subsequent recovery when mandatory permit
processing turnaround times apply.
Although the Building Code Act does not prescribe a specific methodology for
determining an appropriate reserve fund, municipalities have developed building permit
reserve funds with the aim of providing service stabilization. As part of the prior
Development Application Review Studies, it was recommended that the City set its
reserve fund target balance at 1.13 times the annual cost of administering and enforcing
the Building Code Act. This target was established by examining the decrease in
building permit activity during down-turns in housing activity in comparison with long-
range averages over the long-range historical period to inform the revenue that would
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2-9
be lost during those downturns. Approximately 1.5 years of building permit revenue
would be lost during an economic downturn, indicating that the reserve fund should
have 1.5 times the annual cost of service to maintain staff capacity during those
periods. The reserve fund accumulation target was reduced by 25% to 1.13 times
annual costs to recognize that the City’s obligation to manage some of these costs
during a downturn. Upon further review, the City has identified that there are minimal
costs allocated to the administration and enforcement of the Building Code Act, that
could be re-allocated and as such, the reserve fund target has been revised to 1.5 times
annual costs.
The impact of anticipated building permit activity on costs, revenues (based on current
and recommended fees), and reserve fund positions over the 2026 to 2035 period have
been assessed in Section 3.2.6 of this report.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Chapter 3
Development Application Full
Cost Assessment and Fee
Recommendation
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-1
3. Development Application Full Cost Assessment
and Fee Recommendations
3.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the full costs, cost recovery levels of current fees, and
recommended fee structure and rates for the development application fees. To
maintain the cost recovery levels presented in this report for the recommended fees,
adjustments will need to be applied to the fee recommendations to index them annually
based upon the City’s annual budgeted cost increases or other appropriate index (i.e.,
the Consumer Price Index).
A municipal fee survey, for the fees within the scope of this review, was undertaken for
market comparison purposes. The survey results were considered in discussions with
City staff in determining recommended user fees. The impact of the proposed fees on
total costs of municipal development fees for sample developments are presented in
Chapter 4 of this report.
3.2 Full Cost of Providing Development Application Review Services
Table 3-1 presents the City’s annual costs of providing development application review
services as well as annual revenues and cost recovery levels in aggregate by service
area. The estimated annual costs reflect the organizational direct, indirect and capital
costs associated with processing activities at average historical volume levels. Annual
revenues are presented in aggregate and are based on average annual
application/permit volumes and existing 2026 fees. These historical averages span the
periods of 2023 to 2025 for planning applications. The charging parameters for these
applications (e.g., building area and number of residential units) were derived from
historical application data provided by City staff.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-2
Table 3-1
Cost Recovery Assessment of Current Development Application Fees
(2026$)
Overall, the total annual costs of development review activities is $11.5 million. Direct
costs represent 79% of annual costs ($9.0 million). Indirect and capital costs make up
21% ($2.5 million) of total costs. In aggregate, revenues associated with current fees
and average annual applications total $9.6 million, or 84% of costs, resulting in $1.9
million of the costs of development review being funded by the municipal tax base or
draws from the building permit reserve fund.
When assessing the cost and revenues by major service area, the largest share of the
annual revenue shortfall is related to planning application review (i.e., $1.1 million per
year) as these fees are estimated to be recovering 73% of the annual costs.
Engineering fees are recovering 90% of costs, resulting in a $171,000 revenue shortfall
that would be funded from the tax levy. Building permit fees are also recovering only
90% of the full cost of service. The calculated shortfall of $595,000, which includes
indirect and capital costs, would be funded from the building permit reserve fund to the
extent funds are available. Further discussion on the sustainability of the building
permit reserve fund is provided in Section 3.2.6.
Further details on the cost recovery assessment, recommendations, revenue impacts
by application type are provided in the following sections.
3.2.1 Full Cost of Planning Application Review
Table 3-2 summarizes the costing results and recovery levels for each major planning
costing category within the City’s A.B.C. model. As noted earlier, the costs and
Costing Category Group Direct Costs Indirect
Costs Capital Costs Total Costs
Annual
Revenue
Cost
Recovery
Surplus/
(Deficit)
Planning Fees 3,211,728 816,449 24,799 4,052,976 2,960,296 73% (1,092,680)
Engineering Fees 1,262,553 372,559 10,772 1,645,884 1,474,290 90% (171,594)
Building Permit Fees 4,530,239 1,186,050 34,852 5,751,142 5,155,646 90% (595,496)
Grand Total 9,004,520 2,375,059 70,422 11,450,001 9,590,232 84% (1,859,770)
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-3
revenues presented with planning fees include costs and revenues associated with
engineering review on subdivision and site plan applications.
Table 3-2 Planning Fees Full Cost Impacts by Costing Category (2026$) Current Fees
When assessed by application type:
• Site Plan application account for the largest share of the total annual costs of
service at $1.1 million or 27% of total costs. Revenues generated from these
fees currently recover $827,900 or 77% of these costs. These fees account for
28% of total annual planning application revenue.
• Zoning By-law and Official Plan Amendments account for approximately $1
million or 25% of the total annual costs of service. Revenues generated from
these fees are recovering slightly above the full cost of service, indicating that
refinements are needed to these fees to balance cost recovery levels. These
fees account for 37% of total annual planning application revenue.
• Committee of Adjustment applications account for $984,000 or 24% of the total
annual costs of service. Revenues generated from these applications currently
recover $147,000 or 15% of these costs. These fees account for 5% of total
annual planning application revenue. Annual revenue shortfalls from Committee
of Adjustment applications (and primarily Minor Variance applications) total
$837,000 and represent 77% of the total annual planning application revenue
shortfall of $1.1 million.
• Subdivision applications account for $717,800 or 18% of the total annual costs of
service. Revenues generated from these applications currently recover
Costing Category Group Total Costs
Annual
Revenue
Cost
Recovery
Surplus/
(Deficit)
Committee of Adjustments 983,977 147,006 15% (836,970)
Other Planning Applications 127,777 129,876 102% 2,099
Zoning By-law & Official Plan Amendment 1,022,506 1,108,584 108% 86,079
Subdivision 717,791 679,861 95% (37,931)
Condominium 122,584 67,088 55% (55,497)
Site Plan 1,078,341 827,881 77% (250,460)
Subtotal - Planning 4,052,976 2,960,296 73% (1,092,680)
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-4
$679,900 or 95% of these costs. These fees account for 23% of total annual
planning application revenue.
• Condominium and other planning applications together account for $250,400 or
6% of the total annual costs of service. Revenues generated from these fees
currently recover $197,000 or 79% of these costs. Condominium fees are
recovering 55% of their associated costs, while other planning application fees
are recovering 102% of their associated costs. Jointly these fees account for 7%
of total annual planning application revenue.
3.2.2 Planning Application Fee Recommendations
Planning application fee recommendations are provided in Tables 3-4 to 3-12. These
recommendations are made to improve cost recovery within the legislative constraints
of the Planning Act, while recognizing the affordability and competitiveness of the fees
as well as the application characteristics (e.g., residential units and non-residential
gross floor area). All fee recommendations should be increased annually based on the
City’s annual budgeted cost increases or other appropriate index (i.e., the Consumer
Price Index) to maintain the proposed level of cost recovery. While it was noted earlier
that costs of engineering review for Subdivision and Site Plan applications have been
included within the planning application cost assessment, the fee recommendations for
engineering review fees are covered in Section 3.2.4 as those fees are included within
the engineering fee schedules.
The following provides a summary of the proposed planning application fee
recommendations to align anticipated application revenues to anticipated processing
costs by application type.
• Official Plan Amendments (Table 3-4)
o Reductions to major OPA fees from $110,180 to $95,000
o Minor rounding decrease to minor OPA fees
o Neighbourhood Development Guideline Amendment fees are proposed to
increase from $10,000 to $20,000 to improve cost recovery levels. These
processes are related to Official Plan Amendments and therefore a
greater level of cost recovery was deemed to be appropriate.
• Zoning By-Law Amendment Fees (Table 3-5)
o Removal of Holding fees increased to improve cost recovery while
remaining within comparator municipalities.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-5
o Variable per unit fees to be capped at 400 units per application acting as a
maximum application fee. Maximum application fees imposed will also
improve revenue certainty and stability within the City.
o Extension of Temporary Use fees to be aligned to major ZBA base fee
o Introduction of fee reduction policies for ZBA applications that are received
concurrently with OPA, or Subdivision applications. Base application fees
for each application will be reduced by 50%. Full variable application fees
will apply.
o Minister Zoning Order Fees increased to full cost recovery levels ($18,000
for major application and $5,800 for minor applications). This increase is
to recover the full costs of service as these applications have are of a
significant benefit to the applicant.
•Site Plan (Table 3-6)
o Increases to base and variable application fees to recover the full cost of
service combined with variable per unit fees being capped at 400 units per
application to act as a maximum application fee. On average application
fees would increase by 32%.
o Minor revisions to an approved Site Plan to increase to full cost recovery
levels (i.e., $5,000)
•Subdivision (Table 3-7)
o Fees to remain unchanged with the exception of minor decreases to
variable per unit fees to align cost recovery levels
o Variable per unit fees to be capped at 400 units per application acting as a
maximum application fee
•Condominium (Table 3-8)
o Fees for Draft Plan, Common Element, Conversion, and red-line revisions
have been increased to full cost recovery levels as follows. These fees
would be at the top end of the Durham municipalities surveyed but within
the ranges imposed by the other surveyed GTA municipalities.
•Consent (Table 3-9)
o Fees increased to the top end of the comparator municipalities to move
fees close to full cost recovery levels. In addition to the proposed $12,000
fee for the creation of one new lot, a per lot fee of $1,000 would be
imposed for each new lot created after the first.
•Minor Variance (Table 3-10)
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-6
o Minor fee increases from $880 to $1,000 for accessory buildings,
structures, decks, platforms, and driveway widening would be applied to
keep these fees competitive within Durham Region as these fees are
commonly applied for by existing residents
o Fees for other types of variances would be increased more significantly to
recover a greater share of costs. It is recommended that further increases
to these fees are considered and monitored in future years to further
improve cost recovery levels
• Pre-Consultation (Table 3-11)
o No changes are proposed to pre-consultation fees within the full cost
recovery framework
• Other Fees (Table 3-12)
o Request for Zoning Information fees would increase from $65 to $150
o Preliminary Zoning Review fees would remain unchanged as they are
currently recovering the full costs of review
o No changes to other miscellaneous fees
o Part Lot Control fees would be decreased from $2,500 plus $116 per lot to
$2,500 plus $25 per lot.
The recommendations presented herein would result in the planning application fees
increasing from 73% to 79% cost recovery, generating an additional $238,000 in annual
revenue. The remaining revenue shortfall of $855,000 is related to $702,000 for
Committee of Adjustment fees (i.e., Consent and Minor Variance applications) that have
been set below full cost recovery levels, $145,000 for ZBA and OPA applications that
would be City-initiated and not generate additional fees, and $8,000 for other
miscellaneous applications. All other fees would be set at full cost recovery levels. The
proposed cost recovery levels by major application type are presented in Table 3-3
below.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-7
Table 3-3
Planning Fees Full Cost Impacts by Costing Category (2026$)
Recommended Fee
Costing Category Group Total Costs
Annual
Revenue
Cost
Recovery
Surplus/
(Deficit)
Committee of Adjustments 983,977 282,126 29% (701,850)
Other Planning Applications 127,777 119,975 94% (7,802)
Zoning By-law & Official Plan Amendment 1,022,506 877,173 86% (145,333)
Subdivision 717,791 716,645 100% (1,146)
Condominium 122,584 122,833 100% 249
Site Plan 1,078,341 1,079,120 100% 779
Subtotal - Planning 4,052,976 3,197,872 79% (855,104)
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-8
Table 3-4
Recommended Planning Fees
Official Plan Amendments
User Fee or Charge 2026 Approved Fee
(Excluding HST)
2026 Proposed Fee
(Excluding HST)
Official Plan Amendment
Pickering Official Plan Amendment - Major 10
(May include an amendment to Envison
Durham (former Regional Official Plan)
$110,180.00 $95,000.00
Pickering Official Plan Amendment - Minor 11 $55,030.00 $55,000.00
Pickering Official Plan Amendment -
Recirculation 7
$2,180.00 $2,180.00
Additional fee if within Oak Ridges Moraine or
Greenbelt
$2,805.00 $2,805.00
Neighbourhood Development Guideline
Amendment 1
$10,000.00 $20,000.00
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-9
Table 3-5
Recommended Planning Fees
Zoning By-law Amendments1
1 Current per residential unit fees for Zoning By-Law Amendment applications are not
capped at 400 units
User Fee or Charge 2026 Approved Fee
(Excluding HST)
2026 Proposed Fee
(Excluding HST)
Zoning By-law Amendment
Zoning By-law Amendment - Major 3 - Base
Fee
$22,700.00 $22,700.00
Plus Fee per Residential Unit
First 25 units (1-25)$550.00 $550.00
Next 75 units (26-100)$410.00 $410.00
Next 100 units (101-200)$340.00 $340.00
All additional units (201-400)$145.00 $145.00
Plus Fee per Ha of Non-Residential Land
Area (or part thereof) 4
$1,540.00 $1,540.00
Plus Fee per Ha of Development Block
Land Area (or part thereof) 5
$715.00 $715.00
Zoning By-law Amendment - Minor 6 $14,420.00 $14,420.00
Zoning By-law - Recirculation 7 $2,180.00 $2,180.00
Additional fee if within Oak Ridges Moraine or
Greenbelt
$2,805.00 $2,805.00
Zoning By-law - Removal of Holding $4,355.00 $10,000.00
Zoning By-law - Removal of Holding
(Complex/Block Plan Required)
$21,475.00 $25,000.00
Zoning By-law - Extension of Temporary Use
By-law
$22,470.00 $22,700.00
Combined Application Fees Where two or more
applications for Official Plan
Amendment (Major or Minor),
Zoning By-law Amendment
(Major), Draft Plan of
Subdivision and Draft Plan of
Condominium are submitted
concurrently, a 20% reduction
to the total combined fee will
apply
Minister Zoning Order
Minister Zoning Order Amendment - Major 8 $3,330.00 $18,000.00
Minister Zoning Order Amendment - Minor 9 $2,770.00 $5,800.00
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-10
Table 3-6
Recommended Planning Fees
Site Plan1
1 Current per residential unit fees for Site Plan applications are not capped at 400 units
User Fee or Charge 2026 Approved Fee
(Excluding HST)
2026 Proposed Fee
(Excluding HST)
Site Plan 12
Residential See "All Uses (Residential,
Non-Residential,
Mixed-Use)"
See "All Uses (Residential,
Non-Residential,
Mixed-Use)"
Commercial See "All Uses (Residential,
Non-Residential,
Mixed-Use)"
See "All Uses (Residential,
Non-Residential,
Mixed-Use)"
Industrial See "All Uses (Residential,
Non-Residential,
Mixed-Use)"
See "All Uses (Residential,
Non-Residential,
Mixed-Use)"
All Uses (Residential, Non-Residential, Mixed-
Use) - Base Fee
$19,685.00 $20,000.00
Plus Fee per Residential Unit
First 25 units (1-25)$690.00 $750.00
Next 75 units (26-100)$530.00 $650.00
Next 100 Units (101-200)$375.00 $500.00
All additional units (201-400)$85.00 $160.00
Plus Fee per 2,000 m2 of Non-Residential
GFA
$6,670.00 $7,300.00
Site Plan Recirculation 7 $2,180.00 $2,180.00
Minor Revision to approved Site Plan 13 $2,650.00 $5,000.00
Major Revision to approved Site Plan Application base fee plus
additional units and
additional non-residential
GFA
Application base fee plus
additional units and
additional non-residential
GFA
Credit for Pre-submission Review Equal to the amount of the
Pre-submission Review fee
previously paid
Equal to the amount of the
Pre-submission Review fee
previously paid
Compliance Inspections/LC Release Report
(includes 2 inspections)
$1,060.00 $1,060.00
Additional Compliance Inspections $480.00 $480.00
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-11
Table 3-7
Recommended Planning Fees
Subdivision1
1 Current per residential unit fees for Subdivision applications are not capped at 400
units
User Fee or Charge 2026 Approved Fee
(Excluding HST)
2026 Proposed Fee
(Excluding HST)
Draft Plan of Subdivision
Base Fee $78,315.00 $78,315.00
Plus Fee per Residential Unit
First 25 units (1-25)$1,150.00 $1,150.00
Next 75 units (26-100)$925.00 $925.00
Next 100 units (101-200)$730.00 $730.00
All additional units (201+)$470.00 $470.00
Plus Fee per Ha of Non-Residential Land
Area (or part thereof) 4
$365.00 $365.00
Plus Fee per Ha of Development Block
Land Area (or part thereof) 5
$230.00 $230.00
Draft Plan of Subdivision - Recirculation 7 $2,180.00 $2,180.00
Additional fee if within Oak Ridges Moraine or
Greenbelt
$2,805.00 $2,805.00
Applicant-Initiated Major Revisions (prior to
Draft Plan Approval)
$24,340.00 $24,340.00
Revisions to Draft Approved Plan - (redline
revisions)
Base Fee $30,055.00 $30,055.00
Plus Fee per Additional Residential Units
First 25 units (1-25)$1,165.00 $1,150.00
Next 75 units (26-100)$950.00 $925.00
Next 100 units (101-200)$750.00 $730.00
All additional units (201+)$475.00 $470.00
Plus Fee per additional Non-Residential Ha
(or part thereof) of Land Area
$375.00 $365.00
Plus Fee per additional Development Block
Ha (or part thereof) of Land Area
$230.00 $230.00
Revision to Draft Approved Plan - Recirculation
7
$2,180.00 $2,180.00
Extension to Draft Approved Plan
Base Fee $3,085.00 $3,085.00
Release of Draft Plan of
Subdivision/Clearance Fee
$5,000.00 $5,000.00
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-12
Table 3-8
Recommended Planning Fees
Condominium
Table 3-9 Recommended Planning Fees Consent
User Fee or Charge 2026 Approved Fee
(Excluding HST)
2026 Proposed Fee
(Excluding HST)
Plan of Condominium
Draft Plan of Condominium $20,715.00 $44,000.00
Common Element Condominium $29,845.00 $50,000.00
Plan of Condominium Recirculation 7 $2,180.00 $2,180.00
Condominium Conversion $37,040.00 $50,000.00
Revisions to a Draft Approved Plan - (redline
revisions)
$3,385.00 $15,000.00
Release of Draft Plan of
Condominium/Clearance Fee
$5,000.00 $5,000.00
User Fee or Charge 2026 Approved Fee
(Excluding HST)
2026 Proposed Fee
(Excluding HST)
Consent
Application for severance (creation of new
lots)
$4,615.00 $12,000.00
plus fee per additional lot created beyond
the first new lot
$1,000.00
Application for Title Validation, Long Term
Lease, Easement, and Lot Line Adjustment
$2,100.00 $6,000.00
Stamping Fee $1,180.00 $1,180.00
Restamping Fee $300.00 $300.00
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-13
Table 3-10
Recommended Planning Fees
Minor Variance
Table 3-11 Recommended Planning Fees Pre-Consultation
User Fee or Charge 2026 Approved Fee
(Excluding HST)
2026 Proposed Fee
(Excluding HST)
Minor Variance
Applications to recognize an "as built condition" Double the regular fee Double the regular fee
Accessory buildings, structures, decks,
platforms & driveway widening
$880.00 $1,000.00
Residential Minor (a lot for a detached
dwelling unit, semi-detached dwelling unit
and/or freehold townhouse dwelling unit)
Single Variance $1,180.00 $2,500.00
Multiple Variances $1,495.00 $3,000.00
Residential Major (all other residential and
mixed use buildings)
Single Variance $2,675.00 $4,000.00
Multiple Variances $2,905.00 $4,500.00
Institutional, Commercial & Industrial
Single Variance $3,255.00 $4,500.00
Multiple Variances $3,810.00 $5,000.00
Tabling Fee & Recirculation (applicant
initiated)
$820.00 $820.00
Special Meeting $5,175.00 $5,175.00
User Fee or Charge 2026 Approved Fee
(Excluding HST)
2026 Proposed Fee
(Excluding HST)
Application for Pre-Consultation
Simple2 $370.00 $370.00
Site Plans $1,540.00 $1,540.00
All other applications $3,700.00 $3,700.00
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-14
Table 3-12
Recommended Planning Fees
Other Fees
User Fee or Charge 2026 Approved Fee
(Excluding HST)
2026 Proposed Fee
(Excluding HST)
Other Fees
Request for Zoning Information $65.00 $150.00
Preliminary Zoning Review - Residential
(single, semi, townhouse, accessory structure)
initial review + 1 revision
$170.00 $170.00
Preliminary Zoning Review - Accessory
buildings, structures, decks, platforms and
driveway widening; - initial review + 1 revision
$80.00 $80.00
Preliminary Zoning Review - Development
(within infill precincts, ORM, or requiring MDS
calculation) initial review + 1 revision
$630.00 $630.00
Preliminary Zoning Review - Mixed-use/Multi
Residential/Non-Residential (industrial,
commercial, institutional) initial review + 1
revision
$1,440.00 $1,440.00
Preliminary Zoning Review - All Fee Types
(After two reviews already provided.)
50% of the fee type 50% of the fee type
Peer Reviews Full recovery of City costs
+ 15% admin. fee
Full recovery of City costs
+ 15% admin. fee
Minor Revision to Approved Condo Site Plan
(by unit owner) i.e., decks, sheds, fences
$130.00 $130.00
File Reactivation 14 $5,700.00 $5,700.00
Opinion Letter for Complex Inquiries $5,000.00 $5,000.00
Add Street Name to Approved List $5,000.00 $5,000.00
Request to Change Municipal Address $5,000.00 $5,000.00
Request for Exception to Council Adopted
Policies on Municipal Addressing and Street
Naming
$10,000.00 $10,000.00
Any other matter requiring a Report to
Committee or Council
$10,000.00 $10,000.00
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-15
3.2.3 Full Cost of Engineering Review
Annual costs of the engineering review services total approximately $1.7 million. Costs
are compared with revenues derived from the application of current fees to average
parameters (e.g., number of applications and average cost of works). Costing and fee
recovery levels for the major engineering reviews are summarized in Table 3-13.
Annual revenues based on the City’s current fee structure and average historical activity
levels are estimated at $1.5 million or 90% of costs.
Table 3-13 Engineering Reviews Full Cost Impacts by Costing Category (2026$) Current Fees
When assessed by application type:
• Subdivision inspections account for $799,100 or 49% of total annual costs of
service. Revenues generated from these fees currently recover $725,100 or
94% of these costs. These fees account for 51% of total annual engineering
review revenue.
• Site plan inspections account for $305,200 or 19% of total annual costs of
service. Revenues generated from these fees currently recover $296,000 or
97% of these costs. These fees account for 20% of total annual engineering
review revenue.
• Lot grading reviews account for $216,400 or 13% of total annual costs of service.
Revenues generated from these fees currently recover $139,600 or 65% of these
costs. These fees account for 9% of total annual engineering review revenue.
Costing Category Group Total Costs
Annual
Revenue
Cost
Recovery
Surplus/
(Deficit)
Other Engineering 178,185 114,375 64% (63,811)
Lot Grading 216,414 139,646 65% (76,767)
Sudivision Additional Reviews 49,209 107,891 219% 58,682
Subdivision Inspections 799,071 752,066 94% (47,005)
Site Plan Additional Reviews 42,712 12,762 30% (29,950)
Site Plan Inspections 305,165 295,971 97% (9,194)
Land Division 55,128 51,580 94% (3,548)
Subtotal - Engineering 1,645,884 1,474,290 90% (171,594)
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-16
• Other engineering applications account for $178,200 or 11% of total annual costs
of service. Revenues generated from these fees currently recover $114,400 or
64% of these costs. These fees account for 8% of total annual engineering
review revenue.
• Additional subdivision and site plan engineering reviews, along with land division
applications cumulatively account for $147,000 or 9% of total annual costs of
service. Revenues generated from these fees are currently recovering $172,200
or 117% of these costs. This is primarily driven by the high cost recovery on
additional subdivision engineering reviews. Collectively these fees account for
12% of total annual engineering review revenue.
3.2.4 Engineering Fee Recommendations
Fee recommendations are presented in Tables 3-15 to 3-19. The recommended fees
are presented in 2026$ dollars. The following bullets highlight the major changes to the
City’s fee schedule:
• Subdivision Engineering Review and Inspection (Table 3-15)
o Fees will continue to be charged based on the costs of municipal
infrastructure, with minimum fees applied. The engineering review fee will
be increased from 1.5% to 1.75% of the total cost of municipal works and
the minimum fee will be increased to $8,000.
o Fees for additional submissions will be increased to a minimum of $8,000
to increase the minimum cost recovery on each review, while the
maximum fee will be decreased to 15% of the engineering design review
fee as these fees were over-recovering costs
• Minor increases to the inspection fees are proposed to close the cost recovery
gap from 94% to 100%.
• Site Plan Engineering Review and Inspection (Table 3-16)
o To close the cost recovery gap for Site Plan applications (included in
Table 3-2), increases to the Site Plan engineering review fee are also
required. The average fee will increase by 56% based on the proposed
increases.
o Minor increases to inspection fees are also proposed to improve cost
recovery from 97% to 100%
• Land Division Engineering Fees (Table 3-17)
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-17
o Engineering Review fees will remain unchanged as they reflect the level of
effort at this stage in the process
o Minor increases to clearance of condition fees to move to full cost
recovery levels and close the cost recovery gap from 94^ to 100%
• Lot Grading Review and Infill Building Permit Fees (Table 3-18)
o Fees for lot grading through the subdivision review process are to
increase from $87 per unit to $160 to recover the review costs
o Fees for infill lot grading review and inspection would increase from $847
per unit to $950 per unit
• Miscellaneous Engineering Fees (Table 3-19)
o Other fees within the scope of the review included Curb Cut fees
(proposed to increase from $375 to $410), Municipal Consent (proposed
to increase from $505 per street to $1,375 per application), and Pool
Enclosure Permits (proposed to increase from $393 to $550)
The recommendations presented herein would result in the engineering review fees
application fees increasing from 90% to full cost recovery, generating an additional
$175,000 in annual revenue. The proposed cost recovery levels by major application
type are presented in Table 3-14 below.
Table 3-14
Engineering Review Full Cost Impacts by Costing Category (2026$)
Recommended Fees
Costing Category Group Total Costs
Annual
Revenue
Cost
Recovery
Surplus/
(Deficit)
Other Engineering 178,185 165,106 93% (13,080)
Lot Grading 216,414 216,510 100%96
Sudivision Additional Reviews 49,209 63,085 128% 13,876
Subdivision Inspections 799,071 800,203 100% 1,132
Site Plan Additional Reviews 42,712 43,333 101% 621
Site Plan Inspections 305,165 305,643 100% 478
Land Division 55,128 55,400 100% 272
Subtotal - Engineering 1,645,884 1,649,281 100% 3,397
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-18
Table 3-15
Recommended Subdivision Engineering Review and Inspection Fees
User Fee or Charge 2026 Approved Fee
(Excluding HST)2026 Proposed Fee (Excluding HST)
Engineering Review Based on total cost of Municipal Works4 Based on total cost of Municipal Works4
Engineering Review Fee 2Detailed Design Package 1.50% with a minimum of $7,700.00 1.75% with a minimum of $8,000
Surcharge for 4th Submission of Detailed
Design Package (payable at submission)3
33.3% of total Engineering Design Review
Fee with a minimum of $2,945.00
15% of total Engineering Design Review Fee
with a minimum of$8,000.00
Additional surcharge for Submission of each Detailed Design Package after 4th
Submission (payable at submission) 3
20% of total Engineering Design Review Fee with a minimum of $2,945.00 15% of total Engineering Design Review Fee with a minimum of
$8,000.00InspectionBased on total cost of Municipal
Works 4<$250,000 8.25% with a minimum of $7,700.00 8.25% with a minimum of $8,000
$250,000 - 500,000 6.25%6.75%$500,000 - $1.5 million 4.75%5.25%
$1.5 million - $5.0 million 4.00%4.50%> $5 million 3.75%3.75%
Subdivision/Development /Road Servicing
Agreements
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-19
Table 3-16
Recommended Site Plan Engineering Review and Inspection Fee
Table 3-17 Recommended Land Division Engineering Fees
User Fee or Charge 2026 Approved Fee
(Excluding HST)2026 Proposed Fee (Excluding HST)
Site Plans
Engineering Review
Engineering Review Fee 2Detailed Design Package Development Site Area <= 1,000 m², fixed fee of $1,220.00 Development Site Area <= 1,000 m², fixed fee of $1,220.00
Development Site Area 1,001 m² to 3000 m² fixed fee of $3,600.00 Development Site Area 1,001 m² to 3000 m² fixed fee of $3,600.00
Development Site Area > 3,001 m² based on the sliding scale of total cost of Civil Works 5
noted below
Development Site Area > 3,001 m² based on the sliding scale of total cost of Civil Works 5
noted below
<$250,000 8.25% with a minimum of $7,700.00 10.25% with a minimum of $8,000
$250,000 - $500,000 6.25%9.25%$500,000 - $1.5 million 4.75%8.25%
$1.5 million - $5.0 million 4.00%7.25%> $5 million 3.75%4.25%
Surcharge for submission of each Detailed Design Package after 3rd
submission (payable at submission) 3
$2,945.00 $10,000.00
Inspection
Inspection Fees Development Site Area
<= 1,000 m², fixed fee of $1,220.00
Development Site Area
<= 1,000 m², fixed fee of $1,220.00
Development Site Area 1,001 m² to 3000 m² fixed fee of $3,595.00 Development Site Area 1,001 m² to 3000 m² fixed fee of $3,595.00
Development Site Area > 3,001 m² based on
the sliding scale of total cost of Civil Works5
noted below
Development Site Area > 3,001 m² based on
the sliding scale of total cost of Civil Works5 noted below
<$250,000 8.25% with a minimum of $7,500.00 8.5% with a minimum of $8,000
$250,000 - $500,000 6.25%6.50%$500,000 - $1.5 million 4.75%5.00%
$1.5 million - $5.0 million 4.00%4.00%> $5 million 3.75%3.75%
Surcharge for more than two inspections required due to unaddressed deficiencies
identified during earlier inspections (payable at inspection)
$915.00 per inspection $915.00 per inspection
User Fee or Charge 2026 Approved Fee
(Excluding HST)2026 Proposed Fee (Excluding HST)
Land Division
Engineering Review
up to 4 proposed lots $1,800.00 $1,800.00
>4 proposed lots if not completed as
a Draft Plan of Subdivision
$3,000.00 $3,000.00
Clearance of Conditions
up to 4 proposed lots $2,395.00 $2,800.00
>4 proposed lots if not completed as
a Draft Plan of Subdivision
$6,010.00 $6,300.00
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-20
Table 3-18
Recommended Lot Grading Review and Infill Building Permit Fees
Table 3-19 Recommended Miscellaneous Engineering Fees
3.2.5 Full Cost of Building Permit Review
Annual costs of the administering and enforcing the Building Code Act total
approximately $5.8 million. Costs are compared with revenues derived from the
application of current fees to average parameters (e.g., gross floor area) and permit
volumes. Costing and fee recovery levels for the major permit categories are
summarized in Table 3-20. Annual revenues based on the City’s current fee structure
and average historical activity levels are estimated at $5.2 million or 90% of costs.
User Fee or Charge 2026 Approved Fee
(Excluding HST)2026 Proposed Fee (Excluding HST)
Lot Grading Review
Residential Lot Grading Review Fee $87.00/unit $160.00
Infill Building Permit
New Construction and/or FoundationModification (any part thereof)$847.00 $950.00
Addition to existing structure $88.00 $88.00
User Fee or Charge 2026 Approved Fee
(Excluding HST)2026 Proposed Fee (Excluding HST)
Miscellaneous Charges
Curb Cut – new development not assumed by
municipality, infill building permit or industrial/commercial
$57.00 per metre or part thereof with a
minimum charge of $375
$57.00 per metre or part thereof with a
minimum charge of $410
Curb Infill $208.00/m $208.00/mSidewalk Repair $196.00/m2 $196.00/m2
Municipal Consent Fee $505.00/street $1,375.00Stormwater Maintenance Fee $2,620.00/hectare $2,620.00/hectare
Cash-in-lieu of water quality treatment $55,585.00/imp.ha $55,585.00/imp.ha
Newspaper Box Pad Permit Application $62.00/box $62.00/box
Newspaper Box Installation $275.00 - $540.00 $275.00 - $540.00
Newspaper Box Annual Maintenance $23.00/box $23.00/boxRoad Cleaning Contract cost + 10% admin fee Contract cost + 10% admin fee
Tree Removal Compensation 1 $640.00/tree to a max of $3,820.00/dwelling unit and $9,250.00/1000 m2 or any part
thereof for industrial and commercial developments
$640.00/tree to a max of $3,820.00/dwelling unit and $9,250.00/1000 m2 or any part
thereof for industrial and commercial developments
Pool Enclosure Permit $393.00 $555.00Streetlight Pole Numbering Fee $93.00/pole $93.00/pole
Re-inspection Fee 9
for more than two inspections required due to deficiencies identified during earlier
inspections
$180.00 per inspection $180.00 per inspection
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-21
However, as discussed in the following sections, fee recommendations should me made
in the context of a detailed analysis of forecast building permit activity, cost, revenues,
and Building Code Act reserve fund levels.
Table 3-20 Cost Recovery Assessment of Current Building Permit Fees (2024$)
When assessed by application type:
• New residential building permits account for $4.6 million or 79% of the total
annual costs of service. Revenues generated by these fees currently fully
recovering the marginal costs of review and inspection.
• New non-residential building permits account for $128,000 in annual costs,
compared to estimated revenues of $334,000, generating a revenue surplus of
$206,000.
• All other permit types account for 19% of the annual costs ($1.1 million) but only
4% of total revenue ($209,000) resulting in a cumulative under recovery of
$821,000.
The above points illustrate that the fees for new residential and non-residential
construction are generating revenues in excess of the marginal costs of processing
while all other permit types are recovering less than the full costs of service. This
pattern is typical across municipalities in Ontario as the cost recovery test is set in
aggregate at the Building Code Act level and not by type of individual permit.
Furthermore, the fee design strategy has been designed to recover costs while not
setting minor permit fees at levels that would disincentivize compliance with the Building
Code process, thereby driving up the cost of enforcement.
Costing Category Group Total Costs
Annual
Revenue
Cost
Recovery
Surplus/
(Deficit)
Demolition Permit 21,507 5,083 24% (16,424)
Other 592,035 135,448 23% (456,587)
New Residential Building Permits 4,556,928 4,612,399 101% 55,471
New Non-Residential Building Permits 128,004 334,225 261% 206,221
Residential Alterations 363,214 48,872 13% (314,342)
Non-Residential Alterations 89,454 19,619 22% (69,836)
Subtotal - Building 5,751,142 5,155,646 90% (595,496)
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-22
A detailed analysis of forecast building permit activity, revenues, and Building Code Act
reserve fund levels is contained in Section 3.26, which has been used to inform
recommended fee structure revisions.
3.2.6 Building Permit Fee Recommendations
As noted in the Section 2.6, the recommendation is that the City amend their policy to
set their Building Code Act Reserve Fund for service stabilization at multiple of 1.5
times annual cost of service. Based on the annual costs of service in Table 3-20, the
2026 reserve fund target balance would be $8.6 million. The actual 2025 year-end
reserve fund balance is $4.5 million or 53% of the reserve fund target. The ability of
current and proposed fees to recover the full cost of service and contribute to reserve
fund sustainability was assessed over the 2026 to 2035 forecast period based on
forecast costs and revenues. Furthermore, this was assessed if forecast permit
volumes remained at historical average levels, or if permit volumes for new residential
construction decreased by 10% in 2026, as is expected by staff, before returning to
average levels over the forecast period. The forecast and historical building permit
activity is presented in Table 3-21. .
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-23
Table 3-21
Building Permit Volume Forecast (2026-2035)
Costing Category Historical
Average 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
Demolition Permit 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.8
Other Building Permits 208.0 205.0 205.0 205.0 205.0 205.0 205.0 205.0 205.0 205.0 205.0
New Residential Building Permits 1,090.9 978.8 991.2 1,003.7 1,016.1 1,028.6 1,041.0 1,053.5 1,066.0 1,078.4 1,090.9 New Non-Residential Building Permits 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 Residential Alterations 111.7 111.7 111.7 111.7 111.7 111.7 111.7 111.7 111.7 111.7 111.7 Non-Residential Alterations 18.1 18.1 18.1 18.1 18.1 18.1 18.1 18.1 18.1 18.1 18.1 Total 1,464.1 1,349.0 1,361.5 1,373.9 1,386.4 1,398.8 1,411.3 1,423.7 1,436.2 1,448.6 1,461.1
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-24
Based on the forecast development activity and costs of service, the City’s current fees
with inflation would be insufficient to fund the full cost of service or make contributions to
the reserve fund for service sustainability. Table 3-22 shows the reserve fund continuity
over the forecast period considering the forecast costs, revenues, contributions/draws
from the reserve fund, and target reserve fund balance. At current fees, average annual
reserve fund draws of $901,000 would be required over the forecast period. By 2035,
the reserve fund would be a $4.5 million deficit, indicating that the City would have
provide that amount in tax-based funding support for the administration and
enforcement of the Building Code Act.
As such, fee increases have been recommended to ensure full cost recovery and
contributions to the reserve fund for future service sustainability. As shown in Table 3-
23, building permit fee revenue based on the recommended fees discussed herein, plus
continuing to increase fees annually at inflationary levels (3% annual indexing beginning
in 2027 has been assumed for the purpose of this report) would result in the City
accumulating a reserve fund balance of $5.8 million or 51% of the reserve fund target.
While the reserve fund would not reach the target threshold over the forecast period, if
average historical residential building permit activity was maintained (as opposed to the
10% decrease in 2026), the reserve fund would reach the prior target threshold of 1.13
times annual costs by 2035 if permit activity remained at historical levels.
Further sensitivity analyses were also conducted to understand the potential impacts on
the reserve fund if greater decreases to building permit activity were witnessed and
these decreases were also sustained over a longer period of time. If average annual
historical residential permit volumes were to decrease by 20% over the 2026 to 2030
period, the City would be able to sustain and fund the costs of building permit review
from the reserve fund. In this scenario, the reserve fund would decrease to
approximately $1.8 million by the end of 2030. However, if the City was to incur a
sustained decrease of this magnitude, the City may review their staffing needs to
manage costs being incurred and mitigate some of the downward impacts on reserve
fund levels.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-25
Table 3-22
Reserve Fund Continuity
Current Fees (with annual inflationary increases)
Table 3-23 Reserve Fund Continuity Recommended Fees (with annual inflationary increases)
Description 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
Opening Balance 4,541,507 3,504,164 2,561,306 1,626,222 700,902 (212,545) (1,111,885) (1,994,755) (2,858,653) (3,700,939)
Revenue 4,762,799 4,950,642 5,145,469 5,347,530 5,557,084 5,774,398 5,999,750 6,233,427 6,475,723 6,726,948
Expense 5,751,142 5,923,676 6,101,386 6,284,428 6,472,961 6,667,150 6,867,164 7,073,179 7,285,374 7,503,936
Other Expense (IT Project)*49,000
Contribution/(Draw)(1,037,343) (973,034) (955,917) (936,898) (915,877) (892,751) (867,414) (839,752) (809,651) (776,987)
Interest 30,176 20,833 11,578 2,430 (6,589) (15,456) (24,146) (32,635) (40,894)
Closing Balance 3,504,164 2,561,306 1,626,222 700,902 (212,545) (1,111,885) (1,994,755) (2,858,653) (3,700,939) (4,518,821)
Reserve Fund Target (1.5 x Total Costs)8,626,713 8,885,514 9,152,079 9,426,642 9,709,441 10,000,724 10,300,746 10,609,768 10,928,061 11,255,903
Reserve Fund/Expense Ratio 0.41 0.29 0.18 0.07 (0.02) (0.11) (0.19) (0.27) (0.34) (0.40)
Description 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
Opening Balance 4,541,507 4,326,149 4,250,070 4,224,102 4,251,904 4,337,319 4,484,375 4,697,297 4,980,515 5,338,669
Revenue 5,584,784 5,804,930 6,033,258 6,270,061 6,515,643 6,770,316 7,034,406 7,308,248 7,592,190 7,886,590
Expense 5,751,142 5,923,676 6,101,386 6,284,428 6,472,961 6,667,150 6,867,164 7,073,179 7,285,374 7,503,936
Other Expense (IT Project)*49,000
Contribution/(Draw)(215,358) (118,746) (68,129) (14,367) 42,682 103,167 167,242 235,069 306,815 382,655
Interest 42,668 42,160 42,169 42,732 43,889 45,680 48,148 51,339 55,300
Closing Balance 4,326,149 4,250,070 4,224,102 4,251,904 4,337,319 4,484,375 4,697,297 4,980,515 5,338,669 5,776,624
Reserve Fund Target (1.5 x Total Costs)8,626,713 8,885,514 9,152,079 9,426,642 9,709,441 10,000,724 10,300,746 10,609,768 10,928,061 11,255,903
Reserve Fund/Total Expense Ratio 0.50 0.48 0.46 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.46 0.47 0.49 0.51
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-26
This analysis is shown graphically in Figures 3-1 and 3-2. Figure 3-1 shows the
forecast reserve fund position if current fees plus inflation were applied to either
average historical permit volumes or the forecast permit volumes. In either case, the
reserve fund would be in a deficit position of between $2.2 million to $4.5 million by
2035.
Figure 3-1 Forecast Reserve Fund Balance at Forecast and Historical Average Permit Volumes
Current Fees (plus annual inflationary increases)
Figure 3-2 shows the reserve fund position with the recommended fees plus annual
inflationary increases. At historical application volumes, the reserve fund would
increase to $8.5 million or 1.13 times annual costs by 2035. At the forecast permit
volumes, the reserve fund would reach 0.77 times annual costs or $5.8 million by 2035.
Under this scenario the reserve funds would continue to increase from their current
position and move towards the target threshold.
(5,000,000)
(4,000,000)
(3,000,000)
(2,000,000)
(1,000,000)
-
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
Reserve Fund Balance
Reserve Fund Balance - Forecast Reserve Fund Balance - Average Historical
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-27
Figure 3-2
Forecast Reserve Fund Balance at Forecast and Historical Average Permit Volumes
Recommended Fees (plus annual inflationary increases)
The fee recommendations, which have been made to remain within the range of fees
imposed by comparator Durham Region municipalities and other select GTA
municipalities and to have regard for the affordability and competitiveness of the fees
are presented in Table 3-24. It is anticipated that recommended building permit fees
would be implemented in mid-2026.
The key changes to the recommended fees are summarized as follows:
• New residential construction permits – 17% increase
• New non-residential construction permits – 25% increase
• Sign fees – 10% increase
• Additional inspections (i.e., related to deficiencies)
o Initial fee to cover up to four hours. Additional per hour fee of $120 for
additional time above the four hour threshold
• Increase minimum fee to $180. This would include fees for minor residential
structures
• Other City fee increases for 2026 to be maintained
0.75 0.67
0.77
0.83
1.01
1.13
-
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
8,000,000
9,000,000
2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
Reserve Fund Balance
Reserve Fund Balance - Forecast Reserve Fund Balance - Average Historical
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-28
Table 3-24
Recommended Building Permit Fees
Class of Permit 2026 Approved Fee
(Excluding HST)
2026 Proposed Fee
(Excluding HST)
Demolition Permit $165.00 $180.00
Conditional Permit 10%10%
Change of Use Permit $345.25 $345.25
Authority to Occupy Permit $426.50 $426.50
Alternative Solution $504.50 $504.50
Resubmission of incomplete application 25%25%
Revision to permit (houses)$165.00 $180.00
Revision to permit (all other building types)15%15%
Transfer of permit $165.00 $180.00
House Models – Re-examination $600.00 $600.00
House Models – Re-examination 10%10%
Certification of House Models $8.60 $8.60
Re-certification of House Models $546.00 $546.00
Reactivation of Dormant File $165.00 $180.00
Building Permit Surcharge Prescribed in Part B Prescribed in Part B
Additional Inspection $490.00 $490.00
Building Type:
Minimum Building Permit Fee $165.00 $180.00
Assembly Occupancies “A” Classification (BPA1)$27.10 $33.88
Care and Detention Occupancies “B” Classification
(BPB1)
$31.00 $38.75
Residential Occupancies “C” Classification (BPC1)
Apartment buildings, hotels, motels, detached, semi-
detached and townhouse dwellings, and other
residential occupancies
• 1 to 20 storeys $17.20 $20.12
• 21 to 40 Storeys $18.65 $21.82
• 41+ Storeys $20.15 $23.58
Business & Personal Services Occupancies “D”
Classification (BPD1)
• Single storey buildings *$17.10 $21.38
• Multi storey buildings **$21.20 $26.50
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-29
Table 3-24 (Cont’d)
Recommended Building Permit Fees
Class of Permit 2026 Approved Fee
(Excluding HST)
2026 Proposed Fee
(Excluding HST)
Mercantile Occupancies “E” Classification (BPE1)
• Single storey buildings *$17.10 $21.38
• Multi storey buildings **$21.20 $26.50
Industrial Occupancies “F” Classification
• Unserviced storage buildings, unfinished basements ^$7.00 $8.75
• Parking garages and other industrial buildings ^^$12.70 $15.88
Low Human Occupancies “G” Classification $7.00 $8.19
Alterations, Repairs and Other Structures:
Interior Partitioning and Finishing, including new
tenant fit-ups, apartments in houses, and finished
basements $6.30 $7.37
Minor Residential Structures and Alterations,
including
• Decks, gazebos, trellis, pergola, pool equipment shed,
cabanas (each)
• Loadbearing wall removal, basement walkout (each)
• Fireplace, wood stove (each)
• Garage, carport, storage shed (each)
• Water and sewer connection (each)
• Other similar minor projects associated with a
residential use (each)$165.00 $180.00
Temporary Sales Centres (max. 2 years)$2,021.00 $2,021.00
Minor Non-Residential Structures, including
• School portables (each)
• Decks, gazebos, sheds, trellis/sunshades (each)
• Temporary prefabricated trailers (each)
• Temporary tents or garden centres (each)
• Other similar minor structures associated with a non-
residential use $445.95 $490.55
Alterations, Buildings and Designated Structures not
provided above $17.10 $17.10
Solar Collector for All Buildings $305.20 $305.20
Wind Turbines $305.20 $305.20
Final Inspection Performance Deposit (new detached
and semi-detached dwelling units)$2,378.70 $2,378.70
Mag Locks (per building fee – allows for multiple
devices to be installed)$354.50 $354.50
Fire Alarm Installation/Replacement (stand alone)
• Include devices, panel and associated components $411.00 $411.00
Fire Suppression System (when submitted separately
from parent document – stand alone permit)
• include sprinklers, kitchen systems, and specialized
systems $411.00 $411.00
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-30
Table 3-24 (Cont’d)
Recommended Building Permit Fees
Class of Permit 2026 Approved Fee
(Excluding HST)
2026 Proposed Fee
(Excluding HST)
Sign Permit Fees
Ground Sign $631.90 $695.09
Wall Sign $631.90 $695.09
Development Sign $631.90 $695.09
Billboard Permit $631.90 $695.09
Additional fee for any sign installed prior to permit
issuance
$631.90
$695.09
Sign Variance – ground sign, wall sign or development
sign
$714.10
$785.51
Revision Fee $182.90 $201.19
Miscellaneous Fees:
Lawyer Compliance Letter
• Building Code and Zoning Matters $205.50 $205.50
• Legal Matters $205.50 $205.50
• Site Plan Control Matters $205.50 $205.50
• Licence/Zoning Compliance Letter $205.50 $205.50
Recovery of costs for Clandestine Investigations $3,069.10 $3,069.10
Administrative Fee for Processing Clandestine
Investigations
$640.15 $640.15
Request for Building and/or Planning Records (minor)$25.70 $25.70
Request for Building and/or Planning Records $58.00 $58.00
After Hours Inspections $257.00 $257.00
Records Management Fee
• Houses and other minor residential alterations $13.35 $13.35
• All other permit applications 3%3%
Daycare Compliance Letter $585.70 $585.70
AGCO Compliance Letter $171.60 $180.00
Complaint driven inspection after 2nd site visit for the
same matter or closely related as verified by City staff
$155.00 $180.00
Building Permit Surcharge (minimum permit fee
applies):
Footings/Foundations Commenced 50%50%
Framing Commenced 60%60%
Framing Substantially Complete 75%75%
Building Envelope is Substantially Complete 95%95%
Any other work requiring the issuance of a building
permit (i.e., HVAC, plumbing, site works etc.)
• If 25% of the scope of work substantially 25%25%
• If 50% of the scope of work substantially 50%50%
• If 75% of the scope of work substantially 75%75%
• If 95% of the scope of work substantially 95%95%
• Demolition or partial demolition has commenced 100%100%
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Chapter 4
Impact of Recommended Fee
on Sample Development
Types
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 4-1
4. Impact of Recommended Fees on Sample
Development Types
4.1 Introduction
The fee recommendations that were presented in Chapter 3 also considered the
affordability of the increases and the City’s competitiveness of their fees when
compared to neighbouring municipalities in Durham Region and the surrounding area.
Municipal fee comparisons for planning and building permit fees are included in
Appendix A for a cross section of sample developments. The proposed building permit
fees would increase the City’s position within the municipal rankings but still generally
be within the range of fees imposed by other Durham Region municipalities. With the
exception of Site Plan fees that would be increased towards the top end of the
municipal comparison, the City’s ranking for planning applications fees would remain
unchanged or decrease (e.g., major OPA applications).
To fully understand the overall impacts that these fee recommendations will have on the
competitiveness of the City’s total development fees (i.e., including planning, building,
engineering fees, and development charges), an impact analysis for two sample
developments has been prepared comparing the City’s current and proposed cost of
development to other comparable municipalities. The following section gives an
overview of what the potential cost implications would be on two sample of
developments (i.e., a 200 unit subdivision development, and a 400 unit Site Plan
development). To provide some context to the fees imposed in the comparator
municipalities and when they may be updated, a review of when each municipality last
undertook a public fee review was completed. Generally, municipalities that regularly
review their fees will comprehensively update them every four to five years. The dates
and fees reviewed by municipality are provided below:
• City of Toronto – Planning fees (2025)
• Town of Ajax – All development fees (2023)
• Town of Whitby – All development fees (2024)
• City of Oshawa – Unknown
• Municipality of Clarington – Planning fees (2025)
• City of Mississauga – All development fees (2016)
• City of Brampton – Planning fees (2023), Building fees (2025)
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 4-2
• Town of Caledon – Unknown
• Town of Halton Hills – Planning and engineering fees (2025)
• City of Burlington – Planning fees (2022), Building fees (2019)
• Town of Oakville – All development fees (2014)
• Town of Milton – All development fees (2022)
4.2 Subdivision Development Impacts
Figure 4-1 examines the total development fees and charges, including planning (i.e.,
ZBA and subdivision), engineering fees, building permit fees, and development charges,
related to a 200-unit (247 sq. m. per unit) subdivision. This provides a comprehensive
analysis of the impacts of the recommended fees and is presented on a per unit basis.
The recommended fees result in a $683 per unit increase which is an 8% increase in
the City’s planning, engineering, and building permit fees or a 0.5% increase in the total
development fees and charges payable for the development. This increase leaves the
City’s rank in the municipal comparison unchanged at the sixth out of the 13 comparator
municipalities. Furthermore, when examining what share of the total development fees
payable the proposed planning application, building permit, and engineering fees would
represent, the City’s fees would be 7% of the total fees, which is equal to the average
share of the 13 comparator municipalities, indicating these proposed fees are in line
with the cost recovery policies of the other municipalities.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 4-3
Figure 4-1
200-Unit Subdivision Development Impacts
4.3 Site Plan Development Impacts
Figure 4-2 examines the total development fees and charges, including planning (i.e.,
ZBA and site plan), engineering fees, building permit fees, and development charges,
related to a 400-unit (106 sq. m. per unit) high density residential site plan. This
provides a comprehensive analysis of the impacts of the recommended fees and is
presented on a per unit basis. The recommended fees result in a $559 per unit
increase which is a 18% increase in the City’s planning, engineering, and building
permit fees or a 1% increase in the total development fees and charges payable for the
development. This increase adjusts the City’s rank in the municipal comparison to fifth,
from sixth, out of the 13 comparator municipalities. Furthermore, when examining what
share of the total development fees payable the proposed planning, engineering and
building permit fees would represent, the City’s fees would be 8% of the total fees,
which is inline with the average share of 7% for the 13 comparator municipalities,
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
Per Unit Total Development Related Fees (200-unit Subdivision, 247 sq.m. per unit)
Lower Tier Development Charges Upper Tier Development Charges Building Permit Fees
Planning Fees Engineering Fees
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 4-4
indicating these proposed fees are in line with the cost recovery policies of the other
municipalities
Figure 4-6 400 Unit Site Plan Development Impacts
-
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
Per Unit Total Development Related Fees (400-unit Site Plan, 106 sq.m. per unit)
Lower Tier Development Charges Upper Tier Development Charges Building Permit Fees
Planning Fees Engineering Fees
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Chapter 5
Conclusion
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 5-1
5. Conclusion
Summarized in this technical report is the legislative context for the imposition of
development review fees, the methodology undertaken, A.B.C. model results, the
associated full cost recovery, fee structure recommendations, and market impacts.
The intent of this review is to provide the City with a recommended fee structure, for
Council’s consideration, to appropriately recover the service costs from benefiting
parties. The recommended planning application fees would generate an additional
$238,000 in annual revenue, improving cost recovery from 73% to 79% (including
$145,000 in costs not recovered related to City initiated applications). Engineering fees
would generate an additional $175,000 in fee revenue, increasing cost recovery from
90% to 100%. Building permit fees would generate an additional $895,000 in revenue,
recovering the full costs of service and contributing to the reserve fund for future service
sustainability. As noted earlier, the cost recovery levels of the recommended are
presented in 2026$ values. The City should consider annual inflationary increases to
the fees to maintain desired cost recovery levels. Interim adjustments to fees may be
required if there are greater than inflationary increases to City review costs, changes in
organizational structure, or other legislative changes that impact the intensity of
involvement on a per application basis.
It is recommended that the City consider revisiting its development review fees every
four to five years to ensure the fees and associated revenue are aligned with processing
costs to maintain a sound fiscal position and mitigate any potential appeal risk
associated with the fees.
Appendices
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-1
Appendix A
Planning, Engineering and
Building Permit Fee Municipal
Comparators
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-2
Table A-1
100-Unit Subdivision
Planning Fees
Table A-2 400-Unit Subdivision Planning Fees
Municipality/Region
Pre-
Consultation
Additional
Fees Base Fee Variable Fee Total Fee
Toronto, City of - - 289,479 - 289,479
Brampton, City of*20,440 - 36,128 158,100 214,668
Pickering, City of - Current 3,700 5,000 78,315 98,125 185,140
Pickering, City of - Proposed 3,700 5,000 78,315 98,125 185,140
Halton Hills, Town of - 28,031 66,950 74,675 169,656
Whitby, Town of*- 11,443 44,661 80,875 136,979
Oakville, Town of 1,319 9,986 31,934 83,850 127,089
Ajax, Town of*3,485 4,018 37,750 67,990 113,242
Oshawa, City of 1,914 5,711 38,246 49,200 95,071
Milton, Town of 417 - 60,374 34,050 94,841
Burlington, City of 2,295 - 35,355 52,500 90,150
Mississauga, City of 5,825 - 10,494 68,100 84,419
Caledon, Town of 2,164 9,300 16,900 35,000 63,364
Clarington, Municipality of*1,055 6,938 19,670 31,000 58,663
Additional Fees include subdivision release, clearance, final approval and agreement fees
Municipality/Region
Pre-
Consultation
Additional
Fees Base Fee Variable Fee Total Fee
Brampton, City of*- 36,128 632,400 668,528
Whitby, Town of*- 11,443 44,661 323,498 379,602
Pickering, City of - Current 3,700 5,000 78,315 265,125 352,140
Pickering, City of - Proposed 3,700 5,000 78,315 265,125 352,140
Toronto, City of - - 289,479 - 289,479
Mississauga, City of 5,825 - 10,494 272,400 288,719
Halton Hills, Town of - 28,031 66,950 178,475 273,456
Oakville, Town of 1,319 9,986 31,934 222,550 265,789
Ajax, Town of*3,485 4,018 37,750 204,020 249,272
Oshawa, City of 1,914 5,711 38,246 153,200 199,071
Caledon, Town of 2,164 9,300 16,900 140,000 168,364
Clarington, Municipality of*1,055 6,938 19,670 124,000 151,663
Burlington, City of 2,295 - 35,355 100,500 138,150
Milton, Town of 417 - 60,374 74,850 135,641
Additional Fees include subdivision release, clearance, final approval and agreement fees
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-3
Table A-3
100-Unit Residential Site Plan
Planning Fees
Table A-4
400-Unit Residential Site Plan Planning Fees
Municipality/Region
Pre-
Consultation
Additional
Fees Base Fee Variable Fee Total Fee
Toronto, City of - - 43,605 48,330 91,935
Brampton, City of*- 29,720 65,400 91,842
Pickering, City of - Proposed 1,540 1,060 20,000 67,500 90,100
Halton Hills, Town of - 6,018 41,200 37,350 84,568
Oakville, Town of 1,319 14,220 15,615 50,375 81,529
Ajax, Town of*687 - 40,544 38,785 80,016
Pickering, City of - Current 1,540 1,060 19,685 57,000 79,285
Mississauga, City of 5,825 - 12,164 42,325 60,314
Caledon, Town of 2,164 - 21,220 33,600 56,984
Whitby, Town of*3,500 3,500 11,521 34,917 53,438
Milton, Town of 417 3,366 15,461 32,600 51,844
Oshawa, City of 1,914 4,372 6,011 39,300 51,597
Burlington, City of - - 12,200 36,500 48,700
Clarington, Municipality of*1,055 - 5,540 6,500 13,095
Assumed 90 m2 per residential unit
Municipality/Region
Pre-
Consultation
Additional
Fees Base Fee Variable Fee Total Fee
Toronto, City of - - 43,605 193,320 236,925
Pickering, City of - Proposed 1,540 1,060 20,000 149,500 172,100
Caledon, Town of 2,164 - 21,220 134,400 157,784
Halton Hills, Town of - 6,018 41,200 104,350 151,568
Pickering, City of - Current 1,540 1,060 19,685 111,500 133,785
Oakville, Town of 1,319 14,220 15,615 94,075 125,229
Ajax, Town of*687 - 40,544 75,295 116,526
Burlington, City of - - 12,200 102,500 114,700
Milton, Town of 417 3,366 15,461 86,600 105,844
Brampton, City of*- 29,720 189,300 91,842
Mississauga, City of 5,825 - 12,164 64,525 82,514
Oshawa, City of 1,914 4,372 6,011 157,200 79,568
Whitby, Town of*3,500 3,500 11,521 76,998 76,805
Clarington, Municipality of*1,055 - 5,540 26,000 32,595
Assumed 90 m2 per residential unit
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-4
Table A-5
10,000 Sq. M. Industrial Site Plan
Planning Fees
Table A-6 100-Unit Zoning By-law Amendment Planning Fees
Municipality/Region
Pre-
Consultation
Additional
Fees Base Fee Variable Fee Total Fee
Oakville, Town of 1,319 14,220 15,615 120,400 151,554
Toronto, City of - - 43,605 53,700 97,305
Milton, Town of 417 3,366 15,461 76,524 95,768
Brampton, City of*20,440 - 29,720 47,556 91,842
Halton Hills, Town of - 6,018 41,200 28,350 75,568
Pickering, City of - Proposed 1,540 1,060 20,000 36,500 59,100
Mississauga, City of 5,825 - 12,164 47,055 57,733
Pickering, City of - Current 1,540 1,060 19,685 33,350 55,635
Whitby, Town of*3,500 3,500 11,521 36,500 55,021
Ajax, Town of*687 - 40,544 5,090 46,321
Caledon, Town of 2,164 - 21,220 14,000 37,384
Burlington, City of - - 12,200 25,000 37,200
Oshawa, City of 1,914 4,372 6,011 14,100 26,397
Clarington, Municipality of*1,055 - 5,540 8,000 14,595
Municipality/Region
Pre-
Consultation
Additional
Fees Base Fee Variable Fee Total Fee
Toronto, City of - - 63,680 93,450 157,130
Mississauga, City of - - 38,712 118,175 156,887
Brampton, City of*- 42,602 64,000 88,821
Halton Hills, Town of - - 30,900 42,525 73,425
Milton, Town of 417 - 27,358 45,225 73,000
Pickering, City of - Current 3,700 - 22,700 44,500 70,900
Pickering, City of - Proposed 3,700 - 22,700 44,500 70,900
Burlington, City of 2,295 - 26,035 40,750 69,080
Ajax, Town of*3,485 2,510 52,718 - 58,713
Oakville, Town of 1,319 - 39,191 14,725 55,235
Whitby, Town of*3,500 - 50,000 - 53,500
Caledon, Town of 2,164 - 49,900 - 52,064
Oshawa, City of 1,914 - 21,855 - 23,769
Clarington, Municipality of*1,055 - 13,890 - 14,945
Assumed 150 m2 per residential unit
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-5
Table A-7
400-Unit Zoning By-law Amendment
Planning Fees
Table A-8
100-Unit Residential OPA Planning Fees
Municipality/Region
Pre-
Consultation
Additional
Fees Base Fee Variable Fee Total Fee
Toronto, City of - - 63,680 373,800 437,480
Mississauga, City of - - 38,712 204,075 238,453
Milton, Town of 417 - 27,358 115,425 143,200
Burlington, City of 2,295 - 26,035 112,750 141,080
Pickering, City of - Current 3,700 - 22,700 107,500 133,900
Pickering, City of - Proposed 3,700 - 22,700 107,500 133,900
Halton Hills, Town of - - 30,900 99,325 130,225
Brampton, City of*- 42,602 171,300 88,821
Oakville, Town of 1,319 - 39,191 39,325 79,835
Ajax, Town of*3,485 2,510 52,718 - 58,713
Whitby, Town of*3,500 - 50,000 - 53,500
Caledon, Town of 2,164 - 49,900 - 52,064
Oshawa, City of 1,914 - 21,855 - 23,769
Clarington, Municipality of*1,055 - 13,890 - 14,945
Assumed 150 m2 per residential unit
Municipality/Region
Pre-
Consultation Base Fee Variable Fee Total Fee
Toronto, City of - 232,603 232,603
Halton Hills, Town of - 72,100 69,525 141,625
Ajax, Town of*3,485 118,645 122,130
Pickering, City of - Current 3,700 110,180 113,880
Burlington, City of 2,295 98,610 100,905
Pickering, City of - Proposed 3,700 95,000 98,700
Brampton, City of*- 70,066 70,066
Whitby, Town of*3,500 55,022 58,522
Caledon, Town of 2,164 51,300 53,464
Milton, Town of 417 52,823 53,240
Oakville, Town of 1,319 38,642 39,961
Mississauga, City of - 29,562 29,562
Oshawa, City of 1,914 27,319 29,233
Clarington, Municipality of*1,055 27,030 28,085
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-6
Table A-9
400-Unit residential Combined Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment
Planning Fees
Table A-10
100-Unit Condominium Planning Fees
Municipality/Region OPA Fee ZBA Fee
Full OPA &
ZBA Fee
Combined
Application
Fee Discount (%)
Toronto, City of 232,603 437,480 670,083 450,051 -33%
Pickering, City of - Current 113,880 133,900 247,780 247,780 -
Halton Hills, Town of 188,025 130,225 318,250 218,925 -31%
Burlington, City of 100,905 141,080 241,985 216,759 -10%
Milton, Town of 53,240 143,200 196,440 196,440 -
Mississauga, City of 29,562 238,453 268,015 172,420 -36%
Pickering, City of - Proposed 98,700 133,900 232,600 166,350 -28%
Ajax, Town of*122,130 58,713 180,842 127,956 -29%
Oakville, Town of 39,961 79,835 119,796 119,796 -
Brampton, City of*70,066 88,821 158,887 119,165 -25%
Caledon, Town of 53,464 52,064 105,528 89,699 -15%
Whitby, Town of*58,522 53,500 112,022 74,904 -33%
Oshawa, City of 29,233 23,769 53,002 53,002 -
Clarington, Municipality of*28,085 14,945 43,030 33,975 -21%
Assumed 150 m2 per residential unit
Municipality/Region
Pre-
Consultation
Additional
Fees Base Fee Variable Fee Total Fee
Oakville, Town of - 9,986 23,592 121,700 155,278
Brampton, City of*- 704 31,549 65,400 97,653
Milton, Town of - - 60,374 34,050 94,424
Halton Hills, Town of - 36,301 42,040 - 78,341
Burlington, City of - - 67,120 - 67,120
Caledon, Town of 2,164 3,121 35,100 6,000 46,385
Pickering, City of - Proposed - - 44,000 - 44,000
Ajax, Town of*3,485 3,172 29,501 - 36,157
Pickering, City of - Current 3,700 - 20,715 - 24,415
Whitby, Town of 3,560 6,680 10,847 - 21,087
Mississauga, City of - - 15,764 4,200 19,964
Oshawa, City of 1,914 2,857 12,840 - 17,611
Clarington, Municipality of*1,055 3,498 8,960 - 13,513
Toronto, City of - - 12,619 - 12,619
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-7
Table A-11
Consent
Planning Fees
Municipality/Region
Pre-
consultation
Base Fee
(Lot
Creation)
Fee for Each
Additional Lot
Created
Halton Hills, Town of $14,567 $1,545
Pickering, City of - Proposed $370 $12,000 $1,000
Burlington, City of $11,940 $3,105
Brampton, City of*$10,381
Caledon, Town of $9,300
Milton, Town of $8,537
Oakville, Town of $8,319 $4,160
Toronto, City of $8,081 $6,561
Pickering, City of - Current $370 $4,615
Ajax, Town of*$687 $3,473
Whitby, Town of*$3,000
Mississauga, City of $2,540
Oshawa, City of $2,334
Clarington, Municipality of*$2,125
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-8
Table A-12
Minor Variance
Planning Fees
Municipality/Region
Minor
Variance -
Accessory,
decks,
driveways,
etc.
Residential
Minor - Single
Variance
Residential
Minor -
Multiple
Variances
Residential
Major - Single
Variance
Residential
Major -
Multiple
Variances
Residential
Major - Each
Variance
above 5
ICI - Single
Variance
ICI - Multiple
Variances
ICI - Each
Variance
Above 5
Halton Hills, Town of 3,379 3,379 3,379 6,768 6,768 6,768 6,768
Brampton, City of*3,056 3,056 3,056 3,056 3,056 12,212 12,212
Pickering, City of - Proposed 1,000 2,500 3,000 4,000 4,500 4,500 5,000
Milton, Town of 2,402 2,402 2,402 4,516 4,516 10,262 10,262
Toronto, City of 2,229 2,229 2,229 5,011 5,011 6,486 6,486
Oakville, Town of 2,152 2,152 2,152 4,303 4,303 4,303 4,303
Caledon, Town of 1,600 2,000 2,000 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600
Ajax, Town of*846 1,639 2,049 3,483 4,097 614 4,097 4,652 614
Whitby, Town of*1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 3,001 3,001
Pickering, City of - Current 880 1,180 1,495 2,675 2,905 3,255 3,810
Burlington, City of 1,145 1,145 1,145 6,865 6,865 8,040 8,040
Clarington, Municipality of*910 910 910 1,480 1,480 2,110 2,110
Oshawa, City of 856 856 856 2,049 2,049 2,049 2,049
Mississauga, City of 794 794 794 1,361 1,361 1,730 1,730
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-9
Table A-13
Subdivision Engineering Review and Inspection (Cost of Works $7.7 Million)
Engineering Fees
Table A-14 Site Plan Engineering Review and Inspection (Cost of Works $1.3 Million) Engineering Fees
Municipalitity:
Engineering
Review Fee
Inspection
Fee
Total
Engineering
Fee
Caledon, Town of - - 730,000
Oakville, Town of 188,781 462,000 650,781
Burlington, City of 539,000 107,000 646,000
Halton Hills, Town of - - 579,500
Oshawa, City of 330,840 245,610 576,450
Whitby, Town of 145,530 391,130 536,660
Milton, Town of - - 535,500
Pickering, City of - Proposed 134,750 348,750 483,500
Pickering, City of - Current 115,500 325,000 440,500
Toronto, City of - - 385,000
Mississauga, City of - - 382,000
Ajax, Town of - - 375,300
Clarington, Municipality of 96,250 174,000 270,250
Brampton, City of - - 269,500
Municipalitity:
Engineering
Review Fee
Inspection
Fee
Total
Engineering
Oshawa, City of 324,284 - 324,284
Pickering, City of - Proposed 137,875 77,500 215,375
Halton Hills, Town of 55,900 - 198,000
Pickering, City of - Current 89,875 74,250 164,125
Whitby, Town of - - 132,640
Caledon, Town of - - 124,000
Milton, Town of - - 111,000
Burlington, City of - - 91,000
Oakville, Town of - - 78,000
Ajax, Town of - - 76,300
Mississauga, City of - - 74,250
Toronto, City of - - 65,000
Clarington, Municipality of 16,250 40,000 56,250
Brampton, City of - - 45,500
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-10
Table A-15
New Residential Building Permit (Per Sq. M., 3-Storey Semi-Detached)
Building Permit Fees
Table A-16 New Residential Building Permit (Per Sq. M., Apartments) Building Permit Fees
Size Block Structure:
Municipality:
Uniform Fee
Structure
($/M2)
Block 1 Fee
($/M2)
Block 2 Fee
($/M2)
Block 1
Range (M2)
Block 2
Range (M2)
Burlington, City of*$23.18 $29.90 0 - 300 301+
Halton Hills, Town of $23.54 $25.70 0 - 475 476+
Milton, Town of*$24.64
Whitby, Town of $22.37
Pickering, City of - Proposed $20.12
Mississauga, City of*$18.44
Caledon, Town of $18.12
Toronto, City of $17.85
Oakville, Town of $17.80
Brampton, City of*$17.28
Clarington, Municipality of**$17.21
Pickering, City of - Current $17.20
Oshawa, City of*$15.10
Ajax, Town of $14.22
*2025 Fees
**2024 Fees
Number of Storeys Block Structure:
Municipality:
Uniform Fee Structure
($/M2)
Block 1 Fee
($/M2)
Block 2 Fee
($/M2)
Block 3 Fee
($/M2)
Block 1
Range
(Storeys)
Block 2
Range
(Storeys)
Block 3
Range
(Storeys)
Burlington, City of*$21.35 $25.80 $30.28 0 - 3 4 - 7 8+
Milton, Town of*$24.64 $17.69 0 - 6 7+
Pickering, City of - Proposed $20.12 $21.82 $23.58 0 - 20 21 - 40 41+Oakville, Town of $17.80 $23.25 0 - 3 4+
Halton Hills, Town of $22.90
Whitby, Town of $22.37
Pickering, City of - Current $17.20 $18.65 $20.15 0 - 20 21 - 40 41+
Mississauga, City of*$19.93
Brampton, City of*$19.44Clarington, Municipality of**$18.35
Toronto, City of $17.85
Caledon, Town of $16.61
Oshawa, City of*$14.76
Ajax, Town of $11.40 $8.54 0 - 4 5+
*2025 Fees
**2024 Fees
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-11
Table A-17
New Business & Personal Services Building Permit
Building Permit Fees
Number of Storeys Block Structure:
Municipality:
Uniform Fee
Structure
($/M2)
Block 1 Fee
($/M2)
Block 2 Fee
($/M2)
Block 1
Range
(Storeys)
Block 2
Range
(Storeys)
Burlington, City of*(1)$32.61 $32.24 $34.47 0 - 10 11+
Pickering, City of - Proposed $21.38 $26.50 0 - 1 2+
Clarington, Municipality of**$26.10
Whitby, Town of $25.39
Toronto, City of $23.52
Oakville, Town of $23.25
Mississauga, City of*$23.15
Halton Hills, Town of $23.09
Milton, Town of*$21.88
Caledon, Town of $21.62
Pickering, City of - Current $17.10 $21.20 0 - 1 2+
Oshawa, City of*$19.09
Brampton, City of*$18.80
Ajax, Town of $15.36
*2025 Fees
**2024 Fees
(1) Burlington imposes a block fee structure for office buildings. All other developments are subject to the
uniform fee.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-12
Table A-18
New Industrial Building Permit
Building Permit Fees
Size Block Structure:
Municipality:
Uniform Fee
Structure
($/M2)
Block 1 Fee
($/M2)
Block 2 Fee
($/M2)
Block 1
Range (M2)
Block 2
Range (M2)
Milton, Town of*$19.74 $16.87 0 - 10,000 10,001+
Halton Hills, Town of $19.51 $16.28 0 - 10,000 10,001+
Oakville, Town of $19.10 $15.10 0 - 5,000 5,001
Clarington, Municipality of**$18.35
Burlington, City of*$17.94 $12.24 0 - 4,650 4,651+
Whitby, Town of $17.42
Toronto, City of $16.36 $14.45 0 - 7,500 7,501+
Pickering, City of - Proposed $15.88
Oshawa, City of*$14.65 $7.33 0 - 11,600 11,601+
Mississauga, City of*$14.44 $13.86 0 - 10,000 10,001+
Brampton, City of*$12.97
Caledon, Town of $12.87
Pickering, City of - Current $12.70
Ajax, Town of $8.25
*2025 Fees
**2024 Fees
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-13
Table A-19
Residential Alterations Permit
Building Permit Fees
Fee ($/M2)
Municipality:
All/General Apartments
Additional
Dwelling
Unit
Toronto, City of $11.09
Whitby, Town of $10.65 $10.65
Halton Hills, Town of $10.42
Burlington, City of*$8.25
Pickering, City of - Proposed $7.37
Ajax, Town of $7.16 $9.68
Oshawa, City of*$7.56 $7.01
Mississauga, City of*$6.64 $11.00
Milton, Town of*$6.42 $9.39
Pickering, City of - Current $6.30
Caledon, Town of $5.64
Clarington, Municipality of**$5.33
Brampton, City of*$5.18
Oakville, Town of $4.90 $11.60 $12.00
*2025 Fees
**2024 Fees
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-14
Table A-20
Minimum Building Permit Fee
Building Permit Fees
Flat Fee
Municipality:Residential Non-
Residential Minor Permit Moderate
Permit Major Permit
Burlington, City of*$377.00
Brampton, City of*$316.71 $431.89
Whitby, Town of $305.00
Milton, Town of*$259.02
Halton Hills, Town of $255.70 $334.21
Mississauga, City of*$237.00 $375.00
Toronto, City of $206.53
Oakville, Town of $200.00
Caledon, Town of $193.00 $321.00
Pickering, City of - Proposed $180.00
Pickering, City of - Current $165.00
Oshawa, City of*$155.00
Ajax, Town of $141.00 $317.00 $529.00
Clarington, Municipality of**$131.37
*2025 Fees
**2024 Fees
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE J-5-15
Attachment 2 to Report PLN 10-26
User Fee or Charge 2026 Existing Fee
(Excluding HST)
2026 Proposed Fee
(Excluding HST)
HST
Applicable (Y/N)
2026 Fee
Effective Date
Building Permit Fees
Demolition Permit $33.00/each 100m ² of GFA min $165.00 $33.00/each 100m ² of GFA min $180.00 Y July 1, 2026
Conditional Permit 10% of Appl. Permit Fee to a
max of $5,140.00 in addition to applicable fee
10% of Appl. Permit Fee to a
max of $5,280.00 in addition to applicable fee
N
No increase
Change of Use Permit $345.25 $345.25 N No increase
Authority to Occupy Permit $426.50 $426.50 N No increase
Alternative Solution $504.50/hr (4 hour min) 1 $504.50/hr (4 hour min) 1 N No increase
Resubmission of Incomplete Application 25% of Application Fee 1 25% of Application Fee 1 N No Increase
Revision to Permit (houses) $165.00 $180.00 Y July 1, 2026
Revision to Permit (all other building
types)
15% of applicable permit fee
to a max of $3,454.50
15% of applicable permit fee
to a max of $3,454.50
N No increase
Transfer of Permit $165.00 $180.00 Y July 1, 2026
House Models Re-examination (required
by Code Changes) Reconfiguration of
interior does not qualify.
$600.00 plus the fee
prescribed in Part B as a
result of any additional area
10% of applicable permit fee to a
maximum of $1,552.55
$600.00 plus the fee
prescribed in Part B as a
result of any additional area
10% of applicable permit fee to a
maximum of $1,552.55
N
No increase
House Models Certification $8.60/m ² of GFA $8.60/m ² of GFA N No increase
House Models Re-certification (minor
change)
$546.00 $546.00 N
No increase
Reactivation of Dormant File $165.00 $180.00 N July 1, 2026
Building Permit Surcharge as prescribed in Part B No change N No increase
Additional Inspection $490.00 $490.00 N No increase
Minimum Building Permit Fee $165.00 $180.00 Y July 1, 2026
Assembly Occupancies "A" Classification
(BPA1)
$27.10/each m² of GFA $33.88/each m² of GFA Y July 1, 2026
Care and Detention Occupancies "B"
Classification (BPB1)
$30.15/each m² of GFA $38.75/each m² of GFA Y July 1, 2026
Residential Occupancies "C"
Classification (BPC1) 1- 20 Storeys
$17.20/each m² of GFA $20.12/each m² of GFA Y July 1, 2026
Residential Occupancies "C"
Classification (BPC1) 21 - 40 Storeys
$18.65/each m² of GFA $21.82/each m² of GFA Y July 1, 2026
Residential Occupancies "C"
Classification (BPC1) +41 Storeys
$20.15/each m² of GFA $23.58/each m² of GFA Y July 1, 2026
Business & Personal Services
Occupancies "D" Classification (BPD1) Single storey buildings *
Multi storey buildings **
*17.10 per m² of floor area
or part thereof ** 21.20 per m² of floor area
or part thereof
*21.38 per m² of floor area
or part thereof ** 26.50 per m² of floor area
or part thereof
Y
July 1, 2026
Mercantile Occupancies "E"
Classification (BPE1) Single storey buildings *
Multi storey buildings **
*17.10 per m² of floor area
or part thereof ** 21.20 per m² of floor area
or part thereof
*21.38 per m² of floor area
or part thereof ** 26.50 per m² of floor area
or part thereof
Y
July 1, 2026
Industrial Occupancies "F" Classification
Unserviced storage buildings,
XQILQLVKHGEDVHPHQWV ޔ
Parking garages and other industrial
EXLOGLQJV ޔޔ
ޔSHU Pð RI IORRU DUHD
or part thereof
ޔޔSHU Pð RI IORRU DUHD
or part thereof
ޔSHU Pð RI IORRU DUHD
or part thereof
ޔޔSHU Pð RI IORRU DUHD
or part thereof
Y
July 1, 2026
City Development - Building
These fees are imposed under the authority of the Building Code Act , 1992, C.23
User Fee or Charge 2026 Existing Fee
(Excluding HST)
2026 Proposed Fee
(Excluding HST)
HST
Applicable (Y/N)
2026 Fee
Effective Date
City Development - Building
Low Human Occupancies "G"
Classification
7.00 per m² of floor area
or part thereof
8.19 per m² of floor area
or part thereof
Y July 1, 2026
Interior Partitioning and Finishing (including new tenant fit-ups, apartments
in houses, and Finished basements).
$6.30/each m² of GFA $7.37/each m² of GFA Y
July 1, 2026
Minor Residential Structures and Alterations, including; (each)
Decks, gazebos, trellis, pergola, pool equip. shed, cabanas
Loadbearing wall removal, basement walkout
Fireplace, wood stove
Garage, carport, storage shed Water and sewer connection
Other similar minor projects associated with a residential use
$165.00 $180.00 Y
July 1, 2026
Temporary Sales Centres (Max. 2 Years) $2,021.00 $2,021.00 N No increase
Minor Non-Residential Structures,
including; (each)
School portables Decks, gazebos, sheds,
trellis/sunshades
Temporary prefabricated trailers Tents or Garden Centres
Other similar minor structures associated with a non-residential use
$445.95 $490.55 Y
July 1, 2026
Alterations, Building and Designated Structures Not Provided Above $17.10 per $1,000.00 of construction value
( i it f li )
$17.10 per $1,000.00 of construction value
( i it f li )
N
No increase
Solar Collector for All Buildings $305.20 flat fee $305.20 Flat Fee N No increase
Wind Turbines $305.20 Flat Fee $305.20 Flat Fee N No increase
Performance Deposit (new & semi-
detached, towns, row, stacked dwelling
units, and additions larger than 60 m2 in GFA)
$2,378.70 $2,378.70 N
No increase
Performance Deposit for additions, sheds, garages larger than 60m2,
secondary suites, finished basements
d b t lk
$1,000.00 $1,000.00 N
No increase
Mag Locks (Per building fee - allows for
multiple devices to be installed)
$345.00 Flat Fee $354.50 Flat Fee N
No increase
Fire Alarm Installation/Replacement
(stand alone) - include devices, panel and associated components
$400.00 $411.00 N
No increase
Fire Suppression System - include sprinklers, kitchen systems, and
specialized systems
(when submitted separately from parent document – stand alone permit)
$400.00 $411.00 N
No increase
Sign Permit Fees
Ground Sign $631.90 $695.09 Y July 1, 2026
Building permit fees are required to meet the City costs to administer and enforce the Building Code Act . Building permit fee amounts will
not exceed the anticipated reasonable City costs to administer and enforce the Act following implementation of the changes in this schedule. Note, GFA represents Gross Floor Area.
User Fee or Charge 2026 Existing Fee
(Excluding HST)
2026 Proposed Fee
(Excluding HST)
HST
Applicable (Y/N)
2026 Fee
Effective Date
City Development - Building
Wall Sign $631.90 $695.09 Y July 1, 2026
Development Sign $631.90 $695.09 Y July 1, 2026
Billboard Permit $631.90 $695.09 Y July 1, 2026
Additional fee for any sign installed prior
to permit issuance
$631.90 $695.09 Y July 1, 2026
Revision Fee $182.90 $201.19 Y July 1, 2026
Sign Variance - ground sign, wall sign or development sign $714.10 $785.51 Y July 1, 2026
Miscellaneous Charges
Lawyer Compliance Letter
Building Code and Zoning Matters $205.50 $205.50 N No increase
Legal Matters $205.50 $205.50 N No increase
Site Plan Control Matters $205.50 $205.50 N No increase
Recovery of costs for Clandestine Investigations $3,069.10 $3,069.10 N No increase
Administrative Fee for Processing Clandestine Investigations $640.15 $640.15 N No increase
Request for Building and/or Planning Records Search (Minor - Survey or single
page item)
$25.70 $25.70 N
No increase
Request for Building and/or Planning
Records (extensive search, multiple pages)
$58.00 $58.00 N
No increase
After Hours Inspections $257.00/hr. (4 hr. min) $257.00/hr. (4 hr. min) N No increase
Licence/Zoning Compliance Letter $205.50 $205.50 N No increase
Records Management Fee (houses (all forms) and other minor
residential alterations)
$13.35 $13.35 N
No increase
Records Management Fee
(all other permit applications)
3% to a maximum of
$311.00 ($13.35 min)
3% to a maximum of
$311.00 ($13.35 min)
N
No increase
Daycare Compliance Letter $585.70 $585.70 N No increase
AGCO Compliance Letters $171.60 $180.00 Y July 1, 2026
Complaint driven inspection after 2nd site visit for the same matter or closely related as
verified by City Staff
$155.00 $180.00 Y July 1, 2026
*** Building Permit Surcharges (min. permit fee applies)
Group "C" (Residential) Part 9
Footings/Foundations Commenced 50% of Fee 50% of Fee N No Increase Framing Commenced 60% of Fee 60% of Fee N No Increase Framing Substantially Complete 75% of Fee 75% of Fee N No Increase
Building envelope is substantially complete 95% of Fee 95% of Fee N No Increase
Any other work requiring the issuance of a
building permit (i.e.: HVAC, plumbing, site
works...) not within the scope of Group "C" (Residential), Part 9
No Increase
i) if 25% of the scope of work substantially
completed 50% of Fee 50% of Fee N No Increase
ii) if 50% of the scope of work substantially completed 60% of Fee 60% of Fee N No Increase
iii) if 75% of the scope of work substantially
completed 75% of Fee 75% of Fee N No Increase
iv) if 95% of the scope of work is substantially
completed 95% of Fee 95% of Fee N No Increase
Demolition or partial demolition has commenced 100% of Fee 100% of Fee N No Increase
Attachment 3 to Report PLN 10-26
User Fee or Charge 2026 Existing Fee
(Excluding HST)
2026 Proposed Fee
(Excluding HST)
HST
Applicable (Y/N)
2026 Fee
Effective Date
These fees are imposed under the authority of the Planning Act , R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13
Planning Documents
Pickering Official Plan $225.00 $225.00 Y No Increase Official Plan Compendium $50.00 $50.00 Y No Increase Guidelines and Special Studies - 30 pages or
less
$0.50 per page $0.50 per page Y No Increase
Guidelines and Special Studies - Greater than
30 pages
$50.00 $50.00 Y No Increase
Zoning By-laws
8149/24 - Set, 4 Volumes $1,330.00 $1,330.00 Y No Increase 8149/24 - Volume 1 $150.00 $150.00 Y No Increase 8149/24 - Volume 2, Schedules $100.00 $100.00 Y No Increase
8149/24 - Volume 3, Exceptions $600.00 $600.00 Y No Increase
8149/24 - Volume 4, Exceptions $500.00 $500.00 Y No Increase
3036 - Set 13 Volume $110.00 $110.00 Y No Increase 3036 - By Volume $15.00 $15.00 Y No Increase 2511, 2520, 3037, 7364/14 (Seaton), 7553/17
(City Centre)
$50.00 $50.00 Y No Increase
Zoning By-laws Digital (each) $15.00 $15.00 Y No Increase
20 Year Household & Population Projections $30.00 $30.00 Y No Increase
Fiche Prints Price Varies Price Varies Y No Increase Special Mapping Requests $71.00/hr. $71.00/hr. Y No Increase
Telecommunications Tower Approval $10,200.00 $10,200.00 N No Increase
Committee of Adjustment/Land Division
Minor Variance Applications to recognize an "as built condition" Double the regular fee Double the regular fee N No Increase
Accessory buildings, structures, decks,
platforms & driveway widening
$880.00 $1,000.00 N July 1, 2026
Residential Minor (a lot for a detached dwelling unit, semi-detached dwelling unit and/or
freehold townhouse dwelling unit)
Single Variance $1,180.00 $2,500.00 N July 1, 2026
Multiple Variances $1,495.00 $3,000.00 N July 1, 2026 Residential Major (all other residential and mixed use buildings)
Single Variance $2,675.00 $4,000.00 N July 1, 2026
Multiple Variances $2,905.00 $4,500.00 N July 1, 2026
Institutional, Commercial & Industrial
Single Variance $3,255.00 $4,500.00 N July 1, 2026
Multiple Variances $3,810.00 $5,000.00 N July 1, 2026
Tabling Fee & Recirculation (applicant initiated) $820.00 $820.00 N No Increase
Special Meeting $5,175.00 $5,175.00 N No increase
Consent
Application for severance (creation of new lots) $4,615.00 $12,000.00 N July 1, 2026
Plus fee per additional lot created beyond the
first new lot
$1,000.00 July 1, 2026
Application for Title Validation, Long Term Lease, Easement, and Lot Line Adjustment $2,100.00 $6,000.00 N July 1, 2026
Stamping Fee $1,180.00 $1,180.00 N No Increase
Restamping Fee $300.00 $300.00 N No Increase
Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland Conveyance
For the creation of up to 3 additional lots (price per lot created) $8,080.00 $8,080.00 N No increase
City Development - Planning
User Fee or Charge 2026 Existing Fee
(Excluding HST)
2026 Proposed Fee
(Excluding HST)
HST
Applicable (Y/N)
2026 Fee
Effective Date
City Development - Planning
For the creation of more than 3 additional lots See Parkland By-law See Parkland By-law N No Increase Council authorization to proceed by land
division instead of draft plan of subdivision1
$10,570.00 $10,570.00 N No Increase
Application for Pre-Consultation
Simple2 $370.00 $370.00 N No Increase
Site Plans $1,540.00 $1,540.00 N No Increase All other applications $3,700.00 $3,700.00 N No Increase
Zoning By-law Amendment
Zoning By-law Amendment - Major 3 - Base Fee $22,700.00 $22,700.00 N No increase
Plus Fee per Residential Unit
First 25 units (1-25) $550.00 $550.00 N No increase Next 75 units (26-100) $410.00 $410.00 N No increase Next 100 units (101-200) $340.00 $340.00 N No increase
All additional units (201 to 400)17 $145.00 $145.00 N No increase
Plus Fee per Ha of Non-Residential Land
Area (or part thereof) 4
$1,540.00 $1,540.00 N No increase
Plus Fee per Ha of Development Block
Land Area (or part thereof) 5
$715.00 $715.00 N No increase
Zoning By-law Amendment - Minor 6 $14,420.00 $14,420.00 N No increase
Zoning By-law - Recirculation 7 $2,180.00 $2,180.00 N No increase
Additional fee if within Oak Ridges Moraine or
Greenbelt
$2,805.00 $2,805.00 N No increase
Zoning By-law - Removal of Holding $4,335.00 $10,000.00 N July 1, 2026 Zoning By-law - Removal of Holding (Complex/Block Plan Required) $21,475.00 $25,000.00 N July 1, 2026
Zoning By-law - Extension of Temporary Use
By-law
$22,470.00 $22,700.00 N July 1, 2026
Combined Application Fees Where two or more applications for Official Plan Amendment (Major or
Minor), Zoning By-law
Amendment (Major), Draft
Plan of Subdivision and Draft Plan of Condominiums are submitted concurrently, a
20% reduction to the total
combined fee will apply.
N July 1, 2026
Minister Zoning Order
Minister Zoning Order Amendment - Major 8 $3,330.00 $18,000.00 N July 1, 2026
Minister Zoning Order Amendment - Minor 9 $2,770.00 $5,800.00 N July 1, 2026
Official Plan Amendment
Pickering Official Plan Amendment - Major 10
(May include an amendment to Envison
Durham (former Regional Official Plan)
$110,180.00 $95,000.00 N July 1, 2026
Pickering Official Plan Amendment - Minor 11 $55,030.00 $55,000.00 N July 1, 2026
Pickering Official Plan Amendment -
Recirculation 7
$2,180.00 $2,180.00 N No increase
Additional fee if within Oak Ridges Moraine or Greenbelt $2,805.00 $2,805.00 N No increase
Credit for Pre-submission Review Equal to the amount of the
Pre-submission Review fee
previously paid
Equal to the amount of the
Pre-submission Review fee
previously paid
N No Increase
Regional Official Plan - Amendment (not
part of a Pickering OPA)
$41,200.00 $41,200.00 N No Increase
User Fee or Charge 2026 Existing Fee
(Excluding HST)
2026 Proposed Fee
(Excluding HST)
HST
Applicable (Y/N)
2026 Fee
Effective Date
City Development - Planning
Neighbourhood Development Guideline
Amendment 1
$10,000.00 $20,000.00 N July 1, 2026
Draft Plan of Subdivision
Base Fee $78,315.00 $78,315.00 N No Increase
Plus Fee per Residential Unit First 25 units (1-25) $1,150.00 $1,150.00 N No Increase Next 75 units (26-100) $925.00 $925.00 N No Increase
Next 100 units (101-200) $730.00 $730.00 N No Increase
All additional units (201 to 400)17 $470.00 $470.00 N No Increase
Plus Fee per Ha of Non-Residential
Land Area (or part thereof) 4
$365.00 $365.00 N No Increase
Plus Fee per Ha of Development Block
Land Area (or part thereof) 5
$230.00 $230.00 N No Increase
Draft Plan of Subdivision - Recirculation 7 $2,180.00 $2,180.00 N No Increase
Additional fee if within Oak Ridges Moraine or
Greenbelt
$2,805.00 $2,805.00 N No Increase
Applicant-Initiated Major Revisions (prior to Draft Plan Approval) $24,340.00 $24,340.00 N No Increase
Credit for Pre-submission Review Equal to the amount of the
Pre-submission Review fee
previously paid
Equal to the amount of the
Pre-submission Review fee
previously paid
N No Increase
Revisions to Draft Approved Plan - (redline
revisions)
Base Fee $30,055.00 $30,055.00 N No Increase Plus Fee per Additional Residential Units
First 25 units (1-25) $1,165.00 $1,150.00 N July 1, 2026
Next 75 units (26-100) $950.00 $925.00 N July 1, 2026
Next 100 units (101-200) $750.00 $730.00 N July 1, 2026
All additional units (201 to 400)17 $475.00 $470.00 N July 1, 2026
Plus Fee per additional Non-Residential Ha (or part thereof) of Land Area $375.00 $365.00 N July 1, 2026
Plus Fee per additional Development
Block Ha (or part thereof) of Land Area
$230.00 $230.00 N No Increase
Revision to Draft Approved Plan - Recirculation
7
$2,180.00 $2,180.00 N No Increase
Credit for Pre-submission Review Equal to the amount of the
Pre-submission Review fee
previously paid
Equal to the amount of the
Pre-submission Review fee
previously paid
N No Increase
Extension to Draft Approved Plan
Base Fee $3,085.00 $3,085.00 N No Increase
Release of Draft Plan of
Subdivision/Clearance Fee
$5,000.00 $5,000.00 N No Increase
Plan of Condominium Draft Plan of Condominium $20,715.00 $44,000.00 N July 1, 2026
Common Element Condominium $29,845.00 $50,000.00 N July 1, 2026
Plan of Condominium Recirculation 7 $2,180.00 $2,180.00 N No Increase
Condominium Conversion $37,040.00 $50,000.00 N July 1, 2026
Revisions to a Draft Approved Plan - (redline revisions) $3,385.00 $15,000.00 N July 1, 2026
Credit for Pre-submission Review Equal to the amount of the
Pre-submission Review fee
previously paid
Equal to the amount of the
Pre-submission Review fee
previously paid
N No Increase
User Fee or Charge 2026 Existing Fee
(Excluding HST)
2026 Proposed Fee
(Excluding HST)
HST
Applicable (Y/N)
2026 Fee
Effective Date
City Development - Planning
Release of Draft Plan of
Condominium/Clearance Fee
$5,000.00 $5,000.00 N No Increase
Site Plan 12
Residential See "All Uses (Residential,
Non-Residential, Mixed-Use)"
See "All Uses (Residential,
Non-Residential, Mixed-Use)"
N No Increase
Commercial See "All Uses (Residential,
Non-Residential,
Mixed-Use)"
See "All Uses (Residential,
Non-Residential,
Mixed-Use)"
N No Increase
Industrial See "All Uses (Residential,
Non-Residential, Mixed-Use)"
See "All Uses (Residential,
Non-Residential, Mixed-Use)"
N No Increase
All Uses (Residential, Non-Residential, Mixed-
Use) - Base Fee
$19,685.00 $20,000.00 N July 1, 2026
Plus Fee per Residential Unit
First 25 units (1-25) $690.00 $750.00 N July 1, 2026 Next 75 units (26-100) $530.00 $650.00 N July 1, 2026 Next 100 Units (101-200) $375.00 $500.00 N July 1, 2026
All additional units (201 to 400)17 $85.00 $160.00 N July 1, 2026
Plus Fee per 2,000 m2 of Non-
Residential GFA
$6,670.00 $7,300.00 N July 1, 2026
Site Plan Recirculation 7 $2,180.00 $2,180.00 N No Increase
Minor Revision to approved Site Plan 13 $2,650.00 $5,000.00 N July 1, 2026
Major Revision to approved Site Plan Application base fee plus
additional units and
additional non-residential
GFA
Application base fee plus
additional units and
additional non-residential
GFA
N No Increase
Credit for Pre-submission Review Equal to the amount of the Pre-submission Review fee previously paid
Equal to the amount of the Pre-submission Review fee previously paid
N No Increase
Site Plan Agreement and Clearance of
Conditions
$0.00 $0.00 N No increase
Compliance Inspections/LC Release Report (includes 2 inspections) $1,060.00 $1,060.00 N No Increase
Additional Compliance Inspections $480.00 $480.00 N No Increase
Other Fees
Request for Zoning Information $65.00 $150.00 N July 1, 2026
Preliminary Zoning Review - Residential
(single, semi, townhouse, accessory structure) initial review + 1 revision
$170.00 $170.00 N No Increase
3UHOLPLQDU\ =RQLQJ5HYLHZ $FFHVVRU\
buildings, structures, decks, platforms and
driveway widening; - initial review + 1 revision
$80.00 $80.00 N No Increase
Preliminary Zoning Review - Development (within infill precincts, ORM, or requiring MDS calculation) initial review + 1 revision
$630.00 $630.00 N No Increase
Preliminary Zoning Review - Mixed-use/Multi
Residential/Non-Residential (industrial,
commercial, institutional) initial review + 1 revision
$1,440.00 $1,440.00 N No Increase
Preliminary Zoning Review - All Fee Types
(After two reviews already provided.)
50% of the fee type 50% of the fee type N No Increase
Peer Reviews Full recovery of City costs
+ 15% admin. fee
Full recovery of City costs +
15% admin. fee
Y No Increase
Minor Revision to Approved Condo Site Plan (by unit owner) i.e., decks, sheds, fences $130.00 $130.00 N No Increase
File Reactivation 14 $5,700.00 $5,700.00 N No Increase
User Fee or Charge 2026 Existing Fee
(Excluding HST)
2026 Proposed Fee
(Excluding HST)
HST
Applicable (Y/N)
2026 Fee
Effective Date
City Development - Planning
Opinion Letter for Complex Inquiries $5,000.00 $5,000.00 N No Increase Add Street Name to Approved List $5,000.00 $5,000.00 Y No Increase Request to Change Municipal Address $5,000.00 $5,000.00 Y No Increase
Request for Exception to Council Adopted
Policies on Municipal Addressing and Street
Naming
$10,000.00 $10,000.00 N No Increase
Any other matter requiring a Report to Committee or Council $10,000.00 $10,000.00 N No Increase
Fee Refunds
When an application 15 is withdrawn before it has been circulated 90% of original fee 16 90% of original fee 16 N No Increase
When an application 15 is withdrawn:
1. Before an Open House meeting or a
Statutory Public meeting has been held; or
2. After the first submission comments have
been provided to the applicant, but before a
second submission has been submitted.
50% of original fee 16 50% of original fee 16 N No Increase
When an application 15 is withdrawn:
1. After an Open House meeting or a Statutory Public meeting has been held; or
2. After the second submission has been
received.
No refund No refund N No Increase
Minor Variance or Land Division that is withdrawn before public notice is mailed 90% of original fee 16 90% of original fee 16 N No Increase
Minor Variance or Land Division that is
withdrawn after notice is mailed
No refund No refund N No Increase
When a request for a Pre-consultation has been withdrawn before a Pre-consultation 50% of original fee 16 50% of original fee 16 N No Increase
When a Pre-consultation has been held No refund No refund N No Increase
1. Charged only if no other planning applications or reports are being processed by Council.
- an application relating to more than one property
- a site specific application, if considered to represent a large scale redevelopment
- any change in use and/or zone category, except as identified under a minor amendment
- an application involving significant changes to the development standards or general provisions of the by-law
- an application which requires major technical studies and extensive consultation 4. Applies to blocks intended to be developed for commercial, industrial, and institutional uses (including school blocks).
5. Excludes lands to be conveyed for roads, parkland, natural hazards, and stormwater or other public infrastructure.
- request for additional permitted use, within an existing building with no significant impact on existing development standards
- changes in development standards or zone to accommodate a residential severance to create one additional lot
- application for Temporary Use
2. Applications for severance (creation of new lots), Oak Ridges Moraine applications, minor additions to existing bldgs (up to 20% of the current gross
floor area) and inclusion of related uses.
3. An application for an amendment that is more significant in scale and scope than a minor zoning amendment, and which may have greater impact beyond the subject lands, as determined by the Director, City Development or designate. Major applications must meet one or more of the following
conditions:
6. An application for minor or small scale zoning amendment having no significant impact on adjoining lands, as determined by the Director, City
Development or designate. Minor applications must be site specific and meet one or more of the following conditions:
7. Application fees include two resubmissions before re-circulation fees apply. Recirculation fees will be charged for the fourth submission and every
submission thereafter.
8. A major Minister's Zoning Order application is where the proposed use or standards do not comply with the City's zoning by-law and a Report to
Council is required. 9. A minor Minister's Zoning Order application is where the proposed use or standards comply with the City's zoning by-law.
10. An application that is more significant in scale and scope than a minor amendment and which may have greater impact or policy implications beyond the subject lands, as determined by the Director, City Development or designate. Major applications must meet one or more of the following conditions:
User Fee or Charge 2026 Existing Fee
(Excluding HST)
2026 Proposed Fee
(Excluding HST)
HST
Applicable (Y/N)
2026 Fee
Effective Date
City Development - Planning
12. Zoning review and comments are not included in the Site Plan Application Fee. Preliminary Zoning Review must be paid separately.
17. Fee applies to a maximum unit count of 400.
Some fees increased greater than 2.5% based on amount of work necessary to clear conditions of approval, or to prepare reports to Council
- an application involving significant changes to the policies of the Official Plan
11. An application for a minor, site specific and small scale amendment or exception to Official Plan policies and designations, having limited impact or policy implications beyond the subject lands, as determined by the Director, City Development or designate.
- a site specific application if considered to represent large scale redevelopment or significant change to the designations and permitted uses
- an application which requires major technical studies and extensive consultation
- an application relating to more than one property
13. Minor revisions to approved Site Plans include, but are not limited to: - accessory structures
- façade changes
- minor parking lot expansions (not to exceed 25% of the existing parking supply)
- development of detached dwellings and accessory structures on the Oak Ridges Moraine
- garden centres
- restaurant patios
- additions to existing buildings not exceeding, the lesser of, 1,000 square metres and 25% of the existing GFA
14. Fee applies to planning applications that have been inactive over 1 year
15. Applications include Official Plan Amendments, Zoning By-law Amendments, Draft Plan of Subdivision, Draft Plan of Condominium, and Site Plan Applications.
16. Also subject to deduction of credit card fee if paid by credit card.
NOTE: all application fees increased by at least 2.75%
Attachment 4 to Report PLN -26
User Fee or Charge 2026 Existing Fee (Excluding HST) 2026 Proposed Fee (Excluding HST)
HST Applicable
(Y/N)
2026 Fee Effective Date
Miscellaneous Charges
$57.00 per metre or part thereof
with a minimum charge of $375.00
$57.00 per metre or part thereof
with a minimum charge of $410.00
Y
Curb Infill $208.00/m $208.00/m Y No increase Sidewalk Repair $196.00/m2 $196.00/m2 Y No Increase Municipal Consent Fee $505.00/street $1,375.00 N July 1, 2026
Stormwater Maintenance Fee $2,620.00/hectare $2,620.00/hectare N No Increase Cash-in-lieu of water quality treatment $55, 585.00/imp.ha $55,585.00/imp.ha N No Increase
Newspaper Box Pad Permit Application $62.00/box $62.00/box N No Increase
Newspaper Box Installation $275.00 - $540.00 $275.00 - $540.00 N No Increase Newspaper Box Annual Maintenance $23.00/box $23.00/box N No Increase
Road Cleaning Contract cost + 10% admin fee Contract cost + 10% admin fee Y No Increase
Tree Removal Compensation 1 $620.00/tree to a max of
$3,720.00/dwelling unit and $9,000.00/1000 m2 or any part thereof for industrial and
commercial developments
$620.00/tree to a max of
$3,720.00/dwelling unit and $9,000.00/1000 m2 or any part thereof for industrial and
commercial developments
N No Increase
Pool Enclosure Permit $393.00 $555.00 N July 1, 2026
Streetlight Pole Numbering Fee $93.00/pole $93.00/pole N No Increase
Re-inspection Fee 9
for more than two inspections required due to deficiencies identified during
earlier inspections
$180.00 per inspection $180.00 per inspection N No Increase
Lot Grading Review
Residential Lot Grading Review Fee $87.00/unit $160.00 N July 1, 2026 Infill Building Permit New Construction and/or Foundation Modification (any part thereof) $847.00 $950.00 N July 1, 2026
Addition to existing structure $88.00 $88.00 N No Increase
Damage Deposits Pool $1,500.00 $1,500.00 N No Increase
Water/Sewer Connection $1,500.00 $1,500.00 N No Increase
Residential Building Permit-Rural up to $7,000.00 up to $7,000.00 N No Increase Residential Building Permit-Urban up to $7,500.00 up to $7,500.00 N No Increase
Commercial Building $7,500.00 - 12,500.00 $7,500.00 - 12,500.00 N No Increase
Fill/Topsoil Permit One Year Permit $1,215 + $1,215.00/hectare to a total maximum fee of $6,075.00 $1,215.00 + $1,215.00/hectare to a total maximum fee of $6,075.00 N No Increase
One Year Extension $1,215.00 $1,215.00 N No Increase
Penalty & Investigation Fee $6,090.00 $6,090.00 N No Increase Erosion & Sediment Control Security 100% of estimated cost of Erosion
& Sediment Control Measures
100% of estimated cost of Erosion
& Sediment Control Measures
N No Increase
Road Damage Security Paved Road $7,700.00/km $7,700.00/km N No Increase
Surface Treat/Gravel Road $12,845.00/km $12,845.00/km N No Increase
Subdivision/Development /Road Servicing Agreements
Engineering Review Based on total cost of Municipal
Works 4
Based on total cost of Municipal
Works 4
No Increase
Engineering Review Fee 2
Detailed Design Package
1.50% with a minimum of $7,700.00 1.75% with a minimum of $8,000.00 N July 1, 2026
Surcharge for 4th Submission of Detailed
Design Package (payable at submission)
3
33.3% of total Engineering Design
Review Fee with a minimum of $2,945.00
15% of total Engineering Design
Review Fee with a minimum of $8,000.00
N July 1, 2026
Development Services
Curb Cut – new development not
assumed by municipality, infill building permit or industrial/commercial
July 1, 2026
User Fee or Charge 2026 Existing Fee (Excluding HST) 2026 Proposed Fee (Excluding HST)
HST Applicable
(Y/N)
2026 Fee Effective Date
Development Services
Additional surcharge for Submission of
each Detailed Design Package after 4th
Submission (payable at submission) 3
20% of total Engineering Design
Review Fee with a minimum of $8,000.00
15% of total Engineering Design
Review Fee with a minimum of $8,000.00
N July 1, 2026
Inspection Based on total cost of Municipal
Works4
Based on total cost of Municipal
Works 4
<$250,000 8.25% with a minimum of $7,700.00 8.25% with a minimum of $8,000.00 N July 1, 2026 $250,000 - 500,000 6.25% 6.75% N July 1, 2026 $500,000 - $1.5 million 4.75% 5.25% N July 1, 2026
$1.5 million - $5.0 million 4.00% 4.50% N July 1, 2026 > $5 million 3.75% 3.75% N No Increase
Site Plans
Engineering Review
Engineering Review Fee 2
Detailed Design Package
Development Site Area <= 1,000 m
², fixed fee of $1,185.00
Development Site Area <= 1,000 m
², fixed fee of $1,220.00
N No Increase
Development Site Area
1,001 m ² to 3000 m ² fixed fee of $3,500.00
Development Site Area
1,001 m ² to 3000 m ² fixed fee of $3,600.00
N No Increase
Development Site Area
> 3,001 m ² based on the sliding scale of total cost of Civil Works 5
noted below
Development Site Area
> 3,001 m ² based on the sliding scale of total cost of Civil Works 5
noted below
N No Increase
<$250,000 8.25% with a minimum of $7,700.00 10.25% with a minimum of $8,000.00 N July 1, 2026
$250,000 - $500,000 6.25% 9.25% N July 1, 2026
$500,000 - $1.5 million 4.75% 8.25% N July 1, 2026 $1.5 million - $5.0 million 4.00% 7.25% N July 1, 2026
> $5 million 3.75% 4.25% N July 1, 2026 Surcharge for submission of each
Detailed Design Package after 3rd
submission (payable at submission) 3
$2,945.00 $1,000.00 N July 1, 2026
Inspection Based on total cost of Civil Works 5
Inspection Fees Development Site Area
<= 1,000 m², fixed fee of $1,185.00
Development Site Area
<= 1,000 m², fixed fee of $1,220.00 N No Increase
Development Site Area
1,001 m² to 3000 m² fixed fee of
$3,500.00
Development Site Area
1,001 m² to 3000 m² fixed fee of
$3,595.00
N No increase
Development Site Area > 3,001 m² based on the sliding scale
of total cost of Civil Works 5 noted
below
Development Site Area > 3,001 m² based on the sliding scale
of total cost of Civil Works 5 noted
below
N No Increase
<$250,000 8.25% with a minimum of $7,700.00 8.5% with a minimum of $8,000.00 N July 1, 2026 $250,000 - $500,000 6.25% 6.50% N July 1, 2026
$500,000 - $1.5 million 4.75% 5.00% N July 1, 2026 $1.5 million - $5.0 million 4.00% 4.00% N No Increase
> $5 million 3.75% 3.75% N No Increase Surcharge for more than two inspections required due to unaddressed deficiencies
identified during earlier inspections (payable at inspection)
$890.00 per inspection $915.00 per inspection N No Increase
Land Division
Engineering Review up to 4 proposed lots $1,800.00 $1,800.00 N No Increase
>4 proposed lots if not completed
as a Draft Plan of Subdivision
$3,000.00 $3,000.00 N No Increase
Clearance of Conditions
up to 4 proposed lots $2,395.00 $2,800.00 N No Increase >4 proposed lots if not completed
as a Draft Plan of Subdivision
$6,010.00 $6,300.00 N No Increase
Attachment 4 to Report PLN XX-26
User Fee or Charge 2026 Existing Fee (Excluding HST) 2026 Proposed Fee (Excluding HST)
HST Applicable
(Y/N)
2026 Fee Effective Date
Development Services
Other Fees
Re-circulation of Drawings due to revisions by Owner (payable at re-
circulation)
$2,945.00 $2,945.00 N No Increase
Engineering Studies 6 (payable at
submission of study)
New Study 6 $8,500.00 $8,500.00 N No Increase
New Study 7 $4,365.00 $4,365.00 N No Increase
Update or amendment to existing study $2,835.00 per Study $2,835.00 per Study N No Increase
Peer Reviews 8 Full recovery of City costs + 10% Admin. Fee Full recovery of City costs + 10% Admin. Fee Y No Increase
Miscellaneous submissions not identified
under a fee category as determined by the Director, Engineering Services or
designate
greater of percentage fee (based on
total cost of Civil Works) 6.6% or estimated hourly rate $134/hr min of
4 hours
greater of percentage fee (based on
total cost of Civil Works) 6.6% or estimated hourly rate $138/hr min of
4 hours
N No Increase
Consolidated Linear Infrastructure
Environmental Compliance Approval (CLI-ECA) Non-refundable
Storm Sewer $2,340.00 per application $2,340.00 per application N No Increase
Third Pipe Collection System $2,340.00 per application $2,340.00 per application N No Increase
SWM Facility $5,650.00 per application $5,650.00 per application N No Increase Storm Appurtenances (LID facility/OGS, etc.) $2,055.00 per application $2,055.00 per application N No Increase
Amendments $1,235.00 $1,235.00 N No Increase
Footnotes
9. Inspections associated with Pool Enclosure Permits and Building Permits
1. Tree Removal Compensation to be calculated in accordance with the City of Pickering Tree Inventory, Preservation and Removal
Compensation requirements, approved by Council January 15, 2018, Resolution # 387/18. 2. 75% of the Engineering Review Fee payable at 2nd Submission, with the resulting 25% payable at signature of subdivision/site
plan agreement. 3. Above noted surcharges shall be discounted by 50% should less than half of the total plans/reports require revisions at the
discretion of the Director, Engineering Services or designate.
4. Municipal Works are defined as all future owned Municipal Works, excluding sanitary and water distribution works.
5. Civil Works are defined as all privately owned Civil Works, excluding sanitary and water distribution works. 6. Review and approval of large scale
7. Review and approval of small to medium scale studies 8. Applicant is responsible for the City's full costs of undertaking the peer review of any study, report, drawing submitted in support of the design. This would include, but is not limited to hydrogeological, geotechnical & Slope stability, fluvial geomorphology, soils etc.
Legislative Services Division Clerk’s Office Directive Memorandum
February 28, 2025
To: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO
From: Susan Cassel City Clerk
Subject: Direction as per Minutes of the Meeting of City Council held on
February 24, 2025
Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 03-25 Streamlining the Development Application Review Process (DARP)
Council Decision Resolution #665/25
Please take any action deemed necessary.
SC:am
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
1.That Report PLN 03-25, regarding the City of Pickering Streamlining theDevelopment Applications Review Process, be received;
2.That the City of Pickering Streamlining the Development Applications ReviewProcess Final Report prepared by Dillon Consulting dated December 20, 2024,and provided as Attachment 2, be endorsed;
3.That the Implementation Work Plan prepared by staff, and provided as
Appendix I, be endorsed and considered through future budget processes; and,
4.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take thenecessary actions as indicated in this report.
$WWDFKPHQWWR5HSRUW3/110
Attachment 6 to Report PLN 10-26
April 2, 2026
Stan Karwowski
Director, Finance & Treasurer
City of Pickering
1 The Esplanade
Pickering, ON L1V 6K7
RE: City of Pickering – Development Application Fee Review
The Durham Region Home Builders’ Association (DRHBA) is the voice of the residential construction
industry in Durham Region. We value the strong and collaborative working relationship our
Association has developed with the City of Pickering and its staff, and we believe this partnership is
essential to fostering the development of complete, well-designed communities that residents will
enjoy for years to come.
We appreciate the opportunity to participate in the stakeholder meeting regarding the Development
Application Fee Review. Our members, together with our consultant, Daryl Keleher (KPEC), have
reviewed the proposed fee changes and welcome the opportunity to provide the following
comments and questions.
We acknowledge that several of the proposed fees will be reduced, which is a positive outcome for
our industry. However, the past several years have been particularly challenging for the residential
construction sector, with new home sales reaching historic lows throughout 2025 and into early
2026. While we understand and respect the City’s objective of achieving cost recovery through
application fees, we respectfully request that the current fee structure be maintained until market
conditions have stabilized and the industry has had sufficient time to recover.
We also note that, during the stakeholder meeting, City staff advised that an internal review is
currently underway to improve and streamline application review and processing procedures. Given
that planning fees are based on the anticipated level of staff time and effort required, we believe it
would be more appropriate to revisit and adjust the fee structure following the completion of this
internal process review, once any efficiencies have been fully realized.
Additionally, our consultant has raised the following questions for clarification:
•Could you please clarify the basis for the standard 400-unit cap applied to variable fees for
Zoning By-law Amendments, Site Plan Applications, and Plans of Subdivision?
•Further, does the above cap on variable fees relate only to the per unit fees, or does this
calculation also include other variable fees such as per-hectare fees for development blocks
or non-residential land area?
•The current fee for Residential Lot Grading is $87.00 per unit, while the proposed fee is
listed as a flat $160.00. Could you please confirm whether this is intended to be a flat fee, or
an approximate doubling of the per-unit fee?
DRHBA looks forward to continuing to work collaboratively with the City of Pickering. Please do not
hesitate to contact us should you have any questions or require further information.
Sincerely,
Stacey Hawkins
Executive Officer
Durham Region Home Builders’ Association
Cc:
Kyle Bentley, P.Eng, Director, City Development, City of Pickering
Tiago Do Couto, Chair, DRHBA GR Committee
DRHBA Membership
Attachment 7 to Report PLN 10-26
April 6, 2026
Stan Karowski, Director, Finance & Treasurer
Finance Department
City of Pickering
1 The Esplanade
Pickering, ON
L1V 6K7
Sent by email to: finance@pickering.ca
RE: City of Pickering – Development Application Fee Review
Dear Stan Karowski, Director, Finance & Treasurer
The Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD) acknowledges the City of Pickering’s ongoing
Development Application Review Process, scheduled to go before Council on May 4th, 2026. On behalf of our
members, we thank staff for consulting with the development industry on March 23rd, and for providing
opportunity to share our perspective on current market conditions and the ongoing housing challenges
impacting development within the City’s municipal boundaries.
With new home sales in 2026 continuing the trend from 2025 and remaining at historically low levels we
remain at a fragile moment for our industry and the economy as a whole. In February 2026, Durham Region
saw 76 total new home sales with 69 Single Family sales, down 59% from the same period two years prior.
Apartment sales are down 41% from two years prior. As such, affordability continues to be a significant
challenge for developers and homebuyers alike.
Given these pressures, BILD is formally requesting that the City of Pickering, along with municipalities
across the Greater Toronto Area planning to increase development application fees in 2026, forgo any
increases to costs associated with residential development. Pausing any planned fee increases, or possibly
decreasing a larger number of fees than proposed would provide immediate, short-term relief and help
support project viability under current market conditions. As an example of initiatives supporting this
request, on April 28th, Vaughan City Council is scheduled to adopt a report recommending a 25% reduction in
planning and engineering fees for all residential developments, along with a full exemption of these fees for
non-luxury rental applications, effective from April 28, 2026, to May 31, 2027. To provide the City with
additional assurance, staff will monitor the program’s impact and report back to Committee of the Whole
within six months, with the option to discontinue the program if market conditions have normalized.
In addition to our above request BILD has retained Daryl Keleher for his comments on the proposed fee
increases. In his review Daryl has identified three areas of concern and we are requesting clarification on the
following:
1.Clarification on the basis for the standard 400-unit cap on variable fees for each of the Zoning By-Law
Amendments, Site Plan and Subdivision.
2.Whether the above cap on variable fees relates only to the per unit fees, or whether this cap is also
intended to include other variable fees such as per-hectare fees for development blocks or non-
residential land area that may be part of the same planning application?
3.Whether the fee structure for Residential Lot Grading has changed – the existing fee for Residential
Lot Grading is $87.00/unit, however the proposed fee is shown in the background report prepared
by the City’s consultant as a flat $160 – please provide clarification on whether this is intended to be
a flat fee, or a rough doubling of the per unit fee.
BILD recognizes the City’s mandate to recover the cost of service, however, weakened consumer confidence,
elevated construction and financing costs, and broader economic uncertainty are collectively impacting
housing delivery across the GTA, including the City of Pickering. Taking this step would represent a tangible
and timely action the City can take to help stabilize the local development environment.
As your partners in community building, we offer these comments with respect and on behalf of the
development industry. We look forward to continuing to work in support of housing growth in the City of
Pickering.
Sincerely,
Katherine Berton, MUP
Manager, Policy and Advocacy
BILD
Technical Memorandum
Address Contact Information
Filepath
2233 Argentia Rd.
Suite 301
Mississauga, Ontario
L5N 2X7
Office: 905-272-3600
Fax: 905-272-3602
www.watsonecon.ca
To City of Pickering
From Sean-Michael Stephen, Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Date April 9, 2026
Re: City of Pickering Development Application Fee Review
Fax ☐ Courier ☐ Mail ☐ Email ☒
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. (Watson) has prepared a Development
Application Fee Review on behalf of the City of Pickering (City). The City held a
stakeholder consultation session to review the findings of the Development Application
Fee Review on March 23, 2026. Subsequent to that meeting, the City received
comments from the Durham Region Home Builders’ Association (DRHBA) and BILD.
This memorandum lists the questions received and our responses.
Question 1: Could you please clarify the basis for the standard 400-unit cap applied to
variable fees for Zoning By-law Amendments, Site Plan Applications, and Plans of
Subdivision?
The 400-unit cap, along with the decreasing block structure of the residential per-unit
fees, is recommended to achieve multiple objectives:
1.Recognize that as applications increase in size, the marginal costs typically do
not increase on a linear basis.
2.Provide a maximum fee for larger applications
3.Increase revenue stability for the City to fund the anticipated processing costs
The 400-unit cap was determined through a review of historical application sizes to
capture the majority of applications received. This policy would also align with the City’s
past practice.
Question 2: Further, does the above cap on variable fees relate only to the per unit
fees, or does this calculation also include other variable fees such as per-hectare fees
for development blocks or non-residential land area?
The cap relates only to residential per-unit fees. In a review of the historical application
data, the development applications received containing development blocks and non-
residential floor area have been smaller and do not necessitate a maximum fee.
Attachment 8 to Report PLN 10-26
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2
Question 3: The current fee for Residential Lot Grading is $87.00 per unit, while the
proposed fee is listed as a flat $160.00. Could you please confirm whether this is
intended to be a flat fee, or an approximate doubling of the per-unit fee?
The proposed fee is $160 per unit.
Comments were also received regarding the impact of the proposed fee increases on
the cost of development and requesting that the City pause and possibly decrease fees.
As demonstrated in the report, the fees are proposed to decrease in some cases, and
where fees are increasing, the impact is less than a 1% increase on development fees
for the sample developments assessed. Furthermore, the federal and provincial
governments have announced the removal of HST on new homes (or reduction for
more expensive homes) as well as the Canada-Ontario Plan to Build, which may require
30% to 50% reductions in development charges for a 3-year period for select
municipalities. The HST reductions along with the potential D.C. reductions, if
applicable to the City, will have a much greater impact on the cost of municipal
development fees within the City and the final costs, including taxes, to the home buyer.