MFOA's Positions and Recommendations on Bill 60, Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025

On October 23, 2025, the Province introduced Bill 60, Fighting Delays, Building Faster Act, 2025. As of November 14, 2025, Bill 60 remains in Second Reading; however, the government has indicated that Bill 60 will bypass Standing Committee hearings. While consultation for Bill 60 remains open until November 22, 2025, MFOA has decided to publish its recommendations ahead of our final submission to provide members with the opportunity to review the major issues identified before the Bill is passed. MFOA will publish its full submission on Bill 60 at a later date. For any questions, please contact Colin Macdonald (colin@mfoa.on.ca).

Positions and Recommendations for proposed changes to the Development Charges Act, 1997

1. Acquiring land is a necessary first step in constructing growth-related infrastructure, and as such, all land costs related to growth should be fully recoverable by municipalities
   • MFOA appreciates that the Province has acknowledged the importance of recouping land acquisition costs to enable new housing growth. While the previous narrative has erred towards removing the ability to recover land costs through DCs, this new proposal recognizes past advocacy work from the municipal sector on the importance of maintaining the ability to recoup costs for land.
   • However, MFOA remains concerned that land costs are a contentious service within DCs. Should the Province develop further changes to the new land acquisition cost class in the future, MFOA recommends that the Province consult with all relevant stakeholders to explore an equitable approach that furthers new development.
     
      
2. MFOA supports the changes to the treasurer’s statement as it enhances transparency and accessibility
   • Enhancing transparency for treasurer’s statements will empower the development community to better understand how DCs are allocated and spent within each municipality.
   • Should the Province plan any repercussions for late treasurer’s statements, the consequences should be broadly communicated ahead of both the June 30 and July 15 due dates.
     
     
3. Clarification is needed on whether proposed subsection 59(2.2) of the DCA applies to municipalities that do not intend to impose local service requirements
   • Bill 60 proposes to mandate local service policies, which are used by many municipalities to require developers to install local services as a condition of development.
   • However, MFOA seeks clarification on whether the requirement to place local service policies for each service listed under subsection 2(4) of the DCA applies to municipalities that do not impose local service requirements.
   • For municipalities without local service requirements, the effort to develop individual local service policies for services under subsection 2(4) that clarify there are no service requirements will be both resource-intensive and yield limited benefit to the overall policy objective.
     
     
4. Proposed subsection 59(2.5) should be amended to refer to subsection 59(2.7) instead of subsection 59(2.8)
   • Under the DCA, proposed section 59 discusses the new mandate for local service policies. Subsection 59(2.5) provides that conditions that municipalities may only impose local service requirements if the work for the provision of a local service is identified in a local service policy.
   • MFOA believes that the legislation should refer to subsection 59(2.7), which resolves that the conditions in subsection 59(2.5) only apply to the earlier of 18 months after the provision comes into force, or the day the municipality adopts its local service policy.
   • It is assumed this is an error in the legislation.
     
     
5. To support municipalities further, the Province should develop guidance and best practices to calculate benefit-to-existing (BTE)
   • MFOA appreciates that the Province has maintained flexibility in the methodology for BTE calculations through Bill 60.
   • As the Province’s intent is to increase clarity and transparency around BTE methodologies, MFOA recommends that the Province develop guidance and a set of best practices on calculating BTE. This can encourage municipalities to adopt a standard practice for formulating BTE methodologies while recognizing that there needs to be flexibility to account for local circumstances.
     
     
6. Any further change to merge municipal service categories for DC credit purposes should include consultation with municipalities
   • Bill 17 provided regulation-making authority for the Lieutenant Governor in Council to merge DC credits, the current consultation proposes to merge water supply services and wastewater services for the purpose of DC credits.
   • MFOA anticipates further merging of credits could happen in the future. Any future changes should include consultation with municipalities, as it can create the risk of greater cash flow constraints for municipalities if credits are applied to unrelated capital works.
     
     
7. Consider early notices of future DCA changes so municipalities can prepare for implementation and manage the increased administrative burden of those changes
   • The DCA has been repeatedly modified with limited time for municipal staff to plan for implementation and prepare for future changes
   • For future changes to the DC framework, the Province should consider early notice of implementation dates and additional funding to help municipalities implement changes.

Positions and Recommendations for proposed Water and Wastewater Public Corporations Act, 2025

1. Moving to a corporate model of delivery should remain a local choice
   • The unique circumstances and organization of each municipality means that the benefits and detractions of moving these systems to a business corporation will not be uniform across the sector, and local communities are best positioned to determine the net benefit or costs of separating these systems from their existing municipal structures.
     
     
2. Remove the proposed Water and Wastewater Public Corporations Act, 2025 from Bill 60 with an aim to reintroduce the Act in late 2026 or early 2027 after extensive consultation with stakeholders
   • While the Act is intended to facilitate a transfer of Peel’s water and wastewater assets to a corporate utility model, it’s signaled intent is much broader and raised important questions about the provision of a vital public good.
   • The Proposed Act, as drafted, gives rise to a lot of unanswered questions about its intent and leaves a lot of detail to regulation, which would be better codified in legislation.
   • The target date of January 1, 2029 for the transition of Peel’s assets gives the Province ample time to consult with a range of stakeholders on the Proposed Act and its design, and the Proposed Act itself is the perfect starting point for robust and meaningful discussion. 
     
     
3. Water and wastewater services are a vital public good and complete ownership should remain with public entities who are directly accountable to the public and whose primary objective is to create public good
   • Messaging around increased public pension participation in water and wastewater investments suggests the Province is considering equity ownership.
   • While public pensions are publicly owned, their primary objective is meeting funding obligations, which is closer to a private sector incentive to maximize return on investment rather than the creation of public good.
     
     
4. The Water and Wastewater Public Corporations (WWPC) model does not permit development charge (DCs) collections, unlike the Municipal Services Corporation model, and the Proposed Act if passed should be amended to clarify that WWPCs are considered local boards for the purposes of the Development Charges Act, 1997 
   • Development charges are a critical and necessary funding tool for water and wastewater infrastructure.
   • Increased debt loads and alternative financing tools still need to be repaid, and any reductions in DCs would need to be offset by grants from other governments or increases to user fees for water and wastewater services.
   • Water and wastewater user fees are by most definitions shelter costs and contribute to housing affordability.
     
     
5. To ensure transparency, accountability and a common understanding of the Province’s objectives, the Province should publish a document detailing its end-state objectives on water and wastewater provision
   • The document should be accompanied by expert advice commissioned by the Province, including the full recommendations of the Peel Transition Board.
   • A clear statement of objectives could give rise to alternative solutions and models that meet the Province’s objectives without requiring the transition friction of moving hundreds of water systems to a new and separate entity, which could have the adverse effect of slowing down infrastructure emplacement.