My background is in information technology, systems and database design. That experience taught me that complex problems cannot be understood by looking at one number or one report in isolation. The real story appears when the pieces are connected.
A relational database works because one set of information connects to another. Norfolk County's finances work the same way. Growth forecasts connect to development charges. Development-charge revenue connects to capital projects. Capital projects connect to reserves, debt and future taxes. Housing construction, affordability and local employment are affected by all of them.
That is why I have not looked at Norfolk's proposed development-charge increase as a stand-alone fee review. I have been comparing the assumptions in the new Development Charge Background Study with the County's housing data, capital plan, capital status reports, reserve balances, debt obligations and earlier growth forecasts.
Individually, each report tells part of the story. Together, they raise serious questions about whether Norfolk's growth assumptions, development charges and long-term capital plan still fit today's reality.
The Pieces That Must Be Considered Together
To understand the proposed rates, I reviewed information from several connected areas:
- The proposed Development Charge Background Study.
- The 2018 Development Charge Background Study.
- Housing construction data.
- Current building-permit trends.
- The long-term capital plan.
- Capital status reports.
- Reserve and reserve-fund reports.
- Debt forecasts and repayment obligations.
- Growth projections.
- Development-charge comparisons with nearby municipalities.
Development charges are intended to help ensure that growth pays for the infrastructure required by growth. That principle is reasonable. New homes and businesses can create the need for roads, water and wastewater capacity, fire services, parks and other municipal infrastructure.
But the amount charged depends heavily on two things: the capital projects included in the calculation and the amount of future growth expected to help pay for them.
If the capital list is too large, the charge rises. If the growth forecast is too optimistic, the expected cost is spread across homes that may never be built. If fewer homes are constructed than projected, development-charge revenue also falls short of expectations.
Housing Construction Has Slowed Dramatically
The County's own data for single and semi-detached homes shows that Norfolk has exceeded 300 homes only once since 2016. That was in 2021, when construction rose to 533 homes.
The last two years are especially concerning. The data shows only 92 single and semi-detached homes in 2024 and 98 in 2025. The County's own Chief Building Official has also reported to Council that building permit activity has fallen significantly.
Single and Semi-Detached Housing Construction in Norfolk
Annual totals reported in the development-charge study data.
From the 2021 peak of 533 homes to 92 homes in 2024, construction fell by approximately 82.7%. The 2025 figure of 98 remained below one-third of the study's annual forecast of approximately 304 homes.
No single factor explains the entire decline. Higher interest rates, inflation, construction costs, financing conditions, market uncertainty and slower economic activity have all affected housing. More recently, tariffs and trade uncertainty have added another challenge that no one preparing an earlier forecast could reasonably have predicted.
The point is not to blame the study's authors for failing to predict every economic event. The point is that forecasts should be reviewed when the conditions beneath them change.
Nearly Doubling the Charge on a New Urban Home
Under the proposed rates, the development charge on a new urban detached home would rise from approximately $25,700 to $49,387. That is an increase of almost $24,000 before regular building-permit, planning, servicing and other municipal costs are added.
Norfolk's proposed charge would also be substantially higher than nearby Haldimand and Tillsonburg.
Urban Detached-Home Development Charges
Norfolk's proposed charge compared with the nearby municipal rates used in this review.
| Municipality | Charge | Difference From Norfolk |
|---|---|---|
| Norfolk proposed | $49,387 | — |
| Haldimand | $31,552 | Norfolk is $17,835 higher |
| Tillsonburg | $31,061 | Norfolk is $18,326 higher |
These costs do not disappear. They are built into the price of the project, passed into the sale price or rent, absorbed through a lower return, or become the reason a project is delayed, reduced or cancelled.
Residential construction supports more than developers. It supports contractors, tradespeople, suppliers, designers, engineers, real estate professionals and many other local jobs. When fewer homes are built, that slowdown moves through the rest of the local economy.
Apartments Face the Same Contradiction
Norfolk says it needs more attainable housing, more rental options and a better mix of housing. Yet the proposed development charges would nearly double the charge on new apartments.
| Apartment Type | Current Charge | Proposed Charge | Increase |
|---|---|---|---|
| Two bedrooms or larger | $17,404 | $33,422 | $16,018 |
| Bachelor or one bedroom | $13,651 | $26,156 | $12,505 |
For a two-bedroom apartment, Norfolk's proposed charge would be about $9,900 higher than Haldimand and $14,100 higher than Tillsonburg. For a bachelor or one-bedroom apartment, Norfolk would be about $11,000 higher than Haldimand and $13,900 higher than Tillsonburg.
We cannot say we want more affordable housing while imposing charges that may stop it from being built.
The Capital Plan Cannot Be Separated From the Rate
The proposed development-charge rate is not simply the result of housing growth. It is also driven by the capital projects the County wants future growth to help fund. The new study assumes approximately 304 new homes per year—more than double the roughly 147 homes per year projected in the 2018 study.
That is where this review becomes much larger than a discussion about fees.
Norfolk already has a long-term capital plan that is far larger than the County's demonstrated ability to deliver. By the end of 2025, the County was carrying more than 600 active capital projects with approximately $354 million in active project budgets. Projects are carried forward, schedules move, costs rise and new projects continue to be added.
If the County assumes approximately 304 new homes each year, includes a large list of growth-related capital projects and then sets its development charges accordingly, all three assumptions must be realistic.
If actual growth is much lower, two problems appear:
- Less development-charge revenue is collected than expected.
- Higher charges may make some of the projected growth even less likely to occur.
That can become a cycle. A large capital plan produces a higher charge. The higher charge adds to the cost of building. Slower construction produces less revenue. The shortfall then creates pressure to delay projects, use reserves, borrow more or shift costs to existing taxpayers.
A budget is not a wish list. It is a delivery plan. The same must be true of Norfolk's long-term capital plan.
Planning Must Change When the Facts Change
I was serving on Norfolk County Council during the 2018 development-charge study, so I understand that the final rate is the product of several connected decisions. Growth forecasts, eligible capital projects, reserve balances, grants, debt and timing all feed into the calculation.
The answer is not to eliminate development charges or ignore the infrastructure required by growth. The answer is to ensure that the growth forecast is defensible, the capital projects are necessary and deliverable, and the timing matches the County's real financial and operational capacity.
Council should closely review:
- Whether 304 new homes per year remains a realistic assumption.
- Whether the recent collapse in single and semi-detached construction has been adequately considered.
- Whether the proposed charges will further slow detached-home and apartment construction.
- Whether every project in the development-charge capital calculation is required within the forecast period.
- Whether projects should be reprioritized, delayed or removed from the long-term capital plan.
- Whether capital delivery capacity, reserve balances and debt obligations support the current plan.
Good planning is not about making one projection and defending it forever. Good planning means testing assumptions against current evidence and changing direction when the facts change.
What I Would Do Differently
- Rebuild the long-term capital plan around regulatory requirements, health and safety, asset-failure risk, operating savings, growth needs and measurable community benefit.
- Match the timing of projects to Norfolk's realistic annual delivery capacity instead of continuing to add projects to an already overloaded plan.
- Update growth and development-charge revenue assumptions annually using actual building activity and current economic conditions.
- Recalculate the proposed rates after projects that cannot realistically be funded or delivered within the forecast period are deferred or removed.
- Report clearly to Council and the public on capital carry-forwards, reserve commitments, debt obligations and development-charge revenue compared with forecast.
The choice is not between building infrastructure and doing nothing. The choice is between a prioritized plan Norfolk can deliver and an inflated plan that drives charges, debt and taxes higher.
Connecting the Dots
Development charges, housing affordability, construction activity, capital projects, reserves, debt and taxes are not separate issues. They are one connected system.
Norfolk should not nearly double the cost of building a home or apartment without first ensuring that the growth forecast and the capital plan behind those charges are realistic.
Before Council approves these rates, it should review the size and timing of the capital plan, update its assumptions to reflect today's housing market and ensure that Norfolk is planning what it can actually afford, fund and deliver.
I would like to hear from local builders, landlords, housing providers, contractors, real estate professionals and residents. What are you seeing in Norfolk's housing market, and how would these proposed charges affect future construction?