To be clear, our members aren't typically social housing members, so by “operating agreements”, I take it your context is one where developers would pay for operating agreements on lands that would be developed. I hope I'm gathering that correctly.
Generally speaking, our membership believes that municipal taxes should cover the cost of development operations. Only in the rarest of circumstances would we endorse adding operating costs to the cost of development. In the long run, developments need to go around on the capital cost and tax collections that would come from new housing and new development to offset municipal operating costs.
Much like what has been talked about with regard to improving processes around development approvals and the automation of those processes, there also needs to be an incentive for efficiency in all aspects of that. In the context of our Calgary members, developers install significant assets on their own, then pay for the capacity of off-site assets. Essentially, the municipality gets the new capital for free and inherits a whole bunch of taxpaying and municipal utility rate-paying customers. All of that needs to be taken into account, particularly the fact that new assets are lower-cost assets to operate. From our perspective, we're not as keen about an operating agreement after development.