development charges & asset management: fulfilling … · 2019. 5. 24. · case study...
Post on 22-Sep-2020
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
DEVELOPMENT CHARGES & ASSET MANAGEMENT:
FULFILLING THE NEW REQUIREMENTS OF THE DCA
Monday, June 12, 2017
Today we will discuss…
• Overview of Development Charges and Asset Management
• Regulatory Context
• Asset Management Requirements under the DCA
• Calculation methodology
• Case Study
1
What Are Development Charges?
• Charges imposed on development to fund “growth-related” capital costs
• Pays for new infrastructure and facilities to maintain service levels
• Principle is “growth pays for growth” so that financial burden is not borne by existing tax/rate payers
2
Overview of the
Development Charges Act (DCA)
• DCs are imposed by by-law
• Maximum life of a DC by-law is 5 years after the day it comes into force
• Prior to passing a by-law, Municipality must:• Undertake a background study
• Hold at least one public meeting
• Appeals adjudicated at the Ontario Municipal Board
3
What is Asset Management?
• It’s not one thing!
• Multidisciplinary exercise– Accounting
– Engineering
– Operations
– Finance
– Planning
– Others
• It’s really about “Service Management”
4
Asset Management Context
5
GROWTH RELATED STUDIES
(DC, GROWTH MGMT.)
WATER & SEWER FULL COST
RECOVERY STUDIES
ROADS MANAGEMENT
STUDY/SOFTWARE
FLEET MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM/SOFTWARE
BUILDING CONDITION
ASSESSMENTS
INSURANCE SCHEDULES
PROVINCIAL SUBMISSIONS
(AMP, FIR, GRANTS)
LONG-RANGE
FINANCIAL PLAN
PERFORMANCE
MEASUREMENTS
SERVICE LEVEL
TRACKING & ANALYSIS
FINANCIAL DOCUMENTS
OTHER
ASSET
MANAGEMENT
OTHER
Asset Management in the News
6
Municipal Asset Management:
Gaining Some Perspective
• AMO estimates the Ontario municipal
infrastructure deficit is at $60 billion
7
From AMO’s Submission to Infrastructure Canada 2012
Regulatory Context in Ontario:
PSAB 3150
• Jan 1, 2009 Public Sector Accounting Board 3150 Requirement
– Mandated accounting for
tangible capital assets
– Involves lifecycle deprecation approach
8
Regulatory Context in Ontario:
Asset Management Plans
• Dec 31, 2013 Ministry of Infrastructure
Requirement
– Initially covers roads, bridges,water, wastewater & housing
– Used in determination of grants (i.e. Ont. Community Infrastructure Fund & Small Communities Fund)
– Plan must consider condition of assets, desired service levels, mitigation & funding
9
Regulatory Context in Ontario:
Asset Management Plans (cont.)
• Bill 6: Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity
Act
– Demonstrates province’s commitment to long-term asset management planning
– Strategic Asset Management Policies which would specify how AMP would align with other municipal plans
– Advancement in determining asset levels of service
• Common set of service level indicators
10
Regulatory Context in Ontario:
Asset Management Plans (cont.)
• Dec 31, 2016 AMO Gas Tax Requirement
– Required for all services eligible for Federal Gas Tax grants
– Still to be based on Building Together Guide
– In 2018 outcome report must show AMPs are being used to guide decisions
11
Regulatory Context in Ontario:
Changes to the DCA• Smart Growth for Our Communities Act, 2015 made amendments
to the DCA and Planning Act
• Focus largely on increased funding for Transit
• No longer subject to 10% reduction
• Based on a “planned” level of service
• Consideration for area rating
• Ineligible services to be prescribed by Regulations
• Waste collection, recycling collection and management, and organic waste collection and management are now eligible
12
Changes to the DCA
• Requiring municipalities to better integrate how
development charges fit with long-term planning,
including local asset management plans.
• DCs payable upon first building permit
• Additional reporting requirements
13
Overarching AM Requirements:
Development Charges Act
14
• Asset Management Plan must be included as part of the DC Background Study
• Deal with all assets whose capital costs are proposed to be funded under the development charge by-law;
• Demonstrate that all the assets mentioned are “financially sustainable” over their full life cycle;
Specific AM Requirements:
Transit Services
• Requirements are much more stringent for Transit services
• Consistent with the Building Together Guide, the DC study must set out:– State of the Local Infrastructure
– Proposed Level of Service
– An Asset Management Strategy
– A Financial Strategy
15
Are All Capital Costs to be
Considered in AMP?
16
• Not all assets considered under a DC
By-law need to be analyzed
Capital Costs Reason and Examples
1. Capital costs covered by other funding sources
Local Services, Separate City-wide or ASDC studies
2. One-time costs Costs which are temporary in nature- Site improvement - Temporary access
3. Not related to infrastructure No maintenance, operation costs and ultimately no replacement - development-related studies- Land acquisition - Recovery of negative reserve fund balance
AMP Calculation
17
• All assets are to be identified in the background study – Identify each capital project and applicability
– Identify the DC recoverable component
– Calculate the annual provision for asset replacement
Represents
grouped cost
of individual
elements
Only related to in-year
share plus legislated
discount
Capital
Project
Description
Estimated
Useful
Life
Gross Costs
2016-2025
DC
Recoverable
AMP
Annual
Provision –
DC Related
AMP Annual
Provision –
Total (incl
DC)
Transit Garage,
Plaza and
Terminal
40 years $83,880,000 $9,768,318 $256,000 $1,957,000
Transit Fleet 14 years $23,000,000 $3,263,650 $251,000 $1,504,000
Technology
Implementation
8 years $14,027,000 $916,257 $115,000 $1,626,000
Total Annual Provision $622,000 $5,087,000
AMP Calculation
18
• Total calculated annual provision has been netted down to consider:
– Grants/subsidies – shares for projects which the municipality is not responsible for;
– the replacement of existing infrastructure or benefit-to-existing development;
– infrastructure as it relates to development occurring outside of the respective planning periods; and
– services for which capital assets have been acquired at a greater rate than the level of service provided over the preceding ten-year period.
Demonstrating
“Financially Sustainable”
19
• How does the total annual capital requirement fit into the municipality’s corporate asset management plan
• Represent annual need as a
% of total own source revenues
• The calculated annual funding provision should be considered within the context of the municipality’s projected growth
• Development industry expectation is quantifiable tax rate and user rate impacts
Case Study – Ottawa:
AMP for Transit Services
• $3 Billion LRT expansion plan
• City currently amending existing DC by-law to calculate DCs for Transit services under the new requirements of the legislation
20
– Removal of 10% statutory
deduction
– Use of a “planned” level of
service rather then “10-
year historical” average
Case Study – Ottawa:
AMP for Transit Services
• Relevant analysis and existing City documents
assisted with addressing the AMP requirements
21
Fiscal Framework
• “Road map” of sustainable finances for the City
• Overarching principles of responsible financial management
Transit Long Range Financial Plan and
Affordability Model
• Long-term operating and capital costs related to transit
• Identified City’s definition of “affordability”
• Tax and user fee implications
Comprehensive Asset Management Plan
• State of local infrastructure
• Assets used to deliver Transit services
State of Assets Report
• State of local infrastructure
• Useful life assumptions
• Inventory of assets
Case Study – Ottawa:
AMP for Transit Services
• The City’s Long Range Financial Plan (LRFP) for Transit was informed by an Affordability Model
• Key assumptions of the model included:
– Integrated full range of capital, operating and life-cycle costs
– 32-year planning horizon to 2048
– Forecasts revenue – fare and tax increases to align with increases in transit costs
– Incorporated anticipated government funding (i.e. gas tax contributions)
– Ridership analysis and relationship to revenue
– Debenture assumptions where capital costs exceed the amount of funds available from other revenue sources
22
Case Study – Ottawa:
AMP for Transit Services
• The City’s LRFP and Affordability Model concluded that the system was “financially sustainable” based on the following assumptions:
– Transit taxes and transit fares will increase at the same rate as transit costs at 2.5%
– Contributions of two-thirds funding from other levels of government for LRT and BRT projects
– Interest rates remain below 6%
23
Case Study – Ottawa:
AMP for Transit Services• A “checklist” was
included in the DC Study to demonstrate how the AMP requirements had been addressed
– Identified relevant “section of the legislation
– Provided comments on the relevant section of the DC Background Study and how the requirement was addressed
24
Case Study – Ottawa:
AMP for Transit Services
25
O.Reg. 82/98 Section Comments and Relevant Sections of this
Development Charges Background Study
1. The calculations that were used to prepare the
estimate for the planned level of service for the
transit services, as mentioned in subsection 5.2 (3)
of the Act.
Appendix C provides details on this calculation.
The City’s transit planned level of service is the
provision of a higher order transit system (bus
and light rail transit), integrated with the
existing, which is to be expanded, as well as a
bus transit system for the residents and
businesses of the City of Ottawa.
2. An identification of the portion of the total
estimated capital cost relating to the transit services
that would benefit,
i. the anticipated development over the 10-year
period immediately following the preparation of the
background study, or
ii. the anticipated development after the 10-year
period immediately following the preparation of the
background study.
Appendix A provides details on the anticipated
development over the 10-year planning period.
Appendix B provides details as it relates to
transit ridership over the 10-year planning
period.
3. An identification of the anticipated excess
capacity that would exist at the end of the 10-year
period immediately following the preparation of the
background study.
Appendix B provides details on the excess
capacity calculation.
The analysis arising from the ridership forecast
is applied to the Transit development charge
calculations is contained in Appendix C. 4. An assessment of ridership forecasts for all modes
of transit services proposed to be funded by the
development charge over the 10-year period
immediately following the preparation of the
background study, categorized by development
types, and whether the forecasted ridership will be
from existing or planned development.
5. An assessment of the ridership capacity for all
modes of transit services proposed to be funded by
the development charge over the 10-year period
immediately following the preparation of the
background study. O. Reg. 428/15, s. 4.
Appendix B provides details on the ridership
capacity calculation.
• O.Reg. 82/98 Transit DC Requirements
– Background Study example
Case Study – Ottawa:
AMP for Transit Services
• Lessons learned in Ottawa…
– Transit AMP was strengthened through relevant documents including the City’s Corporate Asset Management Plan and other financial analysis
– City’s LRFP and Affordability Model identified key assumptions to demonstrate the “financial sustainability” of assets
– “AMP Checklist” provided transparency and ease of reference to key documents and assumptions
26
Questions?
Craig Binning, Hemson Consulting
Andrew Mirabella, Hemson Consulting
27
top related