competitive analysis - bedcbedc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/competitive-analysis.pdf · 1...

1 Millier Dickinson Blais

Competitive Analysis Economic Vision for the City of Burlington Burlington Economic Development Corporation DRAFT


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This report has been supported by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs by providing access to the EMSI

Analyst tool. Nevertheless, the views expressed in this report are the views of Millier Dickinson Blais Inc. and do not

necessarily reflect those of the Ministry.


Contents 1 COMPETITIVE ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................. 4

1.1 HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE COMPETITIVE ANALYSIS 4

1.2 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE 8

1.2.1 POPULATION 8

1.2.2 POPULATION BY AGE 10

1.2.3 EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT 12

1.2.4 HOUSEHOLD INCOME 14

1.2.5 DWELLING VALUES 15

1.2.6 OWNERSHIP CHARACTERISTICS 16

1.2.7 PRIMARY RENTAL MARKET 18

1.2.8 EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS 19

1.3 OCCUPATIONAL PROFILE 21

1.3.1 LABOUR FORCE CHARACTERISTICS 21

1.4 BUSINESS PROFILE 34

1.4.1 BUSINESS PATTERNS ASSESSMENT 34

1.5 DEVELOPMENT AND EXPANSION COSTS 42

1.5.1 PROTOTYPE BUILD SCENARIOS 42

1.5.2 SITE PLAN FEES 47

1.5.3 DEVELOPMENT CHARGES 48

1.5.4 BUILDING PERMIT FEES 51

1.5.5 MUNICIPAL TAX RATES 54

1.6 LAND VALUES 56

1.7 QUALITY OF LIFE 57

1.7.1 REAL ESTATE AND WEALTH 58

1.7.2 CRIME 61

1.7.3 HEALTH 63


1 Competitive Analysis The Competitive Analysis highlights the City of Burlington’s relative competitiveness in a number of demographic,

occupational, and business areas compared to a selected group of comparator jurisdictions. The analysis is meant to be

used as a benchmark to understand what competitive advantages or disadvantages the City of Burlington may have

relative to competitor communities around it. 1

The comparator jurisdictions used in the analysis are:

The Town of Oakville

The City of Mississauga

The City of Hamilton

The City of Markham

The Region of Waterloo

1.1 Highlights from the Competitive Analysis

Burlington has a number of competitive advantages and disadvantages when measured against the comparator

jurisdictions. These competitive advantages offer opportunities for Burlington to further position itself to attract and retain

industry and labour force talent to the city, whereas the competitive disadvantages highlight areas that Burlington may

want to explore further in order to compete more effectively with the comparator jurisdictions.

Based on key findings from the Competitive Analysis, it is clear that knowledge intensive and value-added employment

constitutes an important part of Burlington’s economy and competitive advantages relative to the comparator jurisdictions

(based on demographic, industry, and business trends). Continued focus on these sectors will further support Burlington’s

competitive advantages and the employment and business growth that Burlington is well positioned to experience based

on these advantages.

1 Each of the comparator jurisdictions were selected for inclusion in the Competitive Analysis by the Burlington Economic Development Corporation


Competitive Advantages in Burlington

Burlington has a relatively well-educated population which presents competitive advantages in the attraction of

industry looking for a more educated workforce.

Burlington is a relatively affordable place to buy a home, offering opportunities when attracting or retaining young

professionals to the area that would be looking to buy a home (the dwelling values in Burlington, however, are

significantly higher than those in Hamilton and the Region of Waterloo, indicating a competitive disadvantage when

competing against these jurisdictions).

The level of household wealth in Burlington ranks among the top relative to comparator jurisdictions, with one of the

fastest levels of income growth between comparator jurisdictions.

There is a relatively high rate of home ownership in Burlington relative to comparator jurisdictions, which is helpful in

attracting families to the area.

Burlington had the lowest unemployment rate in 2011 among comparator jurisdictions, and among the lowest relative

increase in unemployment rate during the same period. These statistics highlight the relative stability of the workforce

in Burlington.

According to EMSI Analyst projections, there is a high rate of job growth anticipated from 2011-2020 in Burlington relative to comparator jurisdictions, which offers an important competitive advantage in attracting more population and talent to the area.

Employment in industries in Burlington are growing more quickly than comparator jurisdictions in:

72 - Accommodation and food services (11% increase, 7,692 people employed in 2014)

54 - Professional, scientific and technical services (8% increase, 5,848 people employed in 2014)

61 - Educational services (8% increase, 5,332 people employed in 2014)

23 - Construction (7% increase, 5,071 people employed in 2014)

Employment in occupations in Burlington are growing more quickly than comparator jurisdictions in:

E - Occupations in social science, education, government service and religion (15% increase, 6,987

people in 2014)

F - Occupations in art, culture, recreation and sport (12% increase, 1,908 people in 2014)

I - Occupations unique to primary industry (10% increase, 880 people in 2014)

H - Trades, transport and equipment operators and related occupations (7% increase, 13,280 people in

2014)


Burlington saw the largest increases among comparator jurisdictions in number of business establishments between

2009 and 2013 in:

11 - Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting (98% increase, 81 business establishments in 2013)

51 - Information and cultural industries (42% increase, 254 business establishments in 2013)

71 - Arts, entertainment and recreation (32% increase, 241 business establishments in 2013)

56 - Administrative and support, waste management and remediation services (29% increase, 736

business establishments in 2013)

23 - Construction (21% increase, 1,385 business establishments in 2013)

31-33 - Manufacturing (4% increase, 597 business establishments in 2013)

Burlington has a number of competitive advantages in development charges relative to comparator jurisdictions,

including site plan fees, development charges for office and industrial development, and industrial building permit fees

that make the city an attractive place for office and industrial development.

Overall, these findings highlight Burlington’s competitive advantage in attracting industrial and office developments

when competing with communities to its east (i.e. Oakville, Mississauga, and Markham).

Burlington has a competitive advantage in municipal tax rates when competing with Hamilton and the communities

that make up the Region of Waterloo across all tax categories.

Based on a variety of quality of life rankings used by MoneySense magazine in 2014, Burlington ranks as the fifth

best place to live in Canada (above all other comparator jurisdictions used in this Competitive Analysis). In particular,

Burlington ranks very well along a variety of criteria related to health, crime, and real estate and wealth relative to

comparator jurisdictions.

Burlington’s price of land per acre for industrial properties offers a significant competitive advantage relative to

Markham and Mississauga (and to a smaller degree Oakville). In addition, the average net rent per square foot for

Class A office space in Burlington ranks on the less costly end compared to Oakville, Mississauga, and Hamilton.

Competitive Disadvantages in Burlington

Burlington is facing some significant competitive disadvantages related to age distribution in the local population

relative to comparator jurisdictions, particularly with smaller youth cohorts (i.e. aged 24 years old and below) needed

to transition into the prime working age population category over the next ten years. This gap in the youth population


may result in future labour shortages in Burlington that may dissuade industry from locating in Burlington.2 In addition,

Burlington is already in a position where they have a relatively lower proportion of the population in the working age

(i.e. 25-64 years old), indicating that labour shortages may already be a factor in the community.

Average and median rents for apartments in Burlington increased by the largest amounts relative to all comparator

jurisdictions between 2013 and 2014. This presents a competitive disadvantage in Burlington as people may find the

increased cost of living less appealing or more difficult to manage than other jurisdictions. This in turn could contribute

to outmigration of target demographics.

Average earnings by industry and average hourly earnings by occupation are both low relative to comparator

jurisdictions presenting a competitive disadvantage for Burlington in attracting more skilled talent to the city (though

earnings for specific industries may not follow this overall trend in the same manner).

Burlington has some competitive disadvantages in development charges relative to comparator jurisdictions, including

site development charges for retail development and building permit fees for office developments.

Overall, these findings highlight Burlington’s competitive disadvantages in attracting industrial and office

developments when competing with communities to its west (i.e. Hamilton, Waterloo, Kitchener, and Cambridge).

Burlington has a competitive disadvantage in municipal tax rates when competing with Markham across all tax

categories, Oakville across all tax categories (though they are close in the tax rates so Burlington is well-positioned to

compete with Oakville), and Mississauga when competing across most tax categories.

Burlington’s price of land per acre for industrial properties offers a significant competitive disadvantage relative to

Hamilton, Waterloo, Kitchener, and Cambridge. In addition, the average net rent per square foot for Class A office

space in Burlington is more expensive compared to Markham, Waterloo, Kitchener, and Cambridge.

2 It is important to note that projections from Hemson Consulting for the Government of Ontario on growth forecasts for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (included in the Economic Base

Analysis) show that the youth population for Halton Region will actually be increasing to 2041. This increasing youth population may help solve Burlington’s issue with a small youth cohort, though it remains to be seen how that increase in youth will be distributed throughout Halton Region.


1.2 Demographic Profile

1.2.1 Population

The City of Burlington saw a 17% growth in its population between 2001 and 2011 (see Figure 1).

This growth rate represents a moderate level of growth compared with the comparator jurisdictions. Both Mississauga and

the Region of Waterloo experienced similar growth rates to Burlington during this time period (16% each), while Markham

and Oakville each saw growth at much higher levels than in Burlington (45% and 26% respectively).

Hamilton had the lowest population growth rate during this time period at 6%. Detailed population statistics can be found

in Figure 2.

Looking at the population growth statistics, it is clear that Burlington is growing at a rate relatively consistent with most of

its comparator jurisdictions. Two exceptions to this are Oakville, which increased its population 9% more than Burlington

during the same period, and Markham, which experienced significant population expansion that was 28% greater than

Burlington’s growth.


FIGURE 1: POPULATION GROWTH FOR BURLINGTON AND COMPARATOR JURISDICTIONS, 2001-2011

Source: Statistics Canada, National Household Survey, 2011 Census and 2006 Community Profiles Census

FIGURE 2: POPULATION GROWTH DATA TABLE, BURLINGTON AND COMPARATOR JURISDICTIONS, 2001-2011

Population 2001-2006 2006-2011 2001-2011

2001 2006 2011 Absolute Δ % Δ Absolute Δ % Δ Absolute Δ % Δ

Burlington 150,836 164,415 175,779 13,579 9% 11,364 7% 24,943 17%

Oakville 144,738 165,613 182,520 20,875 14% 16,907 10% 37,782 26%

Mississauga 612,925 668,599 713,443 55,674 9% 44,844 7% 100,518 16%

Hamilton 490,268 504,559 519,949 14,291 3% 15,390 3% 29,681 6%

Markham 208,615 261,573 301,709 52,958 25% 40,136 15% 93,094 45%

Region of Waterloo 438,515 478,121 507,096 39,606 9% 28,975 6% 68,581 16%

Source: Statistics Canada, National Household Survey, 2011 Census and 2006 Community Profiles Census

-

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

Burlington Oakville Mississauga Hamilton Markham Region of Waterloo

Po

pu

lati

on

2001 2006 2011

26%

16%

6%

45%

16%

17%


1.2.2 Population by Age

The median age of the population in Burlington in 2011 was 41.8 years old.3 This age represents the oldest median age

among all the comparator communities, with Hamilton at 40.9 years old, Oakville at 40.2 years old, Markham at 39.6

years old, Mississauga at 38.5 years old, and the Region of Waterloo at 37.7 years old.4

This relatively older population in Burlington is further reflected in the age pyramids presented in Figure 3. Looking at the

age pyramids, it can be seen that Burlington has a lower proportion of the population considered youth (i.e. aged 24 years

old and below) relative to the comparator jurisdictions (29%). Other jurisdictions have youth population proportions of 30%

in Hamilton, 31% in Markham, 32% in the Region of Waterloo, 33% in Mississauga, and 34% in Oakville.

In terms of proportions of the population in the working age (i.e. 25-64 years old), Burlington is among the lower end of

the jurisdictions with 48% of the population within this age range. Other communities proportions include Hamilton and

Oakville (both at 48%), Markham and the Region of Waterloo (both at 50%), and Mississauga (51%).

These population age distributions highlight the relative competitive disadvantages that Burlington has in relation to the


A smaller youth population is a disadvantage in that there will be fewer youth transitioning into the working age population

category over the next ten years compared to the comparator jurisdictions. This may result in labour shortages that may

dissuade industry from locating in Burlington relative to neighbouring jurisdictions. In addition, Burlington is already in a

position where it has a relatively lower proportion of the working age cohort in the local population, indicating that labour

shortages may already be a factor in the community.

It is interesting to note, however, that projections from Hemson Consulting for the Government of Ontario on growth

forecasts for the Greater Golden Horseshoe show that the youth population for Halton Region (which includes Burlington)

and Hamilton will actually be increasing to 2041, whereas these youth populations will be decreasing in the City of

Toronto.5 This increasing youth population may be reflective of anecdotal evidence that youth are moving from Toronto to

outside jurisdictions due to overcrowding, increasing cost of living, and a lack of employment opportunities in Toronto.

These projected changes in the age distributions of Halton Region and Hamilton may help solve Burlington’s issues with a

small youth cohort, though it remains to be seen how that increase in youth will be distributed throughout the communities

of Halton Region.

3 Statistics Canada, National Household Survey (NHS) Profile, 2011 National Household Survey, Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 99-004-XWE.

4 ibid

5 Hemson Consulting for the Government of Ontario, “Greater Golden Horseshoe Growth Forecasts to 2041: Technical Report (November 2012) Addendum”, June 2013


FIGURE 3: POPULATION PYRAMIDS FOR BURLINGTON AND COMPARATOR JURISDICTIONS, 2011


Source: Statistics Canada, National Household Survey (NHS) Profile, 2011 National Household Survey, Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 99-004-XWE. Adapted by Millier Dickinson Blais Inc.

1.2.3 Educational Attainment

As seen in Figure 4, Burlington has a relatively well educated proportion of the 25-64 year old (i.e. working age)

population with roughly 66% of people in that age category having a university certificate, diploma, or degree at a

bachelor level or above, a university certificate or diploma below a bachelor level, or a college, CEGEP, or other non-

university certificate or diploma.

This rate is in the middle range relative to the comparator jurisdictions, with Oakville at 74%, Mississauga and Markham

both at 65%, the Region of Waterloo at 54%, and Hamilton at 52%.

This relatively well-educated population presents competitive advantages for Burlington in the attraction of industry

looking for more educated workforces.

More information on absolute values for each category of educational attainment is available in Figure 5 below.


FIGURE 4: TOTAL POPULATION AGED 25-64 YEARS BY HIGHEST CERTIFICATE, DIPLOMA OR DEGREE, BURLINGTON AND COMPARATOR

JURISDICTIONS, 2011

Source: Statistics Canada, National Household Survey (NHS) Profile, 2011 National Household Survey, Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 99-004-XWE

FIGURE 5: TOTAL POPULATION AGED 25-64 YEARS BY HIGHEST CERTIFICATE DATA TABLE, DIPLOMA OR DEGREE, BURLINGTON AND

COMPARATOR JURISDICTIONS, 2011

Source: Statistics Canada, National Household Survey (NHS) Profile, 2011 National Household Survey, Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 99-004-XWE

5%

4%

8%

13%

10%

12%

22%

17%

21%

25%

21%

26%

6%

4%

6%

9%

4%

8%

27%

22%

20%

26%

17%

24%

5%

6%

7%

4%

8%

3%

34%

46%

37%

22%

40%

26%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%


No certificate; diploma or degree High school diploma or equivalent

Apprenticeship or trades certificate or diploma College; CEGEP or other non-university certificate or diploma

University certificate or diploma below bachelor level University certificate; diploma or degree at bachelor level or above


No certificate; diploma or degree 4,995 4,310 33,070 36,165 16,945 34,120

High school diploma or equivalent 21,215 16,580 83,820 70,150 34,915 71,150

Apprenticeship or trades certificate or diploma 5,565 4,230 23,835 26,050 7,475 22,745

College; CEGEP or other non-university certificate or diploma

25,630 21,390 80,945 72,205 29,255 66,390

University certificate or diploma below bachelor level

4,640 5,945 29,650 10,800 12,775 9,395

University certificate; diploma or degree at bachelor level or above

32,495 44,915 147,260 62,145 68,730 73,100

Total 94,535 97,355 398,575 277,520 170,095 276,905


1.2.4 Household Income

The median household income in Burlington in 2010 was $82,494, representing an increase of 10% since 2005 (as seen

in Figure 6).

This level of household wealth is among the top three relative to comparator jurisdictions. Burlington’s household income

growth of 10% also represents one of the fastest growing levels of wealth between comparator jurisdictions from 2005 to

2010, with Oakville household wealth growing by 10.1%, Hamilton wealth growing by 8.9%, the Region of Waterloo

wealth growing by 8.0%, Markham wealth growing by 7.6%, and Mississauga wealth growing by 5.8%.

FIGURE 6: MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME OF PRIVATE HOUSEHOLDS, BURLINGTON AND COMPARATOR JURISDICTIONS

Source: Statistics Canada, National Household Survey (NHS) Profile, 2011 National Household Survey, Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 99-004-XWE, and 2006 Community Profiles, 2006 Census, Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 92-591-XWE

$74,969

$92,394

$71,393

$55,312

$79,924

$64,522

$82,494

$101,713

$75,556

$60,259

$86,022

$69,706

$- $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000

Burlington

Oakville

Mississauga

Hamilton

Markham

Region of Waterloo

2010 2005


1.2.5 Dwelling Values

The average value of owned dwellings in

Burlington in 2011 was $431,943, a growth of

24.1% from 2006 (as seen in Figure 7).

This value is significantly below dwelling values

in Oakville and Markham ($598,576 and

$547,560 respectively), but significantly above

dwelling values in Hamilton and the Region of

Waterloo ($308,307 and $321,336 respectively).

The levels of growth for dwelling values among

all comparator jurisdictions are comparable, with

Oakville leading at 26.8%, Markham at 24.2%,

Burlington at 24.1%, Hamilton at 22.2%, the

Region of Waterloo at 21.4%, and Mississauga at

20.9% from 2006 to 2011 (as seen in Figure 8).

Taken together, these statistics highlight the

relative affordability in buying a dwelling in

Burlington compared to other comparator

jurisdictions.

This relative affordability is a competitive

advantage for Burlington when trying to attract or

retain young professionals to the area that would

be looking to buy a home.

The dwelling values in Burlington, however, are

significantly higher than those in Hamilton and

the Region of Waterloo, indicating a competitive

disadvantage when competing against these

jurisdictions.

FIGURE 7: AVERAGE VALUE OF OWNED DWELLINGS, BURLINGTON AND COMPARATOR JURISDICTIONS


Note: Value of dwelling - Refers to the dollar amount expected by the owner if the dwelling were to be sold.

$348,041

$472,244

$377,116

$252,248

$440,755

$264,604

$431,943

$598,576

$455,942

$308,307

$547,560

$321,336

$- $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000

Burlington

Oakville

Mississauga

Hamilton

Markham

Region of Waterloo

2011 2006


FIGURE 8: AVERAGE VALUE OF OWNED DWELLINGS DATA TABLE, BURLINGTON AND COMPARATOR JURISDICTIONS

2006 2011 % change

Burlington $ 348,041 $ 431,943 24.1%

Oakville $ 472,244 $ 598,576 26.8%

Mississauga $ 377,116 $ 455,942 20.9%

Hamilton $ 252,248 $ 308,307 22.2%

Markham $ 440,755 $ 547,560 24.2%

Region of Waterloo $ 264,604 $ 321,336 21.4%


In terms of the house price to income ratio6, Burlington ranked relatively well in 2011 with a ratio of 5.24, above the

Region of Waterloo at 4.61 and Hamilton at 5.12, but below Markham at 6.37, Mississauga at 6.03, and Oakville at 5.88.

These ratios in Burlington, the Region of Waterloo, and Hamilton each grew roughly 12% from 2006 levels whereas the

ratios for Markham, Mississauga, and Oakville grew by roughly 15% during the same time period.

These statistics highlight competitive advantages for Burlington in housing affordability relative to other comparator

jurisdictions and indicate that changes in housing affordability are not as unfavourable in Burlington as other jurisdictions.

1.2.6 Ownership Characteristics

Roughly 78% of private households in Burlington own their residence, with an additional 22% renting (see Figure 9).

This rate of ownership in Burlington is among the highest relative to comparator jurisdictions, with Markham’s rate of

ownership at 89%, Oakville at 84%, Mississauga at 75%, the Region of Waterloo at 71%, and Hamilton at 68%.

This relatively high rate of ownership in Burlington is another indicator of the relative wealth that is found in Burlington.

More detailed information on absolute values for rates of ownership and rental for each comparator jurisdiction can be

found in Figure 10 below.

6 Calculated by dividing the average value of owned dwellings by the median household income of private households


FIGURE 9: TOTAL PERCENTAGE OF PRIVATE HOUSEHOLDS BY TENURE, BURLINGTON AND COMPARATOR JURISDICTIONS, 2011

Source: Source: Statistics Canada, National Household Survey (NHS) Profile, 2011 National Household Survey, Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 99-004-XWE

FIGURE 10: DATA TABLE TOTAL PERCENTAGE OF PRIVATE HOUSEHOLDS BY TENURE, BURLINGTON AND COMPARATOR JURISDICTIONS,

2011


Owner 53,965 52,320 175,710 139,345 80,675 136,270

Renter 14,810 10,095 58,875 64,460 9,855 55,325

Total 68,780 62,410 234,585 203,805 90,535 191,600

Source: Source: Statistics Canada, National Household Survey (NHS) Profile, 2011 National Household Survey, Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 99-004-XWE

78% 84%

75% 68%

89%

71%

22% 16%

25% 32%

11%

29%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Owner Renter


1.2.7 Primary Rental Market

As seen in Figure 11, the vacancy rate in Burlington for rental apartments decreased from 1.9% in October 2013 to 1.5%

in October 2014. This decrease also coincided with a decrease in the availability rate for rental apartments in Burlington

(3.1% to 2.9%) and an increase in the average and median rents for two bedroom apartments. Similar trends were seen

in Hamilton and Mississauga.

Vacancy and availability rates in Oakville and Markham increased from 2013 to 2014. In the case of Oakville, average

and median costs of rent also increased, whereas in Markham these changes were less pronounced.

It is interesting to note that average and median rents in Burlington increased by among the largest amounts between

2013 and 2014 relative to all comparator jurisdictions (increasing by $51 and $39 respectively).

This is compared to Mississauga ($39 and $60 respectively), Oakville ($36 and $24 respectively), Hamilton ($21 and $26

respectively), and Markham ($8 and $15 respectively).

These larger increases present a competitive disadvantage in Burlington as people will find the cost of living relatively

more expensive, and potentially prohibitive for key demographics being targeted for attraction to the area (e.g., young

professionals and families, and newcomers).

FIGURE 11: PRIMARY RENTAL MARKET DATA TABLE, BURLINGTON AND COMPARATOR JURISDICTIONS

Oct-14 Oct-13

Burlington Oakville Hamilton Markham Mississauga Burlington Oakville Hamilton Markham Mississauga

Vacancy Rate (%) - Apt 1.5 1.5 2.4 1.6 1.7 1.9 1.3 3.8 0.9 2.3

Availability Rate (%) - Apt

2.9 3.1 3.8 3.0 3.3 3.1 2.6 5.7 1.7 3.9

Average Rent ($) - 2-Bed Apt

$1,199 $1,317 $887 $1,191 $1,211 $1,148 $1,281 $866 $1,183 $1,172

Median Rent ($) - 2-Bed Apt

$1,169 $1,295 $875 $1,185 $1,200 $1,130 $1,271 $849 $1,200 $1,140

Source: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), Housing Market Information Portal


1.2.8 Employment Statistics

Burlington had the lowest unemployment

rate in 2011 at 5.8% relative to all other

comparator jurisdictions (as seen in Figure

12).

Unemployment rates in comparator

jurisdictions were Oakville and the Region

of Waterloo both at 7.0%, Markham at

8.1%, and Mississauga and Hamilton both

at 8.7%.

The rate of increase in the unemployment

rate in Burlington between 2006 and 2011

was also the lowest among all comparator

jurisdictions at 1.2%.

This is compared with Markham at 1.4%,

the Region of Waterloo at 1.5%, Oakville at

1.7%, and Mississauga and Hamilton both

at 2.2%. These statistics highlight the

relative stability in the workforce in

Burlington.

More details about the absolute values for

the broad range of employment statistics

(including unemployment rates) can be

seen in Figure 13 below.

FIGURE 12: UNEMPLOYMENT RATE, BURLINGTON AND COMPARATOR JURISDICTIONS


4.6%

5.3%

6.5%

6.5%

6.7%

5.5%

5.8%

7.0%

8.7%

8.7%

8.1%

7.0%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10%

Burlington

Oakville

Mississauga

Hamilton

Markham

Region of Waterloo

2011 2006


FIGURE 13: DATA TABLE EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS, BURLINGTON AND COMPARATOR JURISDICTIONS

2006 2011

Burlington Oakville Mississauga Hamilton Markham

Region of

Waterloo Burlington Oakville Mississauga Hamilton Markham

Region of

Waterloo

In the labour force

92,590 92,285 377,075 263,595 144,735 272,530 98,785 100,565 395,805 266,200 160,225

283,680

Employed 88,280 87,395 352,410 246,345 135,100 257,655 93,030 93,490 361,315 243,080 147,315

263,815

Unemployed 4,305 4,895 24,670 17,255 9,640 14,875 5,755 7,075 34,490 23,120 12,910

19,860

Not in the labour force

40,110 37,915 155,485 143,995 68,395 108,455 44,725 43,965 184,190 157,855 87,395

123,015

Participation rate

69.8% 70.9% 70.8% 64.7% 67.9% 71.5% 68.8% 69.6% 68.2% 62.8% 64.7% 69.8%

Employment rate

66.5% 67.1% 66.2% 60.4% 63.4% 67.6% 64.8% 64.7% 62.3% 57.3% 59.5% 64.9%

Unemployment rate

4.6% 5.3% 6.5% 6.5% 6.7% 5.5% 5.8% 7.0% 8.7% 8.7% 8.1% 7.0%



1.3 Occupational Profile

1.3.1 Labour Force Characteristics

Job Growth7

Job growth in Burlington between 2011 and 2020 is expected to increase by 10.3% (or 9,010 jobs). This rate of job

growth is among the highest relative to comparator jurisdictions, with job growth projections of 10.9% in Oakville, 9.7% in

Mississauga, 8.2% in the Region of Waterloo, 7.1% in Markham, and 6.8% in Hamilton (as seen in Figure 14).

This high rate of job growth in Burlington is an important competitive advantage for the city in attracting more population

and talent to the area.

More detailed information about absolute job growth projections for each comparator jurisdiction can be found in Figure

15).

7 Based on projections by EMSI Analyst which may not be completely in line with regional growth projections from other sources or other policies.

EMSI’s methodology in creating these projections is to “create three linear regressions based off of [EMSI’s] historic employee counts for each geography (8, 5 and 3 year linear regressions). The average of these linear regressions is taken, and the result dampened to curb excessive growth and decline. All trends are then adjusted to higher level geography trends (CSD is adjusted to CD, CD to Province, Province to Nation). This trend is considered [EMSI’s] base projection. After [EMSI] create[s] the base projection, [they] adjust [their] annual growth rate by industry to the projections produced by COPS. This completes [the] industry employee count process, creating CSD-level data 2001- 2020.


FIGURE 14: PROJECTED JOB GROWTH, BURLINGTON AND COMPARATOR JURISDICTIONS, 2011-2020

Source: EMSI Analyst, adapted by Millier Dickinson Blais

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020



FIGURE 15: PROJECTED JOB GROWTH DATA TABLE, BURLINGTON AND COMPARATOR JURISDICTIONS, 2011-2020

Year Burlington Oakville Mississauga Hamilton Markham Region of Waterloo

2011 87,574 82,306 441,083 201,921 133,462 252,987

2012 89,339 84,675 449,094 204,272 135,397 257,199

2013 90,356 85,889 454,262 205,679 135,769 260,156

2014 90,799 85,636 457,413 206,736 135,536 260,629

2015 92,066 86,871 462,826 208,592 136,986 263,451

2016 93,152 87,942 467,650 210,181 138,273 265,883

2017 94,192 88,955 472,407 211,693 139,527 268,205

2018 95,087 89,812 476,510 213,016 140,652 270,178

2019 95,840 90,571 480,157 214,261 141,718 271,961

2020 96,584 91,283 483,877 215,673 142,873 273,779

Source: EMSI Analyst, adapted by Millier Dickinson Blais

Regional Labour Force by Industry

Figure 16, Figure 17, and Figure 18 below highlight that the greatest levels of estimated employment growth in Burlington between 2011 and 2014 relative to the comparator jurisdictions were

72 - Accommodation and food services (11% increase, 7,692 people employed in 2014)

54 - Professional, scientific and technical services (8% increase, 5,848 people employed in 2014)

61 - Educational services (8% increase, 5,332 people employed in 2014)

23 - Construction (7% increase, 5,071 people employed in 2014)

56 - Administrative and support, waste management and remediation services (5% increase, 4,984 people employed

in 2014)

In terms of declining employment in industries relative to comparator jurisdictions, Burlington was among those

jurisdictions seeing the largest decreases in:

21 - Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction (19% decrease, 82 people employed in 2014)

55 - Management of companies and enterprises (5% decrease, 1,279 people employed in 2014)

91 - Public administration (3% decrease, 2,899 people employed in 2014)


FIGURE 16: CHANGE IN # OF JOBS BY NAICS INDUSTRY, BURLINGTON AND COMPARATOR JURISDICTIONS, 2011-2014

Source: Employees - EMSI 2014.3, adapted by Millier Dickinson Blais

NAIC Categories: 11-Agriculture; forestry; fishing and hunting, 21-Mining; quarrying; and oil and gas extraction, 22-Utilities, 23-Construction, 31-33 Manufacturing, 41-Wholesale trade, 44-45 Retail trade, 48-49 Transportation and warehousing, 51-Information and cultural industries, 52-Finance and insurance, 53-Real estate and rental and leasing, 54-Professional; scientific and technical services, 55-Management of companies and enterprises, 56-Administrative and support; waste management and remediation services, 61-Educational services, 62-Health care and social assistance, 71-Arts; entertainment and recreation, 72-Accommodation and food services, 81-Other services (except public administration), 91-Public administration

(40%)

(30%)

(20%)

(10%)

0%

10%

20%

11 21 22 23 31-33 41 44-45 48-49 51 52 53 54 55 56 61 62 71 72 81 91



FIGURE 17: CHANGE IN # OF JOBS BY NAICS INDUSTRY DATA TABLE, BURLINGTON AND COMPARATOR JURISDICTIONS, 2011-2014

NAICS Industry Category % Change (2011-2014)


11 Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting -2% -12% -8% 0% -4% 1%

21 Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction -19% -25% -12% -18% -16% -9%

22 Utilities -4% -5% -6% -8% -8% -12%

23 Construction 7% 5% 7% 6% 4% 6%

31-33 Manufacturing 0% 1% 0% -3% -5% -2%

41 Wholesale trade 2% 1% 0% 2% -4% 4%

44-45 Retail trade 5% 6% 5% 3% 3% 6%

48-49 Transportation and warehousing 4% 5% 7% 3% 6% 7%

51 Information and cultural industries 8% 14% 11% 1% 9% 11%

52 Finance and insurance 1% 4% 4% 3% 1% 6%

53 Real estate and rental and leasing 2% 2% 5% 5% 6% 4%

54 Professional, scientific and technical services 8% 7% 7% 6% 6% 7%

55 Management of companies and enterprises -5% 0% -2% 2% 1% -35%

56 Administrative and support, waste management and remediation services

5% 3% 4% 4% 1% 5%

61 Educational services 6% 7% 5% 5% 8% 5%

62 Health care and social assistance 5% 5% 6% 3% 5% 4%

71 Arts, entertainment and recreation 3% 4% 2% -1% -1% 2%

72 Accommodation and food services 11% 10% 10% 9% 9% 9%

81 Other services (except public administration) 2% 4% 4% 2% 2% 1%

91 Public administration -3% 1% -2% -1% 0% -2%

Unclassified -18% -17% -18% -18% -18% -18%



FIGURE 18: # OF JOBS BY NAICS INDUSTRY, BURLINGTON AND COMPARATOR JURISDICTIONS, 2014

NAICS Industry Category Burlington Oakville Mississauga Hamilton Markham Region of Waterloo

11 Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting 190 50 393 1,855 178 1,724

21 Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction

82 39 419 110 27 213

22 Utilities 415 527 1,763 902 574 630

23 Construction 5,071 4,455 18,085 11,931 5,602 14,731

31-33 Manufacturing 12,780 10,773 57,728 21,552 13,683 46,245

41 Wholesale trade 7,436 6,229 53,258 8,191 18,354 15,427

44-45 Retail trade 13,217 10,638 46,433 24,585 12,400 31,107

48-49 Transportation and warehousing 2,791 2,734 52,116 7,261 2,810 9,863

51 Information and cultural industries 2,335 1,630 11,495 2,884 4,031 5,494

52 Finance and insurance 3,922 3,963 24,409 6,284 9,685 15,938

53 Real estate and rental and leasing 1,245 1,489 9,283 3,908 2,829 3,810

54 Professional, scientific and technical services

5,848 6,129 32,628 6,971 18,576 13,818

55 Management of companies and enterprises 1,279 1,116 3,924 897 1,544 774


4,984 4,682 36,541 10,541 11,037 12,091

61 Educational services 5,332 6,496 20,585 23,650 7,841 23,426

62 Health care and social assistance 7,400 7,662 27,350 33,182 7,560 23,371

71 Arts, entertainment and recreation 1,230 1,222 2,559 2,724 1,372 2,524

72 Accommodation and food services 7,692 6,448 24,581 14,244 7,619 16,988

81 Other services (except public administration)

3,257 3,765 13,856 9,558 5,025 8,418

91 Public administration 2,899 4,269 13,089 12,286 2,660 9,932

Unclassified 1,394 1,323 6,919 3,220 2,128 4,105

Total 90,799 85,636 457,413 206,736 135,536 260,629



Average Earnings by Industry

In terms of the average earnings from

employment, Burlington ranks in the

bottom half relative to comparator

jurisdictions with average earnings at

$47,586 (as seen in Figure 19).

This is above the earnings in both:

Hamilton ($43,455) and,

Region of Waterloo ($47,251),

However it is below those in:

Oakville ($49,035),

Mississauga ($50,807), and

Markham ($51,774).

It should be noted, however, that

these lower average earnings are

likely attributable to the prominence

of certain lower wage sectors in

Burlington (such as retail) rather than

a general trend of overall lower

wages in Burlington. As a result, the

effects of these lower wages in terms

of competitive advantages or

disadvantages will be mixed for

Burlington depending on the specific

industries being discussed.

FIGURE 19: AVERAGE EARNINGS, BURLINGTON AND COMPARATOR JURISDICTIONS, 2014


$47,586

$49,035

$50,807

$43,455

$51,774

$47,251

$38,000

$40,000

$42,000

$44,000

$46,000

$48,000

$50,000

$52,000

$54,000



Labour Force by Occupation

Burlington saw the largest increases among comparator jurisdictions in employment by occupation between 2011 and 2014 in (as seen in Figure 20, Figure 21, and Figure 22):

E - Occupations in social science, education, government service and religion (15% increase, 6,987 people in 2014)

F - Occupations in art, culture, recreation and sport (12% increase, 1,908 people in 2014)

I - Occupations unique to primary industry (10% increase, 880 people in 2014)8

H - Trades, transport and equipment operators and related occupations (7% increase, 13,280 people in 2014)

Burlington was also among the top jurisdictions that saw growth in:

J - Occupations unique to processing, manufacturing and utilities (3% increase, 7,300 people in 2014)

D - Health occupations (5% increase, 4,261 people employed in 2014)

In terms of declining employment in occupations, Burlington was among those jurisdictions seeing the largest decreases

in:

C - Natural and applied sciences and related occupations (2% decrease, 6,471 people in 2014)

8 It is interesting to note that all other jurisdictions except for Hamilton saw large decreases in employment for these occupations.


FIGURE 20: CHANGE IN # OF JOBS BY OCCUPATION (NOC-S), BURLINGTON AND COMPARATOR JURISDICTIONS, 2011-2014


NOC-S Categories: A - Management occupations, B - Business, finance and administrative occupations, C - Natural and applied sciences and related occupations, D - Health occupations, E - Occupations in social science, education, government service and religion, F - Occupations in art, culture, recreation and sport, G - Sales and service occupations, H - Trades, transport and equipment operators and related occupations, I - Occupations unique to primary industry, J - Occupations unique to processing, manufacturing and utilities

(25%)

(20%)

(15%)

(10%)

(5%)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

A B C D E F G H I J



FIGURE 21: CHANGE IN # OF JOBS BY OCCUPATION (NOC-S) DATA TABLE, BURLINGTON AND COMPARATOR JURISDICTIONS, 2011-2014

Occupational Category

% Change


A Management occupations 0% -4% -3% -1% -4% -4%

B Business, finance and administrative occupations

1% 4% 3% -2% 1% 4%

C Natural and applied sciences and related occupations

-2% 2% 1% -5% -2% 7%

D Health occupations 5% -2% -1% 5% -2% 16%

E Occupations in social science, education, government service and religion

15% 9% 9% 14% 9% 8%

F Occupations in art, culture, recreation and sport 12% 3% 0% 0% -2% 6%

G Sales and service occupations 4% 8% 9% 3% 6% 2%

H Trades, transport and equipment operators and related occupations

7% 5% 6% 4% 4% 3%

I Occupations unique to primary industry 10% -18% -21% 6% -21% -6%

J Occupations unique to processing, manufacturing and utilities

3% 8% 2% 2% 2% -1%

Unclassified -18% -17% -18% -18% -18% -18%



FIGURE 22: # OF JOBS BY OCCUPATION (NOC-S), BURLINGTON AND COMPARATOR JURISDICTIONS, 2014

Occupational Category Burlington Oakville Mississauga Hamilton Markham Region of Waterloo

A Management occupations 7,005 6,503 37,880 12,912 11,895 17,332

B Business, finance and administrative occupations

16,132 16,828 105,174 36,006 31,367 47,242

C Natural and applied sciences and related occupations

6,471 7,345 46,126 10,380 18,913 22,595

D Health occupations 4,261 4,328 15,966 18,695 4,482 14,363

E Occupations in social science, education, government service and religion

6,987 8,504 32,381 24,237 11,205 24,298

F Occupations in art, culture, recreation and sport 1,908 2,578 9,392 4,405 3,664 5,190

G Sales and service occupations 25,180 22,282 112,419 51,569 31,107 62,111

H Trades, transport and equipment operators and related occupations

13,280 9,843 57,655 29,742 12,531 37,311

I Occupations unique to primary industry 880 373 1,646 3,116 542 3,056

J Occupations unique to processing, manufacturing and utilities

7,300 5,728 31,855 12,454 7,702 23,025

Unclassified 1,394 1,323 6,919 3,220 2,128 4,105

Total 90,799 85,636 457,413 206,736 135,536 260,629



Average Earnings by Occupation

In terms of the average hourly earnings from

employment in each occupation, Burlington ranks

last relative to comparator jurisdictions with

average hourly earnings at $23.67 (as seen in

Figure 23).

This is below the hourly earnings of each of the

Region of Waterloo ($24.00), Hamilton ($24.05),

Oakville ($24.20), Mississauga ($24.46), and

Markham ($25.50).

These lower average hourly earnings present a

potential competitive disadvantage for Burlington

in attracting more skilled talent to the city (though

it should be noted again that these lower earnings

are likely due to the prominence of certain low

wage occupations in Burlington and not

necessarily reflective of competitive advantages or

disadvantages in specific occupations).

As seen in Figure 24, however, Burlington ranks

among the higher average hourly earnings relative

to comparator jurisdictions for “E - occupations in

social science, education, government service and

religion” ($32.68), “G - sales and service

occupations” ($16.97), and “J - occupations

unique to processing, manufacturing and utilities”

($22.11).

Burlington ranks low relative to comparator jurisdictions in “A - management occupations” ($39.62), “B - business, finance

and administrative occupations” ($23.19), “C - natural and applied sciences and related occupations” ($32.64), “F -

occupations in art, culture, recreation and sport” ($22.27), and “I - occupations unique to primary industry” ($16.86).

Hamilton, Mississauga, and Markham are the three most prevalent “top average hourly earnings” by occupation of all


FIGURE 23: AVERAGE HOURLY EARNINGS, BURLINGTON AND COMPARATOR JURISDICTIONS, 2014


$23.67

$24.20

$24.46

$24.05

$25.50

$24.00

$22.50

$23.00

$23.50

$24.00

$24.50

$25.00

$25.50

$26.00



FIGURE 24: AVERAGE HOURLY EARNINGS BY OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY, BURLINGTON AND COMPARATOR JURISDICTIONS, 2014

Occupational Category Burlington Oakville Mississauga Hamilton Markham Region of Waterloo

A - Management occupations $39.62 $40.78 $41.07 $39.42 $41.85 $40.27

B - Business, finance and administrative occupations $23.19 $23.77 $23.50 $22.77 $24.09 $23.35

C - Natural and applied sciences and related occupations $32.64 $34.48 $34.77 $32.37 $34.61 $33.49

D - Health occupations $28.00 $27.84 $28.12 $29.10 $27.89 $28.28

E - Occupations in social science, education, government service and religion

$32.68 $31.91 $32.81 $32.84 $32.61 $31.93

F - Occupations in art, culture, recreation and sport $22.27 $24.55 $25.95 $22.13 $25.79 $22.79

G - Sales and service occupations $16.97 $15.95 $17.02 $16.81 $16.93 $17.16

H - Trades, transport and equipment operators and related occupations

$23.02 $23.24 $22.48 $23.48 $23.23 $22.93

I - Occupations unique to primary industry $16.86 $18.12 $18.29 $16.11 $17.84 $16.93

J - Occupations unique to processing, manufacturing and utilities

$22.11 $20.22 $18.57 $22.66 $18.21 $20.48

Total $23.67 $24.20 $24.46 $24.05 $25.50 $24.00


Note: represent the top hourly earnings for each occupational category


1.4 Business Profile9

1.4.1 Business Patterns Assessment

Statistics Canada’s Canadian Business Patterns Data provides a record of business establishments in Canada by

industry and size. Collected by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), business data collected includes all local

businesses that meet at least one of the three following criteria:

Have an employee workforce for which they submit payroll remittances to CRA; or

Have a minimum of $30,000 in annual sales revenue; or

Are incorporated under a federal or provincial act and have filed a federal corporate income tax form within the past

three years.

The Canadian Business Patterns Data records business counts by “Total”, “Indeterminate” and “Subtotal” categories. The

establishments in the “Indeterminate” category include the self-employed (i.e. those who do not maintain an employee

payroll, but may have a workforce consisting of contracted workers, family members or business owners). It should be

noted that the Canadian Business Patterns Data uses the CRA as a primary resource in establishment counts; therefore,

businesses without a business number or indicating annual sales less than $30,000 are not included. The population of

these small, unincorporated businesses is thought to be in the range of 600,000 in all of Canada.

Business Patterns in Burlington and Comparator Jurisdictions – 2009 to 201310

As seen in Figure 25 and Figure 26 below, Burlington saw the largest increases among comparator jurisdictions in number of business establishments between 2009 and 2013 in:

11 - Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting (98% increase, 81 business establishments in 2013)

51 - Information and cultural industries (42% increase, 254 business establishments in 2013)

71 - Arts, entertainment and recreation (32% increase, 241 business establishments in 2013)

9 It should be noted that due to the availability of statistical data through EMSI Analyst, Canadian Business Patterns data used throughout the Competitive Analysis is from June 2009,

June 2013, and June 2014. This data is consistently used throughout the Competitive Analysis but does represent a slightly different period of data used than the Burlington Economic Vision Economic Base Analysis (which used December 2008, December 2013, and December 2014 data). Given the different data periods used, direct comparisons between business patterns values in the Competitive Analysis and the Economic Base Analysis should not be made, though general trends arising from the findings in both sections are still comparable given the short time period between data sets. 10

It should be noted that due to changes in Statistics Canada methodology, Canadian Business Patterns data from 2014 should not be compared with previous periods of data. In its

place, 2013 data is used.


56 - Administrative and support, waste management and remediation services (29% increase, 736 business

establishments in 2013)

23 - Construction (21% increase, 1,385 business establishments in 2013)

31-33 - Manufacturing (4% increase, 597 business establishments in 2013)

Burlington was also among the top jurisdictions that saw growth in:

62 - Health care and social assistance (52% increase, 947 business establishments in 2013)

21 - Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction (50% increase, 9 business establishments in 2013)

53 - Real estate and rental and leasing (37% increase, 1,465 business establishments in 2013)

48-49 - Transportation and warehousing (17% increase, 506 business establishments in 2013)

52 - Finance and insurance (12% increase, 975 business establishments in 2013)

61 - Educational services (5% increase, 177 business establishments in 2013)

Burlington was among the bottom jurisdictions in:

22 - Utilities (11% increase, 10 business establishments in 2013)

44-45 - Retail trade (6% increase, 1,278 business establishments in 2013)

54 - Professional, scientific and technical services (10% increase, 2,653 business establishments in 2013)

72 - Accommodation and food services (6% increase, 478 business establishments in 2013)

91 - Public administration (25% decrease, 3 business establishments in 2013)


FIGURE 25: CHANGE IN # OF BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS BY NAICS INDUSTRY CATEGORY, BURLINGTON AND COMPARATOR

JURISDICTIONS, 2009-2013

Source: EMSI, Canadian Business Patterns, Statistics Canada, June 2009 & 2013, adapted by Millier Dickinson Blais

NAIC Categories: 11-Agriculture; forestry; fishing and hunting, 21-Mining; quarrying; and oil and gas extraction, 22-Utilities, 23-Construction, 31-33 Manufacturing, 41-Wholesale trade, 44-45 Retail trade, 48-49 Transportation and warehousing, 51-Information and cultural industries, 52-Finance and insurance, 53-Real estate and rental and leasing, 54-Professional; scientific and technical services, 55-Management of companies and enterprises, 56-Administrative and support; waste management and remediation services, 61-Educational services, 62-Health care and social assistance, 71-Arts; entertainment and recreation, 72-Accommodation and food services, 81-Other services (except public administration), 91-Public administration

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

11 21 22 23 31-33 41 44-45 48-49 51 52 53 54 55 56 61 62 71 72 81 91



FIGURE 26: CHANGE IN THE # OF BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS BY NAICS INDUSTRY CATEGORY DATA TABLE, BURLINGTON AND

COMPARATOR JURISDICTIONS, 2009-2013

% Change (2009-2013)


11 Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting 98% 39% 10% 28% 17% 43%

21 Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction 50% 150% 50% 29% 85% -14%

22 Utilities 11% -16% 59% 53% 25% 9%

23 Construction 21% 8% 11% 11% 20% 6%

31-33 Manufacturing 4% -1% -6% -4% -4% -2%

41 Wholesale trade -6% -8% -9% -9% -10% -12%

44-45 Retail trade 6% 13% 9% 0% 9% 8%

48-49 Transportation and warehousing 17% 11% 20% 13% 35% 13%

51 Information and cultural industries 42% 28% 19% 19% 19% 28%

52 Finance and insurance 12% 6% 9% 10% 12% 6%

53 Real estate and rental and leasing 37% 41% 28% 29% 41% 30%

54 Professional, scientific and technical services 10% 11% 16% 6% 11% 10%

55 Management of companies and enterprises -10% -11% -12% -12% -14% -13%


29% 8% 3% 11% 14% 1%

61 Educational services 5% -2% 11% -1% 11% 1%

62 Health care and social assistance 52% 62% 44% 48% 59% 38%

71 Arts, entertainment and recreation 32% 14% 1% 11% 15% 4%

72 Accommodation and food services 6% 9% 9% 8% 7% 11%

81 Other services (except public administration) 1% -14% -3% 6% -3% 4%

91 Public administration -25% 0% -15% 20% 100% 18%

Source: EMSI, Canadian Business Patterns, Statistics Canada, June 2009 & 2013, adapted by Millier Dickinson Blais


Business Patterns in Burlington and Comparator Jurisdictions – 2014

As seen in Figure 27, the top employer industries in terms of the largest shares of business establishments across all

comparator jurisdictions is almost identical.

The top industries are (in varying order depending on the jurisdiction):

54 - Professional, scientific and technical services

53 - Real estate and rental and leasing

44-45 - Retail trade11

23 - Construction

The top self-employed industries in terms of the largest shares of business establishments across all comparator

jurisdictions are also almost identical.

The top industries are (in varying order depending on the jurisdiction):

54 - Professional, scientific and technical services

53 - Real estate and rental and leasing

23 - Construction

48-49 - Transportation and warehousing12

52 - Finance and insurance13

The large presence of these industries in Burlington and across all comparator jurisdictions highlights the importance of

these industries to the economies of Burlington and comparator jurisdictions for both employer and self-employed

businesses. Particular attention needs to be taken when designing economic policy that may affect business in each of

these industries in Burlington, especially recognizing that the market to attract workforce talent and business in these

industries will be very competitive.

11 Transportation and warehousing replaces this industry in the top four of Mississauga

12 Top four for Mississauga and Hamilton

13 Top four for Burlington, Oakville, Markham, and the Region of Waterloo


FIGURE 27: # OF BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS, BURLINGTON AND COMPARATOR JURISDICTIONS, 2014

2014


11 Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting 92 43 118 551 108 1,278

21 Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction 9 33 34 23 29 25

22 Utilities 13 15 66 29 32 41

23 Construction 1,424 1,562 6,282 4,090 2,566 4,000

31-33 Manufacturing 594 547 2,918 1,066 1,123 1,735

41 Wholesale trade 876 945 4,440 1,095 2,150 1,507

44-45 Retail trade 1,310 1,363 5,194 2,917 2,684 3,316

48-49 Transportation and warehousing 525 631 6,279 2,069 1,114 2,207

51 Information and cultural industries 263 311 826 351 432 390

52 Finance and insurance 1,035 1,214 3,045 1,563 2,199 2,130

53 Real estate and rental and leasing 1,564 2,027 6,294 3,461 4,162 4,265

54 Professional, scientific and technical services 2,684 4,276 11,191 3,554 6,863 4,482

55 Management of companies and enterprises 643 770 2,064 943 1,153 1,456


769 794 3,031 1,528 1,341 1,412

61 Educational services 185 269 646 356 390 401

62 Health care and social assistance 993 1,323 2,978 2,468 1,459 2,202

71 Arts, entertainment and recreation 245 261 560 424 274 432

72 Accommodation and food services 492 502 2,102 1,364 1,338 1,286

81 Other services (except public administration) 1,097 1,110 4,217 2,776 2,193 2,812

91 Public administration 5 7 13 7 8 15

Total 14,818 18,003 62,298 30,635 31,618 35,392

Source: EMSI, Canadian Business Patterns, Statistics Canada, June 2014, adapted by Millier Dickinson Blais

Note: illustrates the top industries for each comparator jurisdiction


Location Quotients in Burlington and Comparator Jurisdictions – 2014

In order to determine the level and degree of industrial specialization that has developed in Burlington, Location

Quotients (LQs) have been calculated to measure the relative concentration of business activity by major industry sector.

Location quotients are a commonly used tool in regional economic analysis. They assess the concentration of economic

activities within a smaller area relative to the overarching region(s) in which it resides. LQ’s have been calculated to

compare the City of Burlington to the broader trends in the five comparator jurisdiction economies. This LQ analysis will

help highlight the industries in which Burlington has competitive advantages based on the number of business

establishments.

A location quotient greater than 1.25 for a given sector indicates a local concentration of economic activity as compared

to the overarching region and may be an indication of competitive advantage with respect to the attraction of that industry

sector.

Location quotients equal to 1.0 for a given sector suggest that the study area has the same concentration of economic

activity as the overarching comparator (in this case the province of Ontario).

Finally, a location quotient of less than 0.75 suggests that the place in question does not have a strong competitive

advantage in that sector.

As seen in Figure 28 below, Burlington has a high degree of specialization (i.e. location quotient) relative to Ontario by

number of business establishments in:

41 - Wholesale trade (1.46) – Oakville, Mississauga, and Markham also have this specialization (1.29, 1.76, and

1.68 respectively). This specialization represents a competitive advantage for Burlington as it is in the top three

relative to comparator jurisdictions.

55 - Management of companies and enterprises (1.28) – Oakville is the only other comparator jurisdiction with this

specialization (1.26), which is slightly less than Burlington.

This specialization represents a competitive advantage for Burlington.

Areas where Burlington has competitive disadvantages (i.e. Burlington has low or moderate degrees of specialization

whereas comparator jurisdictions have high specialization) include:

31-33 Manufacturing (1.17) – relative to Mississauga at 1.37 and the Region of Waterloo at 1.43

48-49 Transportation and warehousing (0.58) – relative to Mississauga at 1.66

54 Professional, scientific and technical services (1.20) – relative to Oakville at 1.57 and Markham at 1.43


61 Educational services (1.16) – relative to Oakville at 1.39

62 Health care and social assistance (1.09) – relative to Hamilton at 1.31

FIGURE 28: LOCATION QUOTIENTS BY # OF BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS, BURLINGTON AND COMPARATOR JURISDICTIONS, 2014

Location Quotient vs. Ontario (2014)


11 Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting 0.16 0.06 0.05 0.46 0.09 0.93

21 Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction 0.34 1.04 0.31 0.43 0.52 0.40

22 Utilities 0.69 0.66 0.84 0.75 0.80 0.92

23 Construction 0.86 0.77 0.90 1.19 0.72 1.01

31-33 Manufacturing 1.17 0.89 1.37 1.02 1.04 1.43

41 Wholesale trade 1.46 1.29 1.76 0.88 1.68 1.05

44-45 Retail trade 1.01 0.86 0.95 1.08 0.97 1.07

48-49 Transportation and warehousing 0.58 0.58 1.66 1.11 0.58 1.03

51 Information and cultural industries 1.02 0.99 0.76 0.66 0.78 0.63

52 Finance and insurance 1.18 1.14 0.83 0.86 1.18 1.02

53 Real estate and rental and leasing 0.93 0.99 0.89 0.99 1.15 1.06

54 Professional, scientific and technical services 1.20 1.57 1.19 0.77 1.43 0.84

55 Management of companies and enterprises 1.28 1.26 0.98 0.91 1.08 1.22


1.21 1.03 1.14 1.17 0.99 0.93

61 Educational services 1.16 1.39 0.96 1.08 1.15 1.05

62 Health care and social assistance 1.09 1.20 0.78 1.31 0.75 1.01

71 Arts, entertainment and recreation 1.03 0.90 0.56 0.86 0.54 0.76

72 Accommodation and food services 0.84 0.70 0.85 1.12 1.06 0.91

81 Other services (except public administration) 0.99 0.82 0.90 1.21 0.92 1.06

91 Public administration 0.25 0.28 0.15 0.17 0.18 0.31

Source: EMSI, Canadian Business Patterns, Statistics Canada, June 2014, adapted by Millier Dickinson Blais

Note: Over 1.25 = High Concentration; Under 0.75 = Low Concentration


1.5 Development and Expansion Costs14

1.5.1 Prototype Build Scenarios

The following section presents a high level summary of the total costs needed to develop a 100,000 ft2 industrial facility

and a 50,000 ft2 office facility in Burlington and comparator jurisdictions. These total costs are meant to be used as a high

level comparison to understand the relative costs associated with each type of development. It should be noted that the

scenarios below do not account for constructions costs across any of the comparator regions, although, it can be

reasonably assumed that there would be little variation between areas for the different scenarios.

Any information included in the prototype build scenarios presented below is not meant to be used as or to

replace a detailed analysis or pro forma of industrial and office developments.

Various development and expansion costs used to calculate the relative cost of development in the prototype build

scenarios were determined in cooperation with the Burlington Economic Development Corporation. The criteria are as

follows:

Site Plan Fees

Development Charges

Building Permit Fees

Land Values

In calculating the relative cost of development, some important assumptions were made. These assumptions are:15

For a 100,000 ft2 industrial development, a 35% site coverage allowance was used as a general industry

average. Conservatively speaking, this would require seven acres of land being needed to accommodate this

type of industrial development scenario. The potential employment density for industrial developments is

estimated at 899.5 ft2 per job.

For a 50,000 ft2 office development, a 50% site coverage allowance was used as a general industry average. A

development of this size would generally require three acres of land in order to accommodate this type of office

development scenario. The potential employment density for office developments is estimated at 209.82 ft2 per

job.

14 In order to make direct comparisons between development and expansion costs in comparator communities, the major centers making up the Region of Waterloo (i.e. the City of

Waterloo, the City of Kitchener, and the City of Cambridge) are presented separately in this section. 15

As outlined in the City of Burlington “Employment Lands Operational Plan – Portfolio Assessment Criteria”, pg. 6


Industrial Development

The relative cost for a 100,000 ft2 industrial facility in Burlington is $5,566,075 (as seen in Figure 29). This ranks towards

the middle of comparator jurisdictions with the highest total costs in Markham ($8,564,703), Mississauga ($8,205,568),

and Oakville ($6,973,086) and the lowest costs in Kitchener ($2,717,607), Cambridge ($3,049,294), Waterloo

($3,400,590), and Hamilton ($3,836,445).

Burlington’s positioning relative to comparator jurisdictions highlights Burlington’s competitive advantages in attracting

industrial developments when competing with communities to its east (i.e. Oakville, Mississauga, and Markham), and

Burlington’s competitive disadvantages when competing with communities to its west (i.e. Hamilton, Waterloo, Kitchener,

and Cambridge).

FIGURE 29: TOTAL DEVELOPMENT AND EXPANSION COSTS FOR A 100,000 FT2 INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, BURLINGTON AND COMPARATOR

JURISDICTIONS, 2015

Source: Based on publicly available information found on each comparator jurisdiction municipal website. Land values based on CBRE Research, Q1 2015. Hamilton land values sourced directly from the Economic Development Division at the City of Hamilton

$5,566,075

$6,973,086

$8,205,568

$3,836,445

$8,564,703

$3,400,590

$2,717,607

$3,049,294

$-

$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

Burlington Oakville Mississauga Hamilton Markham Waterloo Kitchener Cambridge


As seen in Figure 30, the largest contributors to Burlington’s competitive positioning relative to comparator jurisdictions it

has an advantage over is found in development charges and the cost of land ($1,809,000 for development charges and

$3,675,000 for cost of land in Burlington). When assessing the relative positioning to Hamilton, it is clear that the

disadvantage to Burlington from a cost perspective rests in the price of land, as all other development costs are notably

higher in Hamilton.

Based on the assumptions presented above that are found in the City of Burlington “Employment Lands Operational Plan – Portfolio Assessment Criteria”, the potential employment from a 100,000 ft

2 industrial facility in Burlington is 111 jobs.

FIGURE 30: TOTAL AND INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT AND EXPANSION COSTS FOR A 100,000 FT2 INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT,

BURLINGTON AND COMPARATOR JURISDICTIONS, 2015

Total Cost Development Charges* Site Plan Fees

Building Permit Fees

Land Cost

Markham $8,564,703 $2,135,000 $33,703 $96,000 $6,300,000

Mississauga $8,205,568 $2,107,000 $48,566 $100,002 $5,950,000

Oakville $6,973,086 $2,115,000 $58,086 $75,000 $4,725,000

Burlington $5,566,075 $1,809,000 $17,063 $65,013 $3,675,000

Hamilton $3,836,445 $1,950,000 $55,430 $81,015 $1,750,000ᶲ

Waterloo $3,400,590 $1,238,000 $7,590~ $55,000 $2,100,000ᶲ

Cambridge $3,049,294 $884,000 $9,294 $91,000 $2,065,000ᶲ

Kitchener $2,717,607 $690,000 $20,607 $ 82,000 $1,925,000ᶲ


*Totals calculated using ‘Built Boundary’ as criteria

~ No variable fee available for site plan review

ᶲ Individual average values calculated for jurisdictions with ranges for land values

Office Development

The relative cost for a 50,000 ft2 office facility in Burlington is $2,582,063 (as seen in Figure 31). This ranks towards the

middle of comparator jurisdictions with the highest total costs in Mississauga ($4,100,566), Markham ($3,869,703), and


Oakville ($3,216,586) and the lowest costs in Kitchener ($1,575,607), Cambridge ($1,684,294), Waterloo ($1,838,590),

and Hamilton ($1,861,430).

Once again, from a cost perspective, Burlington’s positioning relative to comparator jurisdictions highlights competitive

advantages in attracting office developments when competing with communities to its east (i.e. Oakville, Mississauga,

and Markham), and Burlington’s competitive disadvantages when competing with communities to its west (i.e. Hamilton,

Waterloo, Kitchener, and Cambridge). That said, it must be understood that vacancy rates, absorption, and a myriad of

other environmental factors are associated development decisions.

FIGURE 31: TOTAL DEVELOPMENT AND EXPANSION COSTS FOR 50,000 FT2 OFFICE DEVELOPMENT, BURLINGTON AND COMPARATOR

JURISDICTIONS, 2015


As seen in Figure 32, the largest contributors to Burlington’s competitive positioning relative to comparator jurisdictions

where there is a competitive advantage is again found in development charges and the cost of land ($904,500 for

development charges and $1,575,000 for cost of land in Burlington). As was the case for industrial development above,

when assessing Hamilton, again it is the price of land that is considerably lower which provides the distinct competitive

$2,582,063

$3,216,586

$4,100,566

$1,861,430

$3,869,703

$1,838,590

$1,575,607

$1,684,294

$-

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$3,000,000

$3,500,000

$4,000,000

$4,500,000

Burlington Oakville Mississauga Hamilton Markham Waterloo Kitchener Cambridge


disadvantage for Burlington. That being said, the gap in development related costs between the two communities is less

stark, than with industrial development, with site plan fees being the most notable difference.

Based on the assumptions presented above that are found in the City of Burlington “Employment Lands Operational Plan

– Portfolio Assessment Criteria”, the potential employment from a 50,000 ft2 office facility in Burlington is 238 jobs.

FIGURE 32: TOTAL AND INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT AND EXPANSION COSTS FOR 50,000 FT2 OFFICE DEVELOPMENT, BURLINGTON AND

COMPARATOR JURISDICTIONS, 2015

Total Cost Development Charges Site Plan Fees

Building Permit Fees*

Land Cost~

Mississauga $4,100,566 $1,427,500 $48,566 $74,500 $2,550,000

Markham $3,869,703 $1,067,500 $33,703 $68,500 $2,700,000

Oakville $3,216,586 $1,057,500 $58,086 $76,000 $2,025,000

Burlington $2,582,063 $904,500 $17,063 $85,500 $1,575,000

Waterloo $1,838,590 $863,500 $7,590ᶧ $67,500 $900,000ᶲ

Hamilton $1,861,430 $975,000 $55,430 $81,000 $750,000ᶲ

Cambridge $1,684,294 $686,500 $9,294 $103,500 $885,000ᶲ

Kitchener $1,575,607 $627,500 $20,607 $102,500 $825,000ᶲ


*Calculations assume “2-10 storeys” for the office development

~ Based on industrial land values using the general assumption that these numbers represent the relative value of vacant employment lands in each jurisdiction

ᶧ No variable fee available for site plan review

ᶲ Individual average values calculated for jurisdictions with ranges for land values


1.5.2 Site Plan Fees

As seen in Figure 33 and Figure 34, Burlington ranks on the lower end of the comparator jurisdictions when it comes to

both flat and variable site plan fees for office developments and industrial developments.

These fees include a flat fee for office and industrial development in Burlington at $5,910 and a variable fee (per 100m²)

for office and industrial development at $120.

Burlington’s relative positioning for site plan fees gives it a competitive advantage in attracting development to the city.

FIGURE 33: SITE PLAN FEES, BURLINGTON AND COMPARATOR JURISDICTIONS, 2015

Office Industrial

Flat Fee Variable Fee Flat Fee Variable Fee

City Fee Relative % per 100m² (1,076 ft

2)

Relative % Fee Relative % per 100m² (1,076 ft

2)

Relative %

Oakville* $13,382 226% $481 401% $13,382 226% $481 401%

Hamilton $8,960 152% $500~ 417% $8,960 152% $500~ 417%

Mississaugaᶲ $8,194 139% See Figure 34 n/a $8,194 139% See Figure 34 n/a

Waterloo $7,590 128% n/a¹ n/a¹ $7,590 128% n/a¹ n/a¹

Markham $6,750 114% $290 242% $6,750 114% $290 242%

Burlingtonˮ $5,910 100% $120 100% $5,910 100% $120 100%

Kitchenerᶧ $4,342 73% $175 146% $4,342 73% $175 146%

Cambridge n/a n/a $100ᶰ 83% n/a n/a $100ᶰ 83%

Source: Based on publicly available information found on each comparator jurisdiction municipal website

* 2015 proposed base fee

~ Max variable fees charged at 5,000 m² for industrial and 50,000 m² for commercial

ᶲ Max charge of $54,630 for industrial, commercial, institutional (ICI)

¹ No variable fee available for site plan review

ˮ Does not include Conservation Halton or Halton Region fee

ᶧ Does not include parking

ᶰ There is a minimum fee of $3,000 and a maximum fee of $10,000


FIGURE 34: VARIABLE SITE PLAN FEES, MISSISSAUGA, 2015

Mississauga Variable Site Plan Fees

m² range $ per 100m²

First 2,000 m² $700

2,001-4,500 m² $500

4,501-7,000 m² $306

Greater than 7,000 m² $147

Source: http://www6.mississauga.ca/onlinemaps/planbldg/Miscell-P&B/2015PlanningActFeesBylaw.pdf, adapted by Millier Dickinson Blais

1.5.3 Development Charges16

Office Development Charges

In terms of development charges for office development, Burlington ranks on the lower end of comparator jurisdictions,

with development charges less costly only in the communities found in the Region of Waterloo (i.e. Waterloo, Kitchener,

and Cambridge, as seen in Figure 35 below).

With a built boundary charge of $194.71/m² and a Greenfield charge of $227.86/m², Burlington has a distinct competitive

advantage in attracting more office development to the city.

16 All development charges represent the total development charge for each location, incorporating local, regional, and school board development charges into the figures.

http://www6.mississauga.ca/onlinemaps/planbldg/Miscell-P&B/2015PlanningActFeesBylaw.pdf


FIGURE 35: DEVELOPMENT CHARGES FOR OFFICE DEVELOPMENTS, BURLINGTON AND COMPARATOR JURISDICTIONS, 2015

Office

Built Boundary Greenfield

City $/m² $/ft2 Relative % $/m² $/ft

2 Relative %

Mississaugaᶲ $307.36 $28.55 158% $307.36 $28.55 135%

Markham $229.82 $21.35 118% $229.82 $21.35 101%

Oakville $227.71 $21.15 117% $260.86 $24.23 114%

Hamiltonᶰ $209.90 $19.50 108% $209.90 $19.50 92%

Burlington $194.71 $18.09 100% $227.86 $21.17 100%

Waterloo $185.91 $17.27 95% $185.91 $17.27 82%

Cambridge $147.79 $13.73 76% $147.79 $13.73 65%

Kitchener¹ $135.10 $12.55 69% $135.10 $12.55 59%


ᶲ Development charges do not include Mississauga storm water management fee

ᶰ Effective until July 5 2015. Does not include special area charges for Binbrook and Dundas/Waterdown

¹ City development charges are for Full Services Central Neighbourhood

Industrial Development Charges

In terms of development charges for industrial development, Burlington ranks on the lower end of comparator jurisdictions

with development charges less costly only in the communities found in the Region of Waterloo (as seen in Figure 36).


advantage in attracting more industrial development to the city.

It should be noted that this competitive advantage is smaller than that for office development (above).


FIGURE 36: DEVELOPMENT CHARGES FOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS, BURLINGTON AND COMPARATOR JURISDICTIONS, 2015

Industrial



2 Relative %

Markham $229.82 $21.35 118% $229.82 $21.35 101%

Oakville $227.71 $21.15 117% $260.86 $24.23 114%

Mississaugaᶲ $226.82 $21.07 116% $226.82 $21.07 99.5%

Hamiltonᶰ $209.90 $19.50 108% $209.90 $19.50 92%

Burlington $194.71 $18.09 100% $227.86 $21.17 100%

Waterloo $133.27 $12.38 68% $133.27 $12.38 58%

Cambridge $95.15 $ 8.84 49% $95.15 $8.84 42%

Kitchener¹ $74.22 $6.90 38% $74.22 $6.90 33%




¹ City development charges are for Full Services Central Neighbourhood. For the period of July 1, 2014 to March 1, 2019, industrial development will be charged 50% of the non-residential development charge rate. After March 1, 2019, industrial development will be charged the non-residential development charge rate. For the purpose of determining the development charge, definition 2.9 (existing industrial building) is used.

Retail Development Charges

In terms of development charges for retail development, Burlington ranks on the higher end of comparator jurisdictions

with development charges less costly in every comparator jurisdiction except for Markham (as seen in Figure 37).


disadvantage in attracting more retail development to the city.


FIGURE 37: DEVELOPMENT CHARGES FOR RETAIL DEVELOPMENTS, BURLINGTON AND COMPARATOR JURISDICTIONS, 2015

Retail



2 Relative %

Markham $432.42 $40.17 115% $432.42 $40.17 105%

Burlington $376.88 $35.01 100% $410.03 $38.09 100%

Oakville $367.52 $34.14 98% $400.67 $37.22 98%

Mississaugaᶲ $307.36 $28.55 82% $307.36 $28.55 75%

Hamiltonᶰ $209.90 $19.50 56% $209.90 $19.50 51%

Waterloo $185.91 $17.27 49% $185.91 $17.27 45%

Cambridge $147.79 $13.73 39% $147.79 $13.73 36%

Kitchener¹ $135.10 $12.55 36% $135.10 $12.55 33%




¹ City development charges are for Full Services Central Neighbourhood

1.5.4 Building Permit Fees

Office Development Building Permit Fees

As seen in Figure 38, Burlington ranks on the higher end of comparator jurisdictions when it comes to building permit fees

for office developments.

These fees include a fee of $18.00/m² for offices up to two storeys, $18.40/m² for offices between two and ten storeys,

and $20.50/m² for office developments more than ten storeys.

Burlington’s relative positioning for building permit fees for office developments gives it a competitive disadvantage in

attracting new office development to the city.


FIGURE 38: BUILDING PERMIT FEES FOR OFFICE DEVELOPMENTS, BURLINGTON AND COMPARATOR JURISDICTIONS, 2015

Office

Up to 2 storeys 2 to 10 storeys More than 10 storeys


2 Relative % $/m² $/ft

2 Relative %

Cambridge $22.28 $2.07 124% $22.28 $2.07 121% $22.28 $2.07 109%

Kitchener $22.07 $2.05 123% $22.07 $2.05 120% $22.07 $2.05 108%

Burlington $18.00 $1.67 100% $18.40 $1.71 100% $20.50 $1.90 100%

Hamilton $17.48 $1.62 97% $17.48 $1.62 95% $20.51 $1.91 100%

Oakvilleᶲ $16.37 $1.52 91% $16.37 $1.52 89% $17.97 $1.67 88%

Mississauga $16.00 $1.49 89% $16.00 $1.49 87% $16.00 $1.49 78%

Markham $14.77 $1.37 82% $14.77 $1.37 80% $14.77 $1.37 72%

Waterloo $14.53 $1.35 81% $14.53 $1.35 79% $14.53 $1.35 71%


Note: Based on the assumption of finished buildings

ᶲ Values represent rates for building shell’s only

1.5.4.1 Industrial Development Building Permit Fees

As seen in Figure 39 and Figure 40, Burlington ranks on the lower end of comparator jurisdictions when it comes to

building permit fees for industrial developments.

These fees include a fee of $8.28/m² for the first 4,650m² of industrial space and $5.66/m² for industrial space over

4,650m².

Burlington’s relative positioning for building permit fees for industrial developments gives it a competitive advantage in

attracting new industrial development to the city.


FIGURE 39: BUILDING PERMIT FEES FOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS, BURLINGTON AND COMPARATOR JURISDICTIONS, 2015

Industrial

First 4,650 m² (50,052 ft

2)

Additional Area over 4,650 m² (50,052 ft

2)

City $/m² $/ft2 Relative % $/m² ft

2 Relative %

Mississauga $11.00 $1.02 133% $10.50¹ $0.98 186%

Markham $10.30 $0.96 124% $10.30 $0.96 182%

Hamilton $10.20 $0.95 123% $7.17 $0.67 127%

Oakville $9.53-$13.65* $0.89-$1.27* n/a $9.53-$7.67* $0.89-$0.71* n/a

Cambridge $9.80 $0.91 118% $9.80 $0.91 173%

Kitchener $8.83 $0.82 107% $8.83 $0.82 156%

Burlington $8.28 $0.77 100% $5.66 $0.53 100%

Waterloo $5.92 $0.55 72% $5.92 $0.55 105%



¹ Represents the price for greater than 10,000 m²

* See Figure 40 (below) for specific rates within the given ranges

FIGURE 40: BUILDING PERMIT FEES FOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS, OAKVILLE, 2015

Oakville Permit Fees

m² range $/m² $/ft2

<1,000 $13.65 $1.27

1,000-2,000 $11.43 $1.06

2,000-5,000 $9.53 $0.89

5,000-15,000 $8.03 $0.75

>15,000 $7.67 $0.71

Source: http://www.oakville.ca/assets/general%20-%20town%20hall/2015AllRatesFees.pdf


1.5.4.2 Retail Development Building Permit Fees

As seen in Figure 41, Burlington ranks in the middle of comparator jurisdictions when it comes to building permit fees for

retail developments. These fees include a fee of $15.11/m².

Burlington’s relative positioning for building permit fees for retail developments does not give an obvious competitive

advantage or disadvantage in attracting new retail development to the city, but it does position the city to compete with

comparator jurisdictions (there is, however, more of a competitive disadvantage when competing with Markham and the

City of Waterloo).

FIGURE 41: BUILDING PERMIT FEES FOR RETAIL DEVELOPMENTS, BURLINGTON AND COMPARATOR JURISDICTIONS, 2015

Retail

City $/m² ft2 Relative %

Cambridge $15.72 $1.46 104%

Kitchener $15.50 $1.44 103%

Mississauga $15.50 $1.44 103%

Oakvilleᶲ $15.30 $1.42 101%

Burlington $15.11 $1.40 100%

Hamilton $14.55 $1.35 96%

Markham $12.60 $1.17 83%

Waterloo $10.23 $0.95 68%



ᶲ Values represent rates for building shell’s only

1.5.5 Municipal Tax Rates

In terms of municipal tax rates for office and industrial developments, Burlington ranks in the middle relative to comparator

jurisdictions (as seen in Figure 42). Burlington ranks on the lower end for office urban area development (i.e. DT) with a

tax rate of 1.9539%, higher than only Oakville (1.9012%) and Markham (1.7578%).

Burlington ranks closer to the middle on industrial urban area development (i.e. IT) with a rate of 3.1905%, above only

Oakville (3.1052%), Mississauga (2.4691%), and Markham (2.0449%).


For industrial new construction (i.e. JT), Burlington again ranks closer to the middle at 2.8899%, above Oakville

(2.8046%), Mississauga (2.3280%), and Markham (2.0449%).

Finally, Burlington is also positioned in the middle for large industrial development (i.e. LT) with a tax rate at 3.1905%,

above Oakville (3.1052%), Mississauga (2.4691%), and Markham (2.0449%).

It is interesting to note that Markham offers the most competitive tax rates across all categories relative to all the


Taken together, Burlington has:

A competitive advantage when competing with Hamilton and the communities that make up the Region of Waterloo

across all categories

A competitive disadvantage when competing with Markham across all categories, and Mississauga when

competing across most categories

A slight competitive disadvantage when competing with Oakville across all categories (though they are close in the

tax rates so Burlington is well-positioned to compete with Oakville)

FIGURE 42: MUNICIPAL TAX RATES FOR OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS, BURLINGTON AND COMPARATOR JURISDICTIONS,

2014

Office Industrial

Urban Area (DT) Urban Area (IT) New Construction (JT) Large Industrial (LT)

City Rate Relative % Rate Relative % Rate Relative % Rate Relative %

Hamilton~ 3.6456% 187% 5.0990% 160% 4.9801% 172% 5.7481% 180%

Cambridge 3.4988% 179% 3.5988% 113% 3.2588% 113% 3.5988% 113%

Kitchener 3.4102% 175% 3.5102% 110% 3.1702% 110% 3.5102% 110%

Waterloo 3.3636% 172% 3.4636% 109% 3.1236% 108% 3.4636% 109%

Mississauga 2.1015% 108% 2.4691% 77% 2.3280% 81% 2.4691% 77%

Burlington 1.9539% 100% 3.1905% 100% 2.8899% 100% 3.1905% 100%

Oakville 1.9012% 97% 3.1052% 97% 2.8046% 97% 3.1052%* 97%

Markham 1.7578% 90% 2.0449% 64% 2.0449% ᶲ 71% 2.0449% ᶲ 64%



Note: All taxes represent “total” tax rates from 2014 (including education and regional tax rates). Tax rates for 2015 were not available at the time of research for a large majority of the comparator jurisdictions.

~ Rates vary for Glanbrook, Ancaster, Stoney Creek, Dundas, and Flamborough

* Oakville large industrial rate same as regular rate

ᶲ Markham does not have a “new construction rate” or “large industrial rate”

1.6 Land Values

As seen in Figure 43, land values in Burlington rank in the middle of comparator jurisdictions when it comes to industrial

land prices per acre and office net rent costs.

The industrial average land price per acre in Burlington is $525,000, well below the prices in Markham ($900,000) and

Mississauga ($850,000) but significantly above the prices in Hamilton ($225,000-$275,000), Waterloo ($275,000-

$325,000), Kitchener ($250,000-$300,000), and Cambridge ($275,000-$315,000). Burlington’s price of land per acre for

industrial properties offers a significant competitive advantage relative to Markham and Mississauga (and to a smaller

degree Oakville), while also highlighting a significant competitive disadvantage relative to Hamilton, Waterloo, Kitchener,

and Cambridge.

When it comes to the average net rent per square foot for A class office space, Burlington ranks again in the middle range

relative to comparator jurisdictions with an A class rent of $17.78. Burlington’s rent is below both Oakville ($20.92) and

Mississauga ($18.03), and is on the lower end of the estimate for Hamilton ($17.00-$23.00), while it is above rents in

Markham ($16.50), Waterloo ($15.71), Cambridge ($13.41), and Kitchener ($11.40).

In terms of B and C class office rent, Burlington is on the more expensive side per square foot relative to comparator

jurisdictions with B class rent at $15.19 and C class rent at $12.00.


FIGURE 43: INDUSTRIAL AND OFFICE VALUES, BURLINGTON AND COMPARATOR JURISDICTIONS, Q1 2015

Industrial Office

Average Land Price ($ per acre)

Weighted Average Net Rent ($ per sq. ft.)

A Class B Class C Class

Markham $900,000 $16.50 $12.10 $11.76

Mississauga $850,000 $18.03 $13.05 $10.92

Oakville $675,000 $20.92 $15.27 n/a

Burlington $525,000 $17.78 $15.19 $12.00

Waterloo $275,000-$325,000 $15.71ᶲ $12.26 $9.97

Cambridge $275,000-$315,000 $13.41 $10.16 $8.62

Kitchener $250,000-$300,000 $11.40 $11.15 $10.60

Hamilton $225,000-$275,000* $17.00-$23.00¹ $10.00-$20.00¹ $10.00-$20.00¹

Source: CBRE Research, Q1 2015

ᶲ CBRE analysts are forecasting an increase of 200,000-300,000 sq. ft. in office construction in 2015 (Suburban/Class A) for Waterloo which may have an effect on the net rent per sq. ft. for A Class office space in the city.

*Sourced directly from the Real Estate Section in the Economic Development Division for the City of Hamilton

¹ Sourced directly from the Economic Development Division for the City of Hamilton

1.7 Quality of Life

Based on a variety of quality of life rankings used by MoneySense magazine in 2014, Burlington is the fifth best place to

live in Canada (above all other comparator jurisdictions used in this Competitive Analysis).17

These rankings take into account a number of elements that are critical to making a place nice to live, including access to

medical care, crime, public transportation, weather, and affordability.18

17 Full rankings can be found at http://www.moneysense.ca/canadas-best-places-to-live-2014-full-ranking. Based on a total sample size of 201 communities across Canada.

18 For a detailed understanding of the methodology used in the rankings see http://www.moneysense.ca/property/canadas-best-places-to-live-2014-methodology/

http://www.moneysense.ca/canadas-best-places-to-live-2014-full-ranking

http://www.moneysense.ca/property/canadas-best-places-to-live-2014-methodology/


The full ranking for overall quality of life for all comparator jurisdictions used in the Competitive Analysis includes:19

#5 – Burlington

#7 – Oakville

#43 – Waterloo

#63 – Kitchener

#72 – Mississauga

#77 – Hamilton

#80 – Markham

#135 - Cambridge

1.7.1 Real Estate and Wealth

As seen in Figure 44, Burlington ranks well relative to comparator jurisdictions in terms of real estate and wealth.

Burlington ranks third in terms of average household incomes ($110,114) behind Oakville ($145,695) and Markham

($112,387), and second in terms of average discretionary income ($52,927) behind only Oakville ($68,852).

As seen in Figure 45, Burlington ranks third in terms of average household net worth at $623,548 behind Oakville

($948,281) and Markham ($810,071) and well ahead of Mississauga ($500,198), Hamilton ($348,344), and Kitchener

($301,924).

In terms of the average number of years to buy a home (as seen in Figure 46), Burlington (4.51) does not rank as well as

other jurisdictions such as Hamilton (4.13), Kitchener (3.8), Cambridge (3.69), and Waterloo (3.56).

This is due to the greater level of wealth in Burlington leading to substantially higher average house prices. Burlington,

however, ranks better relative to Oakville (4.76), Mississauga (5.34), and Markham (5.77) for these same reasons.

19 Based on the data available through the MoneySense rankings, the Region of Waterloo was broken out into the major communities of the City of Waterloo, the City of Kitchener, and

the City of Cambridge.


FIGURE 44: REAL ESTATE AND WEALTH RANKINGS, BURLINGTON AND COMPARATOR JURISDICTIONS, 2014

Average Household

Income

Average Discretionary

Income

Average Household Net

Worth

Average House Prices

Average Years to Buy a Home

20

Burlington $110,114 $52,927 $623,548 $496,412 4.51

Oakville $145,695 $68,852 $948,281 $692,902 4.76

Mississauga $98,737 $44,831 $500,198 $527,133 5.34

Hamilton $80,672 $39,453 $348,344 $333,028 4.13

Markham $112,387 $49,890 $810,071 $648,288 5.77

Cambridge $87,137 $41,995 $332,707 $321,792 3.69

Waterloo $102,825 $51,312 $550,971 $366,219 3.56

Kitchener $80,812 $38,873 $301,924 $307,463 3.80

Source: MoneySense Magazine, “Canada’s Best Places to Live 2014”, http://www.moneysense.ca/canadas-best-places-to-live-2014-full-ranking/

20 Based on a calculation using average home price divided by average household income. The lower the number, the better the score

http://www.moneysense.ca/canadas-best-places-to-live-2014-full-ranking/


FIGURE 45: AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD NET WORTH, BURLINGTON AND COMPARATOR JURISDICTIONS, 2014


FIGURE 46: AVERAGE YEARS TO BUY A HOME, BURLINGTON AND COMPARATOR JURISDICTIONS, 2014


$623,5

48

$948,2

81

$500,1

98

$348,3

44

$810,0

71

$332,7

07

$550,9

71

$301,9

24

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

$700,000

$800,000

$900,000

$1,000,000

4.51 4.76 5.34

4.13

5.77

3.69 3.56 3.8

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Ind

ex




1.7.2 Crime

As seen in Figure 47, Burlington ranks at the top in terms of low crime relative to the comparator jurisdictions.

Leading all jurisdictions (tied with Oakville), Burlington saw a 24.75% reduction in crime over the last five years (as seen

in Figure 48).

This crime reduction was six percentage points higher than the next top ranked jurisdiction (Markham with an 18.72%

reduction). Similarly, Burlington (tied with Oakville) had the lowest crime rate per 100,000 people at 2,611.04.

As seen in Figure 49, Burlington had the top rank in terms of crime severity at 29.59 (tied with Oakville).

This is lower than the next top ranked jurisdictions of Markham (35.83) and Mississauga (47.49).

The same trends can be seen for the violent crime severity, with Burlington and Oakville topping the rankings at 23.59

ahead of the next top jurisdictions of Markham (39.07) and Mississauga (57.11).

It is interesting to note that violent crime severity is lower than the general crime severity in Burlington (and Oakville)

while it is higher in all other comparator jurisdictions.

FIGURE 47: CRIME RANKINGS, BURLINGTON AND COMPARATOR JURISDICTIONS, 2014

Five-Year Change in Crime

Rate

Crime Rate Per 100,000

Crime Severity Index

Violent Crime Severity Index

Burlington -24.75% 2,611.04 28.59 23.59

Oakville -24.75% 2,611.04 28.59 23.59

Mississauga -16.57% 3,271.38 47.49 57.11

Hamilton -16.14% 5,494.36 71.14 76.67

Markham -18.72% 2,806.50 35.83 39.07

Cambridge -10.74% 4,992.24 58.05 60.75

Waterloo -10.74% 4,992.24 58.05 60.75

Kitchener -10.74% 4,992.24 58.05 60.75




FIGURE 48: FIVE-YEAR CHANGE IN CRIME RATE, BURLINGTON AND COMPARATOR JURISDICTIONS, 2014


FIGURE 49: CRIME SEVERITY INDEX, BURLINGTON AND COMPARATOR JURISDICTIONS, 2014


-24.75%

-24.75%

-16.57%

-16.14%

-18.72%

-10.74%

-10.74%

-10.74%

-30% -25% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0%

Burlington

Oakville

Mississauga

Hamilton

Markham

Cambridge

Waterloo

Kitchener

28.59 28.59

47.49

71.14

35.83

58.05 58.05 58.05

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Cri

me S

ev

eri

ty I

nd

ex




1.7.3 Health

As seen in Figure 50, Burlington ranks at

the top in terms of health relative to the


Burlington ranks the best of all

jurisdictions when it comes to medical

offices per 1,000 people at 1.16, above

Oakville (1.13), Hamilton (1.04), and

Kitchener (1.04).

Burlington ranks second in terms of

percentage of people employed in the

health care sector (as seen in Figure 51)

at 3.32, behind only Hamilton (4.12).

Finally, Burlington shares the top rank (as

seen in Figure 52) with Hamilton for the

number of doctors per 1,000 people at

2.54, above Oakville, Mississauga, and

Markham (all at 2.07).

FIGURE 50: HEALTH RANKINGS, BURLINGTON AND COMPARATOR JURISDICTIONS, 2014

# of Medical

Offices per ‘000 % Employed in

Health Care # of Doctors per

‘000

Burlington 1.16 3.32 2.54

Oakville 1.13 3.08 2.07

Mississauga 0.70 2.93 2.07

Hamilton 1.04 4.12 2.54

Markham 0.65 2.96 2.07

Cambridge 0.78 3.23 1.48

Waterloo 0.86 3.08 1.48

Kitchener 1.04 3.09 1.48





FIGURE 51: PERCENT EMPLOYED IN HEALTH CARE, BURLINGTON AND COMPARATOR JURISDICTIONS, 2014


FIGURE 52: NUMBER OF DOCTORS PER ‘000, BURLINGTON AND COMPARATOR JURISDICTIONS, 2014


3.32 3.08 2.93

4.12

2.96 3.23 3.08 3.09

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Perc

en

tag

e

2.54

2.07 2.07

2.54

2.07

1.48 1.48 1.48

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

# o

f D

octo

rs



competitive analysis - bedcbedc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/competitive-analysis.pdf · 1...

Documents