executive committee meeting - corporate.pickering.ca 6, 2… · -c:~of-· -pickering· executive...
TRANSCRIPT
Executive Committee Agenda Monday, November 6, 2017
Council Chambers 2:00 pm
Chair: Councillor Brenner
For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Linda Roberts 905.420.4660 extension 2928 [email protected]
Anything highlighted denotes an attachment or link. By clicking the links on the agenda page, you can jump directly to that section of the agenda. To manoeuver back to the agenda page use the Ctrl + Home keys simultaneously, or use the “bookmark” icon to the left of your screen to navigate from one report to the next.
(I) Disclosure of Interest
Executive Committee Meeting Agenda
Monday, November 6, 2017 Council Chambers - 2:00 pm
Chair: Councillor Brenner
Pages
(II) · Delegations
1. Paula Jesty, Deloitte LLP Re: Report FIN 21-17 2017 Year End Audit
2. Debb.ie Shields, City Clerk Re: Verbal Update- Bill 68 Modernizing Ontario's Municipal Legislation Act, 2017
(Ill) Matters for Consideration
1. Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 21-17 2017 Year End Audit
Recommendation
1-16
That the Audit Service Plan as submitted by Deloitte LLP, included in this report, be re.ceived for information.
2. Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report BYL 03-17 9th Annual Toys for Tickets and Food for Fines 2017
Recommendation
17-18
1. That parking tickets issued between December 1 through 20, 2017 be eligible for the Toys for Tickets/Food for Fines program;
2. That the Toys for Tickets/Food for Fines program be implemented from December 1 through December 20, 2017; and
3. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report.
For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Linda Roberts 905.420.4660 extension 2928 [email protected]
-C:~of-· -
PICKERING· Executive Committee
Meeting Agenda Monday, November 6, 2017
Council Chambers - 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Brenner
3.
4.
5.
Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report BYL 04-17 Power of Entry By-iaw
Recommendation
19-24
1. That the City of Pickering enact the Power of Entry By-law attached to this report. (Attachment No. 1 ); and
2. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report.
Director, Community Services, Report CS 12-17 Licence Agreement -Brougham Parkette -Property PIN 614725-1
Recommendation
25-35
1. That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute the Licence Agreement with Transport Canada set ciut in Attachment 1 to this Report, subject to minor revisions acceptable to the Director, Community Services and the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor; and
2. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report.
Director, Community Services, Report CS 27-17 Lease Agreement -Glendale Tennis Club Inc.
Recommendation
36-48
1. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the Lease Agreement with Glendale Tennis Club Inc. set out in Attachment 1'to this report, subject to minor revisions as may be required by the Director, Community Services and the Director, Corporate Services & City. Solicitor;
2. That the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report.
Executive Committee Meeting Agenda
Monday, November 6, 2017 Council Chambers - 2:00 pm
Chair: Councillor Brenner
6. Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 24-17 · 49-54 Pre-2018 Capital Budget Approval
· Consulting Services for Detailed Design for the Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Implementation Project
Recommendation
1. That Council approve the hiring of AECOM Canada Ltd. for the Detailed Design Services for the Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Implementation Project in accordance with Purchasing Policy 1 0.03(c), as the assignment has a value above $50,000.00 and a competitive process is not being followed, and therefore is subject to additional Council approvals;
2. That the fee proposal dated October 16, 2017 submitted by AECOM Canada Ltd. for the Detailed Design Services for the Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Implementation Project in the amount of $298,896.30 (HST included) be accepted;
3. That the total gross project cost of $345,736.00 (HST included), including the proposal amount and other associated costs, and the total net project cost of $311,346.00 (net of HST rebate) be accepted;
4. That Council provide pre- 2018 Capital Budget approval of the total net project cost of $311,346.00 to retain the consulting services of AECOM Canada, and for other associated costs;
5. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to finance the estimated net project cost of $311,346.00 by a transfer from the Roads & Bridges Reserve Fund;
6. That the funds required for Contract Administration and Field Inspection . from AECOM Canada Ltd. as outlined in the proposal, and any required
associated costs be included with the cost of construction in the appropriate year and be subject to approval through the future year's Capital Budget process;
7. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report.
-C~od-
PJCKERlNG Executive Committee
Meeting Agenda Monday, November 6, 2017
Council Chambers - 2:oo· pm Chair: Councillor Brenner
7. Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 20-17 55-59 Analysis of the 2017 Property Tax Grant for Low Income Seniors And Low Income Persons with Disabilities
Recommendation
It is recommended that Report FIN 20-17 of the Director, Finance & Treasurer regarding the 2017 Property Tax Grant for Low Income Seniors and Low Income Persons with Disabiiities be received for information.
8. Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 22-17 60-217 Statutory Public Meeting Regarding Proposed 2017 Development Charge By-law and Background Study
Recommendation
1. That Report FIN 22-17 of the Director, Finance & Treasurer be received;
2. That Council receive for information the City of Pickering - Development Charges Background Study prepared by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. dated October 5, 2017;
3. That all written submissions made at the November 5th Public Meeting or received in writing from the public by November 17th be referred to staff and to Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. for consideration in preparation of the final Development Charge recommendations and By-law for Council's consideration ori December 11th; and, ·
4. That the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement these recommendations.
(IV) Other Business
(V) Adjournment
G
From: Stan Karwowski Director, Finance & Treasurer
Subject: 2017 Year End Audit
Recommendation:
Report to Executive Committee
Report Number: FIN 21-17 Date: November 6, 2017
1. That the Audit Service Plan as submitted by Deloitte LLP, included in this report, be received for information.
Executive Summary: In accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, the Audit Plan is prepared to communicate the auditor's approach and reporting responsibilities to the Executive Committee, who has oversight responsibility for the financial reporting process. This plan is submitted prior to the commencement of the year end audit.
Financial Implications: The base audit fee for City and Library is estimated at $70,000. This is the same fee as in the previous year. Sufficient provision is available in the 2017 budget.
Discussion: In the Committee's role as the body responsible for oversight of the financial reporting process, it must review the Audit Plan for the 2017 year end audit. The Audit Plan includes the scope of the audit services to be provided, the auditor's reporting responsibilities and an outline of the audit approach. It is included as Attachment 1 to this report.
Attachments:
1. 2017 Audit Service Plan
2
FIN 21-17
Subject: 2017 Year End Audit
cZ:~ Kristine Senior, CPA, CA Manager, Accounting Services
Recomm ed for the consideration of Pickeri g ity Council
Tony Preve el, R.Eng. Chief Adminis rative Officer
November 6, 2017
Approved/Endorsed By:
Stan Karwowski, MBA, CPA, CMA Director, Finance & Treasurer
Page 2
I itt
The Corporation of the City of Pickering 2017 Audit service plan For the year ending December 31, 2017 To be presented to the Executive Committee November 6, 2017
ATTACHMENT#J_ TO REPORT# ru,J ;;JJ-17
3
4
Deloitte October 19, 2017
To the Members of the Executive Committee of The Corporation of the City of Pickering 1 The Esplanade Pickering ON L1 V 6K7
2017 Audit service plan
Dear Executive Committee members:
Deloitte LLP 400 Applewood Crescent Suite 500 Vaughan ON L4K OC3 Canada
Tel: 416-601-6150 Fax: 416-601-6151 www.deloitte.ca
We are pleased to present our 2017 audit service plan for The Corporation of the City of Pickering ("the City"), which describes our audit scope and strategy, our audit approach and our planned communications with you.
Our audit will include:
• An audit of the City of Pickering's consolidated financial statements (the "Financial Statements") for the year ending December 31, 2017 prepared in accordance with Canadian Public Sector Accounting Standards ("PSAS")
• An audit of the City of Pickering Public Library Board's financial statements for the year ending December 31, 2017 prepared in accordance with Canadian PSAS, and
• An audit of the Trust Funds of the City of Pickering's financial statements for the year ending December 31, 2017 prepared in accordance with Canadian Accounting Standards for Not-forProfit Organizations.
We are providing this audit service plan to the Executive Committee ("the Committee") on a confidential basis. It is intended solely for the use of the Committee to assist you in discharging your responsibilities with respect to the Financial Statements and is not intended for any other purpose. Accordingly, we disclaim any responsibility to any other party who may rely on it.
We look forward to discussing our Audit service plan with you and to answering any questions that you may have.
Yours truly,
Chartered Professional Accountants Licensed Public Accountants
The Corporation of the City of Pickering 1 Table of contents
Table of contents
Our audit explained
Significant audit risks
Appendices
Appendix 1 - Audit approach
Appendix 2 - Communication requirements
1
3
Appendix 3 - New and Revised Public Sector Accounting Standards
© Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities
5
6
The Corporation of the City of Pickering 1 Our audit explained
Our audit explained
Group audit
When designing our audit strategy, we consider:
' • The financial significance or relative importance of the consolidated entities or any government business enterprises accounted for on a modified equity basis
• The complexity and nature of the operations, internal control and accounting issues on each consolidated entity, and
o The degree of centralization or decentralization of processes and controls.
: We intend to use the work of the auditor of Veridian Corporation. We will complete all required communications with the Component auditor, ensure 'the accounting for the City's share of Veridian income
' is appropriate and ensure the disclosures in the Financial Statements are adequate.
We are responsible for providing reasonable assurance that your Financial Statements as a whole are free from material misstatement.
Our materiality levels are based on professional judgment and will be determined using total expenses or fund balances as a reference point for the ulttmate determination of materiality as follows:
• Consolidated Financial Statements for the City -2.5- 3.0% of expenses
• City of Pickering Public Library Board -approximately 3% of expenses, and
• City of Pickering Trust Funds - approximately 3% of fund balances .
. We will inform the Executive Committee of all uncorrected misstatements greater than a clearly trivial amount (5% of materiality) and any misstatements that are, in our judgment, qualitatively material. In accordance with Canadiar GAAS, we wili ask that any misstatements be corrected.
Audit scope and terms of engagement
We have been engaged to perform the audits of the City, Library, and Trust Fund's Financial Statements as at, and for the year ending, December 31, 2017 (the "Financial Statements") prepared in accordance with Canadian Public Sector Accounting Standards ("PSAS") for the City and the Library Board and Canadian Accounting Standards for Not-For-Profit Organizations for the Trust Funds. Our audits will be conducted in accordance witr Generally Accepted Auditing Standards ("GAAS").
The terms and conditions of our engagement are described in the master services agreement which is dated October 28, 2016.
We have scheduled the interim audit the week of November 20, 2017 and the year-end fieldwork commencing fvlarch 26, 2018.
Significant audit risks
Through our preliminary risk assessment process, we have identified the significant audit risks. These risks of material misstatement and related audit responses are described in the Significant audit risks section of this report.
© Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities
The Corporation of the City of Pickering I Our audit explained
2
Fraud risk
We will develop our audit strategy to address the assessed risks of material misstatement due to fraud. Determining this strategy will involve:
1. Asking people involved in the financial reporting process about inappropriate or unusual activity.
2. Testing a sample of journal entries throughout the period as weil as adjustments made at the end of the reporting period.
3. Identifying and obtaining an understanding of the business rationale for significant or unusual transactions that are outside the normal course of business.
Under Canadian GAAS, we are required to communicate certain matters to the Executive Committee. The primary reports and formal communications through which we will address these matters are:
• This Audit Service Pian
• Year End Communication, and
• Our Auditor's Reports on the Financial Statements.
4. Evaluating whether your accounting policies may be indicative of fraudulent financial reporting resulting from management's
Further details on our communication requirements can be found in Appendix 2. effort to manage results.
5. Evaluating whether the judgements and decisions rei a ted to management estimates indicate a possible bias.
6. Incorporating an element of unpredictability in selecting our audit procedures.
We will also ask the Executive Committee for their views about the risk of fraud, whether they know of any actual or suspected fraud affecting the City and their role in the oversight of management's antifraud programs.
If we suspect fraud involving management, we will immediately inform the Executive Committee of our suspicions and discuss the nature, timing, and extent of audit procedures necessary to complete the audit.
The City employs the foliowing third party service organization in an outsourcing arrangement that impacts financial reporting information:
• ADP Canada (payroll)
We intend to rely on the service auditor's report issued for this third party service organization.
If our assessment does not provide us with sufficient appropriate audit evidence, we will need to perform additional audit procedures to address the risks of material misstatements in the Financial Statements.
We also intend to use the work of the City's actuary in their determination of the City's post-employment and worker's compensation benefits. We will review and test any data and assumptions used, ensure the disclosure in the Financial Statements is adequate and that the actuary is 1n good standing witr, the Canadian Institute of Actuaries.
Audit fees
We propose audit fees of $64,250 (2016 - $64,250) for the audits of the City and Trust Funds' Financial Statements. We propose fees of $5,750 (2016- $5,750) for the audit of the Library's Financial Statements.
We will add HST to our billings.
© Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities
7
8
The Corporation of the City of Pickering 1 Significant audit risks
Significant audit risks The following tables set out the significant audit risks that we identified during our preliminary planning activities, including our proposed response to each risk. Our planned audit response is based on our assessment of the likelihood of a risk's occurrence, the significance should a misstatement occur, our determination of materiality and our prior knowledge of the City.
Canadian GAAS inciude the presumption of a fraud risk involving improper revenue recognition. (Revenue/deferred revenue)
Under Canadian Auditing Standards, it is the responsibility of the management, with the oversight of those charged with governance, to place a strong emphasis on fraud prevention and detection. Oversight by those charged with governance includes considering the potential for override of controls or other inappropriate influence over the financial reporting process.
f'!anagement override of controls is present in all entities. It is a risk of material misstatement resulting from fraud and therefore is considered as a significant risk.
• Certain revenue streams are presumed areas of significant audit risk. We will test the design and implementation of controls in significant revenue streams and perform substantive analytic procedures and/or detailed testing in these areas, and
• Substantive testing to determine if restricted contributions (i.e., development charges), and government transfers/grants have been recognized appropriately. (Revenue vs. deferred revenue).
• Engage in periodic fraud discussions with certain members of senior management and others
• Consider the potential for bias in judgments and estimates, including performing retrospective analysis of significant accounting estimates
• Evaluate the business rationale for any significant unusual transactions
• Evaluate the City's fraud risk assessment and consider entity-level internal controls and internal controls over the closing and reporting process
• Test journal entries that exhibit characteristics of possible management override of controls, identified using manual techniques.
As we perform our audit procedures, we will inform you of any significant changes to the significant risks discussed above and the reasons for those changes.
3 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities
The Corporation of the City of Pickering I Appendix 1 - Audit approach
Appendix 1 Audit approach Deloitte's audit approach is a systematic methodology that enables us to tailor our audit scope and plan to address the unique issues facing the City.
The following steps are not necessarily sequential nor are they mutually exclusive. For example, once we have developed our audit plan and the audit is being performed, we may become aware of a risk that was not identified during the planning phase. Based on that new information, we would reassess our planning activities and adjust the audit plan accordingly.
The Deloitte audit approach begins with an extensive planning process that includes:
• Assessing your current business and operating conditions
• Understanding the composition and structure of your business and organization
• Understanding your accounting processes and internal controls
• Understanding your information technology systems
• Identifying potential engagement risks
• Planning the scope and timing of internal control and substantive testing that take into account the specific identified engagement risks
Our audit approach combines an ongoing identification of risks with the flexibility to adjust our approach when additional risks are identified. Since these risks may impact our audit objectives, we consider materiality in our planning to focus on those risks that could be significant to your financial reporting.
Consideration of the risk of fraud When we identify a misstatement or control deficiency, we consider whether it may be indicative of fraud and what the implications of fraud and significant error are in relation to other aspects of the audit, particularly the reliability of management representations.
In determining our audit strategy to address the assessed risks of material misstatement due to fraud, we will:
• Assign and supervise personnel, taking into account the knowledge, skill and ability of individuals with significant engagement responsibilities and our assessment of the risks of material misstatement due to fraud for the engagement.
• Evaluate whether the City's selection and application of accounting policies, particularly those related to subjective measurements and complex transactions, may be indicative of fraudulent financial reporting resulting from management's effort to manage results.
• Incorporate an element of unpredictability when selecting the nature, timing and extent of our audit procedures.
© Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities
9
10
The Corporation of the City of Pickering 1 Appendix 1 - Audit approach
We will inquire directly of the Executive Committee regarding:
• Its views about the risk of fraud
• Whether it has knowledge of any actual or suspected fraud affecting the City, and
• The role it exercises in the oversight of fraud risk assessment and the establishment of mitigating controls.
We will also inquire if the Executive Committee is aware of tips or complaints regarding the City's financial reporting and, if so, the Executive Committee's responses to such tips and complaints and whether it is aware of matters relevant to the audit, including, but not limited to, violations or possible violations of laws or regulations.
If we suspect fraud involving management, we will communicate these suspicions to the Executive Committee and discuss the nature, timing, and extent of audit procedures necessary to complete the audit.
Information technology An important part of our audit planning process involves gaining an understanding of:
1. The importance of the computer environment relative to the risks to financial reporting
2. The way in which that environment supports the control procedures we intend to rely on when conducting our audit, and
3. The computer-based information that supports our substantive procedures.
The objective of our review of computer controls is to identify potential areas of risk and assess the relevance, reliability, accuracy and completeness of the data produced by the systems. We also assess the design and implementation of the computer environment and determine the reliability of the financial information used to generate the financial statements. To accomplish this, we gain an up-to-date understanding of your organization's computer processing environment and our understanding of the relevant general computer controls ..
',::: ~ e.~
The performance of an audit includes evaluating the design and determining the implementation of internal controls relevant to the audit, testing the operational effectiveness of the controls we intend to rely on, and performing substantive audit procedures.
Audit procedures The timing of our audit procedures is dependent uRon a number of factors including the need to coordinate with management for the provision of supporting analysis and other documentation. Generally, we perform our audit procedures to allow us sufficient time to identify significant issues early, thereby allowing more time for analysis and resolution.
Tests of controls As part of our audit, we will review and evaluate certain aspects of the systems of internal control over financial reporting to the extent we consider necessary in accordance with Canadian GAAS. The main objective of our review is to enable us to determine the nature, extent and timing of our audit tests and establish the degree of reliance that we can place on selected controls. An audit of the financial statements is not designed to determine whether internal controls were adequate for management's purposes or to provide assurance on the design or operational effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting.
© Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities
The Corporation of the City of Pickering I Appendix 1 - Audit approach
The extent to which deficiencies in internal control may be identified through an audit of financial statements is influenced by a variety of factors including our assessment of materiality, our preliminary assessment of the risks of material misstatement, our audit approach, and the nature, timing and extent of the auditing procedures that we conduct. Accordingly, we gain only a limited understanding of controls as a result of the procedures that we conduct during an audit of financial statements.
We will inform the Executive Committee and management of any significant deficiencies that are identified in the course of conducting the audit.
Substantive audit procedures Our substantive audit procedures consist of a tailored combination of analytical procedures and detailed tests of transactions and balances. These procedures take into account the results of our controls tests and are designed to enable us to obtain reasonable assurance that the financial statements are free from material misstatements. To obtain this assurance, misstatements that we identify while performing substantive auditing procedures will be considered in relation to the financial statements as a whole. Any misstatements that we identify, other than those that are clearly trivial (the clearly trivial threshold has been set at 5% of materiality), will be reported to management and the Executive Committee. In accordance with Canadian GAAS, we will request that misstatements be corrected.
Use of the work of specialists The Deloitte audit is distinguished by the use of a broad range of industry and functional specialists who are integral to the audit team and carry a deeper understanding of specific topics. These specialists augment the core engagement audit team in understanding business processes and related risks, and help the audit engagement team apply an appropriate level of professional skepticism to challenge significant management assumptions.
For the audit, we will use Deloitte computer assurance specialists to assist us in performing our audit procedures to test the design and implementation of general computer controls.
Our specialists are actively involved in the planning and risk assessment process, and will be available to the audit team and the City management year-round to discuss ongoing risk assessments, industry developments and other matters of interest.
Perform post-engagement activities We will analyze the results of the audit procedures performed throughout the year and, prior to rendering our report, we will conclude whether:
• The scope of the audits was sufficient to support our opinion, and
• The misstatements identified during the audits do not result in the financial statements being materially misstated.
Independence We have developed important safeguards and procedures to protect our independence and objectivity. If, during the year, we identify a breach of independence, we will communicate it to you in writing. Our communication will describe the significance of the breach, including its nature and duration, the action taken or proposed to be taken, and our conclusion as to whether or not the action will satisfactorily address the consequences of the breach and have any impact on our ability to serve as independent auditor to the City.
We are independent of the City and we will reconfirm our independence in our final report to the Executive Committee.
© Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities
11
12
The Corporation of the City of Pickering 1 Appendix 2 - Communication requirements
Appendix 2 Communication requirements
Audit Service Plan
1. Our responsibilities under Canadian GAAS, including forming and expressing an opinion on the financial statements
2.. An overview of the overalr audit strategy, addressing:
a. Timing of the audits
b. Significant risks, including fraud risks, and planned responsibilities of other independent public accounting firms or others that perform audit procedures in the audits
CAS 1 260.14
CAS 260.15
3. Significant transactions outside of the normal course of business, including related CAS 260 App. 2, party transactions CAS 550.27
Enquiries of those charged with governance
4. How those charged with governance exercise oversight over management's process CAS 240.20 for identifying and responding to the risk of fraud and the internal control that management has established to mitigate these risks
5. Any known suspected or alleged fraud affecting the City
6. Whether the City is in compliance with laws and regulations
Year-end communication
7. Fraud or possible fraud identified through the audit process
8. Significant accounting policies, practices, unusual transactions, and our related conciusions
9. Alternative treatments for accounting policies and practices that have been discussed with management during the current audit period
CAS 240.21
CAS 250.14
CAS 240.40-.42
CAS 260.16 a.
CAS 260.16 a.
10. IV!atters related to going concern CAS 570.23
11. fV!anagement judgments and accounting estimates CAS 260.16 a.
12. Significant difficulties, if any, encountered dunng the audits CAS 260.16 b.
13. Material written communications between management and us, including CAS 260.16 c. management representation letters
14. Other matters that are significant to the oversight of the financial reporting process CAS 260.16d.
15. Modifications to our opinions CAS 260.A18
16. Our views of significant accounting or auditing matters for which management CAS 260.A19 consulted witr1 other accountants and about which we have concerns
17. Significant matters discussed with management CAS 260.A.l9
1 CAS: Canadian Auditing Standards - CAS are issued by the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board of CPA Canada
© Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities
The Corporation of the City of Pickering I Appendix 2 - Communication requirements
18. Matters involving non-compliance with laws and regulations that come to our attention
CAS 250.23
19. Significant deficiencies in internal control, if any, identified by us in the conduct of CAS 265 the audits of the financial statements
20. Uncorrected misstatements and disclosure items CAS 450.12-13
2L Any significant matters arising during the audits in connection with the City's CAS 550.27 related parties
© Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities
13
14
The Corporation of the City of Pickering 1 Appendix 3 - New and Revised Public Sector Accounting Standards
Appendix 3 New and Revised Public Sector Accounting Standards The following is a summary of certain new Public Sector Accounting Standards, amendments and proposals that will become effective in 2018 and beyond.
To review all recent amendments that will impact your organization in the foreseeable future, we invite you to review our revamped Standard-settino Activities Dioest. included in our Centre for Financial Reporting (www .cfr.deloitte.ca).
Section PS 2200 - This Section defines a related party and Related party disclosures establishes disclosures required for
related party transactions.
Section PS 3210 - Assets This Section provides guidance for applying the definition of assets and establishes general disclosure standards for assets; but does not 1nclude standards for recognition and disclosure of specific types of assets, which are dealt with in other Handbook Sections.
Section PS 3320 - This Section defines and establishes Contingent assets disclosure standards on contingent
assets; but does not include disclosure standards for specific types of contingent assets.
Section PS 3380 - This Section defines and establishes Contractual rights disclosure standards on contractual
rights; but does not include disclosure standards for specific types of contractual rights, and does not include those contractual rights to exchange one asset for another where revenue does not arise.
Section PS 3420 - Inter- This Section establishes standards on entity transactions how to account for and report
transactions between public sector entities that comprise a government's reporting entity from both a provider and recipient perspective.
This Section applies to fiscal years beginning on or after April 1, 2017. Eariier adoption is permitted.
This Section appiies to f1scal years beginning on or after April 1, 2017. Earlier adoption is permitted.
This Section applies to f1scal years beginning on or after April 1, 2017. Earlier adoption is permitted.
This Section applies to fiscal years beginning on or after April 1, 2017. Ear!ier adoption is permitted.
This Section applies to fiscal years beginning on or after April 1, 2017. Earlier adoption is permitted.
© Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities
The Corporation of the City of Pickering I Appendix 3 - New and Revised Public Sector Accounting Standards
Section PS 3430 -Restructuring transactions
Section PS 2601-Foreign currency
Section PS 3450 -Financial instruments
Section PS 1201 -Financial statement presentation
Sect.ion PS 3041-Portfolio Investments
Description
This Section establishes standards on how to account for and report restructuring transactions by both transferors and recipients of assets and/or liabilities, together with related program or operating responsibilities.
This section establishes standards on how to account and report transactions that are denominated in a foreign currency.
This Section establishes standards on how to account for and report ali types of financial instruments including derivatives.
This Section establishes general reporting principles and standards for the disclosure of information in government financial statements.
This Section establishes standards on how to account for portfolio investments.
~t:e
This Section applies to restructuring transactions occurring in fiscal years beginning on or after April !, 2018. Earlier adoption is permitted.
This Section is effective for: (i) Government organizations - fiscal years beginning on or after April 1, 20121 and (ii) Governments "7 fiscal years beginning on or after April 1, 2019. Earlier adoption is permitted.
This Section is effective for: (i) Government organizations -fiscal years beginning on or after April 1, 2012, and (ii) Governments - fiscal years beginning on or after April 1, 2019. Earlier adoption is permitted.
This Section is effective for: (i) government organizations for fiscal years beginning on or after April 1, 2012, and (ii) governments for fiscal years beginning on or after April 1, 2019. Earlier adoption is permitted.
This Section applies ir· the period Financial Statement Presentation PS 1201, Foreign Currency Translation PS 2601 and Fmanciai Instruments PS 3450 are adopted.
© Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities
15
16
Deloitte www.deloitte.ca Deloitte, one of Canada's leading professional services firms, provides audit, tax, consulting, and financial advisory services. Deloitte LLP, an Ontario limited liability partnership, is the Canadian member firm of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited.
Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, a UK private company limited by guarantee, and its network of member firms, each of which is a legally separate and independent entity. Please see www.deloitte.com/about for a detailed description of the legal structure of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited and its member firms.
© Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities.
-Cljj
P1CKER1NG
From: Paul Bigioni Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor
Report to Executive Committee
Report Number: BYL 03-17 Date: November 6, 2017
Subject: gth Annual Toys for Tickets and Food for Fines 2017 File: L-2220-001-17
Recommendation:
1. That parking tickets issued between December 1 through 20, 2017 be eligible for the Toys for Tickets/Food for Fines program;
2. That the Toys for Tickets/Food for Fines program be implemented from December 1 through December 20, 2017; and
3. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report.
Executive Summary: The Toys for Tickets/Food for Fines program accepts toys or groceries in lieu of payment for parking tickets. Toy or food donations must be dropped off to City Hall, and a receipt must be presented to confirm that the value of the donation equals or exceeds the fine. Tickets for parking in a Disabled Parking Space are not eligible for the program. This program promotes community engagement and supports families in need.
Financial Implications: The lost revenue associated with the Toys for Tickets/Food for Fines program in 2016 was $2,020.00. A similar amount of lost revenue is anticipated for 2017.
Discussion: The first Toys for Tickets/Food for Fines program was offered by the City of Pickering in 2009. Since that time, it has been a tremendous success, supporting families in need and promoting the spirit of the holiday season. The program has received extensive media coverage at both the national and local level, as well as through social media.
Participation from the community is always generous and enthusiastic. Last year's Toys For Tickets/Food for Fines program brought in approximately $2,600.00 in donations, as compared to the $2,020.00 in lost fine revenue. This year's program will continue to benefit families in need by sharing donations with the Durham Regional Police Service Food and Toy Drive, and the Pickering Fire Services Food and Toy Drive.
17
18
BYL 03-17
Subject: gth Annual Toys for Tickets and Food for Fines 2017
Prepared By:
. Kimberly Thompson Manager, Municipal Law Enforcement Services
KT:kt
Recommended for the consideration
of Pic"d};;:;J od 1/, 'l_otJ
Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer
CORP0227-07/01 revised
November 6, 2017
Page 2
Services & City Solicitor
-Citf Pl
From:
Subject:
KERlN
Paul Bigioni Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor
Power of Entry By-law File: L -2220-001-17
Recommendation:
Report to Executive Committee
Report Number: BYL-04-17 Date: November 6, 2017
1. That the City of Pickering enact the Power of Entry By-law attached to this report. (Attachment No. 1 ); and
2. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report.
Executive Summary: The attached By-law will address amendments to the wording of the Municipal Act, 2001. The By-law will clarify the right of City enforcement staff to enter private property for by-law enforcement purposes. This right of entry was previously provided in a blanket provision of the Municipal Act, 2001.
Financial Implications: There are no financial implications to this report.
Discussion: The previous version of the Municipal Act, 2001 (the "Act"), contained specific right of entry provisions for the enforcement of by-laws passed by a municipality under the Act. The current version of the Act does not contain such a provision. It merely grants the municipality the ability to enact by-laws that provide the same right of entry powers.
Section 436 (1) of the Municipal Act states "A municipality has the power to pass by-laws providing that the municipality may enter on land at any reasonable time for the purpose of carrying out an inspection to determine whether or not the following are being complied with:
1. A by-law of the municipality passed under this Act.
2. A direction or order of the municipality made under this Act or made under a by-law of the municipality passed under this Act.
3. A condition of a licence issued under a by-law of the municipality passed under this Act.
4. An order made under section 431.
19
20
BYL-04-17 November 6, 2017
Subject Power of Entry By-law Page 2
The attached Power of Entry By-law will apply to all City By-laws passed under the authority of the Act. These include all licensing by-laws, the Tree Protection By-law, the Clean and Clear By-law, the Fence By-law, Fill and Topsoil By-law, Discharge of Firearms By-law, Responsible Pet Ownership By-law, and the Traffic and Parking By-law.
The Power of Entry By-law requires City by-law enforcement officers to present identification if requested. The by-law creates an offence for obstructing an officer, and permits the entry onto land for the completion of work required under an order, such as cutting grass and weeds under the Clean and Clear By-law.
The Power of Entry By-law does not authorize by-law enforcement officers to enter a dwelling unit without consent or a search warrant.
The power of entry provided in the attached by-law will not be frequently required, however, it will be important in some by-law enforcement cases.
Attachments: Draft Power of Entry By-law
Prepared By:
Kimberly Thompson Manager, Municipal Law Enforcement Services
KT:kt/ks
Recommended for the consideration of Pickeri City Council
e~ 1,e\-\ ~p c ~
Tony Preve e, P. ng. Chief Adminis 1ve Officer
CORP0227-07/01 revised
Approved/Endorsed By:
te Services & City Solicitor
The Corporation of the City of Pickering
By-law No. /17 AlTAtHMa.rr~ .. t.. _.TO REK1P.TI. / . e71. rJ'rll I -.til~ Lf
Being a by-law to regulate the power of entry onto land
Whereas Section 436 of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, provides that a municipality has the power to pass by-laws providing that the municipality may enter on land at any reasonable time for the purpose of carrying out an inspection;
And Whereas Sections 435, 437 and 438 of the Municipal Act 2001, S.O. 2001, as amended, set out additional powers and restrictions in regard to the power of entry;
And Whereas the City of Pickering deems it appropriate to pass a By-law allowing for the entry on land for the purpose of carrying out an inspection to ensure that its By-laws, directions, orders and conditions of licences are being complied with;
And Whereas this by-law applies to any City of Pickering by-laws without power of entry provisions passed pursuant to the Municipal Act, 2001, SO. 2001, as amended or its predecessors;
Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows:
1. Definitions
1.1 In this By-law:
(a) "Act" means the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, as amended,
(b) "City" means The Corporation of the City of Pickering or the geographic area of the City of Pickering, as the context requires;
(c) "land" means real property, and includes the buildings and structures on the land;
(d) "occupier" means any person occupying or having control over any portion of the land to be inspected including, but not limited to a person or persons occupying, leasing or licensing any building on the land;
(e) "Officer" means a Municipal Law Enforcement Officer appointed to enforce the By-laws of the City, a Police Officer, or any City employee whose duties include enforcing the City's by-laws;
21
22
Power of Entry By-law xx/17 Page 2
2. Application
ATTACHMENT# I TO REPORT# t3 VLD<f/19 c) .or.c;
2.1 This By-law applies to all City By-laws hereafter and previously passed under the authority of the Act.
3. Powers of Inspection and Entry
3.1 An Officer may enter on land, at any reasonable time, for the purpose of carrying out an inspection to determine whether or not the following are being complied with:
(a) any City By-law, passed under the authority of the Act;
(b) a direction or Order made under the Act, or made under a By-law of the City passed under the Act;
(c) a condition of a licence issued under a By-law of the City, enacted under the authority of the Act; or
(d) an order under Section 431 of the Act.
3.2 An Officer may enter on land, for the purpose of carrying out an inspection under Section 438 of the Act to determine whether or not any of the matters set out in section 3.1 of this By-law are being complied with.
3.3 The Officer must, upon request, display or produce proper identification.
3.4 The Officer may be accompanied by a person under his or her direction.
3.5 For the purposes of the inspection, the Officer may:
(a) require the production of documents or things relevant to the inspection;
(b) inspect and remove documents or things relevant to the inspection, for the purpose of making copies or extracts;
(c) require information from any person concerning a matter related to the inspection;
(d) alone or in conjunction with a person possessing special or expert knowledge, make examinations or take tests, samples or photographs, necessary for the purposes of the inspection.
ATTACHMENT#_L To REPORT# e YL D i..f ~ ~~ Power of Entry By-law xx/17 ? f , 1 Page 3
0 .o. 'f
3.6 A sample taken under 3.5(d) shall be divided into two parts, qnd one part shall be delivered to the person from whom the sample was taken, if the person so requests at the time the sample is taken and provides the necessary facilities.
3.7 If a sample taken under 3.5 (d) is not divided into two parts, a copy of any report on the sample shall be given to the person from whom the sample was taken.
3.8 A receipt shall be provided for any document or thing removed under section 3.5 (b) and the document or thing shall be promptly returned after the copies or extracts have been made.
4. Remedial Action
4.1 Where a person is in default of doing something that the person is directed or required to do under the Act, under a By-law of the City, or pursuant to a condition imposed by the City on the issuance of a licence pursuant to a By-law, an Officer may enter land, accompanied by any person required to complete the work, at any reasonable time, for the purpose of doing the action required .
5. Obstruction
5.1 No person shall obstruct or hinder or attempt to obstruct or hinder any Officer or other person, who is exercising a power or performing a duty under this By-law, any other City of Pickering By-law, or the Act.
5.2 Without limiting section 5.1 every person who is alleged to have contravened any of the provisions o.f any City By-law shall identify themselves to an officer upon request and failure to do so shall be deemed to have obstructed the Officer in the execution of his or her duties contrary to section 5.1 of this by-law.
6. Restrictions Regarding Entering Dwelling Units
6.1 Despite any provision of this by-law, a person exercising a power of entry shall not enter or remain in any room or place actually being used as a dwelling unless:
(a) the consent of the occupier is obtained, the occupier first having been informed that the right of entry may be refused, and if refused, may only be made under the authority of an order issued under section 438 of the Act, or a warrant issued under section 439 of the Act.
23
24
ATTACHMENT# I TO REPORT# Power of Entry By-law xx/17 1/ .of. 1 1
f3 LIL .0 tJ- / ~-! Page 4
(b) an order issued under section 438 of the Act is obtained;
(c) a warrant issued under section 439 of the Act is obtained; or
(d) the delay necessary to obtain an order under section 438 of the Act, to obtain a warrant under section 439 of the Act or to obtain consent of the occupier would result in an immediate danger to the health and safety of any person.
7. Penalty
7.1 Any person who obstructs or hinders or attempts to obstruct or hinder any Officer is guilty of an offence and upon conviction is liable to a maximum fine of $25,000.00.
8. Administration
8.1 Should any section of this By-law be declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such section shall be construed as being severed herefrom and the remainder of the By-law shall continue in full force and effect.
8.2 This By-law shall be read with all changes in gender or number as the context requires.
8.3 A grammatical variation of a word or expression defined herein has a corresponding meaning .
8.4 Nothing in this By-law shall limit any other statutory or common law rights or powers of the City or any Officer to enter on land.
8.5 This By-law shall come into force and effect upon the date of its passage.
By-law passed this day of '2017.
David Ryan, Mayor
Debbie Shields, City Clerk
Pl
From:
Subject:
Marisa Carpino Director, Community Services
Licence Agreement Brougham Parkette Property PIN 614725-1 File: A-1440
Recommendation:
Report to Executive Commitee
Report Number: CS 12-17 Date: November 6, 2017
1. That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute the Licence Agreement with Transport Canada set out in Attachment 1 to this Report, subject to minor revisions acceptable to the Director, Community Services and the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor; and
2. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report.
Executive Summary: As per Council Resolution #177/07, the City of Pickering entered into a 5 year lease agreement with Transport Canada for the period of February 1, 2007 to January 31, 2012 for Property PIN 614725-1 (known as Brougham Parkette) which was expropriated by the Federal Government for the purposes of an Airport.
Since the expiry of the lease agreement in 2012, the arrangement between the City of Pickering and Transport Canada for this property has continued subject to Section 4.06 Overholding of the expired licence agreement.
In recent months, City staff have been working with staff from Transport Canada to formally renew the licence agreement for Brougham Parkette. As such, staff are seeking approval from Council to enter into a 5 year licence agreement for Property PIN 614725-1 for the period of December 1, 2017 to November 30, 2022.
Financial Implications: The rental per annum for the Brougham Parkette paid by the City to Transport Canada is $10.00 plus HST. At approximately 0.11 acres in size, the City's cost to maintain the property is negligible.
Discussion: As per Council Resolution #177/07, the City of Pickering entered into a 5 year lease agreement with Transport Canada for the period of February 1, 2007 to January 31, 2012 for four parcels of land expropriated by the Federal Government for the purposes of an Airport. These properties include:
25
26
cs 12-17
Subject: Brougham Parkette Licence Agreement
• Property PIN 614658-1 (Brougham Hall) • Property PIN 614680-2 (Storage Barn) • Property PIN 614725-1 (Brougham Parkette) • Property PIN 614201-1 (Don Beer Memorial Park)
November 6, 2017
Page 2
Since the expiry of the lease agreement in 2012, Property PIN 614201-1 located at Don Beer Memorial Park was re-established in a separate lease agreement between the City of Pickering and Transport Canada for the term of January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2019. Property PIN 614680-02, located at the north east corner of Don Beer Memorial Park, was surrendered and delivered up to Transport Canada by the City of Pickering effective January 29, 2016 since the site acted only as storage for Museum property and was no longer required by the City.
The arrangement between the City of Pickering and Transport Canada for the two remaining properties has continued subject to Section 4.06 Overholding of the expired lease agreement. In recent months, City staff have been working with staff from Transport Canada to formally renew the licence agreements for PIN 614725-1 (Brougham Parkette) and PIN 614658-1 (Brougham Hall).
Brougham Parkette is an open green space marked with an Ontario Historical Plaque commemorating Peter Matthews, who farmed adjacent land, and his role in the Rebellion of 1837.
At this time, the Director, Community Services recommends that the City enter into a 5 year licence agreement with Transport Canada for PIN 614725-1 (Brougham Parkette) for the period of December 1, 2017 to November 30, 2022. The licence agreements for the remaining property (Property PIN 614658-1, Brougham Hall) is still being prepared by Transport Canada and will be brought before Council once reviewed and endorsed by City staff.
Attachments:
1. PIN 614725-1 (Brougham Parkette) Licence Agreement 2. Location Map of Property PIN 614725-1
CORP0227-07/01 revised
cs 12-17
Subject: Brougham Parkette Licence Agreement
:me
Recommended for the consideration
ofPicke~JP
Tony Prevedel , P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer
CORP0227-07/01 revised
November 6, 2017
Page 3
Prepared/ Approved/Endorsed By:
Marisa Carpino Director, Community Services
27
28
ATTACHMENT#~TOREPORT# OS\~- \-::t
PIN 614725-1
LICENCE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made as ofthe pt day ofDECEMBER, 2017.
BETWEEN
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA, as represented by the Minister of Transport ("Her Majesty")
AND
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING, a municipal corporation incorporated pursuant to the laws of the Province of Ontario
(hereinafter called "City of Pickering")
WHEREAS Her Majesty owns lands in the cities of Markham and Pickering, Ontario, commonly known as the Pickering Lands Site (the "PLS");
AND WHEREAS the City of Pickering wishes to use land on that part of the PLS lands described on the attached Schedule "A", and shown on the attached Schedule "B", and identified by Her Majesty as PIN 614725-1 (the "Licenced Lands") to be used solely for the purpose of a parkette, known as the Brougham Parkette (the "Parkette");
AND WHEREAS Her Majesty is willing to grant the City of Pickering a non-exclusive licence to use the Licenced Lands for the sole purpose of maintaining a parkette on the basis that Her Majesty incurs no liability whatsoever for any injuries or damages suffered by any party or third party upon the PLS and the Licenced Lands caused or contributed to by City ofPickering's exercise of rights under this Agreement.
NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSES that, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein and the annual payments by the City of Pickering, hereinafter called the "Licence Fee", and subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter set out, the parties agree as follows:
1
1. EFFECTIVE DATE, LICENCE FEE AND TERM
1.1 This Agreement shall come into effect upon execution by both Her Majesty and the City of Pickering and shall remain in effect for a period of five (5) years from the date first above written, that is, from DECEMBER 1st, 2017 to NOVEMBER 30th, 2022 (the "Term").
1.2 The City of Pickering shall pay to Her Majesty each year of the Term, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, annual Licence Fee in the amount often dollars ($10.00), plus HST, such annual Licence Fee payable in advance on the first day of each and every year during the Term, commencing on December P\ 2017.
1.3 The Licence Fee may be paid by credit, debit or cheque, payable to the Receiver General for Canada and delivered to the following address:
Transport Canada Corporate Services 4900 Yonge St., 3rd Floor Toronto, Ontario M2N 6A5
1.4 Either party may terminate this Agreement upon thirty (30) days' written notice to the other.
2. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTIES
2.1 The City of Pickering shall ensure that the Parkette does not interfere with the use of the PLS or the Licenced Lands by Her Majesty or any of Her Majesty's tenants, agents, contractors, invitees or licensees.
2.2 The City of Pickering agrees to maintain the Parkette during the Term at no cost to Her Majesty.
2.3 Her Majesty grants to the City of Pickering a non-exclusive licence to permit the City of Pickering to maintain the Parkette on the Licenced Lands during the Term, in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, provided always that the exercise by the City ofPickering of the rights granted to it by Her Majesty herein shall be subject to the obligations of Her Majesty to Her tenants, and to the rights of other licensees of Her Majesty. For greater clarity, this Agreement permits the City of Pickering to maintain the Parkette on the Licenced Lands. No other use of the Licenced Lands is permitted.
3. GENERAL
3.1 The City of Pickering shall indemnify and save Her Majesty, Her employees, servants, agents, contractors, and tenants harmless from and against all claims and demands, loss, costs, damages, actions, suits or other proceedings by whomsoever made, brought or
2
29
30
prosecuted in any manner based upon, occasioned by or attributable to any violation of this Agreement by the City of Pickering.
3.2 This Agreement may be amended only by a written agreement signed by the parties.
3.3 Schedules "A" and "B" form part of this Agreement.
3.4 The City ofPickering shall purchase and maintain throughout the Term of this Agreement, commercial general liability insurance which shall include coverage for personal injury (including death) and property damage, including loss of use thereof, all on a per occurrence basis, with respect to the use and occupation of the Licenced Lands (including members of the public), with a limit for any one occurrence or claim of not less than Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000). Such insurance shall:
(a) Name Her Majesty in right of Canada as an additional insured;
(b) Contain a severability of interests and cross-liability clause; and
(c) Contain a clause that the policy of insurance shall not be modified or cancelled without at least thirty (30) days written notice of cancellation to Her Majesty.
The City of Pickering shall provide evidence of such insurance to Her Majesty upon execution of this Agreement.
3.5 Her Majesty shall not be required to pay any and all taxes and assessments pursuant to the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act R.S.C., 1985, c. M-13 and Payments in Lieu of Taxes Regulations (SOR/81-29), including local improvement charges and development charges of any kind whatsoever that are imposed by the municipality against the Licenced Lands during the currency of this Agreement, including any taxes or other amounts which are imposed of, or in lieu of, or in addition to, any such taxes and assessments. Her Majesty acknowledges and agrees that the Licenced Lands will remain subject to assessment for municipal realty tax purposes. A municipal realty tax invoice must be rendered in the ordinary course in respect of the Licenced Lands, however, it will not be forwarded to Her Majesty and Her Majesty will not be required to pay it.
3.6 This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws in force in the Province of Ontario, subject always to any paramount or applicable federal laws. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to nor shall be construed as limiting, waiving or derogating from any federal Crown prerogative.
3.7 The failure by any party to insist in any one instance upon the strict performance by the other party of obligations in this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver or relinquishment of any such obligations as to any other instances, and the same shall continue in full force and effect.
3
3. 8 If, for any reason, any provision of this Agreement, other than any provision which is of fundamental importance to the arrangement between the parties, is to any extent held or rendered invalid or unenforceable, then the particular provision shall be deemed to be independent of and severed from the remainder of this Agreement and all the other provisions of this Agreement shall nevertheless continue in full force and effect.
3.9 Section 3.1 shall survive termination of this Agreement and shall continue in full force and effect.
4. NOTICES
4.1 Notices shall be delivered as follows:
In the case of HER MAJESTY:
Perry Papadatos Regional Manager, Pickering Site Operations Transport Canada 4900 Yonge Street, 41
h Floor Toronto, Ontario M2N 6A5
Tel: E-mail:
416-952-4068 [email protected]
or to such other address as HER MAJESTY may advise from time to time.
In the case of the City of Pickering:
The Corporation of the City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L 1 V 6K7
Attention: Marisa Carpino
Telephone: E-mail:
Director, Community Services
905-420-4660, ext. 2025 [email protected]
or to such other address as the City of Pickering may advise.
4
31
32
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written.
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA, as represented by the Minister of Transport
By: ___________ _ Name: Perry Papadatos Title: Regional Manager, Pickering Site Operations
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING
Per: DAVID RYAN Mayor, City of Pickering
Per: DEBBIE SHIELDS City Clerk, City of Pickering
We have authority to bind the Corporation.
5
SCHEDULE "A"
DESCRIPTION OF THE LICENCED LANDS
Schedule A: Description of Licenced Lands- All ofPWGSC PIN 614725-1
Description of All of PWGSC PIN 614725
That parcel or tract of land situate, lying and being in the City of Pickering in the Regional Municipality of Durham containing approximately 0.33 acres, being part of Lot 19, Concession 6, Geographic Township ofPickering, also being Lot 1, Registered Plan 10, Village of Brougham as in Instrument Number 24371 (Firstly) and shown in RED on the attached Schedule B: PIN 614725 Sketch.
PWGSC PIN 614725 is part ofthe Durham Land Registry Office (No. 40) property identifier number 026388-0065 (LT).
Description of the Licenced Lands being All ofPWGSC PIN 614725-1
That parcel or tract of land situate, lying and being in the City of Pickering in the Regional Municipality of Durham containing approximately 0.11 acres, being part of Lot 19, Concession 6, Geographic Township of Pickering composed of that Part ofPWGSC PIN 614725 shown in red and labeled 725-1 on the attached Schedule B: PIN 614725 Sketch.
6
33
34
SCHEDULE "B"
SKETCH OF THE LICENCED LANDS
Schedule B: PIN 614725-1
Image!)' Date: Marct< 2016
BUILDING OUTUNES
WORKABLE AREA OUTLINES
1•11 Pubhc Woms ana Government servites Canada sept 05,20:7 s.G.C. '18-00'1 Item no '17-00Hl54
7
\ \
\ \
Community Services Department
SCALE: DATE:
N.T.S October /2017
- \ ATTAC~NT #_a_ TO REPORT# C S _ I a- \1-
\ \ \
\
\ \ \ \
\
Attachment for Community Services Report 12-17
Licence Agreement Property PIN 614725-01 (Brougham Parkette)
--at., f)I-P1CKER1NG
35
36
-0~
P1CKER1NG
From:
Subject:
Marisa Carpino Director, Community Services
Lease Agreement Glendale Tennis Club Inc. File: A-1440
Recommendation:
Report to Executive Committee
Report Number: CS 27-17 Date: November 6, 2017
1. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the Lease Agreement with Glendale Tennis Club Inc. set out in Attachment 1 to this report, subject to minor revisions as may be required by the Director, Community Services and the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor;
2. That the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report.
Executive Summary: Glendale Tennis Club Inc. (the "Club") operates various leagues and lessons from tennis courts and associated spaces within David Farr Memorial Park, located at 1150 Glenanna Road in Pickering. The Club has exclusive use of these facilities to operate their activities under the terms and conditions of a 5 year lease agreement (October 1, 2006 to September 30, 2012) with the City of Pickering. The lease agreement was amended as of March 1, 2011 to reflect a 5 year extension to the term ending September 21, 2017. The 5 year agreement renewal was sought by the Club as a condition of receiving a 2012 Ontario Trillium Foundation Grant to improve the existing tennis facilities at David Farr Memorial Park.
The Community Services Department recommends that the Lease Agreement included as Attachment 1 be initiated for a 5 year term beginning December 1, 2017 and ending November 30, 2022.
Financial Implications: The City of Pickering is responsible to fund the general operating costs (such as utilities, garbage removal, maintenance and cleaning) of the courts within David Farr Memorial Park which are reflected annually within the Community Services Department Current Budget (Cost Centre 2718). The Current Budget does not reflect capital expenditures that vary year-to-year depending on facility need.
The Club is responsible to fund the day-to-day operating costs, including program/office supplies, administrative and insurance costs. The Club is also responsible to supply, maintain, repair and/or replace furniture, appliances and equipment at its expense, in order to operate its activities. The Club shall also pay to the City annual charges for hydro use for each of the tennis courts on site. Annual charges are subject to the General Municipal Fees By-Law.
cs 27-17
Subject Glendale Tennis Club Inc. Lease Agreement
November 6, 2017
Page 2
Discussion: The Club offers a wide variety of leagues, events, lessons and community outreach programs, for adults and juniors at all skill levels. The Club currently has 330 adults and 245 juniors for a total of 575 Club members. The Club operates its activities exclusively from 4 tennis courts, patio area, practice area, storage facility, kitchenette and access walkways located at David Farr Memorial Park, under a 5 year lease agreement with the City of Pickering from October 1, 2006 ending September 30, 2012.
As a condition of receiving an Ontario Trillium Foundation Grant in 2012 for funding to improve existing tennis facilities, the Club was required to enter into a 5 year agreement with the City of Pickering for use of tennis facilities. As a result, the lease agreement was amended as of March 1, 2011 to include a 5 year extension which ended September 21, 2017. Improvements under this grant consisted of a replacement of the existing storage shed, concrete walkway removal and replacement, purchase and installation of new bleachers, and installation of a new wooden shade structure with energy efficient lighting on the underside.
Throughout the term of the agreement, the Club has operated their activities in a diligent and conscientious manner that has satisfied the City. As such, the Community Services Department recommends that the Lease Agreement included as Attachment 1 be initiated for a five year term, beginning December 1, 2017 and ending November 30, 2022.
Attachment:
1. Draft Lease Agreement with Glendale Tennis Club Inc.
CORP0227-07/01 revised
37
38
cs 27-17
Subject: Glendale Tennis Club Lease Agreement
November 6, 2017
Page 3
Approved/Endorsed By
.--r Rob Gagen Marisa Carpino Supervisor, Parks Operations Director, Community Services
Brian Duffield Division Head, Operations
RG:mc Recommended for the consideration of Pickeri ity Council
CORP0227-07/01 revised
ATTACHMENT# j_ TO REPORT#£.:~ 6?~-::1~
lease Agreement
This Lease is made as of the 151 day of December, 2017.
Between:
Definitions
1. In this lease,
The Corporation of the City of Pickering (the "City")
-and-
Glendale Tennis Club Inc. (the "Club")
Article I Interpretation
(a) "Commencement Date" means December 1, 2017;
(b) "lease" means this lease as it may be amended from time to time;
(c) "Premises" means that portion of the four tennis courts, patio area, practice area, storage facility, kitchenette and access walkways to the courts within David Farr Memorial Park therein as shown on Schedule "A" attached hereto, located at 1150 Glenanna Road, in the City of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham;
(d) "Term" means the term of this Lease as set out in Section 17; and
(e) "Rent" means the rent payable pursuant to Section 20.
Headings
2. The division of this Lease into articles, sections, subsections and schedules and the insertion of headings are for convenience of reference only and shall not affect the construction or interpretation of this Lease.
39
40
2
Severability
3. All of the provisions of this Lease are to be construed as covenants even where not expressed as such. If any such provision is held to be or rendered invalid, unenforceable or illegal, then it shall be considered separate and severable from this Lease and the remaining provisions of this Lease shall remain in force.
Number
4. Wherever a word importing the singular number only is used in this Lease, such word shall include the plural. Words importing either gender or firms or corporations shall include the other gender and individuals, firms or corporation where the context so requires.
Governing Law
5. This Lease shall be governed by, and interpreted and enforced in accordance with, the laws in force in the Province of Ontario.
Entire Agreement
6. This Lease constitutes the entire agreement between the parties concerning the Premises and may only be amended or supplemented by an agreement in writing signed by both parties.
Grant
Article II Grant and Use
7. In consideration of the performance by the Club of its obligations under this Lease, the City leases the Premises to the Club for its use during the Term. The club acknowledges its right to use the washrooms facilities is non-exclusive.
Club Use of Premises
8. The Premises shall be used only for non-profit tennis club, at its expense and for no other purpose without the prior written consent of the City.
Nuisance
9. The Club shall not carry on any activities or do or suffer any act or thing that constitutes a nuisance or which is offensive or an annoyance to the City or other users of David Farr Memorial Park.
3
City Use of Premises
1 0. Subject to Section 8, the City shall have right of first refusal to use the Premises. The Club shall not be entitled to any rental fees or other remuneration associated with the use of the Premises by the City.
Assignment and Subletting
11. The Club shall not assign this Lease or sublet all or any portion of the Premises without the prior written consent of the City.
Licences
12. The Club may not grant licences to use the Premises.
13. The Club shall submit their annual financial statement to the City by November1 st of each year.
14. The Club shall submit a list of the Club Board of Directors and their contact information to the City by November 1st of each year.
15. The Club shall submit their membership numbers to the City by April 1st of each year.
Term
Article Ill Term
16. The term of this Lease shall be five (5) years from the Commencement Date to November 30, 2022.
17. The City may terminate this Lease at any time for any reason provided it has given the Club six (6) months prior notice in writing.
Overholding
18. If the Club remains in possession of the Premises after the expiry of the Term, there shall be no tacit renewal of this Lease or the Term, notwithstanding statutory provisions or legal presumption to the contrary, and the Club shall be deemed to be occupying the Premises from month to month upon the same terms, covenants and conditions as are set forth in this Lease insofar as they are applicable to a monthly tenancy.
41
42
Rent
4
Article IV Rent
19. The Club shall pay to the City as rent for the entire the Term in lawful money of Canada the sum of One (1) Dollar ($1.00)
Utilities
20. The club shall pay annual charges to the City for each of the tennis courts on site for hydro use. This amount shall be paid on or before April 1 in each year of the term. Annual charges are subject to the General Municipal Fees By-law.
Gross Lease
21. The City acknowledges that this is a gross lease and agrees to pay all charges, impositions and outlays of every nature and kind relating to the Premises except as expressly set out in this Lease.
Article V Maintenance, Repairs and Alterations
Maintenance of Premises
22. The Club shall maintain and operate the Premises so that they shall always be of good appearance, safe and suitable for the proper operation of the Premises.
23. The Club shall provide general maintenance services to the Premises at its expense and shall provide all necessary cleaning and maintenance supplies such as cleaning products, related paper products and cleaning equipment related to the courts and any associated building under their exclusive use.
24. The Club, at its sole expense shall provide the court nets and any shade screening. This would include installation, removal and storage each year.
25. The Club shall maintain at its expense the shade structure that is over the spectator bleachers and area between the courts.
26. The City, or its designate, shall be responsible for all day-to-day operating expenses including garbage removal, bleachers, benches, fencing, plumbing, any building associated with use of the courts, lighting and the court surface life cycle replacement.
5
27. The Club shall be responsible for any damages or costs incurred due to the misuse or negligence of the Club, its employees, invitees, servants, agents, or others under its control and the Club shall pay to the City on demand the expense of any repairs including the City's reasonable administration charge necessitated by such negligence or misuse.
28. The Club shall immediately notify the City of any unsafe conditions on the Premises.
Security
29. The Club shall be responsible for the security of the Premises. The Club will ensure that a key or combination to any lock are provided to the City for maintenance and inspection access.
Alterations/Improvements to Premises
30. The Club shall only be permitted to make alterations and improvements to the Premises that have been approved by the City.
Club's Insurance
Article VI Insurance and Indemnity
31. The Club, at its sole cost and expense, shall take out and maintain,
(a) insurance upon property owned by it which is located on the Premises; and
(b) commercial general liability insurance pertaining to the Club's liability to others in respect of injury, death or damage to property occurring upon, in or about the Premises, and abuse insurance. Such insurance to be of an amount which is reasonable and sufficient having regard to the scope of the risk and the current practice of prudent owners of similar premises for the carrying on of similar businesses, but in any event in an amount not less than two million dollars ($2,000,000.00) for claims arising out of one occurrence. Such policy shall also name the City as an additional named insured and may not be cancelled unless prior notice by registered letter has been given to the City by the insurer 30 days in advance of the expiry date.
43
44
6
32. Prior to the Commencement Date, the Club shall file with the City a Certificate of Insurance in a form satisfactory to the City Treasurer, verifying that the commercial general liability insurance policy is in effect and setting out the essential terms and conditions of the insurance.
33. The provision of the insurance policy required by this section shall not relieve the Club from liability for claims not covered by the policy or which exceed its limits, if any, for which the Club may be held responsible.
Insurance Risks
34. The Club shall not do, omit to do, or permit to be done or omitted to be done upon the Premises anything that may contravene or be prohibited by any of the City's insurance policies in force from time to time covering or relevant to any part of the Premises or which would prevent the City from procuring its policies with companies acceptable to the City. If the conduct of business in the Premises or any acts or omissions of the Club on the Premises causes or results in any increase in premiums for any of the City's insurance policies, the Club shall pay such increase to the City.
Indemnification
35. Each of the City and the Club shall indemnify and save harmless the other from and against any and all actions, losses, damages, claims, costs and expenses (including solicitors' fees on a solicitor and client basis) to which the party being indemnified shall or may become liable by reason of any breach, violation or non-performance by the party so indemnifying of any covenant, term or provision of this Lease or by reason of any damage, injury or death occasioned to or suffered by any person or persons including the City or the Club, as the case may be, or any property by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the party so indemnifying or any of those persons for whom it is in law responsible. For greater certainty, the limitation of liability set out above in this section does not extend to claims, losses or damages resulting in whole or in part from the gross negligence or wilful misconduct of the party claiming indemnification, its employees or those for whom it is in law responsible.
City's Right to Re-Enter
Article VII Remedies on Default
36. If any amount payable to the City under this Lease shall remain unpaid for fifteen (15) days after the Club has received notice thereof, then it shall be lawful for the City at any time thereafter to re-enter the Premises.
7
City's Right to Remedy Default
37. In addition to all other remedies the City may have under this Lease and in law, if the Club is in default of any of its obligations under this Lease, and such default has continued for a period of ten (1 0) days after receipt of notice by the Club (or such longer period as may be reasonably required in the circumstances to cure such default, except in an emergency where the City will not be required to give notice), the City, without prejudice to any other rights which it may have with respect to such default, may remedy such default and the Club shall be responsible for all such costs.
Waiver
38. No condoning, excusing or overlooking by the City of any default, breach or non-observance by the Club at any time or times in respect of any covenant, obligation or agreement under this Lease shall operate as a waiver of the City's rights hereunder in respect of any continuing or subsequent default, breach or non-observance, or so as to defeat or affect in any way the rights of the City in respect of any such continuing or subsequent default or breach, and no waiver shall be inferred from or implied by anything done or omitted by the Club save only an express waiver in writing.
Quiet Enjoyment
Article VIII Miscellaneous
39. The City shall permit the Club to peaceably possess and enjoy the Premises during the Term without any interference from the City, or any person lawfully claiming by, from or under the City provided the Club is not in default.
Right of Entry
40. The Club agrees to permit the City and authorized representatives of the City to enter the Premises during normal business hours or in an emergency for the purpose of inspecting and or maintaining the Premises. The City shall use its best efforts to minimize the disruption to the Club's use of the Premises during any such entry.
Signs
41. The Club may only erect signs on the Premises with the City's prior approval. All such signs shall be removed from the Premises at the end of the Term.
45
46
8
Compliance with Laws
42. The Club, at its sole cost and expense, shall comply with all legal requirements (including statutes, laws, by-laws, regulations, ordinances, orders, rules and regulations of every governmental authority having jurisdiction) that relate to the use of the Premises by the Club or the making of any improvements to the Premises by the Club.
Notice
43. Any notice required to be given by the City to the Club under this Lease shall be in writing and shall be delivered to or such other address of which the Club has notified the City in writing, and any such notice delivered shall be deemed good and sufficient notice under the terms of this Lease.
44. Any notice required to be given by the Club to the City under this Lease shall be in writing and shall be delivered to The Corporation of the City of Pickering, Pickering Civic Complex, One The Esplanade, Pickering, Ontario (Attention: City Clerk) or such other address of which the City has notified the Club in writing, and any such notice delivered shall be deemed good and sufficient notice under the terms of this Lease.
Successors and Assigns
45. This Lease shall enure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties and their respective successors (including any successor by reason of amalgamation or statutory arrangement) and permitted assigns.
Schedules
46. Schedule "A" attached hereto form part of th~s Agreement.
9
In Witness Whereof the parties have executed this Lease.
The Corporation of the City of Pickering
David Ryan, Mayor
Debbie Shields, City Clerk
Glendale Tennis Club
Pascal Arpin, President
Christina Koichopolos, Secretary
47
SOCC ER PITC H (JR .)
BASEBALL DIAMOND
(JR .)
GARB. CAN
JR. & SR. PLAY AR
WITH SWING
)> UJ LJ I )>
~ LJ
~ I
TENNIS TENNIS COURT COURT
GLENANNA
Schedule "A"
TENNIS COURT
ASPHALT PLAY AREA
AREA OF LEAS E AGR EEM ENT
BUTIERFLY MEADOW t
PARK INFO.
DAVID FARR PARK
P-011 SHEET 1 OF 1
1
From:
Subject:
lN
Richard Holborn Director, Engineering Services
Pre- 2018 Capital Budget Approval
Report to Executive Committee
Report Number: ENG 24-17 Date: November 6, 2017
Consulting Services for Detailed Design for the Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Implementation Project
File: A-1440
Recommendation:
1. That Council approve the hiring of AECOM Canada Ltd. for the Detailed Design Services for the Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Implementation Project in accordance with Purchasing Policy 10.03(c), as the assignment has a value above $50,000.00 and a competitive process is not being followed, and therefore is subject to additional Council approvals;
2. That the fee proposal dated October 16, 2017 submitted by AECOM Canada Ltd. for the Detailed Design Services for the Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Implementation Project in the amount of $298,896.30 (HST included) be accepted;
3. That the total gross project cost of $345,736.00 (HST included), including the proposal amount and other associated costs, and the total net project cost of $311,346.00 (net of HST rebate) be accepted;
4. That Council provide pre- 2018 Capital Budget approval of the total net project cost of $311,346.00 to retain the consulting services of AECOM Canada, and for other associated costs;
5. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to finance the estimated net project cost of $311,346.00 by a transfer from the Roads & Bridges Reserve Fund;
6. That the funds required for Contract Administration and Field Inspection from AECOM Canada Ltd. as outlined in the proposal, and any required associated costs be included with the cost of construction in the appropriate year and be subject to approval through the future year's Capital Budget process;
7. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report.
Executive Summary: The Whitevale Master Drainage Plan, dated March 2013 was completed by AECOM Canada Ltd. and endorsed by Council by Resolution# 183/14 on February 24, 2014. The recommended solutions from the plan were included in the Capital Forecast for design in 2018, and construction in 2019 at a total estimated cost of $2.5 million.
49
50
ENG 24-17 November 6, 2017
Subject: Consulting Services for Detailed Design for the Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Implementation Project Page 2
Due to severe storm events in summer 2017 resulting in flooding, property damage and damage to municipal infrastructure, it became clear that implementation of the Whitevale Master Drainage Plan is required as soon as possible to mitigate further damage, flooding and loss.
As AECOM was the author of the Whitevale Master Drainage Plan, City staff negotiated a proposal from them to undertake the detailed design and approvals components of the recommended solutions outlined in the Plan.
In accordance with City Purchasing Policy section 10.03(c), where a competitive process is not followed, the Director initiating the assignment shall require Council approval to engage the services of a particular consultant. The Director, Engineering Services is recommending Council approval to retain AECOM Canada Ltd. for this assignment at a cost of $264,51'0.00 (plus HST). The initial project award will consist of tasks related to detailed design services as outlined in AECOM Canada Ltd.'s proposal at this time. Tasks related to contract administration and field inspection as outlined in the fee proposal are accepted but will be funded in a future year along with construction.
Pre- 2018 budget approval is required in order to have the assignment commence in time to have the design, approvals, permits and tender documents complete for a possible 2019 construction.
Financial Implications:
1. Proposal Amount
Proposal from AECOM Canada Ltd. dated October 16, 2017
Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Implementation Project Detail Design HST (13%)
Total
2. Estimated Project Costing Summary
Proposal Associated Costs Contingency (1 0%) Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Permit Fees Sub Total- Costs
HST (13%)
Total Gross Project Cost HST Rebate (11.24%)
Total Net Project Cost
CORP0227-07/01 revised
$264,510.00 34,386.30
$298.896.30
$264,510.00
26,451.00 15,000.00
$305,961.00
39,775.00
$345,736.00 (34,390.00)
$311.346.00
ENG 24-17 November 6, 2017
Subject: Consulting Services for Detailed Design for the Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Implementation Project Page 3
3. Approved Source of Funds - 2018 Pre-Budget Approval
Expense Code Source of Funds Pre - Budget Approval Amount
5320.1898.6230
Total Funds
Roads & Bridges Reserve Fund $311,346.00
$311.346.00
In order to advance this project, pre- 2018 budget approval is required, and this requirement is reflected in Recommendation 4. Once the 2018 Capital Budget is approved, the purchase order and costs incurred will be re-allocated to project code 5320.1807.6230.
Discussion: The Whitevale Master Drainage Plan (WMDP) dated March 2013, was completed by AECOM Canada Ltd. and provides a comprehensive solution to the drainage system deficiencies in the Hamlet ofWhitevale. The WMDP was received and endorsed by Council on February 24, 2014 by Resolution #183/14. Report ENG 04-14 concerning the WMDP included a recommendation that staff be authorized to implement the recommendations of the WMDP subject to budget and further Council approval for individual projects.
After the WMDP was received and endorsed by Council, staff included cost estimates in the Capital Forecast for detailed design services and for construction. In the most recent Capital Forecast (2018- 2021), the detailed design is indicated as a 2018 project and construction is indicated as a 2019 project. The total estimated cost of the improvements is $2.5 million.
During the period of 2014-2016, the Whitevale bridge was under construction and that project included construction of a new storm sewer outfall on the east approach to the bridge. The storm sewer outfall is an integral component to the new drainage system recommended in the WMDP. The Whitevale Road storm sewer systems could not be improved prior to the new outfall being completed.
In June and July 2017 severe rain storms in the Hamlet of Whitevale resulted in flooding and property damage, including damage to municipal infrastructure. Although repairs were undertaken and improvements have been made since the storm, it is apparent that the implementation of the WMDP recommendations are required as soon as possible to mitigate further damage, flooding and loss.
Recent discussions and correspondence with the Whitevale District Residents Associations about managing stormwater in the Hamlet have highlighted the community's concern and the need for an action plan. The action plan developed consists of short term interim solutions, that have been implemented, and the acceleration of the WMDP recommended solutions.
In order to accelerate the detail design services required to implement the WMDP solutions, staff contacted AECOM Canada Ltd., the authors of the WMDP. AECOM was requested to submit a proposal based on their understanding of the project. An important element of the proposal is to CORP0227-07/01 revised
51
52
ENG 24-17 November 6, 2017
Subject: Consulting Services for Detailed Design for the Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Implementation Project Page 4
fulfill WMDP Environment Assessment commitments to involve the Whitevale District Residents Association in the detailed design process and receive their input. The Whitevale District Residents Association and their Drainage Committee were involved in the preparation of the WMDP and their involvement lead to the success and acceptance of the plan.
The proposal from AECOM Canada Ltd. dated October 16, 2017 has been reviewed by staff and the proposed work plan, deliverables, schedule and fee is deemed acceptable. The project team assigned to the project has the qualifications and experience necessary to complete the project.
In order to have a detailed design and tender package completed by the end of 2018 in preparation for spring 2019 construction (subject to further Council approval), it is necessary to have the assignment commence in November 2017. To achieve this timetable, 2018 pre- budget approval is required and is a recommendation within this report.
In accordance with City Purchasing Policy section 10.03(c), where a competitive process is not followed, the Director initiating the assignment shall require Council approval to engage the services of a particular consultant. The Director, Engineering Services is recommending Council approval to retain AECOM Canada Ltd. for this assignment. The initial project award will consist of tasks related to detailed design services as outlined in AECOM Canada Ltd.'s proposal dated October 16, 2017. Tasks related to contract administration and field inspection as outlined in the fee proposal are accepted but will be funded in a future year along with construction.
Attachments:
1 . Location Map
CORP0227-07/01 revised
ENG 24-17 November 6, 2017
Subject: Consulting Services for Detailed Design for the Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Implementation Project Page 5
RH:mjh
Recommended for the consideration of Picke in City Council
CORP0227 -07/01 revised
Prepared/Approved/Endorsed By:
r~g Director, Engineering Services
Stan Karwowski , MBA CPA, CMA Director, Finance & Treasurer
53
~--
Legend
E'ZZZZJ Subject Lands
Engineering Services Department
1:10,000 Oct 18 2017
_/ _ __,_---.__....-, ___ ~/ /----- ... ___ ----
WHI
0
<3 0::: <( z 0 ~ <(
Location Map Hamlet of Whitevale
~ 0::: I
~ 0 z
lL _J
0 (9
-Cdt;{)fP1CKER1NG
1 1
From: Stan Karwowski Director, Finance & Treasurer
Report to Executive Committee
Report Number: FIN 20-17 Date: November 6, 2017
Subject: Analysis of the 2017 Property Tax Grant for Low Income Seniors and Low Income Persons with Disabilities
Recommendation:
It is recommended that Report FIN 20-17 of the Director, Finance & Treasurer regarding the 2017 Property Tax Grant for Low Income Seniors and Low Income Persons with Disabilities be received for information.
Executive Summary: This report on the 2017 Property Tax Grant for Low Income Seniors and Persons with Disabilities provides an analysis of the program's first year. This program provides a $200 grant for low income seniors who are in receipt of Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) or for persons who are disabled and receiving financial assistance from Ontario Disability Support Plan (ODSP).
Financial Implications: None
Discussion: On April 11, 2017 Council passed by-law 7552/17 to assist low income seniors and persons with disabilities by developing the Low Income Property Tax Grant. Pickering tax staff developed and administered a program to track and issue the grant to eligible applicants.
Promotional/Communication Strategy
This was the program's first year and staff recognized the importance of the promotional strategy as it relates to the program's success. A special emphasis and effort were required in order to inform and reach as many Pickering senior and ODSP residents as possible.
55
56
Report FIN 20-17 November 6, 2017
Subject: Analysis of the 2017 Property Tax Grant for Low Income Seniors and Low Income Persons with Disabilities
Taxation staff employed the following strategies:
Page 2
1) The program details were included in the 2017 final property tax brochure. This brochure is distributed to all Pickering property owners.
2) The City's website was updated to reflect the program's details and also included an electronic version of the application form.
3) In the Community Page section of the Pickering News Advertiser, an ad was placed for six weeks.
4) The Pickering News Advertiser posted a story about the grant when Council passed the By-law.
Program Statistics Based on Senior Grants
The City received 179 applications. 148 were approved and 31 were denied. Applications were denied if the applicant was not receiving the GIS or ODSP financial support. As expected , most of the successful applicants were seniors. 143 of the 148 (96.6%) approved applications were for seniors and five were ODSP recipients.
The breakdown by approved applicants is presented below:
• 50% of the applicants were women • 25.6% were men • 24.4% were married
The average life expectancy for women (83.8 years) is greater than men (79.6 years) and this is reflected in the program's users.
Chart One Grant Age Demographics
32 .16%
Age 65-69 Age 70-74 • Age 75-79 Age 80+
Report FIN 20-17 November 6, 2017
Subject: Analysis of the 2017 Property Tax Grant for Low Income Seniors and Low Income Persons with Disabilities
Page 3
As the above chart indicates, over 62.2% of the successful grant applicants were over the age of 75. With a majority of Canadians retiring between the ages of 62 to 65, the inference may be drawn from the above data that some level of financial stress may be experienced by seniors after ten years of retirement. With inflation averaging around 2 per cent per year, the compound affect of the inflationary increase over ten years is 21.89%. In other words, the buying power of those seniors who retired ten years ago has been eroded by at least 21.89% unless their pensions are indexed to some level of inflation.
A breakdown by ward of successful grant applicants is presented in chart two.
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 Ward 1
Chart Two Breakdown by Ward
Successful Applicants
Ward 2 Ward 3
Almost 46% of the applicants reside in ward 3. This anomaly could be due to the fact that the "population data set" of 148 successful applicants is not large enough. In other words, a larger population of successful applicants may not have produced such a variance by ward.
An interesting statistic is the average assessment value by ward as presented below:
• Ward 1-$532,024- Range: $274,000 to $710,000 • Ward 2- $446,718- Range: $244,000 to $703,000 • Ward 3-$362,132- Range: $198,000 to $724,000
57
58
Report FIN 20-17 November 6, 2017
Subject: Analysis of the 2017 Property Tax Grant for Low Income Seniors and Low Income Persons with Disabilities
Page4
The average assessment value is based on MPAC data and reflects the value of a ''home" as of January 1, 2016. In other words, the assessment values are almost two years old and do not reflect today's real estate values. A partial explanation for the variance in the assessment value may be due to the fact that the population data set for ward 3 is based on 68 applications in contrast to the 41 app,lications received from ward 1. A larger number of successful applications generates a more reflective average assessment value.
A breakdown of housing structure by successful applicant is shown in chart three.
Chart Three Housing Structure
• Detached • Townhouse "' Semi-Detached Condo
A large majority of the successful applicants occup single detached homes which bear a higher proper tax responsibility than other housing types. The 2017 grant strategy based on $200, was to "hold the line" on City share property taxes when comparing 2014 to 2017. The average City Share of property taxes for the eligible applicants was $1,131 in 2014 and for 2017 was $1,283- a difference of $152. In other words, the City has achieved its goal of freezing the City Share property taxes at the 2014 level. For 2018, staff's preliminary recommendation will be to increase the grant to $225 to ensure that the City Share of property taxes remains at the 2014 level. Since residents are required to apply and provide proof of eligibility every year, an application form will be mailed to the successful 2017 applicants. Taxation staff will employ the same communication and marketing strategy for 2018.
Report FIN 20-17 November 6, 2017
Subject: Analysis of the 2017 Property Tax Grant for Low Income Seniors and Low Income Persons with Disabilities
Attachments: None
Prepared By:
l/lf' Mif%:es Supervisor, Taxation
Tony Prev . Eng. Chief Adm·=.uo· ......-"'tive Officer
Approved I Endorsed By:
Stan Karwowski Director, Finance & Treasurer
Page 5
59
60
--C~of-
JCKERJN
From: Stan Karwowski Director, Finance & Treasurer
Report to Executive Committee
Report Number: FIN 22-17 Date: November 6, 2017
Subject: Statutory Public Meeting Regarding Proposed 2017 Development Charge By-law and Background Study
Recommendation:
1. That Report FIN 22-17 of the Director, Finance & Treasurer be received;
2. That Council receive for information the City of Pickering - Development Charges Background Study prepared by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. dated October 5, 2017;
3. That all written submissions made at the November 6th Public Meeting or received in writing from the public by November 17th be referred to staff and to Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. for consideration in preparation of the final Development Charge recommendations and By-law for Council's consideration on December 11th; and,
4. That the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement these recommendations.
Executive Summary: Pickering needs to continue implementing development charges to fund capital projects related to growth throughout the City so that development pays for its capital requirements to the full extent allowed by the Development Charges Act (the "DC Act") and so that the new services required by growth are provided in a fiscally responsible manner. Without development charge ("DC") funding, the financial responsibility of paying for growth-related capital projects would be borne by existing taxpayers.
The City collects development charges from new construction to pay for growth-related capital costs. The City's current Development Charges By-law expires on December 9, 2018, however, with the City now entering a high growth phase (due partially to Seaton), it would be beneficial to update the By-law now, in order to reflect current construction costs and up-to-date capital strategies. The new DC Background Study has been prepared pursuant to the DC Act to update the previous DC By-law The purpose of this
Report FIN 22-17 November 6, 2017
Subject: Statutory Public Meeting Regarding Proposed 2017 Development Charge By-law and Background Study
Page 2
Report is to present the 2017 DC Background Study and proposed By-law for consideration at a statutory public meeting, as required by the DC Act.
The DC rates set out in the Background Study are calculated on a cost recovery basis and represent what is allowed under the DC Act. The change from current rates is the result of revised growth forecasts and updated capital programs.
The proposed decrease of the Seaton residential DC is 7.5% or $632 for a single detached unit. For the rest of Pickering, a single detached unit is proposed to increase by 1.77% or $250 for a single semi-detached unit. The new DC rate on a detached residential unit would continue to result in Pickering having one of the lowest DC rate of all the GTA municipalities. Pickering's new DC rate continues to be lower than those of Whitby, Oshawa, and Ajax.
The proposed DC Background Study incorporates the principles of the Seaton Financial Impacts Agreement (the "FIA") approved by Council on October 28, 2013. The FIA requires the Seaton landowners to pay the City-wide DC for all services except transportation services. The Seaton landowners will be funding and building their own local roads and, therefore, are not subject to the transportation charge applicable to the rest of Pickering.
After the statutory public meeting, it is proposed that staff review the submissions received from the public. Staff will bring forward a final report with a proposed DC Bylaw for Council's consideration at the December 11th Council meeting. The new Development Charge By-law will, if passed by Council, be effective on January 1, 2018.
Financial Implications: The proposed DC background study includes a gross capital program of $453.4 million of which $301.5 million is to be recovered from DC's. The residual amount of $151.9 million is more commonly referred to as "City Share" and this dollar amount will be funded from property taxes, senior level grant funding (such as Federal Gas Tax) or debt. The "City Share" funds the 10% statutory deduction for soft services, the "benefit to existing" deduction and the post-period benefit.
The DC Act requires municipalities to reduce the growth-related net capital costs associated with "soft services" by 10%. (Soft services include services such as recreation, parks and libraries). Additional infrastructure that is to be put in place, that will provide benefits to the existing population, must also be funded from a source other than DC's. This is commonly known as the "benefit to existing" reduction. Typically, these reductions are funded through the property tax base. Some of the infrastructure that is planned to be built within the DC By-law will serve future population and employment-related growth beyond the life of this study and therefore, some of the capital project's cost will be allocated to future studies. This allocation of cost to future year is referred to as "post period benefit". Some of the Seaton-related capital projects
61
62
Report FIN 22-17 November 6, 2017
Subject: Statutory Public Meeting Regarding Proposed 2017 Development Charge By-law and Background Study
Page 3
may reflect this deduction. In the interim, these costs will be funded by the City and then recovered through the next DC Study planned for 2021.
Discussion: In simplest terms, DC rates are calculated as follows:
Growth-Related New Capital Costs Growth Forecast (Population)
Growth-Related Capital Program
The 2013 DC study capital forecast included the Seaton FlA. The FIA exempts the Seaton Development Area from the transportation component of the City-wide DC until Seaton has reached certain development targets as specified in the FlA. (It is anticipated that the Seaton landowners will reach these targets by 2031). This results in a lower overall DC rate for Seaton as compared to the rest of Pickering.
The DC Capital program was developed by staff from all departments. Staff first reviewed the 2013 DC study and removed projects that have been completed; then the timing and costs of projects that had not been completed were updated in the context of the new growth forecast or new/improved information that is now available. Lastly, projects were added to the program that are required to service the additional growth included in the 2017 Background Study.
In the 2017 DC Background Study, some adjustments have been made to the service categories in order to better reflect our current growth-related needs. The "Operations Services" category will be re-allocated to a new category "Other Services Related to a Highway" and to "Parks & Recreation Services". The "Protective Services" category has been expanded to include By-law & Animal Enforcement Services.
Historically, the "Protective Services" category only included fire protection. However, Finance staff, working with the consultant, explored the opportunity of adding new services and their corresponding capital programs for DC funding under this category. The benefit of this change is that an animal shelter is now included in the Study with vehicles related to both By-law and Animal Services.
Table One shows that the DC Eligible Costs in the 2017 Study have increased by 37.3% from the 2013 study.
Table One Comparison of DC Funding Sources
Gross Capital Costs Less: DC Eligible Costs Net City Share
2013 Study ($M)
352.1 (219.5)
132.6
2017 Study ($M)
453.4 (301.5)
151.9
Change%
28.7 37.3 14.5
Report FIN 22-17 November 6, 2017
Subject: Statutory Public Meeting Regarding Proposed 2017 Development Charge By-law and Background Study
Page4
The City share dollar amount of $151.9 million will be funded through property taxes, debt and senior level government grants such as Federal Gas Tax. The City's current economic strategy focusing on industrial and commercial growth (taxation revenue) will assist the City in meeting its future growth related financial obligations.
Comparison of DC Funding Sources
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
62.3%
2013 DC Study
• Growth Funded (DC Charges)
2017 DC Study
m City Share
As the above chart indicates, there has been a shift between funding sources, taxpayer to DC charges resulting in savings of approximately $19.0 million.
Growth Forecast
The DC growth forecast has been derived from the forecast contained in Durham Region Regional Official Plan Amendment No. 128, as approved by the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) on January 9, 2013.
Each service is either based on a 1 0-year planning period (Protection Services, Parks and Recreation, Library, and Administration Studies) or until 2031 (Other Services Related to a Highway, Stormwater Management and Transportation).
The following table compares the growth forecast in the 2013 Study and the 2017 Study:
2013 Study 2017 Study %Change Population
10-year 52,720 78,450 48.8% To 2031 87,720 91,746 4.6%
Employment 1 0-year 15,210 21,121 38.8% To 2031 26,200 31,326 19.6%
63
64
Report FIN 22-17 November 6, 2017
Subject: Statutory Public Meeting Regarding Proposed 2017 Development Charge By-law and Background Study
Page 5
The 2017 growth forecast is higher mainly due to the commencement of Seaton development being delayed. The growth originally forecasted to occur from 2014-2017 that did not occur is now being included in the 2018-2027 forecast, in addition to the growth previously forecasted for the same period. In other words, part of the (2014-2017) growth is being "pushed" into the (2018-2027) period resulting in higher population figures.
Pickering Proposed DC Rates
A comparison of the DC rates by component between current and proposed January 1, 2018 is presented below.
*
Single and Semi Detached Residential Rate Comparison of Current Rates to Proposed Rates
Current Proposed Service (Indexed) Jan. 1/18
Municipal Wide Services: Other Services Related to a Highway** $441 Operations Services** $614 Protection Services (Fire, By-law & ~889 Animal Services)
Fire Protection*** 664 Parks and Recreation Services 5,637 4,851 Library Services 916 1,086 Administration Studies 202 277 Stormwater Management 431 288
Total Municipal Wide Services (Line A) $8,464 $7,832 Outside of Seaton Lands
Transportation 5,635 6,517 Total Outside of Seaton Lands (Line B) $5,635 $6,517 Rest of Pickering (Line A+B) $14,099 $14,349
Seaton**** $8,464 $7,832
Change* (Increase/ Decrease)
250
(632)
Comparisons of each service cannot be made due to the adjustments of the service categories between studies.
** Vehicles and facilities previously included under "Operations Services" have been included in "Other Services related to a Highway" and "Parks and Recreation Services" to better reflect the services provided.
*** Protection services included in the broader costs of protective and enforcement services, including Fire Protection Services and funding for Animal and By-law Services.
**** Excludes the cost of Seaton internal roads network and voluntary contributions under the FlA.
Report FIN 22-17 November 6, 2017
Subject: Statutory Public Meeting Regarding Proposed 2017 Development Charge By-law and Background Study
Page 6
When Council approved the Seaton FIA, City staff successfully negotiated an additional financial contribution of $16.0 million from the Seaton landowners. This amount is collected through an additional charge that is paid along with the Seaton DC. For a Seaton single detached home, an additional $1,266 is charged. Therefore, a Seaton developer is paying $9,098 ($7,832 + $1 ,266) for a single semi-detached dwelling plus road construction costs.
There are a number of factors influencing the change in the DC rate for residential single and semi-detached dwelling units, including: " total DC recoverable costs over the 1 0-year forecast period; " forecast growth in incremental gross population over the 1 0-year period; and " the change in average occupancy per dwelling unit persons per unit (PPU) between
Census periods.
Forth~ single and semi-detached category, there was a decrease of $786 or 13.9% for the Parks and Recreation DC rate between the 2017 and 2013 DC Background Study. The decrease is due to the following factors: " DC recoverable costs for the 1 0-year forecast period increased by approximately
2%; " The PPU for single and semi-detached dwelling units increased by approximately
1%; " The incremental 1 0-year gross population increased by approximately 39%; • The increase in DC recoverable costs and occupancy place upward pressure on the
DC rate. However, the higher number of housing units forecast to be constructed over the 1 0-year forecast period, and related population growth, more than offset the increase in DC recoverable costs and occupancy;
The Seaton residential rate decreased by $632 or 7.5% due to the growth forecast increasing at a greater percentage than the DC eligible capital costs. Also contributing to the reduction is the decrease in the amount of capital costs related to Stormwater Management in contrast to the 2013 study, due to more refined cost estimates for the projects.
65
66
Report FIN 22-17 November 6, 2017
Subject: Statutory Public Meeting Regarding Proposed 2017 Development Charge By-law and Background Study
Page 7
Non-Residential Rate Comparison of Current Rates to Proposed Rates
$ Per Sq. ft. of Floor $ Per Net Ha of Area Prestige Employment
Service Land in Seaton
Current Proposed Current Proposed (Indexed) Jan. 1/18 (Indexed) Jan. 1/18
Municipal Wide Services Other Service Related to Highway 0.15 5,451 Operations Services 0.27 8,264 Protection Services 0.34 11,431 Fire Protection 0.29 9,020 Parks and Recreation 0.47 0.39 14,514 13,261 Library Services 0.07 0.08 2,360 2,605 Administration Studies 0.08 0.10 2,788 3,560 Stormwater Management 0.19 0.10 6,057 3,504
Total Municipal Wide Services (Line A) 1.37 1.15 43,003 39,812 Outside of Seaton Lands
Transportation 2.77 1.83 - -Total Outside of Seaton Lands (Line B) 2.77 1.83 - -Rest of Pickering (Line A+B) 4.14 2.98
Seaton 1.37 1.15 43,003 39,812
The non-residential DC for lands outside of the Seaton Prestige Employment Lands are recovered from development on a per sq. ft. of total floor area basis. While total DC eligible costs have increased by 31%, the DC has decreased by approximately 28%. This decrease is attributable to the increase in the gross floor area forecast.
For Seaton industrial and commercial development, a different approach was applied as it relates to development charges. A land area specific charge (per net Hectare) is used in contrast to a floor area charge. Under the floor area charge approach, the DC charges are based on the size of the building. The property owner may apply a phased development approach over several years to fully utilize the land size, such that the DC's would be payable over a lengthy time period. Using the land area approach in Seaton, the developer pays the full DC at the time of the first development regardless of the fact that there may be several phases of construction development. This approach encourages expedient buildout, discourages land banking and creates a more favourable cash flow scenario for the City.
Report FIN 22-17 November 6, 2017
Subject: Statutory Public Meeting Regarding Proposed 2017 Development Charge By-law and Background Study
City of Pickering DC Rates Comparison of Current Rates to Proposed Rates
The proposed changes to all of Pickering's DC rates are summarized below:
Page 8
Rest of Pickering Seaton Current Proposed Current Proposed
(Indexed) .(Indexed) Residential
Single and Semi-Detached 14,099 14,349 8,464 7,832 Apts. 2 Bedrooms + 7,453 9,066 4,473 4,949 Apts. Less than 2 Bedrooms 5,470 6,422 3,284 3,505 Other Multiples 11 '180 11,586 6,709 6,325
Non-Residential 4.14 2.98 1.37 1.15
The above chart shows that the DC charges for apartments are increasing more than single and semi-detached. The reason for the larger increase is that according StatsCan census data the persons per unit (PPU) is increasing in apartments. The current study has used updated census figures as compared to the 2013 study. The increase in PPU's may be explained by the increasing housing prices which are making condos and apartments the entry point into the real estate market rather than townhouses. The change in person per unit assumptions is as follows:
2013 2017 % Single 3.48 3.53 1.44 Apartment 2+ 1.84 2.23 21.20 Apartment <2 1.35 1.58 17.04 Other 2.76 2.85 3.26
Competitive DC Rates
The graph below shows that Pickering's proposed single detached residential DC rate is competitive in comparison with both its Durham Lakeshore neighbours and other GTA comparators (see Attachment 1). Pickering will maintain a very competitive position, especially given its proximity to Toronto. Out of all the communities that border Toronto, Pickering has the lowest DC rates.
67
68
Report FIN 22-17 November 6, 2017
Subject: Statutory Public Meeting Regarding Proposed 2017 Development Charge By-law and Background Study
$60,000
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000
$20 ,000
$10,000
$0 Whitby
$per sq. ft
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
Whitby
Single and Semi Detached
Oshawa Ajax Clarington Rest of Rest of Seaton Pickering Pickering (Current)
(New) (Current)
• Lower Tier • Pickering • Region Education
Commercial
Oshawa Clarington Ajax Rest of Rest of Seaton Pickering Pickering (Current) (Current) (New)
11 Lower Tier • Pickering Region Education
Page 9
Seaton .(New)
Seaton (New)
Report FIN 22-17 November 6, 2017
Subject: Statutory Public Meeting Regarding Proposed 2017 Development Charge By-law and Background Study
$35,000
$30,000
$25,000
$20,000
$15,000
$10,000
$5,000
$0
Indexing
Whitby
Apts. 2 Bedroom+
Oshawa Rest of Pickering
(New)
Ajax Rest of Clarington Seaton Pickering (New) (Current)
• Lower Tier • Pickering • Region Education
Page 10
Seaton (Current)
Based on our current DC By-law, DC rates shall be adjusted annually as of July 1 each year based on the Non-residential Building Construction index in order to keep DC revenues currentwith construction costs. The previous indexing was done on July 1, 2017, a.nd would be due for indexing again on July 1, 2018. Staff are proposing that the new DC rates be indexed starting on July 1, 2018.
Transition to New Rates
The proposed rates will come into effect on January 1, 2018. Any complete building permit applications received after January 1, 2018 will be subjectto the new DC rate.
Proposed Major By-law Policy Changes
Under the 2013 DC By-law, property owners were given .development charge credits when they demolished an existing building or dwelling. These development charge credits have a ten year life. The ten year time period does not encourage development. Instead, it allows inactivity. After demolition while a property sits vacant, the City and the Region only receive property taxes based on the vacant land class. The 2017 DC By-law proposes to change the ten year DC credit period to five years. The five year period should provide sufficient time for any rezoning or planning approval changes, and will encourage future redevelopment. Under the 2013 By-law, farm buildings were exempt from all DC charges. The 2017 DC By-law proposes to change the full exemption for farm buildings to a partial exemption by imposing a DC charge for roads and fire protection. These two DC components (road and fire protection) related to farm activity.
69
70
Report FIN 22-17 November 6, 2017
Subject: Statutory Public Meeting Regarding Proposed 2017 Development Charge By-law and Background Study
Communications Strategy
Page 11
The DC Act has a mandatory communication/advertising requirement for at least one public meeting, and the Clerk is required to carry out such advertising at least twenty days in advance of the Meeting date. The Statutory Public Meeting was first advertised in the Pickering News Advertiser on October 11, 2017 and will continue every Wednesday until November 1, 2017. In addition, reference to the Statutory Public Meeting has been advertised on the City's website. The City has met the requirements of the Development Charges Act.
On October 17th, staff reached out to the development industry by distributing the DC Background Study, .dated October 5, 2017 and holding a stakeholder consultation on November 1st. The comments from this meeting were not available at the time this report was written.
Next Steps
Following receipt of comments at the Public Meeting, and written submissions no later than November 17th, 2017, staff will bring forward a final report and proposed DC Bylaw for Council's consideration at the Council meeting to be held on December 11th, 2017. If enacted, the new DC By-law will be effective January 1, 2018.
Attachments:
1 . Residential Development Charges per Single Detached Dwelling for Greater Toronto Area Municipalities, as of October 19, 2017
2. 2017 Development Charges Background Study, dated October 5, 2017
Prepared By:
~ Caryn Kong, CPA, CGA Senior Financial Analyst- Capital & Debt Management
Paul Creamer Senior Accounting Analyst, Internal Audit
Approved I Endorsed By:
Stan Karwowski, CPA, CMA, MBA Director, Finance & Treasurer
Report FIN 22-17 November 6, 2017
Subject: Statutory Public Meeting Regarding Proposed 2017 Development Page 12 Charge By-law and Background Study
Recommended for the consideration of Pickering it Council
/ ' ot-D ~e~A-t-f oF
ng. Officer
71
Residential Development Charges Per Single Detached Dwelling for Greater Toronto Area Municipalities
as of October 19, 2017
$100,000
$80,000
-~ $60,000 c :I ... CIJ c.
V). $40,000
$20,000
$-
BB=Built Boundary & GF=Greenfield.
1. A component of the charge has been converted from a per hectare charge to a hypothetical single detached unit.
2. lnclu.des Financial Impacts Agreement (FIA) Charges ($1,266)
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. (10/19/2017)
0 Upper Tier 0 Lower Tier • Education
$60
Non-Residential Development Charges Per GFA of Retail Floor Area for Greater Toronto Area Municipalities
as of October, 2017
I D UpperTier DlowerTier • Education I ~
$50 -~ -~ $40
~ 0'"
-~-~-,.... ~ ---~ - - -~-- ;-- r-- - ,....
Ill $30 .... - r-- ~ - -Q) c..
-V).
$20 ~ -,.- 1 l - -r= ..-- ,-- ~ ,_. '. ..--
$10 =
. ' ~ - 1-- 1-=- ,.- r--. ~ t-= :=- 1--:•·,. ,. ··:: :-· ,; I ·
.. .... ·. ,:: :-
$-
(
BB=Built Boundary & GF=Greenfield.
1. A portion of the charge has been converted from a per hectare charge to a hypothetical GFA cha rge assuming 30% coverage.
2. Includes Financial Impacts Agreement (FIA) Charges ($0.09/sq.ft.). Prestige Employment Lands in Seaton pay FIA charge plus $41;750 per net hectare (current),$38,419 per net
hectare(calculated).
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. {10/19/2017)
-
F=
$40
$30
~ 0" ~ $20 Q)
c. "IJ\.
$10
$-
BB=Built Boundary & GF=Greenfield .
Non-Residential Development Charges Per GFA of Industrial Floor Area for Greater Toronto Area Municipalities
as of October 19, 2017
o Upper Tier 0 Lower Tier • Education
1. A portion ofthe charge has been converted from a per hectare charge to a hypothetical GFA charge assuming 30% coverage.
2. Includes Financial impacts Agreement (FIA) Charges ($0.09/sq.ft.). Prestige Employment Lands in Seaton pay FIA charge plus $41,750 per net hectare (current), $38,419 per net
hectare(calculated) .
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. {10/19/2017)
City of Pickering 2017 Development Charges
Background Study
For Public Circulation and Comment
October 5, 2017
ATTACHMENT# ..:J._ TO REPORT #..E!.£~ 11
Plaza Three 101- 2000 Argentia Rd.
Mississauga, Ontario Canada LSN 1V9
Phone: (905) 272-3600
Fax: (905) 272-3602
e"mail: [email protected]
www.watson-econ.ca
75
Contents
Page
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose of this Document. ......................................................................... 1 1.2 Summary of the Process ............................................................................ 2
2. Current City of Pickering D.C. Policy .................................................................... 4 2.1 By-law Enactment.. .................................................................................... 4 2.2 Services Covered ...................................................................................... 4 2.3 Timing of D.C. Calculation and Payment.. ................................................ 5 2.4 Redevelopment Credit ............................................................................... 5 2.5 Exemptions ................................................................................................ 6
3. Anticipated Development in the City of Pickering ................................................. 7 3.1 Requirements of the Act ............................................................................ 7 3.2 Basis of Population, Household and Non-Residential Gross Floor
Area Forecast ............................................................................................ 7 3.3 Summary of Growth Forecast.. .................................................................. 8
4. The Approach to the Calculation of the Charge .................................................. 15 4.1 Services Potentially Involved ................................................................... 15 4.2 Local Service Policy ................................................................................. 15 4.3 Capital Forecast. ...................................................................................... 16 4.4 Treatment of Credits ................................................................................ 21 4.5 Eligible Debt and Committed Excess Capacity ........................................ 21 4.6 Existing Reserve Funds ........................................................................... 22 4. 7 Deductions ............................................................................................... 22
4.7.1 Reduction Required by Level of Service Ceiling ........................... 23 4.7.2 Reduction for Uncommitted Excess Capacity ............................... 23 4.7.3 Reduction for Benefit to Existing Development.. ........................... 24 4.7.4 Reduction for Anticipated Grants, Subsidies and Other
Contributions ................................................................................. 24 4.7.5 The 10% Reduction ....................................................................... 25
4.8 D.C. By-Law Spatial Applicability ............................................................. 25
5. D.C. Eligible Cost Analysis by Service ............................................................... 26 5.1 Service Levels and 10-Year Capital Costs for City-wide D.C.
Calculation ............................................................................................... 26 5.1.1 Protection Services ....................................................................... 26 5. 1.2 Parks and Recreation .................................................................... 27 5.1.3 Library Services ............................................................................ 28 5.1.4 Administration ............................................................................... 28
5.2 Service Levels and 14-Year Capital Costs for City-wide D.C. Calculation ............................................................................................... 37 5.2.1 Other Services Related to a Highway ............................................. 37 5.2.2 Stormwater Management. ............................................................... 37
5.3 Service Levels and 14-Year Capital Costs for Area-Specific (Outside of Seaton Lands) D.C. Calculation ............................................ 42
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx
76
5.3.1 Transportation Services ................................................................ 42
6. D.C. Calculation .................................................................................................. 46
7. D.C. Policy Recommendations and D.C. By-law Rules ...................................... 53 7.1 D.C. By-law Structure .............................................................................. 53 7.2 D.C. By-law Rules .................................................................................... 54
7 .2.1 Payment in any Particular Case .................................................... 54 7 .2.2 Determination of the Amount of the Charge .................................. 54 7.2.3 Application to Redevelopment of Land (Demolition and
Conversion) ................................................................................... 55 7.2.4 Exemptions (full or partial) ............................................................ 55 7.2.5 Phase in Provision(s) .................................................................... 56 7.2.6 Timing of Collection ....................................................................... 56 7.2.7 Indexing ........................................................................................ 56 7.2.8 D.C. Spatial Applicability ............................................................... 56
7.3 Other D.C. By-law Provisions .................................................................. 57 7.3.1 Categories of Services for Reserve Fund and Credit
Purposes ....................................................................................... 57 7.3.2 By-law In-force Date ...................................................................... 57 7 .3.3 Minimum Interest Rate Paid on Refunds and Charged for
Inter-Reserve Fund Borrowing ...................................................... 57 7.4 Other Recommendations ......................................................................... 57
8. Asset Management Plan .................................................................................... 58 8.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 58
9. By-law Implementation ....................................................................................... 62 9.1 Public Consultation .................................................................................. 62
9.1.1 Public Meeting of Council... ........................................................... 62 9.1.2 Other Consultation Activity ............................................................ 62
9.2 Anticipated Impact of the Charge on Development .................................. 63 9.3 Implementation Requirements ................................................................. 63
9.3.1 Notice of Passage ......................................................................... 64 9.3.2 By-law Pamphlet ........................................................................... 64 9.3.3 Appeals ......................................................................................... 65 9.3.4 Complaints .................................................................................... 65 9.3.5 Credits ........................................................................................... 65 9.3.6 Front-Ending Agreements ............................................................. 65 9.3.7 Severance and Subdivision Agreement Conditions ...................... 66
Appendix A- Background Information on Residential and Non-residential Growth Forecast ............................................................................................................ 67
Appendix B- Level of Service ..................................................................................... 80
Appendix C- D.C. Cash Flow Calculation Tables...................................................... 99
Appendix D- Long-term Capital and Operating Cost Examination ............................ 120
Appendix E- Proposed D.C. By-law .......................................................................... 123
Appendix F- Local Service Policy .............................................................................. 137
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx
77
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
A.M.P. Asset Management Plan
D.C. Development Charge
D.C.A. Development Charges Act
E.S.A. Environmentally Safe Area
G.F.A. Gross floor area
mm Millimeters
N.F.P.O.W. No fixed place of work
O.M.B. Ontario Municipal Board
O.Reg. Ontario Regulation
para. Paragraph
P.P.U. Persons per unit
R.S.O. Revised Statute of Ontario
sq.ft. Square foot
s.s. Subsection
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. _H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx
78
Page 1
1.. Introduction
1.1 Purpose of this Document
This background study has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the
Development Charges Act (D.C.A.), 1997 (s.1 0), and accordingly, recommends new
development charges (D.C.) and policies for the City of Pickering.
The City retained Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. (Watson) to undertake the D.C.
Background Study process in 2017. Watson worked with senior staff from the City in
preparing this D.C. analysis and the policy recommendations.
This D.C. Background Study, containing the proposed D.C. By-Law, will be distributed
to members of the public in order to provide interested parties with sufficient
background information on the legislation, the study's recommendations and an outline
of the basis for these recommendations.
This report has been prepared, in the first instance, to meet the statutory requirements
applicable to the City's D.C. Background Study, as summarized in Chapter 4 and
applied in Chapters 5 and 6. It also addresses the forecast amount, type and location of
growth (Chapter 3), the requirement for "rules" governing the imposition of the charges
(Chapter 7), Asset Management Plan requirements under the D.C.A. (Chapter 8), and
the proposed by-law to be made available as part of the approval process (Appendix E).
In addition, the report is designed to set out sufficient background on the legislation, the
City's current D.C. policy (Chapter 2) and the policies underlying the proposed by-law,
to make the exercise understandable to interested parties. Finally, the D.C.
Background Study addresses post-adoption implementation requirements (Chapter 9)
which are critical to the successful application of the new policy.
The chapters in the report are supported by Appendices containing the data required to
explain and substantiate the calculation of the charge. A full discussion of the statutory
requirements for the preparation of a background study and calculation of a D.C. is
provided herein.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Fina/.docx
79
80
Page 2
1.2 Summary of the Process
The public meeting required under Section 12 of the D.C.A., 1997, has been scheduled
for November 6, 2017. Its purpose is to present the study to the public and to solicit
public input on the proposed D.C. by-law. The meeting is also being held to answer any
questions regarding the study's purpose and methodology. Figure 1-1 outlines the
process undertaken to date and the proposed schedule to be followed with respect to
the D.C. by-law adoption process.
In accordance with the legislation, the D.C. Background Study and proposed D.C. By
Law were made available for public review on October 11, 2017.
Following the statutory public meeting, the process to be followed in finalizing the report
and recommendations includes:
• consideration of responses received prior to, at or immediately following the
public meeting;
• Council determination if any further public meetings are required on the matter;
• finalization of the study and Council consideration of the by-law on December 11,
2017; and
• imposition of new development charges on January 1, 2018.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Reporl\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx
Page 3
Figure 1-1 Schedule of Key D.C. Process Dates
Process Steps Dates
1. Project initiation meetings with City Steering Committee Apri l, 2017
2. Data collection, staff interviews, methodology review, June- September,
preparation of D.C. calculations 2017
3. Preparation of draft D.C. Background Study and review September 26,
of draft find ings with D.C. Steering Committee 2017
4. D.C. Background Study and proposed D.C. by-law October 11, 2017
available to publ ic (60 days prior .to by-law passage)
5. Statutory notice of Public Meeting advertisement placed 20 clear days prior
in newspaper(s) to public meeting
6. Presentation of D.C. Background Study to Stakeholders November 1, 2017
7. Publ ic Meeting of Council November 6, 2017
8. Council considers adoption of D.C. Background Study
and passage of by-law December 11, 2017
9. D.C. By-Law in force date January 1, 2018
10. Newspaper notice given of by-law passage By 20 days after
passage
11. Last day for by-law appeal 40 days after
passage
12. City makes available D.C. pamphlet by 60 days after in
force date
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Fina!.docx
81
82
Page 4
2. Current City of Pickering D.C. Policy
2.1 By-law Enactment
On December 9, 2013, the City of Pickering passed By-Law 7234/13 under the D.C.A.,
1997. The by-law came into effect on January 1, 2014 and imposes uniform City-wide
D.C.s by service for all permissible municipal services, with the exception of
Transportation Services which on an area-specific basis for the lands outside of the
Seaton lands only. The area-specific treatment of Transportation services is in
accordance with the City's agreement with the Seaton Landowners, whereby
transportation services attributable to these lands are funded directly by the landowners.
2.2 Services Covered
The following services are included under By-Law 7234/13:
City-Wide Services
• Development-Related Studies
• Fire
• Parks Development
• Major Indoor Recreation Facilities
• Library
• Operations Facilities and Vehicles
• Stormwater Management
Area-Specific Services
• Transportation - Seaton 1
• Transportation- rest of Pickering
The By-Law provides for mandatory annual indexing of the charges on July 1st. Table
2-1 provides the charges currently in effect for residential and non-residential
development types, as well as a breakdown of the charges by service.
1 Subject to a separate agreement outside of the D.C.A. concerning the provision of Transportation Service requirements in addition to other funding contributions. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx
Table 2-1 City of Pickering
Schedule of Current Development Charges
RESIDENTIAL
Single and Apartments-Service Semi-
Apartments-Bachelor Other
2 Bedrooms Detached and 1 Multiples
+ Dwelling Bedroom
Dewlopment -Related Studies 196 104 76 155
Fire Protection 645 342 251 512
Parks Dewlopment & Trails 1,776 938 688 1,408
Indoor Recreation Facilities 3,697 1,954 1,433 2,932
Library 889 471 345 705
Operations Facilites & Vehicles 596 315 233 472
Transportation- Seaton 1
- Rest of Pickering 5,471 2,893 2,123 4,340
Stormwater Management 418 219 162 330
Seaton 8,217 4,343 3,188 6,514
Rest of Pickering 13,688 7,236 5,311 10,854
Page 5
NON-RESIDENTIAL
(per net Ha (per ff of of Prestige
Total Floor Employment Area) 2 Land in
Seaton)
0.08 2,707
0.28 8,757
0.15 4,570
0.31 9,521
0.07 2,291
0.26 8,023
2.69
0.18 5,881
1.33
:~:~:~II 4.02 ..
1. Subject to a separate agreement outs1de ofthe Dewlopment Charges Act concernrng the pro111s10n of Transportation requirements in addition to other funding contributions
2. Does not apply to prestige employment development in Seaton, as that development is subject to the per net Ha land area charge instead.
2.3 Timing of D.C. Calculation and Payment
D.C. s are calculated and payable in full to the City at the time a permit is issued for any
land, buildings or structures constituting development.
2.4 Redevelopment Credit
Where as a result of the redevelopment of land, where a building or structure existing
on land was demolished, a D.C. credit will only be issued where a building permit has
been issued for redevelopment within 10 years of the demolition permit. D.C.s are
payable for the dwelling units or additional non-residential floor area created are in
excess of what was demolished.
D.C. credits are also provided for the conversion of floor area from one principal use to
another principal use (i.e. residential and non-residential). The D.C. payable is equal to
charge for floor area/units in the space created, less the charge that would have been
payable for the existing floor area/units. In no case shall the net charge be less than
zero.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Fina!.docx
83
84
Page 6
2.5 Exemptions
The City's D.C. By-Law includes statutory exemptions from payment of D.C.s with
respect to:
• Industrial additions of up to and including 50% of the existing gross floor area of
the building -for industrial additions which exceed 50% of the existing gross floor
area, only the portion of the addition in excess of 50% is subject to the payment
of D.C.s;
• Land used for Municipal or Board of Education purposes; and
• Residential development that results in only the enlargement of an existing
dwelling unit, or that results only in the creation of up to two additional dwelling
units (as speCified by O.Reg. 82/98).
The By-Law also provides non-statutory exemptions from payment of D.C.s with respect
to:
• The development of a non-residential farm building used for bona fide agricultural
purposes;
• A building or structure that is used in connection with a place of worship and is
exempt from taxation under the Assessment Act as a result;
• Nursing homes and hospitals; and
• Garden suites
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx
Page 7
3. Anticipated Development in the City of Pickering
3.1 Requirements of the Act
Chapter 4 provides the methodology for calculating a development charge as per the D.
C.A. Figure 4-1 presents this methodology graphically. It is noted in the first box of the
schematic that in order to determine the development charge that may be imposed, it is
a requirement of Section 5 (1) of the D.C.A. that "the anticipated amount, type and
location of development, for which development charges can be imposed, must be
estimated."
The growth forecast contained in this chapter (with supplemental tables in Appendix A)
provides for the anticipated development for which the City will be required to provide
services, over a 1 0-year and long-term time horizon (i.e. 2018-2031 ).
3.2 Basis of Population, Household and Non-Residential Gross Floor Area Forecast
The D.C. growth forecast has been derived from forecast contained in Durham Region
Regional Official Plan Amendment No. 128, as approved by the Ontario Municipal
Board (OMB) on January 9, 2013. In accordance with the Durham Region Regional
Official Plan (R.O.P.) and City of Pickering Official Plan (O.P.), the population and
employment forecast for Community of Seaton is 61,000 and 30,500 by 2031. 1 In
compiling the growth forecast, the following additional information sources were also
consulted to assess residential and non-residential development potential for the City
over the forecast period; including:
• A review of recent historical residential and non-residential development activity;
• 2006, 2011 and 2016 Census Data (where available); and
• Discussions with City staff regarding the anticipated residential and non
residential development trends for the City of Pickering.
1 Population forecast for Seaton includes the net Census undercount. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx
85
86
Page 8
3.3 Summary of Growth Forecast
A detailed analysis of the residential and non-residential growth forecast is provided in
Appendix A The discussion provided herein summarizes the anticipated growth for the
City and describes the basis for the forecast. The results of the residential growth
forecast analysis are summarized in Figure 3-1 below, and Schedule 1 in Appendix A
Figure 3-1 Household Formation-Based Population and Household Forecast Model
DEMAND SUPPLY
Residential Units in the ,--Development Process
Historical Housing Construction
f--
r--- Intensification
Forecast of f.-+ ~ Residential Units Employment Market
Designated Lands by Local Municipality, r---Economic Outlook r--
Local, Regional and Provincial
'---- Servicing Capacity
Occupancy Assumptions
Gross Population Increase
Decline in Existing Population
Net Population Increase
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx
Page 9
As identified in Table 3-1 and Schedule 1, the City's population is anticipated to reach
approximately 168,170 by 2028 and 180,885 by 2031. 1 This represents an increase of
75,000 persons and 87,700 persons, respectively, over the 1 0-year and long-term
forecast periods. Further, the population forecast summarized in Schedule 1 excludes
the net Census undercount, which is estimated at approximately 4.6%. The Census
undercount represents the net number of persons missed during Census enumeration.
In calculating the D.C. for the City, the net Census undercot,mt has been excluded from
the growth forecast. Accordingly, all references provided herein to the population
forecast exclude the net Census undercount.
1. Unit Mix (Appendix A- Schedules 1 through 6)
• The unit mix for the City was derived from historical development activity
(as per Schedule 7) and discussions with planning staff regarding
anticipated development trends for the City.
• Based on the above, the long-term (2018-2031) household growth
forecast is comprised of a housing unit mix of approximately 26% low
density (single detached and semi-detached), 41% medium density
(multiples except apartments) and 33% high density (bachelor, 1 bedroom
and 2+ bedroom apartments).
2. Geographic Location of Residential Development (Appendix A- Schedule 2)
• Schedule 2 summarizes the anticipated amount, type and location of
residential development for the City by development location. The
percentage of forecast housing growth between 2018 and 2031 by area
within the City is summarized below.
• Seaton 62%
• Remaining City of Pickering 38%
3. Planning Period
• Short-term and longer-term time horizons are required for the D.C.
process. The D.C.A. limits the planning horizon for certain services, such
as parks and recreation, and libraries, to a 10-year planning horizon.
Transportation and stormwater management services utilize a long-term
forecast period.
1 It is noted that 36,500 persons (including the net Census undercount) and 11,700 households have been reserved for Northeast Pickering between 2027 and 2031 as the population and households for this area have been deferred. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx
87
00 00
"' u ·;::
.8 "' :C
u; ro u 1'! 0 lL
]j c <1> E 1'! u .E
Page 10
Table 3-1 City of Pickering
es1 en 1a row ore cas R . d f I G th F t S urn mary
Population Population Population Housing Units
Year (Including (Excluding Institutional Excluding Census Census Population Institutional Singles & Semi Multiple
Apartments3 Other Total Person Per
Undercount)' U ndercount) Population Detached Dwellings2 Households Unit (PPU)
Mid 2006 91 ,880 87,838 595 87,243 20,335 4,770 3,110 10 28,225 3.1 1
Mid 2011 92,800 88,721 595 88,126 20,740 5,380 3,190 15 29,325 3.03
Mid 2016 95,990 91 ,771 776 90,995 21 ,125 6,065 3,695 30 30,915 2.97
Early 2018 97,460 93,176 788 92,388 21,414 6,440 3,733 30 31 ,617 2.95
Early 2023 137,490 131,445 1,111 130,334 26,154 12,742 8,368 30 47,294 2.78
Early 2028 175,910 168,172 1,422 166,750 29,593 18,439 13,126 30 61 ,189 2.75
Mid 2031 189,206 180,885 1,530 179,356 30,192 20,228 15,080 30 65,530 2.76
Mid 2006- Mid 2011 920 883 0 883 405 610 80 5 1,100
Mid 2011- Mid 2016 3,190 3,050 181 2,869 385 685 505 15 1,590
Mid 2016- Early 2018 1,470 1,405 12 1,393 289 375 38 0 702
Early 2018- Early 2023 40,030 38,269 323 37,946 4,740 6,302 4,635 0 15,677
Early 2018- Early 2028 78,450 74,996 634 74,362 8,179 11,999 9,393 0 29,572
Early 2018- Mid 2031 91,746 87,709 742 86,968 8,778 13,788 11,347 0 33,913
Source. Watson & Assocrates Economrsts Ltd., 2018. Derrved from Durham Reg ron Officral Plan. Note. Populatron forecast excludes Northeast Prckerrng.
Note: A total of approximately 36,500 persons (including the net Census undercount) and 11 ,700 households have been reserved .for Northeast Pickering between 2027 and 2031 as the population and households allocated to this area have been deferred.
1. Census Undercount estimated at approximately 4.6%. Note: Population Including the Undercount has been rounded. 2. Includes townhomes and apartments in duplexes. 3. Includes bachelor, 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom+ apartments.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx
Page 11
4. Population in New Units (Appendix A- Schedules 2 through 5)
• The number of housing units to be constructed in the City during the short
term and long-term periods are presented in Figure 3-2. Over the 14-year
forecast period, the City is anticipated to average 2,422 housing units
annually.
• Population in new units is derived from Schedules 3 through 6, which
incorporate historical development activity, anticipated units (see unit mix
discussion) and average persons per unit by dwelling type for new units.
• Schedules 7 and 8 summarizes the average number of persons per unit
(P.P.U.) for the new permanent residential housing units by age and type
of dwelling, based on 2011 custom Census data for the City. The 20-year
average P.P.U.'s by dwelling type are as follows:
• Low density: 3.53
• Medium density: 2.85
• High density: 2.03
5. Existing Units and Population Change (Appendix A- Schedules 2 through 6)
• Existing households estimates as of 2018 are based on the 2016 Census
households, plus estimated residential units constructed between 2016
and 2018, assuming a 6-month lag between construction and occupancy
(see Schedule 3).
• The decline in average occupancy levels for existing housing units is
calculated in Schedules 3 through 5, by aging the existing population over
the forecast period. The forecast population decline in existing
households over the 2018 to 2031 forecast period is estimated at
approximately 6,370.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx
89
Figure 3-2 City of Pickering
Annual Housin Forecast
Page 12
3,500 ~-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
3,054 3,054 3,054 3,053 3,112 3,112 3,112 3,112 3,112
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
700
500
0
Years
• Historical olow Density oMedium Density oHigh Density - Historical Average
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx
Page 13
6. Employment (Appendix A, Schedules 9a, 9b and 9c)
• Employment projections are largely based on the activity rate method,
which is defined as the number of jobs in the City divided by the number of
residents. Key employment sectors include primary, industrial,
commercial/population-related, institutional, and work at home, which are
considered individually below.
• The City's 2011 1 employment base by place of work is outlined in
Schedule 9a. The 2011 employment base is comprised of the following
sectors:
• 80 primary (less than 1 %);
• 3,080 work at home employment (approx. 9%);
• 13,170 industrial (approx. 39%);
• 13,010 commercial/population-related (approx. 39%); and
• 4,320 institutional (approx. 13%).
• The 2011 employment base by usual place of work, including work at
home, is approximately 33,660 jobs. An additional 2,570 jobs have been
identified for the City as having no fixed place of work (N.F.P.O.W.). 2 The
total employment including N.F.P.O.W. in 2011 is 36,230. As of early
2018 the City's total employment base is estimated at 38,770.
• Schedule 9b, Appendix A, summarizes the employment forecast,
excluding work at home and N.F.P.O.W. employment, which is the basis
for the D.C. employment forecast. The impact on municipal services from
work at home employees has already been included in the population
forecast. The need for municipal services related to N.F.P.O.W.
employees has largely been included in the employment forecast by usual
place of work (i.e. employment and G.F.A. in the retail and
accommodation sectors generated from N.F.P.O.W. construction
employment). Furthermore, since these employees have no fixed work
address, they cannot be captured in the non-residential gross floor area
(G.F.A.) calculation. Accordingly, work-at-home and N.F.P.O.W.
employees have been removed from the D.C. employment forecast and
calculation.
1 2011 Employment is based on Statistics Canada 2011 Places of Work Employment dataset. 2 Statistics Canada defines "No Fixed Place of Work" (N.F.P.O.W.) employees as, "persons who do not go from home to the same work place location at the beginning of each shift. Such persons include building and landscape contractors, travelling salespersons, independent truck drivers, etc." Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx
91
92
Page 14
• Total employment for City (excluding work at home and N.F.P.O.W.) is
anticipated to reach approximately 53,690 by 2028 and 63,900 by 2031.
This represents an employment increase of approximately 21,120 and
31,330 additional jobs over the 1 0-year and long-term forecast periods,
respectively.
7. Non-Residential Square Footage Estimates (Gross Floor Area (G.F.A.)),
Appendix A Schedule 9b and 9c)
• Square footage estimates were calculated in Schedule 9b based on the
following employee density assumptions: 1
• 1,200 sq.ft. per employee for industrial;
• 400 sq.ft. per employee for commercial/population-related; and
• 675 sq.ft. per employee for institutional employment.
• The City-wide incremental non-residential G.F.A. increase is anticipated to
be approximately 20.1 million sq.ft. over the 1 0-year forecast period and
30.8 million sq.ft. over the long-term forecast period.
• In terms of percentage growth, the long-term incremental G.F.A. forecast
by sector is broken down as follows:
• industrial- approx. 86%;
• commercial/population-related - approx. 1 0%; and
• institutional- approx. 4%.
• The employment and GFA allocation between Seaton and the remaining
areas of the City has been developed in accordance with the employment
forecast established for the City as a whole and the Seaton Community in
accordance with the Durham ROP and City of Pickering O.P.
1 Based on Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. employment surveys.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Fina/.docx
Page 15
4. The Approach to the Calculation of the Charge
This chapter addresses the requirements of s.s.5(1) of the D.C.A., 1997 with respect to
the establishment of the need for service which underpins the D.C. calculation. These
requirements are illustrated schematically in Figure 4-1.
4.1 Services Potentially Involved
Table 4-1 lists the full range of municipal service categories which are provided within
the City.
A number of these services are defined in s.s.2(4) of the D.C.A., 1997 as being
ineligible for inclusion in D.C.s. These are shown as "ineligible" on Table 4-1. In
addition, two ineligible costs defined in s.s.5(3) of the D.C.A. are "computer equipment"
and "rolling stock with an estimated useful life of [less than] seven years ... " In addition,
local roads are covered separately under subdivision agreements and related means
(as are other local services). Moreover, some services, such as water and wastewater
services are provided by the Regional Municipality. Services which are potentially
eligible for inclusion in the City's D.C. are indicated with a "Yes".
The D.C.A allows municipalities to define services for inclusion in the by-law. In
discussions with City staff it was determined that services previously defined as
Operations, which includes services related to both Transportation Services and Parks
and Recreation Services that these should be defined separately. As such the
Transportation Services component of operations has been defined herein as Other
Services Related to Highways. The component of operations related to Parks and
Recreation Services have been included within that service definition. In addition, the
City's existing D.C. By-law defines Parks Development and Major Indoor Recreation
Facilities as separate services. These services have been combined into one service
defined herein as Parks and Recreation Services. Finally, Protection Services has been
expanded to include services related to by-law enforcement and animal enforcement
services.
4.2 Local Service Policy
The D.C. calculation commences with an estimate of "the increase in the need for
service attributable to the anticipated development," for each service to be covered by
the By-Law. There must be some form of link or attribution between the anticipated
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx
93
94
Page 16
development and the estimated increase in the need for service. While the need could
conceivably be expressed generally in terms of units of capacity, s.s.5(1 )3, which
requires that municipal council indicate that it intends to ensure that such an increase in
need will be met, suggests that a project-specific expression of need would be most
appropriate.
Some of the need for services generated by additional development consists of local
services related to a plan of subdivision. As such, they will be required as a condition of
subdivision agreements or consent conditions. The City's general policy guidelines on
D. C. and local service funding is detailed in Appendix F to this report.
4.3 Capital Forecast
Paragraph 7 of s.s.5(1) of the D.C.A. requires that, "the capital costs necessary to
provide the increased services must be estimated." The Act goes on to require two
potential cost reductions and the Regulation sets out the way in which such costs are to
be presented. These requirements are outlined below.
These estimates involve capital costing of the increased services discussed above.
This entails costing actual projects or the provision of service units, depending on how
each service has been addressed.
The capital costs include:
a) costs to acquire land or an interest therein (including a leasehold interest);
b) costs to improve land;
c) costs to acquire, lease, construct or improve buildings and structures;
d) costs to acquire, lease or improve facilities including rolling stock (with a useful
life of 7 or more years), furniture and equipment (other than computer
equipment), materials acquired for library circulation, reference or information
purposes;
e) interest on money borrowed to pay for the above-referenced costs;
f) costs to undertake studies in connection with the above-referenced matters; and
g) costs of the D.C. background study.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Fina/.docx
Page 17
Figure 4-1 The Process of Calculating a D.C. under the Act
Tax Base , User Rates,
etc.
bdivision
2. Ineligible Services
Anticipated Development
~ Estimated Increase in Need For
Service
I 3.
Su Ag an
reements 7. Specified Local Services
d Consent p revisions
DC Needs By Service
I a.
DC Net Capital Costs Costs for new development vs
existing development for the term of the by-law and the balance of the
period Financing , Inflation and ~
Investment Considerations
l 14 . Amount of the Charge
By Type of Development (including apportionment of costs -
residentia l and non-resident~ 16.
Ceiling Re. 1-- lnoreased Need ; 4
."-.....
Needs That Will Be Met
5
...
Examination of the Long Tenn Capital end Op~atln!;J Costs +-
For C~ltallnfrestruatuj 6.
CD Less: Uncommitted Excess Capacity ~
® Less:
I Benefit To Existing Dev~ 10.
0 Less: Grants, Subsidies and Other Contributions rn
0 Less: I 1 0% Where Applicable ~
DC By-law(s) Spatial Applicability
115."
Consideration of exemptions, phase-ins, etc.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx
95
Page 18
Table 4-1 Categories of Municipal Services
To Be Addressed as Part of the Calculation
1. Services Yes 1.1 Arterial roads 100 Related to a Yes 1.2 Collector roads 100 Highway Local Service 1.3 Local roads 100
Yes 1.4 Intersections and Traffic signals 100 Yes 1.5 Sidewalks and streetlights 100
2. Other n/a 2.1 Transit vehicles 100 Transportat- n/a 2.2 Other transit infrastructure 100 ion Services n/a 2.3 Municipal parking spaces - 90
indoor No 2.4 Municipal parking spaces - 90
outdoor Yes 2.5 Works Yards 100 Yes 2.6 Rolling stock1 100 n/a 2.7 Ferries 90 n/a 2.8 Ai rt facilities 90
3. Storm Water Yes 3.1 Main channels and drainage 100 Drainage and trunks Control Yes 3.2 Channel connections 100 Services Local Service 3.3 Retention/detention ponds 100
4. Fire Yes 4.1 Fire stations 100 Protection Yes 4.2 Fire pumpers, aerials and 100 Services rescue vehicles
Yes 4.3 Small equipment and gear 100
5. Outdoor Ineligible 5.1 Acquisition of land for parks, 0 Recreation woodlots and E.S.A.s Services (i.e. Yes 5.2 Development of area municipal 90 Parks and parks Open Space) Yes 5.3 Development of district parks 90
Yes 5.5 Development of special purpose 90 parks
Yes 5.6 Parks rolling stock1 and rds 90
1with 7 + year life time 2same percentage as service component to which it pertains
computer equipment excluded throughout
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx
96
Page 19
6. Indoor Yes 6.1 Arenas, indoor pools, fitness 90 Recreation facilities, community centres, Services etc. (including land)
Yes 6.2 Recreation vehicles and 90 ment1
7. Library Yes 7.1 Public library space (incl. 90 Services furniture and equipment)
Yes 7.2 Library materials 90
8. Electrical Ineligible 8.1 Electrical substations 0 Power Ineligible 8.2 Electrical distribution system 0 Services lnel ible 8.3 Electrical m rolli stock1 0
9. Provision of Ineligible 9.1 Cultural space (e.g. art 0 Cultural, galleries, museums and Entertainment theatres) and Tourism Ineligible 9.2 Tourism facilities and 0 Facilities and convention centres Convention Centres
10. Waste Water n/a 10.1 Treatment plants 100 Services n/a 10.2 Collection systems 100
n/a 10.3 Local syste.ms 100
11. Water Supply n/a 11.1 Treatment plants 100 Services n/a 11.2 Distribution systems 100
n/a 11.3 Local ms 100
12.Waste n/a 12.1 Collection, transfer vehicles and 90 Management equipment Services Ineligible 12.3 Landfills and other disposal 0
facilities n/a 12.3 Other waste diversion facilities 90
13. Police n/a 13.1 Police detachments 100 Services n/a 13.2 Police rolling stock1 100
n/a 13.3 Small equipment and gear 100
14. Homes for n/a 14.1 Homes for the aged space 90 the Aged
15. Care n/a 15.1 ace 90
16. Health n/a 16.1 Health de ce 90
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Fina!.docx
97
98
Page 20
17.Social n/a 17.1 Social service space 90 Services
18. Ambulance n/a 18.1 Ambulance station space 90 n/a 18.2 Vehicles1 90
19. Hospital Ineligible 19.1 Hospital capital contributions 0 Provision
20. Provision of Ineligible 20.1 Office space (all services) 0 Head- Ineligible 20.2 Office furniture 0 quarters for Ineligible 20.3 Computer equipment 0 the General Administra-tion of Municipalities and Area Municipal Boards
21. Other Yes 21.1 Studies in connection with 0-100 Services acquiring buildings, rolling
stock, materials and equipment, and improving land2 and facilities, including the D.C. background study cost
Yes 21.2 Interest on money borrowed to 0-100 pay for growth-related capital
Eligibility for Inclusion in the DC Description
Calculation
Yes Municipality provides the service - service has been included in the DC Calculation
No Municipality provides the service - service has not been included in the DC Calculation
n/a Municipality does not provide the service
Ineligible Service is ineligible for inclusion in the DC calculation
1with 7+ year life time 2same percentage as service component to which it pertains
computer equipment excluded throughout
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx
Page 21
In order for an increase in need for service to be included in the D.C. calculation,
municipal council must indicate " ... that it intends to ensure that such an increase in need
will be met" (s.s.5(1 )3). This can be done if the increase in service forms part of a
Council-approved Official Plan, capital forecast or similar expression of the intention of
Council (O.Reg. 82/98 s.3). The capital program contained herein reflects the City's
approved and proposed capital budgets and master servicing/needs assessments.
4.4 Treatment of Credits
Section 8 para. 5 of O.Reg. 82/98 indicates that a D.C. background study must set out,
"the estimated value of credits that are being carried forward relating to the service."
s.s.17 para. 4 of the same Regulation indicates that, " ... the value of the credit cannot be
recovered from future D.C.s," if the credit pertains to an ineligible service. This implies
that a credit for eligible services can be recovered from future D.C.s. As a result, this
provision should be made in the calculation, in order to avoid a funding shortfall with
respect to future service needs.
The City currently has no outstanding credit obligations.
4.5 Eligible Debt and Committed Excess Capacity
Section 66 of the D.C.A., 1997 states that for the purposes of developing a D.C. by-law,
a debt incurred with respect to an eligible service may be included as a capital cost,
subject to any limitations or reductions in the Act. Similarly, s.18 of 0. Reg. 82/98
indicates that debt with respect to an ineligible service may be included as a capital
cost, subject to several restrictions.
In order for such costs to be eligible, two conditions must apply. First, they must have
funded excess capacity which is able to meet service needs attributable to the
anticipated development. Second, the excess capacity must be "committed," that is,
either before or at the time it was created, Council must have expressed a clear
intention that it would be paid for by D.C.s or other similar charges. For example, this
may have been done as part of previous D.C. processes.
The City will be issuing debt for the New Operations Centre that is currently under
construction. The anticipated debt repayment costs have been included in the
calculation of the charge.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx
99
100
Page 22
4.6 Existing Reserve Funds
Section 35 of the D.C.A. states that:
"The money in a reseNe fund established for a service may be spent only for capital costs determined under paragraphs 2 to 8 of subsection 5( 1 ). "
There is no explicit requirement under the D.C.A. calculation method set out in s.s.5(1)
to net the outstanding reseNe fund balance as part of making the D.C. calculation;
however, s.35 does restrict the way in which the funds are used in future.
The City's projected uncommitted D.C. reseNe fund balances, by seNice, as at
December 31, 2017 are presented in Table 4-2. Projected balances account for 2017
D.C. commitments as well as anticipated D.C. collections to December 31, 2017.
These balances have been applied against future spending requirements for all
seNices. Incomplete D.C. eligible capital projects for which D.C. ReseNe Fund
balances have been committed have not been included in the capital needs identified in
the D.C. Background Study.
Table 4-2 City of Pickering
Projected Uncommitted D.C. Reserve Funds Balances (December 31, 2017)
Service Total Protection Services (254, 176) Parks and Recreation Services 16,528,412
Library Services 2,798,782
~~istration Studies (673,868 water Management 976,371
Transportation 18,249,536 Other Services Related to a HiQhway 153,919 Total 37,778,976
4. 7 Deductions
The D.C.A., 1997 potentially requires that five deductions be made to the increase in
the need for seNice. These relate to:
• the level of seNice ceiling;
• uncommitted excess capacity;
• benefit to existing development;
• anticipated grants, subsidies and other contributions; and
• a 10% reduction for certain seNices. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Fina!.docx
Page 23
The requirements behind each of these reductions are addressed as follows:
4.7.1 Reduction Required by Level of Service Ceiling
This is designed to ensure that the increase in need for services does " ... not include an
increase that would result in the level of service (for the additional development
increment) exceeding the average level of the service provided in the City over the 1 0-
year period immediately preceding the preparation of the background study ... " O.Reg.
82/98 (s.4) goes further to indicate that, " ... both the quantity and quality of a service
shall be taken into account in determining the level of service and the average level of
service."
Moreover, the D.C.A., 1997 does not require this historical level of service calculation
for transit services. As per subsection 5.2(3) of the D.C.A., " ... the estimate for the
increase in the need for a prescribed service (i.e. transit services) shall not exceed the
planned level of service over the 1 0-year period immediately following the preparation of
the background study ... ". In many cases this can be done by establishing a quantity
measure in terms of units as floor area, land area or road length per capita, and a
quality measure in terms of the average cost of providing such units based on
replacement costs, engineering standards or recognized performance measurement
systems, depending on circumstances. When the quantity and quality factor are
multiplied together, they produce a measure of the level of service, which meets the
requirements of the Act, i.e. cost per unit.
The average service level calculation sheets for each service component in the D.C.
calculation are set out in Appendix B.
4.7.2 Reduction for Uncommitted Excess Capacity
Paragraph 5 of s.s.5(1) requires a deduction from the increase in the need for service
attributable to the anticipated development that can be met using the City's "excess
capacity," other than excess capacity which is "committed" (discussed above in 4.5).
"Excess capacity" is undefined, but in this case must be able to meet some or all of the
increase in need for service, in order to potentially represent a deduction. The
deduction of uncommitted excess capacity from the future increase in the need for
service, would normally occur as part of the conceptual planning and feasibility work
associated with justifying and sizing new facilities, e.g. if a road widening to
accommodate increased traffic is not required because sufficient excess capacity is
already available, then widening would not be included as an increase in need, in the
first instance.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx
101
102
Page 24
4.7.3 Reduction for Benefit to Existing Development
This step involves a further reduction to the need, by the extent to which such an
increase in service would benefit existing development. The level of services cap is
related, but is not the identical requirement. Wastewater (sanitary), stormwater and
water trunks are highly localized to growth areas and can be more readily allocated in
this regard than other services such as roads which do not have a fixed service area.
Where existing development has an adequate service level which will not be tangibly
increased by an increase in service, no benefit would appear to be involved. For
example, where expanding existing library facilities simply replicates what existing
residents are receiving, they receive very limited (or no) benefit as a result. On the
other hand, where a clear existing service problem is to be remedied, a deduction
should be made accordingly.
In the case of services such as recreation facilities, community parks, libraries, etc., the
service is typically provided on a municipal-wide system basis. For example, facilities of
the same type may provide different services (i.e. leisure pool vs. competitive pool),
different programs (i.e. hockey vs. figure skating) and different time availability for the
same service (i.e. leisure skating available on Wednesday in one arena and Thursday in
another). As a result, residents will travel to different facilities to access the services
they want at the times they wish to use them, and facility location generally does not
correlate directly with residence location. Even where it does, displacing users from an
existing facility to a new facility frees up capacity for use by others and generally results
in only a very limited benefit to existing development. Further, where an increase in
demand is not met for a number of years, a negative service impact to existing
development is involved for a portion of the planning period.
4.7.4 Reduction for Anticipated Grants, Subsidies and Other Contributions
This step involves reducing the capital costs necessary to provide the increased
services by capital grants, subsidies and other contributions made or anticipated by
Council and in accordance with various rules such as the attribution between the share
related to new vs. existing development O.Reg. 82/98, s.6. Where grant programs do
not allow funds to be applied to growth-related capital needs, the proceeds can be
applied to the non-growth share of the project exclusively. Moreover, Gas Tax
revenues are typically used to fund non-growth-related works or the non-growth share
of D.C. projects, given that the contribution is not being made in respect of particular
growth-related capital projects.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx
Page 25
4.7.5 The 10% Reduction
Paragraph 8 of s.s.(1) of the D.C.A. requires that, "the capital costs must be reduced by
10 percent." This paragraph does not apply to water supply services, wastewater
services, stormwater drainage and control services, services related to a highway,
police, fire protection services, and transit services. The primary services that the 10%
reduction does apply to include services such as parks and recreation, libraries,
childcare/social services, ambulance, homes for the aged and health. The 10% is to be
netted from the capital costs necessary to provide the increased services, once the
other deductions have been made, as per the infrastructure cost sheets in Chapter 5.
4.8 D.C. By-Law Spatial Applicability
There are four basic choices to be addressed when considering the geographic
application of a D.C.:
1. the entire municipality for all services (which is the most commonly-used
approach);
2. part of the municipality for all services; balance of the municipality is exempt
(because it is outside the service's coverage area or can be served at little or no
incremental cost);
3. different by-laws and charges in different municipal service areas (in order to
recognize distinctly different servicing cost situations); and
4. a uniform municipal-wide charge with separate charge covering additional area
specific services (e.g. the coverage area for specific works).
Subsection 2(9) of the D.C.A. may prescribe services for which a D.C. by-law must
apply on an area-specific basis. For prescribed services, Council shall pass different
D.C. by-laws for different parts of the municipality, in accordance with the prescribed
criteria. Currently the Province has not prescribed services under this subsection of the
D.C.A.
For services that are not prescribed under s.s. 2(9) of the D.C.A., the background study
must give consideration of the use of more than one D. C. by-law to reflect different
needs for services in different areas. Area-specific charges have been reviewed with
City staff. The City's current D.C. policy provides for Transportation Services to be
provided on an area-specific basis, with charges differentiated between the Seaton
Lands and those lands within the City outside of Seaton. All other service are provided
on a uniform City-wide basis. Based on current practice, and associated agreements,
no changes are being recommended to the structure of the charges.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx
103
104
Page 26
5. D.C. Eligible Cost Analysis by Service
This chapter outlines the basis for calculating D.C. eligible costs to be applied on a City
wide uniform basis for all services except Transportation Services, and area-specific
basis for Transportation Services only. The required calculation process set out in
s.5(1) paragraphs 2 to 8 in the D.C.A., 1997, and described in Chapter 4, was followed
in determining D.C. eligible costs.
The nature of the capital projects and timing identified in this chapter reflects Council's
current intention. However, over time, municipal projects and Council priorities change
and, accordingly, Council's intentions may alter and different capital projects (and
timing) may be required to meet the need for services required by new growth.
5.1 Service Levels and 10-Year Capital Costs for City-wide D.C.
Calculation
This section evaluates the development-related capital requirements for select services
over the 1 0-year planning period (2018-2027). For these services, each service
component is evaluated on two format sheets: the average historical 1 0-year level of
service calculation (see Appendix B), which "caps" the D.C. amounts; and the
infrastructure cost calculation, which determines the potential D.C. recoverable cost.
5. 1. 1 Protection Services
The City currently has 35,700 sq.ft. of floor space within four fire stations and 4,300
sq.ft. of facility floor space related to by-law enforcement and animal enforcement
services. The City also maintains an inventory of 39 vehicles and provides
approximately 1, 000 items of equipment for fire protection equipment. In total, the
inventory of Protection Services assets provides a historic average level of service of
approximately $340 per capita. The historical level of investment in Protection Services
provides for a D. C.-eligible amount over the forecast period of approximately $25.3
million.
The City will require funds for two new fire stations within the Seaton Community, six
additional vehicles, and equipment for 80 additional firefighters. Furthermore, the City
will also requires additional facilityspace and vehicles for by-law and animal
·enforcement services. In total, the gross capital cost estimates for the increase in need
for service, totals $27.9 million. After deductions of $2.4 million for the benefit to
existing development, $626,000 for the statutory 10% deduction related to by-law and
animal enforcement service only, the net D.C. eligible costs total $24.9 million.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx
Page 27
Accounting for $254,000 related to reserve fund deficit position, the total D.C. eligible
capital costs that have been included in the calculation of the charge are $25.1 million.
The allocation of net growth-related costs for fire services between residential, and non
residential development is 78% and 22% respectively, reflective of the incremental
growth in population and employment over the forecast period. Non-residential costs
have been further allocated between development occurring on prestige employment
lands within Seaton (36%) and all other areas of the City (64%) based on the
incremental distribution of non-residential employment.
5.1.2 Parks and Recreation
The City currently maintains approximately 345 acres of active developed parkland, 478
acres of passive parkland, and maintains 23.2 kilometres of trails and multi-use paths.
Furthermore, the City utilizes 531,000 sq.ft. of recreation and parks operations facility
space in providing parks and recreation services. To assist in the provision of services
through the aforementioned facilities, parks and trails inventory, the City utilizes 186
vehicle and equipment items. The City's level of service over the historic 1 0-year period
averaged $2,693 per capita. In total, the maximum D.C.-eligible amount for Recreation
and Parks Services over the 1 0-year forecast period is approximately $200.2 million
based on the established level of service standards.
The 1 0-year capital needs for parks and recreation services to accommodate growth
have a total gross capital cost of approximately $176.9 million. These capital needs are
comprised of future parkland and trail development, additional indoor recreation space
needs, and additional parks maintenance vehicles and the share of operations facilities
related to parks. Approximately $15.7 million has been deducted to reflect the benefit to
the existing of the identified projects, and a further $17.4 million has been deducted to
account for development benefits post-2027. The statutory 10% deduction applicable
for recreation and parks totals $14.1 million. Approximately $16.5 million has been
deducted from the D.C. recoverable capital costs recognizing the existing reserve fund
balance, resulting in net growth-related capital costs for inclusion in the D.C. calculation
of approximately $113.4 million.
As the predominant users of parks and recreation services tend to be residents of the
City, the forecast growth-related costs have been allocated 95% to residential
development and 5% to non-residential development. Non-residential costs have been
further allocated between development occurring on prestige employment lands within
Seaton (36%) and all other areas of the City (64%) based on the incremental
distribution of non-residential employment.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx
105
106
Page 28
5.1.3 Library Services
Library services are provided by the City through the provision of approximately 45,200
sq.ft. of facility space, 379,000 library collection material items, and one vehicle. The
average level of service provided over the historical 1 0-year period based on this
inventory is $375 per capital. When applied to anticipated growth over the 2018-2027
period, the per capita level of service produces a maximum D.C. eligible amount for
library services of approximately $27.9 million.
The gross capital cost included in the D. C. calculation for the 1 0-year forecast period is
$44.7 million. The capital cost estimates include a new library branch in Seaton
(including land and materials), an expansion to the Central Library Facility and
additional library space at the Pickering Heritage and Community Centre. Deductions
for the benefit to existing development total $6.2 million. A further $7.8 million has been
deducted to reflect the benefits to development beyond the 1 0-year planning period.
Furthermore, deductions of approximately $3.1 million for the required 10% statutory
deduction have been applied. There is a current reserve fund balance of $2.8 million,
when applied results in a net D.C. recoverable capital cost of $24.8 million which has
been included in the D.C. calculation.
Similar to Parks and Recreation Services, the predominant users of library services tend
to be residents of the City, as such the forecast growth-related costs have been
allocated 95% to residential development and 5% to non-residential development. Non
residential costs have been further allocated 36% to prestige employment lands within
Seaton and 64% to all other areas of the City, based on the incremental distribution of
non-residential employment.
5. 1.4 Administration
The D.C.A. permits the inclusion of studies undertaken to facilitate the completion of the
City's capital works program and the D.C. Background Study. The City has made
provision for the inclusion of new studies undertaken to facilitate future D.C. processes,
as well as other studies which benefit future growth, including facility related studies,
master plans, and planning studies, including a municipal comprehensive review and
official plan review.
The gross capital cost estimates for these studies total approximately $12.5 million over
the 1 0-year forecast period. Approximately $674,000 has been added for existing
reserve fund deficits, and approximately $4.7 million has been deducted in recognition
of the benefits to the existing population. Applying the 10% statutory deduction, the net
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx
growth-related capital costs included in the calculation of the charge totals
approximately $7.9 million.
Page 29
These costs have been allocated 78% to residential development, and 22% to non
residential development (8% prestige employment lands within Seaton and 14% all
other areas of the City) based on the incremental growth in population to employment
for the 10-year forecast period.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Fina!.docx
107
0 00
Prj .No
Infrastructure Costs Covered in the D.C. Calculation- Protection Services
Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated De~.elopment
2018-2027
Facilities
Timing (year)
Gross Capital Cost Post Period Net Capital
Estimate Benefit Cost (2017$)
Less: Less:
Grants, Subsidies Benefit to and Other
Other (e.g. Subtotal 10%
Existing Contributions De~.elopment Attributable to
Statutory
New De~.elopment Deduction)
Page 30
Potential DC Reco~.erable Cost
Residential Non-
Residential Total Share
Share
78% 22%
Fire Station A (Seaton) 2019 5,804,202 5,804,202 145,105 5,659,097 5,659,097 4,414,096 1,245,001
2 Fire Station B, including land (Seaton) 2023 8,230,000 8,230,000 205,750 8,024,250 8,024,250 6,258,915 1,765,335 ........... 3 ........... ······;::~·i;;;·;;i··s·il;;i;;;r··s;···av:c;;;··s;;N;c;·~~:·· .. i~-~i·~;:;·i~·;;;·T;;~'d .................... 2a2a····· .. ·· ........ s:"ciss:·a·aa-· ...................................... ·········a:ass:·a·aa ............ 1·:·s·e·3:·a·96 ................................................................ 6:;··a2:··i·a;;:·· .............. 6.i·a:21 .. a .. ·········s:·49·1':·s94·· ........ 4:·2·s3:·sn ........... 1·:·2·as:·2;·7··
Vehicles
4 1 small~.ehicle (Seaton) 2018 45,000 45,000 1,125 43,875 43,875 34,223 9,653 5 1 Aerial (Seaton) 2019 1,510,900 1,510,900 37,773 1,473,128 1,473,128 1,149,039 324,088 6 Aerial (Fire Station B) (Seaton) 2023 1,510,900 1,510,900 37,773 1,473,128 1 ,473,128 1 '149,039 324,088 7 Small~.ehicle (2) (Seaton) 2023 90,000 90,000 2,250 87,750 87,750 68,445 19,305 8 Pumper (Fire Station B) (Seaton) 2023 900,000 900,000 22,500 877,500 877,500 684,450 193,050
9 Provision for additional By-law and Animal Services
2018-2027 158,000 158,000 3,950 154,050 15,405 138,645 108,143 30,502 Enforcement Vehicles
Equipment
10 Equipment for 20 Firefighters incl. Bunker Gear and
2019 394,500 394,500 394,500 394,500 307,710 86,790 Breathina Apparatus (Station A)
11 Equipment for 20 Firefighters incl. Bunker Gear and
2021 394,500 394,500 394,500 394,500 307,710 86,790 Breathing Apparatus (Station A)
12 Equipment for 20 Firefighters incl. Bunker Gear and
2023 394,500 394,500 394,500 394,500 307,710 86,790 Breathina APParatus (Station B)
13 Equipment for 20 Firefighters incl. Bunker Gear and
2024 394,500 394,500 394,500 394,500 307,710 86,790 Breathina APParatus (Station Bl
......................... ...... R!':?..!':.IY."' ... ~.l!IJ.9. .. A.0..l!~.t.f!1.!':n! .......................................................................... .............................. ...................................... , .. ·······-····"'""''''"'''''' ....................................... ........................................ ........................... . ...................... .. ..................................... ............................. ...................... ?..5.~.,.!.!.~ .. .............. J .. ~~~.?..?.T .. .................. 5..?., .. 9.).9. ...
Total 27,893,002 27,893,002 2,420,121 25,472,881 625,615 25,101,442 19,579,125 5,522,317
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Fina/.docx
0 <0
Prj. No
Infrastructure Costs Covered in the D.C. Calculation - Parks and Recreation Services
Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated Development
2018-2027
Parks
Parks Gross Capital Post Period Code Timing (year) Cost Estimate Benefit
(2017$)
Net Capital Cost
Less:
Grants, Subsidies Benefit to and Other Existing Contributions
De;elopment Attributable to New Oewlopment
Subtotal
Less:
Other(e.g. 10%
Statutory Deduction)
Page 31
Potential DC Reco;erable Cost
Total Residential
Share
95%
NonResidential
Share
5%
·---1·--- --p-afkiii.9io!expanSioil:-vma9e-E"85trark _______________________ ----·-- -2o18-2o27 ---1o7:9oo -------- ---1o7,9oo ----so;B25 ------------- -----·-2s~iii''ir -----2~688 .............. 24:27s- ·-::2.-"3."o"'64:c+--........... ;,--.2"'•·1·4;·1
1---2---- Washroom/changerooms- Rotary Frenchman's Bay West Park 2019 500,000 500,000 250,000 250,000 25,000 225,000 213,750 f----:-111,.;1,,=250~0 3 -Fr~~iffOiitMaStei'Pian Implementation (ph 1A & ph 1B) 2018 2,755,000 -------r-,2,..,7"'5"'5",o::ro;:;o+-"'1',3;;:7;-;7;-;,5;:;o;;;o:+-------l-"'71,"'37;;:7i-,"'5o"'o+--:;,-;;37","'7"'5o:.+-.,-1.,,2,..39,:,.,7"5o:.+-:,:-,1"7~7,::.7;:;6"'3+ 61,988
~~=:::::::::~==:~ -~--~~=~~:~,..~~~=!=:+-:2-;;,~;;;:"':"'~~::.+----~~~-;;~~:~:;;;:;~+~1-;~:;:~;:;~:;;~;;;~=~;t::::::::::~~-~1,-:;~~~;-:~:=~+--1-:;:;;::=~;;;::.+--:!;;;:~:=~;;;~:.+-~~: ~: 6 - community P'oiii08r€eii~eMiiiOiilaii~----- 2o21-2023 5,396,o:;:o;:;o+-----t-.,5;.,,3"'9:;-6,c,;o:;:oo:::+--:2-'o.6=9:;:8'-;,o::::o-::-o+-------l--2,698,ooo ~oo --2.428.2oo -27i06JOO -rn-;-410
--7--~,;;~::c;,;;e,:;woocrconservation Lands (ph 2) 2024-2027 3,777,200 3,777,200 1,219,561 2,557,639 255,764 2,301,875 2,186,782 115,094 ---8---Park::-Krosno Creek valley- Hwy 401 to BaYly 2019-2023 269,800 269,800 26,980 242,820 24,282 218,538 2D7:611-1o-;927 -9-- -Park- The Piazza- downtown south intensification +---i--=2:;0,;.1;.9-.;:2;.02::,3,-+---:50::3"'9:_:,6.;:0;.0+-----t---:5:.;,3;.9,.;:6;.00;:-/----;5:.;,3;:,9.;:6;.0.J.-.------- -485,64"0 - 48,564 ----;;37,576- -- 415,222 21,854
--10 Skate Board Park- Community Size (Ci;ic Centre) 2019 700,000 700,000 350,000 ---- 350~00o 35,000 315,000 299,250 15,750
-- 11 Skate Board Park- Skate Spots (21ocations) 2018-2022 400,000 400,000 200,000 200,000 20,0-00 180,000 171,000 9,9~ Village Green Construction- Kindwin Dewlopment 2018 250,000 250,000 6,250 243,750 I----24.~.-37-5+--2-19-'-,.,-37-5+--2-0_8:....4-~;;+----1-0-,969 (Brock Road)
lf--..-13=--~--=o. H. Neighbourhood Park (Dersan & Tillings"'R"'o-a-,d):---------+--+-;2;;;0718;:-_:;;20;:::1;;9:-t--;6;;;0:;:0,-;:0:;;oo;;- 600,000 ·--;1;;5:-;,o~;o:;;o+-------/l--c::c58"'5"',o"'o"'o+--::c58"',"5o"'o+--::5:c26"'."5o"'o+--..5::o:::o-... 1::=7c:c5+---..2::6",3::2:::5-H
12
J---- Seaton Parkland --------f---------j-----+-----11
14 Neighbourhood Park -- P-102 2018 950,000 950,000 23,750 926,250 -92,625 -83f625 - 791,944 41-;681 15 Village Green P-103 2018 210,000 210,000 5,250 1--------- 204,750 20,475 184,275 175;061 ___ 9-;214
16 VillageGreen -- P-104 2018-2019 285,000 285,000 7,125 ----277,875 27,788 250,088 237,583 · -~ 17 Village Green P-105 2019-2020 230,000 230,000 5,750 224,250 22.425 ---2iJt825 -191,734 --1o!i91
---1-a----- --Vii!89eGreen··-------- ·------------------------------------------ P-=1o6- 2D19-2D2o-- ----12o.ooo· ---------- ---120,ooo -----3~oo· ------------- ----117~ooo- ----1(700 ----1os-:3oo- ---100~35· -----5265 ·--19 ___ --N"eiQiiiiourllaOC!-r8ri< .. -----·-----·-------------------------- --p-::1aT --2o19 ___ ·---44o,ooo -------- ---44o,ooo ----11:0oa· ------------- ----429-;-ooo- ----42,9oa ----3BB:i.oo ---366:795 ---19-:3os· ·--2o ___ --Viil89e-G'r€eri·----·--- ------------------------------------ P-1 o8 2o19-202D-· ·---2so.ooo ·---------· ---25o.ooo -----6:25a· ------------- ----243'Y5o- ----24:375 ----219~375- ----2os:4os ---1o:B69
--2-,---NeiQii'bourhood Park P-109 2019-2020 550,000 550,000 13,750 536,250 53,625 482,625 458.494 24,131
22 Village Green P-110 2019-2020 230,000 230,000 5,750 224,250 22.425 201,825 -191:734 --1o]i91 -;.3----VlllageGreen P-111 2019-2020 170,000 170,000 4,250 165,750 16,575 149,175 -141,716r---7~59 --2-4-----;:;m;;'ge Green -- P-112 2021 260,000 260,000 6,500 253,500 25,350-226,150 --216,743 11,408
·-~\liil89e8re.r;---- --_P-113 2021 15o.ooo 15o.ooo 3,750 146,250 14,625 131,625 125,044 6,581 ·--2-6-Viilage Green P-114 2019-2020 222.000 222.000 5,550 216,450 21,645 194,805 185,065 ·------g;?4o ·-z-7---Community Park at Recreation Centre P-115 2022 3,000,000 3,000,000 is,ooo 2,925,000 ---292,500 2,632,500 2,500,875 131,625
28 Village Green P-116 2020-2021 230,000 230,000 5,750 224,250 22.425 201,825 191,734 10,091
29 Neighbourhood Park P-117 2020-2021 540,000 540,000 13,500 S26,500 52,650 473,850 450,158 23,693 ----:io- Vi.llage Green P-118 2020-2021 230,000 230,000 5,750 224,250 22,425 201,825 191,734 10,091
___ _:_:==='=~~~-=-G_~:_r;________________________________________ ~-119 2020-2021 480,000 480,000 12,000 - 468,000 46,800 ----~~::.~~- 400,140 ___ _2~;9~ ____ ?~·-·-- --~~~~.".':'!:~-~~':':~------------------------------------ --p-::12o- 2o2o-2o2i-· ·---5oii.oaa· ·--------- ---5oo,ooo ---12:Soii· ------------- ----487-;-soo --·----48750- 438, 75o 416,813 21,938
33 Village Green --p-::121- --2ii2o ________ 39o,oiio .. _________ ---39il,iiilo ----9}5ii ___________________ 380-;-25o .. ·----3B;o25 ---342,225 325,114 .... _17-:111
·--34-·-· - -·-N"eiQiiiiouihaOC!-ra:rk_____________________________________ -p-::122- 2021 ---59o;Daa· --------- ---59o,ooo ----14:75ii ·------------- ----s7s-;-25o _ .. ___ 5i~525 517,725 491. 839 25,886
35 Community Park P-123 2024-2025 2,550,000 2,550,000 63,750 2,486,250 248,625 -2,237,625 2,125,744 111,861 -36- Neighbourhood Park P-124 2023 540,000 540,000 13,500 526,500 52,650 473.,850 450,158 23,693 -37-Viil89e-Green P-125 2023-2024 24o,ooo 240,000 6,ooo --234,000 23,400 210,600 -- 200,070 10,530 ~----v;~er1------ -- P-126 2023-2024 26o,ooo 26o.ooo 6,5oo 253,5oo 25,350 228,150 -""2i6:743 ---11~
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx
0
Page 32
Infrastructure Costs Covered in the D.C. Calculation - Parks and Recreation Services (Cont'd)
Less: Less: Potential DC Recowrable Cost
Prj. No
Increased Sef\1ce Needs Attributable to Anticipated De~.elopment
2018-2027
Parks I . . I Gross Capital Code Timing (year) Cost Estimate I Post Period
(2017$) Benent
Net Capital Cost
Grants, Subsidies
Benent to I and Other Existing Contributions
De~.elopment Attributable to New De~.elopment
Subtotal Other (e.g.
10% Statutory
Deduction)
Total Residential
Share
95%
NonResidential
Share
5%
230,000 I 5,750 I I 224,250 191,734 L 10,091
seO,OoOI 14,7so: : :::::: s7s.2so _ 491,83e.C 2s.~
·-----·-···· Tra·i·ls--·--------------------------------·---------·--·---- ------- -----------· ---------·-·--· --·--·------ --------- ----------··· -------------· ---------:=-56--· · ~~~on-P'r§:~.YTieiQilb"mii"liO<;Cie:c;;;~~r;-:r;;;if5-~TOr-5ii'8arii-;;;o;;;i;;ii- ---r:T-- ---2o2o_ .. ____ ----:i6a.·oaa· -------------- ---36o,ooo ----9:0aa· .... ___________ · ---35Tooo -·----35.'160- --=:2~=9oo .. ---3oo:1as· ----.,5-,--795.
59 Seaton Primary Neighbourhood Connection Trails 1 minor stream crossing T-2 2020 360,000 360,000 9,000 351,000 35,100 315,900 300,105 15,795
'6o ___ Seaton Primary Neighbourhood Connecti0ri'Traii51~am~g T-3 2021 410,000 410,000 10,250 - 399,750 39,975 359,775 -- 341,786 -- 17,989
------s-1- Seaton Primary Neighbourhood Connection Trails 1 major stream eros~ T-4 2021 380,000 380,000 9,500 370,500 - 37,050 333,450 316,778 ---1~73 1----s2--- Seaton p,;;;j',;;yNeigiibourhood Connection Trails 2 major stream crossing T-5 2021 710,000 710,000 17,750 692~250 -69,225 ~:i,'Oz'5~74 --31':-15-1 ---e3-- Seaton Primary Neighbou~nection Trails 2 major stream crossing T-6 2024 800,000 800,000 20,ociil' 780,000 --78,000 702,000 666,900 35,100
.. ~-SeatonPrimary Neighbourhood Connection Trails 1 minor stream crossing T-7 2024 370,000 - 370,000 9,250- 360,750 36,075 324,675 ~08,441 16,2:34
""135--Sea'iOnPiifii'a,Y Neighbourhood Connection Trails 2 major stream crossing T-8 2026 930,000 - 930,000 23;-iso 906,750 90,675 816,075 -- 775,271 40,804
'-----sB Seaton Primary Neighbourhood Connection Trails 1 minor stream crossing T-9 2022 140,000 140,000 3,500 136,500 13,650 122,850 116,708 6,143 U
67-- Seaton Primary Neighbourhood Connection Trails 1 major stream crossing T-10 2022 320,000 320,000 8,000 312,000 31,200 280,800 266,760 14,040
68 Seaton Primary Neighbourhood Connection Trails 1 major stream crossing T-11 2027 340,000 - 340,000 8,500 331,500 33,150 298,350 283,433 14,918 ·------- .......................... __________________________________ ,_____________ ------- ---------· -·-----·----· ---------·--------- ----------- ---------------------------------- ----................... ---------· ---------·-·1 f--iij- Seaton Primary Neighbourhood Connection Trails 1 major straam crossing T-12 2028-2031 310,000 310,000 - - - - -------:------- -· ____ iD ___ --sealon-P'iirfia,YTieiQilb"au7liO<;Cicoiii1B;;u'Onl'i8if5-1'm¥or'Sireamcro5Sin9 --T-13- 202B-2o:ii"' ---29o:Ooa ----29o:Ooa· --------- ---------- ------------- ----------- --·------ -----------71 ___ --sealon-P'rin1aiYNei9hb"ii'UrilooCicoiii1B;;ti'Onri8if5-1TiiaTOr'Sifea-n1cfcisSing T-14- "202B-2o:ii-· ---34o:Ooo ---:i4o:oaa· --------- ---------- ------------- ----------- ----·----- ---------
:==~=====~~~~~~~t=§]~~~~~~~g~~k§~~~~I============ ~===== :;;~~~~~=: :=:=3~H~[ ========: ===~~H~[ :==?J}~~~: :============ ====~~;~~ ====~r~- ====~~{~;~===~H~~- ===3~3~~:1 74 Trail- Bayly Street li'om waterfront trail to Go Station 2019-2023 539,600 539,600 269,800 269,800 26,980 242,820 230,679 12,141 --'is _____ -Tffiii--88YIY-s!re.T'ftam-8o-siatioiliDTiilif'cti-Sire8! ________________ ------ "2'019-2623-- ----377.7oo ---------- ---377.7oo ----:iss:Ssa· --------------- ----188-:85o- ----18.'885 ----169:965- ---161.467 .. -----s-,--498 ---ro---Trail- Finch to Brockridge Park (45m bridge) 2019-2023 917,300 917,300 458,650 -458,650 45,865 412,785 392,146 20,639
--77- Trail- Wharf Street to Sandy Beach Road -- 2019-2023 431,700 431,700 215,850 215,850 21,585 194,265 --184,552 9,713.
·--yg- Mulit-pupose Traii":'Hydro Conridor (Whites to Townline) 2024-2027 1,618,800 1,618,800 809,400 809,400 80,940 728,'46'0 --s92,037 --3S,423
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Fina/.docx
P~.No
Page 33
Infrastructure Costs Covered in the D.C. Calculation - Parks and Recreation Services (Cont'd)
Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated Dewlopment
2018-2027
Parks Gross Capital Post Period Code Timing (year) Cost Estimate Benefit
(2017$)
Less:
Grants, Subsidies Net Capital Benefit to and Other
Cost Existing Contributions De\€lopment Attributable to New
Del.€1opment
Subtotal
Less:
Other (e.g. 10%
Statutory Deduction)
Potential DC Recoverable Cost
Total Residential
Share
95%
Non
Residential Share
5%
--------Re-c-re-atiOnFacll~iti~e~s----------------------------------~-----t--------t---------·r--------t--------~---------+------------t----------1
~- Seaton Recreation Complex 2020 75,000 75,000 1,875 73, 12:;:5c-J-----:7::-,:c31"'3'+--6:c5::-,:c81:-:3:-l--·-:6c::2-:,5:=2-:c2+--·---:3-,,2"'9-c1-l
·-·-ao--- --c-o-mmunrty-centre--------------·----------e-----------(Part of Pickering Heritage and Community Centre)
~--- Youth & Seniors' Centre
2021 10,700,000 10,700,000 267,500 10,432,500 1,043,250 9,389,250 8,919,788 469,463 2022 42,800,000 42,800,000 1,070,000 41,730,000 4,173,000 37,557,000 35,679,150 1,877,850 2023 2,600,000 2,600,000 65,000 2,535,000 253,500 2,281,500 2,167,425 114,075
------ ---2518 ___ ----:iss-:ti73. --------- ---3ss.s7:l ---fss:399- -------------- ----222-;-273- ---·-2Tz27- ----:zo6.'o46 ---19o)i44. ---1a:Oa2· 2019 2,040,531 2,040,531 873,597 1,166,934 116,693 1,050,241 997,729 52,512 2021 916,152 916,152 192,417 723,736 72,374 651,362 618,794 32,568 2022 4,809,800 4,809,800 1,010,188 3,799,612 379,961 3,419,651 3,248,668 170,983 2019 2,500,000 2,500,000 62,500 2.437,500 - 243, i50 2,193,750 2,084,063 109!;88 2020 11,900,000 11,900,000 297,500 11,602,500 1,160,250 10.442,250 9,920,138 522,113
--=---,.-------- 2021 11,90o,ooo 11,90o,ooo 297,500 _1.c.,1:",6;:;0c;2,:.;,5,.,o,o_1 __ 1...:,:c16;,o::.,2:;;5,.;o+--:1o;:,=44:;.2::;,2~5;:o+--:::9:.:,::,920, 138 522,113
___ 82 ___ A_rt_s_c_e_n_tr_eJ...:C_om......:.m...:uc..:ni...:ty_U.:_s_e_s.:._) _____________________ +---+-2-01_8_-.2_0_2_7+_-6,'-4_97-',_oo_o+----1 __ 6_:,_4_97..:.,_oo_o+---1-6_2:._.4_2_5_r-----------t--6...:,3_34,575 633,458 5,701,118 5,41S.,o6:e:r---~~:.?~~
----Parks Operations Vehicles arid Equipment -- --------r---------~ --Ar~------------- 2020 115,ooo 115,ooo 115,ooo 11,5oo 103,5oo 98,325c--5:i75
--134"'---Area Mower (2) 2018-2027 230,000 230,000 230,000 23,000 207,000 196,650 -10}50 ----ii5 ____ --ui!er-Pii:k'~rvacuum ____________________________________ ------- ---2018___ ----3o.ooo ---------- ----3o,ooo --------- ------------- -----:30-;-ooo- -----3-:ooo- -----2i.'ooa ----2s:S5o -----1:35o ---8;;--- -8irilii9e-f'iic'ker------------------·-------------------- ---·---- ·-za1s-2o27 ----15o,ooo· ·--------- ---15o.ooo ----------- ------------ ----:;-s-o;-oilo- ----Kooo -----13s:ooa· ---12825o· -----6:75o -- s:r-·-- -8-arii·;;g-.;-p;;;;i\;;-;:-------------------------------------- --2o1s-- -----15o,ooo· ·-------- ---1-5o.oao· ---------- ------------- ----15o-;-oilo- ----:;-5-:ooo ----135:666- ---12s,2so ---·-s:r-so· --as- Enclosed Trailers (3) 1,620
89 Zero Tum Mower (6) 4,860
36,000 3,600 32,400 30,780 108,000 10,800 97,200 '---- 92,340
--9-o- Pickup Trucks (2) 3,330 c-~-~o~n~D~u~m~p~Tru...:~c:k-s~(2~)----·--·----·--------·--------·--------t-----·~~~~~---,..~~~--------,_--~~c:::c·l--------f------------~---~~~~---~~:-::-l----~~:-::-l----:~~~----~5~,8~5~0~
74,000 7,400 66,600 63,270 130,000 13,000 117,000 111,150
--92-- suv (2) 3,150 --4'"'T"o·-n-':D:-u-m-p...,T"'ru-c-:k--------- 12,150
Utility Vehicle ;-----;::;;--::c,-l----==::-+-----;1-,125 l--~------------------------------l----~---4·--~~---r--~-4-----_,------~i----~~
70,000 7,000 63,000 59,850
270,000 27,000 243,000 230,850 25,000 2~So0 22,500 21,375
93
94
I--
II----·--,-I __ Re_s_e""---'· F_'_'u_ndJ A___:dj_u_stm_ent ___ , ___________ ~--+-·---4----+------f-------f---------l------+-'--(16,528.4._1_;2J,1 ____ l-· (16,528,412) (15,701,991) (826.421)
Total 176,947,192 17,360,000 159,587,192 15,677,152 127,381,628 14,007,060 113,374,567 107,705,839 5,668,728
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Fina/.docx
Page 34
Infrastructure Costs Covered in the D.C. Calculation - Library Services
Less: Less: Potential DC Reco~.erable Cost
Grants,
Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated Gross Subsidies and
Capital Cost Post Period Net Capital Benefit to Other Other (e.g. Residential
Non-De~.elopment Timing (year) Subtotal Prj.No Estimate Benefit Cost Existing Contributions 10%
Total Share Residential
(2017$) De~.elopment Attributable to Statutory Share
New Deduction)
2018-2027 De~.elopment
95% 5%
Facilities
1 Central Library Facility 2018 1,750,000 1,750,000 447,454 1,302,546 130,255 1,172,292 1,113,677 58,615 2019 10,425,000 10,425,000 2,665,544 7,759,456 775,946 6,983,510 6,634,335 349,176 2020 10,425,000 10,425,000 2,665,544 7,759,456 775,946 6,983,510 6,634,335 349,176
2 Seaton Regional Library, including land (including material)
2021 4,138,000 1,801,303 2,336,697 103,450 2,233,247 223,325 2,009,923 1,909,426 100,496
2022 6,860,000 2,986,210 3,873,790 171,500 3,702,290 370,229 3,332,061 3,165,458 166,603 2023 6,861,000 2,986,645 3,874,355 171,525 3,702,830 370,283 3,332,547 3,165,919 166,627
3 Archi~.es and Library Space 2018 612,454 612,454 - 612,454 61,245 551,208 523,648 27,560
(Part of Pickering Heritage and Community Centre) 2019 3,215,383 3,215,383 - 3,215,383 321,538 2,893,844 2,749,152 144,692
2021 61,449 61,449 - 61,449 6,145 55,304 52,539 2,765
2022 322,609 322,609 - 322,609 32,261 290,348 275,830 14,517
Reser~.e Fund Adjustment (2, 798, 782) {2, 798, 782) (2,658,843) (13
Total 44,670,894 7,774,158 36,896,737 6,225,017 - 27,872,937 3,067,172 24,805,766 23,565,477 1,240,288
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Fina!.docx
Page 35
Infrastructure Costs Covered in the D.C. Calculation- Administration Services
Prj.No
Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated Del<llopment
2018-2027
liming (year)
Gross Capital Cost
Estimate (2017$)
Post Period Benefit
Net Capital Cost
Benefit to Existing
Del<llopment
Less: "'ran s,
Subsidies and Other
Contributions Attributable to
New
1 Del<llopment Charges Background Study 2022 125,000 125,000 2 ....... D';;v;;;i·~;;·;ne;t1!"Eila.r965"s;:;c;·i<9r~urid'"s!uCi;;............................... 2o27 .............. 1.2·s:·a'Oo ............................................. 1.zs:·a·aa· ......................................................................................... .
5 Municipal Comprehensil<l Re\Aew 2022 500,000 6 Official Plan Reliew 2027 250,000 7 Comprehensil<l Zonino By-law Re\Aew 2018-2021 431,700 8 Planning Application Fee Re\Aew Study 2018 25,000
9
10
Community lmprol<lment Plans for Durham Lil<l Lands and for City Centre Lands lnfill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighborhoods
2019-2022 150,000
2018-2026 150,000
54,000 40,500 500,000 125,000 250,000 125,000 431,700 107,925
25,000
150,000 37,500
150,000 75,000
Subtotal
.. ! .. ?.~.'-~~-~-125,000 300,000
13,500 375,000 125,000 323,775
25,000
112,500
75,000
Less:
Other (e.g. 10%
Statutory Deduction)
12,500 .. ... 1z:sao· 30,000
1,350 37,500 12,500 32,378
2,500
11,250
7,500
Potential DC Reco\<lrable Cost
Total
112,500 ................ 1.1z:soii-
270,000 12,150
337,500 112,500 291,398
22,500
101,250
67,500
Residential Share
78%
. .................. ~!!.!.~.? .. 87,750
210,600 9,477
263,250 87,750
227,290 17,550
78,975
52,650
NonResidential
Share
22%
24,750 '"""''''"""24:75'0'
59,400 2,673
74,250 24,750 64,107
4,950
22,275
1
11 Library-Strategic Plan 2018 60,000 60,000 15,000 45,000 4,500 40,500 31,590 8
........ !.? ........ ....... ~i.~!..~!Y..:.f..~<::i.li_t,i~~!.il/1.'3..~.\!"!. ... ~.1.~~ ................................................................................... ?.9.1.§ .............................. ~:l,.Q.QQ... .................................. ................ 54,000 13' 500 40, 500 4' 050 36,450 28,431 ...................... ~/..Q.1 .. ~ .. 13 Library-strategic Plan 2022 6o,ooo ·s·a:·a·ao ........................ 1.5-;-iiii'O" ·--.......................................................... 45,oori· ................ 4:·s·aa ........................ 4a·:·sa·a· ................ 31·:s9o 8,91o
14 Library-Strategic Plan 2026 60,000 60,000 15,000 45,000 4,500 40,500 31,590 8,910 16,190 145,710
16 16,190 145,710 Transportation Demand Management Plan/Parking 2026 161 ,900 161 ,900 145,710
Management Plan (Seaton) 113
•654 32
•056
10,790 97,110 15,000 135,000 40,000 360,000
r---1!!- _f:J.e;>l~~rhood Traffic Calmj_l}£.1 Me~----~,9,.?I.__ __ 1_sg.,.,,O:.::Oc::.0_1 ____ +---1:.::5:.::0,;;,0=00:+--..:.:::.C:..::.:'-t-------+---':::.;:.,.:::..-::+----~---1:.::3:::.5:.::,0=00 -c----lg:.::s"',3""0""0+---=2:::9 . .c:.,7..::.:00 19 Transportation Master Plan Update 2027 400,000 400,000 360,000 280,800 79,200
12,500 37,500 20 Esplanade Study Pro\Asion 2018-2026 50,000 50,000 3,750 33,750 26,325 7,425
33,725 101,175
30,000 270,000
53,950 161,850
70,000 630,000
25,000 225,000
27 Pickering Airport Feasibility_ Study 2018 150,000 150,000 84,773 65,227 6,523 58,704 45,789 12,915 28 Pickering Corporate EnergyPian Update 2019 50,000 50,000 28,258 21,742 2,174 19,568 15,263 4,305
29 ...... i?..e;>'3.!?.~ .. .i::.!?..r.e!?.E~t.!" ... sne;>[fi!'!. ... P.1'3..Q ... LJ..e9~t.!" ......................................................... ?.:9?? ............................... ~.9,.9.9.9 ..................... : .............................. ~.Q,.QQ9 ... 30 Pickering Climate Adaption Plan 2020 150,000 150,000 84,773
50,000 5,000 45,000 35,100 9,900 . ........................................................................ 65:227'' '"''''"''''"'6:5'23''' """""""""'"'58-;764'' ..... "'""''45':78'9' '""""""""'1'2':'91'5"
31 Broadband Strategy and lm_]Jiementation Plan 2019 75,000 75,000 42,387 32,613 3,261 29,352 22,895 6,457 32 Natural Capital Asset Evaluation 2022 75,000 75,000 42,387 32,613 3,261 29,352 22,895 6,457 33 Facilities Management Plan 2018 150,000 150,000 37,500 112,500 11,250 101,250 78,975 22,275
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx
Page 36
Infrastructure Costs Covered in the D.C. Calculation- Administration Services (Cont'd)
Less: Less: Potential DC Reco~.arable Cost Grants,
Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated Gross
Post Subsidies and Capital Cost Net Capital Benefit to Other
Other (e.g. Residential
Non-Prj.No De~.elopment liming (year) Period Subtotal 10% Residential Estimate Cost Existing Contributions Total Share Benefit Statutory Share (2017$) De~.alopment Attributable to
New Deduction)
2018-2027 n 78% 22% 34 Facilities Management Plan Update 2027 167,000 - 167,000 41,750 .125,250 12,525 112,725 87,926 24,800
§! Facilities Renewal Plan 2018-2026 200,000 - 200,000 113,031 86,969 8,697 78,272 61,052 17,220 Facilities Way Finding Study 2018-2026 50,000 - 50,000 28,258 21,742 2,174 19,568 15,263 4,305 Space Use Study 2018 35,000 - 35,000 26,250 8,750 875 7,875 6,143 1,733
38 Urban Forest Manaoement 2018-2026 97,100 - 97,100 24,275 72,825 7,283 65,543 51,123 14,419
39 Seaton Primary Trails 10 EA Phase 1 & 2 Lands
2018 400,000 - 400,000 - 400,000 40,000 360,000 280,800 79,200 (includino site walks, sur~.eyino, archaeology) 40 Di~.ersity and Inclusion Plan 2020 75,000 - 75,000 42,387 32,613 3,261 29,352 22,895 6,457
1-~ .. Age Friendly Community Plan 2018 75,000 75,000 42,387 J....~--~2-~:!! 3,261 29,352 -~22,8~~ -H¥s-__ .. ______ .. ____ .. ___ .. __ ---~- ---- -75.iiaa - "~--~-. ---- ·---"-
42 Seniors Recreation Strategic Plan 2019 75,000 - 37,500 37,500 3,750 33,750 26,325 7,42
43 Recreation Services Master Plan Update 2027 170,000 - 170,000 42,500 127,500 12,750 114,750 89,505 25,245 44 Waterfront Park Needs Assessment 2019-2020 100,000 - 100,000 25,000 75,000 7,500 67,500 52,650 14,850 45 Whitevale Park Re,;talization Study 2021 80,000 - 80,000 20,000 60,000 6,000 54,000 42,120 11,880 46 New Financial System 2018-2026 5,000,000 - 5,000,000 2,825,781 2,174,219 217,422 1,956,797 1,526,302 430,495
Reser~.e Fund Adjustment 673,868 673,868 525,617 148,251
Total 12,501,200 - 12,501,200 4,681,967 - 8,493,101 564,479 7,928,622 6,184,325 1,744,297
WatsoA Wi\sociates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Fina/.docx
Page 37
5.2 Service Levels and 14-Year Capital Costs for City-wide D.C.
Calculation
5.2.1 Other Services Related to a Highway
The City provides operations services related to transportation services, defined by the
D.C.A. Services Related to a Highway. These services include roads operations
facilities, vehicles, and equipment. These services are provided through the use of 181
vehicles and equipment items, and 52,700 sq.ft. of facility space. The average level of
service provided over the historical 1 0-year period based on this inventory is $223 per
capita. When applied to anticipated growth over the 2018-20231 period, the per capita
level of service produces a maximum D.C. eligible amount for library services of $19.4
million.
The gross capital cost included in the D.C. calculation for the forecast period to 2031
totals $15.1 million. The capital cost estimates include additional vehicles and
equipment items, as well as the growth-related share of the new Operations Centre and
the Northern Satellite Operations Centre (including land). There is a current reserve
fund balance of $154,000, recognizing the benefit to development having already
occurred, which has been deducted from the D.C. eligible costs. The resulting net
growth-related capital cost of approximately $15.0 million has been included in the D.C.
calculation.
The forecast growth-related costs have been allocated 74% to residential development
and 26% to non-residential development (8% prestige employment lands within Seaton
and 18% in all other areas of the City) based on the incremental growth in population
and employment.
5.2.2 Storm water Management
Stormwater management needs provided in the increase in need for service reflect
those in addition to the local service requirements of development, and include erosion
control works, conveyance control, new facilities and water quality treatment. In total,
the gross capital cost estimate for these needs over the 14-year planning period total
$52.3 million. After deducting approximately $41.5 for benefits to the existing
development and $1.0 million for current reserve fund balances, the net D.C. eligible
costs for inclusion in the calculation of the charge is approximately $9.9 million.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx
115
116
Page 38
Based on the incremental growth in population to employment, the net D. C.-eligible costs have been allocated 7 4% to residential, 8% to prestige employment lands within Seaton and 18% to non-residential development in all other areas of the City.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx
Page 39
Infrastructure Costs Covered in the D.C. Calculation -Other Services Related to a Highway
Prj .No
Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated Development
2018-2031
Roads Operations Fleet and Equipment
Timing (year)
Gross Capital Cost
Estimate (2017$)
Post Period Benefit
Net Capital Cost
Less:
Grants, Subsidies Benefit to and Other Existing Contributions
Development Attributable to New Development
Potential DC Recoverable Cost
Total Residential
Share
74%
NonResidential
Share
26%
~ ... ?... __ ..... :Uon_R!:!.~P. .. I!:.':!.~H§now r:.!.~-.. --·- 2018 _. _ _no.ooo... ~-?.IP..~..QQQ... ____ ~-- .............. _....11.Q,_QQQ.. __ U3_~Q.Q .. ......... _1.9 .. c?9..9_ 1 4 Ton Dump Truck/Snow Plow 2019-2027 270,000 270,000 270,000 199,800 70,200
_ ... .±..... .......... .9 .. I9..!J .. .\?.!:!.~.P.-I!:.':I~~!.§D9.~..£.!9J!Y......... ______ ?_912........_ ___ ?.§9. DQQ_ ·-----_ __ ,_,?§.Q&QQ.. ~---=-·----~------- .. __ ...1.?.Q,_~ _?..9Z.c?.Q9.. __ ,_...fl,8DD 3 5 Ton Dump Truck/Snow Plow 2021-2027 275,000 - 275,000 - 275,000 203,500 71,500
~·§--r-·LT..9D_~):l_f!:l.P...JS.!:!.ck_@)., _____ ,_,_, __ , __ .. ?D18-?_9_ZL.,,_ .. ~DDD -· 195,DD..Q_. .. ......... -.......... 1 .. ~.§.. .. 9..Q.9_ . 144,300 6 1 Ton Dump Truck with Snow Plow (3) 2018-2027 210,000 210,000 210,000 155.400 54,
___ .!.. ....... r-ElS~ .. !:!r?...I.r.!:!E.~.J~L---·~------- _?,.QJ.~.:;.?D27 ___ 111, DQ.Q_ -· - 111 ,DOD ............... ___ .....'!.1.1.Q.QQ.. ___ ._g 11.g_ ..:..... .. ~.?.~c 8 suv 2018-2027 35,000 35,000 35,000 25,900 9, 9 Sweeper 2018 340,000 - 340,000 - 340,000 251,600 88, .......... 1.1 ................. si'de-w~·ik .. Tr~·ct~·;:~ ................................................................................ 20'1 .. 9 ............................ 1.5s):ioo .......................................................... 1.ss:·a·aa .................................................................................................................. 1 .. 5s·;aoo ................ 1 .. 1·4;·7a·a· 40 •
.......... ~.?. ................ §.!.9.E"..~~.!~ ... Ir.~.S~9.E.S. ............................................................................... ?.9..?.9. ............................ 1.?..5..,.9..9.9. ................................ ~ ........ ............... 1.?..?.,.9..9.9. ... ....................... , ..... ~ ................................................................................. J .. S..?..t.9.9..9 ................. 1 .. 1.~.t.!.9..9. .................... ~9.., .. 10 Sidewalk Tractors 2021-2027 155,000 - 155,000 - 155,000 114,700 40,3
.......... 1.~ ................ E.r.9..Y.!.s..i.<?..n. ... f9..r .. YE"..~i.s!.~~ .. ~ ... §.9l:l.iP..~E"..r:'L ................ ?.9..?.§.~?.9..~.1 ...... ......... J., .. 1.§.1.,.9..9.9. ... .................................................. L.1.§.1.,.9..9.9. ................................ ~ ................................................................... ......... 1.,.J .. ?.J., .. Q9..9. .. .............. §.!.~·'·~~.9. . ............ }.9.!..t.9.?.Q ..
......................... . Rc:>.?..!:i.~ .. 9.1:?.E"..r..~!.!.«:>D:>. .. F.'~.Si.l.!.~i.~.~ ...................................... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ .
14 New Operations Centre (Growth Related 2017 6 067 565 _ 6 067 565 Share) ' ' ' '
15 New Northern Satellite Operations Centre, including land
Reserve Fund Adjustment
I Total
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
2024 5.426,000 5.426,000
15,125,5651 15,125,565 I
H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Fina/.docx
6,067,565 4.489,998 1,577,567
5.426,000 4,015,240 1.410.760
14,971,6471 11,079,019 I 3,892,6281
00
Page 40
Infrastructure Costs Covered in the D.C. Calculation - Stormwater Management Services
Less: Potential DC Recovarable Cost
Prj.No Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated Development
2018-2031
liming (year)
Gross Capital Post Period Cost Estimate Benefit Net Capital Cost
(2017$)
Benefit to Existing
Development
Grants, Sub~idies and Other Contributions Attributable to New
De\Siopment
Total Residential
Share
74%
Non-Residential Share
26%
Krosno Creek SWM Fa_c_il_ity_K_2o_-_D_es-ig_n ___ B-_2_D_D_+.~~~:acility at upstream of Krosno Ck trib.- 2018-2024 965,400 965,400 502,008 463,392 342,910 120,482
--2-- ;z;sno Creek SWM ;acility K20- Construction B-20 C ~wM;F;,.a·-~-:ili,-ty""a""'t_u_p .. st,-re_a_m_o-:f:-:K:-ro_s_n_o""c"'k""'t-.rib:-.-_-+-2-0-18---20_2_4+--1.-3-15-,0-0-0+----+--1-,3-1-5-;0-0-0-I--·--6;3,8;~ ----------· ·--~~·;·2-0-0+---4-67-.-0-88+---1-6-4,-1-12-ll ----- ·------·----------------- ·--~~'..l.!f •. ',o!n~-..,-.....,.....,.,,.,.,..-:--..,.,-,..,.------l __ -----·-·-·· ------·1------ll
3 Krosno Creek SWM Facility K12 ·Design B-18 D ~WM Facility at mouth of Hydro Marsh· 2018-2024 78,400 78,400 40,768 37,632 27,848 9,784
---- --·-·----···-·--·-----------IO':sc::c.;~-c"'i"lity::--a·:-t-m-o-ut""h-o-.f'"'H-yd7r-o7M;;-a-rs-;-h----+--·--+-------l----+------------------·--- -------------·-4 Krosno Creek SWM Facility K12- Construction B-18 C Construction 2018-2024 488,200 488,200 253,864 234,336 173,409 60,927
:------u 596,300 447,225
81,200 42,224
7 Krosno Creek SWM Facility K16- Construction B-19 C SWM Facility at Hydro Marsh- Construction 806,200 419,224
Krosno Creek SWM Facility K19 ·Design B-30 D SWM Facility· Krosno Creek (Hydro Corridor, 2018-2024 458,900 458,900 238,628 220,272 163,001 57,271 ---·-· ------··· -- ~~'2LQ.'!l~~iy..§ll:.I2~9.n.:.....,:-;-:--::--:-:-..:.....-~-----+-----+-----+------
Krosno Creek SWM Facility K19 ·Construction B-30 C SWM Facility· Krosno Creek (Hydro Corridor, 2018-2024 1,760,200 ·-·--+---------t--------.. --.. ----....... f-----11
_______ , --·--------·---· 'Y.".~.!..9.':'i.~~iy..§!J..:.92.'!'!!J:tl.£!i.~D,.......::--:-:--I----+------I------1D Krosno Creek SWM Facility 17/18- Design 8-31 D ~:~0~~~:~~ ~~~o~.n~ ~~:~kn(Hydro Corridor, 2018-2024
.... ----·--- ___ , _______ ,, ____ ,_,_, _____ ,,_ .... ,. .... __ ,,,P. .. ,., ___ _J ____ !.!!I~-:--;::---:-,..----I---+-·-11 Krosno Creek SWM Facility 17/18-
8_31 C SWM Facility- Krosno Creek (Hydro Corridor,
12
13
14
15
16
17
Construction west of Feldspar Crt.)- Construction
Amberlea Creek SWM Facility A3- Design
Petticoat Creek Erosion Control- Design
A-8 D SWM Facility at outfall to tributary of Amberlea Creek- Design
H-10 0
Erosion assessment and fixing of erosion channel and banks
Petticoat Creek Erosion Control- Construction H-10 C. Erosion assessment and fixing of erosion channel and banks
Petticoat Creek Erosion Control- Design
Petticoat Creek Erosion Control - Construction
14 Oil Grit Separators Installation
Erosion assessment and fixing of erosion channel and banks Erosion assessment and fixing of erosion channel and banks install 2 units per year for water quality treatment
2018-2024
2018-2024
2018-2024
2018-2024
2018-2024
2018-2024
2018-2024
324,600
1,569,400
129,100
302,200
1,919,200
358,200
2,555,200
4,213,100
1,760,200
324,600
1,569,400
129,100
302,200
1,919,200
358,200
2,555,200
4,213,100
915,304 219,673
168,792 40,510 -~---"'"·---· -·~·--"--------
816,088 753,312 557,451 195,861
102,192 26,908 19,912 6,996
268,061 34,139 25,263 8,876
1,702,391 216,809 160,438 56,370
313,176 45,024 33,318 11,706
2,234,021 321,179 237,673 83,507
3,018,755 1,194,345 883,815 310,530
. . . install 2 units per year for water quality 18 12 Oil Gnt Separators Installation treatment 2025-2031 3,611,300 - 3,611,300 2,587,555 1,023,745 757,571 266,174
- 19--:::_~ri'~O.~~f~I~'!..'!.~il§.:wM Faci~~_o_e~IQ~ __ -vy"::?-o ~i§~!'Y..f.."cmy to£§..:_ge;iiri---::=l-~-~39li .. _!_:~Q,_?ooi=-~- .:.....:..==-'1.1o.!\QQ:-~::- ~~.396_r----------_-_::-_::_.....J.?_,_1_~ r---"11,379 r---......l.'!c9?2. 20 ~mberleaCreek Mouth SWM Facility- W-7 C SWM/Forebay Faciliy to FB- Construction 2025-2031 7,961,200 - 7,961,200 6,926,244 1,034 956 765,867 269 089 __ ,_, __ .. £'!'!ku.e!c0.0. __________________________________ r--- ____________ '-------_..: _______________________ _:__ ___________ · ·--21 Dunbarton Creek Mouth SWM Facility- Design W-8 D SWM/Forebay Faciliy to FB- Design 2025-2031 710,800 710,800 618,396 92,404 68,379 24,025
----r.::--------·----·------.. -----------------------r-----r----------r------ r------------.. ------------ ------·-- ------22 gunbarton Creek Mouth SWM Facility- W-8 C SWM/Forebay Faciliy to FB- Construction 2025-2031 7,961,200 - 7,961,200 6,926,244 1,034,956 765,867 269 089
__ ,, ___ _,, ... O.Q~!r.!e~ .. \1_9_Q_ ___ , ______________ , __ ,, ______ -------·-.. -------·-·· -------· -----·-"'"""""""'"""""""-·-----!----··"·---· ,., _____ . __ _ 23 Amberlea Creek SWM Facility A3- A-8 C SWM Facility at outfall to tributary of Amberlea 2025_2031 1 350 600 _ 1 350 600 . 1_069,097 281 ,
503 208,312 73
,191
·--·-·~-~-.. Q.~!J.~-~~~.£.t.!.9D~~·---.. ·-------~ .. w----~~·g.!.~~-~_:_S:~~structio..!J ______ .. , ... _~~ -----r----~-~r-·~-~--~.___-~.-~"- '"""·---·--··-~~---·--·--"-·-~-"·"·--.. ·-----j-----·-24 Pine Creek SWM Facility P31- Design L-20 D ~::;n:c~:;: ~~~~~fa~ to Pme Creek at 2025-2031 138,700 - 138,700. 120,669 18,031 ___ , _______ , _____ ,,_ ............ _____ , __ ,, ____ , _________ ,..,,,, .......... , _______ 9__ ··- ----- ----- _____________________ ,, ____ _ 13,343 4,688
25 Pine Creek SWM Facility P31 -Construction L-20 C SWM Facility at outfall to Pine Creek at 2025-2031 1 460 DOD 1 460 000 1 270 200 189,800 Glenanna Rd. - Construction ' ' ' ' ' '
140,452 49,348
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Fina/.docx
Page 41
Infrastructure Costs Covered in the D.C. Calculation - Stormwater Management Services (Cont'd)
Less: Potential DC Recoverable Cost
Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated Development Timing Gross Capital
Post Period Benefit to Grants, Subsidies and
Prj. No Cost Estimate Net Capital Cost Other Contributions Residential Non-Residential
(year) Benefit Existing Total Share Share (2017$) Attributable to New Development
De;elopment 2018-2031 74% 26%
26 Pine Creek SWM Facility P29- Design 8-33 D SWM Facility at outlet of Pine Creek at Fairview
2025-2031 Ave. - Design
78,400 78,400 68,208 10,192 7,542 2,650
27 Pine Creek SWM Facility P29- Construction 8-33 c SWM Facility at outlet of Pine Creek at Fairview
2025-2031 699,300 699,300 608,391 90,909 67,273 23,636 Ave. -Construction
28 Pine Creek SWM Facility P22- Design L-21 D SWM Facility at outlet of Pine Creek at Cedarwood Crt. - DesiQn
2025-2031 123,100 123,100 107,097 16,003 11,842 4,161
29 Pine Creek SWM Facility P22- Construction L-21 C SWM Facility at outlet of Pine Creek at
2025-2031 1,283,200 1,283,200 1,116,384 166,816 123,444 43,372 Cedarwood Crt. - Construction
30 Pine Creek SWM Facility P27- Design L-22 D SWM Facility at outlet of Pine Creek at
2025-2031 134,300 134,300 116,841 17,459 12,920 4,539 Storrington St. -Design
31 Pine Creek SWM Facility P27- Construction L-22 C SWM Facility at outlet of Pine Creek at
2025-2031 1,410,400 1,410,400 1,227,048 183,352 135,680 47,672 Storrington St. -Construction
32 Pine Creek Culvert Replacements- Design TC-23 D Replace Radom St culverts, Kingston Rd
2025-2031 711,800 711,800 621,309 90,491 66,963 23,528 culvert, channel works
33 Pine Creek Culvert Replacements-
TC-23 C Replace Radom St culverts, Kingston Rd
2025-2031 6,053,200 6,053,200 5,283,660 769,540 569,459 200,080 Construction culvert, channel works
Reserve Fund Ad'ustment 976,371 722,514 (253,856
Total 52,319,100 52,319,100 41,452,260 9,890,469 7,318,947 2,571,522
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Fina/.docx
120
Page 42
5.3 Service Levels and 14-Year Capital Costs for Area-Specific
(Outside of Seaton Lands) D.C. Calculation
5.3.1 Transportation Services
The City has a current inventory of 159 kilometres of rural, arterial and collector roads
and urban collector and arterial roads and 62 bridges and culverts. This historic level of
infrastructure investment equates to a level of service of $2,577 per capita.
Furthermore, the City also provides services through the maintenance of 315 kms of
sidewalks and 25 traffic signals. In total, average historic level of service provided is
$3,487. When applied to the forecast population growth to 2031 (i.e. 28,936
incremental net-population growth outside of Seaton), a maximum D. C.-eligible cost of
approximately $100.9 million could be expected to meet the future increase in needs for
service.
The review of the City's transportation needs for the forecast period identified $123.9
million in gross capital costs. These capital needs include various road re
constructions, widenings and extensions, sidewalks, traffic signals, and streetlighting
projects. Recognizing the benefit to existing development, approximately $38.0 million
has been deducted. Approximately $18.2 million has been deducted from the potential
D.C. recoverable costs for existing reserve fund balances, accounting for funds already
secured towards these future needs. As a result, approximately $67.6 million in capital
costs have been included in the D.C. calculation.
The net growth-related costs for transportation services have been allocated between
future residential and non-residential development outside of Seaton on the basis of
incremental population to employment growth over the forecast period (i.e. 92%
residential, 8% non-residential).
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx
Prj .No
Roads
Infrastructure Costs Covered in the D.C. Calculation -Transportation Services
Increased Sel\1ce Needs Attributable to Anticipated Development
201B-2031
Gross Capital Post Period Roads Code Timing (year) Cost Estimate
(2017$) Benefit
Net Capital Cost
Less: Grants, Subsidies
Benefit to and Other Existing Contributions
Development Attributable to New Development
Page 43
Potential DC Recoverable Cost
Total Residential
Share
92%
NonResidential
Share
8%
1 Tillings Road oversizinq -local to collector DH-3 2018-2024 265,320 244,094 21,226 294,800 - 294,800 29,480 2,229,040 - 2,229,040 222,904 6,500,000 - 6,500,000 3,250,000
288,000 - i88,ooo 28,800
5 DH-14 William Jackson Dr. (Old Taunton). Urfe EA & Design DH-14 2018-2024 405,000 372,600 32,400
Qr_c:e.l<_Cul'-"[!_§_truct!!!.~JDeslgniAp.P.I.~'§!):,.· -:-c:-:---l---------------f-----t-----f------f-----t-----1-----+----------t-----~-----j-----ll 450,000 - 450,000 45,000
6 DH-1 4 William Jackson Dr. (Old Taunton). Urfe Construction DH-14 2018-2024 3,455,100 - 3,455,100 345,510 3,109,590 2,860,823 248,767
r::r.e. .. e.~S.-~L"'_rt_::;.)r,~g-~u~_(g9L'.S.Jr.~.0i.?DL •• ----- --···-------·----·-------.. ---·---l-----1··-·---------·---·-r------------ ----+--------f-·-·-----.. ----1------+-----1 Valley Farm Road- North ofThird Concession to 3-lane urban construction, incl. storm DH-1 2020-2024 3,399,500 3,399,500 339,950 3,059,550 2,814,786 244,764 7 Tillings
..... _8_ I~D .. FSI.':J'.1S. .. l2r:i."' • .:.!:i!'.? .. "'.r-~q_\fii_E!~.t Limit _2-lan_e ur~!lJ.§.££!lS_t_r:lJ.£!i.o!!......... ____ RQ_§ ____ +--;2:-;0e;2::5-:;2•:'0:C31-:--l--'2, 210, 00:-:0+----- 2, 210, ooo .. ...1.6.EL..[)QQ_ --··-----~~2., .. ?.9.9.. 508, 30;:;0+--:-40-:4C.:,2;:::0:-:;0-u 9 Finch A venue - Townline to Altona 3-lane urban reconstruction, incl. storm RP-4 2018-2024 (85o~3oo --(ii50,'3oo 462,575 1 ,387,725 ·---i'~76:7'o7 111,018 10 Pickering Parkw".L.:.§Ienanna to Hydro Corridor(E) sidewalk TC-1 2018-2024 54,100 54,100 40,575 13,525 12,443 1,082
11 ~=r~~~;ker Extension- East Limit to Pickering 2-lane, new construction TC-5 2025-2031 750,000 750,000 562,500 187,500 172,500 ------~S.~~~:... 12 .tl£ti.'?.'ll'..9.~.9..~ Kin~~ ton to 3~!:!.t_h 2-lane urban reconstruction, incl. Storm V-5 2_018-20~~___1,,0_!?_2~ ___ -____ _1._!)52,500 r-.....51-?.,.~~r--------·----· ........ 1?.~6.,?.§.0_ .......... 1S.;!.,J .. 5..Q 42,100 13 Sheppard Avenue- Whites to West Limit sidewalk, blld., streetlight on north side W0-5 2018-2024 244,000 244,000 183,000 61,000 56,120 4,880 14 Shepeard Avenue- Whi!§>s to 600m East sidewalk, blld., structures south side W0-9 2018-2024 395,000 395,000 296,250 98,750 90,850 7,900 15 Audley Road(Sideline 2)conc. #5 to Hwy 7 2-lane r~fal~e-construciioiliriCI."Siructures RU-4 2018-2024 3,212,155 3,212,155 ·--1,606,078 1,606~olB--~ .. ---.""'12il.486 16 A-5- A-6, A-7 Arterial Connection Bayly to Kingston Feasibility Study & EA TC-31 2018-2024 2,698,000 - 2,698,000 674,500 2,023,500 1,861,620 161,880
....... i-y·- · ~~~artanwalk';:,-;;y--:-6-;;;,b8~i'On .. i0'"R:ainbi8~·- ;;,~;;-v-----· ---~--- "2o"'i8-2o24 323, 15o .. ______ --3~ -24'2.363- _____ .. ____ -Bo:788 .............. 74;325 6,463
18 Valley Farm/Tillings Bridge- Ganatsekiagon EA & Design DH-2 2018-2024 500,000 500,000 50,000 450,000 414,000 ---~6"9.9.0.. ___ _1g__ __ \f..§jle_y..£_~[f!li_lJ,liiD.9~..J3.~ .. <!g~ .. :.<J..~.~\~.~.tl.a_g_o_~.-- .t:J."..w S\f.~~..!..ur.."...... ...... _____ , ______ DH-2__._ ....19.2~~ ~~r··---.:_ 13,~ _1_,3_~?_,~_fJ.Q ------ .... __ 1,;. 140,fJ.! .. Q.. .. J.1.1f'.~,,?..~7. 971,273
20 Oakwood Drive- Rougemount to Mountain Ash 2-lane urban reconstruction R-4a 2018-2024 1,435,750 1,435,750 717,875 717,875 660,445 57,430 21 o_~.!:l~..:.M.?..!:!.'2!..~6.~bJ.~nevale 2-lane urban reconstruction, incl. storm R-4b 2018-2024 718,225 - 718,225 ~ 113 359,113 330,384 28,729 22 Rouqemount Drive- Woodqranqe to Toynevale 2-lane urban reconstruction, incl. storm R-5 2018-2024 285,280 - 285,280 142,640 142,640 131,229 11,411 23 Finch Avenue- West of Altona (Structure) culvert replac"-ment RP-2 2018-202~!_~_!),00,000 1,000,000 500,0Q!J r--1300,000 ~60,000 _,_,_"[Q.,.Q.QQ .. ~ Scar/Pickerinq Townline- Finch to CPR reconstruction/widen RP-14 2018-2024 866,800 - 866,800 433,400 433,400 398,728 34,672
25 Scar/Pickering Town line- CPR to Taunton/Steeles reconstruction/widen RU-7 2018-2024 5,634,200 5,634,200 2,817,100 2,817,100 2,591,732 225,368 26 Dixie Road- Kingston to South Limit sidewalk, east side TC-13 2018-2024 54,100 54,100 40,575 13,525 12,443 1,082 27 Granite Court- Whites to Rosebank sidewalk, north side W-4 2018-2024 207,085 207,085 155,314 51,771 47,630 _ ------..... 4-;142 28 Kellino Street- Squires Beach to Church 3-lane urban reconstruction, incl. storm Bl-8 2019 2,236,500 2,236,500 1,118,250 1,118,250 1,028,790 I 89,460
29 _§_g~iE"..s __ B._"..'!Eb ... Roa'!_;...§~yl:t.._te.S:.t:JB..Ir...a.c:.ts_ .... __ ~.:L'!Q'!...".!b.."-~ .. [~10onstc1!£.tj_cl_n..Joi0J. storCQ_ .~J:::lll ___ -~-,___2 .. 2..3..\!., .. 5.00 - r----6-~3..MQ.Q..r---J"! .. 11'l,.?.?..Q. ___ , _____ ........:!,J!.S.,.?.5.9 ... _!o.Q?_Il,L~O 69,460 A-11 (Plummer)- Hydro Corridor to West Limit Collector Road B-27 2021 1,986,000 1,986,000 496,500 1,489,500 1,370,34 119,160
-12 Plummer- Krosno Creek Crossing Bridge Structure B-28 2021 2,158,400 - 2,158,400 539,600 1,618,800 1,489,296 1.?~~ osebank Road- CPR to Third Concession Rd. reconstruction/widen L-17 2025-2031 4,278,250 4,278,250 1,069,563 3,208,688 2,951,993 256,695
osebank Road- Third Concession Rd. To Taunton reconstruction/widen L-18 2025-2031 3,137,920 3,137,920 784,480 2,353,440 2, 165,165 188,275
•-- Rd._·---::---:-:::-:-....,- -·:::--:-c::-:-::o---J---------------- -----11----+----J-----t---- -----+------ '----' --- Montgomery Park Rd.- Sandy Beach Rd. To ·· ----- ---- ------------34 Mckay Rd. Urbanization /Full Load Bl-21 2018-2024 3,710,000 3,710,000 1,855,000 1,855,000 1,706,600 146,400
35 Third Concession Rd. -Dixie Rd. To Whites Rd. Reconstruction/widen L-12 2025-2031 4,564,371 4,564,371 1,141,093 3,423,278 3,149,416 273,862 36 Third Concession Rd. -Whites Rd. To Altona Rd. Reconstruction/widen L-13 2025-2031 4,564,371 4,564,371 1,141,093 3,423,278 3,149,416 273,862
37 Third Concession Rd. -Altona Rd. To West Townline
Reconstruction/widen L-14 2025-2031 4,564,371 4,564,371 1,141,093 3,423,278 3,149,416 273,862
38 Fairport Rd. -Lynn Heights To Third Concession Rd. Reconstruction/widen L-15 2025-2031 4,279,080 4,279,080 1,069,770 3,209,310 2,952,565 256,745 39 Dixie Rd. - Hvdro Corridor To Third Concession Rd. Reconstruction/widen L-16 2025-2031 3,993,800 3,993,800 998,450 2,995,350 2,755,722 239,628
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Fina/.docx
Page 44
Infrastructure Costs Covered in the D.C. Calculation- Transportation Services (Cont'd)
Less: Potential DC Reco;erable Cost
Gross Capital Granls, Subsidies Non-Increased Ser\lce Needs Attribulable to Anticipated De;elopment
Roads Code Timing (year) Cost Estimate Post Period Net Capital 8enelit to and Other Residential Prj .No Benefit Cost Existing Contributions Total Share
Residential (2017$)
De;elopment Attributable to New Share
2018-2031 De;elopment 92% 8% 40 A-8 (Plummer)- Brock Rd. To West Limit Colleclor 8-24 2025-2031 69,900 - 69,900 17,475 52,425 48,231 4,194
JPi-:: 6:~Jf.LL<~.!'fl.::..E.2C.l.l_".Y..~~! ... ~J.!12~.l>U:iY..<!!:£..t;:.9.!Ii<!..0l_ Collesto_r ___ ·---·- 8-25 2..92._?.:2...031 366,000 r-------........::.-.. 366,000 -.--9-~,.?..0..0.._ 274,500 252,540 r-----41 '960 ·~~~-~·~ .. ~-·~ .. ····
A-10 (F;.L~!!'.~.':L.:..6..'?.'£!'~.9!:D.S..!'.~~dor _ ~O.~.ector B-26 2025-:~031 550,000 ----=~q;:gg_q: -- 137 5Q,Q ·---412,'5_9§~ ;=:~'t§}oo- 33,000 Walnut Lane Extension -construction and contract
43 ad min
2019 2,500,000 2,500,000 625,000 1,875,000 1,725,000 150,000 --···-·-~~ne Extension -EA and Design
_, __ . ___ "-·--···-~~·- ---------· ·-52,807 ----·--f--15s:420 --145~746-~j- 2018 211,226 211 226 12,674
45 EA Study A8-A12(Pillinmerj- -- B-24 to 8-28 2018-2024 500,000 - 500,000 125,000 375,000 345,000 30,000
Streetliohts and Sidewalks I
46 W0-2 Kingston Road- South Side Rosebank Rd. Includes pedestrian bridge W0-2 2018-2024 332,660 - 332,660 166,330 166,330 153,024 to Steeple Hill 13,306
47 Kingston Road - Glendale Dri;e to Walnut Lane North side TC-9 2025-2031 351,000 351,000 175,500 175,500 161,460 1-4.04o
__...11?.._ JS.i.')_g~~!!.,B_c?_~<!_.:.P.j:::_i~'2_'!_dj_'?._b]_~oo[ Roa_d-:::-:::- .§_£<J_tb.§lste TC-12 2018-2024 585,000 58~..Q.Q.O.... ~00 29~29.0.... r---1-~~~.Q 23,400
49 Sidewalk & Streetlights: Rosebank to Whites ES
North Side R0-10 2018-2024 103,283 - 103,283 51,642 51,642 47,510 4,131 2000 R0-1 0 Rosebank to 250 m west Sidewalks & Streetlights
50 TC-7 (2005-2009) Kingston Rd. -Valley Farm Rd. South Side TC-7 2018-2024 133,500 - 133,500 66,750 66,750 61,410 5,340
--"··-·-·- E."..~.!..(~_o._u,t)::l._s_!~.e.).J_o_ljY..<!r_o_<;<~.r.ri<!O.I.:.. ___ .-·-··-·- ··-"'"·-·-·------·--- :--·-----r------------·· --------------------· --51
Sidewalks & Streetlights. N.E. Quadrant Delta BII<J W0-1 2025-2031 112,000 112,000 56,000 56,000 51,520 4,480
03-2321-01-21
52 Sidewalks & Streetlights: Kingston Rd. Steeple Hill
North Side W0-3 2018 317,000 - 317,000 158,500 158,500 145,820 12,680 to Whites 04-2321-002-03 -----··-·-·-Sidewalks & Streetlights: Kingston/Dixie-CNR 53 South Side TC-11 2025-2031 133,500 - 133;500 66,750 66,750 61,410 5,340
-·~ .. ··--·-- lf.~S.k.~·--·---·-·-···--·----·-·------····-·····----- ···--·---------·--------------- -----·~--r------·---------~-·-.. ~o•wo-•••----------·- ··--------·- -----· Streetlights & Sidewalks 54 Brock Road-both sides-Forbrock Rd. to Taunton DH-24 2018-2024 50,000 50,000 25,000 25,000 23,000 2,000
Road. ·-··--·--·-.. ··-···---TC-6- Valley Farm Road (East Side) Kingston Road
55 to 100m South - Sidewalk/BII<J. in conjunction with TC-6 2018-2024 53,777 - 53,777 26,889 26,889 24,737 2,151 ad·acent de;elopment. ··---------
56 Kingston Road- West Limit of Neighbourhood 7 to
north side D-1 2018-2024 570,000 - 570,000 285,000 285,000 262,200 22,800 Dixie Road KingSton-Road- West Limit to East Limit of
- - ----57
Neighbourhood 7 (Fairport to CN bridge) south side. D-2 2018-2024 694,535 694,535 347,268 347,268 319,486 27,781
58 Finch A;enue- Spruce Hill to East Limit of Neighbourhood 9
north side D-9 2018-2024 285,000 285,000 142,500 142,500 131,100 11,400
·-~~ F::i~h A;enue- Sp!!,J.c__!l_Hill to Faireort Road south side D-10 2018-2024 253,000 - ~QQ.Q. ~~,500 126,500 116,380 10120 60 Finch A;enue- Brock Road to Hydro Corridor north side v-12 2018-2024 315,650 - 315,650 157,825 157,825 145,199 12,626 61 Whites Road - Granite Court to Hwy 401 west side W-5 2018-2024 95,000 - 95,000 47,500 47,500 43,700 3,800
62 Whites Road- North of 3rd Concession to Taunton Road
sidewalk, multi-use trail, streetlight RU-8 2018-2024 1,153,000 1,153,000 57,650 1,095,350 1,007,722 87,628
63 Whiles Road- Finch A;e to Seaton Boundary multi-use 2018-2024 1,741,100 - 1,741,100 174,110 1,566,990 1,441,631 125,359 64 YY_hi]~_s_B9~9_.:...E.l.rJ.99.~..o.~r w~l_9..!:!..~<:<f_e_~!S..-- st_r_e,~~.l9.h!!.f.1.9 ____ , --·-~-· _.?..018-2Q~i... 809,400 ---- 809,400 ~9.47Q .. .. -~·- 7§.~.~-~g- __ .IQJ.:,jj,§ __ -···--·§.1.?..!.~ 65 Brock Road -l:l_'!)'jy_?treet_t,~_of.l!.g~_B~ ,§_a..s..!...a.!:Jd West §!9~.!3 IJI-4 ~018-2024 ----1,861,000 --1.s5·~~q_ ~.Q,il.QQ_ 930,B9_Q ~6..336 74,464
66 Sideline 24- Hwy 7 south to north limit of
sidewalk/streetlights RU-12 2018-2024 389,600 389,600 58,440 331,160 304,667 26,493 subdivision
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Finaf.docx
Page 45
Infrastructure Costs Covered in the D.C. Calculation -Transportation Services (Cont'd)
Less: Potential DC Recoverable Cost
Gross Capital Grants, Subsidies Non-Increased Ser\<ice Needs Attributable to Anticipated Development Post Period Net Capital Benefit to and Other Residential
Prj.No Roads Code liming (year} Cost Estimate Residential Bene1it Cost Existing Contributions Total Share (2017$} Development Attributable to New
Share
2018-2031 Development 92% 8% 67 Whites Rd. CPR Overpass sidewalk/streetlights A-B 2018-2024 269,800 - 269,800 40,470 229,330 210,984 18,346
68 Bayly Street- Church Street to West Limit
north and south sides Bl-1 2018-2024 1,162,300 - 1,162,300 581,150 581,150 534,658 46,492
~ Neig_QE.O_'![b_~~d_±.._ _________
--·-;e,--:= 8~~ .J::t!:Y...l..::...B.l?.Sk Rd to West Townline Sidewalk/streetlights north side RU-10 2018-2024 1,250,800 - 1,250,800 187,620 1,063,_1~Q-~~ 7a Church Street- Bay_ly Street to Kellino Street west side Bl-17 2018-2024 325,000 - 325,000 162,500 162,500 149,500 13,000
71 Altona Road- Strouds Lane to North Limit of east and west sides H1 2018-2024 1,300,000 - 1,300,000 650,000 650,000 598,000 52,000
r--- ~bourhood 10
72 Finch Avenue- West Limit of Neighbourhood 7 to
north side L-B 2018-2024 150,000 - 150,000 75,000 75,000 69,000 6,000 Duncannon Dr. -··73 F;;;;;-t)-;.;:;;en-LI~--~-1:0iilHeraiiT5 to East 8om L-7
--- -·· 40,000- ·-·--·-··---·~ ---~------- -·-·-.;:6oo north side 2018-2024 40,000 20,000 20,000 18,400
74 Finch Avenue- Valley Farm Road to West 60Dm south side L-9 2018-2024 300,000 - 300,000 150,000 150 ODD 138,000 12,000
........1L. .IJ.rl..ch A_~.Q'!.e...::..Y-§_II.~Y._E'!f.'!!B9_"..ci_!£..S,~~l.~QQ.m-- north ~j!:!§> L-10 ~1§.:?..9_?3_ ------:1_5o,ggg_ -··-----=-- [email protected]_ 75,000 ~go 69,000 RP-6--
__ ,, _________ 76 Finch Avenue- Altona Road to Rosebank Road south side 2018-2024 250,000 250,000 ~s~o-o-- 125,000 -115,000 --77 Finch A venue - Rose bank Road to 500m West north side RP-5 2018-2024 250,~ 250,000 125,000 125,000 115,000 78 Altona Road - Finch A venue to Hydro Corridor (N} east side RP-9 2018-2024 150,C I --- 150,000 75,000 75,000 69,000 6,
79 Altona Road - Finch A \enue to North Limit of west side RP-10 2018-2024 150,000 150,000 75,000 75,000 69,000 6,000 .t:J~.L9bl'.Cl.'!.'!!2_'?..d 14 -- -- -·-··· ------- --·--------
80 Altona Road - Finch A \enue to North Limit of
east side RP-11 2018-2024 150,000 150,000 75,000 75,000 69,000 6,000 - t:J~ghbourhoo(j_:14 ·-----
81 North Road- Hwy 7 south to north limit of
sidewalk/streetlights RU-11 2018-2024 500,000 500,000 75,000 425,000 391,000 34,000 subdivision
82 Whiteilale Road -Altona Road to York/Durham Townline
sidewalk/streetlights/multi-use trail RU-14 2018-2024 675,000 675,000 101,250 573,750 527,850 45,900
83 Taunton Rd. -Sideline 16 to Church St. sidewalk/streetliqhts/multi-use trail RU-17 2025-2031 375,000 - 375,000 56,250 318,750 293,250 25,500
--~~ rf.~~n!9_~ __ f3.<L:..'!Ybi1e.~_f3.9.,..Ie..\/Y_e_st To~Ji_fl.e. ____ ~-lcJ!'.Y'l'J.I<.!.S.l.~e..!'..!!J.\lb.t§.i!:!!.~ll.i::use trail _____ .ELJ_:l!l__ _2._Q..~i?..:?.~ ~.QQ.O __ ---·---~4]5,000 __3(_1_,25Q_ -----·-·-- .........?..c.103,(§.Q _ _ 1 '.~:J.~,j.?.Q. _ ___ 1_~8"_?..0..2 South Esplanade Pedestrian Mall walkway 2025-2031 900,000 900,000 450,000 450,000 414,000 36,000
86 Kingston Road- Fronting 820 Kingston Road to
North Side (455m} W0-10 2018-2024 270,000 - 270,000 135,000 135,000 124,200 10,800 Fairport Rd
r-E- 15.lll .. Q!;.!.9r:U3_oad - R0..'!£!.§!1JlOUnt Dri\9 to 300m we.~ t::J2rth Side. R0-12 ?~ 175,500 175,500 87,750 87,750 80,730_ __ J-'Q.~
Traffic Signals 88 Pickerinq Parkway at Glenanna Rd. - Siqnalization TC-4 2018-2024 300,000 300,000 30,000 270,000 248,400 21,600 89 Glenanna Road at Fairport Road Signalization D-8 2018-2024 300,000 300,000 30,000 270,000 248,400 21,600 90 Welrus Street at Fairport Road Signalization D-12 2018-2024 300,000 300,000 30,000 270,000 248,400 21,600 91 .B.9.~.e.b..?.~.k Roe.£te.U:>.b.~P.£~f.!L~~-~~-"---·-··------- _,J£g_e.ll'!!i.~_'!!!.'?I'@Jg.n.?.U?.ation ~ .. §.t-___ .1/Y_Q:§__ __ -~~ 700,000 70Q~ 70,000 630,000 579,600 50,400 92 Rosebank Road at Highliew Road/Deerha\en Lane Siqnalization A-5 2018-2024 --3oo~a·· 300,000 --:iO:iioo 270,'6'66" ----248:400 .. ---:z{t8~-93 Strouds Lane at Aspen Road/Shadvbrook Dri"" Siqnalization A-7 2025-2031 600,000 600,000 60,000 540,000 496,800
~ __ §!1___ fjn~.~ .. 6~D.Y..!?~~.~~e_9_~_£?~~-~.C!~~------··------ §l9J1.§!1l~e.ti.'?.Q .. ___ RP-) ___ c-1-0...?_9:_?0_~ f----9..Q.O,OOO - ----~QQ,OOC!.._ -~.Q,.Q£9_ ------·-·---· _ ___ ?_J.Q.,QP_D 1--?_18,49.9._
--- ·----------- -- --,__ _____ -(~?.:19_,_§_~2.) _(_~_Zll9,573l --·-·- R.~~O.JC::9_f_und Adjustment -
Totat 123911679 123911679 38 027,825 - 67,634,318 62,223,572 5,410, 74511
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx
124
Page 46
6. D.C. Calculation
Tables 6-1 to 6-3 present the D.C. quantum calculation (pre-cash flow) for the growth
related capital costs identified in Chapter 5. Table 6-1 presents the area-specific D.C.
calculation for Transportation Services (applicable outside of the Seaton lands), Table
6-2 presents the D.C. calculation for City-wide services over the 14-year period (i.e.
2018-2031), and presented in Table 6-3 are the calculated D.C.s for City-wide services
over the 1 0-year planning horizon (i.e. 2018-2027). Table 6-4 summarizes the quantum
calculation of maximum D.C.s by residential dwelling type, per net hectare for non
residential development within the Seaton prestige employment lands, and per square
foot of gross floor area for non-residential development in all other areas of the City.
The calculations of the maximum D.C.s that could be imposed by Council have been
undertaken based on a cash flow analysis to account for the timing of revenues and
expenditures and the resultant financing needs. The cash flow calculations have been
undertaken by service for each forecast development type, i.e. residential, prestige
employment lands within Seaton and non-residential development in all other areas of
the City. Detailed D.C. cash flow calculations are provided in Appendix C.
The cash flow calculates interest paid/received on reserve fund balances to account for
the differences in timing of projects and when development is anticipated to occur. In
year transactions are reduced by% to reflect D.C. contributions and expenditures
occurring at different times throughout the year. For cashflow purposes, capital costs
and D.C.s are indexed at 3% annually, debt is calculated at 5% and investment return is
calculated at 2.5%. Moreover, the cash flow calculations include the interest costs the
anticipated financing of the New Operations Centre that is currently under construction,
assumed at 3.5% interest and 1 0-year term. Table 6-5 provides the calculated
schedule of charges to be imposed on January 1, 2018 (2018$) using the cashflow
method.
For the residential calculations, charges are calculated on a single detached unit
equivalent basis and converted to four forms of dwelling unit types (single and semi
detached, apartments 2 bedrooms and larger, bachelor and 1 bedroom apartments, and
other multiples). The non-residential D.C. for the Seaton prestige employment lands
has been calculated on a per net hectare basis. The non-residential D.C. for
development in all other areas of the City has been calculated on a per square foot of
gross floor area basis.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx
Page 47
Tables 6-6 and 6-7 compare the City's existing charges (inflated to 2018$ at 3%) to the charges proposed herein (Table 6-5), for single detached residential and non-residential development respectively.
SERVICE
1. Transportation
TOTAL
DC ELIGIBLE CAPITAL COST
14 vear Gross PoQtJiation I GFA Growthjft'.)
Cost Per Capita I Non-Residential GFA (ft'.)
By Residenti§l Unit Tyge !1!Ul Single and Semi-Detached Dwelling 3.53
Apartments - 2 Bedrooms + 2.23
Apartments - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom 1.58
Other Multiples 2.85
Special Care/Special Dwelling Units 1.00
SERVICE
2. Stormwater Management
3. Other Ser.ices Related to a Highway
TOTAL
DC ELIGIBLE CAPITAL COST
14 Year Gross Population I Net Hectares I GFA Growth
Cost Per Capita I Non-Residential GFA (ft'.)
B¥ Residential !Jnit T¥ge !1!Ul Single and Semi-Detached Dwelling 3.53
Apartments - 2 Bedrooms + 2.23
Apartments - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom 1.58
Other Multiples 2.85
Special Care/Special Dwelling Units 1.00
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Table 6-1 D.C. Calculation
Area-Specific Services 2018-2031
2017 $ DC Eligible Cost 2017 $DC Eligible Cost
Residential Non-Residential sou $ $ $
62,223,572 5,410,745 6,222
62,223,572 5,410,745 6 222
$62,223,572 $5,410,745
35,302 3,090,862
$1,762.61 $1.75
$6,222
$3,931
$2,785
$5,023
$1,763
Table 6-2 D.C. Calculation
Municipal-Wide Services 2018-2031
2017 $DC Eligible Cost Non-Residential
Seaton Prestige Employment Other Pickering
Residential Land Non-Residential
$ $ $
7,318,947 839,476 1,732,046
11,079,019 1,270,752 2,621,876
18,397,966 2,110,228 4,353,922
$18,397,966 $2,110,228 $4,353,922
93,333 248 18,745,936
$197.12 $8,509 $0.23
$696
$440
$311
$562
$197
perf!'
$
1.75
1.75
2017 $DC Eli~ible Cost Non-Residential
Seaton Prestige Employment other Pickering
Land Non-Residential sou I per net hectare perft'
$
277 3,385 0.09
419 5,124 0.14
696 8,509 0.23
H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx
125
SERVICE
4. Protection Sef\.oices
5. Parks and Recreation Ser\oices
6. Library Sef\1ces
7. Administration Studies
TOTAL
DC ELIGIBLE CAPITAL COST
10 Year Gross Population I Net Hectares I GFA Growth
Cost Per Capita I Non-Residential GFA (it'.)
12t Residential Unit T~Re QJlJd
Single and Semi-Detached Dwelling 3.53
Apartments - 2 Bedrooms + 2.23
Apartments Bachelor and 1 Bedroom 1.58
Other Multiples 2.85
Special Care/Special Dwelling Units 1.00
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
126
Table 6-3 D.C. Calculation
Municipal-Wide Services 2018-2027
2017 $DC Eligible Cost Non-Residential
Seaton Prestige Employment Other Pickering
Residential Land Non-Residential
$ $ $
19,579,125 1,980,597 3,541,720
107,705,839 2,033,108 3,635,621
23,565,477 444,833 795,455
6,184,325 625,598 1,118,699
$157,034,766 $5,084,136 $9,091,495
$157,034,766 $5,084,136 $9,091,495
82,153 184 11,185,194
$1,911.49 $27,675.74 $0.81
$6,748
$4,263
$3,020
$5,448
$1,911
Page 48
2017 $ DC Eligible Cost Non-Residential
Seaton Prestige Employment Other Pickering
Land Non-Residential sou per net hectare perft2
$
841 10,781 0.32
4,628 11,067 0.32
1,013 2,421 O.o?
266 3,405 0.10
$6,748 $27,676 $0.81
H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx
Page 49
Table 6-4 Calculated Schedule of Charges (Quantum, 2017$)
RESIDENTIAL NON-RESIDENTIAL
Single and. Apartments-(per net Ha
Service Apartments-Other
(per ff of of Prestige Semi- Bachelor
Detached 2 Bedrooms
and 1 Multiples Total Floor Employment
Dwelling +
Bedroom Area) 2
Municipal Wide Services:
Other Services Related to a Highway 419 265 188 338 0.14
Protection Services 841 531 376 679 0.32
Parks and Recreation Services 4,628 2,924 2,071 3,736 0.32
Library Services 1,013 640 453 818 0.07
Administration Studies 266 168 119 215 0.10
Stormwater Management 277 175 124 224 0.09
Total Municipal Wide Services 7,444 4,703 3,331 6,010 1.04
Outside of Seaton Lands
Transportation 1 6,222 3,931 2,785 5,023 1.75
Total Services Outside of Seaton Lands 6,222 3,931 2,785 5,023 1.75
Seaton 7,444 4,703 3,331 6,010 1.04
Rest of Pickering 13,666 8,634 6,116 11,033 2.79
1. Subject to a separate agreement outside of the De~.elopment Charges Act concerning the pro\Asion of Transportation requirements in addition to other funding contributions
Land in Seaton~
5,124
10,781
11,067
2,421
3,405
3,385
36,185
36,185
36,185
2. Does not apply to prestige employment de~.elopment in Seaton, as that de~.elopment is subject to the per net Ha land area charge
instead.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx
127
128
Page 50
Table 6-5 Calculated Schedule of Charges (Cash Flow, 2018$)
RESIDENTIAL NON-RESIDENTIAL
Single and Apartments-(per net Ha
Service Semi-Apartments-
Bachelor Other (per ft2 of of Prestige
Detached 2 Bedrooms
and 1 Multiples Total Floor Employment
+ Area) 2 Landin Dwelling Bedroom
Seaton) Municipal Wide Services:
Other Sen.ices Related to a Highway 441 279 197 356 0.15 5,451
Protection Sen.ices 889 562 398 718 0.34 11,431
Parks and Recreation Sen.ices 4,851 3,065 2,171 3,917 0.39 13,261
Library Sen.ices 1,086 686 486 877 0.08 2,605
Administration Studies 277 175 124 224 0.10 3,560
Stormwater Management 288 182 129 233 0.10 3,503
Total Municipal Wide Services 7,832 4,949 3,505 6,325 1.15 39,812
Outside of Seaton Lands
Transportation 1 6,517 4,117 2,917 5,261 1.83
Total Services Outside of Seaton Lands 6,517 4,117 2,917 5,261 1.83
Seaton 7,832 4,949 3,505 6,325 1.15 39,812
Rest of Pickering 14,349 9,066 6,422 11,586 2.98
1. Subject to a separate agreement outside of the Development Charges Act concernmg the provision of Transportation requirements in addition to other funding contributions
2. Does not apply to prestige employment development in Seaton, as that development is subject to the per net Ha land area charge instead.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx
Page 51
Table 6-6 Comparison of Current and Calculated D.C.s
for Residential Single-Detached Dwelling Units
Residential
per Single & Semi Detached
Service Dwellinq
CurrentD Calculated
(Indexed) 2 Cash Flow
Municipal Wide Services:
Other Services Related to a Highway 441
Operations 614
Protection Services 889
Fire Protection 664
Parks and Recreation Services 5,637 4,851
Library Services 916 1,086
Administration Studies 202 277
Stormwater ManaQement 431 288
Total Municipal Wide Services 8,464 7,832
Outside of Seaton Lands
Transportation 1 5,635 6,517
Total Area Specific Services 5,635 6,517
Seaton 8,464 7,832
Rest of PickerinQ 14,099 14,349
1. Subject to a separate agreement outside of the Development Charges Act concerning the provision of Transportation requirements in addition to other funding contributions
2. 2017 current rates indexed at 3%
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Repot1\Pickering DC Background Study-Fina/.docx
129
130
Page 52
Table 6-7 Comparison of Current and Calculated D.C.s
For Non-Residential per net ha (Seaton Prestige Employment Lands), and NonResidential per sq.ft.(Other areas of the City)
Non-Residentia I
(per net Ha of Prestige Employment
Service Land in Seaton) (per ff of Total Floor Area) 3
Current Calculated Current Calculated
(Indexed) 2 Cash Flow (Indexed) 2 Cash Flow
Municipal Wide Services:
Other Services Related to a Highway 5,451 0.15
Operations 8,264 0.27
Protection Services 11,431 0.34
Fire Protection 9,020 0.29
Parks and Recreation Services 14,514 13,261 0.47 0.39
Library Services 2,360 2,605 0.07 0.08
Administration Studies 2,788 3,560 0.08 0.10
Stormwater Management 6,057 3,503 0.19 0.10
Total Municipal Wide Services 43,003 39,812 1.37 1.15
Outside of Seaton Lands
Transportation 1 2.77 1.83
Total Area Specific Services - - 2.77 1.83
Seaton 43,003 39,812 1.37 1.15
Rest of Pickering 4.14 2.98 1. Subject to a separate agreement outside of the Development Charges Act concerning the provision of Transportation requirements in addition to other funding contributions
2. 2017 current rates indexed at 3%
3. Does not apply to prestige employment development in Seaton, as that development is subject to the per net Ha land area charge instead.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx ·
Page 53
7. D.C. Policy Recommendations and D.C. By .. law Rules
This chapter outlines the D.C. policy recommendations and by-law rules. The rules
provided are based on the review of methodology and implementation polices with
senior City staff.
s.s.5(1 )9 states that rules must be developed:
" ... to determine if a D.C. is payable in any particular case and to determine the amount of the charge, subject to the limitations set out in subsection 6."
Paragraph 10 of subsection 5(1) goes on to state that the rules may provide for
exemptions, phasing in and/or indexing of D.C.s.
s.s.5(6) establishes the following restrictions on the rules:
1. the total of all D.C.s that would be imposed on anticipated development must not
exceed the capital costs determined under 5(1) 2-8 for all services involved;
2. if the rules expressly identify a type of development, they must not provide for it
to pay D.C.s that exceed the capital costs that arise from the increase in the
need for service for that type of development; however, this requirement does not
relate to any particular development;
3. if the rules provide for a type of development to have a lower D.C. than is
allowed, the rules for determining D.C.s may not provide for any resulting
shortfall to be made up via other development; and
4. with respect to "the rules," subsection 6 states that a D.C. by-law must expressly
address the matters referred to above re s.s.5(1) para. 9 and 10, as well as how
the rules apply to the redevelopment of land.
7.1 D.C. By-law Structure
It is recommended that:
• the City impose an area-specific D.C. for Transportation Services, with the D.C.
applicable on lands outside of Seaton;
• the City impose a uniform City-wide D.C. for all other municipal services herein;
and
• one municipal D.C. by-law be used for all services.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx
131
132
Page 54
7.2 D.C. By-law Rules
The following sets out the recommended rules governing the calculation, payment and
collection of D.C.s in accordance with subsection 6 of the D.C.A., 1997.
It is recommended that the following provides the basis for the D.C.s:
7.2.1 Payment in any Particular Case
In accordance with the D.C.A., 1997, s.2(2), a D.C. be calculated, payable and collected
where the development requires one or more of the following:
a) the passing of a zoning by-law or of an amendment to a zoning by-law under
Section 34 of the Planning Act;
b) the approval of a minor variance under Section 45 of the Planning Act;
c) a conveyance of land to which a by-law passed under Section 50(7) of the
Planning Act applies;
d) the approval of a plan of subdivision under Section 51 of the Planning Act;
e) a consent under Section 53 of the Planning Act;
f) the approval of a description under Section 50 of the Condominium Act; or
g) the issuing of a building permit under the Building Code Act in relation to a
building or structure.
7.2.2 Determination of the Amount of the Charge
The following conventions be adopted:
1) Costs allocated to residential uses will be assigned to different types of
residential units based on the average occupancy for each housing type
co~structed during the previous decade. Costs allocated to non-residential uses
will be assigned to development within the Seaton prestige employment lands
based on the net hectare of land area, and to non-residential development in all
other areas of the City based gross floor area constructed.
2) Costs allocated to residential and non-residential uses are based upon a number
of conventions, as may be suited to each municipal service circumstance. These
are summarized in Chapter 5 herein.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Reporl\Pickering DC Background Study-Final. docx
Page 55
7.2.3 Application to Redevelopment of Land (Demolition and Conversion)
If a development involves the demolition and replacement of a building or structure on
the same site, or the conversion from one principal use to another, the developer shall
be allowed a credit equivalent to:
1) the number of dwelling units demolished/converted multiplied by the applicable
residential D.C. in place at the time the D.C. is payable; and/or
2) the total floor area of the building demolished/converted multiplied by the current
non-residential D.C. in place at the time the D.C. is payable.
The application of the redevelopment credits have been modified from the City's current
D.C. by-law, whereby a 1 0-year redevelopment period was witnessed. Under the
proposed D.C. by-law, the demolition credit is allowed only if the land was improved by
occupied structures, and if the demolition permit related to the site was issued within 60
months (5 years) of the issuance of a building permit. The credit can, in no case,
exceed the amount of D.C.s that would otherwise be payable. Moreover, no credit will
be granted if a D.C. or a lot levy (under By-law 3322/89) has not been paid for the
demolished or converted building. The onus is on the applicant to provide proof of prior
payment of D.C.s or lot levies.
The change in redevelopment credit policy will take effect on July 1, 2017, providing a 6
month phase-in of the practice under the new by-law.
7.2.4 Exemptions (full or partial)
a) Statutory exemptions
1. Industrial building additions of up to and including 50% of the existing gross floor
area (defined in O.Reg. 82/98, s.1) of the building; for industrial building additions
which exceed 50% of the existing gross floor area, only the portion of the addition
in excess of 50% is subject to D.C.s (s.4(3));
2. Buildings or structures owned by and used for the purposes of any City, local
board or Board of Education (s.3); and
3. Residential development that results in only the enlargement of an existing
dwelling unit, or that results only in the creation of up to two additional dwelling
units (based on prescribed limits set out in s.2 of O.Reg. 82/98).
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx
133
134
Page 56
b) Non-statutory exemptions
1. The development of a non-residential farm building used for bona-fide
agricultural purposes will be exempt from paying D.C.s for Parks and Recreation
Services, Library Services, Administration Services, and Stormwater
Management Services.
2. A building or structure that is used in connection with a place of worship an is
exempt from taxation under the Assessment Act as a result;
3. Development where no addition dwelling units are being created or non
additional non-residential gross floor area is being added;
4. Nursing homes and hospitals; and
5. Garden Suites.
The proposed non-statutory exemption for non-residential farm buildings has been
narrowed from its current application within the City's D.C. By-Law. Under the City's
current by-law, the exemption for non-residential farm buildings is provided for all
services, the proposal seeks to limit the exemption to "soft services", recognizing the
service demands for Transportation Services, Other Services Related to a Highway,
and Stormwater Management Services.
7.2.5 Phase in Provision(s)
No provisions for phasing in the D.C. are provided in the proposed D.C. by-law.
7.2.6 Timing of Collection
The D.C.s for all services are payable upon issuance of a building permit for each
dwelling unit, building or structure, subjectto early or late payment agreements entered
into by the City and an owner under s.27 of the D.C.A., 1997.
7.2.7 Indexing
All D.C.s will be subject to mandatory indexing annually on July 15\ commencing on July
1, 2019, in accordance with provisions under the D.C.A. It is recommended that
authority to index D.C.s as per the provisions of the D.C.A. be delegated to the
Treasurer of the City.
7.2.8 D. C. Spatial Applicability
In accordance with the D.C.A., the City gave, consideration to the imposition of D.C.s on
an area-specific basis, and is maintaining its current approach of imposing uniform City-
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx
Page 57
wide D.C.s for all services excluding Transportation Services. Transportation Services
will continue to be imposed on an area-specific basis for lands outside of Seaton.
7.3 Other D.C. By-law Provisions
7.3.1 Categories of Services for Reserve Fund and Credit Purposes
It is recommended that the City's D.C. collections be contributed into seven (7) separate
reserve funds, including: Transportation Services, Other Services Related to a Highway,
Protection Services, Parks and Recreation Services, Library Services, Administration
Services, and Stormwater Management Services.
It is further recommended that all D.C. exemptions granted over the life of the by-law be
contributed into the applicable D.C. reserve funds from non-D. C. sources.
7.3.2 By-law In-force Date
The proposed by-law under D.C.A, 1997 will come into force on the January 1, 2018
7.3.3 Minimum Interest Rate Paid on Refunds and Charged for Inter-Reserve
Fund Borrowing
The minimum interest rate is the Bank of Canada rate on the day on which the by-law
comes into force (as per s.11 of O.Reg. 82/98).
7.4 Other Recommendations
It is recommended that Council:
"Approve the capital project listing set out in Chapter 5 of the "City of Pickering 2017 Development Charges Background Study" dated October 5, 2017, subject to further annual review during the capital budget process;"
"Approve the "City of Pickering 2017 Development Charges Background Study" dated October 5, 2017;"
"Determine that no further public meeting is required;" and
"Approve the Development Charges By-Law as set out in Appendix E".
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx
135
136
Page 58
8. Asset Management Plan
8.1 Introduction
The recent changes to the D.C.A. (new section 1 O(c.2)) require that the background
study must include an Asset Management Plan (A.M.P) related to new infrastructure.
Section 10 (3) of the D.C.A. provides:
The A.M.P. shall,
(a) deal with all assets whose capital costs are proposed to be funded under the development charge by-law;
(b) demonstrate that all the assets mentioned in clause (a) are financially
sustainable over their full life cycle;
(c) contain any other information that is prescribed; and
(d) be prepared in the prescribed manner.
At a broad level, the A.M.P. provides for the long-term investment in an asset over its
entire useful life along with the funding. The schematic below identifies the costs for an
asset through its entire lifecycle. For growth-related works, the majority of capital costs
will be funded by the D.C. Non-growth related expenditures will then be funded from
non-D.C. revenues as noted below. During the useful life of the asset, there will be
minor maintenance costs to extend the life of the asset along with additional program
related expenditures to provide the full services to the residents. At the end of the life of
the asset, it will be replaced by non-D.C. financing sources.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Repori\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx
Page 59
New Assets Financing Methods Replacement Assets
Purchase
Install
Commission
F Development Charges (Growth ) "-Reserves /Reserve Funds
Debentures Taxation
User Fees Grants
Purcha~e Install
Commission
Removal I Decommission
Dispos a!
Other
Tax Supported Operating Budget j User Fees Operating Budget
Proceeds on Disposal Funding of Disposal
Decommissioning Costs
[ Removal I Decommission
In 2012, the Province developed Building Together: Guide for Municipal Asset
Management Plans which outlines the key elements for an A.M.P., as follows:
State of local infrastructure: asset types, quantities, age, condition, financial
accounting valuation and replacement cost valuation.
Desired levels of service: defines levels of service through performance measures
and discusses any external trends or issues that may affect expected levels of service
or the municipality's ability to meet them (for example, new accessibility standards,
climate change impacts).
Asset management strategy: the asset management strategy is the set of planned
actions that will seek to generate the desired levels of service in a sustainable way,
while managing risk, at the lowest lifecycle cost.
Financing strategy: having a financial plan is critical for putting an A.M.P. into action.
By having a strong financial plan, municipalities can also demonstrate that they have
made a concerted effort to integrate the A.M.P. with financial planning and municipal
budgeting, and are making full use of all available infrastructure financing tools.
The above provides for the general approach to be considered by Ontario
municipalities. At this time, there is not a mandated approach for municipalities hence
leaving discretion to individual municipalities as to how they plan for the long-term
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx
137
138
Page 60
replacement of their assets. The City of Pickering has undertaken an A.M.P dated
November 28, 2013. However, the plan addresses only roads and bridges assets and
does not include all assets categories that are included in the capital forecast needs of
the D.C. background study. For the services included in the A.M.P., the plan addresses
growth related needs for the assets included, however the growth-related needs for
other D. C. services have not been considered. As a result, the asset management
requirement for this D.C. background study must be undertaken in the absence of this
information.
In recognition to the schematic in Section 8.1, the following table (presented in 2017$)
has been developed to provide the annualized expenditures and revenues associated
with new growth. Note that the D.C.A. does not require an analysis of the non-D.C.
capital needs or their associated operating costs so these are omitted from the table
below. Furthermore, as all existing assets for the categories of assets included in the
D.C. eligible capital costs are not included in the City's A M.P. (parks and recreation,
library, etc. not included), the present infrastructure gap and associated funding plan
has not been considered at this time. Hence the following does not represent a fiscal
impact assessment (including future tax/rate increases) but provides insight into the
potential affordability of the new assets:
1. The non-D.C. recoverable portion of the projects which will require financing from
City financial resources (i.e. taxation, rates, fees, etc.). This amount has been
presented on an annual debt charge amount based on 20-year financing.
2. Lifecycle costs for the 2017 D.C. capital works have been presented based on a
sinking fund basis. The assets have been considered over their estimated useful
lives.
3. Incremental operating costs for the D.C. services (only) have been included.
4. The resultant total annualized expenditures are $55.7 million.
5. Consideration was given to the potential new taxation and user fee revenues
which will be generated as a result of new growth. These revenues will be
available to finance the expenditures above. The new operating revenues are
$49.7 million. This amount, totalled with the existing operating revenues of $94.6
million, provide annual revenues of $144.3 million by the end of the period.
6. In consideration of the above, the capital plan is deemed to be financially
sustainable.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx
Asset M
Table 8-1 City of Pickering
anagemen - u ure t F t xpen 1 ures an E d"t d A . t d R SSOCJa e evenue
Sub-Total 2031 (Total) Expenditures (Annualized) Annual Debt Payment on Non-Growth
Related Capital1 8,549,027 Annual Debt Payment on Post Period
Capital2 1, 768,466 Life cycle: Annual Lifecycle - Town Wide Services $8,181,991
Annual Lifecycle- Area Specific Services3 $3,597,036 Sub-Total -Annual Lifecycle $11,779,027 $11,779,027
Incremental Operating Costs (for D.C. Services) $33,637,465
Total Expenditures $55,733,986
Revenue (Annualized)
Total Existing Revenue4 $94,578,893 Incremental Tax and Non-Tax Revenue
!(User Fees, Fines, Licences, etc.) $49,682,047 Total Revenues $144,260,940 1 Non-Growth Related component of Projects including 10% mandatory deduction on soft services 2 Interim Debt Financing for Post Period Benefit 3 Area-specific application ofTransportation Services 4 As per Sch. 10 of FIR
Page 61
s (2017$)
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx
139
140
Page 62
9. By-law Implementation
9.1 Public Consultation
This chapter addresses the mandatory, formal public consultation process (subsection
9.1.1 ), as well as the optional, informal consultation process (subsection 9.1.2). The
latter is designed to seek the co-operation and involvement of those involved, in order to
produce the most suitable policy. Section 9.2 addresses the anticipated impact of the
D.C. on development, from a generic viewpoint.
9.1. 1 Public Meeting of Council
Section 12 of the D.C.A., 1997 indicates that before passing a D.C. by-law, Council
must hold at least one public meeting, giving at least 20 clear days' notice thereof, in
accordance with the Regulation. Council must also ensure that the proposed by-law
and background report are made available to the public at least two weeks prior to the
(first) meeting.
Any person who attends such a meeting may make representations related to the
proposed by-law.
If a proposed by-law is changed following such a meeting, the Council must determine
whether a further meeting (under this section) is necessary. For example, if the by-law
which is proposed for adoption has been changed in any respect, the Council should
formally consider whether an additional public meeting is required, incorporating this
determination as part of the final by-law or associated resolution. It is noted that
Council's decision, once made, is final and not subject to review by a Court or the
O.M.B.
9.1.2 Other Consultation Activity
There are three broad groupings of the public who are generally the most concerned
with municipal D.C. policy:
1. The residential development community, consisting of land developers and
builders, who are typically responsible for generating the majority of the D.C.
revenues. Others, such as realtors, are directly impacted by D.C. policy. They
are, therefore, potentially interested in all aspects of the charge, particularly the
quantum by unit type, projects to be funded by the D.C. and the timing thereof,
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx
Page 63
and municipal policy with respect to development agreements, D.C. credits and
front-ending requirements.
2. The second public grouping embraces the public at large and includes taxpayer
coalition groups and others interested in public policy (e.g. in encouraging a
higher non-automobile modal split).
3. The third grouping is the industrial/commercial/institutional development sector,
consisting of land developers and major owners or organizations with significant
construction plans, such as hotels, entertainment complexes, shopping centres,
offices, industrial buildings and institutions. Also involved are organizations such
as Industry Associations, the Chamber of Commerce, the Board of Trade and the
Economic Development Agencies, who are all potentially interested in municipal
D. C. policy. Their primary concern is frequently with the quantum of the charge,
gross floor area exclusions such as basement, mechanical or indoor parking
areas, or exemptions and phase-in or capping provisions in order to moderate
the impact.
9.2 Anticipated Impact of the Charge on Development
The establishment of sound D.C. policy often requires the achievement of an
acceptable balance between two competing realities. The first is that high non
residential D.C.s can, to some degree, represent a barrier to increased economic
activity and sustained industrial/commercial growth, particularly for capital intensive
uses. Also, in many cases, increased residential D.C.s can ultimately be expected to be
recovered via higher housing prices and can impact project feasibility in some cases
(e.g. rental apartments).
On the other hand, D.C.s or other municipal capital funding sources need to be obtained
in order to help ensure that the necessary infrastructure and amenities are installed.
The timely installation of such works is a key initiative in providing adequate service
levels and in facilitating strong economic growth, investment and wealth generation.
9.3 Implementation Requirements
Once the City has calculated the charge, prepared the complete Background Study,
carried out the public process and passed a new by-law, the emphasis shifts to
implementation matters.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx
141
142
Page 64
These include notices, potential appeals and complaints, credits, front-ending
agreements, subdivision agreement conditions and finally the collection of revenues and
funding of projects.
The following provides an overview of the requirements in each case.
9.3.1 Notice of Passage
In accordance with s.13 of the D.C.A., when a D.C. by-law is passed, the municipal
clerk shall give written notice of the passing and of the last day for appealing the by-law
(the day that is 40 days after the day it was passed). Such notice must be given not
later than 20 days after the day the by-law is passed (i.e. as of the day of newspaper
publication or the mailing of the notice).
Section 10 of O.Reg. 82/98 further defines the notice requirements which are
summarized as follows:
6. Notice may be given by publication in a newspaper which is (in the Clerk's
opinion) of sufficient circulation to give the public reasonable notice, or by
personal service, fax or mail to every owner of land in the area to which the by
law relates;
7. s.s.10 (4) lists the persons/organizations who must be given notice; and
8. s.s.1 0 (5) lists the eight items which the notice must cover.
9.3.2 By-law Pamphlet
In addition to the "notice" information, the City must prepare a "pamphlet" explaining
each D.C. by-law in force, setting out:
9. a description of the general purpose of the D.C.s;
10. the "rules" for determining if a charge is payable in a particular case and for
determining the amount of the charge;
11. the services to which the D.C.s relate; and
12. a general description of the general purpose of the Treasurer's statement and
where it may be received by the public.
Where a by-law is not appealed to the O.M.B., the pamphlet must be readied within 60
days after the by-law comes into force. Later dates apply to appealed by-laws.
The City must give one copy of the most recent pamphlet without charge, to any person
who requests one.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Fina/.docx
Page 65
9.3.3 Appeals
Sections 13 to 19 of the D.C.A., 1997 set out requirements relative to making and
processing a D.C. by-law appeal and an O.M.B. Hearing in response to an appeal. Any
person or organization may appeal a D.C. by-law to the O.M.B. by filing a notice of
appeal with the municipal clerk, setting out the objection to the by-law and the reasons
supporting the objection. This must be done by the last day for appealing the by-law,
which is 40 days after the by-law is passed.
9.3.4 Complaints
A person required to pay a D.C., or his agent, may complain to Municipal Council
imposing the charge that:
13. the amount of the charge was incorrectly determined;
14. the credit to be used against the D.C. was incorrectly determined; or
15. there was an error in the application of the D.C.
Sections 20 to 25 of the D.C.A., 1997 set out the requirements that exist, including the
fact that a complaint may not be made later than 90 days after a D.C. (or any part of it)
is payable. A complainant may appeal the decision of Municipal Council to the O.M.B.
9.3.5 Credits
Sections 38 to 41 of the D.C.A., 1997 set out a number of credit requirements, which
apply where a City agrees to allow a person to perform work in the future that relates to
a service in the D.C. by-law.
These credits would be used to reduce the amount of D.C.s to be paid. The value of
the credit is limited to the reasonable cost of the work which does not exceed the
average level of service. The credit applies only to the service to which the work
relates, unless the City agrees to expand the credit to other services for which a D.C. is
payable.
9.3.6 Front-Ending Agreements
The City and one or more landowners may enter into a front-ending agreement which
provides for the costs of a project which will benefit an area in the City to which the D.C.
by-law applies. Such an agreement can provide for the costs to be borne by one or
more parties to the agreement who are, in turn, reimbursed in future by persons who
develop land defined in the agreement.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx
143
144
Page 66
Part Ill of the D.C.A., 1997 (Sections 44 to 58) addresses front-ending agreements and
removes some of the obstacles to their use which were contained in the D.C.A., 1989.
Accordingly, the City assesses whether this mechanism is appropriate for its use, as
part of funding projects prior to municipal funds being available.
9.3.7 Severance and Subdivision Agreement Conditions
Section 59 of the D.C.A., 1997 prevents a City from imposing directly or indirectly, a
charge related to development or a requirement to construct a service related to
development, by way of a condition or agreement under s.51 or s.53 of the Planning
Act, except for:
• "local services, related to a plan of subdivision or within the area to which the plan relates, to be installed or paid for by the owner as a condition of approval under Section 51 of the Planning Act;"
• "local services to be installed or paid for by the owner as a condition of approval under Section 53 of the Planning Act."
It is also noted that s.s.59(4) of the D.C.A., 1997 requires that the municipal approval
authority for a draft plan of subdivision under s.s.51 (31) of the Planning Act, use its
power to impose conditions to ensure that the first purchaser of newly subdivided land is
informed of all the D.C.s related to the development, at the time the land is transferred.
In this regard, if the City in question is a commenting agency, in order to comply with
subsection 59(4) of the D.C.A., 1997 it would need to provide to the approval authority,
information regarding the applicable municipal D.C.s related to the site.
If the City is an approval authority for the purposes of Section 51 of the Planning Act, it
would be responsible to ensure that it collects information from all entities which can
impose a D.C.
The most effective way to ensure that purchasers are aware of this condition would be
to require it as a provision in a registered subdivision agreement, so that any purchaser
of the property would be aware of the charges at the time the title was searched prior to
closing a transaction conveying the lands.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx
Page 67
Appendix A- Background Information on
Residential and Non-residential Growth
Forecast
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx
145
"' ·g '" J:
'" ~ ~ ~
" c ~ j
J!l 'i: ~
Cl t: 'iii ::l 0 J:
Schedule 1 City of Pickering
Residential Growth Forecast Summary
Population Population Population Housing Units
Year (Including (Excluding Institutional Excluding
Multiple Census Census Population Institutional Singles & Semi
Apartments3 Other Total Person Per
Undercount)1 Undercount) Population Detached Owellings2 Households Unit (PPU)
Mid 2006 91.880 87 ,838 595 87,243 20,335 4.770 3.110 10 28,225 3.11
Mid201 1 92.800 88,721 595 88,126 20.740 5,380 3.190 15 29,325 3.03
Mid 2016 95,990 91.771 776 90,995 21 ,125 6,065 3,695 30 30,915 2.97
Early201B 97,460 93,176 788 92,388 21,414 6,440 3,733 30 31,617 2.95
Early 2023 137,490 131 ,445 1,111 130,334 26,154 12,742 8,368 30 47,294 2.78
Early 2028 175,910 168,172 1,422 166,750 29,593 18,439 13,126 30 61,189 2.75
Mid 2031 189,206 180 ,885 1,530 179,356 30,192 20,228 15,080 30 65,530 2.76 Mid 2006- Mid 2011 920 883 0 883 405 610 80 5 1,100 Mid 2011- Mid 2016 3,190 3,050 181 2,869 385 685 505 15 1,590
Mid 2016- Early 2018 1,470 1,405 12 1,393 289 375 38 0 702 Early 2018- Early 2023 40,030 38,269 323 37,946 4,740 6,302 4,635 0 15,677 Early 2018 -Early 2028 78,450 74,996 634 74,362 8,179 11,999 9,393 0 29,572 Early 2018- Mid 2031 91,746 87,709 742 86,968 8,778 13,788 11,347 0 33,913
Source. Watson & Associates Econom1sts Ltd ., 2018. Denved from Durham Reg1on Official Plan. Note. Population forecast excludes Northeast Plckenng.
Note: A total of approximately 36,500 persons (including the net Census undercount) and 11 ,700 households have been reserved for Northeast Pickering between 2027 and 2031 as the population ·and households allocated to this area have been deferred.
1. Census Undercount estimated at apProximately 4.6%. Note: Population Including the Undercount has been rounded. 2. Includes townhomes and apartments in duplexes. 3. Includes bachelor, 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom+ apartments.
Figure A-1
Annual Housing Forecast' 3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
Years
•Historical o low Density Medium Density oHigh Density - Historical Average
Page 68
Source: Historical housing activity (2007-2016) based on Statistics Canada building permits. 1. Growth Forecast represents calendar year.
Watson & Associates Economists ltd. 9122/2017 H:\P!ckering\2017 DC Stucty\Growlh\
Pickering 2017 DC Growlh September 22 2017.xlsm
Schedule 2 City of Pickering
Page 69
Estimate of the Anticipated Amount, Type And Location of Residential Development for which Development Charges can be Imposed
Development Timing Singles & Semi-Multiples
1 Apartments
2 Total Gross Population Existing Unit Net
Location Detached Residential Units In New Units Population Change Population Increase
2018-2028 4,832 7,089 5,550 17,471 48,536 - 48,450 Seaton
2018- 2031 5,298 8,599 7,295 21,193 58,030 - 58,030
2018- 2028 3,347 4,910 3,844 12,101 33,617 (7,791) 25,826 Rest of Pickering
2018- 2031 3,480 5,188 4,052 12,720 35,302 (6,366) 28,936
2018-2028 8,179 11,999 9,393 29,572 82,153 (7,791) 74,362 City of Pickering
2018- 2031 8,778 13,788 11,347 33,913 93,333 (6,366) 86,968
Source: Watson & Associates Econom1sts Ltd., 2018. Denved from Durham Reg1on Official Plan. Note: Population forecast excludes Northeast P1ckenng.
Note: A total of approximately 36,500 persons (including the net Census undercount) and 11,700 households have been reserved for Northeast Pickering between 2027 and 2031 as the population and households allocated to this area have been deferred.
1. Includes townhouses and apartments in duplexes.
2. Includes bachelor, 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom+ apartments.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. 9/1412017 H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Growth\
Pickering 2017 DC Growth September 14 2017.xlsm
148
I Mid 2016 Population
Occupants of New Housing Units, Mid 2016 to EARLY 2018
Decline in Housing Unit Occupancy, Mid 2016 to EARLY 2018
Schedule 3 City of Pickering
Current Year Growth Forecast EARLY 2016 to EARLY 2018
Units (2) multiplied by persons per unit (3) gross population increase
Units (4) multiplied by ppu decline rate (5) total decline in population
Population Estimate to EARLY 2018
Net Population Increase Mid 2016 to Early 2017
(1) 2016 population based on StatCan Census unadjusted for Census Undercount.
Page 70
I
Population
(Net of Institutional)
90 .995
702 3.40
2,385 2,385
30,915 -0.0321
-992 -992
92 ,388
1,393
(2) Estimated residential units constructed , Mid 2016 to the beginning of the growth period, assuming a six-month lag between construction and occupancy.
(3) Average number of persons per unit (ppu) is assumed to be:
I
., !structural Type
1 Singles & Semi-Detached
jMultiples (6)
jAparlments (7)
lT-;;tal -
' Based on 2011 Census custom database
' Based on building pennitlcompletion activity
(4) 2016 households taken from StatCan Census.
Persons
Per Unit'
3.65
3.29
2.59
% Distribution Weighted Persons
. of Estimated Units' I Per Unit Average
41% 1.50
53% 1.76
5% 0.14 -
100% 3.40
(5) Decline occurs due to aging of the population and family lifecycle changes, lower fertility rates and changing economic conditions.
(6) Includes townhouses and apartments in duplexes.
(7) Includes bachelor, 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom+ apartments.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. 9/22/2017 H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Growth\
Pickering 2017 DC Growth September 22 2017.xlsm
EARLY 2018 Population
Occupants of New Housing Units, EARLY 2018 to EARLY 20
Decline in Housing Unit Occupancy, EARLY 2018toEARLY 20
Schedule 4 City of Pickering
Five Year Growth Forecast EARLY 2018 to EARLY 2023
Units (2) multiplied by persons per unit (3) gross population increase
Units (4) multiplied by ppu decline rate (5) total decline in population
Population Estimate to EARLY 2023
Net Population Increase, EARLY 2018 to EARLY 2023
(1) EARLY 2018 Population based on:
Page 71
Population
(Net of Institutional)
92 ,388
15,677 2.81
44,109 44,109
31,617 -0.1949
-6,163 -6,163
130,334
37,946
2016 Population (90,995) +Mid 2016 to EARLY 2018 estimated housing units to beginning of forecast period (702 x 3.4 = 2,385) + (30,915 X -0.0321 = -992) = 92,388
(2) Based upon forecast building permits/completions assuming a lag between construction and occupancy.
(3) Average number of persons per unit (ppu) is assumed to be:
!Structural Type
1 Singles & Semi-Detached
!Multiples (6)
!Apartments (7)
. ·--
one bedroom or less 11.58
two bedrooms or more '2.23
I Total
Persons
Per Unit'
3.53
2.85
2.03
'Persons per unit based on adjusted Statistics Canada Custom 2011 Census database.
2 Forecast unit mix based upon historical trends and housing units in the development process.
% Distribution
of Estimated Units2
30%
40%
30%
100%
Weighted Persons
Per Unit Avera~e
1.07
1.15
0.60
2.81
(4) EARLY 2018 households based upon 30,915 (2011 Census)+ 702 (Mid 2016 to EARLY 2018 unit estimate)= 31,617
(5) Decline occurs due to aging of the population and family lifecycle changes, lower fertility rates and changing economic conditions.
(6) Includes townhouses and apartments in duplexes.
(7) Includes bachelor, 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom+ apartments.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. 9/22/2017 H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Growth\
Pickering 2017 DC Growth September 22 2017.xlsm
149
150
I
I
Schedule Sa City of Pickering
Ten Year Growth Forecast EARLY 2018 to EARLY 2028
I
Page 72
Population
I (Net of Institutional)
EARLY 2018 Population
I 92,3881
Occupants of Units (2) 29,572 New Housing Units, multiplied by persons per unit (3) 2.78 EARLY 2018 to EARLY 20 gross population increase 82,153 82,153
Decline in Housing Units (4) 31,617 Unit Occupancy, multiplied by ppu decline rate (5) -0.2464 EARLY 2018 to EARLY 20 total decline in population -7,791 -7,791
Population Estimate to EARLY 2028 166,750
Net Population Increase, EARLY 2018 to EARLY 2028 74,362
(1) EARLY 2018 Population based on:
2016 Population (90,995) +Mid 2016 to EARLY 2018 estimated housing units to beginning of forecast period (702 x 3.4 = 2,385) + (30,915 X -0.0321 = -992) = 92,388
(2) Based upon forecast building permits/completions assuming a lag between construction and occupancy.
(3) Average number of persons per unit (ppu) is assumed to be:
I Structural Type
1 Singles & Semi-Detached
1 Multiples (6)
!Apartments (7)
'Total
one bedroom or less i 1.58
two bedrooms or more . 2. 23
Persons
Per Unit'
3.53
2.85
2.03
'Persons per unit based on adjusted Statistics Canada Custom 2011 Census database.
' Forecast unit mix based upon historical trends and housing units in the development process.
' % Distribution 1
I of Estimated Units' •
28%
41%
32%
j_ 100%
Weighted Persons
Per Unit Average
0.98
1.16
0.64
2.78
(4) EARLY 2018 households based upon 30,915 (2011 Census)+ 702 (Mid 2016 to EARLY 2018 unit estimate)= 31,617
(5) Decline occurs due to aging of the population and family lifecycle changes, lower fertility rates and changing economic conditions.
(6) Includes townhouses and apartments in duplexes.
(7) Includes bachelor, 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom+ apartments.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. 9/22/2017 H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Growth\
Pickering 2017 DC Growth September 22 2017.xlsm
EARLY 2018 Population
Occupants of New Housing Units, EARLY 2018 to 2031
Decline in Housing Unit Occupancy, EARLY 2018 to 2031
Popu lation Estimate to 2031
Schedule 5b City of Pickering
Buildout Growth Forecast EARLY 2018 to Mid 2031
Units (2) multiplied by persons per unit (3) gross population increase
Units (4) multiplied by ppu. decline rate (5) total decline in population
Net Population Increase, EARLY 2018 to 2031
(1) EARLY 2018 Population based on:
Page 73
Population
(Net of Institutional)
92 ,388
33,913 2.75
93 ,333 93,3.33
31,617 -0.2013
-6,366 -6,366
179,356
86,968
2016 Population (90,995) +Mid 2016 to EARLY 2018 estimated housing units to beginning of forecast period (702 x 3.4 = 2,385) + (30,915 X -0.0321 = -992) = 92,388
(2) Based upon forecast building permits/completions assuming a lag between -construction and occupancy.
(3) Average number of persons per unit (ppu) is assumed to be:
I Structu_ral Type
1 Singles & Semi-Detached
1 Multiples (6)
jAparlments (7)
I Total
one bedroom or less 11.58
two bedrooms or more 12.23
Persons
Per Unit'
3.53
2.85
2.03
' Persons per unit based on adjusted Statistics Canada Custom 2011 Census database.
2 Forecast unit mix based upon historical trends and housing units in 1he development process .
% Distribution
of Estimated Units2
26%
41%
33%
100%
Weighted Persons
Per Unit Average
0.91
1.16
0.68
2.75
(4) EARLY 2018 households based upon 30,91 5 (2011 Census)+ 702 (Mid 2016 to EARLY 2018 unit estimate)= 31,617
(5) Decline occurs due to aging of the population and family lifecycle changes, lower fertility rates and changing economic conditions.
(6) Includes townhouses and apartments in duplexes.
(7) Includes bachelor, 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom+ apartments.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. 9/22/2017 H:\Pickering\201 7 DC Study\Growth\
Pickering 2017 DC Growth September 22 2017.xlsm
151
152
Year
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Sub-total
Average (2007 - 2011)
%Breakdown
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Sub-total
Average (2012- 2016)
%Breakdown
2007-2016
Total
Average
%Breakdown
Schedule 6
City of Pickering
Historical Residential Building Permits
Years 2007-2016
Residential Building Permits
Singles & Semi-Multiples1 Apartments2
Detached
108 77 3
67 177 4
55 6 16
84 42 146
259 75 241
314 377 410
79 75 82
23.1% 27.7% 30.1%
237 46 0
148 274 3
166 98 0
148 24 190
212 115 25
699 557 218
175 111 44
41.5% 33.0% 12.9%
1,013 934 628
127 93 63
33.3% 30.7% 20.6%
Source: Historical housing activity (2007-2016) based on Statistics Canada building permits.
1. Includes townhouses and apartments in duplexes.
2. Includes bachelor, 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom+ apartments.
Page 74
Total
188
248
77
272
575
1,360
272
81.0%
283
425
264
362
352
1,686
337
87.4%
3,046
305
84.5%
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. 9/14/2017 H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Growth\
Pickering 2017 DC Growth September 14 2017.xlsm
Page 75
Schedule 7
City of Pickering Persons Per Unit By Age and Type Of Dwelling
(2011 Census)
Age of Sing les and Semi-Detached
Dwelling < 1 BR 1 BR 2 BR 3/4 BR 5+ BR Total 20 Year Average
1-5 3.620 4.000 3.621 '"''"'''"''""'"' "' ' '"'' '"'' "' '''' ''
6-10 3.615 4.467 3.688 .......................................................... 11-15 3.361 4.250 3.395 ....... ............. ..... ................................................... , ......... 16-20 3.263 4.787 3.408 3 53
20-25 3.214 3.363 3.969 3.447
25-35 2.588 3.285 3.726 3.279
35+ 0.381 2.111 2.125 2.853 3.430 2.804
Total 0.315 3.333 2.509 3.181 3.940 3.200
Age of Multiples 2
Dwelling < 1 BR 1 BR 2 BR 3/4 BR 5+ BR Total 20 Year Average
1-5 2.895 3.286 ............. ..... ..................... 6-10 0.417 2.286 3.153 2.797
..................... ............... 11-15 0.182 3.040 2.992
16-20 2.313 2.318 2.667 2.336 ~ 8)
20-25 0.615 2.579 3.500 4.947 3.303 ...................................... 25-35 2.091 2.855 2.812
35+ 0.800 1.833 2.818 2.961 3.421 2.814
Total 0.710 2.400 2.556 2.957 4.333 2.844
Age of Apartments3
Dwelling < 1 BR 1 BR 2 BR 3/4 BR 5+ BR Total 20 Year Average
1-5 2.588 """""'""'""""""'""" ''''"""'
6-10 1.429 1.875 "2.045
11-15 1.417 1.488 3.188 1.719
16-20 1.250 1.653 2.524 .1.767 2 03
20-25 1.444 1.515 2.714 1.681 ''''"''"" '" '' ''''"''"''"'"'""
25-35 1.182 1.941 2.250 1.895
35+ 0.583 1.526 2.147 2.730 2.306
Total 0.489 1.398 1.697 2.793 1.963
Age of All Density Types
Dwelling < 1 BR 1 BR 2BR 3/4 BR 5+ BR Total
1-5 - - 1.833 3.456 3.938 3.241
6-10 - 1.471 2.186 3.409 4.086 3.201
11-15 - 1.511 1.867 3.268 3.885 3.069
16-20 - 1.238 1.896 3.071 4.246 2.971
20-25 - 1.559 1.940 3.353 4.000 3.255
25-35 - 1.308 2.082 3 .169 3.797 3.103
35+ - 1.532 1.983 2.843 3.316 2.753
Total 1.895 1.473 1.976 3.100 3.800 2.997
1 . The Census PPU has been adjusted to account for the downward PPU trend which has been recently experienced in both new and older units, largely due to the aging of the population.
2. Includes townhouses and apartments in duplexes.
3. Includes bachelor, 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom+ apartments .
Note: Does not include Statistics Canada data classified as "Other".
PPU not calculated for samples less than or equal to 50 dwelling units, and does not include institutional population.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. 9/14/2017 H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Growth\
Pickering 2017 DC Growth September 14 2017.xlsm
153
4.00
3.50 C) s:::: 3.00 Cl> 3: 2.50 0 I..
2.00 Cl> a.. 1/)
1.50 s:::: 0 1/) I.. 1.00 Cl> a..
0.50
0.00 1-5
Schedule 8 City of Pickering
Persons Per Unit By Structural Type and Age Of Dwelling (2011 Census)
6-10 11-15 16-20 20-25 25-35
Age of Dwelling
o Singles and Semi-Detached o Multiples oApartments
Page 76
35+
c.n c.n
Period Population
Mid 2001 87,139
Mid 2006 87,838
Mid 2011 88,721
Early 2018 93,176
Early 2023 131,445
Early 2028 168,172
Mid 2031 180,885
Mid 2001 -Mid 2006 699
Mid 2006 - Mid 2011 883
Mid 2011- Early 2018 4,455
Early 2018- Early 2023 38,269
Early 2018- Early 2028 74,996
Early 2018- Mid 2031 87,709
Mid 2001 -Mid 2006 140
Mid 2006- Mid 2011 177
Mid 2011- Early 2018 685
Early 2018- Early 2023 7,654
Early 2018 ~Early 2028 7,500
Early 2018- Mid 2031 6,265
Primary
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.000
-0.001
0.0000
0.0000
-0.0003
-0.0004
-0.0004
-0.00028
0.0000
0.0000
-0.00005
-0.00004
-0.00003
Work at Home
0,032
0,034
0.035
0.036
0.029
0.026
0.026
0.003
0.0003
0.0013
-0.0065
-0.0097
~0.0097
0.00054
0.0001
0.0002
-0.00131
-0.00097
-0.00069
Industrial
0.154
0.145
0.148
0.126
0.149
0.153
0.187
-0.009
0.0034
-0.0223
0.0224
0.0271
0.0614
-0.00175
0.0007
-0.0034
0.00449
0,00271
0.00438
Schedule 9a City of Pickering
Employment Growth Forecast Summary
Activity Rate
Commercial/ Population Related
0.133
0.137
0.147
0.160
0.136
0.122
0.123
0.004
0.0101
0.0137
-0.0247
-0.0384
-0.0372
0,00079
0.0020
0.0021
-0.00384
-0.00266
Institutional
0.043
0.048
0.049
0.062
0.052
0.044
0.042
0.005
0.0003
0.0135
-0.0104
-0.0187
-0.0201
0,00107
0.0001
0.0021
-0.00207
-0.00187
-0.00143
Total
0.363 0.035
0.365 0,029
0.379 0.029
0.386 0.031
0.366 0.022
0.346 0.018
0.379 0.017
Incremental Change
0.002 -0.006
0.0142 0.0002
0.0062 0.0015
-0.0194 -0.0086
-0.0400 -0.0130
-0.0061 -0.0135
Annual Average
0,00038 -0.00117
0.0028 0.0000
0.0009 0.0002
-0.00389 -0.00171
-0.00400 -0.00130
-0.00043 -0.00097
Total Including NFPOW
0.398
0.394
0.408
0.416
0.388
0.363
0.396
-0.004
0.0143
0.0077
-0.0280
-0.0530
-0.0196
~0.00079
0.0029
0.0012
-0.00560
-0.00530
-0.00140
Source. Watson & Associates Economists ltd., 2018. Denved from Durham Reg1on OHiCial Plan. Note. Population forecast excludes Northeast Plckenng.
Note: A total of 5,000 jobs (4,900 usual place of work jobs) have been-reserved for Northeast Pickering between 2027 and 2031.
Employment
Industrial Primary Work at Home Commercial! Population Related
Institutional Total
200 2,760 13,400 11,550 3,750 31,660
80 3,020 12,740 11,990 4,250 32,080
80 3,080 13,170 13,010 4,320 33,660
84 3,351 11,752 14,941 5,796 35,925
84 3,869 19,529 17,826 6,815 48,123
84 4,415 25,776 20,517 7,318 58,110
85 4,747 33,915 22,279 7,620 68,645
-120 260 -860 440 500 420
60 430 1,020 70 1,580
271 -1,418 1,931 1,476 2,265
518 7,777 2,885 1,019 12,199
1,064 14,024 5,576 1,522 22,185
1,395 22,163 7,338 1,825 32,721
-24 52 88 100 84
12 86 204 14 316
42 -218 297 227 348
104 1,555 577 204 2,440
106 1,402 558 152 2,219
100 1,583 524 130 2,337
1. Statistics Canada defines no fixed place of work (NFPOW) employees as "persons who do not go from home to the same work place location at the beginning of each shift." Such persons include building and landscape contractors, travelling salespersons, independent truck drivers, etc.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. 10/3/2017
NFPOW'
3,020
2,530
2,570
2,843
2,885
2,950
3,074
-490
40
273
42
107
231
-98
42
11
17
Page 77
Total Employment
(Including NFPOW)
34,680
34,610
36,230
38,767
51,009
61,060
71,719
-70
1,620
2,537
12,241
22,293
32,952
-14
324
390
2,448
2,229
2,354
Employment
Total (Excluding NFPOW and Work
at Home)
28,900
29,060
30,580
32,573
44,254
53,694
63,899
160
1,520
1,993
11,681
21,121
31,326
32
304
307
2,336
2,112
895
H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Growthl Pickering 2017 DC Growth September 22 201 7.x!sm
0'1 en
Period Population Primary
Mid 2001 87,139 200
Mid 2006 87,838 80
Mid 2011 88,721 80
Early 2018 93,176 84
Early 2023 131,445 84
Early 2028 168,172 84
Mid 2031 180,885 85
Mid 2001 • Mid 2006 699 -120
Mid 2006 - Mid 2011 883 0
Mid 2011- Mid 2017 4,455 4
Early 2018 - Early 2028 74,996 0
Early 2018 - Mid 2031 · 87,709 0
Mid 2001 • Mid 2006 140 -24
Mid 2006- Mid 2011 177 0
Mid 2011 - Early 2018 685 1
Early 2018 - Early 2028 7,500 0
Early 2018- Mid 2031 2,506 0
Schedule 9b City of Pickering
Employment & Gross Floor Area (GFA) Forecast, 2071 to 2031
Employment
Commercial/ Industrial
Population Related Institutional Total Industrial
13,400 11,550 3,750 28,900
12,740 11,990 4,250 29,060
13,170 13,010 4,320 30,580
11,752 14,941 5,796 32,573
19,529 17,826 6,815 44,254
25,776 20,517 7,318 53,694
33,915 22,279 7,620 63,899
Incremental Change
-660 440 500 160
430 1,020 70 1,520
-1,418 1,931 1,476 1,993
14,024 5,576 1,522 21,121 16,828,246
22,163 7,338 1,825 31,326 26,595,015
Annual Average
-132 88 100 32
86 204 14 304
-218 297 227 307
1,402 558 152 2,112 1,682,825
633 210 52 895 759,858 . .
Source: Watson & Assoctates Economtsls Ltd., 2018. Denved from Durham Regton Offtctal Plan. Note. Populatton forecast excludes Northeast Ptckenng .
Page 78
Gross Floor Area in Square Feet (Estimated)'
Commercial/ Population Institutional Total
Related
2,230,320 1,027,387 20,085,954
2,935,229 1,231,717 30,761,962
223,032 102,739 2,008,595
83,864 35,192 878,913
Note: A total of 5,000 jobs (4,900 usual place of work jobs) have been reserved for Northeast Pickering between 2027 and 2031 as the jobs allocated to this area have been deferred.
1. Square Foot Per Employee Assumptions
Industrial 1,200
Commercial/Population Related 400
Institutional 675
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. 10/3/2017 H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Growthl
Pickering 2017 DC Growth September 22 2017.xlsm
Page 79
Schedule 9c
Estimate of the Anticipated Amount, Type and Location .of Non-Residential Development for Which Development Charges can be Imposed
Development Timing Industrial Commercial Institutional Total Non-Res Employment
Location
GFA S.F. GFAS.F. GFA S.F. GFA S.F. lncrease1
2018-2028 14,285,063 2,028,000 976,933 17,289,996 18,793 Seaton
2018- 2031 23,829,000 2,679,300 1,162,800 27,671,100 28,860
2018-2028 2,543,184 202,320 50,454 2,795,958 2,328 Remaining Pickering
2018- 2031 2,766,015 255,929 68,917 3,090,862 2,466
2018- 2028 16,828,246 2,230,320 1,027;387 20,085,954 21,121 City of Pickering
2018- 2031 26,595,015 2,935,229 1,231,717 30,761,962 31,326
Source: Watson & Associates Economists ltd., 2018
Note: A total of 5,000 jobs (4,900. usual place of work jobs) have been reserved for Northeast Pickering between 2027 and 2031 as the jobs allocated to this area have been deferred.
1. Employment Increase does not include No Fixed Place of Work.
2. Square feet per employee assumptions (2017-2031 ):
Industrial 1,200
Commercial 400
Institutional 675
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. 10/3/2017 H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Growth\
Pickering 2017 DC Growth September 22 2017.xlsm
157
Page 80
Appendix B - Level of Service
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx
158
Page 81
City of Pickering Service Standard Calculation Sheet
Service: Fire Facilities Unit Measure· fF of building area
2017 Bld'g Value/ft2
Description 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Value with land,
($/ft2) site works,
etc.
Station# 5 - 1616 Bayly Street 13,360 13,360 13,360 13,360 13,360 13,360 13,360 13,360 13,360 13,360 $309 $405 Station# 2 - 553 Kingston Road 7,955 7,955 7,955 7,955 7,955 7,955 7,955 7,955 7,955 7,955 $271 $441 §tation #4- 4941 Old Brock (Ciaremount) 5,274 5,274 5,274 5,274 5,274 5,274 5,274 5,274 5,274 5,274 $379 $470 Station #6- 1115 Finch Ave. 9,130 9,130 9,130 9,130 9,130 9,130 9,130 9,130 9,130 9,130 $302 $388
--~-~---------- ------- ----
!Total I 35,7191 35,7191 35,719 1 35,7191 35,719 1 35,7191 35,7191 35,7191 35,719 1 35,719 I I I
$418 $166
DC Amount before deductions 10 Year 74,362
$166 12 344 092
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Pickering 2017 DC v26
Page 82
City of Pickering Service Standard Calculation Sheet
Service: Fire Small Equipment and Gear Unit Measure: d No.ofequ~mentan aear
Description 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2017 Value
($/item) Self Contained Breathing Apparatus 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 $9,467 ::.CBA Cylinders 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 $2,150 SCBA Mask 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 $544 Turnout Bunker Kit(lncludes hood, gloves) 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 $2,092 Fire Helmet 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 $543 Station Wear Ensemble 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 $580 Uniform Ensemble 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 $927
I 1 002 1 002 1 002 1 002 1 002 1 002 1 002 1 002 1 002 1 002
10 Year Average 2008-2017 Quantity Standard (per 1 ,000) 11.13 Quality Standard $1,922 ~ervice Standard $21
DC Amount (before deductions) 10 Year Forecast Population 74,362 $per Capita $21 Eliaible Amount $1 590 603
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Pickering 2017 DC v26
City of Pickering Service Standard Calculation Sheet
Service: Unit Measure·
Description
Qu1nt I 32m Aerial Tanker Pumper Pumper/Tanker Rescue Pumper/Rescue Car, SUV& Pick-uo Quint/17m Ladder Telesquirts Grass Fire Truck Support Vehicle Platoon Chief SUV Antique Trailer
[Total
I 10 Year Average Quantity Standard (per 1, 000) Quality Standard !service Standard
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Fire Vehicles No of vehicles
2008
1 3 2 1 1 2
15 -
1 1 1 2 2 1
33
1 2oo8-2o17 1
0.36 $362,964
$131
10 Year 74,362
$131 $9 743 653
2009 2010 2011 2012
1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 2 2 4 4
15 15 15 15 - - - 1
1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1
33 33 34 33
Page 83
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2017Value 1$Nehicle)
1 1 1 1 1 $1,510,900 3 3 3 3 3 $506,200 2 - - - - $956,100
- - - - - $731,100 1 1 1 1 1 $1,349,800 3 5 5 5 5 $900,000
15 15 15 13 13 $45,000 1 1 1 1 1 $990,000
- - - - - $956,100 1 - - - - $393,700 1 1 1 1 1 $562,400 2 2 2 2 2 $115,200 2 2 2 2 2 $112,500 1 2 2 2 1 $11,200
33 33 33 31 30
Pickering 2017 DC v26
Page 84
City of Pickering Service Standard Calculation Sheet
Service: By-Law and Animal Services Enforcement Facilities Unit Measure: ft2 f b .ld. 0 Ul 1ng area
2017 Bld'g Value/ft2
Description 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Value with land,
($/ft2) site works,
etc.
Animal Services (Lease) 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 $350 $425 By-Law 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 $296 $383
Total 4,300 4 300 4,300 4,300 4,300 4 300 4,300 4,300 4,300 4,300
Population Per Capita Standard (per 1 ,000)
I 10 Year Average 1 2oo8-2o171 Quantity Standard 47.77
Quality Standard $410 Service Standard $20
10 Year
74,362 $20
$1,457,495
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Pickering 2017 DC v26
Page 85
City of Pickering Service Standard Calculation Sheet
Service: By-Law and Animal Services Enforcement Vehicles Unit Measure: f h. I d t No. o ve 1ces an equ1 ::>men
Description 2008 2009 20:10 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2017Value ($Nehicle)
Truck (By-law) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 $31,400 SUV (By-Jaw) - - - - 1 1 1 3 3 3 $25,500 Car !Bv-law) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 $21,900 Van (Animal Services) 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 $38,600
·---··
Total 5 5 5 5 7 7 7 9 9 9
10 Year Averaqe 2008-2017 IOuantity Standard (per 1 ,000) 0.08 Quality Standard $28, 15"' Service Standard $2
DC Amount !before deductions) 10 Year Forecast Population 74,3E $per Capita ~ Eliaible Amount $157 6L
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Pickering 2017 DC v26
Page 86
City of Pickering Service Standard Calculation Sheet
Service: Roads Unit Measure: Centre-line k d m o roa wa s
Description 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2017 Value
($/km) !Asphalt- Collector- 3 Lane 36.5 36.9 37.0 37.8 40.2 42.7 41.3 41.3 41.3 41.3 $1,550,000 Asphalt -Arterial C - 4 Lane 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 $2,200,000 Gravel - Rural - 2 Lane 110.4 107.9 107.2 107.2 106.7 106.7 104.5 101.0 101.2 105.5 $900,000
!Total I 1s9 I 1s1 I 1s1 1 158 I 1s9 1 162 1 1s8 I 1ss 1 1ss I 159 I I
10 Year Averaae 2008-2017 Quantity Standard (per 1 ,000) 1.75 !Quality Standard $1,165,764 !Service Standard $2,046
14-Year DC Amount (before deductions) (Rest of
Pickerinal Forecast Population 28,936 $ oer Capita $2,046 Eliaible Amount $59 197 269
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Pickering 2017 DC v26
Page 87
City of Pickering Service Standard Calculation Sheet
Service: Bridges, Culverts & Structures Unit Measure: No. of Bridqes I &S Cu verts tructures
Description 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2017 Value
($/item)
Bridge (over3m) 41 41 31 31 31 31 31 31 29 29 $1,138,000 Culvert (over3m) 15 15 25 25 27 27 26 26 24 24 $270,000 Pedestrian Bridqe (over3m) 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 $489,000
al 65 65 65 65 67 67 66 66 62 62
uantity Standard (per 1, 000)
Service Standard
14-Year DC Amount (before deductions) (Rest of
Pickerinq) orecast Population 28,936
$per Capita $532 lioible Amount $15 379 484
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Pickering 2017 DC v26
Page 88
City of Pickering Service Standard Calculation Sheet
Service: Sidewalks Unit Measure· Linear Metres of Sidewalks
2017Value Description 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 ($/linear
metre) Sidewalk - Concrete 285,866 286,663 286,663 290,055 292,902 295,431 295,431 295,431 298,032 298,032 $260 Sidewalk - Concrete (Block) 3,731 3,731 3,731 3,731 3,731 3,731 3,731 3,788 3,856 3,856 $300 Sidewalk- Concrete Multi Use Path 95 95 95 95 648 648 648 1,020 1,020 1,020 $300 Sidewalk- Temporary Asphalt 6,235 6,235 6,235 6,745 6,745 6,745 6,745 6,745 6,745 6,745 $120 Sidewalk - Asphalt Multi Use Path 1,997 1,997 1,997 1,997 1,997 2,813 3,981 5,061 5,744 5,744 $225
IITotal 297,924 298,721 298,721 302,623 306,023 309,368 310,536 312 045 315,397 315,397
I 10 Year Average I 2oo8-2o17 I Quantity Standard 3.41 Quality Standard $257 Service Standard $876
14-Year DC Amount (before deductions) (Rest of
Pickerinq) Forecast Population 28,936 $per Capita $876 Eliqible Amount $25 345 042
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Pickering 2017 DC v26
Page 89
City of Pickering Service Standard Calculation Sheet
Service: Traffic Signals Unit Measure: N f T ffi s· 0. 0 ra 1c •lana s
Description 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2017 Value ($/item)
Traffic Signals 9 9 9 10 10 12 12 13 14 14 $175,000 Intersection Pedestrian Signals (IPS) 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 $100,000
Total 20 20 20 21 21 23 23 24 25 25
10 Year Averaqe 2oo8-2oiZ Quantity Standard (per 1 ,000) 0.25 Quality Standard $137,231 Service Standard $34
14-Year DC Amount (before deductions) (Rest of
Pickerinal Forecast Population 28,936 ~J>er C_§Qita $34 Eliaible Amount $978 037
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Pickering 2017 DC v26
0'> 00
City of Pickering Service Standard Calculation Sheet
Service: Unit Measure:
Description
Vehicles D.01-01 -Car
D.01-02- Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs)
D.01-04- Truck- Pick-up
D.01-05- Truck- Mid-Size
D.01-06- Dump Truck I Snow Plow
Equipment C.01-D1 - Excavators
C.01-02- Graders
C.01-03- Loaders
C.01-04- Backhoes
C.01-05- Street Sweepers
C.02-02 -Trailers
C.02-03- Asphalt Equipment
C.02-04- Utility Tractors
C.02-05 - Mowers
Miscellaneous Equipment
!Total I
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Roads Vehicles and Equipment No. of vehicles and equipment
2008 2009 2010 2011
1 1 1 1
14 13 14 14
7 7 7 8
6 7 10 8
13 13 14 15
2 2 2 2
2 4 3 3
2 2 2 2
- - 1 1
2 2 2 2
4 4 4 4
4 4 4 5
1 2 2 2
2 4 4 3
12 13 15 15
721 78 I 85 1 85 I
Page 90
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2017 Value
($/item)
1 1 1 1 - - $22,400 14 14 13 13 15 17 $35,000 11 11 12 14 11 10 $37,000
8 10 11 11 10 10 $60,800 14 14 14 14 17 16 $217,400
3 2 2 2 2 2 $357,700 3 4 3 2 2 2 $316,700 2 2 2 2 3 3 $181,200 1 1 1 1 1 1 $97,900 2 2 1 2 2 2 $340,000 4 4 4 4 3 3 $11,200 6 5 5 5 6 6 $25,300 2 2 2 2 2 2 $78,200 3 3 3 3 3 3 $29,300
15 17 20 102 102 104 $4,800
89 I 92 I 941 1781 1791 181 I I
Pickering 2017 DC v26
Page 91
City of Pickering Service Standard Calculation Sheet
Service: Depots and Domes Unit Measure: ft2 of buildin~ area
2017 Bld'g Value/ft2
Description 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Value with land,
($/ff) site works,
etc.
Operations Centre 1 (shared) 15,749 15,749 15,749 15,749 15,749 15,749 15,749 21,874 21,874 21,874 $319 $514 Roads Drive Shed 12,500 12·,500 12,500 12,500 12,500 12,500 12,500 12,500 12,500 12,500 $49 $100 Roads Storaqe Shed 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 $32 $79 Roads Si~n Storaqe 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 $36 $91 Salt Dome 7,850 7,850 7,850 7,850 7,850 7,850 7,850 7,850 7,850 7,850 $60 $109 Sand Dome 7,850 7,850 7,850 7,850 7,850 7,850 7,850 7,850 7,850 7,850 $52 $101
Total 46,599 46,599 46,599 46,599 46,599 46,599 46,599 52 724 52,724 52,724
10 Year Avera~e 2008-2017
louantity Standard 0.54 1 The City leased 10,000 sq.ft. of the Operations Centre to Durham Transit until 2014.
louality Standard $251 Service Standard $135
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Pickering 2017 DC v26
City of Pickering Service Standard Calculation Sheet
Service: Unit Measure·
Description
Village Green Neiqhbourhood Active Community Active District Active Passive Parkland
tal
10 Year Averaqe
!Ouantity Standard (per, 1 000) Quality Standard Service Standard
I DC Amount (before deductions) I Forecast Population $per Capita Elioible Amount
Parkland Development Acres of Parkland
2008 2009
151 151 174 174
13 13 371 377
709 715
88,173 8.04
20()0- "'"'-:j7 II
8.8613
$90,680 $804
10 Year I 74,362
$804 $59 752 841
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
2010
151 174
13 477
815
Page 92
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2017 Value
($/Acre) 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.4 1.4 $300,000
151 152 157 157 157 157 157 $117,600 174 174 174 174 174 174 174 $135,000
13 13 13 13 13 13 13 $135,000 477 476 477 477 478 478 478 $63,200
815 815 821 822 823 823 823
Pickering 2017 DC v26
City of Pickering Service Standard Calculation Sheet
Service: U 'tM u nl eas re:
Description
Duffins Creek Trail: Ajax to Finch Ave.
Alex Robertson Park walk Diana, Princess of Wales Park walk Prooress Frenchman's Bay East Park Pine Creek Trail walkway- Killey Ave. to Storrinoton St. Pine Creek Trail walkway- Storrinqton Bridqe
Waterfront Trail system: Peak Trail: Frisco Road to Beachfront Park Peak Trail: Beachfront Park boardwalk Peak Trail: Annland St., Liverpool to Front St. Monarch Trail along Bayly St.: St. Martin's Dr. to West Sho Monarch Trail: West Shore CC to Vistula Dr. iless bridae) Monarch Trail: Amberlea Bridoe Monarch Trail: Elvira Court to Breezy Drive (Bruce Hansco Monarch Trail: Sunrise Ave. to Beach point Promenade First Nations Trail: Marks bury to Rodd Ave. (less bridge) First Nations Trail: Petticoat Creek Bridge First Nations Trail: Rodd Ave. to Rouge River (less bridge First Nations Trail: Western Gateway Bridge
Duffins Creek Trail system: Duffins Creek Trail: Finch Ave. east of Brock Road Duffins Creek Trail: Brockridge Park to Liverpool Road
Multi-use paths: Pickering Parkway: Village East Park to Liveroool Road Brock Road: Pickerina Parkway to Finch Ave. Brock Road: Brockridae Park to Third Concession Road
Trails Development Metres of Paths and Trails
2008 2009
630 630
1,291 1,291 2,074 2,074
330 330 112 112 30 30
3,720 3,720 566 566 190 190 673 673 232 232
36 36 486 486 314 314 324 324 172 172 642 642
41 41
375 375 2,189 2,189
205 205 1,763 1,763
Brock Road: Third Concession Road to north of Zents Drive (w. side) Brock Road: Third Concession Road to north of Zents Drive (e. side) Dersan Street: Brock Road to Til lings Road Tillinqs Road: Dersan Street to Zents Drive Zents Drive: Brock Road to Tillings Road William Jackson Drive: Brock Road to Earl Grey Drive Altona Road: Kingston Road to Strouds Lane
!Total 14 474 14474
74,362 $58
$4 304 816
Watson & Associates Econom isis Ltd.
2010 2011
630 630
1,291 1,291 2,074 2,074
330 330 112 112 30 30
3,720 3,720 566 566 190 190 673 673 232 232
36 36 486 486 314 314 324 324 172 172 642 642
41 41
375 375 2,189 2,189
205 205 1,763 1,763
1,543
14474 16 017
88,355 88,721 0.16 0.18
Page 93
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2017Value
($/metre) 630 630 630 630 630 630 $100
1,291 1,291 1,291 1,291 1,291 1,291 $100 2,074 2,074 2,074 2,074 2,074 2,074 $100
330 330 330 330 330 330 $100 112 112 112 112 112 112 $100
30 30 30 30 30 30 $5,625
3,720 3,720 3,720 3,720 3,720 3,720 $150 566 566 566 566 566 566 $1,507 190 190 190 190 190 190 $150 673 673 673 673 673 673 $150 232 232 232 232 232 232 $150 36 36 36 36 36 36 $7,050
486 486 486 486 486 486 $150 314 314 314 314 314 314 $150 324 324 324 324 324 324 $150 172 172 172 172 172 172 $7,050 642 642 642 642 642 642 $150
41 41 41 41 41 41 $7,050
375 375 375 375 375 375 $150 2,189 2,189 2,189 2,189 2,189 2,189 $150
1,357 $150 205 205 205 705 705 705 $150
1,763 1,763 1,763 1,763 1,763 1,763 $150 1,515 $150 1,515 $150
388 388 388 388 388 388 $150 536 536 536 536 $150
391 391 391 391 391 $150 500 500 500 500 997 $150
1,543 1,543 1,543 1,543 1,543 1,543 $150
16405 17 296 17,832 18 332 18 332 23216
90,250 91,042 0.19 0.20
Pickering 2017 DC v26
Page 94
City of Pickering Service Standard Calculation Sheet
Service: Parks and Recreation Vehicles and Equipment Unit Measure: N f h d t o. o ve icles an eqUip men
Description 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2017 Value
Vehicles D.01-01 - Car 2 2 2 2 2 1 - - - - $22,400 0.01-02 - Sport Utility Vehicles (SU\ 2 2 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 2 $32,500 D.01-03- Van 3 3 3 3 3 5 6 7 6 6 $39,300 0.01-04- Truck- Pick-up 13 10 11 11 12 11 11 13 11 11 $37,000 D.01-05- Truck- Mid-Size 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 11 $65,000 D.01-07- Garbage Packer 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 $150,000
Equipment C.01-01 -Excavators - - - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 $51,400 C.01-03- Loaders 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $181,200 C.01-04- Backhoes 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 $109,300 C.01-06- Multi-Purpose Tractors 6 7 6 6 7 7 7 10 10 8 $123,900 C.01-07- Outfront Mowers 3 3 4 5 5 5 6 6 5 5 $90,400 C.01-08- Ice Resurfacers 4 4 4 5 5 6 5 5 5 5 $84,500 C.02-01 - Enclosed Trailer - - - 1 2 4 5 6 7 7 $10,300 C.02-02 -Trailers 2 2 2 2 3 3 4 5 5 5 $8,100 C.02-04- Utility Tractors 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 9 10 $37,800 C.02-05- Mowers 20 20 22 24 22 26 30 34 33 33 $10,700 C.03-01 -Plows - 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 2 $6,300 Miscellaneous Equipment 29 35 38 44 45 54 60 65 68 74 $16,000
Total 103 110 117 128 133 148 160 179 179 186
lation 1 000
10 Year Average 2008-2017
~antity Standard (per 1 ,000) 1.60 ality Standard $35,960
Service Standard $57
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Pickering 2017 DC v26
City of Pickering Service Standard Calculation Sheet
Service: Unit Measure·
Description
Community Centres Seniors Recreation Centres Indoor Pools ~renas Fitness Facilities/Racquet Sports Indoor Soccer Centre Parks Drive Shed Parks Storage Shed 935 DiUi_ngham Rd. (Rental Storag~ace) .
Operations Centre 1 (shared)
Total
Standard
10 Year Average
Quantity Standard
Quality Standard Service Standard
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Parks and Recreation Facilities ft2 of building area
2008 2009 2010
132,766 132,766 132,766 10,850 10,850 10,850 35,650 35,650 35,650
151,252 151,252 151,252 44,591 61,909 61,909
- - -2,235 2,235 2,235 2,235 2,235 2,235
- - -9,966 9,966 9,966
389,545 406,863 406,863
2011
132,766 10,850 35,650
167,593 61,909
-2,235 2,235 4,400 9,966
427,604
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
132,766 132,766 132,766 130,716 131,616 10,850 10,850 10,850 10,850 10,850 35,650 35,650 35,650 35,650 35,650
167,593 167,593 167,593 167,593 167,593 61,909 61,909 61,909 61,909 61,909
- - 105,293 105,293 105,293 2,235 2,235 2,235 2,235 2,235 2,235 2,235 2,235 2,235 2,235 4,400 4,400 4,400 4,400 4,400 9,966 9,966 9,966 13,841 13,841
427,604 427,604 532,897 534,722 535,622
2008-2017 1 The City leased 10,000 sq.ft. of the Operations Centre to Durham Transit until 2014.
5.12
$346 $1,774
Page 95
Value/ft2
2017 2017 Bld'g with land,
Value ($/ft2) site works, etc.
131,616 $291 $371 10,850 $291 $371 35,650 $291 $371
167,593 $291 $371 61,909 $291 $371
105,293 $70 $82 2,235 $42 $90 2,235 $26 $74
$319 -~ 13,841 $319 $514
531,222
Pickering 2017 DC v26
Page 96
City of Pickering Service Standard Calculation Sheet
Service: Library Facilities Unit Measure: ft2 of building area
2017 Bld'g Value/fF
Description 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Value with land,
($/ft2) site works,
etc.
Central Library 34,165 34,165 34,165 34,165 34,165 34,165 34,165 34,165 34,165 34,165 $380 $491 Claremont Branch 1,666 1,666 1,666 1,666 1,666 1,666 1,666 1,666 1,666 1,666 $289 $369 Greenwood Branch 4,900 4,900 4,900 4,900 4,900 4,900 4,900 4,900 $194 $216 ~hitevale Branch 900 900 900 900 900 $259 $382 Petticoat Creek 9,369 9,369 9,369 9,369 9,369 9,369 9,369 9,369 9,369 9,369 $568 $738
iTotal 51 000 51,000 51 000 51,000 51,000 50 100 50 100 50,100 45 200 45 200
Population Per Capita Standard
I 10 Year Average I 2008-2017 I Quantity Standard 0.55
Quality Standard $511 Service Standard $281
I DC Amount (before deductions) I 10 Year I Forecast Population 74,36,:: $per Capita $281 Eligible Amount $20 918,774
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Pickering 2017 DC v26
Page 97
City of Pickering Service Standard Calculation Sheet
Service: Library Collection Materials Unit Measure: 11 r ·t No. of library co ec 1on 1 ems
Description 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2017 Value
($/item) Books 188,916 206,157 215,357 247,434 183,883 198,883 229,907 192,347 166,535 160,000 $18 Non-books 31,590 24,934 29,921 40,499 46,230 52,230 41,903 52,785 51,088 49,000 $30 Magazine Titles 424 426 428 441 430 429 218 203 203 195 $130 Electronic Collections 8,440 10,753 20,267 30,849 46,070 60,729 91,485 102,450 132,063 170,000 $50 Electronic Products 26 63 55 29 29 29 28 27 18 20 $5,203
----·- -- -- ---·-
Total 229,396 242,333 266,028 319,252 276,642 312,300 363,541 347,812 349,907 379,215
88,173 2.60
I 10 Year Average I 2oo8-2o17 1
Quantity Standard 3.42 Quality Standard $27 Service Standard $93
I DC Amount {before deductions} I 10 Year I Forecast Population 74,362 $per Capita $93 Eliqible Amount $6 923 102
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Pickering 2017 DC v26
Page 98
City of Pickering Service Standard Calculation Sheet
Service: Library Vehicles Unit Measure: No. of library collection items
Description 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2017 Value
($/item)
Vans 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $37,600
!Total I 1 I 11 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I I 88,173 0.0113
I 10 Year Average I 2oo8-2o17 1
Quantity Standard (per 1 ,000) 0.0111
Quality Standard $37,631
Service Standard $0.42
I DC Amount (before deductions) I 10 Year I Forecast Population 74,362 $per Capita $0.42 Eliqible Amount $31 061
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Pickering 2017 DC v26
Page 99
Appendix C - D.C. Cash Flow Calculation
Tables
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx
177
D.C. Reserve Year Fund Opening
Balance
2018 $ (198,257) $ 2019 $ 1,996,857 $ 2020 $ (1 ,978,503) $
1-~021. $ (4,471,478) $ 2022 $ (2,574,062) $ 2023 $ (152,507) $ 2024 $ (8,261 ,252) $ 2025 $ (6,730,731) $ 2026 $ (4,665,834) $ 2027 $ (2 425,650) $
City of Pickering- 2017 Development Charges Background Study Cash Flow Analysis
Protection Services -Residential
Dev't Related Expenditures
Revenues DC Rates w. Anticipated SDE per Year minus
Nominal Inflated (3%/Yr) Inflation (3%/Yr) Revenues Expenditures
(45,037) $ (46,388) 2,499 $ 889 $ 2,221,744 $ 2,175,357 (5,881 ,659) $ (6,239,852) 2,499 $ 916 $ 2,288,397 $ (3,951 ,456) (4,294,492) $ {4,692,707) 2,499 $ 943 $ 2,357,049 $ (2,335,658)
(318,524) $ (358,502) 2,499 $ 972 $ 2,427,760 $ 2,069,258 (10,814) $ (12,537) 2,499 $ 1,001 $ 2,500,593 $ 2,488,056
(8,479,374) $ (1 0, 124,816) 2,155 $ 1,031 $ 2,221,285 $ (7,903,531) (318,524) $ (391 ,745) 2,155 $ 1,062 $ 2,287,923 $ 1,896,179
(10,814) $ (13,699) 2,155 $ 1,094 $ 2,356,561 $ 2,342,862 (10,814) $ (14,110) 2,155 $ 1,126 $ 2,427,258 $ 2,413,148 (10 814 $ (14 534) 2155 $ 1160 $ 2,500,076 $ 2,485,542
Page 100
Interest
Debenture (2.5% on DC Reserve positive Fund Closing Financing
balances & 5% Balance after Requirement on negative Financing balances\
$ 19,757 $ 1,996,857 $ (23,904) $ (1 ,978,503) $ (157,317) $ (4,471 ,478) $ (171,842) $ {2,574,062) $ (66,502) $ (152,507) $ (205,214) $ (8,261 ,252) $ (365,658) $ (6,730,731) $ (277,965) $ (4,665,834 $ (172,963) $ (2,425,650: $ (59,893) $ -
D.C. Reserve Year Fund Opening
Balance
2018 $ (20,055) $ 2019 $ 187,060 $ 2020 $ (231,219) $ 2021 _t__j501 ,003) $ ---2022 $ (328,023) $ 2023 $ (103,465) $ 2024 $ (908,930) $ 2025 $ (737,983) $ 2026 $ (511 ,580) $ 2027 $ (265,957) $
City of Pickering- 2017 Development Charges Background Study Cash Flow Analysis
Protection Services -Seaton Prestige Employment Land
Dev't Related Expenditures
Revenues Net Hectares DC Rates w. Anticipated minus
Nominal Inflated (3%/Yr) per Year Inflation (3%/Yr) Revenues Expenditures
(4,556) $ (4,693) 18 $ 11,431 $ 209,994 $ 205,301 (594,980) $ (631,215) 18 $ 11,774 $ 216,294 $ (414,921) (434,425) $ (474,708) 18 $ 12,127 $ 222,783 $ (251,925) (32,221) $ (36,266) 18 $ 12,491 $ 229,466 $ 193,200 (1,094) $ (1,268) 18 $ 12,866 $ 236,350 $ 235,082
(857,762) $ (1 ,024,212) 18 $ 13,252 $ 243,441 $ (780,772) (32,221) $ (39,628) 18 $ 13,649 $ 250,744 $ 211,115 (1,094) $ (1,386) 18 $ 14,059 $ 258,266 $ 256,880 (1,094) $ (1 ,427) 18 $ 14,481 $ 266,014 $ 264,587 (1,094 $ (1 ,470) 18 $ 14,915 $ 273,994 $ 272,524
Page 101
Interest
Debenture (2.5% on DC Reserve positive Fund Closing Financing
balances & 5% Balance after Requirement on negative Financing
;}
$ 1,814 $ 187,060 $ (3,358) $ (231,219) $ (17,859) $ (501,003) $ (20,220) $ (328,023) $ (10,524) $ (103,465) $ (24,693) $ (908,930) $ (40,169) $ (737,983) $ (30,477) $ (511,580) $ (18,964) $ (265,957) $ (6,567 $ -
00 0
Year
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
D.C. Reserve Fund Opening
Balance
$ (35,863) $ $ 334,503 $ $ (413,468) $ $ (895,898) $ $ (586,574) $ $ (185,018) $ $ (1 ,625,356) $ $ {1,319,667) $ $ (914,811) $ $ (475,587 $
City of Pickering - 2017 Development Charges Background Study Cash Flow Analysis
Protection Services -Other Non-Residential
Dev't Related Expenditures
Revenues DC Rates w. Anticipated
GFA per Year minus Nominal Inflated (3%/Yr) Inflation (3%Nr) Revenues
Expenditures
(8,147) $ (8,391) 1,118,519 $ 0.34 $ 375,513 $ 367,122 (1 ,063,949) $ (1,128,744) 1,118,519 $ 0.35 $ 386,778 $ (741 ,965)
(776,842) $ (848,876) 1,118,519 $ 0.36 $ 398,382 $ {450,495) (57,619) $ (64,850) 1,118,519 $ 0.37 $ 410,333 $ 345,483
(1,956) $ (2,268) 1,118,519 $ 0.38 $ 422,643 $ 420,375 (1 ,533,857) $ (1,831,505) 1,118,519 $ 0.39 $ 435,322 $ (1,396,183)
(57,619) $ (70,864) 1,118,519 $ 0.40 $ 448,382 $ 377,518 (1,956) $ (2,478) 1,118,519 $ 0.41 $ 461,834 $ 459,355 (1,956) $ (2,552) 1,118,519 $ 0.43 $ 475,689 $ 473,136
j_1 ,95122. $ (2,629 1,118,519 $ 0.44 $ 489,959 $ 487,330
Page 102
Interest
Debenture (2.5% on DC Reserve positive Fund Closing Financing
balances & 5% Balance after Requirement on negative Financing balances)
$ 3,244 $ 334,503 $ (6,005) $ (413,468) $ (31,936) $ (895,898) $ (36,158) $ (586,574) $ (18,819) $ (185,018) $ (44,155) $ (1 ,625,356) $ (71,830) $ (1,319,667) $ (54,499) $ (914,811) $ (33,912) $ (475,587) $ (11,743) $ (0
D.C. Reserve Year Fund Opening
Balance
2018 $ 16,789,573 $ 2019 $ 19,575,805 $ 2020 $ 18,752,776 $ 2021 $ 18,960,357 $
-~--
2022 $ 15,906,514 $ 2023 $ 16,027,029 $ 2024 $ 13,512,974 $ 2025 $ 10,848,626 $ 2026 $ 12,989,274 $ 2027 $ 15,239,521 $ 2028 $ 17,603,789 $ 2029 $ 13,650,528 $ 2030 $ 9,466,635 $ 2031 $ 5,042,390 $
00
City of Pickering- 2017 Development Charges Background Study Cash Flow Analysis
Transportation Services -Residential
Dev't Related Expenditures
Revenues DC Rates w. Anticipated
SDE per Year minus Nominal Inflated (3%/Yr) Inflation (3%/Yr) Revenues
Expenditures
(4,976,978) $ (5, 126,288) 1,145 6,517 7,463,564 $ 2,337,276 (8,467,992) $ (8,983,693) 1,145 6,712 7,687,471 $ (1,296,222) (7 ,482,297) $ (8,176,108) 1,145 6,913 7,918,095 $ (258,013)
(10,341,933) $ (11,639,937) 1,145 7,121 8,155,638 $ (3,484,299) (7,482,297) $ (8,674,033) 1,145 7,334 8,400,307 $ (273,726) (7,482,297) $ (8,934,254) 802 7,554 6,055,508 $ (2,878,746) (7 ,482,297) $ (9,202,282) 802 7,781 6,237,173 $ (2,965, 1 09) (3,613,865) $ ( 4,577,936) 802 8,015 6,424,288 $ 1,846,353 (3,613,865) $ (4,715,274) 802 8,255 6,617,017 $ 1,901,743 (3,613,865) $ (4,856,732) 802 8,503 6,815,527 $ 1,958,795 (3,613,865) $ (5,002,434) 76 8,758 663,317 $ (4,339,117) (3,613,865) $ (5, 152,507) 76 9,020 683,217 $ (4,469,290) (3,613,865) $ (5,307,082) 76 9,291 703,713 $ (4,603,369) (3,613,865) $ ~ (5,466,295) 38 9,570 362,412 $ (5,103,882
Page 103
Interest
Debenture (2.5% on DC Reserve positive Fund Closing Financing
balances & 5% Balance after Requirement on negative Financing
h"l"n""" $ 448,955 $ 19,575,805 $ 473,192 $ 18,752,776 $ 465,594 $ 18,960,357 $ 430,455 $ 15,906,514 $ 394,241 $ 16,027,029 $ 364,691 $ 13,512,974 $ 300,761 $ 10,848,626 $ 294,295 $ 12,989,274 $ 348,504 $ 15,239,521 $ 405,473 $ 17,603,789 $ 385,856 $ 13,650,528 $ 285,397 $ 9,466,635 $ 179,124 $ 5,042,390 $ 61,493 $
co N
Year
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031
D.C. Reserve Fund Opening
Balance
$ 1,459,963 $ $ 1,561,834 $ $ 1,342,133 $ $ 1,204,009 $ $ 773,910 $ $ 611,125 $ $ 438,807 $ $ 256,552 $ $ 495,395 $ $ 747,181 $ $ 1,012,443 $ $ 806,566 $ $ 588,605 $ $ 358,052 $
City of Pickering- 2017 Development Charges Background Study Cash Flow Analysis
Transportation Services -Non-Residential
Dev't Related Expenditures
Revenues GFA per Year
DC Rates w. Anticipated minus
Nominal Inflated (3%/Yr) Inflation (3%/Yr) Revenues Expenditures
(432,781) $ (445,764) 279,599 $ 1.83 $ 510,329 $ 64,565 (736,347) $ (781,191) 279,599 $ 1.88 $ 525,639 $ (255,552) (650,635) $ (710,966) 279,599 $ 1.94 $ 541,408 $ (169,558) (899,299) $ (1,012,168) 279,599 $ 1.99 $ 557,650 $ (454,518)
(650,635) $ (754,264) 279,599 $ 2.05 $ 574,380 $ (179,884) (650,635) $ (776,892) 279,599 $ 2.12 $ 591,611 $ (185,281) (650,635) $ (800,198) 279,599 $ 2.18 $ 609,359 $ (190,839) (314,249) $ (398,081) 279,599 $ 2.24 $ 627,640 $ 229,559 (314,249) $ (410,024) 279,599 $ 2.31 $ 646,469 $ 236,446 (314,249) $ (422,325) 279,599 $ 2.38 $ 665,864 $ 243,539 (314,249) $ (434,994) 84,250 $ 2.45 $ 206,660 $ (228,335) (314,249) $ (448,044) 84,250 $ 2.53 $ 212,859 $ (235,185) (314,249) $ (461,485) 84,250 $ 2.60 $ 219,245 $ (242,240) (314,249 $ (475,330 42,125 $ 2.68 $ 112,911 $ (362,419
Page 104
Interest
Debenture (2.5% on DC Reserve
Financing positive Fund Closing
balances & 5% Balance after Requirement
on negative Financing
$ 37,306 $ 1,561,834 $ 35,851 $ 1,342,133 $ 31,434 $ 1,204,009 $ 24,419 $ 773,910 $ 17,099 $ 611,125 $ 12,962 $ 438,807 $ 8,585 $ 256,552 $ 9,283 $ 495,395 $ 15,340 $ 747,181 $ 21,724 $ 1,012,443 $ 22,457 $ 806,566 $ 17,224 $ 588,605 $ 11,687 $ 358,052 $ 4,366 $ -
00 w
Year
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031
D.C. Reserve Fund Opening
Balance
$ 113,900 $ $ 172,422 $ $ 588,300 $ $ 814,077 $ $ 1,383,258 $ $ 1,999,533 $ $ 2,487,150 $ $ (2,008,353) $ $ (1,605,057) $ $ (1,149,884) $ $ (639,288) $ $ (431,608) $ $ (206,353) $ $ 37,047 $
City of Pickering- 2017 Development Charges Background Study Cash Flow Analysis
Other Services Related to a Highway- Residential
Dev't Related Expenditures
Revenues SDE per Year
DC Rates w. Anticipated minus
Nominal Inflated (3%Nr) Inflation (3%Nr) Revenues Expenditures
(492,174) $ (506,939) 2,499 $ 441 $ 1,101,810 $ 594,871 (177,674) $ (188,494) 2,499 $ 454 $ 1,134,864 $ 946,370 (384,874) $ (420,562) 2,499 $ 468 $ 1,168,910 $ 748,348 (108,431) $ (122,040) 2,499 $ 482 $ 1,203,977 $ 1,081,937 (1 08,431) $ (125,701) 2,499 $ 496 $ 1,240,097 $ 1,114,395 (108,431) $ (129,472) 2,155 $ 511 $ 1,101,582 $ 972,109
(4,123,671) $ (5,071 ,595) 2,155 $ 527 $ 1,134,629 $ (3,936,966) (108,431) $ (137,357) 2,155 $ 542 $ 1,168,668 $ 1,031,311 (108,431) $ (141,478) 2,155 $ 559 $ 1,203,728 $ 1,062,250 (108,431) $ (145,722) 2,155 $ 575 $ 1,239,840 $ 1,094,118 (218,485) $ (302,434) 905 $ 593 $ 536,235 $ 233,800 (218,485) $ (311;507) 905 $ 610 $ 552,322 $ 240,814 (218,485) $ (320,853) 905 $ 629 $ 568,891 $ 248,039
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
(218,485 $ (330,478) 452 $ 648 $ 292,979 $ (37,499) $
Page 105
Interest
Debenture (2.5% on DC Reserve positive Fund Closing Financing
balances & 5% Balance after Requirement on negative Financing
h"'"""""'\ (539,884) $ 3,535 $ 172,422 (539,884) $ 9,392 $ 588,300 (539,884) $ 17,313 $ 814,077 (539,884) $ 27,128 $ 1,383,258 (539,884) $ 41,763 $ 1,999,533 (539,884) $ 55,391 $ 2,487,150 (539,884) $ (18,653) $ (2,008,353) (539,884) $ (88, 132) $ (1,605,057) (539,884) $ (67,194) $ (1,149,884) (539,884) $ (43,638) $ (639,288)
$ (26,119) $ (431 ,608) $ (15,560) $ (206,353) $ (4,638) $ 37,047 $ 452 $ (0
D.C. Reserve Year Fund Opening
Balance
2018 $ 13,064 $ 2019 $ (6,873) $ 2020 $ 12,714 $ 2021 $ 9,059 $ 2022 $ 43,208 $ 2023 $ 81,110 $ 2024 $ 122,945 $ 2025 $ (409,605) $ 2026 $ (383,467) $ 2027 $ (352,720) $ 2028 $ (317,033) $ 2029 $ (230,497) $ 2030 $ (136,561) $ 2031 $ (34,766 $
City of Pickering- 2017 Development Charges Background Study Cash Flow Analysis
Other Services Related to a Highway - Seaton Prestige Employment Land
Dev't Related Expenditures
Revenues Net Hectares DC Rates w. Anticipated
minus Nominal Inflated (3%/Yr) per Year Inflation (3%/Yr) Revenues
Expenditures
(56,452) $ (58,145) 18 $ 5,451 $ 100,140 $ 41,995 $ (20,379) $ (21,620) 18 $ 5,615 $ 103,144 $ 81,524 $ (44,145) $ (48,238) 18 $ 5,783 $ 106,239 $ 58,001 $ (12,437) $ (13,998) 18 $ 5,957 $ 109,426 $ 95,428 $ (12,437) $ (14,418) 18 $ 6,135 $ 112,709 $ 98,291 $ (12,437) $ (14,850) 18 $ 6,319 $ 116,090 $ 101,240 $
(472,981) $ (581 ,707) 18 $ 6,509 $ 119,573 $ (462,134) $ (12,437) $ (15,755) 18 $ 6,704 $ 123,160 $ 107,405 $ (12,437) $ (16,227) 18 $ 6,905 $ 126,855 $ 110,627 $ (12,437) $ (16,714) 18 $ 7,113 $ 130,660 $ 113,946 $ (25,060) $ (34,689) 18 $ 7,326 $ 134,580 $ 99,891 $ (25,060) $ (35,730) 18 $ 7,546 $ 138,617 $ 102,888 $ (25,060) $ (36,801) 18 $ 7,772 $ 142,776 $ 105,974 $ (25,060) $ (37,906) 9 $ 8,005 $ 73,530 $ 35,624 $
Page 106
Interest
Debenture · (2.5% on DC Reserve positive Fund Closing Financing
balances & 5% Balance after Requirement on negative Financing
(61,924) $ (8) $ (6,873) (61,924) $ (13) $ 12,714 (61,924) $ 269 $ 9,059 (61,924) $ 645 $ 43,208 (61,924) $ 1,535 $ 81,110 (61,924) $ 2,519 $ 122,945 (61,924) $ (8,491) $ (409,605) (61,924) $ (19,343) $ (383,467) (61,924) $ (17,956) $ (352,720) (61,924) $ (16,335) $ (317,033)
$ (13,354) $ (230,497) $ (8,953) $ (136,561)
- $ (4,179) $ (34,766) - $ (858) $ -
00 0'1
Year
2018 2019 2020
~-1 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031
D.C. Reserve Fund Opening
Balance
$ 26,955 $ $ (52,928) $ $ (54,032) $ $ (106,138) $ $ (82,929) $ $ (53,775 $ $ (18,237 $ $ (1,173,707) $ $ (1,183,861 $ $ (1,189,139) $ $ (1,189,134) $ $ (872,841) $ $ (529,460) $ $ (157,301) $
City of Pickering- 2017 Development Charges Background Study Cash Flow Analysis
Other Services Related to a Highway -Other Non-Residential
Dev't Related Expenditures
Revenues DC Rates w. Anticipated
GFA per Year minus Nominal Inflated (3%/Yr) Inflation (3%/Yr) Revenues
Expenditures
(116,474) $ (119,968) 1,118,519 $ 0.15 $ 168,812 $ 48,844 (42,047) $ (44,608) 1,118,519 $ 0.16 $ 173,877 $ 129,269 (91,081) $ (99,527) 1,118,519 $ 0.16 $ 179,093 $ 79,566 (25,660) $ (28,881) 1,118,519 $ 0.16 $ 184,466 $ 155,585 (25,660) $ (29,748) 1,118,519 $ 0.17 $ 190,000 $ 160,252 (25,660) $ (30,640) 1,118,519 $ 0.17 $ 195,700 $ 165,060
$ $ $ $ $ $
(975,876) $ (1 ,200,205) 1,118,519 $ 0.18 $ 201,571 $ (998,634) $ (25,660) $ (32,506) 1,118,519 $ 0.19 $ 207,618 $ 175,112 $ (25,660) $ (33,481) 1,118,519 $ 0.19 $ 213,847 $ 180,365 $ (25,660) $ (34,486) 1,118,519 $ 0.20 $ 220,262 $ 185,776 $ (51 ,705) $ (71,572) 2,160,212 $ 0.20 $ 438,157 $ 366,585 $ (51,705) $ (73,719) 2,160,212 $ 0.21 $ 451,302 $ 377,583 $ (51,705) $ (75,931) 2,160,212 $ 0.22 $ 464,841 $ 388,910 $ (51 ,705) $ (78,208) 1,080,106 $ 0.22 $ 239,393 $ 161,184 $
Page 107
Interest
Debenture (2.5% on DC Reserve positive Fund Closing Financing
Requirement balances & 5% Balance after on negative Financing h~bn"o~l
(127,765) $ (962) $ (52,928) (127,765) $ (2,609) $ (54,032) (127,765) $ (3,907) $ (106,138) (127,765) $ (4,611) $ (82,929) (127,765) $ (3,334) $ (53,775) (127,765) $ (1,756) $ (18,237) (127,765) $ (29,072) $ (1,173,707) (127,765) $ (57,502) $ (1,183,861 (127,765) $ (57,878) $ (1,189,139) (127,765) $ (58,007) $ (1,189,134)
$ (50,292) $ (872,841) $ (34,202) $ (529,460) $ (16,750) $ (157,301) $ (3,884 $ 0
00 C')
Year
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
D.C. Reserve Fund Opening
Balance
$ 15,701,991 $ $ 23,610,450 $ $ 29,103,723 $ $ 27,085,305 $ $ 13,137,070 $ $ (24,711 ,464) $ $ (19,765,911) $ $ (16,775,102) $ $ (8,328,384) $ $ . (59,111[ $
City of Pickering · 2017 Development Charges Background Study Cash Flow Analysis
Parks & Recreation - Residential
Dev't Related Expenditures
Revenues DC Rates w. Anticipated
SDE per Year minus Nominal Inflated (3%Nr) Inflation (3%Nr) Revenues
Expenditures
(4,131,662) $ (4,255,612) 2,499 $ 4,849 $ 12,117,308 $ 7,861,696 $ (6,786,474) $ (7, 199, 770) 2,499 $ 4,995 $ 12,480,827 $ 5,281,057 $
(13,844,983) $ (15,128,786) 2,499 $ 5,145 $ 12,855,252 $ (2,273,534) $ (24,208, 732) $ (27,247, 141) 2,499 $ 5,299 $ 13:240,910 $ (14,006,231) $ (43,652,822) $ (50,605,585) 2,499 $ 5,458 $ 13,638,137 $ (36,967,448) $ (4,728,317) $ (5,645,858) 2,155 $ 5,622 $ 12,114,801 $ 6,468,944 $ (6,632,889) $ (8, 157,617) 2,155 $ 5,791 $ 12,478,245 $ 4,320,629 $ (2,648,482) $ (3,355,018) 2,155 $ 5,964 $ 12,852,593 $ 9,497,575 $ (3,313,950) $ (4,323,953) 2,155 $ 6,143 $ 13,238,171 $ 8,914,218 $ (9,774,544) $ (13,136,169 2,155 $ 6,327 $ 13,635,316 $ 499,146 $
Page 108
Interest
Debenture (2.5% on DC Reserve positive Fund Closing
Financing balances & 5% Balance after Requirement
on negative Financing h"bnro"\
(438,576) $ 485,339 $ 23,610,450 (438,576) $ 650,792 $ 29,103,723 (438,576) $ 693,692 $ 27,085,305 (438,576) $ 496,573 $ 13,137,070 (438,576) $ (442,510) $ (24,711 ,464) (438,576) $ (1 ,084,814) $ (19,765,911) (438,576) $ (891,244) $ (16,775,102) (438,576) $ (612,280) $ (8,328,384) (438,576) $ (206,369) $ (59,111) (438,576) $ (1 ,4601 $ 0
00 --..J
Year
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
D.C. Reserve Fund Opening
Balance
$ 2,760 $ $ 159,692 $ $ 271,674 $ $ 242,532 $ $ (11,276) $ $ (718,508) $ $ (582,775) $ $ (480,172) $ $ (270,574) $ $ (60,033) $
City of Pickering- 2017 Development Charges Background Study Cash Flow Analysis
Parks and Recreation- Seaton Prestige Employment Land
Dev't Related Expenditures
Revenues Net Hectares DC Rates w. Anticipated minus
Nominal Inflated (3%/Yr) per Year Inflation (3%/Yr) Revenues Expenditures
(77,991) $ (80,331) 18 $ 13,257 $ 243,536 $ 163,205 $ (128,105) $ (135,906) 18 $ 13,655 $ 250,842 $ 114,936 $ (261,345) $ (285,578) 18 $ 14,064 $ 258,367 $ (27,211) $ (456,976) $ (514,330) 18 $ 14,486 $ 266,118 $ (248,212) $ (824,012) $ (955,256) 18 $ 14,921 $ 274,102 $ (681,154) $
(89,254) $ (106,574) 18 $ 15,368 $ 282,325 $ 175,751 $ (125,206) $ (153,987) 18 $ 15,830 $ 290,795 $ 136,807 $ (49,994) $ (63,331) 18 $ 16,304 $ 299,518 $ 236,187 $ (62,556) $ (81,621) 18 $ 16,794 $ 308,504 $ 226,883 $
(184,509) $ (247,965) 18 $ 17,297 $ 317,759 $ 69,794 $
Page 109
Interest
Debenture (2.5% on DC Reserve positive Fund Closing Financing
balances & 5% Balance after Requirement on negative Financing h,.l,.nr.es\
(8,279) $ 2,006 $ 159,692 (8,279) $ 5,326 $ 271,674 (8,279) $ 6,348 $ 242,532 (8,279) $ 2,683 $ (11,276) (8,279) $ (17,800) $ (718,508) (8,279) $ (31,739) $ (582,775) (8,279) $ (25,926) $ (480,172) (8,279) $ (18,311) $ (270,574) (8,279) $ (8,064) $ (60,033)
ffi,279) $ (1,482) $ 0
co co
Year
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
D.C. Reserve Fund Opening
Balance
$ 4,936 $ $ 285,562 $ $ 485,810 $ $ 433,698 $ $ (20,163) $ $ (1 ,284,842) $ $ (1,042,123) $ $ (858,647) $ $ (483,842) $ $ _(107,352 $
City of Pickering - 2017 Development Charges Background Study Cash Flow Analysis
Parks & Recreation - Other Non-Residential
Dev't Related Expenditures
Revenues GFA per Year
DC Rates w. Anticipated minus
Nominal Inflated (3%/Yr) Inflation (3%/Yr) Revenues Expenditures
(139,465) $ (143,649) 1,118,519 $ 0.39 $ 435,493 $ 291,844 $ (229,078) $ (243,029 1,118,519 $ 0.40 $ 448,558 $ 205,529 $ (467,339) $ (510,674) 1,118,519 $ 0.41 $ 462,014 $ (48,659) $ (817,168) $ (919,730) 1,118,519 $ 0.43 $ 475,875 $ (443,855) $
(1 ,473,505) $ (1,708,196) 1,118,519 $ 0.44 $ 490,151 $ (1 ,218,045) $ (159,605) $ (190,576) 1,118,519 $ 0.45 $ 504,856 $ 314,279 $ (223,894) $ (275,361) 1,118,519 $ 0.46 $ 520,001 $ 244,640 $ (89,400) $ (113,249) 1,118,519 $ 0.48 $ 535,601 $ 422,352 $
(111,863) $ (145,955) 1,118,519 $ 0.49 $ 551,669 $ 405,714 $ ~29,9411 $ (443,413 1,118,519 $ 0.51 $ 568,219 $ 124,807 $
Page 110
Interest
Debenture (2.5% on DC Reserve
Financing positive Fund Closing balances & 5% Balance after Requirement
on negative Financing
h"'"""""\ (14,804) $ 3,586 $ 285,562 (14,804) $ 9,523 $ 485,810 (14,804) $ 11,352 $ 433,698 (14,804) $ 4,797 $ (20,163) (14,804) $ (31,829) $ (1 ,284,842) (14,804) $ (56,755) $ (1 ,042, 123) (14,804) $ (46,360) $ (858,647) (14,804) $ (32,744) $ (483,842) (14,804) $ (14,419) $ (107,352) (14,804) $ (2,651) $ (0
Year
2018 2019 2020 2021 ---2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
City of Pickering- 2017 Development Charges Background Study Cash Flow Analysis Library -Residential
Dev't Related Expenditures
Revenues D.C. Reserve DC Rates w. Anticipated Fund Opening SDE per Year minus
Nominal Inflated (3%/Yr) Inflation (3%/Yr) Revenues Balance Expenditures
$ 2,658,843 $ (1 ,637,325) $ (1 ,686,445) 2,499 $ 1,086 $ 2,713,615 $ 1,027,170
$ 3,765,323 $ (9,383,487) $ (9,954,941) 2,499 $ 1,119 $ 2,795,023 $ (7, 159,918)
$ (3,432,393) $ (6,634,335) $ (7,249,516) 2,499 $ 1,152 $ 2,878,874 $ (4,370,642)
$ (8,083,921) ~· (1 ,961 ,966) $ (2,208,209) 2,499 $ 1,187 $ 2,965,240 $ . 757,031 ~$~--(7,712,161) 2,499 $ $ 3,054,197 $ $ (3,441 ,288) $ (3,989,396) 1,222 (935,199)
$ (9,056,347) $ (3, 165,919) $ (3,780,273) 2,155 $ 1,259 $ 2,713,054 $ (1 ,067,220)
$ (10,603,065) $ $ 2,155 $ 1,297 $ 2,794,445 $ 2,794,445
$ (8,268,912) $ $ 2,155 $ 1,336 $ 2,878,279 $ 2,878,279
$ (5,732, 122) $ $ 2,155 $ 1,376 $ 2,964,627 $ 2,964,627
$ (2,979,986) $ $ 2,155 $ 1,417 $ 3,053,566 $ 3,053,566
Page 111
Interest
Debenture (2.5% on DC Reserve
positive Fund Closing Financing
balances & 5% Balance after Requirement
on negative Financing balances\
$ 79,311 $ 3,765,323 $ (37,798) $ (3,432,393) $ (280,886) $ (8,083,921) $ (385,270) $ (7,~ $ (408,988) $ (9,056,347) $ (479,498) $ (10,603,065) $ (460,292) $ (8,268,912) $ (341 ,489) $ (5,732,122 $ (212,490) $ (2,979,986) $ (73,580) $ (0
D.C. Reserve Year Fund Opening
Balance
2018 $ 50,190 $ 2019 $ 67,671 $ 2020 $ (71,874) $ 2021 $ (163,690) $ 2022 $ (160,993) $ 2023 $ (191,017) $ 2024 $ (216,839) $ 2025 $ (169,105) $ 2026 $ (117,226) $ 2027 $ (60,943) $
City of Pickering- 2017 Development Charges Background Study Cash Flow Analysis
Library -Seaton Prestige Employment Land
Dev't Related Expenditures
Revenues Net Hectares DC Rates w. Anticipated
minus Nominal Inflated (3%/Yr) per Year Inflation (3%Nr) Revenues
Expenditures
(30,907) $ (31,834) 18 $ 2,605 $ 47,861 $ 16,027 (177,127) $ (187,914 18 $ 2,683 $ 49,297 $ (138,618) (125,233) $ (136,845 18 $ 2,764 $ 50,775 $ (86,070) (37,035) $ (41,683) 18 $ 2,847 $ 52,299 $ 10,615 (64,959) $ (75,306) 18 $ 2,932 $ 53,868 $ (21 ,438) (59,761) $ (71,358) 18 $ 3,020 $ 55,484 $ (15,875)
- $ 18 $ 3,111 $ 57,148 $ 57,148 $ - 18 $ 3,204 $ 58,863 $ 58,863 $ 18 $ 3,300 $ 60,629 $ 60,629
- $ - 18 $ 3,399 $ 62,447 $ 62,447
Page 112
Interest
Debenture (2.5% on DC Reserve
Financing positive Fund Closing balances & 5% Balance after Requirement
on negative Financing h"l"""""\
$ 1,455 $ 67,671 $ (928) $ (71,874) $ (5,745 $ (163,690) $ (7,919) $ (160,993) $ (8,586) $ (191,017) $ (9,948) $ (216,839) $ (9,413) $ (169,105) $ (6,984) $ (117,226) $ (4,346) $ (60,943) $ (1,505 $ 0
Year
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
D.C. Reserve Fund Opening
Balance
Dev't Related Expenditures
City of Pickering- 2017 Development Charges Background Study Cash Flow Analysis
Library - Other Non-Residential
DC Rates w. Nominal Inflated (3%Nr)
GFA per Year Inflation (3%Nr)
Anticipated Revenues
Revenues minus
Expenditures
Debenture Financing
Requirement
Interest (2.5% on positive
balances & 5%
Page 113
DC Reserve Fund Closing Balance after
on negative Financing h:>l:mces\
$ 89,749 $ (55,268) $ (56,926) 1 '118,519 $ 0.08 $ 85,585 $ 28,659 $ 2,602 $ 121,010
$ (128,526) $ (223,943) $ (244,708) 1,118,519 $ 0.08 $ 90,797 $ (153,911) $ (10,274) $ (292,711) $ 121,010 $ (316,740) $ (336,030) 1,118,519 $ 0.08 $ 88,152 $ (247,877) $ (1,659) $ (128,526)
$ (292,711) $ (66,226) $ (74,538) __ 1:-'-,1'-'-18:-':,5:-:.1~9-+-'$:--------:e0c:.08~$:----::-93:c::·5~21'-t-::$--~1:-':8,9:::-=8-::-3 1 ______ 1_-$.___._ (14,161) $ (287,890) $ (28l,890) ~$-----;(~11c:c6,'Cc16:;-;1~)1 -o:-$----;(1~3c4;',~66c;;;-2)f----·1,118,519 $ 0.09 $ 96,327 $ (38,336) $ . - (15,353) $---(341,578)
$ (341,578) $ (106,866) $ (127,603) 1,118,519 $ 0.09 $ 99,216 $ (28,387) $ (17,789) $ (387,754) $ (387,754) $ $ 1,118,519 $ 0.09 $ 102,193 $ 102,193 $ (16,833) $ (302,394) $ (302,394) $ $ 1,118,519 $ 0.09 $ 105,259 $ 105,259 $ (12,488) $ (209,624) $ (209,624) $ $ 1,118,519 $ 0.10 $ 108,416 $ 108,416 $ (7,771) $ (108,978) $ (108,978 $ $ 1,118,519 $ 0.10 $ 111,669 $ 111,669 $ (2,691 $
D.C. Reserve Year Fund Opening
Balance
2018 $ (525,617) $ 2019 $ (848,386) $ 2020 $ (845,272) $ 2021 $ (756,952) $ 2022 $ (553,976) $ 2023 $ (739,584) $ 2024 $ (447,236) $ 2025 $ (130,391) $ 2026 $ 209,841 $ 2027 $ 228,538 $
City of Pickering- 2017 Development Charges Background Study Cash Flow Analysis Admin -Residential
Dev't Related Expenditures
Revenues DC Rates w. Anticipated SDE per Year minus
Nominal Inflated (3%Nr) Inflation (3%Nr) Revenues Expenditures
(952,802) $ (981,386) 2,499 $ 277 $ 692,129 $ (289,257) (630,097) $ (668,470) 2,499 $ 285 $ 712,893 $ 44,423 (555,382) $ (606,881) 2,499 $ 294 $ 734,280 $ 127,399 (463,220) $ (521 ,358) 2,499 $ 303 $ 756,308 $ 234,950 (804,862) $ (933,056) 2,499 $ 312 $ 778,997 $ (154,058) (310,448) $ (370,691) 2,155 $ 321 $ 691,986 $ 321,295 (310,448) $ (381,812) 2,155 $ 331 $ 712,746 $ 330,933 (310,448) $ (393,266) 2,155 $ 341 $ 734,128 $ 340,861 (569,346) $ (742,867) 2,155 $ 351 $ 756,152 $ 13,285 (751,655) $ (1,010,161) 2,155 $ 361 $ 778,836 $ {231 ,325)
Page 114
Interest
Debenture (2.5% on DC Reserve positive Fund Closing Financing
balances & 5% Balance after Requirement on negative Financing
balanr..,.:l
$ (33,512) $ (848,386) $ (41,309) $ (845,272) $ (39,079) $ (756,952) $ (31,974) $ (553,976) $ (31,550) $ (739,584) $ (28,947) $ (447,236) $ (14,088) $ (130,391) $ (629) $ 209,841 $ 5,412 $ 228,538 $ 2,787 $ 0
D.C. Reserve Year Fund Opening
Balance
2018 $ (53,171) $ 2019 $ (90,555) $ 2020 $ (95,353) $ 2021 $ (91,933) $ 2022 $ (77,341) $ 2023 $ (102,510) $ 2024 $ (68,363) $ 2025 $ (31,332) $ 2026 $ 8,648 $ 2027 $ 16,656 $
City of Pickering - 2017 Development Charges Background Study Cash Flow Analysis
Admin -Seaton Prestige Employment Land
Dev't Related Expenditures
Revenues Net Hectares DC Rates w. Anticipated minus
Nominal Inflated (3%/Yr) per Year Inflation (3%/Yr) Revenues Expenditures
(96,384) $ (99,276) 18 $ 3,560 $ 65,396 $ (33,879) (63,740) $ (67,622) 18 $ 3,667 $ 67,358 $ (263) (56,182) $ (61,391) 18 $ 3,777 $ 69,379 $ 7,988 (46,859) $ (52,740) 18 $ 3,890 $ 71,461 .$ 18,721 (81,419) $ (94,387) 18 $ 4,007 $ 73,604 $ (20,782) (31,405) $ (37,499) 18 $ 4,127 $ 75,812 $ 38,314 (31,405) $ (38,624) 18 $ 4,251 $ 78,087 $ 39,463 (31,405) $ (39,782) 18 $ 4,378 $ 80,429 $ 40,647 (57,594) $ (75,147) 18 $ 4,510 $ 82,842 $ 7,695 (76,036 $ (102,186) 18 $ 4,645 $ 85,328 $ (16,859)
Page 115
Interest
Debenture (2.5% on DC Reserve positive Fund Closing Financing
balances & 5% Balance after Requirement on negative Financing
$ (3,506) $ (90,555) $ (4,534) $ (95,353) $ (4,568) $ (91,933) $ (4,129) $ (77,341) $ (4,387) $ (102,510) $ (4,168) $ (68,363) $ (2,432) $ (31,332) $ (667) $ 8,648 $ 312 $ 16,656 $ 203 $
D.C. Reserve Year Fund Opening
Balance
2018 $ (95,080) $ 2019 $ (161 ,932) $ 2020 $ (170,511) $ 2021 $ (164,395) $ 2022 $ (138,301) $ 2023 $ (183,309) $ 2024 $ (122,248) $ 2025 $ (56,028 $ 2026 $ 15,465 $ 2027 $ 29,784 $
City of Pickering- 2017 Development Charges Background Study Cash Flow Analysis
Admin- Other Non-Residential
Dev't Related Expenditures
Revenues GFA per Year
DC Rates w. Anticipated minus
Nominal Inflated (3%/Yr) Inflation (3%/Yr) Revenues Expenditures
(172,355) $ (177,526) 1,118,519 $ 0.10 $ 116,943 $ (60,583) (113,980) $ (120,921) 1,118,519 $ 0.11 $ 120,451 $ (471) (100,465) $ (109,780) 1,118,519 $ 0.11 $ 124,064 $ 14,284 (83,793) $ (94,310) 1,118,519 $ 0.11 $ 127,786 $ 33,476
(145,594) $ (168,783) 1,118,519 $ 0.12 $ 131,620 $ (37,163) (56,158) $ (67,055) 1,118,519 $ 0.12 $ 135,568 $ 68,513 (56,158) $ (69,067) 1,118,519 $ 0.12 $ 139,636 $ 70,569 (56, 158) $ (71,139) 1,118,519 $ 0.13 $ 143,825 $ 72,686
(102,990) $ (134,379) 1,118,519 $ 0.13 $ 148,139 $ 13,760 (135,969) $ (182,731) 1,118,519 $ 0.14 $ 152,584 $ (30,147
Page 116
Interest
Debenture (2.5% on DC Reserve
Financing positive Fund Closing balances & 5% Balance after Requirement
on negative Financing
$ (6,269) $ (161,932) $ (8,108) $ (170,511) $ (8,168) $ (164,395) $ (7,383) $ (138,301) $ (7,844) $ (183,309) $ (7,453) $ (122,248) $ (4,348) $ (56,028) $ (1,192) $ 15,465 $ 559 $ 29,784 $ 363 $ 0
D.C. Reserve Year Fund Opening
Balance
2018 $ 722,514 $ 2019 $ 835,068 $ 2020 $ 953,271 $ 2021 $ 1,077,348 $ 2022 $ 1,207,534 $ 2023 $ 1,344,073 $ 2024 $ 1,370,973 $ 2025 $ 1,398,344 $ 2026 $ 1,513,204 $ 2027 $ 1,633,331 $ 2028 $ 1,758,931 $ 2029 $ 1,400,151 $ 2030 $ 1,020,318 $ 2031 $ 618,545 $
City of Pickering- 2017 Development Charges Background Study Cash Flow Analysis
Storm water Management- Residential
Dev't Related Expenditures
Revenues SDE per Year
DC Rates w. Anticipated minus
Nominal Inflated (3%/Yr) Inflation (3%/Yr) Revenues Expenditures
(608,310) $ (626,559) 2,499 $ 288 $ 719,883 $ 93,324 (608,310) $ (645,356) 2,499 $ 297 $ 741,480 $ 96,124 (608,310) $ (664,716) 2,499 $ 306 $ 763,724 $ 99,008 (608,310) $ (684,658) 2,499 $ 315 $ 786,636 $ 101,978 (608,310) $ (705,198) 2,499 $ 324 $ 810,235 $ 105,037 (608,310) $ (726,353) 2,155 $ 334 $ 719,734 $ (6,619) (608,310) $ (748,144) 2,155 $ 344 $ 741,326 $ (6,818) (540,471) $ (684,652) 2,155 $ 354 $ 763,566 $ 78,914 (540,471) $ (705,192) 2,155 $ 365 $ 786,473 $ 81,282 (540,471) $ (726,347) 2,155 $ 376 $ 810,067 $ 83,720 (540,471) $ (748, 138) 905 $ 387 $ 350,356 $ (397,781) (540,471) $ (770,582) 905 $ 399 $ 360,867 $ (409,715) (540,471) $ (793,699) 905 $ 411 $ 371,693 $ (422,006) (540,471 I $ (817,510 452 $ 423 $ 191,422 $ (626,088
Page 117
Interest
Debenture (2.5% on DC Reserve
Financing positive Fund Closing balances & 5% Balance after Requirement
on negative Financing ;}
$ 19,229 $ 835,068 $ 22,078 $ 953,271 $ 25,069 $ 1,077,348 $ 28,208 $ 1,207,534 $ 31,501 $ 1,344,073 $ 33,519 $ 1,370,973 $ 34,189 $ 1,398,344 $ 35,945 $ 1,513,204 $ 38,846 $ 1,633,331 $ 41,880 $ 1,758,931 $ 39,001 $ 1,400,151 $ 29,882 $ 1,020,318 $ 20,233 $ 618,545 $ 7,543 $
D.C. Reserve Year Fund Opening
Balance
2018 $ 82,872 $ 2019 $ 77,342 $ 2020 $ 71,445 $ 2021 $ 65,166 $ 2022 $ 58,489 $ 2023 $ 51,395 $ 2024 $ 43,867 $ 2025 $ 35,887 $ 2026 $ 37,415 $ 2027 $ 39,000 $ 2028 $ 40,644 $ 2029 $ 42,349 $ 2030 $ 44,118 $ 2031 $ 45,952 $
City of Pickering - 2017 Development Charges Background Study Cash Flow Analysis
Stormwater Management- Seaton Prestige Employment
Dev't Related Expenditures
Revenues Net Hectares DC Ratesw. Anticipated minus
Nominal Inflated (3%Nr) per Year Inflation (3%Nr) Revenues Expenditures
(69,773} $ (71,866} 18 $ 3,503 $ 64,358 $ (7,508} (69,773} $ (74,022) 18 $ 3,608 $ 66,288 $ (7,733) (69,773) $ (76,242) 18 $ 3,717 $ 68,277 $ (7,965) (69,773) $ (78,530) 18 $ 3,828 $ 70,325 $ (8,204) (69,773) $ (80,885) 18 $ 3,943 $ 72,435 $ (8,450) (69,773) $ (83,312) 18 $ 4,061 $ 74,608 $ (8,704) (69,773) $ (85,811) 18 $ 4,183 $ 76,846 $ (8,965) (61,991) $ (78,529) 18 $ 4,309 $ 79,152 $ 623 (61,991) $ (80,885) 18 $ 4,438 $ 81,526 $ 642 (61,991) $ (83,311) 18 $ 4,571 $ 83,972 $ 661 (61,991} $ (85,811) 18 $ 4,708 $ 86,491 $ 681 (61,991) $ (88,385) 18 $ 4,849 $ 89,086 $ 701 (61,991) $ (91,037) 18 $ 4,995 $ 91,759 $ 722 (61,991) $ (93,768 9 $ 5,145 $ 47,256 $ (46,512)
Page 118
Interest
Debenture (2.5% on DC Reserve positive Fund Closing Financing
balances & 5% Balance after Requirement on negative Financing balanc.,s\
$ 1,978 $ 77,342 $ 1,837 $ 71,445 $ 1,687 $ 65,166 $ 1,527 $ 58,489 $ 1,357 $ 51,395 $ 1,176 $ 43,867 $ 985 $ 35,887 $ 905 $ 37,415 $ 943 $ 39,000 $ 983 $ 40,644 $ 1,025 $ 42,349 $ 1,067 $ 44,118 $ 1,112 $ 45,952 $ 560 $ (0
D.C. Reserve Year Fund Opening
Balance
2018 $ 170,985 $ 2019 $ 134,223 $ 2020 $ 95,311 $
___1.~ $ 54,158 $ 2022 $ 10,670 $ 2023 $ (35,687) $ 2024 $ (85,631) $ 2025 $ (139,518) $ 2026 $ (176,741) $ 2027 $ (216,733) $ 2028 $ (259,659) $ 2029 $ (167,466) $ 2030 $ (67,509)· $ 2031 $ 40,180 $
City of Pickering - 2017 Development Charges Background Study Cash Flow Analysis
Stormwater Management- Other Non-Residential
Dev't Related Expenditures
Revenues GFA per Year
DC Rates w. Anticipated minus
Nominal Inflated (3%Nr) Inflation (3%Nr) Revenues Expenditures
(143,958) $ (148,277) 1,118,519 $ 0.10 $ 107,747 $ (40,530) (143,958) $ (152,725) 1,118,519 $ 0.10 $ 110,979 $ (41,746) (143,958) $ (157,307) 1,118,519 $ 0.10 $ 114,308 $ (42,998) (143,958) $ (162,026) 1,118,519 $ 0.11 $ 117,738 $ (44,288) (143,958) $ (166,887) 1,118,519 $ 0.11 $ 121,270 $ (45,617) (143,958) $ (171,893) 1,118,519 $ 0.11 $ 124,908 $ (46,985) (143,958) $ (177,050) 1,118,519 $ 0.12 $ 128,655 $ (48,395) (127,904) $ (162,025) 1,118,519 $ 0.12 $ 132,515 $ (29,510) (127,904) $ (166,885) 1,118,519 $ 0.12 $ 136,490 $ (30,395) (127,904) $ (171,892) 1,118,519 $ 0.13 $ 140,585 $ (31,307) (127,904) $ (177,049) 2,160,212 $ 0.13 $ 279,659 $ 102,611 (127,904) $ (182,360) 2,160,212 $ 0.13 $ 288,049 $ 105,689 (127,904) $ (187,831) 2,160,212 $ 0.14 $ 296,690 $ 108,860 (127,904) $ (193,466 1,080,106 $ 0.14 $ 152,796 $ (40,670
Page 119
Interest
Debenture (2.5% on DC Reserve
Financing positive Fund Closing balances & 5% Balance after Requirement
on negative Financing h,.,, .. .;,.,.,,.\
$ 3,768 $ 134,223 $ 2,834 $ 95,311 $ 1,845 $ 54,158 $ 800 $ 10,670 $ (740) $ (35,687) $ (2,959) $ (85,631) $ (5,491) $ (139,518) $ (7,714) $ (176,741) $ (9,597) $ (216,733) $ (11,619) $ (259,659) $ (10,418) $ (167,466) $ (5,731) $ (67,509) $ (1,171) $ 40,180 $ 490 $ ro:
198
Page 120
Appendix D - Long-term Capital and
Operating Cost Examination
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx
Appendix D - Long-term Capital and
Operating Cost Examination
Page 121
As a requirement of the D.C.A., 1997 under subsection 10(2)(c), an analysis must be
undertaken to assess the long-term capital and operating cost impacts for the capital
infrastructure projects identified within the D.C. As part of this analysis, it was deemed
necessary to isolate the incremental operating expenditures directly associated with
these capital projects, factor in cost savings attributable to economies of scale or cost
sharing where applicable, and prorate the cost on a per unit basis (i.e. square foot of
building space, per vehicle, etc.). This was undertaken through a review of the City's
2016 Financial Information Return.
In addition to the operational impacts, over time the initial capital projects will require
replacement. This replacement of capital is often referred to as lifecycle cost. By
definition, lifecycle costs are all the costs which are incurred during the life of a physical
asset, from the time its acquisition is first considered, to the time it is taken out of
service for disposal or redeployment. The method selected for lifecycle costing is the
sinking fund method which provides that money will be contributed annually and
invested, so that those funds will grow over time to equal the amount required for future
replacement. The following factors samples of what were utilized to calculate the
annual replacement cost of the capital projects (annual contribution = factor x capital
asset cost) and are based on an annual growth rate of -1% (net of inflation) over the
average useful life of the asset:
Lifecycle Cost: Lifecycle Cost:
Asset Average Useful Life (Years)
Factor
Facilities, Buildings 40 0.02759
Roads and Related 20 0.05531
Rolling Stock and Equipment 10 0.10547
Fire Vehicles 15 0.07201
Infrastructure 40 0.03034
Parks Related 30 0.03864
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx
199
200
Page 122
Table D-1 depicts the annual operating impact resulting from the proposed gross capital
projects at the time they are all in place. It is important to note that, while municipal
program expenditures will increase with growth in population, the costs associated with
the new infrastructure (i.e. facilities) would be delayed until the time these works are in
place.
Table D-1 Operating and Capital Expenditure Impacts for Future Capital Expenditures
ANNUAL ANNUAL TOTAL ANNUAL
SERVICE LIFECYCLE OPERATING EXPENDITURES
EXPENDITURES EXPENDITURES
1. Transportation 3,597,036 819,501 4,416,538
2. Stormwater Management 329,725 398,784 728,509
3. Other Services Related to a Highway 646,471 2,185,977 2,832,448
4. Protection Services 1,010,992 16,530,129 17,541 '121
5. Parks and Recreation Services 5,218,687 7,965,692 13,184,379
6. Library Services 976,115 5,737,381 6,713,496
7. Administration Studies -
Total 11,779,027 33 637 465 45,416,492
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx
Page 123
Appendix E - Proposed D.C. By-law
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final. docx
201
202
Page 124
The Corporation of the City of Pickering
By-law No. __ /17
Being a By-law Regarding Development Charges
Whereas, pursuant to subsection 2(1) of the Development Charges Act, 1997 (the Act), the council of a municipality may by by-law impose development charges against land to pay for increased capital costs required due to increased needs for servicing arising from development of the area to which the By-law applies; and
Whereas, the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering approved the City of Pickering Development Charge Background Study, dated October 5, 2017, as amended, prepared by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.;
And Whereas the Council has made the Background Study and proposed Development Charges By-law available to the public at least sixty days prior to by-law passage and two weeks prior to the public meeting and has given notice in accordance with Section 12 of the Act of its development charges proposal and a public meeting was held on November 6, 2017
And Whereas the Council has heard all persons who applied to be heard in objection to, or in support of, the proposed Development Charge By-law at such public meeting, and provided a subsequent period for written communications to be made;
And Whereas the Council in adopting the Development Charge Background Study directed that development charges be imposed on land under development or redevelopment within the geographical limits of the municipality as hereinafter provided.
Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows:
1. ( 1)
Part I Application
Subject to subsection (2), this By-law applies to all lands whether or not the land or use is exempt from taxation under Section 3 of the Assessment Act.
(2) This By-law shall not apply to land that is owned by and used for the purposes of,
(a) a board of education as defined under subsection 1 (1) of the Education Act;
(b) any municipality or local board thereof;
(c) the development of a non-residential farm building used for bona fide agricultural purposes;
(i) Notwithstanding subsection 2(c) the exemption will not apply to the development charges calculated with respect to Transportation Services, Protection Services, and Other Services Related to a Highway;
2.
Page 125
(d) a building or structure that is used in connection with a place of worship and is exempt from taxation under the Assessment Act as a result;
(e) development where:
(i) no additional dwelling units are being created; or (ii) no additional non-residential gross floor area is being added;
or
(f) nursing homes and hospitals.
(3) An owner who has obtained a demolition permit and demolished an existing dwelling unit or a non-residential building in accordance with the provisions .of the Building Code Act shall not be subject to the development charge under subsection (1) with respect to the development- being replaced, provided that:
(1)
(a) the building permit for the replacement residential units or nonresidential area is issued not more than 5 years after the date of demolition; and
(b) that the applicant has provided proof that the building being demolished was subject to, and paid a development charges under a prior by-law or a lot levy under by-law 3322/89; and
(c) that any dwelling units or additional non-residential floor area created in excess of what was demolished shall be subject to the development charge calculated under Section 6 and 11, respectively.
(d) notwithstanding subsection 3(a), for building permit issuance occurring between January 1, 2018 and June 29, 2018 demolition must have occurred no more than 10 years prior to be eligible for the redevelopment credit.
Subject to subsection (2), development charges shall apply, and shall be calculated, paid and collected in accordance with the provisions of this Bylaw, in respect of land to be developed for residential use, non-residential use, or both where the development requires,
(a) the passing of a zoning by-law or of an amendment to a zoning bylaw under Section 34 of the Planning Act;
(b) the approval of a minor variance under Section 45 of the Planning Act;
(c) a conveyance of land to which a by-law passed under subsection 50(7) of the Planning Act, applies;
(d) the approval of a plan of subdivision under Section 51 of the Planning Act;
(e) a consent under Section 53 of the Planning Act;
203
204
3.
Page 126
(f) the approval of a description under Section 50 of the Condominium Act; or
(g) the issuing of a permit under the Building Code Act, in relation to a building or structure.
(2) Subsection (1) shall not apply in respect of:
(1)
(a) local services, related to a plan of subdivision or within the area to which the plan relates, to be installed or paid for by the owner as a condition of approval under Section 51 of the Planning Act;
(b) local services to be installed or paid for by the owner as a condition of approval under Section 53 of the Planning Act.
Where two or more of the actions• described in subsection 2(1) are required before land to. Which a development charge applies can be developed, only one development charge shall be calculated, paid and collected in accordance with the provisions of this By-law.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), more than one development charge by- law may apply to the same area and if two or more of the actions described in subsection 2(1) occur at different times, and if the subsequent action has the effect of increasing the need for services as designated in Sections 5 and 1 O,an additional development charge shall be calculated, paid and collected in accordance with the provisions of this By-law.
Part II Residential Development Charges
4. In this Part,
(a) "apartment building" means a residential building or the residential portion of a mixed-use building consisting of more than 3 dwelling units, which dwelling units have a common entrance to grade, but does not include a triplex, semi-detached duplex, semi-detached triplex, townhouse or stacked townhouse;
(b) "apartment" means a dwelling unit in an apartment building;
(c) "bedroom" means any room used, or designed or intended for use, as sleeping quarters;
(d) "development charge" means residential development charge;
(e) "dwelling unit" means a room or suite of rooms used, or designed or intended for use by one person or persons living together, in which culinary and sanitary facilities are provided for the exclusive use of such person or persons;
(f) "garden suite" means a one-unit detached, temporary residential structure containing bathroom and kitchen facilities that is ancillary for an existing residential structure and that is designed to be portable;
(g) "grade" means the average level of finished ground adjoining a dwelling at all exterior walls;
Page 127
(h) "gross floor area" means the total floor area, measured between the outside of exterior walls or between the outside of exterior walls and the centre line of party walls dividing the building from another building, of all floors above the average level of finished ground adjoining the building at its exterior walls;
(i) "hospital" means land, buildings or structures used, or designed or intended for use as defined in the Public Hospitals Act, R.S.O. 1990, c:P.40 as amended;
U) "Live Work unit" is as defined in the City's zoning by-laws;
(k) "nursing home" means a building owned and operated on a non-profit basis but excluding any building or part of a building which is comprised of dwelling units;
(I) "residential use" means lands, buildings or structures used, or designed or intended for use as a home or residence of one or more individuals, and shall include, but is not limited to, a single detached dwelling, a semidetached dwelling, a townhouse, a plex, a stacked townhouse, an apartment building, a mobile home, a retirement residence and a residential dwelling unit accessory to a non-residential use;
(m) "retirement residence" means a residential building or the residential portion of a mixed-use building which provides accommodation for persons of retirement age, where common facilities for the preparation And consumption of food are provided for the residents of the building, and where each unit or living accommodation has separate sanitary facilities, less than full culinary facilities and a separate entrance from a common hall;
(n) "retirement residence unit" means a unit within a retirement residence;
(o) "semi-detached dwelling" means one pf a pair of dwelling units attached together horizontally above or below grade or both above and below grade;
(p) "single-attached dwelling" means one of a group of not less than three adjacent dwelling units attached together horizontally by above grade common walls;
(q) "single-detached dwelling" means a single dwelling unit which is freestanding, separate and detached from any other building or structure.
5. Development charges against land to be developed for residential use shall be based upon the services designated in Schedule "A", which are provided by the City.
6. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Part, development charges against land to be developed for residential use shall be calculated, paid and collected at the rates per residential unit set out in Schedule "C";
(2) Residential development located within Seaton lands, as shown in Schedule 8, is subject to the Seaton Transportation funding arrangement and not to the Transportation charge applicable to development in the rest of Pickering;
205
206
7.
8.
Page 128
(3) The development charges imposed on a retirement residence unit under subsection (1) shall be payable at the rate applicable to an apartment of one bedroom and smaller;
(4) Development charges against land to be developed for a Live Work unit shall be subject to the-residential rates.
(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), Section 6 shall not apply in respect of a renovation, addition or installation which involves the creation of:
(a) one or two additional dwelling units in an existing single-detached dwelling;
(b) an additional dwelling unit in any other existing residential building; or
(c) garden suites.
(2) Notwithstanding clause (1 )(a) of this Section, development charges shall be calculated, paid and collected in accordance with Section 6 where the total gross floor area of the additional unit or units is greater than the total gross floor 1; 1 rea of the existing dwelling unit.
(3) Notwithstanding clause {1 )(b) of this Section, development charges shall be calculated, paid and collected in accordance with Section 6 where the additional unit has a gross floor area greater than,
(1)
(a) in the case of a semi-detached dwelling or single attached dwelling, the gross floor area of the dwelling unit already in the building; or
(b) in the case of any other residential building; the gross floor area of the smallest dwelling unit contained in the residential building.
Where non-residential floor area is to be converted to residential space, a charge shall be paid for any new residential units created, less the amount of the charge which would be payable if the existing non-residential space being converted were being constructed, but in no case shall the net charge be less than zero.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection 8(1 ), development charge credits for the conversion of an existing building from one principal use to another will only be provided where the applicant has provided proof of payment of a development charges under a previous by-law or a lot levy under by-law 3322/89 with regard to the building to be converted.
Part Ill Non-Residential Development Charges
9. In this Part,
(a) "agricultural use" means lands, buildings or structures, excluding any portion thereof used as a dwelling unit or for a commercial use, used or designed or intended for use for the purpose of a bona fide farming· operation including, but not limited to, animal husbandry, dairying, livestock, fallow, field crops, removal of sod, forestry, fruit farming, greenhouses, horticulture, market gardening, pasturage, poultry keeping, and equestrian facilities;
(b) "development charge" means non-residential development charge;
(c) "grade" means the average level of finished ground adjoining a building at all exterior walls;
Page 129
(d) "existing industrial building" means a building used for or in connection with:
(i) manufacturing, producing, processing, storing or distributing something;
(ii) research or development in connection with manufacturing, producing or processing something;
(iii) retail sales by a manufacturer, producer or processor of something they manufactured, produced or processed, if the retail sales are at the site where the manufacturing, production or processing takes place; or
(iv) office or administrative purposes, if they are:
(1) carried out with respect to manufacturing, producing, processing, storage or distributing or something, and In or attached to the building or structure used for that manufacturing, producing, processing, storage or distribution;
(2) in or attached to the building or structure used for that manufacturing, producing, processing, storage or distribution;
(e) "gross floor area" means the total floor area, measured between the outside of exterior walls or between the outside of exterior walls and the centre line of party walls dividing the building from another building, of all floors above the average level of finished ground adjoining the building at its exterior walls;
(f) "net hectare" means the area in hectares of a parcel of land exclusive of the following:
(i) lands conveyed or to be conveyed to the City of Pickering or a local board thereof or the Region or a local board thereof;
(ii) lands conveyed or to be conveyed to the Ministry of Transportation for the construction of provincial highways;
(iii) hazard lands conveyed or to be conveyed to a conservation authority as a condition of development;
(iv) lands identified as "Natural Heritage System" pursuant to the Central Pickering Development Plan; and
(v) storm water management facility areas;
(g) "non-residential" means designed, adapted or used for any purpose other than a dwelling unit or dwelling units, or accessory uses or spaces to a dwelling or dwellings;
207
208
Page 130
(h) "total floor area" means the sum total of the areas of the floor whether above or below grade, measured between the exterior faces of the exterior walls of the building or structure or from the centre line of a common wall separating two uses; and
(i) includes the area of mezzanine as defined in the Ontario Building Code; and
(ii) excludes those areas used exclusively as mechanical areas or for parking garages or structures.
1 0. Development charges against land to be developed for non-residential use shall be based upon the services designated in Schedule "A", which are provided by the City.
11 (1) Subject to the provisions of this Part, development charges against land to be developed for non-residential use shall be calculated, paid and collected at the rates set out in Schedule "C":
(2) Non-residential development located within Seaton Lands in Schedule B is subject to the Seaton Transportation funding arrangement and not to the Transportation charge applicable to development in the rest of Pickering. Further, non-residential development located within the Seaton Prestige Employment Lands is subject to the charge per net hectare set out in Schedule "C";
(3) The development charges in subsection 11 (2) shall be calculated based on the number of net hectares of the entire parcel of land on which development will occur.
(4) If a development includes the enlargement of the gross floor area of an existing industrial building, the amount of the development charge that is payable In respect of the enlargement will be determined as follows:
12. (1)
(a) if the gross floor area is enlarged by 50 percent or less, the amount of the development charge in respect of the enlargement is zero; and
(b) if the gross floor area is enlarged by more than 50 percent, the amount of the development charge in respect of the enlargement is the amount of the development charge that would otherwise be payable multiplied by the fraction determined as follows:
(i) determine the amount by which the enlargement in gross floor area exceeds 50 percent of the gross floor area lawfully constructed at the time of building permit application; and
(ii) divide the amount determined under paragraph (i) by the amount of the enlargement.
(c) for the purposes of calculating the floor area of the existing industrial building, floor area created by a previous enlargement shall not be included.
Where residential floor area is to be converted to non-residential floor area, a charge shall be paid for any new non-residential space created, less the amount of the charge which would be payable if the existing residential units
Page 131
being converted were being constructed, but in no case shall the net charge be less than zero.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection 12(1 ), development charge credits for the conversion of an existing building from one principal use to another will only be provided where the applicant has provided proof of payment of a development charge under a prior by-law or a lot levy under by-law 3322/89 with regard to the building to be converted.
Part IV Administration
13. Development charges against land to be developed for residential uses, nonresidential uses, or both, shall be calculated, paid and collected as follows:
(a) development charges agains.t that portion of the land to be developed for residential use shall be calculated, paid and collected on a per dwelling unit of residential use basis in accordance with Part II and Schedule "C" of this By-law and in the case of a mixed-use building or structure, upon the residential uses in the mixed use buildings or structures, according to the type of residential use;
(b) development charge against that portion of the land to be developed for non-residential use shall be calculated, paid and collected in accordance with Part Ill and Schedule "C" of this By-law and in the case of a mixed- use building or structure, upon the non-residential uses in the mixed-use building or structure.
14. (1) Development charges shall be payable in full on the date that the building permit is issued in relation to a building or structure on land to which a development charge applies.
(2) No building permits shall be issued by the City for the construction of any building or structure on land to which a development charge applies until the applicable development charge has been paid in full to the City.
(3) Where an owner has paid to the City, prior to the enactment of this By-law, in relation to a building or structure on land to which a development charge applies,
(a) a charge against development pursuant to an obligation to do so in a subdivision agreement, condominium agreement, development agreement or other agreement with the City;
(b) a fee as a condition of obtaining a consent to create a lot, other than the application fee; or
(c) a lot levy pursuant to By-law 3322/89,
and the building permit for that building or structure has not been issued prior to the enactment of this By-law, the owner shall be credited with the amount so paid, up to the amount of the development charge payable, as part of the development charge payable hereunder when the building permit is issued.
209
210
Page 132
15. (1) Monies received from payment of development charges shall be maintained in a separate reserve fund for each service designated in Schedule "A", plus interest earned thereon.
(2) Monies received for the payment of development charges shall be used only in accordance with the provisions of s.35 of the Act.
(3) The amounts contained in the reserve funds established under this Section shall be invested, with any income received credited to the development charge reserve funds in relation to which the investment income applies.
16. (1) The development charges referred to in Sections 6 and 11 apply to all permit applications received on or after January 1, 2018. These rates shall be adjusted annually, without amendment to this By-law, as of July 1 each year, commencing in 2019, in accordance with the change in the index for the most recently available annual period ending March 31 for the Statistics Canada Quarterly, Construction Price Statistics, Catalogue Number 62-007.
(2) The indexed development charges rates effective July 1 each year shall not apply to permit applications received prior to the July 1 effective date, provided:
(i) the permit application is complete in terms of the applicant's submission requirements set out in the building code and the City's Building By-law;
(ii) applicable law approvals prescribed in the building code have been obtained or applied for; and
(iii) the building permit or a conditional building permit is issued for all or part of the building on or before July 15 of that year.
17. Development charges are payable by cash or certified cheque at the applicable rates or as otherwise may be approved by Council.
18. Council may consider allowing a person to perform work that relates to a service to which this By-law relates and if it agrees shall give the person a credit towards a development charge otherwise payable in exchange for the related Work.
19. This By-law shall be administered by the Corporate Services Department and applied by the Chief Building Official.
20. The following schedules to this by-law form an integral part of this by-law:
Schedule "A"- Designated Municipal Services Under this By-law. Schedule "B" - City of Pickering and Seaton Lands. Schedule "C" - Schedule of Development Charges Effective January 1, 2018.
21. This By-law shall come into force and effect at 12:01 am on January 1, 2018 for a term not to exceed five years from the date it comes into force, unless it is repealed at an earlier date.
22. By-law No. 7324/13 shall be repealed as of the date this By-law comes into force.
Page 133
By-law passed this 11th day of December, 2017.
Mayor
City Clerk
211
212
Page 134
Schedule "A" Designated Municipal Services Under this By-law
(a) Transportation Services, including roads, structures, sidewalks, streetlights, traffic signals and services related thereto;
(b) Other Services Related to a Highway, including facilities, vehicles and equipment;
(c) Protection Services, including facilities, vehicles, equipment and services related thereto;
(d) Parks and Recreation Services, including parkland development, trail development, facilities, vehicles, equipment and services related thereto;
(e) Library Services, including facilities, furnishings, equipment and services related thereto, including circulating and non-circulating materials generally provided to library users by public libraries;
(f) Administration, including development-related capital studies and services related thereto;
(g) Stormwater Management, including storm drainage and management works, equipment and services related thereto.
Page 135
Schedule "B" City of Pickering anp Seaton Lands
213
Schedule "C" City of Pickering Schedule of Development Charges
Effective January 1, 2018
RESIDENTIAL NON-RESIDENTIAL
Single and Apartments-Service Semi-
Apartments-Bachelor Other
(per ff of
Detached 2 Bedrooms
and 1 Multiples Total Floor
+ Area) 2 Dwelling Bedroom
Municipal Wide Services:
Other Services Related to a Highway 441 279 197 356 0.15
Protection Services 889 562 398 718 0.34
Parks and Recreation Services 4,851 3,065 2,171 3,917 0.39
Library Services 1,086 686 486 877 0.08
Administration Studies 277 175 124 224 0.10
Stormwater Management 288 182 129 233 0.10
Total Municipal Wide Services 7,832 4,949 3,505 6,325 1.15
Outside of Seaton Lands
Transportation 1 6,517 4,117 2,917 5,261 1.83
Total Services Outside of Seaton Lands 6,517 4,117 2,917 5,261 1.83
Seaton 7,832 4,949 3,505 6,325 1.15
Rest of Pickering 14,349 9,066 6,422 11,586 2.98
1. Subject to a separate agreement outside of the Development Charges Act concerning the provision of Transportation requirements in addition to other funding contributions
(per net Ha of Prestige
Employment Landin Seaton)
5,451
11,431
13,261
2,605
3,560
3,503
39,812
39,812
2. Does not apply to prestige employment development in Seaton, as that development is subject to the per net Ha land area charge instead.
Page 136
Page 137
Appendix F - Local Service Policy
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx
215
216
Page 138
Appendix F - Draft Local Service Policy This Appendix sets out the City's General Policy Guidelines on Development Charges
(D.C.) and local service funding for Services Related to a Highway, Stormwater
Management, and Parkland Development. The guidelines outline, in general terms, the
size and nature of engineered infrastructure that is included in the study as a D.C.
project, versus infrastructure that is considered as a local service, to be emplaced
separately by landowners, pursuant to a development agreement.
The following policy guidelines are general principles by which staff will be guided in
considering development applications. However, each application will be considered, in
the context of these policy guidelines as subsection 59(2) of the Development Charges
Act, 1997, as amended (D.C.A.) on its own merits having regard to, among other
factors, the nature, type and location of the development and any existing and proposed
development in the surrounding area, as well as the location and type of services
required and their relationship to the proposed development and to existing and
proposed development in the area.
A. SERVICES RELATED TO A HIGHWAY
Roads:
Development will be required to provide local services including roadworks,
sidewalks, walkways, local storm sewers, streetlights, structures, utilities and other
items identified in a subdivision or development agreement, for all roads, and/or
lanes a) within the plan of subdivision, b) existing, that have lots fronting onto it, c)
adjacent to the plan of subdivisions but not separated by a reserve, and required to
provide access from the development to an open and maintained road. The reserve
will only be required where the municipality requires restricted access.
Traffic Control:
Development will be required to provide all traffic control measures (including
fencing, line painting, pedestrian signals, and tactile warning surfaces) identified
through the approval process on roads a) within the plan of subdivision, and b)
adjacent to the plan of subdivision or c) intersecting the plan of subdivision.
Should the development be of a large enough scale to be required to install a
signalized intersection, identified through the approval process, the City will
supplement the cost only if the signalized intersection is one identified in the by-law.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx
Page139
B. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
The following guidelines are used to identify Stormwater Management Facilities
internal to development
a) the conveyance system within creeks internal to a development whereby local
benefit is apparent or re-alignment is necessary for the development of adjacent
lands;
b) a share of the cost of culverts based on the local benefits derived;
c) all stormwater management facilities, outfalls and localized creek or channel
improvements related to a development plan will be cost-shared among all
landowners within the planning area through Developer Cost-Sharing
Agreements; and
d) any stormwater quality and quantity control measures required to mitigate
impacts of development (i.e. SWM ponds, superpipes, oil-grit separators, low
impact development measures (LIDs), such as bioswales, rain gardens,
infiltration trenches, rain barrels, offsite plantings etc.).
All minor/local stormwater management facilities internal to a development (including
storm sewer pipe networks, stormwater management ponds, plunge pools,
creek/channel stabilization measures, LIDs etc.), are the responsibility of the direct
developer under section 59, subsection (2) of the Development Charges Act (as a
local service), thus have not been identified in this study.
Development will be required to provide a storm sewer system sized to include all
upstream lands and/or proposed developments, including the outfall section of the
storm sewer to an approved location. The storm sewer system may also require and
must include all lands and/or easements, structures, erosion and sedimentation
controls, quality and quantity measures (SWM ponds, oil-grit separators, LIDs etc.)
and restoration and/or replanting programs. Should over-sizing for upstream
development be required, a front-ending agreement or site-specific development
charge (amending by-law) will be reviewed and implemented if deemed appropriate.
C. PARKLAND DEVLOPMENT
With respect to parkland dedication, it is assumed that landowners, as part of their
subdivision agreements, will be required to undertake rough and fine grading for
overland flows and to seed and provision of municipal services (water, sanitary,
storm, and electrical) to the property line. The parkland development costs included
in the D.C. are supplementary to that work.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Fina/.docx
217