Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
FIN 23-13 Refer to FIN 29-13
City c :- Report to 1441-; Executive Committee PICKERING Report Number: FIN 23-13 Date: November 11, 2013 From: Paul Bigioni Director Corporate Services & City Solicitor Subject: Statutory Public Meeting Regarding Proposed 2013 Development Charge By-law and Background Study Recommendation: 1. That Report FIN 23-13 of the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor be received; 2. That Council receive for information the City of Pickering — Development Charges Background Study prepared by Watson &Associates Economists Ltd. dated October 25, 2013; 3. That all written submissions made at the November 11 Public Meeting or received in writing from the public by November 22 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 9, and, 4. That the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement these recommendations. Executive Summary: The City of Pickering collects development charges from new construction to pay a portion of growth-related capital costs. The City's current Development Charges (DC) By-law expires on July 31, 2014. A new DC Background Study has been prepared pursuant to the Development Charges Act, 1997, as amended (the DC Act) The purpose of this Report is to present the 2013 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 increase over current levels is primarily the result of revised growth forecasts and updated capital programs. The proposed increase in the residential DC is $2,433 for a residential detached unit. Even after adding Pickering's proposed increase to Durham Region's recently approved DC, the new DC rate on a detached residential unit would continue to result in Pickering having one of the lowest DC rates of the GTA municipalities. Pickering's new DC rate is between those of Ajax and Whitby. 1 Report FIN 23-13 November 11, 2013 Subject: Statutory Public Meeting Regarding Proposed Page 2 2013 Development Charge By-law and Background Study The proposed DC Background Study incorporates the principles of the Seaton Financial Impacts Agreement (FIA) approved by Council on October 28, 2013. The FIA requires the Seaton landowners to pay the City-wide DC for all services except roads. 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. The proposed By-law includes a longer transitional period and provides a grace period for the commencement of indexing. After the statutory meeting, it is proposed that staff review the submissions received from the public. Staff will bring forward a final report with a proposed DC By-law for Council's consideration at the December 9th Council meeting. The new Development Charge By-law will, if passed by Council, be effective on January 1, 2014. Financial Implications: The proposed DC background study includes a gross capital program of$352.1 million of which $219.5 million is to be recovered from DC's. The residual amount of$132.6 million consists of items such as the 10% statutory deduction for soft services and the "benefit to existing" deduction mandated by the DC Act. 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, the reductions for both soft services and benefit to existing are funded through the property tax base. Discussion: In April 2013, staff from all departments, including the Library participated in the initial meeting for the update to the DC Background Study. City staff have also been working on the Seaton Fiscal Impact Study (FIS) over the last two years. The Seaton capital plan outlined in the FIS document has been incorporated into the proposed 2013 DC Background Study. The FIS analysis includes both current and capital costs associated with Seaton. Projects identified within the DC Background Study are the result of continued growth in the City which drives the need for new infrastructure. Report CAO 05-13 dated October 28, 2013 recommends that Council authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the FIA. 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 agreement. (It is anticipated that the Seaton landowners will reach these targets by 2031). This results in 2 1 Report FIN 23-13 November 11, 2013 Subject: Statutory Public Meeting Regarding Proposed 0 Page 3 2013 Development Charge By-law and Background Study a lower overall DC rate for Seaton as compared to the rest of Pickering. This is justified on the basis that the landowners in Seaton are themselves funding and constructing the roads necessary to service Seaton, and are also providing voluntary additional financial support for infrastructure needed to service Seaton. City staff expect that the Seaton FIA will generate a surplus of approximately $18.5 million as at 2031 over and above the application of current tax rates towards the cost of constructing and operating the necessary infrastructure to service Seaton. It is anticipated that these additional funds will be applied to the City's share of development charges costs. Pickering Proposed DC Rates A comparison of the DC rates by component between current and proposed January 1, 2014 is presented below. Single Detached Residential Rate Comparison of July 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 Current Proposed Categories July 1, 2013 Change January, 2014 Development— Related Studies $92 $90 $182 Fire 273 326 599 Parks 448 1,197 1,645 Recreation 2,363 1,064 3,427 Library 542 283 825 Stormwater Management 1,435 -1,048 387 Operations 292 260 552 Transportation — Rest of Pickering 4,750 261 5,011 Total Rest of Pickering $10,195 $2,433 $12,628 Total Seaton $7,617 * Plus the cost of Seaton internal roads network and voluntary contributions As shown above, the DC rates have increased due to proposed capital plan as outlined in the DC Background Study—Appendix B. In addition, in some cases the 2009 benefit to existing development deductions which were generous, have been reduced, particularly in the case of Seaton. 3 Report FIN 23-13 November 11, 2013 Subject: Statutory Public Meeting Regarding Proposed Page '4 2013 Development Charge By-law and Background Study Non-Residential Rate Comparison of July 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 Current Proposed Categories July 1, 2013 Change January, 2014 Development— Related Studies $ - $0.08 $0.08 Fire - 0.26 0.26 Parks - 0.14 0.14 Recreation - 0.28 0.28 Library - 0.07 0.07 Stormwater Management 0.95 -0.78 0.17 Operations 0.24 0.24 Transportation — Rest of Pickering 3.12 -0.67 2.45 Total Rest of Pickering $4.07 -$0.38 $3.69 Total Seaton $1.24 The proposed changes to Pickering's DC rates are presented below: Rest of Comparison of Development Charges ($) Current Pickering Seaton Residential Single and Semi-Detached 10,195 12,628 7,617 Apts. Two or More Bedrooms 5,514 6,676 4,027 Apts. Less than Two Bedrooms 4,047 4,899 2,955 Other Dwellings (eg. Townhouses) 7,317 10,014 6,040 Non-Residential $4.07 $3.69 $1.24 The effective date for the new.DC rates is January 1, 2014. The DC rates presented above have decreased as compared to the October 2 version of the 2013 Background Study previously provided to Council. This is mainly due to a change in funding responsibility between the Region and the City. The City initially included the construction cost of multi-use paths on the Whites Road Bridge, however, this cost is now the responsibility of the Region. Competitive DC Rates The graph below shows Pickering's proposed single detached residential DC rate in comparison with its Durham Lakeshore neighbours. 4 Report FIN 23-13 November 11, 2013 Subject: Statutory Public Meeting Regarding Proposed Page 5 2013 Development Charge By-law and Background Study Single Family Residential Development Charges ($) 17,000 -7 15,000 -7 !!,,4,-:_i4 --,,q,,,,, 13,000 4 g 11,000 9,000 -Z .,,,,,,,L,1 ...4 ..:,,, ,=,-a -7. f t'---:-. 7,000 ,, _ '- 1 `^ It t o- -, 5,000 As the above graph indicates, Pickering has competitive DC rates. Although the increase in the residential.single detached unit rate is 23.8%, Pickering still maintains a very competitive position, especially given its proximity to Toronto. Out of all the communities that border Toronto, Pickering has the lowest DC rates, as shown below. • Single Family Residential Development Charges ($) (Includes City, Region and School Boards) 75,000 - $63;941--$65219 65,000 -7. $-5477.30—$557.164159,365- ---1 , 55,000 I 1 45,000 � $ a;t — - 1 35,000 25,000 - 15,000 1 r 1 5,000 -, t_ r/ 5 Report FIN 23-13 November 11, 2013 Subject: Statutory Public Meeting Regarding Proposed Page 6 2013 Development Charge By-law and Background Study As the above graph indicates, Pickering will remain financially competitive in terms of development costs. In other words, Pickering's proposed DC rates are not an economic disincentive for future growth. Indexing DC's may be adjusted each year based on the Non-residential Building Construction index in order to keep DC revenues current with construction costs. Previously, the City's DC rates were indexed as of July 1 each year. Staff are proposing that the new DC's be indexed starting on July 1, 2015 instead of July 1, 2014 because the new DC By-law will only have been in effect for 6 months as of July 1, 2014. Transition to New Rates The proposed DC By-law has a transitional policy. Basically, any complete building permit applications received prior to January 1, 2014 and issued by April 1, 2014 will be subject to the old DC rate. This policy provides for a three month grace period similar to some other jurisdictions. Communications Plan 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 is scheduled for November 11, 2013 and was advertised in the Pickering News Advertiser on October 16, 2013. In addition, reference to the Statutory Public Meeting has been advertised on the City's website. On October 8th, staff reached out to the development industry by distributing the draft DC Background Study and holding a stakeholder consultation on October 16th. Eight representatives of the development and business community attended the stakeholders meeting. Cam Watson from Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. attended the stakeholders meeting and explained the various aspects of the DC Background Study. Next Steps Following receipt of comments at the Public Meeting, and written submissions no later than November 22nd, 2013, staff will bring forward a final report and proposed DC By- law for Council's consideration at the Council meeting to be held on December 9th 2013. If enacted, the new DC By-law will be effective January 1, 2014. 6 Report FIN 23-13 November 11, 2013 Subject: Statutory Public Meeting Regarding Proposed Page 7 2013 Development Charge By-law and Background Study Prepared By: Approved / Endorsed By: Stan Karwowski Paul Big'.0 Division Head, Finance & Treasurer Director, o tor.. e Services & City Solicitor Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer 7 ATTACHMENT# I TO REPORT# fr t a3-13 • • f; Watson &Associates CITY OF PICKERING ECONOMISTS LTD. i - DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BACKGROUND STUDY r r Z. fi^ I 1 Plaza Three 101-2000 Argentia Rd. Mississauga,Ontario Canada L5N 1V9 Phone:(905)272-3600 Fax:(905)272-3602 OCTOBER 25, 2013 e-mail:info@watson-econ.ca www.watson-econ.ca Planning for growth 8 CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (i) 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Development Charges Act(DCA) Background Study Requirements 1-1 2. CURRENT CITY OF PICKERING POLICY 2.1 Schedule of Charges 2-1 2.2 Services Covered 2-1 2.3 Timing of DC Calculation and Payment 2-1 2.4 Indexing 2-2 2.5 Phasing In and Reductions in the Calculated Charge 2-2 2.6 Redevelopment Credit 2-2 , 2.7 Non-Statutory Exemptions 2-3 2.8 Credit for Previous Payments 2-3 2.9 Reserve Funds 2-3 2.10 Seaton Lands 2-3 3. ANTICIPATED DEVELOPMENT IN PICKERING 3.1 Requirements of the Act 3-1 3.2 Basis of Population, Household and Non-Residential Gross Floor Area Forecast 3-1 4. THE RESULTANT INCREASE IN THE NEED FOR SERVICE 4.1 Introduction 4-1 4.2 Services Potentially Involved 4-1 4.3 The Increase in the Need for Service 4-1 4.4 Local Service Policy 4-4 4.5 Credits Carried Forward 4-4 4.6 Eligible Debt and Committed Excess Capacity 4-4 4.7 Council's Assurance 4-4 • 5. DCA CALCULATION REQUIREMENTS 5.1 Introduction 5-1 5.2 Level of Service Cap 5-1 5.3 Uncommitted Excess Capacity 5-2 5.4 Benefit to Existing Development 5-2 5.5 Grants, Subsidies and Other Contributions 5-4 5.6 Post-period Capacity 5-4 5.7 DC Reserve Fund Balances 5-4 5.8 Other Deductions 5-5 5.9 Cost Differentiation by Type of Development 5-5 5.10 Area-specific Charges 5-6 6. DEVELOPMENT CHARGE RULES 6.1 Introduction 6-1 6.2 The Amount of the Development Charge Payable in Any Particular Case 6-1 6.3 Development Charge Exemptions 6-2 6.4 Phasing-in of Development Charges 6-2 6.5 Indexing of Development Charges 6-2 6.6 The Application of Development Charges to Redevelopment 6-2 Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 9 CONTENTS Page 7. BY-LAW ADOPTION AND IMPLEMENTATION 7.1 Introduction 7-1 7.2 Long Term Capital and Operating Cost Examination 7-1 7.3 Consultation 7-1 7.4 The By-law Adoption Process 7-1. 7.5 By-law Implementation 7-2 APPENDICES A ANTICIPATED DEVELOPMENT IN PICKERING 2013-2031 A-1 B DEVELOPMENT CHARGE RECOVERABLE COST CALCULATIONS B-1 C DEVELOPMENT CHARGE CALCULATION C-1 D LONG TERM CAPITAL AND OPERATING COST EXAMINATION D-1 E DEVELOPMENT CHARGE ECONOMIC IMPACT MATERIAL E-1 F DRAFT CITY OF PICKERING DEVELOPMENT CHARGE BY-LAW (2013) F-1 II Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickeding12013 DC StudylPickering de study docx 10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx • 11 • (i) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. Purpose of this Background Study 1.1 This Background Study has been prepared pursuant to Section 10 of the Development Charges Act, 1997 (DCA) and, together with the proposed by-law, •is being made available to the public, as required by Section 12 of the Act, more than two weeks prior to the public meeting of Council, which is to be held on November 11, 2013. 1.2 The charges calculated represent those which can be recovered under the DCA, 1997, based on the City's capital spending plans and other assumptions which are responsive to the requirements of the DCA. A decision is required by Council, after receiving input at the public meeting and other consultation sessions and receiving the completed study and by-law, as to the magnitude of the charge it wishes to establish,for residential, commercial, industrial and/or institutional development. Property tax, user rate or other funding will be required to finance any potentially DC-recoverable capital costs which are not included in the charge which is adopted. 1.3 Other decisions are also involved in finalizing development charge policy and the by-law, including exemptions, phasing in, indexing, applicability to the redevelopment of land, and the schedule of charges by type of land use. It is the purpose of the public meeting and consultation activity, to obtain input on these matters. 2. The 2013 Development Charge Calculation 2.1 Table ES-1 presents the proposed schedule of City-wide charges, based on the costing and related assumptions contained in Appendices B & C, in comparison with the City's existing development charges. The calculated charges are reflected in the proposed by- law contained in Appendix F. 2.2 The residential development charge for all services except stormwater management has increased significantly. The stormwater charge has declined significantly because development in Seaton is now subject to it, but has not produced an increase in the capital program. That is because Seaton does not drain to the watersheds involved and is meeting its own SWM requirements separately. 2.3 The other charges have increased primarily for three reasons: a) The "quality" service level measure was increased in most cases, as a result of a more detailed replacement cost analysis carried out by Suncorp Valuations; b) In some cases, those 2009 benefit to existing development deductions which were generous, have been reduced, particularly in the case of Seaton, which is a new community; Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering do study.docx 12 - (ii) TABLE ES-1 CITY OF PICKERING COMPARISON OF DEVELOPMENT CHARGES Residential Non-residential Charge Per Single Detached Unit Per Sq.ft. of GFA4 Current Calculated Herein Change Current Calculated Herein Change July 1, 2013 July 1, 2013 3 Development-related Studies $ 92 $ 182 1.4% $ 90 $ - $ 0.08 2.2% $ 0.08 Fire $ 273 $ 599 4.7% $ 326 $ - $ 0.26 7.0% $ 0.26 Parks $ 448 $ 1,645 13.0% $ 1,197 $ - $ 0.14 3.8% $ 0.14 Recreation $ 2,363 $ 3,427 27.1% $ 1,064 $ - $ 0.28 7.6% $ 0.28 Library $ 542 $ 825 6.5% $ 283 $ - $ 0.07 1.9% $ 0.07 w • Stormwater Management $ 1,435 $ 387 3.1% $ (1,048) $ 0.95 $ 0.17 1 4.6% $ (0.78) Operations $ 292 $ 552 4.4% $ 260 $ _ $ 0.24 6.5% $ 0.24 Transportation - Rest of Pickering $ ' 4,750 $ 5,011 39.7% $ 261 $ 3.12 $ 2.45 66.4% $ (0.67) - Seaton Separate Coverage n/a n/a TOTAL(Rest of Pickering) $ 10,195 $ 12,628 100.0% $ 2,433 $ 4.07 $ 3.69 100.0% $ (0.38) ! TOTAL Seaton $ 7,617 2 $ 1.24 $5,453/net Ha($2,207/acre) for Seaton Prestige Employment Lands. 2 Plus the cost of transportation servicing and capital contributions. 3 DCs for services other than Roads and SWM were not enacted. 4 A separate and equivalent land area charge is shown in Schedule C of the proposed by-law for Seaton Prestige Employment development. 4'•'ic i:.,.rira;'.20 i(I C^J..., ods 120;: Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx . (iii) • c) The large amount of new development anticipated in the City serves to reduce the relative size of the decline in occupancy of existing units, which increases the DC recoverable. 2.4 The non-residential charge has declined, despite the proposal to expand coverage from . only transportation and SWM, to include all services. This decline is primarily the result of the large reduction in the City-wide SWM charge. It declined more than in the case of residential, because of the high non-residential floor area per employee in Seaton. (The comparatively low number of employees reduces the cost calculation numerator, while the comparatively high non-residential floor area reduces the DC.) The non-residential transportation charge for Rest of Pickering declined, while the residential transportation charge increased somewhat. This is the result of an increase in forecast non-residential floor space per employee. 2.5 Even with the proposed increase and Durham Region's July 1, 2013 DC increase, residential development charges in Pickering are among the lowest in the GTA. They would be between the charges currently imposed in Ajax and Whitby in size. Further comparative information is provided in Appendix E. 2.6 Seaton development is proposed to be subject to the City-wide set of development charges, except in the case of transportation. In that case, Seaton is expected to fund and install its own local roads, as well as all City road oversizes and arterials. The Seaton development charge equivalent for doing so is approximately $2,000/SDU. Instead of paying this DC, the Seaton landowners have undertaken to fund and install the necessary road program (including funding contributions for particular Seaton-related external roads). 2.7 The charge in the Rest of Pickering for transportation is $5,011/SDU; however, if the City adopted a City-wide transportation charge, it would decline to approximately $3,000/ SDU as a result of adding Seaton's lower per unit costs. The saving to Seaton development, which is approximately $1,000/SDU provides the basis for a set of voluntary contributions to be made to the City's Operating Fund over time, in order to cover the tax share of various Seaton-related capital expenditures (as per the City's April 10, 2013 FIS). This road funding arrangement also provides further rationale for _Seaton's participation in funding a share of the City-wide SWM charge, in addition to its own SWM costs and this has served to reduce the City-wide SWM charge by approximately$650/SDU. 2.8 A land area-specific charge is applicable to prestige employment land in Seaton rather than the floor area charge applicable to all other non-residential development in Pickering. This is calculated as the City's non-residential building area charge (plus the • Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 14 (iv) Seaton area-specific roads arrangement) assessed on a land area, rather than a building area, basis.' This Seaton land area DC approach helps to ensure that the DC recovery will be complete, irrespective of the average building density involved. Otherwise, if the anticipated average building density is not achieved, DC revenues may not cover the capital costs involved. It also serves to encourage intensification (as subsequent phases of development on the site would not involve additional development charge payments). This encourages expedient buildout, discourages land banking and is attractive in terms of the City's cash flow timing. Finally, it essentially removes the entitlement for the 50% industrial expansion exemption, as no additional DC payment is involved in the case of expansion (as the entirety of the DC must be paid for each parcel, when the initial development occurs). 2.9 Table ES-2 summarizes the City's Development Related Capital Program (10-18 years in length, depending on the service involved) and the deductions made thereto, in accordance with the DCA. In summary, the gross development-related capital cost of the entire program is $352.1 million. Of this amount, $219.5 million has been determined to be DC-recoverable ($192.2 million from residential development and $26.8 million from industrial/commercial/institutional development(non-residential)). The difference between the gross and DC recoverable amounts comprises the following deductions, pursuant to the Development Charges Act: - $ 30.8 million Beyond 10 year Service Level Cap and Post Period Period - $ 88.8 million Benefit to Existing Development } Capacity . - $ 13.0 million Subsidies, Other Contributions, and 10% Stat. Deduction $132.6 million • Neither the additional servicing requirements nor the associated growth forecast for Northeast Pickering, which has been deferred, have been included in the DC calculation. 2.10 Table ES-3 sets out the existing and calculated charges by type of dwelling unit. The share of DC recoverable costs attributable to prestige employment land in Seaton is based on its percentage share of the increment in total employment in Pickering for the planning period. That number is then multiplied by the non-residential DC recoverable cost and divided by the net prestige employment land area to be developed over the same period. Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 15 •• (v) TABLE ES-2 INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS COVERED IN THE DC CALCULATION . ' MUNICIPALITY: City of Pickering Less: Potential DC Recoverable Cost Service Gross Ineligible re: Eligible Benefit to Other(e.g. Net Costs Capital Level of Increase Existing 10%Stat.& Benefiting Residential Non-Residential Cost Service' in Need Development' Grants,Landowner New Share Share Est. Contributions) Development Development-related Studies 4,830,000 - 4,830,000 1,014,000 78,888 3,737,113 2,914,948 822,165 Fire 16,099,999 3,289,039 12,810,960 357,774 - 12,453,186 9,713,485 2,739,701 Parkland Development 46,122,000 5,474,880 40,647,120 7,955,110 3,269:201 29,422,809 27,951,669 1,471,140 Recreation 72,016,646 - 72,016,646 3,888,372 6,812,827 61,315,447 58,249,674 3,065,772 Libraries 20,490,000 3,514,160 16,975,840 579,739 1,639,610 14,756,491 14,018,667 737,825. Operations Facilities&Vehicles 30,200,000 18,548,880 11,651,120 - 1,165,112 10,486,008 8,179,086 2,306,922 Transportation 2 90,031,985 - 90,031,985 28,055,714 - 61,976,271 51,440,305 10,535,966 �.► Streetlighting&Sidewalks 13,099,570 - 13,099,570 4,432,873 - 8,666,698 7,193,359 1,473,339 01 Traffic Signals 1,810,755 - 1,810,755 181,076 - 1,629,680 1,352,634 277,046 Stormwater 57,441,829 - 57,441,829 42,340,400 15,101,429 11,172,654 3,337,286 352,142,784 30,826,959 321,315,825 88,805,056 12,965,638 219,545,131 192,186,481 26,767,161 'Inclusive of post planning period capacity,where applicable. 2 Excludes Seaton Roads Program. • Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx (vi) TABLE ES-3 • CITY OF PICKERING 2013 CITY-WIDE DEVELOPMENT CHARGE CALCULATION Rest of Pickering Calculated Seaton Development Type Existing Charge Charge Calculated Charge' Residential(Per Dwelling Unit) Single Detached $ 10,195 $ 12,628 $ 7,617 • Apartments 2 Bedroom and Larger 5,514 6,676 4,027 Apartments Bachelor and 1 Bedroom 4,047 4,899 2,955 Other Dwellings 7,317 10,014 6,040 Non-Residential Development per sq.ft (gross floor area) $4.07 $ 3.69 $ 1.24 Seaton Prestige Employment Lands(per net Ha) N/A N/A $ 38,701 Plus the cost of transportation servicing and capital contributions. H 1r ick rir,g,201s 0^,Study.lPickcring DC Model 2013 xi=_gip_S 2.11 The following are the major modifications that have been made to the Draft October 2, 2013 version of the "City of Pickering Development Charges Background Study" in completing this October 25, 2013 document: a) Streetlighting and sidewalks capital program gross cost reduced by a total of $6,331,250, including: • RU-8 description changed and gross cost reduced by $1,406,250; • RU-9 cost reduced by $4,250,000, in order to reflect Regional funding responsibility for sidewalks; • Projects A-3 and A-4 deleted, as they are covered in the Seaton roads program. • b) s.s.16(1) of the proposed by-law in Appendix F was modified in order to clarify that the first annual indexing of the by-law is to occur as of July 1, 2015. c) s.s.16(3) was added to the proposed by-law, in order to introduce a transitional policy for the application of the new charge. d) The changes in the streetlighting and sidewalks capital program noted under a) were made to Schedule "C" of the by-law, as well as Schedule C-la, Table C-3, p. B-35 and Tables ES-1, ES-2 and'ES-3. e) The two new "multi-use path" projects on p. B-37 were removed, such that the totals match the calculation on p. C-12. Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 17 (vii) f) s.s.2(3) of the Draft By-law was deleted, as clarification is provided via s.s.16(3). 3. Council Approvals Sought • At this stage in the process, the Background Study and proposed DC by-law are being provided for information purposes, as part of the consultation process. At such time as that process is complete and final DC recommendations are made to Council, approval will be sought for: o the 2014 DC by-law; o the Background Study, including the development forecast, the growth-related capital program, the DC calculation and associated material, subject to any Addendum which may be produced prior to by-law adoption. 4. Acknowledgements The consultant wishes to acknowledge, with appreciation, the guidance, input and considerable efforts of Stan Karwowski and his staff, as well as the numerous City operating staff who were involved in the production of this Background Study. Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H.1Pickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study docx 18 1. INTRODUCTION Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 19 1-1 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Development Charges Act(DCA) Background Study Requirements 1.1.1 Introduction The DCA requires that a development charge background study must be completed by City Council before passing a development charge by-law. The mandatory inclusions in such a study are set out in s.10 of the DCA and in s.8 of O.Reg. 82/98, and are as follows: a) "the estimates under paragraph 1 of subsection 5(1) of the anticipated amount, type and location of development; (addressed in Chapter 3 of this report) b) the calculations under paragraphs 2 to 8 of subsection 5(1)for each service to which the development charge by-law would relate; (addressed in Appendix B of this report) c) an examination, for each service to which the development charge by-law would relate, of the long term capital and operating costs for capital infrastructure required for the service; (addressed in Appendix D of this report) d) the following for each service to which the development charge relates: 1. The total of the estimated capital costs relating to the service. 2. The allocation of the costs referred to in paragraph 1 between costs that would benefit new development and costs that would benefit existing development. 3. The total of the estimated capital costs relating to the service that will be incurred during the term of the proposed development charge by-law. 4. The allocation of the costs referred to in paragraph 3 between costs that would benefit new development. and costs that would benefit existing development. 5. The estimated and actual value of credits that are being carried forward relating to the service." (O.Reg. 82/98 s.8 and addressed in Appendix B of this report) A schedule of key development charge process dates proposed by the City of Pickering, is set out on the following page as Figure 1-1, consistent with the legislative requirements to consult with stakeholders in advance of adopting the successor DC by-law(s). Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 20 1-2 FIGURE 1-1 SCHEDULE OF KEY DEVELOPMENT CHARGE PROCESS DATES FOR THE CITY OF PICKERING STEP DATE 1. DC by-law update initiation April, 2013 2. Review Draft Background Study with September 16, 2013 staff 3. Stakeholder Consultation October 16, 2013 4. Statutory public meeting notice October 16, 2013 • 5. Proposed by-law and Background October 25, 2013 Study available to public 6. Statutory public meeting November 11, 2013 7. Council considers adoption of December 9, 2013 Background Study and passage of by- law 8. Newspaper and written notice given of By 20 days after passage by-taw passage 9. Last day for by-law appeal 40 days after passage 10. City makes available pamphlet(where By 60 days after inforce date by-law not appealed) • Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12o13 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 21 • 1-3 9.1.2 Pickering Development Charges 1. Development charges are payments made by new development in Pickering (and other municipalities) normally as part of the building permit approval and/or the subdivision/severance agreement process. These payments are made by all such new development, unless specifically exempt by the Development Charges Act or the City's DC by-law. 2. These payments are made for the initial capital requirements of providing services to new development anticipated over the planning period. All City-funded services are potentially. eligible for DC funding, except those specifically excluded via the Development Charges Act. 3. "Capital" is defined in the DCA to include the municipal cost to acquire, lease, construct or improve land or facilities, including rolling stock (7+ year life), furniture and equipment (other than computer equipment), library materials, as well as related study and financing costs. 4. The City of Pickering has imposed development charges under the DCA since 1991 and prior to that as lot levies pursuant to the Planning Act. The City's current DC by-law(No. 6978/09)came into effect on August 1, 2009 with a maximum life of 5 years. 5. This by-law provides for development charge payments which vary with the amount and type of new development(and land area in one case). • 6. These charges are indexed for inflation in accordance with the Statistics Canada Quarterly Construction Price Statistics annually, based on the prescribed Statcan index. 7. The monies collected under a DC by-law are maintained in separate reserve funds, one for each of the services involved. The existing charge is comprised of the following services: Development-related Capital Studies, Fire, Libraries, Transportation, Stormwater Management, Parks and Recreation. 8. Each development charge paid is allocated, as a statutory requirement, to those reserve funds, in accordance with the development charge for each service. It is also required that the monies only be expended for the purposes for which the DC was calculated. 9. In calculating the charge, it is necessary to: • establish a new development forecast for population and housing, and for 'employees and floor area; • determine and cost the additional services such new development will require and ensure that the program has Council approval; • make the cost deductions required by the Act with respect to service level, benefit to existing development, excess capacity, grants and contributions, the statutory 10%, etc.; • calculate development charges by type of use and document this in a Background Study and by-law, together with related policies; Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:lPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 22 1-4 • take the study and proposed by-law through a public process, seeking Council approval thereof. 10. Development charges represent a significant capital funding source for many services and serve to provide a portion of funding for designated projects. The current by-law updating process is designed to ensure full DC coverage for City services. 1.1.3 Development Charge Prerequisites As per the Development Charges Act, 1997, the City can impose development charges for: 1. A City service and funding responsibility other than: • cultural or entertainment facilities such as museums,theatres and art galleries; • tourism facilities, including convention centres; • parkland acquisition; • hospital provision; • waste management services; • Municipal/local board general administration headquarters. 2. A service which will experience an increase in capital needs at least partially attributable to residential and/or non-residential growth in Pickering mid 2013 to mid 2023 (and typically to 2031 in the,case of transportation). 3. A service for which City Council has or will (as part of the DC process) approve(d) a capital forecast which includes capital capacity expansion projects as per para. 2. 4. Such capital capacity expansion projects that are not fully funded by grants, subsidies or developer contributions or other contributions. 5. 'Such capital projects that involve the acquisition, lease, construction or improvement of land, buildings, including furniture and equipment (except computer equipment), rolling stock with an estimated useful life of 7 years or more, studies and borrowing costs (as well as library materials). 6. Such capital costs that don't relate to a time beyond the next decade (except in the case of transportation and watercourse improvements). 7. Such capital costs that don't serve to increase the future per capita/employee level of service beyond the average attained in Pickering over the 2004-2013 period. 1.1.4 The following tabular text sets out the method that must be used to determine development charges. The underlining has been added to the quotations for clarification/ emphasis and is not part of the statute or regulation quoted on the left side of the page. The DC calculation process is also summarized schematically in Figure 1-2 which follows. Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 23 1-5 SUMMARY OF STATUTORY DEVELOPMENT CHARGE CALCULATION REQUIREMENTS s.s.5(1)of the DCA Commentary (and associated Regulations) Para- graph 1. "The anticipated amount,type and Virtually all municipalities forecast all development location of development,for which development charges can be imposed, (including DC-ineligible) in the first instance. That must be estimated." development is used as the denominator in the DC calculation with the full eligible cost of servicing all such development used as the numerator. That way, growth-related servicing costs are equitably spread over all benefiting development, the municipality does not recover DCs from exempt development and this would ensure that the requirements of s.s.5(6)3 have been met. That is, capital costs have not been • • offloaded from one type of development to another. 2. "The increase in the need for service This step involves estimating the additional attributable t the abecistimd requirement for each individual service that is needed development must be estimated for q each service to which the by the development increment in paragraph 1. development charge by-law would relate." The anticipated development in para: 1 must correspond to the service attribution in para. 2. This involves removing statutorily ineligible development(i.e. municipalities, schools, specified industrial expansions, specified residential • intensification and other statutorily exempt public uses) and the servicing cost thereof. However, this would be very difficult to accomplish, particularly because numerous unspecified geographic locations are involved for such development, which makes the servicing cost difficult to identify. As a result, this approach has not been used. Instead, the total cost/total development approach outlined above is used and has the same effect on the DC quantum. • Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 24 • 1-6 s.s.5(1) of the DCA Commentary (and associated Regulations) 3. • The estimate under paragraph 2 may The capital forecast underpinning the DC calculation include an increase in need only if the council of the municipality has must be formally approved by Council in one of the indicated that it intends to ensure that ways indicated in the Regulation. • such an increase in need will be met." O.Reg.82/98 s.3. "For the purposes of paragraph 3 of subsection 5(1)of the Act,the council of a municipality has indicated that it intends to ensure that an increase in the need for service will be met if the increase in service forms part of an official plan, capital forecast or similar expression of the intention of the council and the plan,forecast or similar expression of • the intention of the council has been • approved by the council." 4. "The estimate under paragraph 2 must This provision creates a"service level cap" equal to not include an increase that would result in the level of service exceeding the cost of providing service to the"anticipated the average level of that service development," consistent with the 10-year historical provided in the municipality over the 10-year period immediately preceding average level of service. the preparation of the background study required under section 10.1 The estimate also must not include an In accordance with s.s.5(1)4, services such as parks increase in the need for service that and recreation, etc:, are restricted to a maximum 10- relates to a time after the 10-year period immediately following the year planning horizon. preparation of the background study unless the service is set out in subsection(5)." s.s.5(5) lists water, wastewater, storm water, road, police and fire services. They are not subject to a 10 year planning period cap. Services other than those excluded in s.s.2(4), may be defined by the municipality and, in some cases, grouped into"service categories"for purposes of reserve funds and credits (as per s.7). O.Reg.82/98 s.4(1) "For the Two"level of service" considerations must be taken purposes of paragraph 4 of into account in satisfying compliance re the 10-year subsection 5(1)of the Act,both the quantity and quality of a historical average level of service cap. These service shall be taken into considerations involve "quantity" (e.g. floor account in determining the level of service and the average level of space/capita) and "quality" (e.g. cost per s.m. of floor service." space). The Act notes that the provisions may be further governed by regulations. Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12013 DC StudylPickering do study.docx 25 1-7 s.s.5(1)of the DCA Commentary (and associated Regulations) s.s.4(1.1)provides that in determining the quality of a service,the • replacement cost,exclusive of any allowance for depreciation, shall be the amount used. s.s.4(2)addresses the service level in an excluded geographic area where a service is not provided. s.s.4(4)limits the service level in part of a municipality to the level otherwise applicable to the full • municipality. s.s.4(3)modifies the service level cap where a higher level is required by another Act. O.Reg.206/04 amended s.4 of O.Reg.82/98 by adding the following subsection: "(1.1) In determining the quality of a service under The Reg. clarifies that the quality level of service subsection(1),the measure is to be based on the undepreciated replacement cost of municipal capital works, replacement cost of municipal capital works. exclusive of any allowance for depreciation,shall be the amount used. (underlining added) 5. "The increase in the need for service "Uncommitted excess capacity" is available capacity attributable t the anticipated berdo that obviates(part of)the need for new projects. It is development must be reduced by the part of that increase that can be met different than"Post Period Capacity,"which is not using the municipality's excess capacity,other than excess capacity needed by development during the planning period that the council of the municipality has and is provided for the use of subsequent, i.e. post- indicated an intention would be paid • for by new development."' 2022 or 2031 development,which can be required to fund it through future DCs. O.Reg.82/98 s.5. "For the purposes The Reg. explains the circumstances under which of paragraph 5 of subsection 5(1) of the Act,excess capacity is (part of) the cost of"committed excess capacity," (i.e. uncommitted excess capacity infrastructure in the ground from prior DC by-laws or unless,either before or at the time the excess capacity was created, otherwise), can be recovered via future DCs. the council of the municipality expressed a clear intention that the excess capacity would be paid • for by development charges or other similar charges." "The Act notes that the provisions may be further governed by regulations. Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 26 1-8 -s.s.5(1)of the DCA Commentary (and associated Regulations) 6. "The increase in the need for service Existing development benefits from: must be reduced by the extent to which an increase in service to meet • the repair or unexpanded replacement of the increased need would benefit existing assets; • existing development." • an increase in municipal average service level Note: no regulatory clarification has or existing operational efficiency; been provided. ▪ the elimination of a chronic servicing problem not created by growth; • providing services to existing development where none previously existed (e.g. water service). 7. "The capital costs necessary to s.s.5(2) refers to capital grants, subsidies and other provide the increased services must be estimated. The capital costs must contributions made to a municipality or that Council be reduced by the reductions set out anticipates will be made in respect of the capital costs. in subsection(2). What is included as a capital cost is set out in subsection (3): O.Reg.82/98 s.6 indicates that: Unless the person making the grant,subsidy,etc.,was specific as to how it is to be applied,the contribution is to be shared • between growth and non-growth project components in proportion to the way in which the costs were allocated in s.s.5(1)6. s.s.5(3)defines capital costs to include: . • the acquisition or lease of(an These costs exclude"local services" related to a plan interest in)land; of subdivision or a consent approval, to be installed or • construction,improvement, acquisition or lease(capital paid for by the owner(s.s.2(5)). component only)costs for buildings/structures/facilities; • • 7+year useful life rolling Includes debt payments related to previously stock; • Fumiture,furnishings and constructed growth-related works. equipment,other than computer equipment; • library materials; • studies re above; • • DC Background Studies;and • interest on related borrowings. Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 27 • 1-9 s.s.5(1)of the DCA Commentary (and associated Regulations) 8. "The capital cost must be reduced by For example, the 10% reduction does apply to: 10 per cent. This paragraph does not apply to services set out in subsection • Parks; (5)." • Recreation; and • Libraries. The purpose of this reduction is undefined, beyond the Province's expressed wish in 1997 to moderate development charge quantum. The exclusion of various services under s.s.2(4)serves a similar . purpose. (i.e. Cultural/entertainment facilities, including museums, theatres and art galleries; tourism facilities, including convention centres; parkland acquisition; public hospitals, waste management services; and general administration headquarters for municipalities/local boards). 9. "Rules must be developed to These are mandatory DC by-law inclusions as to how determine if a development charge is payable in any particular case and to the charge is to be applied to development types and determine the amount of the charge, circumstances. subject to the limitations set out in subsection(6)." • s.s.5(6): These are three over-riding tests to be met by the DC "The rules developed under paragraph by-law. 9 of subsection(1)to determine if a development charge is payable in any particular case and to determine the amount of the charge are subiect to to the following restrictions: 1. The rules must be such that the A municipality cannot collect more than the calculated total of the development charges cost for each service (if the amount of development that would be imposed upon the and resultant revenue outpaces the forecast, then anticipated development is less than or equal to the capital costs address via a reserve fund deduction in the DC determined under paragraphs 2 to calculation in the next round or other appropriate 8 of subsection(1)for all the services to which the development means). charge by-law relates. 2. If the rules expressly identify a A municipality cannot offload the cost of servicing one type of development they must not p y g provide for the type of type of development onto another type. e.g. Industrial development to pay development charges that exceed the capital servicing icin costs cannot be transferred to residential costs,determined under development and single detached unit servicing costs paragraphs 2 to 8 of subsection jfl,that arise from the increase in cannot be transferred to apartments. the need for services attributable to the type of development. Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 28 • 1-10 s.s.5(1)of the DCA Commentary (and associated Regulations) It is not necessary that the average municipal-wide per However, it is not necessary that unit servicing costs funded by the DC reflect the needs the amount of the development g y charge for a particular of any particular development project. development be limited to the increase in capital costs,if any, that are attributable to that particular development. Provides further clarification on the inability of the by- 3. "If the development charge by-law law to offload cost recovery from one type of will exempt a type of development, phase in a development charge,or development to another, in this case from exempt or otherwise provide for a type of discounted development to non-exempt development. development to have a lower development charge than is allowed,the rules for determining development charges may not provide for any resulting shortfall to be made up through higher development charges for other development." 10. "The rules may provide for full or These are optional by-law inclusions such as authority partial exemptions for types of to set rules on discretionary exemptions, phasing in of development and for the phasing in of rY p p 9 development charges. The rules may DCs and indexing of DCs. also provide for the indexing of development charges based on the prescribed index." • • • Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 29 1-11 FIGURE 1-2 THE PROCESS OF CALCULATING A DEVELOPMENT CHARGE UNDER THE DEVELOPMENT CHARGES ACT,1997 Anticipated Development I. Tax Base, 2. Ineligible Services User Rates, A 4 etc. ,^ Level o vii:. - Ceiling Re: • r t,t,-,:w,`.i Pf..,c,:Zi • Subdivision 7. Specified Local Services Agreements where applicable 14=1 and Consent Al Provisions Less: Less: Grants,Subsidies and 4 ► Uncommitted Excess Other Contributions 9, Capacity 8. Less: Less: 10%Statutory Deduction 4 ■ Benefit To Existing Where Applicable 11. Development 1o. Plus: Financing Cost, 4— Unfunded Works in Place Which Will Benefit Future Inflation and Development 12. Investment • Considerations re Cash Flow Calculation Plus: 1¢• 1 h - -- Credit Obligations to Land- Development Charge Net owners to be Recovered®' Capital Costs Costs for new development vs. existing development for the term of the by-law and the balance of the period selected 15. Development Charge 14 By-law(s) Spatial Applicability 16. Amount of the Charge By Type of Development (including apportionment of costs- i.residential and non-residential) Consideration of exemptions, 17. phase-ins,etc. Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:lPickeringl2013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx • 30 2. CURRENT CITY OF DICKERING POLICY Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering do study.docx 31 2-1 2. CURRENT CITY OF PICKERING POLICY 2.1 Schedule of Charges On July 13, 2009 the City of Pickering passed By-law No. 6978/09 under the Development Charges Act, 1997. The by-law came into effect on August 1, 2009. It imposes development charges on residential and non-residential uses. The rates in effect for the first and current periods are as follows: • Type City-wide Charge Current Charge • (effective August 1, (July 1, 2013) 2009) Single-detached or semi-detached (per unit) $9,694 $10,195 Apartment, two or more bedrooms (per unit) $5,246 $5,514 Apartment, less than two bedrooms(inclusive of senior citizen apartment units) per unit $3,849 $4,047 All other dwelling units(per unit) $6,957 $7,317 Non-residential (per sq.ft. of GFA) $3.76* $4.07 The non-residential rate was increased to$3.87 per sq.ft. on July 1, 2010 plus indexing. 2.2 Services Covered The following are the services covered under By-law 6978/09: "(a) development-related capital studies; (b) fire stations and equipment and services related thereto; (c) storm drainage and management works and equipment and services related thereto; (d) transportation including operations and equipment, roads, sidewalks, streetlights, traffic signals and services related thereto; (e) parkland development and trail development and equipment and services related thereto; (f). major indoor recreational facilities and equipment and services related thereto; and (g) libraries and furnishings and (non-computer) equipment and services related thereto, including circulating and non-circulating materials generally provided to library users by public libraries." (s.5) 2.3 Timing of DC Calculation and Payment Residential and non-residential development charges are calculated in accordance with Sections 6 and 11 of the by-law, respectively, and are payable in full on the day that the building permit is issued in relation to a building or structure on land to which a DC applies (s.14). Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 32 • 2-2 2.4 Indexing Development charges may be adjusted on July 1 each year, in accordance with the most recently available annual period ending March 31, the Statistics Canada Quarterly, Capital . Expenditure Price Statistics, Catalogue Number 62-007 (s.16). The City's current schedule of development charges indexed to July 1, 2013 is included as Table 2-1 and reflects phasing in and 5.17% indexing of the charges adopted in 2009. Table 2-1 City of Pickering Development Charges - Indexed to July 1, 2013 Residential Per Unit Apt. One Apt.Two Other Non- Single/Semi Brdrm& Bedroom Dwelling Residential Detached Smaller and Larger Units (Per Sq.Ft. of GFA) Development-related Studies $ 92 $ 36 $ 48 $ 65 Fire 273 108 147 196 Transportation(incl. Operations) 5,042 2,001 2,728 3,619 3.12 Stormwater Management 1,435 570 777 1,031 0.95 Parks 448 178 242 322 Recreation 2,363 938 1,279 1,695 Libraries 542 216 293 389 TOTAL $ 10,195 $ 4,047 $ 5,514 $ 7,317 $ 4.07 H,Pr_'=rin x.'_013 C,:S.udyt[Pickenng 2013 servic=_levels.xisxj2-1 . 2.5 Phasing In and Reductions in the Calculated Charge The adopted non-residential rate includes only the charge applicable for transportation and related and storm drainage and management (s.10). As noted in Section 2.1, the full calculated rate was phased in over a one year period. • Further, development for which complete building permit applications were received prior to the effective dates of the new rates (and issued on or before September 1 of that year) was subject to the rates previously in effect(s.s.16(2)). 2.6 Redevelopment Credit A redevelopment credit is applied against development charges payable where a building permit has been issued for development or redevelopment within ten years from the date a demolition permit has been issued for the same building or structure, or where a building is being converted from one principal use to another, in an amount equivalent to the DC otherwise Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12013 DC Study\Pickering dc study.docx 33 2-3 payable for the units or floor area demolished or converted. (s.s.1(2)(e) and 1(3) and s.8 and 12.) 2.7 Non-Statutory Exemptions The following discretionary exemptions are provided in the By-law, in addition to the statutory exemptions: • non-residential farm buildings used for bona fide agricultural purposes (s.s.1(2)(c); • place of worship, if exempt from taxation under the Assessment Act(s.s.1(2)(d); • .nursing homes and hospitals (s.s.1(2)(f); • garden suites (s.s.7(1)(c). 2.8 Credit for Previous Payments Where a payment was previously paid to the City under a subdivision, condominium, development or other agreement, or as a consent condition or a lot levy under By-law 3322/89, the amount paid is available as a credit against the DC payable (s.s.14(3)). 2.9 Reserve Funds Separate reserve funds shall be maintained for each service (s.15). 2.10 Seaton Lands The by-law applies to all of the City, except for"Seaton Lands," as defined in Schedule"A." Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 34 3. ANTICIPATED DEVELOPMENT IN PICKER NG • • Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 35 3-1 • 3. ANTICIPATED DEVELOPMENT IN PICKERING 3.1 Requirements of the Act Subsection 5(1) of the DCA sets out the method that must be used to determine development charges. The first step states that: The anticipated amount, type and location of development, for which development charges can be imposed, must be estimated." Steps 2 and 5 go on to refer to "the increase in need for service attributable to the anticipated development..." Thus, the estimate of anticipated development is an important starting point to the process. The requirement of the Act is for a development forecast, which refers to residential, commercial, industrial and institutional development. Such development generates increased service needs, via its occupancy and use, which is measured in terms of households, population, employment and visitors (tourists, customers, patrons and suppliers). This chapter therefore addresses both the anticipated increase in development and the users thereof. It covers all forms of development, whether or not they are included in the schedule of development charges, in order to avoid transferring the servicing cost responsibility of exempt development to non-exempt development. The Act requires that the amount, type and location of development be estimated. "Timing" is not referenced, other than indirectly, in section 8 para. 3 of O.Reg 82/98, where capital costs to be incurred during the term of the proposed development charge by-law, must be set out. Also, s.s.5(1)4 of the Act restricts the estimate of the increase in the need for services other than water supply, waste water, storm water drainage and control, police and fire protection, to a maximum of 10 years following the preparation of the background study. Accordingly, this chapter addresses the anticipated timing of development. 3.2 Basis of Population, Household and Non-Residential Gross Floor Area Forecast The growth forecast summarized in this Chapter (with supplemental tables in Appendix A) provides the anticipated development for which the City of Pickering will be required to provide services over a ten-year time horizon (mid-2013 to mid-2023) and an 18-year time horizon (mid- 2013 to mid-2031). By 2031, the City's population is forecast to increase by 87,120 persons (mid 2013-2031), to a total population of 177,190. During this period, 37,504 new units are expected to be added to the housing supply. The detailed growth forecast is contained in Appendix A and is briefly summarized below: • Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 36 3-2 Year Population' Households (mid) Seaton Rest of City Seaton Rest of City Pickering Total Pickering Total 2013 - 90,070 90,070 - 29,891 29,891 2023 41,781 101,009 142,790 14,711 37,501 52,212 2013-23 Net Increase 41,781 10,939 52,720 14,711 7,610 22,321 2031 58,159 119,031 177,190 22,324 45,071 67,395 2013-31 Net Increase 58,159 28,961 87,120 22,324 15,180 37,504 Year Employment2 Non-Residential (mid) GFA(sq.ft.) Seaton Rest of City Seaton Rest of City Pickering Total Pickering Total 2013 - 32,170 32,170 - - - 2023 11,903 35,477 47,380 - - - 2031 20,232 38,138 58,370 - -2013-23 Increase 11,903 3,307 15,210 9,888,477 2,484,800 12,373,277 2013-31 Increase 20,232 5,968 26,200 17,207,607 4,472,400 21,680,007 II Excludes the census undercount. 2 Includes employment generating additional non-residential GFA. Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering12013 DC StudylPickering do study.docx 37 4. THE RESULTANT INCREASE IN THE NEED FOR SERVICE Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12013 DC.StudylPickering dc study.docx 38 4-1 4. THE RESULTANT INCREASE IN THE NEED FOR SERVICE 4.1 Introduction This chapter addresses the requirements of s.s.5(1) of the DCA, 1997 with respect to the establishment of the estimated increased need for service attributable to the anticipated development, which underpins the development charge calculation. These requirements were detailed in Chapter 1. 4.2 Services Potentially Involved Table 4-1 lists the full range of municipal service categories that are eligible for inclusion in the DC calculation. A number of these services are referenced in s.s.2(4) of the DCA, 1997 as being ineligible services for inclusion in development charges. These are shown as "ineligible" on Table 4-1. In addition, two ineligible costs defined in s.s.5(3) of the DCA are "computer equipment" and "rolling stock with an estimated useful life of(less than) seven years..." Local storm water management and road works are generally recovered separately under subdivision agreements and related means (as are other local services). Services which are potentially eligible for inclusion by the City are indicated with a "-\i"and potential coverage by the Region of Durham's development charges by-law(s)are separately indicated. 4.3 The Increase in the Need for Service The development charge calculation commences with an estimate of "the increase in the need for service attributable to the anticipated development,"for the services to be covered by the by- law. There must be some form of link or attribution between the anticipated 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 (and s.3 of the associated regulation), 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 normally be applicable. Descriptive material for the capital requirements for each service addressed by the Background Study is provided in Appendix B. Appendix B sets out the 2014 to 2023 development-related capital program that is required to service the anticipated development for the ten-year period (with a 2014 to 2031 period for roads, bridges, sidewalks, multi-use paths, streetlighting and storm drainage and management). Local services, as discussed in Section 4.4 below, have been excluded from the program. Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 39 • • 4-2 TABLE 4-1 CATEGORIES OF MUNICIPAL SERVICES TO BE ADDRESSED AS PART OF THE CALCULATION CATEGORIES OF ELIGIBILITY FOR MAXIMUM MUNICIPAL SERVICES INCLUSION IN THE SERVICE COMPONENTS POTENTIAL DC DC CALCULATION RECOVERY% 1. Services Related to a //Regional 1.1 Arterial roads 100 Highway .//Dev.Agreements 1.2 Collector roads 100 Dev.Agreements 1.3 Local roads 100 ✓/Regional/Dev. 1.4 Traffic signals 100 Agreements ✓/Dev.Agreements 1.5 Sidewalks and streetlights 100 ✓/Dev.Agreements 1.6 Cycling infrastructure 100 2. Other Transportation Regional 2.1 Transit vehicles 90 Services Regional 2.2 Other transit infrastructure 90 ✓ 2.3 Municipal parking spaces-indoor 90 ✓ 2.4 Municipal parking spaces-outdoor 90 ✓ 2.5 Works Yards 100 ✓ 2.6 Rolling stock' 100 n/a 2.7 Ferries 90 n/a 2.8 Airport facilities 90 3. Storm Water Drainage //Dev.Agreements 3.1 Main channels and drainage trunks 100 and Control Services Dev.Agreements 3.2 Channel connections 0 //Dev.Agreements 3.3 Retention/detention ponds 100 4. Fire Protection ✓ 4.1 Fire stations 100 Services ✓ 4.2 Fire pumpers,aerials and rescue 100 vehicles ✓ 4.3 Small equipment and gear 100 5. Outdoor Recreation Ineligible 5.1 Acquisition of land for parks,woodlots 0 Services(i.e.Parks and ESAs and Open Space) ✓ 5.2 Development of local parks 90 ✓ 5.3 Development of district parks 90 ✓ 5.4 Development of Municipal-wide parks 90 ✓ 5.5 Development of special purpose parks 90 ✓ 5.6 Parks rolling stock'and yards 90 6. Indoor Recreation ✓ 6.1 Arenas,indoor pools,fitness facilities, 90 Services community centres,etc.(including land) • ✓ 6.2 Recreation vehicles and equipment' 90 7. Library Services ✓ 7.1 Public library space(incl.furniture and 90 equipment) ✓ 7.2 Library materials 90 8. Electrical Power Ineligible 8.1 Electrical substations 0 Services Ineligible 8.2 Electrical distribution system 0 Ineligible 8.3 Electrical system rolling stock' 0 • 'with 7+year life time /signifies that the service component is DC eligible for the municipality computer equipment excluded throughout Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 40 • • 4-3 CATEGORIES OF ELIGIBILITY FOR MAXIMUM MUNICIPAL SERVICES INCLUSION IN THE SERVICE COMPONENTS POTENTIAL DC DC CALCULATION RECOVERY% I 9. Provision of Cultural, Ineligible 9.1 Cultural space(e.g.art galleries, 0 Entertainment and museums and theatres) Tourism Facilities and Ineligible 9.2 Tourism facilities and convention 0 Convention Centres centres 10. Waste Water Services Region 10.1 Treatment plants 100 Region 10.2 Sewage trunks 100 Region/Dev. 10.3 Local systems 100 Agreements Region 10.4 Vehicles and equipment 100 11. Water Supply Region 11.1 Treatment plants 100 Services Region 11.2 Distribution systems 100 Region/Dev. 11.3 Local systems 100 Agreements 12. Waste Management Ineligible 12.1 Collection,transfer vehicles and 0 Services equipment • Ineligible 12.2 Landfills and other disposal facilities 0 Ineligible 12.3 Other waste diversion facilities 0 13. Police Services Region 13.1 Police detachments 100 Region 13.2 Police rolling stock' 100 Region 13.3 Small equipment and gear 100 14. Homes for the Aged Region 14.1 Homes for the aged space 90 15. Day Care Region 15.1 Day care space 90 16. Health Region 16.1 Health department space 90 17. Social Services Region 17.1 Social service space 90 18. Ambulance Region 18.1 Ambulance station space 90 Region 18.2 Vehicles' 90 19. Hospital Provision Ineligible 19.1 Hospital capital contributions 20. Provision of Ineligible 20.1 Office space and furniture(HQ Gen. 0 Headquarters for the Admin.services) General Eligible 20.2 Non-administrative office space and 90 Administration of furniture Municipalities and Ineligible 20.3 Computer equipment 0 Local Boards 21. Other Services ✓ 21.1 Studies2 in connection with acquiring 0-100 buildings,rolling stock,materials and equipment,and improving land and facilities,including the DC background study cost ✓ 21.2 Interest on money borrowed to pay 0-100 for growth-related capital • except where a 7+year life is involved 2generally reflects same percentage as for the service component to which it pertains Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 41 4-4 4.4 Local Service Policy The City's general policy regarding the delineation of local services to be funded through development charges versus local services to be emplaced as a condition of development agreement, is summarized in Appendix B under each individual service component. 4.5 Credits Carried Forward Section 8 para. 5 of O.Reg. 82/98 indicates that a development charge background study must set put, "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 development charges," if the credit pertains to an ineligible service. This implies that a credit for eligible services can be recovered from future development charges. As a result, this provision is made in the calculation, in order to avoid a funding shortfall with respect to future service needs. It is understood that there are no outstanding credits to be included in the DC calculation. 4.6 Eligible Debt and Committed Excess Capacity Section 66 of the DCA, 1997 states that, for the purposes of developing a development charge 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. 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, City Council must have expressed a clear intention that it would be paid for by development charges or other similar charges. For example, this may have been done as part of previous development charge processes. This inclusion is referenced as Box 12 in Figure 1- 2 ("Unfunded Works") and includes internal borrowing or long term debt. The City does not have any outstanding debt to be included in the DC calculations in Appendix B. 4.7 Council's Assurance In order for an increase in need for service to be included in the DC calculation, City 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 is subject to Council's approval as part of the DC by-law adoption process. Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickeringl2013 DC StudylPickering do study.docx 42 5. CA CALCULAT ON l'EQUP"E ENTS Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 43 5-1 5. DCA CALCULATION REQUIREMENTS 5.1 Introduction 5.1.1 Subsection 5(1) of the DCA sets out the method that must be used to determine development charges. This method specifically calls for five different types of deductions to be made from municipal servicing costs, where applicable, which relate to the need for service - attributable to new development anticipated over the planning period. These are: • level of service cap; • uncommitted excess capacity; • • benefit to existing development; • grants, subsidies and other contributions; • the 10% statutory deduction for"soft services." 5.1.2 Three other calculation deductions are addressed herein as being implicit requirements. These are: • post-period capacity; • uncommitted DC reserve fund balances; • allocation of the total costs between residential and non-residential benefit. The basis for, and nature of, each of these DC calculation deductions is outlined below and in Appendix B. 5.2 Level of Service Cap 5.2.1 Paragraph 4 of subsection 5(1) of the DCA, 1997 states that the estimate of the increase in the need for service attributable to the anticipated development, made under paragraph 2 must not include an increase that would result in the level of service exceeding the average level provided in the City over the 10 year period preceding the preparation of the background study. s.s.4(3) of O.Reg. 82/98 provides for an exception, such that: "If the average level of service determined is lower than the standard level of service required under another Act, the standard level of service required under the other Act may be deemed ... to be the average level of service." Section 4 of the Regulation also provides that: • both the quantity and quality of a service shall be taken into account in determining the average level of service. - A commonly-used quantity measure is units per capita (e.g. lane kms, square feet, m3 capacity, hectares, etc.), while quality,is to be measured in terms of replacement cost per unit. • Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 44 5-2 5.3 Uncommitted Excess Capacity Paragraph 5 of s.s.5(1) of the DCA 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", i.e. where Council has indicated a clear intention that it would be paid for by DCs or other similar charges, before or at the time the capacity was created (s.5 of O.Reg. 82/98). "Excess capacity" is undefined in the Act, 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 "excess capacity" from the future increase in the need for service, occurs 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 capacity is already available, then that widening would not be included as an increase in need, in the first instance. Another potential consideration is the relationship between the 2013 level of service and the ten year historical average and/or an operational review of the capacity functioning of a particular facility. This requirement was addressed as part of the process of establishing the capital program in Appendix B. 5.4 Benefit to Existing Development Benefit to existing development deductions have been addressed on a service-specific and project-specific basis. The methodology employed is briefly summarized in Figure 5-1 and discussed in Appendix B. The primary considerations involved in establishing an appropriate benefit to existing development deduction include: • Is the project a capacity expansion, necessary to maintain the existing average level of . municipal service? • Is the primary service area municipal-wide or more narrowly defined? • Was the project included in previous DC studies and with what level of deduction? • Is the capital program well beyond the service level cap and to what extent do these projects benefit existing development(rather than representing oversizing for post period recovery)? • Does the capital expenditure simply represent more of what is already being provided or does it instead offer a broader range of service? • What is the estimated value of the service change being provided re increased user proximity, for example? • Does the project involve a new facility or an existing replacement plus expansion? This requirement was addressed on a service-specific basis in Appendix B. Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 45 5-3 FIGURE 5-1 CITY OF PICKERING-2013 DC BY-LAW UPDATE BASIC RATIONALE FOR BENEFIT TO EXISTING DEVELOPMENT DEDUCTIONS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS • LOCAL SERVICE T i.e.DIRECT DEVELOPER RESPONSIBILITY BEYOND • POSSIBLE FUTURE EXPANDS HISTORICAL BY-LAW RECOVERY SERVICING CAPACITY SERVICE LEVEL OF OVERSIZING CAP COST V -P DC DC CAPITAL COST PROGRAM TAX/USER RATES FOR INCLUSIONS FOR ANY ADDITIONAL ELIGIBLE SERVICE BENEFIT TO EXISTING PROJECTS WITHIN INVOLVES HISTORICAL REPAIR OR SERVICE LEVEL DC RECOVERY (NON-EXPANDED) CAP REPLACEMENT OR SERVICE LEVEL IMPROVEMENTS NOT ATTRIBUTED TO THE NEEDS OF TAXES/USER RATES FUTURE DEVELOPMENT Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx • 5-4 5.5 Grants, Subsidies and Other Contributions s.s.5(1)7 of the DCA requires that the capital costs must be reduced by the reductions set out in subsection (2). s.s.5(2) states that: "The capital costs, determined under para. 7 of subsection (1), must be reduced, in accordance with the regulations, to adjust for capital grants, subsidies and other contributions made to a municipality or that the Council of the municipality anticipates will be made in respect of the capital costs." (underlining added) Section 6 of O.Reg. 82/98 indicates that any such grant, subsidy or other contribution (including developer contributions) must be used' to reduce the s.s.5(1)7 capital costs in the same proportion as the increase in need was reduced under s.s.5(1), para. 6, unless at the time it was made, the person making it expressed a clear intention that all or part be used to benefit existing or new development. In the latter case, a deduction to capital costs must be made, but only to the extent that the funds were intended to benefit new development. Any grants, subsidies, developer and other contributions anticipated have been reflected in Appendix B, in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Regulation. This requirement was addressed on a service-specific basis in Appendix B. 5.6 Post-period Capacity This is a term and a concept which is not specifically referenced in the DCA. It refers the cost of oversized development-related servicing capacity which is not required by development anticipated over the City's planning period, which will clearly benefit development in a subsequent planning period and should therefore be (partially) funded by such subsequent development. This requirement is implicit in s.s.5(1)2 of the DCA, which requires the charge to be based on "the increase in the need for service attributable to the anticipated development...". The need for any such deduction can be avoided by simply maintaining per capita service levels in the case of many services. Otherwise a post period capacity deduction may be applicable in the case of specific road works which are not expected to operate at standard capacity utilization levels by the end of the planning period and have been specifically oversized. This requirement was addressed on a service-specific basis in Appendix B. 5.7 DC Reserve Fund Balances There is no explicit requirement under the DCA calculation method set out in s.s.5(1) to account for the outstanding reserve fund balance as part of making a DC calculation; however, s.35 does restrict the way in which the funds are used in future, i.e. "The money in a reserve fund established for a service may be spent only for capital costs determined under paragraphs 2 to 8 of subsection 5(1)." For services which are subject to a per capita-based, service level "cap," the reserve fund balance should be applied against the development-related costs for which the charge was Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx • 47 5-5 imposed, once the project is constructed (i.e. the needs of growth which occurred earlier in the by-law period). This cost component is distinct from the development-related costs for the next 10 year period,which underlie the DC calculation herein. The alternative would involve the municipality seeking to spend all reserve fund monies prior to renewing each by-law, which would often not be a sound basis for capital budgeting. Thus, the City will use these "soft service" reserve funds for the City's cost share of applicable development-related projects, which are required, but have not yet been undertaken (i.e. the cost of beyond the service level cap and benefit to existing development). This is a way of directing the funds to the project cost share for which they were collected (rather than largely to the benefit of future development, which will continue to generate the need for additional facilities and development charges, directly proportionate to the amount of growth involved). As a result, the uncommitted balances of the City's DC reserve funds (as of the end of 2013)for hard services and growth studies, have been applied against future spending requirements. • These amounts have been accounted for in making the calculations in Appendix C. These deductions are made in the case of hard services (inclusive of "studies" which is not subject to a per capita service level), in that the DC calculation for these services is geared to funding a large group of development-related works that are being implemented in response to the needs of growth over the long term. While these works are also subject to service level caps, each DC calculation is designed to fund an appropriate share of the overall program of works, over a long term period. Thus, the renewal process involves updating cost estimates and project descriptions, removing completed works and netting reserve fund balances, each time a new hard service DC is calculated. Reserve fund applications are addressed in Appendix C. 5.8 Other Deductions Paragraph 8 of s.s.5(1) of the DCA requires that, "the capital costs must be reduced by 10 per cent." This paragraph does not apply to water supply services, waste water services, storm water drainage and control services, "services related to a highway" and to police and fire protection services. The City services that the 10% reduction does apply to are parks and recreation, library, operations, applicable growth studies and any related financing costs pertaining to these services. The 10% is to be netted from the capital costs necessary to provide the increased services, once the other deductions (i.e. ineligible, benefit to existing, landowner contributions, etc.) have been made. This requirement was addressed on a service-specific basis in Appendix B. 5.9 Cost Differentiation by Type of Development s.s.5(6)2 of the DCA requires that every "type" of development that is expressly identified in the DC by-law cannot be required to pay development charges that exceed the capital costs arising from the increase in the need for service attributable to that particular type of development. Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 48 5-6 • In the first instance, this allocation involves a split between residential and non-residential benefit. This is typically made based on the ratio of incremental growth in population to the total increment in population and employment, except in the case of parks, recreation and libraries where only a nominal non-residential cost share is involved. 5.10 Area-specific Charges As with most local municipalities, the City has not established area-specific charges and only makes use of average City-wide charges. In part, this reflects the difficulty involved in attributing benefits derived from various municipal facilities on a clear geographic basis. In many cases, facility service areas tend to overlap, to vary over time and to be indistinct. The exception to this approach relates to the proposed area-specific coverage for the Seaton transportation program. In this case, the landowners will front-end finance and/or construct the Seaton transportation program. In most cases, development charges for transportation are charged on a uniform, municipal- wide basis, in that the road network is an integrated City-wide system. An area-specific approach is proposed in this instance, in that: • it facilitates the front-end financing responsibility to be assumed by the landowners; • the primary connections to the rest of Pickering are Regional roads; • the Seaton landowners have agreed to make significant cash contributions to the City as part of ensuring that they are assuming a capital funding burden which is similar in size to that to which development in the rest of Pickering is subject. A land area-specific charge is applicable to prestige employment land in Seaton rather than the floor area charge applicable to all other non-residential development. This is calculated as the City's non-residential building area charge (exclusive of the Seaton area-specific transportation arrangement) assessed on a land area, rather than a building area, basis.' This land area DC approach helps to ensure that the DC recovery will be complete, irrespective of the average building density involved. Otherwise, if the anticipated average building density is not achieved, DC revenues may not cover the capital costs involved. It also serves to encourage intensification (as subsequent phases of development on the site would not involve additional development charge payments). This encourages expedient buildout, discourages land banking and is attractive in terms of the City's cash flow timing. Finally, it essentially removes the entitlement for the 50% industrial expansion exemption, as no additional DC payment is involved in the case of expansion (as the entirety of the DC must be paid for each parcel, when the initial development occurs). '-The share of DC recoverable costs attributable to prestige employment land in Seaton is based on its percentage share of the increment in employment for the planning period. That number is then divided by the net prestige employment land area to be developed over the same period. Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 49 6. DEVELOPMENT CHARGE RULES • Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickeringl2013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx • 50 6-1 6. DEVELOPMENT CHARGE RULES 6.1 Introduction 6.1.1 s.s.5(1)9 of the DCA states that rules must be developed: • "... to determine if a development charge 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 the section goes on to state that the rules may provide for exemptions, phasing in and/or indexing of development charges. • 6.1.2 s.s.5(6)establishes the following restrictions on the rules: • the total of all DCs that would be imposed on anticipated development must not exceed the capital costs determined under 5(1)2-8 for all services involved. • if the rules expressly identify a type of development, they must not provide for it to pay DCs 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. In order to address this requirement, the following conventions have been adopted: 1. Costs to residential uses have been assigned to different types of residential units based on the average occupancy for each housing type constructed during the first 20 years of occupancy. 2. Costs are allocated to residential uses (as opposed to non-residential uses) based upon a number of factors, as may be suited to each service-related circumstance and as outlined in Appendix B. • if the rules provide for a type of development to have a lower development charge than is allowed, the rules for determining development charges may not provide for any resulting shortfall to be made up via other development. 6.1.3 With respect to"the rules", Section 6 of the DCA states that a DC 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. 6.2 The Amount of the Development Charge Payable in Any Particular Case 6.2.1 The rules for determining if development charges are payable in any particular case and for determining the amount of the development charges involved, are set out in the proposed by-law in Appendix F. 6.2.2 The quantum of the development charge which is payable, is as calculated in Appendices B and C and summarized in the Executive Summary and the proposed by-law. Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 51 • • 6-2 • 6.2.3 The rules for determining if development charges are payable in any particular case, are addressed in the by-law and Background Study and deal with matters such as: multiple charges, the connection between servicing needs and development, the list of services for which charges are being imposed, types of development approval triggering the need for the imposition of development charges, the requirements for the installation of local services in . addition to payment of the development charge, the method used in calculating development charges for individual developments, the quantum of the charge, the timing of calculation and , payment, and the alternative means of payment. 6.3 Development Charge Exemptions 6.3.1 The rules for exemptions, relief and adjustments for the charge are as set out in the proposed by-law in Appendix F. • 6.4 Phasing-in of Development Charges 6.4.1 Any rules with respect to any phasing-in of the development charges are as set out in the proposed by-law in Appendix F. 6.5 Indexing of Development Charges 6.5.1 The rules with respect to the indexing of the development charges are as set out in the proposed by-law in Appendix F, that is, that the charges shall be adjusted annually, as of July 1 each year, commencing July 1, 2015 in accordance with the Statistics Canada Quarterly, Construction Price Statistics (catalogue number 62-007). This differs from the City's existing DC by-law which includes "may" instead of "shall," but the change reflects standard municipal practice, as part of preserving the purchasing power of the DC over time. 6.6 The Application of Development Charges to Redevelopment 6.6.1 The rules with respect to redevelopment are as set out in the proposed by-law in Appendix F. Those DC reduction provisions reflect the City's existing policy. This policy provides a demolition and/or conversion credit formula in the circumstance where a building permit is issued within ten years from the date the associated demolition permit has been issued. Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12o13 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 52 • • • • • 7. BY-LAW ADOPTION AND IMPLEMENTATION • • • • • Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 53 7-1 7. BY-LAW ADOPTION AND IMPLEMENTATION 7.1 Introduction This Chapter outlines the process that the City has carried out as part of arriving at development charge policy which is fair and legally defensible, financially appropriate, and has had regard for public comments and possible development implications. 7.2 Long Term Capital and Operating Cost Examination Subsection 10(2)(c) of the Act requires that a DC Background Study include an examination for each service to which the development charge by-law would relate, of the long term capital and operating costs for capital infrastructure required for the service. One standard that could be used in scrutinizing the above-referenced costs is the current level of operating costs per capita. Another more detailed standard that goes beyond the specific requirements of the Act, would be the anticipated impact on tax and user rate levels, as determined by the application of a full fiscal impact model. This has been done under separate cover in the case of the Seaton-related requirements. Appendix D contains the Long Range Capital and Operating Cost examination applicable in this case, which includes a brief summary of the Fiscal Impact Study prepared for the Seaton development, plus an Addendum addressing the rest of Pickering and capital replacement issues. 7.3 Consultation In addition to the statutory public meeting, consultation meetings with Seaton landowners were held throughout 2012/13 and with representatives of the City-wide development community on October 16, 2013 to review the proposed capital program, growth forecast and calculation assumptions, as well as the proposed charge. 7.4 The By-law Adoption Process 7.4.1 Public Meeting of Council 'Section 12 of the DCA, 1997 indicates that before passing a development charge 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 (i.e. if the proposed by-law which is proposed for adoption has been changed in any respect, the Council should formally consider whether an Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 54 7-2 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 OMB. 7.5 By-law Implementation 7.5.1 Introduction 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. 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 sections which follow, overview requirements in each case. 7.5.2 Notice of Passage In accordance with s.13 of the DCA, when a DC 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: • 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. • s.s.10(4) lists the persons/organizations who must be given notice. • s.s.10(5) lists the eight items which the notice must cover. 7.5.3 By-law Pamphlet In addition to the "notice" information, the municipality must prepare a "pamphlet" explaining each development charge by-law in force, setting out: • a description of the general purpose of the development charges; • the "rules" for determining if a charge is payable in a particular case and for determining the amount of the charge; • the services to which the development charges relate; and • 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 OMB, 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:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering do study.docx 55 7-3 7.5.4 Appeals Sections 13-19 of the DCA, 1997 set out requirements relative to making and processing of a DC by-law appeal and OMB Hearing in response to an appeal. Any person or organization may appeal a DC by-law to the OMB by filing with the municipal clerk a notice of appeal, 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. 7.5.5 Complaints A person required to pay a development charge, or his agent, may complain to the City Council imposing the charge that: • the amount of the charge was incorrectly determined; • the credit to be used against the development charge was incorrectly determined; or • there was an error in the application of the development charge. Sections 20-25 of the DOA, 1997 set out the requirements that exist, including the fact that a complaint may not be made later than 90 days after a DC (or any part of it) is payable. A complainant may appeal the decision of Municipal Council to the OMB. 7.5.6 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 municipality to which the DC 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. Front end financing arrangements with Seaton landowners are being put in place. Part Ill of the DCA, 1997 (Sections 44-57) addresses front-ending agreements and removes some of the obstacles to their use, which were contained in the DCA, 1989. Accordingly, the City assesses whether this mechanism is appropriate for its use, as part of funding projects prior to City funds being available. 7.5.7 Severance and Subdivision Agreement Conditions Section 59 of the DCA, 1997 prevents a municipality 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 DCA, 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 Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12093 DC StudylPickering dc atudy.docx 56 7-4 conditions to ensure that the first purchaser of newly subdivided land is informed of all the development charges related to the development, at the time the land is transferred. • Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 57 APPENDIX A ANTICIPATED DEVELOPMENT IN PICKERING 2013-2031 ____ - -- -- ._._--.--------- . __ .__.__--_-_--_.._____ Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 58 • A-1 APPENDIX A - ANTICIPATED DEVELOPMENT IN PICKERING 2013-2031 Appendix A provides the forecast of the anticipated development for which the City of Pickering will be required to provide services, over a 10-year(mid 2013-mid 2023) and 18-year(mid 2013- mid 2031) time horizon. The population and employment forecast which has been. prepared herein has regard for the Province's October 27, 2010 approval of parts of ROPA 128, but with the following clarifications: • Seaton-The 2031 population and employment is 61,000 (including undercount) and 30,500 (including work at home and no fixed place of work) respectively. These numbers are based on the June 6, 2012 CPDP Amendment; • Northeast Pickering-the population and employment forecast is not part of the DC growth forecast as this development area has been deferred; and • Rest of Pickering-Population is largely based on the Growing Durham intensification household forecast and a minimal amount of rural development. The employment forecast for the rest of Pickering represents employment growth in South Pickering and is implicit in Growing Durham. Further detail is provided below in Section 8 of this Summary. A.1 Basis of Population, Household and Non-Residential Gross Floor Area Forecast In compiling the growth forecast for Pickering the following reports were consulted: • City of Pickering Development Charge Background Study, Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., September 11, 2009; • The Municipal Financial Impact of the Seaton Community on the City of Pickering, April 10, 2013; • Growing Durham Recommended Growth Scenarios and Policy Directions, Final Report, November 18, 2008; • Province's ROPA 128 Approval, October 27, 2010; and • Detailed 20 Year Population Projections (based on data collected to December 31, 2012), City of Pickering City Development Department, June 2013.. In addition to reviewing the above-mentioned documents, the following key indicators were also considered in generating the population, household and non-residential forecast; • Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 59 A-2 • 1996, 2001, 2006 and available 2011 Census data;' • historical residential and non-residential building permit activity; • • proposed residential units in the development approvals process by dwelling type and location; and • 1996, 2001 and 2006 Census employment data. A.2 Summary of Growth Forecast The discussion provided herein, summarizes the anticipated growth for Pickering and describes the basis for the forecast. The result of the growth forecast analysis is summarized in Schedule 1. The population is anticipated to reach 142,790 by mid 2023 and 177,190 by mid 2031 (which is 149,360 and 185,340, respectively, including the undercount estimated at 4.55%). This results in an increase of 52,720 persons over the 10-year period and 87,120 over the 18-year period. • 1. Unit Mix(Schedules 1 and 2) • The unit mix for Pickering was derived from proposed residential units in the development approvals process, Schedule 6 and the Seaton FIS, as well as discussions with staff, regarding anticipated development trends for the City. • Based on the above indicators, the long-term growth forecast is premised upon-a unit mix of 25% low density (single family and semi-detached), 41% medium density(multiples except apartments)and 34% high density (apartments). Low h Location Density Medium Density Deg. Total Seaton 7,153 7,793 7,378 1 22,324. 59.5% 32% 35% 33% • Rest of Pickering 2,053 7,761 5,366 15,180 2 40.5% 14% 51% 35% • Total . r 9,206 15,554 12,744 37,504 100% 25% 41% 34% 1 5,638 units+ 1,740 in post 2031 de\,elopment assumed to be accelerated as part of reaching 61,000 persons by that time. 2 "Growing Durham" No\,ember 18, 2008 Appendix B Table B-13 shows 16,833 household growth for Pickering 2006-2031. 16,833-1,653 units(20062013)=15,180. Hi:\Pickering\2013 DC Study\Growth\[Pckering Growth Model 2013.xisxiSheet6 • 1 The 2011 Census regarding total population and total number of occupied private dwellings by structural type of dwelling has been incorporated into the 2013 DC growth forecast. Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 60 A-3 2. Geographic Location (Schedule 2 and 6) • Schedule 2 summarizes the residential population and new unit growth in terms of geographic location. Seaton is expected to account for 59.5% of the new unit growth in Pickering over the 2013-2031 period. Schedule 6 summarizes the • current supply of future housing within Pickering, which are either proposals, developments or vacant land. 3. Planning Period • Short and longer-term time horizons are required for the DC process. The DCA limits the planning horizon for certain services, such as parks, recreation and libraries, to a 10-year planning horizon. Roads and related services and stormwater management are able to utilize a longer planning period to 2031. 4. Population in New Units (Schedules 2, 3, 4 and 5) The number of housing units to be constructed in Pickering during the short, medium and long term period is presented on Schedule 1 (average of approximately 2,084 units per annum over the 18-year time horizon). As well, this schedule graphically illustrates the forecast unit development for the 18-year period, in comparison with building activity over the past 10 years. • Population in new units is derived from Schedules 2, 3, 4 and 5, which incorporate historical development activity, anticipated units (see unit mix discussion), and 1996, 2001 and 2006 Census data. • Schedule 8 summarizes the PPU for the new housing units by age and type of dwelling based on 2006 custom census data. The 20-year average Pickering PPU's used in the forecast are: o Low-density: 3.48 o Medium-density: 2.76 • o High-density: 1.59 5. Existing Units and Population Change(Schedules 2, 3, 4 and 5) • Existing households for mid 2013 are based on the 2011 Census households, plus estimated residential units constructed between mid 201.1 and mid 2013 assuming a lag between construction and occupancy. • The decline in average occupancy levels for existing housing units are calculated in Schedules 2, 3, 4 and 5, by aging the existing population over the forecast period. 6. Employment(Schedules 10a-c, 11, and 12) • Employment projections in Seaton are derived from the Seaton FIS. Employment projections for the Rest of Pickering are implicit in Growing Durham, which is largely based on the activity rate method of forecasting. The activity rate Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 61 • A-4 is defined as the number of jobs in Pickering divided by the number of residents. Key employment sectors include primary, industrial, commercial, institutional, and work at home, which are considered individually below. • 2006 employment data for the City is outlined in Schedule 10a. The 2006 total employment is broken out by the following sectors: o 75 primary (0.2%); o 3,015 work at home employment(9.4%). o 12,743 industrial (39.7%); o 11,988 commercial/population-related (37.4%); o 4,245 institutional (13.2%). • This provides a total employment (including work at home) figure of 32,065. Additional details regarding historical employment trends by sub-sector based on the 2006 Census are summarized in Schedule 12. • Total employment (including work at home) for the City is anticipated to reach approximately 52,240 by mid 2023 and 64,340 by mid 2031. The employment increase for the 10-year period is 16,790 and 28,890 for the 18-year period.. • Net of work at home and NFPOW employees', total employment for the City of Pickering is anticipated to reach approximately 58,370 by mid-2031. This represents an employment increase of 26,200 employees between mid-2013 and mid-2031. 7. Non-Residential Sq. Ft. Estimates(Gross Floor Area (GFA), Schedule 10 a -c) • Square footage estimates were calculated in Schedule 10b and c based on the following employee density assumptions; o 1,000 sq. ft. per employee for industrial (1,159 sq.ft. in Seaton2); o 400 sq. ft. per employee for commercial/population-related (677 sq.ft. in Seaton3); and o 700 sq. ft. per employee for institutional (951 sq.ft. in Seaton3). • The incremental Gross Floor Area (GFA) increase for the City is approximately 12,373,277 sq. ft. over the 10-year projection period and 21,680,007 over the 18- year projection period. • The 18-year forecast incremental GFA by sector is as follows: • o industrial 41.2%'; o commercial/population-related 45.9%; and o institutional 12.9%. 1 These categories do not generate non-residential floor area increases or give rise to quantifiable additional municipal service requirements. 2 As per Seaton FIS. Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering do study.docx 62 A-5 8. Reconciliation of the DC Growth Forecast to the Pickering ROPA 128 Forecasts • These are as follows: o Population 225,670 (incl. undercount); o Households 77,125; o Employment 76,720. • Tables A & B allocate the Growing Durham (and ROPA 128) population growth forecast between South Pickering (incl. Rural), Seaton and North East Pickering. • Two adjustments should be made to this allocation for DC calculation purposes. The first is to comply with the reduction in the population for Seaton which was set at 61,000 residents for 2031, in the CPDP Amendment No. 1 of June 6, 2012. The second adjustment is to comply with the Province's October 27, 2010 refusal to approve that part of ROPA 128 comprising the urban expansion in North East Pickering. Those two adjustments reduce the City's 2031 population for purposes of a 2013 development charge calculation, to: • ROPA 128 Total 225,670 Less: Seaton Population Reduction (10,345) (71,345-61,000) North East Pickering (29,820) Revised Pickering 2031 Population (incl. undercount) 185,505 (excl. undercount)' 177,432 'At 4.55% • This is within 200 persons of the DC population growth.forecast. The undercount adjustment is in the amount of 4.55%, based on 2001 census data and as used in the Growth Durham calculations. • • • This is the population growth forecast that should be used for DC purposes at this time, in compliance with ROPA 128. When development in North East Pickering is subsequently approved, it can be added to the forecast and its capital servicing requirements established at that time, together with associated DC policy. • The ROPA 128 household figure may be somewhat less prescriptive than the population figure. The forecast is for 67,395, in comparison with 77,125 in ROPA 128. However, the ROPA 128 population has been adjusted down by 40,165 persons. Assuming no change in the number of Seaton units (i.e. the population growth decline is wholly occupancy-related), the number of units to be subsequently added for North East Pickering is 29,820 persons _ 2.65 ppu = 11,253 households, for a City-wide total of 78,648, which is similar when compared with 77,125 in ROPA 128. Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 63 • A-6 Appendix Ito Memorandum to the (Acting)Division Head,Finance&Treasurer From:(Acting)Chief Planner Dated:March 25,2013 Table Al City of Pickering -- Population2 Forecast by Geographic Area from 2006 to 2031 I Geographic Area Existing Forecast Growth Forecast I Po ulation in 2006 (increased Population to 2031 South Pickering 86,775 33,4003, 120,175 Seaton 455 • 70,890 71,345 Northeast Pickering 405 29,5404 29,820 • Urban Sub-total 87,635 133,705 221,340 Rural . 4,205 125 4,330 City Total 91,840, 133,830 225,670 I Source:Adapted from Growing Durham Study Final Report-November 2008 and letter from Commissioner of Planning,Region of Durham, dated March 10,2009,to Regional Chair and member of Regional Committees. I Figures include the population undercount. 3 The South Pickering Forecast Growth of 33,000 is a correction from original table that was printed using 51,400 4 There is a mathematical error In the table.Assuming the Forecast Population to 2031 is the control figure,the Forecast Growth for Northeast Pickering should be reduced by 125 to 29,415. Table B1 • • City of Pickering Population2 Forecast by Geographic Area,in 5-Year Increments,2006 to 2031 Geographic Area 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 • 2031 South Pickering 86,775 85,425 92,210 98,725 111,060 120,175. Seaton 455 10,880 34,850 61,570 , 71,345 71,345 Northeast Pickering 405 9,570 9,840 13,385 17,660 29,820 Urban Sub-total 87,635 105,855 136,850 173,605 •199,960 221,340 Rural 4,205 4,230 • 4,260 4,280 4,305 4,330 City Total 91,840 110,075 141,1051 177,890 204,265 225,670 1 Source;Growing Durham Study Final Report-November 2008 and letter from Commissioner of Planning,Region of Durham,dated March 10,2009,to Regional Chair and member of Regional Committees. • S Figures Include the population undercount. • • Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC SiudylPickering dc study.docx 64 A-7 • The ROPA 128 employment forecast is for 76,720 jobs. The City's 2013 employment, including Work at Home and No Fixed Place of Work, is estimated as 32,170 + 3,280 (W/H) + 3,100 (NFPW) = 38,550 jobs. This means that 2013- 31 job growth in Pickering is to total 38,170 jobs. • Job growth in Seaton is established by CPDP Amendment No. 1 at 30,500 (20,234 GFA-related employment (plus 2,449 brought forward from post 2031, along with 359 Work at Home), 2,460 Work at Home and an enhanced No Fixed Place of Work allocation of 4,998). • Based on assumptions implicit in the Growing Durham employment forecasts, it is estimated that South Pickering will generate 6,198 jobs (inclusive of 230 Work at Home jobs). • This leaves 1,472 jobs for North East Pickering (38,170— 30,500 —6,198) which are not included in the DC forecast. • With respect to the Region's approach, we would note that paragraph 3.2.3 of the DC Background Study for area-specific water and sewerage service, indicates that, "the costs are estimated in 2013 $ and reflect the total capital needs to provide full buildout, that is 70,000 population and 35,000 employment as per the approved Central Pickering Development Plan. The Seaton costs will be fully recovered from the projected development within Seaton over the 2015-31 time period." • In the case of the City, all services other than transportation and SWM are presently being addressed for the 10-year planning period 2014-23, consistent with the DCA. Thus, ROPA 128 and the CPDP don't create a potential growth forecast inconsistency issue. SWM is being provided via subdivision conditions outside of the DCA other than a small City-wide charge. The transportation program is to be independently funded by the landowners. The calculation spreads the non-residential costs entirely over the floor space increment which corresponds with the GFA-related employment alone. Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 65 A-8 SCHEDULE I CITY OF PICKERING RESIDENTIAL GROWTH FORECAST SUMMARY • Population Population _ Housing Units •Year (Excluding (Including Singles&Semi Multiple Total Person Per Census Census 2 Apartments' Other Undercount) Undercount)' Detached Dwellings Households Unit(PP U) Mid 1996 78,989 82,620 18595 3,260 2,125 45 24,025 3.29 Mid 2001 87,139 91,150 21,430 . 3,055 2,415 45 26,945 323 Mid2006 87,838 91,880 20,335 4,770 3,110 10 28,225 3.11 Mid 2011 88,721 92,800 20,740 5,380 3,190 15 29,325 3.03 Mid 2013 90,070 94,210 21,214 5,472 3,190 15 29,891 3.01 21172023 142,780 149,360 28,007 14,701 9,4€9 15 52,212 2.73 !9;32031 177.190 185,340 30,420 21,026 15,924 15 67,395 2.63 Mid 1991-Mid 1996 10,358 10,830 18,595 3,260 2,125 45 24,025 Mid 1996-Mid 2001 8,150 8,530 2,835 -205 290 0 2,920 Mid 2001-Mid 2006 699 730 -1,095 1,715 695 -35 1,280 Mid 2006-Mid 2011 883 920 405 610 80 5 1,100 Mid 2011-Mid 2013 1,349 1,410 474 • 92 0 0 566 Mid 2013-Mid 2023 52,720 55,150 6,793 9,229 6,299 0 22,321 Mid 2013-Mid 2031 .87,120 91,130 9,206 15,554 12,744 0 37,504 • Source:Watson&Associates Economists Lid.,June,2013. 1.Census Undercount estimated at approdmately 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. FIGUREA-1 • 2013-2030 HOUSING FORECAST' 3,500 3,000 2943 2944 2944 . 2,514 2,514 2514 2.514 2,514 2914 2,493 U) 2,500 HIIII • Y C 2,122 2,000 t� 1,roe C .N 1,0>9 1,4]9 1,1]9 1,419 II O 1,500 111111 O 2 1,000 I 675 575 531 5]2 IN 500 36] 4 266 253 MR 0 ' I I _ _ S 2003 200'2005 2596 2001 2006 2900 9010 1,0''1 se 2013 q.e 2016 2016 1,0`1 2015 91 A 202'5,9'202 10'15°2029 15°'2021 2026 2029, s0 Years • Historical Low Density =Medium Density =High Density -Historical Average - Seaton Total • Source:Historical housing activity(2002-2011)based on Statistics Canada building permits,Catalogue 64-001-XIB 1.Growth Forecast represents start year. Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12013 DC Study\Pickering dc study.docx 66 • A-9 SCHEDULE 2a CITY OF PICKERING ESTIMATE OF THE ANTICIPATED AMOUNT,TYPE AND LOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT FOR WHICH DEVELOPMENT CHARGES CAN BE IMPOSED GROSS DEVELOPMENT TIMING SINGLES 8 SEMI TOTAL POPULATION' EXISTING UNIT NET DETACHED MULTIPLES' APARTMENTS2 RESIDENTIAL POPULATION' POPULATION' LOCATION UNITS IN NEW UNITS CHANGE INCREASE 2013-2023 6,005 6,001 2705 14,711 41,781 41,781 Seaton 2013-2031 7,153 7,793 7,378 22,324 58,159 58,159 2013-2023 - 788 3,228 3,594 7,610 17,370 (6,431) 10,939 Rest of Pickering ' 2013-2031 2,053 7761 5,366 ° 15,180 37,105 (8,144) 28,961 2013-2023 6,793 9,229 6,299 22,321 59,151 (6,431) 52,720 City of Pickering 2013-2031 9,206 15,554 12,744 37,504 95,264 (8,144) 87,120 Source:Watson 8 Associates Economists Ltd.,derived from Seaton FE(fable ES-1)and Growing Durham Table 8-13. • 1.Includes townhomes and apartments in duplexes. 2.Includes bachelor,1 bedroom and 2 bedroom+apartments. 3.Census Undercount excluded. 4.5,638+1,740 accelerated units re:6),000 population. SCHEDULE 2b CITY OF PICKERING 2031 POPULATION BY LOCATION • 2013 2013-2031 2031 2031 DEVELOPMENT POPULATION NET POPULATIOI, POPULATION POPULATION • (EXCLUDING INCREASE (EXCLUDING (INCLUDING LOCATION UNDERCOUNT) (SCHEDULE2a) UNDERCOUNT) UNDERCOUNT) Seaton - 58,159 58,159 60,834 Rest of Pickering 90,070 28,961 119,031 124,506 t Total Pickering 90,070 87,120 177,190 185,341 1.CPDP Amendment 2.Catherine Rose March 25/13 email to Stan Karwowski,Table A. • • • Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 67 A-10 SCHEDULE 3 CITY OF PICKERING CURRENT YEAR POPULATION ESTIMATE MID 2011 TO MID 2013 POPULATION Mid 2011 Population 88,721 Occupants of Units(2) 566 New Housing Units, multiplied by persons per unit(3) 3.37 Mid 2011 to Mid 2013 gross population increase 1,905 1,905 Decline in Housing Units(4) 29,325 Unit Occupancy, multiplied by ppu decline rate(5) -0.0190 Mid 2011 to Mid 2013 total decline in population -556 -556 Population Estimate to Mid 2013 90,070 Net Population Increase,Mid 2011 to Mid 2013 1,349 (1)2011 population based on StatsCan Census unadjusted for Census Undercount (2) Estimated residential units constructed,Mid 2011 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: Persons %Distribution Weighted Persons Structural Type Per Unit' of Estimated Units' Per Unit Average Singles&Semi Detached 3.48 —__— 840/ 2.92 Multiples(6) 2.76 16% 0.45 Apartments(7) 1.59 0% 0.00 Total 100% 3.37 'Based on 2006 Census custom database Based on Building pemit/corrpletion acitivty (4)2011 households taken from StatsCan Census. • (5) Decline occurs due to aging of the population and family life cycle changes,lower fertility rates and changing economic conditions. (6)Includes townhomes and apartments in duplexes. • (7) Includes bachelor,1 bedroom and 2 bedroom+apartments. Watson&Associates Economists Ltd, H:(Pickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx • 68 A-11 SCHEDULE 4 CITY OF PICKERING TEN YEAR GROWTH FORECAST MID 2013 TO MID 2023 POPULATION Mid 2013 Population (1) 90,070 Occupants of Units(2) 22,321 (8) New Housing Units, multiplied by persons per unit(3) 2.65 Mid 2013 to Mid 2023 gross population increase 59,151 59,151 Decline in Housing Units(4) • 29,891 Unit Occupancy, multiplied by ppu decline rate(5) -0.2152 Mid 2013 to Mid 2023 total decline in population -6,431 -6,431 Population Estimate to Mid 2023 142,790 Net Population Increase,Mid 2013 to Mid 2023 52,720 (1)Mid 2013 Population based on: ' 2011 Population(88,721)+lv d 2011 to Mid 2013 estimated housing units to beginning of forecast period (566 x3.37=1,905)+ (29,325 x-0.019=-556)=90,070 (2)Based upon forecast building perm its/completions assuming a lag between construction and occupancy. (3)Average num ber of persons per unit(ppu)is assumed to be: 'Structural 1 Persons Per Unit' %Disribution of Estimated Units. Weighted Persons Per Unit Average Singles&Semi Detached 3.48 30% 1.06 • Multiples(6) 2.76 41% 1.14 Apartments(7) 1.59 28% 0.45 one bedroom or less 1.35 two bedrooms or more 1.84 Total 100% 2.65 'Fi?rsons per unit based on adjusted Statistics Canada Custom2006 Census database. Forecast unit nix based upon historical trends and housing units in the development process. ' (4)Mid 2013 households based upon 29,325(2011 Census)+566(Mid 2011 to Mid 2013 unit estimate)=29,891 (5)Decline occurs due to aging of the population and fam ily life cycle changes,lower fertility rates and changing economic conditions. (6)Includes townhomes and apartments in duplexes. (7) Includes bachelor,1 bedroom and 2 bedroom+apartments. (8) Seaton New Housing Units= 14,711 as per Schedule 2a Other New Housing Units= 7,610 as per Schedule 2a Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. . H:1Pickering12013 DC StudylPickering do study.docx 69 A-12 SCHEDULE 5 CITY OF PICKERING TWENTY YEAR GROWTH FORECAST MID 2013 TO MID 2031 POPULATION Mid 2013 Population (1) 90,070 Occupants of Units(2) 37,504 (8) New Housing Units, multiplied by persons per unit(3) 2.54 Mid 2013 to Mid 2031 gross population increase 95,264 95,264 Decline in Housing Units(4) 29,891 • Unit Occupancy, multiplied by ppu decline rate(5) -0.2725 Mid 2013 to Mid 2031 total decline in population -8,144 -8,144 Population Estimate to Mid 2031 177,190 Net Population Increase,Mid 2013 to Mid 2031 87,120 (1)Mid 2013 Population based on: 2011 Population(88,721)+Mid 2011 to Mid 2013 estimated housing units to beginning of forecast period (566 x3.37=1,905)+ (29,325 x-0,019=-556)=90,070 (2)Based upon forecast building perm its/completions assuming a lag between construction and occupancy. (3)Average number of persons per unit(ppu)is assumed to be: Persons %Distribution Weighted Persons Structural Type Per Unit' of Estimated Units' Per Unit Average Singles&Semi Detached 3.48 25% • 0.86 Multiples(6) 2.76 41% 1.14 Apartments(7) 1.59 34% 0.54 one bedroom or less 1.35 two bedrooms or more 1.84 • Total • 100% 2.54 'Persons per unit based on adjusted Statistics Canada Custom2006 Census database. 'Forecast unit mix based upon historical trends and housing units in the development process. (4)Mid 2013 households based upon 29,325(2011 Census)+566(Mid 2011 to Mid 2013 unit estimate)=29,891 (5)Decline occurs'due to aging of the population and family life cycle Changes,lower fertility rates and changing economic conditions. (6)Includes townhomes and apartments in duplexes. (7) Includes bachelor,1 bedroom and 2 bedroom+apartments. (8) Seaton New Housing Units= 22,324 as per Schedule 2a Other New Housing Units= 15,180 as per Schedule 2a 1 Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 70 A-13 • SCHEDULE 6 SUMMARY OF UNITS IN THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS (As per Detailed 20 Year Population Projections,Dec.31,2012,City of Pickering,Planning&Development Dept) A) South Urban Pickering Detail by Community Neighbourhood Development 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018- 2023- 2027- Future 2013- Total Process • 2022 2027 2032 2032 1 Rosebank Proposals 7 7 14. 14 Developments 4 1 5 5 Vacant Lands 6 5 5 5 5 50 50 16 - 142 142 • Total r 10 6 5 12 12 50 50 16 161 161 2 West Shore Proposals - - Developments - Vacant Lands - - 20 30 5 - - - - 55 55 Total - - 20 30 5 - - - - 55 55 • 3 Bay Ridges Proposals 26 80 80 219 405 405 Developments - - Vacart Lands 10 2 _ 2 2 2 3 - - - 21 21 Total 36 2 82 82 2 222 - - - 426 426 4 Rougemount Proposals 44 44 44 • Developments -Vacant Lands 3 3 3 2 2 20 40 40 - 113 113 Total 3 3 47 2 2 20 40 40 - 157 157 5 Woodlands Proposals 8 235 243 243 Developments - - Vacant Lands 2 2 2 2 2 - - 54 - 64' 64 Total 2 2 10 237 2 - - 54 - 307 307 6 Dumbarton Proposals 6 25 84 100 215 215 • Developments 3 2 5 5 Vacant Lands 3 5 5 5 5 33 32 33 - 121 ' 121 Total 6 13 30 89 105 33 32 33 - 341 341 7 Town Centre Proposals 159 159 159 Developments 24 - 24 Vacant Lands - - - - 25 25 25 33 - 108 108 Total - - - - 25 - 184 25 33 24 267 291 r 8 Village East Proposals 10 100 18 110 ' 128 • Developments 12 - 12 • Vacant Lands - 2 2 2 2 20 20 21 - 69 69 Total - 12 102 2 2 20 20 21 30 179 209 9 Highbush Proposals 12 17 29 48 2 1 108 ' 109 Developments - Vacant Lands 5 10 20 20 20 20 20 10 - 125' 125 Total 17 27 49 68 22 20 20 10 1 233 . 234 10 Amberlea Proposals - Developments - Vacant Lands 2 4 2 5 5 5 5 2 - 30' 30 Total 2 4 2 5 5 5 5 2 - 30 30 11 Liverpool Proposals - 55 12 67 67 Developments - Vacant Lands - - - - 5 30 4 - - 39' 39 Total - 55 12 - 5 30 4 - - 106 106 12 Brock Ridge Proposals 39 119 61 35 - 254 254 . Developments - - Vacant Lands - - - - - 60 60 60 - 180 180 Total - 39 119 61 35 60 60 60 - 434 434 13 Rouge Park Proposals 23 10 19 52 52 Developments 4 7 2 13 13 Vacant Lands 2 2 2 2 20 50 50 50 45 178 223 Total 6 2 25 19 41 50 50 50 45 243 288 14 Duffin Heights Proposals 204 159 100 132 595 595 Developments - - . Vacant Lands - - - 100 200 500 500 600 85 1900 1965 • Total 204 159 100 232 200 500 500 600 85 2,495 2,580 15 Downtown(UGC) Proposals - - Developments - - Vacant Lands - - - 100 280 650 900 1 009 2 825 2939 5764 • ' Total - - - 100 280 650 900 1,009 2,825 2,939 5,764 South Urban Sub-total Proposals 242 286 540 657 163 378 - - 19 2,266 2,285 Developments 11 3 - 7 •2 - - - 36 23 59 Vacant Lands 33 35 63 275 578 1466 1706 1_828 2,955 6484 99 039 Total 286 324 603 939 743 1,844 1,706 1,928 3,010 8,373 11,383 Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 71 A-14 SCHEDULE 6(Continued) SUMMARY OF UNITS IN THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS (As per Detailed 20 Year Population Projections,Dec.31,2012,City of Pickering,Planning&Development Dept.) B) Pickering Rural Detail by Community Neighbourhood Development 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018- 2023- 2027- Future 2013- Total Process 2022 2027 2032 2032 1 Greenwood Proposals 13 13 13 Developments - - Vacant Lands - - - - - - - - - - - Total - - - - - 13 - - - 13 13 2 Kinsale Proposals - - Developments - - l Vacant Lands - 3 5 2 1 1 1 1 9 14 23 Total - 3 5 2 1 1 1 1 9 14 23 3 Staxton Glen Proposals - - Developments 3 6 9 9 • Vacant Lands - - - - - - - - - - - Total - - - - 3 6 - - - 9 9 4 Birchwood Estates Proposals 23 23 23 Developments - - Vacant Lands - - - - - - - - - - - Total - - - - - - 23 - - 23 23 5 Barclay Estates Proposals 2 3 3 3 2 13 ' 13 Developments - - Vacant Lands - - - - - - - - - - - Total 2 3 3 3 2 - - - - 13 13 6 Claremont&Area Proposals 17 10 27 27 Developments 4 2 2 2 10 10 Vacant Lands 3 _ - - - - - - . 4 - 7 7 Total 7 2 2 2 17 10 - 4 - 44 44 7 Forest Creek Proposals 3 3 8 14 14 Developments - - Vacant Lands - - - - - - - - - - - Total - - - 3 3 8 - - - 14 14 8 Remaining Proposals 5 5 5 6 8 28 30 30 344 117 461 Rural Developments - - Vacant Lands - - - - - - - - - - - Total 5 5 5 6 8 • 28 30 30 344 117 461 Pickering Rural Proposals 7 8 8 12 30 59 53 30 344 207 551 Developments 4 2 2 2 3 6 - - - 19 19 Vacant Lands 3 3 5 2 1 1 1 5 9 21 30 Total 14 13 15 16 34 66 54 35 353 247 600 • r Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 72 A-15 SCHEDULE 6(Continued) SUMMARY OF UNITS IN THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS (As per Detailed 20 Year Population Projections,Dec.31,2012,City of Pickering,Planning&Development Dept) C) Total South Urban Pickering+Rural(Excludes Seaton1 Neighbourhood Development 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018- 2023- 2027- Future 2013- Total Process 2022 2027 2032 2032 Total South Urban+ Rural Proposals 249 294 548 669 193 437 53 30 363 2,473 2,836 Developments 15 5 2 9 5 6 - - 36 42 78 Vacant Lands 36 38 68 277 579 1.467 1 707 1.933 2.964 6,105 9.069 Total 300 337 618 955 777 1,910 1,760 1,963 3,363 8,620 11,983 • D) Seaton Neighbourhood Development 2013 2014 . 2015 2016 2017 2018- 2023- 2027- Future 2013- Total Process 2022 2027 2032 2032 Seaton Proposals 2,559 1,984 4,904 5,546 1,698 16,691 16,691 Developments - - Vacant Lands - - - 550 300 2,000 3,000 3,000 - 8,850 8.850 Total - - - 3,109 2,284 6,904 8,546 4,698 - 25,541 25,541 E) City-Wide Total(Including Seaton) Development 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018- 2023- 2027- Future 2013- Total Process 2022 2027 2032 2032 City Total Proposals 249 294 548 3,228 2,177 5,341 5,599 1,728 363 19,164 19,527 (Including Seaton) Developments 15 5 2 9 5 6 - - 36 42 78 Vacant Lands 36 38 68 827 879 3,467 4.707 4,933 2,964 14,955 17.919 Total 300 337 618 4,064 3,061 8,814 10,306 6,661 3,363 34,161 37,524 H-*-:a�^::-?15 C!'&.,70.1 t1h1P.:.En GmrN Moue.013x s•.J -<:l'. e_s„r•d;\�� • • • • • • Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H)Pickering12013 DC StudylPickering do study.docx 73 • A-16 • Schedule 6 accounts for 8,373 units in the development process in South Urban Pickering and • expected to be created 2013-32: An additional 3,010 units are expected to be developed subsequently, for a total of 11,383. In addition, 247 units (+600 subsequently) are expected to be developed in the rural area. This produces a grand total of 12,230 units outside of Seaton. Schedule 5 forecasts 37,504 units to be developed by 2031, consisting of 22,324 in Seaton and 15,180 outside of Seaton. The latter number is approximately 2,950 in excess of the City's expected development total by 2032. However, it is noted that intensification components such as Corridors and Neighbourhood Centres are yet to be analyzed and should yield a significant amount of intensification units outside the Urban Growth Centre(UGC). • • • • Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 74 A-17 SCHEDULE 7 CITY OF PICKERING HISTORICAL RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS YEARS 2003-2012 • RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS Year Singles&Semi Multiples Apartments2 Total Detached 2003 145 222 0 367 2004 179 131 221 531 2005 83 96 0 179 2006 118 45 5 168 2007 108 77 1 186 Sub-total 633 571 227 1,431 Average(2003-2007) 127 114 45 286 %Breakdown 44.2% 39.9% 15.9% 100.0% • 2008 67 177 1 245 2009 55 6 5 66 2010 84 42 140 • 266 2011 . 259 75 238 572 2012 237 46 0 283 Sub-total 702 346 384 1,432 Average(2008-2012) 140 69 - 77 286 . ck Breakdown 49.0% 24.2% 26.8% 100.0% . 2003-2012 • Total 1,335 917 611 2,863 Average 134 92 61 286 %Breakdown 46.6% 32.0% 21.3% 100.0% Sources: Building Permits-Statistics Canada Publication,64-001XIB 1.Includes townhomes and apartments in duplexes. 2.Includes bachelor, 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom+apartments. Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 75 . • A-18 SCHEDULE 8 CITY OF PICKERING PERSONS PER UNIT BY AGE AND TYPE OF DWELLING (2006 CENSUS) Age of SINGLES AND SEMI-DETACHED Dwelling <1 BR 1 BR 2 BR 3/4 BR 6+BR Total Adjusted PPU' 20 Year A1erage 1-5 - - - 3.269 5.364 3.344 _3.30 6-10 - - 2.261 3.518 4.721 3.547 3.50_ 11-15 - - 2.545 3.518 4.638 3.653 3.62 `- 16-20 . - - 2.867 3.411 4.658 3.647 3.52 3.48 20-25 - - - 3.345 3.804 3.394 3.38 25-35 - - 2.391 • 3.226 5.206 3.304 3.30 35+ - 1.933 2.132 2.826 4.016 2.795 2.79 Total - 2.317 2.309 3.277 4.510 3.334 Age of MULTIPLES' Dwelling <1 BR 1 BR 2 BR 3/4 BR 6+BR Total Adjusted PPU' 20 Year Aaerage 1-5 - - 2.167 2.676 - 2.621 2.52 6-10 - - 1.833 2.593 - 2.454 2.36 11-15 - - 2.421 3.218 3.113 3.02 _ 16-20 - - 2.250 3.263 4.063 3.202 3.14 276_ 20-25 - - 2.692 2.914 5.625 3.128 3.09 25-35 - 2.571 2.981 - 2.988 2.97 35+ - 1.588 2.167 2.644 3.313 2.454 2.44 Total 1.909 1.765 2.250 2.906 4.147 2.846 Age of APARTMENTS' Dwelling <1 BR 1 BR 2 BR 3/4 BR 6+BR Total Adjusted PPU' 20 Year Aserage 1-5 - 1.190 1.529 - - ' 1.489 1.38 6-10 - 1.226 1.681 2.438 - 1.627 1.50 11-15 - 1.800 1.776 2.571 - t880 1.77 -�-16-20 1.485 1.927 1.955 - 1.777 _-__-1.71 I.59 20-25 - 1.231 1.364 2.425 - 1.969 t92 25-35 - 1.125 1.250 -2.365 - 1.989 1.96 35+ - 2.364 1.714 2.837 - 2.638 2.52 Total 1.038 1.458 1.722 2.453 - 1.900 Age of ALL DENSITY TYPES Dwelling <1 BR - 1 BR 2 BR 3/4 BR 5+BR Total 1-5 - 1.433 1.976 3.067 5.400 2.879 6-10 - 1.609 1.862 3.305 4,480 3.049 11-15 - 1.919 1.990 3.425 4.573 3.244 16-20 - 1.848 2.146 3.363 4.585 3.345 20-25 - 1.520 2.290 3.240 4.239 3.235 25-35 - 1.375 ' 2.163 3.091 4.864 3.085 35+ 0.750 1.914 2.097 2.806 3.918 2.729 Total 1.668 1.711 2.052 3.177 4.453 3.093 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 townhomes 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 forsamples less than or equal to 50 duelling units,and does not include institutional population Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12013 DC StudylPickenng dc study.docx 76 . A-19 SCHEDULE 9 CITY OF PICKERING PERSONS PER UNIT BY STRUCTURAL TYPE AND AGE OF DWELLING (2006 CENSUS) 4.00 3.65 3.50 3.55 3.55 3.39 . 3.13 cn i � 2.99 3.00 2.62 ;■ II III 2.54 Iii 2.45 2.45 2.50 0 2.00 �, �� • .. •III; Ilt 1111 1.99 mai.d 1.49 1.63 0 1.50 J u) +.1 a.) 1.00 a 0.50 I . . 0.00 ,w-. . .;,I 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 20-25 25-35 35+ Age of Dwelling caiSingles and Sem i-Detached III Multiples DApartments Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx A-20 SCHEDULE 10a . CITY OF PICKERING ACTIVITY RATE AND EMPLOYMENT FORECAST,2013 TO 2031 Activity Rate Employment Total Period Population lion Commercial/ Commercial/ pu Work at Work at Primary Homo Industrial Population Institutional Total Primary Home Industrial Population Institutional Related Related 1996 78,989 0.00 0.03 0.13 0.11 0.04 0.32 190 2,565 10.320 9,025 3,090 25,190 2001 87,139 0.00 0.03 0.15 0.13 0.04 0.38 195 2.760 13.395 11.545 3,745 31,040 2006 57,638 0.00 0.03 0.15 0.14 0.05 0.37 75 3,015 12,743 11,988 4.245 32,065 Mid 201 3 - 90,070 0.00 0.04 0.15 0.15 0.00 0.39 80 3,280 13,130 13.560 5,400 35,450 Mid 2023' 142,790 0.00 0.07 0.21 0.31 0.10 0.09 80 4,860 17,590 22,220 7,490 52,240 Mid 2031 177,190 0.00 0.07 0.22 0.36 0.09 0.75 90 5.970 21,260 28,440 8,580 64,340 Incremental Change 1996-2001 8,100 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.04 5 195 3,075 2.520 655 I 6,450 2001 -2006 599 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 -120 255 -553 443 500 1111 425 0 1.580 4 400 8.060 2 010 10.790 '1 Mid 2013-Mid 2023 52,720 0.00 0.03 0.07 0.10 0.0.1 0.30 I Mid 203-Mid 2031 67.120 0.00 0.04 0-08 0.21 3.03 0.30 10 2,690 8,130 14,880 3,180 28,890 __ Annual Average _. ...._... _. ... .. -...W, . 1996-2001 1,530 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 1 39 615 504 131 - 1,290 2001-2006 140 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -24 51 -131 89 100 85 Mid 2013-Mid 2023 5,272 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.03 0 158 446 866 209 1,679 Mid 2013-Mid 2031 4,840 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 1 149 452 827 177 1,605 d FIGURE A-2 `J 2013-2030 EMPLOYMENT FORECAST 12,000 6,450 8,395 7 896 • 10,000 7,583 8,000 5,557 6,000 2,865 MEM • ■ 4,000 i ! 11111 425 . 2,000 i ' 90--2001 00^2 _ 006 2011 '10 'ZINC'''.016 20,21 p2120ry0 02620.1 -2,000 Industrial/Primary ellenCommercial =Institutional ■I Work at Home -HistoricalAverage Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx • • A-21 Employment The forecast for Seaton is for 30,500 jobs by 2031 as per the CPDP amendment. This consists of the following: Seaton GFA Generating Employment 20,234 Seaton Work at Home 2,460 Seaton No Fixed Place of Work Enhanced 7,806 30,500 • The job growth forecast for South Pickering based on Growing Durham inputs is: 6,198 Total Pickering Job Growth to 2031 36,698 2013 Base 35,450 72,148 -7,808 NFPW 64,340 (Schedules 10a) Households and Population Population Seaton FIS Population.without undercount 55,363 Plus undercount(4.55%) 57,882 Post 2031 Units and Population Brought Forward 3,118 61,000 (Schedule 2b) • Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx • 79 • A-22 SCHEDULE 10b CITY OF PICKERING EMPLOYMENT AND GROSS FLOOR AREA(GFA)FORECAST,2013 TO 2031 Employment Gross Floor Area in Square Feet(Estimated)' Period Commercial/ Commercial/ Primary Industrial Population Institutional Total Industrial Population Institutional Total Related Related Mid 2013 80 13,130 13,560 . 5,400 32,170 Mid 2023 80 17,590 22,220 7,490 47,380 Mid 2031 90 21,260 28,440 8580 58,370 Incremental Change Mid 2013-Mid 2023 0 4,460 8,660 2,090 15,210 4,904,422 5,643,142 1,825,713 12,373,277 Mid 2013-Mid 2031 10 8,130 14,830 3,180 26,200 8,934,265 9,944,850 2,800,892 21,680,007 Annual Average Mid 2013-Mid 2023 0 446 866 209 1,521 490,442 564,314 182,571 1,237,328 Mid 2013-Mid 2031 1 452 827 177 . 1,456 496,348 552,492 155,605 1,204,445 Source:Watson&Associates Economists Ltd.,June,2013. 1. Square Foot Per Employee Assumption Rest of Seaton Total Pickering Jas per 181). Industrial 1,000 1,159 1,099 Commercial/Population Related 400 711 668 Institutional 700 951 881 SCHEDULE 10c • EMPLOYMENT AND GROSS FLOOR AREA(GFA)FORECAST SEATON VS.REST OF PICKERING ' Employment Gross Floor Area in Square Feet(Estimated)' Period Commercial/ Commercial/ Primary Industrial Population Institutional Total Industrial Population Institutional Total Related Related Seaton Incremental Change Mid 2013-Mid 2023 0 2,772 7,536 1,595 11,903 3,214,422 5,195,542 1,478,513 9,888,477 Mid 2013-Mid 2031 0 5,082 12,861 2,289 20,232 5,892,265 9,138,850 2,176,492 17,207;607 Rest of Pickering Incremental Change Mid 2013-Mid 2023 0 1,688 1,124 495 3,307 1,690,000 447,600 347,200 2,484,800 Mid.2013-Mid 2031 10 3,048 2,019 891 5,968 3,042,000 806,000 624,400 4,472,400 • ROPA 128,Notice of Decision,October 27,2010 Pickering Employment 76,720 (including NFPOW) Less 2006-13 Actual 3 385 • 2013-31 Growth 73,335 Less: Seaton 20,232 (Schedule 10c) South Pickering 5,968 (Schedule 10c) Work at Home 2,690 (Schedule 10a) 2013 Base 35,450 (Schedule 108) Balance(NE Pickering&NFPOW) 8,995 1i'Pickeirt.42013 DC Study'Grr.71(1 Fickermq Growth MMr4el 2013.x0>l5Dirdii 10(2(' • Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 80 • A-23 SCHEDULE 11 CITY OF PICKERING NON-RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION VALUE YEARS 2002-2011 (000's 2012$) • YEAR Industrial Commercial • Institutional Total New Improve Additions Total New Improve Additions Total New Improve Additions Total New Improve Additions Total 2002 335 585 643 1,563 16,613 4,141 5,646 26,400 11,967 4,826 0 16,792 28,915 9,551 6,288 44,755 2003 892 765 0 1,657 53,290 8,533 0 61,823 12,053 875 0 12,928 66,234 10,173 0 76,408 2004 161 1,636 0 1,798 83,309 9,462 5,719 98,490 0 178 2,903 3,081 83,470 11,277 8,622 103,369 2005 7,575 973 0 8,548 10,928 10,981 12,218 34,127 0 705 0 705 18,503 12,659 12,218 43,380 2006 1,295 2,083 0 3,378 6,345 4,843 0 11,188 17,062 1,058 4,429 22,550 24,703 7,984 4,429 37;116 2007 10,117 2,504 0 12,621 5,269 5,622 0 10,891 0 1,160 2,377 3,537 15,386 9,286 2,377 27,049 2008 38,700 1,125 0 39,825 22,499 8,115 2,911 33,525 1,197 2,166 1,783 5,147 62,396 11,406 4,693 78,496 2009 33,551 705 3,503 37,759 3,714 8,013 0 11,728 0 577 0 577 37,265 9,296 3,503 50,064 2010 9,009 172 0 9,181 27,301 i 10,023 4,657 41,982 0 211 1,351 1,562 36,310 10,407 6,008 52,725 2011 285 1,747 400 2,432 8,052! 8,288 17,988 34,328 250 651 0 901 8,587 10,686 18,388 37,661 Subtotal 101,920 12,295 4,546 118,761 237,320 78,024 49,138 '364,482 42,529 12,408 12,843 67,780 381,770 102,726 . 66,527 551,023 Percent of Total 86% 10% 4% 100% 65% 21% 13% 100% 63% 18% 19% 100% 69% 19% 12% 100% OD Average 10,192 1,230 455 11,876 23,732; 7,802 4,914 36,448 4,253 1,241 1,284 6,778 38,177 10,273 6,653 55,102 _. %Breakdown 21.6% 66.1% 12.3% 100.0% SOURCE:STATISTICS CANADA PUBLICATION,64-001-XIB Note:Inflated to year-end 2011(January,2012)dollars using Reed Construction Cost Index • • • Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering do study.docx • • A-24 SCHEDULE 12 CITY OF PICKERING EMPLOYMENT TO POPULATION RATIO BY MAJOR EMPLOYMENT SECTOR,1996 TO 2006 Year Change 1996 2001 2006 96-01 01-06 I Comments Employment by industry I V 1.0 Primary Industry Employment Categories'which relate to 1.1 All primary 275 245 105 -30 -140 local land-based resources. Sub-total 275 245 105 -30 -140 2.0 Industrial and Other Employment 2.1 Manufacturing 3,825 4,745 3,055 920 -1,690 Categories which relate 1 2.2 Wholesale trade 1,570 1,805 1,900 235 95 primarily to industrial land 2.3 Conswclion 830 1,320 1,275 490 -45 supply and demand. 2.4 Transportation.storage,communication and other utility 4,760 6,265 7,170 1,505 905 Subtotal 10,985 14,135 13,400 ' 3,150 -735 3.0 Population Related Employment 3.1 Retail trade. 4,325 4,790 5,205 465 415 Categories which relate 3.2 Finance,insurance,real estate operator and insurance agent 1,285 2,040 1,905 755 -135 primarily to population 3.3 Business service 1,540 2,610 3,145 1,070 535 growth within the 3.4 Accommodation,food and beverage end other service 3,255 3,660 3,680 405 20 municipality. Sub-total 10,405 13,100 13,935 2,695 835 4.0 Institutional 4.1 Government Service 675 715 885 40 150 4.2 Education service,Health.Social Services 2,850 3,445 3,760 595 315 Sub-total 3,525 4,160 4,625 635 465 Total Employment 25,190 31,640 32,065 6,450 425 Population 78,989 87,139 87,838 8,150 699 Employment to Population Ratio Industrial and Other Employment 0.14 0.16 0.15 0.02 -0.01 Population Related Employment 0.13 0.15 0.16 0.02 0.01 Institutional Employment 0.04 0,05 0.05 0.00 0.00 • Primary Industry Employment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 • Total ___. 0.32 0.36 0.37 0.04 0.00 __-_ Source:Statistics Canada Employment by Place of Work Note:1996-2006 employment figures am classified by Standard Industrial Classification(S'C)Code . Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPicketing12013 DC StudylPickering do study.docx 8 2 • • A-25 ' Schedule 13 Seaton Community Growth Forecast Residential Employment Land Non-Employment Land Total Employment Units Population Acres' GFASq.ft. Acres GFASq.ft. Employment Non- Total Year Low Medium High Total Retail Office Instituti Other Live/ Institutional Land Employment Density Density Density Units onal Private Work Land Sector 2015 751 750 338 1,839 5,221 40.0 709,717 - - - - - 759 - 759 2016 751 750 338 1,839 5,221 81.2 988,496 26.7 - 16.6 300,000 109,957 1,069 785 1,854 2017 751 750 338 1,839 5,221 40.0 709,717 2.0 - 12.0 21,528 131,014 759 175 934 2018 751 750 338 1,839 5,221 40.0 709,717 41.8 3.7 6.0 526,568 65,507 759 1,232 1,991 2019 751 750 338 1,839 5,221 41.0 734,092 2.0 - 28.3 21,528 259,007 768 351 1,119 2020 751 750 338 1,839 5,221 40.0 709,717 27.0 - 22.0 293,552 239,430 759 845 1,604 2021 748 751 339 1,838 5,215 40.0 709,717 4.7 - 6.0 90,278 65,507 759 275 1,034 Phase 1 Sub-total 2 5,254 5,251 2,367 12,872 36,541 322.2 5,271,173 104.2 3.7 90.9 1,253,454 - 870,422 5,632 3,663 9,295 2022 751 750 338 1,839 5,221 40.0 709,717 4.6 - 6.0 50,000 348,776 65,507 759 489 1,248 2023 751 750 338 1,839 5,221 40.0 709,717 2.0 - 22.0 21,528 348,776 239,430 759 604 1,363 2024 397 653 338 1,388 3,721 40.0 709,717 - - 6.0 - 348,776 65,507 759 385 1,144 CO 2025 - 389 338 727 1,611 40.0 709,717 7.9 - 6.0 182,987 348,776 65,507 759 823 1,582 W 2026 - 338 • 338 537 40.0 709,717 - - 6.0 - 65,507 759 65 824. - 2027 - - 338 338 537 40.0 709,717 26.9 - 22.0 292,781 239,430 759 843 1,602 2028 - - 338 338 537 40.0 709,717 11.7 - 6.0 126,960 65,507 759 327 1,086 2029 - - 338 338 537 40.0 709,717 - - 6.0 - 65,507 759 65 824 2030 - - 338 338 537 40.0 709,717 - - 6.0 - 65,507 759 65 824 2031 - - 229 229 363 20.0 352,520 - - 6.0 - 65,507 377 65 442 Subsequent Phases 1,899 2,542 3,271 7,712 18,822 380.0 6,739,973 53.1 - 92.0 674,256 1,395,104 1,002,916 7,208 3,731 10,939 Sub-total Total to 2031 7,153 7,793 5,638 20,584 55,363 702.2 12,011,146 157.3 3.7 182.9 1,927,710 1,395,104 1,873,338 12,840 7,394 20,234 Note:Excludes work at home and no fixed place of work employment,as well as Census undercount provision for population. 2 Includes 41.2 acres of Regional/Institutional development in 2016 and one acre in 2019. 2 Phase 1 total including units occurring in the latter portion of 2021. ... ,...•nm.\.m.-:....u:;n::.L.::IT•ide■ 1(21 • Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H.lPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx • • APPENDIX B DEVELOPMENT CHARGE RECOVERABLE COST CALCULATIONS Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 84 • B-1 APPENDIX B - DEVELOPMENT CHARGE RECOVERABLE COST CALCULATIONS B-1 Growth-related Studies B-1.1 DC Calculation Planning Period 2014-2023 B-1.2 Service Coverage and Capital Program Coverage: These growth-related studies are potentially applicable to virtually all Departments and Boards in the City including Planning, Public Works, Fire, Parks and Recreation, Finance and Library. C apital Program: Includes designated masterplans, feasibility, design, and financing studies, including a minimum of two Development Charge Background Studies. B-1.3 Local Service and Developer Contribution Policy Variable, depending on the size and nature of the development area involved. B-1A Level of Service Measurement The study requirement is based on statutory requirements (e.g. the DCA), the requirements of the City's Official Plan and overall capital spending levels. B-1.5 Benefit to Existing Development Deduction The percentage varies from nil, in the case of Development Charge Background studies, to as much as 10-25%for broader planning and policy studies with indirect growth-related purposes. B-1.6 Post Period/Excess Capacity Deduction Incorporated where applicable. B-1.7 Provision for Grants, Subsidies and Other Contributions • Any funding support has been netted from the costs for which DC funding is sought. B-1.8 10% Statutory Deduction The deduction is nil in the case of the DC Background Studies and those pertaining to transportation, storm water management and fire. A 10% deduction is applicable to corporate studies pertaining to other services. A blended overall deduction of 3% has been used for the remaining studies. B-1.9 Use of Existing Reserve Funds The estimated December 31, 2013 uncommitted DC reserve fund balance has been netted in making the DC calculation for Studies. Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 85 B-2 B-1.10 Residential vs. Non-Residential Split Net growth-related study costs have been allocated between residential and non-residential development based on the share of net population increase as a percentage of the sum of the net population and employment increase for the planning period. Based on the ten-year growth forecast, the allocation is 78% residential and 22% non-residential. i.e.: 52,720 net additional persons 52,720 net additional persons+ 15,210 additional employees=78% residential and 22% non-residential • Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering do study.docx 86 • B-3 INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS COVERED IN THE DC CALCULATION MUNICIPALITY: City of Pickering SERVICE: Studies L Less: Less: - Potential DC Recoverable Cost Prj. Increased Service Needs Attributable to Timing Gross Ineligible re: Eligible Benefit to basting Grants,Subsidies& Sub-total Other(e.g. Net Costs No. Anticipated Development Capital Level of Increase Development Other Contributions 10%Statutory Benefiting Residential Non-Residential • Cost Service. in Need /U.E.C! Attributed to New Deduction)z New Share Share • 2014-2023 Estimate $ % Development Development 78% 22% Costs to be Incurred During the Term of the Proposed By-Law • • Seaton Review Study Seaton 2014 160,000 150,000 3,750 2.5% 148,250 4,388 141,863 110,853 31,210 Seaton Professional Fees Peer Review Transportation Studies Seaton 2014 50,000 50,000 1,250 2.5% 48,750 - 48,750 38,025 10,725 Whitevale Traffic Management Study 2014 75,000 75,000 7,500 10.0% 87,500 - 87,500 52,850 14,850 Library-Strategic Plan 2014 50,000 50,000 12,500 25.0% • 37,500 3,750 33,750 26,325 7,425 Library-Strategic Plan 2018 50,000 50,000 12,500 25.0% 37,500 3,750 33,750 26,325 7,425 Library-Archive Master Plan 2015 25,000 25,000 8,250 25.0% 18,750 1,875 16,875 13,183 • 3,713 • Library-Facilities/Master Plan ' 2018 50,000 50,000 12,500 25.0% 37,500 3,750 33,760 28,325 7,425 Flood Prevention Study for Infill Development 2014-18 200,000 200,000 60,000 25.0% 150,000 - 150,000 117,000 33,000 South Pickering Intensification Study 2014-2018 75,000 75,000 18,750 25.0% 58,250 1,888 54,583 42,559 12,004 Downtown Parking Strategy Study 2014-2016 100,000 100,000 10,000 10.0% 90,000 - 90,000 70,200 19,800 Zoning By-law Update Study(neighbourhood by neighbourhood) 2014-2018 400,000 400,000 100,000 25.0% 300,000 9,000 291,000 228,980 84,020 Archeological Master Plan 2018-2018 75,000 75,000 58,250 75.0% 18,750 583 18,188 14,186 4,001 South Pickering Heritage Inventory 2014-2016 50,000 50,000 37,500 75.0% 12,500 375 12,125 ' 9,458 2,868 ' Integrated Transportation Mesler Plan 2014: 350,000 350,000 35,000 10.0% 315,000 - 315,000 245,700 89,300 Trails&Bikeway Master Plan 2015 250,000 ' 250,000 25,000 10.0% 225,000 22,500 202,500 157,950 44,550 ■ Geometric Design Guldines for Roads&Other Infrastructure 2014.2018 100,000 100,000 10,000 10.0% 90,000 - 90,000 70,200 19,800 CO Design Guidelines for Street Ughts 2014-2018 100,000 100,000 10,000 10.0% 90,000 - 90,000 70,200 19,800 +J Traffic Impact Study Guidelines 2014-2018 20,000 - 20,000 2,000 10.0% 18,000 - 18,000 14,040 3,960 Neighbourhood Traffic Calming Measures - 2014-2018 50,000 50,000 5,000 10.0% 45,000 - 45,000 35,100 9,900 Development Charges Background Study-South Pickering&Seaton 2017/2018 125,000 125,000 - 0.0% 125,000 - 125,000 97,500 27,500 Recreation Services Master Plan 2014-2018 100,000 100,000 25,000 . 25.0% 75,000 7,500 67,500 52,650 14,850 Facilities Management Plan 2014-2018 100,000 100,000 . 25,000 25.0% • 75,000 - 75,000 58,500 16,500 Urban Forest Management 2014-2016 90,000 90,000 22,500 25.0% 67,500 6,750 60,750 47,385 13,365 Frenchman's Bay&Area Land Use Study 2014-2015 100,000 100,000 75,000 75.0% 25,000 2,500 22,500 17,550 4,950 Costs to be Incurred Post Proposed By-law Term(Le.beyond 20181 - Brock Industrial Drainage Master Plan 2018+ 200,000 200,000 20,000 10.0% 180,000 - 180,000 140,400 39,600 Transportation Master Plan Update 2019 150,000 150,000 15,000 10.0% 135,000 - 135,000 105,300 29,700 Trails&Bikeway Master Plan Update .2020 75,000 75,000 7,500 10.0% 67,500 8,750 80,750 47,385 13,385 Traffic Management Plan for Downtown Pickering 2021 150,000 150,000 15,000 10.0% 135,000 - 135,000 105,300 29,700 Transportation Demand Management Plan/Parking Management Plan Seaton 2020 150,000 150,000 15,000 10.0% 135,000 - 135,000 105,300 29,700 Flood Prevention Study for Intl Development 2016+ 200,000 200,000 50,000 25.0% 150,000 150,000 117,000 33,000 Fluvial Geomorphology Master Plan 2018+ 500,000 500,000 125,000 25.0% 375,000 • - 375,000 292,500 82,500 ' Claremont Drainage Master Plan 2018+ 200,000 200,000 150,000 75.0% 50,000 - 50,000 39,000 11,000 Library-Strategic Plan 2022 50,000 • 50,000 12,500 25.0% 37,500 3,750 33,750 26,325 7,425 .. . Development Charges Background Study 2023 125,000 125,000 - 0.0% 125,000 - 125,000 97,500 27,600 Professional Fees Peer Review Transportation Seaton 2021 50,000 50,000 1,250 2.5% 48,750 - 48,750 38,025 10,725 Whitevale Traffic Management Study Seaton 2021 50,000 50,000 1,250 2.5% 48,750 - 48,750 38,025 10,725 Design Guidelines for Street Lights•Update 2021 70,000 70,000 7,000 10.0% 63,000 - 63,000 49,140 13,860 Fire Master Plan 2019 125,000 125,000 31,250 25.0% 93,750 - 93,750 73,125 20,825 • Total Estimated Capital Cost $4,830,000 $ - $4,830,000 $1,014,000 $ - $3,818,000 $ 78,888 $ 3,737.113 $2,914,948 $ 822,165 t Uncommitted excess capacity and inclusive of post planning period capacity,where applicable. • 2A 3%deduction was made where It is estimated that 70%of the studies will be for roads,storm drainage and fire. •i•F..1.aurrv1Ll t`^.°+t:r.•;^wtmr:,It:;:,r:+r;•.-i:•rar o:nus•. Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC Study\Pickering dc study.docx • • B-4 B-2 Fire B-2.1 DC Calculation Planning Period 2014-2023 B-2.2 Service Coverage and Capital Program • The capital program for Fire includes two Fire Halls for Seaton, complete with two aerials, three small vehicles, and two pumpers. The remaining eligible capital program for the City includes a new radio communication system. B-2.3 Local Service.and Developer Contribution Policy Not applicable B-2.4 Level of Service Measurement Separate schedules follow for Fire facilities (sq.ft. and cost/capita) and vehicles and equipment (number and cost per capita). B-2.5 Benefit to Existing Development Deduction Where a new station or vehicle is added, existing areas which are now receiving service may benefit via improved response times. A deduction of 2.5-5% has been made to address this benefit. The upper end of the range has been used for the new communication system. B-2.6 Post Period/Excess Capacity Deduction The 2023 DC-funded service level for Fire is at or below the City's 10-year average. As a result, no post period capacity is involved. B-2.7 Provision for Grants, Subsidies and Other Contributions No grants, subsidies or other contributions are anticipated for any of the expenditures. B-2.8 10% Statutory Deduction The 10% statutory deduction is not applicable to the Fire Service and therefore no deduction has been made. B-2.9 Use of Existing Reserve Funds To be used for the 2009-2013 DC recoverable costs of future DC projects. B-2.10 Residential vs. Non-Residential Split Net growth related costs have been allocated between residential and non-residential development, based on the share of net population increase as a percentage of the sum of the net population and employment increase over the period; As noted in Section B-1, based on the ten year growth forecast, the allocation is 78% residential and 22% non-residential. Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 88 B-5 • City of Pickering Level of Service Calculation Sheet Service: Fire Facilities Contact: Bill Douglas,Fire Chief Unit Measure: sq.ft.of building area Quantity Measure Description 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2013 Weighted Average Value/ftz Sq.ft. Cost with land, site works, etc. Station#5 -1616 Bayly Street 8,163 8,163 8,163 13,340 13,340 13,340 13,340 13,340 13,340 13,340 $ 286 117,869 $ 33,742,594 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 $ 360 79,550 $ 28,626,545 Station#4- 4941 Old Brock(Claremount) 5,274 5,274_ 5,274 5,274 5,274 5,274 5,274 5,274 5,274 .5,274 $ 338 52,740 $ 17,809,243 Station#6-1115 Finch Ave. 9130 9,130 9,130 9(130 9130 9`30 9 130 9 130 9,130 9,l30 $ 281 91,300 $ 25,676,482 Co �_ _._ m_ _ ._ _ .�... _. _ co • Total 30,522 I 30,522 I 30,522 35,699 I 35,699 I 35,699 I 35,699 I 35,699 I 35,699 I 35,699 I $ 310 I 341,459 I $105,854,864 $ 310 Population 87,560 87,756 87,838 87,918 88,005 88,110 88,310 88,721 89,821 90,421 Per Capita Service Level 0.3486 0.3478 0.3475 0.4060 0.4056 0.4052 0.4042 0.4024 0.3974 0.3948 10 Year Average 2004-2013 Quantity per capita 0.3860 • Quality($/sq..ft) _-_- $ _ 310 Combined Quantity/Quality Level($/capita) $ 120 DC Amount(before deductions) I 10 Year Forecast Population 52,720 $per Capita _. _.._ 120 • Eligible Amount $6,326,400 H1Ptc::enngi2013 '01:1.,1:;F:irc•St:rlona • • Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12013 DC StudylPickering do study.docx • • • B-6 City of Pickering . Level of Service Calculation Sheet Service: Fire Vehicles Contact: Bill Douglas,Fire Chief Unit Measure: No.of vehicles Quantity Measure _ _ Description 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2013 Value Weighted Average ($Nehicle) #of veh. Cost Aerial 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $1,094,386 _ 10 $ 10,943,856 Tanker 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 $ 469,022 30 $ 14,070,672 Pumper �__.__ ._.._� _.___. 2 2 2 2 _ _ 2 __� 2 __ 2 1 1 2 $ 885,931 18 $ 15,946,762 PumperlTanker_ ___ 1_,_�__ 1___ . 1 1 _____„ 1 „__1 _`_ 1 __ 1 __ -__ $ 677,477 8 $ 5 419.814 Rescue_ —1 _1! 1 1 w1 1 1 �1 1 1 $1,25072-'---------1.-6- $ 12,507,264 Pumper/Rescue 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 • 4 3 $ 833,818 25 $ 20,845,440 Cars Vans&Picks 13 13 13 13 15 15 15 15 15 15 $ 41,691 142 $ 5,920,105 Telesguirts 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 $ 885,931 14 $ 12,403,037 Grass Fire Truck _ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $ 364,795 10 $ 3,647,952 Support Vehicle 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 $ 521,136 10 $ 5,211,360 Antique 1 , 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 $ 104,227 18 $ 1,876,090 CO O Trailer 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $ 10,423 7 $ 72,959_ Total 28 28 28 29 31 31 31 32 32 32 $ 360,481 1 302 $108,865,310 $ 360,481 Population 87,560 87,756 87,838 87,918 88,005 88,110 88,310 88,721 89,821 90,421 I Service Level Per 1,000 persons 0.3198 • 0.3191 0.3188 0.3299 0.3523_ 0.3518 0.3510 0.3607_ 0.3563 0.3539 10 Year Average 1 2004-2013 • Quantity perita - _____ _ _0.3413 Quality($/vehicle) $360,481 Combined Quantity/Quality Level($/1,000) $123,032 Combined Quantity/Quality Level($/capita) $123' DC Amount(before deductions) I - 10 Year • Forecast Population 52,720 $per Capita $123 . Eligible Amount - $6,484,560 • H:\Picke.ring12012 CC Study\[Pickering DC Model:013.xlexIA x Venic(ee • Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H.1Pickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx B-7 INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS COVERED IN THE DC CALCULATION MUNICIPALITY: City of Pickering SERVICE: Fire Protection Ineligible re: Less: Less: Potential DC Recoverable Cost Prj. Increased Service Needs Attributable to Timing Gross Level of Eligible Benefit to Existing Grants,Subsidies& Sub-total Other(e.g. Net Costs No. Anticipated Development Capital Service/Post Increase Development Other Contributions 10%Statutory Benefiting Residential Non-Residential Cost Period in Need /U.E.C' Attributed to New Deduction) New Share Share 2014-2023 Estimate Benefit $ I % Development Development 78% 22% Costs to be Incurred During the Term of the Proposed By-Law - - 1 Renovation-Station#5 2014 100,000 100,000 0 - - 2 NextGen Project(Radio Communication System) 2014 700,000 o 700,000 35,000 5.0% 665,000 665,000 518,700 146,300 3 Accessibility upgrades Station#2(washroom) 2014 30,000 30,000 0 . - - - - 4 Sign-Station#5 2014 20,000 20,000 0 - 5.0% • - - - 5 StationA Seaton 2015 1,700,000 1,700,000 42,500' 2.5% 1,657,500 1,657,500 1,292,850 364,650 2016 4,300,000 4,300,000 107,500 2.5% 4,192,500 4,192,500 3,270,150 922,350 6 1-small vehicle • Seaton 2015 33,333 33,333 833 2.5% 32,500 32,500 25,350 7,150 1 7 1 pumper rescue(Fire Station A) Seaton 2015 800,000 800,000 40,000 5.0% 760,000 760,000 592,800 167,200 Costs to be Incurred Post Proposed By-law Term (i.e.beyond 20181 • 8 1 Aerial Seaton 2019 1,400,000 522,137 877,863 21,947 2.5% 855,916 855,916 667,615 188,302 9 Station B Seaton 2023 4,750,000 1771,537 2,978,463 74,462 2.5% 2,904,001 2,904,001 2,265,121 638,880 10 Pumper(Fire Station B) Seaton . 2023 • 800,000 298,364 501,636 12,541 2.5% 489,095 489,095 381,494 107,601 11 Aerial(Fire Station B) Seaton 2023 1,400,000 522,137 877,863 21,947 2,5% 855,916 855,916 667,615 188,302 12 Small vehicles Seaton .2023 66,666 24,863 41,803 1,045 2.5% 40,758 • 40,758 31,791 8,967 Total Estimated Capital Cost $ 16,099,999 $3,289,039 $12,810,960 $ 357,774 $ - $12,453,186 $ - $12,453,186 $ 9,713,485 $ 2,739,701 Level of Service Cap • Fire Facilities . $ 6,326,400 • Fire Vehicles $ 6,484,560 Total $ 12,810,960 1 Uncommitted excess capacity and inclusive of post planning period capacity,where applicable. 1 np:::-+n.^.,liar..:,.eai,dnr.•,ic;C�4•a,d^ditdrlc-.c v.' • Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx . B-8 B-3 Parks B-3.1 DC Calculation Planning Period 2014-2023 B-3.2 Service Coverage and Capital Program Projects included in the DC calculation are directed toward developing Neighbourhood, • Community and District parkland, as well as expanding the City's trail system. B-3.3 Local Service and Developer Contribution Policy • With respect to parkland dedications, 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. The parkland'development costs included herein are supplementary to that work. B-3.4 Level of Service Measurement • Separate schedules follow for developed parkland (acres and cost/capita), and trail development(km and cost of trails and bikeways/capita). B-3.5 Benefit to Existing Development Deduction The following deductions were applied: 2.5% All Seaton projects other than District and Community Parks; 5% Seaton District and Community Parks; 10% Two intensificationrelated parks; 50% Selected specialized parks,Waterfront and selected trails; 1 consistent with 75% Parking lot expansion and selected trail projects. past practice . The existing population in the combined rural area and Duffin Heights is approximately 5,300. By 2022, the population of these areas is forecast to increase to 10,400 with most of this growth occurring in the Duffin Heights area. These areas are already served by existing facilities in the City and their population has been factored into the calculation of the historical service levels. While this existing population may benefit from improved access and choice as a result of the establishment of new facilities in the Seaton area, this benefit is not significant compared to the forecast population for Seaton of approximately 60,000 as well as an increase in population in Duffin Heights. As a result, a 2.5% BTE has been applied to projects located in Seaton other than District and Community Parks where 5% has been used. Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering do study.docx 92 B-9 B-3.6 Post Period/Excess Capacity Deduction The capital program has been largely sized to remain within the average service level required to meet the needs of growth over the next ten years, but a post period capacity provision of,up to$5.5 million has been made. B-3.7 Provision for Grants, Subsidies and Other Contributions No grants, subsidies or other contributions are anticipated for the projects involved. B-3.8 10% Statutory Deduction A 10% deduction has been made from the DC recoverable costs pursuant to s.s.5(1)8 of the DCA. B-3.9 Use of Existing Reserve Funds Existing reserve funds will be allocated toward the portion of project costs that have been determined to be beyond the service level cap (ineligible re level of service) and in some cases, the portion deducted as benefit to existing development, in order to address the needs of development 2009-13, that funded the reserve fund balance. B-3.10 Residential vs. Non-Residential Split Residents of the City of Pickering are the primary users of parks facilities in the City; however it is recognized that a small portion of the users are persons employed in the City or are visitors. On this basis, the residential share of the growth related need is established as 95%, with the balance allocated to non-residential development. Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 93 • B-10 City of Pickering Level of Service Calculation Sheet , Service: Parkland Development Contact: Unit Measure: Acres of developed parkland Quantity Measure Description 2004 1 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 I 2012 2013 2013 Value Weighted Average ($/Acre) Acres Cost Neighbourhood Active 151 151 151 151 151 151 151 151 152 157 $108,991 1,517 $165,339,741 Community Active 174 174 174 174 174 174 174 174 174 174 $125 130 1 740 $217 725 683 District Active 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 $125,130 130 $ 16,266,861 ' Passive Parkland _ _ 371_ _ 371 371 _ _371 371 _ 377 _ 477 477 _ 476 477 $58,579 4,139 $242,457,282. Mil co MM. . Ell .p . Total 709 709 709 709 709 715 815 815 815 821 85,276 7,526 $641,789,568 $ 85,276 Population 87,560 _ 87,756 87,838 87,918_ 88,005 88,110 88,310 88,721 89,821 90,421 Per Capita Service Level • 0.0081 0.0081 0.0081 0.0081 0.0081 _ 0.0081 , 0.0092 - 0.0092 0.0091 0.0091 1 10 Year Average I 2004-2013 Quantity per capita(acres) 0.0085 Quality($/Acre) $ 85,276 • • Combined Quantity/Quality Level($/capita) $ 725 DC Amount(before deductions) 10 Year Forecast Population 52,720., $per Capita $ 725 Eligible Amount $ 38,222,000 MiPlcl.arinol::015 00 3luuytt!'iccarino DG M cinl 2O1 r,zluzjr'Orli ao • . Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx . • • • B-11 City of Pickering • Level of Service Calculation Sheet Service: Trails Development Contact: Unit Measure: Kilometers of Trails and Bikeways Description 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Weighted Average 2013 Value ($1 km) km Cost Waterfront Trail: Peak Trail-walkway 3.70 3.70 3.70 3.70 3.70 3.70 3.70 3.70 3.70 3.70 $ 106,312 37.0 $3,935,661 PeakTrail-boardwalk 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 _ 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 $1,396,644 4.7 '6,494,397 Monarch Trail walkway 1:81 1.81 1.81 1.81 1.81 1.81 1.81 1.81 1.81 1.81 $ 106,312 18.1 $1,926,369 Monarch Trail-Amberlea Bride T0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 $5,211,360 0.2 $1,042,272 First Nations Trail-walkway 1.34 1.34 1.34 _ 1.49 1.49 1.49 1.68 1.68 1.68 1.68 $ 106,312 15.2 $1,618,277 First Nations Trail-Petticoat Cr.Bride .0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0117 0.17 - 0.17 0.17 $6529,834 1.7 $11 100,718 . First Nations Trail.-Western Bridge _ 0.04 0.004 0.04 0.04 $6,529,834 0.2 $_1,044,773 West Duffins Trail: 2.28 2.28 2.80 2.93 2.93 2.93 2.93 2.93 2.93 2.93 $ 106,312 27.9 $2,963,440 Pine Creek Trail: Pine Creek Trail-walkway M 0.90 00.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 $ 106,312 9.0 $956,806 c� CO Pine Creek Trail-.edestrian bridge 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 $5,211,360 0.2 $1,094 386 Alex Robertson Park walk: 1.44 1.44 1.44 1.44 1.44 1.44 1.44 1.44 1.44 1.44 93 804 14.4 $1 347 032 Diana Princess of Wales Park walk: 1.89 1.89 1.89 = 1.89 = 1.89 1.89 . 1.89 $ 93,804 18.9 $1,772 905 Bikewa s: Pickerin. Parkwa 1.34 1.34 1.34 1.34 1.34 1.34 1.34 1.34 1.34 1.34 $ 106 312 13.4 1 421 388 Ba I Street Liverpool to West Shore)... 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.47 1.47 1.47 1.47 1.47. $ 106,.312 15.8' $11679,726 Brock Road Et..aston to 3rd Concession) 1.46 1.46 -_. 1.46 1.46 1.46 _ 1.46 1.46 220 2.20 2.20 $ 106,312 16.8 $1,788,164 Altona Road(Kingston to Strouds) • 1.10 1.65 1.65 $ 106,312 4.4 $467,772 Total 18.50 18.50 19.02 • 19.34 19.34 19.12 19.34 21.18 21.73 21.73 $ 205,524 _ 198 $40,654,084 • • r $205,524 Population 87,560 87,756 87,838 87,918 88,005 88,110 88,310 88,721 89,821 90,421 Service Level Per 1,000 persons 0.211 0.211 0.217 0.220 0.220 0.217 0.219 0.239 0.242 0.240 • 10 Year Average I 2004-2013 1 • Quantity(km per 1,000 persons) 0.224 Quality($/km) $ 205,524 Combined Quantity/Quality Level($ /capita) $ 46- DC Amount(before deductions) Year Forecast Po.ulation 52,720 46 $per Capita _ Eligible Amount $ 2,425,120 . .....-r.!;rnrys;t_o•rI DC.z.lit.,001Fic:,enn.re M4,•o:..:DI:,...•.,:i'i,ps Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx • • B-12 INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS COVERED IN THE DC CALCULATION MUNICIPALITY: City of Pickerina SERVICE; Parkland&Trail Development Ineligible re: Less: Less: Potential DC Recoverable Cost Pr). Increased Service Needs Attributable to Tiring Gross Level of Eligible Benefit to Edsting Grants,Subsidies& Sub-total Other(e.g. Net Costs . No. Anticipated Development Capital Service/Post Increase Development Other Contributions 10%Statutory Benefiting Residential Non-Residential Cost Period In Need N.E.C.' Attributed to New Deduction) New Share Share 2014-2023 Estimate Benefit $ % Development .Development 95% 5% - Costs to be Incurred During Term of Proposed By-law 1 Trail Heads and Primary Trail Network Seaton 2017 717,000 717,000 17,925 2.5% 699,075 69,908 829,188 597,709 31,458 2 Village Greens(5) Seaton 2017 750,000 750,000 18,750 2.5% 731,250 73,125 . 658,125 625,219 32,908 4 Trail Heeds and Primary Trail Network Seaton 2018 717,000 717,000 17,925 2.5% 699,075 69,908 829,168 597,709 31,458 5 Neighbourhood Parr Seaton 2018 750,000 750,000 18,750 2.5% 731,250 73,125, 658,125 625,219 32,906 6 Village Greens(5) Seaton 2018 750,000 750,000 18,750 2.5% 731,250 73,125 858,125 625,219 32,906 7' District Park(Ph 1) Seaton 2018 5,000,000 5,000,000 250,000 5.0% 4,750,000 475,000- 4,275,000 4,081,250 213,750 8 Village Greens(2)-Duffin Heights 2014 350,000 350,000 8,750 2.5% 341,250 34,125 307,125 291,769 15,356 9 Spray/Splash Pad-South Pickering 2014 200,000 200,000 100,000 50.0% 100,000 10,000 90,000 65,500 4,500 10 Skate Board Park-South Pickering 2014 200,000 200,000 100,000 '50.0% 100,000 10,000 90,000 85,500 4,500 11 Parking lot expansion-Village East Perk 2014 100,000 100,000 - - 75.0% - -, - - - 12 Park lighting-Grand Valley Park(off area) 2014 35,000 35,000 - - 50.D% - - - - - 13 Washrcom/chengerooms-Rotary Frenchman's Bay West Park 2015 375,000 375,000 187,500 50.0% 187,500 18,750 168,750 160,313 8,438 14 Frenchman's Bay Waterfront Master Plan implementation(ph 1) 2015 900,000 900,000 450,000 50.0% 450,000 45,000 405,000 384,750 20,250 15 Frenchmen's Bay Waterfront Master Plan Implementation(ph 2) 2016 1,850,000 1,850,000 925,000 50.0% 925,000 92,500 . ' 832,500 790,875 41,625 16 Mull-purpose trall-Dulfin Heights(Meltany delft)to Ajax 2016 500,000 500,000 - - 75.0% - - - - - 17 Multi-purpose trail-Hydro Corridor(Liverpool to Whites) 2018 910,000 910,000 455,000 50.0% 455,000 45,500 . 409,500 389,025 20,475 18 Frenchman's Bay Waterfront Master Plan Implementation(ph 3) 2017 500,000 500,000 250,000 50.0% 250,000 25,000 225,000 213,750 11,250 19 Commuity Park-Greenwood Conservation Lands(ph 1) 2017 6,500,000 - 6,500,000 3,250,000 50.0% 3,250,000 325,000 2,925,000 . 2,778,750 146,250 21,104,000 835,000 20,469,000 6,068,350 14,400,650 1,440,065 12,980,585 12,312,556 648,029 CD Costs to be Incurred Post Proposed By-law Term(i.e. 0) beyond 2018) 20 Neighbourhood Parks Seaton 2019 750,000 750,000 18,750 2.5% 731,250 73,125 658,125 625,219 32,906 21 Village Greens(3) Seaton 2019 450,000 450,000 11,250 2.5% 438,750 43,875 394,875 375,131 19,744 22 Trail Heads and Primary Trail Network Seaton 2019 . 717,000 717,000 17,925 2.5% 699,075 89,908 629,168 597,709 31,458 23 Neighbourhood Parks Seaton 2020 750,000 750,000 18,750 2.5% 731,250 73,125 658,125 625,219 32,906 24 Village Greens(6) Seaton 2020 900,000 900,000 22,500 2.5% 677,500 87,750 789,750 750,263 39,488 25 Community Parks Seaton 2020 2,400,000 2,400,000 120,000 5.0% 2,280,000 228,000 2,052,000 1,949,400 102,600 25 Neighbourhood Parks Seaton 2021 375,000 375,000 9,375 2.5% 385,625 38,583 329,063 312,609 16,453 27 Community Parks Seaton 2021 2,700,000 2,700,000 135,000 5.0% 2,585,000 256,500 2,308,500 2,193,075 115,425 28 Trail Heads and Primary Trail Network Seaton 2021 717,000 717,000 17,925 2.5% 699,075 69,908 629,168 597,759 31,458 29 Village Greens(4) Seaton 2022 600,000 600,000 15,000 2.5% 585,000 58,500 526,500 550,175 26,325 30 Trail Heads and Primary Trail Network ' Seaton 2022 717,000 717,000 17,925 2.5% 699,075 69,908 629,168 597,709 31,458 31 Trail Heads and Primary Trail Network Seaton 2023 717,000 717,000 17,925 2.5% 699,075 69,908 629,168 597,709 31,458 32 Neighbourhood Parks Seaton 2023 375,000 375,000 9,375 2.5% 385,625 36,583 329,083 312,609 16,453 33 District Park Seaton 2023 5,000,000 5,000,000 250,000 5.0% 4,750,000 475,000 4,275,000 4,061,250 213,750 34 Community Perk-Greenwood Conservation Lands(ph 2) 2019 3,500,000 1,239,880 2,260,120 1,130,060 50.0% 1,130,060 113,006 1,017,054 966,201 50,853 35 Trail-Wharf Sheet to Sandy Beach Road 2019-23 400,000 400,000 - - 50.0% - - - - - 36 Trail-Bayy Street from waterfront tall to Go Station 2019-23 500,000 500,000 - - 50.0% - - - - - 37 Trail-Bayy Sheet from Go Station to Church Street 2019-23 350,000 350,000 - - 50.0% - - - - - 38 Trail-Hydro Corridor(1Mrites to Townlfne) 2019-23 1,500,000 1,500,000 - - 50.0% - - - - - 39 Trail-Finch to Brockddga Park(45m bridge) 2019-23 850,000 850,000 - - 75.0% - - - - 40 Park-Krosno Creek valley-Hwy 401 to Bayy 2019-23 250,000 250,000 25,000 10.0% 225,000 22,500 202,500 192,375 10,125 41 Perk-The Piazza-downtown south Intensification 2019-23 500,000 - 500,000 50,000 10.0% 450,000 45,000 405,000 384,750 20,250 25,018,000 4,839,880 20,178,120 1,886,760 - 18,291,380 1,829,138 16,462,224 15,639,113 823,111 Total Estimated Capital Cost 0 $46,122,000 $ 5,474,880 $40,847,120 $ 7,955,110 $ - $32,692,010 $ 3,289201 $29,422,809 $27,951,669 $ 1,471,140 ' Uncommitted excess capacity and inclusive of post planning period capacity,where applicable. • Level of Service Cap Parkland 38,222,000 Trails 2,425,120 Total 40,847,120 Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx • B-13 B-4 Indoor Recreation Facilities B-4.1 DC Calculation Planning Period 2014-2023 B-41 Service Coverage and Capital Program The program consists of three major projects -a Seniors Centre, Indoor Soccer Facility (net of private funding) and the Seaton Recreation Complex 1. • B-4.3 Local Service and Developer Contribution Policy Not applicable B-4.4 Level of Service Measurement A schedule follows for indoor recreation facilities (sq.ft. and cost/capita). • B-4.5 Benefit to Existing Development Deduction • A 2.5% deduction has been made for the Seaton project, in order to reflect increased accessibility to facilities for existing development in the hamlets/rural areas and Duffin Heights. Generally, the provision of additional floor space of recreation facilities at a level that is within the allowable service level cap (e.g. $/capita of recreation space), would have limited benefit to existing development as it simply assists to maintain the City's service level. Every new facility will result in shifts in terms of which users patronize which particular service locations, but if the overall amount of service available per capita doesn't increase, then existing users haven't benefited in that sense. In this circumstance a 5 to 10%deduction for BTE is typically applied. In the case of the soccer facility deduction an additional 5% deduction has been made to address the potential for additional benefit that may arise from the provision of a facility that is unique to the City. Private funding in the amount of$3.3 million has been netted from the gross cost together with coverage of the BTE and statutory deductions in the amount of$1.28 million. A 10% deduction has been applied for the Seniors Centre based on the provision of a greater diversity of facilities in the context of a simple maintenance of overall City-wide service levels. B-4.6 Provision for Grants, Subsidies and Other Contributions No grants, subsidies or other contributions are anticipated for any of the expenditures. B-4.710% Statutory Deduction A 10% deduction has been made from the DC recoverable costs pursuant to s.s.5(1)8 of the DCA. B-4.8 Residential vs. Non-Residential Split Residents of the City of Pickering are the primary users of parks and recreation facilities in the City; however it is recognized that a small portion of the users are persons employed in the City or are visitors. On this basis, the residential share of the growth related need is established as 95%, with the balance allocated to non-residential development. Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 97 • • B-14 City of Pickering Level of Service Calculation Sheet • Service: Indoor Recreation Facilities Contact: • - Unit Measure: sq.ftof building area Description 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2013 Weighted Average Value/ft=with land,site Sq.ft Cost works etc. Community Centres 115,720 115,720 115,720 115,720 115,720 115,720 115,720 115,720 115,720 115,720 $ 303 1,157,200 $ 351,103,738 Seniors Recreation Centres 10,850 10,850 10,850 10,850 10,850 10,850 10,850 10,850 10,850 10,850 $ 303 108,500 $ 32,919,768 Indoor Pools 43,350 43,350 43,350 43,350 43,350 43,350 43,350 43,350 43,350 43,350 $ 303 433,500 $ 131,527,368 Arenas 175,730 175E_730 175 7 30 175,730 175,730_ 175,730 175,730 178 330 178330 178,330 $ 303 1,765,100 $ 535,545,461 Fitness Facilities/Rac•uet S sorts 47 620 47 620 47 620 47,620 63 460 63 460 63 460 63 460 63 460 63 460 $ 303 571,240 $ 173,318 786 • • CO _ CO • • Total 393,270 393,270 393,270 393,270 409,110 409,110 409,110 411,710 411,710 411,710 $ 303 4,035,540 $1,224,415,120 $ 303 Population 87,560 87,756 87,838 87,918 88,005 88,110 88,310_ 88,721 89,821 90,421 Per Capita Service Level 4.4914 4.4814 4.4772 4.4731 4.6487 4.6432 4.6327 4.6405 4.5837 4.5533 Uu 10 Year Average 2004-2013 Quantity(sq.ft.)per capita 4.5625 Quality($/sq.ft) $ 303 • Combined Quantity/Quality Level($/capita) $ • 1,382 DC Amount(before deductions) 10 Year Forecast Population 52,720 per Capita $ 1,382 Eligible Amount $ 72,859,040 ri:ip!::kerin',2-n cc.f::,11 1Fv.k::I,'Dr:.Nen1:-I EOYt:c..iFic+,r•u: Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:lPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx B-15 • • • • INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS COVERED IN THE DC CALCULATION MUNICIPALITY: City of Pickering . • SERVICE: Recreational Facilities Less: Less: Potential DC Recoverable Cost Prj. Increased Service Needs Attributable to Timing •Gross Ineligible re: Eligible Benefit-to Existing Grants,Subsidies& Sub-total Other(e.g. Net Costs No. Anticipated Development Capital Level of Increase Development Other Contributions 10%Statutory Benefiting Residential Non-Residential Cost Service in Need /U.E.C.' Attributed to New Deduction) New Share Share 2014-2023 Estimate $ % Development Development 95% 5% Projects Already Completed Indoor Soccer Facility&Land 2014 5,435,646 5,435546 815,347 15.0% 4,620,299 462,030 4,158,269 3,950,356 207,913 • Costs to be Incurred During the Term of the Proposed By-Law Seniors Centre&Associated Parking Structure 2017 18,780,000 18,780,000 1,878,000 10.0% 16,902,000 1,690,200 15,211,800 14,451,210 760,590 Costs to be Incurred Post Proposed By-law, • Term(i.e.beyond 2018) Seaton Recreation Complex l Seaton 2019 4,781,000 4,781,000 119,525 2.5% 4,661,475 466,148 4,195,328 3,985,561 209,766 Seaton 2020 21,510,000 21,510,000 537,750 2.5% 20,972,250 2,097,225 18,875,025 17,931,274 943,751 Seaton 2021 21,510,000 21,510,000 537,750 2.5% 20,972,250 2,097,225 18,875,025 17,931,274 943,751 • Total Estimated Capital Cost $ 72,016,646 $ - $ 72,016,646 $ 3,888,372 $ - $ 68,128,274 $ 6,812,827 $ 61,315,447 $ 58,249,674 $ 3,065,772 Uncommitted excess capacity and inclusive of post planning period capacity,where applicable. Level of Service Recreation Facilities 72,859,040 • Excess Cap Room From Parkland - Recreation Facilities 72,859,040 v"`...,mJB1n,.`.-w,.v-°"•`' ' C`l,"r�" • • • Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickeringl2013 DC Study\Pickering do study.docx B-16 B-5 Libraries B-5.1 DC Calculation Planning Period •2014-2023 B-5.2 Service Coverage and Capital Program The ro capital program for Libraries includes expanded Central Library facilities and the Seaton P p 9 Regional Library and collection. V B-5.3 Local Service and Developer Contribution Policy Not applicable. B-5.4 Level of Service Measurement Separate schedules follow for Library facilities (sq.ft. and cost/capita).and materials (items and cost/capita). The Central Library project involves a major expansion and upgrade to the existing facilities. The upgrade components have not been included in the development charge calculation and are shown as being "Ineligible re Level of Service." They include the cost of: • the interior concourse and Atrium connecting the Library with the Civic Complex; • accessibility requirements; • large window areas to increase presence to the streetscape, park views and the creation of a reading garden; • the upgrade of existing finishes and fixtures to match those used in the addition; • remedying problems of poor air circulation, safety and security, as well as unequal heating and cooling and retrofitting for laptops. The remaining project cost relates to the provision of a 17,000 square foot addition, plus a 9,000 square foot basement archive and storage area. This cost is estimated to be approximately $7.5 million'. A 5% benefit to existing development (BTE) deduction has been made, to reflect accessibility considerations. B-5.5 Benefit to Existing Development Deduction A 5% deduction for benefit to existing development has been applied to the Central Library expansion and a 2.5%deduction has been applied to the Seaton project, which is sized to meet the phased requirements of that development. B-5.6 Post Period/Excess Capacity Deduction The gross capital costs of the projects have been reduced to remain within the allowable service level cap to meet the needs of new development over the next ten years with a post period capacity provision made of up to$3.5 million. ' $7.5 million represents expansion. Actual total cost is estimated at$14.3 million. Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 100 • B-17 B-5.7 Provision for Grants, Subsidies and Other Contributions No grants, subsidies or other contributions are anticipated for the DC funded expenditures. B-5.8 10% Statutory Deduction A 10% deduction has been made from the DC recoverable costs pursuant to s.s.5(1)8 of the DCA. B-5.9 Use of Existing Reserve Funds To be used for the 2009-2013 DC recoverable costs of future DC projects. B-5.10 Residential vs. Non-Residential Split Residential users are the main beneficiaries of the library, however, some businesses and other non-residential uses benefit from this service. Thus, the net costs benefiting new development have been allocated 95%to residential and 5%to non-residential, consistent with standard practice. • • Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 101 B-18 City of Pickering • Level of Service Calculation Sheet Service: Library Facilities Contact: Unit Measure: sq.ft.of building area Description 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2013 Weighted Average Value/ftz Sq.ft • Cost with land, 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 $ 379 341,650 $ 129,488,083 Claremont Branch 1,666 1,666 1,666 1,666 1,666 1,666 1,666 1,666 1,666 1,666 $ 263 16,660 $ 4,383,046 Greenwood Branch _ 4,900 4,900 4,900 _4,900 4,900 4,900 4 900 4 900 4 900 4 900 $ 167 49 000 $ 8 199 072 Whitevale Branch 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 $ 295 9,000 $ 2,658 096 Petticoat Creek 9,369 9,369 9,369 9,369 9,369 9,369 9,369 9,369 9,369 9,369 $ 397 93,690 $ 37,209,171 O , - ._ - . ._._.. _- _. . .. Total 51,000 51,000 51,000 51,000 51,000 51,000 51,000 51,000 51,000 51,000 $357 510,000 $ 181,937,468 $ 357 Population 87,560 87,756 87,838 87,918 88,005 88,110 88,310 88,721 89,821 90,421 Per Capita Service Level 0.5825 0.5812 0.5806 0.5801 0.5795 0.5788• 0.5775 0.5748 0.5678 • .0.5640 • • 10 Year Average 2004-2013 Quantity(sq.ft)per capita 0.5767 Qualiiy($/sq.ft $-. .357 Combined Quantity/Quality Level($/capita) $ - _206 DC Amount(before deductions) 10 Year Forecast Population 52,720 $per Cap!ia.__ $ 206 Eligible Amount $ 10,860,320 'i:spi,:, n•1' kC13[•C 3k.dys[niciceFncy cc.■iiocsi 20 c^,;.'e1l1.it,r r-Dc • Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx B-19 City of Pickering Level of Service Calculation Sheet Service: Library Collection Materials Contact: Unit Measure: No.of library collection items Description 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2013 Value Weighted Average ($/item) Items Cost Books 178,742 1.81,265 183,788 186,311 188,_916 206,157 215,357 247,434 183,883 198,883 $42 1,970,736_ $ 82,770,912 Non-books 22,066 25 048 28,031 31 013 31 590 24,934 29,921 40,499 46,230 52,230 $39 331,562 $ 12,930,918 Magazine Titles 491 485 397 431 424 426 428 441 430 429 $66 4,382 $ 289,212 Electronic Collections 4 860 6 308 6 664 8 440 . 8 440 10 753 20 267 30,849 46 070 60 729 $32 203,380 $ 6 508,160 .-..__. -____._ .___ °. ---.- - ______ IIA ...._Total 206,159 213,106 218,880 226,195 229,370 242,270 265,973 319,223 276,613 312,271 $41 2,510,060 $102,499,202 . $ 41 (Population 87,560 87,756 87,838 87,918 88,005 88,110 88,310 88,721 89,821 90,421 Per Capita Service Level 2.35 2.43 2.49 2.57 2.61 2.75 3.01 3.60 3.08 3.45 10 Year Average I 2004-2013 Quanta(items)per capita __� ___ 2.8347 Quality($/item) $ 41 Combined Quantity/Quality Level($/capita $ 116. DC Amount(before deductions) 10 Year I 52Forecast Population ,72D $Per Capita. $ 116 Eligible Amount $6,115,520 :-t:\Pic::::innt201'6C i'.;r,tft.,:av-iu.-IX'ir;nr1.1 cct7.:1..o.on'Ma' . Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering do study.docx • • • • B-20 INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS COVERED IN THE DC CALCULATION - MUNICIPALITY: City of Pickering • SERVICE: Library • Ineligible re: Less: Less: Potential DC Recoverable Cost Prj. Increased Service Needs Attributable to Timing Gross Level of Eligible Benefit to Existing Grants,Subsidies& Sub-total Other(e.g. Net Costs No. Anticipated Development Capital Service/Post Increase Development Other Contributions 10%Statutory Benefiting Residential Non-Residential • Cost Period in Need /U.E.C.' Attributed to New Deduction) New Share Share 2014-2023 Estimate. Benefit $ % Development Development 95% 5% Projects Already Completed Costs to be Incurred During the Term of the Proposed By-Law Central Library Facilities(expansion component only) 2016 7,500,000 1,286,296 6,213,704 310,685 5.0% 5,903,019 590,302 5,312,717 5,047,081 265,636 • _' Costs to be Incurred Post Proposed By-law Term(I.e.beyond 20181 Seaton Regional Library(including material) Seaton 2019 1,299,000 222,786 1,076,214 26,905 2.5% 1,049,308 104,931 944,377 897,159 47,219 Seaton 2020 5,845,000 1,002,453 4,842,547 121,064 2.5% 4,721,483 472,148 4,249,335 4,036,868 212,467 Seaton 2021 5,846,000 1.002,625 4,843,375 121,084 2.5% 4,722,291 472,229 4,250,062 4,037,559 212,503 • • Total Estimated Capital Cost $ 20,490,000 $ 3,514,160 $16,975,840 $ 579,739 $ - $ 16,396,101 $ 1,639,610;$ 14,756,491 $ 14,018,667 $ 737,825 • Level of Service Cep Facilities $10,$60,320 Materials $6,115,520 $16,975,840 Uncommitted excess capacity and inclusive of post planning period capacity,where applicable. r:+ .,+ au ns r.; un;rgrK•l " n':x-1 xi:..+•:.;•::m to • • Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12013 DC StudylPickering do study.docx B-21 • B-6 Operations B-6.1 DC Calculation Planning Period 2014-2023 B-6.2 Service Coverage and Capital Program The capital program for public works includes vehicles and public works space. The City is planning to consolidate its works facilities at a new Operations Centre. As a portion of this project involves the replacement of existing space elsewhere, only the portion of the cost applicable to the creation of additional capacity to accommodate growth has been included in the Eligible Increase in Need. The City anticipates acquiring a significant number of additional Public Works and Parks vehicles to meet the needs of new development. B-6.3 Local Service and Developer Contribution Policy Not applicable: B-6.4 Level of Service Measurement Separate schedules follow for $ value of vehicles/capita and Works buildings (sq.ft. and cost/ capita). B-6.5 Benefit to Existing Development Deduction For the Operations Centre expansion portion and Public Works vehicles, no deduction has been made for benefit to existing development as the service level is unchanged. B-6.6 Post Period/Excess Capacity Deduction The gross project costs have been reduced to within the eligible service level cap to meet the needs of new development over the next ten years with a post period benefit provision made of up to $18.5 million. B-6.7 Provision for Grants, Subsidies and Other Contributions Not applicable. B-6.8 10% Statutory Deduction A 10% deduction has been made for this service, although this is could be considered to be a service"related to roads"for which there is no deduction required. B-6.9 Use of Existing Reserve Funds To be used to fund the 2009-2012 DC recoverable cost of future DC projects. Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 105 • B-22 B-6.10 Residential vs. Non-Residential Split Net growth related costs have been allocated between residential and non-residential development based on the share of net population increase as a percentage of the sum of the net population and employment increase for the planning period. As noted in Section B-1, based on the ten year growth forecast, the allocation is 78% residential and 22% non- residential. • • • Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 106 B-23 City of Pickering Level of Service Calculation Sheet Service: Operations Facilities Contact: Unit Measure: sq.ft.of building area •uanti Measure Description 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2013 Weighted Average • Value/ftz Sq.ft Cost with land, site works, etc. Operations Centre' 71,135 61,135 61,135 61,135 61,135 -61,135 61,135 61,135 61,135 $ 163 631,350 $ 102,910,050 935 Dillin.ham Rd. Rental Stora.e S.ace 4 400 4 400 4 400 $.163 13200 $ 2,151 600 . ... . ...._. ................. ________... .. .. . •....Ell..... _ . IN_ _....._. mom MIN =NIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 11111111111111 • -.A --E -ma= . MEE El E ____. ___ . =mom . Total 71,135 71,135 61,135 61,135 61,135 61,135 61,135 • 65,535 65535 65535 $ 163 644,550 $ 105,061,650 $ 163 Population 87,560 87,756 87,838 87,918 88,005 88,110 88,310 88,721 89,821 90,421 Per Capita Service Level 0.8124 0.8106 0.6960 0.6954 0.6947 0.6938 0.6923 0.7387 0.7296 0.7248 1 - 10 Year Average _ 1 2004-2013 Quantity(sq.ft.per capita) mm 0.7288 ' l Beginning January 1,2006 the City leases 10,000 sq.ft.of the Operations Centre to Durham Transit. Quality($/sq:ft.) m$ 163 Combined Quantity/Quality Level($/capita) $ 119 DC Amount(before deductions) 10 Year Forecast Population 52,720 $Per Capita $ 119 Eligible Amount $6,273,680 H iPici<erin02013 DC 5todY'tt'icicering DC Mood 2913.AIs.lDepots and Donets . Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx B-24 City of Pickering Level of Service Calculation Sheet Service: Rolling Stock Contact: Unit Measure: No.of vehicles and equipment ,Quantity Measure Description 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2013 Value I Weighted Average ($1Vehicle) #of veh. I Cost 1/2 Ton Pick up _ 6 6 8 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 $ 38,486 53 $ 2,039,758 3/4 Ton Pick up with Plough 2 2 3 5 4 4 4 4 4 8 $ 35,500 - 40 $ 1,420,000 1 Ton Pick up -.- -- - __..- - _. ---- -- -__ 4 $ 35,049 4 $ 140,196- 1 Ton Pick up with Plough 7 7 7 7 10 10 10 10 10 6 $ 81,101 84 $ 6,812,484 1 Ton Dumps 5 5 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 4 $ 45,631 70 $ 3,194,170 1 _ Ton Dump with Plou gh - - - - - - - 1 $ 42,023 1 $ 42,023 Vehicles(Utlity) 3 4 4 5 6 6 6 6 6 4 $ 39,014 50 $ 1,950,700 3 Ton Dump_-- --- ----- - -- -- -- -- -- - ..�1 1 - 1 ----2 $ 87,868 11 $ 966,549 4 Ton Dump w/plough and wng 11 11 11 11 10 10 10 10 10 11 $ 182,398 r 105 $19,151,748 5 Ton Dump w/plough and wing 2 •2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 $ 210,844 r 26 $ 5,481 944 Diesel 210HP Grader 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 $ 306,583 20 $ 6 131 660 OExcavator 1/2 hydroscopic -__ _2 _ 2 2 ____ 2 2 ._ __ 2 -._ 2 _2_._.-_ 2 2 $ 349,32�6V____ 20 $ 6,986,520 C0 Loader 621 BXT Rubber Tire __.._.�_._1.._._.__ 2 2 ? 2 ? 2 2 2 2 $ 223,157 19 $ 4,239,983 Front End Loader W14C 1 - - - - _,_- -,_-- _ - - _ $ 139,473_ 1 $ 139,473 Wheel Loader Backhoe ��- 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 T2 $-1-13,476 . 14�$ 1,588,664 7 Hydrospade - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 $ 39,052 11 $ 429,577 Swee er 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 $ 251,052 • 13 $ 3,263,671 Tractor John Deere 6300 W/Mower 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $ 149,982 10 $ 1,499,820 Tractor John Deere 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 • 2 2 $ 52,114 17 $ 885,931_ Compact Tractor _ 2_-_ 4 4 4 ._ 4 _$_ 4 _.___ 4 ____. 4 $_47,945 _30 $ 1,438,335_ 10'Mowers - _ - - 2 2 2 2 _ 2 2 $ 45,860 . 12 $ 550,320 6'Rear Discharge Mowers - - � - _._._ - - - 2 $ 14,627 2 $ 29,254 • Toro Mowers 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 $ 74,223 30 $ 2,226,690 • Gator 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $ 15,634 10 $ 156,341 Asphalt Roller .._... .___....,..,.m... 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 $ 36,889 12 $ 442,668 v. Thompson Steam Jenny _ - __ 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 - 1 1 1 $ 20,921 10 $ 209,210 Service Truck 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 $ 76,710 21 $ 1,610,914 Water tanks 2 2 2. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 $ 27,895 20$557,892 Trackless Sidewalk Plow - 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 $ 153,420 61 $ 9,358,646_ Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H.IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx B-25 . Rolling Stock continued • •City of Pickering Level of Service Calculation Sheet . Service: Rolling Stock Contact: ' Unit Measure: . No.of vehicles and equipment , • Quantity Measure • Description 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 • 2011 2012 2013 2013 Value Weighted Average ($/Vehicle) #of veh. Cost 1/2 Ton Pickup 6 6 8 5 5 5 5' 5 5 3 $ 38,486 53 $ 2,039,758 3/4 Ton Pick u.with Plough 2 2 3 5 4 4 4 4 . 4 8 $ 35 500 40 $ 1 420,000 1 Ton Pick up - - - - - - _ - - - • , 4 $ 35,049 4 $ 140,196 1 Ton Pick up with Plough 7 7 7 7 10 10 10 10 10 6 $ 81,101 84 $ 6,812,484 1 Ton Dumps 5 8 8 _.„ 8 . • 8 8 8 8 _ 4 $ 45,631 �70 $ 3,194,170 1 Ton Dump with Plough - - - - - - .1�$ 42,023 1 $ 42,023 Vehicles Utili 4 _ 4 5 6 6 6 6 6 4 $ 39,014 50 $ 1,950 700_ 3 Ton Dumps.. -..»_. ,,._....»., ,.».,...,».�»....._ w._ ,_ 1 .� __L___1 .,....,..., 1 ._ 1 _. _' __ 1 ....»» 2 .$ 87,868 . $ 96,a 6 9 Asphalt Heater 1 _1- 1 _ 1 1 1 1 -1 1 $ 27895 10 $ 278,946 Cargo Van 2 2 2 2 ' 2 2 2 2 2 2 $ 43,237 20 $ 864,733 j Van with Bucket 1.1 70,000 1..$ ». 70000 . Garbage Packers__�, __ _ _ 1 _2_ __2_ __ 2_____ 2 2 -__2 �_2 y _ 3 $ 126,195 19 $ 2,397,705_ CO Skid Steer -�1 1 � _1 1 1^ 1 1 1 1 $ •50 029 10 $' 500,291 Chipper - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $ 34,395 8 $ 275,160 Groomer - - - - - 1 $ 8 779 1 $ 8 779 Beach Cleaner - - - 1 $ 51 848 1 $ 51,848 Trailers - _ - - - - 15 $ 8,168 15 $ 122,520 - $ - Total 68 70 81 86 89 88 89 89 91 111 $ 101,526 862 $87,515,123 I $ 101,5261 Population 87,560 87,756 87,838 87,918 88,005 88,110 88,310 88,721 89,821 '90,421 . Per Capita Service Level 0.0008 0.0008 0.0009 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0010 0.0012 I 10 Year Average 2004-2013 Quantiy per capita . Quail '.litem -.. m $ 101,526 Combined Quantity/Quality Level($/capita) $ 102 DC Amount Jbefore deductions) I 10 Year . Forecast Population 52,720 $_per Capita__-___ ____ ______ _$ _--_102 Eligible Amount $5,377,440 . • H:1Pickedng\2012 DC Study\tPiciwnny 00 MQc1 i 2013.,Isx1Gperauons V hicles • Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPidkering do study.docx ' • • - B-26 • INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS COVERED IN THE DC CALCULATION• MUNICIPALITY: City of Pickering SERVICE: Operations Facilities and Vehicles Ineligible re: Less: Less: Potential DC Recoverable Cost Prj. Increased Service Needs Attributable to Timing Gross Level of Eligible Benefit to Existing Grants,Subsidies& Sub-total Other(e.g. Net Costs No. Anticipated Development Capital Service/Post Increase Development Other Contributions 10%Statutory Benefiting Residential Non-Residential Cost Period in Need /U.E.C.' Attributed to New Deduction) New Share Share 2014-2023 Estimate Benefit $ % Development Development 78% 22% Costs to be Incurred During the Term of the Proposed • By-Law 1 Central Facility 2014 13,000,000 8,174,440 4,825,560 - 4825,560 482,556 4,343,004 3,387,543 955,461 2 Central Facility 2015 13,000,000 8,174,440 4,825;560 - 4,825,560 482,556 4,343,004 3,387,543 955,461 3 Roads Equipment 4-Ton dump with plough and wing 2014 185,000 185,000 - 185,000 18,500 166,500 129,870 36,630 4-Ton dump with plough and wing 2016 185,000 185,000 - 185,000 18,500. 166,500 129,870 36,630 5-Ton dump with plough and wing • 2017 250,000 250,000 250,000 25,000 225,000 175,500 49,500 Sweeper 2015 250,000 250,000 - 250,000 25,000 225,000 175,500 49,500 Sidewalk plough . 2015 155;000 155,000 - 155,000 15,500 139,500 108,810 30,690 Sidewalk plough 2018 155,000 155,000 - 155,000 15,500 139,500 108,810 30,690 1-Ton pick-up with plough 2015 60,00D • 60,000 - 60,000 6,000 54,000 42,120 11,880 1-Ton pick-up with plough 2017 60,000 60,000 - 60,000 6,000 54,000 42,120 11,880 Parks Equipment - - - - - - Tractor/mower/trailer 2017 170,000 170,000 - 170,000 17,000 153,000 119,340 33,660 Tractor/mower/trailer 2018 170,000 170,000 - 170,000 17,000 153,000 119,340 33,660 _y Litter Picker 2018 30,000 30,000 - • 30,000 3,000 27,000 21,060 5,940 j Garbage packer 2018 130,000 130,000 - 130,000 13,000 117,000 91,260 25,740 0 Costs to be Incurred Post Proposed By-law Term(i.e. beyond 2018), • Roads Equipment 4-Ton dump with plough and wing 2019 185,000 110,253 . 74,747 - 74,747 7,475 67,273 52,473 14,800 4-Ton dump with plough and wing 2022 185,000 185,000 - - - . - - - .- 5-Ton dump with plough and wing 2020 250,000 250,000 - - - - - - - Sweeper 2019. 250,000' 148,990 101,010 - 101,010 10,101 90,909 70,909 20,000 Sweeper 2023 250,000 250,000 - - - - - - Sidewalk plough 2020 155,000 155,000 - - - - - - - Sidewalk plough 2022 155,000 155,000 - - - - . - - .1-Ton pick-up with plough • 2019 60,000' 35,758 24,242 - 24,242 2,424 21,818 17,018 4,800 1-Ton pick-up with plough 2021 60,000 • 60,000 - - - - - - 1-Ton pick-up with plough 2023 60,000 60,000 - - - - - - - Parks Equipment Tractor/mower/trailer 2020 170,000 170,000 - - - - - - - Tractor/mower/trailer 2021 170,000 170,000 - - - - - - - Tractor/mower/trailer 2023 170,000 170,000 - - - - - - - Litter Picker 2023 30,000 30,000 - - - - - - Chipper/bucket truck 2022 250,000 250,000 - - - - - - - Total Estimated Capital Cost • 30,200,000 18,548,880 11,651,120 - 11,651,120 1,165,112 10,486,008 8,179,086 2,306,922 . Level of Service Cap ' Vehicles $5,377,440 Facilities $6,273,680 Total , $11,651,120 • 1 Uncommitted excess capacity and inclusive of post planning period capacity,where applicable. ". ..ua•.thi 4,.,vk"Vr:b.i ,..act:•7u:na::nr r.'..,i,,„ Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx • B-27 B-7 Transportation B-7.1 DC Calculation Planning Period 2014-2031 . B-7.2 Service Coverage and Capital Program Service Coverage: Includes improvements to City roads and intersections as well as streetlights on Regional Roads, sidewalks-and traffic signals. A schedule is provided for Seaton-related road requirements, but they are being funded and constructed by the Landowners under a separate agreement. The two external roads are to be Landowner-funded and City- constructed. B-7.3 Local Service and Developer Contribution Policy 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 subdivision but not separated by a reserve and d) 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 identified through the approval process on roads a) within the plan of subdivision, and b) adjacent to the plan or 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. B-7.4 Level of Service Measurement Quantity: Historic service levels (lane km/1,000 persons) are presented in the table which follows on pages B-28 and B-29. Quality: The road structure,as approved by Council, designates classes of roads, thereby dictating road widths and structural integrity based on accepted Engineering principles. Road costs are based on 2013 construction costs and include estimates for granular and asphalt materials, curb and gutter, sidewalks and boulevards, standard street lights, structures (bridges and culverts), storm sewers sized to drain the road system based on a one year storm and applicable engineering. These service levels have remained unchanged and are documented on the table on page B-30. Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. • H:1Pickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 111 B-28 • • City of Pickering Transportation 2004,2012,and 2031 Lane-km Service Levels Road Segment Length 2004 2012 2031 (km) Lane-km Conditions Lane-km Conditions Lane-km Conditions Church St Bayly Street Clements Road. 0.95 1.90 2-lane,rural 2.85 3-lane,urban 2.85 3-lane,urban • Clements Road Brock Road Squires Beach 0.83 1.66 2-lane,urban 2.49 3-lane,urban 2.49 3-lane,urban Squires Beach end of street 0.8 0.84 2-lane,urban 2.40 3-lane,urban 2.40 3-lane,urban , Dixie Road Ttird Concession 500m north of Finch 1.54 3.08 2-lane,rural 3.08 2-lane,rural 3.08 2-lane,rural 500 in north of Finch Finch Avenue 0.50 1.00 2-lane,urban 1.00 2-lane,urban 1.00 2-lane,urban Finch Kingston Road 1.71 3.42 2-lane,urban 3.42 2-lane,urban 3.42 2-lane,urban Kingston Road end of street 0.20 0.40 2-lane,urban 0.40 2-lane,urban 0.40 2-lane,urban • Fairport Road Thud Concession Lynn Heights 1.5 3.00 2-lane,rural 3.00 2-lane,rural 3.00 2-lane,rural Lynn Heights ' Finch Avenue 0.55 1.10 2-lane,urban 1.10 2-lane,urban 1.10 2-lane,urban Finch Avenue Bonita Avenue 0.80 1.60 2-lane,urban 1.60 2-lane,urban 1.60 2-lane,urban • Bonita Avenue Sheppard Avenue 1.25 2.50 2-lane,urban 2.50 2-lane,urban 2.50 2-lane,urban Sheppard Avenue Kingston Road 0.10 0.20 2-lane,urban 0.20 2-lane,urban 0.20 2-lane,urban Finch Avenue Scar-Pick Fitton Road 1.26 2.52 2-lane,rural 2.52' 2-lane,rural 2.52 2-lane,rural Brock Road end of street 0.42 0.84 2-lane,serni-urban 0.84 2-lane,send-urban 0.84 2-lane,semi urban Glenanna Road Fairport Road Dixie Road 0.97 1.94 2-lane,urban 1.94 2-lane,urban 1.34 2-lane,urban Dixie Road Liverpool Road 0.80 1.60 2-lane,•urban 1.60 2-lane,urban 1.60 2-lane,urban Liverpool Road Kingston Road 0.50 1.00 2-lane,urban 1.00 2-lane,urban 1.00 2-lane,urban Kingston Road Pickering Parkway 0.60 1.20 2-lane,urban 1.20 2-lane,urban 1.20 2-lane,urban Kellino Street Squires Beach Road Church Street 0.80 1.60 2-lane,rural 1.60 2-lane,rural 1.60 2-lane,rural Liverpool Road north end of street Finch Avenue 1.02 2.04 2-lane,urban 2.04 2-lane,urban 2.04 2-lane,urban Bayly Street Sandbar Road 1.92 3,84 2-lane,urban 3.84 2-lane,urban 3.84 2-lane,urban McKay Road Montgomery Park Squires Beach 0.92 1.84 2-lane,send-urban 1.84 2-lane,semi-urban 1.84 2-lane,send-urban Montgomery Park Road Brock Road ' McKay Road 0.30 0,60 2-lane,rural 0.60 2-lane,rural 0.60 2-lane,rural Notion Road Kingston Road Pickering Parkway 0.89 1.78 2-lane,semi-urban 1.78 2-lane,semi-urban 1.78 2-lane,semi-urban Pickering Parkway Liverpool Road Valley Farm Road 0.99 1.98 2-lane,urban 1.98 2-lane,urban 2.97 3-lane,urban Valley Farm Road Brack Road 1.27 2.54 2-lane,urban 2.54 2-lane,urban 2.54 2-lane,urban Brock Road Notion Road 0.89 1.78 2-lane,urban 1.78 2-lane,urban 1.78 2-lane,urban Rosebank Road CPR Finch • 0.41 0.82 2-lane,rural 1.23 3-lane,urban 1.23 3-lane,urban Finch Sheppard 2.00 4.00 2-lane,urban 4.00 2-lane,urban 6.00 3-lone,urban Sheppard Kingston 0.82 1.64 2-lane,urban 1.64 2-lane,urban 1.64 2-lane,urban . Sandy Beach Road Bayly Street Clements(future) 0.99 1.98 2-lane,rural 1.98 2-lane,rural 1.98 2-lane,rural Gemerts(future) Montgomery Park 1.06 2.12 2-lane,rural 2.12 2-lane,rural 2.12 2-lane,rural Road Sheppard Avenue Attona Road Old Forest 0.55 1.10 2-lane,semi-urban 1.10 2-lane,urban 1.10 2-lane,urban • Old Forest Rosebank 0.30 0.60 2-lane,semi-urban 0.60 2-lane,urban 0.60 2-lane,urban Rosebank Whites . 0.85 1.70 2-lane,urban 1.70 2-lane,urban 1.70 2-lane,urban Whites Fairport Road 0.81 1.62 2-lane,urban 1.62 2-lane,urban 1.62 2-lane urban • Squires Beach Road north of Kellino -Bayly Street 0.84 1.68 2-lane,rural 1.68 2-lane,rural 1.68 2-lane,rural Bayly Street Clements 0.98 1.96 2-lane,send-urban 2.94 3-lane,urban 2.94 3-lane,urban Clements McKay 0.62 1.24 2-lane,urban 1.24 2-lane.Urban 1.86 3-lane,urban • Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc siudy.docx 112 B-29 City of Pickering Transportation 2004,2012,and 2031 Lane-km Service Levels Road Segment Length 2004 2012 2031 (km) Lane-km Conditions Lane-km Conditions Lane-km Conditions Stroud's Lane Phone Road Treetop Way 0.4 0.80 2-lane,urban 0.80 • 2-lane,urban 1.20 3-lane,urban urban Treetop Way Rosebank 0.51 1.02 2-lane,urban 1.02 2-lane,urban 1.53 3-lane,urban Rosebank Road Whites Road 0.87 1.74 2-lane,urban 1.74 2-lane,urban 1.74 2-lane,urban Whites Road Fairport 0.85 1.70 2-lane,semi-urban 1.70 2-lane,semi-urban 2.55 3-lane,semi-urban Third Conc.-Roseland Whites Road Fairport Road 0.8 1.60 2-lane,rural 1.60 2-lane,rural 1.60 2-lane,rural ■ Fairport Road Dixie Road 0.81 1.62 2-lane,rural 1.62 2-lane,rural 1.62 2-lane,rural end of street Valley Farm Road 0.45 0.90 2-lane,rural 0.90 2-lane,rural 0.90 2-lane,rural Valley Farm Road Brock Road 0.86 1.72' 2-lane,rural 1.72 2-lane,rural 1.72 2-lane,rural Bock Road Pick-Ajax 0.41 0.82 2-lane,rural 0.82 2-lane,oral 1.64 4-lane,rural Twyn Rivers Drive Pickering Limit Hoover Drive 0.98 1.96 ' 2-lane,semi-urban 1.96 2-lane,send-urban 1.96 2-lane,send-urban Hoover Drive Altana Road 0.26 0.52 2-lane,urban 0.52 2-lane,urban 0.52 2-lane,urban Valley Farm Road Thrd Concession Hydro Corridor(S) 1.64 328 2-lane,rural 328 2-lane,rural 3.28 2-lane,rural Hydro Corridor(s) Finch Avenue 0.50 1.00 2-lane,semi-urban 1.00 2-lane,semi-urban 1.00 2-lane,send-urban Finch Avenue lingston Road 0.66 1.32 2-lane,urban 1.32 2-lane,urban 1.32 2-lane,urban • Kingston Road Pickering Parkway 0.70 1.40 2-lane,urban 1.40 2-lane,urban 1.40 2-lane,urban Woodview Avenue Finch Avenue Pinegrove • 1.05 2.10 2-lane,rural 2.10 2-lane,rural 3.15 3-lane,urban William Jackson Drive Brock Road Old Taunton 1.04 3.12 3-lane,urban Zents Drive TOlings Road Brock Road 0.42 1.26 3-lane,urban Dersan Street 0.42 0.84 2-lane,rural 0.84 2-lane,rural 126 3-lane,urban Tiliings Road Dusty Drive South Limit 0.95 1.90 2-lane,rural 1.90 2-lane,rural 1.90 3-lane,urban Valley Farm Road Third Concession Brock Road 1.10 3.30 3-lane,urban Plummer Street basting West Limit Future West Limit 0.95 2.85 3-lane,urban • Town Centre West Street A-2 Street A-3 0.42 1.26 3-lane,urban Total Lane-km 94.50 99.23 118.08 Population . 87,560 89,821 • Lane-km/1,000 persons 1.08 1.10 9-year average lane-km/1,000 persons 1.09 1.Not within urban boundary,but provides access to Fairport Road and Dixie Road H7Pint-vo:n2 20133 DC Sa id/a ana Km nlu:jl.==.,e I.,n Se,rvl,e Levels The level of service cap for the Rest of Pickering for the 2013-31 period is 28.961 X 1.09 = 31.6 additional lane km of DC-recoverable roads (i.e. excluding local services). For the Rest of Pickering (other than Seaton)the additional lane km total is 18.85, which is well within the cap. Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. - H:1Pickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 113 B-30 City of Pickering Transportation Quality Service Levels Detail Codes 1999 2004 2009 2013 A urbanization of existing rural x-sections to 8.5m/9.75m with storm sewer,curb, $1;088.00/m $1,305.00/m $1,750.00/m $1,905.00/m sidewalk,blvd and streetlights AA details of'A'pavement increased to 13.5m and full load road design $1,146.00/m $1,375.00/m $1,845.00/m $2,008.00/m AB oversizing-20m R.O.W.and 8.5m/9.75m pavement to 27m R.O.W.and 13.5m $298.00/m $468.00/m $628.00/m $683.00/m 1 pavement(26%of AC)or 11m/22m R.O.W.(22%of AC) $532.00/m $579.00/m AC new type C arterial 27m R.O,W. 13.5m pavement urban standard and storm sewer $1,500.00/m $1,800.00/m $2,415.00/m $2,629.00/m B urbanization of existing rural x-section to 8.5m/9.75m pavement-storm sewer by $842.00/m •$1,010.00/m $1,355.00/m $1,475.00/m others C sidewalk,blvd.,streetlight for urbanization of existing rural x-section to urban- $195.00/m $234.00/m $330.00/m $359.00/m regional road . CA sidewalk,blvd.,streetlight multi-use trail-urbanization of existing ural x-section to $345.00/m $375.00/m urban region road type A/B . D internal lane to type C arterial 13.5tn pavement road,sidewalk,blvd.,streetlight and $880.00/m $1,056.00/m $1,415.00/m $1,540.00/m j • storm sewer —► E road urbanization-one side only $544.00/m $653.00/m $875.00/m $952.00/m -p F sidewalk on existing urban road,streetlight upgrade and restoration $84.00/m $101.00/m $142.00 $154.00 S individual cost derived from revious estimates or estimates of similar works Development Charge Study-1999-Costs for 1999 Development Charge Study were derived using the unit rate costs form the 1991 Development Charge Study,increased by 21%(cost indexing to October 1998),and those costs increased by 7%being the GST that has been implemented since 1991,but was not included in the 1991 base costs.The unit costs include a 10%Engineering fee,and a 10%Contingency. Development Charge Study-2004-Costs for 2004 Development Charge Study were derived using the unit rate from the 1999 Development Charge Study, increased by 20%(construction cost indexing to December 03).All Costs include 10%Engineering, 10%Contingency,and 7%GST. Development Charge Study 2009-Cost for 2009 Development Charge Study were derived using the unit rate from the 2004 Development Charge Study,increased by 34%(cost indexing to June 2008).All costs incude 15%Engineering,10%Contingency.7%GST has been removed. Development Charge Study-2013-Costs for 2013 Development Charge Study were derived using the unit rate from the 2009 Development Charge Study increased by 7%(cost indexing to June 2013),and 1.76%HST.All costs include 15%Engineering,and 10%contingency. Some individual project costs have been adjusted to reflect the EA component that would be necessary to obtain approval of the project,and will indicate a revised per metre cost. Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12013 DC StudylPickering do study.docx mew B-31 B-7.5 Benefit to Existing Development Deduction The following summary basis for benefit to existing development deductions in the transportation capital program outside of Seaton is provided: 10% - oversizing local to collector - pedestrian trail urbanization - all traffic signals 10-25% - structures 10-75% - urban reconstruction - sidewalks and boulevard 50% - sidewalks and streetlights on Regional roads (except where lower %'s were used by the Region for the road section). - culvert replacement(and oversize) - bridge replacement These deductions reflect previous practice and consideration of the location and type of the improvement involved. In the case of Seaton road works, a 5% deduction was provided except in two road works (25%). B-7.6 Post Period/Excess Capacity Deduction Consideration of limited post period capacity has been made as supplementary to the benefit to existing deduction. - B-7.7 Provision for Grants, Subsidies and Other Contributions No grants or subsidies are applicable. Only the oversizirig cost share has been included in the case of local road upsizing, with Landowners responsible for funding the local portion outside of the development charge calculation. B-7.8 10% Statutory Deduction This deduction is not applicable to transportation. B-7.9 Use of Existing Reserve Funds The estimated December 31, 2013 uncommitted DC reserve fund balance has been netted in making the DC calculation for transportation. B-7.10 Residential vs. Non-Residential Split Net growth related costs have been allocated between residential and non-residential development, based on the share of net population increase as a percentage of the sum of the net population and employment increase. Over the 18 years (2013-2031), on a City-wide (excluding Seaton which is being addressed on an area-specific) basis, the City's population is expected to increase by 28,961 persons and its Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx • 115 B-32 workforce by 5,968 employees. Thus the residential:non-residential allocation has been calculated as: 28,961 additional persons 28,961 persons+ 5,968 additional employees = 83% residential and 17% non-residential • • • • • Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 116 • B-33 INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS COVERED IN THE DC CALCULATION MUNICIPALITY: City of Pickering SERVICE: City Roads and Related Less: Potential DC Recoaerable Cost Prj. Increased Service Needs Gross Benefit to Existing Grants,Subsidies& Net Costs No. Attributable to Timing Capital Development/ Developer Contributions Benefiting Residential Non-Residential Anticipated Development Cost Post Period Capacity Attrib.to New New Share Share Est, (8) (%) Development Development 83% 17% 2014-2019 B-2 Annland Street-Liverpool to Pleasant Street 2-lane urban reconstruction,incl storm 2014-19 218,750 164,063 75% 54,688 45,391 9,297 BR-2 Third Concession-Brock to Valley Farm Road 3-lane urban reconstruction,Incl.storm 2014-19 1,706,800 426,700 25% 1,280,100 1,082,483 217,617 DH-1 Valley Farm Road-North of Third Concession to-fillings 3-lane urban construction,Incl.storm 2014-19 3,150,000 315,000 10% 2,835,000 2,353,050 481,950 DH-3 fillings Road oversizing-local to collector 2014-18 273,200 27,320 10% 245,880 204,080 41,800 DH-13 William Jackson Drive-Urfe Creek to Taunton Road urbanization,pedestrian trail 2014-19 1,808,400 160,640 10% 1,445,760 1,199,981 245,779 RO-3 Twyn Rivers Drive-Hoover to West Limit 2-lane urban reconstruction 2014-19 1,475,000 1,106,250 75% 368,750 306,063 62,688 RP-4 Finch Avenue-Townline to Altona 3-lane urban reconstruction,Incl.storm 2014-19 1,714,500 428,625 25% 1,285,675 1,067,278 218,599 RP-4A Finch Avenue-Townline to Altona(opposite SP-2002-02) 3-lane urban reconstruction,Incl.atone 2014-19 285,600 71,400 25% 214,200 177,786 36,414 RU-6 Sideline 14-Hwy 7 to Seventh Concession reconstr.In conjun with 407 overpass 2014-19 2,145,000 1,072,500 50% - 1,072,500 • 890,175 182,325 TC-1 Pickering Parkway-Glenenna to Hydro Corridor(E) sidewalk 2014-19 30,800 23,100 75% • 7,700 • 6,391 1,309 TC-5 Diefenbaker Extension-East Limit to Pickering Parkway 2-lane,new construction 2014-19 502,000 376,500 75% 125,500 104,165 21,335 TC-17 Pickering Parkway-Liverpool Road to Glenenna sidewalk,south side 2014-19 92,000 89,000 75% 23,000 19,090 3,910 TC-26 Town Centre West Street A-2 • 3-lane urban new construction 2014-19 394,350 98,588 25% - 295,763 245,483 50,280 TC-27 Pine Creek Culvert structure crossing Pine Creek 2014-19 2,686,690 671,673 25% 2,915,018 1,872,465 342,553 TC-28 Town Centre West Street A-3 3-lane urban 2014-19 709,830 177,458 25% 532,373 441,869 90,503 V-5 Notion Road-Kingston to 350m South 2-lane urban reconstruction,incl.Storm 2014-19 702,800 351,400 50% 351,400 291,662 59,738 V-9 Pickering Parkway-Hydro Corridor to Portland sidewalk,south side 2014-19 30,500 22,875 75% 7,625 6,329 • 1,298 WO-5 Sheppard Avenue-Whites to West Limit sidewalk,blvd.,streetlight on north side 2014-19 138,600 • 103,950 75% 34,650 28,760 5,891 �► WO-9 Sheppard Avenue-Whites to 800m East sidewalk,bid.,structures south side 2014-19 201,720 151,290 75% 50,430 41,857 8,573 `J RU-4 Audley Road(Sideline 2)Conc.#5 to Hwy 7 2-lane rural reconstruction Incl.structures 2014-19 2,145,000 1,072,500 50% 1,072,500 890,175 182,325 RU-13 Salem Road(Sideline 8),Hwy 7 south to 5th Conc.Road 2-lane rural reconstruction Incl.structures 2014-19 2,145,000 1,072,500 50% 1,072,500 890,175 182,325 TC31 A-5,A-6,A-7 Arterial Connection Bayly to Kingston Rd. Feasibility Study&EA 2014-19 2.500.000 625,000 25% 1,875,000 1.556.250 318,750 Including 401/CNR Overpass Sob-tote) 24,854,540 8,588,330 16,266,210 13,500,964 2,765,266 2020-2024 D4 Dunbarton Walkway-Dunbarton to Rambleberry walkway 2020-24 183,795 137,846 75% 45,949 36,137 7,811 DH-2 Valley Farnrtlllings Bridge-Ganatseklagon new structure - 2020-24 12,500,000 1,250,000 10% 11,250,000 9,337,500 1,912,500 Roe Oakwood Drive-Rougemount to Mountain Ash 2-lane urban reconstruction 2020-24 958,750 479,375 50% 479,375 397,881 81,494 Rob Oakwood Drive-Mountain Ash to Toynevele 2-lane urban reconstruction,Incl,storm 2020-24 478,250 238,125 50% 238,125 197,644 40,481 R-5 Rougemount Drive-Woodgrange to Toynevale 2-lane urban reconstruction,Incl.storm 2020-24 1,905,000 952,500 50% 952,500 790,575 181,925 . RP-2 Finch Avenue-West of Altona(Structure) culvert replacement 2020-24 853,300 326,650 50% 326,650 271,120 55,531 RP-14 Scar/Pickering Towntine-Finch to CPR 3-lane urban reconstruction,Incl.storm 2020-24 903,200 401,600 50% 401,600 333,328 68,272 RU-7 Scar/Pickering Townline-CPR to Taunton/Steeles 3-lane urban reconstruction,incl.storm 2020-24 5,220,800 2,610,400 50% 2,610,400 2,166,632 443,768 TC-13 Dixie Road-Kingston to South Limit sidewalk,east side 2020-24 30,800 23,100 75% 7,700 6,391. 1,309 W-4 Granite Court-Whites to Rosebank sidewalk,north side 2020-24 154,000 115,500 75% 38,500 31,955 6,545 61-8 Kellino Street-Squires Beach to Church 3-lane urban reconstruction,Inc).storm 2020-24 1,606,400 803,200 50% 803,200 666,556 138,544 81-18 Squires Beach Road-Bayly to CNR Tracks 3-lane urban reconstruction,Incl.storm 2020-24 1,606,400 803,200 50% 803,200 866,656 136,544 BR-15 Valley Farm Road-Finch to Third Concession 3-lane urban reconstruction,Incl.storm 2020-24 3,113,000 778,250 25% 2,334,750 1,937,643 396,908 B-29 Sandy Beach Road 3-lane urban reconstruction,incl.storm 2020-24 3,815,200 1,907,600 50% 1,907,600 1,583,308 324,292 B-27 A-11(Plummer)-Hydro Corridor to West Limit Type'C'Arterial 2020-24 1,840,300 460,075 25% 1,380,225 1,145,587 234,638 B-28 A-12(Plummer)-Krosno Creek Crossing Bridge Structure Type'C' 2020-24 2,000,000 500,000 25% 1,500,000 1,245,000 255,000 L-17 Rosebank Road-CPR to Third Concession Rd. Urbanization includes storm sewer 2020-24 2,857,000 714,250 25% 2,142,750 1,778,483 364,268 L-18 Rosebank Road-Third Concession Rd.To Taunton Rd. Urbanization Includes storm sewer 2020-24 2,095,500 523,875 25% 1,571,825 1,304,449 287,176 RU-15 Whitevale Road-Altona Rd.To North Rd. Reconstruction to urban cross section 2020-24 3,814,400 903,600 25% 2,710,800 2,249,964 460,836 RU-16 Whitevale Road-Altona Rd.To 750m East Reconstruction to urban cross section 2020-24 1,506,000 376,500 25% 1,129,500 937,485 192,015 BI-21 Montgomery Perk Rd.-Sandy Beach Rd.To Mckay Rd. Urbanization/Fully Load 2020-24 2.409,600 1.204.800 50% 1,204,800 999.984 204,816 Sub-total 49,349,696 15,610,446 33,539,249 28,086,676 5,762,672 • Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickeringl2013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx • B-34 Roads & Related continued INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS COVERED IN THE DC CALCULATION ' MUNICIPALITY: City of Pickering SERVICE: City Roads and Related ' Less: Potential DC Recoverable Cost Pd. Increased Service Needs Gross Benefit to Existing Grants,Subsidies& Net Costs No. Attributable to Timing Capital Development/ Developer Contributions Benefiting Residential Non-Residential • • Anticipated Development - Cost Post Period Capacity Attrib.to New New Share Sham Est. (5) I(%) Development Development 83% 17% 2026.2029 _.. L-12 Third Concession Rd.-Dixie Rd.To Whites Rd. Urbanization includes storm sewer 2025-29 3,048,000 762,000 25% . 2,286,000 1,897,380 388,620 • L-13 Third Concession Rd.-Whites Rd.To Altona Rd. Urbanization includes storm sewer 2025-29 3,048,000 762,000 25% 2,286,000 1,897,380 388,620 L-14 Third Concession Rd.-Altona Rd.To West Townline Urbanization includes storm sewer 2025-29 3,048,000 762,000 25% 2,286,000 1,897,380 388,620 L-15 Fairport Rd.-Lynn Heights To Third Concession Rd. Urbanization includes storm sewer 2025-29 2,857,500 714,375 25% 2,143,125 1,778,794 364,331 L-16 Dixie Rd.-Hydro Corridor To Third Concession Rd. Urbanization Includes storm sewer 2025-29 2,667,000 666,750 25% • 2,000,250 1,660,208 340,043 B-24 A-8(Plummer)-Brock Rd.To West Limit Ruml Std to Type'C'Arterial 2025-29 502,000 125,500 25% 376,500 312,495 64,005 B-25 A-9(Plummer)-Exit West Limit To Hydro Corridor Type'C'Arterial 2025-29 262,900 65,725 25% 197,175 163,655 33,520 B-26 A-10(Plummer)-Across Hydro Corridor Type'C'Arterial 2025-29 . 394.350 98588 25% 295,763 245.483 50,280 • Sub-total . 15,827,760 3,956,938 11,870,813 9,852,774 2,018,038 j Total $ 90,031,986 $ 28,055,714 $ - $ 61,976,271 $ 51,440,305 $ 10,535,966 ._ tine:= i.,,:,,¢J,g;:,,ii,a r._.,.::r::Lr;I':..i • • • Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS COVERED IN THE DC CALCULATION B-35 MUNICIPALITY: City of Pickering . SERVICE: Streetlighting and Sidewalks . Less: Potential DC Recoverable Cost Prj. Increased Service Needs Gross Benefit to Grants,Subsidies& Net Costs No. Attributable to liming Capital EAsting Developer Contributions Benefiting Residential Non-Residential Anticipated Development Cost Development Attrib.to New New Share Share Estimate ($) (%) Development Development 83% 17% • =ad Description D-1 Kingston Road-West Limit of Neighbourhood 7 to Dbde Road north side 2014-2019 323,100 161,550 50% 161,550 134,087 27,464 D-2 Kingston Road-West Limit to East Limit of Neighbourhool 7 south side 2014-2019 394,900 197,450 50% 197,450 163,884 33,567 D-9 Finch Avenue-Spruce Hill to East Limit of Neighbourhood 9 north side 2014-2019 161,550 80,775 50% 80,775 67,043 13,732 . D-10 Finch Avenue-Spruce Hill to Fairport Road south side 2014-2019 143,600 71,800 50% 71,800 59,594 .12,206 TC-9 Kingston Road-Glendale Drive to Walnut Lane north side 2014-2019 215,400 107,700 50% 107,700 89,391 18,309 TC-12 Kingston Road-Dbde Road to Liverpool Road south side 2014-2019 359,000 179,500 50% 179,500 148,985 30,515 V-11 Finch Avenue-Brock Road to Hydro Corridor south side 2014-2019 53,850 26,925 50% 26,925 22,348 4,577 V-12 Finch Avenue-Brock Road to Hydro Corridor north side 2014-2019 179,500 89,750 50% 89,750 74,493 15,258 W-5 Whites Road-Granite Court to Hwy 401 west side 2014-2019 53,900 26,950 50% 26,950 22,369 4,582 RU-8 Whites Road-North of 3rd Concession to Taunton Road sidewalk,multi-use trail,streetlight 2014-2019 618,750 30,938 5% 587,813 487,884 99,928 RU-9 Whites Road-Bridge over west Duffins Creek streellighting 2014-2019 750,000 37,500 5% 712,500 591,375 121,125 B1-4 Brock Road-Bayly Street to Montgomery Road East and West Sides 2014-2019 1,725,000 862,500 50% 862,500 715,875 146,625 RU-12 Sideline 24-Hwy 7 south to north limit of subdivision sidewalk/streetlights 2014-2019 361,000 54,150 15% 306,850 254,686 52,165 • ' A-6 Whites Rd.CPR Overpass sidewalWstreetlights 20142019 250,000 37,500 15% . 212,500 176,375 36,125 Sub-total 5,589,550 1,964,988 , - 3,624,563 3,008,387 616,176 • j 81-1 Bayly Street-Church Street to West Limit Neighbourhood 4 north and south sides 2020-2024 1,077,000 538,500 50% 538,500 446,955 91,545 RU-10 I-My 7-Brock Rd to West Townline Sidewalk/streetlights north side 2020-2024 1,159,000 173,850 15% 985,150 817,675 167,476 B1-17 Church Street-Bayly Street to Kano Street west side 2020-2024 233,350 116,675 50% 116,675 96,840 19,835 H1 Altona Road-Sheppard Avenue to North Limit of Neighbourhood • 10 east and west sides 2020-2024 951,350 475,675 50% 475,675 394,810 80,865 • • L-6 Finch Avenue-West Limit of Neighbourhood 7 to Duncennon • Dr. north side 2020-2024 89,750 44,875 50% 44,875 37,246 7,629 L-7 Finch Avenue-Lynn Heights to East 80m north side 2020-2024 . 28,720 14,360 50% 14,360 11,919 2,441 L-8 Finch Avenue-Valley Farm Road to West 150m north side 2020-2024 53,850 26,925 50% 26,925 22,346 4,577 L-9 Finch Avenue-Valley Farm Road to West 600m south side 2020-2024 215,400 107,700, 50% 107,700 89,391 18,309 L-10 Finch Avenue-Valley Farm Road to East'300m north side 2020-2024 107,700 53,850 50% 53,850 44,696 9,155 L-11 Finch Avenue-Valley Farm Road to East 300m southslde 2020-2024 107,700 53,850 50% 53,850 44,696 9,155 RP-6 Finch Avenue-Altona Road to Rosebenk Road south side 2020-2024 287,200 143,600 50% 143,600 119,188 24,412 RP-5 Finch Avenue-Rosebank Road to 500m West north side 2020-2024 285,600 142,800 50% 142,800 118,524 24,276 • RP-8 Altona Road-Finch Avenue toHydro Corridor(N) west side 2020-2024 107,700 53,850 50% 53,850 44,696 9,155 RP-9 Altona Road-Finch Avenue to Hydro Corridor(N east side 2020-2024 107,700 53,850 50% . 53,850 44,696 9,155 RP-10 Altona Road-Finch Avenue to North Limit of Neighbourhood 14 west side 2020-2024 89,750 44,875 50% 44,875 37,246 7,629 RP-11 Altona Road-Finch Avenue to North Limit of Neighbourhood 14 east side 2020-2024 89,750 . 44,875 50% • 44,875 37,246 7,629 RU-11 North Road-Hwy 7 south to north limit of subdivision sidewalk/streetlights 2020-2024 456,000 68,400 15% 387,600 321,708 65,892 RU-14 Whitevale Road-Altona Road to York/Durham Townine sidewalk/streetlights/multi-use trail 2020-2024 450,000 67,500 15% 382,500 317,475 • 65,025 Sub-total 5,897,520 2,226,010 - 3,671,510 .3,047,363 624,167 RU-17 Taunton Rd.-Sideline 16 to Church St sidewalk/streetlights/multi-use trail 2025-2029 375,000 56,250 15% 318,750 264,563 54,188 • RU-18 Taunton Rd.-Whites Rd.To West Towntne sidewalk/streetlights/multi-use trail 2025-2029 1,237,500 185,625 15% 1,051,875 873,056 178,819 Sub-total 1,612,500 241,875 - 1,370,625 1,137,619 233,006 Total Estimated Capital Costs $ 13,099,570 $ 4,432,873 $ - $ 8,666,698 $ 7,193,359 $ 1,473,339 i...r.,.;i,.,na^.i�:'I'+I.J.`i,,,:::,.i:'I:''..Cr'nr I)1••..,.:v ;,,;:._I..-r�_1'•.:,tl...: t,n� Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H.'IPickering12093 DC StudylPickering do study.docx • INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS COVERED IN THE DC CALCULATION B-36 MUNICIPALITY: City of Pickering SERVICE: Traffic Signals Less: Potential DC Recoverable Cost Prj. Increased Service Needs Gross Benefit to Grants,Subsidies& Net Costs No. Attributable to Timing Capital Existing Developer Contributions Benefiting Residential Non-Residential Anticipated Development Cost Development Attrib.to New New Share Share ' Estimate ($) (%) Development Development 83% 17% - • ro act pescriotiort D-8 GlenannaRoadatFairport Road Signalization 2014-2019 191,478 19,148 10% 172,330 143,034 29,296 D-12 Walrus Street at Fairport Road Signalization 2014-2019 191,478 19,148 10% 172,330 143,034 29,296 WO-8 Rosebank Road at Sheppard Avenue Jog elimination/Signalization 2014-2019 367,676 36,768 10% - 330,908 274,654 56,254 . 750,632 75,063 675,569 560,722 114,847 A-5 Rosebank Road at Highview Road/Deerhaven Lane Signalization 2020-2024 191,470 19,147 10% 172,323 143,028 29,295 A-7 Strouds Lane at Aspen Roed/Shadybrook Drive . Signalizetion 2020-2024 404,975 40,498 10% 364,478 302,516 61,961 DH-16 Valley Farm Road at Third Concession(Rossland Road) Signalization 2020-2024 191,470 19,147 10% 172,323 143,028 29,295 RP-1 Finch Avenue at Woodview Avenue Signatzation 2020-2024 272,208 27,221 10% 244,987 203,339 41,648 1,060,123 106,012 954,111 791,912 162.199 N . O • • Total Estimated Capital Costs $1,810,755 $ 181,076 $ - $ 1,629,680 $ 1,352,634 $ 277,046 • • n'•Pvs._rruVOV L4::5'. 40,1,.na IX r¢ u l.;.-h::Il.,'-ipnaln - Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickenng12013 DC StudylPickenng dc study.docx • B-37 •• INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS COVERED IN THE DC CALCULATION MUNICIPALITY: City of Pickering SERVICE: Seaton-Roads and Related Less: Potential DC Recoverable Cost Prj. Increased Service Needs Gross Benefit to Existing Grants,Subsidies& Net Costs No. Attributable to Timing Capital Development) Developer Contributions Benefiting Residential Non-Residential Anticipated Development Cost Post Period Capacity Attrib.to New New Share Share Est ($) (%) Development Development 74% 26% External Roads 1 Sideline 16(North&South) Seaton 2018 3,200,000 160,000 5% 3,040,000 2,249,600 790,400 2 Valley Farm Rd Intersection Improvements-2 intersections including signalization Seaton 2016 800,000 200,000 25% 600,000 444,000 156,000 External Roads Sub-total 4,000,000 360,000 3,640,000 2,693,600 946,400 Regional Road Enhancements 9 Sidewalks and Streetlighting on Taunton Seaton 2018 1,748,000 87,400 5% 1,660,600 1,228,844 431,756 10a Sidewalks&Streetlighting on Brock-5th Conc to 407 Seaton 2015 608,000 30,400 5% 577,600 427,424 150,176 lob Sidewalks&Streetlighting on Brock-Taunton to 5th Conc. Seaton 2017 760,000 38,000 5% 722,000 534,280 187,720 11 Sidewalks and Streetlighting on SL 22 Seaton 2018 2,584,000 129,200 5% 2,454,800 1,816,552 638,248 12 Sidewalks and Streetlighting on SL 26 Seaton 2015 1,368,000 68,400 5% 1,299,600 961,704 337,896 13 Sidewalks and Streetlighting on Whitevale Bypass Seaton 2018 2,204,000 110,200 5% 2,093,800 1,549,412 544,388 14 Sidewalks and Streetlighting on S Side of Hwy 7 Seaton 2020 1,159,000 57,950 5% 1,101,050 814,777 286,273 15 Trails on Regional Roads Seaton 2018 2,897,500 144,875 5% 2,752,625 2,036,943 715,683 N Regional Roads Enhancements Sub-total 13,328,500 666,425 12,662,075 9,369,936 3,292,140 Internal Seaton Roads 16 Sideline 24 Oversizing Seaton 2018 2,240,000 112,000 5% 2,128,000 1,574,720 553,280 17 Sideline 24 Within NHS Seaton 2018 2,300,000 115,000 5% 2,185,000 1,616,900 568,100 18 New Structures for Sideline 24 • Seaton 2018 3,100,000 155,000 ' 5% 2,945,000 2,179,300 765,700 19 Oversizing E-W Collector-SL 22&26 north of Taunton Seaton 2024 770,000 38,500 5% 731,500 541,310 190,190 20 E-W Collector SL 22&26 north of Taunton with NHS Seaton 2024 460,000 23,000 5% 437,000 323,380 113,620 21 Structures on E-W Collector north of Taunton Seaton 2024 800,000 40,000 5% 760,000 562,400 197,600 6 Mulberry Lane Collector-(i.e.Road XI)-930 m Seaton 2016 651,000 32,550 5% 618,450 457,653 160,797 new Oversizing Fifth Concession Road,Brock Road to SL 16 Seaton 2015 580,000 145,000 25% 435,000 321,900 113,100 22 Oversizing Collector-SL 26 to Whitevale Bypass Seaton 2017 1,015,000 50,750 5% 964,250 713,545 250,705 23 Collector-SL 26 to White Bypass within NHS Seaton 2017 805,000 40,250 5% 764,750 565,915 198,835 24 New Structure for Collector-SL 26 to Whitevale Bypass • Seaton 2017 1,000,000 50,000 5% 950,000 703,000 247,000 25 Oversizing E-W Collector-North Rd to Whitevale Seaton .2022 2,695,000 134,750 5% 2,560,250 1,894,585 665,665 26 E-W Collector within NHS Seaton 2022 1,265,000 63,250 5% 1,201,750 889,295 312,455 27 New Structures for above • Seaton 2022 8,500,000 425,000 5% 8,075,000 5,975,500 2,099,500 28 Oversizing Collector-above road to Whitevale Bypass Seaton 2015 630,000 31,500 5% 598,500 442,890 155,610 29 Oversizing new road on existing Brock north of 3rd Seaton 2015 840,000 42,000 5% 798,000 590,520 207,480 Internal Seaton Roads Sub-total 27,651,000 1,498,550 26,152,450 19,352,813 6,799,637 Total Estimated Capital Costs $ 44,979,500 $ 2,524,975 $ - $ 42,464,625 $31,416,349 $ 11,038,177 • $ 31,416,349 15,909 SDE = $ 1,975 perSDU • fr'l',c k.rt,crlc a r.:.cc.,,..11;e!r':.,nr„-r,;:..,nr,,,:;n:::•vn,zi.Ar r..:w,M. Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickeringl2013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx • B-38 B-8 Stormwater Management B-8.1 DC Calculation Planning Period The capital program for stormwater management reflects the needs of growth over the 2014 to 2031 period. B-8.2 Service Coverage and Capital Program The capital program for stormwater is largely based on the implementation of the City's • Frenchman's Bay Stormwater Management Master Plan (FBSWMMP), 2009, endorsed b Y 9 ( )� P � by City of Pickering Council April 2010. • B-8.3 Local Service and Developer Contribution Policy The following guidelines are used to identify Stormwater Management Facilities internal to development: 1. 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; 2. A share of the cost of culverts based on the local benefits derived; • 3. 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 4. Any stormwater quality control measures required to mitigate impacts of development (i.e. SWM ponds, oil-grit separators 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 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, 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. B-8.4 Level of Service Measurement Every municipality, has a minimum level of service for dealing with stormwater management. Traditionally, the basic standards included the elimination of the risk of flooding, which required a complex system of conveyance systems that were made up of storm sewers, ditches, open watercourses, concrete channels as well as culverts. Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12013 DC StudylPickering do study.docx 122 B-39 Minimum standards for dealing with stormwater have drastically changed over the past 20 years to include stormwater management facilities for water quantity and quality control in order to meet the higher water management criteria and Regulatory standards set out in the Provincial and Conservation Authorities regulations and the Planning Act, the Ontario Water Resources • Act and the Municipal Act. For development charges purposes, stormwater management has been separated into the following categories: 1. Erosion Control Works, 2. Conveyance Control, and 3. New Facilities and Water Quality Treatment Numerous watershed studies have been completed and/or initiated within the last number of years in the City of Pickering. These include; the Duffins Creek and Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan, Krosno Creek Stormwater Management Strategy, Petticoat Creek Watershed Plan and the Frenchman's Bay Stormwater Management Master Plan. Projects that have been identified in the above-mentioned plans have been included in this Development Charges capital program as well as the City's proposed long range capital works program. All project works will adhere to requirements in the Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual (MOE, 2003) as well as the Council endorsed City of Pickering Stormwater Management Design Guidelines and applicable criteria from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. 1. Erosion Control Works Many watercourses drain through the City of Pickering, both large to very small and intermittent, with a number held in private ownership. As urban development proceeds, the impervious cover in the watershed increases which in turn increases the amount of runoff that is discharged to the receiving streams. The increased runoff rates and runoff volumes contribute to the erosion and widening of the watercourses in the form of channel widening and downcutting of the channel bed. Historically, no stormwater controls were present to prevent the increased runoff from discharging to local streams, which resulted in high rates of erosion. Stormwater detention facilities were introduced to reduce the post-development runoff rates to pre-development rates, however, these facilities do not prevent increased runoff volumes, so streams continue to erode. Those creeks and/or channels that require rehabilitation to service future growth have been included in this study. 2. Conveyance Control As future development occurs, updates and improvements to the City's conveyance system are required to maintain the standard level of service. Typically these improvement works include channel modifications or reconstruction, culvert improvements and storm sewer improvements, which will provide additional capacity and/or mitigate flood prone areas. Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 123 • B-40 3. New Facilities and Water Quality Treatment Stormwater management facilities are required in order to provide the necessary water quantity, quality and in-stream erosion control. Two specific groups have been identified for inclusion in the City's development charges: • new stormwater facilities to provide water quantity, quality and/or in-stream erosion control; and • retrofit of existing quantity control facilities and/or implementation of oil-grit-separators for water quality control. i. New Stormwater Management Facilities New stormwater management facilities that are included in this study are to service infill development as well as future growth and intensification areas. The Frenchman's Bay Master Plan has identified a number of locations for new stormwater management ponds to help facilitate the water quantity, quality and in-stream erosion control. ii. Retrofit of Existing Facilities and/or Oil Grit Separators for Water Quality Control As stated previously, stormwater ponds were traditionally used to detain water. However, beginning in the early 1990's the importance of protecting the environment, namely water quality was recognized. The main source of polluted water was from storm runoff. Therefore, stormwater management ponds were constructed as "wet facilities" that would use a permanent pool of water to settle out the pollutants in the urban runoff. For smaller sites that cannot sustain a permanent pool, oil-grit-separators are incorporated into the design to treat the stormwater before it is released into the receiving watercourses. B-8.5 Benefit to Existing Development Deduction The calculation of the cost share attributable to development during the 2014 to 2031 period takes into consideration the impact of future development on the requirements, in relation the pre-existing needs of existing development,within each respective sub-watershed. With respect to erosion control works, conveyance control and stormwater management facilities, this involves a 56% BTE deduction in the case of Krosno Creek and a 93%, 78% and 81% deduction in the case of Amberlea, Dunbarton and Pine Creeks, respectively. In the case of water quality treatment by oil-grit separators, the deduction is 72%, which represents BTE for the entire Frenchman's Bay catchment. B-8.6 Post Period/Excess Capacity Deduction The requirement for this provision has been largely eliminated as a result of extending the planning period to 2031. It is otherwise covered under the BTE deduction. B-8.7 Provision for Grants, Subsidies and Other Contributions No grants, subsidies or other contributions are anticipated. Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx • 124 • B-41 B-8.8 10% Statutory Deduction This deduction is not applicable to storm water management. B-8.9 Use of Existing Reserve Funds The estimated December 31, 2013 uncommitted DC reserve fund balance has been netted in making the DC calculation for these studies. B-8.10 Residential vs. Non-Residential Split Net growth related costs have been allocated between residential and non-residential development, based on the share of net population increase as a percentage of the sum of the net population and employment increase for the 18-year planning period. Based on the 18-year growth forecast, a 77% residential and 23% non-residential split is involved. i.e.: 87,120 additional persons 87,120.additional persons+26,200 additional employees=77% residential and 23%non-residential • Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:lPickeringl2013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 125 B-42 INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS COVERED IN THE DC CALCULATION MUNICIPALITY: City of Pickering • SERVICE: Stormwater Management t Less: Potential DC Recoverable Cost Prj. Increased Service Needs Gross Benefit to E>dsting Grants,Subsidies& Net Costs No, Attributable to Timing Capital Development Developer Contributions Benefiting Residential Non-Residential Anticipated Development Cost Contributions Atirib. New Share Share Est. (S) (%) Development Development 77% 23% 8-15 Krosno Creek Erosion Control Erosion of channel and valley walVbanks 2014-23 1,023,100 568,933 56% 454,167 349,708 104,458 1-1-10 Petticoat Creek Erosion Control Erosion of channel and banks 2014-23 . 1,922,790 1,681,102 87% 241,688 186,099 55,588 TC-20 Krosno Creek Flow Diversion 3 culvert replacements for flood reduction at Alyssum St,Reytan Blvd& 2014-23 2,000,000 1,112,175 56% 887,825 683,625 204,200 Morden Ln L-15 Pine Creek SWM Facility P17 SWM Facility at Mountcastles outfall to Pine Creek 2014-23 538,478 434,296 81%. 104,182 80,220 23,962 . B-20 Krosno Creek SWM Facility K20 SWM Facility at upstream of Krosno Ck trib. 2014-23 1,647,666 916,247 56% 731,419 563,193 168,226 B-18 Krosno Creek SWM Facility K12 SWM Facility at mouth of Hydro Marsh 2014-23 279,538 . 155,447 56% 124,090 95,549 28,541 B-18 Krosno Creek SWM Facility K16 SWM Facility at Hydro Marsh 2014-23 507,581 282,280 56% 225,322 173,498 51,824 Krosno Creek SWM Facility K19 SWM Facility at Tributary of Krosno Creek 2014-23 8,713,612 4,845,532 56% 3,868,080 2,978,422 889,658 Krosno Creek SWM Facility 17/18 SWM Facility at Tributary of Krosno Creek 2014-23 4,827,171 2,684,330 56% 2,142,841 1,649,988 492,853 20 Oil Grit Separators Installation install 2 units per year for water quality treatment 2014-23 3,210000 2,300,017 72% 909,983 700,687 209,296 24,669,936 14,980,340 9,689,596 7,460,989 2,228,607 -a TC-23 Pine Creek Culvert Replacements Replace Radom St culverts,Kingston Rd culvert,channel works 2024-31 7,088,750 5,717,259 81% 1,371,491 1,056,048 315,443 N W-7 Amberlea Creek Mouth SWM Facility SWMIForebay Faciliy to FB 2024-31 9,195,313 8,555,934 93% 639,378 492,321 147,057 0) W-9 Dunbarton Creek Mouth SWM Facility SWMIForebay Faciliy to FB 2024-31 9,195,313 7,201,055 78% 1,994,258 1,535,578 458,679 A-6 Amberlea Creek SWM Facility A3 SWM Facility at outfall to tributary of Amberlea Creek 2024-31 • 1,549,226 1.441,504 93%' 107,722 82,946 24,776 L-16 Pine Creek SWM Facility P31 SWM Facility at outfall to Pine Creek 2024-31 1,675,754 1,351,539 81% 324,215 249,646 74,570 . B-18 Pine Creek SWM Facility P29 SWM Facility at outlet of Pine Creek 2024-31 795,946 641,951 81% 153,995 118,576 35,419 Pine Creek SWM Facility P22 SWM Facility at outlet of Pine Creek 2024-31 545,834 440,229 81% 105,605 81,316 24,289 Pine Creek SWM Facility P27 SWM Facility at outlet of Pine Creek 2024-31 639,258 515,578 81% 123,680 95,234 28,448 13 Oil Grit Separators Installation install 2 units per year for water quality treatment-total of 33 units 2024-31 2,086,500 1,495,011 72% 591,489 455,446 136,042 32,771,893 27,360,060 5,411,833 3,711,665 1.108,679 Total Estimated Capital Costs $ 57,441,829 $ 42,340,400 $ - $ 15,101,429 $11,172,654 $ 3,337,286 • Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. . H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickenng do study.docx • . APPENDIX C DEVELOPMENT CHARGE CALCULATION • • • ICI Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickeringl2013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx • 127 • • C-1 APPENDIX C - DEVELOPMENT CHARGE CALCULATION 1. Table C-1 sets out the DC calculation based on the standard average cost method. For services that are not specifically restricted by a financial service level cap, an adjustment is made to reflect the uncommitted balance in the DC reserve fund as follows: Service Uncommitted Res Non-Res Residential Non-Residential DC Reserve Funds(Est, of Dec. 31, 2013) Administration-Studies ($221,897) 78% 22% ($173,080) ($48,817) Roads $7,904,969 83% 17% $6,561,124 $1,343,845 Stormwater $761,649 77% 23% $586,470 $175,179 $8,444,721 $6,974,514 $1,470,207 H,1Pickering9 013DCStudyVirt:e nag DCiaode12013.xincji-1 sew.,Surd:-■ 2. No DC reserve fund deductions are being made as part of the calculation for Fire, Parks, Recreation, Library and Operations. Those balances are to be used to fund costs which are of benefit to development 2013 and earlier, that contributed the funds. This involves funding the beyond service level cap portion of future projects (or benefit to existing development, since past growth is now "existing development"). The inappropriate . alternative is to use those funds to reduce the charges to be collected from future development, which should instead, fully absorb the cost of maintaining the existing service level in future. 3. Table C-la calculates the area-specific Transportation charge for the"Rest of Pickering" , • (excluding Seaton) based on the 2014-31 capital forecast period. 4. Table C-1 b calculates the City-wide charge for all services, other than Transportation and Stormwater Management, based on the ten year 2014-2023 capital forecast period, in accordance with the DCA. Financing charges have been added in the case of Fire and Operations, where front-end financing is involved. These charges represent the difference between the average cost calculation in Table C-1 b and the cash flow calculations in Tables C-2a and C-2d. 5. Table C-1c calculates the non-residential charges for the City-wide services on a per net hectare basis in the case of the Seaton Prestige Employment land and on a per sq.ft. GFA basis for all other non-residential development in Pickering. As discussed above, financing charges have been added and these have been calculated in Tables C-2b, C-2c, C-2e and C-2f. Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering do study.docx 128 • C-2 6. Table C-1d calculates the City-wide residential charges for Stormwater Management, based on the 2014-2031 capital forecast period. 7. Table C-1e calculates the City-wide non-residential charges for Stormwater Management, based on the 2014-2031 capital forecast. As in the case of the other City- wide charges, these have been differentiated between land area charges (in the case of Seaton Prestige Employment land) and floor are a (in the case of all other non- residential charges residential development in Pickering). 8. Table C-3 provides a calculation of hypothetical City-wide Transportation development charges, in order to provide the basis for assessing the impact of the area-specific arrangement(Rest of Pickering vs. Seaton), that is proposed. • • • • Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 129 TABLE C-la C-3 CITY OF PICKERING DEVELOPMENT CHARGE CALCULATION • Area Specific Rest of Pickering Transportation Services • 2014-2031 DC Recoverable Share 2013$DC Eligible Cost SERVICE Residential Non-Residential SDU - per s.f. $ $ $ $ Transportation 1.0 Roads&Bridges $ 51,440,305 $ 10,535,966 . Less: Reserve Fund $ 6.561.124 $ 1.343845 Sub-total $ 44,879,181 $ 9,192,121 $ 4,209 $ 2.06 2.0 Streetighting&Sidewalks $ 7,193,359 $ 1,473,339 $ 675 $ 0.33 3.0 Traffic Signals $ 1,352,634 $ 277,046 $ 127 $ 0.06 TOTAL $ 53,425,174 $ 10,942,505 $ 5,011 $ 2.45 DC ELIGIBLE CAPITAL COST $ 53,425.174 $ 10,942,505 Gross Population/GFA Growth(sq.ft.) .37,105 4,472,400 Cost Per Capita/Non-Residential GFA(sq.ft) $ 1,439.84 $ 2.45 By Residential Unit Type p.o.0 Single and Semi-Detached 3.48 $ 5,011 Apartments 2 Bedroom+ 1.84 $ 2,649 Apartments Bach.&1 Bdrm 1.35 $ 1,944 • Other Multiples 2.76 $ 3,974 TABLE C-lb CITY OF PICKERING DEVELOPMENT CHARGE CALCULATION Municipal-wide Services 2014-2023 DC Recoverable Share 2013$DC Eligible Cost SERVICE Residential Non-Residential SDU per s.f. $ $ $ $. 4.0 Studies $ 2,914,948 $ 822,165 Less: Reserve Fund $ (173,080) $ (48.817) Sub-total $ 3,088,027 $ 870,982 $ 182 • 5.0 Fire $ ' 9,713,485 $ 2,739,701 $ 571 6.0 Parkland Development $ 27,951,669 $ 1,471,140 $ 1,645 7.0 Indoor Recreation Facilities $ 58,249,674 $ 3,065,772 $ 3,427 $ 86,201,343 $ 4,536,913 $ 5,072 8.0 Library $ 14,018,667 $ 737,825 $ 825 9.0 Operations Facilities&Vehicles $ 8,179,086 $ 2,306,922 $ 481 Financing Cost TOTAL $ 121,200,608 $ 11,192,342 $ 7,131 see C 1c • DC EUGIBLE CAPITAL COST $ 121,200,608 10 Year Gross Population/GFA Growth(sq.ft) 59,151 Cost Per Capita/Non-Residential GFA(sq.ft,) $ 2,049.00 see C-1 c Financing Charges 3 Total Including By Residential Unit Type p.p.0 Sub-total Fire Operations Financing Single and Semi-Detached 3.48 $ 7,131 $ 28 $ 71 $ 7,230 Apartments 2 Bedroom+ _ 1.84 - $ 3,770 $ 15 $ 38 $ 3,823 Apartments Bach.&1 Bdmr 1.35 $ 2,766 $ 11 $ 28 $ 2,805 Other Multiples 2.76 $ 5,655 $ 22 $ 56 $ 5,733 1 See Tables C-2a and C-2e. H'.Pmker".:, u 13 DD StudyltP,ckimy DO M.d-I 2013 d:::i i—u G I Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12O13 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 130 • C-4 TABLE C-1c CITY OF PICKERING NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGE CALCULATION(PRESTIGE EMPLOYMENT VS.OTHER NON-RESIDENTIAL) • Municipal-wide Services 2014-2023 Non-Residential DC Recoverable 2013$DC Eligible Prestige Other Prestige Other SERVICE Table C-lb Employment Land Non-Residential per net acre per net ha per s.f. 4.0 Studies $ 870,982 $ 387,587 $ 483,395 $ 1,015 $ 2,508 $ 0.08 5.0 Fire $ 2,739,701 $ 1,219,167 $ 1,520,534 $ 3,191 $ 7,885 $ 0.25 6.0 Parkland Development $ 1,471,140 $ 654,658 $ 816,482 $ 1,714 $ 4,235 $ 0.14 7.0 Indoor Recreation Facilities $ 3,065,772 $ • 1,364,269 $ 1,701,503 $ 3,572 $ 8,826 $. 0.28 $ 4,536,913 $ 2,018,927 $ 2,517,986 $ 5,286 $ 13,062 $ 0.42 8.0 Library $ 737,825 $ 328,332 $ 409,493 $ 859 $ 2,123 $ 0.07 • 9.0 Operations Facilities&Vehicles $ 2,306,922 $ 1,026,580 $ 1,280,342 $ 2,687 $ 6,640 $ 0.21 DC ELIGIBLE CAPITAL COST $ 11,192,342 $ 4,980,593 $ 6211,749 Net Prestige Land(acres)/GFA Growth(sq.ft) 382 2 6,037,528 3 DC Per Net Acre/Non-Residential GFA.(sq.ft, $ 13038 $ 1.03 $ 13,038 $ 32,217 $ 1.03 .•Table C-2b Be Table C-2c&f Fire Financing Cost $ 95 $ 234 $0.01 Operations Financing Cost $ 323 $ 797 $0.03 Total $ 13,455 $ 33,248 $ 1.07 Seaton 10 year Prestige employment land represents 44.5%of the total City of Pickering number of employees and the costs are shared accordingly. (5,632+759+380)(Schedule 13)/15,210(Schedule 10b)=44.5% 2(322+40+20)Acres. 3 Cily of Pickering 10 year total GFA less Seaton Prestige Employment GFA: • , 12,373,277 sq.ft(Schedule 10b)-5,271,173-709,717-354,859(Schedule 13)=6,037,528 sq.ft H,A•ckermg,20.3 DC 44y`{Pic2:••■;2 DC Mode,2213s5 s Tame C-1 tit • • • Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 131 C-5 TABLE C-1d CITY OF PICKERING DEVELOPMENT CHARGE CALCULATION Municipal-wide Stormwater Services 2014-2031 DC Recoverable Share 2013$DC Eligible Cost SERVICE Residential I Non-Residential SDU I per s.f. $ $ $ $ 1.0 Stormwater Management $ 11,172,654 $ 3,337,286 Less: Reserve Fund $ 586,470 $ 175,179 $ 10,586,184 $ 3,162,107 $ 387 TOTAL $ 10,586,184 $ 3,162,107 $ 387 See C-le DC ELIGIBLE CAPITAL COST $ 10,586,184 Gross Population/GFA Growth(sq.ft.) 95,264 Cost Per Capita/Non-Residential GFA(sq.ft.) $ 111.12 See C-1e By Residential Unit Type Single and Semi-Detached 3.48 $ 387 Apartments 2 Bedroom+ 1.84 $ 204 Apartments Bach.&1 Bdrm 1.35 $ 150 Other Multiples 2.76 $ 307 1-1::Fickerino12013 0C Study:[Fcbaring DC rvbdci 2013.xlsxlrebie C-I(3) TABLE C-1e CITY OF PICKERING NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGE CALCULATION(PRESTIGE EMPLOYMENT LAND AREA VS.OTHER NON-RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA) Municipal-wide Stormwater Services 2014-2023 Non-Residential DC Recoverable 2013$DC Eligible • Seaton Prestl.a Enp.Land Other Pickering Seaton Prestige Other Pickering Non-res. SERVICE Employment Land' Non-Residential per net acre per net ha per s.f.GFA NON-RESIDENTIAL TOTAL= $ 3,162,107 $ 1,549,432 $ 1,612,675 $ 2,207 $ 5,453 $ 0.17 DC ELIGIBLE CAPITAL COST $ 1,549,432 $ 1,612,675 Net Prestige Employment Land(acres)/GFA Growth(sq.ft) 702 ' 9,668.861 2 Cost Per Net Acre/Non-Residential GFA(sq.ft) $ 2,207 $ 0.17 $ 2,207 $ 5,453 $ 0.17 'Seaton employment land to 2031 represents 49.0%of the total City of Pickering number of employees. 12,840/26,200=49.0% City of Pickering GFA to 2031 less Seaton Prestige Employment Land GFA: 21,680,007 sq.ft(Schedule 10b)-12,011,146(Schedule 13)=9,668,861 sq.ft 3 Durham Region Water and Sewer DC Background Study,July 2013,p.29,etc. ,chrille,F0'.5 DC DC • Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. 1-1:\Pickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 132 1 C-6 TABLE C-2a Pickering 2014-2023 Cash Flow Calculation of the Single Detached Unit Residential Development Charge Requirement for Fire • DC Reserve Development- Development- Single $599 Anticipated In-Year Reserve Fund DC Reserve Fund Related Related Detached per sdu Revenue Annual Interest Earnings 2.5% Fund Opening Expenditures Expenditures Unit inflated at Surplus &(Cost)5.5% Closing Year Balance (Nominal) (Project Costs) Equivalents 2.5% (Deficit) In Year re:Opening RF Balance Project Inflated at starting Transactions' Balance Costs 2.5% in 2014 2014 - (518,700) (518,700) 514 599 308,002 (210,698) (5,794) - (216,492) 2015 (216,492) (1,911,000) (1,958,775) 514 614 315,702 (1,643,072) (45,184) (11,907) (1,916,656) 2016 (1,916,656) (3,270,150) (3,435,701) 1,914 630 1,204,982 (2,230,720) (61,345) (105,416) (4,314,136) 2017 (4,314,136) - - 1,914 645 1,235,106 1,235,106 15,439 (237,277) (3,300,868) . 2018 (3,300,868) - - 1,914 661 1,265,984 1,265,984 15,825 (181,548) (2,200,607) 2019 (2,200,607) (667,615) (755,345) 1,914 678 1,297,634 542,289 6,779 (121,033) (1,772,573) —+ 2020 (1,772,573) - - 1,914 695 1,330,074 1,330,074 16,626 (97,492) (523,364) CO 2021 (523,364) - - 1,914 712 1,363,326 1,363,326 17,042 (28,785) 828,218 0..) 2022 828,218 - - 2,242 730 1,636,882 1,636,882 20,461 20,705 2,506,267 2023 2,506,267 (3,346,021) (4,178,721) 2,243 748 1,678,552 (2,500,169) (68,755) 62,657 0 (9,713,485) (10,847,242) 16,997 11,636,246 789,004 (88,907) (700,096) . Numbers may not add due to rounding Average Cost Calculation(Nominal Expenditures/SDE's)= $ 571 1 Interest cost X 50%of in year annual surplus. $571 +$28 interest=$599 calculation above H:\Pickering\2013 DC Study\[Pickering DC Model 2013.xlsx]Fire Res CF Calc. Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx • C-7 TABLE C-2b Pickering 2014-2023 Cash Flow Calculation of the Non-Residential Development Charge (Prestige Employment Land) Requirement for Fire fear DC Reserve Development- Development- Net Acres $3,285 Anticipated In-Year Reserve Fund DC Reserve Fund Related Related of Prestige per net acre 3 Revenue Annual Interest Earnings 2.5% Fund Opening Expenditures Expenditures Employment inflated at Surplus &(Cost)5.5% Closing Balance (Nominal) (Project Costs) Land 2.5% • (Deficit) In Year re:Opening RF Balance Project Inflated at starting Transactions 9 Balance Costs 2 2.5% in 2014 2014 (65,104) (65,104) - 3,285 - (65,104) (1,790) - (66,894) 2015 (66,894) (239,855) (245,851) 40 • 3,367 134,667 (111,185) (3,058) (3,679) (184,815) 2016 (184,815) (410,446) (431,225) 81 3,451 280,207 (151,017) (4,153) (10,165) (350,151) 2017 (350,151) - - 40 3,537 141,484 141,484 1,769 (19,258) (226,156) 2018 (226,156) - - 40 3,626 145,021 145,021 . 1,813 (12,439) (91,761) 2019 (91,761) (83,794) (94,805) 41 3,716 152,363 57,557 719 (5,047) (38,531) 2020 (38,531) - - 40 3,809 152,363 152,363 1,905 (2,119) 113,617 --` 2021 113,617 - - 40 3,904 156,172 156,172 1,952 2,840 274,582 W 2022 274,582 - - 40 4,002 160,076 160,076 2,001 6,865 443,523 2023 443,523 (419,969) (524,483) 20 4,102 82,039 (442,444) (12,167) 11,088 0 (1,219,167) (1,361,468) 382 1,404,392 42,924 (11,010) (31,914) Numbers may not add due to rounding Average Cost Calculation(Nominal Expenditures/GFA)= $ 3,190 1 Interest cost X 50% of in year annual surplus. • • 2 44.5%X$2,739,701 =$1,219,167 3 $3,285 per net acre= $ 8,116 per net hectare. H:1Pickering12013 DC Study1[Pickering DC Model 2013.xisx]Fire prest CF Calc. Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx • C-8 TABLE C-2c Pickering 2014-2023 Cash Flow Calculation of the Non-Residential Development Charge(Other Employment Than Prestige) Requirement for Fire fear DC Reserve Development- Development- Sq.ft. $0.26 Anticipated In-Year Reserve Fund • DC Reserve Fund Related Related of Non- per sq.ft. Revenue Annual Interest Earnings 2.5% Fund Opening Expenditures Expenditures Residential inflated at Surplus &(Cost)5.5% Closing Balance (Nominal) (Project Costs) GFA 3 2.5% (Deficit) In Year re:Opening RF Balance Project Inflated at starting Transactions) Balance Costs 2 2.5% in 2014 2014 (81,196) (81,196) 603,753 0.26 156,339 75,142 939 - 76,082 . 2015 76,082 (299,145) (306,624) 603,753 0.27 160,247 (146,376) (4,025) 1,902 (72,418) 2016 (72,418) (511,904) (537,819) 603,753 0.27 164,253 (373,566) (10,273) (3,983) (460,240) • 2017 (460,240) • - - 603,753 0.28 168,360 168,360 2,104 (25,313) (315,089) 2018 (315,089) - - 603,753 0.29 172,569 172,569 2,157 (17,330) (157,693) 2019 (157,693) (104,507) (118,240) 603,753 0.29 176,883 58,642 733 (8,673) (106,991) 2020 (106,991) - - 603,753 • 0.30 181,305 181,305,. 2,266 (5,884) 70,696 - 2021 70,696 - - 603,753 0.31 185,838 185,838 • 2,323 1,767 260,624 CO 2022 260,624 - 603,753 0.32 190,484 190,484 2,381 6,516 460,004 2023 460,004 (523,781) (654,131) 603,753 0.32 195,246 (458,885) (12,619) 11,500 (0) • • (1,520,534) (1,698,010) 6,037,528 1,751,523 53,512 (14,014) (39,499) Numbers may not add due to rounding • N,erage Cost Calculation(Nominal Expenditures/GFA)= $ 0.25 •I'Interest cost X 50%of in year annual surplus. 2 55.5%X$2,739,701 =$1,520,534 • 3 City of Pickering 10 year total GFA less Seaton Prestige Employment GFA: 12,373,277 sq.ft. -5,271,173-709,717-354,859=6,037,528 sq.ft. • H:\Pickering\2013 DC Study\tFlckering DC Model2013.xlsx]Fire other non res CF Calc. Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx . C-9 TABLE C-2d Pickering 2014-2023 Cash Flow Calculation of the Single Detached Unit Residential Development Charge Requirement for Operations DC Reserve Development- Development-. Single $553 Anticipated In-Year Reserve Fund I DC Reserve Fund Related Related Detached per sdu Revenue Annual Interest Earnings 2.5% Fund Opening Expenditures Expenditures Unit inflated at Surplus &(Cost)5.5% Closing Year Balance (Nominal) (Project Costs) Equivalents 2.5% (Deficit) In Year re:Opening RF Balance Project Inflated at starting Transactions Balance Costs 2.5% in 2014 1 2014 - (3,517,413) (3,517,413) 514 553 284,025 (3,233,388) (88,918) - (3,322,306) 2015 (3,322,306) (3,713,973) (3,806,822) 514 566 291,126 (3,515,697) (96,682) (182,727) (7,117,411) 2016 (7,117,411) (129,870) (136,445) 1,914 581 1,111,178 974,733 12,184 (391,458) (6,521,951) 2017 (6,521,951) (336,960) (362,869) 1,914 595 1,138,957 776,088 9,701 (358,707) (6,094,869) 2018 (6,094,869) (340;470) (375,815) 1,914 610 1,167,431 791,616 9,895 (335,218) (5,628,576) 2019 (5,628,576) (140,400) (158,850) 1,914 625 1,196,617 1,037,767 12,972 (309,572) (4,887,408) --6 2020 (4,887,408) - - 1,914 .641 1,226,532 1,226,532 15,332 (268,807) (3,914,352) co 2021 (3,914,352) - - 1,914 657 1,257,196 1,257,196 15,715 (215,289) (2,856,731) aT 2022 (2,856,731) - - 2,242 673 1,509,456 1,509,456 18,868 (157,120) (1,485,527) 2023 (1,485,527) - - 2,243 690 1,547,882 1,547,882 19,349 (81,704) 0 (8,179,086) (8,358,214) 16,997 10,730,400 2,372,186 (71,584) (2,300,602) Numbers may not add due to rounding . Aeerage Cost Calculation(Nominal Expenditures/SDE's)= $ 481 1 Interest cost X 50%of in year annual surplus. H:\Pickering\2013 DC Studyl[ckering DC Model 2013.xlsx]Ops Res CF Cato. Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx • C-10 TABLE C-2e Pickering 2014-2023 Cash Flow Calculation of the Non-Residential Development Charge(Prestige Employment Land) Requirement for Operations fear DC Reserve Development- Development- Net Acres $3,009 Anticipated In-Year Reserve Fund DC Reserve Fund Related Related of Prestige per net acre 3 Revenue Annual Interest Earnings 2.5% Fund Opening Expenditures Expenditures Employment inflated at Surplus &(Cost)5.5% Closing Balance - (Nominal) (Project Costs) Land 2.5% (Deficit) In Year re:Opening RF Balance Project Inflated at starting Transactionst Balance Costs2 2.5% in 2014 2014 (441,480) (441,480) - 3,009 - (441,480) (12,141) - (453,621) 2015 (453,621) (466,151) (477,805) 40 3,084 123,351 (354,454) . (9,747) (24,949) (842,772) 2016 (842,772) (16,300) (17,126) 81 3,161 256,662 239,536 2,994 - (46,352) (646,594) 2017 (646,594) (42,293) (45,545) 40 3,240 129,595 84,051 1,051 (35,563) (597,055) 2018 (597,055) (42,733) (47,170) 40 3,321 132,835 85,666 1,071 (32,838) (543,157) 2019 (543,157) (17,622) (19,938) 41 3,404 139,560 119,622 1,495 (29,874) (451,913) 2020 (451,913) - - 40 3,489 139,560 139,560 1,744 (24,855) (335,464) __ 2021 (335,464) - - 40 3,576 143,049 143,049 1,788 (18,450) (209,077) CO 2022 (209,077) - - 40 3,666 146,625 146,625 1,833 (11,499) (72,118) ►4 2023 (72,118) - 20 3,757 75,145 75,145 939 (3,967) 0 (1,026,580) (1,049,063) 382 1,286,383 237,320 (8,973) (228,347) • • Numbers may not add due to rounding Average Cost Calculation(Nominal Expenditures/GFA)_ • $ 2,686 1 Interest cost X 50% of in year annual surplus. 2 44.5%X$2,306,922=$1,026,580 . 3 $3,009 per net acre= $ 7,434 per net hectare. H:11lckering120.13 DC Study\[Pickering DC Model 2013.xlsx]Ops prest CF Cals. Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx . • • C-11 TABLE C-2f Pickering 2014-2023 Cash Flow Calculation of the Non-Residential Development Charge (Other Employment Than Prestige) Requirement for Operations fear DC Reserve Development- Development- Sq.ft. $0.24 Anticipated In-Year _ Reserve Fund ' DC Reserve Fund Related Related of Non- per sq.ft. Revenue Annual Interest Earnings 2.5% Fund 1 Opening Expenditures Expenditures Residential inflated at Surplus &(Cost)5.5% Closing Balance (Nominal) (Project Costs) GFA 2.5% (Deficit) In Year re:Opening RF Balance Project Inflated at starting Transactions' Balance Costs 2 2.5% in 2014 2014 (550,611) (550,611) 603,753 0.24 143,188 (407,423) (11,204) - (418,627) 2015 (418,627) (581,380) (595,914) 603,753 0.24 146,768 (449,147) (12,352) (23,024) (903,149) 2016 (903,149) (20,330) (21,359) 603,753 0.25 150,437 129,078 1,613 (49,673) (822,131) 2017 (822,131) (52,747) (56,803) 603,753 0.26 154,198 97,395 1,217 (45,217) (768,736) 2018 (768,736) (53,297) (58,830) 603,753 0.26 158,053 99,223 1,240 (42,280) (710,553) 2019 (710,553) (21,978) (24,866) 603,753 0.27 162,004 137,138 1,714 (39,080) (610,781) _, 2020 (610,781) - - 603,753 0.28 166,054 166,054 2,076 (33,593) (476,244) O.) 2021 (476,244) - - 603,753 0.28 170,206 170,206 2,128 (26,193) (330,104) OD 2022 (330,104) - - 603,753 0.29 174,461 174,481. 2,181 (18,156) (171,618) 2023 (171,618) - - 603,753 0.30 178,822 178,822 2,235 (9,439) 0 • (1,280,342) (1,308,382) 6,037,528 1,604,190 295,808 (9,151) (286,657) Numbers may not add due to rounding A\,erage Cost Calculation(Nominal Expenditures/GFA)= $ 0.21 1 Interest cost X 50% of in year annual surplus. 2 55.5%X$2,306,922= $1,280,342 3 City of Pickering 10 year total GFA less Seaton Prestige Employment GFA: 12,373,277 sq.ft. -5,271,173-709,717-354,859= 6,037,528 sq.ft. H:\Pickering 12013 DC Study\[Pickering DC Model 2013.xlsx1Ops other non res CF Calc. Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx C-1 2 TABLE C-3 CITY OF PICKERING-HYPOTHETICAL CITY WIDE TRANSPORTATION DC CALCULATION Less: Potential DC Recoverable Cost Prj. Increased Service Needs Gross Benefit to E>iisting Grants,Subsidies& Net Costs No. Attributable to Capital Development Developer Contributions Benefiting Residential Non-Residential Anticipated Development Cost Contributions Attrib. New Share Share Est. ($) (%) • Development Development 77% 23% Rest of Pickering Roads 90,031,985 28,055,714 31% 61,976,271 47,721,729 14,254,542 Seaton Roads 44,979,500 2,524,975 6% 42,454,525 32,689,984 9,764,541 Streetlighting&Sidewalks 13,099,570 4,432,873 34% 8,666,698 6,673,357 1,993,340 Traffic Signals 1,810,755 181,076 10% • 1,629,680 1,254,853 374,826 Total Estimated Capital Costs $ 149,921,810 $ 35,194,637 23% $ - '$ 114,727,173 $ 88,339,923 $ 26,387,250 CO CO DC Recoverable Share SERVICE Residential Non-Residential City Wide Roads • $ 88,339,923 $ 26,387,250 Less: Reserve Fund $ 6,561,124 $ 1,343,845 . TOTAL $ 81,778,799 $ • 25,043,405 DC ELIGIBLE CAPITAL COST • $ 81,778,799 $ 25,043,405 Gross Population/GFA Growth(sq.ft.) 95,264 21,680,007 Cost Per Capita/Non-Residential GFA(sq.ft.) $ 858.44 $ 1.16 By Residential Unit Type p.o.0 • Single and Semi-Detached 3.48 $ 2,987 Apartments 2 Bedroom+ 1.84 $ 1,580 Apartments Bach.&1 Bdrm 1.35 $ 1,159 Other Multiples 2.76 $ 2,369 ..._..4 ,,c;y:.i't DC f:'.i;..Atr i,..,,`tirrcj cc',bcei Z013.1A3::i-^.v:p Pip. rd Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering do study.docx • APPENDIX D LONG TERM CAPITAL AND OPERATING COST EXAMINATION • Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc atudy.docx 140 D-1 APPENDIX D - LONG TERM CAPITAL AND OPERATING COST EXAMINATION This Appendix presents the examination required under s.s.10(2)(c) of the DCA, 1997 of the long-term capital and operating costs for capital infrastructure required for each service to which the by-law relates. 1. Services As indicated in the City's proposed development charge by-law, charges are proposed for the following services: .(a) Administrative (Development-related Studies) (b) Fire (c) Transportation (d) Park Development (e) Indoor Recreation Facilities (f) Libraries (g) Stormwater Management (h) Operations The three sections which follow address, in turn, the operating cost implications of these services, as well as the capital cost implications (medium and long term) for non-Seaton projects. The final section completes the cost examination with a brief commentary on its affordability. With respect to the Seaton-related capital works which form a significant part of this DC Background Study, the capital and operating cost implications were documented in detail in "The Municipal.Financial Impact of the Seaton Community on-the City of Pickering," April 10, 2013 by Watson &Associates Economists Ltd. This study sets out the capital requirements of Seaton, together with the operating expenditure requirements arising therefrom, as well as other operating expenditure implications that are not capital related. The study goes on to consider the development charge and tax funding implications thereof and concludes that the,City can expect to earn a small cumulative operating fund surplus during the 2015-2031 period. The remainder of the development charge capital program relates to the rest of the City of Pickering and is addressed in the material that follows. 2. Operating Cost Implications (a) Administrative - The "capital infrastructure" involved, consists of development-related studies. They will be administered and implemented by existing staff and have no additional operating cost implications. Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 141 • • D-2 (b) Fire-The capital program provides for the purchase of a Radio Communication System. The projected annual maintenance and operating cost for the system is in the range of $50,000. (c) Transportation — The roads program to be partially funded by DCs will involve the addition of 18.77 lane kms of arterial roads by 2031. The annual cost to maintain all of the additional roads is expected to be $2,408/km including maintenance and snow • clearing. (d) Parks — Over the next five years, it is anticipated that 45 hectares of new parkland will be developed. The annual cost, including labour, materials and equipment is estimated at $12,610 per hectare, for a total of $567,450 per year by the end of the five year period. (e) Recreation — The following annual expenditures and revenues are forecast for the Seniors' Centre and Parking Structure: Expenditures $511,750 Revenue 87,172 Net Annual Cost $424,578 Annual expenditures include building repairs and maintenance, staffing, outside agency services, insurance, utilities, general supplies, etc. The indoor soccer facility will be managed and operated by the Pickering.Soccer Club, which will assume all operating costs and revenues. (f) Libraries — The expansion to the Central Library will result in increased staffing and other operating costs. These increases have been estimated as follows: Staffing $238,000 Other 198,500 $436,500 per year "Other" expenditures include building maintenance, automatic sorting system and technology maintenance, etc. (g) Stormwater Management — The capital program includes 13 additional stormwater management ponds with an annual maintenance cost of $78,000 per pond for inspections and minor maintenance and repairs. Once all the ponds are complete, the total annual maintenance cost will be in the range of$1,014,000. (h) Operations—TBC 3. Capital Cost Implications Capital funding is expected to occur via a combination of capital funding from the current budget, development charge and other reserve funds (existing and to be accumulated), with front-end financing as required. Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 142 D-3 (a) Administrative — Development-related studies do not, of themselves, have initial or subsequent capital cost implications. The works that they address are covered under other service headings. (b) Fire — Over the long term, it is expected that the new stations will require substantial repair or replacement after 15+ years, with vehicles to be replaced in approximately 15 years time. It is anticipated that the City's capital reserve fund will fund a portion of this long term cost, based on a future contribution schedule to be established. This also applies to the other services. (c) Transportation — Over the long term, capital repair and replacement expenditures are anticipated, based on the following general schedule: Road Resurfacing - every 10 years at a cost of$68,000 per lane km Road Reconstruction - 30 years at a cost of$284,000 per lane km (d) Parks — The parks development program is to be programmed and scheduled in accordance with the availability of development charges and other funding sources (existing reserve funds, parkland cash-in-lieu, taxation) and the needs of new development. Parkland equipment will require substantial replacement after 15 years. (e) Recreation — With respect to long term capital repair and replacement, the following general schedule is expected to apply: Facilities - 10 years-substantial repair or refurbishment (f) Libraries — Replacement of library materials is expected to be ongoing, with full replacement after 5 years. Buildings are expected to require substantial repair or refurbishment after 8-10 years. (g) Storm water Management—The 13 new ponds will require sediment cleanout every 10 years at an average cost of$200,000 per pond. (h) Operations — With respect to long term capital repair and replacement, the following general schedule is expected to apply: Facilities - 15-20 years-substantial replacement 4. Affordability Implications The foregoing sections have examined the long term operating and capital cost implications of the services and infrastructure required for the specific services to which the development charge by-law relates. These requirements are in addition to the operating cost and capital renewal needs of the 2013 base population and existing facilities, although a portion of the capital and operating costs of these new facilities will also be the responsibility of the existing population, based on the benefits to be received. Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 143 D-4 •Over the 10-year period, City population (including Seaton Lands) is expected to increase by 59% and 97% by 2031. Employment is forecast to increase by 47% 2013-2023 and 81% by 2031. It is anticipated that revenues from property taxation, development charges (which only cover a portion of development-related capital costs), user charges and other revenue sources will generally increase proportionately, as a result. These revenue increases will be available to the City on a gradual basis over time, to assist in funding the foregoing, based on the averages below. Summary.of Selected City Revenue Sources 2012 • $/capita • (2012 pop Revenue Category $ 90,421) Taxes (total City) 49,208,949 544 Fees, service charges 6,900,119 76 TOTAL $56,108,968 $620 • Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12013 DC'StudylPickering dc study.docx 144 • APPENDIX E • DEVELOPMENT CHARGE ECONOMIC IMPACT MATERIAL Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering do study.docx 145 • • E-1 APPENDIX E - DEVELOPMENT CHARGE ECONOMIC IMPACT MATERIAL The tables and figures which follow, set out the development charges, in descending order of size, for all thirty of the lower tier or single tier municipalities in the GTA per: • single detached unit; • • square foot of retail GFA; and • square foot of industrial GFA. In each case, the total charge is shown, together with the Regional, Local Municipality and School Board components. The information is current as of June 1, 2013 with three exceptions: • the Durham municipalities include the Region's new charge which was effective July 1, 2013; • the City of Pickering's charge is shown as of its July 1, 2013 indexing; • although not shown in the tables and figures, it is noted that the Town of Ajax adopted new development charges as of September 9, 2013, in the amount of$14,807 per single detached unit and$4.59 per sq.ft. of non-residential GFA. • Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 146 E-2 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGES FOR GREATER TORONTO AREA MUNICIPALITIES&HAMILTON •(AS AT JUNE 1,2013) Single Detached Unit-$per unit Lower/ Upper Tier Education Total Municipality Single Tier 1' Oakville(GF) $ 23,503 $ 40,458 $ 3,665 $ 67,626 2 Markham $ 22,771 $ 40,428 $ 2,020 $ 65,219 3 Brampton $ 25,519 $ 36,246 $ 2,146 $ 63,911 • 4 Richmond Hill $ 19,442 $ 40,428 $ 2,020 $ 61,890 5 Milton(GF) $ 15,711 $ 40,458 $ 3,665 $ 59,834 • 6 King $ 17,189 $ 40,428 $ 2,020 $ 59,637 7 Mississauga $ 20,973 $ 36,246 $ 2,146 $ 59,365 8 Oakville(BB) $ 23,503 $ 31,244 $ 3,665 $ 58,412 9 Aurora $ 15,701 $ 40,428 $ 2,020 $ 58,149 10 Caledon $ 19,479 $ 35,806 $ 2,146 $ 57,431 11 Newmarket $ 14,652 $ 40,428 $ 2,020 $ 57,100 12 Vaughan $ 12,716 $ 40,428 $ 2,020 $ 55,164 13 Whitchurch-Stouffville• $ 12,282 $ 40,428 $ 2,020 $ 54,730 • 14 East Gwillimbury $ 11,583 $ 40,428 $ 2,020 $ 54,031 15 Halton Hills(GF) $ 13,237 $ 36,779 $ 3,665 $ 53,681 16 Milton(BB) $ 15,711 $ 31,244 $ 3,665 $ 50,620 17 Georgina $ 6,713 $ 40,428 $ 2,020 $ 49,161 18 Burlington(GF) $ 8,018 $ 36,779 $ 3,665 $ 48,462 19 Halton Hills(BB) $ 13,237 $ 27,565 $ 3,665 $ 44,467 20 Clarington $ 15,518 $ 25,419 $ 1,114 $ 42,051 21 Brock $ 13,728 $ 25,419 $ 1,964 $ 41,111 22 Whitby $ 12,058 $ 25,419 $ 1,964 $ 39,441 23 Ajax $ 12,029 $ 25,419 $ 1,964 $ 39,412 24 Burlington(BB) $ 8,018 $ 27,565 $ 3,665 $ 39,248 25 Uxbridge $ 11,421 $ 25,419 $ 1,964 $- 38,804 26 Scugog $ 10,388 $ 25,419 $ 1,964 $ 37,771 27 Pickering F- $ 10,114 $ 25,419 $ 1,964 $ 37,497 28 Oshawa $ 7,256 $ 25,419 $ 1,964 $ 34,639 29 Hamilton $ 27,706 $ - $ 739 $ 28,445 30 Toronto $ 19,412 $ - $ 544 $ 19,956 $/SDU average $ 49,242 median $ 52,151 Notes: 1. Durham municipalities include Region's new charge which is effective July 1,2013 and Pickering's charge indexed July 1,2013. 2. A component of the Mississauga,Richmond Hill,Markham and Vaughan charge has been converted from a per hectare charge to a hypothetical single detached unit -shown as a area-specific charge for the purpose of this chart. H:\Surveys\2013\IGTAH DC June 2013 Pickering.xlsx1D,a Si Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12093 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 147 E-3 NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGES(RETAIL) . FOR GREATER TORONTO AREA MUNICIPALITIES&HAMILTON (AS AT JUNE 1,2013) • Retail-$per sq.ft.of GFA Municipality Lower/ Upper Tier Education Total Single Tier 1 Richmond Hill $ 10.88 $ 37.69 $ 0.52 $ 49.09 2 Whitchurch-Stouffville $ 9.36 $. 37.69 $ 0.52 $ 47.57 3 Markham $ 8.72 $ 37.69 $ 0.52 $ 46.93 4 King $ 4.60 $ 37.69 $ 0.52 $ 42.81 5 East Gwillimbury $ 3.16 $ 37.69 $ 0.52 $ 41.37 6 Aurora . $ 2.43 $ 37.69 $ 0.52 $ 40.64 7 Vaughan $ 2.15 $ 37.69 $ 0.52 $ 40.36 8 Newmarket $ 1.79 $ 37.69 $ 0.52 $ 40.00 9 Georgina $ 0.38 $ 37.69 $ 0.52 $ 38.59 10 Oakville(GF) $ 9.87 $ 25.31 $ 1.01 $ 36.19 11 Burlington(GF) - $ 8.41 $ 25.31 $ 1.01 $ 34.73 12 Oakville(BB) $ 9.87 $ 22.30 $ 1.01 $ 33.18 13 Milton(GF) $ 6.63 $ 25.31 $ 1.01 $ 32.95 14 Burlington(BB) $ 8.41 $ 22.30 $ 1.01 $ 31.71 15 Halton Hills(GF) $ 4.16 $ 25.31 $ 1.01 $ 30.49 16 Milton(BB) $ 6.63 $ 22.30 $ 1.01 $ 29.94 17 Brampton $ 9.61 $ 18.22 $ 0.65 $ 28.47 18 Mississauga $ 8.79 $ 18.22 $ 0.65 $ 27.66 19 Halton Hills(BB) $ 4.16 $ 22.30 $ 1.01 $ 27.47 ' 20 Caledon $ 4.52 $ 18.11 $ 0.65 $ 23.28 21 Scugog $ 6.56 $ 12.96 $ - $ 19.52 22 Clarington $ 5.91 $ 12.96 $ 0.43 $ 19.30 23 Uxbridge $ 6.24 $ 12.96 $ - $ 19.20 24 Brock $ 4.75 $ 12.96 $ - $ 17.71 25 Pickering $ 4.04 $ 12.96 $ - $ 17.00 26 Ajax $ 3.48 $ 12.96 $ - $ 16.44 27 Oshawa $ 3.02 $ 12.96 $ - $ 15.98 28 Whitby $ 2.79 $ 12.96 $ - $ 15.75 29 Toronto $ 13.11 $ - $ 0.58 $ 13.69 30 Hamilton $ 11.86 $ - $ 0.22 $ 12.08 $/sq.ft. average $ 29.67 median . $ 30.21 Notes: - 1. Durham municipalities include Region's new charge which is effective July 1,2013 and Pickering's charge indexed • July 1,2013. 2. A component of the Mississauga,Richmond Hill,Markham and Vaughan charge has been converted from a per hectare charge to a hypothetical single detached unit -shown as a area-specific charge for the purpose of this chart. H:\Surveys\2013\[GTAH DC June 2013 Fickering.r.Isr:IDat 51 Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 148 1 E-4 NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGES(INDUSTRIAL) • FOR GREATER TORONTO AREA MUNICIPALITIES&HAMILTON (AS AT JUNE 1,2013) Industrial-$per sq.ft.of GFA Lower/ Municipality Single Tier Upper Tier Education Total 1 Markham $ 8.65 $ 19.26 $ 0.52 $ 28.43 2 Richmond Hill . $ 8.42 $ 19.26 $ 0.52 $ 28.20 3 King $ 4.60 $ 19.26 $ 0.52 $ 24.38 4 Oakville(GF) $ 9.87 $ 12.58 $ 1.01 $ 23.46 5 Whitchurch-Stouffville $ 3.22 $ 19.26 $ 0.52 $ 23.00 6 ,East Gwillimbury $ 3.16 $ 19.26 $ 0.52 $ 22.94 7 Aurora $ 2.43 $ 19.26 $ 0.52 $ 22.21 8 Vaughan $ 2.15 $ 19.26 $ 0.52 $ 21.93 9 Newmarket $ 1.79 $ 19.26 $ 0.52 $ 21.57 . 10 Oakville(BB) $ 9.87 $ 9.56 $ 1.01 $ 20.44 11 Georgina $ 0.38 $ 19.26 $ 0.52 $ 20.16 12 Burlington(GF) • $ 3.55 $ 12.58 $ 1.01 $ 17.14 13 Milton(GF) $ 3.43 $ 12.58 $ 1.01 $ 17.02 14 Mississauga $ 7.62 $ 8.32 $ 0.65 $ 16.58 15 Halton Hills(GF) $ 1.80 .$ 12.58 $ 1.01 $ 15.39 16 Burlington(BB) $ 3.55 $ 9.56 $ 1.01 $ 14.12 17 Milton(BB) $ 3.43 $ 9.56 $ 1.01 $ 14.00 18 Brampton $ 4.56 $ 8.32 $ 0.65 $ 13.53 19 Caledon $ 4.52 .$ 8.22 $ 0.65 $ 13.39 20 Halton Hills(BB) $ 1.80 $ 9.56 $ 1.01 $ 12.37 21 Brock $ 4.75 $ 5.40 $ - $ 10.15 22 Pickering d°--- $ 4.04 $ 5.40 $ - $ 9.44 23 Uxbridge $ • 4.00 $ 5.40 $ - $ 9.40 24 Ajax $ 3.48 $ 5:40 $ - $ 8.88 25 Clarington $ 3.01 $ 5.40 $ 0.43 $ 8.84 26 Whitby $ 2.79 $ 5.40 $ - $ 8.19 27 Hamilton $ 7.54 $ - $ 0.22 $ 7.76 28 Scugog $ 1.91 $ 5.40 $ - $ 7.31 29 Oshawa $ - $ 5.40 $ - $ 5.40 30 Toronto $ - $ - $ 0.58 $ 0.58 $/sq.ft. average $ 15.54 median $ 14.76 Notes: 1. Durham municipalities include Region's new charge which is effective July 1,2013 and Pickering's charge indexed July 1,2013. . 2. A component of the Mississauga,Richmond Hill,Markham and Vaughan charge has been converted from a per hectare charge to a hypothetical single detached unit -shown as a area-specific charge for the purpose of this chart. H:\Surveys\2013\IGTAH DC June 2013 FickeringxlsxiData Si Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 149 0 9 L 0 co c° $ per unit - V I try to -V1- -tom C Cu o — D N -P cn Co ° O O 0 O m` 0 c O O O O cn c Q O O O O ?. 0 0 0 0 0 v E o c, ?'d .1 . $67, 26 n 0 6'd '' 1 $65,2 9 A h% °� I $63,9 1 r� a. /1/ (S;;/ �I $61,89. N- °°ic I t I `i $59,834 o e S $59,637 v 070 0 s` t DJ CD d °mo,� d I, $59,365 * 0(.<9� II $58,412 s 9,4 fD o $58,149 o d/ CD r y Pa° rt P4. ' $57,431 Q tr/ la° rch ''',5 Ld4�P� I $57,100 IZ O T7 CD N F s� ado - I 55,164 ® = Co NJ m ds I n -. G Oo -re �L. I I W ❑ yd/�'. /P $54,730 0 - o '0 '�6 I I s1 CD °h%/41- $4,031 c o < H '4/;S�Gc t CD " CD e°� $53,681 F, o c • e 0 (9.1 $50,620 N ® 3 rn o_ 4 O„ I I O = CD y x $49161 w a r-+ rt x d"co,) �,1 NM_� $48,462 CD Su , i c/dam,re`j U $44,4q7 4 '7 Cia ��,°° I a ' i °°r I $41,111 .F. h'�6 a) a y $39,441 4 - .1 /0 ./0 d} I $39,412 V. & ../ _ - $39,248 = r'4� a) sc P $38,804 B —. Ar9 $37,771 7- ;P ! = 0 e NM $37,497 G--- dit- yd d $34,639 ?ii?<O $28x445 $19,956, _ m 61 i I_S I. ca F7, co o co o $per sq.ft. W v ter tn. ih in- o2 c �h/�c"/(,,,��o th 0 0 0 0 0 v o 0. of '�9' i l , i m v v sFO4�f /' $49.09 G• illswor o o C) �d //� $47.57 1 S) -n -. 1hd g; n Cdr 9 46.93 10 r- CD c a n r S G, ¢. 1 (D 'i, °� - $4 .81 -t a w �6 ' +n __ 9 4~L I $41.:7 D -^o ' I 0 g 1.- ~d I $40. 4 n 2 6% ' s P`G?, d° I $40.3 fD 3 G0 P� I $40.0 -n n Odd d°ii, o s 6 G'i/ d $38.59 0 4: 0 _ /� G o T °°e0 J `36.19 -s m n" Od ',- i- fD 3 `) II 6-;?, rJ - $ 4.7 3 T N (ca N c -0 /e 1 i o F e��/e o� eJ $3 .18 ED f�D 1 oo o 6, 7eeo J - $3 .95 �, iD y co�< o yis °J $31. 1 C fD v m x `� '�/eo/G.1 • $30./ O f_ a o ~d, J $29.9, O z TS E- c yoA mss<r oh $28.47 2 8.47 W D m Q v r07 Sd4 x o '5; �d $27.66 n 3 0�/�. $27.47 Pa = PD s o° - $25.28 • v' c fi c/d^.<�oe, - $19.52 a, &+6 °0 El $19.30 cc '; ' `� H �e - $19.2c 9° <13- 2 0 /0,4 .0,.0 - MI $17.71 CU °e _ � 17.00 <- G os�Jdf - 16.44 0 d� d 15.98 To -.„,,•` I $ 5.75 ,S, eo I $1 .69 �ii'o 1 7 $12, 8 I m a • ZSI- p ° $ per sq.ft. 0 o =. D 1-, NJ W •A 2 D -L} 0 0 O O 0 o ui Q P d�irf E H F A jd m v -6 '? '•, $28.43 tt- $28.20 fn G) N to i �• �i O 4-. Gl ro i ch4� �G'ii �e $24.38 ^ Q fD CD C C4'` P'cG --- I Yl F0 S�0,, �/ $23.46 2 3.46 -n ro E,_ ao G /L. I o `vi, '4:. 1 $2 .00 0 vr 6 4., --- ----- --. $2 . 9�, L 94 O a Od I $22 21 $21. 3 c0d� T_ Od N /rL/,Pei $21. 7 O CD CD 64 GPO �/ $20. $ O, r*. /. fD ";40 I i:7 C �o $20.1.20.1. DJ vn 0 ?.. �/C 1 O fD o 'eo / 17.14 v c> v7 O " N 4' ' C� 17.02 0 v c ° 'Y Ss; / cu 0 d;�O ssd � ` fD — 4 m o 64�tii, �d 16.58 H fee A/ I $ 5.39 !-' 0 fD � '�i,,> U $14.12 w =rf CD Q Q 6~d 66/ I $14.00 0 m eb MI $13.53 m s o'`>: $1S.39 Eva sr6 1 O ID 6/ I $1237 z 6,, n. 0 ° `� $10.15 v �'' &+, �e - - '• $9.44 CE---- •=1--:eD 6"0 - -- • $9.40 cn -9,--d+- --- ■ $8.88 = °° 1 $8.84 3. o 6` 6.0 $8.19 �,�; O so o° I $7.76 4e _ oh°e 1 1.7.31 T did $. .40 0, °0 j ' $0.58 m APPENDIX F CITY OF PICKERING DEVELOPMENT CHARGE ;Y-LAW (2013) • • Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. 1-1:1Pickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 153 F-1 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING BY-LAW NO. ? 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 25, 2013, 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 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 11, 2013; 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: PART I APPLICATION 1. (1) 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; (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: Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx • 154 F-2 (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 the building permit for the replacement residential units or non-residential area is issued not more than 10 years after the date of demolition and provided 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. 2. (1) Subject to subsection (2), development charges shall apply, and shall be calculated, paid and collected in accordance with the provisions of this By-law, 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 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 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; (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: (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. 3. (1) 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 Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 155 • F-3 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 10, 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 to 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; (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; (j) "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; (k) "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 semi-detached Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickeringt2013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 156 F-4 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; (I) "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; (m) "retirement residence unit" means a unit within a retirement residence; (n) "semi-detached dwelling" means one of a pair of dwelling units attached together horizontally above or below grade or both above and below grade; (o) "single-attached dwelling" means one of a group of not less than three adjacent dwelling units attached together horizontally by above grade common walls; (p) "single-detached dwelling" means a single dwelling unit which is free-standing, 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 B, is subject to the Seaton Transportation funding arrangement and not to the Transportation charge applicable to development in the rest of Pickering; (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. 7. (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 area of the existing dwelling unit. Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickeringl2013 DC StudylPickering do study.docx 157 F-5 (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, (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. 8. 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. PART III 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; (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 (2) in or attached to the building or structure used for that manufacturing, producing, processing, storage or distribution; Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 158 F-6 (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; (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. 10. 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 Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:lPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx • 159 • • F-7 . (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: (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. 12. 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 being converted were being' constructed, but in no case shall the net charge be less than zero. PART IV ADMINISTRATION 13. Development charges against land to be developed for residential uses, non-residential uses, or both, shall be calculated, paid and collected as follows: (a) development charges against 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 charges against that portion of the land to be developed for non- residential use shall be calculated, paid and collected in accordance with Part III 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. Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 160 F-8 (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. 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, 2014 and to those received prior to January 1, 2014 that do not meet the transitional provisions under s.s.16(3). These rates shall be adjusted annually, without amendment to this By-law, as of July 1 each year, commencing in 2015,. 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 by-law approvals prescribed in the building code have been obtained or applied for; and Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering12013 DC StudylPickering do study.docx • 161 • F-9 (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. Transitional Policy (3) For permit applications received prior to January 1, 2014, the development charge will be based on the rate that applied immediately prior to January 1, 2014, 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 by-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 April 1, 2014. 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, 2014. 21. This By-law shall come into force and effect at 12:01 am on January 1, 2014 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. 6978/09 shall be repealed as of the date this By-law comes into force. BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this day of , 20_. David Ryan, Mayor Debbie Shields, City Clerk Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. 1-1:1Pickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 162 F-10 SCHEDULE"A" DESIGNATED MUNICIPAL SERVICES UNDER THIS BY-LAW (a) development-related capital studies; (b) fire stations and equipment and services related thereto; (c) storm drainage and management works and equipment and services related thereto; (d) transportation, including roads, structures, sidewalks, streetlights, traffic signals and services related thereto; (e) operations, including facilities, vehicles and equipment; (f) parkland development and trail development and equipment and services related thereto; (g) major indoor recreational facilities and equipment and services related thereto; (h) libraries and furnishings and (non-computer) equipment and services related thereto, including circulating and non-circulating materials generally provided to library users by public libraries. • Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12013 DC StudylPickering do study.docx 163 • F-11 TOWNSHIP OF UXBRIDGE i wane. -„.. .a " �� A,4 isim_ ,,,.. ,.....0...... , iiiia t k , ir. E IL irritimil--7 ,., vii .....„, .... 14 1 rigiligir .- W I irk Bill _ 1, t,i4h E , i1. . LU1fl A:4; _J/ ; i rr, ,tt• Q�o. :%� ,GREH�WOOD w Y 1 —rii♦ ♦°♦♦i.'r� o'ill /At I ii tt♦♦°♦ t°°♦t°4°4 t►ii `H I °.4.44vvin.°- -.4;°�i,..ilrixf". TOWN OF -NA% WHITEVA c:j.�°°i -I ♦si°4 iii 4 Gt►��t140t►"..i .1E2, .4 I 11. haps i st SCHEDULE"B''TO ` 2 DEVELOPMENT CHARGES 1y ti BY-LAW)OW03 CITY OF PICKERING AND SEATON LANDS III^� / ��`, El''11 l fl Development Charges pa z .` BY-law�000 t13 applies to ��, ���C� 1'�r[f�' '�° N� all lends within the hound of the tI rl� ' -ILI,UI � % '1 • City of Pickering l� li M_Ir,, +� -.Nlilj.�.y�1�ySiC �g� ¢ATONPRESTIGE EMPLOYMENT LANDS . ' -17k-v---w.-:- --virri.-71 . Ili Iwz,,,-.7,-4,-, fogi dm ,,,, ....4.,,,,„,..,,,,.., ,..wh...„1-_,1 • �Y� 4 I INFORMATION CURRENT AS OF JULY 31. 2013: , : Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12013 DC StudylPickering do study.docx 164 1 F-12 SCHEDULE"C" (To Development Charges By-law XX-13) City of Pickering Schedule of Development Charges Effective January 1, 2014 • Residential Development-Per Dwelling Unit Non-residential Development Service Single or Apartment Apartment Non- Prestige Dwellings Dwellings residential Employment • Semi- with 2 or with less Other per Sq.ft.of Land in • Detached more than 2 Dwellings Gross Floor Seaton Per • Dwellings bedrooms bedrooms Areal Net Hectare Development-related Studies $ 182 $ 96 $ 71 $ 144 $ 0.08 $ 2,508 Fire $ 599 $ 317 $ 233 $ 475 $ 0.26 $ 8,119 Parks Development $ 1,645 $ 870 $ 638 $ 1,305 $ 0.14 $ ' 4,235 Major Indoor Recreation Facilities $ 3,427 $ 1,812 $ 1,328 $ 2,718 $ 0.28 $ 8,826 Library $ 825 $ 436 $ 320 $ 654 $ 0.07 $ 2,123 Operations Facilities&Vehicles $ 552 $ 292 $ 215 $ 437 $ 0.24 $ 7,437 Transportation . -Seaton' $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - -Rest of Pickering $ 5,011 $ 2,649 $ 1,944 $ 3,974 $ 2.45 $ - Stormwater Management $ . 387 $ 204 $ 150 $ 307 $ 0.17 $ 5,453 Total -Seaton' $ 7,617 $ 4,027 $ 2,955 $ 6,040 $ 1.24 $ 38,701 -Rest of Pickering $ 12,628 $ 6,676 $ 4,899 $ 10,014 $ 3.69 N/A Subject to a separate agreement outside of the Development Charges Act concerning 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. H .r3 I 3 DC Sludyt[Pid:..Ii..g DC Mod:1 20 I3_:<ls:.lEy-lav:, • it Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12013 DC StudylPickering dc study.docx 165 tea, 41 Report to Executive Committee PICKERING Report Number: FIN 22-13 Date: November 11, 2013 From: Paul Bigioni Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor Subject: 2013 Year End Audit Recommendation: 1. That Report FIN 22-13 of the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor be received; 2. That the Audit Plan as submitted by Deloitte LLP, included as Attachment 1 to this report be received for information; and, 3. That the Chief Administrative Officer and the Division Head, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to sign the Auditor's Engagement Letter on behalf of the City. 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 & Library, of$68,600 remains the same as the prior year. Two new accounting standards, PS 3410 Government Transfers and PS 3510 Tax Revenue, are required to be implemented with the 2013 reporting year. This may result in additional audit fees in the range of$2,000 to $3,000. Sufficient provision is available in the 2013 Current Budget. Discussion: In the Committee's role as the body responsible for oversight of the Financial Reporting Process, the Committee is to review the Audit Plan for the upcoming 2013 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. At the Council meeting of June 13, 2011, Resolution 122/11 appointed Deloitte LLP as the City's external auditors for a period of 5 years from and including 2011-2015. However, Deloitte LLP requires an annual Engagement Letter to be executed prior to each audit which summarizes their role as external auditor, management's 342 Report FIN 22-13 November 11, 2013 Subject: 2013 Year End Audit Page 2 responsibilities and the estimate of the audit fees. The Engagement Letter is included as Attachment 2 to this report. Attachments: 1. - Audit Plan 2. Engagement a ement Letter Prepared By: Approved / Endorsed By: Kristine Senior Stan Karwowski Manager, Accounting Services Division Hea► finance &Treasurer Paul Bigioni Director, Corpo - - - ices & City Solicitor Recommended for the consideration of Pickering Ci Council 49,10" 2.3 I 2c) Tony 'revedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer • 343 ATTACHMENT# t TO REPORT# /k 2Z-13 Deloitte The Corporation of the City of Pickering Audit ser ice plan • • 14, .mi . y i For Presentation to the Executive Committee November 11, 2013 344 li Deloitte, Deloitte LLP 5140 Yonge Street Suite 1700 Toronto ON M2N 6L7 Canada Tel:416-601-6150 • Fax:416-601-6151 www.deloitte.ca October 21,2013 • Members of the Executive Committee The Corporation of the City of Pickering 1 The Esplanade . Pickering ON L1V 6K7 • Dear Executive Committee Members: We are pleased to provide you with our audit service plan for The Corporation of the City of Pickering (the"City")for the year ending December 31,2013.This plan presents the Deloitte LLP("Deloitte") audit approach,our audit scope and our planned communications with you. Our audit will include: • an audit of the City of Pickering's consolidated financial statements for the year ending December 31, 2013 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 31,2013 prepared in accordance with Canadian PSAS; • an audit.of the Trust Funds of the City of Pickering's financial statements for the year ending December 31,2013 prepared in accordance with Canadian Accounting Standards for Not-for-Profit • Organizations;and • an audit of the City's compliance with the federal gas tax agreement. The audits above will be conducted in accordance with Canadian Generally Accepted Auditing Standards ("GAAS").Our responsibilities under Canadian GAAS are described in more detail in our audit engagement letter dated October 21,2013. • We have provided this audit service plan to the Executive Committee on a confidential basis. It is intended solely for the use of the Executive Committee and Council to assist you in discharging your responsibilities with respect to the financial statements and is not intended for any other purpose.We accept no responsibility or obligation to any third party who may rely on this report. We look forward to discussing this audit service plan with you and answering any questions you may have. - Yours truly, • LLP Chartered Professional Accountants,Chartered Accountants Licensed Public Accountants 345 Table of contents • • Executive summary 1 Audit scope 4 The Deloitte client service commitment 6 Appendices Appendix A—Communication requirements Appendix B—Accounting update (Public Sector) • ©Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 2013 Audit service plan—The Corporation of the City of Pickering i 346 Executive summary The Deloitte audit approach adheres to applicable professional auditing standards and, accordingly, is risk-based and tailored to address the significant risks to financial reporting—the audit risks. Our audit approach involves consideration of the following: Audit service plan—Key elements Audit scope The audit planning and the preliminary risk assessment activities we conduct enable us to set the scope of our audit and to design procedures tailored to that scope. As auditors for the City we provide audit services for the following: • Consolidated financial statements for the City of Pickering; • City of Pickering Public Library Board; • City of Pickering Trust Funds;and • Compliance with the federal gas tax agreement. Materiality Materiality is the magnitude of a misstatement(including an omission)in the financial statements or related disclosures that would affect the judgment of a reasonable person using those statements.Deloitte is responsible for providing reasonable assurance that your financial statements are free from material misstatements. Our materiality will be determined as follows: • Consolidated financial statements for the City—approximately 2.5%of budgeted expenses; • City of Pickering Public Library Board—approximately 3%of budgeted expenses; and • City of Pickering Trust Funds—approximately 3%of fund balance. We will report to the Executive Committee on all unadjusted misstatements greater than a trivial amount(5%of materiality)and any misstatements that are,in our judgment,qualitatively material. Audit risks Our proposed audit scope reflects the risks that we have identified and our audit response to them. Details of significant risk areas that we identified as part of our preliminary strategic audit planning activities,together with our planned audit response to them are set out in the body of this report. Internal control matters We will obtain an understanding of internal control relevant to the audits.Although most controls relevant to the audit are likely to relate to financial reporting,not all controls that relate to financial reporting are relevant to the audit. It is a matter of professional judgment whether a control, individually or in combination with others,is relevant to the audit. ©Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 2013 Audit service plan—The Corporation of the City of Pickering 1 347 Audit service plan-Key elements Fraud risk In determining our audit strategy to address the assessed risks of material misstatement due to fraud,we will: 1. 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. 2. Evaluate whether the selection and application of accounting policies by your organization, particularly those related to subjective measurements and complex transactions,may be indicative of fraudulent financial reporting resulting from management's effort to manage earnings. 3. Incorporate an element of unpredictability in the selection of the nature,timing and extent of our audit procedures. We will inquire directly of the 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 management's antifraud programs. If we suspect fraud involving management,we will communicate these suspicions to the Committee and discuss the nature,timing,and extent of audit procedures necessary to complete the audit. Use of specialists Our audit engagement partners are supported with online resources as well as • practice office and national office specialists who assist our audit engagement teams when dealing with more complex technical,accounting,auditing and reporting issues. We intend to use the work of the City's actuary in their determination of the City's post-employment and workers'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 in good standing with the Canadian Institute of Actuaries. We also intend to use the work of the auditor of Veridian Corporation (Veridian)in our testing of the City's investment in Veridian.We will complete all required communications with the component auditor,ensure that the accounting for the City's share of Veridian's net income is appropriate, and ensure the disclosure in the financial statements is adequate. Reliance on service The City employs ADP Autopay in processing payroll transactions,which has an organizations impact on financial reporting. We intend to rely on the reports issued by the third party service organization's external auditors.If our assessment of those reports does not provide us with sufficient,appropriate audit evidence,we will be required to perform additional audit procedures to address the risks of material misstatements in the financial statements. Audit team Our firm's mission is to be the standard of excellence.The engagement team assembled to serve the City includes members with a high level of knowledge and experience in the municipal sector.We are committed to serving the City with quality and distinction. Complete engagement We will provide, upon satisfactory completion of the audit,an audit report on your reporting financial statements. We also provide reports to the Executive Committee to assist you in fulfilling your responsibilities as required by applicable auditing standards.Appendix A summarizes required communications between the Executive Committee and Deloitte. Accounting update and The Public Sector Accounting Board("PSAB")continues to issue new and amended other developments accounting standards relevant to the City.Appendix B summarizes new standards, Exposure Drafts and Projects in Process. Significant new financial reporting standards that will impact the City for the current • year audit are: • Section PS 3410—Government Transfers • Section PS 3510—Tax Revenue • ©Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 2013 Audit service plan—The Corporation of the City of Pickering 2 348 • Audit service plan Key elements Communications We expect to enjoy open and forthright communications with both management and the Executive Committee and would be pleased to respond to questions that are within our competencies as your auditors. Other matters Independence We have developed important safeguards and procedures in order to protect our independence and objectivity.We will report on our independence,in writing,at the conclusion of our engagement. Management We will obtain written and oral representations from management to complement our representations audit procedures.Such representations are intended to confirm the information that is provided to us and reduce the possibility of misunderstanding. Client service commitment Deloitte's client service principles have been designed to help us exceed the expectations of the City and its Executive Committee.These principles are our framework for providing guidance to,and coaching for members of our engagement team,and for identifying our clients'unique preferences regarding the ways they want to work with us. ©Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 2013 Audit service plan—The Corporation of the City of Pickering 3 • 349 Audit scope Designed to obtain reasonable assurance and.address the risks of significant misstatements. An audit is designed to search for potential misstatements that, individually or collectively, are material. To do this, we determine a specific threshold for each engagement and consider other qualitative factors. This amount is also used to assist in evaluating the significance of uncorrected misstatements("passed" adjustments and reclassifications). Materiality Our overall materiality level is used in our assessment of significant accounts where audit effort is necessary.We will design our work so as to consider material items appropriately and to detect potential adjustments that, individually or in combination with others,would be material to the financial statements. We anticipate that our materiality level will be determined as follows: • Consolidated financial statements for the City—approximately 2.5%of budgeted expenses; • City of Pickering Public Library Board—approximately 3% of budgeted expenses;and • City of Pickering Trust Funds—approximately 3% of fund balance. If the amount of uncorrected misstatements detected when conducting our audit exceeds that which we anticipated when we planned the audit,we may need to revise the scope of the audit.Should such a situation arise, we will discuss the matter with management on a timely basis in order to agree upon the appropriate course of action. Of course,we will report to management and the Executive Committee any errors or irregularities, above an amount we consider trivial,that we become aware of while conducting our audit. Risk assessment We compile information from a variety of sources, including discussions with management and the Executive Committee,to The results of our audit identify significant risks to the City's financial reporting process that planlling and risk require attention. Our preliminary risk assessment took into account: assessment drive the • Key business developments and transactions (internal and scope and timing of the external); • Current business, regulatory and accounting pronouncements auditing procedures. and developments; • Key management strategies and business plans; • Prior year's audit results; and • Areas of significant judgment and risk. Our audit planning activities to date and our preliminary identification of audit risks enables us to set the preliminary scope of our audit and to design audit procedures tailored to the identified risks to financial reporting.The table that follows sets out the significant areas of audit risk that we have identified, during our preliminary planning activities.The table also includes our proposed response to each of these risk areas. Our planned audit response to each risk area takes into account our determination of materiality as well as our prior knowledge of the City. ©Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 2013 Audit service plan—The Corporation of the City of Pickering 4 350 Areas of audit risk Description of risk Proposed audit response Revenue/deferred Revenue recognition • Significant revenue streams are presumed area of audit revenue* risk..We will test the design and implementation of controls in these revenue streams and perform substantive analytic procedures and detailed testing in these areas. • Substantive testing to determine if restricted grants/contributions(i.e.,development charges,gas tax, etc.)and government transfers have been recognized as revenue in the appropriate period • Ensure new standards PS 3410"Government Transfers" and PS 3510"Tax Revenue"have been implemented appropriately and that required disclosures have been made Accounting estimates Estimates require • Obtain documentation on management's controls over the management judgments development of accounting estimates for any significant (i.e.,allowance for management estimates and assess risk significant property tax • Focused review of calculations and support appeals,contingent liabilities,estimated • Discussions with management accrued liabilities,etc.) • Analytic review of related accounts • Assess outcome of retrospective review of estimates from prior years Management override of Management override of • Our audit tests the appropriateness of journal entries controls* controls is a presumed recorded in the general ledger and other adjustments made area of risk in a financial in the preparation of financial statements statement audit due to • We obtain an understanding of the business rationale for management's ability to significant transactions that we become aware of that are override controls that outside of the normal course of business,or that otherwise otherwise appear to be appear to be unusual given our understanding of the City • operating effectively. and its environment • We review accounting estimates for bias and evaluate whether the circumstances producing the bias, if any, represented a risk of material misstatement • In addition,experienced Deloitte personnel are assigned to the testing and review of journal entries and areas of estimates • Professional skepticism will be maintained throughout the audit *significant risk II ©Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 2013 Audit service plan—The Corporation of the City of Pickering 5 351 The Deloitte client service commitment Our approach to client service excellence • At Deloitte, our objective is to execute our audit in a way that meets our professional standards and also creates a positive client experience. Our client service principles are our framework for providing guidance,for coaching members of our engagement team, and for identifying our clients' unique preferences regarding the ways they want to work with us.They enable us to operationalize and focus our engagement teams on client service excellence. Our client service principles: EV make and meet our commitments to you by... • working with you to clearly define your expectations • delivering what is agreed upon • being easily accessible to you • providing valuable responses to all your inquiries • ensuring timeliness and accuracy in our billings • understand your business and what is important to you by... • anticipating your needs • understanding your business i6 provide value and build trust through technical competence and consistent results by... • instilling confidence and trust in the quality of our work • offering up-to-date professional skills • providing value to your organization • providing insights into the condition of the business and meaningful suggestions for improvement demonstrate professionalism through effective interaction and communications by... • keeping you informed of the status of the audit • performing as a well-organized team • working collaboratively with you [47 provide a no surprises experience by... • proactively addressing issues • providing timely communication of changes to fees • effectively managing changes to the service team At the conclusion of our audit, or at any time during the engagement,we invite you to assess our performance against these principles through our client feedback process. ©Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 2013 Audit service plan—The Corporation of the City of Pickering 6 352 • Appendix A — Communication requirements The table below summarizes our communication requirements.The communication requirements include all communications required by generally accepted auditing standards and other communications that we anticipate would help to achieve an effective audit. Required communication 1. Responsibility assumed by Deloitte 2. Our audit strategy and scope 3. Fraud or possible fraud identified through the audit process • 4. Illegal or possibly illegal acts 5. Related party transactions that are not in the normal course of business 6. Procedures performed on other public documents with which we are associated and the results thereof • 7. Management judgments and accounting estimates 8. Audit adjustments 9. Uncorrected misstatements determined by management to be immaterial 10. Significant accounting policies and unusual transactions 11. Critical accounting policies and practices 12. Alternative treatments in Canadian public sector accounting standards for accounting policies and practices related to material items(including specific transactions)that have been discussed with management during the current audit period 13. Deloitte's judgments about the quality, not just the acceptability,of the City's accounting principles as applied in its financial reporting • 14. Other information in documents containing audited financial statements 15. Disagreements with management 16. Consultation with other accountants 17. Major issues discussed with management prior to retention 18. Problems or difficulties encountered in performing the audit and management's response 19. Significant deficiencies in internal control,if any identified by us,in the conduct of the audit of the financial statements. 20. Material written communications between Deloitte and management 21. All relationships between Deloitte and the City,in our professional judgment, may reasonably be thought to bear on independence. • ©Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 2013 Audit service plan—The Corporation of the City of Pickering 353 • Appendix B — Accounting update Sector)g date p New standards Item Effective date Description PS 3410 Effective for fiscal years PSAB has issued a new Government Transfers standard,Section Government beginning on or after PS 3410.The new Section applies to all levels of governments. Transfers April 1,2012. Earlier The main features of this section are as follows: adoption is encouraged. • Government transfers should be recognized as an expense by the transferring government in the period the transfer is authorized and all of the eligibility criteria have • been met by the recipient; • The recipient should recognize the transfer as revenue when the transfer has been authorized and all eligibility criteria has been met. • If there is no eligibility criteria attached to the transfer,the recipient should recognize the transfer as revenue when it the transfer has been authorized. • When a transfer is authorized and the eligibility criteria is met,the transfer should be recognized as revenue, except when the transfer creates an obligation that meets the definition of a liability as defined in PS 3200. • • A liability for a recipient government can only arise when transfer stipulations establish both specific performance requirements not yet met as well as identifiable and enforceable return requirements. • When a liability is recognized,it should be reduced as the liability is settled and an equivalent amount of revenue should be recognized. • Revenue recognition should be consistent with circumstances and evidence used to support the initial recognition of the transfer as a liability. • Revenue recognition may occur as the stipulations are met,or in accordance with the recipient government's actions and communications that determined the use of the transfer,which are consistent with the substance and intent of the transfer stipulations. • • If the transfer is a capital transfer, revenue recognition may occur over the related assets useful life or over a lesser period,depending on the terms of a liability. • A transfer that is for the purchase of a non-depreciable asset,such as land,should be recognized as revenue when the asset is acquired. • ©Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 2013 Audit service plan—The Corporation of the City of Pickering • 354 • New standards Item Effective date Description PS 3510 Tax Effective for fiscal years PSAB has issued a new Tax Revenue, Section PS 3510.The new Revenue beginning on or after Section applies to all levels of governments. April 1,2012. Earlier The main features of this section are as follows: adoption is encouraged. • Taxes are to be recognized as an asset and revenue when they meet the definition of an asset,they are authorized(a defined concept)and the taxable event occurs. • Tax revenue would be recognized by the government that • imposes the tax except in purely flow-through arrangements. • A tax is considered authorized when the effective date of the tax has passed and the earlier of the following has occurred:the related legislation,regulations or by-laws have been approved, or, in the case of jurisdictions where the legal framework allows it,the ability to assess and collect tax has been provided through legislative convention. • An asset acquired through a tax transaction is to be measured initially at its realizable value. • • Tax revenue should not be reduced by transfers made through a tax system. • Tax revenue should not be grossed up for the amount of tax concessions(which are often referred to as tax expenditures). • Guidance for identifying and distinguishing between tax concessions and transfers made though a tax system is provided. PS 3260 Liability Effective for fiscal years PSAB issued CICA Public Sector Accounting Handbook Section for contaminated beginning on or after 3260,Liability for Contaminated Sites.This Section.will apply to all sites. April 1,2014. governments and government organizations that base their • accounting policies on the CICA Public Sector Accounting Handbook. Section PS 3260,Liability for Contaminated Sites,addresses the recognition criteria,measurement and disclosure requirements for reporting liabilities associated with remediation of contaminated sites that either are not in use or resulted from unexpected environmental events(such as a toxic spill or natural disaster).It also provides guidance on each of the recognition criteria, as well as issues related to initial and subsequent measurement based on the principles in Sections PS 3200, Liabilities, PS 3300, Contingent Liabilities, and PS 3390,Contractual Obligations. • ©Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 2013 Audit service plan—The Corporation of the City of Pickering 355 New standards Item Effective date Description PS 3450 Financial Effective for fiscal years PSAB has issued a new'Financial Instrument standard,Section Instruments beginning on or after PS 3450.The main features included: April 1,2012 for • Fair value measurement is required for derivatives and portfolio Government investments that are equity instruments quoted in an active Organizations or April 1, market. 2015 for Govemments. • A govemment can choose to report non-derivative financial assets and/or financial liabilities on a fair value basis if it manages and reports performance of these items on a fair value basis. • A statement of re-measurement gains and losses will be introduced and these will report(a)the unrealized gains and losses associated with financial instruments in the fair value category, (b)amounts reclassified to the statement of operations upon de-recognition or settlement;and(c)other comprehensive income reported when a government includes the results of government business enterprises and government business partnerships in the government's summary financial statements. • A government should disclose information that enables users of financial statement to evaluate the nature and extent of risks arising from financial instruments to which it is exposed at the reporting date. • The standard will be effective for fiscal years beginning on or after April 1,2012 for government organizations and on or after April 1,2015 for governments. Early adoption is encouraged. Any"adjustment to the carrying amount of applicable assets and liabilities at the beginning of the fiscal year the standard is . initially applied should be recognized as an adjustment to the accumulated surplus/deficit at that date. PS 2601 Foreign Effective for fiscal years PSAB has issued a new Foreign Currency Translation Standard, Currency beginning on or after Section PS 2601. Translation April 1,2012 for The main features of this standard include the following: Government Organizations or April 1, • All monetary items and those non-monetary items included in 2015 for Governments. the fair value category are translated using the exchange rate on the financial statement date. • A statement of re-measurement gains and losses will be introduced and these will report(a)exchange gains and losses associated with monetary assets and monetary liabilities denominated in a foreign currency that have yet to be settled, (b)amounts reclassified to the statement of operations upon de- recognition or settlement;and(c)other comprehensive income reported when a government includes the results of government business enterprises and government business partnerships in the government's summary financial statements. • Hedge accounting provisions in Section PS 2600 are removed. The scope exclusion for foreign exchange reserves in Section PS 2600.04 are removed. The standard is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after April 1,2012 for government organizations and April 1,2015 for governments. Early adoption is encouraged.A government adopts standards contained in the Financial Instruments and the amended Foreign Currency standards in the same fiscal period. Any adjustment to the carrying amount of applicable assets and liabilities at the beginning of the fiscal year the amendments are applied should be recognized as an adjustment to the accumulated surplus/deficit at that date. ©Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 2013 Audit service plan—The Corporation of the City of Pickering 356 New standards Item Effective date Description PSAB The amendments have PSAB issued various clarifying amendments to the transition Amendments to the same effective date provisions of Section PS 2601,Foreign Currency Translation,and the Transition as Sections PS 2601 Section PS 3450,Financial Instruments. Provisions of and PS 3450,being In addition to approving the proposed amendments of the Section PS 2601, fiscal years beginning Exposure Draft(ED),which were supported by commentators,an Foreign Currency on or after April 1,2012 additional amendment was made by the PSAB to clarify that the Translation,and for government measurement provisions of the new Sections are to be applied Section PS 3450, organizations,and prospectively. In addition the PSAB asked its staff to research an Financial April 1,2015 for issue not considered in the ED relating to the presentation of gains Instruments governments.Early and losses on externally restricted assets and inflows when they adoption is permitted. are used for the specified purposes. The main features of the Exposure Draft were as follows: Section PS 2601,Foreign Currency Translation Proposed amendments to paragraph PS 2601.25 to address issues specific to govemment organizations transitioning to the PSA Handbook from pre-changeover accounting standards in Part V of the CICA Handbook—Accounting.The proposals: a) amend paragraph PS 2601.25(a)to address the accounting for accumulated gains or losses yet to be recognized in net income or operations associated with a hedging item • designated to a cash flow hedge or to hedge a net investment in a self-sustaining foreign operation; and b) add paragraph PS 2601.25(d)to account for accumulated • other comprehensive income or,in the case of a not-for-profit organization,the equivalent accumulated gain or loss recognized in the statement of changes in net assets, attributable to the translation of the financial statements of a self-sustaining foreign operation. The proposed amendments would require recognition,at the date of transition,in opening accumulated re-measurement gains and losses,of gains or losses attributable to the circumstances as described above in(a)or(b). Section PS 3450,Financial Instruments Amendments are proposed to clarify the application of paragraph PS 3450.099 by government organizations.As well,the proposed changes address the accounting for accumulated other comprehensive income,or in the case of a not-for-profit organization the equivalent accumulated gain or loss recognized in the statement of changes in net assets,associated with items classified as available for sale.These amounts are recognized at the date of transition in opening accumulated re-measurement • gains and losses. ©Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 2013 Audit service plan—The Corporation of the City of Pickering_ 357 • New standards Item Effective date Description PSAB Same effective date as The consequential amendments include the issue of a new Consequential Section PS 3450,being Section PS 3041,Portfolio Investments, and the withdrawal of Amendments fiscal years beginning Section PS 3030, Temporary Investments,and Section PS 3040, Resulting from the on or after April 1,2012 Portfolio Investments. In response to respondents'feedback, Issue of Section for government some clarifications to the amendments were made in finalizing the PS 3450,Financial organizations,and changes. Instruments April 1,2015 for The main features of the Exposure Draft were as follows: governments.Early adoption permitted. • The distinction between temporary and portfolio investments is removed.Temporary investments that are not cash equivalents as described in PS 1201, Financial Statement Presentation, paragraph 105,will be accounted for as portfolio investments. • • Requirements that apply to the reporting of portfolio investments are cross-referenced and conformed as a result of the adoption of Section PS 3450.Changes involve: - including interests in pooled investment funds within scope; — replacing the definition for"cost method"with a definition for "amortized cost"; —conforming the definition of the effective interest method; —deleting the definition of dividends; —adding accounting requirements included within the former definition of the cost method to paragraph PS 3040.05; —deleting the requirement to apply the cost method; instead, the recognition and measurement requirements within Section PS 3450 apply,other than to initial recognition of an investment with significant concessionary terms; —clarifying provisions that apply to the reporting of portfolio investments held by sinking funds; — replacing references to"carrying amount"and"carrying value" with"cost or amortized cost"within requirements that apply when accounting for a loss in value of a portfolio investment; and —specifying that the effective interest method is used when amortizing an investment discount to revenue. ©Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 2013 Audit service plan—The Corporation of the City of Pickering 358 New standards Item Effective date Description PSAB Financial Amendments to Section At its meeting on December 13-14,2012,the PSAB approved Instruments: PS 3450 which align the these amendments to Section PS 3450,Financial Instruments. In Income on reporting of income on doing so, PSAB revised certain'wording in the ED,but did not Externally externally restricted consider it necessary to re-expose the revisions as they did not Restricted Assets assets that are financial represent significant changes instruments with the The amendments align the reporting of income on externally requirements in Section restricted assets that are financial instruments in Section PS 3450 PS 3100,Restricted with the requirements in Section PS 3100, Restricted Assets and Assets and Revenues. Revenues, n address r l issues a d t ansitiona ssues that can arise when Effective for fiscal years Section PS 3450 is adopted.Responses to the ED supported the beginning on or after proposed changes. March 1,2013. Earlier The following summarizes the proposals: adoption is permitted as 1. amend paragraphs PS 3450.053, PS 3450.056 and of the beginning of the PS 3450.057 to address the accounting for gains,losses, fiscal year in which this Section is first applied. interest and dividends when income attributable to a financial asset is externally restricted in accordance with the criterion in Restricted Assets and Revenues,paragraph PS 3100.11;and 2. amend paragraphs PS 3450.099(b)(iii)and PS 3450.099(c)to address the accounting for adjustments associated with the transition to Section PS 3450 when income attributable to a financial asset is externally restricted. Section PS 3100,Restricted Assets and Revenues,requires that • income attributable to a financial asset that is externally restricted (such as interest,dividends and a change in fair value of an item carried at fair value)is accounted for as a liability until the • resources are used for the purpose or purposes specified. PSAB Handbook Various effective dates. The following summarizes the amendments: Improvements For changes that relate Subsequent Events,Section PS 2400 to PS 3450,fiscal years The new paragraph in Section PS 2400 clarifies the meaning of beginning on or after the date of completion of the financial statement consistent with April 1,2012 for recent changes to Canadian assurance standards.The date of government organizations,and completion of the financial statements represents the cut-off date April 1,2015 for for identifying and considering the effects of subsequent events. governments. Early Basic Principles of Consolidation,Section PS 2500 adoption permitted. The elimination of unrealized gains and losses associated with inter-governmental unit transactions is a basic consolidation principle.The issue of Section PS 3450 introduces the fair value measurement category.The amendments clarify that any unrealized gain or loss attributable to the derecognition of financial assets and financial liabilities in the fair value category due to inter-governmental sales or transfers would be eliminated from the consolidated statement of operations. It would be reported in the consolidated statement of remeasurement gains and losses, consistent with the principle that the gain or loss has yet to be realized from the perspective of the reporting entity. Additionally,the amendment to paragraph PS 2500.17 specifies that losses attributable to impairment are presented in the statement of operations. Additional Areas of Consolidation,Section PS 2510 In the event that a governmental unit becomes a government business enterprise,provisions in Section PS 2510 address the reporting implications.The amendments clarify provisions in two • paragraphs as the standards applicable to publicly accountable enterprises in the CICA Handbook—Accounting may require the reporting other comprehensive income from the date reporting using the modified equity method applies. ©Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 2013 Audit service plan—The Corporation of the City of Pickering 359 • New standards Item Effective date Description - Segment Disclosures,Section PS 2700 The amendments ensure that disclosure requirements in Section PS 2700 align with recent presentation changes adopted in Section PS 1201. Loans Receivable,Section PS 3050 The amendments clarify that the grant portion of a loan with significant concessionary terms and the expenses associated with concessions in a loan restructuring are reported in the statement • of operations.Additionally,the description of the preferred method applied when amortizing the loan discount is conformed to read "effective interest method". • Investments in Government Business Enterprises,Section PS 3070 The amendment deletes paragraph PS 3070.39 as the constructive retirement of a debt obligation that occurs when paragraphs PS 3070.35-.38 apply is consistent with paragraph PS 2500.06,which requires the elimination of inter-governmental unit • transactions and balances and paragraph PS 3450.042,which establishes when liabilities are derecognized. Restricted Assets and Revenues,Section PS 3100 The amendment clarifies paragraph PS 3100.06 as the nature of the stipulations within sinking fund agreements can give rise to either internal or external restrictions. Long-Term Debt,Section PS 3230 • The amendment to paragraph PS 3230.22 clarifies that the disclosure requirement applies to all debt securities,including when a debt security is derecognized as required by Section PS 3450. • Loan Guarantees,Section PS 3310 The amendment to paragraph PS 3310.08 clarifies that losses on loan guarantees are presented in the statement of operations. Contractual Obligations,Section PS 3390 The new paragraph clarifies the interaction of Section 3390 and FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS,Section PS 3450. • • ©Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 2013 Audit service plan—The Corporation of the City of Pickering 360 Proposed Standards Item Status Description Amendments to In February 2013, The ED issued in February 2013: (i)amends the definition of a • the Introduction PSAB issued an ED government organization to exclude those entities that are PSA Handbook: that proposes to amend component parts of government by defining organizations as Terminology certain standards and separate entities with the power to contract in their own name and guidelines to clarify their that can sue and be sued;(ii)clarifies that when component parts applicability to various of a government issue general purpose financial statements they • public sector entities. should adhere to the standards for governments supplemented by other accounting policies,where appropriate;(iii)adds guidance as to which standards government partnerships would follow; (iv) defines general purpose financial statements and special purpose financial statements to address the purpose of the PSA Handbook; and(v)clarifies that government components,government organizations and government partnerships are not required by the PSA Handbook to prepare general purpose financial statements. PSAB Related Re-exposure draft The 2012 ED Party Transactions . approved on the topic of The main features of the 2012 ED are as follows:(i)related parties Related Party include entities that control or are controlled by a reporting entity, Transactions. entities that are under common control and entities that have shared control over or that are subject to shared control of a reporting entity;(ii)individuals that are members of key management personnel and close members of their family are related parties.Disclosure of key management personnel compensation arrangements,expense allowances and other similar payments routinely paid in exchange for services rendered is not required;(iii)determining which related party transactions to disclose is a matter of judgment based on assessment of the terms and conditions underlying the transactions;namely(a)the financial significance of the transactions;(b)the relevance of the information;and(c)the need for the information to enable users' understanding of the financial statements and for making Comparisons;(iv)a related party transaction,with the exception of contributed goods and services,should normally be recognized by both a provider organization and a recipient organization on a gross basis; (v)a reporting entity may either disclose information about contributed goods and services;or recognize a revenue and expense if those goods and services would otherwise have been purchased;(vi)related party transactions,if recognized,should be recorded at the exchange amount.A public sector entity's policy, budget practices or accountability structures may dictate that the exchange amount is the carrying amount,consideration paid or received or fair value;(vii)it may not be necessary or practical for the provider organization or recipient organization to disclose information about transactions undertaken by an entity as part of its operations. The 2013 Re-ED The 2013 Re-ED includes the following two important changes: • Disclosure is not required of key management personnel compensation arrangements,expense allowances and other • similar payments routinely paid in exchange for services rendered. • The measurement guidance has been modified to require that related party transactions should be recorded at the carrying amount unless(a)they are undertaken in the normal course of operations;or(b)a recipient organization's future economic benefits or service potential is expected to change significantly as the result of the transaction. In such cases[i.e.situations(a) and(b),the transactions should be measured at the exchange • amount. ©Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 2013 Audit service plan—The Corporation of the City of Pickering 361 Proposed Standards item Status Description PSAB The objective of this Accounting for amalgamation and restructuring activities,other Restructurings project is to issue an than acquisition,is not specifically addressed in the PSAB accounting standard Handbook or other national and international standards.The that addresses the standards in the private sector were developed primarily to definition and address acquisition activities with organizations not under classification of common control and when exchange of considerations is involved. • amalgamation and The purchase method prescribed in these standards may not be restructuring activities, appropriate for all of the amalgamation and restructuring activities the recognition criteria in the public sector. and accounting In practice,the continuity-of-interest method has been used in the treatment of such public sector.The existence of alternative methods in accounting transactions,the for amalgamation activities may result in divergence in practice measurement basis of that compromise comparability. On the other hand,it may be assets and liabilities interpreted that in accordance with Section PS 1150, Generally involved and the Accepted Accounting Principles,only the purchase method is disclosure requirements permitted,as other entity combination methods are not prescribed unique to amalgamation in the current international and national accounting standards, and restructuring The objective is to issue an accounting standard that addresses: activities. • The definition and classification of amalgamation and restructuring activities; • The recognition criteria and accounting treatment of various elements of the amalgamation and restructuring transaction; • The measurement basis of assets and liabilities involved;and • • The disclosure requirements unique to amalgamation and restructuring. • PSAB Concepts The objective of this The issues to be addressed include: Underlying project is to review and • How to measure financial performance; ' Financial amend, if necessary, Performance the conceptual • What general purpose financial statements can do and cannot framework in Sections do in measuring financial performance; PS 1000,Financial • What aspects of the key concepts underlying financial Statement Concepts, performance in the framework require review and why; and PS 1100, Financial • What alternative approaches to the key concepts that require Statement Objectives. review are;and This review could also affect Section PS 1200, • How the alternative approaches affect the measure of financial Financial Statement performance. Presentation. ©Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 2013 Audit service plan—The Corporation of the City of Pickering 362 Proposed Standards Item Status Description PSAB Asset PSAB plans to approve The objective of this project is to issue a new accounting standard Retirement a Statement of that addresses the reporting of legal obligations associated with Obligations Principles in 2014 the retirement of long-lived tangible capital assets currently in productive use. The complex long-term nature of asset retirement obligations requires the use of professional judgment and the need to estimate future costs. Reporting guidance on asset retirement obligations was covered in the pre-changeover accounting standards in Part V of the CICA Handbook—Accounting. Government organizations transitioning to the PSA Handbook would need guidance in this area.The current lack of specific accounting guidance in the PSA Handbook can result in variations in the recognition,measurement,presentation and disclosure of such obligations. This project would address the recognition,measurement, presentation'and disclosure of legal obligations associated with retirement of long-lived tangible capital assets currently in productive use. PSAB Assets PSAB issued a Assets-are currently defined in Section PS 1000, Financial Statement of Principles Statement Concepts,as"economic resources controlled by a in 2013 government as a result of past transactions or events and from which future economic benefits are expected to be obtained." Guidance on applying the definition of assets is currently limited to identification of three essential characteristics of assets and definitions of financial,non-financial and tangible capital assets. This project is expected to result in new standards similar to the • approach taken in: • Section PS 3200,Liabilities; • Section PS 3300,Contingent Liabilities;and • Section PS 3390, Contractual Obligations. PSAB does not intend to develop a new definition of assets in this project. However,the Board will monitor the development of other standard setters'conceptual framework projects,which may lead to revising their current definition of assets,and assess if there are any implications for this project. • The objective is to issue one or more accounting standards for assets,contingent assets and contractual rights that addresses: • Guidance relating to the key terms in the definition and essential characteristics of assets; • Definitions of contingent assets and contractual rights; • Recognition and de-recognition criteria for assets and contingent assets; • Measurement including impairment of assets and contingent assets;and • Disclosure of assets,contingent assets and contractual rights. • ©Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 2013 Audit service plan—The Corporation of the City of Pickering 363 Proposed Standards Item = Status Description PSAB Revenue PSAB issued a The main features of the proposals in the SOP are as follows:(i) Statement of Principles The focus is on two main areas of revenue:(a)exchange in 2013 transactions;and(b)unilateral(non-exchange)transactions.(ii) The presence of performance obligations for the public sector entity receiving the revenue is the distinguishing feature of an exchange transaction.(iii)Performance obligations are • enforceable promises to provide goods or services. (iv)An exchange transaction is evaluated to identify which goods or services are distinct and accounted for as a separate performance obligation.(v)Revenue from an exchange transaction is recognized as the public sector entity satisfies a performance obligation.(vi)Unilateral revenues are recognized when there is the authority and a past event•that gives rise to a claim of • economic resources.(vii)When applying PSAB's general recognition criteria,revenue is not reduced when collectability (associated with credit risk)is uncertain. The SOP also includes proposals on issues that affect when revenue is recognized,how it is measured,as well as its presentation and disclosure. • I ©Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 2013 Audit service plan—The Corporation of the City of Pickering 364 • • 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 operates in Quebec as Deloitte s.e.n.c.r.I.,a Quebec limited liability partnership. 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. 365 • • ATTACHMENT#- TO REPORT#. j 13 DeIoitte Deloitte LLP 5140 Yonge Street Suite 1700 Toronto ON M2N 6L7 Canada • Tel:416-601-6150 Fax:416-601-6151 www.deloitte.ca • • October 21,2013 Private and confidential Mr.Tony Prevedel Chief Administrative Officer The Corporation of the City of Pickering • 1 The Esplanade Pickering ON L1V 6K7 Mr. Stan Karwowski Division Head,Finance and Treasurer The Corporation of the City of Pickering 1 The Esplanade • Pickering ON L1V 6K7 Dear Mr.Prevedel and Mr.Karwowski: • You have.requested that Deloitte LLP("Deloitte"or"we"or"us")audit the consolidated financial statements(the"Financial Statements")of The Corporation of the City of Pickering(the"City")as at and for the year ended December 31,2013.In addition,we will perform a financial statement audit of the City of Pickering Public Library Board and of the City of Pickering Trust Funds.Ms.Paula Jesty will be responsible for the services that we perform for the City. We are pleased to confirm our acceptance and our understanding of this engagement by means of this letter. • Deloitte and the City agree that the provisions,terms and conditions contained in the executed engagement letter dated October 22,2012 as well as its accompanying appendices(collectively,the"Prior Engagement Letter")apply to the services under this engagement for the year ended December 31,2013 and that the provisions,terms and conditions of the Prior Engagement Letter are hereby incorporated by reference into this letter. Appendix A contains the most up to date General Business Terms and is hereby incorporated by reference into this letter. • • 366 The Corporation of the City of Pickering October 21,2013 Page 2 Fees We estimate that our audit fees will be$63,000 for the City Consolidated Financial Statements and $5,600 for the Library Board,plus reasonable expenses and applicable taxes(such as Goods and Services Tax). The City will be required to implement new accounting standards,PS 3410"Government Transfers"and PS 3510"Tax Revenue"for its fiscal year ending December 31,2013.This change in scope may result in additional audit fees in the range of$2,000-$3,000. Any additional billing will be agreed with management. Please sign and return the attached copy of this letter to indicate your acknowledgement that it is in accordance with your understanding of the arrangements for our audit for the year ended December 31, 2013. Yours truly, Chartered Professional Accountants,Chartered Accountants Licensed Public Accountants Enclosure The services and terms set forth in and incorporated into this contract are accepted and agreed to by The Corporation of the City of Pickering: Signature Signature Title Title Date Date 367 • • Appendix A General business terms • The Corporation of the City of Pickering December 31,2013 The following general business terms(the"Terms")apply to the engagement except as otherwise provided in the specific engagement letter agreement(the"engagement letter")between Deloitte LLP ("Deloitte")and The Corporation of the City of Pickering(the"Client")to which these Terms are attached. 1. Timely performance-Deloitte will not be liable for failures or delays in performance that arise from causes beyond Deloitte's control,including the untimely performance by the Client of its obligations as set out in the engagement letter. 2. Right to terminate services-If the Client terminates the engagement or requests that Deloitte resign from the engagement prior to its completion,the Client will pay for time and expenses incurred by Deloitte up to the termination or resignation date together with reasonable time and expenses incurred to bring the services to a close in a prompt and orderly manner.Deloitte will not be responsible for any loss,cost or expense resulting from such termination or resignation. Should the Client not fulfill its obligations set out herein or in the engagement letter,and in the absence of rectification by the Client within thirty(30)days of notification in writing by Deloitte,upon written notification Deloitte may terminate its services immediately and will not be responsible for any loss,cost or expense resulting from such early termination. 3. Fees and taxes-Any fee estimates take into account the agreed-upon level of preparation and assistance from Client personnel.Deloitte undertakes to advise management of the Client on a timely basis should this preparation and assistance not be provided or should any other circumstances arise which cause actual time to exceed that estimate.The Client is responsible for the payment of any applicable federal,provincial or other goods and services or sales taxes,or any other taxes or duties, in connection with the services provided by Deloitte. 4. Expenses-In addition to professional fees,the Client will reimburse Deloitte for its reasonable out- of-pocket expenses including travel,meals and hotels incurred in connection with this engagement. 5. Billing-Invoices will be rendered periodically as agreed in advance.All invoices shall be due and payable when rendered.Interest shall be calculated at a simple daily rate of 0.0493%(equivalent to 18%per annum).Interest shall be charged and'payable at this rate on any part of an invoice which remains unpaid from thirty(30)days after the invoice date to the date on which the outstanding invoice is paid.To the extent that as part of the services to be performed by Deloitte as described in the engagement letter,Deloitte personnel are required to perform the'services in the United States of America("U.S.Business"),the Client and Deloitte agree to assign performance of the U.S.Business to Deloitte Canada LLP,an affiliate of Deloitte.All services performed by Deloitte Canada LLP shall be performed under the direction of Deloitte which shall remain responsible to the Client for such services.Deloitte Canada LLP shall invoice the Client with respect to the U.S.Business and Deloitte will invoice for services performed in Canada("Canadian Business").Payment for U.S.Business and/or Canadian Business can be settled with one payment to Deloitte. 6. Governing law-The engagement will be governed by the laws of the Province where Deloitte's principal office performing the engagement is located and all disputes related to the engagement shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of such Province. • 368 • Appendix A A-2 7. Working papers-All working papers,files and other internal materials created or produced by Deloitte related to the engagement are the property of Deloitte.In the event that Deloitte is requested by the Client or required by subpoena or other legal or regulatory process to produce its files related to this engagement in proceedings to which Deloitte is not a party,the Client will reimburse Deloitte for its professional time and expenses,including legal fees,incurred in dealing with such matters. Deloitte will not return or provide records or information obtained in the course of the engagement to the Client if it is illegal to do so or if Deloitte is requested to withhold the records or information by law enforcement or other public or regulatory authorities(regardless of whether the engagement has been terminated). 8. Privacy-Deloitte and the Client acknowledge and agree that,during the course of this engagement, Deloitte may collect personal information about identifiable individuals("Personal Information"), either from the Client or from third parties.Deloitte's services are provided on the basis that the Client has obtained any required consents for collection,use and disclosure to us of Personal Information required under applicable privacy legislation.The Client and Deloitte agree that Deloitte will collect,use and disclose Personal Information on behalf of the Client solely for purposes related to completing this engagement,providing services to the Client and Deloitte shall not collect,use and disclose such Personal Information for Deloitte's own behalf or for its own purposes. 9. Third parties-Deloitte's engagement is not planned or conducted in contemplation of or for the purpose of reliance by any third party(other than the Client and any party to whom Deloitte's audit report is addressed)or with respect to any specific transaction.Therefore,items of possible interest to a third party will not be addressed and matters may exist that would be assessed differently by a third party,possibly in connection with a specific transaction. 10. Confidentiality-To the extent that,in connection with this engagement,Deloitte comes into possession of Personal Information or any proprietary or confidential information of the Client, Deloitte will not disclose such information to any third party without the Client's consent,except: (a) as may be required or permitted by legal authority,the rules of professional conduct/code of ethics;or (b) to the extent that such information shall have otherwise become publicly available. Except as instructed otherwise in writing,each party may assume that the other approves of properly addressed fax,e-mail(including e-mail exchanged via internet media)and voice mail communication of both sensitive and non-sensitive information and other communications concerning this engagement,as well as other means of communication used or accepted by the other. 11..Assignment-Except as provided below in paragraph 12,no party may assign,transfer,or delegate any of its rights or obligations relating to this engagement without the prior written consent of the other parties. 12. Subcontracting-The City and those charged with governance hereby consent to the use by Deloitte of the affiliates of Deloitte LLP(U.S.)(collectively"DTOP"),which are located outside of Canada (including in India),as subcontractors.The City and those charged with governance further consent to the disclosure of any information(including confidential and Personal Information about the City, related entities,personnel and third parties)by Deloitte to DTOP in order for DTOP to perform the services subcontracted.The City acknowledges that,by consenting to the disclosure,the information provided to DTOP may become subject to the domestic and international laws applicable to DTOP. 13. Survival of terms-The agreements and undertakings of the Client contained in the engagement letter,together with the appendices to the engagement letter including these Terms,will survive the completion or termination of this engagement. • 369 Appendix A A-3 14. Proportionate liability-The Client and Deloitte acknowledge where the audit is conducted pursuant to a statute governing the Client that contains proportionate liability provisions that apply to an auditor, such as the Canada Business Corporations Act,the terms of the statute shall apply to this engagement.In the event that the Client and Deloitte are not subject to such statutory provisions regarding proportionate liability,the Client agrees that in any action,claim,loss or damage arising out of the engagement,Deloitte's liability will be several and not joint and several and the Client may only claim payment from Deloitte of Deloitte's proportionate share of the total liability based on the degree of fault of Deloitte as finally determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. 15. Client misrepresentation-Deloitte shall not be liable to the Client,and the Client releases Deloitte, for all liabilities, claims,damages,costs,charges and expenses incurred or suffered by the Client related to or in any way associated with the engagement that arise from or are based on any deliberate misstatement or omission in any material information or representation provided by or approved by any member of management of the Client,officer of the Client or member of the board of directors of the Client. • 16. Qualifications-Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary,Deloitte may use the name of the Client and the performance of the services in marketing and publicity materials,as an indication of its experience,and in internal data systems. • • 370