Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
November 6, 2017
c;./yo/ DICKERING Executive Committee Agenda Monday, November 6, 2017 Council Chambers 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Brenner Anything highlighted denotes an attachment or link. By clicking the links on the agenda page, you can jump directly to that section of the agenda. To manoeuver back to the agenda page use the Ctrl + Home keys simultaneously, or use the "bookmark" icon to the left of your screen to navigate from one report to the next. For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Linda Roberts 905.420.4660 extension 2928 Iroberts©pickering.ca DICKERING cizy Executive Committee Meeting Agenda Monday, November 6, 2017 Council Chambers - 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Brenner (I) Disclosure of Interest Pages (II) Delegations 1. Paula Jesty, Deloitte LLP Re: Report FIN 21-17 2017 Year End Audit 2. Debbie Shields, City Clerk Re: Verbal Update — Bill 68 Modernizing Ontario's Municipal Legislation Act, 2017 (III) Matters for Consideration 1. Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 21-17 1-16 2017 Year End Audit Recommendation That the Audit Service Plan as submitted by Deloitte LLP, included in this report, be received for information. 2. Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report BYL 03-17 17-18 9th Annual Toys for Tickets and Food for Fines 2017 Recommendation 1. That parking tickets issued between December 1 through 20, 2017 be eligible for the Toys for Tickets/Food for Fines program; 2. That the Toys for Tickets/Food for Fines program be implemented from December 1 through December 20, 2017; and 3. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Linda Roberts 905.420.4660 extension 2928 Irobertsna pickering.ca DICKERING Executive Committee Meeting Agenda Monday, November 6, 2017 Council Chambers - 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Brenner 3. Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report BYL 04-17 19-24 Power of Entry By-law Recommendation 1. That the City of Pickering enact the Power of Entry By-law attached to this report. (Attachment No. 1); and 2. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 4. Director, Community Services, Report CS 12-17 Licence Agreement -Brougham Parkette -Property PIN 614725-1 Recommendation 25-35 1. That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute the Licence Agreement with Transport Canada set out in Attachment 1 to this Report, subject to minor revisions acceptable to the Director, Community Services and the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor; and 2. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 5. Director, Community Services, Report CS 27-17 Lease Agreement -Glendale Tennis Club Inc. Recommendation 36-48 1. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the Lease Agreement with Glendale Tennis Club Inc. set out in Attachment 1 to this report, subject to minor revisions as may be required by the Director, Community Services and the Director, Corporate Services & City. Solicitor; 2. That the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 04 4 PICKERING Executive Committee Meeting Agenda Monday, November 6, 2017 Council Chambers - 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Brenner 6. Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 24-17 49-54 Pre -2018 Capital Budget Approval Consulting Services for Detailed Design for the Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Implementation Project Recommendation 1. That Council approve the hiring of AECOM Canada Ltd. for the Detailed Design Services for the Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Implementation Project in accordance with Purchasing Policy 10.03(c), as the assignment has a value above $50,000.00 and a competitive process is not being followed, and therefore is subject to additional Council approvals; 2. That the fee proposal dated October 16, 2017 submitted by AECOM Canada Ltd. for the Detailed Design Services for the Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Implementation Project in the amount of $298,896.30 (HST included) be accepted; 3. That the total gross project cost of $345,736.00 (HST included), including the proposal amount and other associated costs, and the total net project cost of $311,346.00 (net of HST rebate) be accepted; 4. That Council provide pre — 2018 Capital Budget approval of the total net project cost of $311,346.00 to retain the consulting services of AECOM Canada, and for other associated costs; 5. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to finance the estimated net project cost of $311,346.00 by a transfer from the Roads & Bridges Reserve Fund; 6. That the funds required for Contract Administration and Field Inspection from AECOM Canada Ltd. as outlined in the proposal, and any required associated costs be included with the cost of construction in the appropriate year and be subject to approval through the future year's Capital Budget process; 7. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Gtr aol DICKERING Executive Committee Meeting Agenda Monday, November 6, 2017 Council Chambers - 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Brenner 7. Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 20-17 Analysis of the 2017 Property Tax Grant for Low Income Seniors And Low Income Persons with Disabilities Recommendation 55-59 It is recommended that Report FIN 20-17 of the Director, Finance & Treasurer regarding the 2017 Property Tax Grant for Low Income Seniors and Low Income Persons with Disabilities be received for information. 8. Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 22-17 60-217 Statutory Public Meeting Regarding Proposed 2017 Development Charge By-law and Background Study Recommendation 1. That Report FIN 22-17 of the Director, Finance & Treasurer be received; 2. That Council receive for information the City of Pickering — Development Charges Background Study prepared by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. dated October 5, 2017; 3. That all written submissions made at the November 6th Public Meeting or received in writing from the public by November 17th be referred to staff and to Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. for consideration in preparation of the final Development Charge recommendations and By-law for Council's consideration on December 11th; and, 4. That the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement these recommendations. (IV) Other Business (V) Adjournment DICKERING Report to Executive Committee Report Number: FIN 21-17 Date: November 6, 2017 From: Stan Karwowski Director, Finance & Treasurer Subject: 2017 Year End Audit Recommendation: 1. That the Audit Service Plan as submitted by Deloitte LLP, included in this report, be received for information. Executive Summary: In accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, the Audit Plan is prepared to communicate the auditor's approach and reporting responsibilities to the Executive Committee, who has oversight responsibility for the financial reporting process. This plan is submitted prior to the commencement of the year end audit. Financial implications: The base audit fee for City and Library is estimated at $70,000. This is the same fee as in the previous year. Sufficient provision is available in the 2017 budget. Discussion: In the Committee's role as the body responsible for oversight of the financial reporting process, it must review the Audit Plan for the 2017 year end audit. The Audit Plan includes the scope of the audit services to be provided, the auditor's reporting responsibilities and an outline of the audit approach. It is included as Attachment 1 to this report. Attachments: 1. 2017 Audit Service Plan FIN 21-17 November 6, 2017 Subject: 2017 Year End Audit Page 2 Prepared By: Kristine Senior, CPA, CA Manager, Accounting Services Approved/Endorsed By: Stan Karwowski, MBA, CPA, CMA Director, Finance & Treasurer Recomm of Pickeri g 111 ed for the consideration 6 ity Council e,z �flPr�C'r Tony Preve• -1, P.Eng. Chief Adminis rative Officer 2 ATTACHMENT # TO REPORT # L i - f `1 Deloitte. The Corporation of the City of Pickering 2017 Audit service plan For the year ending December 31, 2017 To be presented to the Executive Committee November 6, 2017 3 Deloitte.. October 19, 2017 To the Members of the Executive Committee of The Corporation of the City of Pickering 1 The Esplanade Pickering ON L1V 6K7 2017 Audit service plan Dear Executive Committee members: Deloitte LLP 400 Applewood Crescent Suite 500 Vaughan ON L4K 0C3 Canada Tel: 416-601-6150 Fax: 416-601-6151 www.deloitte.ca We are pleased to present our 2017 audit service plan for The Corporation of the City of Pickering ("the City"), which describes our audit scope and strategy, our audit approach and our planned communications with you. Our audit will include: • An audit of the City of Pickering's consolidated financial statements (the "Financial Statements") for the year ending December 31, 2017 prepared in accordance with Canadian Public Sector Accounting Standards ("PSAS") • An audit of the City of Pickering Public Library Board's financial statements for the year ending December 31, 2017 prepared in accordance with Canadian PSAS, and • An audit of the Trust Funds of the City of Pickering's financial statements for the year ending December 31, 2017 prepared in accordance with Canadian Accounting Standards for Not -for - Profit Organizations. We are providing this audit service plan to the Executive Committee ("the Committee") on a confidential basis. It is intended solely for the use of the Committee to assist you in discharging your responsibilities with respect to the Financial Statements and is not intended for any other purpose. Accordingly, we disclaim any responsibility to any other party who may rely on it. We look forward to discussing our Audit service plan with you and to answering any questions that you may have. Yours truly, c , LLJ2 Chartered Professional Accountants Licensed Public Accountants 4 The Corporation of the City of Pickering Table of contents Table of contents Our audit explained 1 Significant audit risks 3 Appendices Appendix 1 - Audit approach Appendix 2 - Communication requirements Appendix 3 - New and Revised Public Sector Accounting Standards © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities 5 The Corporation of the City of Pickering I Our audit explained Our audit explained Group audit When designing our audit strategy, we consider: • The financial significance or relative importance of the consolidated entities or any government business enterprises accounted for on a modified equity basis • The complexity and nature of the operations, internal control and accounting issues on each consolidated entity, and • The degree of centralization or decentralization of processes and controls. We intend to use the work of the auditor of Veridian Corporation. We will complete all required communications with the Component auditor, ensure the accounting for the City's share of Veridian income is appropriate and ensure the disclosures in the Financial Statements are adequate. Scope and terms of engagement Audit scope and terms of engagement We have been engaged to perform the audits of the City, Library, and Trust Fund's Financial Statements as at, and for the year ending, December 31, 2017 (the "Financial Statements") prepared in accordance with Canadian Public Sector Accounting Standards ("PSAS") for the City and the Library Board and Canadian Accounting Standards for Not -For -Profit Organizations for the Trust Funds. Our audits will be conducted in accordance with Generally Accepted Auditing Standards ("GAAS"). The terms and conditions of our engagement are described in the master services agreement which is dated October 28, 2016. We have scheduled the interim audit the week of November 20, 2017 and the year-end fieldwork commencing March 26, 2018. We are responsible for providing reasonable assurance that your Financial Statements as a whole are free from material misstatement. Our materiality levels are based on professional judgment and wit be determined using total expenses or fund balances as a reference point for the ultimate determination of materiality as follows: • Consolidated Financial Statements for the City - 2.5 - 3.0% of expenses • City of Pickering Public Library Board - approximately 3% of expenses, and • City of Pickering Trust Funds - approximately 3% of fund balances. We will inform the Executive Committee of at uncorrected misstatements greater than a clearly trivial amount (5% of materiality) and any misstatements that are, in our judgment, qualitatively material. In accordance with Canadian GAAS, we will ask that any misstatements be corrected, Significant audit risks Through our preliminary risk assessment process, we have identified the significant audit risks. These risks of material misstatement and related audit responses are described in the Significant audit risks section of this report. 1 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities 6 The Corporation of the City of Pickering Our audit explained Fraud risk We will develop our audit strategy to address the assessed risks of material misstatement due to fraud. Determining this strategy will involve: 1. Asking people involved in the financial reporting process about inappropriate or unusual activity. 2. Testing a sample of journal entries throughout the period as well as adjustments made at the end of the reporting period. Identifying and obtaining an understanding of the business rationale for significant or unusual transactions that are outside the normal course of business, 4. Evaluating whether your accounting policies may be indicative of fraudulent financial reporting resulting from management's effort to manage results. 5. Evaluating whether the judgements and decisions related to management estimates indicate a possible bias. 6. Incorporating an element of unpredictability in selecting our audit procedures. We will also ask the Executive Committee for their views about the risk of fraud, whether they know of any actual or suspected fraud affecting the City and their role in the oversight of management's antifraud programs. If we suspect fraud involving management, we will immediately inform the Executive Committee of our suspicions and discuss the nature, timing, and extent of audit procedures necessary to complete the audit. Complete engagement reporting Under Canadian GAAS, we are required -to communicate certain matters to the Executive Committee. The primary reports and formal communications through which we will address these matters are: 4 This Audit Service Plan • Year End Communication, and • Our Auditor's Reports on the Financial Statements. Further details on our communication requirements can be found in Appendix 2. r, r The City employs the following third party service organization in an outsourcing arrangement that impacts financial reporting information: o ADP Canada (payroll) We intend to rely on the service auditor's report issued for this third party service organization. If our assessment does not provide us with sufficient appropriate audit evidence, we will need to perform additional audit procedures to address the risks of material misstatements in the Financial Statements. We also intend to use the work of the City's actuary in their determination of the City's post -employment and worker's compensation benefits. We will review and test any data and assumptions used, erasure the disclosure in the Financial Statements is adequate and that the actuary is in good standing with the Canadian Institute of Actuaries. Audit fees We propose audit fees of $64,250 (2016 — $64,250) for the audits of the City and Trust Funds' Financial Statements. We propose fees of $5,750 (2016 - $5,750) for the audit of the Library's Financial Statements. We will add HST to our billings. 2 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities 7 The Corporation of the City of Pickering 1 Significant audit risks Significant audit risks The following tables set out the significant audit risks that we identified during our preliminary planning activities, including our proposed response to each risk. Our planned audit response is based on our assessment of the likelihood of a risk's occurrence, the significance should a misstatement occur, our determination of materiality and our prior knowledge of the City. Canadian GAAS include the presumption of a fraud risk involving improper revenue recognition. (Revenue/deferred revenue) Under Canadian Auditing Standards, it is the responsibility of the management, with the oversight of those charged with governance, to place a strong emphasis on fraud prevention and detection. Oversight by those charged with governance includes considering the potential for override of controls or other inappropriate influence over the financial reporting process. Management override of controls is present in all entities. It is a risk of material misstatement resulting from fraud and therefore is considered as a significant risk. Y • Certain revenue streams are presumed areas of significant audit risk. We wit test the design and implementation of controls in significant revenue streams and perform substantive analytic procedures and/or detailed testing in these areas, and • Substantive testing to determine if restricted contributions (i.e., development -charges), and government transfers/grants have been recognized appropriately, (Revenue vs. deferred revenue). • Engage in periodic fraud discussions with certain members of senior management and others • Consider the potential for bias in judgments and estimates, including performing retrospective analysis of significant accounting estimates • Evaluate the business rationale for any significant unusual transactions • Evaluate the City's fraud risk assessment and consider entity -level internal controls and internal controls over the closing and reporting process • Test journal entries that exhibit characteristics of possible management override of controls, identified using manual techniques. As we perform our audit procedures, we will inform you of any significant changes to the significant risks discussed above and the reasons for those changes. 3 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities 8 The Corporation of the City of Pickering 1 Appendix 1 - Audit approach Appendix 1 -Audit approach Deloitte's audit approach is a systematic methodology that enables us to tailor our audit scope and plan to address the unique issues facing the City. The following steps are not necessarily sequential nor are they mutually exclusive. For example, once we have developed our audit plan and the audit is being performed, we may become aware of a risk that was not identified during the planning phase. Based on that new information, we would reassess our planning activities and adjust the audit plan accordingly. tE. The Deloitte audit approach begins with an extensive planning process that includes: o Assessing your current business and operating conditions • Understanding the composition and structure of your business and organization • Understanding your accounting processes and internal controls • Understanding your information technology systems ® Identifying potential engagement risks • Planning the scope and timing of internal control and substantive testing that take into account the specific identified engagement risks Our audit approach combines an ongoing identification of risks with the flexibility to adjust our approach when additional risks are identified. Since these risks may impact our audit objectives, we consider materiality in our planning to focus on those risks that could be significant to your financial reporting. Consideration of the risk of fraud When we identify a misstatement or control deficiency, we consider whether it may be indicative of fraud and what the implications of fraud and significant error are in relation to other aspects of the audit, particularly the reliability of management representations. In determining our audit strategy to address the assessed risks of material misstatement due to fraud, we will: • Assign and supervise personnel, taking into account the knowledge, skill and ability of individuals with significant engagement responsibilities and our assessment of the risks of material misstatement due to fraud for the engagement. • Evaluate whether the City's selection and application of accounting policies, particularly those related to subjective measurements and complex transactions, may be indicative of fraudulent financial reporting resulting from management's effort to manage results. • Incorporate an element of unpredictability when selecting the nature, timing and extent of our audit procedures. © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities 9 The Corporation of the City of Pickering 1 Appendix 1 - Audit approach We will inquire directly of the Executive Committee regarding: • Its views about the risk of fraud • Whether it has knowledge of any actual or suspected fraud affecting the City, and • The role it exercises in the oversight of fraud risk assessment and the establishment of mitigating controls, We will also inquire if the Executive Committee is aware of tips or complaints regarding the City's financial reporting and, if so, the Executive Committee's responses to such tips and complaints and whether it is aware of matters relevant to the audit, including, but not limited to, violations or possible violations of laws or regulations. If we suspect fraud involving management, we will communicate these suspicions to the Executive Committee and discuss the nature, timing, and extent of audit procedures necessary to complete the audit. Information technology An important part of our audit planning process involves gaining an understanding of: 1. The importance of the computer environment relative to the risks to financial reporting 2. The way in which that environment supports the control procedures we intend to rely on when conducting our audit, and 3. The computer-based information that supports our substantive procedures. The objective of our review of computer controls is to identify potential areas of risk and assess the relevance, reliability, accuracy and completeness of the data produced by the systems. We also assess the design and implementation of the computer environment and determine the reliability of the financial information used to generate the financial statements. To accomplish this, we gain an up-to-date understanding of your organization's computer processing environment and our understanding of the relevant general computer controls.. The performance of an audit includes evaluating the design and determining the implementation of internal controls relevant to the audit, testing the operational effectiveness of the controls we intend to rely on, and performing substantive audit procedures. Audit procedures The timing of our audit procedures is dependent upon a number of factors including the need to coordinate with management for the provision of supporting analysis and other documentation. Generally, we perform our audit procedures to allow us sufficient time to identify significant issues early, thereby allowing more time for analysis and resolution. Tests of controls As part of our audit, we will review and evaluate certain aspects of the systems of internal control over financial reporting to the extent we consider necessary in accordance with Canadian GAAS. The main objective of our review is to enable us to determine the nature, extent and timing of our audit tests and establish the degree of reliance that we can place on selected controls. An audit of the financial statements is not designed to determine whether internal controls were adequate for management's purposes or to provide assurance on the design or operational effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities 10 The Corporation of the City of Pickering 1 Appendix 1 - Audit approach The extent to which deficiencies in internal control may be identified through an audit of financial statements is influenced by a variety of factors including our assessment of materiality, our preliminary assessment of the risks of material misstatement, our audit approach, and the nature, timing and extent of the auditing procedures that we conduct. Accordingly, we gain only a limited understanding of controls as a result of the procedures that we conduct during an audit of financial statements. We will inform the Executive Committee and management of any significant deficiencies that are identified in the course of conducting the audit. Substantive audit procedures Our substantive audit procedures consist of a tailored combination of analytical procedures and detailed tests of transactions and balances. These procedures take into account the results of our controls tests and are designed to enable us to obtain reasonable assurance that the financial statements are free from material misstatements. To obtain this assurance, misstatements that we identify while performing substantive auditing procedures will be considered in relation to the financial statements as a whole. Any misstatements that we identify, other than those that are clearly trivial (the clearly trivial threshold has been set at 5% of materiality), will be reported to management and the Executive Committee. In accordance with Canadian GAAS, we will request that misstatements be corrected. Use of the work of specialists The Deloitte audit is distinguished by the use of a broad range of industry and functional specialists who are integral to the audit team and carry a deeper understanding of specific topics. These specialists augment the core engagement audit team in understanding business processes and related risks, and help the audit engagement team apply an appropriate level of professional skepticism to challenge significant management assumptions. For the audit, we will use Deloitte computer assurance specialists to assist us in performing our audit procedures to test the design and implementation of general computer controls. Our specialists are actively involved in the planning and risk assessment process, and will be available to the audit team and the City management year-round to discuss ongoing risk assessments, industry developments and other matters of interest. Perform post -engagement activities We will analyze the results of the audit procedures performed throughout the year and, prior to rendering our report, we will conclude whether: • The scope of the audits was sufficient to support our opinion, and • The misstatements identified during the audits do not result in the financial statements being materially misstated. Independence We have developed important safeguards and procedures to protect our independence and objectivity. If, during the year, we identify a breach of independence, we will communicate it to you in writing. Our communication will describe the significance of the breach, including its nature and duration, the action taken or proposed to be taken, and our conclusion as to whether or not the action will satisfactorily address the consequences of the breach and have any impact on our ability to serve as independent auditor to the City. We are independent of the City and we will reconfirm our independence in our final report to the Executive Committee. © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities 11 The Corporation of the City of Pickering 1 Appendix 2 - Communication requirements Appendix 2 -Communication requirements CC, Audit Service Pla 1. Our responsibilities under Canadian GAAS, including forming and expressing an CAS 260.14 opinion on the financial statements 2. An overview of the overall audit strategy, addressing: a. Timing of the audits b. Significant risks, including fraud risks, and planned responsibilities of other independent public accounting firms or others that perform audit procedures in the audits CAS 260.15 3. Significant transactions outside of the normal course of business, including related CAS 260 App. 2, party transactions CAS 550.27 Enquiries of those charged with governance 4. How those charged with governance exercise oversight over management's process CAS 240.20 for identifying and responding to the risk of fraud and the internal control that management has established to mitigate these risks 5. Any known suspected or alleged fraud affecting the City CAS 240.21 6. Whether the City is in compliance with laws and regulations CAS 250.14 Year-end communication 7. Fraud or possible fraud identified through the audit process CAS 240.40-.42 8. Significant accounting policies, practices, unusual transactions, and our related CAS, 260.16 a. conclusions 9. Alternative treatments for accounting policies and practices that have been CAS 260.16 a, discussed with management during the current audit period 10. Matters related to going concern CAS 570.23 11. Management judgments and accounting estimates CAS 260.16 a. 12. Significant difficulties, if any, encountered during the audits CAS 260.16 b. 13. Material written communications between management and us, including CAS 260.16 c, management representation letters 14. Other matters that are significant to the oversight of the financial reporting process CAS 260.16d. 15. Modifications to our opinions CAS 260.A18 16. Our views of significant accounting or auditing matters for which management CAS 260.A19 consulted with other accountants and about which we have concerns 17. Significant matters discussed with management CAS 260.A.19 1 CAS: Canadian Auditing Standards - CAS are issued by the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board of CPA Canada © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities 12 The Corporation of the City of Pickering 1 Appendix 2 - Communication requirements €e e__ co i i&ca: -nae 18. Matters involving non-compliance with laws and regulations that come to our CAS 250.23 attention 19. Significant deficiencies in internal control, if any, identified by us in the conduct of CAS 265 the audits of the financial statements 20. Uncorrected misstatements and disclosure items CAS 450.12-13 21. Any significant matters arising during the audits in connection with the City's CAS 550.27 related parties © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities 13 The Corporation of the City of Pickering 1 Appendix 3 — New and Revised Public Sector Accounting Standards Appendix 3 - New and Revised Public Sector Accounting Standards The following is a summary of certain new Public Sector Accounting Standards, amendments and proposals that will become effective in 2018 and beyond. To review all recent amendments that will impact your organization in the foreseeable future, we invite you to review our revamped Standard-settino Activities Digest. included in our Centre for Financial Reporting (www. cfr.del:citte.ca). Section PS 2200 — This Section defines a related party and This Section applies to fiscal years Related party disclosures establishes disclosures required for beginning on or after April 1, 2017. Earlier related party transactions. adoption is permitted. Section PS 3210 — Assets This Section provides guidance for This Section applies to fiscal years applying the definition of assets and beginning on or after April 1, 2017. Earlier establishes general disclosure standards adoption is permitted. for assets; but does not include standards for recognition and disclosure of specific types of assets, which are dealt with in other Handbook Sections. Section P5 3320 — Contingerst assets This Section defines and establishes disclosure standards on contingent assets; but does not include disclosure standards for specific types of contingent assets. This Section applies to fiscal years beginning on or after April 1, 2017. Earlier adoption is permitted. Section PS 3380 — Contractual rights This Section defines and establishes disclosure standards on contractual rights; but does not include disclosure standards for specific types of • contractual rights, and does not include those contractual rights to exchange one asset for another where revenue does not arise. This Section applies to fiscal years beginning on or after April 1, 2017. Earlier adoption is permitted. Section PS 3420 — Inter- This Section establishes standards on entity transactions how to account for and report transactions between public sector entities that comprise a government's reporting entity from both a provider and recipient perspective, This Section applies to fiscal years beginning on or after April 1, 2017, Earlier adoption is permitted. © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities 14 The Corporation of the City of Pickering 1 Appendix 3 - New and Revised Public Sector Accounting Standards it `4 Description Effe.tive :e Section PS 3430 - Restructuring transactions This Section establishes standards on how to account for and report restructuring transactions by both transferors and recipients of assets and/or liabilities, together with related program or operating responsibilities. This Section applies to restructuring transactions occurring in fiscal years " beginning on or after April 1, 2018. Earlier adoption is permitted, Section PS 2601 - Foreign currency This section establishes standards on how to account and report transactions that are denominated in a foreign currency. This Section is effective for: (i Government organizations - fiscal years beginning on or after April 1, 2012, and (ii) Governments - fiscal years beginning on or after April 1, 2019. Earlier adoption is permitted. Section PS 3450 - This Section establishes standards on Financial instruments how to account for and report all types of financial instruments including derivatives. This Section is effective for: (i) Government organizations - fiscal years beginning on or after April 1, 2012, and (ii) Governments - fiscal. years beginning on or after April 1, 2019. Earlier adoption is permitted. Section PS 1201 - Financial statement presentation This Section establishes general reporting principles and standards for the disclosure of information in government financial statements. This Section is effective for: (i) government organizations for fiscal years beginning on or after April 1, 2012, and (ii) governments for fiscal: years beginning on or after April 1, 2019. Earlier adoption is permitted. Section PS 3041 - Portfolio investments This Section establishes standards on how to account for portfolio investments. This Section applies in the period Financial Statement Presentation PS 1201, Foreign Currency Translation PS 2601 and Financial Instruments PS 3450 are adopted. © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities 15 Deloitte www.deloitte.ca Deloitte, one of Canada's leading professional services firms, provides audit, tax, consulting, and financial advisory services. Deloitte LLP, an Ontario limited liability partnership, is the Canadian member firm of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, a UK private company limited by guarantee, and its network of member firms, each of which is a legally separate and independent entity. Please see www.deloitte.com/about for a detailed description of the legal structure of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited and its member firms. © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 16 DICKERING czy,/ Report to Executive Committee Report Number: BYL 03-17 Date: November 6, 2017 From: Paul Bigioni Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor Subject: 9th Annual Toys for Tickets and Food for Fines 2017 - File: L-2220-001-17 Recommendation: 1. That parking tickets issued between December 1 through 20, 2017 be eligible for the Toys for Tickets/Food for Fines program; 2. That the Toys for Tickets/Food for Fines program be implemented from December 1 through December 20, 2017; and 3. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Executive Summary: The Toys for Tickets/Food for Fines program accepts toys or groceries in lieu of payment for parking tickets. Toy or food donations must be dropped off to City Hall, and a receipt must be presented to confirm that the value of the donation equals or exceeds the fine. Tickets for parking in a Disabled Parking Space are not eligible for the program. This program promotes community engagement and supports families in need. Financial Implications: The lost revenue associated with the Toys for Tickets/Food for Fines program in 2016 was $2,020.00. A similar amount of lost revenue is anticipated for 2017. Discussion: The first Toys for Tickets/Food for Fines program was offered by the City of Pickering in 2009. Since that time, it has been a tremendous success, supporting families in need and promoting the spirit of the holiday season. The program has received extensive media coverage at both the national and local level, as well as through social media. Participation from the community is always generous and enthusiastic. Last year's Toys For Tickets/Food for Fines program brought in approximately $2,600.00 in donations, as compared to the $2,020.00 in lost fine revenue. This year's program will continue to benefit families in need by sharing donations with the Durham Regional Police Service Food and Toy Drive, and the Pickering Fire Services Food and Toy Drive. 17 BYL 03-17 November 6, 2017 Subject: 9th Annual Toys for Tickets and Food for Fines 2017 Page 2 Prepared By: Kimberly Thompson Approved Endorsed By: Paul Bigioni Manager, Municipal Law Enforcement Services Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor KT:kt Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer G ��► Zo 7 CORPO 27-x7101 revised 18 CG, 6d DICKERING Report to Executive Committee Report Number: BYL-04-17 Date: November 6, 2017 From: Paul Bigioni Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor Subject: Power of Entry By-law - File: L-2220-001-17 Recommendation: 1. That the City of Pickering enact the Power of Entry By-law attached to this report. (Attachment No. 1); and 2. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Executive Summary: The attached By-law will address amendments to the wording of the Municipal Act, 2001. The By-law will clarify the right of City enforcement staff to enter private property for by-law enforcement purposes. This right of entry was previously provided in a blanket provision of the Municipal Act, 2001. Financial Implications: There are no financial implications to this report. Discussion: The previous version of the Municipal Act, 2001 (the "Act"), contained specific right of entry provisions for the enforcement of by-laws passed by a municipality under the Act. The current version of the Act does not contain such a provision. It merely grants the municipality the ability to enact by-laws that provide the same right of entry powers. Section 436 (1) of the Municipal Act states "A municipality has the power to pass by-laws providing that the municipality may enter on land at any reasonable time for the purpose of carrying out an inspection to determine whether or not the following are being complied with: 1. A by-law of the municipality passed under this Act. 2. A direction or order of the municipality made under this Act or made under a by-law of the municipality passed under this Act. 3. A condition of a licence issued under a by-law of the municipality passed under this Act. 4. An order made under section 431. 19 BYL-04-17 November 6, 2017 Subject Power of Entry By-law Page 2 The attached Power of Entry By-law will apply to all City By-laws passed under the authority of the Act. These include all licensing by-laws, the Tree Protection By-law, the Clean and Clear By-law, the Fence By-law, Fill and Topsoil Bylaw, Discharge of Firearms By-law, Responsible Pet Ownership By-law, and the Traffic and Parking By-law. The Power of Entry By-law requires City by-law enforcement officers to present identification if requested. The by-law creates an offence for obstructing an officer, and permits the entry onto land for the completion of work required under an order. such as cutting grass and weeds under the Clean and Clear By-law. The Power of Entry By-law does not authorize by-law enforcement officers to enter a dwelling unit without consent or a search warrant. The power of entry provided in the attached by-law will not be frequently required, however, it will be important in some by-law enforcement cases. Attachments: Draft Power of Entry By-law Prepared By: Kimberly Thompson Approved/Endorsed By: Paul Bigiun Manager, Municipal Law Enforcement Services Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor KT: kt/ks Recommended for the consideration of Pickeripg\City Council Tony Prevede", P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer CORP0227-07/01 revised 20 The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. /17 Being a by-law to regulate the power of entry onto land Whereas Section 436 of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, provides that a municipality has the power to pass by-laws providing that the municipality may enter on land at any reasonable time for the purpose of carrying out an inspection; And Whereas Sections 435, 437 and 438 of the Municipal Act 2001, S.O. 2001, as amended, set out additional powers and restrictions in regard to the power of entry; And Whereas the City of Pickering deems it appropriate to pass a By-law allowing for the entry on land for the purpose of carrying out an inspection to ensure that its By-laws, directions, orders and conditions of licences are being complied with; And Whereas this by-law applies to any City of Pickering by-laws without power of entry provisions passed pursuant to the Municipal Act, 2001, SO. 2001, as amended or its predecessors; Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1. Definitions 1.1 In this By-law: (a) "Act" means the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, as amended, (b) "City" means The Corporation of the City of Pickering or the geographic area of the City of Pickering, as the context requires; (c) "land" means real property, and includes the buildings and structures on the land; (d) "occupier" means any person occupying or having control over any portion of the land to be inspected including, but not limited to a person or persons occupying, leasing or licensing any building on the land; (e) "Officer" means a Municipal Law Enforcement Officer appointed to enforce the By-laws of the City, a Police Officer, or any City employee whose duties include enforcing the City's by-laws; 21 Power of Entry By-law xx/17 Page 2 ATEACHMENT# TO REPORT# .of. Application 2.1 This By-law applies to all City By -taws hereafter and previously passed under the authority of the Act. Powers of Inspection and Entry 3.1 An Officer may enter on land, at any reasonable time, for the purpose of carrying out an inspection to determine whether or not the following are being complied with: (a) any City By-law, passed under the authority of the Act; (b) a direction or Order made under the Act, or made under a By-law of the City passed under the Act; (c) a condition of a licence issued under a By-law of the City, enacted under the authority of the Act; or (d) an order under Section 431 of the Act. 3.2 An Officer may enter on Land, for the purpose of carrying out an inspection under Section 438 of the Act to determine whether or not any of the matters set out in section 3.1 of this By-law are being complied with. 3.3 The Officer must, upon request, display or produce proper identification. 3.4 The Officer may be accompanied by a person under his or her direction. 3.5 For the purposes of the inspection, the Officer may: (a) require the production of documents or things relevant to the inspection; (b) inspect and remove documents or things relevant to the inspection, for the purpose of making copies or extracts; (0) require information from any person concerning a matter related to the inspection; (d) alone or in conjunction with a person possessing special or expert knowledge, make examinations or take tests, samples or photographs, necessary for the purposes of the inspection. 22 ATTACHMENT# TO REPORT# t I L 0 q Power of Entry By-law xx117 Page 3 .of. 3.6 A sample taken under 3.5(d) shall be divided into two parts, and one part shall be delivered to the person from whom the sample was taken, if the person so requests at the time the sample is taken and provides the necessary facilities. 3.7 If a sample taken under 3.5 (d) is not divided into two parts, a copy of any report on the sample shall be given to the person from whom the sample was taken. 3.8 A receipt shall be provided for any document or thing removed under section 3.5 (b) and the document or thing shall be promptly returned after the copies or extracts have been made. 4. Remedial Action 4.1 Where a person is in default of doing something that the person is directed or required to do under the Act, under a By-law of the City, or pursuant to a condition imposed by the City on the issuance of a licence pursuant to a By-law, an Officer may enter land, accompanied by any person required to complete the work, at any reasonable time, for the purpose of doing the action required. Obstruction 5.1 No person shall obstruct or hinder or attempt to obstruct or hinder any Officer or other person, who is exercising a power or performing a duty under this By-law, any other City of Pickering By-law, or the Act. 5.2 Without limiting section 5.1 every person who is alleged to have contravened any of the provisions of any City By-law shall identify themselves to an officer upon request and failure to do so shall be deemed to have obstructed the Officer in the execution of his or her duties contrary to section 5.1 of this by-law. Restrictions Regarding Entering Dwelling Units 6.1 Despite any provision of this by-law, a person exercising a power of entry shall not enter or remain in any room or place actually being used as a dwelling unless: (a) the consent of the occupier is obtained, the occupier first having been informed that the right of entry may be refused, and if refused, may only be made under the authority of an order issued under section 438 of the Act, or a warrant issued under section 439 of the Act. 23 ATTACHMENT# TO REPORT# Power of Entry By-law xx/17 of c/ — Page 4 (b) an order issued under section 438 of the Act is obtained; (c) a warrant issued under section 439 of the Act is obtained; or (d) the delay necessary to obtain an order under section 438 of the Act, to obtain a warrant under section 439 of the Act or to obtain consent of the occupier would result in an immediate danger to the health and safety of any person. 7. Penalty 7.1 Any person who obstructs or hinders or attempts to obstruct or hinder any Officer is guilty of an offence and upon conviction is liable to a maximum fine of $25,000.00. 8. Administration 8.1 Should any section of this By-law be declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such section shall be construed as being severed herefrom and the remainder of the By-law shall continue in full force and effect. 8.2 This By-law shall be read with all changes in gender or number as the context requires. 8.3 A grammatical variation of a word or expression defined herein has a corresponding meaning. 8.4 Nothing in this By-law shall limit any other statutory or common law rights or powers of the City or any Officer to enter on land. 8.5 This By-law shall come into force and effect upon the date of its passage. By -lave passed this day of , 2017. 24 David Ryan, Mayor Debbie Shields, City Clerk DICKERING Report to Executive Commitee Report Number: CS 12-17 Date: November 6, 2017 From: Marisa Carpino Director, Community Services Subject: Licence Agreement - Brougham Parkette - Property PIN 614725-1 - File: A-1440 Recommendation: 1. That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute the Licence Agreement with Transport Canada set out in Attachment 1 to this Report, subject to minor revisions acceptable to the Director, Community Services and the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor; and 2. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Executive Summary: As per Council Resolution #177/07, the City of Pickering entered into a 5 year lease agreement with Transport Canada for the period of February 1, 2007 to January 31, 2012 for Property PIN 614725-1 (known as Brougham Parkette) which was expropriated by the Federal Government for the purposes of an Airport. Since the expiry of the lease agreement in 2012, the arrangement between the City of Pickering and Transport Canada for this property has continued subject to Section 4.06 Overholding of the expired licence agreement. In recent months, City staff have been working with staff from Transport Canada to formally renew the licence agreement for Brougham Parkette. As such, staff are seeking approval from Council to enter into a 5 year licence agreement for Property PIN 614725-1 for the period of December 1, 2017 to November 30, 2022. Financial Implications: The rental per annum for the Brougham Parkette paid by the City to Transport Canada is $10.00 plus HST. At approximately 0.11 acres in size, the City's cost to maintain the property is negligible. Discussion: As per Council Resolution #177/07, the City of Pickering entered into a 5 year lease agreement with Transport Canada for the period of February 1, 2007 to January 31, 2012 for four parcels of land expropriated by the Federal Government for the purposes of an Airport. These properties include: 25 CS 12-17 November 6, 2017 Subject: Brougham Parkette Licence Agreement Page 2 • Property PIN 614658-1 (Brougham Hall) • Property PIN 614680-2 (Storage Barn) • Property PIN 614725-1 (Brougham Parkette) • Property PIN 614201-1 (Don Beer Memorial Park) Since the expiry of the lease agreement in 2012, Property PIN 614201-1 located at Don Beer Memorial Park was re-established in a separate lease agreement between the City of Pickering and Transport Canada for the term of January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2019. Property PIN 614680-02, located at the north east corner of Don Beer Memorial Park, was surrendered and delivered up to Transport Canada by the City of Pickering effective January 29, 2016 since the site acted only as storage for Museum property and was no longer required by the City. The arrangement between the City of Pickering and Transport Canada for the two remaining properties has continued subject to Section 4.06 Overholding of the expired lease agreement. In recent months, City staff have been working with staff from Transport Canada to formally renew the licence agreements for PIN 614725-1 (Brougham Parkette) and PIN 614658-1 (Brougham Hall). Brougham Parkette is an open green space marked with an Ontario Historical Plaque commemorating Peter Matthews, who farmed adjacent land, and his role in the Rebellion of 1837. At this time, the Director, Community Services recommends that the City enter into a 5 year licence agreement with Transport Canada for PIN 614725-1 (Brougham Parkette) for the period of December 1, 2017 to November 30, 2022. The licence agreements for the remaining property (Property PIN 614658-1, Brougham Hall) is still being prepared by Transport Canada and will be brought before Council once reviewed and endorsed by City staff. Attachments: 1. PIN 614725-1 (Brougham Parkette) Licence Agreement 2. Location Map of Property PIN 614725-1 CORP0227-07/01 revised 26 CS 12-17 November 6, 2017 Subject: Brougham Parkette Licence Agreement Page 3 Prepared/Approved/Endorsed By: Marisa Carpino Director, Community Services :mc Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council ri Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer 17, to17 C0RP0227-07101 revised 27 ATTACHMENT # '- TOREPORT # QS LICENCE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made as of the 1st day of DECEMBER, 2017. BETWEEN HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA, as represented by the Minister of Transport ("Her Majesty") AND PIN 614725-1 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING, a municipal corporation incorporated pursuant to the laws of the Province of Ontario (hereinafter called "City of Pickering") WHEREAS Her Majesty owns lands in the cities of Markham and Pickering, Ontario, commonly known as the Pickering Lands Site (the "PLS"); AND WHEREAS the City of Pickering wishes to use land on that part of the PLS lands described on the attached Schedule "A", and shown on the attached Schedule "B", and identified by Her Majesty as PIN 614725-1 (the "Licenced Lands") to be used solely for the purpose of a parkette, known as the Brougham Parkette (the "Parkette"); AND WHEREAS Her Majesty is willing to grant the City of Pickering a non-exclusive licence to use the Licenced Lands for the sole purpose of maintaining a parkette on the basis that Her Majesty incurs no liability whatsoever for any injuries or damages suffered by any party or third party upon the PLS and the Licenced Lands caused or contributed to by City of Pickering's exercise of rights under this Agreement. NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSES that, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein and the annual payments by the City of Pickering, hereinafter called the "Licence Fee", and subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter set out, the parties agree as follows: 1 28 1. EFFECTIVE DATE, LICENCE FEE AND TERM 1.1 This Agreement shall come into effect upon execution by both Her Majesty and the City of Pickering and shall remain in effect for a period of five (5) years from the date first above written, that is, from DECEMBER 1St, 2017 to NOVEMBER 30th, 2022 (the "Term"). 1.2 The City of Pickering shall pay to Her Majesty each year of the Term, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, annual Licence Fee in the amount of ten dollars ($10.00), plus HST, such annual Licence Fee payable in advance on the first day of each and every year during the Term, commencing on December 1st, 2017. 1.3 The Licence Fee may be paid by credit, debit or cheque, payable to the Receiver General for Canada and delivered to the following address: Transport Canada Corporate Services 4900 Yonge St., 3rd Floor Toronto, Ontario M2N 6A5 1.4 Either party may terminate this Agreement upon thirty (30) days' written notice to the other. 2. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTIES 2.1 The City of Pickering shall ensure that the Parkette does not interfere with the use of the PLS or the Licenced Lands by Her Majesty or any of Her Majesty's tenants, agents, contractors, invitees or licensees. 2.2 The City of Pickering agrees to maintain the Parkette during the Term at no cost to Her Majesty. 2.3 Her Majesty grants to the City of Pickering a non-exclusive licence to permit the City of Pickering to maintain the Parkette on the Licenced Lands during the Term, in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, provided always that the exercise by the City of Pickering of the rights granted to it by Her Majesty herein shall be subject to the obligations of Her Majesty to Her tenants, and to the rights of other licensees of Her Majesty. For greater clarity, this Agreement permits the City of Pickering to maintain the Parkette on the Licenced Lands. No other use of the Licenced Lands is permitted. 3. GENERAL 3.1 The City of Pickering shall indemnify and save Her Majesty, Her employees, servants, agents, contractors, and tenants harmless from and against all claims and demands, loss, costs, damages, actions, suits or other proceedings by whomsoever made, brought or 2 29 prosecuted in any manner based upon, occasioned by or attributable to any violation of this Agreement by the City of Pickering. 3.2 This Agreement may be amended only by a written agreement signed by the parties. 3.3 Schedules "A" and "B" form part of this Agreement. 3.4 The City of Pickering shall purchase and maintain throughout the Term of this Agreement, commercial general liability insurance which shall include coverage for personal injury (including death) and property damage, including loss of use thereof, all on a per occurrence basis, with respect to the use and occupation of the Licenced Lands (including members of the public), with a limit for any one occurrence or claim of not less than Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000). Such insurance shall: (a) Name Her Majesty in right of Canada as an additional insured; (b) Contain a severability of interests and cross -liability clause; and (c) Contain a clause that the policy of insurance shall not be modified or cancelled without at least thirty (30) days written notice of cancellation to Her Majesty. The City of Pickering shall provide evidence of such insurance to Her Majesty upon execution of this Agreement. 3.5 Her Majesty shall not be required to pay any and all taxes and assessments pursuant to the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act R.S.C., 1985, c. M-13 and Payments in Lieu of Taxes Regulations (SOR/81-29), including local improvement charges and development charges of any kind whatsoever that are imposed by the municipality against the Licenced Lands during the currency of this Agreement, including any taxes or other amounts which are imposed of, or in lieu of, or in addition to, any such taxes and assessments. Her Majesty acknowledges and agrees that the Licenced Lands will remain subject to assessment for municipal realty tax purposes. A municipal realty tax invoice must be rendered in the ordinary course in respect of the Licenced Lands, however, it will not be forwarded to Her Majesty and Her Majesty will not be required to pay it. 3.6 This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws in force in the Province of Ontario, subject always to any paramount or applicable federal laws. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to nor shall be construed as limiting, waiving or derogating from any federal Crown prerogative. 3.7 The failure by any party to insist in any one instance upon the strict perfoirnance by the other party of obligations in this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver or relinquishment of any such obligations as to any other instances, and the same shall continue in full force and effect. 3 30 3.8 If, for any reason, any provision of this Agreement, other than any provision which is of fundamental importance to the arrangement between the parties, is to any extent held or rendered invalid or unenforceable, then the particular provision shall be deemed to be independent of and severed from the remainder of this Agreement and all the other provisions of this Agreement shall nevertheless continue in full force and effect. 3.9 Section 3.1 shall survive termination of this Agreement and shall continue in full force and effect. 4. NOTICES 4.1 Notices shall be delivered as follows: In the case of HER MAJESTY: Perry Papadatos Regional Manager, Pickering Site Operations Transport Canada 4900 Yonge Street, 4th Floor Toronto, Ontario M2N 6A5 Tel: E-mail: 416-952-4068 perry.papadatos@tc.gc.ca or to such other address as HER MAJESTY may advise from time to time. In the case of the City of Pickering: The Corporation of the City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L 1 V 6K7 Attention: Marisa Carpino Director, Community Services Telephone: 905-420-4660, ext. 2025 E-mail: mcarpino@pickering.ca or to such other address as the City of Pickering may advise. 4 31 IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA, as represented by the Minister of Transport By: Name: Perry Papadatos Title: Regional Manager, Pickering Site Operations THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING Per: DAVID RYAN Mayor, City of Pickering Per: DEBBIE SHIELDS City Clerk, City of Pickering We have authority to bind the Corporation. 32 5 SCHEDULE "A" DESCRIPTION OF THE LICENCED LANDS Schedule A: Description of Licenced Lands - All of PWGSC PIN 614725-1 Description of All of PWGSC PIN 614725 That parcel or tract of land situate, lying and being in the City of Pickering in the Regional Municipality of Durham containing approximately 0.33 acres, being part of Lot 19, Concession 6, Geographic Township of Pickering, also being Lot 1, Registered Plan 10, Village of Brougham as in Instrument Number 24371 (Firstly) and shown in RED on the attached Schedule B: PIN 614725 Sketch. PWGSC PIN 614725 is part of the Durham Land Registry Office (No. 40) property identifier number 026388 — 0065 (LT). Description of the Licenced Lands being All of PWGSC PIN 614725-1 That parcel or tract of land situate, lying and being in the City of Pickering in the Regional Municipality of Durham containing approximately 0.11 acres, being part of Lot 19, Concession 6, Geographic Township of Pickering composed of that Part of PWGSC PN 614725 shown in red and labeled 725-1 on the attached Schedule B: PIN 614725 Sketch. 6 33 SCHEDULE "B" SKETCH OF THE LICENCED LANDS Schedule B: PIN 614725-1 PIN BOUNDARIES BUILDING OUTLINES -`""`••-`^" WORKABLE AREA OUTLINES TOTAL PIN AREA = 0.33 acres PIN 61472.5-1 AREA = 0_ 11 acres PIN 014720-2 AREA ©.22 acres Imagery Date: Ma 34 2016 1*1 Public Wcuts-and Government Selvic 5:6.10.5 0s Sept, 05, 20 7 Ile m r1©. 17-001-054 ATTACHMENT #, T° REPORT# GS i a - I�- 35 ' �' 1 1 � s ---- _ --359-- _5 349 r -= .—� --.36� 5 'Q� 1 CC 364' �- -x-1635 D 651 ''Q - ❑ C1 R0 P � 363 Q ly\s\--/P, 32. �1, a _ —r 16x2 36x ' rie_ �1 �', w 1714 3 - % •111, �1�9 r - --o...41,1i, \ P� act HGH0T _" -, ; \i'l rn n ' Q\ . \ ---, p 13 �a { �— r - �P r 25 AZ 2 SUBJECT PROPERTY Community Services Department Attachment for CommunityServices Report 12-17 Licence Agreement Property PIN 614725-01 (Brougham Parkette) 04 °1 P1CKE R1 N G scAm N.T.S October/2017 35 C� DICKERING Report to Executive Committee Report Number: CS 27-17 Date: November 6, 2017 From: Marisa Carpino Director, Community Services Subject: Lease Agreement - Glendale Tennis Club Inc. - File: A-1440 Recommendation: 1. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the Lease Agreement with Glendale Tennis Club Inc. set out in Attachment 1 to this report, subject to minor revisions as may be required by the Director, Community Services and the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor; 2. That the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Executive Summary: Glendale Tennis Club Inc. (the "Club") operates various leagues and lessons from tennis courts and associated spaces within David Farr Memorial Park, located at 1150 Glenanna Road in Pickering. The Club has exclusive use of these facilities to operate their activities under the terms and conditions of a 5 year lease agreement (October 1, 2006 to September 30, 2012) with the City of Pickering. The lease agreement was amended as of March 1, 2011 to reflect a 5 year extension to the term ending September 21, 2017. The 5 year agreement renewal was sought by the Club as a condition of receiving a 2012 Ontario Trillium Foundation Grant to improve the existing tennis facilities at David Farr Memorial Park. The Community Services Department recommends that the Lease Agreement included as Attachment 1 be initiated for a 5 year term beginning December 1, 2017 and ending November 30, 2022. Financial Implications: The City of Pickering is responsible to fund the general operating costs (such as utilities, garbage removal, maintenance and cleaning) of the courts within David Farr Memorial Park which are reflected annually within the Community Services Department Current Budget (Cost Centre 2718). The Current Budget does not reflect capital expenditures that vary year-to-year depending on facility need. The Club is responsible to fund the day-to-day operating costs, including program/office supplies, administrative and insurance costs. The Club is also responsible to supply, maintain, repair and/or replace furniture, appliances and equipment at its expense, in order to operate its activities. The Club shall also pay to the City annual charges for hydro use for each of the tennis courts on site. Annual charges are subject to the General Municipal Fees By -Law. 36 CS 27-17 November 6, 2017 Subject: Glendale Tennis Club Inc. Lease Agreement Page 2 Discussion: The Club offers a wide variety of leagues, events, lessons and community outreach programs, for adults and juniors at all skill levels. The Club currently has 330 adults and 245 juniors for a total of 575 Club members. The Club operates its activities exclusively from 4 tennis courts, patio area, practice area, storage facility, kitchenette and access walkways located at David Farr Memorial Park, under a 5 year lease agreement with the City of Pickering from October 1, 2006 ending September 30, 2012. As a condition of receiving an Ontario Trillium Foundation Grant in 2012 for funding to improve existing tennis facilities, the Club was required to enter into a 5 year agreement with the City of Pickering for use of tennis facilities. As a result, the lease agreement was amended as of March 1, 2011 to include a 5 year extension which ended September 21, 2017. Improvements under this grant consisted of a replacement of the existing storage shed, concrete walkway removal and replacement, purchase and installation of new bleachers, and installation of a new wooden shade structure with energy efficient lighting on the underside. Throughout the term of the agreement, the Club has operated their activities in a diligent and conscientious manner that has satisfied the City. As such, the Community Services Department recommends that the Lease Agreement included as Attachment 1 be initiated for a five year term, beginning December 1, 2017 and ending November 30, 2022. Attachment: 1. Draft Lease Agreement with Glendale Tennis Club Inc. CORP0227-07/01 revised 37 CS 27-17 Subject Glendale Tennis Club Lease Agreement November 6, 2017 Page 3 Prepared B : Rob Gagen Supervisor, Parks Operations Brian Duffield Division Head, Operations RG:mc Approved/Endorsed By �J p Marisa Carpino Director, Community Services Recommended for the consideration of Pickering ity Council Tony Prevedhl, Piing. Chief Administrative Officer C0RP0227-07101 revised 38 ATTACHMENT# TO REPORT#CS c2 -11- Lease Agreement This Lease is made as of the 1st day of December, 2017. Between: The Corporation of the City of Pickering (the "City") - and - Glendale Tennis Club Inc. (the "Club") Article I Interpretation Definitions 1. In this Lease, (a) "Commencement Date" means December 1, 2017; (b) "Lease" means this lease as it may be amended from time to time; (c) "Premises" means that portion of the four tennis courts, patio area, practice area, storage facility, kitchenette and access walkways to the courts within David Farr Memorial Park therein as shown on Schedule "A" attached hereto, located at 1150 Glenanna Road, in the City of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham; (d) "Term" means the term of this Lease as set out in Section 17; and (e) "Rent" means the rent payable pursuant to Section 20. Headings 2. The division of this Lease into articles, sections, subsections and schedules and the insertion of headings are for convenience of reference only and shall not affect the construction or interpretation of this Lease. 39 Severability 3. All of the provisions of this Lease are to be construed as covenants even where not expressed as such. If any such provision is held to be or rendered invalid, unenforceable or illegal, then it shall be considered separate and severable from this Lease and the remaining provisions of this Lease shall remain in force. Number 4. Wherever a word importing the singular number only is used in this Lease, such word shall include the plural. Words importing either gender or firms or corporations shall include the other gender and individuals, firms or corporation where the context so requires. Governing Law 5. This Lease shall be governed by, and interpreted and enforced in accordance with, the laws in force in the Province of Ontario. Entire Agreement 6. This Lease constitutes the entire agreement between the parties concerning the Premises and may only be amended or supplemented by an agreement in writing signed by both parties. Article II Grant and Use Grant 7. In consideration of the performance by the Club of its obligations under this Lease, the City leases the Premises to the Club for its use during the Term. The club acknowledges its right to use the washrooms facilities is non-exclusive. Club Use of Premises 8. The Premises shall be used only for non-profit tennis club, at its expense and for no other purpose without the prior written consent of the City. Nuisance 9. The Club shall not carry on any activities or do or suffer any act or thing that constitutes a nuisance or which is offensive or an annoyance to the City or other users of David Farr Memorial Park. 40 3 City Use of Premises 10. Subject to Section 8, the City shall have right of first refusal to use the Premises. The Club shall not be entitled to any rental fees or other remuneration associated with the use of the Premises by the City. Assignment and Subletting 11. The Club shall not assign this Lease or sublet all or any portion of the Premises without the prior written consent of the City. Licences 12. The Club may not grant licences to use the Premises. 13. The Club shall submit their annual financial statement to the City by Novemberlst of each year. 14. The Club shall submit a list of the Club Board of Directors and their contact information to the City by November 1st of each year. 15. The Club shall submit their membership numbers to the City by April 1 year. Term Article III Term st of each 16. The term of this Lease shall be five (5) years from the Commencement Date to November 30, 2022. 17. The City may terminate this Lease at any time for any reason provided it has given the Club six (6) months prior notice in writing. Overholding 18. If the Club remains in possession of the Premises after the expiry of the Term, there shall be no tacit renewal of this Lease or the Term, notwithstanding statutory provisions or legal presumption to the contrary, and the Club shall be deemed to be occupying the Premises from month to month upon the same terms, covenants and conditions as are set forth in this Lease insofar as they are applicable to a monthly tenancy. 41 Article IV Rent Rent 19. The Club shall pay to the City as rent for the entire the Term in lawful money of Canada the sum of One (1) Dollar ($1.00) Utilities 20. The club shall pay annual charges to the City for each of the tennis courts on site for hydro use. This amount shall be paid on or before April 1 in each year of the term. Annual charges are subject to the General Municipal Fees By-law. Gross Lease 21. The City acknowledges that this is a gross lease and agrees to pay all charges, impositions and outlays of every nature and kind relating to the Premises except as expressly set out in this Lease. Article V Maintenance, Repairs and Alterations Maintenance of Premises 22. The Club shall maintain and operate the Premises so that they shall always be of good appearance, safe and suitable for the proper operation of the Premises. 23. The Club shall provide general maintenance services to the Premises at its expense and shall provide all necessary cleaning and maintenance supplies such as cleaning products, related paper products and cleaning equipment related to the courts and any associated building under their exclusive use. 24. The Club, at its sole expense shall provide the court nets and any shade screening. This would include installation, removal and storage each year. 25. The Club shall maintain at its expense the shade structure that is over the spectator bleachers and area between the courts. 26. The City, or its designate, shall be responsible for all day-to-day operating expenses including garbage removal, bleachers, benches, fencing, plumbing, any building associated with use of the courts, lighting and the court surface life cycle replacement. 42 5 27. The Club shall be responsible for any damages or costs incurred due to the misuse or negligence of the Club, its employees, invitees, servants, agents, or others under its control and the Club shall pay to the City on demand the expense of any repairs including the City's reasonable administration charge necessitated by such negligence or misuse. 28. The Club shall immediately notify the City of any unsafe conditions on the Premises. Security 29. The Club shall be responsible for the security of the Premises. The Club will ensure that a key or combination to any lock are provided to the City for maintenance and inspection access. Alterations/Improvements to Premises 30. The Club shall only be permitted to make alterations and improvements to the Premises that have been approved by the City. Article VI Insurance and Indemnity Club's Insurance 31. The Club, at its sole cost and expense, shall take out and maintain, (a) insurance upon property owned by it which is located on the Premises; and (b) commercial general liability insurance pertaining to the Club's liability to others in respect of injury, death or damage to property occurring upon, in or about the Premises, and abuse insurance. Such insurance to be of an amount which is reasonable and sufficient having regard to the scope of the risk and the current practice of prudent owners of similar premises for the carrying on of similar businesses, but in any event in an amount not less than two million dollars ($2,000,000.00) for claims arising out of one occurrence. Such policy shall also name the City as an additional named insured and may not be cancelled unless prior notice by registered letter has been given to the City by the insurer 30 days in advance of the expiry date. 43 32. Prior to the Commencement Date, the Club shall file with the City a Certificate of Insurance in a form satisfactory to the City Treasurer, verifying that the commercial general liability insurance policy is in effect and setting out the essential terms and conditions of the insurance. 33. The provision of the insurance policy required by this section shall not relieve the Club from liability for claims not covered by the policy or which exceed its limits, if any, for which the Club may be held responsible. Insurance Risks 34. The Club shall not do, omit to do, or permit to be done or omitted to be done upon the Premises anything that may contravene or be prohibited by any of the City's insurance policies in force from time to time covering or relevant to any part of the Premises or which would prevent the City from procuring its policies with companies acceptable to the City. If the conduct of business in the Premises or any acts or omissions of the Club on the Premises causes or results in any increase in premiums for any of the City's insurance policies, the Club shall pay such increase to the City. Indemnification 35. Each of the City and the Club shall indemnify and save harmless the other from and against any and all actions, losses, damages, claims, costs and expenses (including solicitors' fees on a solicitor and client basis) to which the party being indemnified shall or may become liable by reason of any breach, violation or non-performance by the party so indemnifying of any covenant, term or provision of this Lease or by reason of any damage, injury or death occasioned to or suffered by any person or persons including the City or the Club, as the case may be, or any property by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the party so indemnifying or any of those persons for whom it is in law responsible. For greater certainty, the limitation of liability set out above in this section does not extend to claims, losses or damages resulting in whole or in part from the gross negligence or wilful misconduct of the party claiming indemnification, its employees or those for whom it is in law responsible. Article VII Remedies on Default City's Right to Re -Enter 36. If any amount payable to the City under this Lease shall remain unpaid for fifteen (15) days after the Club has received notice thereof, then it shall be lawful for the City at any time thereafter to re-enter the Premises. 44 7 City's Right to Remedy Default 37. In addition to all other remedies the City may have under this Lease and in law, if the Club is in default of any of its obligations under this Lease, and such default has continued for a period of ten (10) days after receipt of notice by the Club (or such longer period as may be reasonably required in the circumstances to cure such default, except in an emergency where the City will not be required to give notice), the City, without prejudice to any other rights which it may have with respect to such default, may remedy such default and the Club shall be responsible for all such costs. Waiver 38. No condoning, excusing or overlooking by the City of any default, breach or non -observance by the Club at any time or times in respect of any covenant, obligation or agreement under this Lease shall operate as a waiver of the City's rights hereunder in respect of any continuing or subsequent default, breach or non -observance, or so as to defeat or affect in any way the rights of the City in respect of any such continuing or subsequent default or breach, and no waiver shall be inferred from or implied by anything done or omitted by the Club save only an express waiver in writing. Article VIII Miscellaneous Quiet Enjoyment 39. The City shall permit the Club to peaceably possess and enjoy the Premises during the Term without any interference from the City, or any person lawfully claiming by, from or under the City provided the Club is not in default. Right of Entry 40. The Club agrees to permit the City and authorized representatives of the City to enter the Premises during normal business hours or in an emergency for the purpose of inspecting and or maintaining the Premises. The City shall use its best efforts to minimize the disruption to the Club's use of the Premises during any such entry. Signs 41. The Club may only erect signs on the Premises with the City's prior approval. All such signs shall be removed from the Premises at the end of the Term. 45 Compliance with Laws 42. The Club, at its sole cost and expense, shall comply with all legal requirements (including statutes, laws, by-laws, regulations, ordinances, orders, rules and regulations of every governmental authority having jurisdiction) that relate to the use of the Premises by the Club or the making of any improvements to the Premises by the Club. Notice 43. Any notice required to be given by the City to the Club under this Lease shall be in writing and shall be delivered to or such other address of which the Club has notified the City in writing, and any such notice delivered shall be deemed good and sufficient notice under the terms of this Lease. 44. Any notice required to be given by the Club to the City under this Lease shall be in writing and shall be delivered to The Corporation of the City of Pickering, Pickering Civic Complex, One The Esplanade, Pickering, Ontario (Attention: City Clerk) or such other address of which the City has notified the Club in writing, and any such notice delivered shall be deemed good and sufficient notice under the terms of this Lease. Successors and Assigns 45. This Lease shall enure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties and their respective successors (including any successor by reason of amalgamation or statutory arrangement) and permitted assigns. Schedules 46. Schedule "A" attached hereto form part of this Agreement. 46 9 In Witness Whereof the parties have executed this Lease. The Corporation of the City of Pickering David Ryan, Mayor Debbie Shields, City Clerk Glendale Tennis Club Pascal Arpin, President Christina Koichopolos, Secretary 47 SOCCER PITCH (JR.) BASEBALL DIAMOND (JR.} ---i— LI (2). CB O GARB. CAN JR. & SR. PLAY AREA WITH SWING us CB ■ U z La • 5• ,PT LI .HT S• Ir PT LI.Hf LP(1)• } o 0 PRACTICE AREA FACILIT LIGHT l7! Schedule "A" ASPHALT PLAY AREA ASPHALT PATH SPORT KaCKLNETIT TENNIS COURT TENNIS COURT L I-II 6 r TENNIS COURT SPORT LIGHT BENCH TENNIS COURT AN AREA OF LEASE AGREEMENT 5' ORT ANT �17 PORT _I G I -IT l) BUTTERFLY MEADOW ASPHALT PATH GLENANNA PARK INFO. 21•E ANL4 ❑AVID FARR PARK P-011 SHEET 1 OF 1 DICKERING Report to Executive Committee Report Number: ENG 24-17 Date: November 6, 2017 From: Richard Holborn Director, Engineering Services Subject: Pre — 2018 Capital Budget Approval Consulting Services for Detailed Design for the Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Implementation Project - File: A-1440 Recommendation: 1. That Council approve the hiring of AECOM Canada Ltd. for the Detailed Design Services for the Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Implementation Project in accordance with Purchasing Policy 10.03(c), as the assignment has a value above $50,000.00 and a competitive process is not being followed, and therefore is subject to additional Council approvals; 2. That the fee proposal dated October 16, 2017 submitted by AECOM Canada Ltd. for the Detailed Design Services for the Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Implementation Project in the amount of $298,896.30 (HST included) be accepted; 3. That the total gross project cost of $345,736.00 (HST included), including the proposal amount and other associated costs, and the total net project cost of $311,346.00 (net of HST rebate) be accepted; 4. That Council provide pre — 2018 Capital Budget approval of the total net project cost of $311,346.00 to retain the consulting services of AECOM Canada, and for other associated costs; That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to finance the estimated net project cost of $311,346.00 by a transfer from the Roads & Bridges Reserve Fund; 6. That the funds required for Contract Administration and Field Inspection from AECOM Canada Ltd. as outlined in the proposal, and any required associated costs be included with the cost of construction in the appropriate year and be subject to approval through the future year's Capital Budget process; 7. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Executive Summary: The Whitevale Master Drainage Plan, dated March 2013 was completed by AECOM Canada Ltd. and endorsed by Council by Resolution # 183/14 on February 24, 2014. The recommended solutions from the plan were included in the Capital Forecast for design in 2018, and construction in 2019 at a total estimated cost of $2.5 million. 49 ENG 24-17 November 6, 2017 Subject: Consulting Services for Detailed Design for the Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Implementation Project Page 2 Due to severe storm events in summer 2017 resulting in flooding, property damage and damage to municipal infrastructure, it became clear that implementation of the Whitevale Master Drainage Plan is required as soon as possible to mitigate further damage, flooding and Toss. As AECOM was the author of the Whitevale Master Drainage Plan, City staff negotiated a proposal from them to undertake the detailed design and approvals components of the recommended solutions outlined in the Plan. In accordance with City Purchasing Policy section 10.03(c), where a competitive process is not followed, the Director initiating the assignment shall require Council approval to engage the services of a particular consultant. The Director, Engineering Services is recommending Council approval to retain AECOM Canada Ltd. for this assignment at a cost of $264,510.00 (plus HST). The initial project award will consist of tasks related to detailed design services as outlined in AECOM Canada Ltd.'s proposal at this time. Tasks related to contract administration and field inspection as outlined in the fee proposal are accepted but will be funded in a future year along with construction. Pre — 2018 budget approval is required in order to have the assignment commence in time to have the design, approvals, permits and tender documents complete for a possible 2019 construction. Financial Implications: 1. Proposal Amount Proposal from AECOM Canada Ltd. dated October 16, 2017 Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Implementation Project Detail Design HST (13%) Total $264,510.00 34,386.30 $298,896.30 2. Estimated Project Costing Summary Proposal Associated Costs Contingency (10% ) Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Permit Fees Sub Total — Costs HST (13%) Total Gross Project Cost HST Rebate (11.24%) Total Net Project Cost $264,510.00 26,451.00 15,000.00 $305,961.00 39,775.00 $345,736.00 (34,390.00) $311,346.00 CORP0227-07/01 revised 50 ENG 24-17 Subject: Consulting Services for Detailed Design for the Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Implementation Project November 6, 2017 Page 3 3. Approved Source of Funds — 2018 Pre -Budget Approval Expense Code 5320.1898.6230 Total Funds Source of Funds Pre — Budget Approval Amount Roads & Bridges Reserve Fund $311,346.00 $311,346.00 In order to advance this project, pre — 2018 budget approval is required, and this requirement is reflected in Recommendation 4. Once the 2018 Capital Budget is approved, the purchase order and costs incurred will be re -allocated to project code 5320.1807.6230. Discussion: The Whitevale Master Drainage Plan (WMDP) dated March 2013, was completed by AECOM Canada Ltd. and provides a comprehensive solution to the drainage system deficiencies in the Hamlet of Whitevale. The WMDP was received and endorsed by Council on February 24, 2014 by Resolution #183/14. Report ENG 04-14 concerning the WMDP included a recommendation that staff be authorized to implement the recommendations of the WMDP subject to budget and further Council approval for individual projects. After the WMDP was received and endorsed by Council, staff included cost estimates in the Capital Forecast for detailed design services and for construction. In the most recent Capital Forecast (2018 — 2021), the detailed design is indicated as a 2018 project and construction is indicated as a 2019 project. The total estimated cost of the improvements is $2.5 million. During the period of 2014 — 2016, the Whitevale bridge was under construction and that project included construction of a new storm sewer outfall on the east approach to the bridge. The storm sewer outfall is an integral component to the new drainage system recommended in the WMDP. The Whitevale Road storm sewer systems could not be improved prior to the new outfall being completed. In June and July 2017 severe rain storms in the Hamlet of Whitevale resulted in flooding and property damage, including damage to municipal infrastructure. Although repairs were undertaken and improvements have been made since the storm, it is apparent that the implementation of the WMDP recommendations are required as soon as possible to mitigate further damage, flooding and loss. Recent discussions and correspondence with the Whitevale District Residents Associations about managing stormwater in the Hamlet have highlighted the community's concern and the need for an action plan. The action plan developed consists of short term interim solutions, that have been implemented, and the acceleration of the WMDP recommended solutions. In order to accelerate the detail design services required to implement the WMDP solutions, staff contacted AECOM Canada Ltd., the authors of the WMDP. AECOM was requested to submit a proposal based on their understanding of the project. An important element of the proposal is to CORP0227-07/01 revised 51 ENG 24-17 November 6, 2017 Subject: Consulting Services for Detailed Design for the Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Implementation Project Page 4 fulfill WMDP Environment Assessment commitments to involve the Whitevale District Residents Association in the detailed design process and receive their input. The Whitevale District Residents Association and their Drainage Committee were involved in the preparation of the WMDP and their involvement lead to the success and acceptance of the plan. The proposal from AECOM Canada Ltd. dated October 16, 2017 has been reviewed by staff and the proposed work plan, deliverables, schedule and fee is deemed acceptable. The project team assigned to the project has the qualifications and experience necessary to complete the project. In order to have a detailed design and tender package completed by the end of 2018 in preparation for spring 2019 construction (subject to further Council approval), it is necessary to have the assignment commence in November 2017. To achieve this timetable, 2018 pre — budget approval is required and is a recommendation within this report. In accordance with City Purchasing Policy section 10.03(c), where a competitive process is not followed, the Director initiating the assignment shall require Council approval to engage the services of a particular consultant. The Director, Engineering Services is recommending Council approval to retain AECOM Canada Ltd. for this assignment. The initial project award will consist of tasks related to detailed design services as outlined in AECOM Canada Ltd.'s proposal dated October 16, 2017. Tasks related to contract administration and field inspection as outlined in the fee proposal are accepted but will be funded in a future year along with construction. Attachments: 1. Location Map CORP0227-07/01 revised 52 ENG 24-17 November 6, 2017 Subject: Consulting Services for Detailed Design for the Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Implementation Project Page 5 Prepared/Approved/Endorsed By: Richard Holborn, P.Eng. Director, Engineering Services Stan Karwowski, MBA CPA, CMA Director, Finance & Treasurer RH:mjh Recommended for the consideration of Picke in City Council 1,koPet.-E-1 OF Tony Prevede , P:,Eng. Chief Administrative Officer CORP0227-07/0W revised 53 \ ` QJ f { iROAD WHI VA-LE _ 1 1 \\ 111111i CHURCHWIN STR ET ti, w 11C111111=111111111111 I 11.1 111. �'� w WHITEVALE ROAD - _ w - - - - ••• .'w • 11 I _ ft Int • 7'r0641 _` \\�Ir \ tL i S-7ir1 0 , \11 '� 1r13r ; Si O \/' 0 est Q• o 3C s /R Legend Q'9,2 o J ) ( I i i \= -C I Pi:a Subject Lands Y Engineering Services Location Map Department Hamlet of Whitevale PICKERING --.0.000 JOG 18, 2017 DICKERING Report to Executive Committee Report Number: FIN 20-17 Date: November 6, 2017 From: Stan Karwowski Director, Finance & Treasurer Subject: Analysis of the 2017 Property Tax Grant for Low Income Seniors and Low Income Persons with Disabilities Recommendation: It is recommended that Report FIN 20-17 of the Director, Finance & Treasurer regarding the 2017 Property Tax Grant for Low Income Seniors and Low Income Persons with Disabilities be received for information. Executive Summary: This report on the 2017 Property Tax Grant for Low Income Seniors and Persons with Disabilities provides an analysis of the program's first year. This program provides a $200 grant for low income seniors who are in receipt of Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) or for persons who are disabled and receiving financial assistance from Ontario Disability Support Plan (ODSP). Financial Implications: None Discussion: On April 11, 2017 Council passed by-law 7552/17 to assist low income seniors and persons with disabilities by developing the Low Income Property Tax Grant. Pickering tax staff developed and administered a program to track and issue the grant to eligible applicants. Promotional/Communication Strategy This was the program's first year and staff recognized the importance of the promotional strategy as it relates to the program's success. A special emphasis and effort were required in order to inform and reach as many Pickering senior and ODSP residents as possible. 55 Report FIN 20-17 November 6. 2017 Subject: Analysis of the 2017 Property Tax Grant for Low Income Seniors Page 2 and Low Income Persons with Disabilities Taxation staff employed the following strategies: 1) The program details were included in the 2017 final property tax brochure. This brochure is distributed to all Pickering property owners. 2) The City's website was updated to reflect the program's details and also included an electronic version of the application form. 3) In the Community Page section of the Pickering News Advertiser, an ad was placed for six weeks. 4) The Pickering News Advertiser posted a story about the grant when Council passed the By-law, Program Statistics Based on Senior Grants The City received 179 applications. 148 were approved and 31 were denied. Applications were denied if the applicant was not receiving the GIS or ODSP financial support. As expected, most of the successful applicants were seniors. 143 of the 148 (96.6%) approved applications were for seniors and five were ODSP recipients. The breakdown by approved applicants is presented below: • 50% of the applicants were women • 25.6% were men • 24.4% were married The average life expectancy for women (83.8 years) is greater than men (79.6 years) and this is reflected in the program's users. Chart One Grant Age Demographics Age 65-69 Age 70-74 Age 75-79 Age 80+ 56 Report FIN 20-17 November 6, 2017 Subject: Analysis of the 2017 Property Tax Grant for Low Income Seniors Page 3 and Low Income Persons with Disabilities As the above chart indicates, over 62.2% of the successful grant applicants were over the age of 75. With a majority of Canadians retiring between the ages of 62 to 65, the inference may be drawn from the above data that some level of financial stress may be experienced by seniors after ten years of retirement. With inflation averaging around 2 per cent per year, the compound affect of the inflationary increase over ten years is 21.89%. In other words, the buying power of those seniors who retired ten years ago has been eroded by at least 21.89% unless their pensions are indexed to some level of inflation. A breakdown by ward of successful grant applicants is presented in chart two. Chart Two Breakdown by Ward Successful Applicants 80 70 60 50 40 30 20- 10 Ward 2 Ward 3 0 Ward 1 Almost 46% of the applicants reside in ward 3. This anomaly could be due to the fact that the "population data set" of 148 successful applicants is not large enough. In other words, a larger population of successful applicants may not have produced such a variance by ward. An interesting statistic is the average assessment value by ward as presented below: • Ward 1 - $532,024 — Range: $274,000 to $710,000 • Ward 2 - $446,718 — Range: $244,000 to $703,000 • Ward 3 - $362,132 — Range: $198,000 to $724,000 57 Report FIN 20-17 November 6, 2017 Subject: Analysis of the 2017 Property Tax Grant for Low Income Seniors Page 4 and Low Income Persons with Disabilities The average assessment value is based on MPAC data and reflects the value of a "home" as of January 1, 2016. In other words, the assessment values are almost two years old and do not reflect today's real estate values. A partial explanation for the variance in the assessment value may be due to the fact that the population data set for ward 3 is based on 68 applications in contrast to the 41 applications received from ward 1. A larger number of successful applications generates a more reflective average assessment value. A breakdown of housing structure by successful applicant is shown in chart three. Chart Three Housing Structure Detached Townhouse Semi -Detached Condo A large majority of the successful applicants occup single detached homes which bear a higher proper tax responsibility than other housing types. The 2017 grant strategy based on $200, was to "hold the line" on City share property taxes when comparing 2014 to 2017. The average City Share of property taxes for the eligible applicants was $1,131 in 2014 and for 2017 was $1,283 - a difference of $152. In other words, the City has achieved its goal of freezing the City Share property taxes at the 2014 level. For 2018, staff's preliminary recommendation will be to increase the grant to $225 to ensure that the City Share of property taxes remains at the 2014 level. Since residents are required to apply and provide proof of eligibility every year, an application form will be mailed to the successful 2017 applicants. Taxation staff will employ the same communication and marketing strategy for 2018. 58 Report FIN 20-17 November 6, 2017 Subject: Analysis of the 2017 Property Tax Grant for Low Income Seniors Page 5 and Low Income Persons with Disabilities Attachments: None Prepared By: Mike Jones Supervisor, Taxation Approved / Endorsed By. Stan Karwowski Director, Finance & Treasurer Recom ded for the consideration of Pick rin City Council Tony Preve te1, P. Eng. Chief Administrative Officer 59 DICKERING Report to Executive Committee Report Number: FIN 22-17 Date: November 6, 2017 From: Stan Karwowski Director, Finance & Treasurer Subject: Statutory Public Meeting Regarding Proposed 2017 Development Charge By-law and Background Study Recommendation: 1. That Report FIN 22-17 of the Director, Finance & Treasurer be received; 2. That Council receive for information the City of Pickering — Development Charges Background Study prepared by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. dated October 5, 2017; 3. That all written submissions made at the November 6th Public Meeting or received in writing from the public by November 17th be referred to staff and to Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. for consideration in preparation of the final Development Charge recommendations and By-law for Council's consideration on December 11th; and, 4. That the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement these recommendations. Executive Summary: Pickering needs to continue implementing development charges to fund capital projects related to growth throughout the City so that development pays for its capital requirements to the full extent allowed by the Development Charges Act (the "DC Act") and so that the new services required by growth are provided in a fiscally responsible manner. Without development charge ("DC") funding, the financial responsibility of paying for growth -related capital projects would be borne by existing taxpayers. The City collects development charges from new construction to pay for growth -related capital costs. The City's current Development Charges By-law expires on December 9, 2018, however, with the City now entering a high growth phase (due partially to Seaton), it would be beneficial to update the By-law now, in order to reflect current construction costs and up-to-date capital strategies. The new DC Background Study has been prepared pursuant to the DC Act to update the previous DC By-law The purpose of this 60 Report FIN 22-17 November 6, 2017 Subject: Statutory Public Meeting Regarding Proposed 2017 Development Page 2 Charge By-law and Background Study Report is to present the 2017 DC Background Study and proposed By-law for consideration at a statutory public meeting, as required by the DC Act. The DC rates set out in the Background Study are calculated on a cost recovery basis and represent what is allowed under the DC Act. The change from current rates is the result of revised growth forecasts and updated capital programs. The proposed decrease of the Seaton residential DC is 7.5% or $632 for a single detached unit. For the rest of Pickering, a single detached unit is proposed to increase by 1.77% or $250 for a single semi-detached unit. The new DC rate on a detached residential unit would continue to result in Pickering having one of the lowest DC rate of all the GTA municipalities. Pickering's new DC rate continues to be lower than those of Whitby, Oshawa, and Ajax. The proposed DC Background Study incorporates the principles of the Seaton Financial Impacts Agreement (the "FIA") approved by Council on October 28, 2013. The FIA requires the Seaton landowners to pay the City-wide DC for all services except transportation services. The Seaton landowners will be funding and building their own local roads and, therefore, are not subject to the transportation charge applicable to the rest of Pickering. After the statutory public meeting, it is proposed that staff review the submissions received from the public. Staff will bring forward a final report with a proposed DC By- law for Council's consideration at the December 11th Council meeting. The new Development Charge By-law will, if passed by Council, be effective on January 1, 2018. Financial Implications: The proposed DC background study includes a gross capital program of $453.4 million of which $301.5 million is to be recovered from DC's. The residual amount of $151.9 million is more commonly referred to as "City Share" and this dollar amount will be funded from property taxes, senior level grant funding (such as Federal Gas Tax) or debt. The "City Share" funds the 10% statutory deduction for soft services, the "benefit to existing" deduction and the post -period benefit. The DC Act requires municipalities to reduce the growth -related net capital costs associated with "soft services" by 10%. (Soft services include services such as recreation, parks and libraries). Additional infrastructure that is to be put in place, that will provide benefits to the existing population, must also be funded from a source other than DC's. This is commonly known as the "benefit to existing" reduction. Typically, these reductions are funded through the property tax base. Some of the infrastructure that is planned to be built within the DC By-law will serve future population and employment-related growth beyond the life of this study and therefore, some of the capital project's cost will be allocated to future studies. This allocation of cost to future year is referred to as "post period benefit". Some of the Seaton -related capital projects 61 Report FIN 22-17 November 6, 2017 Subject: Statutory Public Meeting Regarding Proposed 2017 Development Page 3 Charge By-law and Background Study may reflect this deduction. In the interim, these costs will be funded by the City and then recovered through the next DC Study planned for 2021. Discussion: In simplest terms, DC rates are calculated as follows: Growth -Related New Capital Costs Growth Forecast (Population) Growth -Related Capital Program The 2013 DC study capital forecast included the Seaton 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 FIA. (It is anticipated that the Seaton landowners will reach these targets by 2031). This results in a lower overall DC rate for Seaton as compared to the rest of Pickering. The DC Capital program was developed by staff from all departments. Staff first reviewed the 2013 DC study and removed projects that have been completed; then the timing and costs of projects that had not been completed were updated in the context of the new growth forecast or new/improved information that is now available. Lastly, projects were added to the program that are required to service the additional growth included in the 2017 Background Study. In the 2017 DC Background Study, some adjustments have been made to the service categories in order to better reflect our current growth -related needs. The "Operations Services" category will be re -allocated to a new category "Other Services Related to a Highway" and to "Parks & Recreation Services". The "Protective Services" category has been expanded to include By-law & Animal Enforcement Services. Historically, the "Protective Services" category only included fire protection. However, Finance staff, working with the consultant, explored the opportunity of adding new services and their corresponding capital programs for DC funding under this category. The benefit of this change is that an animal shelter is now included in the Study with vehicles related to both By-law and Animal Services. Table One shows that the DC Eligible Costs in the 2017 Study have increased by 37.3% from the 2013 study. Table One Comparison of DC Funding Sources Gross Capital Costs Less: DC Eligible Costs Net City Share 62 2013 Study ($M) 352.1 (219.5) 132.6 2017 Study Change % ($M) 453.4 (301.5) 151.9 28.7 37.3 14.5 Report FIN 22-17 November 6, 2017 Subject: Statutory Public Meeting Regarding Proposed 2017 Development Page 4 Charge By-law and Background Study The City share dollar amount of $151.9 million will be funded through property taxes, debt and senior level government grants such as Federal Gas Tax. The City's current economic strategy focusing on industrial and commercial growth (taxation revenue) will assist the City in meeting its future growth related financial obligations. Comparison of DC Funding Sources 2013 DC Study Growth Funded (DC Charges) As the above chart indicates, there has been a shift between funding sources, taxpayer to DC charges resulting in savings of approximately $19.0 million. Growth Forecast The DC growth forecast has been derived from the forecast contained in Durham Region Regional Official Plan Amendment No. 128, as approved by the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) on January 9, 2013. Each service is either based on a 10 -year planning period (Protection Services, Parks and Recreation, Library, and Administration Studies) or until 2031 (Other Services Related to a Highway, Stormwater Management and Transportation). The following table compares the growth forecast in the 2013 Study and the 2017 Study: 63 2013 Study 2017 Study % Change Population 10 -year 52,720 78,450 48.8% To 2031 87,720 91,746 4.6% Employment 10 -year 15,210 21,121 38.8% To 2031 26,200 31,326 19.6% 63 Report FIN 22-17 November 6, 2017 Subject: Statutory Public Meeting Regarding Proposed 2017 Development Page 5 Charge By-law and Background Study The 2017 growth forecast is higher mainly due to the commencement of Seaton development being delayed. The growth originally forecasted to occur from 2014-2017 that did not occur is now being included in the 2018-2027 forecast, in addition to the growth previously forecasted for the same period. In other words, part of the (2014- 2017) growth is being "pushed" into the (2018-2027) period resulting in higher population figures. Pickering Proposed DC Rates A comparison of the DC rates by component between current and proposed January 1, 2018 is presented below. Single and Semi Detached Residential Rate Comparison of Current Rates to Proposed Rates Service Current (Indexed) Proposed Jan. 1/18 Change* (Increase/ Decrease) Municipal Wide Services: Other Services Related to a Highway** $441 Operations Services** $614 Protection Services (Fire, By-law & 889 Animal Services) Fire Protection*** 664 Parks and Recreation Services 5,637 4,851 Library Services 916 1,086 Administration Studies 202 277 Stormwater Management 431 288 Total Municipal Wide Services (Line A) $8,464 $7,832 Outside of Seaton Lands Transportation 5,635 6,517 Total Outside of Seaton Lands (Line B) $5,635 $6,517 Rest of Pickering (Line A+B) $14,099 $14,349 250 Seaton**** $8,464 $7,832 (632) *** 64 Comparisons of each service cannot be made due to the adjustments of the service categories between studies. Vehicles and facilities previously included under "Operations Services" have been included in "Other Services related to a Highway" and "Parks and Recreation Services" to better reflect the services provided. Protection services included in the broader costs of protective and enforcement services, including Fire Protection Services and funding for Animal and By-law Services. Excludes the cost of Seaton internal roads network and voluntary contributions under the FIA. Report FIN 22-17 November 6, 2017 Subject: Statutory Public Meeting Regarding Proposed 2017 Development Page 6 Charge By-law and Background Study When Council approved the Seaton FIA, City staff successfully negotiated an additional financial contribution of $16.0 million from the Seaton landowners. This amount is collected through an additional charge that is paid along with the Seaton DC. For a Seaton single detached home, an additional $1,266 is charged. Therefore, a Seaton developer is paying $9,098 ($7,832 + $1,266) for a single semi-detached dwelling plus road construction costs. There are a number of factors influencing the change in the DC rate for residential single and semi-detached dwelling units, including: • total DC recoverable costs over the 10 -year forecast period; • forecast growth in incremental gross population over the 10 -year period; and • the change in average occupancy per dwelling unit persons per unit (PPU) between Census periods. For the single and semi-detached category, there was a decrease of $786 or 13.9% for the Parks and Recreation DC rate between the 2017 and 2013 DC Background Study. The decrease is due to the following factors: • DC recoverable costs for the 10 -year forecast period increased by approximately 2%; • The PPU for single and semi-detached dwelling units increased by approximately 1%; • The incremental 10 -year gross population increased by approximately 39%; • The increase in DC recoverable costs and occupancy place upward pressure on the DC rate. However, the higher number of housing units forecast to be constructed over the 10 -year forecast period, and related population growth, more than offset the increase in DC recoverable costs and occupancy; The Seaton residential rate decreased by $632 or 7.5% due to the growth forecast increasing at a greater percentage than the DC eligible capital costs. Also contributing to the reduction is the decrease in the amount of capital costs related to Stormwater Management in contrast to the 2013 study, due to more refined cost estimates for the projects. 65 Report FIN 22-17 November 6, 2017 Subject: Statutory Public Meeting Regarding Proposed 2017 Development Page 7 Charge By-law and Background Study Non -Residential Rate Comparison of Current Rates to Proposed Rates Service $ Per Sq. ft. of Floor Area $ Per Net Ha of Prestige Employment Land in Seaton Current (Indexed) Proposed Jan. 1/18 Current (Indexed) Proposed Jan. 1/18 Municipal Wide Services Other Service Related to Highway 0.15 5,451 Operations Services 0.27 8,264 Protection Services 0.34 11,431 Fire Protection 0.29 9,020 Parks and Recreation 0.47 0.39 14,514 13,261 Library Services 0.07 0.08 2,360 2,605 Administration Studies 0.08 0.10 2,788 3,560 Stormwater Management 0.19 0.10 6,057 3,504 Total Municipal Wide Services (Line A) 1.37 1.15 43,003 39,812 Outside of Seaton Lands Transportation 2.77 1.83 - - Total Outside of Seaton Lands (Line B) 2.77 1.83 - - Rest of Pickering (Line A+B) 4.14 2.98 Seaton 1.37 1.15 43,003 39,812 The non-residential DC for lands outside of the Seaton Prestige Employment Lands are recovered from development on a per sq. ft. of total floor area basis. While total DC eligible costs have increased by 31%, the DC has decreased by approximately 28%. This decrease is attributable to the increase in the gross floor area forecast. For Seaton industrial and commercial development, a different approach was applied as it relates to development charges. A land area specific charge (per net Hectare) is used in contrast to a floor area charge. Under the floor area charge approach, the DC charges are based on the size of the building. The property owner may apply a phased development approach over several years to fully utilize the land size, such that the DC's would be payable over a lengthy time period. Using the land area approach in Seaton, the developer pays the full DC at the time of the first development regardless of the fact that there may be several phases of construction development. This approach encourages expedient buildout, discourages land banking and creates a more favourable cash flow scenario for the City. 66 Report FIN 22-17 November 6, 2017 Subject: Statutory Public Meeting Regarding Proposed 2017 Development Page 8 Charge By-law and Background Study City of Pickering DC Rates Comparison of Current Rates to Proposed Rates The proposed changes to all of Pickering's DC rates are summarized below: The above chart shows that the DC charges for apartments are increasing more than single and semi-detached. The reason for the larger increase is that according StatsCan census data the persons per unit (PPU) is increasing in apartments. The current study has used updated census figures as compared to the 2013 study. The increase in PPU's may be explained by the increasing housing prices which are making condos and apartments the entry point into the real estate market rather than townhouses. The change in person per unit assumptions is as follows: Rest of Pickering Seaton yo Current (Indexed) Proposed Current (Indexed) Proposed Residential 1.84 2.23 21.20 Apartment <2 Single and Semi -Detached 14,099 14,349 8,464 7,832 Apts. 2 Bedrooms + 7,453 9,066 4,473 4,949 Apts. Less than 2 Bedrooms 5,470 6,422 3,284 3,505 Other Multiples 11,180 11,586 6,709 6,325 Non -Residential 4.14 2.98 1.37 1.15 The above chart shows that the DC charges for apartments are increasing more than single and semi-detached. The reason for the larger increase is that according StatsCan census data the persons per unit (PPU) is increasing in apartments. The current study has used updated census figures as compared to the 2013 study. The increase in PPU's may be explained by the increasing housing prices which are making condos and apartments the entry point into the real estate market rather than townhouses. The change in person per unit assumptions is as follows: Competitive DC Rates The graph below shows that Pickering's proposed single detached residential DC rate is competitive in comparison with both its Durham Lakeshore neighbours and other GTA comparators (see Attachment 1). Pickering will maintain a very competitive position, especially given its proximity to Toronto. Out of all the communities that border Toronto, Pickering has the lowest DC rates. 67 2013 2017 yo Single 3.48 3.53 1.44 Apartment 2+ 1.84 2.23 21.20 Apartment <2 1.35 1.58 17.04 Other 2.76 2.85 3.26 Competitive DC Rates The graph below shows that Pickering's proposed single detached residential DC rate is competitive in comparison with both its Durham Lakeshore neighbours and other GTA comparators (see Attachment 1). Pickering will maintain a very competitive position, especially given its proximity to Toronto. Out of all the communities that border Toronto, Pickering has the lowest DC rates. 67 Report FIN 22-17 November 6, 2017 Subject Statutory Public Meeting Regarding Proposed 2017 Development Page 9 Charge By-law and Background Study $60,000 $50,000 $40, 000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $0 Single and Semi Detached Whitby Oshawa Ajax Clarington Rest of Rest of Seaton Seaton Pickering Pickering (Current) (New) (New) (Current) $ per sq. ft 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 68 Lower Tier Pickering Region Education Commercial Whitby Oshawa Clarington Ajax Rest of Rest of Seaton Seaton Pickering Pickering (Current) (New) (Current) (New) Lower Tier - Pickering Region Education Report FIN 22-17 November C, 2017 Subject: Statutory Public Meeting Regarding Proposed 2017 Development Page 10 Charge By-law and Background Study $35,000 $30,000 $25,000 $20000 $15,000 $1Q000 $5000 $o Indexing Apts. 2 Bedroom + Whitby Oshawa Rest of Ajax Rest of Clarington Seaton Seaton Pickering Pickering (New) (Current) (New) (Current) Lower Tier Pickering Region Education Based on our current DC By-law, DC rates shall be adjusted annually as of July 1 each year based on the Non-residential Building Construction index in order to keep DC revenues current with construction costs. The previous indexing was done on July 1, 2017, and would be due for indexing again on July 1, 2018. Staff are proposing that the new DC rates be indexed starting on July 1, 2018. Transition to New Rates The proposed rates will come into effect on January 1, 2018. Any complete building permit applications received after January 1, 2018 will be subject.to the new DC rate. Proposed Major By-law Policy Changes Under the 2013 DC By-law, property owners were given development charge credits when they demolished an existing building or dwelling. These development charge credits have a ten year life. The ten year time period does not encourage development. Instead, it allows inactivity. After demolition while a property sits vacant, the City and the Region only receive property taxes based on the vacant land class. The 2017 DC By-law proposes to change the ten year DC credit period to five years. The five year period should provide sufficient time for any rezoning or planning approval changes, and will encourage future redevelopment. Under the 2013 By-law, farm buildings were exempt from all DC charges. The 2017 DC By-law proposes to change the full exemption for farm buildings to a partial exemption by imposing a DC charge for roads and fire protection. These two DC components (road and fire protection) related to farm activity. 69 Report FIN 22-17 November 6, 2017 Subject: Statutory Public Meeting Regarding Proposed 2017 Development Page 11 Charge By-law and Background Study Communications Strategy The DC Act has a mandatory communication/advertising requirement for at least ane public meeting, and the Clerk is required to carry out such advertising at least twenty days in advance of the Meeting date. The Statutory Public Meeting was first advertised in the Pickering News Advertiser on October 11, 2017 and will continue every Wednesday until November 1, 2017. In addition, reference to the Statutory Public Meeting has been advertised on the City's website. The City has met the requirements of the Development Charges Act. On October 17th, staff reached out to the development industry by distributing the DC Background Study, dated October 5, 2017 and holding a stakeholder consultation on November 151. The comments from this meeting were not available at the time this report was written. Next Steps Following receipt of comments at the Public Meeting, and written submissions no later than November 17th, 2017, staff will bring forward a final report and proposed DC By- law for Council's consideration at the Council meeting to be held on December 111h, 2017. if enacted, the new DC By-law will be effective January 1, 2018. Attachments: 1 Residential Development Charges per Single Detached Dwelling for Greater Toronto Area Municipalities, as of October 19, 2017 2. 2017 Development Charges Background Study, dated October 5, 2017 Prepared By: Prepared B,y: Caryn Kong, CPA, CGA Senior Financial Analyst — Capital & Debt Management 70 Paul Creamer Senior Accounting Analyst, Internal Audit Approved / Endorsed By: Stan Karwowski, CPA, CMA, MBA Director, Finance & Treasurer Report FIN 22-17 November 6, 2017 Subject: Statutory Public Meeting Regarding Proposed 2017 Development Page 12 Charge By-law and Background Study Recommended for the consideration of Pickering Council cF Tony Prevedel� ng. Chief Administrat e Officer 71 ©Lipper Tier ❑Lower Tier ■Education J $100,000 Residential Development Charges Per Single Detached ©welling for Greater Toronto Area Municipalities as of October 19, 2017 $8Q000 - $50,000 -- L � $40,000 - $20,000 $- - s. r 'may' �r•. -1.' r 4.5 ,61,`:› Eac' 15('_°�, sra• �i oc��Ly1P�So a ��'Q`Stiaa� '�S°�`G�L �,y� ,�e`�c. c'�`$g '�` 6044. $g�s� 12- 1.`c`` rs a�StiC,,.c� �ccS G s$�ca�alcoo 0V-�� SP.°r 17°1' so6c �Lu�(+ E41 StP 115 -CP` yQ t° ye )4e 4,0,6 ��� �e�r4 4� Q 4 BB=Built Boundary & GF=Greenfield. 1. A component of the charge has been converted from a per hectare charge to a hypothetical stngie detached unit. 2. Includes Financial Impacts Agreement (FIA) Charges ($1,266) Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. (10/19/2017) ATTACHMENT # 1 .TO REPORT # f 1 $60 $50 $10 Non -Residential Development Charges Per GFA of Retail Floor Area for Greater Toronto Area Municipalities as of October, 2017 ❑Upper Tier ❑Lower Tier *Education OMR Y EMI 4 r r r r -r—r— r- r - r 1 t. ¢ 'ti$o<�Gv cw1G�a� o eLak.cp `�,"-Y !-Y'�4T-L4,66.0`6gc a„pLo CA��v �a� SSVocwSs , �a�` c��D.' es e°a�a• t`a 020S„co e 4 BB=Built Boundary & GF=Greenfieid. 1. A portion of the charge has been converted from a per hectare charge to a hypothetical GFA charge assuming 30% coverage. 2. includes Financial Impacts Agreement (FIA] Charges ($0.09/sq.ft.). Prestige Employment Lands in Seaton pay FIA charge plus $41,750 per net hectare (current), $38,419 per net hectare(calculated). Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. (10/19/2017) $40 $30 $10 $ 2p`yl cy,„ • 0`,�1��,K. � .. a z� ic.. _ `GFI,ra, JtAt2 �� LGFI `$01 \C. e�oo JO ` 3 `G41 Pia+ r`ti�' e::\ `6-N 6. �iP v,°% . 6.e. Sory- `gp� tilL'7l 1`�1 \' r?' asya eSat�a� rc�`°��,� �otiyy�y�a �e� ,aJ�oa � r5'��y �4,;� ,s•.% .g0 pa `�ra���,..0\ $tai, �t ��6 0.","" -,e S,,`G.• or -\,y L`as,��,p yc 0- �,.,9 , t� ,a� o �,,y et, ,R,• �` eg' c.rot day m e6' 0 &e•,ta r� ,,,,Sc' �a eg•e.` ec %rye • 4\ e41�0 cue, 6 Q 4\ e\ Non -Residential Development Charges Per GFA of Industrial Floor Area for Greater Toronto Area Municipalities as of October 19, 2017 BB=Built Boundary & GF=Greenfield. 1. A portion of the charge has been converted from a per hectare charge to a hypothetical GFA charge assuming 30% coverage. 2. Includes Financial Impacts Agreement (FIN Charges ($0.09/sq.ft.). Prestige Employment Lands in Seaton pay FIA charge plus $41,750 per net hectare (current), $38,419 per net hectare(ca i cul ated). Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. (10/19/2017) D Upper Tler I7 Lower Tier ■ Education =I =I �=I—. IMO _ — El — — -fes__ BB=Built Boundary & GF=Greenfield. 1. A portion of the charge has been converted from a per hectare charge to a hypothetical GFA charge assuming 30% coverage. 2. Includes Financial Impacts Agreement (FIN Charges ($0.09/sq.ft.). Prestige Employment Lands in Seaton pay FIA charge plus $41,750 per net hectare (current), $38,419 per net hectare(ca i cul ated). Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. (10/19/2017) ATTACHMENT # TO REPORT #_ �!:, r '7 City of Pickering 2017 Development Charges Background Study For Public Circulation and Comment October 5, 2017 eWatson & Associates t: ) '-1 # :.: " ! T Plaza Three 101-2000 Argentia Rd. Mississauga, Ontario Canada L5N 1V9 Phone. (905) 272-3600 Fax: (905) 272-3602 e-mail: info@watson•eccn.ca www.watson-econ.ca 75 Contents Page 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Purpose of this Document 1 1.2 Summary of the Process 2 2. Current City of Pickering D.C. Policy 4 2.1 By-law Enactment 4 2.2 Services Covered 4 2.3 Timing of D.C. Calculation and Payment 5 2.4 Redevelopment Credit 5 2.5 Exemptions 6 3. Anticipated Development in the City of Pickering 7 3.1 Requirements of the Act 7 3.2 Basis of Population, Household and Non -Residential Gross Floor Area Forecast 7 3.3 Summary of Growth Forecast 8 4. The Approach to the Calculation of the Charge 15 4.1 Services Potentially Involved 15 4.2 Local Service Policy 15 4.3 Capital Forecast 16 4.4 Treatment of Credits 21 4.5 Eligible Debt and Committed Excess Capacity 21 4.6 Existing Reserve Funds 22 4.7 Deductions 22 4.7.1 Reduction Required by Level of Service Ceiling 23 4.7.2 Reduction for Uncommitted Excess Capacity 23 4.7.3 Reduction for Benefit to Existing Development 24 4.7.4 Reduction for Anticipated Grants, Subsidies and Other Contributions 24 4.7.5 The 10% Reduction 25 4.8 D.C. By -Law Spatial Applicability 25 5. D.C. Eligible Cost Analysis by Service 26 5.1 Service Levels and 10 -Year Capital Costs for City-wide D.C. Calculation 26 5.1.1 Protection Services 26 5.1.2 Parks and Recreation 27 5.1.3 Library Services 28 5.1.4 Administration 28 5.2 Service Levels and 14 -Year Capital Costs for City-wide D.C. Calculation 37 5.2.1 Other Services Related to a Highway 37 5.2.2 Stormwater Management 37 5.3 Service Levels and 14 -Year Capital Costs for Area -Specific (Outside of Seaton Lands) D.C. Calculation 42 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12017 DC StudylReport\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx 76 5.3.1 Transportation Services 42 6. D.C. Calculation 46 7. D.C. Policy Recommendations and D.C. By-law Rules 53 7.1 D.C. By-law Structure 53 7.2 D.C. By-law Rules 54 7.2.1 Payment in any Particular Case 54 7.2.2 Determination of the Amount of the Charge 54 7.2.3 Application to Redevelopment of Land (Demolition and Conversion) 55 7.2.4 Exemptions (full or partial) 55 7.2.5 Phase in Provision(s) 56 7.2.6 Timing of Collection 56 7.2.7 Indexing 56 7.2.8 D.C. Spatial Applicability 56 7.3 Other D.C. By-law Provisions 57 7.3.1 Categories of Services for Reserve Fund and Credit Purposes 57 7.3.2 By-law In -force Date 57 7.3.3 Minimum Interest Rate Paid on Refunds and Charged for Inter -Reserve Fund Borrowing 57 7.4 Other Recommendations 57 8. Asset Management Plan 58 8.1 Introduction 58 9. By-law Implementation 62 9.1 Public Consultation 62 9.1.1 Public Meeting of Council 62 9.1.2 Other Consultation Activity 62 9.2 Anticipated Impact of the Charge on Development 63 9.3 Implementation Requirements 63 9.3.1 Notice of Passage 64 9.3.2 By-law Pamphlet 64 9.3.3 Appeals 65 9.3.4 Complaints 65 9.3.5 Credits 65 9.3.6 Front -Ending Agreements 65 9.3.7 Severance and Subdivision Agreement Conditions 66 Appendix A — Background Information on Residential and Non-residential Growth Forecast 67 Appendix B — Level of Service 80 Appendix C — D.C. Cash Flow Calculation Tables 99 Appendix D — Long-term Capital and Operating Cost Examination 120 Appendix E — Proposed D.C. By-law 123 Appendix F — Local Service Policy 137 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12017 DC StudylReport\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx 77 List of Acronyms and Abbreviations A.M.P. Asset Management Plan D.C. Development Charge D.C.A. Development Charges Act E.S.A. Environmentally Safe Area G.F.A. Gross floor area mm Millimeters N.F.P.O.W. No fixed place of work O.M.B. Ontario Municipal Board O.Reg. Ontario Regulation para. Paragraph P.P.U. Persons per unit R.S.O. Revised Statute of Ontario sq.ft. Square foot s.s. Subsection Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12017 DC StudylReport\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx 78 Page 1 1. Introduction 1.1 Purpose of this Document This background study has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the Development Charges Act (D.C.A.), 1997 (s.10), and accordingly, recommends new development charges (D.C.) and policies for the City of Pickering. The City retained Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. (Watson) to undertake the D.C. Background Study process in 2017. Watson worked with senior staff from the City in preparing this D.C. analysis and the policy recommendations. This D.C. Background Study, containing the proposed D.C. By -Law, will be distributed to members of the public in order to provide interested parties with sufficient background information on the legislation, the study's recommendations and an outline of the basis for these recommendations. This report has been prepared, in the first instance, to meet the statutory requirements applicable to the City's D.C. Background Study, as summarized in Chapter 4 and applied in Chapters 5 and 6. It also addresses the forecast amount, type and location of growth (Chapter 3), the requirement for "rules" governing the imposition of the charges (Chapter 7), Asset Management Plan requirements under the D.C.A. (Chapter 8), and the proposed by-law to be made available as part of the approval process (Appendix E). In addition, the report is designed to set out sufficient background on the legislation, the City's current D.C. policy (Chapter 2) and the policies underlying the proposed by-law, to make the exercise understandable to interested parties. Finally, the D.C. Background Study addresses post -adoption implementation requirements (Chapter 9) which are critical to the successful application of the new policy. The chapters in the report are supported by Appendices containing the data required to explain and substantiate the calculation of the charge. A full discussion of the statutory requirements for the preparation of a background study and calculation of a D.C. is provided herein. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12017 DC StudylReport\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx 79 Page 2 1.2 Summary of the Process The public meeting required under Section 12 of the D.C.A., 1997, has been scheduled for November 6, 2017. Its purpose is to present the study to the public and to solicit public input on the proposed D.C. by-law. The meeting is also being held to answer any questions regarding the study's purpose and methodology. Figure 1-1 outlines the process undertaken to date and the proposed schedule to be followed with respect to the D.C. by-law adoption process. In accordance with the legislation, the D.C. Background Study and proposed D.C. By - Law were made available for public review on October 11, 2017. Following the statutory public meeting, the process to be followed in finalizing the report and recommendations includes: • consideration of responses received prior to, at or immediately following the public meeting; • Council determination if any further public meetings are required on the matter; • finalization of the study and Council consideration of the by-law on December 11, 2017; and • imposition of new development charges on January 1, 2018. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12017 DC StudylReportlPickering DC Background Study-Final.docx 80 Page 3 Figure 1-1 Schedule of Key D.C. Process Dates Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. h:IPickeringl2017 DC StudylRsportlPickering DC Background Study -Final. docx 81 Process Steps Dates 1. Project initiation meetings with City Steering Committee April, 2017 2. Data collection, staff interviews, methodology review, preparation of D.C. calculations June — September, 2017 3. Preparation of draft D.C. Background Study and review of draft findings with D.C. Steering Committee September 26, 2017 4. D.C. Background Study and proposed D.C. by-law available to public (60 days prior to by-law passage) October 11, 2417 5. Statutory notice of Public Meeting advertisement placed in newspaper(s) 20 clear days prior to public meeting 6. Presentation of D.C. Background Study to Stakeholders November 1, 2017 7. Public Meeting of Council November 6, 2017 8. Council considers adoption of D.C. Background Study and passage of by-Iaw December 11, 2017 9. D.C. By -Law in force date January 1, 2018 10. Newspaper notice given of by-Iaw passage By 20 days after passage 11. Last day for by-law appeal 40 days after passage 12. City makes available D.C. pamphlet by 60 days after in force date Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. h:IPickeringl2017 DC StudylRsportlPickering DC Background Study -Final. docx 81 Page 4 2. Current City of Pickering D.C. Policy 2.1 By-law Enactment On December 9, 2013, the City of Pickering passed By -Law 7234/13 under the D.C.A., 1997. The by-law came into effect on January 1, 2014 and imposes uniform City-wide D.C.s by service for all permissible municipal services, with the exception of Transportation Services which on an area -specific basis for the lands outside of the Seaton lands only. The area -specific treatment of Transportation services is in accordance with the City's agreement with the Seaton Landowners, whereby transportation services attributable to these lands are funded directly by the landowners. 2.2 Services Covered The following services are included under By -Law 7234/13: City -Wide Services • Development -Related Studies • Fire • Parks Development • Major Indoor Recreation Facilities • Library • Operations Facilities and Vehicles • Stormwater Management Area -Specific Services • Transportation — Seaton' • Transportation — rest of Pickering The By -Law provides for mandatory annual indexing of the charges on July 1st. Table 2-1 provides the charges currently in effect for residential and non-residential development types, as well as a breakdown of the charges by service. 1 Subject to a separate agreement outside of the D.C.A. concerning the provision of Transportation Service requirements in addition to other funding contributions. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:lPickering12017 DC StudylReport\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx 82 Page 5 Table 2-1 City of Pickering Schedule of Current Development Charges Service RESIDENTIAL NON-RESIDENTIAL Single and Semi- Detached+ Dwelling Apartments 2 Bedrooms Apartments- Bachelor and 1 Bedroom Other Multiples z (per ft of Total Floor 2 Area) (per net Ha of Prestige Employment Land in Seaton) Development -Related Studies 196 104 76 155 0.08 2,707 Fire Protection 645 342 251 512 0.28 8,757 Parks Development & Trails 1,776 938 688 1,408 0.15 4,570 Indoor Recreation Facilities 3,697 1,954 1,433 2,932 0.31 9,521 Library 889 471 345 705 0.07 2,291 Operations Facilites & Vehicles 596 315 233 472 0.26 8,023 Transportation - Seaton 1 - Rest of Pickering 5,471 2,893 2,123 4,340 2.69 Stormwater Management 418 219 162 330 0.18 5,881 Seaton 8,217 4,343 3,188 6,514 1.33 41,750 Rest of Pickering 13,688 7,236 5,311 10,854 4.02 41,750 1. Subject to a separate agreement outside of the Development Charges Act concerning the provision of Transportation requirements in addition to other funding contributions 2. Does not apply to prestige employment development in Seaton, as that development is subject to the per net Ha land area charge instead. 2.3 Timing of D.C. Calculation and Payment D.C. s are calculated and payable in full to the City at the time a permit is issued for any land, buildings or structures constituting development. 2.4 Redevelopment Credit Where as a result of the redevelopment of land, where a building or structure existing on land was demolished, a D.C. credit will only be issued where a building permit has been issued for redevelopment within 10 years of the demolition permit. D.C.s are payable for the dwelling units or additional non-residential floor area created are in excess of what was demolished. D.C. credits are also provided for the conversion of floor area from one principal use to another principal use (i.e. residential and non-residential). The D.C. payable is equal to charge for floor area/units in the space created, less the charge that would have been payable for the existing floor area/units. In no case shall the net charge be less than zero. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12017 DC StudylReportlPickering DC Background Study-Final.docx 83 Page 6 2.5 Exemptions The City's D.C. By -Law includes statutory exemptions from payment of D.C.s with respect to: • Industrial additions of up to and including 50% of the existing gross floor area of the building — for industrial additions which exceed 50% of the existing gross floor area, only the portion of the addition in excess of 50% is subject to the payment of D.C.s; • Land used for Municipal or Board of Education purposes; and • Residential development that results in only the enlargement of an existing dwelling unit, or that results only in the creation of up to two additional dwelling units (as specified by O.Reg. 82/98). The By -Law also provides non -statutory exemptions from payment of D.C.s with respect to: • The development of a non-residential farm building used for bona fide agricultural purposes; • A building or structure that is used in connection with a place of worship and is exempt from taxation under the Assessment Act as a result; • Nursing homes and hospitals; and • Garden suites Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12017 DC StudylReportlPickering DC Background Study-FinaLdocx 84 Page 7 3. Anticipated Development in the City of Pickering 3.1 Requirements of the Act Chapter 4 provides the methodology for calculating a development charge as per the D. C.A. Figure 4-1 presents this methodology graphically. It is noted in the first box of the schematic that in order to determine the development charge that may be imposed, it is a requirement of Section 5 (1) of the D.C.A. that "the anticipated amount, type and location of development, for which development charges can be imposed, must be estimated." The growth forecast contained in this chapter (with supplemental tables in Appendix A) provides for the anticipated development for which the City will be required to provide services, over a 10 -year and long-term time horizon (i.e. 2018-2031). 3.2 Basis of Population, Household and Non -Residential Gross Floor Area Forecast The D.C. growth forecast has been derived from forecast contained in Durham Region Regional Official Plan Amendment No. 128, as approved by the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) on January 9, 2013. In accordance with the Durham Region Regional Official Plan (R.O.P.) and City of Pickering Official Plan (O.P.), the population and employment forecast for Community of Seaton is 61,000 and 30,500 by 2031.1 In compiling the growth forecast, the following additional information sources were also consulted to assess residential and non-residential development potential for the City over the forecast period; including: ® A review of recent historical residential and non-residential development activity; • 2006, 2011 and 2016 Census Data (where available); and • Discussions with City staff regarding the anticipated residential and non- residential development trends for the City of Pickering. 1 Population forecast for Seaton includes the net Census undercount. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx 85 Page 8 3.3 Summary of Growth Forecast A detailed analysis of the residential and non-residential growth forecast is provided in Appendix A. The discussion provided herein summarizes the anticipated growth for the City and describes the basis for the forecast. The results of the residential growth forecast analysis are summarized in Figure 3-1 below, and Schedule 1 in Appendix A. Figure 3-1 Household Formation -Based Population and Household Forecast Model DEMAND SUPPLY Historical Housing Construction Employment Market by Local Municipality , Economic Outlook Local, Regional and Provincial Forecast of Residential Units Occupancy Assumptions Gross Population Increase Decline in Existing Population Net Population Increase Residential Units in the Development Process Intensification Designated Lands Servicing Capacity Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12017 DC StudylReportlPickering DC Background Study-Final.docx 86 Page 9 As identified in Table 3-1 and Schedule 1, the City's population is anticipated to reach approximately 168,170 by 2028 and 180,885 by 2031.1 This represents an increase of 75,000 persons and 87,700 persons, respectively, over the 10 -year and long-term forecast periods. Further, the population forecast summarized in Schedule 1 excludes the net Census undercount, which is estimated at approximately 4.6%. The Census undercount represents the net number of persons missed during Census enumeration. In calculating the D.C. for the City, the net Census undercount has been excluded from the growth forecast. Accordingly, all references provided herein to the population forecast exclude the net Census undercount. 1. Unit Mix (Appendix A — Schedules 1 through 6) • The unit mix for the City was derived from historical development activity (as per Schedule 7) and discussions with planning staff regarding anticipated development trends for the City. • Based on the above, the long-term (2018-2031) household growth forecast is comprised of a housing unit mix of approximately 26% low density (single detached and semi-detached), 41% medium density (multiples except apartments) and 33% high density (bachelor, 1 bedroom and 2+ bedroom apartments). 2. Geographic Location of Residential Development (Appendix A — Schedule 2) • Schedule 2 summarizes the anticipated amount, type and location of residential development for the City by development location. The percentage of forecast housing growth between 2018 and 2031 by area within the City is summarized below. • Seaton 62% • Remaining City of Pickering 38% 3. Planning Period • Short-term and longer-term time horizons are required for the D.C. process. The D.C.A. limits the planning horizon for certain services, such as parks and recreation, and libraries, to a 10 -year planning horizon. Transportation and stormwater management services utilize a long-term forecast period. 1 It is noted that 36,500 persons (including the net Census undercount) and 11,700 households have been reserved for Northeast Pickering between 2027 and 2031 as the population and households for this area have been deferred. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12017 DC StudylReport\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx 87 Page 10 Table 3-1 City of Pickering Residential Growth Forecast Summa Year Population (Including Census Undercountj' Population (Excluding Census Undercount) institutional Population Population Excluding Institutional Population Housing Units Singles &Semi• Detached Molt pie ❑wallingsa Apartments a Other Total Households Person Per Unit (PPU) Mxf2006 91,880 87.838 595 87,243 20,335 4.770 3,110 10 28.225 3.11 o 7) Mrd 2011 92,800 88,721 595 68,126 20,740 5,380 3,190 15 29,325 3.03 z Mrd 2076 95,990 91.771 776 90,995 21.125 6,065 3,695 30 30,915 2.97 Early 2018 97,460 93,176 788 92,388 21,414 6,440 3,733 30 31,617 2.95 S m Early2023 137,490 131,445 1,111 130,334 26,154 12,742 8,368 30 47,294 2.78 o Early 2028 175,910 168,172 1,422 166,750 29,593 18,439 13,126 30 61,189 2.75 Mid 2031 189,206 180,885 1,530 179,356 30,192 20,228 15,080 30 65,530 2.76 Mid 2006 - Mid 2011 920 883 0 883 405 610 80 5 1,100 Mid 2011 -Mid 2016 3,190 3,050 181 2,869 385 685 505 15 1,590 a Mid 2016 - Early 2018 1,470 1,405 12 1,393 289 375 38 0 702 E Early 2018 - Early 2023 40,030 38,269 323 37,946 4,740 6,302 - 4,635 0 15,677 c Early 2018 - Early 2028 78,450 74,996 634 74,362 8,179 11,999 9,393 0 29,572 4 Early 2018 - Mid 2631 91,748 87,709 742 86,968 8,778 13,788 11,347 0 33,913 Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2018. Derived from Du ham Region Official Plan. Note: Population forecas excludes Northeast Pickering. Nate: A total of approximately 36,500 persons (including the net Census undercount) and 11,700 households have been reserved for Northeast Pickering between 2027 and 2031 as the population and households allocated to this area have been deferred. 1, Census Undercount estimated at approximately 4.6°%. Note: Population Including the Undercount has been rounded, 2. includes townhomes and apartments in duplexes. 3. Includes bachelor, 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom+ apartments Watson 8 Associates Economists Ltd H:IPickering12017 DC SthdylReporttPickering DC Background Study-Frnal.docx Page 11 4. Population in New Units (Appendix A - Schedules 2 through 5) • The number of housing units to be constructed in the City during the short- term and long-term periods are presented in Figure 3-2. Over the 14 -year forecast period, the City is anticipated to average 2,422 housing units annually. • Population in new units is derived from Schedules 3 through 6, which incorporate historical development activity, anticipated units (see unit mix discussion) and average persons per unit by dwelling type for new units. • Schedules 7 and 8 summarizes the average number of persons per unit (P.P.U.) for the new permanent residential housing units by age and type of dwelling, based on 2011 custom Census data for the City. The 20 -year average P.P.U.'s by dwelling type are as follows: • Low density: • Medium density: • High density: 3.53 2.85 2.03 5. Existing Units and Population Change (Appendix A - Schedules 2 through 6) • Existing households estimates as of 2018 are based on the 2016 Census households, plus estimated residential units constructed between 2016 and 2018, assuming a 6 -month lag between construction and occupancy (see Schedule 3). • The decline in average occupancy levels for existing housing units is calculated in Schedules 3 through 5, by aging the existing population over the forecast period. The forecast population decline in existing households over the 2018 to 2031 forecast period is estimated at approximately 6,370. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12017 DC StudylReport\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx 89 7 Page 12 Figure 3-2 City of Pickering Annual Housing Forecast Housing Units 3,500 9,054 3.354 3,054 3,053 3,000 -- 2,500 - Years 3,112 3.112 3.112 3,112 3.112 1447 1,447 1,447 1,447 tO =Historical =Low Density Medium Density =High Density —Historical Average Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12O17 DC Study)ReportiPickering DC Background Study-Final.docx Page 13 6. Employment (Appendix A, Schedules 9a, 9b and 9c) • Employment projections are largely based on the activity rate method, which is defined as the number of jobs in the City divided by the number of residents. Key employment sectors include primary, industrial, commercial/population-related, institutional, and work at home, which are considered individually below. • The City's 20111 employment base by place of work is outlined in Schedule 9a. The 2011 employment base is comprised of the following sectors: • 80 primary (less than 1%); • 3,080 work at home employment (approx. 9%); • 13,170 industrial (approx. 39%); • 13,010 commercial/population-related (approx. 39%); and • 4,320 institutional (approx. 13%). • The 2011 employment base by usual place of work, including work at home, is approximately 33,660 jobs. An additional 2,570 jobs have been identified for the City as having no fixed place of work (N.F.P.O.W.).2 The total employment including N.F.P.O.W. in 2011 is 36,230. As of early 2018 the City's total employment base is estimated at 38,770. • Schedule 9b, Appendix A, summarizes the employment forecast, excluding work at home and N.F.P.O.W. employment, which is the basis for the D.C. employment forecast. The impact on municipal services from work at home employees has already been included in the population forecast. The need for municipal services related to N.F.P.O.W. employees has largely been included in the employment forecast by usual place of work (i.e. employment and G.F.A. in the retail and accommodation sectors generated from N.F.P.O.W. construction employment). Furthermore, since these employees have no fixed work address, they cannot be captured in the non-residential gross floor area (G. F.A.) calculation. Accordingly, work -at-home and N.F.P.O.W. employees have been removed from the D.C. employment forecast and calculation. 1 2011 Employment is based on Statistics Canada 2011 Places of Work Employment dataset. 2 Statistics Canada defines "No Fixed Place of Work" (N.F.P.O.W.) employees as, "persons who do not go from home to the same work place location at the beginning of each shift. Such persons include building and landscape contractors, travelling salespersons, independent truck drivers, etc." Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12017 DC StudylReport\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx 91 Page 14 • Total employment for City (excluding work at home and N.F.P.O.W.) is anticipated to reach approximately 53,690 by 2028 and 63,900 by 2031. This represents an employment increase of approximately 21,120 and 31,330 additional jobs over the 10 -year and long-term forecast periods, respectively. 7. Non -Residential Square Footage Estimates (Gross Floor Area (G.F.A.)), Appendix A, Schedule 9b and 9c) • Square footage estimates were calculated in Schedule 9b based on the following employee density assumptions:1 • 1,200 sq.ft. per employee for industrial; • 400 sq.ft. per employee for commercial/population-related; and • 675 sq.ft. per employee for institutional employment. • The City-wide incremental non-residential G.F.A. increase is anticipated to be approximately 20.1 million sq.ft. over the 10 -year forecast period and 30.8 million sq.ft. over the long-term forecast period. • In terms of percentage growth, the long-term incremental G.F.A. forecast by sector is broken down as follows: • industrial — approx. 86%; • commercial/population-related — approx. 10%; and • institutional — approx. 4%. • The employment and GFA allocation between Seaton and the remaining areas of the City has been developed in accordance with the employment forecast established for the City as a whole and the Seaton Community in accordance with the Durham ROP and City of Pickering O.P. 1 Based on Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. employment surveys. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12017 DC StudylReport\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx 92 Page 15 4. The Approach to the Calculation of the Charge This chapter addresses the requirements of s.s.5(1) of the D.C.A., 1997 with respect to the establishment of the need for service which underpins the D.C. calculation. These requirements are illustrated schematically in Figure 4-1. 4.1 Services Potentially Involved Table 4-1 lists the full range of municipal service categories which are provided within the City. A number of these services are defined in s.s.2(4) of the D.C.A., 1997 as being ineligible for inclusion in D.C.s. These are shown as "ineligible" on Table 4-1. In addition, two ineligible costs defined in s.s.5(3) of the D.C.A. are "computer equipment" and "rolling stock with an estimated useful life of [less than] seven years..." In addition, local roads are covered separately under subdivision agreements and related means (as are other local services). Moreover, some services, such as water and wastewater services are provided by the Regional Municipality. Services which are potentially eligible for inclusion in the City's D.C. are indicated with a "Yes". The D.C.A allows municipalities to define services for inclusion in the by-law. In discussions with City staff it was determined that services previously defined as Operations, which includes services related to both Transportation Services and Parks and Recreation Services that these should be defined separately. As such the Transportation Services component of operations has been defined herein as Other Services Related to Highways. The component of operations related to Parks and Recreation Services have been included within that service definition. In addition, the City's existing D.C. By-law defines Parks Development and Major Indoor Recreation Facilities as separate services. These services have been combined into one service defined herein as Parks and Recreation Services. Finally, Protection Services has been expanded to include services related to by-law enforcement and animal enforcement services. 4.2 Local Service Policy The D.C. calculation commences with an estimate of "the increase in the need for service attributable to the anticipated development," for each service to be covered by the By -Law. There must be some form of link or attribution between the anticipated Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12017 DC StudylReport\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx 93 Page 16 development and the estimated increase in the need for service. While the need could conceivably be expressed generally in terms of units of capacity, s.s.5(1)3, which requires that municipal council indicate that it intends to ensure that such an increase in need will be met, suggests that a project -specific expression of need would be most appropriate. Some of the need for services generated by additional development consists of local services related to a plan of subdivision. As such, they will be required as a condition of subdivision agreements or consent conditions. The City's general policy guidelines on D.C. and local service funding is detailed in Appendix F to this report. 4.3 Capital Forecast Paragraph 7 of s.s.5(1) of the D.C.A. requires that, "the capital costs necessary to provide the increased services must be estimated." The Act goes on to require two potential cost reductions and the Regulation sets out the way in which such costs are to be presented. These requirements are outlined below. These estimates involve capital costing of the increased services discussed above. This entails costing actual projects or the provision of service units, depending on how each service has been addressed. The capital costs include: a) costs to acquire land or an interest therein (including a leasehold interest); b) costs to improve land; c) costs to acquire, lease, construct or improve buildings and structures; d) costs to acquire, lease or improve facilities including rolling stock (with a useful life of 7 or more years), furniture and equipment (other than computer equipment), materials acquired for library circulation, reference or information purposes; e) interest on money borrowed to pay for the above -referenced costs; f) costs to undertake studies in connection with the above -referenced matters; and g) costs of the D.C. background study. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H.1Pickering12017 DC StudylReportlPickering DC Background Study-Final.docx 94 Tax Base, User Rates, ■ etc. Subdivision Agreements and Consent Provisions Figure 4-1 The Process of Calculating a D.C. under the Act Anticipated Development 2. Ineligible Services Estimated Increase in Need For Service 7. Specified Local Services Financing, Inflation and Investment Considerations ; 14. DC Needs By Service 8 4 Page 17 Ceiling Re: Increased Need 4 Needs That Will Be Mel 5 ■ Examination of the Lona Tenn Capital and Operating Costs For Capital Infrastructure fS Less: Uncommitted Excess Capacity Q Less: Benefit To Existing Devpt. DC Net Capital Costs Costs for new development vs. exrsting development for the term of the by-law and the balance of the period 13. Less: ■ Grants, Subsidies and Other Contributions Q Less: 10% Where Applicable 1 Amount of the Charge By Type of Development (including apportionment of costs residential and non-residential) 16. DC By-law(s) Spatial Applicability j 15. 11. Consideration of exemptions, phase -ins, etc. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H: tPickering12O17 DC StudylReporttPickerrng DC Background Study -Final. docx 95 Page 18 Table 4-1 Categories of Municipal Services To Be Addressed as Part of the Calculation Categories of Municipal Services Eligibility for Inclusion in the D.C. Calculation Service Components Maximum Potential D.C. Recovery % 1. Services Yes 1.1 Arterial roads 100 Related to a Yes 1.2 Collector roads 100 Highway Local Service 1.3 Local roads 100 Yes 1.4 Intersections and Traffic signals 100 Yes 1.5 Sidewalks and streetlights 100 2. Other n/a 2.1 Transit vehicles 100 Transportat- n/a 2.2 Other transit infrastructure 100 ion Services n/a 2.3 Municipal parking spaces - indoor 90 No 2.4 Municipal parking spaces - outdoor 90 Yes 2.5 Works Yards 100 Yes 2.6 Rolling stock' 100 n/a 2.7 Ferries 90 n/a 2.8 Airport facilities 90 3. Storm Water Drainage and Yes 3.1 Main channels and drainage trunks 100 Control Yes 3.2 Channel connections 100 Services Local Service 3.3 Retention/detention ponds 100 4. Fire Yes 4.1 Fire stations 100 Protection Services Yes 4.2 Fire pumpers, aerials and rescue vehicles 100 Yes 4.3 Small equipment and gear 100 5. Outdoor Recreation Ineligible 5.1 Acquisition of land for parks, woodlots and E.S.A.s 0 Services (i.e. Parks and Yes 5.2 Development of area municipal parks 90 Open Space) Yes 5.3 Development of district parks 90 Yes 5.5 Development of special purpose parks 90 Yes 5.6 Parks rolling stock' and yards 90 'with 7+ year life time 2same percentage as service component to which it pertains computer equipment excluded throughout Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12017 DC StudylReportlPickering DC Background Study-Final.docx 96 Page 19 Categories of Municipal Services Eligibility for Service Components Maximum Inclusion in Potential the D.C. D.C. Calculation Recovery % 6. Indoor Recreation Services Yes 6.1 Arenas, indoor pools, fitness facilities, community centres, etc. (including land) 90 Yes 6.2 Recreation vehicles and equipment' 90 7. Library Services Yes 7.1 Public library space (incl. furniture and equipment) 90 Yes 7.2 Library materials 90 8. Electrical Ineligible 8.1 Electrical substations 0 Power Ineligible 8.2 Electrical distribution system 0 Services Ineligible 8.3 Electrical system rolling stock' 0 9. Provision of Cultural, Entertainment Ineligible 9.1 Cultural space (e.g. art galleries, museums and theatres) 0 and Tourism Facilities and Ineligible 9.2 Tourism facilities and convention centres 0 Convention Centres 10. Waste Water n/a 10.1 Treatment plants 100 Services n/a 10.2 Collection systems 100 n/a 10.3 Local systems 100 11. Water Supply n/a 11.1 Treatment plants 100 Services n/a 11.2 Distribution systems 100 n/a 11.3 Local systems 100 12. Waste Management n/a 12.1 Collection, transfer vehicles and equipment 90 Services Ineligible 12.3 Landfills and other disposal facilities 0 n/a 12.3 Other waste diversion facilities 90 13. Police n/a 13.1 Police detachments 100 Services n/a 13.2 Police rolling stock' 100 n/a 13.3 Small equipment and gear 100 14. Homes for the Aged n/a 14.1 Homes for the aged space 90 15. Day Care n/a 15.1 Day care space 90 16. Health n/a 16.1 Health department space 90 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12017 DC StudylReportlPickering DC Background Study-Final.docx 97 Page 20 Categories of Municipal Services Eligibility for Inclusion in the D.C. Calculation Service Components Maximum Potential D.C. Recovery % 17. Social n/a 17.1 Social service space 90 Services Municipality provides the service - service has not been included in the DC Calculation n/a Municipality does not provide the service 18.Ambulance n/a 18.1 Ambulancestation space 90 n/a 18.2 Vehicles' 90 19. Hospital Ineligible 19.1 Hospital capital contributions 0 Provision 20. Provision of Ineligible 20.1 Office space (all services) 0 Head- Ineligible 20.2 Office furniture 0 quarters for the General Ineligible 20.3 Computer equipment 0 Administra- tion of Municipalities and Area Municipal Boards 21.Other Services Yes 21.1 Studies in connection with acquiring buildings, rolling stock, materials and equipment, and improving land2 and facilities, including the D.C. background study cost 0-100 Yes 21.2 Interest on money borrowed to pay for growth -related capital 0-100 Eligibility for Inclusion in the DC Description Calculation Yes Municipality provides the service - service has been included in the DC Calculation No Municipality provides the service - service has not been included in the DC Calculation n/a Municipality does not provide the service Ineligible Service is ineligible for inclusion in the DC calculation 'with 7+ year life time 2same percentage as service component to which it pertains computer equipment excluded throughout Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H: IPickering12017 DC StudylReport\Pickering DC Background Study -Final. docx 98 Page 21 In order for an increase in need for service to be included in the D.C. calculation, municipal council must indicate "...that it intends to ensure that such an increase in need will be met" (s.s.5(1)3). This can be done if the increase in service forms part of a Council -approved Official Plan, capital forecast or similar expression of the intention of Council (O. Reg. 82/98 s.3). The capital program contained herein reflects the City's approved and proposed capital budgets and master servicing/needs assessments. 4.4 Treatment of Credits Section 8 para. 5 of O.Reg. 82/98 indicates that a D.C. background study must set out, "the estimated value of credits that are being carried forward relating to the service." s.s.17 para. 4 of the same Regulation indicates that, "...the value of the credit cannot be recovered from future D.C.s," if the credit pertains to an ineligible service. This implies that a credit for eligible services can be recovered from future D.C.s. As a result, this provision should be made in the calculation, in order to avoid a funding shortfall with respect to future service needs. The City currently has no outstanding credit obligations. 4.5 Eligible Debt and Committed Excess Capacity Section 66 of the D.C.A., 1997 states that for the purposes of developing a D.C. by-law, a debt incurred with respect to an eligible service may be included as a capital cost, subject to any limitations or reductions in the Act. Similarly, s.18 of O.Reg. 82/98 indicates that debt with respect to an ineligible service may be included as a capital cost, subject to several restrictions. In order for such costs to be eligible, two conditions must apply. First, they must have funded excess capacity which is able to meet service needs attributable to the anticipated development. Second, the excess capacity must be "committed," that is, either before or at the time it was created, Council must have expressed a clear intention that it would be paid for by D.C.s or other similar charges. For example, this may have been done as part of previous D.C. processes. The City will be issuing debt for the New Operations Centre that is currently under construction. The anticipated debt repayment costs have been included in the calculation of the charge. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12017 DC StudylReport\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx 99 Page 22 4.6 Existing Reserve Funds Section 35 of the D.C.A. states that: "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)." There is no explicit requirement under the D.C.A. calculation method set out in s.s.5(1) to net the outstanding reserve fund balance as part of making the D.C. calculation; however, s.35 does restrict the way in which the funds are used in future. The City's projected uncommitted D.C. reserve fund balances, by service, as at December 31, 2017 are presented in Table 4-2. Projected balances account for 2017 D.C. commitments as well as anticipated D.C. collections to December 31, 2017. These balances have been applied against future spending requirements for all services. Incomplete D.C. eligible capital projects for which D.C. Reserve Fund balances have been committed have not been included in the capital needs identified in the D.C. Background Study. Table 4-2 City of Pickering Projected Uncommitted D.C. Reserve Funds Balances (December 31, 2017) Service Total Protection Services (254,176) Parks and Recreation Services 16,528,412 Library Services 2,798,782 Administration Studies 673,868 Stormwater Management 976,371 Transportation 18,249,536 Other Services Related to a Highway 153,919 Total 37, 778, 976 4.7 Deductions The D.C.A., 1997 potentially requires that five deductions be made to the increase in the need for service. These relate to: • the level of service ceiling; • uncommitted excess capacity; • benefit to existing development; • anticipated grants, subsidies and other contributions; and • a 10% reduction for certain services. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H.1Pickering12017 DC StudylReportlPickering DC Background Study-Final.docx 100 Page 23 The requirements behind each of these reductions are addressed as follows: 4.7,1 Reduction Required by Level of Service Ceiling This is designed to ensure that the increase in need for services does "...not include an increase that would result in the level of service (for the additional development increment) exceeding the average level of the service provided in the City over the 10 - year period immediately preceding the preparation of the background study..." O.Reg. 82/98 (s.4) goes further to indicate that, "...both the quantity and quality of a service shall be taken into account in determining the level of service and the average level of service." Moreover, the D.C.A., 1997 does not require this historical level of service calculation for transit services. As per subsection 5.2(3) of the D.C.A., "...the estimate for the increase in the need for a prescribed service (i.e. transit services) shall not exceed the planned level of service over the 10 -year period immediately following the preparation of the background study...". In many cases this can be done by establishing a quantity measure in terms of units as floor area, land area or road length per capita, and a quality measure in terms of the average cost of providing such units based on replacement costs, engineering standards or recognized performance measurement systems, depending on circumstances. When the quantity and quality factor are multiplied together, they produce a measure of the level of service, which meets the requirements of the Act, i.e. cost per unit. The average service level calculation sheets for each service component in the D.C. calculation are set out in Appendix B. 4.7.2 Reduction for Uncommitted Excess Capacity Paragraph 5 of s.s.5(1) requires a deduction from the increase in the need for service attributable to the anticipated development that can be met using the City's "excess capacity," other than excess capacity which is "committed" (discussed above in 4.5). "Excess capacity" is undefined, but in this case must be able to meet some or all of the increase in need for service, in order to potentially represent a deduction. The deduction of uncommitted excess capacity from the future increase in the need for service, would normally occur as part of the conceptual planning and feasibility work associated with justifying and sizing new facilities, e.g. if a road widening to accommodate increased traffic is not required because sufficient excess capacity is already available, then widening would not be included as an increase in need, in the first instance. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12017 DC StudylReportlPickering DC Background Study-Final.docx 101 Page 24 4.7.3 Reduction for Benefit to Existing Development This step involves a further reduction to the need, by the extent to which such an increase in service would benefit existing development. The level of services cap is related, but is not the identical requirement. Wastewater (sanitary), stormwater and water trunks are highly localized to growth areas and can be more readily allocated in this regard than other services such as roads which do not have a fixed service area. Where existing development has an adequate service level which will not be tangibly increased by an increase in service, no benefit would appear to be involved. For example, where expanding existing library facilities simply replicates what existing residents are receiving, they receive very limited (or no) benefit as a result. On the other hand, where a clear existing service problem is to be remedied, a deduction should be made accordingly. In the case of services such as recreation facilities, community parks, libraries, etc., the service is typically provided on a municipal -wide system basis. For example, facilities of the same type may provide different services (i.e. leisure pool vs. competitive pool), different programs (i.e. hockey vs. figure skating) and different time availability for the same service (Le. leisure skating available on Wednesday in one arena and Thursday in another). As a result, residents will travel to different facilities to access the services they want at the times they wish to use them, and facility location generally does not correlate directly with residence location. Even where it does, displacing users from an existing facility to a new facility frees up capacity for use by others and generally results in only a very limited benefit to existing development. Further, where an increase in demand is not met for a number of years, a negative service impact to existing development is involved for a portion of the planning period. 4.7,4 Reduction for Anticipated Grants, Subsidies and Other Contributions This step involves reducing the capital costs necessary to provide the increased services by capital grants, subsidies and other contributions made or anticipated by Council and in accordance with various rules such as the attribution between the share related to new vs. existing development O. Reg. 82/98, s.6. Where grant programs do not allow funds to be applied to growth -related capital needs, the proceeds can be applied to the non -growth share of the project exclusively. Moreover, Gas Tax revenues are typically used to fund non -growth -related works or the non -growth share of D.C. projects, given that the contribution is not being made in respect of particular growth -related capital projects. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering12017 DC StudylReportlPickering DC Background Study-Final.docx 102 Page 25 4.7.5 The 10% Reduction Paragraph 8 of s.s.(1) of the D.C.A. requires that, "the capital costs must be reduced by 10 percent." This paragraph does not apply to water supply services, wastewater services, stormwater drainage and control services, services related to a highway, police, fire protection services, and transit services. The primary services that the 10% reduction does apply to include services such as parks and recreation, libraries, childcare/social services, ambulance, homes for the aged and health. The 10% is to be netted from the capital costs necessary to provide the increased services, once the other deductions have been made, as per the infrastructure cost sheets in Chapter 5. 4.8 D.C. By -Law Spatial Applicability There are four basic choices to be addressed when considering the geographic application of a D.C.: 1. the entire municipality for all services (which is the most commonly -used approach); 2. part of the municipality for all services; balance of the municipality is exempt (because it is outside the service's coverage area or can be served at little or no incremental cost); 3. different by-laws and charges in different municipal service areas (in order to recognize distinctly different servicing cost situations); and 4. a uniform municipal -wide charge with separate charge covering additional area - specific services (e.g. the coverage area for specific works). Subsection 2(9) of the D.C.A. may prescribe services for which a D.C. by-law must apply on an area -specific basis. For prescribed services, Council shall pass different D.C. by-laws for different parts of the municipality, in accordance with the prescribed criteria. Currently the Province has not prescribed services under this subsection of the D.C.A. For services that are not prescribed under s.s. 2(9) of the D.C.A., the background study must give consideration of the use of more than one D.C. by-law to reflect different needs for services in different areas. Area -specific charges have been reviewed with City staff. The City's current D.C. policy provides for Transportation Services to be provided on an area -specific basis, with charges differentiated between the Seaton Lands and those lands within the City outside of Seaton. All other service are provided on a uniform City-wide basis. Based on current practice, and associated agreements, no changes are being recommended to the structure of the charges. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12017 DC StudylReport\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx 103 Page 26 5. D.C. Eligible Cost Analysis by Service This chapter outlines the basis for calculating D.C. eligible costs to be applied on a City- wide uniform basis for all services except Transportation Services, andarea-specific basis for Transportation Services only. The required calculation process set out in s.5(1) paragraphs 2 to 8 in the D.C.A., 1997, and described in Chapter 4, was followed in determining D.C. eligible costs. The nature of the capital projects and timing identified in this chapter reflects Council's current intention. However, over time, municipal projects and Council priorities change and, accordingly, Council's intentions may alter and different capital projects (and timing) may be required to meet the need for services required by new growth. 5.1 Service Levels and 10 -Year Capital Costs for City-wide D.C. Calculation This section evaluates the development -related capital requirements for select services over the 10 -year planning period (2018-2027). For these services, each service component is evaluated on two format sheets: the average historical 10 -year level of service calculation (see Appendix B), which "caps" the D.C. amounts; and the infrastructure cost calculation, which determines the potential D.C. recoverable cost. 5.1.1 Protection Services The City currently has 35,700 sq.ft. of floor space within four fire stations and 4,300 sq.ft. of facility floor space related to by-law enforcement and animal enforcement services. The City also maintains an inventory of 39 vehicles and provides approximately 1,000 items of equipment for fire protection equipment. In total, the inventory of Protection Services assets provides a historic average level of service of approximately $340 per capita. The historical level of investment in Protection Services provides for a D.C.-eligible amount over the forecast period of approximately $25.3 million. The City will require funds for two new fire stations within the Seaton Community, six additional vehicles, and equipment for 80 additional firefighters. Furthermore, the City will also requires additional facility space and vehicles for by-law and animal enforcement services. In total, the gross capital cost estimates for the increase in need for service, totals $27.9 million. After deductions of $2.4 million for the benefit to existing development, $626,000 for the statutory 10% deduction related to by-law and animal enforcement service only, the net D.C. eligible costs total $24.9 million. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12017 DC StudylReportlPickering DC Background Study-Final.docx 104 Page 27 Accounting for $254,000 related to reserve fund deficit position, the total D.C. eligible capital costs that have been included in the calculation of the charge are $25.1 million. The allocation of net growth -related costs for fire services between residential, and non- residential development is 78% and 22% respectively, reflective of the incremental growth in population and employment over the forecast period. Non-residential costs have been further allocated between development occurring on prestige employment lands within Seaton (36%) and all other areas of the City (64%) based on the incremental distribution of non-residential employment. 5.1.2 Parks and Recreation The City currently maintains approximately 345 acres of active developed parkland, 478 acres of passive parkland, and maintains 23.2 kilometres of trails and multi -use paths. Furthermore, the City utilizes 531,000 sq.ft. of recreation and parks operations facility space in providing parks and recreation services. To assist in the provision of services through the aforementioned facilities, parks and trails inventory, the City utilizes 186 vehicle and equipment items. The City's level of service over the historic 10 -year period averaged $2,693 per capita. In total, the maximum D.C.-eligible amount for Recreation and Parks Services over the 10 -year forecast period is approximately $200.2 million based on the established level of service standards. The 10 -year capital needs for parks and recreation services to accommodate growth have a total gross capital cost of approximately $176.9 million. These capital needs are comprised of future parkland and trail development, additional indoor recreation space needs, and additional parks maintenance vehicles and the share of operations facilities related to parks. Approximately $15.7 million has been deducted to reflect the benefit to the existing of the identified projects, and a further $17.4 million has been deducted to account for development benefits post -2027. The statutory 10% deduction applicable for recreation and parks totals $14.1 million. Approximately $16.5 million has been deducted from the D.C. recoverable capital costs recognizing the existing reserve fund balance, resulting in net growth -related capital costs for inclusion in the D.C. calculation of approximately $113.4 million. As the predominant users of parks and recreation services tend to be residents of the City, the forecast growth -related costs have been allocated 95% to residential development and 5% to non-residential development. Non-residential costs have been further allocated between development occurring on prestige employment lands within Seaton (36%) and all other areas of the City (64%) based on the incremental distribution of non-residential employment. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12017 DC StudylReportlPickering DC Background Study-Final.docx 105 Page 28 5.1.3 Library Services Library services are provided by the City through the provision of approximately 45,200 sq.ft. of facility space, 379,000 library collection material items, and one vehicle. The average level of service provided over the historical 10 -year period based on this inventory is $375 per capital. When applied to anticipated growth over the 2018-2027 period, the per capita level of service produces a maximum D.C. eligible amount for library services of approximately $27.9 million. The gross capital cost included in the D.C. calculation for the 10 -year forecast period is $44.7 million. The capital cost estimates include a new library branch in Seaton (including land and materials), an expansion to the Central Library Facility and additional library space at the Pickering Heritage and Community Centre. Deductions for the benefit to existing development total $6.2 million. A further $7.8 million has been deducted to reflect the benefits to development beyond the 10 -year planning period. Furthermore, deductions of approximately $3.1 million for the required 10% statutory deduction have been applied. There is a current reserve fund balance of $2.8 million, when applied results in a net D.C. recoverable capital cost of $24.8 million which has been included in the D.C. calculation. Similar to Parks and Recreation Services, the predominant users of library services tend to be residents of the City, as such the forecast growth -related costs have been allocated 95% to residential development and 5% to non-residential development. Non- residential costs have been further allocated 36% to prestige employment lands within Seaton and 64% to all other areas of the City, based on the incremental distribution of non-residential employment. 5.9.4 Administration The D.C.A. permits the inclusion of studies undertaken to facilitate the completion of the City's capital works program and the D.C. Background Study. The City has made provision for the inclusion of new studies undertaken to facilitate future D.C. processes, as well as other studies which benefit future growth, including facility related studies, master plans, and planning studies, including a municipal comprehensive review and official plan review. The gross capital cost estimates for these studies total approximately $12.5 million over the 10 -year forecast period. Approximately $674,000 has been added for existing reserve fund deficits, and approximately $4.7 million has been deducted in recognition of the benefits to the existing population. Applying the 10% statutory deduction, the net Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H.IPickering12017 DC StudylReport\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx 106 Page 29 growth -related capital costs included in the calculation of the charge totals approximately $7.9 million. These costs have been allocated 78% to residential development, and 22% to non- residential development (8% prestige employment lands within Seaton and 14% all other areas of the City) based on the incremental growth in population to employment for the 10 -year forecast period. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12017 DC StudylReport\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx 107 Page 30 Infrastructure Costs Covered in the D.C. Calculation - Protection Services Prj .No Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated p Development 2018-2027 Timing (year) Gross Capital Cost Estimate (2017$) Post Period Benefit Net Capital Cost Less: Subtotal Less: Other (e.g. 10% Statutory Deduction) Potential DC Recoverable Cost Benefit to Existing Development Grants, Subsidies and Other Contributions Attributable to New Development Total Residential Share 78% Non - Residential Share 22% Facilities 11111111.11111.1111.MOM 1 Fire Station A (Seaton) 2019 5,804,202 - 5,804,202 145,105 5,659,097 5,659,097 4,414,096 1,245,001 Fire Station B, including land (Seaton) Animal Shelter& B -Law Services, including land 2023 2020 8,230,000 8,066,000 8,230,000 8,066,000 205,750 1,963,896 8,024,250 6,102,104 610,210 8,024,250 5,491,894 6,258,915 4,283,677 1,765,335 1 208 217 1 small vehicle (Seaton) 2018 45,000 - 45,000 MEI 43,875 43,875 111053) 9,653 5 1 Aerial (Seaton) 2019 1,510,900 - 1,510,900 37,773 1,473,128 - 1,473,128 1,149,039 324,088 Aerial (Fire Station B) (Seaton) 2023 1,510,900 - 1,510,900 ® 1,473,128 1,473,128 1,149,039 324,088 Small vehicle (2) (Seaton) 2023 90,000 90,000 2,250 87,750 87,750 68,445 19,305 8 Pumper (Fire Station B) (Seaton) 2023 900,000 - 900,000 22,500 877,500 M. 877,500 684,450 193,050 9 Provision for additional By-law and Animal Services Enforcement VehiclesIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIII 2018-2027 158,000 - 158,000 3,950 154,050 15,405 138,645 108,143 30,502 ___ _ 11111111111111 Equipment ��- IIIIIIIMII 10 Equipment for 20 Firefighters incl. Bunker Gear and Breathin • A • •aratus Station A 2019 394,500 394,500 394,500 394,500 307,710 86,790 11 Equipment for 20 Firefighters incl. Bunker Gear and Breathing A. •aratus Station A 2021 394,500 394,500 IIIIIIINMIIIII 394,500 394,500 307,710 86,790 12 Equipment for 20 Firefighters incl. Bunker Gear and Breathin. A••aratus Station B 2023 394,500 394,500 394,500 394,500 307,710 86,790 13 Equipment for 20 Firefighters incl. Bunker Gear and Breathin. A••aratus Station B 2024 394,500 - 394,500 - 394,500 394,500 307,710 86,790 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 11111111111111 Reserve Fund Adjustment 254,176 198,257 55,919 Total 27,893,002 - 27,893,002 2,420,121 - 25,472,881 625,615 25,101,442 19,579,125 5,522,317 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H.:1Pickering12017 DC StudylReport\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx Page 31 Infrastructure Costs Covered in the D.C. Calculation - Parks and Recreation Services Prj.No Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated P Development 2018-2027 Parks Code Timing (year) Capital Gross Ca P Cost Estimate (2017$) Post Period Benefit Net Capital Cost Less: Less: Other (e.g. 10% Statutory Deduction) Potential DC Recoverable Cost Benefit to Existing Development Grants, Subsidies and Other Contributions Attributable to New Development P Subtotal Total Residential Share 95% Non - Residential Share 5% 1 Parks Parking lot expansion - Village East Park 2018-2027 107,900 107,900 80,925 26,975 2,698 24,278 2364 ,0 1,214 2 _.�._._.. Washroom/changerooms -Rotary Frenchman's Bay West Park 2019 500,000 500,000 250,000 250,000 25,000 225,000 .. 213,750 .. 11,25050 3 Frenchman's Bay Waterfront Master Plan Implementation (ph 1A & ph 1B) 2018 2,755,000 2,755,000 1,377,500 1,377,500 137,750 1,239,750 1,177,763 61,988 Frenchman's Bay Waterfront Master Plan Implementation (ph 2) 2018-2019 2,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 100,000 900,000 855,000 45,000 5 Frenchman's Bay Waterfront Master Plan Implementation (ph 3) 2019-2020 950,000 950,000 475,000 475,000 47,500 427,500 406,125 21,375 6 _ Community Park - Greenwood Conservation Lands (ph 1) 2021-2023 2024-2027 5,396,000 3,777,200 5,396,000 3,777,200 2,698,000 219 56 2,698,000 269,800 2,428,200 2306,790 121,410 Community Park - Greenwood Conservation Lands (ph 2) 2.557.639 255,764 2.301,875 2.186.782 115,094 B . ., Park - Krosno Creek valley -Hwy 401 to Bayly 2019-2023 269,800 269,800 ,960 2620 242,820 24,282 218,538 ..,...20 7,611 �._._._10 10,927 9 Park -The Piazza -downtown south intensification 2019-2023 539,600 539,600 53,960 485,640 48,564 437,076 415,222 21,854 10 Skate Board Park - Community Size (Civic Centre) 2019 700,000 - 700,000 350,000 350,000 36000 315,000 299,250 15,750 11 Skate Board Park - Skate Spots (2 locations) 2018-2022 400,000 - 400,000 200,000 200,000 20,000 180,000 171,000 9,000 12 Village Green Construction - Kindwin Development (Brock Road) 2018 250,000 - 250,000 -- 6,250 243,750 24,375 219,375 208,406 10,969 13 D.H. Neighbourhood Park (Dersan & Tillings Road) 201- 600,000 -600,000 5,000 585,000 58,500 526,500 500,175 Seaton Parkland 14 Neighbourhood Park P-102 2018 950,000 950,000 23,750 926,250 92,625 633,625 791,944 41,681 15 Village Green P-103 2018 210,000 210,000 5,250 204,750 20,475 184,275 175,061 9,214 16 Village Green P-104 2018-2019 285,000 285,000 7,125 277,875 27,788 250,088 237,563 12,504 17 18 19 20 Village Green Village Green Neighbourhood Park Village Green P-105 P-106 P-107 9-108 2019-2020 2019-2020 2019 2019-2020 230,000 120,000 440,000 250,000 230,000 120,000 440,000 250,000 5,750 3,000 11,000 6,250 224,250 117,000 429,000 243,750 22,425 11,700 42,900 24,375 201,825 105,300 3867100 219,375 191,734 100,035 366,795 208,406 10,091 5,265 19305 '... 10,969 21 Neighbourhood Park P-109 2019-2020 550,000 550,000 13,750 536,250 53,625 482,625 458,494 24,131 22 Village Green 9-110 2019-202D 230,000 230,000 5,750 224,250 22,425 201,825 191,734 10,091 23 Village Green 9-111 2019-2020 170,000 170,000 4,250 165,750 16,575 149,175 141,716 7,459 24 Village Green P-112 2021 260,000 260,000 6,500 253,500 25,350 228,150 216,743 11,408 25 Village Green P-113 2021- 150,000 150,000 3,750 146,250 14,625 131,625 125,044 6,581 26 Village Green P-114 2019-2020 222,000 222,000 5,550 216,450 21,645 194,805 185,065 - 9,740 27 Community Park at Recreation Centre P-115 2022 3,000,000 3,000,000 75,000 2,925,000 292,500 2,632,500 2,500,875 131,625 28 Village Green P-116 2020-2021 230,000 230,000 5,750 224,250 22,425 201,825 191,734 10,091 29 Neighbourhood Park P-117 2020-2021 540,000 540,000 13,500 526,500 52,650 473,850 450,158 23,693 30 Village Green 9-118 2020-2021 230,000 230,000 5,750 224,250 22,425 201,825 191,734 10,091 31 32 33 34 Village Green Neighbourhood Park Village Green Neighbourhood Park P-119 P-120 P-121 P-122 2020-2021 2020-2021 2020 2021 480,000 500,000 390,000 590,000 480,000 500,000 390,000 590,000 12,000 12,500 9,750 14,750 468,000 487,500 380,250 575,250 46,800 48,750 38,025 57,525 421,200 438,750 342,225 517,725 400,140 416,813 325,114 491,839 21,060 21,938 17,111 25,886 35 Community Park P-123 2024-2025 2,550,000 2,550,000 _ 63,750 2,486,250 248,625 2,237,625 2,125,744 111,881 36 Neighbourhood Park P-124 2023 540,000 - 540,000 13,500 526,500 52,650 473,850 450,158 37 Village Green 9-125 2023-2024 240,000 - 240,000 6,000 234,000 23,400 210,600 200,070 10,530 38 Village Green P-126 2023-2024 260,000 - 260,000 6,500 253,500 25,350 228,150 216,743 11,408 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H::1Pickering12017 DC StudylReport\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx Page 32 Infrastructure Costs Covered in the D.C. Calculation - Parks and Recreation Services (Cont'd) P 8.No Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated p Development 2018-2027 Parks Code Timing (year) Gross Capital p Cost Estimate (2017$) Post Period Benefit Net Capital Cost Less: Subtotal Less: Other (e.g. 10% Statutory Deduction) Potential DC Recoverable Cost Benefit to Existing Development Grants, Subsidies and Other Contributions Attributable to New Development Total Residential Share 95% Non - Residential share 5% 39 Village Green P-127 2023-2024 230,000 - 230,000 5,750 224,250 22,425 201,825 191,734 10,091 ._..______�__ 40 Neighbourhood Park P-128 2026 590,000 - 590,000 14,750 575,250 57,525 517,725 491,639 39 25, _6 25,886 41 Community Park at Recreation Centre II P-129 2028-2031 800,000 600,000 - _ _ _ ....�______- 42 Village Green P-130 2026 230,000 - 230,000 5,750 224,250 22,425 201,825 191,734 10,091 43 Neighbourhood Park 9-131 2026 600,000 - 600,000 15,000 585,000 58,500 526,500 500,175 26,325 44 Village Green 9-132 2028-2031 230,000 230,000- - - _ _ 45 Village Green P-133 2028-2031 210,000 210,000- - _ _ - _ - 46 Neighbourhood Park 9-134 2028-2031 700,000 700,000- - _ 47 Neighbourhood Park 9-135 2028-2031 560,000 560,000- - _ _ - - -- 48 Village Green P-136 2028-2031 230,000 230,000- - _ _ - _ _ -_ 49 Village Green P-137 2027 230,000 - 230,000 5,750 224,250 22,425 201,825 191,734 10,0-9-1- 50 Village Green - P-138 2027 230,000 - 230,000 5,750 224,250 22,425 201,825 191,734 10,091 51 Village Green 9-139 2027 300,000 - 300,000 7,500 292,500 29,250 263,250 250,088 13,169- 52 Village Green P-140 2028-2031 270,000 270,000 - - - - _, _ _ 53 Community Park P-141 2028-2031 3,300,000 3,300,000 - - - - _ _ - 54 Neighbourhood Park P-142 2028-2031 890,000 890,000 - - 55 Village Green P-143 2028-2031 230,000 230,000 - - - _ _ _ _ 56 District Park (Phase 1) P-144 2027 9,000,000 - 9,000,000 225,000 8,775,000 877,500 7,897,500 7,502,625 394,875 57 District Park (Phase 2) 9-144 2028-2031 9,000,000 9,000,000 - - - _ _ _ - Trails - 58 Seaton Prima Neighbourhood Connection Trails 1 major stream crossing__ Primary g T-1 2020 360,000 - 360,000 9,000 351,000 35,100 315,900 300,105 15,795 59 Seaton Primary Neighbourhood Connection Trails 1 minor stream crossing T-2 2020 360,000- 360000 9,000 351,000 35100 315,900 300,105 15,795 60 Seaton Primary Neighbourhood Connection Trails 1 major stream crossing T-3 2021 410,000 - 410,000 10,250 399,750 39,975 359,775 341,786 17,989 61 Seaton Primary Neighbourhood Connection Trails 1 major stream crossing T-4 2021 380,000 - 380,000 9,500 370,500 37,050 333,450 316,778 16,673 62 Seaton Primary Neighbourhood Connection Trails 2 major stream crossing T-5 2021 710,000 - 710,000 17,750 692,250 69,225 623,025 591,874 31,151 63 Seaton Primary Neighbourhood Connection Trails 2 major stream crossing T-6 2024 800,000- 800,000 20,000 780,000 78,000 702,000 666900 35,100 ''.. 64 Seaton Primary Neighbourhood Connection Trails 1 minor stream crossing T-7 2024 370,000 - 370,000 9,250 360,750 36,075 324,675 308,441 16,234 65 Seaton Primary Neighbourhood Connection Trails 2 major stream crossing T-8 2026 930,000- 930,000 23,250 906,750 90,675 816,075 775,271 40,804 66 Seaton Primary Neighbourhood Connection Trails 1 minor stream crossing T-9 2022 140,000 - 140,000 3,500 136,500 13,650 122,850 116,708 6,143 67 Seaton Primary Neighbourhood Connection Trails 1 major stream crossing T-10 2022 320,000 - 320,000 8,000 312,000 31,200 280,800 266,760 14,040 68 Seaton Primary Neighbourhood Connection Trails 1 major stream crossing g � T-11 2027 340,000 - 340,000 8,500 331,500 33,150 298,3 50 263,433 14,918 69 Seaton Primary Neighbourhood Connection Trails 1 major stream crossing T-12 2028-2031 310,000 310,000 - - - - - _ _ 70 Seaton Primary Neighbourhood Connection Trails 1 major stream crossing T-13 2028-2031 290,000 290,000 - - - - - 71 Seaton Primary Neighbourhood Connection Trails 1 major stream crossing 2-14 2028-2031 340,000 340,000- - - - - - - 72 Multi-purpose trail - Duffin Heights (Mattamy deft) to Ajax 2025 539,600 - 539,600 269,800 269,800 26,980 242,820 230,679 12,141 73 Multi-purpose trail - Hydro Corridor (Liverpool to Whites) 2019-2023 982,100 - 982100 491,050 491,050 49,105 441,945 419,848 22,097 74 Trail - Bayly Street from waterfront trail to Go Station 2019-2023 539,600 539,600 269,800 269,800 26,980 242,820 230,679 12,141 75 Trail - Bayly Street from Go Station to Church Street 2019-2023 377,700 - 377,700 188,850 188850 18,885 169,965 161,467 8,498 76 Trail - Finch to Brockridge Park (45m bridge) 2019-2023 917,300 - 917,300 458,650 458,650 45,865 412,785 392,146 20,639 77 Trail - Wharf Street to Sandy Beach Road 2019-2023 431,700 - 431,700 215,850 215,850 21,585 194,265 184,552 9,713 78 Mulit-pupose trail - Hydro Conidor (Whites to Townline) 2024-2027 1,618,800 - 1,618,800 809,400 809,400 80,940 728,460 692,037 36,423 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H.1Pickering12017 DC StudylReport\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx Page 33 Infrastructure Costs Covered in the D.C. Calculation - Parks and Recreation Services (Cont'd) Prj.No Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated P Development 2018-2027 Parks Code Timing (year) Gross Capital P Cost Estimate (2017$) Post Period Benefit Net Capital Cost Less: Subtotal Less: Other (e.g. 10% Statutory Deduction) Potential DC Recoverable Cost Benefit to Existing Development Grants, Subsidies and Other Contributions Attributable to New Development Total Residential Share 95% Non - Residential Share 5% __T Recreation Facilities __ - __ 79 Seaton Recreation Complex 2020 75,000 - 75,000 1,875 73,125 7,313 65,813 62,522 3,291 2021 10,700,000 - 10,700,000 267,500 10,432,500 1,043,250 9,389,250 8,919,788 469,463 2022 42,800,000 - 42,800,000 1,070,000 41,730,000 4,173,000 37,557,000 35,679,150 1,877,850 2023 2,600,000 - 2,600,000 65,000 2,535,000 253,500 2,281,500 2,167,425 114,075 80 Community Centre 2018 - 388,673 - 388,673 166,399 222,273 22,227 200,046 190,044 10,002 (Part of Pickering Heritage and Community Centre) 2019 2,040,531 - 2,040,531 873,597 1,166,934 116,693 1,050,241 997,729 52,512 2021 916,152 - 916,152 192,417 723,736 72,374 651,362 618,794 32,568 2022 4,609,800 - 4,809,800 1,010,188 3,799,612 379,961 3,419,651 3,248,668 170,983 81 Youth & Seniors' Centre 2019 2,500,000 - 2,500,000 62,500 2,437,500 243,750 2,193,750 2,084,063- '1095-8-E3- 09,6862020 2020 11,900,000 - 11,900,000 297,500 11,602,500 1,160,250 10,442,250 9,920,138 522,113 2021 11,900,000 - 11,900,000 297,500 11,602,500 1,160,250 10,442,250 9,920,138 522,113 82 Arts Centre (Community Uses) 2018-2027 6,497,000 6,497,000 162,425 6,334,575 633,458 5,701,118-5,416,062 285,0511 --) Parks Operations Vehicles and Equipment - '-� __� 83 Area Mower 2020 115,000 - 115,000 - 115,000 11,500 103,500 98,325 57175 _ 84 Area Mower (2) 2018-2027 230,000 - 230,000 - 230,000 23,000 207,000 196,650 10,350 85 Litter Picker Vacuum 2018 30,000 ._ - .. 30,000 - 30,000- 3,000 27,000 25,650 1,350 ___ 86 87 Garbage Packer Garbage Packer 2018-2027 2018 150,000 150,000 - - 150,000 150,000 - - 150,000 150,000 15,000 15,000 135,000 .._ 135,0035,00 0 128,250 6,750 _ .__._ ____. 128,250 -- ____ 6,750 88 Enclosed Trailers (3) 2018-2027 36,000 - 36,000 - 36,000 3,600 32,400 30,780 1,620 89 Zero Tum Mower(6) 2018-2027 108,000 - 108,000 - 108,000 10,800 97,200 ^92,340 4,860 90 Pickup Trucks (2) 2018-2027 74,000 - 74,000 - 74,000 7,400 66,600 63,270 3,330 91 1 Ton Dump Trucks (2) 2018-2027 130,000 - 130,000 - 130,000 13,000 117,000 111,150 5,850 92 SUV (2) 2018-2027 70,000 - 70,000 - 70,000 7,000 63,000 59,850 3,150 93 4 Ton Dump Truck 2018-2027 270,000 - 270,000 - 270,000 27,000 243,000 230,850 12,150 94 Utility Vehicle 2019 25,000 - 25,000 - 25,000 2,500 22,500 21,375 1,125 Parks Operations Facilities - .__ 95 New Operations Centre (Growth Related Share) -- 2017 - .. 3,839,435 _.. - 3,839,435 _ _ 3,839,435 -----.____ _ 3,839,435 3,647,463 191,972 _ -__- 961,111 New Northern Sat.....---_` Satellite Operations Centre, including land 2024 3,433,300 - 3,433,300 - 3,433,300 343,330 3,089,970 2,935,472 154,499 Reserve Fund Adjustment (16,528,412) (16,528,412) (15,701,991) (826,421) Total 176,947,192 17,360,000 159,587,192 15,677,152 - 127,381,628 14,007,060 113,374,567 107,705,839 5,668,728 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. 1-1:1Pickering12017 DC StudylReport\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx N Page 34 Infrastructure Costs Covered in the D.C. Calculation - Library Services Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12017 DC StudylReportlPickering DC Background Study-Final.docx Less: Less: Potential DC Recoverable Cost Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated Development pment Timing (year) Gross Capital Cost Estimate Post Period Benefit Net Capital Cost Benefit to Existing Grants, Subsidies and Other Contributions Subtotal Other (e.g. 10% Total Residential Share Non - Residential (2017$) Development Attributable to Statutory Share New Deduction) Development 2018-2027 95% 5% Facilities 1 Central Library Facility 2018 1,750,000 1,750,000 447,454 1,302,546 130,255 1,172,292 1,113,677 58,615 2019 10,425,000 10,425,000 2,665,544 7,759,456 775,946 6,983,510 6,634,335 349,176 2020 10,425,000 10,425,000 2,665,544 7,759,456 775,946 6,983,510 6,634,335 349 176 2 Seaton Regional Library, including land (including material) 2021 4,138,000 1801,303 2,336,697 103,450 2,233,247 223,325 2,009,923 1,909,426 100,496 2022 6,860,000 2,986,210 3,873,790 171,500 3,702,290 370,229 3,332,061 3,165,458 166,603 2023 6,861,000 2,986,645 3,874,355 171,525 3,702,830 370,283 3,332,547 3,165,919 166,627 3 Archives and Library Space 2018 612,454 612,454 - 612,454 61,245 551,208 523,648 27,560 (Part of Pickering Heritage and Community Centre) 2019 3,215,383 3,215,383 - 3,215,383 321,538 2,893,844 2,749,152 144,692 2021 61,449 61,449- 61,449 6,145 55,304 52,539 2,765 2022 322,609 322,609 - 322,609 32,261 290,348 275,830 14,517 Reserve Fund Adjustment (2,798,782) (2,798,782) (2,658,843) (139,939) Total 44,670,894 7,774,158 36,896,737 6,225,017 - 27,872,937 3,067,172 24,805,766 23,565,477 1,240,288 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12017 DC StudylReportlPickering DC Background Study-Final.docx Page 35 Infrastructure Costs Covered in the D.C. Calculation - Administration Services Prj.No Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated Development 2018-2027 Timing (year) Gross Capital Cost Estimate (2017$) Post Period Benefit Net Capital Cost Less: Less: Other (e.g. 10% Statutory Deduction) Potential DC Recoverable Cost Benefit to Existing Development grants, Subsidies and Other Contributions Attributable to New mol ��� Subtotal Total Residential Share 78% Non - Residential Share 22% 1 Development Charges Background Study 2022 125,000 125,000 - 125,000 12,500 112,500 87,750 24,750 2 Development Charges Background Study 2027 125,000 - 125,000 - 125,000 12,500 112,500 87,750 24 750 3 South Pickering Intensification Stud Inc!. Parts 4-5 2018-2020 400,000 - 400,000 100,000 300,000 30,000 270,000 210,600 59 400 4 South Pickering Heritage Inventory 2018-2020 54,000 - 54,000 40,500 13,500 1,350 12,150 9,477 2 673 5 Municipal Comprehensive Review 2022 500,000 - 500,000 125,000 375,000 37,500 337 500 263 250 74 250 6 Official Plan Review 2027 250,000 - 250,000 125,000 125,000 12,500 112,500 87,750 24,750 7 Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review 2018-2021 431,700 - 431,700 107,925 323,775 32,378 291,398 227,290 64 107 8 Planning Application Fee Review Study 2018 25,000 - 25,000 - 25,000 2,500 22,500 17,550 4,950 9 Community Improvement Plans for Durham Live 2019-2022 150,000 - 150,000 37,500 112,500 11,250 101,250 78,975 22,275 Lands and for City Centre Lands 10 Infill and Replacement Housing in Established 2018-2026 150,000 - 150,000 75,000 75,000 7,500 67,500 52,650 14,850 Neighborhoods 11 Library -Strategic Plan 2018 60,000 - 60,000 15,000 45,000 4,500 40,500 31,590 8 910 12 Libra -Facilities/Master Plan 2018 54,000 - 54:000 13:500 40,500 4,050 36,450 28,431 8,019 13 Library -Strategic Plan 2022 60,000 - 60,000 15,000 45,000 4,500 40,500 31,590 8 910 14 Library -Strategic Plan 2026 60,000 - 60,000 15,000 45,000 4,500 40,500 31,590 8 910 15 Traffic Management Plan for Downtown Pickering 2026 161,900 - 161,900 16,190 145,710 145,710 113,654 32,056 16 Transportation Demand Management Plan/Parking Management Plan (Seaton) 2026 161,900 - 161,900 16,190 145,710 145,710 113,654 32,056 17 Downtown Parkin. Strate. Stud 2021-2022 107,900 - 107,900 10,790 97,110 9,711 87,399 68,171 19,228 18 Neighbourhood Traffic Calming Measures 2018-2027 150,000 - 150,000 15,000 135,000 135,000105,3_00 29,700 19 Transportation Master Plan Update 2027 400,000 - 400,000 40,000 360,000 360,000 280,800 79,200_ 20 Esplanade Study Provision 2018-2026 50,000 - 50,000 12,500 37,500 3,750 33,750 26,325 7,425 21 Fire Master Plan 2019 134,900 - 134,900 33,725 101,175 101,175 78,917 22,259 22 Brock Industrial Drainage Master Plan 2018-2027 300,000 - 300,000 30,000 270,000 270,000 210,600 59,400 23 Stormwater Management Study for Infill Development 2018-2027 215,800 - 215,800 53,950 161,850 161,850 126,243 35,607 24 Frenchman's Bay Stormwater Management Master 2018-2027 700,000 - 700,000 70,000 630,000 630,000 491,400 138,600 Plan Update • 25 Pickering City Centre Stormwater Management Strategy. Update 2018-2027 250,000 - 250,000 25,000 225,000 225,000 175,500 49,500 26 SWM User Fee Study 2018-2027 200,000 - 200,000 100,000 100,000 10,000 90,000 70,200 19,800 27 Pickerin• Air.ort Feasibilit Stud 2018 150,000 - 150,000 84,773 65,227 6,523 58,704 45,789 12,915 28 Pickering Corporate Energy Plan Update 2019 50,000 - 50,000 28,258 21,742 2,174 19,568 15,263 4,305 29 Seaton Corporate Ener y Plan Update 2022 50,000 - 50,000 50,000 5,000 45,000 35,100 9,900 30 Pickering Climate Adaption Plan 2020 150,000 - 150,000 84,773 65,227 6,523 58,704 45,789 12,915 31 Broadband Strategy and Implementation Plan 2019 75,000 - 75,000 42,387 32,613 3,261 29,352 22,895 6,457 32 Natural Capital Asset Evaluation 2022 75,000 - 75,000 42,387 32,613 3,261 29,352 22,895 6,457 33 Facilities Management Plan 2018 150,000 - 150,000 37,500 112,500 11,250 101,250 78,975 22,275 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12017 DC StudylReport\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx Page 36 Infrastructure Costs Covered in the D.C. Calculation - Administration Sery ces (Cont'd) Prj.No Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated Development 2018-2027 Timing (year) Gross Capital Cost Estimate (2017$) Post Period Benefit Net Capital Cost Less: Subtotal Less: Other (e.g. 10% Statutory Deduction) Potential DC Recoverable Cost Benefit to Existing Development grants, Subsidies and Other Contributions Attributable to New • Total Residential Share 78% Non - Residential Share 22% 34 Facilities Management Plan Update 2027 167,000 - 167,000 41,750 .125,250 12,525 112,725 87,926 24,800 . 35 Facilities Renewal Plan 2018-2026 200,000 - 200,000 113,031 86,969 8,697 78,272 61,052 17,220 36 Facilities Way Finding Study 2018-2026 50,000 - 50,000 28,258 21,742 2,174 19,568 15,263 4,305 37 Space Use Study 2018 35,000 - 35,000 26,250 8,750 875 7,875 6,143 1,733 38 Urban Forest Management 2018-2026 97,100 400,000 - - 97,100 400,000 24,275 - , 72,825 400,000 7,283 40,000 65,543 360,000 51,123 280,800 14 419 79,200 39 Seaton Primary Trails 10 EA Phase 1 & 2 Lands (including site walks, suneying, archaeology) 2018 - 40 Diversity and Inclusion Plan 2020 75,000- 75,000 42,387 32,613 3,261 29,352 22,895 6,457 41 Age Friendly Community Plan 2018 75,000 - 75,000 42,387 32,613 3,261 29,352 22,895 6,457 42 Seniors Recreation Strategic Plan 2019 75,000 - 75,000 37,500 37,500 3,750 33,750 26,325 7,425 43 Recreation Services Master Plan Update 2027 170,000 - 170,000 42,500 127,500 12,750 114,750 89,505 25,245 44 Waterfront Park Needs Assessment 2019-2020 100,000 80,000 - - 100,000 80,000 25,000 20,000 75,000 60,000 7,500 6,000 67,500 54,000 52 650 42,120 14 850 11,880 45 Whitevale Park Revitalization Study 2021 46 New Financial System 2018-2026 5,000,000 - 5,000,000 2,825,781 2,174,219 217,422 1,956,797 1,526,302 430,495 Reserve Fund Adjustment 673,868 673,868 525,617 148,251 Total 12,501,200 - 12,501,200 4,681,967 - 8,493,101 564,479 7,928,622 6,184,325 1,744,297 Watso "associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12017 DC StudylReport\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx Page 37 5.2 Service Levels and 14 -Year Capital Costs for City-wide D.C. Calculation 5.2.1 Other Services Related to a Highway The City provides operations services related to transportation services, defined by the D.C.A. Services Related to a Highway. These services include roads operations facilities, vehicles, and equipment. These services are provided through the use of 181 vehicles and equipment items, and 52,700 sq.ft. of facility space. The average level of service provided over the historical 10 -year period based on this inventory is $223 per capita. When applied to anticipated growth over the 2018-20231 period, the per capita level of service produces a maximum D.C. eligible amount for library services of $19.4 million. The gross capital cost included in the D.C. calculation for the forecast period to 2031 totals $15.1 million. The capital cost estimates include additional vehicles and equipment items, as well as the growth -related share of the new Operations Centre and the Northern Satellite Operations Centre (including land). There is a current reserve fund balance of $154,000, recognizing the benefit to development having already occurred, which has been deducted from the D.C. eligible costs. The resulting net growth -related capital cost of approximately $15.0 million has been included in the D.C. calculation. The forecast growth -related costs have been allocated 74% to residential development and 26% to non-residential development (8% prestige employment lands within Seaton and 18% in all other areas of the City) based on the incremental growth in population and employment. 5.2.2 Stormwater Management Stormwater management needs provided in the increase in need for service reflect those in addition to the local service requirements of development, and include erosion control works, conveyance control, new facilities and water quality treatment. In total, the gross capital cost estimate for these needs over the 14 -year planning period total $52.3 million. After deducting approximately $41.5 for benefits to the existing development and $1.0 million for current reserve fund balances, the net D.C. eligible costs for inclusion in the calculation of the charge is approximately $9.9 million. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12017 DC StudylReport\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx 115 Page 38 Based on the incremental growth in population to employment, the net D.C.-eligible costs have been allocated 74% to residential, 8% to prestige employment lands within Seaton and 18% to non-residential development in all other areas of the City. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H. \Pickering12017 DC StudylReportlPickering DC Background Study-Final.docx 116 Page 39 Infrastructure Costs Covered in the D.C. Calculation - Other Services Related to a Highway Prj .No Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated Development 2018-2031 Timing (year) Gross Capital Cost Estimate (2017$) Post Period Benefit Net Capital Cost Less: Potential DC Recoverable Cost Benefit to Existing Development Grants, Subsidies and Other Contributions Attributable to New Development Total Residential Share 74% Non - Residential Share 26% Roads Operations Fleet and Equipment 4 Ton Dump Truck/Snow Plow 2018 270,000 270,000 270,000 199,800 70,200 1 4 Ton Dump Truck/Snow Plow 2019-2027 270,000 - 270,000 - mm 270,000 199,800 70,200 5 Ton Dump Truck/Snow Plow 2020 280,000 280,000280,000 207,200 72,800 3 5 Ton Dum. Truck/Snow Plow 2021-2027 275,000 275,000 275,000 2037500 71,500 .5. 1 Ton Dump Truck (3).. _m ._. _2018-2027 195,000 195,000 195,000 144,300 502700 �.. 210,000 210,000 6 1 Ton Dum• Truck with Snow Plow 3 2018-2027 210,000 155,400 54,600 mT7 .. Pickup Truck L3) _ 2018-2027 111,000_ 111,000 �_ 111000 82,140 28,,860 35,000 35,000 8 SUV 2018-2027 35,000 - 25,900 9,100 ........Sweeper 2018 340,000 340,000 - 340,000 251,600 88,400 11 Sidewalk Tractors 2019 155,000 155,000 - 155,000 114,700 40,300 12 Sidewalk Tractors 2020 155,000 - 155,000 - 155,000 114,700 40,300 10 Sidewalk Tractors 2021-2027 155,000 - 155,000 - . 155,000 114,700 40,300 13 Provision for Vehicles & Equipment 2028-2031 1,181,000 1,181,000 - 1,181,000 873,940 307,060 Roads Operations Facilities 14 New Operations Centre (Growth Related 2017 6,067,565 - 6,067,565 6,067,565 4,489,998 1,577,567 Share 15 New Northern Satellite Operations 2024 5,426,000 - 5,426,000 - 5,426,000 4,015,240 1,410,760 Centre, includin• land Reserve Fund Adjustment 053,919 (113,900) (40,019) Total 15,125,565 - 15,125,565 - - 14,971,647 11,079,019 3,892,628 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12017 DC StudylReport\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx Page 40 Infrastructure Costs Covered in the D.C. Calculation - Stormwater Management Services Prj.No Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated Development 2018-2031 Timing (year) Gross Capital Cost Estimate (20175) Post Period Benefit Net Capital Cost Less: Potential DC Recoverable Cost Benefit to Existing Development Grants, Subsidies and Other Contributions Attributable to New Development Total Residential Share 74% Non -Residential Share 26% 1 Krosno Creek SWM Facility K20 -Design B-20 D SWM Facility at upstream of Krosno Ck trib. - Design 2018-2024 966400 - 966400 502,009 463,392 342,910 120,482 .- 2 _ Krosno Creek SWM Facility K20 - Construction 6-20 C SWM Facility at upstream of Krosno Ck trib. - Construction 2018-2024 1,315,000 - 1,315;000 683,800 631,200 467,088 164,112 _ 3 Krosno Creek SWM Facility K12 - Design 13-18 D SWM Facility at mouth of Hydro Marsh - Design 2018-2024 78,400 - 78,400 40,768 _ 37,632 _ 27,848 9,764 4 Krosno Creek SWM Facility K12 -Construction 8-18 C SWM Facility at mouth of Hydro Marsh - Construction 2018-2024 488,200 - 488,200 253,864 ......-_....m 234,336 _ 173,409 60,927 5 Frenchman's Bay Yacht Club Outfall Restoration Sediment Forebay Facility - wetland restoration 2018-2024 596,300 - 596,300 447,225 149,075 110,316 38,760 6 Krosno Creek SWM Facility K16- Design B-19 D SWM Facility at Hydro Marsh- Design 2018-2024 81,200 - 81,200 42,224 38,976 28,842 10,134 7 Krosno Creek SWM Facility K16 - Construction 13-19 C SWM Facility at Hydro Marsh - Construction 2018-2024 806,200 - 806,200 419,224 386,976 286,362 100,614 8 Krosno Creek SWM Facility K19 - Design B-30 D SWM Facility - Krosno Creek (Hydro Corridor, west of Quige(y St.) - Design SWM Facility -Krosno Creek (Hydro Corridor, west of Quigely St.) Construction SWM Facility -Krosno Creek (Hydro Corridor, west of Feldspar Crt) - Desmon 2018-2024 2018-2024 2018-2024 2018-2024 458,900. 1,760,200 324,600 1,569,400 - - - - 458,900 1,760,200 324,600 1,569,400 238,628 915,304 168,792 816,088 220,272 844,896 155,808 -,-._ mmA 753,312 163,001 _ 625,223 115,298 -. 557,451 57,271 219,673 40,510 _ 195,861 9 Krosno Creek SWM Facility K19 -Construction 8-30 C 10 Krosno Creek SWM Facility 17/18 - Design 13-31 D 11 __• Krosno Creek SWM Facility 17/18 - B_31 C Construction SWM Facility -Krosno Creek (Hydro Corridor, west of Feldspar Crt.) - Construction 12 Amberlea Creek SWM Facility A3 - Design A-8 D SWMCreek Facility at outfall to tributary of Amberlea - 2018-2024 129,100 - 129,100 102,192 26,908 19,912 . 6,996 13 Petticoat Creek Erosion Control - Design H-10 D Erosion assessment and fixing of erosion channel and banks 2018-2024 302,200 - 302,200 268,061 34,139 25,263 8,876 14 Petticoat Creek Erosion Control -Construction H-10 C. Erosion assessment and fixing of erosion channel and banks 2018-2024 1,919,200 - 1,919,200 1,702,391 216,809 160,438 56,370 15 Petticoat Creek Erosion Control - Design Erosion assessment and fixing of erosion channel and banks 2018-2024 358,200 - 358,200 313,176 45,024 33,318 11,706 16 Petticoat Creek Erosion Control - Construction Erosion assessment and facing of erosion channel and banks 2018-2024 2,555,200 - 2,555,200 2,234,021 321,179 237,673 83,507 17 14 Oil Grit Separators Installation install 2 units per year for water quality treatment 2018-2024 4,213,100 - 4,213,100 3,018,755 1,194,345 883,815 310,530 18 12 Oil Grit Separators Installation install 2 units per year for water quality treatment 2025-2031 3,611,300 - 3,611,300 2,587,555 1,023,745 757,571 266,174 19 20 Amberlea Creek Mouth SWM Facilites Design W-7 D Amberlea CreeMuth S k oWM Facility - W-7 C Construction SWM/Foreb5y Faciliy to FB Design 2025-2031 710,800 - 71Q800 618,396 _______02,404 1,034,956 _68,379 765,867 24,025 269,089 SWM/Forebay Faciliy to FB - Construction 2025-2031 7,961,200 7,961,200 6,926,244 21 Dunbarton Creek Mouth SWM Facility - Design W-8 D SWM/Forebay Faciliy to FB - Design 2025-2031 710,800 - 710,800 618,396 92,404 68,379 _ 24,025 22 23 24 .__.._.__-�._. 25 Dunbarton Creek Mouth SWM Facility - W-8 C Construction SWM/Forebay Faciliy to FB - Construction 2025-2031 2025-2031 7,961,200 - 7,961,200 6,926,244 1,034,956 281,503 18,031 189,800 765,867 208,312 13,343 140,452 269,089 Amberlea Creek SWM Facility A3 - A 8 C Construction SWM Facility at outfall to tributary of Amberlea Creek - Construction 1,350,600 - 1,350,600. 1,069,097 73,191 Pine Creek SWM Facility P31 - Design L-20 D SWM Facility at outfall to Pine Creek at Glenanna Rd. - Design 2025-2031 138,700 - 138,700 120,669 1,270,200 4,688 _....-......_-..._......_.........._.............__..._ Pine Creek SWM Facility P31 - Construction L-20 C SWM Facility at outfall to Pine Creek at Glenanna Rd. - Construction 2025-2031 1,460,000 - 1,460,000 49,348 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12017 DC StudylReportlPickering DC Background Study-Final.docx Page 41 Infrastructure Costs Covered in the D.C. Calculation - Stormwater Management Services (Cont'd) Prj.No Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated Development 2018-2031 Timing (year) Gross Capital Cost Estimate (2017$) . Post Period Benefit Net Capital Cost Less: Potential DC Recoverable Cost Benefit to Existing Development Grants, Subsidies and Other Contributions Attributable to New Development Total Residential Share 74% Non -Residential Share 26% 26 Pine Creek SWM Facility P29 - Design B-33 D SWM Facility at outlet of Pine Creek at Fairview Ave. - Design 2025-2031 78,400 - 78,400 68,208 10,192 7,542 2,650 27 Pine Creek SWM Facility P29 - Construction B-33 C SWM Facility at outlet of Pine Creek at Fairview Ave. - Construction 2025-2031 699,300 - 699,300 608,391 90,909 67,273 23,636 28 Pine Creek SWM Facility P22 - Design L-21 D SWM Facility at outlet of Pine Creek at Cedarwood Crt. - Design 2025-2031 123,100 - 123,100 107,097 16,003 11,842 4,161 29 Pine Creek SWM Facility P22 - Construction L-21 C SWM Facility at outlet of Pine Creek at Cedarwood Crt. - Construction 2025-2031 1,283,200 - 1,283,200 1,116,384 166,816 123,444 43,372 30 Pine Creek SWM Facility P27 - Design L-22 D SWM Facility at outlet of Pine Creek at Storrington St. -Design 2025-2031 134,300 - 134,300 116,841 17,459 12,920 4,539 31 Pine Creek SWM Facility P27- Construction L-22 C SWM Facility at outlet of Pine Creek at Storrirrton St. - Construction 2025-2031 1,410,400 - _ 1,410,400 1,227,048 183,352 135,680 47,672 32 Pine Creek Culvert Replacements - Design TC -23 D Replaceculvert, channel Radom St culverts,works Kingston Rd 2025-2031 711,800 - 711,800 621,309 90,491 66,963 23,528 33 Pine Creek Culvert Replacements - TC -23 C Construction Replace Radom St culverts, Kingston Rd culvert, channel works 2025-2031 6,053,200 - 6,053,200 5,283,660 769,540 569,459 200,080 Reserve Fund Adjustment C976,371 (722,514 (253 856) j Total 52,319,100 - 52,319,100 41,452,260 - 9,690,469 7,318,947 2,571,522 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12017 DC StudylReport\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx CO Page 42 5.3 Service Levels and 14 -Year Capital Costs for Area -Specific (Outside of Seaton Lands) D.C. Calculation 53.1 Transportation Services The City has a current inventory of 159 kilometres of rural, arterial and collector roads and urban collector and arterial roads and 62 bridges and culverts. This historic level of infrastructure investment equates to a level of service of $2,577 per capita. Furthermore, the City also provides services through the maintenance of 315 kms of sidewalks and 25 traffic signals. In total, average historic level of service provided is $3,487. When applied to the forecast population growth to 2031 (i.e. 28,936 incremental net -population growth outside of Seaton), a maximum D.C.-eligible cost of approximately $100.9 million could be expected to meet the future increase in needs for service. The review of the City's transportation needs for the forecast period identified $123.9 million in gross capital costs. These capital needs include various road re- constructions, widenings and extensions, sidewalks, traffic signals, and streetlighting projects. Recognizing the benefit to existing development, approximately $38.0 million has been deducted. Approximately $18.2 million has been deducted from the potential D.C. recoverable costs for existing reserve fund balances, accounting for funds already secured towards these future needs. As a result, approximately $67.6 million in capital costs have been included in the D.C. calculation. The net growth -related costs for transportation services have been allocated between future residential and non-residential development outside of Seaton on the basis of incremental population to employment growth over the forecast period (i.e. 92% residential, 8% non-residential). Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12017 DC StudylReportlPickering DC Background Study-Final.docx 120 Page 43 Infrastructure Costs Covered in the D.C. Calculation - Transportation Services Prj .No Increased Sencce Needs Attributable to Anticipated Development 2018-2031 Roads Code Timing (year) Gross Capital Cost Estimate (2017$) Post Period Benefit Net Capital Cost Less: Potential DC Recoverable Cost Benefit to Existing Development Grants, Subsidies and Other Contributions Attributable to New Develo.ment Total Residential Share 92% Non - Residential Share 8% Roads 1 Tillings Road oversizin9 - local to collector DH -3 2018-2024 294,800 - 294,600 29,480 265,320 244 094 21 226 2 Jackson Drive - Urfe Creek to Taunton Road Urbanization, pedestrian trail DH -13 2018-2024 2,229,040 - 2,229,040 222,904 2,006,136 3,250,000 259,200 1,845,645 2,990 000__ 238 464 160,491 26-0-666- 3 _William Sandy Beach Road 3 -lane urban reconstruction, incl. storm B-29 2018-2024 6,500,000 - 6,500,000 3,250,000 4 DH -4 Valley Farm Rd. - Tillings Road to Brock Rd Oversizing - local to collector DH -4 2018-2024 288,000 - 288,000 28,800 20 736 5 6 7 DH -14 William Jackson Dr. (Old Taunton). Urfe Creek_ Culvert StructureJDesIgn/Approval). EA & Design DH -14 2018-2024 450,000 - 450,000 45,000 405,000 372,600 32,400 DH -14 William Jackson Dr. (Old Taunton). Urfe Creek Culvert Structure (Construction) Valley Farm Road - North of Third Concession to Tillings Construction DH -14 2018-2024 3,455,100 - 3,455,100 345,510 3,109,590 2,860,823 248,767 3 -lane urban construction, incl. storm DH -1 2020-2024 3,399,500 - 3,399,500 339,950 3,059,550 2,814,786 244,764 8 9 Twin Rivers prix,_, Hoover to West Limit 2 -lane urban reconstruction RO-3 2025-2031 2,210,000 - 2,210,000 1,657 500 552,500 50_8_300 44,200 Finch Avenue -Townline to Altona 3 -lane urban reconstruction, incl. storm RP -4 2018-2024 1,850,300 - 1,850,300 462,575 1,387,725 1,276,707 111,018 10 Pickering Parkway - Gienanna to Hydro Corridor (E) Diefenbaker Extension - East Limit to Pickering Parkway sidewalk TC -1 2 -lane, new construction TC -5 2018-2024 2025-2031 54,100 750,000 - - 54,100 750,000 40,575 562,500 13,525 187,500 12,443 172,500 1,082 15,000 11 12 Notion Road -Kingston to 350m South 2 -lane urban reconstruction, incl. Storm V-5 2018-2024 1,052,500 - 1,052,500 526,250 183,000 526,250 61,000 484,150 42 100 13 Sheppard Avenue - Whites to West Limit sidewalk, blvd., streetlight on north side W05 2018-2024 244,000 - 244,000 56,120 4,880 14 Sheppard Avenue - Whites to 600m East sidewalk, blvd., structures south side WO -9 2018-2024 395,000 - 395,000 296,250 98,750 90,850 7 900 15 Audley Road (Sideline 2) Conc. #5 to Hwy 7 2 -lane rural reconstruction incl. structures RU -4 2018-2024 3,212,155 - 3,212,155 1,606,078 1,606,078 1,477,591 128,486 16 Rd A5, A-7 Arterial Connection Bayly to Kingston Feasibility Study & EA TC -31 2018-2024 2,698,000 - - 2,698,000 674,500 2,023,500 1,861,620 161,880 17 Dunbarton Walkway - Dunbarton to Rambleberry walkway D-4 2018-2024 323,150 - 323,150 242,363 80,788 74025 6,463 18 Valley Farm/Tillings Bridge - Ganatsekiagon Valley Farm/Tillings Bridge _ Ganatsekiagon Oakwood Drive - Rougemount to Mountain Ash EA & Des .n New Structure DH -2 DH -2 R -4a 2018-2024 2020-2024 500,000 13 489,900 500,000 13,489,900 50,000 1,348:990 450,000 12,140,910 717,875 414,000 __117169,637 660,445 36,000 ._.2 7.. 971,273 9 20 2 -lane urban reconstruction 2018-2024 1,435,750 - 1,435,750 717,875 57,430 21 Oakwood Drive - Mountain Ash to Toynevale 2 -lane urban reconstruction, incl. storm R -4b 2018-2024 718,225 - 718,225 359,113 359,113 330,384 28 729 22 Rougemount Drive - Woodgrange to Toynevale 2 -lane urban reconstruction, incl. storm R-5 2018-2024 285,280 - 285,280 142,640 142,640 131,229 11,411 40,000 34 672 23 Finch Avenue - West of Altona (Structure) culvert replacement RP -2 reconstruction/widen RP -14 2018-2024 2018-2024 1,000,000- 866,800 - 1,000,000 866,800 500,000 433,400 500,000 433,400 460,000 398,728 24 Scar/Pickering Townline - Finch to CPR 25 Scar/Pickering Townline - CPR to TauntoNSteeles Dixie Road - Kingston to South Limit reconstruction/widen RU -7 sidewalk, east side TC -13 2018-2024 2018-2024 5,634,200 54,100 - - 5,634,200 54,100 2,817,100 40,575 2,817,100 13,525 2,591,732 12,443 225,368 1,082 26 27 Granite Court - Whites to Rosebank sidewalk, north side W-4 2018-2024 207,085 - 207,085 155,314 51,771 47,630 4,142 28 Kellino Street -Squires Beach to Church 3 -lane urban reconstruction, incl. storm BI -8 2019 2,236,500 - 2,236,500 1,118,250 1,118,250 1,028,790 89,460 29 30 Squires Beach..Road- Bayly_toCNR Tracks A-11 (Plummer) -Hydro Corridor to West Limit 3 -lane urban reconstruction, incl. storm BI -18 2019 2021 2,236,500 1,966,000 - 2,236,500 1,986,000 1,118,250 1,118,250 1 489,500 1,028,790 1,370,340 89,460 Collector Road B-27 - 496,500.........._.... 119,160 31 A-12 (Plummer) - Krosno Creek Crossing Bridge Structure 8-28 2021 2,158,400- 2,158,400 539,600 1,618,800 1,489,296 129,504 32 Rosebank Road - CPR to Third Concession Rd. reconstructioNwiden L-17 2025-2031 4,278,250 4,278,250 1,069,563 3,208,688 2,951,993 256,695 33 RosebankdRoad -Third Concession Rd. To Taunton reconstruction/widen L-18 2025-2031 3,137,920 - 3,137,920 784,480 2,353,440 2,165,165 188,275 34 Montgomery Park Rd. - Sandy Beach Rd. To Mckay Rd. Urbanization/Full Load 61-21 2018-2024 3,710,000- 3,710,000 1,855,000 1,855,000 1,706,600 148,400 35 Third Concession Rd. - Dixie Rd. To Whites Rd. Reconstruction/widen L-12 2025-2031 4,564,371 - 4,564,371 1,141,093 3,423,278 3,149,416 273,862 36 Third Concession Rd. - Whites Rd. To Altona Rd. Reconstruction/widen L-13 2025-2031 4,564,371 - 4,564,371 1,141,093 3,423,278 3,149,416 273,862 37 Third Concession Rd. -Altona Rd. To West Townline Reconstruction/widen L-14 2025-2031 4,564,371- 4,564,371 1,141,093 3,423,278 3,149,416 273,862 38 Fairport Rd. - Lynn Heights To Third Concession Rd. Reconstruction/widen L-15 2025-2031 4,279,080 - 4,279,080 1,D69,770 3,209,310 2,952,565 256,745 39 Dixie Rd. - Hydro Corridor To Third Concession Rd. Reconstruction/widen L-16 2025-2031 3,993,800- 3,993,800 998,450 2,995,350 2,755,722 239,628 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12017 DC StudylReport\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx Page 44 Infrastructure Costs Covered in the D.C. Calculation - Transportation Services (Cont'd) Prj .No Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated Development 2018-2031 Roads Code Timing (year) Gross Capital Cos2Estimate1 (2017$) Post Period Benefit Net Capital Cost Less: Potential DC Recoverable Cost Benefit to Existing Development Grants, Subsidies and Other Contributions Attributable to New Development Total Residential Share 92% Non - Residential Share 8 40 A-8 (Plummer) - Brock Rd. To West Limit Collector B-24 2025-2031 69,900 - 69,900 17475 52,425 48,231 4,194 41 A-9 (Plummer) - Exit West Limit To Hydro Corridor Collector B-25 2025-2031 366,000 - 366,000 550,000 2,500,000 91,500 137,500T 625,000 274 500- 412 500 1,875,000 252 540 379 500 1,725,000 21 960 42 A-10 (Plummer)- Across Hydro Corridor Walnut Lane Extension - construction and contract admin__ Collector B-26 2025-2031 2019 550,000 2,500,000 - 33 000 150,000 43 44 _ W alnut Lane Extension -EA and Design 2018 211,226 211,226 52 807 158 420 -1--4-5-746- 12 674_ 30 000 45 EA Study A8-Al2 (Plummer) 0-24 to 0-28 2018-2024 500,000 - 500,000 125000 375,000 _ 345 000 Streetlights and Sidewalks 46 WO -2 Kingston Road - South Side Rosebank Rd. to Steeple Hill Includes pedestrian bridge WO -2 2018-2024 332,660 - 332,660 166,330 166,330 153,024 13,306 47 Kingston Road - Glendale Drive to Walnut Lane North side TC -9 2025-2031 351,000 - 351,000 175,500 175,500 161,460 _ 0� 14,040 48 49 Kingston Road - Dixie Road to Liv_tpool Road South Side TC -12 2018-2024 585,000 - 585,000 292,500 292,500 269,100 23 400 Sidewalk &Streetlights: Rosebank to Whites ES 2000 00-10 Rosebank to 25D m west North Side 00-10 2018-2024 103,283 _ - 103,283 51,642 51,642 47,510 4,131 50 51 Sidewalks & Streetlights TC -7 (2005-2009) Kingston Rd. - Valley Farm Rd. East (south side) to Hydro Corridor. Sidewalks & Streetlights. N.E. Quadrant Delta BIW 03-2321-01-21 South Side TC -7 2018-2024 133,500 - 133,500 66,750 66,750 61,410 5,340 WO -1 2025-2031 112,000 - 112,000 56,000 56,000 51,520 4,460 52 Sidewalks & Streetlights: Kingston Rd. Steeple Hill to Whites 04-2321-002-03 North Side WO -3 2018 317,000 - 317,000 158,500 158,500 145,820 12,680 53 54 Sidewalks &Streetlights: Kingston/Dixie-CNR tracks Streetlights & Sidewalks Brock Road -both sides-Forbrock Rd. to Taunton Road. South Side TC -11 2025-2031 2018-2024 133,50D - 133;500 50,000 66,75D 25,000 66,750 25,000 61,410 5,340 DH -24 50,000 - __- 23,000 2,000 55 TC -6 - Valley Farm Road (East Side) Kingston Road to 100m South - Sidewalk/Blvd. in conjunction with adjacent development. TC -6 2018-2024 53,777 - 53,777 26,889 26,889 24,737 ____ 2,151 56 Kingston Road - West Limit of Neighbourhood 7 to Dixie Road north side 0-1 2018-2024 570,000 - 570,000 285,000 285,000 262,200 22,80D 57 Kingston Road -West Limit to East Limit of Neighbourhood 7 (Fairport to CN bridge) south side. D-2 2018-2024 694,535 - 694,535 347,268 347,268 319,486 27,781 58 Finch Avenue - Spruce Hill to East Limit of Neighbourhood 9 north side D-9 2016-2024 285,000 - 285,000 142,500 142,500 131,100 11,400 59 Finch Avenue - Spruce Hill to Fairport Road south side north side D-10 V-12 2018-2024 2018-2024 253,000 315,650 - - 253,000 315,650 126,500 157,825 126,500 157,825 116,380_ 145,199 10 120 12 626 60 Finch Avenue - Brock Road to Hydro Corridor 61 Whites Road - Granite Court to Hwy 401 Whites Road - North of 3rd Concession to Taunton Road west side sidewalk, multi -use trail, streetlight W-5 RU -8 2018-2024 2018-2024 95,000 1,153,000 - - 95,000 1,153,000 47,500 57,650 47,500 1,095,350 43,700 1,007,722 3,800 87,628', 62 63 Whites Road - Finch Ave to Seaton Boundary multi -use 2018-2024 1,741,100 - 1,741,100 174,110 1,566,990 1,441,631 125,359 '.. 64 _Whites 65 Road - Bridge over west Duffins Creek Brock Road -Bays Street to Montgomery Road streetlighti RU -9 BI -4 2018-2024 2018-2024 809,400 - 809,400 40,470 768;930 930,800 707.416 856,336 61,514 74 464 East and West Sides 1,861,600 - 1,861,600 930,800 66 Sideline 24 - Hwy 7 south to north limit of subdivision sidewalk/streetlights RU -12 2018-2024 389,600 - 389,600 58,440 331,16D 304,667 26,493 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12017 DC StudylReportlPickering DC Background Study-Final.docx Page 45 Infrastructure Costs Covered in the D.0 Calculation - Transportation Services (Cont'd) PO .No Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated Development 2018-2031 Roads Code Timing (year) Gross Capital Cost Estimate (2017$) Post Period Benefit Net Capital Cost Less: Potential DC Recoverable Cost Benefit to Existing Development Grants, Subsidies and Other Contributions Attributable to New Development Total Residential Share 92% Non - Residential Share 8 67 Whites Rd. CPR Overpass sidewalk/streetlights A-6 2018-2024 269,800 - 269,800 40,470 229,330 210,984 18,346 68 Bayly Street - Church Street to West Limit Neighbourhood 4 ' 7 - Brock Rd to West Townline north and south sides Sidewalk/streetlights north side BI -1 RU -10 2018-2024 2018-2024 1,162,300 1,250,800 - - 1,162,300 1,250,800 581,150 187,620 581,150 1 063 180 534,658 �. 978 126 --978 46,492 85 054- 69 70 Church Street - Bayly Street to Kellino Street west side BI -17 2018-2024 325,000 - 325,000 162,500 16-2--5-65 149 500 15.000 71 Altona Road - Strouds Lane to North Limit of Neighbourhood 10 Finch Avenue - West Limit of Neighbourhood 7 to Duncannon Dc east and west sides north side H1 L-6 2018-2024 2018-2024 1,300,000 150,000 - - 1,300,000 150,000 650,000 75,000 650,000 75,000 598,000 69,000 52,000 6,000 72 73 Finch Avenue - L nn Hei•hts to East 80m north side L-7 2018-2024 40,000 - 40,000 20,000 _ _ 20 000 _ _ ___ _ 18 400 1 600 74 Finch Avenue - Valley Farm Road to West 600m south side L-9 2018-2024 300,000 - 300,000 150,000 150,000 138 000 12 000 75__ 76 Finch Avenue - Valley_Farm Road to East 300m north side L-10 2018-2024 150,000 - 150,000 75,000 75 000_ 69,000 60_00 Finch Avenue -Altona Road to Rosebank Road south side RP -6 2018-2024 250,000 - 250,000 125,000 125,000 115 000 _ 10_ 000 77 Finch Avenue - Rosebank Road to 500m West north side RP -5 2018-2024 250,000 - 250,000 125,000 125,000 115,000 10 000 78 Altana Road - Finch Avenue to Hydro Corridor SN) east side RP -9 2018-2024 150,000 - 150,000 75,000 75,000 69 000 6.000 79 Altona Road - Finch Avenue to North Limit of Neighbourhood 14 west side RP -10 2018-2024 150,000 - 150,000 75,000 75,000 69,000 6,000 60 _ Altona Road - Finch Avenue to North Limit of Neighbourhood 14 east side RP -11 2018-2024 150,000 - 150,000 75,000 - 75,000 69,000 --- 6,000 81 North Road - Hwy 7 south to north limit of subdivision sidewalk/streetlights RU -11 2018-2024 500,000 - 500,000 75,000 425,000 391,000 34,000 82 Whitevale Road - Altona Road to York/Durham Townline sidewalk/streetlights/multi-use trail RU -14 2018-2024 675,000 - 675,00D 101,250 573,750 527,850 45,900 83 Taunton Rd. - Sideline 16 to Church St. sidewalk/streetlights/multi-use trail RU -17 2025-2031 375,000 - 375,000 56,250 318,750 293 250 25 500 84 Taunton Rd - Whites Rd. To West Townline sidewalk/streetlights/multi-use trail RU-18 2025-2031 2025-2031 2018-2024 2,475,000 - 2,475,000 371,250 2,103;750 450,000 135,000 1,935,450 .4'14,050 124,200 168,300 36 000 10,800 85 South Esplanade Pedestrian Mall walkway WO -10 900,000 270,000 - - 900,000 270,000 450,000 135,000 mm 86 Kingston Road - Fronting 820 Kingston Road to Fairport Rd North Side (455m) 87 Kingston Road - Rougemount Drive to 300m west North Side RO-12 2018-2024 175,500 - 175,500 87,750 87,750 8D,730 7 020 Traffic Signals 88 Pickering Parkway at Glenanna Rd. -Signalization TC -4 2018-2024 300,000 - 300,000 30,000 270,000 248 400 21 600 89 Glenanna Road at Fairport Road Signalization D-8 2018-2024 300,000 - 300,000 30,000 270,000 248 400 21 600 90 Welrus Street at Fairport Road Signalization D-12 2018-2024 300,000 - 300,000 30, DDD 270,000 248,400 21,600 91Rosebank 92 Road at Sheppard Avenue... Rosebank Road at Highview Road/Deerhaven Lane Jog elimination/Signalization &,EA WO -8 2018-2024 700,000 300,000 - 700,000 70,000 630,000 579,600 248,400 50,400 21 600 Signalization A-5 2018-2024 - 300,000 30,000 270,000 93 Strouds Lane at Aspen Road/Shadybrook Drive Signalization A-7 2025-2031 600,000 - 600,000 60,000 540,000 496,800 43,200 TIT94 Finch Avenue at Woodview Avenue Sig-nalization RP -1 2025-2031 300,000 - _300,000 30,000 270,000 248,400 21,600 _ Resent Fund Adjustment (1249,53(16,780573)(j459963) _ - - Total 123,911,679 - 123,911,679 38,027,825 - 67,634,318 62,223,572 5,410,745 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12017 DC StudylReport\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx Page 46 6. D.C. Calculation Tables 6-1 to 6-3 present the D.C. quantum calculation (pre -cash flow) for the growth - related capital costs identified in Chapter 5. Table 6-1 presents the area -specific D.C. calculation for Transportation Services (applicable outside of the Seaton lands), Table 6-2 presents the D.C. calculation for City-wide services over the 14 -year period (i.e. 2018-2031), and presented in Table 6-3 are the calculated D.C.s for City-wide services over the 10 -year planning horizon (i.e. 2018-2027). Table 6-4 summarizes the quantum calculation of maximum D.C.s by residential dwelling type, per net hectare for non- residential development within the Seaton prestige employment lands, and per square foot of gross floor area for non-residential development in all other areas of the City. The calculations of the maximum D.C.s that could be imposed by Council have been undertaken based on a cash flow analysis to account for the timing of revenues and expenditures and the resultant financing needs. The cash flow calculations have been undertaken by service for each forecast development type, i.e. residential, prestige employment lands within Seaton and non-residential development in all other areas of the City. Detailed D.C. cash flow calculations are provided in Appendix C. The cash flow calculates interest paid/received on reserve fund balances to account for the differences in timing of projects and when development is anticipated to occur. In - year transactions are reduced by 1/2 to reflect D.C. contributions and expenditures occurring at different times throughout the year. For cashflow purposes, capital costs and D.C.s are indexed at 3% annually, debt is calculated at 5% and investment return is calculated at 2.5%. Moreover, the cash flow calculations include the interest costs the anticipated financing of the New Operations Centre that is currently under construction, assumed at 3.5% interest and 10 -year term. Table 6-5 provides the calculated schedule of charges to be imposed on January 1, 2018 (2018$) using the cashflow method. For the residential calculations, charges are calculated on a single detached unit equivalent basis and converted to four forms of dwelling unit types (single and semi- detached, apartments 2 bedrooms and larger, bachelor and 1 bedroom apartments, and other multiples). The non-residential D.C. for the Seaton prestige employment lands has been calculated on a per net hectare basis. The non-residential D.C. for development in all other areas of the City has been calculated on a per square foot of gross floor area basis. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12017 DC StudylReport\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx 124 Page 47 Tables 6-6 and 6-7 compare the City's existing charges (inflated to 2018$ at 3%) to the charges proposed herein (Table 6-5), for single detached residential and non-residential development respectively. Table 6-1 D.C. Calculation Area -Specific Services 2018 — 2031 SERVICE 2017 $ DC Eligible Cost 2017 $ DC Eligible Cost Residential Non -Residential SDU perft' Seaton Prestige Employment Land $ $ $ $ 1. Transportation 62,223,572 5,410,745 6,222 1.75 TOTAL 62,223,572 5,410,745 6,222 1.75 1,270,752 2,621,876 419 5,124 0.14 TOTAL 18,397,966 DC ELIGIBLE CAPITAL COST $62,223,572 $5,410,745 14 year Gross Population / GFA Growth (ft'.) 35,302 3,090,862 Cost Per Capita / Non -Residential GFA (ft'.) $1,762.61 $1.75 DC ELIGIBLE CAPITAL COST By Residential Unit Type p.o.0 $2,110,228 $4,353,922 Single and Semi -Detached Dwelling 3.53 $6,222 248 Apartments - 2 Bedrooms + 2.23 $3,931 Apartments - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom 1.58 $2,785 $197.12 Other Multiples 2.85 $5,023 Special Care/Special Dwelling Units 1.00 $1,763 By Residential Unit Type p.o.0 Table 6-2 D.C. Calculation Municipal -Wide Services 2018 — 2031 SERVICE 2017 $ DC Eligible Cost 2017 $ DC Eligible Cost Residential Non -Residential SDU Non -Residential Seaton Prestige Employment Land Other Pickering Non -Residential Seaton Prestige Employment Other Pickering Land Non -Residential per net hectare per ft' $ $ $ $ 2. Stormwater Management 7,318,947 839,476 1,732,046 277 3,385 0.09 3. Other Services Related to a Highway 11,079,019 1,270,752 2,621,876 419 5,124 0.14 TOTAL 18,397,966 2,110,228 4,353,922 696 8,509 0.23 DC ELIGIBLE CAPITAL COST $18,397,966 $2,110,228 $4,353,922 14 Year Gross Population / Net Hectares / GFA Growth 93,333 248 16745,936 Cost Per Capita / Non -Residential GFA (ft'.) $197.12 $8,509 $0.23 By Residential Unit Type p.o.0 Single and Semi -Detached Dwelling 3.53 $696 Apartments - 2 Bedrooms + 2.23 $440 Apartments - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom 1.58 $311 Other Multiples 2.85 $562 Special Care/Special Dwelling Units 1.00 $197 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12017 DC StudylReport\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx 125 Page 48 Table 6-3 D.C. Calculation Municipal -Wide Services 2018 — 2027 SERVICE 2017 $ DC Eligible Cost 2017 $ DC Eligible Cost Residential Non -Residential SDU Non -Residential Seaton Prestige Employment Land Other Pickering Non -Residential Seaton Prestige Employment Land per net hectare Other Pickering Non -Residential per ft' $ $ $ $ 4. Protection Services 19578125 1,980,597 3,541,720 841 10,781 0.32 5. Parks and Recreation Services 107,705,839 2,033,108 3,635,621 4,628 11,067 0.32 6. Library Services 23,565,477 444,833 795,455 1,013 2,421 0.07 7. Administration Studies 6,184,325 625,598 1,118,699 266 3,405 0,10 TOTAL $157,034,766 $5,084,136 $9,091,495 $6,748 $27,676 $0.81 DC ELIGIBLE CAPITAL COST $157,034,766 $5,084,136 $9,091,495 10 Year Gross Population / Net Hectares / GFA Growth 82,153 184 11,185,194 Cost Per Capita / Non -Residential GFA (8'.) $1,911.49 $27,675.74 $0.81 By Residential Unit Type p,p.0 Single and Semi -Detached Dwelling 3.53 $6,748 Apartments - 2 Bedrooms + 2.23 $4,263 Apartments - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom 1.58 $3,020 Other Multiples 2.85 $5,448 Special Care/Special Dwelling Units 1.00 $1,911 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H..IPickering12017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx 126 Page 49 Table 6-4 Calculated Schedule of Charges (Quantum, 2017$) Service RESIDENTIAL NON-RESIDENTIAL Single and. Semi- Detached+ Dwelling Apartments- 2 Bedrooms Apartments - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom Other Multiples (perft of Total Floor 2 Area) (per net Ha of Prestige Employment Land in Seaton) Municipal Wide Services: Other Services Related to a Highway 419 265 188 338 0.14 5,124 Protection Services 841 531 376 679 0.32 10,781 Parks and Recreation Services 4,628 2,924 2,071 3,736 0.32 11,067 Library Services 1,013 640 453 818 0.07 2,421 Administration Studies 266 168 119 215 0.10 3,405 Stormwater Management 277 175 124 224 0.09 3,385 Total Municipal Wide Services 7,444 4,703 3,331 6,010 1.04 36,185 Outside of Seaton Lands Transportation 1 6,222 3,931 2,785 5,023 1.75 Total Services Outside of Seaton Lands 6,222 3,931 2,785 5,023 1.75 Seaton 7,444 4,703 3,331 6,010 1.04 36,185 Rest of Pickering 13,666 8,634 6,116 11,033 2.79 36,185 1. Subject to a separate agreement outside of the Development Charges Act concerning the provision of Transportation requirements in addition to other funding contributions 2. Does not apply to prestige employment development in Seaton, as that development is subject to the per net Ha land area charge instead. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12017 DC StudylReport\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx 127 Page 50 Table 6-5 Calculated Schedule of Charges (Cash Flow, 2018$) Service RESIDENTIAL NON-RESIDENTIAL Single and Semi- Detached Dwelling Apartments - 2 Bedrooms Apartments - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom Other Multiples (per ft' of Total Floor 2 Area) (per net Ha of Prestige Employment Land in Seaton) Municipal Wide Services: Other Ser,1ces Related to a Highway 441 279 197 356 0.15 5,451 Protection Services 889 562 398 718 0.34 11,431 Parks and Recreation Services 4,851 3,065 2,171 3,917 0.39 13,261 Library Services 1,086 686 486 877 0.08 2,605 Administration Studies 277 175 124 224 0.10 3,560 Stormwater Management 288 182 129 233 0.10 3,503 Total Municipal Wide Services 7,832 4,949 3,505 6,325 1.15 39,812 Outside of Seaton Lands Transportation 1 6,517 4,117 2,917 5,261 1.83 Total Services Outside of Seaton Lands 6,517 4,117 2,917 5,261 1.83 Seaton 7,832 4,949 3,505 6,325 1.15 39,812 Rest of Pickering 14,349 9,066 6,422 11,586 2.98 1. Subject to a separate agreement outside of the Development Charges Act 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. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx 128 Page 51 Table 6-6 Comparison of Current and Calculated D.C.s for Residential Single -Detached Dwelling Units Service Residential per Single & Semi Detached Dwelling Current❑ (Indexed) 2 Calculated Cash Flow Municipal Wide Services: Other Services Related to a Highway 441 Operations 614 Protection Services 889 Fire Protection 664 Parks and Recreation Services 5,637 4,851 Library Services 916 1,086 Administration Studies 202 277 Stormwater Management 431 288 Total Municipal Wide Services 8,464 7,832 Outside of Seaton Lands Transportation 1 5,635 6,517 Total Area Specific Services 5,635 6,517 Seaton 8,464 7,832 Rest of Pickering 14,099 14,349 1. Subject to a separate agreement outside of the Development Charges Act concerning the provision of Transportation requirements in addition to other funding contributions 2. 2017 current rates indexed at 3% Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12017 DC StudylReportlPickering DC Background Study-Final.docx 129 Page 52 Table 6-7 Comparison of Current and Calculated D.C.s For Non -Residential per net ha (Seaton Prestige Employment Lands), and Non - Residential per sq.ft(Other areas of the City) Service Non -Residential (per net Ha of Prestige Employment Land in Seaton) (per ft= of Total Floor Area) 3 Current (Indexed) 2 Calculated Cash Flow Current (Indexed) 2 Calculated Cash Flow Municipal Wide Services: Other Services Related to a Highway 5,451 0.15 Operations 8,264 0.27 Protection Services 11,431 0.34 Fire Protection 9,020 0.29 Parks and Recreation Senrices 14,514 13,261 0.47 0.39 Library Services 2,360 2,605 0.07 0.08 Administration Studies 2,788 3,560 0.08 0.10 StormwaterManagement 6,057 3,503 0.19 0.10 Total Municipal Wide Services 43,003 39,812 1.37 1.15 Outside of Seaton Lands Transportation 1 2.77 1.83 Total Area Specific Services - - 2.77 1.83 Seaton 43,003 39,812 1.37 1.15 Rest of Pickering 4.14 2.98 1. Subject to a separate agreement outside of the Development Charges Act concerning the provision of Transportation requirements in addition to other funding contributions 2. 2017 current rates indexed at 3% 3. Does not apply to prestige employment development in Seaton, as that development is subject to the per net Ha land area charge instead. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12017 DC StudylReportlPickering DC Background Study-Final.docx • 130 Page 53 7. D.C. Policy Recommendations and D.C. By-law Rules This chapter outlines the D.C. policy recommendations and by-law rules. The rules provided are based on the review of methodology and implementation polices with senior City staff. s.s.5(1)9 states that rules must be developed: "...to determine if a D.C. is payable in any particular case and to determine the amount of the charge, subject to the limitations set out in subsection 6. Paragraph 10 of subsection 5(1) goes on to state that the rules may provide for exemptions, phasing in and/or indexing of D.C.s. s.s.5(6) establishes the following restrictions on the rules: 1. the total of all D.C.s that would be imposed on anticipated development must not exceed the capital costs determined under 5(1) 2-8 for all services involved; 2. if the rules expressly identify a type of development, they must not provide for it to pay D.C.s that exceed the capital costs that arise from the increase in the need for service for that type of development; however, this requirement does not relate to any particular development; 3. if the rules provide for a type of development to have a lower D.C. than is allowed, the rules for determining D.C.s may not provide for any resulting shortfall to be made up via other development; and 4. with respect to "the rules," subsection 6 states that a D.C. by-law must expressly address the matters referred to above re s.s.5(1) para. 9 and 10, as well as how the rules apply to the redevelopment of land. 7.1 D.C. By-law Structure It is recommended that: ® the City impose an area -specific D.C. for Transportation Services, with the D.C. applicable on lands outside of Seaton; ® the City impose a uniform City-wide D.C. for all other municipal services herein; and ® one municipal D.C. by-law be used for all services. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12017 DC StudylReport\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx 131 Page 54 7.2 D.C. By-law Rules The following sets out the recommended rules governing the calculation, payment and collection of D.C.s in accordance with subsection 6 of the D.C.A., 1997. It is recommended that the following provides the basis for the D.C.s: 7.2.1 Payment in any Particular Case In accordance with the D.C.A., 1997, s.2(2), a D.C. be calculated, payable and collected where the development requires one or more of the following: a) the passing of a zoning by-law or of an amendment to a zoning by-law under Section 34 of the Planning Act; b) the approval of a minor variance under Section 45 of the Planning Act; c) a conveyance of land to which a by-law passed under Section 50(7) of the Planning Act applies; d) the approval of a plan of subdivision under Section 51 of the Planning Act; e) a consent under Section 53 of the Planning Act; f) the approval of a description under Section 50 of the Condominium Act; or g) the issuing of a building permit under the Building Code Act in relation to a building or structure. 7.2.2 Determination of the Amount of the Charge The following conventions be adopted: 1) Costs allocated to residential uses will be assigned to different types of residential units based on the average occupancy for each housing type constructed during the previous decade. Costs allocated to non-residential uses will be assigned to development within the Seaton prestige employment lands based on the net hectare of land area, and to non-residential development in all other areas of the City based gross floor area constructed. 2) Costs allocated to residential and non-residential uses are based upon a number of conventions, as may be suited to each municipal service circumstance. These are summarized in Chapter 5 herein. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12017 DC StudylReport\Pickering DC Background Study -Final. docx 132 Page 55 Z2.3 Application to Redevelopment of Land (Demolition and Conversion) If a development involves the demolition and replacement of a building or structure on the same site, or the conversion from one principal use to another, the developer shall be allowed a credit equivalent to: 1) the number of dwelling units demolished/converted multiplied by the applicable residential D.C. in place at the time the D.C. is payable; and/or 2) the total floor area of the building demolished/converted multiplied by the current non-residential D.C. in place at the time the D.C. is payable. The application of the redevelopment credits have been modified from the City's current D.C. by-law, whereby a 10 -year redevelopment period was witnessed. Under the proposed D.C. by-law, the demolition credit is allowed only if the land was improved by occupied structures, and if the demolition permit related to the site was issued within 60 months (5 years) of the issuance of a building permit. The credit can, in no case, exceed the amount of D.C.s that would otherwise be payable. Moreover, no credit will be granted if a D.C. or a lot levy (under By-law 3322/89) has not been paid for the demolished or converted building. The onus is on the applicant to provide proof of prior payment of D.C.s or lot levies. The change in redevelopment credit policy will take effect on July 1, 2017, providing a 6 month phase-in of the practice under the new by-law. 7,2,4 Exemptions (full or partial) a) Statutory exemptions 1. Industrial building additions of up to and including 50% of the existing gross floor area (defined in O.Reg. 82/98, s.1) of the building; for industrial building additions which exceed 50% of the existing gross floor area, only the portion of the addition in excess of 50% is subject to D.C.s (s.4(3)); 2. Buildings or structures owned by and used for the purposes of any City, local board or Board of Education (s.3); and 3. Residential development that results in only the enlargement of an existing dwelling unit, or that results only in the creation of up to two additional dwelling units (based on prescribed limits set out in s.2 of O.Reg. 82/98). Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12017 DC StudylReport\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx 133 Page 56 b) Non -statutory exemptions 1. The development of a non-residential farm building used for bona -fide agricultural purposes will be exempt from paying D.C.s for Parks and Recreation Services, Library Services, Administration Services, and Stormwater Management Services. 2. A building or structure that is used in connection with a place of worship an is exempt from taxation under the Assessment Act as a result; 3. Development where no addition dwelling units are being created or non additional non-residential gross floor area is being added; 4. Nursing homes and hospitals; and 5. Garden Suites. The proposed non -statutory exemption for non-residential farm buildings has been narrowed from its current application within the City's D.C. By -Law. Under the City's current by-law, the exemption for non-residential farm buildings is provided for all services, the proposal seeks to limit the exemption to "soft services", recognizing the service demands for Transportation Services, Other Services Related to a Highway, and Stormwater Management Services. 7.2.5 Phase in Provision(s) No provisions for phasing in the D.C. are provided in the proposed D.C. by-law. 7.2.6 Timing of Collection The D.C.s for all services are payable upon issuance of a building permit for each dwelling unit, building or structure, subject to early or late payment agreements entered into by the City and an owner under s.27 of the D.C.A., 1997. 7.2.7 Indexing All D.C.s will be subject to mandatory indexing annually on July 1st, commencing on July 1, 2019, in accordance with provisions under the D.C.A. It is recommended that authority to index D.C.s as per the provisions of the D.C.A. be delegated to the Treasurer of the City. 7.2.8 D.C. Spatial Applicability In accordance with the D.C.A., the City gave, consideration to the imposition of D.C.s on an area -specific basis, and is maintaining its current approach of imposing uniform City - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12017 DC StudylReport\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx 134 Page 57 wide D.C.s for all services excluding Transportation Services. Transportation Services will continue to be imposed on an area -specific basis for lands outside of Seaton. 7.3 Other D.C. By-law Provisions 73.1 Categories of Services for Reserve Fund and Credit Purposes It is recommended that the City's D.C. collections be contributed into seven (7) separate reserve funds, including: Transportation Services, Other Services Related to a Highway, Protection Services, Parks and Recreation Services, Library Services, Administration Services, and Stormwater Management Services. It is further recommended that all D.C. exemptions granted over the life of the by-law be contributed into the applicable D.C. reserve funds from non -D.C. sources. 7.3.2 By-law In -force Date The proposed by-law under D.C.A., 1997 will come into force on the January 1, 2018 7.3.3 Minimum Interest Rate Paid on Refunds and Charged for Inter -Reserve Fund Borrowing The minimum interest rate is the Bank of Canada rate on the day on which the by-law comes into force (as per s.11 of O.Reg. 82/98). 7.4 Other Recommendations It is recommended that Council: "Approve the capital project listing set out in Chapter 5 of the "City of Pickering 2017 Development Charges Background Study" dated October 5, 2017, subject to further annual review during the capital budget process;" "Approve the "City of Pickering 2017 Development Charges Background Study" dated October 5, 2017;" "Determine that no further public meeting is required;" and "Approve the Development Charges By -Law as set out in Appendix E". Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12017 DC StudylReport\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx 135 Page 58 8. Asset Management Plan 8.1 Introduction The recent changes to the D.C.A. (new section 10(c.2)) require that the background study must include an Asset Management Plan (A.M.P) related to new infrastructure. Section 10 (3) of the D.C.A. provides: The A.M.P. shall, (a) deal with all assets whose capital costs are proposed to be funded under the development charge by-law; (b) demonstrate that all the assets mentioned in clause (a) are financially sustainable over their full life cycle; (c) contain any other information that is prescribed; and (d) be prepared in the prescribed manner. At a broad level, the A.M.P. provides for the long-term investment in an asset over its entire useful life along with the funding. The schematic below identifies the costs for an asset through its entire lifecycle. For growth -related works, the majority of capital costs will be funded by the D.C. Non -growth related expenditures will then be funded from non -D.C. revenues as noted below. During the useful life of the asset, there will be minor maintenance costs to extend the life of the asset along with additional program related expenditures to provide the full services to the residents. At the end of the life of the asset, it will be replaced by non -D.C. financing sources. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12017 DC StudylReport\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx 136 Page 59 ,New Assets Financincr Methods Replacement Assets Purchase Install Commission Operate Maintain Monitor (Throughout Lile of Assets (To Eno of Useful Lde 1 Removal / Decommission Dispos al Development Charges (Growth Reserves !Reserve Funds Debentures Taxation User Fees Grants Other Tax Supported Operating Budget User Fees Operating Budges Proceeds on Disposal Funding of Disposal 1 Decommissioning Costs J Purchase Install Commission Cperaie Maintain Monitor Throughout Life of Assets } {To End of Useful Lire 1 Removal 1 De commission DIspos al In 2012, the Province developed Building Together: Guide for Municipal Asset Management Plans which outlines the key elements for an A.M.P., as follows: State of local infrastructure: asset types, quantities, age, condition, financial accounting valuation and replacement cost valuation. Desired levels of service: defines levels of service through performance measures and discusses any external trends or issues that may affect expected levels of service or the municipality's ability to meet them (for example, new accessibility standards, climate change impacts). Asset management strategy: the asset management strategy is the set of planned actions that will seek to generate the desired levels of service in a sustainable way, while managing risk, at the lowest lifecycle cost. Financing strategy: having a financial plan is critical for putting an A.M.P. into action. By having a strong financial plan, municipalities can also demonstrate that they have made a concerted effort to integrate the A.M.P. with financial planning and municipal budgeting, and are making full use of all available infrastructure financing tools. The above provides for the general approach to be considered by Ontario municipalities. At this time, there is not a mandated approach for municipalities hence leaving discretion to individual municipalities as to how they plan for the long-term Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12O17 DC StudylReportlPickering DC Background Study-Final.docx 137 Page 60 replacement of their assets. The City of Pickering has undertaken an A.M.P dated November 28, 2013. However, the plan addresses only roads and bridges assets and does not include all assets categories that are included in the capital forecast needs of the D.C. background study. For the services included in the A.M.P., the plan addresses growth related needs for the assets included, however the growth -related needs for other D.C. services have not been considered. As a result, the asset management requirement for this D.C. background study must be undertaken in the absence of this information. In recognition to the schematic in Section 8.1, the following table (presented in 2017$) has been developed to provide the annualized expenditures and revenues associated with new growth. Note that the D.C.A. does not require an analysis of the non -D.C. capital needs or their associated operating costs so these are omitted from the table below. Furthermore, as all existing assets for the categories of assets included in the D.C. eligible capital costs are not included in the City's A.M.P. (parks and recreation, library, etc. not included), the present infrastructure gap and associated funding plan has not been considered at this time. Hence the following does not represent a fiscal impact assessment (including future tax/rate increases) but provides insight into the potential affordability of the new assets: 1. The non -D.C. recoverable portion of the projects which will require financing from City financial resources (i.e. taxation, rates, fees, etc.). This amount has been presented on an annual debt charge amount based on 20 -year financing. 2. Lifecycle costs for the 2017 D.C. capital works have been presented based on a sinking fund basis. The assets have been considered over their estimated useful lives. 3. Incremental operating costs for the D.C. services (only) have been included. 4. The resultant total annualized expenditures are $55.7 million. 5. Consideration was given to the potential new taxation and user fee revenues which will be generated as a result of new growth. These revenues will be available to finance the expenditures above. The new operating revenues are $49.7 million. This amount, totalled with the existing operating revenues of $94.6 million, provide annual revenues of $144.3 million by the end of the period. 6. In consideration of the above, the capital plan is deemed to be financially sustainable. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12017 DC StudylReport\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx 138 Page 61 Table 8-1 City of Pickering Asset Management — Future Expenditures and Associated Revenues (2017$ 1 Non -Growth Related component of Projects including 10% mandatory deduction on soft services 2 Interim Debt Financing for Post Period Benefit 3 Area -specific application of Transportation Services 4As perSch. 10 of FIR Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H. IPickering12017 DC StudylReport\Pickering DC Background Study -Final. docx 139 Sub -Total 2031 (Total) Expenditures (Annualized) Annual Debt Payment on Non -Growth Related Capital 8,549,027 Annual Debt Payment on Post Period Capital2 1,768,466 Lifecycle: Annual Lifecycle - Town Wide Services $8,181,991 Annual Lifecycle - Area Specific Services3 $3,597,036 Sub -Total -Annual Lifecycle $11,779,027 $11,779,027 Incremental Operating Costs (for D.C. Services) $33,637,465 Total Expenditures $55,733,986 Revenue (Annualized) Total Existing Revenue4 $94,578,893 Incremental Tax and Non -Tax Revenue (User Fees, Fines, Licences, etc.) $49,682,047 Total Revenues $144,260,940 1 Non -Growth Related component of Projects including 10% mandatory deduction on soft services 2 Interim Debt Financing for Post Period Benefit 3 Area -specific application of Transportation Services 4As perSch. 10 of FIR Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H. IPickering12017 DC StudylReport\Pickering DC Background Study -Final. docx 139 Page 62 9. By-law Implementation 9.1 Public Consultation This chapter addresses the mandatory, formal public consultation process (subsection 9.1.1), as well as the optional, informal consultation process (subsection 9.1.2). The latter is designed to seek the co-operation and involvement of those involved, in order to produce the most suitable policy. Section 9.2 addresses the anticipated impact of the D.C. on development, from a generic viewpoint. 9.1.1 Public Meeting of Council Section 12 of the D.C.A., 1997 indicates that before passing a D.C. by-law, Council must hold at least one public meeting, giving at least 20 clear days' notice thereof, in accordance with the Regulation. Council must also ensure that the proposed by-law and background report are made available to the public at least two weeks prior to the (first) meeting. Any person who attends such a meeting may make representations related to the proposed by-law. If a proposed by-law is changed following such a meeting, the Council must determine whether a further meeting (under this section) is necessary. For example, if the by-law which is proposed for adoption has been changed in any respect, the Council should formally consider whether an additional public meeting is required, incorporating this determination as part of the final by-law or associated resolution. It is noted that Council's decision, once made, is final and not subject to review by a Court or the O.M.B. 9.1.2 Other Consultation Activity There are three broad groupings of the public who are generally the most concerned with municipal D.C. policy: 1. The residential development community, consisting of land developers and builders, who are typically responsible for generating the majority of the D.C. revenues. Others, such as realtors, are directly impacted by D.C. policy. They are, therefore, potentially interested in all aspects of the charge, particularly the quantum by unit type, projects to be funded by the D.C. and the timing thereof, Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12017 DC StudylReport\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx 140 Page 63 and municipal policy with respect to development agreements, D.C. credits and front -ending requirements. 2. The second public grouping embraces the public at large and includes taxpayer coalition groups and others interested in public policy (e.g. in encouraging a higher non -automobile modal split). 3. The third grouping is the industrial/commercial/institutional development sector, consisting of land developers and major owners or organizations with significant construction plans, such as hotels, entertainment complexes, shopping centres, offices, industrial buildings and institutions. Also involved are organizations such as Industry Associations, the Chamber of Commerce, the Board of Trade and the Economic Development Agencies, who are all potentially interested in municipal D.C. policy. Their primary concern is frequently with the quantum of the charge, gross floor area exclusions such as basement, mechanical or indoor parking areas, or exemptions and phase-in or capping provisions in order to moderate the impact. 9.2 Anticipated Impact of the Charge on Development The establishment of sound D.C. policy often requires the achievement of an acceptable balance between two competing realities. The first is that high non- residential D.C.s can, to some degree, represent a barrier to increased economic activity and sustained industrial/commercial growth, particularly for capital intensive uses. Also, in many cases, increased residential D.C.s can ultimately be expected to be recovered via higher housing prices and can impact project feasibility in some cases (e.g. rental apartments). On the other hand, D.C.s or other municipal capital funding sources need to be obtained in order to help ensure that the necessary infrastructure and amenities are installed. The timely installation of such works is a key initiative in providing adequate service levels and in facilitating strong economic growth, investment and wealth generation. 9.3 Implementation Requirements Once the City has calculated the charge, prepared the complete Background Study, carried out the public process and passed a new by-law, the emphasis shifts to implementation matters. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12017 DC StudylReportlPickering DC Background Study-Final.docx 141 Page 64 These include notices, potential appeals and complaints, credits, front -ending agreements, subdivision agreement conditions and finally the collection of revenues and funding of projects. The following provides an overview of the requirements in each case. 9.3.1 Notice of Passage In accordance with s.13 of the D.C.A., when a D.C. by-law is passed, the municipal clerk shall give written notice of the passing and of the last day for appealing the by-law (the day that is 40 days after the day it was passed). Such notice must be given not later than 20 days after the day the by-law is passed (i.e. as of the day of newspaper publication or the mailing of the notice). Section 10 of O.Reg. 82/98 further defines the notice requirements which are summarized as follows: 6. Notice may be given by publication in a newspaper which is (in the Clerk's opinion) of sufficient circulation to give the public reasonable notice, or by personal service, fax or mail to every owner of land in the area to which the by- law relates; 7. s.s.10 (4) lists the persons/organizations who must be given notice; and 8. s.s.10 (5) lists the eight items which the notice must cover. 9.3.2 By-law Pamphlet In addition to the "notice" information, the City must prepare a "pamphlet" explaining each D.C. by-law in force, setting out: 9. a description of the general purpose of the D.C.s; 10. the "rules" for determining if a charge is payable in a particular case and for determining the amount of the charge; 11.the services to which the D.C.s relate; and 12.a general description of the general purpose of the Treasurer's statement and where it may be received by the public. Where a by-law is not appealed to the O.M.B., the pamphlet must be readied within 60 days after the by-law comes into force. Later dates apply to appealed by-laws. The City must give one copy of the most recent pamphlet without charge, to any person who requests one. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12017 DC StudylReport\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx 142 Page 65 9.3.3 Appeals Sections 13 to 19 of the D.C.A., 1997 set out requirements relative to making and processing a D.C. by-law appeal and an O.M.B. Hearing in response to an appeal. Any person or organization may appeal a D.C. by-law to the O.M.B. by filing a notice of appeal with the municipal clerk, setting out the objection to the by-law and the reasons supporting the objection. This must be done by the last day for appealing the by-law, which is 40 days after the by-law is passed. 9.3.4 Complaints A person required to pay a D.C., or his agent, may complain to Municipal Council imposing the charge that: 13. the amount of the charge was incorrectly determined; 14. the credit to be used against the D.C. was incorrectly determined; or 15. there was an error in the application of the D.C. Sections 20 to 25 of the D.C.A., 1997 set out the requirements that exist, including the fact that a complaint may not be made later than 90 days after a D.C. (or any part of it) is payable. A complainant may appeal the decision of Municipal Council to the O.M.B. 9, 3.5 Credits Sections 38 to 41 of the D.C.A., 1997 set out a number of credit requirements, which apply where a City agrees to allow a person to perform work in the future that relates to a service in the D.C. by-law. These credits would be used to reduce the amount of D.C.s to be paid. The value of the credit is limited to the reasonable cost of the work which does not exceed the average level of service. The credit applies only to the service to which the work relates, unless the City agrees to expand the credit to other services for which a D.C. is payable. 9.3.6 Front -Ending Agreements The City and one or more landowners may enter into a front -ending agreement which provides for the costs of a project which will benefit an area in the City to which the D.C. by-law applies. Such an agreement can provide for the costs to be borne by one or more parties to the agreement who are, in turn, reimbursed in future by persons who develop land defined in the agreement. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H.IPickering12017 DC StudylReportlPickering DC Background Study-Final.docx 143 Page 66 Part III of the D.C.A., 1997 (Sections 44 to 58) addresses front -ending agreements and removes some of the obstacles to their use which were contained in the D.C.A., 1989. Accordingly, the City assesses whether this mechanism is appropriate for its use, as part of funding projects prior to municipal funds being available. 9.17 Severance and Subdivision Agreement Conditions Section 59 of the D.C.A., 1997 prevents a City from imposing directly or indirectly, a charge related to development or a requirement to construct a service related to development, by way of a condition or agreement under s.51 or s.53 of the Planning Act, except for: • "local services, related to a plan of subdivision or within the area to which the plan relates, to be installed or paid for by the owner as a condition of approval under Section 51 of the Planning Act;" • "local services to be installed or paid for by the owner as a condition of approval under Section 53 of the Planning Act." It is also noted that s.s.59(4) of the D.C.A., 1997 requires that the municipal approval authority for a draft plan of subdivision under s.s.51(31) of the Planning Act, use its power to impose conditions to ensure that the first purchaser of newly subdivided land is informed of all the D.C.s related to the development, at the time the land is transferred. In this regard, if the City in question is a commenting agency, in order to comply with subsection 59(4) of the D.C.A., 1997 it would need to provide to the approval authority, information regarding the applicable municipal D.C.s related to the site. If the City is an approval authority for the purposes of Section 51 of the Planning Act, it would be responsible to ensure that it collects information from all entities which can impose a D.C. The most effective way to ensure that purchasers are aware of this condition would be to require it as a provision in a registered subdivision agreement, so that any purchaser of the property would be aware of the charges at the time the title was searched prior to closing a transaction conveying the lands. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H.IPickering12017 DC StudylReport\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx 144 Page 67 Appendix A — Background Information on Residential and Non-residential Growth Forecast Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12017 DC StudylReport\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx 145 Schedule 1 City or Pickering Resident al Growth Forecast Summary Year Population QncIoding Census Undercount). POpulalion (Excluding Census Undercount) IOstdutlOnel Population Papalel Ion Excluding Ins llutional 1107 01159 Housing lJn9s Singles 5 semi' Detached Multiple Dwellings 1 Apartments' Other Total H0116ennkis Person Per Unit lPPlr) 1 Hid 2005 51.860 67838 5115 97.243 20,335 4,770 3.118 10 28,225 3.11 50d 92.800 88.721 555 88.125 20.740 4,380 3.190 15 29,335 3.03 t 04 2016 i 55.550 95,771 778 90,995 21.125 8,085 3,595 30 14.975 2,97 Eerty2078 97,480 93,178 789 52,355 21,474 8,440 3,733 30 31,657 2,55 5w1y2023 737,490 537.445 1,111 130336 26,154 12,742 5.395 30 67,294 2.78 P -402425 LL Ea 175,910 165,172 1,422' 105,750 29,593 18,435 13.126 30 61,189 2,75 6976 2031 169208 160,885 1,530 178,358 38,192 20,228 15.080 30 65,590 2.78 t 1416 2000 - Mid 2011 920 083 0 893 445 610 66 5 1.150 7. Mid 2011 -MEd 2016 3,190 3,050 111' 0,969 385 655 505 15 1,550 E Mld 2016- Early 2016 1,470 1,405 12 1,393 269. 375 38 0 722 Early 2010 - Early 202a 40,030 36,209 323 37,946 4,740 6,302 4,635 0 10,577 .g c Early 2018- Early 202B 78,450 74,996 834 74,362 8,179 11,909 9,393 0 29,672 Early 2018 - MEd 2091 91,746 17,709 742' 86,969 8,776: 13,788 11,347 0 33,913 Source: Watson d A553Ci01911 ECO0em1s115 Ltd.. 2010. Derived Irom Durham Region Official Pfau. Nota: Population forecast excludes N0r1heasl Pickering. Nola: A total ori approximately 36.500 persons (aloha/10g the net Census un491 0409) and 11,700 households have been reserved for NOdheasl Pickering between 2027 and 2031 as the p4putelien'and households allocated to this area have been deferred. 1. Census Undercount eslunated a1 epproxlmately 4.5%, Note: POpulell0TI 'balding Ile Lnder407Mt lea been rounded, 2. Includes townhomes and apanmerds in duplexes. 3, Includes bachelor, 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom+ apadrne MS. Housing Units 1,540 Figure A-1 Annual Housing Forecast' I Ok 1. ,e 141 1751 1.19 1.111 1.117 1112 1112 3,000 2,300 • 2000 1,500 1,Hr 1.1.9 1.111 1,M1 1,000 503 sas s15 Years =Historical =Low Density =Medium Density =High Density -Historical Average Source: 133ICrtcaf housing a21N6y (2087.2016) !maul on Slatlstics Canada hu5ding perm's, 1. 0rowlh Forecast represents Calendar year. worsen 6 •.a..dakes .5corlemh4. IJ4, 417 Page fib 1i9PhMrpl2017 OC Stud44rvetM PO4;11114 2117 DC er2Mn S1pler7ett 2229179rm Page 69 Schedule 2 City of Pickering Estimate of the Anticipated Amount, Type And Location of Residential Development for which Development Charges can be Imposed Development Location Timing Singles & Semi- Detached 1 Multiples 2 Apartments Total Residential Units Gross Population In New Units Existing Unit Population Change pp Net Population Increase Seaton 2018 - 2028 4,832 7,089 5,550 17,471 48,536 - 48,450 2018 - 2031 5,298 8,599 7,295 21,193 58,030 - 58,030 Rest of Pickering 2018-2028 3,347 4,910 3,844 12,101 33,617 (7,791) 25,826 2018 - 2031 3,480 5,188 4,052 12,720 35,302 (6,366) 28,936 City of Pickering 2018-2028 8,179 11,999 9,393 29,572 82,153 (7,791) 74,362 2018 - 2031 8,778 13,788 11,347 33,913 93,333 (6,366) 86,968 Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2018. De ived from Durham Region Official Plan. Note: Population forecast excludes Northeast Pickering. Note: A total of approximately 36,500 persons (including the net Census undercount) and 11,700 households have been reserved for Northeast Pickering between 2027 and 2031 as the population and households allocated to this area have been deferred. 1. Includes townhouses and apartments in duplexes. 2. Includes bachelor, 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom+ apartments. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Growth\ Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. 9/14/2017 Pickering 2017 DC Growth September 14 2017.xlsm Page 70 Schedule 3 City of Pickering Current Year Growth Forecast EARLY 2016 to EARLY 2018 (1) 2016 population based on StatCan Census unadjusted for Census Undercount. (2) Estimated residential units constructed, Mid 2016 to the beginning of the growth period, assuming a six-month lag between construction and occupancy. (3) Average number of persons per unit (ppu) is assumed to be: Persons % Distribution Weighted Persons (Structural Type Per Unit' of Estimated Units' t Per Unit Average ,Singles & Semi -Detached 3.65 41% 1.50 ; Muitrples (B) 3.29 53% 1.76 lApartme tts (7) 2.59 5% i 0.14 f (Totali 100% 3.40 Based on 2011 Census custom database ' Based on building pemliticompletion activity (4) 2016 households taken from StatCan Census. (5) Decline occurs due to aging of the population and family lifecycle changes, lower fertility rates and changing economic conditions. (6) Includes townhouses and apartments in duplexes. (7) Includes bachelor, 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom+ apartments. H:1Pickering12017 DC StudylGrowthl Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. 9/22/2017 Pickering 2017 DC Growth September 22 2017.xism 148 Population Net of Institutional) Mid 2016 Population 90.995 Occupants of New Housing Units, Mid 20116 to EARLY 2018 Units (2) 702 multiplied by persons aerunit (3) 3.40 gross population increase 2,385 2,385 Decline in Housing Unit Occupancy, Mid 2016 to EARLY 2018 Units (4) 30,915 multiplied by p•u decline rate (5) -0.0321 total decline in population -992 -992 Population Estimate to EARLY 2018 52 388 Net Population Increase Mid 2016 to Early 2017 1,393 (1) 2016 population based on StatCan Census unadjusted for Census Undercount. (2) Estimated residential units constructed, Mid 2016 to the beginning of the growth period, assuming a six-month lag between construction and occupancy. (3) Average number of persons per unit (ppu) is assumed to be: Persons % Distribution Weighted Persons (Structural Type Per Unit' of Estimated Units' t Per Unit Average ,Singles & Semi -Detached 3.65 41% 1.50 ; Muitrples (B) 3.29 53% 1.76 lApartme tts (7) 2.59 5% i 0.14 f (Totali 100% 3.40 Based on 2011 Census custom database ' Based on building pemliticompletion activity (4) 2016 households taken from StatCan Census. (5) Decline occurs due to aging of the population and family lifecycle changes, lower fertility rates and changing economic conditions. (6) Includes townhouses and apartments in duplexes. (7) Includes bachelor, 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom+ apartments. H:1Pickering12017 DC StudylGrowthl Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. 9/22/2017 Pickering 2017 DC Growth September 22 2017.xism 148 Page 71 Schedule 4 City of Pickering Five Year Growth Forecast EARLY 2018 to EARLY 2023 (1) EARLY 2018 Population based on; 2016 Population (90,995) + Mid 2016 to EARLY 2018 estimated housing units to beginning of forecast period (702 x 3.4 = 2,385) + (30,915 x -0.0321 = -992) = 92,388 (2) Based upon forecast building permits/completions assuming a lag between construction and occupancy. (3) Average number of persons per unit (ppu) is assumed to be: Persons % Distribution Weighted Persons Structural Type Per Unit' of Estimated Units' Per Unit Average Singles & Semi -Detached 3.53 30% 1.07 Multiples {6) 2.85 40% 1,15 ;Apartments (7) 2.03 30% 0.60 one bedroom or less 1.58 two bedrooms or more '2.23 'Total 100% 2.81 Persons per unit based on adjusted Staiislics Canada Custom 2011 Census database. 'Forecast unit mix based upon historical trends and housino units in the development process. (4) EARLY 2018 households based upon 30,915 (2011 Census) + 702 (Mid 2016 to EARLY 2018 unit estimate) = 31,617 (5) Decline occurs due to aging of the population and family lifecycle changes, lower fertility rates and changing economic conditions_ (6) Includes townhouses and apartments in duplexes. (7) Includes bachelor, 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom+ apartments. H:1Pickering12017 DC Study\Growth) Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. 9/22/2017 Pickering 2017 DC Growth September 22 2017.xlsm 149 Population (Net of Institutional) EARLY 2018 Population 92.388 Occupants of New Housing Units, EARLY 2018 to EARLY 20; Units (2) 15,677 multiplied by persons per unit (3) 2.81 gross population increase 44,109 44,109 Decline in Housing Unit Occupancy, EARLY 2018 to EARLY 20" Units (4) 31,617 multiplied by ppu decline rate (5) -0,1949 _ total decline in population -6,163 -6,1163 Population Estimate to EARLY 2023 130,334 Net Population Increase, EARLY 2018 to EARLY 2023 37,946 (1) EARLY 2018 Population based on; 2016 Population (90,995) + Mid 2016 to EARLY 2018 estimated housing units to beginning of forecast period (702 x 3.4 = 2,385) + (30,915 x -0.0321 = -992) = 92,388 (2) Based upon forecast building permits/completions assuming a lag between construction and occupancy. (3) Average number of persons per unit (ppu) is assumed to be: Persons % Distribution Weighted Persons Structural Type Per Unit' of Estimated Units' Per Unit Average Singles & Semi -Detached 3.53 30% 1.07 Multiples {6) 2.85 40% 1,15 ;Apartments (7) 2.03 30% 0.60 one bedroom or less 1.58 two bedrooms or more '2.23 'Total 100% 2.81 Persons per unit based on adjusted Staiislics Canada Custom 2011 Census database. 'Forecast unit mix based upon historical trends and housino units in the development process. (4) EARLY 2018 households based upon 30,915 (2011 Census) + 702 (Mid 2016 to EARLY 2018 unit estimate) = 31,617 (5) Decline occurs due to aging of the population and family lifecycle changes, lower fertility rates and changing economic conditions_ (6) Includes townhouses and apartments in duplexes. (7) Includes bachelor, 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom+ apartments. H:1Pickering12017 DC Study\Growth) Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. 9/22/2017 Pickering 2017 DC Growth September 22 2017.xlsm 149 Page 72 Schedule 5a City of Pickering Ten Year Growth Forecast EARLY 2018 to EARLY 2028 (1) EARLY 2018 Population based on: 2016 Population (90,995) + Mid 2016 to EARLY 2018 estimated housing units to beginning of forecast period (702 x 3.4 = 2,385) + (30,915 x-0.0321 =-992) = 92,388 (2) Based upon forecast building permitslcompletions assuming a lag between construction and occupancy. (3) Average number of persons per unit (ppu) is assumed to be: Persons °I° Distribution , Weighted Persons •Structural Type Per Unit' of Estimated Units2 Per Unit Average Singles & Semi -Detached 3.53 28°6 0.98 !Multiples (6) 2.85 1 41% 1.16 (Apartments (7) f 2.03 32% 0.64 one bedroom or less '1.58 two bedrooms or more 2.23 'Total 100% 2.78 Persons per unit based on adjusted Statistics Canada Custom 2011 Census database, Forecast unit mix based upon historical trends and housing units in the development process. (4) EARLY 2018 households based upon 30,915 (2011 Census) + 702 (Mid 2016 to EARLY 2018 unit estimate) = 31,617 (5) Decline occurs due to aging of the population and family Iifecycle changes, Tower fertility rates and changing economic conditions. (6) Includes townhouses and apartments in duplexes. (7) Includes bachelor, 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom+ apartments. H:1Pickenng12017 DC Study\Growthl Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. 9/22/2017 Pickering 2017 DC Growth September 22 2017.xlsm 150 Population (Net of Institutional) EARLY 2018 Population 92,388 Occupants of New Housing Units, EARLY 2018 to EARLY 20: Units (2) 29,572 multiplied by persons per unit (3) 2.78 gross population increase 82,153 82,153 Decline in Housing Unit Occupancy, EARLY 2018 to EARLY 20: Units (4) 31,617 multiplied by ppu decline rate (5) -0.2464 total decline in population -7,791 -7,791 Population Estimate to EARLY 2028 166,750 Net Population Increase, EARLY 2018 to EARLY 2028 74,362 (1) EARLY 2018 Population based on: 2016 Population (90,995) + Mid 2016 to EARLY 2018 estimated housing units to beginning of forecast period (702 x 3.4 = 2,385) + (30,915 x-0.0321 =-992) = 92,388 (2) Based upon forecast building permitslcompletions assuming a lag between construction and occupancy. (3) Average number of persons per unit (ppu) is assumed to be: Persons °I° Distribution , Weighted Persons •Structural Type Per Unit' of Estimated Units2 Per Unit Average Singles & Semi -Detached 3.53 28°6 0.98 !Multiples (6) 2.85 1 41% 1.16 (Apartments (7) f 2.03 32% 0.64 one bedroom or less '1.58 two bedrooms or more 2.23 'Total 100% 2.78 Persons per unit based on adjusted Statistics Canada Custom 2011 Census database, Forecast unit mix based upon historical trends and housing units in the development process. (4) EARLY 2018 households based upon 30,915 (2011 Census) + 702 (Mid 2016 to EARLY 2018 unit estimate) = 31,617 (5) Decline occurs due to aging of the population and family Iifecycle changes, Tower fertility rates and changing economic conditions. (6) Includes townhouses and apartments in duplexes. (7) Includes bachelor, 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom+ apartments. H:1Pickenng12017 DC Study\Growthl Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. 9/22/2017 Pickering 2017 DC Growth September 22 2017.xlsm 150 Page 73 Schedule 513 City of Pickering Buildout Growth Forecast EARLY 2018 to Mid 2031 (1) EARLY 2018 Population based on: 2016 Population (90,995) + Mid 2016 to EARLY 2018 estimated housing units to beginning of forecast period (702 x 3.4 = 2,385) + (30,915 x -0.0321 = -992) = 92,368 (2) Based upon forecast building permits/completions assuming a lag between construction and occupancy. (3) Average number of persons per unit (ppu) is assumed to be: Persons % Distribution Weighted Persons ,structural Type Per Unit' of Estimated Units' Per Unit Average Singles & Semi -Detached 3.53 26% 0.91 • Multiples (6)1 2.85 41% 1.16 Apartments (7) 2.03 33V 0.68 one bedroom or less 11.58 two bedrooms or more ;2.23 'Total 100° 2.75 'Parsons per unit based on adjusted Statistics Canada Custom 2011 Census database_ Forecast unit mix based upon historical trends and housing units in the development process. (4) EARLY 2018 households based upon 30,915 (2011 Census) + 702 (Mid 2016 to EARLY 2018 unit estimate) = 31,617 (5) Decline occurs due to aging of the population and family lifecycle changes, lower fertility rates and changing economic conditions. (6) Includes townhouses and apartments in duplexes. (7) Includes bachelor, 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom+ apartments. Ii:\Pickering12017 DC StudylGrowthl Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. 9/22/2017 Pickering 2017 DC Growth September 22 2017.xlsm 151 Population {Net of Institutional) EARLY 2018 Population 92.388 Occupants of New Housing Units, EARLY 2018 to 2031 Units (2) 33,913 multiplied by persons per unit (3) 2.75 gross population increase 93,333 93,333 Decline in Housing Unit Occupancy, EARLY 2018 to 2031 Units (4) 31,617 multiplied by ppu. decline rate (5) -0.2013 total decline in population -6,366 -6,366 Population Estimate to 2031 179,356 Net Population Increase, EARLY 2018 to 2031 86,968 (1) EARLY 2018 Population based on: 2016 Population (90,995) + Mid 2016 to EARLY 2018 estimated housing units to beginning of forecast period (702 x 3.4 = 2,385) + (30,915 x -0.0321 = -992) = 92,368 (2) Based upon forecast building permits/completions assuming a lag between construction and occupancy. (3) Average number of persons per unit (ppu) is assumed to be: Persons % Distribution Weighted Persons ,structural Type Per Unit' of Estimated Units' Per Unit Average Singles & Semi -Detached 3.53 26% 0.91 • Multiples (6)1 2.85 41% 1.16 Apartments (7) 2.03 33V 0.68 one bedroom or less 11.58 two bedrooms or more ;2.23 'Total 100° 2.75 'Parsons per unit based on adjusted Statistics Canada Custom 2011 Census database_ Forecast unit mix based upon historical trends and housing units in the development process. (4) EARLY 2018 households based upon 30,915 (2011 Census) + 702 (Mid 2016 to EARLY 2018 unit estimate) = 31,617 (5) Decline occurs due to aging of the population and family lifecycle changes, lower fertility rates and changing economic conditions. (6) Includes townhouses and apartments in duplexes. (7) Includes bachelor, 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom+ apartments. Ii:\Pickering12017 DC StudylGrowthl Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. 9/22/2017 Pickering 2017 DC Growth September 22 2017.xlsm 151 Page 74 Schedule 6 City of Pickering Historical Residential Building Permits Years 2007 - 2016 Year Residential Building Permits Singles & Semi - Detached Multiples' Apartments2 Total 2007 108 77 3 188 2008 67 177 4 248 2009 55 6 16 77 2010 84 42 146 272 2011 259 75 241 575 Sub -total 314 377 410 1,360 Average (2007 - 2011) 79 75 82 272 % Breakdown 23.1% 27.7% 30.1% 81.0% 2012 237 46 0 283 2013 148 274 3 425 2014 166 98 0 264 2015 148 24 190 362 2016 212 115 25 352 Sub -total 699 557 218 1,686 Average (2012 - 2016) 175 111 44 337 % Breakdown 41.5% 33.0% 12.9% 87.4% 2007 - 2016 Total 1,013 934 628 3,046 Average 127 93 63 305 % Breakdown 33.3% 30.7% 20.6% 84.5% Source: Historical housing activity (2007-2016) based on Statistics Canada building permits. 1. Includes townhouses and apartments in duplexes. 2. Includes bachelor, 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom+ apartments. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Growth\ Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. 9/14/2017 Pickering 2017 DC Growth September 14 2017.xlsm 152 Page 75 Schedule 7 City of Pickering Persons Per Unit By Age and Type Of Dwelling (2011 Census) Age of Dwelling Singles and Scmf-Detached c 1 BR a 1 BR 1 BR 2 BR 3/4 BR 5+ BR Total 20 Year Average 1-53.620 - - - 3.620 4.000 3.621 1.471 6-10 - - - 3.615 4.467 3.688 1.867 11-15 - - - 3.361 4.260 3.395 3,071 16-20 - - - 3.263 4.787 3.408 3 •13 20-25 - - 3.214 3.363 3.969 3.447 3.103 25-35 - - 2.588 3,285 3.726 3.279 Total 35+ 0,381 2,111 2.125 2.853 3.430 2.804 Total 0.315 3.333 2.509 3.181 3.940 3.200 Age of Dwelling Muitip es2 c 1 BR < 1 BR 1 BR 2 BR 3/4 SR 5+ BR Total 20 Year Average 1-5- - - - 2,895 - 3.286 1.471 6-10 _ 0.417 - 2,286 3.153 - 2.797 1.867 11-15 0.182 - - 3.040 - 2.992 3,071 16-20 - - 2.313 2.318 2,667 2.336 2 xi 20-25 0.615 - 2,579 3,500 4.947 3.303 3.103 2.5-35 - - 2.091 2,856 - 2.812 Total 35+ 0.800 1.833 2.818 2.961 3,421 2.814 Total 0.710 2.400 2.556 2.957 4.333 2.844 Age of Dwelling Apartments' c 1 BR a 1 BR 1 BR 2 BR 314 BR 5+ BR. Total 20 Year Average 1-5 - - - - - 2.588 1.471 6-10 - 1.429 1.875 - - '2.045 1.867 11-15 - 1.417 1,488 3.188 - 1.719 3,071 16-20 - 1.250 1.653 2.524 - 1.767 2o; 20-25 - 1.444 1.515 2.714 - 1.681 3.103 25-35 - 1.182 1.941 2250 - 1.895 Total 35+ 0.583 1,526 2.147 2.730 - 2.306 Total 0.489 1.398 1.697 2.793 - 1.963 Age of Dwelling All Density Types c 1 BR 1 BR 2 2R 3/4 BR 6+ BR Total 1-5 -- 1.833 3.456 3.938 3.241 6-10 - 1.471 2.186 3.409 4.086 3.201 11-15 - 1,511 1.867 3.268 3.885 3.069 16-20 - 1.238 1.896 3,071 4.246 2.971 20-25 - 1.559 1.940 3253 4,000 3.255 25-35 - 1.308 2.082 3.169 3.797 3.103 35+ - 1.532 1.983 2.843 3.316 2.753 Total 1.895 1.473 1.976 3.100 3.800 2.997 1. The Census PPU has been adjusted to account for he downward PPU trend which has been recently experienced in both new and older units, largely due to the aging of the population. 2. includes townhouses and apartments In duplexes. 3. Includes bachelor, 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom+ apartments. Note: Does not include Statistics Canada data classed as 'Other': PPU not calculated for samples less than or equal to 50 dwelling units, and does not include institutional population. H:\Pickering12017 DC StudylGrowthl Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. 9/14/2017 Pickering 2017 DC Growth September 14 2017,xIsm 153 Persons Per Dwelling 4.00 3.50 - 3.00 2.50 - 2.00 - 1.50 - 1.00 - 0.50 - 0.00 Page 76 Schedule 8 City of Pickering Persons Per Unit By Structural Type and Age Of Dwelling (2011 Census) 3.62 3.29 --- -- 2.59 3.69 3.39 3.41 3.45 a- - — 3.28-- 2.80 2.99 — 2.81 2.80--2.81 2.31- 234 - - --�- :4 -- 2.95 - 72 1.89 1.77 8 '1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 Age of Dwelling 20-25 25-35 ❑Singles and Semi -Detached II Multiples ❑Apartments 35+ Page 77 Schedule 9a City of Pickering Employment Growth Forecast Summary Period Population Activity Rate Employment Primary Work at Home Industrial Commercial/Commercial/ population Related Institutional Total NFPOW' Total Including NFPOW Primary Work at Home Industrial pltioRltd opuaneae Institutional Tow NFPOW` Til Employment (Including NFPOW) Mid 2001 67,139 0,002 0,032 , 0.154 0.133 0.043 0.303 0.035 0,390 200 2,760 13,400 .11,550 ., .---3,750 .3 1,660 .3,020 -:,: -.: 34,680 Mid 2006 87,838. 0.001 0.034 0.145 0.137 0.048 0.365 0,029 0.394 60 ..:3020 12,740 - 11,990 - 4,250 --.- 32,060 ' 2,530 1 34,610--- Mid 2011 88,721: 0.001 0.035 0.148 0.147 0.049 0.379 D.029 0,408 80 3 000 _ : 13,170 -_ 13 016 - 4,320 :33,650 - _ 2,570 -. 39230 Early 2018 93,176 0.001 0.036 0.126 0.160 0.062 0.386 0,031 0.416 84 3051 11,752 14,941 5,796 35,925 2,843 38,767 Early 2023 131,445 0,001 0.029 0,149 0.136 0.052 0,356 0,022 0.388 84 3,869 19,529 17,826 6,815 48,123 2,885 .51,009 Early 2028 168,172 0.001 0.026 0.153 0.122 0.044 0.346 0.018 0,363 84 4,415 25,776 20,517 7,318 58,110 2,950 61,060 Mid 2031 186,885 0.000 0,026 0.187 0.123 0.042 0.379 0.017 0.396 85 4,747 33,915 22,279 7,620 68645 3,074 71,719 Incremental Change Mid 2001 - Mid 2006 899 -0.001 0.003 -0,009 0.004 0.005 0.002 -0.006 -0.004 -120 260 -660 440 500 420 _: --490 : _70 Mid 2006 - Mid 2011 883 0,0000 0.0003 0.0034 0.0101 0.0003 0.0142 0.0002 0.0143 0 "60 430 1,020 70 1.580 40 1,620 Mid 2011 - Early 2018 4,455 0.0000 0.0013 -0.0223 0.0137 0.0135 0.0062 0.0015 0.0077 4 271 -1,418 1,931 1,476 2,265 273 2,537 Early 2018 - Early 2023 38,269 -0.0003 -0.0065 0.0224 -0.0247 -0.0104 -0.0194 -0.0086 -0,0280 0 518 7,777 2,885 1,019 12,199 42 12,241 Early 2018- Early 2028 74,996 -0.0004 -0.0097 0.0271 -0.0384 -0.0167 -0.0400 -0.0130 -0.0530 0 1,064 14,024 5,576 1,522 22,185 107 22,293 Early 2018 - Mid 2031 67,709 -0,0004 -0.0097 0.0614 -0.0372 -0.0201 -0.0061 -0.0135 -0.0196 0 1,395 22,163 7,338 1,825 32,721 231 32,952 Annual Average Mid 2001 - Mid 2006 140 -000028. 0.00054 -0.00175 0.00079 , 0,00107 0.00038 -0,00117 -0.00079 -24 52 -132 88 . ---100 84 ---_ -98 ---. - " - -14 - Mid 2006 - Mid 2011 177 0.0300 0.0001 0.0007 - 0.0020 0.0001 0.0028 0,0000 0.0029 0 ' . 12 86 • - 204 14 316 8 324 Mid 2011 2011 -Early 2018 685 0.0000 0.0002 -0.0034 0.0021 0.0021 0.0009 0,0002 0.00121 42 -218 297 227 348 42 390 Early 2018 - Early 2023 7,654 -0.00005 -0.00131 0,00449 -0.00495 -000207 -0.00389 -0.00171 -0.00560 0 104 1,555 577 204 2,440 8 2,448 Early 2018- Early 2028 7,500 -0.00004 -0.00097 0.00271 -0,00384 -0.00187 -0.00400 -0,00130 -0.00530 0 106 1,402 558 152 2,219 11 2,229 Early 2018 - Mid 2031 6,265 -0.00003 -0,00069 0.00438 -0.00266 -0,00143 -0,00043 -0,00097 -0.00140 0 100 1,583 524 130 2,337 17 2,354 Palace: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2018. Derived from Durham Region Official Plan. Note( Population forecast excludes Northeast Pickering. Note: A total of 5,000 )050 (4,900 usual place of work jobs) have been. reserved for Northeast Pickering between 2027 and 2031. 1. Statistics Canada defines no fixed place of work (NFPOW) employees as "persons who de not 90 from home to the same work place location at the beginning of each shift.' Such persons include building and landscape contractors, travelling salespersons, independent truck drivers, etc. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. 10/3/2017 Employment Total (Excluding NFPOW and Work at Home) 28,900 29,060 30,580 32,573 44,254 53,694 63,899 -160 1,520 1,993 11,681 21,121 31,326 32 304 307 2,336 2.112 895 H:\Pickedng\2017 DC Study \Growth\ Pickering 2017 DC Granth September 222017.xkrn Page 78 Schedule 9b City of Pickering Employment & Gross Floor Area (GFA) Forecast, 2071 to 2031 Period Population Employment Gross Floor Area in Square Feet (Estimated)' Primary Industrial Commercial) Population Related Institutional Total Industrial Commercial) Population Related Institutional Total Mid 2001 87139 200 13;400 11,550 3,750 28,900 Mid 2006 87,838 80 12,740- 11,990: 4,250 29,060 Mid 2011 88,721 80 13,170 13,010 4,320 30,580 Early 2018 93,176 84 11,752 14,941 5,796 32,573 Early 2023 131,445 84 19,529 17,826 6,815 44,254 Early 2028 168,172 84 25,776 20,517 7,318 53,694 Mid 2031 180,885 85 33,915 22,279 7,620 63,899 Incremental Change Mid 2001 - Mid 2006 699 -120 -660 - 440 500 160 Mid 2006 Mid 2011 883 0 430 1,020 70 1,520 Mid 2011 - Mid 2017 4,455 4 -1,418 1,931 1,476 1,993 Early 2018 - Early 2028 74,996 0 14,024 5,576 1,522 21,121 16,828,246 2,230,320 1,027,387 20,085,954 Early 2018 - Mid 2031 87,709 0 22,163 7,338 1,825 31,326 26,595,015 2,935,229 1,231,717 30,761,962 Annual Average Mid 2001 - Mid 2006 140 -24 -132 88 100 32 Mid 2006 - Mid 2011 177 0 86 204 14 304 Mid 2011 - Early 2018 685 1 -218 297 227 307 Early 2018 - Early 2028 7,500 0 1,402 558 152 2,112 1,682,825 223,032 102,739 2,008,595 Early 2018 - Mid 2031 2,506 0 633 210 52 895 759,858 83,864 35,192 878,913 Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2018 Derived from Durham Region Official Plan. Note: Population forecast excludes Northeast Pickering. Note: A total of 5,000 jobs (4,900 usual place of work 'obs) have been reserved for Northeast Pickering between 2027 and 2031 as the jobs allocated to this area have been deferred. 1. Square Foot Per Employee Assumptions Industrial 1,200 Commercial/Population Related 400 Institutional 675 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Growth\ 10/3/2017 Pickering 2017 DC Growth September 22 2017.xtsm Page 79 Schedule 9c Estimate of the Anticipated Amount, Type and Location of Non -Residential Development for Which Development Charges can be Imposed Development Location Timing Industrial GFA S.F. Commercial GFA S.F. Institutional GFA S.F. Total Non -Res GFA S.F. Employment Increase' Seaton 2018 - 2028 14,285,063 2,028,000 976,933 17,289,996 18,793 2018-2031 23,829,000 2,679,300 1,162,800 27,671,100 28,860 Remaining Pickering 2018 - 2028 2,543,184 202,320 50,454 2,795,958 2,328 2018 - 2031 2,766,015 255,929 68,917 3,090,862 2,466 City of Pickering 2018-2028 16,828,246 2,230,320 1,027;387 20,085,954 21,121 2018-2031 26,595,015 2,935,229 1,231,717 30,761,962 31,326 Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2018 Note: A total of 5,000 jobs (4,900 usual place of work jobs) have been reserved for Northeast Pickering between 2027 and 2031 as the jobs allocated to this area have been deferred. 1. Employment Increase does not include No Fixed Place of Work. 2. Square feet per employee assumptions (2017-2031): Industrial 1,200 Commercial 400 Institutional 675 H:\Pickering\2017 DC Study\Growth\ Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. 10/3/2017 Pickering 2017 DC Growth September 22 2017.xlsm 157 Page 80 Appendix B - Level of Service Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12017 DC StudylReport\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx 158 City of Pickering Service Standard Calculation Sheet Service: Unit Measure: Fire Facilities ft2 of building area Page 81 Population 88,173 88,552 88,355 88,721 89,885 90,250 91,042 91,316 91,771 92,334 Per Capita Standard 0.41 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 10 Year Average Description 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2017 Bldg Value ($/ft2) Value/ft2 with land, site works, etc. Station # 5 - 1616 Bayly Street 13,360 13,360 13,360 13,360 13,360 13,360 13,360 13,360 13,360 13,360 $309 $405 Station # 2 - 553 Kingston Road 7,955 7,955 7,955 7,955 7,955 7,955 7,955 7,955 7,955 7,955 $271 $441 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 $379 $470 Station #6 - 1115 Finch Ave. 9,130 9,130 9,130 9,130 9,130 9,130 9,130 9,130 9,130 9,130 $302 $388 Total 35,719 35,719 1 35,719 1 35,719 1 35,719 35,719 35,719 1 35,719 f 35,719 35,719 1 Population 88,173 88,552 88,355 88,721 89,885 90,250 91,042 91,316 91,771 92,334 Per Capita Standard 0.41 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 10 Year Average 2008-2017 Quantity Standard 0.40 Quality Standard $418 Service Standard $166 DC Amount (before deductions) 10 Year Forecast Population 74,362 $ per Capita $166 Eligible Amount $12,344,092 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Pickering 2017 DC v26 City of Pickering Service Standard Calculation Sheet Service: Unit Measure: Fire Small Equipment and Gear No. of equ)pment and qear Page 82 Description 2008 2009 _ 2010 2011 2012 2013 _ 2014 2015 2016 2017 2017 Value ($/item) Self Contained Breathing Apparatus 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 $9,467 SCBA Cylinders 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 $2,150 SCBA Mask 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 $544 Turnout Bunker Kit(Includes hood, gloves) 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 176 $2,092 Fire Helmet 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 $543 Station Wear Ensemble 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 $580 Uniform Ensemble 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 $927 Total 10021 1,002 1,002 1,0021 1,002 1002 1,0021_ 1,0021 1 002 1 1 002 1 Population 88,173 88,552 88,355 88,721 89,885 90,250 91,042 91,316 91,771 92,334 Per Capita Standard (per 1 000) 11.36 11.32 11.34 11.29 11.15 11.10 11.01_ 10.97 10.92 10.85 10 Year Average 2008-2017 Quantity Standard (per 1,000) 11.13 Quality Standard $1,922 Service Standard $21 DC Amount (before deductions) 10 Year Forecast Population 74,362 $ per Capita $21 Eligible Amount $1,590,603 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Pickering 2017 DC v26 City of Pickering Service Standard Calculation Sheet Service: Unit Measure: Fire Vehicles No. of vehicles Page 83 Description 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2017 Value ($/Vehicle) Quint / 32m Aerial 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $1,510,900 Tanker 3, 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 $506 200 Pum ser 2 2 2 11 2 - - - - $956,100 Pum.er/Tanker 1 1 1 1- - - - - - $731,100 Rescue 1 1 1 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 $1,349,800 $900,000 Pumper/Rescue 2 2 2 Car, SUV& Pick-up 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 13 13 $45,000 Quint / 17m Ladder - - - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 $990,000 $956,100 Telesquirts 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - Grass Fire Truck 1 1 1 1 1 1 - - - - $393,700 Su..ort Vehicle 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $562,400 Platoon Chief SUV 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 $115,200 $112,500 Antique Trailer 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 $11,200 Total 33 33 33 34 33 33 33 33 31 30 Population 88,173 88,552 88,355 88,721 89,885 90,250 91,042 91,316 91,771 92,334 Per Capita Standard (per 1,000) 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.38 0.37 0.37 0.36 0.36 0.34 0.32 10 Year Average 2008-2017 Quantity Standard (per 1,000) 0.36 Quality Standard $362,964 Service Standard $131 DC Amount (before deductions) 10 Year Forecast Population 74,362 $ per Capita $131 Eligible Amount $9,743,653 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Pickering 2017 DC v26 City of Pickering Service Standard Calculation Sheet Service: Unit Measure: By -Law and Animal Services Enforcement Facilities ft2 of building area Page 84 Description 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2017 Bldg Value ($/ft2) Value/ft2 with land, site works, etc. Animal Services (Lease) 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 $350 $425 By -Law 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 $296 $383 Total 4,3001 4,3001 4,3001 4,3001 4,3001 4,300 1 4,3001 4,3001 4,300 4,300 Population 88,173 88,552 88,355 88,721 89,885 90,250 91,042 91,316 91,771 92,334 Per Capita Standard (per 1,000) 48.77 48.56 48.67 48.47 47.84 47.65 47.23 47.09 46.86 46.57 10 Year Average 2008-2017 Quantity Standard 47.77 Quality Standard $410 Service Standard $20 DC Amount (before deductions) 10 Year Forecast Population 74,362 $ per Capita $20 Eligible Amount $1,457,495 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Pickering 2017 DC v26 City of Pickering Service Standard Calculation Sheet Service: Unit Measure: By -Law and Animal Serv'ces Enforcement Vehicles No. of vehicles and equipment Page 85 Description 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2017 Value ($/Vehicle) Truck (By-law) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 $31,400 SUV (By-law) - - - - 1 1 1 3 3 3 $25,500 Car (By-law) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 $21,900 Van (Animal Services) 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 $38,600 Total 5 5 5 5 7 7 7 9 9 9 Population 88,173 88,552 88,355 88,721 89,885 90,250 91,042 91,316 91,771 92,334 Per Capita Standard (per 1000) 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.10 10 Year Average 2008-2017 Quantity Standard (per 1,000) 0.08 Quality Standard $28,154 Service Standard $2 DC Amount (before deductions) 10 Year Forecast Population 74,362 $ per Capita $2 Eligible Amount $157,647 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Pickering 2017 DC v26 City of Pickering Service Standard Calculation Sheet Service: Unit Measure: Roads Centre -line km of roadways Page 86 Description 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2017 Value ($/km) Asphalt - Collector - 3 Lane 36.5 36.9 37.0 37.8 40.2 42.7 41.3 41.3 41.3 41.3 $1,550,000 Asphalt - Arterial C - 4 Lane 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 $2,200,000 Gravel - Rural - 2 Lane 110.4 107.9 107.2 107.2 106.7 106.7 104.5 101.0 101.2 105.5 $900,000 Total 159 157 157 158 159 162 158 155 155 159 Population 88,173 88,552 88,355 88,721 89,885 90,250 91,042 91,316 91,771 92,334 Per Capita Standard (per 1,000) 1.81 1.78 1.77 1.78 _ 1.77 1.79 1.74 1.70 1.69 1.73 10 Year Average 2008-2017 Quantity Standard (per 1,000) 1.75 Quality Standard $1,165,764 Service Standard $2,046 DC Amount (before deductions) 14 -Year (Rest of Pickering) Forecast Population 28,936 $ per Capita $2,046 Eligible Amount $59,197,269 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Pickering 2017 DC v26 City of Pickering Service Standard Calculation Sheet Service: Unit Measure: Bridges, Culverts & Structures No. of Bridges, Culverts & Structures Page 87 Description 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2017 Value ($/item) Bridge (over3m) 41 41 31 31 31 31 31 31 29 29 $1,138,000 Culvert (over3m) 15 15 25 25 27 27 26 26 24 24 $270,000 Pedestrian Bridge (over3m) 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 $489,000 Total 65 65 65 1 65 ( 67 1 67 66 66 62 62 1 Population 88,173 88,552 88,355 88,721 89,885 90,250 91,042 91,316 91,771 92,334 Per Capita Standard (per 1,000) 0.74 0.73 0.74 0.73 0.75 0.74 0.72 0.72 0.68 0.67 10 Year Average 2008-2017 Quantity Standard (per 1,000) 0.72 Quality Standard $735,946 Service Standard $532 DC Amount (before deductions) 14 -Year (Rest of Pickering) Forecast Population 28,936 $ per Capita $532 Eligible Amount $15,379,484 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Pickering 2017 DC v26 City of Pickering Service Standard Calculation Sheet Service: Unit Measure: Sidewalks Linear Metres of Sidewalk Page 88 Description 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2017 Value ($/linear metre) Sidewalk - Concrete 285,866 286,663 286,663 290,055 292,902 295,431 295,431 295,431 298,032 298,032 $260 Sidewalk - Concrete (Block) 3,731 3,731 3,731 3,731 3,731 3,731 3,731 3,788 3,856 3,856 $300 Sidewalk - Concrete Multi Use Path 95 95 95 95 648 648 648 1,020 1,020 1,020 $300 Sidewalk - Temporary Asphalt 6,235 6,235 6,235 6,745 6,745 6,745 6,745 6,745 6,745 6,745 $120 Sidewalk - Asphalt Multi Use Path 1,997 1,997 1,997 1,997 1,997 2,813 3,981 5,061 5,744 5,744 $225 Total 297,924 1 298,721 298,721 302,623 306,023 _ 309,368 1 310,536 312,045 315,397 1 315,397 Population 88,173 88,552 88,355 88,721 89,885 90,250 91,042 91,316 91,771 92,334 Per Capita Standard 3.38 3.37 3.38 3.41 3.40 3.43 3.41 3.42 3.44 3.42 10 Year Average 2008-2017 Quantity Standard 3.41 Quality Standard $257 Service Standard $876 DC Amount (before deductions) 14 -Year (Rest of Pickering) Forecast Population 28,936 $ per Capita $876 Eligible Amount $25,345,042 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Pickering 2017 DC v26 City of Pickering Service Standard Calculation Sheet Service: Unit Measure: Traffic Signals No. of Traffic Signals Page 89 Description 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2017 Value ($/item) Traffic Signals 9 9 9 10 10 12 12 13 14 14 $175,000 Intersection Pedestrian Signals (IPS) 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 $100,000 Total 20 20 20 21 21 23 23 241 25 25 Population 88,173 88,552 88,355 88,721 89,885 90,250 91,042 91,316 91,771 92,334 Per Capita Standard (per 1,000) 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.24 0.23 0.25 0.25 0.26 0.27 0.27 10 Year Average 2008-2017 Quantity Standard (per 1,000) 0.25 Quality Standard $137,231 Service Standard $34 DC Amount (before deductions) 14 -Year (Rest of Pickering) Forecast Population 28,936 $ per Capita $34 Eligible Amount $978,037 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Pickering 2017 DC v26 City of Pickering Service Standard Calculation Sheet Service: Unit Measure: Roads Vehicles and Equipment No. of vehicles and equipment Page 90 Description 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2017 Value ($/item) Vehicles D.01-01 - Car 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1- - $22,400 D.01-02 - Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs) 14 13 14 14 14 14 13 13 15 17 $35,000 D.01-04 - Truck - Pick-up 7 7 7 8 11 11 12 14 11 10 $37,000 D.01-05 - Truck - Mid -Size 6 7 10 8 8 10 11 11 10 10 $60,800 D.01-06 - Dump Truck / Snow Plow 13 13 14 15 14 14 14 14 17 16 $217,400 Equipment C.01-01 - Excavators 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 $357,700 C.01-02 - Graders 2 4 3 3 3 4 3 2 2 2 $316,700 C.01-03 - Loaders 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 $181,200 C.01-04 - Backhoes - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $97,900 C.01-05 - Street Sweepers 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 $340,000 C.02 -02 -Trailers 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 $11,200 C.02-03 - Asphalt Equipment 4 4 4 5 6 5 5 5 6 6 $25,300 C.02-04 - Utility Tractors 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 $78,200 C.02-05 - Mowers 2 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 $29,300 Miscellaneous Equipment 12 13 15 15 15 17 20 102 102 104 $4,800 Total 72 78 85 85 89 92 94 178 179 181 Population 88,173 88,552 88,355 88,721 89,885 90,250 91,042 91,316 91,771 92,334 Per Capita Standard (per,1000) 0.82 0.88 0.96 0.96 0.99 1.02 1.03 1.95 1.95 1.96 10 Year Average 2008-2017 Quantity Standard (per,1000) 1.25 Quality Standard $70,272 Service Standard $88 DC Amount (before deductions) 14 Year (City Wide) Forecast Population 86,968 $ per Capita $88 Eligible Amount $7,651,445 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Pickering 2017 DC v26 City of Pickering Service Standard Calculation Sheet Service: Unit Measure: Depots and Domes ft' of building area Page 91 Description 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2017 Bld'g Value (Sift') Value/ft2 with land, site works, etc. Operations Centre 1 (shared) 15,749 15,749 15,749 15,749 15,749 15,749 15,749 21,874 21,874 21,874 $319 $514 Roads Drive Shed 12,500 12-,500 12,500 12,500 12,500 12,500 12,500 12,500 12,500 12,500 $49 $100 Roads Storage Shed 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 $32 $79 Roads Sign Storage 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 $36 $60 $91 $109 Salt Dome 7,850 7,850 7,850 7,850 7,850 7,850 7,850 7,850 7,850 7,850 Sand Dome 7,850 7,850 7,850 7,850 7,850 7,850 7,850 7,850 7,850 7,850 $52 $101 Total 46,599 46,599 46,599 46,599 46,599 46,599 46,599 52,724 52,724 52,724 i Population 88,173 88,552 88,355 88,721 89,885 90,250 91,042 91,316 91,771 92,334 Per Capita Standard 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.52 0.52 0.51 0.58 0.57 0.57 10 Year Average 2008-2017 Quantity Standard 0.54 Quality Standard $251 Service Standard $135 DC Amount (before deductions) 14 Year (City - Wide) Forecast Population 86,968 $ per Capita $135 Eligible Amount $11,751,116 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. 1The City leased 10,000 sq.ft. of the Operations Centre to Durham Transit until 2014. Pickering 2017 DC v26 City of Pickering Service Standard Calculation Sheet Service: Unit Measure: Parkland Development Acres of Parkland Page 92 Description 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2017 Value ($/Acre) Village Green 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.4 1.4 $300,000 Neighbourhood Active 151 151 151 151 152 157 157 157 157 157 $117,600 Community Active 174 174 174 174 174 174 174 174 174 174 $135,000 District Active 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 $135,000 Passive Parkland 371 377 477 477 476 477 477 478 478 478 $63,200 Total 709 715 815 815 815 821 822 8231 8231 823 Population 88,173 88,552 88,355 88,721 89,885 90,250 91,042 91,316 91,771 92,334 Per Capita Standard (per 1,000) 8.04 8.07 9.22 9.19 9.07 9.10 9.02 9.01 8.97 8.92 10 Year Average 2008-2017 Quantity Standard (per,1000) 8.8613 Quality Standard $90,680 Service Standard $804 DC Amount (before deductions) 10 Year Forecast Population 74,362 $ per Capita $804 Eligible Amount $59,752,841 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Pickering 2017 DC v26 City of Pickering Service Standard Calculation Sheet Service: Trails Development Unit Measure: metres or rams ana iraus Description 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2017 Value ($/metre) Duffins Creek Trail: Ajax to Finch Ave. 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 $100 Alex Robertson Park walk 1,291 1,291 1,291 1,291 1,291 1,291 1,291 1,291 1,291 1,291 $100 Diana, Princess of Wales Park walk 2,074 2,074 2,074 2,074 2,074 2,074 2,074 2,074 2,074 2,074 $100 Progress Frenchman's Bay East Park 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 $100 Pine Creek Trail walkway - Kitley Ave. to Storrington St. 112 112 112 112 112 112 112 112 112 112 $100 Pine Creek Trail walkway - Storrington Bridge 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 $5 625 Waterfront Trail system: Peak Trail: Frisco Road to Beachfront Park 3,720 3,720 3,720 3,720 3,720 3,720 3,720 3,720 3,720 3,720 $150 Peak Trail: Beachfront Park boardwalk 566 566 566 566 566 566 566 566 566 566 $1,507 Peak Trail: Annland St., Liverpool to Front St. 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 $150 Monarch Trail along Bayly St.: St. Martin's Dr. to West Sho 673 673 _ 673 673 673 673 673 673 673 673 $150 Monarch Trail: West Shore CC to Vistula Dr. (less bridge) 232 232 232 232 232 232 232 232 232 232 $150 Monarch Trail: Amberlea Bridge 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 $7,050 Monarch Trail: Elvira Court to Breezy Drive Bruce Hansco 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 486 $150 Monarch Trail: Sunrise Ave. to Beachpoint Promenade 314 314 314 314 314 314 314 314 314 314 $150 First Nations Trail: Marksbury to Rodd Ave. (less bridge) 324 324 324 324 324 324 324 324 324 324 $150 First Nations Trail: Petticoat Creek Bridge 172 172 172 172 172 172 172 172 172 172 $7 050 First Nations Trail: Rodd Ave. to Rouge River (less bridge) 642 642 642_ 642 642 642 642 642 642 642 $150 First Nations Trail: Western Gateway Bridge 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 $7,050 Duffins Creek Trail system: Duffins Creek Trail: Finch Ave. east of Brock Road 375 375 375 375 375 375 375 375 375 375 $150 Duffins Creek Trail: Brockridge Park to Liverpool Road 2,189 2,189 2,189 2,189 2,189 2,189 2,189 2,189 2,189 2,189 $150 Multi -use paths: Pickering Parkway: Village East Park to Liverpool Road 1,357 $150 Brock Road: Pickering Parkway to Finch Ave. 205 205 205 205 205 205 205 705 705 705 $150 Brock Road: Brockridge Park to Third Concession Road 1,763 1,763_ 1,763 1,763 '1,763 1,763 1,763 1,763 1,763 1,763 $150 Brock Road: Third Concession Road to north of Zents Drive (w. side) 1,515 $150 Brock Road: Third Concession Road to north of Zents Drive (e. side) 1,515 $150 Dersan Street: Brock Road to Tillings Road 388 388 388 388 388 388 $150 Tillings Road: Dersan Street to Zents Drive 536 536 536 536 $150 Zents Drive: Brock Road to Tillings Road 391 391 391 391 391 $150 William Jackson Drive: Brock Road to Earl Grey Drive 500 500 500 500 997 $150 Altona Road: Kingston Road to Strouds Lane 1,543 1,543 1,543 1,543 1,543 1,543 1,543 $150 Total 14,474j 14,474 14,474 j 16,017 16,405 17,296 17,832 18,332 18,332 23,216 Population 88,173 88,552 88,355 88,721 89,885 90,250 91,042 91,316 91,771 92,334 Per Capita Standard 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.25 10 Year Average 2008-2017 Quantity Standard (per 1,000) 0.19 Quality Standard $306 Service Standard $58 DC Amount (before deductions) 10 Year Forecast Population 74,362 $ per Capita $58 Eligible Amount $4,304,816 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Page 93 Pickering 2017 DC v26 City of Pickering Service Standard Calculation Sheet Service: Unit Measure: Parks and Recreation Vehicles and Equipment No. of vehicles and equipment Page 94 Description 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2017 Value ($/item) Vehicles D.01-01 - Car 2 2 2 2 21 - - - - $22,400 D.01-02 - Sport Utility Vehicles (SUN, 2 2 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 2 $32,500 D.01-03 - Van 3 3 3 3 3 5 6 7 6 6 $39,300 D.01-04 - Truck - Pick-up 13 10 11 11 12 11 11 13 11 11 $37,000 D.01-05 - Truck - Mid -Size 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 11 $65,000 D.01-07 - Garbage Packer 2 2 2 2_ 3 2 2 2 3 3 $150,000 Equipment C.01-01 - Excavators - - - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 $51,400 C.01-03 - Loaders 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $181,200 C.01-04 - Backhoes 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 $109,300 C.01-06 - Multi -Purpose Tractors 6 7 6 6_ 7 7 7 10 10 8 $123,900 C.01-07 - Outfront Mowers 3 3 4 5 5 5 6 6 5 5 $90,400 C.01-08 - Ice Resurfacers 4 4 4 5 5 6 5 5 5 5 $84,500 C.02-01 - Enclosed Trailer - - - 1 2 _ 4 5 6 7 7 $10,300 C.02-02 - Trailers 2 2 2 2 3 3 4 5 5 5 $8,100 C.02-04 - Utility Tractors 6 6 6 6_ 6 6 6 8 9 10 $37,800 C.02-05 - Mowers 20 20 22 24 22 26 30 34 33 33 $10,700 C.03-01 - Plows - 3 3 3_ 3 4 4 4 3 2 $6,300 Miscellaneous Equipment 29 35 38 44 45 54 60 65 68 74 $16,000 Total 103 1 110 117 1 128 1 133 1 148 1 160 179 ] 179 1 186 Population 88,173 88,552 88,355 88,721 89,885 90,250 91,042 91,316 91,771 92,334 Per Capita Standard (per 1,000) 1.17 i 1.24 , 1.32 1.44 1.48 1.64 1.76 1.96 1.95 2.01 10 Year Average 2008-2017 Quantity Standard (per 1,000) 1.60 Quality Standard $35,960 Service Standard $57 DC Amount (before deductions) 10 Year Forecast Population 74,362 $ per Capita $57 Eligible Amount $4,272,841 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Pickering 2017 DC v26 City of Pickering Service Standard Calculation Sheet Service: Unit Measure: Parks and Recreation Facilities ft2 of building area Page 95 Description 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2017 Bldg Value ($/ft2) Value/ft2 with land, site works, etc. Community Centres 132,766 132,766 132,766 132,766 _ 132,766 132,766 _ 132,766 130,716 131,616 131,616 $291 $371 Seniors Recreation Centres 10,850 10,850 10,850 10,850 10,850 10,850 10,850 10,850 10,850 10,850 $291 $371 Indoor Pools 35,650 35,650 35,650 35,650 _ 35,650 35,650 35,650 35,650 35,650 35,650 $291 $371 Arenas 151,252 151,252 151,252 167,593 _ 167,593 167,593 167,593 167,593 167,593 167,593 $291 $371 Fitness Facilities/Racquet Sports 44,591 61,909 61,909 61,909 _ 61,909 61,909 61,909 61,909 61,909 61,909 $291 $371 Indoor Soccer Centre - - - _ - - 105,293 105,293 105,293 105,293 $70 $82 Parks Drive Shed 2,235 2,235 2,235 2,235 2,235 2,235 2,235 2,235 2,235 2,235 $42 $90 Parks Storage Shed 2,235 2,235 2,235 2,235_ 2,235 2,235 2,235 2,235 2,235 2,235 $26 $74 935 Dillingham Rd. (Rental Storage Space) - - - _ 4,400 4,400 4,400 4,400 4,400 4,400 $319 $514 Operations Centre' (shared) 9,966 9,966 9,966 9,966 9,966 9,966 9,966 _ 13,841 13,841 13,841 $319 $514 Total I 389,545 406,863 406,8631 427,604 427,604 427,604 1 532,897 1 534,722 535,622 531,222 J Population 88,173 88,552 88,355 88,721 89,885 90,250 91,042 91,316 91,771 92,334 Per Capita Standard 4.42 4.59 4.60 4.82 4.76 4.74 5.85 5.86 5.84 5.75 10 Year Average 2008-2017 Quantity Standard 5.12 Quality Standard $346 Service Standard $1,774 DC Amount (before deductions) 10 Year Forecast Population 74,362 $ per Capita $1,774 Eligible Amount - 131,908,521 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. 'The City leased 10,000 sq.ft. of the Operations Centre to Durham Transit until 2014. Pickering 2017 DC v26 City of Pickering Service Standard Calculation Sheet Service: Unit Measure: Library Facilities ft2 of building area Page 96 Description 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2017 Bldg Value ($/ft2) Value/ftZ 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 $380 $491 Claremont Branch 1,666 1,666 1,666 1,666 1,666 1,666 1,666 1,666 1,666 1,666 $289 $369 Greenwood Branch 4,900 4,900 4,900 4,900 4,900 4,900 4,900 4,900 $194 $216 Whitevale Branch 900 900 900 900 900 $259 $382 Petticoat Creek 9,369 9,369 9,369 9,369 9,369 9,369 9,369 9,369 9,369 9,369 $568 $738 Total 51,0001 51,0001 51,000 51,000 51,0001 50,1001 50,1001 50,100 45,2001 45,200 Population 88,173 88,552 88,355 88,721 89,885 90,250 91,042 91,316 91,771 92,334 Per Capita Standard 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.57 0.57 0.56 0.55 0.55 0.49 0.49 10 Year Average 2008-2017 Quantity Standard 0.55 Quality Standard $511 Service Standard $281 DC Amount (before deductions) 10 Year Forecast Population 74,362 $ per Capita $281 Eligible Amount $20,918,774 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Pickering 2017 DC v26 City of Pickering Service Standard Calculation Sheet Service: Unit Measure: Library Collection Materials No. of library collection items Page 97 Description 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2017 Value ($/item) Books 188,916 206,157 215,357 247,434 183,883 198,883 229,907 192,347 166,535 160,000 $18 Non -books 31,590 24,934 29,921 40,499 46,230 52,230 41,903 52,785 51,088 49,000 $30 Magazine Titles 424 426 428 441 430 429 218 203 203 195 $130 Electronic Collections 8,440 10,753 20,267 30,849 46,070 60,729 91,485 102,450 132,063 170,000 $50 Electronic Products 26 63 55 29 29 29 28 27 18 20 $5,203 Total 229,396 242,333 266,028 319,252 276,642 312,300 363,541 347,812 349,907 379,215 Population 88,173 88,552 88,355 88,721 89,885 90,250 91,042 91,316 91,771 92,334 Per Capita Standard 2.60 2.74 3.01 3.60 3.08 3.46 3.99 3.81 3.81 4.11 10 Year Average 2008-2017 Quantity Standard 3.42 Quality Standard $27 Service Standard $93 DC Amount (before deductions) 10 Year Forecast Population 74,362 $ per Capita $93 Eligible Amount $6,923,102 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Pickering 2017 DC v26 City of Pickering Service Standard Calculation Sheet Service: Unit Measure: Library Vehicles No. of library collection items Page 98 Population Description 2008 88,355 2009 89,885 2010 91,042 2011 91,771 2012 Per Capita Standard (per 1,000) 2013 0.0113 2014 0.0113 2015 0.0111 2016 0.0110 2017 0.0108 2017 Value ($/item) Vans 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $37,600 Total 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Population 88,173 88,552 88,355 88,721 89,885 90,250 91,042 91,316 91,771 92,334 Per Capita Standard (per 1,000) 0.0113_ 0.0113 0.0113 _ 0.0113 0.0111 0.0111 0.0110 0.0110 0.0109 0.0108 10 Year Average 2008-2017 Quantity Standard (per 1,000) 0.0111 Quality Standard $37,631 Service Standard $0.42 DC Amount (before deductions) 10 Year Forecast Population 74,362 $ per Capita $0.42 Eligible Amount $31,061 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd, Pickering 2017 DC v26 Page 99 Appendix C - D.C. Cash Flow Calculation Tables Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12017 DC StudylReport\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx 177 Page 100 City of Pickering - 2017 Development Charges Background Study Cash Flow Analysis Protection Services - Residential Year D.C. Reserve Fund Opening Balance Dev't Related Expenditures SDE per Year DC Rates w. ° Inflation (3%/Yr) Anticipated Revenues Revenues minus Expenditures Debenture Financing Requirement Interest (2.5% on positive balances & 5% on negative balances) DC Reserve Fund Closing Balance after Financing Nominal Inflated (3%/Yr) 2018 $ (198,257) $ (45,037) $ (46,388) 2,499 $ 889 $ 2,221,744 $ 2,175,357 $ 19,757 $ 1,996,857 2019 $ 1,996,857 $ (5,881,659) $ (6,239,852) 2,499 $ 916 $ 2,288,397 $ (3,951,456)_ $ (23,904) $ (1,978,503) 2020 $ (1,978,503) $ (4,294,492) $ (4,692,707) 2,499 $ 943 $ 2,357,049 $ (2,335,658) $ (157,317) $ (4,471,478) 2021 " $ (4,471,478) $ (2,574,062) $ (318,524) $ (358,502) 2,499 $ (10,814) $ (12,537) 2,499 $ 972 $ 1,001 $ 2,427,760 $ 2,500,593 $ 2,069,258 $ 2,488,056 $ (171,842) $ (66,502) $ (2,574,062) $ (152,507) 2022 2023 $ (152,507) $ (8,479,374) $ (10,124,816) 2,155 $ 1,031 $ 2,221,285 $ (7,903,531) $ (205,214) $ (8,261,252) 2024 $ (8,261,252) $ (318,524) $ (391,745) 2,155 $ 1,062 $ 2,287,923 $ 1,896,179 $ (365,658) $ (6,730,731) 2025 $ (6,730,731) $ (10,814) $ (13,699) 2,155_ $ 1,094 $ 2,356,561 $ 2,342,862 $ (277,965) $ (4,665,834) 2026 $ (4,665,834) $ (10,814) $ (14,110) 2,155 $ 1,126 $ 2,427,258 $ 2,413,148 $ (172,963) $ (2,425,650) 2027 $ (2,425,650) $ (10,814L $ (14,534) 2,155 $ 1,160 $ 2,500,076 $ 2,485,542 $ (59,893) $ Page 101 City of Pickering - 2017 Development Charges Background Study Cash Flow Analysis Protection Services - Seaton Prestige Employment Land Year D.C. Reserve Fund Opening Balance Dev't Related Expenditures Net Hectares per Year DC Rates w. ° Inflation (3/°/Yr) Anticipated Revenues Revenues minus Expenditures Debenture Financing Requirement Interest (2.5% on positive balances & 5% on negative balances) DC Reserve Fund Closing Balance after Financing Nominal ° Inflated (3 /°/Yr) 2018 $ (20,055) $ (4,556) $ (4,693) 18 $ 11,431 $ 209,994 $ 205,301 $ 1,814 $ 187,060 2019 $ 187,060 $ (594,980) $ (631,215) 18 $ 11,774 $ 216,294 $ (414,921) $ (3,358) $ (231 219) 2020 $ (231,219) $ (434,425) $ (474,708) 18 $ 12,127 $ 222,783 $ (251,925) $ (17,859) $ (501,003) 2021 $ (501,003) $ (32,221) $ (36,266) 18 $ 12,491 $ 229,466 $ 193,200 $ (20,220) $ (328,023) $ (103,465) 2022 $ (328,023) $ (1,094) $ (1,268) 18 $ 12,866 $ 236,350 $ 235,082 $ (10,524) 2023 $ (103,465) $ (857,762) $ (1,024,212) 18 $ 13,252 $ 243,441 $ (780,772) $ (24,693) $ (908,930) 2024 $ (908,930) $ (32,221) $ (39,628) 18 $ 13,649_ $ 250,744 $ 211,115 $ (40,169) $ (737,983) 2025 $ (737,983) $ (1,094) $ (1,386) 18 $ 14,059 $ 258,266 $ 256,880 $ (30,477) $ (511,580) 2026 $ (511,580) $ (1,094) $ (1,427) 18 $ 14,481 $ 266,014 $ 264,587 $ (18,964) $ (265,957) 2027 $ (265,957) $ )1,094L$ (1,470L 18 $ 14,915_ $ 273,994 $ 272,524 $ (6,567) $ - Page 102 City of Pickering - 2017 Development Charges Background Study Cash Flow Analysis Protection Services - Other Non -Residential Year D.C. Reserve Fund Opening Balance Dev't Related Expenditures Nominal Inflated (3%/Yr) GFA per Year DC Rates w. Inflation (3%/Yr) 2018 (35,863) (8,147) (8,391) 1,118,519 2019 $ 334,503 $ (1,063,949) (1,128,744) 1,118,519 2020 $ (413,468) $ (776,842) $ (848,876) 1,118,519 2021 $ (895,898) 2022 $ (586,574) $ (57,619) $ (1,956) $ (64,850) 1,118,519 $ (2,268) 1,118,519 2023 $ (185,018) $ (1,533,857) $ (1,831,505) 1,118,519 2024 (1,625,356) $ (57,619) $ (70,864) 1,118,519 2025 $ (1,319,667) $ (1,956) $ (2,478) 1,118,519 2026 $ (914,811) $ (1,956) $ (2,552) 1,118,519 2027 $ (475,587) $ (1,956) $ (2,629) 1,118,519 0.34 0.35 0.36 0.37 0.38 0.39 0.40 0.41 0.43 0.44 Interest Revenues Debenture (2.5% on DC Reserve Anticipated minus Financing positive Fund Closing Revenues Expenditures Requirement balances & 5% on negative balances) Balance after Financing $ 375,513 $ 367,122 $ 3,244 $ 334,503 $ 386,778 $ (741,965) $ (6,005) $ (413,468) $ 398,382 $ (450,495) $ (31,936) $ (895,898) $ 410,333 $ 345,483 $ (36,158) $ (586,574) $ 422,643 $ 420,375 $ (18,819) $ (185,018) $ 435,322 $ (1,396,183) $ (44,155) $ (1,625,356) $ 448,382 $ 377,518 $ (71,830) $ (1,319,667) $ 461,834 $ 459,355 $ (54,499) $ (914,811) $ 475,689 $ 473,136 $ (33,912) $ (475,587) $ 489,959 $ 487,330 $ (11,743) $ (0) Page 103 City of Pickering - 2017 Development Charges Background Study Cash Flow Analysis Transportation Services - Residential Year D.C. Reserve Fund Opening Balance Dev't Related Expenditures SDE per Year DC Rates w. ° Inflation (3% Anticipated Revenues Revenues minus Expenditures Debenture Financing Requirement Interest (2.5% on positive balances & 5% on negative r • ances) DC Reserve Fund Closing Balance after Financing Nominal Inflated (3%/Yr) 2018 $ 16,789,573 $ (4,976,978) $ (5,126,288) 1,145 6,517 7,463,564 $ 2,337,276 $ 448,955 $ 19,575,805 2019 $ 19,575,805 $ (8,467,992) $ (8,983,693) 1,145 6,712 7,687,471 $ (1,296,222) $ 473,192 $ 18,752,776 2020 $ 18,752,776 $ (7,482,297) $ (8,176,108) 1,145 6,913 7,918,095 $ (258,013) $ 465,594 $ 18,960,357 2021 $ 18,960,357 $ (10,341,933) $ (11,639,937) 1,145 7,121 8,155,638 $ _ (3,484,299) $ 430,455 $ 15,906,514 2022 $ 15,906,514 $ (7,482,297) $ (8,674,033) 1,145 7,334 8,400,307 $ (273,726) $ 394,241 $ 16,027,029 2023 $ 16,027,029 $ (7,482,297) $ (8,934,254) 802 7,554 6,055,508 $ (2,878,746) $ 364,691 $ 13,512,974 2024 $ 13,512,974 $ (7,482,297) $ (9,202,282) 802 7,781 6,237,173 $ (2,965,109) $ 300,761 $ 10,848,626 2025 $ 10,848,626 $ (3,613,865) $ (4,577,936) 802 8,015 6,424,288 $ 1,846,353 $ 294,295 $ 12,989,274 2026 $ 12,989,274 $ (3,613,865) $ (4,715,274) 802 8,255 6,617,017 $ 1,901,743 $ 348,504 $ 15,239,521 2027 $ 15,239,521 $ (3,613,865) $ (4,856,732) 802 8,503 6,815,527 $ 1,958,795 $ 405,473 $ 17,603,789 2028 $ 17,603,789 $ (3,613,865) $ (5,002,434) 76 8,758 663,317 $ (4,339,117) $ 385,856 $ 13,650,528 2029 $ 13,650,528 $ (3,613,865) $ (5,152,507) 76 9,020 683,217 $ (4,469,290) $ 285,397 $ 9,466,635 2030 $ 9,466,635 $ 5,042,390 $ (3,613,865) $ (3,613,865) $ (5,307,082) $ (5,466,2951 76 38 9,291 9,570._ 703,713 362,412 $ (4,603,369) $ (5,103,882) $ 179,124 $ 61,493 $ 5,042,390 $ - 2031 Page 104 City of Pickering - 2017 Development Charges Background Study Cash Flow Analysis Transportation Services - Non -Residential Year D.C. Reserve Fund Opening Balance Dev't Related Expenditures GFA per Year DC Rates w. ° Inflation (3% Anticipated Revenues Revenues minus Expenditures Debenture Financing Requirement Interest (2.5% on positive ° balances & 5% on negative balances) DC Reserve Fund Closing Balance after Financing Nominal Inflated (3%/Yr) 2018 $ 1,459,963 $ (432,781) $ (445,764) 279,599 $ 1.83 $ 510,329 $ 64,565 $ 37,306 $ 1,561,834 2019 $ 1,561,834 $ (736,347) $ (781,191) 279,599 $ 1.88 $ 525,639 $ (255,552) $ 35,851 $ 1,342,133 2020 $ 1,342,133 $ (650,635) $ (710,966) 279,599 $ 1.94 $ 541,408 _ $ (169,558) $ 31,434 $ 1,204,009 2021 $ 1,204,009 $ (899,299) $ (650,635) $ (1,012,168) $ • (754,264) 279,599 279,599 $ 1.99 $ 2.05 $ 557,650 $ 574,380 $ (454,518) $ (179,884) $ 24,419 $ 17,099 $ 773,910 $ 611,125 2022 $ 773,910 2023 $ 611,125 $ (650,635) $ (776,892) 279,599 $ 2.12 $ 591,611 $ (185,281) $ 12,962 $ 438,807 2024 $ 438,807 $ (650,635) $ (800,198) 279,599 $ 2.18 $ 609,359 $ (190,839) $ 8,585 $ 256,552 2025 $ 256,552 $ (314,249) $ (398,081) 279,599 $ 2.24 $ 627,640 $ 229,559 $ 9,283 $ 495,395 2026 $ 495,395 $ (314,249) $ (410,024) 279,599 $ 2.31 $ 646,469 _ $ 236,446 $ 15,340 $ 747,181 2027 $ 747,181 $ (314,249) $ (422,325) 279,599 $ 2.38 $ 665,864 $ 243,539 $ 21,724 $ 1,012,443 2028 $ 1,012,443 $ (314,249) $ (434,994) 84,250 $ 2.45 $ 206,660 $ (228,335) $ 22,457 $ 806,566 2029 $ 806,566 $ (314,249) $ (448,044) 84,250 $ 2.53 $ 212,859 $ (235,185) $ 17,224 $ 588,605 2030 $ 588,605 $ (314,249) $ (461,485) 84,250 $ 2.60 $ 219,245 $ (242,240) $ 11,687 $ 358,052 2031 $ 358,052 $ (314,249) $ _(475,330) 42,125 $ 2.68 $ 112,911 $ )362,419)_ $ 4,366 $ - Page 105 City of Pickering - 2017 Development Charges Background Study Cash Flow Analysis Other Services Related to a Highway - Residential Year D.C. Reserve Fund Opening Balance Dev't Related Expenditures SDE per Year DC Rates w. Inflation 3%/Yr ( ) Anticipated Revenues Revenues minus Expenditures Debenture Financing Requirement Interest (2.5% on positive ° balances & 5% on negative balances) DC Reserve Fund Closing Balance after Financing Nominal Inflated 3%/Yr ( ) 2018 $ 113,900 $ (492,174) $ (506,939) 2,499 $ 441 $ 1,101,810 $ 594,871 $ (539,884) $ 3,535 $ 172422 2019 $ 172,422 $ (177,674) $ (188,494) 2,499 $ 454 $ 1,134,864 $ 946,370 $ (539,884) $ 9,392 $ 588,300 2020 $ 588,300 $ (384,874) $ (420,562) 2,499 $ 468 $ 1,168,910 $ 748,348 $ (539,884) $ 17,313 $ 814,077 2021 $ 814,077 $ (108,431) $ (122,040) 2,499 $ 482 $ 1,203,977 $ 1,081,937 $ (539,884) $ 27,128 $ 1,383,258 2022 $ 1,383,258 $ (108,431) $ (125,701) 2,499 $ 496 $ 1,240,097 $ 1,114,395 $ (539,884) $ 41,763 $ 1,999,533 2023 $ 1,999,533 $ 2,487,150 $ (108,431) $ (4,123,671) $ (129,472) $ (5,071,595) 2,155 2,155 $ 511 $ 527 $ 1,101,582 $ 1,134,629 $ 972,109 $ (3,936,966) $ (539,884) $ (539,884) $ 55,391 $ (18,653) $ 2,487,150 $ (2,008,353) 2024 2025 $ (2,008,353) $ (108,431) $ (137,357) 2,155 $ 542 $ 1,168,668 $ 1,031,311 $ (539,884) $ (88,132) $ (1,605,057) 2026 $ (1,605,057) $ (108,431) $ (141,478) 2,155 $ 559 $ 1,203,728 $ 1,062,250 $ (539,884) $ (67,194) $ (1,149,884) 2027 $ (1,149,884) $ (108,431) $ (145,722) 2,155 $ 575 $ 1,239,840 $ 1,094,118 $ (539,884) $ (43,638) $ (639,288) 2028 $ (639,288) $ (218,485) $ (302,434) 905 $ 593 $ 536,235 $ 233,800 $ - $ (26,119) $ (431,608) 2029 $ (431,608) $ (218,485) $ (311;507) 905 $ 610 $ 552,322 $ 240,814 $ - $ (15,560) $ (206,353) 2030 $ (206,353) $ (218,485) $ (320,853) 905 $ 629 $ 568,891 $ 248,039 $ - $ (4,638) $ 37,047 2031 $ 37,047 $ (218,485) $ (330,478) 452 $ 648 $ 292,979 $ (37,499) $ - $ 452 $ (0) Page 106 City of Pickering - 2017 Development Charges Background Study Cash Flow Analysis Other Services Related to a Highway - Seaton Prestige Employment Land Year D.C. Reserve Fund Opening Balance Dev't Related Expenditures Net Hectares per Year DC Rates w. Inflation (3 /o/Yr) Anticipated Revenues Revenues minus Expenditures Debenture Financing Requirement Interest (2.5% on positive balances & 5% on negative balances) DC Reserve Fund Closing Balance after Financing Nominal ° Inflated (3% 2018 $ 13,064 $ (56,452) $ (58,145) 18 $ 5,451 $ 100,140 $ 41,995 $ (61,924) $ (8) $ (6,873) 2019 $ (6,873) $ (20,379) $ (21,620) 18 $ 5,615 $ 103,144 $ 81,524 $ (61,924) $ (13) $ 12,714 2020 $ 12,714 $ (44,145) $ (48,238) 18 $ 5,783 $ 106,239 $ 58,001 $ (61,924) $ 269 $ 9,059 2021 $ 9,059 $ (12,437) $ (13,998) 18 $ 5,957 $ 109,426 $ 95,428 $ (61,924) $ (61,924) $ 645 $ 1,535 $ 43,208 $ 81,110 2022 $ 43,208 $ (12,437) $ (14,418) 18 $ 6,135 $ 112,709 $ 98,291 2023 $ 81,110 $ (12,437) $ (14,850) 18 $ 6,319 $ 116,090 $ 101,240 $ (61,924) $ 2,519 $ 122,945 2024 $ 122,945 $ (472,981) $ (581,707) 18 $ 6,509 $ 119,573 $ (462,134) $ (61,924) $ (8,491) $ (409,605) 2025 $ (409,605) $ (12,437) $ (15,755) 18 $ 6,704 $ 123,160 $ 107,405 $ (61,924) $ (19,343) $ (383,467) 2026 $ (383,467) $ (12,437) $ (16,227) 18 $ 6,905 $ 126,855 $ 110,627 $ (61,924) $ (17,956) $ (352,720) 2027 $ (352,720) $ (12,437) $ (16,714) 18 $ 7,113 $ 130,660 $ 113,946 $ (61,924) $ (16,335) $ (317,033) 2028 $ (317,033) $ (25,060) $ (34,689) 18 $ 7,326 $ 134,580 $ 99,891 $ - $ (13,354) $ (230,497) 2029 $ (230,497) $ (25,060) $ (35,730) 18 _ $ 7,546 $ 138,617 $ 102,888 $ - $ (8,953) $ (136,561) 2030 $ (136,561) $ (25,060) $ (36,801) 18 $ 7,772 $ 142,776 $ 105,974 $ - $ (4,179) $ (34,766) 2031 $ (34,766) $ (25,060) $ (37,906) 9 $ 8,005 _ $ 73,530 $ 35,624_ $ - $ (858) $ - Page 107 City of Pickering - 2017 Development Charges Background Study Cash Flow Analysis Other Services Related to a Highway - Other Non -Residential Year D.C. Reserve Fund Opening Balance Dev't Related Expenditures GFA per Year DC Rates w. ° Inflation (3 /°/Yr) Anticipated Revenues Revenues minus Expenditures Debenture Financing Requirement Interest (2.5% on positive balances & 5% on negative balances) DC Reserve Fund Closing Balance after Financing Nominal ° Inflated (3 /°/Yr) 2018 $ 26,955 $ (116,474)_ $ (119,968) 1,118,519 $ 0.15 $ 168,812 $ 48,844 $ (127,765) $ (962) $ (52,928) 2019 $ (52,928) $ (42,047) $ (44,608) 1,118,519 $ 0.16 _$ 173,877 $ 129,269 $ (127,765) $ (2,609) $ (54,032) 2020 $ (54,032) $ (91,081) $ (99,527) 1,118,519 $ 0.16 $ 179,093 $ 79,566 $ (127,765) $ (3,907) $ (106,138) 2021 $ (106,138) $ (25,660) $ (28,881) 1,118,519 $ 0.16 $ 184,466 $ 155,585 $ (127,765) $ (4,611) $ (82,929) 2022 $ (82,929) $ (25,660) $ (29,748) 1,118,519 _$ 0.17 _$ 190,000 $ 160,252 $ (127,765) $ (3,334) $ (53,775) 2023 $ (53,775) $ (25,660) $ (30,640) 1,118,519 $ 0.17 _$ 195,700 $ 165,060 $ (127,765) $ (1,756) $ (18,237) 2024 $ (18,237) $ (975,876) $ (1,200,205) 1,118,519 $ 0.18 $ 201,571 $ (998,634) $ (127,765) $ (29,072) $ (1,173,707) 2025 $ (1,173,707) $ (25,660) $ (32,506) 1,118,519 $ 0.19 _$ 207,618 $ 175,112 $ (127,765) $ (57,502) $ (1,183,861) 2026 $ (1,183,861) $ (25,660) $ (33,481) 1,118,519 $ 0.19 _$ 213,847 $ 180,365 $ (127,765) $ (57,878) $ (1,189,139) 2027 $ (1,189,139) $ (25,660) $ (34,486) 1,118,519 $ 0.20 _$ 220,262 $ 185,776 $ (127,765) $ (58,007) $ (1,189,134) 2028 $ (1,189,134) $ (51,705) $ (71,572) 2,160,212 $ 0.20 $ 438,157 $ 366,585 $ - $ (50,292) $ (872,841) 2029 $ (872,841) $ (51,705) $ (73,719) 2,160,212 $ 0.21 $ 451,302 $ 377,583 $ - $ (34,202) $ (529,460) 2030 $ (529,460) $ (51,705) $ (75,931) 2,160,212 $ 0.22 $ 464,841 $ 388,910 $ - $ (16,750) $ (157,301) 2031 $ (157,301) $ (51,705) $ (78,208)_ 1,080,106 $ 0.22 $ 239,393 $ 161,184 $ - $ (3,884) $ 0 Page 108 City of Pickering - 2017 Development Charges Background Study Cash Flow Analysis Parks & Recreation - Residential Year D.C. Reserve Fund Opening Balance Dev't Related Expenditures Nominal Inflated (3%/Yr) SDE per Year DC Rates w. Inflation (3%/Yr) Anticipated Revenues 2018 $ 15,701,991 (4,131,662) (4,255,612) 2,499 4,849 2019 23,610,450 (6,786,474) (7,199,770) 2,499 4,995 2020 $ 29,103,723 $ (13,844,983) (15,128,786) 2,499 5,145 2021 $ 27,085,305 2022 $ 13,137,070 $ (24,208,732) $ (43,652,822) $ (27,247,141) 2,499 $ (50,605,585) 2,499 $ 5,299 $ 5,458 2023 $ (24,711,464) $ (4,728,317) $ (5,645,858) 2,155 5,622 2024 $ (19,765,911) (6,632,889) (8,157,617) 2,155 $ 5,791 2025 $ (16,775,102) $ (2,648,482) $ (3,355,018) 2,155 $ 5,964 2026 $ (8,328,384) $ (3,313,950) (4,323,953) 2,155 $ 6,143 2027 $ (59,111) $ (9,774,544) $ (13,136,169) 2,155 $ 6,327 12,117,308 12,480,827 12,855,252 13,240,910 13,638,137 12,114,801 12,478,245 12,852,593 13,238,171 13,635,316 Interest Revenues Debenture (2.5% on DC Reserve minus Financing positive Fund Closing Expenditures Requirement balances & 5% on negative balances) Balance after Financing $ 7,861,696 $ (438,576) $ 485,339 $ 23,610,450 $ 5,281,057 $ (438,576) $ 650,792 $ 29,103,723 $ (2,273,534) $ (438,576) $ 693,692 $ 27,085,305 $ (14,006,231) $ (438,576) $ 496,573 $ 13,137,070 $ (36,967,448) $ (438,576) $ (442,510) $ (24,711,464) $ 6,468,944 $ (438,576) $ (1,084,814) $ (19,765,911) $ 4,320,629 $ (438,576) $ (891,244) $ (16,775,102) $ 9,497,575 $ (438,576) $ (612,280) $ (8,328,384) $ 8,914,218 $ (438,576) $ (206,369) $ (59,111) $ 499,146 $ (438,576) $ (1,460) $ 0 Page 109 City of Pickering - 2017 Development Charges Background Study Cash Flow Analysis Parks and Recreation - Seaton Prestige Employment Land Year D.C. Reserve Fund Opening Balance Dev't Related Expenditures Net Hectares per Year DC Rates w, ° Inflation (3%/Yr) Anticipated Revenues Revenues minus Expenditures Debenture Financing Requirement Interest (2.5% on positive balances & 5% on negative balances) DC Reserve Fund Closing Balance after Financing Nominal ° Inflated (3%/Yr) 2018 $ 2,760 $ (77,991) $ (80,331) 18 $ 13,257 $ 243,536 $ 163,205 $ (8,279) $ 2,006 $ 159 692 2019 $ 159,692 $ (128,105) $ (135,906) 18 $ 13,655 $ 250,842 $ 114,936 $ (8,279) $ 5,326 $ 271,674 2020 $ 271,674 $ (261,345) $ (285,578) 18 $ 14,064 $ 258,367 $ (27,211) $ (8,279) $ 6,348 $ 242,532 2021 $ 242,532 $ (456,976) $ (514,330) 18 $ 14,486 $ 266,118 $ (248,212) $ (8,279) $ 2,683 $ (11,276) 2022 $ (11,276) $ (824,012) $ (955,256) 18 $ 14,921 $ 274,102 $ (681,154) _ $ (8,279) $ (17,800) $ (718,508) 2023 $ (718,508) $ (89,254) $ (106,574) 18 $ 15,368 $ 282,325 $ 175,751 $ (8,279) $ (31,739) $ (582,775) 2024 $ (582,775) $ (480,172) $ (125,206) $ (49,994) $ (153,987) $ (63,331) 18 18 $ 15,830 $ 16,304 $ 290,795 $ 299,518 $ 136,807 $ 236,187 $ (8,279) $ (8,279) $ (25,926) $ (18,311) $ (480,172) $ (270,574) 2025 2026 $ (270,574) $ (62,556) $ (81,621) 18 $ 16,794 $ 308,504 $ 226,883 $ (8,279) $ (8,064) $ (60,033) 2027 $ (60,033) $ (184,509) $ (247,965) 18 $ 17,297 $ 317,759 $ 69,794 $ (8,27) $ (1,482) $ 0 Page 110 City of Pickering - 2017 Development Charges Background Study Cash Flow Analysis Parks & Recreation - Other Non -Residential Year D.C. Reserve Fund OpeningNominal Balance Dev't Related Expenditures per Year DC Rates w. Inflation 3%/Yr ( Anticipated Revenues Revenues minus Expenditures Debenture Financing Requirement Interest (2.5% on positive balances & 5% on negative balances) DC Reserve Fund Closing Balance after Financing Inflated(3%/Yr)GFA 2018 $ 4,936 $ (139,465) $ (143,649) 1,118,519 $ 0.39 $ 435,493 $ 291,844 $ (14,804) $ 3,586 $ 285,562 2019 $ 285,562 $ (229,078) $ (243,029) 1,118,519_ $ 0.40 $ 448,558 $ 205,529 $ (14,804) $ 9,523 $ 485,810 2020 $ 485,810 $ (467,339) $ (510,674) 1,118,519 $ 0.41 $ 462,014 $ (48,659) $ (14,804) $ 11,352 $ 433,698 2021 $ 433,698 $ (817,168) $ (919,730) 1,118,519 $ (1,708,196) 1,118,519 $ 0.43 $ 0.44 $ 475,875 $ 490,151 $ (443,855) $ (1,218,045) $ (14,804) $ (14,804) $ 4,797 $ (31,829) $ (20,163) $ (1,284,842) 2022 $ (20,163) $ (1,473,505) 2023 $ (1,284,842) $ (159,605) $ (190,576) 1,118,519 $ 0.45 $ 504,856 $ 314,279 $ (14,804) $ (56,755) $ (1,042,123) 2024 $ (1,042,123) $ (223,894) $ (275,361) 1,118,519 $ 0.46 $ 520,001 $ 244,640 $ (14,804) $ (46,360) $ (858,647) 2025 $ (858,647) $ (89,400) $ (113,249) 1,118,519 $ 0.48 $ 535,601 $ 422,352 $ (14,804) $ (32,744) $ (483,842) 2026 $ (483,842) $ (111,863) $ (145,955) 1,118,519 $ 0.49 $ 551,669 $ 405,714 $ (14,804) $ (14,419) $ (107,352) 2027 $ (107,352) $ (329,941) $ L443,413L 1,118,519 $ 0.51 $ 568,219 $ 124,807 $ (14,804) $ (2,651) $ (0) Page 111 City of Pickering - 2017 Development Charges Background Study Cash Flow Analysis Library - Residential Year D.C. Reserve Fund Opening Balance Dev't Related Expenditures SDE per Year DC Rates w. ° Inflation (3 /°/Yr) Anticipated Revenues Revenues minus Expenditures Debenture Financing Requirement Interest (2.5% on positive balances & 5% on negative _ balances) DC Reserve Fund Closing Balance after Financing Nominal ° Inflated (3%/Yr) 2018 $ 2,658,843 $ (1,637,325) $ (1,686,445) 2,499 $ 1,086 $ 2,713,615 $ 1,027,170 $ 79,311 $ 3,765,323 2019 $ 3,765,323 $ (9,383,487) $ (9,954,941) 2,499 $ 1,119 $ 2,795,023 $ (7,159,918) $ (37,798) $ (3,432,393) 2020 $ (3,432,393) $ (6,634,335) $ (7,249,516) 2,499_ $ 1,152 $ 2,878,874 $ (4,370,642) $ (280,886) $ (8,083,921) 2021 $ (8,083,921) $ (1,961,966) $ (2,208,209) 2,499 $ 1,187 $ 2,965,240 $ 757,031 $ (385,270) $ (7,712,161) 2022 $ (7,712,161) $ (3,441,288) $ (3,989,396) 2,499 $ 1,222 $ 3,054,197 $ (935,199) $ (408,988) $ (9,056,347) 2023 $ (9,056,347) $ (3,165,919) $ (3,780,273) 2,155 $ 1,259 $ 2,713,054 $ (1,067,220) $ (479,498) $ (10,603,065) 2024 $ (10,603,065) $ - $ - 2,155 $ 1,297 $ 2,794,445 $ 2,794,445 $ (460,292) $ (8,268,912) 2025 $ (8,268,912) $ - $ - 2,155 $ 1,336 $ 2,878,279 $ 2,878,279 $ (341,489) $ (5,732,122) 2026 $ (5,732,122) $ - $ - 2,155 $ 1,376 $ 2,964,627 $ 2,964,627 $ (212,490) $ (2,979,986) 2027 $ (2,979,986) $ - $ - 2,155 $ 1,417 $ 3,053,566 $ 3,053,566 $ (73,580) $ (0) Page 112 City of Pickering - 2017 Development Charges Background Study Cash Flow Analysis Library - Seaton Prestige Employment Land Year D.C. Reserve Fund Opening Balance Dev't Related Expenditures Nominal Inflated (3%/Yr) Net Hectares per Year DC Rates w. Inflation (3%/Yr) 2018 50,190 $ (30,907) (31,834) 18 2019 67,671 $ (177,127) $ (187,914 18 2020 (71,874) (125,233) (136,845; 18 2021 $ (163,690) $ (37,035) $ (41,683) 18 2022 $ (160,993) $ (64,959) $ (75,306) 18 2023 $ (191,017) $ (59,761) $ (71,358) 18 2024 (216,839) 18 2025 $ (169,105) 18 2026 $ (117,226) 18 2,605 2,683 2,764 2,847 2,932 3,020 3,111 3,204 3,300 3,399 2027 $ (60,943) 18 Anticipated Revenues Revenues minus Expenditures Debenture Financing Requirement Interest (2.5% on positive balances & 5% DC Reserve Fund Closing Balance after on negative Financing balances) $ 47,861 $ 16,027 $ 1,455 $ 67,671 $ 49,297 $ (138,618) $ (928) $ (71,874) $ 50,775 $ (86,070) $ (5,745) $ (163,690) $ 52,299 $ 10,615 $ (7,919) $ (160,993) $ 53,868 $ (21,438) $ (8,586) $ (191,017) $ 55,484 $ (15,875) $ (9,948) $ (216,839) $ 57,148 $ 57,148 $ (9,413) $ (169,105) $ 58,863 $ 58,863 $ (6,984) $ (117,226) $ 60,629 $ 60,629 $ (4,346) $ (60,943) $ 62,447 $ 62,447 $ (1,505) $ 0 Page 113 City of Pickering - 2017 Development Charges Background Study Cash Flow Analysis Library - Other Non -Residential Year D.C. Reserve Fund Opening Balance Dev't Related Expenditures GFA per Year DC Rates w. ° Inflation (3% Anticipated Revenues Revenues minus Expenditures Debenture Financing Requirement Interest (2.5% on positive balances & 5% on negative DC Reserve Fund Closing Balance after Financing Nominal Inflated (3%/Yr) 2018 $ 89,749 $ (55,268) $ (56,926) 1,118,519 $ 0.08 $ 85,585 $ 28,659 $ 2,602 $ 121,010 2019 $ 121,010 $ (316,740) $ (336,030) 1,118,519 $ 0.08 $ 88,152 $ (247,877) $ (1,659) $ (128526) 2020 $ (128,526) $ (223,943) $ (244,708) 1,118,519 $ 0.08 $ 90,797 $ (153,911) $ (10,274) $ (292,711) 2021 2022 $ (292,711) $ (287,890) $ (66,226) $ (74,538) 1,118,519 $ 0.08 $ 93,521 $ 18,983 $ (14,161) $ (287,890) $ (341,578) $ (116,161) $ (134,662) 1,118,519 $ 0.09 $ 96,327 $ (38,336) $ (15,353) 2023 $ (341,578) $ (106,866) $ (127,603) 1,118,519 $ 0.09 $ 99,216 $ (28,387) $ (17,789) $ (387,754) 2024 $ (387,754) $ $ 1,118,519 $ 0.09 $ 102,193 $ 102,193 $ (16,833) $ (302,394) 2025 $ (302,394) $ - $ - 1,118,519 $ 0.09 $ 105,259 $ 105,259 $ (12,488) $ (209,624) 2026 $ (209,624) $ - $ - 1,118,519 $ 0.10 $ 108,416 $ 108,416 $ (7,771) $ (108,978) 2027 $ 108,978 $ - $ - 1,118,519 $ 0.10 $ 111,669 $ 111,669 - $ 2,691 $ - Page 114 City of Pickering - 2017 Development Charges Background Study Cash Flow Analysis Admin - Residential Year D.C. Reserve Fund Opening Balance Dev't Related Expenditures SDE per Year DC Rates w. Inflation (3% Anticipated Revenues Revenues minus Expenditures Debenture Financing Requirement Interest (2.5% on Positive balances & 5% on negative balances) DC Reserve Fund Closing Balance after Financing Nominal Inflated (3o /Yr) 2018 $ (525,617) $ (952,802) $ (981,386) 2,499 $ 277 $ 692,129 $ (289,257) $ (33,512) $ (848,386) 2019 $ (848,386) $ (630,097) $ (668,470) 2,499 $ 285 $ 712,893 $ 44,423 $ (41,309) $ (845,272) 2020 $ (845,272) $ (555,382) $ (606,881) 2,499 $ 294 $ 734,280 $ 127,399 $ (39,079) $ (756,952) 2021 $ (756,952) $ (463,220) $ (521,358) 2,499 $ 303 $ 312 $ 756,308 $ 778,997 $ 234,950 $ (154,058) $ (31,974) $ (31,550) $ (553,976) $ (739,584) 2022 $ (553,976) $ (804,862) $ (933,056) 2,499 2023 $ (739,584) $ (310,448) $ (370,691) 2,155 $ 321 $ 691,986 $ 321,295 $ (28,947) $ (447,236) 2024 $ (447,236) $ (310,448) $ (381,812) 2,155 $ 331 $ 712,746 $ 330,933 $ (14,088) $ (130,391) 2025 $ (130,391) $ (310,448) $ (393,266) 2,155 $ 341 $ 734,128 $ 340,861 $ - (629) $ 209,841 2026 $ 209,841 $ (569,346) $ (742,867) 2,155 $ 351 $ 756,152 $ 13,285 $ 5,412 $ 228,538 2027 $ 228,538 $ (751,655)_ $ (1,010,161) 2,155 $ 361 $ 778,836 $ (231,325)_ $ 2,787 $ 0 Page 115 City of Pickering - 2017 Development Charges Background Study Cash Flow Analysis Admin - Seaton Prestige Employment Land Year D.C. Reserve Fund Opening Balance Dev't Related Expenditures Net Hectares per Year DC Rates w. ° Inflation (3% Anticipated Revenues Revenues minus Expenditures Debenture Financing Requirement Interest (2.5% on positive balances & 5% on negative balances) DC Reserve Fund Closing Balance after Financing Nominal ° Inflated (3 /o/Yr) 2018 $ (53,171) $ (96,384) $ (99,276) 18 $ 3,560 $ 65,396 $ (33,879) $ (3,506) $ (90,555) 2019 $ (90,555) $ (63,740) $ (67,622) 18 $ 3,667 $ 67,358 $ (263) $ (4,534) $ (95,353) 2020 $ (95,353) $ (56,182) $ (61,391) 18 $ 3,777 $ 69,379 $ 7,988 $ (4,568) $ (91,933) 2021 $ (91,933) $ (46,859) $ (52,740) 18 $ 3,890 $ 71,461 .$ 18,721 $ (4,129) $ (4,387) $ (77,341) $ (102,510) 2022 $ (77,341) $ (81,419) $ (94,387) 18 $ 4,007 $ 73,604 $ (20,782) 2023 $ (102,510) $ (31,405) $ (37,499) 18 $ 4,127 $ 75,812 $ 38,314 $ (4,168) $ (68,363) 2024 $ (68,363) $ (31,405) $ (38,624) 18 $ 4,251 $ 78,087 $ 39,463 $ (2,432) $ (31 332) 2025 $ (31,332) $ (31,405) $ (39,782) 18 $ 4,378 $ 80,429 $ 40,647 $ (667) $ 8,648 2026 $ 8,648 $ (57,594) $ (75,147) 18 $ 4,510 $ 82,842 $ 7,695 $ 312 $ 16,656 2027 $ 16,656 $ (76,036) $ (102,186) 18 $ 4,645 $ 85,328 $ (16,859) $ 203 $ - Page 116 City of Pickering - 2017 Development Charges Background Study Cash Flow Analysis Admin - Other Non -Residential Year D.C. Reserve Fund Opening Balance Dev't Related Expenditures GFA per Year DC Rates w. ° Inflation (no/Yr) Anticipated Revenues Revenues minus Expenditures Debenture Financing Requirement Interest (2.5% on positive balances & 5% on negative balances) DC Reserve Fund Closing Balance after Financing Nominal Inflated (3%/Yr) 2018 $ (95,080) $ (172,355) $ (177,526) 1,118,519 $ 0.10 $ 116,943 $ (60,583) $ (6,269) $ (161,932) 2019 $ (161,932) $ (113,980) $ (120,921) 1,118,519 $ 0.11 $ 120,451 $ (471) $ (8,108) $ (170,511) 2020 $ (170,511) $ (100,465) $ (109,780) 1,118,519 $ 0.11 $ 124,064 $ 14,284 $ (8,168) $ (164,395) 2021 $ (164,395) $ (83,793) $ (94,310) 1,118,519 $ 0.11 $ 127,786 $ 33,476 $ (7,383) $ (138,301) $ (183,309) 2022 $ (138,301) $ (145,594) $ (168,783) 1,118,519 $ 0.12 $ 131,620 $ (37,163) $ (7,844) 2023 $ (183,309) $ (56,158) $ (67,055) 1,118,519 $ 0.12 $ 135,568 $ 68,513 $ (7,453) $ (122,248) 2024 $ (122,248) $ (56,158) $ (69,067) 1,118,519 $ 0.12 $ 139,636 $ 70,569 $ (4,348) $ (56 028) 2025 $ (56,028) $ (56,158) $ (71,139) 1,118,519 $ 0.13 $ 143,825 $ 72,686 $ (1,192) $ 15,465 2026 $ 15,465 $ (102,990) $ (134,379) 1,118,519 $ 0.13 $ 148,139 $ 13,760 $ 559 $ 29,784 2027 $ 29,784 $ (135,969) $ (182,731) 1,118,519 $ 0.14 $ 152,584 $ (30,147) $ 363 $ 0 Page 117 City of Pickering - 2017 Development Charges Background Study Cash Flow Analysis Stormwater Management - Residential Year D.C. Reserve Fund Opening Balance Dev't Related Expenditures SDE per Year DC Rates w. Inflation (3%/Yr) Anticipated Revenues Revenues minus Expenditures Debenture Financing Requirement Interest (2.5% on positive balances & 5% on negative balances) DC Reserve Fund Closing Balance after Financing Nominal Inflated (3%/Yr) 2018 $ 722,514 $ (608,310) $ (626,559) 2,499 $ 288 $ 719,883 $ 93,324 $ 19,229 $ 835,068 2019 $ 835,068 $ (608,310) $ (645,356) 2,499_ $ 297 $ 741,480 $ 96,124 $ 22,078 $ 953,271 2020 $ 953,271 $ (608,310) $ (664,716) 2,499 $ 306 $ 763,724 $ 99,008 $ 25,069 $ 1,077,348 2021 $ 1,077,348 $ (608,310) $ (684,658) 2,499 $ 315 $ 786,636 $ 810,235 $ 101,978 $ 105,037 $ 28,208 $ 31,501 $ 1,207,534 $ 1,344,073 2022 $ 1,207,534 $ (608,310) $ (705,198) 2,499 $ 324 2023 $ 1,344,073 $ (608,310) $ (726,353) 2,155 $ 334 $ 719,734 $ (6,619) $ 33,519 $ 1,370,973 2024 $ 1,370,973 $ (608,310) $ (748,144) 2,155 $ 344 $ 741,326 $ (6,818) $ 34,189 $ 1,398,344 2025 $ 1,398,344 $ (540,471) $ (684,652) 2,155 $ 354 $ 763,566 $ 78,914 $ 35,945 $ 1,513,204 2026 $ 1,513,204 $ (540,471) $ (705,192) 2,155 $ 365 $ 786,473 $ 81,282 $ 38,846 $ 1,633,331 2027 $ 1,633,331 $ (540,471) $ (726,347) 2,155 $ 376 $ 810,067 $ 83,720 $ 41,880 $ 1,758,931 2028 $ 1,758,931 $ (540,471) $ (748,138) 905 $ 387 $ 350,356 $ (397,781) $ 39,001 $ 1,400,151 2029 $ 1,400,151 $ (540,471) $ (770,582) 905 $ 399 $ 360,867 $ (409,715) $ 29,882 $ 1,020,318 2030 $ 1,020,318 $ (540,471) $ (793,699) 905 $ 411 $ 371,693 $ (422,006) $ 20,233 $ 618,545 2031 $ 618,545 $ (540,471) $ (817,510) 452 $ 423 $ 191,422 $ (626,088) $ 7,543 $ - Page 118 City of Pickering - 2017 Development Charges Background Study Cash Flow Analysis Stormwater Management - Seaton Prestige Employment Year D.C. Reserve Fund Opening Balance Dev't Related Expenditures Net Hectares per Year DC Rates w. Inflation(3%/Yr)Revenues Anticipated Revenues minus Expenditures Debenture Financing Requirement Interest (2.5% on positive ° balances & 5 /° on negative balances) DC Reserve Fund Closing Balance after Financing Nominal Inflated ( 3%/Yr ) 2018 $ 82,872 $ (69,773) $ (71,866) 18 $ 3,503 $ 64,358 $ (7,508) $ 1,978 $ 77,342 2019 $ 77,342 $ (69,773) $ (74,022) 18 $ 3,608 $ 66,288 $ (7,733) $ 1,837 $ 71,445 2020 $ 71,445 $ (69,773) $ (76,242) 18 $ 3,717 $ 68,277 $ (7,965) $ 1,687 $ 65,166 2021 $ 65,166 $ (69,773) $ (78,530) 18 $ 3,828 $ 70,325 $ (8,204) $ 1,527 $ 58,489 2022 $ 58,489 $ (69,773) $ (80,885) 18 $ 3,943 $ 72,435 $ (8,450) $ 1,357 $ 51,395 2023 $ 51,395 $ (69,773) $ (83,312) 18 $ 4,061 $ 74,608 $ (8,704) $ 1,176 $ 43,867 2024 $ 43,867 $ (69,773) $ (85,811) 18 $ 4,183 $ 76,846 $ (8,965) $ 985 $ 35,887 2025 $ 35,887 $ (61,991) $ (78,529) 18 $ 4,309 $ 79,152 $ 623 $ 905 $ 37,415 2026 $ 37,415 $ (61,991) $ (80,885) 18 $ 4,438 $ 81,526 $ 642 $ 943 $ 39,000 2027 $ 39,000 $ (61,991) $ (83,311) 18 $ 4,571 $ 83,972 $ 661 $ 983 $ 40,644 2028 $ 40,644 $ (61,991) $ (85,811) 18 $ 4,708 $ 86,491 $ 681 $ 1,025 $ 42,349 2029 $ 42,349 $ (61,991) $ (88,385) 18 $ 4,849 $ 89,086 $ 701 $ 1,067 $ 44,118 2030 $ 44,118 $ (61,991) $ (91,037) 18 $ 4,995 $ 91,759 $ 722 $ 1,112 $ 45,952 2031 $ 45,952 $ (61,991) $ (93,768)_ 9 $ 5,145 $ 47,256 $ (46,512) $ 560 $ (0) Page 119 City of Pickering - 2017 Development Charges Background Study Cash Flow Analysis Stormwater Management - Other Non -Residential Year D.C. Reserve Fund Opening Balance Dev't Related Expenditures GFA per Year DC Rates w. ° Inflation (3% Anticipated Revenues Revenues minus Expenditures Debenture Financing Requirement Interest (2.5% on positive balances & 5% on negative balances) DC Reserve Fund Closing Balance after Financing Nominal Inflated (3%/Yr) 2019 $ 134,223 $ (143,958) $ (152,725) 1,118,519 $ 0.10 $ 107,747 $ (40,530) $ 3,768 $ 134,223 2019 $ 134,223 $ (143,958) $ (152,725) 1,118,519 $ 0.10 $ 110,979 $ (41,746) $ 2,834 $ 95,31111 2020 $ 95,311 $ (143,958) $ (157,307) 1,118,519 $ 0.10 $ 114,308 $ (42,998) $ 1,845 $ 54,158 2021 $ 54,158 $ (143,958) $ (143,958) $ (162,026) $ (166,887) 1,118,519 1,118,519 $ 0.11 $ 0.11 $ 117,738 $ 121,270 $ (44,288) $ (45,617) $ 800 $ (740) $ 10,670 $ (35,687) 2022 $ 10,670 2023 $ (35,687) $ (143,958) $ (171,893) 1,118,519 $ 0.11 $ 124,908 $ (46,985) $ (2,959) $ (85,631) 2024 $ (85,631) $ (143,958) $ (177,050) 1,118,519 $ 0.12 $ 128,655 $ (48,395) $ (5,491) $ (139,518) 2025 $ (139,518) $ (127,904) $ 162,025) 1,118,519 $ 0.12 $ 132,515 $ (29,510) $ (7,714) $ (176,741) 2026 $ (176,741) $ (127,904) $ (166,885) 1,118,519 $ 0.12 $ 136,490 $ (30,395) $ (9,597) $ (216,733) 2027 $ (216,733) $ (127,904) $ (171,892) 1,118,519 $ 0.13 $ 140,585 $ (31,307) $ (11,619) $ (259,659) 2028 $ (259,659) $ (127,904) $ (177,049) 2,160,212 $ 0.13 $ 279,659 $ 102,611 $ (10,418) $ (167,466) 2029 $ (167,466) $ (127,904) $ (182,360) 2,160,212 $ 0.13 $ 288,049 $ 105,689 $ (5,731) $ (67,509) 2030 $ (67,509)- $ (127,904) $ (187,831) 2,160,212 $ 0.14 $ 296,690 $ 108,860 $ (1,171) $ 40,180 2031 $ 40,180 $ 127,904 $ 193,466 1,080,106 $ 0.14 $ 152,796 $ 40,670 $ 490 $ 0 Page 120 Appendix D — Long-term Capital and Operating Cost Examination Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12017 DC StudylReport\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx 198 Page 121 Appendix D — Long-term Capital and Operating Cost Examination As a requirement of the D.C.A., 1997 under subsection 10(2)(c), an analysis must be undertaken to assess the long-term capital and operating cost impacts for the capital infrastructure projects identified within the D.C. As part of this analysis, it was deemed necessary to isolate the incremental. operating expenditures directly associated with these capital projects, factor in cost savings attributable to economies of scale or cost sharing where applicable, and prorate the cost on a per unit basis (i.e. square foot of building space, per vehicle, etc.). This was undertaken through a review of the City's 2016 Financial Information Return. In addition to the operational impacts, over time the initial capital projects will require replacement. This replacement of capital is often referred to as lifecycle cost. By definition, lifecycle costs are all the costs which are incurred during the life of a physical asset, from the time its acquisition is first considered, to the time it is taken out of service for disposal or redeployment. The method selected for lifecycle costing is the sinking fund method which provides that money will be contributed annually and invested, so that those funds will grow over time to equal the amount required for future replacement. The following factors samples of what were utilized to calculate the annual replacement cost of the capital projects (annual contribution = factor x capital asset cost) and are based on an annual growth rate of -1 % (net of inflation) over the average useful life of the asset: Asset Lifecycle Cost: Average Useful Life (Years) Lifecycle Cost: Factor Facilities, Buildings 40 0.02759 Roads and Related 20 0.05531 Rolling Stock and Equipment 10 0.10547 Fire Vehicles 15 0.07201 Infrastructure 40 0.03034 Parks Related 30 0.03864 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx 199 Page 122 Table D-1 depicts the annual operating impact resulting from the proposed gross capital projects at the time they are all in place. It is important to note that, while municipal program expenditures will increase with growth in population, the costs associated with the new infrastructure (i.e. facilities) would be delayed until the time these works are in place. Table D-1 Operating and Capital Expenditure Impacts for Future Capital Expenditures SERVICE ANNUAL LIFECYCLE EXPENDITURES ANNUAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES 1. Transportation 3,597,036 819,501 4,416,538 2. Stormwater Management 329,725 398,784 728,509 3. Other Services Related to a Highway 646,471 2,185,977 2,832,448 4. Protection Services 1,010,992 16,530,129 17,541,121 5. Parks and Recreation Services 5,218,687 7,965,692 13,184,379 6. Library Services 976,115 5,737,381 6,713,496 7. Administration Studies - Total 11,779,027 33,637,465 45,416,492 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12017 DC StudylReport\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx 200 Page 123 Appendix E - Proposed D.C. By-law Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H.1Pickering12017 DC StudylReport\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx 201 Page 124 The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. /17 Being a By-law Regarding Development Charges Whereas, pursuant to subsection 2(1) of the Development Charges Act, 1997 (the Act), the council of a municipality may by by-law impose development charges against land to pay for increased capital costs required due to increased needs for servicing arising from development of the area to which the By-law applies; and Whereas, the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering approved the City of Pickering Development Charge Background Study, dated October 5, 2017, as amended, prepared by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.; And Whereas the Council has made the Background Study and proposed Development Charges By-law available to the public at least sixty days prior to by-law passage and two weeks prior to the public meeting and has given notice in accordance with Section 12 of the Act of its development charges proposal and a public meeting was held on November 6, 2017 And Whereas the Council has heard all persons who applied to be heard in objection to, or in support of, the proposed Development Charge By-law at such public meeting, and provided a subsequent period for written communications to be made; And Whereas the Council in adopting the Development Charge Background Study directed that development charges be imposed on land under development or redevelopment within the geographical limits of the municipality as hereinafter provided. Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 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; (i) Notwithstanding subsection 2(c) the exemption will not apply to the development charges calculated with respect to Transportation Services, Protection Services, and Other Services Related to a Highway; 202 (3) Page 125 (d) a building or structure that is used in connection with a place of worship and is exempt from taxation under the Assessment Act as a result; (e) development where: (f) (i) (ii) no additional dwelling units are being created; or no additional non-residential gross floor area is being added; or nursing homes and hospitals. 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: (a) the building permit for the replacement residential units or non- residential area is issued not more than 5 years after the date of demolition; and (b) that the applicant has provided proof that the building being demolished was subject to, and paid a development charges under a prior by-law or a lot levy under by-law 3322/89; and (c) that any dwelling units or additional non-residential floor area created in excess of what was demolished shall be subject to the development charge calculated under Section 6 and 11, respectively. (d) notwithstanding subsection 3(a), for building permit issuance occurring between January 1, 2018 and June 29, 2018 demolition must have occurred no more than 10 years prior to be eligible for the redevelopment credit. 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; 203 Page 126 (f) the approval of a description under Section 50 of the Condominium Act; or (g) the issuing of a permit under the Building Code Act, in relation to a building or structure. (2) Subsection (1) shall not apply in respect of: (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 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) 204 "garden suite" means a one -unit detached, temporary residential structure containing bathroom and kitchen facilities that is ancillary for an existing residential structure and that is designed to be portable; (g) "grade" means the average level of finished ground adjoining a dwelling at all exterior walls; Page 127 (h) "gross floor area" means the total floor area, measured between the outside of exterior walls or between the outside of exterior walls and the centre line of party walls dividing the building from another building, of all floors above the average level of finished ground adjoining the building at its exterior walls; (i) "hospital" means land, buildings or structures used, or designed or intended for use as defined in the Public Hospitals Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.40 as amended; (j) "Live Work unit" is as defined in the City's zoning by-laws; (k) "nursing home" means a building owned and operated on a non-profit basis but excluding any building or part of a building which is comprised of dwelling units; (1) (m) "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 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; "retirement residence" means a residential building or the residential portion of a mixed-use building which provides accommodation for persons of retirement age, where common facilities for the preparation And consumption of food are provided for the residents of the building, and where each unit or living accommodation has separate sanitary facilities, less than full culinary facilities and a separate entrance from a common hall; (n) "retirement residence unit" means a unit within a retirement residence; (o) "semi-detached dwelling" means one pf a pair of dwelling units attached together horizontally above or below grade or both above and below grade; (p) (q) "single -attached dwelling" means one of a group of not less than three adjacent dwelling units attached together horizontally by above grade common walls; "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; 205 Page 128 (3) The development charges imposed on a retirement residence unit under subsection (1) shall be payable at the rate applicable to an apartment of one bedroom and smaller; (4) Development charges against land to be developed for a Live Work unit shall be subject to the -residential rates. 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 1;lrea of the existing dwelling unit. (3) Notwithstanding clause {1)(b) of this Section, development charges shall be calculated, paid and collected in accordance with Section 6 where the additional unit has a gross floor area greater than, (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. (1) Where non-residential floor area is to be converted to residential space, a charge shall be paid for any new residential units created, less the amount of the charge which would be payable if the existing non-residential space being converted were being constructed, but in no case shall the net charge be less than zero. (2) Notwithstanding subsection 8(1), development charge credits for the conversion of an existing building from one principal use to another will only be provided where the applicant has provided proof of payment of a development charges under a previous by-law or a lot levy under by-law 3322/89 with regard to the building to be converted. Part 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; 206 Page 129 (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: (1) manufacturing, producing, processing, storing or distributing something; (ii) research or development in connection with manufacturing, producing or processing something; (iii) retail sales by a manufacturer, producer or processor of something they manufactured, produced or processed, if the retail sales are at the site where the manufacturing, production or processing takes place; or (iv) office or administrative purposes, if they are: (1) carried out with respect to manufacturing, producing, processing, storage or distributing or something, and In or attached to the building or structure used for that manufacturing, producing, processing, storage or distribution; (2) in or attached to the building or structure used for that manufacturing, producing, processing, storage or distribution; (e) "gross floor area" means the total floor area, measured between the outside of exterior walls or between the outside of exterior walls and the centre line of party walls dividing the building from another building, of all floors above the average level of finished ground adjoining the building at its exterior walls; (f) (g) "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; "non-residential" means designed, adapted or used for any purpose other than a dwelling unit or dwelling units, or accessory uses or spaces to a dwelling or dwellings; 207 Page 130 (h) "total floor area" means the sum total of the areas of the floor whether above or below grade, measured between the exterior faces of the exterior walls of the building or structure or from the centre line of a common wall separating two uses; and (i) includes the area of mezzanine as defined in the Ontario Building Code; and (ii) excludes those areas used exclusively as mechanical areas or for parking garages or structures. 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 "C"; (3) The development charges in subsection 11(2) shall be calculated based on the number of net hectares of the entire parcel of land on which development will occur. (4) If a development includes the enlargement of the gross floor area of an existing industrial building, the amount of the development charge that is payable In respect of the enlargement will be determined as follows: (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: (c) (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. 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. (1) 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 208 Page 131 being converted were being constructed, but in no case shall the net charge be less than zero. (2) Notwithstanding subsection 12(1), development charge credits for the conversion of an existing building from one principal use to another will only be provided where the applicant has provided proof of payment of a development charge under a prior by-law or a lot levy under by-law 3322/89 with regard to the building to be converted. Part IV Administration 13. Development charges against land to be developed for residential uses, non- residential uses, or both, shall be calculated, paid and collected as follows: (a) development charges agains.t that portion of the land to be developed for residential use shall be calculated, paid and collected on a per dwelling unit of residential use basis in accordance with Part II and Schedule "C" of this By-law and in the case of a mixed-use building or structure, upon the residential uses in the mixed use buildings or structures, according to the type of residential use; (b) development charge against that portion of the land to be developed for non-residential use shall be calculated, paid and collected in accordance with Part 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. (2) No building permits shall be issued by the City for the construction of any building or structure on land to which a development charge applies until the applicable development charge has been paid in full to the City. (3) Where an owner has paid to the City, prior to the enactment of this By-law, in relation to a building or structure on land to which a development charge applies, (a) a charge against development pursuant to an obligation to do so in a subdivision agreement, condominium agreement, development agreement or other agreement with the City; (b) a fee as a condition of obtaining a consent to create a lot, other than the application fee; or (c) a lot levy pursuant to By-law 3322/89, and the building permit for that building or structure has not been issued prior to the enactment of this By-law, the owner shall be credited with the amount so paid, up to the amount of the development charge payable, as part of the development charge payable hereunder when the building permit is issued. 209 Page 132 15. (1) Monies received from payment of development charges shall be maintained in a separate reserve fund for each service designated in Schedule "A", plus interest earned thereon. (2) Monies received for the payment of development charges shall be used only in accordance with the provisions of s.35 of the Act. (3) The amounts contained in the reserve funds established under this Section shall be invested, with any income received credited to the development charge reserve funds in relation to which the investment income applies. 16. (1) The development charges referred to in Sections 6 and 11 apply to all permit applications received on or after January 1, 2018. These rates shall be adjusted annually, without amendment to this By-law, as of July 1 each year, commencing in 2019, in accordance with the change in the index for the most recently available annual period ending March 31 for the Statistics Canada Quarterly, Construction Price Statistics, Catalogue Number 62-007. (2) The indexed development charges rates effective July 1 each year shall not apply to permit applications received prior to the July 1 effective date, provided: (i) the permit application is complete in terms of the applicant's submission requirements set out in the building code and the City's Building By-law; (ii) applicable law approvals prescribed in the building code have been obtained or applied for; and (iii) the building permit or a conditional building permit is issued for all or part of the building on or before July 15 of that year. 17. Development charges are payable by cash or certified cheque at the applicable rates or as otherwise may be approved by Council. 18. Council may consider allowing a person to perform work that relates to a service to which this By-law relates and if it agrees shall give the person a credit towards a development charge otherwise payable in exchange for the related Work. 19. This By-law shall be administered by the Corporate Services Department and applied by the Chief Building Official. 20. The following schedules to this by-law form an integral part of this by-law: Schedule "A" - Designated Municipal Services Under this By-law. Schedule "B" - City of Pickering and Seaton Lands. Schedule "C" - Schedule of Development Charges Effective January 1, 2018. 21. This By-law shall come into force and effect at 12:01 am on January 1, 2018 for a term not to exceed five years from the date it comes into force, unless it is repealed at an earlier date. 22. By-law No. 7324/13 shall be repealed as of the date this By-law comes into force. 210 By-law passed this 11th day of December, 2017. Page 133 Mayor City Clerk 211 Page 134 Schedule "A" Designated Municipal Services Under this By-law (a) Transportation Services, including roads, structures, sidewalks, streetlights, traffic signals and services related thereto; (b) Other Services Related to a Highway, including facilities, vehicles and equipment; (c) Protection Services, including facilities, vehicles, equipment and services related thereto; (d) Parks and Recreation Services, including parkland development, trail development, facilities, vehicles, equipment and services related thereto; (e) Library Services, including facilities, furnishings, equipment and services related thereto, including circulating and non -circulating materials generally provided to library users by public libraries; (f) Administration, including development -related capital studies and services related thereto; (g) Stormwater Management, including storm drainage and management works, equipment and services related thereto. 212 Schedule "B" City of Pickering and Seaton Lands ...... ,.._ . 1„1.....7. t e ' 1 i . if ' I I\ ——...),,,; ,,,'' ItALS,641 l'' -, .-''4j ;/) N'.5 .,---- ; .., , cy _,..,/, -,-, I t. •,,, ,„,,L..,, ,i .v.-„". , •, ,,•,,),- ., „ 1,/ , , 1 \ r . 5 r•-• 1,, , 1 1 • GP i Lm_.„ t \ 4 4-• J.,..:,,,,.„,i--,; Page 135 pFJ V7080 t , L 213 Page 136 Schedule "C" City of Pickering Schedule of Development Charges Effective January 1, 2018 Service RESIDENTIAL NON-RESIDENTIAL Single and Semi- Detached Dwelling Apartments - 2 Bedrooms Apartments - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom Other Multiples (per ftz of Total Floor Area) z (per net Ha of Prestige Employment Land in Seaton) Municipal Wide Services: Other Services Related to a Highway 441 279 197 356 0.15 5,451 Protection Services 889 562 398 718 0.34 11,431 Parks and Recreation Services 4,851 3,065 2,171 3,917 0.39 13,261 Library Services 1,086 686 486 877 0.08 2,605 Administration Studies 277 175 124 224 0.10 3,560 Stormwater Management 288 182 129 233 0.10 3,503 Total Municipal Wide Services 7,832 4,949 3,505 6,325 1.15 39,812 Outside of Seaton Lands Transportation 1 6,517 4,117 2,917 5,261 1.83 Total Services Outside of Seaton Lands 6,517 4,117 2,917 5,261 1.83 Seaton 7,832 4,949 3,505 6,325 1.15 39,812 Rest of Pickering 14,349 9,066 6,422 11,586 2.98 1. Subject to a separate agreement outside of the Development Charges Act 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. Page 137 Appendix F - Local Service Policy Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12017 DC StudylReport\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx 215 Page 138 Appendix F - Draft Local Service Policy This Appendix sets out the City's General Policy Guidelines on Development Charges (D.C.) and local service funding for Services Related to a Highway, Stormwater Management, and Parkland Development. The guidelines outline, in general terms, the size and nature of engineered infrastructure that is included in the study as a D.C. project, versus infrastructure that is considered as a local service, to be emplaced separately by landowners, pursuant to a development agreement. The following policy guidelines are general principles by which staff will be guided in considering development applications. However, each application will be considered, in the context of these policy guidelines as subsection 59(2) of the Development Charges Act, 1997, as amended (D.C.A.) on its own merits having regard to, among other factors, the nature, type and location of the development and any existing and proposed development in the surrounding area, as well as the location and type of services required and their relationship to the proposed development and to existing and proposed development in the area. A. SERVICES RELATED TO A HIGHWAY Roads: Development will be required to provide local services including roadworks, sidewalks, walkways, local storm sewers, streetlights, structures, utilities and other items identified in a subdivision or development agreement, for all roads, and/or lanes a) within the plan of subdivision, b) existing, that have lots fronting onto it, c) adjacent to the plan of subdivisions but not separated by a reserve, and required to provide access from the development to an open and maintained road. The reserve will only be required where the municipality requires restricted access. Traffic Control: Development will be required to provide all traffic control measures (including fencing, line painting, pedestrian signals, and tactile warning surfaces) identified through the approval process on roads a) within the plan of subdivision, and b) adjacent to the plan of subdivision or c) intersecting the plan of subdivision. Should the development be of a large enough scale to be required to install a signalized intersection, identified through the approval process, the City will supplement the cost only if the signalized intersection is one identified in the by-law. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12017 DC StudylReport\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx 216 Pagel 39 B. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT The following guidelines are used to identify Stormwater Management Facilities internal to development: a) the conveyance system within creeks internal to a development whereby local benefit is apparent or re -alignment is necessary for the development of adjacent lands; b) a share of the cost of culverts based on the local benefits derived; c) all stormwater management facilities, outfalls and localized creek or channel improvements related to a development plan will be cost -shared among all landowners within the planning area through Developer Cost -Sharing Agreements; and d) any stormwater quality and quantity control measures required to mitigate impacts of development (i.e. SWM ponds, superpipes, oil -grit separators, low impact development measures (LIDs), such as bioswales, rain gardens, infiltration trenches, rain barrels, offsite plantings etc.). All minor/local stormwater management facilities internal to a development (including storm sewer pipe networks, stormwater management ponds, plunge pools, creek/channel stabilization measures, LIDs etc.), are the responsibility of the direct developer under section 59, subsection (2) of the Development Charges Act (as a local service), thus have not been identified in this study. Development will be required to provide a storm sewer system sized to include all upstream lands and/or proposed developments, including the outfall section of the storm sewer to an approved location. The storm sewer system may also require and must include all lands and/or easements, structures, erosion and sedimentation controls, quality and quantity measures (SWM ponds, oil -grit separators, LIDs etc.) and restoration and/or replanting programs. Should over -sizing for upstream development be required, a front -ending agreement or site-specific development charge (amending by-law) will be reviewed and implemented if deemed appropriate. C. PARKLAND DEVLOPMENT With respect to parkland dedication, it is assumed that landowners, as part of their subdivision agreements, will be required to undertake rough and fine grading for overland flows and to seed and provision of municipal services (water, sanitary, storm, and electrical) to the property line. The parkland development costs included in the D.C. are supplementary to that work. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12017 DC Study\Report\Pickering DC Background Study-Final.docx 217