HomeMy WebLinkAboutFIN 15-196-t �A
DICKERING
Report to
Council
Report Number: FIN 15-19
Date: July 22, 2019
From: Stan Karwowski
Director, Finance & Treasurer
Subject: Civic Centre Project & Multi -Year High Level Financial Analysis
Recommendation:
1. That Report FIN 15-19 of the Director, Finance & Treasurer be received;
2. That Council direct staff to proceed with the Civic Centre project based on a fixed
price contract model that includes the construction of the following: Senior & Youth
Centre approximately (63,000 square feet); Performing Arts Centre (approximately
37,000 square feet); Central Library (approximately 43,000 square feet with a roof
terrace), underground parking (350 spots), associated landscaping and the
required relocation of services: sanitary sewers, storm sewers, utilities and water
mains;
3a) That Council direct that for financial planning purposes, the total cost of the Civic
Centre project be $124,054,246 (net HST) excluding the costs for the bridge link
between the Library and Seniors Centre, the relocation of service costs and any
related fees and if the total contract price increases over 2 per cent, further Council
approval is required to proceed;
b) That the total cost of the bridge link noted above, at $5,375,357 be added to the
total project cost within the report with appropriate DC funding, and that staff make
appropriate adjustments to the financial plan;
4. That Council approve to single source the construction of the Civic Centre
municipal buildings, underground parking lot and the relocation of services to
Pickering Town Centre/OPB Realty;
5. That Council direct that the cost sharing principles for the relocation of services
and oversizing of pipes be based on the principle that the direct benefiting property
owners are responsible for their proportionate share of costs;
6. That Council endorse the principle for financial planning purposes for the existing
term of Council that Casino revenues are to be first applied to fund the
construction and related servicing costs for the Civic Centre project and the
remaining funds are to be transferred to operational capital reserves or reserve
funds (vehicle, major equipment, facilities, roads and bridges, stormwater) that in-
FIN 15-19 July 22, 2019
Subject: Civic Centre Multi -Year Financial Stress Test Page 2
turn reduces the City's use of five year internal loans and eventually all internal
loans;
7. That Council authorize staff to apply to all major senior government grants that are
available and applicable, under the grants criteria, and that the Arts Centre project
be designated as the top grant candidate;
8. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to begin the process to
amend the Development Charges By-law 7595/17 to increase the development
charge fees that are required to fund the development charges share of the Civic
Centre project based on the financial plan and that Council approve the
engagement of the firm Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. to undertake this
work;
9. That Council approve the additional fees as proposed by Sabourin Kimble &
Associates Ltd. in the amount of $380,000 plus HST for an increase in scope to
undertake the necessary project management, detailed design, utility relocation
coordination and the transportation planning for phase 1 in accordance with the
purchasing policy 10.03 (c), as the assignment is above $50,000;
10. That Council approve the total revised gross project consulting cost for Sabourin
Kimble & Associates Ltd. in the amount of $994,400 (including HST), and the total
revised net project cost of $895,488 (net of HST rebate) to be funded from the
Rate Stabilization Reserve;
11. That Council lift the hold on the hiring of the Manager, Arts Centre position and
that staff initiate the process of hiring for the position as identified in the 2019
budget; and
12. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary
actions as indicated in this report.
Executive Summary: This report and corresponding analysis focuses on analyzing
the financial impact of the Civic Centre project (including relocation of services) on the
short and medium term financial health of the City. The report does not attempt to
answer the question are the facilities needed. It is understood that this question has
been addressed and or answered to the satisfaction of Members of Council and
Pickering residents.
The analysis and recommendations are based on known information to date. There
are still information gaps (impact of Bill 108), final construction costs that may have an
impact on the project and therefore, the City. This report tries to answer the question —
what is the impact on the Civic Centre project on Pickering's finances on a short and
medium term basis? The analysis assumes that operational costs related to this project
such as increased staffing and utility costs related to the buildings and corresponding
programs, will be funded through the Current Budget through a budget levy increase. In
other words, when the buildings are finished and opened, there will be an increase in
FIN 15-19 July 22, 2019
Subject: Civic Centre Multi -Year Financial Stress Test Page 3
the property tax levy to fund these operational costs. However, Pickering residents will
be able to enjoy the wealth and range of new programs while being asked to fund the
operating and programming costs.
The analysis and modelling shows that under a fixed cost contract scenario, the Civic
Centre project can proceed based on the concept that the Casino revenues will
basically fund the capital/debt costs of the project. This analysis shows that under
various cost scenarios (worst, most likely and best) there are sufficient Casino revenue
dollars even after sharing some of the Casino dollars with Durham Region starting in
2021, to fund the project with zero and/or minimal impact on the Pickering taxpayer.
The known and unknown impacts of Bill 108: More Homes, More Choice Act, 2019 as it
relates to development charges has been considered in the financial stress test
modelling. Under the old Development Charge (DC) rules, the City was permitted to run
a deficit balance or negative position in its DC reserve funds and the funding shortfall
was recovered through the next DC Background Study through higher DC fees. Bill 108
does not explain how deficit DC reserve balances are to be transferred to the new
Community Benefit Charge By-law (CBC) or if the deficit is to be recovered over time
from the new CBC. Therefore, for the worst case scenario, no DC debt was considered
as a funding source for the Civic Centre project. The shortfall in development charge
funding was transferred to the City and funded as City debt. The issue regarding the
treatment of DC debt should be resolved and/or known by the end of October when the
corresponding Provincial regulations are issued.
Bill 108 has created an environment where there is an opportunity to either keep the old
development charge rules or to move to the new system — Community Benefit Charge
or CBC. For Pickering, it would be prudent to maximize the funding under the old
Development Charge rules for soft services (libraries, indoor recreation facilities and
parking facilities) due to the fact they will expire by December 31, 2020 and under the
new system (CBC) it appears to be a less favourable funding model. As shown in the
report, proceeding with the Civic Centre project translates into the City incurring a high
level of debt for the three buildings. However, the City's financial picture is about to
change with the Casino revenues and the projected Casino revenue stream should be
strong enough to fund the City share of debt charges associated with this project. In
other words, the Casino funds are being used to create a financial status quo when you
consider the debt charges for the project.
Every project has various levels or degrees of risk. The financial modelling exercise
through the scenario analysis tried to quantify the risk and pressure test Pickering's
finances. Where possible, a conservative approach was used in the quantitative
modelling. The financial strategy is based on the City using Casino revenues to fund the
capital construction cost. The City has no history of Casino revenues. In discussions
with industry experts, a Casino revenue stream was developed and used in the
modelling exercise. However, the casino revenue stream is a projection based on other
casino's revenue history. What makes the Pickering revenue stream projection
somewhat different is the fact that you will now have two casinos in relatively close
proximity and therefore makes the revenue projection a bit more challenging.
FIN 15-19 July 22, 2019
Subject: Civic Centre Multi -Year Financial Stress Test Page 4
Pickering's Casino should do well because it has several gaming success factors:
located near a large population, the facility can be easily accessed, will provide future
hotel accommodations, and new gaming facilities are always attractive. The above
factors should translate into a strong future revenue stream for the City. However, there
are uncontrollable factors that can have an effect on the City's short term Casino
revenue stream such as economic slowdown and or geopolitical events such as trade
disputes that can affect the economy.
Over the last twenty years, the City hasn't constructed many new facilities except for the
Operations Centre, George Ashe Library & Community Centre, expansion of Recreation
Complex (grant funded project) and Pickering Soccer Centre (partially funded by the
Pickering Soccer Club and development charges). New buildings and/or facilities were
not constructed due to low assessment growth and the City's approach to having a
moderate level of property tax increases. For many years, Pickering had the lowest
property tax rate among the Durham Lakeshore municipalities. Pickering's budgets over
the last several years were in most part focused on maintaining the City's facilities,
service levels, and infrastructure. An argument could be made that over time, Pickering
has incurred a facilities deficit and that the Civic Centre project is addressing this
facilities shortfall in one dramatic step.
Financial Implications: The Civic Centre financial stress model was based on three
cost/funding scenarios: most likely, worst case and best case. A comparison of the
three scenarios is presented below based on a total known cost to date. The project
cost figures below are based on May 23, 2019 cost estimates (provided by Cushman &
Wakefield) for the construction of the three buildings, furniture, fixtures and equipment
and estimated servicing costs (relocation of services).
FIN 15-19 July 22, 2019
Subject: Civic Centre Multi -Year Financial Stress Test Page 5
Best Most
Case Likely
Worst
Case
Construction Cost $ 134,098,916 $ 134,098,916 $ 134,098,916
Funding Plan
Government Grant
Naming Rights
DC Funding:
DC Reserves
1
I
DC Reserve Debt
City Reserves
City Share (Debt)
Total
$ 29, 583, 387
15,929,204 $ 7,964,602
22, 617, 667 22, 617, 667
33,313,019
3,980,000
28,675,639
37,292,854
3,980,000
62, 243, 793
$ 7,964,602
22, 617, 667
3,980,000
99, 536, 647
$ 134, 098, 916 $ 134, 098, 916 $ 134, 098, 916
DC Reserve Debt
City Share (Debt)
Total
City Share Debt Per
Capita
Total Debt per Capita
Project Debt Summary
$ 33, 313, 019 $ 37, 292, 854
28, 675, 639
$ 61,988,658
$301.85
$652.51
62, 243, 793
$ 99, 536, 647
$655.20
$1,047.75
$ 99, 536, 647
$ 99, 536, 647
$1,047.75
$1,047.75
Funding Source (%)
Government Grant
Naming Rights
DC Funding
Reserves
City Share (Debt)
22.06%
11.88%
41.71%
2.97%
21.38%
The best case scenario assumes the following:
5.94%
44.68%
2.97%
46.42%
5.94%
16.87%
2.97%
74.23%
• The City is successful in obtaining senior level grant funding (66 per cent) for the
Arts Centre project under the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program (ICIP),
Community, Culture and Recreation funding stream.
• The City is successful in obtaining naming rights revenues for the Arts Centre and
Senior & Youth Centre.
FIN 15-19 July 22, 2019
Subject: Civic Centre Multi -Year Financial Stress Test Page 6
The most likely scenario is based on the current status as it relates to the Civic Centre
project. In other words, this scenario only includes naming rights revenue for the Library
and no senior level of grant funding. However, in the future, there may be smaller levels
of grant funding associated with accessibility that the City would apply for. Members of
Council may recall that the City applied for grant funding for the Council Chamber
renovation project and was not successful. However, staff were successful in obtaining
minor level grant funding (Federal) under the accessibility umbrella for the first floor
Civic Complex washroom renovation. Staff will monitor and apply for all grant
opportunities associated with this project.
The worst case scenario reflects the unknown impact of Bill 108: More Homes, More
Choice Act, 2019 as it relates to development charges. The Bill was introduced as part
of the Provincial Government's Housing Supply Action Plan and it affects 13 Acts. The
most significant changes to the Development Charges Act (DCA) are:
• Parks, indoor recreation, libraries, parking and studies associated with these soft
services are to be removed from the Development Charge Act. These costs will now
be funded under a new Community Benefit Charge By-law (CBC).
• Provincial legislation will allow municipalities to charge a CBC fee up to a cap yet to
be prescribed for soft services. The cap will be a percentage, to be prescribed of
the appraised land value before a building permit is issued (details of this cap are
not defined in the legislation and would be set by future regulations anticipated in
October.) However, it is the opinion of many municipal financial staff across Ontario
that under the CBC, the funding model will generate less funding for municipalities.
• Bill 108 does not explain how deficit DC reserve balances are to be transferred to
the new CBC bylaw or if the deficit is to be recovered over time from the new CBC.
This is a major concern due to the fact that the DC reserve fund will have to
borrow approximately $33.3 million under the most likely scenario. This issue
should be resolved when the Province issues the regulations around October of this
year.
Therefore, under the worst case scenario, the financial plan is to use the DC funds that
are in "the blank (reserves)" and not issue any debt for the DC funding shortfall. The
financial result of this strategy and or approach is that City issued debt is used to
replace the DC funds.
Measuring the Civic Centre Debt Impact on the City
Using the "most likely" scenario, please find below a summary of the City's debt position
as of December 31, 2019.
FIN 15-19 July 22, 2019
Subject: Civic Centre Multi -Year Financial Stress Test Page 7
Impact of Civic Centre Debt on City's Debt Structure
Estimated
Forecast Debt
December Civic Commitments
Debt Obligations 2019 Centre Total
Indoor Soccer Facility $ 2,672,000 $ 2,672,000
DC Debt 9,134,000 $ 37,292,854 46,426,854
Taxpayer Funded 35,729,478 62,243,793 97,973,271
Total $47,535,478 $ 99,536,647 $ 147,072,125
Debt Outstanding Per Capita Based on a Population (95,000)
DC Debt
Taxpayer Funded
Total
$96.15
$376.10
$500.37
$392.56
$655.20
$1.047.75
$488.70
$1,031.30
$1,548.13
The DC debt referenced above pertains to the new Operations Centre. As a
comparison, in 2017, Pickering's total debt outstanding per capita was $325. For 2019,
using the total debt figure of $47.5 million, and a population of 95,000, Pickering's total
tax debt per capita would be $500.37. When you add the Civic Centre project, the City
would have one of the highest debt per capita in the GTA at $1,548.13.
Provincial Municipal Debt Limit
As outlined by regulation, a municipality's Annual Repayment Limit (ARL) as calculated
by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs (MMA) represents the maximum amount that a
municipality has available to commit to additional payments relating to debt and
financial obligations. The limit is based on a 25 per cent calculation of annual operating
fund revenues excluding certain revenues such as government grants and transfers
from reserves and reserve funds. The MMA determines the municipality's ARL under
Ontario Regulation 403/02 based on the municipality's Financial Information Return
(FIR).
Please find below, Pickering's ARL for 2018 and estimated for 2019 that includes the
Civic Centre project.
FIN 15-19 July 22, 2019
Subject: Civic Centre Multi -Year Financial Stress Test Page 8
Annual Debt Repayment Limit
Net Revenues
25% of Net Revenues
Less:
Civic Centre Debt Charges
Debt Charges
Estimated Annual Repayment Limit
Debt Charges as a % of New Revenues
Actual 2018
$96,371,051
$24,092,763
4,488,518
$19,604,245
4.66%
Estimated 2019
$99,213,997
$24,803,499
6,369,234
5,128,523
$13,305,742
11.59%
The Civic Centre debt charges amount includes both City and DC shares. For this
calculation, the Province does not separate or distinguish between the two groups. As
expected with the introduction of the Civic Centre project, Pickering's debt charge
percentage increases substantially. As reflected above, the City is still below the 25
per cent Provincial rule.
Financial Impact of Civic Centre Project on Future Levy Increases
As shown below, with the use of estimated Casino revenues, there is very limited
financial impact associated with the capital cost of the Civic Centre project. The
operating costs for the Civic Centre project will be budgeted over two years (2023 and
2024) based on a preliminary opening date of July 1, 2023. The total estimated
operating cost impact is allocated over two years (1.24 per cent per year).
FIN 15-19 July 22, 2019
Subject: Civic Centre Multi -Year Financial Stress Test Page 9
Line# 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
1 City Operations 3.74% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50%
2 Less: Assessment Growth -1.00% -1.00% -1.00% -1.00% -1.00%
3 Base Budget 2.74% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50%
Add: Special Levies
4
5
6
Fire Fighters (2)
Council Requested -
Service Level Changes
Civic Centre
0.25%
Operating Costs (6 Months)
7 Est. Budget Levy Position 2.99%
0.25% 0.25%
2.75% 2.75%
Casino Funds After Fundinq Civic Centre Project
Contributions to Reserves
8 & Capital Costs $3.7- $4.4 $2.6 - $4.2 $2.5 - $5.5
9
0.25% 0.25%
9
9
1.24% 1.24%
3.99% 3.99%
$0.9- $4.0 $1.5 - $6.4
Most Likely $4.4
$4.0 $5.5
$2.8 $4.1
Explanation of Multi -Year Financial Plan & Assumptions
For 2020, the preliminary City Operations forecast is a levy increase of 3.74 per cent
due to the annualization of new staffing positions from the 2019 budget. For the
remainder of the forecast period, it is anticipated that the budgetary increase will fall
within the City's acceptable range. Assessment growth is conservatively estimated to
average at least one per cent per year. Line 7 is forecasting modest budget levy
increases from 2020 up to and including 2022.
The budget levy increase as reflected on Line 7 are subject to "Council Requested
Service Level" changes that can either be an increase or decrease. For simplicity, the
model assumes a status quo in service level adjustments.
The financial model assumes that the City will start to receive Casino revenue funding
by the end of the second quarter in 2020. The Casino revenue funding model is based
on the current proposal of 3,700 gaming positions. The financial model assumes that
the cost sharing will Durham Region will begin with the start of the first full year of
Casino revenues (2021). The Casino revenue sharing with Durham Region is based on
the Council approved motion (Recommendation 2 - FIN 02-19) that the Region will
adopt a property tax relief program similar to Pickering's. The revenue sharing
calculation with the Region would be adjusted for any possible City revenue loss
associated with lower bingo license gaming fees.
Based on the current financing strategy, line 8 indicates that there are additional Casino
funds (after funding the Civic Centre construction costs) to be applied or transferred to
operational capital reserves or reserve funds (vehicle, major equipment, facilities, roads
and bridges, stormwater) that in -turn would reduce the City's use of five year internal
loans and eventually all internal loans. The additional funds reflected would also be
used as a financial safety net to address any short-term cost pressures or funding
challenges due to an economic slowdown. (The last recession was over ten years ago
and the economy is due for a correction). If the City follows or adopts the strategy of
FIN 15-19
July 22, 2019
Subject: Civic Centre Multi -Year Financial Stress Test Page 10
investing in reserves with the surplus Casino funds, will reduce the City's debt costs that
in -turn would reduce the budget levy impact on line 7.
Line 8 represents the estimated additional Casino funds available (after funding Civic
Centre construction costs) and is an opportunity for the City to use these funds to
reduce the City's reliance on short term debt financing. The Civic Centre project has
dramatically increased the City's overall debt and the City should use these funds to
reduce its debt per capita ratio.
Preliminary Financing Strategy
The preliminary financing strategy is outlined below.
Assumptions
Interest Rate
Term
Senior Youth Centre
Underground Parking Lot
Arts Centre
Central Library
2020
2021
2022
2023
4.0% 5.0%
25 Yrs. 25 Yrs.
External 12 Months 12 Months
Debt Interest Cost Interest Cost
External 12 Months 12 Months
Debt Interest Cost Interest Cost
Construction Construction Construction
Financing Financing Financing
12 Months
Interest Cost
12 Months
Interest Cost
Issue
External Debt
Construction Construction Construction Issue
External Debt
Financing Financing Financin
g
2024
12 Months
Interest Cost
12 Months
Interest Cost
12 Months
Interest Cost
12 Months
Interest Cost
The City has several options regarding the debt financing strategy for the Civic Centre
project. One option is to use construction financing similar to a line of credit and when
the projects are completed borrow the required amount. The risk associated with this
strategy is that you are betting on the fact that interest rates will be either lower or at the
same rate in four years.
The preliminary financing strategy as outlined above is based on the strategy to mitigate
or reduce future interest rate risk by issuing debentures in 2020 for the Senior & Youth
Centre, parking lot and for the relocation of services and oversizing of pipes. It is
proposed that the City would then incur debt in 2023 for the Arts Centre and new
Central Library. The financing strategy would be designed to be flexible to take
advantage of favourable interest rate changes.
Discussion: The proposed Civic Centre development is a multi-year transformative
project. It will probably be the largest financial undertaking of the City. A breakdown of
the various project components is presented below.
FIN 15-19 July 22, 2019
Subject: Civic Centre Multi -Year Financial Stress Test Page 11
Civic Centre Preliminary Construction Cost Breakdown
Art Centre $41,267,774
Arts Centre — City Share FFE 995,000
Landscaping 7,123,893
Library 30,372,529
Seniors & Youth Centre 23,416,500
Underground Parking 20,878,723
Sub Total $124,054,419
Add: Net HST 2,183,358
Total Building Construction Cost $126,237,777
Add:
Relocation of Services (net HST included) 7,861,139
Total Estimated Project Cost $134,098,916
It is interesting to note, that this new project would represent 51.60 per cent of the net
book assets of the City based on the City's 2018 Financial Statements.
Explanation of Key Recommendations
Council approval is required to Single Source the construction of the three
buildings and underground parking lot — Recommendation 4
The construction value of the three buildings and underground parking is estimated to
be $123.0 million plus net HST excluding City Centre FFE. Council approval is required
to single source due to the fact there is no opportunity to obtain competitive pricing
because of the geographical location of the project.
In a competitive process, the tender ensures that the City/taxpayer receives the "best
pricing" available at that current time and date. To ensure that the City is obtaining "fair
pricing", the City has hired an outside cost consultant to verify and audit the construction
pricing put forth by PTC. The independent cost consultant is reviewing this information
and Council will be advised of his findings and recommendations in the future.
That Council authorize staff to apply to all senior government grants that are
applicable, and that the Arts Centre project be designated as the top grant
candidate — Recommendation 7
Infrastructure programs announced by both the Federal and Provincial Governments
through their budget processes are anticipated to be available to provide capital
financing. Specifically, the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program (ICIP) is a $30.0
billion, 10 -year infrastructure program cost shared between Federal, Provincial and
Municipal governments. Previous government funding strategy was for each partner to
fund one-third of the project cost. It is anticipated that a grant funding announcement
may be coming in the fall of this year. Recommendation 7 identifies the Arts Centre
as the top proposed candidate due to its low level of DC funding.
FIN 15-19 July 22, 2019
Subject: Civic Centre Multi -Year Financial Stress Test Page 12
That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to begin the process to
amend the Development Charges By-law 7595/17 to increase the development
charge fees that are required to fund the development charges share of the Civic
Centre project based on the financial plan and that Council approve the
engagement of the firm Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. to undertake this
work — Recommendation 8
The Civic Centre project relies on almost 45 per cent DC funding. In order to collect the
required funding amount, the DC rates have to be amended or increased. Attachment 1
provides an up-to-date snapshot comparison of Pickering's residential DC rate to other
GTA municipalities. As the evidence clearly shows, Pickering's DC rates are very
attractive and a minor increase in the fees should still maintain the City's competitive
position as having one of the lowest GTA DC fees.
The process to amend the DC By-law is similar to the DC Background study except for
the fact it is a smaller project. As part of the DC By-law amendment process, community
engagement exercise with interested stakeholders will be undertaken. The project's
goal is to have the new and higher rates effective on December 1, 2019 or earlier.
Approval to increase the consulting contract with Sabourin Kimble & Associates
Ltd. for Phase 1 Relocation of Services - Recommendations 9 and 10
The hiring of Sabourin, Kimble & Associates Ltd. to provide project management and
preliminary engineering services for the City Centre Project was presented in Report
CAO 05-19 and was approved by Council at the March 25, 2019 Council meeting
through Resolution #53/19.
Since then, the consultant has worked diligently to determine the municipal servicing
requirements for the project, specifically the need to relocate municipally owned storm,
sanitary and water trunk services from the easement that transects Phase 1 of the City
Centre project, to a new location on Glenanna Road. The need for a transportation
study to support the Phase 1 development, to determine its potential impact on
surrounding City and Regional roads, has also been recognized as an important
element of the project. As the relocation of services will result in the reconstruction of
Glenanna Road, due to extensive restoration requirements, it is important for the
transportation needs to feed into the design of the replacement of Glenanna Road to
avoid or mitigate throwaway costs.
The preliminary cost estimate to relocate municipal services from the Phase 1 area to
Glenanna Road including the cost of reconstruction of Glenanna Road through the
affected area is $7,175,350 plus HST. This cost estimate includes an allowance for
utility relocations, as these details are unknown at this time.
Sabourin, Kimble & Associates Ltd. has submitted a proposal outlining the change in
scope to include fees required for the transportation study, and the detailed design of
the relocation of municipal services. If approved by Council, the change in scope will be
reflected on their original purchase order through an amendment.
FIN 15-19 July 22, 2019
Subject: Civic Centre Multi -Year Financial Stress Test Page 13
The proposal dated July 15, 2019 from Sabourin, Kimble & Associated Ltd. in the
amount of $380,000 (HST extra) has been reviewed by staff, is deemed acceptable and
is recommended for approval.
Approval to initiate the hiring process for the Manager, Arts Centre Position —
Recommendation 11
As the City proceeds to the detailed design phase of the City Centre project, the City's
Manager, Arts Centre will become an active member of the project team participating in
ongoing consultations to inform the design and delivery of the new Arts Centre. This full
time position is anticipated to begin November 1, 2019 as part of the proposed 2019
Current Budget, pending the approval of Council to proceed with the City Centre project.
The Manager, Arts Centre will possess the expertise and experience to contribute
sound technical advice on the design of this state of the art facility. Since this position
will be responsible to operate and program the Arts Centre once it opens, it is critical
that they be involved at the detailed design stage when important decisions are being
made. This approach will ensure a successful and seamless transition from design to
construction, to the eventual operation of the Arts Centre.
Attachments:
1. Residential Development Charges for Single Detached Dwelling as of July
11, 2019
Prepared By:
Stan Karwowski
Director, Finance & Treasurer
Approved/ Endorsed By:
Stan Karwowski
Director, Finance & Treasurer
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City Council
Tony Prevedel, P.Eng.
Chief Administrative Officer
/7, 2or9
v ��
Attachment # 1 to Report # FIN 15-19
$140,000
$120,000
$100,000 •
'3 $80,000
a- $60,000
$4Q000
$20,000
$-
Residential Development Charges
Per Single Detached Dwelling for Greater Toronto Area Municipalities
as of July 11, 2019
• Upper Tier • Lower/Single Tier • Education
rl
Joao\ 2<csti�\c%c?�\\�eo saJ�ati\o�\OP P��o t's ��ae"e �� ��Q‘o �\ea°a��\�\ti\\e\vF\ e ov\\\e\fig `oma\GF\\\\S\GF\
Ja �,a \�� `Gta \SS8 �� `� �e `x 0 r�on �ae caC� �a,F� �A �o°�
�� 4� ``rJSGeet% ray
BB=Built Boundary & GF=Greenfield.
1. A component of the charge has been converted from a per hectare charge to a hypothetical single detached unit.
Pitod-
a.(c't °04(a o�\�'c`\`r(�� oc\��V. a��S\e�\ c§�V�oaa<���o� �`��o �vae `+,o``ag?`o�\��\ st.
c
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. (7/11/2019)