HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 24, 2002Finance & Operations Committee
Meeting Agenda
Monday, February 24, 2002 at 1:30 P.M.
Chair: Councillor Ryan
ADOPTION OF MINUTES
Meeting of January 27, 2003
(11) MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION
PAGE
OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES REPORT OES 06-03
PARK NAME CHANGE REQUEST
1-4
CLERKS REPORT CL 04-03
PROPOSED TREE BY-LAW
5-14
(111) STAFF ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
(IV) OTHER BUSINESS
FIVE MINUTE RECESS
CORPORATE SERVICES REPORT CS 09-03
TRIDEL/OPTIONS FOR HOMES DEVELOPMENT FINAL PHASE
1200 THE ESPLANADE NORTH
(EAST OF MILLENNIUM BUILDING)
15-48
CORPORATE SERVICES REPORT CS 10-03
AMENDMENT TO PURCHASING POLICY REGARDING
CONSULTING SERVICES
49-52
Finance & Operations Committee
Meeting Agenda
Monday, February 24, 2002 at 1:30 P.M.
Chair: Councillor Ryan
o
CORPORATE SERVICES REPORT CS 15-03
CASH POSITION REPORT AS AT DECEMBER 31, 2002
53-6O
CORPORATE SERVICES REPORT CS 02-03
CONFIRMATION OF COMPREHENSIVE CRIME INSURANCE
FOR 2003
61-64
CORPORATE SERVICES REPORT CS 12-03
2003 ANNUAL REPAYMENT LIMIT FOR DEBT AND FINANCIAL
OBLIGATION
65-71
CORPORATE SERVICES REPORT CS 11-03
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE THIRD PARTY/DEVELOPER'S
CONTRIBUTIONS RESERVE FUND
72-76
CORPORATE SERVICES REPORT CS 14-03
ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE TREASURER ON THE 2001
REMUNERATION AND EXPENSE PAYMENT TO
MEMBERS OF COUNCIL
To Be Circulated Under Separate Cover
(V) STAFF ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
(VI) OTHER BUSINESS
(VII) ADJOURNMENT
0_1_
RECOMMENDATION OF THE
FINANCE & OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
DATE
MOVED BY
SECONDED BY
That Operations & Emergency Services Report concerning Park Name Change
Request, be received; and
That Council delete the name Progress Bay Front Park and establish the name
of Progress Frenchman's Bay East Park for parkland located on Front Street and
Frenchman's Bay.
02
REPORT TO
Finance & Operations Committee
Report Number: OES 06-03
Date: February 10, 2003
From:
Everett Buntsma
Director, Operations & Emergency Services
Subject:
Park Name Change Request
- File: CO1000
Recommendation:
1. That Operations & Emergency Services Report OES 06-03 be received; and
2. That Council delete the name Progress Bay Front Park and establish the name
of Progress Frenchman's Bay East Park for parkland located on Front Street and
Frenchman's Bay.
Executive Summary: City staff received a request through Councillor Holland to
rename the park located on Front Street to more clearly identify the park's location on
Frenchman's Bay.
The existing name does not include reference to Frenchman's Bay.
Renaming the park Progress Frenchman's Bay East Park reflects the location on
Frenchman's Bay and is consistent with the Rotary Frenchman's Bay West Park on the
other side of the Bay.
This new name continues to recognize the efforts of the Progress Club who manage
the meeting hall on site and who will be contributing monies to the new playground to
be installed in the Park
Financial Implications: Not applicable.
Background: See Executive Summary
Report OES 06-03
Subject: Park Name Change Request
Date:
February 10, 2003
Page 2
03
Attachments:
1. Location Map
Director, Operations & Emergency Services
EB:mld
Attachments
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering City Council
T, h6'r~as J. Qu~n, Ch~"~f A ' ~' '
d~a~
-,~,, ,JLa I _ _ I~u-U-- ..... ~ / ILONA PARK
//~ COMMERCE ST~
PROPERTIES~ N...~.~..,x.,...~~~/A~l ]?~, ...... ~ ..... k-~-
~~ STREET
0
/ ~ ," ," 7] ..... ~::: .......
OPE~TIONS & EMERGENCY
SERVICESDEP~TMENTATTACHMENT FOR OPERATIONS
MUNICIPAL PROPER~ &
..~,......~.~,~,o. & EMERGENCY SERVICES REPORT
1:~ooo ~.~o,~oo3 UOCAT~O. o, ,,O~,~SS.Ar,,O.T ,A.X PI(YK'ERf~G
L:\MP&E\THEMAT/C MAPPING\MAPS\STREET lgASE\OE&S D/RECTOR\ATTACHMENT FOR REPORT\
RECOMMENDATION OF THE
FINANCE & OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
DATE
MOVED BY
SECONDED BY
That Clerk's Report CL 03-03 regarding a by-law to prohibit and regulate the
injuring, destruction or removal of trees on property adjacent to watercourses and
ravines, be received; and
That the draft by-law to prohibit and regulate the injuring, destruction or removal
of trees on property adjacent to watercourses and ravines be forwarded to
Council for enactment.
REPORT TO
FINANCE & OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
Report Number: CL 4-03
Date: February 7, 2003
From:
Bruce Taylor, AMCT, CMM
City Clerk
Subject: Proposed Tree By-law
Recommendation:
That Clerk's Report CL 4-03 regarding a by-law to prohibit and regulate the
injuring, destruction or removal of trees on property adjacent to watercourses
and ravines be received.
That the draft by-law to prohibit and regulate the injuring, destruction or removal
of trees on property adjacent to watercourses and ravines be forwarded to
Council for enactment.
Executive Summary:
This Report provides a draft by-law to prohibit and regulate the injuring, destruction or
removal of trees on property adjacent to watercourses and ravines as directed by
Resolution #125/02 passed on November 4, 2002.
Financial Implications:
A permit fee of $100.00 has been established for each application for a Tree Cuffing
Permit.
Background:
Please be advised that Council passed the following resolution at its regular meeting of
November 4, 2002:
WHEREAS numerous personal properties within the City of Pickering
back upon watercourse ravine areas; and
Report CL 4-03
Subject:
Date: February 7, 2003
Page 2
07
WHEREAS the removal of trees from these environmentally sensitive
areas can lead to erosion, loss of habitat and loss of aesthetic value
adjacent to park land; and
WHEREAS the former municipalities of East York and Scarborough
already have by-laws to control tree removal from properties adjacent to
ravines and the City of Toronto is preparing to implement a city-wide by-
law;
NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering
directs staff to prepare a draft by-law for consideration of Finance and
Operations Committee that would require residents backing onto
watercourse ravine areas to obtain a permit for felling healthy trees; and
THAT the said by-law include a permit fee and fines for violation of the by-
law; and
THAT the by-law clearly outline very limited circumstances where the
felling of healthy trees would be permitted; and
THAT staff bring the draft by-law before Committee for consideration no
later than February 24, 2003.
Attached to this Report is a draft by-law that would implement the direction set out in
the above resolution.
Council directed that the Tree By-law require residents backing onto watercourse
ravine areas to obtain a permit for felling healthy trees. Also attached to this Report is
a map setting out the Tree Protection Area, which is identified in the City of Pickering
Official Plan as Shorelines and Stream Corridors, Wetlands and Environmentally
Sensitive Areas. All residents whose property is within or adjacent to these areas will
be subject to the Tree By-law.
The fee required when applying for a permit to cut trees is $100.00. The fines for
violating the by-law are set out in the Municipal Act and are:
a)
on a first conviction, a fine of not more than $10,000 or $1,000 per tree,
whichever is greater; and
b)
on any subsequent conviction, a fine of not more than $25,000 or $2,500 per
tree, whichever is greater.
c)
Upon conviction, the Court may order the person conviction to rehabilitate the
land.
08
Report CL 4-03
Subject:
Date: February 7, 2003
Page 3
The exemptions in this by-law are set out in Section 2 of the by-law and are primarily
mandated by the Municipal ,Act. These include the destruction of trees that are
permitted by other Provincial statutes, including developments that are the subject of a
draft plan of subdivision or site plan agreement. Staff has also added the following
exemptions:
· Trees measuring less than 25 millimetres in diameter.
The removal of dead, injured or diseased trees.
Trees that are in woodlots that are governed by the Regional Tree By-law.
Other features of the attached draft Tree By-law are:
· A permit will be issued where the tree cutting activity is being undertaken in
association with an existing use of the property and in accordance with good
forestry practice. This would include golf courses where tree cutting is carried
out on a continual basis and where the owners of these facilities are careful not
to injure healthy trees.
· A permit will be issued only where it can be demonstrated that the tree cutting
will not interfere with natural drainage processes, result in soil erosion, result in
siltation entering a watercourse, will not have a significant impact on healthy
vegetation that is adjacent to the cutting area and will not have an impact on any
fish or wildlife habitat within and adjacent to the subject site.
· Where an Order has been issued to a person who is deemed to be contravening
this By-law, that person may appeal the Order to Council.
· As required by the Municipal Act, an applicant may make an appeal to the
Ontario Municipal Board if a permit is refused, if not decision is made on an
application within 45 days or if an applicant objects to a condition set out in the
permit.
A survey undertaken of various GTA municipalities determined that most municipalities
have Tree By-laws that regulate the cutting of trees throughout the entire municipality.
The Regional Tree By-law already governs the cutting of trees on woodlots that are a
half-acre or more in size.
Attachments:
1. Draft Tree By-law
2. Map setting out the Tree Protection Area
Report CL 4-03
Subject:
Date: February 7, 2003
Page 4
09
Prepared By:
/,,/'(Bruce Taylor
City Clerk
Attachments
Cc:
Director, Operations & Emergency Services
Division Head, Municipal Property and Engineering
J. McMullen
Solicitor for the City
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering City Council ,,
'-T,h~l"as ~J. Oui~, Chief~dm~i~
10
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING
BY-LAW NO.
Being a by-law to prohibit and regulate the injuring,
destruction or removal of trees in defined areas of
the City of Pickering.
WHEREAS pursuant to Section 135(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O 2001, c. 25, as amended, a
local municipality may prohibit or regulate the destruction or injuring of trees; and
WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering passed Resolution #125/02 on
November 4, 2002 that directs staff to prepare a by-law that would require residents backing onto
watercourse ravine areas to obtain a permit for felling healthy trees and that said by-law include a
permit fee and fines for violation of the by-law and that the by-law clearly outline very limited
circumstances where the felling of healthy trees would be permitted; and
WHEREAS Schedule III to the City of Pickering Official Plan has identified shoreline and stream
corridors, wetlands and environmentally significant areas;
NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING
HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
DEFINITIONS
1. In this by-law:
a) "City" shall mean the Corporation of the City of Picketing;
b)
c)
d)
"Clerk" shall mean the Clerk for the Corporation of the City of Pickering or his designate;
"Council" shall mean the Council of the Corporation of the City of Picketing;
"dbh" shall mean the diameter of the stem of a tree measured at a point that is 1.5
metres above ground;
e)
g)
"Tree Protection Area" includes areas designated as Shorelines and Stream Corridors,
Wetlands and Environmentally Significant Areas on Schedule III to the Pickering Official
Plan, Edition 2, Revised, as amended from time to time, and lands adjacent thereto.
"Good Forestry Practice" shall mean the proper implementation of harvest, renewal and
maintenance activities known to be appropriate for the forest and environmental
conditions under which they are being applied and which minimize detriments to forest
values including significant ecosystems; important fish and wildlife habitat; soil and
water quality and quantity; forest productivity arid health; and the aesthetics and
recreational opportunities of the landscape. Good forestry practice shall also include
the cutting and removal of severely damaged, diseased and insect infested trees which
must be removed in order to prevent contamination or infestation of other trees, or
which no longer contribute to the achievement of forest values;
"Officer" shall mean a person assigned by the Clerk to enforce the provisions of this by-
law;
h)
"Owner" shall mean the registered owner of land, or their agent, or anyone acting under
the direction of the owner or their agent; and
"Site" shall mean the area of land containing any tree(s) proposed to be injured,
destroyed or removed.
EXEMPTIONS
The provisions of this by-law do not apply:
a) to activities or matters undertaken by the City, the Regional Municipality of Durham, or a
local board thereof;
b) to activities or matters undertaken under a licence issued under the Crown Forest
Sustainability Act, 1994;
c) to the injuring or destruction of trees by a person licensed under the Surveyors Act to
engage in the practice of cadastral surveying or his or her agent, while making a survey;
d) to the injuring or destruction of trees imposed as a condition to the approval of a site
plan, a plan of subdivision or a consent under Section 41, 51 or 53, respectively, of the
Planning Act or as a requirement of a site plan agreement or subdivision agreement
entered into under those sections;
e) to the injuring or destruction of trees imposed as a condition to a development permit
authorized by regulation made under Section 70.2 of the Planning Act or as a
requirement of an agreement entered into under the regulation;
0 the injuring or destruction of trees by a transmitter or distributor, as those terms are
defined in Section 2 of the Electricity Act, 1998, for the purpose of constructing and
maintaining a transmission system or a distribution system, as those terms are defined
in that Section;
g) the injuring or destruction of trees undertaken on land described in a licence for a pit or
quarry or a permit for a wayside pit or wayside quarry issued under the Aggregate
Resources Act;,
h) the injuring or destruction of trees undertaken on land in order to lawfully establish and
operate or enlarge any pit or quarry on land,
i) that has not been designated under the Aggregate Resources Act or a
predecessor of that Act, and
ii) on which a pit or quarry is a permitted land use under a by-law passed under
Section 34 of the Planning Act;
i) trees measuring less than 25 millimetres dbh;
j) in areas that are not defined as an "Tree Protection Area" by this by-law;
k) to activities or matters prescribed by regulations pursuant to the Municipal Act, 2001;
I) to the removal of dead, dangerous, diseased or severely injured trees or stumps, in
accordance with good forestry practice;
m) to woodlots that are governed by By-law Number 148-91 of the Regional Municipality of
Durham or its successor.
PROHIBITIONS
a) Unless otherwise exempted by this by-law, no person shall injure or destroy a tree in an
Tree Protection Area without a permit issued under this by-law.
11¸
o
b)
Where a permit has been issued pursuant to this by-law, no person shall injure, destroy
or remove a tree except in accordance with the plans, conditions and any other
information on the basis of which a permit was issued.
REQUIREMENTS FOR AN APPLICATION
a)
Unless otherwise exempted by this by-law, every person who intends to injure, destroy
or remove a tree within an Tree Protection Area by cutting, burning, bulldozing,
lacerating, chemical application or any other means, shall apply for and obtain a permit.
b)
A person applying for a permit to injure, destroy .or remove a tree shall submit a
completed application form, along with the required plans, information and fee of
$100.00 to the Clerk.
c) Applications shall be made on a form approved by the Clerk.
REQUIREMENTS FOR ISSUANCE OF PERMIT
The Clerk shall issue a permit where:
a)
b)
the applicant has fulfilled all requirements of this by-law;
the proposed activity is associated with an existing use of the property including
ongoing silviculture practices and selective thinning or harvesting of plantations, in
accordance with good forestry practice;
c) the Clerk is satisfied that the proposed activity:
(i) will not interfere with natural drainage processes;
(ii) will not result in soil erosion, slope instability or siltation in a watercourse;
(iii)
will not have a significant impact on any healthy vegetation community within,
and adjacent to the subject site;
(iv) will not have a significant impact on any fish or wildlife habitat within, and
adjacent to the subject site;
d)
the owner, if required, enters into an agreement which may be registered on title in the
subject lands containing such conditions as the Clerk considers necessary to ensure
that the proposed activity will be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans and
information. Such an agreement may contain a provision requiring the applicant to post
with the City security in an amount determined by the Clerk to ensure performance of
the obligations under the agreement;
e)
the Clerk may impose conditions to a permit as in the opinion of the Clerk are
reasonable, to ensure that the proposed activity is consistent with the provisions of
paragraphs 5(a) to 5(d) above;
f)
where silviculture or harvesting activity is proposed within a woodlot, one permit may be
issued to authorize activity for an extended or ongoing period of time, on the basis of an
acceptable forestry management plan;
g)
the Clerk may refer any application, associated plans and information to municipal staff,
public agency, advisory body and/or other qualified professional for comment prior to
making a decision; and
h)
A permit issued pursuant to this by-law shall be valid to the expiry date as specified on
the permit by the Clerk.
APPEALS
An applicant for a permit pursuant to this by-law may appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board:
a) if the Clerk refuses to issue a permit, within thirty (30) days after the refusal;
b) if the Clerk fails to make a decision on an application, within forty-five (45) days after the
application and required plans and information are received by the Clerk; or,.
(c) if the applicant objects to a condition in the permit, within thirty (30) days after the
issuance of the permit.
ADMINISTRATION
a)
The administration and enforcement of this by-law shall be performed by the Clerk and
by such persons assigned by the Clerk.
b)
If after inspection, the Clerk or Officer is satisfied that a contravention of this by-law has
occurred, the Clerk or Officer may make an order requiring the person to stop the
injuring or destruction of trees and the order shall contain particulars of the
contravention.
c)
A person to whom an order has been made pursuant to this by-law may appeal the
order to the Council by filing a notice of the appeal to the Clerk within thirty (30) days
after the date of the order.
d)
As soon as practicable after a notice of appeal is filed, the Council shall hear the appeal
and may confirm, alter or revoke the order.
e) The decision of Council under subsection 7(d) of this by-law is final.
ENFORCEMENT
a)
Any person who contravenes any provision of this by-law or any order issued pursuant
to this by-law is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable:
(i)
on a first Conviction, to a fine of not more than $10,000 or $1,000 per tree,
whichever is greater; and
(ii)
on any subsequent conviction, to a fine of not more than $25,000 or $2,500 per
tree, whichever is greater.
b)
If a person is convicted of an offence for contravening this by-law or an order made
under Section 7(b) of this by-law, in addition to any other remedy or any penalty
provided by law, the court in which the conviction has been entered, and any court of
competent jurisdiction thereafter, may order the person to rehabilitate the land or to
plant or replant trees in such manner and within such period as the court considers
appropriate, including any silvicultural treatment necessary to re-establish the trees.
By-law read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 3rd day of Mamh, 2003.
Wayne Arthurs, Mayor
Bruce Taylor, City Clerk
ATTACHMEN?,~ ~ c, c_'~ ~- o _~
.1.5
RECOMMENDATION OF THE
FINANCE & OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
DATE
MOVED BY
SECONDED BY
That Report CS 09-03 of the Director, Corporate Services, concerning
Tridel/Options for Homes Development Final Phase, be received for information;
and
That Council approve providing relief from the provisions of the 1987
Development Agreement respecting cash-in-lieu of parkland payment for the last
phase of the development, being 1200 The Esplanade North, based on the same
formula as was applied to the Millennium ^partment at 1000 The Esplanade
North, at an estimated cost of approximately $160,000 on the condition that City
owned microwave equipment be accommodated on the roof of the new building;
and
That Council support the application of Provincial Home Ownership Program
Funding to this project subject to any future related municipal obligations being
approved by Council; and
That should Council wish to consider a further provision of financial assistance to
this project the payment of cash-in-lieu of parkland and the City's development
charges be deferred until the above ground building permit for this property is
issued or six months from the issuance of the below ground building permit,
whichever occurs first; and
That the attached By-law be read three times and passed by Council; and
That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be given authority to give
effect thereto.
16
REPORT TO FINANCE &
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
Report Number: CS 09-03
Date: February 10, 2003
From'
Gillis A. Paterson
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
Subject:
Tridel/Options for Homes Development Final Phase
1200 The Esplanade North (East of Millennium Building)
Recommendation:
That Report CS 09-03 of the Director, Corporate Services be received for
information and that:
Council approve providing relief from the provisions of the 1987 Development
Agreement respecting cash-in-lieu of parkland payment for the last phase of the
development, being 1200 The Esplanade North, based on the same formulae as
was applied to the Millennium Apartment at 1000 The Esplanade North, at an
estimated cost of approximately $160,000 on the condition that City owned
microwave equipment be accommodated on the roof of the new building;
Council support the application of Provincial Home Ownership Program Funding
to this project subject to any future related municipal obligations being approved
by Council;
should Council wish to consider a further provision of financial assistance to this
project the payment of cash-in-lieu of parkland and the City's development
charges be deferred until the above ground building permit for this property is
issued or six months from the issuance of the below ground building permit,
whichever occurs first;
the attached By-Law be read three times and passed by Council; and,
the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be given authority to give effect
thereto.
Executive Summary: At its meeting of December 2, 2002 Council considered the
recommendations of Report CS 31-02 and referred the matter back to staff for further
discussion with representatives of Options from Homes. I had several discussions with
Michael Labb6, President, Options for Homes and Elio Zoffranieri, Senior Manager
Report CS 09-03 Date:
Subject: Tridel/Options for Homes Development Final Phase
1200 The Esplanade North (East of Millennium Building)
February 10, 2003
Page 2
17
Planning Services, Deltera Inc. The Director, Planning and Development and myself
met with them and discussed the information contained in the original letter and they
submitted further information. It is now the appropriate time to report back to the
Committee.
Under its correspondence of August 23, 2002 Options for Homes has requested
deferral of up to $1.4 million of fees and levies payable to the City to assist in the
financing of this project. The deferral of the first $700,000 is to result in a savings for
Options for Homes that will be directed toward the provision of affordable units with
extra accessibility features for 8 to 12 units. The deferral funds would be used to assist
purchasers with their down payments. In their latest correspondence, December 23,
2002 they offer to pay interest on the deferred funds until they are repaid when the units
are resold. As a result the affordability offered would be for the first buyer only
however, the accessibility changes would be permanent.
The second $700,000 is proposed to be deferred until after the condominium closes.
This would defer fees, levies and charges due to the city at the time of issuance of the
building permit until the condominium closes. They propose to pay interest to the City
on this deferral and have both deferrals guaranteed by the mortgage holder. Options
for Homes have also requested a reduction in the parkland cash-in-lieu obligations
established under a 1987 development agreement and Council's support in designating
this site as a "Revitalization Zone" in order to secure funding assistance under a
Provincial Home Ownership Program. All of the foregoing is discussed more
extensively below and in Report CS 31-02.
All in all the concessions are designed to reduce the cost of the development, thereby
increasing affordability. The deferral also allows Options for Homes to more closely
match the paying out of fees and levies to the City with the receipt of funds from
financiers or mortgage holders. In effect the City becomes the financier for the
development phase of the project.
Financial Implications: Generally speaking, any financial concessions provided to
a developer or building involving funds that the City will eventually use to finance
present or future projects will result in a shortfall that must ultimately be made up from
the tax levy, there being no other source of readily available funds available. This
would include revenues from development charges for present and future projects
identified in the 1999 Development Charges Study approved by Council. It would also
include the development of, and the provision of amenities for, parks in the City.
That being Said, there may be other reasons that the Council wishes to consider in this
specific case. This could include granting concessions to the original 1987 agreement
regarding the parkland cash-in-lieu payment using the same concession granted by
18
Report CS 09-03 Date:
Subject: Tridel/Options for Homes Development Final Phase
1200 The Esplanade North (East of Millennium Building)
February 10, 2003
Page 3
Council in 1998 for the Millennium Building. Some relief from development charges
was also provided at that time through capping provisions of the 1987 development
agreement. However, it is now many years later, and a new revised and improved by-
law for the calculation and collection of development charges has been approved by
Council. As previously mentioned in Report CS 31-02 Options for Homes are enjoying
significant savings on development charges through the terms of the 1987 agreement
which capped City development charge payment at $3,000 per unit. Current City
development charges are $4,029 for apartments two bedrooms and larger, and $3,021
for apartments one bedroom and smaller.
Furthermore, it is felt that the granting of concessions in regards to Development
Charges in particular runs the risk of setting an expensive precedence and it would
therefore not appear appropriate to pursue that aspect further.
I should also mention that, to the best of my knowledge, these concessions are being
sought from the City of Pickering only and not from the development charges levied by
the Region of Durham or the school boards.
Background: As the original report (Attachment 1) on this matter sets out the
details of the items to be considered, they will not be repeated here. The latest
correspondence from Options for Homes (Attachment 2) provides further information
regarding the granting of financial concessions in regards to development charges and
the quantum and timing of payments. Options for Homes advise that any adjustment in
expenses to the development will go to one of two places:
a) improvements to the building; or
b) the pool of money used to develop other similar housing developments in Pickering
It appears to be a rather complex set of proposed arrangements of which the financial
benefit to Options for Homes, and hence the cost to the City, beyond that indicted in the
original report, cannot be quantified at this time.
It does appear however that there is not a need for such financial concessions to make
the project viable, especially considering they are wiling to pay interest to the City on
any deferrals. It appears that the requested deferrals are a request for the City to act
as the "banker/financer" for certain costs of accessibility, improvements on future
housing while they are willing to pay interest on some funds. The balance would be
dependent upon "...the rate of real estate appreciation in Pickering" with a minimum
repayment schedule. While one can debate the degree of potential risk to the City, this
rather complex proposal would be precedent. The fact that this matter is being
considered in the next calendar year (2003) after this matter was first considered by
Report CS 09-03 Date:
Subject: Tridel/Options for Homes Development Final Phase
1200 The Esplanade North (East of Millennium Building)
February 10, 2003
Page 4
Council at its meeting of December 2, 2002 has increased the parkland benefit by
$28,000 to $160,212. Based on the 1987 agreement, development of the lands in
2003 would bring a parkland cash-in-lieu payment to the City of $724,269. Applying the
same relief formulae used for the Millennium Building in 1998, this payment is reduced
to $564,057, representing additional savings of $160,212 to the developer.
Designation as Revitalization Area for the Purpose of Homeowner Grant Eligibility
Options for Homes originally requested that Council designate the lands proposed for
the last apartment tower as a "revitalization area" for the purposes of "making the
building eligible for homeowner grants that will soon be available to purchasers in
Ontario". In report CS31-02 staff expressed concern over the application of such a
formal designation over these specific lands. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs &
Housing recently provided some details of the home ownership component of the
Affordable Housing Program. The booklet provides that to be eligible for program
funding, new homes must be in a 'neighbourhood improvement area' and the homes
must be within locally defined affordability limits. Further details will be provided at a
later date, when application forms are developed. Ministry staff have indicated that the
definition of 'neighbourhood improvement area' is expected to be open to municipal
interpretation and is not expected to place obligations or costs on the municipality. As
an alternative to placing a formal 'designation' over these lands, Options for Homes
have requested that Council provide formal support to the application of Provincial
Home Ownership Program Funding to this project. This will provide a general signal to
the Province that the City supports the application of home ownership program funding
to the Options for Homes project, without formal designation or the acceptance of
unknown municipal obligations. Staff generally support this request and have included
an appropriate recommendation.
Conclusion
All aspects were considered by staff with the conclusion that the requested reduction on
the parkland dedication payment to match that provided to the Millennium Apartment
Building should be supported. This would save the company an estimated $160,212.
Council could also consider the deferring payment of parkland cash-in-lieu and City
development charges to when the "above ground building permit" .is issued or six
months from the issuance of the below ground building permit", whichever occurs first.
This is the same relief approach as was provided to the Millennium Building and is
included as Recommendation 4. The amount of the deferral payment is estimated at
$1,224,057 ($564,057 parkland cash-in-lieu plus $660,000 City development charges).
2O
Report CS 09-03 Date: February 10, 2003
Subject: Tridel/Options for Homes Development Final Phase Page 5
1200 The Esplanade North (East of Millennium Building)
While staff are not comfortable with a designation of the site as a "Revitalization Zone"
we can support their revised request that Council formally support the application of
Provincial Home Ownership Program funding to this project.
Staff also feel that the onus for providing financial concession should not fall
solely on the City. Options for Homes should also approach the Region of Durham
and the School boards for similar considerations regarding the timing of payments.
This report has been reviewed with the Director, Planning & Development who concurs
with the recommendations. The By-Law has been prepared by the Solicitor for the City.
Attachments:
1. By-Law to Authorize the Execution of an Agreement
2. Letter from Options for Homes, dated December 23, 2002
3. Resolution #137-02
4. Report CS 31-02 to the Finance & Operations Committee
GAP:vw
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering City Council
;l'l~l~s ,). Q(~j~n, Ch{~l¢Ad~ve dfficer
Prepared / Approved / Endorsed By:
Gillis A. Paterson
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING 2 1
BY-LAW NO.
Being a by-law to authorize the execution of an Agreement
between the City of Pickering and Discovery Place Limited
regarding the payment of development charges and cash in-
lieu of parkland dedication for the McLevin at Discovery
Place on part of Lot 21, Concession 1, Pickering, designated
as Part 2, Plan 40R-19316.
WHEREAS Section 27 of the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c.27 and
amendments thereto authorizes the City to enter into agreements for the payment of
development charges on dates later than the issuing of a building permit;
WHEREAS the proposed 220 unit high-rise residential development will be constructed
through the issuance of staged building permits, the first permit being a conditional
building permit for the underground works and the second permit will be issued for the
above-ground superstructure;
WHEREAS the City's existing practice requires all development charges and cash-in-
lieu of parkland dedication to be paid prior to the issuance of the first building permit
issued for the development;
WHEREAS the City desires to enter into an agreement with Discovery Place Limited
regarding the timing of the payment of the City's development charges and the cash-in-
lieu of parkland dedication on the proposed McLevin at Discovery Place condominium
development to be located on 1200 The Esplanade North.
NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF
PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized to execute an Agreement with
Discovery Place Limited, prepared in a form acceptable to the Solicitor for the City,
which provides for the deferred payment of the City's development charges and
cash-in-lieu of parkland for the 220 units (McLevin at Discovery Place) development
until the above ground building permit is issued or six months from the issuance of
the below ground building permit, whichever occurs first.
BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 3rdh day of March,
2003.
Wayne Arthurs, Mayor
Bruce Taylor, Clerk
11:88 4188871743
OPTIONS FOR HOMES PAGE 82
for Homes
ATTACHMENT# ~ TOREPORT#~O~'. m.e
The Key to Home Ownership for Everyone
December 23, 2002
Gillis Paterson
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
City o f Picketing
One The Esplm~ade
Picker/ng, ON
LI V 6K7
Dear Mr~ Paterson:
Re: Municipal Assistance for the McLevin Condominiums
Allow me to thax~k you a.nd Neil Carroll for takin, g the time to discuss this matter with us. I am
pleased to offer the following clar/fication of our information.
First, it is very important to note that any adjustment in expenses to the development will go to
one of two places:
a) improvements to the building; or
b) the pool of money used to develop other similar housing developments in Picketing.
Second, our goal, as it relates to our request on the Park Land Dedication Fees, is that this
building be treated in. a way similar to that of the first Millennium building as an issue of
fairness. The current agreement, which limits the size of the development charges, is fair given
the fact that the services for the Town Centre were built over a decade ago and setting a cap
recogn, izes this situation. In any eventuality, the difference between the benefit received by
Millermium. I and McLevin on. developme~t charges appears to be $4,029 minus $3,754 or $275
per two-bedroom unit.
Third, I would confirm that the $700,000 defen'al in favour of helping purchasers who need
attendant care services would be used exclusively for individuals in wheelchairs. Any funds not
utilized in this manner would be returned to the City when the condomin, iums Close. It is our
goal to approach all of the attendant care facilities in Picketing to look for potentials buyers. In
this way, any vacm~cies created could reduce the waiting list for those facilities.
468 Queet~ street East, Lower Level2, P, O, Box 28, Toronto, Onta~To MSA I T7
tel: (416)867-1501.fax: (416) $67-1743 · website: options.iconm,ca · e-mail: options@icomm.ca
12,"74,"2082 11:00 4168571743 OPTIONS FOR HOI,,1ES
Dec ember 23~ 2002
Page 2
PAGE
2'3
Fourth, with respect to the deferral of charges during the development period, I would confirm
that this amount would be reduced below the $700,000 to match whatever is available to defer
subsequent to the initial $700,000 committed to the attendant care units.
Fifth, it is, indeed, our intention that the defen'als be designed so that they become revenue
neutral for the City. We would suggest that the funds deferred dur/ng construction pay an
appropriate interest rate and that the deferrals for the attendant care units appreciate at the rate of
rea] estate appreciation in Pickering. We would also be open to a minimum payment schedule,
such as we proposed, to offer greater protection to the City on this issue. Si.nee this minimum
payment schedule is a back up, a relatively low interest might be appropriate.
Sixth., with respect to the designation of the site as a revitalization zone, as an alternate
· possibility we could simply request that Council move a motion which supports the application
of the newly mmounced Home Ownership Program from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and
Housing to this site,
I have discussed th/s matter with the Ministry' of Housing. They have requested that the rationale
for this motion include the Iow vacancy rate in Pickering, the fact that the site has been partially
excavated for the last several years m~d the need. for the site to proceed to complete the
neighbourhood.
All of the points here are opma to discussion. Our goal is to help Pickering residents - both able
bodied and those with mobility issues - become homeowners. We wish to do this in a consensual
manner and are open to any changes that can bring us and staff together to achieve this goal.
Yours truly,
Michel Labb8
President
ML:sn
encl.
24
iNTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM
CLERK'S DIVISION
DATE:January 24, 2003
TO:
Gil Paterson
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
FROM: Bruce Taylor
City Clerk
Please be advised that the Council of the City of Picketing passed Resolution #137/02,
Item #15 at the Council Meeting of December 2, 2002, as follows:
That Report CS 31-02 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer,
concerning Tridel/Options for Homes Development Final Phase, be
received; and
2. That Council advise staff if it wishes to provide relief from the
provisions of the 1987 Development Agreement respecting cash-in-lieu
of parkland payment for the last phase of the development, being 1200
The Esplanade North, based on the same formula as was applied to the
Millennium Apartment at 1000 The Esplanade North at an estimated cost
of approximately $132,000; and
3. That Council advise staff that it wishes to explore possible options for
permitting, in addition to the relief from Development Charges in the
estimated amount of approximately $t12,000 as provided by the 1987
Agreement, any further relief in the form of deferral of all parkland
payments, fees, charges and development charges:
a) totalling $70{3,000 or less at an estimated cost of approximately $178,000
until the units are resold or a maximum of 15 years after any
agreements are executed; and
b) totalling more than $700,000 at an estimated cost of approximately
$3t,000 until one year following project negotiation; and
That should Council determine that it wishes to explore possible
options for relief outlined in Recommendations 2 and/or 3 above, that
the Chief Administrative Officer, the Director, Corporate Services &
Treasurer and the Director, Planning & Development be authorized and
directed to enter into discussions with the appropriate representatives
of Deltera inc. and Options for Homes in order to determine and explore
all options, the potential costs to the City and to present the results of
these discussions at the earliest possible opportunity for the
consideration of the Committee and Council; and
That appropriate officials of the City of Picker/rig be given authority to
give effect thereto.
25,
ThiS resolution is sent to you for your information.
Bruce Taylor, City Clerk
26
F~'TACHi'~iEN~i' ~_~ TO REPORT # C50~ - qB
PICKERING
REPORT TO THE
FINANCE & OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
Report Number: CS 31-02
Date: November 13, 2002
From:
Gillis A. Paterson
Director, COrporate Services & TreasUrer
Subject:
Tridel/Options for Homes Development Final Phase
1200 The Esplanade North (East of Millennium Building)
Recommendation:
1. That Report CS 31-02 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be received
for information and that:
2. Council advise Staff if it wishes to consider providing relief from the provisions of the
1987 Development Agreement respecting cash-in-lieu of parkland payment for the
last phase of the development, being 1200 The Esplanade North, based on the
same formulae as was applied to the Millennium Apartment at 1000 The Esplanade
North, at an estimated, cost of approximately $132,000; .
3. Council advise staff if it wishes to consider permitting, in addition to the relief from
Development Charges in the estimated amount of approximately $112,000 as
provided by the 1987 Agreement, any further relief in the form of deferral of all
parkland payments, fees, charges and development charges:
a) totaling $700,000 or less at an estimated cost of approximately $178,000 until
the units are resold or a maximum of 15 years after any agreements are
executed;
b) totaling more than $700,000 at an estimated cost of approximately $31,000
until one year following project negotiation;
4. Should Council determine that it wishes to consider relief outlined in
Recommendations 2 and/or 3 above, that the Chief Administrative OffiCer, the
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer and the Director, Planning & Development
be authorized and directed to enter into discussions with the appropriate
representatives of Deltera Inc. and Options for Homes in order to determine and
explore all options, the potential costs to the City and to present the results of these
discussions at the earliest possible opportunity for the consideration of the
Committee and Council; and,
Report CS 31-02 Date:
Subject: Tridel/Options for Homes DeVelopment Final Phase
1200 The Esplanade North (East of Millennium Building)
November 13, 2002
Page 2
27
that appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be given authority to give effect
thereto.
.Executive Summary: Deltera Inc. (Tridel) and Options for Homes propose to
develop the last phase of the Apartment/Casita complex located in the City's downtown,
between Kingston Road and the Esplanade North (1200 The Esplanade North). The
project consists of an eleven (11) storey apartment building containing 220 units. In
order to accommodate the development, assist in the provision of affordable home
ownership, and provide special accessible units for 8-12 households, Options for
Homes and Deltera are requesting that the City provide financial relief in the form of
parkland cash-in-lieu payment reduction, and the deferral of parkland, development
charge, and other municipal fees and levies. Further, Options for Homes requests that
the City designate the lands as a "revitalization area" for the purpose of homeowner
grant eligibility.
Staff are supportive of initiatives to complete this important area of Pickering's
Downtown, with the continuing involvement of Tridel as builder. Generally speaking,
staff are also supportive of the concept of providing more affordable ownership housing
accommodation in the City. We understand that the external elements of this project
will be of high quality standards as the existing apartments at Discovery Place. Tridel
has recently submitted a Site Plan Application for this project which is currently under
review by staff.
This report outlines details of the requests, as staff understands them, and considers
the related financial implications. Council direction is necessary in order to confirm its
interest in considering further the request for the parkland reduction and the reduction
and deferral of fees and charges.
Financial Implications: The total estimated benefit to the developer, representing
either a direct cost to the City, or lost income is as follows:
Parkland Dedication
Development Charges
Deferral of $700,000
Deferral of over $700,000
Total Benefit
$132,355
112,476
178,000
31,132
$453,963
Any financial decisions favouring the developer, especially those involving development
charges, will have to be made up by an increase in property taxes as the.majority of
these items affect the Development Charges Study approved by Council in 1999.
28
Report CS 31-02 Date:
Subject: Tridel/Options for Homes Development Final Phase
1200 The Esplanade North (East of Millennium Building)
November 13, 2002
Page 3
Background: Deltera Inc. (Tridel) and Options for Homes proposes to complete the
development of lands betWben Kingston Road and the Esplanade North with an eleven
(11) storey apartment building containing 220 dwelling units (see Attachment 1). In
letters from Options for Homes and Deltera Inc. dated August 23, 2002 (see
Attachment 2), and August 29, 2002 (see Attachment 3) respectively, various requests
of the City are set out pertaining to the reduction and deferral of municipal fees and
development charges.
We have reviewed the Options for Homes letter to the Chief Administrative Officer
dated August 23, 2002; the Report to Council from the Town Solicitor dated May 23,
1998 on the previous Phase (Millennium Building); the agreements between Duffin
Developments Inc., Discovery Place Limited and the Town of Pickering dated January
19, 1987, and June 3, 1998; other documents as provided to us. The following is based
upon our understanding of the foregoing.
The current proposal calls for 220 units of which 51 per cent (113 units) are one
bedroom and 49 percent (107 units) are two bedroom or larger. Comments in this
report pertain to the financial considerations requested of the City and not the Region
nor the School Boards.
Michel Labb6's letter of August 23, 2002 lays out the detail of his request of the City.
This report addresses the issues in the order they appear in that letter. Aisc attached
for information is: a letter dated September 3, 2002 from McLevin Co-Operative
Development Corporation (see Attachment 4); an Information Flyer/Letter outlining the
project dated July 10, 2002 (see Attachment 5); an Options for Homes 'Frequently
Asked Questions' sheet (see Attachment 6); a letter dated September 11, 2002 from
the Chief Administrative Officer to Deltera Inc. (see Attachment 7); and, a letter dated
September 16, 2002 from the Chief Administrative Officer to the President, Options for
Homes (see Attachment 8)
Reduction of Cash-in-Lieu for Parkland Dedication Fee~
The letter of August 29, 2002 from Eiio Zoffranieri, Senior Manager Planning Services
for the Deltera Inc to the Chief Administrative Officer contains the following statement,
in part: "...this letter shall serve as a formal request for both deferral and reduction of
the cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication requirement...using the same formula used for
the Millennium Building .... "
On January 19, 1987 Duffin Developments Inc., Discovery Place Limited and the Town
entered into a Development Agreement respecting the development of lands that
currently comprise the Tridei Apartment and Casita projects. Section 33 of the
agreement provided that a cash-in-lieu payment for the provision of parkland be paid for
Report CS 31-02 Date: November 13, 2002
subject: Tridel/Options for Homes Development Final Phase Page 4
1200 The Esplanade North (East of Millennium Building)
29
each residential condominium apartment building prior to the issuance of a building
permit for that building. The agreement set out a formulae for the determination of the
payment amount which included a 10% per annum increase (not compounded) in the
amount payable to provide for inflationary and other escalating factors.
According to the Agreement the payment is to be calculated as follows:
$1,392,825 x N
5
(where N is 1.0 if the payment is made in 1987,
and increases at the rate of 0.1 per year thereafter)
At the time the Agreement was entered into the parties anticipated that the entire five
phases of the development would be built out by June of 1990. Unfortunately the
economic climate changed and to date, only four of the five phases have been
completed.
The first three phases of the development, consisting of two apartment towers and the
Casitas, provided parkland cash-in-lieu payments in accordance with the agreement
formulae (totaling $1,086,403). The forth phase, being the 253 unit 'Millennium'
apartment building received some relief in cash-in-lieu payment from Council. Rather
than apply the formulae of the agreement, Council agreed to a payment option which
used the Casita 1994 parkland payment of $473,560 indexed by the rate of inflation
since 1994 established by the Consumer Price Index for Toronto. This resulted in a
payment of $512,335 for the Millennium phase. This represented a benefit of $72,650
to the developer.
Deltera/Options for Homes requests that Council apply the same relief approach to the
cash-in-lieu requirements for the final apartment tower phase. They request that the
payment be based on the Casita payment, indexed by the rate of inflation since 1994.
This will result in a payment of $564,057, which represents a benefit of $132,355 to the
developer (payment of $696,412 would be required under the formulae of the 1987
development agreement if the building permit is issued in 2002).
Desiqnation as Revitalization Area for the Purpose of Homeowner Grant Eii,qibilit¥
Options for Homes, in its August 23, 2002 letter, requests that.the lands proposed for
the apartment tower development be designated by Council as a "revitalization area" for
the purposes of "making the building eligible for homeowner grants that Will soon be
available to purchasers in Ontario". It is stated that this grant will be between $6-8,000
per unit and available to purchasers whose incomes are below the 60th percentile for
Pickering, who are currently renting and buy in a revitalization area. Mr. Labb6 of
Options for Homes advised that the grant monies would reduce the first mortgage on
the units, lowering the monthly carrying costs by about $50 per month for each unit.
30
Report CS 31-02 Date:
Subject: Tridel/Options for Homes Development Final Phase
1200 The Esplanade North (East of Millennium Building)
November 13, 2002
Page 5
Staff contacted the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to receive information on
the homeowner grants referenced by Mr. Labb6. The Ministry advised that details on
the affordable urban home ownership program have not yet been finalized or released,
although discussions between the Province and some stakeholders have been held. It
appears that the Federal Government may tie its participation in the grant program to
housing that is made available within designated 'revitalization areas'.
Until such time as details are available respecting this anticipated grant program, it
would be premature for the City to apply any specific 'designations' to this area, such as
a 'revitalization area' designation. Further, these lands are located in the City's
downtown core, within a complex of prestige buildings and in an area considered to
hold high development potential and desirability. The appropriateness and necessity of
designating these lands as a 'revitalization area' would have to be fully considered.
Municipal Fees and Levies
Options for Homes further requests that the City defer the first $700,000 of municipal
fees and levies to when the suites are resold. This deferral is requested in order that
their client, the McLevin Corporation, can help 8-12 households with physical disabilities
and requiring care to purchase in the building (special accessibility units). Further, the
deferred funds would be used to help people with their down payments to make units in
the building affordable at various income levels (see Attachment 2). If this amount
determines affordability of the units, then based upon the information provided in Mr.
Labb6's letter, affordability ceases for the original target owner audience upon resale.
Fees and levies normally payable to the City are:
Building Permit Fees (estimated)
Site Plan Approval
Draft Plan of Condo and Release
Parkland Dedication
Development Charges
Total Payable
$145,000
6,250
1,800
696,412
660,000
$1,509,462
Development Charqes
In considering Deltera's request for a reduction in parkland cash-in-lieu payment, one
must also take into consideration the reduction in City development charges provided
by the terms of the 1987 agreement. While the parkland payment requirements under
the 1987 agreement are significant, so is the relief provided by the Agreement in
development charge payments. The agreement requires that the City development
charge (unit levy) be the lesser of the amount of the Town's two-bedroom apartment
Report CS 31-02 Date: November 13, 2002
Subject: Tridel/Options for Homes Development Final Phase Page 6
1200 The Esplanade North (East of Millennium Building)
residential unit levy in effect on the day of payment by the owner or $3,000 per unit if
paid after January 31, 1990. When Council granted the parkland payment relief for the
Millennium apartment building in 1998 ~r~d processed the building permit, the Town's
two-bedroom apartment development charge was $3,754 (excluding hydro payment of
$663). Consequently, the provisions of the 1987 development agreement'did provide
significant savings to the developer of approximately $92,778. The City's current two-
bedroom apartment unit development charge is $4,029, resulting in a significant
savings to the developer of $1029 per two bedroom unit as shown below.
Consideration must be given to the development charge savings provided to the
developer through the 1987 aqreement when considering any financial relief that
Council may wish to grant respecting parkland cash-in-lieu payment.
The 1987 Agreement "caps" development charges at $3,000 per unit, which is
confirmed in the 1998 agreement which, when multiplied by the 220 units, equals
$660,000. Inherent in this condition is an unrecognized savings to the developer under
the City's current Development Charge By-Law as follows:
Size
One bedroom & smaller
Two bedroom & larger
Less "capped" amount
Unrecognized loss to the City
Development No. of
Cha~Unit Units Total
$3,021 133 $341,373
$4,029 107 431,103
.660,000
$112,476
The proposal calls for the deferral of the $700,000 until the units are sold OR a
minimum of $100,000 per year commencing 5 years after registration of the
condominium and thereafter for 8 ¼-years. The letter states that this would
"...guaranteeing a 21% rate of return". There were no details of this calculation but
assuming $100,000 per year for 8 ~ years equals $850,000. The difference or
additional funds over the deferred $700,000 would be $150,000 which would appear to
produce the 21% rate of return. HOWEVER, the calculation ignores the time value of
money or the lost interest income on the money deferred. In other words a dollar today
is worth approximately 4 per cent more than a dollar one year from now. Conversely, a
dollar on year from now is worth 96 cents today. As perhaps a "worst case" scenario,
assuming registration takes place one year later plus the deferral of 5 years thereafter
plus the repayment timeframe of 8 ¼ years (assuming no resale) equals a total deferral
of 14 ½ years. Under these assumptions the $850,000 is worth approximately
$522,000 today. This results in a savings to the developer, or a loss to the City of
$328,000, or 47 per cent. Deducting the $522,000 from the original deferred $700,000
results in a direct cost to the City of $178,000 or 25 per cent.
32
'Report CS 31-02 Date:
Subject: Tridel/Options for Homes Development Final Phase
1200 The Esplanade North (East of Millennium Building)
November 13, 2002
Page 7
Under a "best case" scenario, registration takes place immediately upon completion,
which occurs quickly and resales occur at the rate of 10 per cent per year. While no
details are provided on the amount payable to the City' epon resale, dividing the
deferred $700,000 by 220 units yields $3,182 per unit or a total of $70,000 per year.
This would occur for the first 5 years totaling $350,000 with $100,000 payable in years
5 through 8 ½ . The estimate present value of this stream of funds is $536,000
representing a cost to the City, or saving to the developer, of $164,000 or 23 per cent.
Options for Homes also request a deferral of any amounts owing the City in excess of
$700,000 until "...after the closing of the condominium". We assume this refers to the
registration of the condominium. If correct, then $809,462 ($1,509,462-700,000) would
be deferred for one year resulting in a present value of $778,330 and a savings to the
developer, or cost to the City of $31,132.
Mr. Labb~'s letter states that the deferrals would be guaranteed by Home Ownership
Alternatives Non Profit Corporation. Until more is known about this company, we
cannot offer comments on this aspect.
Conclusion
The total estimated benefit to the developer, representing either a direct cost to the
City, or lost income is as follows:
Parkland Dedication
Development Charges
Deferral of $700,000
Deferral of over $700,000
Total Benefit
$132,355
112,476
178,000
31,132
$453,963
Any financial decisions favouring the developer, especially those involving development
charges, will have to be made up by an increase in property taxes as the majority of
these items affect the Development Charges Study approved by Council in 1999.
General
Pickering Hydro Development Charges applicable prior to August 1999 and no longer
payable save the developer approximately $145,000 using the 1998 amount.
Mr. Labbb's letter states that "...Our building will generate approximately $400,000 in
property tax revenue annually". If correct, the City's portion of this amount would be
approximately $154,000 using 2002 Tax Rates, the balance being shared between the
Region of Durham and the School Boards.
Report CS 31-02 Date: November 13, 2002
Subject: Tridel/Options for Homes Development Final Phase Page 8
1200 The Esplanade North (East of Millennium Building)
33
I would like to point out that while the letter contains several references to the need for
the City to agree to the requests in order to make the project affordable, and to provide
accessible units, oral communication from Mr. Labb~ to the City's C~,~)'s office
indicated that Options for Homes' marketing campaign does not take into consideration
the financial effects of any of the above mentioned reductions or deferrals. This would
seem to indicate that favourable consideration by the City would not have any financial
effect on their proposal. This needs to be clarified.
Finally, the foregoing is subject to review and revision as discussions continue, more
details become known and I become more familiar with this matter. I must caution that
our current financial climate within the City's operations make granting financial
concessions a matter that requires serious consideration.
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
o
6.
7.
8.
Location Map
Letter from Options for Homes dated August 23, 2002
Letter from Deltera Inc. dated August 29, 2002
Letter from McLevin Co-Operative Development Corporation dated September 3,
2002
Information FlyedLetter dated July 10, 2002
Options for Homes 'Frequently Asked Questions'
Letter to Deltera inc. dated September 11,2002
Letter from Options for Homes dated September 16, 2002
3.4
Report CS 31-02 Date: November 13, 2002
Subject: Tridel/Options for Homes Development Final Phase Page 9
1200 The Esplanade North (East of Millennium Building)
Prepared By:
Gillis A. Paterson
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
Endorsed By:
Director, Planm~g & Development
Approved By:
Attachments
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Chief Administrative Officer ~.~
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering ~Ci~y Council
~,~l~r~s J. Q~inn, Chl, i~e,,f/Adm~~iv~
FAYLEE
EVERTON STREET
BRANDS COURT
ROAD
LANE
35
~LENANNA
PIOKERI
City of Pickering
Planning & Development Department
OFq-ION$ FOR
PAGE 82
August23,2002
ATTACHMENT # ~._~._tO REPORT #~
:File Key tO Hom~ ~~ ~r ~v~one
· Thomas ~. Quiufi
C'"nie£ Administrative 'Of/ic~
Planning & D~,elopm .~at Deparm~ent
One Th: Esptmade.
?ic, kefing, ON
LI V 6K.7
De.~r Mr. Q~km:
Municipal As'sismnce wl~ tile Development of the 'COndominium at 1200 The
Esplanade North on behalf of our ellen,, the MeLevi~ Corporation
Furfla~- to our several conv~'sations, I would confn-m fl',at we are requesting, on behalf of ou~
diem, the McL~vin Co~oraiion, munioil~al ~ssi~-tau~ in s~v~al wa~ to m~ ou~ development
more e££ect/ve ~ud accessible to potential p~ha~=-~ with mod_~e incomc~.
First and foremost, we would ask that the site be de$ignat~ a revitalization area for the purposes.
ofm~dng the building eligible for horn:owner 1Fan~ that will soon be available to pu~c~hasers in
bO~,ta~o. 'Thi~ ~ will be betw¢~ $6-8,000 and a'vailabI~ to purchasers, whos: incomes are
iow the 60 p~-rc~tile for Pickc~'q~ who are currentlY r~thig and bu~ in a rendtalization area..
I hav~ not seen. a d~mitio~a for 'r~italization area'.but I am sur~ it would aPPlY to a piece of
pi, op~cy' thai is an undeveloped hole in the middle of a fally developed ndghbourhoo&
Second, we would request that the City ofPicke, hng agra= to dcf~' $700,000 of. its municipal fees
and levies in order to allow the Corporation to hdp 8-I2 households, with phymcal disabiI~'ties
and requiring.care, to purchase in the building. This, as you know, is a group of individuals with
limited income who can benefit significantly from th~. ability to design, mits to meet thdr n~ds
prior to the start ofc0nstru~on,
The deferred funds would be used to helppeople with thdr down payments to make thc units in
the building affordable at v .m~. ous ~ncome levels.
The cl~f~red funds would be repaid whoa the suites a~ resold so that the a~ordability'" would Ias~
for on~ ocu'-apant but the accessibility nangcs to th~ suites would be p~rmanmt,
46~ QU~ S~eer East, [ower Levd 2, RO. I~oX 2~, TorontO, Olt~lo MSA IT7
867-1501,fax: (416) 8~7- I 7 45 · wek~t~: oprions, ico~,ca · ~ m~l: ~ons ~ iwmrn,~
The repayment of the d~fen'aI~ would be guarante~l by Hom~ ~~p ~dv~ Non-
pr°~t Co~or~on ~OA), a ~mpmy ~ will hem ~4,7~000 inmongag~ ~ m~ to ~is
~te. ~ ~I] ~ a~e m a ~a~nt sChed~c ~t ~I1 p~y a ~~ orS100~000 p~
ye~ ~ ~t~g a 21% ~te of~. I hsve ~clud~ a copy of~ c~~t ~a~t
m~ on o~ d~elopmen~ completed to ~m ~ co~on ~at ~e ~ wi~ be av~le ~
req~.
Third, and critica~ to th~ success of our d~elopment, is a request that the City defer the
coll~tbn of the balance of all £e~s and levies over and above $700,000 until after the Clos/ng.of
th~.condomin~urn. Once again, HOA would provide its corporate guarantee as to the payment of
"these funds. The/mpommc~ to the d~vdoprn~t is that, because the Corporation is a non-Profit,
it ne~:ts h.~lp coming up with the equity requir~ by its I~&rs to provide its constm~on
~nancing.~ Municipal d~f~'rals, such as' those r~ucated h~r~ and prov. id¢cl on our last
dc.velo, pment, by th.~ City of Toronto, are an important part of achieving the fin~elal
requirements set by our lenders,
It is important to not~ that our building will. generate approximately $400,000 in proper~y tax
rgv~nue annually, The sooner this begins, the bett~r it is for all involved
We beIieve very Strongly that the mque~s contained in'this I~ are reasonable, given the
housing crisis that we are ail trying to address a~ effectively as possible. It will also ~llow for the
c~eafion ora building that, will address longstanding neighbou~ood issues. Specffi:alty thb
building and this neighbourhood is th~ best place in Picketing to.provide zmits designed to
accommodate individuals with accessibility issues. If the municipaI~t~ st~ports our request,
ins~e~ of produoing two or thr~ acaes~ibte un/ts, we will be able to produce a suffi=ient number
to ~ovide the numb~z~ needed to'support full-time attendants. Attendant cam is britioal to
m~knizing the effectiveness of a~ccssible un/ts.
W~ would request i rn=~ng with the appropriate'individuals so. that we can discuss thes~
requests fia'ther and provide the bformation you ne~ to.bring them tO a successful conclusion,
yours
Michel Labb~
President
co: Eib Zoffrani~
,0~/11/z0~. ~45 4!686717~3 OPTIONS FOR HDNES
38
for Homes
~4
Repayment Experience on Other Developiiients
R~ntal
2 9
1999
Sal~ 5
Voluntary I
2000
Vol=nt~'r .2
2001
Sale 5
Voiunmry · 2
R~ntal 1
2oo2 (&on'O
Saic 4
Voluntary ...~3
Total
Sale 17
¥oI~m7 15
1I
5
7
Ctosing (4r,ra 2000)
Voluntary. 45
R~'mtal: _4
(4t0 ~67.17 45 · we, i~lte., optto~,icomm; ca , e-matl: o~o~s e icamm, ca
P~F_, 05
39
.R°naind~r of 2000
Voluntazy 2
gale 1
2001
Voluntary. 3'
Sal~ 8
zoo2
Vol:rotary .
S~l~
total
Sale 13
VOllaltary 50
Rental ~4
3
tl
4
(37%)
Mill Street (80 Mai Strut
Closing (May 2002)
Sale 1 '
Voluntary 43
l~ntal 2
.Remainder of 2002
Sal~
Total
Sate
Volunlary
l~atal
47 (32%)
.40
DELTE. RA
August 29, 2002
Mr. Tom Quinn City Manager
City of Picketing
Pickering Civic Complex
One the Esplanade
Picketing, Ontario
L1V 6K7
Deltera
4800 Dufferin Street
Toronto, Ontario M3H 559
Telephone: (4t6) 66~-9290
Fax: (416) 66%0978
Interne'c: www. trideI.corn
Dear Sir:
Re: Request for Deferral and RecJuction of Cash-in'Lieu for Parkland dedication Fees
..,Final Phase- McLevin Corporation
FUrther to. a .meeting of May 3' '2002, with yourself, His Worship MayOr Wayne Arthur,
Mr. Mike Labbe,of. Options for Homes, Mr. Tony Moro Of our office, Mr. Nell Carrol of
your office and myself, this letter shall serve as a formal request for both deferral and'
reduction of the cash-in-lieu of Parkland dedication requirement to' be paid by the
developer using the same formula used'for the Millinium building, being 1000 The
Esplanade. ·
The deferral will be more particularily set out in a separate letter being 'orwarded
directly to you through Mr. Labbe wherein he Will be req.uesting a deferral for other
fees and charges such as Development Charges, Building Permit Fees et.c:
Trusting the aforementioned is sufficient for you to Commence the necessary process
and -' ' ' '
snou~c~ you ruquire additional '"
inTOJTCla tlOFI or
u~cuss this matter "..-'~---.
please contact the writer. ,',, ,,,~,,
We would like to take this oPportunity to thank you in advance for your favOurable
consideration of this matter. ·
Efio Zoffranieri
Sr. Manager Planning Services.
OPTIONS
MCLEVIN CO-OPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
4~ Queen $tree,. East, Lower Level 2, P,O; B~x 28 Torontcb Onfc~io M5A tT7
~Tel: {4t6} 867-1501 Pax:, {z~) 8~7-174~
Septemb~- 3, 2002
41
?,~T^CHMcN: # ~ TO REPORT #~-o~
Plmn/ng & Deve]opraent Departm~t
One ~e ~ade
~ck~fin~ ON
L1,V ~7
Re: Updite on 1200.The Esplanade North
I am plems~ to provide ~el follo~ng update on our progr~s with rcsp~t to the condominium
d~vMoPment at 1200 The E~l~ade North,
We have now h~d four scs of presentations to the ndghbours and Durham residents. Our first
pair ofprcs~tafion~ wa., on 3uly 27 m~d w~s adverted exclusively to the residents at Discovery
Place. N~arly 120 people attended and half were there to get sddiQonal information about the
4cwlopm~t
The other three sCs of presentations, held on August 10, 17, and 24, were adv~'tised first
Pickering msid~n~ then to all of South Durham. In all, We recc-ived ~1 $100'd~x~sits. We
cummt!y anticipate generating 25 sales from th~$¢ deposits,
· Based on our previous expc'fienc~, w.e would anticipa, t¢a sJgn~c.~nr local d~mamd for ou~ strites.
To dat~ our experience with thiz developm~t h~ been vrry satisfying.
will ke~ you aware of our procuress throughout thc fail. Should you v,4sh spedfic
please call me at (416) 867-150I, extendon 226.
Yours trulB
Mich=l Labb!
Development Consultant
for Homes
461~ Que~ Strut East. P.O. Box 28, Toronto. ON, MSA lT7
Phon:: (4i6) It67-1501, Fax: (,416) g67-I743
.hzty I0, 2002
Dear lVlillcmfi~ Place Resident:
Options For Homes was e~tab'l, ished 10 years ag° with one goal in mind. We wanted to offer
· quality housing' at attractive prices. We have deveI6ped fiv. e condo'minims to date in the
Greater Toronto Area, which have achieved this' g0al.. Our n~xt bailding Will be constructed on
the vacant land at. I200 The EsPlanade North. This site represents an unprecedented'oppommity
to finish the dovel'opmeni of your complex with a high quality condominium.
Municipal officials have asked that we offer thi~' option to oTM in this final phase to the
immediate neighboUrhood' their friends and relatives. This is your oPPortunity to be the first in
Ii'ne for these homes at an extremely attractive cost price;
Our marketin~ 'approach is respectful and low-key, g.t our free presentations, our sales
consultants will provide all relevant information fo enable you to make an informed decision. By
udmg a low cost, frenzy-free approach, we save on expenses and pass these sam.'ngs on to' you.
Tb date all o£ our condominiums have had owner occupancy levels above 95% and have been
positive addifiom to their respective n~i~bourhoods. There is no better way'of continuing .this
achievement than targeting those who live nexit, door--, or their friends and relatives. '
Our condo/nin~ums start at: '
...... $ 87,596 Studio 472 $ 8.01.46
98,6'40 one_bedroom 540 . 905.30
126,900 One-bedroom · I 700 1 ~ 16'6.42
_ 139,500 two-bedroom 750 1,275.80
_ 160..200 two-bedroom 900 J '1,477:88
· Based on 5% do.ri, includes P&I tt'n~,,, .... ~,~ + ....... ,.~ ........
JEJ'VE!
~JJ ~ PICK=RIN
WNG SEOTiON
L), taxes, utilities, amenities and maintenance.
*Price does I2ot inalude Alternative Mo~gage. Parking starts at $5,500
You must register to attend one o£our frrst free presentations scheduled for: Saturday, July 27,
and August 10, 2002.. Please pass this im%rmafion on to friends and relatives.. To register,
please call (416) 867-I50I, or visit our website at wwv~'.bptions.icomm.c~. We look forward to
s~eing you there. -
Yours 'traty,
Michel Labb~
President
ATTACHMENT #.~_ TC REPORT
. .for Homes --
43
The Key to Home oWners.~p for Everyone
FREQUENTLy ASKED QUESTIONS
What is Options For Homes Non-PrOfit Corporation (Options)?
Options For Homes is a pfiw/te,'not for profit, corporation led by development professionals who'
obtain, access to residential.land and Pre-sells ownersl~p homes to Iow, and moderate-income
households. It co-ordinates the design and development of buildings on these lands with the goal
of keeping all costs to a rn~nimum 6n behalf of these households.
For whom does Options work?
The irfitial purchasers of the condominium homes form a Co-operative Housing Corporation for
whom .Options co-ordinates the development. This Corporation acts. as the developer of the
buildings and retains Options as their Development Consultant.
How is OPtions paid?
Options receives a fee for its services which is included in the purchase price of the
homes.
Does the Options' concept require government subsidies?.'
NO. The Options' concept has been designed to reach low- and moderate-income households
without any form of government subsidy.' It has 'also been designed to focus traditional real
estate market mechanisms directly at the issue of affordable housing in such a Way as to be more
and more effective over time. '.
What has Options achieved so far?
To date Options has five condorMMums comple[ed or under constru'cfion.
The Weston Village Co-operatiee has Successfully ileveloped and sold a $6
mill/on, 42-unit, townhouse condominium at Lawrence Avenue and Weston Road in
Toronto. Prices' for the three-bedroom townhouses ranged from $128,900 to $152,000.
The homes were affordable to households with incomes as low as $32,000 per year.
468 Queen Street Fast, Lo~Ver LeveI 2, P.O. Box28, Toronto, Ontexio M~ IT7
tel: (41d) 857-150t · fax: (416) 867-I 743 · website: options, komm.ca · e-mail: options@icomm.ca
Page 2
4 4 Frequently Asked Questions
The St. Lawrence Co-operative has successfully completed and sold a $17 million, 95-
unit, apartment condominium at Parliament and Front Streets, a 15- m~uute walk from
downtown Toronto. It has one-, two- and three-bedroom suites that sold at $50,000
below the cost of other newly. 90.nstructed condornln~ums in the same area. The suites
were sold to households with incomes as low as $16,000 per year.
Thc Parliament Square Co-operative is a 181-unk condominium, one block from the St.
Lawrence building. It is a $32 million building and offers attendant care services to 12
purchasers who require care because' of personal mobility restrictions. It has been able to
offer bachelor suites for as little as $65,000. Several owners are. in an income bracket
below $15,000 per year. The building was fully sold as of November '1999, four months
before final OcCUpancy
The Mill Street Co-operative is a 144-unit building completed and occupied at the end of
2001. It has a value of $27 million and is located next door to the St. Lawrence
condominium.
The Shermount Co-operative started the construction of.its $70 million, 430-unit
townhouse and apartment condominium at 650 Lawrence Avenue West in March of
2001. The City of Toronto agreed to defer the payment 'of its development charges,
levies and permit fees in 'order to allow the Co-operative to accommodate fifteen (15)
low-income seniors in the building.
Options has three clients currently developing their Condominiums.
The Pentland Co-operative is selling a 208-unit apartment building east of the Pickering
Town Center.
The Queen Street Co-operative is developing a 282-unit townhouse and apartment
condominium at the comer of Queens Plate Drive and .Kexdale Avenue in north
Etobicoke.
The McLevin Co-operative is developing a .456-unit towuhouse and aperient
condominium in the Malvem Town Centre in northern Scarborough.
How does Options prevent the flipping of its homes for quick profits?
Because OPtions curremly makes homes available at 10-15% below market value and will offer
even better reductions in the future, all homes carry a second mortgage on title 'that equals the
difference between the cost pr/ce and market value. These mortgages are payable upon resale
and go into an equity pool that must be used to develop other similar projects. This allows
owners to sell at any time and benefit from a market appreciation only on the funds they invested
themselves. There has been $1.9 mill/on in cash and $13 million in mortgages generated on the
first five buildings (see the attached Co-operative Deferral example).
Page3
Frequently ASked Questions
For whom can Options provide homes?
Options' concept can provide homes for all income groups and household situations except the
hard-to-house, or individuals who currently do not have the skills to care properly for their
housing. More specifically, Options enables individual or households with limited resources to
own homes by increasing the mount of their Alternatives Mortgage, thereby adding to their
downpayments. The third wave of Options projects should be offering 20-30% of the homes to
households below Toronto's poverty line.
Why can .Options do what no one else has been able to do?
By focusing exclusively on affordability, Options brings a unique perspective to the housing
market (see the attached cost comparison chart). This allows us to eliminate costly amenities,
vastly reduce marketing costs and eliminate overall development profits. An average reduction
of $40,000 per suite has been achieved to date in the City of Toronto and $20,000 in smaller
municipalities.
Why is Options talking to government agencies?
Left on its own, the Options' concept will take.40 to 50 years to become a successful national
source for affordable housing. Given proper policy support and infra-structure development
support, low- and moderate-income Canadians can benefit from this concept in a significant way
.(10-20,000 units per year) within 5 years.
Is Options willing to share its knowledge?
YES. Options is not interested in becoming a national company with offices in each major urban
area. Instead we would prefer to train and monitor several non-profit Srganizations in th~
delivery of the Options' concept in their respective regions, lithe opportunities were sufficient
in any given region, Options would train several organizations. To date, Options is working with
other organizations in Ottawa, in the Kitchener Waterloo region of Ontario, and. in the
Vancouver area of British Columbia.
PICKERING
ATTACHMENT#~TO REPORT
Picke. rin$ Qv'i: Co~
One The Pmph
Pic~m~, O~
LP
ciTo/pi~kerln~
September'11, 2002
Elio Zoffranieri
Deltera Inc.
4800 Dufferin Street
· Toronto, ON M3H 5S9
Subject:
Tridet/Options for Homes Development of Final Phase '
East of 1000 Tlie Esplanade (Mil!ennium Building)
City of Picl~ering
. File: PD 1000
Thank you for your letter of August 2@, 2002, respecting t~he. 'request for deferral and
reduction of cash-in-lieu for parkland dedication fees, final Phase-McLevin Corporation'.
The City looks forward' to the completion of a quality development on this important
block' within our downtown. Your letter provides a specific proposal for. a reduction in
cash-in-lieu of parkland .payment and makes reference to a forthcoming request from
Mr. Labbe of Options for Homes for deferral of parkland payments and other charges
such as development charges, building permit fees, etc.
White I Understand the reasons for. Tridel's'. and Options for' Homes, request for relief in
· vadous payment requirements, i would be very ConCerned if the current marketing being
conducted b.y Options for Homes; including unit p.dces, is in any way dependent on
financial relief being' approved bY .Picketing CoUncil. 'To date the City has not provided
an indication of its acceptance of any red.u.ctidn or deferral of payments related to this
apar[ment development Our meeting of May 3', 2002 was a general discussion,, and it
was concluded at that meeting that a City.position on any reduction or deferral of
payments could only be determined following a definitive proposal by Tridet/Options for
Homes, and full consideration by Council. While t Can advise of my general support to a
possible reduction in parkland'cash-in-lieu .payment based or~ the same formula used
for the Millennium building, this.and other requested reductions/deferrals require the
formal approval of Pickering Council. it would.be in~i~propriate to secure p~blic interest
'in this development based on potential financial reductions/deferrals that have not been.
formally approved, if any such assumptions have been included in the marketing of this
project, those representing the project will be on their own to deal with any public
concern, should approvals not be secured.
Elic Zoffranieri
Tr-idel/Optiens for Homes
Development of Final Phase
September 11,20.02
Page 2
· Upon receipt of details from Mr. Labbe respecting proposed deferral.s in fees and
charges, ! will instruct appropriate 'City staff to review the request and repot1 to me
directly. ! will then bring ~he matter.fo~ard for Coun¢il"s'co.nsideratiori. Again, ! look
forward to working, with'you in the com. pletion of this final phase of development.
Yours truly
TJQ:Ir
Chief Administrative Officer
Copy:
Mayor Arthurs
Members of Council
DirectOr, Co~orate Services & Treasurer'
Director, Operations & Emergency Services
Director, Planning & Develop.merit
Solicitor for the. City
Michel Labbe (Options. for Homes)
PICKERING
Picketing Civic Complex
One The Esplanade
Picketing, Ontario
Canada
L1V 6K7
Direct Access 905.420.4660
cityo f'pickering.cora
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINIS~TIVE OFFICER
Department 905.420.4~48
Facsimile 905.420.6064
cao@dty, pickering.on.ca
Michel Labb8
President
OPtions for Homes
468 Queen Street East
'Lower Level 2
P.O. Box 28
Toronto, ON M5A
September 16, 2002
Subject:
Condominium Development at 1200 The Esplanade North
McLevin Corporation
City of Pickering
- File: PD 1000
Thank you for your letters dated AUgust 23, 2002 and September 3, 2002, both of which were
received at my office by fax on September 11, 2002. Ihave forwarded copies of these letters to
appropriate City Staff for review and comment back to my office. I expect that a meeting will be
arranged between yourself and City Staff in the near future to allow .for further discussion of your
proposal.
I have .attached for your information, a copy of my September 11, 2002 letter to EliO Zoffranieri
of De!tera Inc., to which you were copied. The letter outlines the fact that to date, the 'City has
not approved any reductions/deferrals of payments related to this project and expresses my
concern if marketing of the project has included any dependency on financial relief from the
City. While City staff Will give full consideration to your proposal, any financial relief or area
designation Will require formal Council approval.
Yours truly
TJQ:Ir
Attachment
Copy:
Mayor Arthurs
Members of Council.
Chief Administrative Officer ' ~,~_,,..._.
Elio Zoffranieri (Deltera Inc.)
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
Director, Operations & Emergency Services
Director, Planning & Development
Solicitor for the City
RECOMMENDATION OF THE
FINANCE & OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
DATE
MOVED BY
SECONDED BY
That Report CS 10-03 of the Director, Corporate Services concerning
Amendment to Purchasing Policy Regarding Consulting Services, be received for
information; and
That the Purchasing Policy as approved by Council at its meeting on November
5, 2001 be amended to revise the delegation of authority for the engagement of
consulting services as described in this report; and
That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be given authority to give
effect thereto.
5O
PICKERING
REPORT TO FINANCE &
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
Report Number: CS 10-03
Date: February 7, 2003
From:
Gillis A. Paterson
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
Subject: Amendment to Purchasing Policy Regarding Consulting Services
Recommendation:
1. That Report CS 10-03 of the Director, Corporate Services be received for
information and that:
the Purchasing Policy as approved by Council at its meeting on November 5,
2001 be amended to revise the delegation of authority for the engagement of
consulting services as described in this report; and,
the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be given authority to give effect
thereto.
Executive Summary: Purchasing Policy & Procedures were approved under Bylaw
5900/01 by Council at its meeting on November 5, 2001. Under this By-Law, the
engagement of consulting services is limited as it only relates to consulting with respect
to litigation or when a request for proposal process is utilized to acquire consulting
service. A more clearly defined delegation of selection and spending authority from
Council for the engagement of consultants is required. The amendment will provide
some further definition, within specified degrees of latitude, thereby assisting in
ensuring a smooth and effective process.
Financial Implications: The recommended changes do not change the financial
limits but rather clarify the wording in their application.
Background:
Current Policy
The current policy as approved by Council exempts the engagement of consulting
services if consulting is related to litigation (Reference: Appendix A of the Policy) and if
not, the engagement may be made through the use of a Request for Proposal process
(Reference: Item 04.09, Page 6 and 7 of the Policy).
Report CS 10-03 Date: February7, 2003
Subject: Amendment to Purchasing Policy Regarding Consulting Services Page 2
51.
Under the current policy, when and if consulting and professional services is made
through the use of a Request for Proposal process, the Manager, Supply & Services,
subject to consultation with the appropriate Department Head, shall approve the award
of a proposal for services up to $25,000; the Manager, Supply & Services, in
consultation with the appropriate Department Head will recommend or concur in a
recommendation to the Chief Administrative Officer who shall approve the award of a
proposal for the purchase of services from $25,000 - $50,000; and for proposals over
$50,000, the Selection Committee is to prepare a report with a recommendation to
Council.
The policy only provides direction when an RFP process is used for consulting or
professional services, or when the consulting service is related to litigation. There are
occasions when consulting or professional services outside of the policy categories are
required and approval to proceed in a timely manner is required. For example: when a
consultant is requested by a Department Head and selection is not made through an
RFP process, the CAO may be requested to approve the request.
Recommendations for Amendment
A policy amendment to revise the delegation of authority for the engagement of
consulting and professional services (when an'RFP process is not used) is
recommended. Following is a recommended amendment to the Purchasing Policy,
Classification: PUR; Category: 010; Subject: 001, Item 04.09:
Delegation of Authority for the Engagement of Consultants
and Professional Services
Authority Dollar Limit Conditions
Manager, Supply & Up to$50,000 In conjunction with Treasurer and
Services can award appropriate Department Head where
subject to Department purchasing procedures have been
Head and CAO approval followed.
Manager, Supply & Up to $5,000 Where purchasing procedures have
Services can award been followed.
subject to Department
Head approval Where it is not possible to follow
purchasing procedures due to
emergency, time constraints etc.
approval of Treasurer required.
Manager, Supply & Up to $50,000 Where purchasing procedures have
Services can award NOT been followed, written
subject to CAO approval explanation by Dept Head to CAO,
award subject to CAO approval who
will apprise Council accordingly.
Report CS 10-03 Date: February 7, 2003
Subject: Amendment to Purchasing Policy Regarding Consulting Services Page 3
The revised delegation of the selection and spending authority for the engagement of
consultants and professional services will allow Council to delegate to the CAO
approval up to $50,000 spending authority without conditions, subject to Treasurer's
approval of funding. Where purchasing procedures have been followed, the revision
will allow the CAO to delegate up to $5,000 spending authority to the Department Head,
subject to the Treasurer's approval of funding. Where it is not possible to follow
purchasing procedures, the revision will allow the CAO to delegate up to $5,000
spending authority to the Department Head with the approval of the Treasurer, subject
also to the Treasurer's approval of funding. Where purchasing procedures have not
been followed, will allow Council to delegate to the CAO approval of the requisite
spending authority, who requires written explanation by the Department Head, and
subject to the Treasurer's approval of funding. The CAO will apprise Council
accordingly. The engagement of consultants and professional services over $50,000
remains subject to Council approval, in accordance with the Council approved
Purchasing Policy.
Attachments:
Prepared By:
V~eri~A. ~l~emacher
Not applicable
Approved / Endorsed By:
Manager, Supply & Services
GAP:vw
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering City Council
~h"o-r~s J. Q~nn C~iefA~strati~e/Officer
Gillis A. Paterson
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
RECOMMENDATION OF THE
FINANCE & OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
DATE
MOVED BY
SECONDED BY
That Report CS 15-03 from the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
concerning Cash Position Report, be received for information,
PICKERING
REPORT TO FINANCE &
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
Report Number: CS 15-03
Date: February 10, 2003
Gillis A. Paterson
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
Subject: Cash Position Report as at December 31, 2002
Recommendation:
It is recommended that Report CS
Treasurer be received for information.
15-03 from the Director, Corporate Services &
Executive Summary: Section 81 of the Municipal Act R.S.O. 1990 provides that
semi-annual cash position statements be prepared by the Treasurer for the information
of Council. The attached schedules provide the City of Pickering's cash position,
continuity of taxes receivable, outstanding investments, development charges collected
and other development contribution information for the three months ended December
31,2002.
Financial Implications: The cash position of the corporation for three months
ended December 31, 2002 was a net decrease in cash of $2,023,217. Sources of
Funds totalled $44,542,529 and Use of Funds totalled $46,565,746.
Background: Although the Act provides that Cash Position statements be
prepared semi-annual, Corporate Services staff have opted to prepare this report on a
quarterly basis to provide more timely reporting. The discussion below describes the
purpose and the information contained in each of the attached schedules.
Statement of Cash Position: Attachment 1 reflects the sources and uses of funds for
the final quarter of 2002. Subcategories have been identified to highlight those cash
transactions that are significant in nature or large dollar value transactions for the City
of Pickering.
Continuity of Taxes Receivable: Attachment 2 summarizes the tax related transactions
to December 31, 2002 and provides the outstanding taxes receivable as at December
31, 2002. This balance represents all three levels of taxes billed, such as City, Region
and School Boards.
Report CS 15-03
Subject: Cash Position Report as at December 31,2002
Date: February 10, 2003
Page 2
55
Outstandinq Investments: Attachment
investments for both the Current Fund
December 31,2002.
3 reflects the short-term and long-term
and the Reserve Funds outstanding as at
Development Charqes Collected: Attachment 4 indicates the total development
charges for the City, Region and School Boards, as the City is responsible for collecting
development charges on behalf of all levels of government. The total amount collected
of $797,373 agrees with the balance indicated under Sources of Funds on Attachment
1. However the remittance of development charges to the Region and School Boards
indicated under the Use of Funds is different than the total collected on Attachment 4.
This variance is a result of timing differences because payments to the Region and
School Boards are due 25 days following the month collected.
Other Development Contributions: Attachment 5 is provided to show other significant
development contributions that have been received.
This report was done in accordance with the provisions of Section 81 of the Municipal
Act, R.S.O. 1990.
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
5.
Statement of Cash Position
Continuity of Taxes Receivables
Outstanding Investments
Statement of Development Charges Collected
Other Development Contributions
Prepared By:
'~,vril Pay~'~ "~'~
Audit Analy~'~'''~
Approved / Endorsed By:
Gillis A. Paterson
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
Attachments
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering City Council ,
56
ATTACHMENT #~..! '?~:: !~:'OI~,T # ~' /5-- 0 3 City of Pickering
Cash Position Statement
for the three months ending December 31, 2002
December, 2002
Sources of Funds:
Accounts Receivable collected $ 108,374
Development charges collected 797,373
Operating 19,172,705
Grants-in-lieu:
Federal 255,0t 1
Provincial 1,229,545
Ontario enterprises 2,703,147
Municipal enterprises 613,134
Linear Properties _
Federal specific grants 5,330
Ontario specific grants 125,244
Interest Income 262,207
Sale of land _
Tax payments received 19,270,459
POA Revenue
Total $ 44,542,529
Use of Funds:
Operating and Capital Expenditures $ 23,958,211
Payroll 5,624,701
Region Levy 6,074,688
Regional portion of Dev. Charges 659,282
School Board Levies 9,194,585
School Board portion of Dev. Charges 139,139
APTA Funding (includes $612,835 first instalment of 2003 funding) 915,141
Total $ 46,565,746
Net Cash Increase (Decrease) $ (2,023,217)
FINANCIAL POSITION
Bank Balance Net Cash Bank Balance
Sept. 30, 2002 Provided (Used) Dec. 31, 2002
Current Fund $ 3,431,898 $ (2,023,217) $ 1,408,681
TOTAL $ 3,431,898 $ (2,023,217) $ 1,408,681
Note: Includes City, Region and School Boards
CF Oct - Dec 2002.xlsNET CHANGES
ATTACHHENT # ,2,, TO REPORT
58
0000000000
0000000000
0000000000
~~00~0
~~00~0~
~000~~
0000000000
000~0~~
~>>>>>>oo6
0000000~
ZZZZZZZ~
0000000~
ZZZZZZZZZ
o 0 00
00 0 0
o 0 o o
00 0 o
o 0 0 0
~000
~000
~000
~000
0~
/5"-o3
I--
Z
IJJ
Z
ATTACHMENT.//: ~._~TO REPORT./:/: c:'S/.¢- o..~ 5 g
E~
Z
0
C~I r--- LO
cD I',,-- CO
0 '~-
0 (D
0
0 Z n
ATTACHMENT #
5 TO REFOKT #._~__/5'- o3
City of Pickering
Other Development Contributions
For three months ending December 31, 2002
CONTRIBUTIONS:
Cash - In - Lieu of Parkland
$98,300
TOTAL CASH-IN-LIEU OF PARKLAND $98,300
CONTRIBUTIONS:
Public Works Services
TOTAL CASH-mN-LIEU OF PARKLAND
$6,000
$6,000
CF Oct - Dec 2002.xlsOther Dev. Contrbtns
61.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE
FINANCE & OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
DATE
MOVED BY
SECONDED BY
That Report CS 02-03 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer,
concerning Confirmation of Comprehensive Crime Insurance for 2003, be
received and forwarded to Council for information.
62
PICKERING
REPORT TO FINANCE &
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
Report Number: CS 02-03
Date: February 6, 2003
From:
Gillis A. Paterson
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
Subject: Confirmation of Comprehensive Crime Insurance for 2003
Recommendation:
1. It is recommended that Report CS 02-03 of the Director, Corporate Services &
Treasurer be received and forwarded to Council for information.
Executive Summary: Not applicable
Financial Implications: The purchase of Comprehensive Crime Insurance is
included in the City's Annual Current Budget.
Background: Under the Municipal Act S.O. 2001, as amended, it is directed that the
following information be reported to Council.
Section 287 of the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001, as amended, states in part:
Bonding requirement. - A municipality may require its treasurer, deputy
treasurer and any other person designated by the municipality, as a
condition of acting or continuing to act on behalf of the municipality,
(a) to be bonded in the manner and to the extent designated by the
municipality and
(b) to provide the municipality with proof of the designated bonding at the
times and in the manner the municipality requires.
Interpretation. -For the purposes of subsection (i), a person is bonded if
there exists a bond, policy or guarantee contract which protects the
municipality in the manner and to the extent designated by the
municipality if the person does not faithfully perform his or her duties.
Report CS 02-03
Comprehensive Crime Insurance for 2003
Date: February 6, 2003
Page 2
63
(3) Proof of bonding. - The council of a municipality shall require proof of the
designated bonding to be produced for all persons who are required to be
bonded under this section,
(a) at a council meeting at least once each calendar year; and
(b) with respect to a person who is newly appointed, at the first council
meeting following the appointment.
(4) Costs. - The municipality shall pay the costs of the required bonding out of
its general fund.
(5) Other entities. - This section applies with necessary modifications to a lOcal
board and a board, body or local authority established or exercising any
power or authority with respect to municipal affairs under any Act in
unorganized territory, other than a school board"
The policy covers all employees, elected officials and Council appointees of the City of
Pickering Public Library Board to the limits indicated below. The coverage includes
bond, burglary, monetary loss, money orders and depositors forgery. This bond insures
the loss of money, securities and other property sustained through the fraudulent or
dishonest acts of any of the Cities employees, members of Council, Members of all
Boards, Commissions and Committees appointed by and under the jurisdiction of
Council.
· Commercial blanket bond, including money orders, counterfeit paper, currency
and depositors forgery - $2,000,000 limit
· Broad form money and securities - $100,000 limit
· Excess coverage on securities - $100,000
· Broad form money and securities insures the loss of monies and securities
sustained by the City by the actual destruction, disappearance or wrongful
abstraction thereof.
In addition, the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, Manager, Accounting
Services and Manager, Finance & Taxation, when acting with respect to any agency or
board are bonded in the same amount and manner as when acting in the capacity of
officers of the City of Pickering.
This report confirms that the above mentioned coverage with a limit of $2,000,000.00 is
currently in place with The Guarantee Company of North America and Lombard
General Insurance Company of Canada for the period July 1, 2002 to July 1, 2003,
inclusive at a premium of $5,145.00 plus PST of $411.60 for a total of $5,556.60. The
terms, conditions and premiums are unchanged from 2002.
Report CS 02-03
Comprehensive Crime Insurance for 2003
Date: February 6, 2003
Page 3
Attachments: Not applicable
Prepared By:
Approved / Endorsed By:
Sarah Kibble
Financial Analyst
Gillis A. Paterson
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
GAP:sk
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering City Councilf.,_
Tl~-'f~s J. Qui~n, Chief~dm~t~¢fficer
6,5
RECOMMENDATION OF THE
FINANCE & OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
DATE
MOVED BY
SECONDED BY
That Report CS 12-03 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer,
concerning 2003 Annual Repayment Limit for Debt and Financial Obligation, be
forwarded to Council for information.
66
PICKERING
REPORT TO FINANCE &
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
Report Number: CS 12-03
Date: February 3, 2003
From:
Gillis A. Paterson
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
Subject: 2003 Annual Repayment Limit for Debt and Financial Obligation
Recommendation:
1. That this report be forwarded to Council for information.
Executive Summary: Not applicable
Financial Implications: Not applicable
Background: Recently, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs provided information
regarding the City's 2003 Debt and Obligation Repayment Limit. Debt for these
purposes includes all forms of loans, leases and other long term financial obligations
and commitments. The 2003 Annual Repayment Limit (ARL) was calculated based on
25 percent of 2001 net own-source revenues as reported in City of Pickering's 2001
Financial Information Report (FIR) submitted to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. The
FIR was prepared in conjunction with the annual financial statements. Own-source
revenues represent generally the discretionary revenues of a municipality including
property taxes, user fees, licenses and fines and exclude all grants, internal transfers
and extraordinary items such as the one time sale of land or other fixed assets and
non-discretionary items such as development charges.
The ARL for 2003 is $11,246,607 and represents the maximum principal and interest
payment for the year that could be undertaken without Ontario Municipal Board
approval. This calculation does not measure affordability or take into account other
commitments the City may have and the need to change levels of service or raise
property taxes to maintain the debt repayment amount. This limit represents the
maximum amount which the municipality has available for approval and certification by
the Treasurer as of December 31, 2001 to commit to payments relating to debt and
financial obligations. The limit is effective January 1, 2003.
Report CS 12-03
Subject: 2003 Annual Repayment Limit for Debt
and Financial Obligation
Date: February 3, 2003
Page 2
67
This limit takes into consideration the $8.7 million of internal loans and financial
commitments outstanding at December 31, 2001 and the related annual repayment
amount of approximately $1.2 million.
During the year of 2002, we undertook both internal loans and external debt. The value
of the additional internal loans from reserve funds is $1,224,000 and the new external
debt through the Region of Durham is $4,278,000. As of year-end December 31,
2002, the total of the approved and committed loans, debt, leases and other long term
obligation are valued at $14,241,623. The related principal and interest charges or
annual repayment in 2003 for the committed debt and long term obligation is
$1,731,872 which is included in the 2003 Current Budget. After taking into account this
committed annual charge, the ARL is reduced to $9,514,735 for the 2003 calendar
year.
For illustration purposes, if the City could borrow at 7%, the ARL of $9,514,735 would
allow it to undertake additional long term borrowing as follows:
Terms Debt Amount ($)
a) 5 years 39,012,292
b).10 years 66,827,517
c) 15 years 86,659,388
d) 20 years 100,799,238
Attachments:
1. Letter from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs dated January 6, 2003
Prepared By:
Senior Financial Analyst
GAP:vw
Attachment
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Approved / Endorsed By:
Gillis A. Paterson
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering City Council
~a~ J. d;~inn, ~'=~ief Admi~ti~rativ~' Officer
68
Ministry of
Municipal Affairs
and Housing
MinistEre des
.Affaires municipales
et du Logement
Ontario
Municipal Finance Branch
13th Floor, 777 Bay Street,
Toronto, ON. M5G 2E5
Tel: (416) 585-6951
Fax: (416) 585-6315
January 6, 2003
Dear Municipal Treasurer, Clerk/Treasurer:
I am pleased to enclose a report showing your municipality's 2003 Annual Repayment Limit (ARL)
respecting long-term debt and financial obligations.
Your 2003 ARL was calculated based on 25 percent of your 2001 net own source revenues as reported
in your 2001 FIR. Note that revenues for municipal electrical utilities are not included in the calculation of
the ARL, in accordance with Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) guidelines.
If you require any further information, please contact the appropriate Municipal Services Office of the
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (list enclosed).
Yours truly,
Dan Cowin
Director
Enclosures
69
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
777 Bay Street,
Toronto, Ontario.
M5G 2E5
Ministdre des affaires municipales et du logement
777 rue Bay
Toronto (Ontario)
M5G 2E5
ANNUAL REPAYMENT LIMIT
(UNDER ONTARIO REGULATION 403/02)
The repayment limit has been calculated based on data contained in the 2001 Financial' Information Return, as
submitted to the Ministry. This limit represents the maximum amount which the municipality had available as of
December 31, 2001 to commit to payments relating to debt and financial obligations. Prior to the authorization by
Council of a long term debt or financial obligation, this limit must be adjusted by the Treasurer in the prescribed
manner. The limit is effective January 01, 2003.
FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY,
the additional long-term borrowing which a municipality could undertake over a 5 - year, a 10 - year, a 15 - year and a
20 - year period is shown.
'Page: 01 of 03 Date Prepared: January 3~ 2003
DETERMINATION OF ANNUAL DEBT REPAYMENT LIMIT
1.0
2.0
GROSS DEBT CHARGES
.1. I . · Principal SLC 74 3099 01 1,203,837
1.2 Interest SLC 74 3099 02 506,892
1.3 SUBTOTAL
DEBT CHARGES ON O.C.W.A. PROVINCIAL PROJECT
Add Lines 1.i, 1.2 [ 1,710,729[
3.0
2.1 Water Projects -- this municipality only SLC 74 2810 03 0
2.2 Water Projects -- share of integrated project(s) SLC 74 2820 03 0
2.3 Sewer Projects -- this municipality only SLC 74 2830 03 0
2.4 Sewer Projects -- share of integrated project(s) SLC 74 2840 03 0
2.5 SUBTOTAL
PAYMENT INRESPECT OF LONG TERM COMMITMENTS AND
LIABILITIES
Add Lines 2. I thru 2.4 [ O[
SLC 42 6010 01 0
5.0 DEBT CHARGES FOR MUNICIPAL UTILITIES
5.1 Electricity SLC 40 3099 02 + SLC 40 3099 08 0
5.2 Gas SLC 40 3299 02 + SLC 40 3299 08 0
5.3 Telephone SLC 40 3499 02 + SLC 40 3499 08 0
Amounts Recovered bom Unconsolidated Entities
5.4 Electricity (Principal) SLC 74 3030 01 599,000
5.5 Electricity (Interest) SLC 74 3030 02 59,539
5.6 Gas and Telephone (Principal) SLC 74 3040 01 + SLC 74 3050 01 0
5.7 Gas and Telephone (Interest) SLC 74 3040 02 + SLC 74 3050 02 0
5.8 SUBTOTAL
6.0
7.0
PAYMENTS TO PROVINCE FOR DOWNTOWN
REVITALIZATION PROGRAM LOANS
DEBT CHARGES FOR TILE DRAINAGE AND SHORELINE
ASSISTANCE
Add Lines 5.1 thru 5.7 [ 658,5391
SLC 42 5410 O1 0
SLC 40 1850 02 + SLC 40 1850 08
/'age: 02 of 03 Date Prepared: January 3~ 2003
71
DETERMINATION OF ANNUAL DEBT REPAYMENT LIMIT
10.0 TOTAL REVENUE FUND REVENUES* SLC 10 9910 01 49,446,699
11.0 FEES FOR REPAYING THE PROVINCE FOR DOWNTOWN
REVITALIZATION LOANS
12.0
13.0
FEES FOR TILE DRAINAGE AND SHORELINE AS SISTANCE
GRANTS FROM GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO, GOVERNMENT
OF CANADA AND OTHER MUNICIPALITIES
SLC42 5410 01 0
SLC 12 1850 04 0
14.0
13.1 Ontario Grants SLC 10 0699 01 + SLC 10 0810 01 180,242
13.2 Canada Grants SLC 10 0820 01 16,725
13.3 Other Municipalities SLC 10 1099 01 54,543
13.4 SUBTOTAL
FEES AND REVENUES FOR JOINT LOCAL BOARDS FOR
HOMES FOR THE AGED
Add Lines 13.1 thru 13.3
251,510]
15.0 NET REVENUE FUND REVENUES Lines 10 less Lines 11,12,13.4,14
16.0 25% OF NET REVENUE FUND REVENUE
SLC denotes Schedule, Line, Column
* Total Revenue Fund Revenues have been adjusted to reflect the removal o£the sale of hydro utilities.
Page: 03 of 03 Date Prepared: Januar~ 3~ 2003
RECOMMENDATION OF THE
FINANCE & OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
DATE
MOVED BY
SECONDED BY
That Report CS 11-03 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer,
concerning the Establishment of the Third Party/Developer's Contributions
Reserve Fund, be approved; and
That Council approve the establishment of the Third Party/Developer's
Contributions Reserve Fund; and
That the attached by-law be read three times and passed; and
That funds currently paid by Third Party/Developer's Contributions Reserve Fund
for future capital commitments be transferred to this Reserve Fund and all such
future payments be deposited in this fund; and
That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the
necessary actions to give effect thereto.
PICKERING
REPORT TO FINANCE &
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
Report Number: CS 11-03
Date: February 12, 2003
73
From;
Gillis A. Paterson
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
Subject:
Fund
Establishment of the Third Party/Developer's Contributions Reserve
Recommendation:
1. It is recommended that Report CS 11-03 from the Director, Corporate Services &
Treasurer be approved and that:
2. Council approve the establishment of the Third Party/Developer's Contributions
Reserve Fund;
3. the attached By-Law be read three times and passed;
4. funds currently paid by Third Party/Developer's Contributions Reserve Fund
for future capital commitments be transferred to this Reserve Fund and all such
future payments be deposited in this fund; and,
5. the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the
necessary actions to give effect thereto.
Executive Summary: Not applicable
Financial Implications: Developer's contributions are funds received to fulfill
commitments developers are unable to meet, usually for reasons beyond their
control, at the time the development is under way. Payments are cash-in-lieu of the
work for mostly small matters such as a section of sidewalk, fencing, tree planting,
driveways, utility relocations and/or any other deficiencies that developers are unable
to fulfill at that time. They are in essence paying the City for their share of the work to
be done in the future.
Unless specified, the City is under no obligation to pay interest to any third parties.
However, with the establishment of a reserve fund, moneys raised will be invested as
prescribed under the Municipal Act and any interest earned will remain as part of the
fund to assist in offsetting inflationary increases in costs.
74
Report CS 11-03
Subject: Establishment of Third Party/Developer's
Contributions Reserve Fund
Date:
February 12, 2003
Page 2
The availability of revenue in this reserve fund will provide funding on capital projects
in areas of sidewalks, external subdivision works, the fire hall and any other specific
purposes. Cash-in-lieu for various purposes will also be pooled in this reserve fund.
The City must commence setting aside funds for these and other important or legally
required capital expenditures. By doing so the City's financial commitment is
demonstrated to present and future funding partners.
Background: Prior to 2002, developers contributions received were credited to a
deposit account called "Funding - Subdivision Compliance". Funds were transferred
to pay for the designated projects as the expenses were incurred. Interest was never
credited to this account unless specified in the agreement with the developers or
third parties. Funds received in advance for future commitments should be invested
with the interest earned being retained in the Reserve Fund.
Under the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O 2001, section 417, every municipality may in
each year provide in its budget for the establishment or maintenance of a reserve
fund for any purpose for which it has authority to spend money. As the establishment
of this reserve fund does not have any budgetary implication as it involves third party
funding previously received by the City, it can be established now.
Third Party/Developer's contributions will be administered through the establishment
of a Reserve Fund under the Municipal Act. The operation of this fund will be
governed by the attached by-law. The By-Law will be governed by the provisions of
the Municipal Act, and Regulations thereunder, specifically Section 417(1) regarding
the establishment of the Reserve Fund, Section 417(3) regarding the investment of
funds and Section 417(4) the expenditures of the reserve fund.
Attachments:
1. Third Party/Developer's Contributions Reserve Fund By-Law
Report CS 11-03
Subject: Establishment of Third Party/Developer's
Contributions Reserve Fund
Date:
February 12, 2003
Page 3
?5
Prepared By:
Approved / Endorsed By:
Caryn Kong
Senior Financial Analyst
Treasurer
..... Gillis A. Paterson
Director, Corporate Services &
GAP:vw
Attachment
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering City Council . .
ThO/n~S~'. O~jj/nn, C'%ief A~
76
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING
BY-LAW NO. /03
Being a by-law to provide for the establishment of a
Reserve Fund to be known as the Third
Party/Developer's Contributions Reserve Fund.
WHEREAS under the Municipal Act, S.O., 2001 as amended, Section 417(1),
the Council of the City of Pickering may establish and maintain a reserve fund for
any purpose for which it has authority to expend funds.
WHEREAS it is desirable for the City of Pickering to establish such a reserve
fund for the purpose of receiving funding from developers for the payment of
future capital commitments on behalf of developers.
WHEREAS it is desirable for the City of Pickering to establish such a reserve
fund for the purpose of receiving funding from any third parties for contributions
towards future capital projects or undertaking that may be considered and
approved by Council.
NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY
OF PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
The establishment of a reserve fund known as the Third Party/Developer's
Contributions Reserve Fund is hereby authorized.
The Third Party/Developer's Contributions Reserve Fund shall consist of
such moneys paid by developers and third parties and such other funds
as the Council may approve together with the investments made and
earnings derived there from for the specific purpose of fulfilling future
capital commitments.
The Third Party/Developer's Contributions Reserve Fund shall be used for
the purpose of paying expenses related to capital projects as defined
under agreements or such other projects as the Council of the City of
Pickering may approve.
4. This By-Law shall come into force on the date of its enactment.
BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed the 3rd day of
March, 2003.
Wayne Arthurs, Mayor
Bruce Taylor, Clerk