Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCS 26-09 City REPORT TO COUNCIL PI TKERI Report Number: CS 26-09 Date: July 13,;2009 9 From: Gillis A. Paterson Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Subject: 2009 Development Charges Study for the City of Pickering Recommendations: 1. That Report CS 26-09 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be received; 2. That the Development Charges Background Study dated May 22, 2009 as amended July 6, 2009 prepared by Watson and Associates Economists Ltd. as required under Section 10(1) of the Development Charges Act, 1997 and this report be approved; 3. That the Residential Development Charges for the unit types as included in Table 1 below be approved to be imposed on a uniform basis effective August 1, 2009: TABLE 1 CITY OF PICKERING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGES Per Residential Dwelling Unit Effective August 1, 2009 APARTMENTS SINGLE & ALL OTHER TWO ONE SEMI- DWELLING BEDROOM BEDROOM SERVICE DETACHED UNITS & LARGER & SMALLER Development - related Studies 87 62 47 35 Fire Protection 259 186 140 103 Transportation - Roads & Related 4,516 3,241 2,445 1,793 Operations 278 200 150 110 Stormwater Management 1,365 980 739 542 Parks & Recreation - Parkland Dev. & Trails 424 304 229 168 Recreation Facilities 2,249 1,614 1,217 893 Library 516 370 279 205 TOTAL 9,694 6,957 5,246 3,849 Report CS 26-09 Date: July 13, 2009 2009 Development Charges Study for the City of Pickering Page 2 4. That the Non-Residential (Commercial, Industrial and Institutional) Development Charge remain at $30.78 per square metre ($2.86 per square foot) effective August 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010 and effective July 1, 2010 at the rate of $31.97 per square metre ($2.97 per square foot). This represents the charge for roads and related services only; 5. That the proposed capital programs contained in the Background Study be indicative of Council's intention to ensure that the studies and capital expenditures required to meet the increase in need for services related to the forecasted development will be met, as required under Paragraph 3 of subsection 5(1) of the Development Charges Act, 1997; INDEXING 6. That the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be directed that residential and non-residential Development Charges may be indexed annually on July 1 each year by applying the annual change in the Statistics Canada Quarterly "Construction Price Statistics" to March 31 of each year, unless otherwise approved by Council; EXEMPTIONS 7. That all exemptions and exceptions be as required under the Development Charges Act, 1997 and as defined in the proposed By-law; TRANSITION PROVISION 8. That any bona fide and complete residential permit applications received prior to August 1, 2009 and non-residential permit applications received prior to July 1, 2010 will be subject to the development charge rates that prevail prior to this effective date; ADMINISTRATION 9. That the City continue the Reserve established for the City's share (ie. the non- development charge portion) of the costs of services included in the Development Charges Study and that contributions be included in the Annual Current Budget for consideration by Council; 10. That the originally proposed By-law has been modified since the public meeting on June 8, 2009, and Council confirms that no further public meeting under the Development Charges Act, 1997 (S.12) is necessary as a result; 11. That the Clerk of the City of Pickering be instructed to undertake the By-law passage notification provisions under the Development Charges Act, 1997 and Ontario Regulation 82198; 12. That the By-law attached to this report be read three times and approved at this meeting of Council; and, Report CS 26-09 Date: July 13, 2009 2009 Development Charges Study for the City of Pickering Page 3 97 13. That the appropriate staff of the City of Pickering be authorized to give effect thereto. Executive Summary: As required under the Development Charges Act, 1997a complete review of development forecasts, servicing needs, financial implications and financing requirements has been undertaken by the consultants: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., and staff of the City of Pickering. This has resulted in the identification of significant capital expenditures required for future development as contained in the Council approved Official Plan for the City of Pickering. Financing for these projects will come from Development Charges for the development related portion and the tax levy, or other sources of revenue as may be available, for the portions attributable to existing development or for increases in the level of service. In summary, all categories comprising the total Residential Single Family Unit Development Charge have decreased, with the exception of stormwater management, operations and roads, resulting in an overall decrease in the total Charge of $287, as opposed to an approximate $900 increase as proposed in the first Draft of the Study. This reduction is primarily due to changes in benefits attributed beyond the 5 year Study period for Roads and Fire - Aerial and an average 3% reduction in gross costs under City Roads, Structures and Sidewalks. One exception to the reductions is the stormwater management category under which $60.6 million in new projects to be undertaken over the next 10 years have been identified. The majority of the cost for these works will fall on the tax bill as the major beneficiary is the existing community. The other is for an Operations Centre which was not included in the previous Study. There is also a relatively minor increase in the roads and related category. Pickering's non-residential Development Charge for retail development is the second lowest in the GTA and the lowest in Durham Region. For the non retail sector only Clarington is marginally lower and Pickering is the 5th lowest out of 13 municipalities surveyed in the GTA. Recognizing that even a small increase in the total non-residential charge will have to be absorbed in difficult economic times, it is proposed that this increase be postponed to July 1, 2010 when the annual indexing is undertaken. The revised Development Charges stipulated in Recommendation 3 of this report will become effective for all Residential building permits issued on or after August 1, 2009. However, in accordance with the City's past practices, a transition period will be applied to non-residential permit applications to July 1, 2010 before the increase takes effect. Accordingly, any bona-fide and complete permit application received prior to the effective dates of the new rates, which could, given sufficient time and resources, be issued by the City, will be subject to the present Development Charges. This practice is essential for the orderly review and issuance of building permits during the development charge transition period. Provision for this has been included in the By-law. Report CS 26-09 Date: July 13, 2009 2009 Development Charges Study for the City of Pickering Page 4 It is important to note that the Chief Administrative Officer, the Directors and staff of all Departments providing services for the new development and for which charges will apply, have been involved in this Study and concur with this report and its Recommendations. In addition the By-law maintains the form of the previous By-law. Financial Implications: Approval of the Recommendations contained in this Report, together with the information contained in the Background Study should provide for the provision of services and the financing thereof as will be required for new development. The home building community, and presumably the new homeowner, will receive a total benefit of $737 on each new single and semi-detached home. The reduction in the total Residential Single Detached Unit Development Charge includes or takes into consideration indexing of 4.5% which would have taken place on July 1, 2009 had this not been the year of the Study. Thus, rather than increasing the total Development Charges 4.5%, or almost $450, it is being reduced by approximately 3% or $287. The non-residential charge, which also includes commercial, industrial and institutional is proposed to increase to the full rate effective July 1, 2010 in conjunction with the annual indexing to recognize the current economic climate. From 1999 to today the charge has been significantly discounted than the amount justified through the Study, as approved by Council. In fact, the City only charges for roads and related costs. Future studies will have to consider fire, stormwater and other related services. Capital costs included in the Study total (all figures) approximately $303 million of which $52 million is recoverable from Development Charges over the Study period. A further $11 million will be recovered from future development. The balance of $240 million will have to be recovered from property taxes or other sources of revenue. In summary, 20% will eventually be recovered from Development Charges with the remaining 80% recovered from future years property taxes or other sources of revenue. In many municipalities these percentages are reversed. However, in Pickering, the relatively low levels of development over the last decade together with only minimum essential additions to the capital infrastructure over the last 20 years contribute to the level of service upon which new development charges can be based. Raising this level of service through the tax levy takes years as has been the cse in growing communities of similar size in the GTA. In addition, many works necessitated by low development require approximately the same dollar expenditure as those necessitated by a higher level of development. As a result a much larger share of any works must fall by the existing community as well as that resulting from new development. The imposition of these costs, in addition to the typical inflationary pressures, in the annual current budget may not be sustainable especially when added to the typical need or desire for other capital projects and maintenance costs. Report CS 26-09 Date: July 13, 2009 2009 Development Charges Study for the City of Pickering Page,5 09 Considering the foregoing, taken together with the eventual need for a Seaton Development Charge Study, it is anticipated that an extensive City wide Development Charge and Financial Impact Studies will be essential. Sustainability Implications: The capital undertakings contained in the Study are critical to sustain new development in Pickering. However, they also impose significant financial obligations to undertake these works over the next few years. The costs of financing the City's share of these works will fall upon existing and future residents and businesses. Financial sustainability is critical and will require careful consideration in future Current and Capital Budgets. Background: Refer to the Development Charges Background Study, May 22, 2009 as amended July 6, 2009, for complete details of all the calculations of the Development Charges. MEETING WITH DEVELOPMENT INDUSTRY Over the course of the Study several discussions via telephone, email and in person were held with members of the Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD), Durham Home Builders Association, Mattamy Group and consultants: Planning Solutions, IBI Group, Altus Group, Sernas Associates and Townsend and Associates. In addition to the input received at the June 8, 2009 public meeting, further questions and submissions have been received from these parties. These discussions have been beneficial both to the City and above parties as we each gained a better understanding of concerns and matters of interest. While we did not come to agreement on all matters, we feel the groups gained a better understanding of the City's Study, the calculation of the Development Charges. I think it is fair to'say that the homebuilders community should be satisfied with the immediate single unit residential charge decrease and the minor increase in the commercial/industrial charge. They also raised some questions regarding our development charge reserve funds, cost and benefit issues related to roads, and population per unit. Stormwater projects have received considerable attention. All of this led us to re-examine some of our assumptions, which resulted in lower Development Charges being recommended to Council. As a result of the input received at the public meeting and subsequent correspondence, Watson & Associates has produced an Addendum to their May 22, 2009 Study, Attachment 3, which captures any changes resulting from the foregoing. In addition, response to the correspondence received at and after the June 8, 2009 public meeting is included as Attachment 4. Report CS 26-09 Date: July 13, 2009 2009 Development Charges Study for the City of Pickering Page 6 100 This revised Study and Recommendations will meet the general spirit of many of the requests. Furthermore, the overall reduction in the proposed charge will be approximately $1,200 for single and sem- detached units, from that presented at the June 8, 2009 public meeting of Council on this subject. Stormwater Management One of the more significant components of the 2009 Study is stormwater management (SWM). In the 2004 Study, for residential development, the cost was $302 per detached unit or 3% of the total. It is now $1,365 per unit or 14% of the total. Stormwater management has become more significant in the City for all the obvious environmental and engineering reasons. A full discussion can be found starting on page B-13 of the Study. While it is good that SWM is becoming a major "service" of the City and a larger component of the DC, the vast majority of the costs will fall on the property tax bill. This is due to the significant benefit the existing population will receive from these works and due to the lesser amount of such work in the past. The development charge can only recover the level of service over the past 10 years, not increase the level. Future studies will be based on an increasing level of service, assuming the works are undertaken, and therefore a lesser portion of the new works will be attributable to the existing population. Some $60.6 million of works have been identified in the Study to be undertaken over the next 10 years. Of this amount only $5.1 million or 8.4% is recoverable from residential Development Charges. The non- residential sector is not being charged for this component ($2.1 million). Therefore, the balance of $55.5 million must be recovered from property taxes. The issuance of debt will be required with the resultant debt charges adding between 1 and 2 percent per year to the tax levy, for the 10 year period. Concern was received regarding charging a City wide uniform Development Charge while also requiring site specific works to be undertaken and paid for by the developer. Much consideration has been given to this and as previously mentioned, discussion commences on page B-13 of the Study. If someone wishes to develop an area that requires stormwater management facilities specific to that area then they should pay for it in addition to the City wide DC for city-wide works. The projects included in the Study are those affecting all of Pickering, not site specific works. It is felt that those works that only benefit a particular development or specific areas of development, Duffin Heights for example, should be paid for by the developers in addition to the City wide charge for City wide benefiting works. The development of the stormwater management program is similar to the approach that other municipalities in the GTA have taken (ie. Burlington, Brampton, Toronto etc.). This is becoming a common approach as municipalities deal with the lack of stormwater controls that occurred in the past. Report CS 26-09 Date: July 13, 2009 2009 Development Charges Study for the City of Pickering Page 7 The non-residential charge for stormwater management, if applied to this sector, would be 8 cents per square metre (90 cents per square foot). It is not recommended to be applied to this sector, even though it contributes to stormwater management works just as the residential sector does. As a result non-residential development in Duffin Heights will be contributing to the cost of the specific works (pond) for that area only and will not be paying a development charge for stormwater management. Greenwood Area "Whitebelt" The area generally referred to as the Greenwood Area Whitebelt is located northeast of . Greenwood roughly in the Highways 7 and future 407/Kinsale area. The Region of Durham recently passed its Provincial Growth Plan Implementation Amendment (Regional Official Plan Amendment 128) which included significant "whitebelt" lands in the proposed expanded urban boundary to accommodate growth to 2031. The Province has indicated some concerns with this amendment and plans to hold discussions with the Region. Regardless, development of these lands is not foreseen within the 10 year time frame for the Study and no City services for this area are included in the Study. It is anticipated Seaton will develop first. As a result, the treatment of these lands in the current Study is no different than that in previous studies. Any building permits issued in this area will be subject to the same DCs as in any other urban or rural area in Pickering. DEVELOPMENT CHARGES - COMPARISON OF PICKERING PROPOSED RATES WITH OTHER DURHAM MUNICIPALITIES Refer to Appendix E in the Study for a comparison of Development Charges in other municipalities. It can be seen that as of April 1, 2009 Pickering's residential charges were among the lowest of the survey group as were our industrial/commercial charges. NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGES In adopting the Recommendations of the 1999 Development Charges Report, Council provided for the introduction of a non-residential (commercial and industrial) development charge. It was established at a rate of $11.00 per square metre ($1.02 per square foot) which was less than half of the amount determined to be justified under the Study. It did however equal the amount of "levy room" provided by withdrawal of Pickering Hydro from the calculation under new legislation governing hydro utilities and their successor companies. Therefore, the introduction of this new non-residential charge did not increase the total collected by the City on each building permit but redirected this portion to City services. The 2004 Study as amended identified a potential non-residential development charge of $35.41 per square metre ($3.29 per square foot). This rate was a 172 percent increase Report CS 26-09 Date: July 13, 2009 2009 Development Charges Study for the City of Pickering Page 8 from the inflation indexing adjusted $13.04 per square metre ($1.21 per square foot) rate. It was considered that a charge of this magnitude had the potential to adversely affect non-residential development in the City, especially when taken together with the increased Regional charge. The City wished to stay competitive and encourage non- residential growth but still have this sector contribute financially to the main hard services they require. In order to not shift all of the burden to property taxes, a charge of $23.79 per square metre ($2.21 per square foot), was approved in 2004 for roads and related services only. Under the 2009 Study, stormwater management has become a significant component as previously noted. However, to assist in encouraging environmentally friendly and energy efficient buildings this potential addition to the DC is not being charged to the non- residential sectors. The calculated charge is 90 cents per square foot for this component. To encourage construction in this sector the benefit of excluding stormwater management will continue. Furthermore,.the small increase in the non-residential charge will not come into effect until July 1, 2010 in conjunction with the annual indexing. The 2009 Study maintained the previously approved concept of charging this sector for roads and related services only and not for all the other components charged to the residential sector. As a result, as roads are one of the components experiencing an increase, albeit relatively small, it is recommended that this charge be increased from the current $2.86 per square foot of floor space to $2.97, an increase of 11 cents. While relatively insignificant in dollar terms it does represent a 4% increase, however, the charge remains much lower than in many other municipalities. By charging only on the roads and related category, this places Pickering's charge at the low end of the scale of Durham and other GTA municipalities. TAX I M PACT All projects included in the Study are prompted by the need to service new development. This need may be more in the newer developing, less serviced areas or less in the older areas of the City. The more a project benefits new development the more of the costs' that can be recovered via Development Charges. It is the projects in the older, more developed parts of the City that produce the most significant impacts on the tax levy as, in many instances, much of the financing must come from the tax levy. On the other hand, the size and number of projects in the newer areas produces a significant tax impact in total. Capital costs included in the Study total (all figures) approximately $303 million of which $52 million is recoverable from Development Charges over the Study period. A further $11 million will be recovered from future development. The balance of $240 million will have to be recovered from property taxes or other sources of revenue. Careful planning and management of the City's finances will be required. Long range financial planning and management must be a priority of Council and staff. Previous reports to Council including annual budget reports and the Development Charges Study reports discussed this topic. Report CS 26-09 Date: July 13, 2009 2009 Development Charges Study for the City of Pickering Page 9 103 SEATON The 2009 Study excludes the Seaton area as the planning work is not complete. Basically this means that "Seaton specific" services are excluded, as are any population and employment growth forecasts and their resultant demands on "non Seaton specific" services. Financial impact and Development Charge studies will be undertaken at a later date prior to development taking place. CAPITAL LEVY A Capital Levy will. have to be considered by Council at the earliest possible date as was suggested in the 2004 Study. This levy will be required to pay for the increasing debt charges on debt issued for the City's share of the Development Charge Program as funding from current revenues will not be sufficient. A Capital Levy of 1 percent, or $400,000 for example, cumulative each year will fund an annual debt increase of approximately $3 million at current interest rates. More may very well be required. The budgeting of all capital expenditures and their financing will require careful consideration and planning by Council. GENERAL Recommendation 9 provides for the continuance of the Reserve established under the 1999 Background Study for the non-development charge portion, on which contributions continue to be made, mainly from the tax levy. The objective is that funds will be accumulated, desirably on an annual basis, to be available to pay the non-development charge share of the costs (City's share) at the time the project is approved by Council. This should help avoid undue upward pressure on the tax levy that can occur with uneven expenditure requirements. Recommendations 10 through 13 are more or less housekeeping approvals. It is the intention to undertake an overview of the Study, the Development Charges and all sources of financing each year in conjunction with the preparation of the annual budgets. A complete, intensive Development Charge Study will be undertaken no later than five years hence. Attachments: 1. Proposed By-law regarding Development Charges 2. Comparison of Current vs. Proposed Development Charges for City of Pickering 3. Addendum to the City of Pickering May 22, 2009 Development Charge Background Study dated July 6, 2009 4. Response to Questions Raised at and After the June 8, 2009 Public Meeting dated July 7, 2009 Report CS 26-09 Date: July 13, 2009 2009 Development Charges Study for the City of Pickering Page 10 i -~--nT 4 Prepared By: Approved / Endorsed By: Gillis A. Paterson Gillis A. Paterson Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer GAP/vw Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Thomas . Q nn, R ; CMM Chief Admin' trative Officer :'.TTACHMENT#_.I ._.TO REPORT THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING BY-LAW NO. 0 5- Being a By-law regarding Development Charges WHEREAS, pursuant to subsection 2(1) of the Development Charges Act, 1997 (the Act), the council of a municipality may by by-law impose development charges against land to pay for increased capital costs required due to increased needs for servicing arising from development of the area to which the By-law applies; and WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering approved the City of Pickering Development Charge Background Study, dated May 22, 2009, as amended, prepared by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.; AND WHEREAS the Council has made the Background Study and proposed Development Charges By-law available to the public at least two weeks prior to the public meeting and has given notice in accordance with Section 12 of the Act of its development charges proposal and a public meeting was held on June 8, 2009; AND WHEREAS the Council has heard all persons who applied to be heard in objection to, or in support of, the proposed Development Charge By-law at such public meeting, and provided a subsequent period for written communications to be made; AND WHEREAS the Council in adopting the Development Charge Background Study, as amended, on July 13, 2009 directed that development charges be imposed on land under development or redevelopment within the geographical limits of the municipality as hereinafter provided. NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: PART APPLICATION 1. (1) Subject to subsection (2), this By-law applies to all lands except for the lands commonly referred to as "Seaton lands" in the City of Pickering, as shown on the map attached to this By-law as Appendix "A" whether or not the land or use is exempt from taxation under Section 3 of the Assessment Act. (2) This By-law shall not apply to land that is owned by and used for the purposes of, (a) a board of education as defined under subsection 1(1) of the Education Act (b) any municipality or local board thereof; CORP0223-07/01 BY-LAW NO Page 2 ? 0 6 (c) the development of a non-residential farm building used for bona fide agricultural purposes; (d) a building or structure that is used in connection with a place of worship and is exempt from taxation under the Assessment Act as a result; (e) development where, by comparison with the land at any time within ten years previous to the imposition of the charge: (i) no additional dwelling units are being created; or (ii) no additional non-residential gross floor area is being added; or . (f) nursing homes and hospitals. (3) An owner who has obtained a demolition permit and demolished an existing dwelling unit or a non-residential building in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code Act shall not be subject to the development charge under subsection (1) with respect to the development being replaced, provided that the building permit for the replacement residential units or non-residential area is issued not more than 10 years after the date of demolition and provided that any dwelling units or additional non residential floor area created in excess of what was demolished shall be subject to the development charge calculated under Section 6 and 11, respectively. 2. (1) Subject to subsection (2), development charges shall apply, and shall be calculated, paid and collected in accordance with the provisions of this By- law, in respect of land to be developed for residential use, non-residential use, or both, where the development requires, (a) the passing of a zoning by-law or of an amendment to a zoning by- law under Section 34 of the Planning Act, (b) the approval of a minor variance under Section 45 of the Planning Act (c) a conveyance of land to which a by-law passed under subsection 50(7) of the Planning Act, applies; (d) the approval of a plan of subdivision under Section 51 of the Planning Act; (e) a consent under Section 53 of the Planning Act; BY-LAW NO Page 3 0 '7 (f) the approval of a description under Section 50 of the Condominium Act, or (g) the issuing of a permit under the Building Code Act, in relation to a building or structure. (2) Subsection (1) shall not apply in respect of: (a) local services, related to a plan of subdivision or within the area to which the plan relates, to be installed or paid for by the owner as a condition of approval under Section 51 of the Planning Act, (b) local services to be installed or paid for by the owner as a condition of approval under Section 53 of the Planning Act. (3) Subsection (1) shall not apply with respect to only bona fide and complete permit applications received prior to the effective dates of the development charge rates as specified in Sections 6 and 11. 3. (1) Where two or more of the actions described in subsection 2(1) are required before land to which a development charge applies can be developed, only one development charge shall be calculated, paid and collected in accordance with the provisions of this By-law. (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), more than one development charge by- law may apply to the same area and if two or more of the actions described in subsection 2(1) occur at different times, and if the subsequent action has the effect of increasing the need for services as designated in Sections 5 and 10, an additional development charge shall be calculated, paid and collected in accordance with the provisions of this By-law. PART II RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGES 4. In this Part, (a) "apartment building" means a residential building, or the residential portion of a mixed-use building, other than a triplex, semi-detached duplex, semi- detached triplex, townhouse or stacked townhouse, consisting of more than 3 dwelling units, which dwelling units -have a common entrance to grade; (b) "apartment" means a dwelling unit in an apartment building; BY-LAW NO. Page 4 10 (c) "bedroom" means any room used, or designed or intended for use, as sleeping quarters; (d) "development charge" means residential development charge; (e) "dwelling unit" means a room or suite of rooms used, or designed or intended for use by one person or persons living together, in which culinary and sanitary facilities are provided for the exclusive use of such person or persons; (f) "garden suite" means a one-unit detached, temporary residential structure containing bathroom and kitchen facilities that is ancillary to an existing residential structure and that is designed to be portable; (g) "grade" means the average level of finished ground adjoining a dwelling at all exterior walls; (h) "gross floor area" means the total floor area, measured between the outside of exterior walls or between the outside of exterior walls and the centre line of party walls dividing the building from another building, of all floors above the average level of finished ground adjoining the building at its exterior walls; (i) "hospital" means land; buildings or structures used, or designed or intended for use as defined in the Public Hospitals Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.40 as amended, (j) "nursing home" means a building owned and operated on a non-profit basis but excluding any building or part of a building which is comprised of dwelling units; (k) "semi-detached dwelling" means one of a pair of dwelling units attached together horizontally above or below grade or both above and below grade; (1) "single-attached dwelling" means one of a group of not less than three adjacent dwelling units attached together horizontally by above grade common walls; (m) "single-detached dwelling" means a single dwelling unit which is free- standing, separate and detached from any other building or structure. BY-LAW NO Page 5 1 nc) 5. Development charges against land to be developed for residential use shall be based upon the following designated services provided by the City, with each charge apportioned for reserve fund purposes, in accordance with the percentages shown: (a) development-related capital studies (0.9%); (b) fire stations and equipment and services related thereto (2.7%); (c) storm drainage and management works and equipment and services related thereto (14.1 (d) transportation including operations and equipment, roads, sidewalks, streetlights, traffic signals and services related thereto (49.4%); (e) parkland development and trail development and equipment and services related thereto (4.4%); (f) major indoor recreational facilities and equipment and services related thereto (23.2%); (g) libraries and furnishings and (non-computer) equipment and services related thereto, including circulating and non-circulating materials generally provided to library users by public libraries (5.3%). 6. Subject to the provisions of this Part, development charges against land to be developed for residential use shall be calculated, paid and collected at the following rates per residential unit: TABLE 1 EFFECTIVE Au ust 1, 2009 TYPE OF DWELLING UNIT CHARGE PER UNIT Single-detached dwelling, or semi-detached $9,694 dwelling Apartment dwelling, two or more bedrooms $5,246 Apartment dwelling, less than two bedrooms (inclusive of senior citizen apartment units) $3,849 All other dwelling units $6,957 7. (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), Section 6 shall not apply in respect of a renovation, addition or installation which involves the creation of: BY-LAW NO Page 6 (a) one or two additional dwelling units in an existing single-detached dwelling; (b) an additional dwelling unit in any other existing residential building; or (c) garden suites. (2) Notwithstanding clause (1)(a) of this Section, development charges shall be calculated, paid and collected in accordance with Section 6 where the total gross floor area of the additional unit or units is greater than the total gross floor area of the existing dwelling unit. (3) Notwithstanding clause (1)(b) of this Section, development charges shall be calculated, paid and collected in accordance with Section 6 where the additional unit has a gross floor area greater than, (a) in the case of a semi-detached dwelling or single attached dwelling, the gross floor area of the dwelling unit already in the building; or (b) in the case of any other residential building, the gross floor area of the smallest dwelling unit contained in the residential building. 8. Where non-residential floor area is to be converted to residential space, a charge shall be paid for any new residential units created, less the amount of the charge which would be payable if the existing non-residential space being converted were being constructed. PART III NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGES 9. In this Part, (a) "development charge" means non-residential development charge; (b) "grade" means the average level of finished ground adjoining a building at all exterior walls; (c) "existing industrial building" means a building used for or in connection with: (i) manufacturing, producing, processing, storing or distributing something; (ii) research or development in connection with manufacturing, producing or processing something; BY-LAW NO Page 7 (iii) retail sales by a manufacturer, producer or processor of something they manufactured, produced or processed, if the retail sales are at the site where the manufacturing, production or processing takes place; or (iv) office or administrative purposes, if they are: (1) carried out with respect to manufacturing, producing, processing, storage or distributing or something, and (2) in or attached to the building or structure used for that manufacturing, producing, processing, storage or distribution; (d) "gross floor area" means the total floor area, measured between the outside of exterior walls or between the outside of exterior walls and the centre line of party walls dividing the building from another building, of all floors above the average level of finished ground adjoining the building at its exterior walls; (e) "non-residential" means designed, adapted or used for any purpose other than a dwelling or dwellings, or accessory uses or spaces to a dwelling or dwellings; (f) "total floor area" means the sum total of the areas of the floor whether above or below grade, measured between the exterior faces of the exterior walls of the building or structure or from the centre line of a common wall separating two uses; and (i) includes the area of mezzanine as defined in the Ontario Building Code; and (ii) excludes those areas used exclusively as mechanical areas or for parking garages or structures. 10. Development charges against land to be developed for non-residential use shall be based upon the following designated services provided by the City, with each charge apportioned for reserve fund purposes, in accordance with the percentages shown: (a) development-related capital studies (0%); (b) fire stations and equipment and services related thereto (0%); (c) storm drainage and management works and equipment and services related thereto (0%); BY-LAW NO Page 8 7 (d) transportation including operations and equipment (0%); roads, sidewalks, streetlights, traffic signals and services related thereto (100%); (e) parkland development and trail development and equipment and services related thereto (0%); (f) major indoor recreational facilities and equipment and services related thereto (0%); and (g) libraries and furnishings and (non-computer) equipment and services related thereto, including circulating and non-circulating materials generally provided to library users by public libraries (0%). 11. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Part, development charges against land to be developed for non-residential use shall be calculated, paid and collected at the following rates: (a) $30.78 per square metre ($2.86 per sq. ft.) of total floor area, between August 1, 2009 and June 30, 2010. (b) $31.97 per square metre ($2.97 per sq. ft.) of total floor area, effective July 1, 2010. (2) If a development includes the enlargement of the gross floor area of an existing industrial building, the amount of the development charge that is payable in respect of the enlargement will be determined as follows: (a) if the gross floor area is enlarged by 50 percent or less, the amount of the development charge in respect of the enlargement is zero; and (b) if the gross floor area is enlarged by more than 50 percent, the amount of the development charge in respect of the enlargement is the amount of the development charge that would otherwise be payable multiplied by the fraction determined as follows: (i) determine the amount by which the enlargement in gross floor area exceeds 50 percent of the gross floor area lawfully constructed at the time of building permit application; and (ii) divide the amount determined under paragraph (i) by the amount of the enlargement. (c) for the purposes of calculating the floor area of the existing industrial building, floor area created by a previous enlargement shall not be included. BY-LAW NO Page 9 12. Where residential floor area is to be converted to non-residential floor area, no development charge shall be paid. PART IV ADMINISTRATION 13. Development charges against land to be developed for residential uses, non- residential uses, or both, shall be calculated, paid and collected as follows: (a) development charges against that portion of the land to be developed for residential use shall be calculated, paid and collected on a per dwelling unit of residential use basis in accordance with Part II of this By-law and in the case of a mixed-use building or structure, upon the residential uses in the mixed use buildings or structures, according to the type of residential use; (b) development charges against that portion of the land to be developed for non-residential use shall be calculated, paid and collected on a gross floor area of non-residential use basis in accordance with Part I I I of this By-law and in the case of a mixed-use building or structure, upon the non- residential uses in the mixed-use building or structure. 14. (1) Development charges shall be payable in full on the date that the building permit is issued in relation to a building or structure on land to which a development charge applies. (2) No building permits shall be issued by the City for the construction of any building or structure on land to which a development charge applies until the applicable development charge has been paid in full to the City. (3) Where an owner has paid to the City, prior to the enactment of this By-law, in relation to a building or structure on land to which a development charge applies, (a) a charge against development pursuant to an obligation to do so in a subdivision agreement, condominium agreement, development agreement or other agreement with the City, (b) a fee as a condition of obtaining a consent to create a lot; or (c) a lot levy pursuant to By-law 3322/89, and the building permit for that building or structure has not been issued prior to the enactment of this By-law, the owner shall be credited with the amount so paid, up to the amount of the development charge payable, as BY-LAW NO Page 10 part of the development charge payable hereunder when the building permit is issued. 15. (1) Monies received from payment of development charges shall be maintained in separate reserve funds, and shall be used only to meet the capital costs for which the development charge was levied under this By- law. (2) Council directs the Treasurer to divide the reserve funds created hereunder into the separate sub-accounts in accordance with the services and percentages set out in Sections 5 and 10, to which the development charge payments shall be credited in accordance with the amounts shown, plus interest earned thereon. (3) The amounts contained in the reserve funds established under this Section shall be invested, with any income received credited to the development charge reserve funds in relation to which the investment income applies. 16. (1) The development charges referred to in Sections 6 and 11 may be adjusted annually, without amendment to this By-law, as of July 1 each year, in accordance with the change in the index for the most recently available annual period ending March 31 for the Statistics Canada Quarterly, Construction Price Statistics, Catalogue Number 62-007. (2) The indexed development charges rates effective July 1 each year shall not apply to permit applications received prior to the July 1 effective date, provided: (i) the permit application is complete in terms of the applicant's submission requirements set out in the building code and the City's Building By-law; (ii) applicable law approvals prescribed in the building code have been obtained or applied for; and (iii) the building permit or a conditional building permit is issued for all or part of the building on or before September 1 of that year. 17. Development charges are payable by cash or certified cheque at the rates in effect at the time of payment upon issuance of the building permit(s) or as otherwise may be approved by Council. 18. Council may consider allowing a person to perform work that relates to a service to which this By-law relates and if it agrees shall give the person a credit towards a development charge otherwise payable in exchange for the related work. BY-LAW NO Page 11 19. This By-law shall be administered by the Corporate Services Department and applied by the Chief Building Official. 20. This By-law shall come into force and effect at 12:01 am on August 1, 2009 for a term not to exceed five years from the date of its enactment, unless it is repealed at an earlier date. 21. By-law No. 6349/04 shall be repealed as of the date this By-law comes into force. BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 13th day of July, 2009. David Ryan, Mayor Debi A. Wilcox, City Clerk Appendix "A" TOWNSHIP OF UXBRIDGE uiuwo[ t t t i ! ~ SAM t BAL i CLAREMONT t 0 t 1 ; t t O WWI Z ou 0 2 GREENWOOD o xg 3 E Z AT Z ~ $ t 9 LAN IN 0 C4 00 _ I I t OODa MAP 2 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATIONS FOR ; ANTICIPATED RESIDENTIAL GROWTH Development Charges By-Law within a oundarytof the City of Pick erin exclusive of the Sea on Lands a ,j d- Ttq t AW 4 INFORMATION CURRENT AS OF MAY 1. 2009. ur are w s~....w~......we...= r arr~°W.e°..--.....r ATTACHMENT # - . TO REPORT # G 1 17 FTevised (ii) N LD d N V7 L ~ r i ~ r r r r r ~ ~ ~ C ~ L O U N Q U LL p C7 ~ ti U c r i N r r r r r N m E LL E N CL 0 to 4) L p co m n- C Q r r N N V d m U U co co 00 4) Lo cn r r O- N r r N O V- C D U ~p c V m0) (D -I-- Lo c"'o °r° N (M co rn °c O + N ch N N CD a C13 N N Q d r C\ O 9 p U = f E 750 fl, U Q .2 0 co 00 to 0) 0 N W 0 y N c O co co dM (n M r co CMA co N Q. > n.. N~ V r N O7 ~ O .G a a~ o ~ fA Q M E .d V d 7 U C C O N f0 N U N ~ J a rn o N a~ N N O U N c m 0 U ~ O (D a) z ui Elf W E j c C N 7 O 0 4m CL °a N _1 vOi ns d fA Q Q a?i o o- C13 re O d p LL f~ cq o a -j - a c O (U. i ATTACHMENT #,-TO REPORT #9-.26 o Watson & Associates ECONOMISTS LTD. j { r ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF PICKERING MAY 22, 2009 DEVELOPMENT CHARGE BACKGROUND STUDY f i DRAFT f c I i 4304 Village Centre Court Mississauga, Ontario Canada L4Z 152 Phone: (905)272-3600 Fax: (905)272-3602 JULY 6, 2009 e-mail: info@watson-econ.ca s Planning for growth CONTENTS Page 1. INTRODUCTION 1-1 2. RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION ISSUES 2-1 3. PAGES MODIFIED IN THE MAY 22, 2009 BACKGROUND STUDY 3-1 APPENDICES A WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT CHARGE CONSULTATION PROCESS A-1 B REVISED 2009 DEVELOPMENT CHARGE BY-LAW FOR THE CITY OF PICKERING B-1 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H. IPickeringl2009 DCldc background study-ADDENDUM.doc 1 1 210 1. INTRODUCTION Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. HlPickedng12009 DCldc background study-ADDENDUM. doc 1-1 1. INTRODUCTION 1 L 1 1.1 The City communicated with representatives of the development industry with respect to its proposed development charge policy in May, 2009. The Background Study was released May 22 and the statutory public meeting was held on June 8. 1.2 Written communications were received from six different sources during June (Appendix A). Follow-up discussions occurred in a number of cases. The suggested modifications to the DC calculation and related policy were reviewed. A number of changes were made to the Roads and Related and Fire development charges in order to reflect calculation assumptions that were judged to be more suitable. These changes are outlined in Section 2 of this Addendum. They appear in Section 3 in the form of the pages in the May 22, 2009 Background Study that were modified as a result. 1.3 These changes result in a decrease in the proposed charges, as follows: Current City May 22, 2009 June 6, 2009 Development Type Charge Background Addendum Study Per Dwelling Unit • Single/Semi Detached $9,981 $10,889 $9,694 • Apartment 1 BR & Bachelor 3,715 4,324 3,849 • Apartment 2 BR+ 5,670 5,893 5,246 • Other Dwelling Units 8,104 7,815 6,957 Per Sq.Ft. GFA • Non-residential 2.86 3.68 2.97 1.4 The June 6, 2009 proposed residential charges have declined by 11% from the May 22, 2009 calculations. The non-residential charge has declined by a greater amount (19.3%), based on the particular projects for which calculation assumptions were modified. 1.5 The June 6, 2009 proposed residential charges, in comparison with the current City charges, have declined in all cases other than for one bedroom and bachelor apartments, where a 3.6% increase is involved. This difference and the variation in the magnitude of the change per unit type, relates to different average occupancy statistics, which represent the fundamental measure of service requirement. In 2004, these occupancy statistics were based on the 2001 Census, whereas in 2009 they are based on the 2006 Census and have changed as a result. 1.6 The June 6, 2009 non-residential charge is $0.11/sq.ft. higher than the existing charge and the by-law in Appendix B proposes that this increase be deferred until July 1, 2010. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H. Pickering12009 DC{dc background study-ADDENDUM.doc 122 2. RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION ISSUES Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H.-Mckering12009 DCldc background studyADDENDUM_doc f__~ 2. RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION ISSUES The following responses are being made to the development charge calculation questions raised as part of the May/June consultation process. The questions to which they relate are excerpted in Appendix A. 1. Submission by the IBI Group, dated June 8, 2009 Issue #1 - Seaton has been excluded from the Growth Forecast for the reasons given on page 1 of the presentation made on June 8, 2009, namely that: • "The Background Study is applicable to the City of Pickering, exclusive of the Seaton lands, which will subsequently to subject to a separate development charge by-law, or a revised City-wide by-law. This can occur as such time as planning for Seaton is advanced to the point where the anticipated development and associated capital servicing requirements have been sufficiently clarified." Issue #2 - The anticipated growth for the 10-year period 2009-2019 reflects City Planning's assessment of the development potential involved and the rate at which it is expected to occur, including consideration of the current recessionary economic conditions. The average annual pace of development is 500 units/year, which is beyond the 425 units/year forecast in 2004 for the 20-year period. Issue #3 - The replacement cost of Recreation Facilities has been indexed from the TSH cost analysis conducted in 2004, as footnoted on page B-30, with $34/sq.ft. provision for land costs has been added as per common DC replacement cost practice. The cost of trail development has increased significantly as a result of indexing and making appropriate provision for the cost of bridge works, which adds considerably to the cost/km, particularly given that the linear trail measurement was refined and substantially reduced subsequent to 2004. Issue #4 - The cost of the Kingston St. Fire Station and the Finch Ave. Fire Station have increased significantly as a result of DC indexing, the provision of a $34/sq.ft. land cost allowance and the use of Firehall No. 5 as the replacement cost base. Issue #5 - The per unit costs for the pumper, rescue and support vehicles have increased significantly from the 2004 Study as a result of indexing and to adequately reflect the specialized equipment that is required. Issue #6 - The increase in the operations centre replacement cost is as a result of indexing plus the inclusion of a land cost allowance and eligible equipment not included in 2004. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:lPickering12009 DCldc background study-ADDENDUM.doc I1~ I III I,Yr~ IIUIIi10iY1~ 1 L 4 2-2 Issue #7 - The roads shown in orange are, in fact, not new but have simply been renumbered and differently identified. The only new project is Town Centre West. Issue #8 - A number of modifications in deductions have been made for various roads. Please see Table 2-1. Issue #9 - This question is also addressed via Table 2-1. Issue #10 - The benefit to existing (BTE) deductions for projects BR-11, RP-14, BR-14 and BR- 15 have been altered in order to reflect the fact that: • future growth will have access to 407 via RP-14; • an increase in BTE from 50% to 75% in the case of BR-15. While BTE was maintained at 75% for BR-14; • BR-11 was increased from 5% to 10%. BTE percentages typically remain constant for road projects as part of following through on the original DC funding plan. Issue #11 - Fire costs associated with Seaton have been deducted in the form of post period benefit as noted on Table 2-1. (None applicable to roads.) Issue #12 -With respect to the aerial, the deduction has been significantly revised, as per Table 1. Issue #13 - The new $50 million recreational complex is not part of the DC calculation. The Duffin Heights Community Facility is expected to be approx. 220,000-230,000 sq.ft. Its cost per sq.ft. is below the replacement cost average because of the large indoor soccer facility that is involved. 2. Altus Group, June 8, 2009 and June 18 Comments 2.1 Roads - As indicated, a number of projects have been eliminated that were part of the 2004 DC Study. 2.2 A decision has been made to reduce the inflation index that was applied to a number of the Roads and Related project costs, in order to better reflect inflation during the interval. This served to reduce gross project costs. 2.3 A decision has also been made to make post period capacity cost deductions for several additional major projects (see Table 1). Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:lPickering12009 DCldc background study-ADDENDUM.doc 2-31 2 5 2.4 The City's local service policy for stormwater management is set out on page B-13 of the Background Study. Where prospective development specifically requires stormwater management facilities, it is required to put such facilities in place or, in some instances of infill, to make a cash-in-lieu payment. The works included in the development charge program are over and above the foregoing, in order to provide broad environmental benefit to the City. Such costs are appropriately shared between existing, 10-year and long-term development, all of whom contribute to the problem (via the cumulative effect of inadequate volume controls) and share in the benefits of the works. 2.5 The 30% post period capacity deduction for Krosno Creek does not relate to Seaton. 3. Wayne Clarke Questions !June 8, 2009 Verbal and June 30, 2009 email a) Basis for increased cost of fire rescue vehicle - please see response to IBI Issue #5. b) The proposed pumper/rescue vehicle at $775,000 is marginally lower than the $800,000 replacement cost. Several of the fire vehicle replacement costs have been adjusted to be more accurate. C) The Claremont Public Library was replacement valued by TSH at $300/sq.ft. in 2004 and indexed to 2009. d) The Petticoat Creek Library Addition was over-deducted in 2004 for BTE at 50%. The revised 10% deduction is valid given that the coverage is only for a small addition, largely required to accommodate a larger collection and common area required by the expanding community of residential library users. Existing development benefits from the existing facility which provides adequate services, but will be negatively impacted until the additional space and collections are in place. Also, the DC program only equips the City to maintain the existing service level and, in that sense, provides no benefit to existing development; however, the addition will provide improved access benefits to some existing users, which have been recognized. 4. June 19, 2009 Sernas Associates Submission a) Detailed background was requested for the City's entire roads program in terms of capital costs and road lengths. This information was provided by the City in late June. b) The City's approach to stormwater project funding was summarized above in para 2.4 of the Altus Group responses. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H.VickeringTO09 DCldc background study-ADDENDUM. doc 1 2 E 2-4 5. June 23,2009 BILD Submission a) BILD strongly recommended the City consider the comments of the individual member companies involved and their consultants and give serious consideration to decreasing the proposed DC, while attributing no negative impacts to the infrastructure program. The City has made a number of modifications to its DC calculation which have resulted in a tangible net decrease to the proposed charge, in comparison with the May 22, 2009 calculation. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H. Pickering12009 DCldc background study-ADDENDUM .doc TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF MODIFICATIONS MADE TO THE CITY OF PICKERING MAY 227 2009 DC CALCULATION 1. Roads May 22/09 Revised July 6/09 BTE PPC BTE PPC Pr_ oiect RP-14 50% - 50% 25% DH-1 10% - 10% 25% DH-2 10% - 10% 25% BR-1 75% - 50% 25% BR-2 50% - 50% 25% 2. A cost reduction was made to the 2009 gross costs for a number of projects, (overall average gross cost reduction was 3%) 3. Sidewalk & Streetlight Cost Adjustments May 22/09 Revised Cost Pr_ oiect Cost BR-5 163,800 231,000 RO-6 180,000 211,050 130-8 131,300 184,600 A-4 276,000 264,000 4. Fire BTE PPC BTE PPG Aerial 5% - 5% 50% (Seaton) Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H.-Ockeringl2ow 00dc background study-ADDENDUM.doc I Y -~IIIII ~ I~~YYrl.r.r X28 3. PAGES MODIFIED IN THE MAY 229 2009 BACKGROUND STUDY ~rIrW~1~~1■ IY. ■YI II■ Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. HVickering12009 DC1dc background study-ADDENDUM.doc Revised (ii) 1 r) 9 Z N to Q) C CD r i r r r r 7 c O (U ~ O U CD Q CO b9 N U 'a 0 U O c r i N r r r r r ~ ~ (4 cli w Ej= U 0) N a) 00 C"i n c Q r r 00 r r C v a a~ N n C m U 2!, U M w r Cfl I~ Q W U) t- M OD c v r O N v u N C d C cu r v ~ CL) L .C ) ti r O (D LO 00 v CA O v o = 4) oo LO T- V V _ C CV to ce) N ~ N In ( C M cc 1:3 a) F-- C d N c4 = Vj tot). ~cU CO Y O ~ g co r Q W o d ~ a co M rn o N Lo m °m m 00 Z ~ 41 O. > a~ c N r It v m LO m w 0) a o d n- .Q D t_ v Ci Cf 0 r r" N 01 F- 0 U Z!, ca °o t~3 EA a) N N L (b ~ N Q t0 E O O U a U C c O a) (n (a m a) ~C7 E _N 0) W ~ N u~ E ca o c N W E C p p N CL (`p N J En m Vl N Q O U L CL O D lL 0. [q O 0. OG 0. ) df c 0 0 0 ( 0 C L o 0 0 0 to Lf) 0 N N N N N N N N Revised (IIE) A 0 130 _ N d m co co co 0 n co M N 00 n n M W C> 0 N to N N O? O m V W f0 N er O N m ti' bA V K fO0 M O V N N SSrv N z ^ O N U) V) f9 0 ch C1 ar ui in v~ ~ N 2 m ~ n n n n n rn o~ m n n n a c d 0) OD co 0 W) Q o m v IR (Oq cl v O Cl h a°1) m of to 00 to 01) V m oC 0 00 V co (A N ~ a N a0O- O Y) co tri w 00 49 a N) rn in N is ua V~l •p N r- Q N Q It O N M N ` N Lf) N co O C IL M O ( M OOj C11 t- t7 ,fl d9 co M Z; M Vf (A O Z' ~ m 00 aO~ N 0 n O O t+/ n O M N 00 O) (0 N N N H vi w in O ~ 0 r 0 0 rn N O d N N 00 M V w ~N N r CL ct w vi QW z to O_ WE Z " 7 q to OA N W V r Q 7 p N J R 13D LL. Q O W C u 7a _ a O V N ~ e eo} 0 0 o e o e o 0 0 a+ N M M n 7 0. F, tl! W E Lo co V y0 OMNi M M N w co 0 g tn 01 w m n n N an0 V O N n O co m 0) 0 C (a N O 'D V It (R to lA m 49 (fl 4! a 0 co co CL co S N V ~~pf O lV Q V •P O N (D M V) y V dt N cl (R YI >y •Z n vi vi cn J ID 0 M V N W N M M O O O kn ( co p O a) b O O M M O V O R lh O CD (V (G O N n O N N (n U M O N Oni M O Cl! M O N W) O M O ri cn (p co (7 N O M Vi N GA to 0 FA N r0i C9 ~ O O a' N O .NY y n a N a' N J U cm d d d y } C m 0 N E ° a M CL a N co C m p N U N 0 O 03 > a N CO Q 3 V ~ ~ ~ v d J w m v m `o d o a a d ca U Cf) F in 'u. a g J O 6) N M v w (o ti 00 w O Revised (v) TABLE ES-3 131 CITY OF PICKERING 2009 CITY-WIDE DEVELOPMENT CHARGE CALCULATION Development Type Existing Charge Calculated Charge Residential (Per Dwelling Unit) Single/Semi Detached $ 9,981 $ 9,694 Apt. One Bedroom & Smaller 3,715 $ 3,849 Apt. Two Bedroom and Larger 5,670 $ 5,246 Other Dwelling Units 8,104 $ 6,957 Non-Residential Development per sq.ft. (gross floor area) $ 2.86 $ 2.97 Proposed non-residential charge only includes Roads & Related services, Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:1Pickering12009 DC1Pickering DC 2009 June 26 Revised B-7 V 1L' (D N V1 01`0 1ri OCDi M P Cp M O N (00 M O~ p ID m (~j M (Y (O N ^ O(v Oj M1j O M N 1 3z m - 8 m OD m n fD ~ N OI m Ih P 01 W V p 0') pOpD " N N t+1 P O O Iq (OV 7 O aYYYa' A N N P O p N 00 N t0 M" " N M~ h` O ~ N a U 41 c Q 9 o p o o ~QO+ l0 p O O CI a Oy z E ~M~pp ' to, ~j ONi O$° V 6 Q P O 10 8 8 p D') o M V= U O H N O b F n N 0 O I~ N ~O N O M YI O o0.1, V O" W 9 ~~Op P M O M co ,p O fM fV W p mW 1~ lV ~fi N " (V T _M m N Z> N COD M tf1 N W N w M (~1 C N O^ ems- m N O"i N- M P M U cV ma a ~zm U N }yy~ O N g c Q v Q ~ Q❑ C d Q d a ~ cv a~` rn n N 2 N M In Cl! y ~ ~ O O J 0 Y N H N aU mC Y .H,. p Op o ~p P ~p ~p h• ~O t+i N 1~`QJ M h Q~ M M co y w 0~1 1W~ M ~N,~ N INO N O N th .P- N ~j N tM0 M N CMO (V 0) fff~~~ V J 'c Q o m c . e2 a4 ~g e`4 a a a° 3E bE 0 34 3 y~ 3E yC `e yy 0 v g 0 0 0 0ee b b 0 g c 0 0 0 0 0 O q o c ZD 0 0 C W Vi O ti C" O G C G O O G O O O O O W N t0 N N 0 10 wn " N N N ~m w A ~ff77 10 1~ 1~ f~ i~ 1~ 1~ n P f~ N N N I~ I~ h h w Z W 4'0 Wmgg~~OO420~pgsp~pppppppsp$gicyyNpp0 g o C-4 w N N-• N v V O N M 04 V N N O N rN- O V O M . lV t0 N G U co F- y O U y, w W m U It a $ yL m y Z 88838$$0 1D ~y G Y`Cp y g O O O 1y 0p O O O ~ O O d y G `Gq~' g ayOp U O C E E X C: C CC Y .Q Q 15~~ Om` r CpC O p~ C Y cc p R W W . r r '5Q O W WW 5>~ OTC .G (D N a a ay ,@ c g g° c c~ , m m 3 2 fi y q e4 ~t (A T T - > 7 > > > > M 0 0 0 0 0 N O CS O N 0 z N fV C N "uZ O 12 IA C G w w m V ~ ~ O qy1 p m IOp N Y H U m w m 0.0 $ W $ 8 € - 8U m m OQ' v Ea b4~ c v - r. Sc Z° 3 h E€ Z~ ~i o m m a y C7 a a m H o a x o € W 92m 'cam m c w `o W m o 0 0 7 w U U m m g> :3 gi c'S w o A °m E b g c E c S ° N$ E N a~~ E 0°C' o mm3 ^~~Q rc E ~ E .c pn b v g O fD 00 a Y 5~F 'C - o > , w ~ a o _o ~Fmy, - 0 O C Q S m&a y a 0 0 L' w N m c w___ O 5 w -6 45 m m t o o ~ 1. J c$ y °m $ 3$ m w o" R m m m m ~ N N~ rc o S~ 0 w w a ro of 3 3~ `1 an d o a m m qx € B€ ~ o _`o o e ? 0, x a `c` qc o a < M •V _o n€ 8 v7 D: LL Vf tip o w S ~3 > 3' P :E i -2 LL c U U y y c c U U o U F a a c U~ V w m 9 a Z 2 g g= `S F 4a4 m 2m a o~ m 3> F> z z v z O O O LL a 6> a € z a m z O p N CL O~ N N r" M q v) (ft Ir oo M { M " f4 tz N N N O O N OD m m m O O O O O p D O D 4=' K 1U- U U F F F j j O O o d m 8 rn n°~~ a~ m M ~ .n ~ a m rn N c~ o R ~ N ymj O m f~ ~ O N N O ~(~pOp N O] ~ N [O fA O 10 ^ O o .5 Revised B-8 U a. 10 N ~N-. m~ b N) N~~ N N M~ N~° Q'~ N N .My M . d a M 133 N M - pp M ~Np (Ny OI U1 m O1 7 b o N M (NO O V O1 t4 h N< pQp~~ (V o O (0. T V n O [M 01) M N M O d N V 0 Y N (My O O Q' N O M N D! M N ^ f l M C p qj O N A U c co t- 28 0) E 0 to 0; z Ol y Q +X OD N O a 0 M O r~ 6i v r M ~n n Q V a r l~~ 'P N Q• Z co U ro ~ m0scOQ~ o t'J N N ~ ~ ~ (71 O d O ~ .y~ U ~ ~ ~ 8 g o a ~ o. a G Q I~ e~ M h gj z d U lV r N N V N +c . 0 y 1 ~ O b o 0 o U a Z ^O ~ O (~i N N ~S (O n ~ g ~ 1•. '(i ~ ~ togt, itp.MOf° ~v m W N f0 tN+7 f7 N (o a r r° W n M N ko R 4~ N (V N C1 U J c U C s` b p p n°nnng no u°~b ~io nO no NO C'~vggO o O O O O nF°n~ n°n~ S M 8 'It U U W 0 C; 1-: 9 n Q t0 h N N OnD tD .rte- 00 fD t") O W _ N f+i fV M I r 0 U h O U W N Q ~n S~ ~ ~ Tn w w ` N B 70 Q ~ g~~~ ~ c 4 c c c Y `a W m m m~ tC0 y y m m m~ N N N 3~ N N N N N N 1~1 N N~ M cat L" th M 7 ~ V C ~ d y Y py d d N Q a d O a ~ P~ S T N f~ C U U ~Zj 01 O N a' F~. 2 f/7 _ Y R' Q t°n10 $ ° ° ~ c g V$EaQv mE E A d a o~~ rn~~ ~ d Q~ 3 a~~ U o c 'c Q v m o wo p d y o k o° m m L W G ~y N d T m~ o O 7i N fi V o d N~~ N aC LL d d '!J 0. 'c a Cp u. ~ to nC v r m m all 0 "U V U. o~ B. 0Cy} U U y€ N Q IX a .L d > LL .c 0. U U U N m T T ME 6 12 z o N V) ~n ro o n rn o C9 7 0. O N `1 0. 0. N N P N O' 0 -0 N fS K Of K K 0. 0. fr FU- lU- p W. m Revised B-9 13 C m N h o to lp m O N h 0 0 H7 O h N M O m u 'v. m PV 2 N kq V O N Z! O N W n ONi n p T r n R N M L O f` O M M N of O N w N ci 0 Ih M oci C M N N N M Q 1(7 N M N N Q N N M N^ N n N^ n p U Co ~ z o m o m m y N C p` 0 O tppo N M~ (pp~pp ti N tN NOI n 9 0 n n n OD N U d d, m ~ N~ Q O `f ~ f~ OD p Of N N h N N N N N yj O 'G f.. N O CV 0 O (V tp m tri O w W O tU r O n U N N N Q N N N N Q M f~ tD 1~ N 1. t~ b N N O R C N X c U 91 Z G G>I M IP N N .p.. W Opt aN0 N N Q T mp N O y ~ Y tda•p2 C ¢o 0 C d ~ t+5 a, h ~ ~ ~ t~ {D Y1 ~ O+ ~ GO OI ~ OD N W N V 01 N m 6 E 0 p~ ~p ( ~ cp eepp pp lJ! Q 0 U U ~ ~ C, It N N (7 N ~ ~ ^ C6 m ai ~ r h- W S Z a UJ w U H N ~ p n U K V •O v a M a v w p ~ J :2. 32 m a 'T w L L W W T L rj r L rj L v » C O CJ! m Y R v w V $ Y U W o N rn G m m v 03bro ad.°o a~C m' E _ n Q o m j _ ~ cj 0. m _ d o> U U z o N N R Oi i O O N V Q Q O O O C yWy C F O N C , r p~ 9 J CC m Z W W LL O b 0 m •••J tbp 2 ('~oJ S x CY m O S O O O C O O .o b $ O ~O o 0 0 o a0 ° 5 .vl ~s 9 m m p o.' g m -W 0 c N U U d d?$ m 3 3 d d o~ LLl 9 ti3~ Ti a yo cc~o ~3mm yfj rs~° L° to l-G o r y a X b b b b 9 m u k t~ • U YU U tl~ UI L L m G yy N tll L L Y Y N C7 0 Q/ OO O O C C C C O` O Ol Ol OI QI it V Q UO Q C .L UJ N m m m m Y tl LL co a ;Z-2 2 Y Y Y Y LL Gil m m 3 p h N j 6 tj? OD N co U H; N v O O O D !Y 6161, O. Z m m m m Q O Revised B-10 m y N O N E I~ N V: m M M N Ql M M W N N p m V b fM 1~ m .V- .K- QOpp M .7- M C p N M Cn M N M N A p r U c 3n Z O O ~ O p (p F N N C~ n° N OD m h m N M O ~A tp O U1 Ip N aWD mW~ o (J OI o~ Q Q OO r Q cl C9 n N "I cr) U v M ^ MN [~q N M N r n° [h M OMi M M N N n N Cl) D ~ ~ M C m ~ Y m c U C C4 N t, in Z N T p V OI O1 N N N Si m W N V r O V V V a ° O O Q M N h M P O O 00 C O b O1 z • m v a ~$~5> co aS mgw N~8 zi5~ .9 HN~g P m t u y> v n Q O 7 .M- N '07 V ~M.. OD 0V VO <I ct V) ' 'C N O C O d ° alt R Q L) (D N~~`Pvom'i~~~'m~ 0 w H a ? o w m w o w U) 0 U N o U y a r~ N (Q ~ N N r ~ N N h OI C L W O V D 9 .Q O D V V y N W N t N L N „ N rX y, N y N N^ N Z C71 ~Np pL a~ N Lp Lp rj d~ N' N Q~ c8i 3 G d ~ m€ C C VM C ONn NN C ~ W CI c 0 o a g 7 w B= Y N Z o 0 0 m QE o S cq o: :2 302 O 3 a' do ? r E m m '~4 o o E E c^ Q¢ V U m 8 Y m 'm W m m m m S x z z J N u 0 0 p Z K K o m p O p 0 K _ r > E E c ~ e > UL LL LL U. r~ S a C m m m m c v Q d a d 8 y £ O N V (4 r rN b m 7 p O O U G AX mBya:>>>>>>€>aarcoBc N N Y v _mo ofi 0aaaaQaaa ~ W o a !n N to m V a u iL if if iL EL CL ¢ Q ¢ J ucpi ° m P, c? d Z a s to m m S J J J J J d' x 2 {C R m a 'T 7 1 0. (L DL M a. (L o M N O In P4 0 N Revised B-23 ~ M O N W a N r M U N 3(o 0 QI C b d Z O L C Z p > M OD a) O O m n n v v, ~ 't3 g (Ij 0) Cl) U) 0) C11 Go ~r U O d N M M N C ix U (U ~S c ~i g U) 0 E N~ o O g U~ M = zl$zo v7 > o g i y~ o C w tS CO * 0 0. f9 U N U O m In m L N 0 ~ U a '.0 N T, 2 a3i o z E j, O ° 4 h a di U o -j y a (D 9 0 w ¢7] ~ ~ Se Se U V a to to to ui p o m j o tp o m m' W 45 C N N O N (u U O m O o tG a Z V W O M M N ^ y ' 0- 0 w 7Y o U ~ O o0 0 0 o to C. cli n OD C; 0O a w d °ry Cl) O N U o~ v Z N ~ H 117 U7 C 7n m ~ ~ O7 7 O co O W 1.-. _ Cb a r r `0 N `o ? 00 0 0 Z 00 0 0 O n0in h0 N l3 L.U U U W C r m N G E C M O O O U V w O r tD C Q N D a c O O t1 N N N M o O w ~ r N W M U tL C nIn R w QNO Q m U `O o 2 q d ~ a y 0 Q d m E a V o w p7 M ~ d p N N to m m 3 a s U U a U ~ V ~ N ~ ~ m ~ ep Q a+a~ ~m 0T .fl c m r d d m ~i _d 'o d co U U N 04 y O N d W N N d m 7 O U 6 7L> m x v ° mod, a 13 0 7~i7 5¢a`C'I cia` ILz U a F-- 1C': if S D ~d a`z TABLE C-1 Revised C-2 City of Pickering DEVELOPMENT CHARGE CALCULATION 7 Municipal-wide Services l 2009 $ DC Eligible Cost 2C Eligible Cost SERVICE Residential Non-Residential SDU per s.f. 1.0 Studies 516,525 210,975 Studies DC Reserve Fund 20{ 0,583) (81.92$ 1 Studies Sub-total 315,942 129,047 87 0.06 2.0 City Roads, Structures & Sidewalks 18,211,093 7,438,334 3.0 Sidewalks and Streetlights on Regional Roads 3,561,342 1,454,633 4.0 Traffic Signals 1,603,469 654,938 Roads & Related DC Reserve Fund (6,885.814) (2,812,515) Roads & Related Sub-total 16,490,090 6,735,390 4,516 2.97 5.0 Storm Water Management 5,189,581 2,119,688 SWM DC Reserve Fund 19f 6.639) (80,317 SWM Sub-total 4,992,942 2,039,371 1,365 0.90 6.0 Fire 945,609 386,235 259 0.17 7.0 Parks Development 1,548,908 81,521 424 0.04 8.0 Major Indoor Recreation Facilities 8,213,458 432,287 2,249 0.19 9.0 Libraries 1,883,950 99,155 516 0.04 10.0 Operations 1,014,249 414,271 278 0.18 TOTAL $35,405,148 $10,317,277 $9,694 $4.55 DC ELIGIBLE CAPITAL COST $35,405,148 $10,317,277 10 r. Gross Population / GFA Growths .ft. 12,418 2,267,300 Cost Per Capita / Non-Residential GFA (sq.ft.) $2,851.12 $4,55 By Residential Unit Type D.D.U Single and Semi-Detached 3.40 $9,694 Apartments 2 Bedroom + 1.84 $5,246 Apartments Bach. & 1 Bdrm 1.35 $3,849 Other Multiples 2.44 $6,957 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Pickering DC 2009 June 26.xls Revised C-3 c~ 3 ~3 N a C) 0 0 to ~ o 0 0 0 0 o a o ~ °o t0 N ~ U U 619, 61> ~Co o rn rn ° ° r a ° o _ O co O O N O O O O O tT " Y U N 13L E LL 2 Z U U U c 0) -00 (D a Oo c O N ~ N N C Y (D (D U o :3 2 n c O o) r ~ t- M 0000 .OQ ~ r O N e^ N Y C _ O ca a - C L (D CD > U EH 69. m L (6 C 0~0 - 0 LO (0 ~ N d v- 0) U N M N c# N O -CU N 7+ r N O C d E U EH Efl E Q C ~E Q~ CL C U 00 00 V V Y O M LO O rn 0 0 00 M d 00 (9 G3 > N C N v v_ M LO M (Q O) 2 .C3 d Qf a_ V7 C14 c o O © c N Z' O cA y9 0 a .L c0 D C1 w a E O E 0 c 3 a) rn cu N U ~ ~ Z7 N O ~ ~ U O N ~ O ~ ~ f0 C p ~ O co N J C) N N N Q O U > N N U N I- N N 0 U a O d Q C O U) Y N 139 APPENDIX A WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT CHARGE CONSULTATION PROCESS • JUNE 8, 2009 LETTER FROM ALTUS GROUP TO MATTAMY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION • SUPPORTING MATERIALS TO JUNE 8, 2009 PRESENTATION MADE BY IBI • JUNE 18, 2009 LETTER FROM ALTUS GROUP TO LYN TOWNSEND • JUNE 19, 2009 LETTER FROM SERNAS ASSOCIATES TO TOWNSEND AND ASSOCIATES • JUNE 23, 2009 LETTER FROM BILD TO GIL PATERSON • JUNE 30, 2009 EMAIL FROM DURHAM HOMEBUILDERS ASSOCIATION TO GIL PATERSON • JULY 2, 2009 LETTER FROM TOWNSEND AND ASSOCIATES/SERNAS TO GIL PATERSON • JUNE 24, 2009 EMAIL FROM PLANNING SOLUTIONS TO GIL PATERSON Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickeringT009 DCldc background study-ADDENDUM.doc A-1 140 A ir)rleperident-Real Estate Intelfigerice AltusGrw'1_l3_ June S, 2009 Memorandum to: Rodger B. Miller, Mattamy Development Corporation From: Jeannette Gillezeau, Senior Director Altus Group Economic Consulting Subject: Pickering Development Charges Our Pile: P- 4230 1 have reviewed the City of Pickering 2009 Development Charge Background Study, which was prepared by Watson & Associates and is dated May 22, 2009. My preliminary comments are outlined below. Proposed Change in DC Rates Y Table ES-] on page (ii) shows the proposed changes in DC rates by service. The total DC for a single detached house would increase by 9 percent and the commercial DC would increase by 29 percent. The increase in the DC rates is entirely due to roads, storm water management and operations. Therefore, my comments are focused on these services. Roads The capital program for roads and related works appears to be very similar to the capital program in the 2004 DC background study. The 2004 road program was based on the Transportation Study Report prepared by iTrans. Research, Valuation u /advisory I Cost Consulting I Realty Tax Consulting I Geomatics I Economic Consulting 1580 Kingston Road, 'Toronto, ON IMM 1S2 Canada T 416.699.56,15 P 416.699.2252 A-2 141 Pickering DC June 8, 2009 Page 2 Most of the projects are exactly the same and the allocation to "benefit to existing development" is the same for most projects. There are a few new projects (e.g. oversizing of collector roads in Duffin Heights) and a few of the projects in the 2004 DC study appear to have been eliminated (e.g. Notion Road/Squires Beach - Hwy 401 Overpass, Dixie Road Overpass - CPR Tracks). > The cost of most of the road and related projects has increased by roughly 40 percent since 2004. A major exception appears to be the structure planned for Valley Farm / Tillings bridge - Canatsekiagon - which is up from $9.6 million in 2004 to $1.0 million in 2009 (a 4 percent increase). The primary factor driving tip the road DC appears to be the time period used to calculate the DC. In the 2004 DC study, the time period went to 2024. In the 2009 DC study, the time period for the calculation of the road DC is 2018. While the City is permitted to use a ten year time horizon for roads under the DC Act, I would have expected to see a shorter road program in the 2009 DC and/or a larger share of costs allocated to "post period capacity". Schedule 5 on pages A-1.3 to A-15 shows projected residential growth by neighbourhood and period in Pickering, excluding Seaton. A total of 1,617 units are projected for the 2019 to 2023 period. Roughly half of the 2019 to 2023 residential growth is projected in the Duffin Heights neighbourhood. It may be useful to examine the road program to see whether all of the road improvements required for Duffin Heights are included in the capital program (pages B-7 to 8-11). If the roads are all in the program, and no share is allocated to "post period capacity", it will help support the position that the road costs should continue to be spread over growth to 2024. If the road DC were calculated by spreading the residential costs over 6,282 dwelling units (rather than 4,665 units), the residential road DC would be roughly 26 percent lower than the proposal in the background study ($4,143 per unit rather than $5,594 per twit). The new road DC would be lower than the existing road DC. A-3 142 Pickering DC June s, 2009 Page 3 Storm Water Management The 2004 DC background study provided for annual spending of $150,000 on unspecified storm water management projects. The 2009 DC background study includes an extensive list of storm water management works on page B-17, all of which appear to be located in the south end of the City (and generally south of Highway 401). On page B-15, under New Stormwater Management facilities, the report says the new SWM facilities included in the report "consist of infill development" and "Stormwater facilities associated with large development blocks are not a part of the City's development charges and will be the responsibility of the developers group to fund." y It appears that the proposed DC assumes that developers in large development blocks will pay directly for all of their own SWM facilities and they will be required to help pay for SWM facilities for infill development in the south end of the City through DCs. This is inherently unfair. Either everyone's SWM facilities should be included in the DC (including all SWM facilities for Duffin Heights) or the City should implement an area specific DC for SWM facilities in. the south end which will be levied on infill development in the south end. Some of the storm water projects do not appear to be growth-related including the erosion control improvements for Amberlea, Pine and Krosno creeks, the oil/grit separators/water quality and source control and subsidy. Will Mattamy's development in Duffin Heights be required to meet a storm water standard that will maintain or reduce the existing level of downstream erosion? Will Mattamy install oil/grit separators, etc. for its development in Duffin Heights? All of the storm water projects related to Krosno Creek show 30 percent "post period capacity". You may wish to ask the City for confirmation that the 30 percent relates to future intensification in the Town Centre area and not Seaton. A-4 143 Pickering DC June 2009 Page 4 Operations The 2004 DC did not include the operations centre or related vehicles and equipment. Pickering is planning to construct a new operations centre, of which roughly 2 percent is to be funded from DCs under the 2009 DC by-law. Park and Recreation The capital program for parkland development includes a $20 million, 70 hectare community/district park at Brougham of which roughly 6 percent is included in the 2009 DC (page B-29). The capital program for recreation facilities includes a $40 million recreation centre for Duffin Heights. Approximately 20 percent of the cost is included in the 2009 DC. Y Both of these projects are to be oversized for future development. A-5 144 N O O N O O O O O N o C? O 00 O O O O O 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 69 W9 69 5A EA w EA 69 69 N .>O i4 A ~ O N ~ h b O G 40 .G U V ~ ^ 69 6N'9 G W 4 00 A Q. (1 o U t3 ;Z v n o h YE a~ 4) M 00 00 0 Z7 cy0 V'1 V1 O', ~o n M OI to) (41 C> C> i. s. 1. 69 PA EA CA 'a w y 69 69 69 V ".y r. Q v ti V O t lr V1 ^ pp 00 `n Cf~ ^t O h O rl ti 41 rn ~3 'n. In (A C%n en 64, 00 ~2 CO 3 VU ~f-S~69 ui~ o al of O U N y n 5 CO • N L ti O~ d N ~ u a.IIi 04 t\ b tl~n ~b ~ o. b ~ a ~ CO r" 0\ \0 t- N 1.10 O y .M,' to a f A bA 0 7a '=f O V C-q V9 GA Cd •1•+ y V 03 u C rA d O U ni "C Cts O L w. D O e~i c's U y o A U y 0 id ni C,' iv y O ~ rn fs5 ~ ~ ~ bo H a o "'r 4.•i O C to ~ ~ o N ~ ~ N a, o y cc 3 s "`•n 00 O ro p o y n c`^ rOn O A-6 145 0 W _ a -O 0 o-n10 v 000 ~nOO r`I ti~a~ 'T r•l h'M d U S O! O ~D O M 09 k~ h M M a0 co 00 b C t~ N 10 " 00 F .Q N fl M N - r`} : •U' V' M 00 00 lc~ ry ~O U 00 - 0^ y vi V h 7 N a" = rl r l+ O p m C, v d p f -L rn M crj. Q, ~ N N rA O ~ O ~ N N O J O w so a. f. O V' V1 00 O o O pp c`1 n 0l\ O~ p p p p Q `b ti• 00 M V ;n 0 0 O+ er ~D N O O O O O N hl b M - rl ~1 00 - M "i C 0ell 1 ~ 00 O Ili m p 1+ O O\ 7 N 00 h rry (y N 0 0 Ili h N O a O O O p vl n ht N G L N - N Q 0S { r ~ 7. 0O d p O. O Q\ rn N O O N N O~ C R ?a Q. °o U .n V U U O y N Q ~ 4 4 Q ys.+ N O 3 tir.1 Ord as T C S O O ..Q.. ell N o V h 02 ~n 5 y ~ o~ w o V ~,g S y ~nl' n ai o o x _ im C a t3 t3 tM 13 3 - 'n t3 a+ 7 i 'C U 8 Q ..y G O i y r_ X l" H >r N C1 c =0 q O 3 N 1 L3 L C : L? O c3 q b R i7 DY 7 O cz~ O N M O L' N C 'OF N G~C Y N? 3 N F U Q' 00 "Cl ~ o` a v ~ A cG ~ y o d b c F ra, w 3t i c o c o c°° v om C: A-7 1 46 s s c s .c 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 _o v V V V G ~ C C C fA N y O O O O O y y y aaa W W W W W ,ca i~ iv 0 0 0 0 0 -lz lC CV CC fV •v, U 00. 00. 00. 00. 00 T ❑ . c6 A Ord v v It r- :0 0 0 0 0 0 0 •O _C C_ : N CV N N N E E E p 0 0 0 0 0 O C-4 C-4. O O N N 0. 0L a y o 0 0 0 0 0 0 kn W) C d• N N VI N N N N N N C O z a o o a o oZ9 o 0 10 r00 00 IDOON (~N W ~ E E E E E~~~ 0 0 0 0 0 ~ N r3 OL ML CL a CL aaa o wwwww•~ a- c ~c 1c c c 0 0 0 0 0 ~ c°i W CA (A O ~ ~ 0 3 0; 0: (1i 21 O 0 0 0 0 0 _ (U a a. a. a. a ~ ~ o A o ON c_,0,0 cu m Q~ E C C 000 0^ vii G. 0 0 0 0 0 0 C O' ,II N N N N N O C 60 M N w Q N N 0 O~ 4\ "Ly '0 'O O A 0 0 0 0 0 Ian w L [ y N N N N N N 0. 0. 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 ON a, C~ m N N N N N bA Q , 0 R. N cj 34 z o V Q C'. y o o 0 0 y v1 Vl h 71 ON ON o aQi <j) CL L3, y~, c C7 ~ • c6 C/1 y ~ ~ y A 0 O N ~v' 0 O v M Z W A: z u ca . Z u ON M O is 0 ~O O LO) m 00 .Q h Vt "C OI cV y .SC V L C7 ,w C~ ~ O L O O L .a F U C4 pi wx~o~a A-8 147 a, $ O O O O O C. O O O O O 0 0 0 > 00 O N (V \0 10 O 00 "1 C. C•1 ~o 00 ry C 00 'T 41 Z\ M 00 N rl~ O M v1 Op f. a0 N M M l~ 7 l~ cf N N N 7 t! C M O M t` W r+1 0 O M 00 O lO O~ M M J` 00 't O r n N CL - N O N •O N y,~ ~ U Z i" y 0 0 0 0 0 o L. t`1 O M fl N M N 40. 00 N 00 e) V N M rn C y r ~ v C ai w 00 In m 00 In N O L-q r- In In l/j N V) N CA U `O CA w > " w 3 U ti CLi Q N O t-- rrl00 $ 00 0000 V Li N C/! to ~ CAI t/1 c~ N C6 Li .rvi o 0 o e o 0 o e o o o o 'y Wy R It h a, 00 00 00 00 O 00 h ~O V1 N > V n 10 M M M M M V M 07 N N 00 y M M M M M 10 6/ y V N C. k• .C ~ L L L L V -7 ~ V u ` C` 4 Q Q Q Q .Y. N` V_1 11 d d y O n M 0 h b n1 b a O M N d ~C N b n n ~ b ^i OG a V M M t, CIO Go V. w~:saw~ O v~.■ U' M (A p 1^ n h H 1 M Va• a O H t,1 M 00 n~ h O O N a M M ^t ~ y v9 t.) toq Q N i O O O ~ y o ' ono ° x =°•n o 1w O 4:u ( U° 2. C U o°o_ U ' c ria u 3 a F w k ti G ; V v1 > ~n ¢ aG w Cn ~ ~ O a N 04 C~ Mry H ~M hu h V d N C. p V 06 .S I-S 03 ria OI y y U r.+ p M M M N n vJ• V' u •b 40 Itt. 06 ;Z~ d > Cd O ~ u CA A o= U d o +°n CA x G Qp c o k U~ •s. u O o 8 ¢ . ~ CCU O = . ~ ni V y u o o a+ o Q•t L,' O u p G 4 F .U j ci i6 ro O C C y H lu N .y er w O c2 r ie a ,o ti .n o o G U F ° 0 0 o N7 y e-0 Cn> E-0 4 "e 7_UCa4v1Q sue, m w° w 4 a cm Ctl O w i i eVi C N W A P a p 4 Q V C H F+ U 0.1 U iz U. D. U. a 04 0 O O O 1-+ A-9 148 . 4 c0 r ~ eves ovo nl C 0 0~ O~ ^1 O 7~^ O o 7 n h ~ O nl - L v O v, ~ a w b - ~ ~ ~ O O O O M n r M M C b o a o u g 2'i 8 0 o g u N N N N N ypi G O O O O O O O C O O O O V 4L. :p ~ h h h A C O C O h h O y N O ~ ~ O V N V~ PI GO 7 N M M h N V N N N N N N N N N x N N ~j N N N N wY. L; L V d YO. is 6' V ~ V! ~ O O b 0 0 0 0 0 tl A G y N N y g o 0 0 0 0 0 0$ g ~ 1r O O h O O h 0 vt O N O O p V U N b O N p M a~ h O y~ ~ p tl w~ ~ O N N N N N N N N N N y p L N N V O~ N N N r O R V O V N .v N ~ w W '7 N ~ W Eli N V V N V 9 o a _ w i h U is ~ o ~ ~ u o S V CL p ` V y e4 O y u ~ q G~ w V ,a •L ~ In Y u L ~ 61 C N ZC O f w~' Y L p- ~ y ~i V y V C OA ,..1•n 3 O ii C a r u C1 O h- 7 J a u u in c3 ¢ r a3. ate. x c- V r J on 4= y A-1 a i49 00 eves ~ e 7 Y 7 O M M )tq~' M M M L 4 e p pp p 8 S 8 8 N O O Q O S O O O O O O O S O O O O y 7 G O ~ ni O ni nt ~n ni ni p O ~ O O O_ O_ yl t~l h _O 7 O_ 8 _O oo O O_ O P C o N N N N N N N 10 N N H N N N N N ~i N N N N °O 7 n n g g g g 1`r. oa a a ni ~n c - ' r w co ~ ~ w a y~ N N N N h N N a ~ ¢ N N > O R N V N [ V N N y 7D ~~~rr > ~ i. iC V N N , y N O U C 'O .V > w e, a C Vt u ? c~ co 3 u ~ '0 L q i W ~ i V G ~ M S1 U A Li 1 ~ ~ b j L' c "g v ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ y Y u wo 17 a 3¢ u @ u u ' i' o a` + c in 04 as A o ° F s g g w c c _c `e R V u O y v u 'p r' U V 2 CJ d a c 5 S i :L a. o. R Q G m A-11 150 M` a W a y e a ee e o e d '1' 't a{ R N Y R rl ~ L M M M M gyp' ~ M M M N 5 ~ :n e e ~ d f~ 8 V rl rl N N N [a'1 4 N N f M (`I y Vl ih N N N fn VI Vl H A N VI N G CT tL P 5 ~ O N Q00 y G 'A G H N N N •V V d O u pp pp. - ~ pp ~ n h N P T GO y y .n N N N M N N W yp L A V. N L p O y 4 'T b y 0 O~ 'O H g T 'O H~ r O~ H N G~ H CI d ro ~ CI V N N E N Q C;yl N C N~ ai N y ~ N Cn A x ~ ^ T V V ht 4 ~ V R V ~ v ry V ~ ~ U R A o ~ is ~ o V ~ o C ;n - L d!-4 z Y C C, o ~ u X14 uO °in u oinu"L v 'o qo •O $ v C u C w Z 4 OD L R b0 L OD L^ U u 4 G w u m W Q v g C 0 u g 0, CD SO o e o 0 c 3 H` °u° `o a1~` N F 3?> o o °o a< o ~ ~ ~ ~ N t0 0 ❑ ~ F o a o ~ ro 'T' ~ o ~ 13n ~ rUsbU m 6 < -u mU -j m x -UCAu 0 r o . a A-12 3 3 v' 33 m o a r. y N N 1 5 o N oo N - _ 0 o v _ _ Cam. v ~ a a d v a s - a H~•nr~a3•S S" =z:~'; .S'c'•r 3'.n'0cea 0. J p N~ N P N~ L V JT O - a V O~ 1~ - P - M ~ O N N N ~ n 0~ O Q pp 0 a° z N r. 3'e "ef .2E 4,E; .z Y : v ~3l4: Yze c < v. ~rvn - - a $ a s~ A P, say <aA~~ - S $ ° a o on.EC a°-fin 9 s ~ ~ s.s°sss r g ° P3 Q Q3 9 ' :N t 1 ' ; .y 2 n i' 'd 3 :1 a n G K au8iji.. 8 ~~~x6 SrcaOC s 2 ,F7 3 V '8'ay~ QS 3 .3{ y, .g g y yt t g o t 2.0 mmmi~~3 t g o o o u b n n. 2 - '3 .pion ern ~rm53 9W Wa ra-ss Vu c3 ~ I Z. ?H o r. r. R ~ ~ ro ~ ~ dr. y a a ,x o at. $ Swx X53. i ° y 'G y ' 8 .3 i yg K :N N c o 3 •s c .g 0 f cry 9 's u C1 .0 ~ 3 ~ ~ 'C C G 4 ~ U ~ C ~ ~ 'r K MR ~i ~ 4 4 j 'R F F .8 f~3 E i3 o~ ~G Te. e. Orin=~O .11 7 USCOCNe. A'~"a'f-tom!-za. en u~ ?=UmU mm. nJ0~:;.•:'~~ ^SS~ at ~tJCiU CiCi{JU;r 00 A A A AA AODAxr~~~F!-'-~ r. f-~ A-13 ~ pp P o ~ arf. V ` b ~ _ ~ b l l~ J 152 _ i' a o .v S', V y n, Wit Y , ~ tlM1 - n a` ~ S z r. ' O Y O O Y ~ T C I, F v~ 3 " M :;s 8 i Y 12 ~t - _ rM a a ~ ~ ~ 3 rz b y L 4° Fn I I o ~Z.~ 121 1 p t F~~, O Qg, xx 7~( ~ P y~ L ~ - d oa O V~1 ~ y~ - ~ N_ y r r~ no: 14 43, "Q T YJ 'S7 G ed 6 i + i v $ ~ o` ~ s•° ? a i ^ c ~ r~ ~ of ~ ~y >~t . + r~ 4~i1 C S ' ~ ~ K y ^ K ~ ~ ~ fQ7I lid Y y qr ~ u'n r c r6 2S a o`e E ~~b u'.? i u'. sl y J F~ o a'G # ~..si L ~ I o '-ti U r O O z w' t O r r- a' V V .Z n. uc ~ay~ o~ ' F J g Ci i O O r[ z :c z' a sV-. F 5 N S ~.m 'm ~ c •-t~~ ;O. A-14 1 53 ° gay - - R ~ V V ;E x o 3 x A• x 8 3 $ x$$ 3 H j O Y.n h~ O O ~ !Y' ~ J ri ~ O» ~ 3 0 e - Y IM1 C O O Y rI 1. A y V A O L u• ~ 4 r.° .C Y QQ ~ •~X., X ~ ~ ~ ~ ' v a ~j r ci .c ~ 'r7t` ~ w o. r vY ry v - - r C~r.1 g ~ •O a H d C d G~ x ya a .a „ ;E ;E ; ~ ; 1 r- 'LS ' o tC _ h a° c Y O F T Y P~ N N M,~i ~ j F_?Y ~r ~_--r• V' Y- V W L' x - c u to V O y U O u yoy, c e a+ e°~ c E ~ ~ a E a $ .L' O V _ - p _ C ~ O M AN" 3 R o O v ~ 5< ti y s u u - 0 t U r .e ve u1JU~Uo`2jU3 O, y -81 eo i e , q u ug ug ugg u u ug ,x u $ : O ~ ^.d' ~ Z ;C S sC 1 2 :C 1 < b tR 2 n. < O ii 2 ¢ s ~ O t°n .r 'H`' p •p C ! r' F? G NO ~f. r rri Y. 7 Y T n r t x M1 'li T C T N y i-Vm'• a`c;r 3 d d n"S d m ~u°~'~:3de33Sd .yr A-15 154 P H °n. h cv g o $ w 0 0 ~ en v V u U a O CI pp A~ O_ w 8 8 ~ bA y O •f a ct y v ri ^ b ed?t ,o; ~ o r' ...t x d O r.. N o p o a s' ri ri RS d rti .y e• e w ri Q W w m ~ U y y 0 r c 8 ~ f 1' u r' - .C W r.+ 4.. ~ o O aq K r~ o O u y O Li S n d o O n ri - .ri Ni V ~ O rn bn a y. a sCD ~ ~ o o ~ o y a a A G `o a d U to C 'C `e v p e c a O v, O N > a g ~ ~O a. c o y W co u W a % ? N N v c a ~ x ° N +'p.+ w ~ K i^Ups J i % U .~C H A-16 O. a 'D ..o .c ,p .o ~a t°+ °r 1 5 5p ~ u a fl cl r! ~i fl e 0 0 ~ O V .e d ~ V o P N O O a [ T 0 rl a e~ .o ~e \o :e ~s p\ e D O~ \ °Q \e ~e .o a a a P C P P a a P P P a a a O' a N- a P ~ a O~ q n M P» Off, b •+i O R ~ p ~•1 ~ ~O b .xt O _ ?l+ r fl f p . ~ Oa O •C O N y vP~i .b0 ~ c V CI ~ ~ h r O ~ ~ R V d o » vi .E .e pp .p a o o \e vE gi ~9 e n 1~ n 0 0 .n n 0 h t~ P a_ W 1•" O CI N n .o n r a ~ r. r_n » N M r » "ha ~ rob9,0 On v .O n fl ~ h ~ N `T K b 9 ti M fl O ~ R R WQ K a a W O O r, m a a Ifl» a~o~r a•o- a a p a n tea;" %oa•~ri a w r n~fnl• ~ c vai n ~ v $ Oar r iv r.o nO f! ~ O O ~ ~ V `t 4 ~ y a eo $ e Q S ~ on °n gm g °o ."9 $ o ooq$o• rloa tl a h~ ~ h O N _ P nl A O~ Y ~ r tl ~ fl ~ CI - R O O O tl O Sri fl s O p N P P O N .p 4 b N V' fl d • ^ h K N .A .n H o M M ~.r.. H N N a C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 O O O O O O C CI 1 fl Cl CI ! 1 1 fl CI fl M 1 ..e 0 0 0 O O S S S O 0 000 0 0 22S i 1 fl CI f! CI 1 f1 9 4 O~ i O O O u a t' a 3 n' 'x a ~ Q o ~ o ~ o t •vv o c °wps i U 7 a - ~ ..S ~ in Oi u e 9 = O c `3_ w ~ e d~ Ka v O r y av O L ti r c o$ o o_ c ~ ~ ~ !n o ar OZ " C " e F r Fo~e~nn aaw AE 6 3n~ A-17 4 o e u P U ~ U p v V u o 3. ~i G $V ~ M ~w u Y N a Q OU y P P H Q L t~ Q U O P P c Vl ~ N rt O. a a s a $ o i~ s o rl o N ~r ..w 0 M M t. m ~ o N yt p N M_ W j Q K $p N O U $ 'O N O Q re o .h o r M N ~ L LI CI ~ ~ r v ~d z a o 0 0 0 0 q O 'V C5 Y Q g Q ~ ~ 2p5 25 2p5 y L ~ O O $ V .'7 O I ao 0o Go .u N Q y a s ~ "Q u N o o ° y' ~ d N o clan a s O U V u 78 V O ~ R c, o z =i :a O 0 °I v y Q Q ~ A 00 b0 •o o ro o X IL p C L V "q ffi o o 'Ir ° ar D N co x" c u v I. .0 U F A-18 Y ~ o 0 e ~ry P T u _ o? m m o ~ o w s~ _ - r 'c x~ s 'O. U h c E ao~ 99 O N C V N F _ N ~ ~ ~ N o 6 V A r a = - i E v o U~ ~ Y T H .C o V L• - ~ _b ~ NL J 00 L = Q ~ v C DD d Y a o y ~ o A ~ tx V ~ ~ ,g ~ U qu ~ S v q ~ ~ 3 V i~ e_ Y n o ~ :J :l byy e o e± ~ m n o v V A • C c n 1 ~ A-19 f y °a ei~ ~o •o ~o ~ °~~'N~ ~ V N rl r y a'n v b ~ O O t u V u R .e $ o 4 x ° b o P P U ~ °1 P P Q 'Y ~ P ~T P P OP ^ P P P ~ s e~ e e •o ~ o .,s S ~ ~ nN N•A 'n ~ANin P P P P P P P P P a '.Rin ri~no a'noe ~i n 46 v ° O R Cit~C D 11 Pin 1. V x o ~ o arc v rl ~ R h O i oe $ e e= e e O N ~ .n°: ~Pn W m ~ N 0 0$ O n o o~ ~ p • O .O ? 1~ m ~T C1 ~T R b b tZ ~1' N G t~ N eI V': rl P N V W g ~ P h oa N P H M r' 1»a.J O C R K T S T R V O P P P CI rl a` L Y vl A R OA O 4- O w 9 ~ s 8` ~=SS ~ag~ M ¢ ~ = r r. c Q ro ~ ' 25 r°`N' ~ P P rl A ~ M R P rn r•' M M 4~ VJ .Y> y e 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ o 0 0 F y N ~ ~7 S$o~ a' o~~•-R~ vi O D O O 4 tl R ~ b C `a b O 5 -G u o V f1. a o ~1 0 ~ s ~ r . ~ Le S ~1 ~ 3 U a a_ .3 ~ o= ~ rl ~O 6~ C ,O ~ ~ U ~ N O, A V N w y s A-20 ve 159 e e ee~e eee 1, CI 4- ~ ~j rr VJ 7 G~ h V a rr N F v co e R ~C7 7 ve a: c a o g N N V ; N G\ r\ A ,U "FC',C, as a~ gh~nh°m`~'° gn ~ M N rl M rr ri ~ ~ h ? vl v1 tA. r• 'f ~ V x fA ~ M 00 h p N - N h h V y a v d g as c~a 3 y v e e v e v e n g ooo,noovr,n,n S8 N - N h h F h N Vl a d O O N 0 0 ~/1 0 0 p r o O v0•+ S 6 :a7 ~ O O y, o d o o d p 'n h P O /y1 ~ O N N W p (9 y m ~ m. y _,s p pp pppppp ~~11 P O O O O 0 0 0 P O O O O O O O O O C vi v1 O O Vi y~ .n OO C ~/t 'V ~l h ~n t~ N O O F P G~ V N - rr Y M N R a v ° C $ p { O y~ O O C 0 N 'n ~ G O rl O O rOj G O O N ~ p 7pO p O O N r! ~ O NV rl ~ N O O O ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 o N nr u N ~ ~ ~ N j O O LO ca ro b V V M+ U ,y 'ci a 3 O G Vj 'fl a o 3 u t~ .~y ~ °o^~ N c m :n v Q c° a ^ a y Ce Q rr. ~ ~ .v. 70 -0 ~ N N OA y0 0 uan ,o .rs w N v v 13 A d S+ S N N ^r ! V J x ~ c~ a NS =v m ~ ~K ro°i o V a 1O Z. > a s Q. S o o 0 m o a a o$ u c i, v F~ V W V J -=D SOU Ha ws,. Q Q 160 APPENDIX A WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT CHARGE CONSULTATION PROCESS • JUNE 8, 2009 LETTER FROM ALTUS GROUP TO MATTAMY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION • SUPPORTING MATERIALS TO JUNE 8, 2009 PRESENTATION MADE BY IBI • JUNE 18, 2009 LETTER FROM ALTUS GROUP TO LYN TOWNSEND • JUNE 19, 2009 LETTER FROM SERNAS ASSOCIATES TO TOWNSEND AND ASSOCIATES • JUNE 23, 2009 LETTER FROM BILD TO GIL PATERSON • JUNE 24, 2009 EMAIL FROM PLANNING SOLUTIONS TO GIL PATERSON • JUNE 30, 2009 EMAIL FROM DURHAM HOMEBUILDERS ASSOCIATION TO GIL PATERSON • JULY 2, 2009 LETTER FROM TOWNSEND AND ASSOCIATES/SERNAS TO GIL PATERSON Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering12009 DCldc background study-ADDENDUM.doc A-21 161 Independent Real Estate hitelligerice Altus Grou p June 18, 2009 Memorandum to: Lyn Townsend From: Jeannette Gillezeau, Senior Director Altus Group Economic Consulting Subject: Pickering Development Charges Our File: P- 4230 I have reviewed the City of Pickering 2009 Development Charge Background Study, which was prepared by Watson & Associates and is dated May 22, 2009. We have a number of concerns regarding the calculation of the proposed development charges. Roads The capital program for roads and related works appears to be very similar to the capital program in the 2004 DC background study, which was based on the Transportation Study Report prepared by iTrans. Most of the projects are exactly the same and the allocation to "benefit to existing development" is the same for most projects. There are a few new projects (e.g. oversizing of collector roads in Duffin Heights) and a few of the projects in the 2004 DC study appear to have been eliminated (e.g. Notion Road/Squires Beach - Hwy 401 Overpass, Dixie Road Overpass - CPR Tracks). The primary factor driving up the road DC appears to be the time period used to calculate the DC. In the 2004 DC study, the time period went to 2024. In the 2009 DC study, the time period for the calculation of the road DC is 2018. While the City is permitted to use a ten- year time horizon for roads under the DC Act, we would have expected to see a shorter road program in the 2009 DC and/or a larger share of costs allocated to "post period capacity" given that this is essentially the same road program as in 2004. Research, Valuation & Advisory ' Cost Consulting 1 Realty Tax Consulting I Geomatics I Economic Consulting 1580 Kingston Road, Toronto, ON MIN 1S2 Canada T 416.699,S645 F 416.699.2252 :atu .c)i'ot.ip.Ciint A-22 162 Pickering DC June 18, 2009 Page 2 ➢ Schedule 5 on pages A-13 to A-15 shows projected residential growth by neighbourhood and period in Pickering, excluding Seaton. A total of 1,617 units are projected for the 2019 to 2023 period, with roughly half of the 2019 to 2023 residential growth projected to be in the Duffin Heights neighbourhood. All of the road improvements required for Duffin Heights appear to be included in the capital program with no allowance for post period benefit. Therefore, the road costs should continue to be spread over growth to the year 2024, as in the 2004 background study. The road DC should be calculated by spreading the residential costs over 6,282 dwelling units (rather than 4,665 units). Storm Water Management i~ The 2004 DC background study provided for annual spending of $150,000 on unspecified storm water management projects. The 2009 DC background study includes an extensive list of storm water management works on page B-17, all of which appear to be located in the south end of the City (and generally south of Highway 401) and in the Frenchmans Bay watershed. On page B-15, under New Stormwater Management Facilities, the study says the new SWM facilities included in the report "consist of infill development" and "Stormwater facilities associated with large development blocks are not a part of the City's development charges and will be the responsibility of the developers group to fund." It appears the proposed storm water DC assumes that developers in large development blocks will pay directly for all of their own SWM facilities and that they will also be required to help pay for SWM facilities for the infill and intensification development in the Frenchmans Bay watershed through the proposed stormwater DC. This is inherently unfair. The City should implement an area-specific DC for SWM facilities for infill and intensification in the Frenchmans Bay watershed and exclude development in large development blocks from the storm water DC. P: \ 42085 1 4 230 \ tvporI Wrrrto - Pickering VC- (Our fife - P-4230)DOC 1 rf?c_ 1 63 A-23 ea eru" 110 Scotia Court T-905.686.6402 Unit 41 F-905-432-7877 Whitby, ON sernes.com Lt N 8y7 June 19, 2009 Townsend and Associates 10-1525 Cornwall Road Oakville, Ontario L6J 0B2 Attention: Ms. Lynda Townsend Dear Ms. Townsend: Re. Review of the City of Pickering Municipal Engineering Services 2009 Development Charge Background Study Land Development Planning Our Project No. 04565 Development Management As requested, we have completed a review of the City of Pickering 2009 Water Resources Management Development Charge Background Study dated May 22, 2009 and provide the Acoustical Engineering following comments regarding Section B-1 (Roads and Related) and Section Geomorphic & Environmental Sciences B-2 (Stormwater Management). Transportation Planning Section B-1 (Roads and Related) As per our discussions we have requested the detailed background for the entire roads program from the City of Pickering. There appears to be some inconsistencies related to road lengths and capital costs for the oversizing of the Collector Roads east of Brock Road that warrants a more detailed review. Once the detailed calculations and assumptions are received, we will review and provide further comment. Section B-2 (Stormwater Management) The capital program for the Stormwater Management projects is based on the implementation of the City's. Frenchman's Bay Stormwater Management Master Plan. Development outside of the Frenchman's Bay watershed will not affect the need for the Stormwater management projects included in the Development Charge Background Study. As noted within Section B-2.4 of the Background Study, "stormwater facilities associated with large development blocks are not part of the City's development charges and will be the responsibility of the developers group to fund" As the Duffin Heights Secondary Plan is outside the Frenchman's Bay watershed and it will have to pay for its own stormwater management facilities, it should not be subject to the stormwater management component of the proposed development charge. An area specific development charge for infill and intensification within the Frenchman's Bay watershed would be a more reasonable and equitable way to finance the proposed stormwater management projects. A drawing showing the limits of the watershed is attached for reference. ...2/ A-24 ;y 1 6 4 0 Townsend and Associates Ms. Lynda Townsend June 19, 2009 Page 2 If you have any questions or wish to discuss the above further, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours truly, SERNAS ASSOCIATES Aaron Christie, P.Eng. Associate, Project Manager AC/br Attch. cc: Mattamy Homes Limited, Attn: Mr. R. Miller, Mr. A. Wisson Sernas Associates, Attn: Mr. M. Favit Z« A-25 w~4t uet naa: asst r 1 6 5 W Z 1 ~ ~i ccCC oW r T y cwc wul 3: hd 2 Q %'C app a 13 REC LL. A-26 1 6 6 June 23, 2009 Mr. Gil A. Paterson Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Corporate Services Department City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 RE: Proposed City of Pickering Development Charges Background Study and By-law The Building Industry and Land Development Association is in receipt of the above noted City of Pickering Development Charges Background Study, and would like to submit the following comments for your consideration as you proceed through the process to approve a new development charges by-law. Although it is encouraging to see that the City of Pickering is proposing a decrease in its rate related to "other dwelling units", as an interested and affected stakeholder BILD remains concerned about the proposed development charges rate increases, which reach as high as 16% for some residential unit types and almost 30% for categories related to non-residential development. BILD understands that individual member companies have retained expert advice of consultants who are in the process of reviewing the background material associated to the proposed charge. BILD has reviewed the various industry submissions and shares their concerns. BILD strongly recommends that the City consider the comments submitted by these groups, and trusts that additional dialogue will take place regarding these items. BILD also urges the City to give serious consideration to decreasing the proposed development charge, while attributing no negative impacts to the infrastructure program. In light of the current economic circumstances, it should come as no surprise that developers and builders are questioning any and all cost increases, not only of governments but of their suppliers, trades and service companies. In that context, the notion of any increase in development charges simply does not acid up. BILD members have expressed concern with the proposed increase, especially since it comes at a time where the building and development industry requires assistance and not more costs. In these current 20 Upjohn Rd. Suite 100 North Yok ON N13B 2U9 Tel: 4163913445 1 m4163912118 ,umi.bildgtd.ca A-27 i67 B Y ;nrr~rrrn;sc:r, ~,r;~s economic times, BILD urges staff to show leadership and to seize this opportunity to lower any levies associated to development. As matters now stand, the industry is battling to shed inventory at a time when housing sales have plummeted due to widespread economic uncertainty. We are facing a credit crunch which is threatening perfectly viable projects and we are also concerned with the prospect of contracted buyers failing to close on their units. In short, we are in uncharted waters and would therefore support any efforts which would assist in stimulating increased building and land development activity. To underscore the gravity of the current situation, it should be noted that sales of new homes in the City of Pickering have significantly declined since last year, reaching a year high of 22 total sales in April 2008 to a total of only 6 in April 2009. 'T'otal high-rise sales in April of2008 reached 10, noting that there were NO high-rise sales for April 2009. This decline will be directly reflected in reduced employment, investment and spin-off economic benefits as suppliers, trades and service companies are being impacted as harshly as lane{ developers and home builders are. BILD urges the City to work with the industry in taking responsibility to assist with job creation. A thorough consideration of the impacts of the proposed development charges would be a positive first step. The building and land development industry is a fundamental cornerstone to the econorny and a significant job creator. Increases in development charges would do no good to assist in stimulating job creation. Reduced costs will help to kick-start projects that would otherwise be on hold and would assist in securing badly needed financing and ultimately allow for more affordable home pricing. We trust that you will take our comments under advisement as the City proceeds through a review of its development charges by-law. Sincerely, Paula j. Tenuta, MCIP, RPP Director, Municipal Government Relations cc. John Koke, BILD Durharn Chapter Chair Donna Donaldson, Durham Region Home Builders' Association 20 Upiolin Rd. Suite 100 North York, ON iM3B M Tel: 4163913445 Fax:4163912118 www.bildgtata A-28 168 From: Wayne Clarke To: Paterson, Gil Sent: Tue Jun 30 16:43:43 2009 Subject: DC By-Law 2009 I know this is two weeks before the new By-Law is adopted by Council July 13th. however I was juggling yours as well as Oshawa, Scugog 8, Brock Twnshp's at the same time. The points I highlighted @ the Public mtg. are as follows. Pge. B-11 Traffic Lights @ Altona Rd. 8s Pinegrove (2005-09) study listed a reduction of $62,500 under (Grants, Subsidies , 8, Dev. Contributions) In the current study , same Intersection (2009-13) this figure is not listed ? Pge. B-22 The 2004 study lists 2 Rescue Vehicles @$400,000 replacement value each.The Proposed Study lists 1 Rescue Vehicle @ $1,200,000 for replacement value. We question the substantial increase. Pge. B-22 Shows 2 Pumper/ Rescue vehicles from 1999 to 08 with a 2008 value @ $800,000 each , however pge B23 lists an additional vehicle purchase in 2010 @ a price of $775,000 $25,000 less than current value , which figure is correct ? Pge. B-37 The 2004 Study lists an expansion to Petticoat Creek Branch in (2006-08) The eligible total cost was reduced by 50% or $134,758 as Benefit to Existing / UEC. This same expansion is listed for2011 however only 10% is listed as Benefit to Existing. Could we have an explanation for the decrease. Our Association realizes the above queries will have little or no affect on the final quantum , nonetheless clarification is justified in our opinion. Wayne Clarke Co- Chair Legislative Affairs Durham HomeBuilders Assoc. A-29 PLEASE n TowREFERTt TOWNSEND AND ASSOCIATES Ly Lyn Townsend {Ext. . 222) 69 BARRISTERS AND SOLICITORS Email: lyn.townsend c@itownsend.ca Assistant: Kate King (Ext. 221) LYNDA J. TOWNSEND PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION E-mail, kate.king@ltownsend.ca July 2, 2009 City of Pickering 1 The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1 V 6K7 Attention: Mr. Gil Paterson, Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Dear Sir: Re: 2009 Development Charge By-law On behalf of the Mattamy Group of Companies for whom we act, we are enclosing herewith a letter from Sernas Associates which provides detailed comments on the project cost calculations. We ask that this information be considered in your ongoing review of the background study. We would also appreciate it if a meeting could be scheduled as soon as possible to review the issues raised by our clients. We look forward to further dialogue before the matter returns to Council on July 13, 2009-07-02 Yours truly, TOWNSEND AND ASSOCIATES Lynda J. Townsend Encls. 1 cc Rodger Miller SUITE 10, 1525 CORNWALL. ROAD, OAKVILLE, ONTARIO L6J 0132 PHONE: {905) 829 8600 • FACSIMILE: (905) 829 2035 • E•MAIL7 mail a I.townsend.ca era r®s, 1 (1 110 Scotia Court T •905.866.6402 Unit 41 F-905-432-7877 Whitby, ON sernas.corn LIN SY7 June 30, 2009 Townsend and Associates 10-1525 Cornwall Road Oakville, Ontario L6J OB2 Attention: Ms. Lynda Townsend Dear Ms. Townsend: Re. Review of the City of Pickering Detailed Project Cost Calculations Municipal Engineering Services 2009 Development Charge Background Study Land Development Planning Our Proiect No. 04565 Development Management As requested, we have completed a review of the detailed project cost Water Resources Management calculations that show some additional background information related to the Acoustical Engineering costs included in the City of Pickering 2009 Development Charge Background Goomorphic & Environmental Sciences Study. Transportation Planning With respect to the Duffin Heights development area, we can confirm that the section of William Jackson from Brock Road going east and then north beyond the hydra corridor is missing from the back ground study. The missing section is approx. 625m as 425m has been captured in item DH-10. We believe the code for this oversizing component is DH-9. The city should have this segment added to the background study. With respect to item DH-15 which is the sidewalk, street lights and median on Brock Road between Rossland and Old Taunton the calculations show a length of 3100m with a cost of $345/m. The road length for this segment is 1550m, therefore the City should confirm that the length and unit rate used are representative of the boulevard length and not the road length. (i.e one side vs. two sides) Below is a list of projects that we question the value / benefit to future development that is expected with the construction of each project. We request that the City provide additional detail regarding this matter. Code Description Cost Allocated to Timing Dev~ment R-3 To nevale Reconstruction 781,550 25% 2014 R-4a Oakwood Drive Reconstruction 923,650 25% 2018 R-4b Oakwood Drive Reconstruction 459,250 25% 2018 R-5 Rougemount Drive 1,837,000 25% 2014 Reconstruction /2 A-31 1 171 - Townsend and Associates Ms. Lynda Townsend June 30, 2009 Page 2 Code Description Cost Allocated to Timing Development RU-3 Sideline 4 Rural Reconstruction 870,000 25% 2009 south of H 7 RU-4 Audle Road south of Hwy 7 1,768,800 25% 2012 _ RU-6 Sideline 14 Reconstruction 1,768,800 25% 2012 related to 407 overpass TC-25 Street 'Al'- Oversizin_g__ _ 127,350 75% _ 2010 TC-26 Street 'A2' - Full Construction 229,425 75% 2012 TC-27 Pinecreek Culvert 2,467,500 75% 2015 TC-28 Street 'AT Oversizin 332,525 75% 2012 TC-29 Street 'A4' - Full Construction 120,750 75% 2015 Combined these projects add $4,560,425 to the costs benefiting new development. We also recommend that the City confirm the method of calculating the oversizing share for the collector roads. Our understanding is that they will be reimbursing the developer that constructs the collector road for all additional costs over and above the typical costs related to constructing the 8.5m wide local road. These costs include the additional width for the full pavement structure, the additional depths of granulars and asphalt over the 8.5m width, the sidewalk on the second side of the road, additional width of boulevard sodding, traffic medians, lane marking and line painting, etc. If you have any questions or wish to discuss the above further, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours truly, SERNAS ASSO IATES Aaron Christie, P.En . Principal, Project Manager AC/br Attch. cc: Mattamy Homes Limited, Attn: Mr. R. Miller, Mr. A. Wisson Sernas Associates, Attn: Mr. M. Favit 172 APPENDIX B REVISED 2009 DEVELOPMENT CHARGE BY-LAW FOR THE CITY OF PICKERING (APPLICABLE TO THE CITY, EXCLUSIVE OF THE SEATON LANDS WHICH WILL SUBSEQUENTLY BE SUBJECT TO A SEPARATE DEVELOPMENT CHARGE BY-LAW) Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. HlPickering12009 DCldc background study-ADDENDUM.doc 111111 11I B-1 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING ' 73 BY-LAW NO. Being a By-law regarding Development Charges WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section 2(1) of the Development Charges Act, 1997 (the Act), the council of a municipality may by By-law impose development charges against land to pay for increased capital costs required due to increased needs for servicing arising from development of the area to which the By-law applies; and WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering, approved the City of Pickering Development Charge Background Study, dated , May 22, 2009, as amended, prepared by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.; AND WHEREAS the Council has made the Background Study and proposed Development Charges By-law available to the public at least two weeks prior to the public meeting and has given Notice in accordance with Section 12 of the Development Charges Act, 1997 of its development charges proposal and a public meeting was held on June 8, 2009; AND WHEREAS the Council has heard all persons who applied to be heard in objection to, or in support of, the proposed Development Charge By-law proposal at such public meeting, and provided a subsequent period for written communications to be made; AND WHEREAS the Council in adopting the Development Charge Background Study on July 13, 2009 directed that development charges be imposed on land under development or redevelopment within the geographical limits of the municipality as hereinafter provided. NOW THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: PART 1 APPLICATION 1. (1) Subject to subsection (2), this By-law applies to all lands except for the lands commonly referred to as "Seaton lands" in the City of Pickering, as shown on the map attached to this By-law as Appendix "A" whether or not the land or use is exempt from taxation under Section 3 of the Assessment Act. (2) This By-law shall not apply to land that is owned by and used for the purposes of, (a) a board of education as defined under subsection 1(1) of the Education Act (b) any municipality or local board thereof; (c) the development of a non-residential farm building used for bona fide agricultural purposes; Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H.IPickedng=09 DCtdc background study-ADDENDUM. doc 1 7 4 B-2 (d) a building or structure that is used in connection with a place of worship and is exempt from taxation under the Assessment Act as a result; (e) development where, by comparison with the land at any time within ten years previous to the imposition of the charge: (i) no additional dwelling units are being created; (ii) no additional non-residential gross floor area is being added. (f) nursing homes and hospitals. (3) An owner who has obtained a demolition permit and demolished existing dwelling units or non-residential area in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code Act shall not be subject to the development charge under subsection (1) with respect to the development being replaced, provided that the building permit for the replacement residential units or non-residential area is issued not more than 10 years after the date of demolition and provided that any dwelling units or additional non residential floor area created in excess of what was demolished shall be subject to the development charge calculated under Section 6 and 11, respectively. 2. (1) Subject to subsection (2), development charges shall apply, and shall be calculated, paid and collected in accordance with the provisions of this By-law, in respect of land to be developed for residential use, non-residential use, or both, where the development requires, (a) the passing of a zoning By-law or of an amendment to a zoning By-law under Section 34 of the Planning Act; (b) the approval of a minor variance under Section 45 of the Planning Act, (c) a conveyance of land to which a By-law passed under subsection 50(7) of the Planning Act, applies; (d) the approval of a plan of subdivision under Section 51 of the Planning Act, (e) a consent under Section 53 of the Planning Act, (f) the approval of a description under Section 50 of the Condominium Act, or (g) the issuing of a permit under the Building Code Act, in relation to a building or structure. (2) Subsection (1) shall not apply in respect of: (a) local services, related to a plan of subdivision or within the area to which the plan relates, to be installed or paid for by the owner as a condition of approval under Section 51 of the Planning Act, (b) local services to be installed or paid for by the owner as a condition of approval under Section 53 of the Planning Act. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H.Ockering12009 DOdc background study-ADDENDUM.doc B-3 1 7 5 (3) Subsection (1) shall not apply with respect to only bona fide and complete permit applications received prior to the effective dates of the development charge rates as specified in Sections 6 and 11. 3. (1) Where two or more of the actions described in subsection 2(1) are required before land to which a development charge applies can be developed, only one development charge shall be calculated, paid and collected in accordance with the provisions of this By-law. (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) above, more than one development charge By- law may apply to the same area and if two or more of the actions described in subsection 2(1) occur at different times, and.if the subsequent action has the effect of increasing the need for services as designated in Sections 5 and 10, an additional development charge shall be calculated, paid and collected in accordance with the provisions of this By-law. PART II RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGES 4. In this part, (a) "apartment building" means a residential building, or the residential portion of a mixed-use building, other than a triplex, semi-detached duplex, semi-detached triplex, townhouse or stacked townhouse, consisting of more than 3 dwelling units, which dwelling units have a common entrance to grade; (b) "apartment" means a dwelling unit in an apartment building; (c) "bedroom" means any room used, or designed or intended for use, as sleeping quarters; (d) "development charge" means residential development charge; (e) "dwelling unit" means a room or suite of rooms used, or designed or intended for use by one person or persons living together, in which culinary and sanitary facilities are provided for the exclusive use of such person or persons; (f) "garden suite" means a one-unit detached, temporary residential structure containing bathroom and kitchen facilities that is ancillary to an existing residential structure and that is designed to be portable; (g) "grade" means the average level of finished ground adjoining a dwelling at all exterior walls; (h) "gross floor area" means the total floor area, measured between the outside of exterior walls or between the outside of exterior walls and the centre line of party walls dividing the building from another building, of all floors above the average level of finished ground adjoining the building at its exterior walls. 0) "semi-detached dwelling" means one of a pair of dwelling units attached together horizontally above or below grade or both above and below grade; Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H.Vickering=09 DC1dc background study-ADDENDUM_doc 176 B-4 (j) "single-attached dwelling" means one of a group of not less than three adjacent dwelling units attached together horizontally by above grade common walls; (k) "single-detached dwelling" means a single dwelling unit which is free-standing, separate and detached from any other building or structure. (1) "nursing home" means a building owned and operated on a non-profit basis but excluding any building or part of a building which is comprised of dwelling units. (m) "hospital" means land, buildings or structures used, or designed or intended for use as defined in the Public Hospitals Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.40 as amended;. 5. Development charges against land to be developed for residential use shall be based upon the following designated services provided by the City, with each charge apportioned for reserve fund purposes, in accordance with the percentages shown: (a) development-related capital studies (0.9%); (b) fire stations and equipment and services related thereto (2.7%); (c) storm drainage and management works and equipment and services related thereto (14.1 (d) transportation, operations and equipment, including roads, sidewalks, streetlights, traffic signals and services related thereto (49.4%); (e) parkland development and trail development and equipment and services related thereto (4.4%); (f) major indoor recreational facilities and equipment and services related thereto (23.2%); (g) libraries and furnishings and (non-computer) equipment and services related thereto, including circulating and non-circulating materials generally provided to library users by public libraries (5.3%). 6. Subject to the provisions of this Part and this By-law, development charges against land to be developed for residential use shall be calculated, paid and collected at the following rates per residential unit: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H.- Pickering12009 DCldc background study-ADDENDUM. doc IYII Y 1 B-5 1I TABLE 1(A) EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 2009 TYPE OF DWELLING UNIT CHARGE PER UNIT Single-detached dwelling, or semi-detached dwelling $9,694 Apartment dwelling, two or more bedrooms $5,246 Apartment dwelling, less than two bedrooms (inclusive of senior citizen apartment units) $3,849 All other dwelling units $6,957 7. (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), Section 6 shall not apply in respect of a renovation, addition or installation which involves the creation of: (a) one or two additional dwelling units in an existing single-detached dwelling; or (b) an additional dwelling unit in any other existing residential building; (c) garden suites. (2) Notwithstanding clause (1)(a) of this Section, development charges shall be calculated, paid and collected in accordance with Section 6 where the total gross floor area of the additional unit or units is greater than the total gross floor area of the existing dwelling unit. (3) Notwithstanding clause (1)(b) of this Section, development charges shall be calculated, paid and collected in accordance with Section 6 where the additional unit has a gross floor area greater than, (a) in the case of a semi-detached dwelling or single attached dwelling, the gross floor area of the dwelling unit already in the building; (b) in the case of any other residential building, the gross floor area of the smallest dwelling unit contained in the residential building. 8. Where non-residential floor area is to be converted to residential space, a charge shall be paid for any new residential units created, less the amount of the charge which would be payable if the existing non-residential space being converted were being constructed. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. HAPickering12009 DC1dc background study-ADDENDUM. doc 1 7 B-6 PART III NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGES 9. In this part, (a) "development charge" means non-residential development charge; (b) "grade" means the average level of finished ground adjoining a building at all exterior walls; (c) "existing industrial building" means a building used for or in connection with: (i) manufacturing, producing, processing, storing or distributing something, (ii) research or development in connection with manufacturing , producing or processing something, (iii) retail sales by a manufacturer, producer or processor of something they manufactured, produced or processed, if the retail sales are at the site where the manufacturing, production or processing takes place, (iv) office or administrative purposes, if they are: (1) carried out with respect to manufacturing, producing, processing, storage or distributing or something, and (2) in or attached to the building or structure used for that manufacturing, producing, processing, storage or distribution. (d) "gross floor area" means the total floor area, measured between the outside of exterior walls or between the outside of exterior walls and the centre line of party walls dividing the building from another building, of all floors above the average level of finished ground adjoining the building at its exterior walls. (e) "non-residential" means designed, adapted or used for any purpose other than a dwelling or dwellings, or accessory uses or spaces to a dwelling or dwellings. (f) "total floor area" means the sum total of the areas of the floor whether above or below grade, measured between the exterior faces of the exterior walls of the building or structure or from the centre line of a common wall separating two uses; and (i) includes the area of mezzanine as defined in the Ontario Building Code; and (ii) excludes those areas used exclusively as mechanical areas or for parking garages or structures. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:lPickering42009 DCtdc background study-A DDENDUM. doc _ i_ -r..._. _.ri unr i ■uuuin~ -i rw irr 7 9 B-7 10. Development charges against land to be developed for non-residential use shall be based upon the following designated services provided by the City, with each charge apportioned for reserve fund purposes, in accordance with the percentages shown: (a) development-related capital studies (0%); (b) fire stations and equipment and services related thereto (0%); (c) storm drainage and management works and equipment and services related thereto (0%); (d) transportation, operations and equipment, including roads, sidewalks, streetlights, traffic signals and services related thereto (100°/x); (e) parkland development and trail development and equipment and services related thereto (0%); (f) major indoor recreational facilities and equipment and services related thereto (0%); and (g) libraries and furnishings and (non-computer) equipment and services related thereto, including circulating and non-circulating materials generally provided to library users by public libraries (0%). 11. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Part and this By-law, development charges against land to be developed for non-residential use shall be calculated, paid and collected at the following rate: (a) $30.78 per square metre ($2.86 per sq.ft.) of total floor area, between September 1, 2009 and August 31, 2010. (b) $31.97 per square metre ($2.97 per sq. ft.) of total floor area, effective September 1, 2010. (2) If a development includes the enlargement of the gross floor area of an existing industrial building, the amount of the development charge that is payable in respect of the enlargement will be determined as follows: (a) if the gross floor area is enlarged by 50 percent or less, the amount of the development charge in respect of the enlargement is zero; and (b) if the gross floor area is enlarged by more than 50 percent, the amount of the development charge in respect of the enlargement is the amount of the development charge that would otherwise be payable multiplied by the fraction determined as follows: (i) determine the amount by which the enlargement in gross floor area exceeds 50 percent of the gross floor area lawfully constructed at the time of building permit application; and (ii) divide the amount determined under paragraph 1 by the amount of the enlargement. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:IPickering=09 DCldc background study-ADDENDUM.doc 1 80 B-$ (c) for the purposes of calculating the floor area of the existing industrial building, floor area created by a previous enlargement shall not be included. 12. Where residential floor space is to be converted to non-residential space, no development charge shall be paid. PART IV ADMINISTRATION 13. Development charges against land to be developed for residential uses, non-residential uses, or both, shall be calculated, paid and collected as follows: (a) development charges against that portion of the land to be developed for residential use shall be calculated, paid and collected on a per dwelling unit of residential use basis in accordance with Part If of this By-law and in the case of a mixed-use building or structure, upon the residential uses in the mixed use buildings or structures, according to the type of residential use; (b) development charges against that portion of the land to be developed for non- residential use shall be calculated, paid and collected on a gross floor area of non-residential use basis in accordance with Part III of this By-law and in the case of a mixed-use building or structure, upon the non-residential uses in the mixed-use building or structure. 14. (1) Development charges shall be payable in full on the date that the building permit is issued in relation to a building or structure on land to which a development charge applies. (2) No building permits shall be issued by the City for the construction of any building or structure on land to which a development charge applies until the applicable development charge has been paid in full to the City. (3) Where an owner has paid to the City, prior to the enactment of this By-law, in relation to a building or structure on land to which a development charge applies, (a) a charge against development pursuant to an obligation to do so in a Subdivision Agreement, Condominium Agreement, Development Agreement or other agreement with the City, (b) a fee as a condition of obtaining a consent to create a lot; or (c) a lot levy pursuant to By-law 3322/89, and the building permit for that building or structure has not been issued prior to the enactment of this By-law, the owner shall be credited with the amount so paid, up to the amount of the development charge payable, as part of the development charge payable hereunder when the building permit is issued. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. N:IPickedngt2009 DCldc background study-ADDENDUM. doc 1~1 B-9 15. (1) Monies received from payment of development charges shall be maintained in separate reserve funds, and shall be used only to meet the capital costs for which the development charge was levied under this By-law. (2) Council directs the Municipal Treasurer to divide the reserve funds created hereunder into the separate sub-accounts in accordance with the services and percentages set out in Sections 5 and 10, to which the development charge payments shall be credited in accordance with the amounts shown, plus interest earned thereon. (3) The amounts contained in the reserve funds established under this Section shall be invested, with any income received credited to the development charge reserve funds in relation to which the investment income applies. 16. (1) The development charges referred to in Sections 6 and 11 may be adjusted annually, without amendment to this By-law, as of July 1 each year, in accordance with the change in the index for the most recently available annual period ending March 31 for the Statistics Canada Quarterly, Construction Price Statistics, Catalogue Number 62-007. (2) The indexed development charges rates effective July 1 each year shall not apply to permit applications received prior to the July 1 effective date, provided: (i) the permit application is complete in terms of the applicant's submission requirements set out in the building code and the City's building by-law; (ii) applicable law approvals prescribed in the building code have been obtained or applied for, and (iii) the building permit or a conditional building permit is issued for all or part of the building on or before September 1 of that year. 17. Development Charges for the City of Pickering are payable by cash or certified cheque at the rates in effect at the time of payment upon issuance of the building permit(s) or as otherwise may be approved by Council. 18. Council may consider allowing a person to perform work that relates to a service to which the Development Charge By-law relates and if it agrees shall give the person a credit towards a development charge otherwise payable in exchange for the related work. 19. This By-law shall be administered by the Corporate Services Department and applied by the Chief Building Official. 20. This By-law shall come into force and effect at 12:01 am on September 1, 2009 for a term not to exceed five years from the date of its enactment, unless it is repealed at an earlier date. 21. By-law No. 6349/04 shall be repealed as of the date this By-law comes into force. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:lPickedng12009 DCtdc background study-ADDE'NDUM.doc 1 8 2 B-10 BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 13th day of July, 2009. Original signed Mayor Original signed Clerk Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H. Pickering12009 DOdc background study-ADDENDUM.doc B-11 1 8 3 low.SHIP QP U ORIOOE A t i t {Q ~ t t t o t CURIM P t 3C s .AM 15........ 0 t t t LAL t ww A r ° Y O z h 04 14 i APPENDIX "A" SEATON LANDS q _c Dwdlopment Cgill c i ti Q7faL{i~l/® %j, c, n e n ids o.. xxuw uA~ b c ° ntFCw: rr a € i !NFORMATION OURREN-Y AS OF MAY t. 2009. ett. j .,.I. rr~ Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H. Pickering12009 DCldc background study-ADDENDUM.doc Pickering Civic Complex Call 00 One The Es lanade r 184 p 11, ATTACHMENT #__1_TO REPORT #f2-~ 6 ' Pickering' Ontario 11 Canada L1V 6K7 I - I Direct Access 905.420.4660 P I C T i1~[~r T T ~wfL-I 1.111\VI T Toll Free 1.866.683.2760 cityofpickering.com CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT Department 905.420.4634 North Pickering 905.683.2760 Facsimile 905.420.5313 corpserv@city.pickering. on. ca July 7, 2009 Lynda J. Townsend Townsend and Associates Barrister and Solicitors Suite 10, 1525 Cornwall Road Oakville, ON L6L OB2 Subject: 2009 City of Pickering Development Charges By-law - Responses to Questions Raised File: F-7000 Below please find responses to the questions raised by the building communities: 1. Altus Group Preliminary Comments dated June 8, 2009 1.1 Roads - As indicated, a number of projects have been eliminated that were part of the 2004 DC Study. 1.2 A cost reduction was made to the 2009 gross costs for a number of projects for the Roads & Related-City Roads, Structures and Sidewalks, (overall average gross cost reduction was 3%) in order to better reflect inflation during the interval. 1.3 A decision has also been made to acknowledge post period capacity for several major Roads projects. See Table 1 below: Table 1 Project May 22/09 Revised June 26/09 BTE PPC BTE PPC RP-14 50% 0 50% 25% DH-1 10% 0 10% 25% DH-2 10% 0 10% 25% BR-1 75% 0 50% 25% BR-2 50% 0 50% 25% 2009 City of Pickering Development Charges By-law - Responses July 7, 2009 to Questions Raised 185 File: F-7000 Page 2 1.4 The City's local service policy for stormwater management is set out on page B-13 of the Background Study. Where prospective development specifically requires stormwater management facilities, it is required to put such facilities in place or, in some instances of infill, to make a cash-in-lieu payment. The works included in the development charge program are over and above the foregoing, in order to provide broad environmental benefit to the City. Such costs are appropriately shared between existing, 10-year and long-term development, all of whom contribute to the problem (via the cumulative effect of inadequate volume controls) and share in the benefits of the works. 1.5 The 30% post period capacity deduction for Krosno Creek does not relate to Seaton. 2. Submission by the IBI Group dated June 8, 2009 Issue #1 - Seaton has been excluded from the Growth Forecast for the reasons given on page 1 of the presentation made on June 8, 2009, namely that: "The Background Study is applicable to the City of Pickering, exclusive of the Seaton lands, which will subsequently to subject to a separate development charge by-law, or a revised City-wide by-law. This can occur as such time as planning for Seaton is advanced to the point where the anticipated development and associated capital servicing requirements have been sufficiently clarified." Issue #2 - The anticipated growth for the 10-year period 2009-2019 reflects City Planning's assessment of the development potential involved and the rate at which it is expected to occur, including consideration of the current recessionary economic conditions. The average annual pace of development is 500 units/year, which is beyond the 425 units/year forecast in 2004 for the 20-year period. Issue #3 - The replacement cost of Recreation Facilities has been indexed from the TSH cost analysis conducted in 2004, as footnoted on page B-30, with $34/sq.ft. provision for land costs added as per common DC replacement cost practice. The cost of trail development has increased significantly as a result of indexing and making appropriate provision for the cost of bridge works, which adds considerably to the cost/km, particularly given that the trail measurement was refined and substantially reduced subsequent to 2004. 2009 City of Pickering Development Charges By-law - Responses July 7, 2009 to Questions Raised File: F-7000 Page 3 186 Issue #4 - The cost of the Kingston St. Fire Station and the Finch Ave. Fire Station have increased significantly as a result of DC indexing, the provision of a $34/sq.ft. land cost allowance and the use of Firehall No. 5 as the replacement cost base. Issue #5 - The per unit costs for the pumper, rescue and support vehicles has increased significantly from the 2004 Study as a result of indexing and to reflect the fact that the replacement units are larger and contain more specialized equipment, including hydraulics. However, it could be asserted that this represents a service level increase and, as a result, the 2004 costs plus 33% indexing will be used instead (thereby somewhat reducing the service level cap and the Fire component of the charge). Issue #6 - The increase in. the operations centre replacement cost is as a result of indexing plus the inclusion of a land cost allowance and equipment not included in 2004. Issue #7 - The roads shown in orange are, in fact, not new but have simply been renumbered and differently identified. The only new project is Town Centre West area. Issues #8 - A number of modifications in deductions have been made for various roads. Please see Table 1. Issue #9 - This question is also addressed via Table 1. Table 1 Project May 22/09 Revised June 26/09 BTE PPC BTE PPC RP-14 50% 0 50% 25% DH-1 10% 0 10% 25% DH-2 10% 0 10% 25% BR-1 75% 0 50% 25% Issue #10 - The benefit to existing deductions for projects BR-11, RP-14, BR-14 and BR-15 have been altered in order to reflect the fact that: • future growth will have access to 407 via RP-14; • an increase in BTE from 50% to 75% in the case of BR-15. While BTE was maintained at 75% for BR-14; • BR-11 was increased from 5% to 10%. BTE percentages typically remain constant for road projects as part of following through on the original DC funding plan. 2009 City of Pickering Development Charges By-law - Responses July 7, 2009 to Questions Raised File: F-7000 Page 4 1~7 Issue #11 - Costs associated with Seaton have been deducted in the form of post period benefit as noted on Table 1. (None applicable to roads.) Issue #12 - With respect to the aerial, the deduction has been significantly revised to reflect BTE of 5% and post period capacity of 50%. Issue #13 - The new $50 million recreational complex is not part of the DC calculation. The Duffin Heights Community Facility is expected to be approximately 220,000 sq.ft. Its cost per sq.ft. is below replacement average because of the large indoor soccer facility that is involved. 3. Durham Home Builders' Association Verbal Questions dated June 8, 2009 and June 30. 2009 email a) Basis for increased cost of fire rescue vehicle: The per unit costs for the pumper, rescue and support vehicles has increased significantly from the 2004 Study as a result of indexing and to reflect the fact that the replacement units are larger and contain more specialized equipment, including hydraulics. However, it could be asserted that this represents a service level increase and, as a result, the 2004 costs plus 33% indexing will be used instead (thereby somewhat reducing the service level cap and the Fire component of the charge). b) The proposed pumper/rescue vehicle at $775,000 is marginally lower than the $800,000 replacement cost. Several of the fire vehicle replacement costs are being adjusted. c) The Claremont Public Library was replacement valued by TSH at $300/sq.ft. in 2004 and indexed to 2009 with $34/sq.ft. provision for land costs added as per common DC replacement cost practice. d) The Petticoat Creek Library Addition was over-deducted in 2004 for BTE at 50%. The revised 10% deduction is valid given that the coverage is only for an addition. Existing development benefits from the base facility. Also, the DC program only equips the City to maintain the existing service level and, in that sense, provides no benefit to existing development; however, the addition will provide improved access benefits to some existing users, which have been recognized. 2009 City of Pickering Development Charges By-law - Responses July 7, 2009 to Questions Raised File: F-7000 Page 5 4) Sernas Group forwarded by Townsend and Associates dated June 19, 2009 a) Section B-1 (Roads and Related) Detailed background was requested for the City's entire roads program in terms of capital costs and road lengths. This information was provided by the City in late June. b) Section B-2 (Stormwater Management) The City's local service policy for stormwater management is set out on page B- 13 of the Background Study. Where prospective development specifically requires stormwater management facilities, it is required to put such facilities in place or, in some instances of infill, to make a cash-in-lieu payment. The works included in the development charge program are over and above the foregoing, in order to provide broad environmental benefit to the City. Such costs are appropriately shared between existing, 10-year and long-term development, all of whom contribute to the problem (via the cumulative effect of inadequate volume controls) and share in the benefits of the works. The storm drainage works included in DC's will not mean that any development within the southern Pickering or Frenchman's Bay watershed will not have to do any SWM controls. Everyone will still be expected to do SWM for their specific site etc. We should focus on that the Duffin Heights storm water management ponds are local services required just for that particular subdivision as other municipalities have done. 5) Letter from Townsend and Associates dated July 2, 2009 1. DH-9 The 2004 DC By-Law identified William Jackson Drive as Project DH-16. The 2008 Capital Budget - Develop me nt. Projects (DC- FUNDED) approved a portion of that project ($230,000.00). The remaining portion was included in the 2009 DC By-law as project number DH -10 - 425m oversizing @ 628.00/m. The portion approved in 2008 Budget cannot be included in the 2009 Study. 2. DHA 5 The detailed breakdown did not indicate works on both sides of the street. This will be revised, although it does not alter the project cost or the DC Study. The revised wording will also expand on the median (this is for landscaping within the median) this cost although identified as part of the project for 2009 City of Pickering Development Charges By-law - Responses July 7, 2009 to Questions Raised File: F-7000 Page 6 conformity during budget approval, becomes a City cost that exceeds the normal boulevard costs. 3. R-3, R-4a, R-4b and R-5 and contained within the Rosebank neighbourhood, south of Hwy. 401 west of Whites Road. These projects were identified in the initial DC By-law due to the anticipated growth, related to future development areas, rear lot development, infill and severances within this area. Although the area's explanation to-date has been slower than expected the development potential still exists and these roads will need to be upgraded to accommodate the growth. The DC portion is 25% recognizing the benefit to existing. Some costs identified by Sernas have been revised in the DC Study. RU-3 Sideline #4 has an adjacent estate residential subdivision under development and the potential for two future draft plans. These developments warrant the need to upgrade Sideline # 4; again the DC portion is 25%. RU-4 This project will require upgrading due to growth in south Pickering and Ajax, that require access to Hwy. # 7 and in future Hwy. 407; again DC portion is 25%. RU-6 This project will require upgrading as it will be one of the few remaining north/south connections following the extension of Hwy. 407 which will eliminate other existing N/S connections. The additional use is also related to growth in south Pickering and again the DC portion is 25%. TC-25 to TC-29 These projects are within the Town Centre area identified as a Downtown Growth Centre. The proposed collector road and culvert works will be required in order to accommodate this growth which would not otherwise be required. The DC portion was set at only 75% acknowledging that existing development surrounding the area would have some benefit. 2009 City of Pickering Development Charges By-law - Responses July 7, 2009 to Questions Raised File: F-7000 Page 7 19 4. Oversizinq The calculation for oversizing initially covered the additional cost from the City's standard local road - 8.5m/9.75m pavement on a 20m ROW to collector/ type C arterial (22 to 27m ROW). The Duffin Heights Neighbourhood, with the recent ESP has defined a local road to be 8.5m pavement on a 17m R.O.W. and the collector as 11.0m pavement on a 22m ROW. The oversizing cost sharing will be confirmed as detailed engineering and costs are submitted and will include additional asphalt and granular base exceeding the 8.5m width, as well as additional boulevard costs, line painting and ancillary traffic control related to the collector road. We will review additional cost for multi-use trail should it exceed normal sidewalk cost, but the ESP local road already indicates sidewalk on both sides of the street. Should there be additional street lighting or revised road cross-section due to environmental concerns they will also be addressed in the oversizing cost. 5. Summary The concerns expressed in the June 30, 2009 letter have been addressed as noted above. We do not propose any change to the Development Charge Study. Yours truly Gillis A. Paterson Director, Corporate Services and Treasurer GAP:ck Copy: Altus Group, 1580 Kingston Road, Toronto, ON M1 N 1S2 IBI Group, 230 Richmond St. West, 5th Floor, Toronto, ON M5V 1 V6 Sernas Associates, 110 Scotia Court, Unit 41, Whitby, ON L1 N 8Y7 Mattamy Development Corp, 30 Centurian Dr., Ste. 100, Markham, ON L3R 8B8 Durham Home Builders' Association, King Street Postal Outlet, P.O. Box 26064, 206 King Street East, Oshawa, ON L1 H 1 CO Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 4304 Village Centre Court, Mississauga, ON L4Z 1S2