2019 DC Study Policy Issues External Stakeholder Minutes

Transcription

1 Date / Time: December 8 th, :00am 12:00pm Location: 6 th Floor Large Boardroom Attended & Invited: 2019 DC Study Policy Issues External Stakeholder Minutes Martin Hayward (Chair), Peter Christiaans, Matt Feldberg, Adam Langmuir, Angelo DiCicco, Sandy Levin (UL), Wes Kinghorn (UL), Jamie Crich (LDI), Lois Langdon (LHBA), Trevor McKenzie (LHBA), Amanda Stratton (UL), Craig Linton (LDI) Purpose: To establish policy framework for 2019 DC Study & By-law update. Agenda Item Discussion 1. Welcome Introduction of attendees. 2. Core Area Servicing Study (CASS) Update 3. DC Policy Specific Area Rates (S.A.R) Proposed alternative of an asset rating scale to determine Benefit to Existing for unknown growth locations Unit cost modelling currently underway, next update expected to be given in January. CASS will test benefit to existing models against locations where development could actually or theoretically occur Central Thames Watershed presented as a possible specific area that could be delineated for a differential DC rate. SWM ponds in the greenfield area could be considered as part of an inter connected city wide system that benefit SWM in the Central Thames Watershed. LDI Suggestion to study area rating for 2024 DC-By-law update, possible implementation for 2019 is too soon and it could affect business plans. Invited written submission from attendees to express general opinion on S.A.R 4. Work Plans Revised work plan process presented 5. Coordination of SWM Ponds Coordination with the City s design consultant is happening too late in the development process

2 Subdivision grading plans get approved at the time of servicing drawings. No developer will want to go back in the process to change the grading plans to accept cut/fill material from the SWM pond construction. Difficult to coordinate 2 consulting engineers (City & Developer s) Timing needs to be moved up in the process LDI contends that costs have increased with City Led projects City staff with revisit the current process with the above feedback in mind Building Activity Forecasts Market can handle LDR units per year, foresee that being a sustainable number. Toronto buyers moving into London market No availability to buy townhouse lots, seeing increased demand due to creeping single family home prices Concern of short term lot availability, follow up on application statuses. (i.e. Vacant Land Inventory update, future meeting to be conducted by Development Services) 7. Other Matters Report on status of GMIS works, expectation of meeting construction deadlines. Next DC External Stakeholder Meeting Tuesday, January 10 th 2:00 3:00pm 6 th Floor Large Boardroom

3 Infill and Intensification Development in the Core 2019 DC Study Policy Issues External Stakeholder Meeting December 8 th, 2016 london.ca

4 london.ca Core Area - Water

5 london.ca Core Area Sanitary and Storm

6 Funding Policy Framework Three Development Servicing Scenarios: 1. Local Servicing Developer cost 2. Planned Infrastructure Lifecycle Projects Water and Sewer Rates and DCs 3. Unknown Growth Triggered Works Water and Sewer Rates and DCs london.ca

7 2. Planned Lifecycle Projects Consider an Infrastructure Lifecycle Replacement Project in the CASS boundary: Existing 250 mm Servicing Deficiency (ILRP, CSO, etc.) Need additional 50 mm capacity 300 mm Water and Sewer Rates cover this cost Future Growth Additional 100 mm capacity 400 mm Development Charges cover this cost london.ca

8 3. Unknown Growth BTE Models Modeled capacity analysis; Asset rating; Design standards; Matrix to incorporate all approaches; Detailed G/nG splits; Difficult to assign projects. Most Complex Modeled capacity analysis and Asset rating; Matrix and/or scoring system to incorporate capacity and asset rating; Specific G/nG splits; Difficult to assign projects. Modeled capacity analysis; Or Asset Rating; Generalized G/nG; Technical parameters to apportion costs; Example projects, but not specific. No modeled capacity analysis or asset rating; Standard G/nG, i.e. 50/50. No modeled capacity analysis Flat rate based on additional flows generated by development Least Complex london.ca

9 Next Steps Complete review of unit costs; Complete growth and pipe models; Test BTE models against actual and theoretical development locations; VLI, recent inquiries, approved site plans, etc. Identify projects Review impact to DC and Development Approvals; Review with Development Community london.ca

10 Development Charge Policy Issue Specific Area Rates Initial Discussion with External Stakeholder Committee December 8, 2016

11 Specific Area Rates Council Direction Council Resolution Aug 30, 2016 (summarized):..the following policy issues BE ENDORSED for review as part of the 2019 Development Charges (DC) Background Study: a. area rating ; b. local service definitions ; c. additional services : i. operations centres; and, ii. waste diversion; d. timing of DC payment ; and e. Interim Financing Costs.;.above will be subject to consultation with external DC stakeholders.

12 Background - Specific Area Rates May, 2013 DC Policy Review Report (SPPC) on Area Rating : Criteria to establish an area rate : i. the service provides obviously different benefits in one area, over another; ii. there is a clear delineation that can be made between areas that enjoy substantially different benefits; iii. Arguably, the benefits that a differential rate produces outweigh the cost of establishing a differential rate. differential DC rate calculations for SWM facilities in the Central Thames Watershed (CTW) area (May 13 SPPC) were considered to meet the criteria. No other services met criteria for area rating the service. LDI opposed shift from City wide rates

13 Background - Specific Area Rates May, 2013 Council directed : Area rate recommendation be referred back to staff for further dialogue with industry Subsequently in 2013/14, Elimination of UWRF was made the policy priority for 2014 policy changes Ultimately in 2014 Continued with averaging approach to recovery of all growth services 2016 Council agreed : Consider area rating along with other DC policy reviews

14 Average vs. Area Rate Average Rate Approach $avg /unit Area Rate Approach $ x /unit $ y /unit $ z /unit

15 Comparison of DC Recovery Alternatives Average Cost Pros: - Everyone pays the same rate - Avoids winners and losers - Easier to administer simpler calculation pooling of funds Cons: - Perceived issues re: fairness - Potential to pay for services you don t benefit from - Lacks financial incentive that may assist in directing development to certain locations Area Rating Pros: - Improved link between DC payable and service provided - Cited as a potential incentive for intensification/infill - Use as a strategic tool for growth management Cons: - Justification of area rate networked services eg. roads, wastewater treatment - Multiple DC by-laws to administer - Potential for high costs to develop certain areas - Transitional complexity

16 Area Rated Components of under current DC by-law Line Column 1 Column 2 1 Service Component Single & Semi calculated according to density: 2 FIRE SERVICES POLICE SERVICES GROWTH STUDIES LIBRARY SERVICES PARKS AND RECREATION 2, TRANSIT SERVICES ROADS SERVICES 13, SANITARY SEWERAGE 3, WATER SUPPLY WATER DISTRIBUTION 1, MAJOR SWM 5, TOTAL (within Urban Gr Area) $26, check $26, hard" services total $16, Outside Urban Growth area $16, UWRF rates Line Column 1 Column 2 1 Service Component Single & Semi 2 Minor Road Works Minor Sanitary Sewerage Works Minor Storm Sewerage Works Road Works, Sanitary Sewerage Works, Storm Sewerage Works 1, Storm Water Management Works Total $2, check $2, Outside Urban Area charge Additional charges - Inside Urban Growth Boundary DC RATE SUBTOTAL $28,632 Total Rate (CSRF +UWRF) $28,632

17 Suitable Candidate 2013 Report Conclusion

18 Future SWM works CT vs. remaining Growth Areas

19 DC Legislated Changes Bill 73 changes related to Area Rating Regulations may be made to require municipal councils to consider the use of area specific development charge bylaws. 10(2)(c.1)DC Study to include:.. consideration of the use of more than one development charge by-law to reflect different needs for services in different areas ;

20 The London Plan and DC Area Rating Excerpts from London Plan 181 As part of any development charges study, the City will consider an area rating approach to recognize that the costs of growth in certain areas of the city may be substantially different from the costs of growth in other areas of the city (7) The City will consider, as part of a development charges study, an area rating approach to recognize that the costs of growth in certain areas of the city may be substantially different from the costs of growth in other areas of the city.

21 To be decided To be decided : 1. Do we want to implement DC Specific area rating for any service (SWM, Rapid Transit)? 2. If so, what would be the area (eg. an amended Central Thames area; Rapid Transit Corridors? Are there other service categories we feel could be distinguished through area rates? 3. Caution : if we AR.. Implementation/ Transition needs to be considered and developed before we put forward recommendation.

22 Your input requested 1) Your thoughts on the overall topic of Specific Area Rating are invited for Staff to consider as we develop the policy (internal discussions are ongoing); 2) Opportunity for final input upon completion of final policy Timing target for Area Rate Report early spring.

23 FILE MANAGER SUBDIVISION APPROVAL PROCESS WORK PLAN APPENDIX C WORK PLAN MILESTONE PROCESS DIAGRAM CITY STAFF DEVELOPER/CONSULTANT EES, Parks, DF Identify timing as part of IPR/FPR PROPOSAL REVIEW MEETING DESIGN STUDIES Major Works: Outline scope of work and estimate fees FIRST SUBMISSION OF SERVICING DRAWINGS Submit Work Plan Major and Minor works Development Services completeness check PRELIMINARY REVIEW Revise as necessary 2 weeks EES, Parks Planning & Development Finance comments COMMENTS TO CONSULTANT Revise as necessary Development Finance circulates DIRECTOR APPROVAL CIRCULATION TO OWNER

24 Problems/Issues Raised by LDI (Oct, 2016) 1) PAYMENT DRAWS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF CSRF PROJECTS 2) COORDINATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF SWM PONDS 3) WORK PLAN CONTENT 4) ESTABLISHING GROWTH/NON-GROWTH SPLITS IN CORE AREA SEWERS

25 2. Coordination & Construction of SWM Ponds PROBLEM/ISSUE (as summarized by LDI) : Need to review the method for the design and construction of SWM ponds to save costs to the fund. Issues have been raised related to: design of the SWM works and disposing of the soils from the excavation of the ponds on the subdivision lands. Needs: better coordination of the earth work design between the pond and the final grading of the development; Further discussion to allow the developer s engineer to prepare the pond design, in line with standards set by the City, as part of the development and to charge that work to CSRF Rules would need to be developed to permit this, like caps on costs.

26 Initial Response (based on discussions with City of London Staff) CITY OBJECTIVES : City s goal in delivery of SWMF construction is cost minimization while achieving an acceptable standard of facility through a competitive, transparent acquisition process. Background : Method for design and construction of SWM ponds was reviewed with the 2014 DC Study through that study, City undertook to build all future ponds, save/except for a couple of grandfathered ponds that already existed in subdivision agreements Disposal of soils - objective: to construct them on a least cost basis that also meets the City s performance and maintenance standards

27 Addressing the Need for Co-ordination 1) EA process is a public process once EA is complete, both landowner and City know the approximate amount of fill available from the pond excavation 2) In its consulting assignment for the design of the construction of the pond, the City assigns as a task, coordination with the developer s engineer with respect to coordinating the exchange of information regarding availability of fill and grading 3) Prior to publishing a tender request, the City s consults with the host and adjacent landowners regarding their desire to have the fill left on site for the host developer s needs. Disposal options are listed below (in sequence they are applied): o The fill may be left on site, at the request of the developer, for their use in grading; o If the host developer does not express an interest in the use of the fill, it may be delivered to another location/construction site that serves growth needs; o If neither host developer, nor the City, have a use for the fill, the tender document requires a quote for Removal and disposal of fill.

28 Addressing the Need (Cont d) 4) For construction tendering, the City has prequalified bidders which ensures contractors have experience and skills working adjacent to the natural heritage system and environmental areas. Economies of scale should still be achievable on host site excavation through hiring of the contractor the City uses; 5) City has recently taken steps to fine tune the above process related to use of fill on the host subdivider s site. Specifically : o Host landowner is requested to provide a letter of intent to receive the fill as well as reasonable delivery conditions associated with the receipt of the fill. o The City agrees to entertain reasonable conditions that do not increase the cost of that line item on the tender (ie. keep the cost of the SWM construction to a minimum and still deliver the service). o The City continues to refine and improve this process and will be issuing a developer sign-off letter in the near future.

29 Future Outlook The future of SWM facility construction : more directed towards Low impact development (LID s) technologies in accordance with the anticipated Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) guidance manual. infrastructure design standards that come under the LID umbrella requires further research to arrive at best practices. Pending the completion of that research, there may in future be: o New works to deal with drainage in developing areas that meet the objectives of LID. These works may or may not be : included as part of the Local Servicing Standard (ie. common to most developments, and therefore a developer cost responsibility) or may be DC cost sharable (assuming the works are determined to have a regional benefit, and places an unfair burden on the host developer, to the benefit of other developers in the area). o Reduction in the need for large wet pond (water quality) facilities replaced with large dry pond facilities within a corridor around Dingman. These opportunities will be fully explored in the Dingman EA. o All these future opportunities will be considered during the 2019 Development Charges process.

30 Summary The City continues to engage with the development proponents to coordinate pond construction ; The City is open to receiving input on ways of fine tuning the process of City led SWM pond construction approved during the 2014 DC study understanding that fundamental changes may involve by-law amendments; MOECC guidance manual and use of LID s may involve further changes in scope of DC funded works and best practices for constructing and financing of SWM controls.

31 DEVELOPMENT CHARGE UNIT AND SPACE FORECASTS FOR CITY SERVICES AND URBAN WORKS FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY - AS AT NOVEMBER 30, 2016 RESIDENTIAL Total City Forecast City Forecast vs. Altus Projection Single & Semi (Detached & Semi detached) ,360 (831) Single & Semi (Detached & Semi detached) -- Altus Reference ,678 Other (eg. Row Housing) ,910 (487) Other (eg. Row Housing) -- Altus Reference ,910 Apartments - Bachelor & One Bedroom ,944 (724) Apartments - Bachelor & One Bedroom -- Altus Reference ,852 - Two or More Bedrooms ,416 (864) - Two or More Bedrooms -- Altus Reference ,278 (2,318) NON RESIDENTIAL Sq. M Sq. M Sq. M Sq. M Sq. M Sq. M Sq. M Sq. M Sq. M Sq. M Sq. M Sq. M Commercial 21,000 23,000 23,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 16,200 16,200 22,000 22,000 22, ,400 (28,300) Commercial -- Altus Reference 17,200 17,200 17,200 16,200 16,200 16,200 16,200 16,200 26,900 26,900 26, ,300 Institutional 42,000 36,500 36,500 19,400 19,400 19,400 19,400 20,800 20,800 20,800 20, ,800 (55,000) Institutional -- Altus Reference 36,500 36,500 36,500 19,400 19,400 19,400 19,400 20,800 20,800 20,800 20, ,300 Industrial 33,000 20,000 30,000 45,500 45,500 45,500 45,500 51,600 51,600 51,600 51, ,400 (35,000) Industrial -- Altus Reference 45,900 45,900 45,900 45,500 45,500 45,500 45,500 51,600 51,600 51,600 51, ,100 6,100 5,500 (54,700)

32 2016 Building Activity LDR MDR HDR Altus Forecast GMIS Building Forecast Actuals 831 Altus Forecast GMIS Building Forecast Actuals 487 Altus Forecast GMIS Building Forecast Actuals 1588 COMM. INST. IND. Altus Forecast 17,200sq/m 2017 GMIS Building Forecast 21,000sq/m 2016 Actuals 28,300sq/m Altus Forecast 36,500sq/m 2017 GMIS Building Forecast 42,000sq/m 2016 Actuals 55,000sq/m Altus Forecast 45,900sq/m 2017 GMIS Building Forecast 33,000sq/m 2016 Actuals 35,000sq/m

33 2016 Building Activity - LDR Altus Forecast GMIS Building Forecast Actuals 831

34 2016 Building Activity - MDR Altus Forecast GMIS Building Forecast Actuals 487

35 2016 Building Activity - HDR Altus Forecast GMIS Building Forecast Actuals 1588

36 2016 Building Activity COM Altus Forecast 17,200sq/m 2017 GMIS Building Forecast 21,000sq/m 2016 Actuals 28,300sq/m

37 2016 Building Activity INS Altus Forecast 36,500sq/m 2017 GMIS Building Forecast 42,000sq/m 2016 Actuals 55,000sq/m

38 2016 Building Activity - IND Altus Forecast 45,900sq/m 2017 GMIS Building Forecast 33,000sq/m 2016 Actuals 35,000sq/m