2014 Development Charges External Stakeholder Committee Minutes - Session #13 Date I Time: November 7, 2013 Location: Committee Room #1 2 Floor City Hall Staff Martin Hayward (Chair), John Braam, Peter Christiaans, John Fleming, Lorelei Fisher, John Lucas and Edward Soldo. Attendees: Stakeholders Jim Kennedy, Craig Linton, Bill Veitch (LDI), Lois Langdon (LHBA) and Sandy Levin (UL). and Consultants Agenda Item Issue I Discussion Actions Martin / Peter provided an overview of the DC timetable noting that there are a 1. 2014 DC Draft Timetable number of dates to still be confirmed with including the proposed November 21 External Stakeholder Committee meeting date. Additional meetings with individual stakeholder will continue to take place as needed throughout the process. If there are additional questions with respect to scheduling, Lorelei will be the point of contact for staff. 2. Soft Services Projects Paul provided the attached presentation and handouts relating to soft services, and DC Eligible Costs levels of service, capital needs and growth/non-growth splits in relation to Police, Fire, Transit, Parks and Recreation and Libraries. All were asked to review the material and provide comments directly to Paul. Preliminary discussion at the meeting as follows:. LDI inquiry as to whether the southeast area should have higher non-growth, given the lack of growth in the southeast area in general.. UL under parkland development, the growth/non-growth split needs to account for whether growth precipitates the need for costs associated with ESAs including any capital projects.
LDI a capital project such as an arena cannot be built in an ESA. UL however a project such as a boardwalk can be, and they require additional rationale for the proposed split. LDI the project does not necessarily arise from growth because the area is initially undeveloped. Development does not requite the facility, but if there is an ESA it becomes part of the development process. UL which benefits people in that particular area more than others. LDI the split should not be majority growth because you cannot grow on it. LDI Woodland parks and Urban parks are a change in the level of service over the last 10 years and are a higher level amenity, and a different type of park than in previous years, inquiring how this change is considered. PC noting staff incorporated in the historical service standard to limit how much can be funded for the future 10 years only using money collected and incorporating funds that exist at the time of the study, and applying caps to the following 10 years. JMF Developers and the Community see these parks as a benefit, and which are being integrated into a number of developments so they are being transitioned in as DC eligible. LDI they believe this amenity is being driven moreso by Urban Designers, and it is still a level of change in service. More questions may arise following a detailed review of the tables distributed. UL/LDI level of service, current and historical will be part of discussion. MH Act is a limiting factor. PY one servicing standard for all parks, not dollar per capita for all different types.
0 0 0
C CL LDI with respect to LIC, its programs are failing and ridership numbers are falling, don t understand why 43 new busses should be on the back of growth. PY LTC will be reorganized to bring people from growth and greenfield areas. PC soft service portion of rate is 10% approx. of DC rate. In the grand scheme of total rate the total dollars are not a significant. UL summary of numbers almost the same as 5 years ago. PC last study had $15 M of debt collectible, now have $100 M that needs to be collected from growth that is still ongoing. LDI from all areas? PC substantially hard services, but component is larger than the last study. UL - of the 170,000 there are 3 substantially large projects. UL all can agree that transportation will be the largest component. LDI - servicing new growth areas - the busses in those areas have the least amount of people using them so why is the growth component so high. Brouwer where are the fixed components. PC 75 million in hard services. LDI - debt portion from the past? PC - will bring forward with draft calculations. PC if that 2/3 funding is not forthcoming from other levels of government, the transportation projects would not be within the city s financial capabilities.
0 0 0
LDI then what would go forward. UL road portion of SRI, going to need those roads anyhow, so 2/3 is going to cover the road projects. If 2/3 not forthcoming for roads and budgets, question is how many of those road programs are not going to go forward over the 20 year period. LDI goals of the SRI are to improve overall ridership, but should we look at percentage in growth of use of system use overall, in order to more properly reflect the growth/non-growth share. ES if the BRI does not go forward, the DC share for the road growth would be 100% of the DC, given would be no other level of government funding forthcoming. PY reviewing KW studies, York area studies assumptions. Review with the other municipalities will be helpful. LDI once a draft rate is calculated, further comments can be provided based upon those figures. UL discussion at Council will need to be clear that elimination of BRT may increase the DC rate. J Braam BRT is the least expensive way of getting roads done, least expensive to the DC. LDI more explanation is needed from staff with respect to comparisons of the percent changes re 2009-2014, and the meaning of the terminology used in the presentation. LDI existing debt for each component? PC yes. PY Paul will provide more detail, as well as the tables; noting if there are reviewed the detailed tables and terminology, contact Paul for more detail.
0 0 0
In Scott s absence, Peter provided a general update on the status of 3. Master Plan Updates technical plans; noting water and wastewater will be presented at the Technical meeting on November 15. The Technical Committee will continue to meet after November 15 on an as needed basis, draft calculations are currently underway. LDI commented that discussions on various plans will be ongoing throughout November, and with rate calculations available early, there will be some concrete approximations to deal with rather than using previous rates, particularly with respect to roads. Staff noted it needs to be determined whether the budget can support the projects that can be supported in the 15-20 year range prior to the DC by law being passed. Future splits are still under discussion. Next Meeting Thursday, December 5, 2013 Commiftee Room #1 2:00 4:30 p.m.
0 0
DC External Stakeholder Committee November 7, 2014 Draft For Discussion Purposes Only E.&O.E. 1
3 U Water Distribution $977 4.1% $2,157 9.1% $23,623 100% $9,638 40.8% $5,629 23.8% $5,222 22.1% Component DC Charge Percentage of Ira nsportation Treatment Sanitary Sewers and Police Fire Transit Libraries Recreation I. I. I B Soft services in context112o13 Single Family Unit DC Charge SWM and Storm Total Charge Soft Services (combined) Total Parks&
I 0 year capital plan window (except Fire and Police, 20 yrs optional) Cannot recover costs above 10 year average level of service ($/capita); any project cost above service standard borne by the municipality Look Derive Cost at 10 year historic inventory and $/unit replacement cost (e.g., number of fire trucks and the 2013 cost to replace each truck) a 10 year average $/capita service standard based on inventory replacement costs recovery limit = service standard x net growth in population over 10 years Mandatory 10% deduction of project costs recoverable (except Fire and Police) r
POLICE r. i TTV
Vehicles Standard (10 year average) 2014 DC Study 2009 DC Study % Change Qua ntity/ca pita Quantity & Quality/capita 0.000080 0.000081 I. $6 32 $4 85 1% 30% Facilities: Standard(loyearaverage) 2014 DCStudy 2009 DCStudy %Change Quantity/ca pita Quantity & Quality/capita 0.514946 $161.54 0.473182 $121.27 9% 33% Equipment: Standard (10 year average) 2014 DC Study 2009 DC Study % Change Quantity/ca pita Quantity & Quality/capita 0.001614 $10.65 0.001507 $6.80 7% 57% I
Vehicles Vehicle replacement costs have increased since 2009 Facilities: Addition Increased to Police Headquarters and a higher $/sqft replacement value for the expanded facility land valuations Equipment: Pol ice Growth outfitting costs (gear and radios) more expensive than 2009 in number of officers
New projects for 2014 DC Study Vehicles: None Facilities: Police Station Expansion (2023) Equipment: Outfittkig costs for increase ir officers due to growth (2014-2023) Growth/Non-Growth Splits Determination Vehicles: Facilities: Equipment: N/A Under review Per capita service standard (1614/1000 ppl) x net pop growth (39,200) = 63 new officers attributable to growth (same approach as 2009 DC Study) I
0 Facilities: I Total Capital Needs 2014 DC J Study Gross Cost $0 $27,000 Total Capital Needs 2014 DC Study 2009 DC Study % Change Gross Cost $lom I, N/A Note: The 2009 DC Study included debt costs associated with the previously constructed Headquarters addition Gross Cost $413,700 $223,500 85% Total Capital Needs 2014 DC Study 2009 DC Study % Change EquIpment I 2009 DC Study % Change Vehicles: London C A N A N A
4 aj!d! u0p0o11
Vehicles: Standard (10 year average) 2014 DC Study 2009 DC Study % Change Quantity/capita 0.000189 0.000182 4% Quantity & Quality/capita $49.35 $45.27 9% Facilities: Standard (10 year average) 2014 DC Study 2009 DC Study % Change Quantity/capita 0.437030 0.417051 5% Quantity & Quality/capita $139.18 $117.49 19% Equipment: Standard (10 year average) 2014 DC Study [ 2009 DC Study % Change Quantity/capita 0.000983 0.000998-2% Quantity & Quality/capita $3.28 $3.65-10%
Vehicles: Vehicle replacement costs have increased since 2009 Facilities: New Higher Increased facilities since 2009 DC Study: Communications Tower Hyde Park Fire hail and $/sqft replacement costs have increased since 2009 land valuations for most facilities Equipment: Number Firefighter of firefighters constant for past 3 years outfitting costs have become cheaper (e.g., bunker gear)
U -u U New projects for 2014 DC Study Vehicles: Facilities: Equipment: Aerial Company (2020) (retabning Quint for Station #15) Training Tower (2019) (retainifng Station #15) None (retaining Firefighter outfitting for Station #15) Growth/Non-Growth Splits Determination Vehicles: Facilities: Equipment: Based on an examination of future growth in the City s core (Quint identical to 2009 DC Study) Under review for Training Tower (Station #15 identical to 2009 DC Study) Firefighter outfitting for Station 15 has same non-growth share (unchanged from 2009 DC Study) Note: Fire capital needs under review upcoming report to Community and Protective Services Committee re: future fire needs may require adjustments to the above
Vehicles: Total_Capital Needs 2014 DC Study 2009 DC Study % Change Gross Cost I $2,670,000 $1,295,000 106% Facilities: Total Capital Needs 2014 DC Study 2009 DC Study % Change Gross Cost $3,695,000 $5,870,000-37% Equipment: Total Capital Needs 2014 DC Study 2009 DC Study % Change Gross Cost $68,000 $92,000-26%
-, Di
Facilities: Standard (10 year average) 2014 DC Study 2009 DC Study % Change Quantity/capita 0.8939 0.7711 16% Quantity & Quality/capita $276.57 $212.27 30% Collection Standard (10 year average) 2014 DC Study 2009 DC Study % Change Quantity/capita Quantity & Quality/capitaj I 2.749791 $79.04 3.105295 $99.64-11% -21% 4
Collection: inventory substantially; book collection is diminishing as well deemed obsolete (e.g., VHS and LPs) and have been reduced from the Library is in transition to the digital age large portions of collection Higher Increased New facwity since 2009 DC Study: Stoney Creek Library $/sqft replacement costs have increased since 2009 FacillUes: land valuations for most facilities.1
Facilities: Collection: Facilities: Collection: Collection materials are to meet incremental inventory existing population (same as 2009 DC Study) method as 2009 DC Study, but service areas have been revised) needs to serve growth in the area, therefore no benefit assessed to Proportion of built out area in 1999 to service area (same Growth/Non-Growth Splits Determination None (retaining LSA 12 & LSA 13 collections) None (retaining LSA 12 & LSA 13 libraries) New projects for 2014 DC Study
Facilities: Total Capital Needs 2014 DC Study 2009 DC Study % Change Gross Cost $8,160,000 $9,540,000-14% Collection: Total Capital Needs 2014 DC Study 2009 DC Study % Change Gross Cost $500,000 $710,000-30%
Recreation Parks & :1.. I. I
Facilities Standard (10 year average) 2014 DC Study 2009 DC Study % Change Quantity/capita Quantity & Quality/capita 2.62 $762.49 2.41 $608.94 9% 25% Parkiand Development: Standardfloyearaverage) 2Ol4DCStudy 2009 DCStudy %Change Quantity/capita Quantity & Quality/capita 0.005142 $552.32 0.004900 $274.77 5% 101% i..s -1... S. -o
New Higher Increased Facilifies: p p I Springbank Gardens Community Centre, several new field houses land valuations for most facilities facilities since 2009 DC Study: Stoney Creek Community Centre, $/sqft replacement costs have increased since 2009 Level of Service: Contributing Factors I
-u New Parkiand Increased equipment/amenity unit rate costs (e.g., asphalt pathways, lighting, etc.) Continued push by the general community and Councillors to see more built in City parks More park-related recommendations being incorporated into Council-approved City wide master plans (e.g., Age Friendly, Strengthening Neighbourhoods, Thames Valley Corridor Study, Parks and Recreation Master Plan, etc.) Increased consultant fees associated with environmental review and regulatory requirements New categories (i.e., Urban Parks and Sports Parks) have higher design standards compared to 2009 DC Study Increased demand for new forms of recreation (e.g., skate parks) Additional pedestrian bridges/boardwalks being constructed due to increased environmental protection objectives replacement costs have increased: constructed in the other categories (Neighbourhood Parks, District these categories since 2009 DC Study in addition to new parks park categories added to 2014 DC Study (Woodland Parks, Urban Parks and Sports Parks) with new parks that have been constructed in Parks, Open Space and Environmentally Sensitive Areas) Parkiand Development:
Capital Needs and Growth/Non-Growth Shares.y - --.. _I_., :- - - New projects for 2014 DC Study Facilities: Parkland. S/E Facility split in 2 as a result of community consultations one facility anchored by the arena and one facility anchored by pooi (retaining combined facility for 51W) Development: Projects explicitly identified, rather than generally listed in 2009 DC Study Growth/Non-Growth Splits Determination FaciWties: Parkland Proportion of built out area in 1999 to service area by component (same method as 2009 DC Study, but S/E service area has been revised for pool) Development: Parks that are local in nature (neighbourhood parks, woodland parks, urban parks, etc.) are 100% growth District parks are assessed based on developed area vs. undeveloped area for their service area Open Space, Sports Parks and Thames Valley Parkway is parkiand that contributes to a network, 75% growth, 25% non-growth ESAs have a broader benefit outside of their immediate area: 67% growth, 33% non growth I
-u H i.gross Cost $53,691,150 $32,115,000 Total Capital Needs 2014 DC Study 2009 DC Study % Change Parkiand Development: I s; Total Capital Needs 2014 DC Study 2009 DC Study % Change Gross Cost $78,872,300 $107,681,100-27% Facilities:
: Ira nsit.! I It Ii It 1, U It It II II U. ti H I H U U Ii H I -......
Quantity & Quality/capita $125.21 $162.47 Quantity/capita 0802638 Standard (10 year average) 2014 DC Study 2009 DC Study % Change Facilities: Standard (10 year average) 2014 DC Study 2009 DC Study j ¾ Change Quantity/ca pita 0.000528 Quantity & Quality/capita $262.54 $262.96 -<1% 0 000A <1% -23% 0.735153 9% Vehicles:
Vehicles: Vehicle replacement costs have slightly decreased due to pooled purchasing of new buses with other municipalities Facilities: Facility Land replacement costs included in 2009 DC Study were based on best-available information at the time (construction of new bays at the Highbury facility); 2014 replacement costs based on $/sqft costs for the Wonderland facility and are deemed to be more accurate costs decreased for Highbury facility (vs. 2009 DC Study),..4. [..
(therefore, same growth share) projects/costs and due to the decrease in growth-related conventional buses replacement buses) Conventional buses: 100% growth as only additions to fleet are included (not BRT buses: 100% growth due to the need for BRT to reduce roads growth capital Vehicles: Facilities: 100% growth as it is being constructed to serve the BRT Growth/Non-Growth Splits Determination Facilities Vehicles: BRT Buses for North Leg and South Leg (2019 &2020) Downtown BRT Terminal (201$) A New projects for 2014 DC Study (retaining 5 conventional buses to serve growth areas)
I I Note: For both the BRT buses and facility, the 2014 gross costs identified above are net of the 2I3rds Federal/Provincial contribution Total Capital Needs 2014 DC Study 2009 DC Study % Change Gross Cost $1,650,000 $2,500,000-34% Facilities: Total Capital Needs [ 2014 DC Study 2009 DC Study % Change Gross Cost $10,565,500 $8,676,800 22% Vehicles:
Going forward... Future benefit to projects (if applicable) 10% Statutory deduction Reduce costs by service standard limitation (if applicable) Residential, commercial industrial splits B We welcome your feedback once you ve had a chance to review the servicing standards and capital cost summary... V V.- V. 4 V VVV V V4 V V