City of London Development Charges Background Study · 2.2 City of London Growth Financing Policy...
228
City of London Development Charges Background Study April 2009
Transcript of City of London Development Charges Background Study · 2.2 City of London Growth Financing Policy...
City of London Development Charges Background Study April 2009
ii
Table of Contents
1 CHAPTER 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................1
2 CHAPTER 2 - DEVELOPMENT CHARGES – PURPOSE AND STUDY PROCESS..................................................................................................4
3 CHAPTER 3 - CALCULATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT CHARGE RATE 19
4 CHAPTER 4 – THE DEVELOPMENT CHARGE BY-LAW......................36
APPENDIX A - GROWTH FORECASTS............................................................39
APPENDIX B – FIRE SERVICES.......................................................................47
APPENDIX C – POLICE SERVICES..................................................................61
APPENDIX D – CORPORATE GROWTH STUDIES.........................................73
APPENDIX E – LIBRARY SERVICES ..............................................................78
APPENDIX F – PARKS AND RECREATION....................................................90
APPENDIX G – TRANSIT ...............................................................................131
APPENDIX H – MAJOR TRANSPORTATION ROADWORKS - CSRF FUNDED143
APPENDIX I – MINOR TRANSPORTATION ROADWORKS – UWRF FUNDED156
APPENDIX J - SANITARY SEWERS, POLLUTION CONTROL PLANTS, AND OTHER FACILITIES- CSRF FUNDED...................................................164
APPENDIX K – OVERSIZED SANITARY SEWERS – UWRF FUNDED .........172
APPENDIX L – WATER DISTRIBUTION AND SUPPLY SYSTEM .................177
APPENDIX M –STORMWATER MANAGEMENT WORKS - CSRF FUNDED 186
APPENDIX N –STORM SEWERS / STORMWATER MANAGEMENT WORKS - UWRF FUNDED.....................................................................................193
APPENDIX O – EXAMINATION OF OPERATING COSTS .............................203
APPENDIX P – TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR UWRF/DC IMPLEMENTATION TEAM FOR THE 2008 DEVELOPMENT CHARGE STUDY..................209
APPENDIX Q – EXCERPTS OF CITY OF LONDON OFFICIAL PLAN WITH RESPECT TO GROWTH FINANCING POLICIES.................................212
NOTES 225
1
1 Chapter 1 - Executive Summary Development Charges provide a method for municipalities to recover cost associated with growth. In Ontario, the Development Charges Act, 1997 governs the calculation of rates and collection of charges. The Act also dictates that a background study be completed which in general terms, demonstrates that the charges were calculated in accordance with the legislation. The process used to calculate development charges begins with a growth forecast. How the growth forecasts were compiled is described in Appendix A. From this growth forecast, service needs associated with growth were compiled. Capital needs are routinely projected by all service delivery departments. In most areas, the capital needs were compiled with the help of an external consultant. Care was taken to ensure that the needs identified did not exceed existing historical standards in each service area affected by this legislative requirement. Once the capital needs arising from projected growth was determined, the process of computing development charge rates ensued. This process included:
• Estimating costs and timing of growth needs • Applying statutory deductions to the estimated growth costs (including allocation of
costs to existing development, deductions associated with an improvement in service standard, deduction for grants or other capital funding sources attributable to the growth projects, and the statutory 10% deduction for certain soft services, namely Parks, Recreation, Library and Transit, Growth Studies)
• Allocating the resulting net cost amongst benefiting forms of development (residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial)
From the resulting net cost attributed to each form of development, existing reserve fund balances are taken into account and preliminary rates (excluding financing costs) are calculated. The calculations also involve a cash flow analysis that incorporates existing reserve fund balances, projected revenues and fund draws. From the cash flow analysis, financing costs associated with the growth plan are estimated, and incorporated into the rate calculations. This study has benefited from consultation with numerous stakeholders. The UWRF/DC Implementation Team (comprised of representatives from development industry [London Development Institute], construction trades [London District Building and Construction Trades Council] and taxpayer interests [Urban League] met on approximately a dozen occasions during the course of the study to monitor progress, review estimates and assumptions and discuss interim observations. Subgroups met where there was a need to review data and observations in more detail. Numerous City staff in positions responsible for planning service delivery provided information necessary for calculation of existing service levels, growth forecasts and growth related capital needs. The objective at the outset was to conduct a consultative process where information pertinent to rate calculations was freely available for scrutiny and debate.
2
During the course of the study, economic activity in the building industry has shifted dramatically. When the study was undertaken in the early part of 2007, construction activity was at a peak. As this study draws to a close, the economic activity for this important industry has shifted dramatically. The objective of this study throughout has remained consistent – to calculate the most accurate development charge rate possible under all the long term growth assumptions and with regard to the requirements of the underlying statute. This study incorporates all growth needs associated with development into one document. The scope of the engineered works in the study includes both primary facilities – arterial roads, large trunk works (sanitary and storm), sanitary treatment facilities, storm water management facilities, and water supply and distribution facilities – as well as more local works that serve community areas (minor road works, sewers and storm water management facilities). These latter works have been historically referred to as “Urban Works” and conform to the rate calculation approach required under the legislation. In comparison to the 2004 DC study, the scope of the “Urban Works” incorporated into this study has been narrowed, in favour of an approach that would see the more of these works budgeted by the City. In essence, this represents a shift of funding approach for certain works from “Urban Works” to “City Services”. This shift is consistent with the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon panel (October, 2006), which recommended this as a means for the City to address a mounting backlog of claims against the Urban Works Reserve Fund. The changes to the fund operation will be gradual, as many “Urban Works” remain to be completed under terms of subdivision and development agreements between the proponent and the City. Another change to the existing UWRF approach espoused in this document will see a local share for certain future works previously fully funded from the UWRF fund now assessed against the proponent developer. The details of the development charge rate calculations are contained in appendices to this study – one for each service. Chapter 3 provides summary information of all capital needs, allocations to growth and non-growth, allocations to benefiting types of development and rate calculations. This study reflects rates that are computed within the bounds of the governing statute. The development charge rates reflected in this study are a reasonable representation of the anticipated costs resulting from projected growth, over the planning horizon used to predict the need, for each service.
3
The full calculated rates are contained in Tables 3-2 & 3-3. The recommended rates resulting from this study are summarized in the Table below.
Development category Recommended Rate(²),(3)
Existing rate January 1, 2009
Single family residential rate $22,921 / unit $17,005/ unit Commercial $168.59 /sq.m. $217.77/ sq.m. Institutional $108.64 / sq.m. $117.37/ sq.m. Industrial (1)
(1) No charge for industrial development in existing DC by-law, as confirmed by Council in December, 2008. (2) Recommended Rates excludes Water Supply component for all categories. Existing rate does not
include that component either. (3) For non-residential rates, Recommended Rates include charges for “soft services” (Fire, Police, Parks
and Recreation, Transit, Library, Corporate Growth Studies). Comparable existing rates exclude these components.
Vic Coté General Manager of Finance and Corporate Services and Acting City Treasurer April 20, 2009
4
2 Chapter 2 - Development Charges – Purpose and Study Process Development charges have been collected in Ontario since the 1960’s. Their general purpose is to provide a pool of funds to finance capital works to facilitate and to serve growth. The facilitation of development is a fundamental aspect of municipal government. In executing this role, the City must adequately plan the financing of the significant costs associated with growth. It does so in part, through the research, calculation and adoption of development charge rates. These rates provide an important source of financing for engineered services (or “hard services”) including road, water and sewer infrastructure, as well as the expansion of Fire, Police, Parks, Recreation, Library and Transit service capacity (“soft services”). These services are all required for urban development. 2.1 Purpose of the Development Charge Study In Ontario, the provincial government regulates the setting of development charge rates through the Development Charges Act, 1997. This development charges background study has been prepared to meet the requirements of that legislation. It is intended to comprehensively explain the City of London’s approach to the calculation of the rates and to otherwise meet the standards of the Development Charges Act, 1997. Development Charge rates are invoked and administered by by-law. In order to replace the expiring by-laws in a timely manner, the City initiated a review process in 2006. The process was designed to include:
o stakeholder consultation o the completion of the background study (which is prerequisite to adopting a new by-
law), o and a public meeting (also required by the legislation)
The process will conclude with the adoption of a new development charge by-law, replacing the existing by-law C.P. -1440-167 (as amended), and will establish new rates that are reflective of the capital requirements associated with the growth forecasts. 2.2 City of London Growth Financing Policy Policies provide for orderly growth and development, and compatibility between the many different uses of land within the City of London. The policies also address the City’s objectives with respect to financing of growth. Among the most significant of the policies in this regard are:
OP Section 2.6.2. Growth Management Principles vii) that the implications of new development for the financial health of the
municipality will be assessed and that growth related costs will be financed from revenues generated from growth; OP 2.6.3. Growth Financing Policies The financing requirements to service new development should not jeopardize the long term financial health of the municipality or place an undue burden on existing taxpayers. The following growth financing policies are intended to achieve these objectives:
i) Growth related capital costs will be recovered from revenues generated from new development...............
5
iii) The City will consider, as part of the area study process, the involvement of
the private sector in the development, operation, construction and financing of long term servicing infrastructure..............
v) The City may explore alternatives for the financing of oversizing costs (that portion of servicing projects that have been sized to accommodate growth beyond the planning period) until these costs and related interest carrying costs can be recovered from future development............... OP 2.6.4. Growth Servicing Policies The City of London will plan the provision of services to accommodate growth so that servicing is timely, cost efficient, environmentally sound, consistent with long term servicing plans and within the financial means of the municipality. Servicing subject to this strategy includes physical infrastructure such as sanitary sewerage works, storm drainage works, water supply and distribution, and road works. It also includes the provision of community facilities and services including parks and recreation facilities, libraries, public transit, and fire and police services......
A more complete compilation of the Official Plan policies as they relate to growth management and financing can be found in Appendix Q. 2.3 City of London Development Charge Policy In London, the term ‘development charges’ is used to describe charges collected in the City Services Reserve Fund (CSRF) and the Urban Works Reserve Fund (UWRF). Both funds are used to finance growth related works, but their purposes are different, as reflected in the following table: Listing of Services recovered through DC’s and Exempted Services under current DC by-law (expires Aug, 2009)
Works currently funded through Urban Works
Reserve Funds
Works currently funded through City Services
Reserve Funds
Works currently Exempted (L-legislative exemption; or C- City currently does not collect a DC for these, by
policy) Minor Roadworks – traffic lights, road channelization, sidewalks, street lights, bike paths
Arterial Road expansion & Rural Rd upgrade to urban standard
Water – trunk line pipes and supply capacity
(C) -Water Supply capacity provided by Lake Huron or Lake Erie joint water supply board
Sanitary Sewers – collection pipes generally serving areas >30 hectares (includes works potentially costing up to $4M)
Sanitary Sewers – trunk collection pipes and treatment capacity
6
Listing of Services recovered through DC’s and Exempted Services under current DC by-law (expires Aug, 2009)
Works currently funded through Urban Works
Reserve Funds
Works currently funded through City Services
Reserve Funds
Works currently Exempted (L-legislative exemption; or C- City currently does not collect a DC for these, by
policy) Storm Water – collection and water management ponds (costs for large ponds in the $millions)
Fire – stations, equipment, outfitting costs
(L) Cultural or Entertainment Facilities, tourism facilities, acquisition of Land for Parks, provision of Hospitals, provision for waste management services, general administrative headquarters
Police – facilities, equipment, outfitting costs
(L) – 10% exemption for “Soft Services” (ie. non-infrastructure including Fire, Police, P&R, Library, Transit, Growth Studies)
Corporate Growth Studies – growth studies with a City wide scope
(C) – generally services rarely included in DC by-laws including :Social Housing, Long Term Care Facilities, Public Works Maintenance Equipment (must be expected to last > 7 years to be eligible)
Library – facilities, collections
Parks & Recreation – facilities, park development –neighbourhood, district, sports fields, major open space, ESA’s, parkway extension,
Transit – facilities, buses The table above describes types of works that are excluded from rate calculations. In addition to the above, the City’s DC rate policy also currently exempts the following types of development from rates (L- denotes legislative exemption; C- denotes exempted by City policy):
• Space added to an existing dwelling unit (L) • Creation of one or two additional dwelling units in an existing single detached
dwelling or one additional dwelling unit in any other existing residential building, provided that the total gross floor area of the additional unit(s) does not exceed that of the existing dwelling (L)
7
• Parking building or structure(s) (C) • Structure(s) intended for seasonal use only that do not have water and sanitary
facilities (C) • Commercial truck service establishment(s) (C) • ‘Temporary Garden Suite(s)” installed in accordance with the provisions of the
Planning Act, as amended (C) • For development in relation to lands, buildings, or structures used for a place of
worship or the purposes of a cemetery or burial ground or other non profit organizations exempt from taxation under the Assessment Act , there is 50% exemption from City Services Reserve Fund charges (C)
• Expansion of existing industrial buildings (L) • New industrial buildings as defined in the by-law (C) • Non-residential farm buildings which support agricultural uses (C) • Residential unit development in defined areas of Downtown or Old East Village
Areas (C) • Certain lots in Cantebury Estates Subdivision and Gainsborough Meadows
Subdivision, as these lots were subject to transition arrangements resulting from the 1993 annexation of lands from the Township of London to the City in 1993, all as defined in the by-law (C)
• Lands owned and used by the Corporation of the City of London including Library, Covent Garden Market, London Convention Center and London Transit (L)
• Lands owned by boards of education as defined in the Education Act (L)
2.4 Development Charge History and Urban Works Development charges have a history in London dating back to 1972. The first development charges in London had their origin in the City of London Act, 1971. This private legislation provided a mechanism for the City to recover the costs of improvements to boundary roads and outlet sewers. This system provided the funds needed to reimburse developers who constructed such “urban works’ that served areas beyond their own developments. In 1991, with the advent of the Development Charges Act, 1989, the City continued with a charge for urban works (which provided for financing of growth related works built in conjunction with development), but also instituted a separate charge for Roads, and Sanitary Sewers. The latter charge was designed to recover a part of the growth related costs of works included in the City capital budgets. With annexation in 1993, the City again undertook a rate study which consolidated rates in the existing City, with those of the large predominantly rural areas. In 1997, a new act – the Development Charges Act, 1997 – required a further review of the rates. Development charge by-laws were approved under that legislation in 1999 and 2004. Amendments to the 2004 by-law have been made on a few occasions over the pas five (5) years. DC by-laws expire after five (5) years (in accordance with the legislation), and the impending expiry of the City’s by-law (August, 2009) makes the completion of this study necessary.
8
2.4.1 Urban Works and the OMB In 1999, the City struck two separate development charge by-laws:
• one for the charges recovered for large scale growth related works built by the City of London
• another for the smaller scale works referred to as “Urban Works” However in an OMB decision rendered in February, 2002 (Mistretta appeal under the Development Charges Act, s. 22(1)), the presiding member stated:
“……, the Board finds the relationship between the City’s UW By-law, its DC By-law, and the Development Charges Act and its regulations to be curious. The Development Charges Act created a uniform set of principles to be followed and applied by municipalities throughout the Province, when imposing charges on development in order to obtain contributions towards the net capital costs that are related to growth.”
In concluding, “The Board finds that the UW By-law is a form of Development Charge By-law, which brings with it the rights, restrictions and limitations established by the Development Charges Act and the regulations.....”
In July, 2003, Council agreed to continue with the operation of the fund in its current form. The rates and policies with respect to Urban Works were continued with one major difference: what were formerly two by-laws were then combined into a single by-law. 2.4.2 Blue Ribbon Panel – a new direction for funding of works from UWRF A “Blue Ribbon Panel” of development experts was commissioned by the City to address a growing concern over the financial health of the fund and to recommend changes to address these concerns. In, October, 2006 the Panel tabled a report on aspects of the City’s development charge policy. Their recommendations addressed many general elements of the City’s existing DC policy including affordability, accuracy of cost estimates, use of DC funds collected and fund governance. They also address specific elements of the UWRF funding approach. The panel recommendations that relate to financing development and the status of each recommendation are summarized below:
Item Blue Ribbon Panel Recommendation Status
1) that the UWRF should continue to exist in a modified form with the intent that sufficient funds be available to pay for the works in a reasonable time period;
This DC background study assumes continuation of UWRF with recovery of claimable costs generally over a 20 yr. period.
2) that minor growth related capital works be redefined so that more major works would become the responsibility of the City to fund under its annual Capital Budget approval process;
This DC background study assigns responsibility for major works previously financed from UWRF to CSRF (projects funded by CSRF are subject to Council approval through annual budget process)
9
Item Blue Ribbon Panel Recommendation Status
3) that a new background study be undertaken for both the City Services and UWRF development charges by-laws;
Completion of this DC background study satisfies this recommendation
4) that a new administrative structure be developed by the City to oversee the development of background studies for development charges, to administer the claims to the UWRF, to monitor the costs and charges being approved and to develop and administer front ending agreements arising from capital works for City Services;
New Development Approvals Business Unit being organized
5) that the City set up a program to monitor and review rates and costs to ensure that Development Charge rates are reflective of the true costs of the works and that unanticipated works and contingencies are properly taken into account in calculating the rates;
Monitoring program being recommended for initiation upon completion of DC rate setting process
6) that the City review the UWRF and CSRF rate by-law where circumstances which would affect the rate (for example, significant deviations from the projects anticipated in the background study) arise in the future;
Monitoring program being recommended for initiation upon completion of DC rate setting process
7) that the Development Charges Monitoring Committee be replaced by administrative review and quarterly reports to Board of Control and Council, and that an ongoing working relationship with the development industry be continued to discuss emerging issues and to develop revisions to development charges where required;
Reports will be directed to Board of Control; working relationship with Development Industry already established is enhanced through Development Approvals Business Unit (see item 4) above)
8) that the City consider issues of servicing costs and prematurity early on in the development process prior to proceeding to detailed studies and development conditions and that the issue of prematurity be considered by Council where there are significant servicing costs impacts on projects funded from City Services or Urban Works
Issues of prematurity will in future be addressed through Development Approvals Business Unit (see item 4) above) and through the Growth Management Implementation Strategy (Growth Management Implementation Strategy(GMIS))
9) that the City consider utilizing front ending agreements as a mechanism for the early emplacement of infrastructure defined by the City’s capital budget and funded from City Services Reserve Fund; and
Policy on Municipal Servicing Agreements under development (GM Vic Coté)
10
Item Blue Ribbon Panel Recommendation Status
10) that a detailed review be undertaken of the rules and claimable works allowed in the UWRF to limit the scope of works to site specific works with an oversizing component.
This DC background study included a review of claimable works with a view towards limiting scope of same.
A separate report entitled “Blue Ribbon Panel (BRP) Implementation Strategy” tabled March 1, 2007 reflected the above recommendations of the panel’s report. The report assigned preliminary administrative responsibility for assessing and implementing various BRP recommendations. Implementation of the BRP recommendations was debated and discussed by a team (the UWRF/DC Implementation Team) consisting of the representatives of the London Development Institute (Steve Janes), the Urban League (Sandy Levin), the London District Building and Construction Trades Council (Jim MacKinnon) and senior City administration over the course of completion of this study. 2.4.3 Revisions to the Current UWRF Funding Approach One of the primary intentions of the DC background study process was to incorporate the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Panel (BRP). As a result of the BRP study, the UWRF will continue to exist, but in a modified form. The following paragraphs discuss some of the key changes:
A. New rules have been developed to redefine future claimable works. These generally : i. Reduce the number and scope of the works to be funded by the developer
(through UWRF), redirecting responsibility for these to Council for approval through the annual budget process (funding through the CSRF). This shift in responsibility will be most evident in the funding of future road improvements that enhance the overall capacity of the road network and in the larger Storm Water Management Facilities.
ii. In the case of pipes (sanitary & storm), future claims for works built (generally through greenfields) will be eligible for a subsidy for oversizing the works beyond a specific threshold diameter (sanitary – 300mm; storm – 1050mm). Below this diameter, the cost of the pipe is deemed to be local benefit, and is the responsibility of the proponent developer;
In general therefore, the scope of the UWRF works has been decreased, as recommended in the Blue Ribbon Panel report. Council will be responsible for approving the timing of major works.
B. Claims that are for completed works but are unpaid upon tabling of this
background report are incorporated into the rate calculations at the unpaid amount. All UWRF claims will continue to be paid on the first-in-first-paid basis, as funds allow (same basis as currently exists).
C. Claims that exist in executed agreements (executed prior to commencement date
of the by-law) will continue to be administered under “old rules”.
11
2.4.4 Municipal Servicing and Financing Agreements (MSFA)
Consistent with the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Panel, the City will develop an approach to financing CSRF works that will, under certain conditions, allow a developer to accelerate the construction of the works, while at the same time, allowing the City to live within acceptable limits of debt and accelerated approvals of future capital works. This policy will involve the proponent developer and City entering an agreement (MSFA). In creating this policy, the City should consider the following:
i. ability to afford the City share (ie. the non-growth share) of a project, given the current state of tax supported reserve funds and debt;
ii. the existing level of development charge supported debt and cash flow expectations for the service to be accelerated;
iii. minimal conditions and prerequisites the City will incorporate into its policy on MSFA
iv. form of the agreement, and the process by which it is approved and entered. v. amounts to be financed on an interim basis by the proponent developer, and
the terms of the financing, vi. criteria to determine whether a proposed acceleration of development in the
area is desirable (e.g. takes advantage of spare capacity in other service areas, enhances market competition, meets City strategic objectives).
vii. The work on the development of this policy continues at the time of completion of this study.
2.5 Methodology for Development Charge Rate Calculation This section briefly describes the various elements of the development charge legislation and how each has been addressed in this study. 2.5.1 Growth Forecasts The development charge legislation requires (under s.5 (1)1.) that “The anticipated amount, type and location of development for which development charges can be imposed must be estimated”. The work plan for this study therefore began with a projection of development activity (referred to as “growth forecast”). These projections are necessary for prudent planning of municipal services and facilities. They represent the base assumption from which growth needs were projected. An initial growth forecast was completed for this study (completed by Clayton and Associates) in 2006. An update of the figures produced in the original 2006 forecast was completed in August, 2007. The figures in the 2007 update were then projected forward (by mathematical interpolation) to determine growth between 2008 and 2028. These figures were used as the basis for projecting growth needs and performing the ultimate rate calculations. This study projects that London will grow from a 2008 population of approximately 359,000 to 392,000 by 2018; and to 424,000 by 2028. A complete explanation of the growth forecast study methodology and its conclusions can be found in Appendix A.
12
2.5.2 Projecting Future Capital Needs Arising from Growth Forecasts Assumptions about the location of the anticipated growth were prerequisite to the next phase of the development charges study, that being the determination of municipal infrastructure and facility needs that result from the anticipated growth. The determination of municipal needs answers ‘what infrastructure, facility and major equipment needs arise from growth in London?’. This step is required under s.5 (1)2. of the Act. Capital needs resulting from growth projections were identified for “soft service” categories (ie. Fire, Police, Library, Transit, Parks & Recreation, Growth Studies) by the department, board or commission responsible for service delivery. The types of expenditures that are eligible for inclusion in the cost of capital needs are specified in s.5 (3) of the Act, being:
1. Costs to acquire land or an interest in land, including a leasehold interest. 2. Costs to improve land. 3. Costs to acquire, lease, construct or improve buildings and structures. 4. Costs to acquire, lease, construct or improve facilities including,
i. rolling stock with an estimated useful life of seven years or more, ii. furniture and equipment, other than computer equipment, and iii. materials acquired for circulation, reference or information purposes by a
library board as defined in the Public Libraries Act. 5. Costs to undertake studies in connection with any of the matters referred to in
paragraphs 1 to 4. 6. Costs of the development charge background study required under section 10. 7. Interest on money borrowed to pay for costs described in paragraphs 1 to 4.
2.5.3 Local Services to be Installed or Paid for by Owner The Act recognizes that certain services may be required as a condition of development to be installed and paid for by the owner as a condition of approval under the Planning Act. This element of the legislation pertains to hard services with a local component. Accordingly, the local share of services is excluded from the development charge rate calculations. What constitutes the local share of services for the purpose of their exclusion from the development charge calculations was addressed in each of the background studies for infrastructure. 2.5.4 Council’s Intention to Meet Growth Needs In order to be eligible for inclusion in development charge rate calculations, Council must indicate its intention to meet the growth related capital needs through an approved official plan, capital forecast, or similar expression of Council (s.5 (1)3. and related regulations). Most of the engineered “hard service” needs were identified through the City’s Growth Management Implementation Strategy which preceded the completion of this background study. The GMIS was approved by Council in June, 2008. Further, the growth related works contemplated in the 2009 DC Study were correlated with the draft 2009 Capital Budget (with respect to timing and budget cost estimates), approved by Council in February, 2009. A recommendation for approval of the capital needs identified in this background study, subject to annual review in the Capital Budget approvals process, is contained in Chapter 4. A discussion of the projected needs for each service category is contained in each of Appendices B through N.
13
2.5.5 Legislated Adjustments to Arrive at Amount Eligible for Rate Calculations Before arriving at amounts eligible for inclusion in development charge rates, there are several adjustments that must be addressed:
1. any excess capacity in existing facilities must be taken into account in arriving at the amount of the capital needs used for development charge rate calculation purposes (s.5 (1)5.). Excess capacity is considered in planning all growth related works. Where there is excess capacity that Council has stated an intention would be paid for by new development, an exception exists. This exception pertains, for example, to “oversized services”1 constructed in the past and which have been funded by debt. In this case, the existing debt on the works which benefits growth in the time horizon of this study is included in rate calculations.
2. the development charge rate calculation cannot include an increase in need which benefits existing development (s.5 (1)6.). The benefit to “existing development” is routinely referred to as the “non-growth share”. The assessment of benefit to existing development is unique to each projected capital need.
3. the rate calculation must exclude anticipated capital grants, subsidies or other contributions (s.5 (2)) subject to whether the person making it expressed a clear intention that all or part of the grant, subsidy or other contribution be used to benefit existing development or new development. Where applicable, these contributions have been identified and accounted for in the rate calculations.
4. for certain service categories – namely Corporate Growth Studies, Library, Parks and Recreation, Transit, a 10% deduction from the costs otherwise determined to be eligible for inclusion in development charge rate calculations is mandated (s.5(1)8.). Where applicable, these deductions are identified, in the respective rate calculations.
5. In order to facilitate the calculation of separate residential and non-residential rates for each service, an allocation of the eligible costs to the various types of growth is made. This element of the rate calculation required judgment, and was addressed for each service category.
6. Finally, the rate calculations incorporated into this study incorporate an offset to the costs otherwise included in the rate calculations to recognize the amount of uncommitted reserve funds. These uncommitted reserve funds have been accumulated in the past, for projects that remain to be completed in the future, and are available to fund a portion of the growth needs identified in this study. They have therefore been deducted from the amounts to be collected from future growth.
These are the key elements of the rate calculations as set out in the legislation. Each element has been addressed in arriving at the development charge rate eligible amount in the respective Appendices B through N. 2.5.6 Examination of Existing Levels of Service To ensure that municipalities do not improve their existing levels of service through capital improvements funded by developer contributions, the Act provides protection under (s.5 (1)4.). 1 The term “oversized services” refers to services which were designed to serve growth horizons beyond a defined growth horizon or geographic area. For example, the 1999 DC background study contained allocations of servicing costs, where those services were deemed to serve growth beyond 2021.
14
Section 5 (1)4 prohibits inclusion of infrastructure and facilities in rate calculations if their inclusion would improve municipal service standards above those that existed in the ten years preceding this background study. The regulations provide additional detail on this point. First, the regulations provide that where existing service standards are lower than those provided by another Act, the standard of service provided under the other Act prevails. This affects the design of most engineered infrastructure. In these cases, current design standards (rather than historical standards) are used to plan all future works. Secondly, the regulations specify that in measuring existing service levels, both the quantity and quality of those services should be taken into account. The City interprets quality to refer to the ‘nature and grade of excellence’ of a service. Quantity refers to the ‘number and size’ of the facilities used to provide services. By assessing the existing services with respect to these two characteristics, this study has arrived at an objective measure of existing service standards (where required). By using replacement costs to compute the existing standard (as required by regulation), a rational, objective comparison can be made between:
• the current cost estimate of planned future services and • the current cost equivalent (considering quality and quantity) of existing services.
Analysis of existing levels of service is included in the Appendix for each soft service. 2.5.7 Review of Long Term Capital and Operating Costs The Act also requires that the background study contain “an examination, for each service to which the development charge by-law would relate, of the long term capital and operating costs for capital infrastructure required for the service” (s.10(c)). This examination appears in Appendix O. 2.5.8 Calculation of Development Charge Rates The forecast of growth provides the basis for the growth needs calculation. The needs that result from the forecasted growth have been determined. The cost of each identified need was estimated, along with its expected timing. Through attention to the various exclusions required by the legislation (see above), an amount eligible for inclusion in the development charge rate calculation has been determined. Development charge rates are ultimately calculated by dividing:
The ‘development charge rate eligible capital needs’ by
The growth forecast that gave rise to the capital needs. Key elements of the development charge rate setting process described in the preceding sections are depicted in Figure 2-1 below.
15
FIGURE 2-1 – Illustration of Development Charge Rate Calculation Steps
Estimate population and non-
residential space to be served
project cost of services required to
serve anticipated growth
("increased need")
Existing Service Standardsassessed
comple te Maste r P lann ing s tud ies based on g rowth p ro jec t ions ( inc lud ing g ross cos t o f se rv ice needs)incorpora te ex is t ing fund ob l iga t ions , o ther an t ic ipa ted fund ing con t r ibu t ions
Growth Forecas tFor “so f t se rv ices” measure ex is t ing serv ice s tandards
5 (1)1. The anticipated amount, type and location of development, for which development charges can be imposed, must be estimated.
5 (1)2. The increase in the need for service attributable to the anticipated development must be estimated for each service to which the development charge by-law would relate.
5 (1)3. The estimate under paragraph 2 may include an increase in need only if the council of the municipality has indicated that it intends to ensure that such an increase in need will be met. The determination as to whether a council has indicated such an intention may be governed by the regulations.
Expression of intention to meet need
Regulations3. For the purposes of paragraph 3 of subsection 5 (1) of the Act, the council of a
municipality has indicated that it intends to ensure that an increase in the need for service will be met if the increase in service forms part of an official plan, capital forecast or similar expression of the intention of the council and the plan, forecast or similar expression of the intention of the council has been approved by the council. O. Reg. 82/98, s. 3.
5 (1)4. The estimate under paragraph 2 must not include an increase that would result in the level of service exceeding the average level of that service provided in the municipality over the 10-year period immediately preceding the preparation of the background study required under section 10.
5 (1)5. The increase in the need for service attributable to the anticipated development must be reduced by the part of that increase that can be met using the municipality's excess capacity, other than excess capacity that the council of the municipality has indicated an intention would be paid for by new development.
Allocation of costsGrowth
Allocation of costsNon-Growth
Allocation of costsResidential growth
population
Allocation of costsNon-Residential
growth
Cons ider ex is t ing capac i ty in fac i l i t i es ?cons ider amount o f a rea wh ich benef i ts f rom the works , and wh ich requ i res remed ia l workscons ider whether a rea has con t r ibu ted to deve lopment charges fo r th is componentCons ider whether fu tu re g rowth benef i t s f rom the works
5 (1)6. The increase in the need for service must be reduced by the extent to which an increase in service to meet the increased need would benefit existing development.
Regulations5. For the purposes of paragraph 5 of subsection 5 (1)
of the Act, excess capacity is uncommitted excess capacity unless, either before or at the time the excess capacity was created, the council of the municipality expressed a clear intention that the excess capacity would be paid for by development charges or other similar charges. O. Reg. 82/98, s. 5.
Legislation
City of London
Process Background Studies
16
FIGURE 2-1 – Illustration of Development Charge Rate Calculation Steps (continued)
17
2.5.9 Public Review Process and Stakeholder Consultation The public review process provides the opportunity for interested parties to make representations on the proposed by-law. The legislation prescribes:
o that Council conduct a public meeting o that at least 20 days notice of the meeting be provided o that the background study and proposed by-law be made available at least two
weeks prior to the meeting, and o that any person who attends the public meeting be allowed to make representations
concerning the proposed by-law The City of London also undertook, at the outset of the process to include various stakeholder groups. The group collectively was referred to as the Urban Works Reserve Fund/DC Implementation Team. Constituted by Council in March, 2007, the group was comprised of the following representatives:
Development Industry: London Development Institute (Steve Janes) Property Taxpayer: Urban League (Sandy Levin) Construction Trades: London District Building and Construction Trades Council (Jim MacKinnon)
The group met regularly beginning in March, 2007 and on at least a dozen occasions since, for the purpose of discussing and compiling the background studies and this consolidating work. Numerous further meetings were conducted between representatives of City’s Engineering Department and either the London Development Institute or Urban League, to discuss various elements including new rules associated with the claimable works funded through the Urban Works Reserve Fund, project cost estimates, deductions applicable to arrive at amounts eligible for rate calculations. Council also received reports on:
i. the Growth Management Implementation Strategy (June, 2008), ii. a report on implementation of new approaches to cost sharing incorporated into the
calculation of Transportation rates and on Commercial Rate Policy in general, iii. a report on policy options with respect to implementation of Industrial Development
charges, and definitions that distinguish Commercial, Institutional and Industrial Development, and
iv. a report on the policy options with respect to exemption of downtown residential development.
Terms of reference for both the UWRF/DC Implementation Team are contained in Appendix O. Figure 2-2 depicts the reporting roles and relationships.
18
FIGURE 2-2 – REPORTING ROLES AND RELATIONSHIPS
19
3 Chapter 3 - Calculation of the Development Charge Rate This chapter discusses various aspects of the City’s development charge rate policy. 3.1 Area wide versus specific area rate The Development Charges Act provides flexibility to recover growth costs through rates levied equally across the entire municipality, or only part of it. The City of London has historically, and continues currently,:
1. to assess development charges essentially on a city-wide basis (with certain exceptions noted below);
2. to exempt development which occurs outside the Urban Growth area2, from charges for water, sanitary & storm sewers, storm water management facilities and minor road works (ie. urban services) while collecting for all other services;
3. where residential development occurs within defined areas of downtown London, to exempt that development from payment of development charges. The charges exempted in these areas are instead funded through property tax support. (See discussion below under “Downtown Residential Exemption”.
In October, 2003, a report that addressed the policy decision regarding area rating was tabled at the Board of Control. The report indicated that though there may be certain advantages to pursuing an even more refined area rate policy (that distinguishes charges not only within or outside the UGB, but also on an area by area basis), there were also significant disadvantages to such a policy. The report made no recommendation to change the existing policy. This development charge study remains consistent with existing City policy which computes rates on an area wide basis and recommends only separate rates for areas outside of the UGB. Calculation of area rates requires separation of growth costs and growth forecasts for each area and each service to be area rated. The decision to area rate should be made at the outset of the process in order to provide the necessary information. 3.2 Industrial Development Exempt The Development Charges Act contains an exemption from development charges for certain qualifying types of industrial exemption. This exemption applies to enlargements of existing industrial space, and exempts 100% of the enlargement, where the enlargement is less than 50% of the existing floor space. Enlargements beyond 50% are not statutorily exempt, but may be subject to development charges on a ‘proportionate basis’. Industrial development (both enlargements and new development) in London has long been completely exempted from the payment of development charges. In November, 2008, a report that reviewed this policy issue was tabled. As a consequence of the report, Council determined that the existing policy of exempting this form of development should continue. Through the same report, the definition of all non-residential development types
2 The Urban Growth boundary (identified in the City’s Official Plan) is an area within which the City will entertain development of an urban nature.
20
has been expanded and amended (see further discussion on ‘Changes to Non-Residential Development Definitions’). In this study, an Industrial development charge has been computed, but the Development charge by-law will reflect an exemption to this form of development, consistent with the Council’s decision on this matter (December 2, 2008). 3.3 Planning period The service needs of the City have been planned on varying time horizons. The Development Charges Act limits, for the purpose of development charge rate calculations, the planning period of certain services to ten (10) years (see s. 5(1)4.). Consistent with this provision, the planning period for Fire, Police, Library, Parks and Recreation, Transit, and Corporate Growth Studies is limited to ten (10) years. The planning horizon for other services (Roads, Water, Sanitary, Storm Sewers,) are not similarly limited and have been planned over a 20 year time horizon. The planning horizon employed for each service is cited in the individual Appendix in which the DC rate calculations for that service are discussed. The key in creating a proper charge is not in how long the growth forecast period is. Rather, the key is that the growth needs identified are a consequence of the growth forecast for the period selected, and properly reflect benefits for that population growth. 3.4 Services not covered There are certain services that are statutorily ineligible under the Development Charges Act. These include charges for cultural or entertainment facilities, tourism facilities, land for parks (but not a reasonable amount of land needed to support recreational facilities), hospitals, waste management services, and headquarters for general administration of the municipality. Of the services which remain, there have been no development charge rates calculated for Public Works Vehicles (all vehicles expected to last 7 years or less are ineligible in any event), Social Housing (see DC covering report for discussion of this topic), Long term care facilities and golf courses. These services are, for various reasons, rarely incorporated into municipal development charge rate structures. 3.5 Exemptions & Discounts from Development Charge Rates Exemptions and discounts from development charges apply to various types of development. The Development Charges Act exempts:
• land owned and used by a municipality or school board. o In this regard, the City’s DC by-law definition of “municipal” has been
clarified to include the London Public Library Board, The Covent Garden Market Corporation, The London Convention Center Corporation, The London Transit Commission
• Industrial additions of up to 50% of existing floor area of building. Where the addition exceeds 50% of the floor area, the portion in excess of 50% may be subjected to development charges. New ‘stand alone’ industrial developments are
21
not exempted by statute but are presently exempted by City of London policy(see discussion under Industrial Exemption above)
• Residential development that results only in the enlargement of an existing dwelling unit, or that results in the creation of up to two additional units.
3.5.1 Municipal and School Board contributions to Urban Works funds With respect to the first exemption listed in the bulleted list in the preceding paragraph, the City (and its boards) have in the past contributed to “Urban Works” funds on development that they initiated (ie. new libraries, arenas, Western Fair, etc.) in community growth areas. This practice remains unchanged in the draft by-law that will be placed before Council. 3.5.2 Non-statutory exemptions In addition to the statutory exemptions mentioned above, the City’s policy also exempts:
1. redevelopment, where a building was demolished (see discussion under Demolition Credits below)
2. residential development in defined areas of the Downtown and Old East Village areas (see further discussion below under Downtown Residential Exemption).
3. The City’s existing policy previously provided for a complete exemption for all non-residential development for ‘soft services’ charges (Fire, Police, Corporate Growth Studies, Library, Parks & Recreation, Transit. This is recommended for change). (See further discussion below under Non-residential exemption from “soft service” Charges).
4. The City’s policy provides for the statutory exemption for additions to Industrial building developments (discussed under 'Exemptions & Discounts from Development Charge Rates’ and ‘Industrial Development Exempt’ above).
5. The City’s policy provides a 50% discount for certain types of institutional development generally defined as hospitals, universities, colleges, churches and not-for-profit establishments. This exemption is also discussed below (see Institutional Discount).
6. The City’s policy exempts certain specified developments. (Refer to discussion under Other Specific Exemptions).
7. The City differentiates charges in the urban area from its Rural Area Charges (see discussion on this topic below).
8. Finally, with respect to Water Supply, the City exempts this service from inclusion in the development charge, as it funded out of water user rate charges and is recommended to continue to do so. The covering report that is tabled with this study contains further discussion on this topic.
In computing a development charge, the recovery of costs attributed to certain exempt forms of development from other non-exempt forms is prohibited (s.5 (6)3). The costs of exemptions and discounts is reflected in the City’s capital budgets through reduced draws from reserve funds for funding growth related works. The various DC exemptions and discounts are explored in greater detail below. 3.5.3 Demolition Credit Where a building previously existed on a site, it is traditionally considered to have paid for municipal services and is not liable for payment of the same services upon redevelopment. This logic basically establishes a “reservation of capacity” for all buildings that have been or
22
will in future be demolished. The requirement to extend demolition credits in London is also subject to the following considerations:
i. There is a requirement of the Development Charges Act that dictates that, in computing a development charge, the municipality must take into account any excess system capacity before calculating its capital needs arising from development. The “reserved capacity” mentioned above is in affect, absorbed by this opposing requirement. Effectively, there is no “reserved capacity” available to properties that involve demolished buildings because the legislation requires that the excess capacity be “taken into account” in identifying increased service needs resulting from growth. Should the City be compelled to provide Demolition Credits for an unlimited period, it would also be prudent for it to provide “reserve capacity” for such developments when it identifies its growth related capital needs.
ii. It may be true that there are no water lines, sanitary sewer pipes or perhaps storm sewer pipes that need to be built to serve a redeveloped site but the development charge does not incorporate costs that have been funded in the past, but only those required in the future. The redevelopment may not trigger a need for new pipes, but does contribute to the need for sanitary treatment and water supply capacity, road expansions, recreation facilities, libraries, fire suppression and policing (to name a few). That is, development on these sites will generally contribute to an increased need for virtually every service.
iii. Until 1999, the City provided a “demolition credit” where lawful demolition of the existing building was completed within the preceding five years to permit a new building. Through an appeal of the 1999 by-law, the City was directed, by OMB decision, to provide a demolition credit where lawful demolition of the building occurred any time between April 6, 1973 and the expiry date of the by-law. This meant that any lawful demolition occurring in the last 30 years would earn a demolition credit. This was an onerous and unusual step. In reviewing its policy in 2004, the City reverted to a standard ten year life for demolition credits and twenty year life, for developments in designated areas of the Downtown.
The demolition credit policy was reviewed again in 2009 (see 2009 DC covering report) with the conclusion that the existing policy should continue. 3.5.4 Downtown Residential Exemption In the mid-1990’s the City, addressing a decline in the downtown core, created and implemented a policy to encourage downtown residential development. The policy exempts the creation of development in defined geographic areas of the core (see Maps 3-1 and 3-2 which follow). The City has funded this policy from property taxes through the Downtown/Centertown Reserve Fund. The program has proven successful and has been cited as a major contributing factor in rejuvenating the downtown core. The policy was reviewed in a separate report to Board of Control (November 26, 2008). The report recommendation was to begin to phase out the program. Notwithstanding the recommendation, Council (on December 2, 2008) decided to extent the program for the time being. Map 3-1 and 3-2 on the following pages illustrate the specifically exempted downtown areas from the residential charge.
23
MAP 3-1 – DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL EXEMPTION
YORK STYORK ST
KING STKING ST
CO
LBO
RN
E S
TC
OLB
OR
NE
ST
RIC
HM
ON
D S
TR
ICH
MO
ND
ST
TA
LBO
T S
TT
ALB
OT
ST
WE
LLIN
GT
ON
ST
WE
LLIN
GT
ON
ST
DUNDAS STDUNDAS ST
HORTON ST EHORTON ST E
GREY STGREY ST
BATHURST STBATHURST ST
RID
OU
T S
T N
RID
OU
T S
T N
HILL STHILL ST
WA
TE
RLO
O S
TW
AT
ER
LOO
ST
SIMCOE STSIMCOE ST
CENTRAL AVECENTRAL AVE
DUFFERIN AVEDUFFERIN AVE
SOUTH STSOUTH ST
CLA
RE
NC
E S
TC
LAR
EN
CE
ST
PALL MALL STPALL MALL ST
HYMAN STHYMAN ST
ANN STANN ST
MILL STMILL ST
KENT STKENT ST
JOHN STJOHN ST
ALBERT STALBERT STWIL
SO
N A
VE
WIL
SO
N A
VE
RID
OU
T S
T S
RID
OU
T S
T S
BRUCE STBRUCE ST
CRAIG STCRAIG ST
PRINCESS AVEPRINCESS AVE
TH
AM
ES
ST
TH
AM
ES
ST
QUEENS AVE
QUEENS AVE
CARFRAE STCARFRAE ST
WO
RTLE
Y R
D
WO
RTLE
Y R
D
BLACKFRIARS ST
BLACKFRIARS ST
FULLARTON STFULLARTON ST
EMPRESS AVE
EMPRESS AVE
WOLFE STWOLFE ST
BU
RW
ELL S
TB
UR
WE
LL ST
ST
GE
OR
GE
ST
ST
GE
OR
GE
ST
ARDAVEN PLARDAVEN PL
NA
PIE
R S
T
NA
PIE
R S
T
KENNETH AVEKENNETH AVE
CARLING STCARLING ST
CA
RT
WR
IGH
T S
TC
AR
TW
RIG
HT
ST
PIC
TO
N S
TP
ICT
ON
ST
REGINA STREGINA ST
YA
LE S
TY
ALE
ST
HOPE STHOPE ST
CUMMINGS AVE
CUMMINGS AVE
BU
RW
ELL
ST
SB
UR
WE
LL S
T S
CHERRY ST
CHERRY ST
INGLESIDE PLINGLESIDE PL
WAVERLEY PLWAVERLEY PL
BARTON STBARTON ST
CA
RT
WR
IGH
T S
TC
AR
TW
RIG
HT
ST
WA
TE
RLO
O S
TW
AT
ER
LOO
ST
CLA
RE
NC
E S
TC
LAR
EN
CE
ST
KENT STKENT ST
DOWNTOWNRESIDENTIAL DC EXEMPTION AREA
�
24
MAP 3-2 – OLD EAST RESIDENTIAL EXEMPTION
25
3.5.5 Institutional Discount In addition to the statutory exemption of schools and municipal facilities (discussed earlier under the headings “Statutory Exemptions” and “Municipal and School Board contributions to Urban Works funds”), the City’s policy also provides a 50% discount for certain types of institutional development generally defined as hospitals, universities, colleges, churches and not-for-profit establishments. The practice in London has been to not extend this exemption to Urban Works reserve funded services, where the full charges are paid for these services, notwithstanding the 50% discount for services financed from the City Services Reserve Fund (CSRF). No changes are recommended to the present policy regarding Institutional discounts. 3.5.6 Non-residential Exemption from “soft service” Charges – Change Recommended In adopting the 1999 & 2004 Development Charge by-laws, the City adopted a policy of exempting all non-residential development from the ‘soft service’ charges (Fire, Police, Corporate Growth studies, Library, Parks & Recreation, and Transit). A relatively small portion of the total growth costs for these services is attributed to non-residential growth (varies between 5 & 25%). The previous rationale for the exemption is that non-residential development generally benefits little from these services. This perception was reviewed in 2009. It was noted that some of the growth costs assessed against non-residential growth, received at best, a very remote benefit. These services were Parks & Recreation and Library. Accordingly, the growth costs for these two services have been reallocated entirely to the benefit of the residential growth population (formerly 5% of these growth costs were allocated to non-residential). At the same time, the remaining soft services (Fire, Police, Transit, and Corporate Growth Studies) do provide a legitimate growth benefit to non-residential development. Administration is recommending that the relatively minor share of growth costs assessed against non-residential growth for these services be recovered from this form of development. The overall reduction in the rates for non-residential will allow for the formerly exempted soft services to be absorbed in the rate, with minor effect on the non-residential rate. The principle of allocation of the charge against the benefiting form of development, and recovery of growth costs from development, are at the root of these changes. The above policy amendments are consistent with municipal development charge practice across the province (see further discussion of this topic in the 2009 DC covering report). 3.5.7 Other Specific Exemptions The City’s policy on development charges exempts the following:
1. a parking building or structure 2. a bona-fide non-residential farm building 3. a structure intended for seasonal use. 4. a commercial truck service establishment. 5. floor space “below grade”
26
With respect to item 5, administration recommends that the definition of floor space below grade be amended to make it more consistent with the definition used in the Ontario Building Code. Otherwise, it is suggested that the exemptions identified in items 1. to 5. above be continued unchanged for the present. A further exemption has been added to the list in the form of air supported sports domes. Similar temporary buildings are also recommended for exemption (eg. buildings with a “skin” covering a temporary skeletal structure). These exemptions are further qualified in that the owner must be a non-profit organization. 3.5.8 Rural Area Charges Charges outside the Urban Growth Boundary as defined in the Official Plan are lower than those that exist for charges applied within that boundary. The applicable charge for a residence outside the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) in the recent past has been approximately ⅓ of the charge inside the area (in 2009, the charge was $5,766 vs. $17,005 overall Residential rate inside UGB). This rural; charge will increase dramatically this year (calculated at $11,478 per unit), largely due to the increase in the Transportation rate.
The basis for the charge is that all development is considered to benefit from increased capacity in the Road system (which accounts for over 80% of the charge) as well as “soft service” expansion (Fire, Police, etc.). The current distinctions between rates within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), and outside the UGB are proposed to continue as at present.
3.6 Intention Not to Introduce Credits Into the System The Development Charges Act, 1997 provides for the potential for a municipality to provide credits for work performed relating to a service to which the development charge by-law relates. Under the City’s approach to financing growth services, work completed by a developer is either eligible for payment of a claim (according to the policies which govern the UWRF) or are eligible for payment under the terms of a specific agreement for construction of services. A system of credits that reimburses developers for work they complete would compete with the existing system of payments under the UWRF, and is not recommended. 3.7 Potential Rate Phase-in This development charge study is being tabled at a time when economic conditions affecting the real estate building market have changed dramatically within the past six months. In these circumstances, it may be difficult for the industry to absorb increases in rates. The following factors bear on this situation: 1) Despite the current downturn, it remains the expectation of Administration that the long
term growth projections will be achieved. 2) The current slowdown in activity in the building industry will have the effect of
depressing revenues to the DC fund in the immediate term, but expectations are for a recovery after 2 or 3 years.
27
3) Any phase-in of rates (ie. implementation of rate increases on a less than immediate basis) has two conflicting impacts : a) it reduces the total amount of revenue that could be collected through an immediate
implementation (however, because of 2) above, this may not be as significant as in healthy economic times);
b) it provides for a smoother transition for those affected by the rate increase in transitioning their business cost structure to the new rate.
These implications must be weighed in arriving at the decision to “phase-in” (as opposed to immediately implement) rate increases. One thing is clear however - that growth costs do not disappear, and are not expected to decline in the long term. Growth costs that are not recovered from growth must be recovered from some other source. The rates computed in this study represent rates collectable under the Act. The covering report includes some additional discussion on the effect of a potential phase-in of rate increases. It is ultimately Council’s decision as to whether it wishes to discount any of the rates. 3.8 Reserve Funds A separate fund is maintained for each of the service components listed in the City’s DC rate structure. For ‘Urban Works’ on those same tables, contributions for Storm Water Management are accumulated in one fund, with contributions towards all other services in another. This is consistent with the existing set of development charge reserve funds. A new City Service reserve fund is being established to finance the cost of major SWM works (responds to one of the Blue Ribbon Panel recommendations that the City undertake funding of major infrastructure). 3.9 Indexing Rates The development charge by-law provides for indexing of the charge on an annual basis to recognize changes in price levels. The indexing is completed using a prescribed index (Statistics Canada Quarterly, Construction Price Index, catalogue number 62-007). Since costs have been estimated in 2009 dollars, rates should be indexed from that point forward. Since the index with the intent of ensuring that DC rates keep pace with municipal servicing costs, it is important that the index used be one that most closely matches those costs. For this reason, it is recommended that the Non-residential index be used to adjust all DC rates in the future. 3.10 Effective Date of By-law The new by-law is scheduled to take effect on August 4, 2009, being coincident with the expiration of the existing by-law. Amendments to development charge rates being tabled with this study (except for indexing and possible rate phase-in) must be justified in a background study which must be completed within one year of a proposed amending by-law (DC Act, s. 11). The new by-law may be in effect for up to 5 years.
28
3.11 Monitoring Program An enhanced monitoring program will be initiated following the passage of the new by-law. This program should increase the City’s knowledge of how revenues from the fund measure up against those predicted by the growth forecasts. It should also provide observations of how actual costs compare with those incorporated into the rate calculations. These two improvements of the City’s current system will assist in further improving the DC rate calculation methods employed in the future, and help ensure that rates are an accurate reflection of growth costs. 3.12 Date Charges Collection Development charges shall be payable at the time of issuance of a building permit consistent with current practice. 3.13 Changes to Non-Residential Development Definitions A report on “Industrial Development Charge Policy” in November 26, 2008 explained certain difficulties with the existing definition of “Industrial”, and lack of definitions for “Commercial” and “Institutional” development, were creating. The new definitions were derived in part, from a review of similar definitions in several other southwestern Ontario municipalities. Accordingly, these definitions have been either created or expanded in this version of the by-law, all in accordance with Council’s approval of the expanded definitions in December, 2008.
29
3.14 Summary Development Charge Rate Calculations 3.14.1 Growth Forecast Chapter 2 provided a summary of the legislative requirements and the general approach to calculation of development charge rates. The process began with an approximation of future growth. The growth forecasts over time periods (2006 & beyond) were prepared by Clayton & Associates. These forecasts were adapted to fit the time period for this Development Charge Background Study (2008 & beyond). These adapted forecasts formed the basis of projecting service needs for municipal services with identifiable growth related impacts. The approach used to determine growth forecasts is detailed in Appendix A. 3.14.2 Identification of Growth Related Needs Service needs were projected in two major categories:
1. Major City Services – these are capital works needed to facilitate growth, or respond to new demands for growth services and include Road expansion and upgrade, Sanitary Sewer Trunk Works and Treatment facilities, Water Supply and Distribution, major Storm Water Management facilities, Fire, Police, Corporate Growth Studies, Library, Parks and Recreation and Transit.
2. Minor Urban Works – these are capital works generally required as conditions of development, needed to facilitate growth in various urbanizing areas of the City and include Minor Roadworks, claimable Sanitary Sewer pipe works, claimable Storm Pipe and Storm Water Management Facilities.
The details of the capital needs are discussed in Appendices B through N of this study. In all cases, the capital needs resulted from a concentrated review of the needs arising from growth, either through internal planning or with the assistance of an external consultant. 3.14.3 Net Capital Costs Eligible for Development Charge Rate Calculations The appendices also contain discussions of the source of gross capital costs, and deductions applied to arrive at net costs eligible for Development Charge rate calculations. Finally, attribution of the net growth related costs to benefiting types of growth were made. The resulting figures are used in the calculation of rates (excluding financing costs) for each type of benefiting growth. These rates are referred to as the “pre-financing cost” rates. 3.14.4 Final Adjustments Prior to Rate Calculations There are final adjustments to the rate calculations that take into account existing Reserve Fund balances, financing costs associated with the anticipated cash flows in the fund, and expected recovery from future growth. These calculations are not necessary with respect to ‘Urban Works’ as the financing costs associated with these costs are borne by the initiating developer.
30
3.14.5 Tables Summarizing Rate Calculations The tables which follow at the end of this chapter summarize the detailed service-by-service calculations for each of the benefiting types of development. These tables summarize the information contained in each of the Appendices B through N. Table 3-1 reflects summary information on each service component including:
• The estimated gross costs of the growth related capital expenditures • The statutory deductions needed to arrive at the amount eligible for DC rate
calculations including grants and other contributions, non-growth share, post period benefit and where applicable, the 10% statutory deduction for “soft services”.
• The net amount eligible for the DC rate calculations, and the average percentage allocation of the net amount, to benefiting types of growth (Res/ICI splits).
Table 3-2 relates solely to Residential DC rate calculations. It shows the effect of existing reserve funds on the net amount eligible for DC rate calculations for each service. The right hand columns show both the DC rate before and after inclusion on finance costs (the latter determined through a cash flow analysis. The total rate recommended from this study for a single family unit amounts to $22,921 per single family unit. This rate excludes the Water Supply rate as Administration recommends continued exemption of this component from DC rates. The charges for other types of residential development are reduced, based on density assumptions used for each unit type in the growth forecasts. Table 3-3 summarizes DC rate calculations for Non-Residential developments (also excluding Water Supply component). In this case, the rate reported includes financing costs determined through a cash flow analysis. The total calculated rates for non-residential development (excluding Water Supply rates) amount to:
Commercial $ 168.59 / sq. m. Institutional $ 108.64 /sq.m. Industrial $ 148.82 /sq. m.
The rates identified all include financing costs, where applicable. It should be noted that since developers carry the financing costs associated with “Urban Works” (UW), there is no provision for financing costs incorporated in the UW rates. 3.14.6 Timing of Expenditures The regulations to the Development Charges Act require that the study reflect the total of the estimated capital costs that may be incurred during the life of the by-law. Table 3-4 meets that requirement. It provides a ‘summary level’ look at the timing of all the capital expenditures which are reflected in Appendices B through N, as well as the allocation of the costs that benefit existing and new development within the anticipated term (5 years) of the by-law. Table 3-4 indicates that in the five years following passage of the by- law, capital costs benefiting both growth and non-growth, in the amount of approximately $585 million are projected to be incurred. Approximately $411 million of this amount might be expected to be incurred through City Capital budgets (including consolidated boards and commissions) in the next 5 years. The remainder is either continuation of payment of debt for previous growth expenditures intended for recovery from DC’s ($7M), Urban Works expenditures
31
largely under the timing control of the proponent developer ($65M), or expenditures by the Joint Water Boards related to supply capacity ($101M). 3.14.7 Administration of By-law The administration of the by-law is assigned in part to the Director of Building Controls, and in part to the City Treasurer (safekeeping of Reserve Funds, etc.), consistent with current practice. 3.14.8 Fund Reporting and Monitoring There is an annual report on the activity in the Development Charges Reserve Funds required under the statute, to be filed with the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Under a new Development Approvals Business Unit, City Administration intends to review the monitoring and reporting of fund activities to determine appropriate changes to periodic reporting of fund activities and all matters related to development charge rate setting (see earlier section on Fund Monitoring).
32
TABLE 3-1 – Overall Capital Needs and DC Adjustments Summary Table
NO
N -
RES
IDEN
TIA
L
Commercial Institutional Industrial
Subt
otal
Less
: A
mou
nt in
elig
ible
for r
ate
calc
ulat
ion
-
impr
ovem
ent o
ver e
xist
ing
stan
dard
(see
Supp
lem
ent A
if a
pplic
able
)Ne
t Am
ount
Elig
ible
for D
C ra
te c
alcu
latio
n
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Less
: Fu
ture
gro
wth
ben
efits
(por
tion
of g
row
th
cost
s at
tribu
tabl
e to
gro
wth
exp
ecte
d to
occ
ur
beyo
nd p
lann
ing
horiz
on fo
r thi
s se
rvic
e)
Subt
otal
Non
-gro
wth
sha
re
Less
: 10%
sta
tuto
ry d
educ
tion
(if a
pplic
able
)
Subt
otal
Less
: Por
tion
of G
ross
Pro
ject
Cos
t Fun
ded
In
Prio
r Yea
rs
Tota
l Est
imat
ed C
ost
Less
: fut
ure
capi
tal g
rant
s, s
ubsi
dies
or o
ther
cont
ribut
ions
ant
icip
ated
SER
VIC
E C
OM
PON
ENT
Deta
il
% benefit % $ % $ % $ % $
FIRE Facilities $5,870.0 $.0 $450.0 $5,420.0 38.1% $2,067.5 $3,352.5 29.5% $989.5 $.0 $2,363.0 $.0 $2,363.0 78.0% $1,843.2 12.0% $283.6 8.0% $189.0 2.0% $47.3Vehicles $1,295.0 $.0 $.0 $1,295.0 36.3% $470.5 $824.6 30.5% $251.9 $.0 $572.7 $.0 $572.7 78.0% $446.7 12.0% $68.7 8.0% $45.8 2.0% $11.5Outfitting $92.0 $.0 $.0 $92.0 36.0% $33.2 $58.8 31.5% $18.5 $.0 $40.3 $.0 $40.3 78.0% $31.4 12.0% $4.8 8.0% $3.2 2.0% $.8
Subtotal $7,257.0 $.0 $450.0 $6,807.0 37.8% $2,571.1 $4,235.9 29.7% $1,259.9 $.0 $2,976.0 $.0 $2,976.0 $2,321.3 $357.1 $238.1 $59.5
POLICE Facilities $7,290.0 $.0 $.0 $7,290.0 33.0% $2,405.7 $4,884.3 0.0% $.0 $.0 $4,884.3 $873.1 $4,011.2 100.0% $4,011.2 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0Vehicles $27.0 $.0 $.0 $27.0 0.0% $.0 $27.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $27.0 $.0 $27.0 78.0% $21.0 12.0% $3.2 8.0% $2.2 2.0% $.5Outfitting $223.5 $.0 $.0 $223.5 0.0% $.0 $223.5 0.0% $.0 $.0 $223.5 $.0 $223.5 78.0% $174.3 12.0% $26.8 8.0% $17.9 2.0% $4.5
Subtotal $7,540.4 $.0 $.0 $7,540.4 31.9% $2,405.7 $5,134.7 0.0% $.0 $.0 $5,134.7 $873.1 $4,261.6 $4,206.5 $30.0 $20.0 $5.0
CORPORATE Growth Studies $10,187.0 $.0 $.0 $10,187.0 20.1% $2,042.5 $8,144.5 37.4% $3,044.5 $103.8 $4,996.3 $.0 $4,996.3 79.4% $3,966.6 11.5% $574.9 4.4% $220.4 4.7% $234.3Subtotal $10,187.0 $.0 $.0 $10,187.0 20.1% $2,042.5 $8,144.5 37.4% $3,044.5 $103.8 $4,996.3 $.0 $4,996.3 $3,966.6 $574.9 $220.4 $234.3
LIBRARY Facilities $9,540.0 $.0 $750.0 $8,790.0 41.8% $3,670.3 $5,119.7 17.9% $915.2 $420.4 $3,784.0 $.0 $3,784.0 100.0% $3,784.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0Collections $710.0 $.0 $.0 $710.0 0.0% $.0 $710.0 0.0% $.0 $71.0 $639.0 $.0 $639.0 100.0% $639.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0
Subtotal $10,250.0 $.0 $750.0 $9,500.0 38.6% $3,670.3 $5,829.7 15.7% $915.2 $491.4 $4,423.0 $.0 $4,423.0 $4,423.0 $.0 $.0 $.0
PARKS & REC. Facilities $110,560.1 $.0 $16,205.0 $94,355.1 22.2% $20,946.4 $73,408.7 62.7% $46,053.4 $2,447.6 $24,907.7 $4,766.0 $20,141.7 100.0% $20,141.7 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0Parkland Dev. $32,115.0 $.0 $180.0 $31,935.0 32.4% $10,358.8 $21,576.2 24.8% $5,349.3 $1,622.7 $14,604.2 $5,515.6 $9,088.6 100.0% $9,088.6 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0
Subtotal $142,675.1 $.0 $16,385.0 $126,290.1 24.8% $31,305.2 $94,984.8 54.1% $51,402.7 $4,070.3 $39,511.9 $10,281.5 $29,230.3 100.0% $29,230.3 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0
TRANSIT Facilities $22,000.0 $19,500.0 $.0 $2,500.0 53.0% $1,325.0 $1,175.0 64.0% $752.0 $42.3 $380.7 $.0 $380.7 71.8% $273.5 12.3% $46.8 4.9% $18.6 11.0% $41.8Vehicles $8,676.8 $.0 $.0 $8,676.8 0.0% $.0 $8,676.8 0.0% $.0 $867.7 $7,809.1 $.0 $7,809.1 71.8% $5,609.3 12.3% $960.5 4.9% $381.3 11.0% $858.0
Subtotal $30,676.8 $19,500.0 $.0 $11,176.8 11.9% $1,325.0 $9,851.8 7.6% $752.0 $910.0 $8,189.8 $.0 $8,189.8 $5,882.8 $1,007.3 $399.9 $899.8
SOFT SERVICE TOTAL $208,586.3 $19,500.0 $17,585.0 $171,501.3 25.3% $43,319.8 $128,181.4 44.8% $57,374.3 $5,575.5 $65,231.7 $11,154.6 $54,077.0 92.5% $50,030.5 3.6% $1,969.4 1.6% $878.4 2.2% $1,198.7
SAN. SEWER PCP & Other Fac. $161,587.2 $.0 $.0 $161,587.2 35.8% $57,910.0 $103,677.2 24.5% $25,382.1 $.0 $78,295.1 $.0 $78,295.1 72.7% $56,935.3 6.8% $5,351.5 5.5% $4,277.6 15.0% $11,730.7Sewer Trunks $60,489.4 $.0 $.0 $60,489.4 0.0% $.0 $60,489.4 14.6% $8,839.4 $.0 $51,650.0 $.0 $51,650.0 91.3% $47,159.3 2.3% $1,164.1 0.2% $94.8 6.3% $3,231.8Minor San Sewer $34,209.6 $14,650.0 $.0 $19,559.7 0.0% $.0 $19,559.7 1.5% $291.5 $.0 $19,268.2 $19,268.2 89.9% $17,321.2 6.7% $1,288.2 3.0% $581.9 0.4% $76.9
Subtotal $256,286.2 $14,650.0 $.0 $241,636.2 $.0 $57,910.0 $183,726.2 $.0 $34,513.0 $.0 $149,213.2 $.0 $149,213.2 $121,415.8 $7,803.8 $4,954.3 $15,039.3
WATER Distribution $117,934.9 $6,800.0 $49,077.0 $62,057.9 8.3% $5,146.0 $56,911.9 21.2% $12,053.9 $.0 $44,858.0 $.0 $44,858.0 68.1% $30,529.3 4.2% $1,893.0 2.2% $1,005.4 25.5% $11,430.2Supply $162,213.4 $46,141.5 $.0 $116,071.9 18.5% $21,462.6 $94,609.3 57.0% $53,974.0 $.0 $40,635.3 $.0 $40,635.3 43.5% $17,673.4 6.5% $2,648.2 2.5% $1,022.8 47.5% $19,291.1
Subtotal $280,148.3 $52,941.5 $49,077.0 $178,129.8 14.9% $26,608.6 $151,521.3 43.6% $66,027.9 $.0 $85,493.3 $.0 $85,493.3 56.4% $48,202.6 5.3% $4,541.2 2.4% $2,028.2 35.9% $30,721.3
STORM Sewer Servicing $9,090.7 $4,808.1 $.0 $4,282.7 0.0% $.0 $4,282.7 0.0% $.0 $.0 $4,282.7 $.0 $4,282.7 61.3% $2,625.0 9.0% $385.0 4.9% $210.0 24.8% $1,062.7SWM Facilities $170,139.0 $.0 $.0 $170,139.0 13.1% $22,280.0 $147,859.0 16.7% $24,694.6 $.0 $123,164.4 $.0 $123,164.4 72.4% $89,145.4 10.6% $13,046.4 5.3% $6,538.2 11.7% $14,434.4Minor Storm $47,921.8 $31,622.8 $.0 $16,299.0 0.0% $.0 $16,299.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $16,299.0 $.0 $16,299.0 82.0% $13,365.2 12.0% $1,955.9 6.0% $977.9 0.0% $.0Minor SWM $46,547.7 $.0 $.0 $46,547.7 4.2% $1,945.0 $44,602.7 0.0% $.0 $.0 $44,602.7 $.0 $44,602.7 82.0% $36,574.2 12.0% $5,352.3 6.0% $2,676.2 0.0% $.0
Subtotal $273,699.2 $36,430.8 $.0 $237,268.3 10.2% $24,225.0 $213,043.3 11.6% $24,694.6 $.0 $188,348.7 $.0 $188,348.7 75.2% $141,709.8 11.0% $20,739.6 5.5% $10,402.3 8.2% $15,497.0
ROADS Major Roadworks $655,511.8 $.0 $10,214.0 $645,297.8 25.7% $165,727.4 $479,570.3 9.3% $44,431.8 $.0 $435,138.5 $.0 $435,138.5 74.0% $322,002.5 11.0% $47,865.2 5.0% $21,756.9 10.0% $43,513.9Minor Roadworks $55,427.0 $.0 $.0 $55,427.0 0.0% $.0 $55,427.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $55,427.0 $.0 $55,427.0 74.0% $41,016.0 11.0% $6,097.0 5.0% $2,771.3 10.0% $5,542.7
Subtotal $710,938.8 $.0 $10,214.0 $700,724.8 23.7% $165,727.4 $534,997.3 9.3% $44,431.8 $.0 $490,565.5 $.0 $490,565.5 74.0% $363,018.5 11.0% $53,962.2 5.0% $24,528.3 10.0% $49,056.6
HARD SERVICE TOTAL $1,521,072.5 $104,022.3 $59,291.0 $1,357,759.2 $.0 $274,471.0 $1,083,288.2 $.0 $169,667.3 $.0 $913,620.8 $.0 $913,620.8 73.8% $674,346.8 9.5% $87,046.8 4.6% $41,913.1 12.1% $110,314.2
GRAND TOTAL $1,729,658.7 $123,522.3 $76,876.0 $1,529,260.4 20.8% $317,790.8 $1,211,469.6 18.7% $227,041.6 $5,575.5 $978,852.5 $11,154.6 $967,697.9 74.9% $724,377.3 9.2% $89,016.2 4.4% $42,791.5 11.5% $111,512.9
Commercial Institutional Industrial
Subt
otal
Less
: A
mou
nt in
elig
ible
for r
ate
calc
ulat
ion
-
impr
ovem
ent o
ver e
xist
ing
stan
dard
(see
Supp
lem
ent A
if a
pplic
able
)Ne
t Am
ount
Elig
ible
for D
C ra
te c
alcu
latio
n
Less
: Fu
ture
gro
wth
ben
efits
(por
tion
of g
row
th
cost
s at
tribu
tabl
e to
gro
wth
exp
ecte
d to
occ
ur
beyo
nd p
lann
ing
horiz
on fo
r thi
s se
rvic
e)
Subt
otal
Non
-gro
wth
sha
re
Less
: 10%
sta
tuto
ry d
educ
tion
(if a
pplic
able
)
Subt
otal
Less
: Por
tion
of G
ross
Pro
ject
Cos
t Fun
ded
In
Prio
r Yea
rs
Tota
l Est
imat
ed C
ost
Less
: fut
ure
capi
tal g
rant
s, s
ubsi
dies
or o
ther
cont
ribut
ions
ant
icip
ated
SER
VIC
E C
OM
PON
ENT
Deta
il
33
TABLE 3-2 – Residential DC Rate Calculations – Summary
Summary of Development Charge RatesResidential
City Services and Urban Works Combined
Service Sub-Component
Residential Amount Eligible
For DC Rate Calculation
Portion Of Works Collected In Prior Years(uncommitted reserve funds)
Total Residential Net Cost Eligible
For DC Rate Calculation
Purposes (in, 000's)
Allocation on Gross (%)
Allocation on Net
(%)
Gross Population Per Capita Density
Factor
Single & Semi-Detached
(Prefinance costs)
Single & Semi-
Detached (includes finance costs)
Multiple Unit (includes
finance costs)
Apartment <2 bdrm (includes finance costs)
Apartment ≥2 bdrm (includes finance costs)
$11.16 per capitaFIRE 3.21 2.30 1.37 1.92
Facilities $1,843.2 $1,335.3 $507.9 78.0% 49.4% 55,539 9.14$ 3.21 29.35$ Vehicles $446.7 $421.2 $25.5 78.0% 16.8% 55,539 0.46$ 3.21 1.47$ Outfitting $31.4 $42.5 $.0 78.0% 55,539 -$ 3.21 -$
Subtotal $2,321.3 $1,799.0 $533.4 9.60$ 30.83$ $36 $26 $15 $21$40.98 per capita
POLICE 3.21 2.30 1.37 1.92Facilities $4,011.2 $1,709.7 $2,301.5 100.0% 100.0% 55,539 41.44$ 3.21 133.02$ Vehicles $21.0 $.0 $21.0 78.0% 78.0% 55,539 0.38$ 3.21 1.22$ Outfitting $174.3 $121.3 $53.0 78.0% 51.9% 55,539 0.95$ 3.21 3.06$
Subtotal $4,206.5 $1,831.0 $2,375.5 42.77$ 137.30$ $132 $94 $56 $79$78.91 per capita
CORPORATE SERVICES 3.21 2.30 1.37 1.92Growth Studies $3,966.6 $33.0 $3,933.6 79.4% 79.3% 55,539 70.83$ 3.21 227.35$
Subtotal $3,966.6 $33.0 $3,933.6 70.83$ 227.35$ $253 $181 $108 $152$10.69 per capita
LIBRARY 3.21 2.30 1.37 1.92Facilities $3,784.0 $3,522.2 $261.8 100.0% 100.0% 55,539 4.71$ 3.21 15.13$ Collections $639.0 $249.8 $389.2 100.0% 100.0% 55,539 7.01$ 3.21 22.50$
Subtotal $4,423.0 $3,772.0 $651.0 11.72$ 37.63$ $34 $25 $15 $21$437.19 per capita
PARKS & RECREATION 3.21 2.30 1.37 1.92Facilities $20,141.7 $2,586.5 $17,555.2 100.0% 100.0% 55,539 316.09$ 3.21 1,014.65$ Parkland Dev. $9,088.6 $1,623.5 $7,465.1 100.0% 100.0% 55,539 134.41$ 3.21 431.47$
Subtotal $29,230.3 $4,210.0 $25,020.3 450.50$ 1,446.12$ $1,403 $1,006 $599 $839$73.20 per capita
TRANSIT 3.21 2.30 1.37 1.92Facilities $273.5 $.0 $273.5 71.8% 71.8% 55,539 4.92$ 3.21 15.81$ Vehicles $5,609.3 $1,720.0 $3,889.3 71.8% 63.9% 55,539 70.03$ 3.21 224.79$
Subtotal $5,882.8 $1,720.0 $4,162.8 74.95$ 240.60$ $235 $168 $100 $141$652.13 per capita
SOFT SERVICE TOTAL $50,030.5 $13,365.0 $36,676.6 660.38$ 2,119.82$ $2,093 $1,500 $893 $1,252$1,168.27 per capita
SANITARY SEWER 3.22 2.31 1.37 1.92PCP & Other Fac. $56,935.3 $4,593.6 $52,341.7 72.7% 71.4% 101,317 516.61$ 3.22 1,663.50$ Sewer Trunks $47,159.3 $2,725.0 $44,434.3 91.3% 91.3% 101,317 438.57$ 3.22 1,412.19$
$96,776.0 3,075.68$ $170.96 per capita3.22 2.31 1.37 1.92
Minor San Sewers $17,321.2 $.0 $17,321.2 89.9% 89.9% 101,317 170.96$ 3.22 550.49 550.49$ 394.92$ 234.22$ 328.24$ Subtotal $121,415.8 $7,318.6 $114,097.2 1,126.14$ 3,626.18$ $4,312 $3,094 $1,835 $2,571
$294.46WATER 3.22 2.31 1.37 1.92
Distribution $30,529.3 $4,817.9 $25,711.3 68.1% 64.7% 101,317 253.77$ 3.22 817.14$ 948.18$ 680.21$ 403.42$ 565.37$ $253.51 per capita
3.22 2.31 1.37 1.92Supply $17,673.4 $.0 $17,673.4 43.5% 43.5% 101,317 174.44$ 3.22 561.69$ 816.30$ 585.61$ 347.31$ 486.74$
Subtotal $48,202.6 $4,817.9 $43,384.7 428.21$ 1,378.83$ $1,764 $1,266 $751 $1,052$1,068.87 per capita
STORM 3.22 2.31 1.37 1.92Sewer Servicing $2,625.0 $.0 $2,625.0 61.3% 61.3% 101,317 25.91$ 3.22 83.43$ SWM Facilities $89,145.4 $.0 $89,145.4 72.4% 72.4% 101,317 879.87$ 3.22 2,833.17$
$131.91 per capita3.22 2.31 1.37 1.92
Minor Storm $13,365.2 $.0 $13,365.2 82.0% 82.0% 101,317 131.91$ 3.22 424.76$ $424.76 $304.72 $180.72 $253.28$314.29 per capita
3.22 2.31 1.37 1.92Minor SWM $36,574.2 $4,729.6 $31,844.6 82.0% 80.5% 101,317 314.31$ 3.22 1,012.07$ $1,012.00 $726.00 $430.57 $603.43
Subtotal $141,709.8 $4,729.6 $136,980.2 1,352.00$ 4,353.43$ $4,879 $3,500 $2,076 $2,909
$2,914.61 per capitaROADS 3.22 2.31 1.37 1.92
Major Roadworks $322,002.5 $24,943.4 $297,059.1 74.0% 74.7% 101,317 2,931.98$ 3.22 9,440.97$ 9,385.05$ 6,732.76$ 3,993.02$ 5,596.06$ $404.83 per capita
3.22 2.31 1.37 1.92Minor Roads $41,016.0 $.0 $41,016.0 74.0% 74.0% 101,317 404.83$ 3.22 1,303.55$ 1,303.55$ 935.15$ 554.61$ 777.27$
Subtotal $363,018.5 $24,943.4 $338,075.0 3,336.81$ 10,744.52$ $10,689 $7,668 $4,548 $6,373$6,721.72 per capita
HARD SERVICE TOTAL $674,346.8 $41,809.6 $632,537.2 6,243.16 20,102.96$ $21,644 $15,527 $9,209 $12,906
$7,373.85 per capita
GRAND TOTAL $724,377.3 $55,174.6 $669,213.8 6,903.54 22,222.78$ $23,737 $17,027 $10,102 $14,158
RATES - excluding Water Supply $22,921 $16,441 $9,755 $13,671
S:\DC Project 2008\2008 Soft Services Future Needs\Transit\[Copy of Transit Amended Final 07082008.xls]Transit- Future Faci Jan 1/09 DC rates in effect (which exclude Water Supply) $17,005 $13,221 $8,364 $11,729
1,600.53$ 2,243.08$ 2,698.70$
CHARGE PER UNIT (EXCLUDING OPENING FUND BALANCE AND FINANCING CHARGES)
PRE-FINANCE DC RATE
$3,441.77
FINAL CALCULATED DC RATE
CHARGE PER UNIT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT OPENING FUND BALANCE AND FINANCING CHARGES
3,761.82$
$2,469.09 $1,464.35 $2,052.23
34
TABLE 3-3 – Non-Residential DC Rate Calculations – Summary
Summary of Development Charge RatesNon-Residential
City Services and Urban Works Combined
Service Sub-ComponentAllocation on Gross
(%)
Allocation on Net (%)
Portion Of Works
Collected In Prior Years
Total Net Cost Eligible For
DC Rate Calculation
Purposes (in, $000's)
Sq. M.Final
Calculated DC Rate/m²
Allocation on Gross
(%)
Allocation on Net (%)
Portion Of Works
Collected In Prior Years
Total Net Cost Eligible For
DC Rate Calculation
Purposes (in, $000's)
Sq. M.Final
Calculated DC Rate/m²
Allocation on Gross
(%)
Allocation on Net (%)
Portion Of Works
Collected In Prior Years
Total Net Cost Eligible For
DC Rate Calculation
Purposes (in, $000's)
Sq. M.Final
Calculated DC Rate/m²
FIREFacilities 12.0% 27.6% $.0 $283.6 250,830 8.0% 18.4% $.0 $189.0 222,968 2.0% 4.6% $.0 $47.3 380,902 Vehicles 12.0% 45.4% $.0 $68.7 250,830 8.0% 30.2% $.0 $45.8 222,968 2.0% 7.6% $.0 $11.5 380,902 Outfitting 12.0% $.0 $4.8 250,830 8.0% $.0 $3.2 222,968 2.0% $.0 $.8 380,902
Subtotal $.0 $357.1 1.65 $.0 $238.1 1.24 $.0 $59.5 0.18
POLICEFacilities 0.0% 0.0% $.0 $.0 250,830 0.0% 0.0% $.0 $.0 222,968 0.0% 0.0% $.0 $.0 380,902 Vehicles 12.0% 12.0% $.0 $3.2 250,830 8.0% 8.0% $.0 $2.2 222,968 2.0% 2.0% $.0 $.5 380,902 Outfitting 12.0% 26.3% $.0 $26.8 250,830 8.0% 17.5% $.0 $17.9 222,968 2.0% 4.4% $.0 $4.5 380,902
Subtotal $.0 $30.0 0.12 $.0 $20.0 0.09 $.0 $5.0 0.01
CORPORATE SERVICESGrowth Studies 11.5% 11.6% $.0 $574.9 250,830 4.4% 4.4% $.0 $220.4 222,968 4.7% 4.7% $.0 $234.3 380,902
Subtotal $.0 $574.9 2.65 $.0 $220.4 1.00 $.0 $234.3 0.73
LIBRARYFacilities 0.0% 0.0% $.0 $.0 250,830 0.0% 0.0% $.0 $.0 222,968 0.0% 0.0% $.0 $.0 380,902 Collections 0.0% 0.0% $.0 $.0 250,830 0.0% 0.0% $.0 $.0 222,968 0.0% 0.0% $.0 $.0 380,902
Subtotal $.0 $.0 0.00 $.0 $.0 0.00 $.0 $.0 0.00
PARKS & REC.Facilities 0.0% 0.0% $.0 $.0 250,830 0.0% 0.0% $.0 $.0 222,968 0.0% 0.0% $.0 $.0 380,902 Parkland Dev. 0.0% 0.0% $.0 $.0 250,830 0.0% 0.0% $.0 $.0 222,968 0.0% 0.0% $.0 $.0 380,902
Subtotal $.0 $.0 0.00 $.0 $.0 0.00 $.0 $.0 0.00
TRANSITFacilities 12.3% 12.3% $.0 $46.8 250,830 4.9% 4.9% $.0 $18.6 222,968 11.0% 11.0% $.0 $41.8 380,902 Vehicles 12.3% 15.8% $.0 $960.5 250,830 4.9% 6.3% $.0 $381.3 222,968 11.0% 14.1% $.0 $858.0 380,902
Subtotal $.0 $1,007.3 4.05 $.0 $399.9 1.71 $.0 $899.8 2.33
$.0 $1,969.4 8.48 $.0 $878.4 4.03 $.0 $1,198.7 3.26
SANITARY SEWERPCP & Other Fac. 6.8% 7.0% $216.9 $5,134.5 479,364 5.5% 5.6% $205.1 $4,072.5 390,194 15.0% 16.0% $.0 $11,730.7 678,192 Sewer Trunks 2.3% 2.1% $128.7 $1,035.4 479,364 0.2% -0.1% $121.7 -$26.8 390,194 0.0% 0.0% $.0 $3,231.8 678,192 Minor San Sewers 6.7% 6.7% $.0 $1,288.2 479,364 2.69 3.0% 3.0% $.0 $581.9 390,194 1.49 0.4% 0.4% $.0 $76.9 678,192 0.11
Subtotal $345.6 $7,458.2 18.43 $326.8 $4,627.5 14.17 $.0 $15,039.3 27.10
WATERDistribution 4.2% 4.2% $217.5 $1,675.5 479,364 4.06 2.2% 2.3% $94.5 $910.9 390,194 2.71 25.5% 28.8% $.0 $11,430.2 678,192 19.56Supply 6.5% 6.5% $.0 $2,648.2 479,364 8.03 2.5% 2.5% $.0 $1,022.8 390,194 3.81 47.5% 47.5% $.0 $19,291.1 678,192 41.34
Subtotal $217.5 $4,323.7 12.09 $94.5 $1,933.7 6.52 $.0 $30,721.3 60.89
STORMSewer Servicing 9.0% 9.0% $.0 $385.0 479,364 4.9% 4.9% $.0 $210.0 390,194 24.8% 24.8% $.0 $1,062.7 678,192 Water Mang't Facilities 10.6% 10.6% $.0 $13,046.4 479,364 5.3% 5.3% $.0 $6,538.2 390,194 11.7% 11.7% $.0 $14,434.4 678,192 Minor Storm 12.0% 12.0% $.0 $1,955.9 479,364 4.08 6.0% 6.0% $.0 $977.9 390,194 2.51 0.0% 0.0% $.0 $.0 678,192 0.00Minor SWM 12.0% 13.0% $209.3 $5,143.0 479,364 10.72 6.0% 6.6% $83.5 $2,592.7 390,194 6.64 0.0% 0.0% $.0 $.0 678,192 0.00
Subtotal $209.3 $20,530.3 47.87 $83.5 $10,318.8 29.54 $.0 $15,497.0 26.96
ROADSMajor Roadworks 11.0% 9.3% $10,704.4 $37,160.8 479,364 77.04 5.0% 5.0% $1,697.1 $20,059.8 390,194 51.08 10.0% 10.9% $.0 $43,513.9 678,192 63.79Minor Roads 11.0% 11.0% $.0 $6,097.0 479,364 12.72 5.0% 5.0% $.0 $2,771.3 390,194 7.10 10.0% 10.0% $.0 $5,542.7 678,192 8.17
Subtotal $10,704.4 $43,257.8 89.76 $1,697.1 $22,831.1 58.18 $.0 $49,056.6 71.96
$11,476.8 $75,570.0 168.15 $2,201.9 $39,711.2 108.41 $.0 $110,314.2 186.91
$11,476.8 $77,539.3 $176.63 $2,201.9 $40,589.6 $112.44 $.0 $111,512.9 $190.17
CALCULATED DC RATES - excluding Water Supply $168.60 $108.63 $148.83
Jan 1/09 DC rates in effect (which exclude Water Supply $217.77 $117.38 $0.00
12.68
SOFT SERVICE TOTAL
HARD SERVICE TOTAL
TOTALS- CALCULATED RATE
26.98
COMMERCIAL INSTITUTIONAL INDUSTRIAL
33.07 26.9620.39
15.74
35
TABLE 3-4 – Summary of Timing of Expenditures
SUMMARY - by Service
Com
pone
nt
Project Name Gross Capital Cost
Expenditure expected within
5 yrs (2013 & prior)
Expenditure expected within 5-10 yrs (2014 -
2018)
Expenditure expected
beyond 10 yrs (2019 & beyond)
Total Benefit to existing
development incurred in planning horizon)
Total grants, contributions
and prior funding
Total Benefit to new
development incurred in planning horizon)
Fire$7,257,000 $4,994,000 $2,263,000 $0 $1,220,590 $450,000 $3,323,410
Police$7,540,414 $1,013,489 $1,934,225 $4,592,700 $104,771 $0 $908,718
Corporate Studies$10,187,000 $7,513,500 $2,673,500 $0 $3,111,875 $0 $4,401,625
Library$10,250,000 $6,500,000 $3,750,000 $0 $1,474,039 $750,000 $4,275,961
Recreation Facilities$110,560,054 $28,532,765 $79,868,039 $2,159,250 $7,209,878 $12,340,000 $8,982,887
Parkland Development$32,115,000 $18,282,500 $13,832,500 $0 $6,170,317 $101,400 $12,010,783
Transit$30,676,800 $25,572,800 $5,104,000 $0 $1,999,580 $19,500,000 $4,073,220
Total Soft Services $208,586,268 $92,409,054 $109,425,264 $6,751,950 $21,291,050 $33,141,400 $37,976,604
Roads
Anticipated and Planned Projects (Aecom Table 4.1)$34,062,375 $26,688,000 $0 $7,374,375 $803,880 $3,488,000 $22,396,120
Forecasted Projects (Table 4.1)Other Existing Link Deficiencies (Aecom Table 4.1)
$269,338,369 $10,312,500 $99,629,618 $159,396,250 $2,062,500 $250,000 $8,000,000
$60,980,938 $0 $10,625,938 $50,355,000 $0 $0 $0New Additional Projects (Aecom Table EX-2)
$88,849,891 $1,181,000 $17,533,906 $70,134,984 $0 $0 $1,181,000Studies/Other (Aecom Table 5.1)
$26,430,000 $12,420,000 $5,670,000 $8,340,000 $0 $0 $12,420,0002 Lane Road Upgrades (Aecom Table 5.1)
$72,625,625 $6,942,813 $29,999,906 $35,682,906 $44,000 $2,850,000 $4,048,813New Traffic Signals - Aecom Table 4.3
$4,078,125 $1,019,531 $1,019,531 $2,039,063 $0 $0 $1,019,531Channelization - Aecom Table 4.4
$9,900,000 $2,475,000 $2,475,000 $4,950,000 $0 $0 $2,475,000Miscellaneous Works - Aecom Table 4.5
$7,445,531 $1,861,383 $1,861,383 $3,722,766 $0 $0 $1,861,383Additional Projects
$5,100,625 $1,275,156 $1,275,156 $2,550,313 $0 $0 $1,275,156Total Roads $655,511,778 $93,076,058 $185,944,439 $376,491,282 $4,427,350 $8,093,000 $80,555,708
Claimable Minor Roadworks$55,426,974 $13,856,744 $13,856,744 $27,713,487 $0 $0 $13,856,744
Sanitary - CSRF$222,076,585 $80,905,279 $51,693,219 $89,478,087 $24,812,424 $0 $56,092,855
Sanitary - UWRF$34,209,629 $20,971,457 $10,738,171 $2,500,000 $241,539 $3,323,385 $17,406,534
Storm & SWM - CSRF$179,229,700 $73,243,508 $56,524,428 $49,461,765 $10,176,000 $1,202,013 $61,865,495
Storm & SWM - UWRF$94,469,456 $30,828,893 $21,213,521 $42,427,041 $0 $7,905,693 $22,923,201
Water Distribution $117,934,941 $78,419,778 $26,326,438 $13,188,725 $5,608,350 $55,877,000 $16,934,428
Water Supply$162,213,395 $101,213,395 $61,000,000 $0 $31,840,500 $46,141,500 $23,231,395
Total Hard Services $1,521,072,458 $492,515,112 $427,296,958 $601,260,387 $77,106,163 $122,542,591 $292,866,359
Grand Total $1,729,658,726 $584,924,166 $536,722,222 $608,012,337 $98,397,212 $155,683,991 $330,842,96334% 31% 35% 17% 27% 57%
SUMMARY - Funding Responsibilities
GROWTH NEEDS - CAPITAL EXPENDITURE TIMING SUMMARY
Gross Capital Cost - Growth Needs
Expenditure expected within
5 yrs (2008 & prior)
Expenditure expected within 5-10 yrs (2009 -
2013)
Expenditure expected
beyond 10 yrs (2014 & beyond)
Total Benefit to existing
development incurred in planning horizon)
Total grants, contributions
and prior funding
Total Benefit to new
development incurred in planning horizon)
City Services- Capital Budget $1,357,979,280 $411,044,388 $419,819,609 $527,115,282 $66,210,402 $98,313,413 $246,520,573
Urban Works - old rules - developer lead $85,075,070 $41,181,431 $15,397,828 $28,495,812 $241,539 $0 $40,939,892
Urban Works - new rules - developer lead $99,030,988 $24,475,664 $30,410,608 $44,144,717 $0 $11,229,078 $13,246,586
City Services - Debt re prior growth $25,359,992 $7,009,288 $10,094,178 $8,256,526 $104,771 $0 $6,904,517
Joint Water Boards (including debt) $162,213,395 $101,213,395 $61,000,000 $0 $31,840,500 $46,141,500 $23,231,395
Grand Total $1,729,658,726 $584,924,166 $536,722,222 $608,012,337 $98,397,212 $155,683,991 $330,842,96334% 31% 35% 17% 27% 57%
Notes1 Some of the cost estimates above a gross estimates of the total cost to be incurred by a development proponent. 2 The timing of Urban Works expenditures cannot be determined with any certainty as they depend on construction by
each development proponent. Unless claims have already been submitted, the estimates have been spread evenly
Funding for Portion to be incurred within anticipated 5 year term of by-law
Other Future Screenline Capacity Improvements and Connections (Aecom Table EX-2)
Funding for Portion to be incurred within anticipated 5 year term of by-law
Timeframe for Growth Needs Capital Expenditures
36
4 Chapter 4 – The Development Charge By-Law The Development Charges By-law incorporates a number of changes which were discussed in the previous chapters and in the covering report that accompanies the tabling of this study. 4.1 Calculated Rates The draft by-law also incorporates the full calculated rates as reflected in the summary tables in chapter 3. For ease of reference, the calculated rates are also provided below. This schedule includes the calculated Industrial rate (though Council has already decided to continue to exempt this form of development) and excludes the Water Supply component. TABLE 4-1 – PROPOSED RATES
CSRF rates TABLE 1
Line Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7
1 Service Component:
Single & Semi Detached (per dwelling unit)
Rowhousing (per dwelling unit)
Apartments with < 2 bedrooms (per dwelling unit)
Apartments with > = 2 bedrooms (per dwelling unit)
Commercial per sq. m. of gross floor area
Institutional per sq. m. of gross floor area
2 Fire Services * 36.00 26.00 15.00 21.00 1.65 1.24 3 Police Services * 132.00 94.00 56.00 79.00 0.12 0.09 4 Growth Studies * 253.00 181.00 108.00 151.00 2.65 1.00 5 Library Services * 34.00 25.00 15.00 21.00 - - 6 Parks & Recreation * 1,403.00 1,006.00 599.00 839.00 - - 7 Transit Services * 235.00 168.00 100.00 141.00 4.05 1.71 8 Roads Services * 9,385.00 6,733.00 3,993.00 5,596.00 77.04 51.08 9 Sanitary Sewerage 3,762.00 2,699.00 1,601.00 2,243.00 15.74 12.68
10 Water Supply - - - - - - 11 Water Distribution 948.00 680.00 403.00 565.00 4.06 2.71 12 Major SWM 3,442.00 2,469.00 1,464.00 2,052.00 33.07 20.39
13
Total CSRF rate (applied within Urban Gr Area) 19,630.00 14,081.00 8,354.00 11,708.00 138.38 90.90
11,478.00 8,233.00 4,886.00 6,848.00 85.51 55.12
UWRF rates TABLE 2Line Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7
1 Service Component:
Single & Semi Detached (per dwelling unit)
Rowhousing (per dwelling unit)
Apartments with < 2 bedrooms (per dwelling unit)
Apartments with > = 2 bedrooms (per dwelling unit)
Commercial per sq. m. of gross floor area
Institutional per sq. m. of gross floor area
2 Minor Roadworks 1,304.00 935.00 555.00 777.00 12.72 7.10 3 Minor San. Sewers 550.00 395.00 234.00 328.00 2.69 1.49 4 Minor Storm Sewers 425.00 305.00 181.00 253.00 4.08 2.51
5subtotal - UWRF
General Fund 2,279.00 1,635.00 970.00 1,358.00 19.49 11.10 6 Minor SWM 1,012.00 726.00 431.00 603.00 10.72 6.64
7
Total UWRF rate (applied within Urban Gr Area) 3,291.00 2,361.00 1,401.00 1,961.00 30.21 17.74
$22,921.00 $16,442.00 $9,755.00 $13,669.00 $168.59 $108.64
TOTAL RATE - within Urban Growth Boundary (Table 1 + Table 2)
Rural rates (applied outside Urban Growth Area) - denoted by * above - see by-law section 42
37
4.2 Comparison to Existing Rates Some insights into how the cost sharing of growth costs is changing can be gleaned from comparing the calculated rates to those currently in effect. The above proposed rates are compared to the schedule of rates under the existing by-law (including all amendments and indexing to January 1, 2009) in the following table. TABLE 4-2 – COMPARISON OF PROPOSED RATES WITH EXISTING RATES
CSRF rates
1 Service Component:
Single & Semi Detached (per dwelling unit)
Commercial per sq. m. of gross floor area
Institutional per sq. m. of gross floor area
Single & Semi Detached (per dwelling unit)
Commercial per sq. m. of gross floor area
Institutional per sq. m. of gross floor area
2 Fire Services * 321.00 - - (285.00) 1.65 1.24 3 Police Services * 146.00 - - (14.00) 0.12 0.09 4 Growth Studies * 201.00 - - 52.00 2.65 1.00 5 Library Services * 196.00 - - (162.00) - - 6 Parks & Recreation * 824.00 - - 579.00 - - 7 Transit Services * 336.00 - - (101.00) 4.05 1.71 8 Roads Services * 3,743.00 123.82 52.84 5,642.00 (46.78) (1.76) 9 Sanitary Sewerage 2,641.00 9.39 24.46 1,121.00 6.35 (11.78) 10 Water Supply - - - - - - 11 Water Distribution 1,657.00 5.75 6.75 (709.00) (1.69) (4.04) 12 Major SWM - - - 3,442.00 33.07 20.39
13
Total CSRF rate (applied within Urban Gr Area) 10,065.00 138.96 84.05 9,565.00 (0.58) 6.85
5,767.00 123.82 52.84 5,711.00 (38.31) 2.28
UWRF rates
1 Service Component:
Single & Semi Detached (per dwelling unit)
Commercial per sq. m. of gross floor area
Institutional per sq. m. of gross floor area
Single & Semi Detached (per dwelling unit)
Commercial per sq. m. of gross floor area
Institutional per sq. m. of gross floor area
2 Minor Roadworks 1,873.00 68.11 24.27 (569.00) (55.39) (17.17) 3 Minor San. Sewers 1,472.00 0.34 0.79 (922.00) 2.35 0.70 4 Minor Storm Sewers 1,561.00 4.66 3.50 (1,136.00) (0.58) (0.99)
5subtotal - UWRF
General Fund 4,906.00 73.11 28.56 (2,627.00) (53.62) (17.46) 6 Minor SWM 2,035.00 5.70 4.77 (1,023.00) 5.02 1.87
7
Total UWRF rate (applied within Urban Gr Area) 6,941.00 78.81 33.33 (3,650.00) (48.60) (15.59)
17,006.00 217.77 117.38 5,915.00 (49.18) (8.74)
Existing DC rates - Jan 1 09 17,006.00 217.77 117.38
Calculated Rates - 2009 DC Background Study 22,921.00 168.59 108.64
Existing rates - Effective January 1, 2009 Change in calculated rates from existing rates
increase or <decrease>
TOTAL RATE - within Urban Growth Boundary (line 13 + line 7 above)
Rural rates (applied outside Urban Growth Area) - denoted by * above - see by-law section 42
38
Some observations about the differences in the calculated rates compared to existing rates follow (see also, discussion of changes to rates in DC covering report tabled May 13 09): (a) General increase to all infrastructure rates due to rapidly escalating servicing costs in
the past 5 years (b) Major increase in Roads rates as a result of differences in approach to determining
growth and non-growth splits, as well as RICI (Residential, Institutional, Commercial, Industrial) allocations of growth benefits;
(c) Increase in CSRF rates for Roads, Sanitary and Major SWM works as a result of shift in responsibility for funding from the UWRF, as recommended by the Blue Ribbon Panel Report (2006). The scope of future funding from the UWRF has narrowed while certain future projects will be funded from CSRF. Rate increases in the CSRF are offset by rate declines in the UWRF;
(d) Currently, there are no non-residential rates levied for “Soft Services”. A change to full funding for all services is recommended;
(e) Changes in Residential “soft service” rates (Fire, Police, Growth Studies, Library, Parks & Recreation and Transit) account for a small portion of the overall change in Residential rates (overall increase of $69/sfu compared to existing CSRF rate at January 1, 2009).
4.3 Implementation of New Rates The revised by-law is recommended to be implemented coincident with the expiry of the existing by-law in August, 2009.
39
Appendix A - Growth Forecasts A.1 Growth Forecast In September, 2006, Clayton Research Associates Limited completed on behalf of the City, an update of the 30 year growth projection prepared in 2003. The report, entitled “Employment, Population, Housing and Non-residential Construction Projections, 2006 Update” contained growth forecasts that were used primarily to assess land needs for an Official Plan Amendment (2008). Clayton Research Associates Limited (Clayton) have extensive experience in preparing growth forecasts, having prepared such forecasts for a multitude of municipalities, developers, agencies and other levels of government over the past three decades. In September, 2006, their study was finalized and presented to Council. The forecasts were subsequently incorporated into the Land Needs Study adopted by Council. The forecasts in the Clayton report were also used as a foundation for the 2009 DC Background Study. To make the information consistent with the growth planning window used in the 2009 DC study, population projections from the 2006 were first updated by Clayton in 2007. The figures in the 2007 update were then used to interpolate revised forecasts for 2008 & beyond required for this DC study. The 2008 forecasts form the basis of the forecasts used to project growth related capital needs in the DC study and provided the quantum of growth over which costs were spread and DC rates were calculated. This section reports in condensed form, the contents and conclusions of the study that are pertinent to the development charge rate setting process. A.1.1 Growth Forecast Methodology The methodology applied to the growth forecast is reviewed in detail in chapter 2 of the 2006 Clayton report. The study involved several phases to arrive at the ultimate forecasts of housing and non-residential construction activity including:
1. Projections of employment, taking into account the macroeconomic environment for Canada and Ontario as well as the economic development scenario for the City of London.
2. Population projections by age and sex using a standard cohort survival model. This model recognizes births and deaths and derives net migration as a function of the employment growth forecasts described above (ie. the model recognizes that people move to London (net migration) as employment opportunities grow in London).
3. A housing model projects the anticipated household growth associated with the population projections. This model relies on assumptions regarding headship rates (the propensity of persons within an age group to head up a household)
4. A non-residential building space model produced projections based largely on employment growth projections presented in the economic model (see 1. above).
40
A.1.2 Historical Building Activity Levels The report prepared by Clayton provides a full account of historical employment, population, housing and Industrial, Commercial & Institutional (ICI) floor space growth in London. The following is an excerpt of this information:
Table 1 (above) shows employment growth, by industry, in the London Census Metropolitan Area (CMA). It shows London’s largest industrial sectors – Manufacturing, Trade and Health Care Services - and also shows trends (both decline & growth) of industrial sectors in London’s economy.
Table 1
41
A.1.3 Population Growth Forecast Population growth is a function of several variables. Birth, death and net migration forecasts were applied to existing populations to project forecast population by age group. Table 2 shows both historical and projected population by age group (cohorts). Table 2
42
A.1.4 Headship Rates Headship rates measure the proportion of the population in a specific age cohort that is head of household. Headship rates are low among teen aged population and rise rapidly in the 20-30 year old cohorts. The highest headship rates are in the ‘over 50’ crowd. The headship rates reflect the reality that the growth in households in London will come from both overall population growth, and growth in cohorts that display the highest headship rate. Table 3 shows headship rates by age cohort and their relationship to the population forecast by cohort. Table 3
43
A.1.5 Historical Building Activity Levels Housing mix was another important factor used to prepare the forecasts. Table 4 shows the housing mix of historical housing construction and provides the forecasted mix. Table 4
44
A.1.6 Non-Residential Building Activity Levels Table 5 shows annual average non-residential construction activity in London by five year increment from 1981 to 2000 and 2001-2002. A.1.7 Employment by Sector By using the historical data, and other factors affecting the forecast influences, Clayton produced a forecast of Employment by sector on a place of work basis (Table 6 below). Table 6
Table 5
45
A.1.8 Growth Forecasts used in 2009 DC Study The Clayton study formed the basis of the final growth forecasts used in this study. The final growth forecasts used in this study are summarized in Table A-1 at the end of this section. The table reflects both residential population growth projections and growth in non-residential space projections, in five year increments, beginning in 2008 and ending in 2028. The figures differ from the Clayton forecasts adopted by Council only to the extent that they have been interpolated (adjusted forward) by two years, to match the timeframe used to forecast capital needs. A.1.9 Distribution of Growth Forecasts Growth results in different demands for infrastructure and services depending upon where it occurs. To forecast capital needs, it was necessary to distribute the growth projections into smaller geographic areas. In general, this allocation was completed employing certain assumptions regarding the timing of development relative to each vacant land parcel’s status in the planning approvals process and a reasonable allocation of growth to differing regions and market segments within the City. Assumptions were also made relating to infill and intensification. The Growth Management Implementation Strategy (approved by Council in June, 2008), confirmed the assumptions used by Administration in distributing growth and forecasting infrastructure needs. Having allocated the population projections, the allocated population forecasts were re-aggregated using land segmentation that was meaningful for each municipal service being planned. For example, projections of growth into traffic zones allowed for the City’s consulting engineers to forecast road capacity expansion needs. Capital needs planning based on population projections ensures that the DC study process complies with sections 5(1)1. and 5(1)2. of the Development Charges Act, 1997. A.1.10 Growth Forecast Summary The 2006 Clayton study and forecasting was received, discussed with stakeholder groups and ultimately endorsed by the working groups involved in their review. Clayton provided Administration with an update of the 2006 study in 2007 based on new census data, the projections were updated to provide forecasts for 2007 and beyond. Using the 2007 update, and by mathematical interpolation, the growth forecasts were updated to reflect population and non-residential space forecasts for 2008 and beyond. These forecasts were allocated spatially within the City. The spatial location of growth allowed various City departments and boards to complete the forecast of capital needs.
2009-04-20
TABLE A-1 – SUMMARY OF GROWTH FORECASTS USED IN 2009 DC STUDY
City of L ondon - Growth F orecas ts - 2009 DC S tudy
R es idential Gr ow th F or ecas ts :
* interpolation of Clayton 2007 U pdate to 2006 E mployment, P opulation, Hous ing and Non-res idential Cons truction P rojections (2006) U pdate S tudy to match time hor izon of 2009 DC B ackground S tudy (Note 5)
P opulation Net P op. Growth R es . U nits U nit Growth
F orecas t
T otal of U nits per
allocation at r ight L ow Med
H igh Dens ity Apts ≤ 1
bedroom
H igh Dens ity Apts ≥ 2
bedroom
T otal H igh Dens ity
Apartments 2006 352,395 148,471
2008* 358,863 152,533 2013* 375,160 16,297 162,926 10,393 10,393 6,371 2,062 784 1,176 1,960 2018* 391,940 16,780 172,766 9,840 9,840 6,068 1,871 760 1,141 1,901 2023* 408,480 16,540 181,745 8,979 8,979 5,443 1,705 732 1,098 1,830 2028* 423,960 15,480 189,473 7,729 7,729 4,605 1,473 660 990 1,651 2033* 437,090 13,130 196,141 6,668 6,668 3,868 1,310 596 894 1,490
78,227 43,608 43,608 26,356 8,420 3,533 5,300 8,833 -
10 yr . 2008-2018 Net pop'n growth : 33,077 20,233 20,233 12,439 3,932 1,544 2,317 3,862
Gros s pop'n growth in new units (note 6): 55,539 (Note 6) density: 3.21 2.30 1.37 1.92 1.70
20 yr. 2008-2028 Net pop'n growth : 65,097 36,940 36,940 22,488 7,110 2,937 4,406 7,342 Gros s pop'n growth in new units (note 6): 101,317 (Note 6) density: 3.22 2.31 1.37 1.92 1.70
Indus tr ial /Commer cial /Ins ti tutional F or ecas ts :
T otal P lace of W ork (P OW ) E mployment
* interpolation of Clayton 2007 U pdate to 2006 information to match time hor izon of 2009 DC B ackground S tudy (Note 5) Indus tr ial (sq.m) Commercial (sq.m) Ins titutional (sq.m.) T otal (sq. m.)
Indus tr ial E mp.
Commercial E mp.
Ins titutional E mp.
At Home/Other T otal E mpl't T otal
196,780 2008-2013* 190,451 125,415 111,484 427,350 2,562 2,903 1,081 510 7,057 203,837 2013-2018* 190,451 125,415 111,484 427,350 2,497 2,761 1,167 452 6,877 210,714 2018-2023* 176,516 121,699 102,194 400,408 2,099 2,239 1,571 220 6,130 216,844 2023-2028* 120,774 106,835 65,032 292,641 1,436 1,966 1,000 220 4,622 221,466
T otal 678,192 479,364 390,194 1,547,749 8,595 9,869 4,820 1,402 24,686
10 yr. 2008-2018 380,902 250,830 222,968 854,700 5,059 5,664 2,248 962 13,934 44.6% 29.3% 26.1% 100.0%
20 yr. 2008-2028 678,192 479,364 390,194 1,547,749 8,595 9,869 4,820 1,402 24,686 43.8% 31.0% 25.2% 100.0%
F loor A r ea R atio (3) 23.0% 30.0% 42.0% Notes :
(2) F loor s pace conver s ions bas ed on F loor A r ea R atio
Indus tr ial (ha) Commercial (ha) Ins titutional (ha)(4) Conver s ion bas ed on floor ar ea r atio as s umptions
2008-2013* 83 42 27
2013-2018* 83 42 27 2018-2023* 77 41 24 2023-2028* 53 36 15
T otal 295 160 93
P opulation, R es idential units , and Growth F orecas ts Allocation of T otal U nit Growth to Hous ing types
Growth of S pace - 2008-2028 (2)
L and Needs as sociated with Growth of S pace forecas t 2008-2028 (4)
(6) Gr os s population in new uni ts der ived fr om mul tiplying uni t for ecas ts (i tal icized above) by uni t dens i ty figur es (i tal ici zed).
(3) F loor ar ea r atio calculations bas ed on Ci ty of L ondon L and Needs B ack gr ound S tudy dated May, 2007
(5) 'P opulation gr owth' , 'U ni t Gr owth' and 'uni t dens i ty as s umptions ' or iginal l y pr ovided by Clayton S tudy (2006). T he s tudy was updated by Clayton in 2007 and the updated figur es wer e us ed to inter polate the gr ow th for ecas ts r eflected above.
E mployment Growth - 2008-2028 (1)
(1) E mployment gr ow th for ecas t by Clayton R es ear ch As s ociates L td ( inter polated fr om 2007 update of 2006 s tudy)
47
Appendix B – Fire Services B.1 Existing Service Levels The City of London Fire Department (herein referred to as the LFD), which is organized into seven (7) divisions, provides proactive and reactive services including, but not limited to: Fire Fighting; Communications; Fire Prevention; Apparatus, Training, Stores and Administration. At peak staffing, the LFD employs 415 people with the divisional breakdown shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: LFD Divisional Breakdown
Division
# of Staff
Location
Services
Fire Fighting Division 356 Stations #1 through #13
See below
Fire Prevention Division 21 Station #1 • fire investigation • fire code inspections • public education • arson prevention for children • injury prevention and life
safety programs Communications Division 14 Station #1 • dispatch emergency calls to
City • under contract, dispatch
emergency calls to Middlesex County
Training Division 8 Station #9 Apparatus Division 7 Station #2 Stores 1 Station #1 Administration 8 Station #1
The Fire Fighting Division is responsible for the provision of fire suppression, water and ice rescue, confined space and high angle rescue, automobile extrication and hazardous materials mitigation services within the City of London, as well as assists in the delivery of defibrillator services to individuals suspected of suffering from a cardiac event. In 2008, the Fire Fighting Division’s 356 firefighters responded to 8,686 calls for emergency calls, 1,489 of which were pre-hospital medical emergencies (defibrillator and CPR). Working a 24-hour shift schedule based on a four-platoon system, emergency personnel respond from thirteen (13) fire stations. In order to measure the existing service standard in a way that would make it useful for comparison to standards for new stations, the City undertook a detailed inventory of its assets (Table B-1 – 5 pages) used in delivery of Fire services. The inventory includes valuation of all existing facilities (based on their size, quality and nature of construction, land value, and estimated building contents), Fire service vehicles, and Firefighter outfitting equipment. A per capita measure of Fire services was calculated. That measure combines the quality and the quantity of assets used for delivery of fire services.
48
By applying these existing service levels to the projected future population increase, a theoretical value of expenditure over which the City would be enhancing Fire service levels was calculated. The rate calculations demonstrate that the growth related capital needs projected by the Fire Department and included in the development charge rate calculations will result in no increase over the existing service standard (a legislative requirement). Approach to Planning Fire Services With respect to the delivery of front line fire apparatus and staff, the adequacy of fire and emergency service levels is measured in two ways. The first key indicator, which is ‘response time of the first due Engine Company’, is a measure of the elapsed time from when the vehicle begins to respond to an alarm and when it arrives on scene. The second is also time sensitive, albeit it refers to when the balance of the necessary vehicles and fire fighters arrive on scene, which is defined as the ‘weight of the response’. Both are critical components with respect to the Fire Department’s primary goals: saving lives, preserving property, the conservation of the environment. When response times exceed accepted industry norms, the need for a new station is triggered. An additional vehicle with staffing may also be necessary if the Department is unable to maintain an acceptable ‘response weight’ based on industry norms. In planning services for new areas, the Department relies upon industry standards and guidelines to establish levels of service. These standards and guidelines include:
• Public Fire Safety Guideline PFSG 04-08-12 The Ministry of Public Safety and Security, through the Ontario Fire Marshal's (OFM) Office, is responsible for creating fire service guidelines for municipalities within the Province of Ontario. Public Fire Safety Guideline PFSG 04-08-12: Staffing - Single Family Home outlines the Province's expectations with respect to response times and fire ground staffing. PFSG 04-08-12 requires that a minimum of four (4) firefighters arrive at the scene of a fire virtually simultaneously. The guideline also requires that a minimum of ten (10) firefighters arrive within ten (10) minutes, 90% of the time. The ten (10) minutes is broken down as follows: one (1) minute to dispatch the call, one (1) minute for the crew to turnout and eight (8) minutes to travel to the scene. It should be noted that only fire fighting or rescue but not both could be achieved with this staffing level. Additional staff is required to perform both tasks safely and efficiently. A municipality the size of London is expected to provide both simultaneously. These guidelines are rather vague as they attempt to look at both urban and rural situations. Administration understands that it is the intention of the OFM to create separate guidelines for urban and rural settings in the future.
• NFPA 1710 The National Fire Protection Association(NFPA), an international standard setting body, uses NFPA 1710 to define the service levels for urban communities which use career fire fighters. It defines fire service response times, vehicle staffing requirements, and speaks to a broad range of fire service issues including, but not limited to, "minimum requirements relating to the organization and deployment of fire suppression operations, emergency medical operations, and special operations to the public by substantially all career fire departments". Components of that standard define acceptable response times, as well as fire ground staffing.
49
With respect to response time, NFPA requires that the first arriving Engine Company be "on-scene" within four (4) minutes of leaving the station. Further, every other piece of fire apparatus deemed necessary on an initial dispatch arrive within eight (8) minutes. Like the provincial model, these requirements must be achieved 90% of the time. The use of citywide averages is unacceptable; instead, the results must be reported by geographic service area.
LFD data demonstrates that its performance for the first ‘engine company’ is consistent with the standard of the international standard setting body (ie. four minutes, albeit it has gradually declined). In November 2003, the City initiated a master planning study of Fire Service delivery. The study will be presented to Council in 2009; however, some of the strategies have already been implemented in the operation of the department (e.g. pumper rescue model). Capital Needs Identified With the four minute response standard in mind, and using the 10 year growth forecasts (see Appendix A), the Fire Department undertook a capital needs forecast. This forecast identified the location and timing of fire station construction, with the intention of providing four minute response times, 90% of the time (NFPA standard). Once location of a station was known, it employed modeling software, that incorporates arterial road patterns and traveling speeds from which the service area of the new station was delineated. The result of the process suggests that there are some significant capital challenges the City will face as a result of the anticipated growth and its geographic distribution. Below are some of the implications resulting from the capital needs forecast:
• There is a need for two new stations in the 10 year time horizon. These stations are identified as #14 (northwest), #15 (southeast) (see Table B-2 – Fire Facilities). . Vehicles to equip these stations and to provide the best overall coverage for the City have been identified (See Table B-2, Fire Vehicles). Firefighting gear needed to outfit firefighters to provide service at the new stations was also identified ((See Table B-2, Firefighter Outfitting)
• A third facility – the relocation of station #11 - will be needed to adequately serve growth now occurring in the southwest, as well as to maintain existing service coverage to the Lambeth area (also on Table B-2, 1st pg). No new equipment is anticipated for this station.
Portion of Capital Needs Eligible for Development Charge Rate Calculations The construction and staffing of two new stations and the relocation of a third presents obvious challenges for capital investment by the City. Even though these stations are triggered within the 10 year time frame, growth in the service area of each station will benefit beyond that period. A provision has been made in the determination of the growth amount for the purposes of rate calculations, to recognize a benefit to growth occurring beyond the ten (10) year period. The determination of the amount eligible for inclusion in the development charge rate calculations also includes provision for the benefit to existing development (as required by section 5(1)6. of the Act).
50
Finally, it is recognized that certain equipment – specifically Rescue and Aerial Trucks and Platoon vehicles - identified as future capital needs provide coverage to the entire City, and the allocation of costs to the existing population incorporates their city wide benefit. The tables (B-2) also reflect:
a) The growth share of the project is measured from year 1999, to recognize the initiation of collections for growth related capital works for extension of Fire services. At the same time, a portion of the costs collected in previous years but as yet unspent (ie. the uncommitted balance in the DC Fire Reserve Fund) is removed from the current rate calculation, leaving only the balance that benefits growth in the planning horizon under review (2009-2018) in the rate calculations.
b) An allocation of the growth costs amongst the different types of growth which benefit (ie. between residential and non-residential). In this case, the benefit of Fire services has been apportioned on the basis of approximate property value (2005 residential as compared to non-residential, assessment value).
c) An extrapolation of the existing service standard (see discussion in previous section) using the 10 year net growth projections to determine the maximum amount eligible for the Development Charge Rate calculations (see ‘Supplement A’ on each page labeled Table B-2).
Together, these calculations and cost allocations produce a pre-financing cost DC rate calculation. The reader should consult the tables (B-2) for a detailed account of how the pre-financing cost DC rate has been determined. Outstanding debt on previously approved growth related projects has also been factored into the rate calculations, where it exists. Financing Costs Added to Arrive at Final Calculated DC Rate For the purpose of calculating the development charge rate for this component inclusive of financing costs, TABLE B-3 has been produced. This table simulates the cash flows in this component of the DC funds:
a) It begins with the 2009 opening balance– in this case, a balance of $1.8M. This takes into account the opening uncommitted funds on hand at December 31, 2008
b) It provides for projected DC revenues and drawdowns for the growth share of projects being completed in the upcoming period;
c) It incorporates an estimate of annual interest revenues and expenses that can be expected to be earned/incurred throughout the planning horizon.
All figures are presented on an un-inflated, constant (2009) dollar basis. Interest rates which exclude the inflationary component (assumed to be 2%) are also used for consistency. The rates generated from this cash flow analysis reflect what is appropriately recovered from growth, for the planning horizon of this service. Long Term Operating Costs An examination of the long term operating costs for growth needs for Fire Services (DC) is included in Appendix O.
51
Council’s Intention to Meet Growth Needs The growth needs identified within this Appendix have been determined by a concentrated internal review. The capital items reflected herein will be subject to final approval of Council through the annual capital budget approval process. It is Council’s stated intention to “provide for the needs of growth in a way that does not jeopardize the long term financial health of the municipality, or place an undue burden on existing taxpayers” (Official Plan Policing 2.6.3).
52
TABLE B-1 - FIRE SERVICE – MEASURE OF EXISTING SERVICE STANDARDS
Contact person(s) Jim KlingenbergerUnit of measure Square FeetType of measure Quantity
Facility Name Location 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 $/sq.ft.No. 1 300 Horton Street 32,937 32,937 32,937 32,937 32,937 32,937 32,937 32,937 32,937 32,937 $263No. 2 (NEW) - Note 1) 1101 Florence St 24,700 24,700 24,700 24,700 $266No. 2 (DEMOLISHED) 1103 Florence St 8,628 8,628 8,628 8,628 8,628 8,628 $250Garage/Machine shop (DEMOLISHED) 1105 Florence St 6,080 6,080 6,080 6,080 6,080 6,080 $250No. 3 550 Commissioners Rd W 8,052 8,052 8,052 8,052 8,052 8,052 8,052 8,052 8,052 8,052 $323No. 4 807 Colborne St 4,418 4,418 4,418 4,418 4,418 4,418 4,418 4,418 4,418 4,418 $284No. 5 751 Deveron Cr 8,120 8,120 8,120 8,120 8,120 8,120 8,120 8,120 8,120 8,120 $373No. 6 590 Oxford St E 8,490 8,490 8,490 8,490 8,490 8,490 8,490 8,490 8,490 8,490 $350No. 7 1192 Highbury Ave 6,594 6,594 6,594 6,594 6,594 6,594 6,594 6,594 6,594 6,594 $266No. 8 1565 Western Rd. 6,594 6,594 6,594 6,594 6,594 6,594 6,594 6,594 6,594 6,594 $281No. 9 746 Wellington Rd S 15,388 15,388 15,388 15,388 15,388 15,388 15,388 15,388 15,388 15,388 $386Training tower 746 Wellington Rd S 4,220 4,220 4,220 4,220 4,220 4,220 4,220 4,220 4,220 4,220 $120Storage garage 746 Wellington Rd S 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 240 $25No. 10 2125 Trafalgar St 9,063 9,063 9,063 9,063 9,063 9,063 9,063 9,063 9,063 9,063 $307No. 11 7109 Westminster Dr 10,187 10,187 10,187 10,187 10,187 10,187 10,187 10,187 10,187 10,187 $176No. 12 275 Boler Road 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 $252No. 13 (NEW) - Note 2) 790 Fanshawe Park Rd E 4,400 4,400 4,400 $300
Total 129,011 129,011 141,011 141,011 141,011 141,011 151,003 155,403 155,403 155,403
Population 332,174 334,352 336,530 339,703 342,876 346,049 349,222 352,395 355,629 358,8630.388384 0.385854 0.419015 0.415101 0.411259 0.407489 0.432398 0.440991 0.436980 0.433042
10 year average 0.417051Quantity Standard per Capita
NOTES:1) Station No.2 and garage/machine shop were demolished in 2004 and replaced with a new station No.2 in 2005.2) Station No.13 was built in 2006.
SERVICE: FIRE COMPONENT: FACILITIES
Per Capita Level of Service
Source : Building square footage measures provided by City of London Facility Services. Land values provided by Realty Services.
3) The cost per square foot has been determined using a consultative method lead by the Facility Services Division involving City staff and external resources. Other sources of information used were RS Means, building cost indices and Facility Services Division experience. Support for these figures has been documented by the Facility Services Division.
53
TABLE B-1 - FIRE SERVICE – MEASURE OF EXISTING SERVICE STANDARDS
Contact person(s) Jim KlingenbergerUnit of measure 2008 Replacement Value ($thousands)Type of measure Quality & Quantity
Facility Name Location 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008No. 1 300 Horton Street $8,662.4 $8,662.4 $8,662.4 $8,662.4 $8,662.4 $8,662.4 $8,662.4 $8,662.4 $8,662.4 $8,662.4No. 2 (NEW) 1101 Florence St $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $6,570.2 $6,570.2 $6,570.2 $6,570.2No. 2 (DEMOLISHED) 1103 Florence St $2,157.0 $2,157.0 $2,157.0 $2,157.0 $2,157.0 $2,157.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0Garage/Machine shop (DEMOLISHED) 1105 Florence St $1,520.0 $1,520.0 $1,520.0 $1,520.0 $1,520.0 $1,520.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0No. 3 550 Commissioners Rd W $2,600.8 $2,600.8 $2,600.8 $2,600.8 $2,600.8 $2,600.8 $2,600.8 $2,600.8 $2,600.8 $2,600.8No. 4 807 Colborne St $1,254.7 $1,254.7 $1,254.7 $1,254.7 $1,254.7 $1,254.7 $1,254.7 $1,254.7 $1,254.7 $1,254.7No. 5 751 Deveron Cr $3,028.8 $3,028.8 $3,028.8 $3,028.8 $3,028.8 $3,028.8 $3,028.8 $3,028.8 $3,028.8 $3,028.8No. 6 590 Oxford St E $2,971.5 $2,971.5 $2,971.5 $2,971.5 $2,971.5 $2,971.5 $2,971.5 $2,971.5 $2,971.5 $2,971.5No. 7 1192 Highbury Ave $1,754.0 $1,754.0 $1,754.0 $1,754.0 $1,754.0 $1,754.0 $1,754.0 $1,754.0 $1,754.0 $1,754.0No. 8 1565 Western Rd. $1,852.9 $1,852.9 $1,852.9 $1,852.9 $1,852.9 $1,852.9 $1,852.9 $1,852.9 $1,852.9 $1,852.9No. 9 746 Wellington Rd S $5,939.8 $5,939.8 $5,939.8 $5,939.8 $5,939.8 $5,939.8 $5,939.8 $5,939.8 $5,939.8 $5,939.8Training tower 746 Wellington Rd S $506.4 $506.4 $506.4 $506.4 $506.4 $506.4 $506.4 $506.4 $506.4 $506.4Storage garage 746 Wellington Rd S $6.0 $6.0 $6.0 $6.0 $6.0 $6.0 $6.0 $6.0 $6.0 $6.0No. 10 2125 Trafalgar St $2,782.3 $2,782.3 $2,782.3 $2,782.3 $2,782.3 $2,782.3 $2,782.3 $2,782.3 $2,782.3 $2,782.3No. 11 7109 Westminster Dr $1,792.9 $1,792.9 $1,792.9 $1,792.9 $1,792.9 $1,792.9 $1,792.9 $1,792.9 $1,792.9 $1,792.9No. 12 275 Boler Road $0.0 $0.0 $3,024.0 $3,024.0 $3,024.0 $3,024.0 $3,024.0 $3,024.0 $3,024.0 $3,024.0No. 13 (NEW) - Note 2) 790 Fanshawe Park Rd E $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1,320.0 $1,320.0 $1,320.0
$36,829.5 $36,829.5 $39,853.5 $39,853.5 $39,853.5 $39,853.5 $42,746.7 $44,066.7 $42,746.7 $42,746.7
Population 332,174 334,352 336,530 339,703 342,876 346,049 349,222 352,395 355,629 358,863Per Capita Standard $110.87 $110.15 $118.42 $117.32 $116.23 $115.17 $122.41 $125.05 $120.20 $119.12
10 year average $117.49Service Standard per Capita
DC Eligible amount (before adjustments)Net Forecast Pop'n - 10 yr. 33,077$ per capita $117.49DC rate eligible amount (gross) $3,886,178
NOTES:1) The valuations above include the 2008 replacement value of building, land, and site improvements.
SERVICE: FIRE COMPONENT: FACILITIES
Total
54
TABLE B-1 - FIRE SERVICE – MEASURE OF EXISTING SERVICE STANDARDS Service Fire VehiclesContact person(s) Gwen FrancisUnit of measure # of vehiclesType of measure Quantity
Unit description 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 value/unit
Aerial 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 $875,000Platform Aerial 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $1,075,000Aerial Spare 1 $875,000Tanker 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 $250,000Tanker Spare 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $250,000Engine 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 11 8 6 $525,000Engine (spare) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 $525,000Pumper Rescue 3 3 $600,000Quint 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 $800,000Rescue 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 $550,000Rescue Pumper 1 $600,000Platoon Car 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 $60,000Marine Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 $60,000Service Units (2, 4, 9) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 $40,000Service Units (1 - air bottle transport) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $65,000Training Units (1, 2, 3) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 $35,000Zodiac Boat 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 $20,000Zodiac Boat (spare) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $20,000Zodiac Trailer 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 $3,500Zodiac Trailer (spare) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $3,500HAZMAT Vehicle 1 1 1 1 1 $900,000Decontamination Trailer 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $50,000Air Light Vehicle 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $450,000Investigation Vehicle 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $90,000Service Vehicles (3, Stores) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 $30,000Safety House Trailer 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $200,000Fire Prevention Inspection 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 16 16 16 $25,000Public Education 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 $30,000Administration 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $35,000
Total 58 58 60 60 60 63 64 68 68 69
Population 332,174 334,352 336,530 339,703 342,876 346,049 349,222 352,395 355,629 358,863Per Capita Standard 0.000175 0.000173 0.000178 0.000177 0.000175 0.000182 0.000183 0.000193 0.000191 0.000192
10 year averageQuantity Standard per Capita 0.000182
Sources: Values and quantity of vehicles taken from inventory reports maintained by Fire Administration.
55
TABLE B-1 - FIRE SERVICE – MEASURE OF EXISTING SERVICE STANDARDS Service Fire VehiclesContact person(s) Gwen FrancisUnit of measure 2008 Replacement Value ($thousands)Type of measure Quality & Quantity
Unit description 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Aerial $1,750 $1,750 $1,750 $1,750 $1,750 $1,750 $1,750 $1,750 $1,750 $1,750Platform Aerial $1,075 $1,075 $1,075 $1,075 $1,075 $1,075 $1,075 $1,075 $1,075 $1,075Aerial Spare $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $875Tanker $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500Tanker Spare $250 $250 $250 $250 $250 $250 $250 $250 $250 $250Engine $4,725 $4,725 $5,250 $5,250 $5,250 $5,250 $5,250 $5,775 $4,200 $3,150Engine (spare) $1,575 $1,575 $1,575 $1,575 $1,575 $1,575 $1,575 $1,575 $1,575 $2,625Pumper Rescue $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,800 $1,800Quint $1,600 $1,600 $1,600 $1,600 $1,600 $1,600 $1,600 $1,600 $1,600 $1,600Rescue $1,100 $1,100 $1,100 $1,100 $1,100 $1,100 $1,100 $1,100 $1,100 $550Rescue Pumper $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $600Platoon Car $120 $120 $120 $120 $120 $120 $120 $120 $120 $120Marine Vehicles $120 $120 $120 $120 $120 $120 $120 $120 $120 $120Service Units (2, 4, 9) $120 $120 $120 $120 $120 $120 $120 $120 $120 $120Service Units (1 - air bottle transport) $65 $65 $65 $65 $65 $65 $65 $65 $65 $65Training Units (1, 2, 3) $105 $105 $105 $105 $105 $105 $105 $105 $105 $105Zodiac Boat $20 $20 $20 $20 $20 $40 $40 $40 $40 $40Zodiac Boat (spare) $20 $20 $20 $20 $20 $20 $20 $20 $20 $20Zodiac Trailer $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $7 $7 $7 $7 $7Zodiac Trailer (spare) $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4HAZMAT Vehicle $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $900 $900 $900 $900 $900Decontamination Trailer $50 $50 $50 $50 $50 $50 $50 $50 $50 $50Air Light Vehicle $450 $450 $450 $450 $450 $450 $450 $450 $450 $450Investigation Vehicle $90 $90 $90 $90 $90 $90 $90 $90 $90 $90Service Vehicles (3, Stores) $60 $60 $60 $60 $60 $60 $60 $60 $60 $60Safety House Trailer $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200 $200Fire Prevention Inspection $350 $350 $350 $350 $350 $350 $350 $400 $400 $400Public Education $0 $0 $30 $30 $30 $30 $60 $90 $90 $90Administration $35 $35 $35 $35 $35 $35 $35 $35 $35 $35
Total $14,387.0 $14,387.0 $14,942.0 $14,942.0 $14,942.0 $15,865.5 $15,895.5 $16,500.5 $16,725.5 $17,650.5
Population 332,174 334,352 336,530 339,703 342,876 346,049 349,222 352,395 355,629 358,863Per Capita Standard $43.31 $43.03 $44.40 $43.99 $43.58 $45.85 $45.52 $46.82 $47.03 $49.18
10 year averageService Standard per Capita $45.27
DC Eligible amount (before adjustments)Net Forecast Pop'n - 10 yr. 33,077$ per capita $45.27DC rate eligible amount (gross) $1,497,381
56
TABLE B-1 - FIRE SERVICE – MEASURE OF EXISTING SERVICE STANDARDS Service Firefighter Outfitting Contact person(s) Gwen FrancisUnit of measure # of FirefightersType of measure Quantity
Facility name - location 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 value/unit
Firefighters 324 344 344 344 344 336 336 356 356 356 $3,654
Total 324 344 344 344 344 336 336 356 356 356
Population 332,174 334,352 336,530 339,703 342,876 346,049 349,222 352,395 355,629 358,863Per Capita Standard 0.000975 0.001029 0.001022 0.001013 0.001003 0.000971 0.000962 0.001010 0.001001 0.000992
10 year averageQuantity Standard per Capita 0.000998
Sources: Number of Firefighters taken from personnel records maintained by Fire Administration. Outfitting costs compiled by Fire Administration.
Service Firefighter Outfitting Contact person(s) Gwen FrancisUnit of measure 2008 Replacement Value ($thousands)Type of measure Quality & Quantity
Facility name - location 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Firefighters $1,184 $1,257 $1,257 $1,257 $1,257 $1,228 $1,228 $1,301 $1,301 $1,301
Total $1,184 $1,257 $1,257 $1,257 $1,257 $1,228 $1,228 $1,301 $1,301 $1,301
Population 332,174 334,352 336,530 339,703 342,876 346,049 349,222 352,395 355,629 358,863Per Capita Standard $3.56 $3.76 $3.74 $3.70 $3.67 $3.55 $3.52 $3.69 $3.66 $3.63
10 year averageService Standard per Capita $3.65
DC Eligible amount (before adjustments)Net Forecast Pop'n - 10 yr. 33,077$ per capita $3.65DC rate eligible amount (gross) $120,730
57
TABLE B-2 – GROWTH NEEDS AND PRE-FINANCING COSTS RATE CALCULATIONS – FIRE FACILITIES
Service component : Fire - FacilityPlanning horizon for this component : 2009-2018
Allocation of Net Amount to types of GrowthAmount Eligible for Development Charge Rate Calculations
NO
N -
RES
IDEN
TIA
L
Non
-gro
wth
sh
are
RES
IDEN
TIA
L
Subt
otal
Project # Project Description Subt
otal
Net
Am
ount
Elig
ible
for D
C
rate
cal
cula
tion
Less
: Am
ount
inel
igib
le fo
r ra
te c
alcu
latio
n -
impr
ovem
ent o
ver e
xist
ing
stan
dard
(see
Sup
plem
ent A
if
appl
icab
le)
Less
: 10%
sta
tuto
ry
dedu
ctio
n (if
app
licab
le)
Less
: Fu
ture
gro
wth
be
nefit
s (p
ortio
n of
gro
wth
cost
s at
tribu
tabl
e to
gro
wth
expe
cted
to o
ccur
bey
ond
plan
ning
hor
izon
for t
his
serv
ice)
Subt
otal
Expe
cted
Yea
r
Tota
l Est
imat
ed C
ost
Less
: fut
ure
capi
tal g
rant
s,
subs
idie
s or
oth
er
cont
ribut
ions
ant
icip
atLe
ss: P
ortio
n of
Gro
ss
Proj
ect C
ost F
unde
d In
Prio
r Ye
ars
% benefit % $ % $ % $ % $(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21)
(all $'s in ,000's) (1) - sum(2,3) (4) * (5) (4) - (6) (7) * (8) [(7) - (9)] * 10% (7) - sum(9,10) (11) - (12) (13) * (14) (13) * (16) (13) * (18) (13) * (20)Anticipated and Planned Projects Note 1 Note 3 Note 4 Note 2 Note 2 Note 2 Note 2
PP1086
Fire Station 14 - Hyde Park & Fanshawe Park Rd. 2009 $1,600.0 $450.0 $1,150.0 39% $448.5 $701.5 21% $147.3 $.0 $554.2 $.0 $554.2 78.0% $432.3 12.0% $66.5 8.0% $44.3 2.0% $11.1
PP1087 Fire Station 15 - South London (Hamilton between Clarke Rd. & Commissioners Rd.) 2014 $2,195.0 $2,195.0 35% $768.3 $1,426.8 35% $499.4 $.0 $927.4 $.0 $927.4 78.0% $723.4 12.0% $111.3 8.0% $74.2 2.0% $18.5
PP1088Fire Stn 11 - Lambeth area relocation 2013 $2,075.0 $2,075.0 41% $850.8 $1,224.3 28% $342.8 $.0 $881.5 $.0 $881.5 78.0% $687.5 12.0% $105.8 8.0% $70.5 2.0% $17.6
PORTION OF PRIOR YEARS' GROWTH PROJECTS FINANCED WITH DEBT $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0
TOTAL $5,870.0 $.0 $450.0 $5,420.0 38% $2,067.5 $3,352.5 30% $989.5 $.0 $2,363.0 $.0 $2,363.0 78.0% $1,843.2 12.0% $283.6 8.0% $189.0 2.0% $47.3
Supplement A Residential Commercial Institutional IndustrialExisting Service Standard Limitation
$1,335.3 100.0% $1,335.3 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0Existing Service Standard Measure $117.49
Net Growth Projection 33,077 Total net cost eligible for DC rate calculation purpose $1,027.8 49.4% $507.9 27.6% $283.6 18.4% $189.0 4.6% $47.3
Maximum Eligible Amount For DC Rate Calculation $3,886.2 Divided By: Total Gross Growth Projections 55,539 250,830 222,968 380,902Current Growth Needs $2,363.0 Calculated DC Rate - Pre-Financing 9.14$ 1.13$ 0.85$ 0.12$
Excess Of Growth Needs Over Maximum Eligible $.0 /person /sq. m. /sq. m. /sq. m.
Notes: Prefinancing - Residential Rate Summary Post Financing 1) Estimated costs include building fees, construction, land, furniture and equipment. Facility Vehicle Outfitting Total Jan 1, 2009 rate2) Allocation between Residential and non-residential based on 2008 tax assessment roll analysis derived from 2005 market value assessment data. Single Family Dwelling 3.21 29.35$ 1.47$ -$ 30.83$ 321.00 3)
Multiple unit dwelling 2.30 21.03$ 1.06$ -$ 22.09$ 231.13 4)
Apartment - bach. & 1 bed 1.37 12.53$ 0.63$ -$ 13.16$ 152.72 Apartment - ≥ 2 bedroom 1.92 17.56$ 0.88$ -$ 18.44$ 214.35
NO
N -
RES
IDEN
TIA
L
Commercial InstitutionalNon
-gro
wth
sh
are
RES
IDEN
TIA
L
Subt
otal
Project # Project Description Subt
otal
Development Charge Rate Calculation (Pre-Financing Cost)
Less: Portion of above works collected in prior years (approximate uncommitted balance in DC reserve fund at December 31, 2008)
Industrial
Net
Am
ount
Elig
ible
for D
C
rate
cal
cula
tion
Less
: Am
ount
inel
igib
le fo
r ra
te c
alcu
latio
n -
impr
ovem
ent o
ver e
xist
ing
stan
dard
(see
Sup
plem
ent A
if
appl
icab
le)
Less
: 10%
sta
tuto
ry
dedu
ctio
n (if
app
licab
le)
Allocation of benefit to future growth has been based on the approximate ratio of undeveloped hectares in the service area beyond 2018 to the total developed hectares in the service area.Non-growth share reflects approximate ratio of developed area at the initiation of collection of DC's for new station in relation to approximate total developable area in the service area of the new firehall.
Less
: Fu
ture
gro
wth
be
nefit
s (p
ortio
n of
gro
wth
cost
s at
tribu
tabl
e to
gro
wth
expe
cted
to o
ccur
bey
ond
plan
ning
hor
izon
for t
his
serv
ice)
Subt
otal
Expe
cted
Yea
r
Tota
l Est
imat
ed C
ost
Less
: fut
ure
capi
tal g
rant
s,
subs
idie
s or
oth
er
cont
ribut
ions
ant
icip
atLe
ss: P
ortio
n of
Gro
ss
Proj
ect C
ost F
unde
d In
Prio
r Ye
ars
58
TABLE B-2 – GROWTH NEEDS AND PRE-FINANCING COSTS RATE CALCULATIONS – FIRE VEHICLES
Service component : Fire - VehiclePlanning horizon for this component : 2009-2018
Net
Am
ount
Elig
ible
for D
C
rate
cal
cula
tion
Less
: Am
ount
inel
igib
le fo
r ra
te c
alcu
latio
n -
impr
ovem
ent o
ver e
xist
ing
stan
dard
(see
Sup
plem
ent A
if
appl
icab
le)
Less
: 10%
sta
tuto
ry
dedu
ctio
n (if
app
licab
le)
Project # Project Description Subt
otal
Expe
cted
Yea
r
Tota
l Est
imat
ed C
ost
Less
: fut
ure
capi
tal g
rant
s,
subs
idie
s or
oth
er
cont
ribut
ions
ant
icip
ated
Less
: Por
tion
of G
ross
Pr
ojec
t Cos
t Fun
ded
In P
rior
Year
s
Less
: Fu
ture
gro
wth
ben
efits
(por
tion
of g
row
th c
osts
at
tribu
tabl
e to
gro
wth
ex
pect
ed to
occ
ur b
eyon
d pl
anni
ng h
oriz
on fo
r thi
s se
rvic
e)
Subt
otal
Allocation of Net Amount to types of GrowthAmount Eligible for Development Charge Rate Calculations
NO
N -
RES
IDEN
TIA
L
Non
-gro
wth
sh
are
RES
IDEN
TIA
L
Subt
otal
% benefit % $ % $ % $ % $(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21)
(all $'s in ,000's)(1) - sum(2,3) (4) * (5) (4) - (6) (7) * (8) [(7) - (9)] * 10% (7) - sum(9,10) (11) - (12) (13) * (14) (13) * (16) (13) * (18) (13) * (20)
Anticipated and Planned ProjectsNote 1 Note 4 Note 2 Note 3 Note 3 Note 3 Note 3
Quint - Station 15 2013 $865.0 $865.0 35.0% $302.8 $562.3 35.0% $196.8 $.0 $365.5 $.0 $365.5 78.0% $285.1 12.0% $43.9 8.0% $29.2 2.0% $7.3Engine - Station 14 2009 $430.0 $430.0 39.0% $167.7 $262.3 21.0% $55.1 $.0 $207.2 $.0 $207.2 78.0% $161.6 12.0% $24.9 8.0% $16.6 2.0% $4.1
PORTION OF PRIOR YEARS' GROWTH PROJECTS FINANCED WITH DEBT $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0
TOTAL $1,295.0 $.0 $.0 $1,295.0 $470.5 $824.6 $251.9 $.0 $572.7 $.0 $572.7 78.0% $446.7 12.0% $68.7 8.0% $45.8 2.0% $11.5
Supplement A Residential Commercial Institutional IndustrialExisting Service Standard Limitation
$421.2 100.0% $421.2 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0Existing Service Standard Measure $45.27
Net Growth Projection 33,077 $151.5 16.8% $25.5 45.4% $68.7 30.2% $45.8 7.6% $11.5
Maximum Eligible Amount For DC Rate Calculation $1,497.4 Divided By: Total Gross Growth Projections 55,539 250,830 222,968 380,902
Current Growth Needs $572.7 Calculated DC Rate - Pre-Financing 0.46$ 0.27$ 0.21$ 0.03$ Excess Of Growth Needs Over Maximum Eligible $.0 /person /sq. m. /sq. m. /sq. m.
Pre- Financing Cost Residential Rates:Notes: Vehicle1) Only growth related vehicle purchases are reflected on this schedule. Single Family Dwelling 3.21 1.47$
2)Multiple unit dwelling 2.30 1.06$
3) Allocation between Residential and non-residential based on 2008 tax assessment roll analysis derived from 2005 market value assessment data. Apartment - bach. & 1 bed 1.37 0.63$
4) Apartment - ≥ 2 bedroom 1.92 0.88$
Total net cost eligible for DC rate calculation purposes
Development Charge Rate Calculation (Pre-Financing Cost)
Less: Portion of above works collected in prior years (approximate uncommitted balance in DC reserve fund at December 31, 2008)
Industrial
Net
Am
ount
Elig
ible
for D
C
rate
cal
cula
tion
Less
: Am
ount
inel
igib
le fo
r ra
te c
alcu
latio
n -
impr
ovem
ent o
ver e
xist
ing
stan
dard
(see
Sup
plem
ent A
if
appl
icab
le)
Less
: 10%
sta
tuto
ry
dedu
ctio
n (if
app
licab
le)
Project # Project Description Subt
otal
Expe
cted
Yea
r
Tota
l Est
imat
ed C
ost
Less
: fut
ure
capi
tal g
rant
s,
subs
idie
s or
oth
er
cont
ribut
ions
ant
icip
ated
Less
: Por
tion
of G
ross
Pr
ojec
t Cos
t Fun
ded
In P
rior
Year
s
Less
: Fu
ture
gro
wth
ben
efits
(por
tion
of g
row
th c
osts
at
tribu
tabl
e to
gro
wth
ex
pect
ed to
occ
ur b
eyon
d pl
anni
ng h
oriz
on fo
r thi
s se
rvic
e)
Subt
otal
The non-growth benefit has been applied consistent with the benefit for the Station in which the vehicle will be used. Non-growth share reflects approximate ratio of developed area at the initiation of collection of DC's for new station in relation to total serviceable area in the service area of the new station.
The future growth benefit has been applied consistent with the benefit for the Station in which the vehicle will be used. Allocation of benefit to future growth has been based on the approximate ratio of undeveloped hectares in the service area beyond 2018 to the total hectares in the service area.
NO
N -
RES
IDEN
TIA
L
Commercial InstitutionalNon
-gro
wth
sh
are
RES
IDEN
TIA
L
Subt
otal
59
TABLE B-2 – GROWTH NEEDS AND PRE-FINANCING COSTS RATE CALCULATIONS – FIREFIGHTER OUTFITTING
Service component : Fire - OutfittingPlanning horizon for this component : 2009-2018
% benefit % $ % $ % $ % $(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21)
(all $'s in ,000's) (1) - sum(2,3) (4) * (5) (4) - (6) (7) * (8) [(7) - (9)] * 10% (7) - sum(9,10) (11) - (12) (13) * (14) (13) * (16) (13) * (18) (13) * (20)
Anticipated and Planned Projects Notes 1 & 2 Note 5 Note 4 Note 3 Note 3 Note 3 Note 3
Fire Fighter Outfitting Costs - Station 14 2010 $24.00 $24.0 39.0% $9.4 $14.6 21.0% $3.1 $.0 $11.6 $.0 $11.6 78.0% $9.0 12.0% $1.4 8.0% $.9 2.0% $.2Fire Fighter Outfitting Costs - Station 15 2014 $68.00 $68.0 35.0% $23.8 $44.2 35.0% $15.5 $.0 $28.7 $.0 $28.7 78.0% $22.4 12.0% $3.4 8.0% $2.3 2.0% $.6
PORTION OF PRIOR YEARS' GROWTH PROJECTS FINANCED WITH DEBT $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0
TOTAL $92.0 $.0 $.0 $92.0 $33.2 $58.8 $18.5 $.0 $40.3 $.0 $40.3 78.0% $31.4 12.0% $4.8 8.0% $3.2 2.0% $.8
Supplement A Residential Commercial Institutional IndustrialExisting Service Standard Limitation
$42.5 100.0% $42.5 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0Existing Service Standard Measure $3.65Net Growth Projection 33,077 $.0 $.0 $4.8 $3.2 $.8
Maximum Eligible Amount For DC Rate Calculation $120.7 Divided By: Total Gross Growth Projections 55,539 250,830 0 222,968 0 380,902Current Growth Needs $40.3 Calculated DC Rate - Pre-Financing -$ 0.02$ 0.01$ 0.00$ Excess Of Growth Needs Over Maximum Eligible $.0 /person /sq. m. /sq. m. /sq. m.
Pre- Financing Cost Residential Rates:Notes: Outfitting
1) The outfitting costs associated with Station 14 represents 8 new staff Single Family Dwelling 3.21 -$ 2) The outfitting costs associated with Station 15 represents 20 new staff Multiple unit dwelling 2.30 -$ 3) Allocation between Residential and non-residential based on 2008 tax assessment roll analysis derived from 2005 market value assessment data. Apartment - bach. & 1 bed 1.37 -$ 4)
Apartment - ≥ 2 bedroom 1.92 -$ 5)
Total net cost eligible for DC rate calculation
Allocation of Net Amount to types of GrowthAmount Eligible for Development Charge Rate Calculations
NO
N -
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Commercial InstitutionalNon
-gro
wth
sha
re
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Subt
otal
Project # Project Description
Development Charge Rate Calculation (Pre-Financing Cost)
Less: Portion of above works collected in prior years (approximate uncommitted balance in DC reserve fund at December 31, 2008)
Industrial
Net
Am
ount
Elig
ible
for D
C ra
te
calc
ulat
ion
Less
: Am
ount
inel
igib
le fo
r rat
e
calc
ulat
ion
- im
prov
emen
t ove
r
exis
ting
stan
dard
(see
Su
pple
men
t A if
app
licab
le)
Less
: 10%
sta
tuto
ry d
educ
tion
(if
appl
icab
le)
The future growth benefit has been applied consistent with the benefit for the Station in which the vehicle will be used. Allocation of benefit to future growth has been based on the approximate ratio of undeveloped hectares in the service area beyond 2018 to the total hectares in the service area.
The non-growth benefit has been applied consistent with the benefit for the Station in which the vehicle will be used. Non-growth share reflects approximate ratio of developed area at the initiation of collection of DC's for new station in relation to total serviceable area in the service area of the new firehall.
Less
: Fu
ture
gro
wth
ben
efits
(por
tion
of g
row
th c
osts
attri
buta
ble
to g
row
th e
xpec
ted
to
occu
r bey
ond
plan
ning
hor
izon
for
this
ser
vice
)
Subt
otal
Expe
cted
Yea
r
Tota
l Est
imat
ed C
ost
Less
: fut
ure
capi
tal g
rant
s,
subs
idie
s or
oth
er c
ontri
butio
ns
antic
ipat
ed
Less
: Por
tion
of G
ross
Pro
ject
Cos
t Fun
ded
In P
rior Y
ears
Subt
otal
60
TABLE B-3 – CASH FLOW ANALYSIS AND FINAL RATE CALCULATION - FIRE Service component : Fire ($'s in thousands)
FINAL RESULT 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total
Planning Horizon - yrs 10
Pre-Financin
g DC Rate
Post-Financing DC
Rate
% Collected assumpti
on
Growth projection for each year of forecast period
Growth - Res. (Persons In New Housing) 55,539 9.60$ 11.16$ 100% 5,553.9 5,553.9 5,553.9 5,553.9 5,553.9 5,553.9 5,553.9 5,553.9 5,553.9 5,553.9 55,538.6 Growth - Non-Res. (sq. m.) -$
Commercial 250,830.0 1.42$ 1.65$ 100% 25,083.0 25,083.0 25,083.0 25,083.0 25,083.0 25,083.0 25,083.0 25,083.0 25,083.0 25,083.0 250,830.0 Institutional 222,968.0 1.07$ 1.24$ 100% 22,296.8 22,296.8 22,296.8 22,296.8 22,296.8 22,296.8 22,296.8 22,296.8 22,296.8 22,296.8 222,968.0
C/I subtotal 473,798.0 -$ 47,379.8 47,379.8 47,379.8 47,379.8 47,379.8 47,379.8 47,379.8 47,379.8 47,379.8 47,379.8 473,798.0 Industrial 380,902.0 0.16$ 0.18$ 100% 38,090.2 38,090.2 38,090.2 38,090.2 38,090.2 38,090.2 38,090.2 38,090.2 38,090.2 38,090.2 380,902.0
Total Non-Res. 854,700.0 85,470.0 85,470.0 85,470.0 85,470.0 85,470.0 85,470.0 85,470.0 85,470.0 85,470.0 85,470.0 854,700.0
Reserve Fund Projections:Opening Surplus / <Deficit> $1,799.0 $710.6 $843.2 $997.2 $1,154.0 -$760.8 -$2,136.5 -$2,060.5 -$1,982.2 -$1,901.5 $1,799.0Revenues - Development Charge Collections
Residential $62.0 $62.0 $62.0 $62.0 $62.0 $62.0 $62.0 $62.0 $62.0 $62.0 $619.8Non-Res.
Commercial $41.5 $41.5 $41.5 $41.5 $41.5 $41.5 $41.5 $41.5 $41.5 $41.5 $415.0Institutional $27.7 $27.7 $27.7 $27.7 $27.7 $27.7 $27.7 $27.7 $27.7 $27.7 $276.7C/I subtotal $69.2 $69.2 $69.2 $69.2 $69.2 $69.2 $69.2 $69.2 $69.2 $69.2 $691.7
Industrial $6.9 $6.9 $6.9 $6.9 $6.9 $6.9 $6.9 $6.9 $6.9 $6.9 $69.2Total Non-Res. $76.1 $76.1 $76.1 $76.1 $76.1 $76.1 $76.1 $76.1 $76.1 $76.1 $760.9
Total revenues $138.1 $138.1 $138.1 $138.1 $138.1 $138.1 $138.1 $138.1 $138.1 $138.1 $1,380.6
Development Charge draws - calculated on separate page $1,248.2 $19.0 $.0 $.0 $2,056.3 $1,471.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $4,794.4Closing surplus / <deficit> before interest $688.9 $829.7 $981.3 $1,135.3 -$764.2 -$2,093.7 -$1,998.5 -$1,922.4 -$1,844.1 -$1,763.4 -$1,614.7Non-inflationary interest revenue /<expense>
on savings 1.75% $21.8 $13.5 $16.0 $18.7 $3.4 $73.3on borrowings 3.00% -$42.8 -$62.0 -$59.7 -$57.4 -$55.0 -$277.0
Closing surplus / <deficit> $710.6 $843.2 $997.2 $1,154.0 -$760.8 -$2,136.5 -$2,060.5 -$1,982.2 -$1,901.5 -$1,818.4 -$1,818.4
-$1,818.4
Explanatory note
Method:1
2
3
Other Information: Pre PostResidential share 45% 45%Non-residential
Commercial 30% 30%Institutional 20% 20%C/I subtotal 50% 50%Industrial 5% 5%
Using "SOLVER" make balance at end of planning horizon = tot "Target " balance by allowing "Post financing rates" to vary from "Pre-financing rates".
Target which reflects growth costs incurred in the forecast period and recoverable from future growth
This worksheet projects future activity in this reserve fund. It ultimately determines the rates necessary to recover all costs intended for recovery from growth (including financing costs). The deficit in the fund at the end of the planning horizon reflects costs intended for recovery from future growth.
Set ratio of Pre financing revenues = Post financing revenues (ie. copy values from C47-C52 to D47-D52). This ensures that ratio of revenues stays constant throughout rate re-calculation process.
Set Post financing rate = Pre financing rate - model projects revenues and draws and projects RF balances (ie. copy values from D13-D18 to E13-E18)
61
Appendix C – Police Services Existing Service Levels The City of London Police Service employs more than 500 sworn officers and 182 vehicles from its headquarters of over 150,000 square feet at 601 Dundas Street. Existing standards of service have been measured using capital employed by Police Service (see TABLE C-1, 6 pages). These measures assisted in ensuring that the amounts included in the Police Development Charge rate calculations did not exceed existing historical standards. Perceived Deficiency in Existing Service Levels Addressed During the City’s 2003 budget process, there was significant debate about the adequacy of existing Policing staff resources. Based on a detailed workload analysis, the Police Services board recommended that an increase of 85 Police officers was necessary to provide for adequate, sustainable and professional police service to the community. The demands on police resources stem largely from heightened requirements associated with provincial downloading and the development of provincially imposed policing standards and guidelines. Together, these have created greater demands for training and daily execution of policing services in the community. The workload analysis demonstrates a need for an increase in human resources which in part are a result of growth. Capital Needs – Facility In addition to the human resource needs referred to above, the London Police Service has faced significant challenges with regard to space and facility demands. As a result, a consultant was commissioned to complete a study of both existing and future space needs. The study concluded that:
a) Existing facilities were inadequate to house existing staff resources, and a larger facility was necessary to house existing resources
b) Larger facilities would also be needed to accommodate the expected expansion of the police service to meet growth needs.
c) The cost of the preferred solution amounts to approximately $65 M and includes the renovation and expansion of Police Headquarters on its present site, as well as the addition of an offsite training facility.
In 2008, the funding was complete for a major expansion of Police Headquarters with a total expected cost of $33.8 million. Construction of the new headquarters is underway as this study is being written The expansion of Police headquarters is not entirely attributable to growth. Only capital needs arising from growth are eligible for inclusion in the development charge rate calculations. In the end, approximately 22% of the facility was determined to be eligible for DC funding (in accordance with 2004 DC Study cost sharing and City DC policy exemptions and discounts). The rate calculations in this study reflect the outstanding debt associated with funding the growth share of the project ($7.3 million). This growth share is entirely attributable to Residential development as Non-residential development was exempted from this service in the 2004 DC rate by-law. Growth Needs – Equipment Police vehicles account for most of the equipment used by the police service. These vehicles are routinely disposed of on a 5 year cycle. The Development Charges Act allows the inclusion of growth related vehicles with an expected useful life of seven years or more
62
(and makes no allowance for the fact that these vehicles are used around the clock). Police vehicles are generally therefore excluded from the development charge rate calculations. A single exception to the general rule referred to above relates to motorcycles. These vehicles have a useful life of ten (10) years. A new motorcycle is required in 2009 to meet the needs of the expanding fleet in this area, and this unit is included in the DC rate calculations. Growth Needs - Outfitting There are significant costs involved in outfitting new officers. Based on the existing ten year average (1999-2008) of sworn officers to population (1.507 officers per 1,000 population), and with an expected net growth in population over the next 10 years of 33,077 (per Appendix A Table A-1 growth forecasts), the City might expect an additional complement of 50 officers. Each of these officers requires non-personal gear and radio (ratio of one radio per 3 officers) at a total current cost of approximately $4,469 per officer. This results in a total projected capital need of $223,450 for outfitting new officers required to serve growth over the next ten years. Allocation of Benefit to Growth The growth costs eligible for development charge rate calculation purposes have been adjusted as follows:
a) For Police Facilities, an approximation of the benefit accruing to growth beyond the ten year planning horizon for the new headquarters (ie. the “future” or “post period” benefit) has also been made. The benefit calculation is based on the expectation that the new facility will serve the department for a period of 15 years (thus 33% of the benefit deferred for recovery in the future, leaving the appropriate share recoverable from ten (10) year growth). The resulting net amount represents only the growth costs reasonably recoverable from growth expected to occur in the 2009-2018 timeframe.
b) Costs attributable to prior growth have been removed through recognition of the existing reserve fund balance, which represents contributions of earlier growth towards the projects which make up the rate calculations.
The tables (C-2) also reflect an allocation of the growth costs between residential and non-residential growth. For facilities, the benefit is allocated 100% to Residential as the Non-residential benefit was funded by taxpayers. For Police Vehicle and Police Outfitting, the benefit of Police services has been apportioned on the basis of 2008 tax assessment rolls (consistent with 2004 DC study approach)resulting in a Residential/Non-residential split of approximately78/22. Financing Costs Added to Arrive at Final Calculated DC Rate For the purpose of calculating the development charge rate for this component inclusive of financing costs, TABLE C-3 has been produced. This table simulates the cash flows in this component of the DC funds:
a) It begins with the opening balance – in this case, a balance of $1.8 million which reflects the accumulation of funds from past growth for the projects identified in Tables C-2 (for prior Police projects eligible for recovery from growth).
b) The calculation on Table C-3 also assumes full recovery of development charges for all types of growth.
63
c) Drawdowns, consistent with ‘full recovery’ assumption mentioned in b) above, for the growth share of projects being completed in the upcoming ten(10) year planning horizon, are also reflected in the cash flow projection.
d) An estimate of annual interest expenses that can be expected to be incurred taking into account any projected fund deficits anticipated throughout the planning horizon (10 years).
All figures are presented on an un-inflated, constant (2009) dollar basis. Interest rates which exclude the inflationary component (assumed to be 2%) are also used for consistency. The rates generated from this cash flow analysis reflect what is appropriately recovered from growth, for the planning horizon of this service. Long Term Operating Costs An examination of the long term operating costs for growth needs for Police Services (DC) is included in Appendix O. Council’s Intention to Meet Growth Needs The growth needs identified within this Appendix have been determined by a concentrated internal review. The capital items reflected herein will be subject to final approval of Council through the annual capital budget approval process. It is Council’s stated intention to “provide for the needs of growth in a way that does not jeopardize the long term financial health of the municipality, or place an undue burden on existing taxpayers” (Official Plan Policing 2.6.3).
64
TABLE C-1 - POLICE SERVICE – MEASURE OF EXISTING SERVICE STANDARDS SERVICE: POLICE
Contact person(s)Unit of measureType of measure
Facility Name Location 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 $/sq.ft.London Police Headquarters 601 Dundas St 151,000 151,000 151,000 153,112 153,112 153,112 153,112 153,112 153,112 153,112 $260.00Sub station (Lambeth) Main St Lambeth 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 $150.00 Note 2Downtown Store Front Richmond St. 300 300 300 300 $150.00 Note 2Court Offices/Cells 824 Dundas St. 7,983 7,983 7,983 7,983 7,983 7,983 7,983 7,983 7,983 7,983 $220.00 Note 2Sub station (Covent Garden Market) 130 King Street 224 224 224 224 224 224 $150.00 Note 2Communications & 911 Backup confidential 2,042 2,042 2,042 2,042 2,042 2,042 2,042 2,042 2,042 2,042 $150.00 Note 2
Total 161,625 161,625 161,625 163,737 163,661 163,661 163,661 163,661 163,661 163,661
Population 332,174 334,352 336,530 339,703 342,876 346,049 349,222 352,395 355,629 358,863Per Capita Level of Service 0.486567 0.483398 0.480269 0.482000 0.477318 0.472942 0.468645 0.464425 0.460201 0.456054
10 year averageQuantity Standard per Capita 0.473182
Notes:
2) Land values have been excluded from the rented and non-City owned facilities.
Source : Building square footage measures provided by Police in cooperation with City of London Facility Services.
1) The cost per square foot has been determined using a consultative method lead by the Facility Services Division involving City staff and a consulting firm. Other sources of information used were RS Means, building cost indices and Facility Services Division experience. Support for these figures has been documented by the Facility Services Division.
COMPONENT: FACILITIES
Jim KlingenbergerSquare Feet of BuildingQuantity
65
TABLE C-1 - POLICE SERVICE – MEASURE OF EXISTING SERVICE STANDARDS SERVICE: POLICE
Contact person(s)Unit of measureType of measure
Facility Name Location 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008London Police Headquarters 601 Dundas St $39,260.0 $39,260.0 $39,260.0 $39,809.1 $39,809.1 $39,809.1 $39,809.1 $39,809.1 $39,809.1 $39,809.1Sub station (Lambeth) Main St Lambeth $45.0 $45.0 $45.0 $45.0 $45.0 $45.0 $45.0 $45.0 $45.0 $45.0Downtown Store Front Richmond St. $45.0 $45.0 $45.0 $45.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0Court Offices/Cells 824 Dundas St. $1,756.3 $1,756.3 $1,756.3 $1,756.3 $1,756.3 $1,756.3 $1,756.3 $1,756.3 $1,756.3 $1,756.3Sub station (Covent Garden Market) 130 King Street $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $33.6 $33.6 $33.6 $33.6 $33.6 $33.6Communications & 911 Backup confidential $306.3 $306.3 $306.3 $306.3 $306.3 $306.3 $306.3 $306.3 $306.3 $306.3
Total $41,412.6 $41,412.6 $41,412.6 $41,961.7 $41,950.3 $41,950.3 $41,950.3 $41,950.3 $41,950.3 $41,950.3
Population 332,174 334,352 336,530 339,703 342,876 346,049 349,222 352,395 355,629 358,863Per Capita Level of Service $124.67 $123.86 $123.06 $123.52 $122.35 $121.23 $120.12 $119.04 $117.96 $116.90
10 year averageService Standard per Capita $121.27
DC Eligible amount (before adjustments)Net Forecast Pop'n - 10 yr. 33,077$ per capita $121.27DC rate eligible amount (gross) $4,011,207
Land values have been excluded from the rented and non-City owned facilities.
Source : Building, site improvements and contents derived from information compiled by City of London - Facility Services division. Land values from information provided by Realty Services division.
Quality & Quantity
Jim Klingenberger2008 Replacement Value ($thousands)
COMPONENT: FACILITIES
66
TABLE C-1 - POLICE SERVICE – MEASURE OF EXISTING SERVICE STANDARDS SERVICE: POLICE
Contact person(s)Unit of measureType of measure
Unit description 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 $/ItemMotorcycles 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 $26,964Court Security Van (old style) 1 1 1 0 $35,056Court Security Van 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $84,483Court Security Car (used) 1 1 1 1 0 $34,633Court Security Car 1 1 1 1 1 0 $34,633Community Service Vehicles 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 $38,775Explosive Disposal Unit Van (Old) 1 1 1 1 1 0 $31,560Explosive Disposal Unit Van 1 1 1 1 1 $262,550Mobile Command Vehicle 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $319,142Emergency Response.Unit (Truck) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $121,149Facilities Pickup 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $36,780Facilities Stake Truck (old) 1 1 1 1 0 $23,100Facilities Stake Truck 1 1 1 1 1 1 $40,391Bicycle Recovery Pickup 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 $30,488R.I.D.E. Van (used) 1 1 1 1 1 $34,569R.I.D.E. Van 1 1 1 1 1 1 $42,566Canine Vehicles 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $43,126Aluminum Boat (14') 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $6,700Zodiac Boat (18') 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $81,000Reconstruction Van 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 $53,709Passenger Van - 15 passenger 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 $42,566Surveillance Vehicle/Module 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $141,658Court Security Van (new style) 1 $65,000ERS Response Unit (new style) 2 $240,000
Total 23 23 26 29 29 29 29 29 29 32
Population 332,174 334,352 336,530 339,703 342,876 346,049 349,222 352,395 355,629 358,863Per Capita Standard 0.000069 0.000069 0.000077 0.000085 0.000085 0.000084 0.000083 0.000082 0.000082 0.000089
10 year averageQuantity Standard per Capita 0.000081
Sources: Values and quantity of vehicles taken from inventory reports maintained by Police Fleet Services.
COMPONENT: VEHICLES
Gar Irwin / Doug SuttonNumber of VehiclesQuantity
67
TABLE C-1 - POLICE SERVICE – MEASURE OF EXISTING SERVICE STANDARDS SERVICE: POLICE
Contact person(s)Unit of measureType of measure
Unit description 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Motorcycles $135.0 $135.0 $135.0 $135.0 $135.0 $135.0 $135.0 $135.0 $135.0 $135.0Court Security Van (old style) $35.0 $35.0 $35.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0Court Security Van $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $84.0 $84.0 $84.0 $84.0 $84.0 $84.0 $84.0Court Security Car (used) $35.0 $35.0 $35.0 $35.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0Court Security Car $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $35.0 $35.0 $35.0 $35.0 $35.0 $0.0Community Service Vehicles $271.0 $271.0 $310.0 $310.0 $310.0 $310.0 $310.0 $310.0 $310.0 $310.0Explosive Disposal Unit Van (old) $32.0 $32.0 $32.0 $32.0 $32.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0Explosive Disposal Unit Van $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $263.0 $263.0 $263.0 $263.0 $263.0Mobile Command Vehicle $319.0 $319.0 $319.0 $319.0 $319.0 $319.0 $319.0 $319.0 $319.0 $500.0Emergency Response.Unit (Truck) $121.0 $121.0 $121.0 $121.0 $121.0 $121.0 $121.0 $121.0 $121.0 $121.0Facilities Pickup $37.0 $37.0 $37.0 $37.0 $37.0 $37.0 $37.0 $37.0 $37.0 $37.0Facilities Stake Truck (old) $23.0 $23.0 $23.0 $23.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0Facilities Stake Truck $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $40.0 $40.0 $40.0 $40.0 $40.0 $40.0Bicycle Recovery Pickup $30.0 $30.0 $30.0 $30.0 $30.0 $30.0 $30.0 $30.0 $30.0 $0.0R.I.D.E. Van (used) $35.0 $35.0 $35.0 $35.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $35.0R.I.D.E. Van $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $43.0 $43.0 $43.0 $43.0 $43.0 $43.0Canine Vehicles $43.0 $43.0 $43.0 $43.0 $43.0 $43.0 $43.0 $43.0 $43.0 $43.0Aluminum Boat (14') $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $7.0 $7.0 $7.0 $7.0 $7.0 $7.0 $7.0Zodiac Boat (18') $81.0 $81.0 $81.0 $81.0 $81.0 $81.0 $81.0 $81.0 $81.0 $81.0Reconstruction Van $0.0 $0.0 $54.0 $54.0 $54.0 $54.0 $54.0 $54.0 $54.0 $107.0Passenger Van $0.0 $0.0 $43.0 $85.0 $85.0 $85.0 $85.0 $85.0 $85.0 $85.0Surveillance Vehicle/Module $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $142.0 $142.0 $142.0 $142.0 $142.0 $142.0 $142.0Court Security Van (new style) $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $65.0ERS Response Unit (new style) $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $480.0
Total $1,197.0 $1,197.0 $1,333.0 $1,573.0 $1,598.0 $1,829.0 $1,829.0 $1,829.0 $1,829.0 $2,578.0
Population 332,174 334,352 336,530 339,703 342,876 346,049 349,222 352,395 355,629 358,863Per Capita Level of Service $3.60 $3.58 $3.96 $4.63 $4.66 $5.29 $5.24 $5.19 $5.14 $7.18
10 year averageService Standard per Capita $4.85
DC Eligible amount (before adjustments)Net Forecast Pop'n - 10 yr. 33,077$ per capita $4.85DC rate eligible amount (gross) $160,422
2008 Replacement Value ($thousands)Quality & Quantity
COMPONENT: VEHICLES
Gar Irwin / Doug Sutton
68
TABLE C-1 - POLICE SERVICE – MEASURE OF EXISTING SERVICE STANDARDS SERVICE: POLICE
Contact person(s)Unit of measureType of measure
Type 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 $/OfficerOfficers 461 465 468 474 510 536 555 578 578 578 $4,469Auxiliary Officers 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 $476
Total 511 515 518 524 560 586 605 628 628 628
Population 332,174 334,352 336,530 339,703 342,876 346,049 349,222 352,395 355,629 358,863Per Capita Standard - Combined 0.001538 0.001540 0.001539 0.001543 0.001633 0.001693 0.001732 0.001782 0.001766 0.001750Per Capita Standard - Officers only 0.001388 0.001391 0.001391 0.001395 0.001487 0.001549 0.001589 0.001640 0.001625 0.001611
Quantity Standard per Capita10 year average - Officers 0.00150710 year average - combined 0.001652
Source: Number of Officers and Volunteers taken from personnel records maintained by Police Administration. Outfitting costs compiled by Police Administration.
Notes:1) Outfitting costs include the cost of Officer radios.
SERVICE: POLICE
Contact person(s)Unit of measureType of measure
Type 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Officers $2,060 $2,078 $2,091 $2,118 $2,279 $2,395 $2,480 $2,583 $2,583 $2,583Auxiliary Officers $24 $24 $24 $24 $24 $24 $24 $24 $24 $24
Total $2,084 $2,102 $2,115 $2,142 $2,303 $2,419 $2,504 $2,607 $2,607 $2,607
Population 332,174 334,352 336,530 339,703 342,876 346,049 349,222 352,395 355,629 358,863Per Capita Level of Service $6.27 $6.29 $6.28 $6.31 $6.72 $6.99 $7.17 $7.40 $7.33 $7.26
10 year average- combinedService Standard per Capita $6.80
DC Eligible amount (before adjustments)Net Forecast Pop'n - 10 yr. 33,077$ per capita $6.80DC rate eligible amount (gross) $224,921
Quality & Quantity
COMPONENT: OUTFITTING
Kim Darling / Deputy Chief Brad Duncan2008 Replacement Value ($thousands)
COMPONENT: OUTFITTING
Kim Darling / Deputy Chief Brad DuncanNumber of Equipped OfficersQuantity
69
TABLE C-2 - POLICE SERVICE – GROWTH NEEDS AND RATE CALCULATIONS POLICE FACILITIES
Service component : Police - FacilityPlanning horizon for this component : 2009-2018
Allocation of Net Amount to types of GrowthAmount Eligible for Development Charge Rate Calculations
NO
N -
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Non
-gro
wth
sha
re
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Project # Project Description Subt
otal
Net
Am
ount
Elig
ible
for D
C ra
te c
alcu
latio
n
Less
: Am
ount
inel
igib
le fo
r rat
e ca
lcul
atio
n -
impr
ovem
ent o
ver e
xist
ing
stan
dard
(see
Supp
lem
ent A
if a
pplic
able
)
Less
: 10%
sta
tuto
ry d
educ
tion
(if a
pplic
able
)
Subt
otal
Less
: Fu
ture
gro
wth
ben
efits
(por
tion
of
grow
th c
osts
attr
ibut
able
to g
row
th e
xpec
ted
to o
ccur
bey
ond
plan
ning
hor
izon
for t
his
serv
ice)
Subt
otal
Tota
l Est
imat
ed C
ost
Less
: fut
ure
capi
tal g
rant
s, s
ubsi
dies
or o
ther
cont
ribut
ions
ant
icip
ated
Less
: Por
tion
of G
ross
Pro
ject
Cos
t Fun
ded
In P
rior Y
ears
Expe
cted
Yea
r
% benefit % $ % $ % $ % $(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21)
(all $'s in ,000's)(1) - sum(2,3) (4) * (5) (4) - (6) (7) * (8) [(7) - (9)] * 10% (7) - sum(9,10) (11) - (12) (13) * (14) (13) * (16) (13) * (18) (13) * (20)
PORTION OF PRIOR YEARS' GROWTH PROJECTS FINANCED WITH DEBT - Expansion Of Police Headquarters $7,290.0 $7,290.0 33.0% $2,405.7 $4,884.3 $4,884.3 $873.1 $4,011.2 100.0% $4,011.2 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0
TOTAL $7,290.0 $.0 $.0 $7,290.0 $2,405.7 $4,884.3 $.0 $.0 $4,884.3 $873.1 $4,011.2 100.0% $4,011.2 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0
Supplement A Residential Commercial Institutional IndustrialExisting Service Standard Limitation
$1,709.7 100.0% $1,709.7 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0Existing Service Standard Measure $121.27
Net Growth Projection 33,077 $2,301.5 100.0% $2,301.5 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0
Maximum Eligible Amount For DC Rate Calculation $4,011.2 Divided By: Total Gross Growth Projections 55,539 250,830 222,968 380,902
Current Growth Needs $4,884.3 Calculated DC Rate - Pre-Financing 41.44$ -$ -$ -$ Excess Of Growth Needs Over Maximum Eligible $873.1 /person /sq. m. /sq. m. /sq. m.
Prefinancing - Residential Rate Summary Post Financing 1)
Facility Vehicle Outfitting Total Jan 1, 2009 rate2) Allocation between Residential and non-residential based on 2008 tax assessment roll analysis derived from 2005 market value assessment data. Single Family Dwelling 3.21 133.02$ 1.22$ 3.06$ 137.30$ 146.00
Multiple unit dwelling 2.30 95.31$ 0.87$ 2.19$ 98.38$ 104.62 Apartment - bach. & 1 bed 1.37 56.77$ 0.52$ 1.31$ 58.60$ 69.66 Apartment - ≥ 2 bedroom 1.92 79.57$ 0.73$ 1.83$ 82.12$ 97.80
Total net cost eligible for DC rate calculation purposes
NO
N -
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Commercial InstitutionalNon
-gro
wth
sha
re
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Project # Project Description Subt
otal
Development Charge Rate Calculation (Pre-Financing Cost)
Less: Portion of above works collected in prior years (approximate uncommitted balance in DC reserve fund at December 31, 2008)
Industrial
Net
Am
ount
Elig
ible
for D
C ra
te c
alcu
latio
n
Less
: Am
ount
inel
igib
le fo
r rat
e ca
lcul
atio
n -
impr
ovem
ent o
ver e
xist
ing
stan
dard
(see
Supp
lem
ent A
if a
pplic
able
)
Less
: 10%
sta
tuto
ry d
educ
tion
(if a
pplic
able
)
Subt
otal
Expansion of Police Headquarters was fully funded by 2008 with expected completion in 2010. Per Deputy Chief Brad Duncan, the new addition will serve City growth for a period of approximately 15 years (therefore 33% allocated to future growth benefit)
Less
: Fu
ture
gro
wth
ben
efits
(por
tion
of
grow
th c
osts
attr
ibut
able
to g
row
th e
xpec
ted
to o
ccur
bey
ond
plan
ning
hor
izon
for t
his
serv
ice)
Subt
otal
Tota
l Est
imat
ed C
ost
Less
: fut
ure
capi
tal g
rant
s, s
ubsi
dies
or o
ther
cont
ribut
ions
ant
icip
ated
Less
: Por
tion
of G
ross
Pro
ject
Cos
t Fun
ded
In P
rior Y
ears
Expe
cted
Yea
r
Notes:
70
TABLE C-2 - POLICE SERVICE – GROWTH NEEDS AND RATE CALCULATIONS – POLICE VEHICLES
Service component : Police - VehiclePlanning horizon for this component : 2009-2018
Less
: Fu
ture
gro
wth
ben
efits
(por
tion
of
grow
th c
osts
attr
ibut
able
to g
row
th e
xpec
ted
to o
ccur
bey
ond
plan
ning
hor
izon
for t
his
serv
ice)
Subt
otal
Net
Am
ount
Elig
ible
for D
C ra
te c
alcu
latio
n
Less
: Am
ount
inel
igib
le fo
r rat
e ca
lcul
atio
n -
impr
ovem
ent o
ver e
xist
ing
stan
dard
(see
Supp
lem
ent A
if a
pplic
able
)
Less
: 10%
sta
tuto
ry d
educ
tion
(if a
pplic
able
)
Expe
cted
Yea
r
Tota
l Est
imat
ed C
ost
Less
: fut
ure
capi
tal g
rant
s, s
ubsi
dies
or o
ther
cont
ribut
ions
ant
icip
ated
Less
: Por
tion
of G
ross
Pro
ject
Cos
t Fun
ded
In
Prio
r Yea
rs
Allocation of Net Amount to types of GrowthAmount Eligible for Development Charge Rate Calculations
NO
N -
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Non
-gro
wth
sha
re
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Subt
otal
Project # Project Description Subt
otal
% benefit % $ % $ % $ % $(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21)
(all $'s in ,000's) (1) - sum(2,3) (4) * (5) (4) - (6) (7) * (8) [(7) - (9)] * 10% (7) - sum(9,10) (11) - (12) (13) * (14) (13) * (16) (13) * (18) (13) * (20)
Anticipated and Planned ProjectsNote 1 Note 3
Motorcycle 2009 $27.0 $27.0 0.0% $.0 $27.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $27.0 $.0 $27.0 78.0% $21.0 12.0% $3.2 8.0% $2.2 2.0% $.5
TOTAL $27.0 $.0 $.0 $27.0 $.0 $27.0 $.0 $.0 $27.0 $.0 $27.0 78.0% $21.0 12.0% $3.2 8.0% $2.2 2.0% $.5
Supplement A Residential Commercial Institutional IndustrialExisting Service Standard Limitation
$.0 100.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0Existing Service Standard Measure $4.85
Net Growth Projection 33,077 $27.0 78.0% $21.0 12.0% $3.2 8.0% $2.2 2.0% $.5Maximum Eligible Amount For DC Rate Calculation $160.4 Divided By: Total Gross Growth Projections 55,539 250,830 222,968 380,902
Current Growth Needs $27.0 Calculated DC Rate - Pre-Financing 0.38$ 0.01$ 0.01$ 0.00$ Excess Of Growth Needs Over Maximum Eligible $.0 /person /sq. m. /sq. m. /sq. m.
Pre- Financing Cost Residential Rates:Notes: Vehicle1) Only growth related vehicle purchases are reflected on this schedule. Single Family Dwelling 3.21 1.22$ 2) Allocation between Residential and non-residential based on 2008 tax assessment roll analysis derived from 2005 market value assessment data. Multiple unit dwelling 2.30 0.87$ 3) The motorcycle has a useful life of 10 years, resulting in no future growth benefits. Apartment - bach. & 1 bed 1.37 0.52$
Apartment - ≥ 2 bedroom 1.92 0.73$
Total net cost eligible for DC rate calculation purposes
Less
: Fu
ture
gro
wth
ben
efits
(por
tion
of
grow
th c
osts
attr
ibut
able
to g
row
th e
xpec
ted
to o
ccur
bey
ond
plan
ning
hor
izon
for t
his
serv
ice)
Subt
otal
Development Charge Rate Calculation (Pre-Financing Cost)
Less: Portion of above works collected in prior years (approximate uncommitted balance in DC reserve fund at December 31, 2008)
Industrial
Net
Am
ount
Elig
ible
for D
C ra
te c
alcu
latio
n
Less
: Am
ount
inel
igib
le fo
r rat
e ca
lcul
atio
n -
impr
ovem
ent o
ver e
xist
ing
stan
dard
(see
Supp
lem
ent A
if a
pplic
able
)
Less
: 10%
sta
tuto
ry d
educ
tion
(if a
pplic
able
)
Expe
cted
Yea
r
Tota
l Est
imat
ed C
ost
Less
: fut
ure
capi
tal g
rant
s, s
ubsi
dies
or o
ther
cont
ribut
ions
ant
icip
ated
Less
: Por
tion
of G
ross
Pro
ject
Cos
t Fun
ded
In
Prio
r Yea
rs
NO
N -
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Commercial InstitutionalNon
-gro
wth
sha
re
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Subt
otal
Project # Project Description Subt
otal
71
TABLE C-2 - POLICE SERVICE – GROWTH NEEDS AND RATE CALCULATIONS – POLICE OUTFITTING
Service component : Police - OutfittingPlanning horizon for this component : 2009-2018
% benefit % $ % $ % $ % $(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21)
(all $'s in ,000's) (1) - sum(2,3) (4) * (5) (4) - (6) (7) * (8) [(7) - (9)] * 10% (7) - sum(9,10) (11) - (12) (13) * (14) (13) * (16) (13) * (18) (13) * (20)
Anticipated and Planned ProjectsNote 1
Outfitting New Officers Required By Growth 2009-2018 $223.5 $223.5 0.0% $.0 $223.5 0% $.0 $.0 $223.5 $.0 $223.5 78.0% $174.3 12.0% $26.8 8.0% $17.9 2.0% $4.5
PORTION OF PRIOR YEARS' GROWTH PROJECTS FINANCED WITH DEBT $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0
TOTAL $223.5 $.0 $.0 $223.5 $.0 $223.5 $.0 $.0 $223.5 $.0 $223.5 78.0% $174.3 12.0% $26.8 8.0% $17.9 2.0% $4.5
Supplement A Residential Commercial Institutional IndustrialExisting Service Standard Limitation
$121.3 100.0% $121.3 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0Existing Service Standard Measure $6.80
Net Growth Projection 33,077 $102.1 51.9% $53.0 26.3% $26.8 17.5% $17.9 4.4% $4.5Maximum Eligible Amount For DC Rate Calculation $224.9 Divided By: Total Gross Growth Projections 55,539 250,830 222,968 380,902Current Growth Needs $223.5 Calculated DC Rate - Pre-Financing 0.95$ 0.11$ 0.08$ 0.01$ Excess Of Growth Needs Over Maximum Eligible $.0 /person /sq. m. /sq. m. /sq. m.
Pre- Financing Cost Residential Rates:Notes: Outfitting1) Reflects expectation of 50 new officers attributable to growth over 10 year growth period (ie. continuation of 10 yr, historical per capita standard) Single Family Dwelling 3.21 3.06$ 2) Allocation between Residential and non-residential based on 2008 tax assessment roll analysis derived from 2005 market value assessment data. Multiple unit dwelling 2.30 2.19$
Apartment - bach. & 1 bed 1.37 1.31$ Apartment - ≥ 2 bedroom 1.92 1.83$
Total net cost eligible for DC rate calculation purposes
Allocation of Net Amount to types of GrowthAmount Eligible for Development Charge Rate Calculations
NO
N -
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Commercial InstitutionalNon
-gro
wth
sha
re
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Subt
otal
Project # Project Description Subt
otal
Expe
cted
Yea
r
Tota
l Est
imat
ed C
ost
Less
: fut
ure
capi
tal g
rant
s, s
ubsi
dies
or o
ther
con
tribu
tions
ant
icip
ated
Less
: Por
tion
of G
ross
Pro
ject
Cos
t
Fund
ed In
Prio
r Yea
rs
Less
: Fu
ture
gro
wth
ben
efits
(por
tion
of g
row
th c
osts
attr
ibut
able
to g
row
th
expe
cted
to o
ccur
bey
ond
plan
ning
horiz
on fo
r thi
s se
rvic
e)
Subt
otal
Development Charge Rate Calculation (Pre-Financing Cost)
Less: Portion of above works collected in prior years (approximate uncommitted balance in DC reserve fund at December 31, 2008)
Industrial
Net
Am
ount
Elig
ible
for D
C ra
te
calc
ulat
ion
Less
: Am
ount
inel
igib
le fo
r rat
e
calc
ulat
ion
- im
prov
emen
t ove
r
exis
ting
stan
dard
(see
Sup
plem
ent A
if
appl
icab
le)
Less
: 10%
sta
tuto
ry d
educ
tion
(if
appl
icab
le)
72
TABLE C-3 – CASH FLOW ANALYSIS AND FINAL RATE CALCULATION - POLICE Service component : Police ($'s in thousands)
FINAL RESULT 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total
Planning Horizon - yrs 10
Pre-Financing DC Rate
Post-Financing DC Rate
% Collected assumption
Growth projection for each year of forecast period
Growth - Res. (Persons In New Housing) 55,539 42.77$ 40.98$ 100% 5,553.9 5,553.9 5,553.9 5,553.9 5,553.9 5,553.9 5,553.9 5,553.9 5,553.9 5,553.9 55,538.6 Growth - Non-Res. (sq. m.) -$
Commercial 250,830.0 0.12$ 0.12$ 100% 25,083.0 25,083.0 25,083.0 25,083.0 25,083.0 25,083.0 25,083.0 25,083.0 25,083.0 25,083.0 250,830.0 Institutional 222,968.0 0.09$ 0.09$ 100% 22,296.8 22,296.8 22,296.8 22,296.8 22,296.8 22,296.8 22,296.8 22,296.8 22,296.8 22,296.8 222,968.0
C/I subtotal 473,798.0 -$ 47,379.8 47,379.8 47,379.8 47,379.8 47,379.8 47,379.8 47,379.8 47,379.8 47,379.8 47,379.8 473,798.0 Industrial 380,902.0 0.01$ 0.01$ 100% 38,090.2 38,090.2 38,090.2 38,090.2 38,090.2 38,090.2 38,090.2 38,090.2 38,090.2 38,090.2 380,902.0
Total Non-Res. 854,700.0 85,470.0 85,470.0 85,470.0 85,470.0 85,470.0 85,470.0 85,470.0 85,470.0 85,470.0 85,470.0 854,700.0
Reserve Fund Projections:Opening Surplus / <Deficit> $1,831.0 $2,048.2 $2,057.7 $2,067.4 $2,077.3 $1,745.9 $1,408.7 $1,065.7 $716.6 $361.4 $1,831.0Revenues - Development Charge Collections
Residential $227.6 $227.6 $227.6 $227.6 $227.6 $227.6 $227.6 $227.6 $227.6 $227.6 $2,276.1Non-Res.
Commercial $2.9 $2.9 $2.9 $2.9 $2.9 $2.9 $2.9 $2.9 $2.9 $2.9 $28.9Institutional $1.9 $1.9 $1.9 $1.9 $1.9 $1.9 $1.9 $1.9 $1.9 $1.9 $19.1
C/I subtotal $4.8 $4.8 $4.8 $4.8 $4.8 $4.8 $4.8 $4.8 $4.8 $4.8 $48.0Industrial $.5 $.5 $.5 $.5 $.5 $.5 $.5 $.5 $.5 $.5 $4.9
Total Non-Res. $5.3 $5.3 $5.3 $5.3 $5.3 $5.3 $5.3 $5.3 $5.3 $5.3 $52.9
Total revenues $232.9 $232.9 $232.9 $232.9 $232.9 $232.9 $232.9 $232.9 $232.9 $232.9 $2,329.0
Development Charge draws - calculated on separate page $49.3 $259.0 $259.0 $259.0 $597.4 $597.4 $597.4 $597.4 $597.4 $597.4 $4,410.9Closing surplus / <deficit> before interest $2,014.6 $2,022.1 $2,031.6 $2,041.3 $1,712.7 $1,381.4 $1,044.2 $701.1 $352.0 -$3.1 -$250.9Non-inflationary interest revenue /<expense>
on savings 1.75% $33.6 $35.6 $35.8 $36.0 $33.2 $27.4 $21.5 $15.5 $9.4 $3.1 $250.9on borrowings 3.00% $.0
Closing surplus / <deficit> $2,048.2 $2,057.7 $2,067.4 $2,077.3 $1,745.9 $1,408.7 $1,065.7 $716.6 $361.4 $.0 $.0
Target which reflects growth costs incurred in the forecast period and recoverable from future growth $.0
Explanatory note
Method:1
2
3
Other Information: Pre PostResidential share 98% 98%Non-residential
Commercial 1% 1%Institutional 1% 1%C/I subtotal 2% 2%Industrial 0% 0%
This worksheet projects future activity in this reserve fund. It ultimately determines the rates necessary to recover all costs intended for recovery from growth (including financing costs). The deficit in the fund at the end of the planning horizon reflects costs intended for recovery
Set ratio of Pre financing revenues = Post financing revenues (ie. copy values from C47-C52 to D47-D52). This ensures that ratio of revenues stays constant throughout rate re-calculation process.
Set Post financing rate = Pre financing rate - model projects revenues and draws and projects RF balances (ie. copy values from D13-D18 to E13-E18)
Using "SOLVER" make balance at end of planning horizon = tot "Target " balance by allowing "Post financing rates" to vary from "Pre-financing rates".
73
Appendix D – Corporate Growth Studies In the interests of municipal service planning, various studies to project facility and servicing needs are completed. The Development Charges Act, 1997 provides for the recovery through development charge rates of these growth related study costs (s. 5(3)5.). These studies may include : o a detailed growth projection study o detailed studies to project the infrastructure, facility and equipment needs arising from the
growth projections. Infrastructure studies may be preceded by area planning studies that are necessary to appropriately planned growth and servicing strategies. They may also include master planning studies for engineered services (e.g. the Transportation Master Plan) as well as similar studies for “soft services”(e.g. Fire or Library).
o the preparation of the development charges background study document, which consolidates the information mentioned above, rationalizes the calculated charge and demonstrates compliance with the legislation.
The studies are generally necessary every five (5) years (the legislated maximum life of the Development Charge by-law). Existing Standard TABLE D-1 provides a recap of historical spending for growth related studies. The table indicates that approximately $5.0M of costs was incurred by the municipality over the preceding five (5) year period. Capital Needs Program The forecast of needs (found on Table D-2) which follows includes projection of future studies which :
o reflect a recent direction that the City undertakes the planning studies prerequisite to development in greenfield areas. Otherwise, the list is generally consistent with spending in prior years for similar projects,
o are necessary to facilitate planning of infrastructure, o will be the responsibility of the City to complete (as opposed to the development
community directly, or as part of a claimable infrastructure work), o where study scope is generally the entire City, or a large geographic segment of it
(e.g. large watershed study) The City will complete two “sets” of development charge background studies over the coming ten(10) year period, one for each of the development charge processes necessary in the next ten years. The estimated cost of completing these studies as well as the proposed allocation of costs to benefiting growth is reflected in TABLE D-2. The following are noteworthy:
o Expected cost of growth studies to be incurred over the period 2009 through 2018 (ie. a ten year growth horizon) amount to approximately $10 million (see Table D-2).
o Approximately 20% of the overall costs have been allocated to growth in a period beyond the ten year planning horizon for Growth Studies. These costs therefore have no impact on the rate calculations presented on this table.
o Approximately 37% of the costs are identified as being of benefit to the existing population.
o Existing debt associated with previously approved growth studies which benefit the period 2009 – 2018 is also included in the rate calculation ($785k).
o The net costs incorporated in the rate calculations attributed to growth in the ten year horizon are approximately $5M.
74
Financing Costs Added to Arrive at Final Calculated DC Rate For the purpose of calculating the development charge rate for this component inclusive of financing costs, TABLE D-3 has been produced. This table simulates the cash flows in this component of the DC funds :
a) It begins with the opening balance– in this case, a nominal balance or $33k. b) The calculation on Table D-3 also assumes full recovery of development charges for
all types of growth. c) Drawdowns, consistent with ‘full recovery’ assumption mentioned in b) above, for the
growth share of projects being completed in the upcoming ten(10) year planning horizon, are also reflected in the cash flow projection.
d) An estimate of annual interest expenses that can be expected to be incurred taking into account any projected fund deficits anticipated throughout the planning horizon (10 years).
The calculations also recognize that some of the costs on various growth projects should be recovered from growth beyond the planning horizon. The amount to be recovered in the future is termed “post period benefit” for the purposes of these DC rate calculations, and each “post period benefit” project entails recovery of a portion of its costs from growth beyond the planning horizon for this service (10 years). The amount to be recovered from future growth is referred in the cash flow projections as a “target” amount. The spreadsheet is programmed to solve for the DC rate such that the deficit at the end of the planning horizon equates to the amount expected to be recovered from future growth (ie. the sum of the “target” amounts). All figures are presented on an un-inflated, constant (2009) dollar basis. Interest rates which exclude the inflationary component (assumed to be 2%) are also used for consistency. The rates generated from this cash flow analysis reflect what is appropriately recovered from growth, for the planning horizon of this service. Long Term Operating Costs An examination of the long term operating costs for Corporate Growth Studies (DC) is included in Appendix O. Council’s Intention to Meet Growth Needs The growth needs identified within this Appendix have been determined by an internal review in consultation with managers who are responsible for providing for growth needs or growth studies in their respective department. The capital items reflected herein will be subject to final approval of Council through the annual capital budget approval process. It is Council’s stated intention to “provide for the needs of growth in a way that does not jeopardize the long term financial health of the municipality, or place an undue burden on existing taxpayers” (Official Plan Policing 2.6.3).
75
TABLE D-1 – GROWTH STUDIES - HISTORICAL RECAP OF FUNDING OF GROWTH STUDIES
Project # Services to be Studied Comment re growth funding Year(s) Incurred Total Project Budget - 2008 & prior
SWMES2450 Storm Water Management Master Plan -City Wide Identify Growth Related SWM Works 2003 150,000$ ES3084 Sub Watershed & Drain Review reviews of subwatershed servicing plans $80,000
Sanitary SewersES1011 Sewer Master Plan Update San. Sewer Master Planning For Growth 2007 $173,452ES2710 Greenway Sewershed Inflow & Infiltration $637,680ES2711 Pottersburg Sewershed Inflow & Infiltration $200,000ES2712 Adelaide Sewershed Inflow & Infiltration $156,000
Transportation
TS1520 Long Term Corridor Studynext generation of this study is Ring Road EA Study (assuming Transportation Plan recommends the City provide for the Ring Road)
$245,785
TS5030 Transportation Master Plan $400,000TS1024 Development Charge Roads Analysis 2007 $133,561
Water
EW3770 Water Efficiency Program/Investigations water efficiency provides capacity to service growth 2006, 2008 $122,000
EW3312 Water System Master Plan Update modelling growth to determine trunk line location, size, and timing 2007, 2008 $155,000
Miscellaneous review of interim works not coinciding with any Master plans
Community Services
RC2010 / RC2011 Parks & Rec. Master Planning Study Update Master Plan - P&R 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2007 $380,000
FirePP1035 Fire Services Master Plan 2003, 2005 $380,000
Library Planning
New Project Library Facility planning study To identify resources to plan future Library locations
Police PlanningNew Project Police Facility Needs Analysis $70,000
TransitAligned with the Transportation Master Plan - study listed in the "Transportation" sectionFinance & Corporate Services
GG1033 / GG1034 / GG1032 / TS1022 DC Process consultant / Review of UWRF 2000, 2001, 2003,
2006, 2007 $1,770,723
$5,054,201
HISTORICAL GROWTH STUDY ACTIVITY
76
TABLE D-2 – GROWTH STUDIES -GROWTH NEEDS AND PRE-FINANCING COSTS RATE CALCULATIONS – GROWTH STUDIES
Service component : Corporate Growth StudiesPlanning horizon for this component : 2009-2018
Less
: Fu
ture
gro
wth
ben
efits
(p
ortio
n of
gro
wth
cos
ts
attri
buta
ble
to g
row
th e
xpec
ted
to
occu
r bey
ond
plan
ning
hor
izon
for
this
ser
vice
)
Subt
otal
Expe
cted
Yea
r
Tota
l Est
imat
ed C
ost
Less
: fut
ure
capi
tal g
rant
s,
subs
idie
s or
oth
er c
ontri
butio
ns
antic
ipat
ed
Less
: Por
tion
of G
ross
Pro
ject
Cos
t Fun
ded
In P
rior Y
ears
Net
Am
ount
Elig
ible
for D
C ra
te
calc
ulat
ion
Less
: Am
ount
inel
igib
le fo
r rat
e
calc
ulat
ion
- im
prov
emen
t ove
r
existin
g st
anda
rd (s
ee S
uppl
emen
t A
if ap
plic
able
)
Less
: 10%
sta
tuto
ry d
educ
tion
(if
appl
icab
le)
Amount Eligible for Development Charge Rate Calculations
NO
N -
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Non
-gro
wth
sha
re
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Subt
otal
Project # Project Description Subt
otal
% benefit % $ % $ % $ % $(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21)
(all $'s in ,000's) (1) - sum(2,3) (4) * (5) (4) - (6) (7) * (8) (7) - sum(9,10) (11) - (12) (13) * (14) (13) * (16) (13) * (18) (13) * (20)Note 2 Note 3 Note 1 Note 4 Note 4 Note 4 Note 4
SWM
ES2450 Storm Water Management Master Plan - City Wide 2013 $300.00 $300.0 $.0 $300.0 0% $.0 $.0 $300.0 $.0 $300.0 82% $246.0 12% $36.0 6% $18.0 0% $.0
Sanitary Sewers (See San sewer works list)
New Project Miscellaneous - Interim works not coinciding with Master Plans
evenly over 10 yrs $100.00 $100.0 $.0 $100.0 0% $.0 $.0 $100.0 $.0 $100.0 71.8% $71.8 12.3% $12.3 4.9% $4.9 11.0% $11.0
TransportationTS5030 Transportation Master Plan 2010 $500.00 $500.0 $.0 $500.0 0% $.0 $.0 $500.0 $.0 $500.0 72% $359.2 12% $61.5 5% $24.4 11% $54.9TS1024 Development Charge Roads Analysis 2009 $133.50 $133.5 $.0 $133.5 0% $.0 $.0 $133.5 $.0 $133.5 72% $95.9 12% $16.4 5% $6.5 11% $14.7TS1024 Development Charge Roads Analysis 2014 $133.50 $133.5 $.0 $133.5 0% $.0 $.0 $133.5 $.0 $133.5 72% $95.9 12% $16.4 5% $6.5 11% $14.7
Water EW3770 Water Efficiency Program/Investigations 2009-2013 $3,100.00 $3,100.0 $.0 $3,100.0 92% $2,852.0 $.0 $248.0 $.0 $248.0 72% $178.1 12% $30.5 5% $12.1 11% $27.2EW3312 Water System Master Plan Update 2013 $155.00 $155.0 $.0 $155.0 0% $.0 $.0 $155.0 $.0 $155.0 72% $111.3 12% $19.1 5% $7.6 11% $17.0EW3312 Water System Master Plan Update 2018 $155.00 $155.0 100.0% $155.0 $.0 0% $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 72% $.0 12% $.0 5% $.0 11% $.0
Miscellaneousevenly over
10 yrs $100.00 $100.0 $.0 $100.0 0% $.0 $.0 $100.0 $.0 $100.0 72% $71.8 12% $12.3 5% $4.9 11% $11.0
OtherNew Project South West Quadrant Planning Study 2010 $650.00 $650.0 50.0% $325.0 $325.0 0% $.0 $.0 $325.0 $.0 $325.0 72% $233.4 12% $40.0 5% $15.9 11% $35.7New Project South of 401 Planning Study 2015 $750.00 $750.0 75.0% $562.5 $187.5 0% $.0 $.0 $187.5 $.0 $187.5 72% $134.7 12% $23.1 5% $9.2 11% $20.6New Project Meadowlilly Area Planning Study 2009 $470.00 $470.0 0.0% $.0 $470.0 0% $.0 $.0 $470.0 $.0 $470.0 81% $379.3 14% $64.9 5% $25.8 0% $.0
New Project Meadowlilly Conservation Master Plan update 2010 $220.00 $220.0 0.0% $.0 $220.0 0% $.0 $.0 $220.0 $.0 $220.0 81% $177.5 14% $30.4 5% $12.1 0% $.0
New Project Meadowlilly Area Planning Study - Commercial study 2009 $50.00 $50.0 0.0% $.0 $50.0 0% $.0 $.0 $50.0 $.0 $50.0 0% $.0 100% $50.0 0% $.0 0% $.0
PD2242/PD201
1 Medway ESA Conservation Master Plan 2010, 2011 $210.00 $210.0 0.0% $.0 $210.0 50% $105.0 $.0 $105.0 $.0 $105.0 81% $84.7 14% $14.5 5% $5.8 0% $.0
New Project Area Planning Studies - unspecified areas 2017 $1,000.00 $1,000.0 75.0% $750.0 $250.0 0% $.0 $.0 $250.0 $.0 $250.0 72% $179.6 12% $30.7 5% $12.2 11% $27.5Community Services
RC2010 / RC2011 Parks & Rec. Master Planning Study
2010, 2012, 2013,2015,20
17 $350.00 $350.0 $.0 $350.0 25% $87.5 $26.3 $236.3 $.0 $236.3 81% $190.6 14% $32.6 5% $13.0 0% $.0Library
New Project Library Facility planning study 2012 $25.00 $25.0 $.0 $25.0 0% $.0 $2.5 $22.5 $.0 $22.5 81% $18.2 14% $3.1 5% $1.2 0% $.0Finance & Corporate Services
GG1033 / GG1034 / GG1032 / TS1022
DC Process consultant / Review of UWRF
2010 $500.00 $500.0 $.0 $500.0 0% $.0 $50.0 $450.0 $.0 $450.0 82% $369.0 12% $54.0 6% $27.0 0% $.0 GG1033 / GG1034 / GG1032 / TS1022
DC Process consultant / Review of UWRF
2015 $500.00 $500.0 50.0% $250.0 $250.0 0% $.0 $25.0 $225.0 $.0 $225.0 82% $184.5 12% $27.0 6% $13.5 0% $.0
PORTION OF PRIOR YEARS' GROWTH PROJECTS FINANCED WITH DEBT $785.0 $785.0 $785.0 0% $785.0 $785.0 100% $785.0 0% $.0 0% $.0 0% $.0
TOTAL $10,187.0 $.0 $.0 $10,187.0 20.1% $2,042.5 $8,144.5 37.4% $3,044.5 $103.8 $4,996.3 $.0 $4,996.3 79% $3,966.6 12% $574.9 4% $220.4 5% $234.3
Residential Commercial Institutional Industrial
$33.0 100.0% $33.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0
Total net cost eligible for DC rate calculation purpose $4,963.3 79.3% $3,933.6 11.6% $574.9 4.4% $220.4 4.7% $234.3
Divided By: Total Gross Growth Projections 55,539 250,830 222,968 380,902Calculated DC Rate - Pre-Financing 70.83$ 2.29$ 0.99$ 0.62$
/person /sq. m. /sq. m. /sq. m.
Notes: Prefinancing - Residential Rate SummaryPost
Financing 1) Only studies for "soft services" are subject to additional 10% reduction contemplated in Section 5(1)8 of the Development Charges Act, 1997. Studies Jan 1, 2009 rate2)
Single Family Dwelling 3.21 227.35$ 201.00 3)
Multiple unit dwelling 2.30 162.90$ 142.33 4)
Apartment - bach. & 1 bed 1.37 97.03$ 93.78
Apartment - ≥ 2 bedroom 1.92 135.99$ 132.63
Less
: Fu
ture
gro
wth
ben
efits
(p
ortio
n of
gro
wth
cos
ts
attri
buta
ble
to g
row
th e
xpec
ted
to
occu
r bey
ond
plan
ning
hor
izon
for
this
ser
vice
)
Subt
otal
Expe
cted
Yea
r
Tota
l Est
imat
ed C
ost
Less
: fut
ure
capi
tal g
rant
s,
subs
idie
s or
oth
er c
ontri
butio
ns
antic
ipat
ed
Less
: Por
tion
of G
ross
Pro
ject
Cos
t Fun
ded
In P
rior Y
ears
Residential / Non Residential split generally based on ratio of population growth to employment growth over the 10 year planning horizon for this component. Certain studies deemed to benefit only Community growth (ie. no industrial component) allocated only to Res/Comm/Institutional growth allocated accordingly. Allocation of cost allocated to Non-Residential based on growth in employment in each category that is judged to be receiving benefit as a result of the study.
A non-growth share of the project is assigned where the scope of the study is expected to benefit existing population, based on an approximation of the relative benefit of the study to existing population.
Future benefit (aka Post period benefit) based on an approximation of the extent to which a particular study will benefit growth beyond the planning horizon of this service component (ie. beyond 2018)
Less: Portion of above works collected in prior years (approximate uncommitted balance in DC reserve fund at December 31, 2008)
Industrial
Net
Am
ount
Elig
ible
for D
C ra
te
calc
ulat
ion
Less
: Am
ount
inel
igib
le fo
r rat
e
calc
ulat
ion
- im
prov
emen
t ove
r
existin
g st
anda
rd (s
ee S
uppl
emen
t A
if ap
plic
able
)
Less
: 10%
sta
tuto
ry d
educ
tion
(if
appl
icab
le)
Development Charge Rate Calculation (Pre-Financing Cost)
NO
N -
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Commercial InstitutionalNon
-gro
wth
sha
re
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Subt
otal
Project # Project Description Subt
otal
77
TABLE D-3 – GROWTH STUDIES - CASH FLOW ANALYSIS AND FINAL RATE CALCULATION – GROWTH STUDIES
RATE CALCULATIONS - INCLUDING FUND BALANCE AND FINANCING COST ( see Explanatory note below)
Service component : Corporate Growth Studies ($'s in thousands)
FINAL RESULT 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total
Planning Horizon - yrs 10
Pre-Financing DC Rate
Post-Financing DC Rate
% Collected assumption
Growth projection for each year of forecast period
Growth - Res. (Persons In New Housing) 55,539 70.83$ 78.91$ 100% 5,553.9 5,553.9 5,553.9 5,553.9 5,553.9 5,553.9 5,553.9 5,553.9 5,553.9 5,553.9 55,538.6 Growth - Non-Res. (sq. m.) -$
Commercial 250,830.0 2.29$ 2.65$ 100% 25,083.0 25,083.0 25,083.0 25,083.0 25,083.0 25,083.0 25,083.0 25,083.0 25,083.0 25,083.0 250,830.0 Institutional 222,968.0 0.99$ 1.00$ 100% 22,296.8 22,296.8 22,296.8 22,296.8 22,296.8 22,296.8 22,296.8 22,296.8 22,296.8 22,296.8 222,968.0
C/I subtotal 473,798.0 -$ 47,379.8 47,379.8 47,379.8 47,379.8 47,379.8 47,379.8 47,379.8 47,379.8 47,379.8 47,379.8 473,798.0 Industrial 380,902.0 0.62$ 0.73$ 100% 38,090.2 38,090.2 38,090.2 38,090.2 38,090.2 38,090.2 38,090.2 38,090.2 38,090.2 38,090.2 380,902.0
Total Non-Res. 854,700.0 85,470.0 85,470.0 85,470.0 85,470.0 85,470.0 85,470.0 85,470.0 85,470.0 85,470.0 85,470.0 854,700.0
Reserve Fund Projections:Opening Surplus / <Deficit> $33.0 -$255.7 -$1,889.5 -$1,737.5 -$1,502.5 -$1,846.1 -$1,494.2 -$2,248.5 -$1,773.2 -$2,332.9 $33.0Revenues - Development Charge Collections
Residential $438.2 $438.2 $438.2 $438.2 $438.2 $438.2 $438.2 $438.2 $438.2 $438.2 $4,382.4Non-Res.
Commercial $66.6 $66.6 $66.6 $66.6 $66.6 $66.6 $66.6 $66.6 $66.6 $66.6 $665.7Institutional $22.2 $22.2 $22.2 $22.2 $22.2 $22.2 $22.2 $22.2 $22.2 $22.2 $221.9
C/I subtotal $88.8 $88.8 $88.8 $88.8 $88.8 $88.8 $88.8 $88.8 $88.8 $88.8 $887.6Industrial $27.7 $27.7 $27.7 $27.7 $27.7 $27.7 $27.7 $27.7 $27.7 $27.7 $277.4
Total Non-Res. $116.5 $116.5 $116.5 $116.5 $116.5 $116.5 $116.5 $116.5 $116.5 $116.5 $1,164.9
Total revenues $554.7 $554.7 $554.7 $554.7 $554.7 $554.7 $554.7 $554.7 $554.7 $554.7 $5,547.3
Development Charge draws - calculated on separate page $840.1 $2,156.9 $349.1 $271.9 $848.9 $153.5 $1,253.8 $20.0 $1,053.8 $175.0 $7,122.8Closing surplus / <deficit> before interest -$252.4 -$1,857.8 -$1,683.9 -$1,454.6 -$1,796.6 -$1,444.8 -$2,193.2 -$1,713.8 -$2,272.3 -$1,953.2 -$16,622.5Non-inflationary interest revenue /<expense>
on savings 1.75% $.0on borrowings 3.00% -$3.3 -$31.7 -$53.6 -$47.9 -$49.5 -$49.4 -$55.3 -$59.4 -$60.7 -$64.3 -$475.0
Closing surplus / <deficit> -$255.7 -$1,889.5 -$1,737.5 -$1,502.5 -$1,846.1 -$1,494.2 -$2,248.5 -$1,773.2 -$2,332.9 -$2,017.5 -$2,017.5
Target which reflects growth costs incurred in the forecast period and recoverable from future growth -$2,017.5
Explanatory note
Method:1
2
3
Other Information: Pre PostResidential share 79% 79%Non-residential
Commercial 12% 12%Institutional 4% 4%C/I subtotal 16% 16%Industrial 5% 5%
Using "SOLVER" make balance at end of planning horizon = tot "Target " balance by allowing "Post financing rates" to vary from "Pre-financing rates".
This worksheet projects future activity in this reserve fund. It ultimately determines the rates necessary to recover all costs intended for recovery from growth (including financing costs). The deficit in the fund at the end of the planning horizon reflects costs intended for recovery from future growth.
Set Post financing rate = Pre financing rate - model projects revenues and draws and projects RF balances (ie. copy values from D13-D18 to E13-E18)Set ratio of Pre financing revenues = Post financing revenues (ie. copy values from C47-C52 to D47-D52). This ensures that ratio of revenues stays constant throughout rate re-calculation process.
78
Appendix E – Library Services Existing Service Standards The City provides library services to its citizens through a single Central Library and fifteen(15) branch libraries. A comprehensive “inventory” and valuation of library facilities for each of the preceding ten years was completed (see Table E-1 4 pgs). As explained elsewhere in this study, this valuation is necessary to facilitate an objective comparison of the historical service standard, with the proposed needs with the intention of demonstrating that no improvement in the historical standard is being incorporated into the development charge rate calculations. The inventory includes valuation of all existing facilities based on the size, quality and nature of construction, land value and building contents. A separate inventory of the value of existing collections was undertaken. Both inventories reflect current replacement value of the Library assets to arrive at an average per capita historical service level . By projecting this historical service level over the future population increase, a theoretical level of expenditure at which the City would be maintaining existing service levels results. By comparing this theoretical level with the calculated amounts eligible for the development charge rate for this component, this rate calculations demonstrate that they exclude any increase to the existing Library service standard. Planning for Capital Needs Each year, the Library reviews its capital building projects in preparation for the capital budget submission, based on the factors identified below. Growth population The Library delineates service based on thirteen (13) planning districts covering the City. The planning process commenced with the assessment of the existing (2006) and projected population for each library planning district as the basis for projecting its future requirements. The planning districts are identified on Map E-1. Capital Needs Identified Various factors affect the determination of need for new or redeveloped branch libraries. These include:
• anticipated population growth in an area • socio-economic and literacy needs of a specific community • changing demographics
Content of the collections is governed by size of population served and the borrowing needs of the patrons. The Library examined the ‘population to sq.ft.’ ratios of its existing facilities, and projected future needs based on existing and projected populations in each Library planning district. A straightforward projection of the existing space standard (From Table E-1, page 1) applied to forecast population growth suggests the following:
79
Space needs projection using current per capita standard Existing standard space per capita (10 year historical average) – from Table E-1, 1st pg
0.7711 sq.ft./per capita
Forecast population growth over the next 10 years 33,077
Forecast space needs based on existing design standard 25,505 sq. ft. The above suggests that perhaps two(2) new branches (assuming approximate size of 13,000 sq. ft. per branch) may be necessary in the next ten years to serve growth and maintain the existing facility standard. Based on a review of the population growth in each library district, the following needs were identified :
1. Northridge branch, serving Area 7B requires replacement and expansion to meet the population growth of the area. The expansion will involve replacement of the existing leased premises. The Library has entered into a partnership with the City of London and the YMCA for construction of a multi-purpose centre, including a branch library. Costs attributable to construction of the library branch portion of the facility are incorporated into the DC rate calculations. Construction of this branch is beyond the 10 year horizon contemplated in the Development Charges Act for this service. Construction costs were therefore considered ineligible for inclusion in this study.
2. New branches will be required to replace and expand existing branches in the northwest (Sherwood Forest) and southeast (Pond Mills). These branches are now planned for approval in 2012 and 2017 respectively.
When constructed, it is anticipated that these branches will serve growing population needs in their respective areas beyond the ten(10) year planning horizon of this rate study. Design of Future Library spaces There are a few noteworthy items that were considered in the design of new libraries: a) Design Standards The Building Code in Ontario contains various standards for the design of Libraries. The City’s Facility Accessibility Design Standard (FADS) also has an impact on the library buildings being designed today. These standards require more space in buildings to accommodate the concept of “universal design”, accommodating through design features the needs of people with ambulatory, visual and other disabilities impairments, and enable them to access services and programs in an integrated manner with other users. All of these standards are incorporated into the design of the future facility needs. b) Campus Design Through the 2003 Parks and Recreation Master Planning Study, the desirability of a “campus” design for public facilities was previously identified. This design would see a number of distinct municipal services incorporated into multi-use facilities in the future. For example, aquatic facilities, ice pads, community meeting space, gymnasium and library might all be incorporated into the design of future municipal facilities. Where possible, the Library intends to incorporate future branches into a campus concept pending any new direction flowing from the 2009 Parks and Recreation Strategic Master Plan update. Until such plans are further advanced and for the purposes of this study, the Southeast and Northwest facilities have been planned on a “stand alone basis”.
80
c) Library Size The Library Board presently leases several of its smaller branches. As communities grow, research suggests it is most cost effective to construct and own facilities (beyond a size of 10,000 square feet), rather than continue to lease. Building designs of between 13,000-15,000 square feet represent the optimum size for both adequacy of space and geographic convenience of location. Buildings over 15,000 square feet may serve more patrons, but may also result in branches that are too far apart to provide a convenient level of service to the entire area being served. Allocation of Costs of Growth to Growth Types The forecasted Library facility needs are presented on Table E-2 (1st pg). The costs eligible for development charge rate calculation purposes have been adjusted:
a) to remove the benefit to existing development. These reductions have been determined based on the proportion of developed area (at the time of collection for growth related libraries began in 1999) in relation to the total service area or a new library.
b) For new libraries, an approximation of the benefit accruing to growth beyond the ten year planning horizon for this service (ie. the “future” or “post period” benefit) has also been made. The benefit calculation is based on the total service area that is expected to benefit beyond the planning horizon (ie. beyond 2018) in relation to the total service area of the new branch. The post period benefit will be recovered from future growth that will benefit in the construction of these new libraries and those costs have been removed from the costs eligible for the ten(10) year DC rate calculations.
The resulting net amount represents only the growth costs reasonably recoverable from growth expected to occur in the 2009-2018 timeframe. The net growth cost of providing Library services has been allocated 100% to residential growth. This allocation recognizes the virtually exclusive use of new libraries in growth areas of the City by residents of the surrounding community. This allocation approach is consistent with many other urban municipalities in the province. Collections – Growth Needs Projected The collections of new or replacement branches also require expansion to maintain service standards and provide adequate choice and variety to increasing number of patrons accessing the new branch. These additions to collections have been projected and are reflected in Table E-2 (2nd pg) As with Library facility calculations, costs attributable to prior growth have been removed through recognition of the existing reserve fund balance, which represents contributions of earlier growth towards the projects which make up the rate calculations. Financing Costs Added to Arrive at Final Calculated DC Rate For the purpose of calculating the development charge rate for this component inclusive of financing costs, TABLE E-3 has been produced. This table simulates the cash flows in this component of the DC funds : 4 It begins with the opening balance – in this case, a balance of $3.8 million which reflects
the accumulation of funds from past growth for the projects (ie. Library Facilities and Collections intended for recovery from growth in past studies).
81
5 The calculation on Table E-3 also assumes full recovery of development charges for all types of growth.
6 Drawdowns, consistent with ‘full recovery’ assumption mentioned in b) above, for the growth share of projects being completed in the upcoming ten(10) year planning horizon, are also reflected in the cash flow projection.
7 An estimate of annual interest expenses that can be expected to be incurred taking into account any projected fund deficits anticipated throughout the planning horizon (10 years).
As mentioned above, the calculations also recognize that some of the costs on various growth projects should be recovered from growth beyond the planning horizon. The amount to be recovered in the future is termed “post period benefit” for the purposes of these DC rate calculations, and each “post period benefit” project entails recovery of a portion of its costs from growth beyond the planning horizon for this service (10 years). The amount to be recovered from future growth is referred in the cash flow projections as a “target” amount. The spreadsheet is programmed to solve for the DC rate such that the deficit at the end of the planning horizon equates to the amount expected to be recovered from future growth (ie. the sum of the “target” amounts). All figures are presented on an un-inflated, constant (2009) dollar basis. Interest rates which exclude the inflationary component (assumed to be 2%) are also used for consistency. The rates generated from this cash flow analysis reflect what is appropriately recovered from growth, for the planning horizon of this service. Long Term Operating Costs An examination of the long term operating costs for growth needs for Library Services (DC) is included in Appendix O. Council’s Intention to Meet Growth Needs The growth needs identified within this Appendix have been determined by a concentrated internal review and were reported to the Library Board. The capital items reflected herein will be subject to final approval of Council through the annual capital budget approval process. It is Council’s stated intention to “provide for the needs of growth in a way that does not jeopardize the long term financial health of the municipality, or place an undue burden on existing taxpayers” (Official Plan Policing 2.6.3).
82
MAP E-1 – LIBRARY DISTRICTS
83
TABLE E-1 – LIBRARY FACILITIES – MEASURE OF EXISTING SERVICE STANDARDS
SERVICE: LIBRARY
Contact person(s)Unit of measureType of measure
Facility Name Location 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 $/sq.ft.Beacock 1280 Huron St 12,560 12,560 12,560 12,560 12,560 12,560 12,560 13,232 13,232 13232 $275Byron 1295 Commissioners Rd W 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12000 $267Carson 465 Quebec St 2,930 2,930 2,930 2,930 2,930 2,930 2,930 2,930 2,930 2930 $254Central Library 251 Dundas Street 188,179 188,179 188,179 188,179 188,179 188179 $305Central Library (old) 305 Queens Ave 89,568 89,568 89,568 89,568 $252Cherryhill (formerly Westown) Leased 301 Oxford St W 6,766 6,766 6,766 10,225 10,225 10,225 10,225 10,225 10,225 10225 $220Crouch 550 Hamilton Rd 9,500 9,500 9,500 9,500 11,322 11,322 11,322 11,322 11,322 11322 $238Eastwood (leased) 1920 Dundas St E 5,868 5,868 5,868 5,868 5,868 5,868 $220East London 2016 Dundas St E 13,000 13,000 13,000 13000 $292Glanworth 2950 Glanworth Dr 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 320 $255Jalna 1119 Jalna Blvd 11,200 11,200 11,200 11,200 11,200 11,200 11,200 10,590 10,590 10590 $292Lambeth 7112 Beattie Ave 2,657 2,657 2,657 2,657 2,657 2,657 2,657 2,657 2,657 2657 $285Landon 167 Wortley Rd 7,040 7,040 7,040 7,040 7,040 7,040 7,040 7,422 7,422 7422 $243Masonville 30 North Center 13,200 13,200 13,200 13,200 13,200 13,200 13,200 13,200 13,200 13200 $284Northridge (Leased) 1444 Glenora Dr 2,170 2,170 2,170 2,170 2,170 2,170 2,170 2,170 2,170 2170 $180Pond Mills (Leased) 1166 Commissioners Rd E 5,900 7,090 7,090 7,090 7,090 7,090 7,090 7,090 7,090 7090 $180Sherwood Forest (Leased) 1225 Wonderland Rd N 6,398 6,398 6,398 6,398 6,398 6,398 6,398 12,000 12,000 12,000 $220Westmount - (old / leased) 507 Village Green 4,475 4,475 4,475 4,475 $180Westmount 3200 Wonderland Rd 14,602 14,602 14,602 14,602 14,602 14602 $291
Total 192,552 193,742 193,742 197,201 307,761 307,761 314,893 320,939 320,939 320,939
Population 332,174 334,352 336,530 339,703 342,876 346,049 349,222 352,395 355,629 358,863Per Capita Level of Service 0.579672 0.579455 0.575705 0.580510 0.897587 0.889357 0.901699 0.910737 0.902454 0.894321
10 year averageQuantity Standard per Capita 0.7711
NOTES:
4) The Sherwood Forest branch is housed in a facility that is 13,214 square feet. However, the library only accounts for 12,000 square feet.
Quantity
Source : Building square footage measures provided by City of London Facility Services.
3) The cost per square foot has been determined using a consultative method lead by the Facility Services Division involving City staff and external resources. Other sources of information used were RS Means, building cost indices and Facility Services Division experience. Support for these figures has been documented by the Facility Services Division.
COMPONENT: FACILITIES
Jim KlingenbergerSquare Feet of Buildings
1) Branch expansion recorded in the next full year of operation. (eg. Beacock opened in June 2005, recorded in 2006)2) East London Library and Community Centre is a total of 23,500 sq. ft with the YMCA occupying 10,500 sq. ft.
84
TABLE E-1 – LIBRARY FACILITIES – MEASURE OF EXISTING SERVICE STANDARDS SERVICE: LIBRARY
Contact person(s)Unit of measureType of measure
Facility Name Location 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Beacock 1280 Huron St $3,454 $3,454 $3,454 $3,454 $3,454 $3,454 $3,454 $3,639 $3,639 $3,639Byron 1295 Commissioners Rd W $3,204 $3,204 $3,204 $3,204 $3,204 $3,204 $3,204 $3,204 $3,204 $3,204Carson 465 Quebec St $744 $744 $744 $744 $744 $744 $744 $744 $744 $744Central Library 251 Dundas Street $0 $0 $0 $0 $57,395 $57,395 $57,395 $57,395 $57,395 $57,395Central Library (old) 305 Queens Ave $22,571 $22,571 $22,571 $22,571 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Cherryhill (formerly Westown) Leased 301 Oxford St W $1,489 $1,489 $1,489 $2,250 $2,250 $2,250 $2,250 $2,250 $2,250 $2,250Crouch 550 Hamilton Rd $2,261 $2,261 $2,261 $2,261 $2,695 $2,695 $2,695 $2,695 $2,695 $2,695Eastwood (leased) 1920 Dundas St E $1,291 $1,291 $1,291 $1,291 $1,291 $1,291 $0 $0 $0 $0East London 2016 Dundas St E $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,796 $3,796 $3,796 $3,796Glanworth 2950 Glanworth Dr $82 $82 $82 $82 $82 $82 $82 $82 $82 $82Jalna 1119 Jalna Blvd $3,270 $3,270 $3,270 $3,270 $3,270 $3,270 $3,270 $3,092 $3,092 $3,092Lambeth 7112 Beattie Ave $757 $757 $757 $757 $757 $757 $757 $757 $757 $757Landon 167 Wortley Rd $1,711 $1,711 $1,711 $1,711 $1,711 $1,711 $1,711 $1,804 $1,804 $1,804Masonville 30 North Center $3,749 $3,749 $3,749 $3,749 $3,749 $3,749 $3,749 $3,749 $3,749 $3,749Northridge (Leased) 1444 Glenora Dr $391 $391 $391 $391 $391 $391 $391 $391 $391 $391Pond Mills (Leased) 1166 Commissioners Rd E $1,062 $1,276 $1,276 $1,276 $1,276 $1,276 $1,276 $1,276 $1,276 $1,276Sherwood Forest (Leased) 1225 Wonderland Rd N $1,408 $1,408 $1,408 $1,408 $1,408 $1,408 $1,408 $2,640 $2,640 $2,640Westmount - (old / leased) 507 Village Green $806 $806 $806 $806 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Westmount 3200 Wonderland Rd $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,249 $4,249 $4,249 $4,249 $4,249 $4,249
Total $48,248 $48,462 $48,462 $49,223 $87,924 $87,924 $90,429 $91,761 $91,761 $91,761
Population 332,174 334,352 336,530 339,703 342,876 346,049 349,222 352,395 355,629 358,863Per Capita Level of Service $145.25 $144.94 $144.01 $144.90 $256.43 $254.08 $258.94 $260.39 $258.02 $255.70
10 year averageService Standard per Capita $212.27
DC Eligible amount (before adjustments)Net Forecast Pop'n - 10 yr. 33,077$ per capita $212.27DC rate eligible amount (gross) $7,021,184
Source : Building, site improvements and contents derived from information compiled by City of London - Facility Services division. Land values from information provided by Realty Services division.
NOTES:1) The valuations above include the 2008 replacement value of building, land, site improvements and building contents (excluding computers and collections[latter is valued separately])
COMPONENT: FACILITIES
Jim Klingenberger2008 Replacement Value ($thousands)Quality & Quantity
85
TABLE E-1 – LIBRARY COLLECTION – MEASURE OF EXISTING SERVICE STANDARDS SERVICE: LIBRARY
Contact person(s)Unit of measureType of measure
Item Name 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 $/ItemCatalogued Volumes 1,032,554 1,024,921 984,909 980,164 978,403 942,407 858,728 850,854 841,854 829,782 $33Uncatalogued volumes 1,225 1,225 1,225 1,225 750 500 500 250 $0Government Documents 1,832 2,178 3,380 3,706 3,892 3,893 $44Magazines, Newspapers, Periodicals 17,523 17,850 17,987 18,452 18,773 19,540 20,306 19,340 24,603 23,967 $5Vertical Files, Technical Reports, Pamphlets 878 501 498 484 699 768 694 382 337 357 $33Micromaterials 416 418 409 409 409 386 410 459 467 467 $300Sound Recordings (LP's & Cassettes) 36,940 33,991 34,010 33,208 34,626 27,718 25,270 19,916 16,267 14,259 $33Compact Discs 24,730 27,405 25,887 27,842 31,366 39,317 43,956 46,962 55,466 51,059 $21Talking books 4,798 4,797 4,991 4,636 5,036 5,524 5,263 5,431 5,359 5,348 $37Videos - VHS 24,394 28,572 30,506 33,935 37,032 40,221 38,292 36,799 35,539 34,284 $28CD -ROMs 33 33 33 59 69 357 481 481 481 481 $15DVDS 2,344 6,577 10,212 14,611 18,070 20,623 $28Subscriptions - electronic resources 34 50 50 50 $3,160Electronic collections (e-books, e-audio) 320 10,001 $13Access Workstations 230 378 $1,100Equipment 118 104 166 $66
Total 1,143,491 1,139,713 1,100,455 1,100,414 1,111,339 1,085,493 1,007,526 999,359 1,003,039 995,115
Population 332,174 334,352 336,530 339,703 342,876 346,049 349,222 352,395 355,629 358,863Per Capita Level of Service 3.44 3.41 3.27 3.24 3.24 3.14 2.89 2.84 2.82 2.77
10 year averageQuantity Standard per Capita 3.105295
NOTES:
2) The dollar per item for equipment is calculated using a weighted average.3) Due to the timing of the DC study, the 2008 figures are estimates.
COMPONENT: COLLECTION
Beth Whitney / Margaret MitchellItems in CollectionQuantity
Sources: Values and quantity of collections taken from Library inventory reports.
1) Collection categories added include electronic resource subscriptions, purchased electronic resources (ebooks and e-audio books), access workstations, and equipment (pedometers, talking book readers).
86
TABLE E-1 – LIBRARY C0LLECTION – MEASURE OF EXISTING SERVICE STANDARDS SERVICE: LIBRARY
Contact person(s)Unit of measureType of measure
Item Name 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Catalogued Volume $34,074.3 $33,822.4 $32,502.0 $32,345.4 $32,287.3 $31,099.4 $28,338.0 $28,078.2 $27,781.2 $27,382.8Uncatalogued volume $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0Government Documents $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $80.6 $95.8 $148.7 $163.1 $171.2 $171.3Magazines, Newspapers, Periodicals $87.6 $89.3 $89.9 $92.3 $93.9 $97.7 $101.5 $96.7 $123.0 $119.8Vertical Files, Technical Reports, Pamphlets $29.0 $16.5 $16.4 $16.0 $23.1 $25.3 $22.9 $12.6 $11.1 $11.8Micromaterials $124.8 $125.4 $122.7 $122.7 $122.7 $115.8 $123.0 $137.7 $140.1 $140.1Sound Recordings (LP's & Cassettes) $1,219.0 $1,121.7 $1,122.3 $1,095.9 $1,142.7 $914.7 $833.9 $657.2 $536.8 $470.5Compact Sound Disc Titles $519.3 $575.5 $543.6 $584.7 $658.7 $825.7 $923.1 $986.2 $1,164.8 $1,072.2Talking book titles $177.5 $177.5 $184.7 $171.5 $186.3 $204.4 $194.7 $200.9 $198.3 $197.9Videos - VHS $683.0 $800.0 $854.2 $950.2 $1,036.9 $1,126.2 $1,072.2 $1,030.4 $995.1 $960.0CD -ROMs $0.5 $0.5 $0.5 $0.9 $1.0 $5.4 $7.2 $7.2 $7.2 $7.2DVDS $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $65.6 $184.2 $285.9 $409.1 $506.0 $577.4Subscriptions - electronic resources $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $107.4 $158.0 $158.0 $158.0Electronic collections (e-books, e-audio) $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $4.2 $130.0Access Workstations $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $253.0 $415.8Equipment $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $7.8 $6.9 $11.0
Total $36,915.1 $36,728.8 $35,436.4 $35,379.5 $35,698.8 $34,694.5 $32,158.7 $31,945.1 $32,056.8 $31,825.9
Population 332,174 334,352 336,530 339,703 342,876 346,049 349,222 352,395 355,629 358,863Per Capita Level of Service $111.13 $109.85 $105.30 $104.15 $104.12 $100.26 $92.09 $90.65 $90.14 $88.69
10 year averageService Standard per Capita $99.64
DC Eligible amount (before adjustments)Net Forecast Pop'n - 10 yr. 33,077$ per capita $99.64DC rate eligible amount (gross) $3,295,759
COMPONENT: COLLECTION
Beth Whitney Margaret Mitchell2008 Replacement Value ($thousands)Quality & Quantity
87
TABLE E-2 –GROWTH NEEDS AND RATE CALCULATIONS LIBRARY FACILITIES
Service component : Library - FacilityPlanning horizon for this component : 2009-2018
% benefit % $ % $ % $ % $(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21)
(all $'s in ,000's)(1) - sum(2,3) (4) * (5) (4) - (6) (7) * (8) [(7) - (9)] * 10% (7) - sum(9,10) (11) - (12) (13) * (14) (13) * (16) (13) * (18) (13) * (20)
Anticipated and Planned ProjectsNote 4 Note 3 Note 5 Note 5 Note 5 Note 5
RC3465 LSA 7 (Northeast) - Replace & Expand 2009 $2,540.0 $750.0 $1,790.0 41.8% $749.1 $1,040.9 15.7% $163.9 $87.7 $789.3 $.0 $789.3 100% $789.3 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0RC3466 LSA 13 (Southeast) - Replace & Expand 2012 $3,500.0 $3,500.0 40.4% $1,413.2 $2,086.8 25.8% $538.8 $154.8 $1,393.2 $.0 $1,393.2 100% $1,393.2 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0RC3464 LSA 12 (Northwest) - New Branch 2017 $3,500.0 $3,500.0 43.1% $1,508.0 $1,992.0 10.7% $212.5 $177.9 $1,601.5 $.0 $1,601.5 100% $1,601.5 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0
PORTION OF PRIOR YEARS' GROWTH PROJECTS FINANCED WITH DEBT $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0
TOTAL $9,540.0 $.0 $750.0 $8,790.0 $3,670.3 $5,119.7 $915.2 $420.4 $3,784.0 $.0 $3,784.0 100.0% $3,784.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0
Supplement A Residential Commercial Institutional IndustrialExisting Service Standard Limitation Excess Reserve Fund allocation - From Collections
$3,522.2 100.0% $3,522.2 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0Existing Service Standard Measure $212.27
Net Growth Projection 33,077 $261.8 100.0% $261.8 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0Maximum Eligible Amount For DC Rate Calculation $7,021.2 Divided By: Total Gross Growth Projections 55,539 250,830 222,968 380,902Current Growth Needs $3,784.0 Calculated DC Rate - Pre-Financing 4.71$ -$ -$ -$ Excess Of Growth Needs Over Maximum Eligible $.0 /person /sq. m. /sq. m. /sq. m.
Notes: Prefinancing - Residential Rate Summary Post Financing 1) Estimated costs include building fees, construction, land, furniture and equipment. Excludes the costs of collections. Facility Collections Total Jan 1, 2009 rate2)
Space needs projection using current per capita standard: Single Family Dwelling 3.21 15.13$ 22.50$ 37.63$ 196.00 Existing standard space per capita (10 year historical average) 0.7711 Multiple unit dwelling 2.30 10.84$ 16.12$ 26.96$ 138.68 Forecast population growth over the next 10 years 33,077 . Apartment - bach. & 1 bed 1.37 6.46$ 9.60$ 16.06$ 91.10 Forecast space needs based on existing design standard 25,505 sq,ft, Apartment - ≥ 2 bedroom 1.92 9.05$ 13.46$ 22.51$ 128.61
The above suggests that perhaps 2 new branches (assuming approximate size of 13,000 sq. ft. per branch) may be necessary in the next ten years to serve growth and maintain the existing facility standard.
3) Non-growth share reflects approximate ratio of developed area at the initiation of collection of DC's for new library in relation to approximate total developable area in the service area of the new library.4) Allocation of benefit to future growth has been based on the approximate ratio of 'undeveloped hectares in Library branch service area beyond 2018' to 'the total developed hectares in branch service area'.5)
Total net cost eligible for DC rate calculation purposes
Development Charge Rate Calculation (Pre-Financing Cost)
Less: Portion of above works collected in prior years (approximate uncommitted balance in DC reserve fund at December 31, 2008)
Industrial
Net
Am
ount
Elig
ible
for D
C ra
te
calc
ulat
ion
Less
: Am
ount
inel
igib
le fo
r rat
e
calc
ulat
ion
- im
prov
emen
t ove
r
exis
ting
stan
dard
(see
Sup
plem
ent A
if
appl
icab
le)
Less
: 10%
sta
tuto
ry d
educ
tion
(if
appl
icab
le)
Subt
otal
Expe
cted
Yea
r
Tota
l Est
imat
ed C
ost
Less
: fut
ure
capi
tal g
rant
s, s
ubsi
dies
or o
ther
con
tribu
tions
ant
icip
ated
Less
: Por
tion
of G
ross
Pro
ject
Cos
t
Fund
ed In
Prio
r Yea
rs
Less
: Fu
ture
gro
wth
ben
efits
(por
tion
of g
row
th c
osts
attr
ibut
able
to g
row
th
expe
cted
to o
ccur
bey
ond
plan
ning
horiz
on fo
r thi
s se
rvic
e)
Subt
otal
Residential share of growth costs amended to 100% (95% in 2004 study). Benefit to ICI sector considered inappropriate.
Allocation of Net Amount to types of GrowthAmount Eligible for Development Charge Rate Calculations
NO
N -
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Commercial InstitutionalNon
-gro
wth
sha
re
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Subt
otal
Project # Project Description
88
TABLE E-2 -GROWTH NEEDS AND RATE CALCULATIONS – LIBRARY COLLECTIONS
Service component : Library - CollectionsPlanning horizon for this component : 2009-2018
Subt
otal
Expe
cted
Yea
r
Less
: Fu
ture
gro
wth
ben
efits
(por
tion
of
grow
th c
osts
attr
ibut
able
to g
row
th e
xpec
ted
to
occu
r bey
ond
plan
ning
hor
izon
for t
his
serv
ice)
Subt
otal
Allocation of Net Amount to types of GrowthAmount Eligible for Development Charge Rate Calculations
NO
N -
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Non
-gro
wth
sha
re
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Project # Project Description Net
Am
ount
Elig
ible
for D
C ra
te c
alcu
latio
n
Less
: Am
ount
inel
igib
le fo
r rat
e ca
lcul
atio
n -
impr
ovem
ent o
ver e
xist
ing
stan
dard
(see
Supp
lem
ent A
if a
pplic
able
)
Less
: 10%
sta
tuto
ry d
educ
tion
(if a
pplic
able
)
Subt
otal
Tota
l Est
imat
ed C
ost
Less
: fut
ure
capi
tal g
rant
s, s
ubsi
dies
or o
ther
cont
ribut
ions
ant
icip
ated
Less
: Por
tion
of G
ross
Pro
ject
Cos
t Fun
ded
In
Prio
r Yea
rs
% benefit % $ % $ % $ % $(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21)
(all $'s in ,000's)(1) - sum(2,3) (4) * (5) (4) - (6) (7) * (8) [(7) - (9)] * 10% (7) - sum(9,10) (11) - (12) (13) * (14) (13) * (16) (13) * (18) (13) * (20)
Anticipated and Planned ProjectsNote 1 Note 2 Note 3 Note 4 Note 4 Note 4 Note 4
RC3465 LSA 7 (Northeast) - Replace & Expand 2009 $210.00 $210.0 0.0% $.0 $210.0 0.0% $.0 $21.0 $189.0 $.0 $189.0 100% $189.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0RC3466 LSA 13 (Southeast) - Replace & Expand 2012 $250.00 $250.0 0.0% $.0 $250.0 0.0% $.0 $25.0 $225.0 $.0 $225.0 100% $225.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0RC3464 LSA 12 (Northwest) - New Branch 2017 $250.00 $250.0 0.0% $.0 $250.0 0.0% $.0 $25.0 $225.0 $.0 $225.0 100% $225.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0
PORTION OF PRIOR YEARS' GROWTH PROJECTS FINANCED WITH DEBT $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0
TOTAL $710.0 $.0 $.0 $710.0 $.0 $710.0 $.0 $71.0 $639.0 $.0 $639.0 100.0% $639.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0
Supplement A Residential Commercial Institutional IndustrialExisting Service Standard Limitation Excess Reserve Fund allocation - From Facilities $.0 100.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0
$249.8 100.0% $249.8 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0Existing Service Standard Measure $99.64
Net Growth Projection 33,077 $389.2 100.0% $389.2 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0Maximum Eligible Amount For DC Rate Calculation $3,295.8 Divided By: Total Gross Growth Projections 55,539 250,830 222,968 380,902
Current Growth Needs $639.0 Calculated DC Rate - Pre-Financing 7.01$ -$ -$ -$ Excess Of Growth Needs Over Maximum Eligible $.0 /person /sq. m. /sq. m. /sq. m.
Pre- Financing Cost Residential Rates:Notes: Collections
1) Estimated costs of additions to existing Library collections. Single Family Dwelling 3.21 22.50$ 2) Collection materials assumed expended within the time frame of the study due to their relatively short "shelf life". Multiple unit dwelling 2.30 16.12$ 3) Collection materials are to meet incremental inventory needs to serve growth in the area, therefore no benefit assessed to existing population. Apartment - bach. & 1 bed 1.37 9.60$ 4) Apartment - ≥ 2 bedroom 1.92 13.46$
Subt
otal
Expe
cted
Yea
r
Total net cost eligible for DC rate calculation purposes
Less
: Fu
ture
gro
wth
ben
efits
(por
tion
of
grow
th c
osts
attr
ibut
able
to g
row
th e
xpec
ted
to
occu
r bey
ond
plan
ning
hor
izon
for t
his
serv
ice)
Subt
otal
NO
N -
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Commercial InstitutionalNon
-gro
wth
sha
re
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Project # Project Description
Development Charge Rate Calculation (Pre-Financing Cost)
Less: Portion of above works collected in prior years (approximate uncommitted balance in DC reserve fund at December 31, 2008)
Industrial
Net
Am
ount
Elig
ible
for D
C ra
te c
alcu
latio
n
Less
: Am
ount
inel
igib
le fo
r rat
e ca
lcul
atio
n -
impr
ovem
ent o
ver e
xist
ing
stan
dard
(see
Supp
lem
ent A
if a
pplic
able
)
Less
: 10%
sta
tuto
ry d
educ
tion
(if a
pplic
able
)
Subt
otal
Tota
l Est
imat
ed C
ost
Less
: fut
ure
capi
tal g
rant
s, s
ubsi
dies
or o
ther
cont
ribut
ions
ant
icip
ated
Less
: Por
tion
of G
ross
Pro
ject
Cos
t Fun
ded
In
Prio
r Yea
rs
Residential share of growth costs amended to 100% (95% in 2004 study). Benefit to ICI sector considered negligible.
89
TABLE E-3 – CASH FLOW ANALYSIS AND FINAL RATE CALCULATION - LIBRARY
Service component : Library ($'s in thousands)
FINAL RESULT 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total
Planning Horizon - yrs 10
Pre-Financing DC Rate
Post-Financing DC Rate
% Collected assumption
Growth projection for each year of forecast period
Growth - Res. (Persons In New Housing) 55,539 11.72$ 10.69$ 100% 5,553.9 5,553.9 5,553.9 5,553.9 5,553.9 5,553.9 5,553.9 5,553.9 5,553.9 5,553.9 55,538.6 Growth - Non-Res. (sq. m.) -$
Commercial 250,830.0 -$ -$ 100% 25,083.0 25,083.0 25,083.0 25,083.0 25,083.0 25,083.0 25,083.0 25,083.0 25,083.0 25,083.0 250,830.0 Institutional 222,968.0 -$ -$ 100% 22,296.8 22,296.8 22,296.8 22,296.8 22,296.8 22,296.8 22,296.8 22,296.8 22,296.8 22,296.8 222,968.0
C/I subtotal 473,798.0 -$ 47,379.8 47,379.8 47,379.8 47,379.8 47,379.8 47,379.8 47,379.8 47,379.8 47,379.8 47,379.8 473,798.0 Industrial 380,902.0 -$ -$ 100% 38,090.2 38,090.2 38,090.2 38,090.2 38,090.2 38,090.2 38,090.2 38,090.2 38,090.2 38,090.2 380,902.0
Total Non-Res. 854,700.0 85,470.0 85,470.0 85,470.0 85,470.0 85,470.0 85,470.0 85,470.0 85,470.0 85,470.0 85,470.0 854,700.0
Reserve Fund Projections:Opening Surplus / <Deficit> $3,772.0 $2,338.1 $2,438.8 $2,541.4 $61.6 $122.5 $184.5 $247.6 $311.8 -$2,703.0 $3,772.0Revenues - Development Charge Collections
Residential $59.3 $59.3 $59.3 $59.3 $59.3 $59.3 $59.3 $59.3 $59.3 $59.3 $593.5Non-Res.
Commercial $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0Institutional $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0
C/I subtotal $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0Industrial $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0
Total Non-Res. $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0
Total revenues $59.3 $59.3 $59.3 $59.3 $59.3 $59.3 $59.3 $59.3 $59.3 $59.3 $593.5
Development Charge draws - calculated on separate page $1,546.3 $.0 $.0 $2,561.7 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $3,038.9 $.0 $7,146.9Closing surplus / <deficit> before interest $2,285.1 $2,397.4 $2,498.2 $39.0 $120.9 $181.9 $243.9 $307.0 -$2,667.7 -$2,643.7 $2,762.0Non-inflationary interest revenue /<expense>
on savings 1.75% $53.0 $41.4 $43.2 $22.6 $1.6 $2.7 $3.7 $4.9 $173.1on borrowings 3.00% -$35.3 -$80.2 -$115.5
Closing surplus / <deficit> $2,338.1 $2,438.8 $2,541.4 $61.6 $122.5 $184.5 $247.6 $311.8 -$2,703.0 -$2,723.9 -$2,723.9
Target which reflects growth costs incurred in the forecast period and recoverable from future growth -$2,723.9
Explanatory note
Method:1
2
3
Other Information: Pre PostResidential share 100% 100%Non-residential
Commercial 0% 0%Institutional 0% 0%C/I subtotal 0% 0%Industrial 0% 0%
This worksheet projects future activity in this reserve fund. It ultimately determines the rates necessary to recover all costs intended for recovery from growth (including financing costs). The deficit in the fund at the end of the planning horizon reflects costs intended for recovery from future growth.
Set ratio of Pre financing revenues = Post financing revenues (ie. copy values from C47-C52 to D47-D52). This ensures that ratio of revenues stays constant throughout rate re-calculation process.
Set Post financing rate = Pre financing rate - model projects revenues and draws and projects RF balances (ie. copy values from D13-D18 to E13-E18)
Using "SOLVER" make balance at end of planning horizon = to "Target " balance by allowing "Post financing rates" to vary from "Pre-financing rates".
90
Appendix F – Parks and Recreation
In February 2003 City Council adopted, subject to annual budget review, the recommendations of the Parks and Recreation Strategic Master Plan (P&RSMP). This Master Plan is currently being updated (2008-2009) in order to test community priorities and ensure that proposed directions remain relevant to current and future generations. The updated Master Plan will provide direction and guidance for managing parks and recreation programs, infrastructure, and investment in a fiscally responsible manner. Completion of the Update falls beyond the timeframe of this study, however, discussions with staff and the consultant undertaking the update study (Monteith Brown Planning Consultants) have confirmed a number of improvements and upgrades to existing facilities as well as identifying new facilities required to serve the growing population.
Existing Service Standards The City provides parks and recreation services to its citizens through numerous facilities, sports fields and play structures throughout the municipality. For both Parks and Recreational facilities, a valuation of the historical service standard was prepared. It was substantiated by a comprehensive “inventory” and valuation of parkland development and recreation facilities for the preceding ten years (see Table F-1 – Summary on 1st pg). This valuation makes possible an objective comparison of the historical service standard with the proposed future needs. The comparison is necessary to demonstrate that no improvement in the future service standard is being incorporated into the development charge rate calculations. The inventories reflect an approximation of the current replacement value of nearly all Parks and Recreation assets. The inventory includes valuation of all existing recreation facilities and take into account the size, quality and nature of construction and land value (ancillary lands only). The land valuation excludes the value of park land. Some properties have been excluded from the inventory where the park amenity or facility is unique or unlikely to be replicated (for example golf courses are excluded from the inventory). The inventories (30 pages in all) arrive at an average per capita historical service level (Parkland summary is in Table F-1,5th page in; Recreation Facilities Summary is in Table F-1, 3rd pg in). By projecting the historical per capita service level using the future population increase, a ceiling level of expenditure at which the City would be maintaining existing service levels is calculated. This ceiling is used to demonstrate that there is no increase to the existing service standard included in the DC rate calculation (as required by the legislation). Growth Population As with other services, planning of Park and Recreation service expansion first involves an estimate of the extent and location of growth. The projection of growth and location is addressed in Appendix A of this study. The DC rate calculation for this service component contemplates a ten year planning horizon (legislatively mandated). Growth Related Capital Needs Projected Many of the projects being contemplated in the 2009 Parks and Recreation Strategic Master Plan (P&RSMP) update study are consistent with those identified in the 2003 study. However, discussions with the consultant preparing the 2009 update study and, based on
91
our own expectations as to City’s financial capacity to undertake these investments (especially as it relates to timing of Recreation Facilities) the timing of the works has been extended over a longer period than what was anticipated in the 2004 DC study. As with the 2003 P&RSMP study, many of the investments in Parks and Recreation capital needs plans are not entirely growth related. Taken as a whole, the capital needs program will serve to both meet the changing needs of the existing population, as well as serve an expanding population. Only the portion of those projects considered benefiting the growing population is incorporated into the development charge rate calculations. Recreation Facilities Needs The capital needs listed on Table F-2 (1st page) include three multi-purpose recreational facilities with various components. These facilities are planned in the North (Sunningdale and Adelaide), Southwest and Southeast. The Parks & Recreation Master Plan is anticipated to identify a need for indoor aquatic facilities (potential need for three new indoor pools). These facilities will generally be located in the North, Southwest and Southeast parts of the city and will serve both existing populations and future growth. The Master plan also identifies a need for new community centre/gymnasium space in each of the three multi-purpose facilities it recommends.
The Master Plan is also anticipated to recommend the development of three new Spray Pads over the short to medium term. It is expected that spray pads serve the local area where they are developed, in much the same way as wading pools did in the past. Determination of Growth Share of New Recreation Facilities The growth share of these projects was determined with assistance from Monteith Brown Planning Consultants through the Master Plan update process. First, service area was generally defined for each of the existing facilities in the City. From this point, the benefiting area that would be served by each new multi-purpose facility was approximated. In one instance (Southeast) it was considered appropriate to distinguish between the benefiting area of the pool in contrast to the benefiting area of the community centre. Next, the geographic service area already developed was compared to the total benefiting area for each new multi-purpose facility. This fraction is used in the calculations to represent the benefit to existing development (ie. the non-growth share). The remainder represents the proportion attributable to growth. Two further deductions from this amount are necessary to determine the growth share appropriate for the DC rate calculation :
i. The growth share attributed to growth beyond ten(10) years (ie. future growth share) ii. The growth share attributed to growth prior to the ten year planning horizon
Both of these items are discussed below. Two additional twin-pad arenas are identified as part of the latter two multi-purpose community centres in the Southwest and Southeast. 100% of the cost of these is allocated to existing development. This allocation is based on the expectation that these ice surfaces will simply replace existing single-pad arenas intended for decommissioning in the future, and do not address growth related needs.
92
The works needed to complete the multi-purpose facilities are what may be termed site development costs. These include land acquisition, design, site works, change rooms, architects fees and permits. The non-growth share of these works was determined in proportion to the non-growth share of the functional components (ie. arena, community centre, gym and indoor pool). With respect to Spray Pads, until their locations are determined, it is difficult to definitively assess the appropriate growth percentage of these facilities. In the absence of growth/non-growth splits that are based on location of the new spray pads, it was considered best to use a 50/50 split. By assessing the benefit of the 3 new spray pads 50% to growth, and 50% to non-growth, the calculations on Table F-2 result in the recovery of approximately 1.5 spray pads from growth over the next ten years. Determination of “Post Period Benefit” of Recreation Facilities In addition to serving both “past growth”(pre 2009) and “current growth” (2009-2018), the new facilities are expected to serve growth beyond the planning horizon for this service component. As a consequence, it was also necessary to estimate this post period benefit and remove it from the rate calculations. Post period benefit was approximated by looking at what geographic portion of the benefiting area would develop in the post ten year horizon. This portion was then removed from the rate calculation. Other Deductions in Recreation Facilities DC Rate Calculations Consistent with rate calculations for other soft services, the DC rate calculations for Recreation facilities also reflect:
• An estimate of the portion of the costs in question that were collected in prior years is represented by the uncommitted balance in the DC P&R Reserve fund. This amount is removed from the rate calculation so as not to overstate the amount that should be collected from the growth horizon in question (2009-2018). For Recreation facilities, this deduction amounted to approximately $2.6 million.
• Any capital grants, subsidies or other contributions from other sources that are anticipated for this service were also considered. In this case, there were no such contributions anticipated.
• A calculation of the amount that would otherwise represent an improvement over the existing combined quantity/quality service standard (an improvement prohibited by legislation) is made. This amount ($4.8M) is also removed from the rate calculation, also in accordance with the underlying legislation.
• The 10% statutory deduction which applies to most “soft services” (Parks, Recreation, Library, Transit).
Parkland Development – Capital Needs The Parkland Development needs for the ten (10) year time horizon for this service are listed on Table F-2 (pgs. 2-4).
• The 2003 P&RSMP also identified amenities and additions to the development of park space in neighbourhoods, districts and community multi-purpose facilities (skate parks, basketball hoops, play structures, tennis courts, soccer fields, baseball diamonds & sports field development), as well as additions and extensions to the City’s inventory of natural open space and Thames Valley Parkway. The park development and upgrade projects identified for inclusion in the DC rate calculations are consistent with the Master Plan for Parks and Recreation Services and in
93
conformity with the Official Plan . Only those projects with a growth component are included in the list of Capital Needs.
• Amenities such as spray pads, tennis courts and large skate parks are generally associated with District Park development, and are separately budgeted from the Neighbourhood Parks program. The Neighbourhood Parks program addresses both deficiencies - through park upgrade projects - and growth - through the development of new parks in growing areas of London. As a result of an aggressive program of parks redevelopment, there are few parks in the established areas of the City that do not meet the same level of service to which new parks are being designed.
• The Master Plan for Parks and Recreation Services identifies short, medium and long term priorities for the development of recreational amenities such as sports fields, spray pads, skate parks and tennis courts. These types of amenities are generally provided at the District Park level. Not all of these amenities would be located in each District Park (for example, the North London Sports Fields complex is developed as a major sportsfield complex with four full size [60 x100], one tournament [70 x 120], one mini [40 x 60] soccer fields, three ball diamonds, and an associated fieldhouse, all with lighting and irrigation). The location and the timing for provision of these amenities are directed through the Master Plan.
• The future ‘District Parks’, projects identified in the Capital Needs list are consistent with the Master Plan. Future parks will be developed with a mix of amenities that are consistent with existing parks of this level. For example, the District Park in the Richmond Hill/Sunningdale area will likely develop along the West Lions model, with an associated Community Centre, while the Fox Hollow District Park will likely develop primarily as a sports field complex. Land acquisition costs for sportsfields are ineligible for development charge funding and are not included in the list of capital needs.
• The Official Plan for the City of London includes numerous policies that speak to the importance of the city’s natural heritage system, and its role as a significant environmental/ecological resource, recreational asset and framework of the City’s structure. Within the “Open Space”, “Environmental”, “Parks and Recreation”, and “Services and Utilities” chapters of the Official Plan, policies that identify the importance of a linked and accessible natural heritage system are found. These policies direct that opportunities to enhance these linkages be pursued, and that these areas be protected.
• The Capital Needs in the “Major Open Space Network” and “Environmentally Significant Area” categories are also consistent with the existing policies and the recommendations of the P&RSMP relating to the development of a linked natural heritage system. For open space areas that are not linked through the extension of the City’s primary recreational pathway system (the Thames Valley Parkway) the P&RSMP recommends that a fully linked pathway system be developed. The projects identified in the Capital Needs include components of the natural heritage system within growth areas that will be linked to the City’s existing system of pathways. Growth share has been determined through an assessment of the developing area served in relation to the entire area that benefits.
• The Capital Needs in the “Thames Valley Parkway” category are also drawn from the recommendations of the P&RSMP, and reflect the priorities established for the City’s multi-purpose pathway system. Through the public consultation process for the Master Plan, Londoners identified improving the pathway network as the top priority for parks development. The projects identified extend the City’s existing linear
94
parkway into growing areas of the City. Growth share has been determined through assessment of the developing area served in relation to the entire area that benefits.
Parkland Development – Rate Calculation Adjustments
• Consistent with other rate calculations for soft services, the DC rate calculations for Parkland Development reflect:
o Gross cost of projects considered to benefit growth; o The growth share for parks development projects is determined by the
approximate geographic area served by the park. Parkland amenities may serve populations in their immediate vicinity (ie. Neighbourhood parks), or city-wide (ie. District or City-wide parks). Costs are allocated to existing population based on the geographic location of the amenity, and take into account the area served in relation to the area developed. Parks located near existing areas that are intended to serve the adjacent developable area have a growth share attributed to them. This growth share is based upon an assessment of the proportion of developable area compared to existing development. New neighbourhood parks located entirely within new developments are attributed entirely to growth.
o Since many of the areas targeted for new facilities will grow over a number of years, a portion of the costs are also deferred for inclusion in future rate calculations. The growth share attributed to future planning horizons (ie. beyond 2018) was determined with reference to the expected timing of buildout of the area served by the facility. These “future” or “post period” benefits are removed from the ten(10) year rate calculation. Estimates are inherent in the allocations. This meets the statutory objective that the increase in need for service be attributable to the anticipated development.
o An estimate of the portion of the costs in question that were collected in prior years is represented by the uncommitted balance in the DC P&R Reserve fund. For Parkland development, this amounted to approximately $1.6 million. This amount is removed from the rate calculation so as not to overstate the amount that should be collected from the growth horizon in question (2009-2018).
o Any capital grants, subsidies or other contributions from other sources that are anticipated for this service were also considered. In this case, there were no such grants anticipated.
o A calculation of the amount that would otherwise represent an improvement over the existing combined quantity/quality service standard (an improvement prohibited by legislation) is made. This amount ($5.5M) is also removed from the rate calculation, all in accordance with the underlying legislation.
o The 10% statutory deduction which applies to most “soft services” (Parks, Recreation, Library, Transit).
Growth Related Capital Needs - Conclusion This ends the discussion of growth related Capital Needs projected for Parks and Recreation. The reader will no doubt have noted the large variety of facilities and park developments, their numerous locations throughout the City. The fact that :
• many of these projects were included in a prior DC study, • most serve both existing and developing areas of the City, • most will serve the developing area in which they are located for some time after
95
the current planning horizon, and therefore merit some allocation of costs to future rate calculations.
make the calculation of development charge rates complex and time consuming. However, the combined product presents a reasonable allocation of costs to growth, which does not exceeding the historical service standard. This should result in a fair rate. Allocation of Net Costs of Growth to Growth Types There is no compelling case for attribution of capital costs associated with expansion of Parks and Recreation amenities to any group other than Residential growth. For this reason, 100% of growth costs have been attributed to Residential growth. This is consistent with practice in many other municipalities in the province. Financing Costs Added to Arrive at Final Calculated DC Rate For the purpose of calculating the development charge rate for this component inclusive of financing costs, TABLE F-3 has been produced. This table simulates the cash flows in this component of the DC funds :
a) It begins with the 2009 opening balance– in this case, a balance of approximately $4.2M, which reflects the accumulation of uncommitted funds for growth projects identified in past DC studies, many of which are repeated as capital needs in this study.
b) DC fund revenues using the “pre-finance” rate are projected. c) DC fund drawdowns for the growth share of projects being completed in the
upcoming period ten(10) year planning horizon, are also reflected in the cash flow projection
d) Finally, an estimate of : a. annual interest revenues to be earned or b. financing costs that can be expected to be incurred due to funds deficits
are projected throughout the planning horizon, (10 years). A deficit at the end of the planning period for the cash flow equates to the amounts of the expenditures incurred during the planning period to be recovered from growth in the future (ie. the post period benefit). All figures are presented on an un-inflated, constant (2009) dollar basis. Interest rates which exclude the inflationary component (inflation assumed to be 2%) are also used for consistency. The rates generated from this cash flow analysis reflect what is appropriately recovered from growth, for the planning horizon of this service. Long Term Operating Costs An examination of the long term operating costs for growth needs for Parks and Recreation Services (DC) is included in Appendix O. Council’s Intention to Meet Growth Needs The growth needs identified within this Appendix have been extracted from the Parks and Recreation Master Servicing Plan prepared by Monteith Planning Consultants in January, 2003 and based on discussions related to that plan. The capital items reflected herein will be subject to final approval of Council through the annual capital budget approval process. It is Council’s stated intention to “provide for the needs of growth in a way that does not jeopardize the long term financial health of the municipality, or place an undue burden on existing taxpayers” (Official Plan Policing 2.6.3).
96
TABLE F-1 – PARKS & RECREATION – MEASURE OF EXISTING SERVICE STANDARDS -SUMMARY
SERVICE: PARKS & RECREATION COMPONENT: SUMMARY
Unit of measureType of measure
Type of Facility 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Parkland Summary $83,531.4 $86,663.0 $88,703.8 $94,451.5 $95,442.8 $96,753.5 $98,541.0 $99,818.5 $101,017.6 $103,358.3Rec Facilities Summary $179,000.1 $180,050.1 $201,297.4 $194,110.8 $200,209.7 $213,733.7 $222,270.0 $234,349.0 $237,365.3 $241,125.9Rec Equipment Summary $969.8 $969.8 $969.8 $969.8 $969.8 $969.8 $969.8 $969.8 $969.8 $969.8
Total $263,501.3 $267,682.8 $290,971.0 $289,532.1 $296,622.3 $311,456.9 $321,780.8 $335,137.3 $339,352.7 $345,454.1
Population 332,174 334,352 336,530 339,703 342,876 346,049 349,222 352,395 355,629 358,863Per Capita Level of Service $793.26 $800.60 $864.62 $852.31 $865.10 $900.04 $921.42 $951.03 $954.23 $962.63
10 year averagecombined Quality/Quantity Standard per Capita $886.52
DC Eligible amount (before adjustments)Net Forecast Pop'n - 10 yr. 33,077$ per capita $886.52DC rate eligible amount (gross) $29,323,127
NOTES:
1) The valuations above include the current (2008) replacement value of building, land, and site improvements.
Source : Building, site improvements and contents derived from information compiled by City of London - Facility Services Division. Land values from information provided by Realty Services Division.
2008 Replacement Value ($thousands)Quality & Quantity
97
TABLE F-1 – PARKS & RECREATION – MEASURE OF EXISTING SERVICE STANDARDS – RECREATION FACILITIES
SERVICE: PARKS & RECREATION COMPONENT: ALL RECREATION FACILITIES
Contact person(s)Unit of measureType of measure
Type of Facilities 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Arenas 397,295 397,295 514,402 471,841 471,841 528,361 563,146 623,566 634,659 634,659Community/Snr Centers 156,126 156,126 156,126 156,126 166,044 166,044 166,044 166,044 166,044 166,044Pools 89,515 89,515 109,515 109,515 109,515 109,515 110,052 110,052 110,052 110,052Wading Pools/Spray Pads NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NASpecial Facilities 38,844 38,844 38,844 38,844 38,844 38,844 38,844 38,844 38,844 58,196Fieldhouses, Washrooms, etc. NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Total 681,780 681,780 818,887 776,326 786,244 842,764 878,086 938,506 949,599 968,951
Population 332,174 334,352 336,530 339,703 342,876 346,049 349,222 352,395 355,629 358,863Per Capita Level of Service 2.05 2.04 2.43 2.29 2.29 2.44 2.51 2.66 2.67 2.70
10 year averageQuantity Standard per Capita 2.41
Source : Building, site improvements and contents derived from information compiled by City of London - Facility Services Division. Land values from information provided by Realty Services Division.
Jim KlingenbergerSquare Feet of BuildingsQuantity
98
TABLE F-1 – PARKS & RECREATION – MEASURE OF EXISTING SERVICE STANDARDS – RECREATION FACILITIES
SERVICE: PARKS & RECREATION COMPONENT: ALL RECREATION FACILITIES
Contact person(s)Unit of measureType of measure
Type of Facility 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Arenas $78,083.6 $78,083.6 $93,851.0 $85,764.4 $85,764.4 $98,368.4 $106,814.7 $117,770.9 $120,573.1 $120,573.1Community/Snr Centers $40,387.2 $40,387.2 $40,387.2 $40,387.2 $46,786.1 $46,786.1 $46,786.1 $46,786.1 $46,786.1 $46,786.1Pools $37,583.5 $37,583.5 $43,063.5 $43,063.5 $43,063.5 $43,063.5 $43,063.5 $44,186.3 $44,186.3 $44,186.3Wading Pools/Spray Pads $6,050.0 $6,100.0 $6,100.0 $7,000.0 $6,700.0 $7,400.0 $7,400.0 $7,400.0 $7,450.0 $7,860.0Specialty Facilities $8,609.8 $8,609.8 $8,609.8 $8,609.8 $8,609.8 $8,609.8 $8,609.8 $8,609.8 $8,609.8 $11,960.5Fieldhouses, Washrooms, etc. $8,285.9 $9,285.9 $9,285.9 $9,285.9 $9,285.9 $9,505.9 $9,595.9 $9,595.9 $9,759.9 $9,759.9
Total $179,000.1 $180,050.1 $201,297.4 $194,110.8 $200,209.7 $213,733.7 $222,270.0 $234,349.0 $237,365.3 $241,125.9
Population 332,174 334,352 336,530 339,703 342,876 346,049 349,222 352,395 355,629 358,863Per Capita Level of Service $538.87 $538.50 $598.16 $571.41 $583.91 $617.64 $636.47 $665.02 $667.45 $671.92
10 year averagecombined Quality/Quantity Standard per Capita $608.94
DC Eligible amount (before adjustments)Net Forecast Pop'n - 10 yr. 33,077$ per capita $608.94DC rate eligible amount (gross) $20,141,705
NOTES:
Quality & Quantity ($thousands)2008 Replacement ValueJim Klingenberger
1) The valuations above reflect the current (2008) replacement value of building, land, and site improvements.
99
TABLE F-1 – PARKS & RECREATION – MEASURE OF EXISTING SERVICE STANDARDS – PARK DEVELOPMENT SERVICE: PARKS & RECREATION COMPONENT: ALL PARKLAND DEVELOPMENT
Service Parkland DevelopmentContact person(s) Andrew MacphersonUnit of measure Hectares of parklandType of measure Quantity
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 $/ha.245.6 253.1 258.3 264.3 264.3 264.6 266.8 272.7 277.4 283.8 $59,745
48.1 40.6 35.4 29.4 29.4 31.6 29.6 26.9 26.6 31.1 $9,020422.9 422.9 422.9 440.5 440.5 445.8 500.1 538.0 539.7 545.3 $5,228545.6 545.6 549.7 565.5 552.4 573.3 599.3 606.2 623.0 625.7 $9,119243.0 243.0 243.0 243.0 243.0 243.0 247.0 247.0 247.5 256.6 $78,089
17.0 17.0 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4 $01,522.1 1,522.1 1,526.6 1,560.0 1,546.9 1,575.7 1,660.2 1,708.2 1,731.6 1,759.9
2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 Note 16.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Note 1
70.2 70.2 70.2 70.2 70.2 70.2 70.2 70.2 70.2 70.2 Note 179.0 79.0 79.0 79.0 79.0 79.0 79.0 79.0 79.0 79.0
1,601.1 1,601.1 1,605.6 1,639.0 1,625.9 1,654.7 1,739.2 1,787.2 1,810.6 1,838.9332,174 334,352 336,530 339,703 342,876 346,049 349,222 352,395 355,629 358,863
0.004820 0.004789 0.004771 0.004825 0.004742 0.004782 0.004980 0.005072 0.005091 0.005124207.46 208.82 209.59 207.26 210.88 209.13 200.79 197.18 196.42 195.15
10 year averageQuantity Standard per Capita (ha. Per person) 0.004900
2) The parks listed above exclude the sq. footage of facilities located on park premises.3) The parks listed above exclude the land associated with municipally owned golf courses.
City Wide/Urban Park - other (see"Major" parks reported below)Sub-Total
City Wide/Urban Park - Major Ivey Park / Forks
Sub-Total
Parkland ClassificationNeighbourhood Parks Undeveloped Neighbourhood ParksEnvironmentally Significant AreasOpen SpaceDistrict Park - new developments
Per Capita Standard (ha. per person)
NOTES:
Victoria Park
Population
Persons per hectare of developed parkland
Total - hectares
Springbank Park
1) The value of the development in these parks has been arrived at through a specific valuation of all Park Development amenities, including pathways, play structures, hard playing surfaces, parking facilities, at their 2008 replacement values.
100
TABLE F-1 – PARKS & RECREATION – MEASURE OF EXISTING SERVICE STANDARDS – PARK DEVELOPMENT SERVICE: PARKS & RECREATION COMPONENT: ALL PARKLAND DEVELOPMENT
Service Parkland DevelopmentContact person(s) Andrew MacphersonUnit of measure 2008 Replacement Value ($thousands)Type of measure Quality & Quantity
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008$14,672.8 $15,120.9 $15,431.5 $15,789.4 $15,789.4 $15,808.5 $15,940.0 $16,292.5 $16,573.3 $16,955.6 see note 8)
$433.8 $366.1 $319.2 $265.2 $265.2 $285.0 $267.0 $242.6 $239.9 $280.5 see note 8)$2,210.9 $2,210.9 $2,210.9 $2,302.9 $2,302.9 $2,330.6 $2,614.5 $2,812.7 $2,821.6 $2,850.8 see note 8)$4,974.9 $4,974.9 $5,012.3 $5,156.3 $5,036.9 $5,227.9 $5,465.0 $5,527.9 $5,681.1 $5,705.8 see note 8)
$18,975.6 $18,975.6 $18,975.6 $18,975.6 $18,975.6 $18,975.6 $19,288.0 $19,288.0 $19,327.0 $20,037.6 see note 8)Park Fieldhouses, Washrooms, Concessions $8,285.9 $9,285.9 $9,285.9 $9,285.9 $9,285.9 $9,505.9 $9,595.9 $9,595.9 $9,759.9 $9,759.9 see note 9)
$10,625.5 $10,696.7 $10,756.3 $10,986.1 $11,246.8 $11,549.8 $12,085.6 $12,698.9 $13,029.8 $13,066.9 see note 9)$14,524.0 $14,524.0 $14,524.0 $17,292.0 $17,292.0 $17,292.0 $17,292.0 $17,292.0 $17,292.0 $18,408.1
$207.0 $957.0 $1,707.0 $2,807.0 $3,307.0 $3,467.0 $3,557.0 $3,557.0 $3,557.0 $3,557.0 see note 9)$2,639.0 $3,264.0 $3,864.0 $4,974.0 $5,324.0 $5,414.0 $5,454.0 $5,504.0 $5,534.0 $5,534.0 see note 9)$5,982.0 $6,287.0 $6,617.0 $6,617.0 $6,617.0 $6,897.0 $6,982.0 $7,007.0 $7,202.0 $7,202.0 see note 9)
$83,531.4 $86,663.0 $88,703.8 $94,451.5 $95,442.8 $96,753.5 $98,541.0 $99,818.5 $101,017.6 $103,358.3332,174 334,352 336,530 339,703 342,876 346,049 349,222 352,395 355,629 358,863$251.47 $259.20 $263.58 $278.04 $278.36 $279.59 $282.17 $283.26 $284.05 $288.02
10 year averageQuantity/Quality Standard per Capita $274.77
DC Eligible amount (before adjustments)Net Forecast Pop'n - 10 yr. 33,077$ per capita $274.77DC rate eligible amount (gross) $9,088,621
Notes:
Parkway - Footbridges and tunnels
3) Includes pathways, minor footbridges (creeks & streams), driveways, parking lots, boardwalks, stairs, benches, plantings, play equipment, sportsfields, hard playing surfaces, irrigations systems, lighting and signage.
4) Excludes enclosed structures, major footbridges, wading pools, spray pads.
9)Values were determined through an individual approximation of 2008 replacement cost for each location.
5) Includes pathways, driveways, parking lots, boardwalks, minor footbridges (creeks & streams), stairs, benches, plantings and signage.6) Includes washroom, pavilion, spray pad & plaza fountain.7) Includes 2 picnic pavilions & train tracks.8)Valuations were determined using a representative sample of all the parks in this category. A weighted average per hectare (2008) value was calculated, and this value applied to all parks (which all have similar level of development) in this category.
1) Excludes the Bandshell and mechanical works for rink (accounted for under "Fieldhouses").
2) Excludes the Pumphouse and all waterworks facilities, Springbank Dam, Civic Garden Complex, Springbank footbridge, Storybook Gardens, boat dock/shelter, train station, concession, and washrooms
PopulationPer Capita Standard ($ per person)
Ivey Park / Forks (note 3 & 6)Victoria Park (note 1 & 3)Springbank Park(note 2, 3, & 7)
Total
Environmentally Significant Areas (note 4 & 5)Open Space (note 4 & 5)District Park (note 3 & 4)
Thames Valley Parkway - linear parkway (note 4 & 5)
Undeveloped Neighbourhood Parks (notes 4 & 5)Neighbourhood Parks (note 3 & 4)Parkland Classification
101
TABLE F-1 – PARKS & RECREATION – MEASURE OF EXISTING SERVICE STANDARDS
Contact person(s)Unit of measureType of measure
Facility Name 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 $/machineIce Resurfacing Equipment 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 $74,600
Total 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13
Population 332,174 334,352 336,530 339,703 342,876 346,049 349,222 352,395 355,629 358,863Level of Service (per 1,000 persons) 0.03914 0.03888 0.03863 0.03827 0.03791 0.03757 0.03723 0.03689 0.03655 0.03623
10 year averageQuantity Standard per 1,000 persons 0.03773
NOTES1) Ice Resurfacing equipment is replaced on an 8 year cycle.
Contact person(s)Unit of measureType of measure
Facility Name 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Ice Resurfacing Equipment $969.8 $969.8 $969.8 $969.8 $969.8 $969.8 $969.8 $969.8 $969.8 $969.8
Total $969.8 $969.8 $969.8 $969.8 $969.8 $969.8 $969.8 $969.8 $969.8 $969.8
Population 332,174 334,352 336,530 339,703 342,876 346,049 349,222 352,395 355,629 358,863Per Capita Level of Service $2.92 $2.90 $2.88 $2.85 $2.83 $2.80 $2.78 $2.75 $2.73 $2.70
10 year averageQuantity Standard per Capita $2.81
DC Eligible amount (before adjustments)Forecast Population 33,077$ per capita $2.81DC rate eligible amount (gross) $92,945
SERVICE: PARKS & RECREATION
Joe Amaral2008 Replacement Value ($thousands)Quality & Quantity
SERVICE: PARKS & RECREATION SERVICE : EQUIPMENT
SERVICE : EQUIPMENT
Joe Amaral# Of MachinesQuantity
102
TABLE F-1 – PARKS & RECREATION – MEASURE OF EXISTING SERVICE STANDARDS Service Parkland DevelopmentContact person(s)Unit of measure hectares of parklandType of measure Quantity
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
A. L. FURANNA PARK 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2ADELAIDE STREET WELLS PARK 2.0 2.0ADMIRAL PARK 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2AMBLESIDE PARK 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7ARTHUR FORD PARK 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1ASHLEY OAKS PARK 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7BELMONT PARK 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8BELVEDERE PARK 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6BERKSHIRE PARK 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3BLACKFRIARS PARK 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5BLACKFRIARS PARK - NORTH 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1BONAVENTURE MEADOWS PARK 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4BOYLE COMMUNITY CENTRE 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9BOYLE PARK 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3BROUGHDALE PARK 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5CANTEBURY PARK 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6CAPULET PARK 1.1CARLING PARK 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4CARRIAGE HILL PARK 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2CARROLL PARK 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3CAYUGA PARK 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1CHELSEA GREEN PARK 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3CHESHAM HEIGHTS PARK 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7CHESWICK PARK 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4CLEARDALE PARK 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4CNRA PARK 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2COLVILLE PARK 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5CONSTITUTION PARK 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7CRESTHAVEN PARK 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5CULVER PARK 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1DALKEITH PARK 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5DOIDGE PARK 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9DUCHESS AVENUE PARK 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3DUNKIRK PLACE PARK 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6EARL NICHOLS PARK AND ARENA 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8RIVER EAST OPTIMIST PARK 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8EBURY PARK 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6ED BLAKE PARK 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6EMPRESS AVENUE PARK 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9FAIRMONT PARK 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1FANSHAWE OPTIMIST LITTLE LEAGUE PARK 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4FARNSBOROUGH PARK 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7FLANDERS PARK 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7FOREST VIEW COMMUNITY PARK 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8GAINSBOROUGH MEADOWS 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Andrew Macpherson
Parkland ClassificationNeighbourhood Parks (Note 1 & Note 3)
103
TABLE F-1 – PARKS & RECREATION – MEASURE OF EXISTING SERVICE STANDARDS Service Parkland DevelopmentContact person(s)Unit of measure hectares of parklandType of measure Quantity
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Andrew Macpherson
Parkland Classification GENEVIVE PARK 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8GLANWORTH PARK 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7GLASS AVENUE PARK 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4GRAMPIAN WOODS 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8GRAND VIEW PARK 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8GRIFFITH STREET PARK 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3HASTINGS PARK 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8HAZELDEN PARK 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8HELEN MOTT SHAW PARK 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4HELEN MOTT SHAW PARK - WEST 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3HERITAGE PARK 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7HERRON HAVEN PARK 1.3HIGHLAND WOODS 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3HILL STREET PARK 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6HUNTINGTON PARK 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8HURON HEIGHTS PARK 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7HURONVIEW PARK 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5JAYCEE PARK 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3JESSE DAVIDSON PARK 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3JUBILEE PARK 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8KELLY PARK 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2KENSAL PARK 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9KENSINGTON PARK 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9LAMBETH OPTIMIST PARK 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 3.0 3.0 4.2LAMBETH VETERANS PARK 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5LAURIER PARK 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6LYNNGATE GROVE PARK 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7MCMAHEN PARK 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7MEANDER CREEK PARK 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2MEREDITH PARK 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1MILDRED BARONS PARK 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1MITCHELL PARK 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9MORNINGTON PARK 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7MURRAY PARK 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3NAIOMI ALMEDIA PARK 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0NELSON PARK 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1NICHOLAS WILSON PARK 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3NORTHEAST RECREATION CENTRE 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8NORWEST OPTIMIST PARK 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 6.4 6.4OAK PARK 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2OAKLAND AVENUE PARK 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3PAST PRESIDENTS PARK 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6PAWNEE PARK 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8PEPPERTREE PARK 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5PICCADILLY PARK 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4POTTERSBURG DOG PARK 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5
104
TABLE F-1 – PARKS & RECREATION – MEASURE OF EXISTING SERVICE STANDARDS Service Parkland DevelopmentContact person(s)Unit of measure hectares of parklandType of measure Quantity
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Andrew Macpherson
Parkland Classification QUEENS PARK 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5RALPH HAMLYN PARK 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3RICHARD B. HARRISON PARK 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5RIVER FORKS PARK 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5RIVER'S EDGE DISC GOLF COURSE 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.9ROSECLIFFE PARK 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7ROWNTREE PARK 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4SCENIC VIEW PARK 1.5SMITH PARK 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0SOUTHCREST PARK 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8SOUTHEAST OPTIMIST PARK 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1SOUTHWINDS PARK 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7SPRINGBANK FLATS 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9ST. ANTHONY'S PARK 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0ST. JULIEN PARK 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3ST. LAWRENCE PARK 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8ST. STEPHEN'S PARK 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2STONEYCREEK MEADOWS 4.0 4.0 4.0SUMMERCREST PARK 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3THAMESRIDGE PARK 0.1THISTLEDOWN PARK 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9THORNWOOD PARK 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS PARK 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7VAUXHALL PARK 17.1 17.1 17.1 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2VILLAGE GREEN PARK 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1VIRGINIA PARK 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 5.4 5.4 5.4WELLINGSBORO PARK 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4WENIGE PARK 0.8 2.0WESTMOUNT LIONS PARK 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2WESTMOUNT PARK 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0WHISPERWOOD PARK 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5WHITE OAKS OPTIMIST PARK 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6WILTON GROVE PARK 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2WINDBLEST PARK 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
Sub-Total (ha.) 245.6 253.1 258.3 264.3 264.3 264.6 266.8 272.7 277.4 283.8# of parks 109 110 112 116 116 117 118 119 121 125
Average size (ha.): 2.25 2.30 2.31 2.28 2.28 2.26 2.26 2.29 2.29 2.27
105
TABLE F-1 – PARKS & RECREATION – MEASURE OF EXISTING SERVICE STANDARDS Service Parkland DevelopmentContact person(s)Unit of measure hectares of parklandType of measure Quantity
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Andrew Macpherson
Parkland Classification
ADELAIDE STREET WELLS PARK 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0BELLWOOD PARK - WEST 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4BELLWOOD PARK - EAST 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2BELVEDERE PLACE PARK 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6BUTLER PARK 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3CAMDEN CRESCENT PARK 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7CANTEBURY PARK 2.6 2.6 2.6CAPULET PARK 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.1ESSEX PARK 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0GARTSHORE PARK 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6GRETNA GREEN PARK 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4HALLS MILLS PARK 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2MEANDER CREEK PARK 2.2MCKILLOP PARK 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 5.6 5.6NAIOMI ALMEDIA PARK 2.0 2.0NORTHCREST PARK 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NORTHBROOK PARK 0.5 0.5 0.5OAK PARK 3.2 3.2ODESSA PARK 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0OSGOODE DRIVE PARK 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3PAUL HAGGIS PARK 0.4 3.5PINNACLE PARK - EAST 0.4 0.4 0.4PINNACLE PARK - WEST 0.4 0.4 0.4POTTERSBURG PARK 7.5RIVER FORKS PARK 2.5 2.5 2.5ROLLINGWOOD CIRCLE PARK 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9ROSEL PARK 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4RUSKIN PARK 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3SCENIC VIEW PARK 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5SEVILLA PARK 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3SHAFTESBURY PARK 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5STEPHEN'S FARM PARK 0.2 2.5STONEYCREEK MEADOWS 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0STANHOPE PARK 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6SUGARCREEK PARK 0.3 0.5THREE VALLEY PARK 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3THORNWOOD PARK 0.9 0.9 0.9WESTDALE PARK 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8WOOD STREET PARK 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Sub-Total (ha.) 48.1 40.6 35.4 29.4 29.4 31.6 29.6 26.9 26.6 31.1# of parks 32 31 29 26 26 27 26 28 31 30
Average size (ha.): 1.50 1.31 1.22 1.13 1.13 1.17 1.14 0.96 0.86 1.04
Undeveloped Neighbourhood Parks (Note 2)
106
TABLE F-1 – PARKS & RECREATION – MEASURE OF EXISTING SERVICE STANDARDS Service Parkland DevelopmentContact person(s)Unit of measure hectares of parklandType of measure Quantity
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Andrew Macpherson
Parkland Classification
COVES ESA 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3BALLYMOTE ESA 0.8 0.8KAINS WOODS ESA 25.0 25.0 25.0KAINS WOODS ESA - SOUTH 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2KELLY STANTON ESA - NORTH 12.9 12.9 12.9KELLY STANTON ESA - SOUTH 5.6KILALLY MEADOWS ESA 116.3 116.3 116.3 119.2 119.2 119.3 119.3 119.3 119.3 119.3KILALLY WOODS ESA 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.7 14.7MEADOWLILY WOODS ESA 42.0 42.0 42.0 42.0 42.0 42.0 43.8 43.8 43.8 43.8MEDWAY VALLEY HERITAGE FOREST ESA 55.1 55.1 55.1 55.1 55.1 55.1 55.1 55.1 55.1 55.1MEDWAY VALLEY HERITAGE FOREST ESA - EAST 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7MEDWAY VALLEY HERITAGE FOREST ESA - NORTH 10.9 10.9 10.9 10.9MEDWAY VALLEY HERITAGE FOREST ESA - SOUTH 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
SIFTON BOG ESA 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0 33.0WARBLER WOODS ESA 26.8 26.8 26.8 26.8 26.8 26.8 26.8 26.8 27.7 27.7WESTMINSTER PONDS - EAST - POND MILLS ESA 31.2 31.2 31.2 31.2 31.2 31.2 31.2 31.2 31.2 31.2WESTMINSTER PONDS - NORTH EAST - POND MILL 17.6 17.6 17.6 17.6 17.6 17.6 17.6 17.6 17.6 17.6WESTMINSTER PONDS - POND MILLS ESA 63.7 63.7 63.7 63.7 63.7 63.7 105.2 105.2 105.2 105.2WESTMINSTER PONDS - SOUTH - POND MILLS ESA 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8 25.8WESTMINSTER PONDS - SOUTH EAST - POND MILL 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Sub-Total (ha.) 422.9 422.9 422.9 440.5 440.5 445.8 500.1 538.0 539.7 545.3# of parks 13 13 13 14 14 15 16 18 19 20
Average size (ha.): 32.53 32.53 32.53 31.46 31.46 29.72 31.26 29.89 28.41 27.27
Environmentally Significant Areas
107
TABLE F-1 – PARKS & RECREATION – MEASURE OF EXISTING SERVICE STANDARDS Service Parkland DevelopmentContact person(s)Unit of measure hectares of parklandType of measure Quantity
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Andrew Macpherson
Parkland Classification
AMBLESIDE PARK 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0ANN STREET PARK 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2BEAVERBROOK WOODS 4.3 4.3 4.3 6.0BERKSHIRE PARK 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9BOLER ROAD PARK 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4BRAEMAR BLOCK 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1BRISCOE WOODS 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8BURNETT WOODS 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8BYRON RIVER VALLEY 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7CARFRAE PARK EAST 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8CARFRAE PARK WEST 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0CAVENDISH PARK 10.9 10.9 10.9 10.9 10.9 10.9 10.9 10.9 10.9 10.9CAVENDISH PARK - EAST 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1CHELSEA GREEN - NORTH 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7CLARA BRENTON WOODS 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2CLARKE ROAD PARK 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3 15.3CRESTHAVEN WOODS 2.7 2.7CRESTWOOD WOODS 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2DINGMAN CREEK CONSERVATION AREA 20.8 20.8 20.8 20.8 20.8 20.8 20.8 20.8 20.8 20.8EGELTON WOODS 2.5 5.8 5.8ELSIE PERRIN WILLIAMS ESTATE 23.4 23.4 23.4 23.4 23.4 23.4 23.4 23.4 23.4 23.4EUSTON PARK 13.2 13.2 13.2 13.2 13.2 13.2 13.2 13.2 13.2 13.2EVERGREEN PARK 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1FAIRMONT TRAIL 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1FAIRMONT PARK 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4FALLS VIEW PARK 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2FOREST VIEW COMMUNITY PARK 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7FOX HOLLOW RAVINE - NORTH 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7FOX HOLLOW RAVINE - SOUTH 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3GAINSBOROUGH VALLEY PARK 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1GARDEN PLOTS 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1GLEN CAIRN / OPEN SPACE 23.4 23.4 23.4 23.4 23.4 23.4 23.4 23.4 23.4 23.4
Open Space (Note 3)
108
TABLE F-1 – PARKS & RECREATION – MEASURE OF EXISTING SERVICE STANDARDS Service Parkland DevelopmentContact person(s)Unit of measure hectares of parklandType of measure Quantity
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Andrew Macpherson
Parkland Classification GLEN CAIRN PARK - EAST 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8GLEN CAIRN PARK - NORTH 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4GLEN CAIRN PARK - WEST 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2GORE ROAD OPEN SPACE 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3GRAHAM PLACE PARK 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8GRAND VIEW PARK 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9GRIFFITH STREET PARK 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0HALLS MILLS PARK 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5HAMPTON VALLEY 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6HASTINGS PARK 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3HELEN MOTT SHAW PARK 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0HICKORY WOODS 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1HIGHBURY WOODS 10.1 10.1HIGHLAND WOODS 12.3 12.3 12.3 12.3 12.3 12.3 12.3 12.3 12.3 12.3HIGHVIEW PARK 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2HILLSIDE RAVINE 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7HILL STREET PARK 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0HURON STREET WOODS 13.2 13.2 13.2 13.2 13.2 13.2 13.2 13.2 13.2 13.2HUTTON PARK 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2HYDE PARK WOODS 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8JALNA SOUTH PARK 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9JESSE DAVIDSON PARK 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8KELLY PARK 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6KILALLY VALLEY PARK 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4 20.4KIWANIS PARK 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1 16.1KIWANIS PARK - CENTRAL NORTH 12.3 12.3 12.3 12.3 12.3 12.3 12.3 12.3 12.3 12.3KIWANIS PARK - CENTRAL SOUTH 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8KIWANIS PARK - SOUTH 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5KRUPP PARK 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5LACROSSE LONDON 18.3 18.3 18.3 18.3 18.3 18.3 18.3 18.3 18.3 18.3LONDON HYDE PARK ROTARY LINK 12.9 12.9 12.9 12.9 12.9LONGVIEW PARK 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2LORD NELSON WOODS 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6LTC - BRYDGES PARK 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1MATHERS STREAM 1.7 1.7 1.7MCCORMICK PARK 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2MCGARRELL WALK 1.1 1.1 1.1MCNAY DRAIN - NORTH / OPEN SPACE 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
109
TABLE F-1 – PARKS & RECREATION – MEASURE OF EXISTING SERVICE STANDARDS Service Parkland DevelopmentContact person(s)Unit of measure hectares of parklandType of measure Quantity
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Andrew Macpherson
Parkland Classification MCNAY DRAIN - SOUTH / OPEN SPACE 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9NAOMEE PARK 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2NORLAN AVE / OPEN SPACE 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1NORLAN AVE / OPEN SPACE - SOUTH 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1NORTH BRANCH PARK 1 10.4 10.4 10.4 10.4 10.4 10.4 10.4 10.4 10.4 10.4NORTH MUD CREEK 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7NORTHDALE WOODS 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5BYRON VIEW PARK 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1POND EDGE BERM 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2PROUDFOOT PARK - EAST 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7PROUDFOOT PARK - WEST 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9RALPH HAMLYN PARK 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5RESERVOIR PARK 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9RICHMOND TRAIL 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8RIVER FORKS PARK - EAST 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3RIVER FORKS PARK - WEST 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3RIVER ROAD PARK 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0RIVERSIDE BOAT LAUNCH 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7RIVERSIDE WALK 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1ROSS PARK 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0SALISBURY OPEN SPACE 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1SANDRA MCINNIS WOODS 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4SHELBORNE PARK - NORTH 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.7SHELBORNE PARK - SOUTH 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5SNAKE HILL OPEN SPACE 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4SOMERSET WOODS 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5SOUTH BRANCH PARK 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2 15.2SOUTH EAST RESERVOIR 10.7 10.7 10.7 10.7SOUTH MUD CREEK 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0SOUTH RIVER VALLEY 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1SOUTHCREST RAVINE 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1SOUTHWINDS PARK - NORTH 0.0 0.0 0.0STONEY CREEK VALLEY 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8STONEY CREEK VALLEY - NORTH 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9STONEY CREEK VALLEY - SOUTH 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
110
TABLE F-1 – PARKS & RECREATION – MEASURE OF EXISTING SERVICE STANDARDS Service Parkland DevelopmentContact person(s)Unit of measure hectares of parklandType of measure Quantity
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Andrew Macpherson
Parkland Classification STONEY CREEK VALLEY - SOUTH EAST 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.4 12.4STONEYCREEK MEADOWS 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9SUMMERCREST PARK 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0SUN VALLEY PARK 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4TALLTREE PARK 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0TALLWOOD VALLEY 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5TETHERWOOD PARK 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9THIRD STREET PARK 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3THOMPSON RAVINE 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1THOMPSON ROAD PARK 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8THORNWOOD PARK 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0THREE VALLEY PARK 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7TRAFALGAR WOODS 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9UPLANDS TRAIL 0.1 0.8 1.8VAUXHALL PARK 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6VISCOUNT WOODS 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5WALDORF PARK 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 6.9 6.9 6.9WATSON STREET PARK 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8WAUBANO CREEK - SOUTH / OPEN SPACE 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4WAUBANO CREEK - NORTH / OPEN SPACE 1.5 1.5 1.5 15.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5WELLINGTON VALLEY 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1WESTMOUNT PARK 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8WONDERLAND ROAD PARK 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Sub-Total (ha.) 545.6 545.6 549.7 565.5 552.4 573.3 599.3 606.2 623.0 625.7# of parks 108 108 109 110 111 116 121 126 128 128
Average size (ha.): 5.05 5.05 5.04 5.14 4.98 4.94 4.95 4.81 4.87 4.89
111
TABLE F-1 – PARKS & RECREATION – MEASURE OF EXISTING SERVICE STANDARDS Service Parkland DevelopmentContact person(s)Unit of measure hectares of parklandType of measure Quantity
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Andrew Macpherson
Parkland Classification
BASIL GROVER PARK 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2CARLING HEIGHTS OPTIMIST COMMUNITY CENTRE 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1CITY WIDE SPORTS PARK 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.2EAST LIONS PARK 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6GIBBONS PARK 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0GREENWAY PARK 40.8 40.8 40.8 40.8 40.8 40.8 40.8 40.8 40.8 40.8JORGENSON PARK 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4KIWANIS PARK - NORTH 13.4 13.4 13.4 13.4 13.4 13.4 13.4 13.4 13.4 13.4LAMBETH CENTENNIAL PARK 16.7 16.7 16.7 16.7 16.7 16.7 16.7 16.7 16.7 16.7MEADOWGATE FIELDS 9.1MEDWAY PARK 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5MITCHES PARK 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2NORTH LONDON ATHLETIC FIELDS 27.3 27.3 27.3 27.3 27.3 27.3 27.3 27.3 27.3 27.3OAKRIDGE OPTIMIST COMMUNITY PARK 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0PLANE TREE PARK 3.8 3.8 4.3 4.3POTTERSBURG PARK 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4 17.4SILVERWOODS PARK 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7SOUTHWEST OPTIMIST PARK 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7STONEYBROOK RECREATION FIELD 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9 6.9STRONACH PARK 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.6TED EARLY SPORTS COMPLEX 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5THAMES PARK 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5WEST LIONS PARK AND KINSMEN RECREATION CENTRE 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0WESTMINSTER OPTIMIST PARK 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7WHITE OAKS PARK 13.1 13.1 13.1 13.1 13.1 13.1 13.1 13.1 13.1 13.1WINDERMERE FIELDS 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 7.7
Sub-Total (ha.) 243.0 243.0 243.0 243.0 243.0 243.0 247.0 247.0 247.5 256.6# of parks 24 24 24 24 24 24 25 25 25 26
Average size (ha.): 10.13 10.13 10.13 10.13 10.13 10.13 9.88 9.88 9.90 9.87
District Park (Note 3)
112
TABLE F-1 – PARKS & RECREATION – MEASURE OF EXISTING SERVICE STANDARDS Service Parkland DevelopmentContact person(s)Unit of measure hectares of parklandType of measure Quantity
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Andrew Macpherson
Parkland Classification
CAMPBELL MEMORIAL PARK 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2CIVIC GARDEN CENTRE COMPLEX 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8COVENT MARKET PLAZA 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5GOLDEN JUBILEE SQUARE 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4HARRIS PARK 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6IVEY PARK 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8SPRINGBANK PARK 70.2 70.2 70.2 70.2 70.2 70.2 70.2 70.2 70.2 70.2R. H. COOPER SQUARE 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5RIVERSIDE PARK 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4VICTORIA PARK 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Sub-Total (ha.) 96.0 96.0 96.4 96.4 96.4 96.4 96.4 96.4 96.4 96.4# of parks 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Average size (ha.): 10.67 10.67 9.64 9.64 9.64 9.64 9.64 9.64 9.64 9.64
1,601.1 1,601.1 1,605.6 1,639.0 1,625.9 1,654.7 1,739.2 1,787.2 1,810.6 1,838.9332,174 334,352 336,530 339,703 342,876 346,049 349,222 352,395 355,629 358,863
0.004820 0.004789 0.004771 0.004825 0.004742 0.004782 0.004980 0.005072 0.005091 0.005124207.46 208.82 209.59 207.26 210.88 209.13 200.79 197.18 196.42 195.15
10 year averageQuantity Standard per Capita 0.0049
NOTES:
2) Includes Neighbourhood parks with limited development or amenities. 3)Portions of larger District and Neighbourhood Parks are reported under the "Open Space" category . This allows the assignment of different values to portions of the park, appropriate to its level of development.
1) Includes Neighbourhood parks that are developed with amenities. New parks are included in this category only from the time the development occurred.
Grand Total (ha)PopulationPer Capita Standard (ha. per person)Persons per ha. of park space
City-wide/Urban Parks
113
TABLE F-1 – PARKS & RECREATION – MEASURE OF EXISTING SERVICE STANDARDS Service Parkland DevelopmentContact person(s)Unit of measure Meters of linear ParkwayType of measure Quantity & Quality
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 $/m32,389 32,599 32,824 32,964 34,229 34,559 36,082 37,836 39,833 39,860 327$
210 225 140 1,265 330 1,523 1,754 1,997 27 200Sub-Total 32,599 32,824 32,964 34,229 34,559 36,082 37,836 39,833 39,860 40,060
332,174 334,352 336,530 339,703 342,876 346,049 349,222 352,395 355,629 358,8630.0981 0.0982 0.0980 0.1008 0.1008 0.1043 0.1083 0.1130 0.1121 0.1116
10.1897 10.1862 10.2090 9.9244 9.9215 9.5906 9.2299 8.8468 8.9220 8.9581
10 year averageQuantity Standard per Capita (m./person) 0.1045
ServiceContact person(s)Unit of measure Meters of linear ParkwayType of measure
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 200832,494 32,712 32,894 33,597 34,394 35,321 36,959 38,835 39,847 39,960
$10,625.5 $10,696.7 $10,756.3 $10,986.1 $11,246.8 $11,549.8 $12,085.6 $12,698.9 $13,029.8 $13,066.9
$327.0 $327.0 $327.0 $327.0 $327.0 $327.0 $327.0 $327.0 $327.0 $327.0
332,174 334,352 336,530 339,703 342,876 346,049 349,222 352,395 355,629 358,863$31.99 $31.99 $31.96 $32.34 $32.80 $33.38 $34.61 $36.04 $36.64 $36.41
10.22 10.22 10.23 10.11 9.97 9.80 9.45 9.07 8.92 8.98
10 year averageService Standard per Capita $33.82
NOTES:1) Valuations were determined using a representative sample of all the projects in this category. A weighted average per metre value was calculated, and this value assigned to all parks with similar level of development in this category.
Parkland DevelopmentAndrew Macpherson
Quantity & Quality
Thames Valley Parkway Length in meters - average for the year
Total value of linear parkway (in $ thousands)
Population
Persons per linear m of parkway
PopulationPer Capita Standard (m/person)Persons per linear m of parkway
Per Capita Standard
Average cost per meter ($2008)
Andrew Macpherson
Thames Valley Parkway Length in meters - beginning of year Length added during year
114
TABLE F-1 – PARKS & RECREATION – MEASURE OF EXISTING SERVICE STANDARDS
Contact person(s) Parks & RecreationUnit of measure Andrew Mcpherson Karl GrabowskiType of measure Replacement Costs based on : Deck Size of Structure & Length OR Width and Depth of tunnel
Facility name Location 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 $/sq.m.Thames Valley Pathway System (sq. m. of deck)Spingbank Bridge (note 1) 149 149 149 495 495 495 495 495 495 495 $8,000Gibbons Bridge (note 1) 420 420 420 420 420 420 420 420 420 420 $8,000Meadowlilly Bridge (note 2) 225 225 225 225 225 225 225 225 225 225 $15,111King Street Bridge (note 1) 292 292 292 292 292 292 292 292 292 292 $8,000
Bridges White Oaks Footbridge (note 1) 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 62 $8,000Medway 1 ) (note 1 & 3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 $8,000Medway 2 (note 1 & 4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 73 $8,000Stoney Creek Foot Bridge between Adelaide & Trossacks (note 1) 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 $8,000Stoney Creek Foot Bridge between Elmdale & Meridane (note 1) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 $8,000
Tunnels Platts lane at the CP Rail Pedestrian Tunnel (note 5) 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 $9,000Wharncliffe Road at the CP Rail Pedestrian Tunnel West side (note 5) 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 $9,000Wharncliffe Road at the CP Rail Pedestrian Tunnel East side (note 5) 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 $9,000Riverside Drive Pedestrian Tunnel (note 5) 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 $9,000Bradley Ave at White Oaks PS (note 5) 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 $9,000
Total 1,574 1,574 1,574 1,920 1,920 1,920 1,920 1,920 1,920 2,060
112 112 112 137 137 137 137 137 137 147332,174 334,352 336,530 339,703 342,876 346,049 349,222 352,395 355,629 358,863
0.004738 0.004708 0.004677 0.005652 0.005600 0.005548 0.005498 0.005448 0.005399 0.005739
10 year averageQuantity Standard per Capita 0.0053
Notes :1) Bridge replacement costs estimated at $8,000/sq.m..2) Costs of major river crossings more than minor channel. This estimate provided by AECOM in 2008. 3) Tender cost without engineering $430,000 (additional 10% for Construction Administration, additional 15 % for design, EA 's, etc )4) Tender cost without engineering $450,000 (additional 10% for Construction Administration, additional 15 % for design, EA 's, etc).5) Tunnel replacement costs estimated at $9,000/sq.m..
Contact person(s) Parks & RecreationUnit of measure Andrew Mcpherson Karl GrabowskiType of measure Replacement Costs based on : Deck Size of Structure & Length OR Width and Depth of tunnel
Facility Name Location 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Thames Valley Pathway System (sq. m. of deck)Spingbank Bridge (note 1) $1,192.0 $1,192.0 $1,192.0 $3,960.0 $3,960.0 $3,960.0 $3,960.0 $3,960.0 $3,960.0 $3,960.0Gibbons Bridge (note 1) $3,360.0 $3,360.0 $3,360.0 $3,360.0 $3,360.0 $3,360.0 $3,360.0 $3,360.0 $3,360.0 $3,360.0Meadowlilly Bridge (note 2) $3,400.0 $3,400.0 $3,400.0 $3,400.0 $3,400.0 $3,400.0 $3,400.0 $3,400.0 $3,400.0 $3,400.0King Street Bridge (note 1) $2,336.0 $2,336.0 $2,336.0 $2,336.0 $2,336.0 $2,336.0 $2,336.0 $2,336.0 $2,336.0 $2,336.0
Bridges White Oaks Footbridge (note 1) $496.0 $496.0 $496.0 $496.0 $496.0 $496.0 $496.0 $496.0 $496.0 $496.0Medway 1 ) (note 1 & 3) $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $534.2Medway 2 (note 1 & 4) $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $581.9Stoney Creek Foot Bridge between Adelaide & Trossacks (note 1) $352.0 $352.0 $352.0 $352.0 $352.0 $352.0 $352.0 $352.0 $352.0 $352.0Stoney Creek Foot Bridge between Elmdale & Meridane (note 1) $400.0 $400.0 $400.0 $400.0 $400.0 $400.0 $400.0 $400.0 $400.0 $400.0
Tunnels Platts lane at the CP Rail Pedestrian Tunnel (note 5) $432.0 $432.0 $432.0 $432.0 $432.0 $432.0 $432.0 $432.0 $432.0 $432.0Wharncliffe Road at the CP Rail Pedestrian Tunnel West side (note 5) $441.0 $441.0 $441.0 $441.0 $441.0 $441.0 $441.0 $441.0 $441.0 $441.0Wharncliffe Road at the CP Rail Pedestrian Tunnel East side (note 5) $333.0 $333.0 $333.0 $333.0 $333.0 $333.0 $333.0 $333.0 $333.0 $333.0Riverside Drive Pedestrian Tunnel (note 5) $576.0 $576.0 $576.0 $576.0 $576.0 $576.0 $576.0 $576.0 $576.0 $576.0Bradley Ave at White Oaks PS (note 5) $1,206.0 $1,206.0 $1,206.0 $1,206.0 $1,206.0 $1,206.0 $1,206.0 $1,206.0 $1,206.0 $1,206.0
Total $14,524.0 $14,524.0 $14,524.0 $17,292.0 $17,292.0 $17,292.0 $17,292.0 $17,292.0 $17,292.0 $18,408.1
332,174 334,352 336,530 339,703 342,876 346,049 349,222 352,395 355,629 358,863$43.72 $43.44 $43.16 $50.90 $50.43 $49.97 $49.52 $49.07 $48.62 $51.30
SERVICE: PARKS & RECREATION COMPONENT: PARKWAY - FOOTBRIDGES & TUNNELS
Average Size (sq. m)
Per Capita Level of Service (sq. m. per capita)Population
Source : Bridge sq. m. measures provided by Parkland development. No land value associated with any of the above. No value associated with "pedestrian lane" on bridges that form part of the parkway system (Ie. Oxford St W., Adelaide St. Richmond St. N.) as these investments are funded through the arterial roads and not considered appropriate for coincidental inclusion in the
PopulationPer Capita Level of Service (replacement cost /capita)
SERVICE: PARKS & RECREATION COMPONENT: PARKWAY - FOOTBRIDGES & TUNNELS
115
TABLE F-1 – PARKS & RECREATION – MEASURE OF EXISTING SERVICE STANDARDS
Contact person(s)Unit of measureType of measure
Facility name Location 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 $/sq.ft.Argyle 1948 Wavell St 49,260 49,260 49,260 49,260 49,260 49,260 49,260 49,260 49,260 49,260 $198Carling 675 Grosvenor St 41,950 41,950 $193Carling(expanded) 675 Grosvenor St 52,390 52,390 52,390 52,390 52,390 52,390 52,390 52,390 $201Farquharson 411 Tecumseh Ave 38,573 38,573 38,573 38,573 38,573 38,573 38,573 38,573 38,573 38,573 $204Glen Cairn (Note 1) 370 Chippendale Cr 29,370 29,370 29,370 29,370 29,370 29,370 29,370 29,370 29,370 29,370 $206Kinsmen 20 Granville Ave 42,561 42,561 42,561 $190Kinsmen(expanded) 20 Granville Ave 56,520 56,520 56,520 56,520 56,520 $223Lambeth 7112 Beattie St 27,426 27,426 27,426 27,426 27,426 27,426 27,426 27,426 $204Lambeth (expanded) 7112 Beattie St 38,519 38,519 $218Medway 119 Sherwood Forest Sq 27,891 27,891 27,891 27,891 27,891 27,891 27,891 27,891 27,891 27,891 $206Nichols 799 Homeview Rd 58,140 58,140 58,140 58,140 58,140 58,140 58,140 $192Nichols(expanded) 799 Homeview Rd 75,560 75,560 75,560 $234Oakridge (Note 1) 825 Valetta St 29,989 29,989 29,989 29,989 29,989 29,989 29,989 29,989 29,989 29,989 $193Silverwood 50 Sycamore St 25,032 25,032 25,032 25,032 25,032 25,032 25,032 25,032 25,032 25,032 $188Stronach (Note 1) 1221 Sanford Ave 27,103 27,103 27,103 27,103 27,103 27,103 $193Stronach (Gym) Expansion 1221 Sanford Ave 13,000 13,000 13,000 $226Stronach (Arena/pool) Expansion 1221 Sanford Ave 61,888 61,888 61,888 61,888 $221John Labatt Center (note 3) 99 Dundas St. 30,000 30,000 30,000 $200Western Fair Sportsplex (note 2) 865 Florence St 106,667 106,667 106,667 106,667 106,667 106,667 106,667 106,667 $125
Total 397,295 397,295 514,402 471,841 471,841 528,361 563,146 623,566 634,659 634,659
16 16 16 16 16 16 17 18 18 1824,831 24,831 32,150 29,490 29,490 33,023 33,126 34,643 35,259 35,259
332,174 334,352 336,530 339,703 342,876 346,049 349,222 352,395 355,629 358,8631.196045 1.188254 1.528546 1.388980 1.376126 1.526838 1.612572 1.769508 1.784608 1.768525
10 year averageQuantity Standard per Capita 1.5140
Notes:1) Facility with pool excludes the filter room associated with the pool.
Source : Building square footage measures and total value provided by City of London Facility Services. Land value associated with facility provided by City of London Realty Services.
Number of Ice pads reflected in inventory
Population
3) Land owned is excluded from "2008 $/sq.ft." values. Due to partial, but not complete use agreement, only one-third(1/3) of the facility (total sq. ft of 160,000) value incorporated into Quality & Quantity Calculations
2) Land owned and contributed by Western Fair Association & is excluded from "2008 $/sq.ft." values. Due to partial, but not complete use agreement, only two-thirds of the facility (total sq. ft of 160,000) value incorporated into Quality & Quantity Calculations
SERVICE: PARKS & RECREATION COMPONENT: ARENA FACILITIES
Square Feet of Building AreaJim Klingenberger
Average Size (sq. ft)
Per Capita Level of Service
Quantity
116
TABLE F-1 – PARKS & RECREATION – MEASURE OF EXISTING SERVICE STANDARDS
Contact person(s)Unit of measure 2008 Replacement Value ($thousands)Type of measure Quality & Quantity
Facility Name Location 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Argyle 1948 Wavell St $9,753.5 $9,753.5 $9,753.5 $9,753.5 $9,753.5 $9,753.5 $9,753.5 $9,753.5 $9,753.5 $9,753.5Carling 675 Grosvenor St $8,096.4 $8,096.4 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0Carling(expanded) 675 Grosvenor St $0.0 $0.0 $10,530.4 $10,530.4 $10,530.4 $10,530.4 $10,530.4 $10,530.4 $10,530.4 $10,530.4Farquharson 411 Tecumseh Ave $7,868.9 $7,868.9 $7,868.9 $7,868.9 $7,868.9 $7,868.9 $7,868.9 $7,868.9 $7,868.9 $7,868.9Glen Cairn (Note 1) 370 Chippendale Cr $6,050.2 $6,050.2 $6,050.2 $6,050.2 $6,050.2 $6,050.2 $6,050.2 $6,050.2 $6,050.2 $6,050.2Kinsmen 20 Granville Ave $8,086.6 $8,086.6 $8,086.6 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0Kinsmen(expanded) 20 Granville Ave $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $12,604.0 $12,604.0 $12,604.0 $12,604.0 $12,604.0Lambeth 7112 Beattie St $5,594.9 $5,594.9 $5,594.9 $5,594.9 $5,594.9 $5,594.9 $5,594.9 $5,594.9 $0.0 $0.0Lambeth (expanded) 7112 Beattie St $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $8,397.1 $8,397.1Medway 119 Sherwood Forest Sq $5,745.5 $5,745.5 $5,745.5 $5,745.5 $5,745.5 $5,745.5 $5,745.5 $5,745.5 $5,745.5 $5,745.5Nichols 799 Homeview Rd $11,162.9 $11,162.9 $11,162.9 $11,162.9 $11,162.9 $11,162.9 $11,162.9 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0Nichols(expanded) 799 Homeview Rd $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $17,681.0 $17,681.0 $17,681.0Oakridge (Note 1) 825 Valetta St $5,787.9 $5,787.9 $5,787.9 $5,787.9 $5,787.9 $5,787.9 $5,787.9 $5,787.9 $5,787.9 $5,787.9Silverwood 50 Sycamore St $4,706.0 $4,706.0 $4,706.0 $4,706.0 $4,706.0 $4,706.0 $4,706.0 $4,706.0 $4,706.0 $4,706.0Stronach (Note 1) 1221 Sanford Ave $5,230.9 $5,230.9 $5,230.9 $5,230.9 $5,230.9 $5,230.9 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0Stronach (Gym) Expansion 1221 Sanford Ave $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $2,938.0 $2,938.0 $2,938.0Stronach (Arena/pool) Expansion 1221 Sanford Ave $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $13,677.2 $13,677.2 $13,677.2 $13,677.2John Labatt Center (note 3) 99 Dundas St. $1,500.0 $1,500.0 $1,500.0Western Fair Sportsplex (note 2) 865 Florence St $13,333.3 $13,333.3 $13,333.3 $13,333.3 $13,333.3 $13,333.3 $13,333.3 $13,333.3
Total $78,083.6 $78,083.6 $93,851.0 $85,764.4 $85,764.4 $98,368.4 $106,814.7 $117,770.9 $120,573.1 $120,573.1
16 16 16 16 16 16 17 18 18 18332,174 334,352 336,530 339,703 342,876 346,049 349,222 352,395 355,629 358,863$235.07 $233.54 $278.88 $252.47 $250.13 $284.26 $305.86 $334.20 $339.04 $335.99
10 year averageService Standard per Capita $284.94
Notes:
COMPONENT: ARENA FACILITIESSERVICE: PARKS & RECREATION
Number of Ice pads reflected in inventory
Jim Klingenberger
3) The John Labatt Center provides a significant contribution to the City's ice pad needs. The annual rentals by the City at this facility suggest it provides the equivalent of approximately 30% of the ice rentals that ordinary single pad arenas in the City provide. We have conservatively assigned a replacement value of $6M to the facility (to estimate its use as a single pad facility) and incorporated a conservative estimate of 25% of that value (an approximation of the portion of hours provided by a single pad facility) in measuring the service standard provided by this facility.
2) The City is a major contributor to the financing of the Western Fair Sportsplex (4 pad) when it was constructed in 2000 ($5 million grant, $12 million loan). The City has a joint venture agreement which assures access to prime time ice at the 4 pad facility (240 hours per week). The facility provides a significant contribution to the prime time ice needs of the City. The facility has been included to the extent of 2/3 of its total estimated replacement value to recognize the major tenancy position the City enjoys and as a conservative estimate of the value this facility amongst the City inventory of arenas.
Population
1) The valuations above include the current (2008) replacement value of building, land, and site improvements.
Per Capita Level of Service
117
TABLE F-1 – PARKS & RECREATION – MEASURE OF EXISTING SERVICE STANDARDS SERVICE: PARKS & RECREATION COMPONENT: COMMUNITY & SENIOR CENTERS
Contact person(s)Unit of measureType of measure
Facility Name 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 $/sq.ftBoyle Comm Center 6,740 6,740 6,740 6,740 6,740 6,740 6,740 6,740 6,740 6,740 $233.0Byron Optimist 3,904 3,904 3,904 3,904 3,904 3,904 3,904 3,904 3,904 3,904 $248.0Hamilton Rd Senior's Annex * 2,780 2,780 2,780 2,780 2,780 2,780 2,780 2,780 2,780 2,780 $226.0Hamilton Rd Senior's Center * 5,836 5,836 5,836 5,836 5,836 5,836 5,836 5,836 5,836 5,836 $361.0Forest City Senior Comm Cnter * 8,365 8,365 8,365 8,365 $247.0Kiwanis Senior Comm Cnter * 18,283 18,283 18,283 18,283 18,283 18,283 $463.0Lambeth Comm Centre 17,600 17,600 17,600 17,600 17,600 17,600 17,600 17,600 17,600 17,600 $293.0North London Optimist Center 55,200 55,200 55,200 55,200 55,200 55,200 55,200 55,200 55,200 55,200 $212.0South London Comm Center 8,265 8,265 8,265 8,265 8,265 8,265 8,265 8,265 8,265 8,265 $641.0Carling Heights Comm Center 43,030 43,030 43,030 43,030 43,030 43,030 43,030 43,030 43,030 43,030 $228.0East Lions Artisans Comm Cntr 4,406 4,406 4,406 4,406 4,406 4,406 4,406 4,406 4,406 4,406 $245.0
* Senior's Center Total 16,981 16,981 16,981 16,981 26,899 26,899 26,899 26,899 26,899 26,899 Total - all others 139,145 139,145 139,145 139,145 139,145 139,145 139,145 139,145 139,145 139,145
Combined Total 156,126 156,126 156,126 156,126 166,044 166,044 166,044 166,044 166,044 166,044
Population 332,174 334,352 336,530 339,703 342,876 346,049 349,222 352,395 355,629 358,863* Senior's Center Standard 0.0511 0.0508 0.0505 0.0500 0.0785 0.0777 0.0770 0.0763 0.0756 0.0750 Standard - others 0.4189 0.4162 0.4135 0.4096 0.4058 0.4021 0.3984 0.3949 0.3913 0.3877
0.4700 0.4670 0.4639 0.4596 0.4843 0.4798 0.4755 0.4712 0.4669 0.4627
10 year average Combined 0.4701Quantity Standard per Capita Senior Centres* 0.0663
Others 0.4038
NOTES:
Square Feet of Building SpaceQuantity
Jim Klingenberger
Source : Building square footage measures and total value provided by City of London Facility Services. Land value associated with facility provided by City of London Realty Services.
1) Above list does not include separately the community and programming space provided at various facilities (including the Canada Games Aquatic Center, Civic Garden Center and space at various arenas - Carling, Kinsmen, Medway, Nichols, Oakridge). These spaces are accounted for as part of the space in the facility in question.
Per Capita Level of Service
118
TABLE F-1 – PARKS & RECREATION – MEASURE OF EXISTING SERVICE STANDARDS
SERVICE: PARKS & RECREATION COMPONENT: COMMUNITY & SENIOR CENTERS
Contact person(s)Unit of measureType of measure
Facility Name 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Boyle Comm Center $1,570.4 $1,570.4 $1,570.4 $1,570.4 $1,570.4 $1,570.4 $1,570.4 $1,570.4 $1,570.4 $1,570.4Byron Optimist $968.2 $968.2 $968.2 $968.2 $968.2 $968.2 $968.2 $968.2 $968.2 $968.2Hamilton Rd Senior's Annex * $628.3 $628.3 $628.3 $628.3 $628.3 $628.3 $628.3 $628.3 $628.3 $628.3Hamilton Rd Senior's Center * $2,106.8 $2,106.8 $2,106.8 $2,106.8 $2,106.8 $2,106.8 $2,106.8 $2,106.8 $2,106.8 $2,106.8Forest City Senior Comm Cnter * $2,066.2 $2,066.2 $2,066.2 $2,066.2 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0Kiwanis Senior Comm Cnter * $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $8,465.0 $8,465.0 $8,465.0 $8,465.0 $8,465.0 $8,465.0Lambeth Comm Centre $5,156.8 $5,156.8 $5,156.8 $5,156.8 $5,156.8 $5,156.8 $5,156.8 $5,156.8 $5,156.8 $5,156.8North London Optimist Center $11,702.4 $11,702.4 $11,702.4 $11,702.4 $11,702.4 $11,702.4 $11,702.4 $11,702.4 $11,702.4 $11,702.4South London Comm Center $5,297.9 $5,297.9 $5,297.9 $5,297.9 $5,297.9 $5,297.9 $5,297.9 $5,297.9 $5,297.9 $5,297.9Carling Heights Comm Center $9,810.8 $9,810.8 $9,810.8 $9,810.8 $9,810.8 $9,810.8 $9,810.8 $9,810.8 $9,810.8 $9,810.8East Lions Artisans Comm Cntr $1,079.5 $1,079.5 $1,079.5 $1,079.5 $1,079.5 $1,079.5 $1,079.5 $1,079.5 $1,079.5 $1,079.5
* Senior's Center Total $4,801.2 $4,801.2 $4,801.2 $4,801.2 $11,200.1 $11,200.1 $11,200.1 $11,200.1 $11,200.1 $11,200.1 Total - all others $35,586.0 $35,586.0 $35,586.0 $35,586.0 $35,586.0 $35,586.0 $35,586.0 $35,586.0 $35,586.0 $35,586.0
Combined Total $40,387.2 $40,387.2 $40,387.2 $40,387.2 $46,786.1 $46,786.1 $46,786.1 $46,786.1 $46,786.1 $46,786.1
Average Value /sq. ft $258.68 $258.68 $258.68 $258.68 $281.77 $281.77 $281.77 $281.77 $281.77 $281.77Population 332,174 334,352 336,530 339,703 342,876 346,049 349,222 352,395 355,629 358,863
$121.58 $120.79 $120.01 $118.89 $136.45 $135.20 $133.97 $132.77 $131.56 $130.37
10 year average 10 yr Average historical value/sq ft $272.53Service Standard per Capita $128.16
NOTES:1) The valuations above include the current (2008) replacement value of building, land, and site improvements. 2) Name Change from Forest City Senior Centre to Kiwanis Senior Center underwent a major upgrade in the year 2002. The value reflects the pre-upgraded replacement value (per insurance records).
Quality & Quantity
Per Capita Level of Service
Jim Klingenberger2008 Replacement Value ($thousands)
119
TABLE F-1 – PARKS & RECREATION – MEASURE OF EXISTING SERVICE STANDARDS
Contact person(s)Unit of measureType of measure
Facility Name Location 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008$/sq.ft.Byron Bathhouse & Pool 1308 Norman Ave 1,540 1,540 1,540 1,540 1,540 1,540 1,540 1,540 1,540 1,540 $967Canada Games Aquatic Center 1045 Wonderland N 31,248 31,248 51,248 51,248 51,248 51,248 51,248 51,248 51,248 51,248 $274Carling Heights 656 Elizabeth St 11,690 11,690 11,690 11,690 11,690 11,690 11,690 11,690 11,690 11,690 $276East Lions Artisans Pool 1731 Churchill Ave 2,276 2,276 2,276 2,276 2,276 2,276 2,276 2,276 2,276 2,276 $1,125Gibbons Park bathhouse/pool Victoria St 3,304 3,304 3,304 3,304 3,304 3,304 3,304 3,304 3,304 3,304 $456Glen Cairn Pool 370 Chippendale Cres 510 510 510 510 510 510 510 510 510 510 Note 1Northeast Park Community Pool 1050 Victoria Drive 2,304 2,304 2,304 2,304 2,304 2,304 2,304 2,304 2,304 2,304 $801Northridge Bathhouse & pool 15 Mclean Drive 1,540 1,540 1,540 1,540 1,540 1,540 1,540 1,540 1,540 1,540 $1,082Oakridge Pool 825 Valetta Street 340 340 340 340 340 340 340 340 340 340 Note 1Silverwood Bathhouse and Pool 56 Sycamore Street 3,720 3,720 3,720 3,720 3,720 3,720 3,720 3,720 3,720 3,720 $505South London Community Pool 565 Bradley Ave 18,116 18,116 18,116 18,116 18,116 18,116 18,116 18,116 18,116 18,116 $191Southcrest Bathhouse & Pool 10 Hazelwood Ave 4,636 4,636 4,636 4,636 4,636 4,636 4,636 4,636 4,636 4,636 $448Stronach Pool 1221 Sandford Street 1,113 1,113 1,113 1,113 1,113 1,113 1,650 1,650 1,650 1,650 Note 1Thames Park Bathhouse And pool 15 Ridout Street South 5,264 5,264 5,264 5,264 5,264 5,264 5,264 5,264 5,264 5,264 $534Westminster Park Bathhouse and Pool 650 Osgoode Drive 1,914 1,914 1,914 1,914 1,914 1,914 1,914 1,914 1,914 1,914 $797
Total 89,515 89,515 109,515 109,515 109,515 109,515 110,052 110,052 110,052 110,052
Population 332,174 334,352 336,530 339,703 342,876 346,049 349,222 352,395 355,629 358,863Level of Service (per 1,000 persons) 269.48 267.73 325.42 322.38 319.40 316.47 315.13 312.30 309.46 306.67
10 year averageQuantity Standard per 1,000 persons 306.44
Notes:
SERVICE: PARKS & RECREATION
1) Includes the filter & Pump room only. Change room space is included in space for adjoining arena, and therefore not duplicated here. The resulting value/sq.ft. is not comparable and is therefore not provided.
COMPONENT: AQUATIC FACILITIES
Jim KlingenbergerSquare Feet of Indoor Building AreaQuantity
120
TABLE F-1 – PARKS & RECREATION – MEASURE OF EXISTING SERVICE STANDARDS
Contact person(s)Unit of measureType of measure
Facility Name Location 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Byron Bathhouse & Pool 1308 Norman Ave $1,489.2 $1,489.2 $1,489.2 $1,489.2 $1,489.2 $1,489.2 $1,489.2 $1,489.2 $1,489.2 $1,489.2Canada Games Aquatic Center 1045 Wonderland N $8,562.0 $8,562.0 $14,042.0 $14,042.0 $14,042.0 $14,042.0 $14,042.0 $14,042.0 $14,042.0 $14,042.0Carling Heights (pool only) 656 Elizabeth St $3,226.4 $3,226.4 $3,226.4 $3,226.4 $3,226.4 $3,226.4 $3,226.4 $3,226.4 $3,226.4 $3,226.4East Lions Artisans Pool 1741 Churchill Ave $2,560.5 $2,560.5 $2,560.5 $2,560.5 $2,560.5 $2,560.5 $2,560.5 $2,560.5 $2,560.5 $2,560.5Gibbons Park bathhouse/pool Victoria St $1,506.6 $1,506.6 $1,506.6 $1,506.6 $1,506.6 $1,506.6 $1,506.6 $1,506.6 $1,506.6 $1,506.6Glen Cairn Pool 370 Chippendale Cres $1,266.5 $1,266.5 $1,266.5 $1,266.5 $1,266.5 $1,266.5 $1,266.5 $1,266.5 $1,266.5 $1,266.5Northeast Park Community Pool 1050 Victoria Drive $1,845.5 $1,845.5 $1,845.5 $1,845.5 $1,845.5 $1,845.5 $1,845.5 $1,845.5 $1,845.5 $1,845.5Northridge Bathhouse & pool 15 Mclean Drive $1,666.3 $1,666.3 $1,666.3 $1,666.3 $1,666.3 $1,666.3 $1,666.3 $1,666.3 $1,666.3 $1,666.3Oakridge Pool 825 Valetta Street $1,381.2 $1,381.2 $1,381.2 $1,381.2 $1,381.2 $1,381.2 $1,381.2 $1,381.2 $1,381.2 $1,381.2Silverwood Bathhouse and Pool 56 Sycamore Street $1,878.6 $1,878.6 $1,878.6 $1,878.6 $1,878.6 $1,878.6 $1,878.6 $1,878.6 $1,878.6 $1,878.6South London Community Pool 565 Bradley Ave $3,460.2 $3,460.2 $3,460.2 $3,460.2 $3,460.2 $3,460.2 $3,460.2 $3,460.2 $3,460.2 $3,460.2Southcrest Bathhouse & Pool 10 Hazelwood Ave $2,076.9 $2,076.9 $2,076.9 $2,076.9 $2,076.9 $2,076.9 $2,076.9 $2,076.9 $2,076.9 $2,076.9Stronach Pool 1221 Sandford Street $2,327.2 $2,327.2 $2,327.2 $2,327.2 $2,327.2 $2,327.2 $2,327.2 $3,450.0 $3,450.0 $3,450.0Thames Park Bathhouse And pool 15 Ridout Street South $2,811.0 $2,811.0 $2,811.0 $2,811.0 $2,811.0 $2,811.0 $2,811.0 $2,811.0 $2,811.0 $2,811.0Westminster Park Bathhouse and Pool 650 Osgoode Drive $1,525.5 $1,525.5 $1,525.5 $1,525.5 $1,525.5 $1,525.5 $1,525.5 $1,525.5 $1,525.5 $1,525.5
Total $37,583.5 $37,583.5 $43,063.5 $43,063.5 $43,063.5 $43,063.5 $43,063.5 $44,186.3 $44,186.3 $44,186.3
Population 332,174 334,352 336,530 339,703 342,876 346,049 349,222 352,395 355,629 358,863Per Capita Level of Service $113.14 $112.41 $127.96 $126.77 $125.59 $124.44 $123.31 $125.39 $124.25 $123.13
10 year averageService Standard per Capita $122.64
NOTES:
2) Full replacement of concrete deck, pool tank, and all associated mechanical equipment/piping is included in overall cost.
2008 Replacement Value ($thousands)Quality & Quantity
1) The valuations above include the current (2008) replacement value of building, pool, land, and site improvements.
Source : Total value provided by City of London Facility Services. Land value associated with facility provided by City of London Realty Services.
Jim Klingenberger
SERVICE: PARKS & RECREATION COMPONENT: AQUATIC FACILITIES
121
TABLE F-1 – PARKS & RECREATION – MEASURE OF EXISTING SERVICE STANDARDS
Contact person(s)Unit of measureType of measure
Facility Name Location 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 $/FacilityByron Wading Pool Charlotte Street 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $300,000Bonaventure Park Spray Pad 141 Bonaventure Drive 1 1 1 1 1 $350,000Doidge Park Wading Pool Wellington/Cheapside 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $300,000East Lions Wading Pool 1731 Churchill Ave 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $300,000Fairmont Wading Pool 15 Gibbons 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $300,000Gibbons Park Wading Pool Victoria St 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $300,000Gibbons Park Spray Pad Victoria St 1 1 $350,000Kinsmen Rec Center Wading Pool 20 Granville Av 1 1 1 $300,000West Lions Spray Pad 20 Granville Av 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $350,000Jesse Davidson Park Spray Pad Monte Vista/Ensign Cr 1 1 1 1 1 $350,000Kiwanis Wading Pool 311 Kiwanis Pk Dr 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $300,000Kiwanis Park Spray Pad 311 Kiwanis Pk Dr 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $350,000McMahen Wading Pool Adelaide Steet 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $300,000Meredith Wading Pool Nelson/Maitland 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $300,000Murray Wading Pool Cliftonvale Ave 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $300,000Oakridge Wading Pool 825 Valetta Street 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $300,000Rowntree Park Wading Pool Whetter Ave/Trevithen St. 1 $300,000Rowntree Park Spray Pad Whetter Ave/Trevithen St. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $350,000Silverwood Wading Pool 56 Sycamore Street 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $300,000Smith Park Wading Pool Brampton Rd 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $300,000Springbank Wading Pool Springbank Park 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $300,000Stronach Park Wading Pool Sandford St 1 1 1 1 $300,000Thames Park Wading Pool 15 Ridout St South 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $300,000University Heights Wading Pool Trott Drive 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $300,000White Oaks Wading Pool 1119 Jalna Blvd 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $300,000Lambeth Centennial Park Spray Pad Beattie Steet 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $350,000SE Optimist Spray Pad 237 Deveron Crescent 1 $410,000Forks of the Thames Spray Pad King St. & Thames St. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $500,000
Total 20 20 20 22 21 23 23 23 23 24
Population 332,174 334,352 336,530 339,703 342,876 346,049 349,222 352,395 355,629 358,863Level of Service (per 1,000 persons) 0.06021 0.05982 0.05943 0.06476 0.06125 0.06646 0.06586 0.06527 0.06467 0.06688
10 year averageQuantity Standard per 1,000 persons 0.06346
NOTES:
2) Spray Pads and Wading Pools are located in community parks acquired through Parkland Dedications3) No land value computed with these facilities. Most facilities are located in Neighbourhood Parks or are located on very minor land associated with each facility.
Number of FacilitiesQuantity
Jim Klingenberger
SERVICE: PARKS & RECREATION COMPONENT: WADING POOLS & SPRAY PADS
- Northeast Park Community Pool, - Northridge Bathhouse & pool, - Southcrest Bathhouse & Pool - Stronach Pool (from 2003 forward) - Westminster Park Bathhouse and Pool
1) The following pools incorporate a wading pool the value of which has been included in the value of the pool:
122
TABLE F-1 – PARKS & RECREATION – MEASURE OF EXISTING SERVICE STANDARDS
Contact person(s)Unit of measureType of measure
Facility Name Location 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Byron Wading Pool Charlotte Street $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0Bonaventure Park Spray Pad 141 Bonaventure Drive $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $350.0 $350.0 $350.0 $350.0 $350.0Doidge Park Wading Pool Wellington/Cheapside $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0East Lions Wading Pool 1731 Churchill Ave $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0Fairmont Wading Pool 15 Gibbons $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0Gibbons Park Wading Pool Victoria St $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $0.0 $0.0Gibbons Park Spray Pad Victoria St $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $350.0 $350.0Kinsmen Rec Center - West Lions Pk 20 Granville Av $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0West Lions Spray Pad 20 Granville Av $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $350.0 $350.0 $350.0 $350.0 $350.0 $350.0 $350.0Jesse Davidson Park Spray Pad Monte Vista/Ensign Cr $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $350.0 $350.0 $350.0 $350.0 $350.0Kiwanis Wading Pool 311 Kiwanis Pk Dr $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0Kiwanis Spray Pad 311 Kiwanis Pk Dr $0.0 $350.0 $350.0 $350.0 $350.0 $350.0 $350.0 $350.0 $350.0 $350.0McMahen Wading Pool Adelaide Steet $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0Meredith Wading Pool Nelson/Maitland $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0Murray Wading Pool Cliftonvale Ave $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0Oakridge Wading Pool 825 Valetta Street $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0Rowntree Park Wading Pool Whetter Ave/Trevithen St. $300.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0Rowntree Park Spray Pad Whetter Ave/Trevithen St. $350.0 $350.0 $350.0 $350.0 $350.0 $350.0 $350.0 $350.0 $350.0 $350.0Silverwood Wading Pool 56 Sycamore Street $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0Smith Park Wading Pool Brampton Rd $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0Springbank Wading Pool Springbank Park $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0Stronach Park Wading Pool Sandford St $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0Thames Park Wading Pool 15 Ridout St South $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0University Heights Wading Pool Trott Drive $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0White Oaks Wading Pool 1119 Jalna Blvd $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0 $300.0Lambeth Centennial Park Spray Pad Beattie Steet $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $350.0 $350.0 $350.0 $350.0 $350.0 $350.0 $350.0SE Optimist Spray Pad 237 Deveron Crescent $410.0Forks of the Thames Spray Pad King St. & Thames St. $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $500.0 $500.0 $500.0 $500.0 $500.0 $500.0 $500.0
Total $6,050.0 $6,100.0 $6,100.0 $7,000.0 $6,700.0 $7,400.0 $7,400.0 $7,400.0 $7,450.0 $7,860.0
Population 332,174 334,352 336,530 339,703 342,876 346,049 349,222 352,395 355,629 358,863Per Capita Level of Service $18.21 $18.24 $18.13 $20.61 $19.54 $21.38 $21.19 $21.00 $20.95 $21.90
10 year averageQuantity Standard per Capita $20.12
2008 Replacement Value ($thousands)Quality & Quantity
Jim Klingenberger
SERVICE: PARKS & RECREATION COMPONENT: WADING POOLS & SPRAY PADS
123
TABLE F-1 – PARKS & RECREATION – MEASURE OF EXISTING SERVICE STANDARDS
Contact person(s)Unit of measureType of measure
Facility Name Location 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 $/sq.ft.Civic Garden Centre 625 Springbank Dr 6,276 6,276 6,276 6,276 6,276 6,276 6,276 6,276 6,276 6,276 $608Civic Garden Greenhouse 645 Springbank Dr 13,036 13,036 13,036 13,036 13,036 13,036 13,036 13,036 13,036 13,036 $150EW Curtis Gardens 605 Springbank Dr 6,240 6,240 6,240 6,240 6,240 6,240 6,240 6,240 6,240 6,240 $144Labatts Park Grandstand 25 Wilson Ave 5,740 5,740 5,740 5,740 5,740 5,740 5,740 5,740 5,740 17,736 $197Labatts Park Bleachers 25 Wilson Ave 1,425 1,425 1,425 1,425 1,425 1,425 1,425 1,425 1,425 2,850 $52McManus Canoeing/Rowing Bldg 199 Wonderland Rd 6,127 6,127 6,127 6,127 6,127 6,127 6,127 6,127 6,127 6,127 $120Springbank Gardens 295 Wonderland Rd 5,931 $154
Total 38,844 38,844 38,844 38,844 38,844 38,844 38,844 38,844 38,844 58,196
Population 332,174 334,352 336,530 339,703 342,876 346,049 349,222 352,395 355,629 358,863116.94 116.18 115.43 114.35 113.29 112.25 111.23 110.23 109.23 162.17
10 year averageQuantity Standard per 1,000 persons 118.13
Jim Klingenberger
SERVICE: PARKS & RECREATION COMPONENT: SPECIALTY FACILITIES
Level of Service (per 1,000 persons)
Square Feet of Specialty BuildingsQuantity
124
TABLE F-1 – PARKS & RECREATION – MEASURE OF EXISTING SERVICE STANDARDS
Contact person(s)Unit of measureType of measure
Facility Name Location 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Civic Garden Centre 625 Springbank Dr $3,815.8 $3,815.8 $3,815.8 $3,815.8 $3,815.8 $3,815.8 $3,815.8 $3,815.8 $3,815.8 $3,815.8Civic Garden Greenhouse 645 Springbank Dr $1,955.4 $1,955.4 $1,955.4 $1,955.4 $1,955.4 $1,955.4 $1,955.4 $1,955.4 $1,955.4 $1,955.4EW Curtis Gardens 605 Springbank Dr $898.5 $898.5 $898.5 $898.5 $898.5 $898.5 $898.5 $898.5 $898.5 $898.5Labatts Park Grandstand 25 Wilson Ave $1,130.8 $1,130.8 $1,130.8 $1,130.8 $1,130.8 $1,130.8 $1,130.8 $1,130.8 $1,130.8 $3,494.0Labatts Park Bleachers 25 Wilson Ave $74.1 $74.1 $74.1 $74.1 $74.1 $74.1 $74.1 $74.1 $74.1 $148.2McManus Canoeing/Rowing Bldg 199 Wonderland Rd $735.2 $735.2 $735.2 $735.2 $735.2 $735.2 $735.2 $735.2 $735.2 $735.2Springbank Gardens 295 Wonderland Rd $913.4
Total $8,609.8 $8,609.8 $8,609.8 $8,609.8 $8,609.8 $8,609.8 $8,609.8 $8,609.8 $8,609.8 $11,960.5
Population 332,174 334,352 336,530 339,703 342,876 346,049 349,222 352,395 355,629 358,863$25.92 $25.75 $25.58 $25.35 $25.11 $24.88 $24.65 $24.43 $24.21 $33.33
10 year averageQuantity Standard per Capita $25.92
NOTES1)The valuations above include the current (2008) replacement value of building, but exclude land and site improvements.
Jim Klingenberger2008 Replacement Value ($thousands)
Source : Total value provided by City of London Facility Services. Land value associated with facility provided by City of London Realty Services.
Quality & Quantity
Per Capita Level of Service
SERVICE: PARKS & RECREATION COMPONENT: SPECIALTY FACILITIES
125
TABLE F-1 – PARKS & RECREATION – MEASURE OF EXISTING SERVICE STANDARDS
Contact person(s)Unit of measure 2008 Replacement Value ($thousands)Type of measure Quality & Quantity
Facility Name Location 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Campbell Mem Pk Storage bldg Dundas St e/Waterloo $100.0 $100.0 $100.0 $100.0 $100.0Doidge Park field house Grosvenor/Cheapside $89.0 $89.0 $89.0 $89.0 $89.0 $89.0 $89.0 $89.0 $89.0 $89.0Gibbons Park picnic shelter 15 Gibbons $40.0 $40.0 $40.0 $40.0 $40.0 $40.0 $40.0 $40.0 $40.0 $40.0Gibbons Park washroom 15 Gibbons $40.0 $40.0 $40.0 $40.0 $40.0 $40.0 $40.0 $40.0 $40.0 $40.0Glanworth field house Bradish Rd $202.0 $202.0 $202.0 $202.0 $202.0 $202.0 $202.0 $202.0 $202.0 $202.0Greenway Park washroom S/W Riverside & Wonderland $28.9 $28.9 $28.9 $28.9 $28.9 $28.9 $28.9 $28.9 $28.9 $28.9Basil Grover Park washroom Wharncliffe/Commissioners $40.0 $40.0 $40.0 $40.0 $40.0 $40.0 $40.0 $40.0 $40.0 $40.0Jesse Davidson Park Field house Monte Vista/Ensign Cr $90.0 $90.0 $100.0 $100.0Kiwanis Park field house #1 Trafalgar St/Pottersburg Creek $150.0 $150.0 $150.0 $150.0 $150.0 $150.0 $150.0 $150.0 $150.0 $150.0Kiwanis Park new field house Trafalgar St/Pottersburg Creek $150.0 $150.0 $150.0 $150.0 $150.0 $150.0 $150.0 $150.0 $150.0 $150.0Lambeth concession booth #1 7112 Beattie St $100.0 $100.0 $100.0 $100.0 $100.0Lambeth lawn bowling clubhouse 4326 Col Talbot Rd $64.0 $64.0 $64.0 $64.0 $64.0 $64.0 $64.0 $64.0 $64.0 $64.0Lambeth Optimist WR & concession Campbell St $61.6 $61.6 $61.6 $61.6 $61.6 $61.6 $61.6 $61.6 $61.6 $61.6Lambeth Optimist Park washroom Campbell St $100.0 $100.0 $100.0 $100.0 $100.0 $100.0 $100.0 $100.0 $100.0 $100.0Lambeth Park washroom #3 7112 Beattie St $40.0 $40.0 $40.0 $40.0 $40.0 $40.0 $40.0 $40.0 $40.0 $40.0McKillop Pk shelter/washroom Riverside/Wonderland $78.0 $78.0 $78.0 $78.0 $78.0 $78.0 $78.0 $78.0 $78.0 $78.0McMahon Park bathhouse Adelaide St N $597.0 $597.0 $597.0 $597.0 $597.0 $597.0 $597.0 $597.0 $597.0 $597.0Meredith Park field house Nelson/Maitland $88.0 $88.0 $88.0 $88.0 $88.0 $88.0 $88.0 $88.0 $88.0 $88.0Murray playground field house Tecumseh/Wharncliffe $45.0 $45.0 $45.0 $45.0 $45.0 $45.0 $45.0 $45.0 $45.0 $45.0Oakridge Acres field house Tarbutt/Valetta $40.0 $40.0 $40.0 $40.0 $40.0 $40.0 $40.0 $40.0 $40.0 $40.0Reservoir Park washroom Commissioners/Crestwood $30.0 $30.0 $30.0 $30.0 $30.0 $30.0 $30.0 $30.0 $30.0 $30.0Ralph Hamlyn Park storehouse Sunray Dr Lambeth $100.0 $100.0 $100.0 $100.0 $100.0Ralph Hamlyn Park washroom #1 east end Dennis Ave $126.0 $126.0 $126.0 $126.0 $126.0 $126.0 $126.0 $126.0 $126.0 $126.0Rowntree playground field house Whetter/Fairview $91.8 $91.8 $91.8 $91.8 $91.8 $91.8 $91.8 $91.8 $91.8 $91.8Smith playground service bldg Brampton/Cheapside $91.8 $91.8 $91.8 $91.8 $91.8 $91.8 $91.8 $91.8 $91.8 $91.8Southeast Opt. field house Deveron Cres $72.5 $72.5 $72.5 $72.5 $72.5 $72.5 $72.5 $72.5 $72.5 $72.5Southwest Opt. field house Deveron Cres $173.4 $173.4 $173.4 $173.4 $173.4 $173.4 $173.4 $173.4 $173.4 $173.4Springbank Park - boat dock/etc Commissioners/Springbank $100.0 $100.0 $100.0 $100.0 $100.0Springbank Park Concession # 1 Commissioners/Springbank $164.0 $164.0 $164.0 $164.0 $164.0 $164.0 $164.0 $164.0 $164.0 $164.0Springbank Park Old Pump House Commissioners/Springbank $1,614.0 $1,614.0 $1,614.0 $1,614.0 $1,614.0 $1,614.0 $1,614.0 $1,614.0 $1,614.0 $1,614.0St. Julien Park Field House 81 Sanders St $55.6 $55.6 $55.6 $55.6 $55.6 $55.6 $55.6 $55.6 $55.6 $55.6Stoneybrook Washrooms 747 Windermere Rd $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $154.0 $154.0Stronach ball service building Huron/Highbury/Sanford $142.0 $142.0 $142.0 $142.0 $142.0 $142.0 $142.0 $142.0 $142.0 $142.0Thames Park field house 55 Ridout St S $115.0 $115.0 $115.0 $115.0 $115.0 $115.0 $115.0 $115.0 $115.0 $115.0Univ. Heights field house Trott Dr/Coombs $91.8 $91.8 $91.8 $91.8 $91.8 $91.8 $91.8 $91.8 $91.8 $91.8Vauxhaul Park field house 59 Price St/Homan $137.6 $137.6 $137.6 $137.6 $137.6 $137.6 $137.6 $137.6 $137.6 $137.6Victoria Park Bandshell 580 Clarence St $2,126.9 $2,126.9 $2,126.9 $2,126.9 $2,126.9 $2,126.9 $2,126.9 $2,126.9 $2,126.9 $2,126.9Victoria Park Outdoor rink 580 Clarence St $1,000.0 $1,000.0 $1,000.0 $1,000.0 $1,000.0 $1,000.0 $1,000.0 $1,000.0 $1,000.0 $1,000.0Springbank Park Washrooms Commissioners/Springbank $620.0 $620.0 $620.0 $620.0 $620.0Covent Gardens Outdoor rink $1,000.0 $1,000.0 $1,000.0 $1,000.0 $1,000.0 $1,000.0 $1,000.0 $1,000.0 $1,000.0
$8,285.9 $9,285.9 $9,285.9 $9,285.9 $9,285.9 $9,505.9 $9,595.9 $9,595.9 $9,759.9 $9,759.9334,352 336,530 339,703 342,876 346,049 349,222 352,395 355,629 358,863 358,863
$24.78 $27.59 $27.34 $27.08 $26.83 $27.22 $27.23 $26.98 $27.20 $27.20
10 year averageService Standard per Capita $26.95
Notes:
2) No land value computed with these facilities. Most facilities are located in Neighbourhood Parks or are located on very minor land associated with each facility.
1) The valuations above include the current (2008) replacement value of building only. Other site improvements are included in the value of the parkland . Values were determined through an individual approximation of the replacement value of each facility.
SERVICE: PARKS & RECREATION
Jim Klingenberger
COMPONENT: FIELDHOUSES, WASHROOMS & CONCESSIONS
TotalPopulationPer Capita Level of Service
126
TABLE F-2– GROWTH NEEDS AND RATE CALCULATIONS – RECREATION FACILITIES
Service component : Parks & Recreation - FacilityPlanning horizon for this component : 2009-2018
Subt
otal
Net
Am
ount
Elig
ible
for D
C
rate
cal
cula
tion
Less
: Am
ount
inel
igib
le fo
r ra
te c
alcu
latio
n -
impr
ovem
ent o
ver e
xist
ing
stan
dard
(see
Sup
plem
ent A
if
appl
icab
le)
Less
: 10%
sta
tuto
ry
dedu
ctio
n (if
app
licab
le)
Expe
cted
Yea
r
Subt
otal
Project # Project Description
Allocation of Net Amount to types of GrowthAmount Eligible for Development Charge Rate Calculations
NO
N -
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Non
-gro
wth
sh
are
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Less
: Fu
ture
gro
wth
ben
efits
(por
tion
of g
row
th c
osts
at
tribu
tabl
e to
gro
wth
ex
pect
ed to
occ
ur b
eyon
d pl
anni
ng h
oriz
on fo
r thi
s se
rvic
e)
Subt
otal
Tota
l Est
imat
ed C
ost
Less
: fut
ure
capi
tal g
rant
s,
subs
idie
s or
oth
er
cont
ribut
ions
ant
icip
ated
Less
: Por
tion
of G
ross
Pr
ojec
t Cos
t Fun
ded
In P
rior
Year
s
% benefit % $ % $ % $ % $(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21)
(all $'s in ,000's) (1) - sum(2,3) (4) * (5) (4) - (6) (7) * (8) [(7) - (9)] * 10% (7) - sum(9,10) (11) - (12) (13) * (14) (13) * (16) (13) * (18) (13) * (20)Anticipated and Planned Projects
Note 3 Note 4 Note 6 Note 6 Note 6 Note 6
Multi-Purpose Recreation Centres
RC2762 RC2762 Multi Purpose Rec. Centre #1 (North) 2010Indoor Swimming Pool 2010 $8,357.0 $3,665.7 $4,691.3 29% $1,360.5 $3,330.8 40% $1,332.3 $199.9 $1,798.7 $.0 $1,798.7 100.0% $1,798.7 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0Gymnasium/ Fitness Area 2010 $7,235.0 $3,173.5 $4,061.5 29% $1,177.8 $2,883.7 40% $1,153.5 $173.0 $1,557.2 $.0 $1,557.2 100.0% $1,557.2 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0Community Centre 2010 $2,104.7 $923.2 $1,181.5 29% $342.6 $838.9 40% $335.5 $50.3 $453.0 $.0 $453.0 100.0% $453.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0Change Rooms 2010 $2,556.2 $1,121.2 $1,434.9 29% $416.1 $1,018.8 40% $407.5 $61.1 $550.2 $.0 $550.2 100.0% $550.2 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0Fit out/ Permits/ Arch fees 2010 $3,089.0 $1,354.9 $1,734.1 29% $502.9 $1,231.2 40% $492.5 $73.9 $664.8 $.0 $664.8 100.0% $664.8 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0Land / Infrastructure / Site Works 2010 $4,790.9 $2,101.5 $2,689.5 29% $779.9 $1,909.5 40% $763.8 $114.6 $1,031.1 $.0 $1,031.1 100.0% $1,031.1 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0Library (Note 1 ) 2010 $.0 $.0 $.0 29% $.0 $.0 40% $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 100.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0
Subtotal $28,132.8 $.0 $12,340.0 $15,792.8 29.0% $4,579.9 $11,212.9 40.0% $4,485.1 $672.8 $6,054.9 $.0 $6,054.9 100.0% $6,054.9 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0RC2755 RC2755 Multi Purpose Rec. Centre #2 (SW) 2015
Double Ice Pad Arena 2015 $8,436.0 $402.3 $8,033.7 0% $.0 $8,033.7 100% $8,033.7 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 100.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0Community Centre/ Gymnasium 2015 $15,125.0 $721.3 $14,403.7 40% $5,820.5 $8,583.1 40% $3,390.9 $519.2 $4,673.0 $.0 $4,673.0 100.0% $4,673.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0Indoor Swimming Pool 2015 $8,750.0 $417.3 $8,332.7 37% $3,067.0 $5,265.7 44% $2,329.0 $293.7 $2,643.0 $.0 $2,643.0 100.0% $2,643.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0Change Rooms 2015 $1,050.0 $50.1 $999.9 39% $390.9 $609.1 57% $344.6 $26.4 $238.0 $.0 $238.0 100.0% $238.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0Furniture / Fittings / Equipment 2015 $1,500.0 $71.5 $1,428.5 39% $558.4 $870.1 57% $492.3 $37.8 $340.0 $.0 $340.0 100.0% $340.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0Land / Infrastructure / Site Works / Arch. Fees 2015 $4,245.5 $202.5 $4,043.0 39% $1,580.4 $2,462.6 57% $1,393.3 $106.9 $962.3 $.0 $962.3 100.0% $962.3 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0
Subtotal $39,106.5 $.0 $1,865.0 $37,241.5 30.7% $11,417.2 $25,824.3 61.9% $15,983.8 $984.0 $8,856.4 $.0 $8,856.4 100.0% $8,856.4 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0RC2758 RC2758 Multi Purpose Rec. Centre #3 (SE) 2018
Double Ice Pad Arena 2018 $8,436.0 $429.9 $8,006.1 0% $.0 $8,006.1 100% $8,006.1 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 100.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0Community Centre/ Gymnasium 2018 $15,125.0 $770.9 $14,354.1 17% $2,430.0 $11,924.2 68% $8,112.1 $381.2 $3,430.8 $.0 $3,430.8 100.0% $3,430.8 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0Indoor Swimming Pool 2018 $8,750.0 $446.0 $8,304.0 17% $1,405.8 $6,898.3 68% $4,693.0 $220.5 $1,984.8 $.0 $1,984.8 100.0% $1,984.8 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0Change Rooms 2018 $1,050.0 $53.5 $996.5 17% $168.7 $827.8 76% $632.2 $19.6 $176.0 $.0 $176.0 100.0% $176.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0Furniture / Fittings / Equipment 2018 $1,500.0 $76.4 $1,423.6 17% $241.0 $1,182.6 76% $903.2 $27.9 $251.4 $.0 $251.4 100.0% $251.4 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0Land / Infrastructure / Site Works / Arch. Fees 2018 $4,380.8 $223.3 $4,157.6 17% $703.8 $3,453.7 76% $2,637.9 $81.6 $734.3 $.0 $734.3 100.0% $734.3 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0
Subtotal $39,241.8 $.0 $2,000.0 $37,241.8 13.3% $4,949.3 $32,292.6 77.4% $24,984.5 $730.8 $6,577.3 $.0 $6,577.3 100.0% $6,577.3 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0Splash Pads
RC2772 Growth Related Spray Pad 2012 $400.0 $400.0 0.0% $.0 $400.0 50.0% $200.0 $20.0 $180.0 $.0 $180.0 100.0% $180.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0RC2772 Growth Related Spray Pad 2014 $400.0 $400.0 0.0% $.0 $400.0 50.0% $200.0 $20.0 $180.0 $.0 $180.0 100.0% $180.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0RC2772 Growth Related Spray Pad 2017 $400.0 $400.0 0.0% $.0 $400.0 50.0% $200.0 $20.0 $180.0 $.0 $180.0 100.0% $180.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0
INELIGIBLE AMOUNT - amount in excess of existing historical standard (Note 5 ) $4,766.0 -$4,766.0 100.0% -$4,766.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 PORTION OF PRIOR YEARS' GROWTH PROJECTS FINANCED WITH DEBT $2,879.0 $2,879.0 $2,879.0 $2,879.0 $2,879.0 100.0% $2,879.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0
TOTAL $110,560.1 $.0 $16,205.0 $94,355.1 22.2% $20,946.4 $73,408.7 62.7% $46,053.4 $2,447.6 $24,907.7 $4,766.0 $20,141.7 100.0% $20,141.7 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0
Supplement A Residential Commercial Institutional IndustrialExisting Service Standard Limitation
$2,586.5 100.0% $2,586.5 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0Existing Service Standard Measure $608.94
Net Growth Projection 33,077 $17,555.2 100.0% $17,555.2 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0Maximum Eligible Amount For DC Rate Calculation $20,141.7 Divided By: Total Gross Growth Projections 55,539 250,830 222,968 380,902
Growth needs before comparison to historical standa $24,907.7 Calculated DC Rate - Pre-Financing 316.09$ -$ -$ -$ Excess Of Growth Needs Over Maximum Eligible $4,766.0 /person /sq. m. /sq. m. /sq. m.
Notes: Prefinancing - Residential Rate Summary Post Financing 1) The cost of the library for RC2762 (North) has been excluded in the calculations above. It is included in the calculations for the "Library" service component. Facility Parkland Dev. Equipment Total Jan 1, 2009 rate2)
Single Family Dwelling 3.21 1,014.65$ 431.47$ -$ 1,446.12$ 824.00 3)
Multiple unit dwelling 2.30 727.01$ 309.15$ -$ 1,036.16$ 581.47 Apartment - bach. & 1 bed 1.37 433.04$ 184.15$ -$ 617.19$ 384.48 Apartment - ≥ 2 bedroom 1.92 606.89$ 258.07$ -$ 864.97$ 541.23
5) Amounts otherwise included in the DC rate calculations for this component are reduced based on limitations of the historical standard of service, as calculated in 'Supplement A' above.6)
Subt
otal
Industrial
4)
The double ice pad arenas for both RC2755 and RC2758 are classified as 100% non-growth because it is assumed these ice surfaces will simply replace facilities being decommissioned (Farqharson, Glen Cairn, and Silverwoods). That is, these parts of the new facilities will not provide new capacity but rather only replace existing capacity.
Net
Am
ount
Elig
ible
for D
C
rate
cal
cula
tion
Less
: Am
ount
inel
igib
le fo
r ra
te c
alcu
latio
n -
impr
ovem
ent o
ver e
xist
ing
stan
dard
(see
Sup
plem
ent A
if
appl
icab
le)
Less
: 10%
sta
tuto
ry
dedu
ctio
n (if
app
licab
le)
Expe
cted
Yea
r
Subt
otal
Project # Project Description
The cost of furniture/fittings/equipment, change rooms and land/infrastructure/site works/architectural fees has been allocated among the three components (arena, community center and pool) that benefit from these "common" expenses. The growth/non-growth splits for these components of the facility are based on the growth share of the double ice pad arena,community center and gymnasium in relation to the gross cost of all three
NO
N -
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Commercial InstitutionalNon
-gro
wth
sh
are
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Less
: Fu
ture
gro
wth
ben
efits
(por
tion
of g
row
th c
osts
at
tribu
tabl
e to
gro
wth
ex
pect
ed to
occ
ur b
eyon
d pl
anni
ng h
oriz
on fo
r thi
s se
rvic
e)
Subt
otal
Tota
l Est
imat
ed C
ost
Less
: fut
ure
capi
tal g
rant
s,
subs
idie
s or
oth
er
cont
ribut
ions
ant
icip
ated
Less
: Por
tion
of G
ross
Pr
ojec
t Cos
t Fun
ded
In P
rior
Year
s
"Future growth benefits" for the Multi Purpose Community Centers is based on approximation of area served over time. The proportion of the expected service area of the facility that is projected to be developed beyond the planning horizon for this service component(2018) is removed from the rate calculation.
Development Charge Rate Calculation (Pre-Financing Cost)
Less: Portion of above works collected in prior years (approximate uncommitted balance in DC reserve fund at December 31, 2008)
Residential share of growth costs amended to 100% (95% in 2004 study). Benefit to ICI sector considered negligible.
Total net cost eligible for DC rate calculation purposes
127
TABLE F-2– GROWTH NEEDS AND RATE CALCULATIONS – PARKS DEVELOPMENT
Service component : Parks & Recreation - Parkland DevelopmentPlanning horizon for this component : 2009-2018
Allocation of Net Amount to types of GrowthAmount Eligible for Development Charge Rate Calculations
NO
N -
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Non
-gro
wth
sha
re
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Subt
otal
Project # Project Description Subt
otal
Expe
cted
Yea
r
Tota
l Est
imat
ed C
ost
Less
: fut
ure
capi
tal g
rant
s, s
ubsi
dies
or
othe
r con
tribu
tions
ant
icip
ated
Less
: Por
tion
of G
ross
Pro
ject
Cos
t Fu
nded
In P
rior Y
ears
Less
: Fu
ture
gro
wth
ben
efits
(por
tion
of
grow
th c
osts
attr
ibut
able
to g
row
th
expe
cted
to o
ccur
bey
ond
plan
ning
hor
izon
fo
r thi
s se
rvic
e)
Subt
otal
Net
Am
ount
Elig
ible
for D
C ra
te c
alcu
latio
n
Less
: Am
ount
inel
igib
le fo
r rat
e ca
lcul
atio
n
- im
prov
emen
t ove
r exi
stin
g st
anda
rd (s
ee
Supp
lem
ent A
if a
pplic
able
)
Less
: 10%
sta
tuto
ry d
educ
tion
(if
appl
icab
le)
% benefit % $ % $ % $ % $(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21)
(all $'s in ,000's) (1) - sum(2,3) (4) * (5) (4) - (6) (7) * (8) [(7) - (9)] * 10% (7) - sum(9,10) (11) - (12) (13) * (14) (13) * (16) (13) * (18) (13) * (20)Anticipated and Planned Projects Note 2) Note 6) Note 6) Note 6) Note 6)
Neighbourhood Parks (Note 1 )PD1381 Egelton Woods 2009 $50.0 $50.0 0.0% $.0 $50.0 10.0% $5.0 $4.5 $40.5 $.0 $40.5 100.0% $40.5 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0PD1381 Paul Haggis 2009 $100.0 $100.0 20.0% $20.0 $80.0 0.0% $.0 $8.0 $72.0 $.0 $72.0 100.0% $72.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0PD1381 Lambeth Optimist 2009 $90.0 $90.0 50.0% $45.0 $45.0 20.0% $9.0 $3.6 $32.4 $.0 $32.4 100.0% $32.4 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0PD1381 Byron Hills 2010 $50.0 $50.0 15.0% $7.5 $42.5 0.0% $.0 $4.3 $38.3 $.0 $38.3 100.0% $38.3 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0PD1381 Stephens Farm 2009 $40.0 $40.0 0.0% $.0 $40.0 0.0% $.0 $4.0 $36.0 $.0 $36.0 100.0% $36.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0PD1381 Beaverbrook Woods 2010 $70.0 $70.0 10.0% $7.0 $63.0 0.0% $.0 $6.3 $56.7 $.0 $56.7 100.0% $56.7 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0PD1381 Hyde Park West 2010 $70.0 $70.0 10.0% $7.0 $63.0 0.0% $.0 $6.3 $56.7 $.0 $56.7 100.0% $56.7 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0PD1381 Sunrise 2010 $100.0 $100.0 10.0% $10.0 $90.0 0.0% $.0 $9.0 $81.0 $.0 $81.0 100.0% $81.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0
PD1381 Sugar Creek 2010, 2013 $120.0 $120.0 20.0% $24.0 $96.0 30.0% $28.8 $6.7 $60.5 $.0 $60.5 100.0% $60.5 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0PD1381 Crest Haven 2011 $60.0 $60.0 10.0% $6.0 $54.0 50.0% $27.0 $2.7 $24.3 $.0 $24.3 100.0% $24.3 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0PD1381 Northcrest 2012 $40.0 $40.0 0.0% $.0 $40.0 60.0% $24.0 $1.6 $14.4 $.0 $14.4 100.0% $14.4 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0PD1381 Forest Hill 2012 $60.0 $60.0 20.0% $12.0 $48.0 0.0% $.0 $4.8 $43.2 $.0 $43.2 100.0% $43.2 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0PD1381 Drewlo Hyde Park 2012 $60.0 $60.0 20.0% $12.0 $48.0 0.0% $.0 $4.8 $43.2 $.0 $43.2 100.0% $43.2 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0PD1381 Magitron 2011 $80.0 $80.0 10.0% $8.0 $72.0 0.0% $.0 $7.2 $64.8 $.0 $64.8 100.0% $64.8 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0PD1381 Whetherfield 2011 $80.0 $80.0 0.0% $.0 $80.0 0.0% $.0 $8.0 $72.0 $.0 $72.0 100.0% $72.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0PD1381 Talbot 2011 $150.0 $150.0 40.0% $60.0 $90.0 0.0% $.0 $9.0 $81.0 $.0 $81.0 100.0% $81.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0PD1381 Vista Woods 2012 $70.0 $70.0 30.0% $21.0 $49.0 0.0% $.0 $4.9 $44.1 $.0 $44.1 100.0% $44.1 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0PD1381 Westbury 2012 $80.0 $80.0 40.0% $32.0 $48.0 0.0% $.0 $4.8 $43.2 $.0 $43.2 100.0% $43.2 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0PD1381 Edge Valley 2013 $50.0 $50.0 50.0% $25.0 $25.0 0.0% $.0 $2.5 $22.5 $.0 $22.5 100.0% $22.5 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0PD1381 Corlon/Trooper Wilson 2009 $60.0 $60.0 10.0% $6.0 $54.0 0.0% $.0 $5.4 $48.6 $.0 $48.6 100.0% $48.6 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0PD1381 Creekside 2012 $70.0 $70.0 20.0% $14.0 $56.0 0.0% $.0 $5.6 $50.4 $.0 $50.4 100.0% $50.4 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0PD1381 Auburn Sunningdale North 2013 $150.0 $150.0 30.0% $45.0 $105.0 0.0% $.0 $10.5 $94.5 $.0 $94.5 100.0% $94.5 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0PD1381 Kent 2013 $60.0 $60.0 60.0% $36.0 $24.0 0.0% $.0 $2.4 $21.6 $.0 $21.6 100.0% $21.6 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0
PD1381 Future parks to be developed 2013-2018 $1,650.0 $1,650.0 75.0% $1,237.5 $412.5 0.0% $.0 $41.3 $371.3 $.0 $371.3 100.0% $371.3 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0District Parks
PD1032 Plane Tree 2009, 2010 $250.0 $250.0 20.0% $50.0 $200.0 0.0% $.0 $20.0 $180.0 $.0 $180.0 100.0% $180.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0
PD1032 Summerside (Meadowgate Fields) 2009, 2011 $425.0 $425.0 30.0% $127.5 $297.5 0.0% $.0 $29.8 $267.8 $.0 $267.8 100.0% $267.8 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0PD1032 North East Comm. Centre 2009 $235.0 $235.0 50.0% $117.5 $117.5 30.0% $35.3 $8.2 $74.0 $.0 $74.0 100.0% $74.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0PD1032 Riverbend 2010, 2011 $435.0 $435.0 50.0% $217.5 $217.5 20.0% $43.5 $17.4 $156.6 $.0 $156.6 100.0% $156.6 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0PD1032 Foxhollow 2012 $380.0 $380.0 50.0% $190.0 $190.0 0.0% $.0 $19.0 $171.0 $.0 $171.0 100.0% $171.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0PD1032 Southwest 2012, 2013 $520.0 $520.0 50.0% $260.0 $260.0 20.0% $52.0 $20.8 $187.2 $.0 $187.2 100.0% $187.2 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0
PD1032Future Parks To Be Developed And/Or Upgraded 2014-2018 $2,500.0 $2,500.0 75.0% $1,875.0 $625.0 0.0% $.0 $62.5 $562.5 $.0 $562.5 100.0% $562.5 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0
Major Open Space NetworkPD2042 West Byron/Warbler 2009, 2014 $460.0 $460.0 30.0% $138.0 $322.0 10.0% $32.2 $29.0 $260.8 $.0 $260.8 100.0% $260.8 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0
PD2042 Dingman Creek Trail2013, 2017, 2018 $860.0 $80.0 $780.0 10.0% $78.0 $702.0 60.0% $421.2 $28.1 $252.7 $.0 $252.7 100.0% $252.7 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0
PD2042 Foxhollow2010, 2016, 2018 $890.0 $890.0 50.0% $445.0 $445.0 0.0% $.0 $44.5 $400.5 $.0 $400.5 100.0% $400.5 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0
PD2042 Uplands Trail System2009, 2013, 2014, 2015 $1,610.0 $1,610.0 30.0% $483.0 $1,127.0 0.0% $.0 $112.7 $1,014.3 $.0 $1,014.3 100.0% $1,014.3 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0
PD2042 Stoney Creek Trail - Ph. I 2009, 2012 $310.0 $310.0 0.0% $.0 $310.0 70.0% $217.0 $9.3 $83.7 $.0 $83.7 100.0% $83.7 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0
PD2042 Hyde Park2009, 2011, 2013, 2014 $700.0 $700.0 30.0% $210.0 $490.0 10.0% $49.0 $44.1 $396.9 $.0 $396.9 100.0% $396.9 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0
PD2042 Kilally 2012, 2016 $460.0 $460.0 40.0% $184.0 $276.0 0.0% $.0 $27.6 $248.4 $.0 $248.4 100.0% $248.4 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0PD2042 Bostwick 2010, 2012 $320.0 $320.0 30.0% $96.0 $224.0 0.0% $.0 $22.4 $201.6 $.0 $201.6 100.0% $201.6 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0PD2042 Stoney Creek Trail - Ph II 2011, 2017 $670.0 $670.0 30.0% $201.0 $469.0 0.0% $.0 $46.9 $422.1 $.0 $422.1 100.0% $422.1 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0PD2042 Community Llinks 2009-2018 $550.0 $50.0 $500.0 0.0% $.0 $500.0 0.0% $.0 $50.0 $450.0 $.0 $450.0 100.0% $450.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0
Sports Park InfastructurePD2180 All Weather Field Development 2012-2014 $1,590.0 $1,590.0 0.0% $.0 $1,590.0 50.0% $795.0 $79.5 $715.5 $.0 $715.5 100.0% $715.5 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0PD2180 Other Sportsfield Development 2015-2018 $2,000.0 $2,000.0 20.0% $400.0 $1,600.0 30.0% $480.0 $112.0 $1,008.0 $.0 $1,008.0 100.0% $1,008.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0PD2180 Citywide Field House 2009, 2010 $540.0 $540.0 0.0% $.0 $540.0 90.0% $486.0 $5.4 $48.6 $.0 $48.6 100.0% $48.6 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0PD2180 Foxhollow Area (Northwest) 2011 $500.0 $500.0 50.0% $250.0 $250.0 25.0% $62.5 $18.8 $168.8 $.0 $168.8 100.0% $168.8 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0PD2180 Southwest Sportsfield 2012 $500.0 $500.0 50.0% $250.0 $250.0 25.0% $62.5 $18.8 $168.8 $.0 $168.8 100.0% $168.8 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0
Thames Valley Parkway
PD2124 South Branch - through Meadowlily 2011 $400.0 $400.0 0.0% $.0 $400.0 50.0% $200.0 $20.0 $180.0 $.0 $180.0 100.0% $180.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0PD2124 North Branch - Highbury to Clarke 2010, 2015 $1,090.0 $1,090.0 30.0% $327.0 $763.0 0.0% $.0 $76.3 $686.7 $.0 $686.7 100.0% $686.7 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0PD2124 South Branch - through Old Vic 2012 $600.0 $600.0 20.0% $120.0 $480.0 0.0% $.0 $48.0 $432.0 $.0 $432.0 100.0% $432.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0PD2124 Main Branch - through Byron 2013 $750.0 $750.0 0.0% $.0 $750.0 50.0% $375.0 $37.5 $337.5 $.0 $337.5 100.0% $337.5 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0PD2124 Main Branch - through River Bend 2014 $750.0 $750.0 30.0% $225.0 $525.0 0.0% $.0 $52.5 $472.5 $.0 $472.5 100.0% $472.5 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0
New Meadowlily Foot Bridge 2012 $3,500.0 $3,500.0 29.5% $1,032.3 $2,467.7 50.0% $1,233.8 $123.4 $1,110.4 $.0 $1,110.4 100.0% $1,110.4 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0PD2124 Future Pathway Projects 2016-2018 $1,800.0 $1,800.0 30.0% $540.0 $1,260.0 0.0% $.0 $126.0 $1,134.0 $.0 $1,134.0 100.0% $1,134.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0
NO
N -
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Commercial InstitutionalNon
-gro
wth
sha
re
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Subt
otal
Project # Project Description Subt
otal
Expe
cted
Yea
r
Tota
l Est
imat
ed C
ost
Less
: fut
ure
capi
tal g
rant
s, s
ubsi
dies
or
othe
r con
tribu
tions
ant
icip
ated
Less
: Por
tion
of G
ross
Pro
ject
Cos
t Fu
nded
In P
rior Y
ears
Less
: Fu
ture
gro
wth
ben
efits
(por
tion
of
grow
th c
osts
attr
ibut
able
to g
row
th
expe
cted
to o
ccur
bey
ond
plan
ning
hor
izon
fo
r thi
s se
rvic
e)
Subt
otal
Industrial
Net
Am
ount
Elig
ible
for D
C ra
te c
alcu
latio
n
Less
: Am
ount
inel
igib
le fo
r rat
e ca
lcul
atio
n
- im
prov
emen
t ove
r exi
stin
g st
anda
rd (s
ee
Supp
lem
ent A
if a
pplic
able
)
Less
: 10%
sta
tuto
ry d
educ
tion
(if
appl
icab
le)
Note 3) Note 4)
128
TABLE F-2– GROWTH NEEDS AND RATE CALCULATIONS – PARKS DEVELOPMENT
Service component : Parks & Recreation - Parkland DevelopmentPlanning horizon for this component : 2009-2018
Allocation of Net Amount to types of GrowthAmount Eligible for Development Charge Rate Calculations
NO
N -
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Non
-gro
wth
sha
re
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Subt
otal
Project # Project Description Subt
otal
Expe
cted
Yea
r
Tota
l Est
imat
ed C
ost
Less
: fut
ure
capi
tal g
rant
s, s
ubsi
dies
or
othe
r con
tribu
tions
ant
icip
ated
Less
: Por
tion
of G
ross
Pro
ject
Cos
t
Fund
ed In
Prio
r Yea
rs
Less
: Fu
ture
gro
wth
ben
efits
(por
tion
of
grow
th c
osts
attr
ibut
able
to g
row
th
expe
cted
to o
ccur
bey
ond
plan
ning
hor
izon
for t
his
serv
ice)
Subt
otal
Net
Am
ount
Elig
ible
for D
C ra
te c
alcu
latio
n
Less
: Am
ount
inel
igib
le fo
r rat
e ca
lcul
atio
n
- im
prov
emen
t ove
r exi
stin
g st
anda
rd (s
ee
Supp
lem
ent A
if a
pplic
able
)
Less
: 10%
sta
tuto
ry d
educ
tion
(if
appl
icab
le)
% benefit % $ % $ % $ % $(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21)
(all $'s in ,000's) (1) - sum(2,3) (4) * (5) (4) - (6) (7) * (8) [(7) - (9)] * 10% (7) - sum(9,10) (11) - (12) (13) * (14) (13) * (16) (13) * (18) (13) * (20)Anticipated and Planned Projects Note 2) Note 6) Note 6) Note 6) Note 6)
NO
N -
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Commercial InstitutionalNon
-gro
wth
sha
re
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Subt
otal
Project # Project Description Subt
otal
Expe
cted
Yea
r
Tota
l Est
imat
ed C
ost
Less
: fut
ure
capi
tal g
rant
s, s
ubsi
dies
or
othe
r con
tribu
tions
ant
icip
ated
Less
: Por
tion
of G
ross
Pro
ject
Cos
t
Fund
ed In
Prio
r Yea
rs
Less
: Fu
ture
gro
wth
ben
efits
(por
tion
of
grow
th c
osts
attr
ibut
able
to g
row
th
expe
cted
to o
ccur
bey
ond
plan
ning
hor
izon
for t
his
serv
ice)
Subt
otal
Industrial
Net
Am
ount
Elig
ible
for D
C ra
te c
alcu
latio
n
Less
: Am
ount
inel
igib
le fo
r rat
e ca
lcul
atio
n
- im
prov
emen
t ove
r exi
stin
g st
anda
rd (s
ee
Supp
lem
ent A
if a
pplic
able
)
Less
: 10%
sta
tuto
ry d
educ
tion
(if
appl
icab
le)
Note 3) Note 4)
PD2042 Hyde Park2009, 2011, 2013, 2014 $700.0 $700.0 30.0% $210.0 $490.0 10.0% $49.0 $44.1 $396.9 $.0 $396.9 100.0% $396.9 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0
PD2042 Kilally 2012, 2016 $460.0 $460.0 40.0% $184.0 $276.0 0.0% $.0 $27.6 $248.4 $.0 $248.4 100.0% $248.4 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0PD2042 Bostwick 2010, 2012 $320.0 $320.0 30.0% $96.0 $224.0 0.0% $.0 $22.4 $201.6 $.0 $201.6 100.0% $201.6 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0PD2042 Stoney Creek Trail - Ph II 2011, 2017 $670.0 $670.0 30.0% $201.0 $469.0 0.0% $.0 $46.9 $422.1 $.0 $422.1 100.0% $422.1 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0PD2042 Community Llinks 2009-2018 $550.0 $50.0 $500.0 0.0% $.0 $500.0 0.0% $.0 $50.0 $450.0 $.0 $450.0 100.0% $450.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0
Sports Park InfastructurePD2180 All Weather Field Development 2012-2014 $1,590.0 $1,590.0 0.0% $.0 $1,590.0 50.0% $795.0 $79.5 $715.5 $.0 $715.5 100.0% $715.5 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0PD2180 Other Sportsfield Development 2015-2018 $2,000.0 $2,000.0 20.0% $400.0 $1,600.0 30.0% $480.0 $112.0 $1,008.0 $.0 $1,008.0 100.0% $1,008.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0PD2180 Citywide Field House 2009, 2010 $540.0 $540.0 0.0% $.0 $540.0 90.0% $486.0 $5.4 $48.6 $.0 $48.6 100.0% $48.6 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0PD2180 Foxhollow Area (Northwest) 2011 $500.0 $500.0 50.0% $250.0 $250.0 25.0% $62.5 $18.8 $168.8 $.0 $168.8 100.0% $168.8 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0PD2180 Southwest Sportsfield 2012 $500.0 $500.0 50.0% $250.0 $250.0 25.0% $62.5 $18.8 $168.8 $.0 $168.8 100.0% $168.8 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0
Thames Valley Parkway
PD2124 South Branch - through Meadowlily 2011 $400.0 $400.0 0.0% $.0 $400.0 50.0% $200.0 $20.0 $180.0 $.0 $180.0 100.0% $180.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0PD2124 North Branch - Highbury to Clarke 2010, 2015 $1,090.0 $1,090.0 30.0% $327.0 $763.0 0.0% $.0 $76.3 $686.7 $.0 $686.7 100.0% $686.7 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0PD2124 South Branch - through Old Vic 2012 $600.0 $600.0 20.0% $120.0 $480.0 0.0% $.0 $48.0 $432.0 $.0 $432.0 100.0% $432.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0PD2124 Main Branch - through Byron 2013 $750.0 $750.0 0.0% $.0 $750.0 50.0% $375.0 $37.5 $337.5 $.0 $337.5 100.0% $337.5 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0PD2124 Main Branch - through River Bend 2014 $750.0 $750.0 30.0% $225.0 $525.0 0.0% $.0 $52.5 $472.5 $.0 $472.5 100.0% $472.5 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0
New Meadowlily Foot Bridge 2012 $3,500.0 $3,500.0 29.5% $1,032.3 $2,467.7 50.0% $1,233.8 $123.4 $1,110.4 $.0 $1,110.4 100.0% $1,110.4 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0PD2124 Future Pathway Projects 2016-2018 $1,800.0 $1,800.0 30.0% $540.0 $1,260.0 0.0% $.0 $126.0 $1,134.0 $.0 $1,134.0 100.0% $1,134.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0
Environmentally Significant AreasPD2252 Kains Woods 2009 $160.0 $50.0 $110.0 20.0% $22.0 $88.0 33.0% $29.0 $5.9 $53.1 $.0 $53.1 100.0% $53.1 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0PD2252 Meadowlily East 2010, 2011 $220.0 $220.0 30.0% $66.0 $154.0 33.0% $50.8 $10.3 $92.9 $.0 $92.9 100.0% $92.9 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0
PD2252 New Environmentally Significant Areas 2011-2018 $2,730.0 $2,730.0 30.0% $819.0 $1,911.0 33.0% $630.6 $128.0 $1,152.3 $.0 $1,152.3 100.0% $1,152.3 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0INELIGIBLE AMOUNT - amount in excess of existing historical standard (Note 5 ) $5,515.6 -$5,515.6 100.0% -$5,515.6 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 PORTION OF PRIOR YEARS' GROWTH PROJECTS FINANCED WITH DEBT $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0
129
TABLE F-2– GROWTH NEEDS AND RATE CALCULATIONS – PARK DEVELOPMENT
Service component : Parks & Recreation - Parkland DevelopmentPlanning horizon for this component : 2009-2018
Allocation of Net Amount to types of GrowthAmount Eligible for Development Charge Rate Calculations
NO
N -
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Non
-gro
wth
sha
re
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Subt
otal
Project # Project Description Subt
otal
Expe
cted
Yea
r
Tota
l Est
imat
ed C
ost
Less
: fut
ure
capi
tal g
rant
s, s
ubsi
dies
or
othe
r con
tribu
tions
ant
icip
ated
Less
: Por
tion
of G
ross
Pro
ject
Cos
t
Fund
ed In
Prio
r Yea
rs
Less
: Fu
ture
gro
wth
ben
efits
(por
tion
of
grow
th c
osts
attr
ibut
able
to g
row
th
expe
cted
to o
ccur
bey
ond
plan
ning
hor
izon
for t
his
serv
ice)
Subt
otal
Net
Am
ount
Elig
ible
for D
C ra
te c
alcu
latio
n
Less
: Am
ount
inel
igib
le fo
r rat
e ca
lcul
atio
n
- im
prov
emen
t ove
r exi
stin
g st
anda
rd (s
ee
Supp
lem
ent A
if a
pplic
able
)
Less
: 10%
sta
tuto
ry d
educ
tion
(if
appl
icab
le)
% benefit % $ % $ % $ % $(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21)
(all $'s in ,000's) (1) - sum(2,3) (4) * (5) (4) - (6) (7) * (8) [(7) - (9)] * 10% (7) - sum(9,10) (11) - (12) (13) * (14) (13) * (16) (13) * (18) (13) * (20)Anticipated and Planned Projects Note 2) Note 6) Note 6) Note 6) Note 6)
NO
N -
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Commercial InstitutionalNon
-gro
wth
sha
re
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Subt
otal
Project # Project Description Subt
otal
Expe
cted
Yea
r
Tota
l Est
imat
ed C
ost
Less
: fut
ure
capi
tal g
rant
s, s
ubsi
dies
or
othe
r con
tribu
tions
ant
icip
ated
Less
: Por
tion
of G
ross
Pro
ject
Cos
t
Fund
ed In
Prio
r Yea
rs
Less
: Fu
ture
gro
wth
ben
efits
(por
tion
of
grow
th c
osts
attr
ibut
able
to g
row
th
expe
cted
to o
ccur
bey
ond
plan
ning
hor
izon
for t
his
serv
ice)
Subt
otal
Industrial
Net
Am
ount
Elig
ible
for D
C ra
te c
alcu
latio
n
Less
: Am
ount
inel
igib
le fo
r rat
e ca
lcul
atio
n
- im
prov
emen
t ove
r exi
stin
g st
anda
rd (s
ee
Supp
lem
ent A
if a
pplic
able
)
Less
: 10%
sta
tuto
ry d
educ
tion
(if
appl
icab
le)
Note 3) Note 4) TOTAL $32,115.0 $.0 $180.0 $31,935.0 32.4% $10,358.8 $21,576.2 24.8% $5,349.3 $1,622.7 $14,604.2 $5,515.6 $9,088.6 100.0% $9,088.6 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0
Supplement A Residential Commercial Institutional IndustrialExisting Service Standard Limitation
$1,623.5 100.0% $1,623.5 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0Existing Service Standard Measure $274.77Net Growth Projection 33,077 Total net cost eligible for DC rate calculation purpose $7,465.1 100.0% $7,465.1 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0Maximum Eligible Amount For DC Rate Calculation $9,088.6 Divided By: Total Gross Growth Projections 55,539 250,830 222,968 380,902Growth needs before comparison to historical standard $14,604.2 Calculated DC Rate - Pre-Financing 134.41$ -$ -$ -$ Excess Of Growth Needs Over Maximum Eligible $5,515.6 /person /sq. m. /sq. m. /sq. m.
Pre- Financing Cost Residential Rates:Notes: Parkland Dev.
1)Single Family Dwelling 3.21 431.47$
2)Where a portion of the 'Total Estimated Cost' of a project has been funded in a prior year, that portion of the estimate is removed from the rate calculation. Multiple unit dwelling 2.30 309.15$
3)
Apartment - bach. & 1 bed 1.37 184.15$ 4)
Apartment - ≥ 2 bedroom 1.92 258.07$ 5) Amounts otherwise included in the DC rate calculations for this component are reduced based on limitations of the historical standard of service, as calculated in 'Supplement A' above.6) Residential share of growth costs amended to 100% (95% in 2004 study). Benefit to ICI sector considered negligible.
Neighbourhood Parks projects may include costs associated with play structures, benches, minor pathways, plantings, playing fields (typically not irrigated), and playing surfaces (eg. Basketball court)
The growth/non-growth benefits have been roughly estimated using the service area for each proposed amenity and by approximating the developed area (2003) to the developable area for each.
The future growth benefits have been roughly estimated using the service area for each proposed amenity. The future growth benefits have been estimated by comparing the approximate portion of the service area to be developed beyond the end of the planning horizon (2018) to the total developable service area for each amenity.
Development Charge Rate Calculation (Pre-Financing Cost)
Less: Portion of above works collected in prior years (approximate uncommitted balance in DC reserve fund at December 31, 2008)
130
TABLE F-3 – CASH FLOW ANALYSIS AND FINAL RATE CALCULATION – PARKS AND RECREATION
Service component : Parks & Recreation ($'s in thousands)
FINAL RESULT 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total
Planning Horizon - yrs 10
Pre-Financing DC Rate
Post-Financing DC Rate
% Collected assumpti
on
Growth projection for each year of forecast period
Growth - Res. (Persons In New Housing) 55,539 450.50$ 437.19$ 100% 5,553.9 5,553.9 5,553.9 5,553.9 5,553.9 5,553.9 5,553.9 5,553.9 5,553.9 5,553.9 55,538.6 Growth - Non-Res. (sq. m.) -$
Commercial 250,830.0 -$ -$ 100% 25,083.0 25,083.0 25,083.0 25,083.0 25,083.0 25,083.0 25,083.0 25,083.0 25,083.0 25,083.0 250,830.0 Institutional 222,968.0 -$ -$ 100% 22,296.8 22,296.8 22,296.8 22,296.8 22,296.8 22,296.8 22,296.8 22,296.8 22,296.8 22,296.8 222,968.0
C/I subtotal 473,798.0 -$ 47,379.8 47,379.8 47,379.8 47,379.8 47,379.8 47,379.8 47,379.8 47,379.8 47,379.8 47,379.8 473,798.0 Industrial 380,902.0 -$ -$ 100% 38,090.2 38,090.2 38,090.2 38,090.2 38,090.2 38,090.2 38,090.2 38,090.2 38,090.2 38,090.2 380,902.0
Total Non-Res. 854,700.0 85,470.0 85,470.0 85,470.0 85,470.0 85,470.0 85,470.0 85,470.0 85,470.0 85,470.0 85,470.0 854,700.0
Reserve Fund Projections:Opening Surplus / <Deficit> $4,210.0 $6,151.3 -$476.4 $1,053.2 $155.7 $1,495.4 $2,023.0 -$11,558.1 -$10,938.7 -$10,403.4 $4,210.0Revenues - Development Charge Collections
Residential $2,428.1 $2,428.1 $2,428.1 $2,428.1 $2,428.1 $2,428.1 $2,428.1 $2,428.1 $2,428.1 $2,428.1 $24,281.1Non-Res.
Commercial $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0Institutional $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0
C/I subtotal $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0Industrial $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0
Total Non-Res. $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0
Total revenues $2,428.1 $2,428.1 $2,428.1 $2,428.1 $2,428.1 $2,428.1 $2,428.1 $2,428.1 $2,428.1 $2,428.1 $24,281.1
Development Charge draws - calculated on separate page $576.7 $9,105.0 $903.5 $3,336.1 $1,102.7 $1,931.0 $15,868.4 $1,476.2 $1,577.3 $9,280.5 $45,157.5Closing surplus / <deficit> before interest $6,061.4 -$525.6 $1,048.2 $145.2 $1,481.1 $1,992.5 -$11,417.2 -$10,606.3 -$10,088.0 -$17,255.7 -$16,666.4Non-inflationary interest revenue /<expense>
on savings 1.75% $89.9 $49.2 $5.0 $10.5 $14.3 $30.5 $199.4on borrowings 3.00% -$140.9 -$332.5 -$315.4 -$414.9 -$1,203.7
Closing surplus / <deficit> $6,151.3 -$476.4 $1,053.2 $155.7 $1,495.4 $2,023.0 -$11,558.1 -$10,938.7 -$10,403.4 -$17,670.6 -$17,670.6
-$17,670.6`Explanatory note
Method:
1
2
3
Other Information: Pre PostResidential share 100% 100%Non-residential
Commercial 0% 0%Institutional 0% 0%C/I subtotal 0% 0%Industrial 0% 0%
Using "SOLVER" make balance at end of planning horizon = to "Target " balance by allowing "Post financing rates" to vary from "Pre-financing rates".
Set Post financing rate = Pre financing rate - model projects revenues and draws and projects RF balances (ie. copy values from D13-D18 to E13-E18)
Target which reflects growth costs incurred in the forecast period and recoverable from future growth
This worksheet projects future activity in this reserve fund. It ultimately determines the rates necessary to recover all costs intended for recovery from growth (including financing costs). The deficit in the fund at the end of the planning horizon reflects costs intended for recovery from future growth.
Set ratio of Pre financing revenues = Post financing revenues (ie. copy values from C47-C52 to D47-D52). This ensures that ratio of revenues stays constant throughout rate re-calculation process.
131
Appendix G – Transit Conventional Service The London Transit Commission, is charged with the delivery of public transit services for the citizens of London. The conventional service is a fixed route modified radial service. There are 35 routes plus three community bus operations. While service levels vary by route, by time of day and by day of week, overall service periods cover 18 hours a day on Monday to Saturday, and 15.5 hours a day on Sundays and Statutory Holidays. Currently, a total of 530,000 revenue service hours are provided annually to accommodate the 21.6 million annual passenger trips. Efficient high quality public transit services contribute to the environmental health and economic competitiveness of a City, which benefits the entire community. Public transit services:
o provide Londoners with opportunity, choice and access to the community o have a positive impact on the environment in terms of air quality. o support, in concert with effective land use planning, the retention of natural green
space that would otherwise be used to build new roads and/or parking lots. o are a critical part of the solution to mitigate the negative economic and environmental
impact of traffic congestion whether the negative impact be on business or on the environment; and,
o are supportive of building and maintaining a healthy downtown Specialized Service The specialized service is a shared ride, door to door, pre booked service. As with the conventional service, service levels vary by time of day and day of week, with the overall service covering 18 hours a day on Monday to Saturday and 15.5 hours a day Sundays and Statutory Holidays. The service operates as a brokerage with London Transit providing customer service, booking, scheduling and dispatching functions. There are no capital needs for this brokered service considered eligible for recovery through development charge rates through this review. Applicable growth capital costs are reflected in the hourly operating cost paid to the respective service providers. There are approximately 200,000 annual eligible passengers and attendant companion trips provided by the service. Existing Service Levels In order to establish historical service levels required by the Development Charges Act, London Transit undertook an inventory and valuation of its current facilities and fleet and equipment over the past ten years. These measures are reflected in TABLE G-1 (6 pgs) of this Appendix and are discussed below.
(a) Plant The facility operated by London Transit is 261,490 square feet and consists of the following:
Bus Storage 132,970 sq. ft. Bus Maintenance 70,500 sq. ft. Fueling/Washing 16,100 Administration area 28,490 sq. ft. Total all areas 248,060 sq. ft.
132
Table G -1 (pgs 1 & 2) attached, provide an inventory and valuation of the Plant and Premises for London Transit over the past ten years.
(b) Fleet Attached as Table G -1 (pgs 3 & 4) is a breakdown of the fleet by vehicle type and length, with associated replacement valuation, for the past ten years. Bus valuations were based upon 2008 costing and include accessory equipment cost. Over the past 10 years, the fleet has increased from 175 buses (1998) to 192 buses (2008).
(c) Equipment London Transit equipment consists of Fare and Data Collection System (fare boxes), Bus radios and an Automatic Vehicle Location system. For this study, the equipment costs are included in the costing of the fleet versus being shown separately. Capacity Currently, London Transit does not have excess passenger capacity on the system during the weekday AM and PM peak periods. The LTC currently operates approximately 146 and 150 buses in the AM and PM peak periods, respectively, with a current total fleet of 192 buses. The 42 buses (192 – 150) represent a 28% spare fleet which is reflective of the age (noting 26% of the fleet have an average age of 20 years) and make-up of the fleet (ie. range of size and being fully accessible). The “spare fleet” is required for regular maintenance, repairs and bus change-offs. The bus storage facility has a capacity of the equivalent of approximately 185 - 40 foot buses (or 7,400 linear feet of buses ). The current fleet is 192 buses (as reflected on Table G-1, 3rd page) and consists of a mix of vehicle sizes. The fleet translates into approximately 7,695 linear feet of bus, indicating that the existing facility slightly exceeds the capacity of the existing facility. A 40’ bus requires approximately 660 square feet for storage, exclusive of lanes for circulating of buses within the storage area. Growth Needs Projections
(a) Fleet The fleet is projected to increase by 47 buses over the next ten years. The increase covers service to new growth areas and service expansion to existing service areas, including migration to the bus rapid transit platform. This increase is based on the mode share projections in the 2004 Transportation Master Plan, which are projected to increase from its 2004 level of 6.9% to 10% of PM Peak trips, by 2024. As part of the updating of the Transportation Master Plan in 2009-10 the actual mode share estimate will be updated. Given current ridership growth trends and the planned introduction of the Bus Rapid Transit platform the 10% mode share target by 2024 is achievable. The increase in modal split will necessitate fleet expansion to serve both the expanding population, as well as accommodate the shift to greater use of public transit. Seventeen (17) of the 47 buses are required to serve identified growth areas of the city over the next 10 years. These buses will maintain existing patterns of providing service to growth areas. The recently initiated Transportation Master Plan slated for completion in 2010 will provide an opportunity for review of the growth related needs for both Arterial Road expansion and Transit.
133
(b) Plant The current fleet make-up exceeds the capacity of the current facility. A new 100 bus facility is scheduled to be operational in late fall of 2010. Only the portion of this facility that serves expansion buses to serve new growth areas has been incorporated into the DC rate calculations. The portion of the facility expected to serve expansion buses related to the increase in Transit modal split has been excluded from the amount included in the DC rate calculations. A significant contribution ($19,500) from the province offsets the costs of the plant otherwise recoverable through DC’s.
(c) Equipment Other than replacement, no changes are anticipated for the equipment over the next ten years. Allocation of Growth Costs - Residential / Non –Residential Transit service demands have been allocated to Residential and Non-Residential growth on the basis of Population growth vs. Employment Growth for the ten year time horizon of this study. Financing Costs Added to Arrive at Final Calculated DC Rate For the purpose of calculating the development charge rate for this component inclusive of financing costs, TABLE G-3 has been produced. This table simulates the cash flows in this component of the DC funds :
(a) It begins with the opening balance – in this case, a balance of $1.7M which reflects uncommitted funds raised through prior development charge rates.
(b) Drawdowns for the growth share of projects being completed in the upcoming period
(c) An estimate of annual interest expenses that can be expected to be incurred due to fund deficits encountered throughout the planning horizon.
All figures are presented on an un-inflated, constant (2009) dollar basis. Interest rates which exclude the inflationary component (assumed to be 2%) are also used for consistency. The rates generated from this cash flow analysis reflect what is appropriately recovered from growth, for the planning horizon of this service. The spreadsheet is programmed to solve for the DC rates such that the growth costs are recovered by the end of the planning horizon (in this case, 2013). Council’s Intention to Meet Growth Needs The growth needs identified within this Appendix have been determined by a concentrated internal review and were reported to the London Transit Commission. The capital items reflected herein will be subject to final approval of Council through the annual capital budget approval process. It is Council’s stated intention to “provide for the needs of growth in a way that does not jeopardize the long term financial health of the municipality, or place an undue burden on existing taxpayers” (Official Plan Policing 2.6.3). Long Term Operating Costs An examination of the long term operating costs for growth needs for Transit Services (DC) is included in Appendix O.
134
TABLE G-1 - TRANSIT– MEASURE OF EXISTING SERVICE STANDARDS
COMPONENT: FACILITIES
Contact person(s)Unit of measureType of measure
Facility Name & Location 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 $/sq.ft.450 Highbury Ave 256,250 256,250 256,250 261,490 261,490 248,060 248,060 248,060 248,060 248,060 $221
Total 256,250 256,250 256,250 261,490 261,490 248,060 248,060 248,060 248,060 248,060
Population 332,174 334,352 336,530 339,703 342,876 346,049 349,222 352,395 355,629 358,863Per Capita Level of Service 0.771433 0.766408 0.761448 0.769761 0.762637 0.716835 0.710322 0.703926 0.697524 0.691238
10 year averageQuantity Standard per Capita 0.735153
Current Transit Facility Valuation - in Total and by component
450 Highbury Ave Total Office Bus Storage Bus
Maintenance Fueling / Washing
Sq. footage (Note 3) 248,060 28,490 132,970 70,500 16,100Facility replacement value / ft² (Note 4) $189 $125 $175 $250 $150Facility $46,871,000 $3,561,250 $23,269,750 $17,625,000 $2,415,000Equipment 5.0% 2,343,550 178,063 1,163,488 881,250 120,750Land ($175,000/acre) - note 1 16.8 acres 2,940,000 337,663 1,575,957 835,564 190,817Subtotal 52,154,550 4,076,975 26,009,194 19,341,814 2,726,567Parking, site work, landscaping 5.0% 2,607,728 203,849 1,300,460 967,091 136,328Total $54,762,278 $4,280,824 $27,309,654 $20,308,905 $2,862,895 Replacement value / ft² $150 $205 $288 $178
Wghted Avg. - Replacement value / ft² $221
NOTES:
5) A detailed assessment of facility requirements completed in October of 2006 by the IBI Group indicates that the facility is currently operating at capacity.
1) Land values have been provided by Realty Services. 2) Total value of facilities (next page) based on Weighted Average Replacement Costs including land; with 5% allowance for equipment and 5% allowance for parking, site works, and landscaping 3) Square footage of facilties are from inventory reports maintained by London Transit. Reductions in total sq. ft. are a a result of demolition of some structures to improve overall vehicle flow on property.4) $/sq.ft. estimates were provided by IBI Consultants(through LTC) based upon a 2006 assessment study.
SERVICE: TRANSIT
Kelly Palecznysquare feetQuantity
135
TABLE G-1 – TRANSIT – MEASURE OF EXISTING SERVICE STANDARDS
COMPONENT: FACILITIES
Contact person(s)Unit of measureType of measure
Facility Name - Location 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008450 Highbury Ave $56,631 $56,631 $56,631 $57,789 $57,789 $54,821 $54,821 $54,821 $54,821 $54,821
Total $56,631 $56,631 $56,631 $57,789 $57,789 $54,821 $54,821 $54,821 $54,821 $54,821
Population 332,174 334,352 336,530 339,703 342,876 346,049 349,222 352,395 355,629 358,863Per Capita Level of Service $170.49 $169.38 $168.28 $170.12 $168.54 $158.42 $156.98 $155.57 $154.15 $152.76
10 year averageQuality & Quantity Standard per Capita $162.47
DC Eligible amount (before adjustments)Net Forecast Pop'n - 10 yr. 33,077$ per capita $162.47DC rate eligible amount (gross) $5,373,966
Source : Values compiled by London Transit.
Quality & Quantity
SERVICE: TRANSIT
Kelly Paleczny2008 Replacement Value ($thousands)
136
TABLE G-1 – TRANSIT – MEASURE OF EXISTING SERVICE STANDARDS SERVICE: TRANSIT
Contact person(s)Unit of measureType of measure
Vehicle Type bus length (in feet) 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 $/Item40 foot standard floor - diesel 40 116 116 122 109 103 75 58 55 55 53 $481,50040 foot low floor - natural gas 40 45 45 45 44 44 36 34 24 12 0 $587,22526 foot Orion 26 14 14 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 $385,90040 foot low floor - diesel 40 15 21 62 81 99 112 126 $481,50060 foot low floor - diesel 60 3 3 3 3 4 6 $778,200
Total number of buses 175 175 175 175 178 183 183 188 190 192
Population 332,174 334,352 336,530 339,703 342,876 346,049 349,222 352,395 355,629 358,863Per Capita Level of Service - buses per capita 0.000527 0.000523 0.000520 0.000515 0.000519 0.000529 0.000524 0.000533 0.000534 0.000535
10 year averageQuantity Standard per Capita - Buses 0.000526
NOTES:1) Estimated cost of buses are inclusive of all ancillary equipment required to place a bus in service (i.e. radio, smart bus technology, fare box). The previous DC Study separated the equipment from the vehicle cost.2) Cost make up as provided by LTC: Vehicle size 26' LF Diesel 40' LF -CNG 40' Std - Diesel 40' LF Diesel 60' LF Diesel Bus including post delivery inspection (2007 prices fixed for 2 years) 347,900 549,225 443,500 443,500 740,200 Electronic fare collection system 11,300 11,300 11,300 11,300 11,300 Automatic vehicle location and communication 26,700 26,700 26,700 26,700 26,700 (includes equipment on bus as well as supporting system software and hardware)
385,900 587,225 481,500 481,500 778,200
Sources: Values and quantity of vehicles taken from Transit inventory reports
COMPONENT: VEHICLES
Kelly PalecznyNumber of VehiclesQuantity
137
TABLE G-1 – TRANSIT – MEASURE OF EXISTING SERVICE STANDARDS
SERVICE: TRANSIT
Contact person(s)Unit of measureType of measure
Vehicle Type 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 200840 foot standard floor - diesel $55,854 $55,854 $58,743 $52,484 $49,595 $36,113 $27,927 $26,483 $26,483 $25,52040 foot low floor - natural gas $26,425 $26,425 $26,425 $25,838 $25,838 $21,140 $19,966 $14,093 $7,047 $026 foot Orion $5,403 $5,403 $3,087 $2,701 $2,701 $2,701 $2,701 $2,701 $2,701 $2,70140 foot low floor - diesel $0 $0 $0 $7,223 $10,112 $29,853 $39,002 $47,669 $53,928 $60,66960 foot low floor - diesel $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,335 $2,335 $2,335 $2,335 $3,113 $4,669
Total $87,682 $87,682 $88,255 $88,246 $90,581 $92,142 $91,931 $93,281 $93,272 $93,559
Population 332,174 334,352 336,530 339,703 342,876 346,049 349,222 352,395 355,629 358,863Per Capita Level of Service $263.96 $262.24 $262.25 $259.77 $264.18 $266.27 $263.25 $264.71 $262.27 $260.71
10 year averageQuality & Quantity Standard per Capita $262.96
DC Eligible amount (before adjustments)Net Forecast Pop'n - 10 yr. 33,077$ per capita $262.96DC rate eligible amount (gross) $8,697,840
Sources: Values and quantity of vehicles taken from Transit inventory reports
Quality & Quantity
COMPONENT: VEHICLES
Kelly Paleczny2008 Replacement Value ($thousands)
138
TABLE G-1 – TRANSIT – MEASURE OF EXISTING SERVICE STANDARDS SERVICE: TRANSIT
Contact person(s)Unit of measureType of measure
Item Description 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 $/Item
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Population 332,174 334,352 336,530 339,703 342,876 346,049 349,222 352,395 355,629 358,863Per Capita Level of Service 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000
10 year averageQuantity Standard per Capita 0.0000000
1) Estimated cost of buses are inclusive of all ancillary equipment required to place a bus in service (i.e. radio, smart bus technology, fare box). The previous DC Study separated the equipment from the vehicle cost.
COMPONENT: EQUIPMENT
Kelly PalecznyNumber of ItemsQuantity
139
TABLE G-1 – TRANSIT – MEASURE OF EXISTING SERVICE STANDARDS
SERVICE: TRANSIT
Contact person(s)Unit of measureType of measure
Item Description 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Population 332,174 334,352 336,530 339,703 342,876 346,049 349,222 352,395 355,629 358,863Per Capita Level of Service $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
10 year averageQuality & Quantity Standard per Capita $0.00
DC Eligible amount (before adjustments)Net Forecast Pop'n - 10 yr. 33,077$ per capita $0.00DC rate eligible amount (gross) $0
Quality & Quantity
COMPONENT: EQUIPMENT
Kelly Paleczny2008 Replacement Value ($thousands)
140
TABLE G-2 - GROWTH NEEDS AND RATE CALCULATIONS – TRANSIT FACILITIES
Service component : Transit - FacilityPlanning horizon for this component : 2009-2018
Allocation of Net Amount to types of Growth
Less
: Fu
ture
gro
wth
ben
efits
(por
tion
of
grow
th c
osts
attr
ibut
able
to g
row
th e
xpec
ted
to o
ccur
bey
ond
plan
ning
hor
izon
for t
his
serv
ice)
Amount Eligible for Development Charge Rate Calculations
Expe
cted
Yea
r
Tota
l Est
imat
ed C
ost
Less
: fut
ure
capi
tal g
rant
s, s
ubsi
dies
or o
ther
cont
ribut
ions
ant
icip
ated
Less
: Por
tion
of G
ross
Pro
ject
Cos
t Fun
ded
In P
rior Y
ears
Subt
otal
Subt
otal
Non
-gro
wth
sha
re
Less
: 10%
sta
tuto
ry d
educ
tion
(if a
pplic
able
)
Proj
ect #
Proj
ect D
escr
iptio
n
NO
N -
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Subt
otal
Less
: Am
ount
inel
igib
le fo
r rat
e ca
lcul
atio
n -
impr
ovem
ent o
ver e
xist
ing
stan
dard
(see
Supp
lem
ent A
if a
pplic
able
)
Net
Am
ount
Elig
ible
for D
C ra
te c
alcu
latio
n
RES
IDEN
TIAL
% benefit % $ % $ % $ % $
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21)
(all $'s in ,000's) (1) - sum(2,3) (4) * (5) (4) - (6) (7) * (8) [(7) - (9)] * 10% (7) - sum(9,10) (11) - (12) (13) * (14) (13) * (16) (13) * (18) (13) * (20)
Anticipated and Planned Projects Note 2 Note 1 Note 3 Note 3 Note 3 Note 3Facility Bus Expansion - Satellite
MU1163 Land, Building, Facility 2009 $22,000.0 $19,500.0 $2,500.0 53.0% $1,325.0 $1,175.0 64.0% $752.0 $42.3 $380.7 $.0 $380.7 71.8% $273.5 12.3% $46.8 4.9% $18.6 11.0% $41.8
PORTION OF PRIOR YEARS' GROWTH PROJECTS FINANCED WITH DEBT $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0
TOTAL $22,000.0 $19,500.0 $.0 $2,500.0 $1,325.0 $1,175.0 $752.0 $42.3 $380.7 $.0 $380.7 71.8% $273.5 12.3% $46.8 4.9% $18.6 11.0% $41.8
Development Charge Rate Calculation (Pre-Financing Cost)Supplement A Residential Commercial Institutional Industrial
Existing Service Standard Limitation
$.0 100.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0Existing Service Standard Measure $162.47
Net Growth Projection 33,077 $380.7 71.8% $273.5 12.3% $46.8 4.9% $18.6 11.0% $41.8Maximum Eligible Amount For DC Rate Calculation $5,374.0 Divided By: Total Gross Growth Projections 55,539 250,830 222,968 380,902
Current Growth Needs $380.7 Calculated DC Rate - Pre-Financing 4.92$ 0.19$ 0.08$ 0.11$ Excess Of Growth Needs Over Maximum Eligible $.0 /person /sq. m. /sq. m. /sq. m.
Post Financing Notes: Facility Vehicle Total Jan 1, 2009 rate1) The Satellite facility is anticipated to have a capacity of 100 buses. 36 buses will be growth related and 64 buses will be non-growth related. Single Family Dwelling 3.21 15.81$ $224.79 $240.60 336.00 2) 19 of the 36 growth related buses mentioned above are anticipated to be purchased beyond the current DC planning horizon (ie. 44%). Multiple unit dwelling 2.30 11.32$ $161.07 $172.39 237.21 3) Residential / Institutional / Commercial / Industrial splits based on ratio of Population growth to Employment growth for the ten(10) year planning horizon for this service Apartment - bach. & 1 bed 1.37 6.75$ $95.94 $102.69 156.74
Apartment - ≥ 2 bedroom 1.92 9.45$ $134.46 $143.91 221.05
Total net cost eligible for DC rate calculation purposes
Prefinancing - Residential Rate Summary
Less: Portion of above works collected in prior years (approximate uncommitted balance in DC reserve fund at December 31, 2008)
Less
: Fu
ture
gro
wth
ben
efits
(por
tion
of
grow
th c
osts
attr
ibut
able
to g
row
th e
xpec
ted
to o
ccur
bey
ond
plan
ning
hor
izon
for t
his
serv
ice)
Expe
cted
Yea
r
Tota
l Est
imat
ed C
ost
Less
: fut
ure
capi
tal g
rant
s, s
ubsi
dies
or o
ther
cont
ribut
ions
ant
icip
ated
Less
: Por
tion
of G
ross
Pro
ject
Cos
t Fun
ded
In P
rior Y
ears
Subt
otal
Subt
otal
Non
-gro
wth
sha
re
Less
: 10%
sta
tuto
ry d
educ
tion
(if a
pplic
able
)
Proj
ect #
Proj
ect D
escr
iptio
n
NO
N -
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Commercial Institutional Industrial
Subt
otal
Less
: Am
ount
inel
igib
le fo
r rat
e ca
lcul
atio
n -
impr
ovem
ent o
ver e
xist
ing
stan
dard
(see
Supp
lem
ent A
if a
pplic
able
)
Net
Am
ount
Elig
ible
for D
C ra
te c
alcu
latio
n
RES
IDEN
TIAL
141
TABLE G-2 - GROWTH NEEDS AND RATE CALCULATIONS – TRANSIT VEHICLES
Service component : Transit - VehiclePlanning horizon for this component : 2009-2018
Less
: Fu
ture
gro
wth
ben
efits
(por
tion
of
grow
th c
osts
attr
ibut
able
to g
row
th
expe
cted
to o
ccur
bey
ond
plan
ning
horiz
on fo
r thi
s se
rvic
e)
Subt
otal
Net
Am
ount
Elig
ible
for D
C ra
te
calc
ulat
ion
Less
: Am
ount
inel
igib
le fo
r rat
e
calc
ulat
ion
- im
prov
emen
t ove
r exi
stin
g
stan
dard
(see
Sup
plem
ent A
if a
pplic
able
)
Less
: 10%
sta
tuto
ry d
educ
tion
(if
appl
icab
le)
Expe
cted
Yea
r
Tota
l Est
imat
ed C
ost
Less
: fut
ure
capi
tal g
rant
s, s
ubsi
dies
or
othe
r con
tribu
tions
ant
icip
ated
Less
: Por
tion
of G
ross
Pro
ject
Cos
t
Fund
ed In
Prio
r Yea
rs
Allocation of Net Amount to types of GrowthAmount Eligible for Development Charge Rate Calculations
NO
N -
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Non
-gro
wth
sha
re
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Subt
otal
Project # Project Description Subt
otal
% benefit % $ % $ % $ % $(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21)
(all $'s in ,000's) (1) - sum(2,3) (4) * (5) (4) - (6) (7) * (8) [(7) - (9)] * 10% (7) - sum(9,10) (11) - (12) (13) * (14) (13) * (16) (13) * (18) (13) * (20)
Anticipated and Planned ProjectsNote 1 Note 4 Note 2 Note 5 Note 5 Note 5 Note 5
MU1172 1 - 40' Low Floor Diesel Buses 2009 $510.4 $510.4 0.0% $.0 $510.4 0% $.0 $51.0 $459.4 $.0 $459.4 71.8% $330.0 12.3% $56.5 4.9% $22.4 11.0% $50.5MU1172 2 - 40' Low Floor Diesel Bus 2010 $1,020.8 $1,020.8 0.0% $.0 $1,020.8 0% $.0 $102.1 $918.7 $.0 $918.7 71.8% $659.9 12.3% $113.0 4.9% $44.9 11.0% $100.9MU1172 1 - 40' Low Floor Diesel Buses 2011 $510.4 $510.4 0.0% $.0 $510.4 0% $.0 $51.0 $459.4 $.0 $459.4 71.8% $330.0 12.3% $56.5 4.9% $22.4 11.0% $50.5MU1172 1 - 40' Low Floor Diesel Buses 2012 $510.4 $510.4 0.0% $.0 $510.4 0% $.0 $51.0 $459.4 $.0 $459.4 71.8% $330.0 12.3% $56.5 4.9% $22.4 11.0% $50.5MU1172 2- 40' Low Floor Diesel Buses 2013 $1,020.8 $1,020.8 0.0% $.0 $1,020.8 0% $.0 $102.1 $918.7 $.0 $918.7 71.8% $659.9 12.3% $113.0 4.9% $44.9 11.0% $100.9MU1172 2 - 40' Low Floor Diesel Buses 2014 $1,020.8 $1,020.8 0.0% $.0 $1,020.8 0% $.0 $102.1 $918.7 $.0 $918.7 71.8% $659.9 12.3% $113.0 4.9% $44.9 11.0% $100.9MU1172 2 - 40' Low Floor Diesel Buses 2015 $1,020.8 $1,020.8 0.0% $.0 $1,020.8 0% $.0 $102.1 $918.7 $.0 $918.7 71.8% $659.9 12.3% $113.0 4.9% $44.9 11.0% $100.9MU1172 2 - 40' Low Floor Diesel Buses 2016 $1,020.8 $1,020.8 0.0% $.0 $1,020.8 0% $.0 $102.1 $918.7 $.0 $918.7 71.8% $659.9 12.3% $113.0 4.9% $44.9 11.0% $100.9MU1172 2 - 40' Low Floor Diesel Buses 2017 $1,020.8 $1,020.8 0.0% $.0 $1,020.8 0% $.0 $102.1 $918.7 $.0 $918.7 71.8% $659.9 12.3% $113.0 4.9% $44.9 11.0% $100.9MU1172 2- 40' Low Floor Diesel Bus 2018 $1,020.8 $1,020.8 0.0% $.0 $1,020.8 0% $.0 $102.1 $918.7 $.0 $918.7 71.8% $659.9 12.3% $113.0 4.9% $44.9 11.0% $100.9
PORTION OF PRIOR YEARS' GROWTH PROJECTS FINANCED WITH DEBT $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0
TOTAL $8,676.8 $.0 $.0 $8,676.8 $.0 $8,676.8 $.0 $867.7 $7,809.1 $.0 $7,809.1 71.8% $5,609.3 12.3% $960.5 4.9% $381.3 11.0% $858.0
Supplement A Residential Commercial Institutional IndustrialExisting Service Standard Limitation
$1,720.0 100.0% $1,720.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0Existing Service Standard Measure $262.96
Net Growth Projection 33,077 $6,089.1 63.9% $3,889.3 15.8% $960.5 6.3% $381.3 14.1% $858.0Maximum Eligible Amount For DC Rate Calculation $8,697.8 Divided By: Total Gross Growth Projections 55,539 250,830 222,968 380,902
Current Growth Needs $7,809.1 Calculated DC Rate - Pre-Financing 70.03$ 3.83$ 1.71$ 2.25$ Excess Of Growth Needs Over Maximum Eligible $.0 /person /sq. m. /sq. m. /sq. m.
Pre- Financing Cost Residential Rates:Notes: Vehicle1) Unit cost make up Single Family Dwelling 3.21 224.79$
Vehicle size 40' LF Diesel Multiple unit dwelling 2.30 161.07$ Bus including post delivery inspection 470,120 Apartment - bach. & 1 bed 1.37 95.94$ Electronic fare collection system 11,978 Apartment - ≥ 2 bedroom 1.92 134.46$ Automatic vehicle location and communication 28,302
510,400
2) Only growth related vehicle purchases are reflected on this schedule.3) A significant change to the Transportation Master Plan is anticipated for 2010. This may lead to a reassessment of the DC for this service component.4) No future growth benefits due to the cyclical nature of vehicle additions. Costs associated with annual vehicle additions are incurred to meet current growth needs.5) Residential / Institutional / Commercial / Industrial splits based on ratio of Population growth to Employment growth for the ten(10) year planning horizon for this service
Total net cost eligible for DC rate calculation purposes
Less
: Fu
ture
gro
wth
ben
efits
(por
tion
of
grow
th c
osts
attr
ibut
able
to g
row
th
expe
cted
to o
ccur
bey
ond
plan
ning
horiz
on fo
r thi
s se
rvic
e)
Subt
otal
Development Charge Rate Calculation (Pre-Financing Cost)
Less: Portion of above works collected in prior years (approximate uncommitted balance in DC reserve fund at December 31, 2008)
Industrial
Net
Am
ount
Elig
ible
for D
C ra
te
calc
ulat
ion
Less
: Am
ount
inel
igib
le fo
r rat
e
calc
ulat
ion
- im
prov
emen
t ove
r exi
stin
g
stan
dard
(see
Sup
plem
ent A
if a
pplic
able
)
Less
: 10%
sta
tuto
ry d
educ
tion
(if
appl
icab
le)
Expe
cted
Yea
r
Tota
l Est
imat
ed C
ost
Less
: fut
ure
capi
tal g
rant
s, s
ubsi
dies
or
othe
r con
tribu
tions
ant
icip
ated
Less
: Por
tion
of G
ross
Pro
ject
Cos
t
Fund
ed In
Prio
r Yea
rs NO
N -
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Commercial InstitutionalNon
-gro
wth
sha
re
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Subt
otal
Project # Project Description Subt
otal
142
TABLE G-3 – CASH FLOW ANALYSIS AND FINAL RATE CALCULATION - TRANSIT Service component : Transit ($'s in thousands)
FINAL RESULT 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total
Planning Horizon - yrs 10
Pre-Financing DC Rate
Post-Financing DC Rate
% Collected assumption
Growth projection for each year of forecast period
Growth - Res. (Persons In New Housing) 55,539 74.95$ 73.20$ 100% 5,553.9 5,553.9 5,553.9 5,553.9 5,553.9 5,553.9 5,553.9 5,553.9 5,553.9 5,553.9 55,538.6 Growth - Non-Res. (sq. m.) -$
Commercial 250,830.0 4.02$ 4.05$ 100% 25,083.0 25,083.0 25,083.0 25,083.0 25,083.0 25,083.0 25,083.0 25,083.0 25,083.0 25,083.0 250,830.0 Institutional 222,968.0 1.79$ 1.71$ 100% 22,296.8 22,296.8 22,296.8 22,296.8 22,296.8 22,296.8 22,296.8 22,296.8 22,296.8 22,296.8 222,968.0
C/I subtotal 473,798.0 -$ 47,379.8 47,379.8 47,379.8 47,379.8 47,379.8 47,379.8 47,379.8 47,379.8 47,379.8 47,379.8 473,798.0 Industrial 380,902.0 2.36$ 2.33$ 100% 38,090.2 38,090.2 38,090.2 38,090.2 38,090.2 38,090.2 38,090.2 38,090.2 38,090.2 38,090.2 380,902.0
Total Non-Res. 854,700.0 85,470.0 85,470.0 85,470.0 85,470.0 85,470.0 85,470.0 85,470.0 85,470.0 85,470.0 85,470.0 854,700.0
Reserve Fund Projections:Opening Surplus / <Deficit> $1,720.0 $1,110.4 $843.9 $1,036.1 $1,231.7 $967.3 $698.2 $424.5 $146.0 -$137.4 $1,720.0Revenues - Development Charge Collections
Residential $406.6 $406.6 $406.6 $406.6 $406.6 $406.6 $406.6 $406.6 $406.6 $406.6 $4,065.6Non-Res.
Commercial $101.6 $101.6 $101.6 $101.6 $101.6 $101.6 $101.6 $101.6 $101.6 $101.6 $1,016.4Institutional $38.1 $38.1 $38.1 $38.1 $38.1 $38.1 $38.1 $38.1 $38.1 $38.1 $381.1
C/I subtotal $139.8 $139.8 $139.8 $139.8 $139.8 $139.8 $139.8 $139.8 $139.8 $139.8 $1,397.5Industrial $88.9 $88.9 $88.9 $88.9 $88.9 $88.9 $88.9 $88.9 $88.9 $88.9 $889.3
Total Non-Res. $228.7 $228.7 $228.7 $228.7 $228.7 $228.7 $228.7 $228.7 $228.7 $228.7 $2,286.9
Total revenues $635.2 $635.2 $635.2 $635.2 $635.2 $635.2 $635.2 $635.2 $635.2 $635.2 $6,352.4
Development Charge draws - calculated on separate page $1,269.4 $918.7 $459.4 $459.4 $918.7 $918.7 $918.7 $918.7 $918.7 $918.7 $8,619.1Closing surplus / <deficit> before interest $1,085.9 $827.0 $1,019.8 $1,212.0 $948.2 $683.8 $414.7 $141.0 -$137.5 -$420.9 $5,773.9Non-inflationary interest revenue /<expense>
on savings 1.75% $24.6 $17.0 $16.3 $19.7 $19.1 $14.4 $9.7 $4.9 $.1 $125.8on borrowings 3.00% -$8.4 -$8.4
Closing surplus / <deficit> $1,110.4 $843.9 $1,036.1 $1,231.7 $967.3 $698.2 $424.5 $146.0 -$137.4 -$429.3 -$429.3
Target which reflects growth costs incurred in the forecast period and recoverable from future growth -$429.3
Explanatory note
Method: 12
3
Other Information: Pre PostResidential share 64% 64%Non-residential
Commercial 16% 16%Institutional 6% 6%C/I subtotal 22% 22%Industrial 14% 14%
Using "SOLVER" make balance at end of planning horizon = tot "Target " balance by allowing "Post financing rates" to vary from "Pre-financing rates".
This worksheet projects future activity in this reserve fund. It ultimately determines the rates necessary to recover all costs intended for recovery from growth (including financing costs). The deficit in the fund at the end of the planning horizon reflects costs intended for recovery from future growth.
Set Post financing rate = Pre financing rate - model projects revenues and draws and projects RF balances (ie. copy values Set ratio of Pre financing revenues = Post financing revenues (ie. copy values from C47-C52 to D47-D52). This ensures that ratio of revenues stays constant throughout rate re-calculation process.
143
APPENDIX H – Major Transportation Roadworks - CSRF Funded The Transportation Development Charges Update prepared by AECOM formed the basis for determining the Major Roadworks growth costs applied to the DC rate calculation. The DC update reached its conclusions by:
• Updating the 2003 Transportation Master Plan Model to incorporate an assessment of location and timing of growth to determine needs;
• Reviewing City provided UWRF claim and development application information; • Applying reasonable cost estimates to works; • Assigning appropriate growth/non-growth and Residential/ICI allocations; • Reducing amounts used for the DC rate calculation with respect to projects benefiting
post-period growth; and finally • Reducing amounts used for the DC rate calculation with respect to prior or future
grant funding where applicable. This Appendix summarizes the methods applied to the above work. More detailed information is available in the AECOM Major Transportation/Minor Roadworks Development Charges Update 2008. Policy Considerations In January of 2008 City Council approved adjustments to the policies of the funding sources for growth works. This decision came after receiving recommendations from the Blue Ribbon Panel and months of industry consultation. The result has been a significant shift in funding responsibility between the City Services and Urban Works Reserve Funds. Policy adjustments affecting Major Roadworks include:
• Traffic signals on arterial and primary collector roads have completely shifted from UWRF to CSRF;
• Upgrades of two-lane arterials from rural to urban cross-sections have shifted from UWRF to CSRF;
• Channelization at arterial to arterial connections will now be CSRF funded; and • Miscellaneous Minor Roadworks (street lighting and sidewalks) will move from UWRF
to CSRF. These changes in policy were incorporated into the AECOM Transportation DC Update and are reflected in the 2009 DC rate calculation on Table H-1 (8 pgs). Transportation Master Plan Update The 2003 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) was developed to provide a comprehensive plan for road expansion needs based on growth projections. The previous TMP employed a screenline model to identify Major Transportation Roadworks required from 2004-2024. The 2008 Transportation DC Update once again used the TMP model, updating it by removing completed 2004-2008 works, adding growth projections out to 2028 and reconfirming Major Roadworks needs for the new 20-year horizon. Additional information on the TMP modeling, source of growth projections and modeling approach can be found in the AECOM Transportation DC Update. Project Identification The methods used in identifying Major Roadworks and Two-lane Arterial Upgrades for the 2009-2028 review period are described below. Each required DC roadwork has been clearly identified in the project lists complete with ID, growth area, street segment, length, timing consistent with the City’s Growth Management Implementation Strategy(GMIS) and
144
growth/non-growth allocations. More specific project descriptions will improve the City’s ability to monitor DC spending and provide regular, timely updates to the GMIS.
(a) Major Transportation Roadworks Major Transportation Roadworks typically consist of large-scale arterial road widening projects triggered by increased traffic volumes associated with growth in the area. The updated TMP model was used to compare forecasted screenline volumes to available capacity for each horizon year. As with the previous DC Study, the intent was to maintain Level of Service E (a road over its designed capacity with irregular flow and rapidly varying speed). Growth needs and priorities were identified where the volume to capacity ratios for a given screenline exceeded 0.9, the generally accepted threshold in most urban municipalities. Multiple iterations of the model were then run each time adjusting recommended improvements to identified deficiencies until reaching an optimal implementation plan that included a best estimate of timing. The required Major Roadworks projects are listed in Table H-1.
(b) Two-Lane Arterial Upgrades Existing rural roads in urbanizing areas of the City are not typically designed to withstand the increased traffic brought on by advancing development. As a result, these roads may require an upgrade from their existing condition to a two-lane urban cross-section. The Two-lane Arterial Upgrade projects identified in the Transportation DC Update were compiled based on materials provided to AECOM by the City of London, including UWRF claim information, available community plans, draft approved plans of subdivision, subdivision servicing agreements as well as the City’s GMIS. This information was used to project growth pressures and determine the Two-lane Arterial Upgrades required or proposed to be completed in the 20-year horizon with timing. The identified Two-lane Arterial Upgrades are listed in Table H-1. Establishing Costing Estimates The DC rate setting process requires the estimated costs assigned to identified growth works be reasonable and defensible. Prior to assigning costs, AECOM undertook a detailed costing analysis in consultation with representatives of the local development industry collecting previous project pricing and recent tenders and then adjusting for inflation. All works have been cost estimated in 2009 dollars.
(a) Major Transportation Roadworks Each Major Transportation Roadworks project was estimated on a cost per metre basis considering some or all of the following components:
• Base cost of roadway construction according to improvement. • Structures to be widened or replaced • Noise barrier wall where required • Land acquisition (raw cost, appraisals, surveying, legal, etc.)
Contingencies were applied to account for utility relocation (15%), standard construction contingency (10%), as well as engineering fees (15%). To account for works that can not be anticipated, projects with unspecified locations were identified. These items cover infrequent situations where such works are determined to be necessary during future designs or to account for adjustments in development pressures.
(b) 2-Lane Arterial Upgrades Also based on a cost per metre basis, estimates for Two-lane Arterial Upgrades applied costing from the previous DC study updated for inflation to 2009 dollars. The updated cost estimates were confirmed against recent tenders.
145
Post-Period Benefit Adjustments Adjustments were applied to rate calculations for works considered to benefit post-period growth to ensure the calculated growth burden incorporated into the DC rate calculation matches the planning horizon for this study. Projects identified as being at the end of the planning period were most likely candidates for such adjustments, as these projects were likely to benefit growth beyond 2028. Generally, projects slotted in the 15-20 year schedule had their construction costs plus half the engineering and land acquisition costs pushed out for recovery from post 2028 growth. Lastly, works immediately adjacent to the 20-year GMIS boundary were also subject to deferral of a portion of the costs beyond 2028 as these works will have some benefit to predominately Greenfield development areas in the future. Combined, the allocation of post-period benefiting works beyond the horizon resulted in a deferral of close to $166M project costs for recovery from future growth. Allocation Splits
(a) Growth/Non-Growth A review of other municipalities in Ontario revealed that most apply a rehabilitation/ reconstruction approach to determining growth splits for major roadworks. The rehabilitation/reconstruction approach considers the growth share of works to include all elements of capacity expansion, while the non-growth share represents repairs associated with the road’s existing capacity. This methodology was adopted for the current DC update with consideration for Pavement Quality Index (PQI) of the existing road, two-lane upgrades versus arterial widenings and other growth components such as utility relocation and noise barriers. This combined assessment identified non-growth shares ranging from 2% to 25% for the various road expansion or upgrade scenarios. The overall result was an average allocation of 91% growth and 9% non-growth for Major and Two-lane Arterial Upgrade Roadworks. In the case of Minor Roadworks (Traffic Signals, Channelization, Sidewalks, Streetlights, other miscellaneous growth works), non-growth splits were not necessary, as the works in this category were considered to result from and be of benefit to development.
(b) Residential/ICI Net growth costs for identified transportation growth projects must also be apportioned to the various benefiting land uses (ie. Residential, Institutional, Commercial, Industrial). A recent review of London’s approach to RES/ICI split allocations, prepared by IBI Group, revealed an inordinately high share attributed to ICI relative to other municipalities. Therefore, IBI recommended basing the RES/ICI split for arterial road network improvements on the relative proportion of projected growth in population and jobs (by sector) of the 2009-2028 period for which transportation needs were determined. The resulting Major Roadworks RES/ICI split is as follows.
Residential Institutional Commercial Industrial 74% 5% 11% 10%
Both the growth/non-growth splits (above section) and the RES/ICI splits discussed in the preceding paragraph were presented to Council as the approach being used in this DC study (Board of Control, November 26, 2008). Final Costs for DC Rate Calculation The required Major Transportation Roadworks, Two-lane arterial upgrade works and Miscellaneous minor roadworks identified in the AECOM Major Transportation/Minor Roadworks Development Charges Update 2008 form the basis for determining development charges for the CSRF and/or UWRF and represent the numerator in the rate calculation.
146
The final net costs for these works attributable to the 20 yr growth window are approximately $435M (see Table H-1). Uncommitted Reserve Funds
The uncommitted balance of the reserve funds is netted against the determined total growth servicing costs to take into account funds that have been collected in the past. For Major Transportation Roadworks costs, the above costs figures are reduced by the $37M uncommitted roads balance for the final calculated DC rate.
Financing Costs Table H-2 was produced to simulate cash flows for CSRF funded Transportation works for the purpose of calculating the final DC rate inclusive of financing costs. Forecasting cash flow and financing costs involved:
a) Starting with the 2009 opening balance, approximately $37M, which reflects accumulated funds for growth projects identified in past DC studies that remain as capital needs in this study;
b) Projecting DC revenues using the “pre-finance” rate; c) Incorporating DC drawdowns in the cash flow projection based on the growth
projects identified in the 20-year study period; and d) Estimating annual interest revenues to be earned and/or financing costs to be
incurred due to fund deficits throughout the 20-year planning horizon.
Any deficit at the end of the planning period for the cash flow equates to the amounts of the expenditures incurred during the planning period to be recovered from growth in the future (i.e. the post period benefit). All figures are presented on an un-inflated, constant (2009) dollar basis and interest rates exclude the inflationary component (2%). The rates generated from this cash flow analysis reflect the appropriate cost recovery from growth for the 20-year planning horizon.
Council Intention to Meet Growth Needs The growth needs identified within this Appendix have been extracted from the AECOM Transportation DC update. The capital items reflected herein will be subject to final approval of Council through the annual capital budget approval process. It is Council’s stated intention to “provide for the needs of growth in a way that does not jeopardize the long term financial health of the municipality, or place an undue burden on existing taxpayers” (Official Plan Policy 2.6.3). NOTE: An examination of long term Transportation Services operating costs for growth needs is included in Appendix O of this Background Study.
147
TABLE H-1 – ARTERIAL ROAD EXPANSION Service component : Arterial RoadsPlanning horizon for this component : 2009-2028
% benefit % $ % $ % $ % $(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21)
(all $'s in ,000's) (1) - sum(2,3) (4) * (5) (4) - (6) (7) * (8) [(7) - (9)] * 10% (7) - sum(9,10) (11) - (12) (13) * (14) (13) * (16) (13) * (18) (13) * (20)Note 1 Note 1 Note 1 Notes 2 Notes 2 Notes 2 Notes 2
TS1493 Oxford Street W 1.2 Oxford Street W widening from 2 to 4 lanes with centre turn lane between Wonderland Road and Sanatorium Road 2013 $12,991.0 $2,391.0 $10,600.0 $.0 $10,600.0 4.7% $499.4 $.0 $10,100.6 $.0 $10,100.6 74.0% $7,474.5 11.0% $1,111.1 5.0% $505.0 10.0% $1,010.1
TS1470 Commissioners Road 1.5 Commissioners Road widening from 2 to 4 through lanes with centre turn lane, between Wonderland Road and Viscount Road 2012 $13,697.0 $1,097.0 $12,600.0 $.0 $12,600.0 2.4% $304.5 $.0 $12,295.5 $.0 $12,295.5 74.0% $9,098.7 11.0% $1,352.5 5.0% $614.8 10.0% $1,229.6
TS1491 Veterans Memorial Parkway
1.8 Veterans Memorial Parkway widening from Oxford Street to Huron St. 2027 $7,374.4 $7,374.4 $.0 $7,374.4 9.9% $730.8 $.0 $6,643.6 $.0 $6,643.6 74.0% $4,916.2 11.0% $730.8 5.0% $332.2 10.0% $664.4
subtotal $34,062.4 $.0 $3,488.0 $30,574.4 0.0% $.0 $30,574.4 5.0% $1,534.7 $.0 $29,039.7 $.0 $29,039.7 74.0% $21,489.4 11.0% $3,194.4 5.0% $1,452.0 10.0% $2,904.0TS1486 Southdale Road 2.1 Southdale Road widening from 2 to 4
through lanes between Wonderland Road and Wharncliffe Road. (TS1486) 2012 $9,798.8 $470.0 $9,328.8 $.0 $9,328.8 5.0% $466.9 $.0 $8,861.9 $.0 $8,861.9 74.0% $6,557.8 11.0% $974.8 5.0% $443.1 10.0% $886.2
TS1487 Southdale Road 2.2 Southdale Road widening from 2 to 4 through lanes with centre turn lane, between Wellington Road to Pond Mills Road. (TS1487)
2019 $19,810.6 $19,810.6 $.0 $19,810.6 4.8% $954.1 $.0 $18,856.5 $.0 $18,856.5 74.0% $13,953.8 11.0% $2,074.2 5.0% $942.8 10.0% $1,885.7Fanshawe Park Road 2.4 Fanshawe Park Road widening from 2 to 4
through lanes with centre turn lane, between Adelaide Street and Highbury Avenue. (TS1475/TS1476)
TS1475 Fanshawe Park Road 2.4(i) Phase 1 - Fanshawe/Highbury Intersection 2010 $4,025.0 $225.0 $3,800.0 $.0 $3,800.0 3.2% $121.8 $.0 $3,678.2 $.0 $3,678.2 74.0% $2,721.9 11.0% $404.6 5.0% $183.9 10.0% $367.8TS1475 Fanshawe Park Road 2.4(ii) Phase 2 - Fanshawe to Adelaide 2016 $15,854.0 $15,854.0 $.0 $15,854.0 5.1% $812.0 $.0 $15,042.0 $.0 $15,042.0 74.0% $11,131.1 11.0% $1,654.6 5.0% $752.1 10.0% $1,504.2TS1156 Wonderland Road 2.5 Wonderland Road widening from 2 to 4
through lanes between Gainsborough Road and Fanshawe Park Road. (TS1156) 2010 $10,329.6 $810.0 $9,519.6 $.0 $9,519.6 4.6% $434.4 $.0 $9,085.2 $.0 $9,085.2 74.0% $6,723.0 11.0% $999.4 5.0% $454.3 10.0% $908.5
TS1478 Huron Street 2.6 Huron Street widening from 2 to 4 through lanes between Adelaide Street and Vesta Road. (TS1478) 2020 $12,135.0 $12,135.0 $.0 $12,135.0 6.0% $730.8 $.0 $11,404.2 $.0 $11,404.2 74.0% $8,439.1 11.0% $1,254.5 5.0% $570.2 10.0% $1,140.4
TS1484 Sarnia Road 2.7 Sarnia Road widening from 3 to 4 lanes between Wonderland Road and Sleightholme Ave 2012 $4,747.3 $4,747.3 $.0 $4,747.3 10.4% $493.9 $.0 $4,253.5 $.0 $4,253.5 74.0% $3,147.6 11.0% $467.9 5.0% $212.7 10.0% $425.3
subtotal $76,700.3 $.0 $1,505.0 $75,195.3 0.0% $.0 $75,195.3 5.3% $4,013.9 $.0 $71,181.4 $.0 $71,181.4 74.0% $52,674.3 11.0% $7,830.0 5.0% $3,559.1 10.0% $7,118.1TS1489 Western 3.1 Widen Western Road from 2 to 4 through
lanes between Platts Lane and Oxford Street, including widening rail underpass 2020 $15,219.4 $15,219.4 $.0 $15,219.4 2.5% $385.7 $.0 $14,833.7 $.0 $14,833.7 74.0% $10,976.9 11.0% $1,631.7 5.0% $741.7 10.0% $1,483.4
Wellington Road 3.2 Widen and reconfigure Wellington Road with 6 through lanes, centre turn lane and southbound right turn lane between Commissioners Road and Exeter Road
TS1481 Wellington Road 3.2(i) Commissioners to Southdale 2015 $6,446.6 $600.0 $5,846.6 $.0 $5,846.6 23.0% $1,346.4 $.0 $4,500.2 $.0 $4,500.2 74.0% $3,330.2 11.0% $495.0 5.0% $225.0 10.0% $450.0TS1481 Wellington Road 3.2(ii) Southdale to Bradley 2016 $4,595.5 $4,595.5 $.0 $4,595.5 17.6% $807.0 $.0 $3,788.5 $.0 $3,788.5 74.0% $2,803.5 11.0% $416.7 5.0% $189.4 10.0% $378.8TS1481 Wellington Road 3.2(iii) Bradley to Exeter 2018 $3,293.1 $3,293.1 $.0 $3,293.1 25.9% $853.6 $.0 $2,439.5 $.0 $2,439.5 74.0% $1,805.2 11.0% $268.3 5.0% $122.0 10.0% $244.0
Bradley Avenue 3.3 Widen Bradley Avenue from 2 to 4 through lanes between Dearness Drive and Jackson Road
TS1479 Bradley Avenue 3.3(i) Dearness to Pond Mills 2017 $18,964.1 $18,964.1 $.0 $18,964.1 5.4% $1,015.0 $.0 $17,949.1 $.0 $17,949.1 74.0% $13,282.3 11.0% $1,974.4 5.0% $897.5 10.0% $1,794.9TS1479 Bradley Avenue 3.3(ii) Pond Mills to Jackson 2028 $17,515.3 $17,515.3 94.0% $16,464.4 $1,050.9 19.4% $204.4 $.0 $846.6 $.0 $846.6 74.0% $626.5 11.0% $93.1 5.0% $42.3 10.0% $84.7
Hyde Park Road 3.4 Widen Hyde Park Road from 2 to 4 through lanes between Gainsborough Road and Oxford Street
TS1477 Hyde Park Road 3.4(i) Oxford to Sarnia 2014 $7,565.8 $7,565.8 $.0 $7,565.8 7.2% $544.0 $.0 $7,021.7 $.0 $7,021.7 74.0% $5,196.1 11.0% $772.4 5.0% $351.1 10.0% $702.2TS1477 Hyde Park Road 3.4(ii) Sarnia to north of Gainsborough 2015 $12,121.9 $12,121.9 $.0 $12,121.9 17.7% $2,148.9 $.0 $9,973.0 $.0 $9,973.0 74.0% $7,380.0 11.0% $1,097.0 5.0% $498.7 10.0% $997.3TS1476 Clarke Side Road 3.5 Widen Clarke Side Road from 2 to 4
through lanes between Kilally and Fanshawe Park Road
2017 $16,242.2 $16,242.2 25.0% $4,060.5 $12,181.6 3.4% $418.7 $.0 $11,763.0 $.0 $11,763.0 74.0% $8,704.6 11.0% $1,293.9 5.0% $588.1 10.0% $1,176.3
Anticipated and Planned Projects (Aecom Table 4.1)
Forecasted Projects (Table 4.1)
Other Existing Link Deficiencies (Aecom Table 4.1)
Less
: Fu
ture
gro
wth
ben
efits
(por
tion
of
grow
th c
osts
attr
ibut
able
to g
row
th e
xpec
ted
to o
ccur
bey
ond
plan
ning
hor
izon
for t
his
serv
ice)
Subt
otal
Expe
cted
Yea
r
Tota
l Est
imat
ed C
ost
Less
: fut
ure
capi
tal g
rant
s, s
ubsi
dies
or o
ther
cont
ribut
ions
ant
icip
ated
Less
: Por
tion
of G
ross
Pro
ject
Cos
t Fun
ded
In P
rior Y
ears
Industrial
Net
Am
ount
Elig
ible
for D
C ra
te c
alcu
latio
n
Less
: Am
ount
inel
igib
le fo
r rat
e ca
lcul
atio
n -
impr
ovem
ent o
ver e
xist
ing
stan
dard
(see
Supp
lem
ent A
if a
pplic
able
)
Less
: 10%
sta
tuto
ry d
educ
tion
(if a
pplic
able
)
Allocation of Net Amount to types of GrowthAmount Eligible for Development Charge Rate Calculations
NO
N -
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Commercial InstitutionalNon
-gro
wth
sha
re
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Subt
otal
Project # Project Description Subt
otal
148
TABLE H-1 – ARTERIAL ROAD EXPANSION
% benefit % $ % $ % $ % $(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21)
(all $'s in ,000's) (1) - sum(2,3) (4) * (5) (4) - (6) (7) * (8) [(7) - (9)] * 10% (7) - sum(9,10) (11) - (12) (13) * (14) (13) * (16) (13) * (18) (13) * (20)Note 1 Note 1 Note 1 Notes 2 Notes 2 Notes 2 Notes 2
Less
: Fu
ture
gro
wth
ben
efits
(por
tion
of
grow
th c
osts
attr
ibut
able
to g
row
th e
xpec
ted
to o
ccur
bey
ond
plan
ning
hor
izon
for t
his
serv
ice)
Subt
otal
Expe
cted
Yea
r
Tota
l Est
imat
ed C
ost
Less
: fut
ure
capi
tal g
rant
s, s
ubsi
dies
or o
ther
cont
ribut
ions
ant
icip
ated
Less
: Por
tion
of G
ross
Pro
ject
Cos
t Fun
ded
In P
rior Y
ears
Industrial
Net
Am
ount
Elig
ible
for D
C ra
te c
alcu
latio
n
Less
: Am
ount
inel
igib
le fo
r rat
e ca
lcul
atio
n -
impr
ovem
ent o
ver e
xist
ing
stan
dard
(see
Supp
lem
ent A
if a
pplic
able
)
Less
: 10%
sta
tuto
ry d
educ
tion
(if a
pplic
able
)
NO
N -
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Commercial InstitutionalNon
-gro
wth
sha
re
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Subt
otal
Project # Project Description Subt
otal
Sunningdale Road 3.6 Widen Sunningdale Road from 2 to 4
through lanes between Wonderland Road and Adelaide Street
TS1496 Sunningdale Road 3.6(i) Stage 1 - Phase 1 - Richmond/Sunningdale Intersection 2014 $1,746.6 $1,746.6 $.0 $1,746.6 17.4% $303.8 $.0 $1,442.8 $.0 $1,442.8 74.0% $1,067.7 11.0% $158.7 5.0% $72.1 10.0% $144.3
TS1496 Sunningdale Road 3.6(ii) Stage 1 - Phase 3 - Wonderland/Sunningdale Intersection 2014 $1,746.6 $1,746.6 $.0 $1,746.6 17.4% $303.8 $.0 $1,442.8 $.0 $1,442.8 74.0% $1,067.7 11.0% $158.7 5.0% $72.1 10.0% $144.3
TS1496 Sunningdale Road 3.6(iii) Stage 1 - Phase 4 - Richmond to Wonderland 2017 $15,743.9 $15,743.9 $.0 $15,743.9 17.7% $2,791.9 $.0 $12,952.0 $.0 $12,952.0 74.0% $9,584.5 11.0% $1,424.7 5.0% $647.6 10.0% $1,295.2
TS1496 Sunningdale Road 3.6(iv) Stage 1 - Phase 2 - Richmond to Adelaide 2024 $13,099.2 $13,099.2 $.0 $13,099.2 17.4% $2,278.1 $.0 $10,821.1 $.0 $10,821.1 74.0% $8,007.6 11.0% $1,190.3 5.0% $541.1 10.0% $1,082.1
TS1496 Sunningdale Road 3.6(v) Fill Requirements - Adelaide to Richmond 2014 $1,437.5 $1,437.5 $.0 $1,437.5 0.0% $.0 $.0 $1,437.5 $.0 $1,437.5 74.0% $1,063.8 11.0% $158.1 5.0% $71.9 10.0% $143.8
TS1496 Sunningdale Road 3.6(vi) Fill Requirements - Richmond to Wonderland 2014 $1,437.5 $1,437.5 $.0 $1,437.5 0.0% $.0 $.0 $1,437.5 $.0 $1,437.5 74.0% $1,063.8 11.0% $158.1 5.0% $71.9 10.0% $143.8
Hyde Park Road 3.7 Widen Hyde Park Road from 2 to 4 through lanes between Gainsborough Road and Sunningdale Road
TS1494 Hyde Park Road 3.7(i) Phase 1 - Gainsborough to Fanshawe2016 $8,288.5 $8,288.5 $.0 $8,288.5 6.7% $556.2 $.0 $7,732.2 $.0 $7,732.2 74.0% $5,721.9 11.0% $850.5 5.0% $386.6 10.0% $773.2
TS1494 Hyde Park Road 3.7(ii) Phase 2 - Fanshawe to Sunningdale (Hyde Park/Sunningdale Intersection included with 3.9 works) 2028 $7,743.1 $7,743.1 94.0% $7,278.5 $464.6 7.0% $32.4 $.0 $432.2 $.0 $432.2 74.0% $319.8 11.0% $47.5 5.0% $21.6 10.0% $43.2
Oxford Street West 3.8 Oxford Street West extension and 2-4 lane widening from Sanitorium Road to Westdel Bourne. $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 74.0% $.0 11.0% $.0 5.0% $.0 10.0% $.0
TS1472 Oxford Street West 3.8(i) Phase 1 - Sanitorium to Commissioners2028 $7,115.6 $7,115.6 94.0% $6,688.7 $426.9 9.4% $40.2 $.0 $386.7 $.0 $386.7 74.0% $286.2 11.0% $42.5 5.0% $19.3 10.0% $38.7
TS1472 Oxford Street West 3.8(ii) Phase 2 - Commissioners to Westdel Bourne 2028 $4,312.5 $4,312.5 94.0% $4,053.8 $258.8 9.4% $24.4 $.0 $234.4 $.0 $234.4 74.0% $173.4 11.0% $25.8 5.0% $11.7 10.0% $23.4
Sunningdale Road 3.9 Widen Sunningdale Road from 2 to 4 through lanes between Wonderland Road and Hyde Park Road
TS1490 Sunningdale Road 3.9(i) Stage 1 - Phase 1 - Sunningdale/Hyde Park intersection 2028 $1,229.1 $1,229.1 94.0% $1,155.3 $73.7 17.4% $12.8 $.0 $60.9 $.0 $60.9 74.0% $45.1 11.0% $6.7 5.0% $3.0 10.0% $6.1
TS1490 Sunningdale Road 3.9(ii) Stage 1 - Phase 2 - Wonderland to Hyde Park 2028 $8,910.7 $8,910.7 94.0% $8,376.1 $534.6 17.4% $93.0 $.0 $441.7 $.0 $441.7 74.0% $326.8 11.0% $48.6 5.0% $22.1 10.0% $44.2
Fanshawe Park Road 3.10 Widen Fanshawe Park Road from 4 to 6 through lanes between Wonderland Road and Adelaide Street
TS1346 Fanshawe Park Road 3.10(i) Phase 1 - Adelaide to Richmond 2028 $9,072.0 $9,072.0 87.4% $7,931.7 $1,140.3 20.5% $234.1 $.0 $906.2 $.0 $906.2 74.0% $670.6 11.0% $99.7 5.0% $45.3 10.0% $90.6TS1346 Fanshawe Park Road 3.10(ii) Phase 2 - Richmond to Wonderland
2028 $14,146.2 $14,146.2 94.0% $13,297.4 $848.8 13.6% $115.2 $.0 $733.5 $.0 $733.5 74.0% $542.8 11.0% $80.7 5.0% $36.7 10.0% $73.4Richmond Street 3.11 Widen Richmond Street to 6 through
lanes between North Centre Road and Western Road
TS1347 Richmond Street 3.11(i) Phase 1 - Western Road to Fanshawe 2027 $2,572.5 $2,572.5 $.0 $2,572.5 24.1% $620.8 $.0 $1,951.7 $.0 $1,951.7 74.0% $1,444.3 11.0% $214.7 5.0% $97.6 10.0% $195.2
TS1347 Richmond Street 3.11(ii) Phase 2 - Fanshawe to North Centre Road 2028 $1,447.0 $1,447.0 $.0 $1,447.0 24.1% $349.2 $.0 $1,097.8 $.0 $1,097.8 74.0% $812.4 11.0% $120.8 5.0% $54.9 10.0% $109.8
Wonderland Road 3.12 Widen Wonderland Road from 4 to 6 through lanes between Gainsborough Road and Riverside Drive
TS1348 Wonderland Road 3.12(i) Phase 1 - Riverside to Oxford 2028 $13,389.9 $13,389.9 87.7% $11,739.8 $1,650.1 5.8% $95.6 $.0 $1,554.4 $.0 $1,554.4 74.0% $1,150.3 11.0% $171.0 5.0% $77.7 10.0% $155.4TS1348 Wonderland Road 3.12(ii) Phase 2 - Oxford to Sarnia 2028 $6,107.1 $6,107.1 87.1% $5,317.4 $789.7 20.3% $160.6 $.0 $629.2 $.0 $629.2 74.0% $465.6 11.0% $69.2 5.0% $31.5 10.0% $62.9TS1348 Wonderland Road 3.12(iii) Phase 3 - Sarnia to Gainsborough
2028 $5,785.6 $5,785.6 86.7% $5,015.1 $770.5 20.1% $155.0 $.0 $615.5 $.0 $615.5 74.0% $455.4 11.0% $67.7 5.0% $30.8 10.0% $61.5Sarnia Road 3.13 Widen Sarnia Road from 2 to 4 through
lanes between Wonderland Road and Hyde Park Road
TS1349 Sarnia Road 3.13(a) Phase 1 - Bridge 2011 $10,312.5 $250.0 $10,062.5 $.0 $10,062.5 20.5% $2,062.5 $.0 $8,000.0 $.0 $8,000.0 74.0% $5,920.0 11.0% $880.0 5.0% $400.0 10.0% $800.0TS1349 Sarnia Road 3.13(b) Phase 2 - Hyde Park to Wonderland
2022 $10,115.2 $10,115.2 $.0 $10,115.2 16.6% $1,674.4 $.0 $8,440.8 $.0 $8,440.8 74.0% $6,246.2 11.0% $928.5 5.0% $422.0 10.0% $844.1Boler Road/Sanatorium 3.14 Widen Boler Road/Sanatorium Road
from 2 to 4 through lanes between Commissioners Road and Oxford Street West
TS1350 Boler Road/Sanatorium 3.14(i) Phase 1 - Oxford to Riverside 2025 $4,848.8 $4,848.8 $.0 $4,848.8 7.5% $365.4 $.0 $4,483.4 $.0 $4,483.4 74.0% $3,317.7 11.0% $493.2 5.0% $224.2 10.0% $448.3TS1350 Boler Road/Sanatorium 3.14(ii) Phase 2- Riverside to Commissioners
2028 $10,621.9 $10,621.9 94.0% $9,984.6 $637.3 2.1% $13.4 $.0 $623.9 $.0 $623.9 74.0% $461.7 11.0% $68.6 5.0% $31.2 10.0% $62.4TS1352 Commissioners Road 3.16 Widen Commissioners Road East from
2 to 4 through lanes between Highbury Ave and Jackson Rd. 2026 $6,145.3 $6,145.3 $6,145.3 9.9% $609.0 $.0 $5,536.3 $.0 $5,536.3 74.0% $4,096.9 11.0% $609.0 5.0% $276.8 10.0% $553.6
subtotal $269,338.4 $.0 $850.0 $268,488.4 37.8% $101,363.2 $167,125.1 12.3% $20,615.3 $.0 $146,509.8 $.0 $146,509.8 74.0% $108,417.3 11.0% $16,116.1 5.0% $7,325.5 10.0% $14,651.0Other Future Screenline Capacity Improvements and Connections (Aecom Table EX-2)
(16)
(15)
149
TABLE H-1 – ARTERIAL ROAD EXPANSION
% benefit % $ % $ % $ % $(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21)
(all $'s in ,000's) (1) - sum(2,3) (4) * (5) (4) - (6) (7) * (8) [(7) - (9)] * 10% (7) - sum(9,10) (11) - (12) (13) * (14) (13) * (16) (13) * (18) (13) * (20)Note 1 Note 1 Note 1 Notes 2 Notes 2 Notes 2 Notes 2
Less
: Fu
ture
gro
wth
ben
efits
(por
tion
of
grow
th c
osts
attr
ibut
able
to g
row
th e
xpec
ted
to o
ccur
bey
ond
plan
ning
hor
izon
for t
his
serv
ice)
Subt
otal
Expe
cted
Yea
r
Tota
l Est
imat
ed C
ost
Less
: fut
ure
capi
tal g
rant
s, s
ubsi
dies
or o
ther
cont
ribut
ions
ant
icip
ated
Less
: Por
tion
of G
ross
Pro
ject
Cos
t Fun
ded
In P
rior Y
ears
Industrial
Net
Am
ount
Elig
ible
for D
C ra
te c
alcu
latio
n
Less
: Am
ount
inel
igib
le fo
r rat
e ca
lcul
atio
n -
impr
ovem
ent o
ver e
xist
ing
stan
dard
(see
Supp
lem
ent A
if a
pplic
able
)
Less
: 10%
sta
tuto
ry d
educ
tion
(if a
pplic
able
)
NO
N -
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Commercial InstitutionalNon
-gro
wth
sha
re
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Subt
otal
Project # Project Description Subt
otal
Veterans Memorial Parkway
4.1 Veterans Memorial Parkway Extension 2 then 4 through lanes between Huron Street and Clarke Road (1600m, with Clarke Road/UTRCA entrance realignment required. No separate cost identified. 4.0ha of property required).
TS1621 Veterans Memorial Parkway
4.1(i) Phase 1 - Veterans Memorial Parkway Extension 2 through lanes between Huron Street and Clarke Road 2016 $10,625.9 $10,625.9 $10,625.9 7.1% $751.1 $.0 $9,874.8 $.0 $9,874.8 74.0% $7,307.4 11.0% $1,086.2 5.0% $493.7 10.0% $987.5
TS1621 Veterans Memorial Parkway
4.1(ii) Phase 2 - Veterans Memorial Parkway Extension 4 through lanes between Huron Street and Clarke Road (2LRA to 4LUA)
beyond 2028 $7,180.3 $7,180.3 94.0% $6,749.5 $430.8 10.5% $45.1 $.0 $385.7 $.0 $385.7 74.0% $285.5 11.0% $42.4 5.0% $19.3 10.0% $38.6TS1354 Wonderland Road North 4.3 Widen Wonderland Road North from 2 to
4 through lanes between Sunningdale Road and Fanshawe Park Road
beyond 2028 $8,543.4 $8,543.4 89.0% $7,601.8 $941.6 6.2% $58.2 $.0 $883.5 $.0 $883.5 74.0% $653.8 11.0% $97.2 5.0% $44.2 10.0% $88.3TS1355 Wharncliffe Road 4.4 Wharncliffe Road from 2-4 lanes between
Becher Street and Springbank Drive.2021 $9,783.8 $9,783.8 $.0 $9,783.8 17.5% $1,710.0 $.0 $8,073.8 $.0 $8,073.8 74.0% $5,974.6 11.0% $888.1 5.0% $403.7 10.0% $807.4
Bradley Avenue 4.5 Bradley Avenue Extension White Oak Road to Bostwick Road. (8)
TS1523 Bradley Avenue 4.5(i) Phase 1 - White Oaks to Wharncliffe2026 $7,735.0 $1,521.0 $6,214.0 77.7% $4,825.9 $1,388.1 9.1% $127.0 $.0 $1,261.1 $.0 $1,261.1 74.0% $933.2 11.0% $138.7 5.0% $63.1 10.0% $126.1
TS1523 Bradley Avenue 4.5(ii) Phase 2 - Wharncliffe to Wonderlandbeyond 2028 $7,725.6 $7,725.6 85.2% $6,585.6 $1,140.0 5.4% $61.4 $.0 $1,078.6 $.0 $1,078.6 74.0% $798.2 11.0% $118.6 5.0% $53.9 10.0% $107.9
TS1523 Bradley Avenue 4.5(iii) Phase 3 - Wonderland to Bostwickbeyond 2028 $9,386.9 $9,386.9 68.4% $6,420.2 $2,966.7 4.2% $125.1 $.0 $2,841.6 $.0 $2,841.6 74.0% $2,102.8 11.0% $312.6 5.0% $142.1 10.0% $284.2
subtotal $60,980.9 $.0 $1,521.0 $59,459.9 54.1% $32,183.0 $27,276.9 10.6% $2,877.8 $.0 $24,399.1 $.0 $24,399.1 74.0% $18,055.3 11.0% $2,683.9 5.0% $1,220.0 10.0% $2,439.9Sunningdale Road 5.1 Sunningdale - Highbury to Adelaide
TS1626 Sunningdale Road Phase 1 - Highbury/Adelaide Intersection2015 $2,619.8 $2,619.8 $2,619.8 17.4% $455.6 $.0 $2,164.2 $.0 $2,164.2 74.0% $1,601.5 11.0% $238.1 5.0% $108.2 10.0% $216.4
TS1626 Sunningdale Road Phase 2 - Highbury to Adelaide 2025 $11,934.8 $11,934.8 $11,934.8 17.4% $2,075.6 $.0 $9,859.2 $.0 $9,859.2 74.0% $7,295.8 11.0% $1,084.5 5.0% $493.0 10.0% $985.9TS1627 Highbury 5.2 Highbury - Fanshawe to Sunningdale 2023 $10,414.4 $10,414.4 $10,414.4 5.5% $568.4 $.0 $9,846.0 $.0 $9,846.0 74.0% $7,286.0 11.0% $1,083.1 5.0% $492.3 10.0% $984.6TS1628 Fanshawe Pk Rd East 5.3 Fanshawe Pk Rd East - Clarke to
Highbury 2018 $14,914.1 $14,914.1 25.0% $3,728.5 $11,185.6 17.4% $1,945.3 $.0 $9,240.2 $.0 $9,240.2 74.0% $6,837.8 11.0% $1,016.4 5.0% $462.0 10.0% $924.0Southdale 5.4 Southdale Rd West - Colonel Talbot to
Pine Valley BlvdTS1629 Southdale Phase 1 - Colonel Talbot to Farnham beyond 2028 $15,461.9 $15,461.9 92.4% $14,292.2 $1,169.7 15.9% $186.5 $.0 $983.2 $.0 $983.2 74.0% $727.6 11.0% $108.2 5.0% $49.2 10.0% $98.3TS1629 Southdale Phase 2 - Farnham to Pine Valley 2028 $4,216.9 $4,216.9 $4,216.9 14.8% $622.5 $.0 $3,594.4 $.0 $3,594.4 74.0% $2,659.8 11.0% $395.4 5.0% $179.7 10.0% $359.4TS1630 Commissioners Rd East 5.5 Commissioners Rd East - Jackson to Old
Victoria 2027 $13,802.3 $13,802.3 $13,802.3 7.4% $1,015.0 $.0 $12,787.3 $.0 $12,787.3 74.0% $9,462.6 11.0% $1,406.6 5.0% $639.4 10.0% $1,278.7TS2172 Hamilton 5.6 Hamilton Road - Old Victoria to Veterans
Memorial Parkway 2024 $6,549.5 $6,549.5 50.0% $3,274.7 $3,274.8 5.7% $187.8 $.0 $3,087.0 $.0 $3,087.0 74.0% $2,284.4 11.0% $339.6 5.0% $154.3 10.0% $308.7TS2173 Bradley 5.7 Bradley - Old Victoria to Innovation Park
Phase 4 beyond 2028 $7,755.3 $7,755.3 94.0% $7,290.0 $465.3 17.4% $80.9 $.0 $384.4 $.0 $384.4 74.0% $284.4 11.0% $42.3 5.0% $19.2 10.0% $38.4TS1304 Legendary Drive 5.8 Legendary Drive - Realignment 2010 $1,181.0 $1,181.0 $1,181.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $1,181.0 $.0 $1,181.0 74.0% $873.9 11.0% $129.9 5.0% $59.1 10.0% $118.1
subtotal $88,849.9 $.0 $.0 $88,849.9 32.2% $28,585.4 $60,264.5 11.8% $7,137.6 $.0 $53,126.8 $.0 $53,126.8 74.0% $39,313.9 11.0% $5,844.0 5.0% $2,656.3 10.0% $5,312.7
subtotal $529,931.9 $.0 $7,364.0 $522,567.9 31.0% $162,131.6 $360,436.2 10.0% $36,179.4 $.0 $324,256.9 $.0 $324,256.9 74.0% $239,950.1 11.0% $35,668.3 5.0% $16,212.8 10.0% $32,425.7
New Additional Projects (Aecom Table EX-2)
(19)
150
TABLE H-1 – ARTERIAL ROAD EXPANSION
% benefit % $ % $ % $ % $(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21)
(all $'s in ,000's) (1) - sum(2,3) (4) * (5) (4) - (6) (7) * (8) [(7) - (9)] * 10% (7) - sum(9,10) (11) - (12) (13) * (14) (13) * (16) (13) * (18) (13) * (20)Note 1 Note 1 Note 1 Notes 2 Notes 2 Notes 2 Notes 2
Less
: Fu
ture
gro
wth
ben
efits
(por
tion
of
grow
th c
osts
attr
ibut
able
to g
row
th e
xpec
ted
to o
ccur
bey
ond
plan
ning
hor
izon
for t
his
serv
ice)
Subt
otal
Expe
cted
Yea
r
Tota
l Est
imat
ed C
ost
Less
: fut
ure
capi
tal g
rant
s, s
ubsi
dies
or o
ther
cont
ribut
ions
ant
icip
ated
Less
: Por
tion
of G
ross
Pro
ject
Cos
t Fun
ded
In P
rior Y
ears
Industrial
Net
Am
ount
Elig
ible
for D
C ra
te c
alcu
latio
n
Less
: Am
ount
inel
igib
le fo
r rat
e ca
lcul
atio
n -
impr
ovem
ent o
ver e
xist
ing
stan
dard
(see
Supp
lem
ent A
if a
pplic
able
)
Less
: 10%
sta
tuto
ry d
educ
tion
(if a
pplic
able
)
NO
N -
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Commercial InstitutionalNon
-gro
wth
sha
re
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Subt
otal
Project # Project Description Subt
otal
Long Term Corridor Protection - EA Studies (2) 2018 $1,500.0 $1,500.0 $1,500.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $1,500.0 $.0 $1,500.0 74.0% $1,110.0 11.0% $165.0 5.0% $75.0 10.0% $150.0Urban Intersections 20 yrs $8,080.0 $8,080.0 $8,080.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $8,080.0 $.0 $8,080.0 74.0% $5,979.2 11.0% $888.8 5.0% $404.0 10.0% $808.0Rural Intersections 20 yrs $6,600.0 $6,600.0 $6,600.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $6,600.0 $.0 $6,600.0 74.0% $4,884.0 11.0% $726.0 5.0% $330.0 10.0% $660.0Road Class Oversizing - City Share 20 yrs $2,000.0 $2,000.0 $2,000.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $2,000.0 $.0 $2,000.0 74.0% $1,480.0 11.0% $220.0 5.0% $100.0 10.0% $200.0Traffic Impact Studies 2013 $450.0 $450.0 $450.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $450.0 $.0 $450.0 74.0% $333.0 11.0% $49.5 5.0% $22.5 10.0% $45.0Veterans Memorial Pkwy Interchanges (Land) 2013 $7,800.0 $7,800.0 46.1% $3,595.8 $4,204.2 0.0% $.0 $.0 $4,204.2 $.0 $4,204.2 74.0% $3,111.1 11.0% $462.5 5.0% $210.2 10.0% $420.4
subtotal $26,430.0 $.0 $.0 $26,430.0 $.0 $3,595.8 $22,834.2 $.0 $.0 $.0 $22,834.2 $.0 $22,834.2 74.0% $16,897.3 11.0% $2,511.8 5.0% $1,141.7 10.0% $2,283.4
TS1411 Kilally from Webster to Clarke 2015 $8,114.0 $8,114.0 $8,114.0 21.7% $1,763.9 $.0 $6,350.1 $.0 $6,350.1 74.0% $4,699.0 11.0% $698.5 5.0% $317.5 10.0% $635.0TS1409 Webster from Jenson to Kilally 2022 $3,018.8 $3,018.8 $3,018.8 21.7% $656.3 $.0 $2,362.5 $.0 $2,362.5 74.0% $1,748.3 11.0% $259.9 5.0% $118.1 10.0% $236.3
Byron Baseline from Griffith to Grandview 2012 $1,142.8 $1,142.8 $1,142.8 0.0% $.0 $.0 $1,142.8 $.0 $1,142.8 74.0% $845.7 11.0% $125.7 5.0% $57.1 10.0% $114.3Byron Baseline from Wickerson to Westdel Bourne 2024 $2,476.1 $2,476.1 $2,476.1 0.0% $.0 $.0 $2,476.1 $.0 $2,476.1 74.0% $1,832.3 11.0% $272.4 5.0% $123.8 10.0% $247.6
TS1408 Wickerson from Ironwood to Southdale 2024 $5,904.5 $5,904.5 $5,904.5 0.0% $.0 $.0 $5,904.5 $.0 $5,904.5 74.0% $4,369.4 11.0% $649.5 5.0% $295.2 10.0% $590.5Southdale from Wickerson to Bramblewood Place 2022 $3,999.8 $3,999.8 $3,999.8 21.7% $869.5 $.0 $3,130.3 $.0 $3,130.3 74.0% $2,316.4 11.0% $344.3 5.0% $156.5 10.0% $313.0Southdale from Wickerson to Bramblewood Place 2019 $2,875.0 $2,875.0 $2,875.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $2,875.0 $.0 $2,875.0 74.0% $2,127.5 11.0% $316.3 5.0% $143.8 10.0% $287.5
TS1406 Stoney Creek Sunningdale from South Winege to Highbury 2015 $3,220.0 $3,220.0 $3,220.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $3,220.0 $.0 $3,220.0 74.0% $2,382.8 11.0% $354.2 5.0% $161.0 10.0% $322.0TS1405 Hamilton from Gore to Old Victoria 2023 $11,078.8 $11,078.8 $11,078.8 21.9% $2,421.9 $.0 $8,656.9 $.0 $8,656.9 74.0% $6,406.1 11.0% $952.3 5.0% $432.8 10.0% $865.7TS1356 Bradley from Jackson to Old Victoria 2009 $1,800.0 $1,600.0 $200.0 $200.0 22.0% $44.0 $.0 $156.0 $.0 $156.0 74.0% $115.4 11.0% $17.2 5.0% $7.8 10.0% $15.6TS1357 Talbot Bostwick from Pack to Southdale 2021 $2,429.4 $2,429.4 $2,429.4 21.7% $528.1 $.0 $1,901.3 $.0 $1,901.3 74.0% $1,406.9 11.0% $209.1 5.0% $95.1 10.0% $190.1TS1359 Brownfield Beaverbrook from Riverside to Oxford 2014 $3,220.0 $3,220.0 $3,220.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $3,220.0 $.0 $3,220.0 74.0% $2,382.8 11.0% $354.2 5.0% $161.0 10.0% $322.0
Sunningdale from Richmond to Adelaide 2014 $9,056.3 $9,056.3 $9,056.3 21.7% $1,968.8 $.0 $7,087.5 $.0 $7,087.5 74.0% $5,244.8 11.0% $779.6 5.0% $354.4 10.0% $708.8Sunningdale from Richmond to Adelaide 2014 $1,437.5 $1,437.5 $1,437.5 0.0% $.0 $.0 $1,437.5 $.0 $1,437.5 74.0% $1,063.8 11.0% $158.1 5.0% $71.9 10.0% $143.8Old Victoria Road from Hamilton Road Intersection 2011 $1,750.0 $1,750.0 $1,750.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $1,750.0 $.0 $1,750.0 74.0% $1,295.0 11.0% $192.5 5.0% $87.5 10.0% $175.0Old Victoria Road from Hamilton to Bradley 2016 $4,952.2 $4,952.2 $4,952.2 0.0% $.0 $.0 $4,952.2 $.0 $4,952.2 74.0% $3,664.6 11.0% $544.7 5.0% $247.6 10.0% $495.2Old Victoria Road from 300m South of Bradley to H 2025 $2,666.6 $2,666.6 $2,666.6 0.0% $.0 $.0 $2,666.6 $.0 $2,666.6 74.0% $1,973.3 11.0% $293.3 5.0% $133.3 10.0% $266.7Bradley from Old Victoria to East of Phase 2 2008 $1,250.0 $1,250.0 $.0 $.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 74.0% $.0 11.0% $.0 5.0% $.0 10.0% $.0Bradley from East of Phase 2 to Phase 4 Entrance 2009 $1,000.0 $1,000.0 $1,000.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $1,000.0 $.0 $1,000.0 74.0% $740.0 11.0% $110.0 5.0% $50.0 10.0% $100.0Bradley from Phase 4 to City Limit 2028 $1,234.0 $1,234.0 $1,234.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $1,234.0 $.0 $1,234.0 74.0% $913.2 11.0% $135.7 5.0% $61.7 10.0% $123.4
subtotal $72,625.6 $.0 $2,850.0 $69,775.6 0.0% $.0 $69,775.6 11.8% $8,252.4 $.0 $61,523.2 $.0 $61,523.2 74.0% $45,527.2 11.0% $6,767.6 5.0% $3,076.2 10.0% $6,152.3
Studies/Other (Aecom Table 5.1)
2 Lane Road Upgrades (Aecom Table 5.1)
TS1345
TS1407
TS1625
Kilally South
Wickerson
Summerside East
New Project
New Project
New Project
TS2171
TS2170
151
TABLE H-1 – ARTERIAL ROAD EXPANSION
% benefit % $ % $ % $ % $(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21)
(all $'s in ,000's) (1) - sum(2,3) (4) * (5) (4) - (6) (7) * (8) [(7) - (9)] * 10% (7) - sum(9,10) (11) - (12) (13) * (14) (13) * (16) (13) * (18) (13) * (20)Note 1 Note 1 Note 1 Notes 2 Notes 2 Notes 2 Notes 2
Less
: Fu
ture
gro
wth
ben
efits
(por
tion
of
grow
th c
osts
attr
ibut
able
to g
row
th e
xpec
ted
to o
ccur
bey
ond
plan
ning
hor
izon
for t
his
serv
ice)
Subt
otal
Expe
cted
Yea
r
Tota
l Est
imat
ed C
ost
Less
: fut
ure
capi
tal g
rant
s, s
ubsi
dies
or o
ther
cont
ribut
ions
ant
icip
ated
Less
: Por
tion
of G
ross
Pro
ject
Cos
t Fun
ded
In P
rior Y
ears
Industrial
Net
Am
ount
Elig
ible
for D
C ra
te c
alcu
latio
n
Less
: Am
ount
inel
igib
le fo
r rat
e ca
lcul
atio
n -
impr
ovem
ent o
ver e
xist
ing
stan
dard
(see
Supp
lem
ent A
if a
pplic
able
)
Less
: 10%
sta
tuto
ry d
educ
tion
(if a
pplic
able
)
NO
N -
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Commercial InstitutionalNon
-gro
wth
sha
re
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Subt
otal
Project # Project Description Subt
otal
TS15 Richmond @ Uplands (7) 20 yrs $140.6 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 0.0% $.0 $.0 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 74.0% $104.1 11.0% $15.5 5.0% $7.0 10.0% $14.1TS16 Oxford @ Crumlin 20 yrs $140.6 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 0.0% $.0 $.0 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 74.0% $104.1 11.0% $15.5 5.0% $7.0 10.0% $14.1
TS22 Kains @ Shore Road (7) 20 yrs $140.6 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 0.0% $.0 $.0 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 74.0% $104.1 11.0% $15.5 5.0% $7.0 10.0% $14.1TS23 Southdale @ Boler (7) 20 yrs $140.6 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 0.0% $.0 $.0 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 74.0% $104.1 11.0% $15.5 5.0% $7.0 10.0% $14.1
TS26 Huron @ Sorrel/Oakville (7) 20 yrs $140.6 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 0.0% $.0 $.0 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 74.0% $104.1 11.0% $15.5 5.0% $7.0 10.0% $14.1
TS29 Gainsborough /w Coronation (East Leg) 20 yrs $140.6 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 0.0% $.0 $.0 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 74.0% $104.1 11.0% $15.5 5.0% $7.0 10.0% $14.1
TS30 Kilally @ Sandford 20 yrs $140.6 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 0.0% $.0 $.0 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 74.0% $104.1 11.0% $15.5 5.0% $7.0 10.0% $14.1
TS32 Byron Baseline @ Westdel Bourne (7) 20 yrs $140.6 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 0.0% $.0 $.0 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 74.0% $104.1 11.0% $15.5 5.0% $7.0 10.0% $14.1
TS33 Byron Baseline @ Griffith (7) 20 yrs $140.6 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 0.0% $.0 $.0 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 74.0% $104.1 11.0% $15.5 5.0% $7.0 10.0% $14.1
TS36 Hamilton @ Gore (7) 20 yrs $140.6 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 0.0% $.0 $.0 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 74.0% $104.1 11.0% $15.5 5.0% $7.0 10.0% $14.1TS38 Clarke @ Hamilton (7) 20 yrs $140.6 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 0.0% $.0 $.0 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 74.0% $104.1 11.0% $15.5 5.0% $7.0 10.0% $14.1
TS42 Pack @ Colonel Talbot (7) 20 yrs $140.6 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 0.0% $.0 $.0 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 74.0% $104.1 11.0% $15.5 5.0% $7.0 10.0% $14.1
TS46 Riverside @ Beaverbrook (7) 20 yrs $140.6 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 0.0% $.0 $.0 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 74.0% $104.1 11.0% $15.5 5.0% $7.0 10.0% $14.1
TS55 Adelaide @ South of Sunningdale 20 yrs $140.6 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 0.0% $.0 $.0 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 74.0% $104.1 11.0% $15.5 5.0% $7.0 10.0% $14.1
TS71 Wonderland North of Bradley Extension (7) 20 yrs $140.6 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 0.0% $.0 $.0 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 74.0% $104.1 11.0% $15.5 5.0% $7.0 10.0% $14.1
TS72 Wharncliffe East of Bradley Extension (7) 20 yrs $140.6 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 0.0% $.0 $.0 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 74.0% $104.1 11.0% $15.5 5.0% $7.0 10.0% $14.1
TS74 White Oak & Dowell (7) 20 yrs $140.6 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 0.0% $.0 $.0 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 74.0% $104.1 11.0% $15.5 5.0% $7.0 10.0% $14.1
TS100 White Oak @ Dingman (7) 20 yrs $140.6 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 0.0% $.0 $.0 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 74.0% $104.1 11.0% $15.5 5.0% $7.0 10.0% $14.1
TS103 Wharncliffe West of Bradley Extension (7) 20 yrs $140.6 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 0.0% $.0 $.0 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 74.0% $104.1 11.0% $15.5 5.0% $7.0 10.0% $14.1
TS104 Wonderland @ Dingman (7) 20 yrs $140.6 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 0.0% $.0 $.0 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 74.0% $104.1 11.0% $15.5 5.0% $7.0 10.0% $14.1
TS105 Wonderland @ Hamlyn (7) 20 yrs $140.6 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 0.0% $.0 $.0 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 74.0% $104.1 11.0% $15.5 5.0% $7.0 10.0% $14.1
TS108 Byron Baseline @ Wickerson (7) 20 yrs $140.6 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 0.0% $.0 $.0 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 74.0% $104.1 11.0% $15.5 5.0% $7.0 10.0% $14.1
TS109Westdel Bourne @ Shore
Rd. (7) 20 yrs $140.6 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 0.0% $.0 $.0 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 74.0% $104.1 11.0% $15.5 5.0% $7.0 10.0% $14.1
TS111 Richmond @ City Limit (7) 20 yrs $140.6 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 0.0% $.0 $.0 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 74.0% $104.1 11.0% $15.5 5.0% $7.0 10.0% $14.1
TS112 Adelaide @ City Limit (7) 20 yrs $140.6 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 0.0% $.0 $.0 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 74.0% $104.1 11.0% $15.5 5.0% $7.0 10.0% $14.1TS114 Kilally @ Webster (7) 20 yrs $140.6 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 0.0% $.0 $.0 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 74.0% $104.1 11.0% $15.5 5.0% $7.0 10.0% $14.1TS115 Highbury @ Kilarney (7) 20 yrs $140.6 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 0.0% $.0 $.0 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 74.0% $104.1 11.0% $15.5 5.0% $7.0 10.0% $14.1TS116 Robins Hill @ Huron (7) 20 yrs $140.6 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 0.0% $.0 $.0 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 74.0% $104.1 11.0% $15.5 5.0% $7.0 10.0% $14.1TS117 Bradley @ Wonderland (7) 20 yrs $140.6 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 0.0% $.0 $.0 $140.6 $.0 $140.6 74.0% $104.1 11.0% $15.5 5.0% $7.0 10.0% $14.1
subtotal $4,078.1 $.0 $.0 $4,078.1 0.0% $.0 $4,078.1 0.0% $.0 $.0 $4,078.1 $.0 $4,078.1 74.0% $3,017.8 11.0% $448.6 5.0% $203.9 10.0% $407.8
New Traffic Signals - Aecom Table 4.3
152
TABLE H-1 – ARTERIAL ROAD EXPANSION
% benefit % $ % $ % $ % $(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21)
(all $'s in ,000's) (1) - sum(2,3) (4) * (5) (4) - (6) (7) * (8) [(7) - (9)] * 10% (7) - sum(9,10) (11) - (12) (13) * (14) (13) * (16) (13) * (18) (13) * (20)Note 1 Note 1 Note 1 Notes 2 Notes 2 Notes 2 Notes 2
Less
: Fu
ture
gro
wth
ben
efits
(por
tion
of
grow
th c
osts
attr
ibut
able
to g
row
th e
xpec
ted
to o
ccur
bey
ond
plan
ning
hor
izon
for t
his
serv
ice)
Subt
otal
Expe
cted
Yea
r
Tota
l Est
imat
ed C
ost
Less
: fut
ure
capi
tal g
rant
s, s
ubsi
dies
or o
ther
cont
ribut
ions
ant
icip
ated
Less
: Por
tion
of G
ross
Pro
ject
Cos
t Fun
ded
In P
rior Y
ears
Industrial
Net
Am
ount
Elig
ible
for D
C ra
te c
alcu
latio
n
Less
: Am
ount
inel
igib
le fo
r rat
e ca
lcul
atio
n -
impr
ovem
ent o
ver e
xist
ing
stan
dard
(see
Supp
lem
ent A
if a
pplic
able
)
Less
: 10%
sta
tuto
ry d
educ
tion
(if a
pplic
able
)
NO
N -
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Commercial InstitutionalNon
-gro
wth
sha
re
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Subt
otal
Project # Project Description Subt
otal
CH23 Southdale @ Boler (8) 20 yrs $618.8 $618.8 $.0 $618.8 0.0% $.0 $.0 $618.8 $.0 $618.8 74.0% $457.9 11.0% $68.1 5.0% $30.9 10.0% $61.9
CH32 Byron Baseline @ Westdel Bourne (8) 20 yrs $618.8 $618.8 $.0 $618.8 0.0% $.0 $.0 $618.8 $.0 $618.8 74.0% $457.9 11.0% $68.1 5.0% $30.9 10.0% $61.9
CH36 Hamilton @ Gore (8) 20 yrs $618.8 $618.8 $.0 $618.8 0.0% $.0 $.0 $618.8 $.0 $618.8 74.0% $457.9 11.0% $68.1 5.0% $30.9 10.0% $61.9CH38 Clarke @ Hamilton (8) 20 yrs $618.8 $618.8 $.0 $618.8 0.0% $.0 $.0 $618.8 $.0 $618.8 74.0% $457.9 11.0% $68.1 5.0% $30.9 10.0% $61.9
CH42 Pack @ Colonel Talbot (8) 20 yrs $618.8 $618.8 $.0 $618.8 0.0% $.0 $.0 $618.8 $.0 $618.8 74.0% $457.9 11.0% $68.1 5.0% $30.9 10.0% $61.9
CH46 Beaverbrook @ Riverside (8) 20 yrs $618.8 $618.8 $.0 $618.8 0.0% $.0 $.0 $618.8 $.0 $618.8 74.0% $457.9 11.0% $68.1 5.0% $30.9 10.0% $61.9
CH71 Wonderland North of Bradley Extension (8) 20 yrs $618.8 $618.8 $.0 $618.8 0.0% $.0 $.0 $618.8 $.0 $618.8 74.0% $457.9 11.0% $68.1 5.0% $30.9 10.0% $61.9
CH72 Wharncliffe East of Bradley Extension (8) 20 yrs $618.8 $618.8 $.0 $618.8 0.0% $.0 $.0 $618.8 $.0 $618.8 74.0% $457.9 11.0% $68.1 5.0% $30.9 10.0% $61.9
CH77 Bradley @ White Oak 20 yrs $618.8 $618.8 $.0 $618.8 0.0% $.0 $.0 $618.8 $.0 $618.8 74.0% $457.9 11.0% $68.1 5.0% $30.9 10.0% $61.9
CH100White Oak @ Dingman
(8) 20 yrs $618.8 $618.8 $.0 $618.8 0.0% $.0 $.0 $618.8 $.0 $618.8 74.0% $457.9 11.0% $68.1 5.0% $30.9 10.0% $61.9
CH104Wonderland @ Dingman
(8) 20 yrs $618.8 $618.8 $.0 $618.8 0.0% $.0 $.0 $618.8 $.0 $618.8 74.0% $457.9 11.0% $68.1 5.0% $30.9 10.0% $61.9
CH108Wickerson @ Byron
Baseline (8) 20 yrs $618.8 $618.8 $.0 $618.8 0.0% $.0 $.0 $618.8 $.0 $618.8 74.0% $457.9 11.0% $68.1 5.0% $30.9 10.0% $61.9CH114 Kilally @ Webster (8) 20 yrs $618.8 $618.8 $.0 $618.8 0.0% $.0 $.0 $618.8 $.0 $618.8 74.0% $457.9 11.0% $68.1 5.0% $30.9 10.0% $61.9CH116 Robins Hill @ Huron (8) 20 yrs $618.8 $618.8 $.0 $618.8 0.0% $.0 $.0 $618.8 $.0 $618.8 74.0% $457.9 11.0% $68.1 5.0% $30.9 10.0% $61.9
CH117Bradley @ Wonderland
(8) 20 yrs $618.8 $618.8 $.0 $618.8 0.0% $.0 $.0 $618.8 $.0 $618.8 74.0% $457.9 11.0% $68.1 5.0% $30.9 10.0% $61.9
CH118Colonel Talbot north of
HWY 401 20 yrs $618.8 $618.8 $.0 $618.8 0.0% $.0 $.0 $618.8 $.0 $618.8 74.0% $457.9 11.0% $68.1 5.0% $30.9 10.0% $61.9
subtotal $9,900.0 $.0 $.0 $9,900.0 0.0% $.0 $9,900.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $9,900.0 $.0 $9,900.0 74.0% $7,326.0 11.0% $1,089.0 5.0% $495.0 10.0% $990.0
Channelization - Aecom Table 4.4
153
TABLE H-1 – ARTERIAL ROAD EXPANSION
% benefit % $ % $ % $ % $(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21)
(all $'s in ,000's) (1) - sum(2,3) (4) * (5) (4) - (6) (7) * (8) [(7) - (9)] * 10% (7) - sum(9,10) (11) - (12) (13) * (14) (13) * (16) (13) * (18) (13) * (20)Note 1 Note 1 Note 1 Notes 2 Notes 2 Notes 2 Notes 2
Less
: Fu
ture
gro
wth
ben
efits
(por
tion
of
grow
th c
osts
attr
ibut
able
to g
row
th e
xpec
ted
to o
ccur
bey
ond
plan
ning
hor
izon
for t
his
serv
ice)
Subt
otal
Expe
cted
Yea
r
Tota
l Est
imat
ed C
ost
Less
: fut
ure
capi
tal g
rant
s, s
ubsi
dies
or o
ther
cont
ribut
ions
ant
icip
ated
Less
: Por
tion
of G
ross
Pro
ject
Cos
t Fun
ded
In P
rior Y
ears
Industrial
Net
Am
ount
Elig
ible
for D
C ra
te c
alcu
latio
n
Less
: Am
ount
inel
igib
le fo
r rat
e ca
lcul
atio
n -
impr
ovem
ent o
ver e
xist
ing
stan
dard
(see
Supp
lem
ent A
if a
pplic
able
)
Less
: 10%
sta
tuto
ry d
educ
tion
(if a
pplic
able
)
NO
N -
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Commercial InstitutionalNon
-gro
wth
sha
re
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Subt
otal
Project # Project Description Subt
otal
Wonderland from Wharncliffe to Southdale
Sidewalks20 yrs $101.3 $101.3 $.0 $101.3 0.0% $.0 $.0 $101.3 $.0 $101.3 74.0% $74.9 11.0% $11.1 5.0% $5.1 10.0% $10.1
Streetlights 20 yrs $225.0 $225.0 $.0 $225.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $225.0 $.0 $225.0 74.0% $166.5 11.0% $24.8 5.0% $11.3 10.0% $22.5
Wharncliffe from Wonderland to Southdale
Sidewalks20 yrs $151.9 $151.9 $.0 $151.9 0.0% $.0 $.0 $151.9 $.0 $151.9 74.0% $112.4 11.0% $16.7 5.0% $7.6 10.0% $15.2
Streetlights 20 yrs $337.5 $337.5 $.0 $337.5 0.0% $.0 $.0 $337.5 $.0 $337.5 74.0% $249.8 11.0% $37.1 5.0% $16.9 10.0% $33.8Sunningdale from Hyde Park to Wonderland
Sidewalks20 yrs $227.8 $227.8 $.0 $227.8 0.0% $.0 $.0 $227.8 $.0 $227.8 74.0% $168.6 11.0% $25.1 5.0% $11.4 10.0% $22.8
Streetlights 20 yrs $506.3 $506.3 $.0 $506.3 0.0% $.0 $.0 $506.3 $.0 $506.3 74.0% $374.6 11.0% $55.7 5.0% $25.3 10.0% $50.6
Hyde Park from Fanshawe to Sunningdale
Sidewalks
20 yrs $119.0 $119.0 $.0 $119.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $119.0 $.0 $119.0 74.0% $88.0 11.0% $13.1 5.0% $5.9 10.0% $11.9Streetlights 20 yrs $264.4 $264.4 $.0 $264.4 0.0% $.0 $.0 $264.4 $.0 $264.4 74.0% $195.6 11.0% $29.1 5.0% $13.2 10.0% $26.4
Bradley from White Oak to east of Conway Ct. Sidewalks 20 yrs $30.4 $30.4 $.0 $30.4 0.0% $.0 $.0 $30.4 $.0 $30.4 74.0% $22.5 11.0% $3.3 5.0% $1.5 10.0% $3.0
Streetlights 20 yrs $13.5 $13.5 $.0 $13.5 0.0% $.0 $.0 $13.5 $.0 $13.5 74.0% $10.0 11.0% $1.5 5.0% $.7 10.0% $1.4
M6White Oak from Bradley to east of Conway Ct Streetlights 20 yrs $106.9 $106.9 $.0 $106.9 0.0% $.0 $.0 $106.9 $.0 $106.9 74.0% $79.1 11.0% $11.8 5.0% $5.3 10.0% $10.7White Oak from Exeter to Dingman Dr. Sidewalks 20 yrs $143.8 $143.8 $.0 $143.8 0.0% $.0 $.0 $143.8 $.0 $143.8 74.0% $106.4 11.0% $15.8 5.0% $7.2 10.0% $14.4
Streetlights 20 yrs $319.5 $319.5 $.0 $319.5 0.0% $.0 $.0 $319.5 $.0 $319.5 74.0% $236.4 11.0% $35.1 5.0% $16.0 10.0% $32.0
M23Beaverbrook from Riverside to Oxford Sidewalks 20 yrs $81.0 $81.0 $.0 $81.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $81.0 $.0 $81.0 74.0% $59.9 11.0% $8.9 5.0% $4.1 10.0% $8.1Kilally from Highbury to Clarke Rd Sidewalks 20 yrs $248.1 $248.1 $.0 $248.1 0.0% $.0 $.0 $248.1 $.0 $248.1 74.0% $183.6 11.0% $27.3 5.0% $12.4 10.0% $24.8
Streetlights 20 yrs $551.3 $551.3 $.0 $551.3 0.0% $.0 $.0 $551.3 $.0 $551.3 74.0% $407.9 11.0% $60.6 5.0% $27.6 10.0% $55.1
M25Webster from Jensen Rd to Kilally Sidewalks 20 yrs $75.9 $75.9 $.0 $75.9 0.0% $.0 $.0 $75.9 $.0 $75.9 74.0% $56.2 11.0% $8.4 5.0% $3.8 10.0% $7.6
Streetlights 20 yrs $168.8 $168.8 $.0 $168.8 0.0% $.0 $.0 $168.8 $.0 $168.8 74.0% $124.9 11.0% $18.6 5.0% $8.4 10.0% $16.9Bostwick from Pack to Southdale Sidewalks 20 yrs $75.9 $75.9 $.0 $75.9 0.0% $.0 $.0 $75.9 $.0 $75.9 74.0% $56.2 11.0% $8.4 5.0% $3.8 10.0% $7.6
Streetlights 20 yrs $168.8 $168.8 $.0 $168.8 0.0% $.0 $.0 $168.8 $.0 $168.8 74.0% $124.9 11.0% $18.6 5.0% $8.4 10.0% $16.9Wickerson from Byron Baseline to Southdale Sidewalks 20 yrs $195.4 $195.4 $.0 $195.4 0.0% $.0 $.0 $195.4 $.0 $195.4 74.0% $144.6 11.0% $21.5 5.0% $9.8 10.0% $19.5
Streetlights 20 yrs $434.3 $434.3 $.0 $434.3 0.0% $.0 $.0 $434.3 $.0 $434.3 74.0% $321.3 11.0% $47.8 5.0% $21.7 10.0% $43.4Byron Baseline from Westdel Bourne to Grandview Sidewalks 20 yrs $101.3 $101.3 $.0 $101.3 0.0% $.0 $.0 $101.3 $.0 $101.3 74.0% $74.9 11.0% $11.1 5.0% $5.1 10.0% $10.1
Streetlights 20 yrs $225.0 $225.0 $.0 $225.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $225.0 $.0 $225.0 74.0% $166.5 11.0% $24.8 5.0% $11.3 10.0% $22.5
Sunningdale from Wonderland to Richmond
Sidewalks
20 yrs $275.9 $275.9 $.0 $275.9 0.0% $.0 $.0 $275.9 $.0 $275.9 74.0% $204.2 11.0% $30.3 5.0% $13.8 10.0% $27.6Streetlights 20 yrs $613.1 $613.1 $.0 $613.1 0.0% $.0 $.0 $613.1 $.0 $613.1 74.0% $453.7 11.0% $67.4 5.0% $30.7 10.0% $61.3
Adelaide from north of Grenfell to Sunningdale Sidewalks 20 yrs $70.9 $70.9 $.0 $70.9 0.0% $.0 $.0 $70.9 $.0 $70.9 74.0% $52.4 11.0% $7.8 5.0% $3.5 10.0% $7.1
Streetlights 20 yrs $157.5 $157.5 $.0 $157.5 0.0% $.0 $.0 $157.5 $.0 $157.5 74.0% $116.6 11.0% $17.3 5.0% $7.9 10.0% $15.8
M39 Hyde Park from Gainsborough to Seagull
Sidewalks
20 yrs $111.4 $111.4 $.0 $111.4 0.0% $.0 $.0 $111.4 $.0 $111.4 74.0% $82.4 11.0% $12.3 5.0% $5.6 10.0% $11.1
M43Wilton Grove from Highbury to Cheese Factory Sidewalks 20 yrs $121.5 $121.5 $.0 $121.5 0.0% $.0 $.0 $121.5 $.0 $121.5 74.0% $89.9 11.0% $13.4 5.0% $6.1 10.0% $12.2
M44 Wharncliffe from Wonderland to Savoy Sidewalks 20 yrs $93.7 $93.7 $.0 $93.7 0.0% $.0 $.0 $93.7 $.0 $93.7 74.0% $69.3 11.0% $10.3 5.0% $4.7 10.0% $9.4
M45Colonel Talbot from Diane Crescent to Pack Rd
Sidewalks20 yrs $81.0 $81.0 $.0 $81.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $81.0 $.0 $81.0 74.0% $59.9 11.0% $8.9 5.0% $4.1 10.0% $8.1
M46 Colonel Talbot from Pack Rd to Southdale Sidewalks 20 yrs $121.5 $121.5 $.0 $121.5 0.0% $.0 $.0 $121.5 $.0 $121.5 74.0% $89.9 11.0% $13.4 5.0% $6.1 10.0% $12.2
M47 Southdale from Boler to Colonel Talbot Rd Sidewalks 20 yrs $82.0 $82.0 $.0 $82.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $82.0 $.0 $82.0 74.0% $60.7 11.0% $9.0 5.0% $4.1 10.0% $8.2
M48 Southdale from Colonel Talbot Rd to Bostwick Sidewalks 20 yrs $202.5 $202.5 $.0 $202.5 0.0% $.0 $.0 $202.5 $.0 $202.5 74.0% $149.9 11.0% $22.3 5.0% $10.1 10.0% $20.3
M49 Richmond - Sunningdale to City Limit Sidewalks
20 yrs $74.9 $74.9 $.0 $74.9 0.0% $.0 $.0 $74.9 $.0 $74.9 74.0% $55.4 11.0% $8.2 5.0% $3.7 10.0% $7.5
Miscellaneous Works - Aecom Table 4.5
M36
M30
M31
M32
M34
M2
M3
M4
M5
M24
M21
M1
154
TABLE H-1 – ARTERIAL ROAD EXPANSION
% benefit % $ % $ % $ % $(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21)
(all $'s in ,000's) (1) - sum(2,3) (4) * (5) (4) - (6) (7) * (8) [(7) - (9)] * 10% (7) - sum(9,10) (11) - (12) (13) * (14) (13) * (16) (13) * (18) (13) * (20)Note 1 Note 1 Note 1 Notes 2 Notes 2 Notes 2 Notes 2
Less
: Fu
ture
gro
wth
ben
efits
(por
tion
of
grow
th c
osts
attr
ibut
able
to g
row
th e
xpec
ted
to o
ccur
bey
ond
plan
ning
hor
izon
for t
his
serv
ice)
Subt
otal
Expe
cted
Yea
r
Tota
l Est
imat
ed C
ost
Less
: fut
ure
capi
tal g
rant
s, s
ubsi
dies
or o
ther
cont
ribut
ions
ant
icip
ated
Less
: Por
tion
of G
ross
Pro
ject
Cos
t Fun
ded
In P
rior Y
ears
Industrial
Net
Am
ount
Elig
ible
for D
C ra
te c
alcu
latio
n
Less
: Am
ount
inel
igib
le fo
r rat
e ca
lcul
atio
n -
impr
ovem
ent o
ver e
xist
ing
stan
dard
(see
Supp
lem
ent A
if a
pplic
able
)
Less
: 10%
sta
tuto
ry d
educ
tion
(if a
pplic
able
)
NO
N -
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Commercial InstitutionalNon
-gro
wth
sha
re
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Subt
otal
Project # Project Description Subt
otal
M50 Adelaide - Sunningdale
to City LimitSidewalks
20 yrs $72.9 $72.9 $.0 $72.9 0.0% $.0 $.0 $72.9 $.0 $72.9 74.0% $53.9 11.0% $8.0 5.0% $3.6 10.0% $7.3
M51 Highbury - River to Fanshawe Pk Rd Sidewalks 20 yrs $58.7 $58.7 $.0 $58.7 0.0% $.0 $.0 $58.7 $.0 $58.7 74.0% $43.5 11.0% $6.5 5.0% $2.9 10.0% $5.9
M52Colonel Talbot - Southdale to 300m S. of Southdale Sidewalks 20 yrs $30.4 $30.4 $.0 $30.4 0.0% $.0 $.0 $30.4 $.0 $30.4 74.0% $22.5 11.0% $3.3 5.0% $1.5 10.0% $3.0
M53 Bradley - stub east Other 20 yrs $405.0 $405.0 $.0 $405.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $405.0 $.0 $405.0 74.0% $299.7 11.0% $44.6 5.0% $20.3 10.0% $40.5
subtotal $7,445.5 $.0 $.0 $7,445.5 0.0% $.0 $7,445.5 0.0% $.0 $.0 $7,445.5 $.0 $7,445.5 74.0% $5,509.7 11.0% $819.0 5.0% $372.3 10.0% $744.6
TS98 Additional Roads Projects 20 yrs $1,000.0 $1,000.0 $.0 $1,000.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $1,000.0 $.0 $1,000.0 74.0% $740.0 11.0% $110.0 5.0% $50.0 10.0% $100.0
TS101 Additional Channelization Projects 20 yrs $3,341.3 $3,341.3 $.0 $3,341.3 0.0% $.0 $.0 $3,341.3 $.0 $3,341.3 74.0% $2,472.5 11.0% $367.5 5.0% $167.1 10.0% $334.1
Additional Traffic Signal Projects 20 yrs $759.4 $759.4 $.0 $759.4 0.0% $.0 $.0 $759.4 $.0 $759.4 74.0% $561.9 11.0% $83.5 5.0% $38.0 10.0% $75.9
subtotal $5,100.6 $.0 $.0 $5,100.6 0.0% $.0 $5,100.6 0.0% $.0 $.0 $5,100.6 $.0 $5,100.6 $.0 $3,774.5 $561.1 $255.0 $510.1
$.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0
TOTAL $655,511.8 $.0 $10,214.0 $645,297.8 25.7% $165,727.4 $479,570.3 9.3% $44,431.8 $.0 $435,138.5 $.0 $435,138.5 74.0% $322,002.5 11.0% $47,865.2 5.0% $21,756.9 10.0% $43,513.9
Residential Commercial Institutional Industrial
$37,345.0 66.8% $24,943.4 28.7% $10,704.4 4.5% $1,697.1 0.0% $.0Notes:
1) Details of costing, future benefit, and growth & RICI splits taken from Aecom Tables dated Mar 13 09 Total net cost eligible for DC rate calculation purpose $397,793.5 74.7% $297,059.1 9.3% $37,160.8 5.0% $20,059.8 10.9% $43,513.92) RICI splits based on ratio of population to employment growth as described in Nov 26 08 report to Board of Control re: Commercial DC Policy Divided By: Total Gross Growth Projections 101,317 479,364 390,194 678,1923)
Calculated DC Rate - Pre-Financing 2,931.98$ 77.52$ 51.41$ 64.16$ /person /sq. m. /sq. m. /sq. m.
Prefinancing - Residential Rate Summary Post Financing
Arterial Roads Jan 1, 2009 rateSingle Family Dwelling 3.22 9,440.97$ 3,743.00 1,873.00 5,616.00$ Multiple unit dwelling 2.31 6,772.87$ 2,650.69 1,326.56 3,977.24$ Apartment - bach. & 1 bed 1.37 4,016.81$ 1,753.62 839.79 2,593.42$ Apartment - ≥ 2 bedroom 1.92 5,629.40$ 2,458.29 1,176.94 3,635.23$
CSRF UWRF Total rate
Additional Projects
PORTION OF PRIOR YEARS' GROWTH PROJECTS FINANCED WITH DEBT
RICI splits for more minor roadworks (Traffic Signals, Channelization, Streetlights, Sidewalks) allocated to Community Growth (Res, Institutional, Commercial). Same projects which serve industrial areas allocated 100% to Industrial.
Development Charge Rate Calculation (Pre-Financing Cost)
Less: Portion of above works collected in prior years (approximate uncommitted balance in DC reserve fund at December 31, 2008)
155
TABLE H-2 – CASH FLOW ANALYSIS AND FINAL RATE CALCULATION - ARTERIAL ROAD EXPANSION Service component : Arterial Roads ($'s in thousands)
FINAL RESULT 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Total
Planning Horizon - yrs 20
Pre-Financing DC Rate
Post-Financing DC Rate
% Collected assumptio
n
Growth projection for each year of forecast period
Growth - Res. (Persons In New Housing) 101,317 2,931.98$ 2,914.61$ 100% 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 101,316.9 Growth - Non-Res. (sq. m.) -$
Commercial 479,364.0 77.52$ 77.04$ 100% 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 479,364.0 Institutional 390,193.6 51.41$ 51.08$ 100% 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 390,193.6 C/I subtotal 869,557.6 -$ 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 869,557.6 Industrial 678,191.6 64.16$ 63.79$ 100% 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 678,191.6
Total Non-Res. 1,547,749.2 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 1,547,749.2
Reserve Fund Projections:Opening Surplus / <Deficit> $37,345.0 $54,597.3 $59,251.3 $68,217.7 $60,390.4 $60,700.9 $54,786.1 $47,072.9 $23,909.7 -$4,899.7 -$3,675.5 -$7,968.3 -$16,963.8 -$9,722.4 -$6,281.8 -$7,375.7 -$15,478.2 -$15,331.9 -$9,266.6 -$13,372.9 $37,345.0Revenues - Development Charge Collections
Residential $14,765.0 $14,765.0 $14,765.0 $14,765.0 $14,765.0 $14,765.0 $14,765.0 $14,765.0 $14,765.0 $14,765.0 $14,765.0 $14,765.0 $14,765.0 $14,765.0 $14,765.0 $14,765.0 $14,765.0 $14,765.0 $14,765.0 $14,765.0 $295,299.6Non-Res.
Commercial $1,846.6 $1,846.6 $1,846.6 $1,846.6 $1,846.6 $1,846.6 $1,846.6 $1,846.6 $1,846.6 $1,846.6 $1,846.6 $1,846.6 $1,846.6 $1,846.6 $1,846.6 $1,846.6 $1,846.6 $1,846.6 $1,846.6 $1,846.6 $36,932.2Institutional $996.5 $996.5 $996.5 $996.5 $996.5 $996.5 $996.5 $996.5 $996.5 $996.5 $996.5 $996.5 $996.5 $996.5 $996.5 $996.5 $996.5 $996.5 $996.5 $996.5 $19,929.2C/I subtotal $2,843.1 $2,843.1 $2,843.1 $2,843.1 $2,843.1 $2,843.1 $2,843.1 $2,843.1 $2,843.1 $2,843.1 $2,843.1 $2,843.1 $2,843.1 $2,843.1 $2,843.1 $2,843.1 $2,843.1 $2,843.1 $2,843.1 $2,843.1 $56,861.4Industrial $2,162.9 $2,162.9 $2,162.9 $2,162.9 $2,162.9 $2,162.9 $2,162.9 $2,162.9 $2,162.9 $2,162.9 $2,162.9 $2,162.9 $2,162.9 $2,162.9 $2,162.9 $2,162.9 $2,162.9 $2,162.9 $2,162.9 $2,162.9 $43,258.9
Total Non-Res. $5,006.0 $5,006.0 $5,006.0 $5,006.0 $5,006.0 $5,006.0 $5,006.0 $5,006.0 $5,006.0 $5,006.0 $5,006.0 $5,006.0 $5,006.0 $5,006.0 $5,006.0 $5,006.0 $5,006.0 $5,006.0 $5,006.0 $5,006.0 $100,120.3
Total revenues $19,771.0 $19,771.0 $19,771.0 $19,771.0 $19,771.0 $19,771.0 $19,771.0 $19,771.0 $19,771.0 $19,771.0 $19,771.0 $19,771.0 $19,771.0 $19,771.0 $19,771.0 $19,771.0 $19,771.0 $19,771.0 $19,771.0 $19,771.0 $395,420.0Development Charge draws - calculated on separate page $3,316.2 $16,104.6 $11,910.2 $28,713.9 $20,510.8 $26,687.6 $28,367.8 $43,549.9 $48,745.2 $18,420.1 $23,891.7 $28,398.1 $12,135.2 $16,093.8 $20,663.1 $27,535.8 $19,169.3 $13,342.1 $23,542.7 $150,210.7 $581,309.0Closing surplus / <deficit> before interest $53,799.8 $58,263.7 $67,112.0 $59,274.8 $59,650.6 $53,784.4 $46,189.4 $23,294.0 -$5,064.6 -$3,548.7 -$7,796.2 -$16,595.4 -$9,328.0 -$6,045.2 -$7,173.8 -$15,140.5 -$14,876.6 -$8,903.0 -$13,038.3 -$143,812.6 -$148,544.0Non-inflationary interest revenue /<expense>
on savings 1.75% $797.5 $987.5 $1,105.7 $1,115.6 $1,050.4 $1,001.7 $883.5 $615.7 $164.9 $7,722.5on borrowings 3.00% -$126.7 -$172.1 -$368.5 -$394.4 -$236.5 -$201.8 -$337.7 -$455.3 -$363.5 -$334.6 -$2,357.8 -$5,348.9
Closing surplus / <deficit> $54,597.3 $59,251.3 $68,217.7 $60,390.4 $60,700.9 $54,786.1 $47,072.9 $23,909.7 -$4,899.7 -$3,675.5 -$7,968.3 -$16,963.8 -$9,722.4 -$6,281.8 -$7,375.7 -$15,478.2 -$15,331.9 -$9,266.6 -$13,372.9 -$146,170.4 -$146,170.4
Target which reflects growth costs incurred in the forecast period and recoverable from future grow -$146,170.4
Explanatory note
Method: 1 Set Post financing rate = Pre financing rate - model projects revenues and draws and projects RF balances (ie. copy values from D13-D18 to E13-E18)2
3 Using "SOLVER" make balance at end of planning horizon = tot "Target " balance by allowing "Post financing rates" to vary from "Pre-financing rates". Other Information: Pre Post
Residential share 74.7% 74.7%Non-residential
Commercial 9.3% 9.3%Institutional 5.0% 5.0%C/I subtotal 14.4% 14.4%Industrial 10.9% 10.9%
This worksheet projects future activity in this reserve fund. It ultimately determines the rates necessary to recover all costs intended for recovery from growth (including financing costs). The deficit in the fund at the end of the planning horizon reflects costs intended for recovery from future growth.
Set ratio of Pre financing revenues = Post financing revenues (ie. copy values from C47-C52 to D47-D52). This ensures that ratio of revenues stays constant throughout rate re-calculation process.
156
APPENDIX I – Minor Transportation Roadworks – UWRF Funded Minor Roadworks are driven almost exclusively by development applications that impact arterial and primary collector roadways. The construction of certain Minor Roadworks in London have traditionally been led by the development industry and cost shared through the Urban Works Reserve Fund (UWRF). This study marks the beginning of a period of transition in the funding responsibility of these works in which many of the works formerly funded from the UWRF will in future be funded by the City Services Reserve Fund (CSRF). The Minor Roadworks to serve the 20-year growth horizon were primarily identified using UWRF claim and development application information provided to AECOM by the City. This Appendix summarizes the methods applied to forecast and estimate costs for projected Minor Roadworks. More detailed information is available in the AECOM Major Transportation/Minor Roadworks Development Charges Update 2008. Policy Considerations In January of 2008 City Council approved adjustments to the policies of the funding sources for growth works. This decision came after receiving recommendations from the Blue Ribbon Panel and months of industry consultation. The result has been a significant shift in the funding responsibility between the City Services and Urban Works Reserve Funds. Policy adjustments affecting Minor Roadworks include:
• Minor Roadworks including channelization and traffic signals at public road connections will continue to be eligible for claim from the UWRF. Some minor roadworks have been included as CSRF funded where the works can be coordinated with Major Transportation Roadworks projects.
• Channelization and traffic signals at private roads and entrances will now be a direct developer cost and not claimable from the UWRF with the exception of works “grandfathered” under the UWRF “Grandfathered works” represent Minor Roadworks identified in executed development agreements at the commencement date of the by-law are subject to existing rules(“old”) rules. Agreements executed after commencement date of the by-law will be subject to “new” rules of UWRF claimability;
• Miscellaneous Minor Roadworks (street lighting and sidewalks) will move from UWRF to CSRF funding with the exception of UWRF “grandfathered” Miscellaneous Minor Roadworks identified in executed development agreements at the commencement date of the by-law, and are subject to existing (“old”) rules.
These changes in policy were incorporated into the AECOM Transportation DC Background Study Update and reflected in the 2009 DC rate calculation. DC Fund Administration Minor Roadworks can be either UWRF, CSRF or developer funded depending on the type of work and benefiting end user. This section summarizes the working rules of the DC funds with respect to claimable Minor Roadworks. Additional details on the administration of DC Funds can be found in the 2009 DC by-law (Schedules 6 & 7).
157
(a) UWRF Administration The key operating tenets of the Urban Works Reserve Fund as they relate to Minor Roadworks are:
1. Works must ultimately appear in an executed Subdivision, Development or Consent agreement to be considered eligible for claim.
2. Developers may construct claimable works identified in applicable development agreements in accordance with the terms of the agreement. Subject to the works qualifying as claimable, the developer that constructs the works may submit claims for completed works against the UWRF.
3. The UWRF does not pay any claim unless there are sufficient funds to reimburse the claim. If the fund is depleted, all submitted and approved claims will be placed onto a chronological waiting list until the fund balance is replenished and claims can be paid.
4. The initiating developer bears the cost of financing constructed works until the claim is paid out. Financing costs are not eligible for claim from the fund.
5. Roadworks claims are subject to an annual payment limit of $1M alone or in combination with sanitary or storm sewer oversizing claims. (b) CSRF Administration
In an effort to coordinate the construction of Major and Minor Roadworks, Miscellaneous Minor Roadworks (arterial street lighting and sidewalks) have been shifted to the CSRF funding. Generally, where Major and Minor Roadworks are identified along the same stretch of arterial, timing of the minor works will be deferred to allow construction together with the major roadworks project. Should the advancement of development adjacent to the arterial necessitate the installation of sidewalks and/or street lighting, the developer will be requested to install interim/temporary measures at their own cost. Temporary works are not eligible for claim. Project Identification The Minor Roadworks identified in the Transportation DC Update were compiled based on materials provided to AECOM by the City, including existing UWRF claim information, growth forecasts, available community plans, draft approved plans of subdivision, subdivision servicing agreements and other relevant sources. This information was used to assess growth pressures and determine the Minor Roadworks required or proposed to be completed within the 20-year horizon. Once the initial list of required works was prepared, it was cross-referenced against the other DC Master Plans (Sanitary, Storm Drainage, and Water) to create an integrated listing. The identified Minor Roadworks are listed in Table I-1. Each required Minor Roadwork has been clearly identified in the project lists complete with ID, growth area, intersection or street segment, length, growth and non-growth allocations. Project timing of UWRF works was assumed to be distributed evenly over the 20-year planning horizon. More specific project descriptions will improve the City’s ability to monitor DC spending and provide regular, timely updates to the Growth Management Implementation Strategy(GMIS). Establishing Cost Estimates The DC rate setting process requires the estimated costs assigned to identified growth works be reasonable and defensible. Prior to assigning costs, AECOM undertook a detailed
158
costing analysis in consultation with representatives of the local development industry using previous project pricing and recent tenders, incorporating adjustments for inflation. All works have been cost estimated in 2009 dollars. Estimates for Minor Roadworks applied cost estimates prepared for the previous DC study and updated for inflation to 2009 dollars. The updated cost estimates for claimable Minor Roadworks were confirmed against recent tenders. Allocation Splits
(a) Growth/Non-Growth Minor Roadworks do not provide network benefit as Major Roadworks do, instead these works are required by, and directly benefit, new development in the area of the proposed works. Therefore, all minor roadworks were considered to be 100% attributable to growth.
(b) Residential/ICI Net growth costs for identified Minor Roadworks growth projects must also be apportioned to the various benefiting land uses (ie. Residential, Institutional, Commercial, Industrial). A recent review of London’s approach to RES/ICI split allocations, prepared by IBI Group, revealed an inordinately high share attributed to ICI relative to other municipalities. Therefore, IBI recommended basing the RES/ICI split for Minor Roadworks on the relative proportion of projected growth in population and jobs (by sector) of the 2009-2028 period for which transportation needs were determined. The resulting Minor Roadworks RES/ICI split is as follows.
Residential Institutional Commercial Industrial 74% 5% 11% 10%
Final Costs for DC Rate Calculation The required Minor Roadworks identified in the AECOM Major Transportation/Minor Roadworks Development Charges Update 2008 form the basis for determining development charges for the CSRF and/or UWRF and represent the numerator in the rate calculation. The final total costs calculated for these works attributable to the 20 yr growth window is approximately $55M (see Table I-1).. Uncommitted Reserve Funds The net cost figures above should be reduced for portions which have been collected in the past. The uncommitted balance of the UWRF General reserve funds is negligible as a result of a backlog in claims. This minor balance has therefore not been taken into account in computing rates for this service component. Financing Costs For the purpose of calculating the final development charge rate for this component, financing costs have been ignored. This is justified since one of the key operating tenets of the fund is that the developer will finance the cost of the claimable work until such time as the fund is able to reimburse that cost. Council Intention to Meet Growth Needs The growth needs identified within this Appendix have been extracted from the AECOM Transportation DC update. The capital items reflected herein will be subject to final approval
159
of Council through the planning approval process. It is Council’s stated intention to “provide for the needs of growth in a way that does not jeopardize the long term financial health of the municipality, or place an undue burden on existing taxpayers” (Official Plan Policy 2.6.3). By providing for development to initiate works approved in executed subdivision and development agreements, but not commit to payment until sufficient funds have accumulated to honour the next approved claim, Council meets the stated objective. NOTE: An examination of long term Transportation Services operating costs for growth needs is included in Appendix O of this Background Study.
160
TABLE I -1 – CLAIMABLE MINOR ROAD WORKS – UWRF Funded Service component : Minor Roads - UWRFPlanning horizon for this component : 2009-2028
% benefit % $ % $ % $ % $(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21)
(all $'s in ,000's) (1) - sum(2,3) (4) * (5) (4) - (6) (7) * (8) [(7) - (9)] * 10% (7) - sum(9,10) (11) - (12) (13) * (14) (13) * (16) (13) * (18) (13) * (20)Note 1 Note 2 Note 2 Note 2 Note 2
Grandfathered UWRF Claims - Aecom Table 4.6 (Mar 13 09)
39T-01501 CITY OF LONDON SKYWAY INDUSTRIAL PARK - PH 2 20 yrs $181.2 $181.2 $.0 $181.2 0.0% $.0 $.0 $181.2 $.0 $181.2 74.0% $134.1 11.0% $19.9 5.0% $9.1 10.0% $18.139T-01507 NORTHWEST CROSSINGS W SIDE OF HYDE PARK N OF SARNIA 20 yrs $464.4 $464.4 $.0 $464.4 0.0% $.0 $.0 $464.4 $.0 $464.4 74.0% $343.7 11.0% $51.1 5.0% $23.2 10.0% $46.439T-02515 JOHN PERPAROS 1407 HYDE PARK ROAD 20 yrs $34.8 $34.8 $.0 $34.8 0.0% $.0 $.0 $34.8 $.0 $34.8 74.0% $25.8 11.0% $3.8 5.0% $1.7 10.0% $3.539T-02519 WALLOY EXCAVATING LTD. 967 GAINSBOROUGH ROAD 20 yrs $468.1 $468.1 $.0 $468.1 0.0% $.0 $.0 $468.1 $.0 $468.1 74.0% $346.4 11.0% $51.5 5.0% $23.4 10.0% $46.839T-03505 VISTA WOODS ESTATES INC 751 FANSHAWE PARK RD W - PHASE 2 20 yrs $930.0 $930.0 $.0 $930.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $930.0 $.0 $930.0 74.0% $688.2 11.0% $102.3 5.0% $46.5 10.0% $93.039T-03505 VISTA WOODS ESTATES INC 751 FANSHAWE PARK RD W - PHASE 1 20 yrs $348.0 $348.0 $.0 $348.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $348.0 $.0 $348.0 74.0% $257.5 11.0% $38.3 5.0% $17.4 10.0% $34.8
39T-03518 CEDAR HOLLOW DEVELOPMENTS INC. CEDARHOLLOW PHASE 2 20 yrs $931.8 $931.8 $.0 $931.8 0.0% $.0 $.0 $931.8 $.0 $931.8 74.0% $689.5 11.0% $102.5 5.0% $46.6 10.0% $93.2
39T-04507 SWEENEY / HOPEDALE 1826 & 1854 OXFORD STREET WEST 20 yrs $321.6 $321.6 $.0 $321.6 0.0% $.0 $.0 $321.6 $.0 $321.6 74.0% $238.0 11.0% $35.4 5.0% $16.1 10.0% $32.239T-04510 AUBURN 1284/1388 SUNNINGDALE RD W 20 yrs $230.4 $230.4 $.0 $230.4 0.0% $.0 $.0 $230.4 $.0 $230.4 74.0% $170.5 11.0% $25.3 5.0% $11.5 10.0% $23.039T-04512 700531 ONTARIO LTD. 1300 FANSHAWE PARK ROAD EAST 20 yrs $2,126.4 $2,126.4 $.0 $2,126.4 0.0% $.0 $.0 $2,126.4 $.0 $2,126.4 74.0% $1,573.5 11.0% $233.9 5.0% $106.3 10.0% $212.6
39T-04513 AUBURN NW CRNR RICHMOND & SUNNINGDALE 20 yrs $1,488.0 $1,488.0 $.0 $1,488.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $1,488.0 $.0 $1,488.0 74.0% $1,101.1 11.0% $163.7 5.0% $74.4 10.0% $148.839T-05503 CITY OF LONDON INNOVATION PARK PHASE 2 20 yrs $324.0 $324.0 $.0 $324.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $324.0 $.0 $324.0 74.0% $239.8 11.0% $35.6 5.0% $16.2 10.0% $32.439T-05505 DREWLO HOLDINGS INC. 1522 KILALLY ROAD 20 yrs $474.0 $474.0 $.0 $474.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $474.0 $.0 $474.0 74.0% $350.8 11.0% $52.1 5.0% $23.7 10.0% $47.439T-05510 2047790 ONTARIO INC. 530 SUNNINGDALE ROAD EAST 20 yrs $369.6 $369.6 $.0 $369.6 0.0% $.0 $.0 $369.6 $.0 $369.6 74.0% $273.5 11.0% $40.7 5.0% $18.5 10.0% $37.0
39T-05512 LANDEA DEVELOPMENTS INC. 995 FANSHAWE PARK RD W 20 yrs $102.0 $102.0 $.0 $102.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $102.0 $.0 $102.0 74.0% $75.5 11.0% $11.2 5.0% $5.1 10.0% $10.2
39T-05513 BLUESTONE PROPERTIES INC. EXETER/WHITE OAK/DINGMAN 20 yrs $918.0 $918.0 $.0 $918.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $918.0 $.0 $918.0 74.0% $679.3 11.0% $101.0 5.0% $45.9 10.0% $91.8
39T-06001 CITY OF LONDON FANSHAWE/WONDERLAND INTERSECTION 20 yrs $180.0 $180.0 $.0 $180.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $180.0 $.0 $180.0 74.0% $133.2 11.0% $19.8 5.0% $9.0 10.0% $18.0
39T-06504 TRADEWIND/EXETER DINGMAN EXETER ROAD/DINGMAN DRIV 20 yrs $315.6 $315.6 $.0 $315.6 0.0% $.0 $.0 $315.6 $.0 $315.6 74.0% $233.5 11.0% $34.7 5.0% $15.8 10.0% $31.639T-06506 CITY OF LONDON INNOVATION PARK PHASE 4 20 yrs $270.0 $270.0 $.0 $270.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $270.0 $.0 $270.0 74.0% $199.8 11.0% $29.7 5.0% $13.5 10.0% $27.039T-06510 DREWLO 1812 WONDERLAND ROAD NORTH 20 yrs $261.6 $261.6 $.0 $261.6 0.0% $.0 $.0 $261.6 $.0 $261.6 74.0% $193.6 11.0% $28.8 5.0% $13.1 10.0% $26.239T-07001 CITY OF LONDON / UWO WESTERN ROAD PROJECT 20 yrs $276.0 $276.0 $.0 $276.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $276.0 $.0 $276.0 74.0% $204.2 11.0% $30.4 5.0% $13.8 10.0% $27.6
39T-07501 WESTFIELD VILLAGE ESTATES 849 SOUTHDALE ROAD WEST 20 yrs $720.0 $720.0 $.0 $720.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $720.0 $.0 $720.0 74.0% $532.8 11.0% $79.2 5.0% $36.0 10.0% $72.039T-07506 FUTURESTREETS INC. 1480 HAMILTON ROAD 20 yrs $45.6 $45.6 $.0 $45.6 0.0% $.0 $.0 $45.6 $.0 $45.6 74.0% $33.7 11.0% $5.0 5.0% $2.3 10.0% $4.639T-08505 WALLOY EXCAVATING 1795 HYDE PARK ROAD 20 yrs $510.0 $510.0 $.0 $510.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $510.0 $.0 $510.0 74.0% $377.4 11.0% $56.1 5.0% $25.5 10.0% $51.0
39T-08506 SIFTON 1780 COMMISSIONERS ROAD WEST (SUMAC WAY) 20 yrs $36.5 $36.5 $.0 $36.5 0.0% $.0 $.0 $36.5 $.0 $36.5 74.0% $27.0 11.0% $4.0 5.0% $1.8 10.0% $3.6
39T-92021 JACKSON LAND CORP. SUMMERSIDE PHASE 13 20 yrs $3,182.4 $3,182.4 $.0 $3,182.4 0.0% $.0 $.0 $3,182.4 $.0 $3,182.4 74.0% $2,355.0 11.0% $350.1 5.0% $159.1 10.0% $318.2
39T-96506 PUBLIC WORKS CANADA WOSELELY BARRACKS, OXFORD at ELIZABETH ST. 20 yrs $228.0 $228.0 $.0 $228.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $228.0 $.0 $228.0 74.0% $168.7 11.0% $25.1 5.0% $11.4 10.0% $22.8
39T-99502 SAM KATZ OXFORD/ PROUDFOOT 20 yrs $375.6 $375.6 $.0 $375.6 0.0% $.0 $.0 $375.6 $.0 $375.6 74.0% $277.9 11.0% $41.3 5.0% $18.8 10.0% $37.639T-99503 GREN DEVELOPMENTS 1171-1231 SUNNINGDALE ROAD 20 yrs $60.0 $60.0 $.0 $60.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $60.0 $.0 $60.0 74.0% $44.4 11.0% $6.6 5.0% $3.0 10.0% $6.0
39T-99516 WARREN MATERIAL & PAVING TOWLAND SUBDIVISION-SECOND STREET 20 yrs $19.2 $19.2 $.0 $19.2 0.0% $.0 $.0 $19.2 $.0 $19.2 74.0% $14.2 11.0% $2.1 5.0% $1.0 10.0% $1.9
M-304 RICHLIEGH INVESTMENTS RIVERVIEW SUBDIVISION, W OF HIGHBURY, N OF KILALLY 20 yrs $90.0 $90.0 $.0 $90.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $90.0 $.0 $90.0 74.0% $66.6 11.0% $9.9 5.0% $4.5 10.0% $9.0
M-323 SIFTON LTD HYLANDS COMMERCIAL 20 yrs $170.4 $170.4 $.0 $170.4 0.0% $.0 $.0 $170.4 $.0 $170.4 74.0% $126.1 11.0% $18.7 5.0% $8.5 10.0% $17.0M-364 Z-REALTY SUMMERSIDE PH II 20 yrs $25.5 $25.5 $.0 $25.5 0.0% $.0 $.0 $25.5 $.0 $25.5 74.0% $18.8 11.0% $2.8 5.0% $1.3 10.0% $2.5M-391 CRESTWOOD ESTATES CRESTWOOD DRIVE SUBDIVISION 20 yrs $114.0 $114.0 $.0 $114.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $114.0 $.0 $114.0 74.0% $84.4 11.0% $12.5 5.0% $5.7 10.0% $11.4
Industrial
Net
Am
ount
Elig
ible
for D
C ra
te c
alcu
latio
n
Less
: Am
ount
inel
igib
le fo
r rat
e ca
lcul
atio
n -
impr
ovem
ent o
ver e
xist
ing
stan
dard
(see
Supp
lem
ent A
if a
pplic
able
)
Less
: 10%
sta
tuto
ry d
educ
tion
(if a
pplic
able
)
Subt
otal
Expe
cted
Yea
r
Tota
l Est
imat
ed C
ost
Less
: fut
ure
capi
tal g
rant
s, s
ubsi
dies
or o
ther
cont
ribut
ions
ant
icip
ated
Less
: Por
tion
of G
ross
Pro
ject
Cos
t Fun
ded
In
Prio
r Yea
rs
Less
: Fu
ture
gro
wth
ben
efits
(por
tion
of g
row
th
cost
s at
tribu
tabl
e to
gro
wth
exp
ecte
d to
occ
ur
beyo
nd p
lann
ing
horiz
on fo
r thi
s se
rvic
e)
Subt
otal
Allocation of Net Amount to types of GrowthAmount Eligible for Development Charge Rate Calculations
NO
N -
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Commercial InstitutionalNon
-gro
wth
sha
re
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Subt
otal
Project # Project Description
161
TABLE I -1 – CLAIMABLE MINOR ROAD WORKS
Service component : Minor Roads - UWRFPlanning horizon for this component : 2009-2028
Net
Am
ount
Elig
ible
for D
C ra
te c
alcu
latio
n
Less
: Am
ount
inel
igib
le fo
r rat
e ca
lcul
atio
n -
impr
ovem
ent o
ver e
xist
ing
stan
dard
(see
Supp
lem
ent A
if a
pplic
able
)
Less
: 10%
sta
tuto
ry d
educ
tion
(if a
pplic
able
)
Subt
otal
Expe
cted
Yea
r
Tota
l Est
imat
ed C
ost
Less
: fut
ure
capi
tal g
rant
s, s
ubsi
dies
or o
ther
cont
ribut
ions
ant
icip
ated
Less
: Por
tion
of G
ross
Pro
ject
Cos
t Fun
ded
In
Prio
r Yea
rs
Less
: Fu
ture
gro
wth
ben
efits
(por
tion
of g
row
th
cost
s at
tribu
tabl
e to
gro
wth
exp
ecte
d to
occ
ur
beyo
nd p
lann
ing
horiz
on fo
r thi
s se
rvic
e)
Subt
otal
Allocation of Net Amount to types of GrowthAmount Eligible for Development Charge Rate Calculations
NO
N -
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Non
-gro
wth
sha
re
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Subt
otal
Project # Project Description % benefit % $ % $ % $ % $(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21)
(all $'s in ,000's) (1) - sum(2,3) (4) * (5) (4) - (6) (7) * (8) [(7) - (9)] * 10% (7) - sum(9,10) (11) - (12) (13) * (14) (13) * (16) (13) * (18) (13) * (20)Note 1 Note 2 Note 2 Note 2 Note 2
Industrial
Net
Am
ount
Elig
ible
for D
C ra
te c
alcu
latio
n
Less
: Am
ount
inel
igib
le fo
r rat
e ca
lcul
atio
n -
impr
ovem
ent o
ver e
xist
ing
stan
dard
(see
Supp
lem
ent A
if a
pplic
able
)
Less
: 10%
sta
tuto
ry d
educ
tion
(if a
pplic
able
)
Subt
otal
Expe
cted
Yea
r
Tota
l Est
imat
ed C
ost
Less
: fut
ure
capi
tal g
rant
s, s
ubsi
dies
or o
ther
cont
ribut
ions
ant
icip
ated
Less
: Por
tion
of G
ross
Pro
ject
Cos
t Fun
ded
In
Prio
r Yea
rs
Less
: Fu
ture
gro
wth
ben
efits
(por
tion
of g
row
th
cost
s at
tribu
tabl
e to
gro
wth
exp
ecte
d to
occ
ur
beyo
nd p
lann
ing
horiz
on fo
r thi
s se
rvic
e)
Subt
otal
NO
N -
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Commercial InstitutionalNon
-gro
wth
sha
re
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Subt
otal
Project # Project Description
M-395 SIFTON RICHMOND HILL N PH II 20 yrs $120.0 $120.0 $.0 $120.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $120.0 $.0 $120.0 74.0% $88.8 11.0% $13.2 5.0% $6.0 10.0% $12.0
M-396 SOUTH LONDON IND W SIDE OF WHITE OAK RD S OF BRADLEY 20 yrs $24.0 $24.0 $.0 $24.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $24.0 $.0 $24.0 74.0% $17.8 11.0% $2.6 5.0% $1.2 10.0% $2.4M-401 DUNCAIRN DEV CORP DUNCAIRN SUBDIVISION 20 yrs $96.0 $96.0 $.0 $96.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $96.0 $.0 $96.0 74.0% $71.0 11.0% $10.6 5.0% $4.8 10.0% $9.6M-407 HANROSE DEVELOPMENTS HANROSE PARK PH II 20 yrs $417.6 $417.6 $.0 $417.6 0.0% $.0 $.0 $417.6 $.0 $417.6 74.0% $309.0 11.0% $45.9 5.0% $20.9 10.0% $41.8M-414 DREWLO KILALLY ESTATES 1C 20 yrs $6.0 $6.0 $.0 $6.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $6.0 $.0 $6.0 74.0% $4.4 11.0% $.7 5.0% $.3 10.0% $.6M-417 AUBURN SUMERCREST SUB PH III STAGE 1 20 yrs $76.8 $76.8 $.0 $76.8 0.0% $.0 $.0 $76.8 $.0 $76.8 74.0% $56.8 11.0% $8.4 5.0% $3.8 10.0% $7.7
M-444 DREWLO HOLDINGS LTD SW CORNER ADELAIDE & SUNNINGDALE 20 yrs $357.8 $357.8 $.0 $357.8 0.0% $.0 $.0 $357.8 $.0 $357.8 74.0% $264.8 11.0% $39.4 5.0% $17.9 10.0% $35.8M-446 RIDANIO 2154 TRAFALGAR STREET 20 yrs $38.4 $38.4 $.0 $38.4 0.0% $.0 $.0 $38.4 $.0 $38.4 74.0% $28.4 11.0% $4.2 5.0% $1.9 10.0% $3.8M-457 CITY OF LONDON FOREST CITY IND PARK I 20 yrs $102.0 $102.0 $.0 $102.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $102.0 $.0 $102.0 74.0% $75.5 11.0% $11.2 5.0% $5.1 10.0% $10.2M-463 SIFTON UPLAND HILLS PH 3 20 yrs $118.8 $118.8 $.0 $118.8 0.0% $.0 $.0 $118.8 $.0 $118.8 74.0% $87.9 11.0% $13.1 5.0% $5.9 10.0% $11.9M-467 AUBURN STONEY CREEK SUB PH II 20 yrs $297.0 $297.0 $.0 $297.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $297.0 $.0 $297.0 74.0% $219.8 11.0% $32.7 5.0% $14.8 10.0% $29.7M-475 NORTH GREN LAND CORP. 1259 SUNNINGDALE RD E 20 yrs $96.0 $96.0 $.0 $96.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $96.0 $.0 $96.0 74.0% $71.0 11.0% $10.6 5.0% $4.8 10.0% $9.6M-476 CITY OF LONDON FOREST CITY IND PARK - PH 2 20 yrs $213.6 $213.6 $.0 $213.6 0.0% $.0 $.0 $213.6 $.0 $213.6 74.0% $158.1 11.0% $23.5 5.0% $10.7 10.0% $21.4
M-483 911690 ONT LTD / PACIFIC & WESTERN GREN PH III 20 yrs $68.4 $68.4 $.0 $68.4 0.0% $.0 $.0 $68.4 $.0 $68.4 74.0% $50.6 11.0% $7.5 5.0% $3.4 10.0% $6.8
M-485 HAMPTON GROUP KAINS AT SHORE ROAD 20 yrs $1.2 $1.2 $.0 $1.2 0.0% $.0 $.0 $1.2 $.0 $1.2 74.0% $.9 11.0% $.1 5.0% $.1 10.0% $.1M-486 SIFTON RICHMOND HEIGHTS 20 yrs $188.9 $188.9 $.0 $188.9 0.0% $.0 $.0 $188.9 $.0 $188.9 74.0% $139.8 11.0% $20.8 5.0% $9.4 10.0% $18.9M-490 HAMPTON GROUP SOUTHDALE AT BOLER NE CRNR 20 yrs $1,200.0 $1,200.0 $.0 $1,200.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $1,200.0 $.0 $1,200.0 74.0% $888.0 11.0% $132.0 5.0% $60.0 10.0% $120.0M-490 HAMPTON GROUP SOUTHDALE AT BOLER NE CRNR 20 yrs $35.1 $35.1 $.0 $35.1 0.0% $.0 $.0 $35.1 $.0 $35.1 74.0% $26.0 11.0% $3.9 5.0% $1.8 10.0% $3.5M-491 WALLOY EXCAVATING HYDE PARK WOODS PH II 20 yrs $939.6 $939.6 $.0 $939.6 0.0% $.0 $.0 $939.6 $.0 $939.6 74.0% $695.3 11.0% $103.4 5.0% $47.0 10.0% $94.0M-499 DREWLO UPLANDS PH IB 20 yrs $126.1 $126.1 $.0 $126.1 0.0% $.0 $.0 $126.1 $.0 $126.1 74.0% $93.3 11.0% $13.9 5.0% $6.3 10.0% $12.6M-500 JACKSON LAND CORP SUMMERSIDE PH 7 20 yrs $22.8 $22.8 $.0 $22.8 0.0% $.0 $.0 $22.8 $.0 $22.8 74.0% $16.9 11.0% $2.5 5.0% $1.1 10.0% $2.3M-501 LONDON HEALTH CENTRE 801 COMMISSIONERS RD E 20 yrs $630.0 $630.0 $.0 $630.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $630.0 $.0 $630.0 74.0% $466.2 11.0% $69.3 5.0% $31.5 10.0% $63.0M-503 SIFTON/336336 ONT LTD WARBLER WOODS WEST - PH II 20 yrs $60.0 $60.0 $.0 $60.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $60.0 $.0 $60.0 74.0% $44.4 11.0% $6.6 5.0% $3.0 10.0% $6.0M-517 PEMIC LAND CORP / SIFTON RIVERBEND WEST SUBDIVISION 20 yrs $24.0 $24.0 $.0 $24.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $24.0 $.0 $24.0 74.0% $17.8 11.0% $2.6 5.0% $1.2 10.0% $2.4M-519 EGELTON WOODS ESTATES EGELTON WOODS NORTH PH IV 20 yrs $44.4 $44.4 $.0 $44.4 0.0% $.0 $.0 $44.4 $.0 $44.4 74.0% $32.9 11.0% $4.9 5.0% $2.2 10.0% $4.4M-520 SIFTON DEER RIDGE SUBDIVISION 20 yrs $131.2 $131.2 $.0 $131.2 0.0% $.0 $.0 $131.2 $.0 $131.2 74.0% $97.1 11.0% $14.4 5.0% $6.6 10.0% $13.1M-520 SIFTON DEER RIDGE SUBDIVISION 20 yrs $504.0 $504.0 $.0 $504.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $504.0 $.0 $504.0 74.0% $373.0 11.0% $55.4 5.0% $25.2 10.0% $50.4M-522 SIFTON UPLAND HILLS PH 5 20 yrs $420.0 $420.0 $.0 $420.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $420.0 $.0 $420.0 74.0% $310.8 11.0% $46.2 5.0% $21.0 10.0% $42.0M-524 NORTH LAMBETH INC. NORTH LAMBETH SUB PHASE II 20 yrs $120.0 $120.0 $.0 $120.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $120.0 $.0 $120.0 74.0% $88.8 11.0% $13.2 5.0% $6.0 10.0% $12.0M-526 336336 ONTARIO LIMITED 1449 HYDE PARK ROAD 20 yrs $420.0 $420.0 $.0 $420.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $420.0 $.0 $420.0 74.0% $310.8 11.0% $46.2 5.0% $21.0 10.0% $42.0M-528 JACKSON LAND CORP SUMMERSIDE PH 9 20 yrs $16.6 $16.6 $.0 $16.6 0.0% $.0 $.0 $16.6 $.0 $16.6 74.0% $12.3 11.0% $1.8 5.0% $.8 10.0% $1.7M-528 JACKSON LAND CORP SUMMERSIDE PH 9 20 yrs $1,575.0 $1,575.0 $.0 $1,575.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $1,575.0 $.0 $1,575.0 74.0% $1,165.5 11.0% $173.3 5.0% $78.8 10.0% $157.5M-529 JACKSON LAND CORP SUMMERSIDE PHASE 10 A 20 yrs $1,571.6 $1,571.6 $.0 $1,571.6 0.0% $.0 $.0 $1,571.6 $.0 $1,571.6 74.0% $1,163.0 11.0% $172.9 5.0% $78.6 10.0% $157.2M-529 JACKSON LAND CORP SUMMERSIDE PHASE 10 A 20 yrs $197.3 $197.3 $.0 $197.3 0.0% $.0 $.0 $197.3 $.0 $197.3 74.0% $146.0 11.0% $21.7 5.0% $9.9 10.0% $19.7M-529 JACKSON LAND CORP SUMMERSIDE PHASE 10 A 20 yrs $1,575.0 $1,575.0 $.0 $1,575.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $1,575.0 $.0 $1,575.0 74.0% $1,165.5 11.0% $173.3 5.0% $78.8 10.0% $157.5M-529 JACKSON LAND CORP SUMMERSIDE PHASE 10 A 20 yrs $836.1 $836.1 $.0 $836.1 0.0% $.0 $.0 $836.1 $.0 $836.1 74.0% $618.7 11.0% $92.0 5.0% $41.8 10.0% $83.6M-531 HIGHLAND RIDGE LTD. 890 SOUTHDALE RD W 20 yrs $90.1 $90.1 $.0 $90.1 0.0% $.0 $.0 $90.1 $.0 $90.1 74.0% $66.7 11.0% $9.9 5.0% $4.5 10.0% $9.0M-541 WALLOY HYDE PARK WEST SUB PH 1 20 yrs $241.2 $241.2 $.0 $241.2 0.0% $.0 $.0 $241.2 $.0 $241.2 74.0% $178.5 11.0% $26.5 5.0% $12.1 10.0% $24.1
M-542 LONGWOOD OAKS INC. W SIDE OF WHITE OAK RD - S OF SOUTHDALE 20 yrs $120.0 $120.0 $.0 $120.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $120.0 $.0 $120.0 74.0% $88.8 11.0% $13.2 5.0% $6.0 10.0% $12.0
M-544 CITY OF LONDON AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK 20 yrs $299.8 $299.8 $.0 $299.8 0.0% $.0 $.0 $299.8 $.0 $299.8 74.0% $221.9 11.0% $33.0 5.0% $15.0 10.0% $30.0
M-544 CITY OF LONDON AIRPORT ROAD SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK 20 yrs $340.8 $340.8 $.0 $340.8 0.0% $.0 $.0 $340.8 $.0 $340.8 74.0% $252.2 11.0% $37.5 5.0% $17.0 10.0% $34.1M-548 PITTAO CONSTRUCTION FANSHAWE AT HIGHBURY NE CRNR 20 yrs $415.2 $415.2 $.0 $415.2 0.0% $.0 $.0 $415.2 $.0 $415.2 74.0% $307.2 11.0% $45.7 5.0% $20.8 10.0% $41.5M-549 SIFTON 1851 & 1871 SHORE ROAD 20 yrs $1.2 $1.2 $.0 $1.2 0.0% $.0 $.0 $1.2 $.0 $1.2 74.0% $.9 11.0% $.1 5.0% $.1 10.0% $.1M-554 CRICH STONEYCREEK SUB PH 4 20 yrs $214.2 $214.2 $.0 $214.2 0.0% $.0 $.0 $214.2 $.0 $214.2 74.0% $158.5 11.0% $23.6 5.0% $10.7 10.0% $21.4M-562 SPEYSIDE EAST CORP. TALBOT VILLAGE PH 3 20 yrs $480.0 $480.0 $.0 $480.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $480.0 $.0 $480.0 74.0% $355.2 11.0% $52.8 5.0% $24.0 10.0% $48.0M-564 FOXHOLLOW DEV INC FOXHOLLOW SUBDIVISION PH 1 20 yrs $10.8 $10.8 $.0 $10.8 0.0% $.0 $.0 $10.8 $.0 $10.8 74.0% $8.0 11.0% $1.2 5.0% $.5 10.0% $1.1M-566 SIFTON 796 SARNIA ROAD 20 yrs $25.2 $25.2 $.0 $25.2 0.0% $.0 $.0 $25.2 $.0 $25.2 74.0% $18.6 11.0% $2.8 5.0% $1.3 10.0% $2.5
162
TABLE I -1 – CLAIMABLE MINOR ROAD WORKS Service component : Minor Roads - UWRFPlanning horizon for this component : 2009-2028
Net
Am
ount
Elig
ible
for D
C ra
te c
alcu
latio
n
Less
: Am
ount
inel
igib
le fo
r rat
e ca
lcul
atio
n -
impr
ovem
ent o
ver e
xist
ing
stan
dard
(see
Supp
lem
ent A
if a
pplic
able
)
Less
: 10%
sta
tuto
ry d
educ
tion
(if a
pplic
able
)
Subt
otal
Expe
cted
Yea
r
Tota
l Est
imat
ed C
ost
Less
: fut
ure
capi
tal g
rant
s, s
ubsi
dies
or o
ther
cont
ribut
ions
ant
icip
ated
Less
: Por
tion
of G
ross
Pro
ject
Cos
t Fun
ded
In
Prio
r Yea
rs
Less
: Fu
ture
gro
wth
ben
efits
(por
tion
of g
row
th
cost
s at
tribu
tabl
e to
gro
wth
exp
ecte
d to
occ
ur
beyo
nd p
lann
ing
horiz
on fo
r thi
s se
rvic
e)
Subt
otal
Allocation of Net Amount to types of GrowthAmount Eligible for Development Charge Rate Calculations
NO
N -
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Non
-gro
wth
sha
re
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Subt
otal
Project # Project Description % benefit % $ % $ % $ % $(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21)
(all $'s in ,000's) (1) - sum(2,3) (4) * (5) (4) - (6) (7) * (8) [(7) - (9)] * 10% (7) - sum(9,10) (11) - (12) (13) * (14) (13) * (16) (13) * (18) (13) * (20)Note 1 Note 2 Note 2 Note 2 Note 2
Industrial
Net
Am
ount
Elig
ible
for D
C ra
te c
alcu
latio
n
Less
: Am
ount
inel
igib
le fo
r rat
e ca
lcul
atio
n -
impr
ovem
ent o
ver e
xist
ing
stan
dard
(see
Supp
lem
ent A
if a
pplic
able
)
Less
: 10%
sta
tuto
ry d
educ
tion
(if a
pplic
able
)
Subt
otal
Expe
cted
Yea
r
Tota
l Est
imat
ed C
ost
Less
: fut
ure
capi
tal g
rant
s, s
ubsi
dies
or o
ther
cont
ribut
ions
ant
icip
ated
Less
: Por
tion
of G
ross
Pro
ject
Cos
t Fun
ded
In
Prio
r Yea
rs
Less
: Fu
ture
gro
wth
ben
efits
(por
tion
of g
row
th
cost
s at
tribu
tabl
e to
gro
wth
exp
ecte
d to
occ
ur
beyo
nd p
lann
ing
horiz
on fo
r thi
s se
rvic
e)
Subt
otal
NO
N -
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Commercial InstitutionalNon
-gro
wth
sha
re
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Subt
otal
Project # Project Description
M-567 HIGHBURY ESTATES INC. (Z) 1740 HIGHBURY AVE N 20 yrs $431.7 $431.7 $.0 $431.7 0.0% $.0 $.0 $431.7 $.0 $431.7 74.0% $319.5 11.0% $47.5 5.0% $21.6 10.0% $43.2M-571 FUTURE STREETS INC. 1460 HAMILTON ROAD 20 yrs $26.4 $26.4 $.0 $26.4 0.0% $.0 $.0 $26.4 $.0 $26.4 74.0% $19.5 11.0% $2.9 5.0% $1.3 10.0% $2.6M-579 SIFTON BOSTWICK PHASE 1 20 yrs $144.0 $144.0 $.0 $144.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $144.0 $.0 $144.0 74.0% $106.6 11.0% $15.8 5.0% $7.2 10.0% $14.4M-580 MAGITRON LTD. 1671 FANSHAWE PARK ROAD EAST 20 yrs $30.0 $30.0 $.0 $30.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $30.0 $.0 $30.0 74.0% $22.2 11.0% $3.3 5.0% $1.5 10.0% $3.0M-593 SUNNINGDALE G.C. LIMITED 800 SUNNINGDALE ROAD WEST 20 yrs $199.1 $199.1 $.0 $199.1 0.0% $.0 $.0 $199.1 $.0 $199.1 74.0% $147.3 11.0% $21.9 5.0% $10.0 10.0% $19.9M-593 SUNNINGDALE G.C. LIMITED 800 SUNNINGDALE ROAD WEST 20 yrs $552.0 $552.0 $.0 $552.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $552.0 $.0 $552.0 74.0% $408.5 11.0% $60.7 5.0% $27.6 10.0% $55.2M-595 HAMPTON GROUP 1000 SARNIA ROAD 20 yrs $507.6 $507.6 $.0 $507.6 0.0% $.0 $.0 $507.6 $.0 $507.6 74.0% $375.6 11.0% $55.8 5.0% $25.4 10.0% $50.8M-596 WEST KAINS LAND CORP. 810 WESTDEL BOURNE 20 yrs $12.0 $12.0 $.0 $12.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $12.0 $.0 $12.0 74.0% $8.9 11.0% $1.3 5.0% $.6 10.0% $1.2
M-600 DREWLO NW BEAVERBROOK & OAKCROSSING PH 6 20 yrs $441.6 $441.6 $.0 $441.6 0.0% $.0 $.0 $441.6 $.0 $441.6 74.0% $326.8 11.0% $48.6 5.0% $22.1 10.0% $44.2
M-602 SIFTON BOSTWICK PHASE 2 20 yrs $300.0 $300.0 $.0 $300.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $300.0 $.0 $300.0 74.0% $222.0 11.0% $33.0 5.0% $15.0 10.0% $30.0M-603 Z GROUP MEADOWLILLY WOODS 20 yrs $1,575.0 $1,575.0 $.0 $1,575.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $1,575.0 $.0 $1,575.0 74.0% $1,165.5 11.0% $173.3 5.0% $78.8 10.0% $157.5M-603 Z GROUP MEADOWLILLY WOODS 20 yrs $3.4 $3.4 $.0 $3.4 0.0% $.0 $.0 $3.4 $.0 $3.4 74.0% $2.5 11.0% $.4 5.0% $.2 10.0% $.3M-603 Z GROUP MEADOWLILLY WOODS 20 yrs $282.0 $282.0 $.0 $282.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $282.0 $.0 $282.0 74.0% $208.7 11.0% $31.0 5.0% $14.1 10.0% $28.2M-604 2154067 ONTARIO INC. CLEARDALE RAVINE SUBDIVISION 20 yrs $127.2 $127.2 $.0 $127.2 0.0% $.0 $.0 $127.2 $.0 $127.2 74.0% $94.1 11.0% $14.0 5.0% $6.4 10.0% $12.7
SP-01082 SOUTHSIDE WONDERLAND POWER CENTRE PH II 20 yrs $200.4 $200.4 $.0 $200.4 0.0% $.0 $.0 $200.4 $.0 $200.4 74.0% $148.3 11.0% $22.0 5.0% $10.0 10.0% $20.0SP-02007 DEARNESS HOME 710 SOUTHDALE ROAD E 20 yrs $300.0 $300.0 $.0 $300.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $300.0 $.0 $300.0 74.0% $222.0 11.0% $33.0 5.0% $15.0 10.0% $30.0SP-02016 REMBRANDT HOMES 655 COMMISSIONERS ROAD W 20 yrs $6.4 $6.4 $.0 $6.4 0.0% $.0 $.0 $6.4 $.0 $6.4 74.0% $4.7 11.0% $.7 5.0% $.3 10.0% $.6SP-02113 FIRST PRO FANSHAWE & HYDE PARK PH II 20 yrs $288.0 $288.0 $.0 $288.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $288.0 $.0 $288.0 74.0% $213.1 11.0% $31.7 5.0% $14.4 10.0% $28.8SP-03117 REIDS HERITAGE HOMES 6965 RALEIGH BOULEVARD 20 yrs $29.0 $29.0 $.0 $29.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $29.0 $.0 $29.0 74.0% $21.5 11.0% $3.2 5.0% $1.5 10.0% $2.9SP-03133 KILO CONSTRUCTION 738 EXETER ROAD 20 yrs $10.4 $10.4 $.0 $10.4 0.0% $.0 $.0 $10.4 $.0 $10.4 74.0% $7.7 11.0% $1.1 5.0% $.5 10.0% $1.0
SP-04049 WESTWOOD CENTRE INC. SW CRNR SOUTHDALE & WONDERLAND 20 yrs $46.8 $46.8 $.0 $46.8 0.0% $.0 $.0 $46.8 $.0 $46.8 74.0% $34.6 11.0% $5.1 5.0% $2.3 10.0% $4.7
SP-04049 WESTWOOD CENTRE INC. SW CRNR SOUTHDALE & WONDERLAND 20 yrs $137.2 $137.2 $.0 $137.2 0.0% $.0 $.0 $137.2 $.0 $137.2 74.0% $101.5 11.0% $15.1 5.0% $6.9 10.0% $13.7SP-04090 COURTYARD HOMES INC. 1430 HIGHBURY AVENUE N 20 yrs $179.4 $179.4 $.0 $179.4 0.0% $.0 $.0 $179.4 $.0 $179.4 74.0% $132.7 11.0% $19.7 5.0% $9.0 10.0% $17.9SP-05022 CANADIAN COMMERCIAL 142 CLARKE ROAD 20 yrs $54.0 $54.0 $.0 $54.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $54.0 $.0 $54.0 74.0% $40.0 11.0% $5.9 5.0% $2.7 10.0% $5.4
SP-05023 CORNERSTONE PROPERTIES 485 WINDERMERE ROAD 20 yrs $42.9 $42.9 $.0 $42.9 0.0% $.0 $.0 $42.9 $.0 $42.9 74.0% $31.7 11.0% $4.7 5.0% $2.1 10.0% $4.3SP-05105 GLAD TIDINGS ASSEMBLY 890 SARNIA ROAD 20 yrs $16.8 $16.8 $.0 $16.8 0.0% $.0 $.0 $16.8 $.0 $16.8 74.0% $12.4 11.0% $1.8 5.0% $.8 10.0% $1.7SP-05135 HOME DEPOT 440 CLARKE ROAD 20 yrs $96.0 $96.0 $.0 $96.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $96.0 $.0 $96.0 74.0% $71.0 11.0% $10.6 5.0% $4.8 10.0% $9.6
SP-06004 WEST PARK BAPTIST CHURCH 955 GAINSBOROUGH ROAD 20 yrs $4.7 $4.7 $.0 $4.7 0.0% $.0 $.0 $4.7 $.0 $4.7 74.0% $3.5 11.0% $.5 5.0% $.2 10.0% $.5SP-06028 CROWN DEVELOPMENT LTD. 1777 HIGHBURY AVENUE 20 yrs $12.0 $12.0 $.0 $12.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $12.0 $.0 $12.0 74.0% $8.9 11.0% $1.3 5.0% $.6 10.0% $1.2SP-06088 TRICAR 1967 RICHMOND STREET 20 yrs $162.0 $162.0 $.0 $162.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $162.0 $.0 $162.0 74.0% $119.9 11.0% $17.8 5.0% $8.1 10.0% $16.2SP-06098 STANTON 966-974 WESTERN ROAD 20 yrs $45.2 $45.2 $.0 $45.2 0.0% $.0 $.0 $45.2 $.0 $45.2 74.0% $33.4 11.0% $5.0 5.0% $2.3 10.0% $4.5SP-06106 1569543 ONTARIO LIMITED 655 WELLINGTON ROAD 20 yrs $6.0 $6.0 $.0 $6.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $6.0 $.0 $6.0 74.0% $4.4 11.0% $.7 5.0% $.3 10.0% $.6
SP-07002 RANBAH LIMITED (TEPPERMANS) 1150 WHARNCLIFFE ROAD SOUTH 20 yrs $212.8 $212.8 $.0 $212.8 0.0% $.0 $.0 $212.8 $.0 $212.8 74.0% $157.4 11.0% $23.4 5.0% $10.6 10.0% $21.3
SP-07002 RANBAH LIMITED (TEPPERMANS) 1150 WHARNCLIFFE ROAD SOUTH 20 yrs $120.0 $120.0 $.0 $120.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $120.0 $.0 $120.0 74.0% $88.8 11.0% $13.2 5.0% $6.0 10.0% $12.0SP-07011 KIKEEKY CORPORATION 251 FANSHAWE PARK RD W 20 yrs $9.1 $9.1 $.0 $9.1 0.0% $.0 $.0 $9.1 $.0 $9.1 74.0% $6.7 11.0% $1.0 5.0% $.5 10.0% $.9SP-07041 GOODWILL 1044 ADELAIDE STREET NORTH 20 yrs $6.0 $6.0 $.0 $6.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $6.0 $.0 $6.0 74.0% $4.4 11.0% $.7 5.0% $.3 10.0% $.6SP-07095 SOUTHSIDE 3000 COLONEL TALBOT ROAD 20 yrs $486.0 $486.0 $.0 $486.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $486.0 $.0 $486.0 74.0% $359.6 11.0% $53.5 5.0% $24.3 10.0% $48.6SP-90010 U.W.O. U.W.O. RESEARCH PARK 20 yrs $360.0 $360.0 $.0 $360.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $360.0 $.0 $360.0 74.0% $266.4 11.0% $39.6 5.0% $18.0 10.0% $36.0SP-98030 COPP BUILDERS 2090 DUNDAS ST. 20 yrs $18.0 $18.0 $.0 $18.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $18.0 $.0 $18.0 74.0% $13.3 11.0% $2.0 5.0% $.9 10.0% $1.8SP-98039 LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES 339 WINDERMERE ROAD 20 yrs $84.0 $84.0 $.0 $84.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $84.0 $.0 $84.0 74.0% $62.2 11.0% $9.2 5.0% $4.2 10.0% $8.4SP-98040 LONDON HEALTH SCIENCES 800 COMMISSIONERS ROAD EAST 20 yrs $180.0 $180.0 $.0 $180.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $180.0 $.0 $180.0 74.0% $133.2 11.0% $19.8 5.0% $9.0 10.0% $18.0SP-99095 HOLY TRINITY GREEK 133 SOUTHDALE ROAD W 20 yrs $109.4 $109.4 $.0 $109.4 0.0% $.0 $.0 $109.4 $.0 $109.4 74.0% $81.0 11.0% $12.0 5.0% $5.5 10.0% $10.9SP-99119 NEWPORT PROPERTIES 112 SOUTH CARRIAGE ROAD 20 yrs $64.8 $64.8 $.0 $64.8 0.0% $.0 $.0 $64.8 $.0 $64.8 74.0% $48.0 11.0% $7.1 5.0% $3.2 10.0% $6.5
Subtotal $39,421.7 $.0 $.0 $39,421.7 $.0 $39,421.7 $.0 $.0 $39,421.7 $.0 $39,421.7 74.0% $29,172.1 11.0% $4,336.4 5.0% $1,971.1 10.0% $3,942.2
163
TABLE I -1 – CLAIMABLE MINOR ROAD WORKS Service component : Minor Roads - UWRFPlanning horizon for this component : 2009-2028
Net
Am
ount
Elig
ible
for D
C ra
te c
alcu
latio
n
Less
: Am
ount
inel
igib
le fo
r rat
e ca
lcul
atio
n -
impr
ovem
ent o
ver e
xist
ing
stan
dard
(see
Supp
lem
ent A
if a
pplic
able
)
Less
: 10%
sta
tuto
ry d
educ
tion
(if a
pplic
able
)
Subt
otal
Expe
cted
Yea
r
Tota
l Est
imat
ed C
ost
Less
: fut
ure
capi
tal g
rant
s, s
ubsi
dies
or o
ther
cont
ribut
ions
ant
icip
ated
Less
: Por
tion
of G
ross
Pro
ject
Cos
t Fun
ded
In
Prio
r Yea
rs
Less
: Fu
ture
gro
wth
ben
efits
(por
tion
of g
row
th
cost
s at
tribu
tabl
e to
gro
wth
exp
ecte
d to
occ
ur
beyo
nd p
lann
ing
horiz
on fo
r thi
s se
rvic
e)
Subt
otal
Allocation of Net Amount to types of GrowthAmount Eligible for Development Charge Rate Calculations
NO
N -
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Non
-gro
wth
sha
re
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Subt
otal
Project # Project Description % benefit % $ % $ % $ % $(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21)
(all $'s in ,000's) (1) - sum(2,3) (4) * (5) (4) - (6) (7) * (8) [(7) - (9)] * 10% (7) - sum(9,10) (11) - (12) (13) * (14) (13) * (16) (13) * (18) (13) * (20)Note 1 Note 2 Note 2 Note 2 Note 2
Industrial
Net
Am
ount
Elig
ible
for D
C ra
te c
alcu
latio
n
Less
: Am
ount
inel
igib
le fo
r rat
e ca
lcul
atio
n -
impr
ovem
ent o
ver e
xist
ing
stan
dard
(see
Supp
lem
ent A
if a
pplic
able
)
Less
: 10%
sta
tuto
ry d
educ
tion
(if a
pplic
able
)
Subt
otal
Expe
cted
Yea
r
Tota
l Est
imat
ed C
ost
Less
: fut
ure
capi
tal g
rant
s, s
ubsi
dies
or o
ther
cont
ribut
ions
ant
icip
ated
Less
: Por
tion
of G
ross
Pro
ject
Cos
t Fun
ded
In
Prio
r Yea
rs
Less
: Fu
ture
gro
wth
ben
efits
(por
tion
of g
row
th
cost
s at
tribu
tabl
e to
gro
wth
exp
ecte
d to
occ
ur
beyo
nd p
lann
ing
horiz
on fo
r thi
s se
rvic
e)
Subt
otal
NO
N -
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Commercial InstitutionalNon
-gro
wth
sha
re
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Subt
otal
Project # Project Description
UWRF going forward - Channelization works
CH15 Richmond @ Uplands (8) Not Provided 20 yrs $668.3 $668.3 $.0 $668.3 0.0% $.0 $.0 $668.3 $.0 $668.3 74.0% $494.5 11.0% $73.5 5.0% $33.4 10.0% $66.8CH22 Kains @ Shore Road (8) Left Turn 20 yrs $668.3 $668.3 $.0 $668.3 0.0% $.0 $.0 $668.3 $.0 $668.3 74.0% $494.5 11.0% $73.5 5.0% $33.4 10.0% $66.8CH26 Huron @ Sorrel/Oakville (8) Left Turn 20 yrs $668.3 $668.3 $.0 $668.3 0.0% $.0 $.0 $668.3 $.0 $668.3 74.0% $494.5 11.0% $73.5 5.0% $33.4 10.0% $66.8CH33 Byron Baseline @ Griffith (8) Left Turn w/ Signalization 20 yrs $668.3 $668.3 $.0 $668.3 0.0% $.0 $.0 $668.3 $.0 $668.3 74.0% $494.5 11.0% $73.5 5.0% $33.4 10.0% $66.8CH69 Wickerson @ Mid-Block 20 yrs $668.3 $668.3 $.0 $668.3 0.0% $.0 $.0 $668.3 $.0 $668.3 74.0% $494.5 11.0% $73.5 5.0% $33.4 10.0% $66.8CH74 White Oak @ Dowell (8) 20 yrs $668.3 $668.3 $.0 $668.3 0.0% $.0 $.0 $668.3 $.0 $668.3 74.0% $494.5 11.0% $73.5 5.0% $33.4 10.0% $66.8CH92 Hamilton @ East of VMP 20 yrs $668.3 $668.3 $.0 $668.3 0.0% $.0 $.0 $668.3 $.0 $668.3 74.0% $494.5 11.0% $73.5 5.0% $33.4 10.0% $66.8CH94 Hamilton btw Commissioners & River 20 yrs $668.3 $668.3 $.0 $668.3 0.0% $.0 $.0 $668.3 $.0 $668.3 74.0% $494.5 11.0% $73.5 5.0% $33.4 10.0% $66.8
CH98 Wilton Grove @ Commerce Road (8) 20 yrs $668.3 $668.3 $.0 $668.3 0.0% $.0 $.0 $668.3 $.0 $668.3 74.0% $494.5 11.0% $73.5 5.0% $33.4 10.0% $66.8
CH99 Wilton Grove @ Cheese Factory Road 20 yrs $668.3 $668.3 $.0 $668.3 0.0% $.0 $.0 $668.3 $.0 $668.3 74.0% $494.5 11.0% $73.5 5.0% $33.4 10.0% $66.8
CH101 White Oak btw Dingman & Blakie (8) 20 yrs $668.3 $668.3 $.0 $668.3 0.0% $.0 $.0 $668.3 $.0 $668.3 74.0% $494.5 11.0% $73.5 5.0% $33.4 10.0% $66.8
CH103 Wharncliffe West of Bradley Extension (8) 20 yrs $668.3 $668.3 $.0 $668.3 0.0% $.0 $.0 $668.3 $.0 $668.3 74.0% $494.5 11.0% $73.5 5.0% $33.4 10.0% $66.8
CH105 Wonderland @ Hamlyn (8) 20 yrs $668.3 $668.3 $.0 $668.3 0.0% $.0 $.0 $668.3 $.0 $668.3 74.0% $494.5 11.0% $73.5 5.0% $33.4 10.0% $66.8CH106 Wharncliffe @ Savoy 20 yrs $668.3 $668.3 $.0 $668.3 0.0% $.0 $.0 $668.3 $.0 $668.3 74.0% $494.5 11.0% $73.5 5.0% $33.4 10.0% $66.8CH107 Southdale @ Byron Hills Drive 20 yrs $668.3 $668.3 $.0 $668.3 0.0% $.0 $.0 $668.3 $.0 $668.3 74.0% $494.5 11.0% $73.5 5.0% $33.4 10.0% $66.8CH109 Westdel Bourne @ Shore (8) 20 yrs $668.3 $668.3 $.0 $668.3 0.0% $.0 $.0 $668.3 $.0 $668.3 74.0% $494.5 11.0% $73.5 5.0% $33.4 10.0% $66.8
CH110Gainsborough w/Coronation (West
Leg) 20 yrs $668.3 $668.3 $.0 $668.3 0.0% $.0 $.0 $668.3 $.0 $668.3 74.0% $494.5 11.0% $73.5 5.0% $33.4 10.0% $66.8CH111 Richmond @ City Limit (8) 20 yrs $668.3 $668.3 $.0 $668.3 0.0% $.0 $.0 $668.3 $.0 $668.3 74.0% $494.5 11.0% $73.5 5.0% $33.4 10.0% $66.8CH112 Adelaide @ City Limit (8) 20 yrs $668.3 $668.3 $.0 $668.3 0.0% $.0 $.0 $668.3 $.0 $668.3 74.0% $494.5 11.0% $73.5 5.0% $33.4 10.0% $66.8CH115 Highbury @ Kilarney (8) 20 yrs $668.3 $668.3 $.0 $668.3 0.0% $.0 $.0 $668.3 $.0 $668.3 74.0% $494.5 11.0% $73.5 5.0% $33.4 10.0% $66.8CH119 Webster @ Jenson Left Turn 20 yrs $668.3 $668.3 $.0 $668.3 0.0% $.0 $.0 $668.3 $.0 $668.3 74.0% $494.5 11.0% $73.5 5.0% $33.4 10.0% $66.8
CH120Commissioners btw Wellington &
Four Counties 20 yrs $668.3 $668.3 $.0 $668.3 0.0% $.0 $.0 $668.3 $.0 $668.3 74.0% $494.5 11.0% $73.5 5.0% $33.4 10.0% $66.8
Subtotal $14,701.5 $.0 $.0 $14,701.5 $.0 $14,701.5 $.0 $.0 $14,701.5 $.0 $14,701.5 $10,879.1 $1,617.2 $735.1 $1,470.2
Provision for contingencies for Minor Road Works (note 2) 20 yrs $1,000.0 $1,000.0 $.0 $1,000.0 $.0 $.0 $1,000.0 $.0 $1,000.0 74.0% $740.0 11.0% $110.0 5.0% $50.0 10.0% $100.0TS98 TS98 Wilton Grove @ Commerce Road 20 yrs $151.9 $151.9 $.0 $151.9 0.0% $.0 $.0 $151.9 $.0 $151.9 74.0% $112.4 11.0% $16.7 5.0% $7.6 10.0% $15.2
TS101 TS101 Wilton Grove @ Commerce Road 20 yrs $151.9 $151.9 $.0 $151.9 0.0% $.0 $.0 $151.9 $.0 $151.9 74.0% $112.4 11.0% $16.7 5.0% $7.6 10.0% $15.2
Subtotal $303.8 $.0 $.0 $303.8 $.0 $303.8 $.0 $.0 $303.8 $.0 $303.8 $224.8 $33.4 $15.2 $30.4
TOTAL $55,427.0 $.0 $.0 $55,427.0 0.0% $.0 $55,427.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $55,427.0 $.0 $55,427.0 74.0% $41,016.0 11.0% $6,097.0 5.0% $2,771.3 10.0% $5,542.7
Residential Commercial Institutional Industrial
$.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0Notes:
1) Details of projects, costing, future benefit, and growth splits can all be obtained from Aecom Tables. $55,427.0 74.0% $41,016.0 11.0% $6,097.0 5.0% $2,771.3 10.0% $5,542.72)
Divided By: Total Gross Growth Projections 101,317 479,364 390,194 678,192
Calculated DC Rate - Pre-Financing 404.83$ 12.72$ 7.10$ 8.17$ /person /sq. m. /sq. m. /sq. m.
Prefinancing - Residential Rate Summary Post Financing Minor Roads Jan 1, 2009 rate
Single Family Dwelling 3.22 1,303.55$ 3,743.00 1,873.00 5,616.00$ Multiple unit dwelling 2.31 935.15$ 2,650.69 1,326.56 3,977.24$ Apartment - bach. & 1 bed 1.37 554.61$ 1,753.62 839.79 2,593.42$ Apartment - ≥ 2 bedroom 1.92 777.27$ 2,458.29 1,176.94 3,635.23$
CSRF UWRF Total rate
Total net cost eligible for DC rate calculation purposes
Development Charge Rate Calculation (Pre-Financing Cost)
Less: Portion of above works collected in prior years (approximate uncommitted balance in DC reserve fund at December 31, 2008)
This amount represents a contingency for projects, the location of which cannot be foreseen but are felt to be inevitable, in the amount of $1M. (Note included in AECOM tables at Mar 13 09)
164
Appendix J - Sanitary Sewers, Pollution Control Plants, and Other Facilities- CSRF Funded The Sanitary Servicing Development Charges Update prepared by AECOM formed the basis for determining the City’s sanitary system growth needs applied to the DC rate calculation. The update looked at the full system including sanitary sewerage collection system, Pumping Station (PS) and Pollution Control Plant (PCP) facilities. The DC update reached its conclusions by:
• Updating the 2003 City of London Sanitary Sewerage Servicing Plan to address growth for the 2009-2028 planning horizon with consideration for long-term needs;
• Re-assessing existing and proposed interim/temporary solutions regarding triggers, life-span and in particular the timing of future Southside PCP and its affect on development of the southwest;
• Reconfirming PCP requirements with respect to regulatory requirements (nutrient management, sustainable water);
• Building a static sewer model to identify sewerage system constraints for future growth and assess upsizing/extension solutions;
• Assigning reasonable cost estimates to identified growth needs; and finally • Removing redundancies through coordination with other water, storm and road
related works. This Appendix summarizes the methods applied to the above work. More detailed information is available in the AECOM Sanitary Servicing Development Charges Update 2008. Policy Considerations The City’s existing sanitary sewerage system consists of over 1200km of sanitary sewers and 35 pumping stations along with 37 km of forcemain all conveying sewage to the 5 major pollution control plants for treatment. One of the key policy considerations for this service stemmed from the recommendation of the Blue Ribbon Panel report (October 2006). Applied to Sanitary sewer pipes, the report recommends that major works previously funded through the UWRF (developer led) revert to funding from the CSRF (City Capital Budget). It also recommended that an allocation of oversized works be made for “local” benefit. The following policy considerations are consistent with Council’s endorsement of these recommendations.
(a) For the purpose of DC calculations, CSRF trunk sanitary sewers were deemed to be either sewers that are larger in size with greater service areas or are located in either sensitive areas such as river valleys or within major roadways. Major sanitary trunk extensions will now be funded from the CSRF and administered as City-led projects.
(b) Sewers servicing smaller areas not strategically located within sensitive areas
or along major roadways will be funded from UWRF and administered as developer-led projects. These works will be paid for on an oversizing basis. The sanitary sewer project list identifies sanitary sewers that are UWRF funded going forward or as grandfathered projects.
(c) Contingency projects totaling approximately $1.0M were included for those
cases where oversizing may apply though not specifically identified in the list. For the purpose of oversizing calculations, a 300mm diameter sewer was considered
165
to be roughly equivalent to a service area of 30 ha. An oversizing subsidy based on a pipe size differential will be eligible for UWRF claims as shown in Table 5.1.3 Pipe Size Credit Amount Table of the AECOM Study. The UWRF eligible Sanitary Sewer Oversizing Subsidy is described in more detail in Appendix K of this 2009 DC Background Study
The above considerations have resulted in a significant shift in sanitary sewer work funding from UWRF to CSRF as well as from UWRF to direct developer responsibility for the “local” share. New regulations and legislation arising from the 2000 Walkerton crisis have had an impact on wastewater treatment and watershed protection. In preparing the Sanitary Servicing DC Update, it was necessary to consider the impact of new and anticipated regulations such as the Sustainable Water and Sewage Systems Act, and the Nutrient Management Act. In assessing the timing, triggers and impacts of future Southside PCP, it was decided the City’s next major pollution control plant would not be required until just beyond the 20-year planning period. In the interim, initial and future sewage flows intended for Southside PCP are to be conveyed to the Wonderland PS and Forcemains. The Southwest Area Plan proposed by the City will outline further servicing for this area in the future. The above considerations were incorporated into the AECOM Sanitary Servicing DC Background Study Update and reflected in the 2009 DC rate calculation. CSRF Administration In the past, DC eligible sanitary trunk sewers were financed through the UWRF. However, allowing developers to set the timing of construction on major trunk services has led to issues regarding triggers for construction, land issues and cost sharing disputes as these sewers often serve multiple land owners. As well, gravity trunk sewers have a natural tendency towards alignments adjacent to or within environmentally sensitive areas. The City has chosen to shift funding for major sanitary trunk sewers to the CSRF with construction to be administered by the City. Construction of major sanitary trunk sewer works will remain consistent with the timing identified in the City’s Growth Management Implementation Strategy(GMIS), which has been strategically set to coordinate with large storm, road and water projects. Developers wishing to advance the schedule for identified CSRF funded sanitary trunk works will require an approved and executed Municipal Services Financing Agreement. Project Identification In assessing sanitary growth needs for the current planning period, AECOM incorporated Clayton growth projections; City provided planning and development information and sewerage system modeling. Modeling scenarios were run for the following growth scenarios:
• 2007, 2017, 2027 and 2037 with results adjusted to fit 2009-2028 time frame; • Full Buildout of the City’s UGB and Modified UGB (reduced industrial); and • Buildout to a future population of 675,000.
Analyzing future flows beyond the current 20-year planning period ensures efficient progression of services over the City’s ultimate buildout. Sewage flow forecasts also included allowances for industrial added demand of 4.5 MLD (1.0 MIGD) over the 20-year period as well as future capacity for septage/leachate and biosolids management sources.
166
Each required DC Sanitary Servicing work has been identified in Table J-1 along with key details. More specific project descriptions will improve the City’s ability to monitor DC spending and provide regular, timely updates to the GMIS. The methods used in identifying Sanitary Sewerage System works for the 2009-2028 review period are described below.
(a) Required Trunk Sewer Works AECOM completed an analysis of the sanitary sewerage system using the Infosewer Static Sewer Model. The model determines future flows for trunk sewer, pumping station and forcemains to determine constraints for future growth and identify upsizing/extension solutions. Sewer segments, manhole nodes and profiles representing future works were added to the model based on the latest community planning and development information. Based on the model results, major trunk sewer extension or upsizing works were identified as CSRF funded DC projects. Table J-1 outlines the major trunk sewer works required to service the population and ICI growth to 2028 within the City’s GMIS boundary. Each Sanitary Trunk Sewer work is clearly identified in Table J-1 with a distinct ID as well as location information (PCP sewershed, growth area), sewer description (average depth, diameter and length), UWRF/CSRF applicability, timing consistent with the City’s GMIS, and Growth/Non-growth allocations.
(b) Pumping Station / Forcemain Works Required Pumping Station and Forcemain works were determined using projected sewage flow information to 2037 pro-rated over the current 20-year planning horizon. Table J-1 (appended to this section)outlines the required upgrades to existing pumping station or new pumping stations to service growth in the 20-year planning period. Further detailed information provided in the AECOM study identify pumping stations by name along with a rated capacity, operating ceiling, current running average flows, available capacity, expansion requirements to 2028, timing consistent with the City’s Growth Management Implementation Strategy (GMIS) and growth/non-growth allocations.
(c) Required Pollution Control Plant Works The PCP expansions and new installations required to handle future sewage flows and stringent effluent requirements were determined through a review of:
• Existing and future average sewage flows without peaks; • Standard Inflow/Infiltration allowances; • Projected flows closely matched to 2028 with minimal oversizing; and • Flow balancing amongst the PCP’s to maximize available treatment capacity.
The AECOM study (Table 5.2) outlines the Pollution Control Plant works required to service the residential population and ICI growth to 2028 within the City’s GMIS boundary. Each PCP work is identified by name in the project lists with a rated capacity, operational ceiling, current running average flows, available capacity, expansion requirements to 2028, timing consistent with the City’s GMIS, and Growth/Non-growth allocations. The key elements required for rate calculations are reproduced in Table J-1. Establishing Costing Estimates The DC rate setting process requires the estimated costs assigned to identified growth works be reasonable and defensible. Prior to assigning costs, AECOM undertook a detailed costing analysis in consultation with representatives of the local development industry using previous project pricing and recent tenders, incorporating adjustments for inflation. All works have been cost estimated in 2009 dollars. Engineering (15%) and contingency (20%) were added to all sanitary servicing works. Trunk sewer costing was based on pipe size and depth with the total cost of purchasing and installing sewer pipe broken down into three components: pipe, construction and restoration
167
costs. Redundancies with other transportation, storm drainage and water works were removed where applicable. Post-Period Benefit Adjustments For pumping stations and PCP’s, projected sewage flow information to 2037 was used to determine future work requirements. The trunk sanitary sewer works identified for the 2009-2028 growth period were appropriately selected based on GMIS boundary needs. It was necessary to prorate the 20-year future needs to 2028 and match costs incorporated into the rate calculations with the growth that requires those services. The portion of each work which benefited growth beyond the 20-year horizon was removed from the rate calculations. Additional costs were accounted for in the DC rate to cover the future Southside PCP Environmental Assessment ($1M), land acquisition ($2M), and an update to the City’s Biosolids Master Plan ($400K). However, since the works defined in the studies is outside the planning horizon, the benefit of these studies has been largely deferred for collection from future growth (beyond the 20-year planning period). Allocation Splits
(a) Growth/Non-Growth The growth and non-growth allocations for sanitary servicing works vary by project as the allocations were determined based upon pre-existing development going back to the best available information within the last 20-year period. The best available information within the previous period dates back to the development charges background study completed in 1994. (b) Residential/ICI RES/ICI allocations were determined using anticipated flows from various forms of development in each sub-sewershed.
Final Costs for DC Rate Calculation The required Sanitary Sewerage System Works identified in the AECOM Sanitary Servicing Development Charges Update 2008 form the basis for determining development charges for the CSRF and/or UWRF and represent the numerator in the rate calculation. The DC funded portion of certain Sanitary Sewer works funded in prior years from debt has also been incorporated into the DC rate calculations. The final total costs calculated for Sanitary Sewerage System Works are reflected in Table J-1. Uncommitted Reserve Funds The uncommitted balance of the reserve funds is netted against the determined total growth servicing costs to take into account funds that have been collected in the past on projects to be completed in the future. For Sanitary Servicing Works, the above cost figures are reduced by the $8.0M representing the uncommitted Sanitary balance for the final calculated DC rate.
168
Financing Costs Table J-2 was produced to simulate cash flows for CSRF funded Sanitary Servicing works for the purpose of calculating the final DC rate inclusive of financing costs. Forecasting cash flow and financing costs involved:
a) Starting with the 2009 opening balance, approximately $8.0M, which reflects accumulated funds for growth projects identified in past DC studies that remain as capital needs in this study;
b) Projecting DC revenues using the “pre-finance” rate; c) Incorporating DC drawdowns in the cash flow projection based on the growth projects
identified in the 20-year study period; d) Incorporating provisions for debt payments for previously approved commitments on
growth works funded by debt; and e) Estimating annual interest revenues to be earned and/or financing costs to be
incurred due to fund deficits throughout the 20-year planning horizon.
Any deficit in the cash flow analysis at the end of the planning period equates to the amounts of the expenditures incurred during the planning period to be recovered from growth in the future (i.e. the post period benefit). All figures are presented on an un-inflated, constant (2009) dollar basis and interest rates exclude the inflationary component (2%). The rates generated from this cash flow analysis reflect the appropriate cost recovery from growth for the 20-year planning horizon. Council Intention to Meet Growth Needs The growth needs identified within this Appendix have been extracted from the AECOM Sanitary Servicing DC update. The capital items reflected herein will be subject to final approval of Council through the annual capital budget approval process. It is Council’s stated intention to “provide for the needs of growth in a way that does not jeopardize the long term financial health of the municipality, or place an undue burden on existing taxpayers” (Official Plan Policy 2.6.3). NOTE: An examination of long term Sanitary Services operating costs for growth needs is included in Appendix O of this Background Study.
169
TABLE J-1 – SANITARY SEWER –TREATMENT PLANTS & OTHER FACILITIES – CSRF FUNDED
Service component : Sanitary - PCP & Other FacilitiesPlanning horizon for this component : 2009-2028
Subt
otal
Project # Project Description Subt
otal
Tota
l Est
imat
ed C
ost
Less
: fut
ure
capi
tal g
rant
s, s
ubsi
dies
or o
ther
cont
ribut
ions
ant
icip
ated
Less
: Por
tion
of G
ross
Pro
ject
Cos
t Fun
ded
In
Prio
r Yea
rs
Allocation of Net Amount to types of GrowthAmount Eligible for Development Charge Rate Calculations
NO
N -
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Non
-gro
wth
sha
re
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Less
: Fu
ture
gro
wth
ben
efits
(por
tion
of g
row
th
cost
s at
tribu
tabl
e to
gro
wth
exp
ecte
d to
occ
ur
beyo
nd p
lann
ing
horiz
on fo
r thi
s se
rvic
e)
Subt
otal
Net
Am
ount
Elig
ible
for D
C ra
te c
alcu
latio
n
Less
: Am
ount
inel
igib
le fo
r rat
e ca
lcul
atio
n -
impr
ovem
ent o
ver e
xist
ing
stan
dard
(see
Supp
lem
ent A
if a
pplic
able
)
Less
: 10%
sta
tuto
ry d
educ
tion
(if a
pplic
able
)
Expe
cted
Yea
r
% benefit % $ % $ % $ % $(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21)
(all $'s in ,000's) (1) - sum(2,3) (4) * (5) (4) - (6) (7) * (8) [(7) - (9)] * 10% (7) - sum(9,10) (11) - (12) (13) * (14) (13) * (16) (13) * (18) (13) * (20)Anticipated and Planned Projects
PCP Facilities ES5231 ADELAIDE (8) 2021 $10,900.0 $10,900.0 0% $.0 $10,900.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $10,900.0 $.0 $10,900.0 93% $10,137.0 4.0% $436.0 3.0% $327.0 0.0% $.0ES2685 GREENWAY (8) 2012 $26,000.0 $26,000.0 0% $.0 $26,000.0 34.7% $9,010.0 $.0 $16,990.0 $.0 $16,990.0 57% $9,684.3 12.0% $2,038.8 13.0% $2,208.7 18.0% $3,058.2ES5014 OXFORD 2020 $16,200.0 $16,200.0 50% $8,100.0 $8,100.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $8,100.0 $.0 $8,100.0 90% $7,290.0 7.0% $567.0 2.0% $162.0 1.0% $81.0ES5142 POTTERSBURG 2019 $31,000.0 $31,000.0 67% $20,770.0 $10,230.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $10,230.0 $.0 $10,230.0 42% $4,296.6 5.0% $511.5 1.0% $102.3 52.0% $5,319.6ES2492 VAUXHALL 2009 $6,000.0 $6,000.0 0% $.0 $6,000.0 50.0% $3,000.0 $.0 $3,000.0 $.0 $3,000.0 56% $1,680.0 22.0% $660.0 22.0% $660.0 0.0% $.0ES5240 SOUTHSIDE >2028 $.0 $.0 100% $.0 $.0 0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 57% $.0 12.0% $.0 13.0% $.0 18.0% $.0
Subtotal $90,100.0 $.0 $.0 $90,100.0 $28,870.0 $61,230.0 $12,010.0 $.0 $49,220.0 $.0 $49,220.0 67% $33,087.9 9% $4,213.3 7% $3,460.0 17% $8,458.8
Other Facilities
ES3080 GREENWAY INCINERATOR REFURBISHMENT 2012/2016 $13,440.0 $13,440.0 0% $.0 $13,440.0 87% $11,665.5 $.0 $1,774.5 $.0 $1,774.5 72% $1,277.6 7.0% $124.2 5.0% $88.7 16.0% $283.9 GREENWAY DEWATERING 2018 $12,600.0 $12,600.0 67% $8,400.0 $4,200.0 40% $1,680.0 $.0 $2,520.0 $.0 $2,520.0 72% $1,814.4 7.0% $176.4 5.0% $126.0 16.0% $403.2 GREENWAY NEW INCINERATOR 2024 $24,150.0 $24,150.0 80% $19,320.0 $4,830.0 0% $.0 $.0 $4,830.0 $.0 $4,830.0 72% $3,477.6 7.0% $338.1 5.0% $241.5 16.0% $772.8
ES3502 HUNT CLUB PS UPGRADE (2) 2009 $1,000.0 $1,000.0 0% $.0 $1,000.0 2% $20.0 $.0 $980.0 $.0 $980.0 81% $790.6 0.0% $.0 3.0% $29.4 16.3% $160.0ES2466 HYDE PARK PS UPGRADE 2015 $198.5 $198.5 0% $.0 $198.5 0% $.0 $.0 $198.5 $.0 $198.5 94% $186.5 6.0% $11.9 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0ES5132 EAST PARK PS UPGRADE 2011 $1,653.0 $1,653.0 0% $.0 $1,653.0 0% $6.6 $.0 $1,646.4 $.0 $1,646.4 18% $291.1 2.0% $32.9 0.0% $.0 80.3% $1,322.4
Subtotal $53,041.5 $.0 $.0 $53,041.5 $27,720.0 $25,321.5 $13,372.1 $.0 $11,949.3 $.0 $11,949.3 66% $7,837.8 6% $683.5 4% $485.6 25% $2,942.3
New ProjecSouthside PCP (per AECOM tables dated Feb 24 09) 2024 $1,000.0 $1,000.0 100.0% $1,000.0 $.0 0% $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 57% $.0 12% $.0 13% $.0 18% $.0
New Projec Bio-Solids Master Plan (per AECOM tables dated Feb 24 09) 2019 $400.0 $400.0 80.0% $320.0 $80.0 0% $.0 $.0 $80.0 $.0 $80.0 78% $62.4 4% $3.2 6% $4.8 12% $9.6 Land Acquisition Costs (note 2) 20 yrs $2,000.0 $2,000.0 0% $.0 $2,000.0 0% $.0 $.0 $2,000.0 $.0 $2,000.0 72% $1,440.0 7.0% $140.0 5.0% $100.0 16.0% $320.0 Subtotal $146,541.5 PORTION OF PRIOR YEARS' GROWTH PROJECTS FINANCED WITH DEBT $15,045.8 $15,045.8 $15,045.8 $.0 $.0 $15,045.8 $15,045.8 96% $14,507.2 2% $311.4 2% $227.1 0% $.0
TOTAL $161,587.2 $.0 $.0 $161,587.2 35.8% $57,910.0 $103,677.2 24.5% $25,382.1 $.0 $78,295.1 $.0 $78,295.1 72.7% $56,935.3 6.8% $5,351.5 5.5% $4,277.6 15.0% $11,730.7
Residential Commercial Institutional Industrial
$5,015.6 91.6% $4,593.6 4.3% $216.9 4.1% $205.1 0.0% $.0Notes:
1)Total net cost eligible for DC rate calculation purpos $73,279.5 71.4% $52,341.7 7.0% $5,134.5 5.6% $4,072.5 16.0% $11,730.7
2) Land required for sanitary projects that the City cannot obtain through the Planning Act Divided By: Total Gross Growth Projections 101,317 479,364 390,194 678,192
Calculated DC Rate - Pre-Financing 516.61$ 10.71$ 10.44$ 17.30$ /person /sq. m. /sq. m. /sq. m.
Prefinancing - Residential Rate Summary Post Financing PCP & Other Sewer Trunk Total Jan 1, 2009 rate
Single Family Dwelling 3.22 1,663.50$ 1,412.19$ 3,075.68$ 2,641.00 Multiple unit dwelling 2.31 1,193.38$ 1,013.09$ 2,206.47$ 1,869.71 Apartment - bach. & 1 bed 1.37 707.76$ 600.84$ 1,308.60$ 1,237.85 Apartment - ≥ 2 bedroom 1.92 991.90$ 842.05$ 1,833.95$ 1,734.87
Subt
otal
Project # Project Description Subt
otal
Tota
l Est
imat
ed C
ost
Less
: fut
ure
capi
tal g
rant
s, s
ubsi
dies
or o
ther
cont
ribut
ions
ant
icip
ated
Less
: Por
tion
of G
ross
Pro
ject
Cos
t Fun
ded
In
Prio
r Yea
rs
NO
N -
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Commercial InstitutionalNon
-gro
wth
sha
re
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Project listing, expected year, total estimated cost, non-growth share, and RICI splits are referenced from AECOM "City of London Sanitary Servicing Development Charge Update 2008" tables dated Mar 23 09
Less
: Fu
ture
gro
wth
ben
efits
(por
tion
of g
row
th
cost
s at
tribu
tabl
e to
gro
wth
exp
ecte
d to
occ
ur
beyo
nd p
lann
ing
horiz
on fo
r thi
s se
rvic
e)
Subt
otal
Development Charge Rate Calculation (Pre-Financing Cost)
Less: Portion of above works collected in prior years (approximate uncommitted balance in DC reserve fund at December 31, 2008)
Industrial
Net
Am
ount
Elig
ible
for D
C ra
te c
alcu
latio
n
Less
: Am
ount
inel
igib
le fo
r rat
e ca
lcul
atio
n -
impr
ovem
ent o
ver e
xist
ing
stan
dard
(see
Supp
lem
ent A
if a
pplic
able
)
Less
: 10%
sta
tuto
ry d
educ
tion
(if a
pplic
able
)
Expe
cted
Yea
r
170
TABLE J-1 – SANITARY SEWER PIPES – CSRF FUNDED
Service component : Sanitary - Sewer Trunk WorksPlanning horizon for this component : 2009-2028
Net
Am
ount
Elig
ible
for D
C ra
te
calc
ulat
ion
Less
: Am
ount
inel
igib
le fo
r rat
e
calc
ulat
ion
- im
prov
emen
t ove
r
exis
ting
stan
dard
(see
Sup
plem
ent A
if
appl
icab
le)
Less
: 10%
sta
tuto
ry d
educ
tion
(if
appl
icab
le)
Subt
otal
Project # Project Description Subt
otal
Expe
cted
Yea
r
Tota
l Est
imat
ed C
ost
Less
: fut
ure
capi
tal g
rant
s, s
ubsi
dies
or o
ther
con
tribu
tions
ant
icip
ated
Less
: Por
tion
of G
ross
Pro
ject
Cos
t
Fund
ed In
Prio
r Yea
rs
Less
: Fu
ture
gro
wth
ben
efits
(por
tion
of g
row
th c
osts
attr
ibut
able
to g
row
th
expe
cted
to o
ccur
bey
ond
plan
ning
horiz
on fo
r thi
s se
rvic
e)
Subt
otal
Allocation of Net Amount to types of GrowthAmount Eligible for Development Charge Rate Calculations
NO
N -
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Non
-gro
wth
sha
re
RES
IDEN
TIAL
% benefit % $ % $ % $ % $(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21)
(all $'s in ,000's) (1) - sum(2,3) (4) * (5) (4) - (6) (7) * (8) [(7) - (9)] * 10% (7) - sum(9,10) (11) - (12) (13) * (14) (13) * (16) (13) * (18) (13) * (20)Sanitary Sewer Trunk WorksES5236 Fox Hollow MD2B 2010 $1,704.3 $1,704.3 $.0 $1,704.3 $.0 $.0 $1,704.3 $.0 $1,704.3 100% $1,704.3 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0ES5239 Stoney Creek ST4 2013 $4,949.8 $4,949.8 $.0 $4,949.8 10.3% $508.8 $.0 $4,441.0 $.0 $4,441.0 99% $4,396.6 1.0% $44.4 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0ES5252 Killaly KL1B 2010 $1,928.9 $1,928.9 $.0 $1,928.9 $.0 $.0 $1,928.9 $.0 $1,928.9 99% $1,909.6 1.0% $19.3 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0ES5254 Killaly KL2A 2015 $1,147.9 $1,147.9 $.0 $1,147.9 $.0 $.0 $1,147.9 $.0 $1,147.9 100% $1,147.9 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0ES5237 Sunningdale SD1B 2010 $2,126.0 $2,126.0 $.0 $2,126.0 $.0 $.0 $2,126.0 $.0 $2,126.0 96% $2,040.9 4.0% $85.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0ES5238 Sunningdale SD3A 2010 $2,470.8 $2,470.8 $.0 $2,470.8 $.0 $.0 $2,470.8 $.0 $2,470.8 93% $2,297.9 7.0% $173.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0ES2479 Gordon Ave G1 2009 $1,500.0 $1,500.0 $.0 $1,500.0 10.0% $150.0 $.0 $1,350.0 $.0 $1,350.0 100% $1,350.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0ES2494 Hyde Park HP7A 2014 $3,625.0 $3,625.0 $.0 $3,625.0 14.0% $507.5 $.0 $3,117.5 $.0 $3,117.5 94% $2,930.5 5.0% $155.9 0.0% $.0 1.0% $31.2ES2493 Hyde Park HP7B 2013 $7,295.5 $7,295.5 $.0 $7,295.5 14.0% $1,021.4 $.0 $6,274.1 $.0 $6,274.1 94% $5,897.7 5.0% $313.7 0.0% $.0 1.0% $62.7ES5253 River Bend RB1B 2010 $1,657.4 $1,657.4 $.0 $1,657.4 $.0 $.0 $1,657.4 $.0 $1,657.4 99% $1,640.9 1.0% $16.6 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0
VMP PBS2A (i) 2009 $450.0 $450.0 $.0 $450.0 $.0 $.0 $450.0 $.0 $450.0 3% $13.5 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 97.0% $436.5VMP PBS2A (ii) 2015 $2,700.0 $2,700.0 $.0 $2,700.0 $.0 $.0 $2,700.0 $.0 $2,700.0 3% $81.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 97.0% $2,619.0
ES5260 Southside SS3A 2014 $7,600.0 $7,600.0 $.0 $7,600.0 4.0% $304.0 $.0 $7,296.0 $.0 $7,296.0 97% $7,077.1 2.0% $145.9 1.0% $73.0 0.0% $.0ES5246 Southside SS11 2010 $8,690.0 $8,690.0 $.0 $8,690.0 60.6% $5,262.9 $.0 $3,427.1 $.0 $3,427.1 98% $3,358.6 2.0% $68.5 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0
Southside SS12B 2018 $1,719.9 $1,719.9 $.0 $1,719.9 $.0 $.0 $1,719.9 $.0 $1,719.9 98% $1,685.5 2.0% $34.4 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0Southside SS12C 2017 $1,013.1 $1,013.1 $.0 $1,013.1 $.0 $.0 $1,013.1 $.0 $1,013.1 98% $992.9 2.0% $20.3 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0
ES5247 Southside SS13B 2018 $3,281.2 $3,281.2 $.0 $3,281.2 13.0% $426.6 $.0 $2,854.6 $.0 $2,854.6 99% $2,826.1 1.0% $28.5 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0ES5248 Southside SS14A 2017 $2,910.7 $2,910.7 $.0 $2,910.7 11.0% $320.2 $.0 $2,590.5 $.0 $2,590.5 100% $2,590.5 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0
Southside SS14B 2025 $3,073.5 $3,073.5 $.0 $3,073.5 11.0% $338.1 $.0 $2,735.4 $.0 $2,735.4 98% $2,680.7 1.0% $27.4 0.0% $.0 1.0% $27.4Subtotal $59,844.1 $.0 $.0 $59,844.1 0.0% $.0 $59,844.1 14.8% $8,839.4 $.0 $51,004.8 $.0 $51,004.8 $46,622.2 $1,132.9 $73.0 $3,176.8
Sanitary Pipe Projects contingency (note 2) 20 yrs $500.0 $500.0 $.0 $500.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $500.0 $.0 $500.0 81% $405.0 5.0% $25.0 3.0% $15.0 11.0% $55.0 PORTION OF PRIOR YEARS' GROWTH PROJECTS FINANCED WITH DEBT $145.2 $145.2 $145.2 $145.2 $145.2 91% $132.2 4% $6.2 5% $6.9 0% $.0
TOTAL $60,489.4 $.0 $.0 $60,489.4 0.0% $.0 $60,489.4 14.6% $8,839.4 $.0 $51,650.0 $.0 $51,650.0 91.3% $47,159.3 2.3% $1,164.1 0.2% $94.8 6.3% $3,231.8
Residential Commercial Institutional Industrial
$2,975.4 91.6% $2,725.0 4.3% $128.7 4.1% $121.7 0.0% $.0Notes:
1)
$48,674.6 91.3% $44,434.3 2.1% $1,035.4 -0.1% -$26.8 6.6% $3,231.82)
Divided By: Total Gross Growth Projections 101,317 479,364 390,194 678,192
Calculated DC Rate - Pre-Financing 438.57$ 2.16$ (0.07)$ 4.77$ /person /sq. m. /sq. m. /sq. m.
Pre- Financing Cost Residential Rates:Sewer Trunk
Single Family Dwelling 3.22 1,412.19$
Multiple unit dwelling 2.31 1,013.09$ Apartment - bach. & 1 bed 1.37 600.84$ Apartment - ≥ 2 bedroom 1.92 842.05$
Development Charge Rate Calculation (Pre-Financing Cost)
Less: Portion of above works collected in prior years (approximate uncommitted balance in DC reserve fund
Industrial
Net
Am
ount
Elig
ible
for D
C ra
te
calc
ulat
ion
Less
: Am
ount
inel
igib
le fo
r rat
e
calc
ulat
ion
- im
prov
emen
t ove
r
exis
ting
stan
dard
(see
Sup
plem
ent A
if
appl
icab
le)
Less
: 10%
sta
tuto
ry d
educ
tion
(if
appl
icab
le)
Subt
otal
Project # Project Description Subt
otal
Expe
cted
Yea
r
Tota
l Est
imat
ed C
ost
Less
: fut
ure
capi
tal g
rant
s, s
ubsi
dies
or o
ther
con
tribu
tions
ant
icip
ated
Less
: Por
tion
of G
ross
Pro
ject
Cos
t
Fund
ed In
Prio
r Yea
rs
Less
: Fu
ture
gro
wth
ben
efits
(por
tion
of g
row
th c
osts
attr
ibut
able
to g
row
th
expe
cted
to o
ccur
bey
ond
plan
ning
horiz
on fo
r thi
s se
rvic
e)
Subt
otal
This amount represents a contingency for projects, the location of which cannot be foreseen but are felt to be inevitable, in the amount of $500k (part of $1M provided for in AECOM tables)
Total net cost eligible for DC rate calculation purposesProject listing, expected year, total estimated cost, non-growth share, and RICI splits are referenced from AECOM "City of London Sanitary Servicing Development Charge Update 2008" tables dated Mar 23 09
NO
N -
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Commercial InstitutionalNon
-gro
wth
sha
re
RES
IDEN
TIAL
171
TABLE J-2 – CASH FLOW ANALYSIS AND FINAL RATE CALCULATION –SANITARY SEWERS Service component : Sanitary -CSRF
($'s in thousands)
FINAL RESULT 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Total
Planning Horizon - yrs 20 Pre-Financing
DC Rate
Post-Financing DC
Rate% Collected assumption
Growth projection for each year of forecast period
Growth - Res. (Persons In New Housing) 101,317 955.18$ 1,168.27$ 100% 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 101,316.9 Growth - Non-Res. (sq. m.) -$
Commercial 479,364.0 12.87$ 15.74$ 100% 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 479,364.0 Institutional 390,193.6 10.37$ 12.68$ 100% 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 390,193.6
C/I subtotal 869,557.6 -$ 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 869,557.6 Industrial 678,191.6 22.06$ 26.98$ 100% 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 678,191.6
Total Non-Res. 1,547,749.2 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 1,547,749.2
Reserve Fund Projections:
Opening Surplus / <Deficit> $7,991.0 $7,916.2 -$205.8 $3,334.7 -$9,416.0 -$15,288.6 -$20,863.8 -$20,084.2 -$16,026.1 -$14,552.8 -$20,915.0 -$46,695.4 -$57,355.4 -$62,992.2 -$57,735.6 -$52,295.0 -$72,254.1 -$70,104.9 -$65,097.3 -$59,914.3 $7,991.0Revenues - Development Charge Collections
Residential $5,918.3 $5,918.3 $5,918.3 $5,918.3 $5,918.3 $5,918.3 $5,918.3 $5,918.3 $5,918.3 $5,918.3 $5,918.3 $5,918.3 $5,918.3 $5,918.3 $5,918.3 $5,918.3 $5,918.3 $5,918.3 $5,918.3 $5,918.3 $118,365.4Non-Res.
Commercial $377.3 $377.3 $377.3 $377.3 $377.3 $377.3 $377.3 $377.3 $377.3 $377.3 $377.3 $377.3 $377.3 $377.3 $377.3 $377.3 $377.3 $377.3 $377.3 $377.3 $7,546.4Institutional $247.4 $247.4 $247.4 $247.4 $247.4 $247.4 $247.4 $247.4 $247.4 $247.4 $247.4 $247.4 $247.4 $247.4 $247.4 $247.4 $247.4 $247.4 $247.4 $247.4 $4,948.2
C/I subtotal $624.7 $624.7 $624.7 $624.7 $624.7 $624.7 $624.7 $624.7 $624.7 $624.7 $624.7 $624.7 $624.7 $624.7 $624.7 $624.7 $624.7 $624.7 $624.7 $624.7 $12,494.5Industrial $915.0 $915.0 $915.0 $915.0 $915.0 $915.0 $915.0 $915.0 $915.0 $915.0 $915.0 $915.0 $915.0 $915.0 $915.0 $915.0 $915.0 $915.0 $915.0 $915.0 $18,300.4
Total Non-Res. $1,539.7 $1,539.7 $1,539.7 $1,539.7 $1,539.7 $1,539.7 $1,539.7 $1,539.7 $1,539.7 $1,539.7 $1,539.7 $1,539.7 $1,539.7 $1,539.7 $1,539.7 $1,539.7 $1,539.7 $1,539.7 $1,539.7 $1,539.7 $30,794.9Total revenues $7,458.0 $7,458.0 $7,458.0 $7,458.0 $7,458.0 $7,458.0 $7,458.0 $7,458.0 $7,458.0 $7,458.0 $7,458.0 $7,458.0 $7,458.0 $7,458.0 $7,458.0 $7,458.0 $7,458.0 $7,458.0 $7,458.0 $7,458.0 $149,160.3Development Charge draws - calculated on separate page $7,670.8 $15,646.9 $3,944.7 $20,104.1 $12,905.7 $12,411.5 $5,974.1 $2,778.9 $5,458.8 $13,210.2 $32,075.6 $16,328.4 $11,025.0 $125.0 $125.0 $25,275.0 $2,860.4 $125.0 $125.0 $125.0 $188,295.0Closing surplus / <deficit> before interest $7,778.2 -$272.7 $3,307.5 -$9,311.4 -$14,863.7 -$20,242.0 -$19,379.9 -$15,405.0 -$14,026.9 -$20,304.9 -$45,532.6 -$55,565.8 -$60,922.3 -$55,659.2 -$50,402.6 -$70,112.0 -$67,656.5 -$62,771.9 -$57,764.3 -$52,581.3 -$31,143.7Non-inflationary interest revenue /<expense>
on savings 1.75% $138.0 $66.9 $27.1 $232.0on borrowings 3.50% -$104.6 -$424.9 -$621.8 -$704.3 -$621.1 -$525.9 -$610.0 -$1,162.8 -$1,789.6 -$2,069.9 -$2,076.4 -$1,892.4 -$2,142.1 -$2,448.4 -$2,325.3 -$2,150.1 -$1,968.7 -$23,638.3
Closing surplus / <deficit> $7,916.2 -$205.8 $3,334.7 -$9,416.0 -$15,288.6 -$20,863.8 -$20,084.2 -$16,026.1 -$14,552.8 -$20,915.0 -$46,695.4 -$57,355.4 -$62,992.2 -$57,735.6 -$52,295.0 -$72,254.1 -$70,104.9 -$65,097.3 -$59,914.3 -$54,550.0 -$54,550.0
Target which reflects growth costs incurred in the forecast period and recoverable from future growth -$54,550.0
Explanatory note
Method: 1 Set Post financing rate = Pre financing rate - model projects revenues and draws and projects RF balances (ie. copy values from D13-D18 to E13-E18)23 Using "SOLVER" make balance at end of planning horizon = tot "Target " balance by allowing "Post financing rates" to vary from "Pre-financing rates".
Other Information: Pre PostResidential share 79% 79%Non-residential
Commercial 5% 5%Institutional 3% 3%C/I subtotal 8% 8%Industrial 12% 12%
This worksheet projects future activity in this reserve fund. It ultimately determines the rates necessary to recover all costs intended for recovery from growth
Set ratio of Pre financing revenues = Post financing revenues (ie. copy values from C47-C52 to D47-D52). This ensures that ratio of revenues stays constant throughout rate re-calculation process.
172
APPENDIX K – Oversized Sanitary Sewers – UWRF Funded The Sanitary Servicing Development Charges Update prepared by AECOM formed the basis for determining the City’s sanitary system growth needs applied to the DC rate calculation. The DC Update Study looked at the full system including sanitary sewerage collection system, Pumping Station (PS) and Pollution Control Plant (PCP) facilities. With respect to sanitary sewer oversizing, the DC update reached its conclusions by:
• Re-assessing existing and proposed remnant and interim solutions regarding triggers, life-span and in particular the timing of future Southside PCP and its affect on development of the southwest;
• Building a static sewer model to identify sewerage system constraints for future growth and assess upsizing/extension solutions;
• Analyzing the sanitary sewer model down to representative 30 ha. service areas to identify required trunk sanitary works;
• Removing specific trunk sewer segments identified as CSRF funded, City-led projects to quantify potential sanitary oversizing scenarios; and finally
• Assigning reasonable cost estimates to anticipated sewer oversizing needs; This Appendix summarizes the methods applied to the above work. More detailed information on the determination of sanitary sewer oversizing costs can be found in the AECOM Sanitary Servicing Development Charges Update 2008. Policy Considerations One of the key policy considerations for this service stemmed from the recommendation of the Blue Ribbon Panel report (October 2006). Applied to sanitary sewer pipes, the report recommends that major works previously funded through the UWRF (developer-led) revert to funding from the CSRF (City Capital Budget). It also recommended that an allocation of oversized works be made for “local” benefit. The following policy considerations are consistent with Council’s endorsement of these recommendations.
(a) For the purpose of DC calculations, CSRF trunk sanitary sewers were deemed to be either sewers that are larger in size with greater service areas or are located in sensitive areas such as river valleys or within major roadways. Major sanitary trunk extensions will now be funded from the CSRF and administered as City-led projects. The CSRF funded Major Trunk Sanitary works are described in more detail in Appendix J of this 2009 DC Background Study.
(b) Sewers servicing smaller areas not strategically located within sensitive areas
or along major roadways will be funded from UWRF and administered as developer-led projects. These works will be paid for on an oversizing basis. The sanitary sewer project list identifies sanitary sewers that are UWRF funded going forward or as grandfathered projects.
(c) Contingency projects totaling approximately $1.0M were included for those
cases where oversizing may apply though not specifically identified in the list. For the purpose of oversizing calculations, a 300mm diameter sewer was considered to be roughly equivalent to a service area of 30 ha. An oversizing subsidy based
173
on a pipe size differential will be eligible for UWRF claims as shown in Table 5.1.3 Pipe Size Credit Amount Table of the AECOM study.
The above considerations have resulted in a significant shift in sanitary sewer works funding from UWRF to CSRF as well as from UWRF to direct developer responsibility for the “local” share. These policies have been incorporated into the AECOM Sanitary Servicing DC Background Study Update and reflected in the 2009 DC rate calculation. UWRF Administration This section summarizes the working rules of the DC funds with respect to claimable sanitary sewer oversizing costs. Additional details on the administration of DC Funds can be found in the 2009 DC by-law (Schedules 6 & 7). The key operating tenets of the Urban Works Reserve Fund as they related to sanitary sewer oversizing costs are:
(a) Works must ultimately appear in an executed Subdivision, Development or Consent agreement to be considered eligible for claim.
(b) Developers may construct claimable works identified in applicable development agreements in accordance with the terms of the agreement. Subject to the works qualifying as claimable, the developer that constructs the works may submit claims for completed works against the UWRF.
(c) The UWRF does not pay any claim unless there are sufficient funds to reimburse the claim. If the fund is depleted, all submitted and approved claims will be placed onto a chronological waiting list until the fund balance is replenished and claims can be paid.
(d) The initiating developer bears the cost of financing constructed works until the claim is paid out. Financing costs are not eligible for claim from the fund.
(e) Sanitary sewer oversizing claims are subject to an annual payment limit of $1M alone or in combination with roadworks and storm sewer oversizing claims.
Project Identification Anticipated Sanitary Sewer Oversizing needs were determined as part of the Infosewer static sewer model, prepared by AECOM, used to project flows for the sanitary sewerage system within the 2009-2028 horizon and Growth Management Implementation Strategy(GMIS) Boundary. The model determines future flows for trunk sewer, pumping station and forcemains to identify constraints for future growth and to identify upsizing/extension solutions. Sewer segments, manhole nodes and profiles representing future works were added to the model based on the latest community planning and development information. Based on the model results, sanitary trunk sewer works were identified as “major” sanitary sewer extension (funded from City Services Reserve Fund) or sanitary oversizing works (funded from Urban Works Reserve Fund). Over and above the major sanitary trunk sewer works identified as City-led CSRF projects, cases may still occur were developer driven sewers are designed to convey upstream flows for an area greater than 30 ha. In those cases, a portion of the costs associated with oversizing may be eligible for claim from the UWRF. The local component of the sewer installation will not be claimable. Directions on eligibility for sewer oversizing claims can be
174
found in the DC By-law Schedules 6 & 7 (the latter incorporates Table 5.1.3 Pipe Size Credit Amount of the AECOM Sanitary Servicing DC Update).. Establishing Costing Estimates The DC rate setting process requires the estimated costs assigned to identified growth works be reasonable and defensible. Prior to assigning costs, AECOM undertook a detailed costing analysis in consultation with representatives of the local development industry using previous project pricing and recent tenders, incorporating adjustments for inflation. All works have been cost estimated in 2009 dollars. Engineering (15%) and contingency (20%) were added to all sanitary servicing works. Trunk sewer costing was based on pipe size and depth with the total cost of purchasing and installing sewer pipe broken down into three components: pipe, construction and restoration costs. The average cost of a 300mm diameter pipe constructed at 5 metres depth was subtracted from the estimated sewer cost for each incremental size increase on a per metre basis. The remaining costs equal the oversizing subsidy amount. The proponent developer is eligible to claim the subsidy amount only. Post-Period Benefit Adjustments Adjustments are typically applied to rate calculations for works considered to benefit post-period growth to ensure the calculated growth burden incorporated into the DC rate calculation matches the planning horizon for this study. However, in the case of required sanitary sewers, given the GMIS only specifies 20-year growth needs and given the GMIS boundary is very close to the Modified UGB and City limits in the North and East, the sanitary servicing identified includes very little oversizing for future growth. As well, in assessing the timing, triggers and impacts of future Southside PCP, it was decided the City’s next major pollution control plant would not be required until just beyond the 20-year planning period. Therefore, for the Southwest, interim, initial and future sewage flows intended for Southside PCP will be conveyed to the Wonderland PS and forcemains. Costs associated with Southside PCP have been shifted beyond the 20-year planning horizon. Allocation Splits
(a) Growth/Non-Growth New sanitary pipe works are almost entirely driven by growth. Except in a couple isolated areas, sanitary oversizing works were considered to be 100% attributable to growth with only the oversizing subsidy eligible for claim. Table K-1 shows the growth/non-growth allocations identified for works funded from UWRF going forward and grandfathered.
(b) Residential/ICI RES/ICI allocations for sanitary trunk works were based on existing and projected flows and available growth information with emphasis on the contributing sub-sewershed existing and proposed land-uses. Refer to Table K-1 to find the RES/ICI allocations for specific identified works. Final Costs for DC Rate Calculation The required Sanitary Sewerage System Works identified in the AECOM Sanitary Servicing Development Charges Update 2008 form the basis for determining development charges for
175
the CSRF and/or UWRF and represent the numerator in the rate calculation. The works are reproduced for DC rate calculation purposes in Table K-1. The final anticipated sanitary sewer oversizing costs recoverable through DC rates total approximately $19.3M. Uncommitted Reserve Funds The net cost figures above should be reduced for portions which have been collected in the past. The UWRF General fund, (from which oversized sanitary sewer claims are paid) is negligible as a result of a backlog in claims and therefore no amount has been taken into account in computing rates. Financing Costs For the purpose of calculating the final development charge rate for sanitary oversizing costs, financing costs have been ignored. This is justified since one of the key operating tenets of the UWRF is that the developer will finance the cost of the claimable work until such time as the fund is able to reimburse that cost. Council Intention to Meet Growth Needs The growth needs identified within this Appendix have been extracted from the AECOM Sanitary DC update. It is Council’s stated intention to “provide for the needs of growth in a way that does not jeopardize the long term financial health of the municipality, or place an undue burden on existing taxpayers” (Official Plan Policy 2.6.3). By providing for development to initiate works approved in executed subdivision and development agreements, but not commit to payment until sufficient funds have accumulated to honour the next approved claim, Council meets the stated objective. NOTE: An examination of long term Sanitary Services operating costs for growth needs is included in Appendix O in this Background Study.
176
TABLE K-1 – OVERSIZED SANITARY SEWERS – UWRF FUNDED Service component : Oversized Sanitary Sewer WorksPlanning horizon for this component : 2009-2028
Amount Eligible for Development Charge Rate Calculations Allocation of Net Amount to types of Growth
NO
N -
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Non
-gro
wth
sha
re
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Expe
cted
Yea
r
Tota
l Est
imat
ed C
ost
Less
: fut
ure
capi
tal g
rant
s,
subs
idie
s or
oth
er c
ontri
butio
ns
antic
ipat
ed
Less
: Por
tion
of G
ross
Pro
ject
C
ost F
unde
d In
Prio
r Yea
rs
Subt
otal
Subt
otal
Less
: Fu
ture
gro
wth
ben
efits
(p
ortio
n of
gro
wth
cos
ts
attri
buta
ble
to g
rowth
exp
ecte
d to
occu
r bey
ond
plan
ning
hor
izon
fo
r thi
s se
rvic
e)
Subt
otal
Net
Am
ount
Elig
ible
for D
C ra
te
calcul
atio
n
Less
: Am
ount
inel
igib
le fo
r rat
e
calcul
atio
n - i
mpr
ovem
ent o
ver
exis
ting
stan
dard
(see
Su
pple
men
t A if
app
licab
le)
Less
: 10%
sta
tuto
ry d
educ
tion
(if
appl
icab
le)
Project # Project Description
% benefit % $ % $ % $ % $(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21)
(all $'s in ,000's) (1) - sum(2,3) (4) * (5) (4) - (6) (7) * (8) [(7) - (9)] * 10% (7) - sum(9,10) (11) - (12) (13) * (14) (13) * (16) (13) * (18) (13) * (20)Note 2) $.0
Sanitary Sewer (Grandfathered)Fox Hollow (MD2A) 0-5 $652.4 $652.4 0.0% $.0 $652.4 0.0% $.0 $.0 $652.4 $.0 $652.4 100% $652.4 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0Fox Hollow (MD3A) 6-10 $1,149.9 $1,149.9 0.0% $.0 $1,149.9 0.0% $.0 $.0 $1,149.9 $.0 $1,149.9 100% $1,149.9 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0Uplands (UL2A) 0-5 $921.1 $921.1 0.0% $.0 $921.1 0.0% $.0 $.0 $921.1 $.0 $921.1 100% $921.1 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0Killaly (KL1A) 0-5 $694.2 $694.2 0.0% $.0 $694.2 0.0% $.0 $.0 $694.2 $.0 $694.2 98% $680.3 2.0% $13.9 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0Killaly (KL4) 0-5 $2,161.7 $2,161.7 0.0% $.0 $2,161.7 0.0% $.0 $.0 $2,161.7 $.0 $2,161.7 100% $2,161.7 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0
$.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 97% $.0 3.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0Hyde Park (HP1) 0-5 $3,029.7 $3,029.7 0.0% $.0 $3,029.7 0.0% $.0 $.0 $3,029.7 $.0 $3,029.7 91% $2,757.0 7.0% $212.1 2.0% $60.6 0.0% $.0
$.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 99% $.0 1.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0Southside (SS13A) 0-5 $1,858.0 $1,858.0 0.0% $.0 $1,858.0 13.0% $241.5 $.0 $1,616.5 $.0 $1,616.5 100% $1,616.5 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0
Subtotal $10,467.1 $.0 $.0 $10,467.1 $.0 $10,467.1 $241.5 $.0 $10,225.6 $.0 $10,225.6 $9,939.0 $226.0 $60.6 $.0
Grandfathered UWRF Claims(under Old Rules) Note 3) Note 3) Note 3) Note 3)NORTH TALBOT SUBDIVISION (39T-00514) 2009 $53.7 $53.7 0.0% $.0 $53.7 0.0% $.0 $.0 $53.7 $.0 $53.7 82% $44.1 12% $6.4 6% $3.2 0% $.01128 FANSHAWE PARK ROAD (39T-02509) 2009 $75.0 $75.0 0.0% $.0 $75.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $75.0 $.0 $75.0 82% $61.5 12% $9.0 6% $4.5 0% $.0800 SUNNINGDALE ROAD WEST (39T-05508) 2009 $2,788.3 $2,788.3 0.0% $.0 $2,788.3 0.0% $.0 $.0 $2,788.3 $.0 $2,788.3 82% $2,286.4 12% $334.6 6% $167.3 0% $.0TALLTREE ESTATES (M-353) 2009 $4.0 $4.0 0.0% $.0 $4.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $4.0 $.0 $4.0 82% $3.3 12% $.5 6% $.2 0% $.0RIVERBEND (M-429) 2009 $1,580.2 $1,580.2 0.0% $.0 $1,580.2 0.0% $.0 $.0 $1,580.2 $.0 $1,580.2 82% $1,295.8 12% $189.6 6% $94.8 0% $.01740 COMMISSIONERS RD W (M-478) 2009 $52.0 $52.0 0.0% $.0 $52.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $52.0 $.0 $52.0 82% $42.6 12% $6.2 6% $3.1 0% $.0SOUTHDALE AT BOLER NE CRNR (M-490) 2009 $170.0 $170.0 0.0% $.0 $170.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $170.0 $.0 $170.0 82% $139.4 12% $20.4 6% $10.2 0% $.0HYDE PARK WOODS PH II (M-491) 2009 $409.6 $409.6 0.0% $.0 $409.6 0.0% $.0 $.0 $409.6 $.0 $409.6 82% $335.8 12% $49.1 6% $24.6 0% $.0NORTHRIDGE NORTH PH 3 (M-507) 2009 $19.0 $19.0 0.0% $.0 $19.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $19.0 $.0 $19.0 82% $15.6 12% $2.3 6% $1.1 0% $.0SUMMERSIDE PH 9 (M-528) 2009 $376.5 $376.5 0.0% $.0 $376.5 0.0% $.0 $.0 $376.5 $.0 $376.5 82% $308.8 12% $45.2 6% $22.6 0% $.0SUMMERSIDE PHASE 10 A (M-529) 2009 $7.7 $7.7 0.0% $.0 $7.7 0.0% $.0 $.0 $7.7 $.0 $7.7 82% $6.3 12% $.9 6% $.5 0% $.0SUMMERSIDE PHASE 14 (M-551) 2009 $15.0 $15.0 0.0% $.0 $15.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $15.0 $.0 $15.0 82% $12.3 12% $1.8 6% $.9 0% $.0STONEYCREEK SUB PH 4 (M-554) 2009 $117.0 $117.0 0.0% $.0 $117.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $117.0 $.0 $117.0 82% $95.9 12% $14.0 6% $7.0 0% $.0TALBOT VILLAGE PH 3 (M-562) 2009 $302.0 $302.0 0.0% $.0 $302.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $302.0 $.0 $302.0 82% $247.6 12% $36.2 6% $18.1 0% $.0FUTURE STREETS INC. (M-571) 2009 $6.0 $6.0 0.0% $.0 $6.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $6.0 $.0 $6.0 82% $4.9 12% $.7 6% $.4 0% $.0FOXHOLLOW DEV INC (M-564) 2009 $2,000.0 $2,000.0 0.0% $.0 $2,000.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $2,000.0 $.0 $2,000.0 82% $1,640.0 12% $240.0 6% $120.0 0% $.0Z GROUP (M-603) 2009 $25.0 $25.0 0.0% $.0 $25.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $25.0 $.0 $25.0 82% $20.5 12% $3.0 6% $1.5 0% $.0
Subtotal $8,001.0 $.0 $.0 $8,001.0 $.0 $8,001.0 $.0 $.0 $8,001.0 $.0 $8,001.0 $6,560.8 $960.1 $480.1 $.0Grandfathered UWRF Claims(under new Rules)
W SIDE OF HYDE PARK N OF SARNIA (39T-01507) 2009 $286.0 $257.4 $28.6 0.0% $.0 $28.6 0.0% $.0 $.0 $28.6 $.0 $28.6 82% $23.5 12% $3.4 6% $1.7 0% $.01139 FANSHAWE PARK RD W (39T-04503) 2009 $55.0 $49.5 $5.5 0.0% $.0 $5.5 0.0% $.0 $.0 $5.5 $.0 $5.5 82% $4.5 12% $.7 6% $.3 0% $.01284/1388 SUNNINGDALE RD W (39T-04510) 2009 $200.0 $180.0 $20.0 0.0% $.0 $20.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $20.0 $.0 $20.0 82% $16.4 12% $2.4 6% $1.2 0% $.0
1196 SUNNINGDALE ROAD WEST (39T-05511) 2009 $270.0 $243.0 $27.0 0.0% $.0 $27.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $27.0 $.0 $27.0 82% $22.1 12% $3.2 6% $1.6 0% $.0995 FANSHAWE PARK RD W (39T-05512) 2009 $450.0 $405.0 $45.0 0.0% $.0 $45.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $45.0 $.0 $45.0 82% $36.9 12% $5.4 6% $2.7 0% $.0
1812 WONDERLAND ROAD NORTH (39T-06510) 2009 $15.0 $13.5 $1.5 0.0% $.0 $1.5 0.0% $.0 $.0 $1.5 $.0 $1.5 82% $1.2 12% $.2 6% $.1 0% $.0849 SOUTHDALE ROAD WEST (39T-07501) 2009 $321.0 $288.9 $32.1 0.0% $.0 $32.1 0.0% $.0 $.0 $32.1 $.0 $32.1 82% $26.3 12% $3.9 6% $1.9 0% $.0890 SOUTHDALE ROAD WEST (39T-07503) 2009 $132.0 $118.8 $13.2 0.0% $.0 $13.2 0.0% $.0 $.0 $13.2 $.0 $13.2 82% $10.8 12% $1.6 6% $.8 0% $.0
1959 WHARNCLIFFE ROAD SOUTH (39T-07507) 2009 $88.0 $79.2 $8.8 0.0% $.0 $8.8 0.0% $.0 $.0 $8.8 $.0 $8.8 82% $7.2 12% $1.1 6% $.5 0% $.0Subtotal $1,817.0 $1,635.3 $.0 $181.7 $.0 $181.7 $.0 $.0 $181.7 $.0 $181.7 $149.0 $21.8 $10.9 $.0
Sanitary Sewers (UWRF Going Forward)0-5 $.0 $.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 70% $.0 15.0% $.0 15.0% $.0 0.0% $.0
Sunningdale (SD4) 6-10 $1,545.2 $1,512.3 $32.9 0.0% $.0 $32.9 0.0% $.0 $.0 $32.9 $.0 $32.9 96% $31.6 3.0% $1.0 1.0% $.3 0.0% $.0Sunningdale (SD5) 6-10 $1,550.2 $1,442.1 $108.1 0.0% $.0 $108.1 0.0% $.0 $.0 $108.1 $.0 $108.1 89% $96.2 11.0% $11.9 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0
6-10 $.0 $.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 100% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0River Bend (RB2) 6-10 $1,475.1 $1,410.1 $65.0 0.0% $.0 $65.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $65.0 $.0 $65.0 94% $61.1 6.0% $3.9 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0Airport Road S (PBS2B) 0-5 $.0 $.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 100.0% $.0Airport Road S (PBS2C) 0-5 $586.3 $563.1 $23.2 0.0% $.0 $23.2 0.0% $.0 $.0 $23.2 $.0 $23.2 0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 100.0% $23.2Airport Road S (PBS2D) 6-10 $547.6 $510.7 $36.9 0.0% $.0 $36.9 0.0% $.0 $.0 $36.9 $.0 $36.9 0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 100.0% $36.9Airport Road S (PBS4) 6-10 $2,364.5 $2,302.5 $62.0 0.0% $.0 $62.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $62.0 $.0 $62.0 100% $62.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0
6-10 $.0 $.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 100.0% $.0Southside (SS12A) 6-10 $471.3 $453.6 $17.7 0.0% $.0 $17.7 0.0% $.0 $.0 $17.7 $.0 $17.7 0% $.0 5.0% $.9 0.0% $.0 95.0% $16.8Southside (SS13C) 6-10 $384.3 $320.2 $64.1 0.0% $.0 $64.1 77.9% $50.0 $.0 $14.1 $.0 $14.1 81% $11.5 19.0% $2.7 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0
6-10 $.0 $.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 0% $.0 0.0% $.0 100.0% $.0 0.0% $.0Subtotal $8,924.6 $8,514.7 $.0 $409.9 $.0 $409.9 $50.0 $.0 $359.9 $.0 $359.9 $262.4 $20.4 $.3 $76.9
Sanitary Pipe Projects contingency (note 4) 20 yrs $5,000.0 $4,500.0 $500.0 0.0% $.0 $500.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $500.0 $.0 $500.0 82% $410.0 12% $60.0 6% $30.0 0% $.0
TOTAL $34,209.6 $14,650.0 $.0 $19,559.7 $.0 $19,559.7 $291.5 $.0 $19,268.2 $.0 $19,268.2 89.9% $17,321.2 6.7% $1,288.2 3.0% $581.9 0.4% $76.9
Residential Commercial Institutional Industrial
$.0 99.1% $.0 0.1% $.0 0.8% $.0 0.0% $.0tes:
$19,268.2 89.9% $17,321.2 6.7% $1,288.2 3.0% $581.9 0.4% $76.9This column includes contribution by developer for "local share" of works under new cost sharing rules as per Blue Ribbon Panel recommendations. Divided By: Total Gross Growth Projections 101,317 479,364 390,194 678,192
RICI splits for these works taken from AECOM tables dated March 23 09. Calculated DC Rate - Pre-Financing 170.96$ 2.69$ 1.49$ 0.11$
/person /sq. m. /sq. m. /sq. m.
Pre- Financing Cost Residential Rates: Post Financing Sewer Trunk Jan 1, 2009 rate
Single Family Dwelling 3.22 550.49$ 1,472.00 Multiple unit dwelling 2.31 394.92$ 1,383.57 Apartment - bach. & 1 bed 1.37 234.22$ 800.64 Apartment - ≥ 2 bedroom 1.92 328.24$ 1,122.07
This amount represents a contingency for projects, the location of which cannot be foreseen but are felt to be inevitable, in the net amount of $500k (part of $1M provided for in AECOM tables)
NO
N -
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Commercial InstitutionalNon
-gro
wth
sha
re
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Expe
cted
Yea
r
Tota
l Est
imat
ed C
ost
Less
: fut
ure
capi
tal g
rant
s,
subs
idie
s or
oth
er c
ontri
butio
ns
antic
ipat
ed
Less
: Por
tion
of G
ross
Pro
ject
C
ost F
unde
d In
Prio
r Yea
rs
Subt
otal
Subt
otal
Project listing, expected year, total estimated cost, non-growth share, and RICI splits are referenced from AECOM "City of London Sanitary Servicing Development Charge Update 2008" tables dated March 23 09
Total net cost eligible for DC rate calculation purposes
Less
: Fu
ture
gro
wth
ben
efits
(p
ortio
n of
gro
wth
cos
ts
attri
buta
ble
to g
rowth
exp
ecte
d to
occu
r bey
ond
plan
ning
hor
izon
fo
r thi
s se
rvic
e)
Subt
otal
Development Charge Rate Calculation (Pre-Financing Cost)
Less: Portion of above works collected in prior years (approximate uncommitted balance in DC reserve fund at December 31, 2008)
Industrial
Net
Am
ount
Elig
ible
for D
C ra
te
calcul
atio
n
Less
: Am
ount
inel
igib
le fo
r rat
e
calcul
atio
n - i
mpr
ovem
ent o
ver
exis
ting
stan
dard
(see
Su
pple
men
t A if
app
licab
le)
Less
: 10%
sta
tuto
ry d
educ
tion
(if
appl
icab
le)
177
Appendix L – Water Distribution and Supply System The Water Development Charges Update prepared by AECOM formed the basis for determining the City’s water distribution and supply needs to satisfy growth as applied to the DC rate calculation. The update looked at the full system including the low and high pressure distribution mains, pumping and storage systems and the Lake Huron and Elgin Area supply systems. The DC update reached its conclusions by:
• Updating the 2003 Water Master Plan to address growth needs for the 2009-2028 growth period, keeping in mind the ultimate 50-year build-out requirements;
• Assessing current service levels and re-confirming growth-related components for the City’s water systems;
• Accounting for recent and anticipated regulatory requirements created in the wake of the 2000 Walkerton crisis;
• Updating the City’s Infowater Model to assess existing flows and identify growth triggered works for the 2009-2028 period;
• Assigning reasonable cost estimates to identified growth needs; and finally • Removing redundancies through coordination with other sanitary, storm and road
related works.
This Appendix summarizes the methods applied to the above work. More detailed information is available in the AECOM Water Development Charges Update 2008. Policy Considerations The Water DC Update was prepared to ensure the provision of sufficient funding for future growth related works for both water distribution and supply. Although Water supply DC rates have been calculated in this and previous studies, they have in past policy reviews been eliminated from the DC rate quantum with these costs being absorbed by water user rates.
(a) All watermains required to service future development less than 400mm in diameter are considered local services to be provided by proponent developers.
(b) New regulations and legislation arising from the Walkerton Crises have
resulted in momentous and fast changes in the water industry. New regulations have been put in place to:
o Protect and enforce drinking water standards (Reg. 459 – Safe Drinking water Act);
o Ensure proper planning and financial recovery (Bill 175 and PSAB); and
o Promote a renewed level of watershed protection (Nutrient Removal Protection Measures Act).
(c) Construction of water distribution mains will remain consistent with the timing
identified in the City’s GMIS, which has been strategically set to coordinate with major sanitary, storm and roads projects. Developers wishing to advance the schedule for identified CSRF funded watermain works will require an approved and executed Municipal Services Financing Agreement.
178
These policy considerations were incorporated into the AECOM Water Development Charge Update 2008 and are reflected in the 2009 Development Charges rate Calculation. Project Identification In assessing Water growth needs for the current planning period, AECOM incorporated future population growth information for the 2009-2028 planning period with an additional five years (to 2032) considered for oversizing needs and 10 years (to 2037) to account for projected ICI employment growth. Modeling scenarios were run for the following growth scenarios:
o 2013, 2018, 2023 etc, out to 2037 with results adjusted to fit 2009-2028 time frame;
o Full Buildout of the City’s UGB and Modified UGB (reduced industrial); and
o Buildout to a future population of 675,000. Future water demands were estimated for Average Day, Maximum Day and Peak Hour uses. These forecasts also included allowances for industrial added demand equivalent to 4.5 MLD (1.0 MIGD) over the 20-year period consistent with the AECOM Sanitary Servicing DC Update 2008. Each required water servicing project has been clearly identified in the DC Update project lists along with key details. More specific project descriptions will improve the City’s ability to monitor DC spending and provide regular, timely updates to the GMIS. The methods used in identifying required watermains and water facilities for the 2009-2028 review period are described below.
(a) Required Watermain Works AECOM completed an analysis of the water distribution system using the Infowater modeling software. The model simulated demand for all trunk watermains greater than 400mm plus some smaller key watermains (350mm dia.), pumping booster stations and reservoirs. The high level and low level systems where modeled both independently and together in Infowater. Based on the model results, mains were added or upsized/twinned to provide the necessary extensions, upgrades and looping to service new growth. AECOM Tables 5.1 and 5.2 outline the future low and high level watermains required to service growth to 2028 within the GMIS boundary. Each required watermain work is clearly identified in the project list with a distinct ID as well as location information (growth area, street segment), applicable details (pipe length and diameter), cost estimates (pipe, construction, restoration), timing consistent with the City’s GMIS and growth/non-growth allocations. Table L-1 of this Appendix reflects selected information from the AECOM tables for DC rate calculation purposes.
(b) Required Facility Works The analysis of future water facility needs also identified upgrades to booster pump stations (Wickerson, Hyde Park, Uplands, and Arva) and implementation of the Southeast Reservoir and Pump Station. In April 2002, a Water Supply Reliability Assessment Study was completed to review various emergency scenarios that identified a storage deficit during certain potential emergency events. The Southeast Reservoir and Pumping Station will provide the reservoir capacity necessary to accommodate growth and address the current emergency storage deficit. All of these needs are identified for Water Distribution DC rate calculation purposes in Table L-1.
179
Master planning for the Lake Huron and Elgin Area water supply systems was last completed in 2003 and is currently being updated. The need to expand the Elgin Area system is forecasted for the 2013 to 2018 time frame in order to meet future demands to 2028 for both London and Elgin area users. Flows will be transferred from the Lake Huron system to the Elgin Area system to prevent the need for further expansion of the Lake Huron facility within the 20-year planning horizon. These needs are identified for Water Supply DC rate calculation purposes in Table L-2. Establishing Costing Estimates The DC rate setting process requires the estimated costs assigned to identified growth works be reasonable and defensible. Prior to assigning costs, AECOM undertook a detailed costing analysis in consultation with representatives of the local development industry using previous project pricing and recent tender, incorporating adjustments for inflation. Watermain costs are based on updated pipe and construction tendered costs over the last 4 years to 2007 and then indexed from 2007 to 2009 at 5% per year. Road restoration costs are consistent with those used for the Sanitary DC Update Study. All project costs were assigned 15% engineering and 20% contingency costs. Pumping station upgrade costs were based on recent tenders indexed to 2009 dollars. The latest design report for the Southeast Reservoir and Pumping Station was completed in 2006 and the project is currently budgeted for the 2009 year with cost estimates confirmed by contractor estimates, including 9% engineering and 7% contingencies. Anticipated Grants Included in Water DC rate calculations For Water Supply and some Water Distribution works, substantial grant funding is expected to reduce the net cost of the works to London and other communities on Lake Huron and Lake Erie supply systems. These grants were netted from the cost of the proposed works in determining the final net costs included in the rate calculations. Post-Period Benefit Adjustments Adjustments were applied to rate calculations for works considered to benefit post-period growth to ensure the calculated growth burden incorporated into the DC rate calculation matches the planning horizon for this study. In the case of watermains, those works outside the GMIS boundary but within the Modified UGB were removed for the purpose of rate calculations. Post period benefit aspects beyond 2028 were identified on a case-by-case basis for pipe sizes 750mm in diameter or greater as pipe size differential represents the main added cost with installation and restorations costs the same regardless of size. In regards to facility expansions, approximately 20% to 25% of expansion costs can be staged to reduce oversizing impacts. Allocation Splits
(a) Growth/Non-Growth The growth and non-growth allocations for water servicing works vary by project as the allocations were determined with non-growth ratios based upon pre-existing development going back to the best available information within the last 20-year period. The best available information within the previous period dates back to the development charges background study completed in 1994.
180
(b) Residential/ICI The City’s InfoWater Model was used by AECOM for determination of works for the 20-year growth horizon. This information was then analyzed for both the 2028 and Ultimate Build-out scenarios on a phased basis. As part of this analysis, Growth and Non-growth related demand information complete with related Residential and ICI allocations were available as outputs from the model. Tables L-1 & L-2 incorporate these Growth/Non-growth and Residential/ICI allocations. Final Costs for DC Rate Calculation The required Water Distribution and Supply Works identified in the AECOM Water Development Charges Update 2008 form the basis for determining development charges for the CSRF and/or UWRF and represent the numerator in the rate calculation. The final total net costs incorporated into the DC rate calculation for Water Distribution works amounts to approximately $45M (See Table L-1). The final total net costs incorporated into the DC rate calculation for Water Supply works amounts to approximately $41M (See Table L-2). Financing Costs Tables L-3 and L-4 were produced to simulate cash flows for CSRF funded Water Distribution and Supply works for the purpose of calculating the final DC rate inclusive of financing costs. Forecasting cash flow and financing costs involved:
a) Starting with the 2009 opening balance (if any), which reflects accumulated funds for growth projects identified in past DC studies that remain as capital needs in this study;
b) Projecting DC revenues using the “pre-finance” rate; c) Incorporating DC drawdowns in the cash flow projection based on the growth projects
identified in the 20-year study period; d) Incorporating provisions for debt payments for previously approved commitments on
growth works funded by debt; and e) Estimating annual interest revenues to be earned and/or financing costs to be
incurred due to fund deficits throughout the 20-year planning horizon.
Any deficit in the cash flow analysis at the end of the planning period equates to the amounts of the expenditures incurred during the planning period to be recovered from growth in the future (i.e. the post period benefit). All figures are presented on an un-inflated, constant (2009) dollar basis and interest rates exclude the inflationary component (2%). The rates generated from this cash flow analysis reflect the appropriate cost recovery from growth for the 20-year planning horizon. Council Intention to Meet Growth Needs The growth needs identified within this Appendix have been extracted from the AECOM Water Distribution and Supply DC update. The capital items reflected herein will be subject to final approval of Council through the annual capital budget approval process. It is Council’s stated intention to “provide for the needs of growth in a way that does not jeopardize the long term financial health of the municipality, or place an undue burden on existing taxpayers” (Official Plan Policy 2.6.3).
181
NOTE: An examination of long term Water Distribution and Supply operating costs for growth needs is included in Appendix O of this Background Study. .
182
TABLE L-1 – WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM NEEDS Service component : Water DistributionPlanning horizon for this component : 2009-2028
% benefit % $ % $ % $ % $(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21)
(all $'s in ,000's) (1) - sum(2,3) (4) * (5) (4) - (6) (7) * (8) [(7) - (9)] * 10% (7) - sum(9,10) (11) - (12) (13) * (14) (13) * (16) (13) * (18) (13) * (20)Anticipated and Planned Projects (Note 2) (Note 1) (Note 2) (Note 2) (Note 2) (Note 2) (Note 2) (Note 2) (Note 2)Low Level Watermains (note 2)EW3666 Wonderland Rd (A4) - Aldersbrk to Black Acres 2010 $1,464.8 $1,464.8 $.0 $1,464.8 55.0% $805.6 $.0 $659.1 $.0 $659.1 83% $547.1 11% $72.5 6% $39.5 0% $.0EW3666 Wonderland Rd (A10) - Black Acres to Gainsborough 2010 $793.8 $793.8 $.0 $793.8 45.0% $357.2 $.0 $436.6 $.0 $436.6 83% $362.4 11% $48.0 6% $26.2 0% $.0EW3666 Wonderland Rd N. (A8) - Sunningdale to Aldrsbrk 2013 $3,042.9 $3,042.9 $.0 $3,042.9 55.0% $1,673.6 $.0 $1,369.3 $.0 $1,369.3 83% $1,136.5 11% $150.6 6% $82.2 0% $.0EW3695 Hyde Pk (A9) - Royal York to Sarnia 2014 $2,272.1 $2,272.1 $.0 $2,272.1 65.0% $1,476.8 $.0 $795.2 $.0 $795.2 89% $707.7 6% $47.7 5% $39.8 0% $.0EW3685 Oxford (A28) - Hyde Pk to Sanatorium 2013 $2,362.5 $2,362.5 $.0 $2,362.5 25.0% $590.6 $.0 $1,771.9 $.0 $1,771.9 89% $1,577.0 6% $106.3 5% $88.6 0% $.0EW3606 Innovation Dr (A16) fr.Concept to Bradley 2009 $634.0 $60.0 $574.0 $.0 $574.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $574.0 $.0 $574.0 16% $91.8 0% $.0 0% $.0 84% $482.2EW3606 Bradley (A18) - Jackson to Innovation Pk Rd 2009 $4,460.0 $3,360.0 $1,100.0 $.0 $1,100.0 16.0% $176.0 $.0 $924.0 $.0 $924.0 16% $147.8 0% $.0 0% $.0 84% $776.2EW3606 Innovation East (A23) - Ph. 1 - Bradley to Innovation Pk 2009 $1,272.0 $129.0 $1,143.0 $.0 $1,143.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $1,143.0 $.0 $1,143.0 16% $182.9 0% $.0 0% $.0 84% $960.1EW3606 Innovation East (A23) - Ph 2- Innovation Pk Ph. 4 - to 2012 $1,357.0 $1,357.0 $.0 $1,357.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $1,357.0 $.0 $1,357.0 16% $217.1 0% $.0 0% $.0 84% $1,139.9
ID2171 Skyview Industrial Park (A24) - Ph.1- Robin's Hill from Existing Subdivision - 75m extension 2009 $50.0 $50.0 $.0 $50.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $50.0 $.0 $50.0 0% $.0 0% $.0 0% $.0 100% $50.0
ID2171 Skyview Industrial Park (A24) - Ph.- from 75m extension to Huron St 2012 $300.0 $300.0 $.0 $300.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $300.0 $.0 $300.0 0% $.0 0% $.0 0% $.0 100% $300.0
EW3692 Medway Road (A1) - Arva PS to Wonderland 2014 $3,891.0 $3,891.0 33.3% $1,297.0 $2,594.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $2,594.0 $.0 $2,594.0 89% $2,308.7 5% $129.7 2% $51.9 4% $103.8EW3692 Wonderland (A2) - Medway Rd to City Limit 2014 $3,061.8 $3,061.8 33.3% $1,020.6 $2,041.2 0.0% $.0 $.0 $2,041.2 $.0 $2,041.2 89% $1,816.7 5% $102.1 2% $40.8 4% $81.6EW3692 Wonderland (A3) - City Limit to Sunningdale 2015 $3,019.3 $3,019.3 33.3% $1,006.4 $2,012.9 0.0% $.0 $.0 $2,012.9 $.0 $2,012.9 89% $1,791.4 5% $100.6 2% $40.3 4% $80.5EW3712 White Oak (B5) - Dingman to Exeter 2010 $3,085.1 $3,085.1 $.0 $3,085.1 65.0% $2,005.3 $.0 $1,079.8 $.0 $1,079.8 5% $54.0 15% $162.0 13% $140.4 67% $723.5EW3606 Veteran's Memorial (B17) - Hwy 401 to Bradley 2015 $1,890.0 $1,890.0 $.0 $1,890.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $1,890.0 $.0 $1,890.0 16% $302.4 0% $.0 0% $.0 84% $1,587.6EW3611 Highbury (B3) - SE Reservoir to Dingman Dr 2014 $5,313.6 $5,313.6 26.8% $1,425.6 $3,888.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $3,888.0 $.0 $3,888.0 29% $1,127.5 7% $272.2 3% $116.6 61% $2,371.7EW3609 Gore (A13) - Sovereign to Crumlin 2019 $212.6 $212.6 $.0 $212.6 0.0% $.0 $.0 $212.6 $.0 $212.6 42% $89.3 1% $2.1 0% $.0 57% $121.2EW3609 Crumlin (A14) - Gore to River Rd 2019 $2,457.0 $2,457.0 $.0 $2,457.0 25.0% $614.3 $.0 $1,842.8 $.0 $1,842.8 42% $774.0 1% $18.4 0% $.0 57% $1,050.4
EW3666 Wonderland Rd N. (ADD2) - Gainsborough to Lawson 2021 $1,455.3 $1,455.3 $.0 $1,455.3 55.0% $800.4 $.0 $654.9 $.0 $654.9 83% $543.6 11% $72.0 6% $39.3 0% $.0EW3666 Wonderland Rd N. (ADD3) - Lawson to Sarnia 2021 $1,152.9 $1,152.9 $.0 $1,152.9 55.0% $634.1 $.0 $518.8 $.0 $518.8 83% $430.6 11% $57.1 6% $31.1 0% $.0EW3711 Gainsborough (A19) - Wonderland to Hyde Park 2022 $4,630.5 $4,630.5 $.0 $4,630.5 0.0% $.0 $.0 $4,630.5 $.0 $4,630.5 97% $4,491.6 3% $138.9 0% $.0 0% $.0
High Level Watermains (note 2) $48,178.1 $.0 $3,549.0 $44,629.1 10.6% $4,749.7 $39,879.5 22.9% $9,133.9 $.0 $30,745.5 $.0 $30,745.5 $18,700.1 $1,480.3 $736.7 $9,828.5
EW3652 Byron Baseline (2018) - Wickerson to Westdel Bourne 2011 $929.9 $929.9 $.0 $929.9 0.0% $.0 $.0 $929.9 $.0 $929.9 99% $920.6 1% $9.3 0% $.0 0% $.0EW3652 Westdel Bourne (2019) - Byron Baseline to mid Westde 2011 $1,122.7 $1,122.7 $.0 $1,122.7 0.0% $.0 $.0 $1,122.7 $.0 $1,122.7 99% $1,111.4 1% $11.2 0% $.0 0% $.0
EW3652 Westdel Bourne (2010/2020) - mid Westdel Bourne to Oxford 2011 $1,015.2 $1,015.2 $.0 $1,015.2 0.0% $.0 $.0 $1,015.2 $.0 $1,015.2 99% $1,005.0 1% $10.2 0% $.0 0% $.0
EW3652 Oxford (2021/2022) -Westdel Bourne to Kains 2017 $1,171.8 $1,171.8 $.0 $1,171.8 0.0% $.0 $.0 $1,171.8 $.0 $1,171.8 99% $1,160.1 1% $11.7 0% $.0 0% $.0EW3651 Sarnia (2028) - w. of Deer Ridge to Hyde Park 2016 $972.0 $972.0 $.0 $972.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $972.0 $.0 $972.0 97% $942.8 3% $29.2 0% $.0 0% $.0EW3651 Hyde Park - Sarnia to S. Carriage 2015 $1,204.9 $1,204.9 $.0 $1,204.9 0.0% $.0 $.0 $1,204.9 $.0 $1,204.9 97% $1,168.7 3% $36.1 0% $.0 0% $.0EW3651 Gainsborough - Coronation to Aldersbrook 2022 $680.4 $680.4 $.0 $680.4 0.0% $.0 $.0 $680.4 $.0 $680.4 97% $660.0 3% $20.4 0% $.0 0% $.0Water Facilities (note 4) $7,096.8 $.0 $.0 $7,096.8 $.0 $7,096.8 $.0 $.0 $7,096.8 $.0 $7,096.8 $6,968.7 $128.1 $.0 $.0EW3653 Wickerson PS 2011 $830.0 $830.0 $.0 $830.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $830.0 $.0 $830.0 100% $830.0 0% $.0 0% $.0 0% $.0EW3614 Southeast PS (3) - note 3) 2010 $29,600.0 $3,604.0 $24,194.4 $1,801.6 22.0% $396.3 $1,405.2 0.0% $.0 $.0 $1,405.2 $.0 $1,405.2 40.0% $562.1 6.0% $84.3 5.0% $70.3 49.0% $688.6EW3614 Reservoir - note 3) 2010 $26,100.0 $3,196.0 $21,333.6 $1,570.4 $.0 $1,570.4 0.0% $.0 $.0 $1,570.4 $.0 $1,570.4 56% $879.4 5% $78.5 7% $109.9 32% $502.5EW3590 Uplands PS 2015 $280.0 $280.0 $.0 $280.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $280.0 $.0 $280.0 99% $277.2 1% $2.8 0% $.0 0% $.0EW3591 Hyde Park PS 2015 $550.0 $550.0 $.0 $550.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $550.0 $.0 $550.0 100% $550.0 0% $.0 0% $.0 0% $.0EW3628 Southeast Pressure Zone 2016 $2,700.0 $2,700.0 $.0 $2,700.0 60.0% $1,620.0 $.0 $1,080.0 $.0 $1,080.0 56% $604.8 5% $54.0 7% $75.6 32% $345.6EW3654 Arva PS 2020 $2,600.0 $2,600.0 $.0 $2,600.0 50.0% $1,300.0 $.0 $1,300.0 $.0 $1,300.0 89% $1,157.0 5% $65.0 1% $13.0 5% $65.0
$62,660.0 $6,800.0 $45,528.0 $10,332.0 $396.3 $9,935.7 $2,920.0 $.0 $7,015.7 $.0 $7,015.7 $4,860.5 $284.6 $268.8 $1,601.7 PORTION OF PRIOR YEARS' GROWTH PROJECTS FINANCED WITH DEBT $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 0% $.0 0% $.0 0% $.0 0% $.0
TOTAL $117,934.9 $6,800.0 $49,077.0 $62,057.9 $5,146.0 $56,911.9 $12,053.9 $.0 $44,858.0 $.0 $44,858.0 68.1% $30,529.3 4.2% $1,893.0 2.2% $1,005.4 25.5% $11,430.2
Residential Commercial Institutional Industrial
$5,130.0 93.9% $4,817.9 4.2% $217.5 1.8% $94.5 0.0% $.0Notes:1) Portion of project funded in prior year was inadvertently excluded from Aecom Tables. Total net cost eligible for DC rate calculation purpose $39,728.0 64.7% $25,711.3 4.2% $1,675.5 2.3% $910.9 28.8% $11,430.22) The project listings, costs, growth non-growth splits according to Aecom tables dated Jan 23 09 Divided By: Total Gross Growth Projections 101,317 479,364 390,194 678,1923) Project grant funding (applicable to 2009 & beyond) for unfunded portion of the work provided by Build Canada - $6.8 million. Balance of $32M grant funding is included in column 3($45.5M) Calculated DC Rate - Pre-Financing 253.77$ 3.50$ 2.33$ 16.85$ 4) The project listings, costs, growth non-growth splits according to Aecom tables dated Jan 23 09 /person /sq. m. /sq. m. /sq. m.
Prefinancing - Residential Rate Summary Post Financing
Water Distribution TotalSingle Family Dwelling 3.22 817.14$ 817.14$ 1,657.00 Multiple unit dwelling 2.31 586.21$ 586.21$ 1,173.89 Apartment - bach. & 1 bed 1.37 347.67$ 347.67$ 777.01 Apartment - ≥ 2 bedroom 1.92 487.24$ 487.24$ 1,087.81
Allocation of Net Amount to types of GrowthAmount Eligible for Development Charge Rate Calculations
NO
N -
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Commercial InstitutionalNon
-gro
wth
sha
re
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Subt
otal
Project # Project Description Subt
otal
Expe
cted
Yea
r
Tota
l Est
imat
ed C
ost
Less
: fut
ure
capi
tal g
rant
s, s
ubsi
dies
or
othe
r con
tribu
tions
ant
icip
ated
Less
: Por
tion
of G
ross
Pro
ject
Cos
t
Fund
ed In
Prio
r Yea
rs
Less
: Fu
ture
gro
wth
ben
efits
(por
tion
of
grow
th c
osts
attr
ibut
able
to g
row
th
expe
cted
to o
ccur
bey
ond
plan
ning
horiz
on fo
r thi
s se
rvic
e)
Subt
otal
Development Charge Rate Calculation (Pre-Financing Cost)
Less: Portion of above works collected in prior years (approximate uncommitted balance in DC reserve fund at December 31, 2008)
Industrial
Net
Am
ount
Elig
ible
for D
C ra
te
calc
ulat
ion
Less
: Am
ount
inel
igib
le fo
r rat
e
calc
ulat
ion
- im
prov
emen
t ove
r exi
stin
g
stan
dard
(see
Sup
plem
ent A
if a
pplic
able
)
Less
: 10%
sta
tuto
ry d
educ
tion
(if
appl
icab
le)
Jan 1, 2009 rate (Water Dist'n only; Water Supply exempted in previous bylaw)
183
TABLE L-2 – WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM NEEDS
Service component : Water SupplyPlanning horizon for this component : 2009-2028
Allocation of Net Amount to types of GrowthAmount Eligible for Development Charge Rate Calculations
NO
N -
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Non
-gro
wth
sha
re (L
ondo
n &
Oth
er M
unic
ipal
ities
whi
ch
use
the
syst
em)
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Subt
otal
Project # Project Description Subt
otal
Net
Am
ount
Elig
ible
for D
C ra
te
calc
ulat
ion
Less
: Am
ount
inel
igib
le fo
r rat
e
calc
ulat
ion
- im
prov
emen
t ove
r exi
stin
g
stan
dard
(see
Sup
plem
ent A
if
appl
icab
le)
Less
: 10%
sta
tuto
ry d
educ
tion
(if
appl
icab
le)
Less
: Fu
ture
gro
wth
ben
efits
(por
tion
of
grow
th c
osts
attr
ibut
able
to L
ondo
n
grow
th e
xpec
ted
to o
ccur
bey
ond
plan
ning
hor
izon
for t
his
serv
ice)
Subt
otal
Expe
cted
Yea
r
Tota
l Est
imat
ed C
ost
Less
: fut
ure
capi
tal g
rant
s, s
ubsi
dies
or
othe
r con
tribu
tions
ant
icip
ated
Less
: Por
tion
of G
ross
Pro
ject
Cos
t
Fund
ed In
Prio
r Yea
rs
% benefit % $ % $ % $ % $(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21)
(all $'s in ,000's) (1) - sum(2,3) (4) * (5) (4) - (6) (4) * (8) [(7) - (9)] * 10% (7) - sum(9,10) (11) - (12) (13) * (14) (13) * (16) (13) * (18) (13) * (20)Anticipated and Planned Projects Note 2 Note 4 Note 3 Note 3
EA4020 Elgin Low Lift PS 2018 $3,000.0 $3,000.0 28.0% $840.0 $2,160.0 52.0% $1,123.2 $.0 $1,036.8 $.0 $1,036.8 29.0% $300.7 7.0% $72.6 3.0% $31.1 61.0% $632.4EA4021 Elgin Raw Water Transmission Main 2018 $3,000.0 $3,000.0 28.0% $840.0 $2,160.0 52.0% $1,123.2 $.0 $1,036.8 $.0 $1,036.8 29.0% $300.7 7.0% $72.6 3.0% $31.1 61.0% $632.4EA4022 Elgin Water Treatment Plant 2018 $55,000.0 $55,000.0 28.0% $15,400.0 $39,600.0 52.0% $20,592.0 $.0 $19,008.0 $.0 $19,008.0 29.0% $5,512.3 7.0% $1,330.6 3.0% $570.2 61.0% $11,594.9EA4023 Elgin Residue Management Plant 2011 $13,250.0 $7,552.5 $5,697.5 28.0% $1,595.3 $4,102.2 44.2% $1,812.6 $.0 $2,289.6 $.0 $2,289.6 29.0% $664.0 7.0% $160.3 3.0% $68.7 61.0% $1,396.7EA4024 Elgin Treated Water Transmission Main (New) 2011 $23,150.0 $13,195.5 $9,954.5 28.0% $2,787.3 $7,167.2 0.0% $.0 $.0 $7,167.2 $.0 $7,167.2 29.0% $2,078.5 7.0% $501.7 3.0% $215.0 61.0% $4,372.0LH1902 Huron Residue Management Facility 2012 $10,250.0 $5,842.5 $4,407.5 0.0% $.0 $4,407.5 46.5% $2,050.0 $.0 $2,357.5 $.0 $2,357.5 89.0% $2,098.2 5.0% $117.9 1.0% $23.6 5.0% $117.9
LH1305 Huron Transmission Main Twinning Completion 2013-2016 $47,000.0 $15,447.0 $31,553.0 0.0% $.0 $31,553.0 79.6% $25,113.0 $.0 $6,440.0 $.0 $6,440.0 89.0% $5,731.6 5.0% $322.0 1.0% $64.4 5.0% $322.0LH1326 Huron Additional Standby Power 2010 $7,200.0 $4,104.0 $3,096.0 0.0% $.0 $3,096.0 69.8% $2,160.0 $.0 $936.0 $.0 $936.0 89.0% $833.0 5.0% $46.8 1.0% $9.4 5.0% $46.8
SUBTOTAL $161,850.0 $46,141.5 $.0 $115,708.5 $21,462.6 $94,245.9 $53,974.0 $.0 $40,271.9 $.0 $40,271.9 $17,519.0 $2,624.4 $1,013.5 $19,115.1 PORTION OF PRIOR YEARS' GROWTH PROJECTS FINANCED WITH DEBT $363.4 $363.4 $363.4 $363.4 $363.4 42.5% $154.4 6.6% $23.8 2.6% $9.3 48.4% $175.9
TOTAL $162,213.4 $46,141.5 $.0 $116,071.9 18.5% $21,462.6 $94,609.3 57.0% $53,974.0 $.0 $40,635.3 $.0 $40,635.3 43.5% $17,673.4 6.5% $2,648.2 2.5% $1,022.8 47.5% $19,291.1
Residential Commercial Institutional Industrial
$.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0Notes:1)
Total net cost eligible for DC rate calculation purpose $40,635.3 43.5% $17,673.4 6.5% $2,648.2 2.5% $1,022.8 47.5% $19,291.12) "Total Estimated Cost" is the gross project cost (includes all users portions). Divided By: Total Gross Growth Projections 101,317 479,364 390,194 678,1923)
Calculated DC Rate - Pre-Financing 174.44$ 5.52$ 2.62$ 28.44$ 4) The table reflects expected grant funding, based on best estimates available at the time of preparation of this table. /person /sq. m. /sq. m. /sq. m.
Water SupplySingle Family Dwelling 3.22 561.69$ Multiple unit dwelling 2.31 402.95$ Apartment - bach. & 1 bed 1.37 238.98$ Apartment - ≥ 2 bedroom 1.92 334.92$
Prefinancing - Residential Rate Summary
NO
N -
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Commercial InstitutionalNon
-gro
wth
sha
re (L
ondo
n &
Oth
er M
unic
ipal
ities
whi
ch
use
the
syst
em)
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Subt
otal
Project # Project Description Subt
otal
Development Charge Rate Calculation (Pre-Financing Cost)
Less: Portion of above works collected in prior years (approximate uncommitted balance in DC reserve fund at December 31, 2008)
Industrial
Net
Am
ount
Elig
ible
for D
C ra
te
calc
ulat
ion
Less
: Am
ount
inel
igib
le fo
r rat
e
calc
ulat
ion
- im
prov
emen
t ove
r exi
stin
g
stan
dard
(see
Sup
plem
ent A
if
appl
icab
le)
Less
: 10%
sta
tuto
ry d
educ
tion
(if
appl
icab
le)
The "Future benefit" reflects only the City of London share of the total project. It does not reflect future benefit for all users of the system. "Non - growth" share includes both the share of the total project attributable to other municipalities on the system as well as the non-growth share of the total project attributable to London users. In this case,the % is applied to total project prior to deduction of London's future growth benefit.
Project listing, expected year, total estimated cost, future growth benefits, non-growth share, and RICI splits are referenced from AECOM "City of London Water Servicing Development Charge Update 2008" table EX 4B dated Jan 23 09.
Less
: Fu
ture
gro
wth
ben
efits
(por
tion
of
grow
th c
osts
attr
ibut
able
to L
ondo
n
grow
th e
xpec
ted
to o
ccur
bey
ond
plan
ning
hor
izon
for t
his
serv
ice)
Subt
otal
Expe
cted
Yea
r
Tota
l Est
imat
ed C
ost
Less
: fut
ure
capi
tal g
rant
s, s
ubsi
dies
or
othe
r con
tribu
tions
ant
icip
ated
Less
: Por
tion
of G
ross
Pro
ject
Cos
t
Fund
ed In
Prio
r Yea
rs
184
TABLE L-3 – CASH FLOW ANALYSIS AND FINAL RATE CALCULATION– WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
Service component : Water Distribution ($'s in thousands)
FINAL RESULT 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Total
Planning Horizon - yrs 20
Pre-Financing DC Rate
Post-Financing DC Rate
% Collected assumption
Growth projection for each year of forecast period
Growth - Res. (Persons In New Housing) 101,317 253.77$ 294.46$ 100% 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 101,316.9 Growth - Non-Res. (sq. m.) -$
Commercial 479,364.0 3.50$ 4.06$ 100% 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 479,364.0 Institutional 390,193.6 2.33$ 2.71$ 100% 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 390,193.6 C/I subtotal 869,557.6 -$ 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 869,557.6 Industrial 678,191.6 16.85$ 19.56$ 100% 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 678,191.6
Total Non-Res. 1,547,749.2 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 1,547,749.2
Reserve Fund Projections:Opening Surplus / <Deficit> $5,130.0 $4,830.3 $1,643.8 $65.8 $720.4 -$110.6 -$11,059.5 -$16,167.0 -$16,475.6 -$15,899.3 -$14,110.6 -$14,350.6 -$13,830.4 -$13,163.5 -$16,682.8 -$14,921.5 -$13,098.6 -$11,211.8 -$9,259.0 -$7,237.9 $5,130.0Revenues - Development Charge Collections
Residential $1,491.7 $1,491.7 $1,491.7 $1,491.7 $1,491.7 $1,491.7 $1,491.7 $1,491.7 $1,491.7 $1,491.7 $1,491.7 $1,491.7 $1,491.7 $1,491.7 $1,491.7 $1,491.7 $1,491.7 $1,491.7 $1,491.7 $1,491.7 $29,834.3Non-Res.
Commercial $97.3 $97.3 $97.3 $97.3 $97.3 $97.3 $97.3 $97.3 $97.3 $97.3 $97.3 $97.3 $97.3 $97.3 $97.3 $97.3 $97.3 $97.3 $97.3 $97.3 $1,945.3Institutional $52.8 $52.8 $52.8 $52.8 $52.8 $52.8 $52.8 $52.8 $52.8 $52.8 $52.8 $52.8 $52.8 $52.8 $52.8 $52.8 $52.8 $52.8 $52.8 $52.8 $1,055.6C/I subtotal $150.0 $150.0 $150.0 $150.0 $150.0 $150.0 $150.0 $150.0 $150.0 $150.0 $150.0 $150.0 $150.0 $150.0 $150.0 $150.0 $150.0 $150.0 $150.0 $150.0 $3,000.9Industrial $663.1 $663.1 $663.1 $663.1 $663.1 $663.1 $663.1 $663.1 $663.1 $663.1 $663.1 $663.1 $663.1 $663.1 $663.1 $663.1 $663.1 $663.1 $663.1 $663.1 $13,262.2
Total Non-Res. $813.2 $813.2 $813.2 $813.2 $813.2 $813.2 $813.2 $813.2 $813.2 $813.2 $813.2 $813.2 $813.2 $813.2 $813.2 $813.2 $813.2 $813.2 $813.2 $813.2 $16,263.2
Total revenues $2,304.9 $2,304.9 $2,304.9 $2,304.9 $2,304.9 $2,304.9 $2,304.9 $2,304.9 $2,304.9 $2,304.9 $2,304.9 $2,304.9 $2,304.9 $2,304.9 $2,304.9 $2,304.9 $2,304.9 $2,304.9 $2,304.9 $2,304.9 $46,097.4Development Charge draws - calculated on separate page $2,691.0 $5,547.5 $3,897.7 $1,657.0 $3,141.2 $13,061.7 $6,944.2 $2,052.0 $1,171.8 $.0 $2,055.4 $1,300.0 $1,173.7 $5,310.9 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $50,004.0Closing surplus / <deficit> before interest $4,743.9 $1,587.6 $50.9 $713.6 -$115.9 -$10,867.4 -$15,698.7 -$15,914.1 -$15,342.5 -$13,594.4 -$13,861.1 -$13,345.7 -$12,699.2 -$16,169.5 -$14,378.0 -$12,616.7 -$10,793.7 -$8,906.9 -$6,954.2 -$4,933.0 $1,223.4Non-inflationary interest revenue /<expense>
on savings 1.75% $86.4 $56.2 $14.8 $6.8 $5.3 $169.5on borrowings 3.50% -$192.1 -$468.3 -$561.4 -$556.8 -$516.1 -$489.5 -$484.7 -$464.3 -$513.3 -$543.6 -$481.9 -$418.1 -$352.1 -$283.7 -$213.0 -$6,538.9
Closing surplus / <deficit> $4,830.3 $1,643.8 $65.8 $720.4 -$110.6 -$11,059.5 -$16,167.0 -$16,475.6 -$15,899.3 -$14,110.6 -$14,350.6 -$13,830.4 -$13,163.5 -$16,682.8 -$14,921.5 -$13,098.6 -$11,211.8 -$9,259.0 -$7,237.9 -$5,146.0 -$5,146.0
Target which reflects growth costs incurred in the forecast period and recoverable from future grow -$5,146.0
Explanatory note
Method: 1 Set Post financing rate = Pre financing rate - model projects revenues and draws and projects RF balances (ie. copy values from D13-D18 to E13-E18)23 Using "SOLVER" make balance at end of planning horizon = to "Target " balance by allowing "Post financing rates" to vary from "Pre-financing rates".
Other Information: Pre PostResidential share 65% 65%Non-residential
Commercial 4% 4%Institutional 2% 2%C/I subtotal 7% 7%Industrial 29% 29%
This worksheet projects future activity in this reserve fund. It ultimately determines the rates necessary to recover all costs intended for recovery from growth (including financing costs). The deficit in the fund at the end of the planning horizon reflects costs intended for recovery from future growth.
Set ratio of Pre financing revenues = Post financing revenues (ie. copy values from C47-C52 to D47-D52). This ensures that ratio of revenues stays constant throughout rate re-calculation process.
185
TABLE L-4 – CASH FLOW ANALYSIS AND FINAL RATE CALCULATION– WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM Service component : Water Supply ($'s in thousands)
FINAL RESULT 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Total
Planning Horizon - yrs 20
Pre-Financing DC Rate
Post-Financing DC Rate
% Collected assumption
Growth projection for each year of forecast period
Growth - Res. (Persons In New Housing) 101,317 174.44$ 253.51$ 100% 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 101,316.9 Growth - Non-Res. (sq. m.) -$
Commercial 479,364.0 5.52$ 8.03$ 100% 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 479,364.0 Institutional 390,193.6 2.62$ 3.81$ 100% 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 390,193.6 C/I subtotal 869,557.6 -$ 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 869,557.6 Industrial 678,191.6 28.44$ 41.34$ 100% 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 678,191.6
Total Non-Res. 1,547,749.2 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 1,547,749.2
Reserve Fund Projections:Opening Surplus / <Deficit> $.0 $2,591.4 $4,671.4 -$6,006.1 -$5,610.4 -$4,440.3 -$3,229.3 -$1,975.8 -$678.5 $2,288.4 -$33,456.3 -$31,622.6 -$29,724.8 -$27,760.5 -$25,727.5 -$23,623.3 -$21,445.5 -$19,191.4 -$16,858.5 -$14,443.9 $.0Revenues - Development Charge Collections
Residential $1,284.2 $1,284.2 $1,284.2 $1,284.2 $1,284.2 $1,284.2 $1,284.2 $1,284.2 $1,284.2 $1,284.2 $1,284.2 $1,284.2 $1,284.2 $1,284.2 $1,284.2 $1,284.2 $1,284.2 $1,284.2 $1,284.2 $1,284.2 $25,684.9Non-Res.
Commercial $192.5 $192.5 $192.5 $192.5 $192.5 $192.5 $192.5 $192.5 $192.5 $192.5 $192.5 $192.5 $192.5 $192.5 $192.5 $192.5 $192.5 $192.5 $192.5 $192.5 $3,850.7Institutional $74.4 $74.4 $74.4 $74.4 $74.4 $74.4 $74.4 $74.4 $74.4 $74.4 $74.4 $74.4 $74.4 $74.4 $74.4 $74.4 $74.4 $74.4 $74.4 $74.4 $1,488.3C/I subtotal $266.9 $266.9 $266.9 $266.9 $266.9 $266.9 $266.9 $266.9 $266.9 $266.9 $266.9 $266.9 $266.9 $266.9 $266.9 $266.9 $266.9 $266.9 $266.9 $266.9 $5,339.0Industrial $1,401.8 $1,401.8 $1,401.8 $1,401.8 $1,401.8 $1,401.8 $1,401.8 $1,401.8 $1,401.8 $1,401.8 $1,401.8 $1,401.8 $1,401.8 $1,401.8 $1,401.8 $1,401.8 $1,401.8 $1,401.8 $1,401.8 $1,401.8 $28,035.4
Total Non-Res. $1,668.7 $1,668.7 $1,668.7 $1,668.7 $1,668.7 $1,668.7 $1,668.7 $1,668.7 $1,668.7 $1,668.7 $1,668.7 $1,668.7 $1,668.7 $1,668.7 $1,668.7 $1,668.7 $1,668.7 $1,668.7 $1,668.7 $1,668.7 $33,374.4
Total revenues $2,953.0 $2,953.0 $2,953.0 $2,953.0 $2,953.0 $2,953.0 $2,953.0 $2,953.0 $2,953.0 $2,953.0 $2,953.0 $2,953.0 $2,953.0 $2,953.0 $2,953.0 $2,953.0 $2,953.0 $2,953.0 $2,953.0 $2,953.0 $59,059.3Development Charge draws - calculated on separate page $384.0 $936.0 $13,607.5 $2,357.5 $1,610.0 $1,610.0 $1,610.0 $1,610.0 $.0 $38,161.6 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $61,886.6Closing surplus / <deficit> before interest $2,569.0 $4,608.4 -$5,983.2 -$5,410.6 -$4,267.5 -$3,097.4 -$1,886.3 -$632.9 $2,274.4 -$32,920.2 -$30,503.3 -$28,669.7 -$26,771.8 -$24,807.5 -$22,774.5 -$20,670.3 -$18,492.5 -$16,238.5 -$13,905.5 -$11,490.9 -$2,827.4Non-inflationary interest revenue /<expense>
on savings 1.75% $22.5 $63.0 $14.0 $99.4on borrowings 3.50% -$23.0 -$199.8 -$172.9 -$131.9 -$89.5 -$45.7 -$536.1 -$1,119.3 -$1,055.1 -$988.7 -$919.9 -$848.8 -$775.1 -$698.9 -$620.0 -$538.4 -$453.9 -$9,216.9
Closing surplus / <deficit> $2,591.4 $4,671.4 -$6,006.1 -$5,610.4 -$4,440.3 -$3,229.3 -$1,975.8 -$678.5 $2,288.4 -$33,456.3 -$31,622.6 -$29,724.8 -$27,760.5 -$25,727.5 -$23,623.3 -$21,445.5 -$19,191.4 -$16,858.5 -$14,443.9 -$11,944.8 -$11,944.8
Target which reflects growth costs incurred in the forecast period and recoverable from future grow -$11,944.8
Explanatory note
Method: 1 Set Post financing rate = Pre financing rate - model projects revenues and draws and projects RF balances (ie. copy values from D13-D18 to E13-E18)2
3 Using "SOLVER" make balance at end of planning horizon = tot "Target " balance by allowing "Post financing rates" to vary from "Pre-financing rates". Other Information: Pre Post
Residential share 43% 43%Non-residential
Commercial 7% 7%Institutional 3% 3%C/I subtotal 9% 9%Industrial 47% 47%
This worksheet projects future activity in this reserve fund. It ultimately determines the rates necessary to recover all costs intended for recovery from growth (including financing costs). The deficit in the fund at the end of the planning horizon reflects costs intended for recovery from future growth.
Set ratio of Pre financing revenues = Post financing revenues (ie. copy values from C47-C52 to D47-D52). This ensures that ratio of revenues stays constant throughout rate re-calculation process.
186
Appendix M –Stormwater Management Works - CSRF Funded Almost all storm drainage and stormwater management (SWM) facility work is growth related and therefore CSRF or UWRF recoverable. The Storm Drainage/Stormwater Management DC Update prepared by AECOM provided the vehicle for determining the storm drainage costs attributable to growth to be incorporated in the DC rate calculations. The storm drainage works included for cost determination purposes were:
• Trunk / oversized storm sewers • Stormwater Management Facilities and related outfalls • Open watercourses including creeks, channels, etc.
In previous DC background studies, Stormwater Management works were entirely UWRF funded. However, the 2009 DC Study has shifted specific larger SWM facilities to CSRF as City administered projects. This appendix summarizes the methods applied to forecast and estimate costs for projected SWM works and determine the projects to be CSRF funded. More detailed information is available in the AECOM Storm Drainage/Stormwater Management Servicing Development Charges Update 2008. Policy Considerations In January of 2008 City Council approved adjustments to the policies of the funding sources for growth works. The result has been a shift in funding responsibility for SWM works between the City Services and Urban Works Reserve Funds. Following considerable industry consultation, the following adjustments were brought forward:
(a) New stormwater management facilities (except those identified in development agreements executed prior to commencement date of the DC By-law) that serve catchments greater than 50 hectares will be funded from the CSRF due to their regional nature.
(b) New SWM facilities falling below the 50 ha. threshold will continue to be funded from UWRF in the future, recoverable under the policies that govern that fund (under “new rules” Schedule 7 of the bylaw). A construction phasing strategy has been recommended for SWM facilities where the catchment area is greater than 60 hectares to avoid potential for technical problems associated with excessive retention times.
(c) Storm Water management facilities in existing development agreements executed prior to commencement date of the new DC By-law will continue to be assessed under “old rules” (ie.grandfathered). These new policy directions were incorporated into the AECOM Storm Drainage/Stormwater Management DC Update and are reflected in the 2009 DC rate calculations.
DC Administration SWM works can be either UWRF, CSRF or developer funded depending on the type of work, catchment area and benefiting end user. This section summarizes the working rules of the DC funds with respect to SWM works funded from the CSRF. Additional details on the administration of works funded from the UWRF can be found in Appendix N and the 2009 DC by-law (Schedules 6 & 7).
187
(a) CSRF Administration In the past, all stormwater management works were financed via UWRF. However, allowing developers to set the timing of construction for large regional facilities has led to issues regarding triggers for construction, land issues and cost-sharing disputes as these facilities typically serve multiple land owners. Catchment area size will now be used to determine whether SWM facilities will be managed under UWRF (developer-led) or CSRF (City Administered). Facilities serving catchments greater than 50 hectares, not already identified in an executed development agreement prior to commencement date of the new by-law, will now be financed via the CSRF. A small number of SWM facilities have also been identified as CSRF funded in cases where the works are located within or adjacent to environmentally sensitive areas. Construction of these CSRF funded SWM works will be City-led consistent with the timing identified in the City’s Growth Management Implementation Strategy(GMIS). The timing for regional CSRF SWM facilities has been strategically set within the GMIS and programmed into the City’s capital budget to coincide with large sanitary, road and water projects. Developers wishing to advance the schedule for identified CSRF SWM works will require an approved and executed Municipal Services Financing Agreement. Project Identification The methods used in identifying storm drainage/stormwater management needs for the 2009-2028 planning horizon are described below. In the case of SWM facilities and open watercourse works, the DC update identifies a discrete project listing developed based on the anticipated timing and location of development using the growth forecasts discussed in Appendix A of this Background Study. Future SWM Facilities The identified SWM facilities listed in the Storm Drainage/Stormwater Management DC Update were based on information provided to AECOM by City personnel. With the exception of the City’s southwest, most areas within the Urban Growth Boundary have had the benefit of either a stormwater management Environmental Assessment or Master Drainage Plan making it possible to specifically identify or approximate required facilities. The list was then further refined consistent with the City’s GMIS and the proposed phasing strategy for larger ponds to represent the SWM facility work required for the next 20-year growth horizon. Required Open Watercourse works have also been identified as line item projects together in the SWM facility listing. Table M-1 (2 pgs) provides a summary project listing of all CSRF funded SWM works used for DC rate calculation purposes. Each SWM project has been clearly identified in the project list by name, complete with ID, catchment area, land and facility costs, phasing requirements, timing, growth/non-growth allocations and UWRF/CSRF applicability. With more specific project descriptions, the City will have improved ability to monitor DC spending and provide regular, timely updates to the GMIS. Establishing Cost Estimates The DC rate setting process requires the estimated costs assigned to identified growth works be reasonable and defensible. Prior to assigning costs, AECOM undertook a detailed costing analysis in consultation with representatives of the local development industry using
188
previous project pricing and recent tenders, incorporating adjustments for inflation. All works have been cost estimated in 2009 dollars. Future SWM Facilities SWM facility estimates applied costing provided in the various stormwater management Master Plans and Environmental Assessment studies updated for inflation. The updated costs were then confirmed against recent tenders. Estimates for SWM facilities incorporated costs for inlet and outlet sewers (100m of each) to be financed from the same fund as the facility itself. The total cost over the 20 year planning horizon for these works (contained in Appendix M-1) is approximately $123M. Miscellaneous provision for industrial and storm sewer trunks add an additional $4.3M into the rate calculations in this service component. Post-Period Benefit Adjustments Adjustments were applied to rate calculations for works considered to benefit post-period growth (ie. beyond 20 years) to ensure the calculated growth burden incorporated into the DC Rate calculation matches the planning horizon. SWM facilities serving areas outside the GMIS growth area, including a large part of southwest London were deferred beyond 2028. The proposed phasing strategy also resulted in the deferral of a portion of costs beyond the 20-year growth horizon. The cost of phasing a SWM facility on a 2-stage basis entails a 10% cost premium but allows 50% of facility costs (the latter construction stage) to be shifted beyond 2028. Allocation Splits
(a) Growth/Non-Growth In most cases, growth/non-growth allocations do not apply to drainage and stormwater management works as these projects are almost always completely growth related. SWM facilities and their related components are also considered to be 100% growth driven. There can be special cases where a quantity control facility helps remediate existing downstream flooding, in which case non-growth shares are typically determined on a land area rating basis. For channel works, non-growth components were identified by City personnel on a case-by-case basis according to the portion of the project linked to existing remediation needs.
(b) Residential/ICI Storm drainage/stormwater management RES/ICI allocations were based on the population and area information provided by the City of London for the 20-year growth period within the GMIS boundary and benefiting land use (Residential, Institutional, Commercial, Industrial) percentages were determined based on this. SWM facilities primarily serving industrial areas were removed from future needs. As a result, the residential, commercial and institutional percentages were revised to absorb 100% of the costs where the facilities provided no benefit to industrial development. The following percentages were applied to SWM facilities serving areas of Community growth:
Residential Institutional Commercial Industrial 82% 6% 12% 0%
189
Final Costs for DC Rate Calculation The required storm servicing works identified in the AECOM Storm Drainage/Stormwater Management Servicing Development Charges Update 2008 form the basis for determining development charges for the CSRF and/or UWRF and represent the numerator in the rate calculation. The final total costs calculated for stormwater management works in the 2009-2028 planning horizon are listed in detail in Table M-1. Uncommitted Reserve Funds A new reserve fund is being established to accommodate the new works to be funded from CSRF for major SWM works as described above. There is no opening balance in this account as it is anticipated to be established with the 2009 DC By-law. Financing Costs Table M-2 was produced to simulate cash flows for CSRF funded SWM works for the purpose of calculating the final DC rate inclusive of financing costs. SWM funds collected in the past (for some of the major works now being funded from the new CSRF SWM fund) will remain with the UWRF identified SWM projects and was not accounted for in the CSRF financing costs. Forecasting cash flow and financing costs involved:
a) Projecting DC revenues using the “pre-finance” rate; b) Incorporating DC drawdowns in the cash flow projection based on the growth projects
identified in the 20-year study period; and c) Estimating annual interest revenues to be earned and/or financing costs to be
incurred due to fund deficits throughout the 20-year planning horizon.
For the CSRF, any deficit in the cash flow analysis at the end of the planning period equates to the amounts of the expenditures incurred during the planning period to be recovered from growth in the future (i.e. the post period benefit). All figures are presented on an un-inflated, constant (2009) dollar basis and interest rates exclude the inflationary component (estimated at 2%). The rates generated from this cash flow analysis reflect the appropriate cost recovery from growth for the 20-year planning horizon. Council’s Intention to Meet Growth Needs The growth needs identified within this Appendix have been extracted from the AECOM Storm Drainage/Stormwater Management DC update. The capital items reflected herein will be subject to final approval of Council through the annual capital budget approval process. It is Council’s stated intention to “provide for the needs of growth in a way that does not jeopardize the long term financial health of the municipality, or place an undue burden on existing taxpayers” (Official Plan Policy 2.6.3). NOTE: All storm drainage and stormwater management works are to be designed and constructed as per the City’s design criteria and standards including addressing long-term operation and maintenance aspects. An examination of long term Stormwater Management operating costs for growth needs is included in Appendix O of this Background Study.
190
TABLE M-1 –STORM SEWERAGE WORKS - CSRF FUNDED
Service component : Storm Water Management - Storm Sewer Servicing - CSRFPlanning horizon for this component : 2009-2028
% benefit % $ % $ % $ % $(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21)
(all $'s in ,000's)(1) - sum(2,3) (4) * (5) (4) - (6) (7) * (8) [(7) - (9)] * 10% (7) - sum(9,10) (11) - (12) (13) * (14) (13) * (16) (13) * (18) (13) * (20)
Note 2 Note 1 Note 1 Note 1 Note 1 Note 1 Note 1Storm Sewers
Industrial Storm Sewers 2009-2028 $5,590.7 $4,808.1 $782.7 $.0 $782.7 0.0% $.0 $.0 $782.7 $.0 $782.7 0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 100.0% $782.7
Additional Storm Sewer Projects - Note 3) 2009-2028 $3,500.0 $3,500.0 $.0 $3,500.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $3,500.0 $.0 $3,500.0 75% $2,625.0 11.0% $385.0 6.0% $210.0 8.0% $280.0
PORTION OF PRIOR YEARS' GROWTH PROJECTS FINANCED WITH DEBT $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0
TOTAL $9,090.7 $4,808.1 $.0 $4,282.7 $.0 $4,282.7 $.0 $.0 $4,282.7 $.0 $4,282.7 61.3% $2,625.0 9.0% $385.0 4.9% $210.0 24.8% $1,062.7
Residential Commercial Institutional Industrial
$.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0Notes:
1) Total estimated cost, non-growth share, and RICI splits referenced from AECOM "City of London Storm Drainage/SWM Servicing Development Charge Update 2008" dated March 24 09 $4,282.7 61.3% $2,625.0 9.0% $385.0 4.9% $210.0 24.8% $1,062.7
2) Projects have undefined timetable at present and therefore are split over 20 year horizon. Divided By: Total Gross Growth Projections 101,317 479,364 390,194 678,192
3) This amount represents a contingency for projects, the location of which cannot be foreseen but are felt to be inevitable, in the net amount of $3.5M (part of $4M provided for in AECOM tables) Calculated DC Rate - Pre-Financing 25.91$ 0.80$ 0.54$ 1.57$ /person /sq. m. /sq. m. /sq. m.
Prefinancing - Residential Rate Summary Post Financing Sewer Facilities Total Jan 1, 2009 rate
Single Family Dwelling 3.22 83.43$ 2,833.17$ 2,916.60$ Multiple unit dwelling 2.31 59.85$ 2,032.49$ 2,092.34$ Apartment - bach. & 1 bed 1.37 35.50$ 1,205.42$ 1,240.91$ Apartment - ≥ 2 bedroom 1.92 49.74$ 1,689.34$ 1,739.09$
Allocation of Net Amount to types of GrowthAmount Eligible for Development Charge Rate Calculations
NO
N -
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Commercial InstitutionalNon
-gro
wth
sha
re
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Subt
otal
Project # Project Description Subt
otal
NO PREVIOUS RATE FOR C.S.R.F. PREVIOUSLY ENTIRELY FUNDED FROM U.W.R.F.
Expe
cted
Yea
r
Tota
l Est
imat
ed C
ost
Less
: fut
ure
capi
tal g
rant
s, s
ubsi
dies
or o
ther
con
tribu
tions
ant
icip
ated
Less
: Por
tion
of G
ross
Pro
ject
Cos
t
Fund
ed In
Prio
r Yea
rs
Total net cost eligible for DC rate calculation purposes
Less
: Fu
ture
gro
wth
ben
efits
(por
tion
of g
row
th c
osts
attr
ibut
able
to g
row
th
expe
cted
to o
ccur
bey
ond
plan
ning
horiz
on fo
r thi
s se
rvic
e)
Subt
otal
Development Charge Rate Calculation (Pre-Financing Cost)
Less: Portion of above works collected in prior years (approximate uncommitted balance in DC reserve fund at December 31, 2008)
Industrial
Net
Am
ount
Elig
ible
for D
C ra
te
calc
ulat
ion
Less
: Am
ount
inel
igib
le fo
r rat
e
calc
ulat
ion
- im
prov
emen
t ove
r
exis
ting
stan
dard
(see
Sup
plem
ent A
if
appl
icab
le)
Less
: 10%
sta
tuto
ry d
educ
tion
(if
appl
icab
le)
191
TABLE M-1 – STORM WATER MANAGEMENT WORKS - CSRF FUNDED
Service component : Storm Water Management - Facilities - City BudgetPlanning horizon for this component : 2009-2028
% benefit % $ % $ % $ % $(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21)
(all $'s in ,000's) (1) - sum(2,3) (4) * (5) (4) - (6) (7) * (8) [(7) - (9)] * 10(7) - sum(9,10) (11) - (12) (13) * (14) (13) * (16) (13) * (18) (13) * (20)Note 1 Note 1 Note 1 Note 1 Note 1 Note 1 Note 1 Note 1
Total CSRF Industrial SWM PondsPottersburg South SWMF (T109) 2025 $1,311.1 $1,311.1 0.0% $.0 $1,311.1 0.0% $.0 $.0 $1,311.1 $.0 $1,311.1 0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 100.0% $1,311.1Airport Road SWMF 4 (T35) 2009 $1,251.1 $1,251.1 0.0% $.0 $1,251.1 0.0% $.0 $.0 $1,251.1 $.0 $1,251.1 0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 100.0% $1,251.1Airport Road SWMF 3 (T34) 2009 $1,201.1 $1,201.1 0.0% $.0 $1,201.1 0.0% $.0 $.0 $1,201.1 $.0 $1,201.1 0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 100.0% $1,201.1Huron SWMF 1 (T112) 2022 $2,836.7 $2,836.7 0.0% $.0 $2,836.7 0.0% $.0 $.0 $2,836.7 $.0 $2,836.7 0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 100.0% $2,836.7Projected SWMF 1 (T108) 2024 $3,876.7 $3,876.7 41.8% $1,620.0 $2,256.7 0.0% $.0 $.0 $2,256.7 $.0 $2,256.7 0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 100.0% $2,256.7Airport Road SWMF 2 (T32) 2015 $5,337.7 $5,337.7 0.0% $.0 $5,337.7 0.0% $.0 $.0 $5,337.7 $.0 $5,337.7 0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 100.0% $5,337.7
SUBTOTAL $15,814.4 $.0 $.0 $15,814.4 10.2% $1,620.0 $14,194.4 0.0% $.0 $.0 $14,194.4 $.0 $14,194.4 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 100.0% $14,194.4
Total CSRF in Linked SystemsHyde Park SWMF 4 2009 $6,777.7 $6,777.7 0.0% $.0 $6,777.7 0.0% $.0 $.0 $6,777.7 $.0 $6,777.7 82% $5,557.7 12% $813.3 6% $406.7 0% $.0Hyde Park SWMF 5 2014 $6,517.7 $6,517.7 0.0% $.0 $6,517.7 0.0% $.0 $.0 $6,517.7 $.0 $6,517.7 82% $5,344.5 12% $782.1 6% $391.1 0% $.0Hyde Park SWMF 6 2013 $2,416.7 $2,416.7 0.0% $.0 $2,416.7 0.0% $.0 $.0 $2,416.7 $.0 $2,416.7 82% $1,981.7 12% $290.0 6% $145.0 0% $.0Hyde Park SWMF 1B1 2009 $3,096.7 $3,096.7 0.0% $.0 $3,096.7 0.0% $.0 $.0 $3,096.7 $.0 $3,096.7 82% $2,539.3 12% $371.6 6% $185.8 0% $.0White Oaks SWMF l 2012 $3,136.7 $3,136.7 0.0% $.0 $3,136.7 0.0% $.0 $.0 $3,136.7 $.0 $3,136.7 82% $2,572.1 12% $376.4 6% $188.2 0% $.0White Oaks SWMF 3 2016 $2,836.7 $2,836.7 0.0% $.0 $2,836.7 0.0% $.0 $.0 $2,836.7 $.0 $2,836.7 82% $2,326.1 12% $340.4 6% $170.2 0% $.0White Oaks SWMF 4 2023 $6,197.7 $6,197.7 44.5% $2,755.0 $3,442.7 0.0% $.0 $.0 $3,442.7 $.0 $3,442.7 82% $2,823.0 12% $413.1 6% $206.6 0% $.0Stoney Creek Erosion Control 2010 $5,730.0 $5,730.0 0.0% $.0 $5,730.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $5,730.0 $.0 $5,730.0 82% $4,698.6 12% $687.6 6% $343.8 0% $.0Stoney Creek SWMF 10 2012 $1,961.1 $1,961.1 0.0% $.0 $1,961.1 0.0% $.0 $.0 $1,961.1 $.0 $1,961.1 82% $1,608.1 12% $235.3 6% $117.7 0% $.0Stoney Creek 8 2021 $1,051.1 $1,051.1 0.0% $.0 $1,051.1 0.0% $.0 $.0 $1,051.1 $.0 $1,051.1 82% $861.9 12% $126.1 6% $63.1 0% $.0Fox Hollow SWMF 1 2012 $4,166.7 $4,166.7 42.4% $1,765.0 $2,401.7 0.0% $.0 $.0 $2,401.7 $.0 $2,401.7 82% $1,969.4 12% $288.2 6% $144.1 0% $.0Fox Hollow SWMF 2 2010 $2,021.1 $2,021.1 0.0% $.0 $2,021.1 0.0% $.0 $.0 $2,021.1 $.0 $2,021.1 82% $1,657.3 12% $242.5 6% $121.3 0% $.0Fox Hollow SWMF 3 2011 $5,777.7 $5,777.7 0.0% $.0 $5,777.7 0.0% $.0 $.0 $5,777.7 $.0 $5,777.7 82% $4,737.7 12% $693.3 6% $346.7 0% $.0Heard Drain 2010 $4,580.0 $4,580.0 0.0% $.0 $4,580.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $4,580.0 $.0 $4,580.0 82% $3,755.6 12% $549.6 6% $274.8 0% $.0Pincombe Drain SWMF 4 2017 $5,127.7 $5,127.7 0.0% $.0 $5,127.7 0.0% $.0 $.0 $5,127.7 $.0 $5,127.7 82% $4,204.7 12% $615.3 6% $307.7 0% $.0Pincombe Drain SWMF 2 2010 $2,456.7 $2,456.7 0.0% $.0 $2,456.7 0.0% $.0 $.0 $2,456.7 $.0 $2,456.7 82% $2,014.5 12% $294.8 6% $147.4 0% $.0Pincombe Drain SWMF 5 2022 $1,731.1 $1,731.1 0.0% $.0 $1,731.1 0.0% $.0 $.0 $1,731.1 $.0 $1,731.1 82% $1,419.5 12% $207.7 6% $103.9 0% $.0Pincombe Drain 2015 $2,000.0 $2,000.0 0.0% $.0 $2,000.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $2,000.0 $.0 $2,000.0 82% $1,640.0 12% $240.0 6% $120.0 0% $.0
SUBTOTAL $67,582.9 $.0 $.0 $67,582.9 6.7% $4,520.0 $63,062.9 0.0% $.0 $.0 $63,062.9 $.0 $63,062.9 82.0% $51,711.6 12.0% $7,567.5 6.0% $3,783.8 0.0% $.0
Total CSRF Within GMIS Boundary (>50 ha.)Wickerson Road SWMF (T120) 2011 $2,236.7 $2,236.7 0.0% $.0 $2,236.7 0.0% $.0 $.0 $2,236.7 $.0 $2,236.7 82% $1,834.1 12% $268.4 6% $134.2 0% $.0Old Victoria SWMF 2 (T67) 2015 $2,416.7 $2,416.7 0.0% $.0 $2,416.7 0.0% $.0 $.0 $2,416.7 $.0 $2,416.7 82% $1,981.7 12% $290.0 6% $145.0 0% $.0Uplands North SWMF B2 (T79) 2009 $2,516.7 $2,516.7 0.0% $.0 $2,516.7 0.0% $.0 $.0 $2,516.7 $.0 $2,516.7 82% $2,063.7 12% $302.0 6% $151.0 0% $.0SWMF SA-2 (T64) 2017 $3,226.7 $3,226.7 40.1% $1,295.0 $1,931.7 0.0% $.0 $.0 $1,931.7 $.0 $1,931.7 82% $1,584.0 12% $231.8 6% $115.9 0% $.0River Bend SWMF Trib. C (T80) 2011 $3,486.7 $3,486.7 0.0% $.0 $3,486.7 0.0% $.0 $.0 $3,486.7 $.0 $3,486.7 82% $2,859.1 12% $418.4 6% $209.2 0% $.0Kilally South East Basin (T10) 2021 $3,746.7 $3,746.7 0.0% $.0 $3,746.7 0.0% $.0 $.0 $3,746.7 $.0 $3,746.7 82% $3,072.3 12% $449.6 6% $224.8 0% $.0Projected Mud Creek SWMF 1 (T94) 2016 $3,876.7 $3,876.7 41.8% $1,620.0 $2,256.7 0.0% $.0 $.0 $2,256.7 $.0 $2,256.7 82% $1,850.5 12% $270.8 6% $135.4 0% $.0Parker SWMF (T104) 2018 $4,366.7 $4,366.7 42.7% $1,865.0 $2,501.7 0.0% $.0 $.0 $2,501.7 $.0 $2,501.7 82% $2,051.4 12% $300.2 6% $150.1 0% $.0Sunningdale SWMF 4 (T14) 2010 $4,737.7 $4,737.7 42.7% $2,025.0 $2,712.7 0.0% $.0 $.0 $2,712.7 $.0 $2,712.7 82% $2,224.4 12% $325.5 6% $162.8 0% $.0Dingman Tributary J SWMF 6 (T49) 2016 $4,737.7 $4,737.7 42.7% $2,025.0 $2,712.7 0.0% $.0 $.0 $2,712.7 $.0 $2,712.7 82% $2,224.4 12% $325.5 6% $162.8 0% $.0Projected Mud Creek SWMF 2 (T95) 2015 $4,737.7 $4,737.7 42.7% $2,025.0 $2,712.7 0.0% $.0 $.0 $2,712.7 $.0 $2,712.7 82% $2,224.4 12% $325.5 6% $162.8 0% $.0Kilally South Basin (T88) 2020 $5,227.7 $5,227.7 43.4% $2,270.0 $2,957.7 0.0% $.0 $.0 $2,957.7 $.0 $2,957.7 82% $2,425.3 12% $354.9 6% $177.5 0% $.0Jackson SWMF (T105) 2024 $6,717.7 $6,717.7 44.9% $3,015.0 $3,702.7 0.0% $.0 $.0 $3,702.7 $.0 $3,702.7 82% $3,036.2 12% $444.3 6% $222.2 0% $.0Pottersburg Channel 2022 $2,400.0 $2,400.0 0.0% $.0 $2,400.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $2,400.0 $.0 $2,400.0 82% $1,968.0 12% $288.0 6% $144.0 0% $.0
Dingman On-Line Facility (Erosion Control) (T81) 2009-2012 $9,370.0 $9,370.0 0.0% $.0 $9,370.0 88.0% $8,245.6 $.0 $1,124.4 $.0 $1,124.4 82% $922.0 12% $134.9 6% $67.5 0% $.0Dingman Creek E. On-Line SWMF (Flood Control) 2016-2023 $6,390.0 $6,390.0 0.0% $.0 $6,390.0 90.0% $5,751.0 $.0 $639.0 $.0 $639.0 82% $524.0 12% $76.7 6% $38.3 0% $.0Dingman Creek W. On-Line SWMF (Flood Control) 2016-2023 $4,740.0 $4,740.0 0.0% $.0 $4,740.0 85.0% $4,029.0 $.0 $711.0 $.0 $711.0 82% $583.0 12% $85.3 6% $42.7 0% $.0Dingman Creek Channel Remm. Works 2016-2023 $5,510.0 $5,510.0 0.0% $.0 $5,510.0 86.0% $4,738.6 $.0 $771.4 $.0 $771.4 82% $632.5 12% $92.6 6% $46.3 0% $.0Murray Marr 2011 $980.0 $980.0 0.0% $.0 $980.0 100.0% $980.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 82% $.0 12% $.0 6% $.0 0% $.0Mud Creek On-Line SWMF 2012 $1,240.0 $1,240.0 0.0% $.0 $1,240.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $1,240.0 $.0 $1,240.0 82% $1,016.8 12% $148.8 6% $74.4 0% $.0Stanton Drain 2011 $1,080.0 $1,080.0 0.0% $.0 $1,080.0 88.0% $950.4 $.0 $129.6 $.0 $129.6 82% $106.3 12% $15.6 6% $7.8 0% $.0
SUBTOTAL $83,741.7 $.0 $.0 $83,741.7 19.3% $16,140.0 $67,601.7 36.5% $24,694.6 $.0 $42,907.1 $.0 $42,907.1 82.0% $35,183.8 12.0% $5,148.9 6.0% $2,574.4 0.0% $.0
Additional SWM Projects (note 2) 2009-2028 $3,000.0 $3,000.0 $.0 $3,000.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $3,000.0 $.0 $3,000.0 75% $2,250.0 11.0% $330.0 6.0% $180.0 8.0% $240.0
PORTION OF PRIOR YEARS' GROWTH PROJECTS FINANCED WITH DEBT $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0
TOTAL $170,139.0 $.0 $.0 $170,139.0 13.1% $22,280.0 $147,859.0 16.7% $24,694.6 $.0 $123,164.4 $.0 $123,164.4 72.4% $89,145.4 10.6% $13,046.4 5.3% $6,538.2 11.7% $14,434.4
Residential Commercial Institutional Industrial
$.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0 0.0% $.0Notes:
1) Total estimated cost, non-growth share, and RICI splits referenced from AECOM "City of London Storm Drainage/SWM Servicing Development Charge Update 2008" . $123,164.4 72.4% $89,145.4 10.6% $13,046.4 5.3% $6,538.2 11.7% $14,434.42) This amount represents a contingency for projects, the location of which cannot be foreseen but are inevitable, in the net amount of $3M (part of $4M provided for in AECOM tables) Divided By: Total Gross Growth Projections 101,317 479,364 390,194 678,192
Calculated DC Rate - Pre-Financing 879.87$ 27.22$ 16.76$ 21.28$ /person /sq. m. /sq. m. /sq. m.
Pre- Financing Cost Residential Rates:Facilities
Single Family Dwelling 3.22 2,833.17$ Multiple unit dwelling 2.31 2,032.49$ Apartment - bach. & 1 bed 1.37 1,205.42$ Apartment - ≥ 2 bedroom 1.92 1,689.34$
Total net cost eligible for DC rate calculation purposes
Project DescriptionProject #
NON -
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Commercial InstitutionalNon
-gro
wth
sha
re
RES
IDEN
TIAL
Subt
otal
Subt
otal
Expe
cted
Yea
r
Tota
l Estim
ated
Cos
t
Less
: fut
ure
capi
tal g
rant
s, sub
sidi
es o
r oth
er
cont
ribut
ions
ant
icipat
ed
Less
: Por
tion
of G
ross
Pro
ject
Cos
t Fun
ded
In P
rior Y
ears
Less
: Fu
ture
gro
wth
ben
efits
(por
tion
of
grow
th c
osts a
ttrib
utab
le to
gro
wth
exp
ecte
d
to o
ccur
bey
ond
plan
ning
hor
izon
for t
his
serv
ice)
Subt
otal
Development Charge Rate Calculation (Pre-Financing Cost)
Less: Portion of above works collected in prior years (approximate uncommitted balance in DC reserve fund at December 31,
Industrial
Net
Am
ount
Elig
ible
for D
C ra
te cal
cula
tion
Less
: Am
ount
inel
igib
le fo
r rat
e ca
lculat
ion
-
impr
ovem
ent o
ver e
xist
ing
stan
dard
(see
Su
pple
men
t A if
app
licab
le)
Less
: 10%
sta
tuto
ry d
educ
tion
(if a
pplic
able
)
192
TABLE M-2 – CASH FLOW ANALYSIS AND FINAL RATE CALCULATION– STORM SEWER & STORM WATER MANAGEMENT WORKS - CSRF FUNDED Service component : Storm Water Management - CSRF ($'s in thousands)
FINAL RESULT 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Total
Planning Horizon - yrs 20
Pre-Financing DC Rate
Post-Financing DC Rate
% Collected assumption
Growth projection for each year of forecast period
Growth - Res. (Persons In New Housing) 101,317 905.78$ 1,068.87$ 100% 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 101,316.9 Growth - Non-Res. (sq. m.) -$
Commercial 479,364 28.02$ 33.07$ 100% 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 479,364.0 Institutional 390,194 17.29$ 20.39$ 100% 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 390,193.6 C/I subtotal 869,558 -$ 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 869,557.6 Industrial 678,192 22.85$ 26.96$ 100% 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 678,191.6
Total Non-Res. 1,547,749 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 1,547,749.2
Reserve Fund Projections:Opening Surplus / <Deficit> $.0 -$8,108.5 -$21,265.0 -$26,848.9 -$31,482.4 -$27,762.7 -$28,085.7 -$36,533.8 -$42,453.2 -$45,428.9 -$44,451.3 -$38,996.4 -$38,669.7 -$37,894.2 -$39,299.5 -$39,970.5 -$44,868.7 -$40,492.6 -$34,629.4 -$28,560.9 $.0Revenues - Development Charge Collections
Residential $5,414.7 $5,414.7 $5,414.7 $5,414.7 $5,414.7 $5,414.7 $5,414.7 $5,414.7 $5,414.7 $5,414.7 $5,414.7 $5,414.7 $5,414.7 $5,414.7 $5,414.7 $5,414.7 $5,414.7 $5,414.7 $5,414.7 $5,414.7 $108,294.8Non-Res.
Commercial $792.5 $792.5 $792.5 $792.5 $792.5 $792.5 $792.5 $792.5 $792.5 $792.5 $792.5 $792.5 $792.5 $792.5 $792.5 $792.5 $792.5 $792.5 $792.5 $792.5 $15,851.0Institutional $397.8 $397.8 $397.8 $397.8 $397.8 $397.8 $397.8 $397.8 $397.8 $397.8 $397.8 $397.8 $397.8 $397.8 $397.8 $397.8 $397.8 $397.8 $397.8 $397.8 $7,955.6C/I subtotal $1,190.3 $1,190.3 $1,190.3 $1,190.3 $1,190.3 $1,190.3 $1,190.3 $1,190.3 $1,190.3 $1,190.3 $1,190.3 $1,190.3 $1,190.3 $1,190.3 $1,190.3 $1,190.3 $1,190.3 $1,190.3 $1,190.3 $1,190.3 $23,806.5Industrial $914.4 $914.4 $914.4 $914.4 $914.4 $914.4 $914.4 $914.4 $914.4 $914.4 $914.4 $914.4 $914.4 $914.4 $914.4 $914.4 $914.4 $914.4 $914.4 $914.4 $18,287.2
Total Non-Res. $2,104.7 $2,104.7 $2,104.7 $2,104.7 $2,104.7 $2,104.7 $2,104.7 $2,104.7 $2,104.7 $2,104.7 $2,104.7 $2,104.7 $2,104.7 $2,104.7 $2,104.7 $2,104.7 $2,104.7 $2,104.7 $2,104.7 $2,104.7 $42,093.8
Total revenues $7,519.4 $7,519.4 $7,519.4 $7,519.4 $7,519.4 $7,519.4 $7,519.4 $7,519.4 $7,519.4 $7,519.4 $7,519.4 $7,519.4 $7,519.4 $7,519.4 $7,519.4 $7,519.4 $7,519.4 $7,519.4 $7,519.4 $7,519.4 $150,388.6Development Charge draws - calculated on separate page $15,488.5 $20,170.7 $12,275.8 $11,149.7 $2,780.8 $6,881.8 $14,856.2 $12,080.3 $8,983.7 $4,996.0 $629.3 $5,857.0 $5,427.1 $7,597.1 $6,827.0 $10,958.5 $1,675.3 $364.1 $364.1 $364.1 $149,727.0Closing surplus / <deficit> before interest -$7,969.1 -$20,759.8 -$26,021.4 -$30,479.2 -$26,743.8 -$27,125.1 -$35,422.4 -$41,094.7 -$43,917.4 -$42,905.4 -$37,561.2 -$37,334.0 -$36,577.4 -$37,971.9 -$38,607.1 -$43,409.5 -$39,024.5 -$33,337.3 -$27,474.1 -$21,405.6 $661.5Non-inflationary interest revenue /<expense>
on savings 1.75% $.0on borrowings 3.50% -$139.5 -$505.2 -$827.5 -$1,003.2 -$1,019.0 -$960.5 -$1,111.4 -$1,358.5 -$1,511.5 -$1,545.9 -$1,435.2 -$1,335.8 -$1,316.8 -$1,327.7 -$1,363.4 -$1,459.2 -$1,468.1 -$1,292.0 -$1,086.8 -$874.4 -$22,941.5
Closing surplus / <deficit> -$8,108.5 -$21,265.0 -$26,848.9 -$31,482.4 -$27,762.7 -$28,085.7 -$36,533.8 -$42,453.2 -$45,428.9 -$44,451.3 -$38,996.4 -$38,669.7 -$37,894.2 -$39,299.5 -$39,970.5 -$44,868.7 -$40,492.6 -$34,629.4 -$28,560.9 -$22,280.0 -$22,280.0
Target which reflects growth costs incurred in the forecast period and recoverable from future grow -$22,280.0
Explanatory note
Method: 1 Set Post financing rate = Pre financing rate - model projects revenues and draws and projects RF balances (ie. copy values from D13-D18 to E13-E18)2
3 Using "SOLVER" make balance at end of planning horizon = tot "Target " balance by allowing "Post financing rates" to vary from "Pre-financing rates". Other Information: Pre Post
Residential share 72% 72%Non-residential
Commercial 11% 11%Institutional 5% 5%C/I subtotal 16% 16%Industrial 12% 12%
This worksheet projects future activity in this reserve fund. It ultimately determines the rates necessary to recover all costs intended for recovery from growth (including financing costs). The deficit in the fund at the end of the planning horizon reflects costs intended for recovery from future growth.
Set ratio of Pre financing revenues = Post financing revenues (ie. copy values from C47-C52 to D47-D52). This ensures that ratio of revenues stays constant throughout rate re-calculation process.
193
Appendix N –Storm Sewers / Stormwater Management Works - UWRF Funded Almost all storm drainage and stormwater management facility work is growth related and therefore CSRF or UWRF recoverable. The Storm Drainage/Stormwater Management DC Update prepared by AECOM provided the vehicle for determining the growth related storm drainage costs incorporated in the DC rate calculations. The storm drainage works included for cost determination purposes were:
• Trunk / oversized storm sewers • Stormwater Management Facilities and related outfalls • Open watercourses including creeks, channels, etc.
This appendix summarizes the methods applied to forecast and estimate costs for projected storm drainage works. More detailed information is available in the AECOM Storm Drainage/Stormwater Management Servicing Development Charges Update 2008. Policy Considerations In January of 2008 City Council approved adjustments to the policies of the funding sources for growth works. The result has been a shift in funding responsibility for SWM works between the City Services and Urban Works Reserve Funds. Following considerable industry consultation, the following policy adjustments were brought forward:
(a) Development charges will fund storm sewer servicing for new growth serving catchments greater than 20 hectares and services for areas less than this will be at the proponent developer’s expense.
(b) Moving to the province-wide norm, eligible storm claims will cover only the oversizing component of infrastructure that benefits upstream development with the proponent developer carrying “local benefit” costs. In cases where oversizing may apply, a 1050mm diameter sewer was considered to be roughly equivalent to a service area of 30 ha. An oversizing subsidy based on a pipe size differential will be eligible for UWRF claims as shown in AECOM Table 4.5.3 Pipe Size Credit Amount Table
(c) Existing agreements executed prior to commencement date of the new DC By-law will continue to be administered under “old” rules (ie.grandfathered).
(d) New stormwater management facilities not already identified in executed development agreements at the commencement date of the by-law and serving catchments greater than 50 hectares will in future be funded from the CSRF due to their regional nature. New SWM facilities falling below the 50 ha. threshold will continue to be funded from UWRF (under “new” rules) in the future, recoverable under the policies that govern that fund.
(e) A construction phasing strategy has been recommended for SWM facilities where the catchment area is greater than 60 hectares to avoid potential for technical problems associated with excessive retention times.
These new policy directions were incorporated into the AECOM Storm Drainage/Stormwater Management DC Update and are reflected in the 2009 DC rate calculation. Additional information on the application of both the old and new rules can be found in the 2009 DC by-law (Schedules 6 & 7).
194
DC Administration Storm servicing works can be either UWRF, CSRF or developer funded depending on the type of work, catchment area and benefiting end user. This section summarizes the working rules of the DC funds with respect to claimable storm servicing works. Additional details on the administration of DC Funds can be found in the 2009 DC by-law (Schedules 6 & 7).
(a) UWRF Administration The key operating tenets of the Urban Works Reserve Fund as they related to Storm Drainage / Stormwater Management works are:
o Works must ultimately appear in an executed Subdivision, Development or Consent agreement to be considered eligible for claim.
o Developers may construct claimable works identified in applicable development agreements in accordance with the terms of the agreement. Subject to the works qualifying as claimable, the developer that constructs the works may submit claims for completed works against the UWRF.
o The UWRF does not pay any claim unless there are sufficient funds to reimburse the claim. If the fund is depleted, all submitted and approved claims will be placed onto a chronological waiting list until the fund balance is replenished and claims can be paid.
o The initiating developer bears the cost of financing constructed works until the claim is paid out. Financing costs are not eligible for claim from the fund.
o Storm sewer oversizing claims are subject to an annual payment limit of $1M alone or in combination with sanitary and roadworks claims
o Going forward, stormwater management claims, including associated outfalls, will continue to be funded from a separately maintained UWRF – SWM fund with claims limited to an annual payment of $250,000.
(b) CSRF Administration
In the past, all stormwater management works were financed via UWRF. However, allowing developers to set the timing of construction for large regional facilities has led to issues regarding triggers for construction, land issues and cost-sharing disputes as these facilities typically serve multiple land owners. Catchment area size will now be used to determine whether SWM facilities will be managed under UWRF (developer-led) or CSRF (City
195
Administered). Additional information on CSRF funded SWM works can be found in Appendix M of this Development Charges Background Study. Project Identification The methods used in identifying storm drainage/stormwater management needs for the 2009-2028 planning horizon are described below. In the case of SWM facilities and open watercourse works, the DC update identifies a discrete project listing, while storm sewer oversizing requirements were estimated using a method of extrapolation. These project listings were developed based on the anticipated timing and location of development using the growth forecasts discussed in Appendix A of this Background Study.
(a) Future SWM Facilities The identified SWM facilities listed in the Storm Drainage/Stormwater Management DC Update were based on information provided to AECOM by City personnel. With the exception of the City’s southwest, most areas within the Urban Growth Boundary have had the benefit of a either a stormwater management Environmental Assessment or Master Drainage Plan making it possible to specifically identify or approximate required facilities. The list was then further refined consistent with the City’s GMIS and the proposed phasing strategy for larger ponds to represent the SWM facility work required for the next 20-year growth horizon. Required Open Watercourse works have been identified as line item projects together in the SWM facility listing. The identified UWRF funded stormwater management and open watercourse required works are listed in Table N-1. Each SWM facility has been identified in the project list by name, complete with ID, catchment area, land and facility costs, phasing requirements, timing, growth/non-growth allocations and UWRF/CSRF applicability. With more specific project descriptions, the City will have improved ability to monitor DC spending and provide regular, timely updates to the GMIS.
(b) Storm Sewer Oversizing Requirements In the absence of a Master Plan, AECOM applied known storm sewer servicing data from developed areas of the City to extrapolate future storm sewer requirements. Analyzing as-constructed data for five representative areas of the City, AECOM determined the total length of trunk sewer (assuming 1050mm min. dia.) required to serve the total associated service area and extrapolated their findings across the full GMIS 20-year growth area, excluding industrial areas. All works funded from the UWRF and anticipated to serve the growth area are listed in Table N-2. Establishing Cost Estimates The DC rate setting process requires the estimated costs assigned to identified growth works be reasonable and defensible. Prior to assigning costs, AECOM undertook a detailed costing analysis in consultation with representatives of the local development industry using previous project pricing and recent tenders, incorporating adjustments for inflation. All works have been cost estimated in 2009 dollars.
196
(a) Future SWM Facilities SWM facility estimates applied costing provided in the various stormwater management Master Plans and Environmental Assessment studies updated for inflation. The updated costs were then confirmed against recent tenders. Estimates for SWM facilities incorporated costs for inlet and outlet sewers (100m of each) to be financed from the same fund as the facility itself. The total gross cost over the 20 year planning horizon for these works (contained in Appendix N-1) is approximately $46.5M.. The amount includes a contingency for unforeseen SWM works in the amount of $1M over the 20 yr. planning horizon for this element.
(b) Storm Sewer Oversizing Requirements Storm sewer requirements emanate from both existing agreements and agreements not executed upon commencement date of the by-law.
1. Under existing agreements, the City estimates that approximately $9.5M of claims remain to be claimed and paid from the fund.
2. Under new agreements, the City is amending its cost sharing policy by
requiring a contribution for each oversized pipe equivalent to the local share of the pipe. In this regard, a trunk storm sewer extrapolation exercise was completed to forecast estimated gross costs of oversized sewers for the GMIS area. The gross costs for these storm pipes are approximated at $35.9M. The credit or subsidy payable on these works was estimated as follows :
i. Based on City of London design standards, calculations determined that a trunk sewer at an average slope of 0.5% would require a sewer diameter of 1050mm or greater to service a DC eligible catchment area of 20 hectares or greater. Smaller sewers are considered local and are to be provided at the Developer’s cost.
ii. Oversizing credits will be determined based on pipe size cost differential only as installation and restoration methods would be similar regardless of size.
iii. In determining the credit, the average cost of a 1050mm diameter pipe constructed at 5 metres depth was subtracted from the estimated sewer cost for each incremental size increase on a per metre basis. The remaining amount represents the oversizing subsidy (see AECOM Table 4.5.3 Pipe Size Credit Amount Table). The proponent developer is eligible to claim the credit (or subsidy) amount only.
iv. The net claimable amounts under these new cost sharing rules is forecasted at approximately $6.2M.
3. A contingency in the amount of $500k (net of local share borne by developer) has also been provided in the estimates in an attempt to cover some of the uncertainty related to forecasting oversized storm sewer works.
Together, over the next 20 years, the City estimates approximately $16.2M. in net claims for oversized storm pipes. These costs are incorporated into the rate calculations for claimable storm pipe works (Table N-1).
197
Post-Period Benefit Project Adjustments Adjustments were applied to rate calculations for works considered to benefit post-period growth (ie. beyond 20 years) to ensure the calculated growth burden incorporated into the DC Rate calculation matches the planning horizon. SWM facilities serving areas outside the GMIS growth area, including a large part of southwest London were deferred beyond 2028. There was one isolated example ($1.9M - Stoney Creek SWMF 1N) of a post period benefit anticipated for a UWRF funded SWM work The proposed phasing strategy also resulted in the deferral of a portion of costs beyond the 20-year growth horizon. The cost of phasing a SWM facility on a 2-stage basis represents a 10% cost premium but allows 50% of facility costs (the latter construction stage) to be shifted beyond 2028. Allocation Splits
(a) Growth/Non-Growth In most cases, growth/non-growth splits do not apply to drainage and stormwater management works as these projects are almost always completely growth related. New pipe works are driven by growth needs and have no non-growth component. SWM facilities and their related components are also considered to be 100% growth driven. There can be special cases where a quantity control facility helps remediate existing downstream flooding, in which case non-growth shares are typically determined on a land area rating basis. .
(b) Residential/ICI Storm drainage/stormwater management RES/ICI allocations were based on the population and area information provided by the City of London for the 20-year growth period within the GMIS boundary and benefiting land use (Residential, Institutional, Commercial, Industrial) percentages were determined based on this. In the case of Storm and SWM facilities claimable from UWRF, those works primarily serving industrial areas were removed from future needs. As a result, the residential, commercial and institutional percentages were revised to remove any allocation to Industrial. The following percentages were applied to Storm Sewer and SWM facilities:
Residential Institutional Commercial Industrial 82% 6% 12% 0%
Final Costs for DC Rate Calculation The required storm servicing works identified in the AECOM Storm Drainage/Stormwater Management Servicing Development Charges Update 2008 form the basis for determining development charges for the CSRF and/or UWRF and represent the numerator in the rate calculation. The final gross costs used to calculate DC rates for UWRF claimable storm servicing works and SWM facilities combined is approximately $94M (see Tables N-1 & N-2). Uncommitted Reserve Funds The uncommitted balance of the UWRF is netted against the determined total net growth servicing costs. For SWM facility costs, the above costs figures are reduced by the $5.0M balance in the SWM portion of the UWRF for the final calculated DC rate. The uncommitted balance in the UWRF General reserve funds (used for funding storm sewer oversizing) is negligible as a result of a backlog in claims and no balance was taken into account in computing rates.
198
Financing Costs In calculating the final DC rate, financing costs were ignored for UWRF eligible storm servicing as UWRF identified works are constructed by the developer who is responsible for financing the cost of claimable work until such time as the fund is able to reimburse that cost. Council’s Intention to Meet Growth Needs The growth needs identified within this Appendix have been extracted from the AECOM Storm Drainage/Stormwater Management DC Update. It is Council’s stated intention to “provide for the needs of growth in a way that does not jeopardize the long term financial health of the municipality, or place an undue burden on existing taxpayers” (Official Plan Policy 2.6.3). NOTE: All storm drainage and stormwater management works are to be designed and constructed as per the City’s design criteria and standards including addressing long-term operation and maintenance aspects. An examination of long term Storm Drainage/Stormwater Management operating costs for growth needs is included in Appendix O of this Background Study.
199
TABLE N-1 –OVERSIZED STORM SEWERS –UWRF FUNDED
Service component : Storm Water Management - Storm Sewer Servicing - UWRFPlanning horizon for this component : 2009-2028
% benefit % $ % $ % $ % $(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21)
(all $'s in ,000's) (1) - sum(2,3) (4) * (5) (4) - (6) (7) * (8) [(7) - (9)] * 10%(7) - sum(9,10) (11) - (12) (13) * (14) (13) * (16) (13) * (18) (13) * (20)Note 2 Note 1 Note 1 Note 1 Note 1 Note 1 Note 1
Storm Sewer Claims Proceeding Under Existing Rules39T-00514SPEYSIDE EAST CORP 2009-2028 $230.1 $230.1 $.0 $230.1 0.0% $.0 $.0 $230.1 $.0 $230.1 82% $188.7 12.0% $27.6 6.0% $13.8 0.0% $.0
39T-02509 DREWLO 2009-2028 $735.0 $735.0 $.0 $735.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $735.0 $.0 $735.0 82% $602.7 12.0% $88.2 6.0% $44.1 0.0% $.039T-03505 VISTA WOODS ESTATES INC 2009-2028 $485.0 $485.0 $.0 $485.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $485.0 $.0 $485.0 82% $397.7 12.0% $58.2 6.0% $29.1 0.0% $.039T-03518 CEDAR HOLLOW PHASE 2 2009-2028 $11.5 $11.5 $.0 $11.5 0.0% $.0 $.0 $11.5 $.0 $11.5 82% $9.4 12.0% $1.4 6.0% $.7 0.0% $.0M-302 DREWLO 2009-2028 $15.0 $15.0 $.0 $15.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $15.0 $.0 $15.0 82% $12.3 12.0% $1.8 6.0% $.9 0.0% $.0M-429 SIFTON 2009-2028 $335.2 $335.2 $.0 $335.2 0.0% $.0 $.0 $335.2 $.0 $335.2 82% $274.9 12.0% $40.2 6.0% $20.1 0.0% $.0M-446 RIDANIO 2009-2028 $7.0 $7.0 $.0 $7.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $7.0 $.0 $7.0 82% $5.7 12.0% $.8 6.0% $.4 0.0% $.0M-475 NORTH GREN LAND CORP. 2009-2028 $10.0 $10.0 $.0 $10.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $10.0 $.0 $10.0 82% $8.2 12.0% $1.2 6.0% $.6 0.0% $.0M-480 EGELTON WOODS ESTATES 2009-2028 $645.0 $645.0 $.0 $645.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $645.0 $.0 $645.0 82% $528.9 12.0% $77.4 6.0% $38.7 0.0% $.0M-501 LONDON HEALTH CENTRE 2009-2028 $75.0 $75.0 $.0 $75.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $75.0 $.0 $75.0 82% $61.5 12.0% $9.0 6.0% $4.5 0.0% $.0M-525 SUMMERSIDE SUB PH 11 2009-2028 $56.5 $56.5 $.0 $56.5 0.0% $.0 $.0 $56.5 $.0 $56.5 82% $46.3 12.0% $6.8 6.0% $3.4 0.0% $.0M-528 JACKSON LAND CORP - pipes 2009-2028 $1,356.2 $1,356.2 $.0 $1,356.2 0.0% $.0 $.0 $1,356.2 $.0 $1,356.2 82% $1,112.1 12.0% $162.7 6.0% $81.4 0.0% $.0M-529 SUMMERSIDE PHASE 10A 2009-2028 $53.9 $53.9 $.0 $53.9 0.0% $.0 $.0 $53.9 $.0 $53.9 82% $44.2 12.0% $6.5 6.0% $3.2 0.0% $.0M-548 CRNR 2009-2028 $172.2 $172.2 $.0 $172.2 0.0% $.0 $.0 $172.2 $.0 $172.2 82% $141.2 12.0% $20.7 6.0% $10.3 0.0% $.0M-549 1851 & 1871 SHORE ROAD 2009-2028 $500.0 $500.0 $.0 $500.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $500.0 $.0 $500.0 82% $410.0 12.0% $60.0 6.0% $30.0 0.0% $.0M-551 JACKSON LAND CORP. 2009-2028 $30.0 $30.0 $.0 $30.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $30.0 $.0 $30.0 82% $24.6 12.0% $3.6 6.0% $1.8 0.0% $.0M-562 SPEYSIDE EAST CORP. 2009-2028 $554.4 $554.4 $.0 $554.4 0.0% $.0 $.0 $554.4 $.0 $554.4 82% $454.6 12.0% $66.5 6.0% $33.3 0.0% $.0M-564 FOXHOLLOW DEV INC 2009-2028 $747.4 $747.4 $.0 $747.4 0.0% $.0 $.0 $747.4 $.0 $747.4 82% $612.9 12.0% $89.7 6.0% $44.8 0.0% $.0M-567 HIGHBURY ESTATES INC. (Z) 2009-2028 $539.3 $539.3 $.0 $539.3 0.0% $.0 $.0 $539.3 $.0 $539.3 82% $442.2 12.0% $64.7 6.0% $32.4 0.0% $.0M-571 FUTURE STREETS INC. 2009-2028 $32.0 $32.0 $.0 $32.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $32.0 $.0 $32.0 82% $26.2 12.0% $3.8 6.0% $1.9 0.0% $.0M-580 CEDAR HOLLOW 2009-2028 $700.5 $700.5 $.0 $700.5 0.0% $.0 $.0 $700.5 $.0 $700.5 82% $574.4 12.0% $84.1 6.0% $42.0 0.0% $.0M-602 BOSTWICK PHASE 2 2009-2028 $540.0 $540.0 $.0 $540.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $540.0 $.0 $540.0 82% $442.8 12.0% $64.8 6.0% $32.4 0.0% $.0M-603 MEADOWLILLY WOODS 2009-2028 $25.0 $25.0 $.0 $25.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $25.0 $.0 $25.0 82% $20.5 12.0% $3.0 6.0% $1.5 0.0% $.0
M-604 CLEARDALE RAVINE SUBDIVISION 2009-2028 $264.0 $264.0 $.0 $264.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $264.0 $.0 $264.0 82% $216.5 12.0% $31.7 6.0% $15.8 0.0% $.0$8,120.2 $.0 $.0 $8,120.2 $.0 $8,120.2 $.0 $.0 $8,120.2 $.0 $8,120.2 $6,658.6 $974.4 $487.2 $.0
Storm Sewer Claims Proceeding Under New Rules But Awaiting New Engineering Claim's Estimates From Developers39T-03508 2332 WICKERSON ROAD 2009-2028 $90.0 $72.0 $18.0 $.0 $18.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $18.0 $.0 $18.0 82% $14.8 12.0% $2.2 6.0% $1.1 0.0% $.039T-04503 1139 FANSHAWE PARK RD W 2009-2028 $665.0 $532.0 $133.0 $.0 $133.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $133.0 $.0 $133.0 82% $109.1 12.0% $16.0 6.0% $8.0 0.0% $.039T-04510 1284/1388 SUNNINDALE RD W 2009-2028 $1,027.0 $821.6 $205.4 $.0 $205.4 0.0% $.0 $.0 $205.4 $.0 $205.4 82% $168.4 12.0% $24.6 6.0% $12.3 0.0% $.0
39T-04513NW CRNR RICHMOND & SUNNINGDA 2009-2028 $49.0 $39.2 $9.8 $.0 $9.8 0.0% $.0 $.0 $9.8 $.0 $9.8 82% $8.0 12.0% $1.2 6.0% $.6 0.0% $.0
39T-05505 DREWLO HOLDINGS INC. 2009-2028 $1,350.0 $1,080.0 $270.0 $.0 $270.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $270.0 $.0 $270.0 82% $221.4 12.0% $32.4 6.0% $16.2 0.0% $.039T-05510 2047790 ONTARIO INC. 2009-2028 $648.0 $518.4 $129.6 $.0 $129.6 0.0% $.0 $.0 $129.6 $.0 $129.6 82% $106.3 12.0% $15.6 6.0% $7.8 0.0% $.0
39T-05511 1196 SUNNINGDALE ROAD WEST 2009-2028 $1,000.0 $800.0 $200.0 $.0 $200.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $200.0 $.0 $200.0 82% $164.0 12.0% $24.0 6.0% $12.0 0.0% $.039T-05512 995 FANSHAWE PARK RD W 2009-2028 $370.0 $296.0 $74.0 $.0 $74.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $74.0 $.0 $74.0 82% $60.7 12.0% $8.9 6.0% $4.4 0.0% $.0
39T-06510 1812 WONDERLAND ROAD NORTH 2009-2028 $142.0 $113.6 $28.4 $.0 $28.4 0.0% $.0 $.0 $28.4 $.0 $28.4 82% $23.3 12.0% $3.4 6.0% $1.7 0.0% $.039T-07501 849 SOUTHDALE ROAD WEST 2009-2028 $300.0 $240.0 $60.0 $.0 $60.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $60.0 $.0 $60.0 82% $49.2 12.0% $7.2 6.0% $3.6 0.0% $.0
39T-07507 1959 WHARNCLIFFE ROAD SOUTH 2009-2028 $100.0 $80.0 $20.0 $.0 $20.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $20.0 $.0 $20.0 82% $16.4 12.0% $2.4 6.0% $1.2 0.0% $.039T-3747 ANSARI & ASSOCIATES 2009-2028 $100.0 $80.0 $20.0 $.0 $20.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $20.0 $.0 $20.0 82% $16.4 12.0% $2.4 6.0% $1.2 0.0% $.039T-99502 SAM KATZ 2009-2028 $850.0 $680.0 $170.0 $.0 $170.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $170.0 $.0 $170.0 82% $139.4 12.0% $20.4 6.0% $10.2 0.0% $.0
39T-99516WARREN MATERIAL & PAVING - pipes 2009-2028 $177.0 $141.6 $35.4 $.0 $35.4 0.0% $.0 $.0 $35.4 $.0 $35.4 82% $29.0 12.0% $4.2 6.0% $2.1 0.0% $.0
$6,868.0 $5,494.4 $.0 $1,373.6 $.0 $1,373.6 $.0 $.0 $1,373.6 $.0 $1,373.6 $1,126.4 $164.8 $82.4 $.0
Additional Storm Sewer Projects (note 3) 2009-2028 $2,500.0 $2,000.0 $500.0 $.0 $500.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $500.0 $.0 $500.0 82% $410.0 12.0% $60.0 6.0% $30.0 0.0% $.0
SWM Area 2- Claimable Works
39T-99516WARREN MATERIAL & PAVING - pond 2009-2028 $59.1 $59.1 $.0 $59.1 0.0% $.0 $.0 $59.1 $.0 $59.1 82% $48.5 12.0% $7.1 6.0% $3.5 0.0% $.0
M-528 JACKSON LAND CORP - pond 2009-2028 $1,375.0 $1,375.0 $.0 $1,375.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $1,375.0 $.0 $1,375.0 82% $1,127.5 12.0% $165.0 6.0% $82.5 0.0% $.0$1,434.1 $.0 $.0 $1,434.1 $.0 $1,434.1 $.0 $.0 $1,434.1 $.0 $1,434.1 $1,176.0 $172.1 $86.0 $.0
Storm Sewer Pipes - UWRF going forward (Table 4.5.2)GMIS Area - pipes 2009-2028 $28,999.4 $24,128.4 $4,871.1 $.0 $4,871.1 0.0% $.0 $.0 $4,871.1 $.0 $4,871.1 82% $3,994.3 12.0% $584.5 6.0% $292.3 0.0% $.0
TOTAL $47,921.8 $31,622.8 $.0 $16,299.0 $.0 $16,299.0 $.0 $.0 $16,299.0 $.0 $16,299.0 82.0% $13,365.2 12.0% $1,955.9 6.0% $977.9 0.0% $.0
Residential Commercial Institutional Industrial
$.0 94.2% $.0 4.2% $.0 1.7% $.0 0.0% $.0Notes:
1) $16,299.0 82.0% $13,365.2 12.0% $1,955.9 6.0% $977.9 0.0% $.02) Projects have undefined timetable at present and therefore are split over 20 year horizon. Divided By: Total Gross Growth Projections 101,317 479,364 390,194 678,192
3) Calculated DC Rate - Pre-Financing 131.91$ 4.08$ 2.51$ -$ /person /sq. m. /sq. m. /sq. m.
Prefinancing - Residential Rate Summary Post Financing Jan 1, 2009 rateSewer SWMF Total Sewer SWMF Total
Single Family Dwelling 3.22 424.76$ 1,012.07$ 1,436.83$ 1,561.00 2,035.00 3,596.00 Multiple unit dwelling 2.31 304.72$ 726.05$ 1,030.77$ 1,467.81 1,913.44 3,381.26 Apartment - bach. & 1 bed 1.37 180.72$ 430.60$ 611.32$ 849.39 1,157.55 2,006.94 Apartment - ≥ 2 bedroom 1.92 253.28$ 603.47$ 856.75$ 1,190.39 1,622.62 2,813.01
This amount represents a contingency for projects, the location of which cannot be foreseen but are felt to be inevitable, in the net amount of $500K. (part of $4M provided for in AECOM tables)
Total net cost eligible for DC rate calculation purposes
Total estimated cost, non-growth share, and RICI splits referenced from AECOM "City of London Storm Drainage/SWM Servicing Development Charge Update 2008" tables dated Mar 24 09.
Less
: Fu
ture
gro
wth
ben
efits
(por
tion
of g
rowth
cos
ts a
ttribut
able to
gro
wth
ex
pected
to o
ccur
bey
ond
plan
ning
ho
rizon
for t
his se
rvice)
Sub
tota
l
Development Charge Rate Calculation (Pre-Financing Cost)
Less: Portion of above works collected in prior years (approximate uncommitted balance in DC reserve fund at December 31,
Industrial
Net
Am
ount
Elig
ible fo
r DC ra
te
calculat
ion
Less
: Am
ount
ineligible fo
r rat
e ca
lculat
ion
- im
prov
emen
t ove
r existin
g stan
dard
(see
Sup
plem
ent A
if
appl
icab
le)
Less
: 10%
sta
tuto
ry d
educ
tion
(if
applicab
le)
Exp
ecte
d Ye
ar
Tota
l Estim
ated
Cos
t
Less
: fut
ure
capi
tal g
rant
s, sub
sidi
es o
r ot
her c
ontri
butio
ns a
nticipat
ed
Less
: Por
tion
of G
ross
Pro
ject C
ost
Fund
ed In
Prio
r Yea
rs
Allocation of Net Amount to types of GrowthAmount Eligible for Development Charge Rate Calculations
NON -
RESI
DEN
TIAL
Commercial InstitutionalNon
-gro
wth
sha
re
RESI
DEN
TIAL
Sub
tota
l
Project # Project Description Sub
tota
l
200
TABLE N-2 –STORM WATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES – UWRF FUNDED
Service component : Storm Water Management Facilities - UWRFPlanning horizon for this component : 2009-2028
% benefit % $ % $ % $ % $(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21)
(all $'s in ,000's) (1) - sum(2,3) (4) * (5) (4) - (6) (7) * (8) [(7) - (9)] * 10(7) - sum(9,10) (11) - (12) (13) * (14) (13) * (16) (13) * (18) (13) * (20)
Storm Water Management Facilities- Claimable WorksNote 2) Note 1) Note 1) Note 1) Note 1) Note 1) Note 1) Note 1)
Total Grandfathered UWRF in Linked Systems
Stoney Creek Flood On-line facility 2009-2028 $3,530.0 $3,530.0 0.0% $.0 $3,530.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $3,530.0 $.0 $3,530.0 82% $2,894.6 12% $423.6 6% $211.8 0% $.0Stoney Creek SWMF 7.1 2009-2028 $831.1 $831.1 0.0% $.0 $831.1 0.0% $.0 $.0 $831.1 $.0 $831.1 82% $681.5 12% $99.7 6% $49.9 0% $.0Stoney SWMF 4 2009-2028 $1,341.1 $1,341.1 0.0% $.0 $1,341.1 0.0% $.0 $.0 $1,341.1 $.0 $1,341.1 82% $1,099.7 12% $160.9 6% $80.5 0% $.0Stoney Creek SWMF 5 2009-2028 $1,161.1 $1,161.1 0.0% $.0 $1,161.1 0.0% $.0 $.0 $1,161.1 $.0 $1,161.1 82% $952.1 12% $139.3 6% $69.7 0% $.0Stoney Creek SWMF 2 2009-2028 $721.1 $721.1 0.0% $.0 $721.1 0.0% $.0 $.0 $721.1 $.0 $721.1 82% $591.3 12% $86.5 6% $43.3 0% $.0Stoney Creek SWMF 1N 2009-2028 $4,526.7 $4,526.7 43.0% $1,945.0 $2,581.7 0.0% $.0 $.0 $2,581.7 $.0 $2,581.7 82% $2,117.0 12% $309.8 6% $154.9 0% $.0Fox Hollow SWMF 4 2009-2028 $3,976.7 $3,976.7 0.0% $.0 $3,976.7 0.0% $.0 $.0 $3,976.7 $.0 $3,976.7 82% $3,260.9 12% $477.2 6% $238.6 0% $.0Pincombe Drain SWMF 3 2009-2028 $1,731.1 $1,731.1 0.0% $.0 $1,731.1 0.0% $.0 $.0 $1,731.1 $.0 $1,731.1 82% $1,419.5 12% $207.7 6% $103.9 0% $.0
Subtotal $17,818.9 $.0 $.0 $17,818.9 10.9% $1,945.0 $15,873.9 0.0% $.0 $.0 $15,873.9 $.0 $15,873.9 82.0% $13,016.6 12.0% $1,904.9 6.0% $952.4 0.0% $.0
Total Grandfathered UWRF Within GMIS BoundarySunningdale SWMF 6A 2009-2028 $1,021.1 $1,021.1 0.0% $.0 $1,021.1 0.0% $.0 $.0 $1,021.1 $.0 $1,021.1 82% $837.3 12% $122.5 6% $61.3 0% $.0Sunningdale SWMF 8A 2009-2028 $1,441.1 $1,441.1 0.0% $.0 $1,441.1 0.0% $.0 $.0 $1,441.1 $.0 $1,441.1 82% $1,181.7 12% $172.9 6% $86.5 0% $.0Sunningdale SWMF 7 2009-2028 $2,416.7 $2,416.7 0.0% $.0 $2,416.7 0.0% $.0 $.0 $2,416.7 $.0 $2,416.7 82% $1,981.7 12% $290.0 6% $145.0 0% $.0SWMF NB( Wickerson Area) 2009-2028 $3,136.7 $3,136.7 0.0% $.0 $3,136.7 0.0% $.0 $.0 $3,136.7 $.0 $3,136.7 82% $2,572.1 12% $376.4 6% $188.2 0% $.0
Subtotal $8,015.6 $.0 $.0 $8,015.6 0.0% $.0 $8,015.6 0.0% $.0 $.0 $8,015.6 $.0 $8,015.6 82.0% $6,572.8 12.0% $961.9 6.0% $480.9 0.0% $.0
Total UWRF Going Forward Within GMIS Boundary
Sunningdale SWMF D/Uplands North SWMF D 2009-2028 $691.1 $691.1 0.0% $.0 $691.1 0.0% $.0 $.0 $691.1 $.0 $691.1 82% $566.7 12% $82.9 6% $41.5 0% $.0Sunningdale SWMF 6C 2009-2028 $1,051.1 $1,051.1 0.0% $.0 $1,051.1 0.0% $.0 $.0 $1,051.1 $.0 $1,051.1 82% $861.9 12% $126.1 6% $63.1 0% $.0Sunningdale SWMF B 2009-2028 $1,121.1 $1,121.1 0.0% $.0 $1,121.1 0.0% $.0 $.0 $1,121.1 $.0 $1,121.1 82% $919.3 12% $134.5 6% $67.3 0% $.0Dingman Tributary D SWMF 2 2009-2028 $1,311.1 $1,311.1 0.0% $.0 $1,311.1 0.0% $.0 $.0 $1,311.1 $.0 $1,311.1 82% $1,075.1 12% $157.3 6% $78.7 0% $.0Sunningdale SWMF E1/Uplands North SWMF C 2009-2028 $1,731.1 $1,731.1 0.0% $.0 $1,731.1 0.0% $.0 $.0 $1,731.1 $.0 $1,731.1 82% $1,419.5 12% $207.7 6% $103.9 0% $.0SWMF SB 2009-2028 $2,201.1 $2,201.1 0.0% $.0 $2,201.1 0.0% $.0 $.0 $2,201.1 $.0 $2,201.1 82% $1,804.9 12% $264.1 6% $132.1 0% $.0Kilally South West Basin 2009-2028 $1,991.1 $1,991.1 0.0% $.0 $1,991.1 0.0% $.0 $.0 $1,991.1 $.0 $1,991.1 82% $1,632.7 12% $238.9 6% $119.5 0% $.0
Subtotal $10,097.8 $.0 $.0 $10,097.8 0.0% $.0 $10,097.8 0.0% $.0 $.0 $10,097.8 $.0 $10,097.8 82.0% $8,280.2 12.0% $1,211.7 6.0% $605.9 0.0% $.0
Preliminary Grandfathered SWM claims (Table 4.2A)
39T-02500 CITY OF LONDON 2009 $136.2 $136.2 0.0% $.0 $136.2 0.0% $.0 $.0 $136.2 $.0 $136.2 82% $111.7 12% $16.3 6% $8.2 0% $.039T-07501 849 SOUTHDALE ROAD WEST 2009 $310.0 $310.0 0.0% $.0 $310.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $310.0 $.0 $310.0 82% $254.2 12% $37.2 6% $18.6 0% $.039T-07507 1959 WHARNCLIFFE ROAD SOUTH 2009 $681.0 $681.0 0.0% $.0 $681.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $681.0 $.0 $681.0 82% $558.4 12% $81.7 6% $40.9 0% $.0M-403 LAMBETH MEADOWS PARTNERSHIP 2009 $30.0 $30.0 0.0% $.0 $30.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $30.0 $.0 $30.0 82% $24.6 12% $3.6 6% $1.8 0% $.0M-458 SPEYSIDE EAST CORP 2009 $513.1 $513.1 0.0% $.0 $513.1 0.0% $.0 $.0 $513.1 $.0 $513.1 82% $420.7 12% $61.6 6% $30.8 0% $.0M-462 ZEBRO HOLDINGS 2009 $25.0 $25.0 0.0% $.0 $25.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $25.0 $.0 $25.0 82% $20.5 12% $3.0 6% $1.5 0% $.0M-491 WALLOY EXCAVATING 2009 $1,570.8 $1,570.8 0.0% $.0 $1,570.8 0.0% $.0 $.0 $1,570.8 $.0 $1,570.8 82% $1,288.1 12% $188.5 6% $94.3 0% $.0M-540 MONARCH 2009 $1,678.6 $1,678.6 0.0% $.0 $1,678.6 0.0% $.0 $.0 $1,678.6 $.0 $1,678.6 82% $1,376.4 12% $201.4 6% $100.7 0% $.0M-546 1640209 ONTARIO LIMITED 2009 $186.7 $186.7 0.0% $.0 $186.7 0.0% $.0 $.0 $186.7 $.0 $186.7 82% $153.1 12% $22.4 6% $11.2 0% $.0M-567 HIGHBURY ESTATES INC. (Z) 2009 $1,124.4 $1,124.4 0.0% $.0 $1,124.4 0.0% $.0 $.0 $1,124.4 $.0 $1,124.4 82% $922.0 12% $134.9 6% $67.5 0% $.0M-568 DOMAN 2009 $625.0 $625.0 0.0% $.0 $625.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $625.0 $.0 $625.0 82% $512.5 12% $75.0 6% $37.5 0% $.0M-583 DREWLO 2009 $350.0 $350.0 0.0% $.0 $350.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $350.0 $.0 $350.0 82% $287.0 12% $42.0 6% $21.0 0% $.0M-593 SUNNINGDALE G.C. LIMITED 2009 $1,035.8 $1,035.8 0.0% $.0 $1,035.8 0.0% $.0 $.0 $1,035.8 $.0 $1,035.8 82% $849.4 12% $124.3 6% $62.1 0% $.0M-596 810 WESTDEL BOURNE 2009 $15.0 $15.0 0.0% $.0 $15.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $15.0 $.0 $15.0 82% $12.3 12% $1.8 6% $.9 0% $.0M-604 CLEARDALE RAVINE SUBDIVISION 2009 $86.5 $86.5 0.0% $.0 $86.5 0.0% $.0 $.0 $86.5 $.0 $86.5 82% $70.9 12% $10.4 6% $5.2 0% $.0SP-01082 SOUTHSIDE 2009 $1,167.2 $1,167.2 0.0% $.0 $1,167.2 0.0% $.0 $.0 $1,167.2 $.0 $1,167.2 82% $957.1 12% $140.1 6% $70.0 0% $.0SP-05132 AMICA 2009 $80.0 $80.0 0.0% $.0 $80.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $80.0 $.0 $80.0 82% $65.6 12% $9.6 6% $4.8 0% $.0
$9,615.4 $.0 $.0 $9,615.4 0.0% $.0 $9,615.4 0.0% $.0 $.0 $9,615.4 $.0 $9,615.4 82.0% $7,884.6 12.0% $1,153.8 6.0% $576.9 0.0% $.0
Additional SWM Projects (note 3) 2009-2028 $1,000.0 $1,000.0 0.0% $.0 $1,000.0 0.0% $.0 $.0 $1,000.0 $.0 $1,000.0 82% $820.0 12% $120.0 6% $60.0 0% $.0 PORTION OF PRIOR YEARS' GROWTH PROJECTS FINANCED WITH DEBT $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0
TOTAL $46,547.7 $.0 $.0 $46,547.7 4% $1,945.0 $44,602.7 0% $.0 $.0 $44,602.7 $.0 $44,602.7 82% $36,574.2 12% $5,352.3 6% $2,676.2 0% $.0
Residential Commercial Institutional Industrial
$5,022.3 94.2% $4,729.6 4.2% $209.3 1.7% $83.5 0.0% $.0Notes:
1)Total net cost eligible for DC rate calculation $39,580.4 80.5% $31,844.6 13.0% $5,143.0 6.6% $2,592.7 0.0% $.0
2) Some projects have undefined timetable at present and therefore are split over 20 year horizon. Divided By: Total Gross Growth Projections 101,317 479,364 390,194 678,1923)
Calculated DC Rate - Pre-Financing 314.31$ 10.73$ 6.64$ -$ /person /sq. m. /sq. m. /sq. m.
Pre- Financing Cost Residential Rates:Facilities
Single Family Dwelling 3.22 1,012.07$ Multiple unit dwelling 2.31 726.05$ Apartment - bach. & 1 bed 1.37 430.60$ Apartment - ≥ 2 bedroom 1.92 603.47$
This amount represents a contingency for projects, the location of which cannot be foreseen but are felt to be inevitable, in the net amount of $1M (part of $4M provided for in AECOM tables)
Total estimated cost, non-growth share, and RICI splits referenced from AECOM "City of London Storm Drainage/SWM Servicing Development Charge Update 2008" tables dated Mar 24 09
Allocation of Net Amount to types of GrowthAmount Eligible for Development Charge Rate Calculations
NO
N -
RESI
DEN
TIAL
Commercial InstitutionalNon
-gro
wth
sha
re
RESI
DEN
TIAL
Subt
otal
Project # Project Description Subt
otal
Expe
cted
Yea
r
Tota
l Est
imat
ed C
ost
Less
: fut
ure
capi
tal g
rant
s, s
ubsidi
es o
r oth
er
cont
ribut
ions
ant
icip
ated
Less
: Por
tion
of G
ross
Pro
ject
Cos
t Fun
ded
In
Prio
r Yea
rs
Less
: Fu
ture
gro
wth
ben
efits
(por
tion
of g
rowth
cost
s at
tribu
tabl
e to
gro
wth
exp
ecte
d to
occ
ur
beyo
nd p
lann
ing
horiz
on fo
r thi
s se
rvice)
Subt
otal
Development Charge Rate Calculation (Pre-Financing Cost)
Less: Portion of above works collected in prior years (approximate uncommitted balance in DC reserve fund at December 31, 2008)
Industrial
Net
Am
ount
Elig
ible
for D
C ra
te c
alcu
latio
n
Less
: Am
ount
inel
igib
le fo
r rat
e ca
lcul
atio
n -
impr
ovem
ent o
ver e
xist
ing
stan
dard
(see
Sup
plem
ent A
if a
pplic
able
)
Less
: 10%
sta
tuto
ry d
educ
tion
(if a
pplic
able
)
201
TABLE N-3 – CASH FLOW ANALYSIS AND FINAL RATE CALCULATION – OVERSIZED STORM SEWERS – UWRF FUNDED Service component : Oversized Storm Water Sewers ($'s in thousands)
FINAL RESULT 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Total
Planning Horizon - yrs 20
Pre-Financing DC
RatePost-Financing
DC Rate% Collected assumption
Growth projection for each year of forecast period
Growth - Res. (Persons In New Housing) 101,317 131.91$ 131.91$ 100% 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 101,316.9 Growth - Non-Res. (sq. m.) -$
Commercial 479,364.0 4.08$ 4.08$ 100% 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 479,364.0 Institutional 390,193.6 2.51$ 2.51$ 100% 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 390,193.6
C/I subtotal 869,557.6 -$ 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 869,557.6 Industrial 678,191.6 -$ (0.00)$ 100% 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 678,191.6
Total Non-Res. 1,547,749.2 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 1,547,749.2
Reserve Fund Projections:Opening Surplus / <Deficit> $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0Revenues - Development Charge Collections
Residential $668.3 $668.3 $668.3 $668.3 $668.3 $668.3 $668.3 $668.3 $668.3 $668.3 $668.3 $668.3 $668.3 $668.3 $668.3 $668.3 $668.3 $668.3 $668.3 $668.3 $13,365.2Non-Res.
Commercial $97.8 $97.8 $97.8 $97.8 $97.8 $97.8 $97.8 $97.8 $97.8 $97.8 $97.8 $97.8 $97.8 $97.8 $97.8 $97.8 $97.8 $97.8 $97.8 $97.8 $1,955.9Institutional $48.9 $48.9 $48.9 $48.9 $48.9 $48.9 $48.9 $48.9 $48.9 $48.9 $48.9 $48.9 $48.9 $48.9 $48.9 $48.9 $48.9 $48.9 $48.9 $48.9 $977.9C/I subtotal $146.7 $146.7 $146.7 $146.7 $146.7 $146.7 $146.7 $146.7 $146.7 $146.7 $146.7 $146.7 $146.7 $146.7 $146.7 $146.7 $146.7 $146.7 $146.7 $146.7 $2,933.8
Industrial $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0Total Non-Res. $146.7 $146.7 $146.7 $146.7 $146.7 $146.7 $146.7 $146.7 $146.7 $146.7 $146.7 $146.7 $146.7 $146.7 $146.7 $146.7 $146.7 $146.7 $146.7 $146.7 $2,933.8
Total revenues $814.9 $814.9 $814.9 $814.9 $814.9 $814.9 $814.9 $814.9 $814.9 $814.9 $814.9 $814.9 $814.9 $814.9 $814.9 $814.9 $814.9 $814.9 $814.9 $814.9 $16,299.0Development Charge draws - calculated on separate page $814.9 $814.9 $814.9 $814.9 $814.9 $814.9 $814.9 $814.9 $814.9 $814.9 $814.9 $814.9 $814.9 $814.9 $814.9 $814.9 $814.9 $814.9 $814.9 $814.9 $16,299.0Closing surplus / <deficit> before interest $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0Non-inflationary interest revenue /<expense>
on savings 1.75% $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0on borrowings 0.00% NO Financiinc ocsts paid $.0
Closing surplus / <deficit> $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0
Target which reflects growth costs incurred in the forecast period and recoverable from future growth $.0
Explanatory note
Method: 1 Set Post financing rate = Pre financing rate - model projects revenues and draws and projects RF balances (ie. copy values from D13-D18 to E13-E18)2
3 Using "SOLVER" make balance at end of planning horizon = tot "Target " balance by allowing "Post financing rates" to vary from "Pre-financing rates". Other Information: Pre Post
Residential share 82% 82%Non-residential
Commercial 12% 12%Institutional 6% 6%C/I subtotal 18% 18%Industrial 0% 0%
This worksheet projects future activity in this reserve fund. It ultimately determines the rates necessary to recover all costs intended for recovery from growth (including financing costs). The deficit in the fund at the end of the planning horizon ref
Set ratio of Pre financing revenues = Post financing revenues (ie. copy values from C47-C52 to D47-D52). This ensures that ratio of revenues stays constant throughout rate re-calculation process.
202
TABLE N-4 – CASH FLOW ANALYSIS AND FINAL RATE CALCULATION – STORM WATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES – UWRF FUNDED Service component : Storm Water Management - Claimable Works
($'s in thousands)
FINAL RESULT 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Total
Planning Horizon - yrs 20
Pre-Financing DC Rate
Post-Financing DC Rate
% Collected assumptio
n
Growth projection for each year of forecast period
Growth - Res. (Persons In New Housing) 101,317 314.31$ 314.29$ 100% 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 5,065.8 101,316.9 Growth - Non-Res. (sq. m.) -$
Commercial 479,364.0 10.73$ 10.72$ 100% 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 23,968.2 479,364.0 Institutional 390,193.6 6.64$ 6.64$ 100% 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 19,509.7 390,193.6 C/I subtotal 869,557.6 -$ 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 43,477.9 869,557.6 Industrial 678,191.6 -$ 0.00$ 100% 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 33,909.6 678,191.6
Total Non-Res. 1,547,749.2 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 77,387.5 1,547,749.2
Reserve Fund Projections:Opening Surplus / <Deficit> $5,022.3 -$4,456.0 -$4,323.8 -$4,191.7 -$4,059.5 -$3,927.4 -$3,795.2 -$3,663.1 -$3,530.9 -$3,398.7 -$3,266.6 -$3,134.4 -$3,002.3 -$2,870.1 -$2,737.9 -$2,605.8 -$2,473.6 -$2,341.5 -$2,209.3 -$2,077.2 $5,022.3Revenues - Development Charge Collections
Residential $1,592.1 $1,592.1 $1,592.1 $1,592.1 $1,592.1 $1,592.1 $1,592.1 $1,592.1 $1,592.1 $1,592.1 $1,592.1 $1,592.1 $1,592.1 $1,592.1 $1,592.1 $1,592.1 $1,592.1 $1,592.1 $1,592.1 $1,592.1 $31,842.4Non-Res.
Commercial $257.0 $257.0 $257.0 $257.0 $257.0 $257.0 $257.0 $257.0 $257.0 $257.0 $257.0 $257.0 $257.0 $257.0 $257.0 $257.0 $257.0 $257.0 $257.0 $257.0 $5,140.9Institutional $129.6 $129.6 $129.6 $129.6 $129.6 $129.6 $129.6 $129.6 $129.6 $129.6 $129.6 $129.6 $129.6 $129.6 $129.6 $129.6 $129.6 $129.6 $129.6 $129.6 $2,592.2C/I subtotal $386.7 $386.7 $386.7 $386.7 $386.7 $386.7 $386.7 $386.7 $386.7 $386.7 $386.7 $386.7 $386.7 $386.7 $386.7 $386.7 $386.7 $386.7 $386.7 $386.7 $7,733.0Industrial $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0
Total Non-Res. $386.7 $386.7 $386.7 $386.7 $386.7 $386.7 $386.7 $386.7 $386.7 $386.7 $386.7 $386.7 $386.7 $386.7 $386.7 $386.7 $386.7 $386.7 $386.7 $386.7 $7,733.0
Total revenues $1,978.8 $1,978.8 $1,978.8 $1,978.8 $1,978.8 $1,978.8 $1,978.8 $1,978.8 $1,978.8 $1,978.8 $1,978.8 $1,978.8 $1,978.8 $1,978.8 $1,978.8 $1,978.8 $1,978.8 $1,978.8 $1,978.8 $1,978.8 $39,575.5Development Charge draws - calculated on separate page $11,462.0 $1,846.6 $1,846.6 $1,846.6 $1,846.6 $1,846.6 $1,846.6 $1,846.6 $1,846.6 $1,846.6 $1,846.6 $1,846.6 $1,846.6 $1,846.6 $1,846.6 $1,846.6 $1,846.6 $1,846.6 $1,846.6 $1,846.6 $46,547.7Closing surplus / <deficit> before interest -$4,460.9 -$4,323.8 -$4,191.7 -$4,059.5 -$3,927.4 -$3,795.2 -$3,663.1 -$3,530.9 -$3,398.7 -$3,266.6 -$3,134.4 -$3,002.3 -$2,870.1 -$2,737.9 -$2,605.8 -$2,473.6 -$2,341.5 -$2,209.3 -$2,077.2 -$1,945.0 -$1,949.9Non-inflationary interest revenue /<expense>
on savings 1.75% $4.9 $4.9on borrowings 0.00% NO Financiinc ocsts paid $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0 $.0
Closing surplus / <deficit> -$4,456.0 -$4,323.8 -$4,191.7 -$4,059.5 -$3,927.4 -$3,795.2 -$3,663.1 -$3,530.9 -$3,398.7 -$3,266.6 -$3,134.4 -$3,002.3 -$2,870.1 -$2,737.9 -$2,605.8 -$2,473.6 -$2,341.5 -$2,209.3 -$2,077.2 -$1,945.0 -$1,945.0
Target which reflects growth costs incurred in the forecast period and recoverable from future growth -$1,945.0
Explanatory note
Method: 1 Set Post financing rate = Pre financing rate - model projects revenues and draws and projects RF balances (ie. copy values from D13-D18 to E13-E18)23 Using "SOLVER" make balance at end of planning horizon = tot "Target " balance by allowing "Post financing rates" to vary from "Pre-financing rates".
Other Information: Pre PostResidential share 80% 80%Non-residential
Commercial 13% 13%Institutional 7% 7%C/I subtotal 20% 20%Industrial 0% 0%
This worksheet projects future activity in this reserve fund. It ultimately determines the rates necessary to recover all costs intended for recovery from growth (including financing costs). The deficit in the fund at the end of the planning horizon reflects costs intended for recovery from future growth.
Set ratio of Pre financing revenues = Post financing revenues (ie. copy values from C47-C52 to D47-D52). This ensures that ratio of revenues stays constant throughout rate re-calculation process.
203
Appendix O – Examination of Operating Costs A further requirement of the Development Charge Background Study is that it contains an examination, for each service for which the development charge by-law would relate, of the long term capital and operating cost impacts for capital infrastructure for which a development charge is calculated (Development Charges Act, 1997, s.10(c)). This requirement is partially met by identifying the incremental operating costs associated with each growth related project. Where facilities or amenities are being expanded, only the incremental cost is reported. Where a network is expanded (e.g. sewer pipes or water pipes), the incremental operating costs may be derived from application of the average costs (of operating and maintaining the existing system) to the total linear length of operating the present system. A second part of the examination involves what the Act refers to as ‘the long term capital costs’ of the infrastructure required for the service. For the purpose of this examination, this has been interpreted to refer (consistent with previous DC studies) to mean ‘the eventual cost of replacement of the asset’. For the purpose of this analysis, we employ a sinking fund method. This method determines the equal annual contribution required to a sinking fund, such that at the end of the asset’s useful life, there is sufficient capital available to replace the asset. For the purpose of this analysis, the assumed growth rate of the sinking fund is 2.5% (net of inflation). The table below reflects the assumed average estimated useful lives of the growth related assets. The “factor” is applied to the original capital cost to determine the contribution that would be required for replacement of the asset at the end of its useful life.
AVERAGE USEFUL LIFE
(YEARS)FACTOR RATE
Facilities, Buildings 40 0.014836 2.5%Fire & Police Vehicles 15 0.055766 2.5%Transit Vehicles 12 0.072487 2.5%Fire and Police Equipment 8 0.114467 2.5%Sanitary, Storm 80 0.004026 2.5%Waterworks
Pipes and related works 70 0.005397 2.5%Pumping Stations 25 0.029276 2.5%Reservoirs 40 0.014836 2.5%Facilities, Buildings 40 0.014836 2.5%
Roads 20 0.039147 2.5%Library Collection Materials 7 0.132495 2.5%Parkland Development, Spray Pads 20 0.039147 2.5%
2009 DEVELOPMENT BACKGROUND STUDY
ASSETLIFECYCLE COST FACTORS
204
The combined analysis of operating costs, and replacement costs is reflected in the Summary Table O below (detailed figures are provided on TABLE O-1 (Soft Services) and TABLE O-2 (Hard Services). The figures reflect the approximate anticipated cost at the time the asset(s) in question have been constructed, acquired or emplaced. All figures are stated in 2009 un-inflated dollars. TABLE O – LIFE CYCLE AND OPERATING COST IMPACTS – SUMMARY
Annual Impact ($)
City of LondonCapital and Operating Impacts for Future Capital Expenditures
Project # Project Description Expected Year
Total Estimated Cost
Average Useful
Life(years)
Sinking Fund Factor
Life Cycle Cost
Operating Cost N
otes Total cos
TOTAL SOFT SERVICE - OPERATING IMPACTS $208,586,268 $4,748,188 $20,644,553 $24,318,879
TOTAL HARD SERVICE - OPERATING IMPACTS (see Table O-2) $1,521,072,457 $33,120,308 $38,225,945 $71,346,254
GRAND TOTAL ALL SERVICES - OPERATING IMPACTS $1,729,658,725 $37,868,496 $58,870,498 $95,665,132
City Services $1,383,339,272 $33,322,590 $51,466,555 $83,715,283Joint Water Board $162,213,395 $1,858,032 $3,947,910 $5,805,942Urban Works $184,106,058 $2,687,875 $3,456,033 $6,143,908
GRAND TOTAL ALL SERVICES - OPERATING IMPACTS $1,729,658,725 $37,868,496 $58,870,498 $95,665,132
205
TABLE O-1 – LIFE CYCLE AND OPERATING COST IMPACTS – “SOFT” SERVICES
Annual Impact ($)
City of LondonCapital and Operating Impacts for Future Capital Expenditures
Project # Project Description Expected Year
Total Estimated Cost
Average Useful
Life(years)
Sinking Fund Factor
Life Cycle Cost
Operating Cost N
otes Total cost
FireFacilityPP1086 Fire Station 14 - Hyde Park & Fanshawe Park Rd. 2009 $1,600,000 40 0.014836 $23,738 $41,000 $64,738
PP1087Fire Station 15 - South London (Hamilton between Clarke Rd. & Commissioners Rd.) 2014 $2,195,000 40 0.014836 $32,566 $41,000 $73,566
PP1088 Fire Stn 11 - Wharncliffe & Colonel Talbot Rd.- relocate 2013 $2,075,000 40 0.014836 $30,785 $0 $30,785
VehicleQuint - Station 15 2013 $865,000 15 0.055766 $48,238 $35,000 $83,238Engine - Station 14 2009 $430,000 15 0.055766 $23,980 $30,000 $53,980
OutfittingFire Fighter Outfitting Costs - Station 14 - 8 FF 2010 $24,000 8 0.114467 $2,747 $946,000 $948,747Fire Fighter Outfitting Costs - Station 15 - 20 FF 2014 $68,000 8 0.114467 $7,784 $2,251,000 $2,258,784
Total Fire $7,257,000 $169,837 $3,344,000 $3,513,837
Police
Facility New Police Building 2009 $7,290,000 40 0.014836 $474,759 $1,645,760 (6) $2,120,519Vehicle Motorcycle 2009 $26,964 8 0.114467 $3,086 $2,700 $5,786
Outfitting OutfittingOutfitting New Officers Required By Growth 2009-2018 $223,450 8 0.114467 $25,578 $4,785,000 (3) $4,810,578
Total Police $7,540,414 $503,424 $6,433,460 $6,936,884
Corporate Growth Studies $10,187,000 $0
LibraryFacilityRC3465 LSA 7 (Northeast) - Replace & Expand 2009 $2,540,000 40 0.014836 $37,684 $520,000 (4) $557,684RC3466 LSA 13 (Southeast) - Replace & Expand 2012 $3,500,000 40 0.014836 $51,927 $520,000 (4) $571,927RC3464 LSA 12 (Northwest) - New Branch 2017 $3,500,000 40 0.014836 $51,927 $520,000 (4) $571,927CollectionsRC3465 LSA 7 (Northeast) - Replace & Expand 2009 $210,000 7 0.132495 $27,824RC3466 LSA 13 (Southeast) - Replace & Expand 2012 $250,000 7 0.132495 $33,124RC3464 LSA 12 (Northwest) - New Branch 2017 $250,000 7 0.132495 $33,124
Total Library $10,250,000 $235,609 $1,560,000 $1,701,538
Parks & RecreationRecreation Facilities
Multi-Purpose Recreation CentresRC2762 RC2762 Multi Purpose Rec. Centre #1 (North) 2010
Indoor Swimming Pool 2010 $8,357,000 40 0.014836 $123,986 $417,850 (2) $541,836Gymnasium/ Fitness Area 2010 $7,235,000 40 0.014836 $107,340 $361,750 (2) $469,090Community Centre 2010 $2,104,707 40 0.014836 $31,226 $105,235 (2) $136,461Change Rooms 2010 $2,556,150 40 0.014836 $37,924 $127,808 (2) $165,731Fit out/ Permits/ Arch fees 2010 $3,089,000 40 0.014836 $45,829 $45,829Land / Infrastructure / Site Works 2010 $4,790,908 40 0.014836 $71,079 $71,079Library (Note 1) 2010 $0 40 0.014836 $0 $0Subtotal $28,132,765 $417,384 $1,012,643 $1,430,027
RC2755 RC2755 Multi Purpose Rec. Centre #2 (SW) 2015
Double Ice Pad Arena 2015 $8,436,000 40 0.014836 $125,158 $421,800 (2) $546,958Community Centre/ Gymnasium 2015 $15,125,000 40 0.014836 $224,398 $756,250 (2) $980,648Indoor Swimming Pool 2015 $8,750,000 40 0.014836 $129,817 $437,500 (2) $567,317Change Rooms 2015 $1,050,000 40 0.014836 $15,578 $52,500 (2) $68,078Furniture / Fittings / Equipment 2015 $1,500,000 40 0.014836 $22,254 $22,254Land / Infrastructure / Site Works / Arch. Fees 2015 $4,245,457 40 0.014836 $62,987 $62,987Subtotal $39,106,457 $580,193 $1,668,050 $2,248,243
RC2758 RC2758 Multi Purpose Rec. Centre #3 (SE) 2018
Double Ice Pad Arena 2018 $8,436,000 40 0.014836 $125,158 $421,800 (2) $546,958Community Centre/ Gymnasium 2018 $15,125,000 40 0.014836 $224,398 $756,250 (2) $980,648Indoor Swimming Pool 2018 $8,750,000 40 0.014836 $129,817 $437,500 (2) $567,317Change Rooms 2018 $1,050,000 40 0.014836 $15,578 $52,500 (2) $68,078Furniture / Fittings / Equipment 2018 $1,500,000 40 0.014836 $22,254 $22,254Land / Infrastructure / Site Works / Arch. Fees 2018 $4,380,832 40 0.014836 $64,995 $64,995Subtotal $39,241,832 $582,201 $1,668,050 $2,250,251
206
TABLE O-1 – LIFE CYCLE AND OPERATING COST IMPACTS – “SOFT” SERVICES
Annual Impact ($)
City of LondonCapital and Operating Impacts for Future Capital Expenditures
Project # Project Description Expected Year
Total Estimated Cost
Average Useful
Life(years)
Sinking Fund Factor
Life Cycle Cost
Operating Cost N
otes Total cost
Splash Pads
RC2772 Growth Related Spray Pad 2012 $400,000 20 0.039147 $15,659 $38,000 $53,659RC2772 Growth Related Spray Pad 2014 $400,000 20 0.039147 $15,659 $38,000 $53,659RC2772 Growth Related Spray Pad 2017 $400,000 20 0.039147 $15,659 $38,000 $53,659
INELIGIBLE AMOUNT - amount in excess of existing historical standard ( $0PORTION OF PRIOR YEARS' GROWTH PROJECTS FINANCED WITH DEBT $2,879,000
Sub total - Recreation Facilities $110,560,054 $1,626,754 $4,462,743 $6,089,497Parkland Development
Neighbourhood Parks (Note 1)PD1381 Egelton Woods 2009 $50,000 20 0.039147 $1,957 $5,000 (5) $6,957PD1381 Paul Haggis 2009 $100,000 20 0.039147 $3,915 $10,000 (5) $13,915PD1381 Lambeth Optimist 2009 $90,000 20 0.039147 $3,523 $9,000 (5) $12,523PD1381 Byron Hills 2010 $50,000 20 0.039147 $1,957 $5,000 (5) $6,957PD1381 Stephens Farm 2009 $40,000 20 0.039147 $1,566 $4,000 (5) $5,566PD1381 Beaverbrook Woods 2010 $70,000 20 0.039147 $2,740 $7,000 (5) $9,740PD1381 Hyde Park West 2010 $70,000 20 0.039147 $2,740 $7,000 (5) $9,740PD1381 Sunrise 2010 $100,000 20 0.039147 $3,915 $10,000 (5) $13,915
PD1381 Sugar Creek2010, 2013 $120,000 20 0.039147 $4,698 $12,000 (5) $16,698
PD1381 Crest Haven 2011 $60,000 20 0.039147 $2,349 $6,000 (5) $8,349PD1381 Northcrest 2012 $40,000 20 0.039147 $1,566 $4,000 (5) $5,566PD1381 Forest Hill 2012 $60,000 20 0.039147 $2,349 $6,000 (5) $8,349PD1381 Drewlo Hyde Park 2012 $60,000 20 0.039147 $2,349 $6,000 (5) $8,349PD1381 Magitron 2011 $80,000 20 0.039147 $3,132 $8,000 (5) $11,132PD1381 Whetherfield 2011 $80,000 20 0.039147 $3,132 $8,000 (5) $11,132PD1381 Talbot 2011 $150,000 20 0.039147 $5,872 $15,000 (5) $20,872PD1381 Vista Woods 2012 $70,000 20 0.039147 $2,740 $7,000 (5) $9,740PD1381 Westbury 2012 $80,000 20 0.039147 $3,132 $8,000 (5) $11,132PD1381 Edge Valley 2013 $50,000 20 0.039147 $1,957 $5,000 (5) $6,957PD1381 Corlon/Trooper Wilson 2009 $60,000 20 0.039147 $2,349 $6,000 (5) $8,349PD1381 Creekside 2012 $70,000 20 0.039147 $2,740 $7,000 (5) $9,740PD1381 Auburn Sunningdale North 2013 $150,000 20 0.039147 $5,872 $15,000 (5) $20,872PD1381 Kent 2013 $60,000 20 0.039147 $2,349 $6,000 (5) $8,349PD1381 Future parks to be developed 2013-2018 $1,650,000 20 0.039147 $64,593 $165,000 (5) $229,593
$0$3,410,000 $133,492 $341,000 $474,492
District Parks
PD1032 Plane Tree2009, 2010 $250,000 20 0.039147 $9,787 $36,200 (5) $45,987
PD1032 Summerside (Meadowgate Fields)2009, 2011 $425,000 20 0.039147 $16,638 $36,200 (5) $52,838
PD1032 North East Comm. Centre 2009 $235,000 20 0.039147 $9,200 (5) $9,200
PD1032 Riverbend2010, 2011 $435,000 20 0.039147 $17,029 $36,200 (5) $53,229
PD1032 Foxhollow 2012 $380,000 20 0.039147 $14,876 $72,400 (5) $87,276
PD1032 Southwest2012, 2013 $520,000 20 0.039147 $20,357 $72,400 (5) $92,757
PD1032 Future Parks To Be Developed And/Or Upgraded 2014-2018 $2,500,000 20 0.039147 $97,868 $200,000 $297,868$0
$4,745,000 $185,753 $453,400 $639,153Major Open Space Network
PD2042 West Byron/Warbler2009, 2014 $460,000 20 0.039147 $18,008 $11,500 (5) $29,508
PD2042 Dingman Creek Trail
2013, 2017, 2018 $860,000 20 0.039147 $33,667 $21,500 (5) $55,167
PD2042 Foxhollow
2010, 2016, 2018 $890,000 20 0.039147 $34,841 $22,250 (5) $57,091
PD2042 Uplands Trail System
2009, 2013, 2014, 2015 $1,610,000 20 0.039147 $63,027 $40,250 (5) $103,277
PD2042 Stoney Creek Trail - Ph. I2009, 2012 $310,000 20 0.039147 $12,136 $7,750 (5) $19,886
PD2042 Hyde Park
2009, 2011, 2013, 2014 $700,000 20 0.039147 $27,403 $17,500 (5) $44,903
PD2042 Kilally2012, 2016 $460,000 20 0.039147 $18,008 $11,500 (5) $29,508
PD2042 Bostwick2010, 2012 $320,000 20 0.039147 $12,527 $8,000 (5) $20,527
PD2042 Stoney Creek Trail - Ph II2011, 2017 $670,000 20 0.039147 $26,229 $16,750 (5) $42,979
PD2042 Community Llinks 2009-2018 $550,000 20 0.039147 $21,531 $13,750 (5) $35,281$0
$6,830,000 $267,375 $170,750 $438,125Sports Park Infastructure
PD2180 All Weather Field Development 2012-2014 $1,590,000 20 0.039147 $62,244 $30,000PD2180 Other Sportsfield Development 2015-2018 $2,000,000 20 0.039147 $78,294 $120,000
PD2180 Citywide Field House2009, 2010 $540,000 20 0.039147 $21,139 $2,500
PD2180 Foxhollow Area (Northwest) 2011 $500,000 20 0.039147 $19,574 $2,500PD2180 Southwest Sportsfield 2012 $500,000 20 0.039147 $19,574 $2,500
$0 $0$5,130,000 $200,825 $157,500 $0
Thames Valley ParkwayPD2124 South Branch - through Meadowlily 2011 $400,000 20 0.039147 $15,659 $7,800 (5)
PD2124 North Branch - Highbury to Clarke2010, 2015 $1,090,000 20 0.039147 $42,670 $22,100 (5)
PD2124 South Branch - through Old Vic 2012 $600,000 20 0.039147 $23,488 $11,700 (5)
207
TABLE O-1 – LIFE CYCLE AND OPERATING COST IMPACTS – “SOFT” SERVICES
Annual Impact ($)
City of LondonCapital and Operating Impacts for Future Capital Expenditures
Project # Project Description Expected Year
Total Estimated Cost
Average Useful
Life(years)
Sinking Fund Factor
Life Cycle Cost
Operating Cost N
otes Total cost
PD2124 Main Branch - through Byron 2013 $750,000 20 0.039147 $29,360 $14,950 (5)PD2124 Main Branch - through River Bend 2014 $750,000 20 0.039147 $29,360 $14,950 (5)New Meadowlily Foot Bridge 2012 $3,500,000 20 0.039147 $137,015 $14,950 (5)PD2124 Future Pathway Projects 2016-2018 $1,800,000 20 0.039147 $70,465 $35,750 (5)
$0 $0$8,890,000 $348,018 $122,200 $0
Environmentally Significant AreasPD2252 Kains Woods 2009 $160,000 20 0.039147 $6,264
PD2252 Meadowlily East2010, 2011 $220,000 20 0.039147 $8,612 $2,200 (5)
PD2252 New Environmentally Significant Areas 2011-2018 $2,730,000 20 0.039147 $106,872 $27,300 (5)$0
$3,110,000 $121,748 $29,500 $0INELIGIBLE AMOUNT - amount in excess of existing historical standard (Note 5) $0PORTION OF PRIOR YEARS' GROWTH PROJECTS FINANCED WITH DEBT $0
Sub total - Parkland Development $32,115,000 $1,257,210 $1,274,350 $1,551,770
Total Parks & Recreation $142,675,054 $2,883,964 $5,737,093 $7,641,267
TransitTransit Facilities
MU1163 Land, Building, Facility 2009 $22,000,000 40 0.014836 $326,397 $1,350,000 $1,676,397
Transit Vehicles
VehicleMU1172 1 - 40' Low Floor Diesel Bus 2009 $510,400 12 0.072487 $36,997 $222,000 (1) $258,997MU1172 2 - 40' Low Floor Diesel Buses 2010 $1,020,800 12 0.072487 $73,995 $222,000 (1) $295,995MU1172 1 - 40' Low Floor Diesel Bus 2011 $510,400 12 0.072487 $36,997 $222,000 (1) $258,997MU1172 1 - 40' Low Floor Diesel Bus 2012 $510,400 12 0.072487 $36,997 $222,000 (1) $258,997MU1172 2- 40' Low Floor Diesel Buses 2013 $1,020,800 12 0.072487 $73,995 $222,000 (1) $295,995MU1172 2 - 40' Low Floor Diesel Buses 2014 $1,020,800 12 0.072487 $73,995 $222,000 (1) $295,995MU1172 2 - 40' Low Floor Diesel Buses 2015 $1,020,800 12 0.072487 $73,995 $222,000 (1) $295,995MU1172 2 - 40' Low Floor Diesel Buses 2016 $1,020,800 12 0.072487 $73,995 $222,000 (1) $295,995MU1172 2 - 40' Low Floor Diesel Buses 2017 $1,020,800 12 0.072487 $73,995 $222,000 (1) $295,995MU1172 2- 40' Low Floor Diesel Bus 2018 $1,020,800 12 0.072487 $73,995 $222,000 (1) $295,995
Total Transit $30,676,800 $955,353 $3,570,000 $4,525,353
TOTAL SOFT SERVICE - OPERATING IMPACTS $208,586,268 $4,748,188 $20,644,553 $24,318,879
Note(1)
(2)(3) Fifty(50) new officers at approximate annual cost of $95,700 per officer(4) Represents annual operating cost of operating Library branch, net of renewals of Collections.(5)
(6)
(7) All operating cost figures based on a rough approximation
Yearly operating costs estimated at 5% of capital cost of facility.
Direct "on road" operating cost reflects the labour and material cost associated with operating one hour of on roadservice ($79.29/ revenue service hr). The cost include all related transportation labour and material costs, vehicle maintenance and servicing costs and fuel. Average revenue service hours, per bus, per year amount to 2,800. The costs exclude facilty and general and administrative costs. If such costs were to be included the cost would be $91.17 per revenue service hour
Police Building - gross costs eligible for DC rate calculations amount to $7.29M being the remaining portion of the growth costs financed by debt. Costs used to estimate life cycle and operating costs include entire building estimated at $32M.
Parkland : Annual operating costs of Neighbourhood parks estimated at 10% of capital cost; for District Parks with sportsfield, costs estimated at $36,200 per field; annual cost of Major Sportsfield estimated at 2.5% of capital cost; costs of maintaining Thames Valley Parkway approximately $6,500/km of new trail; cost of maintaining new Environmentally significant areas estimated at 1% of capital cost
208
TABLE O-2 – LIFE CYCLE AND OPERATING COST IMPACTS – “HARD” SERVICES 2009 DEVELOPMENT CHARGE STUDYLife Cycle and Operating Cost Impacts - Hard Services
PROJECT INFORMATION DC COST AND TIMING ANNUAL IMPACT ($) TOTAL
PROJECT ID PROJECT DESCRIPTIONYEAR
OFCONSTRUCTION
TOTALGROSS
CONSTRUCTIONCOST
AVERAGEUSEFUL
LIFE (YRS)
SINKINGFUND
FACTOR
LIFECYCLECOST
OPERATINGCOST %AGE
OPERATINGCOST
OPERATINGCOST
2.50% (K) (M) (K+M)
TRANSPORTATION ROAD PROJECTSAnticipated and Planned Projects 2012-2028 $34,062,375 20 0.039147 $1,333,444 4.00% $1,362,495 $2,695,939
Forecasted Projects 2012-2028 $76,700,300 20 0.039147 $3,002,597 4.00% $3,068,012 $6,070,609Other Existing Link Deficiencies 2011-2028 $269,338,369 20 0.039147 $10,543,824 4.00% $10,773,535 $21,317,359
Other Future Screenline Capacity Improvements 2016-2028 $60,980,938 20 0.039147 $2,387,229 4.00% $2,439,238 $4,826,466New Additional Projects 2010-2028 $88,849,891 20 0.039147 $3,478,218 4.00% $3,553,996 $7,032,214
Future Road Works - 2 Lane Upgrade 2009-2028 $72,625,625 20 0.039147 $2,843,085 4.00% $2,905,025 $5,748,110City Programs 2009-2028 $26,430,000 various $652,974 various $667,200 $1,320,174
Traffic Signals, channelization, and Miscellaneous 2009-2028 $26,524,281 20 0.039147 $1,038,349 4.00% $1,060,971 $2,099,321TRANSPORTATION ROAD PROJECTS 2009-2028 $655,511,778 $25,279,719 $25,830,471 $51,110,191
CLAIMABLE MINOR ROAD WORKS 2009-2028 $55,426,974 20 0.039147 $2,169,807 4.00% $2,217,079 $4,386,886SANITARY SEWER PROJECTS
SANITARY SEWER PROJECTS 2009-2028 $60,489,371 80 0.004026 $240,933 0.70% $418,909 $659,842CLAIMABLE LOCAL SANITARY SEWERS 2009-2028 $34,209,629 80 0.004026 $137,730 0.70% $239,467 $377,197
PCP & MAJOR PUMP STATIONSPCP & MAJOR PUMP STATIONS 2009-2028 $161,587,214 80 various $576,287 various $1,001,990 $1,578,278
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROJECTSStormwater Facilities 2009-2028 $170,138,990 80 0.004026 $684,987 0.50% $850,695 $1,535,682
Storm Sewers 2009-2028 $9,090,710 80 0.004026 $36,600 1.60% $145,451 $182,051STORM PIPE & SWM PROJECTS 2009-2028 $179,229,700 $721,587 $996,146 $1,717,733
CLAIMABLE STORM SEWERS 2009-2028 $47,921,763 80 0.004026 $192,935 1.60% $766,748 $959,683CLAIMABLE SWMF 2009-2028 $46,547,693 80 0.004026 $187,403 0.50% $232,738 $420,142
WATER DISTRIBUTION AND SUPPLYLow Level Watermains 2009-2028 $48,178,126 70 0.005397 $260,023 1.00% $481,781 $741,804High Level Watermains 2011-2028 $7,096,815 70 0.005397 $38,302 3.00% $212,904 $251,207
Water Facilities 2009-2028 $62,660,000 various various $1,457,550 3.00% $1,879,800 $3,337,350Water Supply Systems 2010-2018 $162,213,395 various various $1,858,032 various $3,947,910 $5,805,942
WATER DISTRIBUTION AND SUPPLY 2009-2028 $280,148,336 $3,613,907 $6,522,396 $10,136,303
"HARD SERVICE" TOTALS $1,521,072,457 $33,120,308 $38,225,945 $71,346,254
Notes: 1. Total Gross Construction costs as updated April 8 2009
2. Above costs are a gross approximation based on rough estimate of expected operating costs.
4. There are no incremental operating costs associated with growth related studies. Staff time spent on these studies is funded by tax and user rated.
5. The operating cost associated with water projects are not directly born by the municipalities, but are integrated with the "wholesale" cost of water charged on each.6. The total cost includes all related transportation labour and material cost, vehicle and service.
3. Annual operating cost are in most cases, based on the gross cost of construction. In some cases (eg. Growth Studies or Land purchase) there is no life cycle or operating costs associated with the capital expenditure.
(Information used to compile the above provided by EESD)
209
Appendix P – Terms of reference for UWRF/DC Implementation Team for the 2008 Development Charge Study (As amended and adopted by Council March 26, 2007) Urban Works Reserve Fund (UWRF)/Development Charge (DC) Implementation Team
Terms of Reference (as amended by Council March 26, 2007) Purpose To assist City staff in completing the 2008 Development Charge (DC) Background Study and By-law by
a) Reviewing and analyzing recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Panel Report, b) Discussing viability of implementing report recommendations, or providing
alternative solutions where desirable, c) Overseeing the process of reporting on DC issues and conducting consultations
with stakeholders d) Discussing other issues and elements of the City’s DC policy that are brought
before the committee, and providing direction for staff and consultants involved in completion of the work.
Anticipated Outcomes As noted in the draft report on initiating the 2008 DC Study: “….our objectives over the coming two years with respect to DC policy are:
1. produce a revised background study – namely the 2008 Development Charge study, and provide new DC rates for consideration of Council by mid-2008,
2. address various recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Panel Report (BRPR) on development charges, incorporating approved policy changes into the DC study update described in 1) above, as necessary,
3. address issues related to prematurity of development and managing growth, 4. create an organizational unit at the City the focus of which would include
evaluation of the business aspects of development proposals, and assessment of timing of investments in infrastructure,
5. reassess and redesign as necessary, the City’s growth financing policy and procedures, consistent with the recommendations of the BRPR, for consideration of Council,
6. incorporate stakeholder input into the process to ensure transparency, accountability and understanding.”
Timing of the Project The Development Charge By-law must be developed and enacted by Council prior to August 3, 2009. For various reasons, the target for enactment of the DC by-law which is the subject of this team’s work is moved forward, to June 30, 2008.
210
Membership As outlined in the report tabled on March 1, 20073, membership on the committee consists of Sandy Levin, representing The Urban League (alternate G. McGinn-McTeer), Steve Janes, representing the London Development Institute (alternate- J. Crich), Jim MacKinnon, representing the London District Building and Construction Trades Council, Victor Coté, General Manager of Finance and Corporate Services, Peter Steblin, City Engineer and General Manager of Environmental and Engineering Services, Rob Panzer, General Manager of Planning and Development, and Jim Barber, City Solicitor, & Peter Christiaans, Director of Development Finance. The Committee will be chaired by Jeff Fielding, Chief Administrative Officer. Roles and Responsibilities The committee will carry out the following duties:
a) Address issues associated with recommendations of the Blue Ribbon panel (BRP). Due to the ambitious timing of the DC study project, and the involvement of the Blue Ribbon panel (BRP) (an expert panel previously charged with resolution of the issues), the committee will work expeditiously to resolve any questions and implementation hurdles, or provide alternative solutions where deemed appropriate.
b) Provide assessment, comment and suggestions on various components of the DC study process and its interim products, including : i. Approach to Growth Management Strategy – principally, criteria for
prioritizing future growth and policies in Official Plan needed to address same,
ii. Allocation of growth forecasts to geographic locations iii. Completion of capital needs studies, including consideration of viability of
capital program in relation to capital needs iv. Completion of the DC rate calculations
c) Provide assessment, comment and suggestions on various components of future DC policy framework, including: i. The use of front end financing arrangements(including interim strategy), ii. Types of work to be completed through each of the CSRF and the UWRF, iii. Administrative structure needed to manage growth
d) Individual members are encouraged to consult with colleagues and representatives of their respective organizations to promote understanding of : i. The process undertaken to develop the DC By-law ii. The changes contemplated in the City’s DC Policy iii. The rationale & method for calculating the DC rates.
Meetings The UWRF/DC Implementation Team will meet as required. At the outset, it is anticipated that weekly meetings will be necessary to address the implementation of the recommendations of the BRP and related issues. Materials for pre-reading should be provided at least one day before the meeting. Term of Appointment The committee will exist until the later of:
a) The enactment by Council of the Development Charge By-law arising from the 2008 DC Background Study.
3 Report entitled “Blue Ribbon Panel Implementation Strategy”
211
b) The completion of the stated objectives in the 2008 DC Study initiation report, as indicated in the section entitled “Anticipated Outcomes” above.
212
Appendix Q – Excerpts of City of London Official Plan with respect to Growth financing policies The following policies are excerpts from the Official Plan Policy for the City of London, March 1, 2008 (date of last consolidation) 2.6.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICIES (as reflected in the City of London Official Plan)
2.6.1. Introduction
Responsible growth management is a key element of the City of London's strategic approach to the accomplishment of its Vision and Goals. Growth management embodies the City's commitment to optimize the use of existing and new services and facilities, to protect and rehabilitate its natural heritage, to conserve its prime agricultural lands, to take full advantage of its opportunities for sustainable economic development and to promote healthy communities, while maintaining a strong financial position for the municipality.
2.6.2. Growth Management Principles
The Growth Management Policies are based on the following principles: i) that growth will maintain a compact urban form; ii) that the measures necessary to accommodate growth through land use
intensification, having regard to the timely and efficient use of existing infrastructure, will be supported;
iii) that growth will be directed to areas that are suitable for the provision of
full municipal services in keeping with the City's long term servicing and financing plans;
iv) that outward expansion of the urban area will be managed to provide for
a logical progression in the extension of service areas having regard to cost-effectiveness and optimization of existing infrastructure capacity;
v) that new areas of community growth will be planned to provide a mix of
housing types and to achieve a target density consistent with a more efficient utilization of land and services;
vi) that the City will maintain an adequate supply of vacant designated land
to accommodate the expansion of its urban areas in an orderly, efficient, timely and affordable manner;
vii) that the implications of new development for the financial health of the
municipality will be assessed and that growth related costs will be financed from revenues generated from growth;
viii) that the City will consider and encourage viable innovative proposals
such as partnerships, cost-sharing and alternative technologies and design standards, that may reduce the overall costs of growth or allow for the more timely delivery or use of the infrastructure required for growth, provided such proposals satisfy City requirements and will
213
2.6.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICIES (as reflected in the City of London Official Plan)
contribute to a compact urban form; ix) that planning for growth will support the identification and protection of
London's Natural Heritage System; and x) that the City will encourage rehabilitation measures that protect the
ecological function and integrity of the Natural Heritage System.
2.6.3. Growth Financing Policies
The financing requirements to service new development should not jeopardize the long term financial health of the municipality or place an undue burden on existing taxpayers. The following growth financing policies are intended to achieve these objectives: i) Growth related capital costs will be recovered from revenues generated
from new development. ii) The review of area studies or proposals for major development
approvals outside of an area study will require a complete financial impact analysis demonstrating the potential financial implications of the proposed development on the City, and area studies or major development proposals may not be approved without an approved plan for financing municipal services.
iii) The City will consider, as part of the area study process, the
involvement of the private sector in the development, operation, construction and financing of long term servicing infrastructure.
iv) Private temporary servicing arrangements must be consistent with long
term planning, servicing and financing strategies and policies and must contribute to the cost of providing long term servicing through the payment of development charges.
v) The City may explore alternatives for the financing of oversizing costs
(that portion of servicing projects that have been sized to accommodate growth beyond the planning period) until these costs and related interest carrying costs can be recovered from future development.
2.6.4. Growth Servicing Policies
The City of London will plan the provision of services to accommodate growth so that servicing is timely, cost efficient, environmentally sound, consistent with long term servicing plans and within the financial means of the municipality. Servicing subject to this strategy includes physical infrastructure such as sanitary sewerage works, storm drainage works, water supply and distribution, and road works. It also includes the provision of community facilities and services including parks and recreation facilities, libraries, public transit, and fire and police services. The City, in consultation with appropriate agencies, will also have regard for the provision of other services such as electrical and communications, utilities, schools, health services and other social services.
214
2.6.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICIES (as reflected in the City of London Official Plan)
2.6.4.1. General
The City will apply the following policies to the planning, review and approval of servicing proposals: i) The services required to support growth will be identified through the
periodic update of the Official Plan and major servicing plans, and through the preparation of Community Plans.
ii) The City will monitor the servicing requirements of proposed and
approved development and plan the expansion of its municipal services to attempt to provide adequate capacity and performance to accommodate development in a timely, cost efficient manner. Development approvals will only be given where there is sufficient existing or planned servicing capacity to accommodate the proposed use.
iii) Non-growth needs will be addressed in conjunction with the planning
and delivery of growth related services. iv) The City will pursue the orderly development of growth areas so that
services are efficiently used. v) Sewer and water services will be sized according to ultimate land areas
and populations intended to be served. vi) The City will not extend municipal water and sewer services beyond the
limits of the land designated for urban growth except as set out in policies 17.2.3. and 17.7.5.
2.6.4.2. Sanitary Sewerage
i) The City will promote the maintenance and expansion of a municipal sanitary sewerage collection and treatment system that will:
(a) have the potential to service all areas of the
municipality intended for urban development;
(b) maximize the service area of gravity drainage systems and minimize the number of pumping stations required;
(c) optimize the capacity of the existing Greenway,
Pottersburg, Oxford, Adelaide and Vauxhall Treatment Plants and collection systems to accommodate growth;
(d) provide for the construction of a Southside Sewage Treatment Plant to service the Dingman Creek drainage area in keeping with the Growth Management Policies. An environmental impact assessment and any other studies required prior to commencement of this project will be undertaken
215
2.6.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICIES (as reflected in the City of London Official Plan) at the earliest opportunity; (e) place a high priority on measures to address existing
problems of sewage overflows and basement flooding; and
(f) provide for continued improvement in the quality of
the effluent being directed to the Thames River. ii) While the City strongly supports development on full municipal services,
the need for flexibility to allow the consideration of temporary sanitary servicing options that may provide for more timely development, without detracting from the viability of the long term servicing plan, is recognized.
The City will assess proposals for temporary sanitary servicing according to the servicing policies set out in Policy 17.2.4. of this Plan. Emphasis will be placed on the implications that proposed temporary systems would have on the physical and financial viability of future municipal services in keeping with the Sanitary Sewerage Servicing Study.
The City may permit a temporary sanitary servicing system where the proponent can demonstrate that certain criteria as set out in Section 17.2 are met. The proponent will bear the cost of the temporary system and contribute to the financing of the long term servicing solution through the payment of development charges or other form of payment approved by Council.
iii) Individual wastewater treatment systems may be permitted for
proposed "dry" commercial or industrial development on lands that were designated for commercial or industrial use before they were annexed to the City of London on January 1, 1993 provided certain criteria as set out in Section 17.2. are met. Lands not serviced by municipal sanitary sewerage facilities will be subject to a holding zone limiting uses to "dry" uses until the services are available.
iv) Notwithstanding the above policies for the consideration of sanitary servicing options, residential subdivision development on individual wastewater treatment systems will be discouraged.
2.6.4.3. Water Supply
The City will promote the maintenance and expansion of a water supply and distribution system that will: i) have the potential to service all areas of the municipality intended for
urban development; ii) provide adequate pressure for all servicing conditions;
216
2.6.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICIES (as reflected in the City of London Official Plan) iii) optimize the capacity of existing pumping stations and reservoirs; iv) place a high priority on the efficient use of water as a method to
minimize the future demand for water supply and associated sewage treatment.
All development within the Urban Growth Area shall be dependent upon the City of London Water Supply and Distribution System for both potable water and fire protection.
2.6.4.4. Stormwater Management
Stormwater management plans shall be prepared for identified growth areas in conjunction with the area study process and in accordance with Section 17.6.
2.6.5. Growth Forecasting and Monitoring
i) The City will maintain a program of growth forecasting and monitoring. Population and housing demand projections will be updated and approved at five year intervals in association with the review of the Official Plan. The process for updating and approving these projections will include opportunities for public and agency review and input.
ii) The City will monitor population trends and changes in housing
composition and distribution through the review of census and assessment data and building permit activity, and through information sharing with other agencies and organizations. An assessment of demographic and housing trends that may have implications for the City's growth management implementation will be undertaken on an annual basis in conjunction with the Housing Monitoring Report. The Housing Monitoring Report will also include estimates of the short and mid-term population and housing growth anticipated in identified growth areas.
iii) The City will monitor local, regional and provincial economic trends and
growth forecasts and consider the implications of these trends and forecasts for its growth management policies.
2.6.6. Land Requirements Forecasting
i) The City will maintain an adequate supply of land designated for urban
growth to accommodate its projected community and industrial growth requirements. The target range for the inventory of vacant land designated for urban growth will be a fifteen to twenty year supply.
ii) The City will normally update its land requirements projection at five
year intervals in conjunction with the review of the Official Plan by using the Land Requirements Accommodation Method in Policy 2.5.5 without including the contingency factor, unless the particular 5 year update is being used to establish the land requirements for a new 20 year
217
2.6.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICIES (as reflected in the City of London Official Plan)
planning period. The processes of updating, projecting and/or approving the land requirements for community and industrial growth will include opportunities for public and agency review and input.
iii) The City will monitor development activity and update, on a semi-annual
basis, its inventory of vacant designated lands categorized according to their servicing status and stage in the planning approvals process.
2.6.7. Identification of Growth Areas
In conjunction with the five year review of the Official Plan, Council will designate lands for urban growth purposes in keeping with all applicable Official Plan objectives and policies, provincial policies and the following criteria: i) The amount of land to be added as urban growth area will have regard
to the approved projected land requirements and to ensuring both timely cost-efficient short term land supplies and long term land supplies, are achieved.
ii) Proposed expansion areas represent a logical extension of the urban
area having regard for the principle of maintaining a compact urban form.
iii) Municipal water and sewer services can be provided in accordance with
the servicing and financing components of the Growth Management Policies.
iv) Growth will be directed to areas that can be appropriately integrated
with existing or planned communities or to areas of sufficient size to support a new community and allocated in a manner which provides for the complete development of the communities with a full range of Municipal Services where possible.
v) Growth will be allocated to areas that can be adequately integrated with
and accessed from the network of existing and planned arterial roads and are suitable for the provision of transit services.
vi) Council will consider alternatives for the direction and sequencing of
growth having regard for the comparative costs of providing infrastructure and services, the financial implications for the municipality, the potential impacts on existing communities, and the effects on natural features and ecological functions and agriculture. Where practical, Council will distribute growth areas to provide greater choice in the location and character of new communities.
vii) Council will consider the inclusion of additional Industrial Growth Area
lands in the Highway 401 and Highway 402 corridors and additional Community Growth lands south of the Highway 401 corridor, at such time as the south side sewage Treatment Plant is built and sanitary
218
2.6.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICIES (as reflected in the City of London Official Plan)
sewer services can be provided in a cost effective manner. viii) Council will consider the inclusion of additional lands in the Hyde Park
Community Growth Area if supported by the findings of the Hyde Park Community Plan and subject to an application for an amendment to the Official Plan.
2.6.7.1. Applications To Expand The Urban Growth Area
The primary means for reviewing the adequacy of the City’s land supply and expanding the urban growth area, if warranted, will be the five year review process. It is recognized that emergent opportunities may present themselves in the interim and that these should be evaluated according to the criteria for the identification of growth areas. Privately initiated applications for amendments to the Official Plan to expand the Urban Growth Area will be evaluated for public benefit on the basis of Policy 2.6.7. and the following criteria: i) the need for urban growth at the proposed location and the reasons
why it is not appropriate for the land to wait until an appropriate 5 year review process determines urban growth expansion is necessary;
ii) the costs and benefits of permitting growth at the proposed location;
and iii) the implications for the City's supply of vacant land designated for
growth, having regard for the City's intent that the inventory of vacant designated land be maintained in a range of a 15 to 20 year supply.
2.6.8. Area Planning
i) Vacant lands within the Urban Growth Area may be placed in the Urban Reserve designation pending the completion of an Area Study as provided for in Chapter 19 of this Plan. An Area Study will provide the basis for an Official Plan amendment that will:
(a) identify or refine environmental features, areas and
natural resources in conformity with the applicable Official Plan policies;
(b) apply specific land use designations; and (c) identify collector roads. ii) Area Studies will also provide for the co-ordination of development
among multiple land owners and provide direction for:
(a) the delineation, protection and management of natural heritage areas;
(b) the location and size of parks, schools and other
community facilities;
219
2.6.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICIES (as reflected in the City of London Official Plan) (c) housing mix and densities; (d) municipal services; (e) the phasing of development; (f) pedestrian and bicycle routes; (g) transit routing and supportive facilities; (h) site and subdivision design criteria; and
(i) local road access points to arterial and collector roads;
iii) The approximate boundaries of areas intended for the preparation of
Area Studies are shown on Schedule "D". These boundaries may be refined through the approval of a proposal to undertake an Area Study without amendment to the Official Plan. In some instances the boundaries include lands beyond the boundaries of the Urban Growth Area that represent a logical longer-term extension of a community to the City boundary or other appropriate limit for long term community development. Lands outside the Urban Growth Area will be regarded as potential areas of community expansion and the evaluation and planning of these areas may be limited to the extent necessary to demonstrate how they can be appropriately integrated with the balance of the community. The eventual development of these lands would require an amendment to this Plan.
iv) An Area Study may be undertaken by the City or by consultants
retained by landowners. Proposals for privately-initiated Area Studies will be required to conform to area study guidelines established by the City and must be submitted for approval by the City. This process will include opportunities for public and agency review and input.
v) The City will encourage affected landowners to participate in the area
study process and to contribute their proportionate share towards the study costs and towards the provision of the services, facilities, open space, stormwater management and other measures required to support the growth of the community.
vi) Area Studies shall provide for the staging of development to make efficient use of built services, facilitate planning for the delivery of new services, and minimize the gap between major servicing expenditures and the recovery of costs through development charges.
vii) Documentation to be submitted in support of a proposed privately-
initiated Area Study will include:
220
2.6.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICIES (as reflected in the City of London Official Plan) (a) a record of the public and agency consultation
undertaken in the course of the area study; (b) an environmental evaluation and impact study
completed in accordance with Section 15.5. of the Plan;
(c) any information required by the municipality to
undertake a financial impact analysis; and
(d) a servicing plan to demonstrate the availability and adequacy of municipal sewer and water services to accommodate the proposed development, and to describe the location, timing and design of required sewer, water, storm water management and road improvements.
viii) Until such time as an Area Study has been approved and the subject
lands have been appropriately designated for development, vacant lands within the Urban Growth Area will be placed in the Urban Reserve designation.
ix) The "Community Growth" and "Industrial Growth" categories of the
Urban Reserve designation are intended to provide a general indication of the mix of urban land uses intended for the area. Community Growth areas will be predominantly residential but will include a range of commercial, institutional and open space uses that support communities, as well as uses that contribute to employment growth and that are compatible in a community setting. "Industrial Growth" areas are generally intended for uses that fall within the "Light Industrial", "General Industrial" and "Office Business Park" land use designations. Notwithstanding this general intent, lands within the "Urban Reserve" designation may be re-designated for any use through the Area study process and resulting amendment to the Official Plan.
x) Portions of the Urban Growth Area are designated as Environmental
Review and are subject to the policies of Chapter 8B. These areas require further study to determine their environmental significance and to determine the boundaries of areas that warrant protection. It is anticipated that the necessary studies will occur as part of the community planning process and that Environmental Review areas will be re-designated on the basis of an approved Area study.
17.1.2.
SANITARY SEWERAGE OBJECTIVES
i) Provide and maintain sanitary sewers, pumping stations, and sewage treatment plants with sufficient capacity to accommodate the existing
221
2.6.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICIES (as reflected in the City of London Official Plan)
and future development of the City, within the financial capability of the Municipality.
ii) Provide sewage treatment to meet standards for an acceptable quality
of effluent discharge to the Thames River and its tributaries. (Clause ii) amended by OPA No. 88 - OMB Order No. 2314 - Approved
99/12/23)
17.2.2. Servicing Hierarchy
i) The following hierarchy of sanitary sewerage servicing options will be used to evaluate any development applications in the City. The feasibility of options will be considered in the following priority:
(a) the extension of servicing from one of the centralized municipal Sewage
Treatment Plants; including the Adelaide, Greenway, Oxford, Pottersburg, Vauxhall or proposed Southside Sewage Treatment Plant; and collection systems;
(b) the extension of servicing from the Westminster and Southland Sanitary
Sewage Treatment Plants and collection systems; (c) the development of a new temporary sanitary sewerage system; and (d) an individual on-site wastewater treatment system. For the purposes of
this Plan an individual on-site wastewater treatment system means an individual, autonomous sewage disposal system that is owned, operated and managed by the owner of the property upon which the system is located and which does not serve more than five residential units/lots.
ii) Where it is feasible to provide sanitary sewerage services from a higher
priority option, no other option shall be permitted. iii) Notwithstanding the above provisions for the consideration of servicing
options, the following limitations will apply: (a) The proposed development to be serviced by the temporary sanitary
sewerage system represents a logical extension of the urban area, provides for an efficient utilization of land and does not set a precedent for or contribute to a new scattered or "leap-frog" development pattern.
(b) Temporary systems for the treatment of industrial wastewater will not be
permitted. (c) Residential subdivision development, residential development on more
than five associated lots created through severance and multi-family
222
2.6.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICIES (as reflected in the City of London Official Plan)
residential development on individual wastewater treatment systems will be discouraged.
iv) The evaluation of the feasibility of proposed servicing options shall have
regard for the following: (a) the physical or environmental constraints to the provision of higher
priority servicing options, in particular the servicing recommended in the Sanitary Sewerage Servicing Study;
(b) the potential cumulative impacts on ground and surface water
resources; (c) an analysis of the costs and benefits of the proposed servicing option in
comparison to the higher priority servicing options including the costs associated with planning, construction, start-up, operation, maintenance, financing and replacement of the system or its components;
(d) a financial impact analysis having regard for the City's growth financing
strategy; and (e) an analysis of the implications for the physical and financial viability of
the future provision of municipal services to the surrounding area in keeping with the Sanitary Sewerage Servicing Study.
v) Where a private developer proposes a servicing option other than the
extension of servicing from one of the municipal sewage treatment systems, the City shall require the submission of documentation and studies necessary for a complete analysis of the feasibility of the proposed servicing option.
17.2.5. Individual Wastewater Treatment Systems
i) Individual on-site wastewater treatment systems will continue to provide the primary means of sanitary sewerage treatment in the portions of the City outside of the Urban Growth Area.
ii) Within the Urban Growth Area, the City may permit individual on-site
wastewater treatment systems in the following circumstances: (a) for commercial and industrial development on lands that were
designated for commercial or industrial growth before they were annexed to the City on January 1, 1993, provided that:
1. The development of individual, on-site services will
not detract from the viability of providing municipal services in conformity with the City's long term servicing and financing strategies.
223
2.6.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICIES (as reflected in the City of London Official Plan) 2. The proposed use is of a "dry" nature. Dry
commercial and industrial uses do not involve significant number of employees, do not need significant amounts of water in their operations, and do not produce significant amounts of effluent.
3. There are no viable options for a connection to a
municipal sanitary sewer and municipal services planned for the area will not be available within a reasonable time frame.
4. The proposed wastewater treatment system can
meet all applicable requirements for approval. 5. The proponent agrees to connect the proposed use
to the municipal sanitary sewerage system, at no cost to the municipality, at such time as sewers are extended to the area, and to contribute to the cost of the long term servicing.
(b) Subject to policy 17.2.2 (iii) (b), for the development of a residential
dwelling provided that:
1. municipal servicing is not available within approximately 150 metres of the property;
2. there are no other viable options for a
connection to a municipal sanitary sewer and municipal services for the area will not be available within a reasonable time frame;
3. the proposed wastewater treatment system
can meet all applicable requirements for approval; and 4. the owner agrees to connect to a municipal
sanitary sewer, if available, at no cost to the municipality, when replacement of the system becomes necessary.
iii) For any development applications proposing the use of individual on-
site wastewater treatment systems, the proponent shall obtain the approval to the use of same from the authority having jurisdiction.
iv) Development applications proposing the use of individual wastewater
treatment systems for effluent in quantities greater than 4,500 litres per day must be supported by a hydro geological study that demonstrates such system can operate satisfactorily on the site.
v) The City will consider the use of innovative individual wastewater
treatment systems as permitted in accordance with the other policies of this Plan, subject to the approval of the Ministry of the Environment.
224
On March 3, 2008, Municipal Council adopted Official Plan Amendment 438 to implement the policy revisions arising from the City’s Five-year Official Plan Review. This five year update, required under the Planning Act, resulted in the adoption of new policies, including new Growth Management policies that relating to the staging of development through the staging of extensions of services and approvals, the requirement for an evaluation of the financial implications and a cost-benefit analysis as part of the development approvals process, and the potential for differential development charges. These policies changes are not yet in force and effect, as the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is the approval authority for Official Plan amendments undertaken through the five year comprehensive review process. Final Minister approval of these policy revisions is expected in 2009, and this will trigger any possible appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board.
225
NOTES
226
NOTES
