Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFSD-004-21Staff Report If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131. Report To: Council Date of Meeting: January 18, 2021 Report Number: FSD-004-21 Submitted By: Trevor Pinn, Director of Financial Services Reviewed By: Andrew C. Allison, CAO Resolution#: File Number: By-law Number: Report Subject: 2020/2021 Development Charges Background Study and By-law Recommendations: 1.That Report FND-053-20 be received; 2.That Report FSD-004-21 be received; 3.That the Draft Development Charges Background Study, October 15 2020 and the Addendum to the Development Charges Background Study, November 3, 2020 prepared by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. be approved and the development-related capital program included therein be adopted, subject to annual review through the Municipality’s normal capital budget process 4.That the municipal-wide development charges quantum for residential and non- residential charges be approved as follows, subject to annual indexing: Type of Development Development Charges Single and Semi-Detached Dwelling $ 21,461 per unit Apartments – 2 Bedrooms or More $ 11,426 per unit Apartments – Bachelor and 1 Bedroom $ 7,014 per unit Other multiples $ 17,590 per unit Industrial $ 37.46 per sq.m Non-Industrial $ 107.30 per sq.m Municipality of Clarington Page 2 Report FSD-004-21 5. That Council in approving the Background Study, expresses its intent to ensure that the increase in the need for services attributable to the anticipated development will be met and any future excess capacity identified in the Study will be paid for by development charges or other similar charges. 6. That for completed applications as determined by the Chief Building Official received on or before January 18, 2021 and (where the development charges have been paid by January 18, 2021) that the applicable development charges be calculated based on By-law 2015-035; 7. That the By-law attached to Report FSD-004-21, as attachment 1, be approved to repeal and replace By-law 2015-035; 8. That the Clarington Technology Park Area Specific development charges quantum be approved as follows, subject to annual indexing: Service $ Per Net Hectare Lands Benefitting Only from Quality Control $ 38,840 Lands Benefitting Only from Quantity Control $ 29,268 Lands Benefitting from Quality and Quantity Control $ 68,107 9. That the By-law attached to Report FSD-004-21, as attachment 2, be approved 10. That the Director of Financial Services/Treasurer be directed to bring back an amendment to the Development Charges By-law in 2021 or 2022 upon the approval of pending secondary plans to update the capital program for those plans; and 11. That all interested parties listed in Report FSD-004-21 and any delegations be advised of Council’s decision. Municipality of Clarington Page 3 Report FSD-004-21 Report Overview The purpose of this report is to comply with the provisions of the Development Charges Act, to obtain Council approval of a new Development Charges Background Study and By-law to establish new development charge fees upon expiry of the existing By-law. A public meeting was held on November 30, 2020 with five responses coming to the Municipality afterwards (one being in late December 2020 and another in early January 2021). 1. Background Update to Report FND-053-20 1.1 On November 30, 2020 Council referred report FND-053-20 to the Council meeting of January 18, 2021. The January 18, 2021 Council meeting is the last scheduled meeting prior to the expiry of the existing Development Charges By-law 2015-035 on January 24, 2021. 1.2 Since Report FND-053-20 was provided to Council there have been no changes to the proposed charges, legislation, or study. This report should be read in addition to that report. The attached by-laws take into account feedback received as part of the public process including wording changes from the Municipal Solicitor and Chief Building Official. 2. Proposed Future Amendment to the By-law 2.1 Feedback received to date from many developers has been that there are projects that are not included in the DC background study that should be. These projects are in areas that are currently undergoing the secondary plan process. 2.2 Given that the design of the secondary plan areas have not been finalized, the secondary plan themselves have not been approved, and the costing of the capital requirements cannot be estimated until the design and needs are established, it has been recommended from our consultant that these costs not be included in the study at this time. Capital items should only be included in the development charge study if there is a document that supports their eventual inclusion (for example a traffic needs study, secondary plan, recreation needs study or Council approved resolution). If projects are not supported they may be appealable as there is no basis for their inclusion. Municipality of Clarington Page 4 Report FSD-004-21 2.3 It is recommended, and other municipalities in similar high-growth areas have, that the by-law be amended before the next five-year review to include the capital projects once they are approved and the costs can be better estimated. As the only change for the amendment will be the capital program, the whole project will be scoped to just the secondary plan areas that have changes in capital needs. In this case, as the population growth for the secondary plans are in the study, but not all of the costs are in the likelihood is that the charge will increase. 2.4 Undergoing a mid-study amendment promotes equity for developers. Currently there are projects that may not be included as they within the seconda ry plan areas but they realistically will be needed in four to six years from now. If we wait until five years to include in the study any development that occurs in years one to five will benefit from this infrastructure and likely should have contributed to this infrastructure but the cost would be borne by later developers. It is anticipated that an amendment could be completed prior to the actual start of construction within the secondary plan areas. 2.5 Similarly, there has been discussion at Council regarding a potential trail that would be available in the winter for skating purposes. As this trail has not been identified in any of the park needs studies, to date, and Council has not provided direction that they are in support of this trail (the matter has been referred several times) at this point it is recommended that it not be included in the study. An amendment to include the trail could occur once there is supporting documentation that the trail is to be built. To be clear, the skating trail is an eligible development charge project (subject to other limitations), there just has to be an indication from Council (through approval of a plan or a resolution itself) that the project will go ahead. At this time we do not have a location, or proposed location, so waiting a year to two years for the amendment will not jeopardize the projects ability to be recovered from development charges. 2.6 The Municipality of Clarington is a relatively high growth area with increasing growth related capital costs. Reviewing the capital program more frequently, particularly in light of the anticipated development within the secondary plan areas, will ensure that growth continues to pay for growth. 3. Communication with Stakeholders Responses to feedback prior to November 30, 2020 3.1 Attachment 3 provides the Municipality’s response to SCS Consulting’s October 21, 2020 letter. 3.2 Attachment 4 provides the Municipality’s response to Durham Region Homebuilders’ Asssociation’s letter dated November 12, 2020. Municipality of Clarington Page 5 Report FSD-004-21 Biglieri Group 3.3 The Municipality received feedback on November 30, 2020 (Attachment 5) from the Biglieri Group. The feedback is an identification of projects that are not in the DC Background study which related to the Soper Hills Secondary Plan area. A response was provided on January 4, 2021. 3.4 The Soper Hills Secondary Plan has not been completed or approved by Council at this time. The completion of the design of the secondary plan will provide more certainty for the necessity, design, and ultimately cost of capital that is requi red in that area. Reg Webster Consulting Sub-heading 3.5 The Municipality received feedback on November 30, 2020 (Attachment 6) from Reg Webster Consulting. The feedback is an identification of projects that are not in the DC Background study which related to the Brookhill Neighbourhood Secondary Plan area as well as the identification of benefit to existing taxpayer concerns. A response was provided on January 4, 2021 3.6 The Brookhill Neighbourhood Secondary Plan has not been completed or approved by Council at this time. The completion of the design of the secondary plan will provide more certainty for the necessity, design, and ultimately cost of capital that is required in that area. SCS Consulting 3.7 SCS Consulting provided a letter (attachment 7) dated November 27, 2020 regarding the Brookhill North Secondary Plan area identifying projects for that secondary plan to be added to the study. A response was provided on January 4, 2021. 3.8 The Brookhill North Secondary Plan has not been completed or approved by Council a t this time. The completion of the design of the secondary plan will provide more certainty for the necessity, design, and ultimately cost of capital that is required in that area. Weston Consulting 3.9 Weston Consulting provided a letter (attachment 8) dated December 22, 2020 regarding the Soper Hills Secondary Plan and Soper Springs Secondary Plan. A letter of response was provided on January 7, 2021. 3.10 Both the Soper Hills and Soper Springs Secondary Plans are have not been completed or approved by Council. The completion of the design of both plans will provide more certainty for the necessity, design and ultimate cost of capital required to service those areas. Municipality of Clarington Page 6 Report FSD-004-21 UrbanMetrics 3.11 A letter from UrbanMetrics Inc was received on January 8, 2021 (attachment 9) the letter was similar to the above letter from Weston Consulting. This has been forwarded to our DC consultants for a response. 4. Concurrence Not Applicable. 5. Conclusion It is respectfully recommended that the recommendations outlined above are approved and that the development charges bylaws be approved with an implementation date of January 19, 2021 Staff Contact: Trevor Pinn, CPA, CA, Director of Financial Services/Treasurer, 905-623-3379 ext.2602 or tpinn@clarington.net. Attachments: Attachment 1 – Draft Municipal Wide Development Charges By-law Attachment 2 – Draft Area Specific Development Charges By-law Attachment 3 – Response to SCS Consulting dated November 30, 2020 Attachment 4 – Response to Durham Region Homebuilders’ Association dated November 30, 2020 Attachment 5- Letter from The Biglieri Group dated November 30, 2020 and response Attachment 6 - Letter from Reg Webster Consulting Inc dated November 27, 2020 and response Attachment 7 – Letter from SCS Consulting Group Ltd dated November 27, 2020 and response Attachment 8 – Letter from Weston Consulting Group Dated dated December 22, 2020 and response Attachment 9 – Letter from Urban Metrics Inc dated January 7, 2021 Interested Parties: List of Interested Parties available from Department. Attachment 1 to FSD-004-21 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE E-1 C:\Program Files\eSCRIBE\TEMP\856663492\856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law.docx Appendix E Proposed Municipal-wide D.C. By-law Attachment 1 to FSD-004-21 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE E-2 C:\Program Files\eSCRIBE\TEMP\856663492\856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law.docx THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BY-LAW NO. 2021-0XX to impose development charges against land in the Municipality of Clarington pursuant to the Development Charges Act, 1997 WHEREAS subsection 2(1) of the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c.27 provides that the council of a municipality may by by-law impose development charges against land to pay for increased capital costs required because of increased needs for services arising from the development of the area to which the by-law applies. NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON ENACTS AS FOLLOW S: Part 1 — Interpretation Definitions 1. In this by-law, "accessory", where used to describe a building or structure, means that the building or structure or part thereof that is naturally and normally incidental, subordinate in purpose or floor area or both, and exclusively devoted to a principal use, building or structure; "Act" means the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c.27; "air-supported structure" has the same meaning as in the Building Code Act, 1992; "apartment building" means (a) a residential building (other than a fourplex or sixplex) containing 4 or more dwelling units that have a common entrance to grade, common corridors, stairs and/or yards; and (b) the residential portion of a mixed-use building containing 4 or more dwelling units that are located behind or above a non-residential use and may have a separate entrance to grade, and includes stacked townhouse; “bedroom ”means a habitable room, including a den, study, loft, or other similar area, but does not include a living room, a dining room, a bathroom, or kitchen; Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-3 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law "building" means a building or structure that occupies an area greater than 10 square metres consisting of a wall, roof and floor or a structural system serving the function thereof, and includes an air-supported structure; "Building Code Act, 1992" means the Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c.23 and all Regulations thereunder including the Ontario Building Code, 2012; "Council" means Council of the Municipality; "development" means any activity or proposed activity in respect of land that requires one or more of the actions or decisions referred to in section 12 and includes redevelopment; "development charge" means a development charge imposed by this by-law; "duplex" means a residential building containing 2 dwelling units divided horizontally from each other; "dwelling unit" means one or more habitable rooms designed or intended to be used together as a single and separate housekeeping unit by one or more persons, containing its own full kitchen and sanitary facilities, with a private entrance from outside the unit itself; “existing” means the number, use and size that existed at least 2 years before the date of building permit application; "fourplex" means a pair of duplexes divided vertically from the other by a common wall; "floor" includes a paved, concrete, wooden, gravel or dirt floor; "grade" means the average level of the proposed finished surface of the ground immediately abutting each building or mixed-use building at all exterior walls; "gross floor area" means the total area of all floors, whether above or below grade, measured between the outside surfaces of exterior walls, or between the outside surfaces of exterior walls and the centre line of a party wall or a demising wall as the case may be, including mezzanines, air-supported structures, interior Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-4 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law corridors, lobbies, basements, cellars, half-stories, common areas, and the space occupied by interior walls or partitions, but excluding any areas used for, (a) loading bays, parking of motor vehicles, retail gas pump canopies; and (b) enclosed garbage storage in an accessory building; "heritage building" means a building designated under section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.18 and, for purpose of subsection 36(7), includes any building identified as "primary resource" in the registry maintained by the Municipality pursuant to section 28 of such Act; "industrial", in reference to use, means any land, building or structure or portions thereof used, designed or intended for or in connection with manufacturing, producing, processing, fabricating, assembling, refining, research and development, storage of materials and products, truck terminals, warehousing, but does not include, (a) retail service sales or rental areas, storage or warehousing areas used, designed or intended to be used in connection with retail sales, service or rental areas, warehouse clubs or similar uses, self -storage mini warehouses, and secure document storage; and (b) office areas that are not accessory to any of the foregoing areas or uses or accessory office uses that are greater than 25% of the gross floor area of the building; “institutional”, in reference to use, means development of a building or structure intended for use, (a) as a long-term care home within the meaning of subsection 2 (1) of the Long-Term Care Homes Act, 2007; (b) as a retirement home within the meaning of subsection 2 (1) of the Retirement Homes Act, 2010; (c) by any of the following post-secondary institutions for the objects of the institution: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-5 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law (i) a university in Ontario that receives direct, regular and ongoing operating funding from the Government of Ontario, (ii) a college or university federated or affiliated with a university described in subclause (i), or (iii) an Indigenous Institute prescribed for the purposes of section 6 of the Indigenous Institutes Act, 2017; (d) as a memorial home, clubhouse or athletic grounds by an Ontario branch of the Royal Canadian Legion; or (e) as a hospice to provide end of life care. "linked building" means a residential building that is divided vertically so as to contain only two separate dwelling units, connected undergro und by footing and foundation, each of which has an independent entrance directly from the outside of the building and is located on a separate lot; "lot" means a parcel of land within a registered plan of subdivision or any land that may be legally conveyed under the exemptions provided in clause 50(3)(b) or 50(5)(a) of the Planning Act; "mezzanine" has the same meaning as in the Building Code Act, 1992; "mixed-use building" means a building used, designed or intended to be used either for a combination of non-residential and residential areas and uses, or for a combination of different classes or types of non-residential areas and uses; "mobile home" means a dwelling unit that is designed to be made mobile, and constructed or manufactured to provide a permanent or temporary residence for one or more persons, but does not include a travel trailer or tent trailer; "multiple unit building" means a residential building or the portion of a mixed -use building that contains multiple dwelling units (other than dwelling units contained in an apartment building, linked building, semi-detached building or single detached dwelling) and includes plexes and townhouses; Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-6 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law "Municipality" means The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington or the geographic area of the Municipality of Clarington, as the context requires; “non-industrial” in reference to use, means lands, buildings or structures used or designed or intended for use for a purpose which is not residential or industrial ; “non-profit housing development” means development of a building or structure intended for use as residential premises by, (a) a corporation without share capital to which the Ontario Corporations Act (or its successor legislation) applies, that is in good standing under that Act and whose primary object is to provide housing; (b) a corporation without share capital to which the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act applies, that is in good standing under that Act and whose primary object is to provide housing; or (c) a non-profit housing co-operative that is in good standing under the Co-operative Corporations Act; "non-residential", in reference to use, means a building or portions of a mixed- use building containing floors or portions of floors which are used, designed or intended to be used for a purpose which is not residential, and includes a hotel, motel and a retirement residence; "owner" means the owner of land or a person who has made application for an approval for the development of land against which a development charge is imposed; "party wall" means a wall jointly owned and jointly used by 2 parties under an easement agreement or by right in law and erected on a line separating 2 parcels of land each of which is, or is capable of being, a separate lot; "Planning Act" means the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13; "plex" means a duplex, triplex, fourplex or sixplex; “rental housing” means development of a building or structure with four or more dwelling units all of which are intended for use as rented residential premises; Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-7 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law "residential", in reference to use, means a building or a portion of a mixed-use building and floors or portions of floors contained therein that are used, designed or intended to be used as living accommodation for one or more individuals provided in dwelling units and any building accessory to such dwelling units; "retirement residence" means a residential building or the residential portion of a mixed-use building that provides living accommodation, where common facilities for the preparation and consumption of food are provided for the residents of the building, and where each unit or living accommodation has separate sanitary facilities, less than full kitchen facilities and a separate entrance from a common corridor; “retirement residence unit” means a unit within a retirement residence; "semi-detached building" means a residential building that is divided vertically so as to contain only two separate dwelling units, each of which has an independent entrance directly from outside of the building; "service" means a service designated by section 10; "single-detached dwelling" means a residential building containing only one dwelling unit which is not attached to any other building or structure except its own garage or shed and has no dwelling units either above it or bel ow it, and includes a mobile home; "sixplex" means a pair of triplexes divided vertically one from the other by a common wall; "stacked townhouse" means a building, other than a plex, townhouse or apartment building, that contains at least 3 attached dwelling units that (a) are joined by common side walls with dwelling units entirely or partially above another; and (b) have a separate entrance to grade; "townhouse" means a building, other than a plex, stacked townhouse or apartment building, that contains at least 3 attached dwelling units, each of which (a) is separated from the others vertically; and (b) has a separate entrance to grade; "triplex" means a residential building containing 3 dwelling units; and Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-8 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law "Zoning By-laws" means the Municipality's By-law No. 84-63 and By-law No. 2005-109. References 2. In this by-law, reference to any Act, Regulation, Plan or By-Law is reference to the Act, Regulation, Plan or By-Law as it is amended or re-enacted from time to time. 3. Unless otherwise specified, references in this by-law to Schedules, Parts, sections, subsections, clauses and paragraphs are to Schedules, Parts, sections, subsections, clauses and paragraphs in this by-law. Word Usage 4. This by-law shall be read with all changes in gender or number as the context may require. 5. In this by-law, a grammatical variation of a defined word or expression has a corresponding meaning. Schedules 6. The following Schedules are attached to and form part of this by-law: Schedule 1 —Municipal-Wide Development Charges Schedule 2A — Clarington Energy Business Park Schedule 2B — Clarington Science Park Schedule 3A — Revitalization Area — Newcastle Village Schedule 3B — Revitalization Area — Orono Schedule 3C — Revitalization Area — Bowmanville Schedule 3D — Revitalization Area — Courtice Severability 7. If, for any reason, any section or subsection of this by-law is held invalid, it is hereby declared to be the intention of Council that all the remainder of this by-law shall continue in full force and effect until repealed, re-enacted or amended, in whole or in part or dealt with in any other way. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-9 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law Part 2 — Development Charges Designated Services and Classes 8. It is hereby declared by Council that all development in the Municipality wi ll increase the need for services. 9. Development charges shall apply without regard to the services which in fact are required or are used by any individual development. 10. Development charges shall be imposed for the following categories of service and class to pay for increased capital costs required because of increased needs for services arising from development: (a) Fire Protection Services; (b) Growth Studies; (c) Library Services; (d) Parks and Recreation Services; and (e) Services Related to a Highway. Rules 11. For the purpose of complying with section 6 of the Act, the following rules have been developed: (a) The rules for determining if a development charge is payable in any particular case and for determining the amount of the charge shall be in accordance with sections 12 through 20. (b) The rules for determining the indexing of development charges shall be in accordance with section 21. (c) The rules for determining exemptions shall be in accordance with Part 3 (sections 22 through 34). (d) The rules respecting redevelopment of land shall be in accordance with Part 4 (sections 35 through 39). (e) This by-law does not provide for any phasing in of development charges. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-10 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law (f) This by-law applies to all lands in the Municipality. Imposition of Development Charges 12. Development charges shall be imposed on all land, buildings or structures that are developed if the development requires, (a) the passing of a zoning by-law or of an amendment thereto under section 34 of the Planning Act; (b) the approval of a minor variance under section 45 of the Planning Act; (c) a conveyance of land to which a by-law passed under subsection 50(7) of the Planning Act applies; (d) the approval of a plan of subdivision under section 51 of the Planning Act; (e) a consent under section 53 of the Planning Act; (f) the approval of a description under section 50 of the Condominium Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c.19; or (g) the issuing of a permit under the Building Code Act, 1992 in relation to a building or structure. 13. Not more than one development charge for each service shall be imposed upon any land, building or structure whether or not two or more of the actions or decisions referred to in section 12 are required before the land, building or structure can be developed. 14. Notwithstanding section 13, if two or more of the actions or decisions referred to in section 12 occur at different times, additional development charges shall be imposed in respect of any increase in or additional development permitted by the subsequent action or decision. Basis of Calculation 15. Development charges for all services shall be calculated, Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-11 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law (a) in the case of residential buildings and the residential portions of mixed - use buildings, on the basis of the number and type of dwelling units contained in them; and (b) in the case of non-residential buildings and the non-residential portion of mixed-use buildings, on the basis of the gross floor area contained in the non-residential building or in the non-residential portion of the mixed-use building. Amount 16. (1) The amount of the development charges payable in respect of residential development shall be determined in accordance with clause 15 (1) (a) and Schedule 1. (2) The amount of the development charges payable in respect of non- residential development shall be determined in accordance with clause 15(1)(b) and Schedule 1. Timing of Calculation 17. (1) The total amount of a development charge is the amount of the development charge that would be determined under the by-law on, (a) the day an application for an approval of development in a site plan control area under subsection 41(4) of the Planning Act was made in respect of the development that is subject of the development charge; (b) if clause (a) does not apply, the day an application for an amendment to a by-law passed under section 34 of the Planning Act was made in respect of the development that is the subject of the development charge; or (c) if neither clause (a) or clause (b) applies, the day the first building permit is issued for the development that is the subject of the development charge. (2) Subsection (1) applies even if this by-law is no longer in effect. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-12 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law (3) Where clause (1)(a) or (b) applies, interest shall be payable on the development charge, at the rate established by the Municipality’s Interest Rate Policy, from the date of the application referred to in the applicable clause to the date the development charge is payable. (4) If a development was the subject or more than one application referred to in clause (1)(a) or (b), the later one is deemed to be the applicable application for the purposes of this section. (5) Clauses (1)(a) and (b) do not apply if, on the date the first building permit is issued for the development, more than two years has elapsed since the application referred to in clause (1)(a) or (b) was approved. (6) Clauses (1)(a) and (b) do not apply in the case of an application made before January 1, 2020. Timing of Payment 18. (1) Subject to subsections 18(2) and 18(3), development charges shall be payable in full on the date the first building permit is issued for the development of the land against which the development charges apply. (2) Notwithstanding Subsection 18(1), development charges for rental housing and institutional developments are payable in 6 installments commencing with the first installment payable on the da te of occupancy, and each subsequent installment, including interest, payable on the anniversary date each year thereafter. (3) Notwithstanding Subsection 18(1), development charges for non-profit housing developments are payable in 21 installments commenc ing with the first installment payable on the date of occupancy, and each subsequent installment, including interest, payable on the anniversary date each year thereafter. (4) If the development of land is such that it does not require that a building permit be issued before the development is commenced, but the development requires one or more of the other actions or decisions referred to in section 12 be taken or made before the development is Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-13 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law commenced, development charges shall be payable in respect of any increase in or additional development permitted by such action or decision prior to the action or decision required for the increased or additional development being taken or made. (5) In accordance with section 27 of the Act, where apartment buildings having a minimum of 3 stories are being developed, the Municipality may enter into an agreement with a person who is required to pay a development charge providing for all or any part of a development charge to be paid after it would otherwise be payable. (6) For the purpose of subsections 18(2) and 18(3) herein, “interest” means the interest rate outlined in the Municipality’s Interest Rate Policy. Method of Payment 19. Payment of development charges shall be in a form acceptable to the Municipality. Unpaid Charges 20. Where a development charge or any part of it remains unpaid at any time after it is payable, the amount shall be added to the tax roll and collected in the same manner as taxes. Indexing 21. The development charges set out in Schedule 1 shall be adjusted without amendment to this by-law annually on July 1st in each year, commencing on July 1, 2021, at the rate identified by the Statistics Canada Non-Residential Construction Price Index for Toronto based on the 12 month period most recently available. Part 3 - Exemptions Specific Users 22. Development charges shall not be imposed with respect to land, buildings or structures that are owned by, Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-14 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law (a) a hospital as defined in section 1 of the Public Hospitals Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.40 and used, designed or intended for the purposes set out in such Act; (b) the Municipality, the Corporation of the Regional Municipality of Durham, or their local boards as defined in section 1 of the Act and used, designed or intended for municipal purposes; (c) a board of education as defined in subsection 1(1) of the Education Act, 1990, S.O. 1990, c.27 and used, designed or intended for school purposes including the administration or the servicing of schools; and (d) a college or a university as defined in section 171.1 of the Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.2 and used, designed or intended for purposes set out in such Act. Specific Properties 23. Buildings that are or will be located either in the Clarington Science Park or the Clarington Energy Park (as shown in Schedule 2) are exempt from development charges if the owner can provide evidence satisfactory to the Director of Finance that the building will be used for research purposes including laboratories, offices, amenity areas and service areas for staff who conduct research. Existing Residential 24. Development charges shall not be imposed with respect to residential development if the only effect of such development is, (a) an interior alteration to an existing residential building which does not change or intensify the use of the building; (b) the enlargement of an existing dwelling unit; (c) the creation of a second or third dwelling unit in an existing single detached dwelling, or ancillary structure thereto, where the total gross floor area of the additional unit(s) does not exceed the original gross floor area of the existing dwelling unit; or Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-15 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law (d) the creation of a second dwelling unit in a semi-detached building or townhouse dwelling, or ancillary structure thereto, where the total gross floor area of the additional unit does not exceed the original gross floor area of the existing dwelling unit. New Residential 25. Development charges shall not be imposed with respect to new residential development if the only effect of such development is the creation of a second dwelling unit in prescribed classes of proposed new residential buildings, including structures ancillary to dwellings, subject to the following restrictions: Item Name of Class of Proposed New Residential Buildings Description of Class of Proposed New Residential Buildings Restrictions 1. Proposed new detached dwellings Proposed new residential buildings that would not be attached to other buildings and that are permitted to contain a second dwelling unit, that being either of the two dwelling units, if the units have the same gross floor area, or the smaller of the dwelling units. The proposed new detached dwelling must only contain two dwelling units. The proposed new detached dwelling must be located on a parcel of land on which no other detached dwelling, semi- detached dwelling or row dwelling would be located. 2. Proposed new semi-detached dwellings or row dwellings Proposed new residential buildings that would have one or two vertical walls, but no other parts, attached to other buildings and that are permitted to contain a second dwelling unit, that being either of the two dwelling units, if the units have the same gross floor area, or the smaller of the dwelling units. The proposed new semi- detached dwelling or row dwelling must only contain two dwelling units. The proposed new semi- detached dwelling or row dwelling must be located on a parcel of land on which no other detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling or row dwelling would be located. 3. Proposed new residential buildings that would be ancillary to a proposed new detached dwelling, semi- Proposed new residential buildings that would be ancillary to a proposed new detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling or row dwelling and that are permitted to contain a single dwelling unit. The proposed new detached dwelling, semi- detached dwelling or row dwelling, to which the proposed new residential building would be ancillary, must only contain one dwelling unit. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-16 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law detached dwelling or row dwelling The gross floor area of the dwelling unit in the proposed new residential building must be equal to or less than the gross floor area of the detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling or row dwelling to which the proposed new residential building is ancillary. Agricultural Development 26. (1) In this section, "agricultural", in reference to use, means land, buildings or structures used, designed or intended to be used solely for an "agricultural operation" as defined in section 1 of the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c.1 but does not include any facilities located within urban areas as defined in the Municipality’s Official Plan ; "agri-tourism" has the same meaning as in Zoning By-law 2005-109; and "farm bunkhouse" means a building or buildings that are constructed on land zoned agricultural ("A") in a Zoning By-law and is used, designed or intended to be used exclusively to provide seasonal, interim or occasional living accommodation to farm labourers. (2) Land, buildings or structures used, designed or intended for agricultural purposes or for agri-tourism are exempt from development charges. (3) Farm bunkhouses are exempt from development charges provided there is an existing dwelling unit on the same lot. Places of Worship 27. (1) In this section, "place of worship" means a building or structure or part thereof that is used primarily for worship and is exempt from taxation as a place of worship under the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-17 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law (2) Places of worship are exempt from non-residential development charges. Garden Suites 28. (1) In this section, "garden suite" means a one unit detached residential structure containing bathroom and full kitchen facilities that is (a) ancillary to an existing residential structure; (b) designed to be portable; and (c) for purposes of section 16, considered to be a dwelling unit in an apartment building. (2) The development charges paid in regard to a garden suite shall be refunded in full, without interest, to the then current owner of the garden suite, upon request, if the garden suite is demolished or removed within the period of time that Council has authorized its temporary use. Temporary Buildings 29. (1) In this section, "temporary building" means a building or structure constructed, erected or placed on land for a continuous period not exceeding twelve months and includes an addition or alteration to a building or structure that has the effect of increasing the gross floor area thereof for a continuous period not exceeding 12 months; and "sales office" means a building or structure constructed, erected or placed on land to be used exclusively by a realtor, builder, developer or contractor on a temporary basis for the sale, display and marketing of residential lots and dwellings within a draft approved subdivision or condominium plan. (2) Temporary buildings and sales offices are exempt from development charges. (3) If a temporary building remains for a continuous period exceeding 12 months, it shall be deemed not to be, or ever to have been, a temporary building, and the development charges thereby become payable. Existing Industrial Development Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-18 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law 30. (1) In this section, "existing industrial building" has the same meaning as in subsection 1(1) of O.Reg. 82/98. For ease of reference, the current definition in the Regulation reads as follows: "existing industrial building" means a building used for or in connection with: (a) manufacturing, producing, processing, storing or distributing something, (b) research or development in connection with manufacturing, producing or processing something, (c) retail sales by a manufacturer, producer or processor of something they manufactured, produced or processed, if the retail sales are at the site where the manufacturing, production or processing takes place, (d) office or administrative purposes, if they are, (i) carried out with respect to manufacturing, producing, processing, storage or distributing of something, and (ii) in or attached to the building or structure used for that manufacturing, producing, processing, storage or distribution; (2) If a development includes the enlargement of the gross floor area of an existing industrial building, the amount of the development charge that is payable in respect of the enlargement is determined in accordance with this section. (3) If the gross floor area is enlarged by 100 per cent or less, the amount of the development charge in respect of the enlargement is zero. (4) If the gross floor area is enlarged by more than 100 per cent, the amount of the development charge in respect of the enlargement is the amount of the development charge that would otherwise be payable multiplied by the fraction determined as follows: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-19 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law 1. Determine the amount by which the enlargement exceeds 100 per cent of the gross floor area before the enlargement. 2. Divide the amount determined under paragraph 1 by the amount of the enlargement. (5) The exemption provided in this section shall apply equally to a separate (non-contiguous) industrial building constructed on the same lot as an existing industrial building. (6) The exemption provided in subsections (1) though (5) above shall not apply to existing industrial buildings located on land that is in the "large industrial property class" as defined in subsection 14(1) of O. Reg. 282/98 passed under the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31, however the exemption provided in section 4 of the Act shall apply to such buildings. New Industrial Development 31. The amount of the development charge payable in respect of a new industrial building constructed on a vacant lot is 50% of the amount that would otherwise be payable. Purpose Built Rental Housing Development 32. (1) This section only applies to Purpose Built Rental Housing Developments on lands within the Regional Urban Centres and Regional Corridors designated in the Clarington Official Plan. (2) In order to incent development, the amount of the residential development charge payable in respect of development that is eligible pursuant to this section is 50% of the residential amount that would otherwise be payable. (3) To be eligible under this section buildings must conform to the Land Use and Urban Design Policies and Guidelines of the Clarington Official Plan and Zoning By-law and this conformity will be established by the Director of Planning and Development. Affordable Housing Development Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-20 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law 33. (1) This section only applies to Affordable Housing defined as new housing developments qualifying under the Ontario Community Housing Renewal Strategy and/or the National Housing Strategy Co-Investment Fund. (2) In order to incent development, the amount of the residential development charge payable in respect of development that is eligible pursuant to this section is zero. (3) To be eligible under this section buildings must conform to the Land Use and Urban Design Policies and Guidelines of the Clarington Official Plan and Zoning By-law and this conformity will be established by the Director of Planning and Development. Small Business Expansion 34. (1) This section only applies to specific areas in Newcastle Village (Schedule 3A), Orono (Schedule 3B), Bowmanville (Schedule 3C) and Courtice (Schedule 3D) as Revitalization Areas. (2) In this section, "existing commercial building" means an existing non - residential building that, (a) is not used, designed or intended for any industrial use; (b) has a gross floor area of less than 250 square metres; and (c) is located on land that is zoned commercial ("C") in a Zoning By- law. (d) Building expansions must conform to the Land Use and Urban Design Policies and Guidelines of the Clarington Official Plan and Zoning By-law and this conformity will be established by the Director of Planning and Development (3) If a development includes the enlargement of the gross floor area of an existing commercial building, the amount of the development charge that is payable in respect of the enlargement is determined in accordance with this section. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-21 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law (4) If the gross floor area is enlarged by 50 per cent or less, the amount of the development charge in respect of the enlargement is zero. (5) If the gross floor area is enlarged by more than 50 per cent, the amount of the development charge in respect of the enlargement is the amount of the development charge that would otherwise be payable multiplied by the fraction determined as follows: 1. Determine the amount by which the enlargement exceeds 50 per cent of the gross floor area before the enlargement. 2. Divide the amount determined under paragraph 1 by the amount of the enlargement. Part 4 - Redevelopment Demolition and Conversion Credits 35. (1) In this section, "conversion" means the change in use of all or a portion of a building as permitted under the provisions of a Zoning By-law. (2) Where an existing building or structure is to be converted to another use, in whole or in part, or converted from one principal use to another principal use on the same land, the amount of the development charge payable shall be determined in accordance with this section. (3) Where a building or structure is destroyed in whole or in part by fire, explosion or Act of God or is demolished and the property redeveloped, the amount of the development charge payable in respect of the redevelopment shall be determined in accordance with this section. (4) The development charges otherwise payable in respect of redevelopment described in subsections (2) and (3) shall be reduced by the following amounts: (a) in the case of a residential building or the residential portion of a mixed-use building or structure, an amount calculated by multiplying the applicable development charges under Schedule 1 by the number, according to type of dwelling units that have been Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-22 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law demolished or converted to another principal use or demolished and reconstructed as the case may be; and (b) in the case of a non-residential building or the non-residential portion of a mixed-use building or structure, an amount calculated by multiplying the applicable development charges under Schedule 2 by the non-residential gross floor area that has been demolished or converted to another principal use or demolished and reconstructed as the case may be. (5) Unless a building permit for the redevelopment has been issued, and not revoked prior to the fifth anniversary of the date on which a demolition permit was issued for the demolished building or structure or the date on which the building or structure was destroyed in whole or in part by fire, explosion or Act of God, whichever is applicable, the credit provided under subsection (3) shall expire. (6) The amount of any credit under subsection (4) shall not exceed the total development charges otherwise payable. (7) No development charge is payable for the conversion of a heritage building located in any Revitalization Area described in section 34. (8) Notwithstanding subsection (4), no credit shall be provided if, (a) the demolished building or structure or part thereof would have been exempt under this by-law; (b) the building or structure or part thereof would have been exempt under this by-law prior to the conversion, redevelopment or reconstruction as the case may be; or (c) the development is exempt in whole or in part or eligible for any other relief under this by-law. Brownfield Credit 36. (1) The amount of development charges otherwise payable for the redevelopment of contaminated property shall be reduced by an amount Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-23 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law equal to the actual costs directly attributable to the environmental assessment and rehabilitation of the property, as approved by the Municipality, and provided a Record of Site Condition has been filed for the intended future use. (2) The amount of any credit under subsection (2) shall not exceed the total development charge otherwise payable. Credit for Relocation of Building 37. No development charge shall be payable for any building or structure that is relocated or reconstructed at a different location on the same lot. Relocation of Heritage Buildings 38. (1) Where a heritage building is relocated to a different lot, an amount equal to the development charge shall be refunded to the owner upon the building being redesignated as a heritage building on the new lot. (2) Notwithstanding subsection 35(3), no credit shall be provided in relation to the property on which the heritage building was originally located. Occupancy During Construction 39. A full development charge refund shall be given if an existing dwelling unit on the same lot is demolished within 6 months or such longer period as may be permitted by Council following the date of issuance of the building permit for a new dwelling unit that is intended to replace the existing dwelling unit. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-24 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law Part 5 - General Cancelled Permits 40. A full development charge refund shall be given if a building permit is cancelled prior to the commencement of construction. Onus 41. The onus is on the owner to produce evidence to the satisfaction of the Municipality which establishes that the owner is entitled to any exemption, credit or refund claimed under this by-law. Interest 42. The Municipality shall pay interest on a refund under sections 18 and 25 of the Act at a rate equal to the Bank of Canada rate on the date this By-law comes into force updated on the first business day of every January, April, July and October until the date of the repeal or the expiry of this by-law. 43. Except as required under section 40, there shall be no interest paid on any refunds given under this by-law. Front-Ending Agreements 44. The Municipality may enter into front-ending agreements under section 44 of the Act. Effective Date 45. This by-law comes into force and is effective on December 15, 2020. Expiry 46. This by-law expires five years after the day on which it comes into force. Repeal 47. By-law No. 2015-035 is repealed effective January 19, 2021. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-25 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law PASSED this 18th day of January 2021. ____________________________ Adrian Foster, Mayor _____________________________ June Gallagher, Municipal Clerk Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-26 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law SCHEDULE 1 SCHEDULE OF MUNICIPAL-WIDE DEVELOPMENT CHARGES NOTE: Charges are subject to indexing in accordance with section 21 Single and Semi- Detached Dwelling Apartments - 2 Bedrooms + Apartments - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom Other Multiples Industrial Non-Industrial Services Related to a Highway 12,006 6,392 3,924 9,841 34.02 103.86 Fire Protection Services 454 242 148 372 2.47 2.47 Parks and Recreation Services 7,678 4,088 2,510 6,293 - - Library Services 1,007 536 329 825 - - Growth Studies 316 168 103 259 0.97 0.97 Total Municipal Wide Services 21,461 11,426 7,014 17,590 37.46 107.30 NON-RESIDENTIAL (per sq.m. of Gross Floor Area) Service RESIDENTIAL Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-27 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law Schedule 2A — Clarington Energy Business Park Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-28 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law Schedule 2B — Clarington Science Park Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-29 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law Schedule 3A — Revitalization Area — Newcastle Village Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-30 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law Schedule 3B — Revitalization Area — Orono Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-31 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law Schedule 3C — Revitalization Area — Bowmanville Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-32 856663492,,,Attachment 1 - Draft Municipal Wide By-law Schedule 3D — Revitalization Area — Courtice Attachment 2 to FSD-004-21 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-1 C:\Program Files\eSCRIBE\TEMP\10523975356\10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-law.docxH:\Clarington\2019 DC & CBC\Report\Clarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL.docx Appendix F Proposed Area-Specific D.C. By-law Attachment 2 to FSD-004-21 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-2 C:\Program Files\eSCRIBE\TEMP\10523975356\10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-law.docxH:\Clarington\2019 DC & CBC\Report\Clarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL.docx THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BY-LAW NO. 20202021-0XX to impose area-specific development charges against land in the Municipality of Clarington pursuant to the Development Charges Act, 1997 WHEREAS subsection 2(1) of the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c.27 provides that the council of a municipality may by by-law impose development charges against land to pay for increased capital costs required because of increas ed needs for services arising from the development of the area to which the by-law applies. NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON ENACTS AS FOLLOW S: Part 1 — Interpretation Definitions 1. In this by-law, "accessory", where used to describe a building or structure, means that the building or structure or part thereof that is naturally and normally incidental, subordinate in purpose or floor area or both, and exclusively devoted to a principal use, building or structure; "Act" means the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c.27; "air-supported structure" has the same meaning as in the Building Code Act, 1992; "apartment building" means (a) a residential building (other than a fourplex or sixplex) containing 4 or more dwelling units that have a common entrance to grade, common corridors, stairs and/or yards; and (b) the residential portion of a mixed-use building containing 4 or more dwelling units that are located behind or above a non-residential use and may have a separate entrance to grade, and includes stacked townhouse; “bedroom” means a habitable room, including a den, study, loft, or other similar area, but does not include a living room, a dining room, a bathroom, or kitchen; Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-3 10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-lawClarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL "building" means a building or structure that occupies an area greater than 10 square metres consisting of a wall, roof and floor or a structural system serving the function thereof, and includes an air-supported structure; "Building Code Act, 1992" means the Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c.23 and all Regulations thereunder including the Ontario Building Code, 2012; "Council" means Council of the Municipality; "development" means any activity or proposed activity in respect of land that requires one or more of the actions or decisions referred to in section 12 and includes redevelopment; "development charge" means a development charge imposed by this by-law; "duplex" means a residential building containing 2 dwelling units divided horizontally from each other; "dwelling unit" means one or more habitable rooms designed or intended to be used together as a single and separate housekeeping unit by one or more persons, containing its own full kitchen and sanitary facilities, with a private entrance from outside the unit itself; “existing” means the number, use and size that existed at least 2 years before the date of building permit application; "fourplex" means a pair of duplexes divided vertically from the other by a common wall; "floor" includes a paved, concrete, wooden, gravel or dirt floor; "grade" means the average level of the proposed finished surface of the ground immediately abutting each building or mixed-use building at all exterior walls; "gross floor area" means the total area of all floors, whether above or below grade, measured between the outside surfaces of exterior walls, or between the outside surfaces of exterior walls and the centre line of a party wall or a demising wall as the case may be, including mezzanines, air-supported structures, interior Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-4 10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-lawClarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL corridors, lobbies, basements, cellars, half-stories, common areas, and the space occupied by interior walls or partitions, but excluding any areas used for, (a) loading bays, parking of motor vehicles, retail gas pump canopies; and (b) enclosed garbage storage in an accessory building; "heritage building" means a building designated under section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 0.18 and, for purpose of subsection 36(7), includes any building identified as "primary resource" in the registry maintained by the Municipality pursuant to section 28 of such Act; "industrial", in reference to use, means any land, building or structure or portions thereof used, designed or intended for or in connection with manufacturing, producing, processing, fabricating, assembling, refining, research and development, storage of materials and products, truck terminals, warehousing, but does not include, (a) retail service sales or rental areas, storage or warehousing areas used, designed or intended to be used in connection with retail sales, service or rental areas, warehouse clubs or similar uses, self-storage mini warehouses, and secure document storage; and (b) office areas that are not accessory to any of the foregoing areas or uses or accessory office uses that are greater than 25% of the gross floor area of the building; “institutional”, in reference to use, means development of a building or structure intended for use, (a) as a long-term care home within the meaning of subsection 2 (1) of the Long-Term Care Homes Act, 2007; (b) as a retirement home within the meaning of subsection 2 (1) of the Retirement Homes Act, 2010; (c) by any of the following post-secondary institutions for the objects of the institution: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-5 10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-lawClarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL (i) a university in Ontario that receives direct, regular and ongoing operating funding from the Government of Ontario, (ii) a college or university federated or affiliated with a university described in subclause (i), or (iii) an Indigenous Institute prescribed for the purposes of section 6 of the Indigenous Institutes Act, 2017; (d) as a memorial home, clubhouse or athletic grounds by an Ontario branch of the Royal Canadian Legion; or (e) as a hospice to provide end of life care. "linked building" means a residential building that is divided vertically so as to contain only two separate dwelling units, connected underground by footing and foundation, each of which has an independent entrance directly from the outside of the building and is located on a separate lot; "lot" means a parcel of land within a registered plan of subdivision or any land that may be legally conveyed under the exemptions provided in clause 50(3)(b) or 50(5)(a) of the Planning Act; "mezzanine" has the same meaning as in the Building Code Act, 1992; "mixed-use building" means a building used, designed or intended to be used either for a combination of non-residential and residential areas and uses, or for a combination of different classes or types of non-residential areas and uses; "mobile home" means a dwelling unit that is designed to be made mobile, and constructed or manufactured to provide a permanent or temporary residence for one or more persons, but does not include a travel trailer or tent trailer; "multiple unit building" means a residential building or the portion of a mixed -use building that contains multiple dwelling units (other than dwelling units contained in an apartment building, linked building, semi-detached building or single detached dwelling) and includes plexes and townhouses; Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-6 10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-lawClarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL "Municipality" means The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington or the geographic area of the Municipality of Clarington, as the context requires; "net hectare" means the area in hectares of a parcel of land exclusive of the following: (a) lands conveyed or to be conveyed to the Municipality of Clarington or the Region of Durham or a local board thereof; (b) lands conveyed or to be conveyed to the Ministry of Transportation for the construction of provincial highways; (c) hazard lands conveyed or to be conveyed to a conservation authority as a condition of development; and (d) lands for centralized storm water management facilities and naturalized channel areas; “non-industrial” in reference to use, means lands, buildings or structures used or designed or intended for use for a purpose which is not residential or industrial ; “non-profit housing development” means development of a building or structure intended for use as residential premises by, (a) a corporation without share capital to which the Ontario Corporations Act (or its successor legislation) applies, that is in good standing under that Act and whose primary object is to provide housing; (b) a corporation without share capital to which the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act applies, that is in good standing under that Act and whose primary object is to provide housing; or (c) a non-profit housing co-operative that is in good standing under the Co- operative Corporations Act; "non-residential", in reference to use, means a building or portions of a mixed- use building containing floors or portions of floors which are used, designed or intended to be used for a purpose which is not residential, and includes a hotel, motel and a retirement residence; Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-7 10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-lawClarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL "owner" means the owner of land or a person who has made application for an approval for the development of land against which a development charge is imposed; "party wall" means a wall jointly owned and jointly used by 2 parties under an easement agreement or by right in law and erected on a line separating 2 parcels of land each of which is, or is capable of being, a separate lot; "Planning Act" means the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13; "plex" means a duplex, triplex, fourplex or sixplex; “rental housing” means development of a building or structure with four or more dwelling units all of which are intended for use as rented residential premises; "residential", in reference to use, means a building or a portion of a mixed-use building and floors or portions of floors contained therein that are used, designed or intended to be used as living accommodation for one or more individuals provided in dwelling units and any building accessory to such dwelling units; "retirement residence" means a residential building or the residential portion of a mixed-use building that provides living accommodation, where common facilities for the preparation and consumption of food are provided for the residents of the building, and where each unit or living accommodation has separate sanitary facilities, less than full kitchen facilities and a separate entrance from a common corridor; “retirement residence unit” means a unit within a retirement residence; "semi-detached building" means a residential building that is divided vertically so as to contain only two separate dwelling units, each of which has an independent entrance directly from outside of the building; "service" means a service designated by section 10; "single-detached dwelling" means a residential building containing only one dwelling unit which is not attached to any other building or structure except its own garage or shed and has no dwelling units either above it or below it, and includes a mobile home; Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-8 10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-lawClarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL "sixplex" means a pair of triplexes divided vertically one from the other by a common wall; "stacked townhouse" means a building, other than a plex, townhouse or apartment building, that contains at least 3 attached dwelling units that (a) are joined by common side walls with dwelling units entirely or partially above another; and (b) have a separate entrance to grade; "townhouse" means a building, other than a plex, stacked townhouse or apartment building, that contains at least 3 attached dwelling units, each of which (a) is separated from the others vertically; and (b) has a separate entrance to grade; "triplex" means a residential building containing 3 dwelling units; and "Zoning By-laws" means the Municipality's By-law No. 84-63 and By-law No. 2005-109. References 2. In this by-law, reference to any Act, Regulation, Plan or By-Law is reference to the Act, Regulation, Plan or By-Law as it is amended or re-enacted from time to time. 3. Unless otherwise specified, references in this by-law to Schedules, Parts, sections, subsections, clauses and paragraphs are to Schedules, Parts, sections, subsections, clauses and paragraphs in this by-law. Word Usage 4. This by-law shall be read with all changes in gender or number as the context may require. 5. In this by-law, a grammatical variation of a defined word or expression has a corresponding meaning. Schedules 6. The following Schedules are attached to and form part of this by-law: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-9 10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-lawClarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL Schedule 1 — Clarington Technology Park Area-Specific Development Charge Schedule 2 – Clarington Technology Park Development Charge Area Classification and Benefitting Properties Severability 7. If, for any reason, any section or subsection of this by-law is held invalid, it is hereby declared to be the intention of Council that all the remainder of this by-law shall continue in full force and effect until repealed, re-enacted or amended, in whole or in part or dealt with in any other way. Part 2 — Development Charges Designated Services 8. It is hereby declared by Council that development within the Clarington Technology Park in the Municipality will increase the need for Stormwater Management Services. 9. Development charges shall apply without regard to the services which in fact are required or are used by any individual development. 10. Development charge shall be imposed for the following categories of service to pay for increased capital costs required because of increased needs for services arising from development: (a) Storm Water Management Services. Rules 11. For the purpose of complying with section 6 of the Act, the following rules have been developed: (a) The rules for determining if a development charge is payable in any particular case and for determining the amount of the charge shall be in accordance with sections 12 through 20. (b) The rules for determining the indexing of development charges shall be in accordance with section 21. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-10 10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-lawClarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL (c) The rules for determining exemptions shall be in accordance with Part 3 (sections 22 through 25). (d) The rules respecting redevelopment of land shall be in accordance with Part 4 (section 26). (e) This by-law does not provide for any phasing in of development charges. (f) This by-law applies to all lands within the Clarington Technology Park, as defined in Schedule 2, in the Municipality. Imposition of Development Charges 12. Development charges shall be imposed on all land, buildings or structures that are developed if the development requires, (a) the passing of a zoning by-law or of an amendment thereto under section 34 of the Planning Act; (b) the approval of a minor variance under section 45 of the Planning Act; (c) a conveyance of land to which a by-law passed under subsection 50(7) of the Planning Act applies; (d) the approval of a plan of subdivision under section 51 of the Planning Act; (e) a consent under section 53 of the Planning Act; (f) the approval of a description under section 50 of the Condominium Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c.19; or (g) the issuing of a permit under the Building Code Act, 1992 in relation to a building or structure. 13. Not more than one development charge for each service shall be imposed upon any land, building or structure whether or not two or more of the actions or decisions referred to in section 12 are required before the land, building or structure can be developed. 14. Notwithstanding section 13, if two or more of the actions or decisions referred to in section 12 occur at different times, additional development charges shall be imposed in respect of any increase in or additional development permitted by the subsequent action or decision. Basis of Calculation Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-11 10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-lawClarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL 15. Development charges for all services shall be calculated based on the number of net hectares of the entire parcel of land on which development will occur in accordance with benefits accrued per Schedule 2. Amount 16. The amount of the development charges payable in respect of development shall be determined in accordance with clause 15 and Schedule 1. Timing of Calculation 17. (1) The total amount of a development charge is the amount of the development charge that would be determined under the by-law on, (a) the day an application for an approval of development in a site plan control area under subsection 41(4) of the Planning Act was made in respect of the development that is subject of the development charge; (b) if clause (a) does not apply, the day an application for an amendment to a by-law passed under section 34 of the Planning Act was made in respect of the development that is the subject of the development charge; or (c) if neither clause (a) or clause (b) applies, the day the first building permit is issued for the development that is the subject of the development charge. (2) Subsection (1) applies even if this by-law is no longer in effect. (3) Where clause (1)(a) or (b) applies, interest shall be payable on the development charge, at the rate established by the Municipality’s Interest Rate Policy, from the date of the application referred to in the applicable clause to the date the development charge is payable. (4) If a development was the subject or more than one application referred to in clause (1)(a) or (b), the later one is deemed to be the applicable application for the purposes of this section. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-12 10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-lawClarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL (5) Clauses (1)(a) and (b) do not apply if, on the date the first building permit is issued for the development, more than two years has elapsed since the application referred to in clause (1)(a) or (b) was approved. (6) Clauses (1)(a) and (b) do not apply in the case of an application made before January 1, 2020. Timing of Payment 18. (1) Subject to subsections 18(2) and 18(3), development charges shall be payable in full on the date the first building permit is issued for the development of the land against which the development charges apply. (2) Notwithstanding Subsection 18(1), development charges for rental housing and institutional developments are payable in 6 installments commencing with the first installment payable on the date of occupancy, and each subsequent installment, including interest, payable on the anniversary date each year thereafter. (3) Notwithstanding Subsection 18(1), development charges for non-profit housing developments are payable in 21 installments commencing with the first installment payable on the date of occupancy, and each subsequent installment, including interest, payable on the anniversary date each year thereafter. (4) If the development of land is such that it does not require that a building permit be issued before the development is commenced, but the development requires one or more of the other actions or decisions referred to in section 12 be taken or made before the development is commenced, development charges shall be payable in respect of any increase in or additional development permitted by such action or decision prior to the action or decision required for the increased or additional development being taken or made. (5) In accordance with section 27 of the Act, where temporary buildings are being developed, the Municipality may enter into an agreement with a person who is required to pay a development charge providing for all or Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-13 10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-lawClarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL any part of a development charge to be paid after it would otherwise be payable. (6) For the purpose of subsections 18(2) and 18(3) herein, “interest” means the interest rate outlined in the Municipality’s Interest Rate Policy. Method of Payment 19. Payment of development charges shall be in a fo rm acceptable to the Municipality. Unpaid Charges 20. Where a development charge or any part of it remains unpaid at any time after it is payable, the amount shall be added to the tax roll and collected in the same manner as taxes. Indexing 21. The development charges set out in Schedule 1 shall be adjusted without amendment to this by-law annually on July 1st in each year, commencing on July 1, 2021, at the rate identified by the Statistics Canada Non-Residential Construction Price Index for Toronto based on the 12-month period most recently available. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-14 10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-lawClarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL Part 3 - Exemptions Specific Users 22. Development charges shall not be imposed with respect to land, buildings or structures that are owned by, (a) the Municipality, the Corporation of the Regional Municipality of Durham, or their local boards as defined in section 1 of the Act and used, designed or intended for municipal purposes; and (b) a board of education as defined in subsection 1(1) of the Education Act, 1990, S.O. 1990, c.27 and used, designed or intended for school purposes including the administration or the servicing of schools. Existing Residential 23. Development charges shall not be imposed with respect to residential development if the only effect of such development is, (a) an interior alteration to an existing residential building which does not change or intensify the use of the building; (b) the enlargement of an existing dwelling unit; (c) the creation of one or two additionala second or third dwelling units in an existing single detached dwelling, or ancillary structure thereto, where the total gross floor area of the additional unit(s) does not exceed the original gross floor area of the existing dwelling unit; or (d) the creation of one additionala second dwelling unit in a semi-detached building or townhouse dwelling, or ancillary structure thereto, where the total gross floor area of the additional unit does not exceed the original gross floor area of the existing dwelling unit. New Residential 24. Development charges shall not be imposed with respect to new residential development if the only effect of such development is the creation of a second dwelling unit in prescribed classes of proposed new residential buildings, including structures ancillary to dwellings, subject to the following restrictions: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-15 10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-lawClarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL Item Name of Class of Proposed New Residential Buildings Description of Class of Proposed New Residential Buildings Restrictions 1. Proposed new detached dwellings Proposed new residential buildings that would not be attached to other buildings and that are permitted to contain a second dwelling unit, that being either of the two dwelling units, if the units have the same gross floor area, or the smaller of the dwelling units. The proposed new detached dwelling must only contain two dwelling units. The proposed new detached dwelling must be located on a parcel of land on which no other detached dwelling, semi- detached dwelling or row dwelling would be located. 2. Proposed new semi-detached dwellings or row dwellings Proposed new residential buildings that would have one or two vertical walls, but no other parts, attached to other buildings and that are permitted to contain a second dwelling unit, that being either of the two dwelling units, if the units have the same gross floor area, or the smaller of the dwelling units. The proposed new semi- detached dwelling or row dwelling must only contain two dwelling units. The proposed new semi- detached dwelling or row dwelling must be located on a parcel of land on which no other detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling or row dwelling would be located. 3. Proposed new residential buildings that would be ancillary to a proposed new detached dwelling, semi- detached dwelling or row dwelling Proposed new residential buildings that would be ancillary to a proposed new detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling or row dwelling and that are permitted to contain a single dwelling unit. The proposed new detached dwelling, semi- detached dwelling or row dwelling, to which the proposed new residential building would be ancillary, must only contain one dwelling unit. The gross floor area of the dwelling unit in the proposed new residential building must be equal to or less than the gross floor area of the detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling or row dwelling to which the proposed new residential building is ancillary. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-16 10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-lawClarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL Existing Industrial Development 25. (1) In this section, "existing industrial building" has the same meaning as in subsection 1(1) of O.Reg. 82/98. For ease of reference, the current definition in the Regulation reads as follows: "existing industrial building" means a building used for or in connection with: (a) manufacturing, producing, processing, storing or distributing something, (b) research or development in connection with manufacturing, producing or processing something, (c) retail sales by a manufacturer, producer or processor of something they manufactured, produced or processed, if the retail sales are at the site where the manufacturing, production or processing takes place, (d) office or administrative purposes, if they are, (i) carried out with respect to manufacturing, producing, processing, storage or distributing of something, and (ii) in or attached to the building or structure used for that manufacturing, producing, processing, storage or distribution; (2) If a development includes the enlargement of the gross floor area of an existing industrial building, the amount of the development charge that is payable in respect of the enlargement is determined in accordance with this section. (3) If the gross floor area is enlarged by 50 per cent or less, the amount of the development charge in respect of the enlargement is zero. (4) If the gross floor area is enlarged by more than 50 per cent, the amount of the development charge in respect of the enlargement is the amount of the development charge that would otherwise be payable multiplied by the fraction determined as follows: 1. Determine the amount by which the enlargement exceeds 50 per cent of the gross floor area before the enlargement. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-17 10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-lawClarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL 2. Divide the amount determined under paragraph 1 by the amount of the enlargement. (5) The exemption provided in this section shall apply equally to a separate (non-contiguous) industrial building constructed on the same lot as an existing industrial building. Part 4 - Redevelopment Demolition and Conversion Credits 26. (1) In this section, "conversion" means the change in use of all or a portion of a building as permitted under the provisions of a Zoning By-law. (2) Where an existing building or structure is to be converted to another use, in whole or in part, or converted from one principal use to another principal use on the same land, the amount of the development charge payable shall be determined in accordance with this section. (3) Where a building or structure if is destroyed in whole or in part by fire, explosion or Act of God or is demolished and reconstructedthe property redeveloped, the amount of the development charge payable in respect of the redevelopment shall be determined in accordance with this section. (4) The development charges otherwise payable in respect of redevelopment described in subsections (2) and (3) shall be reduced by the amount calculated by multiplying the applicable development charges under Schedule 1 by the net hectares under of the redeveloped property as enumerated in Schedule 2. (5) The amount of any credit under subsection (4) shall not exceed the total development charges otherwise payable. (6) Notwithstanding subsection (4), no credit shall be provided if, (a) the demolished building or structure or part thereof would have been exempt under this by-law; Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-18 10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-lawClarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL (b) the building or structure or part thereof would have been exempt under this by-law prior to the conversion, redevelopment or reconstruction as the case may be; (c) the development is exempt in whole or in part or eligible for any other relief under this by-law; or (d) development charges on the property were not paid under this by-law. Part 5 - General Cancelled Permits 27. A full development charge refund shall be given if a building permit is cancelled prior to the commencement of construction. Onus 28. The onus is on the owner to produce evidence to the satisfaction of the Municipality which establishes that the owner is entitled to any exemption, credit or refund claimed under this by-law. Interest 29. The Municipality shall pay interest on a refund under sections 18 and 25 of the Act at a rate equal to the Bank of Canada rate on the date this By-law comes into force updated on the first business day of every January, April, July and October until the date of the repeal or the expiry of this by-law. 30. Except as required under section 39, there shall be no interest paid on any refunds given under this by-law. Front-Ending Agreements 31. The Municipality may enter into front-ending agreements under section 44 of the Act. Effective Date 32. This by-law comes into force and is effective on January 19, 2021. Expiry Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-19 10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-lawClarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL 33. This by-law expires five years after the day on which it comes into force. PASSED this 18th day of January 2021. ____________________________ Adrian Foster, Mayor _____________________________ C. Anne GreentreeJune Gallagher, Municipal Clerk Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-20 10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-lawClarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL SCHEDULE 1 CLARINGTON TECHNOLOGY PARK AREA-SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT CHARGES NOTE: Charges are subject to indexing in accordance with section 21 $ Per Net Hectare 38,840 29,268 38,840 29,268 68,107 Total - Lands Benefitting from Quality and Quantity Control Total - Lands Benefitting Only from Quality Control Stormwater Management Services - Quantity Control Total - Lands Benefitting Only from Quantity Control Service Stormwater Management Services - Quality Control Attachment 2 to FSD-004-21 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-21 C:\Program Files\eSCRIBE\TEMP\10523975356\10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-law.docxH:\Clarington\2019 DC & CBC\Report\Clarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL.docx SCHEDULE 2 CLARINGTON TECHNOLOGY PARK DEVELOPMENT CHARGE AREA CLASSIFICATION Attachment 2 to FSD-004-21 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE F-22 C:\Program Files\eSCRIBE\TEMP\10523975356\10523975356,,,Attachment 2 - Draft Area Specific By-law.docxH:\Clarington\2019 DC & CBC\Report\Clarington 2020 DC Background Study - FINAL.docx CLARINGTON TECHNOLOGY PARK DEVELOPMENT CHARGE AREA BENEFITTING PROPERTIES * Areas shown are net of (exclude) land for future right-of-ways, channels, etc. Assessment Roll No.Civic Address/Location Area* (Hectares) 181701001006000 2911 HIGHWAY 2 5.06 181701001006320 1100 BENNETT RD 2.72 181701001006400 2885 HIGHWAY 2 8.64 16.41 Assessment Roll No.Civic Address/Location Area* (Hectares) 181701001001310 CON BF PT LOT 5 NOW RP 10R3357 PART 2 19.99 181701001001700 585 LAMBS RD 13.03 181701001001800 641 LAMBS RD 3.55 181701001001900 295 BASELINE RD 2.19 181701001002100 582 LAMBS RD 0.61 181701001002200 542 LAMBS RD 4.29 181701001006000 2911 HIGHWAY 2 2.93 181701001006300 1078 BENNETT RD 0.44 181701001006320 1100 BENNETT RD 1.96 181701001006400 2885 HIGHWAY 2 4.43 181701001008800 2805 HIGHWAY 2 0.67 181701001008900 2821-2825 KING ST E 0.27 181701001009100 2831 HWY 2 0.27 181701001009200 2839 HIGHWAY 2 0.42 181701001009300 2845 HIGHWAY 2 0.11 181701001009305 2849 HIGHWAY 2 0.25 181701001009400 1200 LAMBS RD 12.18 181702012019840 250 BASELINE RD 1.50 181702012019845 1122 HAINES ST 0.48 69.59 Assessment Roll No.Civic Address/Location Area* (Hectares) 181701001001930 271 BASELINE RD E 1.45 181702012019830 210 BASELINE RD E 0.81 181702012019835 222 BASELINE RD E 1.29 181702012019840 250 BASELINE RD 2.13 181702012019844 1084 HAINES ST 0.57 6.26 Total Lands Benefitting Only from Quantity Control Total Lands Benefitting from Both Quality and Quantity Control Total Lands Benefitting Only from Quality Control Attachment 3 to FND-004-21 Memorandum Address Contact Information Filepath Plaza Three 101-2000 Argentia Rd. Mississauga, Ontario L5N 1V9 Office: 905-272-3600 Fax: 905-272-3602 www.watsonecon.ca H:\Clarington\2019 DC & CBC\Developer Consultation\SCS Response - Southwest Courtice.docx To Trevor Pinn, Director of Financial Services/Treasurer, Municipality of Clarington From Andrew Grunda, Principal, Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Date November 27, 2020 Re: Southwest Courtice Landowners Group Submission re: October 15, 2020 Development Charge Background Study Fax Courier Mail Email The Municipality of Clarington (Municipality) received a letter from SCS Consulting Group (SCS) on behalf of the Southwest Courtice Landowners Group dated October 21, 2020 regarding the Municipality’s 2020 Development Charges (D.C.) Background Study. Subsequently Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. received this letter from the Municipality on November 24, 2020. The key dates regarding the D.C. background study process that has been proceeded through with stakeholders and Council are follows: February 19, 2020 – Development Industry Stakeholder Consultation session, including distribution of summary presentation and technical appendix substantiating the preliminary calculations; April 6, 2020 – Presentation of draft findings to Council; October 15, 2020 – Release of the D.C. Background Study on the Municipality’s website; and November 3, 2020 – Addendum to the October 15, 2020 D.C. Background Study. The questions and comments in the October 21, 2020 SCS letter and our responses to those questions are addressed in this memorandum and follow the order and titling of the SCS letter for consistency and ease of reference. 1. General Comments 1.1 Development Forecast SCS has suggested that the D.C. Background Study growth forecast to 2031 does not include future population growth associated with the Southwest Courtice Secondary Plan. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2 SCS Response - Southwest Courtice The growth forecast has been prepared based on the Municipality’s Official Plan population projections to 2031. Furthermore, the Municipality has confirmed that the Southwest Courtice Secondary Plan is within the 2031 urban boundaries and as such, the population growth associated with the Southwest Courtice Secondary Plan area is contained within the D.C. Background Study growth forecast to 2031. 1.2 Proposed Municipality Road Network Table 1 of the SCS letter identifies the following four road projects for potential inclusion in the D.C. Background Study: 1. Towline Road Extension a. The Clarington Transportation Master Plan identified the extension of Townline Rd. from Southport Dr. to Prestonvale Rd. as a long-term project that would be required beyond 2031. As such, the associated oversizing of this project has not been included in the D.C. Study. Furthermore, the traffic impact study for the Southwest Courtice Secondary Plan identifies that a two-lane road provides adequate capacity for forecast traffic demands. 2. Fenning Drive Extension a. Based on the local service policy contained in the Appendix D of the 2020 D.C. Background Study, the intersection works and sidewalk and cycling facility would be considered a local service and direct developer responsibility. 3. Prestonvale Road a. This road has been included within the 2020 D.C. Background Study as Services Related to a Highway, project #80 (Prestonvale Rd. from CPR level crossing to 262m S. Southfield Ave.). This project includes associated active transportation facilities and intersection works. b. Services Related to a Highway, project #28 is included for the Prestonvale Rd. Railroad Crossing at CPR level crossing. However, a grade separation is not proposed to be included during the forecast period to 2031. 4. Proposed Collector Road (North-South Route between Townline Extension and Prestonvale Rd.) a. Based on the local service policy contained in the Appendix D of the 2020 D.C. Background Study, the intersection works, sidewalk and cycling Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3 SCS Response - Southwest Courtice facility would be considered a local service and direct developer responsibility. 1.3 Proposed Active Transportation SCS has identified proposed active transportation projects to be included in the 2020 D.C. Background Study to connections to a future rail station, and connections across the Hwy 401 corridor to ensure connectivity with the Energy Park employment lands, Darlington Provincial Park, and a future community park. The D.C. Background Study includes road works with active transportation components, as well as sidewalk and cycling facility projects throughout the Southwest Courtice Secondary Plan Area. The proposed active transportation projects identified in Table 2 of the SCS letter are not currently envisioned by the Municipality within the forecast period to 2031. However, road improvements are proposed for a portion of Prestonvale Road from Bloor Street to Proposed Townline Extension (i.e. D.C. project #80 – Prestonvale Road from CPR level crossing to 262m S. Southfield Ave.) This project will contain active transportation components within the design. 1.4 Benefit to Existing No benefit to existing development has been included for bridge structure works, culvert works, intersection works, sidewalk and cycling facility works, or streetlighting works as the projects that have been identified are in response to future traffic demands and are not required in the absence of increased traffic demands from new development. Attachment 4 to FND-004-21 Memorandum Address Contact Information Filepath Plaza Three 101-2000 Argentia Rd. Mississauga, Ontario L5N 1V9 Office: 905-272-3600 Fax: 905-272-3602 www.watsonecon.ca H:\Clarington\2019 DC & CBC\Developer Consultation\DRHBA Response.docx To Trevor Pinn, Director of Financial Services/Treasurer, Municipality of Clarington From Andrew Grunda, Principal, Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Date November 27, 2020 Re: DHHBA Submission re: Clarington D.C. By-Law Update 2020 Fax Courier Mail Email The Municipality of Clarington (Municipality) received a letter from the Durham Region Homebuilders’ Association (DRHBA) dated November 12, 2020 regarding the Municipality’s 2020 Development Charges (D.C.) Background Study. Subsequently Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. received this letter from the Municipality on November 23, 2020. The key dates regarding the D.C. background study process that has been proceeded through with stakeholders and Council are follows: February 19, 2020 – Development Industry Stakeholder Consultation session, including distribution of summary presentation and technical appendix substantiating the preliminary calculations; April 6, 2020 – Presentation of draft findings to Council; October 15, 2020 – Release of the D.C. Background Study on the Municipality’s website; and November 3, 2020 – Addendum to the October 15, 2020 D.C. Background Study. The November 12, 2020 DRBHA letter contained a memorandum from Altus Group (Altus) including questions about the Municipality’s 2020 D.C. Background Study. Our responses to those questions are addressed in this memorandum and follow the order and titling of the Altus memorandum for consistency and ease of reference. 1. General Questions 1.1 Residential / Non-Residential Splits – Roads Altus questions why the incremental employment growth forecast in the D.C. Background Study does not include no-fixed-place-of-work (NFPOW) employment and why this employment was not included in the residential/non-residential cost allocations. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2 DRHBA Response The increase in need for services for roads is based on the Municipality’s Transportation Master Plan (TMP). The future travel demands in the TMP are forecast based on the projected population and employment growth for the Municipality to 2031. The employment projections utilized in the TMP explicitly exclude NFPOW employment. To be consistent with the travel demands identified in the TMP and associated increase in need for service, the allocation of D.C.-eligible costs to residential and non-residential development is been based on the incremental population and employment growth (excluding NFPOW) in the Municipality over that period. 1.2 Relationship of Calculated Maximum Allowable to D.C. Recoverable Costs Altus suggests that the D.C. recoverable costs exceed the historical level of service cap for Fire, Parks and Recreation, and Library Services. Furthermore, the Altus memo acknowledges that interest costs are not counted against the historical level of service cap. The following table summarizes the D.C. recoverable costs (net of interest costs) and the historical level of service cap for Fire, Parks and Recreation, and Library Services. For each service the D.C. recoverable costs (net of interest costs) are less than the historical level of service cap and is therefore compliant with the requirements of the Development Charges Act. 2. Service Specific Questions The service specific questions provided in the Altus memorandum are summarized and responded to in the following subsections 2.1 Fire Services 2.1.1 Question regarding the increase in land values between the Municipality’s 2015 and 2020 D.C. Background Studies Land valuations in the 2020 D.C. Background Study have been increased for inflation based on the Statistics Canada Non-Residential Building Construction Price Index over Fire Parks and Recreation Library D.C. Recoverable Costs 5,594,609 77,619,427 10,179,948 less: Interest Costs - 7,491,053 113,584 Net D.C. Recoverable Costs 5,594,609 70,128,374 10,066,364 Historical Level of Service Cap 10,919,837 74,611,352 10,720,664 Difference 5,325,227 4,482,978 654,300 Description Service Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3 DRHBA Response the 2015-2020 period (i.e. 16.7% increase). Please note that the while the 2020 Background Study presents building values including items such as land, siteworks, parking, landscaping, and furniture and equipment, the 2015 D.C. Background Study presented these items separately. A true comparison of the facility replacement costs contained in the 2015 D.C. Background Study should also contain the costs for land, developed land and furniture and equipment. 2.1.2 Question regarding the differences between the number of vehicles identified in the historical level of service calculation between the 2015 D.C. Background Study and 2020 D.C. Background Study The inventory of vehicles that were in service for the 2010-2019 period have been included reflective of updated information provided by the Municipality. The 2020 D.C. Background Study includes additional types of vehicles and equipment that were not included in the 2015 D.C. Background Study, i.e.: Trailers; Heavy Duty Trucks; Medium Duty Trucks; Polaris ATV; and Hurst Tools. 2.1.3 Question regarding cost increases for Fire Services, Projects #2 and #6 The costs for the Fire Services project #2 (Expansion of Headquarters #1) is based on the current building replacement costs per sq.ft. (i.e. $385 from the historical level of service calculation) and the anticipated facility size of 4,500 sq.ft. The cost estimates for project #6 (New Station #6 in Bowmanville) is based on the current building replacement costs per sq.ft. (i.e. $385 from the historical level of service calculation) plus 15% for equipment and siteworks and the anticipated facility size of 12,000 sq.ft. Furthermore, costs for land acquisition have been included for 1 ha of land. In total, the New Station #6 in Bowmanville has been included at a cost estimate of $501 per sq.ft. 2.2 Services Related to a Highway 2.2.1 Question regarding missing project numbers in the Services Related to a Highway capital needs listing This discrepancy was addressed in the November 3, 2020 addendum to the 2020 D.C. Background Study. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 4 DRHBA Response 2.2.2 Question regarding the differences in costs per km for roads in the historical level of service calculation between the 2015 D.C. Background Study and 2020 D.C. Background Study Updated replacement costs were provided by the Municipality using benchmark cost calculations based on the past 3-5 years historical costs. 2.2.3 Question regarding the differences in the replacement costs of the Hampton Operations Centre and Orono Operations Centre in the historical level of service calculation between the 2015 D.C. Background Study and 2020 D.C. Background Study. The Municipality has undertaken an Operations Needs Assessments to assess the future facility needs and construction costs. Replacement costs for the Hampton Operations Centre and Orono Operations Centre have been updated based anticipated facility construction costs identified in the 2020 Operations Needs Assessment and staff direction. By way of comparison, the construction cost estimates in Operations Needs assessment range between $456 to $869 per sq.ft. vs. $365 per sq.ft. in the D.C. Background Study. 2.2.4 Question regarding inconsistencies with the Benefit to Existing (BTE) deduction for roads projects The BTE deductions have been developed by CIMA+ on a project by project basis for improvements to existing roads. The BTE development has been calculated based on the road treatment costs that are anticipated over a 20-year forecast period under a no growth scenario. As such, the BTE deductions will differ by road based on the condition of the existing road segment. 2.2.5 Question regarding the BTE deductions for sidewalk and cycling facilities New sidewalk and cycling facilities have been allocated 100% to new development, consistent with the approach utilized in the Municipality’s 2015 D.C. Background Study. Projects #108, #124, #158, and #159 are for upgrades of an existing sidewalk to a multi- use path, and as such, a 38% BTE deduction has been applied to recognize the replacement of the existing sidewalk. 2.2.6 Question regarding BTE deductions for Streetlights compared to Streetscape works Similar to the approach for sidewalk and cycling facilities, new streetlights have been allocated 100% to new development. Streetscape works are for improvements to existing corridors and have been allocated to existing and new development on the basis of population growth to existing population (i.e. 24% new development / 74% existing development). Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 5 DRHBA Response 2.2.7 Question regarding the increase capital cost estimates for roads projects in the 2020 D.C. Background Study vs. the 2015 D.C. Background Study The D.C. program has been updated by staff, in consultation with CIMA+, for the 2020 D.C. Background Study. The costs include various road components such as: Road Construction; Storm Sewer; Sidewalk; Streetlight; Utility; Streetscape; Structures; EA Costs; and Land With regard to the specific projects identified by Altus, the following breakdown of the capital cost estimates are provided: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 6 DRHBA Response Road Road Storm Sidewalk Streetlight Streetscape Structure Project #Road/Project Description From To Year Factor Construction Sewer Construction Installation Works Works Total 4 Grady Dr. Structure (and Road Link) At Foster Creek 2024 70 1 749,397 - - 41,530 - 2,196,527 2,987,454 42 Longworth Ave. (Road Oversizing) West Bowmanville Boundary Green Rd.2020 420 1 186,663 260,930 119,497 50,854 71,275 - 689,219 64 Trulls Rd. Bloor St. (Reg. Rd. 22)Baseline Rd.2023 1820 1 3,759,597 1,315,193 588,431 250,420 327,975 - 6,241,615 Length (metres) Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 7 DRHBA Response 2.2.8 Question regarding the decrease in BTE deductions for specific roads projects As identified above, the BTE deductions have been developed by CIMA+ on a project by project basis for improvements to existing roads. The BTE deductions have been calculated based on the road treatment costs that would have been required over a 20- year forecast period under a no growth scenario. With the BTE deductions having been reassessed through the preparation of the 2020 D.C. Background Study, there are expected differences between the 2015 and 2020 D.C. Background Studies. 2.3 Parks and Recreation Services 2.3.1 Question regarding the costs for debt and future expansions of the Diane Hamre Recreation Complex Capital costs have been included for the growth-related share of remaining debt payments for a prior expansion to the Dian Hamre Recreation Complex. This debt was issued in 2007 and will expire in 2022. The Diane Hamre Recreation Complex – Ph1 Expansion project is related to a future expansion of this facility. 2.3.2 Question regarding debt included for additional Operations Centre facility space The Municipality has determined the need for additional operations facility space to meet the needs of future development through the 2020 Facility Needs Assessment. Furthermore, this need has been identified in prior D.C. Background Studies approved by Council. It is anticipated that the facility will be funded through the issuance of debt and as such the anticipated principal and interest costs have been included in D.C. calculation. 2.3.3 Question regarding the D.C. eligible share for the Diane Hamre Recreation Centre Debt payments and Bowmanville Indoor Soccer facility Ten percent (10%) of the growth-related debt payments for the above referenced facilities had been funded from non-D.C. sources, as municipalities were required to witness this statutory deduction under the Development Charges Act (D.C.A.) under the 2015 D.C. Background Study. With the recent amendments to the D.C.A., the 10% statutory deduction has been removed, and as such the full amount of the remaining growth-related debt payments have been included in the calculation of the charge. 2.3.4 Question regarding differences between the number of parkland amenities in the historical level of service calculation between the 2015 D.C. Background Study and 2020 D.C. Background Study The inventory of parkland amenities that were in service for the 2010-2019 period have been included reflective of updated information provided by the Municipality. It is not Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 8 DRHBA Response uncommon for these inventories to be revised and updated between study periods as municipalities gain a better understanding of their assets and improve asset management practices. 2.3.5 Question regarding the cost estimate of the Courtice Waterfront Park The Courtice Waterfront Park capital cost estimate was provided by staff based on recent expenditures and the intended project scope. 2.3.6 Question seeking further detail on Parks and Recreation Projects #51-#55 Further detail on these projects can be found in the Municipality’s 2017 Indoor Facilities Development Strategy. 2.3.7 Question regarding clarification on the lack of a BTE deduction for the South Bowmanville Facility (Phase 2) The BTE deductions for each of the new indoor recreation facility projects (i.e. projects #49-55) were assessed based on whether the facility components address the needs of the existing community or are being created to meet the needs of new development. Phase 2 of the South Bowmanville Facility is for the creation of additional indoor aquatic facility space in the Municipality. The full costs of the project have been allocated to new development, with 55% of the costs being attributed to growth beyond the 10-year forecast period, as the existing indoor aquatic facility needs of the Municipality are being addressed through the Courtice Community Complex – Aquatic Expansion project. 2.3.8 Question regarding the attribution of trail projects and waterfront park development projects to new development The need to expand the provision of parkland and recreational trails in response to new development has been assessed by the Municipality. Consistent with the approach utilized by the Municipality in prior D.C. Background Studies, 100% of these costs have been allocated to new development as the existing community has a sufficient level of service. 2.4 Library Services 2.4.1 Question regarding the increase in land values between the Municipality’s 2015 and 2020 D.C. Background Studies Building and land valuations in the 2020 D.C. Background Study have been increased for inflation based on the Statistics Canada Non-Residential Building Construction Price Index over the 2015-2020 period (i.e. 16.7% increase). Please note that the while the 2020 Background Study presents building values including items such as siteworks, parking, landscaping, and furniture and equipment, the 2015 D.C. Background Study presented these items separately. A true comparison of the facility replacement costs Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 9 DRHBA Response contained in the 2015 D.C. Background Study should also contain the costs for parking lots, access roads, other paved infrastructure, furniture and equipment. 2.4.2 Question regarding the Courtice Library projects Library Services Projects #2 and #3 reflect the outstanding growth-related debt payments for the Courtice Library Branch. Project #4 (Provision for Courtice Street Library Space) is for the costs of a future growth-related expansion to Library facility space in Courtice. 2.5 Growth Studies 2.5.1 Question regarding the potential duplication of D.C. Study costs The 10-year capital program for Growth Studies includes cost for the preparation of the 2020 D.C. Background Study (Project #1) and the subsequent review in 5-years (Project #26). The timing for project #26 should be 2024-2025. BUILDING YOUR IDEAS - INTO BIG PLANS THE BIGLIERI GROUP LTD. PLANNING | DEVELOPMENT | PROJECT MANAGEMENT | UBAN DESIGN 20 Leslie Street, Suite 121, Toronto, Ontario M4M 3L4 126 Catharine Street, Hamilton, Ontario L8 R 1J4 Office: (416) 693-9155 Fax: (416) 693 -9133 tbg@thebiglierigroup.com November 30, 2020 Municipality of Clarington Finance Department 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6 Attention: Trevor Pinn, Treasurer Dear M r . Pinn , RE: 2020 Development Charges Background Study Soper Hills Secondary Plan Municipality of Clarington TBG Project No. 19568 On behalf of our client, Soper Hills Holdings Inc ., The Biglieri Group Ltd. is pleased to submit our comments relating to the 2020 Development Charges Background Study, prepared by Watson & Associates (October 15, 2020 ) and the Soper Hills Secondary Plan study , which is currently on -going. Soper Hills Holdings Inc. is a member of the Bowmanville East Developers Group. Soper Hills Holdings Inc. property is l egally described as Part of Lot 6, Concession 1 (Darlington ) a nd is located on the south side of Con cession Street East, east of Lambs Road. SOPER HILLS SECONDARY PLAN AREA The Soper Hills Secondary Plan A rea is bounded by the CPR Tracks to the north, Lambs Road to the west, Durham Highway 2 to the south, and Providence Road/road allowance between lots 4 and 5 to the east. The lands are mostly comprised of agricultural and rural residential uses. Our comments relate to the various Municipal Roads and Related Costs identified in the 2020 Development Charges Background Study within the Soper Hills Secondary Plan Area. Road Network Upon review of the list of Services Related to a Highway, we have identified various items in and around the Soper Hills Secondary Plan Area that are consistent with the transportation network within the adopted Official Plan (June 2018 Consol i dation) and Clarington Transportation Master Plan (December 2016). These include : ➢Lambs Road Box Culvert at Soper Creek Tributary (Project No. 8); ➢Highway 2 sidewalk and street lighting between Soper Creek and Bennett Road (Project Nos. 152 and 172); ➢I mprovements to Lambs Road between Baseline Road and Concession Road 3 (Project Nos. 48, 55, 61 and 86); ➢I mprovements to Concession Street E. between Soper Creek Drive and Providence Road (Project Nos. 70 and 94); Attachment 5 to FND-004-21 THE BIGLIERI GROUP LTD. 2 ➢ Improvements to the Lambs Road and Concession Street E. intersection (Project No. 30); and, ➢ Extension of Bennett Road between Highway 2 and Concession Street E. (Project No. 101). In addition , we have identified several items that should be considered in the 2020 Development Charges Background Study. These items are as follows: ➢ Lambs Road Grade Separation at CPR Tracks; ➢ East-West Collector Road between Lambs Road and Providence Road, north of Concession Street E.; ➢ East-West Collector Road between Lambs Road and future Bennett Road, south of Concession Street E.; ➢ North -South Collector Road between Highway 2 and the future Collector Road north of Concession Street E. Please refer to Attachment 1 for the included items and recommendations listed above. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the 2020 Development Charges Background Study. We look forward to hearing back from Municipal staff shortly on this matter . We trust you will find all in order, however , if you have any questions or require additional information, please contact the undersigned at your earliest convenience. Respectfully, THE BIGLIERI GROUP LTD. Mark Jacobs, MCIP, RPP Planner Attachments: Attachment 1 – Map J3 Clarington Official Plan (redlined) cc. Carlos Salazar, Manager of Community Planning and Design Ryan Guetter, Weston Consulting (Bowmanville East Developers Group) Joe Valela, Soper Hills Holdings Inc. !!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( XY XY XY XY XYXYLIBERTY STREETREGIONAL ROAD 42AVENUE CONCESSION STREET KING STREET BASELINE ROAD C. P R.C. N. R. HIGHWAY 401REGIONAL ROAD 57CONCESSION ROAD 3 SCUGOG STREETLIBERTY STREETAVENUESIMPSON AVENUEPROVIDENCE ROADGREEN ROADLO N G W O R TH MEARNSLAMBS ROADNORTHGLEN BOULEVARD NASH ROAD MAPLE GROVEROADMIDDLE ROADBENNETT ROAD BOWMANVILLE URBAN AREA OFFICIAL PLANMUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTONOCTOBER, 2017OFFICE CONSOLIDATION TRANSPORTATION NETWORK ROADS AND TRANSIT MAP J3 ³ Lake On t a r io FUTUREFREEWAY INTERCHANGE PROPOSEDGRADE SEPARATION EXISTINGFREEWAY INTERCHANGE EXISTINGGRADE SEPARATION !( !( !!!!RAIL TRANSIT LINE FREEWAY TYPE B ARTERIAL ROAD TYPE C ARTERIAL ROAD REGIONAL TRANSIT SPINE COLLECTOR ROAD URBAN AREA TYPE A ARTERIAL ROAD RAILWAY TRANSPORTATION HUB XY XY GO GO D1-Deferred by theRegion of Durham D1-Deferred by theRegion of Durham D1-Deferred by theRegion of Durham D2-Deferred by theRegion of Durham DEFERRED BY THEREGION OF DURHAM Appealed byPL170817PL171459 The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6 1-800-563-1195 | Local: 905-623-3379 | info@clarington.net | www.clarington.net January 4, 2021 The Biglieri Group Ltd. 20 Leslie Street, Suite 121 Toronto, Ontario M4M 3L4 Attention: Mark Jacobs, Planner Dear Mark: Thank you for your submission regarding the Municipality’s 2020 Development Charge Background Study, received on November 30, 2020. Your questions regarding the capital needs for Services Related to a Highway within the Soper Hills Secondary Plan area are being reviewed by the Municipality. In light of the timing of the receipt of your submission, and with the intended DC by-law passage on January 18, 2021 reflecting the last possible date for Council’s consideration of the matter before the current by-law expires, the Municipality is proposing to assess the DC implications of these capital needs arising from the various Secondary Plans as approved by Council. The Municipality will consider amendments to the proposed DC by-law in 2021/2022 to reflect and material changes in the underlying funding for these growth-related needs. We look forward to engaging with you further through the finalization of the Secondary Plan and future amendment to the DC Background Study and by-law. Yours truly, Trevor Pinn, BA, CPA, CA Director of Financial Services/Treasurer Attachment 5(a) to FND-004-21 To: Mr. Trevor Pinn, Treasurer – Finance Department, Municipality of Clarington cc: Mr. Carlos Salazar, Manager of Community Planning and Design Brookhill Durham Holdings Inc. (Filipe Dias) From: Michael May, P.Eng., Reg Webster Consulting Inc. Date: November 27, 2020 Project: Brookhill Secondary Plan Area Re: Municipality of Clarington – Proposed DC Background Study ______________________________________________________________________________ On behalf of Brookhill Durham Holdings Inc., please find attached the following comments as it relates to the review of the Municipality of Clarington – Proposed Development Charge Background Study, dated October 15, 2020 and subsequent Addendum dated November 3, 2020. For reference, Brookhill Durham Holdings Inc. is the owner of the following properties within the Brookhill Neighbourhood Secondary Plan Area: 2499 Nash Road; 2538 Bowmanville Avenue (Regional Road 57); and 2494 Bowmanville Avenue (Regional Road 57). While it is understood that the Brookhill Neighbourhood Secondary Plan Area is not completed at the time of preparing these comments, however, the below comments will in the near future have impact to the Proposed DC Background Study. 1.Services Related to a Highway within the Brookhill Secondary Plan Area Upon review of the Proposed DC Background Study, all Services Related to a Highway pertaining to the Brookhill Secondary Plan Area, (i.e. bridge structure works, intersection works, roads, sidewalks and cycling facilities, and streetlighting) have been marked on the included Attachment 1: Draft Brookhill Secondary Plan – Land Use and Transportation. Based on review of Attachment 1: Draft Brookhill Secondary Plan – Land Use and Transportation, the below road works (illustrated in red) are not included in the Proposed DC Background Study. Please provide a response to why these road works are not included in the Proposed DC Background Study. Nash Road (Arterial Road Type B with dedicated bicycle lanes) from West Boundary Limit of the Brookhill Neighbourhood to the Future Clarington Boulevard. Green Road (Arterial Road Type B with dedicated bicycle lanes) from 670m North of Longworth Avenue to Nash Road. Clarington Boulevard (Collector Road with on-street bicycle lanes) from Brookhill Boulevard to Longworth Avenue. Attachment 6 to FND-004-21 Page 2 of 2 o While it is noted that this is a collector road, refencing Appendix D: Local Service Policy, the inclusion of on-street bicycle lanes would require oversizing costs to accommodate the road structure. Clarington Boulevard (Collector Road with on-street bicycle lanes) from Longworth Avenue to South 90 degree curve. o While it is noted that this is a collector road, refencing Appendix D: Local Service Policy, the inclusion of on-street bicycle lanes would require oversizing costs to accommodate the road structure. 2. Parks and Recreation Services within the Brookhill Secondary Plan Area Parks and Recreation Services projects within the Proposed DC Background Study were compared by the September 2020 version of the Brookhill Neighbourbood Secondary Plan – Schedule B: Open Space and Parks, with the following comments: There are two additional Neighbourhood Parks included (Project Nos. 32 and 39) in the Proposed DC Background Study that are not reflective in the current Brookhill Neighbourhood Secondary Plan information. On the Brookhill Neighbourhood Secondary Plan – Schedule B, dated September 2020, there are 6 total parkettes, however, the Proposed DC Background Study includes one (1) parkette for “Brookhill”. Brookhill Neighbourhood Park 2 (Project No. 26) net capital cost of $1.5M is much larger than the other neighbourhood park infrastructure costs. No trails illustrated within the Brookhill Neighbourhood Secondary Plan – Schedule B are included in the Proposed DC Background Study. Please provide a response to the above discrepancies. 3. Benefit to Existing Development There appears to be inconsistencies with the application of benefit to existing development for several infrastructure categories in the costs covered in the DC Calculations. Under the Services Related to a Highway, the Bridge/Culvert Works, Intersection Works, Road Works, Sidewalk & Cycling Facility Works, and Street Light Works all include a varying number of projects that have no benefit to existing reduction. Please provide clarification related to the inconsistencies of the application within each category. Please do not hesitate to contact me directly if you have any questions and/or comments. Regards, Michael May, P.Eng. Reg Webster Consulting Inc. 8800 Dufferin Street, Suite 104 | Vaughan, ON | L4K 0C5 | Tel: 905-660-7667 Ext. 231 | Cell: 905-243-9161 E-mail: mike.may@rwconsultinginc.net | Visit us at: www.rwconsultinginc.net The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6 1-800-563-1195 | Local: 905-623-3379 | info@clarington.net | www.clarington.net January 4, 2021 Reg Webster Consulting Inc. 8800 Dufferin Street, Suite 104 Vaughan, Ontario L4K 0C5 Attention: Michael May, P.Eng., General Manager Dear Mike: Thank you for your submission regarding the Municipality’s 2020 Development Charge Background Study, received on November 27, 2020. Your questions regarding the capital needs for Services Related to a Highway and Parks and Recreation Services within the Brookhill Secondary Plan area are being reviewed by the Municipality. In light of the timing of the receipt of your submission, and with the intended DC by-law passage on January 18, 2021 reflecting the last possible date for Council’s consideration of the matter before the current by-law expires, the Municipality is proposing to assess the DC implications of these capital needs arising from the various Secondary Plans as approved by Council. The Municipality will consider amendments to the proposed DC by-law in 2021/2022 to reflect and material changes in the underlying funding for these growth-related needs. In response to your questions about the benefit to existing deductions for Services Related to a Highway, the attached letter from CIMA is provided for information. We look forward to engaging with you further through the finalization of the Secondary Plan and future amendment to the DC Background Study and by-law. Yours truly, Trevor Pinn, BA, CPA, CA Director of Financial Services/Treasurer Attachment 6(a) to FND-004-21 C14-0347-L-BTE Methodology rev02.docx 415 Baseline Road West, 2nd Floor Bowmanville, ON L1C 5M2 CANADA T 905 697-4464 F 905-697-0443 cima.ca December 18, 2020 Municipality of Clarington Public Works Department [via email] Attention: Mr. Sean Bagshaw, P.Eng. – Manager of Infrastructure RE: BENEFIT TO EXISTING FOR ROADS AND RELATED CAPITAL PROJECTS Dear Mr. Bagshaw: The following provides a summary description of methodologies used to determine/establish the Benefit to Existing (BTE) amounts for various types of projects included in the Municipality of Clarington’s “Roads and Related” Development Charge capital program. 1 LINEAR ROAD PROJECTS 1.1 DEFERRED COSTS For linear road projects in the Development Charge Capital Program that involve reconstruction of an existing road the Benefit to Existing (BTE) amount is established based on the cost (in 2020 dollars) of maintenance and rehabilitation that the Municipality will be able to defer/forego due to the completion of such projects. The maintenance and rehabilitation costs are calculated using the Municipality’s road condition ratings and pavement management model to establish the lifecycle activities that would occur in a no-growth scenario over a 20-year period in order to maintain road conditions. This analysis is conducted conservatively by assuming that the Municipality’s budget would be sufficiently large to allow for all ideal activities to be undertaken even though that may not be the case. Thus, in simple terms, the BTE is defined as the value (in 2020 dollars) of an ideal pavement management strategy for each road that would include initial reconstruction (to a standard appropriate to existing conditions), if warranted by road conditions, followed by on-going resurfacing, crack sealing, micro surfacing, slurry sealing, etc. This approach applies to projects involving reconstruction/urbanization of existing roads. December 18, 2020 Page 2 of 3 C14-0347-L-BTE Methodology rev02.docx cima.ca 1.2 GROWTH/NON-GROWTH SHARE For linear road projects that involve upgrading portions of the rural road network to support traffic growth between urban growth centres and higher order facilities (e.g. regional roads and provincial highways) the Benefit to Existing (BTE) amount is established based on growth/non-growth population share. Specially 74% of the project cost is allocated to BTE and 26% is allocated to growth. 1.3 NO BENEFIT TO EXISTING For linear road projects that involve constructing new roads or simply widening existing roads that are already built to current standards no Benefit to Existing (BTE) is established. 2 INTERSECTION PROJECTS The Benefit to Existing (BTE) for intersection projects that involve signalization improvements and widening has been established individually for each project through the consideration for three components making-up the project cost: • BTE for signal upgrades is determined based on the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) growth/non-growth share of forecasted traffic at key screen lines for the 2031 horizon year in the relevant community (Courtice or Bowmanville), with Courtice being 23% growth and 77% non-growth and Bowmanville being 20% growth and 80% non-growth. • Rehabilitation of the existing footprint of intersections is considered 100% BTE in instances where it is required and not otherwise captured by linear road projects. • Widening for the provision of new dedicated auxiliary lanes is considered 100% attributably to growth with no BTE. For projects involving signalization of intersections and no road improvements BTE is established based on a growth/non-growth share of forecasted traffic for the 2031 horizon year. 3 SIDEWALK AND MULTI-USE PATH PROJECTS 3.1 REPLACING AN EXISTING FACILITY Where an upgraded or new facility (i.e. a multi-use path) is provided to replace an existing facility (i.e. a sidewalk) the Benefit to Existing (BTE) is determined to be the typical value of existing facility with the balance of the project cost being attributable to growth. 3.2 NO BENEFIT TO EXISTING For projects where a new sidewalk or multi-use path facility is required to accommodate growth related pedestrian and or cyclist traffic the project is considered to have no Benefit to Existing (BTE). December 18, 2020 Page 3 of 3 C14-0347-L-BTE Methodology rev02.docx cima.ca 4 CULVERT AND BRIDGE STRUCTURE PROJECTS Projects related to extension and widening of existing structures as well as the construction of new structures are considered to have no Benefit to Existing (BTE) on the basis that they are not required to support the road network that is currently in place to support the existing population. 5 STREETSCAPE PROJECTS For streetscape projects on existing roads the Benefit to Existing (BTE) amount is established based on growth/non-growth population share. Specially 74% of the project cost is allocated to BTE and 26% is allocated to growth. 6 STREETLIGHTING PROJECTS Street lighting projects are considered to have no Benefit to Existing (BTE) on the basis that they are required to address new needs created by increases in traffic volumes and urbanization of road corridors due to growth. Sincerely, CIMA Canada Inc. Dan Campbell Senior Project Manager / Associate Partner, Municipal Infrastructure dan.campbell@cima.ca Attachment 7 to FND-004-21 The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6 1-800-563-1195 | Local: 905-623-3379 | info@clarington.net | www.clarington.net January 4, 2021 SCS Consulting Group ltd. 30 Centurian Drive, Suite 100 Markham, Ontario L3R 8B8 Attention: Candice Ward Dear Candice: Thank you for your submission regarding the Municipality’s 2020 Development Charge Background Study, received on November 27, 2020. Your questions regarding the capital needs for Services Related to a Highway and Parks and Recreation Services within the Brookhill Secondary Plan area are being reviewed by the Municipality. In light of the timing of the receipt of your submission, and with the intended DC by-law passage on January 18, 2021 reflecting the last possible date for Council’s consideration of the matter before the current by-law expires, the Municipality is proposing to assess the DC implications of these capital needs arising from the various Secondary Plans as approved by Council. The Municipality will consider amendments to the proposed DC by-law in 2021/2022 to reflect and material changes in the underlying funding for these growth-related needs. In response to your questions about the benefit to existing deductions for Services Related to a Highway, the attached letter from CIMA has been provided for information. We look forward to engaging with you further through the finalization of the Secondary Plan and future amendment to the D.C. Background Study and By-law. Yours truly, Trevor Pinn, BA, CPA, CA Director of Financial Services/Treasurer Attachment 7(a) to FND-004-21 C14-0347-L-BTE Methodology rev02.docx 415 Baseline Road West, 2nd Floor Bowmanville, ON L1C 5M2 CANADA T 905 697-4464 F 905-697-0443 cima.ca December 18, 2020 Municipality of Clarington Public Works Department [via email] Attention: Mr. Sean Bagshaw, P.Eng. – Manager of Infrastructure RE: BENEFIT TO EXISTING FOR ROADS AND RELATED CAPITAL PROJECTS Dear Mr. Bagshaw: The following provides a summary description of methodologies used to determine/establish the Benefit to Existing (BTE) amounts for various types of projects included in the Municipality of Clarington’s “Roads and Related” Development Charge capital program. 1 LINEAR ROAD PROJECTS 1.1 DEFERRED COSTS For linear road projects in the Development Charge Capital Program that involve reconstruction of an existing road the Benefit to Existing (BTE) amount is established based on the cost (in 2020 dollars) of maintenance and rehabilitation that the Municipality will be able to defer/forego due to the completion of such projects. The maintenance and rehabilitation costs are calculated using the Municipality’s road condition ratings and pavement management model to establish the lifecycle activities that would occur in a no-growth scenario over a 20-year period in order to maintain road conditions. This analysis is conducted conservatively by assuming that the Municipality’s budget would be sufficiently large to allow for all ideal activities to be undertaken even though that may not be the case. Thus, in simple terms, the BTE is defined as the value (in 2020 dollars) of an ideal pavement management strategy for each road that would include initial reconstruction (to a standard appropriate to existing conditions), if warranted by road conditions, followed by on-going resurfacing, crack sealing, micro surfacing, slurry sealing, etc. This approach applies to projects involving reconstruction/urbanization of existing roads. December 18, 2020 Page 2 of 3 C14-0347-L-BTE Methodology rev02.docx cima.ca 1.2 GROWTH/NON-GROWTH SHARE For linear road projects that involve upgrading portions of the rural road network to support traffic growth between urban growth centres and higher order facilities (e.g. regional roads and provincial highways) the Benefit to Existing (BTE) amount is established based on growth/non-growth population share. Specially 74% of the project cost is allocated to BTE and 26% is allocated to growth. 1.3 NO BENEFIT TO EXISTING For linear road projects that involve constructing new roads or simply widening existing roads that are already built to current standards no Benefit to Existing (BTE) is established. 2 INTERSECTION PROJECTS The Benefit to Existing (BTE) for intersection projects that involve signalization improvements and widening has been established individually for each project through the consideration for three components making-up the project cost: • BTE for signal upgrades is determined based on the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) growth/non-growth share of forecasted traffic at key screen lines for the 2031 horizon year in the relevant community (Courtice or Bowmanville), with Courtice being 23% growth and 77% non-growth and Bowmanville being 20% growth and 80% non-growth. • Rehabilitation of the existing footprint of intersections is considered 100% BTE in instances where it is required and not otherwise captured by linear road projects. • Widening for the provision of new dedicated auxiliary lanes is considered 100% attributably to growth with no BTE. For projects involving signalization of intersections and no road improvements BTE is established based on a growth/non-growth share of forecasted traffic for the 2031 horizon year. 3 SIDEWALK AND MULTI-USE PATH PROJECTS 3.1 REPLACING AN EXISTING FACILITY Where an upgraded or new facility (i.e. a multi-use path) is provided to replace an existing facility (i.e. a sidewalk) the Benefit to Existing (BTE) is determined to be the typical value of existing facility with the balance of the project cost being attributable to growth. 3.2 NO BENEFIT TO EXISTING For projects where a new sidewalk or multi-use path facility is required to accommodate growth related pedestrian and or cyclist traffic the project is considered to have no Benefit to Existing (BTE). December 18, 2020 Page 3 of 3 C14-0347-L-BTE Methodology rev02.docx cima.ca 4 CULVERT AND BRIDGE STRUCTURE PROJECTS Projects related to extension and widening of existing structures as well as the construction of new structures are considered to have no Benefit to Existing (BTE) on the basis that they are not required to support the road network that is currently in place to support the existing population. 5 STREETSCAPE PROJECTS For streetscape projects on existing roads the Benefit to Existing (BTE) amount is established based on growth/non-growth population share. Specially 74% of the project cost is allocated to BTE and 26% is allocated to growth. 6 STREETLIGHTING PROJECTS Street lighting projects are considered to have no Benefit to Existing (BTE) on the basis that they are required to address new needs created by increases in traffic volumes and urbanization of road corridors due to growth. Sincerely, CIMA Canada Inc. Dan Campbell Senior Project Manager / Associate Partner, Municipal Infrastructure dan.campbell@cima.ca Attachment 8 to FND-004-21 Schaeffers Consulting EngineersDRAFTRevised: Dec 5, 2020Printed: (d,m,y) 07-12-20 19:58DC Roads Projects Refer to 2020 DC Background Study, Addendum dated Nov 3, 2020Table 1Roadworks Type DC Project No.Timing (year) Gross Capital Cost Estimate (2020$) Grants, Subsidies and Other Contributions Attributable to New Development Net Capital Cost Benefit to Existing Development Post Period BenefitPotential D.C. Recoverable CostResidential Share83%Non- Residential Share17%RoadFromToBridge Structure WorksBridge Structure Works1Longworth Ave. Structure at BrookhillBrookhill Tributary Crossing20221,213,2281,213,228 - -1,213,2281,006,979206,2492Baseline Rd.At Bennett Rd. Channel Crossing20231,108,5011,108,501 - -1,108,501920,056188,4453Lambs Rd.At Bennett Rd. Channel Crossing20231,108,5011,108,501 - -1,108,501920,056188,4454Grady Dr. Structure (and Road Link)At Foster Creek20242,987,4542,987,454 - -2,987,4542,479,587507,8675Lambs Rd. Grade Seperationat CNR Crossing203015,006,54715,006,547 - -15,006,54712,455,4342,551,1136Bennett Rd.At Soper Creek Tributary20311,108,5011,108,501 - -1,108,501920,056188,445Culvert WorksCulvert Works- - ----7Hancock Rd. Box Culvert (99077)at Black Creek Tributary20221,012,6001,012,600679,000 -333,600276,88856,7128Lambs Rd. Box Culvert (99069)at Soper Creek Tributary2023286,059286,059 - -286,059237,42948,6309Baseline Rd. Culvert (99065)at Darlington CreekWest of Green Rd.2027286,059286,059 - -286,059237,42948,63010Baseline Road Culvert (99063)140m East of Holt Rd.2028286,059286,059 - -286,059237,42948,63011Baseline Rd. Culvert (99055)at Robinson Creek (w. of R.R. 34)2028286,059286,059 - -286,059237,42948,63012Baseline Rd. Culvert (99057)at Tooley Creek (e. of R.R. 34)2029286,059286,059 - -286,059237,42948,630Intersection WorksIntersection Works13George Reynolds Dr.At Courtice Rd.2020821,850821,850 - -821,850682,136139,71514Green Rd.At Brookhill2021207,746207,746152,996 -54,75045,4439,30815King Ave./Baldwin St./North Street2021316,231158,116 316,231122,916 -35,20029,2165,98416King St.At Ontario St.2021207,746207,746152,996 -54,75045,4439,30817Longworth Ave./Green Rd. (Intersection)2022316,231316,231122,916 -193,316160,45232,86418Bennett Rd.At Lake Road2022432,377432,377241,598 -190,779158,34732,43219Bennett Rd. Railroad Crossingat CNR Level Crossing2022381,670381,670 - -381,670316,78664,88420Trulls Rd.At Sandringham Dr.2022432,377432,377241,598 -190,779158,34732,43221Baseline Rd.At Haines St.2023310,925310,925 - -310,925258,06852,85722Baseline Rd.At Caristrap St.2023310,925310,925 - -310,925258,06852,85723Baseline Rd.At Mearns Ave./Mearns Ct.2023621,850621,850 - -621,850516,136105,71524Arthur St. Railroad Crossingat C.P.R Level Crossing2024636,117636,117 - -636,117527,977108,14025Clarington Blvd.At Prince William Blvd2024506,000506,000282,736 -223,264185,30937,95526Prestonvale Rd.At Robert Adams Dr.2024316,231316,231122,916 -193,316160,45232,86427Mearns Ave./Concession St. (Signals)2026316,231316,231122,916 -193,316160,45232,86428Prestonvale Rd. Railroad Crossingat CPR Level Crossing2026636,117636,117 - -636,117527,977108,14029Baseline Rd.At Maple Grove Rd.2027621,850621,850 - -621,850516,136105,71530Conc. St. E/Lambs Rd. Intersection2027316,231316,231122,916 -193,316160,45232,86431King St./Simpson Ave. (Intersection)2028432,377432,377241,598 -190,779158,34732,43232King St./Scugog St. (Intersection)2030432,377432,377241,598 -190,779158,34732,43233Toronto St./Mill St. Intersection2030207,74651,937 207,746152,996 -2,8132,33547834Trulls Rd.At George Reynolds Dr.2031432,377432,377241,598 -190,779158,34732,43235Baseline Rd./Holt Rd. (Signals)2031316,231316,231122,916 -193,316160,45232,86436Baseline Rd.At Simpson Ave.2031532,377532,377 - -532,377441,87390,50437Holt Rd./Bloor St. (Signals)2031316,231316,231122,916 -193,316160,45232,86438Longworth Ave.At Mearns Ave.2031207,746207,746152,996 -54,75045,4439,308Road WorksRoad Works39Baseline Rd.Trulls Rd.Reg. Rd. 34 (Courtice Rd.)20202,463,8982,463,898945,020 -1,518,8781,260,669258,20940George Reynolds Dr.Courtice Rd.Harry Gay Dr.20202,439,4992,439,499 - -2,439,4992,024,784414,71541Lake Rd. (Through Existing GFL Site)Bennett Rd.250m West of Bennett Rd.20201,512,666348,000 1,512,666 - -1,164,666966,673197,99342Longworth Ave. (Road Oversizing)West Bowmanville BoundaryGreen Rd.2020689,219689,219 - -689,219572,051117,16743Rudell Rd.Grady Dr.CPR20201,521,3721,521,372 - -1,521,3721,262,739258,63344Conc. Rd. 3500m East of Middle Rd.Liberty St.20211,131,7211,131,721327,748 -803,974667,298136,67645Conc. Rd. 3Liberty St.90m W. of Jollow Dr.20211,283,8281,283,828347,338 -936,490777,287159,20346Darlington Blvd.Highway 2Foxhunt Trail20212,265,9242,265,924538,710 -1,727,2141,433,588293,62647Green Rd.Ross WrightFuture Longworth Avenue2021514,419514,41912,481 -501,938416,60885,32948Lambs Rd.CPR TracksConc. Rd. 32021451,491451,491332,504 -118,98798,75920,22849Maple Grove Rd.Hwy 2Future Longworth Ave2021383,768383,768282,628 -101,13983,94617,19450Middle Rd.890m N of Conc 3Taunton Rd.20211,498,9511,498,9511,103,914 -395,038327,88167,15651Bennett Rd.South Service Rd.South End (East Beach Rd.)20221,756,7441,756,744243,804 -1,512,9401,255,740257,20052Conc. Rd. 3200m East of Reg. Rd. 57100m West of Middle Rd.20221,783,3191,783,319661,886 -1,121,432930,789190,64353Hancock Rd.Nash Rd.0.65km North20221,308,8321,308,83238,730 -1,270,1021,054,185215,91754Hancock Rd.275m South of Nash. Rd.Nash Rd.2022543,699543,699126,691 -417,008346,11770,89155Lambs Rd.Highway 2Concession St. E20224,629,7704,629,770163,844 -4,465,9263,706,718759,20756Longworth Ave. (Road Oversizing)Bowmanville CreekGreen Rd.20222,527,1352,527,135 - -2,527,1352,097,522429,61357Nash Rd.50m East of Harry Gay Dr.Hancock Rd.20221,011,4221,011,422187,935 -823,487683,495139,99358Port Darlington Rd.Port Darlington East BeachEast Shore Drive20221,505,6031,505,603 - -1,505,6031,249,650255,95259Baseline Rd.Mearns Ct.Haines St.20231,356,3871,356,387600,171 -756,216627,659128,55760Baseline Rd.Haines St.Lambs Rd.20231,382,5841,382,584255,286 -1,127,298935,657191,64161Lambs Rd.300m North of Baseline Rd.Highway 220231,152,1531,152,153393,520 -758,633629,666128,96862Queen St. ExtensionSt. George St.Frank St.2023719,084719,084 - -719,084596,840122,24463Trulls Rd.230m South of Yorkville Dr.Reg. Rd. 2220232,374,7682,374,768432,707 -1,942,0611,611,910330,15064Trulls Rd.Bloor St. (Reg. Rd. 22)Baseline Rd.20236,241,6156,241,6151,797,196 -4,444,4193,688,868755,55165Conc. Rd. 3Mearns Ave.Reg. Rd. 4220231,498,9511,498,9511,103,914 -395,038327,88167,15666East Shore Dr.Port Darlington Rd.Lake Rd.20231,457,5201,457,520318,728 -1,138,792945,197193,59567Maple Grove Rd.Baseline Rd.Bloor St.2023880,408880,408648,383 -232,025192,58139,44468Prince William Blvd.Pethick St.Reg. Rd. 5720241,129,2951,129,295 - -1,129,295937,315191,98069Arthur St.CPR Level Crossing1.13km N. of CPR20242,236,0862,236,0861,135,694 -1,100,392913,325187,06770Concession St. E.Soper Creek Dr.Lambs Rd.20241,930,4351,930,435599,758 -1,330,6771,104,462226,21571Haines St.Baseline Rd.Reg. Highway 220243,155,1023,155,10255,386 -3,099,7162,572,764526,95272Holt Rd.Reg. Highway 2Future Longworth Ave.2025948,597948,597188,648 -759,949630,758129,19173Longworth Ave.Holt Rd.Maple Grove Rd.20253,062,4473,062,447 - -3,062,4472,541,831520,61674Longworth Ave.Maple Grove Rd.West Bowmanville Boundary20251,485,5151,485,515 - -1,485,5151,232,978252,53875Nash Rd. (Future Clarington Blvd.)South 90 degree CurveNorth 90 degree Curve20252,023,3812,023,38121,211 -2,002,1701,661,801340,36976Old Scugog Rd.Conc. Rd. 4Taunton Rd.2025952,647952,647701,584 -251,063208,38342,68177Pebblestone Rd.Reg. Rd. 55 (Townline Rd.)Tooley Rd.2025555,334555,334408,980 -146,354121,47424,88078Pebblestone Rd.Trulls Rd.Reg. Rd. 34 (Courtice Rd.)2025370,223370,223272,653 -97,57080,98316,58779Lambs Rd.Highway 401Baseline Rd.20261,646,1401,646,14039,940 -1,606,2001,333,146273,05480Prestonvale Rd.CPR Level Crossing262m S. Southfield Ave.20263,559,7783,559,778345,023 -3,214,7562,668,247546,50881Simpson Ave. ExtensionKing St.Future Church St.2026505,624505,624 - -505,624419,66885,95682Arthur St.1.13 km North CPR Level CrossingConc. Rd. 320271,018,2001,018,200508,547 -509,652423,01286,641Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated Development (DC Study Horizon Year 2031)P:\4900's\4987\Schedules\hab-Clarington DC Roads (live).xlsx1 of 4 Schaeffers Consulting EngineersDRAFTRevised: Dec 5, 2020Printed: (d,m,y) 07-12-20 19:58Roadworks Type DC Project No.Timing (year) Gross Capital Cost Estimate (2020$) Grants, Subsidies and Other Contributions Attributable to New Development Net Capital Cost Benefit to Existing Development Post Period BenefitPotential D.C. Recoverable CostResidential Share83%Non- Residential Share17%RoadFromToIncreased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated Development (DC Study Horizon Year 2031)83Baseline Rd.170m East of Darlington CreekHolt Rd.20275,057,0105,057,010286,546 -4,770,4643,959,485810,97984Energy Drive410m East of Osborne Rd.Crago Rd.20271,677,8701,677,870 - -1,677,8701,392,632285,23885Green Rd.Future Longworth Ave.670 m North of Longworth Ave.20272,297,7372,297,73755,749 -2,241,9891,860,851381,13886Lambs Rd.Concession St. ECPR Tracks20273,806,6993,806,699522,388 -3,284,3112,725,978558,33387Stevens Rd.Reg. Rd. 57East End2027766,489766,48944,985 -721,504598,848122,65688Baseline Rd.Prestonvale Rd.Trulls Rd.20283,621,6333,621,633220,198 -3,401,4352,823,191578,24489Osbourne Rd.Energy Dr.Megawatt Dr.2028994,543994,543116,404 -878,139728,856149,28490Baseline Rd.Reg. Rd. 34 (Courtice Rd.)Hancock Road20292,547,0392,547,039150,182 -2,396,8571,989,391407,46691Conc. Rd. 3Reg. Rd. 17Arthur St.20291,459,0901,459,090428,376 -1,030,714855,493175,22192Crago Rd.Osbourne Rd.South Service Rd.20295,315,6615,315,661401,190 -4,914,4714,079,011835,46093Bennett Rd.Highway 401Reg. Highway 220301,858,4621,858,462545,628 -1,312,8341,089,652223,18294Concession St. E.Lambs Rd.Providence Rd.20302,846,4512,846,451498,815 -2,347,6361,948,538399,09895Green Rd. WideningBaseline Rd.Reg. Highway 220301,461,9831,461,983 - -1,461,9831,213,446248,53796Green Rd.Baseline Rd.South End20302,366,3272,366,327567,446 -1,798,8811,493,071305,81097Lambs Rd.Port Darlington Rd.Lake Rd.20301,057,0491,057,04912,852 -1,044,197866,684177,51498Mearns Ave.Conc. Rd. 3300m North Conc. Rd. 320301,028,8381,028,83857,162 -971,676806,491165,18599Toronto St.Mill St.CNR Level Crossing20303,823,8473,823,847185,276 -3,638,5713,020,014618,557100Baseline Rd.Lambs Rd.Bennett Rd.20311,788,4541,788,454 - -1,788,4541,484,416304,037101Bennett Rd.Hwy 2Conc. St. East20314,537,0404,537,040 - -4,537,0403,765,743771,297102Holt Rd.Baseline Rd.300m South of Baseline Rd.2031900,628900,62855,514 -845,114701,444143,669103Holt Rd.Baseline Rd.Bloor St.20315,621,5325,621,532134,977 -5,486,5554,553,840932,714104Holt Rd.Bloor St.Reg. Highway 220312,043,1322,043,132124,027 -1,919,1051,592,857326,248105Trulls Rd.Billett GatePebblestone Rd.20313,669,5213,669,521183,273 -3,486,2482,893,586592,662Sidewalk & Cycling Facility WorksSidewalk & Cycling Facility Works106Bloor St. SidewalkTownline Rd. S210m E of Townline Rd.202047,29947,299 - -47,29939,2588,041107Bloor St./Reg. Rd. 22 SidewalkPrestonvale Rd.65m E of Prestonvale Rd.202038,03338,033 - -38,03331,5676,466108Highway 2 Sidewalk271m East of Clarington Blvd.Reg. Rd. 572020192,676192,67674,168 -118,50898,36220,146109Manvers Road (East Side Sidewalk)Mill St.Remi Court202076,57976,579 - -76,57963,56113,018110North St. SidewalkGeorge St.Remi Court202039,41639,416 - -39,41632,7156,701111Prestonvale Rd. SidewalkBloor St.230m N of Bloor St.202051,80351,803 - -51,80342,9978,807112Prestonvale Rd. Sidewalk230m N of Bloor St.Meadowglade Rd.202037,16337,163 - -37,16330,8466,318113Reg. Rd. 57 (West Side MUP)Aspen Springs Dr.Hwy 22020286,707286,707 - -286,707237,96748,740114Reg. Rd. 57 (West Side MUP)Highway 2Stevens Rd.2020157,982157,982 - -157,982131,12526,857115Reg. Rd. 57 Sidewalk East SideCPRHwy 2202056,30856,308 - -56,30846,7369,572116Reg. Rd. 57 Sidewalk East SideHwy 2Stevens Rd.202060,81360,813 - -60,81350,47510,338117Trulls Rd. SidewalkStrathallan Dr.Highway 2202054,05654,056 - -54,05644,8669,189118Liberty St. SidewalkBons Ave.Concession Rd. 32021374,342374,342 - -374,342310,70463,638119Reg. Rd. 57 Sidewalk East Side140m N of Baseline Rd.Waverly Rd.202140,54240,542 - -40,54233,6506,892120Regional Rd. 34 SidewalkNash Rd.North Urban Boundary20211,183,5811,183,581 - -1,183,581982,372201,209121Regional Rd. 17 Sidewalk East SideRemi Ct.375m N of CPR2021130,635130,635 - -130,635108,42722,208122Regional Rd. 17 Sidewalk West SideRemi Ct.375m N of CPR2021131,761131,761 - -131,761109,36222,399123Reg. Rd. 57 (West Side MUP)Baseline Rd.Prestonway Dr.2021496,179496,179 - -496,179411,82984,350124Reg. Rd. 57 (West Side MUP)Prestonway Dr.Aspen Springs Dr.2021275,005275,005104,502 -170,503141,51828,986125Tooley Rd. Sidewalk265m N of Nash Rd.Adelaide Ave.2021169,609169,609 - -169,609140,77528,834126Hancock Rd.Highway 2275m South of Nash. Rd.2022363,332363,332 - -363,332301,56561,766127Highway 2 Sidewalk35/115 GO Parking LotRudell Rd.2022217,349217,349 - -217,349180,40036,949128Highway 2 SidewalkNewcastle Fire HallRudell Rd.202296,85096,850 - -96,85080,38516,464129Regional Highway 2Police Station (2046 Maple Grove Rd.)170m West of Maple Grove Rd.202238,28938,289 - -38,28931,7806,509130Regional Highway 2170m West of Maple Grove Rd.Boswell Dr.2022357,827357,827 - -357,827296,99660,831131Frank St.Future Queen St.Prince St.202328,15428,154 - -28,15423,3684,786132Lambs Rd.Baseline Rd.300m North of Baseline Rd.202367,57067,570 - -67,57056,08311,487133Rudell Rd. SidewalkSunset Blvd.Hart Blvd.2023141,503141,503 - -141,503117,44824,056134Courtice Rd. SidewalkStagemaster Cr.Bloor St.2024254,513254,513 - -254,513211,24543,267135Coutice Rd. (Regional Road 34)Bloor St.CPR/Future GO Station20241,971,9161,971,916 - -1,971,9161,636,690335,226136Reg. Rd. 57 Sidewalk East SideStevens Rd.Nash Rd.20241,453,3271,453,327 - -1,453,3271,206,262247,066137Reg. Rd. 57 (West Side MUP)Stevens Rd.Nash Rd.2024772,354772,354 - -772,354641,054131,300138Trulls Rd. SidewalkSandringham Dr.Strathallan Dr.202470,94870,948 - -70,94858,88712,061139West Scugog Lane SidewalkMill Ln (south leg)Bons Ave.2024126,130126,130 - -126,130104,68821,442140West Townline Rd. SidewalkDudley CourtSouth Regional Urban Limit2024264,241264,241 - -264,241219,32044,921141Bloor St. (North Side Sidewalk)Courtice Rd.Hancock Rd.2025193,700193,700 - -193,700160,77132,929142Bloor St. Sidewalk210m E of Townline Rd.415m Easterly202546,17346,173 - -46,17338,3237,849143Bloor St./Reg. Rd. 22 Sidewalk65m E of Prestonvale Rd.Courtice Rd.2025585,117585,117 - -585,117485,64799,470144Bloor St. (South Side Sidewalk)Trulls Rd.Courtice Rd.2025897,319897,319 - -897,319744,775152,544145Bloor St. (South Side Sidewalk)Robinson CreekTrulls Rd.2025180,186180,186 - -180,186149,55430,632146Bloor St. (South Side MUP)Prestonvale Rd.Robinson Creek2025320,116320,116 - -320,116265,69654,420147Bloor St/Reg. Rd. 22 MUPTownline Rd.Prestonvale Rd.2025620,224620,224 - -620,224514,786105,438148Bloor St./Reg. Rd. 22 MUPTrulls Rd.Courtice Rd.20251,024,3721,024,372 - -1,024,372850,229174,143149Nash Rd.Green Rd.Future Clarington Blvd.2025284,759284,759 - -284,759236,35048,409150Reg. Rd. 57 Sidewalk East SideHartwell Ave.CPR2025123,878123,878 - -123,878102,81921,059151Scugog St. SidewalkKing St.Rehder Ave.2025141,896141,896 - -141,896117,77424,122152Highway 2 SidewalkSoper CreekBennett Rd.2026333,794333,794 - -333,794277,04956,745153Regional Rd. 17 Sidewalk East Side375m N of CPRConc. Rd. 32027229,737229,737 - -229,737190,68239,055154Regional Rd. 17 Sidewalk West Side375m N of CPRConc. Rd. 32027229,737229,737 - -229,737190,68239,055155Nash Rd. (Cycling Lanes)Solina Rd.Maple Grove Rd.20282,372,9922,372,992 - -2,372,9921,969,583403,409156Highway 2 Sidewalk on South SideEast End of PlazaHancock Road (Realigned)2029120,049120,049 - -120,04999,64120,408157Baseline Rd.Green Rd.Spicer Sq.2030608,522608,522 - -608,522505,073103,449158Baseline Rd.Regional Rd. 57Spry Ave.2030246,334246,33494,823 -151,511125,75425,757159Baseline Rd.Spicer Sq.Regional Rd. 572030122,875122,87547,299 -75,57662,72812,848160Baseline Rd. (South Side Cycling Facility)Spry Ave.Liberty St.20301,042,9711,042,971 - -1,042,971865,666177,305161Courtice Rd. MUPHighway 2South End of Plaza203073,14073,140 - -73,14060,70612,434162Courtice Rd. MUPSouth End of PlazaSouth Urban Boundary2030204,874204,874 - -204,874170,04634,829163Courtice Road (East Side Sidewalk)Sandringham Dr.Bloor St.20301,792,6511,792,651 - -1,792,6511,487,900304,751164Highway 2 (North Side Cycling Facility)Courtice Rd.Future Transit Hub2030160,605160,605 - -160,605133,30227,303165Liberty St. SidewalkConc. Rd. 3North Urban Boundary2030527,044527,044 - -527,044437,44689,597166Baseline Rd.Liberty St.Haines St.20311,475,5451,475,545 - -1,475,5451,224,702250,843167Baseline Rd.Haines St.Lambs Rd.2031242,823242,823 - -242,823201,54441,280Street Lighting WorksStreet Lighting Works168Reg. Rd. 57 StreetlightingCPRBaseline Rd.2021413,028413,028 - -413,028342,81370,215169Highway 2Boswell Dr.Courtice Rd.2022446,283446,283 - -446,283370,41575,868170Hancock Rd.Highway 2275m South of Nash. Rd.202235,83335,833 - -35,83329,7416,092171Highway 2 StreetlightingEast of Firehall35/115 GO Parking Lot2022125,123125,123 - -125,123103,85221,271P:\4900's\4987\Schedules\hab-Clarington DC Roads (live).xlsx2 of 4 Schaeffers Consulting EngineersDRAFTRevised: Dec 5, 2020Printed: (d,m,y) 07-12-20 19:58Roadworks Type DC Project No.Timing (year) Gross Capital Cost Estimate (2020$) Grants, Subsidies and Other Contributions Attributable to New Development Net Capital Cost Benefit to Existing Development Post Period BenefitPotential D.C. Recoverable CostResidential Share83%Non- Residential Share17%RoadFromToIncreased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated Development (DC Study Horizon Year 2031)172Highway 2 StreetlightingSoper CreekBennett Rd.2023360,063360,063 - -360,063298,85361,211173Reg. Rd. 57 StreetlightingHighway 2Nash Rd.2024379,500379,500 - -379,500314,98564,515174Courtice Rd. StreetlightingStagemaster Cr.Bloor St.2024274,542274,542 - -274,542227,87046,672175Coutice Rd. (Regional Road 34)Bloor St.Highway 401 Interchange2024506,567506,567 - -506,567420,45086,116176Regional Rd. 17 StreetlightingRemi Ct.375m N of CPR2024142,130142,130 - -142,130117,96824,162177Courtice Road StreetlightingSandringham Dr.Stagemaster Cr.202429,31829,318 - -29,31824,3344,984178Bloor St. (Streetlighting)Courtice Rd.Hancock Rd.2025208,944208,944 - -208,944173,42335,520179Bloor St./Reg. Rd. 22 StreetlightingPrestonvale Rd.Courtice Rd.2025437,324437,324 - -437,324362,97974,345180Regional Rd. 17 Streetlighting375m N of CPRConc. Rd. 32027247,817247,817 - -247,817205,68842,129Streetscape WorksStreetscape Works181Newcastle Streetscape Phase 1North St.Mill St.2021781,043781,043575,205 -205,838170,84634,992182Frank St. (Streetscape)King St.Future Queen St.2023423,297423,297311,740 -111,55792,59218,965183Newcastle Streetscape Phase 2Mill St.Beaver St.2023260,553260,553191,886 -68,66756,99411,673184St. George St. Tree Planting (Streetscape)King St.Queen St.202312,67812,6789,337 -3,3412,773568185Newcastle Streetscape Phase 3Beaver St.Arthur St.2025567,617567,617418,026 -149,591124,16125,431186King St. Corridor Improv. (Streetscape)Liberty St.Simpson Ave.20281,341,5251,341,525987,975 -353,549293,44660,103187King Street Corridor Improv. (Streetscape)Simpson Ave.Mearns Ave.20281,289,4261,289,426949,607 -339,819282,05057,769188Highway 2 StreetscapeTownline Rd.Darlington Blvd.2029368,323368,323271,254 -97,06980,56716,502189Highway 2 StreetscapeDarlington Blvd.Centrefield Dr.2029417,105417,105307,180 -109,92591,23818,687190Highway 2 StreetscapeCentrefield Dr.Prestonvale Rd.2030848,176848,176624,646 -223,531185,53138,000191Highway 2 StreetscapePrestonvale Rd.Trulls Rd.2030989,158989,158728,472 -260,685216,36944,317192Highway 2 StreetscapeTrulls Rd.Maplefield Drive20311,066,4251,066,425785,376 -281,049233,27047,778193Highway 2 StreetscapeRichard Gay Ave.Courtice Rd.2031811,461811,461597,607 -213,855177,50036,355194Highway 2 StreetscapeCourtice Rd.Hancock Rd. (Realigned)2031686,721686,721505,741 -180,980150,21430,767Engineered Services Studies & Non Site-Specific ImprovementsEngineered Services Studies & Non Site-Specific Improvements195 Bowmanville Waterfront Redevelopment Transportation Network Needs and Feasibility Study2020 60,000 60,000 - - 60,000 49,800 10,200196Active Transportation and Trails MP202060,00060,000 - -60,00049,80010,200197 Development Traffic Monitoring Studies for D.C. Project Implementation2020-2031 120,000 120,000 - - 120,000 99,600 20,400198Erosion Protection Works2020-20312,675,0462,675,046882,765 -1,792,2811,487,593304,688199 ES Report to Establish an East/West Transportation Corridor North of Highway No.22023 120,000 120,000 - - 120,000 99,600 20,400200 ES Report to Establish an East/West Transportation Corridor South of Highway No.22023 120,000 120,000 - - 120,000 99,600 20,400Recovery of DebentureRecovery of Debenture201NPV Principal Payments - Green Rd Debenture2020-20293,988,7533,988,753 - -3,988,7533,310,665678,088202NPV Interest Payments - Green Rd Debenture2020-2029779,211779,211 - -779,211646,745132,466OperationsOperations203Provision for additional fleet - Roads (24)2020-20312,786,5612,786,561 - -2,786,5612,312,845473,715204 Provision for additional facility space - Roads (NPV of Future Debt Payments)2020-2031 6,091,842 6,091,842 - - 6,091,842 5,056,229 1,035,613Other StudiesOther Studies205Hospital Transportation Review2020-203140,00040,00010,000 -30,00024,9005,100206Transportation Master Plan Update202175,00075,00018,750 -56,25046,6889,563207Operations Needs Assessment Study Update202450,00050,00012,500 -37,50031,1256,375208Transportation Master Plan Update2026150,000150,00037,500 -112,50093,37519,125209Transportation Master Plan Update203175,00075,00018,750 -56,25046,6889,563Reserve Fund Adjustment(20,917,074)(17,361,171)(3,555,903)Total223,962,001 558,053 223,962,001 31,938,781 - 170,548,102 141,554,932 28,993,176 223,403,948 170,548,093 141,554,917 28,993,176 P:\4900's\4987\Schedules\hab-Clarington DC Roads (live).xlsx3 of 4 Schaeffers Consulting EngineersDRAFTRevised: Dec 5, 2020Printed: (d,m,y) 07-12-20 19:58Roadworks Type DC Project No.Timing (year) Gross Capital Cost Estimate (2020$) Grants, Subsidies and Other Contributions Attributable to New Development Net Capital Cost Benefit to Existing Development Post Period BenefitPotential D.C. Recoverable CostResidential Share83%Non- Residential Share17%RoadFromToIncreased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated Development (DC Study Horizon Year 2031)DRAFT Proposed projects to be added to DC Roads project listTable 2Road WorksAddBEDG North-South Collector 'N' (26m ROW)Highway 2Concession St ERoad WorksAddBEDG North-South Collector 'N' (26m ROW)Concession St EEast-West Collector 'M'Road WorksAddBEDG East-West Collector 'M' (26m ROW)Lambs RdNorth-South Collector 'N'Road WorksAddBEDG East-West Collector 'M' (26m ROW)North-South Collector 'N'Bennett Rd.Road WorksAddBennett Rd.Concession St EEast-West Collector 'M'Bridge Structure WorksAddBennett Rd. Grade Seperationat CNR CrossingCulvert WorksAddBEDG North-South Collector 'N' at Soper Creek Tributary286,059286,059286,059237,42948,630Intersection WorksAddLambs Rd at East-West Collector 'M' Intersection316,231316,231193,316160,45232,864Intersection WorksAddLambs Rd at Highway 2 Intersection2022316,231316,231TBC193,316160,45232,864Intersection WorksAddBEDG North-South Collector 'N' at Highway 2 I'N'tersectio'N'316,231316,231193,316160,45232,864Intersection WorksAddBennett Rd at Highway 2 Intersection2031316,231316,231193,316160,45232,864Sidewalk & Cycling Facility WorksAddLambs Rd300m North of Baseline Rd.Highway 22023 TBC Sidewalk & Cycling Facility WorksAddLambs Rd.Highway 2Concession St. E2022 TBC Sidewalk & Cycling Facility WorksAddLambs Rd.Concession St. ECPR Tracks2027 TBC Sidewalk & Cycling Facility WorksAddLambs Rd.CPR TracksConc. Rd. 32021 TBC Road WorksAddConcession Rd. 390m W. of Jollow Dr.Mearns Ave.2023 TBC Road WorksAddBEDG West-South Collector 'A' (26m ROW)300m North Conc. Rd. 3Liberty St NRoad WorksAddLiberty St NConc. Rd. 3West-South Collector 'A'2030Road WorksAddLiberty St NWest-South Collector 'A'North Urban BoundaryCulvert WorksAddLiberty St Nnorth of Concession Rd 32030286,059286,059286,059237,42948,630Culvert WorksAddMearns Avenorth of Concession Rd 32030286,059286,059286,059237,42948,630Intersection WorksAddLiberty St N at West-South Collector 'A' Intersection2030316,231316,231193,316160,45232,864Intersection WorksAddConcession St 3 at Mearns Ave intersection2030316,231316,231 TBC 193,316160,45232,864Sidewalk & Cycling Facility WorksAddConcession St 3 SidewalkLiberty St NMearns Ave2030 TBC Street Lighting WorksAddConcession St 3 Street LightingLiberty St NMearns Ave TBC 25Colour LegendProject located in vicinity of eastern Soper Hills secondary plan areaProject located in vicinity of northern Soper Springs secondary plan areaNotesRefer to Development Concept plans by Weston Consulting dated Jan 24, 2018.Refer to 2020 DC Background Study, Addendum dated Nov 3, 2020.It is unknown if current municipal roadworks project estimates already include for all cost components per DC Study sub-headings: intersections, culvert works, sidewalks, cycling facilities. ROW land will need to be acquired/ expropriated from Non-Participant at Concession Rd 3 at Liberty St N. for West-South Collector A. Land cost to be included in DC amount for the project ie. financed through growth DC reserve fund. Additional ROW land will need to be acquired from Participant for future CNR crossing at Bennett Rd extension. Land cost to be included in DC amount for the project ie. financed through growth DC reserve fund. AbbreviationsBowmanville East Developers Group (BEDG)Development Charge (DC)Current DC Amounts by BEDG Secondary Plan Area LocationNorth 5,470,382 - 5,470,382 1,836,162 03,634,2223,016,403617,817East 38,322,975 - 38,322,975 2,633,745 035,689,23129,622,0626,067,170Total BEDG 43,793,357 - 43,793,357 4,469,907 - 39,323,453 32,638,465 6,684,987 Proposed Additional Projects by BEDG Secondary Plan Area LocationNorthEastTotal BEDG - - - - - - - - P:\4900's\4987\Schedules\hab-Clarington DC Roads (live).xlsx4 of 4 Proposed Additional DC Road Needs 07-Dec-20 Bowmanville East Developers Group Project Type per DC Study DC Project No. Road From To Road Works Add BEDG North-South Collector 'N' (26m ROW)Highway 2 Concession St E Road Works Add BEDG North-South Collector 'N' (26m ROW)Concession St E East-West Collector 'M' Road Works Add BEDG East-West Collector 'M' (26m ROW)Lambs Rd North-South Collector 'N' Road Works Add BEDG East-West Collector 'M' (26m ROW)North-South Collector 'N'Bennett Rd. Road Works Add Bennett Rd.Concession St E East-West Collector 'M' Bridge Structure Works Add Bennett Rd. Grade Seperation at CNR Crossing Culvert Works Add BEDG North-South Collector 'N' at Soper Creek Tributary Intersection Works Add Lambs Rd at East-West Collector 'M' Intersection Intersection Works Add Lambs Rd at Highway 2 Intersection Intersection Works Add BEDG North-South Collector 'N' at Highway 2 I'N'tersectio'N' Intersection Works Add Bennett Rd at Highway 2 Intersection Sidewalk & Cycling Facility Works Add Lambs Rd 300m North of Baseline Rd.Highway 2 Sidewalk & Cycling Facility Works Add Lambs Rd.Highway 2 Concession St. E Sidewalk & Cycling Facility Works Add Lambs Rd.Concession St. E CPR Tracks Sidewalk & Cycling Facility Works Add Lambs Rd.CPR Tracks Conc. Rd. 3 Road Works Add Concession Rd. 3 90m W. of Jollow Dr.Mearns Ave. Road Works Add BEDG West-South Collector 'A' (26m ROW)300m North Conc. Rd. 3 Liberty St N Road Works Add Liberty St N Conc. Rd. 3 West-South Collector 'A' Road Works Add Liberty St N West-South Collector 'A'North Urban Boundary Culvert Works Add Liberty St N north of Concession Rd 3 Culvert Works Add Mearns Ave north of Concession Rd 3 Intersection Works Add Liberty St N at West-South Collector 'A' Intersection Intersection Works Add Concession St 3 at Mearns Ave intersection Sidewalk & Cycling Facility Works Add Concession St 3 Sidewalk Liberty St N Mearns Ave Street Lighting Works Add Concession St 3 Street Lighting Liberty St N Mearns Ave 25 Colour Legend Project located in vicinity of eastern Soper Hills secondary plan area Project located in vicinity of northern Soper Springs secondary plan area Notes Refer to Development Concept plans by Weston Consulting . Refer to 2020 DC Background Study, Addendum dated Nov 3, 2020. Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated Development (DC Study Horizon Year 2031) It is unknown if current municipal roadworks project estimates already include for all cost components per DC Study sub-headings: intersections, culvert works, sidewalks, cycling facilities. ROW land will need to be acquired/ expropriated from Non-Participant at Concession Rd 3 at Liberty St N. for West-South Collector A. Land cost to be included in DC amount for the project ie. financed through growth DC reserve fund. Additional ROW land will need to be acquired from Participant for future CNR crossing at Bennett Rd extension. Land cost to be included in DC amount for the project ie. financed through growth DC reserve fund. December 7, 2020 Our File: 4987 Bowmanville East Developers Group c/o Weston Consulting 201 Millway Ave Suite 19 Vaughan, ON L4K 5K8 Attn: Ryan Guetter 6 Ronrose Drive, Concord, Ontario L4K 4R3 Tel: (905) 738-6100 Fax: (905) 738-6875 Tor. Line: (416) 213-5590 Email: general@schaeffers.com S C H A E F F E R & A S S O C I A T E S L T D .S C H A E F F E R & A S S O C I A T E S L T D .S C H A E F F E R & A S S O C I A T E S L T D .S C H A E F F E R & A S S O C I A T E S L T D . Re: DC Roads Projects Review Clarington 2020 Development Charges Background Study Addendum Bowmanville East Developers Group Dear Mr. Guetter, We have reviewed the roads project list included in the Clarington DC Background Study Addendum dated November 3 ,2020. The DC projects were reviewed in conjunction with the anticipated development concept plans for the eastern Soper Hills Secondary Plan and the northern Soper Springs Secondary Plan. We also participated in the meeting coordinated by Weston Consulting today with Trevor Pinn of the municipality. Mr. Pinn suggested that we provide our initial questions in writing for his more effective follow up with technical engineering staff. Current DC Projects Attached is a working table containing the DC road projects shown in the Addendum to the DC Background Study (see Table 1). The table was colour coded to flag those DC projects located in vicinity of either of the two above mentioned Secondary plans. We have the following questions regarding the current DC project list at this time. Scopes 1. Can it be clarified if the colour coded projects under the sub-heading ‘Road Works’ already include for all other cost components listed under adjacent sub-headings on the same list: intersections, culvert works, sidewalks, cycling facilities. 2. The location of DC No. 3 is not clear. Does it overlap with DC project No. 8? 3. Can it be clarified if the project descriptions assume the railway north of Concession Street East is owned by CNR ? 4. Regarding DC No. 5 future arterial grade separation at railway, does the project amount include for any additional ROW land to be acquired from the adjacent Participating Owner? 5. There appears to be a section of Concession Road 3 which is missing in the DC list: Concession Rd 3 (from 90m west of Jollow Dr to Mearns Ave.). Can this project be included in the DC list? The Ontario Municipal Board (the “OMB”) is continued under the name Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”), and any reference to the Ontario Municipal Board or Board in any publication of the Tribunal is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal. PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 14 of the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 27 Appellant: Appellant: Amacon Development (City Centre) Corp. Fogerhill Equities Inc. Subject: Development Charges By-law No. 46-2015 Municipality: Regional Municipality of Peel OMB Case No.: DC150017 OMB File No.: DC150017 OMB Case Name: Amacon Development (City Centre) Corp. v. Peel Regional Municipality) APPEARANCES: Parties Counsel Regional Municipality of Peel P. DeMelo Amacon Development (City Centre) Corp. S. Rosenthal I. Banach Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Tribunal d’appel de l’aménagement local ISSUE DATE: June 11, 2019 CASE NO(S).: DC150017 Heard: May 8 – 12 and October 3 – 6, 2017 in Brampton, Ontario and Written Submissions to December 18, 2017 2 DC150017 DECISION DELIVERED BY SUSAN de AVELLAR SCHILLER AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BACKGROUND [1] The Regional Municipality of Peel (“Region”) adopted Development Charges By- law No. 46-2015 (“By-law”). The By-law was appealed to this Board by various interests. The Region engaged in extensive consultation and discussions with these various interests. By the time of the hearing of the merits, the only appeal that remained outstanding was that of Amacon Development (City Centre) Corp. (“Amacon”). This decision deals with the Amacon appeal. LEGISLATION [2] The Development Charges Act (“Act”) is specific and precise. The Tribunal’s role in deciding this appeal does not include analysis of the policy preference that may underlay a municipality’s decision on the form and application of its By-law. For example, there may be a policy preference to encourage a particular sector and a wish to do so through discounted development charges. The policy preference remains that of the municipality. The Tribunal’s role is simply to determine if the expression of that policy preference in the By-law and its application has met the requirements of the Act. [3] Section 2(1) of the Act sets out the principle to guide the development of the By- law. This principle is often summarized as “growth pays for growth”: The council of a municipality may by by-law impose development charges against land to pay for increased capital costs required because of increased needs for services arising from development of the area to which the by-law applies. [4] If a cost is unrelated to an increased need that arises because of growth then it cannot be included in the By-law. If there is benefit to existing development, that benefit must be identified and deducted in the calculation of the By-law’s charge. This is set out in section 5(1)6: 3 DC150017 The increase in the need for service must be reduced by the extent to which an increase in service to meet increased need would benefit existing development… [5] Similarly, s. 5(1)4 requires that if there is a benefit that extends beyond the period permitted by the Act then that, too, must be identified and deducted in the calculation of the By-law’s charge. [6] Where a municipality has identified different types of development it may only impose a development charge on that type of development for the increased need that is generated by growth in that particular type of development. The Region recognizes two basic types of development: residential and non-residential. Having recognized different types of development, the Region is then constrained to ensure that the development charge applied to either category results solely from the increased need generated by growth in that category. Phrased another way: one category cannot subsidize the other category. [7] A development charge by-law is forward looking in that it is based on projected growth. Identifying that projected growth requires a background study that must meet certain requirements that are set out in the Act. Central to the requirements of the background study is that it must analyze and set out clearly the basis for the proposed charges to ensure that they are for the increased service needs that are required by the anticipated growth within a specified category within the period. The study must be transparent in its analysis and its chosen methodology must support development charges that conform to the requirements of the Act. ISSUES, ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS [8] There is no dispute between the parties about the works to be undertaken or the costs of the works. [9] The elements of this dispute may be grouped into two main issues: 4 DC150017 1. Have the increased costs required by the increased need from growth been properly allocated between the residential and non -residential categories? 2. Have the proposed charges been based on an analysis that: i. included only the increased costs required because of increased needs of growth within the period; and ii. excluded benefits to existing development and benefits to the post-period? Witnesses Heard [10] The Tribunal heard from six witnesses whom the Tribunal qualified to provide independent expert opinion evidence in their respective fields. The Region called a land economist, a transportation planner and a professional engineer expert in water and wastewater matters. Amacon called a professional engineer expert in water and wastewater matters, a traffic engineer who is also a transportation planner, and a land economist who is also a land use planner. Allocation between Categories [11] Amacon contends that the allocation of costs between categories for some works and services, and some administrative practices, result in the residential category subsidizing the non-residential category contrary to the Act. Included in this topic are a service, known as Transhelp, to assist the physically disabled to reach various locations in the Region, paramedics, police, water and wastewater and administrative treatment of the reserve fund. Transhelp: [12] Transhelp is a service to assist the physically disabled to get to various locations in the Region. The Region acknowledges that Transhelp is a shared ride service and 5 DC150017 describes the service as being the same as public transit with the same fares. [13] Transhelp rides are not based on the purpose of the trip. Although Transhelp operates within the Region, it does not distinguish eligible riders by whether they are residents or non-residents or whether the purpose of the trip is recreational, commercial or personal. The service is available to the full population, including non-resident employees, yet Transhelp is attributed entirely to the residential category. [14] The background study, required by the Act before a By-law may be adopted, contains no rationale or calculation that supports attributing Transhelp entirely to the residential category. Transhelp clearly benefits the non-residential employment sector and warrants a non-residential attribution. [15] The Tribunal finds that attributing Transhelp entirely to the residential category constitutes a subsidy from residential to non-residential that is contrary to the Act. In the absence of appropriate analysis to justify allocation entirely to the residential sector, the Tribunal is persuaded that a reasonable basis for allocation is the ratio of the projected population to projected employment growth. Paramedics: [16] Paramedics respond to emergencies. Paramedics do not withhold service based on residential or employment status nor do they withhold emergency services until those in need identify themselves as either residents or employees. Like Transhelp, the Region attributes all the increased need for these services to the growth in the residential category. [17] The Region’s justification for attributing all the increased need for these services to growth in the residential category is that this is a policy that has been in place for many years. If the Region’s policy preference is not to attribute any increases to the non-residential category, that is the Region’s business. Any shortfall that results from that policy cannot then be made up by placing all the development charges for 6 DC150017 paramedics on the residential category. [18] The Tribunal finds that attributing all increases in the need for paramedic services to the residential category constitutes a subsidy from residential to non- residential that is contrary to the Act. The Tribunal further finds that the appropriate attribution should be based on the ratio of the projected population to employment growth. Police: [19] The Region’s police force serves Mississauga and Brampton. At the time of this hearing, Caledon was served separately by arrangement with the Ontario Provincial Police. [20] The attribution for police is based on a weighted taxable assessment of real property. In summary, this approach uses the value of residential and non-residential real property, weighted to account for different tax rates and other assessment adjustments. The resulting data is exactly as its name implies: a ratio of the weighted residential taxable assessment to the weighted non -residential taxable assessment. The result is not the ratio of the projected growth in residential population to the projected growth in employment. [21] The differences in the value of inputs to determine the weighted taxable assessment of residential real property versus the weighted taxable assessment of non- residential real property results in an oversized figure for the residential component by comparison to that of the non-residential. [22] The Region’s witness testified that this approach and resulting attribution was appropriate, based on his professional opinion that police services dealt overwhelmingly with residents. He acknowledged that the police deal with a broad range of matters from criminal to educational, responding to calls that may originate and/or arise from the needs of residents or business, but presented no data to support the suggestion that the 7 DC150017 police services and calls were primarily for residents. Like paramedics and other first responders, police do not fail to answer a call or withhold service until they are satisfied that the police service in question is being provided solely to residents. [23] The Region suggested the weighted taxable assessment approach simply provided a proxy to the attribution of services to the residential sector versus the employment sector. If it is a proxy, and the Tribunal is not persuaded that it is, then it is a particularly faulty proxy. With no identifiable equivalence to projected residential and employment growth, the weighted taxable assessment approach results in a subsidy from residential to non-residential that is contrary to the Act. [24] The Tribunal finds that the appropriate methodology for determining the attribution between residential and non-residential is the ratio of the projected residential growth to the projected employment growth and not a weighted taxable assessment basis. Water and Wastewater: [25] Amacon is not challenging the total capital costs inclusive of both water and wastewater projects, excluding reserves and encumbrances. Amacon is also no t challenging the assumptions used or the Region’s flow, demand and design crit eria. In this service as well, Amacon is challenging the allocation of costs between the residential and the non-residential sectors. [26] The Region uses historic billings as the basis to project need into the future. It has done so as a policy matter for many years. This is the basis for the Region’s attribution between the residential and the non -residential categories for development charges. [27] The Region acknowledges that not all treated water is metred. Non-metred, and therefore non-revenue, treated water may be lost through various combinations of leaks, fighting fires, flushing water mains, and so on. The Region did not use historic 8 DC150017 billings as the data basis to support the analysis of need for the capital plan in the Water and Wastewater Master Plan analysis. Here, the Region used historic flow data, not historic billings, to support the capital plan and applied an analysis of population and employment growth. [28] The Tribunal is not persuaded that historic billings are able to identify needs arising from growth. Without that analysis, the Tribunal finds that the use of historic billings to set the attribution between residential and non-residential is contrary to the Act. The Tribunal is persuaded that historic flow data to which is applied the projected population and employment growth is an appropriate and reasonable basis to set development charges for water and wastewater. Cash Flow and the Reserve Fund: [29] For the analysis of this matter, the Tribunal will focus on two principal components of the reserve fund: residential and non-residential. These separate components respond to the requirements of the Act that each type of development pays only for the increase in needs generated by that type of development. The Act requires that the development charge that is calculated for each type of development must be exact in order to result in a zero balance for each type of development at the end of the period. Calculating the development charge to achieve a zero balance at the end of the period is one element to ensure that the development charges are attributed to the correct development type. [30] Rather than keep each component separate, achieving a zero balance within each, the Region blends the closing balances for all types of development and achieves a zero closing balance overall. Doing so for administrative convenience is not the problem as long as the individual components reach a zero balance for purposes of the development charges. The problem arises in the fact that those individ ual components are not tracked separately. In fact, the Region’s witness suggested that blending the balances in the categories to achieve an overall zero balance reflected the fact that 9 DC150017 capital works may have to be undertaken prior to the actual development occurrin g. With a higher balance in the residential component, blending the balances would act as an internal loan from the residential stream to the non -residential stream. That is what creates the problem. [31] The Act makes no mention of one type of development lending its reserve fund monies to the reserve fund component of another type of development. In doing so, the development charges collected from, in this case residential, development effectively subsidizes the development charge of the non-residential development. That is contrary to the Act. [32] Here, again, if the Region’s policy is to accord a beneficial rate to one type of development, it may do so but not by overcharging another type of development. Shortfalls cannot be made up in that fashion. [33] The Tribunal finds that the manner in which the calculations are done as a consequence of the blending of the funds has resulted in overcharging the residential component for the service needs created by growth in the residential sector. Proper Exclusions [34] The Act requires two key exclusions to ensure that only the costs for increased need required by growth within the period are charged. Benefits to existing development (“BTE”) and post-period benefits (“PPB”) must both be deducted. The analysis of both of these benefits, and their appropriate deduction, must be made in the background study that supports the particular By-law. [35] Amacon takes the position that the requisite analysis and consequent deductions were not made for two elements of transportation services: 1. Road construction projects, including stand-alone intersections 10 DC150017 2. Road and rail grade separations Road Construction Projects: [36] For road construction projects, the primary matter in dispute is the question of whether some elements of the road construction benef it existing development or whether all elements of road construction provide some level of BTE. [37] A number of elements go into road construction projects. Some elements clearly occur in all road construction projects and include things like background studies and design work. Other elements may only occur in certain road projects, depending on the area and the particular needs or prevailing transportation policy preferences that are being applied. These might include matters from utilities, bridges, culverts and traffic signals to bicycle or multi-use paths, sidewalks and street lighting. Whether the project is a stripped down rural road segment or a fully dressed urban segment, there is always some resulting BTE. [38] The Region tends to take a flat percentage and attribute that to BTE. Amacon does not take much issue with the flat percentage approach. The Tribunal accepts that a flat percentage approach reflects a common standard and is reasonable. [39] The Tribunal is not persuaded that cherry-picking the elements against which the flat percentage is to be applied is either reasonable or reflects the actual BTE. For example, if a road construction project takes a rural segment and brings it to what would be recognized as more of an urban segment, both urban and rural residents who use the road benefit from all the elements of the road improvements. It is insufficient to say, as the Region does, that perhaps not all residents adjacent to the road want all the additional improvements. [40] The Region, by its policies, has determined that certain elements should be included in a particular road project. If it is included in the road project, then it is appropriate to allocate a portion of the overall cost to BTE. The Tribunal is persuaded 11 DC150017 that applying a BTE to construction only, and not to the total cost, does not comply with s. 5(1)6 of the Act. Road and Rail Grade Separations: [41] The Region has proposed two grade separations in the vicinity of King Street and Coleraine Drive. In both cases the Region has attributed the costs of these grade separations to the residential sector. [42] The Region contends that the need for the grade separations results from increases in both vehicular and train traffic that leads to delays at the at-grade crossings. These delays hold up goods movement as well as creating potential delays for emergency services and first responders. [43] To understand the issue, it is first necessary to understand the suggested cause of the need for the grade separations. [44] The Region’s transportation planner was clear that one of the elements of vehicular traffic was the growth in truck traffic, particularly goods movement that may be entering the Region from elsewhere. A second element of vehicular traffic increase was attributed to residential growth. [45] There are no capacity improvements proposed for the roadway. This raises the very real question in the Tribunal’s mind whether growth, expressed as an increase in the number of vehicles, is identified properly as an underlying need for the proposed grade separations. [46] Train traffic on the rail line is expected to increase, particularly for commuter services. With an increase in train traffic, there may be some increases in the number of incidents where there is a delay at a level crossing. The delay was acknowledged as being minor where the train is a fast moving commuter train. Where the train is a slower moving freight train, that condition exists now. In reference to first responders, the 12 DC150017 Region acknowledges that there are delays occasioned now if the crossing is necessary and it occurs at the time that a slow moving freight train is using the rail line. [47] It is clear to the Tribunal that two elements are problematic here. The first is that the grade separations are allocated entirely to growth with no allocation to BTE, when clearly and unequivocally existing development would benefit from such grade separations. [48] The second problem is the fact that the Region has made no allocation for any post-period benefit. [49] Section 5(1)4 of the Act is clear. The estimate of costs attributable to anticipated development: …must not include an increase in the need for service that relates to a time after the 10-year period immediately following the preparation of the background study unless the service is set out in subsection (5). [50] The Tribunal finds that the Region has failed to make appropriate deductions when determining the development charge payable for grade separations. CONCLUSION [51] Having considered all the evidence, the Tribunal finds that there are necessary reductions to the residential development charge resulting from alloca tions that do not comply with the Act and from the lack of appropriate deductions for benefits to existing development and for post-period benefits. ORDER [52] The Tribunal Orders that the appeal by Amacon Development (City Centre) Corp. is allowed and that: 1. By-law No. 46-2015 is amended to delete and replace Schedules “A” and 13 DC150017 “B” with those tables set out in the witness statement of Rowan Faludi and in the replacement tables at Exhibit 3, Tab 1, Attachment 12. 2. Residential development charges paid under the current version of By-law No. 46-2015 are to be refunded in accordance with the Act. “Susan de Avellar Schiller” SUSAN de AVELLAR SCHILLER VICE-CHAIR If there is an attachment referred to in this document, please visit www.elto.gov.on.ca to view the attachment in PDF format. Local Planning Appeal Tribunal A constituent tribunal of Tribunals Ontario - Environment and Land Division Website: www.elto.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248 DRAFT Minutes Prepared by: Paul Tobia Meeting Date: December 7, 2020 Meeting Purpose: Municipality of Clarington DC By-law Meeting Location: MS Teams File: 7929-00 Attendees: Ryan Guetter, Weston Consulting Paul Tobia, Weston Consulting Trevor Pinn, Finance, Municipality of Clarington Hal Beck, Schaeffers Ryan Guetter began the conversation and introduced Hal Beck and Paul Tobia to Trevor Pinn. Trevor Pinn went on to provide an update regarding the Municipality of Clarington DC By-law. Ryan indicated that Weston is involved with the Soper Hills and Soper Springs Secondary Plans and the Subwatershed Study (SWS) for that area. He noted that these privately funded initiatives should not be included in the DC charge. Trevor indicated that the DC By-law is usually done every 5 years but is putting forth a recommendation to do DC study again once the Secondary Plans are approved ie. within two years’ time. This was done in Whitby but was not a recommendation of Watson (the consultant who did the study). Hal Beck indicated that the study is lacking in detail on some DC roads and needs to include for the Group’s oversized internal collectors. Trevor indicated that it was a recommendation from Watson to not include collector roads until the locations are finalized. Hal noted that reasonable estimates of confirmed needs of study horizon growth should be included. Hal indicated that if DC studies are updated in two year intervals, it may trigger requests for transition rates which can burden post period growth. Ryan asked Trevor if the funding of the Secondary Plans and SWS was captured in the DC By-law as he was concerned regarding possible double counting. Trevor indicated that he needed to review and provide an answer at a later date. Hal proceeded to ask Trevor a series of technical questions regarding DC roads projects he prepared for the meeting, however the majority of them were engineering-based and Trevor found it more helpful if questions were provided in writing as they would be passed on to the Municipality’s engineer for review and response. Action items of note were for Hal to prepare a list of questions and for Weston to submit them to Trevor for his review and response from technical staff. The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 40 Temperance Street, Bowmanville, ON L1C 3A6 1-800-563-1195 | Local: 905-623-3379 | info@clarington.net | www.clarington.net January 7, 2021 Weston Consulting 201 Millway Avenue, Suite 19 Vaughan, Ontario L4K 5K8 Attention: Ryan Guetter, Senior Vice President Dear Ryan: Thank you for your submission regarding the Municipality’s 2020 Development Charge Background Study, received on December 22, 2020. Your questions regarding the secondary plan area are being reviewed by the Municipality. In light of the timing of the receipt of your submission, and with the intended DC by-law passage on January 18, 2021 reflecting the last possible date for Council’s consideration of the matter before the current by-law expires, the Municipality is proposing to assess the DC implications of these capital needs arising from the various Secondary Plans as approved by Council. The Municipality will consider amendments to the proposed DC by-law in 2021/2022 to reflect and material changes in the underlying funding for these growth-related needs. In response to your questions pertaining to the municipal-wide by-law, please find attached a memorandum from Watson & Associates Economists, as well as a letter from CIMA regarding the benefit to existing deductions for Services Related to a Highway. We look forward to engaging with you further through the finalization of the Secondary Plan and future amendment to the DC Background Study and by-law Yours truly, Trevor Pinn, BA, CPA, CA Director of Financial Services/Treasurer Attachment 8(a) to FND-004-21 Memorandum Address Contact Information Filepath Plaza Three 101-2000 Argentia Rd. Mississauga, Ontario L5N 1V9 Office: 905-272-3600 Fax: 905-272-3602 www.watsonecon.ca H:\Clarington\2019 DC & CBC\Developer Consultation\Weston Response.docx To Trevor Pinn, Director of Financial Services/Treasurer, Municipality of Clarington From Andrew Grunda, Principal, Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Date January 5, 2021 Re: Municipal Development Charges By-law Bowmanville East (Soper Hills) and Bowmanville North (Soper Springs) Secondary Plan Areas Municipality of Clarington December 22, 2020 Fax Courier Mail Email The Municipality of Clarington (Municipality) received a letter from Weston Consulting (Weston) on behalf of the Bowmanville East Developers Group dated December 22, 2020 regarding the Municipality’s 2020 Development Charges (D.C.) Background Study. The key dates regarding the D.C. background study process that has been proceeded through with stakeholders and Council are follows: February 19, 2020 – Development Industry Stakeholder Consultation session, including distribution of summary presentation and technical appendix substantiating the preliminary calculations April 6, 2020 – Presentation of draft findings to Council October 15, 2020 – Release of the D.C. Background Study on the Municipality’s website November 3, 2020 – Addendum to the October 15, 2020 D.C. Background Study November 30, 2020 – Public Meeting of Council The December 22, 2020 Weston letter contains various questions related to Bowmanville East (Soper Hills) and Bowmanville North (Soper Springs) Secondary Plan Areas as well as two specific questions pertaining the municipal development charges by-law. The Municipality will be corresponding regarding their proposed approach to address questions pertaining to the secondary plan areas. This memorandum has been prepared to address the municipal development charge by-law questions related to the Rail Grade Separation, the Allocation of Capital Costs in Recreation, Parks, and Library Services, and funding of growth-related studies Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2 Weston Response 1.Rail Grade Separation Services Related to a Highway project #5 (Lams Rd. Grade S eparation) has been included as 100% benefit to growth over the 2020 to 2031 period. This project was also identified in the Municipality’s 2015 D.C. Background Study as 100% benefit to growth over the period to 2031. The growth forecast contained within the 2020 D.C. Background Study has been prepared on the same basis as that for the 2015 D.C. Background Study). Furthermore, the Municipality’s 2016 Transportation Master Plan identifies that a grade separation on Port Darlington Rd. and the CNR crossing is warranted based on growth in Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) to 2031. It is proposed that this need will be met through the Lambs Rd. Grade Separation south of the 401 Highway. The Municipality’s approach for benefit to existing development for Services Related to a Highway projects has been summarized in the attached letter from CIMA+. Consistent with the approach used for culvert and bridge structure projects, no benefit to existing has been applied for the project as it is not required to support the road network that is currently in place to support the existing population. 2.Allocation of Capital Costs in Recreation, Parks, and Library Services Growth related capital costs have been allocated 100% to residential development within Parks and Recreation and Library Services. While some municipalities may allocate a nominal share of growth-related costs to non-residential development (e.g. 5%) for Parks and Recreation Services and Library Services, the approach used in the Municipality’s 2020 D.C. Background Study to allocate 100% of the growth-related costs to residential development is consistent with the Municipality’s policy used in their 2015 D.C. Background Study as well as many other D.C. background studies across the Province. 3.Funding of Growth-Related Studies The future Subwatershed Studies and Municipal Secondary Plans that have been included within the Administration Studies Service do not include the privately funded Subwatershed Studies and Municipal Secondary Plans that have already been undertaken. As such, no D.C. credits would be available for those works. To the extent that development provides up-front financing for D.C. eligible studies or other D.C. eligible works, the Municipality would enter into D.C. credit agreements in this regard. C14-0347-L-BTE Methodology rev02.docx 415 Baseline Road West, 2nd Floor Bowmanville, ON L1C 5M2 CANADA T 905 697-4464 F 905-697-0443 cima.ca December 18, 2020 Municipality of Clarington Public Works Department [via email] Attention: Mr. Sean Bagshaw, P.Eng. – Manager of Infrastructure RE: BENEFIT TO EXISTING FOR ROADS AND RELATED CAPITAL PROJECTS Dear Mr. Bagshaw: The following provides a summary description of methodologies used to determine/establish the Benefit to Existing (BTE) amounts for various types of projects included in the Municipality of Clarington’s “Roads and Related” Development Charge capital program. 1 LINEAR ROAD PROJECTS 1.1 DEFERRED COSTS For linear road projects in the Development Charge Capital Program that involve reconstruction of an existing road the Benefit to Existing (BTE) amount is established based on the cost (in 2020 dollars) of maintenance and rehabilitation that the Municipality will be able to defer/forego due to the completion of such projects. The maintenance and rehabilitation costs are calculated using the Municipality’s road condition ratings and pavement management model to establish the lifecycle activities that would occur in a no-growth scenario over a 20-year period in order to maintain road conditions. This analysis is conducted conservatively by assuming that the Municipality’s budget would be sufficiently large to allow for all ideal activities to be undertaken even though that may not be the case. Thus, in simple terms, the BTE is defined as the value (in 2020 dollars) of an ideal pavement management strategy for each road that would include initial reconstruction (to a standard appropriate to existing conditions), if warranted by road conditions, followed by on-going resurfacing, crack sealing, micro surfacing, slurry sealing, etc. This approach applies to projects involving reconstruction/urbanization of existing roads. December 18, 2020 Page 2 of 3 C14-0347-L-BTE Methodology rev02.docx cima.ca 1.2 GROWTH/NON-GROWTH SHARE For linear road projects that involve upgrading portions of the rural road network to support traffic growth between urban growth centres and higher order facilities (e.g. regional roads and provincial highways) the Benefit to Existing (BTE) amount is established based on growth/non-growth population share. Specially 74% of the project cost is allocated to BTE and 26% is allocated to growth. 1.3 NO BENEFIT TO EXISTING For linear road projects that involve constructing new roads or simply widening existing roads that are already built to current standards no Benefit to Existing (BTE) is established. 2 INTERSECTION PROJECTS The Benefit to Existing (BTE) for intersection projects that involve signalization improvements and widening has been established individually for each project through the consideration for three components making-up the project cost: • BTE for signal upgrades is determined based on the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) growth/non-growth share of forecasted traffic at key screen lines for the 2031 horizon year in the relevant community (Courtice or Bowmanville), with Courtice being 23% growth and 77% non-growth and Bowmanville being 20% growth and 80% non-growth. • Rehabilitation of the existing footprint of intersections is considered 100% BTE in instances where it is required and not otherwise captured by linear road projects. • Widening for the provision of new dedicated auxiliary lanes is considered 100% attributably to growth with no BTE. For projects involving signalization of intersections and no road improvements BTE is established based on a growth/non-growth share of forecasted traffic for the 2031 horizon year. 3 SIDEWALK AND MULTI-USE PATH PROJECTS 3.1 REPLACING AN EXISTING FACILITY Where an upgraded or new facility (i.e. a multi-use path) is provided to replace an existing facility (i.e. a sidewalk) the Benefit to Existing (BTE) is determined to be the typical value of existing facility with the balance of the project cost being attributable to growth. 3.2 NO BENEFIT TO EXISTING For projects where a new sidewalk or multi-use path facility is required to accommodate growth related pedestrian and or cyclist traffic the project is considered to have no Benefit to Existing (BTE). December 18, 2020 Page 3 of 3 C14-0347-L-BTE Methodology rev02.docx cima.ca 4 CULVERT AND BRIDGE STRUCTURE PROJECTS Projects related to extension and widening of existing structures as well as the construction of new structures are considered to have no Benefit to Existing (BTE) on the basis that they are not required to support the road network that is currently in place to support the existing population. 5 STREETSCAPE PROJECTS For streetscape projects on existing roads the Benefit to Existing (BTE) amount is established based on growth/non-growth population share. Specially 74% of the project cost is allocated to BTE and 26% is allocated to growth. 6 STREETLIGHTING PROJECTS Street lighting projects are considered to have no Benefit to Existing (BTE) on the basis that they are required to address new needs created by increases in traffic volumes and urbanization of road corridors due to growth. Sincerely, CIMA Canada Inc. Dan Campbell Senior Project Manager / Associate Partner, Municipal Infrastructure dan.campbell@cima.ca www.urbanMetrics.ca | 67 Yonge Street, Suite 804, Toronto, ON, M5E 1J8 | 416-351-8585 (1-800-505-8755) | info@urbanMetrics.ca January 8, 2021 Bowmanville East Developers Group c/o Weston Consulting 201 Millway Avenue, Suite 19 Vaughan, ON L4K 5K8 Dear Mr. Guetter: RE: Review of the Clarington Development Charges Background Study urbanMetrics inc. is pleased to present this letter that summarizes our concerns and questions with the 2020 Development Charges Background Study, Municipality of Clarington, October 15, 2020 (the “DCBS”) prepared by Watson and Associates Economists Ltd. (“Watson”). 1.Allocation of Capital Costs for Grade Separations to BTE and PPB Project Number 5 in the Services Related to a Highway capital program is a rail grade separation on Lambs Road with a cost of approximately $15 million, to be constructed in 2030. The entirety of the capital costs for this grade separation are allocated to in-period growth between 2020 and 2031, despite this grade separation being constructed at the end of the period. The DCBS does not allocate any of the costs to Benefit to Existing (“BTE”) to reflect the benefit of the grade separation to existing residents/employees or to Post Period Benefit (“PPB”) to reflect the benefit to new residents/employees post-2031. The lack of an allocation of capital costs to BTE and PPB for the grade separation at Lambs Road is inconsistent with the recent Local Planning Appeals Tribunal (LPAT) decision in Case No. DC150017 in Peel Region. Attachment 9 to FND-004-21 Review of the Clarington Development Charges Background Study | 2 2. Allocation of Capital Costs for Recreation, Parks and Library The DCBS allocates 100% of capital costs for Parks and Recreation Services and Library Services to the Residential Sector. The DCBS states that this is done to be “consistent with the Municipality’s current D.C. policy”. Although the allocation of 100% of costs to the residential sector is consistent with the DC policy in Clarington, it is not necessarily consistent with who uses these services (i.e. residents or people employed in Clarington). There are many municipalities that allocate 5% of capital costs for recreation and library services to the non-residential sector to reflect the use of these facilities by non-residents. 3. Recreation Capital Program Exceeds Maximum Funding Envelope The capital program for Parks and Recreation Services has a total Development Charge (DC) recoverable capital cost of $77,619,427. Based on our review of the Historical Level of Service Calculations in Appendix B of the DCBS, the 10-year maximum funding envelope for Parks and Recreation Services should only be $74,611,353, as shown below. Therefore, the capital program for Parks and Recreation Services should be reduced by approximately $3.0 million to ensure it does not exceed the 10-year eligible amount identified in the DCBS. Exceeding the 10-year eligible amount violates Section 5(1)4 of the Development Charges Act (the “Act). SOURCE: urbanMetrics inc. based on Appendix B of the DCBS. 4. Uncommitted Excess Capacity in Parks and Recreation Services It appears appropriate reductions have not been made to account for uncommitted excess capacity in the existing inventory that is available to accommodate population and employment growth. As shown below, by not making appropriate reductions for uncommitted excess capacity in the existing inventory of Parks and Recreation Services, it results in the 2030 level of service ($2,551 per capita) exceeding the previous 10-year average ($2,477 per capita). This increase in the level of service violates Section 5(1)4 of the Development Charges Act. 10-Year Eligible Amount Parkland Development $4,811,478 Parkland Trails $1,119,102 Recreation Vehicles and Equipment $741,549 Parkland Amenities $9,193,575 Operations Facilities $983,810 Indoor Recreation Facilities $57,761,839 Total $74,611,353 Review of the Clarington Development Charges Background Study | 3 SOURCE: urbanMetrics inc. based on DCBS. 5. Benefit to Existing (BTE) on Roads Projects The capital program for Services Related to a Highway includes 115 projects that do not allocate any capital costs to BTE. These projects have DC recoverable costs of approximately $96.3 million. Many of the categories that do not allocate capital costs to BTE include: • Bridge and structure works • Culvert works • Sidewalk and cycling facilities works • Street lighting works In the decision for LPAT Case No. DC150017, Ms. de Avellar Schiller state that “whether the project is a stripped down rural road segment or a fully dressed urban segment, there is always some resulting BTE”. The LPAT decision identifies that there should always be a BTE component associated with a roads project. Appropriate BTE allocations should be made for all projects included in the Services Related to a Highway capital program. 6. Inclusion of Capital Projects Benefiting the Soper Springs and Soper Hills Secondary Plans Within the DCBS An analysis completed by Schaeffers Consulting Engineers on behalf of the Bowmanville East Developers Group has identified projects that will benefit new residents and jobs located within these Secondary Plan Area that are not included in the DCBS. It is our understanding that the population and employment forecasts to 2030 and 2031, which are included in the DCBS, include new residents and jobs that will be in these two secondary plan areas. Therefore, DC eligible capital projects within these two Secondary Plan Areas should be included in the DCBS. There are examples of other municipalities that have included Parks and Recreation A 2019 Population 99,025 B 2030 Population 129,157 C Replacement Value of 2019 Inventory $251,851,176 D 10-Year Average Level of Service (Per Capita)$2,477 Based on Appendix B of DCBS E Proposed DC Eligible Capital Infrastructure $77,619,428 F Total Value of 2030 Inventory $329,470,604 =D + F G 2030 Level of Service $2,551 = F / B Review of the Clarington Development Charges Background Study | 4 “placeholder” amounts in the DC capital program for capital works related to a secondary plan area, despite the specific projects not being known at the time the background study was completed. For example, the Town of Caledon 2014 Development Charges Background Study, included a capital cost “placeholder” for the Bolton Residential Expansion, although the location for this expansion was not known at the time the Town of Caledon 2014 Development Charges Background Study was being prepared. Therefore, the capital projects identified by Schaeffers Consulting Engineers should be included in the DCBS. 7. Questions Through our review of the DCBS, we have identified questions that require further clarification from the Municipality of Clarington. a. Part 3 – Exemptions of By-Law 2015-035 includes a number of non-statutory exemptions. Can you please provide evidence that an off-setting deposit has been made to the DC reserve funds for these non-statutory exemptions? b. The DCBS identifies five Secondary Plan studies in the Administration Studies capital program. Can you please confirm if these Secondary Plan studies include the Soper Springs and Soper Hills Secondary Plans? c. In Library Services, it appears land values associated with the library facilities have increased significantly since the 2015 Development Charges Background Study. Can you please provide the background information to support the increase in land prices between 2015 and 2020? d. Please provide details related to the South Bowmanville Library Expansion project included in the Library Capital Budget. e. It is our understanding that the South Bowmanville Recreation Facility will include space for two ice surfaces, indoor walking track, gymnasium, multi-purpose community space, library, office space, aquatic facility, pool and fitness facility. Can you please provide a breakdown of the space allocated to each of these uses within the proposed facility? f. What interest rate and term have been assumed on future debt payments for the South Bowmanville Recreation Facility? g. Can you please confirm if the capital costs for the South Bowmanville Recreation Centre excludes the costs associated with library space proposed in the facility? Review of the Clarington Development Charges Background Study | 5 h. Staff Report Number FND-031-20 states that 70% of the South Bowmanville Recreation Facility will be funded through development charges. Therefore, the remaining 30% will be funded through the tax base. However, in reviewing the Capital Budget in the DCBS, it appears that the allocation to benefit to existing (BTE) is only 17%. Can you please provide an explanation for the difference between the staff report and DC capital program? If you require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours truly, urbanMetrics inc. Craig Ferguson Associate Partner cferguson@urbanMetrics.ca