Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCS-05-01 ~ " THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON REPORT Date: February 16, 2001 File # 10> Res. #0119-1/6 -0 / Meeting: Special General Purpose and Administration Committee Report #: CS-05-01 By-law # Subject: COURTICE COMMUNITY PARK PROJECT Recommendations: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report No. CS-05-01 be received, 2. THAT Council authorize the change in the project location identified in the development charges background study from Bowmanville to Courtice; 3. THAT staff be authorized to proceed with the land acquisition for the Courtice Community Park and report back; 4. THAT staff be authorized to proceed with the Request for Proposals for Professional Services; 5. THAT the development of the Courtice Community Park be scheduled to open in 2003; 6. THAT the necessary funds for the acquisition of property and professional services be accessed from Community Services Account #7602-00000-0500; 7. THAT the Treasurer be authorized at the time of tendering the project, to make application to the Region of Durham for debenturing the necessary funds for this project; 8. THAT Council express its intent to fund this project, including debenture repayments and financing, to the extent allowable from current and future development charges; , ..../2 REPORT NO.: CS-05-01 PAGE 2 9. THAT the portion of the project not collectible from the development charges (approximately $1,282, 397) be financed from a combination of the municipal capital works reserve fund and the tax base in the budget year that the project is co n stru cted; 10. THAT the Region of Durham be advised of the intent to debenture the project based on the tender price. 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 The Development Charges Background Study Capital Program recognizes and has scheduled the development of a recreation complex in Bowmanville to be opened in the year 2006. Although timing is reflected in the capital development charges capital program it does not necessarily coincide with the actual demand for those facilities. The ten-year historical average as dictated by the development charges act will be maintained at the end of the ten-year period. After reviewing the land acquisition strategy report (report PD-72-00) Council indicated a desire to amend the location of the recreation complex from Bowmanville to Courtice. Approval of recommendation Number 2 of this report will in effect recognize the change in location. 1.2 Traditionally, staff have not been able to meet the ice time needs of any of our major ice users within the Municipality in the past, staff have been forced to "bump" traditional adult groups to late time slot. In an attempt to provide ice time to the youth organizations. 1.3 This process has caused concern amongst the adult groups and in fact the Municipality has lost numerous clients as this ice time has been systematically been rescheduled later and later in the evening to the point where some groups no longer exist or moved to other locations. 1.4 Currently, youth organizations dominate our prime time ice at both municipally operated facilities. Department records indicate that 88% of available ice time between the hours of 4:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m. weekdays and 6:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. weekends is allocated to youth organizations. 1.5 Although staff will continue to work with all our ice users in providing ice time it is evident that the requests from the youth component alone can not be satisfied. ..../3 REPORT NO.: CS-05-01 PAGE 3 1.6 It is also evident that our only option of "bumping" adult groups to provide appropriate ice time for youth will not be available as growth experienced by our youth organizations is currently exceeding the remaining 12% which is allocated to those adult groups. 1.7 As such, staff is recommending that Council re-schedule the timing of the next arena to 2003, recognizing that should approvals be received to proceed with this project, it is reasonable to expect that design and construction of the facility will establish the fall of 2003 as the earliest date possible to make the facility available for public use. 2.0 THE SITE 2.1 The site for this project has been identified in the Municipality's Official Plan. Specifically approximately 30 acres of land is required for this Community Park to be located south of Bloor Street on the east side of Prestonvale in the Courtice Urban Area. 2.2 The specific lands recommended for purchase will be the subject of a separate report from the Planning Department 2.3 With the approval of Council staff will proceed to acquire these properties and report back to Council at the appropriate time. 3.0 SITE SERVICING 3.1 Currently, municipal water and sewer services are not available at this site. Anticipating the advancement of this project staff commissioned a report (Attachment #1) which identifies 3 options for servicing the site with water, sewer, storm water detention and timing complete with estimated costs. 3.2 The provision of these services is a complicated matter, as the lands for which the services are to be located are under private ownership and will impact private development. 3.3 Preliminary discussions with municipal staff, and the landowner(s) are currently underway with the intention of providing a detailed report to Council prior to any definitive action being taken. 3.4 Further, it should be noted that a portion of Prestonvale Road will likely require structural and geometric improvements to service the area and will be the subject of a future report to Council. ..../4 REPORT NO.: CS-05-01 PAGE 4 4.0 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4.1 Should the projected opening date of 2003 be approved, staff will be required to secure professional services, to develop a site master plan for the overall site which would include outdoor recreation facilities, as well as the structure of the recreation complex. 4.2 Once approved, staff will prepare the request for proposals for the project, and will report back to Council with a recommendation to hire an architect. 5.0 PROJECT FINANCING 5.1 As indicated above, the development charges study May 2000 as amended, incorporates an indoor recreation facility to be completed in 2006. Through this report the timing is recommended to have the facility open in 2003. 5.2 It was originally contemplated that the facility would be located in Bowmanville at approximate total cost of $15,090,000. It is now deemed appropriate that the Courtice location be developed first at an approximate cost of $16,937,000. Of this $7,295,903 can be financed from development charges to be collected over the 1999 to 2008 time period. 5.3 Currently there are no funds available in this reserve fund and $1,282,397 is not eligible for development charge financing. This includes the $424,567 impact of the residential phase-in of the development charge. 5.4 A further $8,358,700 can be included for development charge financing from future development charges beyond 2008 and must be interim financed until that time. It should be noted that this will likely utilize most if not all of the development charges financing ability for indoor recreation for the 2009 - 2018 period. 5.5 In summary, eligible development charges financing is as follows: . Recoverable 1999 - 2008 . Recoverable beyond 2008 . Unrecoverable from DC's Total $7,295,903 $8,358,700 $1.282.397 $16,937,000 5.6 It is recommended that the Municipality submit a request to include $15,654,603 in the regional debenture issues as required over 2001 - 2003 based on construction and that the balance of $1 ,282,397 be financed from a combination of the tax base and the municipal capital works reserve fund (to be detailed further based on the tender price). ..../5 REPORT NO.: CS-05-01 PAGE 5 6.0 COMMENT 6.1 With the approval of Council to proceed, staff is optimistic that anticipated opening date of fall 2003 is attainable for this project. Essentially the purpose of this report is to provide direction to staff to allocate the necessary resources to this project and to initiate the process, understanding that specific approvals will be the subject of future reports to Council from time-to-time. This report and specifically the financing component has been reviewed by the Treasurer. Re~ctfully submitted, ( Reviewed by, ~ - 1i P. Caruaoa ir ctor of Community Services C/pg c ~ ~---cJlL Franklin Wu, M.C.I.P., R.P.P. Chief Administrative Officer ATTACHMENT #1 TO REPORT CS-05-01 Municipality of Clarington 40 Temperance Street Bowmanville, Ontario LI C 3A6 G.M. Sernas () bSsociates Ltd. ~ Consulting Engineers & Planners 110 Scotia Court, Unit 41 Whitby, Ontario L IN BY7 Telephone: (905) 432-7878 Toronto Line: (905) 686-6402 Fax: (905) 432-7877 November 29, 2000 MISSISSAUGA WHITBY Attention: Mr. Joseph Caruana Parks and Recreation Department .-- 1 G~.:." tr=~~ ,:;:W-;~ \~' n ::~ a ~ [J'F\', ~ 1 t!J;...J;I~;, r--.'.~ ti:,' (,., . 1 "~1t'"-,~~'~~':l \} ..v.u _ " ; I " -- ..~ ~- \ : Dear Sir: Re: Community Park Eastvale Subdivision Municipal Services Our Project No. 00167 I , I ! b;~~:::~';':~;;,;::C~ '~r~~:.:bJ 1-; i ~ :::: . . Cti~~.; Further to your discussions with our Mr. Nick Mensink, we are pleased to submit this Letter Report on the technical feasibility and preliminary estimated costs for servicing the proposed Community Park, located on the east side of Prestonvale Road, approximately 550 metres south of Bloor Street, in Courtice. More particularly, the Community Park is shown as Part 2 on Reference Plan 40R-18053. We understand that the first phase of development includes two (2) ice pods, seating 600 persons (300 persons per pod), with the facility intended to be in operation by 2003 - 2004, and with services to be available in 2001 - 2002. Reference is made to the feasibility studies carried out for the Southwest Courtice Community, over the last few years, with regards to serviceability of the area by sanitary and storm sewers, as well as watermains. Those studies were based on the assumption that the said municipal services will be installed in a sequential manner, i.e. progressing from west to east in general terms. In particular, the analyses were assuming that the services to the above captioned Community Park will have been completed in conjunction with the development of the adjacent subdivisions (Robinson Ridge (18T-89037), Westvale (18T-95023), Huntington (18T-95026) and Eastvale (18T -95037)). This letter report addresses the possibility of developing the Community Park prior to developing the adjacent residential subdivisions, i.e. it examines the requirements for and preliminary costs of services to the Community Park. An implementation schedule has also been reviewed. ...2/ Municipality ofClarington Mr. Joseph Caruana November 29, 2000 Page 2 ATTACHMENT #1 TO REPORT CS-05-01 PAGE 2 G.M.8emas Obssociates LId. <S...:COOlUklng~&Plannm Sanitary Sewers From a technical point of view, there are three alternatives by which sanitary service can be provided to the Community Park: I. Pum,ping Station and Forcemain This concept utilizes the existing sanitary sewer as outfall, at the intersection of Bloor Street and Eastfield Crescent. Due to existing topography, the alternative requires the construction of a temporary private pumping station at the Community Park, pumping sewage via a temporary forcemain northerly under the boulevard of Preston vale Road and thence westerly under the boulevard of Bloor Street to the abovementioned outfall. Both pumping station and forcemain would have to be replaced, ultimately, by the'y ( envisaged gravity system, as it reaches the Eastvale Subdivision. From a preliminary review with Public Works of the Regional Municipality of Durham, we understand that they would not be receptive to this arrangement because they would not allow a private facility to be installed within a public road allowance. Thus the forcemain would have to be located in an easement, to be obtained from the adjacent private landowner(s). Apart from the costs of such easements, the landowners would not likely agree to an encroachment on t!lIeir properties, even on a temporary basis, unless such services were to be of some value to them ultimately (see Item 2 below). The cost of this alternative is estimated at $295,000, which amount includes an allowance of $30,000 for the procurement of easements (for comparison purposes). The timing for this alternative is estimated to be 6 to 8 months for the design, easement negotiations and approvals phase including public meetings/workshops, 2 months for contract tendering, closing and reporting to Committee and Council, plus 2 months for construction commencing July 2, 2002. Based on an assumed date of commencement of January 1,2001, the site could be serviced by the end of August, 2002. , In view of the high cost and extensive negotiations/approvals involved, this alternative is not recommended. ...3/ Municipality of Clarington Mr. Joseph Caruana November 29,2000 Page 3 ATTACHMENT #1 TO REPORT CS-05-01 PAGE 3 G.M.Sernas O.-\.Ssociates Ltd. N(OI'IlUlting~'~ 2. Gravity Sewer Under this alternative, the existing sanitary sewer would be extended, commencing at Fenning Drive and following the alignment of Southfield Road of the Robinson Subdivision (18T-89037), thence following Southfield Road in the Westvale Subdivision (18T-95023) to Prestonvale Road and thence southerly under Prestonvale Road to the Community Park.. By suiting existing topography, this alternative utilizes a gravity sewer (i.e. no pumping station). The feasibility of such a scheme was confirmed in the feasibility studies mentioned earlier and in the servicing concept incorporated in the Westvale Engineering Submission (18T-95023). The gravity sewer would be sized for incorporation and utilization as the trunk sewer in the ultimate system, servicing the lots in the respective subdivisions. Region of Durham Public Works Department is receptive to this alternative, provided the cost ofthe sewer is borne by the Community Park (i.e. by the Municipality of Clarington), but would support J( the customary principles of cost recoveries as the subdivisions in question come on stream in the future. The cost of service recovery could also be negotiated with the owner, at the time of acquisition of the easement. The cost for this alternative is estimated at $260,000, representing gross costs, without taking into account cost recoveries or the cost of procuring easements. The timing for this alternative is estimated to be similar to the previous alternative, i.e. 6 to 8 months for the design and approvals phase, including public meetings/workshops, 2 months for contract tendering, closing and reporting to Committee and Council, plus 2 months for construction. Based on an assumed date of commencement of January I, 2001, the site could be serviced by the end of August, 2002. 3. St;ptic Tank and Tile Bed This alternative consists of a private sanitary service, for a single user, consisting of a septic tank and tile bed within the Community Park property. The land for the Community Park is situated in a "full service area". Thus an application for site plan approval, showing a septic tank and tile bed, will also have to demonstrate how the property will eventually be serviced by municipal sanitary, storm and water servtces. .. .4/ Municipality of Clarington Mr. Joseph Caruana November 29, 2000 Page 4 ATTACHMENT #1 TO REPORT CS-05-01 PAGE 4 G.M.Semas Obssociates LId. ~(omunirlgEng'neenIPlanMrl As well, the proposal for septic tank and tile bed will be subject to approval by the Durham Health Unit. From an exploratory discussion with the Health Unit, we understand that they would not object to the proposal in principle, provided the application is supported by satisfactory information (soils data, proper design, etc.) As the sanitary flow is expected to be more than 10,000 llday, the project will also be subject to approval by the Ministry of Environment (otherwise it would come under the Ontario Building Code). With an estimated cost of $60,000, this is the least expensive of the three sanitary servicing alternatives. This amount excludes the cost of ultimately connecting the facility to municipal services and decommissioning the septic tank and tile bed. The septic tank and tile bed is the fastest of the sanitary service alternatives to implement (3-6 months for design/approvals, 1-2 months to construct) and is therefore the recommended alternative. Since the facility is entirely contained on the site, no special public meetings/workshops are contemplated. Tendering would be part and parcel of the award of the building construction. Sewage Disposal Alternatives Cost and Timin~ Summary Preliminary cost estimates and timings for the above sanitary service alternatives are summarized below: 1. Pumping Station and Forcemain Preliminary Preliminary Cost Timing $295,000 12 months $260,000 12 months $ 60,000 8 months Description 2. Gravity Sewer 3. Septic Tank and Tile Bed (recommended) Water Service 1. Extend Watermain on Prestonvale Road Extend existing 200 mm watermain, from a point on Prestonvale Road approximately 150 m south of Glen Eagles Drive, southerly to the Community Park, for a total length of 930m. ...51 Municipality ofClarington Mr. Joseph Caruana November 29, 2000 Page 5 ATTACHMENT #1 TO REPORT CS-05-01 PAGE 5 G.M.Semas ".Associates Ltd. ~(OI1IUltirl!lfngineer1IPBlnm The cost of this alternative is estimated at $289,000. The time required for design and approvals can be expected to range from 4 to 6 months, with one additional month required for construction. 2. Extend Watermain on Bloor Street Extend existing 200 mm watermain on Bloor Street, from Eastfield Crescent to Prestonvale Road and thence to the Community Park, for a total length of 1,070 m. Because of the longer distance, this alternative is more expensive ($335,000) than Alternative I, not including the cost of procuring easements from the owners of subdivision 18T -95026 (ifrequired). Timing requirements are similar to Alternative I, i.e. 6 to 8 months for design/approvals including public meetings/workshops, 2 months for contract tendering, closing and reporting to Committee and Council, plus 1-2 months for construction. The site of the Community Park is located in pressure Zone II, which is the same zone in which the feedpoint for Alternative I (on Prestonvale Road) is located. In the case of Alternative 2, pressure at the feedpoint (on Bloor Street) requires field testing prior to detailed design. 3. .Y:Ml A preliminary review of well records and soils data indicate that a private well could be drilled to provide water service for a single user. Nevertheless, a hydrogeological study will be required to confirm the feasibility of this alternative and to confirm that an adequate water supply is available. Sine the well is located entirely within the site, no special public meetings/workshops are contemplated. Tendering would be part of the award of the building construction. ...6/ Municipality ofClarington Mr. Joseph Caruana November 29, 2000 Page 6 ATTACHMENT #1 TO REPORT CS-05-01 PAGE 6 G.M.8emas ObssocialeS Ltd. NCor6UllrlgEng~'PIame'l Water Service Alternatives Cost and Timin~ Summary Preliminary cost estimates and timings for the above water service alternatives are summarized below: Preliminary Preliminary Description Cost Timing I. Extend Watermain on Prestonvale Road $289,000 12 months 2. Extend Watermain on Bloor Street $335,000 12 months 3. Drilled Well (recommended) $ 65,000 6 months While the Region of Durham Public Works is receptive to both Alternatives I and 2, it would consider them "non-sequential" and would expect the costs to be borne by the Community Park project (i.e. by the Municipality of Clarington). The amounts shown represent gross costs, i.e. they do not include cost recoveries and/or cost sharing. Storm Drainage The Community Park is located within the Robinson Creek watershed for which stormwater management techniques have been outlined in the Robinson Creek Master Drainage Study. According to this study, storm runoff from the property is to drain to a community stormwater management facility for flow control and water quality treatment. The community facility (pond No.4) is located south of the site, on the east side of Preston vale Road and adjacent to Robinson Creek. As there are several other community stormwater facilities proposed within the Robinson Creek watershed, there is some flexibility in setting drainage boundaries and directions. Indeed, the original concept has already been amended to re-direct storm drainage from the Community Park site (together with the Eastvale Subdivision) to Pond No.2, located between Townline Road and Prestonvale Road, to the south of the Robinson Subdivision. ...7/ Municipality of Clarington Mr. Joseph Caruana November 29,2000 Page 7 ATTACHMENT #1 TO REPORT CS-05-01 PAGE 7 G.M.5emas ""ssociates Ltd. ~(OffiIJIlin9ErJJI"'!\'I'l'Plamer'; Both ponds Nos. 2 and 4 are about 0.5 Ian from the subject site and have not been constructed to date. Their estimated cost is in the order of $900,000 (for either pond), which amount does not include the cost of the conveyance system from the community park site to the pond (ditches or storm pipes), or the cost of easements. Although oversizing costs (approximately $866,000) could be recovered through a front-ending agreement, the costs are prohibitive and obviously point to the need for an interim solution. On a preliminary basis, it is estimated that quantity control will require the storage of 800 m3 of water for the 100 year storm event. Part of this volume can be accommodated by roof storage, another part by storage in the parking lot. The balance will require the construction of a pond, designed for quality as well as quantity control. The pond can be located in the south-east corner of the property, with an outlet to Robinson Creek. The outlet will require an easement from the adjacent landowner (to the east). Alternatively, in the event that an easement cannot be obtained, the pond could be located at the south-west corner and outfall to Prestonvale Road in a storm sewer through the steep portion of the road to discharge within the road side ditch to the sub-tributary of Robinson Creek where it crosses Prestonvale Road. The cost of the pond and outfall structures is estimated at about $225,000 and an additional cost of $242,000 if the storm sewer outfall on Prestonvale Road is required. The timing for design/approvals and construction is 2 to 4 months, I month for advertisement and tendering, and 2 months for construction. Should the storm sewer be required in Prestonvale Road, 2 more months would facilitate public meetings/workshops during the design process. In the event that the pond should be adopted on a permanent basis and incorporated into the ultimate Robinson Creek watershed stormwater management system, it will have an impact on the design and cost sharing of Pond No.2. The investigation of this matter, however, is not within the scope of this Letter Report. SUMMARY This letter report addresses the possibility of servicing a Community Park, including two ice pods and seating capacity for 600 persons, east of Prestonvale Road, south of Bloor Street, Ilillrr to developing the adjacent residential subdivisions. The servicing costs for such a scheme are obviously higher than for a sequential program of joint development with adjacent residential subdivisions. Nevertheless, the scheme is feasible from an engineering point of view. ...8/ . Municipality of Clarington Mr. Joseph Caruana November 29,2000 Page 8 ATTACHMENT #1 TO REPORT CS-05-01 PAGE 8 G.M.Semas ()~ssociates Ltd. ~COOllitllgEngilee!s&Plannoo . Based on a number of alternatives investigated, the preliminary estimates for the recommended alternatives are as follows: Sanitary Service Alternative 3 Septic Tank and Tile Bed $ 60,000 Water Service Alternative 3 Drilled Well $ 65,000 Stormwater Management Pond Outfall on Prestonvale Road (if required) $225,000 $242.000 $467,000 It should be noted that Prestonvale Road, about 700m south of Bloor Street, will likely require structural and geometric improvements to serve the area. Refining the extent of this work is beyond the scope ofthis report. We trust that the above will provide you with sufficient detail regarding the technical and financial feasibility of servicing the subject Community Park independently of the adjacent subdivisions. Please let us know if you require additional information. Yours very truly, G. M. SERNAS & ASSOCIATES LIMITED ). ~1,lJ., Dennis Szechy, P.Eng. Associate, Project Manager DSlbr cc: G. M. Sernas & Associates Limited, Attn: Mr. N.J. Mensink, P.Eng.