2019 DC Study External Stakeholder Meeting Minutes

Transcription

1 Date / Time: October 11 th, :00 12: DC Study External Stakeholder Meeting Minutes Location: Committee Room #3 George Kotsifas (Chair) Attended: Bill Veitch, Jamie Crich, Craig Linton, Lois Langdon, Sue Wastell, Sandy Levin, Alasdair Beaton Anna Lisa Barbon, Paul Yeoman, Matt Feldberg, Adam Langmuir, Kevin Edwards, Jason Senese, Greg LaForge, Doug MacRae, Shawna Chambers, Peter Kokkoros, Jeff Bruin, Andrew Macpherson, Tom Copeland, Aaron Rozentals, Kevin Graham Purpose: First of four themed sessions post release of the 2019 draft rate calculations and master plans. 1. Agenda Items Parks and Recreation (Kevin E.) Discussion Open Space SWM - Discussion regarding parcels of land within a SWM block used to connect parkland pathway systems and how it may relate to parkland dedication/swm land valuations. - Magnitude/impact to be considered further There was a mis-calculation of TVP linear replacement cost in $557/m was correct but $327/m was included in the Study, it has since been updated for the 2019 level of service standard as $655/m. LDI request background cost information from recently constructed recreation facilities 2. Built Area Works (Shawna C.) Moving forward with the assumption that BRT is proceeding as per current Council direction. Will explore alternatives if new Council directs otherwise.

2 The projects listed in the CASS study were representative projects that provided the quantum of funding for one alternative scenario to provide additional servicing capacity to the built area. The final specific built area works projects will be established as part of the current 20-year capital plan review Development Charges Debt (Jason S.) Other Matters Changes from CASS as a result of modelling the growth projections, lowered the expected cost of projects needed Growth in prior years was underfunded, as shown by the recent spending trend increase GMIS has been a useful tool in responding to adverse growth situations, assists in the debt management of DC reserve funds Social housing brought up as an additional service to consider for Mentioned that there is a large net deficit already, likely to have minimal impact on growth calculation. Please inform staff for any additional topics to be considered for November 16 th open session Transportation Master Plan was provided to Stakeholders on September 28 th and One Water Master Plan was provided on October 5 th. Please forward any key points/issues by December 3 rd, which will be included in Staffs update report to Committee on December 17 th (SPPC). There will be a broader group update on the 2019 DC Study progress to the GMIS stakeholders as part of the GMIS Next DC External Stakeholder Meeting October 25 th, :00 11:00 Location: Committee Room #1

3 2019 Development Charges Parks and Recreation DC External Stakeholder Committee October 11, 2018

4 Agenda Development Charges Act Requirements Calculating Historic Level of Service Parkland Development Replacement Cost Net Population Increase Parkland Development 10 Year Capital Program Recreation Facilities Inter-Municipal Rate Comparison

5 DC Act Requirements For Parks and Recreation, cannot recover costs above historical 10 year average level of service ($/capita); any project cost above this must be borne by the City DC Act requires that in determining the average level of service both quantity (#) and quality ($) shall be taken into account Detailed review of City s quantity and replacement costs for capital works required Parks and Recreation infrastructure needs can only be identified in the Study for a maximum 10-year period Act requires that growth-related capital costs for Parks and Recreation projects are subject to a 10% statutory deduction

6 Calculating Level of Service Replacement Cost per capita ($2018) x Net Forecast Pop (10 Yrs.) As with previous DC studies, the 2019 DC Study separates Parkland Development and Recreation Facilities Level of Service and Capital Programs

7 Parkland Development Replacement Cost

8 Parkland Quantity (ha.) Park Type 2014 Study (ha.) Avg Study (ha.) Avg. Difference Neighbourhood % ESA % Open Space % Open Space SWM n/a 12.1 n/a District % Woodland % Urban % Sports % City Wide % Civic Spaces % TOTAL (ha) 1, , % TVP 39.7km 45.2km 13.85%

9 Highlights Parkland Classification review undertaken in Neighbourhood new parkland additions offset by reclassifications of existing parks to OS and Woodland categories Open Space (OS) increase due to new parkland additions and reclassifications from other categories Woodland increase due to new parkland additions and reclassification from OS and Neighbourhood Urban increase due to new parkland additions and reclassification from Neighbourhood City-Wide increase reflects Gibbons Park reclassification Civic Spaces Covent Market Plaza addition and portion of Ivey Park reclassified from City-Wide

10 Open Space SWM Proposed to include new Parkland type into 2019 DCs; SWM facility construction typically includes complimentary recreational facilities (maintenance driveways, etc.) However, at present no growth funding source to fund SWM land pathway links to larger parks system Need to identify a Level of Service in order to identify DC program to fund connecting pathways Proposed Open Space SWM inventory based on SWM lands managed by Parks & Recreation; area based on 25% of lands (and excluding pond areas) 12.1 hectares identified - replacement value of existing non-swm related pathway infrastructure is $6,163/ha

11 Parkland Unit Costs ($/ha.) Park Type 2014 Study $/ha. (indexed) 2019 Study $/ha. Difference Neighbourhood $83,514 $82, % ESA $9,283 $7, % Open Space $54,849 $57, % Open Space SWM n/a $6,163 n/a District $154,205 $156, % Woodland $23,699 $22, % Urban $951,309 $909, % Sports $220,142 $211, % City Wide $563,498 $524, % Civic Spaces $8,194,415 $7,666, % TVP $626/m* $655/m 4.63% * Incorrectly identified as $327/m in 2014 DC Study; actual figure was $557/m

12 Parkland Costing All Parkland type costing excludes typical service/grade/seed costs, along with enclosed structures, spray pads and field houses. Neighbourhood Parks Playground equipment, asphalt pathways, fencing, parking lots, trees, benches, baseball diamonds/basketball courts District Parks Playground equipment, asphalt pathways, fencing, parking lots, trees, benches, baseball diamonds, soccer fields, basketball courts, skate park infrastructure Open Space Asphalt pathway systems, boardwalks and/or bridges, trees Open Space SWM Asphalt pathway linkages not related to Stormwater facility Woodland Parks Asphalt and woodchip trails, boardwalks, trees, strategic tree removal

13 Parkland Costing Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) Asphalt and woodchip pathways, dirt trails, boardwalks, parking lots, bridges, benches Sports Parks Asphalt pathways, parking lots, benches, trees, playground equipment, ball diamonds, soccer fields, irrigation systems, lighting, volleyball courts Thames Valley Parkway Asphalt pathways and routine structures (underpasses, pedestrian bridges), initial tree clearing, tree planting Urban Parks Neighbourhood Park amenities plus costs associated with increased hard surface areas and formal lighting Civic Spaces Hard surfaces, seating areas, high end horticultural components, fully lit Bridges and Tunnels major bridge and tunnels

14 Parkland Replacement Cost 2014 Study: Inventory and Replacement Costs 2019 Study: Inventory and Replacement Costs , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Park Type 2014 Study (indexed to 2019) 2019 Study Change Parkland & TVP $188,084,200* $206,597, % Springbank Park $9,971,600 $11,190, % Bridges & Tunnels $14,733,900 $17,134, % TOTAL $212,789,700 $234,922, % 10-Year Average Population 359, ,862 - Per Capita $ $ % * Assumes corrected 2014 DC Study TVP replacement value of $557/m

15 Parkland Replacement Cost Summary Parkland quantity continues to increase $/ha. replacement costs similar between studies Increased 2019 DC parkland quantum and subsequent higher total replacement costs partially offset by higher population vs. 2014

16 Net Population Increase

17 Population Forecasts 2014 DC Study Population 377, , ,660 Population Increase - 39,200 77, DC Study Population 409, , ,700 Population Increase - 49,100 80, Year population increase slightly higher However, 2019 forecast has greater proportion of population in first 10 year period (61.0% vs. 50.8%) Higher cap in 2019 study based on projected population 2019 projections include upward adjustment for the net census undercount of 2.73%

18 Parkland Level of Service Replacement Cost per capita ($2018) x Net Forecast Pop (10 Yrs.) 2014 DC Study (indexed to 2019) $ x 39,200 = $23,189, Draft DC Study $ x 49,100 = $29,861, % increase Attributable to Inventory and Replacement Cost Change (2.8%) ($651,112) Attributable to Increased Population Growth (26.0%) (Cap increases an additional $6,020,883 to reflect higher 10 yr. forecast)

19 10 Year Capital Program

20 Parkland Capital Projects Park Type Known DC Site-Specific Projects Further DC projects needed to meet growth Further DC projects allowed within Cap Neighbourhood District Urban Civic Spaces Open Space ESAs Sports Woodland TVP Bridges and Tunnels TOTAL

21 Adjustments and RICI Splits Future Benefit: o Costs associated with District Parks, Sports Parks, Civic Spaces and TVP projects beyond 2024 assigned a PPB Growth/Non-Growth: o Major future parks (District Parks, ESAs, Open Space, Sports Parks, Civic Spaces and TVP) have potential to draw users from locations around the City. Growth/non-growth splits have been applied consistent with the 2014 DC Study o Local parks (Neighbourhood Parks, Urban Parks, Woodland Parks, and majority of Bridges and Tunnels) are to be built primarily for the immediate, local growth area. Consistent with the 2014 DC Study, no non-growth share has been applied to these projects 10% Statutory Deduction applied RICI: o Split 100% residential growth consistent with 2014 DC Study

22 Parkland Development Summary Identified project costs based on same $/ha used in replacement cost valuation G/nG and PPB approach same as in 2014 Study Several growth projects have been cut to ensure Parks capital program fits within the cap 75% of remaining capital projects relate to known development interest over next 5 years Little wiggle room to accommodate additional park projects over next 10 years

23 Recreation Facilities

24 Level of Service: Recreation Facilities Inventory of building sq.ft. and replacement cost (including land) for each Recreation Facility from Arenas Community/Senior Centres Aquatics Fieldhouses Wading Pools & Spray Pads Specialty Facilities Standard (10 year avg.) 2014 DC Study (indexed to 2019) 2019 DC Study % Change Sq.ft./1000 ppl % Service Standard/Capita $ $ % Gross DC Eligible (cap): $ x 49,100 (10 yr. pop) = $40,900,791

25 10-Year Capital Needs Project Multi Purpose Recreation Centre (SE) (2019) Double Icepad Arena/Community Centre/Gymnasium Multi Purpose Recreation Centre (NW) (2023) Indoor Community Pool/Community Centre/Gymnasium Neighbourhood Comm. Centre (North) (2025) Community Centre/Gymnasium Neighbourhood Comm. Centre (Central) (2027) Community Centre/Gymnasium Gross Cost $29,925,100 $31,985,100 $13,451,500 $13,451,500 7 Fieldhouses ( ) $3,400,000 5 Splash Pads ( ) $2,500,000 TOTAL $94,713,200 Net Amount Eligible for DC Calculation $16,871,200 Prior Debt $15,283,500 Total DC Eligible $32,154,700

26 Adjustments and RICI Splits Future Benefit: o Recreation Centres and later period field houses recognize that these facilities will serve growth beyond the 10 year period Growth/Non-Growth: o Based on service area existing population/build-out population at the time project identified for Development Charges o Typically high non-growth share o Different growth shares for different components as it is recognized that some components (e.g. pools) have larger service areas o Fieldhouses and Splash Pads treated the same as in 2014 Study 10% Statutory Deduction applied RICI: o Split 100% residential growth consistent with 2014 DC Study

27 Draft Parks & Recreation Rate Inter-Municipal Comparison $14,000 Development Charges Inter-Municipal Comparison Parks and Recreation Rate (Single/Semi Detached Units -- Large Municipalities) $12,000 $10,000 $8,000 London $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 $- Markham Mississauga Toronto Brantford Ottawa Waterloo (City) Hamilton London (Proposed) Kitchener Windsor

28 Draft Parks & Recreation Rate Inter-Municipal Comparison $7, $6, Development Charges Inter-Municipal Comparison Parks and Recreation Rate (Single/Semi Detached Units -- Small Local Municipalities) London $5, $4, $3, $2, $1, $- Thames Centre Stratford Woodstock London (Proposed) Strathroy Caradoc St.Thomas Middlesex Centre

29 CITY OF LONDON DRAFT 2019 DEVELOPMENT CHARGES STUDY PARKS AND RECREATION SUMMARY OCTOBER 11, 2018 In November 2009 City Council adopted, subject to annual budget review, the recommendations of the Parks and Recreation Strategic Master Plan. In early 2017, an Interim Update to the Master Plan was undertaken that reviewed and updated components of the 2009 Master Plan to reflect current conditions and ensure alignment with current priorities and strategies. In 2018, a new Parks and Recreation Master Plan was commenced to test community priorities and ensure that proposed directions remain relevant to current and future generations. Together, these documents inform the capital projects identified in this DC Study and provide direction and guidance for managing parks and recreation programs, infrastructure, and investment in a fiscally responsible manner. Existing Service Standards The City provides Parks and Recreation services to its residents through numerous facilities, sports fields and play structures throughout the municipality. For both Parks and Recreational facilities, a valuation of the historical service standard has been prepared. It is substantiated by a comprehensive inventory and valuation of parkland development and recreation facilities for the preceding ten years. This valuation makes possible an objective comparison of the historical service standard with the proposed future needs. The comparison is necessary to demonstrate that no improvement in the future service standard is being incorporated into the development charge rate calculations. The inventories reflect an approximation of the current replacement value of nearly all Parks and Recreation assets. The inventory includes valuation of all existing recreation facilities and takes into account the size, quality and nature of construction and land value (lands ancillary to facility only). 1 Some non-parkland properties have been excluded from the inventory where the amenity or facility is unique or unlikely to be replicated (for example golf courses are excluded from the inventory). The inventories arrive at an average per capita historical service level. The Recreation Facility valuation and per capita historical level is summarized on Page 67 of the Growth Capital Needs & Rate Calculations booklet dated September 10, The valuation and per capital historical service level for Parkland Development is summarized on Page 66. Detailed inventories and valuations of the various Parks and Recreation components are found on Pages 65 to 91. By projecting the historical per capita service level using the future population increase, a ceiling level of expenditure at which the City would be maintaining existing service levels is calculated. This ceiling, or cap, is used to demonstrate that there is no increase to the existing service standard included in the DC rate calculation (as required by the legislation). Population Growth Projected As with other services, planning of Parks and Recreation service expansion first involves an estimate of the extent and location of growth. The projection of growth and location were presented to the DC External Stakeholder Committee at several meetings over the second half of 2017 and the projections for Development Charge purposes formally endorsed by Council at its February 13, 2018 meeting. The DC rate calculation for this service component contemplates 1 The land valuation excludes the value of park land.

30 a ten year planning horizon (legislatively mandated). Over the period, the City s net population is estimated to increase by 49,100 people. Growth allocations were prepared to inform Parks and Recreation projects included in the study: For parkland development projects, the population and housing projections were used to determine the quantum of parkland by category required for the next 10 years, based on standards established in the 2009 Parks and Recreation Master Plan and the Parks and Recreation chapter of the London Plan. Growth projections were also used to create a build-out of subdivisions and intensification lands throughout the City for the 10 year timeframe. Specific locations of anticipated future growth are necessary for parks planning, especially for localized parks (e.g., neighbourhood parks, urban parks, etc.). Projections by Planning District were prepared for evaluating recreation facility needs. The planning district allocations provided 10 year growth at a scale conducive to examining future growth within recreation facility catchment areas. Recreation Recreation Facilities Needs The capital needs listed include two multi-purpose recreational facilities with various components. These facilities are planned in the Southeast and Northwest. Also included are two smaller-scale Neighbourhood Community Centres planned in the North and Central areas of the urban area. The 2017 Parks & Recreation Master Plan Interim Update identified a need for an indoor aquatic facility for the 10 year period that has been included as a component of the planned Northwest multi-purpose recreation facility. This aquatic facility will serve both existing populations and future growth. The Master Plan also identifies a need for new community centre/gymnasium space in each of the multi-purpose and Neighbourhood facilities it recommends. The Master Plan Interim Update recommended new Field Houses and Spray Pads to serve growth areas. Growth projections prepared for this Study were examined in comparison to the 2009 Master Plan and 2017 Interim Update to assess capital needs previously identified and the timing of facility construction. Additional information on the projects contained in the 2019 DC Study is as follows: Southeast Recreation Centre: The 2009 Parks and Recreation Master Plan and 2017 Interim Update identified the need for recreation facility components to be located in the southeast part of the City. A recreation centre including an arena 2, community centre and gymnasium is planned. Apart from refined cost estimates, this project remains consistent with the 2014 DC Study. At present a site for this facility is being sought, with construction anticipated to commence in Northwest Recreation Centre: The 2017 Master Plan Interim Update identified the need for a pool-anchored recreation facility over the 10 year period. The northwest portion of the urban area is developing and is not sufficiently served by a community centre, gymnasium or community pool. A multi-purpose facility with these components is planned 2 The Southeast Recreation Facility double icepad arena is replacing existing older arenas in the southern part of the city. As a result, no costs related to the arena portion are attributable to growth.

31 in this area for 2023 based on population and housing projections, and standards established in the 2009 Parks and Recreation Master Plan. North and Central Neighbourhood Community Centres: The 2009 Parks and Recreation Master Plan and 2017 Interim Update identified a need for Neighbourhood Community Centres for the 10 year period. These facilities are intended to serve a smaller radius than multi-purpose recreation facilities. Based on the growth projections, two facilities are planned including one for the northern portion of the urban area (2025), and one for the central portion of the urban area (2027). These areas have been identified by City s Neighbourhood, Children & Fire Services Service Area based on a lack of existing and planned municipal gymnasiums and neighbourhood community centre space. Field Houses: Several field houses have been identified for DC funding. These buildings generally provide washrooms, equipment storage and spray pad operations infrastructure for district parks and sports parks. As such, the need for field houses are associated with growth-related sports park and district park development. Spray pads: Five spray pads have been identified for DC funding. These spray pads were identified in the 2017 Master Plan Interim Update. They are linked with district park development, and their need reflects an examination of growth projections and demographics in relation to the 2009 Master Plan standard for spray pads (1 spray pad per 4500 children aged 0-14). Spray pads provide an important recreational amenity for the City s children. Determination of Growth Share of New Recreation Facilities Growth/non-growth shares for projects identified in the 2014 Study were maintained. The growth share of these projects was determined by defining a geographic service area for each of the existing facilities in the City. From this point, the benefiting area that would be served by each new multi-purpose facility was approximated. In one instance (Southeast) it was considered appropriate to distinguish between the benefiting area of the pool in contrast to the benefiting area of the community centre and gymnasium. For new 2019 DC projects, a similar method was applied as used in the 2014 study. First, geographic service areas were identified outside of the boundaries of previously identified service areas. Second, the 2019 population for the new geographic service areas was compared to the total future build-out population for each new multi-purpose and neighbourhood recreation facility. This fraction is used in the calculations to represent the benefit to existing development (i.e., the non-growth share). As in previous DC studies, it was considered appropriate to distinguish between the benefiting area of the pool in contrast to the benefiting area of the community centre for the planned Northwest multi-use recreation centre. One twin-pad arena is identified as part of the multi-purpose community centre in the Southeast. 100% of the cost of these is allocated to existing development. This allocation is based on the expectation that these ice surfaces will simply replace existing single-pad arenas intended for decommissioning in the future, and no arena needs related to growth are required. The works needed to complete the multi-purpose facilities are what may be termed site development costs. These include land acquisition, design, site works, change rooms, architects fees and permits. The non-growth share of these works was determined in proportion to the nongrowth share of the functional components (i.e., arena, community centre, gym and indoor pool), consistent with the method used in the 2014 DC Study.

32 With respect to Field Houses and Spray Pads, the benefit to existing development mirrors the district park or sports park where the facilities will be located. Five future field houses presently lack precise locations and as such they have been allocated a 1/3 non-growth share. Determination of Post Period Benefit of Recreation Facilities The new facilities are expected to serve growth beyond the planning horizon for this service component. As a consequence, it was necessary to estimate this post period benefit and remove it from the rate calculations. Post period benefit was approximated by looking at the portion of the future build-out population in the service area in the post ten year horizon. This portion was then removed from the rate calculation. Other Deductions in Recreation Facilities DC Rate Calculations Consistent with rate calculations for other soft services, the DC rate calculations for Recreation facilities also reflect: An estimate of the portion of the costs in question that were collected in prior years as represented by the uncommitted balance in the DC P&R Reserve fund. This amount is removed from the rate calculation so as not to overstate the amount that should be collected from the growth horizon in question ( ). For Recreation facilities, this deduction amounted to approximately $2.81 million. Any capital grants, subsidies or other contributions from other sources that are anticipated for this service were also considered. In this case, there were no such contributions anticipated. A calculation of the amount that would otherwise represent an improvement over the existing combined quantity/quality service standard (an improvement prohibited by legislation) is made. No service standard reductions are required for recreation facilities for the 2019 DC Study. The 10% statutory deduction which applies to most soft services (Parks, Recreation, Library), resulting in the removal of $1.87 million of project costs that will need to be funded from non-dc funding sources. Parkland Development In determining capital needs for the 2019 DC Study, Parks Planning staff conducted a detailed analysis of numerous park development projects for each category completed in recent years, as well as replacement costs associated with sample parks. The survey included parks of varying sizes, project complexity and degree of amenities provided to establish a representative dollar per hectare valuation that is applied to both parks contained in the service standard inventory and future growth-related parks projects. This valuation approach is consistent with the methodology used in the 2014 DC Study. Definitions and descriptions of parkland types, infrastructure components and inclusions in the service standard per hectare valuation and future growth project cost estimates are as follows: Neighbourhood Parks are intended to serve as a focal point of a neighbourhood and are designed to serve the needs of the local neighbourhood by supporting both unorganized and organized activities and programs. Typical service/grade/seeding costs for neighbourhood parks are not included in DC calculation as these costs are incurred by the subdivision developer as per subdivision agreements. Installation of soccer field amenities has also been removed from DC calculation for the same reason because they

33 form part of the typical service/grade/seed requirement. Infrastructure installed in neighbourhood parks includes asphalt pathways, fencing, parking lots, trees, benches, bike racks, playground equipment, baseball diamonds/basketball courts, and infrastructure installation costs. District Parks are intended to serve groups of neighbourhoods and are designed with an emphasis on facilities for organized sports and unorganized activities. Costs associated with the Thames Valley Parkway, spray pads, field houses and typical service/grade/seed requirements have not been included in district park DC calculations. Infrastructure installed in district parks includes asphalt pathways, parking lots, trees, benches, bike racks, playground equipment, soccer fields, ball diamonds, skate park infrastructure, and infrastructure installation costs. Open Space generally buffers and protects natural features and is often linear in nature following tributaries of the Thames River, upland corridors or utility easements. Open space includes asphalt pathway systems, boardwalks and/or bridges, trees, and infrastructure installation costs. Costs associated with significant woodlands are not included in the Open Space DC rate calculation. Open Space SWM is a new category that reflects the parkland development portion of Stormwater Management Facilities. To determine the area, the area of SWM facilities managed by Parks and Recreation is calculated excluding ponds; the parkland portion is determined to be 25% of the remaining lands. Costs associated with Open Space SWM include asphalt pathway links. Woodland Parks have typically been established and protected for their environmental significance and may have been identified by the City through a previous study or have a development-related Environmental Impact Study (EIS) with recommendations for their protection, management and enhancement. Smaller woodlands may not meet the test for significance, but are retained for their aesthetics and as a recreational amenity. Infrastructure installed in Woodland Parks includes asphalt and woodchip trails, boardwalks, trees, strategic tree clearing, and infrastructure installation costs. Environmentally Significant Areas (ESAs) are identified as components of the Natural Heritage System and include lands that are to be maintained in their natural state through appropriate management for the purposes for which they have been recognized. Costs associated with the TVP abutting ESAs have not been included in the ESA DC calculation. A higher percentage for consulting (based on anticipated construction costs) has been incorporated into DC calculation due to the level of review required for environmental approvals. In the 2019 DC study, costs for conservation plans in individual ESAs have been moved from the ESA category to the Corporate Growth Studies service. Infrastructure installed in ESAs include asphalt and woodchip pathways, dirt trails, boardwalks, parking lots, bridges, benches, and infrastructure installation costs. Sports Parks are designed to accommodate multiple high-end sport fields and service larger areas in the City. These parks have Soccer fields and ball diamonds that are built to a higher standard. Athletic fields in sport parks are often irrigated and fully lit. Costs associated with the Thames Valley Parkway, field houses and typical service/grade/seed conditions are not included in Sport Park DC calculation. Infrastructure installed in sports parks includes asphalt pathways, parking lots, benches, trees, playground equipment, ball diamonds, soccer fields, irrigation systems, lighting, volleyball courts, and infrastructure installation costs.

34 Thames Valley Parkway (TVP) is the City s multi-use pathway system which generally follows the Thames River. Future extensions of the TVP will occur as lands along the branches of the Thames River come under urban development. The DC rate for the Thames Valley Parkway is a linear metre calculation. This calculation takes into account costs associated with routine structures found along the pathway system (road underpasses, pedestrian bridges), as well as asphalt pathways, initial tree clearing, and tree planting. Costs associated with tunnels and large bridges are not included in the TVP DC calculation. These are captured under their own category. Urban Parks are relatively small spaces that provide a higher level of design quality and are intended to be focal points within neighbourhoods. The Urban Park category was recommended by the 2009 Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update and incorporated into the 1989 Official Plan and London Plan. These parks are designed to accommodate large public gatherings and evening use. Costs associated with increased hard surface areas and formal lighting have been included in the urban park DC calculation. Typical service/grade/seed requirements are not included in the urban park DC calculation. Civic Spaces are small parcels of municipally owned land in the Downtown core and along older main street areas that are designed to a high standard. They are meant to accommodate large public gatherings/events. These parks are typically composed of hard surfaces, seating areas, incorporate high end horticultural components and are fully lit. Bridges and Tunnels are the City s major recreational bridge and tunnel infrastructure. Given the scale of these facilities, they are calculated separately from the parkland type where they are located. The DC rate for Bridges and Tunnels is a linear metre calculation. The Parkland Development $/ha is shown on Page 65 of the Growth Capital Needs & Rate Calculations booklet dated September 10, 2018, in the far right column. Total Replacement values for Parkland Development by type is shown on Page 66. Parkland Development Capital Needs The Parkland Development needs for the ten (10) year time horizon are influenced by parkland additions as identified through current or anticipated site-specific development approval processes and by recommendations contained in the 2009 Parks and Recreation Master Plan and 2017 Interim Update. To ensure there is no increase to the existing service standard as required by the Development Charges Act, several park development projects needed to accommodate the projected 10-year population have been removed from the Capital program. The Master Plan identified amenities and additions to the development of park space in neighbourhoods and districts (skate parks, basketball hoops, play structures, tennis courts, soccer fields, baseball diamonds & sports field development), as well as additions and extensions to the City s inventory of natural open space and Thames Valley Parkway. The park development projects identified for inclusion in the DC rate calculations are consistent with the Master Plan for Parks and Recreation Services and in conformity with the 1989 Official Plan and London Plan. Only those projects with a growth component are included in the list of Capital Needs. The Neighbourhood Parks program addresses the development of new parks in growing areas of London. Of the 23 identified projects, fifteen (15) relate to currently known or anticipated site-specific development approvals from 2019 to The seven (7) remaining projects respond to future Neighbourhood Park needs from 2024 to The District Parks program services the development of new larger-scale parks in

35 growing areas of the City. Projects identified in the Capital Needs list are consistent with the Master Plan. These future parks will be developed with a mix of amenities that are consistent with existing parks of this level. Five (5) District Park projects relate to currently known or anticipated site-specific development approvals from 2019 to Two (2) District Park projects respond to future District Park needs from 2025 to The 2009 Parks and Recreation Master Plan recommended the establishment of a new category of park: Urban Parks. This category was identified in the 2014 DC Study. These parks reflect emerging development patterns and a movement toward improved walkability and placemaking. The 10-year Urban Parks program includes sixteen (16) projects, of which eleven (11) relate to currently known or anticipated site-specific development approvals from 2019 to Five (5) Urban Park projects respond to future Urban Park needs from 2024 to The need for Civic Spaces has been identified in Placemaking Design Guidelines, the Downtown Master Plan, the London Psychiatric Hospital Plan and the Old Victoria Hospital Secondary Plan. These projects provide city-wide benefits, while providing high-quality amenity space for populations in the immediate vicinity. Two (2) projects are identified over the period. The Sports Parks category reflects a park-type with a concentration of major sportsrelated activities. The sports parks included in the capital needs are consistent with the Parks and Recreation Master Plan recommendations related to sports infrastructure requirements. Of the three (3) projects identified over the 10-year horizon, two (2) reflect identified site-specific projects. One (1) project responds to needs from 2024 to The 1989 Official Plan and London Plan include numerous policies that speak to the importance of the city s natural heritage system, and its role as a significant environmental/ecological resource, recreational asset and framework of the City s structure. Within the Open Space, Environmental, Parks and Recreation, and Services and Utilities chapters of the 1989 Official Plan, policies that identify the importance of a linked and accessible natural heritage system are found. These policies direct that opportunities to enhance these linkages be pursued, and that these areas be protected. Woodland Parks were established as a new category of parkland in the 2009 DC Study. Historically, these parks were captured in the open space category. Woodlands have their own category due to environmental considerations affecting trail development and unique tree hazard/environmental restoration needs. The Woodland Parks program includes eight (8) projects, six (6) of which relate to approved or under review site-specific development applications. Two (2) projects respond to future needs from 2024 to The capital needs in the Major Open Space Network and Environmentally Significant Area categories are also consistent with the existing policies and the recommendations of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan relating to the development of a linked natural heritage system. For open space areas that are not linked through the extension of the City s primary recreational pathway system (the Thames Valley Parkway), the Master Plan recommends that a fully linked pathway system be developed. The projects identified in the Capital Needs include components of the natural heritage system within growth areas that will be linked to the City s existing system of pathways. The capital needs in the Thames Valley Parkway (TVP) category are also drawn from the recommendations of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan and Bicycle Master Plan, and reflect the priorities established for the City s multi-purpose pathway system. Through

36 the public consultation process for the Master Plans, Londoners identified improving the pathway network as the top priority for parks development. The projects identified extend the City s existing linear parkway into growing areas of the City. Through the DC study process, it was identified by Parks Planning that the Thames Valley Parkway replacement cost identified in the 2014 DC Study is incorrect. The $327/m was unchanged from the value identified in the 2009 DC Study; the correct 2013 replacement cost was actually $557/m that has been updated to $655/m in the 2019 Study. The Capital Needs in the Bridges and Tunnels category mainly support the recreational bridge and tunnel infrastructure needed to connect growing areas of the City with the primary recreational pathway system. Eight (8) projects are identified, of which seven (7) relate to approved or under review site-specific development applications. Rate Calculation Adjustments Consistent with other rate calculations for soft services, the DC rate calculations for Parkland Development reflect: Gross cost of projects considered to benefit growth. Any capital grants, subsidies or other contributions from other sources that are anticipated for this service were also considered. In this case, there were no such grants anticipated. An estimate of the portion of the costs collected in prior years is represented by the uncommitted balance in the DC P&R Reserve fund. For Parkland development, this amounted to approximately $2.9 million. This amount is removed from the rate calculation so as not to overstate the amount that should be collected from the growth horizon. As many of the areas targeted for new major facilities will grow over a number of years, a portion of the costs associated with district parks, sports parks, civic spaces and Thames Valley Parkway projects beyond 2024 are also deferred for inclusion in future rate calculations. These future or post period benefits are removed from the ten (10) year rate calculation. Estimates are inherent in the allocations. This meets the statutory objective that the increase in need for service be attributable to the anticipated development. The growth share for parks development projects is determined based on two categories: Major future parks have the potential to draw users from locations across the city (i.e., district parks, Environmentally Sensitive Areas, open space, sports parks, civic spaces and the Thames Valley Parkway). Benefit to existing development for projects in this category reflects the additional capacity built into their design to serve more than the local growth needs and their probable use by residents of the existing city. Local Parks are used by and benefit the local growth area (i.e., neighbourhood parks, urban parks, woodland parks and the majority of bridges and tunnels). Projects in this category do not have a benefit to existing development given that they are being constructed to service new subdivisions in the immediate area of the park. These parks are built primarily for the immediate, local growth area and the benefit to existing development of these local parks is remote. The 10% statutory deduction which applies to most soft services (Parks, Recreation, Library), resulting in the removal of $3.5 million in project costs from the rate calculations. A calculation of the amount that would otherwise represent an improvement over the existing combined quantity/quality service standard (an improvement prohibited by

37 legislation) is made. This amount ($2.0 million) is also removed from the rate calculation, all in accordance with the underlying legislation. Allocation of Net Costs of Growth to Growth Types There is no compelling case for attribution of capital costs associated with expansion of Parks and Recreation amenities to any group other than Residential growth (generally, population growth impacts Parks and Recreation capital needs, rather than non-residential employment growth). For this reason, 100% of growth costs have been attributed to Residential growth. This is consistent with the practice of previous DC studies and many other municipalities in the Province. Financing Costs Added to Arrive at Final Calculated DC Rate For the purpose of calculating the development charge rate for this component inclusive of financing costs, the rate calculation table has been provided on Page 102 of the Growth Capital Needs & Rate Calculations booklet dated September 10, This table simulates the cash flows in this component of the DC funds: a) It begins with the 2019 opening balance in this case, a balance of approximately $5.7 million, which reflects the accumulation of uncommitted funds for growth projects identified in past DC studies (for both Park Development and Recreation Facilities combined), many of which are repeated as capital needs in this study. b) DC fund revenues using the pre-financing DC rate are projected. c) DC fund drawdowns for the growth share of projects being completed in the upcoming ten (10) year planning horizon, are also reflected in the cash flow projection d) Finally, an estimate of: a. annual interest revenues to be earned or b. financing costs that can be expected to be incurred due to fund deficits are projected throughout the planning horizon (10 years). A deficit at the end of the planning period for the cash flow equates to the amounts of the expenditures incurred during the planning period to be recovered from growth in the future (i.e., the post period benefit). All figures are presented on an un-inflated, constant (2018) dollar basis. Interest rates which exclude the inflationary component are also used for consistency. The rates generated from this cash flow analysis reflect what is appropriately recovered from growth, for the planning horizon of this service. Council s Intention to Meet Growth Needs The growth needs identified within this Appendix have been extracted from the 2009 Parks and Recreation Master Plan and 2017 Interim Update, with a review of 2019 DC Study growth allocations. The capital items reflected herein will be subject to final approval of Council through the annual capital budget approval process.

38 2019 Development Charges DC External Stakeholder Committee October 11, 2018

39 Meeting Topic: 2

40 Built Area Works Built area works are defined as works that: a) Service lands inside the Built Area; b) Provide a regional benefit to growth; c) Replace existing infrastructure; and, d) Are located within the municipal right-of-way or easement. 3

41 CASS Quantum of Works Core Area Servicing Study (CASS) listed representative projects for one alternative scenario: Sanitary and Storm Sewer needs based on infill on vacant lands and parking lots in Core Area Watermain needs based on infill on vacant lands in Core Area and Rapid Transit nodes/corridors CASS estimated a quantum of funding to support intensification Foundation for the Built Area Works local servicing policy 4

42 CASS Water Study Area 5

43 CASS Study Area Sanitary and Storm 6

44 CASS Quantum of Works Table 1: CASS Servicing Estimates for DC eligible works 1 Service Area Estimated 20-year Cost Growth Share % Potential DC Cost Watermains $8.6M 92.7% $8.0M Sanitary Sewers $53.9M 37.6% $20.3M Storm Sewers $62.3M 55.5% $34.6M TOTAL $124.8M 50.4% $62.9M 1 excludes non-growth projects and works proposed beyond the 20-year period 7

45 2019 DC Study Built Area Works City Staff reviewed the CASS project list to service the Built Area against the 2019 DC Study growth projections, The London Plan, and Rapid Transit projects. Resulting 2019 DC estimate for Built Area Works is comprised of two elements: 1. Capital Projects: A revised quantum of growth eligible Capital Projects within nodes and corridors. 2. Soft Sites: An allowance for sanitary and storm sewers to support infill and intensification outside of the nodes and corridors. 8

46 Built Area Works Review of projects within growth projections 9

47 BAW Nodes and Corridors: 1. Capital Projects: Downtown Core and along Rapid Transit Corridors (City-led) 2. Soft Sites: lands that have not reached full development potential within the Built Area (Developer-led) 10

48 BAW Nodes and Corridors 2019 DC Review Correlates projects to the Nodes and Corridors identified in the 2019 DC Study growth projections, City Centre Servicing Strategy (CCSS), The London Plan, and Rapid Transit. Capital Projects can be triggered by City-led Infrastructure Renewal Program or Rapid Transit projects. An allowance has been included to support developer led intensification Specific projects to be confirmed during City s 20- year capital plan review. 11

49 Built Area Works Watermain 2019 DC review: Current watermain system can generally manage infill and intensification in the nodes and corridors. The revised quantum of watermain projects is estimated at $1.1M: $0.5M Capital Works in the first 5 years $0.6M Capital Works over the 6-20 year period 12

50 Built Area Works Sanitary and Storm City-led projects: 1. Sewer separation removes storm flow, creating additional capacity. Sewer separation projects are 10% growth and 90% non-growth funded. City proposes to flow monitor newly separated storm sewers (e.g. York Street). 13

51 Built Area Works Sanitary and Storm City-led projects: 2. Planned replacement of sewers will be reviewed for new growth and upsized accordingly. Revised design sheets will be created during sewer replacements; the upsized portion will follow the Local Servicing Policy. 14

52 Built Area Works Sanitary and Storm Developer-led projects: Soft site allowance supports developer-led infill and intensification to fund sewers that may pop up during development. Can support infill and intensification outside of the nodes and corridors. 15

53 Built Area Works Sanitary Sewers The revised quantum of sanitary sewer projects is estimated at $33.5M: $26.0M Capital Works $7.5M Soft Sites The total estimated cost is $20.4M less than the CASS program, assuming the same G/NG splits. 16

54 Built Area Works Storm Sewers The revised quantum of storm sewer projects is estimated at $69.8M: $62.3M Capital Works $7.5M Soft Sites This is the same funding proposed by the CASS program of $69.8M, assuming the same G/NG splits. 17

55 Built Area Works Revised Quantum Service Area Table 2: 2019 DC Built Area Works Program Summary Estimated 20-year Cost Growth Share % 1 Post-period benefit included as $1.7M Sanitary and $3.5M Storm but not included in Total DC Cost 2 Total DC Cost is $13.4M less than the CASS program. Total DC Cost Watermains $1.1M 66.0% $0.7M Sanitary Sewers $33.5M % $12.0M Storm Sewers $69.8M % $36.8M TOTAL $104.4M 47.4% $49.5M 2 18

56 Conclusions Proposed BAW projects show cost savings for the DCs. Opportunity for City-led works to support growth in accordance with latest Official Plan policies and Rapid Transit projects. Specific projects to be confirmed during City s 20-year capital plan review. G/NG splits to be confirmed project-by-project in accordance with the local servicing policy. 19

57 Questions? 20

58 2019 Development Charges DC External Stakeholder Committee October 11, 2018

59 Meeting Topic: 2

60 Authorization to Recover for Debt Development Charges Act: Section 66(2) For the purposes of developing a development charge by-law, the debt may be included as a capital cost subject to any limitations or reductions in this Act or the regulations. 3

61 DC Capital Plan Breakdown ($millions) Total Development Charges Program = $2.5 Billion Grants, $330.8 Previous Funding, $96.4 Net Eligible, $1,315.8 Post Period Benefit, $383.6 Benefit to Existing, $358.9 Service Standard Limitation, $13.9 Statutory Deduction, $7.0 4

62 Development Charges Debt ($millions) Debt, $199.5 Net Eligible (Excluding Debt), $1,116.2 Debt represents approximately 15% of total net eligible costs 5