ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO
COUNTY OF BRANT
DEVELOPMENT CHARGE
BACKGROUND STUDY
UPDATE
March 2, 2015
Contents
Page
Executive Summary
1.
i
Background
1.1
2014 Development Charge Background Study & Proposed By-law
1.1.1 July 7, 2014 Development Charge Background Study
1.1.2 July 14, 2014 Addendum #1 Development Charge Background
Study
1.1.3 August 6, 2014 Corporate Development Committee Meeting
1.2
Development Liaison Committee
1-1
1-1
1-1
2.
Changes to July 7, 2014 Development Charge Background Study
2.1
Growth Forecast
2.1.1 Pace of Growth in St. George and Timing of Works
2.1.2 St. George Area Study
2.1.3 Unserviced Development
2.1.4 Calculation of Population in New Units
2.2
Revisions to Capital
2.3
County Wide Roads Calculation
2.4
County Wide Water, Wastewater, and Stormwater Calculation
2.5
Roads Level of Service
2-1
2-1
2-1
2-1
2-1
2-2
2-2
2-4
2-5
2-5
3.
Revised Development Charge Calculation
3-1
4.
Recommendations
4-1
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Stakeholder Correspondence
Response to Development Liaison Committee
Revised Growth Forecast
Changes to Background Study
Proposed Development Charge By-law
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
1-1
1-2
1-2
A-1
B-1
C-1
D-1
E-1
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\DC Addendum #2.docx
Page (i)
Executive Summary
1. Commensurate with the provisions of the Development Charges Act, 1997, the
County released a Background Study and held a statutory public meeting on July
22, 2014. The basis for the current study is to meet the requirements of the
Development Charges Act.
2. In July, 2014, the County passed an “interim” eight month DC bylaw in order to
allow a longer period of discussion with it development community. Chapter 1
details the background for the County’s 2014 DC process, subsequent passing of
an eight month interim by-law, and the collaborative work from the past six
months with Staff and developer stakeholders to arrive at the release of DC
Addendum #2.
3. Chapter 2 summarizes the revisions made to the July 7, 2014 DC Background
Study arising from the detailed discussions with the development stakeholder
group.
4. Chapter 3 recalculates the DC calculation based on the changes resulting from
Chapter 2, and suggestions made as part of continuing stakeholder discussions
from August 2014 to February 2015.
5. The above changes have been incorporated into the calculations. The summary
below outlines the current charges vs. the charges as calculated in the DC report
dated July 7, 2014 and the charges calculated in this addendum report. Note
that the proposed charge incorporates a County-wide roads charge and
consolidated Urban-wide charges for water, wastewater and stormwater which
was previously calculated on an area-specific basis and therefore the roads &
related and area-specific comparisons are not an “apples to apples” comparison.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\DC Addendum #2.docx
Page (ii)
Residential (Single Detached) Comparison
Current
July 2014
DC Background
Study
Service
Proposed
Changes
County-Wide Services:
Studies
218
222
264
Fire Protection
226
244
246
Police Services
-
115
112
Emergency Services (Ambulance)
Parks & Recreation
38
3
3
1,096
2,338
2,284
Libraries
353
315
309
Roads & Related
Total County-Wide Services
189
2,120
186
3,423
6,298
9,516
Urban Services
Sub-total Southwest Paris
Sub-total Rest of Paris
Sub-total St. George
Sub-total Other Urban Area
25,062
12,803
15,123
15,123
26,432
26,432
19,492
12,198
11,985
11,985
11,985
11,985
Southwest Paris
27,182
29,855
21,501
Rest of Paris
14,923
29,855
21,501
St. George
Other Urban Area
17,243
17,243
22,915
15,621
21,501
21,501
Grand Total :
Non-Residential (per ft².) Comparison
Current
July 2014
DC Background
Study
Service
Proposed
Changes
County-Wide Services:
Studies
0.09
0.07
0.09
Fire Protection
0.10
0.08
0.08
0.04
Police Services
-
0.04
Emergency Services (Ambulance)
0.00
-
-
Parks & Recreation
0.04
0.09
0.10
Libraries
0.01
0.01
0.01
Roads & Related
Total County-Wide Services
0.08
0.33
0.06
0.35
2.15
2.47
Urban Services
Sub-total Southwest Paris
Sub-total Rest of Paris
Sub-total St. George
Sub-total Other Urban Area
5.09
3.91
13.80
13.80
7.60
7.60
7.81
7.51
3.53
3.53
3.53
3.53
Southwest Paris
5.42
7.95
6.00
Rest of Paris
4.24
7.95
6.00
14.13
14.13
8.16
7.86
6.00
6.00
Grand Total :
St. George
Other Urban Area
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\DC Addendum #2.docx
Page (iii)
6. The Proposed By-law has been amended to include the updated charges as
described above (Schedule “B”).
7. The changes herein and those recommended in Chapter 4, form the basis for the
by-law being presented to Council. If Council is satisfied with the changes to the
Background Study, and based on the public submissions made at the public
meeting, this addendum report and the amended by-law, including the amended
schedule “B” to the by-law, will be considered for approval by Council.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\DC Addendum #2.docx
Page 1-1
1.
1.1
Background
2014 DC BACKGROUND STUDY AND PROPOSED BY-LAW
1.1.1 July 7, 2014 DC Background Study
Development charges provide for the recovery of growth-related capital expenditures
from new development. The Development Charges Act (DCA) is the statutory basis to
recover these charges. On July 7, 2014 the County of Brant provided the Development
Charge Background Study required by the DCA.
The DC Background Study was part of the development charge public process and
sought to pass a new by-law, that incorporates both County-Wide (136-09) and Areaspecific charges (153-10/152-10), in advance of the expiry dates (August 31, 2014 and
August 1,2015, respectively). The mandatory public meeting was set for July 22nd,
2014 with adoption of the by-law subsequent to the public meeting. The DCA requires a
municipality to pass a new DC bylaw within 1-year of the public availability of a DC
background study.
The calculated charges were as follows:
County-wide (soft services)
Single Detached
Non-residential
Dwelling Units
Per Square Metre
$3,423
$3.77
Area-specific (including soft
services)

Paris (SW & Rest of Paris)
$29,855
$85.47

St. George
$22,915
$87.73

Rest of
areas)
$15,621
$84.60
County
(urban
1.1.2 July 14, 2014 Addendum #1 DC Background Study
On July 14, 2014 the County of Brant released addendum report #1 to the July 7, 2014
DC Background Study. The addendum did not revise the proposed calculated charge.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\DC Addendum #2.docx
Page 1-2
The addendum provided greater clarity by separating the capital cost tables for St.
George and other County urban areas (excluding Paris). The addendum also corrected
a sub-total calculation in Tables ES-1 and Schedule B.
1.1.3 August 6, 2014 Corporate Development Committee Meeting
Following the release of a Development Charge Background Study on July 7, 2014, a
public meeting was held on July 22, 2014 where a number of outstanding matters were
brought forward from the development community regarding this Background Study and
the associated development charge bylaw.
County Staff felt that there was inadequate time before the expiry of the 2009 Countywide development charge bylaw to address all of the outstanding issues. Therefore, it
was proposed to implement an interim DC bylaw that reflects the contents and rates
contained in the expiring bylaw. The two area-specific by-laws for Paris and Southwest
Paris continued as is as they do not expire until August 1, 2015. This interim bylaw was
put in force for an 8-month term, which will provide Staff with appropriate time to
continue to liaise with stakeholders and resolve the outstanding matters.
1.2
DEVELOPMENT LIAISON COMMITTEE
During the fall and winter of 2014 and early part of 2015, the County of Brant’s
Development Liaison Committee (Staff, consultants, stakeholders) have met regularly to
help resolve the outstanding items. Stakeholder concerns have been documented from
the following groups: Altus Group, Brookfield Homes, and Pinevest Homes.
Documentation from these stakeholders is contained herein as Appendix A, and County
responses as part of presentations to the Development Liaison Committee are
contained in Appendix B.
The process with the stakeholders has been a productive one and the County is now
prepared to release DC addendum #2. Chapter 2 summarize the changes made to the
July 7, 2014 DC Background Study, and Chapter 3 is a recalculation for the proposed
County-wide and Area Specific DCs.
DC addendum #2 is to be released on March 2nd, 2015 with the mandatory public
meeting set for March 17th, 2015 with adoption of the by-law subsequent to the public
meeting.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\DC Addendum #2.docx
Page 2-1
2.
2.1
Changes to July 7, 2014 DC
Background Study
Growth Forecast
Based on discussions with the County’s Planning department and developer
stakeholders, a number of revisions have been made to the County’s 2014-2031 growth
forecast. Attached to Appendix C of this report is the revised “Background Information
on Residential and Non-Residential Growth Forecast (i.e. Appendix A from the July 7th,
2014 DC Background Study). The following sections highlight the changes provided for
by Appendix C.
2.1.1 Pace of Growth in St. George and Timing of Works
Based on discussions with the County of Brant Development Services – Planning
Division, we have revised for the growth forecast for St. George. The revised forecast
assumes development is to commence in St. George during the post 2019 period,
based on available water and wastewater servicing. An annual average development of
80 units is assumed to occur from 2019-2024. Over the long-term forecast period
(2014-2031), the annual rate of residential development for St. George is forecast to
remain at just over 70 units per year.
2.1.2 St. George Area Study
The new WPCP will be sized based on the assimilative capacity of the creek. Without
the studies being completed, it is not specifically known how many units can be
accommodated, however the County is hopeful that it will accommodate the Phase 1
equivalent population of 5,130 identified in the Area Study. The basis for calculating the
total water, wastewater, and road costs in St. George is proposed to be revised
assuming 5,130 equivalent populations.
2.1.3 Unserviced Development
Between 2009 and 2014, an average of 66 residential building permits were issues per
year (new units only) in the rural area, plus Oakhill, Mt. Pleasant/Tutela Heights.
Based on further review of anticipated urban housing demand in Brant County, the
forecast has downwardly adjusted the housing growth allocation to the partially serviced
and unserviced settlement areas. This translates to an average of 36 units per year
over the 2014 to 2031 period, which is well below the average annual rate of rural
housing development experienced over the past five years.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\DC Addendum #2.docx
Page 2-2
2.1.4 Calculation of Population in New Units
The single-detached PPU for Brant County (including Brantford) was inadvertently used
in the development charge calculation. The calculation will be corrected using 3.04
PPU for single-detached units.
2.2
Revisions to Capital
Based on discussions with the County’s Finance department and developer
stakeholders, a number of revisions have been made to the list of capital projects
included for calculation in the DC Background Study. The revisions are largely due to
more up to date information (i.e. County Budget information as opposed to indexed
costs from 2009/2010 DC Study). Other revisions included changes in the timing of
projects, and an mathematical error in calculating the interest on the Gilbert and Willow
Street debentures. Attached to Appendix D of this report are the revised capital cost
tables from Chapter 5 of the July 7th, 2014 DC Background Study. A summary of these
changes are listed in Table 2-1.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\DC Addendum #2.docx
Page 2-3
TABLE 2-1
SUMMARY OF CAPITAL COST REVISIONS TO DC BACKGROUND STUDY
July 7th Project
Page #
#
Project Name
July 7th $
Revised $
5-30
C-2-1
Upgrades to Airport WPCP
$1,909,200
$1,776,000
5-30
G-2-1
Twinning St. George Water
Pollution Control Plant
$11,325,500
$10,500,000
5-30
G-2-2
Upgrades sanitary conveyance
system
$857,500
$790,000
5-22
P-2-8
New South of 403 Sewage
Pumping Station
$2,065,300
$1,915,000
5-22
P-2-9
Forcemain-South Sewage Pumping
Station to Mile Hill Road
$1,029,600
$1,000,000
5-32
C-1-1
Airport additional water storage
$3,745,000
$3,500,000
5-32
G-1-2
New source of water/increase
PTTW for existing wells
$8,629,000
8,250,000
5-24
P-1-8
Gilbert Well Field: Revised Pricing
in “Increase Permit to Take Water”
$485,400
$450,000
5-26
P-3-15
Traffic Control on Rest Acres Road
$1,746,100
$1,620,000
5-26
P-3-9
Rest Acres Road Widening Phase
1
$5,389,300
$5,100,000
5-26
P-3-10
New Sidewalk on Rest Acres Road
from King Edward St. to
Cobblestone Drive
$94,400
$90,000
5-24
P-1-4
New Water Source for Paris
$3,494,700
Removed
5-14
S-0-1
Onondaga Fire Hall Engineering
$300,000
$400,000
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\DC Addendum #2.docx
Page 2-4
July 7th Project
Page #
#
Project Name
July 7th $
Revised $
5-3
S-0-50
Development Charges Studies
$100,000
$250,000
5-24
P-1-12
Gilbert Interest
$2,000,451
$1,590,776
5-22
P-2-7
Willow Interest
$568,459
$458,197
5-32
G-1-2
New Water Source-Paris
$8,629,000
Moved to
2025/26
5-26
P-3-17
Public Works Maintenance moved
from Paris to County Wide
$377,300
$377,300
5-22
P-2-5
Upgrades to Grand River North
Sewage Pumping Station
$5,750,000
$750,000
5-22
P-2-3
Paris Links Sewage Pumping
Station Upgrades
$2,065,300
$5,000,000
15%
41%
Benefit to Existing Development
Deduction
2.3
County Wide Roads Calculation
Historically the County has calculated its road DC on an area specific charge, however,
roads is more commonly calculated on a municipal wide basis. As mentioned in the
Brookfield Homes January 13, 2015 letter, compared to water and wastewater,
allocating roads is more difficult in determining where the demand for increased road
capacity comes from. Also, it is acknowledged that often smaller communities outside
of the larger growth areas also require the arterial roads leading to the urban centres,
and therefore should pay a share of the costs.
Chapter 3 from this addendum report includes a revised roads DC calculation on a
County-wide basis, for Councils consideration. As part of Appendix D of this addendum
report is a revised capital cost calculation sheet which includes projects from pages 526, and 5-34 from the July 7th, 2014 DC Background Study.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\DC Addendum #2.docx
Page 2-5
2.4
County-Wide Water, Wastewater, and Stormwater Calculation
Similar to road services, historically the County has calculated the charges for water,
wastewater and stormwater services on an area-specific basis. At various times
throughout the development charge process the County has provided the stakeholders
a County-wide charge for these services as a means of comparison to the calculated
area specific charges. At the February 11th, 2015 Development Liaison Committee
Meeting part of the discussion among the stakeholders was the wish for a County-wide
charge for water, wastewater, and stormwater services, within the urban service areas,
as part of the proposed by-law.
Since the Paris and other urban serviced areas (excluding St. George) water,
wastewater, and stormwater capital projects are based on a 10-year forecast and the
St. George capital projects are based on a longer term forecast, calculating a Countywide is more difficult. The most straightforward means in calculating a County-wide
charge would be to take the weighted average of the area specific charges for Paris, St.
George, and the other urban areas.
Chapter 3 from this addendum report includes a new DC calculation on a County-wide
basis for water, wastewater and stormwater services (new Table 6-4a), for Councils
consideration.
2.5
Roads Level of Service
The roads level of service calculation was not included as part of the July 7th, 2014 DC
Background Study. The calculation sheet is included in Appendix D from this
addendum report.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\DC Addendum #2.docx
Page 3-1
3.
Revised DC Calculation
Chapter 6 from the July 7th, 2014 DC Background Study calculated development
charges as part of the following tables:

Table 6-1 – Paris Urban Services (Water, Wastewater, Stormwater, and Roads)

Table 6-2 – St. George Urban Services (Water, Wastewater, and Roads)

Table 6-3 – Other Urban Service Areas (Water, Wastewater, and Roads)

Table 6-4 – Municipal Wide Services
As per the previous Chapter (i.e. Sections 2.1 to 2.3), Tables 6-1 to 6-4 have been
revised in the following manner:

Tables 6-1 to 6-4 – Revised capital cost and growth information

Tables 6-1 to 6-3 – Road services moved to Table 6-4, as part of a County-wide
calculation

Table 6-2 – St. George Water and Wastewater calculated on a population
equivalent basis.
Revised Tables 6-1 to 6-4 are included as part of Appendix D.
In order to calculate a County-wide charge in the urban serviced areas for water,
wastewater, and stormwater services, Table 6-4a has been created. Table 6-4a is
calculated on a weighted average basis using the cost information from Tables 6-1 and
6-3 and the 10-year gross population/GFA from the growth forecast Appendix. As per
Table 6-4a, the County-wide single detached unit development charge for water,
wastewater, and stormwater services in the urban serviced areas is $11,985 per unit.
This compares to charges of $10,892 (St. George), $12,057 (Paris), and 13,601(Other
Urban Serviced Areas) if they were calculated on an area-specific basis.
The changes above form the basis for the by-law being presented to Council. If Council
is satisfied with the above changes to the Background Study, and based on the public
submissions made at the public meeting, this addendum report #1 and the amended bylaw, including the amended schedule “B” to the by-law, will be considered for approval
by Council.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\DC Addendum #2.docx
Page 3-2
TABLE 6-4a
COUNTY OF BRANT
DEVELOPMENT CHARGE CALCULATION
PARIS, ST. GEORGE, AND OTHER URBAN SERVICE AREAS
2014-2023
2014 $ DC Eligible Cost
Residential
Non-Residential
SERVICE
$
1.
Stormwater Drainage and Control Services
2.
Wastewater Services
3.
Water Services
4
1
212,631
1
6,774,267
2,211,733
631,607
9,617,607
1
3,957,399
351,194
126,443
4,435,037
1
6,199,297
1,804,788
2,088,651
10,092,736
1
3,621,513
286,576
418,133
4,326,222
1
2
4
2
4
DC ELIGIBLE CAPITAL COST
10 Year Gross Population / GFA Growth (ft².)
$20,074,325
$8,973,890
3,363
1,121
608
2,196,100
178,200
165,400
5,092
$3,942.33
2,539,700
$3.53
By Residential Unit Type
Single and Semi-Detached Dwelling
Apartments - 2 Bedrooms +
Apartments - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom
Other Multiples
In Retirement Homes & Assisted Living
Facilities
3
363,982
$8,973,890
Sub-total
2
$
$20,074,325
Cost Per Capita / Non-Residential GFA (ft².)
1
$
TOTAL
Paris
St. George
Other Urban Areas
p.p.u
3.04
1.77
1.39
2.14
1.00
2014 $ DC Eligible Cost
SDU
per ft²
$
217
0.08
5,742
1.75
6,026
1.70
$11,985
3.53
3
4
3
4
per m
$11,985
$6,978
$5,480
$8,437
$3,942
From Table 6-1
Cost per capita from Table 6-2 X 1,121 Gross Population.
Cost per capita from Table 6-2 X 178 employees.
From Table 6-3
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Brant 2014 DC Model-revised f19
2
$38.00
Page 4-1
4.
Recommendations
It is recommended that Council:
“Approve the capital project listing set out in Chapter 5 of the Development Charges
Background Study dated July 7rd, 2014, and as revised herein in Appendix D, subject to
further annual review during the capital budget process”;
“Adopt a uniform County-wide roads and related charge”;
“Adopt a uniform water, wastewater, and stormwater charge in the urban service areas
of Paris, St. George, and any other urban serviced area within the County”;
“Approve the Development Charges Background Study dated July 7rd, 2014, as
amended by Addendum No. 2 To The County of Brant Development Charge
Background Study Update";
“Approve the expiry date of September 1, 2019, as this addendum and proposed by-law
is a continuance of the 2014 Development Charge Study”;
“Determine that no further public meeting is required”; and
“Approve the Development Charge By-law as set out herein in Appendix E.”
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\DC Addendum #2.docx
Page A-1
Appendix A – Stakeholder Correspondence
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\DC Addendum #2.docx
Page A-2
Independent Real Estate Intelligence
July 29, 2014 Memorandum to: Heather Mifflin / Michael Bradley County of Brant From: Daryl Keleher, Director Altus Group Economic Consulting Subject: Brant County DC Review Our File: P‐5015 This memo presents our initial findings from our review of the Brant County 2014 Development Charges Background Study. Population, Household and Employment Forecasts Calculation of Population in New Units In the calculation of gross population in new units (Schedule 2, page A‐2), a PPU factor of 3.04 was used, which is based on Brant County (excluding Brantford) census data. However, in the calculation of the DC from a per capita rate into a per unit rate, for single‐detached units, a PPU factor of 3.11 was used, which as per page A‐8 of the DC Study, is based on Brant County including Brantford census data. Therefore, the calculations in section 6 of the DC Study (tables 6‐1 through 6‐4) are internally inconsistent. To become consistent, the PPU factor of 3.04 should be used in both steps of the calculation. Research, Valuation & Advisory
Cost Consulting & Project Management
Realty Tax Consulting
33 Yonge Street, Suite 500, Toronto, ON M5E 1G4 Canada T 416.641.9500 F 416.641.9501
altusgroup.com
Geomatics
Economics
Page A-3
Brant County DC July 29, 2014 Page 2 Figure 1 Effect of PPU Factors in DC Calculation
DC per Single-Detached Unit
DC per
Capita
3.11 PPU
$ / Capita
Paris - Urban Services
St. George - Urban Services
Other Urban Areas - Urban Services
County-Wide Soft Services
8,499
6,268
3,922
1,100
3.04 PPU
Difference
Dollars per Unit
26,432
19,493
12,198
3,422
25,837
19,054
11,924
3,345
(595)
(439)
(275)
(77)
29,854
22,914
15,620
29,182
22,399
15,269
(672)
(516)
(352)
Total by Area
Paris
St. George
Other Urban Areas
Source:
Altus Group Economic Consulting based on Brant County 2014 DC Study
Approved St. George Area Study Not Reflected in Post Period Benefit Calculations Where the build‐out of the St. George community is used to calculate post period benefit in Appendix G to the DC Study, a build‐out population growth figure of 2,397 persons is used, along with 1,134 additional jobs. However, according to the approved St. George Area Study, the build‐out population and employment of St. George is actually 10,290 persons and jobs, suggesting that the post period benefit allocations should be significantly higher. Pace of Growth in St. George and Timing of Works The Altus Group Housing Market Study estimated that the demand for new housing in St. George could be expected to be roughly 80 units per year over the 2011‐2031 period (1,225 single‐detached units and 300 row units over the 20‐year period). Based on 28 units per year and 1,192 units in the St. George Landowners Group lands, the DC Study is implying a 42‐year build out of these lands – the timing of the units in the DC Study will have implications for the required timing of the works and their inclusion in the DC Study – those issues will be discussed in more detail later in this memo. The timing of infrastructure required for development of St. George should be timed so as to not be premature, and therefore require lifecycle replacement of works before the various developments are even completed. Any available capacity in existing infrastructure should be utilized to ensure that the capital works are optimized, and put on a lifecycle that the County can afford. Page A-4
Brant County DC July 29, 2014 Page 3 Paris – Post Period Benefit Calculations in Appendix G In Appendix G to the DC Study, the 10‐year population forecast for Paris is 3,363 persons, while the build‐out population is 8,184 persons – we would like to understand what developments and areas are included in the 8,184 person estimate, to ensure that all development in the Paris area is included and that the post period benefit calculation is appropriate. Unserviced Development Of the 2,163 new housing units in the County’s 10‐year housing forecast, 403 units are in “unserviced areas”. In the 2009 DC Study, of the 1,916 housing units in that 10‐year forecast, 260 units were in unserviced areas. Given the approval of a number of area studies in serviced areas of the County, it is unclear how the number and share of units in unserviced areas have increased – it seems more likely that these units should be allocated to serviced areas of the County, such as Paris or St. George. The MMM Group Growth Strategy and Policy Directions Report forecasts that there will be 80 unserviced units built between 2011‐2016 and 70 unserviced units built between each of the five‐
year periods of 2016‐2021 and 2021‐2026. If we use the annual growth during these periods and focus upon only the DC Study’s 10‐year 2014‐2023 period, it would translates to only 144 unserviced units, instead of the 403 units from the DC Study. Therefore, it appears that the unserviced units have been overstated. Cost Increases vs. 2014 Capital Budget Forecast There are numerous projects that have a higher cost in the 2014 DC Study than in the County’s 2014 capital budget – for many of these projects, the DC Study costs are typically 7‐8% higher than the capital budget forecast. There are two projects that have cost increases beyond the 7‐8% rate – upgrades to the Paris Links SPS (+726%) and parkland development of a park on the Edgar lands (+147%). We would like to understand the reason for these particularly significant cost differences. Page A-5
Brant County DC July 29, 2014 Page 4 Figure 2 Comparison of Project Costing in 2014 DC Study and Brant County 2014 Capital Budget Forecast
Project
Wastew ater
C-2-1 Upgrades to Airport WPCP
G-2-1 Tw ining St. George WPCP
G-2-2 Upgrades Sanitary Sew er Conveyance System
P-2-8 New South of 403 SPS SW Paris
P-2-9 FM - South SPS to Mile Hill Road
P-2-3 Paris Links Sew age Pumping Station Upgrades
Water
C-1-1
G-1-1
G-1-2
P-1-8
Airport additional w ater storage
Upgrades to standby pow er - St. George w ell
New source of w ater / increase PTTW
Gilbert Well Field - Increase Permit to Take Water
Outdoor Recreation
S-0-16 Edgar
Roads
P-3-15
P-3-13
P-3-9
P-3-10
Rest Acres Road - Traffic Control
Highw ay 403 Overpass
Rest Acres Road Widening Phase 1
New Sidew alk on Rest Acres Road
Areas
Gross Cost
2014 Capital
2014 DC Study
Budget Forecast
Budget #
%
Difference
Other
St. George
St. George
Paris - SW
Paris - SW
Paris - North
1,909,200
11,325,500
857,500
2,065,300
1,029,600
2,065,300
1,776,000
10,500,000
790,000
1,915,000
1,000,000
250,000
WST006
WST042
WST044
PSW010
PSW011
WST034
7.9%
8.5%
7.8%
3.0%
726.1%
Other
St. George
St. George
Paris - SW
3,745,000
920,000
8,629,000
485,400
3,500,000
920,000
8,250,000
450,000
WAT096
WAT048
WAT063
PSW012
7.0%
0.0%
4.6%
7.9%
185,000
75,000
1,746,100
2,229,200
5,389,300
94,400
1,620,000
2,100,000
5,100,000
90,000
County-Wide
Paris
Paris
Paris
Paris
-
SW
SW
SW
SW
PRT072
146.7%
PSW003
PSW014
PSW017
PSW008
7.8%
6.2%
5.7%
4.9%
Source: Altus Group Economic Consulting based on Brant County 2014 Development Charges Background Study and Brant County 2014 Capital Budget
forecast
Transportation Master Plan Forecasts The Brant County Transportation Master Plan is based on a 2031 employment forecast of 25,000 jobs, while the 2014 DC Study is based on a 2031 employment forecast of 19,026 jobs. The Master Plan was also based on a population forecast of 50,100 persons, while the DC Study is based on a population forecast of 47,000 persons. While the 47,000 person and 19,000 jobs forecast in the DC Study is consistent with the 2031A forecasts from the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, they are below those from the County’s Transportation Master Plan. As the Master Plan was based on modelling that had to accommodate travel demand from 3,100 more persons and nearly 6,000 more jobs than forecast in the DC Study, there may be road works identified in the Master Plan that may not be needed to service the reduced population and employment forecast in the County to 2031 in the DC Study. Page A-6
Brant County DC July 29, 2014 Page 5 Roads Level of Service The 2014 DC Study does not provide a level of service calculation for roads. We would like to see a measure that models the vehicular capacity on County Roads, as well as forecasts what the proposed road improvements will do the level of service provided. As the County is made up of a variety of small communities connected by long segments of County roads, a typical road kilometres per capita calculation found in many Watson DC background studies is not a true measure of the level of service County residents receive. Roads Benefit to Existing Page G‐6 of the DC Study shows the Benefit to Existing (BTE) assumptions for the various road projects in the DC, and the table attempts to provide a basis for each BTE assumption. The BTE ratio ranges from 10% to 35%, however for 16 of the 18 road projects, the basis provided is the same: “existing will benefit marginally from these improvements”. This description is vague and does not differentiate the various projects from each other, particularly when the BTE shares do vary from one project to the next. Accordingly, we would like a more rigorous assessment of the benefit that each road improvement will provide to the existing community. SERVICE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS Fire Services The value for the Pumper/Aerial is $1,003,900 in the 2014 DC Study, but was just $452,630 in the 2009 DC Study, meaning that its value has increased by 121%. The of the Pumper Tanker from the 2009 DC Study was the same as the Pumper/Aerial and has increased more modestly from $452,630 in the 2009 DC Study to $487,900 in the 2014 DC Study, or by roughly 8%. Most vehicle in the inventory have had their values increase by this 8% factor. How can the value of these the Pumper/Aerial and the Pumper Tanker be the same in 2009, but so different in 2014? Page A-7
Brant County DC July 29, 2014 Page 6 Outdoor Recreation Parkland Development The 2009 DC Study had a uniform value of parkland development of $64,490 per acre, while the 2014 DC Study has a variety of values, ranging from $75,000 per acre to $150,000 per acre. While a differentiated cost approach is reasonable, we would like to understand what factors went into assigning different values to different parks. Bike Pathways The most expensive item in the Outdoor Recreation DC capital project listing is “Bike Pathways” with a gross cost of $400,000, or $50,000 per year. We would like to understand if there are any concrete plans for these pathways. Library Additional Facility Space We would like to understand if there are specific plans for a new library in Brant County. There is a line item in the DC Study for “Additional Facility Space”, with a gross cost of $350,000. Debt Payments As debt payments are fixed over time, and DC rates are indexed over time, the debt repayment (both principal and interest) in a DC calculation should be discounted to ensure the County is not collecting more than it requires. There are three projects in the Brant County DC Study that have debt costs for recovery. Gilbert Well Field Debenture (P‐1‐11 and P‐1‐12) The DC Study includes $3,990,075 for principal repayment, and another $2,000,451 for interest repayment. Based on the debt repayment schedule, the undiscounted debt repayment costs include $3,990,075 for principal repayment and $1,777,513 in interest costs over the February 2014‐February 2031 period. Therefore the DC Study includes an undiscounted principal repayment, and interest costs that are greater than even the undiscounted interest costs. If we discounted the debt principal and interest costs by 2% per year, the principal repayment would be $3,306,380 and the interest costs would be $1,580,452. Page A-8
Brant County DC July 29, 2014 Page 7 Willow Street Pumping Station The County by‐law 14‐10 includes funds for the Willow Street Sewage Pumping Station. Of the $7,397,960 in debentures in by‐law 14‐10, $4,481,000 are for the Willow Street Pumping Station. Based on the County’s spreadsheets, there are $3.1 million in costs attributable to development (after a 50% BTE deduction), and there have been $1.9 million in costs already funded through DC’s, leaving $1.23 million to be funded through debentures. Based on the calculation presented in the County’s spreadsheet, it does not appear that discounting has been applied to the principal repayment amount of $1,232,899. We would also like to understand why $4.48 million in debentures were taken out when only $3.17 million in costs were deemed as growth related. Twin Pad Arena Debenture As Twin Pad Arena debenture costs are proposed to be recovered from growth through the DC, the Brant Sports Complex should be discounted in the level of service inventory to account for the share of costs still to be funded by growth over the next ten years. Currently, the Brant Sports Complex has its full 84,000 square feet included in the level of service inventory. The DC capital program should not be recovering for items that are also fully within the level of service inventory (thus creating the room for recovery of that and other works). PARIS AREA SPECIFIC Water & Sewer Upgrades Grand River North Sewage Pumping Station (P‐2‐5) According to input from the Landowners Group, the Grand River North Sewage Pumping Station (SPS) may not be required within the 10‐year period ‐ the timing for this work had been 2025, and is now 2020 in the 2014 DC Study. According to the growth projections for North Paris, nearly 800 units would have to be built in order to utilize the capacity of this pumping station. Given the DC Study forecast, it does not appear that this work will be required to service any growth within the 10‐year forecast period. Page A-9
Brant County DC July 29, 2014 Page 8 New Water Source for Paris (P‐1‐7) The DC Study has the New Water Source project scheduled for 2021. We would like to confirm whether this project is required by 2021, and whether the 61% post period benefit share is appropriate given the growth projections for North Paris. Paris Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion (P‐2‐12) In the 2014 DC Study, the Paris Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion project has a DC Recoverable cost of $2,055,996, which represents 33% of gross capital costs for the work. In the draft version of the DC study tables provided to the Landowners Group in May, the DC Recoverable costs for this work were only $809,734, or 13% of gross capital costs. We would like to understand the reason for the increase in DC recoverable costs. Willow Street Watermain DC Credit According to the local service policies in Appendix E to the DC Study, “if the County identifies the need to oversize either sewers or water mains for the benefit of adjoining lands not owned by the developer then the County will pay for such oversizing by rebating collected development charges from the developer’s site.” According to the Landowners Group, a watermain on Willow Street that services many other developers and existing homeowners was constructed by the County, with costs paid for by Riverview Highlands (Paris) Holdings Ltd., who did not request credits at the time. However, based on the local service policies in the DC Study, and the apparent benefit to others of the Willow Street watermain, it would appear to meet the County’s test for DC credits. Accordingly, a line item for DC credit recovery should be added to the DC Study, and DC credits should accrue to Pinevest. Roads Rest Acres Road Widening (P‐3‐9, P‐3‐14, P‐3‐15, P‐3‐16 and P‐3‐18) Based on input from the Landowners Group, the Rest Acres Road project (and Highway 403 overpass project) are driven mostly by needs from non‐residential development. If these projects are mainly for use by non‐residential traffic, then the non‐residential sector should pay for a higher share of the DC eligible costs for this project. Page A-10
Brant County DC July 29, 2014 Page 9 Given the scale of the work being proposed, we would like to understand what capacity might be still available for future development on the road in 2023, and whether the post period benefit allocation should be higher than the Paris‐wide average of 61%. According to presentation boards at a public information centre for the Bethel Road Reconstruction and Associated Works Including the Widening of Bethel Road and Highway 24 as well as Intersection and Interchange Improvements”: These improvements are part of larger efforts by the County of Brant to develop land within the Brant 403 Business park. As a result of these developments, additional traffic will make use of Bethel Road, Rest Acres Road/Highway 24, and the Highway 403 Interchange. New Public Works Department Maintenance Equipment (Snow Removal Equipment) It is unclear why there is snow removal equipment included in the Paris‐area roads capital program, when there is a County‐wide Public Works DC category that would seem to be a better fit. Relative Cost of Roundabouts (P‐3‐16 and P‐3‐17) The combined cost of the two roundabouts on Rest Acres Road is $3,492,200. The cost of the two roundabouts for Grant River Street North (P‐3‐4) is $2,974,900. Therefore, the costs for the Rest Acres Road roundabouts are $517,300 more than the Grant River Street North roundabouts. We would like to understand the cost discrepancy. Grant River St. N. Roundabouts (P‐3‐4) It is my understanding that the County agreed to remove project P‐3‐4 on page 5‐26 of the DC Study, “New Roundabouts (2) at North End” from the project list. This project has a gross cost of $2,974,000, and a DC recoverable cost of $928,169. Alternatively, the project(s) should be revised to be only a simple intersection design, which could be built at a fraction of the proposed roundabout cost. Reconstruction of Dundas Street East (P‐3‐2) Given the timing of project P‐3‐2 (2023) – reconstruction of Dundas Street East from Paris Road to CN tracks, we would like to ensure that this work is required to service development within the 10‐
year period. We would also like to understand what capacity may exist on this improved road in 2023 to assess whether the Paris‐wide average post period benefit allocation of 61% is appropriate. Page A-11
Brant County DC July 29, 2014 Page 10 Reserve Fund Allocation from Paris and SW Paris to DC Services The existing Paris and SW Paris DC reserve fund balances have been allocated to the roads, water and sewer DC services as follows: 
Paris – 19% to sewer, 69% to water, 10% to roads 
SW Paris – 19% to sewer, 35% to water, 45% to roads We would like to understand what these allocations are based on. Stormwater New & Upgrades to Grand River Street North Storm Sewers (P‐4‐2) Based on input from the Landowners Group, project P‐4‐2 should have a higher allocation to existing benefit. Development in North Paris will not be contributing stormwater flows to this system, and it does not need to be upsized to account for any development upstream, as all developments are required to account for their own stormwater management. ST. GEORGE AREA SPECIFIC Post Period Benefit Calculations Appendix G to the DC Study talks about a 73% post period benefit share allocation for St. George. However, based on the St. George Area Study, it appears that the build‐out population and employment should be much higher, to account for all Activa/Empire/Riverview Highland units as well as the other future development throughout the community. Therefore, the post period benefit share of St. George road, water and sewer works should also be proportionately higher. The post period benefit allocations are also not consistently applied across the water, wastewater and roads DC calculations when compared to the 2009 DC Study. 
Water and Wastewater – the 73% post period ratio was applied to the net capital costs as per Appendix G; 
Roads – the roads in St. George currently have no post period allocation. If we instead applied the 73% share to the net capital costs, the St. George roads DC would be $4,997 per SDU lower Page A-12
Brant County DC July 29, 2014 Page 11 We would like to understand why the post period benefit shares recommended in Appendix G were not applied to St. George area roads. Reserve Fund Allocation We have questions about how the reserve fund balances were allocated to the various service areas. For example, the public works DC reserve has a positive balance of $3,083,579 has been applied to the Roads – St. George and Other Urban Area DC’s, of which: 
$1,695,969 is allocated to St. George (55%) 
$1,387,611 is allocated to Other Urban Areas (45%) Please provide the basis for this allocation of existing DC reserve funds. Missing Projects Identified in Area Study The DC Study does not include costs related to watermain upgrades recommended by MTE in their Water Distribution Study along Highway 5 to address existing fireflow deficiencies in the industrial park (at a cost of $2.3 million). The DC Study also does not include costs related to improvements for Beverly Street West and Scott Street, which were identified by Paradigm’s Transportation Study, with a cost of $62,400, of which 85% would be allocated to the County. County Share of Intersection Improvements and Traffic Control According to the St. George Area Study, the Main Street North & Andrew Street intersection improvements should have a County share of 90%, or $56,160 of the $62,400 gross cost. The BTE for this project in the DC Study is only 15%. Also, according to the St. George Area Study, the Hwy. 24 and German School Road traffic control project should have a 52% County share. The BTE in the DC Study for this project is only 15%. Forecasted Growth Rate vs. Need for Infrastructure in St. George (G‐1‐2) In the DC Study, the cost of both water wells identified in the Area Study were included (G‐1‐2). However, based on the forecasted growth in St. George of 28 units per year, the first new well will not be needed for 23 years (or after 645 units are built), and the second well will not be needed until after 46 years (when other developers in St. George and infill units are also included in the 28 unit Page A-13
Brant County DC July 29, 2014 Page 12 count, or after 1,300 units are built). It does not appear that these works will be required until well after the 10‐year DC planning period. Timing of Sewer Works – 2014 (G‐2‐1 and G‐2‐2) The timing of sewer works (for 2014) for St. George do not seem appropriate given the likelihood of development in the near term in that community. Therefore, any work done in 2014 on the twinning of the St. George WPCP or upgrades to the sewer system would seem to more highly benefit existing development in the community, beyond the 10% and 15% allocations currently assumed in the DC calculation. P:\5000s\5015\report\Memo ‐ Brant County DC Review.docx Page A-14
Independent Real Estate Intelligence
January 8, 2015 Memorandum to: Heather Mifflin, Brant County From: Daryl Keleher, Director Altus Group Economic Consulting Subject: Brant County DC Our File: P‐5015 This memo presents our outstanding questions based on the County’s response to our initial set of questions, and presents a few new questions that have arisen from our further review of the County’s 2014 Development Charges Background Study and associated documents. OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS 17. Upgrades to Grand River North Sewage Pumping Station We continue to have questions about the need for the Grand River North SPS within the 10‐year period. The County’s response stated that the capacity of the SPS in the Area Study showed 275 L/s on a schematic drawing, when the actual capacity of the pumping station was only 133 L/s. However, upon looking into the North West Paris Area Study document, all calculations and recommendations were made using the 133 L/s value, and the 275 L/s was merely a misprint on a drawing. No upgrades to the Pumping Station were recommended in this Area Study, as the existing station would be operating at 93% capacity considering theoretical flows (actual flows are shown to be lower) at full build‐out of the North West Paris Area. As such, we would like to understand whether there is a need for this item within the 10‐year horizon of the DC Background Study. 20. Willow Street Watermain The County’s comments that: “while it could serve more land, it is not oversized” and “the watermain is therefore technically larger than what is required but it is not oversized at the County’s Research, Valuation & Advisory
Cost Consulting & Project Management
Realty Tax Consulting
33 Yonge Street, Suite 500, Toronto, ON M5E 1G4 Canada T 416.641.9500 F 416.641.9501
altusgroup.com
Geomatics
Economics
Page A-15
Brant County DC January 8, 2015 Page 2 request”. Even if the pipe only needed to be 282mm and is therefore 300mm due to the available sizes of pipes, it is still oversized, and can accommodate additional capacity as a result of the constraints of pipe sizes. The local service guidelines say that if other adjoining lands benefit from oversizing, then credits will accrue: if the County identifies the need to oversize either sewers or water mains for the benefit of adjoining lands not owned by the developer then the County will pay for such oversizing by rebating collected development charges from the developer’s site. If the County expressed a need for oversizing, or expressed how it planned to use the additional capacity, then we should provide them with that background information. 21. Rest Acres Road Widening We are of the opinion that more of the Rest Acres road works should be attributable to non‐
residential growth. As stated in the County’s PIC slides on August 21, 2013 where the EA document was discussed: These improvements are part of larger efforts by the County of Brant to develop land within the Brant 403 Business Park. As a result of these developments, additional traffic will make use of Bethel Road, Rest Acres Road/Highway 24, and the Highway 403 interchange. The anticipated additional future traffic has established the need for improvements to the area’s municipal roadways, intersections and the provincial highway on/off‐ramps We would like to request that the res/non‐res split better reflect the source of demand for the works. 23. Roundabouts We acknowledge that it is the County’s choice to proceed with roundabouts over traditional intersections. However, we think there should be some acknowledgement that as a result of this choice, both existing and new traffic operations are improved and lifecycle/capital costs are lessened for the existing community – placing an unfair share of the total costs of the work on the shoulders of new homeowners. We feel that the BTE should be calculated to provide for a fair sharing of costs between the existing homeowners and new homes. Page A-16
Brant County DC January 8, 2015 Page 3 For example, in the City of Hamilton’s 2014 DC Study, roundabouts were assigned a BTE of 50%, based on the following, based on the notion that each of the existing community and new growth would equally benefit: … A maximum of 50% of the cost [of roundabouts] is allocated to existing community to acknowledge that new and existing growth will equally benefit from traffic operations and safety improvements resulting from a roundabout project. For project P‐3‐4, the County’s DC Study allocates a 20% share to the existing community. 29. Reserve Fund Allocation – St. George and Other Roads To help us understand the reasonableness of their apportionment of the existing $3 million in DC reserve funds between the St. George and Other Area DC calculations, we have asked the County for data on building permits in these communities. If the positive balances in the reserve fund are due to DC revenues from development in St. George, we feel that a proportionate share of the balance should accrue to the calculation of the St. George DC. Alternatively, if the roads DC were made to be a County‐wide service (see analysis in subsequent section of this memo), this question would become moot. NEW QUESTIONS Post Period Benefit The post period benefit allocations in the 2014 DC Study are generally applied equally regardless of whether a project is scheduled for 2014 (the first year of the DC horizon) or 2023 (the end of the DC horizon). However we do not feel that this approach is reflective of the benefit received by the new housing units within the 10‐year DC horizon. For example, for a work scheduled for 2022 and which is oversized to provide for growth beyond 2023, the share included in the DC should acknowledge that there is only 1‐year of growth in the 10‐
year DC horizon that requires the work in order to proceed. Therefore, the post period benefit for a work scheduled in 2022 should be adjusted to reflect the proportion of growth within the 10‐year horizon that requires the work.. If growth in the DC horizon reflects only 10% of the units that require a certain work to proceed, the post‐period share should reflect that, and be 90%. Page A-17
Brant County DC January 8, 2015 Page 4 This approach would maintain the base post period allocation (after BTE is deducted) of 61% for a project scheduled for 2014 in Paris. A project scheduled for 2022 in Paris would see a far greater post period deduction (as growth in the years 2022‐2023 is only 11% of growth remaining at that point to build‐out, meaning the post period share should be 89%). In theory, if growth stopped in 2021, a work scheduled in 2022 would not be required, and so a greater share of the costs should be paid for by the post‐2022 growth, through an increased share of costs funded from future DC by‐laws. In the next DC Study, the post period benefit would decline from 89% to something lower based on the ratio of development from the year the work is needed to the end year of the 10‐year forecast period, to the total build‐out population. This ensures that the units within the 10‐year horizon only pay for the share of the projects that benefits them. Many projects in the DC capital program would need their post period shares adjusted significantly. For example: 
New Sanitary Pumping Station Paris East (P‐2‐2, scheduled for 2022); 
Paris Links Sewage Pumping Station Upgrades (P‐2‐3, scheduled for 2023); 
Willow Street Sewer Replacement (P‐2‐4, scheduled for 2022); 
And many others, are scheduled later in the planning period, and do not benefit the majority of growth within the 10‐year DC horizon. In our opinion, a post period benefit calculation based on the proportion of growth in 2014 to the build‐out population and employment (and not the year in which the work is required) may not be appropriate. Reserve Fund Balances Figure 1 shows the allocation of the costs of recovery of the existing Paris and SW Paris DC reserve funds. According to number 26 of the Watson response to the Altus Group questions, the Paris Reserve Fund balance was in a deficit of $1,176,744, which was to be allocated on the following basis: 19% to sewer, 69% to water, 10% to roads and 1% to storm. This would mean that the allocation to sanitary sewer should have been $218,905, while in the DC tables, the amount shown is $1,440,413 (table 5‐22 of DC Study and page 11 of the revised calculation tables). Page A-18
Brant County DC January 8, 2015 Page 5 This allocation should be adjusted and the sewer DC for Paris can be expected to fall by $697 per SDU (all else being equal). Figure 1 Paris & SW Paris DC Reserve Fund Deficit Allocation, Brant
County
Paris Reserve Fund
Dollar
Allocation
Share
County/Watson
Response Document
Sew er
Water
Roads
Stormw ater
Dollars
Percent
SW Paris Reserve Fund
Dollar
Allocation
Share
Dollars
Percent
218,905
816,775
116,296
24,768
19%
69%
10%
2%
2,350,959
4,331,267
5,568,772
124,051
19%
35%
45%
1%
1,176,744
100%
12,375,049
100%
Sew er
Water
Roads
Stormw ater
1,440,413
816,775
116,296
24,768
60%
34%
5%
1%
2,350,959
4,331,267
5,568,772
124,051
19%
35%
45%
1%
Total
2,398,252
100%
12,375,049
100%
Total
DC Study Tables Revised
Difference
Water
Wastew ater
Roads
Stormw ater
Total
Source:
(1,221,508)
(0)
0
(0)
(1,221,508)
Altus Group Economic Consulting
0
0
0
(0)
0
Basis for Capital Works We would like to understand what the original source of the need for various capital works – aside from the capital budget, do these works stem from a technical analysis in an Area Study, a Master Plan? If so, which ones? Other than the works found in the various reports for the Paris Grand Area Study and the St. George Area Study, we have not been able to track down the primary sources for many works included in the DC Study. Page A-19
Brant County DC January 8, 2015 Page 6 P‐2‐12 Paris Wastewater Treatment Plan Expansion & G‐2‐1 Twining St. George WPCP The benefit to existing for the P‐2‐12, Paris WTP Expansion is 15%, while the benefit to existing for G‐2‐1, Twinning St. George WPCP is 10%. If the rationale for each of these works is in part to provide a security of service to the existing community, we would like to understand why these similar works are treated differently. P‐1‐3 Upgrades to Watermain around Willow Street & William Street We would like to understand why this project has just 10% allocated as benefit to existing. Based on input from the Landowners Group, even if no new growth were to occur, these upgrades would likely still need to be done. Therefore, the allocation to BTE should be more reflective of the proportionate use of the watermain that existing users will comprise. P‐2‐3 Paris Links Sewage Pumping Station Upgrades ‐ BTE According to the R.J. Burnside & Associates Infrastructure Servicing Study for the Paris Grand Subdivision, the developed area to the west of the Area Study lands is serviced by an existing sewage pumping station, which services a service population of 1,160 persons. The existing SPS has no additional capacity to accept flows from the Area Study lands, therefore any proposal to convey the Study Area flows to the station would require a significant upgrade (i.e., replacement) of the existing station… The County has expressed interest in replacing the existing station with an upsized station with[in] the Area Study lands that would service the new development in addition to the existing SPS serviced area. The County has also indicated that they would be prepared to look into cost sharing with GolfNorth with regard to the new station costs. While the existing pumping station services 1,160 persons, the Area Study is expected to add between 1,544 and 1,719 persons once built‐out. All of these persons both existing and new (between 2,704 and 2,879 combined) will be serviced by the new pumping station – the BTE should be based on the proportion of the existing community to the total population served by the pumping station or between 40.3% and 42.9%. The BTE applied in the DC Study is 15%. P:\5000s\5015\report\Memo ‐ Review of Changes to Brant DC.docx Page A-20
Page A-21
David Uusitalo
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Heather Mifflin [Heather.Mifflin@brant.ca]
Monday, February 09, 2015 3:10 PM
Gary Scandlan; David Uusitalo
FW: items for discussion -Wednesday
Items for Discussion - County D.C.'s Feb. 9 15.docx
From: Henry Stolp [mailto:henry@pinevest.ca]
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2015 3:05 PM
To: Heather Boyd; Heather Mifflin; Michael Bradley
Cc: Daryl Keleher; DMurphy@brookfieldhomes.ca; jdoherty@Walton.com; Ken Edgar; amanda@armstrongplan.ca
Subject: items for discussion -Wednesday
Hi Heather, We have added these items for discussion for the D.C. meeting on Wednesday. Henry Stolp Telephone (519)442-1786
Pinevest Homes Inc.
P.O. Box 162
Paris, Ontario N3L 3E7
Cell: (519)732-7006
Fax (519)442-5438
E-mail: henry@pinevest.ca
Website: www.pinevesthomes.com
1
Page A-22
Page A-23
ItemsforDiscussion
1. ReviewCountycommentsrespectingAltuscorrespondence.
2. Countyroadsincrease$1,387,611.
3. IncreaseofParisLinkssewagepumpingstationfrom$2milto$5mil.
4. Postperiodexplanation.
5. Countyindustriallandsandconflictofinterest??fornon‐residentialshare.
6. RestAcres,andotherroadsasaCountywideD.C.
7. ConsiderationofasingleCounty‐wideD.C.
Page B-1
Appendix B – Responses Presented to
Development Liaison Committee
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\DC Addendum #2.docx
Page B-2
COUNTY OF BRANT-PROPOSED REVISIONS TO DC CALCULATION
SUMMARY
1.
Single & Semi-Detached PPU
2.
St. George Area Study
3.
Revised Growth Forecast
St. George 10 yr. gross population
Other (excl Paris)
10 yr. gross population
Sub-total
St. George 10 yr. GFA
Other (excl Paris)
10 yr. GFA
Sub-total
July, 2014 DC Study
Proposed Change
3.11
3.04
Total Water, Sewer, & Road
Water, Sewer, & Road
costs to be calculated on a
Charges were based on a 10yr
5,130 population equivalent, as
forecast and post period
per Phase 1 from the Area
benefit calculation based on
Study.
2,397 population equivalent.
785
1,121
1,913
1,577
2,698
2,698
140,100
178,200
203,500
165,400
343,600
343,600
4.
Paris-Post Period Benefit
No change to calculation
5.
Unserviced Development
see # 3 above
6.
Capital Cost Revisions
C-2-1
G-2-1
G-2-2
P-2-8
P-2-9
C-1-1
G-1-1
G-1-2
P-1-8
P-3-15
P-3-13
P-3-9
P-3-10
Sub-total
Other Project Changes
Additional Project removed (P-1-4)
Fire S-0-1
Studies S-0-50
Difference
1,909,200
11,325,500
857,500
2,065,300
1,029,600
3,745,000
920,000
8,629,000
485,400
1,746,100
2,229,200
5,389,300
94,400
40,425,500
1,776,000
10,500,000
790,000
1,915,000
1,000,000
3,500,000
920,000
8,250,000
450,000
1,620,000
2,100,000
5,100,000
90,000
38,011,000
3,494,700
300,000
100,000
44,320,200
400,000
250,000
38,661,000
(5,659,200)
7.
Transportation Master Plan Forecast
No change to calculation
8.
Roads Level of Service
No change to calculation
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Brant 2014 DC Model-revised
Page B-3
COUNTY OF BRANT-PROPOSED REVISIONS TO DC CALCULATION
SUMMARY
July, 2014 DC Study
9.
Roads Benefit to Existing
Proposed Change
No change to calculation
10. Fire Services
No change to calculation
11. Parkland Development
No change to calculation
12. Bike Pathways
No change to calculation
13. Library Facility Space
No change to calculation
14. Gilbert Well Debenture-Interest
15. Willow St. Debenture-Interest
2,000,451
1,590,776
568,459
458,197
16. Twin Pad Arena-Level of Service
No change to calculation
17. Grand River North SPS
No change to calculation
18. New Water Source-Paris
8,629,000
Project moved to 2025/26
19. Paris WTP Expansion
No change to calculation
20. Willow St. Watermain DC Credit
No change to calculation
21. Rest Acres Road Widening
No change to calculation
22. Public Works Maintenance
Equipment
23. Roundabouts
377,300
Moved from Paris Charge
377,300
Moved to County Wide Charge
No change to calculation
24. Grand River St. N Roundabouts
No change to calculation
25. Reconstruction of Dundas St. E
No change to calculation
26. Paris/SW Paris Reserves
No change to calculation
27. Grand River St. North Storm Sewers
No change to calculation
28. St. George Post Period Benefit
See #2 above.
29. Reserve Fund Allocations
No change to calculation
30. Missing Projects from Area Study
No change to calculation
31. Intersection/traffic control
Improvements
32. St. George Infrastructure
No change to calculation
33. Timing of Sewer Works
No change to calculation
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
No change to calculation
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Brant 2014 DC Model-revised
Page B-4
RESPONSE TO JULY 29, 2014 ALTUS REVIEW OF BRANT
COUNTY DEVELOPMENT CHARGE STUDY
1. Calculation of Population in New Units (Altus, p. 1)
The single-detached PPU for Brant County (including Brantford) was inadvertently used in the
development charge calculation. The calculation will be corrected using 3.04 PPU for singledetached units.
2. Approved St. George Area Study Not Reflected in Post Period Benefit Calculation
(p.2)
The new WPCP will be sized based on the assimilative capacity of the creek. Without the
studies being completed, it is not known how many units it will accommodate, however the
County is hopeful that it will accommodate the Phase 1equivalent population of 5,130 identified
in the Area Study. The basis for calculating the total water, wastewater, and road costs in St.
George is proposed to be revised assuming 5,130 equivalent populations.
3. Pace of Growth in St. George and Timing of Works (p.2)
Based on discussions with the County of Brant Development Services – Planning Division, we
have revised for the growth forecast for St. George. The revised forecast assumes
development is to commence in St. George during the post 2019 period, based on available
water and wastewater servicing. An annual average development of 80 units is assumed to
occur from 2019-2024. Over the long-term forecast period (2014-2031), the annual rate of
residential development for St. George is forecast to remain at just over 70 units per year.
4. Paris-Post Period Benefit Calculations in Appendix G (p.3)
The 8,184 additional persons allocated to Paris is calculated as follows:
Southwest Paris (as per 2010 DC Background Study, p. 3-4):

245 acres X 80% = 196 acres X 8 units per acre=1,568 units

245 acres X 20% = 49 acres X 13 units per acre=637 units

Single detached equivalents=1,568 + (637 X (1.94 ÷ 2.82))=2,006 + 197 Activa units =
2,203 units (or 2,203 X 2.82 = 6,212 gross population)

Less 2010-2013 building activity = 83 units X 2.82 = 234

Therefore, we are assuming the gross population to buildout in Southwest Paris is 6,212
– 234 = 5,978.
Rest of Paris (as per 2010 DC Background Study, p 3-7):
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\altus response.docx
Page B-5
2.

2010-2019 residential growth=600 single detached equivalents;

All projects received a 25% post period deduction, so buildout sde’s are approximately
600 ÷ (1-25%)=800 units;

Less 2010-2013 building activity = 18 units

Therefore, we are assuming the gross population of 2,205 (i.e. 782 units X 2.82) to
buildout in Rest of Paris
Therefore, the total gross population for Paris is 5,978 (SW Paris) + 2,205 (Rest of
Paris)=8,184.
5. Unserviced Development (p.3)
Between 2009 and 2014, an average of 66 residential building permits were issues per year
(new units only) in the rural area, plus Oakhill, Mt. Pleasant/Tutela Heights. Based on further
review of anticipated urban housing demand in Brant County, we have downwardly adjusted the
housing growth allocation to the partially serviced and unserviced settlement areas. This
translates to an average of 36 units per year over the 2014 to 2031 period, which is well below
the average annual rate of rural housing development experienced over the past 5 years.
6. Cost Increase vs. 2014 Capital Budget Forecast (p.3)
Early in the DC process it was determined to index remaining projects from the 2009/10 DC
background studies to 2014 costs. After further discussions with staff, the costs for projects
identified by Figure 2 from the July 2014 Altus memo, should not have been indexed. The
revised costs will match those from the 2014 capital budget.
Project P-2-3 - Paris Links Sewage Pumping Station Upgrades - the 2014 Capital Budget
includes $250,000 for the project, and the DC Background Study includes $2,065,300 for the
project. The 2014 capital budget amount is for project engineering design only. The balance of
the project, as costed out in the DC Background Study, will be reflected in a future capital
budget.
Project S-0-16 - Edgar Subdivision Park - the 2014 Capital Budget includes $75,000 for the
project, and the DC Background Study includes $185,000 for the entire project. The $75,000
was budgeted for 2014 for purchase of a play structure and goal posts. The balance will be
budgeted in the future to fund a parking area, storage bunker, walking track, and pedestrian
connection to Powerline Road.
Updated capital cost sheets are attached.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\altus response.docx
Page B-6
3.
7. Transportation Master Plan Forecasts (p.4)
The memo notes that the growth projections in the 2008 TMP are higher than those from the DC
Background Study, and thus suggests that there may be road works identified in the 2008 TMP
that may not be needed to service the reduced population as outlined in the DC Background
Study. Staff notes that the TMP is being updated and should be completed by the end of 2014,
following which the DC Background Study can be updated if applicable.
8. Roads Level of Service (p.5)
Roads level of service is attached.
9. Roads Benefit to Existing (p.5)
The location of the service affects the benefit to existing. For example, a new sidewalk on
Grand River Street North will benefit the existing residents as there are many residents in the
area. A new sidewalk on Rest Acres Road will not benefit many as the entire area is new
development. Therefore the percentages are different.
10. Fire Services (p.5)
The memo questions the differences in value of the Pumper Aerial and Pumper Tanker between
the 2009 DC Background Study and the 2014 Background Study. Staff have confirmed that the
values expressed in the 2009 DC Background Study for these assets was incorrect, as the
Pumper Aerial and the Pumper Tanker were listed as the same value when in fact the Pumper
Aerial should have been appropriately valued at $931,000. This has been corrected in the 2014
Background Study.
As part of this review, it was noted that the Onondaga Fire Hall Engineering costs should be
$400,000 not $300,000.
11. Outdoor Recreation-Parkland Development (p.6)
The memo questions the differentiated cost approach for parkland development in the 2014 DC
Background Study, as opposed to the uniform cost approach from the previous study. Staff
note that costs per acre have ranged between $75,000 and $150,000, based on the the type of
park such as a neighbourhood park or community park and the type of amenities that would be
required within each type of park. For example, a neighbourhood park is generally 1 to 2 acres
with only a small amount of walkways, trees and a single play structure and swing set. A
community park normally requires additional infrastructure such as water service and or sanitary
for washrooms as well as parking lots and paved walkways, as well as more robust play
structures and other recreational assets.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\altus response.docx
Page B-7
4.
12. Outdoor Recreation-Bike Pathways (p.6)
The memo notes that gross costs of $400,000 have been included for bike pathways, and
questions whether there are any set plans for these. Staff notes that this figure is a placeholder,
and that more definitive plans for the creation of bike pathways and bike lanes are being
explored in tandem through the TMP and the Trails Master Plan. Staff further note that the
creation of bike lanes and bike pathways is a critical and well identified part of providing a
healthy community and such initiatives are becoming increasingly common in municipalities.
Staff feels that the noted figure, although a placeholder, is conservative and appropriate given
existing information.
13. Library-Additional Facility Space (p.6)
The memo seeks clarification on the amount of $350,000 for "Additional Facility Space" in the
DC Background Study. Staff notes that there are needs study also to be funded through DC's
which would determine the additional facility needs for the County of Brant Public Library
service. The $350,000 "Additional Facility Space" figure is a conservative placeholder figure,
with an expectation that the needs study will identify a requirement for additional facility space.
14. Debt Payments-Gilbert Well Field Debenture (p.6)
Only interest costs are discounted in the development charge calculation; however the DC study
included a calculation error in the calculation of discounted interest. The discounted interest
now included in the calculation is $1,590,776 (2014-2031, discounted at 2% per year).
15. Debt Payments-Willow Street Pumping Station (p.7)
Only interest costs are discounted in the development charge calculation; however the DC study
included a calculation error in the calculation of discounted interest. The discounted interest
now included in the calculation is $458,197 (2014-2031, discounted at 2% per year).
16. Debt Payments-Twin Pad Arena Debenture (p.7)
The service level is calculated based on the services available to the County. The entire Twin
Pad Area floor area is providing service to the County and has been included in the service level
calculation. No deduction is required.
17. Upgrades Grand River North Sewage Pumping Station (p.7)
Unfortunately the capacity of the SPS is not as shown correctly in the Area Study (County C of
A is 133 L/s and the area study shows 275 L/s).
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\altus response.docx
Page B-8
5.
18. New Water Source for Paris (p.8)
Project timing to be revised to 2025/2026. As part of this review, it was determined that project
P-1-4 (New Zone 4 Water Storage) should also be removed.
19. Paris Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion (p.8)
In May the draft calculations for the Paris Wastewater Treatment Plant were calculated on the
basis of a separated charge in Paris (i.e. Southwest Paris and rest of Paris). The capital cost
tables in May indicated that $809,734 was to be recovered by new growth in Southwest Paris,
and $930,315 was to growth related in other areas of Paris. Therefore the total was
$1,740,049. The post period allocation was also refined from the draft May calculation (61%) to
the assumption that was used in the final background study (67%).
20. Willow Street Watermain DC Credit (p.8)
The watermain was not oversized at the County’s request. It was sized in accordance with our
water model and was required to service that development. While it could serve more land, it is
not oversized. (For example, the model says you need a 282 mm diameter watermain to
service the development but they don’t make a 282 mm diameter watermain so you have to
install a 300 mm diameter watermain. The watermain is therefore technically larger than what is
required but it is not oversized at the County’s request).
21. Rest Acres Road Widening (p.8)
The Rest Acres Road projects are attributable to the growth projected in the entire Southwest
Paris urban settlement area, and have been allocated between the residential and employment
DC based on the incremental population and employment forecast, resulting in a split of 63%
residential and 37% employment. Four of the Rest Acres Road projects fall into the area north
of the 403, while the remaining two fall to the north and south of Hwy 403 pretty much equally.
Therefore there is benefit to both residential and non-residential development.
22. New Public Works
Equipment (p.9)
Department
Maintenance
Equipment
(Snow
Removal
Removed project P-3-13 ($377,300) from Paris roads and added it to County-wide roads and
related vehicles project S-0-7 ($134,700). Revised cost included in the County-wide calculation
is $500,000 (rounded).
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\altus response.docx
Page B-9
6.
23. Relative Cost of Roundabouts (p.9)
Different size roads require different size roundabouts which has a cost difference.
24. Grand River St. N. Roundabouts (p.9)
A full life cycle costs of a signalized intersection vs. a roundabout is equal. Roundabouts have
higher initial costs and lower maintenance costs.
25. Reconstruction of Dundas Street East (p.9)
This could be delayed but no land could be developed in the area without it. There are no
sanitary sewers east of the tracks. The purpose of the project is to extend the services to the
area.
26. Reserve Fund Allocation from Paris and SW Paris to DC Services (p.10)
The December 31, 2013 reserve fund balances for Southwest Paris and Rest of Paris were
($12,375,049) and ($1,176,744) respectively. SW Paris Engineering ($12,375,049) is allocated
to Paris (SW Paris + Rest of Paris) sewer, water, roads, and storm, based on the September,
2013 DC quantum for SW Paris:
Service
Sewer
Water
Roads
Storm
Total
$ per SDU
4,700
8,659
11,133
248
$24,740
%
19%
35%
45%
1%
100%
Rest of Paris ($1,176,744) is allocated to Paris (SW Paris + Rest of Paris) sewer, water, roads,
and storm, based on the September, 2013 DC quantum for Rest of Paris:
Service
Sewer
Water
Roads
Storm
Total
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
$ per SDU
2,351
8,772
1,249
266
$12,638
%
19%
69%
10%
1%
100%
H:\Brant\DC 2014\altus response.docx
Page B-10
7.
27. New & Upgrades to Grand River Street North Storm Sewers (p.10)
The storm water for the existing residents is already addressed and these sewers will not
benefit the existing development. All new development is required to have a legal outlet. A
legal outlet means that they must convey the stormwater to a defined watercourse. Without
using sewers on Grand River Street North, each development will have to dig up the road to
upsize the storms sewers for their property.
28. St. George-Post Period Benefit Calculations (p.10)
See #2 above. i.e. Total costs calculated across 5,130 population equivalent, as opposed to a
post period benefit calculation.
29. Reserve Fund Allocations (p.11)
The reserve allocations for administration, fire protection, library, and ambulance are
straightforward. The other services require additional explanation:

Recreation $751,624 is the sum of indoor recreation and parks. It has been assumed
that 95% is allocated to indoor recreation as the indoor recreation and parks projects in
the 2009 DC Study were predominately indoor recreation.

Public Works $3,083,579 is allocated for County roads excluding Paris. Over the past
by-law period, approximately $1.4 million has been collected for the 2009 DC Study
project “Other Growth-related Components of General Projects”. The remaining reserve
balance is for road projects in St. George.

Water ($959,482) is allocated for County water projects excluding Paris. 39%
($374,198) is the amount of to St. George projects which require funding. The remaining
reserve is for water projects not in St. George or Paris.

Sanitary Sewer ($1,221,508) balance relates to the Willow St., Paris sewer which was in
the 2004 to 2008 DC.
30. Missing Projects Identified in Area Study (p.11)
The watermain to the industrial park is sufficient to provide fire flows to the area.
Beverly Street West and Scott Street intersection improvements will be at the developers cost.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\altus response.docx
Page B-11
8.
31. County Share of Intersection Improvements and Traffic Control (p.11)
These are being required because of development; therefore benefit to existing is minimal.
32. Forecast Growth Rate vs. Need for Infrastructure in St. George (p.11)
The new wells are required for security of supply.
off of a single source of water.
You cannot service the growing community
33. Timing of Sewer Works (p.12)
If there is no development, there is no need to upgrade the sewers or complete any sewer
works. The purpose is to ensure there is sufficient capacity for conveyance. In order to
complete the design, the funding must be made available. The timing of these works was given
to us by the St. George Landowners Group.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\altus response.docx
Page B-12
RESPONSE TO JANUARY 2015
ALTUS/BROOKFIELD HOMES FOLLOW UP REVIEW OF
BRANT COUNTY DEVELOPMENT CHARGE STUDY
Brookfield Homes
1. County-wide Roads Calculation (Brookfield Homes)
Historically the County has calculated its road DC on an area specific charge, however, roads is
more commonly calculated on a municipal wide basis. As mentioned in the Brookfield Homes
January 13, 2015 letter, compared to water and wastewater, allocating roads is more difficult in
determining where the demand for increased road capacity comes from.
Also, it is
acknowledged that often smaller communities outside of the larger growth areas also require
the arterial roads leading to the urban centres, and therefore should pay a share of the costs.
For discussion purposes, the roads DC charge has been calculated based on a County-wide
basis and is attached.
Altus Outstanding Questions
2. #17 Upgrades to Grand River North Sewage Pumping Station
Based on the revised information submitted for the NW Paris Area study, we believe that the
value can be reduced to $750,000 for this project. There will still need to be some modifications
completed but significantly less than originally shown. The revised calculation is attached.
3. #20 Willow Street Watermain
The answer had remained unchanged from the December 8th, 2014 Development Liaison
Meeting. The Willow Street Watermain does not qualify as a DC applicable item.
4. #21 Rest Acres Road Widening
As discussed at the December 8th, 2014 Development Liaison Meeting, the Rest Acres Road
projects are attributable to the growth projected in the entire Southwest Paris urban settlement
area, and have been allocated between the residential and employment DC based on the
incremental population and employment forecast, resulting in a split of 63% residential and 37%
employment. There are six projects which comprise the improvements to Rest Acres Road.
Four of the projects fall into the area north of the 403, while the remaining two projects are
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\altus response2.docx
Page B-13
2.
evenly allocated to the north and south of Hwy 403. The County’s Brant 403 Business Park
employment lands are south of Highway 403. Further, the revised roads calculation in #1 above
supports the approach of treating the roads program as a County-wide road network.
5. #23 Roundabouts
As discussed at the December 8th, 2014 Development Liaison Meeting and the Class EA calls
for Roundabouts which are what are included in the DC. From a need perspective, if there was
not any development, the traffic control would not be required. From a perspective of deciding
what type of traffic control is to be provided, municipalities have the choice to put in what capital
projects they find most efficient.
6. #29 Reserve Fund Allocation – St. George and Other Roads
The reserve fund allocation between urban areas would no longer be applicable should a
County-wide roads charge be proposed.
Altus New Questions
7. Post Period Benefit
See attached schematic diagram and calculation page.
8. Reserve Fund Balances
Page 4-7 from the July 7, 2014 DC Background Study summarizes the year end DC reserves
funds at December 31, 2013. There are three separate reserves relating to sanitary sewer, “SW
Paris Engineering”, “Rest of Paris”, and “Sanitary Sewer”. The SW Paris Engineering and Rest
of Paris reserves also include reserves for water, roads, and stormwater. At the December 8th,
2014 Development Liaison Committee meeting, the Watson/County letter response to Altus
included details on the assumption that approximately 19% of the SW Paris Engineering and
Rest of Paris reserves were for sewer, $2,350,959 and $218,905 respectively. The capital cost
calculations also include the Sanitary Sewer reserve (as summarized on page 4-7 from DC
background study) in the amount of $1,221,508.
This amount has been added to the Rest of
Paris reserve (i.e. $218,905 + $1,221,508 = $1,440,413). A revised capital cost sheet has been
included separating these two amounts for greater clarity.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\altus response2.docx
Page B-14
3.
9. Basis for Capital Works
The majority of the projects have been determined via Area Studies (SW Paris Area Study, NW
Paris Area Study, St. George Area Study, etc.). Also used were the previous DC background
studies and the County’s water modeling.
10. P-2-12 Paris Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion & G-2-1 Twinning St. George
WPCP
The need for adding additional capacity is growth driven. The St. George facility does not need
any work if there was not any development. However 10% has been assumed as a benefit to
existing deduction based on providing for the security of service. There are some minor things
at Paris that should be done regardless of development and therefore a 15% benefit to existing
has been provided.
11. P-1-3 Upgrades to Watermain around Willow Street & William Street
This project has been on the books and in the DC background study for many years. It is being
done this year due to the growth in the area.
If developments in the area had not been
approved, it would not need to be done at this time.
12. P-2-3 Paris Links Sewage Pumping Station Upgrades - BTE
The prior amount included in the DC was not the cost of the entire project. It is acknowledged
that the entire gross cost for the project should be included in the DC background study. A
revised calculation is attached to increase the cost in the DC background study to $5,000,000
and attribute 41% to benefit to existing.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\altus response2.docx
2014/15 DC **
2019 DC
YR 10
2024 DC
YR 15
YR 20
* SW Paris DC in 2010 was calculated on a buildout forecast, and Rest of Paris was on a ten-year forecast.
** Combined Paris calculation on a ten-year forecast.
2010 DC *
YR 5
25 + Years
POST PERIOD DEDUCTION SCHEMATIC
PARIS WATER, WASTEWATER, AND STORMWATER - RESIDENTIAL DC
Page B-15
* Estimated buildout 25-35 years
New Sanitary Sewer from CN Tracks on Dundas St. E to
Paris Rd. and part of Paris Rd.
New Sanitary Sewer Curtis Ave. and Consolidated Dr.
Watts Pond Rd. / Woodslee Ave / Wells
Paris Telfer Wellfield Upgrades
New Storm Sewer from CN Tracks on Dundas St. E to
Paris Rd. and part of Paris Rd.
New Storm Sewer Curtis Ave. and Consolidated Dr.
Total Costs
Gross Population (estimate)
Cost Per Capita
DC$ per SDU
vs.
Compared to 10 year calculation
Post 2023 Projects (to approx. 2035-2040)
(Residential Portion & Net of BTE)
2014-2023 Residential Potential DC Recoverable
Residential Portion (63%) of Post Period Deduction
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
286
$
348,748
75,433
1,210,536 $
8200
144 $
438 $
Stormwater
Drainage and
Control Services
$
316,215
$
470,139
6,123
13,941,650
8,200
1,700
5,169
254,011
61,041
6,774,267
6,852,330
Wastewater
Services
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
5,604
20,167,453
8,200
2,459
7,477
815,191
3,249,572
6,199,297
9,903,393
Water Services
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
12,013
348,748
75,433
35,319,638
8,200
4,307
13,083
254,011
61,041
815,191
3,249,572
-
13,289,780
17,225,862
Total
PARIS RESIDENTIAL WATER, WASTEWATER, AND STORMWATER CHARGE ESTIMATED ON A BUILDOUT BASIS *
Page B-16
Page C-1
Appendix C – Revised Growth Forecast
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\DC Addendum #2.docx
Page C-2
SCHEDULE 1
BRANT COUNTY
RESIDENTIAL GROWTH FORECAST SUMMARY
Population
(Excluding
Census
Undercount)
Year
Housing Units
Population
(Including
Census
Undercount)¹
Singles &
SemiDetached
10,050
11,090
11,640
11,950
13,645
14,823
1,040
550
310
1,695
2,873
Multiple
2
Dwellings
Apartments3
Total
Households
Other
Mid 2001
31,669
34,500
400
575
Mid 2006
34,415
37,400
570
525
Mid 2011
35,638
36,800
600
600
Mid 2014
36,292
37,500
638
659
Mid 2024
41,427
42,800
926
839
Mid 2031
45,460
47,000
1,177
980
Mid 2001 - Mid 2006
2,746
2,900
170
-50
Mid 2006 - Mid 2011
1,223
-600
30
75
Mid 2011 - Mid 2014
654
700
38
59
Mid 2014 - Mid 2024
5,135
5,300
288
180
Mid 2014 - Mid 2031
9,167
9,500
539
321
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2014.
1. Census Undercount estimated at approximately 3.4%. Note: Population Including the Undercount has been rounded.
2. Includes townhomes and apartments in duplexes.
3. Includes bachelor, 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom+ apartments.
25
55
95
95
95
95
30
40
0
0
0
Person Per
Unit (PPU)
11,050
12,240
12,935
13,342
15,505
17,075
1,190
695
407
2,163
3,733
2.87
2.81
2.76
2.72
2.67
2.66
FIGURE A-1
ANNUAL HOUSING FORECAST¹
350
313
300
Housing Units
254
250
235
230
212
200
220
220
220
220
235
220
235
235
235
220
220
220
220
220
210
187
179
179
163
151
150
139
123
123
121
100
50
0
Years
Historical
Low Density
Medium Density
High Density
Historical Average
Source: Historical housing activity (2002-2013) based on Statistics Canada building permits, Catalogue 64-001-XIB
1. Growth Forecast represents calendar year.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
10/1/2014
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Growth\
Brant County Growth Model June 12, 2014
500
945
336
615
296
683
15
20
548
610
1,695
2,873
2014 - 2031
2014 - 2024
2014 - 2031
2014 - 2024
2014 - 2031
2014 - 2024
2014 - 2031
2014 - 2024
2014 - 2031
2014 - 2024
2014 - 2031
SINGLES & SEMIDETACHED
2014 - 2024
TIMING
MULTIPLES
539
288
-
-
-
-
105
60
99
33
335
195
1
321
180
-
-
-
-
65
44
46
31
210
105
APARTMENTS
2
3,733
2,163
610
548
20
15
853
400
760
400
1,490
800
RESIDENTIAL UNITS
TOTAL
10,408
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
2. Includes bachelor, 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom+ apartments.
1. Includes townhomes and apartments in duplexes.
10/1/2014
6,061
1,701
1,535
56
42
2,378
1,121
2,120
1,121
4,154
2,242
IN NEW UNITS
GROSS
POPULATION
Residential distribution based on a combination of historical permit activity, available housing supply and discussions with County staff regarding future development prospects.
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2014
Brant County
Remaining Rural (No
Municipal Services)
Remaining Rural (Water
Only)
St. George
Remaing Paris
Southwest Paris
LOCATION
DEVELOPMENT
SCHEDULE 2
BRANT COUNTY
ESTIMATE OF THE ANTICIPATED AMOUNT, TYPE AND LOCATION OF
DEVELOPMENT FOR WHICH DEVELOPMENT CHARGES CAN BE IMPOSED
9,167
5,135
1,118
1,100
6
5
2,180
973
1,797
880
4,054
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Growth\
Brant County Growth Model June 12, 2014
(1,240)
(927)
(583)
(435)
(50)
(37)
(198)
(148)
(323)
(241)
(100)
2,167
POPULATION
INCREASE
POPULATION
CHANGE
(75)
NET
EXISTING UNIT
Page C-3
Page C-4
SCHEDULE 3
BRANT COUNTY
CURRENT YEAR GROWTH FORECAST
MID 2011 TO MID 2014
POPULATION
Mid 2011 Population
35,638
Occupants of
New Housing Units,
Mid 2011 to Mid 2014
Units (2)
multiplied by persons per unit (3)
gross population increase
407
2.76
1,122
1,122
Decline in Housing
Unit Occupancy,
Mid 2011 to Mid 2014
Units (4)
multiplied by ppu decline rate (5)
total decline in population
12,935
-0.0362
-468
-468
Population Estimate to Mid 2014
36,292
Net Population Increase, Mid 2011 to Mid 2014
654
(1) 2011 population based on StatsCan Census unadjusted for Census Undercount.
(2) Estimated residential units constructed, Mid 2011 to the beginning of the growth period, assuming a six month lag between
construction and occupancy.
(3) Average number of persons per unit (ppu) is assumed to be:
Structural Type
Persons
% Distribution
Weighted Persons
Per Unit¹
of Estimated Units²
Per Unit Average
Singles & Semi Detached
3.14
76%
2.39
Multiples (6)
1.94
9%
0.18
Apartments (7)
1.28
14%
0.19
100%
2.76
Total
¹
Based on 2006 Census custom database
² Based on Building permit/completion acitivty
(4) 2011 households taken from StatsCan Census.
(5) Decline occurs due to aging of the population and family life cycle changes, lower fertility rates and
changing economic conditions.
(6) Includes townhomes and apartments in duplexes.
(7) Includes bachelor, 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom+ apartments.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
10/1/2014
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Growth\
Brant County Growth Model June 12, 2014
Page C-5
SCHEDULE 4
BRANT COUNTY
TEN YEAR GROWTH FORECAST
MID 2014 TO MID 2024
POPULATION
Mid 2014 Population
36,292
Occupants of
New Housing Units,
Mid 2014 to Mid 2024
Units (2)
multiplied by persons per unit (3)
gross population increase
2,163
2.80
6,061
6,061
Decline in Housing
Unit Occupancy,
Mid 2014 to Mid 2024
Units (4)
multiplied by ppu decline rate (5)
total decline in population
13,342
-0.0694
-927
-927
Population Estimate to Mid 2024
41,427
Net Population Increase, Mid 2014 to Mid 2024
5,135
(1) Mid 2014 Population based on:
2011 Population (35,638) + Mid 2011 to Mid 2014 estimated housing units to beginning of forecast period (407 x 2.76 = 1,122) +
(12,935 x -0.0362 = -468) = 36,292
(2) Based upon forecast building permits/completions assuming a lag between construction and occupancy.
(3) Average number of persons per unit (ppu) is assumed to be:
Structural Type
Persons
% Distribution
Weighted Persons
Per Unit¹
of Estimated Units²
Per Unit Average
Singles & Semi Detached
3.04
78%
2.38
Multiples (6)
2.14
13%
0.28
1.60
8%
0.13
100%
2.80
Apartments (7)
one bedroom or less 1.39
two bedrooms or more 1.77
Total
¹
Persons per unit based on adjusted Statistics Canada Custom 2006 Census database.
² Forecast unit mix based upon historical trends and housing units in the development process.
(4) Mid 2014 households based upon 12,935 (2011 Census) + 407 (Mid 2011 to Mid 2014 unit estimate) = 13,342
(5) Decline occurs due to aging of the population and family life cycle changes, lower fertility rates and changing economic conditions.
(6) Includes townhomes and apartments in duplexes.
(7) Includes bachelor, 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom+ apartments.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
10/1/2014
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Growth\
Brant County Growth Model June 12, 2014
Page C-6
SCHEDULE 5
BRANT COUNTY
LONG TERM GROWTH FORECAST
MID 2014 TO MID 2031
POPULATION
Mid 2014 Population
36,292
Occupants of
New Housing Units,
2014 to 2031
Units (2)
multiplied by persons per unit (3)
gross population increase
3,733
2.79
10,408
10,408
Decline in Housing
Unit Occupancy,
2014 to 2031
Units (4)
multiplied by ppu decline rate (5)
total decline in population
13,342
-0.0930
-1,240
-1,240
Population Estimate to 2031
45,460
Net Population Increase, 2014 to 2031
9,168
(1) Mid 2014 Population based on:
2011 Population (35,638) + Mid 2011 to Mid 2014 estimated housing units to beginning of forecast period (407 x 2.76 = 1,122) +
(12,935 x -0.0362 = -468) = 36,292
(2) Based upon forecast building permits/completions assuming a lag between construction and occupancy.
(3) Average number of persons per unit (ppu) is assumed to be:
Persons
% Distribution
Weighted Persons
Per Unit¹
of Estimated Units²
Per Unit Average
3.04
77%
2.34
Multiples (6)
2.14
14%
0.31
Apartments (7)
1.60
9%
0.14
100%
2.79
Structural Type
Singles & Semi Detached
one bedroom or less 1.39
two bedrooms or more 1.77
Total
¹
Persons per unit based on adjusted Statistics Canada Custom 2006 Census database.
² Forecast unit mix based upon historical trends and housing units in the development process.
(4) Mid 2014 households based upon 12,935 (2011 Census) + 407 (Mid 2011 to Mid 2014 unit estimate) = 13,342
(5) Decline occurs due to aging of the population and family life cycle changes, lower fertility rates and changing economic conditions.
(6) Includes townhomes and apartments in duplexes.
(7) Includes bachelor, 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom+ apartments.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
10/1/2014
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Growth\
Brant County Growth Model June 12, 2014
Page C-7
SCHEDULE 6
BRANT COUNTY
HISTORICAL RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS
YEARS 2002 - 2013
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS
Singles & Semi
Detached
Year
Multiples1
Apartments2
Total
0
0
0
0
2002
197
15
0
212
2003
222
2
6
230
2004
280
33
0
313
2005
214
14
26
254
2006
150
22
38
210
1,063
86
70
1,219
213
17
14
244
87.2%
7.1%
5.7%
100.0%
2007
160
6
21
187
2008
112
26
1
139
2009
77
19
55
151
2010
97
1
25
123
2011
102
31
30
163
2012
113
7
3
123
2013
95
0
26
121
Sub-total
756
90
161
1,007
Average (2007 - 2013)
110
15
23
148
75.1%
8.9%
16.0%
100.0%
1,819
176
231
2,226
152
15
19
186
81.7%
7.9%
10.4%
100.0%
Sub-total
Average (2002 - 2006)
% Breakdown
% Breakdown
2002 - 2013
Total
Average
% Breakdown
Sources:
Building Permits - Statistics Canada Publication, 64-001XIB
1. Includes townhomes and apartments in duplexes.
2. Includes bachelor, 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom+ apartments.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
10/1/2014
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Growth\
Brant County Growth Model June 12, 2014
Page C-8
SCHEDULE 7a
BRANT COUNTY
PERSONS PER UNIT BY AGE AND TYPE OF DWELLING
(2011 CENSUS)
Age of
Dwelling
SINGLES AND SEMI-DETACHED
< 1 BR
1-5
-
6-10
-
11-15
-
16-20
-
20-25
-
1 BR
-
2 BR
3/4 BR
5+ BR
Total
2.074
2.993
5.000
3.137
2.196
2.961
4.200
2.900
2.481
2.976
4.741
3.082
-
1.875
3.103
3.944
3.050
-
1.742
3.053
3.880
2.919
1.750
25-35
-
2.520
3.167
3.818
3.103
35+
-
1.500
-
2.094
2.674
3.661
2.637
Total
-
1.581
2.115
2.825
3.988
2.801
Adjusted PPU¹
20 Year Average
3.14
2.90
3.08
3.05
2.92
3.10
2.64
3.04
1. The Census PPU has been adjusted to account for the downward PPU trend which has been recently experienced in both new
and older units, largely due to the aging of the population
2. Includes townhomes and apartments in duplexes.
3. Includes bachelor, 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom+ apartments.
Note: Does not include Statistics Canada data classified as 'Other'
PPU Not calculated for samples less than or equal to 50 dwelling units, and does not include institutional population
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
10/1/2014
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Growth\
Brant County Growth Model June 12, 2014
Page C-9
SCHEDULE 7b
BRANT COUNTY (INCL. BRANTFORD)
PERSONS PER UNIT BY AGE AND TYPE OF DWELLING
(2011 CENSUS)
Age of
Dwelling
SINGLES AND SEMI-DETACHED
< 1 BR
1-5
-
1 BR
2.000
-
2 BR
3/4 BR
5+ BR
Total
2.329
3.284
4.750
3.185
2.206
3.075
4.412
2.994
2.234
3.069
4.512
3.089
6-10
-
11-15
-
16-20
-
-
2.452
3.210
4.097
3.186
20-25
-
-
2.232
2.977
3.842
2.962
1.750
2.531
2.907
3.857
2.932
35+
0.083
1.583
2.051
2.691
3.657
2.573
Total
0.852
1.643
2.118
2.845
3.924
2.750
25-35
-
-
Age of
Dwelling
< 1 BR
1-5
-
1 BR
1.385
MULTIPLES2
2 BR
3/4 BR
5+ BR
Total
1.727
2.720
-
1.969
6-10
-
-
1.810
2.135
-
1.945
11-15
-
-
1.487
2.567
-
2.097
16-20
-
-
2.229
2.909
-
2.594
20-25
-
-
2.071
2.878
-
2.667
3.095
-
2.409
35+
0.604
1.363
2.148
3.024
-
2.375
Total
0.878
1.389
2.011
2.892
-
2.316
25-35
-
-
Age of
Dwelling
< 1 BR
1 BR
1-5
-
1.280
1.333
6-10
-
11-15
-
16-20
-
20-25
-
-
APARTMENTS3
2 BR
3/4 BR
5+ BR
Total
-
-
-
1.333
-
-
-
1.850
1.765
-
-
1.625
1.182
1.880
-
-
1.719
1.800
1.875
-
1.867
-
2.786
1.254
1.873
-
1.545
35+
0.719
1.234
1.740
2.678
-
1.586
Total
0.561
1.252
1.770
2.950
-
1.602
25-35
-
Age of
Dwelling
-
20 Year Average
3.18
2.99
3.09
3.19
2.96
2.93
2.57
Adjusted PPU¹
3.11
20 Year Average
1.94
1.93
2.09
2.59
2.66
2.41
2.37
Adjusted PPU¹
2.14
20 Year Average
1.28
1.81
1.61
1.71
1.86
1.54
1.58
1.60
ALL DENSITY TYPES
< 1 BR
1 BR
2 BR
3/4 BR
5+ BR
Total
1-5
-
1.423
2.133
3.247
4.727
2.959
6-10
-
1.371
2.043
2.987
4.324
2.781
11-15
-
1.708
1.864
3.038
4.556
2.886
16-20
-
1.895
2.221
3.174
4.029
2.973
20-25
-
1.423
2.045
2.939
3.793
2.814
25-35
-
1.329
2.115
2.872
3.857
2.507
1.313
1.954
2.691
3.561
2.373
35+
Adjusted PPU¹
1.214
Total
1.480
1.352
1.987
2.825
3.850
2.529
1. The Census PPU has been adjusted to account for the downward PPU trend which has been recently experienced in both new and
older units, largely due to the aging of the population
2. Includes townhomes and apartments in duplexes.
3. Includes bachelor, 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom+ apartments.
Note: Does not include Statistics Canada data classified as 'Other'
PPU Not calculated for samples less than or equal to 50 dwelling units, and does not include institutional population
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
10/1/2014
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Growth\
Brant County Growth Model June 12, 2014
0 00
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
3.14
1-5
1.97
1.33
2.90
11-15
2.10
3.05
16-20
2.59
1.72
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
2.92
Multiples
Age of Dwelling
1.63
Singles and Semi-Detached
6-10
1.94 1.85
3.08
10/1/2014
Multiple and Apartment PPUs are based on Brant County (Incl. Brantford).
Persons Per Dwelling
1.87
Apartments
20-25
2.67
3.10
25-35
2.41
35+
2.38
1.59
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Growth\
Brant County Growth Model June 12, 2014
1.54
2.64
SCHEDULE 8
BRANT COUNTY
PERSONS PER UNIT BY STRUCTURAL TYPE AND AGE OF DWELLING
(2011 CENSUS)
Page C-10
-0.00004
-0.00005
218
539
-0.0004
245
513
0.00015
-0.00006
549
-0.0008
9,167
0.00019
0.00002
-0.00007
-0.0019
-0.00160
0.0033
0.0002
0.00120
0.00172
0.00014
-0.0047
-0.00301
0.0205
0.0172
0.0004
-0.0233
-0.015
0.150
0.146
0.129
0.129
0.152
0.167
Industrial
0.00002
0.00016
0.00158
0.0018
0.00009
0.0004
0.0016
0.0047
0.0090
0.000
0.103
0.105
0.103
0.098
0.089
0.089
-0.00025
-0.00018
0.00058
0.0027
-0.00101
-0.0043
-0.0018
0.0017
0.0135
-0.005
0.051
0.053
0.055
0.053
0.040
0.045
Institutional
Activity Rate
Commercial/
Population Related
0.00112
0.00169
0.00216
-0.0024
0.044
0.046
0.047
0.047
0.051
0.043
1
NFPOW
-0.00017
-0.00015
0.00001
-0.0009
0.00167
Annual Average
-0.0028
-0.0015
0.0000
-0.0043
0.008
Incremental Change
-0.00538
0.0191
0.0169
0.0065
-0.0122
-0.027
0.374
0.372
0.355
0.349
0.361
0.388
Total
0.00095
0.00154
0.00218
-0.0033
-0.00371
0.0162
0.0154
0.0065
-0.0165
-0.019
0.419
0.418
0.402
0.396
0.412
0.431
Total Including
NFPOW
5
5
1
-10
13
84
50
2
-50
65
556
522
472
470
520
455
Primary
38
29
9
-52
-15
653
290
28
-260
-75
2,651
2,288
1,998
1,970
2,230
2,305
Work at
Home
124
138
33
-129
-12
2,113
1,377
100
-645
-60
6,798
6,062
4,685
4,585
5,230
5,290
Industrial
57
60
79
86
52
962
595
236
430
260
4,703
4,336
3,741
3,505
3,075
2,815
18
21
33
106
-10
311
210
98
530
-50
2,309
2,208
1,998
1,900
1,370
1,420
Institutional
Employment
Commercial/
Population Related
243
252
155
1
28
4,123
2,522
464
5
140
17,017
15,416
12,894
12,430
12,425
12,285
Total
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
10/1/2014
1. Statistics Canada defines no fixed place of work (NFPOW) employees as "persons who do not go from home to the same work place location at the beginning of each shift". Such persons include building and landscape contractors, travelling salespersons, independent truck drivers, etc.
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2014.
2001 - 2006
2006 - Mid 2011
Mid 2011 - Mid 2014
Mid 2014 - Mid 2024
Mid 2014 - Mid 2031
-0.0002
-0.0004
654
5,135
-0.0002
-0.008
0.058
-0.0095
0.012
45,460
0.055
0.055
0.001
0.013
41,427
-0.0019
0.013
36,292
0.055
0.065
0.073
1,223
0.013
35,638
Work at
Home
2,746
0.015
34,415
2001 - 2006
2006 - Mid 2011
Mid 2011 - Mid 2014
Mid 2014 - Mid 2024
Mid 2014 - Mid 2031
0.014
31,669
2001
2006
Mid 2011
Mid 2014
Mid 2024
Mid 2031
Primary
Population
Period
SCHEDULE 9a
BRANT COUNTY
EMPLOYMENT FORECAST, 2014 TO 2031
18
18
11
-18
81
302
180
32
-90
405
2,009
1,887
1,707
1,675
1,765
1,360
NFPOW ¹
Employment
204
223
145
53
43
3,470
2,232
436
265
215
14,366
13,128
10,896
10,460
10,195
9,980
Total (Excluding
NFPOW and Work
at Home)
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Growth\
Brant County Growth Model June 12, 2014
260
270
165
-17
109
4,425
2,702
496
-85
545
19,026
17,303
14,601
14,105
14,190
13,645
Total
Employment
(Including
NFPOW)
Page C-11
13
-10
1
5
5
549
245
218
513
539
84
9,167
124
138
33
-129
-12
2,113
1,377
57
60
79
86
52
962
595
236
430
260
4,703
4,336
3,741
3,505
3,075
2,815
2,309
2,208
1,998
1,900
1,370
1,420
Institutional
18
21
33
106
-10
Annual Average
311
210
98
530
-50
Incremental Change
Commercial/
Population
Related
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2014.
1. Square Foot Per Employee Assumptions
Industrial
1,500
(Includes development on unserviced land)
Commercial/ Population Related
550
Institutional
700
2001 - 2006
2006 - Mid 2011
Mid 2011 - Mid 2014
Mid 2014 - Mid 2024
Mid 2014 - Mid 2031
2
50
654
5,135
100
-60
6,798
-645
556
45,460
6,062
-50
522
41,427
4,685
4,585
1,223
472
36,292
65
470
35,638
5,230
5,290
Industrial
2,746
520
34,415
2001 - 2006
2006 - Mid 2011
Mid 2011 - Mid 2014
Mid 2014 - Mid 2024
Mid 2014 - Mid 2031
455
31,669
2001
2006
Mid 2011
Mid 2014
Mid 2024
Mid 2031
Primary
Population
Period
Employment
204
223
145
53
43
3,470
2,232
436
265
215
14,366
13,128
10,896
10,460
10,195
9,980
Total
186,441
206,550
50,000
3,169,500
2,065,500
150,000
10,197,000
9,093,000
7,027,500
6,877,500
Industrial
EMPLOYMENT GROSS FLOOR AREA (GFA) FORECAST, 2011 TO 2031
SCHEDULE 9b
BRANT COUNTY
31,124
32,720
43,267
529,100
327,200
129,800
2,586,700
2,384,800
2,057,600
1,927,800
Commercial/
Population
Related
12,806
14,700
22,867
217,700
147,000
68,600
1,616,300
1,545,600
1,398,600
1,330,000
Institutional
Total
230,371
253,970
116,133
3,916,300
2,539,700
348,400
14,400,000
13,023,400
10,483,700
10,135,300
Gross Floor Area in Square Feet (Estimated)¹
Page C-12
1,752,800
2,689,100
144,600
221,900
73,700
113,400
94,400
145,100
2,065,500
3,169,500
2014 - 2031
2014 - 2024
2014 - 2031
2014 - 2024
2014 - 2031
2014 - 2024
2014 - 2031
2014 - 2024
2014 - 2031
2014 - 2024
2014 - 2031
GFA S.F.
INDUSTRIAL
2014 - 2024
TIMING
1,500
550
700
Industrial
Commercial
Institututional
2. Square feet per employee assumptions:
-
3,169,500
2,065,500
1. Employment Increase does not include No Fixed Place of Work.
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2014
Brant County
Remaining Rural (No
Municipal Services)
Remaining Rural (Water
Only)
St. George
Remaining Paris
Southwest Paris
LOCATION
DEVELOPMENT
-
529,100
327,200
529,100
327,200
51,200
48,600
-
-
144,600
72,500
37,000
22,900
296,300
183,200
GFA S.F.
COMMERCIAL
-
217,700
147,000
217,700
147,000
23,000
22,400
-
-
57,600
32,000
15,200
10,300
121,900
82,300
GFA S.F.
-
3,916,300
2,539,700
3,916,300
2,539,700
219,300
165,400
-
-
315,600
178,200
274,100
177,800
3,107,300
2,018,300
GFA S.F.
INSTITUTIONAL TOTAL NON-RES
1
-
3,470
2,232
3,470
2,232
376
237
48
31
276
178
382
246
2,388
1,540
INCREASE
EMPLOYMENT
SCHEDULE 9c
ESTIMATE OF THE ANTICIPATED AMOUNT, TYPE AND LOCATION OF
NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR WHICH DEVELOPMENT CHARGES CAN BE IMPOSED
Page C-13
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Industrial
New
Improve Additions
4,817
645
2,477
3,398
3,384
796
3,972
929
528
6,098
1,093
5,470
9,296
1,611
850
2,939
1,109
333
2,701
650
0
3,071
1,158
2,169
2,263
1,985
0
3,831
902
886
7,022
1,336
1,080
41,733
1,623
2,607
91,140 16,425
17,197
73%
13%
14%
7,595
1,369
1,433
124,762
10,397
46.3%
Total
7,939
7,578
5,429
12,660
11,757
4,381
3,351
6,398
4,248
5,619
9,438
45,963
124,762
100%
10,397
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
94,190
7,849
34.9%
Total
6,709
6,010
7,015
12,906
11,182
7,993
4,366
14,486
10,614
3,810
6,574
2,525
94,190
100%
7,849
10/1/2014
Commercial
New
Improve Additions
5,962
349
397
3,770
2,240
0
4,882
1,357
776
11,502
1,404
0
9,745
1,437
0
6,606
1,386
0
826
1,200
2,341
14,385
101
0
4,985
235
5,393
2,354
977
480
3,330
2,644
600
1,353
742
430
69,699
14,073
10,417
74%
15%
11%
5,808
1,173
868
Note: Inflated to year-end 2011 (January, 2012) dollars using Reed Construction Cost Index
SOURCE: STATISTICS CANADA PUBLICATION, 64-001-XIB
2002 - 2013
Period Total
2002-2013 Average
% Breakdown
Subtotal
Percent of Total
Average
YEAR
Institutional
New
Improve Additions
130
885
0
2,198
418
0
458
70
1,463
1,521
1,899
0
7,214
336
0
1,219
2,057
0
14,276
335
0
176
309
3,819
302
509
0
2,606
142
0
5,677
955
740
851
222
0
36,627
8,137
6,022
72%
16%
12%
3,052
678
502
SCHEDULE 10
BRANT COUNTY
NON-RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION VALUE
YEARS 2002 - 2013
(000's 2014 $)
50,787
4,232
18.8%
Total
Additions
2,874
796
2,767
5,470
850
333
2,341
5,988
5,393
1,366
2,420
3,037
33,636
12%
2,803
269,738
22,478
100.0%
Total
15,663
16,204
14,435
28,987
30,489
15,650
22,328
25,188
15,672
12,178
23,384
49,561
269,738
100%
22,478
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Growth\
Brant County Growth Model June 12, 2014
Total
New
Improve
1,015 10,910
1,880
2,616
9,366
6,042
1,991
9,311
2,356
3,420 19,120
4,397
7,550 26,254
3,384
3,276 10,764
4,552
14,611 17,803
2,185
4,304 17,631
1,568
811
7,550
2,729
2,748
8,792
2,020
7,372 16,029
4,935
1,073 43,937
2,587
50,787 197,467
38,635
100%
73%
14%
4,232 16,456
3,220
Page C-14
Page C-15
SCHEDULE 11
BRANT COUNTY
EMPLOYMENT TO POPULATION RATIO BY MAJOR EMPLOYMENT SECTOR, 1996 TO 2011
Year
1996
Change
2001
2006
2011
96-01
01-06
06-11
Comments
Employment by industry
Categories which relate to
1.0 Primary Industry Employment
1.1 All primary
1,580
1,535
1,330
1,180
-45
-205
-150
Sub-total
1,580
1,535
1,330
1,180
-45
-205
-150
2,660
3,795
3,010
2,630
1,135
-785
-380
Categories which relate
2.2 Wholesale trade
720
690
765
615
-30
75
-150
primarily to industrial land
2.3 Construction
520
475
850
660
-45
375
-190
supply and demand.
2.4 Transportation, storage, communication and other utility
730
755
1,048
1,110
25
293
63
4,630
5,715
5,673
5,015
1,085
-43
-658
1,255
1,245
1,130
1,490
-10
-115
360
Categories which relate
3.2 Finance, insurance, real estate operator and insurance agent
235
205
210
350
-30
5
140
primarily to population
3.3 Business service
440
700
853
735
260
153
-118
1,410
1,250
1,660
1,595
-160
410
-65
3,340
3,400
3,853
4,170
60
453
318
local land-based resources.
2.0 Industrial and Other Employment
2.1 Manufacturing
Sub-total
3.0 Population Related Employment
3.1 Retail trade
3.4 Accommodation, food and beverage and other service
Sub-total
growth within the
municipality.
4.0 Institutional
360
280
250
535
-80
-30
285
1,240
1,355
1,320
1,530
115
-35
210
1,600
1,635
1,570
2,065
35
-65
495
Total Employment
11,150
12,285
12,425
12,430
1,135
140
5
Population
29,800
31,669
34,415
35,638
1,869
2,746
1,223
Industrial and Other Employment
0.16
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.03
-0.02
-0.02
Population Related Employment
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.12
0.00
0.00
0.01
Institutional Employment
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.00
-0.01
0.01
Primary Industry Employment
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.00
-0.01
-0.01
Total
0.37
0.39
0.36
0.35
0.01
-0.03
-0.01
4.1 Government Service
4.2 Education service, Health, Social Services
Sub-total
Employment to Population Ratio
Source: Statistics Canada Employment by Place of Work
Note: 1996-2011 employment figures are classified by Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
10/1/2014
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Growth\
Brant County Growth Model June 12, 2014
Page D-1
Appendix D – Changes to Background
Study
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\DC Addendum #2.docx
Page D-2
Appendix D – Changes to Background
Study
Based upon the above, the following revisions are made to the pages within the
Background Study (new pages are appended to this report):
•
Pages (i) & (ii) – textual changes to reflect the updated calculated
charges.
•
Page (iii) – recalculation of the summary of the gross capital costs and net
costs to be recovered over the life of the by-law and textual changes to reflect the
updates in the summary of the gross capital costs and net costs to be recovered
over the life of the by-law.
•
Page (iv) – recalculation of Table ES-1 schedule of development charges
•
Pages 3-5 & 3-8- textual changes to reflect the updated allocation in
housing units and employment.
•
Pages 5-2 & 5-3 – textual changes and chart update to reflect the updated
costs to administration.
•
Pages 5-13 & 5-14 – textual changes and chart update to reflect the
updated costs to fire.
•
Page 5-11 –chart update to reflect the updated costs to library materials.
•
Page 5-18 to 5-35– textual changes and chart update to reflect the
updated costs to roads, water and wastewater.
•
Tables 6-1 to 6-5 – recalculation of the charges, and new Table 6-4a
(proposed County-wide water, wastewater, & stormwater charge)
•
Table 6-5 – table updated to reflect costs to be incurred over the life of the
by-law.
•
Pages B-1 & B-21 – inclusion of the road level of service calculations.
•
Appendix C – Table C-1 – recalculation of operating and capital
expenditure impacts for future capital expenditures to reflect the updated
information for administration, fire, roads, water and wastewater.
APPENDIX
E
CONTAINS
AN
UPDATED
BY-LAW
WITH
AMENDED
SCHEDULE B
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\DC Addendum #2.docx
(i)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.
2.
The report provided herein represents the Development Charge Background Study for
the County of Brant required by the Development Charges Act (DCA). This report has
been prepared in accordance with the methodology required under the DCA. The
contents include the following:
Chapter 1 – Overview of the legislative requirements of the Act;

Chapter 2 – Review of present DC policies of the County;

Chapter 3 – Summary of the residential and non-residential growth forecasts for
the County;

Chapter 4 – Approach to calculating the development charge;

Chapter 5 – Review of historic service standards and identification of future capital
requirements to service growth and related deductions and allocations;

Chapter 6 – Calculation of the development charges;

Chapter 7 – Development charge policy recommendations and rules; and

Chapter 8 – By-law implementation.
Development charges provide for the recovery of growth-related capital expenditures
from new development. The Development Charges Act is the statutory basis to recover
these charges. The methodology is detailed in Chapter 4; a simplified summary is
provided below:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
3.

Identify amount, type and location of growth;
Identify servicing needs to accommodate growth;
Identify capital costs to provide services to meet the needs;
Deduct:

Grants, subsidies and other contributions;

Benefit to existing development;

Statutory 10% deduction (soft services);

Amounts in excess of 10-year historic service calculation;
 DC reserve funds (where applicable);
Net costs are then allocated between residential and non-residential benefit; and
Net costs divided by growth to provide the DC charge.
The growth forecast (Chapter 3) on which the development charge is based, projects the
following population, housing and non-residential floor area for the 10-year (mid 2014mid 2023) period, and on an population equivalent basis for St. George Water and
Wastewater.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\Brant DC 2014 Report-Add #2.docx
(ii)
Measure
10 Year (2014-2023)
Total
Paris
St. George
Other Urban
St. George
Water & Wastewater
Unserviced
(Net) Population Increase
5,135
3,047
973
5
1,100
Residential Unit Increase
2,163
1,200
400
15
548
2,539,700
2,196,100
178,200
165,400
Non-Residential Gross Floor Area Increase (ft²)
-
5,130
Population
Equivalent
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Forecast 2015
4.
On August 26, 2009, the County of Brant passed By-law 136-09 under the Development
Charges Act, 1997. By-law 136-09 imposes County-Wide development charges for all
County services (including water and sewer where available and all other services),
except that it exempts the entire Paris urban settlement from charges relating to sanitary
sewer, water and roads. By-law 136-09 will expire on August 31, 2014.
On July 20, 2010, the County of Brant passed By-laws 153-10 (amended by 90-12) and
152-10, which impose Area-specific charges (water, sanitary sewer, roads and selected
stormwater management services) for Southwest Paris, and the rest of the Paris urban
settlement area, respectively. By-laws 153-10 and 152-10 will expire on August 1, 2015.
The County is undertaking a development charge public process and anticipates passing
a new by-law, that incorporates both County-Wide and Area-specific charges, in
advance of the expiry date. The mandatory public meeting has been set for July 22nd,
2014 with adoption of the by-law subsequent to the public meeting.
5.
The development charges currently in effect are as follows:
County-wide (soft services)
Area-specific (including soft services)
Single Detached
Dwelling Units
$2,120
Non-residential
Per Square Metre
$3.55

Southwest Paris
$26,860
$57.61

Rest of Paris
$14,759
$45.15

Rest of County (urban areas)
$17,243
$152.07
This report has undertaken a recalculation of the charge based on future identified
needs (presented in Schedule ES-1 for residential and non-residential). Charges have
been provided on a County-wide basis for all services except for roads, water and
sanitary sewer, and stormwater services which are provided on an urban-wide basis.
The calculated charges are as follows:
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\Brant DC 2014 Report-Add #2.docx
(iii)
Single Detached
Dwelling Units
$9,516
Non-residential
Per Square Metre
$26.59
Urban services (water, wastewater, &
stormwater services)
$11,985
$38.00
Total Urban Services Areas
$21,501
$64.59
County-wide (soft services & roads
and related)
These rates are submitted to Council for its consideration.
6.
The Development Charges Act requires a summary be provided of the gross capital
costs and the net costs to be recovered over the life of the by-law. This calculation is
provided by service and is presented in Table 6-5. A summary of these costs is
provided below:
Total gross expenditures planned over the next five years
Less:
Benefit to existing development
Post planning period benefit
Ineligible re: Level of Service
Mandatory 10% deduction for certain services
Grants, subsidies and other contributions
Net Costs to be recovered from development charges
$ 52,663,005
$ 13,674,255
$ 9,906,184
$
$
225,198
$
17,170
$ 28,840,199
Hence, $23.82 million (or an annual amount of $4.8 million) will need to be contributed
from taxes and rates, or other sources. Of the total, $10.0 million is growth-related but
outside of the forecast period.
Based on the previous table, the County plans to spend $52.66 million over the next five
years, of which $28.84 million (55%) is recoverable from development charges. Of this
net amount, $23.06 million is recoverable from residential development and $5.80 million
from non-residential development. It is noted also that any exemptions or reductions in
the charges would reduce this recovery further. As well, $10.0 million is recoverable
from growth but outside of the forecast period. This leaves a net $13.82 million which
must be funded from taxes, rates or other sources.
7.
Considerations by Council – The background study represents the service needs arising
from residential and non-residential growth over the forecast periods. All services are
calculated based on a 10-year forecast. Council will consider the findings and
recommendations provided in the report and, in conjunction with public input, approve
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\Brant DC 2014 Report-Add #2.docx
(iv)
such policies and rates it deems appropriate. These directions will refine the draft DC
by-law which is appended in Appendix F. These decisions may include:

adopting the charges and policies recommended herein;

considering additional exemptions to the by-law; and

considering reductions in the charge by class of development (obtained by
removing certain services on which the charge is based and/or by a general
reduction in the charge).
Table ES-1
Schedule of Development Charges
RESIDENTIAL
Service
Single and SemiDetached Dwelling
Apartments - 2
Bedrooms +
NON-RESIDENTIAL
Apartments Bachelor and 1
Bedroom
Other Multiples
In Retirement
Homes &
Assisted Living
Facilities
(per m² of Gross
Floor Area)
(per ft² of Gross
Floor Area)
County Wide Services:
Roads & Related
6,298
3,667
2,880
4,433
2,072
23.14
2.15
Fire Protection Services
246
143
112
173
81
0.86
0.08
Police Services
112
65
51
79
37
0.43
0.04
Outdoor Recreation Services
1,090
635
498
767
359
0.54
0.05
Indoor Recreation Services
1,194
695
546
841
393
0.54
0.05
Library Services
309
180
141
218
102
0.11
0.01
Administration
264
154
121
186
87
0.97
0.09
3
2
1
2
1
-
0.00
9,516
5,541
4,350
6,699
3,132
26.59
2.47
Ambulance
Total County Wide Services
Urban Services 1
Stormwater Drainage and Control Services
Wastewater Services
217
126
99
153
71
0.86
0.08
5,742
3,343
2,625
4,042
1,889
18.84
1.75
1.70
Water Services
6,026
3,509
2,755
4,242
1,982
18.30
Total Urban Services
11,985
6,978
5,479
8,437
3,942
38.00
GRAND TOTAL RURAL AREA
9,516
5,541
4,350
6,699
3,132
26.59
2.47
GRAND TOTAL URBAN AREA
21,501
12,519
9,829
15,136
7,074
64.59
6.00
1
Includes Paris, St. George, and Other Urban Service Areas included in Schedules "C", "D", and "E".
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\Brant DC 2014 Report-Add #2.docx
3.53
3-5
1.
2.
Unit Mix (Appendix A – Schedules 1 through 6)

The unit mix for the County was derived from a review of historical development
activity (as per Schedule 6), as well as discussions with County planning staff
regarding anticipated residential and non-residential development potential for
the County.

Based on the above, the long-term (2014-2031) household growth forecast is
comprised of a housing unit mix of approximately 77% low density (single
detached and semi-detached), 14% medium density (multiples except
apartments) and 9% high density (bachelor, 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom
apartments).
Geographic Location of Residential Development (Appendix A – Schedules 2)

Schedule 2 summarizes the anticipated amount, type and location of
development for Brant County by settlement and unserviced areas.

In accordance with forecast demand and available land supply, housing growth
has been allocated to the following areas over the ten-year forecast period:
o
o
o
o
o
3.
Southwest Paris– 37.0%
Remaining Paris – 18%
St. George – 18%
Water Only- 1%
Remaining Rural – 25%
Planning Period

Short and longer-term time horizons are required for the DC process. The DCA
limits the planning horizon for certain services, such as parks, recreation and
libraries, to a 10-year planning horizon. Services such as roads, fire, water and
wastewater services utilize a longer planning period.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\Brant DC 2014 Report-Add #2.docx
3-8

In accordance with forecast demand and available land supply, total employment
growth (excluding work at home and NFPOW employment) has been allocated to
the following areas over the 10-year forecast period (Refer to Schedule 9c):
o
o
o
o
o
7.
Southwest Paris – 69%
Remaining Paris – 11%
St. George – 8%
Water Only – 1%
Unserviced – 11%
Non-Residential Sq.ft. Estimates (Gross Floor Area (GFA), Appendix A, Schedule 9b)

Square footage estimates were calculated in Schedule 9b based on the following
employee density assumptions:
o 1,500 sq.ft. per employee for industrial;
o 550 sq.ft. per employee for commercial/population-related; and
o 700 sq.ft. per employee for institutional employment.

The County-wide incremental Gross Floor Area (GFA) increase is anticipated to
be approximately 2.54 million sq.ft. over the 10-year, and 3.92 million sq.ft. over
the long-term forecast period.

In terms of percentage growth, the 10-year incremental GFA forecast by sector is
broken down as follows:
o industrial – (approx. 81%);
o commercial/population-related – (approx. 13%); and
o institutional – (approx. 6%).
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\Brant DC 2014 Report-Add #2.docx
5-2

Urban Design Guidelines;

Accessibility Plan (Recreation);

Trail Master Plan; and

Transportation Master Plan (Paris).
The cost of these studies is $1.2 million, of which $314,917 is existing benefit and the balance
associated with growth over the forecast period. In addition to these studies; an adjustment for
the reserve fund balance has been included for $79,757. The net growth-related capital cost,
after the mandatory 10% deduction and the application of the existing reserve balance, is
$755,039 and has been included in the development charge. This cost has been allocated 70%
residential and 30% non-residential based on the incremental growth in population to
employment for the 10-year forecast period.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\Brant DC 2014 Report-Add #2.docx
2015
2020
2014
S-0-53 Accessibility Plan (Recreation)
S-0-54 Trail Master Plan
S-0-55 Transportation Master Plan (Paris)
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Total
Reserve Fund Adjustment
2018
S-0-52 Urban Design Guidelines
2014-2023
2018
2015
2014-2018
S-0-49 Recreation Master Plan
Development Charges (two studies & area
S-0-50
specific
S-0-51 Archeological Master plan
S-0-48 Area Study East Paris
2014-2018
2014-2018
2014-2018
2014-2018
Community Improvement Parking Strategy
S-0-46
(Paris)
S-0-47 Economic Development Strategy
S-0-45 Comprehensive Review of Industrial Lands
S-0-44 Growth Strategy Update
2018
S-0-43 Intensification Study OP Background
0
80,000
1,151,600
200,000
35,000
25,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
250,000
40,000
0
0
1,151,600
200,000
35,000
25,000
40,000
80,000
250,000
90,000
120,000
60,000
79,300
0
60,000
42,300
10,000
60,000
Net Capital
Cost
0
0
0
0
0
90,000
120,000
79,300
60,000
60,000
42,300
10,000
60,000
Gross Capital
Post Period
Timing (year) Cost Estimate
Benefit
(2014)
2018
2014-2023
Increased Service Needs Attributable to
Anticipated Development
S-0-42 Official Plan update
Prj.No
Service: Administration Studies
County of Brant
314,917
79,757
100,000
7,000
12,500
0
8,000
0
31,500
12,000
7,930
30,000
6,000
4,230
1,000
15,000
0
836,683
(79,757)
100,000
28,000
12,500
40,000
72,000
250,000
58,500
108,000
71,370
30,000
54,000
38,070
9,000
45,000
81,644
0
2,800
1,250
4,000
7,200
25,000
5,850
10,800
7,137
3,000
5,400
3,807
900
4,500
Other (e.g.
10%
Statutory
Deduction)
Grants,
Subsidies and
Other
Benefit to
Contributions
Existing
Development Attributable to
New
Development
Subtotal
Less:
Less:
INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS COVERED IN THE DC CALCULATION
755,039
(79,757)
100,000
25,200
11,250
36,000
64,800
225,000
52,650
97,200
64,233
27,000
48,600
34,263
8,100
40,500
Total
228,756
(24,164)
30,297
7,635
3,408
10,907
19,633
68,169
15,952
29,449
19,461
8,180
14,724
10,381
2,454
12,270
30%
NonResidential
Share
Brant 2014 DC Model-revised f19
526,283
(55,593)
69,703
17,565
7,842
25,093
45,167
156,831
36,698
67,751
44,772
18,820
33,876
23,882
5,646
28,230
70%
Residential
Share
Potential DC Recoverable Cost
5-3
5-13
5.2.6 Fire Protection Services
Brant currently operates its fire services from 52,841 sq.ft. of facility space, providing for a per
capita average level of service of 1.30 sq.ft. per capita or $223 per capita. This level of service
provides the County with a maximum DC-eligible amount for recovery over the forecast period
of $1,146,902.
Three projects have been identified which include renovating the Onondaga Fire Hall and
renovating/expanding the Cainsville and Scotland Fire Hall for a total capital cost of $1.43
million. Of this total, $895,000 is allocated to benefit to existing development and a negative
reserve balance of $65,198 has been applied. This results in a net growth capital cost included
in the development charge of $530,198.
The Brant Fire Department has a current inventory of 30 vehicles. The total DC-eligible amount
calculated for fire vehicles over the forecast period is approximately $1,028,592, based on a
standard of $200 per capita. The need for a new rescue truck for Mt. Pleasant has been
identified. The net growth capital cost of $175,000 has been included in the development
charge.
These costs are shared between residential and non-residential based on the incremental
population and employment forecast, resulting in 70% being allocated to residential
development and 30% being allocated to non-residential development.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\Brant DC 2014 Report-Add #2.docx
Total
Reserve Fund Adjustment
Renovate Fire Hall Onondaga - Engineering
Renovation/Expansion Cainsville Fire HallConstruction
Renovation/Expansion Scotland fire hall Engineering
2014-2023
Increased Service Needs Attributable to
Anticipated Development
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
S-0-3
S-0-2
S-0-1
Prj .No
County of Brant
Service: Fire Facilities
2017
2016
2015
Timing
(year)
1,425,198
65,198
460,000
500,000
400,000
0
0
0
0
0
1,425,198
65,198
460,000
500,000
400,000
Gross
Capital Cost Post Period Net Capital
Estimate
Benefit
Cost
(2014)
895,000
0
345,000
250,000
300,000
Benefit to
Existing
Development
0
Grants, Subsidies and
Other Contributions
Attributable to New
Development
Less:
INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS COVERED IN THE DC CALCULATION
530,198
65,198
115,000
250,000
100,000
Total
160,636
19,753
34,842
75,743
30,297
30%
Brant 2014 DC Model-revised f19
369,563
45,445
80,158
174,257
69,703
70%
Residential Non-Residential
Share
Share
Potential DC Recoverable Cost
5-14
5-18
5.2.8 Roads & Related
The road structure, as approved by Council, designates classes of roads, thereby dictating road
widths and structural integrity, based on accepted Engineering principles. Road costs are
based on 2013 construction costs and include estimates for granular and asphalt materials, curb
and gutter, sidewalks and boulevards, standard street lights, structures (bridges and culverts),
storm sewers sized to drain the road system, based on one year storm and applicable
engineering. The County maintains 1,090 km of roadways, providing for an average level of
service of 0.03 km per capita or $14,831 per capita. This level of service provides the County
with a maximum DC-eligible amount for recovery over the 10 year forecast period of $76.2
million.
The County has identified 20 road projects for inclusion in the DC study. The gross cost of
these projects is approximately $46.6 million with a negative reserve fund adjustment of $2.7
million to be included for recovery. Additionally, $21.2 million has been allocated as post period
and $5.1 million for benefit to existing. This results in a net total cost of $17.2 million to be
included in the DC.
These costs are shared between residential and non-residential based on the incremental
population and employment forecast, resulting in 70% being allocated to residential
development and 30% being allocated to non-residential development.
The County operates their Public Works service out of a number of facilities. The facilities
provide 83,484 sq. ft. of building area, providing for an average level of service of 2.3 sq. ft. per
capita or $145/capita. This level of service provides the County with a maximum DC-eligible
amount for recovery over the 10 year forecast period of $0.7 million. The County has identified
an Expansion to the Works Buildings with a total cost of $420,400. Further, $21,020 is
considered benefit to existing development. The net amount included in the DC is $399,380.
The Public Works Department has a variety of vehicles and major equipment totalling
$11,108,770. The inventory provides for a per capita standard of $317. Over the forecast
period, the DC-eligible amount for vehicles and equipment is $1,673,342.
Additional
maintenance equipment has been identified for the forecast period, amounting to $500,000 of
which $50,000 has been allocated to existing benefit. The growth-related portion of these items
is $450,000, which has been included in the DC calculation.
These costs are shared between residential and non-residential based on the incremental
population and employment forecast, resulting in 70% being allocated to residential
development and 30% being allocated to non-residential development.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\Brant DC 2014 Report-Add #2.docx
New Sidewalks along Grand River Street North Paris
Reconstruction on Grand River Street North, Paris (due to storm)
Rest Acres Road Widening SW Paris Phase 1
P-3-6
P-3-7
P-3-8
P-3-9
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Reserve Fund Adjustment (Public Works)
Total
Recovery of Deficit from SW Paris Reserve Fund (assume 45% Roads)
Recovery of Deficit from Paris Reserve Fund (assume 10% Roads)
P-3-18 Rest Acres Road Widening SW Paris Phase 2
Reconstruction parts of Race St., Ball St., Hillside Ave, Dundas W.
P-3-17
St. (due to new Sanitary/Water)
SW Paris
SW Paris
2021
2021
2023
2021
SW Paris
SW Paris
P-3-15 Traffic Control on Rest Acres Rd. SW Paris
P-3-16 Traffic Control on Rest Acres Rd. SW Paris
2014
2020
2016
2020
2021
2018
2017
2017
2022
2021
SW Paris
SW Paris
SW Paris
SW Paris
SW Paris
North Paris
North Paris
East Paris
North Paris
East Paris
2023
P-3-14 Highway 403 Overpass Widening SW Paris
P-3-12 Power Line Road Reconstruction SW Paris
New Sidewalk on Rest Acres Rd. from King Edward St. to
P-3-10
Cobblestone Dr.
New Sidewalk on Laurel st from King Edward St. & link to Mechanic
P-3-11
St. & Penman Bridge
New round abouts(2) at North End of Grand River St. N
New Sidewalks (Dundas St. W., Consolidated Dr., Curtis Ave) Paris
East
P-3-4
Upgrades to Green Lane (1.7 km) East Paris
P-3-3
East Paris
Reconstruction from CN tracks on Dundas St E to Paris Rd and part
of Paris Rd (due to san/stm)
P-3-2
2020
North Paris
New sidewalk on Silver St.
P-3-1
2020
County Wide 2014-23
St. George
G-3-3 Main St. N & Andrew Intersection Improvements
2015
2015
Timing
(year)
C-3-1 Other Growth-related Components of General Projects
St. George
G-3-2 Hwy 24 & German School Rd. traffic control
Location
St. George
2014-2023
Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated Development
G-3-1 Road reconstruction St. George due to Sanitary upgrades
Prj .No
Service: Roads - County-Wide
County of Brant
8,235,000
489,513
889,380
889,380
1,152,900
1,372,500
33,028
49,410
2,799,900
292,736
67,734
18,620
1,451,751
327,662
1,500,795
12,444
0
39,780
143,438
1,440,495
5,685,068
116,296
6,765,000
513,587
730,620
730,620
947,100
1,127,500
50,272
40,590
2,300,100
445,564
71,066
22,080
1,523,149
388,539
1,574,605
13,056
1,387,611
22,620
81,563
819,105
46,562,175 21,206,466 25,355,709
5,685,068
116,296
15,000,000
1,003,100
1,620,000
1,620,000
2,100,000
2,500,000
83,300
90,000
5,100,000
738,300
138,800
40,700
2,974,900
716,200
3,075,400
25,500
1,387,611
62,400
225,000
2,259,600
3,083,579
8,188,954
1,500,000
200,620
162,000
162,000
210,000
250,000
29,155
9,000
510,000
258,405
27,760
10,175
594,980
179,050
615,080
5,100
0
9,360
33,750
338,940
0
Less:
Gross
Grants, Subsidies and
Capital Cost Post Period Net Capital
Benefit to
Other Contributions
Estimate
Benefit
Cost
Existing
Attributable to New
(2014)
Development
Development
INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS COVERED IN THE DC CALCULATION
3,962,648
81,062
3,669,849
218,147
396,344
396,344
513,779
611,641
14,719
22,019
1,247,749
130,455
30,185
8,298
646,959
146,019
668,815
5,546
967,203
9,243
33,327
334,688
70%
Brant 2014 DC Model-revised f19
(934,240)
5,201,058
1,722,421
35,235
1,595,151
94,821
172,276
172,276
223,321
265,859
6,398
9,571
542,351
56,704
13,120
3,607
281,210
63,469
290,710
2,410
420,408
4,017
14,486
145,477
30%
Residential Non-Residential
Share
Share
(3,083,579) (2,149,339)
17,166,755 11,965,696
5,685,068
116,296
5,265,000
312,967
568,620
568,620
737,100
877,500
21,117
31,590
1,790,100
187,159
43,306
11,905
928,169
209,489
959,525
7,956
1,387,611
13,260
47,813
480,165
Total
Potential DC Recoverable Cost
5-19a
Total
New maintenance equipment
2014-2023
Increased Service Needs Attributable to
Anticipated Development
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
S-0-7
Prj .No
County of Brant
Service: Roads and Related Vehicles
2015
Timing
(year)
500,000
500,000
0
0
500,000
500,000
50,000
50,000
0
Less:
Gross
Grants, Subsidies and
Capital Cost Post Period Net Capital
Benefit to
Other Contributions
Estimate
Benefit
Cost
Existing
Attributable to New
(2014)
Development
Development
INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS COVERED IN THE DC CALCULATION
450,000
450,000
Total
136,338
30%
136,338
Brant 2014 DC Model-revised f19
313,662
70%
313,662
Residential Non-Residential
Share
Share
Potential DC Recoverable Cost
5-20
5-21
5.3
Capital Costs for Brant’s Area Specific Development Charges for
Sanitary Sewer, Water, and Selected Stormwater Management
Works
This section evaluates the development-related capital requirements for all of the Area Specific
services over a 10-year planning period.
Where applicable, deductions for existing
development and for growth beyond 2023 requirements have been made. The basis for these
deductions is included in Appendix G.
5.3.1 Paris
5.3.1.1
Sanitary Sewer
The County has identified 10 projects and a debenture for sanitary sewer services in the Paris
urban settlement area for inclusion in the DC study. The gross cost of these projects is
approximately $21.3 million with a negative reserve fund adjustment of $3.8 million to be
included for recovery. Additionally, $10.9 million has been allocated as post period and $3.5
million for benefit to existing. This results in a net total cost of $10.7 million to be included in the
DC.
These costs are shared between residential and non-residential based on the incremental Paris
population and employment forecast, resulting in 63% being allocated to residential
development and 37% being allocated to non-residential development.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\Brant DC 2014 Report-Add #2.docx
2023
2022
North
North
Paris Links Sewage Pumping Station Upgrades
Willow St. Sewer Replacement
Upgrades Grand River North SPS
P-2-3
P-2-5
P-2-6
P-2-7
P-2-8
P-2-9
SW
Forcemain - South Sewage Pumping Station to Mile Hill Road SW
Paris
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Total
Recovery of Deficit from SW Paris Reserve Fund (assume 19% Sewer)
Recovery of Deficit from Paris Reserve Fund (assume 19% Sewer)
Recovery of Deficit from Sanitary Sewer Reserve Fund
SW
P-2-12 Paris Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion
25,059,969
2,350,959
218,905
1,221,508
6,202,100
754,900
2021
SW
2021
1,915,000
2023
SW
1,000,000
P-2-10 New West Sewage Pumping Station Paris
P-2-11 Upgrades sanitary sewer conveyance (Parts of Race St., Ball St.,
2020
458,197
SW
2,065,300
North
New South of 403 Sewage Pumping Station SW Paris
2020
1,232,899
North
750,000
495,000
5,000,000
1,032,600
362,600
10,855,332
0
3,215,789
391,416
1,168,150
610,000
1,259,833
279,500
752,068
411,750
256,658
1,799,500
566,897
143,771
Gross
Capital Cost Post Period
Benefit
Estimate
(2014)
Willow St. SPS Debenture (Principal)
Willow St. SPS Debenture (Discounted Interest)
2020
2022
East
North
New sanitary pumping station Paris East
P-2-2
P-2-4
2018
North
Location
Timing
(year)
New & upgrades to sanitary sewers on Grand River Street
North(Trillium Way to 100m North of Woodslee Ave)
2014-2023
Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated Development
P-2-1
Prj.No
Service: Wastewater - Sewers - Paris
County of Brant
Less:
14,204,637
2,350,959
218,905
1,221,508
2,986,311
363,484
746,850
390,000
805,467
178,697
480,831
338,250
238,343
3,200,500
465,703
218,829
3,472,970
0
0
0
930,315
113,235
0
0
0
0
0
75,000
74,250
2,050,000
103,260
126,910
0
Grants, Subsidies and
Net Capital
Benefit to
Other Contributions
Cost
Existing
Attributable to New
Development
Development
INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS COVERED IN THE DC CALCULATION
10,731,667
2,350,959
218,905
1,221,508
2,055,996
250,249
746,850
390,000
805,467
178,697
480,831
263,250
164,093
1,150,500
362,443
91,919
Total
3,957,399
866,937
80,723
450,442
758,167
92,282
275,408
143,816
297,023
65,896
177,311
97,076
60,511
424,257
133,654
33,896
37%
Non-Residential
Share
Brant 2014 DC Model-revised f19
6,774,267
1,484,022
138,182
771,066
1,297,829
157,968
471,442
246,184
508,444
112,801
303,520
166,174
103,582
726,243
228,789
58,023
63%
Residential
Share
Potential DC Recoverable
5-22
5-23
5.3.1.2
Water
The County has identified 9 water projects and a Gilbert Well Field debenture repayment in the
Paris urban settlement area for inclusion in the DC study. The gross cost of these projects is
approximately $23.5 million with a negative reserve fund adjustment of $5.1 million to be
included for recovery. Additionally, $15.7 million has been allocated as post period and $3.2
million for benefit to existing. This results in a net total cost of $9.9 million to be included in the
DC.
These costs are shared between residential and non-residential based on the incremental
population and employment forecast, resulting in 63% being allocated to residential
development and 37% being allocated to non-residential development.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\Brant DC 2014 Report-Add #2.docx
East
Upgrades to existing Elevated Water Tank Zone 4 Paris
2020
2018
SW
SW
Gilbert Well Field: Revised Pricing in "Increase Permit to
Take Water"
Paris New Zone 3 elevated Storage
P-1-8
P-1-9
SW
SW
P-1-11 Gilbert Well Field Debenture (Principal)
P-1-12 Gilbert Well Field Debenture (Discounted Interest)
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Total
Recovery of Deficit from SW Paris Reserve Fund (assume 35% Water)
Recovery of Deficit from Paris Reserve Fund (assume 69% Water)
SW
P-1-10 Upgrade Watermain (Paris of Race St., St. Ball St., Hillside
P-1-7
2021
2021
North
2018
North
P-1-6
New Water source for North Paris
2017
2022
2015
2014
Timing
(year)
Upgrade watermain Grand River St. North (Trillium Way to
100m north of Woodslee Ave)
P-1-5
Willow St. Watermain
East
East
Upgrade Parkhill Water Pumping Station Paris East
North
Paris New Zone 1 elevated Storage - Design 95% Complete
Paris
P-1-2
P-1-3
2014-2023
Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated
Development
P-1-1
Prj.No
Service: Water - Paris
County of Brant
28,686,793
4,331,267
816,775
1,590,776
3,990,075
258,000
3,494,700
450,000
8,629,000
194,100
449,900
682,200
500,000
3,300,000
15,688,768
0
0
970,374
2,433,946
133,773
1,918,590
247,050
7,766,100
76,961
246,995
613,980
274,500
1,006,500
Gross
Capital Cost Post Period
Benefit
Estimate
(2014)
12,998,025
4,331,267
816,775
620,403
1,556,129
124,227
1,576,110
202,950
862,900
117,139
202,905
68,220
225,500
2,293,500
Net Capital
Cost
3,177,215
0
0
0
0
38,700
349,470
45,000
862,900
67,935
44,990
68,220
50,000
1,650,000
Benefit to
Existing
Development
INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS COVERED IN THE DC CALCULATION
0
Grants, Subsidies and
Other Contributions
Attributable to New
Development
Less:
9,820,810
4,331,267
816,775
620,403
1,556,129
85,527
1,226,640
157,950
0
49,204
157,915
0
175,500
643,500
Total
3,621,513
1,597,194
301,193
228,779
573,837
31,539
452,335
58,245
0
18,145
58,233
0
64,717
237,296
37%
Non-Residential
Share
Brant 2014 DC Model-revised f19
6,199,297
2,734,073
515,582
391,624
982,292
53,988
774,305
99,705
0
31,060
99,682
0
110,783
406,204
63%
Residential
Share
Potential DC Recoverable
5-24
5-25
5.3.1.3
Roads
Roads services are proposed to be calculated on a County-wide basis.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\Brant DC 2014 Report-Add #2.docx
5-26
This page is intentionally left blank.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\Brant DC 2014 Report-Add #2.docx
5-29
5.3.2 St. George & Other Urban Areas
5.3.2.1
Sanitary Sewer
The County currently services the area of St. George & other Urban Areas (i.e. urban areas
other than St. George and Paris) for sanitary sewer service and has identified four projects for
inclusion in the DC study. The projects for the St. George area include the Twinning St. George
Water Pollution Control Plant and upgrades to the sanitary sewer conveyance system. The
gross cost of these projects is approximately $11.3 million with $1.2 million for benefit to
existing. This results in a net total cost of $10.1 million to be included in the DC.
As for the other areas, upgrades and additional capacity for the Airport WPCP were identified.
The gross cost of these projects is approximately $2.3 million with $0.8 million being allocated
as post period and $0.8 million for benefit to existing. This results in a net total cost of $0.8
million to be included in the DC.
These costs are shared between residential and non-residential based on the incremental
population and employment forecast, resulting in 82% being allocated to residential
development and 18% being allocated to non-residential development.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\Brant DC 2014 Report-Add #2.docx
St. George
Upgrades sanitary sewer conveyance system St. George
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Total
St. George
Twining St. George Water Pollution Control Plant
Location
G-2-2
2014-2023
Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated Development
G-2-1
Prj.No
Service: Wastewater - St. George
County of Brant
2014
2014
Timing
(year)
11,290,000
790,000
10,500,000
0
Gross
Capital Cost Post Period
Benefit
Estimate
(2014)
Less:
11,290,000
790,000
10,500,000
1,168,500
118,500
1,050,000
0
Grants, Subsidies and
Net Capital
Benefit to
Other Contributions
Cost
Existing
Attributable to New
Development
Development
INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS COVERED IN THE DC CALCULATION
10,121,500
671,500
9,450,000
Total
1,688,273
112,007
1,576,266
17%
Non-Residential
Share
Brant 2014 DC Model-revised f19
8,433,227
559,493
7,873,734
83%
Residential
Share
Potential DC Recoverable
5-30
Additional Capacity at Airport WPCP
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Total
Upgrades to Airport WPCP
C-2-2
2014-2023
Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated Development
C-2-1
Prj.No
Service: Wastewater - Other Urban Areas excluding Paris & St. George
County of Brant
Airport
Location
Airport
2014
2020
Timing
(year)
2,315,300
539,300
1,776,000
758,050
269,650
488,400
Gross
Capital Cost Post Period
Benefit
Estimate
(2014)
Less:
1,557,250
269,650
1,287,600
799,200
0
799,200
0
Grants, Subsidies and
Net Capital
Benefit to
Other Contributions
Cost
Existing
Attributable to New
Development
Development
INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS COVERED IN THE DC CALCULATION
758,050
269,650
488,400
Total
126,443
44,978
81,465
17%
Non-Residential
Share
Brant 2014 DC Model-revised f19
631,607
224,672
406,935
83%
Residential
Share
Potential DC Recoverable
5-31
5-32
5.3.2.2
Water
The County has identified four growth related projects in the areas of St. George, Mt. Pleasant
and the Airport for water services. The projects for the St. George area include upgrades to the
well supply standby power and increase PTTW for existing wells. The gross cost of these
projects is approximately $9.5 million with $1.3 million for benefit to existing. A reserve fund
recovery of $374,198 has also been included in the DC. This results in a net total cost of $8.3
million to be included in the DC.
As for the other urban areas, an expansion to the Mt. Pleasant WTP and additional water
storage at the Airport were identified. The gross cost of these projects is approximately $7.0
million with $4.4 million being allocated as post period and $0.7 million for benefit to existing. A
reserve fund recovery of $585,284 has also been included in the DC. This results in a net total
cost of $2.5 million to be included in the DC.
These costs are shared between residential and non-residential based on the incremental
population and employment forecast, resulting in 83% being allocated to residential
development and 17% being allocated to non-residential development.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\Brant DC 2014 Report-Add #2.docx
St. George
New source of water / increase PTTW for existing wells, St.
George
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Total
Recovery of Deficit Reserve Fund
St. George
Upgrades to standby power St. George Well Supply
Location
G-1-1
2014-2023
Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated
Development
G-1-2
Prj.No
Service: Water - St. George
County of Brant
2014
2015
Timing
(year)
9,544,198
374,198
8,250,000
920,000
0
0
Gross
Capital Cost Post Period
Benefit
Estimate
(2014)
9,544,198
374,198
8,250,000
920,000
Net Capital
Cost
1,285,000
0
825,000
460,000
Benefit to
Existing
Development
INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS COVERED IN THE DC CALCULATION
0
Grants, Subsidies and
Other Contributions
Attributable to New
Development
Less:
8,259,198
374,198
7,425,000
460,000
Total
1,377,640
62,416
1,238,495
76,728
17%
Non-Residential
Share
Brant 2014 DC Model-revised f19
6,881,558
311,781
6,186,505
383,272
83%
Residential
Share
Potential DC Recoverable
5-33
Mt. Pleasant WTP Expansion
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Total
Recovery of Deficit Reserve Fund
Airport additional water storage
C-1-2
2014-2023
Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated
Development
C-1-1
Prj.No
Service: Water - Other Urban Areas excluding Paris & St. George
County of Brant
Mt. Pleasant
Airport
Location
2019
2014
Timing
(year)
7,585,284
585,284
3,500,000
3,500,000
4,378,500
0
2,803,500
1,575,000
Gross
Capital Cost Post Period
Benefit
Estimate
(2014)
3,206,784
585,284
696,500
1,925,000
Net Capital
Cost
700,000
0
350,000
350,000
Benefit to
Existing
Development
INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS COVERED IN THE DC CALCULATION
0
Grants, Subsidies and
Other Contributions
Attributable to New
Development
Less:
2,506,784
585,284
346,500
1,575,000
Total
418,133
97,626
57,796
262,711
17%
Non-Residential
Share
Brant 2014 DC Model-revised f19
2,088,651
487,658
288,704
1,312,289
83%
Residential
Share
Potential DC Recoverable
5-34
5-35
5.3.2.3
Roads
Roads services are proposed to be calculated on a County-wide basis.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\Brant DC 2014 Report-Add #2.docx
6-1
6.
DEVELOPMENT CHARGE CALCULATION
Tables 6-1, 6-2, and 6-3 calculate the proposed uniform development charges to be imposed for
water, wastewater, and stormwater services in the urban areas of Paris, St. George, and other
urban areas in the County other than Paris and St. George on an area-specific basis. Table 64a provides a proposed uniform development charge for water, wastewater, and stormwater
services on a County-wide basis. Table 6-4 calculates the proposed uniform development
charge to be imposed on anticipated development in the County for general services (including
roads) over a 10-year planning horizon.
The calculation for residential development is generated on a per capita basis and is based
upon five forms of housing types (single and semi-detached, apartments 2+ bedrooms,
apartments bachelor and 1 bedroom, all other multiples). The non-residential development
charge has been calculated on a per sq.ft. of gross floor area basis for all types of nonresidential development (industrial, commercial and institutional).
The DC-eligible costs for each service component were developed in Chapter 5 for all municipal
services, based on their proposed capital programs.
For Tables 6-1, 6-3, and 6-4, the residential calculations, the total cost is divided by the “gross”
(new resident) population to determine the per capita amount.
The eligible DC cost
calculations set out in Chapter 5 are based on the net anticipated population increase (the
forecast new unit population less the anticipated decline in existing units). The cost per capita is
then multiplied by the average occupancy of the new units (Appendix A, Schedule 5) to
calculate the charge in Tables 6-1, 6-3 and 6-4.
With respect to non-residential development, the total costs in the uniform charge allocated to
non-residential development (based on need for service) have been divided by the anticipated
development over the planning period to calculate a cost per sq.ft. of gross floor area.
Table 6-2 is calculated slightly different basis. The County is hopeful that it will accommodate
the St. George Phase 1equivalent population of 5,130 identified in the Area Study. The basis
for calculating the total water, wastewater, and road costs in St. George is proposed to be
revised assuming 5,130 equivalent populations. Table 6-4a is calculated as a weighted average
of Tables 6-1, 6-2, and 6-3.
Table 6-5 summarizes the total development charge that is applicable and Table 6-6
summarizes the gross capital expenditures and sources of revenue for works to be undertaken
during the 5-year life of the by-law.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\Brant DC 2014 Report-Add #2.docx
6-2
TABLE 6-1
COUNTY OF BRANT
DEVELOPMENT CHARGE CALCULATION
Urban Services (Paris)
2014-2023
2014 $ DC Eligible Cost
Residential
Non-Residential
SERVICE
$
1.
Stormwater Drainage and Control Services
2.
3.
$
2014 $ DC Eligible Cost
SDU
per ft²
$
$
363,982
212,631
329
0.10
Wastewater Services
6,774,267
3,957,399
6,124
1.80
Water Services
6,199,297
3,621,513
5,604
1.65
TOTAL
$13,337,546
$7,791,543
$12,057
3.55
DC ELIGIBLE CAPITAL COST
10 Year Gross Population / GFA Growth (ft².)
Cost Per Capita / Non-Residential GFA (ft².)
$13,337,546
3,363
$3,965.97
$7,791,543
2,196,100
$3.55
By Residential Unit Type
Single and Semi-Detached Dwelling
Apartments - 2 Bedrooms +
Apartments - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom
Other Multiples
In Retirement Homes & Assisted Living F
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
p.p.u
3.04
1.77
1.39
2.14
1.00
per m2
$38.21
$12,057
$7,020
$5,513
$8,487
$3,966
Brant 2014 DC Model-revised f19
6-3
TABLE 6-2
COUNTY OF BRANT
DEVELOPMENT CHARGE CALCULATION
Urban Services (St. George)
2014-2023
Gross Cost
Less: Benefit to Existing
$
$
Net Cost
Population Equivalent
Cost Per Capita
Development Charge Calculation
By Residential Unit Type
Single and Semi-Detached Dwelling
Apartments - 2 Bedrooms +
Apartments - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom
Other Multiples
In Retirement Homes & Assisted Living Facilities
$
Water
9,544,198
1,285,000
$
8,259,198
5,130
1,609.98
$
$
$
$
$
1001 $
3.04
1.77
1.39
2.14
1.00
$
$
$
Wastewater
11,290,000
1,168,500
$
$
$
Total
20,834,198
2,453,500
$
10,121,500
5,130
1,973.00
$
18,380,698
5,130
3,582.98
4,894.34
2,849.66
2,237.87
3,445.36
1,609.98
$
$
$
$
$
5,997.92
3,492.21
2,742.47
4,222.22
1,973.00
$
$
$
$
$
10,892.26
6,341.87
4,980.34
7,667.58
3,582.98
1.61
$
1.97
$
3.58
Non-residential GFA (ft.2 )
Average Sq.ft. Per Employee
(178,200 ft. 2 / 178 employees)
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Brant 2014 DC Model-revised f19
6-4
TABLE 6-3
COUNTY OF BRANT
DEVELOPMENT CHARGE CALCULATION
Urban Services (Excluding St. George & Paris)
2014-2023
2014 $ DC Eligible Cost
Residential
Non-Residential
SERVICE
$
1.
Stormwater Drainage and Control Services
2.
Wastewater Services
3.
Water Services
2014 $ DC Eligible Cost
SDU
per ft²
$
$
$
0
0
631,607
126,443
3,158
0.76
2,088,651
418,133
10,443
2.53
TOTAL
$2,720,257
$544,576
$13,601
3.29
DC ELIGIBLE CAPITAL COST
10 Year Gross Population / GFA Growth (ft².)
Cost Per Capita / Non-Residential GFA (ft².)
$2,720,257
608
$4,474.11
$544,576
165,400
$3.29
By Residential Unit Type
Single and Semi-Detached Dwelling
Apartments - 2 Bedrooms +
Apartments - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom
Other Multiples
In Retirement Homes & Assisted Living F
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
p.p.u
3.04
1.77
1.39
2.14
1.00
0
0.00
per m2
$35.41
$13,601
$7,919
$6,219
$9,575
$4,474
Brant 2014 DC Model-revised f19
6-5
TABLE 6-4
COUNTY OF BRANT
DEVELOPMENT CHARGE CALCULATION
Municipal-wide Services
2014-2023
2014 $ DC Eligible Cost
Residential
Non-Residential
SERVICE
$
5. Roads & Related
5.1 Roads
5.2 Depots and Domes
5.3 PW Rolling Stock
$
2014 $ DC Eligible Cost
SDU
per ft²
$
$
11,965,696
278,379
313,662
12,557,737
5,201,058
121,001
136,338
5,458,397
6,001
140
157
6,298
2.05
0.05
0.05
2.15
369,563
121,980
491,542
160,636
53,020
213,656
185
61
246
0.06
0.02
0.08
223,872
97,328
112
0.04
2,174,050
114,424
1,090
0.05
2,380,470
125,288
1,194
0.05
228,422
385,981
614,403
12,022
20,315
32,337
115
194
309
0.00
0.01
0.01
526,283
228,756
264
0.09
6,686
6,686
2,906
2,906
3
3
0.00
0.00
TOTAL
$18,975,042
$6,273,092
$9,516
$2.47
DC ELIGIBLE CAPITAL COST
10 Year Gross Population / GFA Growth (ft².)
Cost Per Capita / Non-Residential GFA (ft².)
$18,975,042
6,061
$3,130.68
$6,273,092
2,539,700
$2.47
6. Fire Protection Services
6.1 Fire facilities
6.2 Fire vehicles
7. Police Services
7.1 Police facilities
8. Outdoor Recreation Services
8.1 Parkland development, amenities & trails
9. Indoor Recreation Services
9.1 Recreation facilities
10. Library Services
10.1 Library facilities
10.2 Library materials
11. Administration
11.1 Studies
12. Ambulance
12.1 Vehicles
By Residential Unit Type
Single and Semi-Detached Dwelling
Apartments - 2 Bedrooms +
Apartments - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom
Other Multiples
In Retirement Homes & Assisted Living F
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
p.p.u
3.04
1.77
1.39
2.14
1.00
per m2
$26.59
$9,517
$5,541
$4,352
$6,700
$3,131
Brant 2014 DC Model-revised f19
6-6
TABLE 6-4a
COUNTY OF BRANT
DEVELOPMENT CHARGE CALCULATION
PARIS, ST. GEORGE, AND OTHER URBAN SERVICE AREAS
2014-2023
2014 $ DC Eligible Cost
Residential
Non-Residential
SERVICE
$
1.
Stormwater Drainage and Control Services
2.
Wastewater Services
3.
Water Services
$
$
363,982
1
212,631
1
6,774,267
2,211,733
631,607
9,617,607
1
3,957,399
351,194
126,443
4,435,037
1
6,199,297
1,804,788
2,088,651
10,092,736
1
3,621,513
286,576
418,133
4,326,222
1
2
4
2
4
TOTAL
$20,074,325
$8,973,890
DC ELIGIBLE CAPITAL COST
10 Year Gross Population / GFA Growth (ft².)
$20,074,325
$8,973,890
3,363
1,121
608
2,196,100
178,200
165,400
5,092
$3,942.33
2,539,700
$3.53
Paris
St. George
Other Urban Areas
Sub-total
Cost Per Capita / Non-Residential GFA (ft².)
By Residential Unit Type
Single and Semi-Detached Dwelling
Apartments - 2 Bedrooms +
Apartments - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom
Other Multiples
In Retirement Homes & Assisted Living Fa
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
p.p.u
3.04
1.77
1.39
2.14
1.00
2014 $ DC Eligible Cost
SDU
per ft²
$
217
0.08
5,742
1.75
6,026
1.70
$11,985
3.53
3
4
3
4
per m
$11,985
$6,978
$5,480
$8,437
$3,942
Brant 2014 DC Model-revised f19
2
$38.00
6-7
TABLE 6-5
COUNTY OF BRANT
DEVELOPMENT CHARGE CALCULATION
TOTAL ALL SERVICES
2014 $ DC Eligible Cost
Residential
Non-Residential
2014 $ DC Eligible Cost
SDU
per ft²
$
Urban Services (Water, Wastewater, and Stormwater)
Municipal-wide Services 10 Year
8,973,890
6,273,092
11,985
9,516
3.53
2.47
$38.00
$26.59
TOTAL
39,049,367
15,246,982
21,501
6.00
$64.59
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
$
per s.m.
$
20,074,325
18,975,042
$
Brant 2014 DC Model-revised f19
Wastewater Services
Water Services
Roads and Related
4.1 Roads
5.2 Depots and Domes
5.3 PW Rolling Stock
Fire Protection Services
6.1 Fire facilities
6.2 Fire vehicles
Police Services
7.1 Police facilities
Outdoor Recreation Services
8.1 Parkland development, amenities & trails
Indoor Recreation Services
9.1 Recreation facilities
Library Services
10.1 Library facilities
10.2 Library materials
Administration
11.1 Studies
Ambulance
12.1 Vehicles
2.
3.
4.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
TOTAL EXPENDITURES & REVENUES
Stormwater Drainage and Control Services
1.
SERVICE
$52,663,005
*
891,600
47,000
237,600
270,000
1,557,600
6,000,000
1,360,000
175,000
6,279,505
420,400
500,000
20,608,700
13,428,600
887,000
$0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$13,674,255
0
228,160
20,500
11,880
108,000
286,465
5,100,000
895,000
0
908,185
21,020
50,000
3,797,395
2,094,610
153,040
$17,170
17,170
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$225,198
318
56,344
2,650
22,572
16,200
127,114
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
$9,906,184
0
0
0
0
0
0
578,800
0
0
3,148,952
0
0
5,098,546
632,171
447,716
Table 6-6
COUNTY OF BRANT
GROSS EXPENDITURE AND SOURCES OF REVENUE SUMMARY
FOR COSTS TO BE INCURRED OVER THE LIFE OF THE BY-LAW
SOURCES OF FINANCING
TOTAL GROSS
TAX BASE OR OTHER NON-DC SOURCE
POST DC PERIOD
COST
OTHER
BENEFIT TO
LEGISLATED
BENEFIT
OTHER FUNDING
DEDUCTIONS
EXISTING
REDUCTION
$5,800,377
867
183,934
1,193
10,157
7,290
57,201
97,328
140,882
53,020
673,317
121,001
136,338
2,408,659
1,803,634
105,555
Brant 2014 DC Model-revised f19
$23,060,172
1,995
423,162
22,658
192,991
138,510
1,086,820
223,872
324,118
121,980
1,549,052
278,379
313,662
9,304,100
8,898,185
180,689
DC RESERVE FUND
NONRESIDENTIAL
RESIDENTIAL
6-8
7-1
7.
DEVELOPMENT CHARGE POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
AND DEVELOPMENT CHARGE BY-LAW RULES
7.1
Introduction
s.s.5(1)9 states that rules must be developed:
“...to determine if a development charge is payable in any particular case and to
determine the amount of the charge, subject to the limitations set out in
subsection 6.”
Paragraph 10 of the section goes on to state that the rules may provide for exemptions, phasing
in and/or indexing of development charges.
s.s.5(6) establishes the following restrictions on the rules:

the total of all development charges that would be imposed on anticipated development
must not exceed the capital costs determined under 5(1) 2-8 for all services involved;

if the rules expressly identify a type of development, they must not provide for it to pay
development charges that exceed the capital costs that arise from the increase in the
need for service for that type of development; however, this requirement does not relate
to any particular development; and

if the rules provide for a type of development to have a lower development charge than
is allowed, the rules for determining development charges may not provide for any
resulting shortfall to be made up via other development.
With respect to “the rules,” Section 6 states that a DC by-law must expressly address the
matters referred to above re s.s.5(1) para. 9 and 10, as well as how the rules apply to the
redevelopment of land.
The rules provided are based on the County’s existing policies; however, there are items under
consideration at this time and these may be refined prior to adoption of the by-law.
7.2
Development Charge By-law Structure
It is recommended that:


the County uses a uniform County-wide development charge calculation for municipal
services, except water, sanitary sewer, and stormwater management.
Water, sanitary sewer, and stormwater services be imposed on the Paris, St. George
and other urban specific areas of the County.
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\Brant DC 2014 Report-Add #2.docx
7-2
7.3
Development Charge By-law Rules
The following subsections set out the recommended rules governing the calculation, payment
and collection of development charges in accordance with Section 6 of the Development
Charges Act, 1997.
It is recommended that the following sections provide the basis for the development
charges:
7.3.1 Payment in any Particular Case
In accordance with the Development Charges Act, 1997, s.2(2), a development charge be
calculated, payable and collected where the development requires one or more of the following:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
the passing of a zoning by-law or of an amendment to a zoning by-law under section 34
of the Planning Act;
the approval of a minor variance under Section 45 of the Planning Act;
a conveyance of land to which a by-law passed under section 50(7) of the Planning Act
applies;
the approval of a plan of subdivision under Section 51 of the Planning Act;
a consent under Section 53 of the Planning Act;
the approval of a description under section 50 of the Condominium Act; or
the issuing of a building permit under the Building Code Act in relation to a building or
structure.
7.3.2 Determination of the Amount of the Charge
The following conventions be adopted:
1)
Costs allocated to residential uses will be assigned to different types of residential units
based on the average occupancy for each housing type constructed during the previous
decade. Costs allocated to non-residential uses will be assigned based on the amount
of square feet of gross floor area constructed for eligible uses (i.e. industrial, commercial
and institutional).
2)
Costs allocated to residential and non-residential uses are based upon a number of
conventions, as may be suited to each municipal circumstance, e.g.

for General Government, Fire, Police, Roads & Related and Ambulance the costs
have been based on a population vs. employment growth ratio (70%/30) for
residential and non-residential, respectively) over the 10-year forecast period;
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\Brant DC 2014 Report-Add #2.docx
7-3

for Indoor Recreation, Park Development, and Library services, a 5% nonresidential attribution has been made to recognize use by the non-residential
sector; and

for all other services (i.e. Water, Sewer, and Stormwater management), a
residential/non-residential attribution has been made based on a population vs.
employment growth ratio in each specific urban area over the 10-year forecast
period:
o Paris 63% residential/37% non-residential; and
o All other urban areas 83% residential/17% non-residential
7.3.3 Application to Redevelopment of Land (Demolition and Conversion)
If a development involves the demolition of and replacement of a building or structure on the
same site, or the conversion from one principal use to another, the developer shall be allowed a
credit equivalent to:
1)
the number of dwelling units demolished/converted multiplied by the applicable
residential development charge in place at the time the development charge is payable;
and/or
2)
the gross floor area of the building demolished/converted multiplied by the current nonresidential development charge in place at the time the development charge is payable.
The demolition credit is allowed only if the land was improved by occupied structures and if the
demolition permit related to the site was issued less than five years prior to the issuance of a
building permit. The credit can, in no case, exceed the amount of development charges that
would otherwise be payable.
7.3.4 Exemptions (full or partial)
a)
Statutory exemptions

industrial building additions of up to and including 50% of the existing gross floor
area (defined in O.Reg. 82/98, s.1) of the building; for industrial building
additions which exceed 50% of the existing gross floor area, only the portion of
the addition in excess of 50% is subject to development charges (s.4(3)) of the
DCA;

buildings or structures owned by and used for the purposes of any municipality,
local board or Board of Education (s.3);

residential development that results only in the enlargement of an existing
dwelling unit, or that results only in the creation of up to two additional dwelling
units (based on prescribed limits set out in s.2 of O.Reg. 82/98).
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\Brant DC 2014 Report-Add #2.docx
7-5
7.3.8 The Applicable Areas
The charges developed herein provide for varying charges within the County, as follows:

Water, Sanitary Sewer, and Stormwater Services, will be imposed within the urban
serviced areas of the County. The areas have been altered since the last DC by-law. It
is recommended that there will be one uniform charge in the urban service areas of
Paris, St. George, and any other urban serviced area (i.e. other than Paris or St.
George).

Remaining Services – the residential and non-residential charges will be imposed on all
lands within the County.
7.4
Other Development Charge By-law Provisions
It is recommended that:
7.4.1 Categories of Services for Reserve Fund and Credit Purposes
The County’s development charge collections are currently reserved in ten separate reserve
funds: Administration, Roads & Related, Fire Protection, Recreation, Library, Sanitary Sewer,
Water, Ambulance, South West Paris Engineering, and Rest of Paris. It is recommended that
the County continue with this breakdown of the DC reserve funds for non-water, sanitary sewer,
and engineering services under the new 2014 by-law. It is recommended that reserve funds for
urban area services be created for water, wastewater, and stormwater services. Appendix F
outlines the reserve fund policies that the County is required to follow as per the Development
Charges Act.
7.4.2 By-law In-force Date
A by-law under the DCA, 1997 comes into force on the day after which the by-law is passed by
Council.
7.4.3 Minimum Interest Rate Paid on Refunds and Charged for Inter-Reserve
Fund Borrowing
The minimum interest rate is the Bank of Canada rate on the day on which the by-law comes
into force (as per s.11 of O.Reg. 82/98).
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\Brant DC 2014 Report-Add #2.docx
B-1
APPENDIX B - LEVEL OF SERVICE CEILING
COUNTY OF BRANT
SUMMARY OF SERVICE STANDARDS AS PER DEVELOPMENT CHARGES ACT, 1997
Service Category
Sub-Component
Roads
Roads and Related
10 Year Average Service Standard
Cost (per capita)
$14,831.00
Quantity (per capita)
0.0312 km of roadways
Depots and Domes
$144.77
2.3300 ft² of building area
Roads and Related Vehicles
$348.62
0.0027 No. of vehicles and equipment
Fire Facilities
$223.35
1.2985 ft² of building area
Fire Vehicles
$200.31
0.0007 No. of vehicles
Quality (per capita)
475,353 per lane km
Maximum
Ceiling LOS
76,157,185
62 per ft²
129,119 per vehicle
743,394
1,790,164
172 per ft²
1,146,902
286,157 per vehicle
1,028,592
Fire
Police
Police Facilities
Parkland Development
Parks
Recreation
$62.57
$780.02
0.3259 ft² of building area
0.0071 No. of developed parkland acres
192 per ft²
109,862 per acre
321,297
4,005,403
Parkland Amenities
$72.30
0.0008 No. of parkland amenities
Parkland Trails
$20.32
0.0002 Kilometres of Trail
101,600 per lin m.
$1,018.33
4.8877 ft² of building area
208 per ft²
5,229,125
$169.78
0.7788 ft² of building area
218 per ft²
871,820
Indoor Recreation Facilities
Library Facilities
90,375 per amenity
371,261
104,343
Library
Library Collection Materials
$92.55
3.0016 No. of library collection items
Ambulance Facilities
$23.06
0.0994 ft² of building area
Ambulance Vehicles
$11.62
0.0001 No. of vehicles and equipment
31 per collection item
475,244
232 per ft²
118,413
116,200 per vehicle
59,669
Ambulance
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Brant 2014 DC Model-revised f19
10 Year
5,135
$14,831
$76,157,185
DC Amount (before deductions)
Forecast Population
$ per Capita
Eligible Amount
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
2004-2013
0.0312
$475,353
$14,831
33,191
0.0325
1,079
900
82
97
2004
km of roadways
Roads
10 Year Average
Quantity Standard
Quality Standard
Service Standard
Population
Per Capita Standard
Total
Rural
Semi-urban
Urban
Description
Service:
Contact :
Unit Measure:
Quantity Measure
County of Brant
Service Standard Calculation Sheet
33,918
0.0318
1,079
900
82
97
2005
34,415
0.0314
1,079
900
82
97
2006
34,786
0.0333
1,157
974
83
100
2007
35,136
0.0329
1,157
974
83
100
2008
35,344
0.0327
1,157
974
83
100
2009
35,496
0.0307
1,090
888
101
101
2010
35,638
0.0306
1,090
888
101
101
2011
38,033
0.0287
1,090
888
101
101
2012
Brant 2014 DC Model-revised f19
40,000
0.0273
1,090
2014 Value
($/km)
888
$367,000
101
$915,000
101 $1,083,000
2013
B-21
C-2
Table D-1
COUNTY OF BRANT
OPERATING AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURE IMPACTS
FOR FUTURE CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
SERVICE
1.
Stormwater Drainage and Control Services
2.
Wastewater Services
3.
Water Services
4.
Roads and Related
4.1
Roads
5.2
Depots and Domes
5.3
PW Rolling Stock
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
NET GROWTH
RELATED
EXPENDITURES
ANNUAL LIFECYCLE ANNUAL OPERATING
EXPENDITURES
EXPENDITURES
TOTAL ANNUAL
EXPENDITURES
576,613
3,000
47,599
50,599
21,611,217
111,500
275,536
387,036
20,586,792
106,200
578,465
684,665
17,166,755
399,380
450,000
706,500
6,600
41,100
1,517,619
35,307
39,782
2,224,119
41,907
80,882
Fire Protection Services
6.1
Fire facilities
6.2
Fire vehicles
530,198
175,000
8,800
10,100
279,198
92,154
287,998
102,254
Police Services
7.1
Police facilities
321,200
5,300
883,148
888,448
Outdoor Recreation Services
8.1
Parkland development, amenities & trails
2,288,473
56,400
119,972
176,372
Indoor Recreation Services
9.1
Recreation facilities
2,505,758
41,500
511,236
552,736
Library Services
10.1 Library facilities
10.2 Library materials
240,444
406,296
4,000
37,100
5,758
9,730
9,758
46,830
Administration
11.1 Studies
755,039
0
9,592
900
Ambulance
12.1 Vehicles
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
0
978,002
Brant 2014 DC Model-revised f19
0
978,902
Page E-1
Appendix E – Proposed Development
Charge By-law
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\DC Addendum #2.docx
Page E-2
Appendix E – Proposed Development
Charge By-law
BY-LAW NUMBER
-15
- of THE CORPORATION OF THE COUNTY OF BRANT
Being a By-law of the Corporation of the County of Brant with respect to
Development Charges.
WHEREAS section 2(1) of the Development Charges Act, 1997 (hereinafter
called “the Act”) enables the Council of a municipality to pass by-laws for the imposition
of development charges against land located in the municipality for increased capital
costs required because of the need for services arising from development in the area to
which the by-law applies;
AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the County of Brant
(hereinafter called “the Council”), at its meeting of August 26, 2014, approved a report
dated July 7, 2014 entitled “County of Brant, 2014 Development Charge Background
Study” as amended March 2, 2015, which report was prepared by Watson & Associates
Economists Ltd.;
AND WHEREAS the Council has given Notice in accordance with Section 12 of
the Development Charges Act, 1997 of its development charge proposal and held a
public meeting on July 22, 2014;
AND WHEREAS the Council has heard all persons who applied to be heard in
objection to, or in support of, the development charge proposal at such public meeting;
AND WHEREAS the Council in adopting the Development Charge Background
Study on ___________, 2015, directed that development charges be imposed on land
under development or redevelopment within the geographical limits of the defined
portion of the municipality as hereinafter provided;
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\DC Addendum #2.docx
Page E-3
NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE
COUNTY OF BRANT HEREBY enacts as follows:
1.
In this by-law,
DEFINITIONS
(1)
“Act” means the Development Charges Act, 1997, c.27;
(2)
“accessory” use means a use of land, building or structures, which is
incidental and subordinate to the principal use of the lands, buildings or
structures;
(3)
“apartment dwelling” means any residential dwelling unit within a building
containing five or more dwelling units where the residential units are
connected by an interior corridor;
(4)
“bedroom” means a habitable room larger than seven square metres,
including a den, study or other similar area, but does not include a living
room, dining room or kitchen;
(5)
“board of education” means a board defined in s.s.1(1) of the Education
Act;
(6)
“Building Code Act” means the Building Code Act, S.O. 1992, ch.23, as
amended;
(7)
“capital cost” has the same meaning it has in the Act;
(8)
“council” means the Council of the Corporation of the County of Brant;
(9)
“development” means the construction, erection or placing of one or more
buildings or structures on land or the making of an addition or alteration to
a building or structure that has the effect of increasing the size or usability
thereof, and includes redevelopment;
(10)
“development charge” means a charge imposed against land in the
municipality under this by-law;
(11)
“duplex dwelling” means a building other than a converted dwelling that is
divided horizontally into two (2) separate dwelling units each of which has
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\DC Addendum #2.docx
Page E-4
an independent entrance either directly from the outside or through a
common entrance;
(12)
“dwelling unit” means any part of a building or structure used, designed or
intended to be used as a domestic establishment in which one or more
persons may sleep and are provided with culinary and sanitary facilities for
their exclusive use;
(13)
“existing industrial building” means a building or structure in existence for
the purpose of industrial use as per the County of Brant zoning by-law and
or which occupancy has been granted for such building;
(14)
“farm building” means that part of a bona fide farming operation
encompassing barns, silos and other ancillary development to an
agricultural use, but excluding a residential use;
(15)
“garden suite” means a one-unit detached residential structure containing
bathroom and kitchen facilities that is ancillary to an existing residential
structure and that is designed to be portable;
(16)
“grade” means the average level of finished ground adjoining a building or
structure at all exterior walls;
(17)
“gross floor area” means the total area of all floors above grade measured
between the outside surfaces of the exterior walls or between the outside
surfaces of exterior walls and the centre line of firewalls, this also includes
the floor areas of covered roofs, canopies, decks, walkways and
thoroughfares;
(18)
“heavy industrial” means employment uses associated with significant
land use impacts such as odour, noise, dust, smoke, vibration, the
potential for fire and explosive hazards, etc. Development includes
manufacturing facilities, the storage, processing, refinement or production
of hazardous, toxic or substances, etc.
(19)
“Industrial Building” means a building used for or in connection with,
(a)
manufacturing, producing, processing, storing or distributing goods;
(b)
research or development in connection with manufacturing,
producing, or processing goods,
(c)
retail sales by a manufacturer, producer or processor of goods they
manufactured, produced or processed, if the retail sales are at the
site where the manufacturing, production or processing takes place,
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\DC Addendum #2.docx
Page E-5
(d)
office or administrative purposes, if they are,
a.
carried out with respect to manufacturing, producing,
processing, storage or distribution of goods, and
b.
in or attached to the building or structure used for that
manufacturing,
producing,
processing,
storage
or
distribution;
(20)
“local board” means a public library board, local board of health, or any
other board, commission, committee or body or local authority established
or exercising any power or authority under any general or special Act with
respect to any of the affairs or purposes of the municipality or any part or
parts thereof;
(21)
“local services” means those services, facilities or things which are under
the jurisdiction of the municipality and are related to a plan of subdivision
or within the area to which the plan relates required as a condition of
approval under s.51 of the Planning Act, or as a condition of approval
under s.53 of the Planning Act;
(22)
“multiple dwellings” means all dwellings other than single-family dwellings,
semi-detached dwellings, apartment dwellings and garden suite dwellings.
(23)
“municipality” means the Corporation of the County of Brant;
(22)
“non-residential use” means a building or structure used for other than a
residential use and includes a long term care facility;
(23)
“Official Plan” means the Official Plan of the Corporation of the County of
Brant and any amendments thereto;
(24)
“owner” means the owner of land or a person who has made application
for an approval for the development of land upon which a development
charge is imposed;
(25)
“place of worship” means that part of a building or structure that is exempt
from taxation as a place of worship under paragraph 3 of Section 3 of the
Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.A.31, as amended;
(26)
“Planning Act” means the Planning Act, 1990, c.P.-13, as amended;
(27)
“regulation” means any regulation made pursuant to the Act;
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\DC Addendum #2.docx
Page E-6
(28)
“residential use” means land or buildings or structures of any kind
whatsoever used, designed or intended to be used as living
accommodations for one or more individuals;
(29)
“retirement home” or an “assisted living facility” means a residential
building which provides accommodation primarily for retired persons or
couples where each private living accommodation has a separate private
bathroom and separate entrance from a common hall and which may or
may not provide in-unit partial or full culinary facilities but where common
facilities for the preparation and consumption of food are provided, and
common lounges, recreation rooms and medical care facilities may also
be provided;
(30)
“semi-detached dwelling” means two (2) single dwellings attached with a
common wall, dividing the pair of single dwellings vertically, each of which
has an independent entrance either directly from the outside or through a
common vestibule;
(31)
“services” (or “service”) means those services set out in Schedule A to this
by-law;
(32)
“services in lieu” means those services specified in an agreement made
under Section 7 of this by-law;
(33)
“servicing agreement” means an agreement between a landowner and the
municipality relative to the provision of municipal services to specified
lands within the municipality;
(34)
“single detached dwelling” means a residential building consisting of one
dwelling unit and not attached to another structure;
(35)
“total floor area” means the total area of all floors above grade of a
dwelling unit measured between the outside surfaces of exterior walls or
between the outside surfaces of exterior walls and the centre line of party
walls dividing the dwelling unit from another dwelling unit or other portion
of a building;
In the case of a non-residential building or structure, or in the case of a
mixed-use building or structure in respect of the non-residential portion
thereof, the total area of all building floors above or below grade measured
between the outside surfaces of the exterior walls, or between the outside
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\DC Addendum #2.docx
Page E-7
surfaces of exterior walls and the centre line of party walls dividing a nonresidential use and a residential use, except for:
2.

a room or enclosed area within the building or structure above or
below grade that is used exclusively for the accommodation of
heating,
cooling,
ventilating,
electrical,
mechanical
or
telecommunications equipment that service the building;

loading facilities above or below grade; and

a part of the building or structure below grade that is used for the
parking of motor vehicles or for storage or other accessory use;
SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT CHARGES
(1)
Subject to the provisions of this by-law, development charges against land
shall be calculated and collected in accordance with the base rates set out
in Schedule B, which relate to the service set out in Schedule A of this bylaw.
(2)
The development charge with respect to the use of any land, buildings or
structures shall be calculated, based on the charges in Schedule B, as
follows:
(a)
(b)
in the case of residential development, or the residential portion of
a mixed-use development, based upon the number and type of
dwelling units;
in the case of non-residential development, the non-residential
portion of a mixed-use development which includes residential,
based upon the total floor area of such development;
(3)
Council hereby determines that the development of land, buildings or
structures for residential and non-residential uses have required or will
require the provision, enlargement, expansion or improvement of the
service referenced in Schedule A.
(4)
Notwithstanding subsection (1), the development of a residential or nonresidential building is exempt from that portion of the development
charges calculated for water and/or sewer service, if it is located outside of
the area where one or both of these services are available and a tender
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\DC Addendum #2.docx
Page E-8
has not been issued for the provision of such service as of the date of
building permit issuance.
(5)
3.
This by-law does not provide for the phasing in of the base rates in
Schedule B.
APPLICABLE LANDS
(1)
Subject to subsections (2), (3), (6) and (8), this by-law applies to all lands
in the municipality, whether or not the lands or use is exempt from taxation
under Section 3 of the Assessment Act, 1990, c.A..31.
(2)
This by-law shall not apply to land that is owned by and used for the
purposes of:
(a)
a board of education;
(b)
any municipality or local board thereof;
(c)
a non-residential farm building.
(3)
This by-law shall not apply to that category of exempt development
described in s.s. 2(3) and s.4 of the Development Charges Act, 1997,
namely:
(a)
the enlargement of an existing dwelling unit or the creation of one
or two additional dwelling units in an existing detached house
where the total residential gross floor area of the dwelling units
created does not exceed the residential gross floor area of the
existing dwelling unit prior to the enlargement; or
(b)
the creation of one additional dwelling unit in any other existing
residential building, provided the residential gross floor area of the
additional dwelling unit does not exceed the residential gross floor
area of the smallest existing dwelling unit in the case of a semidetached house, or row house, or does not exceed the residential
gross floor area of the smallest existing dwelling unit contained in
any other residential building.
(4)
Notwithstanding subsection (3)(a), development charges shall be
calculated and collected in accordance with Schedule B where the total
residential gross floor area of the additional one or two dwelling units is
greater than the total gross floor area of the existing dwelling unit.
(5)
Notwithstanding subsection (3)(b), development charges shall be
calculated and collected in accordance with Schedule B where the
additional dwelling unit has a residential gross floor area greater than,
(a)
in the case of a semi-detached house or row-house, the gross floor
area of the existing smallest dwelling unit, and
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\DC Addendum #2.docx
Page E-9
(b)
(6)
in the case of any other residential building, the residential gross
floor area of the smallest dwelling unit contained in the residential
unit.
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
the following:
(a)
(b)
Subject to subsection 6 (c), if the gross floor area is enlarged by 50
percent or less of the lesser:
1. the gross floor area of the existing industrial building, or
2. the gross floor area of the existing industrial building before the
first enlargement for which:
a. an exemption from the payment of development
charges was granted, or
b. a lesser development charge than would otherwise be
payable under this by-law, or predecessor thereof,
was paid,
pursuant to Section 4 of the Act and this subsection,
the amount of the development charge in respect of the
enlargement is zero;
Subject to subsection 6 (c), if the gross floor area is enlarged by
more than 50 per cent or less of the lesser of:
1. the gross floor area of the existing industrial building, or
2. the gross floor area of the existing industrial building before the
first enlargement for which:
a. an exemption from the payment of development
charges was granted, or
b. a lesser development charge than would otherwise be
payable under this by-law, or predecessor thereof,
was paid,
pursuant to Section 4 of the Act and this subsection,
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:
(A)
determine the amount by which the enlargement exceeds
50 per cent of the gross floor area before the first
enlargement, and
(B)
divide the amount determined under subsection (A) by the
amount of the enlargement
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\DC Addendum #2.docx
Page E-10
(c)
(d)
(7)
4.
For the purpose of calculating the extent to which the gross floor
area of an existing industrial building is enlarged in subsection 6(a)
and 6(b), the cumulative gross floor area of any previous
enlargement for which:
(A)
An exemption from the payment of development charges
was granted, or
(B)
A lesser development charge than would otherwise be
payable under this by-law, or predecessor thereof, was
paid,
pursuant to Section 4 of the Act and this subsection,
shall be added to the calculation of the gross floor area of the
proposed enlargement.
For the purpose of this subsection, the enlargement must not be
attached to the existing industrial building by means only of a
tunnel, bridge, passageway, canopy, shared below grade
connection, such as a service tunnel, foundation, footing or parking
facility.
That where a conflict exists between the provisions of this by-law and any
other agreement between the County and the owner, with respect to land
to be charged under this policy, the provisions of such agreement prevail
to the extent of the conflict.
APPLICATION OF CHARGES
(1)
Subject to subsection (2), development charges shall apply to, and shall
be calculated and collected in accordance with the provisions of this bylaw on land to be developed for residential and non-residential use, where,
(a)
the development requires,
(i)
the passing of a zoning by-law or an amendment thereto
under Section 34 of the Planning Act, 1983, R.S.O. 1990,
c.1;
(ii)
the approval of a minor variance under Section 45 of the
Planning Act, 1990, c.P.13;
(iii)
a conveyance of land to which a by-law passed under
subsection 50(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13
applies;
(iv)
the approval of a plan of subdivision under Section 51 of the
Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13;
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\DC Addendum #2.docx
Page E-11
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(2)
Subsection (1) shall not apply in respect of:
(a)
(b)
5.
a consent under Section 53 of the Planning Act, R.S.O.
1990, c.P. 13;
the approval of a description under Section 50 of the
Condominium Act, R.S.O. 1980, c.84; or
the issuing of a permit under the Building Code Act, in
relation to a building or structure.
local services installed at the expense of the owner within a plan of
subdivision or within the area to which the plan relates, as a
condition of approval under Section 51 of the Planning Act, R.S.O.
1990, c.P.13;
local services installed at the expense of the owner as a condition
of approval under Section 53 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990,
c.P.13.
LOCAL SERVICE INSTALLATION
Nothing in this by-law prevents Council from requiring, as a condition of an
agreement under Sections 40, 51 or 53 of the Planning Act, that the owner, at his
or her own expense, shall install such local services within the plan of
subdivision, and otherwise, as Council may require, that the owner pay for, or
install local services within the area to which the plan relates.
6.
MULTIPLE CHARGES
(1)
(2)
7.
Where two or more of the actions described in Section 4(1) are required
before land to which a development charge applies can be developed,
only one development charge shall be calculated and collected in
accordance with the provisions of this by-law.
Notwithstanding subsection (1), if two or more of the actions described in
Section 4(1) occur at different times, and if the subsequent action has the
effect of increasing the need for the municipal service as set out in
Schedule A, an additional development charge on the additional
residential units and/or non-residential floor area, shall be calculated and
collected in accordance with the provisions of this by-law.
SERVICES IN LIEU
(1)
Council may authorize an owner, through an agreement under s.38 of the
Act, to substitute such part of the development charge applicable to the
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\DC Addendum #2.docx
Page E-12
owner’s development as may be specified in the agreement, by the
provision at the sole expense of the owner, of services in lieu. Such
agreement shall further specify that where the owner provides services in
lieu in accordance with the agreement, Council shall give to the owner a
credit against the development charge in accordance with the agreement
provisions and the provisions of s.39 of the Act, equal to the reasonable
cost to the owner of providing the services in lieu. In no case shall the
agreement provide for a credit which exceeds the total development
charge payable by an owner to the municipality in respect of the
development to which the agreement relates.
8.
(2)
In any agreement under Section 7(1), Council may also give a further
credit to the owner equal to the reasonable cost of providing services in
addition to, or of a greater size or capacity, than would be required under
this by-law.
(3)
The credit provided for in Subsection (2) shall not be charged to any
development charge reserve fund prescribed in this by-law.
DEVELOPMENT CHARGE CREDITS
(1)
In the case of the demolition or conversion of all or part of a residential or
non-residential building, a credit shall be allowed, provided that the
building permit for the development or redevelopment is issued within five
(5) years of the demolition permit that has been issued. The owner shall
be allowed a credit equivalent to:
(a)
the number of dwelling units demolished/converted multiplied by
the applicable residential development charge in place at the time
the DC is payable, and/or
(b)
(2)
9.
the total floor area of the building demolished/converted multiplied
by the applicable non-residential development charge in place at
the time the DC is payable. The demolition credit is allowed only if
the land was improved by occupied structures immediately prior to
the demolition.
The credit can, in no case, exceed the amount of development charges
that would otherwise be payable by the owner.
TIMING OF CALCULATION AND PAYMENT
Water, Sanitary Sewer, Roads and Stormwater Management
(1)
(a)
Development charges shall be calculated and payable in full in
money or by provision of services as may be agreed upon, or by
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\DC Addendum #2.docx
Page E-13
(b)
(c)
credit granted by the Act, with respect to an approval of a plan of
subdivision under section 51 of the Planning Act, as follows:
 in the case of residential development, 20% of the charge at
signing of the Subdivision Agreement by both parties; 30%
at registration of the Plan of Subdivision; and 50% at
availability of building permits;
 in the case of non-residential development, 100% at
availability of building permits;
on the basis of the proposed number and type of dwelling units in
the plan of subdivision application, or in the case of non-residential
development or the non-residential component of a mixed use
development, based upon the total floor area in square metres, or
in a manner or at a time otherwise lawfully agreed upon.
If at the time of issuance of building permit or permits in regard to a
lot on a plan of subdivision for which payments have been made,
the actual number of units of residential development and/or floor
area of non-residential development is greater than the amount
used to determine the charge payable in subsection (9)(1)(a)
above, an additional payment to the County will be required, based
on the additional units and/or non-residential floor area.
If at the time of building permit issuance, in regard to a lot on a plan
of subdivision for which payments have been made, the actual
number of units of residential development and/or floor area of nonresidential development is less than the amount used to determine
the development charge payable in subsection (9)(1)(a) above, a
refund shall be paid by the County based on the reduction in units
and/or non-residential floor area.
(2)
Development charges for development not subject to a plan of subdivision
shall be collected prior to building permit issuance.
(3)
Where development charges apply to land in relation to which a building
permit is required, the building permit shall not be issued until the
development charge has been paid in full.
(4)
Notwithstanding subsections (1), (2) and (3), an owner may enter into an
agreement with the municipality to provide for the payment in full of a
development charge at a different time.
Non-water, Sanitary Sewer, Roads and Stormwater Management
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\DC Addendum #2.docx
Page E-14
5)
Development charges shall be calculated and payable in full in money or
by provision of services as may be agreed upon, or by credit granted by
the Act, on the date that the first building permit is issued in relation to a
building or structure on land to which a development charge applies, or in
a manner or at a time otherwise lawfully agreed upon.
(6)
Where development charges apply to land in relation to which a building
permit is required, the building permit shall not be issued until the
development charge has been paid in full.
(7)
Notwithstanding subsections (5) and (6), an owner may enter into an
agreement with the municipality to provide for the payment in full of a
development charge before building permit issuance or later than the
issuing of a building permit.
10.
BY-LAW REGISTRATION
A certified copy of this by-law may be registered on title to any land to which this
by-law applies.
11.
RESERVE FUNDS
(1)
Monies received from payment of development charges shall be
maintained in a separate reserve funds for each of the services in
Schedule “A”.
(2)
Monies received for the payment of development charges shall be used
only in accordance with the provisions of s.35 of the Act.
(3)
Council directs the Municipal Treasurer to divide the reserve funds created
hereunder into the separate sub-accounts in accordance with the service
categories set out in Schedule “A” to which the development charge
payments shall be credited in accordance with the amounts shown, plus
interest earned thereon.
(4)
Where any development charge, or part thereof, remains unpaid after the
due date, the amount unpaid shall be added to the tax roll and shall be
collected as taxes.
(5)
Where any unpaid development charges are collected as taxes under
subsection (3), the monies so collected shall be credited to the
development charge reserve fund referred to in subsection (1).
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\DC Addendum #2.docx
Page E-15
(6)
12.
13.
BY-LAW AMENDMENT OR REPEAL
(1)
Where this by-law or any development charge prescribed thereunder is
amended or repealed by order of the Ontario Municipal Board or by
resolution of the Municipal Council, the Municipal Treasurer shall calculate
forthwith the amount of any overpayment to be refunded as a result of said
amendment or repeal.
(2)
Refunds that are required to be paid under subsection (1) shall be paid to
the registered owner of the land on the date on which the refund is paid.
(3)
Refunds that are required to be paid under subsection (1) shall be paid
with interest to be calculated as follows:
(a)
interest shall be calculated from the date on which the overpayment
was collected to the day on which the refund is paid;
(b)
the refund shall include the interest owed under this section;
(c)
interest shall be paid at the Bank of Canada rate in effect on the
date of enactment of this by-law.
DEVELOPMENT CHARGE SCHEDULE INDEXING
(a)
14.
The Treasurer of the Municipality shall, commencing in 2015 for the 2014
year, furnish to Council a statement in respect of the reserve fund
established hereunder for the prior year, containing the information set out
in Sections 12 and 13 of O.Reg. 82/98.
The development charges referred to in Schedule “B” shall be adjusted
annually, without amendment to this by-law, commencing in September
1st, 2015, and annually thereafter in each September while this by-law is
in force, in accordance with the Act.
BY-LAW ADMINISTRATION
This by-law shall be administered by the Municipal Treasurer.
15.
SCHEDULES TO THE BY-LAW
The following schedules to this by-law form an integral part of this by-law:
Schedule A - Designated Municipal Services
Schedule B - Schedule of Development Charges
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\DC Addendum #2.docx
Page E-16
Schedule C – Map of the Paris Urban Boundaries to which the Urban Services
Charges Apply
Schedule D – Map of the St. George Urban Boundaries to which the Urban
Services Charges Apply
Schedule E- Map of the Urban Settlement Boundaries within the Balance of the
County to which the Urban Services Charges Apply
16.
DATE BY-LAW EFFECTIVE
This by-law shall come into force and effect on ____________, 2014.
17.
DATE BY-LAW EXPIRES
This by-law will expire on September 1, 2019 which is five years from the
passage of by-law 110-14.
17.
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT CHARGE BY-LAW REPEAL
By-laws 110-14, 152-10, and 153-10 are repealed effective ____________,
2015.
18.
SEVERABILITY
If, for any reason, any provision, section, subsection or paragraph of this by-law
is held to be invalid, it is hereby declared to be the intention of Council that all of
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.
19.
SHORT TITLE
This by-law may be cited as the “Brant County-wide Development Charge Bylaw.”
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\DC Addendum #2.docx
Page E-17
READ a first and second time, this ____ day of __________, 2015.
READ a third time and finally passed in Council, this ____ day of _________,
2015.
THE CORPORATION OF THE COUNTY OF BRANT
___________________________________________
Mayor
___________________________________________
Clerk
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\DC Addendum #2.docx
Page E-18
BY-LAW NUMBER
-15
SCHEDULE “A”
DESIGNATED MUNICIPAL SERVICE UNDER THIS BY-LAW
County-wide Services
1.
Administration (Studies) Service
2.
Fire Protection Services
3.
Police Services
4.
Emergency Services (Ambulance)
5.
Parks & Recreation Services
6.
Library Services
7.
Roads & Related
Urban Area Engineering Services
1.
2.
3.
Paris
(a)
Sanitary Sewer
(b)
Water
(c)
Roads and Related
(d)
Stormwater Management Works
St. George
(a)
Sanitary Sewer
(b)
Water
(c)
Roads and Related
Other Urban Areas
(a)
Sanitary Sewer
(b)
Water
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\DC Addendum #2.docx
Page E-19
SCHEDULE “B”
TO BY-LAW _____-15 OF BRANT COUNTY
SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT CHARGES
RESIDENTIAL
Service
Single and SemiDetached Dwelling
Apartments - 2
Bedrooms +
NON-RESIDENTIAL
Apartments Bachelor and 1
Bedroom
Other Multiples
In Retirement
Homes &
Assisted Living
Facilities
(per m² of Gross
Floor Area)
(per ft² of Gross
Floor Area)
County Wide Services:
Roads & Related
6,298
3,667
2,880
4,433
2,072
23.14
2.15
Fire Protection Services
246
143
112
173
81
0.86
0.08
Police Services
112
65
51
79
37
0.43
0.04
Outdoor Recreation Services
1,090
635
498
767
359
0.54
0.05
Indoor Recreation Services
1,194
695
546
841
393
0.54
0.05
Library Services
309
180
141
218
102
0.11
0.01
Administration
264
154
121
186
87
0.97
0.09
3
2
1
2
1
-
0.00
9,516
5,541
4,350
6,699
3,132
26.59
2.47
Ambulance
Total County Wide Services
Urban Services 1
Stormwater Drainage and Control Services
Wastewater Services
217
126
99
153
71
0.86
0.08
5,742
3,343
2,625
4,042
1,889
18.84
1.75
Water Services
6,026
3,509
2,755
4,242
1,982
18.30
1.70
Total Urban Services
11,985
6,978
5,479
8,437
3,942
38.00
3.53
GRAND TOTAL RURAL AREA
9,516
5,541
4,350
6,699
3,132
26.59
2.47
GRAND TOTAL URBAN AREA
21,501
12,519
9,829
15,136
7,074
64.58
6.00
1
Includes Paris, St. George, and Other Urban Service Areas included in Schedules "C", "D", and "E".
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\DC Addendum #2.docx
Page E-20
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\DC Addendum #2.docx
Page E-21
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\DC Addendum #2.docx
Page E-22
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Brant\DC 2014\Report\DC Addendum #2.docx