: off-site levy bylaw - pbtech-public benefit...

City Council Agenda August 26, 2013/

File No.: 8000-2-1

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

Subject: OFF-SITE LEVY BYLAW Recommendation(s):

1. That the new Off-Site Levy Bylaw incorporate the principle that the Water Infrastructure Funding split to be used in determining water infrastructure off-site levy rates be set at 25% (utility)/75%(development) for transmission mains and 0% (utility)/100% (development) for reservoirs.

2. That the $12.2M in current off-site levy receipts held by the City be allocated and administered in accordance with the recommendation noted in the “Off-Site Levy Bylaw” Agenda Report, dated September 3, 2013.

3. That Bylaw 30/2013, Offsite Levy Bylaw, be read a first time. 4. That Bylaw 30/2013 be read a second time. 5. That unanimous consent be given for third reading. 6. That Bylaw 30/2013 be read a third and final time.

7. That the implementation of debt sharing be deferred to 2014.

8. That Administration work collaboratively with the development industry to

create a voluntary levy that may be used to support capital infrastructure not covered by existing legislation.

9. That Administration develop a strategy on over sizing/excess capacity and report back to Council with any required policies or bylaw amendments in 2014.

Report Summary: Over the past year and a half, Administration has completed a detailed review of the current Offsite Levy Bylaw (consolidated 6/2012) and is recommending several updates to the Bylaw as part of the 2013 review process. This report summarizes

City Council Agenda September 3, 2013/

File No.: 8000-2-1

the review process, proposed bylaw updates and the 2013 off-site infrastructure levy rates. Legislative History: On April 22, 2013 the following motion was passed: C156-2013 That the revised Offsite Levy Process Schedule as presented in the April 22, 2013 "Offsite Levy Process Update" report be approved. Phase 6 of the Process Schedule was: Bylaw and Policy Creation and Approval (to be done by May 21, 2013)*delayed The objective of this phase is to craft an updated Offsite Levy Bylaw and any associated policies for Council approval. First reading of the Bylaw was to proceed on April 22, 2013, with potential final approval on May 21, 2013. Report: Off-site levies are an approved mechanism under the Municipal Government Act (MGA) that allow a municipality to collect all or some of the capital dollars needed to construct new infrastructure that is required to support growth. As per the MGA, the defined categories that municipalities can collect off-site levies for include:

• new or expanded facilities for the storage, transmission, treatment or supplying of water;

• new or expanded facilities for the treatment, movement or disposal of sanitary sewage;

• new or expanded storm sewer drainage facilities; • new or expanded roads required for or impacted by a subdivision or

development; and • land required for or in connection with any of the above described

facilities. The MGA describes the categories of infrastructure to which a municipality may apply (via a bylaw) an offsite levy. Infrastructure costs that cannot be included in an off-site bylaw include such things as parks, recreational facilities and fire halls; the proposed Bylaw 30/2013 includes language that raises the possibility of future bylaw amendments in this regard (as permitted by an amended MGA). However, excluding these costs from the off-site levy bylaw does not preclude a municipality from asking and collecting dollars on a voluntary basis. The City of St. Albert first established its Off-site Levy Bylaw and corresponding rates in March 2010. The Bylaw was based on key guiding principles approved by Council to establish how the off-site levy rates are calculated, assigned, and collected. One of the guiding principles found in the bylaw was to complete an annual update of offsite levy rates by March 31 of the calendar year. As such, the


File No.: 8000-2-1

offsite levy rates were updated in March of 2011, and a subsequent bylaw amendment was approved to enable the continuation of existing rates until such time as new rates are established. Updated Guiding Principles In March 2012, Administration brought forward recommended updates to the guiding principles found in the bylaw. Council further directed Administration to complete additional consultation with landowners, members of the development industry and other stakeholders based on those updated guiding principles. Upon completion of this consultation process and incorporation of any further changes or additions to the guiding principles, the offsite levy rates would be updated accordingly. Over the past year and a half Administration has undertaken a comprehensive review and consultation process with landowners, members of the development industry and other stakeholders. The results of the review and consultation process were brought to Council in March 2013 in the form of eight key recommendations to be incorporated into the 2013 Off-site Levy Bylaw. Please refer to Table 1.0 – Summary of March 4, 2013 Agenda Report & Council Motions in Attachment 3. As noted in Table 1.0, Council approved seven of the eight Recommendations and directed Administration to do further study on Recommendation #2 – the proposed water infrastructure funding split. In April 2013, the Director of Growth who was leading this update left the City and the Director of Engineering assumed responsibility of completing the Off-site Levy Bylaw update. This included a complete review of all recommendations to date, additional consultation with UDI and other stakeholders, and updating the offsite levy model rates. New Bylaw Administration’s work to date has culminated in Bylaw 30/2013, as now presented and recommended for Council’s approval. Additional recommendations are as follows:

1. Deferral of implementation of debt sharing for parties that “front-end” (that is, fund the construction of) leviable infrastructure. While this policy is still supported by both Administration and UDI, due to the complex implications of this policy (including the recognition of significant front-ending expenditures that the City has made to date), it is recommended additional time be spent on developing a policy in consultation with all parties involved and one that does not impede future development.

2. Water Infrastructure Funding Split – the March 2013 Administration recommendation to Council was to change the allocation of costs for water infrastructure from 5%/95% split whereby 5% would be borne from the utility


File No.: 8000-2-1

reserves and 95% would be borne from new development to a 25% (utility)/75% (development) split. This recommendation was based on the philosophy that the utility as a whole benefits from a growth in infrastructure and a distributed approach is warranted. However upon further detailed review and analysis, it is now recommended that the water infrastructure be separated into two distinct categories with the allocations as follows:

a. Water reservoirs – 0% (utility)/100% (development). As identified in the Utility Master Plan two new water reservoirs will be required to support the development of the annexed lands in St. Albert. These reservoirs would not be built otherwise as the City’s existing reservoirs are appropriately sized to support a population of up to 75,000 people.

b. Water transmission mains – 25% (utility)/75% (development) for future transmission mains. While new growth is the driving force for the mains, the City does receive benefit from the interconnections it makes from the new system to the old. These interconnections allow the City to improve redundancy and fire flow capacity in the older sections of the City. Without these interconnections, the City would be required to improve redundancy and fire flow capacity with separate and costlier capital projects. The City has successfully taken this approach with the construction of other transmission mains.

Administration also retained the services of an independent, Professional Engineer to review the City’s existing water network and provide a recommendation on how water infrastructure costs should be allocated. The recommendation matches the revised Administration recommendation noted above (0%/100% split for water reservoirs and 25%/75% split for transmission mains). This will reduce the future utility capital cost requirements by approximately $600,000 (in comparison to the existing approved 5%/95% split).

3. To offset levy receipts – Administration is also recommending to offset levy

receipts collected to the end of 2012 against any front ending done to end of 2012. As of December 31, 2012 there have been two parties who have front ended the construction of leviable infrastructure – the City of St. Albert and a private Developer. The City front ended approximately $40.2M in transportation related projects, $6.1M in water related projects, $1.33M in sanitary related projects and $0 in storm sewer related projects. The private developer has front ended approximately $590,000 in storm sewer related projects that remains outstanding (note these values do not include any development agreements in escrow).


File No.: 8000-2-1

There is approximately $7.7M in transportation levy receipts, $3.5M in water levy receipts, and $1M in sanitary levy receipts that has been collected (for a total recovery of $12.2M). Administration is recommending to:

a) offset the $7.7M in transportation levy receipts against the $40.2M the City has provided in front ending for transportation related projects and transfer the money to capital reserves,

b) offset the $3.5M in water levy receipts against the $6.1M the City has provided in front ending for water related projects and transfer the money to capital reserves,

c) offset the $1M in sanitary levy receipts against the $1.33M the City has provided in front ending for sanitary related projects and transfer the money to capital reserves.

The storm sewer work that has been front ended by the private developer cannot be offset at this time since there was $0 in the storm sewer reserve at the end of 2012 and any front ending provided can only be offset by levies collected in that category of infrastructure.

Presently there is no official City policy on how recovered front ending dollars should be applied. As such, Administration recommends that Council now authorize a repayment to the City by permitting the transfer of the current front-ended levy receipts ($12.2M) into the City’s capital reserves. This action would “clear the books” on levy receipts to date. The $12.2M would remain in the capital reserve fund until re-allocated in accordance with Council’s direction in 2014. The front-ended storm sewer levy amount owing to the private developer (noted above) would be repaid in accordance with the policy approved by Council at that time.

Using the revised recommendations as found in Table 2.0: Updated Off-site Levy Bylaw Recommendations Attachment 4, Administration has updated the Off-site Levy model and rates. A copy of the summary report is attached for further information. Other Considerations Rate Calculation - UDI has also requested Administration reconsider its previous recommendation on how infrastructure and interest costs are calculated and incorporated into the model. Under the rate calculation method proposed by UDI, rates would be set on an annual basis based on the corresponding construction costs for that year and not the estimated costs of when the infrastructure is constructed. Interest costs would not be charged to developers who pay before the cost of front-ending or building the infrastructure is incurred. Administration again reviewed this issue and has not changed its previous recommendation that the off-site levy rates are determined using the total estimated construction and interest costs for the infrastructure and allocating those costs equally to all benefiting parties. In Administration’s opinion, this reduces the


File No.: 8000-2-1

risk to the City to assume obligations should the rates escalate and is aligned with the spirit of the legislation. Over-sizing/Excess Capacity - The City’s past practice on over sizing or providing excess capacity was based on one of the Guiding Principles approved March 19, 2012 that stated:

“Contributing basins may extend beyond the City’s corporate limits, thus costs for the over sizing will be contributed by the City and recovered once those lands are within the City limits and are contemplated for development.”

Administration is recommending that this practice be revisited since the Inter-municipal Development Plan (IDP) has been repealed by Sturgeon County and the City’s ongoing update to the Utility Master Plan. Link to Council or Corporate Objectives: Governance Link to Municipal Development Plan: The following are the related Policy statements from the Municipal Development Plan: 3.2 Phasing of New Development The City of St. Albert requires that development take place in a contiguous, sequential manner. Development shall not proceed unless the required transportation improvements, infrastructure, and community services are in place to support it. 13.1 Provisions for New Developments The City of St. Albert shall ensure that new development is consistent with the efficient, economic, and coordinated provision of municipal infrastructure, human services, and public utilities. 13.5 Cost of Expanding Municipal Infrastructure The cost of expanding municipal infrastructure shall be financed to the greatest level possible through developer obligations under development agreements. Financial Implications: The financial implications to the City of St. Albert of the off-site levy update are complex and are included in the 2013 Off-Site Levy Rate summary report.


File No.: 8000-2-1

In total the off-site levy model contains 71 projects for a total project estimated cost of $472.0 million. On average, the rates have increased by approximately $15,000 per hectare. The estimated cost of work yet to be completed is $330.0 million. Legal Implications: Months of consultations with the development industry and other stakeholders have lead to the bylaw draft now presented to Council. In Administration’s opinion, by providing and engaging in these extensive consultation opportunities the City has fulfilled its obligation to negotiate with the various stakeholders. Additional consultations with these parties will proceed as related policies are developed into the future. Council should note that if substantive changes are made to the proposed Bylaw 30/2013, it should be re-advertised prior to second reading. Attachments:

1. Offsite Levy Bylaw 30/2013 2. 2013 Offsite Levy Annual Report 3. Table 1.0 – Summary of March 4, 2013 Agenda Report & Council Motions 4. Table 2.0 – Summary of Revised Recommendations to Council 5. March 4, 2013 Agenda Report

Report Date August 16, 2013 Originating Department Engineering Prepared by: Tracy Allen Approved by David Hales City Manager Review Patrick Draper

ATTACHMENT 1

BYLAW 30/2013(Page 1)

CITY OF ST. ALBERT

OFF-SITE LEVY BYLAW 30/2013

Being a bylaw to establish Off-site Levies WHEREAS lands were annexed to the City of St. Albert by way of Order in Council 38/2007; and WHEREAS a review of existing municipal infrastructure revealed that an expansion of base level infrastructure would be required to support growth into the annexed areas as existing infrastructure did not have capacity to absorb new development; and WHEREAS the cost of the required base level infrastructure was assessed and the City concluded that the cost was too great for either the City or the landowners and developers to handle alone; and WHEREAS the City, landowners and developers have agreed that the construction of the required base level infrastructure is a shared responsibility and have worked together to determine how the costs of the required infrastructure can be shared on an equitable basis; and WHEREAS the City, the landowners and developers have agreed that in order to have all beneficiaries of development participate in the cost of providing the infrastructure a City wide approach had to be implemented; and WHEREAS Section 648 of the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. M-26, as amended, allows a municipal council to pass a bylaw to provide for the imposition and payment of levies, to be known as “Off-Site Levies” in respect of land that is to be developed or subdivided and to authorize an agreement to be entered into in respect of the payment of the levies; and WHEREAS the money collected from the imposition of the Off-Site Levies may only be used for the capital cost of the following municipal infrastructure:

• new or expanded facilities for the storage, transmission, treatment or supplying of water,

• new or expanded facilities for the treatment, movement or disposal of sanitary sewage,

• new or expanded storm sewer drainage facilities, • new or expanded roads required for or impacted by a subdivision or

development, and • land required for or in connection with any of the above described facilities;

and WHEREAS the landowners and developers have agreed with the City, following extensive consultation and negotiations, that the imposition of Off-Site Levies is an

ATTACHMENT 1


appropriate vehicle to ensure widespread and equitable participation in the payment of the costs of providing necessary municipal infrastructure; and WHEREAS Council has received reports and briefings regarding the development of the Off-Site Levies to be imposed within the boundaries of St. Albert and has advertised its intention to consider the passage of this Bylaw in accordance with the Act. NOW THEREFORE the Council of the City of St. Albert, duly assembled, hereby ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. This Bylaw may be referred to as the “Off-Site Levy Bylaw”. 2. In this Bylaw:

a. “Act” means the Municipal Government Act, R.S.A. 2000, c.M-26, as amended;

b. “Area” means the area of land, in hectares, being developed or subdivided less land being dedicated for municipal reserve, environmental reserve and road right-of-way for arterial roadways;

c. “Benefiting Area” means the area of land that will benefit from a particular

piece of Municipal Infrastructure, as more specifically identified in Schedule “A”;

d. “City” means the municipal corporation of the City of St. Albert or where

the context so requires the area within the boundaries of the City; e. “City Council” means the municipal council for the City of St. Albert; f. “Construction Costs” means the cost, incurred or as estimated and

adjusted annually by the Engineer, to complete the construction of Municipal Infrastructure and all necessary improvements forming part of the Municipal Infrastructure. Construction Costs shall include design, engineering, land costs, surveying costs, contingency costs and carrying costs. Estimated Construction Costs and Actual Construction Costs must be verified to the satisfaction of the Engineer;

g. “Developable Lands” means the total area of those lands within the City

yet to be developed, less arterial road rights-of-way, municipal reserve and environmental reserve;

h. “Development Agreement” means an agreement between the City and

the Owner of the land being developed or subdivided that relates to the construction of municipal improvements, including Municipal Infrastructure, required to service the lands and allow development to proceed;

ATTACHMENT 1


i. “Development Permit” means a permit issued in accordance with the Land Use Bylaw by a Development Officer, the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board or the Court of Appeal of Alberta;

j. “Engineer” means the City Manager or his/her delegate;

k. “Levy” means the amount, calculated in accordance with Sections 3 and 4

of this Bylaw, to be paid by an Owner to the City as the Owner’s contribution towards the costs of the construction of each type of the Municipal Infrastructure generally described as:

i new or expanded facilities for the storage, transmission, treatment

or supplying of water, ii new or expanded facilities for the treatment, movement or disposal

of sanitary sewage, iii new or expanded storm sewer drainage facilities, iv new or expanded roads required for or impacted by a subdivision or

development, and v land required for or in connection with any of the above described

facilities;

l. “Municipal Infrastructure” means those facilities for i new or expanded facilities for the storage, transmission, treatment

or supplying of water, ii new or expanded facilities for the treatment, movement or disposal

of sanitary sewage, iii new or expanded storm sewer drainage facilities, iv new or expanded roads required for or impacted by a subdivision or

development, and v land required for or in connection with any of the above described

facilities as more specifically identified in Schedule “B”;

m. “Net Construction Costs” means: i in the case of a Municipal Infrastructure not yet constructed, the

difference between the estimated Construction Costs for that piece of Municipal Infrastructure, as determined from time to time by the Engineer, less the total of money paid to the City in Off-Site Levies for that piece of Municipal Infrastructure or,

ii in the case of an already constructed piece of Municipal

Infrastructure, the difference between the actual Construction Costs for that piece of Municipal Infrastructure, as determined by the Engineer upon the completion of that piece of Municipal

ATTACHMENT 1


Infrastructure, less the total of money paid to the City in Off-Site Levies for that piece of Municipal Infrastructure;

n. “Owner” means the registered owner or person entitled to become the

registered owner of undeveloped land within the City which land is the subject of an application for a Development Permit or an application for Subdivision;

o. “Off-Site Levy Funds” means the levies collected by the City and interest on such levies less monies already spent constructing Municipal Infrastructure. A separate Off-Site Levy Fund shall be maintained for water infrastructure, sanitary sewer infrastructure, storm sewer infrastructure and roadway infrastructure;

p. “Schedule A” means the map attached to and forming part of this Bylaw

which divides the City into 42 areas for the purposes of establishing Benefiting Areas as required for the calculation of the Off-Site Levies;

q. “Schedule B” means the listing of water infrastructure, sanitary sewer

infrastructure, storm sewer infrastructure and roadway infrastructure attached to and forming part of this Bylaw and includes estimated dates of construction, estimated costs of construction (as of that date) and an indication of the areas that will benefit from each piece of Municipal Infrastructure;

r. “Schedule “C” means the table identifying the Off-Site Levy rates for the

Benefitting Areas; and

s. “Subdivision” has the meaning provided for in the Act. Imposition of Off-Site Levies 3. An Off-Site Levy shall be imposed on each hectare of land within the City at the

time such land receives Subdivision approval or on the date of approval of a Development Permit, and are payable in accordance with section 12 of this Bylaw. All undeveloped land will be subject to Off-Site Levies whether the land is to be developed for commercial, industrial, institutional, community or residential uses.

4. Off-Site Levies are deemed imposed whether or not the imposition of the Off-Site Levies is made a specific condition of Subdivision or the Development Permit.

ATTACHMENT 1


Benefitting Areas 5. For the purposes of calculating the Off-Site Levies to be imposed on a Benefiting

Area, the City shall be divided into 42 areas as shown on the map attached as Schedule “A”.

Use of Off-Site Levies Funds 6. The Off-Site Levies Funds shall be used to pay the Construction Costs of the

Municipal Infrastructure listed in Schedule “B”.

7. Notwithstanding increases or decreases in the Off-Site Levy rate for particular pieces of Municipal Infrastructure, no portion of an Off-Site Levy paid by an Owner shall be refunded. The City shall not seek to charge the Owner an additional Off-Site Levy for the same area of land once the Owner has paid the Off-Site Levies for that land.

Off-site Levies 8. The Area of the land for which the Off-Site Levy is being imposed and collected

shall be identified in the Development Permit or Subdivision approval that triggers the imposition of the Off-Site Levy.

9. The Off-Site Levy for a particular Area shall be the sum of all the Off-Site Levies

against the land for each of the following categories of Municipal Infrastructure:

a. Water Infrastructure; b. Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure; c. Storm Sewer Infrastructure; and d. Roadway Infrastructure.

10. The Off-Site Levy rates are set out in Schedule “C”.

11. For each category of Municipal Infrastructure, an Off-Site Levy for land being

developed or subdivided shall be calculated according to the following formula:

a. For Development Permits

Off-Site Levy to be paid by Owner

= Area to be developed pursuant to the Development Permit

X Municipal Infrastructure Off-Site Levy rates as identified in Column F in Schedule “C” in effect as of the date the Development Permit is issued

ATTACHMENT 1


b. For Subdivisions

Off-Site Levy to be paid by Owner

= Area of the Subdivision approval

X Municipal Infrastructure Off-Site Levy rates as identified in Column F in Schedule “C” in effect as of the date that the City approves the Development Agreement for the lands being subdivided

Payment of Off-Site Levies 12. The Off-Site Levies shall be paid by the Owner of the land being developed or

subdivided: a. for land to be developed at the time specified in the Development Permit

approving the development; or

b. for land which is to be subdivided, prior to the City’s approval of the Development Agreement.

13. Unless otherwise agreed by the Engineer, an Owner may not pay an Off-Site

Levy that would be imposed upon land when that land is subdivided or developed prior to the subdivision or development of that land.

Debt 14. Any payment of an Off-Site Levy pursuant to this Bylaw which is not made when

due shall be a debt owing to the City by the Owner. This provision does not in any way affect any other remedy available to the City for late or non-payment of an Off-Site Levy.

Development Agreements 15. The entering into of a Development Agreement in respect of payment of Off-Site

Levies is hereby authorized.

16. If the Development Agreement is not approved by the City, the Off-Site Levies paid shall be refunded to the Owner and the land shall be treated as if no Off-Site Levies had been imposed or collected with respect to that land.

Review of Off-Site Levies 17. The City shall review the Off-Site Levy projects and the Off-Site Levy rates no

less than every third year, with the first review required on or before 2016.

ATTACHMENT 1


18. After the review has been completed, the City Council may amend the Bylaw to update the Municipal Infrastructure Off-Site Levy rates.

19. Commencing in 2014, in each year that the City does not conduct a review (a “non-review year”), the Engineer shall calculate the Municipal Infrastructure Off-Site Levy Rate for each particular piece of Municipal Infrastructure that has or will be constructed with the Off-Site Levy Funds. In making this annual determination of the Off-Site Levy rate the Engineer shall utilize actual Construction Costs, work completed to the end of the previous calendar year, estimated Construction Costs, interest or carrying costs and determine the Area of the land that benefits from the piece of Municipal Infrastructure that remains to be developed or subdivided. When calculating the Municipal Infrastructure Off-Site Levy rate for each non-review year, the Engineer shall consult with representatives of both developers and landowners. Any person may request and shall be given specific details as to how the Engineer calculated the Off-Site Levy rates and what information was utilized by the Engineer in undertaking the calculations. In undertaking the annual recalculations the Engineer shall not be bound by the estimated Construction Costs or estimated construction dates shown in Schedule “B” but shall adjust such information in accordance with the current plans, staging information and Construction Costs.

20. The Municipal Infrastructure Off-Site Levy rates for each particular piece of Municipal Infrastructure shall be calculated according to the following formula: Municipal Infrastructure Off- Site Levy rate

= Net Construction Costs for the Municipal Infrastructure Developable Land benefiting from the Municipal Infrastructure yet to be developed or subdivided (in hectares)

21. In the non-review years, the Engineer shall bring to City Council for its approval

any amendments to Schedule “C” when he has completed the calculations set out in section 19 of this Bylaw.

Annual Report 22. On or before December 31 of each calendar year, the Engineer shall prepare

and submit to City Council an annual report on the Off-Site Levies imposed and collected by the City in the previous year. The annual report shall identify: a. Municipal Infrastructure constructed during the previous calendar year; b. Construction Costs of such Municipal Infrastructure;

ATTACHMENT 1


c. Amounts paid by the City from the Off-Site Levies Funds as Construction Costs for the Municipal Infrastructure and details as to whom the payments have been made;

d. Estimated Construction Costs for the Municipal Infrastructure yet to be

constructed and an explanation as to any adjustments to the estimates since the previous annual report;

e. Details as to the amounts collected in Off-Site Levies by the City; f. Specifics as to the total value of Off-Site Levy Funds being held by the

City which are yet to be expended on the construction of Municipal Infrastructure, including specifics as to the amount of interest earned on such Off-Site Levy Funds and information regarding any commitments made for the expenditure of monies in the Off-Site Levy Funds that have not yet been paid out; and

g. Information regarding any changes to the assumptions related to the

staging or timing of development and the projected construction date for the Municipal Infrastructure.

Severability 23. In the event that any provision of this Bylaw is found to be contrary to law by any

Court of competent jurisdiction, then that provision shall be severed and the remainder of the Bylaw shall be of full force and effect.

Transition 24. Except as otherwise provided for in Development Agreements signed prior to the

effective date of this Bylaw, this Bylaw applies to:

a. any subdivision where the date of subdivision approval occurs on or after the date this Bylaw comes into force; and

b. any development where the date of issuance of a development permit occurs on or after the date this Bylaw comes into force.

General 25. Nothing in this Bylaw precludes the City from:

a. imposing further or different off-site levies, duly enacted by bylaw, on any

land in respect of which the City has not collected the Off-Site Levies imposed under this Bylaw or any previous off-site levy bylaw authorized by statute; or

ATTACHMENT 1


b. adopting City Council policies in relation to:

i the process by which expenditures incurred by developers for infrastructure with capacity in excess of the capacity required to service their development is shared with subsequent developers (debt sharing);

ii the process by which the amount payable by a developer for Off-site Levies is off-set against the developer’s cost to construct Municipal Infrastructure (off-setting); and

iii the process governing when a developer may construct Municipal Infrastructure which benefits other parties, at whose cost such construction will occur and how a developer who has paid the cost of such construction is to be reimbursed for the costs in excess of his proportionate share (front ending and front ended claim reimbursement); and

c. adopting procedures or guidelines for the assistance and direction of City administration with respect to the implementation of this bylaw.

26. Bylaw 30/2009 is hereby repealed.

27. This Bylaw shall take effect upon the final passing thereof.

READ a first time this day of 2013.

READ a second time this day of 2013.

READ a third time and finally passed this day of 2013.

_________________________________ Mayor ________________________________ Chief Legislative Officer

ATTACHMENT 1


Schedule “A” Map of Benefiting Areas

ATTACHMENT 1


Summary of Development Areas

Area Ref. # Development Area LocatioNet Development Area (ha.) Remaining Development Area 1 NE-20-54-25-4 14.6 14.60 2 SE-20-54-25-4 52.62 52.62 3 SW-21-54-25-4 56.62 56.62 4 SE-21-54-25-4 54.04 54.04 5 NE-17-54-25-4 52.48 52.48

6.1 NW-16-54-25-4 5.63 5.63 6.2 NW-16-54-25-4 44.59 44.59

7 NE-16-54-25-4 23.67 7.06 8 River lot 36 & 37 4.2 1.18 9 SE-13-54-26-4 6.1 6.10

10.1 SW-18-54-25-4 25.69 25.69 10.2 SW-18-54-25-4 9.16 9.16

11 SE-18-54-25-4 54.5 54.50 12 SW-17-54-25-4 54.07 54.07 13 SE-17-54-25-4 59.84 59.84 14 SW-16-54-25-4 11.37 11.37 15 River lot 32, 33 & 34 6.81 1.01 16 NE-12-54-26-4 15.83 15.83 17 NW-7-54-25-4 18.73 18.73

17.2 NW-7-54-25-4 0 - 18 NE-7-54-25-4 21.84 7.22 19 SE-12-54-26-4 18.89 18.89 20 SW-7-54-25-4 43.42 43.42

20.2 SW-7-54-25-4 0 - 21 SE-7-54-25-4 0 - 22 NE-1-54-26-4 27.92 27.92 23 NW-6-54-25-4 15.42 15.42

23.1 River Lot 16 11.55 11.55 23.2 River Lot 16 8.91 8.91 23.3 River Lot 16 5.41 5.41

24 NE-6-54-25-4 34.77 18.52 25 NW-5-54-25-4 14.8 9.92 26 River Lot 7 - 13 93.56 93.56 27 Plan 9926483 61.32 61.32

28.1 River Lot 16 20.92 20.92 28.2 River Lot 16 11.4 11.40

29 Plan 1798AN 42.21 42.21 29.1 Plan 1798AN 19.69 19.69 29.2 Plan 3032RS 0 -

30 River Lot 19 28.05 28.05 30.1 River Lot 19 23.98 23.98

31 River Lot 20 1.49 1.49 31.1 River Lot 20 - 22 54.7 47.84

32 River Lot 13A 4.75 4.75 33 River Lot 14A 7.02 7.02 34 River Lot 16A 0 -

ATTACHMENT 1


Area Ref. # Development Area LocatioNet Development Area (ha.Remaining Development Area

(ha.)35 NW-29-53-25-4 13.89 13.89 36 NE-29-53-25-4 27.92 27.92 37 SW-29-53-25-4 29.8 29.80 38 SE-29-53-25-4 46.09 46.09 39 Description 33 33.00 40 Description 4.65 4.65 41 Description 0 - 42 SE-2-54-25-4 21.16 21.16

ATTACHMENT 1


Schedule “B” Municipal Infrastructure Water Infrastructure Map

ATTACHMENT 1


Water Infrastructure Facilities

Item Project Description Cost of Completed

Work

Estimated Cost of Work

Yet to be Completed

Total Estimated

Cost of Work

Developer Share

(Offsite Levy)

Areas Benefitted

1 R1 - Southwest Reservoir & Pumphouse

$ - 29,205,000$ 29,205,000$ 29,205,000$ All

2 R2 - North Reservoir & Pumphouse

$ - 30,005,000$ 30,005,000$ 16,502,750$ All

3 R3 - Lacombe Park Existing Reservoir & Pumphouse

$10,048,497 -$ 10,048,497$ 3,745,085$ All

4 W1 - Oakmont Water Supply Main

$ 4,533,583 6,371,092$ 10,904,675$ 5,452,338$ All

5 W2 - Oakmont Transmission Main - Phase 1

$ 79,219 2,480,781$ 2,560,000$ 1,920,000$ All

6 W3 - Oakmont Transmission Main - Phase 2

$ - 2,560,000$ 2,560,000$ 1,920,000$ All

7 W4 - South Reservoir Transmission Main

$ - 5,516,081$ 5,516,081$ 4,137,060$ All

8 W5 - South Reservoir River Crossing

$ - 1,832,463$ 1,832,463$ 1,374,348$ All

9 W6 - Oversizing Pool

$ 62,477 2,691,000$ 2,753,477$ 2,753,477$ with development

10 Past Developer Contributions

$ - -$ -$ (2,487,770)$ 8.0,15.0,18.0,24.0,25.0,29.0,29.1,30.0,30.1,31.0,31.1,35.0,36.0,37.0,38.0,39.0,40.0,42.0

14,723,777$ 80,661,417$ 95,385,194$ 64,522,288$

ATTACHMENT 1


Roadway Infrastructure Map

ATTACHMENT 1


Roadway Infrastructure Facilities

ItemProject

DescriptionCost of

Completed Work

Estimated Cost of Work Yet to be Completed

Total Estimated Cost of Work

Developer Share (Offsite Levy) Areas Benefitted

1

McKenney Avenue - Morgan Crescent to Ray Gibbon Drive $ 10,385,894 5,075,200$ 15,461,094$ $13,948,834

18.0,23.3,24.0,25.0,28.2,29.0,29.1,30.0,30.1,31.0,31.1,35.0,36.0,37.0,38.0

2

Giroux Road - North Ridge Drive to Ray Gibbon Drive $ 5,333,813 1,326,000$ 6,659,813$ $5,159,813

18.0,23.3,24.0,25.0,28.2,29.0,29.1,30.0,30.1,31.0,31.1,35.0,36.0,37.0,38.0

3

Hogan Road Widening - Giroux Road to Villeneuve Road $ - 4,394,000$ 4,394,000$ $4,394,000

18.0,23.3,24.0,25.0,28.2,29.0,29.1,30.0,30.1,31.0,31.1,35.0,36.0,37.0,38.0

4

LeClair Way - Sir Winston Churchill Avenue to Ray Gibbon Drive $ 9,349,095 568,000$ 9,917,095$ $6,961,409

18.0,23.3,24.0,25.0,28.2,29.0,29.1,30.0,30.1,31.0,31.1,35.0,36.0,37.0,38.0

5

Ray Gibbon Drive - 137 Ave(Edmonton) to Meadowview Drive / McKenney Avenue $ 30,207,000 -$ 38,933,176$ $13,776,788

1.0,2.0,3.0,4.0,5.0,6.1,6.2,7.0,9.0,10.1,10.2,11.0,12.0,13.0,14.0,16.0,17.0,18.0,19.0,20.0,22.0,23.0,23.1,23.2,23.3,24.0,25.0,26.0,27.0,28.1,28.2,29.0,29.1,30.0,30.1,31.0,31.1,32.0,33.0,35.0,36.0,37.0,38.0

6

Campbell Road - From Poirier Ave to Poundmaker Road $ 2,645,950 2,409,000$ 5,054,950$ $5,054,950

8.0,15.0,39.0,40.0,42.0

7

LeClair Way - City of Edmonton Limits to Ray Gibbon Drive $ - 12,652,000$ 12,652,000$ $12,652,000

18.0,23.3,24.0,25.0,28.2,29.0,29.1,30.0,30.1,31.0,31.1,35.0,36.0,37.0,38.0

8

Ray Gibbon Drive - Meadowview Drive / McKenney Avenue to Giroux Road $ 15,573,600 500,000$ 19,512,918$ $5,418,959

1.0,2.0,3.0,4.0,5.0,6.1,6.2,7.0,9.0,10.1,10.2,11.0,12.0,13.0,14.0,16.0,17.0,18.0,19.0,20.0,22.0,23.0,23.1,23.2,23.3,24.0,25.0,26.0,27.0,28.1,28.2,29.0,29.1,30.0,30.1,31.0,31.1,32.0,33.0,35.0,36.0,37.0,38.0

ATTACHMENT 1


Item Project Description Cost of Completed Work

Estimated Cost of Work Yet to be

Completed


Developer Share (Offsite Levy)

Areas Benefitted

9 Ray Gibbon Drive - Giroux Road to Villeneuve Road

$ 21,918,866 7,477,434$ 33,538,072$ $8,406,3861.0,2.0,3.0,4.0,5.0,6.1,6.2,7.0,9.0,10.1,10.2,11.0,12.0,13.0,14.0,16.0,17.0,18.0,19.0,20.0,22.0,23.0,23.1,23.2,23.3,24.0,25.0,26.0,27.0,28.1,28.2,29.0,29.1,30.0,30.1,31.0,31.1,32.0,33.0,35.0,36.0,37.0,38.0

10 Meadowview Drive - From West City Limits to Ray Gibbon Drive

$ - 16,789,000$ 16,789,000$ $16,789,000 9.0,10.1,16.0,17.0,19.0,20.0,22.0.23.0,23.1,23.2,26.0,27.0,28.1,32.0,33.0

11 Giroux Road - West City Limits to Ray Gibbon Drive

$ - 16,786,000$ 16,786,000$ $16,786,000 9.0,10.1,16.0,17.0,19.0,20.0,22.0.23.0,23.1,23.2,26.0,27.0,28.1,32.0,33.0

12 Villeneuve Road - from West City Limits to Ray Gibbon Drive

$ - 6,872,000$ 6,872,000$ $6,872,000 9.0,10.1,16.0,17.0,19.0,20.0,22.0.23.0,23.1,23.2,26.0,27.0,28.1,32.0,33.0

13 Northeast Sector Arterial - from Ray Gibbon Drive to Hogan Road

$ - 5,600,000$ 5,600,000$ $5,600,0001.0,2.0,3.0,4.0,5.0,6.1,6.2,7.0,10.2,11.0,12.0,13.0,14.0

14 Northeast Sector Arterial - from Hogan Road to St. Albert Trail

$ - 12,805,000$ 12,805,000$ $12,805,0001.0,2.0,3.0,4.0,5.0,6.1,6.2,7.0,10.2,11.0,12.0,13.0,14.0

15 Northeast Sector Arterial - St. Albert Trail to Coal Mine Road (Sturgeon County)

$ 1,137,017 10,321,000$ 11,458,017$ $11,458,017

1.0,2.0,3.0,4.0,5.0,6.1,6.2,7.0,10.2,11.0,12.0,13.0,14.0

16 Hogan Road - Villeneuve Road to North City Limits

$ - 7,526,000$ 7,526,000$ $7,526,000 1.0,2.0,3.0,4.0,5.0,6.1,6.2,7.0,10.2,11.0,12.0,13.0,14.0

17 Veness Road - From South City Limit to Boudreau Road

$ - 708,048$ 708,048$ $08.0,15.0,39.0,40.0,42.0

18 Veness Road - From Boudreau Road to Corriveau Avenue

$ - 2,465,771$ 2,465,771$ $08.0,15.0,39.0,40.0,42.0

19 Veness Road - From Corriveau Avenue to Poundmaker Road

$ - 4,340,274$ 4,340,274$ $08.0,15.0,39.0,40.0,42.0

20 St. Albert Trail - From Villeneuve Road to NE Sector Arterial

$ - 11,258,000$ 11,258,000$ $11,258,0001.0,2.0,3.0,4.0,5.0,6.1,6.2,7.0,10.2,11.0,12.0,13.0,14.0

ATTACHMENT 1




Completed



Areas Benefitted

21 St. Albert Trail - From NE Sector Arterial to North City Limit

$ - 8,606,000$ 8,606,000$ $8,606,000

1.0,2.0,3.0,4.0,5.0,6.1,6.2,7.0,10.2,11.0,12.0,13.0,14.0

22 Intersection - Hogan Road @ Giroux Road

$ - 715,000$ 715,000$ $715,000

18.0,23.3,24.0,25.0,28.2,29.0,29.1,30.0,30.1,31.0,31.1,35.0,36.0,37.0,38.0

23 Intersection - Hogan Road @ Villeneuve Road

$ - 715,000$ 715,000$ $715,000

1.0,2.0,3.0,4.0,5.0,6.1,6.2,7.0,9.0,10.1,10.2,11.0,12.0,13.0,14.0,16.0,17.0,19.0,20.0,20.2,23.0,23.1,23.2,26.0,27.0,28.1,32.0,33.0

24 Intersection - Campbell Road @ Poundmaker Road $ - 715,000$ 715,000$ $715,000

8.0,15.0,39.0,40.0,42.0

25 Intersection - Ray Gibbon Drive @ Villeneuve Road

$ - 715,000$ 715,000$ $0

9.0,10.1,16.0,17.0,18.0,19.0,20.0,22.0,23.0,23.1,23.2,23.3,24.0,25.0,26.0,27.0,28.1,28.2,29.0,29.1,30.0,30.1,31.0,31.1,32.0,33.0,35.0,36.0,37.0,38.0

26 Intersection - Ray Gibbon Drive @ Giroux Road

$ - 715,000$ 715,000$ $0

9.0,10.1,16.0,17.0,18.0,19.0,20.0,22.0,23.0,23.1,23.2,23.3,24.0,25.0,26.0,27.0,28.1,28.2,29.0,29.1,30.0,30.1,31.0,31.1,32.0,33.0,35.0,36.0,37.0,38.0

27 Intersection - Northeast Sector Arterial @ Hogan Road $ - -$ -$ $0

1.0,2.0,3.0,4.0,5.0,6.1,6.2,7.0,10.2,11.0,12.0,13.0,14.0

28 Intersection - Northeast Sector Arterial @ St. Albert Trail $ - 715,000$ 715,000$ $715,000

1.0,2.0,3.0,4.0,5.0,6.1,6.2,7.0,10.2,11.0,12.0,13.0,14.0

29 Intersection - Northeast Sector Arterial @ Coal Mine Road (Sturgeon County) $ - 715,000$ 715,000$ $715,000

1.0,2.0,3.0,4.0,5.0,6.1,6.2,7.0,10.2,11.0,12.0,13.0,14.0

30 Intersection - Veness Road @ Boudreau Road $ - 715,000$ 715,000$ $0

8.0,15.0,39.0,40.0,42.0

31 Intersection - Veness Road @ Corriveau Avenue $ - 715,000$ 715,000$ $0

8.0,15.0,39.0,40.0,42.0

32 Intersection - Veness Road @ Poundmaker Road $ - 715,000$ 715,000$ $0

8.0,15.0,39.0,40.0,42.0

ATTACHMENT 1




Completed



Areas Benefitted

33 Intersection - LeClair Way @ Ray Gibbon Drive

$ - -$ -$ $0 9.0,10.1,16.0,17.0,18.0,19.0,20.0,22.0,23.0,23.1,23.2,23.3,24.0,25.0,26.0,27.0,28.1,28.2,29.0,29.1,30.0,30.1,31.0,31.1,32.0,33.0,35.0,36.0,37.0,38.0

34 Intersection - Interim 137th Avenue @ Ray Gibbon Drive

$ - -$ -$ $0 9.0,10.1,16.0,17.0,18.0,19.0,20.0,22.0,23.0,23.1,23.2,23.3,24.0,25.0,26.0,27.0,28.1,28.2,29.0,29.1,30.0,30.1,31.0,31.1,32.0,33.0,35.0,36.0,37.0,38.0

35 Intersection Ray Gibbon Drive @ McKenney Avenue

$ - -$ -$ -$1,118,000 9.0,10.1,16.0,17.0,18.0,19.0,20.0,22.0,23.0,23.1,23.2,23.3,24.0,25.0,26.0,27.0,28.1,28.2,29.0,29.1,30.0,30.1,31.0,31.1,32.0,33.0,35.0,36.0,37.0,38.0

36 Bellerose Drive - Erin Ridge Road to Coal Mine Road

$ 2,101,350 2,545,920$ 4,647,270$ $08.0,15.0,39.0,40.0,42.0

37 Intersection - Sir Winston Churchill Avenue to LeClair Way / 137 Ave (Edmonton)

$ - -$ -$ $018.0,23.3,24.0,25.0,28.2,29.0,29.1,30.0,30.1,31.0,31.1,35.0,36.0,37.0,38.0

98,652,585$ 148,174,647$ 263,134,497$ 175,930,156$ -$

ATTACHMENT 1


Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure Map

ATTACHMENT 1


Sanitary Sewer Infrastructure Facilities


Work


Yet to be Completed

Total Estimated

Cost of Work

Developer Share (Offsite

Levy)

Areas Benefitted

1 S1 - North Annexation Trunk - Phase 1

$ 1,084,359 9,413,472$ 10,497,831$ 6,193,720$ 1.0,2.0,3.0,4.0,5.0,6.1,6.2,7.0,9.0,10.1,10.2,11.0,12.0,13.0,14.0

2 L1 - North East Lift Station

$ - 5,200,000$ 5,200,000$ 3,068,000$ 1.0,2.0,3.0,4.0,5.0,6.1,6.2,7.0,9.0,10.1,10.2,11.0,12.0,13.0,14.0

3 F1 - North East Forcemain

$ 150,000 13,000,000$ 13,150,000$ 7,758,500$ 1.0,2.0,3.0,4.0,5.0,6.1,6.2,7.0,9.0,10.1,10.2,11.0,12.0,13.0,14.0

4 LF1 - South West Lift Station & Forcemain

$ - -$ -$ -$ 26.0,27.0,28.1,32.0,33.0

5 LF2 - South East Lift Station & Forcemain

$ - -$ -$ -$ 28.2,29.0,29.1,30.0,30.1,31.0,31.1

6 LF3 - North West Lift Station & Forcemain

$ - -$ -$ -$ 9.0,10.1

7 S2 - Phase 1 - North Interceptor

$ 10,452,590 -$ 10,452,590$ -$ 16.0,17.0,18.0,19.0,20.0,22.0,23.0,23.1,23.2,23.3,24.0,25.0,26.0,27.0,28.1,28.2,29.0,29.1,30.0,30.1,31.0,31.1,32.0,33.0

8 S3 - Phase 2b - North Interceptor

$ - 5,803,067$ 5,803,067$ 5,803,067$ 16.0,17.0,18.0,19.0,20.0,22.0,23.0,23.1,23.2,23.3,24.0,25.0,26.0,27.0,28.1,28.2,29.0,29.1,30.0,30.1,31.0,31.1,32.0,33.0

9 S4 - Phase 3 North Interceptor

$ - 12,406,557$ 12,406,557$ 12,076,893$ 16.0,17.0,18.0,19.0,20.0,22.0,23.0,23.1,23.2,23.3,24.0,25.0,26.0,27.0,28.1,28.2,29.0,29.1,30.0,30.1,31.0,31.1,32.0,33.0,35.0,36.0,37.0,38.0

10 L2 - Riel Lift Station - Rebuild

$ 2,488,768 -$ 2,488,768$ 1,244,384$ 35.0,36.0,37.0,38.0

11 S5 - Oakmont Drive Sewer Replacement

$ - 812,906$ 812,906$ 203,227$ 1.0,2.0,3.0,4.0,5.0,6.1,6.2,7.0,8.0,9.0,10.1,10.2,11.0,12.0,13.0,14.0,15.0

12 S6 - North Annexation Trunk Phase 2

$ - 2,191,515$ 2,191,515$ 1,292,994$ 5.0,9.0,10.1,10.2,11.0,12.0,13.0,14.0

13 S7 - North Annex. Phase 3

$ - 3,900,000$ 3,900,000$ 2,301,000$ 9,10.1,10.2,11

14,175,716$ 52,727,516$ 66,903,232$ 39,941,783$

ATTACHMENT 1


Storm Sewer Infrastructure Map

ATTACHMENT 1


Storm Sewer Infrastructure Facilities

Item Project Description Cost of Complete

d Work


Yet to be Completed

Total Estimated

Cost of Work


Levy)

Areas Benefitted

1 Northwest Area Storm Trunk Outfall (Carrot Creek Outfall North of Villenuve)

$ - 5,268,978$ 5,268,978$ 1,633,383$ 1.0,2.0,3.0,4.0,5.0,6.1,6.2,7.0,9.0,10.1,10.2,11.0,12.0,16.0,17.0,19.0,20.0,22.0,23.0,23.1,23.2,26.0,27.0,28.1,32.0,33.0

2 Northwest Area Storm Trunk Outfall (Carrot Creek Outfall Giroux to Villenuve)

$ - 2,049,047$ 2,049,047$ 635,205$ 1.0,2.0,3.0,4.0,5.0,6.1,6.2,7.0,9.0,10.1,10.2,11.0,12.0,16.0,17.0,19.0,20.0,22.0,23.0,23.1,23.2,26.0,27.0,28.1,32.0,33.0

3 Northwest Area Storm Trunk Outfall (Carrot Creek Outfall McKinney to Giroux)

$ - 7,933,517$ 7,933,517$ 2,459,390$ 1.0,2.0,3.0,4.0,5.0,6.1,6.2,7.0,9.0,10.1,10.2,11.0,12.0,16.0,17.0,19.0,20.0,22.0,23.0,23.1,23.2,26.0,27.0,28.1,32.0,33.0

4 Northwest Area Storm Trunk Outfall (Carrot Creek Outfall McKinney South)

$ - 12,059,268$ 12,059,268$ 3,738,373$ 1.0,2.0,3.0,4.0,5.0,6.1,6.2,7.0,9.0,10.1,10.2,11.0,12.0,16.0,17.0,19.0,20.0,22.0,23.0,23.1,23.2,26.0,27.0,28.1,32.0,33.0

5 NE Area Storm - Trunk Sewer and Outfall

$ - 5,681,000$ 5,681,000$ 3,351,790$ 1.0,2.0,3.0,4.0,5.0,6.1,6.2,7.0,9.0,10.1,10.2,11.0,12.0,16.0,17.0,19.0,20.0,22.0,23.0,23.1,23.2,26.0,27.0,28.1,32.0,33.0

6 NE Area Storm - Pond 1 and Coal Mine Road Trunk Sewer

$ - 1,725,000$ 1,725,000$ 1,017,750$ 1.0,2.0,3.0,4.0,5.0,6.1,6.2,7.0,9.0,10.1,10.2,11.0,12.0,16.0,17.0,19.0,20.0,22.0,23.0,23.1,23.2,26.0,27.0,28.1,32.0,33.0

7 NE Area Storm - Everitt Drive Storm Sewer Phase 1

$ - 1,345,500$ 1,345,500$ 793,845$ 1.0,2.0,3.0,4.0,5.0,6.1,6.2,7.0,9.0,10.1,10.2,11.0,12.0,16.0,17.0,19.0,20.0,22.0,23.0,23.1,23.2,26.0,27.0,28.1,32.0,33.0


$ - 1,794,000$ 1,794,000$ 1,058,460$ 1.0,2.0,3.0,4.0,5.0,6.1,6.2,7.0,9.0,10.1,10.2,11.0,12.0,16.0,17.0,19.0,20.0,22.0,23.0,23.1,23.2,26.0,27.0,28.1,32.0,33.0

ATTACHMENT 1


Item Project Description Cost of Complete

d Work


Yet to be Completed

Total Estimated

Cost of Work


Levy)

Areas Benefitted

9 NE Area Storm - St Albert Trail Storm Sewer

$ - 448,500$ 448,500$ 264,615$ 1.0,2.0,3.0,4.0,5.0,6.1,6.2,7.0,9.0,10.1,10.2,11.0,12.0,16.0,17.0,19.0,20.0,22.0,23.0,23.1,23.2,26.0,27.0,28.1,32.0,33.0

10 NE Area Storm - Lift Station and Trunk Between Ponds 2 and 3

$ - 7,475,000$ 7,475,000$ 4,410,250$ 1.0,2.0,3.0,4.0,5.0,6.1,6.2,7.0,9.0,10.1,10.2,11.0,12.0,16.0,17.0,19.0,20.0,22.0,23.0,23.1,23.2,26.0,27.0,28.1,32.0,33.0

11 NE Area Storm - Storm Sewer Between Ponds 3 and 4

$ - 1,794,000$ 1,794,000$ 1,058,460$ 1.0,2.0,3.0,4.0,5.0,6.1,6.2,7.0,9.0,10.1,10.2,11.0,12.0,16.0,17.0,19.0,20.0,22.0,23.0,23.1,23.2,26.0,27.0,28.1,32.0,33.0


$ - 478,400$ 478,400$ 282,256$ 1.0,2.0,3.0,4.0,5.0,6.1,6.2,7.0,9.0,10.1,10.2,11.0,12.0,16.0,17.0,19.0,20.0,22.0,23.0,23.1,23.2,26.0,27.0,28.1,32.0,33.0

-$ 48,052,210$ 48,052,210$ 20,703,777$

ATTACHMENT 1


Schedule “C” Off-Site Levy Rates for the Benefitting Areas

ATTACHMENT 2

City of St. Albert 2013 Offsite Levy Rate Update

Version 2.0 August 13th, 2013

City of St. Albert – 2013 Offsite Levy Rate Update

Version 1 – August 7th, 2013 / 2

1 CONTENTS

1.1 Table of Contents

1 CONTENTS .............................................................................................................................. 2 2 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 4 3 OFFSITE LEVY DEVELOPMENT LANDS ............................................................................... 5 4 ROAD OFFSITE INFRASTRUCTURE ..................................................................................... 7 5 WATER OFFSITE INFRASTRUCTURE ................................................................................. 15 6 SANITARY OFFSITE INFRASTRUCTURE ............................................................................ 22 7 STORM WATER OFFSITE INFRASTRUCTURE ................................................................... 28 8 SUMMARY OF RATES ........................................................................................................... 34

1.2 List of Figures and Tables

Figure 1: Offsite Levy Areas ............................................................................................ 5

Table 1: Offsite Levy Net Development Area Amendment ............................................... 6

Table 2: Net Development Area by Anticipated Land Use Amendment ........................... 6

Figure 2: Roads – Offsite Levy Projects .......................................................................... 7

Table 3: Roads – Offsite Levy Project Costs ................................................................... 8

Table 4: Roads – Project Expenditures ........................................................................... 9

Table 5: Roads – Special Grants and Developer Agreement Contributions ..................... 9

Table 6: Roads – Allocations to Benefiting Parties ........................................................ 11

Table 7: Roads – Infrastructure Cost Allocation To Benefitting Parties .......................... 12

Table 8: Roads – Offsite Levy Receipts......................................................................... 13

Figure 3: Roads – Offsite Levy Balance ........................................................................ 14

Figure 4: Roads – Projected Reserve Balances ............................................................ 15

Table 9: Roads – Offsite Levy Rates ............................................................................. 15

Figure 5: Water – Offsite Levy Projects ......................................................................... 16

Table 10: Water – Offsite Levy Project Costs ................................................................ 17

Table 11: Water – Project Expenditures ........................................................................ 17

Table 12: Water – Special Grants and Developer Agreement Contributions .................. 18

Table 13: Water – Allocations to Benefiting Parties ....................................................... 18

Table 14: Water – Cost Allocation To Benefitting Parties .............................................. 19

Table 15: Water – Offsite Levy Receipts ....................................................................... 19

Figure 6: Water – Offsite Levy Balance ......................................................................... 20



Figure 7: Water – Reserve Balance ............................................................................... 21

Table 16: Water – Offsite Levy Rates ............................................................................ 21

Figure 8: Sanitary – Offsite Levy Projects ...................................................................... 22

Table 17: Sanitary – Offsite Levy Project Costs ............................................................. 23

Table 18: Sanitary – Project Expenditures ..................................................................... 23

Table 19: Sanitary – Special Grants and Developer Agreement Contributions .............. 24

Table 20: Sanitary – Benefitting Parties......................................................................... 24

Table 21: Sanitary – Cost Allocation To Benefitting Parties ........................................... 25

Table 22: Sanitary – Offsite Levy Receipts .................................................................... 25

Figure 9: Sanitary – Offsite Levy Balance ...................................................................... 26

Figure 10: Sanitary – Reserve Balance ......................................................................... 27

Table 23: Sanitary – Offsite Levy Rates ........................................................................ 27

Figure 11: Storm Water – Offsite Levy Projects ............................................................. 28

Table 24: Storm Water – Offsite Levy Project Costs ...................................................... 29

Table 25: Storm Water – Special Grants and Developer Agreement Contributions ....... 29

Table 26: Storm Water – Benefitting Parties .................................................................. 30

Table 27: Storm Water – Cost Allocation To Benefitting Parties .................................... 31

Table 28: Storm Water – Offsite Levy Receipts ............................................................. 31

Figure 12: Storm Water – Offsite Levy Balance ............................................................. 32

Figure 13: Storm Water – Reserve Balance .................................................................. 33

Table 29: Storm Water – Offsite Levy Rates ................................................................. 33

Table 30: Summary – Offsite Levy Rates ...................................................................... 34



2 INTRODUCTION

The City of St. Albert adopted Bylaw 30/2009 on March 1st, 2010 (“Offsite Levy Bylaw”). The

bylaw and rates were updated in March 2011.

The Offsite Levy Bylaw requires that the City prepare an update report annually, including

the following:

o Municipal infrastructure constructed during the previous calendar year.

o Construction costs of such municipal infrastructure.

o Amounts paid by the City from the offsite levy funds as construction costs for the

municipal infrastructure and details as to whom the payment have been made by.

o Estimated construction costs for the municipal infrastructure yet to be constructed

and an explanation as to any adjustments to the estimates since the previous annual

report.

o Details as to the amounts collected in offsite levies by the City.

o Specifics as to the total value of offsite levy funds being held by the City which are

yet to be expended on the construction of municipal infrastructure, including specifics

as to the amount of interest earned on such offsite levy funds and information

regarding any commitments made for the expenditure of monies in the offsite levy

funds that have not yet been paid out.

o Information regarding any changes to the assumptions related to the staging or

timing of development and the projected construction date for the municipal

infrastructure.



3 OFFSITE LEVY DEVELOPMENT LANDS

Offsite Levy Areas – The offsite levy areas in St. Albert remain unchanged (shown in the

diagram below).

Figure 1: Offsite Levy Areas

Net Development Area – The calculation of Net Development Area, both under Table 1

and Table 2 below, has been amended from the 2011 Offsite Levy Bylaw/Rate Update.



Some lands have been developed, and some area calculations have been revised by

planning staff.

The net development area used in development of Offsite levy rates is outlined in the Table

1, Offsite Levy Net Development Area. In developing the net development area calculations

only those lands remaining to be developed within the corporate boundary that have not

previously paid offsite levies have been considered. 39.54 ha were developed, resulting in a

reduction of total net area available to 1251.03 ha.

Table 1: Offsite Levy Net Development Area Amendment

Table 2 below, Net Development Area by Anticipated Land Use, outlines development area

changes by land use.

Table 2: Net Development Area by Anticipated Land Use Amendment

Description 2011 Area ha. 2013 Area ha. ChangeGross Area 1,727.71 1,727.71 - Environmental Reserves 175.28 175.28 - Arterial ROW 98.43 98.43 - Municipal Reserves 134.92 134.92 -

Net Development Area 1,319.08 1,319.08 - Less Area Developed 28.51 68.05 39.54

Remaining Net Development Area 1,290.57 1,251.03 (39.54)

Land Use 2011 Net Area ha.2013 Net Area

ha. ChangeGeneral 1,009.94 970.40 39.54 Non Residential 280.63 280.63 -

- Net Development Area 1,290.57 1,251.03 39.54



4 ROAD OFFSITE INFRASTRUCTURE

When Bylaw 30/2009 was updated in 2011 it included 37 road infrastructure projects. These

37 projects remain the same in 2013 (see diagram below).

Figure 2: Roads – Offsite Levy Projects

Total Project Cost – The overall cost of projects is comprised of “Cost of Work Completed”

plus “Debenture Interest” (if any) plus the “Estimated Cost of Work Yet to Be Completed”.



The overall cost of these 37 road infrastructure projects has increased from $253.2 Million to

$263.1 Million (as shown in the table below).

Table 3: Roads – Offsite Levy Project Costs


Work

Debenture Interest


Yet to be Completed

Total Project Estimated

Cost

Cost of Completed

Work

Debenture Interest


Completed


Cost

1 McKenney Avenue - Morgan Crescent to Ray Gibbon Drive

$ 10,385,894 3,878,649$ $14,264,543 $ 10,385,894 5,075,200$ $15,461,094

2 Giroux Road - North Ridge Drive to Ray Gibbon Drive

$ 5,306,001 780,936$ $6,086,937 $ 5,333,813 1,326,000$ $6,659,813

3 Hogan Road Widening - Giroux Road to Villeneuve Road

$ - 3,480,370$ $3,480,370 $ - 4,394,000$ $4,394,000

4 LeClair Way - Sir Winston Churchill Avenue to Ray Gibbon Drive

$ 4,659,125 6,600,000$ $11,259,125 $ 9,349,095 568,000$ $9,917,095

5 Ray Gibbon Drive - 137 Ave(Edmonton) to Meadowview Drive / McKenney Avenue

$ 30,207,000 $ 3,046,325 -$ $33,253,325 $ 30,207,000 $ 8,726,176 -$

$38,933,1766 Campbell Road - From Poirier Ave to

$ 2,645,950 1,919,801$ $4,565,751 $ 2,645,950 2,409,000$ $5,054,950

7 LeClair Way - City of Edmonton Limits to Ray Gibbon Drive

$ - 9,692,094$ $9,692,094 $ - 12,652,000$ $12,652,000

8 Ray Gibbon Drive - Meadowview Drive / McKenney Avenue to Giroux Road

$ 15,645,600 $ 2,221,088 -$ $17,866,688 $ 15,573,600 $ 3,439,318 500,000$ $19,512,918


$ - 31,756,000$ $31,756,000 $ 21,918,866 $ 4,141,771 7,477,434$ $33,538,072


$ - 13,376,682$ $13,376,682 $ - 16,789,000$ $16,789,000


$ - 11,840,841$ $11,840,841 $ - 16,786,000$ $16,786,000


$ - 4,364,680$ $4,364,680 $ - 6,872,000$ $6,872,000


$ - 8,930,625$ $8,930,625 $ - 5,600,000$ $5,600,000


$ - 20,421,645$ $20,421,645 $ - 12,805,000$ $12,805,000


$ - 14,857,476$ $14,857,476 $ 1,137,017 10,321,000$

$11,458,01716 Hogan Road - Villeneuve Road to North

City Limits $ - 6,654,763$ $6,654,763 $ - 7,526,000$

$7,526,00017 Veness Road - From South City Limit to

Boudreau Road $ - 708,048$ $708,048 $ - 708,048$

$708,04818 Veness Road - From Boudreau Road to

Corriveau Avenue $ - 2,100,000$ $2,100,000 $ - 2,465,771$

$2,465,77119 Veness Road - From Corriveau Avenue

to Poundmaker Road $ - 6,750,000$ $6,750,000 $ - 4,340,274$

$4,340,27420 St. Albert Trail - From Villeneuve Road to

NE Sector Arterial $ - 9,712,298$ $9,712,298 $ - 11,258,000$

$11,258,00021 St. Albert Trail - From NE Sector Arterial

to North City Limit $ - 4,520,036$ $4,520,036 $ - 8,606,000$

$8,606,00022 Intersection - Hogan Road @ Giroux

Road $ - 899,479$ $899,479 $ - 715,000$

$715,00023 Intersection - Hogan Road @ Villeneuve

Road $ - 899,479$ $899,479 $ - 715,000$ $715,000

24 Intersection - Campbell Road @ Poundmaker Road

$ - 899,479$ $899,479 $ - 715,000$ $715,000


$ - 899,479$ $899,479 $ - 715,000$ $715,000


$ - 899,479$ $899,479 $ - 715,000$ $715,000

27 Intersection - Northeast Sector Arterial @ Hogan Road

$ - 899,479$ $899,479 $ - -$ $0

28 Intersection - Northeast Sector Arterial @ St. Albert Trail

$ - 899,479$ $899,479 $ - 715,000$ $715,000

29 Intersection - Northeast Sector Arterial @ Coal Mine Road (Sturgeon County)

$ - 899,479$ $899,479 $ - 715,000$ $715,000

30 Intersection - Veness Road @ Boudreau Road

$ - 899,479$ $899,479 $ - 715,000$ $715,000

31 Intersection - Veness Road @ Corriveau Avenue

$ - 899,479$ $899,479 $ - 715,000$ $715,000

32 Intersection - Veness Road @ Poundmaker Road

$ - 899,479$ $899,479 $ - 715,000$ $715,000


$ - 899,479$ $899,479 $ - -$ $0


$ - 899,479$ $899,479 $ - -$ $0


$ - 899,479$ $899,479 $ - -$ $0


$ 2,084,400 1,140,166$ $3,224,566 $ 2,101,350 2,545,920$ $4,647,270


$ - 899,479$ $899,479 $ - -$

$0

70,933,970$ 5,267,413$ 176,977,296$ 253,178,679$ 98,652,585$ 16,307,265$ 148,174,647$ 263,134,497$

2011 2013



*Total Project Costs shown do not include adjustments made for development agreement contributions.

Collector to Arterial Intersections – Certain cost increases stem from the change in

approach pertaining to collector to arterial intersections requested by developers and

adopted by Council. Previously, collector to arterial intersections were treated as a

developer “onsite” cost. In March 2013 Council agreed to treat collector to arterial

intersections as offsites and include associated costs in the offsite levy rate. Collector to

arterial intersection cost estimates are based on a planning parameter of one intersection

every 400m, with approximately one out of every two intersections being signalized.

Collector to arterial intersection costs total $7.42 Million.

Cost of Completed Work – The cost of completed work (i.e., project expenditures) to 2012

were $98.6 Million. Of this amount, the developer/offsite levy share is $41.4 Million (not

including developer agreement contributions). As there were not adequate funds in the

offsite levy reserve to pay for these projects, nearly all of the developer’s share ($40.2

Million) has been interim financed (i.e., front-ended) by the City of St. Albert (see table

below).

Table 4: Roads – Project Expenditures

*The $40.2M total is based on Council approval of recoveries done to date.

Grants and Contributions – Prior to allocating costs to benefitting parties, Special (“ear-

marked”) Grants and Developer Agreement Contributions are removed from the Total

Project Cost (see table below).

Table 5: Roads – Special Grants and Developer Agreement Contributions

Project Description Prior to 2008 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 TotalTotal Expenditure 58,399,901$ -$ 12,462,069$ -$ 17,571,677$ 10,218,938$ 98,652,585$

Interim Financing 26,543,455$ -$ 4,233,495$ -$ 4,242,500$ 5,199,243$ 40,218,693$

Final FinancingSpecial Provincial Grant 17,513,292$ -$ 2,271,456$ -$ 9,654,955$ 2,815,989$ 32,255,692$ Developer Agreement Contribution 700,400$ -$ 4,517,546$ -$ 16,950$ -$ 5,234,896$ City Financing 13,642,754$ -$ 1,439,572$ -$ 3,657,272$ 1,066,689$ 19,806,287$ Other Stakeholder Share -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Offsite Levy 26,543,455$ -$ 4,233,495$ -$ 4,242,500$ 6,336,260$ 41,355,710$



*The Special Grant associated with Ray Gibbon Drive reconciles to the most recent project report provided to

Council and by Grant approvals approved by Alberta Transportation.

Allocation to Benefiting Parties – The allocation of project costs to benefitting parties for

roads infrastructure is as shown in the table below.

Item Project Description Special Grant (Ear-Marked)

PAC-Offsites or Dev.

Agreement Contributions

Received Prior to 2008

PAC-Offsites or Dev. Agreement

Contributions Received Since

to 2008

Special Grant (Ear-

Marked)



Received Prior to 2008



Received Since to 2008

1 McKenney Avenue - Morgan Crescent to Ray Gibbon Drive 1,512,260$ 1,512,260$ 2 Giroux Road - North Ridge Drive to Ray Gibbon Drive $ 683,000 817,000$ $ 683,000 817,000$ 3 Hogan Road Widening - Giroux Road to Villeneuve Road4 LeClair Way - Sir Winston Churchill Avenue to Ray Gibbon

Drive $ 17,400 2,188,286$ $ 17,400 2,938,286$


$ 19,124,510 $ 11,379,600

6 Campbell Road - From Poirier Ave to Poundmaker Road 7 LeClair Way - City of Edmonton Limits to Ray Gibbon Drive8 Ray Gibbon Drive - Meadowview Drive / McKenney Avenue to

Giroux Road $ 8,175,000 $ 8,675,000

9 Ray Gibbon Drive - Giroux Road to Villeneuve Road $ 15,491,000 $ 16,725,300 10 Meadowview Drive - From West City Limits to Ray Gibbon

Drive11 Giroux Road - West City Limits to Ray Gibbon Drive12 Villeneuve Road - from West City Limits to Ray Gibbon Drive




16 Hogan Road - Villeneuve Road to North City Limits17 Veness Road - From South City Limit to Boudreau Road18 Veness Road - From Boudreau Road to Corriveau Avenue19 Veness Road - From Corriveau Avenue to Poundmaker

Road20 St. Albert Trail - From Villeneuve Road to NE Sector Arterial21 St. Albert Trail - From NE Sector Arterial to North City Limit22 Intersection - Hogan Road @ Giroux Road23 Intersection - Hogan Road @ Villeneuve Road24 Intersection - Campbell Road @ Poundmaker Road25 Intersection - Ray Gibbon Drive @ Villeneuve Road $ 899,479 $ 715,000 26 Intersection - Ray Gibbon Drive @ Giroux Road $ 899,479 $ 715,000 27 Intersection - Northeast Sector Arterial @ Hogan Road28 Intersection - Northeast Sector Arterial @ St. Albert Trail29 Intersection - Northeast Sector Arterial @ Coal Mine Road

(Sturgeon County)30 Intersection - Veness Road @ Boudreau Road31 Intersection - Veness Road @ Corriveau Avenue32 Intersection - Veness Road @ Poundmaker Road33 Intersection - LeClair Way @ Ray Gibbon Drive $ 899,479 $ - 34 Intersection - Interim 137th Avenue @ Ray Gibbon Drive35 Intersection Ray Gibbon Drive @ McKenney Avenue $ 1,118,000 $ 1,118,000 36 Bellerose Drive - Erin Ridge Road to Coal Mine Road $ 2,084,400 37 Intersection - Sir Winston Churchill Avenue to LeClair Way /

137 Ave (Edmonton)46,606,947$ 700,400$ 4,517,546$ 39,327,900$ 2,784,800$ 5,267,546$

2011 2013



Table 6: Roads – Allocations to Benefiting Parties

The table below shows the overall allocation of costs to the benefitting parties. The

developer (offsite levy) share has decreased from $181.9 Million to $175.9 Million.

Item Project Description City Share % Future Development

%

Developer Share %

1 McKenney Avenue - Morgan Crescent to Ray Gibbon Drive 100.000%

2 Giroux Road - North Ridge Drive to Ray Gibbon Drive 100.000%3 Hogan Road Widening - Giroux Road to Villeneuve Road 100.000%

4 East LeClair Way - Sir Winston Churchill Avenue to Ray Gibbon Drive 100.000%5 Ray Gibbon Drive (Stage 1) - 137 Ave(Edmonton) to Meadowview Drive /

McKenney Avenue50.000% 50.000%

6 Campbell Road - From Poirier Ave to Poundmaker Road 100.000%7 West LeClair Way - City of Edmonton Limits to Ray Gibbon Drive 100.000%

8 Ray Gibbon Drive (Stage 2) - Meadowview Drive / McKenney Avenue to Giroux Road

50.000% 50.000%

9 Ray Gibbon Drive (Stage 3) - Giroux Road to Villeneuve Road 50.000% 50.000%10 Meadowview Drive - From West City Limits to Ray Gibbon Drive 100.000%

11 Giroux Road - West City Limits to Ray Gibbon Drive 100.000%

12 Villeneuve Road - from West City Limits to Ray Gibbon Drive 100.000%

13 Northeast Sector Arterial - from Ray Gibbon Drive to Hogan Road 100.000%14 Northeast Sector Arterial - from Hogan Road to St. Albert Trail 100.000%15 Northeast Sector Arterial - St. Albert Trail to Coal Mine Road (Sturgeon County) 100.000%

16 Hogan Road - Villeneuve Road to North City Limits 100.000%17 Veness Road - From South City Limit to Boudreau Road 50.000% 50.000%

18 Veness Road - From Boudreau Road to Corriveau Avenue 38.844% 61.156%

19 Veness Road - From Corriveau Avenue to Poundmaker Road 40.683% 59.317%

20 St. Albert Trail - From Villeneuve Road to NE Sector Arterial 100.000%

21 St. Albert Trail - From NE Sector Arterial to North City Limit 100.000%

22 Intersection - Hogan Road @ Giroux Road 100.000%

23 Intersection - Hogan Road @ Villeneuve Road 100.000%

24 Intersection - Campbell Road @ Poundmaker Road 100.000%

25 Intersection - Ray Gibbon Drive @ Villeneuve Road 100.000%

26 Intersection - Ray Gibbon Drive @ Giroux Road 100.000%

27 Intersection - Northeast Sector Arterial @ Hogan Road 100.000%

28 Intersection - Northeast Sector Arterial @ St. Albert Trail 100.000%

29 Intersection - Northeast Sector Arterial @ Coal Mine Road (Sturgeon County) 100.000%

30 Intersection - Veness Road @ Boudreau Road 50.000% 50.000%

31 Intersection - Veness Road @ Corriveau Avenue 50.000% 50.000%

32 Intersection - Veness Road @ Poundmaker Road 50.000% 50.000%

33 Intersection - LeClair Way @ Ray Gibbon Drive 100.000%

34 Intersection - Interim 137th Avenue @ Ray Gibbon Drive 100.000%

35 Intersection Ray Gibbon Drive @ McKenney Avenue 100.000%

36 Bellerose Drive - Erin Ridge Road to Coal Mine Road 100.000% 0.000%

37 Intersection - Sir Winston Churchill Avenue to LeClair Way / 137 Ave (Edmonton) 100.000%



Table 7: Roads – Infrastructure Cost Allocation To Benefitting Parties

*The City Share includes a subsidy of $19.4 Million associated with Ray Gibbon Drive. The Developer/Offsite

Item Project Description City Share Future Development

Share

Developer Share

(Offsite Levy)

City Share Future Development

Share


Levy)

1 McKenney Avenue - Morgan Crescent to Ray Gibbon Drive

$ - $ - 12,752,283$ -$ -$ 13,948,834$

2 Giroux Road - North Ridge Drive to Ray Gibbon Drive

$ - $ - 4,614,749$ -$ -$ 5,159,813$

3 Hogan Road Widening - Giroux Road to Villeneuve Road

$ - $ - 3,480,370$ -$ -$ 4,394,000$

4 LeClair Way - Sir Winston Churchill Avenue to Ray Gibbon Drive

$ - $ - 9,245,208$ -$ -$ 6,961,409$


$ 5,541,245 $ - 8,587,570$ 13,776,788$ -$ 13,776,788$

6 Campbell Road - From Poirier Ave to Poundmaker Road

$ - $ - 4,565,751$ -$ -$ 5,054,950$

7 LeClair Way - City of Edmonton Limits to Ray Gibbon Drive

$ - $ - 15,774,202$ -$ -$ 12,652,000$

8 Ray Gibbon Drive - Meadowview Drive / McKenney Avenue to Giroux Road

$ 3,735,300 $ - 5,956,388$ 5,418,959$ -$ 5,418,959$


$ 14,091,933 $ - 14,091,933$ 8,406,386$ -$ 8,406,386$


$ - $ - 13,376,682$ -$ -$ 16,789,000$


$ - $ - 11,840,841$ -$ -$ 16,786,000$


$ - $ - 4,364,680$ -$ -$ 6,872,000$


$ - $ - 8,930,625$ -$ -$ 5,600,000$


$ - $ - 20,421,645$ -$ -$ 12,805,000$


$ - $ - 15,994,493$ -$ -$ 11,458,017$

16 Hogan Road - Villeneuve Road to North City Limits

$ - $ - 6,654,763$ -$ -$ 7,526,000$

17 Veness Road - From South City Limit to Boudreau Road

$ 354,024 $ 354,024 -$ 354,024$ 354,024$ -$

18 Veness Road - From Boudreau Road to Corriveau Avenue

$ 1,050,000 $ 1,050,000 -$ 957,800$ 1,507,972$ -$

19 Veness Road - From Corriveau Avenue to Poundmaker Road

$ 3,375,000 $ 3,375,000 -$ 1,765,733$ 2,574,541$ -$

20 St. Albert Trail - From Villeneuve Road to NE Sector Arterial

$ - $ - 9,712,298$ -$ -$ 11,258,000$

21 St. Albert Trail - From NE Sector Arterial to North City Limit

$ - $ - 4,520,036$ -$ -$ 8,606,000$

22 Intersection - Hogan Road @ Giroux Road

$ - $ - 899,479$ -$ -$ 715,000$

23 Intersection - Hogan Road @ Villeneuve Road

$ - $ - 899,479$ -$ -$ 715,000$

24 Intersection - Campbell Road @ Poundmaker Road

$ - $ - 899,479$ -$ -$ 715,000$


$ - $ - -$ -$ -$ -$


$ - $ - -$ -$ -$ -$

27 Intersection - Northeast Sector Arterial @ Hogan Road

$ - $ - 899,479$ -$ -$ -$

28 Intersection - Northeast Sector Arterial @ St. Albert Trail

$ - $ - 899,479$ -$ -$ 715,000$

29 Intersection - Northeast Sector Arterial @ Coal Mine Road (Sturgeon County)

$ - $ - 899,479$ -$ -$ 715,000$

30 Intersection - Veness Road @ Boudreau Road

$ 449,740 $ 449,740 -$ 357,500$ 357,500$ -$

31 Intersection - Veness Road @ Corriveau Avenue

$ 449,740 $ 449,740 -$ 357,500$ 357,500$ -$

32 Intersection - Veness Road @ Poundmaker Road

$ 449,740 $ 449,740 -$ 357,500$ 357,500$ -$


$ - $ - -$ -$ -$ -$


$ - $ - 899,479$ -$ -$ -$


$ - $ - (218,521)$ -$ -$ (1,118,000)$


$ 1,157,116 $ - -$ 2,562,870$ -$ -$


$ - $ - 899,479$ -$ -$ -$

30,653,836$ 6,128,242$ 181,861,829$ 34,315,059$ 5,509,036$ 175,930,156$

20132011



Levy share has been amended further to include adjustments resulting from old PAC East and West account

balances. The developer requested policy change associated with collector to arterial intersections results in

increased developer share of $7.42 Million.

Offsite Levy Receipts – $8.5 Million has been collected to date for roads offsite levies as

shown in the table below.

Table 8: Roads – Offsite Levy Receipts

*Receipts exclude Landrex offsite levy receipts held in escrow pending approval of the current offsite levy bylaw.

Summary – The diagram below shows how the various grants and allocations result in an

updated balance of $175.9Million for roads offsite levies.

Area Ref. # Date Description

Net Development

Area (ha.) Transportation8 13-May-10 Erin Ridge 38 - Melcor 3.02

18 5-Jul-10 North Ridge 20 - Genstar 3.51 422,305.65$ 15 5-Aug-10 Erin Ridge 20 - Qualico 2.78 254,058.64$ 24 31-Aug-10 North ridge 17A - Genstar 1.49 179,269.35$ 7 11-Aug-10 Erin Ridge North Stages 1 & 2 - Landrex 16.61 2,941,043.99$

18 22-Dec-10 North Ridge 22 - Genstar 1.1024 16-Mar-11 North Ridge 17B - Genstar 1.17 140,768.55$ 24 11-Apr-11 North Ridge 17C - Genstar 2.06 247,848.90$ 18 12-Jul-11 North Ridge 24 - Genstar 4.58 570,489.38$ 25 15-Jul-11 Lacombe Park 21A - Genstar 1.69 210,508.09$ 25 23-Sep-11 Lacombe Park 21B - Genstar 2.58 321,367.38$ 24 16-May-12 Lacombe Park 19 - Genstar 1.90 236,665.90$ 24 22-May-12 Northwest Urban Village Centre Stage 2 4.81 599,138.41$ 15 28-Jun-12 100 Orchard Court - Sarasota 3.02 208,778.64$ 18 17-Jul-12 North Ridge 23A - Genstar 2.80 349,144.48$ 18 17-Jul-12 North Ridge 23B - Genstar 2.63 327,595.43$ 24 30-Aug-12 Lacombe Park 22A - Genstar 4.82 600,384.02$ 25 30-Aug-12 Lacombe Park 22A - Genstar 0.61 76,231.33$

31.1 30-Aug-12 Riverside Stage 8 - Reid World 6.86 854,488.46$

Total 68.05 8,540,086.60$



Figure 3: Roads – Offsite Levy Balance

*Note: the developer/offsite levy share shown above may be slightly different that the amount shown in Table 7

as it includes adjustments made for development agreement contributions etc.

Allocations to Benefiting Areas – Allocation of offsite levy costs for roads infrastructure

remains unchanged…costs are distributed according to benefit over the 4 transportation

“basins”: (1) West basin, (2) East basin, (3) West annexation basin, and (4) North

annexation basin.

Offsite Levy Reserve – Construction staging has been updated with roads projects being

constructed over a 32-year period. As shown in the diagram below, at times offsite levy fund

balances will not be sufficient to fund road construction. During these times, “front ending”

will be required. When the reserve balance is in a positive position, it earns interest at

1.50%. When the reserve balance is negative (i.e., during times when front ending is

required), the reserve is charged interest at 3.00%. These rates were amended in 2013 by

Finance to reflect current market realities (previously 3% and 5% respectively). The balance

of the Offsite Levy Roads Reserve, including receipts, expenditures, and applicable interest,

is -$45.5 Million (note: This assumes that $8.5 Million in receipts collected to date is

withdrawn and used to repay front-ending parties).

Project Costs $263.1M

Less: Special Grants $ 39.3M

Less: Agreements

$7.9M =Project Balance $ 215.9M

=Offsite Share

$176.1M

=Future Development

$5.5M

=City Share $34.3M

= Offsite Balance $167.6M

Less: Levies Collected

$8.5M



Figure 4: Roads – Projected Reserve Balances

Offsite Levy Rates – The table below highlights the roads offsite levy rate in each of the

basins.

Table 9: Roads – Offsite Levy Rates

5 WATER OFFSITE INFRASTRUCTURE

When Bylaw 30/2009 was updated in 2011 it included 9 water infrastructure projects. These

9 projects remain the same for 2013 (see diagram below).

$(70,000,000) $(60,000,000) $(50,000,000) $(40,000,000) $(30,000,000) $(20,000,000) $(10,000,000)

$- $10,000,000

2013

2016

2019

2022

2025

2028

2031

2034

2037

2040

2043

2046

2049

2052

2055

2058

2061

$

Year

Transportation Reserve

Reserve Balance

Transportation Offsite Levy

Benefiting Area Rate (Per Ha.)

West Basin 133,615$ East Basin 76,220$ West Annexation 134,580$ North Annexation 147,984$



Figure 5: Water – Offsite Levy Projects



The overall cost of these 9 water infrastructure projects has increased from $82.8 Million to




Table 10: Water – Offsite Levy Project Costs

*Total Project Costs shown do not include adjustments made for development agreement contributions.


were $14.7 Million. Of this amount, the developer/offsite levy share is $6.1 Million (not


offsite levy reserve to pay for these projects, nearly all of the developer’s share ($6.07

Million) has been interim financed (i.e., front-ended) by the City of St. Albert (see table

below).

Table 11: Water – Project Expenditures

*The negative interim financing (credit) amount in 2012 stems from a correction made from the previous year.





Work

Debenture Interest


Yet to be Completed

Total Project Estimated Cost

Cost of Completed

Work

Debenture Interest


Yet to be Completed


Cost

1 R1 - Southwest Reservoir & Pumphouse $ - 25,906,700$ 25,906,700$ $ - $ - 29,205,000$ 29,205,000$ 2 R2 - North Reservoir & Pumphouse $ - 25,906,700$ 25,906,700$ $ - $ - 30,005,000$ 30,005,000$ 3 R3 - Lacombe Park Existing Reservoir &

Pumphouse $ 10,048,497 -$ 10,048,497$ $ 10,048,497 $ - -$ 10,048,497$

4 W1 - Oakmont Water Supply Main $ 4,533,583 5,540,080$ 10,073,663$ $ 4,533,583 $ - 6,371,092$ 10,904,675$ 5 W2 - Oakmont Transmission Main - Phase 1 $ - 882,814$ 882,814$ $ 79,219 $ - 2,480,781$ 2,560,000$ 6 W3 - Oakmont Transmission Main - Phase 2 $ - 1,285,694$ 1,285,694$ $ - $ - 2,560,000$ 2,560,000$ 7 W4 - South Reservoir Transmission Main $ - 4,796,592$ 4,796,592$ $ - $ - 5,516,081$ 5,516,081$ 8 W5 - South Reservoir River Crossing $ - 1,593,446$ 1,593,446$ $ - $ - 1,832,463$ 1,832,463$ 9 W6 - Oversizing Pool $ - 2,340,000$ 2,340,000$ $ 62,477 $ - 2,691,000$ 2,753,477$

14,582,080$ -$ 68,252,026$ 82,834,106$ 14,723,777$ -$ 80,661,417$ 95,385,194$

2011 2013

Project Description Prior to 2008 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 TotalTotal Expenditure 10,048,497$ 4,471,661$ 19,148$ 42,774$ 81,942$ 59,755$ 14,723,777$

Interim Financing 3,745,084$ 2,235,831$ 9,574$ 21,387$ 61,457$ (2,042)$ 6,071,290$

Final FinancingSpecial Provincial Grant 3,071,813$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,071,813$ Developer Agreement Contribution -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ City Financing 3,231,600$ 2,235,831$ 9,574$ 21,387$ 20,486$ (681)$ 5,518,197$ Other Stakeholder Share -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Offsite Levy 3,745,084$ 2,235,831$ 9,574$ 21,387$ 61,457$ 60,435$ 6,133,768$



Table 12: Water – Special Grants and Developer Agreement Contributions


water infrastructure has been amended for Project R1 (Southwest Reservoir and

Pumphouse) and R2 (North Reservoir and Pumphouse). Independent Professional

Engineering analysis has confirmed that these projects benefit development 100%.

Accordingly, the previous subsidies of 5% (R1) and 2.75% (R2) have been amended to

reflect the actual benefit received by development (100%), as shown in the diagram below.

All other allocations remain unchanged.

Table 13: Water – Allocations to Benefiting Parties


developer (offsite levy) share has declined from $73.3 Million to $56.7 Million, as a result of

some construction work being completed, and some cost estimates being reduced.

Item Project Description Special Provincial

Grant

Developer Agreement

Contributions Pending

Developer Agreement

Contributions Received

Special Provincial

Grant

Developer Agreement


Developer Agreement


1 R1 - Southwest Reservoir & Pumphouse -$ -$ -$ 2 R2 - North Reservoir & Pumphouse -$ -$ -$ 3 R3 - Lacombe Park Existing Reservoir &

Pumphouse3,071,812$ 3,071,812$ -$ -$

4 W1 - Oakmont Water Supply Main -$ -$ -$ 5 W2 - Oakmont Transmission Main - Phase 1 -$ -$ -$ 6 W3 - Oakmont Transmission Main - Phase 2 -$ -$ -$ 7 W4 - South Reservoir Transmission Main -$ -$ -$ 8 W5 - South Reservoir River Crossing -$ -$ -$ 9 W6 - Oversizing Pool -$ -$ -$

3,071,812$ -$ -$ 3,071,812$ -$ -$

2011 2013


%

Developer Share %

1 R1 - Southwest Reservoir & Pumphouse 100.00%2 R2 - North Reservoir & Pumphouse 45.00% 55.00%3 R3 - Lacombe Park Existing Reservoir &

Pumphouse46.32% 53.68%

4 W1 - Oakmont Water Supply Main 50.00% 50.00%5 W2 - Oakmont Transmission Main - Phase 1 25.00% 75.00%6 W3 - Oakmont Transmission Main - Phase 2 25.00% 75.00%7 W4 - South Reservoir Transmission Main 25.00% 75.00%8 W5 - South Reservoir River Crossing 25.00% 75.00%9 W6 - Oversizing Pool 100.00%



Table 14: Water – Cost Allocation To Benefitting Parties

*Developer Share does not include credits for development agreement contributions or offsite levies collected.

Offsite Levy Receipts – $3.4 Million has been collected to date for water offsite levies as


Table 15: Water – Offsite Levy Receipts




Share


Levy)


Share


Levy)

1 R1 - Southwest Reservoir & Pumphouse 1,295,335$ -$ 24,611,365$ -$ -$ 29,205,000$ 2 R2 - North Reservoir & Pumphouse 712,434$ 11,658,015$ 13,536,251$ -$ 13,502,250$ 16,502,750$ 3 R3 - Lacombe Park Existing Reservoir &

Pumphouse3,231,601$ -$ 3,745,085$ 3,231,601$ -$ 3,745,085$

4 W1 - Oakmont Water Supply Main 5,036,832$ -$ 5,036,832$ 5,452,338$ -$ 5,452,338$ 5 W2 - Oakmont Transmission Main - Phase 1 240,508$ -$ 721,525$ 640,000$ -$ 1,920,000$ 6 W3 - Oakmont Transmission Main - Phase 2 321,423$ -$ 964,270$ 640,000$ -$ 1,920,000$ 7 W4 - South Reservoir Transmission Main 1,199,148$ -$ 3,597,444$ 1,379,020$ -$ 4,137,060$ 8 W5 - South Reservoir River Crossing 398,362$ -$ 1,195,085$ 458,116$ -$ 1,374,348$ 9 W6 - Oversizing Pool -$ -$ 2,402,477$ -$ -$ 2,753,477$

12,435,643$ 11,658,015$ 55,810,333$ 11,801,074$ 13,502,250$ 67,010,058$

20132011


Net Development

Area (ha.) Water8 13-May-10 Erin Ridge 38 - Melcor 3.02 168,929.74$

18 5-Jul-10 North Ridge 20 - Genstar 3.51 196,338.87$ 15 5-Aug-10 Erin Ridge 20 - Qualico 2.78 155,504.86$ 24 31-Aug-10 North ridge 17A - Genstar 1.49 83,346.13$ 7 11-Aug-10 Erin Ridge North Stages 1 & 2 - Landrex 16.61 1,036,941.68$

18 22-Dec-10 North Ridge 22 - Genstar 1.10 61,530.70$ 24 16-Mar-11 North Ridge 17B - Genstar 1.17 65,446.29$ 24 11-Apr-11 North Ridge 17C - Genstar 2.06 115,230.22$ 18 12-Jul-11 North Ridge 24 - Genstar 4.58 192,868.38$ 25 15-Jul-11 Lacombe Park 21A - Genstar 1.69 71,167.59$ 25 23-Sep-11 Lacombe Park 21B - Genstar 2.58 108,646.38$ 24 16-May-12 Lacombe Park 19 - Genstar 1.90 80,010.90$ 24 22-May-12 Northwest Urban Village Centre Stage 2 4.81 202,553.91$ 15 28-Jun-12 100 Orchard Court - Sarasota 3.02 127,175.22$ 18 17-Jul-12 North Ridge 23A - Genstar 2.80 118,037.13$ 18 17-Jul-12 North Ridge 23B - Genstar 2.63 110,751.93$ 24 30-Aug-12 Lacombe Park 22A - Genstar 4.82 202,975.02$ 25 30-Aug-12 Lacombe Park 22A - Genstar 0.61 25,771.93$


Total 68.05 3,412,108.34$



updated balance of $61.1 Million for water offsite levies.

Figure 6: Water – Offsite Levy Balance



Allocations to Benefiting Areas – Allocation of offsite levy costs for water infrastructure

remains unchanged…costs are distributed according to benefit over the 2 water “basins”: (1)

Pre-annexation areas, and (2) Annexation areas.

Offsite Levy Reserve – Construction staging has been updated with water projects being


balances will not be sufficient to fund water construction. During these times, “front ending”

will be required. When the reserve balance is in a positive position, it earns interest at

1.50%. When the reserve balance is negative (i.e., during times when front ending is



of the Offsite Levy Water Reserve, including receipts, expenditures, and applicable interest,

is -$4.1 Million (note: This assumes that $3.4 Million in receipts collected to date is


Project Costs$95.4M

Less: Special Grants$3.1M

Less: Agreements

$2.5M

=Project Balance$89.8M

=Offsite Share

$64.5M

=Future Development

$13.5M

=City Share$11.8M

= Offsite Balance$61.1M


$3.4M



Figure 7: Water – Reserve Balance

Offsite Levy Rates – The table below highlights the water offsite levy rate in each of the

basins.

Table 16: Water – Offsite Levy Rates

$(45,000,000)$(40,000,000)$(35,000,000)$(30,000,000)$(25,000,000)$(20,000,000)$(15,000,000)$(10,000,000)$(5,000,000)

$-$5,000,000

2013

2017

2021

2025

2029

2033

2037

2041

2045

2049

2053

2057

2061

$

Year

Water Reserve

Reserve Balance

Benefiting Area Rate (Per Ha.)Pre-annexation Areas 48,490$ Annexation Areas 54,600$



6 SANITARY OFFSITE INFRASTRUCTURE

When Bylaw 30/2009 was updated in 2011 it included 13 sanitary infrastructure projects.

These 13 projects remain the same for 2013 (see diagram below).

Figure 8: Sanitary – Offsite Levy Projects




plus “Debenture Interest” (if any) plus the “Estimated Cost of Work Yet To Be Completed”.

The overall cost of these 13 sanitary infrastructure projects has increased from $51.2 Million

to $66.9 Million (as shown in the table below).

Table 17: Sanitary – Offsite Levy Project Costs


was $14.2 Million. Of this amount, the developer/offsite levy share is $1.3 Million (not


offsite levy reserve to pay for these projects, all of the developer’s share ($1.3 Million) has

been interim financed (i.e., front-ended) by the City of St. Albert (see table below).

Table 18: Sanitary – Project Expenditures





Work

Debenture Interest


Yet to be Completed


Cost

Cost of Completed

Work

Debenture Interest


Yet to be Completed


Cost

1 S1 - North Annexation Trunk - Phase 1 $ - 6,167,200$ 6,167,200$ $ 1,084,359 $ - 9,413,472$ 10,497,831$ 2 L1 - North East Lift Station $ - 3,607,500$ 3,607,500$ $ - $ - 5,200,000$ 5,200,000$ 3 F1 - North East Forcemain $ - 6,415,734$ 6,415,734$ $ 150,000 $ - 13,000,000$ 13,150,000$ 4 LF1 - South West Lift Station & Forcemain $ - -$ -$ $ - $ - -$ -$ 5 LF2 - South East Lift Station & Forcemain $ - -$ -$ $ - $ - -$ -$ 6 LF3 - North West Lift Station & Forcemain $ - -$ -$ $ - $ - -$ -$ 7 S2 - Phase 1 - North Interceptor $ 10,452,590 -$ 10,452,590$ $ 10,452,590 $ - -$ 10,452,590$ 8 S3 - Phase 2b - North Interceptor $ - 5,046,145$ 5,046,145$ $ - $ - 5,803,067$ 5,803,067$ 9 S4 - Phase 3 North Interceptor $ - 10,788,310$ 10,788,310$ $ - $ - 12,406,557$ 12,406,557$ 10 L2 - Riel Lift Station - Rebuild $ 2,218,678 -$ 2,218,678$ $ 2,488,768 $ - -$ 2,488,768$ 11 S5 - Oakmont Drive Sewer Replacement $ - 706,875$ 706,875$ $ - $ - 812,906$ 812,906$ 12 S6 - North Annexation Trunk Phase 2 $ - 1,905,665$ 1,905,665$ $ - $ - 2,191,515$ 2,191,515$ 13 S7 - North Annexation Trunk Phase 3 $ - 3,845,249$ 3,845,249$ $ - $ - 3,900,000$ 3,900,000$

12,671,268$ -$ 38,482,678$ 51,153,946$ 14,175,716$ -$ 52,727,516$ 66,903,232$

2011 2013

Project Description Prior to 2008 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 TotalTotal Expenditure 10,452,590$ -$ 277,610$ 1,941,068$ 1,181,841$ 322,607$ 14,175,716$

Interim Financing -$ -$ 138,805$ 970,534$ 130,365$ 93,180$ 1,332,884$

Final FinancingSpecial Provincial Grant 6,474,250$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6,474,250$ Developer Agreement Contribution 3,978,340$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 3,978,340$ City Financing -$ -$ 138,805$ 970,534$ 130,365$ 4,680$ 1,244,384$ Other Stakeholder Share -$ -$ -$ -$ 921,111$ 224,748$ 1,145,859$ Offsite Levy -$ -$ 138,805$ 970,534$ 130,365$ 93,180$ 1,332,884$



Table 19: Sanitary – Special Grants and Developer Agreement Contributions


sanitary infrastructure remains unchanged as shown in the table below.

Table 20: Sanitary – Benefitting Parties


developer (offsite levy) share has increased from $30.6 Million to $39.9 Million.


Grant

Developer Agreement


Developer Agreement


Special Provincial

Grant

Developer Agreement


Developer Agreement


1 S1 - North Annexation Trunk - Phase 1 -$ -$ -$ 2 L1 - North East Lift Station -$ -$ -$ 3 F1 - North East Forcemain -$ -$ -$ 4 LF1 - South West Lift Station & Forcemain -$ -$ -$ 5 LF2 - South East Lift Station & Forcemain -$ -$ -$ 6 LF3 - North West Lift Station & Forcemain -$ -$ -$ 7 S2 - Phase 1 - North Interceptor 6,474,250$ 3,978,340$ 6,474,250$ 3,978,340$ -$ 8 S3 - Phase 2b - North Interceptor -$ -$ -$ 9 S4 - Phase 3 North Interceptor 329,664$ -$ 329,664$ -$ 10 L2 - Riel Lift Station - Rebuild -$ -$ -$ 11 S5 - Oakmont Drive Sewer Replacement -$ -$ -$ 12 S6 - North Annexation Trunk Phase 2 -$ -$ -$ 13 S7 - North Annexation Trunk Phase 3 -$ -$ -$

6,474,250$ 4,308,004$ -$ 6,474,250$ 4,308,004$ -$

2011 2013


%

Developer Share %

1 S1 - North Annexation Trunk - Phase 1 41.000% 59.000%2 L1 - North East Lift Station 41.000% 59.000%3 F1 - North East Forcemain 41.000% 59.000%4 LF1 - South West Lift Station & Forcemain 100.000%5 LF2 - South East Lift Station & Forcemain 100.000%6 LF3 - North West Lift Station & Forcemain 80.000% 20.000%7 S2 - Phase 1 - North Interceptor 100.000%8 S3 - Phase 2b - North Interceptor 100.000%9 S4 - Phase 3 North Interceptor 100.000%

10 L2 - Riel Lift Station - Rebuild 50.000% 50.000%11 S5 - Oakmont Drive Sewer Replacement 75.000% 25.000%12 S6 - North Annexation Trunk Phase 2 41.000% 59.000%13 S7 - North Annexation Trunk Phase 3 41.000% 59.000%



Table 21: Sanitary – Cost Allocation To Benefitting Parties

*Developer Share does not include credits for offsite levies collected.

Offsite Levy Receipts – $1.8 Million has been collected to date for sanitary offsite levies as


Table 22: Sanitary – Offsite Levy Receipts


Share


Levy)


Share


Levy)

1 S1 - North Annexation Trunk - Phase 1 -$ 2,973,139$ 4,278,420$ -$ 4,304,111$ 6,193,720$ 2 L1 - North East Lift Station -$ 1,479,075$ 2,128,425$ -$ 2,132,000$ 3,068,000$ 3 F1 - North East Forcemain -$ 2,691,951$ 3,873,783$ -$ 5,391,500$ 7,758,500$ 4 LF1 - South West Lift Station & Forcemain -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 5 LF2 - South East Lift Station & Forcemain -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 6 LF3 - North West Lift Station & Forcemain -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 7 S2 - Phase 1 - North Interceptor -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 8 S3 - Phase 2b - North Interceptor -$ -$ 5,046,145$ -$ -$ 5,803,067$ 9 S4 - Phase 3 North Interceptor -$ -$ 10,458,646$ -$ -$ 12,076,893$ 10 L2 - Riel Lift Station - Rebuild 1,244,384$ -$ 1,244,384$ 1,244,384$ -$ 1,244,384$ 11 S5 - Oakmont Drive Sewer Replacement 530,156$ -$ 176,719$ 609,680$ -$ 203,227$ 12 S6 - North Annexation Trunk Phase 2 -$ 781,323$ 1,124,342$ -$ 898,521$ 1,292,994$ 13 S7 - North Annexation Trunk Phase 3 -$ 1,576,552$ 2,268,697$ -$ 1,599,000$ 2,301,000$

1,774,540$ 9,502,040$ 30,599,561$ 1,854,063$ 14,325,132$ 39,941,783$

20132011


Net Development

Area (ha.)Sanitary Sewer

8 13-May-10 Erin Ridge 38 - Melcor 3.02 1,739.52$ 18 5-Jul-10 North Ridge 20 - Genstar 3.51 147,883.32$ 15 5-Aug-10 Erin Ridge 20 - Qualico 2.78 1,601.28$ 24 31-Aug-10 North ridge 17A - Genstar 1.49 62,776.68$ 7 11-Aug-10 Erin Ridge North Stages 1 & 2 - Landrex 16.61 496,436.35$

18 22-Dec-10 North Ridge 22 - Genstar 1.10 46,345.20$ 24 16-Mar-11 North Ridge 17B - Genstar 1.17 49,294.44$ 24 11-Apr-11 North Ridge 17C - Genstar 2.06 86,791.92$ 18 12-Jul-11 North Ridge 24 - Genstar 4.58 127,795.74$ 25 15-Jul-11 Lacombe Park 21A - Genstar 1.69 47,156.07$ 25 23-Sep-11 Lacombe Park 21B - Genstar 2.58 71,989.74$ 24 16-May-12 Lacombe Park 19 - Genstar 1.90 53,015.70$ 24 22-May-12 Northwest Urban Village Centre Stage 2 4.81 134,213.43$ 15 28-Jun-12 100 Orchard Court - Sarasota 3.02 1,189.88$ 18 17-Jul-12 North Ridge 23A - Genstar 2.80 78,212.11$ 18 17-Jul-12 North Ridge 23B - Genstar 2.63 73,384.89$ 24 30-Aug-12 Lacombe Park 22A - Genstar 4.82 134,492.46$ 25 30-Aug-12 Lacombe Park 22A - Genstar 0.61 17,076.64$


Total 68.05 1,822,809.95$





updated balance of $38.1 Million for sanitary offsite levies.

Figure 9: Sanitary – Offsite Levy Balance



Allocations to Benefiting Areas – Allocation of offsite levy costs for sanitary infrastructure

remains unchanged…costs are distributed according to benefit over the 5 sanitary “basins”:

(1) North Interceptor – North of River basin, (2) North Interceptor – South of River basin, (3)

East basin, (4) Campbell Industrial Area basin, and (5) North Trunk – North Annexation

basin.

Offsite Levy Reserve – Construction staging has been updated with sanitary projects being


balances will not be sufficient to fund sanitary construction. During these times, “front

ending” will be required. When the reserve balance is in a positive position, it earns interest

at 1.50%. When the reserve balance is negative (i.e., during times when front ending is



of the Offsite Levy Sanitary Reserve, including receipts, expenditures, and applicable

interest, is -$0.5 Million (note: This assumes that $1.8 Million in receipts collected to date is


Project Costs$66.9M


Less: Agreements

$4.3M


=Offsite Share

$40.0M

=Future Development

$14.3M

=City Share$1.9M


$1.8M




Figure 10: Sanitary – Reserve Balance

Offsite Levy Rates – The table below highlights the sanitary offsite levy rate in each of the

basins.

Table 23: Sanitary – Offsite Levy Rates

$(25,000,000)

$(20,000,000)

$(15,000,000)

$(10,000,000)

$(5,000,000)

$-

$5,000,000

2013

2017

2021

2025

2029

2033

2037

2041

2045

2049

2053

2057

2061

$

Year

Sanitary Reserve

Reserve Balance

Benefiting Area Rate (Per Ha.)North Interceptor - N of River 24,634$ North Interceptor - S of River 25,655$ East Basin 352$ Campbell Industrial Area -$ North Trunk - North Annexation 31,248$



7 STORM WATER OFFSITE INFRASTRUCTURE

When Bylaw 30/2009 was updated in 2011 it included 12 storm water infrastructure projects.

These 12 projects remain the same for 2013 (see diagram below).

Figure 11: Storm Water – Offsite Levy Projects





The overall cost estimate of the 4 original storm water projects declined from $41.8 Million to


Table 24: Storm Water – Offsite Levy Project Costs

Cost of Completed Work – There were no project expenditures during the reporting period.




Table 25: Storm Water – Special Grants and Developer Agreement Contributions


storm water infrastructure remains unchanged as shown in the table below.


Work

Debenture Interest


Yet to be Completed


Cost

Cost of Completed

Work

Debenture Interest


Yet to be Completed


Cost

1 Northwest Area Storm Trunk Outfall $ - 4,581,720$ 4,581,720$ $ - $ - 5,268,978$ 5,268,978$ 2 Northwest Area Storm Trunk Outfall $ - 1,781,780$ 1,781,780$ $ - $ - 2,049,047$ 2,049,047$ 3 Northwest Area Storm Trunk Outfall $ - 6,898,710$ 6,898,710$ $ - $ - 7,933,517$ 7,933,517$ 4 Northwest Area Storm Trunk Outfall $ - 10,486,320$ 10,486,320$ $ - $ - 12,059,268$ 12,059,268$ 5 NE Area Storm - Trunk Sewer and Outfall $ - 4,940,000$ 4,940,000$ $ - $ - 5,681,000$ 5,681,000$ 6 NE Area Storm - Pond 1 and Coal Mine Road

Trunk Sewer $ - 1,500,000$ 1,500,000$ $ - $ - 1,725,000$ 1,725,000$


$ - 1,170,000$ 1,170,000$ $ - $ - 1,345,500$ 1,345,500$


$ - 1,560,000$ 1,560,000$ $ - $ - 1,794,000$ 1,794,000$

9 NE Area Storm - St Albert Trail Storm Sewer $ - 390,000$ 390,000$ $ - $ - 448,500$ 448,500$ 10 NE Area Storm - Lift Station and Trunk

Between Ponds 2 and 3 $ - 6,500,000$ 6,500,000$ $ - $ - 7,475,000$ 7,475,000$


$ - 1,560,000$ 1,560,000$ $ - $ - 1,794,000$ 1,794,000$


$ - 416,000$ 416,000$ $ - $ - 478,400$ 478,400$

-$ -$ 41,784,530$ 41,784,530$ -$ -$ 48,052,210$ 48,052,210$

2011 2013


Grant

Developer Agreement


Developer Agreement


Special Provincial

Grant

Developer Agreement


Developer Agreement


1 Northwest Area Storm Trunk Outfall -$ -$ -$ 2 Northwest Area Storm Trunk Outfall -$ -$ -$ 3 Northwest Area Storm Trunk Outfall -$ -$ -$ 4 Northwest Area Storm Trunk Outfall -$ -$ -$ 5 NE Area Storm - Trunk Sewer and Outfall -$ -$ -$ 6 NE Area Storm - Pond 1 and Coal Mine Road

Trunk Sewer-$ -$ -$


-$ -$ -$


-$ -$ -$

9 NE Area Storm - St Albert Trail Storm Sewer -$ -$ -$ 10 NE Area Storm - Lift Station and Trunk

Between Ponds 2 and 3-$ -$ -$


-$ -$ -$


-$ -$ -$

-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

2011 2013



Table 26: Storm Water – Benefitting Parties


developer (offsite levy) share has increased from $18.0 Million to $20.7 Million.


%

Developer Share %

1 Northwest Area Storm Trunk Outfall (Carrot Creek Outfall North of Villenuve)

69.000% 31.000%

2 Northwest Area Storm Trunk Outfall (Carrot Creek Outfall Giroux to Villenuve)

69.000% 31.000%

3 Northwest Area Storm Trunk Outfall (Carrot Creek Outfall McKinney to Giroux)

69.000% 31.000%

4 Northwest Area Storm Trunk Outfall (Carrot Creek Outfall McKinney South)

69.000% 31.000%

5 NE Area Storm - Trunk Sewer and Outfall 41.000% 59.000%6 NE Area Storm - Pond 1 and Coal Mine

Road Trunk Sewer41.000% 59.000%


41.000% 59.000%


41.000% 59.000%

9 NE Area Storm - St Albert Trail Storm Sewer

41.000% 59.000%

10 NE Area Storm - Lift Station and Trunk Between Ponds 2 and 3

41.000% 59.000%


41.000% 59.000%


41.000% 59.000%



Table 27: Storm Water – Cost Allocation To Benefitting Parties

Offsite Levy Receipts – No offsite levies have been collected for storm water infrastructure,

as shown in the table below.

Table 28: Storm Water – Offsite Levy Receipts


Share


Levy)


Share


Levy)

1 Northwest Area Storm Trunk Outfall -$ 3,161,387$ 1,420,333$ -$ 3,635,595$ 1,633,383$ 2 Northwest Area Storm Trunk Outfall -$ 1,229,428$ 552,352$ -$ 1,413,842$ 635,205$ 3 Northwest Area Storm Trunk Outfall -$ 4,760,110$ 2,138,600$ -$ 5,474,126$ 2,459,390$ 4 Northwest Area Storm Trunk Outfall -$ 7,235,561$ 3,250,759$ -$ 8,320,895$ 3,738,373$ 5 NE Area Storm - Trunk Sewer and Outfall -$ 2,025,400$ 2,914,600$ -$ 2,329,210$ 3,351,790$ 6 NE Area Storm - Pond 1 and Coal Mine Road

Trunk Sewer-$ 615,000$ 885,000$ -$ 707,250$ 1,017,750$


-$ 479,700$ 690,300$ -$ 551,655$ 793,845$


-$ 639,600$ 920,400$ -$ 735,540$ 1,058,460$

9 NE Area Storm - St Albert Trail Storm Sewer -$ 159,900$ 230,100$ -$ 183,885$ 264,615$ 10 NE Area Storm - Lift Station and Trunk

Between Ponds 2 and 3-$ 2,665,000$ 3,835,000$ -$ 3,064,750$ 4,410,250$


-$ 639,600$ 920,400$ -$ 735,540$ 1,058,460$


-$ 170,560$ 245,440$ -$ 196,144$ 282,256$

-$ 23,781,246$ 18,003,284$ -$ 27,348,433$ 20,703,777$

2011 2013


Net Development

Area (ha.) Stormwater8 13-May-10 Erin Ridge 38 - Melcor 3.02

18 5-Jul-10 North Ridge 20 - Genstar 3.5115 5-Aug-10 Erin Ridge 20 - Qualico 2.7824 31-Aug-10 North ridge 17A - Genstar 1.497 11-Aug-10 Erin Ridge North Stages 1 & 2 - Landrex 16.61

18 22-Dec-10 North Ridge 22 - Genstar 1.1024 16-Mar-11 North Ridge 17B - Genstar 1.1724 11-Apr-11 North Ridge 17C - Genstar 2.0618 12-Jul-11 North Ridge 24 - Genstar 4.5825 15-Jul-11 Lacombe Park 21A - Genstar 1.6925 23-Sep-11 Lacombe Park 21B - Genstar 2.5824 16-May-12 Lacombe Park 19 - Genstar 1.9024 22-May-12 Northwest Urban Village Centre Stage 2 4.8115 28-Jun-12 100 Orchard Court - Sarasota 3.0218 17-Jul-12 North Ridge 23A - Genstar 2.8018 17-Jul-12 North Ridge 23B - Genstar 2.6324 30-Aug-12 Lacombe Park 22A - Genstar 4.8225 30-Aug-12 Lacombe Park 22A - Genstar 0.61

31.1 30-Aug-12 Riverside Stage 8 - Reid World 6.86

Total 68.05 -$





updated balance of $20.7 Million for storm water offsite levies.

Figure 12: Storm Water – Offsite Levy Balance



Allocations to Benefiting Areas – Allocation of offsite levy costs for storm water

infrastructure remains unchanged…costs are distributed according to benefit over the 2

storm water “basins”: (1) North/West Drainage basin, and (2) “Other” basin.

Offsite Levy Reserve – Construction staging has been updated with sanitary projects being


balances will not be sufficient to fund storm water construction. During these times, “front

ending” will be required. When the reserve balance is in a positive position, it earns interest

at 1.50%. When the reserve balance is negative (i.e., during times when front ending is



of the Offsite Levy Sanitary Reserve, including receipts, expenditures, and applicable

interest, is zero.

Project Costs$48.0M


Less: Agreements

$0.0M


=Offsite Share

$20.7M

=Future Development

$27.3M

=City Share$0.0M


$0.0M




Figure 13: Storm Water – Reserve Balance

Offsite Levy Rates – The table below highlights the storm water offsite levy rate in each of

the basins.

Table 29: Storm Water – Offsite Levy Rates

$(25,000,000)

$(20,000,000)

$(15,000,000)

$(10,000,000)

$(5,000,000)

$-

$5,000,000

2013

2017

2021

2025

2029

2033

2037

2041

2045

2049

2053

2057

2061

$

Year

Storm Reserve

Reserve Balance

Benefiting Area Rate (Per Ha.)North/West Drainage Basin 27,942$ Other -$



8 SUMMARY OF RATES

The following table shows how rates have changed in each of the 42 development areas.

On average, rates have increased ~$15,000 per ha.

Table 30: Summary – Offsite Levy Rates



Area Ref. # (A)

Roadway Infrastructure Levy (B)

Water Infrastructure Levy (C)

Sanitary Infrastructure Levy (D)

Storm Infrastructure Levy (E) Total (F)

1.0 147,984$ 54,600$ 31,248$ 27,942$ 261,774$ 2.0 147,984$ 54,600$ 31,248$ 27,942$ 261,774$ 3.0 147,984$ 54,600$ 31,248$ 27,942$ 261,774$ 4.0 147,984$ 54,600$ 31,248$ 27,942$ 261,774$ 5.0 147,984$ 54,600$ 35,744$ 27,942$ 266,270$ 6.1 147,984$ 54,600$ 31,248$ 27,942$ 261,774$ 6.2 147,984$ 54,600$ 31,248$ 27,942$ 261,774$ 7.0 147,984$ 54,600$ 31,248$ 27,942$ 261,774$ 8.0 76,220$ 48,490$ 352$ -$ 125,063$ 9.0 134,580$ 54,600$ 58,646$ 27,942$ 275,768$ 10.1 134,580$ 54,600$ 58,646$ 27,942$ 275,768$ 10.2 146,328$ 54,600$ 58,646$ 27,942$ 287,516$ 11.0 147,984$ 54,600$ 58,646$ 27,942$ 289,171$ 12.0 147,984$ 54,600$ 35,744$ 27,942$ 266,270$ 13.0 147,984$ 54,600$ 35,744$ -$ 238,327$ 14.0 147,984$ 54,600$ 35,744$ -$ 238,327$ 15.0 76,220$ 48,490$ 352$ -$ 125,063$ 16.0 134,580$ 54,600$ 24,634$ 27,942$ 241,757$ 17.0 134,580$ 54,600$ 24,634$ 27,942$ 241,757$ 17.2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 18.0 133,615$ 48,490$ 24,634$ -$ 206,739$ 19.0 134,580$ 54,600$ 24,634$ 27,942$ 241,757$ 20.0 134,580$ 54,600$ 24,634$ 27,942$ 241,757$ 20.2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 21.0 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 22.0 134,580$ 54,600$ 24,634$ 27,942$ 241,757$ 23.0 134,580$ 54,600$ 24,634$ 27,942$ 241,757$ 23.1 134,580$ 54,600$ 24,634$ 27,942$ 241,757$ 23.2 134,580$ 54,600$ 24,634$ 27,942$ 241,757$ 23.3 147,757$ 54,600$ 24,634$ -$ 226,991$ 24.0 133,615$ 48,490$ 24,634$ -$ 206,739$ 25.0 133,615$ 48,490$ 24,634$ -$ 206,739$ 26.0 134,580$ 54,600$ 24,634$ 27,942$ 241,757$ 27.0 134,580$ 54,600$ 24,634$ 27,942$ 241,757$ 28.1 134,580$ 54,600$ 24,634$ 27,942$ 241,757$ 28.2 147,757$ 54,600$ 24,634$ -$ 226,991$ 29.0 133,615$ 48,490$ 24,634$ -$ 206,739$ 29.1 133,615$ 48,490$ 24,634$ -$ 206,739$ 29.2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 30.0 133,615$ 48,490$ 24,634$ -$ 206,739$ 30.1 133,615$ 48,490$ 24,634$ -$ 206,739$ 31.0 133,615$ 48,490$ 24,634$ -$ 206,739$ 31.1 133,615$ 54,600$ 24,634$ -$ 212,848$ 32.0 134,580$ 54,600$ 24,634$ 27,942$ 241,757$ 33.0 134,580$ 54,600$ 24,634$ 27,942$ 241,757$ 34.0 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 35.0 147,757$ 48,490$ 25,655$ -$ 221,903$ 36.0 147,757$ 48,490$ 25,655$ -$ 221,903$ 37.0 147,757$ 48,490$ 25,655$ -$ 221,903$ 38.0 147,757$ 48,490$ 25,655$ -$ 221,903$ 39.0 76,220$ 48,490$ -$ -$ 124,711$ 40.0 76,220$ 48,490$ -$ -$ 124,711$ 41.0 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 42.0 76,220$ 48,490$ -$ -$ 124,711$

ATTACHMENT 3

Table 1.0 – Summary of March 4, 2013 Agenda Report & Council Motions Proposed change in Offsite Levy (OSL) Model/Bylaw

Administration Position (March 2013)

Council Decision (March 4, 2013)

1. Implementation of a Front Ending (debt sharing policy)

• In support • Approved implementation

2. Water Infrastructure Funding Split – move from 5%/95% to 100%/0%

• Not in support; instead recommended 25%/75%

• Decision deferred to allow further study on this change

3. Move to using Permanent Area Charge (PAC) & change in how construction/interest costs calculated

• Not in support • Did not approve proposed change

4. On-site Recoveries – City assuming a more definitive role

• In support • Approved proposed change

5. Off-setting of Levy Payments • In support • Approved proposed change 6. Redistribution of Levy Receipts • In support • Approved proposed change 7. Including Collector to Arterial

Intersections • In support • Approved proposed change

8. Infrastructure and Land Costs (standardized)


ATTACHMENT 4

TABLE 2.0: Summary of Revised 2013 Recommendations to Council

Proposed change in Offsite Levy (OSL) Model/Bylaw

Council Decision (March 2013) Revised Recommendation to Council


• Approved change to incorporate debt sharing policy into Bylaw

• That Council defer implementation of this policy



• Recommend 0%/100% split on reservoirs & 25%/75% split on transmission mains


• Did not approve change. The City will continue to utilize its current OSL model.

• That there be no change to the March 2013 decision


• Approved change in Bylaw that permits Administration to take an active role


5. Off-setting of Levy Payments • Approved change to allow offsetting in Bylaw


6. Redistribution of Levy Receipts • Approved change to allow redistribution of levy receipts in Bylaw


7. Including Collector to Arterial Intersections

• Approved change to include costs associated with collector to arterial intersections in Bylaw


8. Infrastructure and Land Costs (standardized)

• Approved to continue to utilize unit rate costs and start using land costs updated annually in Bylaw


9. Offset Levy Receipts • N/A • That this be approved

City Council Agenda March 4, 2013/Page 1

File No.: 8000-2-1

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

Subject: OFF-SITE LEVIES OPTION REPORT Recommendation(s): 1. That the recommendations 1 through 8 outlined in the Off-site Levies Option

Report dated March 4, 2013 be approved and incorporated into the new Off–site Levy Bylaw.

2. That Administration develop the proposed Off-site Levy Bylaw and any required

policy work for councils consideration with first reading by April 22, 2013. Report Summary: The City has concluded its due diligence review stage of the process on modifications and potential changes to the City’s Off-site Levy Bylaw. This Report outlines the proposed changes, and areas of opportunities and risks associated with modifying the existing model and the potential financial impacts. Legislative History: On November 19, 2012 the following motion was passed: (C526-2012) That the report “Off-Site Levies Process Schedule”, dated November 19, 2012, be received as information. The schedule identifies “Phase 5 – Report and Presentations” with a completion date of March 4, 2013. Report: Current St. Albert Approach The Municipal Government Act (MGA) allows a municipality to impose a levy, known as an Off-site levy, on land that is being developed or subdivided in order to pay for all or a part of the capital cost of:

• new or expanded facilities for the storage, transmission, treatment or supplying of water;

• new or expanded facilities for the treatment, movement or disposal of sanitary sewage;

PREVIOUSLY

DIS

TRIBUTED

ATTACHMENT 5


File No.: 8000-2-1

• new or expanded storm sewer drainage facilities; • new or expanded roads required for or impacted by a subdivision or

development; and • land required for or in connection with any of the above described facilities.

Off-site levies must be authorized by bylaw and the bylaw must be advertised before it can be given Second Reading. Off-site levies can only be collected once in respect to land that is being developed or subdivided. The Act requires that the bylaw set out the object of each levy and indicate how the amount of the levy was determined. Off-site levies are, therefore, a tool that a municipality can utilize to pay for new infrastructure or the expansion of existing infrastructure required because of development. St. Albert passed Bylaw 30/2009 that established the approach for collecting an off-site levy on future developable lands. The Bylaw was very specific on certain aspects of infrastructure categories, charge calculation, calculation of levy rate, updating requirements, timing of collection of off-site levies, and specific infrastructure projects for which the off-site levy is to fund. However, it did not cover the aspect of disbursements of off-site levy receipts as this was to be part of an Administrative policy. Working with the development industry, several policy options were put forward to address the disbursement of off-site levy receipts. The development industry did not accept any of the options presented and were unable to table viable alternatives. In August of 2012, Urban Development Institute Edmonton (UDI) tabled a series of documents outlining a complete re-design to the current City off-site levy model. What the Development Industry is Seeking The development industry, through the proposal, has identified four (4) key areas. Infrastructure UDI Key Issue #1 –The desire to control when infrastructure is built, to ensure

that their development can occur whenever they wish—the Permanent Area Contribution (PAC) pool proposed by UDI permits developers to select what offsite infrastructure (in addition to onsite infrastructure) that they would construct, unfettered by any requirement for City approval.

Front-ending / Debt sharing UDI Key Issue #2 –The desire to recoup front-ending costs as quickly as

possible—the PAC approach proposed by UDI contains a City managed debt sharing mechanism which would require subsequent developers to assume a portion of front-ending costs.

City Administration and Enforcement UDI Key Issue #3 –The desire to have the City enforce recovery of developer

costs that (potentially) benefit others—the PAC approach proposed by UDI requires the City to impose cost allocations for developer costs (e.g., boundary conditions, oversizing, etc.). This includes, but is not limited to, holding up future development if the costs are not paid to the earlier developer.

PREVIOUSLY

DIS

TRIBUTED

ATTACHMENT 5


File No.: 8000-2-1

Understanding of certain development growth costs UDI Key Issue #4 – The desire to have an underwriting of certain development

growth costs by the City – the PAC/Offsite levy approach proposed by UDI removes the allocation of growth related water infrastructure costs (both onsite and offsite). In addition, the UDI proposed approach alters the treatment of other developer infrastructure costs from ‘not cost sharable’ to ‘cost sharable’ (e.g., collector-arterial intersections, stormwater management lakes, arterial road drainage).

Other Municipalities’ Approach In examining the approaches adopted in the Capital Region, across Alberta, and indeed across Canada, the following observations are noted: Many municipalities require developers to fund growth infrastructure beyond

that considered by St. Albert. St. Albert’s approach to allocating benefiting costs to developers (offsite levies)

is commonly used across the Capital Region, Alberta, and Canada. Only one of the municipalities examined (City of Edmonton) uses elements of

the approach proposed by UDI, referred to as PAC’s. Oversizing associated with onsite infrastructure is most commonly left to

developers to coordinate and manage amongst themselves (i.e., “endeavour to assist”). Where oversizing of onsite infrastructure is coordinated by the municipality, it is either dealt with via a separate revolving fund or is acquired by the municipality. The City of Edmonton is the only municipality examined that has an oversizing approach similar to that proposed by UDI.

St. Albert’s long term approach to planning to full build-out, handling of interest, etc. is also consistent with a number of Capital Region municipalities, major Alberta urban centers, and other Provinces.

In Alberta, UDI has not endorsed a common approach to development charges. For example, the approach adopted by Calgary and endorsed by UDI (Calgary) is very different than that being proposed by UDI (Greater Edmonton) for St. Albert. In fact, when PAC’s were examined by the City of Calgary they were rejected.

St. Albert’s Recommended Model for Off-site Levy Bylaw Preparation Utilize the existing model as a base and modify aspects to enhance the overall approach.

1) Front-Ending Approach Current Practice: In the past several years the City has been the primary “front-ending” party by assuming the initial cost ($33.0 million) of major infrastructure construction built by the first developer on site and recovering the cost from subsequent developers that are obligated (through the bylaw) to contribute to the cost thereof. Key issues: While the City will recover this funding over time from developers as subdivisions come online, the City must become more selective in the

PREVIOUSLY

DIS

TRIBUTED

ATTACHMENT 5


File No.: 8000-2-1

projects it front-ends. Developers must then assume a more active role in this regard. Recommendation: In order to make developer front-ending viable a debt sharing mechanism will be implemented through a City policy, with St. Albert assuming an active role in the validation and collection of off-site infrastructure oversizing. Rationale and developer support: This approach will give developers a level of certainty with respect of recovering front-ended costs in a more equitable and potentially accelerated pace. The share of debt assumed by subsequent developers will be defined by the City on a pro-rata (area) basis and be outlined in the development agreements of the oversizing developer(s) and subsequent developer(s). With regard to the City’s existing developer debt, it is recommended that these debts also be allocated to subsequent developers on an equitable basis to be determined by the City. This is a new approach for the City. Developers should support this initiative.

2) Water Infrastructure Funding Split Current Practice: The City currently allocates costs associated with major off-site water infrastructure (reservoirs and pump houses) with a split of 5% utility / 95% developer. Transmission mains are allocated with a funding split of 25% utility / 75% developer. Key issues: Developers are suggesting that the funding for this infrastructure should be applied 100% to the utility and recovered through utility rates. This approach is utilized in the City of Edmonton. In Edmonton, EPCOR Water Services Inc., owns and operates the water utility and has the cost structure to support the approach. Recommendation: St Albert’s water utility is unable to bear the full weight of funding water infrastructure related to growth. However, a distributed approach is warranted as both existing and future utility customers will benefit from the new infrastructure. Therefore a it is recommended that a modification to the funding split for all off site water infrastructure to 25% utility / 75% developer is warranted. Rationale and developer support: In a zero growth scenario the infrastructure required for growth would not be required, however there would be a need to ensure the existing system is meeting a minimum level of service. The utility as a whole benefits from the growth infrastructure, as it addresses the level of service for existing customers, and therefore should fund a proportionate share. The recommendation does not support the developers’ request.

PREVIOUSLY

DIS

TRIBUTED

ATTACHMENT 5


File No.: 8000-2-1

3) Permanent Area Contribution (PAC) Approach Current Practice: The City currently utilizes the Off-site levy model as the development charge model. Key issues: The development industry is suggesting that the City change the Off-site levy model in addition to creating a new PAC model and approach. The PAC approach proposed is problematic in areas where there is small development, infill development, and industrial development with fragmented ownership. These situations occur frequently in St. Albert. The process for sanitary and stormwater infrastructure is very complex. The process is focused on oversizing/over-expenditures which cannot be determined until:

(1) all sanitary and stormwater infrastructure for a subdivision has been planned and costed,

(2) all out-of-basin supporting sanitary and stormwater infrastructure has been considered, and

(3) the cost of supporting the subdivision on a standalone basis has been credited (i.e., no oversizing).

All of these calculations are at a micro level and must be kept current as infrastructure is added, as plans change, and new benefiting parties enter the mix. The rate calculation method proposed does not appear to be aligned with the spirit of the legislation, creates inequity amongst developers and could create transparency issues. This may place the City at risk to assume obligations should rates escalate, therefore resulting in a larger net interest burden overall. UDI proposes that the City of St. Albert expand its administrative role beyond offsite levy administration to PAC administration and debt sharing coordination. The level of effort required to perform this expanded role is significant. UDI recognizes this added burden and has proposed adding an administrative fee to both offsite levy and PAC rates. The adequacy of this fee to cover added administrative costs is unknown. Furthermore, it has been indicated that it is challenging to recruit and retain staff with the necessary competencies and desire to work in the field of PAC administration. Recommendation: Administration recommends that the existing Off-site levy model be modified and enhanced but not to adopt the PAC approach. Rationale and developer support: The developers would like to see the City implement this type of approach, However a key component of the model, debt sharing (part of recommendation 1 – front -ending), is viewed as an enhancement for both the City and the developer. The remainder of the approach will not be utilized due to financial and administration considerations, including administration costs, time and enforcement. Given the City’s current administration capacity, adopting this approach in its entirety would significantly impact staff resources and thus administrative costs.

PREVIOUSLY

DIS

TRIBUTED

ATTACHMENT 5


File No.: 8000-2-1

The recommendation does not support the developer’s request.

4) On-site Oversizing Recoveries Current Practice: The City often requests that a developer optimize the design of on-site infrastructure, which is not part of the Off-site Levy Bylaw, to be installed and sized to benefit adjacent lands within the City boundaries. The City’s role to recover these additional costs has been limited to an “endeavor to assist” approach, facilitating meetings of the parties to negotiate an agreement. Key issues: The limiting factor for the City has been the administrative capacity to take on a more active role. There has also been some concern over the authority of the City to enforce the payment. There is a risk that a developer may appeal the condition of subdivision / development permit or could outright refuse to sign the Development Agreement. Recommendation: Through the Development Agreement, St. Albert will assume an active role in the validation and collection of on-site oversizing. Rationale and developer support: The City does request that developers size infrastructure to benefit adjacent lands within the city limits. This provides a reassurance to developers for recovering costs incurred from the third party that they would benefit. This would be addressed in the Development Agreement and would appear to be supported in the MGA. Developers have requested this change and thus should be in support.

5) Off-Setting of Levy Payments Current Practice: Currently developers are required to pay the levy amount in addition to funding and constructing the infrastructure. At completion of the project the levy can be reimbursed. Key issues: This is a cash flow and timing issue for the developer. The bylaw requires that the levy payment be made and make no exception or alternatives. Recommendation: When developers are required to fund and construct off-site levy infrastructure, the offsite levy charge (rate x area) will be netted against the cost of offsite infrastructure that the developer front-ends. Offsets are permitted only within the same class of infrastructure. This offset is applied at the time of development agreement signing. The front-ending offset can be applied to the extent that levies are due within the current development agreement, and extended to levies due within subsequent development agreements. The City should be able to accommodate with minimal risk through an accounting policy.

PREVIOUSLY

DIS

TRIBUTED

ATTACHMENT 5


File No.: 8000-2-1

Rationale and developer support: The burden to pay and construct should not be put on the developer. Developers have requested this change and thus should be in support.

6) Redistribution of Levy Receipts Current Practice: There is no formal process or policy for the City to distribute levy receipts. Key issues: Parties that have claims to funds are not receiving them in a timely fashion. Recommendation: During the annual offsite levy update, the City will prioritize the allocation of offsite levy receipts to reimburse front-ending parties based upon an Average Outstanding Claim Distribution. The City will disburse offsite levy receipts for an offsite infrastructure pool (e.g., water) to all front-ending claimants of that pool based upon the relative percentage of the claim (i.e., a holder of 20% of all outstanding claims will receive 20% of receipts). Rationale and developer support: Funds should be distributed rather than held to reduce the overall impact of interest charges. Developers are likely to be neutral towards this change.

7) Intersection Costs Current Practice: The Arterial road costs within the Off-site levy model currently consist of the Arterial road itself (as per Engineering design standards) and Arterial to Arterial intersections. The developer constructing the collector intersection pays for the infrastructure directly as it benefits his parcel of land. Key issues: The ability to quantify the number of collector intersections is an overarching issue. An estimated value will need to be utilized and updated as more detailed information, typically contained in an ASP, is available. The process may be challenged if the benefit is not clearly identified. Recommendation: Include the additional costs associated with Collector to Arterial road intersections as part of the overall Arterial Road levy costs. Rationale and developer support: Arterial road construction costs will include an allowance for a collector intersection every 200m or as shown within an ASP. Construction of an arterial roadway will typically include these when known. Developers have requested this change and thus should be in support.

8) Infrastructure and Land Costs Current Practice: On an annual basis, UDI, on behalf of the development industry, provide unit rate costs in order for the City to update and validate

PREVIOUSLY

DIS

TRIBUTED

ATTACHMENT 5


File No.: 8000-2-1

estimated project costs. Land costs are determined by land appraisals for the lands required for a specific project. Key issues: There have been concerns raised over the equity and efficiency of the approach with respect to land values. Some landowners may challenge the application of this practice if they believe their lands are more valuable. Recommendation: The recommendation is to continue the approach for infrastructure unit rate costs and to add a universal land cost updated on an annual basis. Rationale and developer support: Developers, through their engineering consultants, are likely to have the best access to current construction costs. Developers through UDI have been providing construction cost estimates. Setting land costs reduces the costs and time requirement for land appraisals. One unit rate price will be utilized for both purchase of new lands and sale of existing road right-of-ways. The costs are included in the off-site levy calculations and thus paid for by the development industry. Developers have requested this change and thus should be in support.

Conclusion Notwithstanding Council’s decisions with respect to the recommendations in this report, it is vital that development charges be established and maintained as one of the key financing mechanisms for the City. If not, the City will:

1. Transfer benefits unnecessarily to private developers at the cost of ratepayers. 2. Use its own financial resources to finance infrastructure that benefits the

development industry and home-owners. 3. Reallocate resources away from other priorities, such as “soft” services like

community protection. 4. Impose a cost on taxpayers at large for infrastructure they may not benefit

from. Next Steps Once the recommended approach is selected, the Bylaw and associated policies can be drafted. These will have to be prepared prior to a meeting that includes all developers and landowners as per the Regulations. Discussions to date have been primarily between UDI and the City. Alberta Regulation 48/2004, Principles and Criteria for Off-Site Levies Regulation requires that:

“Calculation of the levy is to be determined in consultation with affected landowners and developers.”

Additional aspects may arise during the consultation phase of the Bylaw process. One workshop has been scheduled. Should additional workshops be required, the schedule will be delayed. This will allow affected landowners and developers to voice their perspective.

PREVIOUSLY

DIS

TRIBUTED

ATTACHMENT 5


File No.: 8000-2-1

According to the Municipal Government Act, the Bylaw must be advertised once a week for two consecutive weeks with at least 5 days between the last date of the advertising and the date upon which Council will consider second and third reading of the Bylaw. Administration recommends that Council hold a non-statutory Public Hearing following the Bylaw being advertised in accordance with the Act. The advertisement can also give notice of the Public Hearing. By holding a Public Hearing, Council will give UDI, individual developers, landowners and members of the public a final opportunity to bring forward any questions or concerns with the proposed Off-site levy process and the Bylaw. The following are key upcoming dates (subject to Council direction and landowner and developers comments): Item Date Council acceptance of recommendations March 4, 2013 Developer and landowner workshop March 26, 2013 Receive and respond to commentary April 5, 2013 First reading April 22, 2013 Newspaper advertisement April 28 and May 5, 2013 Non-statutory Public Hearing /Second reading Third and final reading May 21, 2013 Link to Municipal Development Plan: The following are the related Policy statements from the Municipal Development Plan: 3.2 Phasing of New Development The City of St. Albert requires that development take place in a contiguous, sequential manner. Development shall not proceed unless the required transportation improvements, infrastructure, and community services are in place to support it. 13.1 Provisions for New Developments The City of St. Albert shall ensure that new development is consistent with the efficient, economic, and coordinated provision of municipal infrastructure, human services, and public utilities. 13.5 Cost of Expanding Municipal Infrastructure The cost of expanding municipal infrastructure shall be financed to the greatest level possible through developer obligations under development agreements. Financial Implications: Overall, the above recommendations support Council’s goals and priorities in Economic Development and the financial implications are equitable. Be cautioned that Recommendation 2 – proposed change in funding split of water infrastructure from 5%

PREVIOUSLY

DIS

TRIBUTED

ATTACHMENT 5


File No.: 8000-2-1

utility / 95% developer to 25% utility / 75% developer will impact future water or utility rate. Legal Implications: The primary legal implications are referenced above; there are no further legal implications of particular note at this time. Report Date November 28, 2012 Originating Department Growth Initiative Team Prepared by: Todd Wyman Approved by Curtis Cundy City Manager Review Patrick Draper

PREVIOUSLY

DIS

TRIBUTED

ATTACHMENT 5

Presented by:

Off-Site Levies Bylaw Update City Council

Tracy Allen Director of Engineering

Date : September 3, 2013

2 2

Offsite Levy (OSL) Bylaw – Presentation Summary • Principles of OSL • History of OSL Bylaw & Model • OSL Guiding Principles March 2012 • OSL Guiding Principles March 2013 • Revised OSL Guiding Principles September

2013

3 3

Offsite Levy (OSL) Bylaw – Presentation Summary • Key Changes Debt Sharing & Water • Proposed new bylaw • Model Updates • Next steps

4 4

Principles

• Offsite Levy – “….a council may by bylaw….provide for the

imposition and payment of a levy….to be used only to pay for all or part of the capital cost of any or all of the following….”(Municipal Government Act – 648)

5 5

Principles Continued • Categories where an OSL can be applied via

bylaw include water, sanitary, storm, roads and/or land associated with any such facilities

• Categories not defined in MGA as to where an

OSL can be applied via bylaw include capital recreation facilities, fire stations

• This does not preclude a municipality collecting

on a voluntary basis

6 6

History of OSL Bylaw & Model

• City first adopted OSL Bylaw in March 2010 & rates were updated in 2011

• Bylaw did not address key policy issues

including – Debt sharing – Offsetting – Front ending

7 7

History of OSL Bylaw & Model Continued • Guiding Principles that supported the

Bylaw had also changed – Ray Gibbon Drive allocation split – Storm Water Management Facilities – Right sizing of infrastructure

8 8

OSL Guiding Principles 2012 • Revisions to guiding principles of bylaw &

model brought forward March 2012 o Council accepted revisions and directed

Administration to review implications with landowners before incorporating revisions into Bylaw

• Administration has completed research and consultation with other municipalities and landowners

9 9

OSL Bylaw Update Process

• Council was presented with 8 new/revised Administrative recommendations on OSL Bylaw update in March 2013

• 7 of 8 recommendations approved by Council with one identified as needing further study

10 10

OSL Recommendations March 2013

Table 1.0 – Summary of March 4, 2013 Agenda Report & Council Motions Proposed change in Offsite Levy (OSL) Model/Bylaw Administration Position

(March 2013) Council Decision (March 4, 2013)

1. Implementation of a Front Ending (debt sharing policy) • In support • Approved implementation


• Not in support; instead recommended 25%/75%



• Not in support • Did not approve proposed change



5. Off-setting of Levy Payments • In support • Approved proposed change 6. Redistribution of Levy Receipts • In support • Approved proposed change 7. Including Collector to Arterial Intersections • In support • Approved proposed change

8. Infrastructure and Land Costs (standardized) • In support • Approved proposed change

11 11

OSL Review Process 2013

• Director of Growth left City in April 2013 • Director of Engineering assumed

responsibility of OSL Bylaw update process • This process included review of all

recommendations to date, additional consultation & actual model update

12 12

Results OSL Review Process 2013

• Of the 7 recommended changes previously approved by Council, UDI & Administration are jointly requesting deferral of 1 recommendation

• Updated recommendation on the water infrastructure funding split

• No change on recommendation regarding moving to a PAC model or how rates are calculated

13 13

Key Changes – Debt Sharing

• Creation & implementation of debt sharing policy very complex & labor intensive

• Policy must be drafted such that it is fair and equitable to all parties and does not impede future development

• City will work with landowners to develop acceptable policy

14 14

Key Changes – Water Infrastructure

• New recommendation for reservoirs – Funding for future North & South Reservoir

0% (utility)/100% (development) – Existing reservoirs sized to support

population 75,000 (Lacombe Park Reservoir Expansion)

– City will also be rebuilding Sturgeon Pump House & Reservoir in next ten years

– Future growth fully drives need for new reservoirs

15 15

Key Changes – Water Continued

• Water Infrastructure Funding Split – Funding for transmission mains

25%(utility)/75%(development) – While new growth is driving force for

transmission mains, City does receive benefit through interconnections

16 16

Other Considerations

• To offset levy receipts collected to date against front ending done to date

• Two parties – City & private Developer • Levy receipts collected may be applied

against front ending costs incurred (same category)

• Reduces OSL rates as a whole

17 17

Other Considerations Continued

• $7.7M receipts against $40.2M transportation front ending

• $3.5M receipts against $6.1M water front ending

• $1.0M receipts against $1.33M sanitary front ending

• No storm receipts available to offset against storm front ending to date

18 18

Other Considerations Continued

• Past practice to over-size or provide excess capacity based on Inter-municipal Development Plan (IDP)

• Given that IDP no longer exists & City undergoing Utility Master Plan update, recommend revisit this practice

19 19

Revised OSL Recommendations 2013

TABLE 2.0: Summary of Revised 2013 Recommendations to Council

Proposed change in Offsite Levy (OSL) Model/Bylaw

Council Decision (March 2013) Revised Recommendation to Council


• Approved change to incorporate debt sharing policy into Bylaw

• That Council defer implementation of this policy



• Recommend 0%/100% split on reservoirs & 25%/75% split on transmission mains

9. Offset Levy Receipts • N/A • That this be approved

20 20

Proposed New Bylaw

• Allows implementation of Council approved policies on – Debt sharing – Front ending – Offsetting – Annual recoveries

• These policies will be brought forward in 2014 for Council approval

21 21

Model Updates for 2013

• 2013 levy charge rates based on – Offsetting of levy receipts to date – Water infrastructure funding split of 0%/100%

reservoirs & 25%/75% transmission mains – Inclusion of collector to arterial intersections

22 22

New OSL Rates

• Depending on development area, rates have slightly increased or decreased

• Overall average increase of approximately $15,000/ha

• Increase due to increased construction costs, including collector to arterial intersections, revised water allocation split

• Last increase was in 2011

23 23

Next Steps

• Continue to work on debt sharing policy • Completion of policy work based on

revised OSL model & bylaw • Education/staff training

24 24

Option Report

Questions

: off-site levy bylaw - pbtech-public benefit...

Documents