DC Contribution to Developer Existing Cost Benefit Total of Cou… · COB COB COB COB COB COB COB...
30
Transcript of DC Contribution to Developer Existing Cost Benefit Total of Cou… · COB COB COB COB COB COB COB...
RoadName
From
To
Total
Section
Project
Replacement
Length
Implementation
Cost
Developer
DC
andBenefit
Jurisdiction
(KM)
Type
(COB)
Contribution
Contribution
toExisting
2017
Roads
BiscayneCreek
/
WestcreekBtvd
connection
BramaleaRoad
ClarkwayDrive
ClarkwayDrive
CountrysideDrive
CountrysideDrive
HeritageRoad
HeritageRoad
Intersection
Improvements
MississaugaRoad
Noisewall
retrofit
Properlyacquisition
Sidewalks
TrafficSignallzation
Urbanizationof
Highway10
WanlessDrive
BiscayneCrescent
BovairdDrive
MayfieldRoad
CastlemoreRoad
DixieRoad
TheGoreRoad
FinancialDrive
SteelesAvenue
Variouslocations
BovairdDrive
Variouslocations
Variouslocations
Variouslocations
Variouslocations
BovairdDrive
CreditviewRoad
Sub-Total
-Roadsfor2017
GradeSeparations
Highway410overpass
Biscayne
Creek/Westcreek
WestcreekBlvd
SteelesAvenue
CountrysideDrive
CountrysideDrive
AirportRoad
Hwy50
NewRoadA
FinancialDrive
COB
COB
COB
COB
COB
COB
COB
COB
COB
SouthernCi
tySoundaryROP
COB
COB
COB
COB
Northern
CityboundaryCOB
MississaugaRoad
COB
COB
0.550
6.100
1.250
3.700
4.100
3.600
3.300
0.700
7.500
0.608
1.500
5.000
1.400
4UC-NC
INTBRT
2-4UMA-WS
2-4UMA-WR
INTPrimCor
2-4UMA-WR
2-4UMA-WS
2-*UMA-WS
INT
INTBRT
NoiseWall
Property
Sidewalks
Signals
4RUA-RR
2-4UMA-WS
OverPass
2.347.700
4,473,100
7,815,700
14.857,300
4.424,300
21.425,800
8.202.400
11.192.100
1,348.900
1,557,500
920.700
13.500.000
126.300
5.203.200
23,576.700
3,761.500
$124,735,200
11.250.000
1.173.800
1.173.800
4,249,400
7,424,900
14.114,400
4,203,100
20.354,600
7.792,300
10.632.500
1,261,500
1,479,600
690,500
13.500.000
128.300
4.943.100
22.397.900
3,573.400
$1,173,800
$117,939,300
10,687,500
223,700
390,800
742,900
221,200
1.071.300
410.100
559.600
67,400
77.900
230,200
260,200
1.178.800
188.100
$5,622,200
562,500
o
> CD
Q.
x'
RoadName
From
To
Jurisdiction
Total
Section
Project
Replacement
Length
Implementation
Cost
Developer
DC
andBenefit
(KM)
Type
(COB)
Contribution
Contribution
toExisting
Sub-Total
-GradeSeparationsfor2017
Gateways
Queen
Street&
Airport
Road
QueenStreet&
MississaugaRoad
Sub-Total
-Gatewaysfor2017
Totalfor2017
2018
Roads
BiscayneCreek
/
WestcreekBlvd
connection
BiscayneCreek
/
WestcreekBlvd
connection
BramwestParkway
/
NSTC
ConservationDrive
HeritageRoad
Intersection
Improvements
John
Street
KennedyRoad
Noisewaitretrofit
Propertyacquisition
SandalwoodParkway
Sidewalks
BiscayneCreek
WestcreekBoulevard
NorthofHighway407
Highway10
NewRoadA
Variouslocations
TrumanSt
SandalwoodParkway
Variouslocations
Variouslocations
BramaleaRoad
Variouslocations
Firs
tGulfBlvd
TomkenRd
COB
COB
COB
COB
Southof
SteelesAve
COB
KennedyRoad
BovatrdDrive
CentreStreet
COB
COB
CO8
COB
SouthernCityBoundaryROP
TorbramRoad
COB
COB
COB
COB
0.500
0.700
1.460
1.300
2.500
0.500
10.300
0.608
0.900
1.500
Gateways
Gateways
i
2-4UC-WS
2-4UC-WS
6-6UAI-WS
2-4UMA-WR
2-4UMA-WS
INT
2RUMA-RR
INTPrimCor
NoiseWall
Property
4-6UAI-WS
Sidewalks
$11,250,000
312,500
312.500
$625,000
1136,610,200
2,255,700
1.583,000
3.375.000
6.557.400
23,709.300
1,348.900
1.923.100
13,364,600
920,700
4.000,000
2,835.900
128.300
$0
$10,687,500
296.900
296.900
$0
$593,800
$1,173,800
$129,220,600
2,143,000
1.503.900
3.375,000
6.229,500
22,523,600
1,281,500
1,827,000
12,696,400
690,500
4.000,000
2,694,100
128.300
$562,500
15,600
15,600
$31,200
$6,215,900
112,800
79,200
327,900
1,185,500
67.400
96,200
668,200
230,200
141.800
CDZJg.
x'
>
RoadName
From
To
Total
Section
Project
Replacement
Length
Implementation
Cost
Developer
DC
andBenefit
Jurisdiction
(KM)
Type
(COB)
Contribution
Contribution
toExisting
TrafficSignalization
TTMPandDCUpdate
Study
Variouslocations
Citywide
Sub-Total
-Roadsfor2018
Gateways
Eldorado
LormelGate
Sub-Total
-Gatewaysfor2018
Totalfor2018
2019
Roads
BramwestParkway
/
NSTC
HeritageRoad
Intersec
tion
Improvements
JohnStreetExtension
Noisewa
llre
trof
it
Propertyacquisition
SandalwoodParkway
Sidewalks
Traf
ficSignalization
WilliamsParkway
SteelesAvenue
WanlessDrive
Variouslocations
CentreStreet
Variouslocations
Variouslocations
DixieRoad
Variouslocations
Variouslocations
TorbramRoad
Sub-Total
-Roadsfor2019
COB
COB
COB
COB
EmbletonRoad
COB
MayfieldRoad
COB
COB
JamesStreet
COB
COB
COB
BramaleaRoad
COB
COB
COB
Humbeiwest
COB
3.100
1.260
0.200
0.60B
1.300
1.500
2.600
Signals
Study
Gateways
Gateways
6-8UAI-WS
2RUC-RR
INT
2UC-NC
NoiseWall
Property
4-6UAI-WS
Sidewalks
Signals
4-6UA-WS
5.203,200
500,000
$67,705,100
75,000
62,500
$137,500
$67,842,600
6,375,000
3,176,800
1,348,900
5,851,700
920,700
4,000,000
2,073,700
128,300
5,203,200
8,826,600
$37,904,900
$0
$0
2,925,800
$2,925,800
4,943,100
475,000
$64,511,100
71,200
59,400
$130,600
$64,641,700
6,375,000
3,018,000
1,281,500
2,925,800
690,500
4,000,000
1,970,000
128,300
4,943.100
8.385,300
$33,717,500
260,200
25.000
$3,194,400
3,700
3,100
$6,800
$3,201,200
158,800
67,400
230,200
103,700
260,200
441.300
$1,261,600
CD
RoadName
From
To
Total
Section
Project
Replacement
Length
Implementation
Cost
Developer
DC
andBenefit
Jurisdiction
(KM)
Type
(COB)
Contribution
Contribution
toExisting
Totalfor2019
2020
Roads
East-WestSpineRd
HeritageRoad
Intersec
tion
Improvements
Noisewall
retrofit
Propertyacquisition
Sidewalks
TrafficSignalization
North-SouthSpineRd
Hwy.#7/BovairdRd
Variouslocations
Variouslocations
Variouslocations
Variouslocations
Variouslocations
Sub-Total
-Roadsfor2020
Totalfor2020
2021
Roads
CreditviawRoad
Intersection
Improvements
McLaughlinRoad
Noisewall
retr
ofit
Propertyacquisition
SandalwoodParkway
Sidewalks
TrafficSignalization
WanlessDrive
Variouslocations
WanlessDrive
Variouslocations
Variouslocations
MississaugaRoad
Variouslocations
Variouslocations
McLaughlinRd
Wanless
Drive
MayfieldRoad
MayfieldRoad
HeritageRd
COB
COB
COB
COB
COB
COB
COB
COB
COB
COB
COB
COB
COB
COB
COB
3.500
3.000
0.608
1.500
1.300
1.200
0.608
1.400
1.500
4UC-NC
2-4UMA-WS
INT
NoiseWall
Property
Sidewalks
Signals
2-4UMA-WR
INT
2-4UMA-WR
NoiseWall
Property
4UA-NC
Sidewalks
Signals
$37,904,900
12.343.900
7.496.500
1.151.200
920.700
4.000.000
128,300
5,203,200
$31,243,800
$31,243,800
7.092,300
1.348,900
4,830,100
920,700
4.000,000
5,228,700
128,300
5,203,200
$2,925,800
6.172.000
$6,172,000
$6,172,000
2,614,400
$33,717,500
6.172.000
7.121.700
1.093,600
690,500
4.000.000
128,300
4.943,100
$24,149,200
$24,149,200
6,737,700
1,281.500
4,588,600
690,500
4,000,000
2,614.400
128,300
4,943,100
$1,261,600
374,800
57,600
230,200
260.200
$922,800
$922,800
354,600
67,400
241,500
230,200
260,200
RoadName
From
To
Total
Section
Project
Replacement
Length
Implementation
Cost
Developer
DC
andBenefit
Jurisdiction
(KM)
Type
(COB)
Contribution
Contribution
toExisting
WanlessDrive
MississaugaRoad
Sub-Total
-Roadsfor2021
Interchanges
Highway410&
Highway10
Highway410&Mayfield
Road
Sub-Total
-Interchangesfor2021
Totalfor2021
By2031
Roads
BramwestParkway
/
NSTC
BramwestParkway
/
NSTC
ChinguacousyRoad
CreditviewRoad
HeritageRoad
Intersection
Improvements(10
years)
Noisewall
retr
ofit
(10
years}
Propertyacquisition(10
years)
SandalwoodParkway
(new
project)
Sidewalks(10years)
SandalwoodParkway
EmbletonRoad
BovairdDrive
BovairdDrive
WanlessDrive
Variouslocations
Variouslocations
Variouslocationsat
$4.35M/year
HeritageRd
Variouslocations
WinstonChurchillBlvd.COB
MayfieldRoad
BovairdDrive
WanlessDrive
Ml.PleasantTransit
Spine
MayfieldRoad
WinstonChurchillBlvc
COB
COB
COB
COB
COB
COB
COB
COB
I.COB
COB
3.800
1.900
3.400
3.100
1.000
1.200
6.077
1.400
15.000
2-4UMA-WS
IC
IC
6UA-NC
6-8UAI-WS
4-6UA-WS
4-6UA-WS
2-4UMA-WS
INT
NoiseWall
Property
4UMA-NC
Sidewalks
10,367,200
$39,119,400
4,375,000
4,375,000
$8,750,000
$47,869,400
8,750,000
5,500,000
11,123,900
2,940,500
4,299,600
1,348,900
9,206,700
40,000,000
6,604.700
1,283,000
$2,614,400
$0
$2,614,400
3,302.300
9,848,900
$34,833,000
4,375.000
4,375,000
$8,750,000
$43,583,000
8,750,000
5,500.000
10,567,700
2,793.500
4,084,600
1,281,500
6,905,000
40,000,000
3,302,300
1,283,000
516,400
$1,672,300
$0
$1,672,300
556,200
147,000
215,000
67,400
2,301,700
Q.
RoadName
From
To
Total
Section
Project
Replacement
Length
Implementation
Cost
Developer
DC
andBenefit
Jurisdiction
(KM)
Type
(COB)
Contribution
Contribution
toExisting
Traf
ficSignalization(10
Variouslocations
years)
TTMPandDCUpdate
Citywide
Study
Sub-Total
-RoadsforBy2031
GradeSeparations
HeritageRd&CN
HattonLine
SandalwoodRd&CN
HaltonLine
Sub-Total
-GradeSeparationsforBy2031
TotalforBy2031
GrandTotal
COB
COB
COB
COB
Signals
Study
GS-Rail
GS-Rail
52.032,400
1.000,000
$144,089,700
6.244.700
6,244,700
$12,489,400
$156,579,100
$1,790,233,400
$3,302,300
$0
$3,302,300
49,430,700
1.000,000
$134,898,300
5,932,500
5,932,500
$11,865,000
$146,763,300
$104,164,100$1,624,091,300
2,601.600
$5,888,900
312,200
312.200
$624,400
$6,513,300
$61,978,600
as
> ■Q CD
Q.
X*
Appendix B
CITY OF BRAMPTON 2009 DEVELOPMENT CHARGES
Outstanding Issues Raised In June 25, 2009 Memo from Altus Group on behalf of BILD
July 21, 2009
1. The use of "gross" population in new units to calculate the 10 year historic average
service level cap
2. Treatment of Negative Reserve Fund Balances
• BILD's position is that any negative reserve fund balances funded by the
development charge must be included in the 10 year historic average service level
cap, as described in the June 25, 2009 Altus Group memo. City staff have advised
that an adjustment will be made to the development charge calculation to address
this issue. BILD cannot comment further until the City's revised calculations are
provided.
3. Reserve Fund Balance Adjustments
• Following the Altus/IBI/Brampton meeting on July 7, Brampton staff provided a
spreadsheet with some information respecting the adjustments to reserve fund
balances. BILD has requested additional detail regarding how the specific
adjustments were calculated (how was each calculated, and how much development
(total units or square footage) is represented by each category of adjustment).
• BILD is also requesting clarification in respect of how the City will permanently adjust
its Reserve Fund Account to account for the above adjustments.
4. Central Area DC Incentive Program
• BILD has requested a description from the City in respect of how the Central Area
DC Incentive Program is accounted for in the current reserve fund balances, and
some detail respecting the amounts reflected in the reserve fund balances for the
incentive program (i.e., what are the total amounts accounted for in the reserve funds
for the incentive programs and how many units of each type do the amounts
represent).
5. Transit Congestion Factor
• This issue is also raised in the June 25, 2009 memo from BA Group. BILD has
requested an analysis that demonstrates how the 20% "congestion factor" was
justified and calculated in relation to the 10 year historic service level for transit and
and future road system congestion attributable to development.
6. Interest Rate Differential
• This issue described in detail in the June 25, 2009 Altus Group memo is outstanding.
Appendix B
-2-
7. Industrial Growth
• Following the Altus/IBI/Brampton meeting on July 7, Brampton staff provided
spreadsheets with a breakdown of floorspace and employment forecasts and GFA
per employee factors as requested. BILD is reviewing the detailed City assumptions
that have been provided.
8. General Government - Parking
• BILD has requested additional information requested regarding how the need for the
parking service was established for growth specifically over the study period, and
how the capital cost was estimated.
• BILD also requested confirmation that existing parking facilities included in the
historic service level calculations are not used to accommodate municipal employee
parking. The City has confirmed that parking facilities used to accommodate
municipal employee parking is not included in the historic service level calculations.
9. General Government - Studies
• BILD has requested additional information from the City regarding the scope of the
planning studies included in the estimated capital costs, and the criteria for studies
to be funded by the City versus developers. BILD is awaiting receipt of this
information.
10. General Government - Courthouse
• BILD has requested additional information from the City regarding the breakdown
of Courthouse funding, including original costs and grant amounts, the amount of
the courthouse funded to date.
• BILD is also requesting calculations respecting the manner in which the need for
the courthouse is allocated to previous and future development (i.e., what is the
capacity of the courthouse facility in relation to the population at the time of
construction, population since the courthouse was included in the development
charge, population during the study period and population after the study period)?
11. Library Board
• Given the temporary library facilities identified in the existing inventory, BILD is not
satisfied that there isn't additional benefit to existing development that should be
accounted for in proposed facilities that will replace temporary facilities. BILD has
requested details pertaining to the City's Library program. The City has advised
that information in that regard is contained in the draft Library Master Plan. BILD
has requested the draft Library Master Plan.
12. Transit Facilities - Land
• The City has advised that it is making an adjustment to its development charge
calculation to reduce certain land values that have been used for the replacement
value of existing transit stations. BILD cannot comment further until the City's
revised calculations are provided.
A Appendix B
-3-
13. Transit Facilities - Grants
• BILD disagrees with the manner in which the City applied grants in calculating the
capital cost amounts included in the development charge calculation for transit.
BILD's detailed position was provided to the City by letter dated July 20,2009.
14. Growth Projections for TTMP Update
• This issue is described in the June 25 Altus memo. City staff advised in a meeting
that the higher population used in TTMP would not impact road requirements, and
that the issue may be addressed through the TTMP. BILD is awaiting further
explanation through the TTMP.
15. Housing Mix
• The housing mix information provided by City following the Altus/IBI/Brampton
meeting on July 7 appears inconsistent with the Background Study. The City has
advised that an adjustment is being made to the Background Study.
16. Level of Service - Quality - Libraries
• The June 25 Altus memo raised the issue of increased replacement values for library
facilities that have not been justified. Brampton staff have advised that the costs are
based on generic costs found in the City's draft Library Master Plan. BILD has
requested the relevant excerpts from the Library Master Plan that justify the
increase.
17. Valleyland Development
• Following the Altus/IBI/Brampton meeting on July 7, Brampton staff provided a
information respecting the calculation of costs for Valleyland Development and the
Pathway Implementation Plan. BILD is currently reviewing this information.
18. Housing Projections
• The attached questions were previous provided to the City by Altus Group, but to
date no response has been received.
\574I956.2
Appendix Bi
-4-
Question Regarding Housing Projections
The new housing forecast to be used to calculate the 2009 development charges projects
approximately 12,400 fewer dwelling units for 2031 than had been projected for 2031 in the Peel
Region Official Plan and Brampton's 2006 Development Outlook. We understand the new
forecast reflects a new GTAH-wide forecasting model undertaken by Hemson Consulting which
projects significantly fewer dwelling units for Peel Region than Hemson's Growth Outlook for the
Greater Golden Horseshoe (the basis of Schedule 3 in the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden
Horseshoe).
In order to assess the reasonableness of the new household forecast, we need to review of the
update of the GTAH-wide forecasting model including changes in key assumptions. In
particular, we require:
> The changes in the 2011, 2021 and 2031 population forecast by age cohort for the
GTAH;
> The new assumptions regarding fertility, mortality and net migration behind the new
forecast by age cohort;
> Projected household headship rates by age cohort and an explanation of changes from
the reference compact scenario in the Growth Outlook for the Greater Golden
Horseshoe;
> The new GTAH household forecast for 2011, 2021 and 2031;
> Unit type projections for the GTAH;
> The allocation of units by type to upper and single tier municipalities within the GTAH;
and
> The allocation of units by type within Peel Region.
Appendix B
CITY OF BRAMPTON 2009 DEVELOPMENT CHARGES
Outstanding Issues Raised In June 25, 2009 Memo from Altus Group on behalf of BILD
July 21, 2009
1. The use of "gross" population in new units to calculate the 10 year historic average
service level cap
2. Treatment of Negative Reserve Fund Balances
• BILD's position is that any negative reserve fund balances funded by the
development charge must be included in the 10 year historic average service level
cap, as described in the June 25, 2009 Altus Group memo. City staff have advised
that an adjustment will be made to the development charge calculation to address
this issue. BILD cannot comment further until the City's revised calculations are
provided.
3. Reserve Fund Balance Adjustments
• Following the Altus/IBI/Brampton meeting on July 7, Brampton staff provided a
spreadsheet with some information respecting the adjustments to reserve fund
balances. BILD has requested additional detail regarding how the specific
adjustments were calculated (how was each calculated, and how much development
(total units or square footage) is represented by each category of adjustment).
• BILD is also requesting clarification in respect of how the City will permanently adjust
its Reserve Fund Account to account for the above adjustments.
4. Central Area DC Incentive Program
• BILD has requested a description from the City in respect of how the Central Area
DC Incentive Program is accounted for in the current reserve fund balances, and
some detail respecting the amounts reflected in the reserve fund balances for the
incentive program (i.e., what are the total amounts accounted for in the reserve funds
for the incentive programs and how many units of each type do the amountsrepresent).
5. Transit Congestion Factor
• This issue is also raised in the June 25, 2009 memo from BA Group. BILD has
requested an analysis that demonstrates how the 20% "congestion factor" was
justified and calculated in relation to the 10 year historic service level for transit and
and future road system congestion attributable to development.
6. Interest Rate Differential
• This issue described in detail in the June 25,2009 Altus Group memo is outstanding.
Appendix B
7. Industrial Growth
• Following the Altus/IBI/Brampton meeting on July 7, Brampton staff providedspreadsheets with a breakdown of floorspace and employment forecasts and GFAper employee factors as requested. BILD is reviewing the detailed City assumptionsthat have been provided.
8. General Government - Parking
• BILD has requested additional information requested regarding how the need for theparking service was established for growth specifically over the study period andhow the capital cost was estimated.
• BILD also requested confirmation that existing parking facilities included in thehistoric service level calculations are not used to accommodate municipal employeeparking. The City has confirmed that parking facilities used to accommodatemunicipal employee parking is not included in the historic service level calculations.
9. General Government - Studies
• BILD has requested additional information from the City regarding the scope of theplanning studies included in the estimated capital costs, and the criteria for studiesto be funded by the City versus developers. BILD is awaiting receipt of thisinformation.
10. General Government - Courthouse
• BILD has requested additional information from the City regarding the breakdownof Courthouse funding, including original costs and grant amounts the amount ofthe courthouse funded to date.
• BILD is also requesting calculations respecting the manner in which the need forthe courthouse is allocated to previous and future development (i.e what is thecapacity of the courthouse facility in relation to the population at' the time ofconstruction, population since the courthouse was included in the developmentcharge, population during the study period and population after the study period)?
11. Library Board
• Given the temporary library facilities identified in the existing inventory, BILD is notsatisfied that there isn't additional benefit to existing development that should beaccounted for in proposed facilities that will replace temporary facilities BILD hasrequested details pertaining to the City's Library program. The City has advisedthat information in that regard is contained in the draft Library Master Plan BILDhas requested the draft Library Master Plan.
12. Transit Facilities - Land
• The City has advised that it is making an adjustment to its development chargecalculation to reduce certain land values that have been used for the replacementvalue of existing transit stations. BILD cannot comment further until the City'srevised calculations are provided.
Appendix B
13. Transit Facilities - Grants
• BILD disagrees with the manner in which the City applied grants in calculating thecapital cost amounts included in the development charge calculation for transit.BILD's detailed position was provided to the City by letter dated July 20,2009.
14. Growth Projections for TTMP Update
• This issue is described in the June 25 Altus memo. City staff advised in a meetingthat the higher population used in TTMP would not impact road requirements, andthat the issue may be addressed through the TTMP. BILD is awaiting furtherexplanation through the TTMP.
15. Housing Mix
• The housing mix information provided by City following the Altus/IBI/Bramptonmeeting on July 7 appears inconsistent with the Background Study. The City hasadvised that an adjustment is being made to the Background Study.
16. Level of Service - Quality - Libraries
• The June 25 Altus memo raised the issue of increased replacement values for libraryfacilities that have not been justified. Brampton staff have advised that the costs arebased on generic costs found in the City's draft Library Master Plan. BILD hasrequested the relevant excerpts from the Library Master Plan that justify theincrease.
17. Valleyland Development
• Following the Altus/IBI/Brampton meeting on July 7, Brampton staff provided ainformation respecting the calculation of costs for Valleyland Development and thePathway Implementation Plan. BILD is currently reviewing this information.
18. Housing Projections
• The attached questions were previous provided to the City by Altus Group but todate no response has been received.
\574l95ft.2
Appendix B
61-53
Question Regarding Housing Projections
The new housing forecast to be used to calculate the 2009 development charges projects
approximately 12,400 fewer dwelling units for 2031 than had been projected for 2031 in the Peel
Region Official Plan and Brampton's 2006 Development Outlook. We understand the new
forecast reflects a new GTAH-wide forecasting model undertaken by Hemson Consulting which
projects significantly fewer dwelling units for Peel Region than Hemson's Growth Outlook for the
Greater Golden Horseshoe (the basis of Schedule 3 in the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden
Horseshoe).
In order to assess the reasonableness of the new household forecast, we need to review of the
update of the GTAH-wide forecasting model including changes in key assumptions. In
particular, we require:
> The changes in the 2011, 2021 and 2031 population forecast by age cohort for the
GTAH;
> The new assumptions regarding fertility, mortality and net migration behind the new
forecast by age cohort;
> Projected household headship rates by age cohort and an explanation of changes from
the reference compact scenario in the Growth Outlook for the Greater Golden
Horseshoe;
> The new GTAH household forecast for 2011, 2021 and 2031;
> Unit type projections for the GTAH;
> The allocation of units by type to upper and single tier municipalities within the GTAH;
and
> The allocation of units by type within Peel Region.
Appendix C
CITY OF BRAMPTON 2009 DEVELOPMENT CHARGE REVIEW
Response to: Communication from Robert Howe (Goodmans) entitled, "Outstanding Issues Raised in
June 25,2009 Memo from Altus Group on behalf of BILD", dated July 21,2009.
1. The position of the City on the "gross" population in new units methodology is addressed in the
staff report to Committee of Council on July 27, 2009.
2. Adjustments have been made to the development charge calculation in respect to the
treatment of negative reserve fund balances. The full amount of negative reserve fund balances
has been included as a part of the capital program that is funded under the service level cap.
Details as follows:
Service
Category
Reserve
Fund
Fire
Public
Works
Transit
Most Recent
Calculation of
Maximum
Allowable
$21,159,704
$27,068,049
$68,056,056
Negative Balance
of Reserve Fund
to be included in
Capital program
$11,921,828
$1,854,022
$7,436,849
Total of
Other Capital
Projects
within the
Maximum
Allowable
$9,237,876
$25,214,027
$60,619,207
3. Adjustments were made to the DC Reserve Fund balances in recognition of 2004 by-law
Transition Measures, Industrial Discounts and Places of Worship exemption that cannot be
recovered through future DCs. Details of each calculation follows this paragraph. For the
purposes of calculating the DC rates in this by-law review, the City has adjusted the reserve
funds in accordance with the Development Charges Act. The City will review its accounting
practices in this regard after completion of the DC review.
2004 By-Law Transition Measures
The adjustment due to transition measures was calculated based on the activities (for
residential) or revenues (for non-residential) during the transition period. The details of each
development type are as follows:
July 23,2009 Pagel
Appendix C
a. Residential Transition Measure Calculation
Month UnitsForegone Collections per
Unit
Foregone
Collections for
Month
September 2004 248 $4,490.08 $1,113,539.84
October 2004 1,281 $4,490.08 $5,751,792.48
November 2004 91 $3,221.55 $293,161.05
December 2004 2,006 $3,221.55 $6,462,429.30
Totals 3,626 $13,620,922.67
b. Non-Residential Transition Measure Calculation
Month
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
Totals
Transitional Discount
Additional Collection Without Transition
Foregone Collections With Transition
Non-Industrial /
Non - Office Actual
Revenue
$207.59
$179,734.74
$177,859.94
$47,547.83
$55,887.04
$4,239.66
$138,055.29
$603,532.09
47.25%
$1,144,051.94
$540,519.85
Industrial / Office
Actual Revenue
$1,061,411.63
$771,272.68
$953,382.12
$497,209.60
$86,421.13
$0.00
$5,604,846.08
$8,974,543.24
34.19%
$13,637,866.58
$4,663,323.34
c. Total Transition Measure Reductions
Development Type
Residential
Non Industrial / Non-Office
Industrial / Office
Total
Revenue Forgone
$13, 620,922.67
$540,519.85
$4,663,323.34
$18,824,765.86
July 23, 2009 Page 2
Appendix C
Industrial Discount
Industrial discount adjustment was based on percentage discount to total actual revenue of $25
million over the past five years. The calculation is as follows:
September 2004- April 2008: $23,859,662 x 11% = $2,624,563
May 2008-Dec 2008: $1,214,127 x 32.5% = $394,591
Total: $3,019,154
Places of Worship Exemption
The Places of Worship exemption adjustment was calculated on each individual site plan. The
total of the exempted area was 7,718.13 m2 for all Places of Worship who paid DCs during the
by-law period. The total foregone revenue was calculated by multiplying the exempted area for
each site plan by the DC rate in effect at the time of permit issuance for the respective site plan.
The sum total of the foregone revenue equaled $586,849.30.
4. Although the City of Brampton covers the City's portion of development charges that a company
would pay in order to develop in the downtown incentive program defined area (subject to an
evaluation process), the revenue is fully recognized in the DC reserve accounts as if they had
been paid at building permit issuance. This is accomplished by including a "receivable" at the
full cost of DCs owing in the DC Reserve Fund and a "payable" from one of the City's non-DC
reserve funds. In total, $15.1 million is accounted for in the DC reserve funds for the downtown
incentive program, including 430 residential units and 239.64 m2 of commercial developments.
5. The position of the City on the "Transit Congestion Factor" is addressed in the staff report to
Committee of Council on July 27, 2009.
6. The interest rate difference between positive and negative balance (3.5% positive, 5.5%
negative) reflects the City's investment yield and financing cost. While it is recommended in the
draft DC Background Study that funding for growth related capital programs be financed
internally, it is not certain whether or not this can be achieved in the next by-law period given
the many growth and non-growth related financial pressures placed on the City. At its own
discretion, Council may elect at any time to obtain external financing for any of its capital
programs.
7. This information was provided to BILD on July 7, 2009.
8. The position of the City on the "General Government - Parking" is addressed in the staff report
to Committee of Council on July 27, 2009.
July 23,2009 Page 3
Appendix C
9. Growth Studies and Other represent those capital projects that are growth related but
attributable to soft services within the City including studies related to planning for growth
within the City. The studies identified in the DC background study include those studies funded
by the City in its ongoing program to plan for and manage growth. On a continuous basis, the
City maintains a multi year program of preparing and updating studies, master plans and
planning policy documents in order to administer its planning program. Such studies include:
TTMP updates, DC Background Studies, Growth Management Studies, Master Plans on topics
such as recreation and environment, Official Plan Policy Updates, Secondary Plan Policy
Updates, localized transportation reviews, area planning/zoning studies, peer reviews etc. The
amounts included reflect estimates based on past funding required for similar studies of similar
scope since the specific terms of reference have generally not yet been developed for future
studies. The studies identified and included in the DC Background Study do not include those
studies which are funded by individual landowners or landowner groups through the City's
development approval and planning process. For example, only Secondary Planning studies to
be carried out to update existing Secondary Plans are included and Secondary Planning Studies
for new Secondary Plans are not included even if those studies may be managed by the City
since those are typically funded by landowner groups. Other landowner funded studies such as
Block Plan background studies and studies done in support of development applications are also
not included.
10. The total funding requirement of the POA Courthouse facility was $10.8 million, of which $4.1
million was provided through provincial funding and $6.7 million from internal City borrowing.
As of December 31,2008, $0.4 million has been paid on the principal and $1.5 million on the
interest.
Adjustments have been made to the historical service level inventories to take into
consideration the over sizing of the courthouse facility during the 2004-2008 period. As a result,
the maximum allowable of General Government - Growth Studies and Other has been reduced
from $3,229 million to $1,034 million. Detailed calculations and related inventory changes are as
follows:
Period Growth
Growth 2003-08
(Adjustment for last 10 yrs.)
Growth 2009-18
(Addition to inventory in 2009)
Growth 2019-31
(Addition to inventory in 2019)
Total and Previously Included
in Draft Background Study
Growth
(Pop&
Employment)
136,549
196,400
185,590
518,539
%
Allocation
26%
38%
36%
100%
Building
sq.ft.
15,402
22,153
20,933
58,488
Land (AC)
0.507
0.730
0.690
1.927
July 23, 2009 Page 4
Appendix C
11. BILD has requested details pertaining to Library facilities and information related to planned
development. Please find attached the Board approved Brampton Library Facilities Master Plan
Update November 2007.
12. The land unit cost of transit service centres has been adjusted to $1,147 million per hectare, as a
result, the adjusted transit maximum allowable is $68,056 million.
13. The position of the City on the "Transit Facilities - Grants" is addressed in the staff report to
Committee of Council on July 27, 2009.
14. Initial re-runs of the TTMP model has shown that any discrepancy due to population forecasts
for the year 2031 have minimal to no effect on the requisite road network to serve a population
of 707,000 or 738,000 (758,000 with undercount). The TTMP update is scheduled to be
completed in the fall of 2009 and further verification can be found within that report.
15. An adjustment based on a discrepancy in the Housing Mix data has been rectified in calculating
currently proposed rates. The growth in new units for the period 2009 - 2018 has been changed
from 143,940 to 144,430.
16. The draft DC Background Study currently values the replacement of the permanent library
structures at $332/sqft. This has been extracted from the approved Library Facility Master Plan
Update November 2007. The City believes these costs are in line with an expected replacement
value of these facilities under current market costs. Benchmarks from surrounding
municipalities also support the position that $332/sqft is a justified replacement cost for existing
library facilities.
17. This information was provided to BILD on July 7, 2009.
18. This information was provided to BILD and Altus Group Consulting on May 15, 2009 and the City
heard no further comment on these issues.
July 23,2009 Page 5
rAGROUPI / j \ TransportationV—S \ Consultants
Appendix D
BA Consulting Group Lid.
45 ST. Clair Avenue Wast. Suite 300
Toronto. Ontario M4V1K3
416.961.7110(plvine) 416.961.980711a*)
mm.bagioup.com
Memorandum
To:
BILD Brampton DC Review
Team
From:
Paul Sarjeant, MASc, P.Eng
Senior Transportation Engineer
Date:
June 25, 2009
Project:
7162-03
2009 Brampton DC ReviewC:\Documents and SeWngs\PmsBACTOR\My
Documonts'PrcjectsW16203 BILD Brampton DC
Review\Coirespondence\2009 06 24 File Memo,doc
Page 1 of 5
Subject: City of Brampton 2009 Development
Charge: Issues Identified to Date per
Proposed Road Charge
The following concerns and requirements for additional
information have been identified to date with respect to the
calculation of the City of Brampton's 2009 Development
Charge for Roads:
1/ Level of Service Analysis
The level of service analysis presented in the Background Study
is problematic:
• The baseline measurement used for the qualitative level
of service measure is "Simulated 2006" V/C ratios. As
indicated in the Background Study text on page 1 of the
Roads Summary, in paragraph 5: "the need for
service... must not include an increase that would result
in the level of service exceeding the average level
provided in the City over the 10 year period preceding
the preparation of the background study."
The level ofservice numbers, as presented:
• do not represent a 10 year average, and
• reflect a simulated level of service derived from
a forecast model, as opposed to a real, measured
level of service.
The quantitative level of service (lane km / population
and employment) is insensitive to improvements that do
not add lane-kilometres ofroadway. This would
include:
Intersection and signal improvements
Railway Grade Separations
Gateways
Urbanization ofHwy 10
Noise Walls
Appendix D
2/ Noise Walls
We are concerned that the introduction ofnoise walls on road widening projects is being charged
largely to the DC. Our understanding is that City Council endorsed introduction ofNoise Walls as a
required element on arterial road widening projects in built up areas. As such, the benefit of the walls is
largely to the existing population.
The proposed program includes about $34 million worth of noise walls. Ofthese:
• about $16 million is for "Noise Wall retrofits" at unidentified locations which are allocated
75% to growth.
• the remainder is for noise walls on specific road widening projects in built up areas, which are
generally allocated 95% to growth.
Please provide the rationale for these growth allocations.
3/ Gateways and Urbanization
In addition to the $23 million proposed for the "Urbanization" of Highway 10, there are about $6.5
million worth of "Gateway" improvements in the proposed program. All of these projects are allocated
95% to growth.
Please provide the rationale for this growth allocation.
4/ Property Acquisition Costs
About $278 million ofthe proposed roads program is earmarked for property acquisition, and is
allocated 100% to growth. This comprises 18% of the entire roads DC cost.
Ofthis total, $106 million is identified specifically as property acquisition related to the NSTC.
For which project has this money been set aside: is it related to the NSTC (north of Embleton) or
to the Bramwest Parkway (south of Embleton)?
If it is related to the City's proposed additional items to the NSTC, does it take into account the
property acquisition already built into the Region of Peel's DC?
What is the basis for the calculation of this cost?
• How was the area of land required determined?
• What unit cost was assumed?
The remaining property costs have been allocated on an annual basis: $13.5 million per year to 2017,
and then $4.0 million per year thereafter.
What is the basis for the determination of these annual costs?
Appendix D
5/ Bramwest Parkway and North South Transportation Corridor (NSTC)
The costs for this facility include extending the NSTC as reflected in the Region ofPeel's DC north of
Sandalwood, and widening the section between Embleton and Bovaird to 8 lanes. The need for these
particular road network elements are arguably not related to growth within Brampton.
As such, the landowner's position has been that that the two projects, namely Bramwest Parkway and
the NSTC, service inter-regional travel demand, and should ultimately be uploaded to either the Region
of Peel or the Province. Furthermore, identification of the specific functional requirements (alignment,
connectivity, and number of lanes) of these projects can only be properly determined through an inter
regional study such as the ongoing HPBATS, or a Provincial freeway study such as the GTA West
Corridor study.
The landowners, through BILD, will continue working with the City to ensure that the uploading
of these projects can be achieved in an appropriate manner.
6/ Bramwest Parkway Interchange
In the road projects identified as being related to Bramwest Parkway, there are two high cost items that
relate to road works in the same area.
The first is identified in 2012 as Bramwest Parkway from Highway 407 (Meadowvale Road) to Steeles
Ave, with the jurisdiction identified as Region of Peel. The total cost of this project is $34.88 million.
The second item is identified in 2013 as the Bramwest Parkway and Highway 407 Interchange. The
cost of this project is $25.76 million.
Please provide a more detailed description of these two projects, and the basis for costing them.
7/ Benchmark Cost Anomalies
The construction prices for road work are being reviewed in detail. There is a general sense that the
construction prices that are being used in the DC calculation are high relative to the experience of
members ofthe developer's group and their consultants. Furthermore BILD believes that developer
built infrastructure (such as green field collector roads) can generally be delivered at a lower cost than is
reflected herein, and may warrant special costing consideration insofar as the DC roads cost estimates
are concerned.
To this end, a review of the unit costs, and ofthe benchmark road costing in comparison to City of
Brampton standard road sections has been undertaken. To date, this exercise has revealed a number of
discrepancies:
• In addition to Storm sewers, Sanitary sewers have been include in all of the costed sections.
Are these not a Region of Peel responsibility?
• Manholes appear to have been spaced as closely as catchbasins, which has not been typical in
the past in Brampton.
Appendix D
The estimated length of catchbasin lead installation appears to be low (83m is included in the
calculation, our estimated length is 192m)
For new roads: a line item for the adjustment of existing manholes has been included in the
estimates.
For existing roads: line items for both adjustment and removal of manholes and catchbasins
have been included. Only one or the other should be applied to any given section ofroad as
appropriate.
The pavement markings estimate is based on the number oflanes +1, rather than the number of
lanes- 1.
The granular B width estimate does not include the curb widths.
Subdrains do not appear to have been accounted for.
More clarity as to the presence of, location of and number ofbike lanes is required.
A 20% adjustment for the cut and fill estimates has been included for new construction. What
is the basis for this adjustment.
Stormceptors have been assumed to occur at a frequency of one per kilometre, which is a closer
spacing then would generally be used (particularly over the entire roads program). The unit
price for these items appears to have almost doubled relative to the pricing used in the 2008 DC
Roads Cost Update.
Asphalt splash pads have been included for collector roads, but do not appear in the current City
standards.
8/ Region of Peel Projects
There have been past discussions regarding the City of Brampton's obligation with respect to funding
works related to Region ofPeel roads.
Please confirm that the identified Region of Peel road works have been coordinated with the
Region's works program, and that an understanding of which jurisdiction is responsible for
which works (sidewalks for example) is shared by both the City and the Region.
Please provide the basis for assessing the number of, and costing assumptions for, the
intersection tie ins related to Region of Peel projects.
9/ MTO Projects
Subsidy ofprovincial projects has been identified in the past as a problem, with the industry taking the
position that these works are not eligible for DC funding. This position remains unchanged.
4
Appendix D
10/ Transit Congestion Factor
This adjustment appears to be unrelated to the 10 year level of service measure for transit vehicles. Nor
is it clear as to whether it reflects the benefit of the numerous transit specific improvements included in
the program (for example transit signal priority and queuejump lanes).
Please provide the details of the calculation of this factor, and the rationale for it's support under
the DC Act
11/ Criteria for including Collector Roads
We note that a number ofnew collector roads have now been included in the DC Roads Program.
Has the City developed a criteria for making a determination as to whether a collector road
qualifies for inclusion in the DC or not? If so, please provide this criteria.
12/ Change in Growth Allocation of Road Widening Projects
In the past, these projects had been allocated 90% to Growth, hi this DC program they are allocated
95%.
Please provide the rationale and calculated basis for determining this allocation.
13/ Intersection Improvements
Programmed Intersection Improvements on both City and Regional roads have been allocated 100% to
growth.
Please provided the rationale for this allocation.
14/ Intersections and Stuctures
A key issue raised by the building industry in previous DC negotiations was the need to identify the
intersections and structure that have been included in the DC cost estimates. This provides clarity when
negotiating sole source agreements and determining DC credits for road works built by developers.
Will the City be documenting and making available the specific locations of the intersections and
structures that have been assumed to be required through this costing exercise?
engineering consultants
Appendix EiTRANS Consulting Inc.
100 York Blvd. Suite 300
Richmond Hill, ON L4B 1J8
Tel: (905) 882-4100
Fax:(905)882-1557
www.itransconsultinq.coiTi
File: 2.0
Project* 4587
Memorandum
To: Klaus Stolch - City of Brampton
Chris Duyvestin - City of Brampton
Cc: Henrik Zbogar - City of Brampton
Tyrone Gan - iTRANS Consulting
From: Elizabeth Szymanski - iTRANS Consulting
Date: July 20, 2009
Re: 2009 City of Brampton Development Charge Update
Reply to BA Group Memorandum June 25,2009
The Memorandum from BA Group to BILD Brampton DC Review Team dated June 25,
provided to iTRANS on June 31,2009 documents the results of the review of the 2009-2031
roads cost and background documentation completed by BA Group for BILD. The meeting
and discussion between BA Group, City staffand iTRANS on July 2,2009 helped clarify the
issues and questions raised by BA Group, provided opportunity to discuss and clarify inputs
and methods applied to cost calculation as well as cost allocation (Growth vs. BTE) ofa
number ofDC items. Following July 2 meeting, City staff has directed iTRANS to revisit
some sections of DC calculation inputs, methods and items and revise them accordingly. This
Memorandum summarises the response to BA Group Memorandum and documents changes
and modifications made to DC tables and calculations as a result ofBA Group's concerns.
1. LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
The Level ofService methodology used in the 2009 DC Update is replicating the method used
in the 2004 update. The method has two components - qualitative measure relies on observed
traffic volume information extracted from cordon count database and simulated in demand
forecasting model and quantitative measure uses the lane km/capita population and
employment. The 2006 quality level ofservice is the volume to capacity ratio simulated for
the peak directions during the pm peak hour of traffic in 2006. The 2006 V/C is considered to
reasonably represent average conditions during the 1999-2008 period. The 2006 simulated v/c
on all arterial roads within Brampton is at 0.75 whereas the comparable observed v/c is at
0.73.
The quantitative measure of lane km/capita is consistent with the previous DC study. While
the infrastructure identified is not specifically addressed individually, the infrastructure is part
ofthe road infrastructure, and represents a standard level of service measure successfully
applied in the past DC by-law updates.
1of6
Appendix E
2. NOISE WALLS
Noise walls for road widening projects are allocated at 95% to growth. These noise walls
(there are five ofthem at the cost of$18,34M) are the result of Environmental Assessment
recommendations and are considered as integral to the road widening project as the
installation ofsidewalks or drainage. These road widening projects require noise walls as
mitigation due to increased noise levels from traffic growth and the road being widened closer
to the adjacent properties. The noise walls are a part of the road widening projects, and
therefore, have a DC allocation identical to the project ofwhich they are a part.
The noise wall retrofits contain both new and replacement noise walls. The new noise walls
are required due to an increase in noise levels from traffic growth. The noise walls are also
designed to mitigate future traffic volumes. Similar to new noise walls, the replacement of
noise walls are designed to mitigate future traffic volumes. This is analogous to the
replacement and upsizing ofwater pipes, where benefits to both growth and existing
development are apparent.
3. GATEWAYS AND URBANIZATION
The Highway 10 Urbanization project has been carried over from the previous rounds ofDC
spreadsheets. The urbanization of Highway 10 will include full reconstruction and "change of
character" ofthe 5 km stretch ofroad built to MTO's standards for rural provincial highway.
The urbanization is envisioned to modify the roadway cross-section to an urban standard,
upgrade intersections and signals, and provide transit, cycling and pedestrian facilities. At
present, the $23M amount is driven largely by the length of the segment in question and the
need to upgrade the intersection, including the undertaking ofan EA and utility relocation.
The cost ofHwy 10 Urbanization is treated as an infrastructure cost allowance until more
detailed information and cost estimates become available.
Hwy 10 Urbanization is a part of the overall effort to accommodate new development and
growth within the City and as such has been allocated at 95% to growth.
Gateway improvements reflect the urban design and streetscaping standards that arc an
integral part of infrastructure investment in "gateway" corridors, and were always included in
previous City ofBrampton Capital Programs supported by Development Charges. The
Gateway improvement program is directly linked and triggered by the need to allocate and
manage growth within the City and as such has been allocated at 95% ofcost recovery from
DC.
2of6 iTRANSProject n 4587
Appendix E
4. PROPERTY ACQUISITION COSTS
Bramwest Pkwv/ NSTC Property Costs
Property costs estimates for Bramwest Pkwy/NSTC tabled in May 2009 Draft DC
Background Study Report were based on the following assumptions:
■ NSTC at 45m and 50m ROW
■ 8-lane facility from Hwy 407 to Embleton Rd
■ 6-lane facility form Sandalwood Rd to Mayfield Rd
■ 2 additional lanes (to widen from 6 to 8) from Embleton Rd to Bovaird Rd
■ Existing intersection space at major intersections (Stceles, Bovaird, Sandalwood and
Mayfield) has been excluded
■ Total land required: 79.8 acres
■ Real Property Land Sales for commercial, industrial, residential and retail uses; for
Southwest Quadrant, Sep '07 to Aug '08 as provided by the City of Brampton.
■ Current characteristic of land ownership in Bram West (68.3% of employment
(industrial/ commercial) land, 25.8% residential, 5.9% other, no retail). BramWest
characteristic applied to NWB.
■ Estimated cost of land acquisition in Bram West at S90.8M, Estimated cost of land
acquisition in NWB at S15.8M.
To account for the TTMP recommendations for Bramwest Pkwy/ NSTC ROW to be
constructed (subject HP BATS results) at 54 m. ROW and to include property costs for the
construction of36m ROW (plus 2 m buffer) section ofBramwest Pkwy/ NSTC south ofHwy
407 to Heritage Rd the property costs were revised. The resulting total land requirement is at
91.17 acres. The estimated cost of land acquisition in Bram West (Heritage to Embleton Rd) is
at S95.6M and North West Brampton at S20.9M.
Other property costs
The $13.5 M annual property costs are based on City's average annual land acquisition
expenditures quoted in the City Budget (S10M) and additional $3.5M required for transit road
related projects such as bus bays, queuejump lanes etc. Following the information extracted
from Budget spreadsheets, the $13.5 will be required until 2017, after that the land acquisition
costs are expected to decrease to $4M per annum.
5. BRAMWEST PKWY AND NORTH SOUTH
TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR (NSTC)
This issue will be addressed in the staffreport to Committee ofCouncil on July 27th, 2009.
3of6 iTRANSProject U 4587
Appendix E
6. BRAMWEST/NSTC PKWY INTERCHANGE
The Bramwcst Pkwy/NSTC interchange has been double counted. The cost of the
interchange, estimated at $22M will be removed from the cost of the Bramwest
Parkway/NSTC segment from Highway 407 (Meadowvale Rd) to Steeles Ave. The resulting
cost ofthe construction ofthe 6-lane segment is S3.48M. The Bramwest Pkwy/ NSTC/Hwy
407 interchange costing is based on unit price and structure benchmarks developed for this DC
update.
The NSTC railway grade separation south of Sandalwood Rd will be removed from the DC
spreadsheet as this item is already in the Regional DC table.
7. BENCHMARK COST ANOMALIES
Ql: In additional to Storm sewers, Sanitary sewers have been included in all of the costed
sections. Are these not a Region ofPeel responsibility?
A: Yes. The cost ofsanitary sewers is a Regional responsibility. Cost ofsanitary sewers has
been removed from calculations.
Q2: Manholes appear to have been spaced as closely as catchbasins, which has not been
typical in the past Brampton.
A: Manhole spacing has been adjusted to match City's road design standards at 100 m apart.
Q3: The estimated length ofcatchbasin lead installation appears to be low (83m is included in
the calculation; our estimated length is 192m).
A: We agree with the revision. Catchbasin lead formula has been modified to reflect no. of
catchbasins x Vi the width ofroadway.
Q4: For new roads: a line item for the adjustment ofexisting manholes has been included in
the estimates.
A: We agree with the revision. Adjustment has been removed from the "new construction"
projects.
Q5: For existing roads: line items for both adjustment and removal ofmanholes and
catchbasins have been included. Only one or the other should be applied to any given section
of road as appropriate.
A: We agree with the revision. Double count for adjustment and removal has been removed.
Q6: The pavement markings estimate is based on the number of lanes +1, rather than the
number of lanes-I
A: Agreed, calculation has been modified to match City standards (number oflanes -1).
Q7: The granular B width estimate does not include the curb widths.
4of6 iTRANSProject # 4587
Appendix E
A: Unit price for curbs and gutters includes costs ofgranular B and subdrains.
Q8: Subdrains do not appear to have been accounted for.
A: Unit price for curbs and gutters includes costs ofgranular B and subdrains.
Q9: More clarity as to the presence of, location ofa number ofbike lanes is required
A: Calculations are based on the provision of 1.5 m sidewalk on one side and a 3 m multi-use
path on the other side for artcrials and collectors;
Q10: A 20% adjustment for the cut and fill estimates has been included for new construction.
What is the basis for the adjustment?
A: A rough estimate of20% adjustment is based on profile adjustments required for new
constructions only.
Ql 1: Stormceptors have been assumed to occur at a frequency ofone per kilometre, which is a
closer spacing than would generally be used (particularly over the entire roads program). The
unit price for these items appears to have almost doubled relative to pricing used in the 2008
DC Road Cost Update.
A: 1 km spacing ofstormceptors is the current City practice. iTRANS used average price for
maintenance holes stormceptor (4000) & 401.010 which at a mid-price level between
maintenance holes stormceptor (750) & 401.010 (average price at $30,700) and maintenance
holes stormceptor (6000) & 401.010 (average price at $62,900). It is possible that the 2008
DC Update was based on the average price for maintenance holes stormceptor (750).
However application of the low end stormceptor will underestimate the costs since in a
number ofcases maintenance holes stormceptors 4000 and 6000 were used. We cannot
confirm what stormceptor type was costed in 2007 pricing.
Q12: Asphalt splash pads have been included for collector roads, but do not appear in the
current City Standards.
A: Asphalt splash pads have been removed from the benchmark cost calculations
Other comments:
BA has provided iTRANS with the results ofdetailed review ofroad work benchmarks by
treatment type. All comments and suggestions have been taken into consideration and
incorporated where necessary.
8. REGION OF PEEL PROJECTS
We confirm that Region of Peel road work projects have been coordinated with the Region of
Peel. Based on the previous agreements between the Region and the City, Brampton will
continue to collect charges on selected projects (as specified by Peel DC) until 2015. After
2015 the City is not collecting charges for any component ofregional projects. This agreement
and the selected projects are reflected in the current DC update.
iTRANSProject # 4587
Appendix E
Special effort was put into eliminating double counts ofregional and other intersection
improvements linked to road widening or new construction projects. As a general rule,
widening of intersections under regional jurisdictions was assumed to be handled by the
Region.
9. MTO PROJECTS
A City component ofMTO projects is solely triggered by the need to accommodate growth. It
is therefore allocated to growth component ofthe DC.
10. TRANSIT CONGESTION FACTOR
This issue will be addressed in the staffreport to Committee ofCouncil on July 27*, 2009.
11. CRITERIA FOR INCLUDING COLLECTOR
ROADS
Four-lane new collector roads were included in the DC.
12. CHANGE IN ALLOCATION OF ROAD WIDENING
PROJECTS
The 5% ofthe costs allocated to BTE reflects the costs ofresurfacing the existing lanes. On
average, costs of asphalt removal, repaying and re-application of pavement markings (that is
ofbenefit to existing users) accounts for 4% to 5% ofthe cost ofthe entire widening project.
Previous 10% allocation to BTE has been identified by City staffas an overestimation of cost
in need of rectification.
13. INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
All intersection improvement projects have been revised to a 95% growth and 5% BTE
allocation.
14. INTERSECTIONS AND STRUCTURES
The City will be providing full documentation of intersections and structures (bridges, culverts
and grade separations) included in the DC road work program at a later date as approved by
the Commissioner ofWorks & Transportation and the City Treasurer.
End ofMemorandum
6of6 iTRANSProject #4587
