DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMMITTEE

 

 

 

 

 

TO:

Mayor and Members of Council

 

 

 

 

FROM:

Alan Brown, Director of Engineering

Jim Baird, Commissioner Development Services

 

 

 

 

PREPARED BY:

Alan Brown, ext 7507

 

 

 

 

DATE OF MEETING:

2003-Jun-03

 

 

 

 

SUBJECT:

Buttonville Crescent Sanitary Servicing

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Town of Markham’s established practice that the provision of municipal sanitary sewers and watermains in the urban area be financed under the provisions of the Local Improvement Charges Regulations (O.Reg. 119/03), unless alternative non-tax related funding is available (i.e. developer funding, Infrastructure Program or other means), be reaffirmed;

 

And that, on an exception basis,  the Buttonville Crescent (East and West) Heritage Conservation District Study Area be provided municipal servicing (sanitary and water) as follows:

·        Sanitary servicing be funded by benefiting landowners subject to Local Improvement Charges regulations;

·        Watermains be included under the Operations and Maintenance Capital Budget and funded by the Town through water rates (approximately $185,000);

·        Watermain installation be concurrent with sanitary servicing; and,

·        Road restoration costs be funded by the Town concurrent with sanitary and water components.

·        Sanitary servicing be funded by a special by-law to impose fees and charges made under section 391 of the Municipal Act, 2001, with the Town of Markham upfronting the cost ($168,000) with subsequent recovery from the property owners

·        Upgrade of the municipal watermain system ($223,000), including road restoration, from water reserves

 

And that staff report back with the details of the fees and charges by-law and funding source for Council’s approval.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Council in 2003 has considered a number of funding options to provide municipal sanitary sewers for the Buttonville Crescent Heritage Conservation District Study area.  This is felt to be required in accordance with provisions in the Secondary Plans for the area, and to encourage preservation and adaptive reuse of heritage buildings in the area in accordance with the Secondary Plan and zoning.

 

Staff summarized these options in a report to Development Services Committee dated May 20, 2003.  Committee on that date considered the options presented by staff (Local Improvement, Community Improvement Area, and Area Specific Development Charges) and requested that further options, or a combination of options, be considered.  The objective of Committee Members speaking to the item appeared to be to have the Town upfront all or a significant portion of the costs, and to collect back from the benefiting owners in as streamlined a manner as possible. 

 

This report summarizes the three options presented in the May 20 report, plus two additional options.  This report recommends that one of the additional options presented here (i.e. a special fees and charges by-law under section 391 of the Municipal Act, 2001) be applied to finance the sanitary servicing.  Under this option, the Town would front end the cost of sanitary servicing, to be collected back from benefiting owners who hook up to the sewer.  If Council endorses this option, staff will report back on details of financing arrangements and obligations.

 

In addition, it is recommended that the Town finance a municipal watermain system concurrent with the sanitary sewer construction.  The Town would also pick up costs of associated road restoration.

 

Subject to Council approval, it is anticipated that this work can be done in the Fall of 2003.

 

BACKGROUND:

Staff have submitted the following reports and presentations to Council on the servicing of Buttonville Crescent which are attached.

 

1.      February 17, 2003 - PowerPoint Presentation entitled Buttonville Servicing (Attachment A)

2.      May 5, 2003 - PowerPoint Presentation entitled Municipal Servicing in Urban Areas (Attachment B)

3.      May 20, 2003 – Report entitled Buttonville Crescent Sanitary Servicing Community Improvement (Attachment C)

 

OPTIONS/DISCUSSION:

Funding Options

The following options are available to provide sanitary service to this community.  It should be noted that in addition to work within the municipal Right of Way, residents will be required to fund works in their private property (grinder pump, service connection, plumbing revisions, decommissioning septic systems and restoration work) which range from $9,000 to $20,000.  The cost estimates used in the following options have been adjusted ($168,000 vs $142,600) to reflect a 2004 construction price index and are exclusive of the property owners’ costs to connect, as set out above.  It should be noted that the final costs will be based on the final construction contract value and could be lower or higher than this estimate.

 

A) Local Improvement

Under the Municipal Act 2001 (Ontario Regulation 119/03) a local improvement charge cannot be reconsidered for the Buttonville area until August 15, 2003. The cost per household would vary from $6,000 to $12,000 depending on their lot frontage.  Markham has 2 options to proceed;

 

a)      Submit a questionnaire and seek 67% concurrence from the property owners

 

OR

 

b)      Markham pass a by-law for the local improvement charge and submit a notice to the property owners.  Markham could only proceed if it does not receive a petition by the majority of property owners with at least 50% of the accessible frontage.

 

B) Community Improvement Plan

Under this option Markham Council would:

·         pass a by-law to designate a Community Improvement Project Area.

·        develop a Community Improvement Plan for the project area following the same process as an official plan amendment including public consultation and holding of a statutory public meeting

·        pass a by-law adopting the Community Improvement Plan

·        forward the Community Improvement plan to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for approval (decision is subject to appeal to the OMB)

·        carry out the plan

 

As described in the May 20, 2003 report to Development Services Committee entitled “Buttonville Crescent Sanitary Servicing – Community Improvement”, this is an option, but not the most appropriate tool to use for providing servicing to this area for the following reasons:

 

·        community improvement plans are intended for broader based comprehensive initiatives, often linking review of planning and redevelopment options with options for financing infrastructure.  In this case recent land use policies and zoning  are already in place to permit redevelopment, and only local service improvements are required.

·        there are other more appropriate tools under Provincial legislation intended for providing local municipal servicing.

·        grants are no longer available from the Province for upgrading of local municipal services,  so the cost would be borne fully by the municipality or the property owners, with or without Community Improvement Area designation.

·        the process for adoption of the Community Improvement plan is potentially complicated and lengthy.

 

In discussions with Ministry staff they have expressed a concern that this is not the appropriate application of a Community Improvement Plan in this instance since the municipality will be servicing the area. As a result, there is no financial tool employed as part of this project which is a requirement of a Community Improvement Plan.

 

 

C) Area Specific Development Charge

Under this option an area specific by-law would have to be passed by Council and would be subject to OMB approval.

 

There are 20 lots in the subject area and there are 14 historical buildings (located on 13 lots), that must be preserved.  Given the location of the historical buildings on many of the lots and the size and configuration of those lots, much of the redevelopment will likely not occur and may consist instead of building additions and rezoning.

 and rezoning.

 

A review of the ownership pattern shows that most of the lots are in individual ownership so land assembly has been minimal to-date despite zoning permissions for more intensive development being in place since 1994.  It is felt that the current lack of municipal sanitary sewers is curtailing the adaptive reuse of this area for higher intensity uses as permitted under the current Secondary Plan and zoning.

 

We estimate 60% of the lots could potentially redevelop eitherwith either  through severances or rezoning rezoning which would be subject to an ASDC.  T.  The preliminary ASDC is calculated to be ± $60,000/ha.  There would be a non-growth share for the non-developable share (40% ± $67,000), which would have to be funded by the tax rate unless there is consensus from property to be developed to pay the non-growth share.

 

Given the very limited redevelopment potential, in particular owing to the need to protect heritage resources in this Heritage District Study Area, it is unlikely that any single development interest will upfront the cost of the municipal sanitary sewer.  Therefore, if this option were to be pursued, it would likely fall to the Town to upfront the servicing and attempt to recoup costs as the area develops.  (Given that the pace of such redevelopment will likely be slow, a more direct way for the Town to recoup any front end costs would be under option E below, as existing homes connect to the sanitary sewer, even without redevelopment).

 

D) Local Improvement/Area Specific Development Charge

This combination option was identified by Committee Members at the May 20 Development Services Committee meeting.  In response to questions at the time, staff indicated that we are not aware of any precedent in Markham for such a combination of Local Improvement and ASDC charges.

 

Under this option, it was suggested that 50% of the sanitary servicing cost ($84,000) would be funded by existing property owners under a local improvement charge and the balance would be assessed for future redevelopment in this area through an area specific by-law.

 

The preliminary estimates of a local improvement charge for the property owners range from $3,000 to $6,000 depending on their lot frontage.  Based on a net developable area of ± 1.74 ha the Area Specific Development Charge would be ± $30,000/ha.  For those properties that would redevelop they would be subject to the Local Improvement Charge and then the ASDC when they develop.  Collecting back through ASDC would be subject to the same concerns as outlined under option C above.

 

E) Special Fees and Charges By-law under section 391 of the Municipal Act, 2001

Arising from the discussion at the May 20 Development Services Committee meeting, staff  have further discussed with the Town Solicitor other possible options for financing municipal sanitary sewers for the Buttonville Heritage District Study Area.

 

The Solicitor advises that Section 391 of the Municipal Act, 2001authorizes a Council to, by by-law, impose fees or charges on a class of persons for services provided on behalf of the class. This provision replaced, but did not duplicate the old Municipal Act provisions in section 221 for sewer charges or rates.

 

At the Town’s option, the Town may impose a special charge for sanitary services to be collected from the benefiting class when they hook into the sanitary service.  The charge can require interest on the amount to be paid and may provide for discounts for early payment.  The Act and its regulations do not currently provide for an appeal from such a by-law.

 

If Council endorsed this option staff will report back on details of the by-law in respect to interest charges, obligations to connect into the sewer vs future septic improvements etc.

 

Municipal Water

As indicated in staff’s May 5, 2003 presentation, when sanitary servicing proceeds in this area the municipal watermain should be upgraded to current standards.  The estimate of this work including road restoration is ± $223,000.  The Operations and Asset Management and Finance Departments are reviewing reallocation of funds in the Waterworks budget reserves. 

 

Staff will report back with final details of funding source for Council’s consideration.

 

Staff recommends that subject to Council’s direction on the sanitary servicing funds staff will retain a consultant to proceed with the watermain design at a cost of ±$10,000.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

For this project to proceed in 2003 funding in the amount of ± $391,000 not budgeted for in 2003 has to be resolved.  The Operations and Asset Management and Finance Departments are reviewing the reallocation of funds in the watermain 2003 Capital Budget.  Shortfall of funds required to undertake this project will have to be funded from water reserves and the 2003 Budget amended accordingly.

 

CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE:

Subject to Council’s approval of the recommendations it is estimated construction can proceed this September and be completed by November 2003.

 

CONCLUSION:

As the Buttonville Crescent area is a Heritage Conservation District Study area requiring municipal infrastructure support to encourage protection and adaptive reuse of heritage buildings in accordance with an approved Secondary Plan and zoning by-law, and given the objective to collect monies back from property owners as they connect existing buildings to municipal sanitary sewers, staff recommends a special fees and charges by-law be passed which would entail the Town of Markham upfronting the sanitary servicing cost ($168,000) with subsequent recovery from property owners when they wish to connect in.

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A – February 17, 2003 PowerPoint Presentation entitled “Buttonville Servicing

Attachment B – May 5, 2003 PowerPoint Presentation entitled “Municipal Servicing in Urban Areas

Attachment C – May 20, 2003 Report entitled “Buttonville Crescent Sanitary Servicing Community 

                          Improvement

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

___________________________________              _________________________________

Alan Brown, C.E.T.                                                      Jim Baird, M.C.I.P., R.P.P.

Director of Engineering                                     Commissioner of Development Services