report to council document library...2016/07/25 · note: council policy 2.4.2 is included in this...

REPORT TO COUNCIL

DATE: July 25, 2016 TO: Council FROM: Doug Stewart, Director of Financial Services RE: Approval of Development Cost Charges Bylaw No. 554 FILE NO: 3150-01

1. PURPOSE

1.1. To update Council on the Development Cost Charges (DCC) Bylaw update project and to seek Council’s approval of Development Cost Charges Bylaw No. 554

2. RECOMMENDATION

2.1. That the report from the Director of Financial Services dated July 25, 2016 regarding Approval of Development Cost Charges Bylaw No. 554 be received.

2.2. That Development Cost Charges Bylaw No. 554 be read a first time.

2.3. That Development Cost Charges Bylaw No. 554 be read a second time.

2.4. That Development Cost Charges Bylaw No. 554 be read a third time.

2.5. That Development Cost Charges Bylaw No. 554 be forwarded to the Ministry of Community Sport and Cultural Development for review and approval by the Inspector of Municipalities.

2.6. That Council Policy 2.4.2 Reducing or Waiving Development Cost Charges

be rescinded.

nchell

Text Box

Item 8.2

RE: Approval of Development Cost Charges Bylaw No. 554

3. BACKGROUND 3.1. Council has directed Staff to prepare a revised DCC Bylaw for their

consideration. The process of updating this bylaw began in April 2016 and incorporated growth projections for the District over a twenty-year period, as well as off-site infrastructure and park projects required to support this growth. This process involved extensive consultation with District developers and home builders as well as the general public.

3.2. On July 13, 2016, the Finance, Culture and Economic Development (FCED) Committee discussed the DCC Bylaw preparation process and passed the following resolutions:

3.2.1. That the Committee recommends that Council authorize setting a 1%

municipal assist factor for transportation, wastewater, drainage and parks DCC’s.

3.2.2. That the Committee recommends that Council rescind Council Policy 2.4.2 Reducing or Waiving Development Cost Charges, and direct staff to include a provision for waiving or reducing DCC’s in the new DCC bylaw. Note: Council Policy 2.4.2 is included in this report as Attachment “B”.

3.2.3. That the Committee directs Staff to prepare a DCC Bylaw for Council’s

consideration with the comments provided.

3.3. The result of this updating process is a new set of DCC rates applicable to residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional development. The new rates reflect the FCED Committee’s recommendation to include a 1% assist factor for transportation, wastewater, drainage and parks DCC’s. Attachment "A" is the proposed DCC Bylaw in which the new rates are embedded.

3.4. The comments referred to in paragraph 3.2.3 are provided in the Discussion section of this report with a response from the District staff where applicable.

4. DISCUSSION 4.1. During the discussion by the FCED Committee, several issues were raised.

Some of the issues can be addressed now, others will require work that can be completed by the time the DCC Bylaw is adopted, and some cannot be addressed without considerable work. If Council directs Staff to gather the additional information prior to their willingness to consider reading and adopting the revised DCC bylaw the final adoption of the bylaw will be significantly delayed.

4.2. A number of the questions asked by the FCED Committee were specific to the Equivalency Factors used to calculate the DCC charges. They are:


4.2.1. It appears the parks and transportation contributions in DCC rates indicate higher DCC costs for lower density. The Committee feels that although this may encourage high density and discourage low density, it may not be logical if it is based on the use of infrastructure.

4.2.2. The Committee feels the per person and dwelling unit numbers do not

correctly reflect past experience with District of Sechelt per unit population numbers for the variety of residential development types.

4.2.3. The Committee indicated that Council will want a rationale for the explanation of the transportation and parks charges.

4.2.4. Page 50 Equivalency Factors for transportation states that the cost of development is distributed based on the trips generated by each land use. If residential type directly generates required transportation improvements, the fact that those residences are in a high, low or medium density area raises questions as to whether transportation needs change for residents depending on where they live. The bylaw has a very different rate for those as discussed earlier.

4.2.5. On the same page it states that the need for parks is determined by population increases. The Committee questioned that if population is the determining factor then why does this bylaw have a varying contribution based on multi-family or single family units. The Committee requires additional clarification on this matter.

4.3. The Equivalent Factor calculations are based on the suggestions in the

Development Cost Charges Best Practices Guide produced by the Ministry of Community Sport and Cultural Development. Pages 7.5 to 7.14 of the Best Practices guide are provided as Attachment “C” in this report.

4.4. The DCC Background Report prepared for the District in 2013 by Bob Twerdoff Consulting Ltd. calculated the Equivalent Factors used in the current DCC calculation. Urban Systems reviewed the factors provided by Bob Twerdoff Consulting Ltd. and determined that they are reasonable based on other DCC review engagement they have worked on. Staff do not have access to the raw data Bob Twerdoff Consulting Ltd. used in their calculations.

4.5. In regard to the East Porpoise Bay Expansion study, it was noted by a member of the FCED Committee that “After viewing the DCC report in terms of the sewer program, he didn’t see anything for East Porpoise Bay and it seems that it had not been consistent with the expansion study. The Committee would like a sense of how that works.

4.6. The East Porpoise Bay Expansion study was not included in this DCC program

because it is currently outside of the Sanitary Sewer Specified Area, and, therefore; not DCC program eligible.


4.7. During the FCED meeting the following was noted: “There is some confusion around item 3.3 stating the expansions into West Sechelt and West Porpoise Bay are now virtually complete. The Committee was under the assumption the sewer and development is not complete in this area as there is still a lot of undeveloped land that is zoned.”

4.8. The statement in the report is referring to the infrastructure still required to support the growth in these areas. It is not making any comment on the land development still to occur. 10% of the capital projects relate specifically to West Sechelt and the amount for West Porpoise Bay is only 1.5%. This is compared to 67% of the projects that are deemed District-wide. The purpose of the comment in the report was to explain why District staff are recommending a single DCC charge throughout the District rather than neighbourhood specific charges.

4.9. The FCED Committee noted that some documents clarifying how the DCC

program will be administered need to be prepared. District staff will prepare the following documents over the next two months and have them available prior to Council adopting the DCC bylaw:

4.9.1. A policy and procedures for the waiving of DCC charges.

4.9.2. An explanation and examples of when exemptions and waivers would

apply. 4.9.3. A policy and procedures for administering DCC Rebates and Credits.

4.10. At the FCED meeting the following was noted: “There was discussion as to whether the District could look at time limits on the commercial DCC portion. It was suggested that the District could structure commercial DCCs between 2016 and 2018 at zero as an incentive to spur development in the downtown core”.

4.11. The Provincial Government legislation governing the imposition of DCC’s does not allow for differing DCC charges in specific areas simply as a means of encouraging development. Other mechanism are available (such as revitalization bylaws that provide property tax relief for specific types of development in pre-defined areas) to encourage growth in certain areas. This type of analysis is beyond the scope of the current DCC Bylaw update project and has not been investigated by Staff.

4.12. When preparing the DCC Bylaw and Background Report, Staff relied solely on studies and consultant reports previously prepared to expedite the process. The reports used were assumed to be accurate and to provide the best information the District currently has.


4.13. The FCED Committee raised the following concerns that cannot be addressed at this time:

4.13.1. There was some concern on Page 48, 4.1 – “Residential Growth

Projections”. The Committee felt these numbers may not be correct. The report states a growth projection of 1,568 new residents over the next 20 years, however; there is a growth estimate of units to accommodate more than 1,568 already proposed by developments currently at First Reading, with new potential developments are in the works. The Committee has requested the projection be deconstructed.

4.13.2. On page 53, “Exceptions and Waivers”, it was noted there are no DCC charges on projects under $50,000 in value and this amount has been the same for years. The Committee is questioning whether this amount should be increased to facilitate renovations and rejuvenation in the downtown core. Suggestions were made that increasing this to the $150-200,000 range should be a point of discussion. Suggestions were made that increasing this to the $150-200,000 range should be a point of discussion.

4.13.3. The Committee indicted that there are efforts being made coast-wide to have fire sprinklers installed during building renovations over a certain value. This could increase a renovation project value substantially.

4.13.4. On page 68, “Parks Projects”, the Committee expressed concerns with

the projects, costs, and the direction assumed in relation to parks. This requires further discussion.

4.13.5. The Committee may have more substantial comments on the project list

itself regarding specific projects.

4.14. District staff recommends that the items listed in paragraphs 4.13.1 through 4.13.5 be considered during the next DCC review project to avoid delaying the adoption of the proposed DCC Bylaw attached to this report.

5. ATTACHMENTS

A. District of Sechelt Development Cost Charges Bylaw No. 554, 2016

B. Council Policy 2.4.2 Reducing or Waiving Development Cost Charges

C. Pages 7.5 to 7.14 of Development Cost Charges Best Practices Guide 2005

produced by the Ministry of Community Sport and Cultural Development


6. RECOMMENDATIONS AND OPTIONS 6.1. That the report from the Director of Financial Services dated July 25, 2016

regarding Approval of Development Cost Charges Bylaw No. 554 be received.

6.2. That Development Cost Charges Bylaw No. 554 be read a first time.

6.3. That Development Cost Charges Bylaw No. 554 be read a second time.

6.4. That Development Cost Charges Bylaw No. 554 be read a third time.

6.5. That Development Cost Charges Bylaw No. 554 be forwarded to the Ministry of Community Sport and Cultural Development for review and approval by the Inspector of Municipalities.

6.6. That Council Policy 2.4.2 Reducing or Waiving Development Cost Charges

be rescinded.

Option 1: Council could direct Staff to gather additional information prior to reading the revised DCC bylaw.

DISTRICT OF SECHELT

BYLAW NO. 554, 2016

A bylaw to Impose Development Cost Charges

WHEREAS the Local Government Act provides, that Council may, by Bylaw, impose

development cost charges on every person who obtains;

(a) approval of a Subdivision; or

(b) a Building Permit authorizing the construction, alteration or extension of a building

or structure;

for the purpose of providing funds to assist the District to pay the capital costs of

providing, constructing, altering or expanding sewer, drainage and highway (road)

facilities, and providing and improving parkland to service, directly or indirectly, the

development for which the charge is being imposed;

AND WHEREAS the Council considers that the charges imposed by this Bylaw:

(a) are not excessive in relation to the capital cost of prevailing standards of service in the District;

(b) will not deter development in the District; and (c) will not discourage the construction of reasonably priced housing or the provision of

reasonably priced serviced land in the District;

AND WHEREAS, in the opinion of the Council, the charges imposed by this Bylaw are:

(a) related to capital costs attributable to projects included in the Financial Plan of the District; and

(b) related to capital projects consistent with the Official Community Plan of the District;

NOW THEREFORE the Council of the District of Sechelt in open meeting assembled hereby

enacts as follows:

nchell

Text Box

Attachment A

District of Sechelt Development Cost Charges Bylaw No.554, 2016

_________________________________________________________________________

CITATION:

1. This Bylaw may be cited as “District of Sechelt Development Cost Charges Bylaw

No. 554, 2016”.

DEFINITIONS: 2. (1) In this Bylaw,

“Apartment Dwelling Unit” means a Dwelling Unit in a building that contains three or more dwelling units to which access is provided from the exterior of the building by means of a common lobby and stairways or elevators. “Building Permit” means a permit issued by the District that authorizes the construction, alteration or extension of a building or structure; “Commercial” means a building predominantly serving a business, office, retail sales or service function and generally as described in Part 6 of the Zoning Bylaw; “Congregate Care” means a building that is used or intended to be used as a seniors residence, in which cooking appliances are not provided within accommodation units, and common dining areas are provided within the building;

“District” means the District of Sechelt;

“Duplex Dwelling” means a building that contains two Dwelling Units, whether or not either of the Dwelling Units contains a Secondary Suite; “Dwelling Unit” means a room or group of rooms that are used or intended to be used as a self-contained private residence, and for the purposes of this Bylaw does not include any Secondary Suite;

“Gross Floor Area” means the total of the horizontal areas of all floors in a building, excluding any basement area used only for storage or vehicle parking purposes, measured to the outside of the exterior walls of the building;

“Industrial” means a building predominantly providing an industrial, business park or related function and generally as described in Parts 7 and 8 of the Zoning Bylaw;

“Institutional” means a building predominantly providing a governmental or public service or related function and generally as described in Part 10 of the Zoning Bylaw;


_________________________________________________________________________

“Not-for-profit Rental Housing” means housing that is the subject of a housing agreement with the District that secures rental tenure in perpetuity, and in respect of which the applicant for a building permit has provided evidence satisfactory to the Director of Planning and Development Services that: a) the housing will be occupied only by persons or families with household incomes that

are lower than the median household income in the District, and b) rents for the housing will be subsidized by the Province of British Columbia or another

subsidy provider such that rents will not exceed 30% of the household income of the occupant or occupant family;

“Sanitary Sewer Specified Area” means the lands described within the “District of

Sechelt Sanitary Sewer Specified Area Extension Bylaw No. 152, 1992”; NOTE: At 2nd reading, amended to Bylaw 393,2001

“Secondary Suite” has the meaning prescribed by the Zoning Bylaw;

“Single Family Dwelling” means a building, including a mobile or modular home, that contains a single Dwelling Unit, whether or not the building also contains a Secondary Suite;

“Subdivision” means a subdivision of land into two or more parcels under the Land Title Act or the Strata Property Act;

“Townhouse” means a building containing three or more Dwelling Units, arranged such that each Dwelling Unit has an independent entrance to the exterior, and includes triplexes and fourplexes; and

“Zoning Bylaw” means Bylaw No. 25, 1987.

3. DEVELOPMENT COST CHARGES:

(1) Every person who obtains a building permit, including a permit authorizing the

construction of a building containing fewer than four dwelling units, shall have paid to the District, at the time of issuing of the Building Permit, the applicable development cost charges set out in Schedule ‘A’, according to the location of the building in relation to the Sanitary Sewer Specified Area, except to the extent that development cost charges were paid in relation to the subdivision of the parcel in respect of which the building permit was issued.

(2) The charges specified in Schedule ‘A’ shall be based on the proposed use of the building indicated in the building permit application. Where there is more than one such use, each use is subject to the applicable charge specified in Schedule ‘A’.

(3) Every person who obtains approval of a Subdivision creating parcels on which Single Family Dwellings and Duplex Dwellings are permitted by the Zoning Bylaw shall have paid to the District in respect of each additional parcel being created, at the time

cjordison

Typewritten Text

cjordison

Typewritten Text


_________________________________________________________________________

of approval of the Subdivision, the applicable development cost charges set out in Schedule A, according to the location of the subdivision in relation to the Sanitary Sewer Specified Area.

(4) No development cost charge is payable where the building permit authorizes the construction of a building or part of a building described in s. 561(1) of the Local Government Act.

(5) The Director of Planning and Development Services may waive or reduce the

development cost charges payable in respect of a building permit authorizing the construction of Not-for-profit Rental Housing, and in the case of a reduction may determine the extent of the reduction, and the permit applicant may request the Council to reconsider a decision of the Director.

(6) If a building permit is issued to authorize the construction of Not-for-profit Rental

Housing on the basis of a waiver or reduction under Subsection (5), no Dwelling Unit authorized by the permit may be occupied otherwise than in accordance with the applicable housing agreement and the definition of Not-for-profit Rental Housing in this Bylaw unless the development cost charge that is, but for the waiver or reduction, applicable to the Dwelling Unit under this bylaw or any successor bylaw has been paid to the District.

(7) For Commercial, Industrial and Institutional uses the calculation of floor area is based on the Gross Floor Area of the proposed building indicated in the building permit application.

(8) The calculations used to determine the amount of the development cost charges imposed by this Bylaw are based on the capital projects listed in Schedule ‘B’.

4. REMAINDER OF BYLAW TO BE MAINTAINED INTACT:

In the event that any portion of this Bylaw is declared ultra vires, such portion shall be severed from this Bylaw with the intent that the remainder of this Bylaw shall continue in full force and effect.

5. REPEAL OF PREVIOUS BYLAWS:

West Sechelt Sewer Collection System Development Cost Charge Bylaw No. 146, 1991, West Porpoise Bay Sewer Collection System Development Cost Charge Bylaw No. 147, 1991, Development Cost Charge (Drainage) Bylaw No. 206, 1993, Development Cost Charge (Roads) Bylaw No. 229, 1994, Development Cost Charge (Parks) Bylaw No. 301, 1996 and Sechelt Sewage Treatment Plant Development Cost Charge Bylaw No. 363, 1991, Amendment Bylaw No. 432, 2004 are hereby repealed, effective on the date that this Bylaw is adopted.


_________________________________________________________________________

READ A FIRST TIME THIS DAY OF 2016

READ A SECOND TIME THIS DAY OF 2016

READ A THIRD TIME THIS DAY OF 2016

APPROVED BY THE INSPECTOR OF MUNICIPALITIES THIS DAY OF 2016

ADOPTED THIS DAY OF 2016

____________________________ __________________________

Mayor Corporate Officer


_________________________________________________________________________

SCHEDULE A to Bylaw No. 554, 2016

Schedule of Development Cost Charges Applicable to Lots within the

Sanitary Sewer Specified Area

Use Drainage Sewer Roads Parks Total

Single Family /unit $3,085 $844 $14,221 $4,334 $22,484

Townhouse or Duplex / unit $1,666 $701 $9,244 $3,597 $15,208

(Apartment) / unit $1,018 $565 $5,546 $2,904 $10,033

Congregate Care / unit $617 $354 $4,124 $1,300 $6,395

Commercial /m² gross floor area

$6.17 $1.69 $42.66 - $50.52

Industrial /m² gross floor area $6.17 $1.69 $14.22 - $22.08

Institutional /m² gross floor area

$6.17 $1.69 $42.66 - $50.52

Schedule of Development Cost Charges Applicable to Lots outside the Sanitary Sewer

Specified Area

Use Drainage Roads Parks Total

Single Family /unit $3,085 $14,221 $4,334 $21,640

Townhouse or Duplex / unit $1,666 $9,244 $3,597 $14,507

(Apartment) / unit $1,018 $5,546 $2,904 $9,468

Congregate Care / unit $617 $4,124 $1,300 $6,041

Commercial /m² gross floor area

$6.17 $42.66 - $48.83

Industrial /m² gross floor area $6.17 $14.22 - $20.39

Institutional /m² gross floor area

$6.17 $42.66 - $48.83


_________________________________________________________________________

Schedule ‘B’

DCC Project List

2016 DCC Program - Drainage Projects

Projects Estimated

timing Project Cost

DCC Portion

Assist Factor

Net DCC Recovery

Trail Ave (TRA P5) 2017 148,000 100% 1% 146,520

Trail Ave (TRA P3) 2017 182,000 100% 1% 180,180

Drainage Study - Ocean Ave and Inlet Ave

2017 160,000 25% 1% 39,600

Trail Ave - Marine Way to Ebbtide

2017 250,000 100% 1% 247,500

Trail Ave (TRA P4) 2017 262,000 100% 1% 259,380

WT Outfall 2018 250,000 50% 1% 123,750

Trail Ave - Ebbtide to Pebble Cres

2018 250,000 100% 1% 247,500

Gale Ave (BG C1) 2020 97,000 50% 1% 48,015

Medusa St (MED L9:12) 2020 99,000 50% 1% 49,005

Fairway Duck Pond (BG C2) 2020 200,000 50% 1% 99,000

Wakefield Ck (WAK C5) 2020 354,000 50% 1% 175,230

Bay Rd (Bay C3) 2025 39,000 50% 1% 19,305

Highway 101 (Hwy C-8) 2025 56,000 50% 1% 27,720

Wharf Ave - Hwy 101 to East Porpoise Bay Road (WT L5:)

2025 81,000 50% 1% 40,095

Wharf Ave - Hwy 101 to East Porpoise Bay Road (WT L6)

2025 85,000 50% 1% 42,075

Wharf Ave (TBDIV 3) 2025 90,000 50% 1% 44,550

Wharf Ave - Hwy 101 to East Porpoise Bay Road (WT L4)

2025 137,000 50% 1% 67,815


_________________________________________________________________________

Teredo St (TER L1) 2025 175,000 75% 1% 129,938

Teredo St (TER L2) 2025 175,000 75% 1% 129,938

Salmon Dr (SAL P1) 2025 178,000 75% 1% 132,165

Trail to Marsh (WT L20) 2025 250,000 75% 1% 185,625

Trail to Marsh (WT L21) 2025 250,000 75% 1% 185,625

Wharf Ave (TBDIV 1) 2025 380,000 50% 1% 188,100

Wharf Ave (TBDIV 2) 2025 443,000 50% 1% 219,285

Shornecliffe Storm Outfall -Teredo St to Georgia St

2025 500,000 100% 1% 495,000

Sandy Hook Rd (DHN C1) 2029 43,000 50% 1% 21,285

Field Rd (FLD C6) 2030 38,000 75% 1% 28,215

Marmot Rd (MAR C2) 2030 48,000 50% 1% 23,760

Chapman Rd (CHP C3) 2030 56,000 50% 1% 27,720

Carmel Place (CAR C1) 2030 56,000 50% 1% 27,720

Sechelt Inlet Rd (SIR C6) 2030 63,000 50% 1% 31,185

Chapman Rd (CHP C2) 2030 70,000 50% 1% 34,650

Reed Rd (REE C3) 2030 108,000 50% 1% 53,460

Heritage Rd (GAL C1A) 2030 150,000 50% 1% 74,250

Ebbtide St (SMDIV 1) 2030 189,000 50% 1% 93,555

Harbour Rd (HBR C1) 2035 62,000 50% 1% 30,690

Allan Rd (ALL P1) 2035 418,000 50% 1% 206,910


_________________________________________________________________________

Shoreline Protection 2024 - 2025

1,080,000 25% 1% 267,300

Total Drainage

$7,472,000

$4,443,616

2016 DCC Program - Sewer Projects

Projects Estimated

timing Project Cost

DCC Portion

Assist Factor

Net DCC Recovery

Upsize main - MH 4095 - Wakefield L.S.

2017 125,000 75% 1% 92,813

Upgrade Wakefield Lift Station 2018 450,000 50% 1% 222,750

Upsize main - MH 4730 to MH 4720

2020 125,000 100% 1% 123,750

Upsize main - MH 4720 to MH 4710

2020 225,000 100% 1% 222,750

Replace Pumps - Mackenzie Marina Lift Station

2020 310,000 50% 1% 153,450

Replace Norwest Bay Lift Station

2020 450,000 75% 1% 334,125

Upgrade Gravity Main Trunk Sewer - Shornecliffe and Highway 101 and Ocean Ave

2020 507,000 100% 1% 501,930

Upsize Shoreline Siphon 2022 110,000 100% 1% 108,900

Trunk Expansion - Trail Ave. and Mermaid

2022 550,000 100% 1% 544,500

Replace Pipe - Gale Ave. N 2025 25,000 100% 1% 24,750

Upsize main - MH 4770 - MH 4745

2025 140,000 100% 1% 138,600

UF Membrane Upgrade - Water Resource Centre

2024 240,000 100% 1% 237,600

Total Wastewater Projects

$3,257,000

$2,705,918


_________________________________________________________________________

2016 DCC Program - Road Projects

Projects Estimated

timing Project Cost

DCC Portion

Assist Factor

Net DCC Recovery

Upgrade Field Road to Arterial - Hwy 101 to Airport

2026 - 2028

6,600,000 50% 1% 3,267,000

Upgrade Trail Ave to Arterial - Teredo to Turnstone Drive

2017 - 2018

4,500,000 100% 1% 4,455,000

Sidewalk and lift on Sechelt Inlet Road - Dusty Road to northern end of Provincial park

2028 - 2030

6,900,000 75% 1% 5,123,250

Neptune Connector (new collector) - eastern boundary of Clayton to Trail

2023 - 2025

3,200,000 100% 1% 3,168,000

Upgrade Reef Road to Collector - Trail Ave to Shoal Way

2024 - 2025

1,750,000 75% 1% 1,299,375

Upgrade Fairway Road to Collector - Shoal Way to Beacon St.

2027 - 2028

1,500,000 75% 1% 1,113,750

Upgrade Mason Road to Collector - Norwest Bay Road to Highway 101

2023 - 2025

2,125,000 75% 1% 1,577,813

Intersection Upgrades on Highway 101 - Left turn lane at Selma Park Road

2017 200,000 100% 1% 198,000

Intersection Upgrades on Highway 101 - Left turn lane at Bay Road

2017 200,000 100% 1% 198,000

Upgrade Derby Road to Collector - Norwest Bay Road to Baillie Road

2017 330,000 100% 1% 326,700

Upgrade Trail Ave to Arterial - Turnstone Drive to Reef Road

2018 140,000 100% 1% 138,600

Sidewalk and Streetlights on Sechelt Inlet Road - Saltgrass Lane to Dusty Road

2020 190,000 75% 1% 141,075

Upgrade Tyler Road to Arterial - Tower Road to Emmerson Road

2020 225,000 100% 1% 222,750


_________________________________________________________________________

Intersection Upgrades on Wharf Avenue and East Porpoise Bay Road

2020 500,000 100% 1% 495,000

Upgrade 1/2 of Nickerson Road to Collector - Oracle Road to Norwest Bay Road

2022 412,500 100% 1% 408,375

Upgrade 1/2 of Nickerson Road to Collector - Tyler Road to Tower Road

2025 412,500 100% 1% 408,375

Upgrade Shoal Way to Collector - Reef Road to Fairway Ave

2026 750,000 75% 1% 556,875

Upgrade 1/2 of Tyler Road to Arterial - Nickerson Road to Page Road

2030 600,000 100% 1% 594,000

Total Roads

$30,535,000

$23,691,938

2016 DCC Program - Park Projects

Project Estimated

timing Net Project

Cost DCC

Portion Assist Factor

Net DCC Recovery

Parks Master Plan and Updates

2016 50,000 100% 1% 49,500

Dog Park - location TBD 2018 100,000 100% 1% 99,000

Trail Bay Waterfront - Trail to Ocean (New community park)

2018 174,000 100% 1% 172,260

Suncoaster Trail - Roberts Creek to Airport (Expanded trail)

2018 250,000 50% 1% 123,750

Acquisition of lots 25, 26 & 27 (New trail)

2018 600,000 100% 1% 594,000

Ebbtide Park (New community park)

2019 429,000 100% 1% 424,710

Kinnikinnick Park (Improved community park)

2019 611,000 25% 1% 151,223

Chapman Creek Trails (Expanded trail)

2020 353,000 50% 1% 174,735

Quarry Park (New community park)

2021 350,000 100% 1% 346,500


_________________________________________________________________________

Esplanade Trail - Burnett to Allan (New trail)

2021 436,000 100% 1% 431,640

West Sechelt Soccer Field (New community park)

2022 1,999,000 100% 1% 1,979,010

Duck Pond (New neighbourhood park)

2025 50,000 100% 1% 49,500

Mission Point Park - Phase #2 (Expanded community park)

2025 608,000 50% 1% 300,960

The Trails (New community park)

2025 609,000 100% 1% 602,910

Sandy Hook Shoreline Parks (New neighbourhood park)

2030 671,000 100% 1% 664,290

Tuwanek - Former Log-sort Esplanade (New trail)

2035 259,000 100% 1% 256,410

Total Parks

$7,549,000

$6,420,398

DISTRICT OF SECHELT Council Policy

2.4.2

PURPOSE

To establish guidelines for reducing or waiving Development Cost Charges

POLICY

That Council adopts a policy for reducing or waiving Development Cost Charges (DCC’s):

1. Written applications for DCC discounts will be considered on a case by case basis;

2. Consideration will be given to the need to upgrade existing municipal services paid for

by DCC’s that are impacted by the development;

3. A DCC discount will be considered as a last resort, to facilitate projects that cannot

raise sufficient funds from other sources (senior governments, philanthropic organizations);

4. DCC discounts will be combined with covenants to ensure not-for-profit rental

housing is supported by the discount. DEFINITIONS

Development Cost Charge a charge set by bylaw for new developments to pay for

anticipated future costs of existing and new infrastructure Approval Date: November 7, 2007 Resolution #: 19260

Reducing or Waiving Development Cost Charges

nchell

Text Box

Attachment B

DeVeLOPMeNt COst CHarGe Best PraCtiCes GuiDe | 7.5

Storm Drainage DCCs

the need for storm drainage works is directly related to the potential runoff generated by developments in different land use zones (and not population). therefore, storm drainage DCCs should be based on the relative runoff potential for various land uses. the most significant factor that influences the amount of runoff produced is the imperviousness of the development site, and for all intents and purposes, the runoff coefficient is equal to the percentage of impervious area. urban development increases the amount of impervious areas as a result of the construction of roads, driveways, parking lots, and rooftops. the more impervious surfaces in a watershed, the greater the increase in runoff peak and volume, in comparison to pre-development conditions. Drainage improvements are demanded in response to these impacts.

to determine the relative runoff potential between residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional categories, the total area accommodated by each land use should be calculated from the new development projections and respective gross unit densities. the minimum lot sizes and floorspace ratios are often found in background documents such as the Zoning Bylaw or other planning reports

typically, 20% of a parcel’s gross area is used for road and servicing rights-of-ways. as an example, average gross densities can be assumed for the residential DCC categories as shown in table 7.1.

tAbLe 7.1 – Average Gross Density for residential DCC Categories

DCC Categories Gross unit Density

Low Density residential 10 units per gross ha

Medium Density residential 30 units per gross ha

High Density residential (1) 60 units per gross ha

High Density residential (2) 75 units per gross ha

Values for the runoff coefficient for various land uses may be found in engineering documents such as the subdivision Control Bylaw or engineering Design Criteria Manual. an example of typical runoff coefficients for various land uses is shown in table 7.2.

nchell

Text Box

Attachment C

| DeVeLOPMeNt COst CHarGe Best PraCtiCes GuiDe7.6

tAbLe 7.2 – typical runoff Coefficients for various Land uses

Land use typical runoff Coefficients

Low Density residential 0.40 (i.e., 40% of the site is impervious)

Medium Density residential 0.65 (i.e., 65% of the site is impervious)

High Density residential (1) 0.80 (i.e., 80% of the site is impervious)

High Density residential (2) 0.80 (i.e., 80% of the site is impervious)

Commercial 0.90 (i.e., 90% of the site is impervious)

industrial 0.90 (i.e., 90% of the site is impervious)

institutional 0.85 (i.e., 85% of the site is impervious)

using the runoff coefficients, the total amount of impervious surface area for each land use can be calculated. the total impervious area may be related to low density residential land use through the concept of “equivalent drainage units” (eDu’s). an eDu is the amount of impervious area of a low-density residential unit.

For example, at a density of 10 units per hectare with a runoff coefficient of 0.40, one unit has an impervious area of 400 m2. in comparison, medium density residential at density of 30 units per hectare with a runoff coefficient of 0.65 has an impervious area of 217 m2. thus in terms of imperviousness, one unit of medium density residential is equivalent to 217/400 or 0.54 of a low-density residential unit. this ratio is known as the “equivalence factor.” in this manner, the total equivalent drainage units can be determined.

Dividing the net amount to be paid by DCCs by the total equivalent drainage units results in a DCC per eDu. the storm drainage DCC for each land use is calculated by multiplying the DCC per eDu by the equivalence factor. a sample calculation is provided in example 7.3.


ex

AM

PLe

7.3

– S

torm

Dra

inag

e D

CC

Cal

cula

tion

A: D

rain

age

Impa

ct C

alcu

lati

on

Col

. (1)

Col

. (2)

Col

. (3)

Col

. (4)

= [(1

) / (2

)] x

(3)

Col

. (5)

Col

. (6

)C

ol. (

7)=

(5) x

(6)

Lan

d us

eu

nit

of

Dev

elop

men

tD

ensi

ty/f

Sr/S

ite

Cov

erag

er

unof

f C

oeffi

cien

t

Impe

rvio

us

Are

a pe

r u

nit

of

Dev

elop

men

t (m

2 )

equ

ival

ence

fa

ctor

est

imat

ed

new

D

evel

opm

ent

equ

ival

ent

Dra

inag

e u

nit

s

Low

Den

sity

res

iden

tial

i dw

ellin

g u

nit

10 lo

ts p

er g

ross

ha

0.4

040

0 (a

)1.

00

(a) /

(a)

1,9

851,

985

Med

ium

Den

sity

res

iden

tial

i dw

ellin

g u

nit

30 u

nit

s pe

r gr

oss

ha

0.6

521

7 (b

)0

.54

(b) /

(a)

827

448

Hig

h D

ensi

ty r

esid

enti

al (1

)i

dwel

ling

un

it6

0 u

nit

s pe

r gr

oss

ha

0.8

013

3 (c

)0

.33

(c) /

(a)

331

110

Hig

h D

ensi

ty r

esid

enti

al (2

)i

dwel

ling

un

it75

un

its

per

gros

s h

a0

.80

107

(d)

0.2

7 (d

) / (a

)16

544

Com

mer

cial

1

m2 g

ross

floo

r ar

ea70

% s

ite

cove

rage

0.9

01.

3 (e

)0

.00

32 (e

) / (a

)51

,380

165

indu

stri

al1

ha

gros

s si

te a

rea

0.9

09

,00

0 (

f)22

.5 (

f) /

(a)

23.0

851

9

inst

itu

tion

al1

m2 g

ross

floo

r ar

ea70

% s

ite

cove

rage

0.8

51.

2 (g

)0

.00

30 (g

) / (a

)50

,00

015

2

tota

l eD

u’s

3,42

4 (h

)

b: u

nit

DC

C C

alcu

lati

on

Net

sto

rm D

rain

age

DC

C P

rogr

am r

ecov

erab

le$4

,986

,383

(i)

exi

stin

g st

orm

Dra

inag

e D

CC

res

erve

Mon

ies

$(20

1,10

8)(j

)

Net

am

oun

t to

be P

aid

by D

CC

s$4

,785

,275

(k) =

(i) –

(j)

DC

C p

er e

quiv

alen

t Dra

inag

e u

nit

$1,3

97.

76(l

) = (k

) / (h

)

C: r

esul

tin

g St

orm

Dra

inag

e D

CC

s

Low

Den

sity

res

iden

tial

$1,3

98

per

dwel

ling

un

it(i

) x C

ol. (

5)

Med

ium

Den

sity

res

iden

tial

$757

per

dwel

ling

un

it(i

) x C

ol. (

5)

Hig

h D

ensi

ty r

esid

enti

al (1

)$4

66

per

dwel

ling

un

it(i

) x C

ol. (

5)

Hig

h D

ensi

ty r

esid

enti

al (2

)$3

73pe

r dw

ellin

g u

nit

(i) x

Col

. (5)

Com

mer

cial

$4

.49

/m2

gro

ss fl

oor

area

(i) x

Col

. (5)

indu

stri

al$3

1,45

0/h

a gr

oss

site

are

a(i

) x C

ol. (

5)

inst

itu

tion

al$4

.24/

m2 g

ross

floo

r ar

ea(i

) x C

ol. (

5)


Sanitary DCCs

sanitary DCCs are based on the premise that expansion and upgrading of sewerage facilities are demanded by population growth. For residential land use, typical occupancy rates were discussed in Chapter 4 on projected residential development. the impact on the sanitary sewer system from non-residential land uses is commonly expressed as a population density or as an area based demand. For example, a typical range of equivalent density is 62 to 93 m2 per person (1 to 1.5 persons per 1,000 ft.2 gross floor area) for commercial and institutional land. an area based demand can be converted to an equivalent population demand. For example, a typical commercial or industrial flow is 22,500 L/day/ha of gross site area, while the typical average per capita flow is 350 L/day. thus the equivalent population can be calculated, as shown in example 7.4 below.

Based on the average population densities for the various land uses, the total equivalent service population can be calculated. Dividing the net amount to be paid by DCCs by the total equivalent service population results in a DCC per capita. the sanitary DCC for each land use is then established by multiplying the DCC per capita by the average population densities for the respective development units. an example of the sanitary DCC calculation is provided in example 7.5 and example 7.5a.

exAMPLe 7.4 equivalent population of non-residential Land uses for Sanitary Impact

PeQ = QN/Qr

= 22,500 L/day/ha 350/L/day = 64.3 pers/ha

GiVeN:average generation (L/day/ha gross site area) = QNaverage per capita flow (L/day/capita) = Qr equivalent Population = PeQ

assumptions:QN = 22,500 L/day/haQr = 350/day/ha


ex

AM

PLe

7.5

– S

anit

ary

DC

C C

alcu

lati

on

A: e

quiv

alen

t Pop

ulat

ion

Cal

cula

tion

Lan

d u

seC

ol. (

1) e

stim

ated

n

ew D

evel

opm

ent

un

its

Col

. (2)

D

ensi

ty o

r e

quiv

alen

t P

opul

atio

n f

acto

r

Col

. (3)

= (1

) x (2

) equ

ival

ent

Pop

ulat

ion

Low

Den

sity

res

iden

tial

1,9

85dw

ellin

g u

nit

s3.

2pe

rson

s pe

r dw

ellin

g u

nit

6,3

52

Med

ium

Den

sity

res

iden

tial

827

dwel

ling

un

its

2.5

pers

ons

per

dwel

ling

un

it2,

06

8

Hig

h D

ensi

ty r

esid

enti

al (1

)33

1dw

ellin

g u

nit

s1.

7pe

rson

s pe

r dw

ellin

g u

nit

562

Hig

h D

ensi

ty r

esid

enti

al (2

)16

5dw

ellin

g u

nit

s1.

4pe

rson

s pe

r dw

ellin

g u

nit

232

Com

mer

cial

51,3

80m

2 gro

ss fl

oor

area

0.0

13pe

rson

s pe

r m

2 gro

ss fl

oor

area

66

1

indu

stri

al23

.08

ha

gros

s si

te a

rea

64.

3pe

rson

s pe

r h

a gr

oss

site

are

a1,

484

inst

itu

tion

al50

,00

0m

2 gro

ss fl

oor

area

0.0

11pe

rson

s pe

r m

2 gro

ss fl

oor

area

538

tota

l equ

ival

ent P

opu

lati

on11

,89

6 (a

)

b: u

nit

DC

C C

alcu

lati

on

Net

san

itar

y D

CC

Pro

gram

rec

over

able

$7,6

50,4

73(b

)

exi

stin

g sa

nit

ary

DC

C r

eser

ve M

onie

s$(

853,

264)

(c)

Net

am

oun

t to

be P

aid

by D

CC

s$6

,79

7,20

9(d

) = (b

) – (c

)

DC

C p

er e

quiv

alen

t Per

son

$571

.39

(e) =

(d) /

(a)

C: r

esul

tin

g Sa

nit

ary

DC

CS

Low

Den

sity

res

iden

tial

$1,8

28pe

r dw

ellin

g u

nit

(e) x

Col

. (2)

Med

ium

Den

sity

res

iden

tial

$1,4

28pe

r dw

ellin

g u

nit

(e) x

Col

. (2)

Hig

h D

ensi

ty r

esid

enti

al (1

)$9

71pe

r dw

ellin

g u

nit

(e) x

Col

. (2)

Hig

h D

ensi

ty r

esid

enti

al (2

)$8

00

per

dwel

ling

un

it(e

) x C

ol. (

2)

Com

mer

cial

$7.3

5/m

2 gro

ss fl

oor

area

(e) x

Col

. (2)

indu

stri

al$3

6,7

32/h

a gr

oss

site

are

a(e

) x C

ol. (

2)

inst

itu

tion

al$6

.15

/m2 g

ross

floo

r ar

ea(e

) x C

ol. (

2)


ex

AM

PLe

7.5

A –

San

itar

y D

CC

Cal

cula

tion

b

ased

on

a r

esid

enti

al fl

oor

spac

e m

odel

fro

m e

xam

ple

4.1A

A: e

quiv

alen

t Pop

ulat

ion

Cal

cula

tion

Lan

d u

seC

ol. (

1) e

stim

ated

n

ew D

evel

opm

ent

un

its

Col

. (2)

D

ensi

ty o

r e

quiv

alen

t P

opul

atio

n f

acto

r

Col

. (3)

= (1

) x (2

) equ

ival

ent

Pop

ulat

ion

Low

Den

sity

res

iden

tial

406

,925

m2 g

ross

floo

r ar

ea0

.015

6pe

rson

s pe

r m

2 gro

ss fl

oor

area

6,3

52

Med

ium

Den

sity

res

iden

tial

124,

050

m2 g

ross

floo

r ar

ea0

.016

7pe

rson

s pe

r m

2 gro

ss fl

oor

area

2,0

68

Hig

h D

ensi

ty r

esid

enti

al (1

)28

,135

m2 g

ross

floo

r ar

ea0

.020

0pe

rson

s pe

r m

2 gro

ss fl

oor

area

563

Hig

h D

ensi

ty r

esid

enti

al (2

)11

,550

m2 g

ross

floo

r ar

ea0

.020

0pe

rson

s pe

r m

2 gro

ss fl

oor

area

231

Com

mer

cial

51,3

80m

2 gro

ss fl

oor

area

0.0

13pe

rson

s pe

r m

2 gro

ss fl

oor

area

66

2

indu

stri

al23

.08

ha

gros

s si

te a

rea

64.

3pe

rson

s pe

r h

a gr

oss

site

are

a1,

485

inst

itu

tion

al50

,00

0m

2 gro

ss fl

oor

area

0.0

11pe

rson

s pe

r m

2 gro

ss fl

oor

area

538

tota

l equ

ival

ent P

opu

lati

on11

,89

9 (a

)

b: u

nit

DC

C C

alcu

lati

on

Net

san

itar

y D

CC

Pro

gram

rec

over

able

$7,6

50,4

73(b

)

exi

stin

g sa

nit

ary

DC

C r

eser

ve M

onie

s$(

853,

264)

(c)

Net

am

oun

t to

be P

aid

by D

CC

s$6

,79

7,20

9(d

) = (b

) – (c

)

DC

C p

er e

quiv

alen

t Per

son

$571

.39

(e) =

(d) /

(a)

C: r

esul

tin

g Sa

nit

ary

DC

CS

Low

Den

sity

res

iden

tial

$8.9

2/m

2 gro

ss fl

oor

area

(e) x

Col

. (2)

Med

ium

Den

sity

res

iden

tial

$9.5

2/m

2 gro

ss fl

oor

area

(e) x

Col

. (2)

Hig

h D

ensi

ty r

esid

enti

al (1

)$1

1.42

/m2 g

ross

floo

r ar

ea(e

) x C

ol. (

2)

Hig

h D

ensi

ty r

esid

enti

al (2

)$1

1.42

/m2 g

ross

floo

r ar

ea(e

) x C

ol. (

2)

Com

mer

cial

$7.3

5/m

2 gro

ss fl

oor

area

(e) x

Col

. (2)

indu

stri

al$3

6,7

32/h

a gr

oss

site

are

a(e

) x C

ol. (

2)

inst

itu

tion

al$6

.15

/m2 g

ross

floo

r ar

ea(e

) x C

ol. (

2)

th

e sa

me

met

hod

olog

y ca

n b

e ap

plie

d to

cal

cula

tin

g D

CC

s fo

r ro

ads,

par

ks, w

ater

an

d dr

ain

age.


water DCCs

impact on the water supply and distribution system arises from both domestic (peak day and peak hour) demand and the requirement to provide adequate flows for fire protection. Both domestic or daily flows and fire flows vary, but to differing extents, with land use. the sizing of overall facilities has been found to be primarily dependent on peak day and peak hour flows. therefore, allocation of net DCC recoverable costs between land uses is dependent on their relative impacts on the water system. the comparative impact on the water system can be expressed in terms of domestic demand which in turn relates to population density or for non-residential development, equivalent population density. typical population densities for residential land uses can be applied in a manner similar to that which is used for the sanitary DCC calculation. similarly, an area based demand may be expressed as an equivalent population demand. a typical industrial or commercial demand is 22,500 L/day/ha of gross site area; in comparison, the typical average per capita flow is 500 L/day. the calculation of equivalent population for non-residential land uses is shown in example 7.6.

exAMPLe 7.6 equivalent Population of non-residential Land uses for water Impact

PeQ

= QN/Q

r

= 22,500 L/day/ha 500/L/day = 45 pers/ha

GiVeN:

average demand (L/day/ha gross site area) = Q

N

average per capita demand (L/day/capita) = Q

r

equivalent Population = PeQ

assumptions:Q

N = 22,500 L/day/ha

Qr = 500/L/day

With average population densities for the various land uses, the total equivalent population can be calculated. Dividing the net amount to be paid by DCCs by the total equivalent service population results in a DCC per eDu. the water DCC for each land use is established by multiplying the DCC per capita by the per person densities for the respective land use development unit. example 7.7 shows the water DCC calculation.


ex

AM

PLe

7.7

– w

ater

DC

C C

alcu

lati

on

A: e

quiv

alen

t Pop

ulat

ion

Cal

cula

tion

Lan

d u

seC

ol. (

1)

est

imat

ed n

ew

Dev

elop

men

tu

nit

s

Col

. (2)

D

ensi

ty o

r e

quiv

alen

t P

opul

atio

n

fact

or

Col

. (3)

= (1

) x (2

) e

quiv

alen

t P

opul

atio

n

Low

Den

sity

res

iden

tial

1,9

85dw

ellin

g u

nit

s3.

2pe

rson

s pe

r dw

ellin

g u

nit

6,3

52

Med

ium

Den

sity

res

iden

tial

827

dwel

ling

un

its

2.5

pers

ons

per

dwel

ling

un

it2,

06

8

Hig

h D

ensi

ty r

esid

enti

al (1

)33

1dw

ellin

g u

nit

s1.

7pe

rson

s pe

r dw

ellin

g u

nit

562

Hig

h D

ensi

ty r

esid

enti

al (2

)16

5dw

ellin

g u

nit

s1.

4pe

rson

s pe

r dw

ellin

g u

nit

232

Com

mer

cial

51,3

80m

2 gro

ss fl

oor

area

0.0

09

pers

ons

per

m2 g

ross

floo

r ar

ea46

2

indu

stri

al23

.08

ha

gros

s si

te a

rea

45pe

rson

s p

er h

a gr

oss

site

are

a1,

039

inst

itu

tion

al50

,00

0m

2 g

ross

floo

r ar

ea0

.011

pers

ons

per

m2 g

ross

floo

r ar

ea53

8

tota

l equ

ival

ent P

opul

atio

n11

,253

(a)

b: u

nit

DC

C C

alcu

lati

on

Net

Wat

er D

CC

Pro

gram

rec

over

able

$5,1

86,9

05

(b)

exi

stin

g W

ater

DC

C r

eser

ve M

onie

s$(

734,

583)

(c)

Net

am

oun

t to

be P

aid

by D

CC

s$4

,452

,322

(d) =

(b) –

(c)

DC

C p

er e

quiv

alen

t Per

son

$39

5.6

7(e

) = (d

) / (a

)

C: r

esul

tin

g Pa

rkla

nd

DC

C

Low

Den

sity

res

iden

tial

$1,2

66

pe

r dw

ellin

g u

nit

(e) x

Col

. (2)

Med

ium

Den

sity

res

iden

tial

$989

per

dwel

ling

un

it(e

) x C

ol. (

2)

Hig

h D

ensi

ty r

esid

enti

al (1

)$6

73pe

r dw

ellin

g u

nit

(e) x

Col

. (2)

Hig

h D

ensi

ty r

esid

enti

al (2

)$5

54pe

r dw

ellin

g u

nit

(e) x

Col

. (2)

Com

mer

cial

$3.5

6/m

2 gro

ss fl

oor

area

(e) x

Col

. (2)

indu

stri

al$1

7,80

5/h

a gr

oss

site

are

a(e

) x C

ol. (

2)

inst

itu

tion

al$4

.26

/m2 g

ross

floo

r ar

ea(e

) x C

ol. (

2)


Parkland DCCs

since people generate the need for park and open space, DCCs are based on the relative impact of each land use according to the same equivalent population factors that were used to derive sanitary and water DCCs. if non-residential land uses have been considered to benefit from the provision of parkland (discussion in Chapter 2) and thus will be charged DCCs, then equivalent populations for these uses must be determined as well.

to obtain a schedule of parkland DCCs, the following steps should be completed:

•determine the total equivalent population;

• divide the net DCC recoverable amount by the total equivalent population to obtain a per capita DCC; and,

• multiply the DCC per capita by the population density for the respective development unit.

For the collection of DCCs for improving parkland, the inspector of Municipalities will be guided by the elements which are specifically listed in the legislation. the following comments are offered as an illustration of what will guide reviews of submissions to the inspector of Municipalities.

•Landscaping includes the construction of playing fields (levelling ground, planting grass and other plant material), but does not include the construction of parking lots or access roads.

•irrigation includes sprinkler systems.

•Playground and playing field equipment includes items normally classified as equipment such as swings and slides, but does not include buildings or structures such as dugouts, bleachers, or field houses. the term also does not include the construction of tennis or basketball courts, baseball diamonds, tracks or the installation of lighting systems.

a sample parkland DCC calculation is provided in example 7.8.


ex

AM

PLe

7.8

– P

arkl

and

DC

C C

alcu

lati

on

A: e

quiv

alen

t Pop

ulat

ion

Cal

cula

tion

Lan

d u

see

stim

ated

new

Dev

elop

men

te

quiv

alen

t P

opul

atio

n f

acto

re

quiv

alen

t Pop

ulat

ion

Low

Den

sity

res

iden

tial

1,9

85 d

wel

ling

un

its

3.2

per

son

s pe

r dw

ellin

g u

nit

6,3

52

Med

ium

Den

sity

res

iden

tial

827

dwel

ling

un

its

2.5

pers

ons

per

dwel

ling

un

it2,

06

8

Hig

h D

ensi

ty r

esid

enti

al (1

)33

1 dw

ellin

g u

nit

s1.

7pe

rson

s pe

r dw

ellin

g u

nit

562

Hig

h D

ensi

ty r

esid

enti

al (2

)16

5 dw

ellin

g u

nit

s1.

4pe

rson

s pe

r dw

ellin

g u

nit

232

tota

l equ

ival

ent P

opul

atio

n9

,213

(a)

b: u

nit

DC

C C

alcu

lati

on

Net

Par

klan

d D

CC

Pro

gram

rec

over

able

$6,6

27,9

22(b

)

exi

stin

g P

arkl

and

DC

C r

eser

ve M

onie

s$(

362,

706

)(c

)

Net

am

oun

t to

be P

aid

by D

CC

s$6

,26

5,21

6(d

) = (b

) – (c

)

DC

C p

er e

quiv

alen

t Per

son

$680

.02

(e) =

(d) /

(a)

C: r

esul

tin

g Pa

rkla

nd

DC

C

Low

Den

sity

res

iden

tial

$2,1

76pe

r dw

ellin

g u

nit

(e) x

Col

. (2)

Med

ium

Den

sity

res

iden

tial

$1,7

00

per

dwel

ling

un

it(e

) x C

ol. (

2)

Hig

h D

ensi

ty r

esid

enti

al (1

)$1

,156

per

dwel

ling

un

it(e

) x C

ol. (

2)

Hig

h D

ensi

ty r

esid

enti

al (2

)$9

52pe

r dw

ellin

g u

nit

(e) x

Col

. (2)

report to council document library...2016/07/25 · note: council policy 2.4.2 is included in this...

Documents