Motion made by Councillor J.P. Bryant to
Approve that, on the recommendation of the City Treasurer, Chief Financial
Officer:
(a) the
report and presentation from Watson and Associates Economists Ltd. BE
RECEIVED for information;
(b) recommendations (b)(ii) through
(b)(v) BE APPROVED, but implementation BE SUBJECT TO
recommendation (b)(i), noting that a significant debt load is currently being
carried and projected to be carried by the City Services Reserve Funds
(CSRF);
(i) the
following conditions to implement a Municipal Services Financing Agreement
(MSFA) BE APPROVED:
(A) the
Development Charges By-law BE AMENDED, as necessary, to accommodate an MSFA,
noting the next scheduled update is 2014;
(B) the
staff complement BE INCREASED by at least one additional staff resource to
support the Director, Development Finance, to effectively assess and
administer these agreements, as well as provide for other analyses related to
Development Charges (DC), including those necessary for the next DC
background study.
(ii) the annual review of the Growth Management
Implementation Strategy (GMIS) BE CONFIRMED as the development staging
strategy to ensure the orderly progression of development and for
construction of CSRF (growth) projects and, further, that a stronger link BE
PROVIDED through the GMIS process between the projection of revenues
(projected building activity), existing debt approvals and the determination
of the works proposed in the ten year capital plan;
(iii) consideration BE GIVEN to the benefit of
accelerating CSRF projects on an exception basis where the individual project
provides economic opportunities for new business and jobs or where it may
facilitate a community use facility; in considering the merits of an
application to accelerate a CSRF project, the evaluation process provided in
section 4.2 of the Municipal Service and Financing Policy document dated
November 7, 2011, from Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. BE ADOPTED IN
PRINCIPLE and the Civic Administration BE INSTRUCTED to further develop and
implement the principles and processes identified, with any adjustments that
are deemed necessary for practical reasons. In addition, an assessment
of risk and financial implications of accelerating the timing of the project
should be included in any analysis;
(iv) the following forms of MSFA BE PROVIDED to
facilitate recommendation (b)(iii), above (as outlined in Pages 3-1 and 3-2
of the Municipal Service and Financing Policy document dated November 7,
2011, from Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.):
(A) Accelerated Payment Agreement would facilitate
construction of the CSRF project by the City with reimbursements
provided by credits;
(B) Service Emplacement Agreements would facilitate
construction of the CSRF project by the landowner with reimbursement
provided by credits, subject to the process set out in section 4.1 of the
Municipal Service and Financing Policy document dated November 7, 2011, from
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.; or
(C) Front-ending Agreements would facilitate
construction of the CSRF project by the City with reimbursement provided by
either a credit or repayment. If a repayment is considered, then the
repayment should occur no earlier than the cumulative growth amount
anticipated in the GMIS forecast in force at the start of the agreement;
(D) the non-growth share of projects undertaken with
the MSFA be cash-flowed by the developers and repaid by the City no earlier
than the cumulative growth amount anticipated on the original timeline in the
Development Charge Study growth forecast in force at the start of the
agreement;
(v) the total amount of all agreements entered into NOT
EXCEED $5 million. The adequacy of this cap BE REVIEWED within five
years. Further, the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to delay other
competing projects to balance lot inventories and/or restrict debt levels;
(c) the City Solicitor BE INSTRUCTED to develop
appropriate forms of agreement to accommodate the recommendations in (b)
above and BE DIRECTED to retain an independent legal review of the proposed
forms of agreement;
(d) the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to engage
consulting services necessary to develop the processes, tools and resources
required implement the recommendations;
(e) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to develop
the debt cap for the CSRF based on the low point for DC revenue over the
previous ten years and this cap BE APPLIED to the allowable debt authorized
in the CSRF. If this debt amount is exceeded, projects must be
postponed until the debt levels come to acceptable and affordable levels;
(f) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to develop
an administrative charge to be charged to any developer requesting an MSFA to
recoup in full or in part administrative costs associated with administering
the agreements; and
(g) the Civic Administration BE INSTRUCTED to explore
the following other considerations as part of the next Development Charges
Background Study:
(A) Development Charges BE REVIEWED with a view to
establishing a fee structure that encourages intensification and discourages
“leap frog” development;
(B) capital works BE REVIEWED as part of the next
Development Charges Background Study to establish more works related to the
development as local services (Section 59(2), Development Charges Act,
1997) rather than regional services;
(C) further to recommendations to the Audit Committee
from the internal auditor, the viability and future of the Urban Works
Reserve Fund BE REVIEWED; and
(D) the Development Charges By-law BE REVIEWED with a
view to applying section 26(1) of the Development Charges Act, 1997
which allows for payment of development charges related to water, wastewater,
storm water and roads upon entering a subdivision or consent agreement;
noting that while this improves cash flow to the CSRF, considerable
administrative burden and cost will be incurred to effectively monitor this
change;
it
being noted that the Finance and Administration Committee heard the attached
presentation from G. Scandlan, Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. and
received the attached communications from L. J. Townsend,
Townsend and Associates; S. Levin and G. McGinn-McTeer, Urban League of
London; and J. Kennedy, President, London Development Institute, with respect
to this matter. (2011-L03-00
The motion to adopt part (b)(i)(B) of
clause 1 is put.
Motion Passed
YEAS: B. Polhill, W.J. Armstrong, J.B.
Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D. Brown,
H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (12)
NAYS: D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen (2)
The motion to adopt the remainder of clause
1 is put.
|