Bylaw No. 1829/2016, Off-Site Levy Bylaw (Town of Redcliff)
Redcliff, Alberta
· No. 1829/2016
· adopted 2016-09-12
· summary & facts
This is the exact embedded text of the captured official document.
Snapshot 44ac6f272156 · verified 2026-10-22 ·
original document ·
archived snapshot ·
unofficial consolidation, the official version is held by the municipal clerk.
Amended b uy KOH [201
TOWN OF REDCLIFF
BYLAW NO. 1829/2016
A BYLAW OF THE TOWN OF REDCLIFF, IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA, TO
ESTABLISH OFF-SITE LEVIES FOR LAND THAT IS TO BE SUBDIVIDED OR DEVELOPED
WITHIN THE TOWN OF REDCLIFF
WHEREAS:
A, Section 648 of the Municipal Government Act allows Council to pass a bylaw for the
imposition and payment of off-site levies in respect of land that is to be developed or subdivided;
B. Town Council deems it necessary and expedient to collect Off-Site Levies to pay for the
capital cost of infrastructure required to service the growth of the Town;
C. The Town has engaged in consultation with landowners and representatives of the
development industry to address and define existing and future infrastructure required for
growth of the Town and the allocation of the capital costs of such infrastructure;
D. Town Council has received the Report, which set out a fair and equitable calculation of
Off-Site Levies in accordance with the Municipal Government Act and the Off-Site Levy
Regulation;
ES, Town Council has advertised its intention to consider the enactment of this Bylaw
pursuant to the requirements of the Municipal Government Act;
NOW THEREFORE, Council duly assembled, enacts as follows:
1. Name of Bylaw
This Bylaw shall be known and referred to as the "Off-Site Levy Bylaw".
rst Definitions
The following terms shall have the following meanings in this Bylaw:
(a) "Bylaw" means this off-site levy bylaw;
(b) "Chief Administrative Officer" means the chief administrative officer for the Town,
regardless of the specific title that may be conferred on that officer from time to
time;
(c) "Council" means the council for the Town;
(d) "Developable Land" means all land contained within the Net Development Area:
(i) upon which Development is to take place after the date of enactment of
this Bylaw; or
\
i
\
, i
+ 1
»
\
i
i
/
' \
i
. i
\
i}
i}
\
i}
i
\
i}
i}
\
i}
\
i}
i}
\
i}
i}
\
i}
i}
\
\
\
: '
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
'
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
XK "
oy |
\
\
\
\
. \
\
Bylaw No. 1829/2016 ---2-
(ii) for which Subdivision approval is obtained after the date of enactment of
this Bylaw;
excluding all Existing Developed Land;
(e) "Development" means "development" as defined in the Municipal Government
Act:
(f) "Development Agreement" means "development agreement" as referred to in the
Municipal Government Act,
(g) "Existing Developed Land" means land that has been subject to Development or
a Subdivision prior to the date of passing of this Bylaw, and in respect of which
off-site levies for the same kind of infrastructure have been paid;
(h) "ICF" means the Infrastructure Capacity Fee imposed by the Town pursuant to
the ICF Policy;
(i) "ICF Infrastructure" means those infrastructure components and projects referred
to in Part A10 of the Report to be paid for in whole or in part by the ICF in
accordance with the ICF Policy;
(j) "ICF Policy" means Town Policy #100(2012), as amended or replaced from time
to time;
(k) "Lot" means "lot as defined in the Municipal Government Act;
(I) "Municipal Government Act" means the Municipal Government Act, RSA 2000, c.
M 26, as amended or repealed and replaced from time to time;
(m) "Net Development Area" means all lands contained within the Offsite Levy Area
less:
(i) environmental reserve;
(ii) school reserve;
(iii) | municipal reserve; or
(iv) --_ arterial road right of way.
(n) "Off-Site Infrastructure" means those components and projects referred to in the
Report, in relation to water facilities, sanitary sewer facilities, stormwater
drainage facilities, roads and related transportation infrastructure to be paid for in
whole or in part by Off-Site Levies under the Bylaw;
(0) "Off-Site Levies" means the off-site levies imposed pursuant to this Bylaw;
(p) "Offsite Levy Area" includes the area of land within the municipal boundaries of
the Town identified in Schedule "A" to this Bylaw;
VM Heh \
4
ia
Bylaw No, 1829/2016 -3-
(q) "Off-Site Levy Regulation" means the Principles and Criteria for Off-Site Levies
Regulation, Alta. Reg. 46/2004, as amended or repealed and replaced from time
to time;
(r) "Report" means the Town of Redcliff Off-Site Levy Review, March 23, 2016,
prepared by Corvus Business Advisors, attached as Schedule "B" to this Bylaw;
(Ss) "Subdivision" means "subdivision" as defined in the Municipal Government Act;
(t) "Town" means the Town of Redcliff.
a Object of Levy
The object of the Offsite Levies is to provide funds to pay for all or part of the capital
costs of the Off Site Infrastructure required for growth. The Town wishes to facilitate
growth of the community by providing offsite transportation, water, sanitary and
stormwater infrastructure that meets the needs of development and also ensure that
accompanying charges are fair and equitable, comply with legislative and regulatory
requirements and recover the cost of the infrastructure in order to ensure a financially
sustainable community.
4. Imposition of Levy
(a) The Off-Site Levies are hereby established and imposed in respect of all
Developable Land on the basis set out in the Report.
(b) | The amount of the Off-Site Levies imposed is as calculated in the Report.
(c) The Off-Site Levies will be assessed on all Developable Land on a per hectare
basis.
(d) | Unless otherwise agreed, payment of Off-Site Levies imposed under this Bylaw
is due:
(i) in the case of Subdivision, at or prior to plan endorsement; and
(ii) in the case of Development, at or prior to the issuance of the
development permit.
ay Authority of the Chief administrative Officer
(a) The Chief Administrative Officer is delegated the authority to enforce and
administer this Bylaw, including, but not limited to the authority to:
(i) enter into Development Agreements on behalf of the Town with respect
to, among other things, the collection of Off-Site Levies;
(ii) | defer or waive collection of Off-Site Levies imposed pursuant to this
Bylaw; and
4 Zk
NS
Bylaw No. 1829/2016 -4-
(ili) require security for payment of any deferred levies.
(b) The Chief Administrative Officer may delegate the authority to enforce and
administer this Bylaw.
6. Development Agreement
(a) Council may, from time to time adopt policies or guidelines for the assistance and
direction of the Chief Administrative Officer in determining which Development
and Subdivision applications require a Development Agreement.
(b) Where it is determined that a Development Agreement is appropriate for any
application for Development or Subdivision, the developer or the owner, as the
case may be, shall enter into a Development Agreement with the Town that
provides for the payment of Off-Site Levies in accordance with this Bylaw.
(c) Deferral of Off-Site Levies, shall require a Development Agreement that includes
the requirement of security for the payment of such deferred levies.
y: Annual Report
On or before December 31 in each calendar year, the Chief Administrative Officer shall
provide an annual report to Council regarding the Off-Site Levies imposed under this
Bylaw, including:
(a) Off-Site Infrastructure constructed during the previous calendar year;
(6) Construction costs of Off-Site Infrastructure constructed in the previous calendar
year,
(c) Estimated construction costs for Off-Site Infrastructure yet to be constructed and
an explanation as to any adjustments to the estimates since the previous annual
report;
(d) Amount collected in Off-site Levies; and
(e) Specifics of total value of Off-site Levies being held by Town and yet to be
expended on Off-Site Infrastructure, interest earned and commitments for future
expenditures of such monies.
8. Accounting
All funds collected pursuant to this Bylaw shall be accounted for in a special fund for
each category of infrastructure and expended only as permitted under the Municipal
Government Act.
9. Review
The Town shall review the rates for Off-Site Levies annually and, if required, shall
amend this Bylaw accordingly to update the rates for Off-Site Levies.
, } ral
MEK
to
a
'
Bylaw No. 1829/2016 -5-
10. Transition
The ICF Policy shall continue to apply to the ICF Infrastructure as identified in the Report
as if this Bylaw had not been enacted.
11. General
(a) Nothing in this Bylaw precludes the Town from:
(i) imposing further or different levies, duly enacted by bylaw, on any portion
of the Developable Lands in respect of which the Town has not collected
Off-Site Levies;
(ii) deferring collection of Off-Site Levies on any portion of Developable
Lands, including requiring security for payment of such deferred levies; or
(iii) reducing or forgiving payment of the Off-Site Levies required pursuant to
this Bylaw, or otherwise providing for credits for other Off-Site
Infrastructure or oversize infrastructure constructed by a developer in
calculating and/or collecting the Off-Site Levies that become payable
pursuant to this Bylaw.
(b) In the event that any provision of this Bylaw is declared invalid or void by any
Court having competent jurisdiction, then such invalid or void provision shall be
severed from the Bylaw and the remaining provisions of the Bylaw shall be
maintained and deemed valid.
12. Execution
This Bylaw shall take effect and come into force effective after final reading and
signature thereof by the Chief Elected Official and Manager of Legislative and Land
Services, or their authorized delegates.
FIRST READING passed in open Council duly assembled in the Town of Redcliff, in the
Province of Alberta, this 11" day of April, 2016.
NON-STATUTORY PUBLIC HEARING held in Open Council duly assembled in the Town of
Redcliff, in the Province of Alberta, this 9" day of May, 2016.
SECOND READING passed in open Council duly assembled in the Town of Redcliff, in the
Province of Alberta, this 9"" day of May, 2016.
THIRD AND FINAL READING passed in open Council duly assembled in the Town of Redcliff,
in the Province of Alberta, this 12th day of September, 2016.
f)
Mayor Manager of Legislative & Land Services
eo.
ry
SCHEDULE A
Map of Developable Lands
Offsite Levy Areas
aoe NN be ae |
ae See
ahs. INak:
.
'
\.
SCHEDULE B
NLR
*
.
,
a
Vin Advieors
Town of Redcliff:
Offsite Levy Review
March 23 2016
Prepared by:
Greg Weiss, President
CORVUS Business Advisors
9670 -- 95 Avenue
Edmonton, AB T6C 2A4
(780) 428-4110
[email protected]
www.corvusbusinessadvisors.com
This document has been prepared by CORVUS Business Advisors for the sole purpose and exclusive use of the ,
Town of Redcliff. Wy Z, 4
- XQ
Wn Advisors
March 23%, 2016
Arlos Crofts, Municipal Manager
Town of Redcliff
Box 40
#1 -- 3rd Street NE
Redcliff, Alberta TOJ 2P0
RE: Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
Arlos:
Enclosed is our final report for the offsite levy review project. If you have any questions do
not hesitate to contact me.
Yours truly,
Greg Weiss
President
| CORVUS Business Advisors Inc. |
| 9670 -- 95 Avenue | Edmonton | Alberta | T6C 2A4 | 780-428-4110 | i p
[)
4}
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
1 DOCUMENT INFORMATION
Version
Number Revision Date Summary of Changes and Author
August 24", 2015 DRAFT: Created by CORVUS Business Advisors.
September 8'", 2015 DRAFT: Reviewed by Administration
November 15', 2015 FINAL: Reviewed by Council
February 6'", 2016 FINAL: Reviewed by Town's Legal Advisor
March 23%, 2016 FINAL: Final Edits from Administration
Version 5 -- March 23", 2016 (FINAL) li f A
CORVUS Business Advisors iy Lf
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
2 CONTENTS
Ss! INTROBIGTION « sissceszancessssseraccecansssieces ceuancis canecuelaycietieusaen thaatna irs iedseacieaiaiataschsjpaiscaradaapcaazsos hl
GBiZ METHODOLOOY wissesisssaecscsticsisceonssseenszsvaasnstaoiaedsesd¥tsdectesssos adios teadeedacdies$teSin eati ob ftevsaseapoizbagaasenanaae
APPENDIX A: ICF Reconciliation and Transition ..........:scessssnessenesenseeresenrsnsesnseeteestseeseresseeseeeseees O
PS NTERCOTUNRTIONG Asters czszesaen TS cshve seach Bbade sasi'dsdevasaee uvunci= issue rasa eased salaweReus eae bee mek ve opeayeopeapaeeendgeasp gen JA
AZ IGE PROJERTS AND OST Sisscisccaincapcasseesecessensgannse3iecedsdassnsvaketauraspapanap aaddsnaadimannped sank nnas betaine oeaanadety
A3. ICF PROJECT STATUS AND CLARIFICATION OF PROJECTS BEING TRANSFERRED .......ccsscetseneesrseeren D
AF IGE BENEFITTING AREAS sieriesscaaconsexnacanxecuaierraxans ayisanssuyeyernrdenracarerenrepsyrcasestardvonras ceedisardveptedenivepneya HO
AS IGE UPDATED: PROVECT COSTS? uy: se.cppscegocasacdga ra sseezees seacynatesde oneness guent vgonsh ieouegi esenesaaseecapabessopeadzsede DL
A6. ICF COST ALLOCATIONS TO BENEFITTING AREAS .........ccccecsececeeesseseeessceeeeesuceesacsussessetevsessacrasesesteree V2
AT IR RGES GOULBC TED Ks csccarsscascanascasansascasapassancanaench sued agentipotinte cal esstsatouerad atieTag oa seesneStuaigbeneBeaze ee7 ER LO
AS: PRONT-ENDING: BALANCE): siatiescasaccecsscassspsasaacessasansicssseaten sesstaunsdcuedbadacnnsay avipeenedivasarievperosavdjepecacass OQ
FAD: ACE RESERVE BALANCED ness eysisicsavievnvsvleyweoegn'-ecie ences etree els ier rns lee tre vine netp setae grea gg den ed ddergegs AUG
A10. TRANSFERS TO OFFSITE LEVY BYLAW & ICF RECONCILIATION ........:.:c:ccsesccssesernetseseetsessseereeetanvens 18
APPENDIX B: Offsite Levy Areas, Measurements, & Land Development Staging/Forecast......22
BA OPFSIFELEVY AREAS vsssiancicasisssasaciassaceiccisevagsacsicenssacusaerasiageasse oniaadactucds oasee secsabastepansyeapsaeaarigevotaewayee
B2, OFFSITE LEVY AREA MEASUREMENTS ..........:.ccscesseesecseerceeeerscsesesseacegeeesaeesecueeaugeqacarenseensaeenseeeesaas Q4
Ba) LAND'DEVELOPMENT FOREGAST i ssscuvvesssrcvcerts eversenayveprannddandensocqsnncaused dongsoe cyse poaenepasone vepapanesepeadis ogee
APPENDIX C} Transportation aisicssisassisciscsaisatessaissancstssaasdocsasissopsosescciesooceonavctuesscaseaiessensesensedasiorsoesew OE
C1, TRANSPORTATION OFFSITE INFRASTRUCTURE..........cccsssssccseecsececssecssecsecessassuscsaecaesaseseecnneavenrneeee Qh
C2. TRANSPORTATION OFFSITE INFRASTRUCTURE GRANTS & CONTRIBUTIONS TO DATE........00c:ceeeeeeeee 29
C3. TRANSPORTATION OFFSITE INFRASTRUCTURE BENEFITING PARTIES..........cc:ccccscseeseteserenssereeeteneene 29
C4, RECEIPTS AND ADJUSTED NET COSTS o.......cccccscccscsssseeasessseenseseesenseseesssasestcsessesaeesssestateseeectssaeeeees OO
C5, SUMMARY OF TRANSPORTATION OFFSITE LEVY COST FLOW-THROUGH ..........c::c:ccstsseieeeeee OT
C6. TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE BENEFITING AREAS..........0:ccccccsceesccsceseecseceecersesrrsereneereerteerees OD
Version 5 -- March 23", 2016 (FINAL) /ii eu,
CORVUS Business Advisors Ap Af
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
COT RESERVE BAGANGE ic.aisscoossesisezcsieseesssteaacansccae ap ssazsagivesictacataaaieay sas sataaiaasisaied odd iataidbedasseriinat aati OS.
C8, DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE STAGING IMPACTS ........0cccceseeserresrteesseseene OD
APPENDIX Di! Wateiiscissisaiscscesssvssesisapascssasraswasigass savas sasrapiapenaaniiarseaainipiasiaansstalinaous cnudlurcinaparciaraanie OD
Oi; WATER OFFSITE INFRASTRIUCTIIRE sa cncscasnnassnaneens ssa vteatamsanlanntesghinstsRtatatteed padteatasastrnt aa carapsnarendsnen eee
D2. WATER OFFSITE INFRASTRUCTURE GRANTS & CONTRIBUTIONS TO DATE .........ccsesscseseeceseesesesseresees OO
D3. WATER OFFSITE INFRASTRUCTURE BENEFITING PARTIES........cccccccescsscscescsscscesssecseeseesensesseseessseessese OF
D4. RECEIPTS AND ADJUSTED NET COSTS .......0..ccccccssescescsepecerssesesseeseatecvsaeerearserersaessssseestecerstasectreessees OO
D5. SUMMARY OF WATER OFFSITE LEVY COST FLOW-THROUGH ..........cscccssevsseesssecesstesseetavsesatrasersenesees OB
D6. WATER INFRASTRUCTURE BENEFITING AREAS. .......:..:cce-csrssesseserseseesesnscestansenseacessstsatateaerteeeatapeasense OD
D7 RESERVE BALANCE isiie. sscaines scseacssasoaasasdeavada vpsatuzecaasaareoveio tases cgesainstsaaya ad sataaaaasaetaand asso tesa aaTeak A
D8, DEVELOPMENT AND WATER INFRASTRUCTURE STAGING IMPACTS ........cccccscesceserseseessrsecsesasracesereeeee 40
APPENDIX E: Satvitary: sississsesscscsscsstscasssceveeciosesssswaceicgsnpcesandgecinaecgiapsastanzeceecqnaieasssiteveuageortesipeneaerssisia 4a
E1. SANITARY OFFSITE INFRASTRUCTURE ....:..:..s:sccscsscccsessesesatssssesstsssessctesssaretectsanecsseatersseeatestensaeesse FO
E2. SANITARY OFFSITE INFRASTRUCTURE GRANTS & CONTRIBUTIONS TO DATE .........:0:::s0s0s0eceseeseseeeeees 44
E3, SANITARY OFFSITE INFRASTRUCTURE BENEFITING PARTIES.........-..c::cccescesescesseseeseessseestcsesaesasereevenre 49
E4. RECEIPTS AND. ADJUSTED NET COSTS .........s:cscsseccescseseensntcnsesrscescsecsesevessrscensnepscaneecseescnesssaceresrseere 40
E5. SUMMARY OF SANITARY OFFSITE LEVY COST FLOW-THROUGH ..........cccccesescssesessesetscseesesseetstsaveeseess 46
E6. SANITARY INFRASTRUCTURE BENEFITING AREAS ........:...ccceescncssesseesescesceeeecsseesssssrasessesesacrseessareasens 40
BZ. RESERVE BALANCE: ti sas nactcctsccceseostsissaauisqtasaasssaansatsnachszinasctszalsss te iatazaasaceasoinead saacd saaassassatassatsateeiee POE
E8, DEVELOPMENT AND SANITARY INFRASTRUCTURE STAGING IMPACTS........ccccccscececsesestseseeseeseaeerenens 48
APPENDIA-E: Store wate oss cossssstcascissetescs cccanissianapces vasosnindscasacybisnaseoivcazeupeatvecsaisonpeictasbeiseapveiarageenntcOO
F1. STORMWATER OFFSITE INFRASTRUCTURE ..............c1ecsccsseeseesscecensecseessesseseessessesarsaesaeessessesssereyerese DO
F2. STORMWATER OFFSITE INFRASTRUCTURE GRANTS & CONTRIBUTIONS TO DATE .........ccscsccseeesseeeeees D1
F3. STORMWATER OFFSITE INFRASTRUCTURE BENEFITING PARTIES. ..........c2.c:ccce:sessecseseecseecsecneepeeeees DO
F4. RECEIPTS AND ADJUSTED NET COSTS........ccscsssesscsscscersesscsssssenssacsscusesessssessaevascassaessssseassarsassueassss DO
F5. SUMMARY OF STORMWATER OFFSITE LEVY COST FLOW-THROUGH .........:scccccsseeeseceeseesseaeeacessnneeeens DO
F6. STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE BENEFITING AREAS.........ccccsccscsecsessscseecessseresaesessessassesseestecseneees D4
FFs PEER Vis ERALANDE: c acrscescassexscecresssnanceadaasiai nas reais acsraca oncantsch sans mchaalsianantnatasansaaaasaasadanapearaattsatssasasl eee
F8. DEVELOPMENT AND STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE STAGING IMPACTS ........ccccccrssssecseeesctseseeeeeeses D4
APPENDIX G: Benchmark CompariSOns ........:.:cscscsscesscsseecssesersecasasesenessseassesssserenuseneesssaveesnstaveenens OT
Version 5 -- March 23%, 2016 (FINAL) / iii
CORVUS Business Advisors £) d i
"\o
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
3 INTRODUCTION
3.1. Introduction
The Town wishes to facilitate growth of the community by providing offsite transportation,
water, sanitary, and stormwater infrastructure that meets the needs of development, and
also ensure that accompanying charges are fair and equitable, comply with legislative and
regulatory requirements, and recover the cost of the infrastructure in order to ensure a
financially sustainable community.
In 2004 the Town established an Infrastructure Capacity Fee policy (ICF) to allocate the cost
of transportation, water, sanitary, and stormwater offsite infrastructure to benefiting parties in
3 basins: (1) Eastside Area, (2) Westside Areas (A and 8B), and (3) Infill / Existing
Development Area.
In April 2015 the Town of Redcliff retained the CORVUS Business Advisors Team to assist
in establishing an offsite levy bylaw. CORVUS Business Advisors is establishing the rates,
and legal sub-contractor Kennedy Agrios LLP is establishing the bylaw. As part of this
project, the Town is implementing the CORVUS offsite levy model for managing rates
ongoing. Where possible, this project will facilitate the transition of |CF related infrastructure
to the offsite bylaw.
This report outlines the methodology and information used in establishing transportation,
water, sanitary, and stormwater offsite levy rates for Town of Redcliff.
3.2 Methodology
The Town of Redcliff recently updated various infrastructure master plans. As a part of this
offsite levy review, Town staff and their engineering advisors reviewed existing infrastructure
plans and new master plans and identified offsite projects for transportation, water, sanitary,
and stormwater infrastructure including in-progress projects and future projects required to
support growth'. Some of these projects were included in the previous ICF policy and will be
transitioned to the new bylaw (discussed in Appendix A). The Town's engineering staff
identified the benefiting areas of each project using the offsite areas identified in this report.
The Town's engineering staff also determined the benefit of each project to existing
development and future development using a ratio of gross area developed to gross area
undeveloped.
Support provided by CORVUS Business Advisors included:
* Reconciliation of ICF project costs, fees, front-ending balances, and reserve
balances.
* Transition of certain ICF projects, and associated fees and reserve balances to the
new offsite levy bylaw.
' It is not within CORVUS' scope of work to review/assess master plans. Offsite projects are identified by
municipal engineering staff and/or their engineering advisors
Version 5 -- March 23", 2016 (FINAL) /4 7
CORVUS Business Advisors HD f k /
/) Le IN
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
* Provision of the most current CORVUS offsite levy model, including configuration,
priming, and data loading.
* Facilitation of a workshop to determine offsite levy area boundaries.
* Incorporation of offsite levy area measurements and land development forecasts
(provided by Town staff).
* Incorporation of infrastructure costs and allocated percentages (provided by the
Town's engineering advisors and Town staff).
* Incorporation of ICF receipts collected by the Town up to the cut-off date (provided
by Town staff). A cut-off date of December 31, 2014 was established. This date
coincides with the Town's most recent year-end when the project commenced.
Project expenditures for completed and in-progress projects, related ICF receipts etc.
were gathered as "actuals" from the Town's financial records up to the cut-off date.
Beyond the cut-off date, all financial details are estimates. When the Town
completes its next rate update, information from January 1°, 2015 up to the new cut-
off period will be converted from estimates to actuals.
* Establishment of offsite levy reserve opening balances including front-ending
balances (amounts owed by future development to the Town for construction of
infrastructure on behalf of future development).
* Development of transportation, water, sanitary, and stormwater offsite levy rates for
the Town's offsite levy areas, using information and data provided by the Town and
its engineering advisors.
* Presentation of offsite levy rates and background information to Administration and
Council.
4 KEY FINDINGS
Key findings pertaining to the establishment of Town offsite levy rates are as follows:
» A reconciliation of ICF projects, costs, fees collected, reserve balances, and
transfers to the offsite levy bylaw is provided in Appendix A. This reconciliation is
important because certain ICF projects are being transferred to the offsite levy bylaw.
Related fees, front-ending balances, etc. also need to be transferred.
* Historical |CF rates were based, in part, on offsite infrastructure net costs of
approximately $32.34 million. During this review, as part of the transition, ICF
projects costs were updated. ICF net costs have increased significantly to
approximately $63.12 million. The updated cost of ICF projects does not include
other planned offsite infrastructure identified in the Town's current transportation,
water, sanitary, and stormwater master plans, which is also being added to the
offsite levy rate calculation model. An increase in infrastructure costs puts upward
pressure on offsite levy rates.
* Offsite infrastructure costs to be included in the offsite levy bylaw totals
approximately $83.64 million. These costs include ICF projects transferred to the
offsite levy bylaw as well as new projects extracted from the Town's current master
Version 5 -- March 23%, 2016 (FINAL)
CORVUS Business Advisors /2 / / f
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
plans. An overview of offsite infrastructure costs is provided in Appendices C-1, D-1,
E-1, and F-1.
Offsite infrastructure costs are always reduced by special ear-marked grants and
development contributions. An overview of grants and contributions and resulting net
costs is provided in Appendices C-2, D-2, E-2, and F-2.
That portion of cost which is allocated to future development versus existing
development and other allocations is provided in Appendices C-3/C-4, D-3/D-4, E-
3/E-4, and F-3/F-4.
A complete summary of offsite infrastructure net cost "flow-throughs'" is provided in
Appendices C-5, D-5, E-5, and F-5
An overview of offsite infrastructure benefitting areas is provided in C-6, D-6, E-6,
and F-6.
* From 2004 when the ICF policy was established, to the cut-off date (December 31°,
2014) the Town collected approximately $1.51 million in ICF fees in the Eastside
and Infill Areas (there were no fees collected in the Westside Area). Collections
associated with projects being transitioned to the Offsite Levy Bylaw have been
incorporated into the offsite levy rate model reducing the overall cost borne by
developers. The collection of offsite levy receipts brings downward relief to offsite
levy rates.
A reconciliation of ICF projects, costs, fees collected, reserve balances, and
transfers to the offsite levy bylaw is provided in Appendix A.
« Front-ending balances represent monies owed by future development to the Town
for construction of infrastructure undertaken by the Town on behalf of future
development. During this review, ICF front-ending balances were determined to
reflect construction undertaken by the Town on behalf of future development up to
the new cut-off date. ICF front-ending balances are approximately $5.83 million as
at December 31", 2014, of which a portion will be transferred to the offsite levy
bylaw, An increase in front-ending amounts puts upward pressure on offsite levy
rates.
The reconciliation of ICF front-ending balances is provided in Appendix A-7/A-8.
Note, the Town has not accounted for front-ending balances in reserve balances,
financial statements, or internal documentation. This is discussed further in Section
6.
* A-complete reconciliation of all |CF project costs, collections, front-ending balances,
and reserve balances being transferred to the offsite levy bylaw, as wells as those
remaining within the ICF policy is provided in Appendix A-10.
* Offsite levy rates are forecast using a rolling 25-year review period. During this
review, a cut-off date of December 31*', 2014 was established, and so the review
period stems from 2015 to 2039. Costs that benefit development prior to and within
the review period are included in rates. Costs that benefit development beyond the
review period (called financial "oversizing") are excluded from rates. In future years,
when rates are updated and the rolling 25-year period moves further out,
development costs beyond 2039 will gradually find their way into rates.
Version 5 -- March 23", 2016 (FINAL) ;
CORVUS Business Advisors 13 Zz ')
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
«The Town is parsed into several offsite levy areas. The area boundaries, numbering
schema, and area measurements are described in Appendix B along with an offsite
levy map.
« To calculate offsite levy rates, it is necessary to forecast the amount of land that will
develop during the 25-year review period. Land development forms the denominator
of the rate calculation. A larger denominator reduces rates, but could potentially
result in under-collection and an increased burden for tax payers. A smaller
denominator increases rates, but could potentially result in over-collection and an
increased burden for future development. Accordingly, land development forecasts
need to be (a) reasonable, and (b) updated annually to reflect the changing pace of
development in the community.
For this review, the Town is estimating development of approximately 262 ha. over
the 25-year review period (approximately 10.5 ha. per year on average). The land
development forecast is shown in Appendix B.
*" Town staff have advised that all ICF fees collected up to the cut-off date were either
used to finance previous ICF project expenditures or were transferred to the Land
Development Reserve in 2011. A reconciliation of |CF reserve balances is shown in
Appendix A-8, and transfers to the offsite levy bylaw are shown in Appendix A-9. A
pay-down of front-ending balances brings downward relief to offsite levy rates.
The MGA requires that the Town create 4 offsite levy reserves (or accounts)--one
for each infrastructure type. Moving forward, offsite levy fees collected from
developers should be deposited into these reserves/accounts first, and then
withdrawn at year-end to pay down front-ending balances if warranted. This is
discussed further below in Section 6.
An overview of each offsite levy reserve/account opening balance is shown in
Appendices C-7, D-7, E-7, and F-7.
* Offsite levy reserves/accounts are impacted by interest. When reserves/accounts are
in a positive balance they earn interest (as required by the MGA). When
reserves/accounts are in a negative position, this indicates that front-ending is being
undertaken on behalf of the reserve/account. Front-ending parties are eligible for
interest on their balances. As such, reserves/accounts are charged interest when in
a negative position.
During rate updates, interest rates should be amended to reflect the economic
realities of the day.
An overview of reserve/account interest rates is shown in Appendices C-8, D-8, E-9,
and F-8.
5 RATES
The weighted average offsite levy rate is $109,205 per net hectare as shown in tables
below. Though this is a substantive increase from current ICF rates, it is important to
remember that current ICF rates are out-of-date and do not reflect the full cost of all projects
that were outlined in the 2012 policy. These new offsite levy rates are similar to most
Version 5 -- March 23%, 2016 (FINAL)
CORVUS Business Advisors 14 A ) ZL kK
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
municipalities of similar size in Alberta (an overview of benchmarks in provided in Appendix
G). Most importantly, these rates reflect the actual cost of infrastructure required to facilitate
development in the Town of Redcliff.
High, Low, & Weighted Average*
Transportation Water Ct ' Sanitary Storm Charges
Charges (per Ha) Charges (Per Ha) Total
(per Ha per Ha
High SS 8K4S211$ 44.4171 $ 51,882 $ 208,538
tow S84 521/44 t7]$ OC - TS - S78,938 |
$ 34,521
*Note, highs, lows, and weighted averages are shown for information purposes only. Developers always pay the
rate specific to the offsite levy area within which they are developing.
Specific Rates by Area
Area_ | Transportati Water Sanitary Storm
Ref. # | onCharges| Charges Charges Charges
1 $ 34,521 $ 44,417 $ 7,212 $ 3,851 §$ 90,001
2 $ 34,521 $ 44,417 $ 7,212 $ 3,851 $§$ 90,001
3 $ 34,521 $ 44,417 $ 10,697 $ 11,597 $ 101,232
4 $ 34,521 $ 44,417 $ 10,697 $ 11,597 $ 101,232
5 $ 34,521 $ 44.417 $ - $ - $ 78,938
6 $ 34,521 $ 44,417 $ 7,212 $ 3,851 $ 90,001
7 $ 34,521 $ 44,417 $ 7,212 $ - $ 86,150
8 $ 34,521 $ 44,417 § 7,212 $ - $ 86,150
9 $ 34,521 $ 44,417 $ 15,445 $§ - $ 94,383
10 $ 34,521 $ 44.417 $ 15,445 $§ - $ 94,383
11 $ 34,521 $ 44.417 $ - $ « $ 78,938
12 $ 34,521 $ 44,417 $ - $ = $ 78,938
13 $ 34,521 §$ 44,417 $ 51,882 $ 77,717 $ 208,538
14 $ 34,521 $ 44.417 $ 15,445 $§ 53,945 $ 148,328
15 $ 34,521 $ 44.417 $ - $ = $ 78,938
16 $ 34,521 $ 44,417 $ - $ = $ 78,938
17 $ 34,521 §$ 44.417 $ 15,445 $§ - $ 94,383
18 $ 34,521 $ 44.417 $ 15,445 $§ = $ 94,383
6 RECOMMENDATIONS
In addition to implementation of the rate framework shown in Section 5, CORVUS
recommends the following:
1. Ensure the bylaw reflects the requirement for an annual update of offsite levy rates
and delivery of an annual update report to Council. In addition to enabling
compliance with MGA requirements, regular updates ensure offsite levy rates do not
"decay", and Council is apprised regularly of the status of changes, reserves
balances, etc.
Version 5 -- March 23%, 2016 (FINAL) g |
CORVUS Business Advisors 15 4) f- k
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
2. Establish 4 separate offsite levy reserves/accounts as required by the MGA--one for
each infrastructure type.
3. Establish sub-ledgers for each reserve/account to track amounts owed to front-
ending parties (the Town is already a front-ending party, but other developers may
become front-ending parties in the future).
4. Update offsite levy reserve/account balances annually (and financial statements, and
other internal documentation) to reflect the true balance, including front-ending.
5. Update ICF policy and associated rates to reflect the project reconciliation contained
within this report, ICF cost updates, fee collections etc.
6. Amend ICF reserve balances (and financial statements, and other internal
documentation) to reflect the true balance of ICF reserves, including $5.83 million of
front-ending currently unaccounted for ($2.53 million of front-ending after transfer of
various ICF projects to the offsite levy bylaw, and $2.40 million after withdrawal of
remaining reserve funds).
7. Develop an offsite levy policy framework to aide in effective implementation of the
bylaw.
8. Develop an offsite levy procedures guide to assist staff with day-to-day interaction
with offsite levies--for example, a clear and transparent method of offsite levy
invoicing, collection, etc.
9. Undertake a water and sewer utility rates review to enable sustainable funding of the
Town's share of offsite infrastructure projects. The last rate review should be brought
current and in alignment with current master plans, offsite levy financing, etc.
10. lmplement a long term financial sustainability assessment model that provides
Council with confidence that the Town is on a financially sustainable path, contains
reasonable tax impacts, and includes the impact of the Town's share of various
development costs plus any front-ending that will be required on behalf of various
Offsite levy reserves.
11. Recent changes to the MGA will enable municipalities to charge separately for offsite
levies (i.e., transportation vs. water vs. sewer). Accordingly, the Town should
maintain accurate records to reflect which properties pay which offsite levies, and
build this into the procedures guide discussed above.
7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
CORVUS Business Advisors would like to thank all Town of Redcliff staff from Engineering,
Planning, and Finance, who supported the work of this review.
8 DISCLAIMER
CORVUS Business Advisor has relied upon Town of Redcliff and its engineering advisors to
provide all of the data and information used to construct the offsite levy model and create
the rates, such as planning data and assumptions, development forecasts and assumptions,
Version 5 -- March 23", 2016 (FINAL) s f
CORVUS Business Advisors 16 Ay d k
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
infrastructure costs and costs estimates, allocations to benefitting parties, allocation to
benefitting areas, and other assumptions etc. As such, CORVUS Business Advisors makes
no guarantee as to the accuracy of the input data and information provided by these groups
or the results that stem from this data and information.
Offsite levy rates are not intended to stay static; they are based upon educated assumptions
and the best available information of the day. Planning assumptions, cost estimates etc. can
change each year. Accordingly, the Municipal Government Act requires that offsite levy
rates be updated with the most available information on a regular basis (usually annually).
When information changes, it will be reflected in a future update, and rates adjusted
accordingly.
Version 5 -- March 23%, 2016 (FINAL) }
CORVUS Business Advisors 17 & ZL k
' fy oe ia
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review |
APPENDIX A: ICF Reconciliation and Transition |
A1. Introduction
In 2004 the Town established an Infrastructure Capacity Fee policy (ICF) to allocate the cost
of transportation, water, sanitary, and stormwater offsite infrastructure to benefiting parties in
3 basins: (1) Eastside Area, (2) Westside Areas (A and B), and (3) Infill / Existing
Development Area. Since 2004, the ICF project list and associated costs have been
updated, most recently in 2012. As many of these projects will become part of the new
offsite levy bylaw, a reconciliation of ICF projects, costs, fees and collections, and reserve
balance is required. This section describes the current status of these ICF projects and the
nature of costs, fees etc. being transferred to the offsite levy bylaw.
A2. ICF Projects and Costs
In 2012 when the ICF was last updated, it comprised 19 projects totaling approximately
$32.34 million in net cost after various reductions and grants as shown in the table below.
ICF Projects and Net Costs
ay iW !
ha }
\ f . | K
t 4 = i _ t
: Treatment Plant TS 20,275,719 $ 3,000,000 $ 5,525,782] $ 11,749,937 |
thAveSE Waterine TS 1,500,000/$ ~~ [$ - S 1,500,000
sthAve CSCO SG SCC' SCdSTS 800,000
Mitchel St. CS 000,000 $ SC CS 1,000,000]
SaamisOr CCS 500000 $ SC - S1,500,000]
| Total Water|$ --25,075,719[$ 3,000,000] $ 5,525,782] $ 16,549,937 |
Saamis Drive (Existing) Ss S$ 1000,000/$ = TSC CS 1,000,000]
9th Ave Trunk (Upgrade) TS 1,500,000/$ TSC TS 1,500,000]
[Main Trunk (East ofBounday) _--s«[$__--=4,000,000/$ sss - ~ [S$ Ss - ~[$ 4,000,000
| Total Sanitary]$ --6,500,000/$ = - |S = s-_--|$ 6,500,000 |
Forcemaintopond@GC |S 700,000 1S CS 700,000
IStomPonds CdS SC 00.000[$ Ss - ~[S CSCS 9,300,000
9th Ave Storm Outfai TS 1,000,000 __500,000/$ ss - S$ 500,000
[Storm Pond Interconnections (3) __--s[$_--1,200,000/$ [SC - S 1,200,000
Storm Master Drainage Plan |S 120,675/$ 30,000] S80, 675 |
Lin Stations (2) CTS 00,000 $ TS - S 1,000,000
|} Total Storm] $ _--5,320,675|$ ----630,000/$ ~~ $ 4,790,675 |
jthAve CdS 000,000] ~ (SC - S 2,000,000 |
thAve CSO $ SC CS 1,000,000 |
ISthAveSignais CdS 50,0001 ss - TSC CS (250,000
jsthAveSignais CS C25,00D] S$ CC CSCC CdS 250,000]
ISaamis (Sthtogth) ss CTS 4000,000/$ ss - (SC - CS (1,000,000 |
| CC*CTtcta' Rods] $_--4,500,000/$ = - [S$ = - ~I$ 4,500,000 |
$ 41,396,394 $ 3,530,000 _$ 5,525,782 $ 32,340,612
Version 5 -- March 23, 2016 (FINAL)
CORVUS Business Advisors /8
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
For the most part, the ICF project costs shown were estimates, and accompanying rates
within the ICF policy were established based on these cost estimates as follows:
(1) Eastside Area -- $78,503 /hectare
(2a) Westside North Area A -- $58,801 /hectare
(2b) Westside North Area B -- $97,938 /hectare
(3) Infill / Existing Development Areas -- $19,768 /hectare
A3. ICF Project Status and Clarification of Projects Being Transferred
At December 31%, 2014 (the cut-off date), some ICF projects were 'completed', some were
'in progress', and some were awaiting 'future' project start dates. The table below provides a
summary of the status of each project.
For this offsite levy review, the status of each ICF project is important as the Municipal
Government Act only allows for the inclusion of new or expanded offsite infrastructure.
Those projects completed prior to the cut-off date are not "new" and, therefore, cannot be
transferred to the offsite levy bylaw (highlighted in 'red'). For older completed ICF project,
balances owing from future development will continue to be borne via future ICF collections.
'Future' projects may be transferred to the offsite levy and are highlighted in 'green' (their
corresponding offsite levy project number is shown in the last column). Balances owing will
be borne via future offsite levy collections.
There were two projects 'in-progress' at the cut-off date. They may be either transferred to
the offsite levy or remain with the ICF. Storm project #6 is relatively small in size and will be
completed relatively quickly. Accordingly, for ease of administration, the Town has opted to
leave storm project #6 within the ICF. Balances owing from future development will continue
to be borne via future ICF collections. On the other hand, water project #1 is a relatively
large project. It will be transferred to the offsite levy. Balances owing will be borne via future
offsite levy collections.
Version 5 -- March 23%, 2016 (FINAL) 8
CORVUS Business Advisors /9 4 Vi k
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
ICF Project Status and Transfer Project Number
or ve Transferred to | Associated Offsite Levy
7 ! |
| " '
SthAve SE Waterline "(Completes No |
Lift Stations (2) din Progress NOU]
lthAe sd Offsite Lew Project #R-1_|
thAve
5th Ave Signals Offsite Lew Project # R-15
A4. ICF Benefitting Areas
When the ICF policy was established in 2004, and updated in subsequent years, projects
costs were allocated to one or more benefitting basins, as shown in the table below. Areas
highlighted in 'green' represent basins that benefit. Clarification of these benefitting basins is
important in order to properly allocate ICF costs to areas, and allocate fees collected since
2004.
Version 5 -- March 23%, 2016 (FINAL) t) )
CORVUS Business Advisors /10 4D ik
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
ICF Benefitting Basins for Each Projects
ICF Project
East Side Westside
esate No te [ee No S|
LSS ESS
eT ES Sa
pees NO Se i,| Se NO |
SS Sa ae
Fes -- NG == -- 9 |p NO
A5. ICF Updated Project Costs
As part of this review, Town staff updated project costs to reflect (a) actual expenditures up
to the cut-off date Dec 31, 2014, (b) financing charges (if any), and (c) updated cost
estimates for work remaining. This section depicts updated costs for ICF projects because
several of these projects will be transferred to the offsite levy bylaw." The costs associated
with all offsite levy projects (including ICF projects transferred) is shown in Appendices C, D,
E and F.
As shown in the table below, ICF project costs have increased dramatically rising from
approximately $32.34 million (2012 estimates) to approximately $63.12 million. This large
increase stems primarily from the increase in cost associated with ICF water project #1
(Treatment Plant), and ICF sanitary project #3 (Main Trunk East of Boundary).
2 In addition to the establishment of an offsite levy bylaw based on current cost estimates, it is recommended the
Town consider updating ICF rates to reflect (a) updated ICF project costs, the impact of ICF fees collected, and
the impact of transfer of certain ICF projects to the offsite levy bylaw.
Version 5 -- March 23%, 2016 (FINAL)
CORVUS Business Advisors 114 4) A £
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
Updated ICF Project Costs
ec --
| Expenditures To Costs | Remaining Work
Treatment Pant =| S«$9,395,794] $2,563,642] $10,961,077] ___----$6,300,000] _--_-- $16,620,512]
lthAveSE Waterine | S8ooeef $800,626)
sthAve 88120007 8312, 000)
Mifchew St 5 250;770] = 181,206,770)
ISaamisDr. CT CC"'#SLSOOC'(RNNNTCCOCT CC $604,500/ | $604,500
loth Ave Trunk(Upgradey [| CEC C"'#TCOCNC*C'#SZ{7,OOO] 83,847,000)
[Main Trunk (EastofBounday) [| 85 AGH IB] $25,461,418]
| CTotal Sanitary] --s--s$867,686] Ss SSO] S«$:29,308,418] $0] $30,176,104
Forcemaintopond@GC | S732} | (878,342
Storm Ponds | Szog0,794f (82,090,794)
9th Ave Storm Outfall | S752] 875,121
[Storm Pond Interconnections (3) [ | C"'"RSSC'C#SOOOON $1,200,000]
[Storm Master Drainage Plan [| $85,535] CT 88535
Lift Stations (2) | 294,308] Go] $1,000,000
| Total Storm] $2,916,190] CSO] SCS 4,908,602) SO] «$4, 824,792)
thAe CPC C"'CNC*:C#SR3,356,043/ = | 83,356,043]
isthAve 82,263,363] (82,263,363)
IsthAveSignals | CC CCC"'LSS250,000] | «8.250000
lthAveSignais fet 8:221,278)
ISaamis (Sthtosthy) | 8422 GOB] | 82,422,908)
| Total Roads] SO] SOY 88513682] SO] (88,5 13,682
$13,980,295 $2,563,642 $52,875,049 $6,300,000 $63,118,985
A6. ICF Cost Allocations to Benefitting Areas
It is important to clarify how much ICF cost was allocated by the Town to future development
in order to determine how much cost should be transferred to the new offsite levy bylaw.
Not all ICF project costs are borne by future development. A portion of cost was allocated by
the Town to existing development. For the Eastside basin, the allocation percentages were
outlined in the Town's 2012 ICF Policy. But the ICF Policy did not include percentages for
the Westside (A and B) or Infill basins.* Accordingly, it was necessary to "reverse engineer"
Westside and Infill percentages using other available information.
For the Westside, a ratio of costs originally included in the Westside rate calculation to the
total benefitting project costs in the basin was used to determine the allocation percentages,
as shown in the table below.
3 The Town could not provide any documentation associated with ICF cost allocation percentages for the
Westside (A and B) and Infill basins.
Version 5 -- March 23", 2016 (FINAL) /,
CORVUS Business Advisors /12 4 ak
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
Determining Westside Allocation %
Included in
Original Original Cost of
Westside ICF Benefiting Allocation %
Rate Projects
Calculation
Water|$ ___230,290.80[$ _11,749.937| 2.0%
Sanitary
For the Infill basin, the only allocation % that was known pertained to Water project #1 (2.5%
of Water project #1 was allocated to the Infill basin). Town staff indicated that ICF
allocations were originally determined using a ratio of land in the benefiting areas.
Accordingly, for the other ICF projects that benefit the Infill basin, the ratio of the Infill
allocation to the Eastside allocation for Water project 1 was used to calculate the other
project allocations, as shown in the table below.
Determining Infill Allocation %
Infill Allocation
%
Ratio of 2.5% to 46.5% as compared to 56.4%] 30 |
Ratio of 2.5% to 46.5% as compared to 65%
Ratio of 2.5% to 46.5% as compared to75%| 4.0
Using the information contained in the 2012 ICF policy, as well as the details from the
Westside and Infill basins that were "reverse engineered" above, the table below
summarizes the percentage of cost allocated by the Town to benefitting basins. Of course,
only those areas that benefit (highlighted in 'green') have an associated allocation %. Basins
that do not benefit (highlighted in 'red') have no allocation.
Version 5 -- March 23%, 2016 (FINAL)
CORVUS Business Advisors 113 Bs if
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
ICF Allocation Percentages to Benefitting Areas
No. | No. | | | _|
| No | No. ! | | |
Mitchenst ree NO stax beens NO =| | i |
I No | No | _
No |
| No | No | iI |
| No | Noma | i
: No | No | | |
No | No | | | _|
ie ENO) ll No | | |
| __No | | |
sthAve [ ING ee | |
| No | | |
| No. } | \
Sano | rae |
*Only allocation % for future development are shown. The balance of project costs are borne by existing
development.
The-updated ICF cost allocations to future development, using the updated net costs, and
various cost allocation percentages is shown in the table below. Of the $63.12 million in ICF
net costs, $38.88 million is for the benefit of future development ($35.90 million for Eastside,
$1.59 million for Westside, and $1.39 million for Infill).
Version 5 -- March 23%, 2016 (FINAL)
CORVUS Business Advisors 114 Lk
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
Updated Cost Allocations to Future Development
|___Hercomatocamarercr arn: | ter Com Alicatione
| J ees | wee | getty | setae
ny 1 > | a ; ' } !
a «iw " PS ---- ps ---- uat ~ ( y
| $7,720,200] $325,751] $4 15,513]
i = «=--Ss_ $480,376] SO] 8
Po a)
Mitchell St. ies) §=§=--S $823,401] SO]
ISaamis Dr a ----E | ee)
Po TotaiWater| Tg 9.75] $325,751] $415,513]
| | 4BO.796] SO] ($:26,291
ee $3,096,263; SO]
| Total Sanitary} as 352997] $1,267,338] $662,826)
OT eT a 7)
ie) = $2,000,794] SO] 8
| || ES ) )
|e $1,200.00) Ss So} 8
ieee = $85,535] SO]
| ~~ -- $1,000,000] SOS
hE ee ee ee) ee ee | |
|) $2,181,428] SO] $117, 126
| $1,697,523[ SO] $01,214
ae | $187,500] SO] (88,725
eT | p $143,830] SO} 87,7233
|| P $1,574,949] SO $84,563]
[| TotatRoads| TC CT 85785220] SO] $309,350)
$35,903,593 $1,593,089 $1 ,387,689
A7. ICF Fees Collected
Prior to finalizing offsite levy rate calculations, it is necessary to reduce the net cost
allocated to future development by the amount of fees collected up to the cut-off date. For
this review, it is also necessary to clarify which ICF fees have been collected for which ICF
projects because, for projects transferred to the offsite levy bylaw, the fees collected for
those projects must also be transferred so that future development is not charged twice.
Up to December 31%, 2014, the Town collected $1.51 million in ICF fees (approximately
$726,000 from the Eastside, and approximately $784,000 from Infill areas), as shown in the
table below. No ICF fees were collected from the Westside area (A and B).
The Town has detailed information indicating ICF fee collections for the Eastside area by
project, but the Town does not have similar information for the Infill area--the Town only has
documentation indicating total ICF fees collected in the Infill area. To allocate Infill ICF fees
to specific projects, a ratio of Infill project cost to total costs in the Infill area was used. For
example, if Project A had a total cost of $2 allocated to the Infill area, and the Infill area had
total costs of $10, then 20% of the ICF fees collected were allocated to Project A.
Version 5 -- March 23", 2016 (FINAL) , f/f
CORVUS Business Advisors 115 4) Z i
Ag \
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
ICF Fees Collected
[Treatment Plant__-- | SC St90,869] | $234,717
jothAveSE Waterline ss] SH A7AT CTC
sthAve CT Sag77f CTC
Mitchel St. STAC
GF i eS a
| Total Water] $325,508] $0] $234,717]
ISaamis Drive (Existing) | 819,741] 814,851)
9th Ave Trunk (Upgrade) | 41402] Cd
Main Trunk (East of Boundary) | $64,977 CdS «$859,570)
| Total Sanitary] $126,119] $0] $374,421
Forcemaintopond@GC | 824,480] |
IStomPonds | 845 ASS]
oth Ave Storm Outfall | CS174BG] CT CCd
[Storm Pond Interconnections (3) | $41,965 TT
[Storm Master Drainage Plan | $3,177] CT Cd
Lin Stations (2) SHIP
| Total Storm] $167,535] SO]
thAve 845,463] 866, 163]
tha dT $26,2287 $51,525
SthAve Signals | 86,557] $4,928.63)
lothAveSignais | 85,683] $4,362
ISaamis (Sthto9th) ss] $22,731] Cd 47, 768
[| Total Roads| $106,662] $0 «8174,747]
$725,825 $0 $783,886
A8. Front-ending Balance
Front-ending represents the amount of financing provided to future development for their
share of a project when ICF reserves/accounts are insufficient to fund current construction:
Front-ending = ((Total Expenditures -- Eligible Grants) X % allocated to future
development) -- Withdrawals from ICF Reserve
The management of front-ending balances is vital because often it is the municipality that
front-ends offsite infrastructure construction costs when (future development)
reserves/accounts are inadequate to finance offsite projects. When the municipality is the
front-ending party, these balances represent funds owed to tax payers by future
development. The acknowledgement of these balances in municipal documentation (such
as_reserve/account balances and financial statements) is important--without_ these
acknowledgements, tax payers have little financial or legal recourse.
Version 5 -- March 23", 2016 (FINAL) f }
CORVUS Business Advisors /16 shied Q
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
As shown in the table below, approximately $1.39 million has been withdrawn from the ICF reserve to finance ICF-related
construction activities. To the benefit of the Town, CORVUS has located approximately $5.83 million in front-ending as at
December 31st, 2014. This front-ending balance is not currently acknowledged in any Town documents, financial statements
or reserve/account balances. The Town is the only front-ending party--as such, the front-ending balance of $5.83 million is
owed entirely to the Town by future development.
ICF Reserve Withdrawals and Front-Ending Balances
=> 2 ae eee", OSS
¥ . ; , . , | ee a ap q I " '
ae a UJ - it ons =, | = 7 +
as el Ea Gee
lothAveSE Watering «| SS Sore] TCE $800 626
tha TC CCSdSC( SSCatOO}C*s'"'#S"SN'N#N'NN:WSYNNTW... gngoossd [| CCC C*C*'éSOQ
Mitchel St CC~*dSC(Ct:*CSC~';WTVNSC"'"'CNCSC#WU'SCO#C#C'#SA,2jee77#OH_--Csd[T CO CC~sSC( 'SCCdYS CCS
Eh ae | eS ees ee a a | ee (a | | ee er)
| $33,047|_-- $610,000] $643,047] $3,140,395)
loth Ave Trunk (Upgrade) |S CCSC*dSC('(C'S(S"CS3n@awOOHOOCCC*C*é''#N#WN(N'NN Sgu.a.oo},ss | CCC CCCTC*dYSC( (SSCSC~C~CSC~SOF
[Main Trunk (East ofBoundary) [825461] S25 eetats] |
[Total Sanitary! --=----=8867,686) SSCS] ~SSSSC$:29,308,418) SSCS] SSSSC«S30,76,404) =| SO]SCSC"'CSSW'"SC™*#C*C*C*é'é«SOW"~CO*C*'C'C™C~*O&SS5#6~,087,
Focemantopom@cc | svat sre] P7242
[Stom Ponds | SSO OAT CT CCCSC*dSC*C"'*'"'"SIBOWTA|:COCT Savi S25.7ET| ----S742.891] $1,347,903]
loth Ave Storm Outfal |S 5zif CSCS 53575,127]
[Storm Pond Interconnections (3) | | | SC SHz000D_--s--C"'CSC™;O##*NSCOC*éSi200.000«s[ TCT
[Storm Master Drainage Plan | sss] CTSCC'iRSC"'(SCOC*YCOWC'"'(#S(S5SQS) «TCT CT Cd «885,535
Lin Stations) dS OB] SSCSC*~"'*'*~*CSC*C*'"'CS™C#SSVOWOQ™SCO™"*C*'CSCSC#SW'SC*C*"'SNO@OOO|«s( CTC CT $20,308
[Total Storm! $2,916,190] SSS .908,602| SS SO|SSSSC(84, 824,792] | $717,424] $26,767] $742,891] $2,173,299)
-------- SS a SS a a a CRS ST «
FF -------- a ayy am ee aT <) a Dey | ar A a | 2 |
sthAvSins C8000 SC*~*'CC* $280,000) 8}
loth AveSignas | SC TCCCCSC~dSC*C~C*~'"~*~'S2A'TVWYCSCON™SC"C#N"™SC*C"'"'SC"C'##N'##N'N'SN SSW sd
Saamis (SthtoSth) S| SS CCCdCSCTCCSC~C~C~dC"C;<C;*;*~CS.AZDCOBECSCON™C*C'"'#S#SNCSCON#C#@SC*'"'C™[email protected] |, «= [TS
[ CC~C*~C*sTotad'Rowds|------SS~SOYSC'(C"SNCNC#N#N#C#OOY#'C"COC*«S@Sa3,es2i_--=s="'C™*#CO#'#*SOW#!*CO#™#C#*C*'«s@,6s,ee2i' «= [SO] SCS
$13,980,295 $2,563,642 $52,875,049 $6,300,000 $63,118,985 $750,171 --=--«$635,767 = $1,385,938 $5,829,780
Version 5 -- March 23%, 2016 (FINAL) 117
SA CORVUS Business Advisors
\
On,
> Ne
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
AQ. ICF Reserve Balance
The Town does not have a reserve/account dedicated solely to ICF funds. In 2011, the
Town consolidated several reserves, including the ICF Reserve, into a single reserve called
the Land Development Reserve (#6-12-66-920-000). During the 2011 transfer,
approximately $146,070 in ICF funds were moved from the ICF Reserve to the Land
Development Reserve.
At December 31%, 2014, the Town reported an ICF reserve balance of approximately
$123,773 (total receipts of ~$1.51 million as shown in Section A7 minus total withdrawals of
approximately $1.39 million as shown in Section A8). However, it is important to note that
this balance is a cash balance, and does not include the $5.83 million in front-ending owed
to tax payers by future development, that was uncovered by CORVUS in Section A7.
Including front-ending, the ICF reserve balance is actually in deficit ($5,706,077). Stated
another way, future development owes tax payers $5.71 million for construction that has
already been completed and paid for. To be clear, this true reserve balance does not appear
in the Land Development Reserve balance or related documentation, nor in the Town's
financial statements (e.g., as a receivable owed to the Town, or as a note to the reserve
balance), or in any other Town documentation. Had the Town understood that the ICF
reserve balance was in deficit, it would have quickly moved to withdraw the cash remaining,
thereby helping to pay down the funds owed by future development to tax payers. This
needs to be rectified moving forward and is discussed in Section 0.
A10. Transfers to Offsite Levy Bylaw & ICF Reconciliation
As described in the-introduction, the purpose of Appendix A is to update and reconcile
various ICF balances in order to accurately reflect appropriate transfers to the offsite levy
bylaw.
As highlighted in Section A3, 12 of the 19 ICF projects are being transferred to the offsite
levy bylaw. 7 ICF projects will remain and continue to be managed via ongoing ICF
collections. The tables below summarize the project costs, allocations, fees, and balances
that are being incorporated into the new offsite levy bylaw, and those that will remain with
the ICF. Key elements include:
« The 12 projects being transferred to the offsite levy bylaw total approximately $57.83
million, of which approximately $9.40 million are actual expenditures up to December
31°, 2014.
= Of the $9.40 million in expenditures, $3.30 million was the responsibility of future
development. No monies were withdrawn from the ICF reserve to finance these
expenditures, meaning that $3.30 million of associated front-ending also gets
transferred to the offsite levy.
* Of the 12 projects being transferred to the offsite levy, approximately $1.32 million
has been collected in ICF fees. These will be acknowledged in the offsite levy as
developer contributions to ensure future development is given full credit for these
payments.
*» The updated net cost of the 7 projects remaining in the ICF is approximately $4.62
million (Eastside $4.59 million and Infill $26,291). After accounting for the ICF fees
Version 5 -- March 23%, 2016 (FINAL) /18 , '
CORVUS Business Advisors 4) Le
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
already collected for these projects, the balance owing is approximately $4.43 million
(Eastside $4.42 million + Infill $11,440).
* The front-ending balance associated with the 7 projects remaining in the ICF is
approximately $2.53 million. However, the ICF reserve has a cash balance of
$123,773. Once this remaining cash is withdrawn from the reserve to help pay down
ICF front-ending debts, the final front-ending balance will be $2,402,941.
Version 5 -- March 23%, 2016 (FINAL) )
CORVUS Business Advisors /19 Ap k
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
Transferred to| Associated Offsite Levy Actual Developer Share ie eeeentny, Front-ending
Levy Project : Expenditures | of Expenditure ; Balance
Transferred t | transferred to | Transferredto |, Developer | Transferred to
Offsite Levy Contributions in | Offsite Levy | Transferred to
Offsite Levy Offsite Levy Offa Levy Offsite Levy
loth Ave SE Waterline MMC ee el
[sthAve
[Mitchell St.
po Total Water}! = $48,803,782] $9,395,794] $3,303,066] $528,751] $0] $3,303,066
Pot Sanitary}, | 8529,308,418] CS CSG} CUTTS)
[Stom Ponds
foth Ave Storm Outfall AMC
[Storm Master Drainage Plan MC
ICR: Stent honei(2)\--_- = en er ee eS
Po otal Storm] Tt 200,000] SOS] 4iges] SO]
| Sst~é";™CSTtaiéRoads|-- -- --"(tsd;C~"'CNCOOCOCOC;C(#d'":C#CLCOC'S8«S13,e2]---- (ss SO] C"' S:SOC'éSZWA,#O| CC SO]SCC*éSO
$57,825,882 $9,395,794 $3,303,066 $1,318,075 $0 $3,303,066
aA Version 5 -- March 23, 2016 (FINAL) /20
Ne CORVUS Business Advisors
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
SSS eee 3 >= S =~ = SS ee ee
<< . : i > "= =--- ~ te = = - = = = --EeEE
nf - =| : \ ontind |) | > |, erin " ' ° \ (Ww 3 ' ) x wee |
lage aed [ee area Sl eee ae tl fenere S| eee | ia re rea
9th Ave SE Waterline LS DE Oe SS eee ea ene ee) See aS ral
sthAve Ee a _ ee --e -- _
Mitchell St. he a eee eee eet ee eel
es ee ae ee ee ee eee ee
ea a ens pee ee ee ee, ee eee
Seer ee) a Ee eee (ea Ree
oe [ree Freer eg (rere a) Fcgcee eg ee ( ee ee
a ae) cee [7 | et ele ee |e |
i Pee, PE (ee) | ees ae,
| ee ey a | | ae [eee
C0) OO =)
963 $0 418,178 $0 $11 714
a a a ee
<A Version 5 -- March 23%, 2016 (FINAL) /21
CORVUS Business Advisors .
aS
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
APPENDIX B: Offsite Levy Areas, Measurements, & Land
Development Staging/Forecast
B1. Offsite Levy Areas
The Town is parsed into 18 offsite levy areas, as shown in the map below. Areas are
approximately a quarter section in size but also take into consideration various natural and
man-made barriers (e.g., rivers, highways, etc.), as well as existing/planned infrastructure
basins (e.g., water and sanitary basins).
All offsite levy infrastructure costs are allocated to one or more areas. In the offsite levy
model, each area is further divided into sub-areas based on land use type (e.g., "residential
- low density", "residential - medium & high density', "commercial", "industrial", and "other").
All types of development are treated similarly, and so only the "other" category is currently
used.
Version 5 -- March 23, 2016 (FINAL) 122 '
CORVUS Business Advisors 4) JL fk
; e!\
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
Offsite Levy Areas
SS
eS gE
1/5 « Or bene # FO Ne
-- = Eemear
(ealty, ihe |
sé Version 5 -- March 23", 2016 (FINAL) 123
CORVUS Business Advisors
|
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
B2. Offsite Levy Area Measurements
Total net development area, the amount of land available for development in all offsite levy
areas, is approximately 1144 ha. In calculating net development area only those lands
remaining to be developed within the area that have not previously paid offsite levies have
been considered (as required by legislation/regulation). Further, allowances have been
made to net development area calculations for environmental reserves, municipal reserves,
and arterial road right of way.
Offsite Levy Net Development Area
| teed | ie iy ; ee Oi 1 Wicggut =| ie WL eo he a Al ces |
[65], [Other [40.24] =| 4024] 402] 273) 33.49)
[75 |, other T 95.51 =| ___9551| 9.55]. = | 85.96]
1 ---- $4.5. -- 9 _|Other_ | 61.38 | mics) | -|f -.*f, -- - |
|__12.5__ | JOth il 39.40)/ momen) 4.43] 1 1.20)
[16.5 | _______|Other i £6.52 | 268] 23.05] 240]. | ----21. 56 |
as ---- [Other -- ik S150) 4626) 35a2) 383 | SSC.
Totall 4,665.11] 270.22] 4,a94.08| 400.49 _'444.05| 1,144.08
Summary of Offsite Levy Net Development Area
Gross Development Area 1,665.11
Less Environment Reserve 270.22
Less Municipal Reserve 139.49
Less ROW Allowance 111.35
Net Development Area 1,144.05
*Note: 1 Hectare (ha.) = ~2.47 Acres
Net development area definitions will be applied in determining offsite levy obligations of
developers on application for subdivision or development within Town of Redcliff. Net
development area is defined as follows:
e Gross Area -- The area of lands to be developed in hectares that have not previously
paid an offsite levy.
o Less: Any environmental reserves contained within the development area
Including environmental reserves and environmental easements.
o Less: A 10% allowance for Municipal Reserves.
o Less: The measurement of arterial road right of way that bisects the
Version 5 -- March 23", 2016 (FINAL) 124
CORVUS Business Advisors f y: p
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
development lands.
e Equals: Net Developable Area, which is the area subject to offsite levies.
B3. Land Development Forecast
The offsite levy model uses a rate planning period of 25 years. This planning period is used
by many municipalities as it provides a reasonable timeframe to recoup the costs associated
with offsite levy infrastructure construction, and it aligns with the timeframes of many
municipal capital planning and construction cycles.
Of the 1144 ha. of net development area available across all offsite levy development areas,
planners estimate that approximately 23% of this land (262 ha.) will develop during the next
25 years as shown in the tables below.
Anticipated Development during the 25 Year Rate Planning Period*
RE RS (0 (0 FP Pa) PT | a a eI EN ea ST) Eee) ae Sh rad
rs ET) ee ee ee ee ee EO ee ee ee oe ee | eel C l } (SST) SE) (ES) (| 4 PS (fel ea
135 | 31.545 [ieee eee | eee | een | ees I ae a i 1a | eas eet at aI i iT eres || Jipatog
OC ed (ee ee Ee Ee) Se Eo I ] a a TE i SN FE) a deal here ea
| 55 | 3738] 401]. (rey aay Pa be | (ee Lae 9 PSO fee [ | Oss] «| if [esti a 7S) EY TY EA er a |
(65 | ta30af fe ef ae T I | 3e[ | Lamers [DY eal | 1d eS
75 [6124] | fh 200] tT - 7 | - | 200) | | ae ee | it | | 1200] I 1 (a PO LT | af os |
| es | s-_--iae J ase Bard ed Pe Wa PL | al I Le ES | i a | I Aa) (SR PSS) Dee ee ay
195 [9350 [eee a a 1] Berens |! if '4.10 | | 1 amt | [rena t | | Ib It 1 (emerae [tes toed [eae
1105] ECs ACT) (NE |e | a ee | ai] | i i i 1 CS) (EE SEY i iE i a | Ties)
19.5 - ee ee ee eee Ol (Say aE | FR SRS IG im iL 1 IG 1 STIS) ST PA (2 1 FT Pe ha Ihara
EB ee Sa Sas Sal la Gea | ae Pe | oeaih 1 (50 A Rs Pe ES SO ES i el
135 | 24ss7 [ioe saat E277. | eres eaves | ) rsd PES PS) a (a Ee
p45 | 146ea | DS ES) PT NL) PP | Ero IS 5 a A) a Jf | EES) (ER SLE] SY PEE) SY [TS
| a dmoOMeere 1 I it a I | 1S ae /
ES a SG HS A (STE) FS (SS a FT) eT) (ET a] FE I ( PT es A (et
Ls FS) a FF a a (ed a Pe (eed | | Be ae ee
CS YF) a) (ET (TY PA | FP 2) PC TS) A (a |) ee ee ee Tel
L___ 26222] 101] = [3366] O25] 516] 13.49] 66.55] 4.18} [101] 427] 2464] 619] 277] wes] - | 200] - | 5691] CE) FC 3 ESE
*The rate period commences in 2014 because the cut-off date for this project was the most recent year-end
when the project started--December 31°, 2013.
" -
Version 5 -- March 23%, 2016 (FINAL)
CORVUS Business Advisors Ab R
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
Corvus Model Offsite Levy Map
| Overall Areas wer
achieved by
selecting the
Corvus model
S catchment area
SS polygons,
TSN 1 Environmental
a. ya | reserves and
mare eg cof arterial rodgd area
re a ONS within those
vee ghee alse RSS moe Ste regions were then
Cae] L Aaa ee . ST subtracted.
Vint" DEAN
ae ease KES, | 25 Years Development Horizon
= = Fpiwer
@ ey ay fo Te <Q\ Not included in computation
ee eee [+4 fmm Golf Course Area
fas, like
, 2. TOWN OF REDCLIFF
Summary of Anticipated Development during the 25 Year Rate Planning Period
Developed In Next 25 Years 262.22 22.9%
Developed Beyond 25 Years 881.82 77.1%
Net Development Area 1,144.04
Version 5 -- March 23", 2016 (FINAL) .
CORVUS Business Advisors 4 Z B
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
APPENDIX C: Transportation
Unless indicated otherwise, the information shown in this appendix reflects the status of
infrastructure, costs, receipts, balances, etc. assuming all projects are included (Rate
Scenario 1).
C1.Transportation Offsite Infrastructure
In order to support future growth, transportation offsite infrastructure is required. The
estimated cost of this infrastructure is based upon: (a) actual construction costs to the cut-off
date, (b) debenture interest associated with financing, and (c) future cost estimates. Total
cost is approximately $29.97 million as outlined in the table below. Actual costs, debenture
interest (if any), and cost estimates were provided by Town staff. It is important to note that
these costs represent "gross" costs, of which only a portion will go to support future
development during the 25-year review period. The remainder of this section outlines how
the "net" costs for future development are determined.
Summary of Transportation Offsite Infrastructure
Estimated Cost of
; Sas Cost of : : Total Project
| mt sa |]
| 2 |othAveSE=MaintoMitcheal CSS 2,934,027 2,934, 102 |
| 8 _|MitcheliStN-SouthRallwaytoNornhLimitoftown | SIS (S$ 381,143S 6,381,143 |
MW a ll
72 Je th ST.NW upgrade Broadway AwloanAWNW | $-|$_-|s 1o1ase3|s 1,070,503,
|_ 13 [Street Lighting Improvementat 8th StNW&BroadwayAve | $C |S TS 8.982| $28,982 |
Signal ard Ave and Broadway/Saamis intersection (Replacement of $ 316,693
a fT
ICF polic
i$ CYS 28,972,049 $ 29,972,048 |
*Costs estimates provided by Town staff and their engineering advisors.
*"*Estimates include engineering fees and contingencies, and land costs where applicable.
*** Projects 1,3,4,6, and 15 were transferred from the ICF.
Version 5 -- March 23", 2016 (FINAL)
CORVUS Business Advisors £ Zz £
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
EE EE eee SS sa ss se eee
7 P . |
Corvus Model Offsite Projects Map - Transportation
\ fect
|
Ss fH -- 1+--= "| t =
" vss wih $ cee ll Gm Sth Ave SE-- End of Phase I t= Saamis (2010 Roadway Maxterp
SS =] " oe an AES el ES fmm th Sve SE Uain 2 Mitchell (2010 Romtway Masteiplan}
KN |] { | (D mm 1d 400 Exconton= virchall to Browdeay (2019 estunare)
SS CSL TG 4 Gm (Groudeay Ave Mealigemert (2015 estimate)
SS Ss I om ir: idle = Tame light/Roandabour and
j@eam=al [= SA a | ! ay Masterplan
jie ete: BSS va wT © MMMM irercection Upgtade = Thatic fight Soamis Orive and Oth ave
fhegitact= HMR Bi So Stirred | ) MMMM Eth ace Mann co Wirtctell upgrade due tS increased teri
@ RTS i Epes bers SE I (2010 Roadaay Mastorslan)
HN | ree HSS . Becasiiee ee GE Wichnt 1 R= South Reey te Nerth ort of Tove
Stak Tae T Woo Ty 2015 extimcne)
. Ls Ca Bie+|=|3 ra teh orn (@) ME 10 Ave between Michell and Boundaty (2075 astuvate)
A Om 00S NS NS N75 5 mmm 3d AVE & Md ST NE Bitetsection Upgrade
TY Ue UT VB Bac | Vs nil el taf NNO, Ci (2010 Roadway Masterplan)
PF |! melt fetch Gale p= USNS fee TransCanady Highway & Broadway Sec. Pedostiian
AMA STS. Ly d SERN AX Sigral Tuning limproverrart (2010 Roadway Masterplan)
Uiteie | Arias y WRENS x UG, () mmm 5 th ST NA angianto -- Brondeay Ave to 4:h AVE Nv
al eens | oI Il S (2010 Roadeay Masterplan)
'i ote aon ll Im yi 2 mmm 10 Ave Ne tutweet) -- TransCanada May to Town's Noth Lint
LSet hs Be aE AS =a © mmm Signed Ave and Broadway/ Soames lnrersection
f . 7 ee Ds
aby
_---- | | ate TOWN OF REDCLI
Anticipated Start Year of Construction
aid [cee ~~ Sr <a he ih} yoy Hh >. En ae = ee
(peli | fa 3 pon BS f a sas | 1! alg 4h) ths ve if
| 2 |9thAve SE - Main to Mitchell | 2020 |
Intersection Upgrade - Traffic light/Roundabout & Pedestrian |
| 7 [Sth Ave Main to Mitchell Upgrade | 2025
| 9 [10 Ave between Mitchell & Boundary | 2045
| 10 {8rd Ave & 3rd ST NE Intersection | 2030 |
TransCanada Highway 1 Broadway Ave Pedestrian & Signal Timing |
Improvement | 2016. |
| 13 {Street Lighting Improvement at 8th St NW & Broadway Ave I[ 2030 |
10 Ave NW Connection - Town's North Limit to TransCanada | ) |
Signal 3rd Ave and Broadway/Saamis intersection (Replacement of |
5th Ave é nd Broadway Ave/Saamis Intersection Signal project from
Version 5 -- March 23", 2016 (FINAL)
CORVUS Business Advisors 4 p
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
C2. Transportation Offsite Infrastructure Grants & Contributions to Date
The MGA enables a municipality to allocate the costs of offsite infrastructure to
development, other than those costs that have been provided by way of special grant or
contribution (i.e., contributed infrastructure). Town of Redcliff has received approximately
$0.28 million in special grants and contributions for transportation offsite levy infrastructure
as shown in the table below (note, if the Town receives other grants or contributions in the
future, it will be reflected in one of the annual updates and rates adjusted accordingly). The
result is that the total reduced project estimated cost is approximately $29.69 million.
Special Grants and Contributions for Transportation Offsite Infrastructure
poalec benios | Totat Project | Speciar | Devel0Per | Reduced Project
7 ove SE= Michel Sito Seens Ts 3.300000 STI ee] s 3.200.010]
| 2 [Oth Ave SE=Mainto Michel 2.934.102 [SiS 2,934,102 |
| 3 [Grd Ave Extension=Mitchelito Broadway CS 263,963($ 7754S 2,185,610 |
| 4 [Broadway AveRealignment CS 2.422,908 $0 70490] $2,352,498 |
intersection Upgrade - Traffic light/Roundabout & Pedestrian
a
| 6 _|intersection/Upgrade= Trafic light Saamis DiveandothAve [$s 224,278[$ $0045 $211,232 |
|__7 _|SthAve Main to\MitchellUpgrade TS 4098,302 [SSS 4,098,392 |
| 8 [Mitchell SUN=South RaliwaytoNorthLimitoftown SS 6.381,143[$ SS 381,143 |
| 9 [iO AvebetweeniMitchell& Boundary 453,519 TG SS 4,533,519 |
| 10 |SrivAVea ard STNE Intersection S557 SSS 185,857)
a
[12 [8th STNW upgrade = Broadway AvetoahAeNW [$s 193.565] ¢ [ss 1.913.563 |
|_13 [Street Lighting Improvement at SthStNW& BroadwayAve [$28,982 [$ SS 28,982
10 Ave NW Connectlon'- Town's North Limit'to TransCanada $ 829,500 $ 829,500
ee eee
15 |Signal 3rd Ave and Broadway/Saamis intersection (Replacement of $ 11,486] $ 305,207
Be ee
(GF policy 100)_ }
[$__ 29e72z0a9/$ | $284,409] $ 29,690,638 |
"Developer contributions stem from ICF collections for |CF projects that were transferred to the offsite levy (see
Section A9 in Appendix A),
C3. Transportation Offsite Infrastructure Benefiting Parties
The transportation offsite infrastructure previously outlined will benefit various parties to
varying degrees. During this review three potential benefiting parties were identified
including:
e Existing Growth (Town of Redcliff) -- a portion of the transportation infrastructure
which is required to service existing residents.
e Other Stakeholders & Financial Oversizing -- other parties (such as neighboring
municipalities) that benefit from the infrastructure, as well as that portion of cost
which benefits new development beyond the 25 year review period ("financial
oversizing"). Financial oversizing is determined by calculating the pro rata portion of
cost beyond the 25 year review period--by comparing the anticipated year of
construction to the current year. When rates are updated in the future, the 25 year
review period is moved forward and more and more oversizing costs are included in
rate calculations. Accordingly, oversizing costs, though removed from rates today,
Version 5 -- March 23", 2016 (FINAL) 4 / /}
CORVUS Business Advisors é de K
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
are ultimately born by developers.
e Future Growth (Town of Redcliff Developers) -- all growth related infrastructure (i.e.,
levyable transportation infrastructure costs) during the 25 year rate planning period.
The table below outlines the allocation of transportation offsite levy infrastructure costs to
benefiting parties, as well as the year of construction which has been used to calculate
financial oversizing. Percentage allocations have been determined after reducing
transportation offsite levy infrastructure costs for grants and contributions described earlier.
Allocation of Transportation Infrastructure to Benefiting Parties
|__2 _ |Sth Ave SE = Main to Mitchell J$_ 2,934,102 [434%] 45.5%
[4 [Bros dway Ave Realignment =. -- {$s _2,352,498 | 43.1%. | 22.7% | 34.1%
intersection Upgrade - Traffic light/Roundabout & Pedestrian: ' ) 43.1% 2.3! My 54.6%
i? rovements on Broadway Ave ; a Mi ichell St '(a . | : . ee ol
TransCanada Highway 1 Broadway Ave Pedestrian & Signal Timing | $ 133,002 | 43.1% ] 2.3%
|__12 _|Bth ST NW upgrade - Broadway Ave to 4th Ave NW. |S _ 1,913,563 |eAGMOG| CANOE) = 22.7% |
Highway 1 -- 3 we ot | =
Signal 3rd Ave and Broadway/Saamis intersection (Ri splace ment of $ 305,207 43.1% --=| 18.9% 40.9%
ICF policy 100) x et Yl a,
*Project allocations were determined by Town staff using a ratio of gross land developed in benefiting basins to
gross land undeveloped in benefitting basins.
C4. Receipts and Adjusted Net Costs
Using the offsite levy share percentages shown in the previous section and applying those
percentages to project costs results in an offsite levy cost of approximately $8.96 million.
However, prior to allocating these costs to benefiting areas, existing offsite levy receipts
collected from developers (if any) need to be considered in determining the residual/net
costs to developers. Because this bylaw is new, no transportation levies have been
applied/collected as shown in the table below. This results in an adjusted offsite levy cost of
approximately $8.96 million.
Version 5 -- March 23", 2016 (FINAL) F ;
CORVUS Business Advisors 4) L fl
\
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
Offsite Levy Net Costs
. Other mata bevy Adjusted
Description Stakeholder Cost : Developer (Levy)
E ee Es HOrrsnng | Caste Com | Stig net, Noa
T+ OHA SE-Michel StioSaamis------S~*dS~--'t.0a.si7|s _s60,020]$ _1476080|s _-|s 1,476,080]
| 2 |SthAve'SE=Mainto Mitchell St 265.47e $s 333,725[s seoos = TS 1,334,899 |
| 3 ler AveExtension=Mitchellto Broadway |S z.a|s s4ac2ats --aoacrats dS (894.929
| 4 |Broadway Ave Realignment Steen 535,146 ]$ oz 7igts TS 802.719]
In - tn ,
Sl lA ad I Ad
[6 [intersection Upgrade-TraficlightSaamisOiveand@thAw|$ --i,t05|s --iaoiwets- Is - *'|s SS -_--|
| 7 [SihAve MaintoMitchell Upgrade St 767,636 S$ 932.302[$ g0nsats CS 1,308,453]
|_8 [Mitchell SUN= South Railway toNorth Umitoffown TS a752ie7] $s 1.451.583/$ 2t77a7ats = TS 2.17.374]
|_9 _|10'Ave between Mitchell|& Boundary SS t955,307[$ 2578212s SS
|_10_ [3rd Ave & Grd STNE Intersection SGOT S ata] Saz27ots S42, 279]
a aa Tl al a
| 12 [SthSTNW upgrade-BroadwayAvelomihAWNW. |S --e25.a20|$ --eszvels asszo7[s «dS «85,207 |
| 13 [Street Lighting ImprovementatSthStNW&BroadvayAve [ss t2.soo]s sos Sats S593
10 A' mn = A [ re 357,763 471,737
a
ee Pl
5th Ave and Broadway Ave/Saamis intersection Signal project from
ICF policy 100)
[s_ szeoss7a|s 7925803 [$ eesazesfs (|S 6,989,263]
C5. Summary of Transportation Offsite Levy Cost Flow-through
As shown in the figure below, the total cost for transportation infrastructure that forms the
basis of the rate is approximately $8.96 million. The cost allocations to each benefitting party
are based on the benefitting percentages shown in previous section. The offsite levy
balance (due from developers) is allocated to various benefitting areas (as described in the
next section).
Total Transportation Offsite Levy Costs
= Aa) ks :
= Future Less Levy = Off-site
Development Receipts Ratan
Applied BONES
(OSL Share) $8.96M
$8.96M $0.00M :
= Future
Development
"Financial
Oversizing"
$7.93M
: Less: Special
Project Grants & = Project = Other
Costs Contributions Balance Share
$29.97M $0.28M $29,69M $0.00M
= Existing
Development
$12.81M
*Future development share of cost is depicted in the 'grey' boxes, though that portion identified as 'financial
oversizing' is removed from rates today. Financial oversizing costs will gradually find their way into offsite levy
rates as the year of construction approaches.
Version 5 -- March 23", 2016 (FINAL) L /
CORVUS Business Advisors ty) Z, 4\
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
C6. Transportation Infrastructure Benefiting Areas
Net developer costs have been allocated to 1 or more of the 18 offsite levy areas by Town
engineering staff as shown in the tables below. Those areas that benefit are "lit up" by the |
number designator '1'.
litem[ ----SSSSCProject Description = [Developer Cost] 1.1 | 12] 19] 14] 15] 21 [22] 23] 24] 25] 31 [32] 33] 34] 35] 49 [42] 43] 44] 4551 [52] 53] 54] 55/61] 62/ 63/64] 65)
| 1 |&hAveSE-Mitchell SttoSaamis CTS aEOCOT AT AT ATTA aa aa aa aaa aa a a ae ea a a 4
[2 |&hAveSE-MaintoMitchel ss CS 4B TAT TT TT TT aaa a aati aaa aaa aa ta a a a a a
| 3 [ed Ave Extension-MitchelltoBroadway |S e939974/471417171/ 717171111171 4117) 717141914147 tata al aa ea a a
JT pswapenseag ey ote int tfstitit 1 al lobalfe ol cial
~ Traffic & 056 j | ra ey | r 1, hea a ' iy
isomer onnbi nr
Machell St by i: | + ime Thal | 1f ES) ea ES a Pe PS (PATE) (Eg
Bll A 7) 0 0) 0 0 |
|_7 |Sth Ave Mainto Mitchell Upgrade Sasa aa aaa aaa aa aa a a a a a a a a a aa }
He fade € Se THe tasescten | ¢-_--aza7o ge Pe cn tht aa aay rae ee
Blam 6) 0 0 0 0
2 [ath ST NW upgrade - Broadway Aveto sthAwNW |S a2 | a] a)alalal a} alilaiala]alalala}ala}a)a)1/4)4111411)1) 4141114)
Mla Ad 1) 0) 600) 0 0 Oe
Bae ake tora ais menee eee dod ayatapay sata papas pa papa papa |
[1 |&hAvweSE- Mitchell SttoSaamis TS 1.476,080 TPA TIAA) 1) ata a tt aa STA aT Tt ta a ast a aa
|. 2 |&hAvwe SE-MantoMitche sao Ta at aaa aa aa a aa aaa a a a a aa a a a
[Broadway AveReaignment CS ON TIDT AAA aaa aaa aa a aa a a a i a a a a as a
r fon Upgrade - rt/Roundabout beak belt) pelbe ih athe died Toclhs hole lee] "Tica tal tears | tee 1
acoviien (Wovonanta gh Go asker Peahe =e afafa]s 4] fofafstatay yal 4) y]4}4 14 afatafade | (| [4
Mtchel St MALS ea eae lb eee EAP Pape ETE a a Ne Coelho
i ll 010 6 00 0
[7 [SthAveMaintoMachell Upgrade CdS 0845S TI AI TIT AIA TIAA ITA aia ati tts tia aaa tat ta
| 8 [Mitchell StN-South Railway toNonthLimitoftovm |S 2.177.377 4141/4) 4141414) 41414) aaa aia aa a as ls a a aa
[9 |W Ave between Mitchell &Bounday Ss SsdiS SS - * [AI DI DIS DIA A tI aia a) tid) it a tt a) tot) tt |
Wise TTT ae aiafalasail HGS EWE Tata ustit HE BERESRERESEED
lac 10100 0 6 6 0) 0 0 0
10 Ave NW Connection - Te lal loiaitalal milena, Nearienlaleileadaliaianatlaslanlatteailanlaleliailsr
had e-em 1) 0010) 6) 0} OE MO a
[1 Ege eu Ang amy soem mnenens P§ ee aT tas TATA Ta Te Ta a Ta a a a a a a
| 1 |&hAveSE-Mitchel SttoSaamis CS APECCOP AT ALT ATA Aaa aaa aa aa a a de fetes a a a
| 2 |ahAweSE-MaintoMitchel TS asco TT aa aa aaa aa a aa a as ee a aaa a
IBroadvay AveRealignment --s--as--s--s--s" ws TS BORTIONAL TIAA AT A Tat 1 ttt tt tt tt 1d et ae ta a ae a
Pee PAD Sb bib bib b bb hb litl dls hbpbp
Mitchell St Meth all a Tc it Le et La ts AS
Hil eee La) (0) 3) 0) ES) DEE OA) OE 0 a i a
7 [sth Ave Main to Mitchel Upgrace ------S=S=«~dCS SC PAP Ia a) io sia ai a) ) a) 0 A
Signal Timing Impro id aN le ses | Peal fel Teed WANA hee | £] ae | et
set Lng bnorowemart EEN NWN Evomcy |S 6.583 EVA aa tnd 0) el etal nN |) 0 ao aa) na og nO) tot |
2 [Sigel io he one Bossy Seems nteserven _1$ ate fits Titty t itt t ttt a
C7. Reserve Balance
The transportation reserve opening balance is $0. In addition to establishing a dedicated,
distinct and separate transportation offsite levy reserve (required by the MGA), it is also
recommended that the Town develop a set of "sub-ledgers" to track the amounts due to
front-ending parties, including interest owed in accordance with the rates in effect at that
time.
Version 5 -- March 23, 2016 (FINAL)
CORVUS Business Advisors f Z M
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
Transportation Offsite Levy Reserve Balance
Description Dr Cr Balance
Offsite Levy Expenditures to December 31, 2014 $ - § -
Offsite Levy Receipt Allocations to December 31, 2014 $ - $ -
Debenture Interest Accrued to December 31, 2014 $ - $ -
Unallocated Receipts to December 31, 2014 $ - $ -
Opening Balance $ =
C8. Development and Transportation Infrastructure Staging Impacts
Transportation offsite infrastructure will be constructed in staged fashion over the 25-year
development period. We have reviewed the availability of offsite levy funds to meet these
construction requirements and found that offsite levy reserve funds will not be sufficient to
pay for construction of transportation infrastructure from time to time--front ending of
infrastructure will be required. A front-ender is the party that constructs and pays up front for
infrastructure that benefits other parties.
In order to compensate parties for capital they provide in front-ending offsite infrastructure
construction, a 3.0% interest allowance has been charged to the reserve when in a negative
balance. Further, a 1.0% interest credit has been provided to the reserve when it is in a
positive balance. The graph and table below outline transportation levy reserve balances
over the 25-year development period.
Anticipated Transportation Offsite Levy Reserve Balances
Transportation Reserve
$2,000,000. A ARARao&@
$1,000,000 FR ----- aan
$- Tee [\ ait T | --+#-- Reserve Balance
ev 2 \- ft ye f 8 2 |
$(1,000,000) j= =--\ peer -- a = ==)
" $(2,000,000) N N N N N N N N
(3,000,000). -}--__}--_
$(4,000,000)
$(5,000,000) =
|
Year
*The interest staging adjustment built into the rates ensures that the reserve always returns to breakeven by the
end of the 25-year review period.
Version 5 -- March 23", 2016 (FINAL) / [)
CORVUS Business Advisors of i f
vt C
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
Anticipated Transportation Offsite Levy Reserve Balances
Reserve Balance
Year Receipts Expenditure Interest Balance
2015 $ 34,928 $ - $ 349 $ 35,277
2016 $ - $ 273,639 §$ (7,151) $ (245,512)
2017 $ 1,244,621 $ - $ 9,991 $ 1,009, 100
2018 $ 9,430 $ $ 10,185 $ 1,028,716
2019 $ 201,243 $ . $ 12,300 $ 1,242,258
2020 $ 539,986 $ 3,258,695 $ (44,294) $ (1,520,744)
2021 $ 2,742,958 $ $ 12,222 $ 1,234,436
2022 $ 177,673 $ 1,254,348 $ 1,578 $ 159,339
2023 $ > $ $ 1,593 $ 160,932
2024 $ 496,087 $ . $ 6,570 $ 663,589
2025 $ 198,107 $ 5,884,400 $ (150,681) $ (5,173,386)
2026 $ 1,177,493 $ - $ (119,877) $ (4,115,770)
2027 $ 304,688 $ . $ (114,332) $ (3,925,414)
2028 $ 140,318 $ , $ (113,553) $ (3,898,648)
2029 $ 1,548,414 $ - $ (70,507) $ (2,420,741)
2030 $ - $ 754,319 $ (95,252) $ (3,270,312)
2031 $ 110,791 $ = $ (94,786) $ (3,254,306)
2032 $ - $ - $ (97,629) $ (3,351,936)
2033 $ 3,344,660 $ 7 $ (218) $ (7,494)
2034 $ - $ - $ (225) $ (7,719)
2035 $ - $ = $ (232) $ (7,950)
2036 $ 7,950 $ - $ 0 $ 0
2037 $ - $ = $ 0 $ 0
2038 $ - $ - $ 0 $ 0
2039 $ * $ < $ 0 $ 0
Version 5 -- March 23", 2016 (FINAL)
CORVUS Business Advisors Ay Le
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
APPENDIX D: Water
Unless indicated otherwise, the information shown in this appendix reflects the status of
infrastructure, costs, receipts, balances, etc. assuming all projects are included (Rate
Scenario 1).
D1. Water Offsite Infrastructure
In order to support future growth, water offsite infrastructure is required. The estimated cost
of this infrastructure is based upon: (a) actual construction costs to the cut-off date, (b)
debenture interest associated with financing, and (c) future cost estimates. Total cost is
approximately $31.85 million as outlined in the table below. Actual costs, debenture interest
(if any), and cost estimates were provided by Town staff. It is important to note that these
costs represent "gross" costs, of which only a portion will go to support future development
during the 25-year review period. The remainder of this section outlines how the "net" costs
for future development are determined.
Summary of Water Offsite Infrastructure
a Ey Estimated Cost of
|__8 _|Watermain 10th Ava\N between Mitchell & Boundary | SC TSS 831,800/$ 531,800 |
| 0 Vit CO!_!ITiiTiii | > - (eS §0,000/$ 50,000]
| 11 [Watermain Broadway Ave E/SaamistoSthAveSE | SCC" CdS TS 804.500/$ 604,500 |
[$9,305,794 $ 2,563,642 [$ 19,889,826 [$ 31,849, 261 |
*Costs estimates provided by Town staff and their engineering advisors.
**Estimates include engineering fees and contingencies, and land costs where applicable.
***Project 1 - Bylaw 1753/2013. At the time of preparation of this model, the Town had only finalized $3,500,000
of the total $6,500,000 debenture that was approved in the bylaw. In order to calculate rates, the remaining
$3,000,000 was assumed to be received at the same terms as the original $3,500,000 debenture. When the
Town does its next update, it should separate the 2 debentures into 2 reflecting the actual interest for both
debentures based on the actual terms for both debentures.
****Projects 1,4,6, and 11 were transferred from the ICF.
Version 5 -- March 23, 2016 (FINAL) / l f
CORVUS Business Advisors 7 / Co : A
|
, |
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review |
|
| @tt |
SN mS f_ |_| heey Pipeline twiening (Rew Water Pump Station Station Pump Station
ISS oy) |e} @ mmmmen bistrubution System upgrade (2004 Distribation Study Estimate)
TSS. A_ Ff eee @ mm ichell St Woter mein extension (2007 FSR Estimate)
LITT TTT = Bon a etn |
Ch oN ae rete = pcs: geipe oy hast ei
ihe Hf NS RE }- teaser gl dha per eabentiedka secre
ye el ee ae BN Net o-- ser ont 6 nar oho Bein awe a
thal} * ont S 7 Va)
een BET Te artes ns
AT BZ= 7) ASLN«d
Mie SR MLEENNG |
-1@ | Jae [ai HZ S
~ <<)S |
Pe eles
F ITT x
a Ne. &~ |
\_ Baris oS
ee TOWN OF REDCLIFF
Anticipated Start Year of Construction
<n 2 F) '>>, 7 , 4 ¥ r rant ni} a ar ric Ate Start
| =§1 «| WIP. incl Raw W: ter Pump Station & Pipeline Twinning _ weit In Progress _
| ___3 __[Distrubution System Upgrade = | Uae |
| 5 __|Fire Flow Improvemen t- South Highway Dr to Duncan | A)
| 7 __|Watermain Mitchell St N to Town's North Limit nan PE A) aa
D2. Water Offsite Infrastructure Grants & Contributions to Date
The MGA enables a municipality to allocate the costs of offsite infrastructure to
development, other than those costs that have been provided by way of special grant or
contribution (i.e., contributed infrastructure). Town of Redcliff has received approximately
$6.83 million in special grants and contributions for water offsite levy infrastructure as shown
Version 5 -- March 23", 2016 (FINAL)
CORVUS Business Advisors i | )
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
in the table below (note, if the Town receives other grants or contributions in the future, it will
be reflected in one of the annual updates and rates adjusted accordingly). The result is that
the total reduced project estimated cost is approximately $25.02 million.
Special Grants and Contributions for Water Offsite Infrastructure
[1 |Wibinel Raw Water Pump Staton & Pipeline tuning [$22,970,512 [$ 6@00000]S 4255861 $ 16,104,026 |
[2 [Water Resenior with Pump Station & Assoolaled Connections, |$ 3.737431 [$ |S [$3,737,431 |
| _3 _[Distrubution'System Upgrade, CCC"'LS: ~~ (G3G748//$ 7 SS 636,748 |
| 4 _|MitchelliStWater Main Extension SS 1,266,770 [S822 73T TS 1,244,030 |
| 6 |Watemaingm@AeSE CS 812,000 S$ 77S 284,023 |
| 7 |Watemnain Mitchell StNtoTown's Nonhtimit TS 748,800 $ SS 748,800 |
| 9 [Boundary RdIN-DirksonDrNtoTown's Noth Limit | $s 748.800[$ SS 748,800 |
|__10__[WaterTiein\othvAve SS 50,000 [SSS 50,000 |
| 11 [Watermain Broadway Ave E/SaamistogthAveSE |S G04.S00/$ SETS 552,043 |
[$31,849,261 [$ 6,300,000] $ 528,751 [$ 25,020,510 |
"Developer contributions stem from ICF collections for ICF projects that were transferred to the offsite levy (see
Section A9 in Appendix A).
D3. Water Offsite Infrastructure Benefiting Parties
The water offsite infrastructure previously outlined will benefit various parties to varying
degrees. During this review three potential benefiting parties were identified including:
e Existing Growth (Town of Redcliff) -- a portion of the water infrastructure which is
required to service existing residents.
e Other Stakeholders & Financial Oversizing -- other parties (such as neighboring
municipalities) that benefit from the infrastructure, as well as that portion of cost
which benefits new development beyond the 25 year review period ('financial
oversizing"). Financial oversizing is determined by calculating the pro rata portion of
cost beyond the 25 year review period--by comparing the anticipated year of
construction to the current year. When rates are updated in the future, the 25 year
review period is moved forward and more and more oversizing costs are included in
rate calculations. Accordingly, oversizing costs, though removed from rates today,
are ultimately born by developers.
e¢ Future Growth (Town of Redcliff Developers) -- all growth related infrastructure (i.e.,
levyable water infrastructure costs) during the 25 year rate planning period.
The table below outlines the allocation of water offsite levy infrastructure costs to benefiting
parties, as well as the year of construction which has been used to calculate financial
oversizing. Percentage allocations have been determined after reducing water offsite levy
infrastructure costs for grants and contributions described earlier.
Version 5 -- March 23%, 2016 (FINAL) f
CORVUS Business Advisors fy f-¥
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
Allocation of Water Infrastructure to Benefiting Parties
Other
iw Stakeholder
Financial
|__1__|WiPincl Raw Water Pump Station &PipelineTwinning |S 16,194,926 | 451% | 0% 56.9%
|__2 [Water Reservor with Pump Station & Associated Connections _|$ 3,737,431 43.4% 4% 45.5%
[| 3 |Distrubution System Upgrade SG 744TH 52.3%
| 4 |Mitchellist\WaterMainExtension OS 1.24030 [41H 15% | 40.9%
| 5 __|Fire Flow Improvement-South Highway DrtoDuncan $191,900 43.1% 45% 52.3%
| 6 |Watermain ad AveSE 284,023 [159% 40.9% |
[7 _|Watermain Mitchell SUNto Town's NorthLimit |S ~~ 748,800] 431% [21%
| 8 [Watermain 10th Ave Nbetween Mitchell & Boundary |S 631,800] 43.1% | 56% | 0%
| 9 [Boundary RdN-DirksonDrNto Town's Norhtimit TS 748,800 [7 asim 4% 45.5%
|_11 [Watermain Broadway Ave E/SaamistoSthAvSE |S 552,043 43.4% 227% TI
*Project allocations were determined by Town staff using a ratio of gross land developed in benefiting basins to
gross land undeveloped in benefitting basins.
D4. Receipts and Adjusted Net Costs
Using the offsite levy share percentages shown in the previous section and applying those
percentages to project costs results in an offsite levy cost of approximately $12.78 million.
However, prior to allocating these costs to benefiting areas, existing offsite levy receipts
collected from developers need to be considered in determining the residual/net costs to
developers. Because this bylaw is new, no water levies have been applied/collected as
shown in the table below. This results in an adjusted offsite levy cost of approximately
$12.78 million.
Offsite Levy Net Costs
; Offsite Levy
Other Adjusted
me | meemene |e fn SE
|__7 [Watermain Mitchell StNioTownsNothUmit __'(|$ --22.057|$_--st70,sa7|$ --255,506/$ --S- ~--+(|S --~255,506 |
[9 [Boundary RAIN DiksonDeNioTown'sNonh Umit |$ --sa,c57[$--a5ten|ssaoerats SS 340,674 |
[10 |WaterMieinSthAe St ses|$z27s[s me te0ts dS «8,160 |
[11 [Watermain Broadway AveE/SaamistoSNAWSE |$ ----238.006/s --25,s7a|s teases --S«dS ~------«'188,368 |
[s 10,791,346 )$ 1,448,782 $42,780,382 (| 842,780,982
D5. Summary of Water Offsite Levy Cost Flow-through
As shown in the figure below, the total cost for water infrastructure that forms the basis of
the rate is approximately $12.78 million. The cost allocations to each benefitting party are
based on the benefitting percentages shown in previous section. The offsite levy balance
(due from developers) is allocated to various benefitting areas (as described in the next
section).
Version 5 -- March 23", 2016 (FINAL)
CORVUS Business Advisors / ()
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
Total Water Offsite Levy Costs
= Future Less: Levy = Ofrsite
Vevelopment Receipts Balance
(OSL Share) Applied $12.78M
$12.78M 000M
= Future
Development
"Financial
Oversizing"
$1.45M
, Less: Special
Project Grants & = Project = Other
Costs Contributions Balance Share
$31.85M $6.83M $25.02M $0.00M
= Existing
Development
$10.79M
*Future development share of cost is depicted in the 'grey' boxes, though that portion identified as 'financial
oversizing' is removed from rates today. Financial oversizing costs will gradually find their way into offsite levy
rates as the year of construction approaches.
D6. Water Infrastructure Benefiting Areas
Net developer costs have been allocated to 1 or more of the 18 offsite levy areas by Town
engineering staff as shown in the tables below. Those areas that benefit are "lit up" by the
number designator '1'.
(as A ran ea SS OM ORR Sonne
Pee ere [+ 5 la
Be nl lia) En
[3 |Oistrubution System Upgrade SOT TT ATT TTT Tiaras aaa aaa aa aa aa a a a a as |
ee ee Ot oe Re Se Oooo
[& Pee rewimnovemen Son rey oF omean [5100.08 TA a ||] a a | in
| 6 WatermansdAeSe CS NTA TIT Tata a a aa a ea ea aa
| 7 |Watermain Mitchel StNto Town's Nothumt _|$ --255,506/H1 A141) 411) 414 / F114 141 tt a tata tata aaa aa aa a rs |
[a [Wateman 10th Ave Noetween Miche & Gounday 1s [4A alata leit alte (setae [etait ie
| 9 [Boundary RON -Owkson OrNto Town's Northiimt |S 3406741414) i171 Tit s(t iia s iris ayaa aaa ara aa |
[10 |Wateriein@hAwe CS OL TTA ITAL T TTT ata aa a a sa aa a a aaa a
Me ae EE SS
ol le rol Te IE I CR UE Ce
aici 151, a) 0 ee a a a
[> creme (FT oe
[3 [Distututon SystemUpgade CS SKIT ATI TIT IAAI A IAI titi a iota a ai aaa ara aa a a Ta
[sal St Water Main xenon 5,00 ISAS a eee a a ete Ae eae ae Aes ea a
5 Poe ew imemveren Senay Oe Cuca ['S 0405 [AA on nt 0 || a a et]
[6 [WatermansdAwSE CdS OT AAT Aa aa iia aa aaa as ar aa aa aa a |
[7 [Watermain Michell StNtoTown's NothUma «| $255,506 / 4141s; a1 a [tis tila iat si ata i stata tai atari aaa a |
[8 [Watermain 10th Ave Nbetween Mitchell & Bounday [s _- [4] 4]alalalalalalal tia lal alata ial alal aside ad a
[9 [Boundary RAN-Dirkson DrNtoTown's Noth Limit [$ 340.674/ 4741719141417 / a7 i171 F Tata i aap ait ata tas tas aa aa ay |
OM YS FT OO OO OO ON Ow TB
[11 Wateman Bestvey he ESemswoncese [sxe Deir
Version 5 -- March 23, 2016 (FINAL) ) =f /
CORVUS Business Advisors AD } (
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
pom] repetenmipnen | eerer sf] none s| a eee ona inal inal esl ws] rr] rales] asf] ao] nalas
aia Ka 6D) 1) 0) ON NY) OO NE
Hi clean bl 6D) 0) 0) 0) NH A OO Uh
H-faste Sve ae Bienes ----------}--- gee ee ee ore on ene oe oe ee ee ee eee ae eee oe eee etn
Fa aha ami 1) (1) ED) OD 0 OO YE EU OO A
| 6 [Watermain ded Ave SEs 6297 Pa a aaa a ae aa aa a
ge FF EEE AN SHCUEGEW EN A HEO EEN GN ZORUENEY TRORGEGENGERUTGLG
|_9 [Boundary RIN -Dikson OrNto Town's Noth Limit [Ss 34067a Ta TNT e Tt ( alata tsi ia aia ia a a a aa a aa
Hit Wisma: bandit) Ae Dimer one Se -- 1+ -- ase PERE PEE ee EE ee aE aE ee Se oe ee pe De Ee ee eee eee eee ee eee eet
D7. Reserve Balance
The water reserve opening balance is in deficit ($3,103,565.37) million. A negative balance
indicates the presence of front-ending--i.e., this amount is owed to the Town by future
development. The Town's ledgers should be amended to reflect this balance as it includes
expenditures to date. In addition to establishing a dedicated, distinct and separate water
offsite levy reserve (required by the MGA), it is also recommended that the Town develop a
set of "sub-ledgers" to track the amounts due to front-ending parties, including interest owed
in accordance with the rates in effect at that time.
Water Offsite Levy Reserve Balance
Description Dr Cr Balance
Offsite Lewy Expenditures to December 31, 2014 $ 3,103,565.37 $ (3,103,565.37)
Offsite Levy Receipt Allocations to December 31, 2014 $ - $ (3,103,565, 37)
Debenture Interest Accrued to December 31, 2014 $ - $ (3, 103,565.37)
Unallocated Receipts to December 31, 2014 $ = $ (3,103,565, 37)
Opening Balance $ (3, 103,565.37)
D8. Development and Water Infrastructure Staging Impacts
Water offsite infrastructure will be constructed in staged fashion over the 25-year
development period. We have reviewed the availability of offsite levy funds to meet these
construction requirements and found that offsite levy reserve funds will not be sufficient to
pay for construction of water infrastructure from time to time--front ending of infrastructure
will be required. A front-ender is the party that constructs and pays up front for infrastructure
that benefits other parties.
In order to compensate parties for capital they provide in front-ending offsite infrastructure
construction, a 3.0% interest allowance has been charged to the reserve when in a negative
balance. Further, a 1.0% interest credit has been provided to the reserve when it is in a
positive balance. The graph and table below outline water levy reserve balances over the
25-year development period.
Version 5 -- March 23%, 2016 (FINAL) :
CORVUS Business Advisors 4) y i
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
Anticipated Water Offsite Levy Reserve Balances
Water Reserve
$-
or DO - OM ON KF OD = nor DQ ---- Reserve
N N N N N N N N N N N N N
$(12,000,000)
Year
*The interest staging adjustment built into the rates ensures that the reserve always returns to breakeven by the
end of the 25-year review period.
Version 5 -- March 23", 2016 (FINAL) A
CORVUS Business Advisors Ms) aan 4
>
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
Anticipated Water Offsite Levy Reserve Balances
Opening Balance
Year Receipts Expenditure Interest Balance
2015 $ 44,942 $ 4,973,429 $ (240,962) $ (8,273,015)
2016 $ - $ - $ (248,190) $ (8,521,205)
2017 $ 1,601,446 $ 487,709 $ (222,224) $ (7,629,691)
2018 $ 12,134 $ $ (228,527) $ (7,846,084)
2019 $ 258,938 $ - $ (227,614) $ (7,814,760)
2020 $ 694,797 $ 2,366,143 $ (284,583) $ (9,770,690)
2021 $ 3,529,347 $ - $ (187,240) $ (6,428,583)
2022 $ 228,611 $ 769,515 $ (209,085) $ (7,178,571)
2023 $ = $ > $ (215,357) $ (7,393,929)
2024 $ 638,311 $ $ (202,669) $ (6,958,286)
2025 $ 254,903 $ 596,529 $ (218,997) $ (7,518,909)
2026 $ 1,515,073 $ - $ (180,115) $ (6,183,951)
2027 $ 392,041 $ . $ (173,757) $ (5,965,668)
2028 $ 180,547 $ - $ (173,554) $ (5,958,675)
2029 $ 1,992,335 $ - $ (118,990) $ (4,085,330)
2030 $ - $ - $ (122,560) $ (4,207,890)
2031 $ 142,554 $ - $ (121,960) $ (4,187,296)
2032 $ | 8 - $$ (125,619) $ (4,312,915)
2033 $ 4,303,553 $ = $ (281) $ (9,642)
2034 $ < $ = $ (289) $ (9,932)
2035 $ - $ - $ (298) $ (10,230)
2036 $ 10,230 $ = $ 0 $ 0
2037 $ te $ $ 0 $ 0
2038 $ - $ - $ 0 $ 0
2039 $ - $ . $ 0 $ 0
Version 5 -- March 23", 2016 (FINAL)
CORVUS Business Advisors A y k
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
APPENDIX E: Sanitary
Unless indicated otherwise, the information shown in this appendix reflects the status of
infrastructure, costs, receipts, balances, etc. assuming all projects are included (Rate
Scenario 1).
E1. Sanitary Offsite Infrastructure
In order to support future growth, sanitary offsite infrastructure is required. The estimated
cost of this infrastructure is based upon: (a) actual construction costs to the cut-off date, (b)
debenture interest associated with financing, and (c) future cost estimates. Total cost is
approximately $15.83 million as outlined in the table below. Actual costs, debenture interest
(if any), and cost estimates were provided by Town staff. It is important to note that these
costs represent "gross" costs, of which only a portion will go to support future development
during the 25-year review period. The remainder of this section outlines how the "net" costs
for future development are determined.
Summary of Sanitary Offsite Infrastructure
i Estimated Cost of
ae a3. Cost of Debenture a SO!) Total Project
Cie aC
Y 1 __|Senlary NetworkinMiche SINS ---'($ = |$ _614.900[$ 614,900,
|:
& River Terrace ah :
| 3 [Boundary RUIN industrialtTrunk Upgrade | SC TSS 2595,000]$ 2,595,000 |
| 4 __|NWiFutureUpgrades, CGS 7, 166,000[$ 7,186,000 |
[| 6 _[BrdAVeSE (Mitchell St foBroadwayAve) | SC TS St SOS 410,150
| 7 |othiAve Sanitary VariableSizes SSS 1,201,800 $ 1,207,800 |
[se SS 5,834,850 TS 15,834,850 |
"Costs estimates provided by Town staff and their engineering advisors.
**Estimates include engineering fees and contingencies, and land costs where applicable.
"*Projects 2 and 5 were transferred from the ICF. Project 5 has been omitted until such time as the project
scope, costs estimates, and grants are confirmed. It will be added to the offsite levy during a future update.
Version 5 -- March 23", 2016 (FINAL) (
CORVUS Business Advisors 4, ¢é p
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
Corvus Model Offsite Projects| Map- Sanitary |
S SK SJ Po I = iar A a industrial Trunk Upgrade (Northiand 356 Ha)
ie) oe
WESTEND elit | | Lara St party 1] rutune
Geom wea
i aaa Wie aes
Ly Ay aa sae TE=14
Fi iy.
------ | | site ES TOWN OF aaa
Anticipated Start Year of Construction
a Upgrade to South Trunk Due to Addition of Bayliss Area
| 3 [Boundary Rd N Industrial Trunk Upgrade Cs] 2025
| 4 _|NWFuture Upgrades eS Ea ae
| 6 [8rd Ave SE (Mitchell St toBroadwayAve) --------si| SS 2022
| __7 __|9th Ave Sanitary Variable Sizes" i il 2020)
E2. Sanitary Offsite Infrastructure Grants & Contributions to Date
The MGA enables a municipality to allocate the costs of offsite infrastructure to
development, other than those costs that have been provided by way of special grant or
contribution (i.e., contributed infrastructure). Town of Redcliff has received approximately
$0.41 million in special grants and contributions for sanitary offsite levy infrastructure as
shown in the table below (note, if the Town receives additional grants or contributions in the
future, it will be reflected in one of the annual updates and rates adjusted accordingly). The
result is that the total reduced project estimated cost is approximately $15.79 million.
Version 5 -- March 23, 2016 (FINAL)
CORVUS Business Advisors 4 Wj
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
Special Grants and Contributions for Sanitary Offsite Infrastructure
Developer ,
Total Project : Reduced Project
Project Grants | Agreement
oe
|___1___|Sanitary Network in Mitchell StN S14. 900] § SS 14,900 |
ee ee
& River Terrace
| 3\__--|BoundaryRdIN Industrial Trunk Upgrade TS 2,595,000] = SS 2,595,000 |
| 4 INWiFutureUpgrades 7,166,000] $7,166,000 |
| 6 «(Sr AVE SE (Mitchell St toBroadwayAve) 1S ~~ 4t0,150[§ = SS 410,150 |
[| 7 [oth AveiSanitary VanableSizes TS 1.207,800[$ = SS 1,201,800 |
[gs 76e34e50[s Sa 402 [$15,795,448 |
"Developer contributions stem from ICF collections for ICF projects that were transferred to the offsite levy (see
Section AQ in Appendix A).
E3. Sanitary Offsite Infrastructure Benefiting Parties
The sanitary offsite infrastructure previously outlined will benefit various parties to varying
degrees. During this review three potential benefiting parties were identified including:
e Existing Growth (Town of Redcliff) -- a portion of the sanitary infrastructure which is
required to service existing residents.
e Other Stakeholders & Financial Oversizing -- other parties (such as neighboring
municipalities) that benefit from the infrastructure, as well as that portion of cost
which benefits new development beyond the 25 year review period ("financial
oversizing"). Financial oversizing is determined by calculating the pro rata portion of
cost beyond the 25 year review period--by comparing the anticipated year of
construction to the current year. When rates are updated in the future, the 25 year
review period is moved forward and more and more oversizing costs are included in
rate calculations. Accordingly, oversizing costs, though removed from rates today,
are ultimately born by developers.
e Future Growth (Town of Redcliff Developers) -- all growth related infrastructure (i.e.,
levyable sanitary infrastructure costs) during the 25 year rate planning period.
The table below outlines the allocation of sanitary offsite levy infrastructure costs to
benefiting parties, as well as the year of construction which has been used to calculate
financial oversizing. Percentage allocations have been determined after reducing sanitary
offsite levy infrastructure costs for grants and contributions described earlier.
Version 5 -- March 23, 2016 (FINAL)
CORVUS Business Advisors fy p /)
DEK
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
Allocation of Sanitary Infrastructure to Benefiting Parties
|___1__|Sanitary NetworkiniMitchellStN TS 14,900] 16.3% | 85% | 50.2%
m0 al
& River Terrace
| __3___ [Boundary Ra'N Industrial Thnk Upgrade TS 2,595,000] 33.6% | 26.5% | 39.8%
| 4 [NW FutureUpgrades 7 166,000] 77% 81H 0%
| 6 [SM Ave SE (Mitchell St toBroadwayAve) S$ 410,150] 0.0% | 28.0% | 72.0%
*Project allocations were determined by Town staff using a ratio of gross land developed in benefiting basins to
gross land undeveloped in benefitting basins.
E4. Receipts and Adjusted Net Costs
Using the offsite levy share percentages shown in the previous section and applying those
percentages to project costs results in an offsite levy cost of approximately $3.95 million.
However, prior to allocating these costs to benefiting areas, existing offsite levy receipts
collected from developers need to be considered in determining the residual/net costs to
developers. Because this bylaw is new, no sanitary levies have been applied/collected as
shown in the table below. This results in an adjusted offsite levy cost of approximately $3.95
million.
Offsite Levy Net Costs
ee ee eee
[1 [SanlayNewoRInMichIStN |s --001e7|s --205e03|s --sossaos Sst 308,840
| 3 -- Boundary RAN industrial Tunk Upgrade ___| 3 erases ear | 10s mu [3 Ts 1035
[4 |NW.Futurs Upgrades IS 5 t30.455[$ 2oressis - ~Is - '|S
[6 [Bd AW SE (Mitchell St toBroadwayAv) |S - ~*|S --ttaeazis----05g08|$ SS (205,308 |
[7 [etAve Sanitary VanableSzes SC «dS a0 etaaols SS (961,440 |
[s 8230016 [$3eiaoeo|s seaasaafs OS (3,949,344 |
E5. Summary of Sanitary Offsite Levy Cost Flow-through
As shown in the figure below, the total costs for sanitary infrastructure that forms the basis of
the rate is approximately $3.95 million. The cost allocations to each benefitting party are
based on the benefitting percentages shown in the previous section. The offsite levy
balance (due from developers) is allocated to various benefitting areas (as described in the
next section).
Version 5 -- March 23", 2016 (FINAL)
CORVUS Business Advisors Ay i f
'A
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
Total Sanitary Offsite Levy Costs
= Future Less: Levy = Off-site
Development Receipts B
alance
(OSL Share)/ " iii $3.95M
3.95M 50.00M
= Future
Development
"Financial
Oversizing"
$3.61M
: Less: Special :
Project Grants & = Project = Other
Costs Contributions Balance Share
$15.83M $0.47M $15.79M $0.00M
= Existing
Development
$8.23M
"Future development share of cost is depicted in the 'grey' boxes, though that portion identified as 'financial
oversizing' is removed from rates today. Financial oversizing costs will gradually find their way into offsite levy
rates as the year of construction approaches.
E6. Sanitary Infrastructure Benefiting Areas
Net developer costs have been allocated to 1 or more of the 18 offsite levy areas by Town
engineering staff as shown in the tables below. Those areas that benefit are "lit up" by the
number designator '1'.
fem erjetvonmnprom | Prete [fea saa] 5] as] 2a] 2s] 24] 24] 54] 04] 59] 84] a0] <1] 48] 3] c4] <0] on [oa] ss] 04] 04] as] ea] en] oa]
gan fe Ae ee
Beye i Ue ele
[3 Boundary RAN Industial Trunk Upgrade {$s toss A)al alti alta ai aia}aiaispaialalsiaiaia) | | | | Iola aioli
A FSR | (FN FD OE Pn
| 6 [31d Ave SE (Mitchell St to Broadway Ave) $296,308 | Peer
[7 Jan Ave Sanitay VatableSzes iS ooo | PT
fwem|_--Prcttneenpten | Pert [sf ra] va] v4] ra] as] oa] 05] 04] 0s] 0s] 03] oa] 4 02] rsfroa] a] oeies isa] rdfrea] sles sling as
ee A aye Te Et tt tt tt
* [ieee Toran [e Ve 0
[3 [Boundary RN industial Trunk Upgrade {$s tosszs (tial al tiaiaiaiaiaia) | I I fd |
[ra NW Future Upgrades AS fe ee a ed |
| 6 [3rd Ave SE (Mitchell St to Broadway Ave) |S 205,308 |e
[7 |ah Ave Santay VerableSwes «dS oon Po
em] Pretcreomton, | Paaaare™ [nna raf raf] a] eae nea oa ms arin] rl 14a] a] nal iel
+ [Senna ek Mac 92 ta_----__1 __ 90,00 Tt ee rea ela
| [ei rer tere nn |e (om ee 0 a
[3 [Boundary RAN industaal Trunk Upgrade [s tosszas ff} |_| | | | tt
[4 Thwv Future Upgrades dS = PY || a
[6 [3rd Ave SE (Michell St toBroadwey Aw) ___[s rms0etalatalata) | | 1 11 | 1 11-11]. 111) fy
en Da
Version 5 -- March 23", 2016 (FINAL) 3 ) la
CORVUS Business Advisors & LY
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
E7. Reserve Balance
The sanitary reserve opening balance is $0. In addition to establishing a dedicated, distinct
and separate sanitary offsite levy reserve (required by the MGA), it is also recommended
that the Town develop a set of "sub-ledgers" to track the amounts due to front-ending
parties, including interest owed in accordance with the rates in effect at that time.
Sanitary Offsite Levy Reserve Balance
Description Dr Cr Balance
Offsite Lew Expenditures to December 31, 2014 $ = $ c
Offsite Lew Receipt Allocations to December 31, 2014 $ - $ °
Debenture Interest Accrued to December 31, 2014 $ - $ -
Unallocated Receipts to December 31, 2014 $ - $ -
Opening Balance $ -
E8. Development and Sanitary Infrastructure Staging Impacts
Sanitary offsite infrastructure will be constructed in staged fashion over the 25-year
development period. We have reviewed the availability of offsite levy funds to meet these
construction requirements and found that offsite levy reserve funds will not be sufficient to
pay for construction of sanitary infrastructure from time to time--front ending of
infrastructure will be required. A front-ender is the party that constructs and pays up front for
infrastructure that benefits other parties.
In order to compensate parties for capital they provide in front-ending offsite infrastructure
construction, a 3.0% interest allowance has been charged to the reserve when in a negative
balance. Further, a 1.0% interest credit has been provided to the reserve when it is in a
positive balance. The graph and table below outline sanitary levy reserve balances over the
25-year development period.
Anticipated Sanitary Offsite Levy Reserve Balances
| Sanitary Reserve
OO
$1,000,000 +--+ ----|
$- -- ---- --
LO co bine T+ ™~ oO © o>)
$600,000) 5 --S +e gs 8B 88
$(1,000,000) {4 __"'_|_ AYA) 4. _ fe SSS
$(1,500,000) + -- EEE i
$(2,000,000) .) --t-- Rosine
$(2,500,000)
| Year
Version 5 -- March 23%, 2016 (FINAL)
CORVUS Business Advisors 4p ( £
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
*The interest staging adjustment built into the rates ensures that the reserve always retums to breakeven by the
end of the 25-year review period.
Anticipated Sanitary Offsite Levy Reserve Balances
Opening Balance
Year Receipts Expenditure Interest Balance
2015 $ - $ - $ - $ =
2016 $ = $ ~ $ - $ i
2017 $ 1,002,669 $ S $ 10,027 $ 1,012,695
2018 $ 4,219 $ - $ 10,169 $ 1,027,084
2019 $ 42,043 $ - $ 10,691 $ 1,079,818
2020 $ 241,590 $ 2,680,208 §$ (40,764) $ (1,399,564)
2021 $ 704,332 §$ - $ (20,857) $ (716,089)
2022 $ 17,739 $ 363,192 $ (31,846) $ (1,093,387)
2023 $ - $ - $ (32,802) $ (1,126,189)
2024 $ 426,208 $ - $ (20,999) $ (720,981)
2025 $ 297,742 $ 1,803,623 $ (66,806) $ (2,293,667)
2026 $ §15,232 $ = $ (53,353) $ (1,831,789)
2027 $ 136,318 § + $ (50,864) $ (1,746,335)
2028 $ 210,890 $ - $ (46,063) $ (1,581,509)
2029 $ 460,612 $ = $ (33,627) $ (1,154,523)
2030 $ = $ = $ (34,636) $ (1,189,159)
2031 $ 23,146 $ = $ (34,980) $ (1,200,993)
2032 $ = $ = $ (36,030) $ (1,237,023)
2033 $ 1,235,503 $ 2 $ (46) $ (1,566)
2034 $ - $ = $ (47) $ (1,613)
2035 $ : $ = $ (48) $ (1,661)
2036 $ 1,661 $ = $ 0 $ 0
2037 $ $ 7% $ 0 $ 0
2038 $ : $ s $ 0 $ 0
2039 $ 4 $ a $ 0 $ 0
Version 5 -- March 23%, 2016 (FINAL) ; /)
CORVUS Business Advisors Y) } )
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
APPENDIX F: Stormwater
Unless indicated otherwise, the information shown in this appendix reflects the status of
infrastructure, costs, receipts, balances, etc. assuming all projects are included (Rate
Scenario 1).
F1. Stormwater Offsite Infrastructure
In order to support future growth, stormwater offsite infrastructure is required. The
estimated cost of this infrastructure is based upon: (a) actual construction costs to the cut-off
date, (b) debenture interest associated with financing, and (c) future cost estimates. Total
cost is approximately $5.99 million as outlined in the table below. Actual costs, debenture
interest (if any), and cost estimates were provided by Town staff. It is important to note that
these costs represent "gross" costs, of which only a portion will go to support future
development during the 25-year review period. The remainder of this section outlines how
the "net" costs for future development are determined.
Summary of Stormwater Offsite Infrastructure
Estimated Cost of
Cost of Debenture ; Total Project
| meen ft sae RRS
1 outa stom NS CCS Ss 1,014,000] $ 1,074,000,
| 2 [StormiNetwork Mitchel SENS 1,365,000 $ 1,365,000 |
| 3 [Storm Network ingth Ave SSS 448,980] $ 1,448,980 |
is Se 5,986,730 $5,986,730 |
*Costs estimates provided by Town staff and their engineering advisors.
**Estimates include engineering fees and contingencies, and land costs where applicable.
***Project 5 was transferred from the ICF.
Version 5 -- March 23%, 2016 (FINAL)
CORVUS Business Advisors /
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
| q
Corvus Mot BI Offsite Projects|Map - Storm
1) a Viet ©) mamma Cutfall Storm North to Coulee in Cypruse County
-- ' a Pans =o) -- es Geox a pt Mirehell (Northside FSR Oratt)
Ss gil ES It * aa | 4 --~ ake monk palatial aeinb ahs as ;
N SEE ee @ mmm Broodeay E / Soamis Storm Network (Eastside FSR)
TONS TTA IL
OT ae SNE Td
ane, Pe Ne] HE tet =
OTs Ree Sian // TTS
iM]
Pon] Ke. "tl | 0m OF REDCLIFF
Anticipated Start Year of Construction
| 2 |Storm Network Mitchell StN | 2025
| 3 |StormNetworkingthAve 2020
| 4 |Storm Network in Broadway AveE/Saamis Dr] 2025
| 5 |Storm Pond Interconnections (3) | 2020S
F2. Stormwater Offsite Infrastructure Grants & Contributions to Date
The MGA enables a municipality to allocate the costs of offsite infrastructure to
development, other than those costs that have been provided by way of special grant or
contribution (i.e., contributed infrastructure). Town of Redcliff has received approximately
$0.04 million in special grants and contributions for stormwater offsite levy infrastructure as
shown in the table below (note, if the Town receives other grants or contributions in the
future, it will be reflected in one of the annual updates and rates adjusted accordingly). The
result is that the total reduced project estimated cost is approximately $5.94 million.
Version 5 -- March 23", 2016 (FINAL) yf
CORVUS Business Advisors Fy) 4 x
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
Special Grants and Contributions for Stormwater Offsite Infrastructure
[1 [outa Storm Ng 014,000 [$I 1,014,000
| 2 |StormiNetWork Mitchel StN TS t65,000/$ = SS 1,365,000 |
| 3 [Storm NetworkingthAve St tasgs0[$ = SS 1,448,980 |
|_4 |Storm Network in Broadway AveE/SaamisDr_ [$s 958,750]$ = $958,750 |
| 5 [Storm Pondiinterconnections (3) TS 1,200,000] $ = S965] S 1,158,035 |
[$s 5986,730[$ = S65 TS 5,944,765 |
"Developer contributions stem from ICF collections for ICF projects that were transferred to the offsite levy (see
Section AQ in Appendix A).
F3. Stormwater Offsite Infrastructure Benefiting Parties
The stormwater offsite infrastructure previously outlined will benefit various parties to varying
degrees. During this review three potential benefiting parties were identified including:
e Existing Growth (Town of Redcliff) -- a portion of the stormwater infrastructure which
is required to service existing residents.
e Other Stakeholders & Financial Oversizing -- other parties (such as neighboring
municipalities) that benefit from the infrastructure, as well as that portion of cost
which benefits new development beyond the 25 year review period ("financial
oversizing"). Financial oversizing is determined by calculating the pro rata portion of
cost beyond the 25 year review period--by comparing the anticipated year of
construction to the current year. When rates are updated in the future, the 25 year
review period is moved forward and more and more oversizing costs are included in
rate calculations. Accordingly, oversizing costs, though removed from rates today,
are ultimately born by developers.
e Future Growth (Town of Redcliff Developers) -- all growth related infrastructure (i.e.,
levyable stormwater infrastructure costs) during the 25 year rate planning period.
The table below outlines the allocation of stormwater offsite levy infrastructure costs to
benefiting parties, as well as the year of construction which has been used to calculate
financial oversizing. Percentage allocations have been determined after reducing
stormwater offsite levy infrastructure costs for grants and contributions described earlier.
Allocation of Stormwater Infrastructure to Benefiting Parties
Ms gets ae "Esimatea Coat | "uiStam% | erat | Share
i ; a ee a. 31 fa EE 5 ee versizing % is F -
1 CSN S$ §=§ 1,014,000 |e tncsceeee) 52.1% |
| 2 |Storm Network Mitchell StN 1,365,000] 16.3% | 83.5% 50.2%
| 3 [StormiNetworkingthiAve 448.980] 00% 200% 80.0%
| 4 |StormiNetwork in Broadway AveE/SaamisDr [S$ 958,750[ 00% | 400% | 60.0%
| 5 [Storm Pond interconnections (@) SS .158,035 [0% 200% 80.0%
*Project allocations were determined by Town staff using a ratio of gross land developed in benefiting basins to
Version 5 -- March 23, 2016 (FINAL)
CORVUS Business Advisors A) yi A
"Le! \
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
gross land undeveloped in benefitting basins.
F4. Receipts and Adjusted Net Costs
Using the offsite levy share percentages shown in the previous section and applying those
percentages to project costs results in an offsite levy cost of approximately $3.87 million.
However, prior to allocating these costs to benefiting areas, existing offsite levy receipts
collected from developers need to be considered in determining the residual/net costs to
developers. Because this bylaw is new, no stormwater levies have been applied/collected as
shown in the table below. This results in an adjusted offsite levy cost of approximately $3.87
million.
Offsite Levy Net Costs
| Other Sepesevy Adjusted
| 1 [Outfall Storm N= stg 05i[ ss 351.980]s Sa7.g70]s_ - S5:27,970]
| 2 |Stonm Network Mitchel StNo TS a.zsots 457.057] $ as.se5[s TS 685,585 |
| 3 |StomNetwokingihAve, SSeS 1tsate4[s TS 1,159,184 |
| 4 |Storm NetWork in Broadway AveE/SaamisDr |S CS 83.500 TS 575.250] TS 575,250]
[5 [Storm Pond interconnections (3) SC CS co7 {$96,428} sd S 926,428 |
[$s 66,409[$ 1,713,939/$ 3,874.46 $$ 3,874,416 |
F5. Summary of Stormwater Offsite Levy Cost Flow-through
As shown in the figure below, the total cost for stormwater infrastructure that forms the basis
of the rate is approximately $3.87 million. The cost allocations to each benefitting party are
based on the benefitting percentages shown in previous section. The offsite levy balance
(due from developers) is allocated to various benefitting areas (as described in the next
section).
Total Stormwater Offsite Levy Costs
= Future Less: Levy = Off-site
Development_, Ti aan Balance
(OSL Share)| ~ iad $3.87M
¢3.87M $0,.00M M
= Future
Development
"Financial
Oversizing"
$1.71M
- Less: Special
Project Grants & = Project = Other
Costs Contributions Balance Share
$5.99M $0.04M $5,94M $0.00M
= Existing
Development
$0.36M
Version 5 -- March 23", 2016 (FINAL) , /f )
CORVUS Business Advisors AN Ph A
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
*Future development share of cost is depicted in the 'grey' boxes, though that portion identified as 'financial
oversizing' is removed from rates today. Financial oversizing costs will gradually find their way into offsite levy
rates as the year of construction approaches.
F6. Stormwater Infrastructure Benefiting Areas
Net developer costs have been allocated to 1 or more of the 18 offsite levy areas by Town
engineering staff as shown in the tables below. Those areas that benefit are "lit up" by the
number designator '1'.
pom| __Pameendnemtpsen | ere [ss [va] sa] va] sa as |23] 20] 24] 28 ]as [22] 03] a4] a] «x ]ea] ex] ea] ca[s [aa] es] ex]sa]er[ea]es [ones]
|_1 JOutat StormN 527.970 AT a as a aa aaa aaa
|_2 [Storm Network Mitchell SUN TS esses | Ta a a a a a a a ee
|_3 [Storm NetworkingthAve TS 8,159,086 PT TT eT Te ea
[_4 [Storm Network in Broadway Ave E/Seamis Or T'S --575,250 | eer
L_5 [Storm Pond interconnections (3) Ss 926,478 [rT
fmom|_____--Prjecrounsnnton | Dermeret [ra] 22] 73] 74] 78] as] 02] 3[04] so] os] ea] 03] 04] 05 [os] ra[ ios was] [ia] a] v4]raf se] va] aa tals
EE es CEA Iie Ae ee a Ey I ee
|_2 [Storm Network Mitehen Stn $0585 fies men en reer ee |e fe | ees mee] || eee] ee | eee | eb et) fees fs] nef ees Ore fees | Suet Yet] bee) cee sees |
[_3_ [Storm Network in Sth Ave 6950, 004 Te DD ee Df | ee fee fs ef deen eee] fe fee | ed ese |e
|_4 [Storm Network in Broadway Ave E/Saamis Or TS 575,250 fe eer
a
fmm] Precept | Deer es] a] na ine| sea] elves] sz] wafers] wari ra] ara] ma aa] a]
11 JOutteit Storm NS 527,070 Pr | at) | De) ed Dl] ae | dD es et] es fee |e | eos | et | | Set | Wek] | ee] | et] el) | |
[| _2 JStorm Network Mitchel SiN Ss 68.565 ee eT eT ere
[3 |StormNetworkinSihAve dS 9,150,184 PPA A | eet Dt ete
|_4 [Storm Network in Broadway Ave E/Saamis Or TS 575,250 (Ia tet a a | eee eer
L_5 [Storm Pond interconnections (3) SORT TTA IAT AIP isi ais) eit) | |.) |) |} |) |) dd)
F7. Reserve Balance
The stormwater reserve opening balance is $0. In addition to establishing a dedicated,
distinct and separate stormwater offsite levy reserve (required by the MGA), it is also
recommended that the Town develop a set of "sub-ledgers" to track the amounts due to
front-ending parties, including interest owed in accordance with the rates in effect at that
time.
Stormwater Offsite Levy Reserve Balance
Description Dr Cr Balance
Offsite Lewy Expenditures to December 31, 2014 $ - § -
Offsite Lew Receipt Allocations to December 31, 2014 $ - $ =
Debenture Interest Accrued to December 31, 2014 $ : $ -
Unallocated Receipts to December 31, 2014 $ - $ -
Opening Balance $ =
F8. Development and Stormwater Infrastructure Staging Impacts
Stormwater offsite infrastructure will be constructed in staged fashion over the 25-year
development period. We have reviewed the availability of offsite levy funds to meet these
construction requirements and found that offsite levy reserve funds will not be sufficient to
pay for construction of stormwater infrastructure from time to time--front ending of
infrastructure will be required. A front-ender is the party that constructs and pays up front for
infrastructure that benefits other parties.
In order to compensate parties for capital they provide in front-ending offsite infrastructure
Version 5 -- March 23%, 2016 (FINAL)
CORVUS Business Advisors ff Z h
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
construction, a 3.0% interest allowance has been charged to the reserve when in a negative
balance. Further, a 1.0% interest credit has been provided to the reserve when it is in a
positive balance. The graph and table below outline stormwater levy reserve balances over
the 25-year development period.
Anticipated Stormwater Offsite Levy Reserve Balances
Storm Reserve
$1,500,000
$1,000,000 ee
$500,000 tf -| -- Reserve |
5 \ Balance
* $(500,000) 45 ee ~O/2 9 _ 9
ane cn PF": |
$(1,500,000) - i _
$(2,000,000)
Year
*The interest staging adjustment built into the rates ensures that the reserve always returns to breakeven by the
end of the 25-year review period.
Version 5 -- March 23", 2016 (FINAL) A of
CORVUS Business Advisors My Ge: x
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
Anticipated Stormwater Offsite Levy Reserve Balances
Opening Balance
Year Receipts Expenditure Interest Balance
2015 $ - §$ - §$ x -§ ;
2016 $ $ . $ ' $ '
2017 $ 988,147 $ = $ 9,881 $ 998,028
2018 $ - $ > $ 9,980 $ 1,008,009
2019 $ 22,452 $ = $ 10,305 $ 1,040,765
2020 $ 531,144 $ 2,417,796 $ (25,377) $ (871,264)
2021 $ 597,755 $ - $ (8,205) $ (281,714)
2022 $ - $ - $ (8,451) $ (290,165)
2023 $ - $ - § (8,705) $ (298,870)
2024 $ 588,737 $ = $ 2,899 $ 292,765
2025 $ 446,005 $ 2,404,004 $ (49,957) $ (1,715,190)
2026 $ - $ a oS (51,456) $ (1,766,646)
2027 $ 476,132 $ - § (38,715) $ (1,329,229)
2028 $ 315,903 $ - §$ (30,400) $ (1,043,725)
2029 $ 477,462 $ - §$ (16,988) $ (583,252)
2030 $ - $ - $ (17,498) $ (600,749)
2031 $ - $ * $ (18,022) $ (618,772)
2032 $ - § - $ (18,563) $ (637,335)
2033 $ 637,335 $ - § - § (0)
2034 $ - $ - §$ - $ (0)
2035 $ - $ - $ " $ (0)
2036 $ - §$ - §$ « '§ (0)
2037 $ - § - $§ - § (0)
2038 $ - § - § . § (0)
2039 $ - § - §$ - $ (0)
Version 5 -- March 23", 2016 (FINAL)
CORVUS Business Advisors pa
J «€el\
Town of Redcliff Offsite Levy Review
APPENDIX G: Benchmark Comparisons
The Town's average offsite levy rate is compared to other Alberta municipalities in the table
below. The rate is similar to most municipalities of comparable size, and less than the
Town's primary municipal competitor--the City of Medicine Hat.
Benchmark Comparison
Town of Hinton ~$56,200 ~$56,200 ~$56,200
City of Lacombe (in process)* $23,214 $189,061 $60,446
Town of Drayton Valley (in process)* $51,548 $78,204 $60,684
Town of Sylvan Lake* $42,103 $141,281 $65,477
Town of Blackfalds $41,102 $113,393 ~$66,446
Town of Edson* $17,798 $160,069 $77,434
Town of Rocky Mountain House (in process)* $59,208 $162,351 $90,716
Town of Strathmore (incl Area Charge) $67,141 $97,320 ~$93,300
Red Deer County (Gasoline Alley) $64,155 $141,333 ~$96,458
Leduc County* $106,255 $106,255 $106,255
Town of Redcliff* $79,938 $208,538 $109,205
City of Leduc* $80,837 $140,191 ~$110,000
Town of High River $118,270 $145,920 ~$130,000
Town of Beaumont* $148,115 $324,466 $160,900
City of Medicine Hat* $132,286 $476.918 ~$250,000
Version 5 -- March 23", 2016 (FINAL)
CORVUS Business Advisors L9) J ra