Grand Forks Development Cost Charge Bylaw No. 1425, 1994
Grand Forks, British Columbia
· No. 1425
· adopted 1995-05-23
· summary & facts
This is the exact embedded text of the captured official document.
Snapshot 99ee273cb1b6 · verified 2026-10-26 ·
original document ·
archived snapshot ·
unofficial consolidation, the official version is held by the municipal clerk.
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS
******************************************
BYLAW NO. 1425
A Bylaw to Impose Development Cost Charges
WHEREAS pursuant to the Municipal Act, Council may, by
bylaw, impose development cost charges under the terms and
conditions of the Act;
AND WHEREAS the development cost charges may be imposed for
the purpose of providing funds for the municipality to pay
the capital costs of providing, constructing, altering or
expanding sewage, water, drainage and highway facilities and
for the acquisition of park land or any of them, in order to
serve, directly or indirectly, the development in respect of
which the charges are imposed;
AND WHEREAS a development cost charge is not payable where:
a) the development does not impose new capital cost burdens
on the municipality, or .
b) a development cost charge has previously been paid for
the same development unless, as a result of further
development, new capital cost burdens will be imposed
on the municipality;
AND WHEREAS in fixing development cost charges imposed by
this bylaw, pursuant to Section 983(2) of the Municipal Act,
Council has taken into consideration furture land use
patterns and development, and the passing of works and
services, described in an official community plan and Council
considers that the charges imposed by this bylaw:
a) are not excessive in relation to the capital cost of
prevailing standards or service in the municipality;
b) will not deter development in the municipality;
c) will not discourage the construction of reasonably priced
housing or the provision of reasonably priced serviced
land in the municipality;
/ Continued on Page 2
Page,2
AND WHEREAS in the opinion of Council the charges imposed by
this bylaw are related to capital costs attributable to
projects involved in the capital expenditure program of the
municipality;
NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the City of
Grand Forks in open meeting assembled enacts as follows:
1. This bylaw may be cited as "Grand Forks Development Cost
Charge Bylaw No. 1425, 1994".
2. For the purpose of this bylaw, the definitions of words
and phrases that are not included in this section shall
have the meaning assigned to them in the Municipal Act.
"Building Lot" means the smallest unit into which land
is subdivided as shown on the records of the Land Title
Office.
"Floor Area" means the gross area within the perimeter
of a building measured at each floor, and includes
basements or portions of basements, the total space of
enclosed verandahs, porches and other spaces within a
building but excluding basement areas with less than 1.8
m vertical clearance.
"Dwellinq Unit" means one or more rooms used or intended
to be used for the residential accommodation of one
family when such room or rooms contain(s) kitchen,
bathroom and sleeping facilities for one family.
"Municipality" means the Corporation of the City of
Grand Forks.
"Zone" means a zone designated under the current City of
Grand Forks Zoning Bylaw.
3. Every person who obtains:
a) approval of the subdivision of a parcel of land under
the Land Title Act or the Condominium Act, or
b) a building permit authorizing the construction, or
alteration of buildings or structures for a purpose
other than the construction of three (3) or less
self-contained dwelling units, or
/ Continued on Page 3
Page;3
c) a building permit authorizing construction,
alteration, or extension of a building or structure,
other than a building or portion of it used for
residential purposes, where the value of the work
exceeds Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50^000) or another
amount that the Minister may prescribe
shall pay at the time of the approval of the subdivision
or the issue of the building permit, as the case may be,
to the municipality the applicable development cost
charges as set out in Schedule "A" hereto.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase
of this bylaw is for any reason held to be invalid by
the decision of any Court of competent jurisdiction, the
invalid portion shall be severed and the decision that
it is invalid shall not affect the validity of the
remainder of this bylaw.
Read a FIRST time this 5th day of December, 1994.
Read a SECOND time this 5th day of December, 1994
Read a THIRD time this 16th day of January, 1995.
Certified a true copy of Bylaw
No. 1425 as at Third Reading.
><^7T^)je_ ^ Tv/z^
J.L.KBurch - ^it^ Clerk
APPROVED BY THE INSPECTOR OF MUNICIPALITIES the 10th day of
May, 1995.
Continued on Page 4
Page 4
FINALLY ADOPTED this 23rd day of May, 1995
t-
Ma^6r 1. Su'gimoto
'^-A»</
J.L. y&urch - 'CTty^Clerk
CERTIFICA T E
I hereby certify the foregoing to be a true copy of Bylaw No.
1425 as passed by the Municipal Council of the City of Grand
Forks on the 23rd day of May, 1995.
Clerk of the Municipal Council of the
City of Grand Forks
SCHEDULE "A"
LAND USE CATEGORY
DEVELOPMENT COST CHARGE
SERVICES
HIGHWAY STORM SANITARY WATER
DRAINAGE SEWER
OPEN TOTAL PER
SPACE UNIT
single Family
Two Family & Semi-detached
Multiple Family
Mobile Home Park Zone
Commercial Zones
Industrial Zones
Institutional
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
$2,377
$3,803
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
$2,435
3,896
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
$4,812
$7,699
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
lot
lot
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
TYPE OF BUILDING
DEVELOPMENT COST CHARGE
SERVICES
HIGHWAY STORM SANITARY WATER
DRAINAGE SEWER
OPEN
SPACE
TOTAL
PER
UNIT
Single & Two Family &
Semi-detached dwelling
Multiple Family
Mobile Home Park
Commercial Building
Industrial Building
Institutional Bldg.
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
$1,902
$1,902
$4.07
$4.07
$4.38
$1,
$1,
$4.
$2.
$4.
948
948
97
66
58
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
$3,
$3,
$9
$6
$8
850
850
.04
.73
.96
dwelling
unit
M.H. pad
area in M
area in M
area in M
Province of British Columbia
No.
tetu'tcr^i ^Approfial
Under the provisions of section 987
of ffj^ ______ Municipal Act
J hereby approve Bylaw No. 1425
the Corporation of
of ______ the City of Grand Forks _Q
of which is attached hereto.
Dated this. ,0^
day
of^Pet/ / ?9fr
f
Jiputy Inspector of Municipalities
M28-2068
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS
MEMORANDUM
**********
TO: MAYOR & COUNCIL
FROM: PHIL TAYLOR, Administrator
DATE: November 17, 1994
RE: DEVELOPMENT COST CHARGE (D.C.C.)
Staff has prepared the proposed Development Cost Charge Bylaw
to where political input is required. The reason for the
bylaw is to assist the community with the anticipated future
infrastructure requirements of the City of Grand Forks. A
Development Cost Charge Bylaw has not been instituted in Grand
Forks, even though the need for one was identified in the
early 1980/s. Staff are using the work done by Kerr Wood
Leidal Engineers as the basis for the infrastructure
requirements to be funded by development cost charges.
Development Cost Charges are:
1. Only the responsibility of those building/developing in
the coimnunity.
2. A means of reducing tax burden to all citizens.
3. The preferred means of financing new capital projects in a
community.
The City anticipates infrastructure capital costs of over $14
million dollars. In the work done by K.W.L., their February
presentation to Council, $8 million was to be future
development's share and $6 million was to be existing
development's share.
In the bylaw process. Council will have to set the split and
rationale for it. If Council does not implement D.C.C., the
taxpayers of Grand Forks would finance all $14 million, thus
contributing to an increased property tax load over the
years. Development Cost Charges are a form of user-pay that
is strongly encouraged by the Province of B.C.
We need to determine the proposed charges for infrastructure
renewal. The proposal submitted by K.W.L. broke the
development cost charges into two segments, specified area
charges and charges City wide. The results they come up with
are in the attached Table - 8, #4 from their summary report.
Page 1 of 14
\\^ ^\\^
Page 2
My feeling is that Development Cost Charges of $12,000 for
Zak's Slough specified area, $14,000 for Southwest, $16,000
for the Northwest and $18,000 for the east side are so high
that Council wouldn't be able to implement them. In my
opinion, there are three factors Council should consider
before developing the bylaw.
First, Council may wish to reduce the charge by creating a
larger assist factor picked up by the general taxpayer. This
could be appropriate in light of the large number of new
dwellings added in the last seven years (222) and the fact
residential units or subdivisions of three or less are exempt.
Secondly, drainage and roadways are an expensive component
that might not be appropriate for D.C.C.'s and finally, the
numbers proposed don't reflect Provincial or Federal grants
received. We need you input on these items before the columns
can be filled in.
In addition to changes that may result from the above, Council
is reminded that only projects listed in the expenditures
program bylaw are eligible to be funded by D.C.C.'s. The City
of Grand Forks 1994 Bylaw lists only a few that K.W.L. used to
derive these charges. The D.C.C. Bylaw would have to be
amended each time aproject was completed or new projects
worked their way onto the Capital Expenditure Program Bylaw
(normally 5 years).
The following is an analysis of the projects identified,
objectives, the time frame for construction^ the cost
estimate, the funding options and reference documents.
PROJECT:
OBJECTIVE:
PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION
SCHEDULE:
COST ESTIMATE;
FUNDING:
WATER PROJECT
West side reservoir (1.0 million gallons)
Required to balance the system and provide
the required level of fire-flow protection
to all areas of the City.
1996
$1,391,000
D.C.C. & Water Fund (note: it on
Canada/B.C. Infrastructure progran consider
for revenue sharing 25% to 50%
Page 2 of 14
^ l\
Page 3
PROJECT:
Westside Feedermain Project
OBJECTIVE: New feedermain along 76th Ave. from
reservoir to Donaldson Dr. 1450 m of 300 mm & 300 m of 250 mm.
PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION
SCHEDULE:
COST ESTIMATE;
FUNDING:
1996
$787,306
D.C.C. & Water Fund (as with reservoir, not
on Canada/B.C. Infrastructure program,
consider for revenue sharing.
PROJECT:
OBJECTIVE:
Johnson Flats
the following water main
To provide
extensions:
18th St. feedermain 1000m of 300 mm dia. between 68th &
59th Ave.;
60th Ave. distribution link 180 m of 150 mm dia. between
18th & 19th St.;
59th Ave. distribution loop 400 m of 200 mm dia. between
18th & 12th St.;
- 12th St. distribution loop 670 m of 150 mm dia. between
59th Ave. and north end of DL 382;
- 56th Ave. distribution link 50 m of 150 mm dia. at Boundary
Drive intersection;
17th St. distribution link 60 m of 150 mm dia. at 78th Ave.
intersection.
PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION
SCHEDULE:
COST ESTIMATE!
FUNDING:
1995
$445,000
Approved Infrastructure Grant:
Federal Gov/t. $148,333
Provincial Gov't. $148,333
City Slag Fund $148,333
Page 3 of 14
^©^
\
PROJECT:
OBJECTIVE:
PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION
SCHEDULE:
COST ESTIMATE:
FUNDING:
PG.t}'^ '^
New Water W&ll
To develop a new groundwater well No. 6 in
Johnson Flats area to increase water supply.
1997
$160,000
D.C.C. Water Fund
PROJECT:
OBJECTIVE:
PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION
SCHEDULE:
COST ESTIMATE:
FUNDING:
Construct goundwater well, Pump station No. 6
Put new well into service.
1998
$279,000
D.C.C. Water Fund
PROJECT:
OBJECTIVE:
PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION
SCHEDULE:
COST ESTIMATE:
FUNDING:
Replace East side booster pump station.
Upgrade East side booster pump station.
Replace U/V treatment with chlorination
plant.
1998
$97,000
D.C.C. Water Fund.
PROJECT:
OBJECTIVE:
PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION
SCHEDULE:
COST ESTIMATE:
FUNDING:
Strengthen feedermain system on West side.
1999
$687,000
D.C.C.y Water fund.
Page 4 of 14
^1^
Page 5
PROJECT:
OBJECTIVE:
PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION
SCHEDULE:
COST ESTIMATE!
FUNDING:
Replace Overton Creek Ulta violet
disinfection facility.
2004
$200,000
D.C.C. Water Fund.
PROJECT:
OBJECTIVE:
PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION
SCHEDULE:
COST ESTIMATE!
FUNDING:
PROJECT:
OBJECTIVE:
PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION
SCHEDULE:
COST ESTIMATE:
FUNDING:
Upsize feedermain system in Ruckles Area.
2009
$384,000
D.C.C. Water Fund.
WASTEWATER COLLECTION PROJECTS
Upgrade Pump Stations and install SCADA
System.
Upgrade efficiency and meet new WCB
regulations.
1995 (note: very unlikely)
$318,000
Infrastructure grant - unlikely.
D.C.C. Sewer Fund.
Page 5 of 14
non ^^
Page 6
PROJECT:
OBJECTIVE:
PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION
SCHEDULE:
COST ESTIMATE;
FUNDING:
Replace North side trunk sewer,
1995
$375,000
Approved Infrastructure Grant;
Federal Gov't. $125,000
Provincial Gov't. $125,000
City Slag Fund $125,000
PROJECT:
OBJECTIVE:
PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION
SCHEDULE:
COST ESTIMATE!
FUNDING:
Upgrade West side trunk sewer,
1997
$91,000
D.C.C. & Sewer Fund.
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROJECTS
PROJECT:
OBJECTIVE:
PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION
SCHEDULE:
COST ESTIMATE:
FUNDING:
Rehabilitate lagoon treatment system.
Clean out sludge accumulations to meet
environmental discharge criteria.
1995
$250,000
D.C.C., Infrastructure, Slag,
Pa' 6 of 14
W\ I' ^
Page 7
PROJECT:
OBJECTIVE:
PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION
SCHEDULE:
COST ESTIMATE:
FUNDING:
Construct Phase 1 of a replacement
wastewater treatment facility.
Move from primary to secondary treatment,
meet new environmental standards, be
prepared to accommodate growth.
1995/96
$2,170,000 - Phase l.B
Infrastructure - likely $1,200,000 remainder
D.C.C.'s, sewer fund, slag fund.
PROJECT:
OBJECTIVE:
PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION
SCHEDULE:
COST ESTIMATE:
FUNDING:
Construct Phase l.B of Wastewater Treatment
Facility.
Needed to be done as soon after phase l.A as
funding available. l.A works but l.B needed
to treat sludge.
1996/97
Remainder of $2,170,000 left from l.A
D.C.C., Revenue sharing, long term debt
sewer fund.
PROJECT:
OBJECTIVE:
PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION
SCHEDULE:
COST ESTIMATE!
FUNDING:
Construct Phase 2 of treatment facility.
Upsize to meet population increase from
5,000 to 7,000
2014
$1,379,000
D.C.C., sewer fund, grants.
Page 7 of 14
Wi\\^
Page 8
ROADWAY UPGPADING PROJECTS
PROJECT:
OBJECTIVE:
PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION
SCHEDULE:
COST ESTIMATE!
FUNDING:
Reconstruct Boundary Dr. to a collector
standard.
1996
$412,000
D.C.C., General taxation (doesn't qualify
for revenue sharing).
PROJECT:
OBJECTIVE:
PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION
SCHEDULE:
COST ESTIMATE:
FUNDING:
Reconstruct Granby Road to an arterial
standard.
Alleviate heavy traffic from Valley Heights
and out of town subdivisions .
1999
$513,000
Revenue sharing 50%, D.C.C.y and General
taxation.
PROJECT:
OBJECTIVE:
PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION
SCHEDULE:
COST ESTIMATE:
FUNDING:
Complete Phase 1 of 68th Ave./19th St
Upgrading to collector standard.
2004
$200,000
General taxation.
Pa 8 of 14
w^^
Page 9-
PROJECT:
OBJECTIVE:
PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION
SCHEDULE:
COST ESTIMATE!
FUNDING:
Complete Phase 2 of 68th Ave./19th St,
Upgrading to collector standard.
2009
$200,000
General taxation.
PROJECT:
OBJECTIVE:
PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION
SCHEDULE:
COST ESTIMATE!
FUNDING:
Complete Phase 3 of 68th Ave./19th St,
Upgrading to collector standard.
2014
$1,200,000
General taxation.
PROJECT:
OBJECTIVE:
PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION
SCHEDULE:
COST ESTIMATE:
FUNDING:
SURFACE DRAINAGE COMPONENTS
Install Boundary Dr. storm sewer in
conjunction with road reconstruction.
1996
$166,000
D.C.C., General taxation.
PROJECT:
OBJECTIVE:
PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION
SCHEDULE:
COST ESTIMATE!
FUNDING:
Install Granby Rd. storm sewer in
conjunction with road reconstruction.
1999
$246,000
D.C.C., General taxation,
Page 9 of 14
w^^
PROJECT:
OBJECTIVE:
PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION
SCHEDULE:
COST ESTIMATE!
FUNDING:
Page 10
Upgrade drainage
specified area.
outlet for Northwest
2004
$526,000
D.C.C., Northwest specified area,
PROJECT:
OBJECTIVE:
PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION
SCHEDULE:
COST ESTIMATE:
FUNDING:
Upgrade drainage
specified area.
outlet for Eastside
2004
$126,000
Q.C.C., Eastside specified area.
PROJECT:
OBJECTIVE:
PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION
SCHEDULE:
COST ESTIMATE!
FUNDING:
Complete Phase 1 of storm sewer system for
Southwest specified area.
2009
$400,000
D.C.C., Southwest specified area.
These are the projects that have been identified to be
included in the Development Cost Charge philosophy. The City
is restricted by the Municipal Act about how it can calculate
and implement development cost charges. Th- qs for Council to
watch for in considering how to charge are:
exemptions - less than 4 self contained dwelliicr uni.s.
- doesn't impose new capital cost burdens.
amounts - maybe varied for different zones, areas, uses
capital costs for classes of development, si2",e of lots, or
numbers of lots.
Page 10 of 14
^\
Page 11
future considerations - cpsts ean't be excessive in relation
to the capital cost of prevailing standards of service.
- can't deter development.
- can't discourage reasonably priced housing or land.
adoption procedure - requires Inspector of Municipalities
approval.
- has to relate to capital costs in capital expenditure bylaw.
Council has been considering development cost charges on
documentation prepared by Kerr Wood Leidal. The first run of
the numbers was for sewer, water, roads and drainage broken
into 4 specified areas. These numbers are suspect as they
don't consider the capital expenditure bylaw, the costs might
be considered excessive, deter development and discourage
reasonably priced housing and land.
One of the main issues included in these calculations is
drainage which imposes new capital cost burdens on new
development that hasn't been the practise in Grand Forks. I
would also note that the new development in the last few
years, as well as those that are exempt, should increase the
proportion the general taxpayer has to pay and reduce the
portion new development has to pay.
Summary of costs the City of Grand Forks can include in a
Development Cost Charge Bylaw based on 1994 Capital
Expenditure Program Bylaw.
ITEM
Johnson Flats
Westside Reservoir
5 Watermain Project
Develop Groundwater
Well No. 6
Groundwater Well
No. 6 Pump Station
Replace Eastside
Booster Pump Station
Replace Northside
Trunk Sewer
Upgrade Pump Station
S Install SCADA System
Sewage Treatment Plant
Reconstruct Boundary Dr.
to collector standard
Install Boundary Dr.
Storm Sewer
TOTALS
$
$2,
$
$
$
$
$
$2,
$
$
$6,
TOTAL
COST
445,000
178,000
'»
160,000
279,000
97,000
375,000
348,000
,400,000
412,000
166,000
,860,000
LESS
GRANTS
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$1,
$
$
$1,
296,667
9
9
0
9
250,000
0
,000,000*
0
0
,546,667
LESS PRORATE
TO EXISTING
$
$1,
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$3,
148,:
,742,'
80,1
139,!
48,!
125,1
333
400
000
500
500
000
261.000
800,1
412,1
166,1
,922,'
000
000
000
733
NET COST FOR
D.C.C. BYLAW
CALCULATION
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
?
$
$1,
0
435,600
80,000
139,500
48,500
0
87,000
600,000
0
0
,390,600
*This is not confirmed. This number is as a result of
consultation with Minister Clarke's office and K.W.L.
Therefore total to be included in D.C.C. calculations is
$1,390,600.
Page 11 of 14
(Wv?tw
Page 12
Proposal to allocate infrastructure requirements between
existing population (plus exempt) and new growth.
1. Johnson Flats - No growth potential. City picks up cost.
2. Westside Reservoir - Advantage to existing population in
that it upgrades capacity and accommodates fire flows. On a
population basis, 5 yr. horizon is to go from 4,000 to 5,000,
80% to existing 20% to new growth, City wide.
3.& 4. Ground water Well #6 & Pump Station - K.W.L. has
identified significant growth potential in this area. This
may be somewhat mitigated by floodplain and A.L.R.
constraints, however, an estimate of at least 50% of this
capacity increase is driven by new growth. K.W.L. advises
that strengthening the supply and the feedermain network
provides a uniform benefit in terms of an improved level of
service so this should be considered City wide.
5. Replace Eastside Booster Pump Station - This has
considerable benefit to existing, while enabling growth.
Likely 50% share to new growth is appropriate City wide.
6. Replace Northside Trunk Sewer - This project is included
in Infrastructure funding and likely will be completed before
significant D.C.C.'s are collected. The non-grantable portion
would be picked up by existing.
7. Upgrade Pump Stations and Install SCADA System - This is
in infrastructure grants but it is unlikely it will be funded.
This is important to existing as we are at risk on these
(they didn't meet current standards). Suggest 75% existing
and 25% D.C.C.
8. Sewage Treatment Plant Upgrade - We are lobbying to have
some of this funded through infrastructure program. Best
guess would be about $ly000,000 in funding. The remaining
$1.4 million is hard to assess due to the fact that about $1.5
million of the $2.4 million will bring us into compliance but
without the additional $.9 million we won't be upgraded to
secondary treatment. I would suggest the split is as follows:
$1.0 million to grants, $.5 million and $.3 million = $.8
million to existing and $.6 million to D.C.C.'s. Tba portion
to D.C.C.'s might be too high considering that Phas 2 of the
project may be needed relatively soon if Grand For reaches
the 5,000 population before the end of this 5 year c^ '.e.
9. Reconstruct Boundary Drive - This is a local road hat is
meant to eliminate existing traffic bottleneck. £; lli, be
100% funded by existing.
Page 1 ' of 14
tW -i) )g^
Page 13
10. Storm Sewer Boundary Drive - Again^ this is, in
conjunction with planned roadway project. Council has to
determine if it is desirable to implement D.C.C.'s for
drainage. This would be hard to justify. Recommend all is
charged to existing.
Number of Dwelling Units - In K.W.L. study, scenario A takes
Grand Forks population from present estimate of 4,000 to
5,000. They indicate that this relates to a potential 289
additional dwelling units.
Calculation of Base Charge -
Total Net Cost attributable to new growth
Estimated number of new units
Development Cost Charge
$1,390,600
289
$4,8i27unit
This would provide a basis for residential single family rate.
However, D.C.C.'s will be charged on multi-family and
industrial which will require a formula to calculate.
The following table could be used to determine suitable
relationship.
TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT
PER UNIT
EQUIVALENT FACTORS
WATER RATIO SEWER RATIO
One family residential
Two family residential
Med. density residential
Commerical
Industrial
Institutional
lot
lot
dwelling unit
area in M"
.2
area in M'
area in M'
$2,435 1 $2,377 1
$3,896 1.6 $3,803 1.6
$1,948 .8 $1,902 .8
$4.97 .00204 $4.07 .00171
$2.66 .00109 $4.07 .00171
$4.58 .00188 $4.38 .00184
Page 13 of 14
^/
Page 14
T have used data available t© develop what I feel are
achievable development cost charges. Developers will approach
Council stating that the imposition of these charges makes
their project unattainable. This proposal can be reworked
however Council wishes, however this proposal has developers
paying $4,812/unit while the existing population pays $10,628
for infrastructure improvements partially triggered by new
growth.
Council should satisfy themselves that the concept is sound,
determine if I have used the right components. I recommend
Council receive this information and review the attached bylaw
which will formally be submitted at a later meeting at the
direction of Council.
Respectfully Submitted,
P.A. (Phil) Taylor
Administrator
Page 14 of 14
w^