July 27, 1999
To:Works Committee
From:Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services
Subject:118R Clinton St. - Water Servicing Charges (Ward 20 Trinity-Niagara)
Purpose:
- To recommend a policy for reimbursing property owner(s) who extend local sewer and/or water infrastructure to service
a lot(s), in the event that adjacent property owners connect to the local system extensions a future date.
2)To provide an accounting of the costs incurred by the City in installing the water servicing to 118R Clinton St.
3)To comment on the conditions placed when severances are granted which provide for the installation and maintenance
of City services including water and sewer, etc.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
N/A
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
1)the former City of Toronto policy for reimbursing property owners who extend local sewer and water infrastructure be
eliminated and replaced by the following servicing cost recovery policy:
i)the City will attempt to reimburse property owners who have constructed local sewer and water infrastructure by
requesting adjacent property owners on existing lots who subsequently connect to the infrastructure to pay a per meter
charge applied against the benefitting frontage;
ii) the City will reimburse property owners who have constructed local sewer and water infrastructure which
subsequently benefit adjacent landowners who obtain a land severance(s) by requiring the owner of the severed land to pay
a per metre charge applied against the benefitting frontage as a condition of the severance(s);
iii)the per metre frontage charge will be determined by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services by dividing
the original cost of extending the local sewer and water infrastructure by the total length of benefitting frontage serviced by
the infrastructure.
2)that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to incorporate the following
standard conditions of approval for Consent applications resulting in new severed lots:
"The applicant will be responsible to undertake at his or her cost any work which may become necessary through the
development or use of this land, including the installation, relocation or removal of existing services and utilities to the
satisfaction of the Department of Works and Emergency Services";
- the City attempt to reimburse Ms. Astra Burka, owner of 118 R Clinton Street, for the costs she incurred in constructing
water infrastructure to service her property, by requesting adjacent property owners, who subsequently connect to the
water services, to make a contribution in accordance with the proposed servicing cost recovery policy; and
4)that appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.
Council Reference/Background/History:
The Works and Utilities Committee, at its meeting of December 2, 1998, in considering our report dated October 21, 1998
concerning the water servicing charges for 118R Clinton Street, requested that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency
Services report further on the feasibility of providing a prorated reimbursement of costs paid by property owners for the
extension of the City's water distribution system to service their property, in the event that other owners connect to the
extended portion of the distribution system at a future date.
The Works and Utilities Committee further requested that we provide a detailed explanation of the charges billed to Ms.
Astra Burka, owner of 118R Clinton Street for the installation of the 50 mm diameter watermain within the lane at the rear
of her property.
In addition to these requests the Works and Utilities Committee asked the Commissioner of Urban Planning and
Development Services report on the conditions placed when severances are granted which provide for the installation and
maintenance of City services including sewer and water, etc.
Comments:
1)A Policy for the Reimbursement of Costs for the Extension of Local Sewer and Water Infrastructure
The former City of Toronto adopted a policy whereby the City assumed responsibility for the construction of sewers and
watermains within existing public streets, provided:
i)the cost of this servicing is not significantly higher than the average servicing cost within the City; and
ii)the need is not created by the severance of a parcel of land.
If the cost of providing the servicing was higher, on a per unit basis, than the average cost within the City, then the
Developer was responsible for the additional cost. At present the average per unit cost of providing water servicing within
the City is $21,000 ( based on a three year average). If however the need for the servicing was created as a result of a land
severance, the developer or land owner who has been granted the severance, was responsible for the full cost of the
infrastructure required to service the severed lot(s).
This policy of contributing to the cost of constructing local sewer and water systems to service properties was not generally
practiced by the former area municipalities. In the former Cities, property owner(s) were required to pay the full cost of
extending local sewer and water systems to service their lands. The former municipalities would assume the new
infrastructure and, no attempt was made to reimburse the original land owner in the event that future connections were
made to the sewer and water systems by adjacent land owners.
An exception to this practice existed in the former City of Scarborough where the City would, under the provisions of a
development agreement, attempt to recover a cash contribution toward the cost of extending the municipal services from
subsequent property owners wishing to connect to the services, on behalf of the initial property owner. Any funds which
were collected would then be reimbursed to the initial developer.
The percentage of the total servicing cost to be recovered from subsequent property owners would typically be calculated
by dividing the servicing cost by the total length of lot frontage serviced by the extended infrastructure. For example, a
service extension costing $10,000 and serviced lots having a total frontage of 100 metre would have a cost recovery based
on a frontage charge of $100/ metre.
It should be noted however that the City has no authority, Provincial or otherwise, to charge property owners on existing
lots who may benefit by connecting to local sewer and/or water systems constructed by an initial property owner. The
proposed policy therefore will be based on the City endeavoring to recover funds for the original owner, but no guarantee
for recovery of costs can be made or implied.
The proposed reimbursement policy will apply to the extension of local sewer and water systems which are needed to
service undeveloped lot(s). Under the proposed policy it will be the responsibility of the initial property owner(s) to pay
100% of cost of extending the local sewer and/or watermain to their property. As previously stated, there is no Provincial
legislation in place which will allow the City to recover costs from adjacent property owners of existing lots who
subsequently connect to such local systems. The City will attempt to reimburse the initial property owner(s) who have
extended local pipes by collecting a contribution from future benefitting property owners based on a per metre charge
applied against the benefitting frontage. The per metre charge will be determined by dividing the cost of the local sewer
and/or water infrastructure by the total length of benefitting frontage.
In the event however that adjacent property owners create a lot(s) through a land severance approval, the City will require
the owner of the severed lot to contribute to the cost of the local services constructed by the original land owner on the
basis of the per metre charge calculated as described above and applied against the length of benefitting frontage.
2)Watermain Installation Charges- 118R Clinton Street
The cost for the installation of the watermain from Grace Street to the rear of 118R Clinton Street was originally estimated
at $58,160. This cost included the installation of approximately 230m of 50mm watermain pipe, all necessary surface
repair works and a standard 15 % overhead charge to cover administration and inspection of the work. The estimate also
anticipated that the construction of the watermain would be carried out using auguring methods in accordance with the
standard construction specifications of the former City of Toronto.
Based on the estimate and the $21,000 servicing contribution the City agreed to pay, Ms A. Burka, owner of 118R Clinton
Street, deposited $37,160 with the City for the watermain construction.
Prior to commencing the installation of the watermain it was determined that if the property was serviced from Jersey
Avenue only 182 m of watermain would be required. It was also determined that because of the length of the service to be
installed, the auguring method that had been assumed in the estimate could not be used and open cut excavation methods
had to be adopted. This change in construction method resulted in a higher per metre cost for the work, but because of the
reduced length it was determined that additional funds would not be required.
The final cost of the works undertaken by the City's contractor was $49,232.08. Overhead and cut repair charges of
$7,384.81 and $720.00 respectively were added to the contracted costs, yielding a total cost of $57,336.89. This total
represented a savings of $823.11 compared to the original estimate.
It should be noted that the application form signed by Ms. Burka indicated that the deposit was based on an estimate of the
costs to be incurred and that the final payment would be based on the actual cost of the work and accordingly a refund in
the amount of the savings was provided to Ms. Burka.
As previously noted, Ms. Burka has previously received a contribution from the City for servicing her lot. It is
recommended however that the City attempt to recover additional contributions on behalf of Ms. Burka in accordance with
the policy outlined herein. The per metre frontage cost however for Ms. Burka's property will be calculated based on the
original net cost to service her property which accounts for the former City's contribution to her servicing costs.
3)Conditions Placed on the Provision and Maintenance of City Sewer and Water Servicing in the Granting of Severances
The Committee also requested that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services report on the
conditions applied to the provision and maintenance of City sewer and water services in the granting of severances. We
have been advised by staff of that Department that the Committee of Adjustment managers are working toward
standardization of conditions of approval for all Districts. We have been requested to provide the Commissioner with the
standard wording for an all-inclusive condition to be applied to the provision and maintenance of municipal services.
Accordingly, where a proposed severance will impact on the servicing of the properties, the severance be made conditional
on the owner providing at his or her cost all necessary municipal services, and the receipt of written confirmation that these
services have been constructed to our satisfaction. The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services is
requested to incorporate the following clause into the standard conditions of approval for Consent applications resulting in
new severed lots:
"The applicant will be responsible to undertake at his or her cost any work which may become necessary through the
development or use of this land, including the installation, relocation or removal of existing services and utilities to the
satisfaction of the Department of Works and Emergency Services."
Specifically with regard to 118R Clinton St. it would appear that at the time of severance in July 1952 water sewer
servicing did exist to the property. However, the right of way within which the water service to Clinton St was located was
not registered on the title of the property and accordingly when the water service to Clinton Street was abandoned the
current owner of the property was forced to attempt to negotiate easement rights with the owner of 118 Clinton Street.
Unfortunately these efforts were unsuccessful and the owner was forced to install water servicing within the lane at the rear
of the property. Under current policy, the owner of the severed property would be required to register an easement on title
at the time of the severance.
Conclusions:
The servicing cost contribution policy of the former City of Toronto is unique among the former municipalities and it is
suggested that the policy be replaced by a servicing cost recovery policy as described within this report.
The servicing costs charged to Ms. A. Burka, owner of 118R Clinton Street reflects the actual cost of the work undertaken.
However, if it is decided that the proposed cost recovery policy should be adopted, the City could attempt to recover
additional contributions on behalf of Ms. Burka in accordance with the policy outlined herein.
Contact Name:
Mr. W. Green, Director Mrs. K.P. Llewellyn-Thomas, P.Eng.
Quality Control and System Planning Director, Engineering Services Districts 1 & 2
Telephone:(416) 392-8242Telephone: (416) 392-8590
Fax (416) 392-2974Fax: (416) 392-4426
E-Mail wgreen@toronto.caE-mail kathleen_llewellyn- thomas@metrodesk.on.ca
Michael A. Price, P.Eng., FICEBarry H. Gutteridge
General ManagerCommissioner of Works and Emergency Services
Water and Wastewater Services
