 Review of Servicing Initiative Mandate  Sanitary Sewer Concept  Storm Sewer Concept  Water Main Concept  Principles of A Joint Servicing Agreement  Approximate Costs for Joint Servicing Agreement  Alternative Trunk Installation/Funding  “Supercharge” Levy to Prepay Outfalls  Any Support for Joint Serving Agreement  Offsite Levy Calculations December

 Excess capacity of ±78 l/sec exists in existing 450 sewer through Oakmont, which is sufficient for 95 to 125 ha, dependant on density and land use, then new outfall required.  Area outlined can be serviced to existing gravity sewer. Additional area west of The Trail is proposed to be serviced by an interim lift station and force main to defer permanent lift station.  Proposed trunk sewers and lift stations are being designed to accommodate about 920 ha of which 570 ha (62%) is inside City boundary. 3

 City intends to contribute their share to trunk sewers and lift stations for area outside City, as these are built and City funds are available.  To ensure uninterrupted development, and funding for sanitary outfall, it is proposed that for every litre of capacity used, the developing area prepay 1/78 of the cost of sanitary outfall, subject to recovery over time. 4

 Existing 450 Storm at N.E. corner of Erin Ridge has excess capacity of 117 l/sec, which services about 50 ha at 2.5 litres/sec/ha outflow, then a new outfall to Sturgeon River is required.  Prebuilding more storage and reducing outflow rate to 1 litres/sec on interim basis could defer outfall trunk sewer construction.  A stormwater pump station is proposed in north central area to reduce depth and expense of trunk sewers.  Trunk sewers and pump station are sized for about 670 ha of which 370 ha (55%) is inside the City. 5

 City intends to contribute their share to trunk sewer and lift station for area outside the City as these are built and City funds are available.  To ensure uninterrupted storm capacity, for every litre of storm capacity used, developers should prepay 1/117 of the cost of the future storm outfall, so it can be built when all existing capacity is used. 6

 Water supply and pressure in this north area is limited, but will be strengthened over the next few years by an infill program being done by the City.  A large trunk main along St. Albert Trail is proposed, to provide water access for all landholdings.  As development proceeds, developers will be expected to construct looping of the system within their developments. 7

 All lands within boundary on Joint Servicing Agreement drawing to participate. Proposed contributory areas shown are on Joint Servicing Agreement drawing.  Note that only parts of Tappauf land, N. E. of 17(Boris et al), Triple 5 land, and MIS land are proposed to participate because the balance requires significant future trunk infrastructure to become serviceable.  The Joint Servicing Agreement would cover construction of only the trunk infrastructure shown on drawings 7917-San, 7917-Stm, and 7917-Water, and would precede specific development of your land. 8

 Your own separate development agreement would still be required for subdivision and development of your land covering on-site construction and off-site levies, “supercharges,” etc. This of course needs to be preceded by the MDP, Asp and subdivision process.  The contribution toward construction made under the Joint Servicing Agreement would be credited toward the off-site levies payable at time of development, but credits are not transferable from one utility account to another, that is, if you over contributed to sanitary, water or storm sewer, it would not be credited to the roadways levy. 9

 Estimated cost of sanitary trunks (net)$3,600,000  Cost per acre for 400 acres$9,000  Estimated cost of storm trunks (net)$3,200,000  Cost per acre for 400 acres$8,000  Estimated cost of water$2,000,000  Cost per acre for 400 acres$5,000  Estimated total Joint Servicing Agreement cost/acre  Net Cost is after City Share for outside area. $22,000 10

 Each Developer constructs and funds infrastructure to and through their development, oversized in accordance with Master Plan.  City contributes for area outside City boundaries.  Developer pays “supercharge” levies to fund deferred sanitary and storm outfalls required after about 100 ha (funding required for full costs less City share).  Developer provides rights-of-way to ensure subsequent developers have access to connect.  The first Developer (A) recovers from the next Developer (B) an amount of “over expenditure” based on Area of B x Over Expenditure of A Area of (A+B) 11

Example:  A develops 10 ha and installs $2,000,000 sanitary trunk  The trunk sanitary levy is $36,000/ha or $360,000 for 10 ha  A’s over expenditure (O.E.) is $2,000,000 - $360,000 = $1,640,000.  B develops 10 ha and installs $100,000 of trunk  B pays $360,000 sanitary levy, which goes to A to reduce A’s O.E. to $1,280,000  Then B pays A 10 x $1,280,000 = $640,000 O.E  Now A has $640,000 O.E. and B has $740,000 O.E.  And so on…  When the last ha in the drainage basin is developed, no over expenditure should remain. 12

 Sanitary outfall is estimated to cost $9.4 Million, and will service 920 ha, of which 570 ha (62%) is inside the City. North annex share is $5.83 Million, or $9,300 per ha.  Outfall is required after ±100 ha, so first 100 ha pays extra levy or “supercharge” of $58,300 less $9,300 = $49,000 per ha.  Storm outfall is estimated to cost $4 Million and will service 670 ha, of which 370 ha (45%) is inside the City. North area share is $2.26 Million or $5,800 per ha.  Outfall is required after ±50 ha, so the first 50 ha pays “supercharge” of $45,200 less $5,800 = $39,400 per ha. 13

 If initial storm ponds are oversized so outflow rate can be reduced to 1 l/sec/ha, then outfall can be deferred to 100 ha, and supercharge reduced to $2,260,000 less $5,800 = $16,800/ha. 100  “Supercharges” paid would be treated as over expenditures, and would be repaid as in the example preceding. 14

 City of St. Albert and the Industry is in the midst of debate on updating offsite levies, after which the item will return to council for ratification.  For the North Annex area, those items of infrastructure built under a joint servicing agreement would be taken out of the bylaw levy calculations.  Recognition must be given to the oversizing Landrex has down for sanitary through Erin Ridge/Oakmont. Present thinking is that their first ±100 ha would not contribute to the new outfall sewer line or the lift stations, so cost of those items would be spread over a smaller area.  In order for servicing continuity to be assured, we believe Landrex should contribute the “supercharges” for sanitary and storm outfalls. 15

16

17

18

19