HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAO-09-059 - Economic Development Investment Fund - 5 Year ReviewREPORT
REPORT TO:
Finance and Corporate Services Committee
DATE OF MEETING:
January 11, 2010
SUBMITTED BY:
Rod Regier, Executive-Director, Economic Development
PREPARED BY:
Rod Regier, Janette MacDonald
WARD(S) INVOLVED:
All
DATE OF REPORT: December 22, 2009
REPORT NO.:
CAO-09-059
SUBJECT:
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT FUND FIVE
YEAR REVIEW
RECOMMENDATION:
That staff be directed to prepare an annual report on the implementation of EDIF and its
outcomes through the life of the program.
That Staff be directed to work with faculty at the University of Waterloo or Wilfrid Laurier
University as part of the next annual review of the economic impact of the Economic
Development Investment Fund to provide input on assessment methodology.
BACKGROUND:
In 2004, the City of Kitchener engaged in an extensive public consultation regarding the future
direction of economic development for the City. Two investment strategy options were
considered. The first was the opportunity to create additional industrial employment lands in the
City of Kitchener’s south-west greenfield area. The alternative was to invest strategically in the
development of new industries largely based in the City’s core. This option was bolstered by a
new brownfield remediation program, the City’s Downtown Strategic Plan and the Region of
Waterloo’s Growth Management Strategy.
Five educational and interactive public meetings were held to get input from the general public.
A Community Capital Investment Ranking Team (CCIRT) and Council ranked 5 objectives and
21 specific projects. Options were presented to a citizen’s panel consisting of members of
EDAC, DAC and the CCIRT. This round table discussion in Council Chambers resulted in a
recommendation to Council that the City of Kitchener move forward with the second option
supported by a $110 million Economic Development Investment Fund (EDIF).
The panel recommended support of an economic development program anchored by strategic
investments in education institutions starting with the Waterloo Catholic School Board offices
and Downtown Community Centre, the Wilfrid Laurier University Faculty of Social Work, and the
University of Waterloo’s School of Pharmacy. The fund also included allocations for downtown
streetscapes, parking solutions, and greenfield industrial land projects.
ïê ó ï
From the outset, it was recognized that the program will take a full 10 years to implement and
that its effects will not be fully realized until well after the conclusion of the program, and beyond
the current term of Council. Five objectives were spelled out for the fund – i) assessment
growth, ii) employment growth, iii) residential development downtown, iv) leverage of EDIF
investments by 15 per cent from other partners, and v) to achieve a return on investment, both
direct and indirect.
EDIF is now halfway through its implementation period. Approximately 44 per cent of the fund
has been invested and planning is underway for projects which will consume the remaining
available funds. This report presents a preliminary analysis of the impacts to-date and outlines a
framework for evaluation that can be used to measure impacts through the life of EDIF and
beyond.
REPORT:
Report Limitations
An evaluation of the economic impact of EDIF is impeded by a number of factors. First, the fund
is not yet fully invested. Second, the projects already funded by EDIF are in the early days of
implementation and their full impact is not yet measurable. Most of the projects that have or will
receive EDIF funds are complex capital projects with multi-year planning and construction
processes. Third, some of the effects of EDIF are related to investor confidence in the
downtown and are therefore indirect. For example, a number of projects including the Kaufman
Lofts, Tannery District, and Shoppers Drug Mart at 250 King St W have, according to their
owners, been initiated almost entirely because of the development of the Health Sciences
Campus. In this case, the assessment and tax revenue growth of those projects are assumed to
be an indirect outcome of that investment decision.
There is also a time lag in some of the indicators; for example, property assessments are not
updated immediately following any changes in property value. Also, census results are available
every five years, with an additional time lag in the release of local data. As a result, it will be
several years after the end of EDIF’s last year—2014—before the City of Kitchener is able to
evaluate the impact of EDIF more completely. Further, it is expected that investments from EDIF
will continue to affect the future economy of the city well beyond that.
Nevertheless, with the data currently available, it is possible to outline several effects of EDIF
investments and draw some conclusions about its likely future impact over time. The following
sections will outline the current findings against the key objectives for EDIF established in 2004.
Objective 1: Stimulate assessment growth
Measurables
Assessment growth
Tax revenue growth
Results
Property assessments are set by MPAC. These assessments together with the tax rate
determine the property tax payable to the municipality. Factors that can affect property
assessment include location, lot dimensions, living area, adjusted age of the property, quality of
construction, and vacancy of the property. Changes in assessed values can serve as a proxy for
ïê ó î
new developments in those properties, and therefore the MPAC data is useful in determining, in
part, the impact of EDIF investments.
The MPAC data provide assessed values up until 2012, however these future values are in fact
a phased implementation of January 1, 2008 market values. It is necessary for this analysis to
use the phased-in assessed values according to the year that they are posted as that
determines the taxes billed in each year. While MPAC will continue to update assessed values
for properties with new development, or those that undergo changes in use or renovations, the
next province-wide assessment update will not take place until 2012. So properties that are
unchanged, but benefitting from their proximity to EDIF investments, will remain on the
progression schedule based on 2008 market values. However, the value of these properties
may be appreciating faster than the phased-in values due to their proximity to EDIF
investments, but this will not be recognized until 2012.
Taxes can only be evaluated up until 2009 since future tax rates have not yet been determined.
As well, the total taxes are evaluated including contributions toward the Region and Education,
as the entire tax change impacts the community, not just the City portion.
Shirley Drive employment lands
In the case of the Shirley Drive employment lands, the increase in assessed value or taxes
billed following 2004 can be directly attributable to EDIF, since those lands would not otherwise
have been developed.
In 2004, the total assessed value among the properties that later constituted the Shirley Drive
extension and the newly-constructed Cedarview Place was about $1.1 million. The 2009 value
is nearly twice as much as 2004, and the 2012 phased-in value is nearing $3 million. As well,
the total tax amount billed was only $9,500 in 2004, but has since grown to more than $300,000
in 2009. Since the subject properties are not fully developed, both assessed values and the
corresponding taxes billed will continue to grow.
Direct downtown residential
The downtown residential incentives also provide an opportunity to evaluate the impact of an
EDIF investment on property assessment. About $488,000 has been paid out to owners
responsible for developing 19 residential units at five addresses. From 2004 to 2009, the
assessed values of those properties went up by about $360,000, or 32 per cent, and the
phased-in total assessed value for 2012 is nearly double that of 2004, and represents twice the
growth observed over that time period among all downtown properties.
Indirect downtown property assessment
When considering the ability of EDIF investments to affect growth in assessed values in a more
indirect way, the approach must be more theoretical. Since assessed values typically grow over
time, one must consider the expected growth against what actually happened.
To determine this expected growth, the downtown properties—those in planning communities 1,
2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 13—were divided into two groups: those adjacent to or nearby EDIF
investments (“hotspots” like the Health Sciences Campus) and those that were not (the “control
group”). Then the average assessment growth rates by tax class (for example, “DT” for regular
office buildings) were calculated among all properties in the control group. These growth rates
were then applied to the EDIF-related investments to obtain an expected assessed value for
each property. So (for illustration purposes only) a residential property assessed at $250,000 in
2004 is expected to have an assessed value of $362,500 in 2012 based upon a 45 per cent
ïê ó í
growth rate in assessed values for this property type. The actual assessed value was then
compared to the higher expected value rather than the lower historic 2004 value.
When the average growth rates for each tax class code are applied to the 2004 assessed
values of each property in the EDIF-adjacent or EDIF-nearby group (which represent about 10
per cent of all downtown properties), the growth in assessed values above expected comes out
to $32,537,951. This indicates that the properties around EDIF hotspots have grown in
assessed value by $32 million, over and above the expected growth. However, one cannot
directly conclude that this growth is because of EDIF, because other events between 2004 and
2009 might have affected the valuations. Still, assuming that the only difference between the
two groups of properties is that one group is collectively closer to the investments made, the
growth differences are notable.
The following chart illustrates the change from the 2004 assessed values for three groups: the
two downtown groups mentioned above, as well as the entire city for reference. For example,
from 2004 to 2006, city-wide assessed values grew about 18 per cent, the downtown control
group grew about 17 per cent, and the EDIF group grew only 8 per cent. However, for each year
after that, the cumulative growth among the EDIF group of properties was higher than both city-
wide and the downtown control group, again indicating that the Economic Development
Investment Fund has had a significant positive impact on downtown assessments.
Change since 2004 in property assessment
value by year
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
-5%
200420052006200720082009
City-wideDowntown control groupNear EDIF investments
The fact that downtown assessment growth is so closely tracking city-wide assessment growth
is particularly interesting. Assessment growth is generally much higher in Greenfield parts of the
city where new development of formerly agricultural land creates a very large jump in the value
of property. Assessment growth in the downtown is occurring in an already developed area with
set boundaries on properties that are often severely constrained by environmental factors. City-
wide growth, on the other hand, is occurring over an expanding urban Greenfield area,
essentially making it easier to realize assessment growth city-wide as vacant or underused land
is converted to new housing or commercial developments. The pace of assessment growth
downtown is therefore a strong indicator of the speed of change underway in the downtown,
especially in the context of rapid Greenfield development.
ïê ó ì
The same process used to compare expected and actual growth in assessed values can be
applied to growth in taxes billed, with one modification: rather than comparing the current value
to the expected value based on 2004, all years since 2004 will be compared to their expected
value and those differences will be added up for each property. (For example, compared to
2004, downtown commercial properties were billed 1.6 per cent more in 2005, 2.8 per cent more
in 2006, and so on.) This modified process will provide an overall look at the growth in taxes
billed that has occurred, above the expected growth.
When all the actual tax amounts are compared to the expected amounts, for all properties in the
EDIF group, the result is $141,471 below the total expected value. This result is due to the tax-
exempt status of many properties “cancelling out” the assessment growth, as well as a
significant declines since 2004 in taxes billed to several properties. It is important to note that
several of the downtown properties with significant assessment growth—particularly the UW
School of Pharmacy and WLU’s Faculty of Social Work—are now (or already were) tax-exempt.
For example, a parking lot became a university campus, which resulted in great assessment
growth, but also in no tax billed to the university.
In addition, a number of properties in the downtown apparently experienced a decline in
assessment and reduced property taxes billed as a result of tax appeals. For example, one
downtown commercial property was billed about $80,000 less in 2009 than in 2004, though the
expectations model shows taxes should have increased by $60,000 by 2009. The assessed
value of this property fell by nearly 25 per cent. There are no data available to City staff to
provide an explanation as to the cause of either decreases or increases in assessed value; thus
the challenge in using MPAC data is in attempting to draw conclusions about patterns without
knowing the true causes of change.
If we look only at properties immediately adjacent to the School of Pharmacy, growth in
assessed values is $39.4 million over and above expected growth. This accounts for a tax-add
of just over $1 million compared to the expected value for these properties.
Future developments
——
Two projectsThe Tannery District and City Centre Condominiumswill significantly affect
downtown EDIF-related municipal assessment and tax revenue. The Tannery District’s 2008
assessed value (as phased-in for 2012) is $3,163,000, but the project is expected to have an
assessed value of $30 million when complete and fully occupied. To estimate future taxes, the
2009 final tax rate is applied against the estimated future assessed value of $30 million to show
an estimated increase in taxes billed by the City of Kitchener of $244,000 in 2009 dollars.
The City Centre project will directly stimulate assessment in its own properties, with tax
revenues to the City of Kitchener estimated to be in the range of $400,000 annually, and will
likely affect the assessments of those surrounding it. Other projects expected to have an effect
on assessed values include the future development of the Maple Leaf employment lands, and
the digital media convergence centre.
ïê ó ë
Objective 2: Stimulate employment
Measurables
Employment
Business counts
Vacancy rates
Results
The Shirley Drive employment lands, UW Health Sciences Campus, Downtown Community
1
. It should
Centre and WLU Faculty of Social Work have all had a direct impact on employment
be noted that while some of this employment is new (e.g., the Health Sciences Campus), some
of these jobs already existed elsewhere in the region, and thus this should not be treated as
entirely new employment, but rather protected employment. These jobs may have been lost to
another community had the land or development opportunities not been available in Kitchener.
Employment growth results from investment location decisions by firms, and can be separated
into location specific direct impacts and general effects due to increased investor confidence.
General employment growth is seen as an indirect result of the establishment of EDIF.
Table 1 Direct employment
Business/InstitutionEmployment
Downtown:
Health Sciences Campus 50
Faculty of Social Work 100
Sub-total150
Shirley Drive employment lands
Bavarian Window Works 20
ACL Steel 50
Snap-Edge Canada/Great North Outdoor Living Products 6
Droven Flooring Supplies 3
Clarkson-Weiser Manufacturing 10
Sub-total89
Total239
Downtown employment in general is less directly related to any EDIF projects, other than those
that were explicitly designed to add jobs, but some trends are evident. The three graphs below
summarize the notable growth in downtown employment, the number of businesses, and the
consistent reduction in the downtown office vacancy rate.
1
Source: City of Kitchener Business Development
ïê ó ê
Figure 1: Downtown employees and business counts
Number of employees downtown
Number of businesses downtown
800
14,000
704
11,96711,959
681
674
665665
700
11,437
11,373
12,000636
10,941
10,354
600
10,000
500
8,000
400
6,000
300
4,000
200
2,000
100
0
0
200420052006200720082009
200420052006200720082009
(YTD)
(YTD)
In 2004, there were 10,354 employees working at 636 businesses downtown; the most recent
2
show at least 11,959 employees (up 16 per cent) and 704 businesses (up 11 per
data for 2009
cent). During the time period from 2004 to 2008, the Kitchener Census Metropolitan Area
3
(CMA) labour force grew by 8.8 per cent and employment grew by 7.8 per cent, indicating that
downtown employment growth outpaced CMA employment and labour force growth. While
these labour force indicators for the CMA provides additional context, these two growth rates
cannot be directly compared, as the downtown employment numbers are based on a municipal
census of workplaces, while the labour force survey is a Statistics Canada survey of households
which includes commuter traffic.
Figure 2: Office vacancy rate
Office vacancy rate
16.0%
13.9%
14.0%
12.1%
12.0%
12.0%
9.9%
8.8%
10.0%
8.1%
10.4%
10.3%
10.1%
8.0%
8.6%
7.4%
6.0%
7.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
200420052006200720082009
(YTD)
DowntownCity-wide
With an increase in downtown businesses comes a decrease in vacancy. Starting in 2004, the
4
office vacancy rate in the downtown was at 13.9 per cent, then dropped each year to 12.1 per
cent, 12.0 per cent, 9.9 per cent, 8.8 per cent, and in 2009, an average of 7.4 per cent in the
first three quarters. Moreover, the 13.9 per cent figure in 2004 was 3.8 percentage points higher
than the overall rate for the city; this difference has reversed as of 2009, with 7.4 per cent
downtown compared to 8.1 city-wide. This is particularly significant considering that Downtown
2
Source: City of Kitchener Downtown Database
3
Kitchener CMA: Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge, Woolwich and North Dumfries.
4
Source: CB Richard Ellis MarketView Reports
ïê ó é
employment continued to increase and vacancy decrease right through the recession of
2008/09. It is not clear how much EDIF affected these increases in downtown employment, but
various downtown initiatives have very likely contributed to an increase in the desire of
businesses to relocate downtown.
Future developments
The redevelopment of the Tannery District and former Collins and Aikman plant at 51 Briethaupt
St. will create an additional 550,000 square feet of office and commercial space in the
Downtown housing as many as 1,800 employees. These projects have will support spin-offs or
related businesses associated with the Health Sciences Campus and Communitech’s Digital
Media and Mobile Accelerator centre in Kitchener’s downtown. In the short term, employment in
the Lang Tannery should increase by 200 from its current total of 80 as further developments
occur in 2010.
Objective 3: Stimulate development of residential units in the Downtown
Measurables
Residential building permits
Number of residential units
Population estimates
Results
The decision by Andrin Investments to proceed with the redevelopment of the Kaufman lofts
was a direct result of the investment made by the City in the Health Sciences Campus. This
resulted in 270 new residential units downtown, with an approximate sales value of
5
$45,000,000. Assuming 1.8 people per unit, this project added 486 residents to the downtown.
67
Overall, from 2004 to 2008, the number of residents in downtown neighbourhoods increased
8
by 799 (487 in the core), and residential building permit values in downtown neighbourhoods
accounted for $71.9 million out of a total of $218.2 million overall.
The Upper Storey Renovation Program produced the following results:
Six projects underway or complete with 11 applications approved overall;
26 units (about 35 bedrooms) under construction or built, with the possibility for another
eight units if remaining five applicants proceed to permit stage prior to their deadlines;
The projects underway or complete have a total project cost of $1.7 million, of which
$489,250 was or will be loaned by the City.
More indirectly, increased confidence in the downtown has resulted in the construction of
another 92 units housing 165 residents elsewhere in the downtown 2004. Another 660 units are
currently under development in adjacent neighbourhoods. These will house 1353 new residents.
5
Source: Statistics Canada, 2006 Census of Population, Statistics Canada catalogue no. 97-554-XCB2006032.
6
Source: City of Kitchener AMANDA database, Statistics Canada, 2006 Census, Economic Development Population
Estimates
7
Includes planning communities 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 13.
8
Source: City of Kitchener AMANDA database
ïê ó è
Future developments
The City Centre Condominiums will add 385 new residential units downtown. Using the
9
this project has the potential to add 693 residents. Two
assumption of 1.8 people per unit,
additional projects totalling 304 units and 550 residents are in the planning process in downtown
and adjacent neighbourhoods.
In 2004, the City of Kitchener commissioned a study of its urban residential market. That study
had found that there was no market for high-end urban residential condominium apartments in
Kitchener. Some 18 months later, Andrin Homes was able to sell out its Kaufman Lofts project
and found sufficient demand to add two additional floors to the Kaufman building. A December
21, 2009 article in the Waterloo Region Record, states “Kitchener is more of a balanced
(residential) rental market, but there is an upscale pocket growing downtown around the new
satellite University.” It now appears that at least 1737 units will have been built, housing 3126
residents, in the downtown and adjacent neighbourhoods over the life of EDIF.
Objective 4: Seek maximum contributions in addition to the City’s funding
Measurables
Contributions from other agencies or partners
Results
One of the City’s objectives for EDIF has always been to attract additional partners to EDIF
funded projects. The objective in 2004 was to have 15 per cent of EDIF funded projects
financed by other agencies or firms. Table 2 illustrates the extent to which the City has
succeeded in achieving this objective. In fact, the 15 per cent target turned out to be very
conservative. EDIF funded projects were actually able to attract more funding from other
sources than from EDIF.
The estimated cost of the entire Health Sciences Campus to date is $78 million. The City’s
contribution of $30 million plus the Epton lands was thus leveraged to produce an additional $48
million in investment, or $1.57 in additional investment per dollar spent by the City.
The Faculty of Social work contribution of $6.5 million went toward a total investment of $17.1
million, meaning the investment was leveraged to produce an additional $10.6 million in
investment, or an additional $1.63 per dollar.
The investment in Victoria Park improvements was matched with $1.2 million through the
Government of Ontario’s SuperBuild program, intended to improve public infrastructure.
9
Source: Statistics Canada, 2006 Census of Population, Statistics Canada catalogue no. 97-554-XCB2006032.
ïê ó ç
Table 2. Summary of projects with additional funding from partners
Additional
CurrentFuture investment per
CurrentFuture Total investments investments dollar spent by
Project investment investmentallocatedby partnersby partners City
Health Sciences
Campus $30,000,000 $0$30,000,000$47,244,460 $1.57
Faculty of
Social Work $6,500,000 $0$6,500,237$10,599,763 $1.63
King St
streetscape$3,830,000 $1,320,000$5,150,000$4,443,500 $0.86
Victoria Park
improvements $1,350,000 $1,350,000$2,700,000$675,000$525,000 $0.44
Digital Media $0 $500,000$500,000 $46,530,000 $93.06
City Centre $1,340,597 $18,103,823$19,444,420 $90,000,000 $4.63
Downtown
Community
Centre $777,680 $0$777,680$1,300,000 $1.67
TOTAL
$43,798,514 $21,273,823 $65,072,337 $64,262,723 $137,055,000
A closer look at the King Street reconstruction project in Table 3 illustrates funding from three
additional partners.
Table 3. Detailed additional funding from partners for King Street streetscaping
Funding sourceInvestment
City of Kitchener (EDIF) $3,830,000
City of Kitchener (Community Services) $350,000
Provincial government $3,200,000
Federal government $1,230,000
Tree Canada $13,500
City of Kitchener (DTS) $1,500,000
TOTAL$10,123,500
For most projects involving additional funding, the City was able to, at the very least, double the
value of the project. Among all projects so far, including projects with no additional investment
by partners, the City has spent $48.9 million, and total current investments by partners total $64
10
million, representing $1.32 in additional funding per dollar spent by the City. When future
investments from others and allocated investments in EDIF are added to this figure, it becomes
11
$1.78 per dollar spent by the City, meaning 178 per cent of EDIF was matched by other
public- and private-sector investments.
Future developments
Although the digital media funds are only allocated at this point in time, this is still an excellent
example of leveraging EDIF money to attract investment. Table 4 illustrates that Communitech
is leveraging a $500,000 contribution from City of Kitchener into a $47 million digital media
convergence centre ($93.06 per dollar).
10
See Appendix A.
11
See Appendix A.
ïê ó ïð
Table 4. Funding from Partners for Digital Media Convergence Centre
Funding source Investment
City of Kitchener (EDIF) $500,000
Provincial government (requested) $26,400,000
Federal government through CECR $5,350,000
Federal government through CAF $280,000
Industry contributions $14,500,000
TOTAL$47,030,000
Objective 5. Return on Investment
The concept of Return on Investment (ROI) is more difficult to define in the case of EDIF funded
projects. ROI is an accounting term with very specific definition. In the case of EDIF, a
traditional definition of ROI is not appropriate for projects in which the funds are granted to a
not-for profit corporation such as a university or organization such as Communitech, downtown
community centre, road infrastructure, or public library renovation. For these projects, ROI must
be defined much more broadly to attempt to identify if the City of Kitchener has achieved its
strategic objectives, thereby setting the stage for new industries or clusters, improved
employment, and increased tax revenue over time. This is therefore reflected in the analysis of
the first four objectives.
Other Outcomes
As with many projects, EDIF investments have generated other positive outcomes as well.
Perhaps the most significant has been the improvement in the confidence of the community in
the downtown as a place for investment. This is evident in the personal investments made by
individuals choosing to purchase downtown condominiums, as well as the significant business
investments made by the private sector in projects like the Lang Tannery and 250 King.
A somewhat surprising, but very important outcome of EDIF and other investments has been
the increased availability of healthcare professionals in the Waterloo Region. The development
of the Health Sciences Campus with two professional schools together with new specialist units
at the Region’s three hospitals and the establishment of the multi-disciplinary Centre for Family
Medicine have dramatically increased teaching, research and professional development
opportunities for medical professionals. This, together with the over 300 new medical and
pharmacy students in the Region, has resulted in improved access to health care for the entire
community and has addressed a key challenge in recruiting skilled workers to the Waterloo
Region. In the process the Health Sciences Campus has become a critical resource for the
City’s Talent Strategy.
Finally, it is important to recognize changing perceptions of Kitchener’s downtown as an
outcome of these investments. Clearly investors, consumers and citizens see the profound
changes underway in the downtown. At a recent Economic Development Advisory Committee
meeting, EDAC members expressed satisfaction with the momentum created by the EDIF
investments. One member expressed relief at the decision to invest in the emerging clusters
located in the downtown. If the City had invested in large tracts of Greenfield industrial land
rather than the new and emerging knowledge clusters, the current situation in the urban
economy could be quite different.
ïê ó ïï
CONCLUSION:
The Economic Development Investment Fund is now approximately halfway through its ten-year
implementation period, and about 45 per cent of its funds have been invested. Tangible
outcomes from these investments have become evident with the development of the new Health
Sciences Campus, the Kaufman Lofts project and the Tannery district under development.
Progress can also be seen in the Grand River Business Park, where EDIF funded investments
in industrial land have been recouped through land sales and contributed toward employment in
the city. Additional projects, such as Communitech’s digital media convergence centre and the
Kitchener Public Library addition, are still in the planning stages and the concrete outcomes of
these commitments from EDIF will not be seen for some time to come. This report links the fund
objectives to preliminary outcomes. It also identifies a method of evaluation that can be used in
the future to calculate the impact of EDIF.
The analysis is constrained by the time lag for census and assessment data, and the lack of
available local data for other potentially relevant indicators. But perhaps the biggest challenge to
this early analysis is the need to allow for the maturation of EDIF investments. While EDIF has
contributed toward the advancement of projects like the digital media convergence centre and
the Shirley Drive employment lands, there is a substantial time lag in realizing the culmination of
these investments. Also, there are projects such as the past investment in the Downtown
Community Centre and the future allocation for the Library which do not directly meet an EDIF
objective, yet they contribute to a positive environment for investment in the downtown.
Nevertheless, an examination of only the measurable results demonstrates that EDIF has made
a positive economic impact. Assessment is growing faster near EDIF investments, with growth
nearly twice as high as other downtown properties. Investments in the Shirley Drive employment
lands secured jobs, and caused assessment and tax growth. Downtown employment and
business counts are growing, while vacancy is falling to the point where it is now lower than the
city-wide rate. New residential units have been added through the redevelopment of Kaufman
Lofts and through the Upper Storey Renovation Program, with nearly 300 units added through
these two projects alone.
Finally, for every dollar in EDIF, other partners have contributed, or will contribute $1.78, which
demonstrates the capacity to leverage city funds for stimulus. Further, in some instances
additional spending comes from the private sector which shows that other investors have
confidence in the projects made possible through this fund.
The effect of EDIF is expected to continue to grow over the remaining life of the fund and it will
have a lasting and measurable impact on the city over the long term.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
None.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Rod Regier, Executive-Director, Economic Development
ïê ó ïî
Appendix A: Summary of EDIF Projects
Additional
investment
CurrentFuture per dollar
investments investments spent by
CurrentFuture Total
Project investment investmentallocated by partners by partners City
Stimulus
Health Sciences
Campus $30,000,000 $0$30,000,000$47,244,460 $1.57
Faculty of Social
Work* $6,500,000 $0$6,500,237$10,599,763 $1.63
King St streetscape $3,830,000 $1,320,000$5,150,000$4,443,500 $0.86
Maple Leaf lands $3,000,000 $0$3,000,000
Victoria Park
improvements $1,350,000 $1,350,000$2,700,000$675,000$525,000 $0.44
Downtown
Residential
Incentives $48,366 $951,634$1,000,000
Cedarview Pl -$49,010 $0-$49,010
Shirley Dr extension -$141,660 $0-$141,660
Digital Media $0 $500,000$500,000 $46,530,000 $93.06
DC - Downtown
core exemption $0 $2,735,000$2,735,000
DC - Non-
residential $0 $981,000$981,000
City Centre (All
projects)
$1,340,597 $18,103,823$19,444,420 $90,000,000 $4.63
Library (All
projects)
$0 $32,500,000$32,500,000
Parking (All
projects)
$867,646 $469,277$1,336,923
Other
Downtown
Community Centre $777,680 $0$777,680$1,300,000 $1.67
The Block That
$408,474 $7$408,482
Rocks
Misc. Studies and
Communication $178,630 $465,829$644,460
Epton Land Study $755,540 $0$755,540
Environmental fund $0 $3,000,000$3,000,000
44 Gaukel $0 $2,000,000$2,000,000
TOTAL $48,866,501 $64,376,571$113,243,072$64,262,723$137,055,000 $1.78
ïê ó ïí