HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 6, 2006
I)
II)
III)
IV)
V)
VI)
VII)
Council Meeting
Agenda
Monday, February 6, 2006
Council Chambers
7:30 pm
INVOCATION
Mayor Ryan will call the meeting to order and lead Council in the
saying of the Invocation.
DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST
ADOPTION OF MINUTES
PAGE
Regular Council Meeting of January 16, 2006
1-11
PRESENTATIONS
12
DELEGA TIONS
13
CORRESPONDENCE
14-67
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE REPORT
Executive Committee Report EC 2006-02
68-71
Executive Committee Minutes
"In Camera" Executive Committee Minutes
72-79
Under
Separate
Cover
80-131
VIII) REPORTS - NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS
132
IX) MOTIONS AND NOTICE OF MOTIONS
X) BY-LAWS
XI) OTHER BUSINESS
XII) CONFIRMATION BY-LAW
133-134
XIII) ADJOURNMENT
. Minutes of the Taxicab Advisory Committee held on January 18, 2006
001
Council Meeting Minutes
Monday, January 16, 2006
7:30 pm
PRESENT:
Mayor David Ryan
COUNCILLORS:
K. Ashe
M. Brenner
D. Dickerson
R. Johnson
B. Mclean
D. Pickles
ALSO PRESENT:
1. J. Quinn
N. Carroll
G. Paterson
D. Bentley
C. Rose
D. Shields
- Chief Administrative Officer
- Director, Planning & Development
- Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
- City Clerk
- Manager, Policy
- Deputy Clerk
I)
INVOCA TION
Mayor Ryan called the meeting to order and led Council in the saying of the
Invocation.
II)
DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST
III)
ADOPTION OF MINUTES
Moved by Councillor Johnson
Seconded by Councillor Brenner
Regular Council Meeting of December 19, 2005
'In Camera' Meeting of December 19, 2005
CARRIED
1
002
Council Meeting Minutes
Monday, January 16, 2006
7:30 pm
IV)
PRESENTATIONS
1.
laurie McCaig
News Advertiser
Best Fitness Club in Pickering
Re: Presentation of Readers Choice Award
laurie McCaig of the News Advertiser presented Thomas J. Quinn, Chief
Administrative Officer with the Readers Choice Award for the Best Fitness
Club in Pickering.
Sharon Milton, Supervisor Facility Programs thanked the News Advertiser
for the award and spoke about the reasons the facility received the award.
She noted that the Pickering Recreation Complex offered services to all
ages and that staff provide excellent service to the members and
community.
V)
1.
CORRESPONDENCE
CORR. 1-06
PATTI L. BARRIE
MUNICIPAL CLERK
MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 Temperance Street
ClarinQton. Ontario
Advising that at a meeting held on December 12, 2005, the Municipality of
Clarington passed a resolution concerning hydro services, and requesting any
action.
2.
CORR. 2-06
SANDRA KRANC
CITY CLERK
CITY OF OSHAWA
50 Centre Street South
Oshawa, Ontario
Advising that at a meeting held on December 19, 2005, the City of Oshawa
passed a resolution concerning the future status of General Motors of Canada
Limited in Oshawa.
2
003
Council Meeting Minutes
Monday, January 16, 2006
7:30 pm
Resolution #01/06
Moved by Councillor Dickerson
Seconded by Councillor Brenner
That CORR. 1-06 from Patti L. Barrie, Municipality of Clarington, be received for
information.
That CORR. 2-06 from Sandra Kranc, City of Oshawa, be received for
information.
VI)
REPORTS
CARRIED
Executive Committee Report EC 2006-01
(1 )
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, Report CS 03-06
Historical/Architectural Designation
- Glen House
- 1690 Whitevale Road. PickerinQ
1.
That Report CS 03-06 of the Director, Corporate Services &
Treasurer be received;
2.
That the Executive Committee endorse the recommendation of
Heritage Pickering for designation of Glen House;
3.
That the City Clerk be authorized to begin procedures to have the
Glen House, municipally known as 1690 Whitevale Road,
designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act;
4.
That the City Clerk, in consultation with Heritage Pickering, draft
and forward an appropriate 'Notice of Intent to Designate' to the
owners of the property, the Ontario Heritage Foundation, the local
newspaper; and
5.
Further, that the City Clerk be directed to draft the necessary by-
law together with the reasons for designation for Council approval.
3
004
(2)
(3)
Council Meeting Minutes
Monday, January 16, 2006
7:30 pm
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, Report CS 04-06
Historical/Architectural Designation
- Willson House
- 1505 Whitevale Road. PickerinQ
1.
That Report CS 04-06 of the Director, Corporate Services &
Treasurer be received;
2.
That the Executive Committee endorse the recommendation of
Heritage Pickering for designation of Willson House;
That the City Clerk be authorized to begin procedures to have the
Willson House, municipally known as 1505 Whitevale Road,
designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act;
3.
4.
That the City Clerk, in consultation with Heritage Pickering, draft
and forward an appropriate 'Notice of Intent to Designate' to the
owners of the property, the Ontario Heritage Foundation, the local
newspaper; and
5.
Further, that the City Clerk be directed to draft the necessary by-
law together with the reasons for designation for Council approval.
Director, Planning & Development, Report PD 05-06
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 19/05
Robert and Maria Graham
1610 Central Street, Claremont
Part of lot 19, Concession 9, Part 1, 40R-15519
City of PickerinQ
1.
That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 19/05, be approved,
to amend the current zoning of the subject property to permit a bed
and breakfast establishment as an additional use, as submitted by
Robert and Maria Graham, on lands being Part of lot 19,
Concession 9, Part 1, 40R-15519, City of Pickering; and
2.
That the amending zoning by-law to implement Zoning By-law
Amendment Application A 19/05, as set out in Appendix I to Report
PD 05-06, be forwarded to City Council for enactment.
4
~
005
(4)
(5)
Council Meeting Minutes
Monday, January 16, 2006
7:30pm
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, Report CS 01-06
2006 Interim levy and Interim Instalment Due Dates
1.
That Report CS 01-06 of the Director, Corporate Services &
Treasurer be received;
2.
That an interim levy be adopted for 2006 for all of the realty
property classes;
3.
That the interim levy instalment due dates be February 27 and April
27, 2006;
4.
That the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be authorized to
make any changes or undertake any actions necessary, including
altering due dates, in order to ensure the tax billing process is
completed;
5.
That the attached By-law, providing for the imposition of the taxes,
be read three times and passed by Council; and
6.
That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take
the necessary actions to give effect thereto.
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, Report CS 05-06
Appointment to enforce the Parking By-law at 1822 Whites Road,
905 & 1600 Bayly Street, 1915 Denmar Road, 1310 Fieldlight Blvd.,
1655 & 1665 PickerinQ Parkway and 1235 Radom Street
1.
That Report CS 05-06 of the Director, Corporate Services &
Treasurer respecting the appointment of Special Municipal law
Enforcement Officers for the purpose of enforcing the Parking By-
law on private property be received;
2.
That the draft by-law to appoint persons to enforce the Parking By-
law at 1822 Wh ites Road, 905 & 1600 Bayly Street, 1915 Denmar
Road, 1310 Fieldlight Blvd., 1655 & 1665 Pickering Parkway and
1235 Radom Street, be forwarded to Council for approval; and
3.
That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized
to take the necessary actions to give effect thereto.
5
006
Council Meeting Minutes
Monday, January 16, 2006
7:30 pm
Resolution #02/06
Moved by Councillor Dickerson
Seconded by Councillor Pickles
That the Report of the Executive Committee EC 2006-01, dated
January 9, 2006, be adopted.
CARRIED
VII)
MOTIONS
1.
Heritage Pickering
Council Appointment
Resolution #03/06
Moved by Councillor Dickerson
Seconded by Councillor Ashe
That Councillor Johnson be appointed as Council representative on the
Heritage Pickering Committee.
CARRIED
Councillor Dickerson indicated his interest to act as an alternate ifn the
event that Councillor Johnson could not attend a meeting.
2.
DesiQnation of HeritaQe Conservation District
Resolution #04/06
Moved by Councillor Brenner
Seconded by Councillor Dickerson
WHEREAS section 8.1 of the Pickering Official Plan states that Council
shall respect the City's cultural heritage, and shall conserve and integrate
important cultural heritage resources from all time periods into the
community; and
WHEREAS section 8.4 of the Pickering Official Plan states that City
Council, in consultation with its heritage committee, shall implement the
provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act, including the designation under the
Act of heritage conservation districts where appropriate; and
6
007
Council Meeting Minutes
Monday, January 16, 2006
7:30 pm
WHEREAS policy 2.13(n) of Council adopted Amendment 13 to the
Pickering Official Plan, which implements the results of the City's Growth
Management Study, states that for the Central Pickering Area, Council
. shall recognize the heritage character of the Whitevale Road Corridor and
require the design of new development to be compatible with the existing
heritage, features and sites; and
WHEREAS policy 2.13(1) of Council adopted Amendment 13 to the
Pickering Official Plan identifies the need for a neighbourhood planning
process for Central Pickering; and
WHEREAS the City of Pickering has designated by by-law the Hamlet of
Whitevale and its surroundings, including lands on either side of Whitevale
Road to the east of Sideline 26 as a heritage conservation district; and
WHEREAS Heritage Pickering, the City's heritage committee, has
approached Council requesting a potential extension of the heritage
conservation district designation through Seaton along Whitevale Road,
from the east limit of the existing heritage conservation district to Sideline
16, extending one half a concession in width north and south of
Whitevale Road and including Whitevale Road itself (the "Study Area");
and
WHEREAS section 40 of the Ontario Heritage Act permits the Council of a
municipality, in consultation with its heritage committee, to undertake a
study of an area of the municipality for the purpose of designation of a
heritage conservation district; and
WHEREAS section 40.1 of the Ontario Heritage Act permits a municipality
undertaking a study under section 40 of the Act to designate by by-law a
defined area as a "heritage conservation study area" for a period of up to
one year.
NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering
hereby directs staff, as input to the neighbourhood planning process for
Seaton, to undertake a heritage study of the Study Area in the context of
an urbanizing area consistent with the City's Growth Management Study /
Amendment 13, and prepare an appropriate by-law designating such area
as a heritage conservation study area; and
7
008
VIII) BY -LAWS
6590/05
Council Meeting Minutes
Monday, January 16, 2006
7:30 pm
THAT a copy of this resolution be forwarded to all landowners within the
Study Area, Heritage Pickering, the Minister of Culture, the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Housing, Ontario Realty Corporation, the North
Pickering land Exchange Team, and DEL Property Management.
CARRIED ON A RECORDED VOTE
Yea
Nay
Councillor Ashe
Councillor Brenner
Councillor Dickerson
Councillor Johnson
Councillor Mclean
Councillor Pickles
Mayor Ryan
A by-law to declare that part of lot 38, Plan 270, designated as By-law
Part 8, Plan 40R-23867 and lot 39, Plan 170, now being Parts 9 and
10, Plan 40R-23867 surplus to the needs of the City of Pickering. By-
law 6590/05 appeared before the Executive Committee on October 24,
2005 and is being forwarded to Council for approval.
6613/06 A by-law to repeal Smoking By-law No. 4290/03.
6614/06
6615/06
A by-law to amend Restricted Area Zoning By-law 3037, as amended
to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of
Durham, Part of lot 19, Concession 9, Part 1, 40R-15519, City of
Pickering. (A 19/05) This by-law implements the recommendation
contained in Item #3 of the 1 st Report of the Executive Committee
presented to Council on January 16, 2006. [Report PD 05-06]
A by-law for the collection of taxes and to establish the installment due
dates for the Interim levy 2006. This by-law implements the
recommendation contained in Item #4 of the 1 st Report of the
Executive Committee presented to Council on January 16,2006.
[Report CS 01-06]
8
009
Council Meeting Minutes
Monday, January 16, 2006
7:30 pm
6616/06
A by-law to appoint By-law Enforcement Officers for certain purposes,
in accordance with parking regulation for 1822 Whites Road, 905 &
1600 Bayly Street, 1915 Denmar Road, 1310 Fieldlight Blvd., 1655 &
1665 Pickering Parkway and 1235 Radom Street. This by-law
implements the recommendation contained in Item #5 of the 1 st Report
of the Executive Committee presented to Council on January 16, 2006.
[Report CS 05-06]
THIRD READING:
Councillor Mclean, seconded by Councillor Brenner, moved that By-law
Numbers 6590/05,6613/06,6614/06,6615/06 and 6616/06, be adopted and the
said by-laws be now read a third time and PASSED and that the Mayor and Clerk
sign the same and the seal of the Corporation be affixed thereto.
CARRIED
IX)
OTHER BUSINESS
1.
The following matters were considered prior to the regular meeting:
(a)
The City Clerk provided a verbal update with respect to Pickering
Animal Services, specifically in relation to the current level of in-house
services.
Moved by Councillor Brenner
Seconded by Councillor Pickles
That Council move into an "In Camera" meeting of Council in order to
discuss litigation or potential litigation, including matters before
administrative tribunals.
CARRIED
(b)
The City Solicitor provided a confidential verbal update to Members of
Council with respect to Berrywoods Farms.
Moved by Councillor Brenner
Seconded by Councillor Pickles
That Council rise and ratify the actions taken at the 'In Camera' session.
CARRIED
9
010
Council Meeting Minutes
Monday, January 16, 2006
7:30 pm
(c)
Request for Waiver of Hall Rental Fee for West Salon
- StarbriQht Children's Foundation
The City Clerk provided Members of the Committee with a memorandum
requesting the waiver of hall rental fees at the West Salon on April 21,
2006 for the Starbright Children's Foundation.
Moved by Councillor Mclean
Seconded by Councillor Dickerson
THAT the request of Ms. Aleeya Mohammed on behalf of the Starlight
Starbright Children's Foundation to waive the rental fee of the West Salon
at the Pickering Recreation Complex, in support of a fund raising event for
the organization be received;
THAT a grant in the amount of $543.08 be made to Starlight Starbright
Children's Foundation to offset the said rental fee of the West Salon on
April 21,2006; and
THAT this amount be charged to Account 2195 (Grants to Organizations &
Individuals).
CARRIED
X)
CONFIRMATION BY-LAW
By-law Number 6617/06
Councillor Johnson, seconded by Councillor Pickles, moved for leave to
introduce a By-law of the City of Pickering to confirm those proceedings of the
Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering at its Regular Meeting of
January 16, 2006.
CARRIED
XI)
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:00 pm.
10
DATED this 16th Day of January, 2006
Council Meeting Minutes
Monday, January 16, 2006
7:30 pm
MAYOR DAVID RYAN
DEBIA.BENTLEY
CITY CLERK
11
Oil
ûú¡ o~
PRESENTATIONS
1.
012
Presentation by Councillor Brenner
Chair, Benchmarking Standards/Sustainability
Re: BenchmarkinQ/Sustainability
CiÚ¡ o~
013
DELEGATIONS
1.
Representatives of Ajax Pickering Board of Trade
Re: Comments on City's Sustainability Initiatives
Ciú¡ o~
014
CORRESPONDENCE
1.
CORR. 3-06
ELIZABETH MCLAREN
ASSISTANT DEPUTY MINISTER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING
777 Bay Street, 14th Floor
Toronto. Ontario
Refer to Director, Planning
& Development to Report
Submitting for Council's information a copy of the proposed modifications to the
proposed development plan developed by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and
Housing and requesting written submissions to be submitted to the Ministry by
March 3, 2006.
2.
CORR. 4-06
P.M. MADill
REGIONAL CLERK
REGION OF DURHAM
605 Rossland Road East
Whitby, Ontario
Refer to Consideration
of Item VIII) b) of New
. Business
Advising that at a meeting held on January 25, 2006, the Council of the
Region of Durham considered Report #2006-F-4 and adopted a resolution
with respect to Bill 206, Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System.
3.
CORR. 5-06
P.M. MADill
REGIONAL CLERK
REGION OF DURHAM
605 Rossland Road East
Whitby, Ontario
Motion for Direction
(Consent to Endorse By-law)
Advising that at a meeting held on January 25, 2006, the Council of the
Region of Durham adopted a resolution requesting that the City consent to
endorsement of a by-law relating to the residential solid waste collection in
the Town of Ajax.
015
5.
3.
Receive for Information
CORR. 6-06
P.M. MADill
REGIONAL CLERK
REGION OF DURHAM
605 Rossland Road East
Whitby. Ontario
Advising that at a meeting held on January 25, 2006, the Council of the
Region of Durham adopted a resolution with respect to a Well Interference
Protocol.
CORR. 7-06
PICKERING-AJAX CITIZENS TOGETHER
FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (P.A.C.T.)
David Steele, Chairperson
c/o 966 Timmins Garden
PickerinQ. Ontario
Motion for Direction
Submitting correspondence writing to the Honourable Minister laurel Broten,
Minister of Environment, requesting that the Minister issue a "Part II Order"
and bump up of the Environmental Assessment to that of an Individual
Environmental Assessment under the provisions of the Environmental
Assessment Act (EM).
Ministry of
Municipal Affairs
and Housing
Planning and Development Division
777 Bay St 14th Fir
TorontoON M5G2E5
Telephone: (416) 585-6427
Fax: (416) 585-6445
Ministère des @
Affaires municipales ~
et du Logement " V .
Division de la planification et de l'aménagement du territoire
777. rue Bay 14'étage R EC E
Toronto ON M5G 2E5 I V ED
Téléphone: (416) 585-6427 CITY OF PICKERING
Télécopieur: (416) 585-6445 FEB 0 1 2006
3-0b
Ontario
016
CLERK'S DIVISION
February 1, 2006
Dear Stakeholder:
Re: Proposed Modifications to the Proposed Central Pickering Development Plan
Please find attached a copy of the proposed modifications to the proposed development
plan developed by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. As a result of information
and comments gathered from consultations during the Summer of 2005, the Ministry has
prepared a series of proposed modifications to the proposed Development Plan. Now, we
want your comments on the proposed modifications. The proposed modifications to the
proposed plan are being made available to the public and municipalities under the authority
of subsection 4(4) of the Ontario Planning and Development Act, 1994 (OPDA).
The release of the proposed modifications will mark the beginning of a consultation period
during which the Ministry wants to get your feedback and written submissions. Written
submissions are to be received by the Ministry by March 3, 2006.
As part of the Province's strategy to protect the Oak Ridges Moraine, the Province is
proposing to exchange provincially owned lands in Seaton for privately owned lands on the
Moraine. In addition, and in order to lay the foundation for a well-planned, progressive
urban and rural community in Pickering with a protected natural heritage system, the
ministry is preparing a proposed Development Plan that reinforces the Province's Greenbelt
Plan and key principles of the proposed Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.
On behalf of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, I look forward to your
participation in this important process. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please
call the North Pickering land Exchange Team at (416) 585-6554.
Yours truly,
-Am~
Elizabeth A. Mclaren
Assistant Deputy Minister
Planning and Development Division
Attachment
1322(06195)
~ ~ Diiedcý/
PICJ\~~9 ~ è£v~
017
Central Pickering Development Plan Proposed Modifications
The proposed Central Pickering Development Plan (CPDP) is prepared under the authority of the
Ontario Planning and Development Act, 1994 (OPDA).
The proposed Plan affects an area of land described in the Development Planning Area Order made
under section 2(1) of the OPDA dated March 25, 2004. The Development Planning Area is bounded
by the CPR Belleville Line in the south, Sideline 16/Pickering-Ajax boundary in the east, Highway 7
in the north and York-Durham Town Line in the west. The Development Planning Area is located
entirely within the City of Pickering within the Regional Municipality of Durham.
The proposed Plan was released for public review on July 14, 2005 for a 60-day consultation
period and posted on the Environmental Bill of Rights Registry (EBR). The consultation period
ended September 12, 2005. Over 60 submissions commenting on the proposed Plan were
received and reviewed by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing staff and the project's
consultants.
The following modifications to the proposed CPDP are being proposed for public comment for
30 days. Modifications to the proposed Plan are identified, as appropriate, in italics.
Editorial Changes
I.
Wherever Natural Heritage System primary designation is found, it should be changed to Natural
Heritage System Primary Designation.
2.
Wherever Natural Heritage System overlay designation is found, it should be changed to Natural
Heritage System Overlay Designation.
3.
Wherever Greenbelt Plan (Ontario Regulation 208/2005) is found, it should be changed to
Greenbelt Plan (Order-In-Council 208/2005).
4.
Wherever Minimum Distance Separation formulae is found, it should be changed to Minimum
Distance Separation Formulae.
5.
Wherever Draft Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe is found, it should be changed to
Proposed Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.
Schedule Changes
I.
Replace the existing Schedule 2, Land Use; Schedule 4, Transportation Network; and Schedule 5,
Servicing System, with the proposed attached schedules.
Amendments to the OPDA Plan's Policies:
In Section 1.3 - History and Context:
1. Amend item 2 on page 14 to read as follows:
2. The Places to Grow Act, 2005 provides a legal framework for growth planning in Ontario. The
Act allows the Province to designate any area as a growth area and develop a Growth Plan for
that area. A Growth Plan would integrate and build on other key provincial initiatives including
the proposed Greenbelt Plan, the Niagara Escarpment Plan, Planning Act reform, infrastructure
planning, and source water protection planning. The Central Pickering Development Plan will
implement the basic principles of the proposed Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.
018
In Section 3.2 - Stage Two:
2. Amend Section 3.2 - Stage Two, by revising the first paragraph on page 25 to
read as follows:
Stage Two involves the logical phasing of Neighbourhood Planning through the preparation of a
Master Environmental Servicing Plan, together with other required studies, including an Economic
Development Study, Natural Heritage System Management Plan including a master trail plan, and
Environmental Assessments. Detailed Neighbourhood Plans will be prepared concurrent with or
prior to the processing of plans of subdivision. These Neighbourhood Plans will be completed in a
manner consistent with the City's of Pickering's development planning process. All studies
required by this Plan to permit future development of lands will be the financial responsibility of
the benefiting landowners.
3. Amend Section 3.2 - Stage Two, by adding to the end of the third paragraph on
page 25 to read as follows:
It is a policy of this Plan to require that the timing for commencement and preparation of the
Master Environmental Servicing Plan, any required environmental assessments, including those to
be carried out by the City of Pickering and/or the Region of Durham and the Natural Heritage
System Management Plan be co-ordinated as much as possible in order to avoid duplication of
work and permit achievement of common and inter-related objectives.
4. Amend Section 3.2 - Stage Two, by adding a new requirement on page 26 to
read as follows:
12. Identify existing and proposed major utility requirements, such as appropriate locations for
large utility equipment and utility cluster sites, installations, corridors, easements and substations.
In Section 4.1- Natural Heritage System:
5. Amend Section 4.1 - Natural Heritage System, by revising Objective 1 to read as
follows:
I. Protect, maintain and, where possible, enhance all environmentally significant features and
functions, all significant connections to regional natural systems including the Oak Ridges
Moraine, Rouge Park, Duffins Creek system, Lake Ontario, and the Greenbelt Area, as well as all
key hydrological features in the Development Planning Area;
6. Amend Section 4.1 - Natural Heritage System, by deleting Policies 2 and 10 and
replacing them with a new Policy 2, and renumber the remaining policies
accordingly. The new policy will read as follows:
2. Require the preparation of an overall Natural Heritage System Management Plan for the lands
referred to as Natural Heritage System Primary Designation on Schedule 2 by the owners of the
land. The Natural Heritage Management System Plan will include the preparation of a master trail
plan, and establish the long-term uses, maintenance requirements and responsibilities and
programs for all elements of the Natural Heritage System. The Natural Heritage System
Management Plan will also address cultural heritage protection.
The planning and design of the master trail plan for the Natural Heritage System Primary
Designation will consider the following:
2
019
a) Build on the heritage pattern of land division within the Development Planning Area by
following open and unopened road allowances, lanes and hedgerows, where feasible;
b) Link urban neighbourhoods with places of work, mixed-use centres, and social facilities;
c) Connect with urban neighbourhoods via a series of trailheads located at the edges of urban
neighbourhoods and linked with urban paths;
d) Use the existing trail systems, including the Seaton Trail, the proposed Regional Trail Network
and the proposed Whitevale Trailhead as a basis for providing a new comprehensive trail system
for the Development Planning Area;
e) Avoid the most sensitive features of the Natural Heritage System, including habitat of sensitive
species, wetlands, and steep slopes;
f) Avoid fragmentation of core forest habitat; and,
g) Utilize educational signs to develop greater understanding of the value and protection needs of
the Natural Heritage System.
In Section 4.2 - Cultural Heritage:
7. Amend Section 4.2 - Cultural Heritage, by adding the following to subsection (e)
of Policy I to read as follows:
e) Requiring that urban design guidelines prepared as a component of the Neighbourhood Plans
address the conservation of significant cultural heritage resources and landscape features, and the
integration of significant views associated with these features into the design of the new urban
community. In particular, these considerations shall be an integral element of the design of public
spaces. Implementation of this policy shall be informed by the assessment and recommendations
contained in the Fall 2005 report entitled "Cultural Landscape Assessment Central Pickering:
Seaton Lands" prepared by Wendy Shearer Landscape Architect Limited; and,
8. Amend Section 4.2 - Cultural Heritage, by revising subsection (a) of Policy 2 to
read as follows:
a) Demonstrate appropriate transitional design and compatibility with the area's existing character,
including use of social, institutional, open space and recreational facilities to serve as a buffer, as
shown on Schedule 2 and referred to as Hamlet Heritage Open Space;
9. Amend Section 4.2 - Cultural Heritage, by deleting Policy 3 and replacing it with
a new Policy 3 to read as follows:
3. Recognize First Nations' cultural and spiritual connection to the Development Planning Area
and require the development process be undertaken in a respectful manner. This will include
actively seeking the input and advice of First Nations in considering the most appropriate actions
to take with respect to the protection, commemoration, long-term management and/or mitigative
excavation of archaeological sites.
I O. Amend Section 4.2 - Cultural Heritage, by adding a new policy following Policy
3 and renumber the remaining policies accordingly. The new policy will read as
follows:
4. Permit the City of Pickering to require, as a condition of development approval, that an
archaeology monitor, preferably of First Nations' ancestry, be retained by the proponent for any
significant mitigative excavation activities, on known pre-contact archaeological sites. The
purpose of this monitor would be to work co-operatively with the proponent's licensed
professional archaeologist in order to report back on the results of the mitigative excavation
activities to interested First Nations.
3
In Section 4.3 - Agriculture:
020
11. Amend Section 4.3 - Agriculture, by deleting subsection (b) of Policy 2 and
replacing it with a new subsection (b) to read as follows:
b) Secondary uses or ancillary activities as defined in the Provincial Policy Statement that are
secondary to the principal use of the property, including home occupations, home and cottage
industries, veterinary clinics and uses that produce value-added agricultural products from the
farm operation on the property, such as community herb gardens, seasonal roadside produce
stands, farm vacation uses, kennels and craft shops;
12. Amend Section 4.3 - Agriculture, by deleting subsection (e) of Policy 2 and
renumber the remaining policies accordingly.
In Section 4.4 - Social, Institutional, Open Space and Recreational Facilities:
13. Amend the opening statement of Section 4.4 - Social, Institutional, Open Space
and Recreational Facilities, to read as follows:
The new urban community will require a broad range of social, institutional, open space and
recreational facilities, including educational facilities, arts and culturalfacilities, parks, recreation
centres, health care facilities, childcare centres and places of worship.
14. Amend Section 4.4 Social, Institutional, Open Space and Recreational Facilities,
by adding a new Policy 4, to read as follows:
4. Ensure that roadway lighting and outdoor lighting associated with development does not cause
direct light trespass, glare or up light.
In Section 4.5 - Transportation Network:
15. Amend Section 4.5 - Transportation Network, by revising the third paragraph
on page 47 to read as follows:
The Development Planning Area will be served by both major and minor transit corridors. Major
transit corridors will have the potential to develop into higher order service in exclusive rights-of-
way, and facilitate inter-regional and local travel. Major transit corridors identified on Schedule 4
to this Plan include the Highway 407 transitway (mainline and links), Highway 7, Brock Road,
Taunton Road, and Whites Road/Sideline 26. These corridors:
16. Amend Section 4.5 - Transportation Network, by revising the third paragraph
on page 48 to read as follows:
Minor transit corridors facilitate a greater frequency of transit bus service with the opportunity to
convert traffic lanes to higher occupancy vehicle lanes. Minor transit corridors identified in this
Plan include, Rossland Road/Sideline 22 and other collector and arterial roads as identified in
Schedule 4. The community has been planned such that 90% of residents will be within a 400-
metre (i.e., five-minute) walk of a transit route.
4
021
17. Amend Section 4.5.1 - General Transportation, to revise objective 3 to read as
follows:
Ensure adequate inter-regional transportation infrastructure through connections with Highway
407, the potential future airport and transit corridors. To this end, the Province will encourage co-
operation between provincial ministries, the Regional Municipalities of York and Durham and the
City of Toronto to co-ordinate transportation planning decisions that support a more efficient
inter-regional transit and roads network, in recognition of the importance of the movement of
goods and people to the economy of the eastern Greater Toronto area;
18. Amend Section 4.5.2 - Transit and Active Transportation, to modify objective 11
to read as follows:
11. Facilitate the introduction and improvement of transit services as development occurs by
ensuring, through conditions of plan of subdivision approval, that an interconnected road network
is created, with linkages from all parts of the Development Planning Area to urban growth centres
identified in the proposed Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, and major transit
station areas identified in accordance with the proposed Growth Plan;
19. Amend Section 4.5 - Transportation Network, by revising Policy 1 to read as
follows:
1. Determine the precise location of a future GO Transit Station, conceptually located on the west
side of Brock Road north of the c.p Rail line as shown on Schedule 4: Transportation Network,
through an environmental assessment;
a) Should the environmental assessment result in the identification of alternate
Iocation(s), the station location(s) may be moved without amendment to this Plan;
and,
b) Upon identifying the station location(s), re-examine the abutting land-uses to ensure
an appropriate mix and intensity of land-uses is permitted.
20. Amend Section 4.5 - Transportation Network, by adding a new policy following
Policy 2 and renumber the remaining polices accordingly. The new Policy will
read as follows:
3. Require the development pattern throughout Central Pickering to accommodate transit routes,
pedestrian and bicycle networks, and alternative transportation facilities (including park and ride,
car pooling, bicycle storage areas, bus bays and accessible transit stop pads) in order to encourage
and maximize the use of public transit within the City of Pickering and between neighbouring
municipalities, from the earliest stage of development. Provision shall be made for commuter
parking areas to accommodate transit stations and service transfer sites over time.
21. Amend Section 4.5 - Transportation Network, by adding subsection (d) to Policy
3 to read as follows:
d) The appropriate location, structure design and intersection spacing for the Whitevale Road
bypass over the West Duffins Creek.
22. Amend Section 4.5 - Transportation Network, by revising Policy 4 to read as
follows:
4. Plan for the construction of two Highway 407 interchanges at Sideline 26 and Sideline 22. The
timing for the construction of the interchanges will be based on a needs assessment conducted as
part of the Master Environmental Servicing Plan in consultation with the Ministry of
5
Transportation and the 407 ETR Concessions Company. Interchanges at Sideline 26 and Sideline
22 and resultant spacing of the interchanges must meet applicable design, safety and operational
standards, and any other applicable approvals.
022
23. Amend Section 4.5 - Transportation Network, by deleting subsection (c) of Policy
6 and replacing it with a new subsection (c) to read as follows:
c) Recognizing the unique heritage character of the White vale Road corridor from the Whitevale
Hamlet to the Whitevale Road bypass (west of Sideline 22), and to this end, during the preparation
of Neighbourhood Plans adjacent to this corridor,
i) integrating new development along this corridor in a manner that is compatible with existing
cultural heritage value or interest of the landscape, properties and structures;
ii) detennining an appropriate road cross-section, traffic management measures and accessibility
that are compatible with the character of this corridor; and
iii) considering measures such as lower rights-of-way widths and pedestrian oriented streetscape,
as a way of conserving heritage attributes, context and character of this corridor.
24. Amend Section 4.5 - Transportation Network, by deleting subsection (e) of
Policy 6 and replacing it with a new subsection (e) to reads as follows:
e) Aligning Brock Road to the east to meet the possible Highway 407 interchange subject to the
necessary approvals being obtained, pending the outcome of the Highway 407 East Environmental
Assessment, and preserving the existing Brock Road alignment and providing local access to and
from the highway near the Hamlet of Brougham.
25. Amend Section 4.5 - Transportation Network, by deleting Policy 8 and replacing
it with a new Policy 8 to read as follows:
8. In order to achieve a compact development pattern, efficient use of land and a pedestrian
oriented streetscape and to limit impacts on the Natural Heritage System and significant cultural
heritage features, incorporate minimum rights-of-way widths in the preparation of Central
Pickering's Neighbourhood Plans. These rights-of-way widths should, where feasible and
appropriate, be at the lower end of the ranges identified for roads by the City of Pickering and
Regional Municipality of Durham. Notwithstanding this policy, transit corridors on Type A
arterials must be protected for six-lane cross-sections, including two dedicated transit lanes, and
transit corridors on Type B arterials must be protected for a four-lane cross section, including two
lanes for high occupancy vehicle use or transit priority measures. Should it be determined that a
wider right-of-way width is necessary through the Neighbourhood Planning process to
accommodate safety or transit objectives, it is a policy of this Plan to require that sufficient design
and landscape detail be provided of the road cross-sections to achieve the creation of a high
quality public realm, with particular emphasis on ease of pedestrian movement along and across
the road.
26. Amend Section 4.5 - Transportation Network, by adding a new Policy 9 to read as
follows:
9. Consider, during the preparation of Neighbourhood Plans, the potential for areas around
highway interchanges; GO Stations; all major transit areas; and park and ride areas, to
accommodate more intensive land use activities and higher densities over time in order to support
increasing transit service levels. Provision shall also be made for the identification of
intensification corridors.
6
023
27. Amend Section 4.5 - Transportation Network, by adding a new Policy 10 to read
as follows:
10. Require that the Province, in making transportation infrastructure investment decisions that
impact on the Development Planning Area, consult with affected municipalities to maximize the
opportunity for aligning provincial and municipal capital priorities, within the context of achieving
the intent of the proposed Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.
28. Amend Section 4.5 - Transportation Network, by adding a new Policy 11 to read
as follows:
11. Pennit, as a condition of development approval, the requirement for an analysis of travel
demand sensitivity to detennine that the transportation network, intersection capacity, level of
service and community design objectives of this Plan will be achieved.
29. Amend Section 4.5 - Transportation Network, by adding a new Policy 12 to read
as follows:
12. Support the timely completion of the environmental assessment for the easterly extension of
Highway 407 beyond Brock Road in Durham Region, recognizing that previous studies have
recommended the extension of Highway 407 from Brock Road to Highways 351115.
In Section 4.6 - Servicing:
30. Amend Section 4.6 - Servicing, by adding a new objective to read as follows:
7. Promote co-ordinated public and private utility planning and infrastructure design.
31. Amend Section 4.6 - Servicing, by adding the following to the end of Policy 1 to
read as follows:
1. Prepare a Master Environmental Servicing Plan detailing the functional servicing requirements
for the entire Development Planning Area. As part of the Master Environmental Servicing Plan, a
phasing plan shall be prepared for the construction of major community facilities, transportation
links and stormwater, water and wastewater servicing that promotes a balanced live/work
relationship and the provision of such facilities and services at the earliest feasible stage of the
community development process.
32. Amend Section 4.6 - Servicing, by adding three policies following Policy 1 and
renumbering the remaining policies accordingly. The new policies will read as
follows:
2. Pennit the development of lands subject to the availability of servicing within the Development
Planning Area. Servicing of the lands shall be phased to reflect a cost-efficient and logically
sequential extension of infrastructure within the City of Pickering.
3. Notwithstanding Policy 2, require that the phasing plan prepared as part of the Master
Environmental Servicing Plan address the early servicing of Prestige Employment areas so as to
pennit an appropriate balance of employment opportunities in conjunction with the development
of the residential neighbourhoods.
4. In order to anticipate and mitigate the potential impacts of land use changes on ground and
surface water resources, require, prior to the approval of the first phase of development, the
following matters be addressed, to the satisfaction of the appropriate approval agencies, through
the use of a three-dimensional groundwater flow model:
7
024
a) Quantification of the sensitivity of the affected aquifers, aquitards and groundwater-fed
wetlands and streams in relation to proposed land use changes in the Devebpment Planning Area;
b) Identification of the relationship between land use changes and local and regional groundwater
recharge dynamics and path flow regime;
c) Where necessary, provision for the mitigation of potential development impacts (including de-
watering, run-off, stream base flow reduction and potential sources of contamination) on private
wells, groundwater flows and stream and wetland water quality and quantity through the
establishment of quantitative and/or qualitative hydrogeological targets or performance standards
that shall be integrated into development proposals; and
d) Where necessary, identification of requirements for the on going monitoring of groundwater
conditions and contingency strategies for mitigating negative impacts that may be identified over
time.
Preparation of this anàlysis shall be the responsibility of the affected development proponent(s),
and take into account the 2003 Watershed Plan for the Duffins Creek and Caruthers Creek
prepared by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.
33. Amend Section 4.6 - Servicing, by revising Policy 8 to read as follows:
8. In order to reduce streetscape clutter, where feasible, integrate, group or combine public and
private above ground infrastructure. Consideration should be also given to the use of joint utility
poles and submersible hydro facilities. Utility providers shall be encouraged to consider
innovative methods of containing utility services on or within streetscape features such as
gateways. lamp posts and transit shelters.
34. Amend. Section 4.6 - Servicing, by adding a new Policy 12 to read as follows:
12. Require that consideration be given to the installation of private and public utilities early in the
development approvals process in order to minimize disruption to the community.
In Section 4.7 - Employment:
35. Amend Section 4.7 - Employment, by revising the introduction, to read as
follows:
Balanced residential and employment growth in Central Pickering is intended to create an
economically and fiscally sustainable community in the long term. The Plan provides for
approximately 35.000 jobs. The Central Pickering Development Plan establishes the location and
anticipated built form of employment uses in the Development Planning Area. The Plan's
flexibility in respect of the built form and range of employment uses in identified employment
areas is intended to respond to changing business preferences and methods of production, which
have brought a wider range of uses into employment areas over the past twenty years.
36. Amend Section 4.7 - Employment, by replacing the preamble of Policy 4 with a
new preamble, to read as follows:
4. Require, as a means to promote the timely marketing and disposition of provincially owned
lands, the completion of a Highway 407 Economic Development Study prior to or coincident with
the preparation of the first development proposal for an employment area within the lands
designated for Prestige Employment. This study shall:
8
025
.
37. Amend Section 4.7 - Employment, by deleting subsection (a) of Policy 4, and
replacing it with a new subsection (a) to read as follows:
a) Identify the priority location(s) within the Prestige Employment area for servicing, including
transit.
38. Amend Section 4.7 - Employment, by deleting subsection (c) of Policy 4, and
replacing it with a new subsection (c) to read as follows:
c) Evaluate the potential opportunities and constraints for the integration of a university/college
campus site, which is highly accessible by roads and served by transit, within or immediately
adjacent to the employment lands. Specific consideration shall be given, in this regard, to the
lands generally south of Highway 407 and adjacent to Brock Road.
39. Amend Section 4.7 - Employment, by deleting subsection (d) of Policy 4, and
replacing it with a new subsection (d) to read as follows:
d) Establish the creation of appropriate zoning and design performance standards, including for
transit-supportive facilities and road cross-sections.
40. Amend Section 4.7 - Employment, by revising subsection (e) of Policy 4 to read
as follows:
e) Identify the appropriate interface between the new land-uses and the Hamlets of Green River
and Brougham, which may include buffering, performance standards and land-use restrictions. In
particular, identify the preferred uses for the parcels of land located on the west side of Sideline
16, north of Highway 407 and south of the Hamlet of Brougham.
41. Amend Section 4.7 - Employment, by adding subsection (f) to Policy 4 to read as
follows:
f) Identify the nature and form of employment uses that are expected to locate in the lands
designated Prestige Employment in order to determine appropriate lot sizes and performance
standards. Consideration shall be given to identifying precincts for large and small employment
parcels.
42. Amend Section 4.7 - Employment, by adding the following sentence to the end of
Policy 5, to read as follows:
5. Large format retail warehouses are not permitted in Prestige Employment areas.
43. Amend Section 4.7 - Employment, by adding a new Policy 8 to read as follows:
8. Require the City of Pickering and the Regional Municipality of Durham to work co-operatively
with affected landowners to assess and rationalize, through the process for creating the first
Neighbourhood Plan, the necessity for a Main-Central Area designation in the Development
Planning Area, as identified in the Regional Municipality of Durham's Official Plan. In the event
that it is determined that a Main-Central Area is appropriate, consideration will be given to an
amendment to this Plan.
9
026
In Section 4.8 - Housing and Mixed Use:
44. Amend Section 4.8 - Housing and Mixed Use, by revising objective 3 to read as
follows:
3. Plan for a community with a population of up to 70,000 residents;
45. Amend Section 4.8 - Housing and Mixed Use, by adding a new Policy 7 to read
as follows:
6. Require Neighbourhood Plans to make provision for the realization of this Plan's objectives for
higher density, transit supportive development by:
c.
Providing for the early introduction of transit services, alternative transportation facilities
and retail and service uses to accommodate residents' needs;
Setting timeframes and targets for the construction of higher density residential uses
along transit spines;
Providing for financial incentives for the creation of higher density and/or affordable
housing, including reduced development charges and building permit and planning
approvals fees; and
Encouraging development intensification over time.
a.
b.
d.
In Section 5.1 - Implementation Process for the Urban Community:
46. Amend Section 5.1 - Implementation Process for the Urban Community, by
revising the first sentence of Policy 3, to read as follows:
3.
It is a policy of this Plan that the scope of Chapter II of the City of Pickering's Official Plan,
which provides policies for each of the City's 15 existing urban neighbourhoods, be amended
to include the fifieen neighbourhoods (as set out in the diagram on the next page) in the urban
portion of Central Pickering as shown on Schedule 2 of this Plan.
47. Amend Section 5.1- Implementation Process for the Urban Community, by
adding a new Policy to read as follows:
6. It is a policy of this Plan that the preparation, review and approval of development applications
within the Central Pickering community will be carried out. with a view to achieving six broad
sustainable community principles. These principles include:
I. fostering a healthy natural environment;
2. encouraging a healthy built environment;
3. ensuring economic health;
4. creating opportunities for education and public awareness;
5. fostering social and cultural well-being; and
6. providing appropriate measures for monitoring and measuring success.
Neighbourhood Plans shall integrate these principles through the identification of short-, medium-
and long-term actions that address these principles. Perfonnance measures should be incorporated
in the Neighbourhood Plans and will playa role in the on-going assessment of the Plan's success
at achieving sustainability. In order to provide greater certainty for integrating these principles
into the Neighbourhood Planning process, interested stakeholders, under the direction of the City
of Pickering, shall establish a committee whose mandate will include establishing benchmarks for
energy conservation, building and community design, cultural heritage conservation, accessibility
for the disabled, air quality, human health promotion and environmental net gain, that shall be
10
027
incorporated into Neighbourhood Plans to guide future development. This committee's work shall
be undertaken prior to or concurrent with the approval of the first Neighbourhood Plan.
In Section 5.4 - Accommodating and Monitoring Change:
48. Amend Section 5.4 - Accommodating and Monitoring Change, by adding a new
sentence following the first paragraph on page 73, to read as follows:
In addition, the boundaries and alignments of the land-use designations shown in Schedule 2 are
approximate, and provided the general purpose and intent of the Plan is maintained, minor
adjustments may be made without amendment to the Plan except where such boundaries are
established by fixed features such as railways, highways and roads, lot and concession lines, or
property lines. As part of the preparation of Neighbourhood Plans, minor modifications to the
land use boundaries may be considered to reflect differences in scale and levels of detail or to
better integrate natural and urban land uses so as to achieve a more compact efficient urban form,
provided such modifications do not negatively impact the Natural Heritage System or natural
features and functions.
49. Amend Section 5.4 - Accommodating and Monitoring Change, by revising the
last paragraph on page 73 to read as follows
It is a policy of this Plan that the goals, objectives, policies and accompanying Schedules
contained herein shall be reviewed every five years by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and
Housing. The purpose of this review will be to assess the relevance and currency of the Plan,
including the scope of coverage of the Development Planning Area, in light of the changing
market, demographic, social, environmental and economic conditions within Central Pickering.
The review should also consider what, if any, remedial or adaptive measures need to be
undertaken through amendment to the Plan to address environmental and public safety conditions
and any other appropriate matters that may have changed since the Plan's approval based on
experience in monitoring build out of the community. Such monitoring shall be a shared
responsibility of landowners, the Province, municipalities, relevant public agencies and interested
members of the public. Subject to following the requirements of the Ontario Planning and
Development Act, 1994, the need for an amendment to the Central Pickering Development Plan
will be determined by, and at the sole discretion of, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and
Housing.
In Section 8 - Urban Design Guidelines: Schedule 9
50. Amend Schedule 9: Urban Design Guideline titled Site Sustainability -
Roadway and Streetscape Design on page 97 by adding a new point to read as
follows:
public and private utilities should be clustered or grouped where possible to mlmmlze visual
impact.
11
In Section 5.1 - Implementation Process for the Urban Community:
51. Amend Section 5.1 - Implementation Process for the Urban Community, by
replacing the existing Neighbourhood Plan diagram on page 68, with the attached
Neighbourhood Plan diagram
12
028
029
The Regional
Municipality
of Durham
Clerk's Department
605 ROSSLAND RD. E.
PO BOX 623
WHITBY ON L 1 N 6A3
CANADA '
905-668-7711
1-800-372-1102
Fax: 905-668-9963
E-mail:
clerks@region.durham.on.ca
www.region.durham.on.ca
Pat M. Madill, A.M.C.T., CMM I
Regional Clerk
"Service Excellence
for ourComrnimities"
January ce~~
1-0b
RECEIVED
CITY OF PICKERING
FEB 0 ~ 2006
CLERK'S DIVISION
The Honourable Dalton McGuinty
Premier and Minister of Research and Innovation
Room 281, Main legislative Building
Toronto, Ontario
M7A 1A4
RE:
BILL 206: ONTARIO MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES
RETIREMENT SYSTEM ACT (2006-F-4)
Please be advised that the Finance and Administration Committee
of Regional Council considered the above matter and at a meeting
held on January 25, 2006, Council adopted the following
recommendations ofthe Committee:
THAT AMO's position in opposition to Bill 206, Ontario
Municipal Employees Retirement System, 2005 be
supported;
"a)
THAT copies of this resolution and Report# 2006-F-4 of the
Commissioner of Finance, be forwarded to the Premier of
Ontario, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the
Minister of Finance, Opposition leaders, all Durham MPP's
and the area municipalities; and
b)
THAT the area municipalities be requested to endorse this
resolution and forward similar resolutions to the Premier of
Ontario, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the
Minister of Finance, Opposition leaders and all Durham
MPP's.1I
c)
)<fJf~~t the l:)ß
copy 13&-
TO:
( CORR.""") FI.E
TAKE APPR. ACTION
Enclosed as directed, is a copy of Report #20
Commissioner of Finance.
/fiì" /1 .1 " 'J J
!, /'.' .~:i"U,'i, './,' (/
;!.. !I '~
.J,
P.M. Madill, AM.C.T., CMM I
Regional Clerk
PMM/nb
Encl.
@
100% Post Consumer
l~Of ~ '>
c:
030
The Honourable John Gerretsen, Minister of Municipal
Affairs and Housing
The Honourable Dwight Duncan, Minister of Finance
Mr. Wayne Arthurs, MPP (PickeringlAjax/Uxbridge)
The Hight Honourable Paul Martin
Mr. Jack layton, leader of the New Democratic Party
Mr. Jim Flaherty, MPP (Whitby/Ajax)
Mr. John O'Toole, MPP (Durham)
Mr. Jerry Ouellette, MPP(Oshawa)
Ms.laurie Scott, MPP (HaliburtonNictoria/Brock)
Mr. M. de Rond, Clerk, Town of Ajax
Mrs. P.L. Barrie, Clerk, Municipality of Clarington
Ms. D. Bentley, Clerk, City of Pickering
Ms. D. leroux, Clerk, Township of Uxbridge
Mr. G.S. Graham, Clerk-Administrator, Township of Brock
Ms. S. Kranc, Clerk, City of Oshawa .
Ms. K. Coates, Clerk, Township of Scugog
Mr. P. Jones, Clerk, Town of Whitby
Mr. R. J. Clapp, Commissioner of Finance
~
o.
The Regional Municipality of Durham
Report to: The Finance and Administration Committee
From: RJ. Clapp, Commissioner of Finance
Report No.: 2006-F- 4
Date: January 18, 2006
SUBJECT:
Bill 206: Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Finance and Administration Committee recommend to Regional Council that
AMO's position in opposition to Bill 206. Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement
System, 2005 be supported and copies of this report be forwarded to Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Housing and all Durham MPP's.
REPORT:
1.0
BackÇlround
.
In June 2005, the Province of Ontario introduced Bill 206, Ontario Municipal
Employees Retirement System. 2005. This bill, among other things,
introduces a new governance plan for the Ontario Municipal Employees
Retirement System (OMERS) as well as supplemental pension plans for
certain groups of employees. The Bill, with a number of amendments,
received second reading in December 2005 and has now been referred back
to Standing Committee.
. In December, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Honourable
John Gerretsen, sent a letter to the Regional Chair's office providing an
update on the status of the Bill (Attachment 1).
. This report provides a brief overview of the Bill and the Minister's letter as
well as the Association of Municipalities of Ontario's (AMO) comments on Bill
206 (Attachment 2).
2.0
Financial Implications of Amendments to Bill 206
. More than 100 amendments to Bill 206 have been tabled for the Standing
Committee's review. One of the new amendments is the inclusion of
paramedics in the group to which the supplemental plans apply (previously
just police and fire fighters). In addition, the proposed new Sponsors
Corporation, which will govern OMERS, must set up supplemental plans
within two years of the Act coming into force - this is no longer optional.
Decisions around implementation of supplemental plans will now move to the
local level. The local employer and employee groups will now have to
bargain for these enhancements.
Report No.: 2006-F-4
Page No.: 2
032
. AMO has expressed concern that the inclusion of paramedics in the group to
which supplemental plans apply will increase costs dramatically. In addition,
by moving the decisions on supplemental plans to the local level, AMO is
concerned about the unintended affect this amendment may have in
shortening the duration of contracts, as the amended Bill limits the provision
of supplemental plans to one per round of collective bargaining.
. The Minister in his letter has also addressed the issue of solvency funding
requirements for the supplemental plans. Solvency funding is the cost to
settle the plan benefits if the plan were to be wound up. A letter has been
issued to OMERS indicating that the Province is prepared to recommend that
these plans be exempted from solvency funding. (Solvency funding, if
required, is expected to have a much higher cost impact on the plan.) While
the proposed exemption from solvency funding is good news, there is no
guarantee that it will occur. Without the guarantee, it is difficult to predict with
any degree of certainty the cost implications of the supplemental plans.
. AMO has indicated that they are not in a position to reduce their cost
estimates of an average of 3% property tax increase, or about $380 million
per year because there is no guarantee that the solvency rules will be
changed. In addition, they are indicating that the addition of the- paramedic
group and the guarantee of supplemental benefits could drive the cost
impacts even higher.
. The Minister indicates that OMERS has been requested to provide
stakeholders with costing information on the potential benefit enhancements,
as they maintain the data necessary to complete the analysis. However,
municipalities would still have to make assumptions about the type of
supplemental plan to be implemented and a prudent financial analysis would
suggest that this should be done on a worst case scenario. While trade-offs
in salary and benefit packages may be possible to obtain in local
negotiations, the reality is that supplemental plans will result in cost increases
if reductions are not made elsewhere.
3.0
Governance Structure
. A Sponsors Corporation is still the proposed governance structure for
OMERS. This structure was previously described in Report 2005-F-75
(Attachment 3).
. The amendments to Bill 206 include a complicated and unusual new decision
making protocol. The Sponsors Corporation may make a specified change
(e.g. benefits or contribution rates) with an affirmative vote of two-thirds of its
members. If a proposal is neither accepted nor rejected (in accordance with
the rules for each), an affirmative vote by simple majority could be used to
refer the decision to mediation and arbitration.
033
Report No.: 2006-F- 4
Page No.: 3
4.0
Summary
Despite the amendments now being considered, Bill 206, Ontario Municipal
Emplovees Retirement System, 2005 is expected to have significant cost
implications for municipalities. Therefore, the Finance Department will continue
to monitor closely the progress of Bill 206 and provide updates on new
developments.
In the meantime, the AMO position should be supported and the Region should
not support Bill 206 and the proposed changes to OMERS as it will result in a
more costly pension scheme for municipalities.
This report has been reviewed by the Human Resources Department who
concurs with the recommendation.
~.". "~J"
R. J. Clapp, CA
Commissioner of Finance
Recommendation for Presentation to Committee
~
G. H. Cubitt, M.S.W.
Chief Administrative Officer
Attmts.
MG\2006REPORTS\omers bill 206
Attachment #1
Page 1 of 2
Minister of Municipal Affairs
and Housing
M"t d Aft. " I ~111~
InIS re es alres mumclpa es -
et du Logement
777, rue Bay. 17°étage REGION OF DURHA
Toronto ON M5G 2E5 ~ ~ (Ç fC:'.ll o/!
Tél. (416) 585-7000 )J !:::J ~ ~:fD) Ontario
Téléc (416) 585-6470 1 ~ U,
www,mah.Qov.on.ca
034
777 Bay Street. 17'" Floor
Toronto ON M5G 2E5
Tel. (416) 585-7000
Fax (416) 585-6470
www.mah.Qov.on.ca
DEe 3 0 2005
(O5.{1436)
December 20, 2005
Roger Anderson
Chair
Regional Municipality of Durham
PO Box 623, 605 Rossland Road East
Whitby, ON LIN 6A3
OFFICE OF THE
REGIONAL CHAIR
}~ ~. d
-'~V l r ,Ïfritr-.
/' \jl 11
) If -' /, /1 V
ri Ý' I ~~ r.f
Dear Roger Anderson:
Re:
Bill 206: Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act
I am writing to you with an update now that I have introduced Bill 206 into the legislature for
second reading.
Many of your submissions indicated a concern about the potential cost of a supplemental benefit
plan for the police and fire sectors and for paramedics. This is a natural concern but the
government is moving forward to require the implementation of specific pension benefits
because we believe it is important to provide police, fire and paramedic employees with the
option to bargain 10caUy for these enhancements. We have also introduced a number of
amendments at the Standing Committee on General Government that should help to contain the
costs of these potential benefits and potential future benefits.
Bill 206, if passed, will not impose any new cost or pension benefit on any employer or
employee. It win require that the proposed new Sponsors Corporation set up, within 24 months,
a supplemental benefit plan that will include the optional pension benefits outlined in the Bill.
Once the supplemental benefit plan is made available, it will be up to local groups of employees
and employers to decide whether or not they wish to access a new pension benefit. The bill
allows for no more than one of the potential new supplemental benefits to be negotiated between
individual employer and its employees at a time.
With respect to the decision-making and dispute resolution process, the Bill, as amended
following first reading, would require that decisions on specific major plan changes, such as
changes in benefits or contribution rates, could be approved by a two-thirds majority vote of the
Sponsors Corporation. This would ensure that there was significant support by both employees
and employers. Access to mediation and arbitration with respect to any specified changes in
benefits would now require majority support by the Sponsors Corporation representatives of both
employees and employers. '
/2
1322(06/95)
035
Attachment #1
Page 2 of 2
-2-
Roger Anderson,Chair
Regional Municipality of Durham
The Bill continues to propose the requirement of a stability reserve of 105 per cent before
benefits could be increased and a cap of 0.5 per cent for both employees and employers on
awards arbitrated for the Sponsors Corporation.
This government recognizes that the costs of supplemental benefits, if they are subject to the full
requirements of the Pension Benefits Act, such as the solvency funding requirements, would be
quite onerous for both employees and employers. Therefore, in addition to the changes outlined
above, I am pleased to advise you that the Minister of Finance has issued a letter to the Ontario
Municipal Employees Retirement System (OMERS) indicating that he is prepared to
recommend, subject to certain conditions, that new supplemental benefit plans under OMERS be
exempted from the solvency funding rules through an amendment to the Pension Benefits Act
Regulation. It is my understanding that OMERS sent a copy of this letter to all stakeholders.
This exemption would occur at the time that the plans are created and registered with the
Superintendent of Financial Services. This would contain costs and make supplemental benefits
more affordable for both employees and employers.
In closing, I would like to clarify that our government asked OMERS to provide all stakeholders
with costing information on potential benefit enhancements, as only OMERS maintains data
necessary to conduct these types of actuarial analyses. Individual municipalities can apply the
OMERS actuarial estimates to their specific conditions in order to estimate potential local costs
under various benefit scenarios. A number of stakeholders have used the data and have made a
number of assumptions that presume that every municipality will immediately give all eligible
employee groups several expensive benefits. This analysis also appears to assume that
employees and employers would not make any trade-offs with any other salary or benefit items
throughout the collective bargaining process.
I trust this information is helpful and I look forward to receiving further recommendations or
comments on this important matter.
Sincerely,
c:
Roger Anderson, President, Association of Municipalities of Ontario
Fred Biro, Chair, Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System
The Honourable Dwight Duncan, Minister of Finance
AMO I OMERS - Bill 206 Receives Second Reading and Heads Back to Standing Comm... Page 1 of 3
Attachment #2
Page 1 of 3
~bt.
Association of Muoidpalilits of úmonìo
036
To the immediate attention of the Clerk and Council
December 15,2005 - Alert 05/092
OMERS - BILL 206 RECEIVES SECOND READING AND HEADS BACK TO STANDING
COMMITTEE
Issue: Amendments to Bill 206 make some substantive changes to the governance structure, voting
and supplemental plans. The Bill has become even less permissive and more costly. (Iinklo the
Ç!m~ndg_çl__JH!1 )
Action: Municipal governments need to continue the message that neither the Bill nor its
amendments have been analyzed for cost impacts and that the Bill is creating a very complex
pension plan.
The amended Bill has been referred back to Standing Committee for further consideration prior to
Third Reading - the dates for which are yet to be confirmed. AMO will prepare a further submission
to the Standing Committee and keep members informed of the commentary and amendment
requests. Members should take every opportunity inform MPPs and taxpayer groups of the
devastating impact that Bill 206 will have on Ontario's communities.
Understanding the Amendments to the Bill:
At clause-by-clause review there were more than 100 motions for amendments to Bill 206 tabled for
review by the Standing Committee members. Some of the most significant Government (i.e;,
Liberal) proposals that amended the Bill as passed at Second Reading included:
. Paramedics- Are included in the meaning of "police and fire sectors" and were not part of our
costing. It has also been clarified that civilian officers are included. This will increase costs
dramatically.
. Supplemental Plans- Supplemental plans shall be provided to police and fire sectors (no longer
optional) and paramedics. Bill 206 would now require 4 supplemental plans to be made available
for local negotiations within two years of the Act coming into force:
0 2.33 accrual rate for NRA 60
0 unreduced at 80 (if age 50 or older) for NRA60
0 unreduced at 85 (if age 55 or older) for NRA65
0 best 3 years or best 4 years (compared to best 5 years in basic plan)
The amended Bill limits the provision of these supplemental plans to one per round of local collective
bargaining - which will likely have the unintended affect of reducing the length of contracts to one
year.
. Funding of rebound costs - assets from the supplemental plan will be transferred to the
primary plan to fund liabilities created by supplemental plans.
. Cap on Contributions - the 60 months BAE and 0.6% CPP offset limits only apply to the
primary plan, not applicable to supplemental plans.
. Arbitration Decisions - Prohibits awards that would result in a three year cumulative increase
of more than 0.5% of pensionable earnings.
. Composition of Sponsors and Administration Corporation(s) - Includes two (2) additional
http://www.amo.on.ca/AM/PrinterTemplate.cfm?Section=OMERS - Supplemental- Plans&...
1/11/2006
.f
AMO I OMERS - Bill 206 Receives Second Reading and Heads Back to Standing Comm... Page 2 of 3
Attachment #2
0 3 7 Page 2 of 3
members on the Sponsors Corporation for AMO for a total of 5 appointments on the Sponsors
Corporation, and a total of 3 appointments to the Administration Corporation. In addition, AMO
will be required to make two appointments to an advisory committee on supplementary plans for
the police and fire sectors and 3 appointments to an advisory committee on supplemental
benefits for other employees. In total, AMO will be required to make 13 appointments.
AMCTO will be provided with a seat as an erTlJ21~E; representative on behalf of all
management/union exempt OMERS members.
. Decision Making - The government has introduced a complicated and unusual new decision
making protocol. The Sponsors Corporation may make a specified change (e.g. change to
benefits or contribution rates) with an affirmative vote of two-thirds of its members. If a
proposal is neither accepted (2/3 majority), nor rejected (simple majority votes against), within a
30-day period, the Sponsors Corporation may, by an affirmative vote of a simple majority of its
members (Le., 50% + 1), refer the proposal to mediation and arbitration.
. Solvency - Current pension solvency rules under the Pension Benefits Act (PBA) make
supplemental plans considerably more expensive for employers and employees than they would
be if the solvency rules did not apply.
On December 8, 2005, Finance Minister Dwight Duncan, wrote to the OMERS Board indicating that he
is prepared to "... recommend to Cabinet" that new supplemental plans created under Bill 206 be
exempted from solvency requirements, through a regulation amendment, under the following
conditions:
1. that, subject to the approval of Cabinet, the supplemental plans are prescribed by regulation as
jointly sponsored pension plans under the PBA as amended by the Budget Measures Act, 2006
(which passed Third Reading on December 14, 2005.)
2. that, subject to the approval of Cabinet, the supplemental plans will be exempted from coverage
under the Pension Benefits Guarantee Fund (PBGF). The plans would not be covered by the fund
if the plans were not funded on a solvency basis.
3. that the supplemental plans be created in a way that ensures that, in the event that the plan is
wound up, if there are insufficient assets to pay for the accrued benefits, members would only
receive benefits to the extent that they are already funded, (Le., the pension plans will reduce
benefits if there are insufficient assets rather than require additional payments by employers or
employees.)
The difference related to solvency rules is illustrated in the OMERS Board's hypothetical costing
analysis. The actuarial consultant hired by OMERS prepared an example of a "Hypothetical
Employer" with 1000 employees: 260 NRA60 employees and 740 NRA65 employees.
In the "Hypothetical Employer" example, OMERS costs increase from $4.04 million to $5.35 million a
year with solvency rules in place - an increase in pension costs of 30%. With an exemption from
solvency rules, the same employer's costs would increase about 10%, from $4.04 million to $4.41
million. However, the costing assumed only QJ]~ supplemental plan per employee group, which is
now an unrealistic scenario given the aforementioned amendments to Bill 206 adding paramedics
and making a menu of supplemental plans mandatory over time.
Although the intent of the Minister's letter is helpful, it provides no guarantee that the solvency
exemption will occur. Consequently, it would be irresponsible to consider the cost implications of Bill
206 outside of the current solvency rules.
Potential Fiscal Implications:
Because there are no guarantees that the solvency rules will be changed, AMO is not in a position to
reduce its cost estimates of an average 3% property tax increase or up to $380 million a year. In
http://www.amo.on.caJAMIPrinterTemplate.cfm?Section=OMERS - Supplemental_Plans&...
1/11/2006
ftlVlV I VlVltK;) - 15111 LOb Keceives Second Reading and Heads Back to Standing Comm... Page 3 of 3
Attachment #2
Page 3 of 3
fact, with the addition of paramedics and a new guarantee of additional supplemental benefits, costs
could be higher than initially estimated by the more than 120 municipal treasurers in Ontario who
undertook a costing analysis on behalf of AMO.
038
Although AMO and others have requested costing information from the Government, the Government
has provided no information on costs. In an effort to determine if the government has carried out
any cost analysis of Bill 206's original or amended provisions, AMO is proceeding to make an
information request under the provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy
Act.
Summary:
While some municipalities, and AMO, were permitted to participate in the Committee hearings, many
municipal stakeholders were shut out of the process entirely. More than 160 municipal governments
have passed resolutions asking the government to reconsider Bill 206. Instead the government
appears to be forging ahead with amendments that ignore the concerns of municipal governments
and substantially meet virtually all of the expectations of the police and fire service unions.
If Bill 206 becomes law in Ontario, municipal governments will need to prepare for continuing
property tax increases and/or significant service reductions to pay for enriched retirement benefits.
It is clear that Liberal government is creating its own legacy, akin to the downloading legacy of the
Harris government.
Municipal governments and their residential and commercial taxpayers deserve nothing but full
disclosure of the government's costing analysis as part of their due diligence on this major policy
initiative.
For more information, contact 416-971-9856:
Pat Vanini, Executive Director, at ext. 316 or
Brian Rosborough, Director of Policy at ext. 318
Bacl~
http://www.amo.on.caJAM/PrinterTemplate.cfm?Section=OMERS _Supplemental - Plans&...
1/1112006
0
Attachment #3
Page 1 of 6
The Regional Municipality of Durham
Report to: The Finance and Administration Committee
From: RJ. Clapp, Commissioner of Finance
Report No.: 2005-F-75
Date: September 21, 2005
SUBJECT:
Changes to the OMERS Pension Plan for 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Finance and Administration Committee recommend to Regional Council that
this report be forwarded to Regional Council for information.
REPORT:
1.0
INTRODUCTION
. Recently, the Province of Ontario announced several changes to the OMERS
Pension Plan for 2006:
1) Employee/Employer contribution rate increases; and
2) legislation for an autonomous self governing OMERS Board.
. The purpose of this report is to provide further information regarding these
changes.
2.0
EMPLOYEE/EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION RATE INCREASES
. In 1998, the Province of Ontario approved a "contribution holiday" for
employees and employers in which contributions were suspended for both
employees and employers participating in OMERS as a result of a funding
surplus within the plan.
. In 2004, OMERS fully reinstated contribution rates at levels higher than they
had been prior to the "contribution holiday" in 1998. In addition, although it
had been anticipated that the rates would be phased back in, the full rate
increase was implemented in 2004.
. The higher than anticipated rates and the elimination of the phase-in reflected
the performance of OMERS investment portfolio as a result of the market
downturn in 2001 and 2002.
R~port No.: 2005-F-75
Page No.: 2
Attachment #3
. During the summer, the Board of Directors of OMERS submitted a proposal Page 2 of 6
to the Province of Ontario recommending an average increase in contribution
rates of 0.6% of earnings for both employers and employees effective
January 1, 2006 (normal retirement age of 65). If approved by the Province,
the new rates will come in effect on the first full pay in January 2006.
040
. The contribution rates will be 6.5% up to the YMPE (Yearly Maximum
Pensionable Earnings) of $41,100, up from 6.0% for 2005. In addition,
earnings above the YMPE will have a contribution rate of 9.6%, up from 8.8%
in 2005:
Percentage of Annual Earnings
2005 2006
Normal retirement Up to the YMPElìT 6.0% 6.5%
age 65 Over the YMPE 8.8% 9.6%
Normal retirement Up to the YMPE{TT 7.3% 7.9%
age 60 Over the YMPE 9.8% 10.7%
Note:
(1) The Year's Maximum Pensionable Earnings is the limit up to which
members also contribute to the CPP: $41,100 in 2005.
. For individual employees, the increase in contribution rates as outlined in the
table above will result in an increase in the total amount contributed by
employees of 8.3% based on a $30,000 annual salary and will vary according
to the salary level as indicated in the table below.
Annual
Earnin s
$30,000
$50.000
$70,000
$30,000
$50,000
$70,000
Increase
$ %
$5.77 8.3
$10.64 8.5
$16.80 8.7
e 60
$6.91 8.2
$12.57 8.4
$19.49 8.7
. Employer contributions will also increase by similar amounts. For the
2006 fiscal year, it is estimated that the Region's payments to OMERS
will increase by approximately $2.2 million (which includes an estimate
of approximately $0.8 million to $0.9 million for the Police Services) and
will represent a property tax increase for 2006 of approximately 0.5% to
0.7%.
Report No.: 2005-F-75
041
3.0
Page No.: 3
Attachment #3
Page 3 of 6
AUTONOMOUS SELF GOVERNING BOARD OF DIRECTORS
.
On June 1, 2005, the Ontario government tabled legislation for an
autonomous or self-governing model for OMERS. Bill 206, Ontario Municipal
Employees Retirement System Act, 2005 proposes a model to put OMERS
on par with other major public sector plans, which are already governed by
their sponsors.
.
The government will hold committee hearings in the fall and interested parties
will be able to provide input on the Bill as it goes through the legislative
process.
.
Like all other pension plans, OMERS would remain subject to a rigorous
regulatory framework. The main difference is that the proposed Sponsors
Corporation would approve plan changes instead of the Ontario government.
.
If passed, Bill 206 will change the governance structure of the OMERS Board
whereby the Government of Ontario would no longer be the Plan's sponsor.
The governance structure of the OMERS Board would change so that the
sponsorship would fall to a Sponsors Corporation with representatives from
employer and employee groups.
.
The following chart compares the current OMERS governance model with the
model proposed in Bill 206:
OMERS Governance Models
Current Model Proposed Model
OMERS Board Ontario Government Administration Sponsors Corporation
(Plan Sponsor) Corporation (Plan Sponso~)
. Made up of 13 . Appoints members to . Made up of an . Made up of an equal
members: six employer OMERS Board equal number of number of employer
representatives; six . Has final approval on employer and and employee
member plan design and employee representatives
representatives; contribution rates representatives . Will take over the
including one retired . Will continue to government's role with
member; one Ontario oversee plan responsibility for plan
government administration and design and contribution
representative Fund investments rates
. Oversees plan
administration and
Fund investments
.
The Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) has expressed concern
regarding the potential cost implications of this legislation in terms of cost of
the new plan sponsor. In addition, the Province would no longer be
responsible for approving contribution rate increases including the increase
proposed for 2006 (refer to latest AMO Alert dated September 9, 2005 in
Attachment #1).
Report No.: 2005-F-75
Page No.: 4
042
4.0
NEXT STEPS
Attachment #3
Page 4 of 6
. Finance staff will keep the Finance and Administration Committee and
Regional Council advised of any new financial information that becomes
available regarding OMERS changes and/or developments initiated by AMO
along with the Human Resources staff for Human Resources related issues.
~~'~1"
R. J. Clapp, CA
Commissioner of Finance
Attach.
MG\2005REPORTS\OMERS changes 2006
AMO I Bill 206 OMERS Update
043
~~.
""u<i.\lion t'¡ Munjd¡>...lili~~ (lj Onlariu
Attachment #3
Page 5 of 6
To the immediate attention of the Clerk and Council
September 9, 2005 - Alert 05/069
Bill 206 OMERS Update
Issue: Update to members on AMO's activities to respond to Bill 206, the proposed Ontario Municipal Employees
Retirement System Act.
Status:
When the AMO Board of Directors met in August, it approved the creation of an AMO-OMERS Steering Committee
made up of the Chairs of the AMO Caucuses, the Chair of the Large Urban Mayors' Caucus of Ontario (LUMCO) and the
Chair of the Mayors and Regional Chairs of Ontario of Single Tier Cities and Regions (MARCO). AMO President Roger
Anderson is Chair of the Steering Committee.
The Steering Committee is charged with representing the interests of municipal governments as employers who have
to collect property taxes to contribute the employer portion of OMERS benefits. One of the Steering Committee's key
objectives is to facilitate and support a common and cohesive response from Ontario's municipal governments and
other OMERS employers, with an ultimate goal of protecting the viability of the $36 billion OMERS pension fund for the
benefit of current and future OMERS members, while also protecting the interests of property taxpayers who they
represent.
The Steering Committee is leading a review of all aspects of Bill 206 to develop a response to the Bill and to prepare
for Committee Hearings expected later in the Fall. This work will be shared with AMO members over the coming
weeks and months to assist municipalities in preparing to respond to the Bill.
The Steering Committee is supported by a staff-level Working Group, which includes two municipal staff associations
which are aligned with the interests of municipal governments as employers: the Municipal Finance Officers'
Association (MFOA) and the Ontario Municipal Administrators' Association (OMAA).
AMO has made a formal request to OMERS for a detailed analysis of potential costs related to the supplemental plans
that the legislation, if passed, would permit. This information will be shared with members when it becomes
available. We are advised that it will be in a format that each OMERS participating municipality can use to determine
their specific municipal impacts and will be built on a base that assumes the 9% increase for 2006 will occur. AMO's
preliminary estimates indicate that the potential costs of supplemental plans are extremely high.
Background:
Bill 206 was introduced in June 2005. It would, if passed, change the governance structure of the OMERS Board
whereby the sponsorship would fall to a "Sponsors Corporation" with representatives from employer and employee
groups. (Comparisons to other devolved pensions fail to recognize the diversity of interests among both employer
groups and employee groups.) As well, the Bill sets up an "Administration Corporation", which would be responsible
for the investment side of OMERS.
The proposed changes to the OMERS Board governance mean that the Government of Ontario would no longer be the
plan's sponsor. Instead, employer and employee groups would have equal representation and would assume the role
of plan sponsors as part of the new Sponsors Corporation. How this employer/employee representation is achieved is
also set out in the legislation, including transition provisions for the appointment of a transitional Sponsors
Corporation for one year.
The Bill also provides for the creation of supplemental plans. The framework for supplemental plans would enable the
Sponsors Corporation to set up plans in such a way as to enable local bargaining for customized benefits for some
plan members. Upon the request of fire and police union associations, the Ministry is facilitating meetings to scope
out the characteristics of supplemental plans. AMO and the Ontario Association of Police Services Boards (OAPSB)
declined to participate in the meetings as these are matters to be considered by the Sponsors Corporation, should the
Bill in its current form be passed by the Legislature.
httn'//UlUlUl ~mn nn ('~/ A M/PrintprTpmnl<1tp rfrn?C:;:prt;nn=')()()'\ 111pyfc "::;,VTC~TTPl\¡fPT !J. T
0/1'1 J')()()'\
.'
J~N 24 2006 11:08 FR CLERKS DEPT
905 668 9963 TO 919054209685
P.02
1118 Region..
Mul\lOIpa.ny
. of Durham
C*k's Department
605 ROSSLAND RD. E.
PO BOX &23
WHITBY ON L1N 5A3'
CANADA, .
905-668-7711
1-800-372-1102
Fax: 905-6158-00&3
E-nlall:
gltf1a¡Oregion.dumam. on .ca
www.reglol1',rjurhaTl.on.ca
hi M. MadBl, "-M.C.T" CMM I
~io"aI Clerk .
. '
,,'
, - I '
"~~~ce
for:p'I¡r~Ifiø"
. :' :i:,:~ "
, ,
. THIS LETTER HAS BEEN FORWARDED '5,. 0'-
TO THE EIGHT AREA CLERKS V
','
044
, January 4, 2006 . .
MS. D. ~-y1t{
'CltyOfW~ ' '
1 The Esplanade
Pickering, Ontario
L1V 6K7 '
, Transfer of Res.identlål Wast. ColleCtion Rel!ponsibllity from'
the Town of AjaX to the Regional Municipality of Durham
'~
, The Joint Works and Finance and Administration Committees
considered the above matter and at a meeting held on November
30, 2005. Council a~opted the 10llowing recomm$~dations:
'Ia)
THAT,the proposed by-law (Attachment No..1 to Report
#2005-J-27 of the Commissioners of Finance 'and Works),
providing for'the transfer of the lower-tier p()wer, relating to
resld~ntlal solid waste collection In the Town of Ajax,' to the,
, Region of Durham be presente,d to Council and.,enac~ed; and
THAT the enacted by-law be forwarded to the. Councils' of the '
lower tier municipalities requesting resolutions consenting to
the by-law,. '
b)
Enclosed, is a copy of By-law #53-2005, Pursuant to the MuniCipal
Act, a I'triple, majority- must be received prior to the by-law coming
into force and effect. Your-CounciPs favourable consideration is
requested.
P.M, Madill, A.M.C,T., CMM ~
RegIonal Clerk.
: PMM/nb
Encl.
c.
B:J. Roy, Regional Solicitor
C. Curtis, Commissioner of WoÌ'ks
RJ. Clapp, Commissioner of Finance
e
'00" Post 00-
,
.~..-
045
JRN 24 2006 11:08 FR CLERKS DEPT
905 668 9963 TO 919054209685
BY-LAW NUMBER 53-2005
OF
THE REGIONAL MUNICIPAUTY OF DURHAM
being a by-law to transfer the lower-tier power relating to the collection of household
solid waste to the Region from the Town of Ajax.
WHEREAS section 189 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25, as amended (the
"Acf') provides that an upper-tier municipality may pass a by-law to provide for the
transfer of all of part of a lower-tier power to the upper-tier municipality from one or
more of its lower-tier municipalities which are specified in the by-law;
AND WHEREAS waste management is defined In section 188 of the Act as a lower-tier
power:
AND WHEREAS the Council of the Regional Municipality of Durham desires to provide
for the transfer of that part of the power relating to waste management consisting of the
collection of household solid waste to the Region from the Town of Ajax.
NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED AND IT IS HEREBY ENACTED as a by-law of
The Regional Municipality of Durham through its Council thereof as follows:
1. The Regional Municipality of Durham hereby transfers the lower-tier power relating
to the collection of household solid waste to the Region from the Town of Ajax,
effective January 1, 2006.
BY-LAW read a first time this 30th day of November 2005.
BY-LAW read a second time this 30th day of November 2005.
BY.LAW read a third time and finally passed this 30th day of November 2005.
P.03
5-0f0
** TOTRL PRGE.03 **
The Regional
Municipality
of Durham
Clerk's Department
605 ROSSLAND RD. E.
PO BOX 623
WHITBY ON L1 N 6A3
CANADA
905-668-7711
1-800-372-1102 .
Fax: 905-668-9963
E-mail:
clerks@region.durham.on.ca
www.region.durham.on.ca
Pat M. Madill, A.M.C.T.. CMM I
Regional Clerk
"Servic.e Excellence
for our Communities"
January 26, 2006
h-Ob
ECe\VEO
t\T't OfP\CKER\NG
JAM:3 0 200b,
OLER\(S O\V\S\ON
046
RE:
ADOPTION OF THE WELL INTERFERENCE PROTOCOL FOR
THE SOUTHEAST COLLECTOR TRUNK SEWER INDIVIDUAL
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA) (2006-W-1)
~
Please be advised the Works Committee of Regional Council considered the
above matter and at a meeting held on January 25, 2006, Council adopted
the following recommendations of the Committee: '.
"a)
THAT the Region of Durham adopt the Well Interference Protocol for
the Southeast Collector Trunk Sewer Individual Environmental
Assessment (EA) as described in Attachment No.2 to Report No.
2006..W-1; and '
THAT a copy of Report No. 2006-W-1 of the Commissioner of Works
be sent to the City of Pickering and Region of York."
b)
Enclosed as directed is a copy of Report #2006-W..1 of the Commissioner of
Works.
ORIGINAL
TO:
copy
TO:
E6
Pat M. Madill, AMCT, CMMI
Regional Clerk
PMM/cb
Encl.
c:
D. Bentley, Clerk, City of PickerinQ
C. Curtis, Commissioner of Works,
FU
TAKE APPR. ACTION
@
l ~ ~o )
100% Post Consumer
047
Regional Municipality of Durham
To: The Works Committee
From: Commissioner of Works
Report: 2006-W-1
Date: January 11, 2006
SUBJECT:
Adoption of the Well Interference Protocol for the Southeast Collector Trunk Sewer
Individual Environmental Assessment
RECOMMENDATIONS:
THAT the Works Committee recommends to Regional Council that:
a)
The Region of Durham adopt the Well Interference Protocol for the
Southeast Collector Trunk Sewer Individual Environmental Assessment
(EA) as described in Attachment No.2; and
b)
A copy of this report be sent to the City of Pickering and Region of York.
REPORT:
Attachment No.1:
Works Committee Report No. 2005-W-30
Individual Environmental Assessment on the
Southeast Collector Trunk Sewer for the York
Durham Sewage System
Attachment No.2:
Protocol for Management and Settlement of Claims
Related to Private Well Interference and Associated
Damages Due To Construction Activities for York
Region
1.
BACKGROUND
The southeast collector trunk sewer is part of the York Durham Sewage
System (YDSS), conveying sewage flows through southeast Markham,
northeast Toronto, and central Pickering (to the north of Finch Avenue).
Report No.: 2006-W-1
Page No.: 2
048
In order to address capacity constraints in the southeast collector, Durham
Region is currently a co-proponent with York Region for an Individual
Environmental Assessment (EA) (Attachment No.1). Since the capacity
constraints in the southeast collector need to be resolved solely to
accommodate additional growth in York Region. all costsJor the Individual
EA are being borne by York Region, including settlement of any well
mitigation claims.
If the recommended method of resolving the capacity constraints in the
southeast collector is found to include a new trunk sanitary sewer through
Pickering, the resulting construction activities may involve trenching, tunneling
and/or temporary dewatering. In order to identify the potential impact that the
construction activities would have on private well supplies, comprehensive
background studies are currently underway within the study area. This will
ensure that if a new sewer is recommended through Pickering, all private well
supplies potentially affected by construction activities will have mitigation
measures implemented prior to construction.
2.
WELL INTERFERENCE PROTOCOL
A well interference protocol has been developed to resolve any
unforeseen claims that may arise on water and wastewater projects in
York Region (Attachment No.2). In order to provide a consistent means
of resolving any well interference claims within the study area, and to
facilitate funding from York Region for resÇ>lution of any impacts, it is
recommended that the proposed well interference protocol be adopted for
the purpose of resolving any well mitigation claims in Pickering that arise
out of the southeast collector Individual EA. York Region would take the
lead on administering any claims, and Durham Region Staff will be
assigned to monitor any claims and provide assistance to the claimant as
required.
The level of protection offered to private well owners by the project
protocol is similar to that offered by Durham Region's well interference
policy. To ensure that the well mitigation protocol is not specific to York
Region's geologic or hydrogeologic conditions, Durham Region staff have
reviewed the protocol with assistance from the hydrogeological consultant
retained for the Individual EA. Staff are satisfied that the protocol's
commitment to "provide alternative water supplies for all cases where the
Region's construction projects have interfered with the quantity and/or
quality of water supply" can successfully address conditions local to
Pickering, including methane gas in the deep aquifer, and the impact of
excavations on perched water tables and groundwater levels.
049
Report No.: 2006-W- 1
Page No.: 3
3.
CONCLUSION
In order to provide a consistent means of resolving any well interference
claims within the study area, and to facilitate funding from York Region for
any well interference settlements, it is recommended that the well
interference protocol for the southeast collector, described in Attachment
No.2, be adopted for the purpose of resolving any well mitigation claims in
Pickering that may potentially arise from the southeast collector Individual
EA project.
Clifford is, P. Eng., MBA,
Commissioner of Works
Recommended for Presentation to Committee
~'
G... ~ ¡tt.T/iw.,
. Chief Administrative Officer
EPS3/cb/ps
Attachment No.1
Report No. 2006-W-1
Regional Municipality of Durham
To: The Works Committee
From: Commissioner of Works
Report: 2005-W-30
Date: March 30,2005
050
SUBJECT:
individuai Environmentai Assessment (EA) on the Southeast Coiiector Trunk Sanitary
Sewer Project for the York/Durham Sewerage System (YDSS)
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT the Works Committee recommends to Regional Council that:
a)
The Region of Durham act as co-proponent with the Region of York on the
Individual Environment Assessment (EA) on the Southeast Collector Trunk
Sanitary Sewer Project for the York/Durham Sewerage System (YDSS); and
b)
A copy of this report be sent to the City of Pickering, Region of York and Ministry
of the Environment.
REPORT:
Attachment No.1:
Area Map showing the location of the Existing York/Durham
Sewerage System (YDSS) Southeast Collector Sanitary
Trunk Sewer
1.
BACKGROUND
The existing York/Durham Trunk Sanitary Sewer (YDSS) conveys sanitary
sewage flows from the Region of York to the York/Durham Duffin Creek Water
Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) in the City of Pickering (Attachment No.1).
Capacity deficiencies have been identified throughout sections of this trunk
sanitary sewer.
Attachment No.1
Report No. 2006-W-1
Page No.: 2
051 Report No.: 2005-W-311
The Region of York had initiated a Class Environmental Assessment (EA) to
evaluate various options for dealing with deficiencies in trunk sanitary sewer
capacity in the York/Durham Trunk Sanitary Sewer (YDSS) sections through the
southeast corner of the Town of Markham and the City of Toronto, known as the
Southeast Collector Sewer. The project was reviewed by the Ministry of the
Environment (MOE) and the Minister of the Environment ordered that the project
be completed as an Individual EA.
The scope of work for an Individual EA is more detailed and requires more time
than the Class EA planning process. The work program for the southeast
r-nllar-tr,,- Inri i"irl, ,~I ~ ð. in,.." Inac ~n avn~nnon rO\lit:>'M nf nntt:>nti::ll tn I nl< C:::Init::l 1\/
VVIIVV'VI ..",,'VI,",......... '-,. "'V""""VV ..... ~"t""""""~'" IV.'~.' v, t"'V.v....~. ..~.." V~""~'J
sewer alignments within the City of Pickering, in the Region of Durham, which
will connect to the YDSS section co-owned by the Regions of York and Durham.
The section of the trunk sanitary sewer located in Durham will be at or near
capacity within the next ten (10) years and any twinning of the sewer will be part
of the York/Durham Sanitary Sewer jointly owned by both Regions.
The Region of Durham currently operates and maintains the primary system of
the YDSS, which includes the trunk sanitary sewer and associated works within
the Region of Durham.
Based on the potential interconnection with the YDSS primary system jointly
owned by York and Durham Regions, the Region of Durham will be a
co-proponent with York Region for the Indívidu,al EA for the southeast collector
sewer project. The first step in an Individual EA is to develop a Terms of
Reference for the project and have it approved by the Minister of the
Environment. The Regions of York and Durham will develop the Terms of
Reference and plan to have them approved by the end of this summer. The
schedule is to have the Individual EA completed and approved within two (2)
years of the approval of the Terms of Reference, or by the end of summer 2007.
Construction of the recommended infrastructure works are planned to begin in
2008 at the earliest.
The project will include developing an Advisory Committee for the project,
comprised of interested stakeholders. This Committee will include members of
the public, representatives of regulatory agencies, and representatives from
municipalities including the City of Pickering. Staff from the Region of Durham
Planning and Works Departments will also participate on the Committee.
Representatives from the development community and the local Chambers of
Commerce, in the Regions of York and Durham, will be invited to participate.
Report No.: 2005-W- 3 v
Attachment No.1
Report No. 2006-W-1
Page No.: 3
2.
CONCLUSION
052
An Individual EA has been initiated for providing additional capacity in the
Southeast Collector Sanitary Trunk Sewer. The Region of Durham will be a
co-proponent of the Individual EA for the southeast collector sewer. If the
potential alignment of the southeast collector sewer is built in Durham, then the
sanitary sewer within Durham will be part of the jointly owned primary system.
Region of Durham Works and Planning Departments staff will participate in the
study and will report back to Works Committee as the project proceeds, with
updates.
is, P. Eng., MBA,
loner of Works
Recommended for Prestentation to Committee
~J
G. . u ítt.~W..
Chief Administrative Officer
EPS1/ps
LEGEND
MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY
- YORK SOUTHEAST COLLECTOR
. .. ., . .. . YDSS PRIMARY SYSTEM
ATIACHMENT No.1
YORK DURHAM SANITARY
SEWERAGE SYSTEM
0
Ut
w
::O:Þ
(1) -
-oS
0 (')
;4::1
z3
? ~
N~
o~
OC
0)'
~-
..:....
CD ::¡
"0 ro
0 ('")
;::¡.:::;
z3
CD
SOUTHEAST COLLECTOR ~;?
INDIVIDUAL ENVIRONMENT! § ~
ASSESSMENT ~~
I
W
0
PRIMARY SYSTEM ELEMENTS
Attachment No.2
Report No. 2006-W-1
O~4
THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK
Transportation and Works Committee
February 2, 2005
Report of the
Commissioner of Transportation and Works
PROTOCOL FOR MANAGEMENT AND SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS
RELATED TO PRIVATE WELL INTERFERENCE AND ASSOCIATED DAMAGES
DUE TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES FOR YORK REGION
1.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that:
1. Regional Council adopt the proposed wen interference claims resolution protocol
outlined in this report.
2. Regional Council delegate authority to the Chief Administrative Officer and the
Commissioner of Transportation and Works to take all actions required giving effect
to the management and settlement of all well interference claims for all water and
wastewater projects as outlined in this report.
3. The Commissioner of Transportation of Works report to Regional Council on the use
of the delegated authority on an annual basis.
2.
PURPOSE
This report has been prepared pursuant to a request by Regional Council at its meeting on
June 24, 2004 to submit a Regional protocol to manage well interference claims due to
construction activity. It outlines the principles for the due consideration of valid claims
and the mechanism for proper settlement of said claims.
3.
BACKGROUND
:!)iþ
The implementation of water and wastewater infrastructure within York Region
sometimes requires temporary dewatering at strategic locations to facilitate construction
activities. This dewatering activity, while kept to a reasonable minimum, may have a
temporary effect on the private wells within the dewatering zone of influence.
Consequently, there may be private well interference complaints during and for a
specified period following completion of construction activities. These complaints may
cover both water supply quantity and.~ater quality issues. The Region is responsible for
7.ä."'iN'¡";;':"""~ ...;u,~ ~u"u..iíi""
February 2, 2005
0
íJ
055
Attachment No.2
Report No. 2006-W-1
Protocol for Management and Settlement of Well Int8rf8renc;. ClaIms
for York Region
38
ensuring all well interference confirmed to be caused by dewatering associated with the
construction activity, is fairly and constantly remedied.
The Region is committed to the investigation of all complaints and will provide
alternative water supplies for all cases where the Region's construction projects have
interfered with the quantity and/or quality of water supply. This includes the
reimbursement for direct costs incurred by impacted residents. As a result. the Region
will implement a well mitigation program for construction of all Regional water and
wastewater infrastructure.
4.
ANALYSIS AND OPTIONS
The basis of addressing any claims related to impacts due to private well water quantity
and quality issues was committed to by Regional Council on November 21,2002 through
the adoption of Clause No. I, Report No.9 of the Transportation and Works Committee
meeting and the protocol established by the Well Mitigation Program under the 16th
Avenue Trunk Sewer Project as approved by Regional Council on March 27,2003. TIùs
program relies on the basis of establishing a valid well interference claim due to
construction activity. (see Attachment J).
4.1 Regional Well Mitigation Program
All well interference claims must withstand the scrutiny of an independent audit.
Therefore, the claims must be quantifiable for a specified period of time and defensible
through the use of Ministry of Environment (MOE) accepted water quality testing
methods. In establishing the tÌ"amework for the settlement of claims, the Region must
implement the following components:
. An impact assessment program.
. A well mitigation program.
. Rigorous monitoring practices.
. A secondary review process.
4.1.1 Impact Assessment
In conducting a preconstruction impact assessment, Regional hydrogeologists will work
with the regulatory agencies and the affected local municipalities towards establishing the
predicted zone of influence due to the temporary construction dewatering activities. The
assessment shall be made through; private well surveys in the area, MaE well records,
pump tests and the use of the "YPD Groundwater Modelling Tool" which is accepted as
the most current model in detennining such impacts within the Greater Toronto Area by
the regulatory agencies and the Geological Survey of Canada.
The weIl surveys are conducted to gather both quantitative and qualitative data. TIús
information is a crucial step in helping the Region to detennine in advance the resident's
water supply risk due to dewatering activities.
2
Transportation and Works Committee
February 2. 2005
Attachment No.2
Report No. 2006-W-1
Protocol for Management and Settlement of Wall Interference Claims
fOt' York Region
39
The end product of a properly conducted impact assessment is a predicted zone of
influence for potential residential well impacts.
056
4.1.2 Well Mitigation
The Region's well mitigation program is established to ensure that residents are not
inconvenienced due to dewatering activities. The well mitigation program is classified
under two categories; proactive and reactive mitigation.
4.1.2.1 Proactive Well Mitigation .
The proactive well mitigation is the mitigation of wells identified to be impacted prior to
construction dewatering activities. The implementation of the proactive measures will
include one of the following: .
. Lowering of the pumps in the existing wens.
. Providing a new deeper drilled well.
. Connecting to a local watennain where feasible.
. Provision of water in tanks for anticipated short-tenn impacts (shorter than 12
months).
4.1.2.2 Reactive Well Mitigation
The reactive well mitigation program implementation is available for any unforeseen well
inteñerence complaints that may arise during the construction dewatering activities. All
residents who experience well issues will have their concerns addressed in the following
. sequence:
. A temporary tank and bottled water will be provided within 24 hours.
. The complaint will be investigated.
If the well issue is confinned to be a result of the dewatering activity, the reactive
implementation measures will be one of the following; lowering of the pumps in the
existing wells, provision of a new deeper drilled well or a connection to a local
watermain where feasible.
If the well issue is found not to be the result of the dewatering activity, the Region will
provide a letter to the resident explaining the outcome of the wen investigation complaint
and the reason for the decision.
4.1.3 Monitoring
A rigorous well monitoring program is established to gauge the zone of influence during
the construction period. This well monitoring program will provide an on-going
assessment of the gfoundwater trends.
Integral to the monitoring activity is the monitoring of the groundwater recovery. Upon
. 80% recovery of the groundwater water levels, confinnation of an upward trend in the
water level over the course of the following month and no ongoing negative impacts to
the well, any temporary works provided to mitigate the well interference will be
removed.
Transportation and Works Committee
<:o......"'...,? ?tV\J::
. --.--., -. ----
3
057
Attachment No.2
Report No. 2006.W~1
Protocol for Manq8ment and Settlement of Well Interf8nnce Claim.
4 Ofor York Region
4.2 Complaint Review Committee Process
York Regional Council approved the establishment of the Complaint Review Committee
(CRC) on May 29, 2003.
The CRCeXÌsts to review the cases of residents who are not satisfied with the outcome of
the Regional assessment of their well. Described simply, the CRC provides residents with
an opportunity to present their case as to why the Region should implement an alternative
alternate/permanent water supply solution for them. Thus, the mandate of the CRC is to
provide dissatisfied residents with a forum to present their case.
The scope of the CRC is to review situations where the Region's project team has
detennined that the scientific evidence does not support a resident's claim ofproject-
related well impact.
The CRC is authorized to recommend that the pr.oject team provide an
alternate/pennanent water supply to the resident, subject to ratification by Regional
Counci1.
4.2.1. CRC Deliberation Criteria
The dehòeration criteria the CRC uses to make its decisions in reviewing the well
mitigation response program includes:
. The protocol foHowed.
. The basis of the hydro geologist's decision.
. The length of time the resident resided at the address.
. A detennination if the problem existed before the project commenced.
. Well maintenance infonnation and a review of the well maintenance records.
. An assessment of the condition of neighbouring wells.
. Any other pertinent influencing fàctors.
4.2.2 CRC Process
The CRC process is outlined below:
. Resident calls the 24 call centre at 1-888-445-4418 to request a review by CRC.
. The Region contacts resident to gather information and provide options for review
date.
. The CRC Review is held. Regional Council then reviews CRC recommendation and
renders final decision.
. The decision is communicated to the resident within 3 days of the Regional Council
decision.
Any decision to provide a permanent solution is implemented by the project team within
30 days of the Regional Council decision while any decisions to remove any temporary
water supply is implemented after 30 days has passed since the Regional Co~cil
decision.
4.2.3. Independent Technical Advisory Support .
On October 1, 2004, the Minister of the Environment, conditioned the provision of an
independent technical advisor for the individual property owners to facilitate well
interference complaints.
4
Transportation and Works Committee
February 2. 2005
AttaCnment 1'10. ¿,
Report No. 2006-W-1
058
Protocol for M.nagement .nd Settlement of Well Interference CI.lmB
for York Region
Accordingly, the Region is proposing to provide the following enhancements to the CRC
process. .
The Region will set up a list ofprequalified hydro geologists who have expertise and
experience as expert witnesses in this area. When the resident cans in for a CRC review,
the Region will provide the resident with the contacts on this list and the resident can then
choose one individual to review the assessment conducted by the Regional
hydrogeologist and can have the technical advisor accompany them to the CRC to assist
in presenting their case.
It is currently proposed that a fee ofup to $1,500 (GST exclusive) be dedicated for the
independent technical advisor for each CRC request.
4.3 Post Construction Claims
For all construction projects with dewatering related well interference claims following
completion of construction and where these construction projects did not have a well
mitigation program, the following methodology is recommended towards addressing
these claims (see Attachment 2). .
The Region must ensure that all well interference related claims received following
construction of the works are legitimate and represent the direct costs incurred by the
resident in addressing any well interference as a result of any Regional water or
wastewater construction project. In addition. these claims will only be entertained if they
are submitted within two years ofTota! Performance of the constructed works. This
timeframe is accepted by the regulatory agencies as being reasonable for evidence of well
recovery due to construction impacts. .
In order to ensure fairness and integrity of the process, when more then three post-
construction claims are received relating to well interference, the local municipality shall
advertise twice in the local newspaper. The residents within that particular community
will be given 90 calendar days to submit any outstanding claims to the local municipality.
The local municipality shall then receive, collate and submit all of these claims to the
Region's Commissioner of Transportation and Works for review.
4.3.1 Eligibility of Direct Costs for Post-Construction Well Claims
Under normal circwnstances. if any private well is deemed to be interfered with by virtue
of the dewatering activity, all costs associated with potable water supply, bulk water
supply, tank installation inclusive of heating during the winter season, well investigation,
well system repairs, new well system installation and connection to a local watennain
may be deemed to be eligible.
While most of the noted costs above may be paid directly to the resident upon
detennination that the well interference claim is legitimate, hydro costs associated with
treatment enhancements such as Ultra Violet treatment and heat tracing of any temporary
water supply will be compensated directly to the resident's account with the local
electrical utility. The Region will work with the local electrical utility in detennining the
resident's nonnal consumption pattern and compare it to the usage during the claim
Transportation and Works Committee
~""'""'"/~ ~
5
059
Attachment No.2
Report No. 2006-W-1
Protocol for Management and aettJeníent of Well Interferwnce Claim.
for York Region
42
period. Any differences noted win be reviewed and the appropriate adjustments will be
credited against the resident's electricity account.
As part of the well interference complaints, compensation may also be entertained for any
damage to internal plumbing fixtures or clothes due to quality issues such as iron
staining. In order for this type of claim to be entertained, the resident must provide water
quality data fTom a MaE accredited laboratory demonstrating water quality data prior to
construction being better than water quality data at the point of well interlerence. This
approach will also be used to review claims relating to high salt content and microbial
contamination (Coliform indicators). Any treatment system employed to address such
changes in water quality will only be entertained with conclusive evidence that the water
quality prior to construction was better than the water quality at the noted point of well
interference.
4.3.2 Review of Post-Construction Well Claims
The Region shall review all claims submitted by the local municipality through the use of
an independent certified hydro geologist. In reviewing the claim, the Region will only
entertain claims nom residents within the zone of influence identified by the
Hydrogeological assessment conducted for the project or a radius of one kiIometre fTom
the point(s) of dewatering, whichever is greater.
All claims received by the Region will then be reviewed by an independent
hydrogeologist and a decision made within 90 calendar days of receiving the claims. For
a claim to be deemed valid, it must satisfy all of the following conditions:
. The well must be located within the greater of the dewatering zone of influence or a
one kilometre radius of the project
. The well interference investigation satisfies a hydrogeological assessment based on
the well monitoring program undertaken for the project. This monitoring program
encompasses both water quantity and quality issues.
. The resident provides receipts for all direct costs borne to mitigate the well
interference.
.. The resident allows the on-site inspection of their well system by a Regional
inspector for corroboration of work undertaken.
The decision of the independent hydrogeologist will then be reviewed and recommended .
to boththe project manager of the Region and the Director of Engineering of the local
municipality.
4.3.3 Payment of Post-Construction Well Interference Claims
Prior to settlement of any well interference claims submitted by residents, the Region
must receive a signed release from the local municipality and a signed release fÌom the
resident.
Accordingly, once the claims have been approved for payment, the local municipality
will then secure the necessary releases and submit them to the Region's Commissioner of
Transportation and Works.
6
TransportatIon and Works Committee
February 2.2005
Attacnment NO.2
Report No. 2006-W-1
Protocol for Management and Settlement of Well Interference Claim.
for Yortt RegIon
060
Upon receipt of the releases, the Regjon shall transfer the appropriate funds to the local
municipality in order to compensate the approved well interference claims.
At the conclusion of the claims process or within two years of the total performance of
the construction project, Regional staff will submit to Regional Council an update report
of the well interference claims approved under the project.
5.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
All approved well interference claims wjll be funded from development charges (80%)
and wastewater user rates (20%). It will be treated as the well mitigation program costs
associated with the relevant water or wastewater project.
6.
LOCAL MUNICIPAL IMPACT
Addressing well interference complaints in a timely and consistent manner will
undoubtedly lead to a more effective means of mitigating any inconveniences
experienced by local residents due to Regional construction projects. It will ultimately
lead to a fair and equitable means of identifying legitimate well interference claims and
resolving these claims in a just manner.
7.
CONCLUSION
This well interference claims resolution mechanism for claims received during and up to
a period of two years following construction will facilitate a consistent, equitable and
defensible approach.
Transportation and Works Canmittee
F"hn I:trv ') ?OO!'>
7
061
. ...--.....-... . --. -
Report No. 2006-W-1
4 j Protocol for MIIn81J8ment 8nd Settlement of W811Int8rf8ntnc8 Cl81rh8
'i for York R8g1on
The Senior Management Group has reviewed this report.
Prepared by:
irector
InfÏ'astructure Design and Construction
~/, . Subramaniam, P. Eng.
. roject Manager
. ftastructure Design and Construction
Recommended by:
(c, ~r--
Kees Schipper, P.EnA.
Commissioner of Transportation and Works
January 12, 2005
Attachments 2
NSlko/mh/kol cplko
IDC:\P06\200S-I\Feb 2\Management and Settlement of Claims Related 10 Privale Welllnlcrferencc 26Nov04.doc
\";:!';¡,,:)C;-¿;':>::'-~--j,:.
8
Transportation and Works Committee
".'------" -"~-
. V~'-'l ~ ~"""
Attachment No.2
Report No. 2006-W-1
COUNCIL A1TACHMENT 1
WELL INTERFERENCE CLAIMS RESPONSE FLOW CHART
062
I Resident I
~
24 HOUR CALL CENTRE
. Log can and details
. Contact Regional Consultant
1
1
INVESTIGA nON
. Provide 25 litres of water
. Regional consultant confirms
physical details
~
ASSESSMENT CONFIRM FINDINGS
. Regional Consultant assesses WITH THE REGION
impacts and cause ~
, IMPLEMENTATION - NOTIFICATION
. Implement necessary action based ...- . Notify resident of intended action(s)
, on assessment
I
REVIEW WITH THE RESIDENT
¡ ¡
. If mitigation is discontinued and
IMPACT CERTAIN NO IMPACT resident is not satisfied continue beJow
. Provide tank water . Discontinue temporary ...
suppJy within 24 hours water supply ~
MITIGATION MEETING
, 1 . Optional
. Review findings and present
LONG TERM IMPACT SEASONAL IMPACT information
i.e. Greater than ] season i.e. Less than I season . Explore possible alternatives
on tank
~
DISPUTES REVIEW BODY
,~ . Convene Review Body hearing
IMPLEMENT COST
~
EFFECI'IVE LONG TERM
SOLUTION IMPLEMENT DISPUTE REVIEW
BODY DECISION
I r . 006\2004-4\Dcc I \Attachments\Management and Settlement of Claims Attachment I.doc
,..u La \,0 , ""CIIL I'fU. ¿,
Report No. 2006-W-1
063
COUNCIL ATTACHMENT 2
POST CONSTRUCTION CLAIMS REVIEW PROCESS
Yes
No Action
Local Municipality advertises
in local newspapers twice
Residents have 90 calendar
days to respond
Local municipality shall review, collate
and subm.jt claims to the Regional
Project Manager
Independent Hydrogeologist reviews
claims on behalf of the Region (Decision
made within
90 business days)
VALID
INVALID
Releases secured from the local municipality
and the resident
(All releases to be submitted to the Region
by the director of the local municipality)
The Regional Project Manager advises the
Director of Engineering of the local
municipality and the resident
The Regional Project Manager advises the
Regional Treasurer to transfer funds to the
local municipality
Local municipality compensates the resident
::ODMA\PCDOCS\ YORK\I 02382\1
7-010
PICKERING-AJAX CITIZENS TOGETHER
FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (P.A.C.T.)
c/o 966 Timmins Garden, Pickering
Ontario, l 1W 2l2, Attention: David Steele, Chairperson
Tel: 905-837- 0117; e-mail: dLsteele@sympatico.ca
064
January 27th, 2006
Honourable Minister laurel Broten
Mnister of Environment
1ih Floor
135 St Clair Ave.W.
Toronto, ON M4V 1 P5
Honourable Minister for the Environment
Dear Minister:
This letter is in response to your request for receiving any environmental
concerns regarding the Class Environmental Assessment of the Oak Ridges
Moraine/Seaton lands transaction. This has very recently been the subject of an
Environmental Study Report (ESR) by Marshall Macklin Monaghan (MMM) under
the Class Environmental Assessment Process for ORC Realty Activities (1995).
The purpose of our letter is to request that you issue a "Part II Order' and bump
up the Environmental Assessment to that of an Individual Environmental
Assessment under the provisions of the Environmental Assessment Act (EM).
We argue that the rationale for this request is very clear and strongly based on
the enhanced environmental value of the Seaton lands most notably the
presence of major aquifer systems that feed area cold streams, Duffin Creek and
riverine habitats that support rare fish species. The environmental value of the
Pickering lands is not adequately recognized by the existing Class
Environmental Assessment, which only defers to the transaction that will simply
recompense developers holding land in the environmentally sensitive Oak
Ridges Moraine with provincially owned land in Pickering. Future impacts on the
Seaton lands, while certainly expected, are not recognized during the analysis of
the undertaking in this EA.
The Environmental Study Report indicates that the Class Environmental
Assessment is limited to consideration of environmental impacts arising solely
from the transaction process itself. We fully understand that the assessment is
not a land use study. However, in this particular case, the purpose of the
(no7íoD Fof¿ }), eEcT'o~
065
undertaking has been extended well beyond consideration of the transaction
alone to 'protect ecologically sensitive lands on the ORM in Richmond Hill from
development' (MMM, Section 3.11.1, p. 3.25). As you will readily appreciate, this
statement represents a very significant departure from existing practice under a
Class Environmental Assessment. The scope of the undertaking has now moved
well beyond considering the transaction only, to one of minimizing future
environmental impacts to the Oak Ridges Moraine. This extended scope is now
greatly extended beyond what is normally covered by a Class Environmental
Assessment and warrants reconsideration.
It is the opinion of many individuals, public groups and professional organizations
(such as the T.R. C. A. ) that the Pickering lands are environmentally sensitive,
perhaps more so than the land in question on the ORM. The Pickering landscape
is quintessentially that of southern Ontario farmland and is the largest remaining
tract close to Canada's largest metropolis. The many special attributes of these
lands (First Nation burial sites, heritage homes, cold water streams, wood lots,
aquifers, aquatic organisms) have been spelled out in numerous reports. The
environmental value of these lands is indisputable and increases with every year
that these lands remain undeveloped. Indeed, the value of the groundwater
resources of this area was described out in great detail by MMM in their recent
report. These waters are the very same waters that enter the ORM to the north
and which there are subject to protection by your Government. As these waters
move south to lake Ontario they are augmented by local water infiltrating
through the Pickering lands; several hydrogeological studies some funded by the
Provincial Government, others by the City of Pickering and P.A.C.T and other
work supported by Federal research dollars to University groups, have all
concluded that these infiltrating waters (and the entire aquifer systems that
enclose them) are particularly susceptible to contamination by urban
contaminants associated with development. What is the logic of protecting
groundwater in one part of the watershed and promoting its contamination in
another? While it is the view of your Government and Ministry that the future
welfare of these lands will be protected by the Ontario Planning and
Development Act (OPDA) it is very clear that existing provisions under the Act
cannot guarantee the preservation of these aquifers as being fit for human
consumption. It is a known fact that urban development on a scale envisioned for
the Pickering lands is incompatible with the continued use of groundwater for this
purpose. As groundwater quality deteriorates, so will surface water and habitat.
The available technology for urban storm water management can only manage
surface water quantity; it cannot protect groundwater or surface water quality.
The MMM report scarcely mentions the environmental attributes of the lands to
be protected in the ORM; only the briefest mention is made, on p. 3.11.2, to the
fact that the area contains headwaters for the Don, Humber and Rouge rivers
and contains kettle lakes, wetlands and forest tracts. There is a totally
inadequate characterization of the area's geology and hydrogeology in that
Report. Why are the environmental attributes of land to be protected from
066
development down played in comparison with those of the lands to be given up in
exchange and developed? This is illogical and betrays an explicit recognition of
the environmental sensitivity of the Pickering lands by the writers of the MMM
Report.
In short, the lands in the ORM and those in Pickering have not been given equal
weighting in the current Class Environmental Assessment Process. Under the
terms of reference for the assessment the former are specifically declared to be
worthy of preservation and protection, the latter are not. You will agree that this is
inconsistent with your Government's promotion of Smart Growth initiatives by
saving environmentally sensitive lands under various recent Greenbelt and
Source Water Protection Act legislation.
Enclosed you will find Prof. Ken Howard's hydrogeology report. You will also
have by now received 3500 petitions from concerned citizens of Pickering and
Ajax. You will also have received copies of letters of correspondence between
P.A.C.T. and Liverpool West Community Association that show we have
participated in the class environmental process with MMM consultant Mr. S.
Willis from the beginning of the class environmental process. We have tried to
resolve issues with ORC and MMM but were informed that many of our Questions
could not be addressed under the class environmental assessment. We urge you
to act in favour of environmental protection and move to issue a Part II Order
requesting an Individual Environmental Assessment. Given their well known
environmental and heritage value, the Pickering lands deserve no less.
David Steele
Chair of P.A.C.T.
Recipient Queen Elizabeth Golden Jubilee Award
Recipient City of Pickering Healthy Community Award
Cc Liverpool West Community Association
Cc Fairport Beach Community Association
Cc East Shore Community Association
Cc Mayor D.Ryan, City of Pickering
Cc City of Pickering Regional Councilor, M. Brenner Liaison to P.A.C.T.
Cc Clerk, City of Pickering
Cc Mark Holland, M.P.
Cc Dan McTeague, M.P.
Cc Wayne Arthur's, M.P.P.
Cc Jim Flaherty, M. P.
Enclosed:
P.A.C.T. letter addressed to Minister of Environment, laurel Broten. 27/1/06.
P.A.C.T. letter addressed to Mr.S.Willis, M.M.M. 30/10/04.
067
P.A.C.T. letter addressed to Minister of Environment, leona Dombrowsky.
12/12/04.
P.A.C.T. letter addressed to Mr.S.Willis, M.M.M. 23/4/05
P.A.C.T. letter addressed to Minister of Environment, L.C.Broten. 6/7/05
P.A.C.T. letter addressed to Minister of Environment, laurel Broten August
2005.
P.A.C.T. letter addressed to Minister of Environment with Prof. Ken Howard
August, 10th 2005 Final report
Petitions from 3,500 Pickering-Ajax citizens requesting a bump up to an
individual environmental assessment.
4
CiÚ¡ o~
068
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE REPORT
Executive Committee Report EC 2006-02
1.
2.
Director, Planning & Development, Report PD 03-06
672003 Ontario Limited
Plan of Subdivision 40M-1919
1298989 Ontario Inc.
Plan of Subdivision 40M-1969
Final Assumption of Plans of Subdivision
That By-laws be enacted to:
1.
Dedicate Blocks 33 and 36, Plan 40M-1919 as public highways;
2.
Assume roads and services within Plan 40M-1919 (save and except from
lot 10, Block 30 and those parts of Block 35, being Parts 1 and 7, 40R-
19037) and Plan 40M-1969 (save and exceptfrom Blocks 124,129,130,
131 and 132);
3.
Amend By-law 1416/82 (Places of Amusement) to include the roads within
Plans 40M-1919 and 40M-1969; and
4.
Authorize the release and removal of the Subdivision Agreements from
title relating to Plan 40M-1919 (save and except from lots 10, 11 and
Block 30) and Plan 40M-1969.
Director, Planning & Development, Report PD 08-06
lease of City of Pickering lands to The Rockport Group
Block 16, 40M-1231 & 40R-7765, Part 26
(Eastern half of the City lands located on the southwest
corner of Valley Farm Road and The Esplanade South)
City of PickerinQ
1.
That the request by The Rockport Group to lease City land at the
southwest corner of Valley Farm Road and The Esplanade South for
construction staging/storage purposes associated with the development of
a seniors project at the southeast corner of Valley Farm Road and
Diefenbaker Court be approved; and
nt9
3.
4.
2.
That the Mayor and the City Clerk be authorized to sign a lease
agreement with The Rockport Group involving City lands, substantially on
terms set out in Section 2.1 of this Report. PD 08-06 of the Director,
Planning & Development.
Director, Planning & Development, Report PD 09-06
Places to Grow - Better Choices. Brighter Future.
Proposed Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe
November 2005
EBR ReQistrv Number: XR05EOO02 - Informational Notice
1.
That Pickering Council receive Report PD 09-06 on the Proposed Growth
Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, prepared by the Ministry of Public
Infrastructure Renewal, dated November 2005;
2.
That Pickering Council advise the Minister of Public Infrastructure
Renewal that it continues to support:
(a) a growth plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe;
(b) Pickering's inclusion within the sub-area that includes the Greater
Toronto Area and Hamilton;
(c) the identification of downtown Pickering as an urban growth centre;
and
(d) protection of designated employment lands from conversion to
non-employment or major retail land uses;
3.
That Pickering Council request the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal
to:
(a) amend the final Growth Plan to identify the Cherrywood Community as a
designated greenfield area and to coordinate with the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Housing the removal of this area from the
Greenbelt Plan; and
(b) respond in writing to Pickering Council regarding the Minister's rationale
for his decision on this matter;
That Pickering Council request the Minister of Public Infrastructure
Renewal to incorporate the following recommended changes into the final
Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, such that:
(a) the adequacy of the designated urban land supply in the Growth Plan
is reviewed at least every five years;
(b) lower-tier municipalities, in addition to the upper and single-tier
municipalities, are formally consulted on the:
(i)
reviews of the population, household and employment
forecasts;
undertaking of sub-area assessments;
delineation of the built boundary;
identification of the boundary for and scale of development in
Pickering's urban growth centre;
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
070
determination of the timing for and location of future
designated greenfield areas;
(c) the content of sub-area assessments are refined to focus on regional
scale infrastructure, economic development, transportation and transit,
and urban boundary expansion matters and that the identification of
the natural system, prime agricultural and rural areas are the
responsibility of upper, lower and single-tier municipalities;
(d) a schedule identifying the sub-areas is re-introduced;
(e) a new policy is added to section 2.2.3 - General Intensification,
allowing the Minister to permit achievement of the 40% intensification
in Durham Region at a point in time after the year 2015, following
review of the current intensification opportunities and supply of existing
approved greenfield developments;
(f) the term "municipality" in policy 2.2.3 2., (which requires those
municipalities currently achieving an intensification ratio of higher than
40% within their built-up area to continue to achieve that ratio), is
clarified to refer to an "upper or single-tier municipality" only, and that it
is not to be applied at the lower-tier municipal level;
(g) the employment to population ratio is increased to 50% (one job for
every two persons) for Durham Region;
(h) the employment areas along Highways 407 and 401 within Durham
Region are recognized and identified as provincially significant in the
Growth Plan;
(i) the transportation system is revised to:
(i) add a proposed higher order transit route along Taunton
Road and Kingston Road;
add a proposed higher order transit route on the CP Belleville
rail line through Durham Region;
(iii) add a proposed higher transit route from the Pickering GO
Station to the Highway 407 transitway; and
(iv) extend Highway 407 easterly to Highway 35/115 in the pre-
2031 timeframe, and add a proposed higher order transit route
on Highway 407 through Durham Region;
(ii)
5.
That Pickering Council continues to request that, prior to finalizing the
Growth Plan, the Province release details of the fiscal, regulatory and other
tools that will be made available to properly implement the Growth Plan
policies at the local level;
6.
That Pickering Council authorize staff to prepare and bring back to Council
for authorization, terms of reference for a "Downtown Pickering Urban
Growth Centre Study" to determine the scope, scale and nature of the
downtown centre, in consultation with the Ministry of Public Infrastructure
Renewal and the Region of Durham; and
7.
That the City Clerk forward a copy of Report PD 09-06 to the Minister of
Public Infrastructure Renewal, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and
Housing, the Region of Durham, Durham area municipalities, and Wayne
Arthurs, MPP, Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge.
071
4.
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, Report CS 07-06
Appointment to Enforce the ParkinQ By-law on Private Property
1.
That Report CS 07-06 respecting the appointment of Special Municipal
law Enforcement Officers for the purpose of enforcing the Parking By-law
on private property be received; and
2.
That Council approve that the City Clerk be authorized to bring a By-law
directly to Council with no report due to the fact that the amendments are
only housekeeping in nature.
5.
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer CS 09-06
Formal Quotations - Quarterly Report for Information
That Report CS 09-06 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
concerning Formal Quotations - Quarterly Report for Information be
received for information.
6.
Confidential Matter
That the recommendations contained in Item #1 of the "In Camera" minutes of
January 24,2006 be adopted.
Executive Committee
Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
7:50 pm
Chair: Councillor Ashe
072
PRESENT:
COUNCILLORS:
K. Ashe
M. Brenner
D. Dickerson
R. Johnson
B. Mclean
D. Pickles
Mayor Ryan - Absent due to municipal business
ALSO PRESENT:
T. J. Quinn
N. Carroll
G. Paterson
D. Bentley
C. Rose
D. Shields
- Chief Administrative Officer
- Director, Planning & Development
- Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
- City Clerk
- Manager, Policy
- Deputy Clerk
(I)
ADOPTION OF MINUTES
Moved by Councillor Johnson
Seconded by Councillor Pickles
Meeting of January 9,2006
CARRIED
(II)
MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION
1.
Director, Planning & Development, Report PD 03-06
672003 Ontario Limited
Plan of Subdivision 40M-1919
1298989 Ontario Inc.
Plan of Subdivision 40M-1969
073
2.
Executive Committee
Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
7:50 pm
Chair: Councillor Ashe
Final Assumption of Plans of Subdivision
Moved by Councillor Dickerson
Seconded by Councillor Brenner
That By-laws be enacted to:
1.
Dedicate Blocks 33 and 36, Plan 40M-1919 as public highways;
2.
Assume roads and services within Plan 40M-1919 (save and except from
lot 10, Block 30 and those parts of Block 35, being Parts 1 and 7, 40R-
19037) and Plan 40M-1969 (save and except from Blocks 124,129,130,
131 and 132);
3.
Amend By-law 1416/82 (Places of Amusement) to include the roads within
Plans 40M-1919 and 40M-1969; and
4.
Authorize the release and removal of the Subdivision Agreements from
title relating to Plan 40M-1919 (save and except from lots 10, 11 and
Block 30) and Plan 40M-1969.
CARRIED
Director, Planning & Development, Report PD 08-06
lease of City of Pickering lands to The Rockport Group
Block 16, 40M-1231 & 40R-7765, Part 26
(Eastern half of the City lands located on the southwest
corner of Valley Farm Road and The Esplanade South)
City of PickerinQ
Moved by Councillor Dickerson
Seconded by Councillor Pickles
1.
That the request by The Rockport Group to lease City land at the
southwest corner of Valley Farm Road and The Esplanade South for
construction staging/storage purposes associated with the development of
a seniors project at the southeast corner of Valley Farm Road and
Diefenbaker Court be approved; and
Executive Committee
Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
7:50 pm
Chair: Councillor Ashe
074
3.
2.
That the Mayor and the City Clerk be authorized to sign a lease
agreement with The Rockport Group involving City lands, substantially on
terms set out in Section 2.1 of this Report. PD 08-06 of the Director,
Planning & Development.
CARRIED
Director, Planning & Development, Report PD 09-06
Places to Grow - Better Choices. Brighter Future.
Proposed Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe
November 2005
EBR ReQistrv Number: XR05EOO02 - Informational Notice
Detailed discussion ensued on this matter.
Moved by Councillor Johnson
Seconded by Councillor Pickles
1.
That Pickering Council receive Report PD 09-06 on the Proposed Growth
Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, prepared by the Ministry of Public
Infrastructure Renewal, dated November 2005;
That Pickering Council advise the Minister of Public Infrastructure
Renewal that it continues to support:
(a) a growth plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe;
(b) Pickering's inclusion within the sub-area that includes the Greater
Toronto Area and Hamilton;
(c) the identification of downtown Pickering as an urban growth centre;
and
(c) protection of designated employment lands from conversion to
non-employment or major retail land uses;
2.
3.
That Pickering Council request the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal
to:
(b) amend the final Growth Plan to identify the Cherrywood Community as a
designated greenfield area and to coordinate with the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Housing the removal of this area from the
Greenbelt Plan; and in the absence of this,
(c) amend the final Growth Plan to identify lands in the northeast sector of
Pickering, having an area equivalent in size to the Cherrywood
Community, as a designated greenfield area instead of Greater Golden
Horseshoe Growth Plan Area; and
,
075
Executive Committee
Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, January 24,2006
7:50 pm
Chair: Councillor Ashe
4.
(d) respond in writing to Pickering Council regarding the Minister's rationale
for his decision on this matter;
That Pickering Council request the Minister of Public Infrastructure
Renewal to incorporate the following recommended changes into the final
Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, such that:
(a) the adequacy of the designated urban land supply in the Growth Plan
is reviewed at least every five years;
(b) lower-tier municipalities, in addition to the upper and single-tier
municipalities, are formally consulted on the:
reviews of the population, household and employment
forecasts;
undertaking of sub-area assessments;
delineation of the built boundary;
identification of the boundary for and scale of development in
Pickering's urban growth centre;
determination of the timing for and location of future
designated greenfield areas;
(c) the content of sub-area assessments are refined to focus on regional
scale infrastructure, economic development, transportation and transit,
and urban boundary expansion matters and that the identification of
the natural system, prime agricultural and rural areas are the
responsibility of upper, lower and single-tier municipalities;
(d) a schedule identifying the sub-areas is re-introduced;
(e) a new policy is added to section 2.2.3 - General Intensification,
allowing the Minister to permit achievement of the 40% intensification
in Durham Region at a point in time after the year 2015, following
review of the current intensification opportunities and supply of existing
approved greenfield developments;
(f) the term "municipality" in policy 2.2.3 2., (which requires those
municipalities currently achieving an intensification ratio of higher than
40% within their built-up area to continue to achieve that ratio), is
clarified to refer to an "upper or single-tier municipality" only, and that it
is not to be applied at the lower-tier municipal level;
(g) the employment to population ratio is increased to 50% (one job for
every two persons) for Durham Region;
(h) the employment areas along Highways 407 and 401 within Durham
Region are recognized and identified as provincially significant in the
Growth Plan;
(i) the transportation system is revised to:
(i) add a proposed higher order transit route along Taunton
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
076
Executive Committee
Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
7:50 pm
Chair: Councillor Ashe
5.
Road and Kingston Road;
add a proposed higher order transit route on the CP Belleville
rail line through Durham Region;
add a proposed higher transit route from the Pickering GO
Station to the Highway 407 transitway; and
extend Highway 407 easterly to Highway 35/115 in the pre-
2031 timeframe, and add a proposed higher order transit route
on Highway 407 through Durham Region;
That Pickering Council continues to request that, prior to finalizing the
Growth Plan, the Province release details of the fiscal, regulatory and other
tools that will be made available to properly implement the Growth Plan
policies at the local level;
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
6.
That Pickering Council authorize staff to prepare and bring back to Council
for authorization, terms of reference for a "Downtown Pickering Urban
Growth Centre Study" to determine the scope, scale and nature of the
downtown centre, in consultation with the Ministry of Public Infrastructure
Renewal and the Region of Durham; and
7.
That the City Clerk forward a copy of Report PD 09-06 to the Minister of
Public Infrastructure Renewal, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and
Housing, the Region of Durham, Durham area municipalities, and Wayne
Arthurs, MPP, Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge.
CARRIED AS AMENDED LATER
IN THE MEETING (SEE
FOllOWING MOTIONS)
Moved by Councillor Dickerson
Seconded by Councillor Brenner
That the main motion be divided in order to deal with Item 3) separately
CARRIED
Item 3) of the main motion was then before Committee for consideration.
Moved by Councillor Dickerson
Seconded by Councillor Brenner
077
Executive Committee
Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
7:50 pm
Chair: Councillor Ashe
That parts (a) and (c) of Item 3) be approved.
CARRIED
Moved by Councillor Dickerson
Seconded by Councillor Brenner
That part (b) of Item 3) be deleted in its entirety and parts a) and c) be re-Iettered
to parts a) and b).
CARRIED
The main motion of Councillors' Dickerson and Pickles was then put to a vote
and CARRIED AS AMENDED.
4.
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, Report CS 07-06
Appointment to Enforce the ParkinQ By-law on Private Property
Moved by Councillor Pickles
Seconded by Councillor Dickerson
1.
That Report CS 07-06 respecting the appointment of Special Municipal law
Enforcement Officers for the purpose of enforcing the Parking By-law on
private property be received; and
2. That Council approve that the City Clerk be authorized to bring a By-law
directly to Council with no report due to the fact that the amendments are only
housekeeping in nature.
CARRIED
5.
City Clerk, Report CS 08-06
Public Meeting - Notice of the Passing of a By-law for Council
Rules of Procedure
Moved by Councillor Dickerson
Seconded by Councillor Brenner
Executive Committee
Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
7:50 pm
Chair: Councillor Ashe
078
That Report CS 08-06 of the City Clerk be referred back to staff for the
purpose of consulting members of Council on the proposed changes.
CARRIED
6. Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer CS 09-06
Formal Quotations - Quarterly Report for Information
Moved by Councillor Pickles
Seconded by Councillor Dickerson
That Report CS 09-06 of the Director, Corporate
Services & Treasurer concerning Formal Quotations - Quarterly
Report for Information be received for information.
CARRIED
(III)
1.
OTHER BUSINESS
The following matters were considered prior to the regular meeting:
(a)
Confidential Matters
Moved by Councillor Mclean
Seconded by Councillor Pickles
That Committee move into an 'In Camera" meeting of Committee in order
to discuss advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including
communications necessary for that purpose.
CARRIED
Refer to the "In Camera" minutes of the Executive Committee dated January 24,
2006.
Moved by Councillor Mclean
Seconded by Councillor Pickles
079
Executive Committee
Meeting Minutes
Tuesday, January 24,2006
7:50 pm
Chair: Councillor Ashe
That Committee rise and ratify the actions taken at the 'In Camera' session.
CARRIED
(b)
The Chief Administrative Officer provided an update with respect to the
demolition of buildings, not of heritage value, by the Ontario Realty
Corporation.
(c)
The Chief Administrative Officer provided a 2006 proposed budget
schedule to Members and requested comments by provided as soon as
possible.
(IV)
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:00 pm.
CitJ¡ o~
030
REPORTS - NEW AND UNFINISHED
PAGE
1.
Report PD 12-06 of the Director, Planning & Development
Class Environmental Assessment
Environmental Study Report on the Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in
Richmond Hill and the Sale of Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering
(Seaton)
Prepared by Marshall Macklin Monaghan Limited on behalf of the Ontario Realty
Corporation
Dated January 2006
EBR Reaistrv Number XN06EOO01
82-119
1. That Pickering Council RECEIVE Report PD 12-06 on the Environmental Study
Report on the Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill and
the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton), prepared
by Marshall Macklin Monaghan Limited, on behalf of the Ontario Realty
Corporation, dated January 2006, EBR Registry Number XN06EOO01 .
2. That Pickering Council ENDORSE the findings of the Report
Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR, prepared by Dillon Consulting Limited
on behalf of the City, dated January 2006 (see Attachment #1 to Report PD
12-06) and ADVISE the Minister of Environment that,
(a) Pickering has serious concerns with the technical quality of the
Environmental Study Report (ESR);
(b) the issues identified, individually and in combination, are of
significance; and
(c) the issues must be fully resolved to the satisfaction of the City before
the undertaking proceeds;
3. That, to ensure the concerns identified in the Dillon Peer Review
Report are adequately addressed, Pickering Council REQUEST the Minister of
Environment to issue a Part II Order (a "bump-up" to a Category D - Individual
Environmental Assessment), as it is warranted under Chapter 7.0 of the ORC
Class EA for the following reasons:
(a) there are significant omissions to the "alternatives to" and "alternative
methods" considered in the EA;
081
2.
(b) there are significant errors in the analysis of "alternatives to" and
"alternative methods" that could result in significant negative
environmental impacts; and
(c) the undertaking has the potential for significant negative
environmental impacts and consequently, the errors and omissions
are of major concern.
4. That the City Clerk FORWARD a copy of Report PD 12-06 to the
Minister of Environment, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Ontario
Realty Corporation, the Project Director for the North Pickering land
Exchange Team, the Region of Durham, and the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority.
Report HR 01-06 of the Director, Corporate Services &
Treasurer and Division Head, Human Resources
Bill 206, Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act
120-131
1.
That Report HR 01-06 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
and Division Head, Human Resources be received;
2.
That Council support the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO)'s
position in opposition to Bill 206, an Act to revise the Ontario Municipal
Employees Retirement System Act;
3.
That the Resolution attached (see Attachment 1) be adopted by Council.
C¿tq o~
REPORT TO
COUNCIL
082
Report Number: PO 12-06
Date: February 6, 2006
From:
Neil Carroll
Director, Planning & Development
Subject:
Class Environmental Assessment
Environmental Study Report on the Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine
Lands in Richmond Hill and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of
Lands in Pickering (Seaton)
Prepared by Marshall Macklin Monaghan Limited on behalf of the
Ontario Realty Corporation
Dated January 2006
EBR Registry Number XN06EOO01
Recommendation:
1.
That Pickering Council RECEIVE Report PO 12-06 on the Environmental Study
Report on the Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill and the
Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton), prepared by
Marshall Macklin Monaghan Limited, on behalf of the Ontario Realty Corporation,
dated January 2006, EBR Registry Number XN06EOO01.
That Pickering Council ENDORSE the findings of the Report Peer Review for
ORC Class EA ESR, prepared by Dillon Consulting Limited on behalf of the City,
dated January 2006 (see Attachment #1 to Report PD 12-06) and ADVISE the
Minister of Environment that,
(a) Pickering has serious concerns with the technical quality of the
Environmental Study Report (ESR);
(b) the issues identified, individually and in combination, are of significance; and
(c) the issues must be fully resolved to the satisfaction of the City before the
undertaking proceeds;
2.
3.
That, to ensure the concerns identified in the Dillon Peer Review Report are
adequately addressed, Pickering Council REQUEST the Minister of Environment
to issue a Part II Order (a "bump-up" to a Category D - Individual Environmental
Assessment), as it is warranted under Chapter 7.0 of the ORC Class EA for the
following reasons:
(a) there are significant omissions to the "alternatives to" and "alternative methods"
considered in the EA;
(b) there are significant errors in the analysis of "alternatives to" and "alternative
methods" that could result in significant negative environmental impacts; and
(c) the undertaking has the potential for significant negative environmental impacts
and consequently, the errors and omissions are of major concern.
0 8 ~eport PD 12-06
February 6,2006
Subject: ORC Class EA Environmental Study Report
Page 2
4.
That the City Clerk FORWARD a copy of Report PD 12-06 to the Minister of
Environment, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Ontario Realty
Corporation, the Project Director for the North Pickering land Exchange Team,
the Region of Durham, and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.
Executive Summary: Since 2003, Council has been consistent in its position that
the Province undertake a full and proper assessment before finalizing the Oak Ridges
Moraine/Seaton land exchange. In April 2004, the Ontario Realty Corporation (ORC)
announced it would be commencing a Class EA for the land exchange, not an Individual
EA as requested by the City and others. In early January 2006, ORC released its
completed Environmental Study Report (ESR) for comment. The deadline for
comments is February 10,2006. .
The City retained Dillon Consulting Limited to peer review the ESR. The Dillon Peer
Review Report (see Attachment #1) concludes there are numerous serious technical
concerns with the EA, and that given the gravity of the concerns, the City should request
the Minister of the Environment to issue a Part II Order (a "bump-up"). Staff concurs with
the findings of the Dillon Report. It is recommended that Council request the Minister of
Environment to issue a Part II Order in order to ensure the issues raised in the
Peer Review Report are fully resolved to the City's satisfaction before any land
exchange occurs.
Financial Implications:
of this Report.
No direct financial implications in adopting the recommendations
BACKGROUND:
1.0
ONTARIO REALTY CORPORATION CLASS EA ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
1.1
In April 2004, Ontario Realty Corporation (ORC) commenced a study for the
Oak Ridges Moraine/Seaton land exchange, under the approved
Class Environmental Review Process for ORC Realty Activities
In April 2004, ORC commenced an environmental assessment for the acquisition
of lands on the Oak Ridges Moraine together with the sale or disposition of
provincially owned lands in the City of Pickering (Seaton). The study has
followed the process for Category C projects under the approved
Class Environmental Review Process for ORC Realty Activities.
Marshall Macklin Monaghan Limited conduced the EA for ORC.
Report PD 12-06
February 6, 2006
Page 3
084
Subject: ORC Class EA Environmental Study Report
1.2
Three Public Open Houses for the Class Environmental Assessment have
been held in both Pickering and Richmond Hill
PickerinQ
. Open House # 1 - September 1, 2004
At the first Open House meeting, Marshall Macklin Monaghan explained
the general ORC Class EA process, and gave an overview for Category C
projects. Forty-five people signed in at the Open House and approximately
fifteen additional people attended the meeting but did not sign in.
. Open House # 2 - October 20,2004
At the second meeting, Marshall Macklin Monaghan explained the
undertaking; described the "alternatives to" the undertaking; described the
evaluation criteria for "alternatives to"; and identified the recommended
alternative. Fifty-three people signed in at the Open House and
approximately three additional people attended the meeting but did not sign
in. City staff made a presentation advising that the undertaking did not
meet the criteria for using the Class EA process and should therefore be an
Individual EA, and submitted a copy of the speaking notes.
. Open House # 3 - December 6, 2005
At the third meeting, Marshall Macklin Monaghan explained the
undertaking; provided an update on "alternatives to"; described the
"alternative methods" and evaluation criteria; and identified recommended
"alternatives to" and "alternative methods". Thirty-one people signed in at
the Open House. City staff attended, advised the consultants of a serious
misrepresentation of the City's natural heritage system for Seaton and
resulting inaccurate evaluations, and submitted a map showing the correct
natural heritage system for Seaton under the Growth Management Study.
City staff also attended the Richmond Hill open houses. Written comments were
provided respecting the mapping error and the need to re-evaluate the
"alternative methods". Staff also met on several occasions with Marshall Macklin
Monaghan and ORC representatives respecting the EA, including Council's
request for a full and proper environmental assessment for the Oak Ridges
Moraine/Seaton land exchange.
1.3
Notice of Completion of the Environmental Study Report
On January 11, 2006, Marshall Macklin Monaghan on behalf of the ORC issued
a revised Notice of Completion of the Environmental Study Report for the
Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill and the Sale or
Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton). (The revised Notice
superceded a notice issued on January 7, 2006.)
0 8 ~eport PD 12-06
Subject: ORC Class EA Environmental Study Report
February 6, 2006
Page 4
1.4
A "bump-up" request to the Minister of the Environment must be made
within the 30-day review period, which began January 11, 2006 (the first
scheduled publication date of the revised Notice of Completion)
On June 8, 2004, the Minister of the Environment issued an Order under the
Environmental Assessment Act directing aRC to comply with
certain requirements in addition to those required by the Class Environmental
Assessment Process for ORC Realty Activities, approved December 9, 1992.
The Order specifically directed ORC to inform review agencies and public
participants that,
if a bump up request is received, the Minister of the Environment
has 45 calendar days beginning from the last day of the 3D-day
period in which to make one of the following decisions: require the
ORC to comply with Part" of the EAA; refer the request to
mediation; or deny the request, with or without conditions. If a
decision to deny the request is made, the Minister shall inform the
requester and the proponent of the decision, stating the reasons for
the decision. The undertaking may then proceed.
In accordance with the Minister's Order and the revised notice, the Minister has
until March 27, 2006 to make a decision on any bump-up request.
2.0
DISCUSSION
2.1
The City's consultants, Dillon Consulting Limited, has peer reviewed
Ontario Realty Corporation's Class EA Environmental Study Report (ESR)
and has identified serious concerns with the document
The City retained the services of Dillon Consulting Limited to review and analyze
ORC's Class EA ESR. Dillon has identified numerous concerns that individually,
and in combination, are considered to be of significance (see Peer Review
Report, Attachment #1 ).
Concerns identified through the Peer Review relating to "alternatives to" the
undertaking include:
. incomplete list of "alternatives to" the land exchange;
. inconsistent "alternative to" definitions;
. inconsistent land area data;
. incomplete economic analysis;
. incomplete social and environmental analysis in comparison of additional
"alternatives to";
. important alternatives omitted from the evaluation; and
. incomplete evaluation of alternatives for advantages, disadvantages and net
effects;
Report PD 12-06
February 6, 2006
Page 5
OBi,
Subject: ORC Class EA Environmental Study Report
Concerns identified through the Peer Review relating to "alternatives methods" of
carrying out the undertaking include:
. incomplete analysis of all significant negative effects;
. incomplete identification of the specific portion of Seaton lands required for
the exchange and consequently the impacts for the relevant area cannot be
identified and assessed;
. incorrect analysis used for Natural Heritage System comparisons;
. inadequate information to ensure that significant environmental effects will not
occur; and
. insufficient data used to analyze impacts.
Staff concurs with the concerns and issues identified in the Dillon Peer Review
with ORC's Environmental Study Report. Further, staff concurs with the
recommendations of the Peer Review that the Minister of the Environment be
advised that:
. Pickering has serious concerns with the technical quality of the ESR;
. the issues must be fully resolved to the satisfaction of the City before the
project proceeds;
. given the gravity of the concerns, a Part II Order "bump-up" is requested in
order to best ensure that the issues are adequately addressed; and
. the bump-up is requested based on the following issues as per Chapter 7.0 of
the ORC Class EA:
0 there are significant omissions to the "alternatives to" and "alternative
methods" considered in the EA;
0 there are significant errors in the analysis of alternatives that could result
in significant negative environmental impacts; and
0 the undertaking has the potential for significant negative environmental
impacts and consequently the errors and omissions are of major concern.
It is recommended that Council request the Minister of the Environment to issue a
Part II Order to ensure that the issues with the Class EA ESR are adequately
addressed to the City's satisfaction.
Attachment:
1.
Peer Review Report prepared by Dillon Consulting Limited
Report PD 12-06
087
Subject: ORC Class EA Environmental Study Report
February 6, 2006
Page 6
Prepared By:
Approved I Endorsed By:
~
Director, Planning & Development
Grant McGregor, MCIP, PP
Principal Planner - Policy
~4=
Catherine Rose, MCIP. P
Manager, Policy
GM:ld
Attachment
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
All Directors
Division Head, Corporate Projects & Policy
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering City Council
1/
ATTACHMENT #---L-. TO
REPORT # PO IL -010
088
Peer Review for ORC
Class EA ESR
January 2006
Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine
Lands in Richmond Hill (January
2006) and the Sale or Disposal and
Severance of Lands in Pickering
(Seaton)
Project No. 50-0007
Submitted by
Dillon Consulting
Limited
089
ATTACHMEr-IT # I TO
REPCJnT t! PD~
Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR
Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006)
and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0
INTR 0 D U CTI 0 N ....... ................ ...... ....................... """"" ......... ................ ..... """"""" ....1
2.0
KE Y POINTS....................... ....... ...... .... ........ .................... ............... ""'" ........ ...................1
2.1 Alternatives To........................................................................................................ 1
2.2 Alternative Methods.............................................. ....................... .................... ....... 5
3.0
GENERAL COMMENTS ........................ ....... .......................... ............. ......., ............ ....... 7
4.0
REPO R T COMMENTS ........... .... ........................ ................. ........... ......... ................. ....... 7
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1:
Table 2:
Table 3:
Detailed Comments on ORC Class EA ESR for Richmond Hill and Seaton..........8
Review of Natural Heritage Systems ................................. ..... ......... ........... ..........29
Review of Core Natural Heritage Features .......... .......... ..... ......... ..........................30
M:\PROJECTS\DRAFT\O6\O6....Pickering Peer Review\Draft Peer Report Jan. 30.doc
Dillon Consulting Limited
Page i
0--( þ,!){.,;un # J TO
HI:i-'úfll t! PLi.. 12-Dfo
090
Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR
Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006)
and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton)
1.0
INTRODUCTION
The following provides a peer review of the ORC Class EA ESR (January 2006) Acquisition of
Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands
in Pickering (Seaton). The review provides a critique of the document with respect to EA
requirements and practice. EA requirements are defined by the EA Act and the ORC Class EA
Process as defined in the parent documents.
2.0
KEY POINTS
This section lists the key concerns that have been identified for the Class EA process.
Individually and in combination, these concerns are considered to be of significance. A full
listing of issues and concerns is contained in Section 4.0 (Table 1).
Given the significance of the concerns, it is recommended that the MOE be advised that:
.
Pickering has serious concerns with the technical quality of the ESR;
The issues must be fully resolved to the satisfaction of the City before the project proceeds;
Given the gravity of the concerns, a Part II Order "bump-up" is requested in order to best
ensure that the issues are adequately addressed;
The bump-up is requested based on the following issues as per Chapter 7.0 of the ORC Class
EA:
.
.
.
0 There are significant omissions to the alternatives to and alternative methods
considered in the EA;
0 There are significant errors in the analysis of "alternatives to" and "alternative
methods" that could result in significant negative environmental impacts;
0 The undertaking has the potential for significant negative environmental impacts
and consequently the errors and omissions are of major concern.
The following is a list of the key concerns identified.
2.1
Alternatives To
1.
List of "alternatives to" is too narrow because only ORC owned sites were
considered. A wider range of publicly and privately owned sites that reflect
Provincial growth priorities should have been considered.
The list of "alternatives to" considered is too narrow because ORC considered only lands owned
by ORC.
Lands not owned by ORC should have been considered as alternatives to a land exchange with
ORC lands. Private lands or lands easily available to the Ontario government (e.g. lands owned
Dillon Consulting Limited
Page 1
091
ATTACHMENT #
RH¡OR1 # PO
I TO
12- - {)(o
Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR
Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006)
and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton)
by other governments - federal or municipal) need to be considered as alternatives given that the
ORC/Government of Ontario has expropriation powers and powers to purchase lands.
Alternative properties for consideration for exchange or purchase/expropriation should have been
selected based on their ability to reflect the purpose and spirit of the undertaking - i.e. to protect
sensitive lands in the ORM and to reflect provincial growth policy and priorities and not
primarily on expediency of exchange/availability/cost.
Criteria such as availability of servicing, proximity to existing urban boundaries/location in an
existing urban boundary, minimal provincially significant features, potential to be supported by
transit and to provide mixed use areas within transit distance of employment should have been
applied to select exchange sites in order to achieve a better growth outcome for Ontario and to
better meet the social and economic priorities of the EA process (in addition to the ORC criteria
that land be unencumbered and not have planning restrictions).
2.
"Alternatives to" are not defined consistently. The Seaton alternative should have
been restricted to the areas required for the transfer only rather than considering
all of Seaton and Duffins Heights as one alternative.
ORC considered all of Seaton and Duffins Heights in the comparison rather than identifying the
specific fraction of this area actually needed for the exchange. In this way, the EA would have
considered equal areas for impact analysis. The list of "alternatives to" should also have
considered combinations of alternative sites that included a portion of the Seaton lands if
necessary to meet area or price targets. There is no rationale for including all or none of
Seaton and Duffins Heights in the alternatives given that the other properties are
considered alone and in combination.
3.
Comparisons are based on inconsistent gross and net land areas for different
properties
In the report, a gross area for Richmond Hill (1050 acres) is compared to net areas for other ORC
properties (e.g. Oakville where environmental features and infrastructure areas are excluded).
For the Richmond Hill lands, at a minimum, the net area should exclude a reasonable portion for
environmental protection (estimated as 25-75% of gross land for environmental protection in the
GTA). The portion set aside for the Seaton NHS might be a consistent starting point (approx.
60% protection). Using this percentage, a more relevant and consistent net exchange acreage is
in the range of 420 acres for Richmond Hill.
4.
A significant economic effect of undertaking is not considered
The economic analysis does not consider the very significant cost to the residents of Ontario of
giving away the Seaton or other lands to the developers from Richmond Hill. This will amount
to a loss of revenues to the taxpayers/Province in excess of $28 000 000 (cost of land plus any
other compensation to developers). The status quo option and Alternative 4 (freeze) will not
incur these costs. This is a significant omission that unfairly biases the outcome to a land
transfer rather than a direct purchase, status quo or development freeze.
Dillon Consulting Limited
Page 2
ATTACHMENT # ---L- TO
REPORT # PO I L-Do
092
Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR
Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006)
and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton)
While it is true that costs for compensation or purchase will require spending within the
government's capital budget, this cost is equal to the cost to taxpayers for the transfer/exchange
options where equal revenues from sale of Seaton will not come to the Province to supply their
capital budget. Thus costs are likely similar for these options.
Similarly, while costs of any legal issues (hearings, lawsuits) may apply to Option 4, there are
also significant costs associated with the land transfer that are not calculated or considered.
Similarly, there are potential legal costs associated with the land transfer should stakeholders
launch court action regarding the transfer.
Other provincially incurred costs of the land transfer are also not considered such as the costs of
the aRC Class EA, the OPDA Plan, consultation, and staffing at MMAH and aRC to proceed
with the transfer. Pickering has also incurred significant cost due to the transfer and OPDA
process that are not accounted for in the analysis.
5.
Economic impacts are unfairly presented because the portion of Seaton to be
exchanged is not identified or valued.
The analysis defines that lands of equal value must be considered for exchange. The value is set
at 28 million dollars for 1050 acres in Richmond Hill based on MPAC assessment. There are
several problems with this approach.
First, no property value is provided for a specific comparable acreage for the Seaton lands.
Rather, the EA considers the entire 8000 acre Seaton area. Data provided to the City indicates
that only about 30% of the Seaton lands will be exchanged. The value of the specific exchange
area should be calculated specifically to be comparable to other sites. The specific exchange
area must be identified and valued to make the Seaton property option legitimate according to
the aRC rules applied.
Second, we have concerns that the economic valuation may not be equitable and ask that the
following questions be answered:
Were gross or net land areas applied for each property to establish costs? If the cost for
Richmond Hill is for the gross area (1050 acres), then the property values for each aRC
site (e.g. 2,3 and 16, 17) must also be on a gross basis for comparison.
Were the MPAC assessments completed with equal and accurate/real assumptions
regarding development potential?
6.
Significant social and environmental effects are not considered in comparison of
"additional" alternatives to
First, the comparison of the "additional alternatives" to (added to the EA process at the request
of stakeholders) identifies uncertainty with respect to Alternative 4 (Freeze) as a constraint to
this alternative but not to Alternatives 5 and 6. Alternative 4 is considered less preferred because
the zoning order could be overturned. However, in reality, the Province could eliminate any
uncertainty for Alternative 4 because it is within the power of the province to use other existing
Dillon Consulting Limited
Page 3
093
ATTACHMENT #
REPOR1 # PO
I TO
Il..-CI.O
Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR
Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006)
and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton)
legislation to "freeze" development without allowing such an appeal or to enact new legislation
to achieve the same effect.
On the other hand, the analysis does not consider the uncertainty that exists for Alternatives 5
and 6 because a land transfer/exchange can be turned down by the Richmond Hill landowners as
the "details of a deal" are defined or should other court action be launched with respect to the
exchange. Such uncertainty is a significant constraint to these options.
Second the evaluation indicates that a development freeze would result in loss of investment,
construction jobs and related taxes in Richmond Hill. This loss is not certain because those lands
were not approved for development and as such, no such loss can be calculated or anticipated
with any certainty. (p. 3-20).
7.
Important alternatives are missing from the evaluation
Using consistent gross or net land areas, there is enough land to equate to the Richmond Hill land
area by combining aRC sites. Portions ofthe Seaton and Duffins Heights land should have been
included in the combinations. For example:
Roueh Estimate of Net Land Area (acres)
3
16,17
2
21
ESR Site #
Richmond Hill- 420 (40% of 1,050)
Oakville - 266
Whitby - 150 (40% of376)
Parkway Belt - 128 (40% 320)
Seaton - 3,566 (40% of8,916)
Clearly a range of area combinations will add up to the net Richmond Hill land area.
Similarly:
Roueh Estimate of Gross Land Area (acres)
ESR Site #
3
16,17
2
21
Richmond Hill - 1,050
Oakville - 1,150
Whitby - 376
Parkway Belt - 320
Seaton - 8,916
Clearly a range of combinations will add to the gross Richmond Hill land area.
The economic comparison of equal land values must be done in the same manner with gross to
gross or net to net analyses and including only parts of Seaton/Duffins Heights as appropriate.
Dillon Consulting Limited
Page 4
ATTACHMENT #
REPOR1 # PO
I TO
i1.. - DID
094
Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR
Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006)
and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton)
8.
Omission of alternatives - Legitimate alternatives are not considered or evaluated
for advantages and disadvantages and net effects
A number of combinations of sites would appear to have been reasonable as noted above. Since
these were not identified, they were not compared and net effects were not identified to ensure
that the Seaton land exchange is the preferred solution.
2.2
Alternative Methods
9.
ESR does not address all significant negative environmental effects as required by
the EA Act and the ORC Class EA Parent document
The purpose of the EA process is to assess "the effects that will be caused or that might
reasonably be expected to be caused to the environment" by the undertaking, alternative methods
of carrying out the undertaking and the alternatives to the undertaking" (EA Act).
Effects of the transfer of land include both the direct loss of environmental attributes due to the
land transfer for development as well as impainnent of features due to adjacent development
activities including both urban development and the construction of infrastructure crossing
protected and transferred land. The ESR considers only direct loss effects.
It is ORC's stated commitment to consider what land is suitable for transfer through site
planning methods (direct effects) and to assess construction methods/effects to ensure
sustainable environmental protection. (pA-14 of ORC 1995 Class EA). This is not done in the
ESR.
The ESR should have completed an analysis of construction alternatives and/or a carrying
capacity assessment to provide guidance to the associated planning processes being conducted by
the province, Durham Region and Pickering regarding how much development the land to be
transferred can support and with recommendations regarding necessary studies, construction,
design and mitigation to be implemented through land use planning and subsequent EA
processes. Follow up work to be undertaken at subsequent stages of the planning for the
communities should be described in detail in this section.
It is not acceptable to simply defer this responsibility to other planning processes assuming that
the environment will be fully protected. This approach does not meet the minimum Class EA
requirements.
10.
The specific portion of Seaton required for the exchange is not identified and
consequently the impacts cannot be identified and assessed for the relevant area.
The description of existing conditions in the report clearly highlights the sensitivity of the Seaton
area and potential for significant environmental effects. Given this sensitivity, it is essential that
the specific area being exchanged by ORC at this time be identified in such as way as to
minimize impacts. As noted above, this is likely in the range of30% of the total Seaton area.
Dillon Consulting Limited
Page 5
095
ATTACHMENT # I TO
HEPUR11! PO I L - DID
-----,_c-
Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR
Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006)
and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton)
In addition, the specific impacts associated only with this exchange land area (i.e. the
undertaking) must be the subject of the EA. A clear delineation of the land area specifically
needed for the exchange is needed to clearly define the undertaking and thus define impacts of
the undertaking. Only this acreage is of concern to the EA and not the entire Seaton area. The
full 8916 acreages are not needed nor are they developable.
11.
NHS system comparison for alternative methods has significant errors
The approach to defining the most appropriate lands to be protected for Seaton is flawed. There
is no justification for choosing among three natural heritage systems, none of which is tested to
determine if it meets criteria for a healthy and robust NHS (referencing for example, Provincial
and Federal policy documents) (e.g. protects all provincially significant features, meets buffer
requirements, includes pre-defined requirements for corridors and linkages). In addition, the
areas to be protected must be defined to support a sustainable community form. Criteria for
defining the area of land to be transferred must be pre-defined and include NHS criteria (e.g.
protect defined significant features, linkages and buffers) as well as pre-defined criteria for
cultural heritage and landscape protection, public safety and size of developable blocks for
complete, transit and pedestrian friendly, economically viable neighbourhoods.
Not only is the idea of comparing NHS systems flawed but the analysis used also contains errors.
The attached Tables 2 and 3 show how the numbers used in the comparison for natural
environment are incorrect. The numbers for the Pickering lands are related to a different land
area than the other two options (i.e. the OMS excludes Duffins Heights). The two attached
tables show the corrected numbers. Table 2 includes total areas including core features,
corridors and linkages and shows that the Pickering OMS system protects the most land overall
in Seaton. Table 3 contains the areas for the individual core features only and shows that the
three systems are nearly equal with the 2005 system having slightly higher areas as would be
expected as these numbers reflect field work conducted by the Province. Clearly, any NHS
taken forward must protect 100% of these core features.
12.
There is potential for significant environmental effects from an undertaking in the
Seaton area.
The information in the existing conditions section of the EA confirms the environmental
significance of both the Richmond Hill and Seaton sites and indicates that a full EA is justified.
Given the flaws of the EA, it does not provide adequate information to ensure that significant
environmental effects will not occur as a result of the undertaking
13.
The data used to analyze impacts is insufficient
The amount of data presented to reflect the three NHSs is insufficient to evaluate the potential
impacts of siting and construction on each system even though the fieldwork data is available
through the combined work of Pickering and the Province.
Dillon Consulting Limited
Page 6
ATTACHMENT # I TO
REPCJRì # PD__Jk.~OIp--~.....
096
Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR
Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006)
and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton)
3.0
GENERAL COMMENTS
Use of 1995 Class EA Document
The Class EA used for this project (1995 version) had been updated by the time of project
commencement (April 2004). Nevertheless the consultant relied on the outdated 1995 Class EA
Process for ORC Realty Activities. The first mandatory public contact and notice of study
commencement was published on April 28-30, 2004. The most current ORC parent document
was also approved and ordered on April 28, 2004 by the Minister of Environment and thus was
in place at the time of study commencement. In fact, this version had been released in September
2003.
Section 9.1.1 of the 2004 Class EA allows proponents to choose which of the two versions to use
for six months after commencement (which appears to be defined as second mandatory contact).
However, if the process is not complete in two years they must recommence using the updated
Class EA.
Although allowed, why was an outdated Class EA document used?
Management Board Secretariat/ORe as Proponent Should Advance All of the Interests of the
Province
The Class EA states that ORC must "ensure that these activities are done following the Ontario
Government's policies objectives and programs" (p. 2). As such, ORC's mandate is to advance
the interests of the province through its activities. Thus, it seems reasonable that the undertaking
for the EA should encompass the Province's complete role in the development of Seaton as a
package - i.e. 1) the transfer of land; and 2) the planning and approval of development of the
Seaton lands.
4.0
REPORT COMMENTS
Table 1 provides a summary of our comments
Dillon Consulting Limited
Page 7
Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR
Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006)
and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton)
Table 1
Detailed Comments on ORC Class EA ESR for Richmond Hill and Seaton
Pa!!e Issue Comment
Executive Summary Executive Summary reflects errors and All comments made regarding the body of the text
omissions in the body of the report. that are copied into the Executive Summary apply and
the Executive Summary should be amended
accordinglv
p. 1-1 Sec. 1-1 The Undertaking ESR does not address all significant The purpose of the EA process is to assess "the
negative environmental effects as required effects that will be caused or that might reasonably be
by the EA Act. expected to be caused to the environment" by the
undertaking, alternative methods of carrying out the
undertaking and the alternatives to the undertaking"
(EA Act).
Effects of the transfer of land include both the direct
loss of environmental attributes due to the land
transfer for development as well as impainnent of
features due to adjacent development activities. The
ESR considers only direct loss effects.
It is ORC's stated commitment to consider what
land is suitable for transfer through site planning
methods (direct effects) and to assess construction
methods/effects to ensure sustainable
environmental protection. (p.4-14 of ORC 1995
Class EA)
p. 1-1 Sec. 1-1 The Undertaking Class EA document applied was out of date See Section 3.0 General Comments of Peer Review
at study commencement Report
Section 2.0 Existing Condition The description of environmental features The document contains detailed descriptions of both
reflects the sensitivity of the environment areas but the level of detail for each component
and potential for significant negative differs, e.g. more hydrogeology infonnation IS
environmental effects orovided for the Seaton Lands, making comparisons
Dillon Consulting Limited
Page 8
0
c..o
-..:I
:::rJþ
n1-
.C:' -
c»
::v C")
-<:x:
""$:
m
u :;:::
0 -
¡ '1,
i6r
~a
I
Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR
Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006)
and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton)
Table 1
Detailed Comments on ORC Class EA ESR for Richmond Hill and Seaton
Pa2e
Issue
Comment
of specific environmental conditions difficult. Both
areas clearly have unique environmental features and
therefore have potential for significant effects from
development, although the primary land use at present
in both is agricultural. The significance of the
environmental features as supported in various
documents (e.g. PPS, Federal Fisheries Act) requires
updated information through field investigations to
assess sensitivity and properly compare the two
arease
Some description of the environment of the ORC
lands in other locations (listed in this report but not
selected for further study) is necessary to confirm that
Seaton, with its unique environmental features, is the
best choice for the "land swap". Also consideration
of exchange of ORC lands in one or more of these
other locations, based on environmental criteria
should be examined.
p. 3-2 Sec. 3.3 The Undertaking and
Opportunity
The information in this section confirming
environmental significance of both sites indicates that
a full EA is justified.
'The purpose of the undertaking is to protect
ecologically sensitive lands on the Oak Ridges
Moraine in Richmond Hill from Development." This
purpose does not unduly restrict the EA process.
The list of alternatives included in combined Sections
3.5 and 3.9 is too narrow.
Purpose of undertaking is appropriate
p. 3-3 Section 3.5 Description ofInitial
Alternatives
List of alternatives to is too narrow
Dillon Consulting Limited
Page 9
JJþ
.'1.::
6»
::;0 Ç)
-':):
""'<'"
- m
"02
CJ-
IJ
I I
~.....
0
<:::>
<.:)
00
Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR
Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006)
and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton)
Table 1
Detailed Comments on ORC Class EA ESR for Richmond Hill and Seaton
Pa2e
Issue
Comment
Section 3.3 Lands in Pickering include Seaton and
also Duffins Heights.
Lands not owned by ORC should have been
considered as alternatives to a land exchange with
ORC lands. Private lands or lands easily available to
the Ontario government (e.g. lands owned by other
governments - federal or municipal) need to be
considered as alternatives given that the
ORC/Government of Ontario has expropriation
powers and powers to purchase lands.
Alternative properties for consideration for exchange
or purchase/expropriation should have been selected
based on their ability to reflect the purpose and spirit
of the undertaking - protect sensitive lands in the
ORM and to reflect provincial growth policy and
priorities and not primarily on expediency of
exchange/ availabi lity / cost.
Criteria such as availability of servicing, proximity to
existing urban boundaries/ location in an existing
urban boundary, minimal provincially significant
features, potential to be supported by transit and to
provide mixed use areas within transit distance of
employment should have been applied to achieve a
better growth outcome for Ontario and to better meet
the social and economic priorities of the EA process
(in addition to the ORC criteria that land be
unencumbered and not have planning restrictions}.
Dillon Consulting Limited
Page 10
0
CD
W
.:u:x>
tTJ-
D~
C' ::t>
:J.J C)
-i;:¡:
""5:
n,
\) Z
0-1
I ~
I I
j - ..--
I~¡
, :
~u
€"'
Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR
Acquisition bjOak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006)
and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton)
Table 1
Detailed Comments on ORC Class EA ESR for Richmond Hill and Seaton
Pa2e
Issue
p. 3.4 Section 3.4 Assumptions
Alternatives To are significantly narrowed by
stated assumptions that have no legitimate
basis
Dillon Consulting Limited
Comment
The list of alternatives should also have considered
combinations of alternatives that included a portion of
the Seaton lands if necessary to meet area or price
targets. There is no rationale for including all or
none of Seaton in the alternatives given that the
other properties are considered alone and in
combination.
The specific portion of SeatonlDuffins Heights
needed for the exchange must be defined (i.e.
about 30% of the total area) in order to identify
the undertaking and effects of the undertaking.
The assumptions noted do not have any documented
legitimate basis as a starting point for the EA. Were
these defined in an agreement with the Richmond Hill
landowners that was documented and can be provided
to stakeholders? Please provide further support for
these assumptions as they constrict the alternatives
available to respond to the purpose of the undertaking
as noted - "to protect ecologically sensitive land on
the Oak Ridges Moraine in Richmond Hill from
development."
In particular the criterion that lands are needed to be
of comparable size or value is of concern because the
ESR compares gross to net land areas. Does the
"comparable area" include natural heritage features
that would require protection in accordance with the
PPS and other Provincial Policy? At a minimum, the
Page 11
:01>-
m -I
ì:' -;
01>-
::0 0
~ :r:
"!.,~
m
"2
0-;
'II:
1'""'-
,
;0
1'6 -<
c
;
¡
~
0
0
Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR
Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006)
and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton)
Table 1
Detailed Comments on ORC Class EA ESR for Richmond Hill and Seaton
Pa2e
Issue
Assumptions pre-judge that Seaton will be part
of the undertaking before the EA commenced.
The assumptions pre-judge that a land transfer
is the only reasonable outcome of the
evaluation
Dillon Consulting Limited
Comment
net area should exclude an average value for such
protection (estimated as 25-75% of gross land for
environmental protection versus net land for
development).
The comparable value must be based on equal
assumptions with respect to approved land uses, i.e.
as the land in Richmond Hill was not approved for
development, the value for comparable land should
also be on that basis.
The final assumption specifically refers to the Seaton
lands as a starting point for the EA even though
alternatives had yet to be evaluated. This implies that
Seaton WILL be part of the outcome of the EA
process before it has begun. An assumption that any
plans for any alternative parcel considered would
conform to provincial and municipal policy would
have been appropriate.
There is also an unstated assumption that the
exchanged lands will be residentially designated
although no evidence is provided that this is the best
use of the land and has the least impacts/benefits.
The assumptions refer to the 'exchange' of lands
which indicates that an exchange is the only outcome
of the process. The purpose of the EA (which is to
objectively evaluate effects of alternatives and the
undertaking) is compromised if the outcome is pre-
determined at the outset.
Page 12
~
0
¡...-.
:I:I:I>
tB=I
0:1>
:I:I C')
~::J:
,:5:
m
"2
0-1
,~
~-I
0
Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR
Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006)
and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton)
Table 1
Detailed Comments on ORC Class EA ESR for Richmond HiD and Seaton
Pal!e Issue Comment
First Mandatory Contact - Notice of The undertaking was pre-defined before the The Notice of Commencement pre-defines the
Commencement EA commenced preferred undertaking to include the sale of Seaton
lands even though many other alternatives were
available to protect the lands in Richmond Hill (the
stated purpose of the undertaking).
The notice of commencement pre-judges that the EA
study has pre-defined a preferred outcome -
severance and sale or disposition of provincially
owned lands in Seaton that will be tested against other
alternatives in the EA. The commencement would
more appropriately have identified the purpose of the
undertaking.
p. 3-4 Section 3.5.2 Acquire Richmond Hill Comparisons are inconsistent and illogical - Later in the report this gross figure is compared to
Lands and Exchange Seaton Lands Gross exchange land area (1050 acres) land areas "net" of non-developable areas. A
should also be expressed as an area net of reasonable net area must be defined for consistency.
natural features to be consistent for Data is available from UDl and other studies showing
comparison purposes comparable figures in the GT A (25-75% of land to be
set aside for natural heritage protection). The value
used for Seaton NHS might be a consistent starting
point (approx. 60%). Thus a more relevant net
exchange acreage is in the range of 420 acres.
p. 3-4 Sec 3.5.3 Acquire Richmond Hill Lands List of criteria for ORC lands identification Did the list of land parcels include all lands owned by
and Exchange Some Other Contiguous ORC may narrow alternatives ORC or was a minimum acreage used?
Lands
List of possible alternatives to is too narrow Why were private lands or lands easily available to
the government (e.g. lands owned by other
governments - federal or municipal) not considered
as alternatives given that the ORC/Government of
Ontario has exDrooriation Dowers?
Dillon Consulting Limited
Page 13
:JJ1>-
~::f
01>-
:JJ C"J
- ;:¡:
"I, $
m
"'tJ2
0.....,
I~.~
I¿
i~_d,
ç
¡....
a
l'V
Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR
Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006)
and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton)
Table 1
Detailed Comments on ORC Class EA ESR for Richmond Hill and Seaton
Page
Issue
p.3-5
Restrictions not consistently applied in Table
3.2 so that reasons for excluding alternative
land parcels are not clear
p.3-5
Alternatives are not compared fairly
Dillon Consulting Limited
Comment
In addition, it does not seem reasonable to require
lands to be contiguous given that there were multiple
owners in Richmond Hill who typically own non-
contiguous lands. In particular, portions of
Seaton/Duffins Heights could have been considered
along with other properties to make up the total
required.
The restrictions are not consistently noted in Table
3.2 summarizing the reasons for excluding most of
the lands noted based on pre-existing restrictions. An
example is site 12 which is initially included as an
option in Markham and then excluded because it is in
the Greenbelt. The Restrictions column does not note
this significant restriction. Similarly, it is not clear if
the Caledon properties 9 and 18 or Scugog areas have
Greenbelt restrictions. Why put forward some of
these sites for consideration in the following text if
they are not available?
The status for many sites is also missing and is
needed for a consistent comparison.
Only two candidate alternative areas are listed but no
reasons are provided for screening the 9 sites that
show no restrictions on Table 3.2 (1, 9, 10,
11,13,14,15,18,19). Consistent infonnation is needed
to explain this outcome. Are sites 13-15 screened
because of Greenbelt status?
The screening is not consistent. Site 8 is screened
based on a long-tenn lease which can be changed yet
Page 14
~
0
C,.ù
:D:J>
~::
0»
:D a
-I:J:
'11>5
m
" 2:
0-1
~;~
¡ --;
I a
¡
Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR
Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006)
and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton)
Table 1
Detailed Comments on ORC Class EA ESR for Richmond Hill and Seaton
Pal!e
Issue
p. 3-10 Table 3.5
Significant flaws with evaluation of
alternatives to
p.3-12 and 3-23 Exhibits 3.5 and 3.7
Significant economic effect of undertaking is
not considered
Dillon Consulting Limited
Comment
the Seaton site is retained and preferred with 80 leases
in place many of which will be affected.
On the other hand, Site 12 (which is carried forward)
should have been screened for Greenbelt restrictions
though this is not noted on the table or text.
The subsequent screening of the Markham and
Oakville sites is based on a gross target of 1050 acres.
It is inconsistent to use the net size for the Oakville
site for comparison (266 acres) to a gross area for
Richmond Hill (1050). This is an exceptionally
inconsistent and unsupportable comparison. The net
land area from the 1050 acres in Richmond Hill will
likely be more in the order of 40% of the total or 420
acres.
The following flaws in the evaluation must be
addressed:
- purpose of undertaking might be achieved
with several individual aRC properties or
combinations if a net to net land analysis is
used;
- alternatives have been unfairly and
inconsistently screened to a short list with no
supporting documentation;
- conclusions for Alternative 3 might be
different if more properties were considered
in a fair and consistent manner.
Alternatives 2 and 3 - The economic analysis does
not consider the very significant cost to the residents
Page 15
i¥ ~.
c;;:
::v "
-'::J:
"". $'
r;-¡
-0 Z
0-;
¡ "I¡c
,
¡-->-
~
~
a
,.¡:::.,.
Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR
Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006)
and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton)
Table 1
Detailed Comments on ORC Class EA ESR for Richmond Hill and Seaton
Page
Issue
Comment
of Ontario of giving away the Seaton or other lands to
the developers from Richmond Hill. This will
amount to a loss of revenues to the
taxpayers/Province in excess of $28 000 000 (cost of
land plus any other compensation to developers). The
status quo option and Alternative 4 (freeze) will not
incur these costs. This is a significant omission that
unfairly biases the outcome to a land transfer rather
than a direct purchase, status quo or development
freeze.
While it is true that costs for compensation or
purchase will require spending within the
government's capital budget, this cost is equal to the
cost to taxpayers for the transfer/exchange options
where equal revenues from sale of Seaton will not
come to the Province to supply their capital budget.
Thus costs are likely similar for these options.
Similarly, while costs of any legal issues (hearings,
lawsuits) may apply to Option 4, there are also
significant costs associated with the land transfer that
are not calculated or considered including the costs to
respond to legal actions by stakeholders.
Other provincially incurred costs of the land transfer
are also not considered such as the costs of the ORC
Class EA, the OPDA Plan, consultation, and staffing
at MMAH and ORC to proceed with the transfer.
Pickering has also incurred significant cost due to the
Dillon Consulting Limited
Page 16
1-1'
c:>
c.n
:Dþ
!:B~
0):>
::I) C"J
....j::t:
~$:
m
'"C :2:
0-1
lì
þl-
~
¡ a
I
Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR
Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006)
and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton)
Table 1
Detailed Comments on ORC Class EA ESR for Richmond Hill and Seaton
Pal!e
Issue
p.3-19 and Table 3-7
Significant social and environmental effects
are not considered in comparison of
additional alternatives
Dillon Consulting Limited
Comment
transfer and OPDA process that are not accounted for
in the analysis.
Uncertainty from the unknown results of the (this) EA
process were also not considered as a constraint.
Such a constraint did not exist with straight payment
for the land or land freeze.
I. The comparison of additional alternatives addresses
uncertainty with respect to Alternative 4 (Freeze)
(zoning order can be overturned by OMB) but not for
Alternatives 5 and 6. Alternative 4 is considered less
preferred because the zoning order could be
overturned. However, in reality, the Province could
eliminate any uncertainty for Alternative 4 because it
is within the power of the province to use other
existing legislation to "freeze" development without
allowing such an appeal or enact new legislation to
achieve the same effect.
On the other hand, the analysis does not consider the
uncertainty that exists for Alternatives 5 and 6
because a land transfer/exchange can be turned down
by the Richmond Hill landowners as the "details of a
deal" are defined or uncertainty due to court actions
or the outcome of this EA.
2. The evaluation indicates that a development freeze
would result in loss of investment, construction jobs
and related taxes in Richmond Hill. This loss is not
certain because those lands were not approved for
Page 17
~
-,
Þ
C")
:c:
't;', $;
r-,
"2
0 -,
¡--->-
~
00-4
a
OJ
Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR
Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006)
and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton)
Table 1
Detailed Comments on ORC Class EA ESR for Richmond Hill and Seaton
Pa2e
Issue
pp. 3-18 to 3-20
Alternative 4 description is biased against this
option
p. 3-20
Economic impacts may be unfairly
presented
Impacts are overstated for Seaton as not all
land is needed for the exchange
Dillon Consulting Limited
Comment
development and as such, no such loss can be
calculated or anticipated with any certainty. (p. 3-20).
This section is not a description of the option but
rather an evaluation showing this option in a poor
light. Note that courts do not create laws - the
government creates laws...
The analysis defines that lands of equal value must be
considered for exchange. The value is set at 28
million dollars for 1050 acres in Richmond Hill based
on MP AC assessment.
It is perplexing that the 28 million is considered an
estimate because roll numbers were not available for
all lands. Municipalities have infonnation and roll
numbers for all land parcels that would be available to
the Province.
First, no property value is provided for a
comparable acreage for the Seaton lands. This
must be provided to make this option legitimate
according to the ORC rules applied.
Second, a clear delineation of the land area
specifically needed for the exchange only is needed
to clearly define the undertaking and thus define
impacts of the undertaking. Only this acrea!e is of
concern to the EA and not the entire Seaton area.
The full 8916 acres are not needed nor are thev
developable.
Page 18
......
C,)
-:I
:~ ~.
'0-
:::: ~(
"" ~~
<,,-,
Dc
ÇJ ~,
'4c,
¡--.>-
Q
~
Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR
Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006)
and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton)
Table 1
Detailed Comments on ORC Class EA ESR for Richmond Hill and Seaton
Pae;e
Issue
p. 3-21 Exhibit 3.6
Comparison has errors - Net and gross land
values are mixed
p. 3-21 Section 3.10.3
----
Important options are missing from the
evaluation
Dillon Consulting Limited
Comment
Third, we have concerns that the economic valuation
may not be equitable and ask that the following
questions be answered:
-were gross or net land values applied for each
property to establish costs? If the cost for
Richmond Hill is for the gross area (1050 acres),
then the property values for each ORC site (e.g.
2,3 and 16, 17) must also be on a gross basis for
comparison.
-were the MPAC assessments completed with equal
and accurate/real assumptions regarding development
potential?
As noted above, the property values should be on a
consistent gross or net basis for Richmond Hill and
the other properties.
Using either consistent gross or net areas, there is
enough land to equate to the Richmond Hill land area
by combining ORC sites. Portions of the Seaton land
should have been included in the combinations. For
example:
Roue;h Estimate of Net Areas (teres)
Richmond Hill - 420 (40% of 1,050)
3 Oakville - 266
16,17 Whitby -150 (40% of376)
2 Parkway Belt - 128 (40% 320)
21 Seaton - 3,566 (40% of8,916)
Page 19
:J:Jl-
!"!õ -¡
'-¡-1 -'
.-'- :t-
:Do
.... I
~S;
m
-02"
0 -;
I "IIc
¡
-f
I¡->,-
c , I
C'I
!~\.
Ie
I
,
¡....to
a
00
Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR
Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006)
and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton)
Table 1
Detailed Comments on ORC Class EA ESR for Richmond Hill and Seaton
Pa2e
Issue
Omission of alternatives - Legitimate
alternatives are not considered or evaluated
for advantages and disadvantages and net
effects
Dillon Consulting Limited
Comment
Clearly a range of area combinations will add up to
the net Richmond Hill area.
Similarly:
Rou!!h Estimate of Gross Areas (acres)
Richmond Hill - 1,050
3 Oakville - 1,150
16,17 Whitby-376
2 Parkway Belt - 320
21 Seaton - 8,916
Clearly a range of combinations will add to the gross
Richmond Hill area.
The economic comparison of equal land areas must
be done in the same manner with gross to gross or net
to net analyses includes parts of Seaton as
appropriate.
A number of combinations of sites would appear to
have been reasonable as noted above. Since these
were not identified, they were not compared and net
effects were not identified to ensure that the Seaton
land exchange is the preferred solution.
Such an evaluation of land options should make
reference to provincial policy priorities for growth
and complete communities.
Page 20
......
0
CO
:D~
m -;
~ -.
c.' :Þ
:D 0
~::r:
"I!o~
IT'
"'Cz
0 -¡
!~
.¡::3J-
!61
!~-,
I a
i
¡
¡
Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR
Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006)
and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton)
Table 1
Detailed Comments on ORC Class EA ESR for Richmond HiD and Seaton
Page
p. 3-21 Section 3.11 Evaluation of Additional
Alternatives
p.3-28 Section 3.12 Recommended Alternative
Dillon Consulting Limited
Issue
Possibility of negative effects and errors in
comparIsons
Recommendation is based on inadequate
information and may result in significant
negative environmental effects
Comment
Exhibit 3.7 and the text in 3.11 contain a number of
omissions and inconsistencies as noted above for the
comparison of options.
The information presented for the two short list
options (Seaton exchange and
purchase/expropriate/freeze) does not adequately
reflect the environmental effects as noted above:
-significant economic effects of Alternative 4 are not
included in the analysis
-Alternative 4 is in fact three very different
alternatives that should be considered separately
(purchase versus expropriate versus freeze)
-social, natural, cultural and built impacts are
described for two unequal land areas. Only the land
necessary for the exchange should be considered in
this ESR (for Seaton this will be considerably less
that the full 8000 acres...). In fact the undertaking
land requirements or costs to the taxpayers in
Ontario for Seaton are never defined in the ESR.
-uncertainties with respect to the land exchange being
implemented are not accounted for.
These options are not equal. The real differences
in impacts for these, and other legitimate
"alternatives to" need to be more fully explored
and presented to the public before a decision is
made.
Page 21
::X;¡þ
M-;
-c' -
0 »
::x;¡ t,
-¡ ::c
"11>5;
m
""2
0.....;
Ii
,
!t3¡-
~i
rs--i
! c
.....
~
0
Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR
Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006)
and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton)
Table 1
Detailed Comments on ORC Class EA ESR for Richmond Hill and Seaton
Page
p. 4-1 Alternative Methods
Issue
Cut and paste error in text (and Exec.
Summary)
Alternative methods are too narrowly
defined and do not address significant
negative environmental effects
Dillon Consulting Limited
Comment
The second paragraph pastes a paragraph from
Chapter 3.0. The ORC Class EA defines alternative
methods as " different ways of doing the same thing".
Functionally different alternatives are alternatives to.
The purpose of the EA process is to assess "the
effects that will be caused or that might reasonably be
expected to be caused to the environment" by the
undertaking, alternative methods of carrying out the
undertaking and the alternatives to the undertaking"
(EA Act).
Effects of the transfer of land include both the direct
loss of environmental attributes due to the land
transfer for development as well as impairment of
features due to adjacent development activities. The
ESR considers only direct loss effects.
The ORC Class EA states that methods should
consider site planning methods and construction
methods (p.4-14).
A quick internet check of comparable ORC projects
indicates that the range of methods considered by the
Seaton ESR is inadequate to meet conventional ORC
ESR standards. Consideration of the construction
methods for the project that will be enabled by the
sale of land must be considered. In other words, it is
conventional practice to address methods that relate to
design and construction of the facilitated project to
protect from impairment due to the project
Page 22
~
~
~
:Up
IT, ......
V....¡
c' Þ
::D 0
-I:¡:
',5;
m
""'02
0-1
',
r-J'-
,I I
(j
~
~
Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR
Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006)
and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton)
Table 1
Detailed Comments on ORC Class EA ESR for Richmond Hill and Seaton
Pa2e
Issue
Comment
consequences. This is demonstrated in a recently
completed aRC ESR found on the aRC website - the
Category C ESR for Granting An Easement for a
Brine Pipeline (Project No: Moore 636.1-527). Like
the Seaton ESR it is for land transfer and not
construction of the pipeline itself. Nevertheless, in
this case the alternative methods consider both where
and how the pipeline should be built. In this
example, the site planning alternatives relate to siting
issues and the construction methods alternatives
relate to how the subsequent pipeline project
should proceed to ensure environmental
protection. Unlike the Seaton ESR, this example
provides clear guidance to the subsequent
planning processes regarding construction
methods to ensure adequate environmental
protection.
Construction methods are not considered in the
Seaton ESR. It would have been practical for aRC
to consider construction and mitigation because the
project to follow on the lands was very well known
and clearly defined in two plans for development
(GMS and OPDA) at the time the EA was conducted.
In order to meet the Class EA requirements, at a
minimum, aRC should have identified for each
environmental category (natural, social, economic,
cultural, built) the significant environmental impacts
and mitigation necessary. Mitigation can be defined
precisely or in the form of necessary studies with
Dillon Consulting Limited
Page 23
:á
'" ,.,
,', -'
:X1 Õ
....¡ -,-
'*~
m
" 2:
0-..,
II~
¡.....
¡.-.
l\:)
Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR
Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006)
and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton)
Table 1
Detailed Comments on ORC Class EA ESR for Richmond Hill and Seaton
Page
Issue
Comment
detailed terms of reference provided.
It is ORC's obligation to both consider what land
is suitable for transfer (direct effects) and to
determine any conditions for land that is sold to
ensure sustainable environmental protection.
The alternative methods analysis considers only the
shape of the land transfer and not the potential for
impairment to features due to adjacent development
activity.
The ESR should have completed an analysis of
construction alternatives and/or a carrying
capacity assessment to provide guidance to the
associated planning processes being conducted by
the province, Durham Region and Pickering
regarding how much development the land to be
transferred can support and with
recommendations regarding necessary studies,
construction, design and mitigation to be
implemented through land use planning and
subsequent EA processes.
It is not acceptable to simply defer this
responsibility to other planning processes
assuming that the environment will be fully
protected. This approach does not meet the
minimum Class EA requirements.
Dillon Consulting Limited
Page 24
¡....r.
~
C'.ù
;.:,~ .~.
8;;:
:::00
--j :c
~$;
m
"'t!2
0-1
%
I
;...¡
a
Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR
Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006)
and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton)
Table 1
Detailed Comments on ORC Class EA ESR for Richmond Hill and Seaton
Pae:e Issue Comment
Consideration of the PPS and other provincial
policy would provide guidance regarding priorities
(e.g. water quality, natural systems, complete
communities, sustainable communities, etc.)
Section 4.0 Effects of the undertaking are not understood The effects of the undertaking are not fully described
or defined as defined above and consequently mitigation cannot
and is not fully defined in the ESR.
p. 4-1 Description of Alternative Methods Alternative methods are too narrowly defined See comments above.
No explanation is provided for comparing the three
NHS systems as the basis for defining the land to be
transferred.
The identification of land to be transferred must be
based on an objective set of criteria reflecting public
policy and good planning. The final outcome would
likely be a blended NHS that reflects objectives for
ecological system health, cultural heritage/landscape
protection, public safety, optimized recreation
opportunities and a neighbourhood size to support
transit, pedestrian based communities that are
economically viable.
NHS system comparison has significant errors The attached Tables 2 and 3 show how the numbers
used in the comparison for natural environment are
incorrect. The numbers for the Pickering lands are
related to a different land area than the other two
options (i.e. the GMS excludes Duffins Heights). The
two attached tables show the corrected numbers.
Table 2 includes total core features, corridors and
linkage area numbers and shows that the Pickering
Dillon Consulting Limited
Page 25
þ
~; ~
""s;,
rOo
\J;Z
0-1
'1;:.
i~
0
1-4
t.....
~
Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR
Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006)
and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton)
Table 1
Detailed Comments on ORC Class EA ESR for Richmond Hill and Seaton
Pa2e
Issue
Alternative methods do not take into account
importance of all open space areas to
ecological system health
Dillon Consulting Limited
Comment
GMS system protects the most land overall in Seaton.
Table 3 shows the numbers for the individual core
features only and shows that the 2005 provincial
system protects the most core features. Clearly, any
NHS taken forward must protect 100% of these core
features.
The comparison of NHS systems does not take into
account the differences between the systems with
regard to corridors, linkages and systems effects
including protection of water quality and quantity. It
also does not take into consideration the use of open
space lands as a significant component of the overall
natural heritage system, as well as serving other
purposes e.g. parkland, trails etc.
The greater protection of significant cultural heritage
landscape afforded by the GMS should be noted in
the evaluation with reference to provincial policy on
this matter.
Additional work on carrying capacity and system-
wide environmental protection is needed to complete
the comparison of site planning alternatives.
The final comparison of the NHS systems should
highlight advantages and disadvantages with respect
to core features, carrying capacity issues as well as
cultural heritage, social, economic, neighbourhood
design and building effects and tradeoffs. For
example, the Pickering GMS Reports indicates that
Page 26
~
~.....
CJ\
~~.
~5,
m
'"0 2:
~f
I
Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR
Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006)
and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton)
Table 1
Detailed Comments on ORC Class EA ESR for Richmond Hill and Seaton
Page
Issue
p. 4-3 Section 4.5 Evaluation of Alternative
Configurations of the Natural Heritage System
No clear criteria for evaluating the Natural
Heritage Systems are applied.
Dillon Consulting Limited
Comment
the NHS was designed to protect natural heritage
corridors AND the significant cultural heritage
landscape along Whitevale Road as well as optimize
neighbourhood configurations to support sustainable
neighbourhood design and provide workable
recreation linkages. These advantages are not
highlighted or compared to similar
opportunities/benefits from the other corridor options
from the 2004 and 2005 Provincial systems.
The Natural Heritage Systems are evaluated against
one another, rather than against criteria which are
clearly justified from Provincial and Federal planning
documents.
In addition, the amount of knowledge presented on
each area is insufficient to evaluate the potential
impacts of development on each system although the
fieldwork is available through the combined work of
the Pickering and the Province. Hence, the
comparison of individual environmental components
(e.g. terrestrial, aquatic, groundwater) could have
been undertaken with accuracy to take advantage of
the detailed infonnation available. The evaluation
should be expanded to include detailed
effects/mitigation potential etc. Results of this
analysis may justify expanding the range of
alternatives to include portions of other ORC lands
eliminated early in the planning process (described
earlier in this report).
Page 27
-v ;C'
IT -:
'"t' ---
.~. :t>
;)Jc
""'¡:r:
'ìl>5:;
m
"'02
O.....¡
~
0
<:5"~
0
~
~
0)
Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR
Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006)
and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton)
Table 1
Detailed Comments on ORC Class EA ESR for Richmond Hill and Seaton
Page
Issue
ESR does not provide adequate information
to ensure environmental protection as a
result of the undertakin2;
Dillon Consulting Limited
Comment
Follow up work to be undertaken at subsequent stages
of planning for the communities should be described
in detail in this section. Studies should include, for
example: Environmental Impact Report on draft
plans, Master Environmental Servicing Plan, aquifer
vulnerability studies, minimum standards for
sustainable community design (Tables of Contents to
be provided in the Class EA ESR).
It is the responsibility of the proponent (ORC) to
ensure that the land transfer will not have significant
negative environmental effects. As such, the EA
process must provide guidance on methods for the
subsequent planning and development of the land by
other parties. The necessity of this to an acceptable
EA process is defined by precedent. An obvious EA
precedent or model for approaching land transfer
sales is the CEAA process. For a CEAA screening
triggered by a federal land transfer, the Responsible
Authority focuses the screening process on defining
the mitigation necessary for the new owners to ensure
environmental protection. Whether the new owners
are public or private is irrelevant. This is consistent
with the direction provided to assess construction
impacts in the Class EA.
Page 28
~
~.....
-.1
'XI»
m ....,
as:;
:JJ Cö
..... :::::
'j¡,S;
m
'"'02
r~
IE;" -'
ç:
I
Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR
Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006)
and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton)
Table 2: Review of Natural Heritage Systems
2
3
-
Revised Area without
Area Stated in aRC Duffins Heights
Natural Heritaae Svstem ESR Table 4-5 Neiahbourhood* Recalculated Area
Provincial Natural Heritage
System 2004 1914.1 ha 1505.4 ha
Provincial Natural Heritage
System 2005 2054.5 ha 1645.8 ha
Pickering Growth
Management Study Natural
Heritaqe System 1773.1 ha 1773.1 ha 1790.5 ha
*Area of Natural Heritage System in the Duffins Heights Neighbourhood is 408.7
ha for both the 2004 and 2005 Provincial plans.
Column 1 reflects the numbers cited in the ORC ESR.
Column 2 reflects the revised numbers. These figure represent the Natural
Heritage System without the lands located in the Duffins Heights Neighbourhood
(i.e. the lands south of the rail line outside our original study area). These numbers
are based on scans of both of the Province's maps and then referencing them the
GIS maps and calculated areas.
Column 3 reflects a more accurate recalculated figure, based on GIS data received directly from City of
Pickering.
Dillon Consulting Limited
Page 29
~
:~
'*
"
0
! 'c;.,
!r-",-
;~L
,^,
~
¡"""
00
Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR
Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006)
and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton)
~
¡.-to
W
Table 3: Review of Core Natural Heritage Features
2 3 4
Area Stated in Revised Area without Recalculated
aRC ESR Table Area of Feature in Duffins Heights Area of
Natural Heritaae System I Measures 4-5 Duffins Hei hts Nei hbourhood* Features
Woodlands 855.7 211.3 644.4
Lake Iroquois
Shoreline 50 0 50 ::D:Þ
Wetlands 116.7 0.8 115.9 q¡~
48.3 390 0):>
ESAs 438.3 :DC')
-I:J:
Provincial Natural Heritage L Total for Core Natural ,s:;
System 2004 Features 1200.3 "tm
c~
Woodlands 876.3 211.3 665 I ,
Lake Iroquois
Shoreline 50 0 50 I I L,.-
Wetlands 116.7 0.8 115.9
ESAs 438.3 48.4 389.9 ra
Provincial Natural Heritage Total for Core Natural
System 2005 Features 1220.8
Woodlands 662.5 0 662.5 I 694.3
Lake Iroquois ""
Shoreline :..""," 0 "36.3 35.3
Wetlands 0 " 103.6 107.9
ESAs 0 362.7 384.1
Total for Core Natural
Features 1 1165.11 01 1165.1 I 1221.6
Column 4 represents the numbers based on the GIS layers received directly from the City of Pickering. These numbers indicate one of two things: 1)
Either ORC has made errors in calculating the data for the Pickering NHS or 2) The City of Pickering does not have the most up to date version of
the Province's data. These discrepancies should be reconciled.
Dillon Consulting Limited
Page 30
CiÚ¡ o~
REPORT TO
COUNCIL
120
Report Number: HR 01-06
Date: February 2, 2006
From:
Gillis A. Paterson
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
Baba Gajadharsingh
Division Head, Human Resources
Subject:
Bill 206 - Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act
Recommendation:
1. That Report HR 01-06 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer and
Division Head, Human Resources be received.
2. That Council support the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO)'s
position in opposition to Bill 206, An Act to revise the Ontario Municipal
Employees Retirement System Act.
3. That the Resolution attached (see Attachment I) be adopted by Council.
Executive Summary:
The existing Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System (OMERS) plan serves
approximately 355,000 members including 98,000 retirees and 900 employers with a
portfolio of investments valued at $36 billion. Currently the Ontario government
appoints members to the OMERS Board and has the final approval on plan design,
changes and contribution rates.
In June, 2005 the Province of Ontario introduced Bill 206, An Act to revise the Ontario
Municipal Employees Retirement System Act. This Bill, among other things, introduces
a new governance plan for OMERS as well as Supplemental Pension Plans for Fire,
Police and Paramedics. This Bill, with a number of amendments, received second
reading in December, 2005 and has been referred back to Standing Committee. Public
hearings were held on January 25th and 26th, and Standing Committee commenced
clause-by-clause review of the Bill on February 1, 2006.
In December, 2005 the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Honourable John
Gerretsen, sent a letter to the Durham Regional Chair's office providing an update on
the status of the Bill (see Attachment II).
~eport HR 01-06 Date: February 2,2006
12Jubject: Bill 206 - Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act Page 2
This Report provides an overview of the Minister's letter, as well as the Bill (as it stands
following second reading), AMO's comments on the Bill (see Attachment III) and the
Canadian Union of Public Employee's reaction to the Bill.
Financial Implications:
Currently, OMERS has a significant cost impact on local property taxes of over $450
million which represents between 1 % and 3% of average municipal budgets (source:
Ontario Municipal Human Resources Association). The cost of Supplementary Plans
would, most certainly, result in significant additional property tax levies to municipalities.
Analysis undertaken by AMO, using actuarial estimates developed by OMERS,
concluded that the potential cost to municipalities could be as much as $380 million per
year. This analysis was achieved with the assistance of one-hundred and twenty
municipal treasurers in Ontario. This translates (on average) to an additional property
tax increase of 3% for municipalities. In Pickering's case, this would be an increase of
approximately $1 million per year.
Discussion:
OMERS PLAN GOVERNANCE
If passed, Bill 206 will change the governance structure of the OMERS Board whereby
the Government of Ontario would no longer be the Plan's sponsor. The governance
structure of the OMERS Board would change so that the sponsorship would fall to a
Sponsors Corporation with equal representatives from employer and employee groups.
An Administration Corporation, also with equal representation from employer and
employee groups, would assume the core responsibilities currently held by the OMERS
Board. The diagram below outlines the current governance structure as well as the
proposed governance structure.
CORPO227-07/01
Report HR 01-06
Date: February 2, 2006
122
Subject: Bill 206 - Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act
Page 3
CURRENT STRUCTURE
PROPOSED STRUCTURE
OMERS BOARD ADMINISTRATION CORPORATION
. 6 employer reps.
. 6 member reps. (including 1 retiree) . 9 employer reps.
. 1 Ontario government rep. -^' . 9 member reps. (including 1 retiree)
V'
Oversees plan administration and fund
investments Oversees plan administration and fund
investments
PLAN SPONSOR (Ontario Gov't)
SPONSORS CORPORATION
Appoints members to OMERS Board
.
11 employer reps.
11 member reps.
Has final approval on plan design &
contribution rates
.
Responsible for
contribution rates
plan
design
&
The proposed structure would permit the Sponsors Corporation to make a specified
change (i.e. benefit levels or contribution rates) with a two-thirds majority vote. If a
proposal receives only a simple majority vote (i.e. fifty-one % in favor) then it could be
referred to mediation and binding arbitration.
In addition to the contributions paid by both employers and employees to the pension
plan, both groups will also be responsible for paying fees to cover costs associated
with the mediation and arbitration of a proposed specified change. Given the size of
the Sponsors Corporation, it is likely that the need to resort to binding arbitration may
occur very frequently.
SUPPLEMENTAL PLANS
In addition to the traditional OMERS "Primary" Plan (the plan currently in place), Bill 206
requires the establishment of Supplemental Pension Plans. These plans would be
stand alone pension plans that are operated by OMERS in conjunction with the Primary
Plan.
The Bill requires that Supplemental Plans be established by the Sponsors Corporation
within 24 months of the date that the Act comes into force to provide Fire, Police and
Paramedics with the opportunity to negotiate access to the following benefits at the
local level:
CORPO227-07/01
123
Report HR 01-06
Date: February 2, 2006
Subject: Bill 206 - Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act
Page 4
. 2.33% accrual rate (compared to 2% accrual rate for Primary Plan)
. unreduced pension with 80 factor (if age 50 or older) for Normal Retirement Age
(NRA) 60 members
. unreduced pension with 85 factor (if age 55 or older) for NRA 65 members
. 3 or 4 best average years formula (compared to best 5 years for primary plan)
. buy-back option (to be paid by plan members) for service before the date that any
of the above benefits are made available locally
If the Pickering Professional Firefighters' Association (PPFA) wishes to obtain these
benefits, they would have to do so through the collective bargaining process and
ultimately, through interest arbitration if collective bargaining is unsuccessful. Under
the revised Bill, the benefits listed above can only be offered one at a time (i.e. one per
collective agreement). Consequently, this may lead to the Association seeking to
shorten the terms of collective agreements in order to accelerate its access to
additional benefits.
The cost of Supplemental Plans are to be shared equally between employers and
employees. These costs can be quite substantial. Currently, OMERS is required to
provide for solvency funding (the cost to settle the plan benefits if the plan was to be
dissolved). Solvency funding requirements can have a significant impact on employer
and employee contributions.
The Honourable John Gerretsen's letter to the Durham Regional Chair states that
correspondence has been issued to OMERS indicating that the Province is prepared to
recommend that Supplemental Plans be exempted from solvency funding. This
proposed exemption from solvency funding would help to lessen the short term cost of
Supplemental Benefits; however, at this point there is no guarantee that this will occur.
CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES (CUPE)
Currently, CUPE represents 45% of the OMERS active membership. While CUPE
supports OMERS autonomy in principle, they are opposed to the governance model
and the Bill's structure around Supplemental Plans. CUPE demands that they have
representation on both the Sponsors Corporation and the Administration Corporation
that reflects the size of their membership in the plan (45%). Also, CUPE wants
immediate access to the same types of Supplemental Benefits that are being
prescribed for Fire, Police and Paramedics.
The leadership of all CUPE locals met in Toronto on January 25, 2006 to approve an
action plan which includes conducting area strike votes to approve a province-wide
strike action if the Ontario Government continues to pursue approval of Bill 206 in it is
current form. This action plan was approved unanimously by the 450 delegates.
Strike votes will be held during the week of February 6, 2006. CUPE will determine by
February 10, 2006 whether or not the Ontario Government has met their demands. A
CORPO227-07/01
Report HR 01-06
Date: February 2, 2006
124
Subject: Bill 206 - Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act
Page 5
further CUPE emergency provincial leadership meeting will be held prior to the
implementation of any province-wide strike action.
CONCLUSION
Bill 206 is very complex and has the potential to impact municipalities significantly
through cost, and their ability to control and offer benefits to employees in a fair and
equitable manner. The Bill also has the potential to adversely affect every past, present
and future member of OMERS. The Province has provided only a narrow window of
time, prior to the passage of the Bill, for stakeholders to conduct a thorough analysis of
the implications of this legislation and provide their input.
We will continue to monitory closely the progress of Bill 206 and provide updates as
new developments occur.
Attachments:
1. Resolution - Bill 206 - Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act
2. letter to Roger Anderson from John Gerretsen dated December 20, 2005
3. AMO Alert dated December 15, 2005
Approved I Endorsed By:
. -~.j=-- ~
Gillis A. Paterson
Director, Corporate Services &
Treasurer
Attachments
Co : Chief Administrative Officer
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering Ci C "I
Ba a a rsingh
Division H ad, Human Resources
d
CORPO227-07/01
125
ATTACHMENT # -L-.
Hí\'o\ Db
Bill 206 - Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act
WHEREAS the provincial Standing Committee on General Government is
currently debating Bill 206, An Act to revise the Ontario Municipal Employees
Retirement System Act; and
WHEREAS the OMERS pension fund is currently equal to approximately 8% of
Ontario's annual GDP; and
WHEREAS the OMERS pension fund serves approximately 900 employers and
355,000 diverse employee groups including, current and former employees of
municipal governments; school boards; libraries; police and fire departments;
children's aid societies; and, electricity distribution companies; and
WHEREAS Ontario's municipalities and their employees depend upon the
prudent management of the $36 billion plan and to ensure that employees and
employers are paying for benefits they can afford; and
WHEREAS OMERS employer and employee members are facing an increase in
OMERS contributions in 2006 of approximately 9% as a result of a significant
deficit in the OMERS fund; and
WHEREAS the Bill includes significant, potentially costly and unnecessary
changes to the governance structure of OMERS including a Sponsors
Corporation structured to be governed by arbitration; and
WHEREAS the Bill mandates the creation of expensive Supplementary Plans to
provide optional enhanced benefits that will impose new collective bargaining
obligations on municipalities, the operating costs of which cannot yet be fully
assessed; and
WHEREAS the Province has responsibility to study the potential impact of the
changes it is proposing and to share the results with employers and employee
groups; and
WHEREAS AMO and others have urged the government to consider the
potential implications of Bill 206 and to ensure the proposed policy changes
protect the interests of employers, employees and taxpayers; and
WHEREAS the Government is moving in haste with a Bill, which in its current
form raises significant technical, public policy and economic issues;
Page1
\
ATTACHMENT # -----
THEREFORE BE IT RESOVlED THAT the Corporation of the City of Pickering
does not support Bill 206, and requests that the Government of Ontario
reconsider the advisability of proceeding with Bill 206 in its current form; and
FURTHER IT BE RESOVlED THAT Dan McTeague, MP Pickering-Scarborough
East, Mark Holland, MP Ajax-Pickering, the Honourable John Gerretsen, Minister
of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Honourable Dalton McGuinty, Premier of
Ontario, and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario be advised that this
Council does not support proposed changes to the OMERS Pension Fund
contained in Bill 206.
Page2
HR 0\ -ob
126
Mlnisler ot Municipal Atfairs
and HoI,.Is/ng
ATTACHMENT #- _!- .
. Wtlj.
Minlstre des Ana/res mun/CIP&les. ~ .
ct du Logemcnt
Tn. rue Bay,17"élago REGION OF DURHA .
TcrOl"\toON M5G2E5 ~~~re.Do/J~'
Tél. (416) 585--7000 )) ~ ~ CfD) .Ontario
Téléc (416)585-6470 ~ C. . . .
WYNJ.møh.aov.on.C8 . . . .
, . ,
I-\~ 01 .(1;
127
777 Bay Slreol, 17'" Floor
Toronto ON MSG 26
Tel. (416) 585-7000
Fax (416) 585-6470
www.mah.Clov,on.ca
DEe 3 0 2005
(O5~1436)
December 20, 2005
Roger Anderson
Chair
Regional Municipality of Durhapl .
PO Box 623, 605 Rosslai:id Road East
Whitby, ON L1N 6A3
O~F~ÇE:OF TH'E
REGIONAL CHAIR
..". .
Dear Roger Anderson:
Re: .
Rill 206: Ontario Municipal Emplovees Retirement System Act
I am writing to you with an update now that I have introduced Bill 206 mto the legislature for
second reading. .' . . '. .
Many of your submissions indicated a concern about the potential cost of a.supplemental benefit.
plan for the police and fire sectors and for paramedics- This is a natural concem;buctþe' '.
government is moving forward to require the implemenlaúon of specific pension benefits
. because we believe it is important to provide police, fire and paramedic. employees!:~iththe
option 10 bargain locally for these enhancements. We. have also introd~~d~é:l,nUII1beriof.
amendmentS at the Standing Committee on General Government that should help to contain the
costs of these potential benefits a.Dd potential future benefits.
Bill 206, if passed, will not impose any new cost or pension benefit on any employer Or
employee. It will require that the prop9sed new Sponsors Corporation set up, wÜbin 24 months,
a supplëmental benefit plan that will include tbe optional pension benefits outlined in tbe Bill.
Once tbe supplemental benefit plan is made a....a.il~blc, it wiu be up to local grocps of employees
and employers to decide whether or Dot £hey wish to access a new pension benefit. The bill
allows for no more than one of the potential new supplemental benefits to be negotiated between
individual employer and itS employees at a time.
With respect to the decìsion-making and dispute resolution process, the Bill, as amended
following first reading, would require that decisions on specific major plan changes, such as
changes in benefits or contribution rates, could be approved by a tWo-thirds majority vote of the
Sponsors Corporation. This would ensure tbat there was significant support by both employees
and employers. Access to mediation and arbitration with respect to any specified changes in
benefits would now require majority support by the Sponsors Corporation representatives of both
employees and employers. .
/2
"Z>¡Oðl9Oj
58
ATTACHMENT#~.TOREPORT# ~~ ~i-Db
- 2-
128
Roger Anderson,Chair
Regional Municipality of Durham
The Bill continues to propose the requirement of a stability res¿ri.r~ ôf iOs ~er cent before
benefits could be increased and a C<1p of OS,per cellt for bothemploy~es anc1:eznployers on
awards arbirratedforthe Sponso'rs Corporation. " ' "
This govemmeIit recognÌ?es that the costs of supplemental benefits, if theYiare"subjed to:the full '
reC¡ uire.inòn,Ì5 of the PeDsion Benefits Ac~ such as the solvency:funâlliii reqúirêíiîerits/"'oÌ1ll~e,
quite onerous for both employees and employers. Therefore, in addition to the changeso'ûUmêd
above, I am pleased to advise you tba[ the Mirúster of Finance .has issued a letter. to the Ontario,
Municipal Employëes RetiremenrSyst~in(OME~S)*d1êat4I&-~~(¥~){pr~jj~~'4 to.." ','. " ,
recommend, subject tocertáin conditions, that new si.tþþlemerÚal benefit plans under OMERS be
exempted from the solvency funding rules through an amendment to the Pension Benefits Aci
Regulation. ~tjs my_understanding thatOMERS sent,.a:copyof¡this.Ietter,to(aÙst:éù::ehôlders.
This èxeaiptidn woUld .occur at thc' time tlÌattheplans are .creàtediuid;;reg;isteied:with the" '.. ,', ""
S ~pe rirHen~e:nt. òi F mandaI S e"" j O:s. TIû s' weill d at n taÎ1i' ëösÌ5 ãiìd'm~e š~p¡;liiirì~'¡@~è;'¿iï Is,
more affordablefOrbothempIOyceS',and"e~ploýers~",",;,->':''.-:; t~;"¡~,:' ,,'~:;':.',',,::"" " , " " ' " "
In closing. I would like to clarity that our government,~~~~,(:)1~~,~~![O"p'~o,~iq~{;~!'s~eholders '
with costing information on potential benefit enhancemeÌ1ts,aS,onIy OMERS maintains d~ta
nccessaryt,o çC?nduct lh~se typeset actuarjal ~al)'ses~ Jndi'lidualmunicipalities;can;apply the;' "
0 MER~ ~ëtûari~l, 4tinlat"s.. ~ò thèir specifi c co ad; lions in òrde r, to est,ÏID¡à~e; R~ t.¥ii¡Ù'1 ò~: \"'~ ts '
under:vanous benefil scenanos.~ A number of stakeholders,have~used-the'datrand 'ha.vemade a
number of assumptions that presume that every municipality will ÎImnediate!}t give all ~ligiblc:
em ployee groupS ,s.-era! e,.eosive beiu:fit.s.. TIils aña¡ÿsi~ &¥~p~:~"#§,?i~ Ì!>~('," "
employees and 'employers would not make any rrdde~offs WIth any other salary or benefit ,Items
through()U,rt.h~.c91l,ecúve bargain~ngprocess~ ", ':,' -,-,\:,> ;, ,'. ','"
" ' , ' " , " "',,' "'" " , '-
, ,
r trust this infònnatlon is helpful and I look forward,to receivin'gfurtherreCQmme~dar.ionsor
comments on this important maner. .',,' '" ' ,",: i",,::, "-, "":;,"'-;,
"', '
Sincerely,
, ,
" "
, ",
, '
J oha GerrcLSen
Minister' : "
" ':. \
, ':
,i '
",,'
c:
Roger Anderson, President, Association of Municipaliti~sofÒniari~ ' ' '. '" ,
Fp:d~Íro,Cbair, Ontario Municipal .Er.nployees RetiremectSystel11 :
The Honourable Dwight Duncan, Mínisler of Finance' " "'",' '" ,"",
, ,
59
AMO I OMERS - Bill 206 Receives Second Reading and Heads Back to Standing Comm... Page 1 of 3
129
ATTACHI'1H<.
.3
itf< oj -01::>
~bt.
I\ssociation of Municipalities of Ontario
To the immediate attention of the Clerk and Council
December 15, 2005 - Alert 05/092
OMERS - BILL 206 RECEIVES SECOND READING AND HEADS BACK TO STANDING
COMMITTEE
Issue: Amendments to Bill 206 make some substantive changes to the governance structure, voting
and supplemental plans. The Bill has become even less permissive and more costly. (lin!<:tQt:he
~ menc:JectBil D
Action: Municipal governments need to continue the message that neither the Bill nor its
amendments have been analyzed for cost impacts and that the Bill is creating a very complex
pension plan.
The amended Bill has been referred back to Standing Committee for further consideration prior to
Third Reading - the dates for which are yet to be confirmed. AMO will prepare a further submission
to the Standing Committee and keep members informed of the commentary and amendment
requests. Members should take every opportunity inform MPPs and taxpayer groups of the
devastating impact that Bill 206 will have on Ontario's communities.
Understanding the Amendments to the Bill:
At clause-by-clause review there were more than 100 motions for amendments to Bill 206 tabled for
review by the Standing Committee members. Some of the most significant Government (i.e.,
Liberal) proposals that amended the Bill as passed at Second Reading included:
. Paramedics- Are included in the meaning of "police and fire sectors" and were not part of our
costing. It has also been clarified that civilian officers are included. This will increase costs
dramatically.
. Supplemental Plans- Supplemental plans shall be provided to police and fire sectors (no longer
optional) and paramedics. Bill 206 would now require 4 supplemental plans to be made available
for local negotiations within two years of the Act coming into force:
a 2.33 accrual rate for NRA 60
a unreduced at 80 (if age 50 or older) for NRA60
a unreduced at 85 (if age 55 or older) for NRA65
a best 3 years or best 4 years (compared to best 5 years in basic plan)
The amended Bill limits the provision of these supplemental plans to one per round of local collective
bargaining - which will likely have the unintended affect of reducing the length of contracts to one
year.
. Funding of rebound costs - assets from the supplemental plan will be transferred to the
primary plan to fund liabilities created by supplemental plans.
. Cap on Contributions - the 60 months BAE and 0.6% CPP offset limits only apply to the
primary plan, not applicable to supplemental plans.
. Arbitration Decisions - Prohibits awards that would result in a three year cumulative increase
of more than 0.5% of pensionable earnings.
. Composition of Sponsors and Administration Corporation{s) - Includes two (2) additional
02/02/2006
AMO I OMERS - Bill 206 Receives Second Reading and Heads Back to Standing Comm... Page 2 of 3
ATTACHMENT#~ TO REPORT#.!t€.OI-Ob
members on the Sponsors Corporation for AMO for a total of 5 appointments on the Sponsors
Corporation, and a total of 3 appointments to the Administration Corporation. In addition, AMO
will be required to make two appointments to an advisory committee on supplementary plans for
the police and fire sectors and 3 appointments to an advisory committee on supplemental
benefits for other employees. In total, AMO will be required to make 13 appointments.
130
AMCTO will be provided with a seat as an employee representative on behalf of all
management/union exempt OMERS members.
. Decision Making - The government has introduced a complicated and unusual new decision
making protocol. The Sponsors Corporation may make a specified change (e.g. change to
benefits or contribution rates) with an affirmative vote of two-thirds of its members. If a
proposal is neither accepted (2/3 majority), nor rejected (simple majority votes against), within a
30-day period, the Sponsors Corporation may, by an affirmative vote of a simple majority of its
members (i.e., 50% + 1), refer the proposal to mediation and arbitration.
. Solvency - Current pension solvency rules under the Pension Benefits Act (PBA) make
supplemental plans considerably more expensive for employers and employees than they would
be if the solvency rules did not apply.
On December 8, 2005, Finance Minister Dwight Duncan, wrote to the OMERS Board indicating that he
is prepared to "... recommend to Cabinet" that new supplemental plans created under Bill 206 be
exempted from solvency requirements, through a regulation amendment, under the following
conditions:
1. that, subject to the approval of Cabinet, the supplemental plans are prescribed by regulation as
jointly sponsored pension plans under the PBA as amended by the Budget Measures Act, 2006
(which passed Third Reading on December 14, 2005.)
2. that, subject to the approval of Cabinet, the supplemental plans will be exempted from coverage
under the Pension Benefits Guarantee Fund (PBGF). The plans would not be covered by the fund
if the plans were not funded on a solvency basis.
3. that the supplemental plans be created in a way that ensures that, in the event that the plan is
wound up, if there are insufficient assets to pay for the accrued benefits, members would only
receive benefits to the extent that they are already funded, (i.e., the pension plans will reduce
benefits if there are insufficient assets rather than require additional payments by employers or
employees.)
The difference related to solvency rules is illustrated in the OMERS Board's hypothetical costing
analysis. The actuarial consultant hired by OMERS prepared an example of a "Hypothetical
Employer" with 1000 employees: 260 NRA60 employees and 740 NRA65 employees.
In the "Hypothetical Employer" example, OMERS costs increase from $4.04 million to $5.35 million a
year with solvency rules in place - an increase in pension costs of 30%. With an exemption from
solvency rules, the same employer's costs would increase about 10%, from $4.04 million to $4.41
million. However, the costing assumed only one supplemental plan per employee group, which is
now an unrealistic scenario given the aforementioned amendments to Bill 206 adding paramedics
and making a menu of supplemental plans mandatory over time.
Although the intent of the Minister's letter is helpful, it provides no guarantee that the solvency
exemption will occur. Consequently, it would be irresponsible to consider the cost implications of Bill
206 outside of the current solvency rules.
Potential Fiscal Implications:
Because there are no guarantees that the solvency rules will be changed, AMO is not in a position to
reduce its cost estimates of an average 3% property tax increase or up to $380 million a year. In
02/02/2006
AMO I OMERS - Bill 206 Receives Second Reading and Heads Back to Standing Comm... Page 3 of 3
131 ATTACHMENT#~._- TO REPORT#i!E._~i'O'"
fact, with the addition of paramedics and a new guarantee of additional supplemental benefits, costs
could be higher than initially estimated by the more than 120 municipal treasurers in Ontario who
undertook a costing analysis on behalf of AMO.
Although AMO and others have requested costing information from the Government, the Government
has provided no information on costs. In an effort to determine if the government has carried out
any cost analysis of Bill 206's original or amended provisions, AMO is proceeding to make an
information request under the provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy
Act.
Summary:
While some municipalities, and AMO, were permitted to participate in the Committee hearings, many
municipal stakeholders were shut out of the process entirely. More than 160 municipal governments
have passed resolutions asking the government to reconsider Bill 206. Instead the government
appears to be forging ahead with amendments that ignore the concerns of municipal governments
and substantially meet virtually all of the expectations of the police and fire service unions.
If Bill 206 becomes law in Ontario, municipal governments will need to prepare for continuing
property tax increases and/or significant service reductions to pay for enriched retirement benefits.
It is clear that Liberal government is creating its own legacy, akin to the downloading legacy of the
Harris government.
Municipal governments and their residential and commercial taxpayers deserve nothing but full
disclosure of the government's costing analysis as part of their due diligence on this major policy
initiative.
For more information, contact 416-971-9856:
Pat Vanini, Executive Director, at ext. 316 or
Brian Rosborough, Director of Policy at ext. 318
Back
02/02/2006
ûú¡ o~
132
MOTIONS AND NOTICE OF MOTIONS
1.
Request from Councillor Pickles on behalf of the Pickering Advisory
Committee on Race Relations & Equity to proclaim February 19-25, 2006
as HeritaQe Week
THEREFORE, The Council of the City of Pickering do hereby proclaim
Heritage Week as February 19 - 25, 2006 in celebration of the rich
cultural diversity in the City of Pickering and the awareness of the
leadership of the municipal government to foster equality, respect and
diversity.
ûú¡ o~
BY -LAWS
6618/06
6619/06
6620/06
6621/06
6622/06
133
A by-law to permit the implementation of Draft Plan of
Subdivision SP-2005-02 containing 12 detached dwellings.
This by-law implements the September 19, 2005 resolution
of Council for the approval of Draft Plan of Subdivision
Application SP-2005-02 and Zoning By-law Amendment
Application A 06/05 to permit the development of 12
detached dwellings on 12 metre frontage lots along the
extension of Wingarden Crescent and Shade Master Drive,
on lands being Part of lot 21, Plan 819 (40R-20799, Parts 1,
8,9& 10), Pickering.
A by-law to appoint Special Municipal law Enforcement
Officers to enforce the Parking By-law at 1100 Begley Street
and 1775 Valley Farm Road, Pickering. This by-law
implements the recommendation contained in Item #4 of the
Executive Committee Report EC 2006-02. [Report CS 07-
06]
A by-law to dedicate Blocks 33 and 36, Plan 40M-1919,
Pickering as public highways. . This by-law implements the
recommendation contained in Item #1 of the Executive
Committee Report EC 2006-02. [Report PD 03-06]
A by-law to assume the roads as public highways and the
services within Plan 40M-1919 (save and except from lot
10, Block 30 and those parts of Block 35, being Parts 1 and
7, 40R-19037) and Plan 40M-1969 (save and except from
Blocks 124,129,130,131 and 132) under the jurisdiction of
the City of Pickering. . This by-law implements the
recommendation contained in Item #1 of the Executive
Committee Report EC 2006-02. [Report PD 03-06]
A by-law to amend By-law 1416/82 providing for the
regulation and licensing of places of amusement. . This by-
law implements the recommendation contained in Item #1 of
the Executive Committee Report EC 2006-02. [Report PD
03-06]
134
6623/06
A by-law to authorize the release and removal of the
Subdivision Agreement from title respecting Plan 40M-1919
(save and except from lots 10, 11 and Block 30), Pickering.
This by-law implements the recommendation contained in
Item #1 of the Executive Committee Report EC 2006-02.
[Report PD 03-06]
6624/06
A by-law to authorize the release and removal of the
Subdivision Agreement from title respecting Plan 40M-1969,
Pickering. This by-law implements the recommendation
contained in Item #1 of the Executive Committee Report EC
2006-02. [Report PD 03-06]
OiL¡ o~
Minutes I Meeting Summary
TAXICAB ADVISORY COMMITTEE
January 18, 2006
10:30 am
Chair - Regional Councillor Maurice Brenner
Attendees:
Guest:
Maurice Brenner, Regional Councillor, Chair
Gurham Jagpal Singh
Jaswant Singh Pannu
Gurbax Singh Mann
Kewal Manocha
Bajwa Bhupinder
Chris Del Duca
Kimberley Thompson, City of Pickering
Renée Michaud, City of Pickering
Grant Smith, City of Pickering
Chantal Whitaker, City of Pickering
Alex Palenov, RJA Transportation System
Ron Roffey, RJA Transportation System
Ashok Sharma, Durham Rapid Taxi
Colin McCarthy, Durham College, Business & Industry Development Service (BIDS)
Joy lavergne, Durham College, BIDS
Carl Bogner, Taxicab, Training Course Instructor
2.
CORPO228-2/02
Actio'n Items'lS ~,
"(incl¡¡d~d~(;/ji;'e:¿'!;
, approp(Íater<' "(';.
. ",,' , "",. T '.,
That the minutes of the November 15, 2005, meeting be
approved.
CARRIED
Councillor Brenner mentioned that the committee's mandate
was defined and is very task oriented. We are operating under
tight timelines and must complete our goals by the end of
Council's term in November 2006.
Committee Protocol Presentation
Committee members were reminded of the protocol to be
followed after presentations. Committee members will be
given an opportunity to ask questions followed by input from the
uests.
Page 1
Alex Palenov, RJA Transportation System, gave a presentation
on mobile security systems developed by their company which
could be used in local taxi cabs.
Committee members were given a copy of the CD presentation
to show their partners and employees.
The product is available on a trial basis pilot project at no cost.
A prototype product would be set up in each vehicle allowing
the taxicab companies to evaluate the system and decide if it is
feasible and what the cost benefits would be.
Ron enquired if the City would consider implementing this
mobile security system in their fleet vehicles. Grant agreed
that it could be beneficial for the "Eyes on the Street" program
and some of the Operations fleet vehicles.
Councillor Brenner expressed an interest in having a prototype
system in the bylaw enforcement vehicles.
Questions from committee members:
. Mr. Buphinder asked how the software was controlled
and/or monitored and if any improvements are easy to
upgrade and whether there is a warranty for the
equipment. Mr. Palenov indicated that the software is
distributed as part of the technology, no license required
and upgrades can be done on site with minimum
disruption to users. He noted that at this time the system
is video based only since audio technology is restricted
in Canada as per the Freedom of Information policies.
The system can handle audio once it is legalized for use
in Canada.
. Mr. Manocha enquired about the cost for the system.
Mr. Palenov indicated that the cost runs between $1,200
to $1,700 based on installation, model and number of
units. The cost would be worked out with each
company based on their needs.
. Councillor Brenner reiterated that RJA Transportation
System is offering one demo unit to each taxicab
company as a pilot project. This is at no cost.
. Mr. Manocha asked if any studies had been done to
determine any cost savings on insurance.
Page 2
CORPO228-2/02
. Mr. Palenov stated that the only study available is based
on the system installed in a transit service, where the
annual insurance costs were $35,000 and have now
been reduced to $18,000.
. Councillor Brenner indicated that the insurance
companies would probably consider a rate reduction for
taxicab companies if this system were installed in their
fleet.
. Mr. Palenov indicated that his team would be pleased to
present this to the insurance companies to show the
benefits involved.
. Councillor Brenner asked if the system could be used in
other areas such as parks to monitor vandalism. Mr.
Palenov mentioned that the system has been used in
bait cars and parking lots and that it has proven very
beneficial. Ron Roffey indicated that the night optics
feature is very good. The system can also be accessed
from anywhere via Internet.
Councillor Brenner stated that, subsequent to presentation and
endorsement by Senior Management, the City would certainly
be interested in participating in the pilot project for the bylaw
enforcement fleet cars and a demo for the parks and invited Mr.
Palenov to attend the CAVE meeting to do the same
presentation.
The Wind City Taxicab company indicated that they would
discuss with their partners first and advise if they are interested.
Councillor Brenner indicated that no one is obligated to buy the
product after the test pilot project period is completed. Each
taxicab company makes their own arrangements with the
supplier.
The Committee will however, conduct an evaluation process
after the pilot project phase.
Mr. Manocha advised that he is interested in the project
especially if the insurance companies endorse it and their rates
are reduced.
Councillor Brenner suggested that Mr. Manocha provide
feedback to the committee once the system has been installed
for the pilot project. Further discussions to follow between the
individual taxicab companies and the supplier to make their
own arranQements.
CORPO228-2/02
Mr. Manocha to
provide feedback once
pilot project is
completed.
Page 3
Kim Thompson advised that she would contact the Pick N Go
company to distribute the information and let them decide if
they wish to enter into an agreement for the pilot project.
Councillor Brenner stated that the City has not made any
endorsement at this time.
Mr. Bhupinder indicated that this is a good opportunity for their
industry since there is no obligation, however, he expressed
some concerns as to what happens when the unit fails, and
how long the repair time would be. Mr. Palenov advised that
the unit would be replaced immediately.
Mr. Palenov mentioned that their goal as a new company is to
get the product out in the market to get exposure, support and
feedback. They are also interested in working closely with the
insurance agencies.
Councillor Brenner stated that this is a great opportunity for the
taxicab companies to get involved and be proactive with this
project because there will be a major launch, with press
conference which would provide free advertisement for the
com anies involved.
Subsidies Available for Green Vehicles
-IPurchaseor conversion
As requested in November 2005, Ms. Whitaker gave a
presentation on Alternative "Green" options to fuel the taxicab
industry within Pickering.
Ms. Whitaker also provided a comparison of "green" vehicles
including Bio-diesel, Ethanol, Natural Gas, Propane and Hybrid
Electric. Each option is described based on the following
criteria:
ability to convert
environmental impact
vehicle safety
vehicle performance
fuel availability
expense
financial incentive
Mr. Manocha indicated that he converted to propane in 2004
and has already seen about a 40% reduction in fuel cost.
Mr. Singh mentioned that his company has converted some of
their fleet vehicles to ethanol.
Councillor Brenner stated that there are definite benefits for the
taxicab indust but also an advanta e for the Ci to artner
CORPO228-2/02
Kim Thompson to
contact Pick N Go to
offer them the pilot
project.
Page 4
with them to conduct the research on these alternatives to find
out the best alternatives. There may also be incentives for
taxicab companies to have additional plates known as "green"
plates. The City will work closely with the taxicab companies
interested in converting some of their fleet vehicles.
Mr. Manocha mentioned that for taxicab ratio is 1:10 for regular
vehicles. This is a great initiative since it helps the environment
by converting late model cars and provides assistance to the
individual owner operators and be proactive.
Councillor Brenner advised that a decision needs to be reached
with regards to what type of incentive the industry wants, i.e.
waiver of fee for plate, additional plates known as "green
ambassador" plates and we also need to determine the number
of plates to be allocated to each company. We need to confirm
if there is an interest in moving ahead with this project.
Kim Thompson suggested that the taxicab companies develop
a proposal for the City's review and consideration.
Mr. Bhupinder indicated that it might be a good idea to convert
some surplus plates into this project.
Councillor Brenner stressed that some form of "green" taxicab
plate will be part of the new by-law. The City does not want to
impose any restrictions on the industry.
The 3 options put forward were:
1. Set target to convert specific % of fleet to green.
2. Voluntary conversion of plates to green.
3. Introduction of green ambassador plates by City.
Mr. Bhupinder suggested that the taxicab companies work
collectively to come up with recommendations for review and
discussion at the next meeting, utilizing the 3 options outlined,
or alternate suggestions.
The information provided by Chantal Whitaker will be used to
determine if a vehicle meets "green" criteria.
Ms. Whitaker indicated that the "Eyes on the Street" windshield
decals are now available and will be issued with the 2006
license renewal.
CORPO228-2/02
The taxicab companies
to provide their
recommendations at
the next meeting.
Page 5
At the request of the Taxicab Advisory Committee and the
demand for better driver training, Kim Thompson researched
available training programs for taxi drivers and has been
working with the Durham College, Business Industry
Development Services (BIDS), to develop a program that would
meet the needs of the drivers in Pickering. Durham College
presently provides the service to the City of Oshawa.
Mr. McCarthy handed out a sample of the proposed Taxicab
training course, which will be held at the Durham College
training centre. (Note: The City would consider offering the
course at a Pickering facility if there is a high demand from local
area taxicab companies.)
The College has developed three (3) programs for the drivers:
. A 3-week (2 evenings/week - Monday & Wednesday),
18 hours to be completed within 2 years, 1 st License,
mandatory for all drivers.
. A 1-day Taxicab Driver Refresher Course (6hrs),
mandatory after 5 years, 1 st test, for license renewal.
. A 2-hour Exemption Exam for drivers. If failed, then
drivers must register for the1-day Refresher Course for
license renewal.
Mr. McCarthy noted that the program was originally designed
as a 3-day course, but was too time consuming for the drivers
and not feasible.
The tuition fee for the 3-week program is $275 (tax deductible).
The course outline includes:
. Driver training, road rage and safety.
. Business Management & Financial Planning
. Vehicle Care and Maintenance
. Cultural Awareness
. Review
. Final Exam (multiple choice questions)
It was also noted that if a student fails the program, the City is
notified and the license is revoked or suspended until the
student passes. The passing mark is 75%. Students must
also enroll in a First Aid/CPR course.
The 3-day course will be offered every two months and requires
a minimum of 10 articipants. The instructor is Carl Bo ner.
Page 6
CORPO228-2/02
The course curriculum was developed in consultation with local
taxicab companies and focused on the needs of the industry in
the Durham Region. The Driver Certificate applies to all of
Durham Region and reciprocal agreements could be arranged
with other regional municipalities.
Councillor Brenner stated that the Durham College course
would be a mandatory requirement for obtaining a license in the
City of Pickering.
There were concerns raised with regards to literacy level for
some new drivers and whether it would be a barrier for them to
take the course and attempt to write the exam.
Mr. McCarthy indicated that the College certainly recognizes
that there may be some issues with literacy and that they would
be willing to work with the student to offer alternatives to the
writing tests. If a student fails the course and feels that it may
be due to a language barrier, they can always file an appeal
with the College.
Mr. McCarthy indicated that the students must have a 100%
attendance record, unless they are absent for medical reasons
or religious holidays.
Councillor Brenner indicated that Durham College is committed
to diversity and recognizes human rights and recommended
that the College consult a multi-faith calendar before scheduling
any of the courses to ensure that the sessions do not fall during
any religious holidays.
The Taxicab companies may offer to pay for the training up
front and deduct a weekly fee from the drivers to help them
cover the cost of the course. It was noted however, that the
tax-deductible receipt is still issued to the student and not the
company.
It was suggested that the committee should be given an
opportunity to review and evaluate the course after the first
year.
Mr. Bhupinder stated that the taxicab drivers are often the first
point of contact for visitors to the area and are known as
ambassadors for the City, therefore it is essential for the drivers
to be able to communicate with clients.
Mr. Manocha enquired if the City would consider course
exemptions for older drivers.
Page 7
CORPO228-2/02
Councillor Brenner advised that the City would not consider
giving exemptions at this time. The course has been designed
to offer the least financial impact on drivers and is easily
accessible.
Moved by Mr. Manocha that the committee endorse the
Durham College Taxicab Driver Training course and make it
mandatory for all drivers. It was further moved that the
committee evaluate the program after the first two sessions
have been held and then make recommendations regarding the
course curriculum.
CARRIED
Discussion
..Plate leasin
Kim Thompson advised that the 2006 plate renewal letters
would be issued shortly.
The Clerk's division is clearing up the waiting list for
outstanding plates and will be contacting the taxicab companies
either by telephone or letters.
7.
The provision for leasing plates has been deferred. Further
details to follow.
200QMeeting Schedul.e
8.
The next meeting will be held on Wednesday, February 22" at
10:30 am in the Main Committee Room.
Moved by Mr. Manocha that the meeting be adjourned at 2: 15
m.
Copy: CAO
City Clerk
Page 8
CORPO228-2/02