The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFIN 22-13 tea, 41 Report to Executive Committee PICKERING Report Number: FIN 22-13 Date: November 11, 2013 From: Paul Bigioni Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor Subject: 2013 Year End Audit Recommendation: 1. That Report FIN 22-13 of the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor be received; 2. That the Audit Plan as submitted by Deloitte LLP, included as Attachment 1 to this report be received for information; and, 3. That the Chief Administrative Officer and the Division Head, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to sign the Auditor's Engagement Letter on behalf of the City. Executive Summary: In accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, the Audit Plan is prepared to communicate the auditor's approach and reporting responsibilities to the Executive Committee, who has oversight responsibility for the Financial Reporting Process. This plan is submitted prior to the commencement of the year end audit. Financial Implications: The base audit fee, for City & Library, of$68,600 remains the same as the prior year. Two new accounting standards, PS 3410 Government Transfers and PS 3510 Tax Revenue, are required to be implemented with the 2013 reporting year. This may result in additional audit fees in the range of$2,000 to $3,000. Sufficient provision is available in the 2013 Current Budget. Discussion: In the Committee's role as the body responsible for oversight of the Financial Reporting Process, the Committee is to review the Audit Plan for the upcoming 2013 year end audit. The Audit Plan includes the scope of the audit services to be provided, the auditor's reporting responsibilities and an outline of the audit approach. It is included as Attachment 1 to this report. At the Council meeting of June 13, 2011, Resolution 122/11 appointed Deloitte LLP as the City's external auditors for a period of 5 years from and including 2011-2015. However, Deloitte LLP requires an annual Engagement Letter to be executed prior to each audit which summarizes their role as external auditor, management's 342 Report FIN 22-13 November 11, 2013 Subject: 2013 Year End Audit Page 2 responsibilities and the estimate of the audit fees. The Engagement Letter is included as Attachment 2 to this report. Attachments: 1. - Audit Plan 2. Engagement a ement Letter Prepared By: Approved / Endorsed By: Kristine Senior Stan Karwowski Manager, Accounting Services Division Hea► finance &Treasurer Paul Bigioni Director, Corpo - - - ices & City Solicitor Recommended for the consideration of Pickering Ci Council 49,10" 2.3 I 2c) Tony 'revedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer • 343 ATTACHMENT# t TO REPORT# /k 2Z-13 Deloitte The Corporation of the City of Pickering Audit ser ice plan • • 14, .mi . y i For Presentation to the Executive Committee November 11, 2013 344 li Deloitte, Deloitte LLP 5140 Yonge Street Suite 1700 Toronto ON M2N 6L7 Canada Tel:416-601-6150 • Fax:416-601-6151 www.deloitte.ca October 21,2013 • Members of the Executive Committee The Corporation of the City of Pickering 1 The Esplanade . Pickering ON L1V 6K7 • Dear Executive Committee Members: We are pleased to provide you with our audit service plan for The Corporation of the City of Pickering (the"City")for the year ending December 31,2013.This plan presents the Deloitte LLP("Deloitte") audit approach,our audit scope and our planned communications with you. Our audit will include: • an audit of the City of Pickering's consolidated financial statements for the year ending December 31, 2013 prepared in accordance with Canadian Public Sector Accounting Standards("PSAS"); • an audit of the City of Pickering Public Library Board's financial statements for the year ending December 31,2013 prepared in accordance with Canadian PSAS; • an audit.of the Trust Funds of the City of Pickering's financial statements for the year ending December 31,2013 prepared in accordance with Canadian Accounting Standards for Not-for-Profit • Organizations;and • an audit of the City's compliance with the federal gas tax agreement. The audits above will be conducted in accordance with Canadian Generally Accepted Auditing Standards ("GAAS").Our responsibilities under Canadian GAAS are described in more detail in our audit engagement letter dated October 21,2013. • We have provided this audit service plan to the Executive Committee on a confidential basis. It is intended solely for the use of the Executive Committee and Council to assist you in discharging your responsibilities with respect to the financial statements and is not intended for any other purpose.We accept no responsibility or obligation to any third party who may rely on this report. We look forward to discussing this audit service plan with you and answering any questions you may have. - Yours truly, • LLP Chartered Professional Accountants,Chartered Accountants Licensed Public Accountants 345 Table of contents • • Executive summary 1 Audit scope 4 The Deloitte client service commitment 6 Appendices Appendix A—Communication requirements Appendix B—Accounting update (Public Sector) • ©Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 2013 Audit service plan—The Corporation of the City of Pickering i 346 Executive summary The Deloitte audit approach adheres to applicable professional auditing standards and, accordingly, is risk-based and tailored to address the significant risks to financial reporting—the audit risks. Our audit approach involves consideration of the following: Audit service plan—Key elements Audit scope The audit planning and the preliminary risk assessment activities we conduct enable us to set the scope of our audit and to design procedures tailored to that scope. As auditors for the City we provide audit services for the following: • Consolidated financial statements for the City of Pickering; • City of Pickering Public Library Board; • City of Pickering Trust Funds;and • Compliance with the federal gas tax agreement. Materiality Materiality is the magnitude of a misstatement(including an omission)in the financial statements or related disclosures that would affect the judgment of a reasonable person using those statements.Deloitte is responsible for providing reasonable assurance that your financial statements are free from material misstatements. Our materiality will be determined as follows: • Consolidated financial statements for the City—approximately 2.5%of budgeted expenses; • City of Pickering Public Library Board—approximately 3%of budgeted expenses; and • City of Pickering Trust Funds—approximately 3%of fund balance. We will report to the Executive Committee on all unadjusted misstatements greater than a trivial amount(5%of materiality)and any misstatements that are,in our judgment,qualitatively material. Audit risks Our proposed audit scope reflects the risks that we have identified and our audit response to them. Details of significant risk areas that we identified as part of our preliminary strategic audit planning activities,together with our planned audit response to them are set out in the body of this report. Internal control matters We will obtain an understanding of internal control relevant to the audits.Although most controls relevant to the audit are likely to relate to financial reporting,not all controls that relate to financial reporting are relevant to the audit. It is a matter of professional judgment whether a control, individually or in combination with others,is relevant to the audit. ©Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 2013 Audit service plan—The Corporation of the City of Pickering 1 347 Audit service plan-Key elements Fraud risk In determining our audit strategy to address the assessed risks of material misstatement due to fraud,we will: 1. Assign and supervise personnel,taking into account the knowledge,skill and ability of individuals with significant engagement responsibilities and our assessment of the risks of material misstatement due to fraud for the engagement. 2. Evaluate whether the selection and application of accounting policies by your organization, particularly those related to subjective measurements and complex transactions,may be indicative of fraudulent financial reporting resulting from management's effort to manage earnings. 3. Incorporate an element of unpredictability in the selection of the nature,timing and extent of our audit procedures. We will inquire directly of the Committee regarding its views about the risk of fraud, whether it has knowledge of any actual or suspected fraud affecting the City and the role it exercises in the oversight of management's antifraud programs. If we suspect fraud involving management,we will communicate these suspicions to the Committee and discuss the nature,timing,and extent of audit procedures necessary to complete the audit. Use of specialists Our audit engagement partners are supported with online resources as well as • practice office and national office specialists who assist our audit engagement teams when dealing with more complex technical,accounting,auditing and reporting issues. We intend to use the work of the City's actuary in their determination of the City's post-employment and workers'compensation benefits.We will review and test any data and assumptions used,ensure the disclosure in the financial statements is adequate,and that the actuary is in good standing with the Canadian Institute of Actuaries. We also intend to use the work of the auditor of Veridian Corporation (Veridian)in our testing of the City's investment in Veridian.We will complete all required communications with the component auditor,ensure that the accounting for the City's share of Veridian's net income is appropriate, and ensure the disclosure in the financial statements is adequate. Reliance on service The City employs ADP Autopay in processing payroll transactions,which has an organizations impact on financial reporting. We intend to rely on the reports issued by the third party service organization's external auditors.If our assessment of those reports does not provide us with sufficient,appropriate audit evidence,we will be required to perform additional audit procedures to address the risks of material misstatements in the financial statements. Audit team Our firm's mission is to be the standard of excellence.The engagement team assembled to serve the City includes members with a high level of knowledge and experience in the municipal sector.We are committed to serving the City with quality and distinction. Complete engagement We will provide, upon satisfactory completion of the audit,an audit report on your reporting financial statements. We also provide reports to the Executive Committee to assist you in fulfilling your responsibilities as required by applicable auditing standards.Appendix A summarizes required communications between the Executive Committee and Deloitte. Accounting update and The Public Sector Accounting Board("PSAB")continues to issue new and amended other developments accounting standards relevant to the City.Appendix B summarizes new standards, Exposure Drafts and Projects in Process. Significant new financial reporting standards that will impact the City for the current • year audit are: • Section PS 3410—Government Transfers • Section PS 3510—Tax Revenue • ©Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 2013 Audit service plan—The Corporation of the City of Pickering 2 348 • Audit service plan Key elements Communications We expect to enjoy open and forthright communications with both management and the Executive Committee and would be pleased to respond to questions that are within our competencies as your auditors. Other matters Independence We have developed important safeguards and procedures in order to protect our independence and objectivity.We will report on our independence,in writing,at the conclusion of our engagement. Management We will obtain written and oral representations from management to complement our representations audit procedures.Such representations are intended to confirm the information that is provided to us and reduce the possibility of misunderstanding. Client service commitment Deloitte's client service principles have been designed to help us exceed the expectations of the City and its Executive Committee.These principles are our framework for providing guidance to,and coaching for members of our engagement team,and for identifying our clients'unique preferences regarding the ways they want to work with us. ©Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 2013 Audit service plan—The Corporation of the City of Pickering 3 • 349 Audit scope Designed to obtain reasonable assurance and.address the risks of significant misstatements. An audit is designed to search for potential misstatements that, individually or collectively, are material. To do this, we determine a specific threshold for each engagement and consider other qualitative factors. This amount is also used to assist in evaluating the significance of uncorrected misstatements("passed" adjustments and reclassifications). Materiality Our overall materiality level is used in our assessment of significant accounts where audit effort is necessary.We will design our work so as to consider material items appropriately and to detect potential adjustments that, individually or in combination with others,would be material to the financial statements. We anticipate that our materiality level will be determined as follows: • Consolidated financial statements for the City—approximately 2.5%of budgeted expenses; • City of Pickering Public Library Board—approximately 3% of budgeted expenses;and • City of Pickering Trust Funds—approximately 3% of fund balance. If the amount of uncorrected misstatements detected when conducting our audit exceeds that which we anticipated when we planned the audit,we may need to revise the scope of the audit.Should such a situation arise, we will discuss the matter with management on a timely basis in order to agree upon the appropriate course of action. Of course,we will report to management and the Executive Committee any errors or irregularities, above an amount we consider trivial,that we become aware of while conducting our audit. Risk assessment We compile information from a variety of sources, including discussions with management and the Executive Committee,to The results of our audit identify significant risks to the City's financial reporting process that planlling and risk require attention. Our preliminary risk assessment took into account: assessment drive the • Key business developments and transactions (internal and scope and timing of the external); • Current business, regulatory and accounting pronouncements auditing procedures. and developments; • Key management strategies and business plans; • Prior year's audit results; and • Areas of significant judgment and risk. Our audit planning activities to date and our preliminary identification of audit risks enables us to set the preliminary scope of our audit and to design audit procedures tailored to the identified risks to financial reporting.The table that follows sets out the significant areas of audit risk that we have identified, during our preliminary planning activities.The table also includes our proposed response to each of these risk areas. Our planned audit response to each risk area takes into account our determination of materiality as well as our prior knowledge of the City. ©Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 2013 Audit service plan—The Corporation of the City of Pickering 4 350 Areas of audit risk Description of risk Proposed audit response Revenue/deferred Revenue recognition • Significant revenue streams are presumed area of audit revenue* risk..We will test the design and implementation of controls in these revenue streams and perform substantive analytic procedures and detailed testing in these areas. • Substantive testing to determine if restricted grants/contributions(i.e.,development charges,gas tax, etc.)and government transfers have been recognized as revenue in the appropriate period • Ensure new standards PS 3410"Government Transfers" and PS 3510"Tax Revenue"have been implemented appropriately and that required disclosures have been made Accounting estimates Estimates require • Obtain documentation on management's controls over the management judgments development of accounting estimates for any significant (i.e.,allowance for management estimates and assess risk significant property tax • Focused review of calculations and support appeals,contingent liabilities,estimated • Discussions with management accrued liabilities,etc.) • Analytic review of related accounts • Assess outcome of retrospective review of estimates from prior years Management override of Management override of • Our audit tests the appropriateness of journal entries controls* controls is a presumed recorded in the general ledger and other adjustments made area of risk in a financial in the preparation of financial statements statement audit due to • We obtain an understanding of the business rationale for management's ability to significant transactions that we become aware of that are override controls that outside of the normal course of business,or that otherwise otherwise appear to be appear to be unusual given our understanding of the City • operating effectively. and its environment • We review accounting estimates for bias and evaluate whether the circumstances producing the bias, if any, represented a risk of material misstatement • In addition,experienced Deloitte personnel are assigned to the testing and review of journal entries and areas of estimates • Professional skepticism will be maintained throughout the audit *significant risk II ©Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 2013 Audit service plan—The Corporation of the City of Pickering 5 351 The Deloitte client service commitment Our approach to client service excellence • At Deloitte, our objective is to execute our audit in a way that meets our professional standards and also creates a positive client experience. Our client service principles are our framework for providing guidance,for coaching members of our engagement team, and for identifying our clients' unique preferences regarding the ways they want to work with us.They enable us to operationalize and focus our engagement teams on client service excellence. Our client service principles: EV make and meet our commitments to you by... • working with you to clearly define your expectations • delivering what is agreed upon • being easily accessible to you • providing valuable responses to all your inquiries • ensuring timeliness and accuracy in our billings • understand your business and what is important to you by... • anticipating your needs • understanding your business i6 provide value and build trust through technical competence and consistent results by... • instilling confidence and trust in the quality of our work • offering up-to-date professional skills • providing value to your organization • providing insights into the condition of the business and meaningful suggestions for improvement demonstrate professionalism through effective interaction and communications by... • keeping you informed of the status of the audit • performing as a well-organized team • working collaboratively with you [47 provide a no surprises experience by... • proactively addressing issues • providing timely communication of changes to fees • effectively managing changes to the service team At the conclusion of our audit, or at any time during the engagement,we invite you to assess our performance against these principles through our client feedback process. ©Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 2013 Audit service plan—The Corporation of the City of Pickering 6 352 • Appendix A — Communication requirements The table below summarizes our communication requirements.The communication requirements include all communications required by generally accepted auditing standards and other communications that we anticipate would help to achieve an effective audit. Required communication 1. Responsibility assumed by Deloitte 2. Our audit strategy and scope 3. Fraud or possible fraud identified through the audit process • 4. Illegal or possibly illegal acts 5. Related party transactions that are not in the normal course of business 6. Procedures performed on other public documents with which we are associated and the results thereof • 7. Management judgments and accounting estimates 8. Audit adjustments 9. Uncorrected misstatements determined by management to be immaterial 10. Significant accounting policies and unusual transactions 11. Critical accounting policies and practices 12. Alternative treatments in Canadian public sector accounting standards for accounting policies and practices related to material items(including specific transactions)that have been discussed with management during the current audit period 13. Deloitte's judgments about the quality, not just the acceptability,of the City's accounting principles as applied in its financial reporting • 14. Other information in documents containing audited financial statements 15. Disagreements with management 16. Consultation with other accountants 17. Major issues discussed with management prior to retention 18. Problems or difficulties encountered in performing the audit and management's response 19. Significant deficiencies in internal control,if any identified by us,in the conduct of the audit of the financial statements. 20. Material written communications between Deloitte and management 21. All relationships between Deloitte and the City,in our professional judgment, may reasonably be thought to bear on independence. • ©Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 2013 Audit service plan—The Corporation of the City of Pickering 353 • Appendix B — Accounting update Sector)g date p New standards Item Effective date Description PS 3410 Effective for fiscal years PSAB has issued a new Government Transfers standard,Section Government beginning on or after PS 3410.The new Section applies to all levels of governments. Transfers April 1,2012. Earlier The main features of this section are as follows: adoption is encouraged. • Government transfers should be recognized as an expense by the transferring government in the period the transfer is authorized and all of the eligibility criteria have • been met by the recipient; • The recipient should recognize the transfer as revenue when the transfer has been authorized and all eligibility criteria has been met. • If there is no eligibility criteria attached to the transfer,the recipient should recognize the transfer as revenue when it the transfer has been authorized. • When a transfer is authorized and the eligibility criteria is met,the transfer should be recognized as revenue, except when the transfer creates an obligation that meets the definition of a liability as defined in PS 3200. • • A liability for a recipient government can only arise when transfer stipulations establish both specific performance requirements not yet met as well as identifiable and enforceable return requirements. • When a liability is recognized,it should be reduced as the liability is settled and an equivalent amount of revenue should be recognized. • Revenue recognition should be consistent with circumstances and evidence used to support the initial recognition of the transfer as a liability. • Revenue recognition may occur as the stipulations are met,or in accordance with the recipient government's actions and communications that determined the use of the transfer,which are consistent with the substance and intent of the transfer stipulations. • • If the transfer is a capital transfer, revenue recognition may occur over the related assets useful life or over a lesser period,depending on the terms of a liability. • A transfer that is for the purchase of a non-depreciable asset,such as land,should be recognized as revenue when the asset is acquired. • ©Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 2013 Audit service plan—The Corporation of the City of Pickering • 354 • New standards Item Effective date Description PS 3510 Tax Effective for fiscal years PSAB has issued a new Tax Revenue, Section PS 3510.The new Revenue beginning on or after Section applies to all levels of governments. April 1,2012. Earlier The main features of this section are as follows: adoption is encouraged. • Taxes are to be recognized as an asset and revenue when they meet the definition of an asset,they are authorized(a defined concept)and the taxable event occurs. • Tax revenue would be recognized by the government that • imposes the tax except in purely flow-through arrangements. • A tax is considered authorized when the effective date of the tax has passed and the earlier of the following has occurred:the related legislation,regulations or by-laws have been approved, or, in the case of jurisdictions where the legal framework allows it,the ability to assess and collect tax has been provided through legislative convention. • An asset acquired through a tax transaction is to be measured initially at its realizable value. • • Tax revenue should not be reduced by transfers made through a tax system. • Tax revenue should not be grossed up for the amount of tax concessions(which are often referred to as tax expenditures). • Guidance for identifying and distinguishing between tax concessions and transfers made though a tax system is provided. PS 3260 Liability Effective for fiscal years PSAB issued CICA Public Sector Accounting Handbook Section for contaminated beginning on or after 3260,Liability for Contaminated Sites.This Section.will apply to all sites. April 1,2014. governments and government organizations that base their • accounting policies on the CICA Public Sector Accounting Handbook. Section PS 3260,Liability for Contaminated Sites,addresses the recognition criteria,measurement and disclosure requirements for reporting liabilities associated with remediation of contaminated sites that either are not in use or resulted from unexpected environmental events(such as a toxic spill or natural disaster).It also provides guidance on each of the recognition criteria, as well as issues related to initial and subsequent measurement based on the principles in Sections PS 3200, Liabilities, PS 3300, Contingent Liabilities, and PS 3390,Contractual Obligations. • ©Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 2013 Audit service plan—The Corporation of the City of Pickering 355 New standards Item Effective date Description PS 3450 Financial Effective for fiscal years PSAB has issued a new'Financial Instrument standard,Section Instruments beginning on or after PS 3450.The main features included: April 1,2012 for • Fair value measurement is required for derivatives and portfolio Government investments that are equity instruments quoted in an active Organizations or April 1, market. 2015 for Govemments. • A govemment can choose to report non-derivative financial assets and/or financial liabilities on a fair value basis if it manages and reports performance of these items on a fair value basis. • A statement of re-measurement gains and losses will be introduced and these will report(a)the unrealized gains and losses associated with financial instruments in the fair value category, (b)amounts reclassified to the statement of operations upon de-recognition or settlement;and(c)other comprehensive income reported when a government includes the results of government business enterprises and government business partnerships in the government's summary financial statements. • A government should disclose information that enables users of financial statement to evaluate the nature and extent of risks arising from financial instruments to which it is exposed at the reporting date. • The standard will be effective for fiscal years beginning on or after April 1,2012 for government organizations and on or after April 1,2015 for governments. Early adoption is encouraged. Any"adjustment to the carrying amount of applicable assets and liabilities at the beginning of the fiscal year the standard is . initially applied should be recognized as an adjustment to the accumulated surplus/deficit at that date. PS 2601 Foreign Effective for fiscal years PSAB has issued a new Foreign Currency Translation Standard, Currency beginning on or after Section PS 2601. Translation April 1,2012 for The main features of this standard include the following: Government Organizations or April 1, • All monetary items and those non-monetary items included in 2015 for Governments. the fair value category are translated using the exchange rate on the financial statement date. • A statement of re-measurement gains and losses will be introduced and these will report(a)exchange gains and losses associated with monetary assets and monetary liabilities denominated in a foreign currency that have yet to be settled, (b)amounts reclassified to the statement of operations upon de- recognition or settlement;and(c)other comprehensive income reported when a government includes the results of government business enterprises and government business partnerships in the government's summary financial statements. • Hedge accounting provisions in Section PS 2600 are removed. The scope exclusion for foreign exchange reserves in Section PS 2600.04 are removed. The standard is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after April 1,2012 for government organizations and April 1,2015 for governments. Early adoption is encouraged.A government adopts standards contained in the Financial Instruments and the amended Foreign Currency standards in the same fiscal period. Any adjustment to the carrying amount of applicable assets and liabilities at the beginning of the fiscal year the amendments are applied should be recognized as an adjustment to the accumulated surplus/deficit at that date. ©Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 2013 Audit service plan—The Corporation of the City of Pickering 356 New standards Item Effective date Description PSAB The amendments have PSAB issued various clarifying amendments to the transition Amendments to the same effective date provisions of Section PS 2601,Foreign Currency Translation,and the Transition as Sections PS 2601 Section PS 3450,Financial Instruments. Provisions of and PS 3450,being In addition to approving the proposed amendments of the Section PS 2601, fiscal years beginning Exposure Draft(ED),which were supported by commentators,an Foreign Currency on or after April 1,2012 additional amendment was made by the PSAB to clarify that the Translation,and for government measurement provisions of the new Sections are to be applied Section PS 3450, organizations,and prospectively. In addition the PSAB asked its staff to research an Financial April 1,2015 for issue not considered in the ED relating to the presentation of gains Instruments governments.Early and losses on externally restricted assets and inflows when they adoption is permitted. are used for the specified purposes. The main features of the Exposure Draft were as follows: Section PS 2601,Foreign Currency Translation Proposed amendments to paragraph PS 2601.25 to address issues specific to govemment organizations transitioning to the PSA Handbook from pre-changeover accounting standards in Part V of the CICA Handbook—Accounting.The proposals: a) amend paragraph PS 2601.25(a)to address the accounting for accumulated gains or losses yet to be recognized in net income or operations associated with a hedging item • designated to a cash flow hedge or to hedge a net investment in a self-sustaining foreign operation; and b) add paragraph PS 2601.25(d)to account for accumulated • other comprehensive income or,in the case of a not-for-profit organization,the equivalent accumulated gain or loss recognized in the statement of changes in net assets, attributable to the translation of the financial statements of a self-sustaining foreign operation. The proposed amendments would require recognition,at the date of transition,in opening accumulated re-measurement gains and losses,of gains or losses attributable to the circumstances as described above in(a)or(b). Section PS 3450,Financial Instruments Amendments are proposed to clarify the application of paragraph PS 3450.099 by government organizations.As well,the proposed changes address the accounting for accumulated other comprehensive income,or in the case of a not-for-profit organization the equivalent accumulated gain or loss recognized in the statement of changes in net assets,associated with items classified as available for sale.These amounts are recognized at the date of transition in opening accumulated re-measurement • gains and losses. ©Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 2013 Audit service plan—The Corporation of the City of Pickering_ 357 • New standards Item Effective date Description PSAB Same effective date as The consequential amendments include the issue of a new Consequential Section PS 3450,being Section PS 3041,Portfolio Investments, and the withdrawal of Amendments fiscal years beginning Section PS 3030, Temporary Investments,and Section PS 3040, Resulting from the on or after April 1,2012 Portfolio Investments. In response to respondents'feedback, Issue of Section for government some clarifications to the amendments were made in finalizing the PS 3450,Financial organizations,and changes. Instruments April 1,2015 for The main features of the Exposure Draft were as follows: governments.Early adoption permitted. • The distinction between temporary and portfolio investments is removed.Temporary investments that are not cash equivalents as described in PS 1201, Financial Statement Presentation, paragraph 105,will be accounted for as portfolio investments. • • Requirements that apply to the reporting of portfolio investments are cross-referenced and conformed as a result of the adoption of Section PS 3450.Changes involve: - including interests in pooled investment funds within scope; — replacing the definition for"cost method"with a definition for "amortized cost"; —conforming the definition of the effective interest method; —deleting the definition of dividends; —adding accounting requirements included within the former definition of the cost method to paragraph PS 3040.05; —deleting the requirement to apply the cost method; instead, the recognition and measurement requirements within Section PS 3450 apply,other than to initial recognition of an investment with significant concessionary terms; —clarifying provisions that apply to the reporting of portfolio investments held by sinking funds; — replacing references to"carrying amount"and"carrying value" with"cost or amortized cost"within requirements that apply when accounting for a loss in value of a portfolio investment; and —specifying that the effective interest method is used when amortizing an investment discount to revenue. ©Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 2013 Audit service plan—The Corporation of the City of Pickering 358 New standards Item Effective date Description PSAB Financial Amendments to Section At its meeting on December 13-14,2012,the PSAB approved Instruments: PS 3450 which align the these amendments to Section PS 3450,Financial Instruments. In Income on reporting of income on doing so, PSAB revised certain'wording in the ED,but did not Externally externally restricted consider it necessary to re-expose the revisions as they did not Restricted Assets assets that are financial represent significant changes instruments with the The amendments align the reporting of income on externally requirements in Section restricted assets that are financial instruments in Section PS 3450 PS 3100,Restricted with the requirements in Section PS 3100, Restricted Assets and Assets and Revenues. Revenues, n address r l issues a d t ansitiona ssues that can arise when Effective for fiscal years Section PS 3450 is adopted.Responses to the ED supported the beginning on or after proposed changes. March 1,2013. Earlier The following summarizes the proposals: adoption is permitted as 1. amend paragraphs PS 3450.053, PS 3450.056 and of the beginning of the PS 3450.057 to address the accounting for gains,losses, fiscal year in which this Section is first applied. interest and dividends when income attributable to a financial asset is externally restricted in accordance with the criterion in Restricted Assets and Revenues,paragraph PS 3100.11;and 2. amend paragraphs PS 3450.099(b)(iii)and PS 3450.099(c)to address the accounting for adjustments associated with the transition to Section PS 3450 when income attributable to a financial asset is externally restricted. Section PS 3100,Restricted Assets and Revenues,requires that • income attributable to a financial asset that is externally restricted (such as interest,dividends and a change in fair value of an item carried at fair value)is accounted for as a liability until the • resources are used for the purpose or purposes specified. PSAB Handbook Various effective dates. The following summarizes the amendments: Improvements For changes that relate Subsequent Events,Section PS 2400 to PS 3450,fiscal years The new paragraph in Section PS 2400 clarifies the meaning of beginning on or after the date of completion of the financial statement consistent with April 1,2012 for recent changes to Canadian assurance standards.The date of government organizations,and completion of the financial statements represents the cut-off date April 1,2015 for for identifying and considering the effects of subsequent events. governments. Early Basic Principles of Consolidation,Section PS 2500 adoption permitted. The elimination of unrealized gains and losses associated with inter-governmental unit transactions is a basic consolidation principle.The issue of Section PS 3450 introduces the fair value measurement category.The amendments clarify that any unrealized gain or loss attributable to the derecognition of financial assets and financial liabilities in the fair value category due to inter-governmental sales or transfers would be eliminated from the consolidated statement of operations. It would be reported in the consolidated statement of remeasurement gains and losses, consistent with the principle that the gain or loss has yet to be realized from the perspective of the reporting entity. Additionally,the amendment to paragraph PS 2500.17 specifies that losses attributable to impairment are presented in the statement of operations. Additional Areas of Consolidation,Section PS 2510 In the event that a governmental unit becomes a government business enterprise,provisions in Section PS 2510 address the reporting implications.The amendments clarify provisions in two • paragraphs as the standards applicable to publicly accountable enterprises in the CICA Handbook—Accounting may require the reporting other comprehensive income from the date reporting using the modified equity method applies. ©Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 2013 Audit service plan—The Corporation of the City of Pickering 359 • New standards Item Effective date Description - Segment Disclosures,Section PS 2700 The amendments ensure that disclosure requirements in Section PS 2700 align with recent presentation changes adopted in Section PS 1201. Loans Receivable,Section PS 3050 The amendments clarify that the grant portion of a loan with significant concessionary terms and the expenses associated with concessions in a loan restructuring are reported in the statement • of operations.Additionally,the description of the preferred method applied when amortizing the loan discount is conformed to read "effective interest method". • Investments in Government Business Enterprises,Section PS 3070 The amendment deletes paragraph PS 3070.39 as the constructive retirement of a debt obligation that occurs when paragraphs PS 3070.35-.38 apply is consistent with paragraph PS 2500.06,which requires the elimination of inter-governmental unit • transactions and balances and paragraph PS 3450.042,which establishes when liabilities are derecognized. Restricted Assets and Revenues,Section PS 3100 The amendment clarifies paragraph PS 3100.06 as the nature of the stipulations within sinking fund agreements can give rise to either internal or external restrictions. Long-Term Debt,Section PS 3230 • The amendment to paragraph PS 3230.22 clarifies that the disclosure requirement applies to all debt securities,including when a debt security is derecognized as required by Section PS 3450. • Loan Guarantees,Section PS 3310 The amendment to paragraph PS 3310.08 clarifies that losses on loan guarantees are presented in the statement of operations. Contractual Obligations,Section PS 3390 The new paragraph clarifies the interaction of Section 3390 and FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS,Section PS 3450. • • ©Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 2013 Audit service plan—The Corporation of the City of Pickering 360 Proposed Standards Item Status Description Amendments to In February 2013, The ED issued in February 2013: (i)amends the definition of a • the Introduction PSAB issued an ED government organization to exclude those entities that are PSA Handbook: that proposes to amend component parts of government by defining organizations as Terminology certain standards and separate entities with the power to contract in their own name and guidelines to clarify their that can sue and be sued;(ii)clarifies that when component parts applicability to various of a government issue general purpose financial statements they • public sector entities. should adhere to the standards for governments supplemented by other accounting policies,where appropriate;(iii)adds guidance as to which standards government partnerships would follow; (iv) defines general purpose financial statements and special purpose financial statements to address the purpose of the PSA Handbook; and(v)clarifies that government components,government organizations and government partnerships are not required by the PSA Handbook to prepare general purpose financial statements. PSAB Related Re-exposure draft The 2012 ED Party Transactions . approved on the topic of The main features of the 2012 ED are as follows:(i)related parties Related Party include entities that control or are controlled by a reporting entity, Transactions. entities that are under common control and entities that have shared control over or that are subject to shared control of a reporting entity;(ii)individuals that are members of key management personnel and close members of their family are related parties.Disclosure of key management personnel compensation arrangements,expense allowances and other similar payments routinely paid in exchange for services rendered is not required;(iii)determining which related party transactions to disclose is a matter of judgment based on assessment of the terms and conditions underlying the transactions;namely(a)the financial significance of the transactions;(b)the relevance of the information;and(c)the need for the information to enable users' understanding of the financial statements and for making Comparisons;(iv)a related party transaction,with the exception of contributed goods and services,should normally be recognized by both a provider organization and a recipient organization on a gross basis; (v)a reporting entity may either disclose information about contributed goods and services;or recognize a revenue and expense if those goods and services would otherwise have been purchased;(vi)related party transactions,if recognized,should be recorded at the exchange amount.A public sector entity's policy, budget practices or accountability structures may dictate that the exchange amount is the carrying amount,consideration paid or received or fair value;(vii)it may not be necessary or practical for the provider organization or recipient organization to disclose information about transactions undertaken by an entity as part of its operations. The 2013 Re-ED The 2013 Re-ED includes the following two important changes: • Disclosure is not required of key management personnel compensation arrangements,expense allowances and other • similar payments routinely paid in exchange for services rendered. • The measurement guidance has been modified to require that related party transactions should be recorded at the carrying amount unless(a)they are undertaken in the normal course of operations;or(b)a recipient organization's future economic benefits or service potential is expected to change significantly as the result of the transaction. In such cases[i.e.situations(a) and(b),the transactions should be measured at the exchange • amount. ©Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 2013 Audit service plan—The Corporation of the City of Pickering 361 Proposed Standards item Status Description PSAB The objective of this Accounting for amalgamation and restructuring activities,other Restructurings project is to issue an than acquisition,is not specifically addressed in the PSAB accounting standard Handbook or other national and international standards.The that addresses the standards in the private sector were developed primarily to definition and address acquisition activities with organizations not under classification of common control and when exchange of considerations is involved. • amalgamation and The purchase method prescribed in these standards may not be restructuring activities, appropriate for all of the amalgamation and restructuring activities the recognition criteria in the public sector. and accounting In practice,the continuity-of-interest method has been used in the treatment of such public sector.The existence of alternative methods in accounting transactions,the for amalgamation activities may result in divergence in practice measurement basis of that compromise comparability. On the other hand,it may be assets and liabilities interpreted that in accordance with Section PS 1150, Generally involved and the Accepted Accounting Principles,only the purchase method is disclosure requirements permitted,as other entity combination methods are not prescribed unique to amalgamation in the current international and national accounting standards, and restructuring The objective is to issue an accounting standard that addresses: activities. • The definition and classification of amalgamation and restructuring activities; • The recognition criteria and accounting treatment of various elements of the amalgamation and restructuring transaction; • The measurement basis of assets and liabilities involved;and • • The disclosure requirements unique to amalgamation and restructuring. • PSAB Concepts The objective of this The issues to be addressed include: Underlying project is to review and • How to measure financial performance; ' Financial amend, if necessary, Performance the conceptual • What general purpose financial statements can do and cannot framework in Sections do in measuring financial performance; PS 1000,Financial • What aspects of the key concepts underlying financial Statement Concepts, performance in the framework require review and why; and PS 1100, Financial • What alternative approaches to the key concepts that require Statement Objectives. review are;and This review could also affect Section PS 1200, • How the alternative approaches affect the measure of financial Financial Statement performance. Presentation. ©Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 2013 Audit service plan—The Corporation of the City of Pickering 362 Proposed Standards Item Status Description PSAB Asset PSAB plans to approve The objective of this project is to issue a new accounting standard Retirement a Statement of that addresses the reporting of legal obligations associated with Obligations Principles in 2014 the retirement of long-lived tangible capital assets currently in productive use. The complex long-term nature of asset retirement obligations requires the use of professional judgment and the need to estimate future costs. Reporting guidance on asset retirement obligations was covered in the pre-changeover accounting standards in Part V of the CICA Handbook—Accounting. Government organizations transitioning to the PSA Handbook would need guidance in this area.The current lack of specific accounting guidance in the PSA Handbook can result in variations in the recognition,measurement,presentation and disclosure of such obligations. This project would address the recognition,measurement, presentation'and disclosure of legal obligations associated with retirement of long-lived tangible capital assets currently in productive use. PSAB Assets PSAB issued a Assets-are currently defined in Section PS 1000, Financial Statement of Principles Statement Concepts,as"economic resources controlled by a in 2013 government as a result of past transactions or events and from which future economic benefits are expected to be obtained." Guidance on applying the definition of assets is currently limited to identification of three essential characteristics of assets and definitions of financial,non-financial and tangible capital assets. This project is expected to result in new standards similar to the • approach taken in: • Section PS 3200,Liabilities; • Section PS 3300,Contingent Liabilities;and • Section PS 3390, Contractual Obligations. PSAB does not intend to develop a new definition of assets in this project. However,the Board will monitor the development of other standard setters'conceptual framework projects,which may lead to revising their current definition of assets,and assess if there are any implications for this project. • The objective is to issue one or more accounting standards for assets,contingent assets and contractual rights that addresses: • Guidance relating to the key terms in the definition and essential characteristics of assets; • Definitions of contingent assets and contractual rights; • Recognition and de-recognition criteria for assets and contingent assets; • Measurement including impairment of assets and contingent assets;and • Disclosure of assets,contingent assets and contractual rights. • ©Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 2013 Audit service plan—The Corporation of the City of Pickering 363 Proposed Standards Item = Status Description PSAB Revenue PSAB issued a The main features of the proposals in the SOP are as follows:(i) Statement of Principles The focus is on two main areas of revenue:(a)exchange in 2013 transactions;and(b)unilateral(non-exchange)transactions.(ii) The presence of performance obligations for the public sector entity receiving the revenue is the distinguishing feature of an exchange transaction.(iii)Performance obligations are • enforceable promises to provide goods or services. (iv)An exchange transaction is evaluated to identify which goods or services are distinct and accounted for as a separate performance obligation.(v)Revenue from an exchange transaction is recognized as the public sector entity satisfies a performance obligation.(vi)Unilateral revenues are recognized when there is the authority and a past event•that gives rise to a claim of • economic resources.(vii)When applying PSAB's general recognition criteria,revenue is not reduced when collectability (associated with credit risk)is uncertain. The SOP also includes proposals on issues that affect when revenue is recognized,how it is measured,as well as its presentation and disclosure. • I ©Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 2013 Audit service plan—The Corporation of the City of Pickering 364 • • www.deloitte.ca • Deloitte,one of Canada's leading professional services firms,provides audit,tax,consulting,and financial advisory services. Deloitte LLP,an Ontario limited liability partnership,is the Canadian member firm of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. Deloitte operates in Quebec as Deloitte s.e.n.c.r.I.,a Quebec limited liability partnership. Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited,a UK private company limited by guarantee,and its network of member firms,each of which is a legally separate and independent entity.Please see www.deloitte.com/about for a detailed description of the legal structure of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited and its member firms. ©Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 365 • • ATTACHMENT#- TO REPORT#. j 13 DeIoitte Deloitte LLP 5140 Yonge Street Suite 1700 Toronto ON M2N 6L7 Canada • Tel:416-601-6150 Fax:416-601-6151 www.deloitte.ca • • October 21,2013 Private and confidential Mr.Tony Prevedel Chief Administrative Officer The Corporation of the City of Pickering • 1 The Esplanade Pickering ON L1V 6K7 Mr. Stan Karwowski Division Head,Finance and Treasurer The Corporation of the City of Pickering 1 The Esplanade • Pickering ON L1V 6K7 Dear Mr.Prevedel and Mr.Karwowski: • You have.requested that Deloitte LLP("Deloitte"or"we"or"us")audit the consolidated financial statements(the"Financial Statements")of The Corporation of the City of Pickering(the"City")as at and for the year ended December 31,2013.In addition,we will perform a financial statement audit of the City of Pickering Public Library Board and of the City of Pickering Trust Funds.Ms.Paula Jesty will be responsible for the services that we perform for the City. We are pleased to confirm our acceptance and our understanding of this engagement by means of this letter. • Deloitte and the City agree that the provisions,terms and conditions contained in the executed engagement letter dated October 22,2012 as well as its accompanying appendices(collectively,the"Prior Engagement Letter")apply to the services under this engagement for the year ended December 31,2013 and that the provisions,terms and conditions of the Prior Engagement Letter are hereby incorporated by reference into this letter. Appendix A contains the most up to date General Business Terms and is hereby incorporated by reference into this letter. • • 366 The Corporation of the City of Pickering October 21,2013 Page 2 Fees We estimate that our audit fees will be$63,000 for the City Consolidated Financial Statements and $5,600 for the Library Board,plus reasonable expenses and applicable taxes(such as Goods and Services Tax). The City will be required to implement new accounting standards,PS 3410"Government Transfers"and PS 3510"Tax Revenue"for its fiscal year ending December 31,2013.This change in scope may result in additional audit fees in the range of$2,000-$3,000. Any additional billing will be agreed with management. Please sign and return the attached copy of this letter to indicate your acknowledgement that it is in accordance with your understanding of the arrangements for our audit for the year ended December 31, 2013. Yours truly, Chartered Professional Accountants,Chartered Accountants Licensed Public Accountants Enclosure The services and terms set forth in and incorporated into this contract are accepted and agreed to by The Corporation of the City of Pickering: Signature Signature Title Title Date Date 367 • • Appendix A General business terms • The Corporation of the City of Pickering December 31,2013 The following general business terms(the"Terms")apply to the engagement except as otherwise provided in the specific engagement letter agreement(the"engagement letter")between Deloitte LLP ("Deloitte")and The Corporation of the City of Pickering(the"Client")to which these Terms are attached. 1. Timely performance-Deloitte will not be liable for failures or delays in performance that arise from causes beyond Deloitte's control,including the untimely performance by the Client of its obligations as set out in the engagement letter. 2. Right to terminate services-If the Client terminates the engagement or requests that Deloitte resign from the engagement prior to its completion,the Client will pay for time and expenses incurred by Deloitte up to the termination or resignation date together with reasonable time and expenses incurred to bring the services to a close in a prompt and orderly manner.Deloitte will not be responsible for any loss,cost or expense resulting from such termination or resignation. Should the Client not fulfill its obligations set out herein or in the engagement letter,and in the absence of rectification by the Client within thirty(30)days of notification in writing by Deloitte,upon written notification Deloitte may terminate its services immediately and will not be responsible for any loss,cost or expense resulting from such early termination. 3. Fees and taxes-Any fee estimates take into account the agreed-upon level of preparation and assistance from Client personnel.Deloitte undertakes to advise management of the Client on a timely basis should this preparation and assistance not be provided or should any other circumstances arise which cause actual time to exceed that estimate.The Client is responsible for the payment of any applicable federal,provincial or other goods and services or sales taxes,or any other taxes or duties, in connection with the services provided by Deloitte. 4. Expenses-In addition to professional fees,the Client will reimburse Deloitte for its reasonable out- of-pocket expenses including travel,meals and hotels incurred in connection with this engagement. 5. Billing-Invoices will be rendered periodically as agreed in advance.All invoices shall be due and payable when rendered.Interest shall be calculated at a simple daily rate of 0.0493%(equivalent to 18%per annum).Interest shall be charged and'payable at this rate on any part of an invoice which remains unpaid from thirty(30)days after the invoice date to the date on which the outstanding invoice is paid.To the extent that as part of the services to be performed by Deloitte as described in the engagement letter,Deloitte personnel are required to perform the'services in the United States of America("U.S.Business"),the Client and Deloitte agree to assign performance of the U.S.Business to Deloitte Canada LLP,an affiliate of Deloitte.All services performed by Deloitte Canada LLP shall be performed under the direction of Deloitte which shall remain responsible to the Client for such services.Deloitte Canada LLP shall invoice the Client with respect to the U.S.Business and Deloitte will invoice for services performed in Canada("Canadian Business").Payment for U.S.Business and/or Canadian Business can be settled with one payment to Deloitte. 6. Governing law-The engagement will be governed by the laws of the Province where Deloitte's principal office performing the engagement is located and all disputes related to the engagement shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of such Province. • 368 • Appendix A A-2 7. Working papers-All working papers,files and other internal materials created or produced by Deloitte related to the engagement are the property of Deloitte.In the event that Deloitte is requested by the Client or required by subpoena or other legal or regulatory process to produce its files related to this engagement in proceedings to which Deloitte is not a party,the Client will reimburse Deloitte for its professional time and expenses,including legal fees,incurred in dealing with such matters. Deloitte will not return or provide records or information obtained in the course of the engagement to the Client if it is illegal to do so or if Deloitte is requested to withhold the records or information by law enforcement or other public or regulatory authorities(regardless of whether the engagement has been terminated). 8. Privacy-Deloitte and the Client acknowledge and agree that,during the course of this engagement, Deloitte may collect personal information about identifiable individuals("Personal Information"), either from the Client or from third parties.Deloitte's services are provided on the basis that the Client has obtained any required consents for collection,use and disclosure to us of Personal Information required under applicable privacy legislation.The Client and Deloitte agree that Deloitte will collect,use and disclose Personal Information on behalf of the Client solely for purposes related to completing this engagement,providing services to the Client and Deloitte shall not collect,use and disclose such Personal Information for Deloitte's own behalf or for its own purposes. 9. Third parties-Deloitte's engagement is not planned or conducted in contemplation of or for the purpose of reliance by any third party(other than the Client and any party to whom Deloitte's audit report is addressed)or with respect to any specific transaction.Therefore,items of possible interest to a third party will not be addressed and matters may exist that would be assessed differently by a third party,possibly in connection with a specific transaction. 10. Confidentiality-To the extent that,in connection with this engagement,Deloitte comes into possession of Personal Information or any proprietary or confidential information of the Client, Deloitte will not disclose such information to any third party without the Client's consent,except: (a) as may be required or permitted by legal authority,the rules of professional conduct/code of ethics;or (b) to the extent that such information shall have otherwise become publicly available. Except as instructed otherwise in writing,each party may assume that the other approves of properly addressed fax,e-mail(including e-mail exchanged via internet media)and voice mail communication of both sensitive and non-sensitive information and other communications concerning this engagement,as well as other means of communication used or accepted by the other. 11..Assignment-Except as provided below in paragraph 12,no party may assign,transfer,or delegate any of its rights or obligations relating to this engagement without the prior written consent of the other parties. 12. Subcontracting-The City and those charged with governance hereby consent to the use by Deloitte of the affiliates of Deloitte LLP(U.S.)(collectively"DTOP"),which are located outside of Canada (including in India),as subcontractors.The City and those charged with governance further consent to the disclosure of any information(including confidential and Personal Information about the City, related entities,personnel and third parties)by Deloitte to DTOP in order for DTOP to perform the services subcontracted.The City acknowledges that,by consenting to the disclosure,the information provided to DTOP may become subject to the domestic and international laws applicable to DTOP. 13. Survival of terms-The agreements and undertakings of the Client contained in the engagement letter,together with the appendices to the engagement letter including these Terms,will survive the completion or termination of this engagement. • 369 Appendix A A-3 14. Proportionate liability-The Client and Deloitte acknowledge where the audit is conducted pursuant to a statute governing the Client that contains proportionate liability provisions that apply to an auditor, such as the Canada Business Corporations Act,the terms of the statute shall apply to this engagement.In the event that the Client and Deloitte are not subject to such statutory provisions regarding proportionate liability,the Client agrees that in any action,claim,loss or damage arising out of the engagement,Deloitte's liability will be several and not joint and several and the Client may only claim payment from Deloitte of Deloitte's proportionate share of the total liability based on the degree of fault of Deloitte as finally determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. 15. Client misrepresentation-Deloitte shall not be liable to the Client,and the Client releases Deloitte, for all liabilities, claims,damages,costs,charges and expenses incurred or suffered by the Client related to or in any way associated with the engagement that arise from or are based on any deliberate misstatement or omission in any material information or representation provided by or approved by any member of management of the Client,officer of the Client or member of the board of directors of the Client. • 16. Qualifications-Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary,Deloitte may use the name of the Client and the performance of the services in marketing and publicity materials,as an indication of its experience,and in internal data systems. • • 370 City 4 A Report to Executive Committee PICKERING Report Number: ENG 12-13 Date: November 11, 2013 From: Richard Holborn Director, Engineering & Public Works Subject: Cherrywood Parking Restrictions J � Third Concession Road and Rosebank Road - Amendment to By-law 6604/05 - File: A-1440 Recommendation: 1. That Report ENG 12-13 of the Director, Engineering & Public Works regarding a proposed amendment to the municipal traffic By-law 6604/05 on Third Concession Road and Rosebank Road in the Hamlet of Cherrywood be received, and 2. That the attached draft by-law be enacted to amend Schedule "2" to By-law 6604/05 to provide for the regulation of parking on highways or parts of highways under the jurisdiction of the Corporation of the City of Pickering, specifically to address parking concerns on Third Concession Road and Rosebank Road. Executive Summary: In response to concerns brought to the Engineering & Public Works Department staffs attention by the residents of the Hamlet of Cherrywood, staff investigated issues regarding parking and restricted traffic flow on Third Concession Road and Rosebank Road. The concerns were caused from an overflow of parking during events at the Al Mandi Islamic Community Center and vehicles parking on both sides of the streets, reducing Third Concession Road and Rosebank Road to a single travel lane. Based on staffs review, staff are proposing parking restrictions on the south side of Third Concession Road from Rosebank Road to Whites Road, and on the west side of Rosebank Road from Third Concession Road to Taunton Road. Financial Implications: The acquisition and installation of no parking signs and posts p q p 9 9 p can be accommodated within the Roads Current budget. Discussion: In December 2011, Engineering & Public Works staff received several complaints from the residents of the Hamlet of Cherrywood related to restricted traffic flow on both Third Concession Road and Rosebank Road caused by an overflow of parking from the Al Mandi Islamic Community Center. The Al Mandi Islamic Community Center is located on the northeast corner of Third Concession Road and Rosebank Road. 380 Report ENG 12-13 November 11, 2013 Subject: Cherrywood Parking Restrictions Third Concession Road and Rosebank Road Page 2 City staff investigated these concerns and found that the Al Mandi Islamic Community Center was generating more traffic than usual because of a week-long event that was taking place at that time. The event resulted in visitors of the Al Mandi Islamic Community Center parking on both sides of Third Concession Road and Rosebank Road, due to their designated parking lot not having sufficient space to accommodate the increased demand. Both Third Concession Road and Rosebank Road do not have the adequate pavement width to accommodate parking on both sides of the street. During the course of the event, because of vehicles parking on both sides of the street, both Third Concession Road and Rosebank Road were reduced to a single travel lane at times. This created a safety concern, not only because two vehicles could not travel on the street at the same time, but also because the roadways would not be able to accommodate an emergency vehicle if it was required. Recognizing the need to resolve these issues, the Al Mandi Islamic Community Center was contacted by city staff and was asked to inform the City when another event occurs so that temporary parking restrictions could be placed along one side of both Third Concession Road and Rosebank Road to allow for the safe passage of vehicles. There have since been other events at the Al Mandi Islamic Community Center in 2012 and in the summer of 2013. Although these other events only lasted for one day, and in some instances an evening, they presented the same parking and traffic flow concerns to a rea residents. To resolve the parking and restricted traffic flow issues, the Engineering & Public Works Department recommends that the municipal Traffic By-law 6604/05 be amended to reflect parking restrictions on one side of Third Concession Road and one side of Rosebank Road with the following limits: • Third Concession Road from Rosebank Road to Whites Road (approximately 800m) • Rosebank Road from Third Concession Road to Taunton Road (approximately 1.1km) The Al Mandi Islamic Community Center has been notified about the proposal to restrict parking. It should be noted that the Al Mandi Community Center is currently raising funds for a new Community Center and will be relocated in the future, but currently there is no set date for the relocation. The proposed parking restrictions on Third Concession Road and Rosebank Road are illustrated in the attached sketch (Attachment 1). The draft by-law amendment to Schedule 2 of By-law 6604/05 for the proposed parking restrictions on Third Concession Road and Rosebank Road can be found in Attachment 2. 381 Report ENG 12-13 November 11, 2013 Subject: Cherrywood Parking Restrictions Third Concession Road and Rosebank Road Page 3 Attachments: 1. Proposed Parking Restrictions, Third Concession Road and Rosebank Road 2. Proposed By-law Amendment — Schedule 2, No Parking Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: '//17d, C7/ Ri and Holorn, P. En g. Nathan Emery 9 Coordinator, Traffic Operations , erector, Engineering & Public Works D,afrell Sels y Manager, Capital Projects & Infrastructure NE Recommended for the consideration of Pickering Cit Cou cil % / (9c.7 25,2013 Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer 382 • *14 v (-) 3 CD -o rn CO m 0 CO @ Proposed Parking Restriction West side, of Rosebank Road Al Mandi Islamic F= Community Center F Proposed Parking Restriction south side of Third Concession ' Engineering & Public Works Department Proposed Parking Restrictions _ .- SCALE. NTS "oci 2013 - Thrid Concession Road and Rosebank Road -II" Attachment ,- Report ENG 13 The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. Being a By-law to amend By-law 6604/05 providing for the regulating of traffic and parking, standing and stopping on highways or parts of highways under the jurisdiction of the City of Pickering and on private and municipal property. Whereas, By-law 6604/05, as amended, provides for the regulating of traffic and parking on highways, private property and municipal property within the City of Pickering; and Whereas, it is deemed expedient to amend Schedule 2 to By-law 6604/05 to establish "No Parking" zones a portion of Third Concession Road and Rosebank Road. Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1. Schedule 2 to By—law 6604/05, as amended, is hereby further amended thereto by the following: Schedule 2 No Parking Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Highway Side Limits (From/To) Prohibited Times or Days Add Third Concession South Whites Road to Anytime Road Rosebank Road Rosebank Road West Taunton Road to Anytime Third Concession Road 384 2. This By-law shall come into force on the date that it is approved by the Council of The City of Pickering and when signs to the effect are installed. By-law read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 18th day of November, 2013. David Ryan, Mayor Debbie Shields, City Clerk 385 Cry ?, Report to Executive Committee PICK. RTI G Report Number: ENG 16-13 Date: November 11, 2013 From: Richard Holborn Director, Engineering & Public Works Subject: Proposed All-way Stop, Waterford Gate and Oakburn Street - Amendment to By-law 6604/05 - File: A-1440 Recommendation: 1. That Report ENG 16-13 of the Director, Engineering & Public Works regarding the installation of a proposed all-way stop at Waterford Gate and Oakburn Street, and a proposed amendment to the municipal traffic and parking by-law 6604/05 be received; 2. That the attached draft by-law be enacted to amend Schedule"7" to By-law 6604/05 to provide for the regulation of stop signs on highways or parts of highways under the jurisdiction of the Corporation of the City of Pickering, specifically to address the proposed installation of all-way stop control at the intersection of Waterford Gate and Oakburn Street. Executive Summary: Area residents have requested an all-way stop at the intersection of Waterford Gate and Oakburn Street citing difficulty turning left from the south leg of Oakburn Street onto Waterford Gate due to traffic volume, vehicular speed and sightlines. In response to residents' concerns, staff have completed a review of existing information, undertook observations of vehicle and pedestrian traffic, and engaged the community through a consultation process. The staff review determined that traffic volumes have met the municipal warrants for an all-way stop, and confirmed that the sightlines at the intersection are restricted for vehicles turning left to travel westbound from the south leg of Oakburn Street, which is a safety concern. Therefore, based on the review, staff recommends placement of all-way stop controls at the intersection of Waterford Gate and Oakburn Street. Financial Implications: The installation of stops signs, advance warning signs and stop bar pavement markings can be accommodated within the Roads current budget. 386 Report ENG 16-13 November 11, 2013 Subject: Proposed All-way Stop, Waterford Gate and Oakburn Street Discussion: Area residents have requested an all-way stop at the intersection of Waterford Gate and Oakburn Street citing difficulty turning left from the south leg of Oakburn Street onto Waterford Gate due to traffic volume, vehicular speed and sightlines. Waterford Gate operates east-west from Altona Road to Woodview Avenue and is classified as a collector roadway with a posted speed limit of 40 km/h. There is an existing all-way stop at the intersection of Woodview Avenue at Waterford Gate, approximately 120 metres west of Oakburn Street, and an existing school crossing on Waterford Gate at Senator Street, which is approximately 50 metres to the east of Oakburn Street. Oakburn Street operates north-south from Pine Grove Avenue to Lawson Street and is classified as a residential local road, and has a posted speed limit of 40 km/h. In response to area resident's concerns, staff completed a review of the intersection of Waterford Gate and Oakburn Street, which included the following: • a review of existing traffic counts and speed studies • a review of sightlines • observations of vehicular and pedestrian movements • a review of the five year reported collision history • completion of the municipal All-way Stop warrant • a review of existing signage and pavement markings • consultation with area residents Municipal All-way Stop Warrant has been met based on Traffic Volumes A manual eight hour turning movement count was previously completed at the intersection on December 13, 2011. This count was used to determine if the intersection met municipal warrants for an all-way stop based on traffic volumes, and to determine the peak hours of the intersection. The time periods counted within the eight hour period included 7 am to 9 am, 11 am to 1 pm and 2 pm to 6 pm. The peak hours for the intersection were between 8 am and 9 am in the morning and 3:15 pm and 4:15 pm in the afternoon. Speed data was also collected on Waterford Gate during the City's traffic count program. The speed data indicates that vehicles on Waterford Gate are travelling approximately 50 km/h for both eastbound and westbound, which is reasonable for a collector roadway, but exceeds the posted speed limit of 40 km/h. The results of the eight hour turning movement vehicle volume count indicate that the municipal warrant requirements for traffic volumes were met for an all-way stop during the morning peak hour from 8 am to 9 am. A copy of the municipal All-way Stop Warrant is attached (Attachment 1). 387 Report ENG 16-13 November 11, 2013 Subject: Proposed All-way Stop, Waterford Gate and Oakburn Street Sightlines at the Intersection are Restricted Sightlines at the intersection are restricted to approximately 55 metres when looking east from the south leg of Waterford Gate due to the horizontal curvature in the roadway. Staff concludes that it is difficult to make a westbound left turn onto Waterford Gate when stopped on the south leg of Oakburn Street when vehicles are not stopped at the school crossing location at Senator Street. Collision History indicates One Reported Collision over the Last Five Years The five-year reported collision history at the intersection indicates that there was one collision occurring in the last five years at the intersection that is correctable by an all-way stop. Area residents have indicated, however, that there have been many collisions at the intersection most of which do not get reported. Community Consultation indicates the Majority of Area Residents are in Favour of the Proposed All-way Stop Community Consultation with area residents commenced on July 31, 2013. A letter from City staff was sent to approximately 200 homes and provided area residents with an opportunity to review the proposed all-way stop and invited them to submit comments and/or suggestions, as well as to indicate their support or opposition. The consultation generated 46 replies, which represents a response of approximately 23% percent of the homes. Table 1 details the results of the community consultation. Table 1: Results of the Community Consultation Letters sent out Total Responses In Support Opposed 200 46 41 (89%) 5 (11%) Based on the information received, the large majority of residents that responded are in favour of the proposed all-way stop location. All-way Stop Controls at the Intersection is Recommended In recognition of the results of the intersection review conducted by staff, and the responses received from the community consultation, the Engineering & Public Works Department supports an all-way stop at the intersection of Waterford Gate and Oakburn Street and recommends that the municipal Traffic By-law 6604/05 be amended to reflect all-way stop at this location. The proposed all-way stop control and signage for the intersection of Waterford Gate and Oakburn Street can be seen graphically in Attachment 2. The proposed by-law amendment to Schedule 7 of By-law 6604/05 is presented in Attachment 3. 388 Report ENG 16-13 November 11, 2013 Subject: Proposed All-way Stop, Waterford Gate and Oakburn Street Attachments: 1. Municipal All-way Stop Warrant, Waterford Gate and Oakburn Street 2. Proposed All-way Stop, Waterford Gate and Oakburn Street 3. Proposed By-law 6604/05 Amendment — Schedule 7, Stop Signs Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: . 1/ • l Nathan Emery Richard Holbor , P. Eng. Coordinator, Traffic Operations Djjetor, Engineering & Public Works ANL A IA1 ' _AIL&= D.rrell elsky Manager, Capital Projects & In -structure NE:ds Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council 6?;11,(/3 / 24, 20 Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer 389 Attachment 1 Report ENG 16-13 City°i All-Way Stop Warrant (Local and Minor Collector Streets) NairAtitilOt Study Date: Dec. 13, 2011 Intersection Type: 4-way INTERSECTION COUNT DATA Road Legal Road Direction Speed Class Major Road: Waterford Gate e/w 40 Collector Minor Road: Oakburn Street n/s 40 Local Hour Major Minor Total Exceeds Major Minor Exceeds Exceeds Ending Volume Volume Volume 245 % % 75/25 split 65/35 split 8:00 95 97 192 No 49.5% 50.5% No 9:00 .229 150 . 379 Yes 60.4% 39.6% No 12:00 111 82 193 No 57.5% 42.5% No 13:00 122 57 179 No 68.2% 31.8% Yes 15:00 103 43 146 No 70.5% 29.5% Yes 16:00 201 84 285 Yes 70.5% 29.5% Yes 17:00 201 82 283 Yes 71.0% 29.0% Yes 18:00 185 76 261 Yes 70.9% 29.1% Yes Peak Hours Ending 9:00 229 150 379 Yes 60.4% 39.6% No 12:00 111 82 193 No 57.5% 42.5% No 16:15 206 95 301 Yes 68.4% 31.6% Yes Warrant Evaluation Warrant 1 Traffic Control • Traffic control signals are warranted but cannot be implemented immediately No Warrant 2 Minimum Vehicle Volume Total vehilce volume on all approaches exceeding 70%of 350 (245)for highest hour Yes recorded;and 3-way intersection volume split not exceeding 75/25 for highest hour recorded. OR 4-way intersection volume split ratio not exceeding 65/35 for highest hour recorded. Yes Warrant 3 Collision History Occurance of 3 or more reportable right-angle collisions of a type correctible through the No installation of an all-way stop in a 12 month period averaged over 3 years. There were no reported right angle collisions during the last 5 years 1 of 2 390 Attachment 2 Report ENG 16-13 r,___* „_....__ _. _. , _ Ns,. ,_ ,--_-.1 _,_ ,_,....z.,; _.4 . .., __ _ de ._ .s... -421k4. -, ,,--,---A;:—.43-1777 . _ _ ., iiki . c - - --, ., t.41 ---f C West ee Y f -,„ r 1, f , � x ,3 ' Pub .i„.... , { .. ]rte L � i g J ` S } tti i fly" t ii; R ` - r i4/d .,,m J.- ...d [ iF ¢ .' 44 pra4,66 E■ m f. - K i z } - R F = # 4- `° •Existing ,. x; _ - ng` ,- .v ' 9i_ - , y k I All-way Stop , 4� ._ fit, _ }ny�y } .• 1 �_ kt.,111JA? .,. „Sh,c1, 'E , ,'� Proposed Foy a �a x i# , • `y� W All-way Stop 1 '. `_'kiF °5." { ( - `. Existing School $ ��` E ' {� € Crossing Location ' 4 �, 4; e, s ,._____ 4 1, .: iirl'tycli Al �'y♦ { r 4;' F I'd 't# �.'Var 1�_ HO N'C r.f44 5' } • —� Jy. ��'fMF'• ri � t � i I t `$1 y F "� 1�"�� iy y\7 '�II, ,,1' ."fx1,.• - :=--- , •Ita, ,7- .,':Iii--A:r, 'ft r-A a--E B ri#4- - -,,t141116H'Iti Engineering & City 0 Public Works Department Proposed All-way Sto Location .w -4, - SCALE DMWoct, Waterford Gate and Oakburn Street �� N.T.S. Oct,2013 391 3Report ENG 16-13 Attachment p The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. Being a By-law to amend By-law 6604/05 providing for the regulating of traffic and parking, standing and stopping on highways or parts of highways under the jurisdiction of the City of Pickering and on private and municipal property. Whereas, By-law 6604/05, as amended, provides for the regulating of traffic and parking on highways, private property and municipal property within the City of Pickering; and Whereas, it is deemed expedient to amend Schedule 7 to By-law 6604/05 to provide for the regulation of stop signs on highways or parts of highways under the jurisdiction of the Corporation of the City of Pickering. Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1. Schedule 7 to By—law 6604/05, as amended, is hereby further amended thereto by the following: Schedule 7 Stop Signs Column 1 Column 2 Highway Compulsory Stop Facing Traffic Add Waterford Gate @ Waterford Gate, eastbound and westbound Oakburn Street 392 2. This By-law shall come into force on the date that it is approved by the Council of The City of Pickering and when signs to the effect are installed. By-law read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 18th day of November, 2013. David Ryan, Mayor Debbie Shields, City Clerk 393 ca -= Report to Executive Committee PICKERING Report Number: BYL 01-13 Date: November 11", 2013 From: Paul Bigioni Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor Subject: 5th Annual Toys for Tickets and Food for Fines Drive 2013 - File: L-2220-004-13 Recommendation: 1. That parking tickets issued between December 1 — 13, 2013 be eligible for the Toys for Tickets/Food for Fines program, and 2. That the Toys for Tickets/ Food for Fines program be implemented for December • 12 and 13, 2013. Executive Summary: Staff are requesting approval for the fifth annual Toys for Tickets / Food for Fines program to be implemented again for the 2013 holiday season. • The dates for the 2013 Toys for Tickets / Food for Fines promotion will be December 12 and 13, 2013. The Toys for Tickets / Food for Fines program accepts toys or groceries in lieu of payment for parking tickets. Toy or food donations must be dropped off to City Hall, and a receipt must be presented to confirm the value of the donation equals or exceeds the fine. Tickets for parking in a Disabled Parking Space are not eligible for the program. The Toys for Tickets / Food for Fines program is a worthy cause which is well-received by the public and creates positive customer relations with parking ticket recipients. Donations are distributed through the Durham Regional Police Food and Toy Drive. The Toys for Tickets / Food for Fines program benefits needy families and promotes both community engagement and community responsibility. Financial Implications: The lost revenue associated with the Toys for Tickets / Food for Fines promotion will range from $800 to $2000.00 in fines. 394 . Report BYL 01-13 November 11, 2013 Subject: 5th Annual Toys for Tickets/Food for Fines Drive Page 2 Discussion: In 2009, Council approved the first Toys for Tickets / Food for Fines promotion in the City of Pickering. In the four years the program has operated, almost $7,000.00 has been donated in toys and food for families in need. Many people generously donate more than the value of the fine owing. The Toys for Tickets / Food for Fines promotion has generated interest from the media, with coverage from such outlets as 680 News, CBC Radio, Rogers TV, the Toronto Sun, UPI, and City TV's Breakfast Television, as well as through social media such as Facebook. The program sets a range of eligible dates for tickets issued, then sets two days only where payment for the tickets issued during the eligible dates may be made with donations. The date range proposed for eligible tickets in 2013 would be from December 1 - 13, 2013, with the Toys for Tickets / Food for Fines dates as December 12 & 13, 2013. Tickets may be paid with the donation of toys or food equal to or exceeding the value of the fine on the ticket. A receipt for the donation must be presented to verify the amount. Food must be non-perishable. Toys and food collected will be donated to the Durham Regional Police Food and Toy Drive. The program will be promoted with flyers distributed with the tickets issued during the eligible date range, as well as newspaper and website promotions. The Toys for Tickets / Food for Fines promotion has been a tremendous success. Staff would like to see this worthwhile program continue to support families in need. Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: 4 Ki • ompson Paul Bigio Manager, By-law Enforcement Services Director, C.irp•rate ervices & City Solicitor KT:ks Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council agaelf 0012-: 23, Zo13 Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer 395 city oar Report to ° Executive Committee - f , _al eTCKERI G Report Number: PLN 24-13 Date: November 11, 2013 From: Thomas Melymuk Director, City Development Subject: Pre 2014 Current Budget Approval Consulting Services for a Study of the Financial and Economic Impacts of the Retirement of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station Request for Proposal No. RFP-11-2013 - File: 0-5260-005 Recommendation: 1. That Council provide pre 2014 current budget approval for consulting services for a study of the financial and economic impacts of the retirement of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station for an estimated total cost including contingency not to exceed $95,000 (net HST rebate) which study is to be funded in its entirety by Ontario Power Generation; 2. That the proposal submitted by HDR Corporation, dated October 7, 2013, to undertake a study of the financial and economic impacts of the retirement of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station (RFP-11-2013) in the amount of $90,219.20 (HST included) be accepted; 3. That Council authorize the Division Head, Finance & Treasurer to fund the net total project cost of $95,000 (net of HST rebate) through a contribution from Ontario Power Generation; 4. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to enter into any agreements to give effect hereto; and 5. Further, that the City Clerk forward a copy of Report Number PLN 24-13 to the Region of Durham and the Ontario Power Generation. Executive Summary: In 2010, the Ontario Power Corporation (OPG) announced that the Pickering Nuclear Generation Station (PNGS) would be retired commencing in 2020. Following subsequent discussions with the City in 2013, OPG committed to fund a City managed financial impact study of the retirement of PNGS. Accordingly, a Request for Proposal No. RFP-11-2013, was issued on September 20, 2013, by the City calling for proposals by consultants to undertake the Study of the Financial and Economic Impacts of the Retirement of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station. The closing date was October 7, 2013. The City received proposals from five multi-disciplinary consulting teams lead by: Ernst & Young, HDR Corporation, IBI Group, PricewaterhouseCoopers and Watson & Associates. 396 Report PLN 24-13 November 11, 2013 Subject: Consultant Selection for a Study of the Financial and Economic Page 2 Impacts of the Retirement of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station An Evaluation Committee made up of City staff reviewed all proposals against criteria outlined in the RFP. The highest ranking proponent is HDR Corporation. The Evaluation Committee found that the submission by HDR Corporation best met the City's needs in completing the deliverables, considering their team's strengths relative to the required work, and value for the money. It is therefore recommended that the proposal submitted by HDR Corporation be accepted and that HDR Corporation be retained to undertake the Study of the Financial and Economic Impacts of the Retirement of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station which is to be funded in its entirety by OPG. Financial Implications: 1. Request for Proposal Amount Proposal Cost $79,840.00 HST (13%) 10,379.20 Gross Proposal Amount $90,219.20 2. Estimated Project Cost Summary Proposed Cost $79,840.00 Contingency 13,517.00 Total Project Cost $93,357.00 HST (13%) 12,136.00 Total Gross Project Cost $105,493.00 HST Rebate (11.24%) (10,493.00) Total Net Project Cost $95,000.00 3. Source of Funds City Development Department - Planning & Design Account Code Source of Funds Budget Required 2611.2392. Contribution from 0.00 $95,000.00 OPG Total Funds $0.00 $95,000.00 Pre-budget approval is required to allow awarding of the contract in 2013 which will allow for the completion of the study and the presentation of its findings to Council by July 2014. Council decisions or direction from this report can then be implemented during the remainder of the year. 397 Report PLN 24-13 November 11, 2013 Subject: Consultant Selection for a Study of the Financial and Economic Page 3 Impacts of the Retirement of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station 1. Background 1.1 Ontario Power Generation commits to fund a City managed study In 2010, the Ontario Power Corporation (OPG) announced that the Pickering B Nuclear Generation Station would not be refurbished and that Pickering A and B Nuclear Generation Station (PNGS) would be retired commencing in 2020. In a letter dated April 19, 2013 (see Attachment#1) and introduced at the April 22nd meeting of Council, OPG committed to fund a City managed financial/economic impact and land use study of the retirement of PNGS. 2. Discussion 2.1 A Request For Proposal for Consulting Services was issued On September 20, 2013, the City issued a Request For Proposals (RFP) for Consulting Services for a Study of the Financial and Economic Impacts of the Retirement of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station. The study will present key findings and develop recommended strategies to address financial and economic impacts. The scope of work includes but will not necessarily be limited to analysis of the impact of the retirement of the PNGS on the following: • direct and indirect impacts on the City's finances and local economy caused by changes in PNGS's expenditures and employment during the study period (2015-2020) • economic impacts on the City's industrial, commercial and institutional sectors, including changes during the study period in overall employment (job creation and losses) and total floor space • impact on City services including fire, emergency, roads and recreational services • impact on property values and residential housing market and the impact any such changes may have on the City's finances, and • impact on the City's tax revenue and payments in lieu of taxes during the study period The RFP was an open proposal call and did not state an upset limit. Nine qualified consulting firms based on their experience with similar projects in the areas of financial and economic impact analysis and the nuclear power generation industry were provided a copy of the RFP. An advertisement was placed on the City's website to generate additional interest and competition. The RFP closed on October 7, 2013. Five proposals were received from the following multi-disciplinary consulting teams: • Ernst & Young in association with Dr. Steve Tanny, Economic Consultant • HDR Corporation in association with Dr. David Bullen, Nuclear Subject Matter Specialist 398 Report PLN 24-13 November 11, 2013 Subject: Consultant Selection for a Study of the Financial and Economic Page 4 Impacts of the Retirement of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station • IBI Group • PricewaterhouseCoopers • Watson & Associates in association with AECOM Canada Ltd. 2.2 HDR Corporation is recommended for selection On October 17, 2013, an Evaluation Committee consisting of the Director, City Development; the Senior Planner— Policy, City Development; the Coordinator, Economic Development, City Development; and the Buyer, Supply & Services, Corporate Services, reviewed the proposals against the criteria (see Attachment #2), outlined in the RFP. Although the Evaluation Committee was impressed with the quality of all five submissions, the proposal of HDR Corporation was the highest scoring proposal (see Attachment #3) and it is recommended that Council accept this proposal. HDR Corporation has significant experience in the economic impacts of decommissioning energy assets and has put together a team that includes strong skills in financial and economic impact analysis and nuclear energy. Council will be kept advised of the study program as it is undertaken and at the conclusion of the study, the final study report will be forwarded to Council for consideration. 3. Recommendations It is therefore recommended that Council authorize pre 2014 current budget approval for consulting services for a study of the financial and economic impacts of the retirement of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station for an upset limit of $95,000 to be financed 100 per cent by Ontario Power Generation and that the proposal submitted by HDR Corporation, dated October 7, 2013, be accepted. It is further recommended that staff be authorized to enter into any agreements as required to give effect hereto. Attachments: 1. Letter from Wayne Robbins, Chief Nuclear Officer, Ontario Power Generation, dated April 19, 2013 2. Supply & Services Summary Memorandum, October 9, 2013 3. Supply & Services Summary Memorandum, October 18, 2013 399 Report PLN 24-13 November 11, 2013 Subject: Consultant Selection for a Study of the Financial and Economic Page 5 Impacts of the Retirement of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: /014/A �� /J Deborah Wylie, IP, RPP Thomas Mely uk, ,'CIP, RPP Senior Planner Policy Director, City Development -a)\- Vera A. Felgemacher, Stan Karwowski, CMA, MBA CSCMP, CPPC, CPPB, C.P.M., CMM III Division Head, Finance &Treasurer Manager, Supply & Services DW:Id Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City 'uncill � 'r -A A/ 2a � � zs, 0 Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer 400 ATTACHMENT# f TO - . REPORT# Pt.»'2.4-I _ - • ONTARIOWitifitEAREni4OFFICE OF THE MAYOR I pR 20 .3 Wayne Robbins ONTAR1OrUWLECEIVED Chief Nuclear Officer GENERATIONTIU Ontario Power Generation oL.OW'UP I IFWD 889 Brock Road,Pickeria',y I COPY i iu L iW 3J2 • CAO COUNCIL . , - DIRECTORS CORP SERV Corr, R J .-S. l OES . OFFICE SUST Mayor Dave Ryan I April 19 201_ - C&R PLAN&DEV - City of Pickering 1 ORIGINAL TO: .yam I One The Esplanade ENG SERV LEGAL&LS COPYTO• •• Pickering, ON L1V l<?FIRE CLERK f I - OPER & FAC HUMAN RES =ice Dear Mayor Ran . I CORK• • FILE Y Y , TAKE APR ACT!ON f I'wish to thank you for meeting with Ontario.Power Generation staff on •tierb. Wednesday, February 27, 2013 and on Wednesday,.April 10, 2013 to discuss the issues and a path forward with regard to Pickering Nuclear Generating Station's . retirement in 2020, including.shutdown, layup and decommissioning. . • I am writing to confirm the OPG commitment to fund a City of Pickering financial/economic impact and land use,study of the retirement of Pickering Nuclear Generating Station. • As you suggested, this study will be managed by the City and will examine the impacts associated with: • 1. Direct job•losses (OPG employees within the plant and satellites offices . throughout Pickering) , . 2. Indirect job losses (Supply chain of Pickering businesses supporting-OPG) - 3. Land use redevelopment(Restricted uses of the plant for future redevelopment and investment opportunities) . 4. • Potential loss of tax revenue(s). • • In 2012 OPG initiated a•process to examine site re-purposing opportunities . following the end of operation of the current electricity.producing power reactors. • - We believe the proposed City study and the existing OPG process are • complementary. Our goal is to continue working with the City as both.efforts . ' progress toward a mutually-agreeable path forward_ , - - OPG'continues to value the relationship it holds with the City of Pickering, and .continues to work to conduct our business transparently, openly and in keeping . with the tenets of strong corporate citizenship within the community. Again, our thanks and we look forward to continuing to work closely with you•and • the entire team at the City of Pickering Kindest Regards, • • , -40964,,,,..j__i• . ./ Wayne Robbins, Chief Nuclear Officer Ontario Power-Generation 401 - 48 ATTACHMENT# C9 TO REPORT RECEIVFD V • City OCT 1 0 2013 Menlo ..,.3 PICKERING CITY O PICKERING uFYDE ELOPMENT DEPARTMENT To: Thomas E Melymuk October 9, 2013 Director, City Development From: Vera A. Felgemacher • Manager, Supply « Services Copy:. Chief Planner, City Development. Senior Planner, Policy Subject: Request for Proposal No. RFP-11-2093 Consulting Services for a Study of the Financial and Economic Impacts of the Retirement of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station File: F-5300-001 Request for Proposals were invited from nine (9) companies and an advertisement was posted on the City's website. One addendum was issued. Five (5) companies responded by the official submission date and time. Evaluation of proposals is performed in five (5)stages. Reference: Part 3, Evaluation of Proposals, Item 3.2 Stages of Proposal Evaluation: 3.2.1 Stage I — Review for Compliance Stage I will consist of a review to determine which proposals comply with all of the mandatory requirements. Proposals failing to satisfy the mandatory requirements as of the Submission Date . will be provided an opportunity to rectify any deficiencies. Proposals failing to satisfy the mandatory requirements as of the Rectification Date will be excluded from further consideration. 3.2.2 Stage II -Scoring Stage II will consist of a scoring by the City of each qualified proposal on the basis of the rated criteria. 3.2.3 Stage Ill—Evaluation of Pricing Stage III will consist of a scoring of the pricing submitted. The evaluation of price will be undertaken after Stage I and II have been completed. 3.2.4 Stage IV Cumulative Score At the conclusion of Stage III, all scores from Stage II and Stage III will be combined and the two (2) highest ranking proponents may be selected for an interview in Stage V. 402 ATTACHMENT# TO REPORT# P1-N 2y-1,3 32.5 .Stage V— Evaluation of Interview Stage V will consist of a scoring of:the ir_►terview which will be added to the Stage 1V scoring.-At the conclusion of Stage V, the highest'rarikiig:proponent will be selected for Contract negotiations in accordance with Part 4 —Terms and Conditions of the RFP process. 32.6 Tie Score In the event of a'tie score in Stage V, the selected proponent,will be determined in accordance ' with the City's Purchasing Procedures. All five (5) proposals will proceed to Stage II. The following documentation is included to proceed with evaluation: 1. Evaluation Form—Stage l 2. Evaluation Form—Stage 11 (to be used by Evaluation Committee Members) 3. Evaluation Form—Stage II Rating Criteria 4. Copies of Proposals 0 Please co-ordinate.an appropriate date and time for a meeting of the evaluation committee. Each member should review the submissions carefully according to the rating criteria before the meeting time. Please do not disclose any information to enquiring proponents during this time—they will be advised of tie outcome in due course. Please direct inquiries to Supply& Services. If you require further information, please feel free to contact me or a member of Supply & Services. r`�r 3 VAF/jh Attachments: Evaluation Form— Stage I Evaluation Form — Stage II Evaluation. Form— Stage II Rating Criteria Copies of Proposals. October 9, 2013 0 Page 2 of 2 Request for Proposal No. RFP-11-2013 Consulting Services for a Study of the Financial and Economic Impacts of the Retirement of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station 403 ATTACHMENT# TO REPORT# Request for Proposal No. RFP-11-2013 Consulting Services for a Study of the Financial and Economic Impacts of the Retirement of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station • -Stage 1 — Evaluation Form • Stage I will consist of a review to determine which proposals comply with all of the mandatory requirements. Proposals failing to satisfy the mandatory requirements as of the Submission Date will be provided an opportunity to rectify any deficiencies. Proposals failing to satisfy the mandatory requirements as of the Rectification Date will be excluded from further consideration. Proposals are to include the following mandatory requirements: A. Submission Form (Appendix B) • B. Rate Bid Form (Appendix C) C. Reference Form (Appendix D) D. Acknowledge Addendum No 1 • E. Table of Contents (Appendix E Item C) F. Profile (Appendix E Item C) • Company Item Item .Item Item Item Item A B C D E F • Ernst & Young ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ • • HDR Corporation ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ • IBI Group ✓ . ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ V • PricewaterhouseCoopers ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Watson &Associates ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ . ✓ • • • • • 404 . ' . . . • . • • • Request foi ..oposal No. RFP-11-2013 • • Consulting Services for a Study of the Financial and Economic impacts of the Retirement of • . the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station . , • Evaluation Form — Stage II . . , Team & Methodology Quality of • • Company Total Experience & Delivery . Response • Comments • . Vinnntil ' ffilltr 1 '' 5 PFIRAVWP"rrrgrlRttPRPrtVrF.MrpWrrrrfirek, ‘ . 1 „.,1‘,.,,,,, „ 1,,- , ,._,itv lid ,, f, , . ok:reg‘ .i.hiikkini„,,,gtagnaokanc.44644:14,416,,,a34,,Titt460 ,4dpihigi.14,,,,,,i,4,010,a400:,ysimAdwabostigictidt,:01„,„iv. v, LiAtiow . •. . Ernst•&Young . . . • HDR Corporation . • • • . . 1BI Group • 3.-0 x= . -,,, ......4 • • • c, PricewaterhouseCoopers . . m c) • -4 c..n • .. Watson &Associates . . . . •r• • • , ,r1Q3 - , • -t. • . . • • , • . ;6, . • • : -1 • • a • • . • , • • . , Committee Member . • Date • • Print Name - • Signature . • . • . . - . . . . . . • • . . . . • . • • . .. . • • • . . . • . . . , . . • , • . • • . . • • • . . . . • • . • ATTACHMENT# TO REPORT# P<!U 2 11-1 _ . Request for Proposal No. RFP-11-2013 Consulting Services for a Study of the Financial and Economic Impacts of the Retirement of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station D. Rated Criteria The following is an overview of the categories and weighting for the rated criteria of the RFP. Proponents who do not meet a minimum threshold score for a category will not proceed to Stage Ill of the evaluation process. Rated Criteria Category Vl/eightmg (Po nts ;Minim um 1 f Threshold Team & Experience 30 N/A Experience on Similar Projects - and Qualifications Project Team Overview Methodology & Delivery 35 N/A Understanding of Project Work Plan, Schedule and Deliverables - Quality of Response. 20 N/A Quality of References Quality of Proposal and Alignment to REP Price 15 N/A Cost and Pricing Assessment Total Points 100 - N/A Team & Experience = 30 Points Experience on Similar Projects and Qualifications: Provide three (3) relevant examples of past projects within the last five (5) years that are comparable in scope and magnitude. This should include a project synopsis that identifies the team members assembled who worked on the project, the current project status, budgeted costs versus actual .costs, contacts and up-to-date contact phone numbers. Please advise the references as the City may be contacting them. Project Team Overview: It is important that the Work be provided by a staff team that can demonstrate knowledge of, and experience in providing similar services for projects of comparable nature, size and scope. In particular, the Proponent should provide an overview of the key personnel who would be primarily involved in the project and include the following: a. •Identify the prime firm submitting the Proposal and the sub-consultant that will be assembled to undertake the work; b. The name, title, mailing address, phone number, fax number and e-mail of the Project Leader; • 406 ATTACHMENT#_ TO REPORT 2q-'13 Request for Proposal No. RFP-11-2013 • Consulting Services for a Study of the Financial and Economic Impacts of the Retirement of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station c. Condensed resumes and professional credentials of each individual on the Project Team that highlights their education, training, and work history; d. The respective roles of.the team members and their current office locations. Team members named in this RFP cannot be replaced without written approval from the City of Pickering and the Project Manager; and e. Organizational chart that clearly defines the chain of command for each individual with the team. Methodology And Delivery = 35 Points • Understanding of Project: The Proposal shall include information that provides: • a. Information that the Proponent understands the objectives and requirements of this project; Proponents must relate these objectives to past experience or expertise of the Proponent and/or their team; b. Identification of"value-added" services brought by the Proponent's team; and c. A summary of the risks, problems or issues associated with the Work and how they will be mitigated. • Work Plan, Schedule and Deliverables: The Proponent is to articulate, clearly and concisely, the following: a. An indication of how soon the Proponent can commence the work; • b. A detailed work plan indicating the method, tasks, deliverables; c. A schedule that identifies Work phases (by Gantt Chart or other similar illustration) including key dates for major deliverables (draft report, final report) in the Proponent's detailed work plan; d. Proposed staffing roles and the amount of time, shown in hours, they will be dedicated to this project; and e. State the assumptions regarding the roles and involvement of the City staff. • Quality of Response = 20 Points Quality of References: Relevance of projects similar in scope and value completed over the last five (5) years. Complete Appendix D — Reference Form. Quality of Proposal and Alignment to RFP: Presentation of proposal, examples, details, content organization, how well instructions are followed and how closely the proposal aligns with stated objectives of the RFP. 407 #. 3 TO R'WPoR T y L-1�4 24-13 . . phi Cl='Y OF Pl CI�ERI -Kg _ _ To: Thomas E. Melymuk October 18, 2013 Director, City Development From:. Vera A. Felgemacher Manager, Supply & Services Copy: Senior Planner - Policy Subject: Request for Proposal No. RFP-11-2013 Consulting Services for a Study of the Financial and Economic Impacts of the Retirement of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station File: F-5300-001 Further to memos dated October 9, 2013, and October 18, 2013, five (5) proposals proceeded to Stage II of the evaluation process. Each member of the Evaluation Committee has completed evaluating the five (5) proposals, completing Stage II of the evaluation process. In Stage I11 of the evaluation process, a scoring of the pricing was performed and combined for an overall score of each proposal_ During Stage IV, Cumulative Score, all scores were combined and in accordance with Part 3 — Evaluation of Proposals., Item 3.2.4, at the conclusion of Stage III, all scores from Stage 11 and Stage III were combined providing a highest ranking proponent. In accordance with Part 3 Evaluation of Proposals, Item 3.2.4 Stage IV Cumulative Score, the two (2) highest ranking proponents may be selected for an interview in Stage V_ Supply & Services has been advised that an interview is not necessary. In conclusion, the highest ranking proponent selected for contract negotiations in accordance with Part 4, Terms and Conditions of the RFP process is I-IDR Corporation with a lump sum price of $79,840.00 (HST extra). In accordance with Purchasing Policy Procedure PUR 010-001 Item 10.04 (a) "An award up to $50,00.0 is subject to the approval of the Treasurer and the CAO" and (b),"An award over$50,000 is subject to the additional approval of Council", please prepare a Report to Council to include the following items: (a) the appropriate account number(s) to which this work is to be charged; (b) the budget amount(s) assigned thereto; (c) Treasurer's confirmation of funding; (d) related departmental approvals; and (e) related comments specific to the project. 408 ATTACHMENT# 3 TO . REPORT # • 25/-13 Please do not disclose any information to enquiring proponents during this time—they will be ad ised of the outcome in due course. Please direct enquires to Supply & Services. LA. •97 . VAFfjh _ • October 18, 2013 Page 2 of 2 Request for Proposal No. RFP-11-2013 Consulting Services for a Study of the Financial and Economic Impacts of.the Retirement of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station 409