Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
October 21, 2019
City 6h DICKERING Council Meeting Agenda October 21, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm Page 1. Invocation Mayor Ryan will call the meeting to order and lead Council in the saying of the Invocation. 2. Disclosure of Interest 3. Adoption of Minutes Special Council Minutes, Education & Training, September 23, 2019 1 In Camera Council Minutes, September 23, 2019 Under Separate Cover Council Minutes, September 23, 2019 3 Executive Committee Minutes, October 7, 2019 25 4. Presentations 4.1 Royal Canadian Legion Branch 606 Remembrance Day Poppy Campaign Kick-off 5. Delegations 5.1 Tyjondah Kerr, Senior Municipal Relations Manager, Corporate Affairs, Ontario Lottery & Gaming (OLG) Ken Fernandes, Director of Transformation, OLG Tony Bitonti, Director of Media Relations, OLG Re: Municipal Contribution Agreement (MCA) 5.2 Donna McFarlane, Senior Advisor, Durham Region Hospice Roz Cawthrone, Volunteer Board Member, Durham Region Hospice Re: Update on Durham Hospice Construction and Fundraising Efforts 5.3 Ted Comiskey, Mayor of Ingersoll, Chair, Demand the Right Re: Demand the Right Campaign 6. Correspondence 6.1 Corr. 30-19 Ted Comiskey, Mayor of Ingersoll, Chair, Demand the Right Re: Resolution in Support of the Demand the Right Coalition Recommendation: 34 For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Cty oh DICKERING Council Meeting Agenda October 21, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm WHEREAS municipal governments in Ontario do not have the right to approve landfill projects in their communities, but have authority for making decisions on all other types of development; AND WHEREAS this out -dated policy allows private landfill operators to consult with local residents and municipal Councils, but essentially ignore them; AND WHEREAS Ontario's proposed "Made -in -Ontario Environment Plan" states that the province will grant municipalities a "greater say in siting of landfills"; AND WHEREAS municipalities already have exclusive rights for approving casinos and nuclear waste facilities within their communities, whether to host cannabis retail in their communities, AND FURTHER that the province has recognized the value of municipal approval for the siting of power generation facilities; AND WHEREAS the recent report from Ontario's Environmental Commissioner has found that Ontario has a garbage problem, particularly from Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (ICI) waste generated within the City of Toronto, where diversion rates are as low as 15%; AND UNLESS significant efforts are made to increase recycling and diversion rates, a new home for this Toronto garbage will need to be found, as landfill space is filling up quickly; AND WHEREAS municipalities across Ontario are quietly being identified and targeted as potential landfill sites for future Toronto garbage by private landfill operators; AND WHEREAS other communities should not be forced to take Toronto waste, as landfills can contaminate local watersheds, air quality, dramatically increase heavy truck traffic on community roads, and reduce the quality of life for local residents; AND WHEREAS municipalities should be considered experts in waste management, as they are responsible for this within their own communities, and often have decades' worth of in-house expertise in managing waste, recycling, and diversion programs; For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Cty oh DICKERING Council Meeting Agenda October 21, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm AND WHEREAS municipalities should have the exclusive right to approve or reject these projects, and assess whether the potential economic benefits are of sufficient value to offset any negative impacts and environmental concerns; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Pickering calls upon the Government of Ontario, as part of its "Made -in -Ontario Environment Plan" to formally entrench the right of municipalities to approve or reject landfill projects in or adjacent to their communities; AND THAT in the case of a two-tier municipality, the approval be required at both the upper -tier and affected lower -tier municipalities; AND FURTHER THAT the City of Pickering encourage all other municipalities in Ontario to consider this motion calling for immediate provincial action; AND THAT the MOTION adopted by Council be forwarded to the DEMAND THE RIGHT COALITION OF ONTARIO MUNICIPALITIES 6.2 Corr. 31-19 Ralph Walton, Regional Clerk/Director of Legislative Services, Regional Municipality of Durham Re: Automated Speed Enforcement Program Implementation (2019-W-66) Recommendation: 1. That Corr. 31-19, dated September 27, 2019, from the Regional Municipality of Durham, regarding automated speed enforcement program implementation be received; and, 2. That this matter be referred to staff for consideration of one (1) mobile unit, through the City of Toronto contact, for city road designated School Zones and 2020 pre -budget approval if required. 6.3 Corr. 32-19 Ralph Walton, Regional Clerk/Director of Legislative Services, Regional Municipality of Durham Re: Red -Light Camera Program Implementation (2019-W-65) Recommendation: 39 54 For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca City 6h DICKERING Council Meeting Agenda October 21, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm 1. That Corr. 32-19, dated September 25, 2019, from the Regional Municipality of Durham, regarding red-light camera program implementation be received; and, 2. That this matter be referred to staff to assess any City intersections that could benefit from the program. 6.4 Corr. 33-19 John Paul Newman, Director of Corporate Services/Clerk, Township of Scugog Re: Regional Governance Review Recommendation: That Corr. 33-19, dated September 27, 2019, from the Township of Scugog, regarding Regional Governance Review, be endorsed. 6.5 Corr. 34-19 Kevin Narraway, Manager of Legislative Services/Deputy Clerk, Town of Whitby Re: Lake Ontario Flooding Recommendation: That Corr. 34-19, dated September 27, 2019, from the Town of Whitby, regarding Lake Ontario Flooding, be endorsed. 6.6 Corr. 35-19 Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) Re: Towards a Reasonable Balance: Addressing growing municipal liability and insurance costs Recommendation: That Corr. 35-19, dated October 1, 2019, AMO submission to the Attorney General of Ontario, regarding addressing growing municipal liability and insurance costs, be endorsed. 69 71 74 For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Cty oh DICKERING Council Meeting Agenda October 21, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm 7. Report EC 2019-08 of the Executive Committee held on October 7, 2019 Refer to Executive Committee Agenda pages: 7.1 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report CLK 04-19 1 2020 Committee and Council Meeting Schedule Recommendation: 1. That the 2020 Committee and Council Meeting Schedule appended as Attachment #1 to Report CLK 04-19 be approved; and, 2. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 7.2 Director, Community Services, Report CS 11-19 Quotation No. Q-17-2019 - Quotation for the Supply and Delivery of Two New 4 Ton Dump Trucks with Snow Plow and Wing Recommendation: 1. That Quotation No. Q-17-2019 submitted by James Palmer Premier Truck Group, in the amount of $524,912.00 (HST extra) be accepted; 2. That the total gross quotation cost of $594,846.00 (HST included) and the total net project cost of $535,677.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved; 3. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the net project cost of $535,677.00 as follows: a) The sum of $267,088.00, as provided for in the 2019 Roads Equipment Capital Budget be financed from the Vehicle Replacement Reserve Fund; b) The sum of $267,089.00, as provided for in the 2019 Roads Equipment Capital Budget be financed from the Development Charges Reserve Fund — Roads & Related; 4 For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Cty oh DICKERING Council Meeting Agenda October 21, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm c) The Treasurer be authorized to make any changes, adjustments, and revisions to amounts, terms, conditions, or take any actions necessary in order to effect the foregoing; and, 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 7.3 Director, Community Services, Report CS 27-19 Age Friendly Community Plan - Endorsement Recommendation: 1. That the City of Pickering Age Friendly Community Plan be endorsed in principle; 2. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report; and, 3. That Staff be directed to report back annually, commencing June 2020, on the implementation and stages of the Age Friendly Community Plan, and a tracking matrix be posted on the City's website. 10 7.4 Director, Community Services, Report CS 33-19 78 Waterfront Trail Winter Maintenance Recommendation: That Council receive report CS 33-19 for information regarding Waterfront Trail Winter Maintenance. 7.5 Director, Community Services, Report CS 34-19 Ontario Power Generation - Licence Amending Agreement (No.2) Recommendation: 1. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the Licence Amending Agreement (No. 2) with Ontario Power Generation, subject to minor revisions as may be required by the Director, Community 84 For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Cty oh DICKERING Council Meeting Agenda October 21, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm Services; the Director, Finance & Treasurer and the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor; and, 2. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 7.6 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 21-19 The Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Durham Regional Official Plan: Climate Change and Sustainability Discussion Paper, May 2019 Recommendation: 1. That the Region of Durham recognize the following additional sectors as being impacted by climate change: fisheries; finance and insurance; infrastructure; mental health; vulnerable populations; organizational risk management and emergency preparedness; summer recreation; and urban tree canopy health; 2. That the Region of Durham understand that the City's vision for climate change and adaptation for Durham is a holistic approach based on framework for sustainability, wherein policies about climate change should address the following objectives: healthy environment; healthy economy; healthy society; responsible development; and responsible consumption; 3. That the Region of Durham be advised that it is appropriate to include the Provincial Plan policy direction for greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction in the Durham Regional Official Plan (ROP), and that those policies should recognize the need for collaboration with upper levels of government, area municipalities, key stakeholders, and other relevant agencies; 4a. That the Region of Durham be advised it has been observed that in the absence of safe, continuous sidewalks with a pleasant pedestrian realm, or safe and continuous cycling networks, or transit service that is frequent and reliable, active transportation modes are not selected and used as the preferred travel choice as compared to when excellent facilities and services do exist; 4b. That the Region of Durham include an implementation policy in the ROP identifying the Regional implementation of active transportation 104 For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Cty oh DICKERING Council Meeting Agenda October 21, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm facilities on Regional roads, at the Region's expense, with an emphasis on connectivity and continuity of the active systems and transit, both within and between municipalities; 5. That the Region of Durham include a policy in the ROP indicating support for renewable energy production through public and private partnerships, and pilot and demonstration projects; 6. That the Region of Durham include a policy in the ROP encouraging the initial design stages of all development to include a review of the ability of the development to incorporate small and/or large scale renewable energy systems; 7. That the Region of Durham be advised that both the Regional and local official plans should have a role in siting renewable energy projects, such that ROP policies protect prime agricultural areas, natural heritage systems, and culturally significant landscapes and buildings; and further, the ROP could identify other criteria for consideration at the local level such as compatibility with adjacent land uses and proximity to sensitive land uses, respecting potential noise vibration, or odour impacts; 8. That, in addition to the six potential strategies to address climate mitigation and adaptation identified in the Discussion Paper, the Region of Durham should also consider the following: continuing to plan for emergencies related to climate change, in collaboration with area municipalities; providing informational resources to all who live, work and play in Durham Region; installing "smart" building controls in any new Regional facilities; converting all lighting in Regional facilities to LED; installing solar panels on its facilities; converting the bus and other Regional vehicles fleet to electric; continuing the construction of BRT and cycling facilities on Kingston Road and expanding to other arterials; recovering waste heat from (new) trunk sewers and sewage treatment plants; undertaking a risk assessment of infrastructure to identify ways to improve its resiliency; 9a. That the Region of Durham investigate participation in the Municipal Natural Assets Initiative to assist in identifying implementation policies respecting a Regional natural heritage system (NHS) for inclusion in the ROP; For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Cty oh DICKERING Council Meeting Agenda October 21, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm 9b. That the Region of Durham include an implementation policy that it will monitor the effects of climate change on the Regional agricultural producers and local food supply, and identify potential strategies to adapt to those changes; 9c. That the Region of Durham introduce a policy in the ROP respecting control of invasive species and pests throughout the Region, and in any Regional NHS that is identified; 9d. That the Region of Durham introduce a policy in the ROP identifying the advocacy role that it can play in adapting to climate change in collaboration with all levels of government and a wide variety of stakeholders; 10a. That the Region of Durham be advised that the City of Pickering supports policies being included in the ROP establishing separate tree canopy targets for urban areas and rural areas, following the identification of the current baseline; and, 10b. Further, that the Region of Durham commence implementation of Regional road tree planting, at the expense of the Region, to demonstrate their partnership in improving the tree canopy, thereby helping reduce GHG and heat island effects. 8. Reports — New and Unfinished Business 8.1 Director, Community Services, Report CS 35-19 Licence Agreement - Graymatter Marketing Solutions Inc. Recommendation: 1. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute a Licence Agreement with Graymatter Marketing Solutions Inc. as set out in Attachment 1 to this report, subject to minor revisions as may be required by the Director, Community Services and the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor; and, 2. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 92 For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca City 6h DICKERING Council Meeting Agenda October 21, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm 8.2 Director, Community Services, Report CS 40-19 Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program: Community, Culture and Recreation - Endorsement of City of Pickering Application 1. That Council authorize staff to initiate and submit the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program: Community Culture and Recreation grant application for the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex reconstruction project; 2. That Council authorize staff to initiate and submit the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program: Community Culture and Recreation grant application for the Pickering Heritage & Community Centre construction project; 3. That Council authorize staff to initiate and submit the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program: Community Culture and Recreation grant application for the Performing Arts Centre construction project; 4. That a copy of this report be forwarded to Jennifer O'Connell, MP, Pickering -Uxbridge; 5. That a copy of this report be forwarded to Peter Bethlenfalvy, MPP, Pickering -Uxbridge; and, 6. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take necessary action to give effect hereto. 104 8.3 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 17-19 129 Proposed Environmental Schools Grant for 2020 Budget Recommendation: 1. That Council support and direct City staff to work with the respective school boards to implement an Environmental Schools Grant initiative; 2. That Council provide 2020 pre -budget approval in the amount of $8,750 (account 2195.2712.0000) in the General Government section of the Current Budget for an Environmental Schools Grant initiative; For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca City 6h DICKERING Council Meeting Agenda October 21, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm 3. That City staff annually report to Council, the results achieved through the Environmental Schools Grant; and, 4. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 8.4 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 18-19 Payment of Invoices Related to Preliminary Design of the Civic Centre Project Recommendation: 1. That Report FIN 18-19 of the Director, Finance & Treasurer be approved; 2. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to pay invoices related to the preliminary design for the Civic Centre in the amount of $543,284.45 (inclusive of HST) and the project cost be charged to capital account 5203.1902.6550; and, 3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 8.5 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 23-19 Provincial Policy Statement Review, Proposed Policies Environment Registry of Ontario Number 019-0279 Recommendation: 1. That Council receive for information and review, a copy of The Regional Municipality of Durham Report #2019-P-42 of the Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development and Chief Administrative Officer, dated October 1, 2019, titled "Provincial Policy Statement Review, Proposed Policies (ERO #019-0279), File: L35- 03", provided as Appendix I to Report PLN 23-19; 2. That Council endorse the following recommendations of The Regional Municipality of Durham Report #2019-P-42 as they apply to the City of Pickering: A) i) through x), xii), xiv), xv) and xvii) through xix); 135 137 For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Cty oh DICKERING Council Meeting Agenda October 21, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm 3. That Council endorse the following staff recommendations as part of Council's response to the Province's proposed changes to the Provincial Policy Statement (Environmental Registry of Ontario Number 019-0279): a. That the term "market-based" be defined. b. That the proposed changes to the definition of "on-farm diversified uses" which will permit ground -mounted solar facilities in prime agricultural areas and specialty crop areas, be removed. c. That proposed new Policy 1.6.8.5 be supported as it promotes the co -location of linear infrastructure where appropriate. d. That the proposed change to Policy 1.6.10.1 be removed to ensure the consideration of the implications associated with development and land use planning on waste generation. e. That the proposed change to Policy 3.1.3 be supported as it enhances requirements for climate change considerations, as well as recognizes that the impacts of a changing climate are clear and present as opposed to potential. f. That proposed new Policy 4.7 which promotes fast -tracking priority applications that support housing and job-related growth and development, and the reduction of the time needed to process residential and priority applications to the extent practical, be clarified; and, 4. That a copy of Report PLN 23-19 and Council's resolution on the Report be forwarded to: the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing; the Environmental Registry of Ontario; the Honourable Peter Bethlenfalvy, MPP Pickering — Uxbridge; and the Region of Durham. 9. Motions and Notice of Motions 9.1 Establishing Fund Raising Initiatives for a Pickering Animal Services Shelter Moved by Councillor Cumming Seconded by Councillor Brenner For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Cty oh DICKERING Council Meeting Agenda October 21, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm Whereas, the City of Pickering is moving forward with the selection of a site for a New Pickering Animal Services Shelter in Pickering as approved in the 2019 Budget; And Whereas, the Treasurer has established a dedicated reserve account for the purpose of designing a shelter in 2020 with construction to commence in 2021; And Whereas, residents have already commenced local fund raising activities in support of a new shelter; And Whereas, while a majority of the construction costs for a new shelter will be funded through Development Charges as outlined by the Treasurer in the 2019 Budget, additional funds are required; And Whereas, Councillor lan Cumming is the designated Member of Council for the Animal Services Committee; Now Therefore Be It Resolved That: 1. Councillor Cumming is hereby appointed as Lead for Fund Raising Initiatives for the new Pickering Animal Services Shelter; 2. Councillor Cumming is authorized, on behalf of the City of Pickering, to reach out to the corporate/business sectors to secure donations for the capital construction costs of a new Pickering Animal Services Shelter; and, 3. Councillor Cumming report back to Council annually, commencing in the first quarter of 2020. 10. By-laws 10.1 By-law 7716/19 160 Being a By-law to amend Schedule A of By-law 7362/14 appointing Inspectors 11. Other Business For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Cts og PICKER1NG Council Meeting Agenda October 21, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm 12. Confirmation By-law 13. Adjournment For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Cty oh DICKERING Special Council Meeting Minutes Education & Training September 23, 2019 Main Committee Room 6:00 pm Present: Mayor David Ryan Councillors: K. Ashe M. Brenner S. Butt I. Cumming B. McLean Absent: D. Pickles Also Present: T. Prevedel K. Bentley M. Carpino R. Holborn S. Karwowski C. Rose S. Cassel L. Harker - Chief Administrative Officer - Director, City Development & CBO - Director, Community Services - Director, Engineering Services - Director, Finance & Treasurer - Chief Planner - City Clerk - Deputy Clerk 1. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 2. Education & Training 2.1 Overview of Meeting Procedures — Procedure By-law and the Planning Act Verbal Presentation by City Clerk Susan Cassel, City Clerk, provided an overview of meeting procedures relating to the Procedure By-law and the Planning Act. Ms. Cassel noted that the purpose of the education and training session was to provide information to Council but that no decisions were being made or considered at this meeting. A brief question and answer period ensued regarding the notification process for statutory public meetings and clarification of the rules of procedure as they pertain to delegation requests. Cts DICKERING Special Council Meeting Minutes Education & Training September 23, 2019 Main Committee Room 6:00 pm 3. Adjournment Moved by Councillor Butt Seconded by Councillor Cumming That the meeting be adjourned. The meeting adjourned at 6:30 pm. Dated this 23rd of September, 2019. 2 Carried David Ryan, Mayor Susan Cassel, City Clerk Cty oh DICKERING Council Meeting Minutes September 23, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm Present: Mayor David Ryan Councillors: K. Ashe M. Brenner S. Butt I. Cumming B. McLean Absent: D. Pickles Also Present: T. Prevedel K. Bentley P. Bigioni M. Carpino J. Hagg R. Holborn S. Karwowski C. Rose S. Cassel A. Haniff L. Harker - Chief Administrative Officer - Director, City Development & CBO - Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor - Director, Community Services - Fire Chief - Director, Engineering Services - Director, Finance & Treasurer - Chief Planner - City Clerk - Senior Economic Development Officer - Deputy Clerk 1. Invocation Mayor Ryan called the meeting to order and led Council in the saying of the Invocation. 2. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 3. Adoption of Minutes Moved by Councillor Cumming Seconded by Councillor Brenner Resolution #120/19 3 1 Cty oh DICKERING Council Meeting Minutes September 23, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm Special Planning & Development Committee Minutes, June 24, 2019 Council Minutes, June 24, 2019 Special Council Minutes, July 22, 2019 Executive Committee Minutes, September 9, 2019 Planning & Development Committee Minutes, September 9, 2019 Carried 4. Presentations There were no presentations. 5. Delegations 5.1 Dayna Gilbert, CAPREIT, Melanie Hare, Urban Strategies Inc., and Sharmini Mahadevan, Wood Bull LLP Re: Item 8.2, Report PLN 20-19, Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 06/19 Dayna Gilbert, CAPREIT, Melanie Hare, Urban Strategies Inc. and Sharmini Mahadevan, Wood Bull LLP, appeared before Council regarding Report PLN 20-19. Ms. Gilbert advised that they have been working collaboratively with City Staff to ensure public road access and connections are included within the new Development, noting that they still had concerns regarding the implementing mechanisms and how the various provisions of the development will be collaborated on. Ms. Hare expressed concerns with the functionality of the east/west and north/south public roads within the development, and requested Council consider a wider right of way, recommending no less than 16 metres, to allow for adequate pedestrian boulevards. Ms. Hare further requested that consideration be given for the broader intensification of the area, through the zoning by-law, especially as it pertains to CAPREIT lands from a transportation and servicing perceptive. She noted that with the intensification of the development there would be new public amenities, open spaces and parks and stated that CAPREIT was planning for a 5% parkland dedication to be delivered in a future application. Ms. Hare questioned how parkland is being delivered throughout the full build out of the other lands within the development. 2 4 Cty oh DICKERING Council Meeting Minutes September 23, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm Ms. Mahadevan stated that there had been no road alignment studies done to date and recommended a holding provision be applied on the City -owned lands in order to ensure appropriate servicing is in place and allow for the appropriate studies to be conducted. A question and answer period ensued regarding standard roadway sizes, holding provisions, and whether a wider roadway would encourage more vehicular traffic and decrease walkability. 5.2 Abigail Sampson Re: Item 6.1, Correspondence regarding endorsement of LUMCO Resolution regarding Retail Cannabis Stores Re: Item 7,1, Report CAO 08-19, Continuation of City of Pickering Magazine Abigail Sampson appeared before Council to express concerns relating to the endorsement of the LUMCO Resolution regarding Retail Cannabis Stores. Ms. Sampson read from the proposed resolution emphasizing the restrictions and abilities it proposed for municipalities in relation to the location of retail cannabis stores. She agreed that municipalities should receive more tax revenues from cannabis sales but stated that currently there were stores around schools selling cigarettes, scratch cards, alcohol and sugary foods and that moving cannabis stores away from sensitive land areas would not keep students from accessing cannabis. Ms. Sampson continued by stating that adults should be allowed to access cannabis through conveniently located retail stores and that these stores would build trust with consumers over time. She concluded by stating that prohibitive ideologies and stigmatism would prohibit education and conversations with children regarding legal cannabis. Ms. Sampson also spoke regarding Report CAO 08-19, the Continuation of City of Pickering Magazine, noting that the City should consider utilizing digital copies, rather than printed media to avoid recycling waste. 6. Correspondence 6.1 Corr. 20-19 Charlene Touzel, City Clerk City of Brantford Re: Endorsement of LUMCO Resolution regarding Retail Cannabis Stores A brief question and answer period ensued with Council requesting clarification from Staff as to when the results from the Community Engagement Survey regarding Retail Cannabis and Public Alcohol Consumption would be available. 3 5 Cty oh DICKERING Council Meeting Minutes September 23, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm Resolution # 121/19 Moved by Councillor McLean Seconded by Councillor Cumming That Corr. 20-19, dated July 3, 2019, from the City of Brantford, regarding the Endorsement of LUMCO Resolution regarding Retail Cannabis Stores, be endorsed. Carried 6.2 Corr. 21-19 The Corporation of the City of Stratford Re: Opposition to Changes in 2019 Provincial Budget and Planning Act Brief discussion ensued regarding the origin of the correspondence and why the City would take a position to endorse it. Resolution # 122/19 Moved by Councillor McLean Seconded by Councillor Cumming That Corr. 21-19, received July 19, 2019, from the City of Stratford, regarding Opposition to Changes in 2019 Provincial Budget and Planning Act, be endorsed. Motion Lost on a Recorded Vote as Follows Yes No Councillor Brenner Councillor Ashe Councillor McLean Councillor Butt Councillor Cumming Mayor Ryan 6.3 Corr. 22-19 Marisa Carpino, Director, Community Services, City of Pickering Pickering Museum Village Policy Repeal of Pickering Museum Village Policy (CUL 060) & Pickering Museum Village Procedure (ADM 040-001) Resolution # 123/19 4 6 Cty oh DICKERING Council Meeting Minutes September 23, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm Moved by Councillor Cumming Seconded by Councillor Brenner 1. That Corr. 22-19, Memo, dated August 14, 2019, from Marisa Carpino, Director, Community Services, regarding the Pickering Museum Village Policy be received; and, 2. That in accordance with the particulars set out in the Memo, Policy CUL 060 and Procedure ADM 040-001 are hereby repealed. Carried 6.4 Corr. 23-19 Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) Re: Fixing the Housing Affordability Crisis, Municipal Recommendations for Housing in Ontario Resolution # 124/19 Moved by Councillor Cumming Seconded by Councillor Brenner 1. That Corr. 23-19, dated August 14, 2019, AMO Report titled `Fixing the Housing Affordability Crisis, Municipal Recommendations for Housing in Ontario', be received; and, 2. That staff be directed, through the CAO, to review and report back to Council on the recommendations contained in the report as they pertain to the City of Pickering. Carried 6.5 Corr. 24-19 Jeff Yurek, Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks Re: More Homes, More Choice Act, 2019 — Updated Conservation Authorities Act Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Butt Resolution #125/19 7 5 Cty oh DICKERING Council Meeting Minutes September 23, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm That Corr. 24-19, dated August 16, 2019, from Jeff Yurek, Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, regarding Conservation Authority Operations, be received for information. Carried 6.6 Corr.25-19 Jason McMartin, CAO/Clerk-Treasurer The Corporation of the Township of Papineau-Cameron Re: Council Resolution 2019-160 — Forced Amalgamation, Ontario Municipalities Resolution # 126/19 Moved by Councillor McLean Seconded by Councillor Ashe That Corr. 25-19, dated August 15, 2019, from the Corporation of the Township of Papineau-Cameron, regarding Council Resolution 2019-160, Forced Amalgamation, Ontario Municipalities, be endorsed. Carried 6.7 Corr. 26-19 Ministry of Transportation, Road Safety Policy Office, Safety Policy and Education Branch Re: Enhancing Municipal Road Safety through Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE) A brief discussion ensued regarding the deadline of October 3rd, with Staff confirming that they would be able to provide comments by this date. Resolution # 127/19 Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Butt 1. That Corr. 26-19, dated September 3, 2019, from the Ministry of Transportation (MTO), regarding Enhancing Municipal Road Safety through Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE), be received; and, 2. That staff be directed, through the CAO, to respond to the MTO prior to the October 3, 2019 deadline. 6 8 Carried Cty oh DICKERING Council Meeting Minutes September 23, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm 6.8 Corr. 27-19 Christine Tarling, Director of Legislative Services & City Clerk City of Kitchener Re: Producer Requirements for Packaging in Ontario Resolution # 128/19 Moved by Councillor Butt Seconded by Councillor McLean That Corr. 27-19, dated September 6, 2019, from the City of Kitchener, regarding Producer Requirements for Packaging in Ontario, be endorsed. Carried 6.9 Corr. 28-19 The City of Pickering Public Library Board Re: #econtent for Libraries Campaign Discussion ensued regarding the widespread lack of access to e -content for users and the support of the Pickering Public Library Board for this resolution. Resolution # 129/19 Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Cumming WHEREAS, the City of Pickering recognizes the important role that libraries play in our community; And Whereas, libraries and the early literacy programs that they run are integral to developing proficient readers and ensuring that children succeed in school; And Whereas, more and more, digital literacy programs run by libraries also help ensure that citizens can contribute to our digital world; And Whereas, vulnerable demographic groups, including seniors, low income families, youth, and new Canadians rely on access to libraries as an important tool for their participation in the community — from education to searching for jobs to consuming Canadian cultural materials; And Whereas, libraries in our community recognize that our users increasingly seek to access e -content offered by multinational publishers, and that access to -7- - 9 - Cty oh DICKERING Council Meeting Minutes September 23, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm those publications is too often curtailed by prohibitively high licensing fees or else entirely denied to Canadian libraries; And Whereas, libraries must be in a position to offer e -content to their users as part of their service offering to our community, particularly given the contemporary rapid pace of digitization of educational and cultural materials, Now therefore be it resolved that the Council of the City of Pickering does hereby: 1. Indicate its support for the Canadian libraries in their efforts to increase access to e -content for library users in the City of Pickering and across Canada; 2. Call on the Federal government to investigate the barriers faced by libraries in acquiring e -content and the problems that poses for vulnerable demographic groups in Canada; and 3. Further ask the Federal government to develop a solution that increases access to e -content across Canada and assists libraries in meeting the cost requirements to acquire digital publications. Carried 6.10 Corr. 29-19 Judy Smith, Director Municipal Governance, Clerk/Freedom of Information Coordinator, Municipality of Chatham -Kent Re: Resolution Regarding Provincial Funding Cuts to Legal Aid Ontario Resolution # 130/19 Moved by Councillor McLean Seconded by Councillor Brenner That Corr. 29-19, dated September 12, 2019, from the Municipality of Chatham - Kent, regarding Provincial Funding Cuts to Legal Aid Ontario, be endorsed. Carried Unanimously on a Recorded Vote 7. Report EC 2019-07 of the Executive Committee held on September 9, 2019 7.2 Director, Community Services, Report CS 10-19 Tender for Pickering Recreation Complex Heating Boiler System Replacement Tender No. T-26-2019 Cty oh DICKERING Council Meeting Minutes September 23, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm Council Decision: 1. That Tender No. T-26-2019 submitted by Mapleridge Mechanical Contracting Inc., in the amount of $304,468.33 (HST included) be accepted; 2. That the total gross project cost of $349,668.00 (HST included), including the amount of the tender, contingency, and other associated costs, and the total net project cost of $314,887.00 (net of HST rebate), be approved; 3. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to finance the net project cost of $314,887.00 as provided for in the 2019 Recreation Complex — Core Capital Budget by a transfer from Federal Gas Tax Reserve Fund; and, 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 7.3 Director, Community Services, Report CS 21-19 Quotation No. Q-15-2019 Supply & Delivery of Four One -Ton Dump Trucks with 12' Aluminum Dump Body Council Decision: 1. That Quotation No. Q-15-2019, submitted by Donway Ford Sales Ltd., in the amount of $220,724.00 (HST excluded) be accepted; 2. That the total gross project cost of $289,360.00 (HST included), including three optional lift gates and other associated costs, and that the total net project cost of $260,578.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved; 3. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to finance the total net project cost of $260,578.00 as follows: a) the sum of $192,945.00 as provided for in the Capital Budget from Development Charges Roads & Related; b) the sum of $67,633.00 as provided for in the Capital Budget from the Vehicle Replacement Reserve fund; and, 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Cty oh DICKERING Council Meeting Minutes September 23, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm 7.4 Director, Community Services, Report CS 28-19 Volunteer Approval Policy Council Decision: 1. That Council approve the Volunteer Policy as set out in Attachment 1, subject to minor revisions deemed acceptable to the Director, Community Services; and, 2. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 7.5 Director, Community Services, Report CS 32-19 Quotation No. Q-16-2019 Quotation for the Supply & Delivery of Four Pick -Up Trucks and Three SUVs Council Decision: 1. That Quotation No. Q-16-2019, submitted by Blue Mountain Chrysler Ltd. in the amount of $54,937.00 (HST excluded), Fraser Durham Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram Inc. in the amount of $178,534.82 (HST excluded), and Donway Ford Sales Ltd. in the amount of $35,807.00 (HST excluded), be accepted; 2. That the total gross project cost of $325,363.00 (HST included) including other associated costs and that the total net project cost of $288,792.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved; 3. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to finance the total net project cost of $288,792.00 from the Vehicle Replacement Reserve; and, 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take necessary actions as indicated in this report. 7.6 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 16-19 2018 Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund Council Decision: That Report FIN 16-19 of the Director, Finance & Treasurer be received for information. Resolution # 131/19 Cty oh DICKERING Council Meeting Minutes September 23, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm Moved by Councillor Butt Seconded by Councillor Brenner That Report EC 2019-07 of the Executive Committee Meeting held on September 9, 2019 be adopted, save and except Item 7.1, CAO 08-19. Carried 7.1 Chief Administrative Officer, Report CAO 08-19 Continuation of City of Pickering Magazine A brief discussion ensured regarding the availability of digital copies of the City of Pickering Magazine. Resolution # 132/19 Moved by Councillor Butt Seconded by Councillor Brenner 1. That Council approve, in principal, the continued production and municipal - wide distribution of the Your City magazine, on an as -needed basis going forward; 2. That Council approve, in principal, to retain Graymatter Marketing Solutions for the project management of the magazine; and, 3. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried 8. Report PD 2019-06 of the Planning & Development Committee held on September 9, 2019 8.1 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 19-19 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/19 2545633 Ontario Inc. Pt Lot 6, Plan 585, Now Pt 11, Plan 40R-2633 (2620 Brock Road) Resolution # 133/19 Cty oh DICKERING Council Meeting Minutes September 23, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm Moved by Councillor Butt Seconded by Councillor Ashe That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/19, submitted by 2545633 Ontario Inc., to facilitate a residential stacked townhouse condominium development on lands municipally known as 2620 Brock Road, be endorsed subject to provisions contained in Appendix I to Report PLN 19-19, and that staff be authorized to finalize and forward an implementing Zoning By-law to Council for enactment following the conveyance of the land required for the collector road to the City. Carried 8.2 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 20-19 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 06/19 City Initiated: City Facilities and Pickering Town Centre Joint Venture Select Lands East and West of Glenanna Road in the City Centre Memorandum from the Director, City Development & CBO Replacement Recommendation for Planning & Development Committee Report Item 2: PLN 20-19 Revisions to the Draft Implementing By-law Discussion ensued regarding a memorandum dated September 19, 2019 from the Director, City Development & CBO which outlined responses to the concerns and comments raised at the September 9th Planning & Development Committee Meeting and was provided to Members of Council prior to the Meeting. Questions were raised regarding the ability to provide the information in the memo to the public. The Chief Administrative Officer, stated that the information would be included on the City's website for residents to access. A question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and City Staff regarding the possibility and particulars surrounding adding a holding provision to the City Centre lands, the placement and width of the proposed public road access and connections, and hiring a Fairness Monitor to oversee the project. Resolution # 134/19 Moved by Councillor Ashe Seconded by Councillor Butt Cty oh DICKERING Council Meeting Minutes September 23, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm 1. That City Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 06/19 to amend City Centre Zoning By-law 7553/17, as amended, be approved, to: (a) introduce new definitions for Net Floor Area and Floor Space Index; (b) rezone the City of Pickering lands located on the south side of The Esplanade South, between Glenanna Road and Valley Farm Road ("the South Block Lands"), from City Centre Civic (CCC) to City Centre Two (CC2) to permit residential uses, and to permit an increase in height for 2 point tower buildings to 121 metres and 97 metres on the lands, and to reduce the maximum building height to 22 metres on the remaining lands; and, (c) rezone part of the Pickering Town Centre lands, located on the west side of Glenanna Road south of Kingston Road and north of Pickering Parkway, to permit a maximum building height of 125 metres, except for 1 building which may have a maximum height of 153 metres; 2. That the zoning by-law amendment to implement Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 06/19, as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 20-19 and as further revised to include the changes itemized in the September 18, 2019 Memorandum from the Director, City Development & CBO, be forwarded to Council for enactment; and, 3. Further to Recommendation 1.(b), as a condition of the conveyance of the South Block Lands to OPB Realty Inc., the City shall retain stratified land parcels to accommodate a public road of a minimum 14.5 metres in width and a pedestrian walkway of a minimum 8.0 metres in width as depicted on Special Figure 6.13.2 (a) of Zoning By-law 7553/17 as amended by By-law 7713/19, and that the construction of the public road and walkway shall be secured through any future site plan and/or development agreements for the South Block Lands. Carried Later in the Meeting (see following Motions) Resolution # 135/19 Moved by Councillor McLean Seconded by Councillor Brenner That Item 1 c) of the main motion be divided and broken into two separate parts to read as follows, in order that they may be voted on separately: Cty oh DICKERING Council Meeting Minutes September 23, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm 1 (c) rezone part of the Pickering Town Centre lands, located on the west side of Glenanna Road south of Kingston Road and north of Pickering Parkway, to permit a maximum building height of 125 metres; 1 (d) rezone part of the Pickering Town Centre Lands, located on the west side of Glenanna Road south of Kingston Road and north of Pickering Parkway, to permit 1 building which may have a maximum height of 153 metres. Carried Item 1 d) of the main motion was now before Council. Resolution # 136/19 Moved by Councillor McLean Seconded by Councillor Brenner 1 (d) rezone part of the Pickering Town Centre Lands, located on the west side of Glenanna Road south of Kingston Road and north of Pickering Parkway, to permit 1 building which may have a maximum height of 153 metres. Yes Councillor Ashe Councillor Brenner Councillor Butt Councillor Cumming Mayor Ryan Carried on a Recorded Vote as Follows No Councillor McLean Item 1 c) of the main motion was now before Council. Resolution # 137/19 Moved by Councillor McLean Seconded by Councillor Brenner 1 (c) rezone part of the Pickering Town Centre lands, located on the west side of Glenanna Road south of Kingston Road and north of Pickering Parkway, to permit a maximum building height of 125 metres; Carried Unanimously on a Recorded Vote Cty oh DICKERING Council Meeting Minutes September 23, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm The remaining items of the Main Motion were then Carried Unanimously on a Recorded Vote. 9. Reports — New and Unfinished Business 9.1 Chief Administrative Officer, Report CAO 09-19 Comparison of Cost Estimates for Pickering City Centre Appraisal of Land Exchange related to Pickering City Centre A brief discussion ensued regarding hiring a Fairness Monitor to oversee the City Centre project. The Chief Administrative Officer advised Staff would be seeking approval from Council for a Project Manager, and would request this through the 2020 Budget process. Resolution # 138/19 Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Butt 1. That the attached report entitled Comparison of Cost Estimates for Pickering City Centre, prepared by Independent Project Managers, be received for information; 2. That the attached Appraisal Reports prepared by D. Bottero & Associates Limited be received for information; 3. That staff be directed to continue detailed discussions with Cushman & Wakefield and OPB Realty Inc. toward finalizing the construction cost estimates and final Memorandum of Understanding; and, 4. That staff bring forward a staffing implementation plan for the City Centre project during the 2020 budget process. Carried 9.2 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 09-19 Tender for Centennial Park Picnic Shelter and Amenities Tender No. T-27-2019 A brief question and answer period ensued regarding the timelines for the completion of the project. Resolution # 139/19 -15- - 17 - Cty oh DICKERING Council Meeting Minutes September 23, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm Moved by Councillor Butt Seconded by Councillor Brenner 1. That Tender No. T-27-2019 as submitted by Loc -Pave Construction Limited in the total tendered amount of $352,797.30 (HST included) be accepted; 2. That the total gross project cost of $398,523.00 (HST included), including the tendered amount and other associated costs and the total net project cost of $358,882.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved; 3. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to finance the total net project cost in the amount of $358,882.00 as follows: a) The sum of $358,000.00 as approved in the 2019 Parks Capital Budget to be financed by the issuance of debentures by The Regional Municipality of Durham over a term not to exceed 15 years; b) The sum of $882.00 to be funded from property taxes; c) The annual repayment charges in the amount of approximately $31,640.00 be included in the annual Current Budget for the City of Pickering commencing 2019, or such subsequent year in which the debentures are issued and continuing thereafter until the debenture financing is repaid, d) The Treasurer be authorized to make any changes, adjustments, and revisions to amounts, terms, conditions, or take any actions necessary in order to effect the foregoing; 4. That the draft By-law attached to this report be enacted; and, 5. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried 10. Motions and Notice of Motions 10.1 An Age Friendly Affordable Housing Strategy Discussion ensued regarding the need for affordable housing options, and the need to ensure a plan was in place to accommodate anticipated growth in the City beyond 2031. Staff were requested to think of creative methods to address challenges for employment and environmentally sensitive lands to provide for -16- - 18 - Cty oh DICKERING Council Meeting Minutes September 23, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm more housing opportunities. It was requested that the City Clerk forward the Council Resolution for the Age Friendly Affordable Housing Strategy Notice of Motion to the Region of Durham as soon as possible so that it could be presented to Durham Region Council. Resolution # 140/19 Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Butt WHEREAS, the City of Pickering is projected to be a driving force for residential and economic growth in Durham Region and the GTA over the next 2 decades; And Whereas, by the year 2031 the estimated population of Pickering will grow to 190,000; And Whereas, the lack of affordable and sustainable housing options have reached a crisis in parts of Canada, and in particular the Greater Toronto area; And Whereas, the City of Pickering recognizes that there is an urgent need to create an age friendly housing strategy that includes reviewing and redefining its urban/living boundaries consistent with current and future growth within the GTA, Durham, and City of Pickering beyond 2031; And Whereas, the City of Pickering considers all serviceable lands with access to water and sewer within its current and potential urban/living boundaries be considered as a living area; And Whereas, the Province of Ontario has recognized the need for more housing choices and more affordability; And Whereas, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing has produced its "More Homes, More Choice: Ontario's Housing Supply Action Plan", and has given royal assent to Bill 108 (More Homes, More Choice Act, 2019) to address housing supply, housing variety and affordability; And Whereas, the City of Pickering has commenced a Strategic Plan Review that includes redefining its urban/living boundaries; And Whereas, the Provincial Government amended the Growth Plan to permit some additional options for urban area boundary expansions, and to allow upper and single -tier municipalities to request alternative intensification targets to address, among other matters, greater housing supply, and affordability; -17- - 19 - Cty oh DICKERING Council Meeting Minutes September 23, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm And Whereas, proposed amendments to the Provincial Policy Statement will allow consideration of market demands and needs in determining housing options, as a strategy to provide a more diverse range of grade related homes; And Whereas, the Region of Durham is currently undertaking a municipal comprehensive review of its settlement areas, including a land needs assessment as required by the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe; And Whereas, on February 27, 2019, Durham Regional Council commented on Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2017 in support of a minimum density of 50 persons and jobs per gross hectare for new greenfield developments, and a region -wide intensification target of a minimum 45% within the existing built boundary; And Whereas, the City of Pickering supports the Region's comments on Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan; Now therefore be it resolved that the Council of the Corporation for the City of Pickering request that the Region of Durham in their review include: 1. All lands within the City of Pickering meet the following criteria: • Lands not restricted by availability of servicing • Lands that do not comprise a Specialty Crop Area • Lands that are not within a Natural Heritage System • Lands not located in the Moraine Natural Core and Linkage Areas • Lands experiencing growth pressures and or with locations in the white belt that are appropriate for growth and can achieve a healthy, connected, thriving and complete community • Lands that have existing or planned infrastructure to support and accommodate growth 2. That the Region of Durham be requested to seek approval of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to an alternate intensification rate of 45% for Durham Region that will enable greater flexibility to provide a more diverse range of grade related housing mix; Cty oh DICKERING Council Meeting Minutes September 23, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm 3. That City staff be directed to report back to Planning & Development Committee in the first quarter of 2020 outlining a process to develop an age friendly housing strategy, including changes to Pickering's Official Plan and any required secondary plan reviews of those lands in Pickering that meet the stated criteria of recommendation #1; and, 4. That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Premier of Ontario, Durham Region MPPs, all Durham Regional Municipalities, and the Region of Durham. Carried Unanimously on a Recorded Vote 11. By-laws 11.1 By-law 7710/19 Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 3037, as amended, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham, in Part of Lots 19 and 20, Concession 3, Now Parts 1 to 5, 40R-28547, City of Pickering (A 05/17). By-law approved by LPAT decision PL171399 — no action required. By-law being assigned a number for record-keeping purposes in accordance with the Tribunal Order. 11.2 By-law 7711/19 Being a By-law to appoint Sotirios Mangas as a Municipal Law Enforcement Officer for the purpose of enforcing the by-laws of The Corporation of the City of Pickering. 11.3 By-law 7712/19 Being a By-law to establish Part of Lot 27, RCP 818, designated as Part 6, 40R- 30489, as public highway. 11.4 By-law 7713/19 Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area Zoning By-law 7553/17, as amended, to implement the Pickering Official Plan, Region of Durham, South Part of Lots 20 to 23, Concession 1, City Centre Neighbourhood, City of Pickering (A 06/19). Cty oh DICKERING Council Meeting Minutes September 23, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm 11.5 By-law 7714/19 Being a by-law to authorize the Centennial Park Picnic Shelter and Amenities project in the City of Pickering and the issuance of debentures in the amount of $358,000.00. Resolution # 141/19 Moved by Councillor Ashe Seconded by Councillor Brenner That By-law Nos. 7710/19 through 7714/19 be approved. Carried 12. Confidential Council — Public Report Mayor Ryan stated that prior to the Regular Council Meeting, an In -camera session was held at 6:30 pm to hear a matter pertaining to the disposition of land in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act and Procedure By-law 7665/18. Report LEG 07-19 was presented with the following recommendations. 12.1 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Confidential Report LEG 07-19 City of Pickering proposed sale to Schwartz Chemical of Canada Limited — Portion of turning circle, McKay Road, Pickering (Part 3, Plan 40R-613) Resolution # 142/19 Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Cumming 1. That the land described as Part 3, Plan 40R-613, Pickering be declared surplus to the needs of the City and be sold to Schwartz Chemical of Canada Limited for a price of $35,000; 2. That the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor be authorized to execute a Transfer of said lands, as well as any other documents, instruments and agreements as may be necessary to give effect to the above -noted transfer; and, 3. That the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Cty oh DICKERING Council Meeting Minutes September 23, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm Carried 13. Other Business 13.1 Councillor McLean requested an update on the status of the Nautical Village Visionary exercise, with Staff noting that an Open House was scheduled for October 29th and a Report to Council would be forthcoming in January 2020 which would include public feedback. 13.2 Councillor McLean requested that Staff provide cost estimates for sidewalk installations along Highway 2 through the 2020 Budget Process. 13.3 Councillor Cumming gave notice that he would be presenting two Notices of Motion with regards to the new Animal Shelter and associated funding, and revisions to the Property Standards By-law as it pertains to proactive enforcement. 13.4 Councillor Cumming requested that Staff review the repainting of the traffic calming details on Fairport Road as well as the enforcement for the stop sign at Bonita Avenue and Fairport Road noting there have been bad accidents in this area. 13.5 Councillor Cumming requested that Staff follow up regarding the Adopt -A -Park program to determine what the responsibilities of those that adopt a park are, and what the follow up mechanism is to determine if these responsibilities are met. He noted that Bonita Park is not being maintained and that lighting units were missing in the park and requested that Staff follow up on these matters. 13.6 Councillor Cumming requested that Staff follow up with regards to the recent removal of garbage receptacles at local fast food restaurants. 13.7 Councillor Brenner requested that Staff review the parking standards for multi - residential buildings in light of the decreased use of underground parking in these types of residences. 13.8 Councillor Brenner enquired about road access during multiple construction projects around the City Centre, and whether there would be a master construction management plan to ensure all projects are being captured and that there is continued road access. 13.9 Councillor Cumming requested that Staff review the hours that delivery trucks are permitted to deliver, and consider incorporating set times into the by-law noting that residents have complained about early hour deliveries. -21 - -23- Cts og DICKERING Council Meeting Minutes September 23, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm 13.10 Councillor Cumming requested that Staff follow up regarding the potential for a by-law to regulate electric bikes and scooters. 14. Confirmation By-law By-law Number 7715/19 Councillor McLean, seconded by Councillor Brenner moved for leave to introduce a By- law of the City of Pickering to confirm the proceedings of September 23, 2019. 15. Adjournment Moved by Councillor Ashe Seconded by Councillor Cumming That the meeting be adjourned. The meeting adjourned at 8:35 pm. Dated this 23rd of September, 2019. Carried Carried David Ryan, Mayor Susan Cassel, City Clerk Cty oh DICKERING Executive Committee Meeting Minutes October 7, 2019 Council Chambers — 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Cumming Present: Mayor David Ryan Councillors: K. Ashe M. Brenner S. Butt I. Cumming D. Pickles Absent: B. McLean Also Present: K. Bentley P. Bigioni M. Carpino J. Hagg R. Holborn S. Karwowski C. Rose S. Cassel F. Jadoon L. Harker B. Gregory - Director, City Development & CBO - Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor - Director, Community Services - Fire Chief - Director, Engineering Services - Director, Finance & Treasurer - Chief Planner - City Clerk - Manager, Economic Development & Strategic Projects - Deputy Clerk - Committee Coordinator 1. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 2. Delegations 2.1 Sonya Hardman, Manager, Corporate Initiatives, Region of Durham Michelle Garraway, Policy Advisor, Corporate Initiatives, Region of Durham Re: Update on the Development of the Region of Durham's Strategic Plan Sonya Hardman, Manager, Corporate Initiatives, Region of Durham, appeared before the Committee to provide an update on the development of the Region of Durham's Strategic Plan. Through the aid of a Power Point presentation, Ms. Hardman provided an overview of the progress of the Strategic Plan and the key messages received from Durham residents. She outlined the top emerging 1 -25- Cty oh DICKERING Executive Committee Meeting Minutes October 7, 2019 Council Chambers — 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Cumming themes which included economic prosperity and jobs, community well- being/quality of life, environmental sustainability/stewardship, service excellence and accountability, growth and infrastructure, and transportation/mobility. A question and answer period ensued regarding responses to the survey, and whether the key issues were consistent across Durham Regional municipalities. Further questions were raised regarding how the survey reached all diverse and marginalized members of the community, and Ms. Hardman noted that the Region made a concerted effort to reach out to all communities through community events and other services available to residents. Ms. Hardman confirmed that there were two information gathering sessions held in Pickering, and noted that although the survey is now closed, the "Your Voice Durham" portal is still open and residents can still provide input. Ms. Hardman further commented that the Strategic Plan would be considered at the Region of Durham's Special Council Meeting on Wednesday, October 9, 2019. Discussion ensued regarding the need for a communication tool to collectively realize the goals of the Durham Strategic Plan and to address the communication gaps for the public so that there is a connection between what the municipalities know, and what the public understands. Further questions were raised regarding municipal differences in the interpretation of the Plan, whether this would impact the goals, and whether residents had expressed concerns regarding the coordination of services between the upper and lower tiers in the Region. 2.2 Mark Brooks, Friends of Pickering Airport Re: Demand and Forecast for Passenger Aviation Infrastructure in the Toronto Region and the Importance of the Immediate Construction of Pickering Airport Mark Brooks, Friends of Pickering Airport, appeared before the Committee, and with the aid of a Power Point presentation, provided an overview of the demand and forecast for passenger aviation infrastructure in the Toronto Region and the importance of the immediate construction of a Pickering Airport. Mr. Brooks stated that we are in a period of rapid growth in aviation, and that the aviation capacity is not keeping up. The construction of a Pickering Airport would provide a solution to the aviation shortfall, foster a competitive economy, improve aviation safety, check noise over the City of Toronto, and would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. He noted through an analysis of four current Master Plans that show the current network capacity and anticipated growth, that by 2026-2029, the Toronto Region will be out of capacity. He also noted that by building a new airport, greenhouse Cty oh DICKERING Executive Committee Meeting Minutes October 7, 2019 Council Chambers — 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Cumming gases would be reduced as the number of planes sitting idle on runways waiting for take -off, would be decreased. A question and answer period ensued regarding the Friends of Pickering Airport funding, with Mr. Brooks noting that the organization does not receive any government or corporate grants, is volunteer based, and that they are not affiliated with any political parties. Mr. Brooks also responded to questions raised regarding the projection of passengers and runway slots at Pearson Airport, noting limitations in winter compared to summer months and impacts on physical infrastructure such as highways that would also be overwhelmed when Pearson reaches capacity. 3. Matters for Consideration 3.1 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report CLK 04-19 2020 Committee and Council Meeting Schedule A brief question and answer period ensued regarding the alternate dates proposed for the 2020 Budget Meeting if the implementation of the new financial system is delayed. Stan Karwowski, Director, Finance & Treasurer advised the Committee that Staff should have a better sense of the implementation date of the new financial system within the next few weeks. Further discussion ensued regarding the importance of adopting municipal budgets as early in the year as possible and whether adopting the budget in April would require pre -budget approval for items. Mr. Karwowski confirmed that a Strategy Report would be coming forward to Council in January, which would address pre -budget approval, if required. Recommendation: Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Butt 1. That the 2020 Committee and Council Meeting Schedule appended as Attachment #1 to Report CLK 04-19 be approved; and, 2. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried Cty oh DICKERING Executive Committee Meeting Minutes October 7, 2019 Council Chambers — 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Cumming 3.2 Director, Community Services, Report CS 11-19 Quotation No. Q-17-2019 - Quotation for the Supply and Delivery of Two New 4 Ton Dump Trucks with Snow Plow and Wing Recommendation: Moved by Mayor Ryan Seconded by Councillor Pickles 1. That Quotation No. Q-17-2019 submitted by James Palmer Premier Truck Group, in the amount of $524,912.00 (HST extra) be accepted; 2. That the total gross quotation cost of $594,846.00 (HST included) and the total net project cost of $535,677.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved; 3. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the net project cost of $535,677.00 as follows: a) The sum of $267,088.00, as provided for in the 2019 Roads Equipment Capital Budget be financed from the Vehicle Replacement Reserve Fund; b) The sum of $267,089.00, as provided for in the 2019 Roads Equipment Capital Budget be financed from the Development Charges Reserve Fund — Roads & Related; c) The Treasurer be authorized to make any changes, adjustments, and revisions to amounts, terms, conditions, or take any actions necessary in order to effect the foregoing; and, 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried 3.3 Director, Community Services, Report CS 27-19 Age Friendly Community Plan - Endorsement M. Carpino, Director, Community Services, appeared before the Committee to provide a brief overview of the Age Friendly Community Plan. Ms. Carpino noted that a group of City staff were brought together to blend their expertise and provide a holistic approach to the Plan and worked together to develop Pickering's 4 -28- City 6h DICKERING Executive Committee Meeting Minutes October 7, 2019 Council Chambers — 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Cumming first Age Friendly Strategy. A Community Steering Committee was also established, with both teams working with the project consultant, urbanMetrics, to formulate the Age Friendly Community Plan. She noted that at this point Council is being requested to approve the Plan in principle, and that priority items with a financial impact will be brought back to Council for further approval. Ms. Carpino introduced Peter Thoma, MCIP, RPP, PLE I Partner, urbanMetrics Inc., who was present to provide an overview of the City of Pickering Age Friendly Community Plan. Peter Thoma appeared before the Committee to provide an overview of the City of Pickering Age Friendly Community Plan. With the aid of a Power Point presentation, Mr. Thoma noted the importance of this Plan, as older adults represent the fastest growing population segment in Pickering, and that governments need to be proactive in ensuring that the appropriate policies, programs, services, and spaces are in place to address this growing need. He provided an overview of the consultation approach, which included engaging with the public, and internal and external stakeholders. Mr. Thoma noted that through the consultation, there were a number of actions identified to make Pickering more "age friendly", the top priorities being housing, community support and health services, transportation, and communication and information. A question and answer period ensued regarding some of the action items in the Plan with Members of the Committee requesting that items such as connecting sidewalks, seating along pathways and connections, increased lighting, increased shade canopy, identified housing, accessibility, inclusion of older adults in future updates to the City's Official Plan and age -friendly education, be made a priority, and timeframes adjusted where possible. Recommendation: Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Pickles 1. That the City of Pickering Age Friendly Community Plan be endorsed in principle; and, 2. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried Later in the Meeting (see following motion) Cty oh DICKERING Executive Committee Meeting Minutes October 7, 2019 Council Chambers — 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Cumming Recommendation: Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Pickles That the main motion be amended by adding the following as Item #3: That Staff be directed to report back annually, commencing June 2020, on the implementation and stages of the Age Friendly Community Plan, and a tracking matrix be posted on the City's website. Carried The Main Motion, as amended, was then Carried 3.4 Director, Community Services, Report CS 33-19 Waterfront Trail Winter Maintenance Members of Council commended Staff for their creative and cost-effective solutions for Waterfront Trail Winter Maintenance. Recommendation: Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Ashe That Council receive report CS 33-19 for information regarding Waterfront Trail Winter Maintenance. Carried 3.5 Director, Community Services, Report CS 34-19 Ontario Power Generation - Licence Amending Agreement (No.2) Recommendation: Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Butt 1. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the Licence Amending Agreement (No. 2) with Ontario Power Generation, subject to minor revisions Cty oh DICKERING Executive Committee Meeting Minutes October 7, 2019 Council Chambers — 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Cumming as may be required by the Director, Community Services; the Director, Finance & Treasurer and the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor; and, 2. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried 3.6 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 21-19 The Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Durham Regional Official Plan: Climate Change and Sustainability Discussion Paper, May 2019 Discussion ensured regarding the need to be more proactive with finding new energy sources and establishing a target for planting trees and the tree canopy in urban areas. Recommendation: Moved by Mayor Ryan Seconded by Councillor Brenner 1. That the Region of Durham recognize the following additional sectors as being impacted by climate change: fisheries; finance and insurance; infrastructure; mental health; vulnerable populations; organizational risk management and emergency preparedness; summer recreation; and urban tree canopy health; 2. That the Region of Durham understand that the City's vision for climate change and adaptation for Durham is a holistic approach based on framework for sustainability, wherein policies about climate change should address the following objectives: healthy environment; healthy economy; healthy society; responsible development; and responsible consumption; 3. That the Region of Durham be advised that it is appropriate to include the Provincial Plan policy direction for greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction in the Durham Regional Official Plan (ROP), and that those policies should recognize the need for collaboration with upper levels of government, area municipalities, key stakeholders, and other relevant agencies; 4a. That the Region of Durham be advised it has been observed that in the absence of safe, continuous sidewalks with a pleasant pedestrian realm, or safe and continuous cycling networks, or transit service that is frequent and reliable, active transportation modes are not selected and used as the 7 - 31 - Cty oh DICKERING Executive Committee Meeting Minutes October 7, 2019 Council Chambers — 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Cumming preferred travel choice as compared to when excellent facilities and services do exist; 4b. That the Region of Durham include an implementation policy in the ROP identifying the Regional implementation of active transportation facilities on Regional roads, at the Region's expense, with an emphasis on connectivity and continuity of the active systems and transit, both within and between municipalities; 5. That the Region of Durham include a policy in the ROP indicating support for renewable energy production through public and private partnerships, and pilot and demonstration projects; 6. That the Region of Durham include a policy in the ROP encouraging the initial design stages of all development to include a review of the ability of the development to incorporate small and/or large scale renewable energy systems; 7. That the Region of Durham be advised that both the Regional and local official plans should have a role in siting renewable energy projects, such that ROP policies protect prime agricultural areas, natural heritage systems, and culturally significant landscapes and buildings; and further, the ROP could identify other criteria for consideration at the local level such as compatibility with adjacent land uses and proximity to sensitive land uses, respecting potential noise vibration, or odour impacts; 8. That, in addition to the six potential strategies to address climate mitigation and adaptation identified in the Discussion Paper, the Region of Durham should also consider the following: continuing to plan for emergencies related to climate change, in collaboration with area municipalities; providing informational resources to all who live, work and play in Durham Region; installing "smart" building controls in any new Regional facilities; converting all lighting in Regional facilities to LED; installing solar panels on its facilities; converting the bus and other Regional vehicles fleet to electric; continuing the construction of BRT and cycling facilities on Kingston Road and expanding to other arterials; recovering waste heat from (new) trunk sewers and sewage treatment plants; undertaking a risk assessment of infrastructure to identify ways to improve its resiliency; 9a. That the Region of Durham investigate participation in the Municipal Natural Assets Initiative to assist in identifying implementation policies City 6h DICKERING Executive Committee Meeting Minutes October 7, 2019 Council Chambers — 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Cumming respecting a Regional natural heritage system (NHS) for inclusion in the ROP; 9b. That the Region of Durham include an implementation policy that it will monitor the effects of climate change on the Regional agricultural producers and local food supply, and identify potential strategies to adapt to those changes; 9c. That the Region of Durham introduce a policy in the ROP respecting control of invasive species and pests throughout the Region, and in any Regional NHS that is identified; 9d. That the Region of Durham introduce a policy in the ROP identifying the advocacy role that it can play in adapting to climate change in collaboration with all levels of government and a wide variety of stakeholders; 10a. That the Region of Durham be advised that the City of Pickering supports policies being included in the ROP establishing separate tree canopy targets for urban areas and rural areas, following the identification of the current baseline; and, 10b. Further, that the Region of Durham commence implementation of Regional road tree planting, at the expense of the Region, to demonstrate their partnership in improving the tree canopy, thereby helping reduce GHG and heat island effects. Carried 4. Other Business There was no other business. 5. Adjournment Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Butt That the meeting be adjourned. Carried The meeting adjourned at 3:43 pm. Corr. 30-19 TOWN OF INGEfSOLL Town Centre Mayor Ryan & Council City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario Canada L1V 6K7 4th October 2019 Dear Mayor Ryan & Pickering Councillors I would be grateful if you would look at the following information, and consider passing of the attached resolution in support of the Demand the Right Campaign. BRIEFING NOTE REGARDING THE DEMAND THE RIGHT COALITION GIVING ONTARIO MUNICIPALITIES THE "RIGHT TO APPROVE" LANDFILL DEVELOPMENTS IN THEIR OWN COMMUNITIES PURPOSE The purpose of this briefing note is to provide background information on an emerging issue for municipalities, and a campaign to change provincial legislation that would give municipalities the right to approve (or reject) future landfill developments in their communities. OVERVIEW Ontario has a garbage problem, and it could be coming to a community near you. According to a 2017 report from the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario (ECO), the waste that is generated by the ICI sector alone — that is downtown office buildings (like Toronto), factories, institutions, etc — is over 6.7 million tonnes each year. To put that into context, that's enough garbage to fill Toronto's Rogers Centre seventy- four times. Because Ontario's landfills are filling up quickly, and as the U.S. border tightens, several new mega dumps will be needed to take this unwanted garbage — and soon. THE ISSUE Under Ontario's current Environmental Assessment legislation, municipal governments do not have the right to approve (or reject) landfill developments in our communities. 130 Oxford Street • Ingersoll, Ontario N5C 2V5 • - T149-485-0120 • Fax: 519-485-3543 • www.ingersoll.ca TOWN OF INGEfSOLL Town Centre Whether a municipality wants it, or not, makes little difference. Municipalities have the right to approve most developments in their communities. In fact, municipalities have "exclusive authority" to approve: • Casino gaming facilities, O.Reg 81/12 • Nuclear waste storage, via the federal NWMO's siting principles As well, Ontario recently passed Bill 139, which gives municipalities additional authority and autonomy to make decisions for their communities, while replacing the OMB. WHICH COMMUNITIES ARE BEING TARGETTED? Municipalities that have quarry or mining operations (440 sites), or landfills (880 sites) are the most likely targets, but any municipality — from the 905 belt to the U.S. border — is a potential host for this garbage, whether they like it or not. Several "mega dumps" will need to be approved in the very near future to accommodate the volume of waste that is coming. The current system allows private landfill operators to essentially ignore the concerns of local residents and municipal Councils. The existing system is based on a 1950's view of municipalities. We believe this needs to change. ABOUT THE CAMPAIGN: THE DEMAND THE RIGHT COALITION It is time Ontario passes legislation that gives municipalities the right to approve landfill projects. The "Demand the Right Campaign", involves municipal leaders across Ontario, and is calling on all provincial political parties to commit (before the June election) to passing legislation that will give municipalities the right to approve landfill development. Campaign highlights include: • 130+ municipalities have formally approved a motion in their Councils, representing over five million Ontarians, calling on the Province to act (and more motions are in the works towards approval); • 150 municipal leaders have signed a petition, calling on the province to act; • nearly 8 out of 10 Ontarians feel municipalities should have a say in whether they host landfills, according to a recent Ontario poll found; • Significant media coverage of the campaign since it launched a few months ago (see attached); • Several efforts and discussions with MPPs from all parties, including amendments to 130 Oxford Street • Ingersoll, Ontario N5C 2V5 • - Teg9-485-0120 • Fax: 519-485-3543 • www.ingersoll.ca TOWN OF INGEfZSOLL Town Centre Bill 139 (defeated), and the introduction of two Private Member's Bills in the Last Legislative Assembly of Ontario by MPP Ernie Hardeman; • Support from the Ontario PC Party, and Ontario NDP Party, including a letter from Ontario PC Leader Doug Ford committing to implementation of this policy. OUR ASK We believe municipalities should have the right to approve or reject landfill projects, and assess whether the potential economic benefits are of sufficient value to offset any negative impacts and environmental concerns, in addition to successfully completing an environmental assessment. Landfills are going to be part of Ontario's future — the issue is that individual municipalities MUST have the right to say yes or no to these types of projects. We look forward to working with the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks and other officials across government to implement this important policy commitment. We ask that you consider adopting the attached resolution in support of Demand the Right, in order to help add to the growing group of municipalities that want to have control over future proposals. MORE INFORMATION To learn more, please visit: www.demandtheright.ca LANDFILL APPROVAL We Demand the Right demandtheright.ca I thank you for your time and consideration. Yours Truly Ted Comiskey Mayor of Ingersoll 130 Oxford Street • Ingersoll, Ontario N5C 2V5 • - T169-485-0120 • Fax: 519-485-3543 • www.ingersoll.ca MOTION COUNCIL FOR THE City of Pickering MUNICIPALITIES CALL ON PROVINCE TO ENSURE ITS "MADE -IN -ONTARIO ENVIRONMENT PLAN" INCLUDES MUNICIPAL "RIGHT TO APPROVE" LANDFILL DEVELOPMENTS WHEREAS municipal governments in Ontario do not have the right to approve landfill projects in their communities, but have authority for making decisions on all other types of development; AND WHEREAS this out -dated policy allows private landfill operators to consult with local residents and municipal Councils, but essentially ignore them; AND WHEREAS Ontario's proposed "Made -in -Ontario Environment Plan" states that the province will grant municipalities a "greater say in siting of landfills"; AND WHEREAS municipalities already have exclusive rights for approving casinos and nuclear waste facilities within their communities, whether to host cannabis retail in their communities, AND FURTHER that the province has recognized the value of municipal approval for the siting of power generation facilities; AND WHEREAS the recent report from Ontario's Environmental Commissioner has found that Ontario has a garbage problem, particularly from Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (ICI) waste generated within the City of Toronto, where diversion rates are as low as 15%; AND UNLESS significant efforts are made to increase recycling and diversion rates, a new home for this Toronto garbage will need to be found, as landfill space is filling up quickly; AND WHEREAS municipalities across Ontario are quietly being identified and targeted as potential landfill sites for future Toronto garbage by private landfill operators; AND WHEREAS other communities should not be forced to take Toronto waste, as landfills can contaminate local watersheds, air quality, dramatically increase heavy truck traffic on community roads, and reduce the quality of life for local residents; AND WHEREAS municipalities should be considered experts in waste management, as they are responsible for this within their own communities, and -37- often have decades' worth of in-house expertise in managing waste, recycling, and diversion programs; AND WHEREAS municipalities should have the exclusive right to approve or reject these projects, and assess whether the potential economic benefits are of sufficient value to offset any negative impacts and environmental concerns; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of Pickering calls upon the Government of Ontario, as part of its "Made -in -Ontario Environment Plan" to formally entrench the right of municipalities to approve or reject landfill projects in or adjacent to their communities; AND THAT in the case of a two-tier municipality, the approval be required at both the upper -tier and affected lower -tier municipalities; AND FURTHER THAT the City of Pickering encourage all other municipalities in Ontario to consider this motion calling for immediate provincial action; AND THAT the MOTION adopted by Council be forwarded to the DEMAND THE RIGHT COALITION OF ONTARIO MUNICIPALITIES. -38- DURHAM REGION The Regional Municipality of Durham Corporate Services Department — Legislative Services 605 Rossland Rd. E. Level 1 P.O. Box 623 Whitby, ON L1 N 6A3 Canada 905-668-7711 1-800-372-1102 Fax: 905-668-9963 durham.ca Corr. 31-19 September 27, 2019 Kelly Lackner Senior Business Consultant Ministry of Transportation 87 Sir William Hearst Ave Bldg A Rm 178 Toronto, ON M3M 0B4 Dear Kelly Lackner: RE: Automated Speed Enforcement Program Implementation (2019-W-66), Our File: T02 Council of the Region of Durham, at its meeting held on September 25, 2019, adopted the following recommendations of the Works Committee: "A) That the Regional Municipality of Durham proceed with the implementation of an Automated Speed Enforcement program at the twenty-two locations identified in Attachment #1 to Report #2019-W-66 of the Commissioner of Works to reduce operating speeds and improve safety; B) That the Commissioner of Works, subject to the concurrence of the Commissioner of Finance and Director of Legal Services, be authorized to negotiate, enter into and execute an agreement with the City of Toronto for Automated Speed Enforcement record processing including the cost sharing of expenses related to the operation of the Joint Processing Centre with all 2019 costs to be funded from allowances within the Works Department's 2019 operating budget and 2020 to 2024 for costs within the 2020 to 2024 Business Plans and Budgets; C) That the Commissioner of Works, subject to the concurrence of the Commissioner of Finance and Director of Legal Services, be authorized to negotiate, enter into and execute an agreement with Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, as represented by the Ministry of Transportation, for the access and use of licence plate registration information with all 2019 costs to be funded from allowances within the Works Department's 2019 operating budget and 2020 to 2024 for costs within the 2020 to 2024 Business Plans and Budgets; D) That Regional Council request that the Province of Ontario permit the use of an Administrative Penalty System for offences issued by Automated Speed Enforcement; E) That the Commissioner of Finance be authorized to negotiate, enter into and execute a sole source agreement with Redflex Traffic Systems (Canada) Limited (vendor identified through City If you require this information in an accessible fbrn tale se contact 1-800-372-1102 extension 2097. of Toronto RFP 9148-0048) for the supply, including installation and operation of Automated Speed Enforcement equipment as permitted under Article 13 of the Region's Purchasing By-law 68- 2000, as amended; F) That the term of the contract with Redflex Traffic Systems (Canada) Limited be for a period of five years and one month commencing December 1, 2019 with an estimated total value of approximately $2,000,000, excluding taxes, with all 2019 costs to be funded from allowances within the Works Department 2019 operating budget and 2020 to 2024 costs within the 2020 to 2024 Business Plans and Budgets; G) That the Commissioner of Works, subject to the concurrence of the Commissioner of Finance and Director of Legal Services be authorized to exercise an option to renew the contract for an additional five years, commencing July 16, 2024, to operate the automated speed enforcement system, subject to budget approval, for an estimated total of approximately $4,000,000, excluding taxes; H) That pre -budget approval be granted for the annual costs to administer the program, in 2020 to 2024, in the amount of: i) $500,000, in all years, for Works Department automated speed enforcement expenses; and ii) $350,000, in all years, for Legal Provincial Offences Act automates speed enforcement expenses; I) That staff report back to the Works Committee with an update on the Automated Speed Enforcement program, including information on speed violations and program expenses and revenues, in fall 2020; and J) That a copy of Report #2019-W-66 of the Commissioner of Works be forwarded to the Ministry of Transportation — Ontario, the Ministry of the Attorney General — Ontario, all area municipalities and Durham Regional Police Services." R cuLph, W a,Ltavv Ralph Walton, Regional Clerk/Director of Legislative Services RW/sp See attached list. c: S. Siopis, Commissioner of Works Ministry of the Attorney General — Ontario All Region of Durham Municipalities Durham Regional Police Service - 41 - If this information is required in an accessible format, please contact 1-800-372-1102 ext. 3540 DDI DURHAM REGION The Regional Municipality of Durham Report To: From: Report: Date: Works Committee Commissioner of Works #2019-W-66 September 4, 2019 Subject: Automated Speed Enforcement Program Implementation Recommendation: That the Works Committee recommends to Regional Council: A) That the Regional Municipality of Durham proceed with the implementation of an Automated Speed Enforcement program at the twenty-two locations identified in Attachment #1 to reduce operating speeds and improve safety; B) That the Commissioner of Works, subject to the concurrence of the Commissioner of Finance and Director of Legal Services, be authorized to negotiate, enter into and execute an agreement with the City of Toronto for Automated Speed Enforcement record processing including the cost sharing of expenses related to the operation of the Joint Processing Centre with all 2019 costs to be funded from allowances within the Works Department's 2019 operating budget and 2020 to 2024 for costs within the 2020 to 2024 Business Plans and Budgets; C) That the Commissioner of Works, subject to the concurrence of the Commissioner of Finance and Director of Legal Services, be authorized to negotiate, enter into and execute an agreement with Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, as represented by the Ministry of Transportation, for the access and use of licence plate registration information with all 2019 costs to be funded from allowances within the Works Department's 2019 operating budget and 2020 to 2024 for costs within the 2020 to 2024 Business Plans and Budgets; -42- Report #2019-W-66 Page 2 of 10 D) That Regional Council request that the Province of Ontario permit the use of an Administrative Penalty System for offences issued by Automated Speed Enforcement; E) That the Commissioner of Finance be authorized to negotiate, enter into and execute a sole source agreement with Redflex Traffic Systems (Canada) Limited (vendor identified through City of Toronto RFP 9148-0048) for the supply, including installation and operation of Automated Speed Enforcement equipment as permitted under Article 13 of the Region's Purchasing By-law 68-2000, as amended. F) That the term of the contract with Redflex Traffic Systems (Canada) Limited be for a period of five years and one month commencing December 1, 2019 with an estimated total value of approximately $2,000,000, excluding taxes, with all 2019 costs to be funded from allowances within the Works Department 2019 operating budget and 2020 to 2024 costs within the 2020 to 2024 Business Plans and Budgets; G) That the Commissioner of Works, subject to the concurrence of the Commissioner of Finance and Director of Legal Services be authorized to exercise an option to renew the contract for an additional five years, commencing July 16, 2024, to operate the automated speed enforcement system, subject to budget approval, for an estimated total of approximately $4,000,000, excluding taxes; H) That pre -budget approval be granted for the annual costs to administer the program, in 2020 to 2024, in the amount of: a) $500,000, in all years, for Works Department automated speed enforcement expenses; and, b) $350,000, in all years, for Legal Provincial Offences Act automated speed enforcement expenses; I) That staff report back to the Works Committee with an update on the Automated Speed Enforcement program, including information on speed violations and program expenses and revenues, in fall 2020. J) That a copy of this report be forwarded to the Ministry of Transportation — Ontario, the Ministry of the Attorney General — Ontario, all area municipalities and Durham Regional Police Services. -43- Report #2019-W-66 Page 3 of 10 Report: 1. Purpose 1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek Regional Council authority to proceed with Automated Speed Enforcement technology at twenty-two sites in an effort to reduce operating speeds, reduce collisions and ultimately reduce crash related injury and death as a priority Vision Zero initiative. 2. Background 2.1 On May 30, 2017, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario passed Bill 65, Safer School Zones Act which amended the Highway Traffic Act (HTA) to authorize the use of Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE) technology in School Zones and Community Safety Zones on roadways with posted speed limits less than 80 kilometres per hour. 2.2 On September 11, 2017, Global Traffic Group Ltd. made a presentation to the Durham Regional Police Services Board on Automated Speed Enforcement in School Zones and Community Safety Zones. Global Traffic Group Ltd. is one of several vendors that provide Automated Enforcement technology to agencies across North America. The Board received their presentation and referred it to each area municipality within Durham for consideration. 2.3 On April 4, 2018, Committee of the Whole received for information report 2018 - INFO -32 Automated Speed Enforcement. 2.4 On September 12, 2018, Regional Council provided the following direction to staff: " .... undertake a feasibility study in consultation with Durham Regional Police Services for the implementation of Automated Speed Enforcement (fixed and/or mobile camera installations) in designated Community Safety Zones and School Zones on Regional Roads, as permitted by the Safe School Zones Act, with a view to understanding costs and benefits and establishing potential test sites for 2019 implementation." -44- Report #2019-W-66 Page 4 of 10 2.5 Works Department and Legal Services staff have been participating in an inter- municipal working group that was initiated by the Ontario Traffic Council (OTC) in an effort to establish common operating principles for ASE across the province. Some of the issues under discussion include: i) criteria for site selection; ii) fixed location vs. mobile enforcement; iii) 24/7 or time of day/day of week operations iv) enforcement thresholds; v) common definitions of school zone and community safety zone; vi) technology options; and vii) expected impacts to court services. Similar to Red Light Camera Operations, it is expected that decisions on the operation of ASE will likely be prescribed by the Province through regulations in order to ensure consistency across the province. 2.6 Durham Regional Police Services are in support of the proposed implementation of Automated Speed Enforcement in the Region of Durham. 3. Speeding 3.1 Vehicle operating speeds are a factor in every motor vehicle collision. 3.2 Speeding has a direct impact on the consequences of any crash. Speeding also increases the frequency of crashes as decision stopping distance increases proportionately with travel speed. 3.3 Vulnerable road users (pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists) are particularly impacted by higher collision speeds. Figure 1 below illustrates the relationship between impact speed and survivability for pedestrians: Fatality rate pedestrian 100% 90% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% — Cuerfern fl al. {70[171 — Ha!UMW ais & Kauel 120091 — nosdn & Sander (2009) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 12' Collision speed car (km/h) Figure 1 - Impact of Speed on Pedestrian Fatality Rate -45- Report #2019-W-66 Page 5 of 10 3.4 Speeding is the most common traffic complaint received by Durham Regional Police Services and the Works Department Traffic Operations and Engineering Division, particularly around schools, hamlets and seniors' areas. In addition to posing a significant safety issue, speeding through communities negatively impacts the quality of life of residents. 4. Automated Speed Enforcement Operations 4.1 The Safer School Zones Act (passed in 2017) amended the Highway Traffic Act to permit municipalities to use Automated Enforcement Technology to enforce speed limits on roadways in School Zones and Community Safety Zones where posted speed limits are less than 80 km/hr. 4.2 ASE technology is installed roadside with speed measurement devices and camera technology that can automatically detect the speed of the vehicle, compare that speed to a designated threshold speed, and if necessary take a photograph of the rear licence place. The installations can be either mobile (e.g. a van or trailer mounted unit) or fixed deployment. 4.3 The images are stored locally in the device and an operator retrieves those images on a regular basis and delivers them to a processing centre. Provincial Offences Officers at the processing centre review the images, determine whether or not to lay a charge, access the Ministry of Transportation — Ontario (MTO) vehicle ownership database and prepare the charging documents that get mailed out to the courts as well as the registered owner of the vehicle identified in the image. 4.4 In the case of mobile ASE, the equipment is regularly moved between sites in an effort to reduce operating speeds across the system. 5. Automated Speed Enforcement Site Selection 5.1 The Safer School Zones Act specified that ASE could only be used by municipalities in School Zones and Community Safety Zones with posted speed limits less than 80 km/hr. 5.2 There are currently three (3) School Zones and nineteen (19) Community Safety Zones designated on Regional Roads in the Regional Municipality of Durham as shown in Attachments #1A and #1B. -46- Report #2019-W-66 Page 6 of 10 5.3 For the purposes of the initial deployment it is recommended that four permanent sites (with 2 cameras rotated through them) and two mobile ASE devices be rotated through all 22 Community Safety Zones and School Zones on a regular basis subject to detailed design review and assessment of each site by Regional staff with the approved vendor. 6. Impact to Legal Services 6.1 Legal Services staff have been working with Works Department staff on this initiative and are very supportive of the proposed program. 6.2 The volume of speeding offences is expected to be significant (particularly in the initial few months of operation) and therefore there is some concern regarding available court resources to manage the expected demand. Works Department staff and Legal Services staff are working together to ensure that the volume of charges is manageable and that the program will not be put in jeopardy due to lack of court resources to process charges. It is primarily for this reason that staff are proposing to start with a limited number of devices for enforcement operations. 6.3 Currently, all automated enforcement offences in Ontario are processed through the courts as Provincial Offence Notices which requires significant resources. 6.4 In order to manage this workload, it is recommended that Regional Council request that the province permit the use of an Administrative Penalty System (APS) for automated enforcement offences. 7. Implementation Timelines 7.1 The City of Toronto has completed a procurement process for Automated Speed Enforcement operations and Redflex Traffic Systems (Canada) Limited has been identified as the successful vendor. This process was run as a joint effort with multiple municipalities (including the Regional Municipality of Durham) that have expressed an interest in participating in the program. 7.2 The RFP for ASE Operations included a proof of performance phase whereby selected vendors were invited to install and demonstrate their solutions to ensure that they meet operational requirements. These test sites were implemented within the City of Toronto in the Summer of 2019. 7.3 Initial field installations and operations in the Region could start as early as the Fall 2019 with more sites coming online in 2020 and beyond. -47- Report #2019-W-66 Page 7 of 10 8. Purchasing By -Law 8.1 The Region's Purchasing By -Law 68-2000 (as amended), Section 13.0, Cooperative Purchasing establishes the ability to enter into arrangements on a Cooperative basis where there are economic advantages in doing so, provided the method of acquisition and the awarding and reporting process is in accordance with the requirements of the Region's Purchasing By -Law. 8.2 The City of Toronto issued Request for Proposal No. 9148-10-0048 for "The Supply, Installation, Operation, Maintenance and Decommissioning of Automated Speed Enforcement Systems within the City of Toronto and Other municipalities within Ontario.", in April of 2019. 8.3 The Proposal Evaluation Committee, consisting of representatives from municipalities that were participating in the Automated Speed Enforcement Program evaluated the proposals and selected Redflex Traffic Systems (Canada) Limited as the preferred contractor. 8.4 The City of Toronto and all other participating municipalities are entering into separate agreements with Redflex Traffic Systems (Canada) Limited to provide Automated Speed Enforcement services for a five-year term from 2020 to 2024 with an option to renew for a second five-year term. 8.5 The RFP issued by the City of Toronto generally follows the same procurement process that the Region of Durham would follow if issuing a similar RFP on our own. The City of Toronto RFP did anticipate partnerships with other municipalities participating in the program. 9. Financial Implications 9.1 The cost to operate an Automated Speed Enforcement program includes: 1) Cost to design, supply, install, operate and maintain the equipment payable to Redflex Traffic Systems (Canada) Limited; 2) Cost to access MTO vehicle ownership database, payable to MTO; 3) Cost to manage the Joint Processing Centre, payable to the City of Toronto; 4) Municipal court costs; and 5) Costs associated with program administration responsibilities such as implementation planning, communications, and collections. -48- Report #2019-W-66 Page 8 of 10 9.2 The daily rate for vendor operations is approximately $100 per device. Initial start- up costs are approximately $250 for each mobile device and $32,000 for each permanent device. Additional charges will be incurred each time that a camera has to be relocated between sites. The total estimated vendor cost for an initial 5 -year contract period is $1,250,000 excluding taxes. 9.3 MTO charges a per transaction fee every time that their vehicle ownership database is accessed by the Joint Processing Centre. These fees are invoiced directly to the municipality on a quarterly basis. The MTO fee is approximately $1 per transaction and the total cost will vary depending on the number of charges that are issued. As Automated Speed Enforcement has not yet been deployed in Ontario, violation rates are uncertain and therefore it is difficult to estimate the Region's total fees payable to the Ministry. 9.4 The City of Toronto will operate an Automated Speed Enforcement — Joint Processing Centre on behalf of all participating municipalities. City of Toronto Processing Centre staff will review the images from each site and determine whether or not a charge can be laid. The City of Toronto will charge back each municipality on a cost recovery basis. The charge back will include both a portion of fixed costs (for the facility, equipment etc.) and per transaction costs. The City of Toronto has estimated that their per charge unit fee will be $35. As Automated Speed Enforcement has not yet been deployed in Ontario, violation rates are uncertain and therefore it is difficult to estimate the Region's total fees payable to the City of Toronto. 9.5 Municipal courts also incur costs to manage the offences and associated disputes. In most cases, the registered owner of the vehicle pays the fine with no contest. In other cases, the registered owner can choose to proceed through an 'early resolution' dispute process or can also request a trial. Court costs are estimated in the range of $65 per transaction. As Automated Speed Enforcement has not yet been deployed in Ontario, violation rates are uncertain and therefore it is difficult to estimate the total Region's total court costs. -49- Report #2019-W-66 Page 9 of 10 9.6 All 2019 expenses are to be funded from allowances within the Works Department's 2019 operating budget and 2020 to 2024 costs within the 2020-2024 Business Plans and Budgets. Pre -budget approval has been recommended for the annual costs to administer the program over the 2020 to 2024 timeframe, in the amount of: a. $500,000 in all years, for Works Department automated speed enforcement expenses; and, b. $350,000, in all years, for Legal Provincial Offences Act automated speed enforcement expenses. 9.7 The fines for speeding in Ontario are prescribed in the Section 128(14) of the Highway Traffic Act as follows: Every person who contravenes this section or any by-law or regulation made under this section is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable, where the rate of speed at which the motor vehicle was driven, (a) is less than 20 kilometres per hour over the speed limit, to a fine of $3 for each kilometre per hour that the motor vehicle was driven over the speed limit; (b) is 20 kilometres per hour or more but less than 30 kilometres per hour over the speed limit, to a fine of $4.50 for each kilometre per hour that the motor vehicle was driven over the speed limit; (c) is 30 kilometres per hour or more but less than 50 kilometres per hour over the speed limit, to a fine of $7 for each kilometre per hour that the motor vehicle was driven over the speed limit; and Fines in Community Safety Zones and Construction Zones are doubled. 9.8 Any fine revenue, net of all costs incurred by the Region is distributed to the local area municipality (60 per cent) and the Regional municipality (40 per cent). If local municipalities endeavor to operate ASE on local municipal roads, the same revenue sharing agreement would be in effect. 9.9 Due to uncertainty regarding violation rates, and related program revenues and costs, it has been recommended that staff report back to the Works Committee with an update on the Automated Speed Enforcement project, including information on violations and program expenses and revenues, in fall 2020 -50- Report #2019-W-66 Page 10 of 10 10. Conclusion 10.1 Automated Speed Enforcement has been used successfully in many jurisdictions around the world to reduce operating speeds and improve safety; 10.2 A project with 2 mobile ASE units and 2 additional cameras rotated through four permanent locations is recommended for implementation in 2020. The estimated cost of implementation is $550,000 annually. 10.3 A move from a Provincial Offences Act process to an Administrative Penalty System process would allow the Regional Municipality of Durham to expand the program at the end of the project if desired. 10.4 This report has been reviewed by Legislative Services, Legal Services, Finance and Durham Regional Police Services and all are in agreement with the recommendations as presented. 10.5 For additional information, contact: Steven Kemp, Manager, Traffic Engineering and Operations, at 905-668-7711, extension 4701. 11. Attachments Attachment #1: Candidate Automated Enforcement Sites (School Zones and Community Safety Zones) Respectfully submitted, Original signed by John Presta for Susan Siopis, P.Eng. Commissioner of Works Recommended for Presentation to Committee Original signed by Elaine C. Baxter-Trahair Chief Administrative Officer - 51 - School Zones School Name Regional Road # 2 Elizabeth B Phin Public School - Pickering 27 3 St. Issac Jogues Catholic School - Pickering 37 X1111'. Ninth Co Rd �. 1111 111111 Seventh Con Rd 7 Community Safety Zones Area Name Regional Road # 4 St. Mary High School - Pickering 38 5 Claremont Public School - Pickering 5 6 Ajax High School - Ajax 22 7 Sinclair Secondary School - Whitby 4 8 Anderson Collegiate Vocational Institute - Whitby 36 9 Paul Dwyer High School - Oshawa 28 10 Adelaide McLaughlin Public School - Oshawa 53 11 St. Stephen's United Church - Oshawa 2 12 UOIT/Durham College - Oshawa 2 13 Si Phillips Public School - Oshawa 2 14 Beau Valley Public School - Oshawa 16 15 Vincent Massey Public School - Oshawa 33 16 Eastdale Collegiate Vocational Institute - Oshawa 58 17 Courtice Downtown - Clarington Regional Highway 2 18 Bowmanville High School - Clarington 14 Attachment #1 to Report #2019-W-66 : School Zones and Community Safety Zones in Southern Durham Region Municipalities Q School Area (50 km/hr while signals flashing) Q Community Safety Zone Provincial ❑ Regional ❑ Regional Highway Toll cra OKI Posted Speed (km/h) 50 60 70 80 - MTO Highway Municipal Road Network Mvrtld2d Reg Rd Colurnoo d • Co Rd Rd ConljiRd Tauntorkd m . at Taunton Rd 6 Tanntos�, W Nash Rd a r Taunton Rd 2 waod4St ConRd 3 57 18 Bas IInRd Reg RI20 10 Con Rd Ph 35 61 Con Rd 8 v 1) Con Rd 6 Con Rd 5 Con Rd 3 %N582 2 Con Rd The Regional Municipality of Durham Traffic Engineering & Operations nares S This map has been produced from a variety of sources. The Region of Durham does not make any representations concerning the accuracy, likely results, or reliability of the use of the materials. The Region hereby disclaims all representations and warranties. -52- 0 5 10 Km 1 1 1 c c Boom rd rai l rArin s Rd 20 47 47 19 r_ RIB) Br en 12 Rcl se wt<•111 kfRN {'m P44 9r GRan gngL -4 Eke Md.rran R]--- ;11A 44111 .--�,go$�.ne•g MT;..) Gr R an REGION U .—Uxbrdge Pickering The Regional Municipality of Durham Traffic Engineering & Operations This map has been produced from a variety of sources. The Region of Durham does not make any representations conceming the accuracy, likely results, or reliability of the use of the materials. The Region hereby disclaims all representations and warranties. te Gy9P9'b nm 1 p Rd2r 8 St -53- ���nGF11 0 htkeeR gn4xR1 ,�—rtru�4ol Rd 5 10 Km Attachment #1 to Report #2019-W-66: School Zones and Community Safety Zones Northern Durham Region Townships in Network ME School Area (50 km/hr while signals flashing) M Community Safety Zone Provincial MTO Highway ❑ Regional Municipal Road • Regional Highway N: Toll Posted Speed (km/h) • 50 70 60 80 School Zones # School Name Regional Road # 1 Brock High School - Brock 12 Community Safety Zones # Area Name Regional Road # 19 Goodwood Community Centre - Uxbridge 47 20 Sandford Scott Central Public School - Uxbridge 11 21 Sunderland Hamlet - Brock 10 22 Cannington Brock Town Hall - Brock 12 Br en 12 Rcl se wt<•111 kfRN {'m P44 9r GRan gngL -4 Eke Md.rran R]--- ;11A 44111 .--�,go$�.ne•g MT;..) Gr R an REGION U .—Uxbrdge Pickering The Regional Municipality of Durham Traffic Engineering & Operations This map has been produced from a variety of sources. The Region of Durham does not make any representations conceming the accuracy, likely results, or reliability of the use of the materials. The Region hereby disclaims all representations and warranties. te Gy9P9'b nm 1 p Rd2r 8 St -53- ���nGF11 0 htkeeR gn4xR1 ,�—rtru�4ol Rd 5 10 Km DURHAM REGION The Regional Municipality of Durham Corporate Services Department — Legislative Services 605 Rossland Rd. E. Level 1 P.O. Box 623 Whitby, ON L1 N 6A3 Canada 905-668-7711 1-800-372-1102 Fax: 905-668-9963 durham.ca Corr. 32-19 September 25, 2019 Kelly Lackner Senior Business Consultant Ministry of Transportation 87 Sir William Hearst Ave Bldg A Rm 178 Toronto, ON M3M 0B4 Dear Kelly Lackner: RE: Red -Light Camera Program Implementation (2019-W-65), Our File: T02 Council of the Region of Durham, at its meeting held on September 25, 2019, adopted the following recommendations of the Works Committee: "A) That the Regional Municipality of Durham proceed with the implementation of twelve (12) Red-light Cameras as identified in Attachment #1 to Report #2019-W-65 of the Commissioner of Works to reduce re -light running and improve safety, subject to confirmation from the vendor that installations are technically feasible; B) That the Commissioner of Works be authorized, subject to concurrence of the Commissioner of Finance and Director of Legal Services, to negotiate, enter into and execute a standing agreement with the City of Toronto for Red -Light Camera record processing including the cost sharing of expenses related to the operation of the Joint Processing Centre, at an estimated annual cost of $72,000, with all 2019 costs to be funded from allowances within the Works Department's 2019 operating budget and 2020/2021 costs within the 2020 and 2021 Business Plans and Budgets; C) That the Commissioner of Works be authorized, subject to concurrence of the Commissioner of Finance and Director of Legal Services, to negotiate, enter into and execute a standing agreement with Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, as represented by the Ministry of Transportation, for the access and use of licence plate registration information, at an estimated annual cost of $35,000, with all 2019 costs to be funded from allowances within the Works Department's 2019 operating budget and 2020/2021 costs within the 2020 and 2021 Business Plans and Budgets; D) That Regional Council request that the Province of Ontario permit the use of an Administrative Penalty System for offences issued by Red -Light Camera; If you require this information in an accessible fbrnlese contact 1-800-372-1102 extension 2097. E) That the Commissioner of Finance be authorized to negotiate, enter into and execute a sole source agreement with Traffipax LLC for the supply, including installation and operation, of 12 red-light cameras, based on a Contract awarded through the City of Toronto's Request for Proposal No. 9148-15-5000 for "The Supply, Installation, Operation, and Maintenance of Red -Light Camera Systems within the City of Toronto and Other Municipalities within Ontario." In April of 2015, and as permitted under Article 13 of the Region's Purchasing By-law 68-2000, with the following provisions: i) Contract period of two years and one month, commencing December 1, 2019 with an estimated total value of approximately $1,000,000 (i.e., approximately $500,000 per year), excluding taxes, with all 2019 costs to be funded from allowances within the Works Department's 2019 operating budget and 2020/2021 costs within the 2020 and 2021 Business Plans and Budgets; and ii) Option to renew the contract for an additional five years, commencing January 1, 2022, subject to annual budget approval, for an estimated total value of approximately $4,000,000, excluding taxes; F) That pre -budget approval be granted for the annual costs to administer the program, in both 2020 and 2021, in the amount of: i) $800,000, in both years, for Works Department red-light camera expenses; and ii) $350,000, in both years, for Legal Provincial Offences Act red-light camera expenses; G) That the Director of Legal Services be authorized to submit applications and other documents as may be required to the Province of Ontario or Ministry of Transportation for the appointment of any Regional employees as Provincial Offence Officers to implement the Region's Red -Light Camera Program; H) That staff report back to the Works Committee with an update on the Red -Light Camera program, including information on red-light running violations and program expenses and revenues in fall 2020; and I) That a copy of Report #2019-W-66 of the Commissioner of Works be sent to the Ministry of Transportation — Ontario, the City of Toronto and all area municipalities within the Regional Municipality of Durham." Ralph, W cato-vv Ralph Walton, Regional Clerk/Director of Legislative Services RW/sp c: S. Siopis, Commissioner of Works All Region of Durham Municipalities City of Toronto -56- If this information is required in an accessible format, please contact 1-800-372-1102 ext. 3540. DI DURHAM REGION The Regional Municipality of Durham Report To: From: Report: Date: Works Committee Commissioner of Works #2019-W-65 September 4, 2019 Subject: Red -Light Camera Program Implementation Recommendations: That the Works Committee recommends to Regional Council: A) That the Regional Municipality of Durham proceed with the implementation of twelve (12) Red -Light Cameras as identified in Attachment 1 to this report to reduce red-light running and improve safety, subject to confirmation from the vendor that installations are technically feasible; B) That the Commissioner of Works be authorized, subject to concurrence of the Commissioner of Finance and Director of Legal Services, to negotiate, enter into and execute a standing agreement with the City of Toronto for Red -Light Camera record processing including the cost sharing of expenses related to the operation of the Joint Processing Centre, at an estimated annual cost of $72,000, with all 2019 costs to be funded from allowances within the Works Department's 2019 operating budget and 2020/2021 costs within the 2020 and 2021 Business Plans and Budgets; C) That the Commissioner of Works be authorized, subject to concurrence of the Commissioner of Finance and Director of Legal Services, to negotiate, enter into and execute a standing agreement with Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, as represented by the Ministry of Transportation, for the access and use of licence plate registration information, at an estimated annual cost of $35,000, with all 2019 costs to be funded from allowances within the Works Department's 2019 operating budget and 2020/2021 costs within the 2020 and 2021 Business - 57 - Report #2019-W-65 Plans and Budgets; Page 2 of 11 D) That Regional Council request that the Province of Ontario permit the use of an Administrative Penalty System for offences issued by Red -Light Cameras; E) That the Commissioner of Finance be authorized to negotiate, enter into and execute a sole source agreement with Traffipax LLC for the supply, including installation and operation, of 12 red-light cameras, based on a Contract awarded through the City of Toronto's Request for Proposal No. 9148-15-5000 for "The Supply, Installation, Operation, and Maintenance of Red -Light Camera Systems within the City of Toronto and Other Municipalities within Ontario." in April of 2015, and as permitted under Article 13 of the Region's Purchasing By-law 68-2000, with the following provisions: i) Contract period of two years and one month, commencing December 1, 2019 with an estimated total value of approximately $1,000,000 (i.e., approximately $500,000 per year), excluding taxes, with all 2019 costs to be funded from allowances within the Works Department's 2019 operating budget and 2020/2021 costs within the 2020 and 2021 Business Plans and Budgets; and ii) Option to renew the contract for an additional five years, commencing January 1, 2022, subject to annual budget approval, for an estimated total value of approximately $4,000,000, excluding taxes; F) That pre -budget approval be granted for the annual costs to administer the program, in both 2020 and 2021, in the amount of: i) $800,000, in both years, for Works Department red-light camera expenses; and, ii) $350,000, in both years, for Legal Provincial Offences Act red-light camera expenses; G) That the Director of Legal Services be authorized to submit applications and other documents as may be required to the Province of Ontario or Ministry of Transportation for the appointment of any Regional employees as Provincial Offence Officers to implement the Region's Red -Light Camera Program; H) That staff report back to the Works Committee with an update on the Red -Light Camera program, including information on red-light running violations and program expenses and revenues, in fall 2020; and I) A copy of this report be sent to the Ministry of Transportation — Ontario, the City of -58- Report #2019-W-65 Page 3 of 11 Toronto and all area municipalities with the Regional Municipality of Durham. Report: 1. Purpose 1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek Regional Council authority to proceed with Red -Light Camera Automated Enforcement Technology at twelve (12) signalized intersections in an effort to reduce red-light running, reduce collisions and ultimately reduce crash related injury and death as a priority Vision Zero initiative. 2. Background 2.1 In 2015, Regional Council considered Report #2015-J-46 regarding the use of Red-light Camera Automated Enforcement Technology to improve safety. At that time, it was decided that the Regional Municipality of Durham (Region) would focus on other safety initiatives including the preparation of a Strategic Road Safety Action Plan to identify priorities. 2.2 On September 5, 2018, the Committee of the Whole adopted a recommendation referring a Town of Ajax resolution regarding Red-light Cameras to Works staff for a report. 2.3 On April 24, 2019, Regional Council approved Report #2019-W-27 endorsing Vision Zero principles and the Strategic Road Safety Action Plan (Plan). The Plan identified Red-light Cameras as a priority safety countermeasure to address collisions at intersections. 2.4 Durham Regional Police Services are in support of the proposed implementation of Red-light Cameras in the Region. 3. Red- Light Running 3.1 Red-light running has the potential to cause serious injury or death for both the offending driver and innocent victims. 3.2 The Region's collision records database contains 534 collisions over a three and a half year period at signalized intersections where the cause was specifically attributed to a driver `disobeying traffic control indications'. Many of such collisions result in significant personal injuries and occasionally death. 3.3 As part of our site selection process, staff along with our consultant CIMA+ -59- Report #2019-W-65 Page 4 of 11 reviewed data from all 623 signalized intersections across the Region. The project team conducted a total of 296 hours of field observations at 37 signalized intersections. Field studies were conducted at 20 intersections in 2015 and 20 intersections in 2017 with three of the same locations studied in both years. These study locations were chosen based on intersections with a high volume of right- angle crashes reported. During those field studies, 209 drivers were observed running red -lights. Assuming a consistent rate of red-light running across all signalized intersections, this is the equivalent of over one million red-light running events on an annual basis across the Region. All of these events had a statistical probability of resulting in a crash, injury or death. 3.4 Red-light camera programs in other jurisdictions have resulted in significant decreases in red-light running and right-angle crashes at signalized intersections. 3.5 In some cases, increases in rear -end collisions after the implementation of Red- light Camera programs have been recorded, however, these increases have been temporary. 4. Red-light Camera Operations 4.1 Red-light Cameras have been operational in the Province of Ontario since 1999. Eight municipalities in Ontario (Toronto, Hamilton, Niagara, Halton, Peel, York, London and Ottawa) are currently participating in the program. 4.2 Implementation of a red-light camera program in the Region is timely given the Region's recent endorsement of Vision Zero principles, reports of success in other jurisdictions, continued growth with increasing traffic volumes and limited Durham Regional Police Services resources for traditional enforcement. In addition, daily rates for any new sites implemented through the approved vendor will increase by 50 per cent in 2020 and another 50 per cent in 2022 as they approach the end of their existing agreement. Joining the program now will lock in 2019 pricing for the proposed 12 sites until 2022. 4.3 The approved vendor, Traffipax LLC, provides a turn -key operation; completes the necessary detail design, supplies, installs the equipment, maintains and operates the system. Images of vehicles that run red -lights are retrieved from the camera and delivered to the Joint Processing Centre (JPC) at the City of Toronto. Provincial Offence Officers at the JPC review the images and determine whether or not to lay a charge. 4.4 The Region's residents will be advised in advance of all red-light camera locations -60- Report #2019-W-65 Page 5 of 11 through a public education campaign and advisory signs at every intersection equipped with the technology. The standard red-light camera warning sign (shown in Figure 1) will be installed on all approaches to every intersection before the cameras are installed. A sample public service advisory message that has been used in other Ontario jurisdictions is also shown in Figure 1. RED LIGHT CAMERA IT WON'T KILL rYOU TO STOP. Figure 1 — Red -Light Camera Public Education 4.5 The fine for running a red-light in Ontario (issued by a Red -Light Camera or otherwise) is $325 of which $60 is allocated to the Provincial Victim Services Fund. After costs are deducted the remaining fine revenue is distributed according to existing agreements. In the Region, court fine revenue for all offences is split between the local area municipality (60 per cent) and the Regional Municipality (40 per cent). 4.6 Offence notices are generated and distributed to the registered owner of the vehicle as well as the relevant court by the JPC. As a vehicle -based offence, no demerit points are issued as the driver of the vehicle is not known. To implement the regime, three staff members of the Legal Services Division will be nominated to the Minister of Transportation to serve as Provincial Offence Officers to assist in the administration of the ticket filing portion of the program. 5. Red-light Camera Site Selection 5.1 Red-light Camera locations are identified based on a combination of right angle crash experience and the results of red-light running violation studies. Intersections with the greatest frequency of red-light running are not necessarily the locations with the highest frequency of right angle crashes. - 61 - Report #2019-W-65 Page 6 of 11 5.2 Regional staff worked with the consultant to identify the following list of twelve (12) locations for the installation of red-light cameras: • Ritson Road at Bond St - Oshawa • Lake Ridge Rd at Goodwood Rd — Scugog/Uxbridge • Taunton Rd at Lake Ridge Rd — Whitby/Ajax • Stevenson Rd at King St - Oshawa • Simcoe St at Conlin Rd - Oshawa • Simcoe St at Rossland Rd - Oshawa • Taunton Rd at Altona Rd - Pickering • Liverpool Rd at Bayly St - Pickering • Salem Rd at Bayly St - Ajax • Thickson Rd at Dundas St - Whitby • Highway 2 at Courtice Rd - Clarington • Taunton Rd at Westney Rd - Ajax 5.3 A map showing the proposed twelve (12) locations is included as Attachment 1 to this report. A detailed assessment of each site will be undertaken by the approved vendor to confirm that the installation of a camera at each location is physically possible. 5.4 As the Region gains more experience participating in the program, additional sites can be added as budget and other resources permit. The most opportune time to add additional sites would be in 2022 to coincide with the start of a new contract period with the approved vendor. 6. Impact to Court Services 6.1 Legal Services staff have been working with Works staff on this initiative and are very supportive of the proposed program. 6.2 Currently, all automated enforcement offences in Ontario are processed through the courts as Provincial Offence Notices. This process takes significant resources and correspondingly significant costs. 6.3 In order to manage this workload, it is recommended that Regional Council request that the province permit the use of an Administrative Penalty System (APS) for automated enforcement offences. APS is already used in many jurisdictions (including the City of Oshawa) for parking offences. -62- Report #2019-W-65 Page 7 of 11 7. Implementation Timelines 7.1 Red-light Cameras have been operational in the Province of Ontario for almost 20 years. Once all regulatory requirements are in place, there will be no significant barrier for the Region to join the program. 7.2 The City of Toronto runs a joint procurement process for Red-light Cameras for all municipalities participating in the program. The current five-year contract was awarded in 2016 and covers operating years 2017 to 2021. 7.3 To join the program, the Region is required to enter into agreements with the vendor, Traffipax LLC, the MTO to permit access to the Provincial vehicle ownership database to issue offence notices to the registered owner of vehicles and the City of Toronto (for operation of the Joint Processing Centre). 7.4 The equipment vendor designs, supplies, installs, operates, maintains and owns the equipment. Municipalities that joined at the start of the contract term (e.g. 2017 start of operations) pay a lower daily rate for the term of the agreement. As the contract progresses the daily rate for new installations increase as the time remaining for the vendor to recover their capital outlay decreases. 7.5 After Regional Council approval, it is estimated that it would take the remainder of 2019 to get the necessary agreements in place with the City of Toronto, Ministry of Transportation — Ontario and the vendor Traffipax. 7.6 Once the agreements are in place, design, supply and installation would occur in towards the end of 2019 and early 2020. 8. Purchasing By -Law 8.1 The Region's Purchasing By -Law 68-2000 (as amended), in Section 13.0, Cooperative Purchasing establishes the ability to enter into arrangements on a Cooperative basis where there are economic advantages in doing so, provided the method of acquisition and the awarding and reporting process is in accordance with the requirements of the Region's Purchasing By -Law. -63- Report #2019-W-65 Page 8 of 11 8.2 The City of Toronto issued Request for Proposal (RFP) #9148-15-5000 for "The Supply, Installation, Operation, and Maintenance of Red-light Camera Systems within the City of Toronto and Other Municipalities within Ontario." in April of 2015. 8.3 The Proposal Evaluation Committee, consisting of representatives from municipalities that were participating in the Red-light Camera program at the time, evaluated the proposals and selected Traffipax LLC as the preferred contractor. 8.4 The City of Toronto and all other participating municipalities entered into separate agreements with Traffipax LLC to provide Red-light Camera services for a five year period from 2017 to 2022 with an option to renew for a second five year term. 8.5 The City of Toronto RFP did anticipate partnerships with other municipalities participating in the program. 9. Financial Implications 9.1 A Red -Light Camera program is being recommended due to non-financial considerations as the anticipated network -wide reduction in collisions aligns with the Region's Vision Zero objectives. 9.2 The cost to operate a Red -Light Camera program includes: 1) Cost to design, supply, install, operate and maintain the equipment payable to Traffipax LLC.; 2) Cost to access the MTO vehicle ownership database — payable to MTO; 3) Cost to manage the Joint Processing Centre — payable to City of Toronto; 4) Municipal court costs; and 5) Costs associated with program administration responsibilities such as implementation planning, communications, and collections. 9.3 The current contract with Traffipax LLC. includes a daily rate for operations. This daily rate is fixed for a particular site over the duration of the contract. As the contract proceeds, any new sites added are billed at a higher daily rate as the vendor needs to recover their capital outlay for equipment. 9.4 MTO charges a per transaction fee each time that the vehicle ownership database is accessed by the Joint Processing Centre. These fees are invoiced directly to the municipality on a quarterly basis. The fee varies depending on the number of charges that are issued. Based on the experience of other comparable municipalities, around $35,000 in annual MTO charges are expected. -64- Report #2019-W-65 Page 9 of 11 9.5 The City of Toronto operates a Red -Light Camera — Joint Processing Centre on behalf of all participating municipalities. City of Toronto Processing Centre staff review the images from each site and determine whether or not charges can be laid. The City of Toronto charges back each municipality on a cost recovery basis. The charge back includes both a portion of fixed costs (for the facility, equipment etc.) and per transaction costs. Joint Processing Centre charges are expected to be approximately $6,000 annually per camera. 9.6 Municipal courts also incur costs to manage the offences and associated disputes. In most cases, the registered owner of the vehicle pays the fine with no contest. In other cases, the registered owner can choose to proceed through an `early resolution' dispute process or can also request a trial. Municipalities currently involved in the Red-light Camera program estimated court costs at approximately $65 for each offence notice issued. 9.7 The fine for a Red -Light Camera offence in the Province of Ontario is $325 of which $60 is used to contribute to the Province's Victim Services Fund. The remaining fine revenue is distributed, net of all costs incurred by the Region, to the local area municipality (60 per cent) and the Regional municipality (40 per cent). 9.8 Preliminary estimates of the Region's costs, assuming December 2019 implementation, and assuming an average of 35 offences per site per month, are provided below in Table 1. Table 1: Red-light Camera Expense Estimates Regional Expenses 2019 ($) 2020 ($) 2021 ($) Equipment * 38,000 460,000 460,000 MTO Charges 3,000 35,000 35,000 Joint Processing Centre 6,000 72,000 72,000 Court Costs 0 328,000 328,000 Total Regional Expenses ** 47,000 895,000 895,000 Notes: Equipment costs have been estimated assuming a cost of approximately $100 per site per day, but the rate remains subject to negotiation. -65- Report #2019-W-65 Page 10 of 11 ** The Region will also hold responsibility for administration related to the program. 9.9 All 2019 expenses are to be funded from allowances within the Works Department's 2019 operating budget. Pre -budget approval has been recommended for the annual costs to administer the program, in both 2020 and 2021, in the amount of: 1) $800,000, in both years, for Works Department red-light camera expenses; and , 2) $350,000, in both years, for Legal Provincial Offences Act red-light camera expenses. 9.10 The financial impact of red-light camera implementation in the Region can only be estimated at this time as violation rates, and other factors are unknown. As the program achieves its objectives (i.e., reduces red-light running), fine revenue is expected to decrease while program costs increase or remain fixed. 9.11 In 2022, when the proposed equipment vendor agreement will have expired, daily equipment costs could become significantly lower for existing sites but the contractual commitment will be longer. 10. Conclusions 10.1 Red-light Cameras have been used successfully in many jurisdictions around the world to reduce red-light running and improve safety; 10.2 A project with twelve (12) red-light camera sites is recommended for implementation in late 2019 or 2020. 10.3 A move from a Provincial Offences Act process to an Administrative Penalty System process would allow the Regional Municipality of Durham to expand the program at the end of this initial implementation if desired. 10.4 This report has been reviewed by Legislative Services, Legal Services, Finance and Durham Regional Police Services and all are in agreement with the recommendations as presented. -66- Report #2019-W-65 Page 11 of 11 10.5 For additional information, contact: Steven Kemp, Manager — Traffic Engineering and Operations, at 905-668-7711, extension 4701. 11. Attachments Attachment #1: Proposed Red-light Camera Locations Respectfully submitted, Original signed by John Presta for Susan Siopis, P.Eng. Commissioner of Works Recommended for Presentation to Committee Original signed by Elaine C. Baxter-Trahair Chief Administrative Officer -67- 0 Tnor.an Rdg 0 Th M1 C Rd Thor. Con Rtl Attachment #1 to Report #2019-W-65: Proposed Red Light Camera Locations • Proposed Red Light Camera Locations Provincial MTO Highway ❑ Regional Municipal Road Network ❑ Regional Highway u Toll Posted Speed (km/h) 50 60 DURHAM. REGION 70 80 The Regional Municipality of Durham Traffic Engineering & Operations 0; This map has been produced from a variety of sources. The Region of Durham does not make any representations concerning the accuracy, likely results, or reliability of the use of the materials. The Region hereby disclaims all representations and warranties. MAP Illl�wEl NO � ihlll AA 5 31 10 Km v 12 WAIN, Ho„: ■11 v 26 a 13, 011,1 t Wad ' 196,4441 Wan 1 Man Rcl 10 m © , �tl3, ill .All -68- 2 1R 1 3511 35 15 EI a li 2 • • September 27, 2019 STOWNSHIP OF cugog Susan Cassell, City Clerk Town of Pickering Sent via email to: clerks @ pickering.ca Re: Regional Governance Review Dear Ms. Cassell: Corr. 33-19 I wish to advise that the following resolution was passed at the September 9, 2019 Township of Scugog General Purpose and Administration Committee meeting and was ratified at the September 23, 2019 Township of Scugog Council meeting: "WHEREAS the Government of Ontario is undertaking a Regional government Review to examine governance, decision-making and service delivery functions of Ontario's eight regional municipalities, Simcoe County and all respective lower -tier municipalities; and WHEREAS the Special Advisors have included within the scope of their review, consideration of moving to single -tier municipalities or amalgamating existing municipalities; and WHEREAS the Regional Governance Review Terms of Reference for Special Advisors Michael Fenn and Ken Seiling states that all materials produced by the Special Advisors, including research, analysis, reports and recommendations are the exclusive property of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and may be released publicly at the discretion of the Ministry; and WHEREAS the Regional Governance Review must be transparent in the interest of accountability and in consideration of the potential impacts to local and regional municipal governments and the communities they serve; and WHEREAS the Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario (AMCTO) has requested that the report of the Special Advisors to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, containing the findings and recommendations be made public; and .../2 Township of Scugog, 181 Perry St., PO Box 780, Port Perry, ON L9L 1A7 Telephone: 905-985-7G9 Fax: 905-985-9914 www_ cm innn ra NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Township of Scugog endorse AMCTO's position and request that the report prepared by the Special Advisors, regarding the Regional Governance Review, be publicly released immediately upon its completion and presentation to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing; and THAT this resolution be circulated to all Durham Region municipalities, the Region of Durham, Minister Steve Clark and all Durham Region MPP's." Should you require anything further in this regard, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Yours sincerely, John Paul Newman Director of Corporate Services/Clerk - 7 0 - Corr. 34-19 Town of Whitby Office of the Town Clerk 575 Rossland Road East, Whitby, ON L1 N 2M8 www.whitby.ca September 27, 2019 Re: Lake Ontario Flooding Please be advised that at a meeting held on September 23, 2019 the Council of the Town of Whitby adopted the following as Resolution # 269-19: Whereas flooding along Lake Ontario's shoreline has adverse environmental, social and financial effects to the Town of Whitby; And whereas the Town of Whitby has experienced flooding events in 2017 and 2019; And whereas lake levels will continue to become more unpredictable as a result of climate change and related severe weather events, aging infrastructure in communities surrounding the Great Lakes, and pressures from population growth, resulting in a higher likelihood of reoccurring flooding; And whereas the property tax base does not provide an adequate source of funding to carry out effective flood management and response measures including the rebuilding of existing infrastructure to ensure the resiliency of our community and those located along the shorelines of the Great Lakes; Now Therefore be it Resolved: 1. That the Council of The Town of Whitby requests that the Provincial and Federal governments provide additional resources to municipalities and conservation authorities to construct flood resilient infrastructure and undertake flood management and mitigation measures designed to withstand future climate change concerns; and, 2. That the Clerk be directed to forward a copy of this resolution to the Ontario Ministers of Environment, Conservation and Parks, Natural Resources and Forestry, Infrastructure, Finance, and Municipal Affairs and Housing; Federal Ministers of Environment and Climate Change, Oceans and Fisheries Canada, Transport, Finance, and Infrastructure and - 71 - Communities; Durham Region M.P.s and M.P.P.s; Central Lake Conservation Authority; Great Lakes St Lawrence Cities Initiative, and Durham Local Area Municipalities. Should you require further information, please do not hesitate to contact the Public Works Department at 905.430.4307. Kevin Narraway Manager of Legislative Services/Deputy Clerk Copy: S .Beale, Commissioner of Public Works Honourable Jeff Yurek, Minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks — jeff.vurek(c�pc.ola.orq Honourable John Yakabuski, Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry - john.yakabuskipc.ola.orq Honourable Laurie Scott, Minister of Infrastructure - laurie.scott(a�pc.ola.orq Honourable Rod Phillips, Minister of Finance - rod.phillips(cY�pc.ola.orq Honourable Catherine McKenna, Minister of Environment and Climate Change - Catherine.McKenna@parl.qc.ca Honourable Steve Clark, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing - steve.clark(c�pc.ola.orq Honourable Johnathan Wilkinson, Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard - Jonathan.Wilkinson(a�parl.gc.ca Honourable Marc Garneau, Minister of Transport - marc.garneau(a�parl.gc.ca Honourable Bill Morneau, Minister of Finance — BiII.Morneau(c�parl.gc.ca Honourable Francois -Philippe Champagne, Minister of Infrastructure and Communities — Francois-Philippe.Champagne(a�parl.gc.ca Honourable Erin O'Toole, M.P., Durham - Erin.OToole(cr�parl.gc.ca Honourable Mark Holland, M.P., Ajax - Mark.Holland(a�parl.gc.ca Honourable Jamie Schmale, M.P., Brock - Jamie.Schmale(c�parl.gc.ca Honourable Colin Carrie, M.P., Oshawa - colin.carrie@parl.gc.ca Honourable Jennifer O'Connell, M.P., Pickering — Uxbridge - Jennifer.00onnell2a parl.gc.ca Honourable Celina Ceaser-Chavannes, M.P. Whitby - celina.caesar- chavannes(a�parl.gc.ca Honourable Rod Phillips, M.P.P, Ajax — rod.phillips(a�pc.ola.orq Honourable Laurie Scott, M.P.P., Haliburton-Kawartha Lakes -Brock - laurie.scott(a�pc.ola.orq Honourable Jennifer French, M.P.P., Oshawa - jfrench-condp.on.ca Honourable Peter Bethlenfalvy, M.P.P., Pickering — Uxbridge Honourable Lorne Coe, M.P.P., Whitby - lorne.coe(a�pc.ola.orq Page 2 of 3 - 72 - B. Sutton, President and Chief Executive Officer, Great Lakes St Lawrence Cities Initiative - bettv.sutton a(�glslcities.orq Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority - mail(c�cloca.com N. Cooper, Director of Legislative and Information services, Town of Ajax — Nicole.cooper a@aiax.ca B. Jamieson, Township of Brock - biamiesontownshipofbrock.ca A. Greentree, Municipal Clerk, Municipality of Clarington - clerks(a�clarington.net M. Medeiros, City Clerk, City of Oshawa - mmedeirososhawa.ca S. Cassel, City Clerk, City of Pickering — clerks(a�pickerinq.ca J. Newman, Municipal Clerk, Township of Scugog - jnewman(c�scugoq.ca D. Leroux, Clerk, Township of Uxbridge - dleroux(a�town.uxbridge.on.ca -73- Page 3 of 3 Corr. 35-19 AM•Associationof Municipalities Ontario Towards a Reasonable Balance: Addressing growing municipal liability and insurance costs Submission to the Attorney General of Ontario -74- October 1, 2019 AMS Towards a Reasonable Balance: Addressing growing municipal liability and insurance costs Table of Contents Letter to the Attorney General of Ontario 3 Executive Summary 5 Recommendations 7 Insurance Cost Examples 8 Joint and Several in Action - Recent Examples 9 Joint and Several Liability in Action - Other notable cases 11 2011 Review of Joint and Several Liability - Law Commission of Ontario 11 2014 Resolution by the Ontario Legislature and Review by the Attorney General 12 Options for Reform - The Legal Framework 13 The Saskatchewan Experience 15 Insurance Related Reforms 17 Conclusion 18 -75- 2 tOssonmori.ci Municipalities Ontario October 1, 2019 The Honourable Doug Downey Attorney General of Ontario McMurtry -Scott Building, 11th Floor 720 Bay Street Toronto, Ontario M7A 2S9 Office of the President Sent via email to: doug.downeyco@pc.ola.org magpolicy@ontario.ca Dear Attorney General Downey, Municipal governments accept the responsibility to pay their fair share of a loss. Always. Making it right and paying a fair share are the cornerstones of our legal system. Citizens expect nothing less of their local governments. But what is a challenge for municipalities and property taxpayers alike, is being asked to assume someone else's responsibility for someone else's mistake. Municipal governments should not be the insurer of last resort. For municipalities in Ontario, however, the principle of joint and several liability ensures that they are just that. Joint and several liability means higher insurance costs. It diverts property tax dollars from delivering public services. It has transformed municipalities into litigation targets while others escape responsibility. It forces municipal government to settle out-of-court for excessive amounts when responsibility is as low as 1%. There must be a better way. There must be a better way to help ensure those who suffer losses are made whole again without asking municipalities to bear that burden alone. There must be a better way to be fair, reasonable, and responsible. AMO welcomes the government's commitment to review joint and several liability. It is a complex issue that has many dimensions. Issues of fairness, legal principles, "liability chill", insurance failures and high insurance costs are all intertwined. Many other jurisdictions have offered additional protection for municipalities and AMO calls on the Ontario government to do the same. What follows is a starting point for that discussion. Our paper reasserts key issues from AMO's 2010 paper, AMO's 2011 insurance cost survey, provides more recent examples, and details some possible solutions of which there are many options. Municipalities are in the business of delivering public services. Municipal governments exist to connect people and to advance the development of a community. It is time to find a reasonable balance to prevent the further scaling back of public services owing to joint and several liability, "liability chill", or excessive insurance costs. -76- 3 Towards a Reasonable Balance: Addressing growing municipal liability and insurance costs Together with the provincial government, I am confident we can find a better way. Sincerely, Jamie McGarvey AMO President - 77 - 4 AMS Towards a Reasonable Balance: Addressing growing municipal liability and insurance costs Executive Summary AMO's advocacy efforts on joint and several liability in no way intends for aggrieved parties to be denied justice or damages through the courts. Rather, municipal governments seek to highlight the inequity of how much "deep pocket" defendants like municipalities are forced to pay, for both in and out of court settlements. It is entirely unfair to ask property taxpayers to carry the lion's share of a damage award when a municipality is found at minimal fault or to assume responsibility for someone else's mistake. Municipal governments cannot afford to be the insurer of last resort. The principle of joint and several liability is costing municipalities and taxpayers dearly, in the form of rising insurance premiums, service reductions and fewer choices. The Neg/igenceActwas never intended to place the burden of insurer of last resort on municipalities. As public organizations with taxation power and "deep pockets," municipalities have become focal points for litigation when other defendants do not have the means to pay. At the same time, catastrophic claim awards in Ontario have increased considerably. In part, joint and several liability is fueling exorbitant increases in municipal insurance premiums. The heavy insurance burden and legal environment is unsustainable for Ontario's communities. Despite enormous improvements to safety, including new standards for playgrounds, pool safety, and better risk management practices, municipal insurance premiums and liability claims continue to increase. All municipalities have risk management policies to one degree or another and most large municipalities now employ risk managers precisely to increase health and safety and limit liability exposure in the design of facilities, programs, and insurance coverage. Liability is a top of mind consideration for all municipal councils. Joint and several liability is problematic not only because of the disproportioned burden on municipalities that are awarded by courts. It is also the immeasurable impact of propelling municipalities to settle out of court to avoid protracted and expensive litigation for amounts that may be excessive, or certainly represent a greater percentage than their degree of fault. Various forms of proportionate liability have now been enacted by all of Ontario's competing Great Lakes states. In total, 38 other states south of the border have adopted proportionate liability in specific circumstances to the benefit of municipalities. Many common law jurisdictions around the world have adopted legal reforms to limit the exposure and restore balance. With other Commonwealth jurisdictions and the majority of state governments in the United States having modified the rule of joint and several liability in favour of some form of proportionate liability, it is time for Ontario to consider various options. There is precedence in Ontario for joint and several liability reform. The car leasing lobby highlighted a particularly expensive court award made in November of 2004 against a car leasing company by the victim of a drunk driver. The August 1997 accident occurred when the car skidded off a county road near Peterborough, Ontario. It exposed the inequity of joint and several liability for car leasing companies. The leasing companies argued to the government that the settlement had put them at a competitive disadvantage to lenders. They also warned that such liability conditions would likely drive some leasing and rental companies to reduce their business in Ontario. As a result, Bill 18 amended the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act, the Highway Traffic -78- 5 AMS Towards a Reasonable Balance: Addressing growing municipal liability and insurance costs Actand the Ontario InsuranceActto make renters and lessees vicariously liable for the negligence of automobile drivers and capped the maximum liability of owners of rental and leased cars at $1 million. While Bill 18 has eliminated the owners of leased and rented cars as "deep pocket" defendants, no such restrictions have been enacted to assist municipalities. A 2011 survey conducted by AMO reveals that since 2007, liability premiums have increased by 22.2% and are among the fastest growing municipal costs. Total 2011 Ontario municipal insurance costs were $155.2 million. Liability premiums made up the majority of these expenses at $85.5 million. Property taxpayers are paying this price. These trends are continuing. In August of 2019, it was reported the Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury faces a 59% insurance cost increase for 2019. This is just one example. AMO encourages the municipal insurance industry to provide the government with more recent data and trends to support the industry's own arguments regarding the impact joint and several has on premiums. Insurance costs disproportionately affect small municipalities. For 2011, the per capita insurance costs for communities with populations under 10,000 were $37.56. By comparison, per capita costs in large communities with populations over 75,000 were $7.71. Property taxpayers in one northern community are spending more on insurance than their library. In one southern county, for every $2 spent on snowplowing roads, another $1 is spent on insurance. In 2016, the Ontario Municipal Insurance Exchange (OMEX), a not-for-profit insurer, announced that it was suspending reciprocal underwriting operations. The organization cited, a "low pricing environment, combined with the impact of joint and several liability on municipal claim settlements" as reasons for the decision. Fewer choices fuels premium increases. Learning from other jurisdictions is important for Ontario. The Province of Saskatchewan has implemented liability reforms to support its municipalities. As a municipal lawyer at the time, Neil Robertson, QC was instrumental in laying out the arguments in support of these changes. Now a Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan, AMO was pleased to have Neil Robertson prepare a paper and address AMO conference delegates in 2013. Much of the Saskatchewan municipal experience (which led to reforms) is applicable to the Ontario and the Canadian municipal context. Summarised below and throughout this paper are some of Robertson's key findings. Robertson found that, regardless of the cause, over the years municipalities in Canada have experienced an accelerating rate of litigation and an increase in amounts of damage awards. He noted these developments challenge municipalities and raise financial, operational and policy issues in the provision of public services. Robertson describes the current Canadian legal climate as having placed municipalities in the role of involuntary insurer. Courts have assigned municipal liability where liability was traditionally denied and apportioned fault to municipal defendants out of proportion to municipal involvement in the actual wrong. This increased exposure to liability has had serious ramifications for municipalities, both as a deterrent to providing public services which may give rise to claims and in raising the cost and reducing the availability of insurance. The cost of claims has caused insurers to reconsider not only - 79 - 6 AM Towards a Reasonable Balance: Addressing growine municipal liability and insurance costs what to charge for premiums, but whether to continue offering insurance coverage to municipal clients. Robertson also makes the key point that it reasonable for municipal leaders to seek appropriate statutory protections. He wrote: "Since municipalities exist to improve the quality of life for their citizens, the possibility of causing harm to those same citizens is contrary to its fundamental mission. Careful management and wise stewardship of public resources by municipal leaders will reduce the likelihood of such harm, including adherence to good risk management practices in municipal operations. But wise stewardship also involves avoiding the risk of unwarranted costs arising from inevitable claims." And, of course, a key consideration is the reality that insurance premiums, self-insurance costs, and legal fees divert municipal funds from other essential municipal services and responsibilities. It is in this context that AMO appreciated the commitments made by the Premier and the Attorney General to review the principle of joint and several liability, the impact it has on insurance costs, and the influence "liability chill" has on the delivery of public services. Now is the time to deliver provincial public policy solutions which address these issues. RCcommerivations AMO recommends the following measures to address these issues: 1. The provincial government adopt a model of full proportionate liability to replace joint and several liability. 2. Implement enhancements to the existing limitations period including the continued applicability of the existing 10 -day rule on slip and fall cases given recent judicial interpretations, and whether a 1 -year limitation period may be beneficial. 3. Implement a cap for economic loss awards. 4. Increase the catastrophic impairment default benefit limit to $2 million and increase the third -party liability coverage to $2 million in government regulated automobile insurance plans. 5. Assess and implement additional measures which would support lower premiums or alternatives to the provision of insurance services by other entities such as non-profit insurance reciprocals. 6. Compel the insurance industry to supply all necessary financial evidence including premiums, claims, and deductible limit changes which support its, and municipal arguments as to the fiscal impact of joint and several liability. 7. Establish a provincial and municipal working group to consider the above and put forward recommendations to the Attorney General. -80- 7 AMS Towards a Reasonable Balance: Addressing growing municipal liability and insurance costs Insurance Cost Examples The government has requested detailed information from municipalities regarding their insurance costs, coverage, deductibles, claims history, and out-of-court settlements. Municipalities have been busy responding to a long list of provincial consultations on a wide range of topics. Some of the information being sought is more easily supplied by the insurance industry. AMO's 2011 survey of insurance costs produced a sample size of 122 municipalities and assessed insurance cost increases over a five-year period. The survey revealed an average premium increase which exceeded 20% over that period. All of the same forces remain at play in 2019 just as they were in 2011. Below are some key examples. Ear Falls - The Township of Ear Falls reports that its insurance premiums have increased 30% over five years to $81,686. With a population of only 995 residents (2016), this represents a per capita cost of $82.09. This amount is a significant increase from AMO's 2011 Insurance Survey result. At that time, the average per capita insurance cost for a community with a population under 10,000 was $37.56. While the Township has not been the subject of a liability claim, a claim in a community of this size could have significant and long-lasting financial and service implications. The Township has also had to impose stricter insurance requirements on groups that rent municipal facilities. This has had a negative impact on the clubs and volunteers' groups and as a consequence, many have cut back on the service these groups provide to the community. Central Huron - For many years the municipality of Central Huron had a deductible of $5,000. In 2014, the deductible was increased to $15,000 to help reduce insurance costs. The municipality also increased its liability coverage in 2014 and added cyber security coverage in 2018. The combined impact of these changes represents a premium cost of $224,774 in 2019, up from $141,331 in 2010. Per capita costs for insurance alone are now $29.67. Huntsville - Since 2010, the Town of Huntsville reports an insurance premium increase of 67%. In 2019 this represented about 3.75% of the town's property tax levy. At the same time, Huntsville's deductible has increased from $10,000 to $25,000. The town also reports a reluctance to hold its own events for fear of any claims which may affect its main policy. Additional coverage is purchased for these events and these costs are not included above. Ottawa - In August 2018, the City began working with its insurance broker, Aon Risk Solutions ("Aon"), to prepare for the anticipated renewal of the Integrated Insurance Program in April 2019. As the cost of the City's insurance premiums had risen by approximately 25% between 2017 and 2018, this early work was intended to ensure that any further increase could be properly accounted for through the 2019 budget process. Early indications of a possible further 10% premium increase prompted the City and Aon in late 2018 to explore options for a revised Program, and to approach alternative markets for the supply of insurance. On January 11, 2019, an OC Transpo bus collided with a section of the Westboro Station transit shelter, resulting in three fatalities and numerous serious injuries. This was the second major incident involving the City's bus fleet, following approximately five years after the OC Transpo - VIA train collision in September 2013. - 81 - 8 Towards a Reasonable Balance: Addressing growing municipal liability and insurance costs The January 2019 incident prompted insurance providers to re-evaluate their willingness to participate in the City Program. Despite Aon's work to secure an alternative provider, only Frank Cowan Company ("Cowan"), the City's existing insurer, was prepared to offer the City an Integrated Insurance Program. Cowan's offer to renew the City's Program was conditional on revised terms and limits and at a significant premium increase of approximately 84%, or nearly $2.1 million per year. According to Cowan, these changes and increases were attributable to seven principle factors, including Joint and Several Liability: 1. Escalating Costs of Natural Global Disasters; 2. Joint and Several Liability; 3. Claims Trends (in the municipal sector); 4. Increasing Damage Awards; 5. Class Action Lawsuits; 6. New and/or Adverse Claims Development; and, 7. Transit Exposure. Cowan also indicated that the primary policy limits for the 2019-2020 renewal would be lowered from $25 million to $10 million per occurrence, thereby raising the likelihood of increased costs for the City's excess liability policies. Joint and Several in Action - Recent Examples The following examples highlight joint and several in action. The following examples have occurred in recent years. GTA Municipality - A homeowner rented out three separate apartments in a home despite being zoned as a single-family dwelling. After a complaint was received, bylaw inspectors and Fire Prevention Officers visited the property. The landlord was cautioned to undertake renovations to restore the building into a single-family dwelling. After several months of non-compliance, charges under the fire code were laid. The owner was convicted and fined. A subsequent visit by Fire Prevention Officers noted that the required renovations had not taken place. Tragically, a fire occurred which resulted in three fatalities. Despite having undertaken corrective action against the homeowner, joint and several liability loomed large. It compelled the municipality to make a payment of $504,000 given the 1% rule. City of Ottawa - A serious motor vehicle accident occurred between one of the City's buses and an SUV. The collision occurred at an intersection when the inebriated driver of the SUV failed to stop at a red light and was struck by the City bus. This collision resulted in the deaths of the SUV driver and two other occupants, and also seriously injured the primary Plaintiff, the third passenger in the SUV. The secondary action was brought by the family of one of the deceased passengers. The Court ultimately concluded that the City was 20% liable for the collision, while the SUV driver was 80% at fault. Despite the 80/20 allocation of fault, the City was required to pay all of the approximately $2.1 million in damages awarded in the primary case and the $200,000 awarded in the secondary case, bringing the amount paid by the City to a total that was not proportionate to its actual liability. This was due to the application of the principle of joint and several liability, as well as the interplay between the various automobile insurance policies held by the SUV owner and - 82 - 9 AMS Towards a Reasonable Balance: Addressing growing municipal liability and insurance costs passengers, which is further explained below. Although the City appealed this case, the Ontario Court of Appeal agreed with the findings of the trial judge and dismissed it. This case was notable for the implications of various factors on the insurance policies held by the respective parties. While most automobile insurance policies in Ontario provide for $1 million in third party liability coverage, the insurance for the SUV was reduced to the statutory minimum of $200,000 by virtue of the fact that the driver at the time of the collision had a blood alcohol level nearly three times the legal limit for a fully licensed driver. This was contrary to the requirements of his G2 license, which prohibit driving after the consumption of any alcohol. Further, while the Plaintiff passengers' own respective insurance provided $1 million in coverage for underinsured motorists (as the SUV driver was at the time), this type of coverage is triggered only where no other party is in any way liable for the accident. As a result, the primary Plaintiff could only effectively recover the full $2.1 million in damages if the Court attributed even a small measure of fault to another party with sufficient resources to pay the claim. In determining that the City was at least partially responsible for the collision, the Court held that the speed of the bus - which according to GPS recordings was approximately 6.5 km/h over the posted limit of 60 kilometres an hour - and momentary inattention were contributing factors to the collision. To shorten the length of the trial by approximately one week and accordingly reduce the legal costs involved, the parties had earlier reached an agreement on damages and that the findings regarding the primary Plaintiff would apply equally to the other. The amount of the agreement -upon damages took into account any contributory negligence on the part of the respective Plaintiffs, attributable to such things as not wearing a seat belt. City of Ottawa, 2nd example - A Plaintiff was catastrophically injured when, after disembarking a City bus, he was struck by a third -party motor vehicle. The Plaintiff's injuries included a brain injury while his impairments included incomplete quadriplegia. As a result of his accident, the Plaintiff brought a claim for damages for an amount in excess of $7 million against the City and against the owner and driver of the third -party vehicle that struck him. Against the City, the Plaintiff alleged that the roadway was not properly designed and that the bus stop was placed at an unsafe location as it required passengers to cross the road mid -block and not at a controlled intersection. Following the completion of examinations for discovery, the Plaintiff's claim against the Co - Defendant (the driver of the vehicle which struck the plaintiff) was resolved for $1,120,000 comprising $970,000 for damages and $120,000 for costs. The Co -Defendant's policy limit was $1 million. The claim against the City was in effect, a "1 % rule" case where the City had been added to the case largely because the Co -Defendant's insurance was capped at $1 million, which was well below the value of the Plaintiff's claim. On the issue of liability, the pre-trial judge was of the view that the City was exposed to a finding of some liability against it on the theory that, because of the proximity of the bus stop to a home for adults with mental health issues, the City knew or should have known that bus passengers with cognitive and/or physical disabilities would be crossing mid -block at an unmarked crossing. This, according to the judge, could have resulted in a finding being made at trial that the City should - 83 - 10 AMS Towards a Reasonable Balance: Addressing growing municipal liability and insurance costs either have removed the bus stop or alternatively, should have installed a pedestrian crossing at this location. The judge assessed the Plaintiff's damages at $7,241,000 exclusive of costs and disbursements which he then reduced to $4,602,930 exclusive of costs and disbursements after applying a reduction of 27.5% for contributory negligence and subtracting the $970,000 payment made by the Co -Defendant's insurer. Settlement discussions took place and the judge recommended that the matter be resolved for $3,825,000 plus costs of $554,750 plus HST plus disbursements. Joint and Several Liability in Action - Other notable cases Deering v Scugog - A 19 -year-old driver was driving at night in a hurry to make the start time of a movie. She was travelling on a Class 4 rural road that had no centerline markings. The Ontario Traffic Manual does not require this type of road to have such a marking. The driver thought that a vehicle travelling in the opposite direction was headed directly at her. She swerved, over -corrected and ended up in a rock culvert. The Court found the Township of Scugog 66.7% liable. The at -fault driver only carried a $1 M auto insurance policy. Ferguson v County of Brant - An inexperienced 17 -year-old male driver was speeding on a road when he failed to navigate a curve which resulted in him crossing the lane into oncoming traffic, leaving the roadway, and striking a tree. The municipality was found to have posted a winding road sign rather than a sharp curve sign. The municipality was found 55% liable. Safranyos et al v City of Hamilton - The plaintiff was leaving a drive-in movie theatre with four children in her vehicle at approximately 1 AM. She approached a stop sign with the intention of turning right onto a highway. Although she saw oncoming headlights she entered the intersection where she was struck by a vehicle driven 15 km/h over the posted speed limit by a man who had just left a party and was determined by toxicologists to be impaired. The children in the plaintiff's vehicle suffered significant injuries. The City was determined to be 25% liable because a stop line had not been painted on the road at the intersection. Mortimer v Cameron - Two men were engaged in horseplay on a stairway and one of them fell backward through an open door at the bottom of a landing. The other man attempted to break the first man's fall and together they fell into an exterior wall that gave way. Both men fell 10 feet onto the ground below, one of whom was left quadriplegic. The trial judge determined both men were negligent, but that their conduct did not correspond to the extent of the plaintiff's injuries. No liability was attached to either man. The building owner was determined to be 20% and the City of London was found to be 80% liable. The Court awarded the plaintiff $5 M in damages. On appeal, the City's liability was reduced to 40% and building owner was determined to be 60% liable. The City still ended up paying 80% of the overall claim. 2011 Review of Joint and Several Liability - Law Commission of Ontario In February 2011 the Law Commission of Ontario released a report entitled, ''ointandSevera/ Liability Under the Ontario Business Corporations Act': This review examined the application of - 84 - 11 AMS Towards a Reasonable Balance: Addressing growing municipal liability and insurance costs joint and several liability to corporate law and more specifically the relationship between the corporation and its directors, officers, shareholders and stakeholders. Prior to the report's release, AMO made a submission to the Law Commission of Ontario to seek to expand its review to include municipal implications. The Law Commission did not proceed with a broader review at that time, but the context of its narrower scope remains applicable to municipalities. In fact, many of the same arguments which support reform in the realm of the Business Corporations Act, are the same arguments which apply to municipal governments. Of note, the Law Commission's' report highlighted the following in favour of reforms: Fairness: "it is argued that it is unfair for a defendant, whose degree of fault is minor when compared to that of other defendants, to have to fully compensate a plaintiff should the other defendants be insolvent or unavailable." Deep Pocket Syndrome: "Joint and several liability encourages plaintiffs to unfairly target defendants who are known or perceived to be insured or solvent." Rising Costs of Litigation, Insurance, and Damage Awards: "Opponents of the joint and several liability regime are concerned about the rising costs of litigation, insurance, and damage awards." Provision of Services: "The Association of Municipalities of Ontario identifies another negative externality of joint and several liability: municipalities are having to delay or otherwise cut back services to limit exposure to liability." The Law Commission found that the principle of joint and several liability should remain in place although it did not explicitly review the municipal situation. 2014 Resolution by the Ontario Legislature and Review by the Attorney General Over 200 municipalities supported a motion introduced by Randy Pettapiece, MPP for Perth - Wellington which called for the implementation a comprehensive, long-term solution in 2014. That year, MPPs from all parties supported the Pettapiece motion calling for a reform joint and several liability. Later that year the Ministry of the Attorney General consulted on three options of possible reform: 1. The Saskatchewan Model of Modified Proportionate Liability Saskatchewan has adopted a modified version of proportionate liability that applies in cases where a plaintiff is contributorily negligent. Under the Saskatchewan rule, where a plaintiff is contributorily negligent and there is an unfunded liability, the cost of the unfunded liability is split among the remaining defendants and the plaintiff in proportion to their fault. 1 Law Commission of Ontario. "Joint and Several Liability Under the Ontario Business Corporations Act."Final Report, February 2011 Pages 22-25. - 85 - 12 Towards a Reasonable Balance: Addressing growing municipal liability and insurance costs 2. Peripheral Wrongdoer Rule for Road Authorities Under this rule, a municipality would never be liable for more than two times its proportion of damages, even if it results in the plaintiff being unable to recover full damages. 3. A combination of both of the above Ultimately, the government decided not to pursue any of the incremental policy options ostensibly because of uncertainty that insurance cost reductions would result. This was a disappointing result for municipalities. While these reviews did not produce results in Ontario, many other common law jurisdictions have enacted protections for municipalities. What follows are some of the options for a different legal framework. Options for Reform - The Legal Framework To gain a full appreciation of the various liability frameworks that could be considered, for comparison, below is a description of the current joint and several liability framework here in Ontario. This description will help to reader to understand the further options which follow. This description and the alternatives that follow are taken from the Law Commission of Ontario's February 2011 Report entitled, '/pintand Several Liability Under the Ontario Business Corporations Act"as referenced above.2 Understanding the Status Quo and Comparing it to the Alternatives Where three different defendants are found to have caused a plaintiff's loss, the plaintiff is entitled to seek full payment (100%) from any one of the defendants. The defendant who fully satisfies the judgment has a right of contribution from the other liable parties based on the extent of their responsibility for the plaintiff's loss. For example, a court may find defendants 1 (D1), 2 (D2) and 3 (D3) responsible for 70%, 20%, and 10% of the plaintiff's $100,000 loss, respectively. The plaintiff may seek to recover 100% of the loss from D2, who may then seek contribution from D1 and D3 for their 70% and 10% shares of the loss. If D1 and/or D3 is unable to compensate D2 for the amount each owes for whatever reason, such as insolvency or unavailability, D2 will bear the full $100,000 loss. The plaintiff will be fully compensated for $100,000, and it is the responsibility of the defendants to apportion the loss fairly between them. The descriptions that follow are abridged from pages 9-11 of the Law Commission of Ontario's report. These are some of the key alternatives to the status quo. 2 Ibid. Page 7. - 86 - 13 Towards a Reasonable Balance: Addressing growing municipal liability and insurance costs 1. Proportionate Liability a) Full Proportionate Liability A system of full proportionate liability limits the liability of each co-defendant to the proportion of the loss for which he or she was found to be responsible. Per the above example, (in which Defendant 1 (D1) is responsible for 70% of loss, Defendant 2 (D2) for 20% and Defendant 3 (D3) for 10%), under this system, D2 will only be responsible for $20,000 of the $100,000 total judgement: equal to 20% of their share of the liability. Likewise, D1 and D3 will be responsible for $70,000 and $10,000. If D1 and D3 are unable to pay, the plaintiff will only recover $20,000 from D2. b) Proportionate Liability where Plaintiff is Contributorily Negligent This option retains joint and several liability when a blameless plaintiff is involved. This option would cancel or adjust the rule where the plaintiff contributed to their loss. As in the first example, suppose the plaintiff (P) contributed to 20% of their $100,000 loss. D1, D2 and D3 were responsible for 50%, 20% and 10% of the $100,000. If D1 and D3 are unavailable, P and D2 will each be responsible for their $20,000 shares. The plaintiff will remain responsible for the $60,000 shortfall as a result of the absent co-defendants' non-payment (D1 and D3). c) Proportionate Liability where Plaintiff is Contributorily Negligent with a Proportionate Reallocation of an Insolvent, Financially Limited or Unavailable Defendant's Share In this option of proportionate liability, the plaintiff and remaining co-defendants share the risk of a defendant's non-payment. The plaintiff (P) and co-defendants are responsible for any shortfall in proportion to their respective degrees of fault. Using the above example of the $100,000 total judgement, with a shortfall payment of $50,000 from D1 and a shortfall payment $10,000 from D3, P and D2 must pay for the missing $60,000. P and D2 have equally -apportioned liability, which causes them to be responsible for half of each shortfall - $25,000 and $5,000 from each non-paying defendant. The burden is shared between the plaintiff (if determined to be responsible) and the remaining defendants. d) Proportionate Liability with a Peripheral Wrongdoer Under this option, a defendant will be proportionately liable only if their share of the liability falls below a specified percentage, meaning that liability would be joint and several. Using the above example, if the threshold amount of liability is set at 25%, D2 and D3 would only be responsible for 20% and 10%, regardless of whether they are the only available or named defendants. However, D1 may be liable for 100% if it is the only available or named defendant. This system tends to favour defendants responsible for a small portion of the loss, but the determination of the threshold amount between joint and several liability and proportionate liability is arbitrary. e) Proportionate Liability with a Reallocation of Some or All of an Insolvent or Unavailable Defendant's Share This option reallocates the liability of a non-paying defendant among the remaining defendants in proportion to their respective degrees of fault. The plaintiff's contributory negligence does not - 87 - 14 Mt Towards a Reasonable Balance: Addressing growing municipal liability and insurance costs impact the application of this reallocation. Joint and several liability would continue to apply in cases of fraud or where laws were knowingly violated. f) Court Discretion Similar to the fraud exception in the option above, this option includes giving the courts discretion to apply different forms of liability depending on the case. For example, if a particular co-defendant's share of the fault was relatively minor the court would have discretion to limit that defendant's liability to an appropriate portion. 2. Legislative Cap on Liability Liability concerns could be addressed by introducing a cap on the amount of damages available for claims for economic loss. 3. Hybrid A number of jurisdictions provide a hybrid system of proportionate liability and caps on damages. Co-defendants are liable for their portion of the damages, but the maximum total amount payable by each co-defendant is capped to a certain limit. The Saskatchewan Experience As referenced earlier in this paper, the Province of Saskatchewan responded with a variety of legislative actions to assist municipalities in the early 2000s. Some of those key developments are listed below which are abridged from 'A Question of Balance: Legis/ative Responses toJudicia/ Expansion ofMunicipal Liability - the Saskatchewan Experience." The paper was written by Neil Robertson, QC and was presented to the annual conference of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario in 2013. Two key reforms are noted below. 1. Reforming joint and several liability by introducing modified proportionate liability: "The Contributory Negligence Act" amendments The Contributory Negligence Act retained joint and several liability, but made adjustments in cases where one or more of the defendants is unable to pay its share of the total amount (judgement). Each of the parties at fault, including the plaintiff if contributorily negligent, will still have to pay a share of the judgement based on their degree of fault. However, if one of the defendants is unable to pay, the other defendants who are able to pay are required to pay only their original share and an additional equivalent share of the defaulting party's share. The change in law allows municipalities to reach out-of-court settlements, based on an estimate of their degree of fault. This allows municipalities to avoid the cost of protracted litigation. Neil Robertson provided the following example to illustrate how this works in practise: "...If the owner of a house sues the builder for negligent construction and the municipality, as building authority, for negligent inspection, and all three are found equally at fault, they would each be apportioned 1/3 or 33.3%. Assume the damages are $100,000. If the builder has no funds, then the municipality would pay only its share ($33,333) and a 1/3 share of the builder's defaulting share - 88 - 15 AMS Towards a Reasonable Balance: Addressing growing municipal liability and insurance costs (1/3 of $33,333 or $11,111) for a total of $44,444 ($33,333 + $11,111), instead of the $66,666 ($33,333 + $33,333) it would pay under pure joint and several liability." This model will be familiar to municipal leaders in Ontario. In 2014, Ontario's Attorney General presented this option (called the Saskatchewan Model of Modified Proportionate Liability) for consideration. At the time, over 200 municipal councils supported the adoption of this option along with the "Peripheral Wrongdoer Rule for Road Authorities" which would have seen a municipality never be liable for more than two times its proportion of damages, even if it results in the plaintiff being unable to recover full damages. These two measures, if enacted, would have represented a significant incremental step to address the impact of joint and several to Ontario municipalities. 2. Providing for uniform limitation periods while maintaining a separate limitation period for municipalities: "The Limitations Act" This act established uniform limitation periods replacing many of the pre-existing limitation periods that had different time periods. The Municipal Acts in Saskatchewan provide a uniform one-year limitation period "from time when the damages were sustained" in absolute terms without a discovery principle which can prolong this period. This helps municipalities to resist "legacy" claims from many years beforehand. This act exempts municipalities from the uniform two-year discoverability limitation period. Limitation periods set deadlines after which claims cannot be brought as lawsuits in the courts. The legislation intends to balance the opportunity for potential claimants to identify their claims and, if possible, negotiate a settlement out of court before starting legal action with the need for potential defendants to "close the books" on claims from the past. The reasoning behind these limitations is that public authorities, including municipalities, should not to be punished by the passage of time. Timely notice will promote the timely investigation and disposition of claims in the public interest. After the expiry of a limitation period, municipalities can consider themselves free of the threat of legal action, and continue with financial planning without hurting "the public taxpayer purse". Municipalities are mandated to balance their budgets and must be able to plan accordingly. Thus, legacy claims can have a very adverse affect on municipal operations. Here in Ontario, there is a uniform limitations period of two years. Municipalities also benefit from a 10 -day notice period which is required for slip and fall cases. More recently, the applicability of this limitation deadline has become variable and subject to judicial discretion. Robertson's paper notes that in Saskatchewan, courts have accepted the one-year limitations period. A further examination of limitations in Ontario may yield additional benefits and could include the one-year example in Saskatchewan and/or the applicability of the 10 -day notice period for slip and fall cases. Other Saskatchewan reforms Saskatchewan has also implemented other reforms which include greater protections for building inspections, good faith immunity, duty of repair, no fault insurance, permitting class actions, and limiting nuisance actions. Some of these reforms are specific to Saskatchewan and some of these currently apply in Ontario. - 89 - 16 AMS Towards a Reasonable Balance: Addressing growing municipal liability and insurance costs Insurance Related Reforms Government Regulated Insurance Limits The April 2019 provincial budget included a commitment to increase the catastrophic impairment default benefit limit to $2 million. Public consultations were led by the Ministry of Finance in September 2019. AMO wrote to the Ministry in support of increasing the limit to $2 million to ensure more adequate support those who suffer catastrophic impairment. In 2016, the government lowered this limit as well as third -party liability coverage to $200,000 from $1 million. This minimum should also be also be increased to $2 million to reflect current actual costs. This significant deficiency needs to be addressed. Insurance Industry Changes In 1989 the Ontario Municipal Insurance Exchange (OMEX) was established as a non-profit reciprocal insurance provider for Ontario's municipalities. It ceased operations in 2016 citing, "[a] low pricing environment, combined with the impact of joint & several liability on municipal claim settlements has made it difficult to offer sustainable pricing while still addressing the municipalities' concern about retro assessments."3 (Retro assessments meant paying additional premiums for retroactive coverage for "long -tail claims" which made municipal budgeting more challenging.) The demise of OMEX has changed the municipal insurance landscape in Ontario. That joint and several liability is one of the key reasons listed for the collapse of a key municipal insurer should be a cause for significant concern. Fewer choices fuels cost. While there are other successful municipal insurance pools in Ontario, the bulk of the insurance market is dominated by for-profit insurance companies. Reciprocal non-profit insurers are well represented in other areas across Canada. Municipalities in Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia are all insured by non-profit reciprocals. The questions for policy makers in Ontario: Are there any provincial requirements or regulations which could better support the non-profit reciprocal municipal insurance market? What actions could be taken to better protect municipalities in Ontario in sourcing their insurance needs? How can we drive down insurance costs to better serve the needs of municipal property taxpayers? 3 Canadian Underwriter, August 11, 2016 https://www.canadianunderwriter.ca/insurance/ontario-municipal-insurance- exchange-suspends-underwriting-operations-1004098148/ - 90 - 17 AMS Conclusion Towards a Reasonable Balance: Addressing growing municipal liability and insurance costs This AMO paper has endeavoured to refresh municipal arguments on the need to find a balance to the issues and challenges presented by joint and several liability. It has endeavoured to illustrate that options exist and offer the reassurance that they can be successfully implemented as other jurisdictions have done. Finding solutions that work will require provincial and municipal commitment. Working together, we can find a better way that is fair, reasonable, and responsible. It is time to find a reasonable balance. - 91 - 18 Cfy �t DICKERING Report to Council Report Number: CS 35-19 Date: October 21, 2019 From: Marisa Carpino Director, Community Services Subject: Licence Agreement - Graymatter Marketing Solutions Inc. - File: A-1440 Recommendation: 1. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute a Licence Agreement with Graymatter Marketing Solutions Inc. as set out in Attachment 1 to this report, subject to minor revisions as may be required by the Director, Community Services and the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor; and 2. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Executive Summary: On June 24, 2019, Council authorized staff to issue a park permit to Graymatter Marketing Solutions Inc. from Friday, November 29 to Saturday, November 30, 2019 (inclusive) for a Christmas Market by way of Council Resolution #107/19 (CS 30-19). This new two day community event, hosted in Esplanade Park, will feature a variety of craft vendors and food trucks and will undoubtedly serve to enhance the City's Celebrate Winter festivities offered annually throughout the month of December. As recently coordinated by Graymatter Marketing Solutions Inc., the Christmas Market will also feature a Light Tunnel and Christmas Tree Light Sculpture in Esplanade Park as an overall enhancement to their event activities. And, in an effort to support the City's Celebrate Winter festivities, Graymatter Marketing Solutions Inc. has agreed to keep the light installation in Esplanade Park until January 1St As a result, staff have prepared a Licence Agreement with Graymatter Marketing Solutions Inc. wherein Graymatter Marketing Solutions Inc. is responsible to install/display the light sculpture on City property from approximately November 15 to January 1 each year and to dismantle/return to storage the light features after January 1St. In return, the City is responsible to cover all associated utility costs resulting from this light installation and provide secure storage for the light features when they are not in use. The Community Services Department recommends that the Licence Agreement be initiated for a three year term beginning November 1, 2019 to October 31, 2022, as per Attachment 1 to this Report. _92_ CS 35-19 October 21, 2019 Subject: Licence Agreement Page 2 Financial Implications: The City of Pickering will be responsible to cover the hydro costs associated with the Christmas Tree Light Sculpture and Light Tunnel, as well as one-time electrical upgrades to the park in the amount of $11,740 (plus HST). When not in use, the City will store the Christmas Tree Light Sculpture and the Light Tunnel at the Operations Centre for the term of the agreement. Graymatter Marketing Solutions Inc. is responsible to assume all costs and expenses in connection with the transport, delivery, installation, display and dismantling of the Christmas Tree Light Sculpture and the Light Tunnel. Discussion: New this year, a Christmas Market will be hosted at Esplanade Park by Graymatter Marketing Solutions Inc. This two day community event will coincide with the City of Pickering's Tree Lighting event on Friday, November 29, 2019 and will continue to operate on Saturday, November 30, 2019. As part of their event plans, Graymatter Marketing Solutions Inc. has arranged to install a Christmas Tree Light Sculpture and Light Tunnel as an enhanced feature of their event. In an effort to support the City's month-long Celebrate Winter festivities, Graymatter Marketing Solutions Inc. has offered to keep the light sculptures in Esplanade Park throughout the month of December. Clearly, the light sculptures will become a beacon drawing residents and visitors alike to Esplanade Park throughout the holiday season, creating great public interest and social media awareness reaching far beyond the borders of our community. The LED Christmas Tree Light Sculpture is 40 feet tall and will be installed in the circular garden of Esplanade Park. City staff will have the ability to control the light levels and timing of lights to ensure that the system powers off during non -peak hours. Staff have advised Pickering Horticultural Society and have asked them to make the necessary arrangements to protect or remove existing plant materials, as may be required. The Christmas Tree Light Sculpture, which is on loan to Graymatter Marketing Solutions Inc., will be featured on City property from mid- November to January 1St, as authorized annually by the original owner. The LED Light Tunnel is 60 feet long, 12 feet wide and 16 feet tall and will be installed over the walkway leading to the circular garden from the north east corner of Esplanade Park. A timer will be installed to ensure the Light Tunnel is powered off during non -peak hours. The Light Tunnel will be owned by Graymatter Marketing Solutions Inc. thanks to a donation from OPG in the amount of approximately $12,000. This grant was obtained in partnership with, and with the support of, the City of Pickering. At this time, City staff requests the approval of Council to execute a Licence Agreement with Graymatter Marketing Solutions Inc. for a three year term beginning November 1, 2019 to October 31, 2022, as per Attachment 1 of this Report. -93- CS 35-19 October 21, 2019 Subject: Licence Agreement Page 3 Attachments: 1. Licence Agreement with Graymatter Solutions Inc. 2019-2022 2. Location Map Prepared By: Original Signed By: Tanya Ryce Supervisor, Cultural Services TR:mc Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By: Marisa Carpino, M.A. Director, Community Services Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By: Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer -94- Attachment No. 1 to Report CS 35-19 This Licence Agreement made as of the 2nd day of October 2019. BETWEEN The Corporation of the City of Pickering (the "City") - and - Graymatter Marketing Solutions Inc. (the "Licensee") RECITALS: A. The Licensee has requested to: (i) use a portion of lands at City Hall located at One The Esplanade, Pickering, as identified on the location map attached hereto as Schedule "A" (the "City Hall Lands") in order to install and dismantle a forty (40) foot Christmas tree (the "Christmas Tree") and a light tunnel (the "Light Tunnel"), as depicted on the diagram attached hereto as Schedule "B"; and (ii) store the Christmas Tree and the Light Tunnel at the City's Operations Centre located at 1975 Clements Road, Pickering (the "Operations Facility") (collectively, the "Use"). B. The Licensee has agreed to transport, deliver, install and dismantle the Christmas Tree and the Light Tunnel on the City Hall Lands. C. The City has agreed to grant to the Licensee a non-exclusive licence permitting the Licensee to access and use portions of the City Hall Lands and the Operations Facility (the City Hall Lands and the Operations Facility are collectively referred to in this Agreement as the "Licensed Lands") for the purpose of the Use, subject to the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth and other good and valuable consideration, the City and the Licensee hereto agree as follows: 1. Grant of License (1) Subject to the terms of this Agreement, the City grants permission to the Licensee to use the Licensed Lands on a non-exclusive basis for the Use. (2) The Licensee acknowledges that this Agreement does not create an interest in the Licensed Lands nor does the Licensee claim any past or present interest, howsoever arising, as a result of or connected in any way with the use and occupation of the Licensed Lands. (3) The licence granted herein is only for the duration of this Agreement and only for the purposes and uses stated herein. No other purposes shall be permitted without prior approval from the City. (4) The licence granted herein is not exclusive and the City reserves the right to grant, renew or extend licenses and other interests to other third parties. -95- (5) -2 Notwithstanding anything else contained herein, the City reserves the right to require the Licensee to install the Christmas Tree and the Light Tunnel at an alternate location, as designated by the City in its sole discretion, upon reasonable notice to the Licensee, and the City will not be liable to the Licensee for any damage or loss occasioned thereby. 2. Installation/Dismantle of Christmas Tree and Light Tunnel (1) The Licensee shall be granted access to the City Hall Lands beginning on November 1St of each year of the Term for the purpose of transporting, delivering and installing the Christmas Tree and the Light Tunnel on the City Hall Lands, at its expense and to the satisfaction of the City, so that the Christmas Tree and the Light Tunnel are in full operation on or before November 15th of each year of Term. (2) The Christmas Tree and the Light Tunnel shall remain installed and in full operation from November 15th to January 1St of each year of Term (the "Operational Term"), subject to extreme weather conditions or other exceptional circumstances that may compromise public safety. (3) Within fifteen (15) days after January 1st of each year of the Term, the Licensee shall dismantle the Christmas Tree and the Light Tunnel on the City Hall Lands, and transport the Christmas Tree and the Light Tunnel to the Operations Facility for storage, at its expense. (4) Save and except all hydro fees to be paid by the City, the Licensee shall assume all costs and expenses in connection with the transport, delivery, installation, operation and dismantling of the Christmas Tree and the Light Tunnel, including, but not limited to, costs of flagmen and road closures to enable safe installation and removal of the Christmas Tree and the Light Tunnel. 3. Storage of Christmas Tree and Light Tunnel (1) The Licensee shall be permitted to store the Christmas Tree and the Light Tunnel in a location to be determined by the City, at its discretion, within the Operations Facility from January 1St to October 31St of each year of the Term. (2) The Licensee shall be permitted access to the Operations Facility at such times as may be permitted by the City in order to store the Christmas Tree and the Light Tunnel, and shall provide the City with at least twenty-four (24) hours prior written notice when access to the Operations Facility is required. 4. Use by Licensee (1) The Licensee agrees to use the Licensed Lands solely for the purpose of the Use. (2) There shall be no further uses granted by the City to the Licensee and permitted by this licence without the prior written consent of the City, which consent may be withheld by the City in its sole discretion. 5. Term (1) Unless earlier terminated as provided herein, this Agreement shall be for a term of three (3) years commencing on November 1, 2019 (the "Commencement Date") and expiring on October 31, 2022 (the "Term"). (2) The parties acknowledge and agree that the Christmas Tree is not owned by the Licensee and that the obligation of the Licensee to install the Christmas Tree on the City Hall Lands is conditional upon rights to the Christmas Tree being granted to the Licensee by a third party. If the -96- (3) 3 - Licensee is unable to obtain the rights to the Christmas Tree, the Licensee shall provide written notice to the City within sixty (60) days prior to November 1St of the given year of the Term, and any terms and conditions contained herein relating to the Christmas Tree shall be of no further force and effect. For the purpose of clarification, this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect as it relates to the Light Tunnel. The Licensee shall remove the Christmas Tree from the Licensed Lands, at its own expense, within sixty (60) days of written notice being delivered by the Licensee to the City. Except as otherwise provided for in this Agreement, this Agreement may be terminated by the City at any time and for any reason during the Term upon sixty (60) days prior written notice to the Licensee, and the City will not be liable to the Licensee for any damage or loss occasioned thereby. (4) Upon the expiry or earlier termination of this Agreement, the Licensee shall remove the Christmas Tree and the Light Tunnel from the Licensed Lands, at its own expense, within thirty (30) days of termination of this Agreement. 6. Payment The Licensee shall pay to the City a license fee in the amount of $1.00, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged. 7. Maintenance and Replacement of Christmas Tree and Light Tunnel (1) The Licensee shall ensure that the Christmas Tree and the Light Tunnel are maintained in a state of good and safe repair during the Operational Term, to the satisfaction of the City. (2) The Licensee shall ensure that any personnel transporting, delivering, installing, dismantling, maintaining, repairing, altering or replacing the Christmas Tree and the Light Tunnel shall be properly trained and fully qualified to perform the relevant work. The Licensee shall ensure that it complies with the Construction Act and takes all necessary steps to prevent a lien from being claimed in respect of the Christmas Tree and the Light Tunnel. 8. Liability and Indemnity (1) The City shall not be liable to the Licensee for any loss, damage or personal injury (including death) relating to the Christmas Tree or the Light Tunnel, whether caused by fire, theft, and burglary or otherwise, unless such loss or damage was caused by the negligence of the City, its servants, agents or employees. The City will not be responsible for loss of equipment due to electrical power surges. (2) Save and except for the negligence or willful misconduct of the City, the Licensee agrees to indemnify and save the City, and all its directors, officers, employees, elected officials, agents, contractors and representatives (collectively, the "Indemnified Parties") harmless from any and all loss, damage, claim, liability, cost, expense and demand, of any kind, including all legal fees on a solicitor/client basis incurred or suffered by the Indemnified Parties or any of them directly or indirectly arising out of any action whatsoever by the Licensee, its directors, employees, agents, contractors, invitees or anyone arising as a result of the installation, dismantling, storage, operation, maintenance, repair, alteration or replacement of the Christmas Tree or the Light Tunnel, or its presence on the Licensed Lands. This provision shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. _97_ -4 9. Insurance The Licensee agrees to provide commercial general liability insurance for all liability arising out of bodily injury (including death) and property damage, such insurance to be for not less than $5,000,000.00 per occurrence or loss, to be in full force and effect at all times during the Term. A copy of the Certificate of Insurance confirming such insurance coverage must be provided by the Licensee to the City within five (5) business days of such request. The City shall be an additional insured on such policy. 10. Default Either party shall have the right, at its option, to terminate this Agreement in the event that the other party defaults in any provision of this Agreement and such default has not been cured within fifteen (15) days of written notice thereof being delivered by the non -defaulting party. 11. Relationship of Parties Nothing contained herein shall be deemed or construed by the parties, nor by any third party, as creating the relationship of principal and agent, landlord and tenant, partnership or of joint venture between the parties, it being understood and agreed that none of the provisions contained herein, nor any of the acts of the parties shall create any relationship between the parties other than that of licensor and licensee as described in this Agreement. 12. Assignment The Licensee shall not assign, transfer, sublease, part with possession or dispose of all or any part of the Licensed Lands or this Agreement or any privileges or interests hereby granted to it without the prior written consent of the City which may be unreasonably or arbitrarily withheld, failing which the City shall be entitled to terminate this Agreement immediately after the occurrence of such breach. 13. Notice Any notice or other communication required or permitted to be given hereunder shall be in writing and shall be sufficiently given if sent by pre -paid registered mail from a post office in Canada addressed in the case of the City to: Pickering Civic Complex, One The Esplanade, Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 Attention: Director, Community Services Fax No.: 905.420.2596 and in the case of the Licensee to: Graymatter Marketing Solutions Inc. 1550 Bayly Street, Unit 16A Pickering, ON L1W 3W1 Attention: Audra Leslie Phone No.: 905.420.1810 Fax No.: n/a Such notice may be given by hand delivery or sent electronically by either party to the other. Any such notice mailed shall be deemed to have been given on the third (3rd) business day following such mailing or, if delivered by hand, shall be deemed to have been given on the day of delivery or, if sent electronically, shall be deemed to have been given on the business day following transmission. In _98- -5 - the event of a postal strike or pending postal strike, any or all notices must be given by personal delivery or by electronic means. 14. Title The Licensee hereby agrees to keep title to the Licensed Lands, including every part thereof, free and clear of any lien, encumbrance or security interest or notice thereof. The Licensee shall not enter into any agreements for the Licensed Lands which would run with the Licensed Lands and become an obligation of the City upon termination or expiration of this Agreement. 15. Successors and Assigns This Agreement shall ensure to the benefit of and be binding upon the City and the Licensee and their respective permitted successors and assigns. 16. Entire Agreement It is understood and agreed that this Agreement represents all terms and conditions and obligations of the City and Licensee. The City and Licensee are not responsible for any warranties, conditions or obligations unless specifically indicated in this Agreement. 17. Governing Law This Agreement shall be interpreted and construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the Province of Ontario and the federal laws of Canada applicable therein. 18. Counterparts This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, and each of such counterparts shall constitute an original of this Agreement and all such counterparts together shall constitute one and the same agreement. This Agreement or counterparts hereof may be executed and delivered by fax or email, and the parties adopt any signatures provided or received by fax or email as original signatures of the applicable party or parties, provided that any party that delivers its executed Agreement by fax or email shall promptly forward to the other party a copy of this Agreement with an original signature forthwith after any such delivery by fax or email. 19. General (1) The recitals are true in substance and fact and are incorporated herein. (2) Schedules "A" and "B" attached to this Agreement form part of this Agreement. (3) The failure of any party to exercise any right, power or option or to enforce any remedy or to insist upon the strict compliance with the terms, conditions and covenants under this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of the terms, conditions and covenants herein with respect to that or any other or subsequent breach thereof nor a waiver by that party any time thereafter to require strict compliance with all terms, conditions and covenants hereof, including the terms, conditions and covenants with respect to which the party has failed to exercise such right, power or option. Nothing shall be construed or have the effect of a waiver except an instrument in writing signed by a duly authorized officer of the applicable party which expressly waives a right, power or option under this Agreement. (4) Should any provision or provisions of this Agreement be illegal or not enforceable, it or they shall be considered separate and severable from this Agreement and its remaining provisions shall remain in force and be _99- (5) -6- binding upon the parties hereto as though the said provision or provisions had never been included. The headings in this Agreement have been inserted as a matter of convenience and for reference only and in no way define, limit or enlarge the scope of meaning of this Agreement nor any of the provisions hereof. (6) The Licensee shall not have the right to register this Agreement or notice thereof against title to the Licensed Lands or any part thereof. (7) This Agreement and any information or documents that are provided hereunder may be released pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.M.56, as amended. This acknowledgement shall not be construed as a waiver of any right to object to the release of this Agreement or of any information or documents. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the City and the Licensee have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above. The Corporation of the City of Pickering David Ryan, Mayor Susan Cassel, City Clerk Graymatter Marketing Solutions Inc. Name: Title: Name: Title: I/We have authority to bind the Corporation - 100 - -7 - Schedule "A" Location Map of City Hall Lands - 101 - -8 - Schedule "B" Diagram of Christmas Tree and Light Tunnel [to be inserted] - 102 - ttachment No. 2 to Report CS 35-19 Valley Farm Rd. Pickering Town Centre Esplanade Park location map SCALE: N.T.S. Attachment for Community Services Department Report CS 35-19 Licence Agreement C4rd PICKERING - 103 - 64 ,0/ DICKERING Report to Council Report Number: CS 40-19 Date: October 21, 2019 From: Marisa Carpino Director, Community Services Subject: Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program: Community, Culture and Recreation - Endorsement of City of Pickering Application - File: A-1440 Recommendation: 1. That Council authorize staff to initiate and submit the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program: Community Culture and Recreation grant application for the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex reconstruction project; 2. That Council authorize staff to initiate and submit the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program: Community Culture and Recreation grant application for the Pickering Heritage & Community Centre construction project; 3. That Council authorize staff to initiate and submit the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program: Community Culture and Recreation grant application for the Performing Arts Centre construction project; 4. That a copy of this report be forwarded to Jennifer O'Connell, MP, Pickering -Uxbridge; 5. That a copy of this report be forwarded to Peter Bethlenfalvy, MPP, Pickering -Uxbridge; and, 6. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take necessary action to give effect hereto. Executive Summary: In recent weeks, the Province of Ontario announced the Community, Culture and Recreation stream of the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program (ICIP). ICIP is a cost -shared infrastructure funding program between the federal government, provinces and territories, municipalities and other recipients. Since the objective of this funding stream is to support projects that improve access to and/or quality of community, cultural, and recreation priority infrastructure projects and municipalities are not limited in the number of applications they can submit, staff are preparing to submit an application for the following projects which are eligible under the Multi -Purpose Category: 1. Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex reconstruction project 2. Pickering Heritage & Community Centre construction project 3. Performing Arts Centre construction project - 104 - CS 40-19 October 21 Subject: Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program: Page 2 Community Culture and Recreation The purpose of this report is to receive an approved Council resolution authorizing staff to prepare and submit the City's Canada Infrastructure Program Community, Culture and Recreation grant application for these projects. This Council resolution is recommended, by the grant agencies, to be submitted with our application by the deadline of November 14, 2019. Financial Implications: Approximately 407 million dollars in federal funding and 320 million dollars in provincial funding will be available for the Community, Culture and Recreation stream over 10 years starting in 2019-2020. The following breakdown defines the maximum cost -share percentages of total eligible costs. • Federal Contribution: 40 percent • Provincial Contribution: 33.33 percent • Applicant Contribution: 26.67 percent The City's application will request the maximum funding available, under the grant program, to offset the project capital (construction/reconstruction) costs. Discussion: The ICIP is a federal program designed to create long-term economic growth, build inclusive, sustainable and resilient communities and support a low -carbon economy. The Province of Ontario is a cost sharing partner in these programs. The ICIP is funding cost - share projects under the following four streams: • Public Transit • Green Infrastructure • Community, Culture and Recreation • Rural and Northern Communities. In recent weeks, the Province of Ontario has announced the release of the ICIP Community, Culture and Recreation Funding stream. Within this stream, Ontario is supporting community infrastructure priorities across the province. Community infrastructure is defined as publicly accessible, multi-purpose spaces that bring together a variety of different services, programs and/or social and cultural activities to reflect local community needs. In short, the Community, Culture and Recreation stream supports projects that improve access to and/or quality of community, cultural, and recreation priority infrastructure projects. Priority is given to projects that are community -oriented, non-commercial and open to the public. Projects must be completed prior to 2027-28. In addition to federal criteria, Ontario's objectives for the current proposed Community, Culture and Recreation stream project intake are noted below. Projects will be assessed based on their alignment with these objectives: - 105 - CS 40-19 October 21 Subject: Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program: Page 3 Community Culture and Recreation • Meets community and user needs or service gap • Promotes good asset management planning • Represents good value for money • Fosters greater accessibility City staff are prepared to submit three applications on behalf of the City of Pickering which includes the following: 1. Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex reconstruction project valued at approximately 8.6 million dollars. This will include the renovation of the dressing rooms, whirlpool/sauna, 2nd floor cardio studio, reception/lobby, and tennis court resurfacing, painting and roof replacement. 2. Pickering Heritage & Community Centre construction project valued at approximately 22 million dollars. This will include the construction of a new 44,000 square foot heritage and community centre and parking lot, and demolition of the existing Administration Building and Greenwood Community Centre. 3. Performing Arts Centre construction project valued at approximately 50 million dollars. This project will include the new construction of a 50,000 square foot Performing Arts Centre with 600 seat theatre, community/rehearsal space with kitchenette, large lobby and back of house amenities (loading dock, dressing room, green rooms, staff offices, piano room etc.) These projects are considered by staff to be eligible for funding under Multi -Purpose Category of the ICIP Community, Culture and Recreation Funding stream. The Multi -Purpose Category focuses on the principle of integrated service delivery to address identified service gaps. The individual project cap will generally be 50 million dollars in total project cost, but exceptions may be made in some cases. Eligible projects consist of new build; construction projects; larger scale renovation; or expansion of existing facilities. Applications are due to be submitted by November 14, 2019 and selected applicants will be notified by Spring 2020. At this time, staff seek an approved Council resolution expressing commitment to Pickering's Age - Friendly Community Planning Grant application and program therein. This Council resolution is recommended, by the grant agencies, to be submitted with the City's application to demonstrate Council support. Attachments: 1. Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program — Community, Culture and Recreation Funding stream Ontario Program Guidelines - 106 - CS 40-19 October 21 Subject: Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program: Page 4 Community Culture and Recreation Prepared/Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By: Marisa Carpino, M.A. Director, Community Services :mc Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By: Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer - 107 - Attachment No. 1 to CS 40-19 Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program — Community, Culture and Recreation Funding Stream Ontario Program Guidelines Ontario INVESTING IN CANADA INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM: Community Culture and Recreation Program Guidelines - 108 - Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program — Community, Culture and Recreation Funding Stream Ontario Program Guidelines Table of Contents 1 Overview — Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program 4 2. Objectives Community, Culture and Recreation Stream 5 3. Applicant Eligibility 5 4. Project Eligibility and Conditions 6 4.1 Eligible Projects 6 4.2 Joint Projects 8 4.3 Other Project Conditions 8 5. Project Submission Process 9 5.1 Number of Project Submissions 9 5.2 Submissions and Funding Approval Steps 9 6. Timelines 10 7. Evaluation Process 11 7.1 Recipient Eligibility and Application Completeness 11 7.2 Project Scope Review 11 7.3 Alignment with Provincial Objectives 11 7.3.1 Asset Management Planning 11 8. Financial, Contractual and Reporting Requirements 12 8.1 Maximum Project Costs 12 8.2 Cost Sharing 12 8.3 Stacking of Funding 13 8.4 Eligible Costs 13 8.5 Ineligible Costs 14 8.6 Payments 15 8.7 Contractual Obligations 15 8.8 Reporting Requirements 15 9. Consultations with Indigenous Peoples 15 10. Further Information 16 Appendix A — Technical Criteria 17 Appendix B — Federal Program Parameters 18 I. Eligible Recipients 18 II. Procurement 19 III. Climate Lens Assessment 19 IV. Community Employment Benefits 19 V. Environmental Assessment 19 - 109 - Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program — Community, Culture and Recreation Funding Stream Ontario Program Guidelines VI. Indigenous Consultation 20 Appendix C — Asset Management Regulation Phase -In Schedule [municipalities only] 21 Asset Management Plan 21 Asset Management Phase-in Schedule 21 - 110 - Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program — Community, Culture and Recreation Funding Stream Ontario Program Guidelines 1. Overview — Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program The Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program (ICIP) is a federal program designed to create long-term economic growth, build inclusive, sustainable and resilient communities and support a low -carbon economy. Through the ICIP, the federal government is providing $11.8 billion dollars in federal infrastructure funding to cost -share projects under the following four streams: • Public Transit • Green Infrastructure • Community, Culture and Recreation • Rural and Northern Communities The Province of Ontario is a cost sharing partner in these programs. Under this intake of the Community, Culture and Recreation Funding stream, Ontario is supporting community infrastructure priorities across the province. Community infrastructure is defined as publicly accessible, multi-purpose spaces that bring together a variety of different services, programs and/or social and cultural activities to reflect local community needs. Approximately $407 million in federal funding and $320 million in provincial funding will be available for the Community, Culture and Recreation stream over 10 years starting in 2019-20. At least $30 million of federal funding must be carved out for off -reserve Indigenous projects.* The following breakdown defines the maximum cost -share percentages of total eligible costs. The following breakdown defines the maximum cost -share percentages of total eligible costs for Indigenous recipients (e.g. First Nations, Indigenous communities and organizations). Percentage Federal Contribution 40.00 Provincial Contribution 33.33 Applicant Contribution 26.67 The following breakdown defines the maximum cost -share percentages of total eligible costs for Indigenous recipients (e.g. First Nations, Indigenous communities and organizations). * Note: Projects with an Indigenous focus will not be limited to funding from the $30 million federal carve out for off -reserve Indigenous projects. Indigenous applicants will also be eligible for funding under the broader stream. Percentage Federal Contribution 75.00 Provincial Contribution 18.33 Indigenous Contribution 6.67 * Note: Projects with an Indigenous focus will not be limited to funding from the $30 million federal carve out for off -reserve Indigenous projects. Indigenous applicants will also be eligible for funding under the broader stream. Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program — Community, Culture and Recreation Funding Stream Ontario Program Guidelines 2. Objectives Community, Culture and Recreation Stream The Community, Culture and Recreation stream supports projects that improve access to and / or quality of community, cultural, and recreation priority infrastructure projects. Priority is given to projects that are community -oriented, non-commercial and open to the public. Projects must be completed prior to 2027-28. In addition to federal criteria, Ontario's objectives for the current proposed Community, Culture and Recreation stream project intake are noted below. Projects will be assessed based on their alignment with these objectives: • Meets community and user needs or service gap • Promotes good asset management planning • Represents good value for money • Fosters greater accessibility See sections 4 and 7 for more details on these assessment criteria. The intake will include two categories of funding: • Multi -Purpose Category • Rehabilitation and Renovation Category Note: The Community, Culture and Recreation intake is a competitive process. Funding approval is not guaranteed. In addition, the Province may contact an applicant to request additional information or for clarification on information provided in the application form or supporting documentation. 3. Applicant Eligibility Eligible applicants under Ontario's Community, Culture and Recreation Funding stream are: • Municipalities • First Nations • Other Indigenous communities / organizations • Broader public sector organizations* • Non -Profit organizations * Broader public sector organizations include, for example, school boards, hospitals, colleges and universities. Note: Joint projects between multiple eligible applicants, particularly those that service multiple communities, are encouraged and will be given additional consideration as part of the assessment process. Note: Education and health care facilities are ineligible for funding, with the exception of those advancing Truth and Reconciliation Commission Calls to Action. However, broader public sector organizations that typically deliver health care and education could apply for projects outside 5 - 112 - Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program — Community, Culture and Recreation Funding Stream Ontario Program Guidelines their core mandate as long as they meet federal and provincial criteria. For example, a school board could apply for funding to construct or renovate a community centre attached to a school. 4. Project Eligibility and Conditions Eligible Projects (1) Required Eligibility Criteria: a. A project must include a capital component. A project may also include pre - construction planning and design work; however, planning and design work are not eligible as stand-alone projects. b. A project must meet the outcome of improving access to and/or increasing quality of cultural, recreational and/or community infrastructure for Ontarians. Facilities must be publicly accessible. c. A project must meet the following minimum technical requirements: i. Project meets federal criteria and is aligned with provincial objectives and priorities ii. Demonstrated organizational capacity to implement the project iii. Demonstrated ongoing financing to manage operating pressures without creating operating and/or capital cost -pressures for the Province, municipalities, Consolidated Municipal Service Managers and District Social Service Administration Boards, from new infrastructure iv. Demonstrated availability of cost -shared funding to proceed with project v. Demonstrated project readiness vi. Operational plan developed (alignment with asset management plans for municipal projects) vii. Demonstrated community need for proposed project/service (e.g., service delivery gap / lack of access to services) For more details regarding these minimum criteria for evaluation, refer to Appendix A. Note: Applicants are permitted to use approved funding from other project -based capital programs to demonstrate ongoing financing and availability of cost -shared funding. (2) Eligible asset type*: • recreation facilities (e.g., hockey arenas, multipurpose recreation centres, playing fields) • cultural facilities (e.g., theatres, libraries, museums, cultural centres, civic squares, performing arts centres) • community centres / hubs (e.g., multi-purpose spaces that bring together a variety of different services, community centres including recreation facilities) • education and health facilities advancing Truth and Reconciliation Commission Calls to Action (e.g., funding for new and/or existing Indigenous healing centres, spaces in education facilities for traditional teaching/programming) Note: applicants are encouraged to reach out to a Regional Advisor or the ICIP Community, Culture and Recreation team at ICIPculture(a�ontario.ca or 1-888-222-0174 if they have questions or need clarification. - 113 - Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program — Community, Culture and Recreation Funding Stream Ontario Program Guidelines (3) Eligible project types: a. Multi -Purpose Category: This project category focuses on the principle of integrated service delivery to address identified service gaps. The individual project cap will generally be $50 million in total project cost, but exceptions may be made in some cases. Eligible projects consist of: o new build / construction projects o larger scale renovation o expansion of existing facilities. b. Rehabilitation and Renovation Category This project category focuses on maximizing the funding impact of small-scale projects that would improve the condition of existing facilities. The individual project cap is $5 million in total project cost. Eligible projects consist of: o renovation and rehabilitations to address functionality and use of existing facilities o Small-scale improvements to address accessibility (e.g., hand rails, ramps, accessible doors/parking/elevators, wayfinding and signage etc.) o Small new build / construction projects of recreation, cultural or community centre infrastructure (e.g., playing fields, tennis courts, small community squares) Note: broader facilities that include ineligible components (e.g., community centres with a neighbourhood health centre component) can be scoped to apply for only eligible components. Note: projects that focus on vulnerable populations (e.g., low income persons) and Indigenous people will be given additional consideration as part of the assessment process. (4) Other requirements: Projects must meet the following other criteria to be considered eligible: ✓ Capital components must be owned by an eligible entity. ✓ Projects must be substantially completed by March 31, 2027. ✓ Projects must be informed by and consistent with an applicants' asset management plan (municipalities only). ✓ Projects components must meet or exceed the requirement of the highest published accessibility standard in Ontario in addition to applicable provincial building codes and relevant municipal by-laws, and any applicable accessible design guidelines. ✓ Project components must meet or exceed any applicable energy efficiency standards for buildings outlined in the Pan -Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change. - 114 - Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program — Community, Culture and Recreation Funding Stream Ontario Program Guidelines ✓ For joint projects with other eligible applicants, all applicants must also secure the endorsement of their projects by their respective municipal, CMSM/DSSAB or First Nation Band Council, board of directors, or governing body and provide the Ministry with evidence of such endorsement in the form of by-laws / resolutions / letters of agreement. • Integrated asset types: Applicants must select only one primary project asset type but may integrate more than one eligible project asset type (e.g., community centre with adjoining hockey arena). Integrated projects must demonstrate that each component of the project for which the applicant is requesting funding meets eligibility requirements. • Asset ownership: Municipalities must attest to owning the infrastructure assets put forward for funding. Joint Projects Joint projects between eligible applicants are encouraged. Joint projects are those where each co -applicant contributes financially to the project or to the operation of the facility. The cap may be flexible for joint projects. All applicants must meet the applicant eligibility criteria. Joint projects may be larger than projects submitted by a single applicant, as joint applicants may combine the grant funding they request. Neighbouring communities are encouraged to work together to assess co -use of facilities to address service level gaps and to achieve economies of scale. The lead applicant will be required to sign a transfer payment agreement with the province and also enter into a partnership agreement with the other eligible applicant(s) that will be contributing to the project. Funds will only be made available to the lead applicant, who is responsible for the financial management of the project and meeting provincial reporting requirements. Successful joint applicants are encouraged to enter into an agreement clearly setting out the nature of their relationship and key elements of the project in line with the Community, Culture and Recreation stream application and with funding approval described in the projects ICIP transfer payment agreement. ' / Other Project Conditions Projects must comply with the following conditions to be considered eligible: (1) Contract Award Date: Contracts must be awarded after federal approval of funding. Contracts awarded before approval of funding are not eligible for reimbursement. (2) Energy standards: Projects must meet or exceed any applicable energy efficiency standards for buildings outlined in the Pan -Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change. (3) Accessibility standards: Projects must meet or exceed the requirements of the highest published accessibility standard in a jurisdiction in addition to applicable provincial building codes and relevant municipal by-laws and accessible design guidelines. - 115 - Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program — Community, Culture and Recreation Funding Stream Ontario Program Guidelines (4) Asset management plans [municipalities only]: Projects should be informed by an applicant's asset management plan as outlined in Asset Management Planning for Municipal Infrastructure Regulation, O. Reg. 588/17This means the proposed project was identified based on the plan's prioritized lifecycle activities (e.g., construction, maintenance, renewal, rehabilitation, replacement, etc.) for the applicable asset category (e.g., community, recreation and cultural facilities). For example, if an applicant has identified recreation centre needs as a priority lifecycle activity within its asset management plan, then submission of a recreation centre project would be appropriate. Where a project is not based on an asset management plan, a strong rationale must be provided in the application form. (5) Note: project prioritization in an asset management plan does not apply in cases where the project assets are not owned by the municipality. Supporting documentation [First Nations only]: Projects should be identified in, or supported by, a 5 -Year Capital Plan; a Comprehensive Community Plan; a Strategic Community Plan; an Asset Conditions Reporting System report; a Feasibility Study or Detailed Design. Where not based on a supporting document, a strong rationale must be provided. The province may request an electronic copy of one or more supporting documents during the project review stage. (6) Financial sustainability: Projects must have a financial plan in place to operate the assets and not seek senior level government support for ongoing operational funding. First Nations applicants may have operational funding arrangements with the federal government that satisfy this condition. 5. Project Submission Process Number of Project Submissions Eligible applicants can apply for multiple projects. Submissions and Funding Approval Steps Step 1: Applicants must register or login online through the Province of Ontario's online grant portal, Transfer Payment Ontario. Step by step support for working with the online grant portal are found here. For full functionality, the support tool link must be opened in Internet Explorer. Step 2: Applicants must fully complete one Community, Culture and Recreation funding stream application form and the applicable business case. Completion of only one business case is required; the business case must correspond to the funding stream. The application form and the associated business case are available through the Transfer Payment Ontario online portal. Please follow the prompts in the application form and business case to respond to each question. Step 3 [joint projects]: A joint project submitted by multiple applicants must provide supporting documentation by way of an individual partner -member municipal council resolution, a band council resolution or board of directors' resolutions or letter of agreement, clearly stating the project name and applicant / recipient contribution to the project. - 116 - Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program — Community, Culture and Recreation Funding Stream Ontario Program Guidelines Step 4: The application and required attachments (i.e., business cases, supporting documents, etc.) must be submitted through Transfer Payment Ontario by 11:59 p.m. EDT on November 12, 2019. A scanned application form will not be accepted. Failure to meet submission requirements will result in an incomplete submission and the submission may be considered ineligible. If you are unable to submit the application form through the Transfer Payment Ontario, please contact: TPONCC@ontario.ca or call (416) 325-6691/(855) 216-3090. Step 5: Once the completed application form has been submitted, an automated acknowledgement of receipt and a file number will be emailed to the applicant. Step 6: Projects will be assessed by the province and nominated for federal government review and approval. Provincial project nomination to the federal government does not guarantee funding approval. Step 7: Applicants will be notified of both successful and unsuccessful projects. Provincial staff will be available to provide feedback for unsuccessful projects, if requested. Step 8: The province may request applicants to provide an attestation that the recipient share of funding to undertake and complete the project has been secured. Step 9: Successful municipal applicants will be required to obtain a municipal by-law or council resolution; other applicants will be required to submit a board of directors' resolution or letter of agreement or band council resolution to execute the project level transfer payment agreement with the provincial government. Step 10: The transfer payment agreement will require procurement to be executed through a value -for -money process. Projects must undertake a competitive pricing or tendering process to demonstrate value -for -money. Applicants may be requested by the province to provide: • Copies of proposals or bids from three (3) bidders; • Statement indicating selected bidder; and • Written explanation if the lowest bid is not chosen. 6. Timelines • Applications and all supporting documentations must be submitted through Grants Ontario by 11:59 p.m. EDT on November 12, 2019. Note: that applications will not be accepted after this time. All supporting documentation must also be submitted by the deadline in order to be considered part of the application. Applicants cannot change the proposed project after the application deadline unless extraordinary circumstances arise (e.g., destruction of an arena) and permission is granted by the province. • The province will notify applicants if their project has been selected for nomination to the federal government for review and approval in winter 2020 (estimated). • Applicants will be notified of the federal funding decision in spring/summer 2020 (estimated). • Projects must be completed by March 31, 2027. 10 - 117 - Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program — Community, Culture and Recreation Funding Stream Ontario Program Guidelines 7 Evaluation Process Recipient Eligibility and Application Completeness Recipients must meet Community, Culture and Recreation program eligibility requirements. Additionally, all mandatory fields of the application form must be populated correctly for a submission to be considered validated and complete. For more information, refer to Section 4 above regarding eligibility and to 4.1.4 regarding eligible categories of funding under the program. Project Scope Review Projects must meet federal project eligibility requirements, be technically viable and be achievable within the program timelines. r'.3 Alignment with Provincial Objectives a) Applicants must demonstrate that projects meet the following objectives under the Community, Culture and Recreation stream: a. Meets community and user needs: identified and demonstrable community - level need or service gap, including barriers to social inclusion and accessibility for Ontarians with disabilities, and underserved small communities; b. Promotes good asset management: demonstrates optimization of assets, including through multi-purpose and integrated service delivery; aligns with municipal asset management plans (municipalities only); c. Represents good value for money: demonstrated efficiency and value for money. The most cost-effective option for delivering a similar level of service should be sought, maximizing population/communities served; d. Foster greater accessibility: commitment to meeting minimum highest level of accessibility standards; use of Universal Design Principles and innovative solutions to increasing accessibility beyond minimum standards. See Appendix A for details of the technical criteria associated with these objectives. Note: Please refer to the Community, Culture and Recreation stream Business case on the Grants Ontario website. 7.3.1 Asset Management Planning Ontario Regulation 588/17- Asset Management Planning for Municipal Infrastructure, or the Asset Management Planning Regulation sets out new requirements for undertaking municipal asset management planning. The regulation is being phased in over a 6 -year period, with progressive milestone requirements for municipalities with respect to their asset management plans. For clarity, at the time of application, the asset management plan used to inform the proposed project can be developed according to either the province's 2012 Guide (Building together: guide for municipal asset management plans) or the new asset management planning regulation. As part of project reporting requirements, and to remain eligible for funding, successful municipal applicants are required to submit their updated asset management plans in 11 - 118 - Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program — Community, Culture and Recreation Funding Stream Ontario Program Guidelines accordance with the regulation for the duration of the project. For example, municipalities that have an active project in 2021 will be required to submit asset management plans developed in accordance with the first phase of the regulation. Please refer to the Appendix which summarizes key regulation milestones in 2021, 2023 and 2024 for municipal asset management plans. For more information about asset management planning, as well as tools and supports available to help municipalities develop and improve their plans, please visit the http://www.ontario.ca/assetmanagement. 8. Financial, Contractual and Reporting Requirements S-1 Maximum Project Costs Rehabilitation and Renovation Category: o The maximum total eligible cost per project for a single applicant is $5 million o For projects with multiple applicants (i.e., joint projects), each applicant can submit up to $5 million of total eligible project costs. For example, a joint project with three eligible co - applicants can submit a project with a maximum total eligible project cost of $15 million. Multi-purpose Category: o The maximum total eligible cost per project for a single applicant is $50 million. The cap may be flexible for joint projects. Value for money will be a significant funding consideration. If an applicant's project exceeds $50 million, please contact ICIPculture@ontario.ca or call 1-888-222-0174. Note: Projects that have a total eligible cost of more than $10 million must complete a federal climate lens assessment and report on community employment benefits. See Appendix for more information. Note: Applicants must pay for all ineligible project costs as well as any cost over -runs experienced on a project. Cost over -runs reflect any costs that exceed the total project cost submitted at the time of application. 8.2 Cost Sharing The following breakdown defines the maximum cost share percentages of the total eligible cost: Applicant Type Federal Cost Share (Max %) Provincial Cost Share (Max %) Applicant Cost Share (Min %) Municipality 40% 33.33% 26.67% Non -Profit 40% 33.33% 26.67% BPS 40% 33.33% 26.67% Indigenous Recipient 75% 18.33% 6.67% 12 - 119 - Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program — Community, Culture and Recreation Funding Stream Ontario Program Guidelines Note: The cost-sharing breakdown assumes municipal or Indigenous applicants own or have control over the asset being nominated for funding and is subject to change For instance, this means that: • An eligible municipality may request up to 73.33% of the total eligible costs. • Indigenous recipient may request up to 93.33% of the total eligible costs. Stacking of Funding General: • Applicants may combine funding received through the Community, Culture and Recreation funding stream and funding from another project -based capital program. • Applicants can apply for a project at the same location as a project already receiving funding from another capital program where the project in question would be ineligible for Community, Culture and Recreation funding, but the applicant must clearly scope out the component that is unique to the Community, Culture and Recreation funding stream application. Applicants who are not sure how to best combine funding are encouraged to contact a Regional Advisor or the ICIP Community, Culture and Recreation team at ICIPculture@ontario.ca or call 1-888-222-0174 before submitting an application. Eligible Costs Project costs are eligible only if they are incurred after federal approval. Eligible Expenditures will include the following: • All costs considered by Canada and Ontario to be direct and necessary for the successful implementation of an eligible Project, and which may include third party costs such as project management, capital costs, construction and materials, design / engineering and planning, contingency costs (25% maximum), and costs related to meeting specific Program requirements, including completing climate lens assessments (see Note 2 below) and creating community employment benefit plans; • The incremental costs of employees of a Recipient may be included as Eligible Expenditures for a Project under the following conditions: o The Recipient is able to demonstrate that it is not economically feasible to tender a contract; and o The arrangement is approved in advance and in writing by Canada and Ontario. o Note: Applicants submitting for these costs must submit a rationale for the use of own -force labour when the application is submitted. Note 1: Contracts must be awarded after federal approval of funding. Contracts awarded before approval of funding are not eligible for reimbursement. Note 2: Costs associated with completing climate lens assessments, which are eligible before project approval, but can only be paid if and when a project is approved by Canada for contribution funding under contracts 13 - 120 - Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program — Community, Culture and Recreation Funding Stream Ontario Program Guidelines Note 3: Capital costs are only eligible once the project receives notification that Canada is satisfied that the applicant has met its Duty to Consult and Environmental Assessment requirements. Before this notification is received, no site preparation, vegetation removal or construction may take place. Ineligible Costs When a project meets a federal outcome in the Community, Culture and Recreation Infrastructure stream, it is not eligible for funding if it: • has a private sector, for-profit Ultimate Recipient; • is a stand-alone daycare facility, for-profit daycare facility, daycare facility associated with a school board, or a daycare facility funded under Canada's Early Learning and Child Care initiative; • is a religious site that serves as a place of assembly for religious purposes, which includes among others, a site, church, mosque, synagogue, temple, chapel (e.g., within a convent or seminary), shrine or meeting house; or • is a professional or semi-professional sport facility that is primarily a commercial operation, such as those that serve major junior hockey leagues. Other ineligible project costs include: • Costs incurred before federal project approval and all expenditures related to contracts signed prior to federal project approval, except for expenditures associated with completing climate lens assessments • Costs incurred for cancelled projects • Costs related to health or education functions (except for those advancing Truth and Reconciliation Commission Calls to Action) • Acquisition or leasing of land, buildings and other facilities • Leasing equipment other than equipment directly related to the construction of the project • Real estate fees and related costs • Financing charges • Legal fees • Loan interest payments including those related to easements (e.g. surveys) • Costs of completing the application • Taxes, regardless of rebate eligibility • Any goods and services costs which are received through donation or In-kind • Staff costs, unless pre -approved by the federal and provincial governments • Operating costs and regularly scheduled maintenance work • Costs related to furnishing and non -fixed assets which are not essential for the operation of the project • Costs that have not been claimed for reimbursement by March 31 of year following the year in which the costs were incurred (e.g., costs incurred between April 1, 2018 and March 31, 2019 must be submitted for reimbursement no later than March 31, 2020). 14 - 121 - Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program — Community, Culture and Recreation Funding Stream Ontario Program Guidelines • All capital costs, including site preparation and construction costs, until Canada has confirmed in writing that environmental assessment and Indigenous consultation obligations have been met and continue to be met. • All costs related to any component of the project other than the approved scope A more detailed list of eligible and ineligible expenditure categories will be provided in individual project level contribution agreements. Payments Funding is claims based and will be reimbursed upon review and approval of eligible costs under transfer payment agreements. Reimbursement of claims is based on the cost sharing percentage. The claims process requires Recipients to submit claims for the Ministry's review, approval and submission to Canada and for Canada's review and approval once received from Ontario. The claims format will be outlined in individual contribution agreements. All costs must be incurred by March 31, 2027. Recipients are required to keep all receipts/invoices and claims as they are subject to audit by the province or the federal government. Note: A holdback of 10% may be applied to payments under the program. The holdback would be released upon successful completion of all reporting requirements following project completion. Contractual Obligations Successful applicants will be required to sign a provincial contribution agreement containing clauses regarding, among other things, items such as insurance, arm's length requirements, communications (including project signage), reporting requirements, and obligations with respect to consultations with Indigenous groups. Successful applicants will be required to obtain a municipal council resolution or board of director/governing body resolution or letter of agreement to execute the project level contribution agreement with the province. Joint applicants will be required to enter into a joint partnership agreement and must provide a copy of that agreement to Ontario. For cases where the applicant is not the asset owner, the province will provide additional support to coordinate the execution of the transfer payment agreement. Successful municipalities will also be required to complete an Asset Management Self - Assessment prior to signing their contribution agreement. 8.8 Reporting Requirements Specific reporting requirements will be outlined in individual transfer payment agreements. 9. Consultations with Indigenous Peoples The Government of Canada, the Government of Ontario and municipalities may have a duty to consult and, where appropriate, accommodate Indigenous peoples (e.g., First Nation and Metis communities) where an activity is contemplated that may adversely impact an established or asserted Aboriginal or treaty right. 15 - 122 - Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program — Community, Culture and Recreation Funding Stream Ontario Program Guidelines Before providing funding to a project, the Government of Ontario will assess whether its duty to consult obligations are engaged. If the duty to consult is triggered, Ontario may delegate the procedural aspects of consultation to project proponents. Therefore, it is important that all applicants recognize that a duty to consult process may be necessary and appropriately plan for this work (e.g., resources, time, etc.) as part of their funding submission. The application form contains preliminary questions to begin considering the potential that a duty to consult may exist. Consultation requirements will vary depending on the size and location of the project in question and the depth and scope of the project's potential adverse impacts on Aboriginal treaty rights. For successful applications, the province will provide further details in writing surrounding specific consultation requirements, including which communities require consultation. Throughout the duration of the project applicants should ensure they are fulfilling the duty to consult requirements delegated to them. 10. Further Information Please contact a Regional Advisor or the ICIP Community Culture and Recreation team can be reached by telephone at 1-888-222-0174 or by email at ICIPculture@ontario.ca. 16 - 123 - Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program — Community, Culture and Recreation Funding Stream Ontario Program Guidelines Appendix A — Technical Criteria The province will assess and prioritize projects for federal nomination and funding based on the following criteria, aligned with provincial objectives: Provincial Objective A: Meets Community and User Needs Criterion 1: Community Need Applications must demonstrate that the proposed project is filling a clearly identified and documented service level gap and that there is a need in the community for the services that will be provided. Applicants should demonstrate that community members are in need of proposed services, and that the project will provide them with access to the required services. This may include both quantitative elements (e.g., demographic data), and qualitative elements (e.g., evidence that the community lacks access to services). Additional consideration will be given to projects focusing on vulnerable populations and/or Indigenous people (First Nations, Metis and Inuit populations). Criterion 2: Funding Need for Proposed Project Projects will be assessed according to greater funding need, including the cost of the proposed project per household, median household income and weighted property assessment per household. Note: for Indigenous Communities, proxy values may be applied. In general, applicants with greater funding need (i.e., higher project cost per household, lower median household income, lower weighted property assessment per household) will be more competitive in the evaluation process. However, applicants must still be able to fund all project costs and potential cost over -runs to be eligible for funding. Applicants should clearly note whether user fees or other sources of revenue are collected at the facility. Provincial Objective B: Promotes Good Asset Management Criterion 3: Provincial Land -Use Planning Projects must be aligned and support the expected and required provincial priorities and outcomes, as set out in provincial land use policy, provincial land use plans, and municipal official plans and supported by policy direction in the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). Criterion 4: Efficiencies Through Joint Projects Additional consideration will be given to joint projects for providing benefit to multiple communities and generating efficiencies and community benefits. Criterion 5: Project Readiness Applications must demonstrate that planning in underway and that the projects are ready to begin, to ensure completion within federal timelines. 17 - 124 - Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program — Community, Culture and Recreation Funding Stream Ontario Program Guidelines Provincial Objective C: Represents Good Value for Money Criterion 6: Financial Risk Assessment and Due Diligence The Province will conduct a financial risk assessment to ensure that sufficient resources are available to support project completion, including coverage of any cost overruns. Projects should have a financial plan in place to operate the assets and not seek senior level government support for operational funding. The Province may request additional supporting documentation upon review of the application. Criterion 7: Organizational Capacity for Implementation Projects will be evaluated based on organizational capacity. Organizations must demonstrate capacity to carry out capital project and implement the requested project and to manage ongoing costs related to operating the facility. Applicants must demonstrate that organizations (or partners) have sufficient funding to commit to the project (i.e., funding in place for the cost - shared amount, or demonstrated ability to fundraise the required amount). Criterion 8: Developed Operational Plan Applicants must demonstrate that there is a strong operational plan in place for the ongoing operation of the facility. This will include alignment with asset management plans for municipalities and may include memoranda of understanding for joint projects/partnerships. Provincial Objective D: Fosters Greater Accessibility Criterion 9: Accessibility Applications must demonstrate that projects will meet the highest published accessibility standards in alignment with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) and the Ontario Building Code. Projects will additionally be evaluated based on exceeding minimum standards; use of Universal Design Principles, accessible guidelines and innovative solutions to increasing accessibility. Appendix B — Federal Program Parameters In the event of any conflict, contradiction or inconsistency in interpretation, the federal language in the Appendix shall prevail over summaries provided in the body of the guidelines. Eligible Recipients Eligible recipients for the Community, Culture and Recreation funding stream, subject to the terms and conditions of the Canada -Ontario ICIP Agreement, include: a) An Ontario municipal or regional government established by or under provincial statute; b) An Ontario's broader public sector organizations (school boards, hospitals, colleges and universities). These entities can apply for funding of projects outside of their regular business. However, core business functions are not eligible (e.g., health and education services). c) Non-profit organizations d) First Nations and Indigenous Communities 18 - 125 - Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program — Community, Culture and Recreation Funding Stream Ontario Program Guidelines II. Procuremen • Successful applicants must award third -party contracts in a way that is fair, transparent, competitive and consistent with value -for -money principles, or in a manner otherwise acceptable to Canada, and if applicable, in accordance with the Canadian Free Trade Agreement and international trade agreements. Applicants must adopt a value for money procurement approach. Any requests for sole source procurement exemptions will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and requires pre -approval by the federal and provincial governments. Sole source procurement is not encouraged as approval is not guaranteed. (Refer to Section 4.5 above) III. Climate Lens Assessment Applicants with projects that have a total eligible cost of $10 million or more are required to complete a climate lens assessment using methodologies developed by the federal government after federal government approval of the project. The climate lens assessment consists of two potential assessments for projects being brought forward for funding which include a greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation assessment and a climate change resilience assessment. Visit Infrastructure Canada's Climate Lens — General Guidance webpage for information on how to complete the assessment. Costs associated with completing climate lens assessments are eligible before project approval but can only be paid if and when a project is approved by Canada for contribution funding under this Agreement. Applicants are permitted to defer the Climate Lens assessment at the time of application, with the rationale that the Climate Lens assessment will be conducted during the detailed design phase of the project. Applicants can contact the Climate Services Support Desk to obtain standardized climate lens data that can be used to support the completion of climate lens assessments. IV. Community Employment Benefits Applicants with projects that have a total eligible cost of $10 million or more are required to report on community employment benefits provided to at least three federal target groups (apprentices - from traditionally disadvantaged communities, Indigenous peoples, women, persons with disabilities, veterans, youth, new Canadians, or small -medium-sized enterprises and social enterprises). Visit the Community Employment Benefits General Guidance webpage for more information. Additional details on this reporting will be provided to Recipients when applicable. Environmental Assessment No site preparation, vegetation removal or construction will occur for a Project and Canada and Ontario have no obligation to pay any Eligible Expenditures that are capital costs, as determined 19 - 126 - Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program — Community, Culture and Recreation Funding Stream Ontario Program Guidelines by Canada and Ontario, until Canada and Ontario are satisfied that the federal requirements are met and continue to be met: • Requirements under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA, 2012), • other applicable federal environmental assessment legislation that is or may come into force during the term of this Agreement, and; • other applicable agreements between Canada and Indigenous groups (also referred to as Indigenous Peoples). 'ndigenous Consultation No site preparation, vegetation removal or construction will occur for a Project and Canada and Ontario have no obligation to pay any Eligible Expenditures that are capital costs, as determined by Canada and Ontario, until Canada and Ontario is satisfied that any legal duty to consult, and where appropriate, to accommodate Indigenous groups (also referred to as Indigenous Peoples) or other federal consultation requirement has been met and continues to be met. If required, Canada must be satisfied that for each Project: a) Indigenous groups have been notified and, if applicable, consulted; b) If applicable, a summary of consultation or engagement activities has been provided, including a list of Indigenous groups consulted, concerns raised, and how each of the concerns have been addressed, or if not addressed, an explanation as to why not; c) Accommodation measures, where appropriate, are being carried out by Ontario or the Ultimate Recipient and these costs may be considered Eligible; and d) Any other information has been provided that Canada may deem appropriate. 20 - 127 - Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program — Community, Culture and Recreation Funding Stream Ontario Program Guidelines Appendix C — Asset Management Regulation Phase -In Schedule [municipalities only] Asset Management Plar Ontario Regulation 588/17- Asset Management Planning for Municipal Infrastructure, or the Asset Management Regulation sets out new requirements for undertaking asset management planning. The regulation will be phased in over a 6 -year period, with progressive requirements for municipalities with respect to their asset management plans. Asset Management Phase-in Schedul, Date Milestone July 1, 2019 Date for municipalities to have a finalized strategic asset management policy that promotes best practices and links asset management planning with budgeting, operations, maintenance and other municipal planning activities. July 1, 2021 Date for municipalities to have an approved asset management plan for core assets (roads, bridges and culverts, water, wastewater and stormwater management systems, arenas, theatres) that identifies current levels of service and the cost of maintaining those levels of service. July 1, 2023 Date for municipalities to have an approved asset management plan for all municipal infrastructure assets that identifies current levels of service and the cost of maintaining those levels of service. July 1, 2024 Date for municipalities to have an approved asset management plan for all municipal infrastructure assets that builds upon the requirements set out in 2023. This includes an identification of proposed levels of service, what activities will be required to meet proposed levels of service, and a strategy to fund these activities. Recipients will also be required to complete an Asset Management Self -Assessment prior to signing their TPA. For more information about asset management planning, as well as tools and supports available to help municipalities develop and improve their plans, please visit the http://www.ontario.ca/assetmanagement. 21 - 128 - 64 ,0/ DICKERING Report to Council Report Number: FIN 17-19 Date: October 21, 2019 From: Stan Karwowski Director, Finance & Treasurer Subject: Proposed Environmental Schools Grant for 2020 Budget Recommendation: 1. That Council support and direct City staff to work with the respective school boards to implement an Environmental Schools Grant initiative; 2. That Council provide 2020 pre -budget approval in the amount of $8,750 (account 2195.2712.0000) in the General Government section of the Current Budget for an Environmental Schools Grant initiative; 3. That City staff annually report to Council, the results achieved through the Environmental Schools Grant; and 4. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Executive Summary: The City of Pickering administers a Community Grant program that is available to local non-profit community groups. The City provides on average, funding to 37 Pickering based community groups. The Community Grant Policy does not apply to schools or school related extracurricular activities. Currently with 24 individual schools in Pickering, it would be difficult to financially administer and would negatively impact the ability of non-profit community groups to access funds if schools and related extracurricular were eligible for community grant funding. This challenge presented an opportunity for the City to establish a new environmental grant specifically for schools. The intent is to provide an opportunity for thousands of Pickering students to implement activities that contribute to a healthy environment. Funded activities, programs or initiatives must provide an environmental benefit to the Pickering community and its residents, have clear, measurable benefits and results, and directly support the City's goal to continuously improve environmental sustainability. The attached Environmental Schools Grant Application Guidelines outline the purpose, eligibility, availability and administration of funds, reporting and allocation, assessment criteria, and project ideas. The grant addresses the requests and aspirations of this important stakeholder group and future environmental leaders to implement projects that enhance the Pickering community, while not impacting other non-profit community groups. - 129 - FIN 17-19 October 21, 2019 Subject: Proposed Environmental Schools Grant for 2020 Budget Page 2 The grant does not replace funds or work that school boards are mandated to provide to schools. The types of projects outlined in the Guidelines, are typically undertaken only when dollars are raised and available through parent committees, School Community Council and external grants applied to by teachers. The City's grant will provide equitable access, essentially enabling all students, especially those who attend schools in less affluent areas, to undertake initiatives they otherwise could not. In addition, as staff reframe some existing programs, this is an opportunity to create new partnerships and encourage the community to champion even more 'on the ground' sustainable initiatives. As outlined in the Guidelines, it's suggested that Durham District School Board and Durham Catholic District School Board each have access up to $4,000 for their respective schools. The Ontario French Public School Board can apply for up at $750; to reflect the fact that there is only one school in Pickering. Staff have met with all three school boards and they are excited about this opportunity. Financial Implications: Recommendation three is asking for 2020 pre -budget approval in the amount of $8,750 be allocated in the Community Grants section of the Current Budget. Pre- budget approval is required to align the program to match the school year of September to June. It Council approves the funding, staff will contact the respective school boards so that they can begin to work on their various initiatives with a target completion date of June 2020. Discussion: Research was conducted to review ten other municipally administered environmental grant programs. Pickering's Environmental Schools Grant reflects best practices, however, is unique in many ways including, its approach to reduce the City's administrative time. Individual schools will submit Project Details (specifics outlined in Guidelines) to their respective school board. School boards will review Project Details to ensure alignment with the Assessment Criteria. They will then prepare one application that outlines the complete list of projects they recommend to be funded — ensuring not to exceed the allowable amount, and submit to City staff for final review. At the end of the school year, each board is responsible for submitting a report outlining how the funds were used and how the City was recognized. The grant will provide thousands of Pickering students the means to implement activities that contribute to a healthy environment, therefore, allowing them to enhance and promote environmental awareness in Pickering. An interesting and positive result of the grant will be the increased awareness of the parents as it relates to the environment. A study conducted at the North Carolina University found that children can increase their parents' level of concern about the environment because unlike adults, their views on the issue do not generally reflect any entrenched political ideology. The study's results suggest that conversations between generations may be an effective starting point in increasing environmental awareness. - 130 - FIN 17-19 October 21, 2019 Subject: Proposed Environmental Schools Grant for 2020 Budget Page 3 Attachments: 1. Environmental Schools Grant Application Guidelines Prepared By: Original Signed By Chantal Whitaker Supervisor, Sustainability Approved/Endorsed By: Orginal Signed By Stan Karwowski, CPA, CMA, MBA Director, Finance & Treasurer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer - 131 - DICKERING Attachment 1 to Report FIN 17-19 Environmental Schools Grant Application Guidelines pickering.ca 132 - Purpose of the Grant The Environmental Schools Grant offers financial support to school boards to help enable schools in Pickering to implement activities that contribute to a healthy environment. Funded activities, programs or initiatives must provide an environmental benefit to the Pickering community and its residents. Who is Eligible • Durham District Public School Board • Durham Catholic District School Board • Ontario French Public School Board Available Funds The number of schools and Pickering students served by each school board varies. In order to be fair and equitable, the Durham District Public School Board and Durham Catholic District School Board can each apply to receive up to $4,000.00 per year. The Ontario French Public School Board can apply to receive up to $750.00 per year. Funds can be combined with other grants to support the project(s). Administration of Funds The City of Pickering will issue the Environmental Schools Grant to the school boards. School boards are to request their respective Pickering schools to, if interested, submit project ideas. Schools must provide the following Project Details in a PDF format: • school name • key contact person • description of project idea and how it addresses an environmental matter • description of anticipated environmental benefits and measurable results • who is undertaking the project and who will be engaged • long-term maintenance plan (if applicable) • in-kind or funding partners (if applicable) • timeframe to complete the project • total project cost and what the funds will be used for School boards will do a review of the project details to ensure alignment with the Grant Application Guidelines. The school boards will complete the City of Pickering's Grant Application, outlining the list of environmental projects, from both elementary and secondary schools, they recommend to be funded - ensuring not to exceed the allowable amount. The school boards may submit one or several projects. Application Deadline Each school board is requested to complete the online Grant Application, outlining the proposed environmental project(s) on or before December 20, 2019. Project Details need to be attached. Reporting and Allocation of Funds Prior to the end of the school year, each school board is responsible for submitting a brief two -three page report outlining how the funds were used, including photographs (where feasible) and how the City was recognized. Upon receipt and review of the final report, the City will issue the full grant payment to the school board. - 133 - What Will the City Not Fund? • Activities, programs or initiatives that take place outside of Pickering's municipal boundary or provided by other levels of government • Reimbursement (for initiatives that have already been completed) • Administrative school expenses such as salaries, rent, utilities, insurance, etc. • Travel, accommodation or attendance fees for a conference/seminar/workshop • Donations made by the school to another organization Assessment Criteria Activities, programs and initiatives must meet the following criteria: • Be undertaken by a school located in Pickering • Positively impact the Pickering community and residents • Directly support the City's goal to continuously improve environmental sustainability • Have clear, measurable benefits and results, and preferably be long-lasting • Complete Project Details (see above) provided • Funds must be used by the end of the school year Consideration will be given to the distribution of funds across all of Pickering and whether a school has received the Sustainable Schools Grant in the previous year. The City reserves the right to reject a project if it does not meet the Assessment Criteria. What are examples of fundable projects? There are lots of fun, exciting ways to help make our lives, our City and our schools more sustainable. Pickering schools have lead many remarkable environmental projects. Drawing from what others have done, below are examples of project ideas: Reducing Waste Eliminating single use plastics Education campaigns on proper waste diversion practices and waste audits Encouraging Active Transportation Bike rack installation Incentives for a bike/walk event at school Promoting Anti -Idling in Kiss 'n Ride Areas Distributing fake tickets for idling or rewards for those who turn off their engines Education and awareness campaigns Helping Birds, Butterflies, and other Species Providing pollinator habitat Raising and releasing butterflies, fish and/or water invertebrates Reducing Energy Consumption Equipping classrooms with energy monitors and auditing their use Holding awareness, or `power down' events throughout the school year Greening School Grounds Native and drought -resistant plant gardens Tree planting Growing Green Thumbs for Local Food Indoor food growing projects Outdoor veggie boxes or vegetable garden beds Questions about the Environmental Schools Grant can be directed to the Supervisor, Sustainability at 905.420.4660 ext. 2170 or cwhitaker @,,pickerinq.ca Alternate formats of the Environmental Schools Grant Application Guidelines are available upon request at 905.683.7575. - 134 - Cfy �t DICKERING Report to Council Report Number: FIN 18-19 Date: October 21, 2019 From: Stan Karwowski Director, Finance & Treasurer Subject: Payment of Invoices Related to Preliminary Design of the Civic Centre Project Recommendation: 1. That Report FIN 18-19 of the Director, Finance & Treasurer be approved; 2. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to pay invoices related to the preliminary design for the Civic Centre in the amount of $543,284.45 (inclusive of HST) and the project cost be charged to capital account 5203.1902.6550; and 3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Executive Summary: The City has received invoices from Architects Alliance (AA) in the amount of $543,284.45 (includes HST). These invoices are related to the preliminary design of the Civic Centre project and excludes those costs associated with relocation of services. These costs can be directly attributable to the three buildings: Senior/Youth Centre ($108,991.89) Library ($166,833.84) and Arts Centre ($215,013.39). The higher cost for the Arts Centre building is mainly due to the several iterations of the plans to reflect changes in building scope. The invoices have been reviewed by City staff and Cushman & Wakefield and they have approved them for payment. These costs are related to the preliminary design work for the Civic Centre and the design work was used to generate the preliminary project cost figures for the financial stress test. Council approved report FIN 15-19 for the project to proceed and the preliminary design work is now being used to develop the detailed project drawings. Financial Implications: In the 2019 Capital budget, Council approved $1.5 million to be used for Civic Centre start-up costs. (The funding for this expenditure was coming from the Rate Stabilization Reserve). The purpose of this capital account was to address the costs associated with developing and investigating the Civic Centre project. The Civic Centre project is probably the most complicated multi building project that the City has ever undertaken. To -date, the City already has financial commitments of $880,000 (net HST) (Council Approved) related to relocation of services and project management design at the Civic Centre project. If Council approves, the $543,284.45, ($533,888,02 net HST) the remaining balance in this account would be $86,111. - 135 - FIN 18-19 October 21, 2019 Subject: Payment of Invoices Related to Preliminary Design of the Civic Centre Project Page 2 Discussion: Cushman & Wakefield and City staff through a competitive process selected aA. The selection process had to take into consideration the size and scope of the project. The total estimated size of the project including City and PTC (phase one and two) is over $1.0 billion. In other words, the firm selected had to have the experience and resources to dedicate to a project of this size. aA has approximately 45 architects, designers and technologists that provide the full spectrum of services, applied to a scope of practice that ranges from academic and institutional buildings to large-scale mixed-use developments: aA has completed projects all over Canada, the United States and Europe and they won design awards such as: Canadian Architect Magazine: Award of Excellence — 2015 Pan/Parapan American Games Athletes' Village 1 Canary District and City of Toronto: Green Toronto Award — Sackville -Dundas Apartments. Architect Alliance (aA) has been working on the preliminary design of the Civic Centre starting in the first quarter of this year. Their work has been instrumental in advancing the project and producing concept drawings that have been presented to Members of Council and to Pickering residents. Their preliminary design work has been on display at the Pickering Town Centre for many months. Their preliminary design work is the foundation for the detailed design drawings that is currently under way. The invoices have been reviewed and vetted by City staff and Cushman & Wakefield and they recommend payment. Prepared/Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By Stan Karwowski, CPA, CMA, MBA Director, Finance & Treasurer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer - 136 - Cfy �t DICKERING Report to Council Report Number: PLN 23-19 Date: October 21, 2019 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Provincial Policy Statement Review, Proposed Policies Environmental Registry of Ontario Number 019-0279 File: L-1100-052 Recommendation: 1. That Council receive for information and review, a copy of The Regional Municipality of Durham Report #2019-P-42 of the Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development and Chief Administrative Officer, dated October 1, 2019, titled "Provincial Policy Statement Review, Proposed Policies (ERO #019-0279), File: L35-03", provided as Appendix I to Report PLN 23-19; 2. That Council endorse the following recommendations of The Regional Municipality of Durham Report #2019-P-42 as they apply to the City of Pickering: A) i) through x), xii), xiv), xv) and xvii) through xix); 3. That Council endorse the following staff recommendations as part of Council's response to the Province's proposed changes to the Provincial Policy Statement (Environmental Registry of Ontario Number 019-0279): a. That the term "market-based" be defined. b. That the proposed changes to the definition of "on-farm diversified uses" which will permit ground -mounted solar facilities in prime agricultural areas and specialty crop areas, be removed. c. That proposed new Policy 1.6.8.5 be supported as it promotes the co -location of linear infrastructure where appropriate. d. That the proposed change to Policy 1.6.10.1 be removed to ensure the consideration of the implications associated with development and land use planning on waste generation. e. That the proposed change to Policy 3.1.3 be supported as it enhances requirements for climate change considerations, as well as recognizes that the impacts of a changing climate are clear and present as opposed to potential. f. That proposed new Policy 4.7 which promotes fast -tracking priority applications that support housing and job-related growth and development, and the reduction of the time needed to process residential and priority applications to the extent practical, be clarified; and - 137 - PLN 23-19 October 21, 2019 Subject: Provincial Policy Statement Review, Proposed Policies Page 2 4. That a copy of Report PLN 23-19 and Council's resolution on the Report be forwarded to: the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing; the Environmental Registry of Ontario; the Honourable Peter Bethlenfalvy, MPP Pickering — Uxbridge; and the Region of Durham. Executive Summary: The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) is the primary Provincial land use policy document guiding municipal decision-making. Municipalities are the primary implementers of the PPS through policies in their respective official plans, zoning by-laws and other planning related documents. The Planning Act requires that decisions on land use planning matters be "consistent with" the PPS. On May 2, 2019, the government released "More Homes, More Choice: Ontario's Housing Supply Action Plan" (Action Plan). The Action Plan includes a series of distinct but coordinated initiatives to address housing supply, including a review of the PPS. On July 22, 2019 the Province released, for consultation purposes, proposed policy changes to the current (2014) PPS. The deadline for comment is October 21, 2019. The Regional Municipality of Durham staff have prepared a report to their Council, providing an overview, preliminary comments, and a number of recommended changes to the PPS (see Appendix I, The Regional Municipality of Durham Report #2019-P-42 on the PPS, October 1, 2019). Durham Region staff's recommended changes include requesting: • clarification and/or definitions for new terms and/or policies, including that the term "market- based" be revised to "market informed" to better reflect the provincial policy -led planning system, and the Region's long-term planning objectives that support the provision of affordable and supportive housing, while encouraging a more compact urban form that is sensitive to local conditions; • the addition of natural heritage and hydrologic systems as criteria for consideration in the adjustment of Settlement Area boundaries; • the existing land use compatibility policies related to sensitive uses and industrial/manufacturing uses be maintained; • the deletion of proposed new policy that relates to the integration of stormwater and water/sewer planning since stormwater planning is the responsibility of the local municipalities and water/sewer planning is the responsibility of the Region and that the priorities of the different municipalities may differ; and • that climate data be added to the definition of "impacts of a changing climate", among other additions. Many of the issues and challenges that the Regional Municipality of Durham would face, arising from the changes to the PPS, are equally applicable to Pickering. Relying on the review and analysis contained in the Durham Region report, Pickering staff recommends that Council endorse certain recommended policy amendments as the City's response to the Environmental Registry's posting (ERO #019-0279) for the Provincial Policy Statement Review, Proposed Policies. - 138 - PLN 23-19 October 21, 2019 Subject: Provincial Policy Statement Review, Proposed Policies Page 3 Staff have also provided additional recommendations relating to: adding a definition of "market-based"; removing the change to add solar farms to the proposed definition of "on-farm diversified uses"; supporting policy that promotes the co -location of linear infrastructure where appropriate; removing the proposed change to Policy 1.6.10.1 to ensure the consideration of the implications associated with development and land use planning on waste generation; supporting the proposed change to Policy 3.1.3 as it enhances requirements for climate change considerations; and clarifying what constitutes "priority applications" as proposed in new Policy 4.7 which promotes fast -tracking priority applications that support housing and job-related growth and development, and the reduction of the time needed to process residential and priority applications to the extent practical. Financial Implications: There are no financial implications associated with the comments in this report. Discussion: On July 22, 2019 the Province released, for consultation purposes, proposed policy changes to the current Provincial Policy Statement (2014). The deadline for comment is October 21, 2019. A copy of the proposed policy statement is available at ero.ontario.ca/notice/019- 0279. An overview document of the proposed policy changes is shown in Attachment #1. The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) is the primary Provincial land use policy document that sets out minimum requirements that apply across Ontario. The Planning Act requires that all land use planning decisions "shall be consistent with" the PPS. The Regional Municipality of Durham has prepared a detailed report outlining their response to the proposed policy changes. A copy of the report is provided as an appendix to Report PLN 23-19 for Council's information and review (see Appendix I, The Regional Municipality of Durham Report #2019-P-42 on the Provincial Policy Statement Review, October 1, 2019). Staff have reviewed the analysis and recommendations in the Regional Municipality of Durham Report to Council and concur with the following recommendations: A (i) That, for clarification purposes, the term "Provincial Interest" be defined in the PPS, or that a reference to Section 2 of the Planning Act be included; A (ii) That a policy be included in Policy 1.1.1 that encourages the preparation and implementation of community energy plans as a component of planning for healthy, liveable and safe communities; A (iii) That the term "market-based" in Policy 1.1.1.(6) be revised to "market informed" to better reflect the provincial policy -led planning system, and the Region's long-term planning objectives that support the provision of affordable and supportive housing, while encouraging a more compact urban form that is sensitive to local conditions; A (iv) That the Province be requested to either release an updated Land Needs Assessment guidance document, or confirm the existing draft document, to help the Region advance Envision Durham, the Region's Municipal Comprehensive Review; A (v) That the PPS continue to use the word "shall" in policies 1.1.3.6, 1.1.3.7 and 1.6.7.2 to assist with the implementation of orderly and sequential development and complete communities; - 139 - PLN 23-19 October 21, 2019 Subject: Provincial Policy Statement Review, Proposed Policies Page 4 A (vi) That the references to Section 2: Wise Use and Management of Resources and Section 3: Protecting Public Health and Safety of the PPS be reinstated in Policy 1.1.3.8 to ensure that the review of Settlement Area boundaries is systematic, well planned and comprehensive; A (vii) That natural heritage and hydrologic systems be added as criteria for consideration in the adjustment of Settlement Area boundaries to ensure that these reviews are systematic, well-planned and comprehensive and in sync with the Growth Plan; A (viii) That the proposed wording changes to the land use compatibility policies in Policies 1.2.6.1 and 1.2.6.2 not be supported, as the changes could lead to greater conflict between sensitive uses and industrial/manufacturing uses; A (ix) That the Province be requested to provide additional guidance regarding the appropriate transition area, or distance separation, between industrial and manufacturing uses and non -employment uses, including providing additional clarity regarding Places of Worship that are regarded as sensitive land uses; A (x) That the term "regional economic development corporation" in Policy 1.3.2.5 be changed to "Planning Authority" to be consistent with other policies in the PPS; A (xii) That the Province clarify that the upper -tier planning authority is the level which has responsibility for ensuring residential growth can be accommodated for a minimum of 12 years, and that the three-year supply of residential units is also maintained at the Regional level. In addition, it should be clarified that the upper or single -tier municipality would be responsible for defining the "regional market area"; A (xiv) That proposed Policy 1.6.6.7 of the PPS be deleted related to the integration of stormwater and water/sewer planning, as the responsibilities of municipalities in single -tier and two-tier systems differ; A (xv) That Policy 1.6.7.5 not be deleted as its removal is inconsistent with the PPS overall, as the Province and municipalities are to support the timely planning and implementation of transportation infrastructure improvements, coincident with the scale and pace of development, and the failure to provide this statement does not support the principle of promoting transit supportive development; A (xvii) That the Province provide guidance regarding how excess fill can be managed by the planning and development approvals process and suggest that excess fill can be managed through engineering approvals for developments following the draft approval stage; A (xviii) That the definition of the term "conserved" remain the same as per the 2014 PPS to recognize that municipalities do not have the authority to "approve" or adopt archaeological and heritage impact assessments; and A (xix) That a reference to climate data be added to the definition of "impacts of a changing climate". Staff recommend that Council support the above -noted recommendations in the Regional Municipality of Durham Report #2019-P-42, and recommend that the Province amend the PPS accordingly. - 140 - PLN 23-19 October 21, 2019 Subject: Provincial Policy Statement Review, Proposed Policies Page 5 In addition to the recommendations above, staff recommend that Council support the following recommendations in response to the Province's proposed changes to the Provincial Policy Statement (Environmental Registry of Ontario Number 019-0279): • That the term "market-based" be defined. The Province introduces the term "market-based" in Policy 1.1.1 b) to indicate that healthy, liveable and safe communities are to be sustained by an appropriate "market-based" range and mix of residential types, and identifies a wide range of housing types as examples. It is not clear what is meant by "market-based" and thus the term needs definition. • That the proposed changes to the definition of "on-farm diversified uses" which will permit ground -mounted solar facilities in prime agricultural areas and specialty crop areas be removed. This recommendation is consistent with Council's endorsement of the suggestion to introduce policies into the Regional Official Plan to prohibit large solar farms from locating on Prime Agricultural Areas in the Region, and that instead, these types of energy facilities be directed to marginal agricultural lands. • That proposed new Policy 1.6.8.5 be supported, as it promotes the co -location of linear infrastructure where appropriate. Proposed new Policy 1.6.8.5 is in keeping with Amendment 31 to the Pickering Official Plan which implements Information and Communication Technology Network policies and the "Dig Once" standard. • That the proposed change to Policy 1.6.10.1 be removed to ensure the consideration of the implications associated with development and land use planning on waste generation. Policy 1.6.10.1 is proposed to be amended to remove the following: "Planning authorities should consider the implications of development and land use patters on waste generation, management and diversion." In order to decrease reliance on landfills and increase diversion opportunities, it is important to consider the implications associated with development and land use planning on waste generation. • That the proposed change to Policy 3.1.3 be supported as it enhances requirements for climate change considerations, as well as recognizes that the impacts of a changing climate are clear and present as opposed to potential. Policy 3.1.3 is proposed to be amended to require planning authorities to prepare for the impacts of a changing climate rather than simply consider the potential impacts of climate change. • That proposed new Policy 4.7 which promotes fast -tracking priority applications that support housing and job-related growth and development, and the reduction of the time needed to process residential and priority applications to the extent practical, be clarified. Proposed new Policy 4.7, although intended to speed up the development process with respect to housing and job-related development, lacks clarity about what constitutes "priority applications". - 141 - PLN 23-19 October 21, 2019 Subject: Provincial Policy Statement Review, Proposed Policies Page 6 Appendix Appendix I The Regional Municipality of Durham Report #2019-P-42 on the Provincial Policy Statement, October 1, 2019 Attachment 1. Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) Review Prepared By: Original Signed By Margaret Kish, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner, Policy Original Signed By Dean Jacobs, MCIP, RPP Manager, Policy & Geomatics MK:Id Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Original Signed By Kyle Bentley, P. Eng. Director, City Development & CBO Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer - 142 - Appendix I to Report PLN 23-19 The Regional Municipality of Durham Report #2019-P-42 on the Provincial Policy Statement, October 1, 2019 - 143 - If this information is required in an accessible format, please contact 1-800-372-1102 ext. 2564 0 DURHAM REGION The Regional Municipality of Durham Report To: From: Report: Date: Planning and Economic Development Committee Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development #2019-P-42 October 1, 2019 Subject: Provincial Policy Statement Review, Proposed Policies (ERO #019-0279), File: L35-03 Recommendation: That the Planning and Economic Development Committee recommends to Regional Council: A) That Commissioner's Report #2019-P-42 be endorsed as Durham Region's response to the Environmental Registry's posting (ERO #019-0279) for the Provincial Policy Statement Review — Proposed Policies, including the following recommendations: i) That, for clarification purposes, the term "Provincial Interest" be defined in the PPS, or that a reference to section 2 of the Planning Act be included; ii) That a policy be included in Policy 1.1.1 that encourages the preparation and implementation of community energy plans as a component of planning for healthy, liveable and safe communities; iii) That the term "market-based" in Policy 1.1.1.(6) be revised to "market informed" to better reflect the provincial policy -led planning system, and the Region's long-term planning objectives that support the provision of affordable and supportive housing, while encouraging a more compact urban form that is sensitive to local conditions; iv) That the Province be requested to either release an updated Land Needs Assessment guidance document, or confirm the existing draft document, to - 1144 - Report #2019-P-42 Page 2 of 14 help the Region advance Envision Durham, the Region's Municipal Comprehensive Review; v) That the PPS continue to use the word "shall" in policies 1.1.3.6, 1.1.3.7 and 1.6.7.2 to assist with the implementation of orderly and sequential development and complete communities; vi) That the references to Section 2: Wise Use and Management of Resources and Section 3: Protecting Public Health and Safety of the PPS be reinstated in Policy 1.1.3.8 to ensure that the review of Settlement Area boundaries is systematic, well planned and comprehensive; vii) That natural heritage and hydrologic systems be added as criteria for consideration in the adjustment of Settlement Area boundaries to ensure that these reviews are systematic, well-planned and comprehensive and in sync with the Growth Plan; viii) That the proposed wording changes to the land use compatibility policies in Policies 1.2.6.1 and 1.2.6.2 not be supported, as the changes could lead to greater conflict between sensitive uses and industrial/manufacturing uses; ix) That the Province be requested to provide additional guidance regarding the appropriate transition area, or distance separation, between industrial and manufacturing uses and non -employment uses, including providing additional clarity regarding Places of Worship that are regarded as sensitive land uses; x) That the term "regional economic development corporation" in Policy 1.3.2.5 be changed to "Planning Authority" to be consistent with other policies in the PPS; xi) That the Province be requested to confirm whether it intends to release updated population and employment forecasts for the Greater Golden Horseshoe that would allow the Region to use a 25 -year planning horizon in its Municipal Comprehensive Review; xii) That the Province clarify that the upper -tier planning authority is the level which has responsibility for ensuring residential growth can be accommodated for a minimum of 12 years, and that the three-year supply of residential units is also maintained at the Regional level. In addition, it should be clarified that the upper or single -tier municipality would be responsible for defining the "regional market area"; - 1145 - Report #2019-P-42 Page 3 of 14 xiii) That the proposed wording changes to Policy 1.6.6.3 be revised to address and safeguard the financial and operational risks to a municipality associated with privately -owned communal services; xiv) That proposed Policy 1.6.6.7 of the PPS be deleted related to the integration of stormwater and water/sewer planning, as the responsibilities of municipalities in single -tier and two-tier systems differ; xv) That Policy 1.6.7.5 not be deleted as its removal is inconsistent with the PPS overall, as the Province and municipalities are to support the timely planning and implementation of transportation infrastructure improvements, coincident with the scale and pace of development, and the failure to provide this statement does not support the principle of promoting transit supportive development; xvi) That, for clarification purposes, the term "wayside" not be deleted from the heading in Policy 2.5.5, as the policy is specific to wayside pits and quarries; xvii) That the Province provide guidance regarding how excess fill can be managed by the planning and development approvals process and suggest that excess fill can be managed through engineering approvals for developments following the draft approval stage; xviii) That the definition of the term "conserved" remain the same as per the 2014 PPS to recognize that municipalities do not have the authority to "approve" or adopt archaeological and heritage impact assessments; and xix) That a reference to climate data be added to the definition of "impacts of a changing climate". B) That a copy of this report be forwarded to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and Durham's area municipalities and conservation authorities. Report: 1. Purpose 1.1 The purpose of this report is to respond to ERO Posting #019-0279 which requests comments on proposed changes to the current (2014) Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). Report #2019-P-42 Page 4 of 14 2. Background 2.1 The Planning Act requires that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing undertake a review of the PPS, at a minimum, every ten years. On July 22, 2019 the Province released, for consultation purposes, proposed policy changes to the 2014 PPS. A copy of the proposed changes to the PPS can be downloaded from the province's website Provincial Policy Statement Review Proposed Policies. The deadline for comment is October 21, 2019. A copy of this report will be sent to the Minister following receipt by Committee, recognizing that formal comments from the Region will be sent following the Regional Council on October 23, 2019. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing staff have been advised they will be receiving the Region's official comments shortly after the deadline. 2.2 The current version of the PPS came into effect April 30, 2014. The PPS provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. The PPS applies province -wide, and not just to the municipalities within the Greater Toronto Area. The PPS sets the policy foundation for regulating the development and use of land and is complemented by provincial plans such as the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (A Place to Grow), the Greenbelt Plan, and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. 2.3 The PPS fosters conditions for development, while protecting resources of provincial interest, public health and safety, and the quality of the natural and built environment. The PPS supports improved land use planning and management, which contributes to a more effective and efficient land use planning system. 2.4 The PPS consists of: a. A preamble; description of legislative authority, how to read the PPS; and Vision for Ontario's Land Use Planning System, b. A set of detailed policies addressing three major areas of Provincial interest: • Building Strong Healthy Communities; • Wise Use and Management of Resources; • Protecting Public Health and Safety; c. An explanation of how the PPS is to be implemented and interpreted; d. A Natural Heritage Protection Reference map; and e. Definitions. - 1147 - Report #2019-P-42 Page 5 of 14 2.5 The Durham Regional Official Plan (ROP) implements the PPS and provincial plans by providing Durham Region specific policies. The ROP defines the intent of Regional Council in the guidance of growth and development in the Region. In exercising its approval authority, Regional Council ensures that the area municipal official plans and amendments are consistent with the ROP, the PPS and provincial plans. 3. Proposed Revisions to the PPS 3.1 According to the Province, the proposed revisions are intended to: • Encourage the development of an increased mix and supply of housing; • Protect the environment and public safety; • Reduce barriers and costs for development and provide greater; predictability; • Support rural, northern and Indigenous communities; and • Support the economy and job creation. 4. Comments 4.1 The comments below are presented by section, with specific recommendations in bold. Preamble 4.2 A proposed new paragraph in the Preamble states that "official plans shall provide clear, reasonable and attainable policies to protect provincial interests and direct development to suitable areas". It is unclear if the term is referring to "provincial interests" as defined within section 2 of the Planning Act, 1990 or whether it includes other interests. It is recommended, for clarification purposes, that the term "Provincial Interest" be defined in the PPS, or that a reference to section 2 of the Planning Act be included. Building Strong Healthy Communities 4.3 Section 1.1 of the PPS provides direction on managing and directing land use to achieve efficient and resilient development and land use patterns. In Durham, a Community Energy Plan has been endorsed to improve energy efficiency, support the development of renewable energy, reduce air pollution and support economic development initiatives based on a low carbon pathway. The reduction in energy use and reduced GHG emissions depends on the implementation of compact urban form, the implementation of robust transit services, the construction of - 1 - Report #2019-P-42 Page 6 of 14 energy efficient buildings, and the development of diverse energy resources. Although policy 1.1.1 of the PPS is consistent with these objectives, it is recommended that a policy be included that encourages the preparation and implementation of community energy plans as a component of planning for healthy, liveable and safe communities. 4.4 A proposed change to the PPS includes changes to Policy 1.1.1 b) which currently states: "[Healthy, liveable and safe communities are sustained by] b) accommodating an appropriate range and mix of residential (including second units affordable housing and housing for olderpersons)..."The policy is proposed to be revised such that municipalities would be required to plan for "accommodating an appropriate market-based range and mix of residential types". The term "market-based" has been included several times throughout the document. This proposed change is at odds with Ontario's provincial policy -led planning system1. This approach would require planning for development that is dictated by the current market as opposed to broader long-term planning policy objectives, including the provision of affordable and supportive housing, and development practices that support the efficient use of land. Since the "market" can be affected by a wide variety of forces such as interest rates, the value of land, the geographic characteristics of sites and changing demographics, defining the market can be open to widely differing viewpoints. However, it is acknowledged that in the conduct of Land Needs Assessments (LNAs) as part of a Municipal Comprehensive Review, experts are mindful of regional market conditions and variations when they prepare development forecasts. These exercises strike a balance between accommodating forecasted housing needs while accommodating other planning policy objectives. Therefore, it is recommended that the term "market-based" in Policy 1.1.1 (6) and throughout the document be revised to "market informed" to better reflect the provincial policy -led planning system, and the Region's long-term planning objectives that support the provision of affordable and supportive housing, while encouraging a more compact urban form that is sensitive to local conditions. 4.5 Further, since the Region is currently engaged in undertaking its Land Needs Assessment work, it is recommended that the Province be requested to either release an updated Land Needs Assessment guidance document, or confirm 1 The PPS states, "Ontario's provincial policy -led planning system recognizes and addresses the complex inter -relationships among environmental, economic and social factors in land use planning. The PPS supports a comprehensive, integrated and long-term approach to planning, and recognizes linkages among policy areas."(Part III, PPS) Report #2019-P-42 Page 7 of 14 the existing draft document, to help the Region advance Envision Durham, the Region's Municipal Comprehensive Review. In the absence of this certainty, the timing of the MCR could be delayed. 4.6 Transit -supportive development is enhanced by the requirement being added to several of the policies in Section 1 of the PPS, including Section 1.1.1 that promotes the integration of land use planning, growth management, transit - supportive development and the optimization of transit investments. These proposed changes are supported as they are consistent with the Region's current planning policies in both the ROP and the Region's Transportation Master Plan, 2017. 4.7 The nature of a number of policies throughout the PPS have been changed from "shall" to "should", making them less prescriptive. For example, the proposed PPS Policy 1.1.3.7 would read "Planning authorities should establish and implement phasing policies" as opposed to "shall" establish. There is a concern that providing discretion in this policy could enable development to proceed in a non -sequential or potentially haphazard manner. This type of wording change can be the subject of hearings at the LPAT, where debate on provincial policy intent is adjudicated. Further, the replacement of the word "shall" with "should" in policies 1.1.3.6, and 1.6.7.2 would introduce discretion for development other than "compact urban form" in designated growth areas, which is inconsistent with the PPS that provides policy direction for the efficient use of land and resources. This notion that non- sequential growth is permissible may create unnecessary confusion when interpreting PPS policies, and could detract from policies directed toward building complete communities that support transit and a healthy environment. Therefore, it is recommended that the PPS continue to use the word "shall" in policies 1.1.3.6, 1.1.3.7 and 1.6.7.2 to assist with the implementation of orderly and sequential development and complete communities. 4.8 The proposed PPS maintains the policy requiring the expansion of a settlement area boundary only at the time of a comprehensive review. However, the proposed PPS removes the requirement to examine the natural heritage system or natural hazards as the reference to Section 2, Wise Use and Management of Resources, and Section 3, Protecting Public Health and Safety, has been deleted. It is recommended that the references to Section 2: Wise Use and Management of Resources and Section 3: Protecting Public Health and Safety of the PPS be reinstated in Policy 1.1.3.8 to ensure that the review of Settlement Area boundaries is systematic, well-planned and comprehensive. 1150 - Report #2019-P-42 Page 8 of 14 4.9 The Settlement Area boundary policies have also been revised to allow adjustments of Settlement Area boundaries outside a municipal comprehensive review if there is no net increase in land within Settlement Areas. This is consistent with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, although some of the criteria that must be satisfied are inconsistent between the two documents and could cause unnecessary confusion. For example, both the proposed PPS and the Growth Plan require that when examining Settlement Area boundary adjustments, the impact on the agricultural system be addressed, but the proposed PPS does not reference key hydrologic features or the natural heritage system. It is recommended that natural heritage and hydrologic systems be added as criteria for consideration in the adjustment of Settlement Area boundaries to ensure that the review is systematic, well-planned and comprehensive. This systematic evaluation of settlement area boundary expansions avoids a piecemeal and inconsistent approach. 4.10 Section 1.2.2 of the PPS is proposed to be revised to state that Planning Authorities shall (emphasis added) engage with Indigenous communities and coordinate on land use planning matters. The current PPS "encourages" Indigenous engagement. Over the past few years, the Region has been working to enhance its engagement practices with Indigenous communities through staff education and training, as well as through engagement on the Community Strategic Plan and the Municipal Comprehensive Review. As such, the proposed change to the PPS is consistent with Regional practice. However, this new requirement may have an impact on Regional staff's ability to meet the new (shorter) planning application approval timelines, depending on a First Nation Council's capacity to review and comment on planning applications. 4.11 Major industrial/manufacturing facilities are to be planned to avoid impacts on sensitive land uses. The land use compatibility policies in the PPS speak to the potential adverse effects from odour, noise and other contaminants, and risks to public health and safety. The existing PPS policies appear to be weakened through the proposed addition of a caveat statement in Policy 1.2.6.1 that states "if avoidance is not possible, minimize and mitigate any potential adverse effects". A new policy is proposed (Policy 1.2.6.2) that indicates the conditions where avoidance is not possible, and alternative locations are not reasonable, then impacts can be minimized and mitigated in accordance with relevant guidelines and standards pertaining to odour, noise contaminants and risk to public health and safety. It is recommended that the proposed wording changes to the land use compatibility policies in the PPS not be supported, as the changes could lead to greater conflicts between sensitive uses and - 11591 - Report #2019-P-42 Page 9 of 14 industrial/manufacturing uses. 4.12 The proposed PPS would add a policy (Policy 1.3.2.3) to ensure an appropriate "transition" between industrial/manufacturing uses and non -employment uses. The Region is supportive of this addition as it is consistent with land use planning practices that support land use compatibility. However, it is recommended that the Province be requested to provide additional guidance regarding the appropriate transition area, or distance separation, between industrial and manufacturing uses and non -employment uses, including providing clarity regarding facilities such as Places of Worship that are regarded as sensitive land uses. 4.13 Proposed Policy 1.3.2.5 would allow for the conversion of employment areas to non -employment uses outside of a municipal comprehensive review, provided the area has not been identified as provincially significant through a provincial plan exercise or as regionally -significant by a regional economic development corporation. This is similar to policies in the Growth Plan. Staff continue to support the systematic evaluation of employment land conversion requests through the Municipal Comprehensive Review process. As an editorial comment, it is recommended that the term "regional economic development corporation" in Policy 1.3.2.5 be changed to "Planning Authority", to be consistent with other policies in the PPS. 4.14 The land use planning horizons for the protection of employment areas has been changed from 20 years to 25 years, and the supply of housing to be maintained has changed from 10 years to 12 years. The Region is currently undertaking a Municipal Comprehensive Review of the ROP to plan for 2041 population and employment forecasts, as prescribed in Schedule 3 the Growth Plan (roughly a 20 - year planning horizon). It is recommended that the Province be requested to confirm whether it intends to release updated population and employment forecasts for the Greater Golden Horseshoe that would allow the Region to use a 25 -year planning horizon in its Municipal Comprehensive Review. 4.15 Under Policy 1.4.1 of the PPS, planning authorities are required to provide a mix of housing options and densities required to meet the projected requirements of current and future residents of the regional market area. In order to do so, planning authorities are directed to maintain at all times the ability to accommodate residential growth for a minimum of 12 years through residential intensification and redevelopment, and if necessary lands which are designated and available for residential development. The threshold for the accommodation of residential Report #2019-P-42 Page 10 of 14 growth was previously 10 years. The increase to 12 years is supported. Planning authorities are also required to maintain at all times, where new development is to occur, land with servicing capacity sufficient to provide at least a three-year supply of residential units available through lands suitably zoned to facilitate residential intensification and redevelopment, and land in draft approved and registered plans. 4.16 There has been confusion in the past as to whether the implementation of Policy 1.4.1 is the responsibility of the upper -tier municipality, or each individual area municipality due to the reference to "planning authorities". This confusion has persisted, despite the policy stating it is for the "regional market area". Although the "regional market area" is a defined term in the PPS, referring to the upper or single -tier municipality, it can be a larger area, depending on circumstances. Where a two-tier planning system is in effect, as in Durham Region, it is recommended that the Province clarify that the upper -tier planning authority is the level which has responsibility for ensuring residential growth can be accommodated for a minimum of 12 years, and that the three-year supply of residential units is also to be maintained at the Regional level. In addition, it should be clarified that the upper or single -tier municipality would be responsible for defining the "regional market area". 4.17 Proposed revisions to Policy 1.6.6.3 would permit the implementation of private communal water services in multi-unit/lot development in rural settlements. The use of privately -owned communal services can be problematic, particularly if these services fail, and there is an expectation for the Region to assume the service. The policy should clarify that ownership and maintenance of a communal system/service would be the responsibility of the condominium corporation or private owner in perpetuity, such that it does not become a future burden to taxpayers. It is recommended that the proposed wording changes to Policy 1.6.6.3 address the financial and operational risks to a municipality associated with communal services. 4.18 Policy 1.6.6.7 states that stormwater management shall "be integrated with planning for sewage and water services". It is unclear how this policy should be implemented as sewage, water and stormwater are independent services that serve different purposes, service areas, and flow directions. Further, within Durham Region, stormwater management is primarily the responsibility of the area municipalities, while water and sewer services are the Region's responsibility. This proposed change to the PPS could imply that an upper -tier municipality would be responsible for stormwater management, which is a departure from current _ 11513 _ Report #2019-P-42 Page 11 of 14 practice. It is recommended that Policy 1.6.6.7 of the proposed PPS be deleted related to the integration of stormwater and water/sewer planning, as the responsibilities of municipalities in single -tier and two-tier systems differ. 4.19 Policy 1.6.7.5, which states: "Transportation and land use considerations shall be integrated at all stages of the planning process" is proposed to be deleted. This is inconsistent with the Growth Plan which takes the approach that land use and transportation need to be planned together. For example, the compact urban form required by PPS policies requires that transit and active modes of transportation be planned in tandem with this type of infrastructure. Additionally, since it is required that transit supportive considerations be incorporated into development, it is equally important that transportation and land use considerations be incorporated into all stages of the planning process to ensure that development is implemented in accordance with transit supportive policy. The deletion of this policy seems to be in conflict with other policies that support the timely planning and implementation of transportation infrastructure improvements with development, and the promotion of transit supportive development. It is therefore recommended that Policy 1.6.7.5 not be deleted, as its removal is inconsistent with the PPS overall, as the Province and municipalities are to support the timely planning and implementation of transportation infrastructure improvements, coincident with the scale and pace of development, and the failure to provide this statement does not support the principle of promoting transit supportive development. Wise Use and Management of Resources 4.20 A policy was added to allow municipalities to choose to manage wetlands not identified as Provincially Significant in accordance with guidelines developed by the Province. The impact of this policy can be further assessed when the guidelines are released by the Province, however, it appears that the policy is giving municipalities the ability to protect smaller and less -significant wetlands, which is supported. 4.21 The term "changing climate" has been added throughout the document, recognizing the importance of preparing for the impacts of climate change. This is an enhancement to the 2014 PPS, which focused on "considering" climate change. These additions are supported. 4.22 A new policy encouraging planning authorities to use an agricultural system approach is proposed to be added. The Region, has implemented this practice _1154_ Report #2019-P-42 Page 12 of 14 through the "Prime Agricultural Areas" designation in the ROP. This change is supported. 4.23 Section 2.5.5 of the proposed PPS deletes the term "wayside". A wayside pit is a temporary pit or quarry opened and used by or for a public authority solely for the purpose of a particular project/contract. It is unclear why this term would be deleted when the policy speaks to "wayside pits". It is recommended that, for clarification purposes, the term "wayside" not be deleted from Policy 2.5.5 as the policy is specific to wayside pits and quarries. Protecting Public Health and Safety 4.24 There is a note at the beginning of this section stating that policies related to natural hazards are subject to ongoing review by the Province's Special Advisor on Flooding. Further changes may be considered as a result of this review. 4.25 The proposed PPS adds a new policy regarding excess soil that reads as follows: "Planning authorities should support, where feasible, on-site and local re -use of excess soil through planning and development approvals while protecting human health and the environment". Management of excess soil is regulated by municipalities through Fill By-laws, which are passed under the authority of the Municipal Act, 2001. As such, it is recommended that the Province provide guidance regarding how excess fill can be managed by the planning and development approvals process. It is suggested that excess fill can be managed through engineering approvals for developments following the draft approval stage. Implementation and Interpretation 4.26 Additionally, the Province highlights the importance it places on increasing the housing supply by adding a policy regarding the need to facilitate a timely and streamlined development approvals process, that identifies and fast -tracks priority applications, and reduces the time needed to process residential and priority applications. This direction is consistent with changes the Province has recently made to the Planning Act through Bill 108, which has shortened the timelines for the processing of Planning applications. However, the term "priority application" has not been defined, nor have any criteria been provided on how a municipality may determine priority applications. As currently written, this could lead to different interpretations across the Province. Municipalities will need to develop criteria to determine what constitutes a "priority application" (such as affordable housing and employment) in their jurisdiction, and consider what type of support will be _ 11535 _ Report #2019-P-42 Page 13 of 14 provided to facilitate a timely and streamlined development approvals process. Definitions 4.27 The definition of "conserved" has been revised to state that archaeological and heritage impact assessments are approved or adopted by the planning authority. Municipalities do not have the authority to do so under the Ontario Heritage Act. As such, it is recommended that the definition of the term "conserved" remain as per the 2014 PPS to recognize that municipalities do not have the authority to "approve" or "adopt" archaeological and heritage impact assessments. 4.28 The definition for "impacts of a changing climate" is very broad and refers to the potential for present and future consequences and opportunities from changes in weather patterns at local and regional levels, including extreme weather events and increased climate variability. There is no mention of quantitative data to support illustration of the impacts of a changing climate. It is recommended that a reference to climate data be added to the definition of "impacts of a changing climate". 5. Conclusions and Recommendations 5.1 The province has proposed revisions to the PPS which are the subject of this report. Additional revisions are recommended to improve the effectiveness of the PPS, remove inconsistencies, and to clarify policy and terminology, as detailed in this report. 5.2 It is recommended that this report be endorsed as the Region's submission to the Environmental Registry's posting (ERO 019-0279) for the Provincial Policy Statement Review - Proposed Policies. 5.3 This report was prepared in consultation with Corporate Services - CAO's Office, Corporate Services - Legal Services, the Works Department and Social Services - Housing Services. - 1156 - Report #2019-P-42 Respectfully submitted, Original signed by Page 14 of 14 Brian Bridgeman, MCIP, RPP Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development Recommended for Presentation to Committee Original signed by Elaine C. Baxter-Trahair Chief Administrative Officer 11537 - Attachment #1 to Report #PLN 23-19 --- � PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT (PPS) REVIEW ONTARIO'S LAND USE PLANNING SYSTEM WHAT IS THE PPS? The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) is the primary provincial land use policy document that sets out minimum requirements that apply across Ontario The Planning Act requires that all land use planning decisions "shall be consistent with" the PPS Municipalities are the primary decision -makers for local communities and implement provincial policies, including the PPS, through official plans and other planning decisions Municipalities may build on, but not conflict with, PPS policies to reflect local context PPS policies are intended to help protect what matters most by providing policy direction related to growth and development, the use and management of resources, and the protection of the environment and public health and safety GOVERNMENT COMMITMENT To REVIEW THE PPS • In early 2019, engagement on the PPS was undertaken as part of the Increasing Housing Supply Consultations • Input received helped to inform the development of the More Homes, More Choice: Ontario's Housing Supply Action Pian released in May 2019 • Through the Action Plan, the government signaled its intention to review the PPS HOW CAN I LEARN MORE & PROVIDE FEEDBACK? For details on specific policy changes, the draft PPS is available online at: ero.ontario.ca/notice/019-0279 If you are interested in providing written feedback during the 90 -day consultation period (July 22, 2019 — Oct 21, 2019), you may do so by either: • Submitting comments through the Environmental Registry of Ontario at: ero.ontario.ca/notice/019-0279 • Emailing planningconsultationaontario.ca - 158 - PROPOSED PPS POLICY AREAS The government is proposing PPS changes to reflect Ontario's changing needs across 5 key areas: A) Increasing Housing Supply & Mix B) Protecting the Environment & Public Safety C) Reducing Barriers & Costs E) Supporting Certainty & Economic Growth QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION The government wants your feedback on the PPS draft policies and would like your views on the following questions: Do the proposed policies effectively support goals related to increasing housing supply, creating and maintaining jobs, and red tape reduction while continuing to protect the environment, farmland, and public health and safety? Do the proposed policies strike the right balance? Why or why not? • How do these policies take into consideration the views of Ontario communities? Are there any other policy changes that are needed to support key priorities for housing, job creation, and streamlining of development approvals? Are there other tools that are needed to help implement the proposed policies? PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT (PPS) REVIEW A stable housing market with sufficient supply will help make housing more attainable and affordable for the people of Ontario. It will also attract new investment and create investment -ready communities that are attractive to employers and provide workers with places to live The PPS draft policies would: Increase land supply requirements that municipalities must meet: o Increase planning horizon from 20 to 25 years (1.1.2) o Increase housing land supply from 10 to 12 years (1.4.1(a)) o Allow higher minimum requirement for serviced residential land (5 years) for upper- and single -tier municipalities (1.4.1) • Update provincial guidance to support land budgeting (i.e. Projection Methodology) (1.1.2, 1.2.4(a)) • Increase flexibility for municipalities related to the phasing of development (1.1.3.7) and compact form (1.1.3.6) • Add flexibility to the process for settlement area boundary expansions (e.g. allow minor adjustments subject to specific tests, highlight that study requirements should be proportionate to the size/scale of development) (1.1.3.8,1.1.3.9) • Support the development of housing to meet current and future housing needs, and add reference to housing options and market-based needs (Vision, 1.4.1, 1.4.3, Definitions: "Housing options") • Require transit -supportive development and prioritize intensification, including potential air rights development, in proximity to transit, including corridors and stations (1.4.3(e)) • Support municipalities in achieving affordable housing targets by requiring alignment with Housing and Homelessness Plans (1.4.3(a)) • Broaden PPS policies to enhance support for development of long-term care homes (1.4.3)b)(1), Definitions: "Special needs" & "Public service facilities") The Made -in -Ontario Environment Plan includes a commitment to review land use policies that are critical to managing the impacts of a changing climate. Planning for extreme weather events helps protect people and property and makes financial sense The PPS draft policies would: Enhance direction to prepare for impacts of a changing climate (Vision, 1.1.1(i), 1.1.3.2(d), 1.6.1, 1.6.6.1(b)(2), 1.6.6.7(c), 1.8.1, 2.2.1(c), 3.1.3, Definitions: "Impacts of a changing climate", ) Enhance stormwater management policies to protect water and support climate resiliency (1.6.6.7(a), 1.6.6.7(c), 1.6.6.7(d)) • Promote the on-site local reuse of excess soil (3.2.3) • Maintain current policies related to natural and human made hazards which directs development away from hazardous areas including flood -prone areas in order to protect public health and safety, while work by the Special Advisor on flooding is underway (3.1) • Maintain current policies that require municipalities in southern Ontario to identify natural heritage systems, and provide flexibility as to how to achieve this outcome (2.1.3) • Provide a new, voluntary management approach for managing local or regionally -significant wetlands (2.1.10) • Maintain protections for the Greenbelt Supporting Rural, Northern & Indigenous Communities Rural, northern and Indigenous communities are vital to Ontario's continued prosperity and overall well-being The PPS draft policies would: • Allow flexibility for communities by clarifying perceived barriers to sewage and water servicing policies for lot creation and development in rural settlement areas (1.6.6) • Enhance municipal engagement with Indigenous communities on land use planning to help inform decision-making, build relationships and address issues upfront in the approvals process (1.2.2, 2.6.5, Vision) • Promote an agricultural systems approach to enhance agricultural protections to support critical food production and the agricultural sector as a significant economic driver (1.7.1(i), 2.3.2, 2.3.6.2, Definitions: "Agricultural system", "Agri -food network") A streamlined land use planning and development process which protects what is important — while reducing barriers and costs — supports economic growth and investment and the continued prosperity of Ontarians The PPS draft policies would: Require municipalities to take action to fast-track development applications for certain proposals (e.g. housing) (4.7) Allow mineral aggregate operations to use rehabilitation plans to demonstrate that extraction will have no negative impacts (2.5.2.2) Align policies and definition of cultural heritage with recent changes to the Ontario Heritage Act (Definitions: "Cultural heritage landscape", various other definitions) Refocus PPS energy policies to support a broad range of energy types and opportunities for increased energy supply (1.6.11.1) Ground mounted solar would be permitted in prime agricultural and specialty crop areas as an on-farm diversified use (Definitions: "On-farm diversified uses") Make minor changes to streamline development approvals and support burden reduction Supporting Certainty & Economic Growth Economic opportunities and continued investment are vital to supporting jobs and the continued economic well-being of all Ontarians. Supporting jobs is a key priority of Ontario's Open for Business agenda The PPS draft policies would: • Encourage municipalities to facilitate conditions for economic investment (1.3.1)c)) • At the time of official plan review or update, encourage municipalities to assess locally -identified employment areas to ensure designations are appropriate (1.3.2.2) • Provide municipalities with greater control over employment area conversions to support the forms of development and job creation that suit the local context (current and future) (1.3.2.5) • Provide enhanced direction for land use compatibility and stronger protection for major facilities such as manufacturing and industrial uses where non -employment uses are planned nearby (i.e. buffering uses from new sensitive uses) (1.2.6.1, 1.2.6.2, 1.3.2.3, Definitions: "Major facilities") - 159 - e4 �f DICKERING Memo To: Susan Cassel City Clerk From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Copy: Not Applicable Subject: Amend Schedule A of By-law 7362/14 appointing Inspectors File: L-2000-021 October 15, 2019 As a result of staff changes within the Building Services Section, and pursuant to the Building Code Act, please be advised that it will be necessary to amend Schedule A of By-law 7362/14 as attached hereto. The new schedule will reflect the following housekeeping changes: • Please find an attached Schedule A updated noting all of the appointed Building Inspectors If you have any questions, please contact me at extension 2070. Original Signed By Kyle Bentley KB:Id Attachment Schedule A — Appointments - 160 - The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. 7716/19 Being a By-law to amend Schedule A of By-law 7362/14 appointing Inspectors Whereas, pursuant to the provisions of subsection 3(1) of the Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, chapter 23, the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering is responsible for the enforcement of the Act within the City of Pickering; Whereas, pursuant to By-law 7362/14, Council appointed a Chief Building Official and such Inspectors as are necessary for the enforcement of the Act within the City of Pickering; Whereas, as a result of recent staff changes, the By-law to appoint these individuals must be amended to reflect the addition of new Inspectors; Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: Schedule A of By-law 7362/14, as amended, is hereby deleted and replaced with Schedule A attached hereto. By-law passed this 21st day of October, 2019. David Ryan, Mayor Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 161 - Schedule A Appointments Item Column Column 1. Chief Building Official Kyle Bentley 2. Deputy Chief Building Official/Inspector Carl Kolbe 3. Inspector Steven Amaral 4. Inspector Jeremy Bender 5. Inspector Stuart Caulfield 6. Inspector Joseph Domanski 7. Inspector David Escudero 8. Inspector Adam Fowler 9. Inspector Rachelle Gravel 10. Inspector Steven Heidebrecht 11. Inspector Anthony Nunes 12. Inspector Steven Smythe 13. Inspector David Stawowczyk 14. Inspector Ardalan Tanha 15. Inspector Robert Watson 16. Inspector Andy Westcott - 162 -