Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
December 16, 2019
Council Meeting Agenda December 16, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 6:30 pm In Camera Council 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 Council Minutes, November 25, 2019 23 Executive Committee Minutes, December 2, 2019 40 Special Council Minutes, Education & Training, December 2, 2019 (Confidential Special Council Meeting Minutes, Education & Training, December 2, 2019, provided under separate cover) 52 Planning & Development Committee Minutes, December 2, 2019 54 4.Presentations 5.Delegations 5.1 Charlene Rocha, St. Mary C.S.S. and FridaysForFuture Re: Climate Emergency Declaration 5.2 Joe Deschenes Smith, Trillium Housing Re: Report FIN 26-19 Trillium Housing Oak Non-Profit Corporation - Request to Defer Payment of Development Charges 5.3 Jack Gibbons, Ontario Clean Air Alliance Re: Notice of Motion - Decommissioning of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station 6.Correspondence 6.1 Corr. 41-19 66 Charlene Rocha, St. Mary C.S.S. and FridaysForFuture Re: Climate Emergency Declaration Recommendation: Council Meeting Agenda December 16, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca WHEREAS, climate change is a well-documented issue that poses a risk to social, economic and environmental well-being in communities around the world; And Whereas, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has determined the need for a significant reduction in carbon emissions in the next 11 years to avoid further economic, ecological, and societal losses due to climate change; And Whereas, climate change is currently contributing billions of dollars in property and infrastructure damage worldwide and the City of Pickering has been impacted by extreme rain and ice storm events resulting in a loss of tree canopy, property damage, utility disruptions, and flooding along the waterfront; And Whereas, the City of Pickering has been proactively integrating sustainability into its corporate culture for many years, while aiming to continuously balance the economic, environmental and social priorities of a healthy community; And Whereas, a climate emergency declaration aligns with the goals and actions already being completed through existing City programs, plans and policies including but not limited to: 2014-2019 and 2019-2024 Corporate Energy Management Plans, Durham Community Climate Adaptation Plan, Durham Community Energy Plan, Amendment 23 to the Pickering Official Plan, Partners in Climate Protection Program, Sustainable Development Guidelines, Sustainable Seaton: Community-Building series, habitat protection and naturalization, Smart Commute Program, renewable energy project on Dr. Nelson F. Tomlinson Community Centre, Measuring Sustainability Reports, a 7-year Electric Vehicle Strategy, a forthcoming Integrated Transportation Master Plan; And Whereas, the City of Pickering promotes a healthy economic development program that supports the attraction of key industries and jobs to allow for residents to work close to home; And Whereas, the City of Pickering is attempting to maximize unique economic development opportunities within the City to further advance the establishment of key industries and support the supply chain of businesses; - 1 - Council Meeting Agenda December 16, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Now Therefore be it resolved that the Council of the City of Pickering declares a climate emergency by endorsing the following: 1.That climate change poses a threat to both the current and future social, economic and environmental well-being of the community; 2.That the City continues to strive for a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to reduce the local and global impacts of climate change; 3.That the City supports that mitigation, adaptation and resiliency measures continue to be considered and implemented to ensure the community remains prosperous and to reduce the short and long term impacts of climate change; 4.That the City continues to demonstrate leadership and a commitment to economic, social and environmental sustainability; 5.That the City continues to build a healthy and complete city where residents can live, work, and play without having to leave the community; 6.That Council requests staff, wherever possible, to consider climate change in municipal activities; 7.That the City continues to encourage residents, businesses, and the development community to consider climate change; and, 8.The Council shares it’s commitment by forwarding this declaration to the Federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Ontario Minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks, Member of Parliament for Pickering-Uxbridge, Member of Provincial Parliament for Pickering-Uxbridge, Region of Durham, Durham Region municipalities, the Durham Catholic and Public District School Boards and the Ontario French Public School Board. 6.2 Corr. 42-19 69 Ralph Walton, Regional Clerk/Director of Legislative Services The Regional Municipality of Durham Re: Notice of Motion re: Opioid Overdose Emergency Resolution Recommendation: - 2 - Council Meeting Agenda December 16, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca That Corr. 42-19, dated October 24, 2019, from the Regional Municipality of Durham, regarding the Opioid Overdose Emergency Resolution be received and endorsed. 6.3 Corr. 43-19 120 Association of Municipalities Ontario Re: Ontario Announces E-Scooter Pilot on Municipal Roads Recommendation: 1.That Corr. 43-19, dated November 28, 2019, from Association of Municipalities Ontario, regarding Ontario’s announcement on the E- Scooter Pilot on Municipal Roads be received; and, 2.That Staff be directed, through the CAO, to review and develop an engagement strategy including consultation with residents on the option for the City’s participation in the E-Scooter Pilot program with a report back to Council by the end of the 1st Quarter 2020. 6.4 Corr. 44-19 122 Kevin Narraway, Manager of Legislative Services/Deputy Clerk Town of Whitby Re: Regional Heritage Property Tax Rebate Recommendation: That Corr. 44-19, dated November 29, 2019, from the Regional Municipality of Durham, regarding the Regional Heritage Property Tax Rebate be received and endorsed. 7.Report EC 2019-10 of the Executive Committee held on December 2, 2019 Refer to Executive Committee Agenda pages: 7.1 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 23-19 1 Statutory Public Meeting Regarding Development Charges Update Study Recommendation: - 3 - Council Meeting Agenda December 16, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 1.That Report FIN 23-19 of the Director, Finance & Treasurer be received; 2.That Council receive for information the City of Pickering – Development Charges (DC) Update Study prepared by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. dated October 16, 2019 and Addendum to the DC Update Study dated November 19, 2019; 3.That all written submissions made at the December 2nd Public Meeting or received in writing from the public by December 4th be referred to staff and to Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. for consideration in preparation of the final Development Charge recommendations and By-law for Council’s consideration on December 16th; and, 4.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions as indicated in this report. 7.2 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report CLK 05-19 87 Ward Boundary Review -Adoption of Terms of Reference Recommendation: 1.That Report CLK 05-19 regarding the City of Pickering Ward Boundary Review and adoption of Terms of Reference be received; 2.That the Terms of Reference appended as Attachment #1 to CLK 05-19 be approved; and, 3.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 7.3 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report BYL 02-19 98 Vehicle for Hire By-Law Memorandum from the Manager, Municipal Law Enforcement Services Revised Fees, Staffing Requirements and Passenger Rights and Responsibilities Vehicle for Hire Report BYL 02-19 [Refer to page 124 for the Memorandum and page 127 for the revised by-law in this agenda] - 4 - Council Meeting Agenda December 16, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Recommendation: 1.That Report BYL 02-19 regarding the attached Vehicle for Hire By- law be received; 2.That Council enact the Vehicle for Hire By-law attached to this Report (Attachment No. 1); and, 3.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this Report. 7.4 Director, Community Services, Report CS 44-19 178 Municipal Highway Winter Maintenance Agreement -Third Concession Road (Peter Matthews Drive) in the City of Pickering Recommendation: 1.That Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Municipal Highway Winter Maintenance Agreement with the Regional Municipality of Durham 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 City officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 7.5 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 11-19 190 Balsdon Park Master Plan Recommendation: 1.That Balsdon Park Master Plan be endorsed by Council; 2.That staff be directed to prepare the detailed designs required for the implementation of the Balsdon Park Master Plan; 3.That staff be directed to include the implementation of the Balsdon Park Master Plan in the 2021 Capital Forecast; and, - 5 - Council Meeting Agenda December 16, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 4.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 7.6 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 20-19 198 2020 Interim Levy and Interim Tax Instalment Due Dates Recommendation: 1.That an interim property tax levy be adopted for all realty property classes for 2020; 2.That the interim property tax levy tax instalment due dates be February 26 and April 28, 2019; 3.That the attached draft by-law, providing for the imposition of the taxes, be enacted; and, 4.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 7.7 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 21-19 203 2020 Temporary Borrowing By-law Recommendation: 1.That the temporary borrowing limit of $53 million be established to meet 2020 current expenditures pending receipt of taxes and other revenues for the period of January 1, 2020 to September 30, 2020 inclusive, and $26 million thereafter until December 31, 2020; 2.That the temporary borrowing limit for capital purposes for 2020 be established at $49 million; 3.That the attached draft by-law providing for the temporary borrowing of monies be enacted; and, 4.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 7.8 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 22-19 208 2020 Interim Spending Authority - 6 - Council Meeting Agenda December 16, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Recommendation: 1.That the 2020 Interim Operating Expenditures be approved at 50 per cent of the prior year’s budget, including adjustments, as contained in Attachment 1, pending approval of the formal 2020 Current Budget by Council; and, 2.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 7.9 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report LEG 08-19 212 Municipality Contribution Agreement -Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation and The Corporation of the City of Pickering Recommendation: 1.That the attached Municipality Contribution Agreement between Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation and The Corporation of the City of Pickering be approved; 2.That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the said Municipality Contribution Agreement; and, 3.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this Report. 7.10 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 27-19 225 City of Pickering 2019-2024 Corporate Energy Management Plan Recommendation: 1.That Report PLN 27-19 regarding the 2019-2024 Corporate Energy Management Plan (CEMP) be received; 2.That Council endorse the CEMP and direct staff to use this Plan as a basis for making future corporate energy management recommendations and budget submissions; and, - 7 - Council Meeting Agenda December 16, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 3.That staff annually report back to Council on the results of CEMP implementation and the energy management program. 8.Report PD 2019-08 of the Planning & Development Committee held on December 2, 2019 Refer to Planning & Development Agenda pages: 8.1 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 26-19 27 Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Study Intensification Plan and Draft Urban Design Guidelines Recommendation: 1.That Report PLN 26-19, regarding the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Study, be received for information; 2.That Council endorse in principle the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Plan, dated November 2019, prepared by SvN in consultation with AECOM and 360 Collective, as contained in Appendix I to Report PLN 26-19, and authorize staff to initiate an Official Plan Amendment to implement the vision and Intensification Plan for the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node; and, 3.That Council endorse in principle the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Draft Urban Design Guidelines, dated November 2019, prepared by SvN in consultation with AECOM and 360 Collective, as contained in Appendix II to Report PLN 26-19, including the revised pages as noted in the memorandum from Kyle Bentley, Director, City Development and CBO dated December 2, 2019. 8.2 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 25-19 271 Request for Council’s Permission to Develop Lands through Land Severance Marshall Homes Part of Lot 30, Concession 1 South, and Part 1, Plan 40R-10110 (1855 Rosebank Road) - 8 - Council Meeting Agenda December 16, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Memorandum from the Chief Planner Request for Council’s Permission to Develop Lands through Land Severance Marshall Homes Part of Lot 30, Concession 1 South, and Part 1, Plan 40R-10110 1855 Rosebank Road [Refer to page 170 for the Memorandum in this agenda] Recommendation: That the request made by Marshall Homes, to permit the division of the subject lands being Part of Lot 30, Concession 1 South, and Part 1, Plan 40R-10110 (municipally known as 1855 Rosebank Road) through land severance rather than by draft plan of subdivision, be approved. 9.Reports – New and Unfinished Business 9.1 Director, Community Services, Report CS 31-19 174 Level of Service -Review of Winter Activities within Public Works Recommendation: That Council receive report CS 31-19 for information in regards to winter activities currently provided by Public Works and recommended service level increases. 9.2 Director, Community Services, Report CS 39-19 189 Commercial Lease Agreement -Don Beer Memorial Park -Property PIN 614679; 614680-1; 614687; 614688; 614689 Recommendation: 1.That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute the renewal of the Commercial Lease Agreement with Transport Canada set out in Attachment 1 to this report, subject to minor revisions acceptable to 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 action as indicated in this report. - 9 - Council Meeting Agenda December 16, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 9.3 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 13-19 222 Beachfront Park Work Plan Recommendation: 1.That Report ENG 13-19 regarding an update on the proposed work plan for the re-creation of Beachfront Park in response to Resolution #99/19 (Notice of Motion from May 27, 2019), be received for information; and, 2.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 9.4 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 24-19 232 2019 Development Charges Update Study Recommendation: 1.That Report FIN 24-19 of the Director, Finance & Treasurer be received; 2.That Council receive for information and approve the 2019 Development Charges Update Study (as amended), City of Pickering prepared by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. dated December 10, 2019; 3.That the originally proposed By-law has been modified since the public meeting on December 2, 2019 and Council confirms that no further public meeting under the Development Charges Act, 1997 (S.12) is necessary as a result; 4.That the City Clerk be instructed to undertake the By-law passage notification provisions under the Development Charges Act, 1997 and Ontario Regulation 82/98; 5.That Council approve the Development Charges By-law included as Attachment 2 to this report; 6.That subject to Council approval of the 2020 Budget, Council approve the hiring of the firm Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., to be retained for the Development Charges related work including the Community Benefit Charge at a cost not to exceed $60,000 to - 10 - Council Meeting Agenda December 16, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca be financed from the Development Charges Reserve Funds - Administration Studies; and, 7.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions as indicated in this report. 9.5 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 25-19 353 Audit and Accountability – Service Review Report Recommendation: 1.That Council receive report FIN 25-19 for information in regards to service review report for Public Wi-Fi; Building Permits & Fleet Management Solutions; 2.That staff be directed to include in the 2020 draft capital budget submission a new fleet management system and where applicable, apply for Provincial grant funding; and, 3.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 9.6 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 26-19 493 Trillium Housing Oak Non-Profit Corporation - Request to Defer Payment of Development Charges Recommendation: 1.That Report FIN 26-19 of the Director, Finance & Treasurer be received; 2.That, pursuant to By-law 7595/17: a)the request by Trillium Housing Oak Non-Profit Corporation to defer the payment of the City’s share of Development Charges estimated to be $2,620,000 prior to any increase in any Development Charge Fees and the deferral be to December 14, 2020 be approved; b)that Trillium Housing Oak Non-Profit Corporation be required to enter into a Development Charge Deferral Agreement with the - 11 - Council Meeting Agenda December 16, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca City on terms satisfactory to the Director, Finance & Treasurer and the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor; 3.That Council direct staff to develop a Development Charge deferral payment strategy for Trillium Housing Oak Non-Profit Corporation for the City Share Development Charge payments with an effective start date of December 15, 2020 that meets the legislation and regulations of the day; and, 4.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 9.7 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 22-19 496 Universal City Precinct Plan Unique AT Holding Corporation, Universal City One Developments Inc., Nal-Band Holdings Inc. – Gestion Nal-Band Inc. Part of Lots 21 and 22, Concession 1 (1454, 1462, 1470 and 1474 Bayly Street) Recommendation: 1.That City Council approve the Universal City Precinct Plan as generally illustrated in Appendix I, subject to any modifications identified through the Site Plan Approval process and implementation matters that may arise in the course of preparing the agreements referred to in Recommendations 2, 3 and 4; 2.That City Council authorize the execution and registration on title of the Infrastructure Agreement for the H6 Block, substantially in the form attached as Appendix II, between the City and the participating landowners (Unique AT Holding Corporation, Universal City One Developments Inc., and Nal-Band Holdings Inc. –Gestion Nal-Band Inc.) to implement the Universal City Precinct Plan, such agreement to be in a form satisfactory to the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor; 3.That City Council authorize the execution and registration on title of the Master Development Agreement, substantially in the form attached as Appendix III between the City, Unique AT Holding Corporation and Universal City One Developments Inc., such - 12 - Council Meeting Agenda December 16, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca agreements to be in a form satisfactory to the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor; 4.That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 10/19 to amend City Centre Zoning By-law-7553/17, as amended, to remove the “H6” Holding Symbol on lands municipally known as 1454, 1462, 1470 and 1474 Bayly Street, as set out in Appendix IV, be enacted by Council; and, 5.The appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto. 9.8 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 29-19 592 Consulting Services for Phase 1 of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review Request for Proposal No. RFP-7-2019 Recommendation: 1.That the proposal submitted by WSP, dated November 6, 2019, to undertake the Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review in the amount of $412,387.85 (including HST) be accepted; 2.That the total gross project cost of $145,606.00 (HST included), for Phase 1 of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review, including the total net project cost of $131,123.00 (net of HST rebate), utilizing the funding identified for this project in the approved 2019 Current Budget for the City Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review (Account 2611.2392.0000), be approved; 3.That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the Phase 1 net project cost in the amount of $131,123.00 as follows: a)The sum of $32,500.00 as approved in the 2019 Current Budget –Planning & Design Cost Centre be increased to $42,615.00 to be funded from property taxes; b)The sum of $67,500.00 as approved in the 2019 Current Budget –Planning & Design Cost Centre be increased to $88,508.00 be - 13 - Council Meeting Agenda December 16, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca funded by a transfer from the Development Charges – Studies Reserve Fund; and, 4.That the appropriate City of Pickering staff be authorized to enter into any agreements to give effect hereto. 9.9 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 30-19 618 Two-year period Exemption Request for Minor Variance Application P/CA 03/20 9004897 Canada Inc. (Stonepay) Part of Lots 19 and 20, Concession 3, Now Parts 1 to 5, 40R-28547 Recommendation: That Council grant an exemption in accordance with Section 45 (1.4) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990; c. P.13 as amended, and permit the Committee of Adjustment to consider Minor Variance Applications resulting from the further processing of the Site Plan or Building Permit applications submitted by 9004897 Canada Inc. (Stonepay), for Part of Lots 19 and 20, Concession 3, Now Parts 1 to 5, 40R-28547 before the second anniversary of the day on which an applicant initiated zoning by- law amendment was enacted for the subject lands. 9.10 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 31-19 625 Request to deviate from Civic Number Protocol set out the Municipal Addressing Standard Operating Procedure: Durham Live Development Recommendation: That Council approve the request from Steve Apostolopoulos on behalf of Triple Properties to permit civic numbers to be assigned to parcels of land that do not adhere to the Civic Number Protocol set out in the City’s Municipal Addressing Standard Procedure, and authorize the use of numbers 888, 333 and 777 as municipal street numbers to the parcels shown on the Proposed Municipal Address Plan provided as Appendix I to Report PLN 31-19. 9.11 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 32-19 631 The Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Durham Regional Official Plan: Growth Management Urban System Discussion Paper, June 2019 - 14 - Council Meeting Agenda December 16, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Recommendation: 1.That, to strengthen the existing urban system goal of creating healthy and complete, sustainable communities that balances population and employment growth, stronger regional implementation policies, such as financial incentives (which could include Community Improvement Plans; deferral or reduction of development charges; and servicing of employment areas) should be considered for certain types and locations of job creating uses; 2.That, to strengthen the existing urban system goal of encouraging a mix of housing by type, size and tenure, stronger implementation policies are required to incentivize the delivery of senio rs, affordable, and/or accessible housing (which could include Community Improvement Plans; deferral or waiving of development charges); 3.That an additional goal should be added for the urban system, to create a “smart” connected community, with the inclusion of policies addressing existing and next generation information and communication technologies, and that implementation policies be added requiring the Region to provide for broadband infra structure in all Regional Roads; 4.That the Region adopt a “dig once” policy to ensure that a comprehensive network is advanced across the Region, and that the Region allow for the shared use of its conduit and assist local municipalities in the development of localized networks and the provision of broadband services to rural settlement areas; 5.That the Regional Official Plan support the needs of an aging population by focusing on elements contained in the Age-Friendly Durham Strategy and Action Plan, including: providing opportunities for affordable, assisted housing options and encouraging development that complements the concept of “aging in place”; addressing accessibility needs and age-friendly design within the built environment; and, - 15 - Council Meeting Agenda December 16, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca ensuring that active and passive recreational facilities, and community and health services are available for the aging population. 6.That the following measures be considered by the Region to achieve its employment objectives: pre-servicing employment lands, ensuring that they are shovel ready for potential development; protecting employment lands from conversion to residential and commercial use; ensuring that uses are not introduced in employment areas that may be considered sensitive land uses and which would undermine the ability of employment areas to diversify and expand in accordance with existing zoning permissions; ensuring that lands adjacent to key goods movement corridors are protected for employment uses; providing lands close to highway interchanges for land uses that involve the shipping or receiving of goods via long combination vehicles; continue promoting the development of an airport in Pickering; and, consider the implementation of Community Improvement Plans for employment generating uses/lands, which would include measures such as municipal grants, tax increment financing, development charges and building permit fee deferrals. 7.That the Region can influence how and where people work by: ensuring locally developed and available skilled labour/talent, by supporting and partnering with post-secondary institutions, centres of excellence, research institutes, and apprenticeship programs; - 16 - Council Meeting Agenda December 16, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca providing stronger policy direction recognizing centres and corridors as locations for significant employment; assessing current and future trends in the micro and macro- economic contexts; providing insight into business and industry needs for employment land, urban form and tenure; developing and articulating the Region’s key differentiators and unique sales proposition; targeting high growth sectors; and, developing a series of strategic economic development action plans along the following themes: sustainable economic development, entrepreneurship, innovation and the technology ecosystem; arts, culture and creative economy; international business development; urban growth centres; planning for diversity; and digital disruption on local commerce. 8.That to assist in achieving 50 percent of the jobs in designated Employment Areas, the Region should establish a program to upfront the cost of servicing vacant employment lands, and that a context sensitive analysis for any proposed Employment Area conversion be conducted, to ensure that job generating opportunities are not compromised or lost; 9.That the Region have regard for Pickering Council’s comments on proposed Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan to revise the Province’s proposed Provincially Significant Employment Zones, by among other matters, excluding the Durham Live lands; 10.That the measure of density at a Regional level should be undertaken on a modified gross basis (excluding the area of natural heritage lands and the transit/roadway), and refined to a net level through area municipal official plan, secondary plan, and zoning exercises; - 17 - Council Meeting Agenda December 16, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 11.That stronger policy direction be provided in the Regional Official Plan regarding employment densities and the creation of complete communities within Urban Growth Centres; 12.That the Region continue to work collaboratively with the City of Pickering, and the other area municipalities, to delineate the extent of the Kingston Road corridor from the Toronto-Pickering Boundary to Simcoe Street (and the Simcoe Street corridor from Kingston Road to Highway 407) and to establish densities and floor space indexes that would be necessary to support Light Rail Transit (LRT) service in the future; 13.That it would be most appropriate for the balance of the priority bus corridors shown in the Metrolinx Regional Transportation Plan to be delineated and detailed in area municipal official plans as “Local Corridors”. Corridors with frequent regional express services along 400 series highways or GO rail services which have limited stops (either at key interchanges or GO Station sites) do not warrant such a corridor treatment. Instead, the stations sites are more appropriately detailed through a Major Transit Station Area (e.g., Lakeshore East GO Stations) exercise or a Local Centre approach (e.g., 407 Transit-way stations); 14.That the designation and delineation of Waterfront Places be dealt with as a local planning matter, similar to the approach for Local Centres. As such, it is suggested that the Waterfront Place symbols be removed from the Regional Official Plan, and that local municipalities be provided with greater discretion regarding the identification of areas for growth, and the distribution and density of development within their municipalities; 15.That the methodology for delineating Major Transit Station Areas (MTSA), and the resultant draft boundary delineation for Pickering’s MTSA (see Attachment #2 to Report PLN 32-19), are supported; 16.That the Region, when conducting the analysis to determine the location and amount of lands for any proposed settlement boundary expansion, should also consider buffer planning, by accounting for lands required to accommodate proper buffers - 18 - Council Meeting Agenda December 16, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca between any new Community (Living) or Employment Areas and farmland; 17.That the Region, through Envision Durham, consider the implementation of additional measures/strategies to shift the balance and favour non-residential growth. Such measures should include: making Durham’s employment lands more attractive and market ready by: ensuring official plan and zoning designations are in place; pre-servicing strategic employment lands; and making financial incentives available (e.g., tax increment financing, municipal grants, building permit and development charge s subsidies), where appropriate; 18.That, with respect to Northeast Pickering, the Region have regard to the Pickering Council Resolutions #140/19 and #173/19 (see Attachments #3 and #4 to Report PLN 32-19) requesting the inclusion of northeast Pickering in an urban area boundary expansion, and the request to use and alternate intensification rate of 45 percent; 19.That the Region’s Land Needs Assessment consider a scenario reflecting a future airport and the potential implications it may have in terms of population and employment allocation and growth; 20.That appropriate policy provisions and designations be included in the Durham Region Official Plan to bring the ROP into conformity with the Central Pickering Development Plan, in a manner simila r to the other Provincial Plans; 21.That the Region provide further policy support for the allocation of sufficient lands for community facilities (such as parkland, community centres and schools) within centres to assist in achieving strong, vibrant and healthy downtowns; and, 22.That the Region, through Envision Durham, also consider the means to address the challenges faced by places of worship to establish within residential areas, taking into account the functions and services they offer within the context of building “complete communities”. - 19 - Council Meeting Agenda December 16, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 10.Motions and Notice of Motions 10.1 Decommissioning of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Ashe WHEREAS, September 11, 1965 was the sod turning and groundbreaking for the construction of North America’s fifth largest nuclear plant - the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station (PNGS); And Whereas, today the PNGS is the oldest and third largest Candu Nuclear Reactor Station in North America utilizing approximately 600 acres of Pickering’s Waterfront, Lake Ontario Shoreline; And Whereas, after 53 years the PNGS will shut down and cease operations in 2024; And Whereas, the PNGS can become the first Candu Nuclear Power Station to be decommissioned in the world, and has the potential for creating 16,000 person years of direct employment, including employees currently working at the plant and provide a catalyst to attract scientists and engineers from around the world to learn from the decommissioning process as a Centre of Excellence; And Whereas, the decommissioning and dismantling of the PNGS will provide an opportunity for the City of Pickering and its residents to work together to create a future vision for the use of the 600 acres on our waterfront including the interim safe storage of radioactive waste; And Whereas, once operations cease, there is potential to repurpose the north/south Hydro Corridors that currently provide high voltage connectivity to the PNGS for rapid transit and/or recreational uses; And Whereas, Ontario Power Generation (OPG) is seeking a deferral of the dismantling process that would result in a white elephant on the Pickering Waterfront for up to 30 years serving no benefit to the City of Pickering; Now therefore be it resolved that the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering: - 20 - Council Meeting Agenda December 16, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 1.Supports the commencement of the decommissioning and dismantling of the PNGS as expeditiously as possible after it is shutdown in 2024, in line with the recommendation of the International Atomic Energy Agency that immediate dismantling is “the preferred decommissioning strategy” for nuclear plants; 2.City of Pickering’s Economic Development staff be directed through the CAO to commence work on creating and promoting Pickering as a Centre of Excellence for the decommissioning of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station; and, 3.That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to all Durham Region municipalities for their endorsement and to Ontario Minister of Energy, all Durham Region MPs and MPPs seeking their support in their respective roles. 11.By-laws 11.1 By-law 7727/19 348 Being a By-law Regarding Development Charges to amend By-law 7595/17 to make certain revisions to the City’s development charges involving capital cost estimates. [Refer to Item 9.4 FIN 24-19] 11.2 By-law 7728/19 583 Being a By-law to amend Zoning By-law 7553/17, as amended, to remove the holding provision “H6” (A 10/19). [Refer to Item 9.7 PLN 22-19] 11.3 By-law 7729/19 127 Being a by-law to license, regulate and govern vehicles for hire within the City of Pickering. [Refer to Item 7.3 BYL 02-19] 11.4 By-law 7730/19 Being a by-law for the collection of taxes and to establish the instalment due dates for the Interim Levy 2020. [Refer to page 200 of the Executive Committee Agenda] - 21 - Council Meeting Agenda December 16, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 11.5 By-law 7731/19 Being a by-law to authorize the temporary borrowing of monies to meet the current and capital expenditures of the City of Pickering for the year 2020. [Refer to page 206 of the Executive Committee Agenda] 12. Confidential Council – Public Report 13. Other Business 14. Confirmation By-law 15. Adjournment - 22 - Council Meeting Minutes November 25, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm Present: Deputy Mayor Kevin Ashe Councillors: D. Pickles Absent: Mayor David Ryan Also Present: P. Bigioni - (Acting) Chief Administrative Officer K. Bentley - Director, City Development & CBO M. Carpino - Director, Community Services J. Hagg - Fire Chief R. Holborn - Director, Engineering Services J. Halsall - (Acting) Director, Finance & Treasurer C. Rose - Chief Planner S. Cassel - City Clerk C. Whitaker - Supervisor, Sustainability L. Harker - Deputy Clerk M. Brenner S. Butt I. Cumming B. McLean 1. Invocation Deputy Mayor Ashe 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 Resolution #160/19 Moved by Councillor McLean Seconded by Councillor Brenner Council Minutes, October 21, 2019 - 23 - Council Meeting Minutes November 25, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm Executive Committee Minutes, November 4, 2019 Planning & Development Committee Minutes, November 4, 2019 Carried 4. Presentations There were no presentations. 5. Delegations 5.1 John Henry, Regional Chair, The Regional Municipality of Durham Re: Update on the Durham Region’s Progress and Upcoming Projects Regional Chair Henry appeared before Council to provide an update on Regional activities. He noted key initiatives that the Region is working on including the renewal of the Strategic Plan for 2020 to 2024, and the comprehensive review of the Region’s official land use plan. Chair Henry noted that transit demand in Durham is growing, and that Durham is continuing work to improve the transit system. He provided an overview of the ongoing infrastructure projects in the Region, and the Durham Community Energy Plan, noting the goal to reduce carbon while attracting investments and creating new jobs. Chair Henry also noted that the Primary Care Outreach Program that was piloted in 2019, has become a permanent Region-wide program. This program pairs a paramedic with a social worker, to take services to vulnerable populations, and aims to build trust and refer clients to other community supports. Additional Regional priorities include the Canada Learning Bonds initiative, discussions regarding servicing employments lands, moving ahead with the Regional broadband strategy, and actively seeking a Federal decision on a GTA East airport. A question and answer period ensued regarding homelessness and how the Region would be addressing poverty issues. Chair Henry noted the direct relationship between loss of jobs and homelessness, and that the Region is addressing this issue with a number of programs including the Primary Care Outreach program. A question was raised regarding bus shelters, and whether the shelters could all be weather protected to increase ridership. It was noted that there are no current plans to weather protect all bus shelters, but that more shelters would be installed noting the importance of having transit systems in place prior to full build out of new communities. A brief discussion ensued regarding the energy from waste facility, a potential anaerobic landfill facility in the Region of Durham , and finding better ways to address waste issues. Chair Henry noted that the Region had turned the Blackstock landfill site back to useful land and that it is currently being monitored for two years until such time that it will be available for sale. - 24 - Council Meeting Minutes November 25, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm Questions were raised regarding Item, 6.1 on the November 25th Council agenda, being Correspondence 36-19, and whether consideration would be given to stop arm cameras on school buses given the recent approval for use of red light cameras in the Region of Durham. Further questions were raised regarding the KPMG Aviation study pertaining to an airport in Pickering, with Chair Henry advising Council that the Region requested the Study’s release to the public, and that it is currently with the Minister of Transportation. Discussion ensued regarding Item, 6.3, Correspondence 38-19, the Provincial Policy Statement Review, Proposed Policies, and questions were raised as to whether the Region had discussed the release of updated growth forecasts with the Province noting the importance of these forecasts for future planning. Discussion continued regarding transit, the need to identify priorities, installation of sidewalks to improve access to transit routes and the need to ensure that safety is a top priority. It was noted that there are a number of gaps in bus lanes and questions were raised regarding the need for sidewalks along both sides of Kingston Road. Further discussion ensued regarding shared services, and the potential opportunities for the Region of Durham to look at prototypes to maximize efficiencies and remove duplication. Chair Henry noted that the City of Pickering and the Region of Durham have been working collaboratively on the new casino, and sees this as a positive indicator of a good working relationship. Chair Henry also noted the need for a high speed rail system, and that the effective movement of people would make the Region of Durham a competitor. It was noted that with the closure of the Pickering Nuclear Station slated for 2024, there may be opportunity for the Region of Durham to consider using the hydro corridor that runs from the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station to north Pickering for transit. 6. Correspondence 6.1 Corr. 36-19 Pierre Ranger, Chair, Let’s Remember Adam – Stop for the School Bus Re: National School Bus Safety Week and Stop Arm Cameras A brief question and answer period ensued regarding who would be responsible for the implementation of stop arm cameras on school buses and the associated costs. Resolution #161/19 - 25 - Council Meeting Minutes November 25, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm Moved by Councillor Cumming Seconded by Councillor McLean 1. That Corr. 36-19, dated October 18, 2019, from Pierre Ranger, Chair, Let’s Remember Adam – Stop for the School Bus, be endorsed; and, 2. That this resolution be circulated to the Minister of Transportation, Minister of Education, Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), Durham District School Board, Durham Catholic District School Board, Conseil Scolaire Viamonde, Durham Regional Police Service, the Region of Durham, and all Durham Region municipalities for their consideration. Carried 6.2 Corr. 37-19 Ralph Walton, Regional Clerk/Director of Legislative Services, The Regional Municipality of Durham Re: Project Update and Adoption of Terms of Reference: Durham Region Community Safety and Well-Being Plan (CSWP) (2019-SS-17) Resolution #162/19 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor McLean 1. That Corr. 37-19, dated October 24, 2019, from the Regional Municipality of Durham, regarding the Durham Region Community Safety and Well-Being Plan (CSWP) be received; and, 2. That Staff be directed, through the CAO, to report back on the relationship between the Regional Community Safety Well Being Steering Committee and the City of Pickering Community Safety Strategy. Carried 6.3 Corr. 38-19 Ralph Walton, Regional Clerk/Director of Legislative Services, The Regional Municipality of Durham Re: Provincial Policy Statement Review, Proposed Policies (ERO#019-0279) (2019-P-42) Resolution #163/19 - 26 - Council Meeting Minutes November 25, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor McLean 1. That Corr. 38-19, dated October 25, 2019, from the Regional Municipality of Durham, regarding the Provincial Policy Statement Review, Proposed Policies be received; and, 2. That Staff be directed, through the CAO, to report back to the Planning and Development Committee on any impact the Regional position may have on the City of Pickering. Carried 6.4 Corr. 39-19 Ralph Walton, Regional Clerk/Director of Legislative Services, The Regional Municipality of Durham Re: Envision Durham – Transportation System Discussion Paper (2019-P-41) Resolution #164/19 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor McLean 1. That Corr. 39-19, dated October 25, 2019, from the Regional Municipality of Durham, regarding the Envision Durham – Transportation System Discussion Paper be received; and, 2. That Staff be directed, through the CAO, to review and provide draft comments for Council’s consideration, at the December 16, 2019 Council meeting, prior to submitting comments to the Region of Durham. Carried 6.5 Corr. 40-19 The City of Pickering Public Library Board Re: Sunday Service at George Ashe Request Discussion ensued regarding the request from the community for extended service at the George Ashe Library and the need for pre -budget approval to implement Sunday service in January rather than waiting until the end of first quarter after the 2020 Budget was approved. Further discussion ensued regarding the opportunities for additi onal programs at George Ashe with the addition of new Sunday hours. - 27 - Council Meeting Minutes November 25, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm Resolution #165/19 Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Butt WHEREAS, the City of Pickering recognizes the important role that libraries play in our community; And Whereas, Sunday service is a popular offering to the community; And Whereas, there may be disruptions, including accessible access, in service during the construction of the new City Civic Centre; Now therefore be it resolved that the Council of the City of Pickering does hereby: 1. Approve the amount of $35,000 to fund Sunday Service at t he George Ashe Library for 2020. Carried Later in the Meeting (See Following Motion) Resolution # 166/19 Moved by Councillor McLean Seconded by Councillor Butt That the main motion be amended by adding the following as Item #2: 2. That the extended hours at George Ashe Library be implemented as a pilot for 2020 and that Library Staff report back to the Pickering Public Library Board, prior to the 2021 budget, to determine whether the services should continue for subsequent years. Carried The Main Motion, as Amended, was then Carried Unanimously on a Recorded Vote. 7. Report EC 2019-09 of the Executive Committee held on November 4, 2019 7.1 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 19-19 2019 Year End Audit - 28 - Council Meeting Minutes November 25, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm Council Decision: 1. That the Audit Service Plan as submitted by Deloitte LLP, included in this report, be received for information; and, 2. That the Chief Administrative Officer and the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to sign the Master Services Agreement on behalf of the City. 7.2 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report BYL 01-19 11th Annual Toys for Tickets and Food for Fines 2019 Council Decision: 1. That parking tickets issued between December 1 through 20, 2019 be eligible for the Toys for Tickets/Food for Fines program; 2. That the Toys for Tickets/Food for Fines program be implemented from December 1 through December 20, 2019; and, 3. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 7.3 Director, Community Services, Report CS 13-19 Lease Agreements - Sports Associations Council Decision: 1. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the Lease Agreement with 856 Pickering Kinsmen Royal Canadian Air Cadet Squadron set out in Attachment No. 1 to this report, subject to minor revisions as may be required by the Director, Community Services and the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor; 2. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the Lease Agreement with Pickering Panthers Junior A Hockey Club set out in Attachment No. 2 to this report, subject to minor revisions as may be required by the Director, Community Services and the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor; 3. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the Lease Agreement with The Durham Dolphins Football Club set out in Attachment No. 3 to this report, subject to minor revisions as may be required by the - 29 - Council Meeting Minutes November 25, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm Director, Community Services and the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor; and, 4. That the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 7.4 Director, Community Services, Report CS 36-19 Public Art Policy - Council Endorsement Council Decision: 1. That Council approve the Public Art 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 37-19 2020 Community Festivals and Events - Approval of 2020 Events in Esplanade Park Council Decision: 1. That Council authorize staff to issue a park permit for the use of Esplanade Park by Carea Community Health Centre on June 19, 2020 for Big Drum Social, on terms and conditions satisfactory to Director, Community Services and Chief Administrative Officer; 2. That Council authorize staff to issue a park permit for the use of Esplanade Park by Filipino-Canadian Heritage & Resource of Durham on June 20, 2020 for ADOBO Festival on terms and conditions satisfactory to Director, Community Services and Chief Administrative Officer; 3. That Council authorize staff to issue a park permit for the use of Esplanade Park by Frederica Black Events on July 18, 2020 for Brew & BBQ Fest on terms and conditions satisfactory to Director, Community Services and Chief Administrative Officer; 4. That Council authorize staff to issue a park permit for the use of Esplanade Park by Canadian Food Truck Festivals from August 7 to August 9, 2020 (inclusive) for Pickering Food Truck Festival, on terms and conditions - 30 - Council Meeting Minutes November 25, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm satisfactory to Director, Community Services and Chief Administrative Officer; 5. That Council authorize staff to issue a park permit for the use of Esplanade Park by Indo-Canadian Cultural Association of Durham Inc. on August 16, 2020 for Festival of India’s Heritage, on terms and conditions satisfactory to Director, Community Services and Chief Administrative Officer; and, 6. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 7.6 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 10-19 Proposed Stopping Restrictions Wheatsheaf Lane and Rosefield Road Council Decision: 1. That the attached draft by-law be enacted to amend Schedule “1” to By-law 6604/05 to provide for the regulation of stopping on highways or parts of highways under the jurisdiction of The Corporation of the City of Pickering, specifically to provide for stopping restrictions on Wheatsheaf Lane and Rosefield Road; and, 2. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Resolution #167/19 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Brenner That Report EC 2019-09 of the Executive Committee Meeting held on November 4, 2019 be adopted. Carried 8. Report PD 2019-07 of the Planning & Development Committee held on November 4, 2019 8.1 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 24-19 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 13/18 Allan Kent Cameron Lot 2 and Part of Block A, Plan 407 (715 Liverpool Road) - 31 - Council Meeting Minutes November 25, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm Council Decision: That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 13/18, submitted by Allan Kent Cameron, to facilitate the creation of three lots for detached dwellings fronting onto Liverpool Road, be approved, and that the draft Zoning By-law Amendment as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 24-19 be forwarded to Council for enactment. Resolution #168/19 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Brenner That Report PD 2019-07 of the Planning & Development Committee Meeting held on November 4, 2019 be adopted. Carried 9. Reports – New and Unfinished Business 9.1 Director, Community Services, Report CS 42-19 Emergency Repairs at Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex - Notice to Council A brief question and answer period ensued regarding the Region of Durham paying offsetting costs for the emergency repairs, with Staff noting that discussions are ongoing. Resolution #169/19 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Cumming 1. That Council is notified of the invoice submitted by Bry Ron Contracting Limited in the amount of $62,067.64 (HST excluded) in accordance with Section 12.01 Emergency Purchase of the Purchasing Policy (PUR 010); 2. That the total gross project cost of $70,136.43 (HST included) and the total net project cost of $63,161.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved; 3. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to finance the net project cost of $63,161.00 from the capital contingency funds, account 2900; - 32 - Council Meeting Minutes November 25, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm 4. That the Region of Durham be requested to contribute to the cost for the associated parking lot asphalt repairs; and, 5. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried 9.2 Director, Community Services, Report CS 43-19 Pickering Town Centre - Memorandum of Understanding and Licence Agreement Resolution #170/19 Moved by Councillor McLean Seconded by Councillor Butt 1. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute a Memorandum of Understanding with AMICA Senior Lifestyles and Pickering Town Centre, as set out in Attachment 1 to this report, subject to the minor revisions as may be required by the Director Community Services, and the Director Corporate Services & City Solicitor; 2. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute a License Agreement with OPB Realty Inc., as set out in Attachment 2 to this report, subject to the minor revisions as may be required by the Director Community Services, and the Director Corporate Services & City Solicitor; and, 3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried 9.3 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 12-19 Tender No. T-15-2019 - Tender for Brock Road New Sidewalk Installation A brief question and answer period ensued regarding the timing of this project, with Staff noting that it will be completed in the Spring of 2020, and that 2019 pricing was being honored for the work in 2020. Resolution #171/19 - 33 - Council Meeting Minutes November 25, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Butt 1. That Tender No. T-15-2019 for the Brock Road New Sidewalk Installation submitted by Emmacon Corp in the amount of $75,543.33 (HST included) be accepted; 2. That the total gross project cost of $108,063.00 (HST included), including the tendered amount, a contingency, other associated costs, and the total net project cost of $97,314.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved; 3. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer finance the total net project cost in the amount of $97,314.00 as follows: a) The sum of $48,657.00 to be funded by a transfer from the Development Charges – City’s Share Reserve; b) The sum of $48,657.00 to be funded by a transfer from the Development Charges – Roads & Related 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. Carried 9.4 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 28-19 Assessing and Enhancing Corporate Waste Diversion Practices Sole Source of Waste Diversion Receptacles A question and answer period ensued regarding why this project was sole sourced, and whether other waste receptacles had been considered. Staff noted that the proposed waste diversion receptacles are “next generation”, and will be easier to operate and maintain. Staff were requested to follow up regarding opportunities to use the receptacles for advertising to recover some of the costs. Staff also noted that once the PO is issued, the receptacles will be installed in early 2020, which will include a review of best practices and commencement of Staff training and an awareness campaign. Resolution #172/19 Moved by Councillor Butt Seconded by Councillor Pickles - 34 - Council Meeting Minutes November 25, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm 1. That Council approve the sole source for the purchase of waste units from CleanRiver Recycling Solutions, in the amount of $126,792.63 (HST excluded); 2. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to finance the total cost from contingency account 2900.0000.0000; and, 3. That appropriate staff be authorized to take the necessary steps to implement this action to improve corporate waste diversion. Carried 10. Motions and Notice of Motions 10.1 Veraine: A Community of the Future Discussion ensued regarding the potential of this community, including innovations in stormwater management, accessible housing, greenspace and transportation linkages. Members of Council noted the opportunities for good planning in this development which will result in a community that will benefit residents. Resolution #173/19 Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Pickles WHEREAS, at the September 23, 2019 Council meeting, the City of Pickering adopted Resolution #140/19 “An Age Friendly Affordable Housing Strategy”; And Whereas, included in this Resolution was a request for Durham Region to include in their Municipal Comprehensive Review all lands within the City of Pickering that meet the following criteria: lands not restricted by availability of servicing lands that do not compromise 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; - 35 - Council Meeting Minutes November 25, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm And Whereas, at the Planning and Development Committee meeting of November 4, 2019, the Community of Veraine presentation was made to the City of Pickering, being a new community proposed for northeast Pickering based on thriving, connected and complete community principles that comprise inclusivity and affordability; And Whereas, among other things Veraine provides an opportunity that can address the need for age friendly, affordable housing options for future generations for decades to come; Now therefore be it resolved that the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering: 1. Supports the Vision and Community Planning Principles for the lands in northeast Pickering known as Veraine, and reaffirms its request that the Region of Durham include these lands in the settlement area boundary during its current Municipal Comprehensive Review; 2. That City Staff be directed to report back to Committee in Q1 2020 outlining a process to initiate a secondary plan for the new community of Veraine based on the Community Planning Principles in Appendix 1 attached to this Motion; 3. That City Staff be directed through the CAO’s Office to discuss with the landowners an arrangement for a dedicated team that will work on the Veraine file, without impacting other priorities of the City of Pickering; and, 4. That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Region of Durham. Carried Unanimously on a Recorded Vote 10.2 With leave of the Chair, Councillor Brenner gave notice that he would be presenting two Notices of Motion at future Council Meetings as follows: Decommissioning of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station at the December 16, 2019 Council Meeting; and, Textile Recycling Partnership with Diabetes Canada and York University at the January 27, 2020 Council Meeting. 11. By-laws 11.1 By-law 7718/19 Being a by-law to amend By-Law 6604/05 providing for the regulating of traffic and parking, standing and stopping on highways or parts of highways under the jurisdiction of the City of Pickering and on private and municipal property. - 36 - Council Meeting Minutes November 25, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm 11.2 By-law 7719/19 Being a by-law to establish Part of Lots 22 and 23, RCP 818, designated as Part 3, 40R-30492 as public highway (Fairport Road). 11.3 By-law 7720/19 Being a by-law to establish Part Lot 19, Concession 3, Pickering, designated as Parts 6, 8 and 11, 40R-25821 as public highway (Four Seasons Lane). 11.4 By-law 7721/19 Being a by-law to establish Block 32, Plan 40M-2014 as public highway (Frontier Court). 11.5 By-law 7722/19 Being a by-law to establish Block 5, Plan 40M-2639 as public highway (Palmer’s Sawmill Road). 11.6 By-law 7723/19 Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 3036, as amended, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham, Part of Lot 33, Concession 2, Part 1, 40R-2582, Parts 3, 6, 7 and 14, 40R-29767 and Part 1, 40R-10888, City of Pickering. (A 02/18). 11.7 By-law 7724/19 Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 2511, as amended, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham, on Lot 2 and Part of Block A, Plan 407, in the City of Pickering. (A 13/18). 11.8 By-law 7725/19 Being a By-law to amend Schedule A of By-law 7362/14 appointing Inspectors. Resolution #174/19 Moved by Councillor Cumming Seconded by Councillor Pickles That By-law Nos. 7718/19 through 7725/19 be approved. - 37 - Council Meeting Minutes November 25, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm Carried 13. Other Business 13.1 Councillor Pickles gave notice that he would be presenting a Notice of Motion with regards to advancing the urbanization of Altona Road to Finch Avenue at the December 16, 2019 Council Meeting. 13.2 Councillor Brenner noted that Library Staff are working on a community discussion forum on homelessness. 13.3 Councillor Pickles requested that Staff follow up with the Ministry of the Environment and the Town of Ajax regarding the industrial noise and dust emanating from the aggregate storage facility on Notion Road. 13.4 Councillor McLean requested that Staff follow up with the Region of Durham to ensure there is no duplication of process regarding the installation of water backflow devices insofar as having Regional Staff inspect the work in addition to the business paying a plumber who is also inspecting the work to ensure it has been done correctly. 14. Confirmation By-law By-law Number 7726/19 Councillor Brenner, seconded by Councillor McLean moved for leave to introduce a By- law of the City of Pickering to confirm the proceedings of November 25, 2019. Carried 15. Adjournment Moved by Councillor Butt Seconded by Councillor Cumming That the meeting be adjourned. Carried - 38 - Council Meeting Minutes November 25, 2019 Council Chambers 7:00 pm The meeting adjourned at 8:19 pm. Dated this 25th day of November, 2019. Kevin Ashe, Deputy Mayor Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 39 - Executive Committee Meeting Minutes December 2, 2019 Council Chambers – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Ashe 1 Present: Mayor David Ryan Councillors: D. Pickles Also Present: T. Prevedel - Chief Administrative Officer K. Bentley - Director, City Development & CBO P. Bigioni - Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor M. Carpino - Director, Community Services J. Hagg - Fire Chief J. Halsall - (Acting) Director, Finance & Treasurer R. Holborn - Director, Engineering Services S. Cassel - City Clerk M. Gadzovski - Division Head, Water Resources & Development Services C. Rose - Chief Planner S. Booker - Manager, Capital Projects & Infrastructure K. Thompson - Manager, Municipal Law Enforcement Services C. Kong - Senior Financial Analyst, Capital & Debt Management C. Whitaker - Supervisor, Sustainability A. Syed - Coordinator, Energy Management L. Harker - Deputy Clerk K. Ashe M. Brenner S. Butt I. Cumming B. McLean 1. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 2. Statutory Public Meetings 2.1 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 23-19 Statutory Public Meeting Regarding Development Charges Update Study A statutory public meeting was held in accordance with the Development Charges Act, 1997. - 40 - Executive Committee Meeting Minutes December 2, 2019 Council Chambers – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Ashe 2 Councillor Ashe, Chair, opened the floor for comments from the public. No members of the public appeared to speak to the matter. A question and answer period ensued regarding increasing the City of Pickering’s Development Charges (DC’s) to be consistent with neighbouring municipalities and questions were raised as to whether the charges could be phased in until parity could be achieved. T. Prevedel, CAO, stated that Staff are working hard to bring the charges up, but noted that they must follow the Development Charges Act. He further noted that the charges are based on ten year average service levels and that this would be reviewed again in 2020. A question and answer period ensued between Members of Council, Staff and Andrew Grunda, Principal, Watson & Associates regarding: - the primary purposes of the Development Charges Update Study and the goal of having new development pay for itself; - the non-residential building construction index and the consumer price index and the impacts to the DC’s as the indexes change; - impacts to the amount of DC’s collected for the City Centre project should the costs increase; - the differences between the development charges collected for the Seaton Community in comparison to the remainder of the municipality as it relates to the cost of transit services; and, - provisions within Bill 108 to allow extensions and deferrals for developers who propose creative, affordable housing options. Moved by Mayor Ryan Seconded by Councillor Pickles That the rules of procedure be suspended in order to allow Ryan Guetter to provide a delegation to the Committee. Carried on a Two-thirds Vote Ryan Guetter, Weston Consulting, on behalf of the landowners in the H6 lands in City Centre South, appeared before the Committee to comment on some of the values in the addendum report and noted concerns regarding three specific projects and the attributed values. Mr. Guetter requested that the Committee consider these as part of the by-law review. - 41 - Executive Committee Meeting Minutes December 2, 2019 Council Chambers – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Ashe 3 Staff noted that they had received the correspondence from the consulting firm and that they were currently reviewing it prior to the by-law coming forward at the December 16th Council meeting. Recommendation: Moved by Mayor Ryan Seconded by Councillor Pickles 1. That Report FIN 23-19 of the Director, Finance & Treasurer be received; 2. That Council receive for information the City of Pickering – Development Charges (DC) Update Study prepared by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Dated October 16, 2019 and Addendum to the DC Update Study dated November 19, 2019; 3. That all written submissions made at the December 2nd Public Meeting or received in writing from the public by December 4th be referred to staff and to Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. For consideration in preparation of the final Development Charge recommendations and By-law for Council’s consideration on December 16th; and, 4. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions as indicated in this report. Carried 3. Delegations 3.1 Melissa Hutchinson, Program Manager, Durham Region Health Department, The Regional Municipality of Durham Re: The Opioid Crisis: A Complex, Multifaceted Health and Social Issue Melissa Hutchinson, Program Manager, Durham Regional Health Department, appeared before the Committee to provide an overview of the opioid crisis in Durham Region. Through the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, Ms. Hutchinson noted that the overprescribing of prescription drugs and use of illegal opioids have contributed to the issue, and that there are a number of risk factors involved, including social and genetic factors. Ms. Hutchinson provided an overview of the Durham Region Opioid Response Plan, and the best practices for Needle Exchange Programs. - 42 - Executive Committee Meeting Minutes December 2, 2019 Council Chambers – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Ashe 4 A question and answer period ensued, with Members of Council enquiring about education for the health care system and doctors, and how these programs are working to address physician education and awareness. It was also discussed whether City Staff would benefit from training to recognize opioid addiction and what resources could be accessed, and the emergency care statistics involved in opioid addiction. 3.2 Sukhwant Singh, Pickering Taxicab Advisory Committee Re: Report BYL 02-19, Vehicle for Hire By-Law Sukhwant Singh, Pickering Taxicab Advisory Committee, appeared before the Committee to speak on behalf of the taxicab industry regarding the draft by-law. Mr. Singh noted that calling these regulations a level playing field is not fair, and that most taxi plate owners spend their lifetime savings to buy plates, or get loans from banks to generate income in old age. He noted that since 2016, ride sharing programs have been taking at least 70% of the taxicab industry’s income, and that these illegal private services are taking money out of our Country. Mr. Singh noted that he is thankful that Members of Council and City Staff have made the efforts to make this draft by-law happen. 4. Matters for Consideration 4.1 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report CLK 05-19 Ward Boundary Review - Adoption of Terms of Reference Staff/Consultant Delegation Dr. Robert Williams, Public Affairs Consultant and Jack Ammendolia, Director, Watson & Associates on Report CLK 05-19. Dr. Robert Williams, Public Affairs Consultant, appeared before the Committee to provide an overview of the Ward Boundary Review and the adoption of Terms of Reference. Through the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, Dr. Williams provided a brief overview of the background that led to the initiation of a ward boundary review, and the legislative framework surrounding the review. He noted that in order to ensure an effective and equitable system of representation is selected by Council, the following guiding principles were being proposed: - Representation by population; - Protection of communities of interest; - Current and future population trends; - Physical features as natural boundaries; and, - 43 - Executive Committee Meeting Minutes December 2, 2019 Council Chambers – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Ashe 5 - Effective representation. Dr. Williams noted that the next steps would include public engagement in conjunction with professional expertise, and best practices, which will be used for the development of ward boundary options. A question and answer period ensued regarding the review of projected population growth, and whether the potential review of Regional representation in two election cycles would be considered in this review. It was noted by Dr. Williams that this review is not a fixed solution, and that although the intent is to create a structure that will be suitable for three election cycles, it may be necessary to complete another review prior to then depending on a number of factors. Further questions were raised regarding the purpose of the public consultation process, with Dr. Williams noting that the purpose of the engagement is to ensure all residents have the opportunity to comment and be involved. Recommendation: Moved by Councillor McLean Seconded by Councillor Butt 1. That Report CLK 05-19 regarding the City of Pickering Ward Boundary Review and adoption of Terms of Reference be received; 2. That the Terms of Reference appended as Attachment #1 to CLK 05-19 be approved; and, 3. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried 4.2 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report BYL 02-19 Vehicle for Hire By-Law A question and answer period ensued regarding the fee structure contained in Schedule 1 of the draft By-law as it pertains to the per driver rates for Personal Transportation Company (PTC) Fees and the justifications for including such a fee when most other municipalities do not. Further questions were raised regarding whether there was a market in the City of Pickering that could support a number of - 44 - Executive Committee Meeting Minutes December 2, 2019 Council Chambers – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Ashe 6 additional taxicabs or ride share programs, and it was noted that the people using ride share programs are not using taxi services. Discussion continued regarding the requirement for ride sharing vehicles in the City of Pickering to display an identification sticker on the windshield of each car noting that the PTC’s were not in favour of this requirement but that it would b e beneficial from an enforcement standpoint. Further questions were raised regarding the removal of a number of taxicab provisions in the proposed by-law pertaining to passenger rights and protection of the consumer with Staff noting that provisions that were not safety related had been removed as these traits would be covered by private company business models. Staff advised that they would continue to have discussions with Uber pertaining to some of the provisions in the By-law prior to the By-law coming forward at the December 16, 2019 Council meeting. Recommendation: Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Mayor Ryan 1. That Report BYL 02-19 regarding the attached Vehicle for Hire By-law be received; 2. That Council enact the Vehicle for Hire By-law attached to this Report (Attachment No. 1); and, 3. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this Report. Carried on a Recorded Vote as Follows: Yes Councillor Brenner Councillor Butt Councillor Cumming Councillor McLean Councillor Pickles Mayor Ryan No Councillor Ashe - 45 - Executive Committee Meeting Minutes December 2, 2019 Council Chambers – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Ashe 7 4.3 Director, Community Services, Report CS 44-19 Municipal Highway Winter Maintenance Agreement - Third Concession Road (Peter Matthews Drive) in the City of Pickering Recommendation: Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Butt 1. That Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Municipal Highway Winter Maintenance Agreement with the Regional Municipality of Durham 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 City officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried 4.4 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 11-19 Balsdon Park Master Plan A question and answer period ensued regarding concerns relating to the delay in the implementation of the Balsdon Park Master Plan and whether the City had a list of Park Master Plans in order of priority. Discussion ensued pertaining to the other park master plans in the City noting that some park projects are phased in while others are constructed in one phase depending on associated costs. Recommendation: Moved by Mayor Ryan Seconded by Councillor McLean 1. That Balsdon Park Master Plan be endorsed by Council; 2. That staff be directed to prepare the detailed designs required for the implementation of the Balsdon Park Master Plan; - 46 - Executive Committee Meeting Minutes December 2, 2019 Council Chambers – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Ashe 8 3. That staff be directed to include the implementation of the Balsdon Park Master Plan in the 2021 to 2024 Capital Forecast, and request funds for construction in a future year through the annual budget process; and, 4. 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) Moved by Councillor Cumming Seconded by Councillor McLean That Item #3 of the main motion be amended to read as follows: 3. That staff be directed to include the implementation of the Balsdon Park Master Plan in the 2021 Capital Forecast. Carried on a Recorded Vote as Follows: Yes Councillor Brenner Councillor Butt Councillor Cumming Councillor McLean Councillor Pickles Mayor Ryan No Councillor Ashe The Main Motion, as Amended, was then Carried 4.5 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 20-19 2020 Interim Levy and Interim Tax Instalment Due Dates Members of Council requested that Staff look into whether the City has the ability to change the tax instalment due dates to the end of the month rather than mid - month to assist seniors and those on fixed incomes. Recommendation: Moved by Mayor Ryan Seconded by Councillor Pickles - 47 - Executive Committee Meeting Minutes December 2, 2019 Council Chambers – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Ashe 9 1. That an interim property tax levy be adopted for all realty property classes for 2020; 2. That the interim property tax levy tax instalment due dates be February 26 and April 28, 2019; 3. That the attached draft by-law, providing for the imposition of the taxes, be enacted; and, 4. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried 4.6 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 21-19 2020 Temporary Borrowing By-law Recommendation: Moved by Mayor Ryan Seconded by Councillor Pickles 1. That the temporary borrowing limit of $53 million be established to meet 2020 current expenditures pending receipt of taxes and other revenues for the period of January 1, 2020 to September 30, 2020 inclusive, and $26 million thereafter until December 31, 2020; 2. That the temporary borrowing limit for capital purposes for 2020 be established at $49 million; 3. That the attached draft by-law providing for the temporary borrowing of monies be enacted; and, 4. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried 4.7 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 22-19 2020 Interim Spending Authority Recommendation: - 48 - Executive Committee Meeting Minutes December 2, 2019 Council Chambers – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Ashe 10 Moved by Mayor Ryan Seconded by Councillor Pickles 1. That the 2020 Interim Operating Expenditures be approved at 50 per cent of the prior year’s budget, including adjustments, as contained in Attachment 1, pending approval of the formal 2020 Current Budget by Council; and, 2. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried 4.8 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report LEG 08-19 Municipality Contribution Agreement - Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation and The Corporation of the City of Pickering A question and answer period ensued regarding the creation of a strategy for how gaming revenues will be spent with Staff noting that this would be reported to Council through the budget process as well as through annual reviews and reports to Council. Further questions were raised pertaining to sharing casino gaming revenues with the Region with Staff confirming that the City will not provide any revenues to the Region until such time that the full build out of the Pickering Casino has occurred. Members of Council questioned whether the Town of Ajax had any plans to provide gaming revenue from the Ajax Casino to the Region of Durham. Recommendation: Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Brenner 1. That the attached Municipality Contribution Agreement between Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation and The Corporation of the City of Pickering be approved; 2. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the said Municipality Contribution Agreement; and, 3. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this Report. - 49 - Executive Committee Meeting Minutes December 2, 2019 Council Chambers – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Ashe 11 Carried 4.9 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 27-19 City of Pickering 2019-2024 Corporate Energy Management Plan A question and answer period ensued regarding whether the Corporate Energy Plan would be applied to Pickering residents with Staff noting that currently the plan applies to City facilities but that developers would be encouraged to adopt these practices. Further discussion ensued regarding District Energy Facilities and questions were raised as to whether the City was actively pursuing participation and partnerships with developers and Elexicon Energy. Further questions were raised as to whether a new transformer station was planned for the Seaton Community with a request for Staff to provide a separate update on this matter. Recommendation: Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Butt 1. That Report PLN 27-19 regarding the 2019-2024 Corporate Energy Management Plan (CEMP) be received; 2. That Council endorse the CEMP and direct staff to use this Plan as a basis for making future corporate energy management recommendations and budget submissions; and, 3. That staff annually report back to Council on the results of CEMP implementation and the energy management program. Carried 5. Other Business 5.1 Councillor Brenner requested that Staff move forward with bringing automated speed enforcement cameras to all three wards in the City, as part of the 2020 Budget process, given the recent implementation of legislation by the Province. - 50 - Executive Committee Meeting Minutes December 2, 2019 Council Chambers – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Ashe 12 Councillor Brenner further requested that Staff review the request received from the Fairport Beach Neighbourhood Association regarding the possibility of their Association funding 50% of a stationary speed enforcement camera with an arrangement that the City would pay them back, over a period of time, for the capital investment, using the revenues experienced from the collection of fines. 6.Adjournment Moved by Councillor Butt Seconded by Councillor Cumming That the meeting be adjourned. Carried The meeting adjourned at 4:27 pm. - 51 - Special Council Meeting Minutes December 2, 2019 Main Committee Room Immediately following the Executive Committee Meeting Present: Mayor David Ryan Councillors: D. Pickles Also Present: T. Prevedel -Chief Administrative Officer K. Bentley -Director, City Development & CBO P. Bigioni -Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor S. Cassel -City Clerk K. Thompson -Manager, Municipal Law Enforcement Services L. Harker -Deputy Clerk Mayor Ryan called the meeting to order at 4:40 p.m. K. Ashe M. Brenner S. Butt I. Cumming B. McLean 1.Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 2.Education & Training Resolution #175/19 Moved by Councillor Cumming Seconded by Councillor Butt That Council move into closed session in accordance with the provisions of Section 239 of the Municipal Act and Procedure By-law 7665/18 for the purpose of educating or training Members of Council. Carried 2.1 Overview of Municipal Law Enforcement Verbal Presentation, Manager, Municipal Law Enforcement Services - 52 - Special Council Meeting Minutes December 2, 2019 Main Committee Room Immediately following the Executive Committee Meeting Susan Cassel, City Clerk, noted that this session is an education and training session where information will be provided to Council, with an opportunity for questions and clarification. She reminded Members of Council that in accordance with the Municipal Act, no decisions would be made or considered at this meeting. Council received a verbal presentation and a detailed discussion period ensued. Refer to the In Camera minutes for further information. [City Clerk has custody and control of the In Camera minutes.] Resolution #176/19 Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Cumming That Council rise from the closed session of Council. Carried Mayor Ryan stated that during the closed portion of the meeting, Council received an education and training session pertaining to an overview of Municipal Law Enforcement from the Manager, Municipal Law Enforcement Services and noted that no decisions were made or considered by Council. 3. Adjournment Moved by Councillor Ashe Seconded by Councillor Butt That the meeting be adjourned. Carried The meeting adjourned at 5:55 pm. Dated this 2nd day of December, 2019. David Ryan, Mayor Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 53 - Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes December 2, 2019 Council Chambers – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Brenner 1 Present: Mayor David Ryan Councillors: D. Pickles Also Present: T. Prevedel - Chief Administrative Officer K. Bentley - Director, City Development & CBO C. Rose - Chief Planner S. Cassel - City Clerk D. Jacobs - Manager, Policy & Geomatics N. Surti - Manager, Development Review & Urban Design E. Martelluzzi - Planner II, Heritage L. Harker - Deputy Clerk K. Ashe M. Brenner S. Butt I. Cumming B. McLean 1. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 2. Statutory Public Meetings Councillor Brenner, Chair, gave an outline of the requirements for a Statutory Public Meeting under the Planning Act. He outlined the notification process procedures and also noted that if a person or public body does not make oral or written submissions to the City before the By-law is passed, that person or public body are not entitled to appeal the decision of City Council to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT), and may not be entitled to be added as a party to the hearing unless, in the opinion of LPAT, there are reasonable grounds to do so. Cathy Rose, Chief Planner, appeared before the Committee to act as facilitator for the Statutory Public Meeting portion of the meeting, explaining the process for discussion purposes as well as the order of speakers. - 54 - Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes December 2, 2019 Council Chambers – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Brenner 2 2.1 Information Report No. 16-19 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/19 Altona Group Part Lot 23, Concession 1, Now Parts 11-16, Plan 40R-10390 (1294 Kingston Road, 1848 & 1852 Liverpool Road) A statutory public meeting was held under the Planning Act, for the purpose of informing the public with respect to the above-noted application. Elizabeth Martelluzzi, Planner II, Heritage, appeared before the Committee to provide an overview of Zoning By-law Amendment Application A08/19. Through the aid of a Power Point presentation, she provided an overview of the subject lands and the applicant’s proposal, noting that the applicant will require a Zoning Amendment to increase the heights of three buildings. Ms. Martelluzzi noted that the proposal includes relocating the Old Liverpool House approximately 10 metres south towards the corner of Kingston Road and Liverpool Road. She provided an overview of public and City Staff comments received to date. Melanie Hare, Urban Strategies Inc., appeared before the Committee on behalf of the applicant, Altona Group. She noted that this application is an appropriate proposal within City and Provincial guidelines, that it will act as a landmark for the City while adding new uses to celebrate heritage, that it is an opportunity to transform an underperforming corner of the City, and that it will restore and reuse the Old Liverpool House. Ms. Hare noted that she was in attendance to listen and consider all comments received, and that she looked forward to continuing discussions regarding the ingress and egress access points to the development to ensure they are safe and can be accommodated within the development. Dianne Neubauer, 1858 Bowler Drive, appeared before the Committee to express her concerns with the proposed height of the development. She requested that Council consider mid-rise buildings instead, and noted the benefits of mid-rise developments including being more family-friendly, with a smaller number of units which would be easier to integrate into surrounding services, and encourage more community interaction. Martin Herzog, 1873 Pinecreek Court, appeared before the Committee to express his concerns with the application. Mr. Herzog noted that the proposed 25-storey tower exceeds the current height limit by 66% and creates significant local impacts, including incompatibility with the Glendale neighbourhood and noted that residents would experience a loss of privacy and reduced enjoyment of their homes and properties. He commented that the Transportation Impact Assessment Report underestimates traffic generated by the proposal, and also overestimates transit ridership. Mr. Herzog expressed concerns with there not being sufficient - 55 - Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes December 2, 2019 Council Chambers – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Brenner 3 queuing space on Liverpool Road during rush hour traffic, and that the additional traffic in an already congested area, is a safety concern. Additionally, he expressed concerns that there are only 10 surface level parking spaces proposed to support retail uses, which is a 92% reduction from the current 129 surface spaces. Ann Lebert, 1792 Walnut Lane, appeared before the Committee to express concerns regarding the application. Ms. Lebert noted safety concerns of the Liverpool and Kingston Road intersection, and that the proposal to move the Liverpool House would put it too close to the street. She also noted that the proposal for 25 stories is too high. Bill Waugh, 1816 Bronte Square, appeared before the Committee to express concerns regarding the proposal for 10 aboveground parking spots, as this will limit parking availability for the restaurant and commercial developments. Mr. Waugh also expressed concerns with the proposed height of the buildings, noting that they should be limited to 8 stories. Grant Morris, 397 Sheppard Avenue, appeared before the Committee as the planning consultant for the landowners to the North of this development. Mr. Morris expressed concerns with the proposal for seven townhouses, and noted that the road entrance should be coordinated with his client’s development to ensure coordination with the traffic light. Becky Arseneau, 1945 Glendale Drive, appeared before the Committee to express concerns regarding safety with the proposed increase in traffic, and noted that it is not a realistic expectation that people will walk or use transit. She also noted that the proposed height of the buildings is too high. Andrea MacFarlane, 1834 Bronte Square, appeared before the Committee and stated she concurred with the comments provided by other delegates and expressed concerns with the site location, noting that it is an inappropriate choice for this development, as well as concerns regarding traffic safety at the nearby intersection. George Turner, 1780 Listowell Crescent, appeared before the Committee to question whether the proposed development was for apartments or condominiums and the dollar value proposed for the restoration of the Old Liverpool House. He raised further questions as to whether the development would continue at 15 stories, or whether it would only be pursued at 25 stories and noted further concerns relating to traffic on Liverpool Road. - 56 - Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes December 2, 2019 Council Chambers – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Brenner 4 Robert Grieve, 1834 Bronte Square, appeared before the Committee to express concerns with the application relating to traffic, noting that the report overestimates transit ridership as well as concerns relating to the height of the proposed development. Mary Cook, 1853 Malden Crescent, appeared before the Committee to enquire whether there would be an impact study or construction management plan put in place to minimize the impact of construction on neighbouring residents. Albert Gilchrist, 1228 Charlotte Circle, appeared before the Committee to express concerns regarding the proposed height of the development. Mr. Gilchrist questioned whether the Old Liverpool House would be raised ten stories if the additional height of the buildings was not approved. Andrea Zeeb, 1785 Storrington Street, appeared before the Committee expressing concerns regarding the lack of a traffic study conducted to the west of the development, noting that those streets would also be impacted by this proposed development. She expressed further concerns relating to the increase in traffic, the proposed height of the buildings, and the impact of construction noise a nd dust. There were no further delegations from the public. A discussion period ensued, with Members of the Committee requesting that the following items be addressed when the recommendation report is brought back to the Planning and Development Committee: obtaining collision reports from the Durham Regional Police Service for the intersection of Liverpool and Kingston Road; traffic and yields within and surrounding the development; shadowing effects of proposed structures on existing development; the density of the proposed development; and, construction impacts such as dust and noise, and details pertaining to a construction management plan. Melanie Hare, Urban Strategies Inc., appeared before the Committee to respond to comments regarding transit concerns, and noted that this development is meant to increase pedestrian amenities, and provide better pedestrian infrastructure in the landscape and design. Ms. Hare noted that the City has requested that public art be included to showcase the heritage component of the development. - 57 - Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes December 2, 2019 Council Chambers – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Brenner 5 Discussion ensued regarding building separation and the massing of buildings and proposed architecture as well as the proposed number of parking spaces (10 above, 30 below ground) and whether this would be sufficient for the development. Questions were raised regarding the proposed heritage and restoration strategy for the Old Liverpool House. Ms. Hare noted that restoration would include exterior and interior restoration, reinstalling of the original porch, replacing windows, and that the value of the restoration has not yet been determined. Members of Council questioned if the application to the North of the proposed development would affect or change this application in relation to access to Liverpool Road or traffic signals. Ms. Hare noted that they would be prepared to look at the access to both sides and the height of buildings to ensure compatibility for both, including options to minimize access points, and proposing traffic signals at one of the access points. Ms. Hare also noted that the outdoor amenity green space would be a family friendly space, and that part of this proposition would include a playground. It was the consensus of the Committee to take a short recess. The Committee recessed at 8:20 pm and reconvened at 8:30 pm. 3. Delegations 3.1 Ryan Guetter, Weston Consulting Re: Draft Intensification Plan & Draft Urban Design Guidelines for the Kingston Road Corridor & Specialty Retailing Node Study. Ryan Guetter, Weston Consulting, appeared before the Committee to express general support of the Draft Intensification Plan & Draft Urban Design Guidelines for the Kingston Road Corridor & Specialty Retailing Node Study. Mr. Guetter made reference to a letter submitted to City Staff on November 29th, which makes reference to a proposed street through the subject lands of 1842 and 1856 Notion Road. He expressed concerns with this proposed roadway, as it is not appropriate or necessary to facilitate future development of lands in the surrounding area. Mr. Guetter noted that this connection is specifically noted as a connection under review, which will allow Weston Consulting to continue to work and dialog with staff on this matter. - 58 - Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes December 2, 2019 Council Chambers – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Brenner 6 Recommendation: Moved by Mayor Ryan Seconded by Councillor Butt That the order of the agenda be changed to hear Item 4.1, Report PLN 26-19 as the next item of business. Carried 3.2 David Sanderson Re: Report PLN 25-19, Request for Council’s Permission to Develop Lands through Land Severance Marshall Homes Park of Lot 30, Concession 1 South, and Part 1, Plan 40R-10110 (1855 Rosebank Road) David Sanderson, was heard under Item 4.2, Report PLN 25-19. 3.3 Desiree Mahadeo Re: Report PLN 25-19, Request for Council’s Permission to Develop Lands through Land Severance Marshall Homes Park of Lot 30, Concession 1 South, and Part 1, Plan 40R-10110 (1855 Rosebank Road) Desiree Mahadeo, was heard under Item 4.2, Report PLN 25-19. 3.4 Phil Dever Re: Report PLN 25-19, Request for Council’s Permission to Develop Lands through Land Severance Marshall Homes Park of Lot 30, Concession 1 South, and Part 1, Plan 40R-10110 (1855 Rosebank Road) Phil Dever, was heard under Item 4.2, Report PLN 25-19. - 59 - Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes December 2, 2019 Council Chambers – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Brenner 7 3.5 Victor Rudik Re: Report PLN 25-19, Request for Council’s Permission to Develop Lands through Land Severance Marshall Homes Park of Lot 30, Concession 1 South, and Part 1, Plan 40R-10110 (1855 Rosebank Road) Victor Rudik, was heard under Item 4.2, Report PLN 25-19. 3.6 T.J. Cieciura, President, Design Plan Services Re: Report PLN 25-19, Request for Council’s Permission to Develop Lands through Land Severance Marshall Homes Park of Lot 30, Concession 1 South, and Part 1, Plan 40R-10110 (1855 Rosebank Road) T.J Cieciura, was heard under Item 4.2, Report PLN 25-19. 4. Planning & Development Reports 4.1 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 26-19 Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Study Intensification Plan and Draft Urban Design Guidelines Staff/Consultant Delegation Klaudia Biala, Project Manager, SvN on Report PLN 26-19. Klaudia Biala, Project Manager, SvN, appeared before the Committee to present the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Study Intensification Plan and Draft Urban Design Guidelines. Ms. Biala outlined the study area, and the study timelines and phases. She detailed the purposes of the Plan, and noted that the next steps in the process are to update the Pickering Official Plan and associated municipal policies, develop area-specific Zoning By- laws, begin recommended studies and programs, and if necessary, update the Draft Urban Design Guidelines. - 60 - Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes December 2, 2019 Council Chambers – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Brenner 8 A question and answer period ensued between Members of Council, Staff and Klaudia Biala, Project Manager, SvN, regarding: the interest in high rise residential, and how there appears to be no office space development in the guidelines, with Ms. Biala noting that although research shows that office space is often vacant and unused, the guidelines are open to change and SvN recommends that the City undertake their own study to determine if office space is required; incentives to include affordable housing in each development and how the City is looking at creative ways to find affordable housing and intersperse it with the proposed development; zoning considerations and specific applications that will come forward in future that may further define development uses; whether there is flexibility in the guidelines, but the overall importance of having a high level plan in place for future development; the timelines proposed; development pressures from applicants waiting to move forward with an application, and what would occur if a developer made an application during this transition period prior to the Guidelines being in place; the reduction of employment opportunities when intensification is increased, resulting in pressures on the residential tax base and whether the City would be looking at tools to ensure mixed use development; the importance of tax increment financing to incentivize businesses; and, the importance of mixed use development to increase the non -residential tax base. Catherine Rose, Chief Planner, referred to a memorandum from Kyle Bentley, Director, City Development and CBO, dated December 2nd, 2019 in response to a submission by Martin Herzog regarding PLN 26-19. Ms. Rose advised that there were revisions to three pages in the Draft Urban Design Guidelines, and they had been provided to Council for substitution in the Staff Report. Recommendation: Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Cumming 1. That Report PLN 26-19, regarding the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Study, be received for information; - 61 - Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes December 2, 2019 Council Chambers – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Brenner 9 2. That Council endorse in principle the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Plan, dated November 2019, prepared by SvN in consultation with AECOM and 360 Collective, as contained in Appendix I to Report PLN 26-19, and authorize staff to initiate an Official Plan Amendment to implement the vision and Intensification Plan for the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node; and, 3. That Council endorse in principle the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Draft Urban Design Guidelines, dated November 2019, prepared by SvN in consultation with AECOM and 360 Collective, as contained in Appendix II to Report PLN 26-19, including the revised pages as noted in the memorandum from Kyle Bentley, Director, City Development and CBO dated December 2, 2019. Carried 4.2 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 25-19 Request for Council’s Permission to Develop Lands through Land Severance Marshall Homes Part of Lot 30, Concession 1 South, and Part 1, Plan 40R-10110 (1855 Rosebank Road) David Sanderson, 505 Charnwood Court, appeared before the Committee to express his concerns regarding Report PLN 25-19. He questioned how a home can be purchased conditionally prior to development and land severance, and questioned if it was twelve or thirteen lots being considered, noting inconsistency between the Staff Report and Regional correspondence. Mr. Sanderson also questioned what the required environmental report will include, if the applicant will be required to include the fill and topsoil disturbance by-law, and what the phrase “generally conform to all requirements” meant. He raised further questions pertaining to what conditions of approval the City will require, and noted that there is no mention of a traffic report having been completed. Mr. Sanderson stated that the report mentions one school in the area, but that there are actually three schools within a 500 metre radius and questioned if this development is in line with the Design with Nature Policy in Chapter 14 of the City Plan. A brief discussion ensued regarding Mr. Sanderson’s comment regarding public safety, with Members of Council noting that the construction management plan will address any issues relating to public safety in the area during construction. Desiree Mahadeo, 501 Charnwood Court, appeared before the Committee to express concerns relating to the pile up of snow on the sidewalks during the winter months and stated that this will only increase with the additional homes. She - 62 - Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes December 2, 2019 Council Chambers – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Brenner 10 raised further concerns regarding traffic during construction as well as the dust and noise, and questioned whether fencing would be erected to protect existing homes. Phil Dever, 503 Charnwood Court, appeared before the Committee to express concerns regarding the application. Mr. Dever noted that previously, the owner had advised him that he had obtained approval to sever his property for new home development and that these homes would have a north/south configuration with a road in the middle to allow for entry and exit, which would allow for their backyards to connect. He stated that this proposal is an east/west configuration, with as many as thirteen homes, and that this would result in obstructed views from his property, and could potentially impact property values. Mr. Dever requested a row of trees along the fence line to help with the beautification of the property, and questioned if the home on lot one could be moved to the southern edge of the property instead of the middle. He further requested the installation of a retaining wall at the back of the property to reduce erosion. Mr. Dever noted further concerns with stormwater management, and the safe removal of the existing septic system. He concluded by questioning whether current residents could have input into the type of permanent fence being constructed on the property. Victor Rudik, owner of the subject lands, appeared before the Committee to provide an overview of the lands’ history. Mr. Rudik noted that he has lived in this house since 1965, and at that time, there were close to twenty lots off either side of Rosebank Road. He stated that although the area was zoned as agriculture, the minimum lot allowed for non-agriculture use was two acres and at that time, he built according to specifications of the day. Mr. Rudik stated that during the time that the surrounding vacant land was being acquired, he was able to enter into negotiations so that he did not get blocked in on his land and he requested the same zoning provisions that the other developers obtained. He further noted that he was able to obtain approval for a ten foot high chain link fence for personal privacy and that this fence remains to this day and that this type of privacy is what adjacent property owners were seeking. Mr. Rudik added that he was also required to dedicate a ten foot widening across Rosebank Road, which is owned by the City and that lateral services had been installed at the time of earlier development as was required by City Council at that time. T. J. Cieciura, President, Design Plan Services, appeared before the Committee on behalf of the applicant, Marshall Homes. Mr. Cieciura remarked that what is currently in front of the Committee is not a severance approval, but rather a recommendation to proceed with the appropriate process through land division, noting this is the appropriate process as there are no new roads or infrastructure proposed. Mr. Cieciura noted that the property is already zoned for residential lots, and that the only zoning issue that is not proposed to be complied with is the - 63 - Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes December 2, 2019 Council Chambers – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Brenner 11 frontage of two pie shaped lots that don’t comply with legal frontage area requirements, but still exceed the total area requirements. He noted that the sidewalk location will be reviewed and moved to a standard location post construction. Mr. Cieciura stated that the public will be able to comment during the land division and site plan process, and that Marshall Homes would work with area residents to address concerns. A question and answer period ensued between Members of Council, Staff and Craig Marshall, President, Marshall Homes, regarding: the appropriate process in which to develop the property; the discrepancy between the Region’s and the City’s reports in relation to the number of lots, with Staff confirming that the proposal is for twelve new homes, and one pre-existing home; the potential for the City of Pickering to require the developer to submit a development agreement, which would impose conditions and restrictions, including construction management to minimize noise and dust; the safe removal and decommissioning of the septic system in accordance with health regulations; requirements for a traffic study which would have already been conducted when the property was originally zoned; whether the construction staging would be done on site to minimize safety concerns and construction effects; conditions for selling the lots; the installation of tree and fence buffers, especially for neighbours on Charnwood Court; and, the anticipated prices of the new homes, noting that typically, when homes with an increased value are built in a neighbourhood, they tend to bring increased value to the neighbouring properties. Members of Council requested that the comments received from residents be incorporated into the City’s submission to the Land Division Committee and that City Staff provide Council with a response to the comments made by residents prior to the December 16th Council Meeting. It was also noted that there are two minor variances coming forward, which will be further elaborated on in the Memo that would be provided to Council prior to December 16th. Recommendation: - 64 - Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes December 2, 2019 Council Chambers – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Brenner 12 Moved by Councillor Butt Seconded by Councillor Cumming That the request made by Marshall Homes, to permit the division of the subject lands being Part of Lot 30, Concession 1 South, and Part 1, Plan 40R-10110 (municipally known as 1855 Rosebank Road) through land severance rather than by draft plan of subdivision, be approved. Carried 5. Other Business There were no items of other business. 6. Adjournment Moved by Councillor McLean Seconded by Councillor Ashe That the meeting be adjourned. Carried The meeting adjourned at 9:50 pm. - 65 - November 14, 2019 Charlene Rocha 905-683-8652 charocha03@gmail.com 2366 Strathmore Crescent, Pickering ON, L1X 2H8 Dear City Council members, As we have seen from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Special Report 15, we only have 12 years left to minimize our global temperature to 1.5 degrees Celsius before we are hit by catastrophic damage. People across the world have shown their dedication to combatting this urgent crisis. My name is Charlene Rocha and I am one of the FridaysForFuture Toronto coordinators. I am an environmental activist and a 16-year-old student from St. Mary C.S.S. As the education and concern about climate change increases, so does interest and participation. I, along with many young people, have gotten involved in the fight towards government action regarding the warming climate. Even in our own school community, we have seen an incredible spike in the desire for environmental justice. St. Mary C.S.S.’s Eco Team increased from 15 members last year, to about 90 members this year. The youth in our school are fearful for their future and through our initiatives, can work towards eco-friendly alternatives. We have advocated for conservation and advocation for climate justice within their school community through having community litter clean ups, holding a schoolwide thrift store, selling recycled Christmas bows, reducing light usage in classrooms, and having water conservation weeks which resulted in having refillable water stations. We hold a gold school status and try to push our students to be as aware of their actions as possible. We wanted to extend our ideas and enthusiasm to the Pickering community as well. We had the privilege to attend a national climate strike I helped plan on May 3rd, 2019. At this strike, students extended their knowledge and made connections by speaking with inspirational youth leaders. One of the big takeaways we had, was that, according to the Climate Mobilization Organization’s website, over 1180 local governments in 23 countries have declared a climate emergency. Since then, I have been working towards getting Pickering to do the same. This project of declaring a climate emergency in Pickering has sprung up conversations across our school and others in the board. After consulting with students, teachers, parents, and youth across Pickering, I have gotten a consensus of what we would like the City of Pickering to do. We would like to see the City of Pickering support that climate change poses a threat to both the current and future social, economic and environmental well-being of the community and commit to combatting this threat. I am requesting that the Council passes the attached motion we have drafted. Sincerely, Charlene Rocha - 66 - Corr. 41-19 City of Pickering Climate Emergency Declaration Whereas climate change is a well-documented issue that poses a risk to social, economic and environmental well-being in communities around the world. And Whereas the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has determined the need for a significant reduction in carbon emissions in the next 11 years to avoid further economic, ecological, and societal losses due to climate change. And Whereas climate change is currently contributing billions of dollars in property and infrastructure damage worldwide and the City of Pickering has been impacted by extreme rain and ice storm events resulting in a loss of tree canopy, property damage, utility disruptions and flooding along the waterfront. And Whereas the City of Pickering has been proactively integrating sustainability into its corporate culture for many years, while aiming to continuously balance the economic, environmental and social priorities of a healthy community. And Whereas a climate emergency declaration aligns with the goals and actions already being completed through existing City programs, plans and policies including but not limited to: 2014-2019 and 2019-2024 Corporate Energy Management plans, Durham Community Climate Adaptation Plan, Durham Community Energy Plan, Amendment 23 to the Pickering Official Plan, Partners in Climate Protection Program, Sustainable Development Guidelines, Sustainable Seaton: Community-Building series, habitat protection and naturalization, Smart Commute Program, renewable energy project on Dr. Nelson F. Tomlinson Community Centre, Measuring Sustainability Reports, a 7-year Electric Vehicle Strategy, a forthcoming Integrated Transportation Master Plan. And Whereas the City of Pickering promotes a healthy economic development program that supports the attraction of key industries and jobs to allow for residents to work close to home. And Whereas the City of Pickering is attempting to maximize unique economic development opportunities within the City to further advance the establishment of key industries and support the supply chain of businesses. Now Therefore be it resolved that the Council of the City of Pickering declares a climate emergency by endorsing the following: 1.That climate change poses a threat to both the current and future social, economic and environmental well-being of the community; - 67 - Attachment #1 to Corr. 41-19 2. That the City continues to strive for a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to reduce the local and global impacts of climate change; 3. That the City supports that mitigation, adaptation and resiliency measures continue to be considered and implemented to ensure the community remains prosperous and to reduce the short and long term impacts of climate change; 4. That the City continues to demonstrate leadership and a commitment to economic, social and environmental sustainability; 5. That the City continues to build a healthy and complete city where residents can live, work, and play without having to leave the community; 6. That Council requests staff, wherever possible, to consider climate change in municipal activities; 7. That the City continues to encourage residents, businesses, and the development community to consider climate change; and, 8. The Council shares it’s commitment by forwarding this declaration to the Federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Ontario Minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks, Member of Parliament for Pickering-Uxbridge, Member of Provincial Parliament for Pickering-Uxbridge, Region of Durham, Durham Region municipalities, the Durham Catholic and Public District School Boards and the Ontario French Public School Board. - 68 - - 69 - Corr. 42-19 - 70 - - 71 - - 72 - - 73 - The Opioid Crisis: A Complex, Multifaceted Health and Social Issue Oct, 2019- 74 - Attachment #1 to Corr. 42-19 Opioid Overdose Crisis •A very complex health and social issue •Trauma and adverse childhood experiences greatly contribute to opioid use •Overprescribing of prescription drugs and use of illegal opioids have contributed to the issue History •Personal history of substance use •Family history of substance use •History of childhood trauma such as pre-adolescent sexual abuse •History of mental illness Risk Factors for Developing Opioid Addiction Include: Canadian research studies have shown that up to 90% of women in treatment for substance use have experienced trauma. (Jean Tweed Centre, 2013) - 75 - Prescription Opioids Source: Health Quality Ontario: Opioid Prescribing in Ontario - 76 - The Root Cause of the Opioid Crisis •Although increased availability of prescription opioids fueled the overdose crisis, this does not adequately explain the situation nor does it adequately explore the source of the demand for these medicines •Trends over the past 3 years show a decline in opioid prescribing rates across the province and CE LHIN, yet opioid overdose rates have not declined and in many areas continue to rise Source: Ontario Drug-Policy Research Network Ontario Prescription Opioid Tool; Dasgupta et al., (2018)- 77 - The Opioid Crisis… A Complex, Multifaceted Issue While increased opioid prescribing for chronic pain has contributed to the crisis, factors such as reduced economic opportunity, poor working conditions, and financial poverty are root causes of the misuse of opioid and other substances Poverty and substance use problems operate synergistically Dasgupta et al., (2018)- 78 - Durham Region 2018 Point-in-Time Count •The 2018 Everybody Counts Report provides a snapshot of homelessness in Durham Region •291 individuals experiencing homelessness •Most individuals surveyed were staying in an emergency shelter or experiencing hidden homelessness •13% of individuals surveyed were unsheltered •79% of individuals surveyed were single adults •31% of individuals surveyed identified struggling with addiction of substance abuse - 79 - Social and Genetic Factors •Individuals living in low socioeconomic neighbourhoods are more likely to develop chronic pain after car crashes •Evidence shows that people convert social stress and anxiety into physical pain •Studies have looked at a group of people who use heroin and have previously been employed in a steel production plant which closed. The people cited economic hardship, social isolation and hopelessness as reasons for drug use - 80 - Public Health Mandate 1. Develop a Local Opioid Response 2. Naloxone Distribution 3. Develop an Early Warning & Surveillance System - 81 - Canadian Drugs & Substances Strategy Framework (Health Canada) Source: Health Canada https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/substance-abuse/canadian-drugs-substances-strategy/harm-reduction.html Prevention Preventing problematic drug & substance use Treatment Supporting innovative approaches to treatment & rehabilitation Harm Reduction Supporting measures that reduce the negative consequences of drug & substance use Enforcement Addressing illicit drug production, supply & distribution - 82 - Durham Region Opioid Response Plan Coordinate surveillance activities & use of ‘real-time’ data from across sectors Support ongoing knowledge exchange Increase awareness of the connection between mental health, trauma & substance abuse Increase treatment options Develop a local evidence-based harm reduction strategy to foster coordination and access to services Continue addressing illicit drug production, supply & distribution - 83 - DRHD Opioid Information & Data System (DROIS) Source: www.durham.ca/opioidstats - 84 - Needle Exchange Program (NEP) •Designed to reduce harm by preventing the transmission of deadly diseases such as HIV, hepatitis C (HCV) and hepatitis B (HBV) •While NEP’s are not designed to treat addictions, they do provide an access point for other addiction services, health and social services Purpose: •Provides sterile needles and other supplies •Provides education and counselling to clients •Provides referrals to addiction treatment and other health and social services Services: Harm reduction strategies aim to increase awareness of the risk of behaviour, and provide tools and resources to decrease a person’s risk to themselves or others Success is measured in terms of individual and community quality of health, not in the levels of substances use - 85 - Benefits of a Needle Exchange Services Lower numbers of contaminated needles in a community Reduced prevalence of new infectious diseases e.g. HIV Increased access to education and drug treatment referral services Increased access to testing and diagnostic services Increased communication with hard-to-reach populations Source: World Health Organization 2004a, 2004b - 86 - Best Practices for NEPs Provide sterile needles in the quantities requested by clients without requiring clients to return used needles Place no limit on the number of needles provided per client, per visit (one for one exchange is not recommended) Encourage clients to return and /or properly dispose of used needles and syringes Provide multiple, convenient locations for safe disposal of used syringes and equipment Source: Strike C., et al. (2013). Resource Link - 87 - Best Practices for NEPs Educate clients about the benefits of regular testing, early diagnosis, and treatment for HIV, HCV, HBV, and TB Refer clients to testing and counselling service providers in the community as well as substance use treatment programs Educate program staff to assess and respond to client motivation and readiness for substance use treatment Assess feasibility of co-locating low-threshold substance use treatment programs within needle exchange programs Source: Strike C., et al (2013). - 88 - Needle Exchange Programs Numerous studies have searched for unintended consequences and found no convincing evidence to support common myths. Evidence shows that needle exchange programs: •Do not lead to greater injection frequency •Do not increase illicit drug use •Do not lead to a rise in syringe lending •Do not result in recruitment of new injection drug users •Do not lead to greater numbers of discarded used needles •Do not increase the incidence of needle stick injuries in public places such as parks and playgrounds •Do not lead to less motivation to change (reduce drug use) •Do not lead to increased transition from non-injecting drug use to injection drug use Source: World Health Organization - 89 - Needle Exchange Program 2018 2019 5,349 repeat client visits; 245 new client visits 258,797 needles in / City of Oshawa Kiosk numbers pending 324,751 needles out 1,350 referrals to treatment (addiction 767; medical 583) 20 referrals for testing (HIV 10; STI 10) 336 referrals for housing, employment 5,594 interactions (counselling/education) Source: Project X-Change Harm Reduction Program Report. 2018. John Howard Society of Durham 8,730 repeat client visits; 261 new client visits 497,985 needles in through NEP + 30, 562 from City of Oshawa kiosks 618,791 needles out 715 referrals to treatment (addiction 486; medical 229) 38 referrals for testing (HIV 18; STI 20) 712 referrals for housing, employment 8,962 interactions (counselling & education) - 90 - Needle Exchange Program Return Rates Year Durham Region Return Rate for the Needle Exchange Program Durham Region Return Rate NEP + City of Oshawa Community Kiosks Provincial Return Rate for Ontario Needle Exchange Programs Standings 2018 80.5% 85.4%55% average Durham Region’s return rate is 30% higher than the provincial average 2019 (Jan to June) 76.4% return rate Pending Pending Pending Source: Durham Region Needle Exchange Program; Ontario Ministry of Health, 2019 - 91 - Needle Exchange Sites in Durham Region John Howard Society Durham Region: Bowmanville; Whitby; Oshawa Pinewood Addiction Support Services & Community Treatment Services: Oshawa, Bowmanville, Port Perry, Ajax AIDS Committee of Durham Region: Oshawa Ontario Addiction Treatment Centre: Oshawa, Beaverton 3 Pharmacies: Oshawa - 92 - Community Options for Needle Return •Any pharmacy in Durham Region •Kiosks at many retail shopping centres and malls •Local business e.g., local gym facilities, fast food/restaurant •Public / outdoor Kiosks •Libraries - 93 - Risks Associated with Community Based Needlestick Exposure •The risk of blood-borne virus transmission from syringes discarded in the community is low •To date, global data indicates there have been two case reports of HBV and three of HBC transmissions and no reported transmission of HIV following injuries by needles discarded in the community Source: Dorothy. L., Moore: Canadian Paediatric Society (2018); Kordy, F., Petrich, A., Read, S. E., & Bitnun, A. (2017). - 94 - HIV Rates (All Ages, All Sexes) Source: Public Health Ontario, 2019 - 95 - Public Health Services for Prevention and Early Intervention Healthy Growth & Development Infectious & Communicable Diseases Prevention & Control Vaccine Preventable Diseases Social Determinants of Health School Health Substance Use & Injury Prevention - 96 - FCM Recommendations of the Mayor’s Task Force on the Opioid Crisis, 2017 The Task Force is calling for a pan-Canadian action plan spanning all four pillars of the national drug strategy: •Harm reduction: removing barriers to getting medical help during an overdose—and to accessing supervised consumption services •Treatment:including better access to opioid substitution therapy and zero delays for getting into comprehensive treatment programs •Prevention:starting with urgent public education on the risks of opioids, and to fight the stigma that stops people from getting help •Enforcement:stopping the production and imports of non-prescription opioids and pill presses All orders of government need to work together to address roots of addiction, with supportive housing, action on homelessness and access to crucial social services. *Complete list of recommendations contained in appendices section Resource link - 97 - Association of Municipalities of Ontario •The Province take an ‘all of government’ effort to develop a comprehensive provincial drug strategy, based on a public health approach •The Province examines and its ministries provide, a coordinated response with adequate funding to address the root causes of addiction, including housing related factors, poverty, unemployment, mental illness and trauma •That the Ministry of Health provides more funding to support, enhance and expand evidence-based consumption, treatment and rehabilitation services, addiction prevention and education, and harm reduction measures in all areas of Ontario •That the Ministry of Health funds a public education campaign, including on social media, to complement the efforts of individual communities Resource Link *Full list of recommendations available in appendices - 98 - Questions Melissa Hutchinson MN, BA, RN Program Manager Durham Region Health Department Population Health Division •(T) 905-668-7711, ext. 3095 | 1-800-841-2729 ext. 3095 | (F) 905-666-6214 |melissa.hutchinson@durham.ca •durham.ca - 99 - References •Association of Municipalities of Ontario. (2019). Addressing the opioid overdose emergency in Ontario: Municipal recommendationsfor a Provincial response. Available at: www.amo.on.ca •Canadian drugs and substances strategy. (2016.). Health Canada. Retrieved from https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/news/2016/12/new-canadian-drugs-substances-strategy.html •Central East LHIN Opioid Strategy. (2018). Central East LHIN. Available at: www.centraleastlhin.on.ca/page.aspx?id=789975175EB04B2C9B61960B7104C9F1 •Dasgupta, N., Beletsky, L., & Ciccarone, D. (2018). Opioid Crisis: No Easy Fix to Its Social and Economic Determinants. American journal of public health, 108(2), 182–186. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2017.304187 •Dorothy. L., Moore: Canadian Paediatric Society: Position Statement. (2018). Infectious Diseases and Immunization Committee. Peadiatric Child Health. 23(8):532-538. Available at: https://www.cps.ca/en/documents/position/needle-stick-injuries-in-the-community •Federation of Canadian Municipalities FCM (2017). Recommendations of the mayors’ task force on the opioid crisis. Available at: https://fcm.ca/en/focus-areas/opioid-crisis •Health Quality Ontario. (2017). 9 million prescriptions: What we know aobu the growing use of prescription opioids in Ontario. Available at: https://www.hqontario.ca/System-Performance/Specialized-Reports/Opioid-Prescribing •Kordy, F., Petrich, A., Read, S. E., & Bitnun, A. (2017). Childhood exposures to discarded needles and other objects potentially contaminated with blood-borne pathogens in Toronto, Canada. Paediatrics & child health, 22(7), 372–376. doi:10.1093/pch/pxx110 Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5804656/ •Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion (Public Health Ontario). Interactive opioid tool. Toronto, ON: Queen’s Printer for Ontario; 2017. Accessed May 2019 from https://www.publichealthontario.ca/en/dataandanalytics/pages/opioid.aspx •Ontario Drug Policy Research Network. (2019). Ontario Prescription Opioid Tool. Available at: https://odprn.ca/ontario-opioid-drug-observatory/ontario-prescription-opioid-tool/ •Ontario public health standards. (2017). Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care. Retrieved from http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/pro/programs/publichealth/oph_standards/- 100 - References •Opioid-Related emergency department visits at a glance. (2018). Durham Region Health Department, Health Analytics, Research and Policy. Retrieved from www.durham.ca •Quick facts: Percentage of students using opioid pain relief pills non-medically in the past year, 2016-2017. March 2018. Durham Region Health Department. Accessed May 2019 from www.durham.ca •Substance use during pregnancy at a glance. (2019). Durham Region Health Department. Retrievable from www.durham.ca •Strike, et al., (2013). Best Practice Recommendations for Canadian Harm Reduction programs that Provide Service to People Who Use Drugs and area at Risk for HIV, HCV, and Other Harms: Part 1.) Retrievable from www.catie.ca •Strike, et al., (2015). The Best Practice Recommendations for Canadian Harm Reduction Programs that Provide Service to People Who Use Drugs and are at Risk for HIV, HCV, and Other Harms: Part 2. Toronto, ON: Working Group on Best Practice for Harm Reduction Programs in Canada Retrievable from www.catie.ca •Trends in: Past year non-medical use of prescription pain relief pills. (2018). Durham Region Health Department. Accessed May 2018 from www.durham.ca •World Health Organization (2004) Effectiveness of sterile needle and syringe programming in reducing HIV/AIDS among injecting drug users. Evidence for action technical papers. Available at: https://www.who.int/hiv/pub/idu/e4a-needle/en/ •World Health Organization WHO. (2004) Provision of sterile injecting equipment to reduce HIV transmission: Policy brief. Available at: https://www.who.int/hiv/pub/idu/e4a-needle/en/ - 101 - Appendix •Best Practices for Needle Exchange Programs •Number of Contacts By NEP Location •Association of Municipalities Ontario: Addressing the Opioid Overdose Emergency in Ontario •FCM Recommendations of the Mayor’s Task Force on the Opioid Crisis •Ontario Public Health Standards •Local Opioid Reports-Durham Region Health Department - 102 - Best Practices for Needle Exchange Programs Provide sterile needles in the quantities requested by clients without requiring clients to return used needles Place no limit on the number of needles provided per client, per visit (one for one exchange is not recommended) Encourage clients to return and /or properly dispose of used needles and syringes Offer a variety of needle and syringe types by gauge, size and brand Educate clients on the proper use of syringes Educate clients about the risk of using non-sterile needles Provide pre-packages safer injection kits and individual safe injection supplies concurrently. Provide daily access to services using varied modes of program delivery i.e.) fixed sties with daily hours, mobile distribution, satellite sites. Provide multiple, convenient locations for safe disposal of used syringes and equipment. Source: Strike C., et al. (2013). - 103 - Best Practices for Needle Exchange Programs (cont’d) Educate clients about the benefits of regular testing, early diagnosis, and treatment for HIV, HCV, HBV, and TB Educate clients about the types of testing available to facilitate informed choice Refer clients to testing and counselling service providers in the community Establish and maintain relationships with a variety of testing and counselling service providers, in particular those with experience working with people who use drugs Encourage peer workers with lived experience to participate in existing peer support/navigation programs or assist in developing and delivering peer support/navigation activities for clients Educate clients about substance use treatment options (e.g., detoxification, drug substitution programs, and psychotherapy) Refer clients to substance use treatment programs in the community Establish and maintain relationships with a variety of agencies providing substance use treatment services, including services for illicit drug use as well as alcohol and/or tobacco use Educate program staff on how to properly assess and respond to client motivation and readiness for substance use treatment Assess feasibility of co-locating low-threshold substance use treatment programs within needle and syringe programs(NSPs)/harm reduction programs and vice versa Source: Strike C., et al (2015). - 104 - Number of Contacts By NEP Location (Jan –Aug 31, 2019) Location Number of contacts Ajax 149 Beaverton 60 Bowmanville 118 Courtice 22 Newcastle 2 Oshawa 7185 Pickering 10 Port Perry 4 Uxbridge 5 Whitby 225 Source: John Howard Society Durham Region - 105 - Association of Municipalities Ontario: Addressing the Opioid Overdose Emergency in Ontario Initial Foundational Steps: Recommended Action for 2019: 1. That the Province publicly affirms the seriousness of the opioid overdose emergency and commit to take all necessary measures to save lives and prevent harm, including the provision of long-term funding for existing programs as well as new funding streams, where necessary. 2. That the Province undertakes an ‘all of government’ effort to develop a comprehensive provincial drug strategy that addresses the opioid overdose emergency, based on a public health approach that addresses the social determinants of health, and that takes a nondiscriminatory approach to overdose prevention and harm reduction. This strategy should cascade down to guide local drug strategy development and implementation with accompanying resources so that municipalities in Ontario have comprehensive, multi-faceted, funded drug strategies in place led by dedicated local coordinators. Further, progress toward implementation should be measured with performance indicators and be evaluated for outcomes achieved. AMO Resource Link- 106 - Initial Foundational Steps: Recommended Action for 2019 (continued): 3. That the Ministry of Health appoint a dedicated coordinator focused solely on the provincial response to the emergency, and tasked with building partnerships between various sectors and act as a liaison between the government and the sectors. 4. That the provincial coordinator establishes formal means to engage with all relevant stakeholders, including municipal governments, public health units, and people with lived experience in order to hear advice and feedback on new and ongoing initiatives - 107 - Further Actions Based on Consultation with Stakeholders: 5. That the Province examines, and its ministries provide, a coordinated ‘all of government’ response with adequate funding to address the root causes of addiction, including housing related factors, poverty, unemployment, mental illness, and trauma. 6. That the provincial coordinator undertakes a study scoping out the problem of drug misuse, documenting local responses, and identifying leading practices. 7. That the provincial coordinator plays a role to help municipal governments share information with each other on successful elements of drug strategies and leading practices. - 108 - 8. That the provincial coordinator facilitates better utilization of real-time data reporting from local surveillance systems to inform and guide provincial and local responses including how to reach at-risk populations. 9. That the provincial coordinator develops sub-strategies based on the data for specific populations over represented among drug users, with adequate consultation with these populations. Any sub-strategy seeking to support Indigenous peoples should be developed in consultation with Indigenous communities, Indigenous service providers with relevant local service providers including municipal governments, local Public Health agencies and District Social Service Administration Boards. 10. That the Ministry of Health provides more funding to support, enhance and expand evidence-based consumption, treatment and rehabilitation services, addiction prevention and education, and harm reduction measures in all areas of Ontario. 11. That the Ministry of Health targets funding for addiction and mental health services that would assist in treating people with mental illness to reduce and/or eliminate self- medication and would provide services to help people overcome their addiction. 12. That the Ministry of the Solicitor General provides enhanced funding to enforce laws illicit drug supply, production, and distribution.- 109 - 13. That the Province enhances funding for diversion programs, mobile crisis intervention teams, and further promote harm reduction approaches among police services. 14. That the Ministry of Health ensures there is awareness of the opioid emergency throughout the health care transformation process and ensure necessary services are available through the Ontario Health Teams, including primary care, to treat addiction. 15. That the Ministry of Health examines community paramedicine as a viable option to provide treatment and referral services. 16. That the Ministry of Health should continue work with the medical community on appropriate pain management and prescribing of opioids. 17. That the Ministry of Health funds a public education campaign, including on social media, to complement the efforts of individual communities.- 110 - 18. That the provincial coordinator work with the Ministry of Education to add a health-promoting youth-resiliency program to the school curriculum that includes coping skills to get through obstacles in life, e.g. social competence, conflict resolution, healthy relationships, and informed decision-making. 19. That the Ministry of Health fully funds (100%) Naloxone for all municipal first responders (paramedics, police, and fire services) and provide training in its use. 20. That the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services work together with municipal human service system managers to better link social service and health supports including to help people overcome addiction and address mental health. 21. That the Ministry of Health works toward a goal of establishing and maintaining 30,000 supportive housing units in the province. 22. That the Province advocates to the federal government for appropriate and supportive measures that will support effective provincial and local responses.- 111 - FCM Recommendations of the Mayor’s Task Force on the Opioid Crisis (2017) Recommendations for a Pan-Canadian Opioid Response: 1.The federal government immediately establishes and reports on comprehensive timelines, measures and definitive evidence-based targets for specific outcomes related to each of the four pillars of the Canadian Drugs and Substances Strategy identified below, prioritizing targets for reducing overdose and overdose fatalities and deliver a progress report on the establishment of such targets by September 2017. 2.The adoption of a comprehensive and coordinated pan-Canadian action plan which addresses the root causes of the opioid crisis. An intergovernmental action plan should align federal, provincial/territorial (P/T) and local strategies, respond to the specific needs of Indigenous communities, and rapidly expand all aspects of the collective response. 3.The pan-Canadian action plan should include concrete actions to meaningfully and urgently address all four pillars of the Canadian Drugs and Substances Strategy, including: FCM resource link- 112 - FCM Recommendations of the Mayor’s Task Force on the Opioid Crisis (cont’d) A. HARM REDUCTION I.Support and implement evidence-based practices in order to substantially reduce opioid-related overdoses including facilitating access to drug checking/testing technologies for fentanyl and other drugs including opioids. II.Eliminate barriers preventing people from seeking medical support during an overdose. III.Facilitate access to supervised consumption services, including through the expedited implementation of Bill C 37 and approval of existing applications as appropriate. B. TREATMENT I.As an urgent priority, expand access to a range of treatment options including medically-supervised opioid substitution therapy (OST), including injectable options for people who have not found success with other interventions, and eliminate remaining barriers that limit access to OST. II.Eliminate delays in access to comprehensive, wrap-around treatment services and long-term recovery supports.- 113 - FCM Recommendations of the Mayor’s Task Force on the Opioid Crisis (cont’d) C. PREVENTION I.Work with stakeholders to implement national public education campaigns, before the end of 2017, including one focused on youth, to raise awareness of the risks of fentanyl and non-prescription opioid use, reduce stigma, and provide information on treatment and support options. II.With the active involvement of people with lived experience, develop and implement evidence-based strategies to address stigma and discrimination against people who use drugs. III.Continue with implementation of education programs and guidelines for physicians, pharmacists, nurses and other healthcare providers with respect to the proper use of opioids and alternative pain management techniques and the development of metrics to measure changes in prescribing practices. IV.Ensure that any strategy to restrict access to prescription opioids balances the legitimate needs of patients so that access to pain treatment is not unnecessarily restricted and that harm reduction and treatment services are in place to mitigate against unintended consequences such as increased use of illicit drugs.- 114 - FCM Recommendations of the Mayor’s Task Force on the Opioid Crisis (cont’d) D. ENFORCEMENT I.Continue expanded law enforcement efforts with respect to the production and importation of non-prescription opioids, including the new federal restrictions on the importation of pill presses contained in Bill C 37. II.Establish national evidence-based protocols for the remediation of contaminated scenes and the handling of fentanyl and carfentanyl. - 115 - FCM Recommendations of the Mayor’s Task Force on the Opioid Crisis (cont’d) 4. Improved surveillance, data collection and reporting should be an immediate focus of the action plan with a progress report by September 2017, in support of the four pillars approach and the development of targets for key indicators: a.Immediately establish a standardized, pan-Canadian format for the collection of death and non-fatal overdose data with respect to the opioid crisis; b.Ensure consistent and timely access to opioid-related death and overdose data by establishing a pan-Canadian reporting standard with a minimum of quarterly reports and a target of monthly reports in all provinces/territories; and c.Expand efforts to improve the evidence-base by collecting and reporting on demographic data, including in particular the impact of the opioid crisis on Indigenous communities, with a focus on prevention and addressing social determinants of health. 5. Ensuring a coordinated national response to the opioid crisis involving all orders of government by engaging cities and local public health officials in the Special Advisory Committee (SAC) process, with a focus on the objectives set forth in the four pillars and the need for improved data coordination. - 116 - FCM Recommendations of the Mayor’s Task Force on the Opioid Crisis (cont’d) 6. Consulting with the Mayors’ Task Force on priorities for new federal funding dedicated to the opioid crisis response (including the $116 million announced in Budget 2017) to ensure that federal efforts are targeted to address local needs and delivered urgently. 7. Working with cities to address the urgent need to develop more social and affordable housing, including supportive housing and housing employing a harm reduction approach, through the implementation of the federal government’s National Housing Strategy and a long-term expansion of the Homelessness Partnering Strategy. 8. Working with P/Ts, municipalities, indigenous organizations and stakeholders to develop, implement and monitor the Canadian Poverty Reduction Strategy, which should address both the root causes of addiction, as well as supports to alleviate the immediate consequences of addiction. 9. Establishing an intergovernmental dialogue about access to substance use prevention, harm reduction and treatment options for individuals in Canada’s correctional system, and the role of the criminal justice system in addressing the root causes of the opioid crisis. - 117 - Ontario Public Health Standards Source: Ontario Ministry of Health - 118 - Local Opioid Reports Opioid Consultation Report 2019 Opioid Status Report 2018 Available at: Durham.ca Available at: Durham.ca- 119 - AMO Policy Update not displaying correctly? View the online version | Send to a friend Add Communicate@amo.on.ca to your safe list November 28, 2019 Ontario Announces E-Scooter Pilot on Municipal Roads On November 27, 2019, the Government of Ontario announced that it would begin a pilot program to allow electric scooters on municipal roads in Ontario. The pilot will go live in January 1, 2020. Under the pilot, municipal governments are able to opt in through by-law to allow electric scooters on their roads, paths, and (in some cases) sidewalks; license electric scooter rental companies; regulate parking and the number of devices available in an area; impose data sharing and insurance requirements amongst other licensing criteria. Municipal governments, and their staff, are encouraged to think through all of these issues before opting to allow the devices in their communities. E-scooters, as they are called, have been emerging in cities across North America and beyond, and have the potential to add “micro-mobility” solutions to help augment transportation such as connections between transit and individual destinations. As they are electric, they do not add exhaust emissions that decrease air quality (depending on how electricity is generated) or noise pollution. However, E-scooters also have the potential to increase safety concerns for riders, pedestrians, vulnerable road users, and cyclists. The pilot imposes some conditions on the devices, which riders must wear helmets, and limits maximum speed to 24 km/h. Advocates for people with disabilities in particular have pointed to the challenges E-scooters may pose for that community. Some cities have experienced a profusion of E-scooters left on sidewalks that increase nuisance and hazards for pedestrians. However, municipal parking rules and company policies which continue to charge users for rentals, if not parked in authorized areas, may help to reduce this practice. Municipal governments interested in allowing their use need to work to balance these concerns with the desire for flexible, micro-mobility devices and ensure that they meet municipal transportation needs and other local policy goals. AMO members are especially encouraged to consult with their communities before joining the pilot and ensure plans are in place to discourage nuisance, reduce any residual municipal liability through adequate insurance requirements, address the needs of disabled and vulnerable road users, and reduce nuisance and conflicts between E-scooter riders, cyclists, pedestrians and motorists. Interested municipal governments should also Page 1 of 2Ontario Announces E-Scooter Pilot on Municipal Roads 12/12/2019https://amo.informz.ca/informzdataservice/onlineversion/ind/bWFpbGluZ2luc3RhbmNla... - 120 - Corr. 43-19 consider how they would enforce their by-laws in this area and costs to do so as they develop rules and/or permitting for rental companies. Municipalities should also consider how they will collect incident data with local hospitals and health authorities as well as police reporting during the pilot. The following resources may assist municipal officials in interested municipalities in considering issues they may encounter in by-laws and policies development that best meet their local needs: Ontario Ministry of Transportation: • Regulation 389/19 •MTO E-Scooter Pilot Information • MTO E-Scooter Best Practices Share The Road: • Preparing for E-Scooters AMO Contact: Craig Reid, Senior Advisor, creid@amo.on.ca, 416-971-9856 ext. 334. *Disclaimer: The Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) is unable to provide any warranty regarding the accuracy or completeness of third-party submissions. Distribution of these items does not imply an endorsement of the views, information or services mentioned. Please consider the environment before printing this. Association of Municipalities of Ontario 200 University Ave. Suite 801,Toronto ON Canada M5H 3C6 To unsubscribe, please click here Page 2 of 2Ontario Announces E-Scooter Pilot on Municipal Roads 12/12/2019https://amo.informz.ca/informzdataservice/onlineversion/ind/bWFpbGluZ2luc3RhbmNla... - 121 - Town of WhitbyOffice of the Town Clerk^ 575 Rossland Road East, Whitby, ON L1N 2M8www.whitby.caNovember 29, 2019Via Email:Ralph Walton, Regional ClerkRegion of Durhamclerks@durham.caRe: Regional Heritage Property Tax RebatePlease be advised that at a meeting held on November 25, 2019, the Council of theTown ofWhitby adopted the following as Resolution # 323-19:1. That the Region of Durham be requested to support heritage preservation byadopting a by-law to provide a Regional property tax rebate for designatedheritage properties, including those properties within heritage consen/ationdistricts; and,2. That a copy of this resolution be sent to area municipalities in the Region ofDurham.Should you require further information, please do not hesitate to contact thePlanning and Development pepartment at 905.430.4306.Kevin NarrawayManager of Legislative Services/Deputy ClerkCopy: K. Nix, Commissioner of Corporate Services/TreasurerR. Saunders, Commissioner of Planning and DevelopmentN. Cooper, Director of Legislative and Information services, Town ofAjax -Nicole.cooper(a)ajax.caB. Jamieson, Township of Brock - biamieson@townshipofbrock.caA. Greentree, Municipal Clerk, Municipality of Clarington - clerks(3>clarington.net- 122 -Corr. 44-19 M. Medeiros, City Clerk, City of Oshawa - mmedeiros@oshawa.caS. Cassel, City Clerk, City of Pickering - clerks(%pickerinq.caJ. Newman, Municipal Clerk, Township of Scugog - jnewman(a)scugoci.caD. Leroux, Clerk, Township of Uxbridge - dleroux@town.uxbridge.on.ca- 123 - Memo To: Mayor Members of Council Tony Prevedel, Chief Administrative Officer December 12, 2019 From: Kimberly Thompson Manager, Municipal Law Enforcement Services Copy: Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor City Clerk Subject: Revised Fees, Staffing Requirements and Passenger Rights and Responsibilities Vehicle for Hire Report BYL 02-19 File: L-2330-001-19 As a follow up to the discussion that took place at the Executive Committee on December 2, 2019, and in relation to new data provided by Uber outlining the number of trips originating in Pickering each month (25,000) and the number of unique drivers on the platform per quarter (over 10,000), staff have prepared revisions to the fees outlined in Schedule 1 of the proposed Vehicl e for Hire By-law that better reflect the cost recovery requirements of the City. The per driver fee has been replaced with a per trip fee of .30 cents per trip, consistent with the per trip fee adopted by some other Greater Toronto Area municipalities (Brampton, Mississauga and Toronto). As the fee is based on the number of trips, it automatically is adjusted to the scale of Uber and other PTC’s operation in Pickering. Based on Uber’s 300,000 trips per year, this fee will generate $90,000.00 in annual revenue from their operation. The standard licensing fee of $20,000.00 for PTC’s with over 100 drivers will also remain in affect. In addition the accessible service supplement of .30 cents per trip has been reduced to .07 cents per trip. The City of Toronto has recommended implementing a .10 cent per trip fee as an accessible service supplement and this is in line with their proposal . Calculated at 300,000 trips per year, this accessible service supplement will total $21,000.00 in fees from Uber. In consultation with other municipal enforcement agencies, Lyft’s total number of trips is estimated to be approximately 10% of Uber’s business numbers. The estimate of licensing fees to be paid by Lyft would thus be approximately $31,100.00. Based on the fee revisions proposed, the financial implications as noted in Report BYL 02-19 will now result in projected licensing revenue of approximately $162,100.00 per year. The updated data provided by Uber also compelled staff to review whether the staffing requested to administer the Vehicle for Hire By-law requirements would be sufficient to handle the significant increase in PTC trips. For enforcement purposes, staff have kept the recommendation to one additional full-time Municipal Law Enforcement Officer. However, based on discussions with other - 124 - Revised Fees, Staffing Requirements and Passenger Rights and Responsibilities Vehicle for Hire Report BYL 02-19 December 12, 2019 Page 2 municipal enforcement agencies, staff also believe significant IT support will be required to manage the data related to regulating PTC’s. Brampton and Mississauga have developed mobile applications for their enforcement officers to ensure appropriate data is available while officers are in the field conducting inspections. Due to Pickering’s limited resources, staff are recommending the City enter into discussions with Brampton or Mississauga to purchase the use of the application developed by their staff. In addition staff are recommending the creation of one full - time position in Information Technology to administer and manage data from PTC’s. It is estimated the cost of this position will be approximately $71,000.00 per year. Staff will include requests for these recommendations in the 2020 budget submissions. Discussions with other GTA municipalities have indicated Uber and Lyft are very compliant with the requirements of the applicable municipal by-laws. However, it is still the responsibility of the municipality to ensure there are adequate resources to administer and audit to monitor compliance of both the PTC’s and their drivers. A conference call was held with representatives from Uber on Wednesday December 4th, 2019. During this call, staff requested Uber provide sample data reports to gain a better understanding of how data is provided and whether there are sufficient staff to review and interpret the data. A request was also made for Uber’s proposed fees. Uber responded with a letter (Attachment 2), suggesting licensing fees be amended to a $20,000.00 license fee plus 6 cents per trip, plus a flat accessible surcharge of $10,000.00. This would total approximately $48,000.00 annually in licensing fees paid by Uber. This figure is far below what staff believe is necessary to recover the costs associated with regulating over 300,000 PTC trips per year. Uber failed to provide the sample data requested. Consultants from Lyft contacted the City on December 5th, 2019 for information on when the Vehicle for Hire By-law would be enacted. During the conversation, the same request was made for both trip data and fee proposals to be received by Tuesday December 10, 20 19. No information was provided by Lyft. Further, as per the discussion at Executive Committee, where staff were requested to review the removal of the requirement to post the Passenger Rights and Responsibilities in each taxicab, revisions have been made to the appropriate sections of the Vehicle for Hire By-law to maintain this requirement. Staff recommend that Council enact the attached Vehicle for Hire By-law, replacing the version of the Vehicle for Hire By-law included with Report BYL 02-19 as Attachment No 1. The attached By-law incorporates the changes to fees and the inclusion of the Passenger Rights and Responsibilities, as outlined above. In order to have this new version of the By-law enacted, Staff are recommending that Item 2 of the recommendation in Report BYL 02-19 be amended to read: 2.That Council enact the revised Vehicle for Hire By-law attached to the Memorandum from the Manager, Municipal Law Enforcement Services, dated December 12, 2019. - 125 - Revised Fees, Staffing Requirements and Passenger Rights and Responsibilities Vehicle for Hire Report BYL 02-19 December 12, 2019 Page 2 Attachments 1 Revised Draft Vehicle for Hire By-law 2 Letter from Uber dated December 10, 2019 - 126 - The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. /19 Being a by-law to license, regulate and govern vehicles for hire within the City of Pickering. Whereas, section 151 of the Municipal Act, 2001 provides that a local municipality may license, regulate and govern any business wholly or partly carried on within the municipality; Whereas section 156 of the Municipal Act, 2001, provides further authority for the licensing regulating and governing of the owners and drivers of taxicabs; Whereas the City of Pickering wishes to license, regulate and govern vehicle for hire businesses within the City; and Now therefore the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering enacts as follows: PART I – INTERPRETATION Definitions 1 In this by-law, “accessible service” means a vehicle for hire that is used for the provision of either taxicab or transportation services to persons with disabilities; “accessible service supplement” means a surcharge to be paid by all vehicle for hire license holders that do not provide accessible services; “accessible taxicab” has the same meaning as in section 1 of R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 629; “accessible taxicab driver” means a taxicab driver who operates an accessible taxicab that is primarily used to provide accessible service; “accessible taxicab plate licence” means a licence issued by the City to permit the operation of a specific vehicle as an accessible taxicab; “accessible taxicab plate licensee” means a person to whom an accessible taxicab plate licence has been issued; “affiliated” means a person registered with a PTC or under contract to a brokerage and “affiliation” has a corresponding meaning; Attachment #1 to Memorandum - 127 - Vehicle for Hire By-law xxxx/19 Page 2 “applicant” means a person applying for a licence or a renewal of a licence and “application” has a corresponding meaning; “authorized vehicle inspection station” means a place designated by the City to conduct vehicle safety inspections; “auxiliary service” means a pre-arranged service calculated at an hourly rate that, in addition to transportation, provides additional support and assistance to the customer such as door-to-door accompaniment, attending appointments, assisting with purchases or other special needs services; “auxiliary service vehicle” means a vehicle involved in providing auxiliary service as defined by this by-law; “broker” means any person who carries on the business of accepting orders for, or dispatching in any manner to, two or more licensed taxicabs and “brokerage” has a corresponding meaning; “brokerage licence” means a licence issued by the City to permit the operation of a brokerage; “CIR” means a Criminal Information Report containing the results of a search of the Canadian Police Information Centre that includes a list of all criminal convictions for which a pardon has not been received; “City” means the geographical area of The City of Pickering or the Corporation of the City of Pickering, as the context requires; “City plate licence” means a licence issued by the City to permit the operation of an approved vehicle as a taxicab; “City plate licensee” means a person to whom a City plate licence has been issued; “clean air cab” means a taxicab that is a hybrid vehicle, or a vehicle that is powered by propane, natural gas, bio-fuel, or electricity; “Council” means the Council of the City; “Designated Driver Service” means the transportation of a vehicle owner and that person’s passengers, if any, in the vehicle owner’s vehicle from any place in the City to any other place for payment of a fee; “Disabled person” has the same meaning as in the Ontarians with Disabilities Act S.O. 2001 C.32 section 2(1).; “dispatch” means to communicate orders or other information in any manner between a broker and a driver; - 128 - Vehicle for Hire By-law xxxx/19 Page 3 “dispatcher” means a person who is in the employ of, or working unde r a contract with, a broker and whose duties include accepting orders and/or dispatching those orders to taxicab drivers; “driver’s abstract” means a Driver Record Search issued by the Ministry of Transportation; “fare” means the total amount charged to a person for a trip in accordance with Schedule 2; “facilitate” includes, but is not limited to, advertising, offering, operating, receiving, relaying, authorizing, enabling, communicating or providing; “fender numbers” means permanent lettering representing the taxicab plate number of at least 15 cm in height, in a contrasting colour to the vehicle and affixed on both front fenders in a location approved by the City; “good condition” means all equipment is functional, there is no damage to the interior or exterior, there is a well-maintained paint finish, the vehicle is clean both inside and out, there are no warning lights on indicating service issues that need to be addressed, and the vehicle has four matching rims or hub cabs; “identification card” means information in written or accessible electronic form providing the following: (1) the first name and photograph of the PTC Driver; (2 the make, model and licence plate number of the PTC Vehicle(s) used by the PTC Driver (3) the name and contact information of the PTC; and (4) the Insurance policy coverage for the PTC Vehicle. “industry participants” means personal transportation companies, PTC Drivers, taxicab plate owners, taxicab drivers, dispatchers, taxicab plate licensees, lessees and taxicab brokers; “issued” means issued or renewed by the City under this by-law and “issuance” has a corresponding meaning; “lease” means an agreement between a taxicab plate owner and a taxicab driver under which the plate owner authorizes the taxicab driver to use a taxicab plate for a fee; “lessee” means a taxicab driver who has entered into a lease; “licence” means any licence of any kind issued pursuant to this by-law; “licensed” means licensed under this by-law; - 129 - Vehicle for Hire By-law xxxx/19 Page 4 “licensing officer” means a City employee who has been delegated the task of issuing licenses in relation to the requirements of this by-law; “limousine” means a vehicle that is kept or used for hire for the conveyance of persons solely on an hourly, daily or weekly basis, with a minimum fee or charge of not less than fifty dollars for a single conveyance, that does not contain a taxicab meter, roof light or two–way radio (or similar device); “mechanical defect” means damage to, or failure of a part, component or feature of, a vehicle; “model year” means the year of the vehicle noted on the Ontario Motor Vehicle Registration for the vehicle; “officer” means a municipal law enforcement officer employed by the City, or a police officer pursuant to subsection 42(1)(h) of the Police Services Act; “operate”, when used in reference to a vehicle for hire, includes driving a taxicab or PTC Vehicle and making it available to the public in service as a taxicab or for transportation service in relation to a PTC Vehicle and includes when the PTC Driver is logged into or otherwise accessing the PTC platform, and “operation” has a corresponding meaning; “order”, except where the term is used in Parts XII and XIV, means a request for taxicab service received by a broker or a driver or a PTC Vehicle through the PTC platform; “passenger” means any person other than the driver seated in a taxicab or PTC Vehicle or any person engaging or attempting to engage the services of a PTC Vehicle or taxicab; “person” means an individual, association, firm, partnership, corporation, trust, organization, trustee, or agent, and includes the heirs, executors or legal representatives of the person; “Personal Transportation Company” and “PTC” each means a Person that, in any manner, facilitates transportation services using a Platform to connect a Passenger with a PTC Driver or a PTC Vehicle; “Personal Transportation Company Driver” means a Person registered or affiliated with a PTC that transports a Passenger using a PTC Platform and may also be referred to as a “PTC Driver”; "Personal Transportation Company Identifier" means a sign, including a decal, displaying the logo or name of the PTC, in a form approved by the City and may also be referred to as a “PTC Identifier”; “Personal Transportation Company Licence” means a Licence issued under this By-law to a PTC and may also be referred to as a “PTC Licence”; - 130 - Vehicle for Hire By-law xxxx/19 Page 5 “Personal Transportation Company Vehicle” means a Motor Vehicle used by a PTC Driver to provide transportation services to a Passenger using the PTC Platform and may also be referred to as a “PTC Vehicle"; “platform” means any software, technology, or service, including a smartphone application which permits passengers to obtain and pay for transportation; “registered owner” means the owner of a vehicle according to the records maintained by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles for the Province of Ontario; “roof light” means an electronically illuminated roof sign that is securely attached to the top of the taxicab in a manner approved by the City that works in conjunction with the taxicab meter so that it is not illuminated when the meter is engaged and is illuminated when the head lights are on and the meter is in a vacant status; “service animal” means an animal trained by a recognized school for service as a guide dog for the blind or visually impaired, a guide dog for the deaf or hearing impaired, or a special skills dog for other persons with a disability and includes an animal used in therapy, registered with a recognized organization for that purpose; “solicit” means to appeal for a passenger by sound, words, signs or gestures directed at any person, but does not include communication over a PTC platform; “street hail” means to appeal for a ride by a person using sounds, words, signs or gestures directed at a taxicab or PTC Driver, but does not include communication over a PTC platform; “tariff card” means a card issued by the City that shows the current fares as set out in Schedule 2; “taxicab” means any vehicle used for hire in the conveyance of persons from a place within the City to any point inside or outside of the City, but does not include a bus operated by Durham Region Transit or under license under the Public Vehicles Act, a PTC vehicle, an auxiliary service vehicle, a vehicle used by a Designated Driver Service, an ambulance, a funeral hearse, a limousine or a vehicle described in subsection 156(2) of the Municipal Act, 2001; “taxicab driver” means a person licensed to operate a taxicab; “taxicab driver’s licence” means a licence issued by the City to permit an individual to operate a taxicab; “taxicab meter" means a measuring device approved by the City and used in a taxicab to calculate a fare; - 131 - Vehicle for Hire By-law xxxx/19 Page 6 “taxicab plate” means a metal plate bearing the taxicab plate number assigned by the City; “taxicab plate licence” means a taxicab plate owner licence, City plate licence, and/or, accessible taxicab plate licence as the context requires; “taxicab plate licensee” means a person to whom a taxicab plate licence has been issued; “taxicab plate eligibility list” means the list of applicants for a City plate licence maintained by the City; “taxicab plate owner” means a person who is the owner of a taxicab plate according to City records; “taxicab plate owner licence” means a licence issued by the City to a taxicab plate owner to permit the operation of a specific vehicle as a taxicab; “taxicab plate owner licensee” means a person to whom a taxicab plate owner licence has been issued; “transportation service” means a trip arranged through a platform commencing when a passenger enters the PTC Vehicle, continuing for the period that the PTC Vehicle is continuously occupied, and ending when all passengers exit the PTC vehicle; “trip” means the distance and time traveled or the distance and time to be traveled, measured from the time and point at which the passenger first enters the taxicab or when the taxicab meter is first engaged, to the time and point at which the passenger finally leaves the taxicab or the taxicab meter is disengaged; “trip sheet” means a record of the details of all trips made by a taxicab during each period of continuous operation (each shift) containing, (a) the name of the driver, the date and the taxicab plate number; (b) the time, location and destination of every trip made; and (c) the amount of the fare collected for each trip “vehicle” includes an automobile or any other device for the transportation of persons or goods propelled or driven otherwise than by muscular power, but does not include the cars of electric or steam railways or other motor vehicles running only upon rails, or a motorized snow vehicle, traction engine, farm tractor, self propelled implement of husbandry or road building machine within the meaning of the Highway Traffic Act; - 132 - Vehicle for Hire By-law xxxx/19 Page 7 “vehicle for hire” means a motor vehicle that is conveying or available for conveying one or more persons in exchange for a fee or other consideration and includes without limitation a taxicab and a PTC Vehicle; “Vehicle for Hire Advisory Committee” or “VHAC” means the advisory committee delegated to hear appeals under this by-law and make recommendations to Council regarding the regulation of the vehicle for hire industry; 2 The following Schedules are attached to and form part of this by-law: Schedule 1 - Fees Schedule 2 - Tariffs/Rates Schedule 3 Taxicab Passenger Rights and Responsibilities 3 Unless otherwise specified, references in this by-law to Parts, sections, subsections, clauses and Schedules are references to Parts, sections, subsections, clauses and Schedules in this by-law. 4 If a court of competent jurisdiction declares any section, or any part of any section, of this by-law to be invalid, or to be of no force or effect, it is the intention of the City that every other provision of this by-law be applied and enforced in accordance with its terms to the extent possible according to law. 5 References in this by-law to any statute or statutory provision include references to that statute or statutory provision as it may from time to time be amended, extended or re-enacted. 6 This by-law shall be read with all changes in gender or number as the context requires. PART II - PURPOSES 7 The City considers it necessary to license, regulate and govern industry participants for the following health and safety purposes: (a) to enhance and encourage safe maintenance and operational practices; (b) to ensure that only experienced, qualified and trustworthy industry participants are providing services; and (c) to promote accountability of industry participants for health and safety issues. 8 The City considers it necessary to license, regulate and govern industry participants for the following consumer protection purposes: (a) to enhance and encourage equal, fair and courteous treatment amongst industry participants and users of vehicle for hire services; - 133 - Vehicle for Hire By-law xxxx/19 Page 8 (b) to ensure consistency in the application of fares; and (c) to promote accountability of industry participants for consumer protection. PART III – APPLICATIONS Submission of Applications – All Applicants 9 Applications shall be completed and submitted on forms provided by the City. 10 When submitting an application, every applicant sha ll provide all information requested by the City including supporting documentation satisfactory to the City. 11 Every application shall be submitted with the applicable licence fee specified in Schedule 1. 12 Receipt of an application and a licence fee by the City shall not represent approval of the application nor shall it obligate the City to issue a licence. 13 If an applicant is a partnership, the applicant shall file with the application a statutory declaration signed by all members of the partnership stating, (a) the full name of every partner and their address of ordinary residence; (b) the name or names under which the partnership carries on or intends to carry on business; (c) that the persons named are the only partners of the partnership; and (d) the mailing address for the partnership. 14 Every corporation applying for a licence shall file with the application a copy of the corporation’s articles of incorporation or other incorporating documents and a statutory declaration stating, (a) the full name of every shareholder and their address of ordinary residence (unless the applicant is a publicly traded corporation); (b) the full name of every director and their address of ordinary residence; (c) the name or names under which the corporation carries on or intends to carry on business; and (d) the mailing address for the corporation. - 134 - Vehicle for Hire By-law xxxx/19 Page 9 Issuance of Licenses 15 A licensing officer may issue a licence to an applicant only where all of the information and documents that the applicant is required to provide under this by - law have been provided and verified, and the licence fee has been paid. Disqualifications 16 A licensing officer shall refuse to issue a licence if, (a)the applicant has been convicted within the past ten years of an offence, for which a pardon has not been granted, under Part III (Firearms and Weapons), Part V (Sexual Offences, Public Morals and Disorderly Conduct), Part VIII (Offences Against the Person and Reputation) or Part IX (Offences Against Rights of Property) of the Criminal Code of Canada or for the offence of Careless Driving or Stunt Driving under the Highway Traffic Act; (b)the applicant has submitted false information in support of the application; (c)the issuance of the licence would contravene any of the provisions of this by-law; (d)the application is for a City plate licence which, if issued, would exceed the maximum number of City plate licenses permitted under this by-law; (e)the applicant fails to successfully complete any testing, training, educational or awareness program required by the City; or (f)the licensing officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant will not operate in accordance with the law or with honesty and integrity. 17 A licensing officer may refuse to issue a licence if the applicant has failed to pay fines imposed for previous convictions relating to contraventions of any municipal by-laws. 18 The licensing officer may include in consideration of subsection 16 (f), whether the applicant has permitted a PTC driver to access the PTC platform where a criminal reference check discloses an outstanding criminal conviction, or any record of offence that is less than ten (10) years and relevant to the nature of the services of a PTC Driver, or any record of offence that directly affects the PTC Driver’s ability to competently and responsibly carry on the services of a PTC Driver, including but not limited to: an offence under the Criminal Code, the Narcotics Control Act, the Cannabis Act or the Food and Drug Act. 19 The licensing officer may refuse to issue a licence where the applicant has been convicted of a criminal offence other than those set out in clause 16(a) or an offence under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (Canada). - 135 - Vehicle for Hire By-law xxxx/19 Page 10 PART IV – TAXICAB DRIVER’S LICENSES Obtaining a Licence 20 In addition to the requirements of Part III, every applicant for a taxic ab driver’s licence shall submit to the City, (a) a current valid Class 'G' (minimum) driver’s licence issued by the Province of Ontario which is in good standing according to the records of the Ministry of Transportation; (b) a driver’s abstract dated within 30 days of the date of application; and (c) an original CIR dated within 30 days of the date of application. 21 Every applicant for a taxicab driver’s licence shall pose for an identification photograph as part of the taxicab driver’s licence issued by the City. Testing and Training 22 Every applicant for a taxicab driver’s licence shall successfully complete a taxicab driver training and testing program approved by the City, at the driver’s expense, within a timeframe specified by the City. 23 The City may waive the requirement of section 22 for renewing applicants, provided they have previously completed a taxicab driver training and testing program approved by the City. 24 Where the City has concerns regarding a driver’s conduct or performance as a result of a complaint or otherwise, the City may require such driver to appear before the Vehicle for Hire Advisory Committee and/or attend a testing and training program at the driver’s expense. Term of Taxicab Driver’s Licence 25 Every taxicab driver’s licence shall be valid for a period of two years from the date of issuance. Taxicab Driver Duties 26 Every taxicab driver shall, (a) give a passenger a receipt in a form approved by the City showing the driver’s name, the taxicab plate number, the date and time of the trip, place of pick up, place of discharge and the fare charged when requested and whenever there is a dispute over the fare; - 136 - Vehicle for Hire By-law xxxx/19 Page 11 (b) subject to section 27, and except when there is a previous order or engagement, serve the first person requiring the service of the taxicab a t any place within the City, at any time of day or night, unless the person, (i) refuses to give their destination; (ii) is in the possession of an animal other than a service animal; (iii) has not paid a previous fare; (iv) is, in the opinion of the driver, unable or unwilling to pay the fare and has been unable or unwilling to satisfy the driver that he has the funds to pay the fare; (v) is an individual covered in an amount of dirt or other material so excessive that if such individual is transported the interior of the taxicab would be left in an unclean state; (vi) is intoxicated or disorderly; (vii) is eating or drinking any food or beverage; (viii) is a person under the age of 12 years who is not accompanied by an adult, or has not had the trip arranged by an adult; (ix) refuses to wear a seat belt; or (x) is intending to smoke or vape in the vehicle. (c) take the most direct available route to the passenger’s desired destination unless the passenger requests otherwise; (d) prepare trip sheets; (e) retain all trip sheets for at least three (3) months and make them available for inspection at the request of the City; (f) subject to paragraph (g), engage the taxicab meter only when the passenger enters the taxicab and keep it engaged throughout the trip; (g) be allowed to engage the taxicab meter before the passenger enters the taxicab only after the driver has notified the passenger of the arrival and has waited a reasonable time after the due time of the order; (h) securely fasten all physically disabled persons, wheelchairs and any other passenger aids, including batteries, so that they are prevented from moving while the taxicab is in motion; and - 137 - Vehicle for Hire By-law xxxx/19 Page 12 (i) carry on his person a valid Ontario Driver’s License, a certificate of insurance and a copy of the vehicle ownership and provide to an officer upon request. 27 When operating an accessible taxicab, every driver shall provide priority service to physically disabled persons at all times, regardless of prior requests for service from persons who are not physically disabled persons. 28 Every driver who has been convicted of an offence described in clause 16(a) shall, within five (5) calendar days of being so convicted, report that fact to the City. 29 The City may at any time, require a driver to provide a CIR or a driver’s abstract. Taxicab Driver Restrictions 30 a) No person shall operate a taxicab unless he has been issued a taxicab driver’s licence. b) No person shall permit a vehicle to be operated as a taxicab by anyone other than a taxicab driver. 31 No person shall charge a fare or fee to carry passengers or offer to carry passengers for a fare or fee unless the vehicle used or to be used has a valid City Plate Licence, Taxicab Plate Licence, or Accessible Taxicab Plate Licence affixed to it. 32 No taxicab driver shall operate a taxicab without a taxicab plate affixed to the rear of the vehicle and a taxicab plate licence for the vehicle. 33 No taxicab driver shall operate a taxicab unless it complies with all of the vehicle requirements set out in Part XI. 34 No taxicab driver shall operate a taxicab with mechanical defects. 35 No taxicab driver shall display any sign, emblem, decal, ornament or advertisement on or in a taxicab except as approved by the City. 36 No taxicab driver shall operate a taxicab unless the current tariff card and the Passenger Rights and Responsibilities set out in Schedule 3 are affixed to the rear of the front seat or otherwise located so that they are plainly visible to passengers in the back seat. 37 No taxicab driver shall operate a taxicab with a greater number of passengers than seatbelts are available for. 38 No taxicab driver shall operate a taxicab for more than twelve (12) hours in any period of twenty-four (24) hours, or for any period which is more than five (5) consecutive hours at any time without a break of not less than twenty (20) consecutive minutes. - 138 - Vehicle for Hire By-law xxxx/19 Page 13 39 (1) In this section, “written contract” means written contract for taxicab services between a taxicab plate licensee and another person for a period of six months or more, at an agreed rate or charge. (2) No taxicab driver shall recover or receive any rate or charge from any passenger or persons who made use of his services which is greater than the fare set out in Schedule 2, other than a tip, gratuity or credit card service charge or pursuant to a written contract. 40 No taxicab driver shall, (a) take or consume any intoxicants or take, consume or have in their possession any alcohol, or drugs prohibited by the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (Canada) while they are operating a taxicab; (b) smoke or allow or permit the smoking of any equipment or product including but not limited to cigar, cigarette, pipe, hookah or any other lit smoking product or vaping product, whether lit by flame or battery powered; (c) use any tariff card other than that obtained from the City; or (d) speak in an obscene, foul, boisterous, racist, loud, threatening or abusive manner to any person, including a dispatcher, while operating a taxicab. 41 When a taxicab driver uses a taxicab for transportation of passengers for no gain or reward or the taxicab is being tested or inspected, the taxicab driver shall remove the roof light from the taxicab and place the taxicab meter in a non - recording position. 42 If the taxicab driver and the passenger agree before the start of the trip to a flat rate, the taxicab meter must, in any event, be in a recording position for the duration of the trip. PART V - TAXICAB PLATE LICENSES Obtaining a Licence 43 In addition to the requirements of Part III, every applicant for a taxicab plate licence shall, (a) submit a copy of the current Ontario Ministry of Transportation Motor Vehicle permit for the vehicle to which the taxicab plate will be attached in good standing with the plate portion endorsed with a plate owner’s or a lessee’s name; (b) submit a copy of the current Ontario Standard Automobile Insurance policy for the vehicle to which the taxicab plate will be attached, which provides that the City shall be given at least fifteen (15) days’ notice in - 139 - Vehicle for Hire By-law xxxx/19 Page 14 writing, prior to cancellation, expiration or change in the amount of the policy and shall provide insurance in respect of any one accident a thi rd party liability limit of at least two million dollars ($2,000,000.00); (c) submit a current Safety Standard Certificate issued by an authorized vehicle inspection station for the vehicle to which the taxicab plate will be attached; (d) pay all fines, penalties, judgments and any other amounts, including awards of legal costs and disbursements, owing to the City; and (e) submit the vehicle to which the taxicab plate is to be attached for inspection and registration by the City. Term of Taxicab Plate Licence 44 Every taxicab plate licence shall be valid up to and including December 31st in the year for which it was issued. Taxicab Plate Licensee Duties 45 Every taxicab plate licensee shall file with the City at least five (5) working days prior to the expiry date of any current insurance policy all insurance renewal policies or certificates of insurance evidencing continued compliance with the requirements of clause 43(b). 46 Every taxicab plate licensee shall, (a) at all times keep copies of the following in the taxicab: (i) the current Ontario Ministry of Transportation passenger motor vehicle permit issued for that taxicab; (ii) the current taxicab plate licence; (iii) the certificate of liability insurance for the taxicab; (b) employ or use only the services of licensed taxicab drivers; (c) provide the City and, where applicable, any broker with whom they are affiliated, with the names of all taxicab drivers who are permitted to operate the taxicab; (d) repair any mechanical defects in the taxicab reported to them by a taxicab driver or the City; (e) upon receipt of a notice of inspection from the City, obtain a current Safety Standard Certificate issued by an authorized vehicle inspection station and make the taxicab available for inspection at the appointed time and place specified in the notice; and - 140 - Vehicle for Hire By-law xxxx/19 Page 15 (f) ensure a current tariff card and the Passenger Rights and Responsibilities set out in Schedule 3 are affixed to the rear of the front seat or otherwise located so that they are plainly visible to passengers in the back seat. 47 Every taxicab plate licensee shall provide accessible taxicab service, or pay an accessible service supplement as outlined in Schedule 1. 48 (1) Every taxicab plate licensee shall maintain the taxicab in good condition at all times. (2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), every taxicab plate licensee shall maintain all drive train components (including the engine, transmission, suspension and braking system) in accordance with the standards of Ontario Regulation 611 and maintain all factory and after- market parts free of defects or damage. Taxicab Plate Licensee Restrictions 49 No person shall permit a vehicle to be operated as a taxicab without a taxicab plate affixed to the rear of the vehicle and a taxicab plate licence for the vehicle. 50 No person shall publish or cause to be published any representation that he is licensed or hold himself out as being licensed if he is not licensed. 51 No taxicab plate licensee shall permit a taxicab to be operated unless it complies with all of the vehicle requirements set out in Part XI. 52 No taxicab plate licensee shall permit a taxicab to be operated with mechanical defects. 53 No taxicab plate licensee shall permit a taxicab to be operated with any sign, emblem, decal, ornament or advertisement displayed on or in a taxicab except as approved by the City. 54 No taxicab plate licensee shall permit a taxicab to be operated unless the current tariff card and the Passenger Rights and Responsibilities set out in Schedule 3 are affixed to the rear of the front seat or otherwise located so that they are plainly visible to passengers in the back seat. 55 No taxicab plate licensee shall permit a taxicab to be operated in affiliation with a broker who is not licensed. Vehicle Registration 56 Prior to using any vehicle as a taxicab, every taxicab plate licensee shall submit the vehicle to the City for inspection and registration. 57 No vehicle shall be registered as a taxicab unless it meets all of the requirements of Part XI. - 141 - Vehicle for Hire By-law xxxx/19 Page 16 58 Where a taxicab plate licensee wishes to change the vehicle to which the taxicab plate is affixed, he shall submit the new vehicle for inspection and, upon registration of the new vehicle, shall pay the fee set out in Schedule 1. Limitation on Number of Licenses 59 The City recognizes a total of seventy-eight (78) taxicab plate licences as having been issued under By-law No. 6702/06, three (3) of which are accessible taxicab plates. 60 (1) The total number of taxicab plate licenses issued at any given time shall not exceed 78 or the number established by the ratio of one licence for each 2,500 residents of the City, whichever is greater. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the number of residents of the City shall be as determined by the latest revised population figures available from Statistics Canada. (3) The City may issue new City plate licenses within three months of receipt of the population statistics from Statistics Canada if warranted under subsection (1). PART VI – PLATE OWNERS Transfer of Plate Ownership 61 No taxicab plate owner shall transfer, sell or otherwise dispose of a taxicab plate without the approval of the City. 62 The City shall not approve the transfer or sale of a taxicab plate unless the taxicab plate owner, (a) attends in person accompanied by the purchaser to complete and file with the City a plate ownership transfer form and declaration; (b) provides a fully executed contract of sale for the taxicab plate; (c) returns to the City the taxicab plate that is being transferred; and (d) pays the fee set out in Schedule 1. 63 The transfer of at least 51 percent of the voting shares of a corporation that is a Taxicab Plate Owner constitutes a transfer for the purposes of sections 61 and 62. - 142 - Vehicle for Hire By-law xxxx/19 Page 17 Operation/Transfer of a Plate by an Estate 64 Within ninety (90) days following the death of a natural person who is a taxicab plate owner, the executor or administrator of the estate shall file with the City proof of death of the natural person and proof of the executor’s or administrator’s capacity. 65 The executor or administrator may continue to hold the deceased’s plate (s) for a period of up to one (1) year following the date of death and may operate a taxicab or permit a taxicab to be operated with the deceased’s plate(s) attached provided all of the requirements of this by-law are complied with during such time. 66 (1) Where the executor or administrator cannot transfer the deceased’s plate(s) within one (1) year following the date of death, the executor or administrator may apply to the VHAC to permit the executor or administrator to continue to operate the taxicab or permit the taxicab to be operated with the deceased’s plate(s) attached for such further period of time as the VHAC deems appropriate. (2) If the executor or administrator does not or cannot transfer the deceased’s plate(s) within one (1) year following the date of death, or within such further period of time as prescribed by the VHAC pursuant to subsection (1), whichever is later, the deceased’s plate(s) shall be deemed to be cancelled and shall be returned to the City. Leases of Taxicab Plates 67 (1) No taxicab plate owner shall permit its taxicab plate to be used for a taxicab that the taxicab plate owner does not own except under the authority of a lease that meets the requirements of this section. (2) Copies of all leases shall be filed with the City. (3) Leases shall be for a period of not less than one (1) year and not more than three (3) years. 68 No lessee shall operate a taxicab except under the authority of a lease that meets the requirements of section 67. 69 No lessee may sublease a taxicab plate. - 143 - Vehicle for Hire By-law xxxx/19 Page 18 PART VII – CITY PLATES Obtaining a Licence 70 In addition to the requirements of Part III and Part V, every applicant for a City plate licence shall meet the requirements of this Part. 71 All taxicab plates issued to City plate licensees shall remain the property of the City. 72 All City Plates must be operated as accessible taxicabs and affixed to an accessible taxicab vehicle. 73 Notwithstanding any other provision of this by-law, City plate licenses shall not be transferred, leased or otherwise disposed of by the City plate licensee. 74 City plate licenses may only be used by City plate licensees and one alternate taxicab driver whose name has been provided to the City in advance of any such use. Plate Eligibility List 75 The City shall maintain a plate eligibility list that contains the names of applicants for a City plate licence in the order of the receipt of their application. 76 No person, by virtue of the submission of an application for a City plate licence or by virtue of the placing of his name on the plate eligibility list, shall obtain a vested right to a City plate licence, or to remain on the plate eligibility list. 77 The City shall issue City plate licenses as they become available to persons in the order in which their names appear on the plate eligibility list. 78 (1) No applicant for a City plate licence shall have his name placed or maintained on the plate eligibility list unless the applicant has, (a) a taxicab driver’s licence or a similar licence by another municipality; or (b) a taxicab plate licence or a similar licence by another municipality. (2) When a person whose name appears on the plate eligibility list changes his name, address or contact information, he shall notify the City in writing within five (5) days of the change. (3) All persons whose names appeared on the plate eligibility list maintained under By-law 6702/06 shall have their names maintained on the plate eligibility list if they meet the requirements of subsection (1). - 144 - Vehicle for Hire By-law xxxx/19 Page 19 (4) The City shall review the plate eligibility list annually to determine whether those persons listed on it continue to comply with the requirements of subsection (1). (5) (a) Every person whose name appears on the plate eligibility list shall be required to renew their application annually, within the timeframe and in the form specified by the City, and pay the applicable fee as set out in Schedule (1). (b) Persons who fail to comply with clause (a) shall have their names removed from the plate eligibility list. (6) Any person whose name is on the plate eligibility list and who no longer complies with subsection (1) shall have his name removed from the plate eligibility list. (7) The City shall give notice to any person whose name is removed from the plate eligibility list. 79 No person shall hold more than one position on the plate eligibility list at any one time. Registration 80 When a City plate licence is approved, the applicant shall, within 30 days of the date of notification of such approval, register an accessible taxicab to that taxicab plate and affix the taxicab plate to that accessible taxicab, failing which, the applicant shall not be issued the City plate licence, the applicant’s name shall be removed from the plate eligibility list, and the City may proceed to issue the City plate licence to another eligible applicant. Death of City Plate Licensee 81 In the event of the death of a City Plate Licensee, the City Plate shall be returned to the City for distribution to the next person on the Taxicab Plate Eligibility List. PART VIII – ADDITIONAL ACCESSIBLE TAXICABS Obtaining a Licence 82 In addition to the requirements of Part III and Part V, applicants for additional accessible taxicab plate licenses shall meet the requirements of this Part. 83 (a) Notwithstanding sections 59 and 60, Council may issue additional accessible taxicab plate licenses as may be required to meet accessible service demands. (b) All Accessible Taxicab Plates must be operated as accessible taxicabs and affixed to an accessible taxicab vehicle. - 145 - Vehicle for Hire By-law xxxx/19 Page 20 84 All plates issued to accessible taxicab plate licensees under this by-law shall remain the property of the City. Accessible taxicab plates issued under By-law 6702/06 shall remain the property of the taxicab plate licensee, provided such licensee complies with the provisions of this by-law. 85 (a) Accessible taxicab plates are held by accessible taxicab plate licensees at the pleasure of Council and may be revoked by the City, should the requirements for accessible taxicab service or vehicle standards not be complied with. Upon revocation, the accessible taxicab plate shall revert to the City without compensation to the accessible taxicab plate licensee . (b) Accessible taxicab plates are held by accessible taxicab plate licensees at the pleasure of Council and may be revoked by the City, without cause, following a period of five (5) years from the date of issuance, and upon revocation, shall revert to the City without compensation to the accessible taxicab plate licensee. 86 Accessible taxicab plate licenses may only be used by Accessible taxicab plate licensees and two alternate taxicab drivers whose names have been provided to the City in advance of any such use. 87 In addition to the requirements of Part III and Part V, prior to the issuance of an accessible taxicab plate licence, the applicant shall provide the City with a current Safety Standard Certificate issued by an authorized vehicle inspection station showing that the vehicle to which the accessible taxicab plate will be attached meets the requirements for an accessible taxicab as set out in Ontario Regulation 629. 88 Every accessible taxicab driver shall submit proof of training satisfactory to the City, to confirm their ability to securely fasten all physically disabled persons, wheelchairs and any other passenger aids, including batteries, so that they are prevented from moving while the taxicab is in motion. Accessible Taxicab Plate Licensee Duty 89 Every accessible taxicab plate licensee shall ensure that the taxicab is in compliance with Ontario Regulation 629 at all times during operation of that taxicab. 90 Every accessible taxicab plate licensee shall provide a minimum accessible taxicab service of forty (40) hours per week, fifty (50) weeks per year. 91 Every accessible taxicab plate licensee shall ensure that the accessible taxicab driver has submitted proof of training satisfactory to the City, to confirm their ability to securely fasten all physically disabled persons, whee lchairs and any other passenger aids, including batteries, so that they are prevented from moving while the taxicab is in motion. - 146 - Vehicle for Hire By-law xxxx/19 Page 21 Accessible Taxicab Restrictions 92 a) No person shall operate, or permit to be operated, a vehicle as an accessible taxicab without a taxicab plate affixed to the rear of the vehicle and a taxicab plate licence for the vehicle. b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this by-law, accessible taxicab plate licenses shall not be transferred, leased or otherwise disposed of by the accessible taxicab plate licensee. Accessible Taxicab Incentive Program 93 a) The City will establish and implement an Accessible Taxicab Incentive Program funded through the Accessible Service Supplement to ensure that adequate accessible taxicab services are available. b) The Accessible Taxicab Incentive Program may include, but is not limited to: i) requirements for grant or incentive eligibility; ii) criteria for receiving any incentive or grant; iii) the amount and frequency of the disbursement of any incentive or grant, including pro-rated or discretionary amounts; iv) sanctions, including reductions in the amount of any incentive or grant for non-compliance with the conditions of the program; and v) reporting or auditing requirements for brokerages, PTCs, and Taxicab Plate Licensees PART IX - BROKERAGE LICENSES Obtaining a Licence 94 In addition to the requirements of Part III, every applicant for a brokerage licence shall submit to the City evidence of an affiliation with at least two taxicab plate licensees and/or lessees. Term of Licence 95 Every brokerage licence shall be valid up to and including December 31st in the year for which it was issued. - 147 - Vehicle for Hire By-law xxxx/19 Page 22 Broker Duties 96 Every broker shall, (a) provide the City with a list, showing in numerical order by taxicab plate number, the name of every driver operating any taxicab with which he has entered into an arrangement for the provision of taxicab brokerage services; (b) notify the City within ten (10) days of any additions to or deletions from the list provided under subsection (a); (c) prepare and retain for a period of at least one year a record of the time and date of each dispatch, the driver to whom the order was dispatched, the taxicab plate number, the pickup location and the destination; (d) carry on the brokerage twenty-four (24) hours a day; (e) ensure all taxicabs dispatched by a brokerage bear either a roof light or decals approved by the City identifying the taxicab’s affiliation with the brokerage; (f) upon request, inform any person requesting taxicab service of the anticipated length of time required for a taxicab to arrive at the pickup location; (g) when volume of business is such that service will be delayed to any person requesting taxicab service, inform the person of the approximate time of the delay before accepting the order; (h) dispatch a taxicab to any person requesting service within the City unless the person requesting service has not paid for a previous trip; (i) carry on business only in the name in which the broker is licensed; (j) provide accessible taxicab services, with a ratio of at least 10% of the affiliated taxicabs in their fleet, (any fleet of less than 10 taxicabs must provide 1 accessible taxicab) or pay an accessible service supplement; (k) where the broker provides accessible taxicab service, provide proof of driver training on proper methods to securely fasten all wheelchairs, scooters, and any other passenger aids, including batteries, so that they are prevented from moving while the taxicab is in motion; (l) where the broker dispatches to accessible taxicabs, provide accessible taxicab service 24 hours per day; (m) where the broker dispatches to accessible taxicabs, and service is requested by a disabled person, provide priority service for such person; - 148 - Vehicle for Hire By-law xxxx/19 Page 23 (n) promptly investigate any complaint brought to the broker’s attent ion by an officer against any taxicab driver or taxicab plate licensee and report the findings to the officer and any action taken; (o) at the request of an officer, not dispatch calls to any taxicab until further notification; (p) within 48 hours of a request from an officer, provide a record showing the number of taxicabs available for service on any particular day, the time(s) when each taxicab was available for service, and the calls dispatched to each taxicab; (q) employ or use only the services of a taxicab plate licensee or a taxicab driver; and (r) maintain an affiliation with at least two taxicab plate licensees and/or lessees. Broker Restrictions 97 No broker shall, (a) dispatch to an unlicensed taxicab or an unlicensed driver; (b) dispatch to a vehicle that does not comply with the requirements of Part XI; (c) dispatch to a taxicab which is not on the list provided under clause 96(a), and; (d) dispatch to a taxicab that has been ordered removed from service, until authorized by the City. 98 No person shall carry on business as a broker in the City unless he has been issued a brokerage licence. Part X - Personal Transportation Companies Licence Application Requirements 99 In addition to the requirements of Part III, an application for a new PTC Licence or a renewal of a PTC Licence shall be accompanied by: (1) if the Applicant is a corporation, proof that it is legally entitled to operate in Ontario, including but not limited to: (a) a copy of the incorporating documents; - 149 - Vehicle for Hire By-law xxxx/19 Page 24 (b) a copy of the last initial notice/notice of change which has been filed with the appropriate government department; and (c) a Certificate of Status issued by the applicable provincial or federal government authority. (2) the address and contact information of the PTC’s registered business address in the Province of Ontario, which is not a post office box, to which the City may send during business hours any notice or documentation or communication that may be required under this By-law and at which the Applicant or the Applicant’s agent will accept receipt of such notice, documentation or communication together with the name, telephone, and email contact information for the person authorized to receive and respond on behalf of the PTC to any and all communications from the City relating to the PTC’s licence or the PTC’s conduct of its business; (3) a PTC Identifier for approval by the City; (4) evidence satisfactory to the City that there are data security measures in place to protect the personal data collected by the PTC relating to passengers and PTC Drivers; (5) documentation demonstrating that the platform used: (a) provides to the passenger requesting the transportation service, at the time the transportation service is arranged: (i) the PTC name and contact information; (ii) the first name and a photograph of the PTC Driver; (iii) the make, model and licence plate of the PTC vehicle; (iv) the surcharge, if any; (v) the total cost; and (vi) the current location of the PTC Vehicle; (b) provides a link to rate or comment on the PTC Driver and PTC Vehicle. (c) provides a process allowing the passenger to accept or refuse the transportation service prior to it commencing and keeps a record of such acceptance or refusal; (d) provides a secure payment mechanism; - 150 - Vehicle for Hire By-law xxxx/19 Page 25 (e) provides a printed or electronic receipt to the passenger at the end of the transportation service that includes the following information: (i) the fee and any surcharges; (ii) total amount paid; (iii) date and time of pickup; (iv) locations of pick up and drop off; and (v) the first name of the PTC Driver; (f) incorporates a global positioning system (GPS) in which all Transportation Services are recorded; and (g) is accessible for persons with disabilities. (6) a list of every affiliated PTC Driver and PTC Vehicle that has operated in the City in the previous 3 months, in a readily accessible format that includes: (i) the full name and address of every PTC Driver; and (ii) the make, model and licence plate of every PTC Vehicle ; (7) proof of the insurance required under this Part to the satisfaction of the City; (8) payment of the appropriate Licence Fee as set out in Schedule 1 of the By-Law; (9) an outline of the training program provided to PTC Drivers prior to accessing the platform, and (10) any other information required by the City. 100 Every PTC shall make available to the public on its Platform, and by any other means of its choice, the following information: (1) the insurance coverage required to be maintained by the PTC and by the PTC Drivers; (2) the Transportation Services offered by PTC Drivers; (3) the applicable screening process for PTC Drivers and PTC Vehicles; (4) a link to rate or comment on the PTC Driver and PTC Vehicle; - 151 - Vehicle for Hire By-law xxxx/19 Page 26 (5) that PTC Drivers can only provide transportation services that are prearranged using the platform of the PTC and not accept street hails or pick up fares at taxi stands; and (6) that PTC Drivers cannot accept cash payment for transportation services. Insurance For purposes of this Part, the following insurance requirements shall apply: 101 (1) Every PTC shall provide proof of commercial general liability insurance against all claims for personal injury including bodily injury resulting in death, and property damage with an inclusive limit of not less than five million ($5,000,000.00) per occurrence insuring him or her against liability imposed by law for any loss or damage resulting from the carrying o n of the business to which the licence relates. (2) The commercial general Liability policy in subsection 101(1) shall be in the name of the PTC and the City of Pickering shall be included as an additional insured. (3) Every PTC shall obtain and maintain on behalf of every PTC Driver , at all times during the provision of transportation services, Automobile Liability Insurance for owned, non-owned, or leased PTC Vehicles, with limits of not less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00) exclusive of costs and interest, per occurrence for bodily injury, death, and loss or damage to property occurring while in the post-acceptance period. The Automobile Liability Insurance shall include the IPCF 6TN Permission to Carry Paying Passengers for a Transportation Network endorsement or an equivalent endorsement acceptable to the City. (4) The insurance coverage required under subsection 101(1) and (3) shall include a provision that requires the Insurer to provide the City with no less than 10 days prior written notice of any cancellation or variation to the policy. 102 The certificate of insurance issued in respect of the policy in Section 101(1) and (3) shall be provided to the City prior to the issuance of the licence in the form of proof acceptable to the City. 103 Every PTC shall keep such records of the PTC Driver’s insurance coverage for a period of 3 years after the PTC Driver ceases to be affiliated with the PTC. 104 Every PTC shall produce proof of any PTC Driver’s insurance coverage to the City upon demand. - 152 - Vehicle for Hire By-law xxxx/19 Page 27 105 The City may suspend the PTC licence if the PTC fails to comply with this Part until such time as the PTC provides proof of insurance coverage to the satisfaction of the City. 106 The PTC shall provide the City with such information as the City shall require, from time to time upon demand, to demonstrate that this Part is being complied with. PTC Restrictions In addition to any other provisions of this By-Law, for purposes of this Part: 107 No person shall facilitate transportation services unless authorized to do so by a licence issued pursuant to this By-law. 108 No person shall permit, accept, or condone street hails for a ride with a PTC Driver or in a PTC Vehicle, whether on the street or at a taxi stand or in any other manner at any other location. 109 No person shall solicit or condone the solicitation of a passenger by a PTC Driver or PTC Vehicle, whether on the street or at a taxi stand or in any other manner at any other location. 110 No person shall facilitate a transportation service that does not comply with this by-law. 111 No person shall obstruct the City’s use of a platform to ensure compliance with this By-law, including, but not limited to the creation a nd use of accounts as either a passenger or PTC Driver. 112 No person shall permit a PTC Driver or a PTC Vehicle to provide transportation services if the PTC Driver does not have the insurance required under this by- law. 113 No person shall permit payment by cash for a transportation service. 114 No person shall smoke or allow or permit the smoking of any equipment or product including but not limited to cigar, cigarette, pipe, hookah or any other lit smoking product or vaping product, whether lit by flame or battery powered, in a PTC Vehicle while it is providing transportation services. PTC Driver Duties 115 No person shall hold himself or herself out as a PTC Driver unless he or she has been authorized by a PTC to act as a PTC Driver. - 153 - Vehicle for Hire By-law xxxx/19 Page 28 116 No PTC Driver shall refuse a request for transportation service by an individual accompanied by a service animal. 117 No PTC Driver or PTC Vehicle shall provide transportation services unless they hold a valid identification card issued by a PTC as required under section 134 of this by-law. 118 No PTC Driver shall permit any PTC Vehicle to carry more passengers than there are seatbelts available for. 119 Every PTC and PTC Driver shall ensure that a valid identification card required under section 134 of this by-law is: (1) in the PTC Vehicle at all times when transportation services affiliated with the PTC are offered or provided; and (2) is produced immediately upon demand of an Officer. 120 Every PTC Driver shall produce on demand of an Officer, the following documents: (1) the PTC Driver’s identification card; (2) proof of valid insurance that meets the requirements of this By-law; and (3) any other information pertaining to the PTC Driver or the operation of the PTC Vehicle as requested by the Officer. 121 Upon demand by an officer, every PTC Driver shall submit the PTC Vehicle for inspection at a time and place as specified by the officer, with no fees or charges applied to the City. 122 Every PTC Driver shall ensure that a PTC Vehicle meets the following requirements at all times when providing a transportation service: (1) the PTC Vehicle has a valid Ontario Ministry of Transportation Motor Vehicle permit, prior to commencement of use as a PTC Vehicle, and annually thereafter; (2) the PTC Vehicle has a valid and current Ontario Ministry of Transportation Safety Standards Certificate, prior to commencement of use as a PTC Vehicle, and then annually thereafter; and (3) the PTC Vehicle complies with all of the vehicle requirements set out in Part XI. . - 154 - Vehicle for Hire By-law xxxx/19 Page 29 PTC Duties 123 Every PTC shall ensure that the City’s use of the platform as either a passenger or PTC Driver will not be obstructed and will not be subject to fees. 124 Every PTC shall keep an up-to-date list of every registered or affiliated PTC Driver and PTC Vehicle authorized to provide service in the City in a readily accessible format that includes, but is not limited to: (1) the full name and address of every PTC Driver; and (2) the make, model and licence plate of every PTC Vehicle. 125 Every PTC shall ensure that, prior to commencing as a PTC Driver and at all times when providing transportation services, a registered PTC Driver: (1) is at least 18 years of age; (2) has a valid G licence or higher; (3) has completed the associated PTC driver training program; and (4) has been advised and consents in writing to their personal information being provided to the City for the purposes of administering and enforcing this by-law. 126 (1) Every PTC shall require a CIR and driving record abstract to be submitted by the PTC Driver prior to providing transportation services and annually thereafter, for as long as the PTC Driver is registered or affiliated with the PTC. (2) Every PTC shall obtain a CIR and a driving record abstract for each PTC Driver as follows: (a) the driving record abstract should be no older than 30 days from the date the PTC Driver applied for affiliation with the PTC. (b) the CIR should be no older than 30 days from the date the driver applied for affiliation with the PTC. (3) Every PTC shall ensure that no PTC Driver shall be provided access to the platform if the CIR exceeds the thresholds found in Section 16 – Disqualifications for a licence under this By-law. 127 For the purposes of complying with sections 125 and 126, a PTC holding a valid licence may, on behalf of a PTC Driver using its platform, submit and maintain the required documents. - 155 - Vehicle for Hire By-law xxxx/19 Page 30 128 No PTC shall impose any mandatory arbitration clause on PTC Drivers or Passengers whose transportation services are facilitated by the PTC. 129 Every PTC shall ensure there is a dispute resolution process for dealing with any complaints regarding fees, customer service, or any other issues arising from the provision of transportation services. 130 No PTC shall require that the law of any jurisdiction other than Ontario be applied in relation to the use of the relevant PTC platform in the City by PTC Drivers or passengers. 131 No PTC shall permit a PTC Driver’s access to the platform immediately upon being notified by the City that a PTC Driver has acted in a manner that is adverse to the public interest, public safety or upon discovering that a PTC Driver is not insured under section 101 (3) for so long as required by the City. 132 (1) Every PTC shall provide the City with such information as required to demonstrate that section 125 and 126 is being complied with. (2) Every PTC shall ensure that all affiliated PTC Drivers have an ongoing duty to disclose: (a) any charges listed in section 16, (b) any suspension of their Ontario Driver’s license, (c) any change in insurance, and (d) any accidents while operating as a PTC vehicle. 133 Every PTC shall ensure that a PTC Vehicle meets the following requirements at all times when providing a transportation service: (1) the PTC Vehicle has a valid Ontario Ministry of Transportation Motor Vehicle permit, prior to commencement of use as a PTC Vehicle, and annually thereafter; (2) the PTC Vehicle, has a valid and current Ontario Ministry of Transportation Safety Standards Certificate, prior to commencement of use as a PTC Vehicle, and then annually thereafter; (3) the PTC Vehicle complies with all vehicle requirements set out in Part XI; 134 Every PTC shall issue to every affiliated PTC Driver an identification card in written or accessible electronic form providing the following information: (1) the first name and photograph of the PTC Driver; (2) the make, model and licence plate number of the PTC Vehicle(s) used by the PTC Driver - 156 - Vehicle for Hire By-law xxxx/19 Page 31 (3) the name and contact information of the PTC; and (4) the Insurance policy coverage for the PTC Vehicle. 135 Every PTC shall keep copies of the documents and information required under this Part for 3 years. 136 Every PTC shall make available to the City the records or information required in this Part within forty-eight (48) hours following a written demand by the City. 137 The City may refuse to grant or renew and may revoke or suspend a PTC Licence if the PTC fails to comply with any provision of this By-Law. 138 (1) Every PTC shall submit to the City supporting documentation, in a format acceptable to the City, and applicable fees quarterly in compliance with the fees listed in Schedule1, in relation to per transportation service and per driver fees. (2) Every PTC that does not provide accessible transportation services will pay an accessible service supplement as outlined in Schedule 1. 139 Every PTC shall, where the transportation service requested requires an accessible vehicle, and the PTC is not able to provide such transportation service, direct the person to an accessible taxicab service. PART XI - VEHICLE REQUIREMENTS Vehicle Standards 140 Every taxicab and PTC vehicle shall: (a) be no more than ten (10) years old according to its model year; (b) meet the standards for the issuance of a Safety Standard Certificate of mechanical fitness; (c) be clean, and in good repair as to its interior and exterior, and (d) have a heater and air conditioning system in proper working condition. 141 In addition to section 140, every taxicab shall be equipped with: (a) fender numbers, and properly functioning roof light; (b) a taxicab meter that, (i) has been calibrated to reflect the current fares; (ii) is in proper working order; and - 157 - Vehicle for Hire By-law xxxx/19 Page 32 (iii) has been tested and approved by an officer and mounted in a position so that it is clearly visible to passengers in the front and back seats of the taxicab. 142 In addition to section 140, every PTC vehicle shall have the PTC Identifier displayed in the location approved by the City. 143 All taxicab equipment shall be of a type approved by the City and shall be installed in locations approved by an officer. 144 Notwithstanding section 140 (a), a taxicab plate licensee or taxicab plate owner may apply for an extension of up to 2 years on the vehicle model year for a taxicab that is currently operating, provided the appropriate fee outlined in Schedule 1 is paid, the taxicab meets the remaining vehicle standards required in sections 140, 141, and 143, and the vehicle is inspected and approved by an officer. PART XII – INSPECTIONS and ORDERS Rights of Inspection 145 The City shall inspect all taxicabs annually. 146 An officer may, at any time when a taxicab or PTC Vehicle is not engaged in the transportation of passengers, enter and inspect the vehicle. 147 Every taxicab plate licensee, lessee or driver or PTC Driver shall submit or cause his vehicle to be submitted for inspection when required to do so by a n officer. 148 An officer may require that a taxicab plate licensee, lessee or driver or PTC Driver submit his vehicle for inspection at an appointed time and place provided notice of the required inspection is given. 149 (1) An officer may require from any person the production of any licence, permit, trip sheet or any other document or electronic record in order to ensure compliance with this by-law. (2) An officer may remove any of the documents referred to in subsection (1) for the purpose of photocopying provided a receipt is given and the documents are returned within forty-eight (48) hours of removal. 150 No person shall prevent, hinder or interfere or attempt to prevent, hinder or interfere with an inspection of a vehicle for hire by an officer or the collection of information by an officer. 151 Any person operating a taxicab or providing transportation services with a PTC Vehicle shall provide identification in the form of an Ontario Driver’s License to an officer upon request. - 158 - Vehicle for Hire By-law xxxx/19 Page 33 Orders 152 Where an officer finds that a taxicab or PTC Vehicle does not comply with any of the vehicle requirements set out in Part XI, he may order the taxicab plate licensee, driver and/or lessee of the taxicab , or the PTC Driver to remedy the non-compliance. 153 All orders shall provide, (a) the taxicab plate number of the taxicab, or the license plate number of the PTC vehicle; (b) reasonable particulars of the non-compliance; (c) the date by which the non-compliance must be remedied; and (d) the final date for appealing the order. 154 All orders shall be served in the manner set out in section 198. 155 (1) If an order is not complied with by the date specified, the taxicab plate licence in respect of that taxicab shall be suspended and shall only be reinstated if the City receives satisfactory evidence of compliance. (2) If an order is not complied with by the date specified, the PTC shall be directed to prohibit the PTC Driver’s access to the platform and shall only reinstate if the City receives satisfactory evidence of compliance. 156 No person shall fail to comply with an order. Unsafe Vehicles 157 (1) Where a taxicab is in a condition that poses a danger to the health or safety of the public, including but not limited to, body damage with sharp edges, holes in the floorboards, unserviceable tires, doors not closing properly, wire protruding from the seat or any other mechanical defect that would render the motor vehicle unsafe, an officer may take custody of the taxicab plate affixed to the taxicab and order that the taxicab be immediately removed from service. (2) If an order has been issued pursuant to subsection (1), n o person shall operate or permit the operation of that taxicab until the danger has been removed, and the taxicab has been inspected by an officer. 158 Where a PTC Vehicle is deemed to be mechanically unsafe, including but not limited to body damage with sharp edges, holes in the floorboards, unserviceable tires, doors not closing properly, wire protruding from the seat or any other mechanical defect that would render the motor vehicle unsafe, the PTC shall be directed to prohibit the PTC Driver’s access to the platform and shall only - 159 - Vehicle for Hire By-law xxxx/19 Page 34 reinstate once the danger has been removed and the PTC Vehicle has been inspected by an officer confirming compliance. PART XIII – SUSPENSIONS, CANCELLATIONS and REVOCATIONS Taxicab Driver’s Licenses 159 An officer may suspend a taxicab driver’s licence if the driver fails to comply with any provision of this by-law and require the driver to appear before the Vehicle for Hire Advisory Committee to review re-instatement of the license. 160 (1) When a taxicab driver has had his Ontario Driver’s Licence suspended, cancelled or revoked, the taxicab driver shall immediately report that fact to the City and the taxicab driver’s licence shall be deemed to be suspended as of the date of such suspension, cancellation or revocation. (2) A taxicab driver’s licence that has been suspended under subsection (1) shall not be reinstated unless the City receives written confirmation that the Ontario Driver’s Licence has been reinstated. (3) If the City does not receive written confirmation that the Ontario Driver’s Licence has been reinstated within sixty (60) days from the date of the suspension, the taxicab driver’s licence shall be revoked. Taxicab Plate Licenses 161 An officer may suspend or revoke a taxicab plate licence if the taxicab plate licensee fails to comply with any provision of this by-law and such non- compliance is not remedied within seven (7) days following notice from the City specifying the particulars of the non-compliance. 162 (1) When a taxicab plate licensee ceases to have a current valid Ontario Standard Automobile Insurance Policy in good standing, his taxicab plate licence shall be suspended as of the date on which such policy ceased to be in effect. (2) A taxicab plate licence that has been suspended under subsection (1) shall not be reinstated unless the City receives written confirmation that the insurance required by clause 43(b) is in place. (3) If the City does not receive written confirmation that the necessary insurance is in place within sixty (60) days from the date of the suspension, the taxicab plate licence shall be revoked. 163 (1) An officer may demand that a taxicab plate licensee or lessee file a current Safety Standard Certificate issued by an authorized vehicle inspection station for any taxicab registered to him, dated not prior to the - 160 - Vehicle for Hire By-law xxxx/19 Page 35 date of demand and may suspend a taxicab plate licence until the certificate has been filed. (2) Where the officer demands a Safety Standard Certificate pursuant to subsection (1), the taxicab plate licensee or lessee shall provide it within (3) three days. (3) Where a taxicab plate licence has been suspended under subsection (1), and where no certificate is filed with the City within sixty (60) days from the date of the suspension, the taxicab plate licence shall be revoked. Brokers 164 An officer may suspend or revoke a brokerage licence if the broker fails to comply with any provision of this by-law and such non-compliance is not remedied within seven (7) days following notice from the City specifying the particulars of the non-compliance. General 165 (1) When a taxicab driver’s licence, taxicab plate licence or brokerage licence has been suspended, cancelled or revoked, the holder of the licence shall return it and, if applicable, the taxicab plate to the City within forty-eight (48) hours of the suspension, cancellation or revocation. (2) An officer may enter upon any business premises or into the taxicab of any licensee whose licence has been suspended, cancelled or revoked for the purpose of removing the licence and, if applicable, the taxicab plate. 166 No person shall refuse to deliver or in any way obstruct or prevent an officer from obtaining a licence that has been suspended, cancelled or revoked. 167 No person shall operate a taxicab or permit the operation of a taxicab by a driver whose taxicab driver’s licence has been suspended, cancelled or revoked. 168 No person shall operate a taxicab or permit the operation of a taxicab in respect of which the taxicab plate licence has been suspended, cancelled or revoked. 169 No person shall operate a brokerage in respect of which the brokerage licence has been suspended, cancelled or revoked. 170 No person shall provide transportation services where the PTC has been required under this by-law to remove access to the platform for that PTC Driver. PART XIV – APPEALS Appeal Rights 171 Any Applicant may appeal the City’s refusal to issue a licence. - 161 - Vehicle for Hire By-law xxxx/19 Page 36 172 A person whose name has been removed from the plate eligibility list pursuant to section 78(5)(b) may appeal that decision. 173 A taxicab driver whose taxicab driver’s licence has been suspended or re voked pursuant to section 159 may appeal that decision. 174 A taxicab plate licensee whose taxicab plate licence has been suspended or revoked pursuant to section 161 may appeal that decision. Filing of Appeal 175 All appeals must be submitted to the City within fourteen (14) days of the date of the decision or order being appealed. 176 All appeals shall be in writing and shall include, (a) the reason(s) for the appeal; (b) an identification of the appellant and any other party; (c) the name of any agent, representative or lawyer representing the applicant; (d) the municipal addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses for each person identified in clauses (b) and (c); and (e) the appeal fee set out in Schedule 1. Hearing 177 The Vehicle for Hire Advisory Committee shall hear all appeals under this by-law. 178 Upon receipt of an appeal, the City shall, as soon as is practicable, notify the appellant and all other parties of the date, time and location of the hearing. 179 All hearings before the Vehicle for Hire Advisory Committee shall be conducted in accordance with Terms of Reference approved by Council. 180 If an appellant fails to appear at a hearing, the decision or order appealed shall be deemed to be in full force and effect as if no appeal had been filed. Vehicle for Hire Advisory Committee Powers 181 On an appeal, the VHAC may make any decision that the officer could have made and may make its decision subject to such conditions as it considers advisable. 182 When making its decision on an appeal, the VHAC shall have regard to the following matters (where applicable): (a) the purposes of this by-law as set out in Part II; - 162 - Vehicle for Hire By-law xxxx/19 Page 37 (b) the matters set out in section 16; (c) the appellant’s record of complying or not complying with any of the provisions of this by-law or any condition imposed on a licence; (d) the results of any testing, training, educational or awareness program completed or not completed by the appellant; and (e) any other thing or matter relevant to the appellant’s ability to hold a licence. 183 The decision of the VHAC on an appeal shall be final and binding. 184 Notice of the decision of the VHAC shall be given to the appellant and any other person present at the hearing. 185 The VHAC’s decision shall take effect on the day that it is made. PART XV - OFFENCES / PENALTIES 186 (1) Every person who contravenes any provision of this by-law, and every director or officer of a corporation who concurs in such contravention by the corporation, is guilty of an offence and, subject to subsection (2), upon conviction is liable to a fine not exceeding $25,000. (2) Where a corporation is convicted of an offence under subsection (1), the maximum penalty that may be imposed on the corporation is $100,000. 187 No person shall make a false or intentionally misleading statement of fact, statutory declaration, application or other document required by this by-law. 188 No person shall prevent, hinder or obstruct or attempt to prevent, hinder or obstruct an officer in the enforcement of this By-law. 189 Where an officer has reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed by a person, the officer may require the name, address, and proof of identity of that person, and no person shall fail to provide the requested information. PART XVI - GENERAL Plate Replacement 190 When a taxicab plate is defaced, destroyed or lost, the taxicab plate licensee shall apply to the City for a replacement and shall pay the appropriate fee under Schedule 1 within 14 calendar days of the damage, loss or destruction. - 163 - Vehicle for Hire By-law xxxx/19 Page 38 191 Where the taxicab plate is lost or destroyed, the taxicab plate licensee shall file a police report detailing the circumstances of the loss or destruction and the City shall issue a replacement plate. Compliance with Other Laws 192 In addition to every other requirement imposed by this by-law, every licence is issued subject to the condition that all federal, provincial and municipal laws, by- laws, rules, regulations, orders, approvals, permits, standards, and all other governmental requirements applicable to the operation of the business so licensed must be complied with. Changes 193 When a licensee changes his name or address or any information relating to his licence, he shall notify the City within forty-eight (48) hours of the change. 194 Where there is to be a change in the composition of a licensed partnership, the proposed change must be registered with the City. 195 Where there is to be a change in the composition or the controlling interest of a licensed corporation, the proposed change must be registered with the City. Fees 196 Persons receiving a service listed in Schedule 1 shall pay the fee set out in Schedule 1 for that service. Fare Adjustments 197 The fares set out in Schedule 2 shall be reviewed as needed by the Vehicle for Hire Advisory Committee to determine whether to recommend a change to Council. Notice 198 Any notice required to be given under this by-law or any order served under Part XII shall be in writing and shall be sufficiently given or served if delivered in person or sent by registered mail to the last address on file with the City. 199 Each notice given or order served shall be deemed to have been received on the day it was delivered or on the third business day after it was mailed, as the case may be, whether or not it is actually received. Repeal 200 By-law No. 6702/06 is repealed. - 164 - Vehicle for Hire By-law xxxx/19 Page 39 Short Title 201 This by-law may be cited as the Vehicle for Hire Licensing By-law. Effective Date 202 This by-law shall come into effect on January 1, 2020. By-law passed this day of December, 2019. David Ryan, Mayor Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 165 - Vehicle for Hire By-law xxxx/19 Page 40 SCHEDULE 1 FEES Taxicab Licence Fees Taxicab Plate owner licence (one year) $ 250.00 Brokerage licence (one year) 150.00 Taxicab driver’s licence (two years) 100.00 Plate owner licence – clean air cab (one year) 125.00 City plate licence (one year) 1,000.00 Accessible Taxicab Plate (private) 125.00 Accessible Taxicab Plate (one year City owned) 1,000.00 Personal Transportation Company Fees 1 – 25 Drivers (one year) $3,000.00 25-99 Drivers (one year) $9,500.00 Greater than 100 Drivers (one year) $20,000/year Additional per trip fee (payable quarterly) 30 cents per trip Other Fees Transfer of taxicab plate ownership $ 500.00 Filing an appeal 250.00 Replacement of taxicab driver’s licence 20.00 Replacement of each tariff card/Passenger Rights and Responsibilities 10.00 Change of registered vehicle 100.00 Re-inspection without taxicab meter 25.00 Re-inspection with taxicab meter 50.00 Lease filing 50.00 Late Cancellation/No Show for Inspection 50.00 Plate eligibility list application (every year) 75.00 Extension of Vehicle Model Year 125.00 Accessible Service Supplement: Taxicab Plate Licence (annually) $75.00 Brokerage (annually) $2,500.00 PTC (payable quarterly) 7 cents per trip - 166 - Vehicle for Hire By-law xxxx/19 Page 41 SCHEDULE 2 TARIFFS/FARES 1. For the first one-eighth kilometer or part thereof $3.15 (incl. HST) 2. For each additional one-eighth kilometer or part thereof $0.25 (incl. HST) 3. For waiting time while under engagement, per minute $0.40 (incl. HST) - 167 - Vehicle for Hire By-law xxxx/19 Page 42 SCHEDULE 3 Taxicab Passengers Rights and Responsibilities Taxicab passengers in Pickering are entitled to a professional driver who, • is licensed by the City of Pickering and prominently displays his/her taxicab driver licence inside the taxicab; • knows the major routes and destinations in the City; • is well-groomed, neat and clean in personal appearance; • is courteous and provides assistance; • provides a safe ride; • knows and obeys all City by-laws and all traffic laws; • offers a silent ride if desired; • takes the most direct route to the destination unless otherwise directed by the passenger; • keeps the interior of the taxicab clean and free of debris; and • issues a receipt upon request noting the date and time of the trip, place of pick up, place of discharge, taxicab plate number, driver name, Provincial plate number and the fare paid. Taxicab passengers in Pickering are entitled to a quality taxicab, • in good mechanical and physical condition; • with a properly calibrated and sealed taxicab meter; • with a clean exterior, passenger area and trunk; • that is heated or air conditioned on dem and; and • that is smoke–free. Taxicab passengers in Pickering, • cannot eat, drink or smoke inside the taxicab; • cannot interfere with the taxicab driver in the conduct of his/her duties; • are responsible for any damage caused to the taxicab; and • are required to pay the required fare. - 168 - 1 From: Morva Rohani <mrohani@uber.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2019 6:05 PM To: Thompson, Kim D. <kthompson@pickering.ca> Cc: Kim Wright <kim@wrightstrategies.ca>; Joanne Wong <joannewong@uber.com> Subject: Uber By‐law Review Submission Hi Kim, Thank you for your time and for consulting with us! Please find attached our comments following our discussion. We would also like clarification from you on accessibility. Should Uber choose to operate a WAV service in Pickering, under this fee structure, would Uber be exempt from the fee? Let me know if you have any questions. Best, -- Morva Rohani Public Policy, Canada mrohani@uber.com ᐧ Attachment #2 to Memorandum - 169 - Memo To: Mayor Ryan and Members of Council December 9, 2019 From: Catherine Rose Chief Planner Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Director, City Development & CBO City Clerk Manager, Development Review & Urban Design Manager, Capital Projects & Infrastructure Subject: Planning & Development Committee Meeting of December 2, 2019 Request for Council’s Permission to Develop Lands through Land Severance Marshall Homes Part of Lot 30, Concession 1 South, and Part 1, Plan 40R-10110 1855 Rosebank Road At the Planning & Development Committee Meeting of December 2, 2019, during the consideration of the above-noted request, three area residents requested further clarification regarding various concerns with the proposal. The table below summarizes the issues raised by area residents and the applicant’s response: Applicant’s response to issues identified by area residents: Comment/Question from the Public Applicant’s Response Why were the lots sold prior to the consent applicants being approved? Lots are not “sold”, but Agreements of Purchase and Sale have been entered into by Marshall Homes and potential purchasers. The Agreements of Purchase and Sale are conditional on Marshall Homes obtaining all necessary municipal approvals, including clearing all conditions and finalizing the severances. Pickering Staff Report identifies 13 lots. However, the notice of Consent from the Region of Durham only notes 12 lots. Why the discrepancy? Marshall Homes has submitted 12 consent applications to facilitate the creation of 12 new lots while retaining one lot, and one retained parcel for a net increase of 12 new lots, resulting in 13 lots for detached dwellings. - 170 - December 9, 2019 Page 2 of 4 Marshall Homes City of Pickering Staff Report indicates that the applicant proposes the lots and ultimate houses will “generally conform” to the existing “S1” zoning. Why “generally”? The lots and dwellings will comply with all requirements of the existing “S1” zone, with the exception of two lots. Lots 8 and 9 have an irregular “pie shaped” configuration, but are of a size similar to the other lots zoned “S1”. Note that the lot area proposed for Lots 8 and 9 exceed the minimum requirement of the “S1” zone. Minor Variance applications will be required to reduce the minimum lot frontage requirement to 11.3 metres for Lots 8 and 9. City of Pickering Staff Report indicates that the City may impose certain conditions through a consent application that could also have been imposed through a draft plan of subdivision. Which conditions will be imposed? The City will impose conditions of approval related to the following matters: Minor Variance approval for Lots 8 and 9 to reduce the minimum lot frontage requirement to 11.3 metres Submission of an Environmental Impact Study, tree inventory/preservation/compensation plan, and landscape plan/replanting plan to the City’s satisfaction Address the City’s stormwater management, drainage, and grading requirements Submission of a pre-condition survey of adjacent properties Submission of a Construction Management Plan identifying temporary fencing, construction access, dust and noise control and worker parking area Cash-in-lieu of parkland Execution of a development agreement Will a Traffic Study be done to address traffic volumes and safety of area residents and school children? A traffic study is not required for this proposal. The traffic volumes and movements would have been addressed at the time when the property was zoned for residential use. - 171 - December 9, 2019 Page 3 of 4 Marshall Homes Existing sidewalk on Rosebank is to close and snow clearing is a concern. As part of this development, the existing sidewalk along Rosebank Road will be removed by Marshall Homes and reconstructed in the standard location. Relocating the sidewalk will provide for a wider boulevard to accommodate snow storage. There will be noise and dust from construction Marshall Homes will need to submit a Construction Management Plan for approval by the City. The plan will ensure any dust and debris from the site is minimized, and the site is adequately fenced during construction in accordance with City’s by-laws. In addition, Marshall Homes will be required to adhere to the City’s noise by-law regarding time of construction and noise requirements. Will there be a fence around the site during construction? Yes, the development agreement will require the developer/builder to erect a temporary fence in accordance with the City’s requirements during construction. Will upgraded landscaping be provided along boundaries of the site to buffer the existing residents from the new dwellings? Marshall Homes will be required to submit a Tree Inventory plan to identify whether any trees on-site can be preserved. The applicant has agreed to work with staff and area residents to plant additional trees where possible on the subject lands in addition to a cash-in-lieu compensation. There is an existing septic system on the site, what will happen to it? The septic system will be decommissioned in accordance with the Region’s Health standards. All of the proposed lots will be serviced by municipal sanitary system connections. Cost/Price of Housing. Will this proposal reduce property values in the neighbourhood/area? Typically, when new houses are built they are sold at a higher price than existing homes in the area. In our opinion, the new sale prices are then used in real estate research to demonstrate higher land/home values in the neighbourhood, and therefore the proposal may raise land/home values in the neighbourhood. - 172 - December 9, 2019 Page 4 of 4 Marshall Homes On December 9, 2019, the Region of Durham Land Division Committee conditionally approved Land Division Applications LD 152/19 to LD 163/19, to facilitate the applicant’s proposal of 13 lots for detached dwellings. The Committee imposed conditions of approval that address concerns related to: stormwater management, grading and drainage, construction management and mitigation measures, temporary fencing, parkland contributions, tree inventory and preservation, environmental impact, zoning compliance, driveway access, pre-condition surveys and landscaping. Should Council approve of applicant’s request to develop the subject lands through the land severance process, the applicant will commence the preparation of the detailed technical reports and drawings for the City’s review in order to satisfy the conditions of land severance approval. During the review of the reports and detail design drawings, City staff will continue to work with the applicant to address any outstanding technical matters. Should any member of Council require further information, please contact Cody Morrison at extension 2913. Original Signed By Catherine Rose CM:nwb J:\Documents\Development\D-3500\2019\LD 152-19 to LD 163\Memos\Memo to council.docx - 173 - Report to Council Report Number: CS 31-19 Date: December 16, 2019 From: Marisa Carpino Director, Community Services Subject: Level of Service - Review of Winter Activities within Public Works - File: A-1440-001 Recommendation: 1. That Council receive report CS 31-19 for information in regards to winter activities currently provided by Public Works and recommended service level increases. Executive Summary: During the 2019 Current and Capital Budget Executive Committee Meeting of February 14, 2019, Council directed staff to review winter activities performed by Public Works (Roads, Parks & Property, Fleet and Administration). The purpose of the review was to consider current winter activities, confirm existing levels of service and make recommendations to Council on any proposed increase to winter levels of service. To that end, a detailed summary of winter activities and recommended levels of service is attached to this report. Since efficiencies in Public Works operations are best realized by ensuring equipment and staff can be effectively utilized 12 months a year, staff will conduct a subsequent review next year of all spring, summer and fall activities performed by Public Works. Nonetheless, a review of Public Works winter activities is timely as staff are planning for growth in the City and preparing for its related impact to the operation. For example, new communities in the Seaton and Veraine developments are projected to increase the size of Pickering’s population by as much as 150 percent within the next 10 years. In as early as 2020, it is estimated that there will be 18 centre line km more of paved roads (5 percent increase), 19 linear-km of sidewalks and multi-use paths (MUP) (6 percent increase) and 6 more parks (7 percent increase). These newly designed communities will support denser populations; require enhanced winter services on our roads, parks and property; and utilize specialized vehicles and equipment matched to clear narrow roads, laneways, layby and overnight parking areas as well as sidewalks and MUP (multi-use paths) and MUT (multi-use trails). A higher level of winter service is also expected in northern rural areas during winter months as commuter traffic coming into and out of the Innovation Corridor will increase. Additionally, snow storage in many of the new areas in Seaton, and often in new infill developments, is compromised due to narrow roads and boulevard widths as well as increased on-street parking that requires regular snow removal. Clearly, available greenspace in private dwellings will be reduced due to densification. Therefore, as noted in the Recreation & Parks Master Plan (2017), the City’s newly developed parks will be utilized to displace that need and - 174 - CS 31-19 December 16, 2019 Subject: Level of Service Page 2 should include picnic shelters and other park amenities that support passive park use. In fact, new park features such as outdoor fitness equipment, off-leash dog parks and dog playgrounds have started to generate increased use during the winter months and demand for an increase in winter services. Moreover, the approval of the City Centre development and downtown intensification, along with an anticipated increase in the number of planned and unplanned City and community events, will require Public Works winter service delivery to be scheduled after normal business and during overnight hours and on weekends. With this in mind, staff have completed their review of winter operations in Public Works. Paramount in the review process was to ensure that Public Works are meeting or exceeding all legislated responsibilities under the following, but not limited to: The Municipal Act, 2001- Ontario Regulation 239/02 Minimum Maintenance Standards for Municipal Highways (MMS) The Highway Traffic Act R.S.O. 1990, c H.8 Ontario Regulation 555/06 Hours of Service Employment Standards Act (ESA) S.O. 2000, c. 41 Hours of Work In this way, staff are not only ensuring the well-being of residents, business owners and visitors but that the City is protected from liability and claims. The recommended 2020 service level increases identified in this report will be included in the City’s 2020 Budget for Council’s consideration. Financial Implications: In 2020 and 2021, Public Works Capital and Current Budgets will reflect additional costs due to the planned growth in Pickering. To be clear, these increased costs are unavoidable, directly resulting from increased roads, sidewalk and parks infrastructure related to growth and the City’s obligations to provide winter maintenance in accordance with legislative requirements. That said, as a result of this review requested by Council, staff also propose a variety of improvements to our existing winter maintenance program which will have additional financial implications in 2020 and 2021 Capital Budgets and Current Budgets. These enhancements reflect an increased level of service that not only provides better and timelier service to our residents but also safeguards our assets and reduces the City’s exposure to liability and risk. A summary of projected additional costs are identified below and are clearly identified as Growth Related (required) or Level of Service (recommended). Accordingly, the 2020 draft Budget, as presented to Council, will consider several special levy increases such as Public Works (recommended level of service) but also additional staffing resources for By-Law and for Firefighters. The 2020 Budget opportunity, for Council, will be to decide which special levy increases are approved in the context of maintaining an overall levy increase that strikes that balance between service level increases and property tax affordability. - 175 - CS 31-19 December 16, 2019 Subject: Level of Service Page 3 2020 Capital Budget Implications: Public Works staff recommend adding the following vehicle and equipment expenditures totaling $75,000 in the 2020 Capital Budget to increase Level of Service: Item Approx. Cost Year Rationale Level of Service Increase by Work Section Front Plow Attachment $30,000 2020 For existing loader to clear Pickering Soccer Club parking lot and other infrastructure Roads One ½ Ton Pickup Truck $45,000 2020 New Lead Hand, Parks & Property to conduct winter control inspections, deploy and support staff Parks & Property Total $75,000 Public Works staff will add the following vehicle and equipment expenditures totaling $405,000 in the 2020 Capital Budget to accommodate Growth: Item Approx. Cost Year Rationale Growth Related Increase by Work Section 2 One Ton Salter with Plows $140,000 2020 For all narrow roads and laneways included in Seaton (new 14th snowplow route) Roads Front Plow & Wing Attachment $20,000 2020 To install on existing One Ton Salter for new laneways in Seaton Roads Sidewalk Plow with Attachment $175,000 2020 Increase in sidewalk and MUP inventory (new 8th sidewalk plow route) Parks & Property One Ton Truck $70,000 2020 For 2nd crew on manual clearing of walkways and steps north of Taunton Road as 1st crew completes same, south of Taunton creating a significant time lag Parks & Property Total $405,000 - 176 - CS 31-19 December 16, 2019 Subject: Level of Service Page 4 2021 Capital Budget Implications: Public Works staff are proposing to submit the following vehicle and equipment expenditures totaling $45,000 in the 2021 Capital Budget to increase Level of Service: Item Approx. Cost Year Rationale Level of Service Increase by Work Section Half Ton Pick Up Truck $45,000 2021 Utility Cut Inspector (also performing winter patrols) Roads Total $45,000 Public Works staff are proposing to submit the following vehicle and equipment expenditures totaling $860,000 in the 2021 Capital Budget to accommodate Growth: Item Approx. Cost Year Rationale Growth Related Increase by Work Section Five Ton Dump Truck with Plow & Wing $300,000 2021 For 18 centre line-km of new roads in Seaton (new 15th snow plow route) Roads 2 Brine Four or Five Ton Trucks $560,000 2021 For anti-icing and can also be used as spare salters/plows Roads Total $860,000 - 177 - CS 31-19 December 16, 2019 Subject: Level of Service Page 5 2020 Current Budget Implications: Public Works staff are proposing to submit the following labour, material and contract requests totaling $510,820 in the 2020 Current Budget to increase Level of Service: Item Approx. Cost Year Rationale Level of Service Increase by Work Section On Call Staff $26,500 2020 (November) For standby during the winter months including Loader Operator for Pickering Soccer Club parking lot Roads 1 New Supervisor, Public Works Operations $139,496 2020 (Jan.) To coordinate winter communications, weather forecast, Road Weather Information Systems, Public Facing Winter Portal and GPS/AVL monitoring and exception/stop reporting Roads 1 New Lead Hand, Parks & Property $111,187 2020 (Jan.) To provide proper oversight of staff during winter events Parks On Call Staff $8,500 2020 (November) Increase the number of existing staff to be on call in order to provide winter control during winter events exceeding 13 hours in duration Parks On Call Staff $7,000 2020 Increase the number of existing staff to be on call in order to provide winter control during winter events exceeding 13 hrs. in duration Property 1 New Lead Hand, Municipal Garage $111,187 2020 (Jan.) To introduce an afternoon shift that ensures service vehicles are on the road. Position will schedule staff, assign/oversee work and assist with repairs. Fleet 1 New Mechanic, Municipal Garage $106,950 2020 (Jan.) To introduce an afternoon shift that ensures service vehicles are on the road. Staff will perform non- scheduled repairs and prepare vehicles to on the road asap. Fleet Total $510,820 - 178 - CS 31-19 December 16, 2019 Subject: Level of Service Page 6 Public Works staff are proposing to submit the following labour, material and contract expenditures totaling $242,814 in the 2020 Current Budget to accommodate Growth: Item Approx. Cost Year Rationale Growth Related Increase by Work Section 1 New Maintenance Worker, Roads $65,938 2020 (April) For narrow roads in Seaton and others Roads Brine Program $45,000 2020 (Novem ber) For the purchase of salt and salt brine for additional road/sidewalk/MUP inventory as noted above Roads 2 New Maintenance Workers, Parks & Property $87,917 2020 (July) For snow clearing in Seaton and manual snow clearing north of Taunton Parks 1 New Maintenance Worker, Parks & Property $43,959 2020 (July) For snow clearing in Seaton and manual snow clearing north of Taunton and, in part, for enhanced winter trail maintenance (as per CS 33- 19) Property Total $242,814 - 179 - CS 31-19 December 16, 2019 Subject: Level of Service Page 7 2021 Current Budget Implications: Public Works staff are proposing to submit the following labour, material and contract expenditures totaling $111,000 in the 2021 Current Budget to increase Level of Service: Item Approx. Cost Year Rationale Level of Service Increase by Work Section 1 New Utility Cut Inspector $66,000 2021 (April) To conduct utility cut inspections, as well as bridge inspection/repairs, sidewalk inspections, and winter patrol duties Roads 1 New Mechanic, Municipal Garage $45,000 2021 (July) To expand an afternoon shift that ensures service vehicles are on the road. Staff will perform non- scheduled repairs and prepare vehicles to get on the road asap Fleet Total $111,000 Public Works staff are proposing to submit the following labour, material and contract expenditures totaling $50,000 in the 2021 Current Budget to accommodate Growth: Item Approx. Cost Year Rationale Growth Related Increase by Work Section Contracted Snow Removal $50,000 2021 For additional contracted snow removal on narrow roads in Seaton & others Roads Total $50,000 Discussion: Public Works provides winter services annually from November 5 to April 30. The following is a brief overview of existing levels of winter activities for each unit within Public Works and staff’s proposed increases to those levels of service with rationale. 1. Roads As noted on the City of Pickering website, there are 11 urban (generally south of Taunton Road) and 2 rural routes which will expand to 14 routes (12 urban and 2 rural) in the 2020/21 winter season with Seaton expansion. Urban routes are completed within 18 hours when both salting and plowing is required, rural areas take longer to complete with plowing and sanding within 24 hours as the salt trucks are required to complete salting their urban routes and then switch over to sanding rural areas. A review of MMS indicates that the City is clearing roads of snow and ice above the minimum standards. However, a review of traffic counts on all main roads with a posted speed of 60 km/hr - 180 - CS 31-19 December 16, 2019 Subject: Level of Service Page 8 should be undertaken to ensure they are below 11,999 Annual Average Daily Traffic and maintaining to a classification of 3, 4 or 5. For this reason, Roads staff are proposing levels of service based on measured snow depths and Commercial Vehicle Operator’s Registration and the Highway Traffic Act Hours of Service requirements of driving consecutively for no more than 13 hours with a minimum 8 hour rest period as follows: a) Salting, Sanding and Plowing: Proposed Level of Service Measure Existing Level of Service Proposed Level of Service Up to 2” of snow urban roads salted within 6 hours, icy roads salted within 8 hours rural roads sanded within 24 hours after the snow has stopped, if necessary for traction, icy conditions within 12 hours urban roads salted, icy roads salted within 6 hours rural roads sanded within 15 hours after the snow has stopped, if necessary for traction, icy conditions within 12 hours 2” to 4” of snow and stopped urban roads salted and plowed within 13 hours (unless drivers time out and no back-ups are available or there is a lack of mechanics to return trucks onto the road) rural roads plowed and sanded if necessary within 24-30 hours urban roads salted and plowed within 13 hours (due to the introduction of enhanced on call schedule and new afternoon shift for mechanics) rural roads plowed and sanded if necessary within 20 hours 4” to 8” of snow and stopped urban roads salted and plowed within 30 hours rural roads plowed and sanded within 36 hours urban roads salted and plowed within 24 hours rural roads plowed and sanded within 30 hours Beyond 8” of snow and stopped urban roads salted and plowed within 36 hours rural roads plowed and sanded within 36-40 hours urban roads salted and plowed within 30 hours rural roads plowed and sanded within 36 hours b) Direct Liquid Application (DLA): DLA or anti-icing involves the application of a Magnesium Chloride (MgCl) or salt brine on the road 24 to 48 hours ahead of a snow or icing event on paved roads. City staff launched a pilot project in Pickering during the 2017/18 season on approximately 50 km of main roads using a truck that was to be disposed of. Results from the pilot project were very positive as DLA creates a bond breaker on the pavement surface which provides an approximate one hour buffer before salting is required and improves plowing of the surface when required. Level of Service Recommendation – As a result of the success of the pilot project, staff are proposing to purchase two new brine trucks at a cost of $560,000 in 2021 and increase the amount of main roads to receive DLA to 100 km with a view to be able to complete all main roads in future. A further pilot project is envisioned to DLA all local (residential) roads within one urban route to determine the possibility of not requiring an application of salt with a snow event up to 2 inches. - 181 - CS 31-19 December 16, 2019 Subject: Level of Service Page 9 c) Winter Patrol: At this time, there are two Forepersons on-call between November 5 and April 30 to check roads and sidewalks/MUP and to inspect when there is a 40 percent probability of precipitation (POP) to meet MMS. If conditions warrant, the Forepersons then contact staff on standby to come into work. As a result of the Forepersons early start time, they time out of their 13 hours on-duty and driving time prior to the end of an event and must leave work not to return for a minimum of 8 hours in order to meet the minimum off- duty time. Level of Service Recommendation – Employ one new Utility Cut Inspector (effective April 1, 2021) as noted below who will also provide winter patrol and increased coverage at the start of the 2021 winter season. d) Utility Cuts: Each of the approximate 2,000 Road Occupancy permits issued annually by the City of Pickering will also be inspected to ensure the integrity of the road allowance is maintained when outside parties undertake excavation and that the pavement degradation fees are collected. A review of other local municipalities including Durham Region indicates that there are patrol staff on a 24/7 basis during winter months to meet MMS obligations and the City should follow this best practice in order to minimize claims and liability. To address this, Public Works will be proposing one new Utility Cut Inspector (effective April 2020) in the 2020 Current Budget which will be offset by permit revenues. Level of Service Recommendation – Employ one new Utility Cut Inspector (effective April 1, 2021) as patrol staff who will also undertake numerous activities outside the winter months improving sidewalk patrol, pothole repairs, litter pickup, grass cutting, proposed bridge and culvert cleaning and repair, and oversee/inspect catch basin cleaning. Compliment should increase by an additional four Inspectors over as many years in order to provide 24/7 coverage. e) Pickering Soccer Club Parking Lot: With the move to the new Operations Centre at 1955 Clements Road, Roads staff will be required to salt and plow the Pickering Soccer Club (PSC) parking lot. Level of Service Recommendation – In order to do this, a Loader attachment will be required in 2020 to be on standby to clear the facility well before any vehicles park and use it. 2. Parks & Property a) Sidewalks/MUP/Fire Halls/Parking Lots/Walkways/Steps: Parks & Property staff clear all of the above during winter events. Sidewalks/MUP on regional roads, reverse frontages, fronting municipal properties, on walkways, bridges and front and side lot public sidewalks at schools are all mapped and scheduled to be completed. Steps within the road allowance and in parks are cleared, closed or signed that no winter maintenance is provided. They are all plowed and salted whenever 5 cm of snow or more has fallen and substantially stopped or icy conditions prevail especially during spring freeze/thaw cycles overnight. This work takes up to 13 hours after the end of a snow event to clear. Any event that exceeds 5 cm will take multiple rounds not exceeding 13 hours to complete for each additional 5 cm of snow. This level of service is much higher than MMS and adequate as long as Snow By- Law 5597/99 is enforced where sidewalks within the road allowance are the responsibility of the owner or occupant. - 182 - CS 31-19 December 16, 2019 Subject: Level of Service Page 10 However, Parks & Property staff undertook to clear 33 snow events exceeding 5 cm during the 2018/19 winter season where all available staff were used whether they were on standby or not. All other services provided by Parks & Property ceased during this time as well as any “off-duty” time as prescribed. One critical activity that ceases during any winter event is litter can collection in Parks and on Roadsides. Staff levels do not permit collection to resume until 48 hours after the event and winter cleanup has been completed leading to Customer Care calls for overflowing waste bins. Level of Service Recommendation – Additional staffing, along with an increase in overtime and emergency call-in as requested, will not only address Seaton growth but to also continue other vital activities performed by Parks & Property staff. A total of $126,687 for one Lead Hand and an increased number of staff scheduled to be on call will be proposed by staff in 2020 Current Budget. 3. Fleet Services When reviewing fleet efficiencies, Maintenance Repair Units (MRU) are used to determine when mixed Fleets such as the City of Pickering are being maintained to normal industry standards. For instance, a Five Ton Truck would require much more maintenance than a passenger car and weighted accordingly through this process to calculate the vehicle/equipment to maintenance mechanic ratio. Current industry standards range from 14:1 to 15:1 for Public Works fleets. The City of Pickering’s ratio is 21:1 leaving numerous vehicles and equipment unavailable for long periods of time. The additional staffing requested brings this ratio approaching industry standards. In addition, winter vehicles are considered as emergency vehicles under the Highway Traffic Act and should be maintained to the same high degree during non-scheduled repairs similar to the requirements necessitated for Fire vehicles. An additional request to build up and maintain a proper spare inventory of plow trucks and sidewalk machines when they become surplus but with a delayed disposal has also been made. This request should be at little or no additional increase in Current Budget but offers an alternate method of service delivery when non-scheduled vehicle and equipment breakdowns occur or during emergencies such as the recent ice storm in 2018. Level of Service Recommendation – The potential to start an afternoon shift in Fleet Services with the proposed addition of a Lead Hand, Garage and Maintenance Mechanic(s) is now viable with the opening of the New Operations Centre and changes previously made to the Collective Agreement for new hires. As a result, $218,137 is recommended for one Lead Hand, Municipal Garage and one Mechanic, Municipal Garage (effective January 1, 2020) and $45,000 is recommended for one additional Mechanic, Municipal Garage to work the afternoon shift (effective July 1, 2021). 4. Administrative Services The 2019 Approved Current Budget for Public Works is $15,204,556. Of this amount, $8,776,102 or 57 percent of the total is made up of Labour salaries and overtime and tracked using paper time sheets filled out by each individual employee. The remaining 43 percent of the Budget including vehicles, equipment, materials and contracted services is not assigned to any individual activity and difficult to identify costing. A new Supervisor, Public Works Operations position is being requested to provide overall co- ordination of winter communications to Senior Management, Council, Emergency Services and other key partners. This position will also monitor a more sophisticated winter weather forecast a - 183 - CS 31-19 December 16, 2019 Subject: Level of Service Page 11 minimum of three times daily, review of three Road Weather Information Systems in the City of Pickering and adjoining areas, keep the online Public Facing Winter Portal current by providing up to date communications to residents and GPS/AVL monitoring with exception/stop reporting to ensure quality control. The Supervisor will also ensure a new work order management system is tied into the new financial reporting system, fleet and fuel management so activity costing can be undertaken, measured and reported on accurately. Level of Service Recommendation – A new Supervisor, Public Works Operations is recommended to be added to the 2020 Current Budget for $139,496 (effective January 1, 2020). Attachments: 1. Public Works Winter Activities and Levels of Service Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Rob Burlie, P. Eng. Marisa Carpino, M.A. Manager, Public Works Director, Community Services Brian Duffield Stan Karwowski, MBA, CPA, CMA Division Head, Operations Director, Finance & Treasurer RB:nw Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Tony Prevedel, P. Eng. Chief Administrative Officer Original Signed By: Original Signed By: Original Signed By: Original Signed By: Original Signed By: - 184 - AreaActivitiesExisting LOSProposed LOSLabourGrowth Related or LOSEquipmentGrowth Related or LOSMaterialsGrowth Related or LOSContractsGrowth Related or LOSProposed ImplementationSee Below under "Salting" Additional 6 staff "on call" for 21 weeks (2320.1200) = $26,500Level of ServiceNov-20New Supervisor, Public Works Operations (2500.1100) = $139,496Level of ServiceJan-20New Maintenance Worker (2320.1100) = $65,938Growth RelatedApr-20Sub Total Costs $231,934 Up to 2" of snow - Urban roads salted within 6 hours, icy roads salted within 8 hoursUp to 2" of snow - Urban roads salted within 6 hours including icy conditionsMaintain 3 additional spare salt trucks as they are being replacedGrowth RelatedOn-goingRural roads sanded within 24 hours after the snow has stopped, if necessary for traction, icy conditions within 12 hoursRural roads sanded within 15 hours after the snow has stopped, if necessary for traction, icy conditions within 12 hoursNew 5 Ton dump truck with plow & wing $300,000Growth RelatedNov-212" to 4" of snow and stopped - Urban roads salted and plowed within 13 hours (unless drivers time out and no back-ups are available or there is a lack of mechanics to return trucks onto the road).2" to 4" of snow and stopped - Urban roads salted within13 hours New plow & wing for existing 1 ton truck $20,000Growth RelatedNov-20Rural roads plowed and sanded if necesarry within 24-30 hoursRural roads plowed and sanded if necesarry within 20 hoursNew front plow for existing Loader $30,000Level of ServiceNov-204" to 8" of snow and stopped -Urban roads salted and plowed within 30 hours4" to 8" of snow and stopped -Urban roads salted and plowed within 24 hours2 New 1 Ton trucks with salter & plow $140,000Growth RelatedNov-20Rural roads plowed and sanded if necessary within 36 hoursRural roads salted and plowed within 30 hoursBeyond 8" of snow and stopped - Urban roads plowed and sanded within 36 hoursBeyond 8" of snow and stopped - Urban roads plowed and sanded within 30 hoursRural roads plowed and sanded within 36-40 hoursRural roads plowed and sanded within 36 hoursAdditional $40,000 for salt and $5,000 for brine for 2020/21 winter season (2320.2408.0001)Growth RelatedNov-20Sub Total Costs $490,000 $45,000 3. Plowing 12 hours to complete Salting and plowing behind 8 hours after the snowfall has stopped of 10 cm or lessSouthern Pickering: 5-10 cm will take 8 hours10-20 cm will take 12 hours 20 cm and greater 24 hoursNote: Drifting conditions will require continuous plowing (no sanding/salting)Sub Total Costs12 hours 2. Salting1. SandingRoadsPage 1Attachment No. 1 to CS 31-19- 185 - AreaActivitiesExisting LOSProposed LOSLabourGrowth Related or LOSEquipmentGrowth Related or LOSMaterialsGrowth Related or LOSContractsGrowth Related or LOSProposed ImplementationPatrol when 40% POP or more by on-call roads Foreperson/Leadhand on overtime and monitor/document weather forecast 3 times a day One patroller (Utility Cut Inspector or equivalent) for the 2020/21 winter season ramping up to 24/7 for the 2021/22 winter season. Staff will provide conduct utility cut inspections, bridge inspection/repair, sidewalk inspection and winter patrol to MMS and address after hours customer care callsNew Utility Cut Inspector = $66,000 (2320.1100)Level of Service1 new 1/2 ton pick up truck = $45,000 (to cover patrols and other 3 seasons activities)Level of ServiceApr-21Sub Total Costs $66,000 $45,000 5. Anti-Icing Apply CaCl brine 24 to 48 hours ahead of winter event on select Collector (main) roads and take up to 8-10 hours to completeApply CaCl brine at 100 litres/lane-km 8-10 hours ahead of winter event on ALL Collector (main) roads within 24-48 hours ahead of winter event2 New brine trucks (4 or 5 Ton salt/plow combination trucks) to be purchased as the existing brine vehicle was surplus to the Fleet and was to be disposed of =$560,000 (these vehicles will also address Seaton growth and act as spares after purchase) Growth Related & Level of ServiceNov-21Sub Total Costs $560,000 6. Yards Ops (Winter Ops Only)Loader Operator when undertaking winter services or loading domesSame as existingSecond Loader and Operator for additional paved areas in yard and soccer parking lot, designated cul-de-sac snow removal routeAdditional Loader Operator on standby and O/T Nov-19Sub Total Costs7. Snow Removal Remove snow in cul-de-sacs, for sight distances at critical intersection, bridges for pedestrian movement and drifting conditions, 1 to 2 times during winter seasonRemove snow twice a season on narrow roads in Seaton and infill roads, cul-de-sacs, critical intersections, bridges and drifting conditions$50,000Growth RelatedDec-21Sub Total Costs$50,000 Sub-Total Winter Activities Roads7$297,934 (Current)$1,095,000 (Capital)$45,000 (Current)$50,000 (Current)4. Winter PatrolPage 2- 186 - AreaActivitiesExisting LOSProposed LOSLabourGrowth Related or LOSEquipmentGrowth Related or LOSMaterialsGrowth Related or LOSContractsGrowth Related or LOSProposed ImplementationSidewalks/MUP cleared on regional roads and pre-determined designated routes within 13 hours of the end of a snow event exceeding 5 cm or icy conditions prevail. Work also includes clearing fire halls, select parking lots and manual clearing of steps & walkwaysAdditional Lead Hand required to manage staff, monitor activities, conduct road patrols, call in staff as required. New Lead Hand, Parks & Property = $111,187 (2718.1100)Level of Service1 1/2 Ton Pickup Truck (new Lead Hand) $45,000Level of ServiceJan-20Increased waterfront trail winter maintenance (as per Report CS 33-19)New Maintenance Worker, Property = $43,959 (2132.1100)Growth Related New sidewalk snow plow with attachments $175,000Growth RelatedJun-20To accommodate green space growth (growth) and to enhance staffing levels available for winter control response (level of service)2 New Maintenance Workers, Parks = $87,917 (2718.1101)Growth Related One Ton Truck (new Maintenance Workers) $70,000Growth RelatedJul-20To ensure plows continue to operate when staff have reached their 13 hour limit. Additional staff can be deployed, as needed. Additional $7,000 overtime for winter control and emergency call-in - Property (2132.1200)Level of ServiceNov-20To ensure plows continue to operate when staff have reached their 13 hour limit. Additional staff can be deployed, as needed. Additional $8,500 overtime for winter control and emergency call-in – Parks (2718.1200)Level of ServiceNov-20Sub Total Costs$258,563$290,0009. Winter patrolSame as Roads Included with RoadsSub Total Costs10. Snow RemovalBridges as needed throughout the winter season as snow storage is limited SameSub Total CostsSub-Total Winter Activities Parks & Property3$258,563 (Current) $290,000 (Capital)Note: events exceeding 10 cm may require additional time to complete as multiple passes may be necessaryParks & Property8. Sidewalks /MUP/MUT/Fire halls/ Parking Lots/ Steps/Manual Walkways – salt/plowPage 3- 187 - AreaActivitiesExisting LOSProposed LOSLabourGrowth Related or LOSEquipmentGrowth Related or LOSMaterialsGrowth Related or LOSContractsGrowth Related or LOSProposed Implementation11. Yard Ops Clear walkways when snow is greater than 5 cm SameSub Total CostsLess than 5 pieces vehicles in dead pile, MRU reduced to 14:1 per mechanic along with implementation of afternoon shift1 additional Mechanic, Municipal Garage to meet industry standard MRU for this along with Equipment Repair non-scheduled = $106,950 (2315.1100)Level of ServiceJan-201 additional Mechanic, Municipal Garage to meet industry standard MRU for this along with Equipment Repair non-scheduled = $45,000 (2315.1100)Level of ServiceJul-21Lead Hand, Municipal Garage = $111,187Level of ServiceJan-20Sub Total Costs $263,137 Non-scheduled repairs: hydraulic breakdowns, snow plows, welding, fabrication Less than 5 pieces of equipment in dead pileSub Total CostsSub-Total Fleet Activities 3$263,137 (Current)$819,634 (Current) $1,385,000 (Capital) $45,000 (Current) $50,000 (Current)Total Public Works Winter Activities135 or more vehicles in dead pileFleet12. Vehicle repair(non-scheduled repairs such as: tires, no starts, lockout, air brake adjustments, horn, lights)13.Equipment Repair (non-scheduled repairs such as hydraulic breakdowns, snow plows, welding, fabrication, emissions related) 5 or more pieces of equipment in dead pilePage 4- 188 - Report to Council Report Number: CS 39-19 Date: December 16, 2019 From: Marisa Carpino Director, Community Services Subject: Commercial Lease Agreement - Don Beer Memorial Park - Property PIN 614679; 614680-1; 614687; 614688; 614689 - File: A-1440 Recommendation: 1. That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute the renewal of the Commercial Lease Agreement with Transport Canada set out in Attachment 1 to this report, subject to minor revisions acceptable to 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 action as indicated in this report. Executive Summary: Don Beer Memorial Park was relocated in 2014 to its current location on Transport Canada lands to allow for the expansion of Highway 407. The City of Pickering entered into a five year commercial lease agreement with Transport Canada for the period of January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2019 for Property PIN Nos. 614679; 614680-1; 614687; 614688; and 614689 which was expropriated by the Federal Government for the purposes of an Airport. In recent months, City staff have been working with staff from Transport Canada to formally renew the lease agreement for Don Beer Memorial Park. As such, staff are seeking approval from Council to enter into an extended ten year lease agreement for Property PIN Nos. 614679; 614680-1; 614687; 614688; and 614689 for the period of January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2029. Financial Implications: Under the existing agreement, the City is responsible for the full costs of maintenance of the lands and the rental per annum for the Don Beer Memorial Park, paid to Transport Canada is $10.00 plus HST. Discussion: Don Beer Memorial Park was re-established in a separate commercial Lease Agreement between the City of Pickering and Transport Canada for the term of January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2019 after the relocation of the park in 2014 due to the expansion of Highway 407. Don Beer Memorial Park contains a lit gravel parking lot, one playground, one lit fastball diamond used primarily by Pickering Baseball Association, one concrete utility bunker, and one multi-use basketball/ball hockey court. The Director, Community Services recommends that a - 189 - CS 39-19 December 2, 2019 Subject: Commercial Lease Agreement – Don Beer Memorial Park Page 2 CORP0227-07/01 revised commercial Lease Agreement extending the term of the existing commercial Lease Agreement for an additional ten year term (from January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2029) be entered into, and that the Council of the City of Pickering authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreement in its final form. Attachments: 1. Commercial Lease – Don Beer Memorial Park Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Rob Gagen Marisa Carpino Supervisor, Parks & Property Director, Community Services RG:mc Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer Original Signed By:Original Signed By: Original Signed By: - 190 - PINs 614679, 614680-1, 614687, 614688, 614689 COMMERCIAL LEASE Don Beer Memorial Park HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA AND THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING Attachment No. 1 to Report CS 39-19 - 191 - Page ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ARTICLE I - DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS .................................................................... 1 SECTION 1.01 ....................................................................................................................... DEFINITIONS 1 SECTION 1.02 ........................................................................................................ EXTENDED MEANINGS 3 SECTION 1.03 ........................................................................................................... ENTIRE AGREEMENT 4 SECTION 1.04 ......................................................................................................................... S CHEDULES 4 SECTION 1.05 .................................................................................................................................... LAW 4 SECTION 1.06 ........................................................................................................ TIME OF THE ESSENCE 4 ARTICLE 2 - GRANT ................................................................................................................................. 4 SECTION 2.01 ................................................................................................................................ GRANT 4 ARTICLE 3 - USE ....................................................................................................................................... 4 SECTION 3.01 ..................................................................................................................................... USE 4 SECTION 3.02 ........................................................................................................................... NUISANCE 4 SECTION 3.03 ............................................................................................................................. SIGNAGE 4 SECION 3.04 ARCHEOLOGICAL FINDS 5 ARTICLE 4 - TERM ................................................................................................................................... 5 SECTION 4.01 ................................................................. TERM AND LANDLORD’S RIGHT TO TERMINATE 5 SECTION 4.02 ............................................................................................ SURRENDER OR TERMINATION 5 SECTION 4.03 ..................................................................................................... REMOVAL OF PROPERTY 5 SECTION 4.04 ............................................................................................ REMOVAL OF IMPROVEMENTS 5 SECTION 4.05 ........................................ OBLIGATIONS SURVIVE EXPIRY, SURRENDER OR TERMINATION 6 SECTION 4.06 .................................................................................................................... OVERHOLDING 6 SECTION 4.07………………………………………………………………………...OPTION TO EXTEND 6 ARTICLE 5 - QUIET ENJOYMENT ........................................................................................................ 6 SECTION 5.01 ............................................................................................................ QUIET ENJOYMENT 6 ARTICLE 6 - NET LEASE…………………………………………………………………………………7 SECTION 6.01……………………………………………………………………………………….NET LEASE 7 ARTICLE 7 - RENT .................................................................................................................................... 7 SECTION 7.01 ........................................................................................................ GENERAL PROVISIONS 7 SECTION 7.02 ...................................................................................................................................RENT 7 SECTION 7.03 ....................................................................................................... MANNER OF PAYMENT 7 SECTION 7.04 ........................................................................................ INTEREST ON ARREARS OF RENT 7 ARTICLE 8 - TAXES .................................................................................................................................. 8 SECTION 8.01 .................................................................. PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF REAL PROPERTY TAXES 8 SECTION 8.02 .................................................................................................................. OTHER TAXES 8 SECTION 8.03 .................................................................................................. HARMONIZED SALES TAX 8 ARTICLE 9 - UTILITIES ........................................................................................................................... 8 SECTION 9.01………………………………………………………………LANDLORD NOT OBLIGATED 8 SECTION 9.02………………………………………………………………..TENANT TO PAY FOR UTILITIES 9 SECTION 9.03………………………………………………………………….SUSPENSION OF UTILITIES 9 ARTICLE 9A – DRINKING WATER QUALITY ................................................................................... 9 SECTION 9A.01………………………………….COMPLIANCE WITH DRINKING WATER QUALITY LAWS 9 SECTION 9A.02……………………………………………………………………...COPIES OF REPORTS 9 SECTION 9A.03………………………………………………………………TERMINATION FOR DEFAULT 10 ARTICLE 10 - MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS ................................................................................ 10 SECTION 10.01………………………………………………………….…LANDLORD NOT OBLIGATED 10 SECTION 10.02………………………………………………………….……..TENANT’S OBLIGATIONS 10 SECTION 10.03……………………………………………………………….….REPAIR BY LANDLORD 10 SECTION 10.04………………………………………………………..…RESERVATIONS BY LANDLORD 10 ARTICLE 11 - ALTERATIONS .............................................................................................................. 10 SECTION 11.01…………………………………………………………………………………ALTERATIONS 11 SECTION 11.02………………………………………………………………………. CONTRACT SECURITY 12 SECTION 11.03………………………………………………………………………...BUILDERS’ LIENS 12 ARTICLE 12 - INSURANCE ................................................................................................................... 12 SECTION 12.01…………………………………………………………………………….…INSURANCE 12 ARTICLE 13 - DAMAGE AND DESTRUCTION ................................................................................. 13 SECTION 13.01…………………………………………………………………....PROPERTY INSURANCE 13 ARTICLE 14 - LIABILITY, RELEASE AND INDEMNITY ............................................................... 14 - 192 - Page iii SECTION 14.01………………………………………………………..LANDLORD NOT RESPONSIBLE 14 SECTION 14.02 ........................................................................................... RELEASE AND INDEMNITY 15 SECTION 14.03 ...................................................................................... TENANT TO DEFEND ACTION 15 ARTICLE 15 – LAWS AND CONTROL ................................................................................................ 15 SECTION 15.01 .................................................................................... COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LAWS 15 SECTION 15.02 .................................................................................................... COPIES OF REPORTS 16 SECTION 15.03 ....................................................................................... TERMINATION FOR DEFAULT 16 ARTICLE 16 - ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................................ 16 SECTION 16.01 ............................................................. COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS 16 SECTION 16.02 ............................................ LANDLORD’S RIGHT TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 17 SECTION 16.03 .................................................................................................. TENANT TO PERFORM 17 SECTION 16.04 ......................................................................................... LANDLORD MAY PERFORM 17 SECTION 16.05 ................................................................ OWNERSHIP OF DELETERIOUS SUBSTANCES 17 SECTION 16.06 .................................................................. REMOVAL OF DELETERIOUS SUBSTANCES 18 ARTICLE 17 - DEFAULT ........................................................................................................................ 18 SECTION 17.01 .................................................................................................... TENANT’S DEFAULT 18 SECTION 17.02 .................................................................................................. LANDLORD’S RIGHTS 19 SECTION 17.03 ........................................................................................ REMEDIES NOT EXCLUSIVE 20 ARTICLE 18 - FORCE MAJEURE ........................................................................................................ 20 SECTION 18.01……………………………………………………………………....FORCE MAJEURE 20 ARTICLE 19 - ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING ............................................................................ 20 SECTION 19.01 ................................................. PROHIBITION AGAINST ASSIGNMENT OR SUBLETTING 20 SECTION 19.02 ....................................................................................... ASSIGNMENT BY LANDLORD 20 ARTICLE 20 - SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS ..................................................................................... 21 SECTION 20.01 ........................................................................................... BINDING ON SUCCESSORS 21 ARTICLE 21 - ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS ....................................................................................... 21 SECTION 21.01 .......................................................................... ADDITIONAL RIGHTS OF LANDLORD 21 SECTION 21.02 ...................................................................................................................... NOTICES 21 SECTION 21.03………………………………………………………………………...AMENDMENTS 22 SECTION 21.04 ......................................................................... NO PARTNERSHIP OR JOINT VENTURE 22 SECTION 21.05……………………………… MEMBERS OF HOUSE OF COMMONS NOT TO BENEFIT 22 SECTION 21.06 ...................................................................................................................... WAIVER 22 SECTION 21.07 ............................................................................................... FURTHER ASSURANCES 22 SECTION 21.08 ............................................................................................................ REGISTRATION 23 SECTION 21.09 ........................................................................................................................ B RIBES 23 SECTION 21.10 ................................................................................................. DISPUTE RESOLUTION 23 SECTION 21.11 ................................................................ PARKING AND MAINTENANCE OF PREMISES 23 Schedule “A” Description of Land Schedule “B” Plan of Site - 193 - THIS LEASE effective on the 1st day of JANUARY, 2020. BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA, represented by the Minister of Transport (the “Landlord”) OF THE FIRST PART AND: THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING, a municipal corporation incorporated pursuant to the laws of the Province of Ontario (the “Tenant”) OF THE SECOND PART WHEREAS the Premises are part of lands expropriated by Her Majesty for the purpose of an airport; AND WHEREAS it is deemed expedient that the Premises be leased for so long as they are not required for public purposes; THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSES that, in consideration of the Premises, the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained and subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter set out, the parties hereto agree as follows: ARTICLE I - DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS Section 1.01 Definitions When used in this Lease, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meaning hereinafter set forth. “Additional Improvement” means any structure, fixed equipment or fixed machinery constructed on or affixed to the Land after the Date of Commencement and includes any alteration or replacement of any such Additional Improvement. “Additional Rent” means any sum of money or charge required to be paid by the Tenant under this Lease, other than Rent. “Architect” means a person who is appointed by, but who is at arm’s length with, the Tenant and is as an architect in the Jurisdiction. “Business Day” means a day other than a Saturday, Sunday or statutory holiday in the Jurisdiction. “Claims” means any claims, proceedings, actions, judgments, executions and liabilities. “Costs” means all expenses, losses, charges and payments relating to an event and includes any professional, consultant and legal fees (on a “substantial indemnity” basis). “Damage” means any loss of or damage to property and includes loss of profits or revenue; or loss of tenants, lenders, investors or patrons, direct, indirect, incidental, special, exemplary or consequential damage, interference with business operations, inability to use any part of the Premises, and Costs. “Date of Commencement” means the 1st day of January, 2020. - 194 - Page 2 “Deleterious Substance” means any substance which is deleterious or hazardous to persons; animals, fish, plants, property, soil, water or the environment, including pesticides and herbicides. “Engineer” means a person who is appointed by, but who is at arm’s length from the Tenant and is licensed to practice public engineering in the Jurisdiction. “Event of Bankruptcy” means, with respect to a Person, (a) whenever any resolution or action is taken or consented to in respect of its liquidation, dissolution or winding-up, whether by extra-judicial means or under any statute of any applicable jurisdiction, or an assignment is made for the benefit of its creditors or an assignment in bankruptcy is filed under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) or any successor legislation or any comparable statute of any applicable jurisdiction, or any resolution or action is consented to or taken in respect of a proposal for any reorganization, arrangement, or extension of time in respect of any of its debts or obligations, whether by extra-judicial means or under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) or the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (Canada) or any successor legislation or any comparable statute of any applicable jurisdiction; (b) whenever a trustee, receiver or agent for a secured creditor, or other Person with similar powers is appointed for any substantial portion of its properties or assets, whether by a court or by extra-judicial means; or (c) whenever a petition or other legal process in respect of its bankruptcy, insolvency, liquidation, dissolution or winding-up is filed against it, unless the same is dismissed or discharged within sixty (60) days. “Force Majeure” means a strike, lockout, riot, insurrection, war, fire, tempest, Act of God or lack of material causing a delay, notwithstanding the best efforts of the party delayed, in the performance of any obligation under this Lease. “HST” has the meaning ascribed in Section 8.03.01. “Injury” means any personal injury including any personal discomfort, libel, slander, invasion of privacy, discrimination, wrongful entry and eviction, and any bodily injury including death resulting therefrom and whether the death occurs before or after the end of the Term. “Interest Rate” means, during any part of a Lease Year, the Bank of Canada prime rate applicable on the date of default plus two percent (2%). “Jurisdiction” means the Province of Ontario. “Land(s)” means a portion of the land legally described as Lots 9 to 16, Plan 10 (Part of Lot 19, Concession 5), Lots 7 to 18, Plan 530, except Part 6, Plan 40R-405747, Pickering (part of PIN 26402-0011), more fully described in Schedule “A”, and shown outlined in green on the location map and aerial image in Schedule “B”, both attached hereto. “Law(s)” means law, regulation, order, decision, policy, directive or rule, and similar enactments and statements, and shall be read, where applicable, as being “relevant as made or amended from time to time”. “Lease Year” means a twelve-month period commencing on January 1st and ending on December 31st . “Leasehold Improvements” means all equipment installed and alterations made by the Tenant or any occupant which serve the Premises whether or not easily disconnected or moveable, and includes production equipment, service equipment, all ceiling and wall fixtures and floor covering, but does not include trade fixtures. “Leasehold Interest” means the right, title and interest of the Tenant in the Premises. “Minister” means the Minister of Transport, and includes any of the following: (a) a Person acting for; or if the office vacant, in place of, the Minister of Transport, (b) his successors in office, - 195 - Page 3 (c) and his lawful deputy. “Moveable Property” means chattels, goods, supplies and materials. “Net Rent” means the Rent payable by the Tenant pursuant to Section 7.02. “Other Taxes” means any tax or other charge including any fines or cost which are imposed against the Premises including local improvement charges and development charges and water, snow and sewer rates of every kind whatsoever that are imposed from time to time by any taxing authority save and except Real Property Taxes. “Person(s)” means any individual, sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation, trust or government authority, howsoever designated. “Premises” means the Land, all Additional Improvements, and all Utilities serving the premises. “Property” means all Moveable Property and all fixtures, including all Additional Improvements, Leasehold Improvements and Utilities. “Real Property Taxes” means all taxes and assessments (excluding local improvement charges and development charges and water, snow and sewer taxes and rates), of every kind whatsoever that are imposed from time to time by any taxing authority, whether federal, provincial, municipal, school or otherwise or which would have been so imposed but for any attribute of the Landlord which resulted in an exemption or partial exemption therefrom against: (a) the Premises; and (b) includes any taxes or other amounts, which are imposed instead of, or in lieu of, or in addition to, any such taxes and assessments. “Rent” means all Net Rent and Additional Rent collectively. “Replacement Costs of the Improvements” means the costs to replace the Additional and Leasehold Improvements to the condition immediately prior to the happening of an event of damage or destruction. “Term” has the meaning ascribed to it in Section 4.01.01. “Utility(ies)” means utilities and services, and all related systems, facilities and equipment. “Work” means all material and services furnished or performed pursuant to this Lease including all the maintenance, repair, alterations and replacement of all Additional Improvements and Leasehold Improvements. Section 1.02 Extended Meanings 1.02.01 Where this Lease provides that the Tenant shall “ensure” a covenant or obligation of an occupant, transferee or leasehold mortgagee (“Transferee”) or provides that the Tenant agrees to a specific matter on behalf of a Transferee, the obligation of the Tenant shall be deemed to have been performed if the Tenant has obtained from such transferee an agreement no less stringent, and in the event of a breach of such agreement by the Transferee, the Tenant has used diligent efforts to enforce such agreement, including the prosecution of legal proceedings. 1.02.02 In this Lease “includes” means “includes without limitation” and each obligation or agreement of either party is considered a “covenant”, and all references in this Lease to laws, policies, schedules, manuals, directives, specifications and similar enactments and statements shall be read, where applicable, as being “relevant as replaced or amended from time to time”, and, with regard to the Premises and the Land, “in” shall be read as “on”, “in”, “over”, “under’, “through” or “across”. 1.02.03 Words importing the singular number include the plural number and vice versa and words importing gender include the masculine, feminine and neute r g e n d e r s . 1.02.04 If the day on which any act or payment is required to be done or made under the terms of this Lease is a day which is not a Business Day, then such act or payment is duly done or made if done or made on the next following Business Day. - 196 - Page 4 Section 1.03 Entire Agreement This Lease constitutes the entire agreement between the Landlord and the Tenant and supersedes and revokes all previous arrangements, including pre-contractual representations, if any, whether oral or in writing, between the parties hereto. Section 1.04 Schedules The following Schedules are attached to and from part of the Lease: Schedule “A” Description of Land Schedule “B” Plan of Site Section 1.05 Law This Lease shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws in force in the Jurisdiction, subject, so long as Her Majesty is the Landlord, to any Federal Crown prerogative and any paramount or applicable federal law. Section 1.06 Time of the Essence Time is of the essence of this Lease except as otherwise expressly provided herein. ARTICLE 2 - GRANT Section 2.01 Grant In consideration of the rents, covenants and agreements herein contained on the part of the Tenant to be paid, observed and performed, the Landlord leases to the Tenant, and the Tenant leases from the Landlord, the Premises in “as is” condition for the Term. ARTICLE 3 - USE Section 3.01 Use The Tenant shall use the Premises as a municipal park and for no other purpose whatsoever and shall comply with all Laws in such use. The Tenant agrees that it has examined the Premises and is familiar with the condition and permitted use thereof. Section 3.02 Nuisance The Tenant shall not do, suffer or permit to be done any act or thing on the Premises which constitutes a nuisance to any Person on any lands or premises or to the public generally. Section 3.03 Signage The Tenant shall not, on or after the Date of Commencement, construct, erect, place or install on the outside of or on the Premises any new or additional poster, advertising sign or display, electrical or otherwise, without first obtaining the consent, in writing, of the Landlord, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. Section 3.04 Archeological Finds The Landlord shall not be responsible for, nor shall She assume any costs of restoration with respect to any archaeological finds or any items salvaged by the Tenant pursuant to the exercise - 197 - Page 5 of any rights under this Agreement. Should the Tenant make any archaeological finds, the Tenant shall advise the Landlord forthwith and shall cease work on the Premises until further notice from the Landlord. ARTICLE 4 - TERM Section 4.01 Term and Landlord’s Right to Terminate 4.01.01 T h e t e r m o f t h i s L ease shall be for a Ten (10) Year period (“Term”). The Term commences on January 1st, 2020 and terminates on December 31st, 2029. 4.01.02 The Landlord reserves the right to terminate this Lease at any time during the currency of the Lease, for any purpose, as determined by the Landlord by giving the Tenant six (6) months notice in writing. Section 4.02 Surrender or Termination 4.02.01 On expiry of the Term or any period of overholding, or on surrender or sooner determination of this Lease, the Tenant shall surrender and deliver up to the Landlord vacant possession of the Premises in the state of good order, condition and repair in which, by this Lease, the Tenant has covenanted to keep them during the Term, and free and clear of all mortgages, charges or encumbrances created by the Tenant or its assignees, and of all Deleterious Substances, and all rights of the Tenant under this Lease shall then terminate. Section 4.03 Removal of Property 4.03.01 Except as otherwise provided in this Lease, the Tenant shall, on expiry of the Term or any period of overholding, or on surrender or sooner determination of this Lease, forthwith remove from the Premises all Property and, shall also, to the satisfaction of the Landlord, repair all damage to the Premises by reason of the installation or removal thereof, without compensation. Unless the Landlord so requests, no Property shall be so removed until all Rent due or to become due under this Lease is fully paid. The Tenant hereby agrees that if it fails to effect such removal forthwith, that the said Property shall be deemed abandoned and worthless, and that the Landlord may, in Her absolute and unfettered discretion immediately dispose of the Property in any manner She sees fit, all without service of notice by the Landlord or resort by Her to any legal process, and without Her being considered guilty of trespass or becoming liable for any loss or Damage. The Tenant further agrees to indemnify the Landlord for all expenses incurred by Her, in effecting such removal, and in returning the Premises to a state of good order, condition and repair. Section 4.04 Removal of Improvements 4.04.01 At any time prior to expiry of the Term or expiry of any period of overholding or sooner determination of this Lease, or within six (6) months after such expiry or sooner determination, the Landlord may notify the Tenant in writing that the whole or any part of any Additional Improvement or any Leasehold Improvement”, (the “Improvements”) must be removed, in which event, removal will occur: (a) within (10) ten days of such notification where the Improvements are deemed by the Landlord, acting reasonably, to pose a safety or environmental concern, or (b) prior to expiry of this Lease if the Landlord’s notice is received prior to such the expiry, or (c) within one hundred eighty (180) days of such notification, if the Landlord’s notice is received on or after such expiry, or (d) within one hundred eighty days (180) days of such notification or in the event of any o v e r h o l d i n g , t h e T e n a n t s h a l l , a t i t s o w n c o s t , i n t h e case of any Improvements, remove any such improvement and repair any damage made in constructing, erecting or removing it and leave the area upon which had stood in a similar condition to which existed prior to its erection, installation or construction and in a clean, neat and tidy condition to the satisfaction of the Landlord. - 198 - Page 6 Section 4.05 Obligations Survive Expiry, Surrender or Termination 4.05.01 Notwithstanding the expiry, surrender or termination of this Lease in any manner, (a) the Tenant remains liable to the Landlord for any loss or damage suffered by the Landlord arising from this Lease, and (b) the obligations of the Tenant (i) to indemnify and save harmless the Landlord with respect to liability by reason of any matter arising prior to the expiry, surrender or termination of this Lease, and (ii) to respect the rights of the Landlord contemplated in Articles 16 and 17 and Sections 4.03 and 4.04, shall, notwithstanding any other provision of this Lease or any Law now or hereafter in force, continue in full force and effect until discharged whether before or after the expiry, surrender or termination of this Lease. Section 4.06 Overholding 4.06.01 lf the Tenant remains in possession of the Premises after the expiry of the Term or any extension thereof, whether with or without the consent of the Landlord, there shall be no tacit renewal or extension of this Lease. In this event, notwithstanding any statutory provision or legal presumption to the contrary, the Tenant shall be deemed exclusively to be occupying the Premises as a tenant at will, on the same terms as set forth in this Lease (including the payment of Rent), except that the monthly Net Rent shall be an amount equal to the aggregate of (a) one hundred and fifty percent (150%) of the Rent payable for the last month of the Term, and (b) Additional Rent for the current month, where applicable. 4.06.02 The Tenant shall promptly indemnify and save harmless the Landlord from and against any and all Costs incurred by Her as a result of the Tenant remaining in possession of the Premises after the expiry of the Term and the Tenant shall not make any counterclaim, against the Landlord. Section 4.07 Option to Extend 4.07.01 The Parties agree that the Tenant has no right to extend the Term of this Lease. Should the Tenant wish to extend the Term of the Lease, the Tenant must give the Landlord one (1) year’s notice of its desire to remain on the Premises. The Landlord, acting in Her sole and unfettered discretion, shall decide whether the Lease will be extended and advise the Tenant of Her decision no later than six (6) months prior to the expiration of the Term. ARTICLE 5 - QUIET ENJOYMENT Section 5.01 Quiet Enjoyment 5.01.01 Subject to the other provisions of this Lease, if the Tenant pays the Rent and other sums herein provided when due, and punctually observes and performs all of the covenants, terms and conditions hereunder, the Tenant shall peaceably and quietly hold and enjoy the Premises for the Term without hindrance or interruption by the Landlord or any other Person lawfully claiming under the Landlord. ARTICLE 6 - NET LEASE Section 6.01 Net Lease 6.01.01 The Tenant agrees that the Premises are leased in an “as is” condition and this Lease - 199 - Page 7 shall be an absolutely net lease to the Landlord except as expressly herein set out. The Tenant shall pay all charges and expenses of every kind, extraordinary as well as ordinary and foreseen as well as unforeseen, relating to: (a) its use and its occupancy of the Premises and its contents; (b) the business carried on therein, and (c) the carrying out of any construction or maintenance and the making of any alterations or repairs in the Premises by or for the Tenant during the Term or any extension thereof. 6.01.03 The Tenant acknowledges that any amount and any obligation with respect to the Premises which is not expressly declared in this Lease to be the responsibility of the Landlord shall be the responsibility of the Tenant to be paid or performed in accordance with the terms of this Lease. ARTICLE 7 - RENT Section 7.01 General Provisions 7.01.01 The Tenant covenants that it shall, during the Term or any extension thereof, pay to the Landlord Rent in accordance with the terms of this Lease. Section 7.02 Rent 7.02.01 Tenant shall pay Net Rent in the amount of $10.00 plus HST for each Lease Year commencing January 1st, 2020, and ending December 31st, 2029 such Net Rent payable in advance on the first (1st ) day of each Lease Year. Section 7.03 Manner of Payment 7.03.01 The Tenant shall pay all Rent and Additional Rent when due, without any prior demand therefore and without any set-off or alteration whatsoever, and the Tenant hereby waives the benefit of any statutory or other right in respect of any Claims, such payment to be made to the Receiver General for Canada at: Transport Canada – Corporate Services 4900 Yonge Street, 3rd Floor Cashier Toronto, ON M2N 6A5 7.03.02 Any payment by the Tenant of any Rent, Net Rent, Additional Rent or an amount less than the monthly payment of Net Rent or Additional Rent, shall be credited to the earliest of any arrears of Rent. Section 7.04 Interest on Arrears of Rent 7.04.01 If the Tenant fails to pay any amount of Rent on the date on which it becomes due and payable, the Tenant shall pay interest at the Interest Rate on any such amount, calculated from the date the Tenant was required to pay such amount to the date all arrears are paid. Such interest shall be deemed to be part of the Rent reserved in this Lease and the remedies available to the Landlord relating to Rent herein and at law shall apply mutatis mutandis thereto. 7.04.02 The Interest Rate applicable to any amount on which the Tenant is paying interest shall be the rate in effect at the close of business on the last Business Day of the previous month. 7.04.03 All interest shall be compounded monthly and shall apply retroactively from the date it is due. 7.04.04 In the event of non-sufficient funds or the Bank refusing to process the Landlord’s request for payment for any other reason, the Tenant shall immediately issue a certified cheque - 200 - Page 8 which shall include any interest at the Interest Rate and an administrative charge to be set in accordance with the Landlord’s current policy. ARTICLE 8 - TAXES Section 8.01 Payments in Lieu of Real Property Taxes 8.01.01 The Landlord shall not be required to make any Payments in Lieu of Real Property Taxes or any charges imposed in lieu thereof including any fine, interest and cost related thereto during the Term of this Lease or any extension thereof. Section 8.02 Other Taxes 8.02.01 The Tenant shall, on or before their due date, pay to the taxing authorities and shall discharge when they become due and payable: (a) any Other Tax or charge imposed in lieu thereof and other charges including any fines and costs which are imposed against or in respect of any Leasehold Improvement, trade fixtures or personal property in the Premises, and (b) any tax and license fee including any cost related thereto which is imposed against any business or undertaking carried on in the Premises or in respect of any use or occupancy thereof: whether any such tax, other charge or license fee is imposed by any federal, provincial, municipal, school or other authority. Section 8.03 Harmonized Sales Tax 8.03.01 The Tenant shall pay an amount equal to any and all taxes, rates, levies, fees, charges and assessments whatsoever, whether or not in existence at the Date of Commencement, assessed, charged, imposed, levied or rated by any taxing authority whether federal, provincial, municipal or otherwise, on or against the Landlord or the Tenant, with respect to the Rent payable by the Tenant to the Landlord under this Lease or the rental of space under this Lease or the, provision or supply of any goods, services or utilities whatsoever by the Landlord to the Tenant under this Lease, whether any such tax, rate, duty, levy, fee, charge or assessments called or characterized as a sales, use, consumption, value-added, business transferor goods and services tax or otherwise (collectively, “HST”). If the applicable legislation requires that any HST is to be collected by the Landlord, the amount of the HST so payable by the Tenant shall be calculated by the Landlord in accordance with the applicable legislation and shall be paid by the Tenant to the Landlord at the same time as the Minimum Rent is payable or at such other time or times as the applicable legislation may from time to time require. Despite any other provision of this Lease, the amount or amounts from time to time payable by the Tenant under this Section 8.03 shall be deemed not to be consideration for the supply of space under this Lease, but shall be considered to be Rent for the purposes of the Landlord’s rights and remedies for non-payment and recovery of any such amounts. ARTICLE 9 - UTILITIES Section 9.01 Landlord Not Obligated 9.01.01 The Landlord shall not be obligated to furnish to the Premises any Utilities or to pay for their consumption. Section 9.02 Tenant to Pay for Utilities 9.02.01 The Tenant shall, at its cost, be solely responsible for the installation and maintenance of and for alteration to any connecting system to all utilities including, when supplied, the Landlord’s water, sanitary sewage and storm sewage, to the point of connection designated by the Landlord. - 201 - Page 9 9.02.02 The Tenant shall pay when due, all charges for all utilities consumed on or supplied to the Premises and shall indemnify the Landlord against any liability or damages pertaining thereto. Section 9.03 Suspension of Utilities 9.03.01 The Tenant shall not make any Claims or bring any action against the Landlord, and the Tenant hereby releases the Landlord from any Claims for any Injury or any Damage by reason of any interruption, in whole or in part, from whatever cause arising in the supply of any Utilities serving the Premises, whether supplied by the Landlord or by others. ARTICLE 9A – DRINKING WATER QUALITY Section 9A.01 Compliance with Drinking Water Quality Laws 9A.01.01 The Tenant shall, at its own cost, comply with all applicable federal, provincial, and municipal Laws, Regulations, Guidelines, Standards and codes relating to drinking water quality matters, herein referred to as “Drinking Water Legislation”, specifically including but not limited to the Ontario Safe Drinking Water Act and Health Protection and Promotion Act, as amended, and shall assume all responsibilities of “occupier” or “operator” as defined in the aforementioned Acts with respect to all water distribution systems located on the Premises. 9A.01.02 The Tenant shall immediately give electronic written notice to the Landlord of the occurrence of any event on the Premises in violation of any of the aforementioned Drinking Water Legislation and in such event at its own expense promptly correct any deficiency which is not in conformity and compliance with any of the Drinking Water Legislation, and/or cease any activity which is not in conformity and compliance with any of the Drinking Water Legislation, and if requested by the Landlord, obtain a certificate from an independent consultant/contractor approved by the Landlord, at the Tenant’s expense, verifying the complete and proper compliance with the requirements of any of the Drinking Water Legislation or, if such is not the case, reporting as to the extent and nature of any failure to comply with the foregoing provision, and remedial actions proposed by the consultant/contractor. 9A.01.03 The Tenant shall provide and maintain a potable water supply to the Premises at its sole cost. 9A.01.04 The Landlord may, at any time, enter the Premises to determine the Tenant’s compliance with all Drinking Water Legislation and for such purpose the Landlord may carry out any drinking water quality tests on the Premises. If any such inspection or testing by the Landlord reveals non-compliance, the Tenant shall in addition to its other obligations, forthwith on demand, pay to the Landlord the full cost of such inspection or tests as Additional Rent. Section 9A.02 Copies of Reports 9A.02.01 The Tenant shall provide the Landlord with copies of: (a) every test result obtained in respect of the sampling required in compliance with all Drinking Water Legislation; (b) annual reports required to be sent to the Ministry of the Environment Conservation and Parks, the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, and/or any Regional Water/Health Inspection Offices and; (c) all correspondence between the Tenant and the Ministry of the Environment Conservation and Parks, the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care and/or any Regional Water/Health Inspection Offices with respect to compliance with applicable Drinking Water Legislation. Section 9A.03 Termination for Default 9A.03.01 Notwithstanding any other provision of this Lease, the Landlord may terminate this Lease if the Tenant fails to rectify or commence diligently to rectify (and thereafter proceed - 202 - Page 10 diligently to rectify) any breach of Section 9A.01 within forty-eight (48) hours after written notice by the Landlord to the Tenant or such other time as is reasonable with respect to the nature of the breach. ARTICLE 10 - MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS Section 10.01 Landlord Not Obligated 10.01.01 The Premises are leased in “as is” condition, and the Landlord shall not be obligated to make any repairs or perform any maintenance to the Premises unless expressly set out in this Lease. Section 10.02 Tenant’s Obligations 10.02.01 The Tenant shall, at its cost, at all times during the Term or any extension thereof, continuously and diligently keep the Premises in a clean and safe condition and operate, maintain and repair the Premises, Leasehold Improvements and all the contents thereof and all Utilities located in or primarily serving the Premises as would a careful and prudent owner, in first-class order, condition and repair, and in accordance with all Laws and the Landlord’s requirements. Section 10.03 Repair By Landlord 10.03.01 If the Premises require repair, replacement or alteration or become damaged or destroyed through the fault or negligence of the Tenant, or because of the Tenant’s operations, and if the Tenant does not affect the required repair, replacement or alteration within a reasonable time as determined by the Landlord, the Landlord may have such repair, replacement or alteration effected, and the Tenant shall pay as Additional Rent, the full cost plus an amount equal to twenty percent (20%) of such cost. Section 10.04 Reservations by Landlord 10.04.01 The Landlord may, at all reasonable times, (a) enter the Premises for the purpose of making alterations to any part of the Premises, and (b) bring onto the Premises and use such machinery, equipment, materials and workmen as may be reasonably required for making alterations, and such entry shall not constitute an eviction of the Tenant from the Premises or a re-entry or an interference with the Tenant’s possession. The Rent hereunder shall in no way abate while such alterations are being made. 10.04.02 The Landlord may, when necessary in order to make any alterations, cause temporary obstruction of any pedestrian or vehicular access to the Premises and may interrupt or suspend the supply of any Utility to the Premises until such alterations are completed, all without any abatement in Rent. 10.04.03 The Landlord reserves the right to grant any easements or licenses that may be required, as determined in Her sole discretion, acting reasonably. The Tenant agrees to postpone its interests to any such license or easement granted by the Landlord. 10.04.04 Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Landlord’s alterations shall not materially reduce the useable area of the Premises after completion. The parties agree that during the period of alterations the useable area of the Premises may be reduced as a result of the ongoing work. ARTICLE 11 - ALTERATIONS Section 11.01 Alterations 11.01.01 The Tenant shall not, nor shall it permit any Person to - 203 - Page 11 (a) make any Alterations, Additional Improvements, or Leasehold Improvements, or (b) add any Utilities to the Premises, without first submitting to the Landlord the plans, drawings and specifications (in this article “plans”) therefore and any other information requested by the Landlord, and obtaining the Landlord’s prior written approval in each instance, and further obtaining Her prior written approval to any change in such plans. The Tenant shall, before proceeding with any work based on the plans, pay to the Landlord the cost of approving the plans and any changes thereto. 11.01.02 At the same time as the Tenant submits any plans to the Landlord for Her approval, the Tenant shall provide Her with satisfactory evidence that it has obtained an assignment to and irrevocable licence in favour of the Landlord of the copyright of the plans from the Architect (or Engineer) creating the plans unless the Landlord waives this requirement in writing. The agreement providing such assignment and licence shall expressly state that the Architect (or Engineer) shall not hold the Landlord responsible for any costs incurred or to be incurred in connection with the preparation of the plans or their subsequent use by the Landlord, and that the Landlord is entitled to use the plans for any purpose(s) related to the project which is the subject matter of such plans at any time without further consent or payment. 11.01.03 The Tenant, once it commences any Work, shall complete such Work: (a) in a good and workmanlike manner; (b) strictly in accordance with any terms specified in the Landlord’s prior written approval; (c) in accordance with the plans as approved; and (d) free and clear of any worker’s compensation levies, liens and encumbrances whatsoever, against the Landlord’s estate or interest in the Premises and the Leasehold Interest. 11.01.04 It is agreed that the Landlord, acting reasonably, may halt or suspend the Work without notice. 11.01.05 Within thirty (30) days of the Landlord determining that any Work which is the subject matter of the Landlord’s prior written approval is substantially complete, the Tenant shall deliver to the Landlord two copies of the “as built” plans for such Work. At the request of the Landlord, the Tenant shall also deliver copies of any computer files embodying such plans in a format acceptable to the Landlord. If the Tenant does not deliver the plans within the said thirty (30) day period, the Landlord may have such plans prepared, and the Tenant shall pay as Additional Rent the full cost of having such plans prepared plus an amount equal to twenty percent (20 %) of such costs. 11.01.06 It is agreed that the Landlord’s review and approval or non-approval of any such plans is not for any professional, technical or regulatory purpose but is only to protect Her interest. The Landlord, in approving or not approving any plans or in making any inspections of the Work as it progresses is not making any representations nor is She undertaking any responsibility of a planning, engineering or architectural nature. The Tenant assumes all such responsibility. Receipt by the Landlord of any plans or inspection of the Work as it progresses shall not imply that the Landlord has examined or approved such plans or the Work nor shall it operate as a waiver of any rights of the Landlord or operate as an estoppel against Her in any matter. The Tenant covenants to indemnify and save harmless the Landlord from all Claims made against the Landlord as a result of Her having reviewed and approved any plans. Section 11.02 Contract Security 11.02.01 For all alterations, additional improvements and leasehold improvements exceeding an estimated contract value of $50,000.00, the Tenant shall ensure that all its contractors as well as its sub-tenants and any sub-contractors shall purchase, provide and maintain for any construction: (a) fifty percent (50%) Performance Bonds; (b) Labour and Material Payment Bonds being one hundred percent (100%) if the construction period provided for in the construction contract is three (3) months or less, and being fifty per cent (50%) if such construction period is more than three (3) months. - 204 - Page 12 11.02.02 The Tenant on demand shall provide proof of the existence of such Bonds to the Landlord. The Landlord shall be named as an obligee pursuant to such Bond or such Bonds shall, with the consent of the Bonding Company, be validly assigned to the Landlord. Section 11.03 Builders’ Liens 11.03.01 The Construction or Builders’ Liens legislation in the Jurisdiction shall have no jurisdiction over the Landlord or Her interest in the Premises and Leasehold Improvements as long as Her Majesty is the Landlord. 11 03.02 The Tenant covenants that it shall not permit any construction or builder’s liens to be registered against the title to the Premises or the Leasehold Interest therein and that it will cause any such liens to be discharged within fifteen (15) days of receiving notice of such liens. The foregoing shall not prevent the Tenant or anyone holding any such interest from contesting any third-party claim. 11.03.03 If the Tenant desires to contest the amount or validity of any lien, it may pay the amount of the lien into Court and have the lien discharged. 11.03.04 If, in the opinion of the Landlord, the Premises or the Tenant’s interest therein may become liable to any forfeiture or sale or is otherwise in jeopardy, the Landlord may secure the removal of any lien registered, and any costs incurred by the Landlord for this purpose shall be paid as Additional Rent by the Tenant with interest at the Interest Rate calculated from the day the Landlord incurs the cost. 11.03.05 The Tenant covenants to indemnify and save harmless the Landlord for and from any Claims or costs incurred by the Landlord as a result of construction or builder’s liens affecting the Premises, by or on behalf of any worker, supplier, contractor or subcontractor of the Tenant or anyone holding any interest in the Land under the Tenant. ARTICLE 12 – INSURANCE Section 12.01 Insurance 12.01.01 The Tenant shall, during the entire term of the Lease, purchase and keep in full force and effect and in the names of the Tenant and the Landlord the following insurance coverage: (a) commercial general liability insurance containing provisions adequate to protect both the Tenant and the Landlord from and against any and all claims or actions at the instance of third parties for personal injury (including death) and or for property damage occurring upon the Lands and the Premises and or elsewhere occasioned directly or indirectly by any fault, default, negligence, act or omission of the Tenant or the Landlord and of any other parties for whom in law the Tenant and/or Landlord may be responsible, such insurance having personal and bodily injury and property damage limits of liability of not less than $5,000,000 per occurrence, (b) all risks (including flood and earthquake) property insurance containing provisions adequate to protect the Tenant’s business enterprise, on all objects owned or operated by the Tenant or by others (other than the Landlord) on behalf of the Tenant on the Lands or relating to or servicing the Lands, with reasonable deductibles of up to three percent (3%) of the replacement cost of property insured, and (c) any other form of insurance and with whatever higher limits the Landlord reasonably requires from time to time. 12.01.02 The policy of insurance required by this subsection shall provide that it shall not be modified or cancelled without at least 30 days prior written notice to the Landlord and to the Tenant. The Tenant shall deliver a copy of the policy to the Landlord upon execution of the Lease and shall further deliver an updated certificate of insurance on commencement of each Lease Year of the Term and any extension thereof. 12.01.03 The Tenant agrees that, if the Tenant fails to take out or keep any such Insurance referred to in this Article 12, or should such Insurance not be approved by the Landlord and - 205 - Page 13 should the Tenant not commence diligently to rectify (and thereafter proceed diligently to rectify) the situation within forty-eight (48) hours after written notice by the Landlord to the Tenant, the Landlord has the right, without assuming any obligation in connection therewith and without prejudice to any other rights and remedies of the Landlord under this Lease, to effect any such Insurance at the sole cost of the Tenant and all outlays by Landlord plus an administration fee of twenty percent (20%) thereof shall be immediately paid by the Tenant to the Landlord on the first day of the next month following such payment by the Landlord. ARTICLE 13 - DAMAGE AND DESTRUCTION Section 13.01 Property Insurance 13.01.01 If the Premises are damaged or destroyed, in whole or in part, by fire or other peril, then the following provisions shall apply: (a) the Tenant shall give the Landlord prompt notice thereof; (b) if the damage or destruction renders the Premises unfit for occupancy and impossible to repair or rebuild using reasonable diligence within 120 clear days from the happening of such damage or destruction, then the Term shall cease from the date the damage or destruction occurred, and the Tenant shall immediately surrender the remainder of the Term and give possession of the Premises to the Landlord, and the Rent from the time of the surrender shall abate; (c) if the Premises can with reasonable diligence be repaired and rendered fit its intended use within 120 days from the happening of the damage or destruction, but the damage renders the Premises wholly unfit for occupancy, then the Rent shall not accrue after the day that such damage occurred and while the process of repair is ongoing, and the Landlord shall repair the Premises with all reasonable speed, and the Tenant’s obligation to pay Rent shall resume immediately after the necessary repairs have been completed; (d) if the Premises can be repaired within 120 days as aforesaid, but the damage is such that the Premises are capable of being partially used, then until such damage has been repaired, the Tenant shall continue in possession and the Rental shall continue in possession and the Rent shall abate proportionately. (e) at any time, and for any reason, the Landlord reserves the right to excise its sole discretion in determining whether to repair or rebuild the Premises. If the Landlord decides not to repair or rebuild the Premises, the Term shall cease and the Tenant shall not be required to pay Rent for the date the destruction or damage occurred. The Tenant shall remove all Property from the Premises. 13.01.02 Any question as to causation and/or to the degree of damage or destruction or the period of time required to repair or rebuild shall be determined by a consultant retained by the Landlord. 13.01.03 Apart from the provision of this Article 13, there shall be no abatement from or reduction of the Rent on account of damage or destruction, nor shall the Tenant be entitled to claim against the Landlord for any damages, general or special, caused by fire, water, sprinkler systems, partial or temporary failure or stoppage of services or utilities or from any cause whatsoever. 13.01.04 Any repair or rebuilding by the Landlord hereunder to the Premises shall be made solely in the discretion of the Landlord acting reasonably, provided that if the useable area of the Premises is materially reduced following the completion of the repair or rebuilding, the Rent shall abate proportionately. The parties agree that during the period of alterations the useable area of the Premises may be reduced as a result of the ongoing work and the Tenant shall not be entitled to an abatement of Rent. 13.01.05 If the Premises are damaged or destroyed by fire or other peril as the result of negligence on the part of the Tenant, their employees, invitees, contractors or anyone to whom the Tenant is responsible at law, then the following provisions shall apply: (a) the Tenant shall give the Landlord prompt notice thereof; - 206 - Page 14 (b) the Tenant shall proceed promptly at its own cost to repair or reconstruct the Premises to a state of good order and repair in which the Tenant was required to maintain them immediately prior to the damage or destruction; (c) this Lease shall continue in full force and effect, without any abatement or reduction of Rent, notwithstanding any present or future law or statute to the contrary; (d) the Premises shall, as a minimum, be repaired or reconstructed to the same height, volume, floor area, general form, mass, condition and quality as existed prior to the date of damage or destruction; (e) the Tenant shall comply with all provisions of this Lease applicable to alterations, and (f) any repairs or rebuilding shall be done using materials and workmanship at least equivalent in value and quality to those existing at the Premises prior to such damage or destruction. ARTICLE 14 - LIABILITY, RELEASE AND INDEMNITY Section 14.01 Landlord Not Responsible 14.01.01 The Tenant acknowledges that the Landlord, as long as the Landlord is Her Majesty in right of Canada, is self-insured and there is no policy of insurance to cover the Landlord’s liability as owner. 14.01.02 The Tenant acknowledges and agrees that the Landlord shall not be liable or responsible for any Injury to any Person (including death) or for Damage of any nature whatsoever to the Tenant or any other Person in respect of any occurrence on or after the Date of Commencement, arising from any act or omission of the Tenant or its staff, licenses, invites, or permitted guests, in, upon, at or relating to the Premises or any part thereof or from the ownership, occupancy or use of the Premises or any part thereof by the Tenant including, without limitation: (a) any damage to any property (including loss of use thereof) of the Tenant or of any other Person, (i) from any cause whatsoever if such property is located in or on the Premises or any part thereof; and (ii) if such Damage is caused by or results from any use of or any operation, occurrence or omission on the Premises, if such property is not located on the Premises; (b) any Damage to the Premises or the contents thereof; (c) any Damage caused or contributed to by reason of the condition of or any interruption, cessation, unavailability or failure in any utility, service, system or road; (d) any Injury or Damage insured against or required to be insured against by the Tenant except, subject to Subsection 14.01.02 (e) and (f), any Injury (including death) or Damage arising out of or in connection with any fault, default, negligence, act or omission of the Landlord. or Her agent, servant, employee, contractor or any other Person for whom the Landlord is in law responsible; (e) any Injury (including death) or Damage caused by, resulting from, arising out of or in connection with any fault, default, negligence, act or omission of the Landlord, or Her agent, servant, employee, contractor or any other Person for whom the Landlord is in law responsible, not insured against but required to be insured against by the Tenant; and (f) any Injury (including death) or Damage caused by, resulting from, arising out of or in connection with the ownership, occupancy or use of the Premises or any part thereof including any Claims against the Landlord or the Tenant resulting from occupiers liability. - 207 - Page 15 Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, nothing in this lease shall absolve the Landlord from liability for any injury or damage resulting from the fault, default, negligence or omission of the Landlord or any Person for whom the Landlord is in law responsible. 14.01.03 The Tenant further acknowledges that the liability of the Landlord, if any, will be subject to the provisions of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, R.S.C. 1985, as amended from time to time. Section 14.02 Release and Indemnity 14.02.01 The Tenant hereby expressly releases the Landlord from any and all Claims whatsoever which the Tenant would be entitled to advance but for this release, and covenants and agrees to indemnify and save harmless the Landlord from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, liabilities, obligations and expenses (including legal costs) the Landlord may suffer or incur by reason of any claim asserted by any Person resulting or arising out of or relating to: (a) the Premises and Utilities and any act, omission, misconduct, default or negligence of the Tenant, its agents, contractors, employees and servants; (b) any breach, violation or non-performance of any covenant, condition, agreement or obligation in this Lease on the part of the Tenant; (c) the occupancy or use of the Premises and Utilities by the Tenant, its agents, contractors, employees, servants, licensees or anyone permitted to be on the Premises and for whom in law the Tenant may be responsible; (d) directly or indirectly from the state or condition or any activity or event occurring in, upon or about the Premises; (e) any inability to develop any part of the Premises for any reason whatsoever; (f) any substance: (i) which is present on the Premises at any time during the Term or any extensions thereof or after the expiry or termination of this Lease, or (ii) which was released, spilled, leaked or flowed from the Lands any time during the Term or after the expiry or termination of this Lease provided it was present on the Lands prior to the expiry or termination of this Lease and which causes or contributes to an adverse environmental condition. Section 14.03 Tenant to Defend Action 14.03.01 The Tenant shall, whenever the Landlord is made a party to any legal proceeding in respect of a Claim to which the Tenant’s obligation to indemnify the Landlord under this Lease extends, if so requested by the Landlord, defend such legal proceeding in the name of the Landlord and pay all Costs; provided that the Tenant may not compromise, or satisfy any such legal proceeding without the Landlord’s consent which consent may be unreasonably withheld. ARTICLE 15 – LAWS AND CONTROL Section 15.01 Compliance with all Laws 15.01.01 In complying with the requirements of this Lease, the Tenant covenants with the Landlord to comply with all applicable Laws of governmental authorities and to conduct its business in accordance with and comply with any direction or certificate or occupancy permit issued pursuant to any applicable Law by any public officer. 15.01.02 The Landlord shall not be responsible to the Tenant for non-observance or violation of any Law by any other Person. 15.01.03 The Tenant shall, upon receipt, deliver to the Landlord a copy of any notice of non- compliance with or violation of any applicable Law, and shall promptly commence to remedy - 208 - Page 16 such non-compliance or violation and with due diligence complete such action within a reasonable period of time. 15.01.04 The Tenant hereby authorizes the Landlord to make inquiries of any governmental agency with respect to the Tenant’s compliance with any Law pertaining to the Tenant and to the Premises or any business conducted thereon; and the Tenant covenants that it will, on demand, provide to the Landlord such written authorization as She may reasonably require. 15.01.05 The Tenant acknowledges that the Landlord is subject to the federal Access to Information Act and the Federal Privacy Act. 15.01.06 The Landlord acknowledges that the Tenant is subject to the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Section 15.02 Copies of Reports 15.02 The Tenant shall provide the Landlord with copies of: (a) every test result obtained in respect of a test required in compliance with all Laws; (b) copies of annual reports required to be sent to public authorities in compliance with applicable Laws. Section 15.03 Termination for Default 15.03 Notwithstanding any other provision of this Lease, the Landlord may terminate this Lease if the Tenant fails to rectify or commence diligently to rectify (and thereafter proceed diligently to rectify) any breach of Article 15 within two (2) business days after written notice by the Landlord to the Tenant. ARTICLE 16 – ENVIRONMENT Section 16.01 Compliance with Environmental Laws 16.01.01 The Tenant shall not cause or permit any Deleterious Substance to be brought onto or used on the Premises, any business or undertaking on the Premises, or the use of or activity on the Premises which may cause or contribute to an adverse environmental effect with respect to the Premises, the surrounding area or the environment. 16.01.02 The Tenant shall, at its own cost, comply with, and shall ensure that all Transferees comply with, all Laws and codes relating to environmental matters requiring the Tenant to take any action in respect of the release or leaking of any Deleterious Substance into the Premises or the groundwater or surface water, or from the Premises onto any adjacent property, land, air or water, or which results in any Deleterious Substance being released into the environment, or requiring a clean-up of any Deleterious Substance or the remedying of any damage caused by such Deleterious Substance, and shall immediately give written notice to the Landlord of the occurrence of any event in the Premises constituting an offence thereunder or a breach of this provision and, if any such event shall happen, the Tenant shall, at its own cost: (a) immediately notify the Landlord and thereafter give the Landlord from time to time written notice of the extent and nature of the Tenant’s or the Transferee’s compliance with the following provisions of this section, (b) promptly correct any Work which is not in conformity and compliance with all Laws or codes, or cease any activity which is not in conformity and compliance with all Laws or codes, and if requested by the Landlord, obtain a certificate from an independent consultant approved by the Landlord, verifying the complete and proper compliance with the requirements of all Laws or codes or, if such is not the case, reporting as to the extent and nature of any failure to comply with the foregoing provision; (c) promptly cease any activity which causes or permits any Deleterious Substance to be released or leaked into the Premises, the groundwater or surface water, or from the Premises onto - 209 - Page 17 any adjacent property, land, air or water, or which results in any Deleterious Substance being released into the environment; and verifying that this activity has ceased; (d) remedy any damage to the Premises (including surface water and groundwater), adjacent property, or adjacent land, air or water caused by any action or failure to act occurring in the Premises or caused by the performance or lack of performance of any of the Tenant’s obligations under this Article 16. 16.01.03 If any governmental authority having jurisdiction requires the cleanup of any Deleterious Substance held, released, leaked, abandoned, flowing into or placed in the Premises (including surface water and groundwater) or released, leaked or flowing from the Premises onto adjacent property, or adjacent land, air or water or released into the environment, then the Tenant shall, at its own cost prepare all necessary studies, plans and proposals and submit them to the Landlord for approval, provide all bonds and other security required by such authorities and carry out the Work required, keep the Landlord fully informed with respect to proposed plans and the Work, and comply with the Landlord’s reasonable requirements with respect to the plans and Work. The Tenant further agrees that if the Landlord determines, in Her sole discretion, that Her property or Her reputation is placed in jeopardy by the requirement for any such Work, the Landlord may Herself undertake such Work or any part thereof and the Tenant shall forthwith pay to the Landlord the cost of the Work plus twenty percent (20%) of such cost. Section 16.02 Landlord’s Right to Environmental Assessment 16.02.01 The Landlord may, at any time, enter the Premises to determine the existence of any Deleterious Substance in the Premises (including surface water and groundwater) or whether any Deleterious Substance is released or leaks from the Premises and which may cause or contribute to an adverse environmental effect, and for such purpose the Landlord may carry out any tests in the Premises. The Landlord will use best efforts to minimize the effects of the testing on the Tenant. If any assessment, which the Landlord causes to be done, determines that there is an adverse environmental effect, the Tenant shall, in addition to its other obligations, forthwith on demand, pay to the Landlord the full cost of such assessment as Additional Rent. Section 16.03 Tenant to Perform 16.03.01 The Tenant shall, promptly on notice, at its cost, carry out and conclude any Work required by applicable Laws or codes, or requested by the Landlord to remedy any adverse environmental effect caused or contributed to by: (a) the existence of any Deleterious Substance in the Premises (including groundwater and surface water); (b) the release or leaking of any Deleterious Substance from the Premises; (c) the release or leaking of any Deleterious Substance into the sewer system, storm drains or surface drainage facilities at or on the Premises; or (d) any act or omission of any Person for whom the Tenant is in law responsible. Section 16.04 Landlord May Perform 16.04 If the Tenant fails to promptly commence and diligently complete any Work it is required to perform pursuant to Sections 16.01 or 16.03, the Landlord may enter the Premises and perform any such Work at the cost of the Tenant, but having commenced such Work, the Landlord shall not be obligated to complete it. No such entry shall be deemed a re-entry under this Lease or a breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment. Section 16.05 Ownership of Deleterious Substances 16.05.01 If the Tenant brings, permits, creates or uses in the Premises any Deleterious Substance or if the conduct of any business or any other activity in the Premises or the use of the Premises causes there to be any substances in the Premises which cause or contribute to any adverse environmental effect, then, notwithstanding any provision of this Lease or rule of law to the contrary, such Deleterious Substance or substances shall be and remain the sole and exclusive - 210 - Page 18 property of the Tenant, notwithstanding the degree of affixation of such Deleterious Substance or substances or the goods containing them to the Premises and notwithstanding the expiry, surrender or early termination of this Lease. 16.05.02 To the extent that the performance by the Tenant of the obligations contemplated in this Article 16 requires access to the Premises after the expiry, surrender or early termination of this Lease, the Tenant shall have such access only upon such terms and conditions as the Landlord may from time to time specify; and the Landlord may, at the Tenant’s cost, undertake the performance of any Work in order to complete such obligations of the Tenant, but having commenced such Work the Landlord shall not be obligated to complete it. Section 16.06 Removal of Deleterious Substances 16.06.01 At least one (1) year prior to the termination or expiry of this Lease, the Tenant shall, at its own cost, engage an independent consultant approved by the Landlord to perform an environmental assessment of the Premises to: (a) determine the existence and extent of any Deleterious Substance in the Premises (including surface water and groundwater), or being released or leaked from the Premises into adjacent premises, land, air or water, or into the environment; and (b) establish the estimated cost (including the usual contingencies) to clean up such Deleterious Substance or repair the damage caused by it and, in either case, returning the Premises or damaged property to a condition which is in compliance with environmental laws and codes. 16.06.02 The Tenant shall ensure that the independent consultant provides the Landlord with a copy of the environmental assessment immediately after its completion. 16.06.03 The Tenant shall, at its cost, promptly commence the Work required to remedy any such adverse environmental effect and thereafter continue such Work to completion within a reasonable time. If the Tenant fails to do so or thereafter to diligently pursue to completion the remedying of such adverse environmental effect, the Landlord may, at the Tenant’s cost, Herself undertake the performance of any necessary Work, but having commenced such Work, the Landlord shall not be obligated to complete it. ARTICLE 17 - DEFAULT Section 17.01 Tenant’s Default 17.01.01 Notwithstanding any Laws to the contrary, each of the following shall constitute an event of default (“Event of Default”): (a) the Tenant defaults in the payment of any Rent on the day appointed and such default continues for three (3) Business Days after the Landlord’s written notice; (b) any of the goods and chattels of the Tenant are at any time seized in execution or attachment by any creditor of the Tenant; (c) an Event of Bankruptcy has occurred with respect to the Tenant; (d) the Tenant enters into an Assignment or Sublet of this Lease without the prior written consent of the Landlord; (e) the Tenant ceases to use the Premises for their stated purposes; (f) any breach of the representation or warranty provisions of this Lease; (g) the Tenant fails to observe any of the covenants and obligations in this Lease to be observed by it (other than the payment of Rent) and such failure continues for a period of fifteen (15) days (or such shorter period as may be specified in this Lease for a particular default) after the Landlord’s written notice of such failure (herein “Notice of Default’). If any default under this paragraph reasonably requires more time to cure than the fifteen days required therein the Tenant shall not be in default provided that the curing of the default is promptly commenced upon receipt of the Notice of Default, and with due diligence is thereafter continued to completion and - 211 - Page 19 is completed within a reasonable time and provided that the Tenant keeps the Landlord well informed at all times of its progress in curing the default. 17.01.02 The occurrence of an Event of Default shall give rise to the rights in relation thereto set out in s. 17.02 to s. 17.03 inclusive. Section 17.02 Landlord’s Rights 17.02.01 Where there is an Event of Default, it shall be lawful for the Landlord, at Her option: (a) with or without entry, to terminate this Lease, and all the rights of the Tenant shall terminate upon the date of receipt of a notice of termination; (b) to enter the Premises for the purpose of curing any default of the Tenant, and the Tenant shall permit such entry, and the Tenant shall pay, as Additional Rent, all Costs of the Landlord in curing any default, plus a sum equal to twenty percent (20%) thereof and together with interest on the total amount at the Interest Rate as defined, but the Landlord shall not be obligated to cure or continue to cure such default, it being understood that the Landlord shall not be liable to the Tenant for any loss or damage to the Tenant’s stock or business caused while curing or attempting to cure any default of the Tenant; (c) to pay on behalf of the Tenant, when due, any moneys which the Tenant has covenanted to pay under this Lease other than a sum payable to the Landlord, and the Tenant shall reimburse the Landlord for any amount so paid together with interest thereon at the Interest Rate as defined; (d) to restrain the Tenant by injunction; (e) to deny the Tenant services such as the supply of electricity, water etc.; and (f) to claim Damages from the Tenant. 17.02.02 Whenever the Tenant shall be in default in the payment of any money hereunder, the Landlord may, without notice or any legal process enter upon the Lands and seize, remove and sell the Tenant’s property therefrom and seize, remove and sell any property at any place to which the Tenant or any other Person may have removed it, in the same manner as if it had remained upon the Lands. 17.02.03 All Costs incurred by the Landlord as a result of any default by the Tenant shall forthwith on demand be paid by the Tenant as Additional Rent together with interest, at the rate for rent in arrears, from the date any such Costs are incurred until they are fully paid. 17.02.04 The Landlord may use such force as She deems necessary for the purpose of gaining entry to and retaking possession of the Premises, and the Tenant hereby releases the Landlord from all actions, claims and demands whatsoever in respect of any such entry or any loss or Damage in connection therewith. 17.02.05 Notwithstanding any Laws to the contrary, whenever re-entry is specifically permitted under any provision of this Lease, the Landlord’s rights and the Tenant’s obligations shall not be affected. 17.02.06 The Tenant agrees that if the Landlord is not able to deliver a Notice of Default or a Notice of Termination to the Tenant’s last address, She may affect notice on the Tenant by posting it in the Premises, and such notice shall be deemed to have been given from the date it is so posted. 17.02.07 If the Landlord re-enters or this Lease terminates prior to the end of the term of the Lease: (a) notwithstanding any such termination or the Term thereby becoming forfeited, the provisions of this Lease relating to the consequences of termination shall survive; (b) Rent shall immediately become due and be paid up to the time of such re-entry or termination together with an amount equal to the Rent for the next ensuing three (3) months and the reasonable expenses of the Landlord as hereinafter defined; (c) the Landlord may re-let the Premises for a term to be fixed at Her discretion; - 212 - Page 20 (d) the Landlord may require the Tenant to pay monthly on the first day of each month following such re-entry or termination and until the expiration of the original Term any deficiency between: (i) the aggregate of the monthly installment of Rent which would otherwise have been payable for that calendar month; and (ii) the net amount of any rents received on account of the re-letting of the Premises; and (e) the Tenant shall pay such Costs as the Landlord may incur in re-letting the Premises. 17.02.08 The Tenant hereby waives; (a) the benefit of any present Laws, statutory or otherwise, which in any way may take away or diminish the Landlord’s right to terminate this Lease or re-enter into possession of the Premises in pursuance of Her rights or remedies in this Lease; and (b) any rights of redemption granted by or under any present Laws, statutory or otherwise, in the event of the Tenant being evicted or dispossessed, or the Landlord obtaining possession of the Premises by reason of the violation by the Tenant of any of the terms or conditions of this Lease or otherwise. Section 17.03 Remedies not Exclusive 17.03.01 The rights and remedies of the Landlord specified in this Lease are cumulative and are in addition to Her rights and remedies at law or in equity or by statute, and are not exclusive or dependent upon any other right or remedy. The right of the Landlord to claim arrears of Rent and loss or damages against the Tenant shall survive the surrender or termination of this Lease. ARTICLE 18 - FORCE MAJEURE Section 18.01 Force Majeure 18.01 To the extent that either party is unable, in good faith, to fulfill or is delayed or restricted in fulfilling any of its obligations under this Lease by an event of Force Majeure, such party shall be relieved from the fulfillment of the part of its obligations affected by Force Majeure while it lasts, provided that the Tenant notifies the Landlord within five (5) Business Days of the commencement of any event which is an event of Force Majeure and provides the Landlord with a description of the facts and circumstances of the event of Force Majeure and the action to be taken to minimize the delay, all of which, in the opinion of the Landlord, justifies the delay. 18.02 Notwithstanding an event of Force Majeure, the party affected shall proceed with the performance of its obligations not thereby affected. 18.03 The provisions of this Article shall not excuse the Tenant from the payment of any Rent or any other obligation under this Lease including the obligation with respect to Insurance. ARTICLE 19 - ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING Section 19.01 Prohibition against Assignment or Subletting 19.01.01 The Tenant shall not assign or sublet this Lease without the Landlord’s prior written consent. Section 19.02 Assignment by Landlord - 213 - Page 21 19.02.01 In the event of the sale, lease or other disposition by the Landlord of the Land, or the assignment by the Landlord of this Lease or any interest herein to the extent that the purchaser, lessee or assignee assumes the covenants and obligations of the Landlord, the Landlord shall be relieved of all liability with respect to such covenants and obligations. The Tenant shall, upon request, attorn in writing to such successor-in-interest. ARTICLE 20 - SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS Section 20.01 Binding on Successors 20.01.01 Subject to Article 19, this Lease and all its covenants and agreements shall be binding upon and enure to the benefit of the parties hereto and to any their successors. ARTICLE 21 - ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS Section 21.01 Additional Rights of Landlord 21.01.01 The Landlord is entitled from time to time, during normal business hours and in the presence of a representative of the Tenant, to enter the Premises in order to; (a) inspect the Premises in order to determine the extent of compliance with all applicable Laws and this Lease; (b) enforce any provision of this Lease; (c) carry out any of Her rights; (d) show the Premises to prospective purchasers, encumbrances, tenants or assignees and, at any time during the Term, to place upon them a notice of reasonable dimensions being reasonably placed, stating that the Premises are for sale or for rent. 21.01.02 Notwithstanding any other provision herein, the Landlord may enter the Premises at any time where, in the Landlord’s judgment, there is a real or apprehended emergency or danger to persons or property. In this event, if the Tenant is not personally present to open and permit entry into the Premises, the Landlord may, without notice or resort to any legal process, forcibly enter the Premises without rendering Her liable therefore, and without in any manner affecting the obligations and covenants of this Lease. 21.01.03 Except where the Landlord intends to terminate this Lease, no entry by the Landlord into the Premises or anything done in or for the Premises by the Landlord pursuant to any right or remedy granted by this Lease or at law shall constitute a breach of any covenant for quiet enjoyment contained in this Lease or implied by law or (except where expressed by the Landlord in writing) a re-entry into the Premises, or an interference with the Tenant’s possession, or be deemed to be a forfeiture, surrender or termination of this Lease, or an actual or constructive eviction, or a derogation from the Landlord’s grant. 21.01.04 Nothing in this Lease shall be construed to impose upon the Landlord any obligation, responsibility or liability whatsoever for the maintenance or repair of the Premises except as otherwise herein specifically provided. Section 21.02 Notices 21.02.01 All notices or other communication required or permitted by this Lease shall be in writing and shall be delivered or sent by an acceptable means to an acceptable address. Acceptable means are: (a) delivery during normal business hours to the person who is the addressee or to a person responsible for receiving communications in the addressee’s office, in which case it is effective when delivered; - 214 - Page 22 (b) delivery by registered mail, in which case it is effective when the postal system obtains a signature accepting delivery; and (c) electronic transmission to the addressee’s office, in which case it is effective when receipt is acknowledged by a specific message to that effect. 21.02 .02 The acceptable addresses are (a) in the case of the Landlord: Transport Canada – Ontario Region Programs Branch – Pickering Lands 4900 Yonge Street, 4th Floor Toronto, Ontario M2N 6A5 (b) in the case of the Tenant: The Corporation of the City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 Such addresses may be changed from time to time by either party giving written notice as above provided. Section 21.03 Amendments 21.03.01 No amendment to this Lease shall have any effect unless it is in writing and is signed by both the Landlord and the Tenant. Section 21.04 No Partnership or Joint Venture 21.04.01 The parties hereto expressly disclaim any intention to create a partnership, joint venture or principal and agent relationship and agree that nothing in this Lease nor any acts on their part constitute them as partners, joint ventures or principal and agent in any way, nor shall any such acts create any relationship other than that of Landlord and Tenant, and the Tenant shall not represent itself to be an agent of the Landlord. Section 21.05 Members of House of Commons Not to Benefit 21.05.01 No member of the House of Commons shall be admitted to any share or part of this Lease or to any benefit to arise therefrom. Section 21.06 Waiver 21.06.01 The failure of the Landlord to insist on the strict performance of any provisions or to exercise any right under this Lease shall not be construed as a waiver for the future of any such provisions or right or any other provision or right, or as a waiver of any subsequent breach. The consent by the Landlord to any act by the Tenant requiring such consent shall not be construed as a waiver of the requirement of such consent to any subsequent similar act. The acceptance of Rent by the Landlord shall not be deemed a waiver of any preceding breach by the Tenant of any term of this Lease, regardless of the Landlord’s knowledge of such preceding breach, and no term of this Lease shall be deemed to have been waived by the Landlord unless such waiver is in writing signed by the Landlord. Section 21.07 Further Assurances 21.07 .01 The parties hereto shall execute such further assurances as may reasonably be required to give effect to any provision of this Lease. - 215 - Page 23 Section 21.08 Registration 21.08.01 If the Tenant decides to register this Lease on title to the Land, the Tenant shall notify the Landlord of its intention to register the Lease and shall provide a copy of the registered instrument to the Landlord. All relevant Costs shall be the responsibility of the Tenant, it being agreed that upon the surrender or termination of this Lease, the Tenant shall at its cost remove and discharge this Lease from the title to the Land. Section 21.09 Bribes 21.09.01 The Tenant hereby represents and warrants that it has not, nor has any person on its behalf, given, promised or offered to any Member of the House of Commons or to any official or employee of the Landlord, for or with a view to obtaining this Lease, any bribe, gift or other inducement and that it has not, nor has any person on its behalf, employed any person, other than a recognized real estate broker, to solicit or secure this Lease upon any agreement for a commission, percentage, brokerage or contingency fee. Section 21.10 Dispute Resolution 21.10.01 In the event of disagreement arising out of this Agreement, the parties hereto agree, that prior to having recourse to a court of competent jurisdiction to resolve a dispute, the parties will try to resolve their differences, and will consider alternative dispute resolution processes before resorting to litigation. Section 21.11 Parking and Maintenance of Premises 21.11.01 The Tenant shall be responsible at its sole cost and expense for all maintenance of the Premises and all Property located thereon, including without limitation, all parking areas and all walkways incident thereto. The Tenant is responsible for the maintenance of all lawns and for the removal of snow and ice from all parking areas, walkways, sidewalks, and stairs. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THE LANDLORD has executed this agreement on the _____________________ day of ______________________, 2019. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA, AS REPRESENTED BY THE MININSTER OF TRANSPORT Per: PERRY PAPADATOS REGIONAL MANAGER, PICKERING LANDS SITE ______________________________________ THE TENANT has executed this agreement on the _______________________ day of ______________________, 2019. - 216 - Page 24 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING Per: ________________________________________ Per: ________________________________________ I/We have authority to bind the Corporation - 217 - Page 25 SCHEDULE “A” DESCRIPTION OF LAND PINs 614679, 614680-1, 614687, 614688, 614689 1. PIN 614679 Description of All of PWGSC PIN 614679 That parcel or tract of land situate, lying and being in the City of Pickering in the Regional Municipality of Durham containing approximately 3.5 acres, being part of Lot 19, Concession 5, Geographic Township of Pickering more particularly described a Part of Lot 14, Registered Plan 10, Village of Brougham as Instrument Number 139441 and shown in RED and labelled as 679 on the attached Schedule B: PIN 614679 Sketch. PWGSC PIN 614679 is part of the Durham Land Registry Office (No. 40) property identifier number 26402 – 0011 (LT). 2. PIN 614680-1 Description of All of PWGSC PIN 614680 That parcel or tract of land situate, lying and being in the City of Pickering in the Regional Municipality of Durham containing approximately 3.0 acres, being part of Lot 19, Concession 5, Geographic Township of Pickering being more particularly described as Part of Lot 14, Registered Plan No. 10, Village of Brougham save and except Part 6, Plan 40R-5747, All of Lots 12, 13 and 15 and part of Lot 16, Registered Plan 530, Village of Brougham as in Instrument Number 137817 and shown in RED on the attached Schedule B: PIN 614680 Sketch. PWGSC PIN 614680 is part of the Durham Land Registry Office (No. 40) property identifier number 26402 – 0011 (LT). Description of the Land being All of PWGSC PIN 614680-1 That parcel or tract of land situate, lying and being in the City of Pickering in the Regional Municipality of Durham containing approximately 2.1 acres, being part of Lot 19, Concession 5, Geographic Township of Pickering being more particularly described as Lot 14, Registered Plan No. 10, Village of Brougham save and except Part 6, Plan 40R-5747, Part of Lots 13, 15 and 16, Registered Plan 530, Village of Brougham being that Part of PWGSC PIN 614680 shown in RED and labeled 680-1 on the attached Schedule B: PIN 614680 Sketch. 3. PIN 614687 Description of All of PWGSC PIN 614687 That parcel or tract of land situate, lying and being in the City of Pickering in the Regional Municipality of Durham containing approximately 0.7 acres, being Part of Lot 19, Concession 5, Geographic Township of Pickering more particularly described as All of Lots 13 and 14, Registered Plan 530, Village of Brougham as in Instrument Numbers 150839 and 156164 and shown in RED and labelled as 687 on the attached Schedule B: PIN 614687 Sketch. PWGSC PIN 614687 is part of the Durham Land Registry Office (No. 40) property identifier number 26402 – 0011 (LT). SCHEDULE “A” (continued) - 218 - Page 26 DESCRIPTION OF LAND PINs 614679, 614680-1, 614687, 614688, 614689 4. PIN 61688 Description of All of PWGSC PIN 614688 That parcel or tract of land situate, lying and being in the City of Pickering in the Regional Municipality of Durham containing approximately 0.35 acres, being Part of Lot 19, Concession 5, Geographic Township of Pickering, more particularly described as All of Lot 12, Registered Plan 530, Village of Brougham as in Instrument Number 197963 and shown in RED and labelled as 688 on the attached Schedule B: PIN 614688 Sketch. PWGSC PIN 614688 is part of the Durham Land Registry Office (No. 40) property identifier number 26402 – 0011 (LT). 5. PIN 61689 Description of All of PWGSC PIN 614689 That parcel or tract of land situate, lying and being in the City of Pickering in the Regional Municipality of Durham containing approximately 0.35 acres, being Part of Lot 19, Concession 5, Geographic Township of Pickering more particularly described as All of Lot 11, Registered Plan 530, Village of Brougham as in Instrument Number 188929 and shown in RED and labelled as 689 on the attached Schedule B: PIN 614689 Sketch. PWGSC PIN 614689 is part of the Durham Land Registry Office (No. 40) property identifier number 26402 – 0011 (LT). - 219 - Page 27 SCHEDULE “B” PLAN OF SITE PINs 614679, 614680-1, 614687, 614688, 614689 Location Map SCHEDULE “B” (continued) - 220 - Page 28 PLAN OF SITE PINs 614679, 614680-1, 614687, 614688, 614689 Pickering Lands Site PINs 614679, 614680-1, 614687, 614688, 614689 Sketch - 221 - Report to Council Report Number: ENG 13-19 Date: December 16, 2019 From: Richard Holborn Director, Engineering Services Subject: Beachfront Park Work Plan - File: A-1440 Recommendation: 1. That Report ENG 13-19 regarding an update on the proposed work plan for the re-creation of Beachfront Park in response to Resolution #99/19 (Notice of Motion from May 27, 2019), be received for information; 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 May 27, 2019, Pickering City Council passed Resolution #99/19 requesting staff to: Report back to Council prior to the December 16, 2019 Council meeting on a work plan that will include: o a process to engage subject experts, residents, and community partners to begin discussions in 2020 on the re-creation of a new park plan; and o possible sources of funding including gas tax revenues, grants associated with the carbon tax and other environmental incentives offered by the Federal and or Provincial Government, a funding formula that could draw from a dedicated casino revenue account, development charges, and other sources that may exist. Incorporate funds in the 2020 current budget to hire requ ired resources to assist in the planning for the Beachfront Park Plan. To that end, staff have commissioned a Beachfront Park Rehabilitation and Needs Assessment Study and hired the consulting firm of MBTW Group to address the requirements contained within Resolution #99/19 which is anticipated to be complete by June 2020, using funds that were approved in the 2019 Current Budget. Staff have also reviewed the existing conditions of Beachfront Park and have recommended the removal of built features, including the boardwalk that are located along the barrier beach, due to their unsafe conditions and have suggested a temporary re-routing of the W aterfront Trail. - 222 - ENG 13-19 December 16, 2019 Subject: Beachfront Park Work Plan Page 2 Financial Implications: A budget of $100,000 was approved in the 2019 Current Budget, for the preparation of a Waterfront Park Needs Assessment study. Staff have recently retained the consulting firm of MBTW Group with the assistance of Shoreplan Engineering to prepare this study, including looking at requirements for park rehabilitation due to the shoreline damage experienced from the high water levels and high wind and wave action. The Beachfront Park Rehabilitation & Needs Assessment Study will include the preparation of cost estimates for the proposed works, for Council consideration in future years budgets. Discussion: On May 27, 2019, Pickering City Council passed Resolution #99/19 (Attachment 1) for staff to prepare a work plan, to engage subject experts, residents and community partners to begin discussions on the re-creation of a new plan for Beachfront Park and to investigate funding sources to implement the project. As outlined in Memo CAO 55-19 (Attachment 2), due to the high water levels experienced in 2017 and 2019, compounded by high winds and waves, Beachfront Park has sustained substantial damage. The type of damage sustained is common to municipalities along the Lake Ontario shoreline. The playground structure, swings and volleyball courts were removed earlier this year due to their unsafe conditions. Staff have recommended the removal of the boardwalk, from east of the splash pad to Alex Robertson Park as it is in a state of disrepair and is unsafe for public use. The area has been fenced off from public access and Public Works staff intend on performing the removals over the winter months as the time and resources permit between winter control events. The W aterfront Trail will be temporarily re-routed and signed (from the east) through Alex Robertson Park, north on Sandy Beach Road, west on Parkham Crescent and Colmar Avenue, through the midblock walkway to Annland Street, south and west on Annland Streets to Liverpool Road, as shown in Attachment 2. Engineering Services have also retained a consulting team to prepare the Beachfront Park Rehabilitation & Needs Assessment Study. The MBTW Group and Shoreplan Engineering, who were the consultants for the Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park Master Plan update and first phase of construction, will be working with City of Pickering and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff to determine the best approach for park repairs and rehabilitation with consideration for the potential of increased public use of the park due to population growth. The park’s existing conditions will be reviewed and a land survey and bathymetric survey of near shore and mid shore in-water soundings will be taken, to provide accurate and current data of the beach conditions. This data will provide the basis for the modelling of nearshore wave transformations and wave run up analysis at the presently designated datum high water level and projected “overload” level for the increased water levels t hat we experienced in 2017 and 2019. Options for the reconstruction and/or re-routing of the Waterfront Trail will be investigated. Design solutions for other park amenities will be recommended to address the anticipated shift in the intensity of park use in response to population growth. The design will need to address both current and future park level of service expectations as well as provisions for inclusive and barrier- free design. - 223 - ENG 13-19 December 16, 2019 Subject: Beachfront Park Work Plan Page 3 Stakeholder consultation meetings will be held with City staff from the Engineering Services Department and Community Services Department ,as well as TRCA and Ontario Power Generation (OPG) as landowners and approval agencies. Based on input from the stakeholder groups, a preferred solution will be prepared along with associated costing. The material prepared will be suitable to engage residents and community partners for review and input and will form a good basis to take this project into detailed design and consideration for future year budgeting purposes. Attachments: 1. Council Resolution #99/19 2. CAO 55-19 Memorandum dated November 26, 2019 3. Location Map Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By: Original Signed By: Arnold Mostert Richard Holborn, P.Eng. Sr. Coordinator, Landscape & Parks Development Director, Engineering Services Original Signed By: Scott Booker Manager, Capital Projects & Infrastructure AM:mjh Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By: Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer - 224 - Legislative Services Division Clerk’s Office Directive Memorandum May 30, 2019 To: Richard Holborn Director, Engineering Services From: Susan Cassel City Clerk Subject: Direction as per Minutes of the Meeting of City Council held on May 27, 2019 Notice of Motion Re-Creation of the Beachfront Park Council Decision Resolution #99/19 Whereas in 1997, the City of Pickering adopted the Waterfront 2001 Interim Task Force report; Whereas the Task Force report was the foundation leading to the construction of the Beachfront Park to serve as a link to the Great Lakes Waterfront Trail, a Nautical Village and marine destination, a tourist destination, and a place for families to enjoy one of Pickering’s jewels - “Lake Ontario and Frenchman’s Bay”; Whereas for two decades, the Frenchman’s Bay east waterfront has grown in popularity as not only a recreational place, but a place to appreciate Pickering’s rich history and the importance of environmental stewardship; Whereas in spite of all efforts to maintain our Beachfront Park, the impact of global warming and climate change has resulted in water levels increasing to record levels, causing severe flooding and damage to properties across the entire Lake Ontario shoreline; Whereas the frequency of storms and winds off the lake has become the norm resulting in many of the amenities that were built on the shoreline of Lake Ontario, including the Beachfront Park to be damaged to the point that many can no longer be restored; And whereas the Council for the Corporation of the City of Pickering and its residents deem the re-creation of a new Beachfront Park as a priority; Now therefore be it resolved that staff be directed through the direction of the CAO to: 1.Report back to Council prior to the December 16, 2019 Council meeting on a work plan that will include: Attachment #1 to Report # ENG 13-19 - 225 - a) A process to engage subject experts, residents, and community partners to begin discussions in 2020 on the re-creation of a new park plan; and, b) Possible sources of funding including gas tax revenues, grants associated with the carbon tax and other environmental incentives offered by the Federal and or Provincial Government, a funding formula that could draw from a dedicated casino revenue account, development charges, and other sources that may exist. 2. Incorporate funds in the 2020 current budget to hire required resources to assist in the planning for the Beachfront Park Plan. Please take any action deemed necessary. Susan Cassel Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Director, Community Services Director, Finance & Treasurer - 226 - -Cif:jofp](KERJNG To: From: Copy: T any Prevedel Chief Administrative Officer /) Marisa Carpino (jJ. Director, Community Services Richard Holborn Director, Engineering Services Division Head, Operations Manager, Public Works Supervisor, Parks Operations Subject: Beachfront Park Memo Office of the CAO Nov ember 26, 2019 Received NOV 26 2019 File# Follow Up ✓ Mayor City Development ✓Council Corporate Services ✓Directors Clerk Com munity Services Legal & LS Eng. Services Finance Fire Services Human Resources Customer Care Economic Dev. CAO Mgt Team Public Affairs & Comm. Damages to the Boardwalk & Rerouting of the Waterfront Trail File: 0-8110-001.:19 As you are aware, Beachfront Park has lost significant shoreline to high water levels, wave energy and storm erosion over the last five years. The recent high water levels in Lake Ontario, coupled with more frequent storm events, has severely compromised the City's ability to maintain many of the amenities along the barr ier beach at Beachfront Park. Already, damage caused by high water levels and continuing erosion has led to the removal of the beach volleyball courts and the playground structure. On October 30, 2019, an overnight storm with high winds and significant storm surge caused significant damage to the boardwalk at Beachfront Park (see Attachment 1) which must be addressed. In December 2017, Council received report CS 30-17 Lake Front Water Damage which detailed the damage and service interruptions at Beachfront Park and Rotary Frenchman's Bay West Park. As reflected in that report, the water level of Lake Ontario in 2017 was the highest ever recorded. It was not anticipated that within two years these levels would be surpassed. . In light of the persistent nature of these weather events, and persistent high water levels, it is clear to staff that the boardwalk cannot be reinstated or maintained in a manner that will withstand these elements. The barrier beach is regulated by TRCA and designated as a dynamic beach which precludes more substantial structures that would be needed for a storm-resistant boardwalk replacement. As a result, staff are recommending removal of the boardwalk at Beachfront Park (from the east limit of the splash pad to the connection to Alex Robertson Park). The removal will be completed over the winter months to allow for regra ding and updated signage will be installed well before spring/summer use in 2020. Since the boardwalk.is part of the Waterfront Trail, staff will establish an alternate route prior to its removal (see Attachment 2). Signage will be installed to direct CAO 55-19Attachment #2 to Report # ENG 13-19 - 227 - - 228 - - 229 - - 230 - Engineering Services Department Frenchman’s Bay East – Beachfront Park Location Map Attachment #3 to Report # ENG 13-19 - 231 - Report to Council Report Number: FIN 24-19 Date: December 16, 2019 From: Stan Karwowski Director, Finance & Treasurer Subject: 2019 Development Charges Update Study Recommendation: 1. That Report FIN 24-19 of the Director, Finance & Treasurer be received; 2. That Council receive for information and approve the 2019 Development Charges Update Study (as amended), City of Pickering prepared by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. dated December 10, 2019; 3. That the originally proposed By-law has been modified since the public meeting on December 2, 2019 and Council confirms that no further public meeting under the Development Charges Act, 1997 (S.12) is necessary as a result; 4. That the City Clerk be instructed to undertake the By-law passage notification provisions under the Development Charges Act, 1997 and Ontario Regulation 82/98; 5. That Council approve the Development Charges By-law included as Attachment 2 to this report; 6. That subject to Council approval of the 2020 Budget, Council approve the hiring of the firm Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., to be retained for the Development Charges related work including the Community Benefit Charge at a cost not to exceed $60,000 to be financed from the Development Charges Reserve Funds- Administration Studies; and 7. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions as indicated in this report. Executive Summary: Council approved the Development Charge (DC) Background Study on December 11, 2017. The 2017 DC Study included funding for an Arts Centre, new Central Library and Youth & Seniors’ Centre. However, the DC Study at that time viewed the three buildings as separate projects and not as interconnected component parts of the proposed City Centre Vision. - 232 - Report FIN 24-19 December 16, 2019 Subject: 2019 Development Charges Update Study Page 2 The proposed DC Update Study is required mainly due to the higher cost for these three buildings plus an underground parking garage. The amendment to the 2017 DC study is required to increase the DC funding for these projects that in -turn results in higher DC fees. If the City did not pursue this financial strategy, the City would be under recovering its capital costs associated with the Civic Centre project. To put another way, without increasing the DC fees, the financial responsibility of paying for the Civic Centre capital project costs would be borne by the City until the costs are included in a future DC By-law and recovered from the next increment of development. As mentioned above, the major reason for the DC update is to reflect the higher costs associated with the Civic Centre project that was not envisioned and/or planned when the original DC study was undertaken. Under this approach, staff are recommending that the DC fee discount given to apartments/condo’s be eliminated and brought to the full rate except for the geographical area as defined in the map of the attached By-law under Schedule E. The DC rates for this geographical area will remain until December 14, 2020 when Council passes the revised DC fees and introduces the Community Benefit Charge (CBC). In addition to the updated capital costs for the Civic Centre project, the City has also updated minor capital costs related to Protection Services, Administration Studies and Transportation Services. The proposed increase in DC fees is $1,209 for single and semi-detached dwelling. There are 32 municipalities in the GTA and after applying the proposed fee increase, Pickering has the 5th lowest DC fees of the group. To put another way, Pickering has the lowest DC rates for those municipalities that border Toronto. Pickering’s new DC rate continues to be lower than those of Whitby, Oshawa, and Ajax. The new Development Charge By-law will, if passed by Council, be effective on December 17, 2019. Financial Implications: The proposed Development Charges Update Study increases substantially the DC dollar funding for the Civic Centre as presented below: Table One Comparison of Civic Centre DC Funding DC Costs in 2017 Dollars 2017 DC Study 2019 DC Update Study Arts Centre $5,701,118 $12,170,369 Youth & Seniors’ Centre 23,078,250 49,018,115 Central Library 15,139,312 19,478,356 Total $43,918,680 $80,666,840 - 233 - Report FIN 24-19 December 16, 2019 Subject: 2019 Development Charges Update Study Page 3 The 2017 DC Background Study is denominated in 2017 dollars and the above table reflects this approach for the year 2019. The increase in 2019 DC funding is directly attributable to the revised project scope or vision for the Civic Centre with underground parking that translates into a higher project cost. The 2017 DC Study did not include underground parking or a bridge link (Library and Youth & Seniors’ Centre). As stated above, the increase in DC funding for these capital projects reduces the cost for th e Pickering taxpayer. The DC Update Study also includes the following changes: Administration Studies (Consulting) The DC Update Study reflects a higher DC recoverable consulting cost for a Transportation/Traffic Study for City Centre ($190,278). The scope of the Traffic Management Plan is being expanded to include a comprehensive transportation impact study, a transportation network review and functional design plans for public streets and a much larger area including both the Whites Road and Brock Road interchanges with Highway 401. The DC Update Study also includes a new consulting study entitled “Fair Minded Pricing Policy” at a DC recoverable cost of $23,742. The purpose of this study is to develop a pricing strategy that considers all cost inputs both direct and indirect in determining a fair pricing strategy based on a cost recoverable basis. Also included in revised study section is an additional cost of undertaking the DC Update Study at a DC recoverable cost of $54,598. Protective Services (Fire) For Seaton, there will be requirement to have 2 fire stations. The DC funding is being increased by $192,049 (DC recoverable cost) to reflect the additional expense of servicing costs for one of the Seaton fire stations. Transportation The 2019 DC Update Study (as amended) included revised capital cost estimates for the new east/west collector road running parallel between Hwy 401 and Bayly Street (west of Brock Road), the crossing of Krosno Creek, and the north/south collector that will connect to Bayly Street. Subsequently, staff identified that cost estimates for the above noted DC Transportation Services projects required further revision resulting in $220,700 being added to the calculation for the charge for Transportation Services. - 234 - Report FIN 24-19 December 16, 2019 Subject: 2019 Development Charges Update Study Page 4 Discussion: A comparison of the DC rates (indexed to 2019 dollars) by component between current and proposed December 17, 2019 is presented below. Table Two Single and Semi-Detached Residential Rate Comparison of Current Rates to Proposed Rates (in 2019 Dollars) Service Current Proposed December 17, 2019 Change Increase/ (Decrease) Municipal Wide Services: Other Services Related to a Highway 470 470 - Protection Services 948 955 7 Parks and Recreation Services 5,175 6,451 1,276 Library Services 1,158 1,069 (89) Administration Studies 296 306 10 Stormwater Management 307 307 - Total Municipal Wide Services (Line A) $8,354 $9,558 1,204 Outside of Seaton Lands Transportation 1 6,952 6,957 5 Total Outside of Seaton Lands (Line B) $6,952 $6,957 5 Rest of Pickering (Line A+B) $15,306 $16,515 $1,209 Seaton $8,354 9,558 $1,204 Table Three Proposed Apartment Dwellings and Other Dwellings Residential Rates (in 2019 Dollars) Service Apartment Dwellings with 2 or more bedrooms Apartment Dwellings with less than 2 bedrooms Other Dwellings Municipal Wide Services: Other Services Related to a Highway 298 210 380 Protection Services 604 427 772 Parks and Recreation Services 4,074 2,887 5,207 Library Services 676 479 864 Administration Studies 194 137 246 Stormwater Management 195 138 248 Total Municipal Wide Services (Line A) $6,041 $4,278 7,717 - 235 - Report FIN 24-19 December 16, 2019 Subject: 2019 Development Charges Update Study Page 5 Outside of Seaton Lands Transportation 1 4,395 3,113 5,617 Total Outside of Seaton Lands (Line B) $4,395 $3,113 5,617 Rest of Pickering (Line A+B) $10,436 $7,391 $13,334 Seaton $6,041 4,278 $7,717 1 Does not apply to Seaton Lands, Seaton Lands subject to a separate agreement outside of the Development Charges Act concerning provision of Transportation requirements in addition to other funding contributions. For either a single or semi detached home, the proposed DC fee increase for the “Rest of Pickering” is $1,209 or 7.89 percent. For Seaton area, the DC fee increase is $1,204 or 14.41 percent. While the percentage increases may appear to be above average, the more important factor to consider is what is the overall total DC fee charged and how does this fee compare to other municipalities. As stated earlier, Pickering still maintains its competitive position in relation to its GTA neighbours. As the above tables indicate, the DC funding increase is being reflected in the various DC components except for Library. The Library level of DC funding is limited because it has come under the DC funding CAP based on the per capita historical level of investment for Library Services. The closing of the 2 northern library branches in the past few years reduced the overall total square footage for the library. In addition, with the higher cost for the new Library under the Civic Centre project concept, the funding strategy now will be to use debt that in-turn results in a slight reduction of costs upfront (lower cash flow obligation) offset by a longer term 25 year debt borrowing plan. The end result (excluding the impact of the future community benefit charge) is that the present value of future Library DC eligible costs are lower in the 2019 DC Update Study as compared to the 2017 DC Background Study. The major purpose of the DC Update is to increase the DC fees to fund the DC share of costs for the Civic Centre project. In the 2017 DC Study, a DC fee break was given to encourage condo/apartment development in the downtown area, up to December 31, 2020. Historically, each new condominium tower generates the equivalent of 1 percent assessment growth. The DC fee break plan has worked well. The City Development Department has received or will be receiving development applications for numerous condo/apartment developments during the year. Staff are proposing to eliminate the DC fee break except for a small geographical area that will result in the City being able to charge the full DC fees related to the Civic Centre development and related areas . The DC fee break for the small geographical area will end on December 14, 2020, the same date that the City will introduce its revised DCs (hard services) and now introduce the CBC (soft services) fee. - 236 - Report FIN 24-19 December 16, 2019 Subject: 2019 Development Charges Update Study Page 6 Table Four Non-Residential Rate Comparison of Current Rates to Proposed Rates (in 2019 Dollars) Service $ Per Sq. ft. of Floor Area Non-Residential (per Net Ha of Prestige Employment Land in Seaton) Current Proposed Dec 17/19 Current Proposed Dec 17/19 Municipal Wide Services Other Service Related to Highway $0.16 $0.16 $5,814 $5,814 Protection Services 0.35 0.35 12,194 12,291 Parks and Recreation 0.42 0.51 14,146 17,106 Library Services 0.08 0.07 2,779 2,557 Administration Studies 0.11 0.12 3,797 3,921 ` Management 0.11 0.11 3,738 3,738 Total Municipal Wide Services (Line A) $1.23 $1.32 $42,468 $45,427 Outside of Seaton Lands Transportation 1 1.95 1.96 0.00 Total Outside of Seaton Lands (Line B) $1.95 $1.96 Rest of Pickering (Line A+B) $3.18 $3.28 Seaton $1.23 $1.32 $42,468 $45,427 1 Does not apply to Seaton Lands, Seaton Lands subject to a separate agreement outside of the Development Charges Act concerning provision of Transportation requirements in addition to other funding contributions. The non-residential DC for lands outside of the Seaton Prestige Employment Lands are recovered from development on a per sq. ft. of total floor area basis. The increases and decreases above follow the similar pattern as single and semi-detached homes. The increase for “Rest of Pickering” non-residential DC fees based on a square footage basis is 3.14 percent or 10 cents per square foot. You could argue that the proposed increase has a minimal impact on commercial/industrial development. The other factor to consider as it relates to the Civic Centre project is the benefit of the Civic Centre project as it relates to attracting new residents to live in Pickering and its impact on deepening and widening the employee talent pool. On a weekly basis, there are newspaper articles running stories on the professional and skilled labour shortage. With the Civic Centre project, Pickering becomes a very attractive place to live. For Seaton industrial and commercial development, a different approach was applied as it relates to development charges. A land area specific charge (per net hectare) is used in contrast to a floor area charge. Under the floor area charge approach, the DC - 237 - Report FIN 24-19 December 16, 2019 Subject: 2019 Development Charges Update Study Page 7 charges are based on the size of the building. Using the land area approach in Seaton, the developer pays the full DC at the time of the first development regardless of the fact that there may be several phases of construction development . This approach encourages expedient buildout, discourages land banking and creates a more favourable cash flow scenario for the City. Competitive DC Rates The graph below shows that Pickering’s proposed single detached residential DC rate is competitive in comparison with both its Durham Lakeshore neighbours and the City of Toronto. What is interesting to note that even after Pickering’s proposed moderate increase, those Durham Lakeshore municipalities that are east of Pickering (excluding Clarington) have higher DC rates. Pickering’s proposed DC rates as a percentage of the new home cost would be lower than its Durham Lakeshore municipal neighbours. Residential Development Charges Single Detached Dwelling As of October 24, 2019 Indexing Based on our current DC By-law, DC rates will be adjusted annually as of July 1 each year based on the Non-residential Building Construction index in order to keep DC revenues current with construction costs. The previous indexing was done on July 1, 2019, and would be due for indexing again on July 1, 2020. Staff will continue the practice of indexing every year on July 1st. $46,888 $51,319 $51,383 $51,472 $52,538 $52,966 $59,181 $60,327 $62,232 $62,354 $- $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 $70,000 Singles Lower Tier Res EDC Singles Upper Tier - 238 - Report FIN 24-19 December 16, 2019 Subject: 2019 Development Charges Update Study Page 8 Transition to New Rates The proposed rates will come into effect on December 17, 2019. Any complete building permit applications received after December 18, 2019 will be subject to the new DC rates. Communications Strategy The Development Charges Act has a mandatory communication/advertising requirement for at least one public meeting, and the Clerk is required to carry out such advertising at least 20 days in advance of the meeting date. The Statutory Public Meeting was first advertised in the Pickering News Advertiser on October 31, 2019 and was continued every Thursday until November 28, 2019. In addition, reference to the Statutory Public Meeting has been advertised on the City’s website. The City has met the requirements of the Development Charges Act. On October 17th, staff reached out to the development industry by distributing the DC Update Study dated October 16, 2019 and holding a stakeholder consultation on November 19th. City staff emailed/invited 45 industry/developer representatives of which 4 attended the special meeting. Questions were raised by industry attendees and staff have responded. December 2, 2019 - Statutory Public Meeting Regarding DC Update Study An issue was raised by Mr. Ryan Guetter of Weston Consulting and staff are reviewing and analyzing his comments and if required a further revision and or update would be undertaken. 2020 DC Workplan Bill 108, More Homes, More Choice Act, 2019, received Royal Assent on June 6, 2019. It is anticipated that Bill 108 will become fully proclaimed as of January 1, 2021 based on draft regulations. Bill 108, makes changes to the Planning Act and introduces a new municipal finance revenue tool entitled “Community Benefit Charge” or CBC. Soft services currently charged in the existing development charge fee such as recreation, libraries and studies will no longer be part of the development charge but instead will form part of the CBC. The new CBC will allow municipalities to collect funds to potentially replace or be of equal revenue dollar of the fees collected under the old DC regime. The detailed regulations to determine the rules and calculation for the CBC were supposed to be issued this fall, unfortunately, there has been an unanticipated delay. - 239 - Report FIN 24-19 December 16, 2019 Subject: 2019 Development Charges Update Study Page 9 The City’s current financial strategy is rooted in the principle to operate as long as possible under the old DC regime where the funding rules and therefore DC fees are known. Therefore, the work plan is to have Council approve the new CBC fee and the revised DC at the last council meeting on December 14, 2020. Recommendation 6 secures the services of Watson & Associates at this early date, to ensure that they can accommodate Pickering in their 2020 workplan. In addition, the DC fee break currently proposed for the geographical area will be adjusted to expire on December 14, 2020 to match the City’s revised DC and CBC dates. Attachments: 1. Development Charges Update Study - October 16, 2019 2. Addendum to: 2019 Development Charges Update Study - November 19, 2019 3. Addendum to: 2019 Development Charges Update Study - December 10, 2019 4. By-law Regarding Development Charges to amend By-law 7595/17 to Make Certain Revisions to the City’s Development Charges Involving Capital Cost Estimates Soft Services CBC Hard Services Revised DC Soft Services Arenas, Parks, Libraries Animal Shelter, Community Centres, Consulting Hard Services Roads, Bridges, Traffic Signals, Streetlights, Sidewalks Stormwater, Fire 2019 December 16 Current DC (Includes Soft & Hard Services) 2020 December 14 Revised Funding - 240 - Report FIN 24-19 December 16, 2019 Subject: 2019 Development Charges Update Study Page 10 Prepared By: Prepared By: Original Signed By: Original Signed By: Caryn Kong, CPA, CGA James Halsall, CPA, CA Senior Financial Analyst – Capital & Manager, Budgets & Internal Audit Debt Management Approved / Endorsed By: Original Signed By: Stan Karwowski, MBA, CPA, CMA Director, Finance & Treasurer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer - 241 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. 905-272-3600 October 16, 2019 info@watsonecon.ca Development Charges Update Study City of Pickering ________________________ For Public Circulation and Comment Attachment #1 to Report #24-19 - 242 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2019 DC Update\2019 Update Study.docx Table of Contents Page 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Existing Policies (Rules) ............................................................................ 2 1.2.1 Payment in any Particular Case .................................................... 2 1.2.2 Determination of the Amount of the Charge .................................. 3 1.2.3 Application to Land Redevelopment ............................................. 4 1.2.4 Exemptions (full or partial) ............................................................ 4 1.2.5 Indexing ........................................................................................ 5 1.2.6 By-law Duration ............................................................................. 5 1.2.7 Date Charge Payable .................................................................... 5 1.3 Basis for D.C. By-law Update .................................................................... 6 1.4 Proposed Charges to the D.C.A.: Bill 108 – An Act to amend Carious Statutes with Respect to Housing, Other Development, and Various Matters .......................................................................................... 7 2. Anticipated Development................................................................................. 10 3. Revisions to the Anticipated Capital Needs ................................................... 11 3.1 Revised Capital Costs.............................................................................. 11 3.1.1 Parks and Recreation Services ................................................... 11 3.1.2 Library Services .......................................................................... 12 3.1.3 Protection Services ..................................................................... 13 3.1.4 Transportation Services .............................................................. 13 3.1.5 Administration Studies ................................................................ 14 4. Revised D.C. Calculation and Schedule of Charges ..................................... 25 5. Asset Management Plan .................................................................................. 37 5.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 37 6. Process for Adoption of the Amending Development Charges By-law ....... 39 Appendix A – Draft Amending Development Charge By-law ................................ A-1 - 243 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 1 2019 Update Study 1. Introduction 1.1 Background The City of Pickering (City) imposes development charges (D.C.s) to recover the increase in the needs for service arising from growth. The basis for the calculation of the City’s existing schedule of residential and non-residential development charges is documented in the “City of Pickering 2017 Development Charges Background Study” dated October 5, 2017 (as amended). This Background Study provides the supporting documentation for the City’s D.C. By-Law 7595-17, which came into effective January 1, 2018. The resultant D.C. by municipal service and development type are summarized in Table 1-1. This schedule reflects the schedule of charges that came into forece on January 1, 2018 (in 2018$) for development within the defined Seaton Lands, as the City elected to phase-in the charges for apartment units over the 2018-2021 period for development outside of the Seaton Lands. Table 1-1 City of Pickering January 1, 2018 Schedule of Development Charges Single and Semi- Detached Dwelling Apartments - 2 Bedrooms + Apartments - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom Other Multiples (per ft² of Total Floor Area) 2 (per net Ha of Prestige Employmen t Land in Seaton) Municipal Wide Services: Other Services Related to a Highway 441 279 197 356 0.15 5,451 Protection Services 889 562 398 718 0.34 11,431 Parks and Recreation Services 4,851 3,065 2,171 3,917 0.39 13,261 Library Services 1,086 686 486 877 0.08 2,605 Administration Studies 277 175 124 224 0.10 3,560 Stormwater Management 288 182 129 233 0.10 3,503 Total Municipal Wide Services 7,832 4,949 3,505 6,325 1.15 39,812 Outside of Seaton Lands Transportation 1 6,517 4,117 2,917 5,261 1.83 Total Services Outside of Seaton Lands 6,517 4,117 2,917 5,261 1.83 Seaton 7,832 4,949 3,505 6,325 1.15 39,812 Rest of Pickering 14,349 9,066 6,422 11,586 2.98 2. Does not apply to prestige employment development in Seaton, as that development is subject to the per net Ha land area charge instead. 1. Subject to a separate agreement outside of the Development Charges Act concerning the provision of Transportation Service RESIDENTIAL NON-RESIDENTIAL - 244 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2 2019 Update Study The City’s D.C.s have been indexed on July 1, 2018 and July 1, 2019 in accordance with Subsection 16(1) of By-Law 7595-17. Table 1-2 summarizes the City’s schedule of development charges currently in effect as at July 1, 2019 (Apartment dwelling unit charges reflect those charges in place for development within the Seaton Lands). As a result of indexing, the development charges have increased by approximately 6.7% since by-law adoption. Table 1-2 City of Pickering Current (Indexed) Schedule of Development Charges 1.2 Existing Policies (Rules) The following subsections set out the rules governing the calculation, payment, and collection of D.C.s as provided in By-law 7595-17 (as amended), in accordance with the Development Charges Act (D.C.A.), 1997. 1.2.1 Payment in any Particular Case In accordance with the D.C.A., the D.C. shall be calculated, payable, and collected where the development requires one or more of the following: Single and Semi- Detached Dwelling Apartments - 2 Bedrooms + Apartments - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom Other Multiples (per ft² of Total Floor Area) 2 (per net Ha of Prestige Employme nt Land in Seaton) Municipal Wide Services: Other Services Related to a Highway 470 298 210 379 0.16 5,814 Protection Services 948 600 425 766 0.35 12,194 Parks and Recreation Services 5,175 3,269 2,315 4,178 0.42 14,146 Library Services 1,158 732 519 935 0.08 2,779 Administration Studies 296 186 133 239 0.11 3,797 Stormwater Management 307 195 138 248 0.11 3,738 Total Municipal Wide Services 8,354 5,280 3,740 6,745 1.23 42,468 Outside of Seaton Lands Transportation 1 6,952 4,392 3,112 5,613 1.95 Total Services Outside of Seaton Lands 6,952 4,392 3,112 5,613 1.95 Seaton 8,354 5,280 3,740 6,745 1.23 42,468 Rest of Pickering 15,306 9,672 6,852 12,358 3.18 Service RESIDENTIAL NON-RESIDENTIAL 1. Subject to a separate agreement outside of the Development Charges Act concerning the provision of Transportation 2. Does not apply to prestige employment development in Seaton, as that development is subject to the per net Ha land - 245 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3 2019 Update Study • the passing of a zoning by-law or of an amendment to a zoning by-law under section 34 of the Planning Act; • the approval of a minor variance under Section 45 of the Planning Act; • a conveyance of land to which a by-law passed under section 50(7) of the Planning Act applies; • the approval of a plan of subdivision under Section 51 of the Planning Act; • a consent under Section 53 of the Planning Act; • the approval of a description under section 9 of the Condominium Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c. 19; or • the issuing of a building permit under the Building Code Act in relation to a building. 1.2.2 Determination of the Amount of the Charge The calculation for residential development is generated on a per capita basis, and imposed based on housing types - single and semi-detached, apartments – bachelor and one bedroom, apartments - two bedrooms and greater, and other multiples. The eligible D.C. cost calculations are based on the net anticipated population increase. The total eligible D.C. cost is divided by the “gross” (new resident) population to determine the per capita amount. The cost per capita is then multiplied by the average occupancy of the new units to calculate the charges by type of residential dwelling unit. The non-residential D.C. for the Seaton prestige employment lands has been calculated on a per net hectare basis. The non-residential D.C. for development in all other areas of the City has been calculated on a per square foot of gross floor area (G.F.A.) basis. The calculations of the maximum D.C.s that could be imposed by Council have been undertaken based on a cash flow analysis to account for the timing of revenues and expenditures and the resultant financing needs. The cash flow calculations have been undertaken by service for each forecast development type, i.e. residential, prestige employment lands within the Seaton Lands, and non-residential development in areas outside of the Seaton Lands. The cash flow calculates interest paid/received on reserve fund balances to account for the differences in timing of projects and when development is anticipated to occur. In year transactions are reduced by ½ to reflect D.C. contributions and expenditures occurring at different times throughout the year. For - 246 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 4 2019 Update Study cashflow purposes, capital costs and D.C.s are indexed at 3% annually, debt is calculated at 5% and investment return is calculated at 2.5%. 1.2.3 Application to Land Redevelopment Despite any other provisions of the by-law, a redevelopment credit is applied against the D.C. payable where a building permit has been issued for development or redevelopment within five years from the date a demolition permit was issued for the same building or structure, or where a building is being converted from one principal use to another, in an amount equivalent to the D.C. otherwise payable for the units or floor area demolished or converted. Moreover, the applicant must also provide proof that the building being demolished was subject to, and paid a D.C. under a prior by-law or a lot levy under by-law 322/89. Where redevelopment occurs on a property that does not have municipal services that include sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and watermain, the period, the period between demolition and building permit issuance is extended to ten years. Furthermore, for building permit issuances that occurred between January 1, 2018 and June 29, 2018, the demolition must have occurred no more than 10 years prior to building permit issuance in order to be eligible for the redevelopment credit. 1.2.4 Exemptions (full or partial) The D.C. by-law applies to all lands within the City, with the exception of the following lands which are exempt: Statutory exemptions • Residential development that results in the only the enlargement of an existing dwelling unit, or that results online in the creation or enlargement of an accessory dwelling building for a lawful residential use, or that results only in the creation of up to two additional dwelling units within an existing single detached dwelling, or the creation of one additional dwelling unit in any other existing residential building where the total G.F.A. of the additional unit is equal to or less than the G.F.A. of the smallest unit contained within the residential building; • Land owned by and used for the purposed of a Municipality, a Local Board, or a Board of Education; and - 247 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 5 2019 Update Study • Industrial additions of up to and including 50% of the existing G.F.A. of the building. Non-statutory exemptions • The development of a non-residential farm building used for bona-fide agricultural purposes will be exempt from paying D.C.s for Parks and Recreation Services, Library Services, Administration Services, and Stormwater Management Services; • A building or structure that is used in connection with a place of worship an is exempt from taxation under the Assessment Act as a result; • Development where no additional dwelling units are being created or no additional non-residential gross floor area is being added; • Nursing homes and hospitals; and • Garden Suites. 1.2.5 Indexing The by-law provides for indexing of the D.C., without amendment, annually on July 1st of each year, in accordance with the change in the index for the most recently available annual period ending March 31 for the Statistics Canada Quarterly Construction Price Statistics, Catalogue Number 62-007 1.2.6 By-law Duration The by-law will expire at 12:01 AM on January 1, 2023 unless it is repealed by Council at an earlier date. 1.2.7 Date Charge Payable Development charges imposed under the by-law are calculated, payable, and collected on or before the day a building permit is issued in relation to a building or structure on land to which a D.C. applies. - 248 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 6 2019 Update Study 1.3 Basis for D.C. By-law Update This D.C. Update Study provides for an amendment to the City’s D.C. By-Law. The purpose of the amendment is to provide for updates to the underlying capital cost estimates and to include additional capital needs within the City’s 2017 D.C. Background Study to determine the charges for Parks and Recreation Services, Library Services, Protection Services, Transportation, and Administration Studies. The amendments arise, in part, from Council’s direction to proceed with the Civic Centre Project, including a Seniors and Youth Centre, Performing Arts Centre, and Central Library, and updated capital cost estimates. In addition to the updated capital costs for these projects, the City has also provided updated capital costs or additional projects related to Protection Services, Administration Studies, and Transportation. The amendment is being recommended at this time due to the increase in capital costs and the resultant under-recovery of anticipated capital costs requirements under the existing D.C. by-law. Details on the capital cost updates are presented in Chapter 3 of this Study. The revised schedule of D.C.s is presented in the draft amending by-law contained in Appendix A herein. It should be noted that this report is provided as an amendment to By-law 7595-17, and as such the calculations are denominated in 2017 dollars (the City’s D.C. Background Study cost base). The amended D.C. rates are subsequently indexed to current rates for implementation. The notice of the Public Meeting will be advertised in accordance with the requirements of the D.C.A., i.e. 20 clear-days prior to the public meeting. This background study document will be released for public review and posted on the City’s website in accordance with provisions of the D.C.A. on October 16, 2019. The statutory public meeting will be held in Council Chambers, at the City of Pickering Municipal Offices on December 2, 2019. A presentation will be made to the public regarding the recommendations of this report, and Council will receive oral and written comments on the matter. It is anticipated that Council will consider for adoption the proposed amending by-law after the 60-day period between the release of the D.C. Background Study and the passage of the D.C. by-law (i.e. December 16, 2019). - 249 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 7 2019 Update Study 1.4 Proposed Charges to the D.C.A.: Bill 108 – An Act to amend Carious Statutes with Respect to Housing, Other Development, and Various Matters On May 2, 2019, the Province introduced Bill 108 which proposes changes to the D.C.A. The Bill has been introduced as part of the Province’s “More Homes, More Choice: Ontario's Housing Supply Action Plan”. The Bill received royal assent on June 6, 2019. While having received royal asset, many of the changes to the D.C.A. do not come into effect until proclamation by the Lieutenant Governor. However, transitional provisions with respect to soft services are in effect as of the date of royal assent. The transitional provisions for soft services (i.e. services no longer eligible to be included in D.C. by-law once s.s. 2(4) of the Act is proclaimed) under an existing D.C. bylaw can remain in effect, even if the by-law expires, until the earlier of the prescribed date, the date a Community Benefits By-law is passed, or when the by-law is repealed. Moreover, as the new s.s. 2(4) is not yet in effect, municipalities are still permitted to pass a D.C. by- law based on the services currently eligible under the D.C.A., until the new section is proclaimed. A summary of the changes to the D.C.A. to take effect upon proclamation by the Lieutenant Governor is provided below: Changes to Eligible Services – the Bill will remove “Soft Services” from the D.C.A. These services will be considered as part of a new Community Benefit Charge (discussed below) imposed under the authority of the Planning Act. Once the new s.s. 2(4) is proclaimed, eligible services under the D.C.A. include: • Water supply services, including distribution and treatment services; • Wastewater services, including sewers and treatment services; • Storm water drainage and control services; • Services related to a highway as defined in subsection 1 (1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 or subsection 3 (1) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, as the case may be; • Electrical power services; • Policing services; • Ambulance services; • Fire protection services; - 250 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 8 2019 Update Study • Toronto-York subway extension, as defined in subsection 5.1 (1); • Transit services other than the Toronto-York subway extension; • Waste diversion services; and • Other services as prescribed. Waste Diversion and Ambulance – the Bill will remove the mandatory 10% deduction for these services. Annual Installments – the Bill proposes that Rental Housing, and Commercial/Industrial/Institutional developments pay D.C.s in six equal annual payments commencing the earlier of the date of issuance of a building permit or occupancy. Non-profit housing developments, will pay D.C.s in 21 equal annual payments. Interest may be charged on the installments, at a prescribed rate, and any unpaid amounts may be added to the property and collected as taxes. When D.C. Amount is Determined – the Bill proposes that the D.C. amount for all developments proceeding by Site Plan or requiring a Zoning By-law Amendment, shall be determined based on the D.C. charge in effect on the day of the application for Site Plan or Zoning By-law Amendment. If the development is not proceeding via these planning approvals then the amount is determined the earlier of the date of issuance of a building permit or occupancy. Soft Services to be Included in a new Community Benefit Charge under the Planning Act – it is proposed that a municipality may by by-law impose community benefits charges against land to pay for the capital costs of facilities, services and matters required because of development or redevelopment in the area to which the by- law applies. These services may not include services authorized by the D.C.A. Various provisions are provided as follows: • Before passing a community benefits charge by-law, the municipality shall prepare a community benefits charge strategy that, (a) identifies the facilities, services and matters that will be funded with community benefits charges and (b) complies with any prescribed requirements; • The amount of a community benefits charge payable shall not exceed an amount equal to the prescribed percentage of the value of the land as of the valuation date; - 251 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 9 2019 Update Study • The valuation date is the day before building permit issuance; • Valuations will be based on appraised value of land. Various requirements are set out in this regard; • All money received by the municipality under a community benefits charge by- law shall be paid into a special account; • In each calendar year, a municipality shall spend or allocate at least 60 percent of the monies that are in the special account at the beginning of the year; • Requirements for annual reporting shall be prescribed; and Transitional provisions are set out regarding the D.C. reserve funds and D.C. credits. - 252 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 10 2019 Update Study 2. Anticipated Development The 2017 D.C. Background Study provided for the anticipated residential and non- residential growth within the City of Pickering for the respective service forecast periods. The growth forecast associated with services included in this update study is summarized in Table 2-1 below. Table 2-1 City of Pickering 2017 D.C. Background Study – Growth Forecast Summary For the purposed of this Study, the 2017 D.C. Background Study growth forecast remains unchanged. The revised capital costs estimates have been considered in the context of this growth forecast. Adjustments to the total D.C. eligible costs are provided where necessary to ensure that the increase in the need for service pertains to the underlying increase in development. Net Population Residential Units Employment 1 Sq.ft. of Non- Residential GFA Early 2018 92,388 31,617 32,573 Early 2028 166,750 61,189 53,694 Mid 2031 179,356 65,530 63,899 10-year (2018-2028) Seaton 48,450 17,471 18,793 17,289,996 Rest of Pickering 25,912 12,101 2,328 2,795,958 14-year (2018-2031) Seaton 58,030 21,193 28,860 27,671,100 Rest of Pickering 28,936 12,720 2,466 3,090,862 Time Horizon Residential Non-Residential Incremental Change - 253 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 11 2019 Update Study 3. Revisions to the Anticipated Capital Needs The D.C. Background Study adopted by Council in the preparation of the City’s D.C. by- law justified the maximum amount that could be charges for residential and non- residential development. The study and by-law identified anticipated capital needs for recovery through D.C.s for Other Services Related to a Highway, Protection Services, Parks and Recreation Services, Library Services, Administration Studies, Stormwater Management, and Transportation. The City’s current by-law provides for the uniform City-wide recovery of growth-related costs for all services other than Transportation, which are imposed on an area-specific based for development outside of the Seaton Lands only). Development charges are imposed for all services though one by-law. The rules of the by-law effectively assess the charges appropriately for the imposition of D.C.s within the City. The intent of the amendment does not alter the City’s policy for the imposition of City-wide and area-specific D.C.s. As a result, it is not recommended that separate by-laws be implemented through this amendment process, and that the proposed revisions be considered as an amendment to the City’s current comprehensive D.C. by-law. 3.1 Revised Capital Costs The following subsections summarize the amendments made to the various capital projects comprising the D.C. amendment. For the purpose of calculating the amended D.C.s, the capital costs estimates have been deflated to 2017$, applying the change in the Statistics Canada Construction Price Statistics Index for the period (i.e. 6.7%). This reflects the indexing of the City’s D.C. over the period since by-law adoption. 3.1.1 Parks and Recreation Services The City’s 2017 D.C. Background Study identified parks and recreation projects to address the increase in the needs for services related to development. Projects included in the Study addressed recreation facilities contained within the City Centre project, including a Seniors’ and Youth Centre and the community use space within an Arts Centre. The City has completed updated design and capital cost estimates for the City Centre project. These updates provide the basis for amending the 2017 D.C. Background Study, as it relates to Parks and Recreation Services. - 254 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 12 2019 Update Study Table 3-1 summarizes the revised D.C. capital needs listing for Parks and Recreation Services arising from these changes. With these updates, the revised gross capital cost estimates total $213.9 million, an increase of approximately $37.0 million from the 2017 D.C. Background Study. Of these gross capital costs, $17.6 million have been deferred as a benefit to development beyond the 2027 forecast period. The increase in the need for services of $196.5 million, is subsequently reduced by $16.6 million for the benefit to existing development, $17.6 million for the 10% statutory deduction for soft services, and $16.5 million for existing D.C. reserve fund balances. As a result, the D.C. eligible costs for inclusion in the calculation of the charge total approximately $145.8 million. These D.C. recoverable costs are within the historic level of service cap for Parks and Recreation Services. Compared with D.C. eligible costs in the 2017 D.C. Background Study of $113.3 million, this represents an increase of $32.4 million in D.C. eligible costs arising from the revisions. In addition to the anticipated capital costs identified herein, debt financing for the City Centre project at 3% interest over a 25 year term has been assumed. The revised D.C. recoverable costs are allocated 95% to residential development and 5% non-residential development, consistent with the City’s 2017 D.C. Background Study, and based on the recognition that residential users are the primary users of parks and recreation services. 3.1.2 Library Services The City’s 2017 D.C. Background Study identified additional capital needs for library services to address the increase in the needs for services related to future development. This capital program is comprised of additional facility space requirements including the Central Library Facility, the Seaton Regional Library, and the Archives and Library space contained within the Pickering Heritage and Community Centre. Updated costs estimates for the Central Library Facility have been developed as part of the Pickering Civic Centre project. Table 3-2 summarizes the revised D.C. capital needs listing for Library Services arising from these changes. Within these cost updates, the revised gross capital cost estimates total approximately $67.4 million, an increase of $22.7 million from the 2017 D.C. Background Study. These gross capital costs exceed the historical level of service cap and have been reduced to remain within the allowable service level cap. As such, a - 255 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 13 2019 Update Study post-period capacity deduction of $12.6 million has been applied. The increase in the need for services attributable to the 10-year growth forecast period of $54.8 million, is subsequently reduced by $24.1 million for the benefit to existing development, and by a further $3.1 million for the 10% statutory deduction for soft services. After deducting a further $2.8 million for the existing D.C. reserve funds collected towards these capital needs, the D.C. eligible costs included in the calculation of the charge total approximately $24.8 million. Consistent with Parks and Recreation Services, in addition to the anticipated capital costs identified herein, debt financing for the City Centre project at 3% interest over a 25 year term has been assumed. Moreover, the revised D.C. recoverable costs are allocated 95% to residential development and 5% non-residential development. 3.1.3 Protection Services The Protection Services D.C. capital program within the City’s 2017 D.C. Background Study, identified the need for 2 additional fire stations within the Seaton Lands. The City has identified that in addition to the construction costs identified in the 2017 D.C. Background Study, additional capital costs for servicing and siteworks will be required related to the parcel of land for one of the additional fire stations. Additional capital cost estimates of $858,700 have been identified for this purpose. Approximately $837,200 of the gross capital costs have been allocated to new development after accounting for the benefit to existing development deduction of 2.5%. The revised D.C. recoverable costs are within the historic level of service cap for Protection Services. The D.C. recoverable costs are allocated 78% to residential development and 22% non-residential development, consistent with the City’s 2017 D.C. Background Study. The updated Protection Services D.C. capital program is included in Table 3-3. 3.1.4 Transportation Services Updates to the Transportation Services D.C. capital program have been provided for a new east/west collector road running parallel between Hwy 401 and Bayly Street (west of Brock Road), the crossing of Krosno Creek, and the north/south collector road that will connect to Bayly Street. These updates have been accounted for through updates to 2017 D.C. Background Study Transportation Services projects (i.e. projects no. 30, - 256 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 14 2019 Update Study 31,42, 443, 44), and the addition of a new project (i.e. A-13 (N/S Collector) Krosno Creek to Bayly Street Crossing), and presented in Table 3-4. The above noted revisions, result in a decrease in the gross capital costs within the Transportation Services D.C. capital program of $1.0 million to a total of $122.9 million. After accounting for the benefit to existing development deduction of $37.8 million and the existing D.C. reserve fund balance reflecting funds collected towards these needs, the D.C. eligible costs included in the calculation of the charge are $66.9 million. The revised D.C. recoverable costs are within the historic level of service cap for Transportation Services. These costs have been allocated to residential and non-residential development based on the anticipated population and employment growth outside of the Seaton Lands over the forecast period (i.e. 92% residential and 8% non-residential). 3.1.5 Administration Studies The City’s 2017 D.C. Background Study identified additional capital needs for administrative studies to address the increase in the needs for services related to development. Additional studies and updated costs have been identified including an updated cost for the Downtown Pickering Traffic Management Plan, D.C. Background Study Update and amendment costs, and a Fair Minded Pricing Policy related to the provision of Parks and Recreation Services. Table 3-5 summarizes the revised anticipated D.C. capital needs listing for Administration Services. The revised cost estimates, results in a total gross capital cost estimate of $12.8 million, an increase of approximately $0.3 million from the 2017 D.C. Background Study. Applying the required deductions for benefit to existing development and the 10% statutory deduction for soft services, results in D.C. recoverable costs of $8.2 million. This represents an increase of $0.3 million in D.C. recoverable costs from what was included in the previous study. The D.C. recoverable cost attribution has been maintained at 78% residential and 22% non-residential based on the share of net population increase as a percentage of the sum of the net population and employment increase for the planning period. - 257 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 15 2019 Update Study Table 3-1- Infrastructure Costs Covered in the D.C. Calculation – Parks and Recreation Services Less:Less: Prj.No Residential Share Non- Residential Share 2018-2027 95% 5% Parks 1 Parking lot expansion - Village East Park 2018-2027 107,900 - 107,900 80,925 26,975 2,698 24,278 23,064 1,214 2 Washroom/changerooms - Rotary Frenchman's Bay West Park 2019 500,000 - 500,000 250,000 250,000 25,000 225,000 213,750 11,250 3 Frenchman's Bay Waterfront Master Plan Implementation (ph 1A & ph 1B)2018 2,755,000 - 2,755,000 1,377,500 1,377,500 137,750 1,239,750 1,177,763 61,988 4 Frenchman's Bay Waterfront Master Plan Implementation (ph 2)2018-2019 2,000,000 - 2,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 100,000 900,000 855,000 45,000 5 Frenchman's Bay Waterfront Master Plan Implementation (ph 3)2019-2020 950,000 - 950,000 475,000 475,000 47,500 427,500 406,125 21,375 6 Community Park - Greenwood Conservation Lands (ph 1)2021-2023 5,396,000 - 5,396,000 2,698,000 2,698,000 269,800 2,428,200 2,306,790 121,410 7 Community Park - Greenwood Conservation Lands (ph 2)2024-2027 3,777,200 - 3,777,200 1,219,561 2,557,639 255,764 2,301,875 2,186,782 115,094 8 Park - Krosno Creek valley - Hwy 401 to Bayly 2019-2023 269,800 - 269,800 26,980 242,820 24,282 218,538 207,611 10,927 9 Park - The Piazza - downtown south intensification 2019-2023 539,600 - 539,600 53,960 485,640 48,564 437,076 415,222 21,854 10 Skate Board Park - Community Size (Civic Centre)2019 700,000 - 700,000 350,000 350,000 35,000 315,000 299,250 15,750 11 Skate Board Park - Skate Spots (2 locations)2018-2022 400,000 - 400,000 200,000 200,000 20,000 180,000 171,000 9,000 12 Village Green Construction - Kindwin Development (Brock Road)2018 250,000 - 250,000 6,250 243,750 24,375 219,375 208,406 10,969 13 D.H. Neighbourhood Park (Dersan & Tillings Road)2018-2019 600,000 - 600,000 15,000 585,000 58,500 526,500 500,175 26,325 - Seaton Parkland - 14 Neighbourhood Park P-102 2018 950,000 - 950,000 23,750 926,250 92,625 833,625 791,944 41,681 15 Village Green P-103 2018 210,000 - 210,000 5,250 204,750 20,475 184,275 175,061 9,214 16 Village Green P-104 2018-2019 285,000 - 285,000 7,125 277,875 27,788 250,088 237,583 12,504 17 Village Green P-105 2019-2020 230,000 - 230,000 5,750 224,250 22,425 201,825 191,734 10,091 18 Village Green P-106 2019-2020 120,000 - 120,000 3,000 117,000 11,700 105,300 100,035 5,265 19 Neighbourhood Park P-107 2019 440,000 - 440,000 11,000 429,000 42,900 386,100 366,795 19,305 20 Village Green P-108 2019-2020 250,000 - 250,000 6,250 243,750 24,375 219,375 208,406 10,969 21 Neighbourhood Park P-109 2019-2020 550,000 - 550,000 13,750 536,250 53,625 482,625 458,494 24,131 22 Village Green P-110 2019-2020 230,000 - 230,000 5,750 224,250 22,425 201,825 191,734 10,091 23 Village Green P-111 2019-2020 170,000 - 170,000 4,250 165,750 16,575 149,175 141,716 7,459 24 Village Green P-112 2021 260,000 - 260,000 6,500 253,500 25,350 228,150 216,743 11,408 25 Village Green P-113 2021 150,000 - 150,000 3,750 146,250 14,625 131,625 125,044 6,581 26 Village Green P-114 2019-2020 222,000 - 222,000 5,550 216,450 21,645 194,805 185,065 9,740 27 Community Park at Recreation Centre P-115 2022 3,000,000 - 3,000,000 75,000 2,925,000 292,500 2,632,500 2,500,875 131,625 28 Village Green P-116 2020-2021 230,000 - 230,000 5,750 224,250 22,425 201,825 191,734 10,091 29 Neighbourhood Park P-117 2020-2021 540,000 - 540,000 13,500 526,500 52,650 473,850 450,158 23,693 30 Village Green P-118 2020-2021 230,000 - 230,000 5,750 224,250 22,425 201,825 191,734 10,091 31 Village Green P-119 2020-2021 480,000 - 480,000 12,000 468,000 46,800 421,200 400,140 21,060 32 Neighbourhood Park P-120 2020-2021 500,000 - 500,000 12,500 487,500 48,750 438,750 416,813 21,938 33 Village Green P-121 2020 390,000 - 390,000 9,750 380,250 38,025 342,225 325,114 17,111 34 Neighbourhood Park P-122 2021 590,000 - 590,000 14,750 575,250 57,525 517,725 491,839 25,886 35 Community Park P-123 2024-2025 2,550,000 - 2,550,000 63,750 2,486,250 248,625 2,237,625 2,125,744 111,881 36 Neighbourhood Park P-124 2023 540,000 - 540,000 13,500 526,500 52,650 473,850 450,158 23,693 37 Village Green P-125 2023-2024 240,000 - 240,000 6,000 234,000 23,400 210,600 200,070 10,530 38 Village Green P-126 2023-2024 260,000 - 260,000 6,500 253,500 25,350 228,150 216,743 11,408 Grants, Subsidies and Other Contributions Attributable to New Development Other (e.g. 10% Statutory Deduction) TotalParks Code Gross Capital Cost Estimate (2017$) Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated Development Timing (year)Post Period Benefit Net Capital Cost Subtotal Potential DC Recoverable Cost Benefit to Existing Development - 258 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 16 2019 Update Study Less:Less: Prj.No Residential Share Non- Residential Share 2018-2027 95% 5% 39 Village Green P-127 2023-2024 230,000 - 230,000 5,750 224,250 22,425 201,825 191,734 10,091 40 Neighbourhood Park P-128 2026 590,000 - 590,000 14,750 575,250 57,525 517,725 491,839 25,886 41 Community Park at Recreation Centre II P-129 2028-2031 800,000 800,000 - - - - - - - 42 Village Green P-130 2026 230,000 - 230,000 5,750 224,250 22,425 201,825 191,734 10,091 43 Neighbourhood Park P-131 2026 600,000 - 600,000 15,000 585,000 58,500 526,500 500,175 26,325 44 Village Green P-132 2028-2031 230,000 230,000 - - - - - - - 45 Village Green P-133 2028-2031 210,000 210,000 - - - - - - - 46 Neighbourhood Park P-134 2028-2031 700,000 700,000 - - - - - - - 47 Neighbourhood Park P-135 2028-2031 560,000 560,000 - - - - - - - 48 Village Green P-136 2028-2031 230,000 230,000 - - - - - - - 49 Village Green P-137 2027 230,000 - 230,000 5,750 224,250 22,425 201,825 191,734 10,091 50 Village Green P-138 2027 230,000 - 230,000 5,750 224,250 22,425 201,825 191,734 10,091 51 Village Green P-139 2027 300,000 - 300,000 7,500 292,500 29,250 263,250 250,088 13,163 52 Village Green P-140 2028-2031 270,000 270,000 - - - - - - - 53 Community Park P-141 2028-2031 3,300,000 3,300,000 - - - - - - - 54 Neighbourhood Park P-142 2028-2031 890,000 890,000 - - - - - - - 55 Village Green P-143 2028-2031 230,000 230,000 - - - - - - - 56 District Park (Phase 1)P-144 2027 9,000,000 - 9,000,000 225,000 8,775,000 877,500 7,897,500 7,502,625 394,875 57 District Park (Phase 2)P-144 2028-2031 9,000,000 9,000,000 - - - - - - - - Trails - 58 Seaton Primary Neighbourhood Connection Trails 1 major stream crossing T-1 2020 360,000 - 360,000 9,000 351,000 35,100 315,900 300,105 15,795 59 Seaton Primary Neighbourhood Connection Trails 1 minor stream crossing T-2 2020 360,000 - 360,000 9,000 351,000 35,100 315,900 300,105 15,795 60 Seaton Primary Neighbourhood Connection Trails 1 major stream crossing T-3 2021 410,000 - 410,000 10,250 399,750 39,975 359,775 341,786 17,989 61 Seaton Primary Neighbourhood Connection Trails 1 major stream crossing T-4 2021 380,000 - 380,000 9,500 370,500 37,050 333,450 316,778 16,673 62 Seaton Primary Neighbourhood Connection Trails 2 major stream crossing T-5 2021 710,000 - 710,000 17,750 692,250 69,225 623,025 591,874 31,151 63 Seaton Primary Neighbourhood Connection Trails 2 major stream crossing T-6 2024 800,000 - 800,000 20,000 780,000 78,000 702,000 666,900 35,100 64 Seaton Primary Neighbourhood Connection Trails 1 minor stream crossing T-7 2024 370,000 - 370,000 9,250 360,750 36,075 324,675 308,441 16,234 65 Seaton Primary Neighbourhood Connection Trails 2 major stream crossing T-8 2026 930,000 - 930,000 23,250 906,750 90,675 816,075 775,271 40,804 66 Seaton Primary Neighbourhood Connection Trails 1 minor stream crossing T-9 2022 140,000 - 140,000 3,500 136,500 13,650 122,850 116,708 6,143 67 Seaton Primary Neighbourhood Connection Trails 1 major stream crossing T-10 2022 320,000 - 320,000 8,000 312,000 31,200 280,800 266,760 14,040 68 Seaton Primary Neighbourhood Connection Trails 1 major stream crossing T-11 2027 340,000 - 340,000 8,500 331,500 33,150 298,350 283,433 14,918 69 Seaton Primary Neighbourhood Connection Trails 1 major stream crossing T-12 2028-2031 310,000 310,000 - - - - - - - 70 Seaton Primary Neighbourhood Connection Trails 1 major stream crossing T-13 2028-2031 290,000 290,000 - - - - - - - 71 Seaton Primary Neighbourhood Connection Trails 1 major stream crossing T-14 2028-2031 340,000 340,000 - - - - - - - 72 Multi-purpose trail - Duffin Heights (Mattamy dev't) to Ajax 2025 539,600 - 539,600 269,800 269,800 26,980 242,820 230,679 12,141 73 Multi-purpose trail - Hydro Corridor (Liverpool to Whites)2019-2023 982,100 - 982,100 491,050 491,050 49,105 441,945 419,848 22,097 74 Trail - Bayly Street from waterfront trail to Go Station 2019-2023 539,600 - 539,600 269,800 269,800 26,980 242,820 230,679 12,141 75 Trail - Bayly Street from Go Station to Hydro Corridor 2019-2023 377,700 - 377,700 188,850 188,850 18,885 169,965 161,467 8,498 76 Trail - Finch to Brockridge Park (45m bridge)2019-2023 917,300 - 917,300 458,650 458,650 45,865 412,785 392,146 20,639 77 Trail - Wharf Street to Sandy Beach Road 2019-2023 431,700 - 431,700 215,850 215,850 21,585 194,265 184,552 9,713 78 Mulit-pupose trail - Hydro Corridor (Whites to Townline)2024-2027 1,618,800 - 1,618,800 809,400 809,400 80,940 728,460 692,037 36,423 Grants, Subsidies and Other Contributions Attributable to New Development Other (e.g. 10% Statutory Deduction) TotalParks Code Gross Capital Cost Estimate (2017$) Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated Development Timing (year)Post Period Benefit Net Capital Cost Subtotal Potential DC Recoverable Cost Benefit to Existing Development - 259 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 17 2019 Update Study Less:Less: Prj.No Residential Share Non- Residential Share 2018-2027 95% 5% Recreation Facilities - 79 Seaton Recreation Complex 2020 75,000 - 75,000 1,875 73,125 7,313 65,813 62,522 3,291 2021 10,700,000 - 10,700,000 267,500 10,432,500 1,043,250 9,389,250 8,919,788 469,463 2022 42,800,000 - 42,800,000 1,070,000 41,730,000 4,173,000 37,557,000 35,679,150 1,877,850 2023 2,600,000 - 2,600,000 65,000 2,535,000 253,500 2,281,500 2,167,425 114,075 80 Community Centre 2018 388,673 - 388,673 166,399 222,273 22,227 200,046 190,044 10,002 (Part of Pickering Heritage and Community Centre)2019 2,040,531 - 2,040,531 873,597 1,166,934 116,693 1,050,241 997,729 52,512 2021 916,152 - 916,152 192,417 723,736 72,374 651,362 618,794 32,568 2022 4,809,800 - 4,809,800 1,010,188 3,799,612 379,961 3,419,651 3,248,668 170,983 81 Youth & Seniors' Centre 2019 5,309,991 - 5,309,991 132,750 5,177,241 517,724 4,659,517 4,426,541 232,976 2020 25,275,555 - 25,275,555 631,889 24,643,666 2,464,367 22,179,299 21,070,334 1,108,965 2021 25,275,555 - 25,275,555 631,889 24,643,666 2,464,367 22,179,299 21,070,334 1,108,965 82 Arts Centre (Community Uses)2019 13,869,389 - 13,869,389 346,735 13,522,654 1,352,265 12,170,389 11,561,869 608,519 - Parks Operations Vehicles and Equipment - 83 Area Mower 2020 115,000 - 115,000 - 115,000 11,500 103,500 98,325 5,175 84 Area Mower (2)2018-2027 230,000 - 230,000 - 230,000 23,000 207,000 196,650 10,350 85 Litter Picker Vacuum 2018 30,000 - 30,000 - 30,000 3,000 27,000 25,650 1,350 86 Garbage Packer 2018-2027 150,000 - 150,000 - 150,000 15,000 135,000 128,250 6,750 87 Garbage Packer 2018 150,000 - 150,000 - 150,000 15,000 135,000 128,250 6,750 88 Enclosed Trailers (3)2018-2027 36,000 - 36,000 - 36,000 3,600 32,400 30,780 1,620 89 Zero Turn Mower (6)2018-2027 108,000 - 108,000 - 108,000 10,800 97,200 92,340 4,860 90 Pickup Trucks (2)2018-2027 74,000 - 74,000 - 74,000 7,400 66,600 63,270 3,330 91 1 Ton Dump Trucks (2)2018-2027 130,000 - 130,000 - 130,000 13,000 117,000 111,150 5,850 92 SUV (2)2018-2027 70,000 - 70,000 - 70,000 7,000 63,000 59,850 3,150 93 4 Ton Dump Truck 2018-2027 270,000 - 270,000 - 270,000 27,000 243,000 230,850 12,150 94 Utility Vehicle 2019 25,000 - 25,000 - 25,000 2,500 22,500 21,375 1,125 Parks Operations Facilities - 95 New Operations Centre (Growth Related Share)2017 3,839,435 - 3,839,435 3,839,435 3,839,435 3,647,463 191,972 96 New Northern Satellite Operations Centre, including land 2024 3,433,300 - 3,433,300 - 3,433,300 343,330 3,089,970 2,935,472 154,499 Reserve Fund Adjustment (16,528,412) (16,528,412) (15,701,991) (826,421) Total 213,880,680 17,360,000 196,520,680 16,600,490 - 163,391,779 17,608,076 145,783,704 138,494,518 7,289,185 Grants, Subsidies and Other Contributions Attributable to New Development Other (e.g. 10% Statutory Deduction) TotalParks Code Gross Capital Cost Estimate (2017$) Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated Development Timing (year)Post Period Benefit Net Capital Cost Subtotal Potential DC Recoverable Cost Benefit to Existing Development - 260 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 18 2019 Update Study Table 3-2 Infrastructure Costs Covered in the D.C. Calculation – Library Services Less:Less: Prj.No Residential Share Non- Residential Share 2018-2027 95% 5% Facilities 1 Central Library Facility 2018 3,509,764 3,509,764 1,833,898 1,675,866 167,587 1,508,280 1,432,866 75,414 2019 20,908,168 20,908,168 10,924,793 9,983,375 998,338 8,985,038 8,535,786 449,252 2020 20,908,168 20,908,168 10,924,793 9,983,375 998,338 8,985,038 8,535,786 449,252 2 Seaton Regional Library, including land (including material)2021 4,138,000 2,918,384 1,219,616 103,450 1,116,166 111,617 1,004,549 954,322 50,227 2022 6,860,000 4,838,114 2,021,886 171,500 1,850,386 185,039 1,665,347 1,582,080 83,267 2023 6,861,000 4,838,819 2,022,181 171,525 1,850,656 185,066 1,665,590 1,582,311 83,280 3 Archives and Library Space 2018 612,454 612,454 - 612,454 61,245 551,208 523,648 27,560 (Part of Pickering Heritage and Community Centre)2019 3,215,383 3,215,383 - 3,215,383 321,538 2,893,844 2,749,152 144,692 2021 61,449 61,449 - 61,449 6,145 55,304 52,539 2,765 2022 322,609 322,609 - 322,609 32,261 290,348 275,830 14,517 Reserve Fund Adjustment (2,798,782) (2,798,782) (2,658,843) (139,939) Total 67,396,995 12,595,317 54,801,678 24,129,959 - 27,872,937 3,067,172 24,805,766 23,565,477 1,240,288 Other (e.g. 10% Statutory Deduction) Total Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated Development Timing (year) Gross Capital Cost Estimate (2017$) Post Period Benefit Net Capital Cost SubtotalBenefit to Existing Development Grants, Subsidies and Other Contributions Attributable to New Development Potential DC Recoverable Cost - 261 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 19 2019 Update Study Table 3-3 Infrastructure Costs Covered in the D.C. Calculation – Protection Services Less: Prj .No Residential Share Non- Residential Share 2018-2027 78% 22% Facilities 1 Fire Station A (Seaton)2019 6,662,868 - 6,662,868 166,572 6,496,296 6,496,296 5,067,111 1,429,185 2 Fire Station B, including land (Seaton)2023 8,230,000 - 8,230,000 205,750 8,024,250 8,024,250 6,258,915 1,765,335 3 Animal Shelter & By-Law Services, including land 2020 8,066,000 - 8,066,000 1,963,896 6,102,104 610,210 5,491,894 4,283,677 1,208,217 Vehicles 4 1 small vehicle (Seaton)2018 45,000 - 45,000 1,125 43,875 43,875 34,223 9,653 5 1 Aerial (Seaton)2019 1,510,900 - 1,510,900 37,773 1,473,128 1,473,128 1,149,039 324,088 6 Aerial (Fire Station B) (Seaton)2023 1,510,900 - 1,510,900 37,773 1,473,128 1,473,128 1,149,039 324,088 7 Small vehicle (2) (Seaton)2023 90,000 - 90,000 2,250 87,750 87,750 68,445 19,305 8 Pumper (Fire Station B) (Seaton)2023 900,000 - 900,000 22,500 877,500 877,500 684,450 193,050 9 Provision for additional By-law and Animal Services Enforcement Vehicles 2018-2027 158,000 - 158,000 3,950 154,050 15,405 138,645 108,143 30,502 Equipment 10 Equipment for 20 Firefighters incl. Bunker Gear and Breathing Apparatus (Station A)2019 394,500 - 394,500 - 394,500 394,500 307,710 86,790 11 Equipment for 20 Firefighters incl. Bunker Gear and Breathing Apparatus (Station A)2021 394,500 - 394,500 - 394,500 394,500 307,710 86,790 12 Equipment for 20 Firefighters incl. Bunker Gear and Breathing Apparatus (Station B)2023 394,500 - 394,500 - 394,500 394,500 307,710 86,790 13 Equipment for 20 Firefighters incl. Bunker Gear and Breathing Apparatus (Station B)2024 394,500 - 394,500 - 394,500 394,500 307,710 86,790 Reserve Fund Adjustment 254,176 198,257 55,919 Total 28,751,668 - 28,751,668 2,441,587 - 26,310,080 625,615 25,938,641 20,232,140 5,706,501 Post Period Benefit Net Capital Cost Gross Capital Cost Estimate (2017$) Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated Development Timing (year) Benefit to Existing Development Grants, Subsidies and Other Contributions Attributable to New Development Total Potential DC Recoverable CostLess: Subtotal Other (e.g. 10% Statutory Deduction) - 262 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 20 2019 Update Study Table 3-4 - Infrastructure Costs Covered in the D.C. Calculation – Transportation Services Less:Potential DC Recoverable Cost Prj .No Residential Share Non- Residential Share 92% 8% Roads 1 Tillings Road oversizing - local to collector DH-3 2018-2024 294,800 - 294,800 29,480 265,320 244,094 21,226 2 William Jackson Drive - Urfe Creek to Taunton Road Urbanization, pedestrian trail DH-13 2018-2024 2,229,040 - 2,229,040 222,904 2,006,136 1,845,645 160,491 3 Sandy Beach Road 3-lane urban reconstruction, incl. storm B-29 2018-2024 6,500,000 - 6,500,000 3,250,000 3,250,000 2,990,000 260,000 4 DH-4 Valley Farm Rd. - Tillings Road to Brock Rd Oversizing - local to collector DH-4 2018-2024 288,000 - 288,000 28,800 259,200 238,464 20,736 5 DH-14 William Jackson Dr. (Old Taunton). Urfe Creek Culvert Structure (Design/Approval).EA & Design DH-14 2018-2024 450,000 - 450,000 45,000 405,000 372,600 32,400 6 DH-14 William Jackson Dr. (Old Taunton). Urfe Creek Culvert Structure (Construction)Construction DH-14 2018-2024 3,455,100 - 3,455,100 345,510 3,109,590 2,860,823 248,767 7 Valley Farm Road - North of Third Concession to Tillings 3-lane urban construction, incl. storm DH-1 2020-2024 3,399,500 - 3,399,500 339,950 3,059,550 2,814,786 244,764 8 Twyn Rivers Drive - Hoover to West Limit 2-lane urban reconstruction RO-3 2025-2031 2,210,000 - 2,210,000 1,657,500 552,500 508,300 44,200 9 Finch Avenue - Townline to Altona 3-lane urban reconstruction, incl. storm RP-4 2018-2024 1,850,300 - 1,850,300 462,575 1,387,725 1,276,707 111,018 10 Pickering Parkway - Glenanna to Hydro Corridor (E)sidewalk TC-1 2018-2024 54,100 - 54,100 40,575 13,525 12,443 1,082 11 Diefenbaker Extension - East Limit to Pickering Parkway 2-lane, new construction TC-5 2025-2031 750,000 - 750,000 562,500 187,500 172,500 15,000 12 Notion Road - Kingston to 350m South 2-lane urban reconstruction, incl. Storm V-5 2018-2024 1,052,500 - 1,052,500 526,250 526,250 484,150 42,100 13 Sheppard Avenue - Whites to West Limit sidewalk, blvd., streetlight on north side WO-5 2018-2024 244,000 - 244,000 183,000 61,000 56,120 4,880 14 Sheppard Avenue - Whites to 600m East sidewalk, blvd., structures south side WO-9 2018-2024 395,000 - 395,000 296,250 98,750 90,850 7,900 15 Audley Road (Sideline 2) Conc. #5 to Hwy 7 2-lane rural reconstruction incl. structures RU-4 2018-2024 3,212,155 - 3,212,155 1,606,078 1,606,078 1,477,591 128,486 16 A-5, A-6, A-7 Arterial Connection Bayly to Kingston Rd.Feasibility Study & EA TC-31 2018-2024 2,698,000 - 2,698,000 674,500 2,023,500 1,861,620 161,880 17 Dunbarton Walkway - Dunbarton to Rambleberry walkway D-4 2018-2024 323,150 - 323,150 242,363 80,788 74,325 6,463 18 Valley Farm/Tillings Bridge - Ganatsekiagon EA & Design DH-2 2018-2024 500,000 500,000 50,000 450,000 414,000 36,000 19 Valley Farm/Tillings Bridge - Ganatsekiagon New Structure DH-2 2020-2024 13,489,900 - 13,489,900 1,348,990 12,140,910 11,169,637 971,273 20 Oakwood Drive - Rougemount to Mountain Ash 2-lane urban reconstruction R-4a 2018-2024 1,435,750 - 1,435,750 717,875 717,875 660,445 57,430 21 Oakwood Drive - Mountain Ash to Toynevale 2-lane urban reconstruction, incl. storm R-4b 2018-2024 718,225 - 718,225 359,113 359,113 330,384 28,729 22 Rougemount Drive - Woodgrange to Toynevale 2-lane urban reconstruction, incl. storm R-5 2018-2024 285,280 - 285,280 142,640 142,640 131,229 11,411 23 Finch Avenue - West of Altona (Structure) culvert replacement RP-2 2018-2024 1,000,000 - 1,000,000 500,000 500,000 460,000 40,000 24 Scar/Pickering Townline - Finch to CPR reconstruction/widen RP-14 2018-2024 866,800 - 866,800 433,400 433,400 398,728 34,672 25 Scar/Pickering Townline - CPR to Taunton/Steeles reconstruction/widen RU-7 2018-2024 5,634,200 - 5,634,200 2,817,100 2,817,100 2,591,732 225,368 26 Dixie Road - Kingston to South Limit sidewalk, east side TC-13 2018-2024 54,100 - 54,100 40,575 13,525 12,443 1,082 27 Granite Court - Whites to Rosebank sidewalk, north side W-4 2018-2024 207,085 - 207,085 155,314 51,771 47,630 4,142 28 Kellino Street - Squires Beach to Church 3-lane urban reconstruction, incl. storm BI-8 2019 2,236,500 - 2,236,500 1,118,250 1,118,250 1,028,790 89,460 29 Squires Beach Road - Bayly to CNR Tracks 3-lane urban reconstruction, incl. storm BI-18 2019 2,236,500 - 2,236,500 1,118,250 1,118,250 1,028,790 89,460 30 A-11 (Plummer) - Sandy Beach Road to Krosno Creek Oversizing to Collector B26B 2021 312,655 - 312,655 78,164 234,492 215,732 18,759 31 A-12 (Plummer) - Krosno Creek Crossing Bridge Structure B-27 2021 2,014,434 - 2,014,434 503,608 1,510,825 1,389,959 120,866 32 A-13 (N/S COllector) - Krosno Creek to Bayly Street Crossing Oversizing to Collector B-28 2021 50,398 - 50,398 12,600 37,799 34,775 3,024 33 Rosebank Road - CPR to Third Concession Rd.reconstruction/widen L-17 2025-2031 4,278,250 - 4,278,250 1,069,563 3,208,688 2,951,993 256,695 34 Rosebank Road - Third Concession Rd. To Taunton Rd.reconstruction/widen L-18 2025-2031 3,137,920 - 3,137,920 784,480 2,353,440 2,165,165 188,275 Benefit to Existing Development Grants, Subsidies and Other Contributions Attributable to New Development Total 2018-2031 Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated Development Roads Code Post Period Benefit Net Capital CostTiming (year) Gross Capital Cost Estimate (2017$) - 263 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 21 2019 Update Study Less:Potential DC Recoverable Cost Prj .No Residential Share Non- Residential Share 92% 8% 35 Montgomery Park Rd. - Sandy Beach Rd. To Mckay Rd.Urbanization /Full Load BI-21 2018-2024 3,710,000 - 3,710,000 1,855,000 1,855,000 1,706,600 148,400 36 Third Concession Rd. - Dixie Rd. To Whites Rd.Reconstruction/widen L-12 2025-2031 4,564,371 - 4,564,371 1,141,093 3,423,278 3,149,416 273,862 37 Third Concession Rd. - Whites Rd. To Altona Rd.Reconstruction/widen L-13 2025-2031 4,564,371 - 4,564,371 1,141,093 3,423,278 3,149,416 273,862 38 Third Concession Rd. - Altona Rd. To West Townline Reconstruction/widen L-14 2025-2031 4,564,371 - 4,564,371 1,141,093 3,423,278 3,149,416 273,862 39 Fairport Rd. - Lynn Heights To Third Concession Rd.Reconstruction/widen L-15 2025-2031 4,279,080 - 4,279,080 1,069,770 3,209,310 2,952,565 256,745 40 Dixie Rd. - Hydro Corridor To Third Concession Rd. Reconstruction/widen L-16 2025-2031 3,993,800 - 3,993,800 998,450 2,995,350 2,755,722 239,628 41 A-8 (Plummer) - Brock Rd. To Salk Road Reconstruction to collector road B-24 2025-2031 462,263 - 462,263 115,566 346,697 318,962 27,736 42 A-9 (Plummer) - Salk Road To Hydro Corridor (centre)New collector road B-25 2025-2031 369,773 - 369,773 92,443 277,330 255,144 22,186 43 A-10 (Plummer) - Hyrdo Corridor (centre) to Sandy Beach Road New collector road B-26 2025-2031 908,586 - 908,586 227,146 681,439 626,924 54,515 44 Walnut Lane Extension - construction and contract admin 2019 2,500,000 2,500,000 625,000 1,875,000 1,725,000 150,000 45 Walnut Lane Extension -EA and Design 2018 211,226 211,226 52,807 158,420 145,746 12,674 46 EA Study A8-A12 (Plummer) B-24 to B-28 2018-2024 500,000 - 500,000 125,000 375,000 345,000 30,000 Streetlights and Sidewalks 47 WO-2 Kingston Road - South Side Rosebank Rd. to Steeple Hill Includes pedestrian bridge WO-2 2018-2024 332,660 - 332,660 166,330 166,330 153,024 13,306 48 Kingston Road - Glendale Drive to Walnut Lane North side TC-9 2025-2031 351,000 - 351,000 175,500 175,500 161,460 14,040 49 Kingston Road - Dixie Road to Liverpool Road South Side TC-12 2018-2024 585,000 - 585,000 292,500 292,500 269,100 23,400 50 Sidewalk & Streetlights: Rosebank to Whites ES 2000 RO-10 Rosebank to 250 m west North Side RO-10 2018-2024 103,283 - 103,283 51,642 51,642 47,510 4,131 51 Sidewalks & Streetlights TC-7 (2005-2009) Kingston Rd. - Valley Farm Rd. East (south side) to Hydro Corridor. South Side TC-7 2018-2024 133,500 - 133,500 66,750 66,750 61,410 5,340 52 Sidewalks & Streetlights. N.E. Quadrant Delta Blvd 03-2321-01-21 WO-1 2025-2031 112,000 - 112,000 56,000 56,000 51,520 4,480 53 Sidewalks & Streetlights: Kingston Rd. Steeple Hill to Whites 04-2321-002-03 North Side WO-3 2018 317,000 - 317,000 158,500 158,500 145,820 12,680 54 Sidewalks & Streetlights: Kingston/Dixie-CNR tracks South Side TC-11 2025-2031 133,500 - 133,500 66,750 66,750 61,410 5,340 55 Streetlights & Sidewalks Brock Road-both sides-Forbrock Rd. to Taunton Road. DH-24 2018-2024 50,000 - 50,000 25,000 25,000 23,000 2,000 56 TC-6 - Valley Farm Road (East Side) Kingston Road to 100m South - Sidewalk/Blvd. in conjunction with adjacent development. TC-6 2018-2024 53,777 - 53,777 26,889 26,889 24,737 2,151 57 Kingston Road - West Limit of Neighbourhood 7 to Dixie Road north side D-1 2018-2024 570,000 - 570,000 285,000 285,000 262,200 22,800 58 Kingston Road - West Limit to East Limit of Neighbourhood 7 (Fairport to CN bridge)south side.D-2 2018-2024 694,535 - 694,535 347,268 347,268 319,486 27,781 59 Finch Avenue - Spruce Hill to East Limit of Neighbourhood 9 north side D-9 2018-2024 285,000 - 285,000 142,500 142,500 131,100 11,400 60 Finch Avenue - Spruce Hill to Fairport Road south side D-10 2018-2024 253,000 - 253,000 126,500 126,500 116,380 10,120 61 Finch Avenue - Brock Road to Hydro Corridor north side V-12 2018-2024 315,650 - 315,650 157,825 157,825 145,199 12,626 Benefit to Existing Development Grants, Subsidies and Other Contributions Attributable to New Development Total 2018-2031 Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated Development Roads Code Post Period Benefit Net Capital CostTiming (year) Gross Capital Cost Estimate (2017$) - 264 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 22 2019 Update Study Less:Potential DC Recoverable Cost Prj .No Residential Share Non- Residential Share 92% 8% 62 Whites Road - Granite Court to Hwy 401 west side W-5 2018-2024 95,000 - 95,000 47,500 47,500 43,700 3,800 63 Whites Road - North of 3rd Concession to Taunton Road sidewalk, multi-use trail, streetlight RU-8 2018-2024 1,153,000 - 1,153,000 57,650 1,095,350 1,007,722 87,628 64 Whites Road - Finch Ave to Seaton Boundary multi-use 2018-2024 1,741,100 - 1,741,100 174,110 1,566,990 1,441,631 125,359 65 Whites Road - Bridge over west Duffins Creek streetlighting RU-9 2018-2024 809,400 - 809,400 40,470 768,930 707,416 61,514 66 Brock Road - Bayly Street to Montgomery Road East and West Sides BI-4 2018-2024 1,861,600 - 1,861,600 930,800 930,800 856,336 74,464 67 Sideline 24 - Hwy 7 south to north limit of subdivision sidewalk/streetlights RU-12 2018-2024 389,600 - 389,600 58,440 331,160 304,667 26,493 68 Whites Rd. CPR Overpass sidewalk/streetlights A-6 2018-2024 269,800 - 269,800 40,470 229,330 210,984 18,346 69 Bayly Street - Church Street to West Limit Neighbourhood 4 north and south sides BI-1 2018-2024 1,162,300 - 1,162,300 581,150 581,150 534,658 46,492 70 Hwy 7 - Brock Rd to West Townline Sidewalk/streetlights north side RU-10 2018-2024 1,250,800 - 1,250,800 187,620 1,063,180 978,126 85,054 71 Church Street - Bayly Street to Kellino Street west side BI-17 2018-2024 325,000 - 325,000 162,500 162,500 149,500 13,000 72 Altona Road - Strouds Lane to North Limit of Neighbourhood 10 east and west sides H1 2018-2024 1,300,000 - 1,300,000 650,000 650,000 598,000 52,000 73 Finch Avenue - West Limit of Neighbourhood 7 to Duncannon Dr.north side L-6 2018-2024 150,000 - 150,000 75,000 75,000 69,000 6,000 74 Finch Avenue - Lynn Heights to East 80m north side L-7 2018-2024 40,000 - 40,000 20,000 20,000 18,400 1,600 75 Finch Avenue - Valley Farm Road to West 600m south side L-9 2018-2024 300,000 - 300,000 150,000 150,000 138,000 12,000 76 Finch Avenue - Valley Farm Road to East 300m north side L-10 2018-2024 150,000 - 150,000 75,000 75,000 69,000 6,000 77 Finch Avenue - Altona Road to Rosebank Road south side RP-6 2018-2024 250,000 - 250,000 125,000 125,000 115,000 10,000 78 Finch Avenue - Rosebank Road to 500m West north side RP-5 2018-2024 250,000 - 250,000 125,000 125,000 115,000 10,000 79 Altona Road - Finch Avenue to Hydro Corridor (N)east side RP-9 2018-2024 150,000 - 150,000 75,000 75,000 69,000 6,000 80 Altona Road - Finch Avenue to North Limit of Neighbourhood 14 west side RP-10 2018-2024 150,000 - 150,000 75,000 75,000 69,000 6,000 81 Altona Road - Finch Avenue to North Limit of Neighbourhood 14 east side RP-11 2018-2024 150,000 - 150,000 75,000 75,000 69,000 6,000 82 North Road - Hwy 7 south to north limit of subdivision sidewalk/streetlights RU-11 2018-2024 500,000 - 500,000 75,000 425,000 391,000 34,000 83 Whitevale Road - Altona Road to York/Durham Townline sidewalk/streetlights/multi-use trail RU-14 2018-2024 675,000 - 675,000 101,250 573,750 527,850 45,900 84 Taunton Rd. - Sideline 16 to Church St.sidewalk/streetlights/multi-use trail RU-17 2025-2031 375,000 - 375,000 56,250 318,750 293,250 25,500 85 Taunton Rd. - Whites Rd. To West Townline sidewalk/streetlights/multi-use trail RU-18 2025-2031 2,475,000 - 2,475,000 371,250 2,103,750 1,935,450 168,300 86 South Esplanade Pedestrian Mall walkway 2025-2031 900,000 - 900,000 450,000 450,000 414,000 36,000 87 Kingston Road - Fronting 820 Kingston Road to Fairport Rd North Side (455m)WO-10 2018-2024 270,000 - 270,000 135,000 135,000 124,200 10,800 88 Kingston Road - Rougemount Drive to 300m west North Side RO-12 2018-2024 175,500 - 175,500 87,750 87,750 80,730 7,020 Traffic Signals 89 Pickering Parkway at Glenanna Rd. - Signalization TC-4 2018-2024 300,000 - 300,000 30,000 270,000 248,400 21,600 90 Glenanna Road at Fairport Road Signalization D-8 2018-2024 300,000 - 300,000 30,000 270,000 248,400 21,600 91 Welrus Street at Fairport Road Signalization D-12 2018-2024 300,000 - 300,000 30,000 270,000 248,400 21,600 92 Rosebank Road at Sheppard Avenue Jog elimination/Signalization & EA WO-8 2018-2024 700,000 - 700,000 70,000 630,000 579,600 50,400 93 Rosebank Road at Highview Road/Deerhaven Lane Signalization A-5 2018-2024 300,000 - 300,000 30,000 270,000 248,400 21,600 94 Strouds Lane at Aspen Road/Shadybrook Drive Signalization A-7 2025-2031 600,000 - 600,000 60,000 540,000 496,800 43,200 95 Finch Avenue at Woodview Avenue Signalization RP-1 2025-2031 300,000 - 300,000 30,000 270,000 248,400 21,600 Reserve Fund Adjustment (18,249,536) (16,789,573) (1,459,963) Total 122,899,489 - 122,899,489 37,774,778 - 66,875,175 61,525,161 5,350,014 Benefit to Existing Development Grants, Subsidies and Other Contributions Attributable to New Development Total 2018-2031 Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated Development Roads Code Post Period Benefit Net Capital CostTiming (year) Gross Capital Cost Estimate (2017$) - 265 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 23 2019 Update Study Table 3-5 Infrastructure Costs Covered in the D.C. Calculation – Administration Studies Less:Less: Prj.No Residential Share Non- Residential Share 2018-2027 78% 22% 1 Development Charges Background Study 2022 125,000 - 125,000 - 125,000 12,500 112,500 87,750 24,750 2 Development Charges Background Study 2027 125,000 - 125,000 - 125,000 12,500 112,500 87,750 24,750 3 South Pickering Intensification Study (Incl. Parts 4-5)2018-2020 400,000 - 400,000 100,000 300,000 30,000 270,000 210,600 59,400 4 South Pickering Heritage Inventory 2018-2020 54,000 - 54,000 40,500 13,500 1,350 12,150 9,477 2,673 5 Municipal Comprehensive Review 2022 500,000 - 500,000 125,000 375,000 37,500 337,500 263,250 74,250 6 Official Plan Review 2027 250,000 - 250,000 125,000 125,000 12,500 112,500 87,750 24,750 7 Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review 2018-2021 431,700 - 431,700 107,925 323,775 32,378 291,398 227,290 64,107 8 Planning Application Fee Review Study 2018 25,000 - 25,000 - 25,000 2,500 22,500 17,550 4,950 9 Community Improvement Plans for Durham Live Lands and for City Centre Lands 2019-2022 150,000 - 150,000 37,500 112,500 11,250 101,250 78,975 22,275 10 Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighborhoods 2018-2026 150,000 - 150,000 75,000 75,000 7,500 67,500 52,650 14,850 11 Library-Strategic Plan 2018 60,000 - 60,000 15,000 45,000 4,500 40,500 31,590 8,910 12 Library-Facilities/Master Plan 2018 54,000 - 54,000 13,500 40,500 4,050 36,450 28,431 8,019 13 Library-Strategic Plan 2022 60,000 - 60,000 15,000 45,000 4,500 40,500 31,590 8,910 14 Library-Strategic Plan 2026 60,000 - 60,000 15,000 45,000 4,500 40,500 31,590 8,910 15 Traffic Management Plan for Downtown Pickering 2026 373,320 - 373,320 37,332 335,988 335,988 262,071 73,917 16 Transportation Demand Management Plan/Parking Management Plan (Seaton)2026 161,900 - 161,900 16,190 145,710 145,710 113,654 32,056 17 Downtown Parking Strategy Study 2021-2022 107,900 - 107,900 10,790 97,110 9,711 87,399 68,171 19,228 18 Neighbourhood Traffic Calming Measures 2018-2027 150,000 - 150,000 15,000 135,000 135,000 105,300 29,700 19 Transportation Master Plan Update 2027 400,000 - 400,000 40,000 360,000 360,000 280,800 79,200 20 Esplanade Study Provision 2018-2026 50,000 - 50,000 12,500 37,500 3,750 33,750 26,325 7,425 21 Fire Master Plan 2019 134,900 - 134,900 33,725 101,175 101,175 78,917 22,259 22 Brock Industrial Drainage Master Plan 2018-2027 300,000 - 300,000 30,000 270,000 270,000 210,600 59,400 23 Stormwater Management Study for Infill Development 2018-2027 215,800 - 215,800 53,950 161,850 161,850 126,243 35,607 24 Frenchman's Bay Stormwater Management Master Plan Update 2018-2027 700,000 - 700,000 70,000 630,000 630,000 491,400 138,600 25 Pickering City Centre Stormwater Management Strategy Update 2018-2027 250,000 - 250,000 25,000 225,000 225,000 175,500 49,500 26 SWM User Fee Study 2018-2027 200,000 - 200,000 100,000 100,000 10,000 90,000 70,200 19,800 Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated Development Timing (year) Gross Capital Cost Estimate (2017$) Post Period Benefit Net Capital Cost SubtotalBenefit to Existing Development Grants, Subsidies and Other Contributions Attributable to New Development Other (e.g. 10% Statutory Deduction) Total Potential DC Recoverable Cost - 266 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 24 2019 Update Study Less:Less: Prj.No Residential Share Non- Residential Share 2018-2027 78% 22% 27 Community Engagement on Economic Impact and Employment - Highway 407 Corridor 2018 150,000 - 150,000 84,773 65,227 6,523 58,704 45,789 12,915 28 Pickering Corporate Energy Plan Update 2019 50,000 - 50,000 28,258 21,742 2,174 19,568 15,263 4,305 29 Seaton Corporate Energy Plan Update 2022 50,000 - 50,000 - 50,000 5,000 45,000 35,100 9,900 30 Pickering Climate Adaption Plan 2020 150,000 - 150,000 84,773 65,227 6,523 58,704 45,789 12,915 31 Broadband Strategy and Implementation Plan 2019 75,000 - 75,000 42,387 32,613 3,261 29,352 22,895 6,457 32 Natural Capital Asset Evaluation 2022 75,000 - 75,000 42,387 32,613 3,261 29,352 22,895 6,457 33 Facilities Management Plan 2018 150,000 - 150,000 37,500 112,500 11,250 101,250 78,975 22,275 34 Facilities Management Plan Update 2027 167,000 - 167,000 41,750 125,250 12,525 112,725 87,926 24,800 35 Facilities Renewal Plan 2018-2026 200,000 - 200,000 113,031 86,969 8,697 78,272 61,052 17,220 36 Facilities Way Finding Study 2018-2026 50,000 - 50,000 28,258 21,742 2,174 19,568 15,263 4,305 37 Space Use Study 2018 35,000 - 35,000 26,250 8,750 875 7,875 6,143 1,733 38 Urban Forest Management 2018-2026 97,100 - 97,100 24,275 72,825 7,283 65,543 51,123 14,419 39 Seaton Primary Trails IO EA Phase 1 & 2 Lands (including site walks, surveying, archaeology)2018 400,000 - 400,000 - 400,000 40,000 360,000 280,800 79,200 40 Diversity and Inclusion Plan 2020 75,000 - 75,000 42,387 32,613 3,261 29,352 22,895 6,457 41 Age Friendly Community Plan 2018 75,000 - 75,000 42,387 32,613 3,261 29,352 22,895 6,457 42 Seniors Recreation Strategic Plan 2019 75,000 - 75,000 37,500 37,500 3,750 33,750 26,325 7,425 43 Recreation Services Master Plan Update 2027 170,000 - 170,000 42,500 127,500 12,750 114,750 89,505 25,245 44 Waterfront Park Needs Assessment 2019-2020 100,000 - 100,000 25,000 75,000 7,500 67,500 52,650 14,850 45 Whitevale Park Revitalization Study 2021 80,000 - 80,000 20,000 60,000 6,000 54,000 42,120 11,880 46 New Financial System 2018-2026 5,000,000 - 5,000,000 2,825,781 2,174,219 217,422 1,956,797 1,526,302 430,495 47 D.C. Amendment 2019-2020 60,664 - 60,664 - 60,664 6,066 54,598 42,586 12,012 48 Fair Minded Pricing Policy 2020 60,664 - 60,664 34,285 26,380 2,638 23,742 18,518 5,223 Reserve Fund Adjustment 673,868 673,868 525,617 148,251 Total 12,833,949 - 12,833,949 4,737,394 - 8,770,423 573,183 8,197,240 6,393,847 1,803,393 Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated Development Timing (year) Gross Capital Cost Estimate (2017$) Post Period Benefit Net Capital Cost SubtotalBenefit to Existing Development Grants, Subsidies and Other Contributions Attributable to New Development Other (e.g. 10% Statutory Deduction) Total Potential DC Recoverable Cost - 267 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 25 2019 Update Study 4. Revised D.C. Calculation and Schedule of Charges Based on the proposed amendments the 2017 D.C. Background Study and D.C. By- Law the calculated schedule of charges is provided in Table 4-1 below. The charges are provided in 2018$ consistent with Table 6-5 of the 2017 D.C. Background Study. As noted in Chapter 1 of this report, Council adopted specific exemption policies with respect to some types of development. These exemption policies, as well as all other D.C. policies (i.e. rules) contained in By-law 7595-17, remain unchanged through this process. Only the schedule of charges with respect to Parks and Recreation Services, Library Services, Administration Studies, Protection Services, and Transportation Services are being amended to reflect the updated capital cost estimates noted herein. A comparison of the amended charges herein (indexed to 2019$), with the City’s current 2019 D.C. rates is provided in Table 4-2. In total, the single and semi-detached D.C. for developments outside of the Seaton Lands would increase by $1,155 per unit (8%) and the non-residential charge would increase by $0.08 per sq.ft. of GFA (2%). For development within the Seaton Lands, the single and semi-detached D.C. would increase by $1,155 per unit (15%), the prestige employment land charge would increase by $3,285 per net hectare (8%), and the non-residential charge for all other uses would increase by $0.10 per sq.ft. GFA (8%). Detailed cash-flow calculation tables underlying the calculation of the D.C.s, as revised by the amendments, are summarized in Tables 4-3 through 4-16. - 268 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 26 2019 Update Study Table 4-1 Amended Schedule of Development Charges (2018$) Single and Semi- Detached Dwelling Apartments - 2 Bedrooms + Apartments - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom Other Multiples (per ft² of Total Floor Area) 2 (per net Ha of Prestige Employme nt Land in Seaton) Municipal Wide Services: Other Services Related to a Highway 441 279 197 356 0.15 5,451 Protection Services 920 581 412 743 0.35 11,828 Parks and Recreation Services 6,047 3,820 2,706 4,882 0.47 16,036 Library Services 1,003 634 449 810 0.07 2,397 Administration Studies 286 181 128 231 0.11 3,676 Stormwater Management 288 182 129 233 0.10 3,503 Total Municipal Wide Services 8,985 5,677 4,021 7,255 1.24 42,891 Outside of Seaton Lands Transportation 1 6,447 4,073 2,886 5,205 1.81 Total Services Outside of Seaton Lands 6,447 4,073 2,886 5,205 1.81 Seaton 8,985 5,677 4,021 7,255 1.24 42,891 Rest of Pickering 15,432 9,750 6,907 12,460 3.05 Service RESIDENTIAL NON-RESIDENTIAL 1. Subject to a separate agreement outside of the Development Charges Act concerning the provision of Transportation 2. Does not apply to prestige employment development in Seaton, as that development is subject to the per net Ha land area charge instead. - 269 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 27 2019 Update Study Table 4-2 Comparison of Development Charges (2019$) 2017 D.C.Amendment Change ($) Change (%)2017 D.C.Amendment Change ($) Change (%)2017 D.C.Amendment Change ($) Change (%) Municipal Wide Services: Other Services Related to a Highway 470 470 - 0% 0.16 0.16 - 0%5,814 5,814 - 0% Protection Services 948 981 33 3% 0.35 0.36 0.01 3%12,194 12,617 423 3% Parks and Recreation Services 5,175 6,450 1,275 25% 0.42 0.51 0.09 21% 14,146 17,106 2,960 21% Library Services 1,158 1,070 (88) -8%0.08 0.07 (0.01) -8%2,779 2,557 (222) -8% Administration Studies 296 306 10 3% 0.11 0.11 0.00 3%3,797 3,921 124 3% Stormwater Management 307 307 - 0% 0.11 0.11 - 0%3,738 3,738 - 0% Total Municipal Wide Services 8,354 9,584 1,230 24% 1.23 1.33 0.10 20% 42,468 45,753 3,285 20% Outside of Seaton Lands Transportation 1 6,952 6,878 (74) -1%1.95 1.93 (0.02) -1%- - Total Services Outside of Seaton Lands 6,952 6,878 (74) -1%1.95 1.93 (0.02) -1%- - - 0% Seaton 8,354 9,584 1,230 15% 1.23 1.33 0.10 8%42,468 45,753 3,285 8% Rest of Pickering 15,306 16,461 1,155 8% 3.18 3.26 0.08 2%42,468 45,753 3,285 Residential Single and Semi-Detached Dwelling Non-Residential (per ft² of Total Floor Area) 2 Non-Residential (per net Ha of Prestige Employment Land in Seaton)Service - 270 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 28 2019 Update Study Table 4-3 Table 4-4 Interest Nominal Inflated (3%/Yr) (2.5% on positive balances & 5% on negative balances) 2018 (198,257)$ (45,037)$ (46,388)$ 2,499 920$ 2,298,829$ 2,252,441$ 20,721$ 2,074,905$ 2019 2,074,905$ (6,534,675)$ (6,932,636)$ 2,499 948$ 2,367,794$ (4,564,842)$ (36,312)$ (2,526,250)$ 2020 (2,526,250)$ (4,294,492)$ (4,692,707)$ 2,499 976$ 2,438,828$ (2,253,879)$ (182,659)$ (4,962,789)$ 2021 (4,962,789)$ (318,524)$ (358,502)$ 2,499 1,005$ 2,511,992$ 2,153,490$ (194,302)$ (3,003,600)$ 2022 (3,003,600)$ (10,814)$ (12,537)$ 2,499 1,035$ 2,587,352$ 2,574,815$ (85,810)$ (514,595)$ 2023 (514,595)$ (8,479,374)$ (10,124,816)$ 2,155 1,067$ 2,298,353$ (7,826,462)$ (221,391)$ (8,562,448)$ 2024 (8,562,448)$ (318,524)$ (391,745)$ 2,155 1,099$ 2,367,304$ 1,975,559$ (378,733)$ (6,965,622)$ 2025 (6,965,622)$ (10,814)$ (13,699)$ 2,155 1,131$ 2,438,323$ 2,424,624$ (287,666)$ (4,828,664)$ 2026 (4,828,664)$ (10,814)$ (14,110)$ 2,155 1,165$ 2,511,473$ 2,497,363$ (178,999)$ (2,510,301)$ 2027 (2,510,301)$ (10,814)$ (14,534)$ 2,155 1,200$ 2,586,817$ 2,572,283$ (61,983)$ 0$ Cash Flow Analysis Protection Services - Residential Year D.C. Reserve Fund Opening Balance Dev't Related Expenditures SDE per Year DC Rates w. Inflation (3%/Yr) Anticipated Revenues Revenues minus Expenditures Debenture Financing Requirement DC Reserve Fund Closing Balance after Financing Interest Nominal Inflated (3%/Yr) (2.5% on positive balances & 5% on negative balances) 2018 (20,055)$ (4,556)$ (4,693)$ 18 11,828$ 217,280$ 212,587$ 1,905$ 194,437$ 2019 194,437$ (661,039)$ (701,296)$ 18 12,183$ 223,798$ (477,498)$ (4,646)$ (287,707)$ 2020 (287,707)$ (434,425)$ (474,708)$ 18 12,548$ 230,512$ (244,196)$ (20,490)$ (552,392)$ 2021 (552,392)$ (32,221)$ (36,266)$ 18 12,924$ 237,427$ 201,162$ (22,591)$ (373,821)$ 2022 (373,821)$ (1,094)$ (1,268)$ 18 13,312$ 244,550$ 243,282$ (12,609)$ (143,148)$ 2023 (143,148)$ (857,762)$ (1,024,212)$ 18 13,712$ 251,887$ (772,325)$ (26,466)$ (941,939)$ 2024 (941,939)$ (32,221)$ (39,628)$ 18 14,123$ 259,443$ 219,815$ (41,602)$ (763,726)$ 2025 (763,726)$ (1,094)$ (1,386)$ 18 14,547$ 267,227$ 265,841$ (31,540)$ (529,425)$ 2026 (529,425)$ (1,094)$ (1,427)$ 18 14,983$ 275,243$ 273,816$ (19,626)$ (275,235)$ 2027 (275,235)$ (1,094)$ (1,470)$ 18 15,433$ 283,501$ 282,031$ (6,796)$ -$ Cash Flow Analysis Protection Services - Seaton Prestige Employment Land Year D.C. Reserve Fund Opening Balance Dev't Related Expenditures Net Hectares per Year DC Rates w. Inflation (3%/Yr) Anticipated Revenues Revenues minus Expenditures Debenture Financing Requirement DC Reserve Fund Closing Balance after Financing - 271 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 29 2019 Update Study Table 4-5 Interest Nominal Inflated (3%/Yr) (2.5% on positive balances & 5% on negative balances) 2018 (35,863)$ (8,147)$ (8,391)$ 1,118,519 0.35$ 388,542$ 380,150$ 3,407$ 347,694$ 2019 347,694$ (1,182,075)$ (1,254,063)$ 1,118,519 0.36$ 400,198$ (853,865)$ (8,308)$ (514,479)$ 2020 (514,479)$ (776,842)$ (848,876)$ 1,118,519 0.37$ 412,204$ (436,673)$ (36,641)$ (987,793)$ 2021 (987,793)$ (57,619)$ (64,850)$ 1,118,519 0.38$ 424,570$ 359,719$ (40,397)$ (668,470)$ 2022 (668,470)$ (1,956)$ (2,268)$ 1,118,519 0.39$ 437,307$ 435,039$ (22,548)$ (255,979)$ 2023 (255,979)$ (1,533,857)$ (1,831,505)$ 1,118,519 0.40$ 450,426$ (1,381,079)$ (47,326)$ (1,684,383)$ 2024 (1,684,383)$ (57,619)$ (70,864)$ 1,118,519 0.41$ 463,939$ 393,075$ (74,392)$ (1,365,701)$ 2025 (1,365,701)$ (1,956)$ (2,478)$ 1,118,519 0.43$ 477,857$ 475,379$ (56,401)$ (946,722)$ 2026 (946,722)$ (1,956)$ (2,552)$ 1,118,519 0.44$ 492,193$ 489,640$ (35,095)$ (492,177)$ 2027 (492,177)$ (1,956)$ (2,629)$ 1,118,519 0.45$ 506,959$ 504,330$ (12,153)$ -$ Cash Flow Analysis Protection Services - Other Non-Residential Year D.C. Reserve Fund Opening Balance Dev't Related Expenditures GFA per Year DC Rates w. Inflation (3%/Yr) Anticipated Revenues Revenues minus Expenditures Debenture Financing Requirement DC Reserve Fund Closing Balance after Financing - 272 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 30 2019 Update Study Table 4-6 Interest Nominal Inflated (3%/Yr) (2.5% on positive balances & 5% on negative balances) 2018 1,459,963$ (432,781)$ (445,764)$ 279,599 1.81$ 504,875$ 59,111$ 37,238$ 1,556,312$ 2019 1,556,312$ (736,347)$ (781,191)$ 279,599 1.86$ 520,021$ (261,170)$ 35,643$ 1,330,785$ 2020 1,330,785$ (650,635)$ (710,966)$ 279,599 1.92$ 535,622$ (175,344)$ 31,078$ 1,186,519$ 2021 1,186,519$ (793,284)$ (892,848)$ 279,599 1.97$ 551,690$ (341,157)$ 25,399$ 870,760$ 2022 870,760$ (650,635)$ (754,264)$ 279,599 2.03$ 568,241$ (186,023)$ 19,444$ 704,181$ 2023 704,181$ (650,635)$ (776,892)$ 279,599 2.09$ 585,288$ (191,603)$ 15,209$ 527,788$ 2024 527,788$ (650,635)$ (800,198)$ 279,599 2.16$ 602,847$ (197,351)$ 10,728$ 341,164$ 2025 341,164$ (320,718)$ (406,276)$ 279,599 2.22$ 620,933$ 214,656$ 11,212$ 567,033$ 2026 567,033$ (320,718)$ (418,464)$ 279,599 2.29$ 639,560$ 221,096$ 16,940$ 805,068$ 2027 805,068$ (320,718)$ (431,018)$ 279,599 2.36$ 658,747$ 227,729$ 22,973$ 1,055,771$ 2028 1,055,771$ (320,718)$ (443,949)$ 84,250 2.43$ 204,451$ (239,498)$ 23,401$ 839,673$ 2029 839,673$ (320,718)$ (457,267)$ 84,250 2.50$ 210,585$ (246,683)$ 17,908$ 610,898$ 2030 610,898$ (320,718)$ (470,985)$ 84,250 2.57$ 216,902$ (254,083)$ 12,096$ 368,912$ 2031 368,912$ (320,718)$ (485,115)$ 42,125 2.65$ 111,705$ (373,410)$ 4,499$ -$ Cash Flow Analysis Transportation Services - Non-Residential Year D.C. Reserve Fund Opening Balance Dev't Related Expenditures GFA per Year DC Rates w. Inflation (3%/Yr) Anticipated Revenues Revenues minus Expenditures Debenture Financing Requirement DC Reserve Fund Closing Balance after Financing - 273 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 31 2019 Update Study Table 4-7 Interest Nominal Inflated (3%/Yr) (2.5% on positive balances & 5% on negative balances) 2018 1,459,963$ (432,781)$ (445,764)$ 279,599 1.81$ 504,875$ 59,111$ 37,238$ 1,556,312$ 2019 1,556,312$ (736,347)$ (781,191)$ 279,599 1.86$ 520,021$ (261,170)$ 35,643$ 1,330,785$ 2020 1,330,785$ (650,635)$ (710,966)$ 279,599 1.92$ 535,622$ (175,344)$ 31,078$ 1,186,519$ 2021 1,186,519$ (793,284)$ (892,848)$ 279,599 1.97$ 551,690$ (341,157)$ 25,399$ 870,760$ 2022 870,760$ (650,635)$ (754,264)$ 279,599 2.03$ 568,241$ (186,023)$ 19,444$ 704,181$ 2023 704,181$ (650,635)$ (776,892)$ 279,599 2.09$ 585,288$ (191,603)$ 15,209$ 527,788$ 2024 527,788$ (650,635)$ (800,198)$ 279,599 2.16$ 602,847$ (197,351)$ 10,728$ 341,164$ 2025 341,164$ (320,718)$ (406,276)$ 279,599 2.22$ 620,933$ 214,656$ 11,212$ 567,033$ 2026 567,033$ (320,718)$ (418,464)$ 279,599 2.29$ 639,560$ 221,096$ 16,940$ 805,068$ 2027 805,068$ (320,718)$ (431,018)$ 279,599 2.36$ 658,747$ 227,729$ 22,973$ 1,055,771$ 2028 1,055,771$ (320,718)$ (443,949)$ 84,250 2.43$ 204,451$ (239,498)$ 23,401$ 839,673$ 2029 839,673$ (320,718)$ (457,267)$ 84,250 2.50$ 210,585$ (246,683)$ 17,908$ 610,898$ 2030 610,898$ (320,718)$ (470,985)$ 84,250 2.57$ 216,902$ (254,083)$ 12,096$ 368,912$ 2031 368,912$ (320,718)$ (485,115)$ 42,125 2.65$ 111,705$ (373,410)$ 4,499$ -$ Cash Flow Analysis Transportation Services - Non-Residential Year D.C. Reserve Fund Opening Balance Dev't Related Expenditures GFA per Year DC Rates w. Inflation (3%/Yr) Anticipated Revenues Revenues minus Expenditures Debenture Financing Requirement DC Reserve Fund Closing Balance after Financing - 274 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 32 2019 Update Study Table 4-8 Table 4-9 Interest Nominal Inflated (3%/Yr) (2.5% on positive balances & 5% on negative balances) 2018 15,701,991$ (3,621,317)$ (3,729,956)$ -$ 2,499 6,047$ 15,108,477$ 11,378,520$ (438,576)$ 529,299$ 27,171,235$ 2019 27,171,235$ (4,167,057)$ (4,420,831)$ (918,180)$ 2,499 6,228$ 15,561,731$ 10,222,719$ (438,576)$ 801,583$ 37,756,961$ 2020 37,756,961$ (3,383,239)$ (3,696,956)$ (2,128,205)$ 2,499 6,415$ 16,028,583$ 10,203,422$ (438,576)$ 1,065,985$ 48,587,791$ 2021 48,587,791$ (13,746,988)$ (15,472,356)$ (3,338,229)$ 2,499 6,607$ 16,509,440$ (2,301,145)$ (438,576)$ 1,180,448$ 47,028,519$ 2022 47,028,519$ (43,111,216)$ (49,977,715)$ (3,338,229)$ 2,499 6,805$ 17,004,724$ (36,311,221)$ (438,576)$ 716,341$ 10,995,063$ 2023 10,995,063$ (4,186,711)$ (4,999,152)$ (3,338,229)$ 2,155 7,010$ 15,105,351$ 6,767,970$ (438,576)$ 353,994$ 17,678,451$ 2024 17,678,451$ (6,091,283)$ (7,491,510)$ (3,338,229)$ 2,155 7,220$ 15,558,512$ 4,728,773$ (438,576)$ 495,589$ 22,464,237$ 2025 22,464,237$ (2,106,876)$ (2,668,927)$ (3,338,229)$ 2,155 7,436$ 16,025,267$ 10,018,111$ (438,576)$ 681,350$ 32,725,122$ 2026 32,725,122$ (2,772,344)$ (3,617,280)$ (3,338,229)$ 2,155 7,660$ 16,506,025$ 9,550,516$ (438,576)$ 932,027$ 42,769,090$ 2027 42,769,090$ (9,232,938)$ (12,408,296)$ (47,444,998)$ 2,155 7,889$ 17,001,206$ (42,852,088)$ (438,576)$ 521,574$ -$ Cash Flow Analysis Parks & Recreation - Residential Year D.C. Reserve Fund Opening Balance Dev't Related Expenditures Existing Debt Carrying Costs (P&I) SDE per Year DC Rates w. Inflation (3%/Yr) Anticipated Revenues Revenues minus Expenditures Debenture Financing Requirement DC Reserve Fund Closing Balance after Financing Interest Nominal Inflated (3%/Yr) (2.5% on positive balances & 5% on negative balances) 2018 2,760$ (68,358)$ (70,408)$ -$ 18 16,036$ 294,581$ 224,173$ (8,279)$ 2,768$ 221,422$ 2019 221,422$ (78,659)$ (83,450)$ (17,332)$ 18 16,517$ 303,419$ 202,637$ (8,279)$ 7,965$ 423,745$ 2020 423,745$ (63,864)$ (69,786)$ (40,173)$ 18 17,012$ 312,521$ 202,563$ (8,279)$ 13,022$ 631,051$ 2021 631,051$ (259,495)$ (292,064)$ (63,014)$ 18 17,523$ 321,897$ (33,181)$ (8,279)$ 15,258$ 604,850$ 2022 604,850$ (813,788)$ (943,404)$ (63,014)$ 18 18,048$ 331,554$ (674,864)$ (8,279)$ 5,603$ (72,689)$ 2023 (72,689)$ (79,030)$ (94,366)$ (63,014)$ 18 18,590$ 341,501$ 184,120$ (8,279)$ (528)$ 102,624$ 2024 102,624$ (114,982)$ (141,413)$ (63,014)$ 18 19,147$ 351,746$ 147,318$ (8,279)$ 4,304$ 245,967$ 2025 245,967$ (39,770)$ (50,380)$ (63,014)$ 18 19,722$ 362,298$ 248,904$ (8,279)$ 9,157$ 495,749$ 2026 495,749$ (52,332)$ (68,282)$ (63,014)$ 18 20,314$ 373,167$ 241,871$ (8,279)$ 15,314$ 744,656$ 2027 744,656$ (174,285)$ (234,225)$ (895,595)$ 18 20,923$ 384,362$ (745,458)$ (8,279)$ 9,081$ -$ Cash Flow Analysis Parks and Recreation - Seaton Prestige Employment Land Year D.C. Reserve Fund Opening Balance Dev't Related Expenditures Existing Debt Carrying Costs (P&I) Net Hectares per Year DC Rates w. Inflation (3%/Yr) Anticipated Revenues Revenues minus Expenditures Debenture Financing Requirement DC Reserve Fund Closing Balance after Financing - 275 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 33 2019 Update Study Table 4-10 Table 4-11 Interest Nominal Inflated (3%/Yr) (2.5% on positive balances & 5% on negative balances) 2018 4,936$ (122,238)$ (125,905)$ -$ 1,118,519 0.47$ 526,773$ 400,868$ (14,804)$ 4,949$ 395,949$ 2019 395,949$ (140,659)$ (149,226)$ (30,993)$ 1,118,519 0.49$ 542,576$ 362,357$ (14,804)$ 14,243$ 757,745$ 2020 757,745$ (114,202)$ (124,791)$ (71,838)$ 1,118,519 0.50$ 558,853$ 362,225$ (14,804)$ 23,286$ 1,128,452$ 2021 1,128,452$ (464,031)$ (522,271)$ (112,682)$ 1,118,519 0.51$ 575,619$ (59,334)$ (14,804)$ 27,285$ 1,081,598$ 2022 1,081,598$ (1,455,223)$ (1,687,002)$ (112,682)$ 1,118,519 0.53$ 592,888$ (1,206,797)$ (14,804)$ 10,020$ (129,983)$ 2023 (129,983)$ (141,323)$ (168,747)$ (112,682)$ 1,118,519 0.55$ 610,674$ 329,245$ (14,804)$ (944)$ 183,514$ 2024 183,514$ (205,612)$ (252,877)$ (112,682)$ 1,118,519 0.56$ 628,994$ 263,436$ (14,804)$ 7,696$ 439,841$ 2025 439,841$ (71,118)$ (90,090)$ (112,682)$ 1,118,519 0.58$ 647,864$ 445,092$ (14,804)$ 16,375$ 886,503$ 2026 886,503$ (93,581)$ (122,102)$ (112,682)$ 1,118,519 0.60$ 667,300$ 432,516$ (14,804)$ 27,384$ 1,331,600$ 2027 1,331,600$ (311,659)$ (418,843)$ (1,601,510)$ 1,118,519 0.61$ 687,319$ (1,333,034)$ (14,804)$ 16,239$ -$ Cash Flow Analysis Parks & Recreation - Other Non-Residential Year D.C. Reserve Fund Opening Balance Dev't Related Expenditures Existing Debt Carrying Costs (P&I) GFA per Year DC Rates w. Inflation (3%/Yr) Anticipated Revenues Revenues minus Expenditures Debenture Financing Requirement DC Reserve Fund Closing Balance after Financing Interest Nominal Inflated (3%/Yr) (2.5% on positive balances & 5% on negative balances) 2018 2,658,843$ (523,648)$ (539,357)$ (82,286)$ 2,499 1,003$ 2,507,192$ 1,885,548$ 90,040$ 4,634,431$ 2019 4,634,431$ (2,749,152)$ (2,916,576)$ (572,478)$ 2,499 1,034$ 2,582,408$ (906,646)$ 104,528$ 3,832,312$ 2020 3,832,312$ -$ -$ (1,062,670)$ 2,499 1,065$ 2,659,880$ 1,597,209$ 115,773$ 5,545,295$ 2021 5,545,295$ (1,006,861)$ (1,133,231)$ (1,062,670)$ 2,499 1,096$ 2,739,676$ 543,775$ 145,430$ 6,234,499$ 2022 6,234,499$ (1,857,910)$ (2,153,827)$ (1,062,670)$ 2,499 1,129$ 2,821,867$ (394,631)$ 150,930$ 5,990,798$ 2023 5,990,798$ (1,582,311)$ (1,889,362)$ (1,062,670)$ 2,155 1,163$ 2,506,673$ (445,359)$ 144,203$ 5,689,642$ 2024 5,689,642$ -$ -$ (1,062,670)$ 2,155 1,198$ 2,581,873$ 1,519,203$ 161,231$ 7,370,076$ 2025 7,370,076$ -$ -$ (1,062,670)$ 2,155 1,234$ 2,659,330$ 1,596,659$ 204,210$ 9,170,945$ 2026 9,170,945$ -$ -$ (1,062,670)$ 2,155 1,271$ 2,739,110$ 1,676,439$ 250,229$ 11,097,613$ 2027 11,097,613$ -$ -$ (14,054,233)$ 2,155 1,309$ 2,821,283$ (11,232,950)$ 135,337$ -$ Cash Flow Analysis Library - Residential Year D.C. Reserve Fund Opening Balance Dev't Related Expenditures Existing Debt Carrying Costs (P&I) SDE per Year DC Rates w. Inflation (3%/Yr) Anticipated Revenues Revenues minus Expenditures Debenture Financing Requirement DC Reserve Fund Closing Balance after Financing - 276 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 34 2019 Update Study Table 4-12 Table 4-13 Interest Nominal Inflated (3%/Yr) (2.5% on positive balances & 5% on negative balances) 2018 50,190$ (9,885)$ (10,181)$ (1,553)$ 18 2,397$ 44,032$ 32,297$ 1,658$ 84,146$ 2019 84,146$ (51,894)$ (55,055)$ (10,806)$ 18 2,469$ 45,353$ (20,508)$ 1,847$ 65,485$ 2020 65,485$ -$ -$ (20,059)$ 18 2,543$ 46,713$ 26,654$ 1,970$ 94,109$ 2021 94,109$ (19,006)$ (21,391)$ (20,059)$ 18 2,619$ 48,115$ 6,664$ 2,436$ 103,209$ 2022 103,209$ (35,071)$ (40,657)$ (20,059)$ 18 2,698$ 49,558$ (11,158)$ 2,441$ 94,492$ 2023 94,492$ (29,868)$ (35,665)$ (20,059)$ 18 2,779$ 51,045$ (4,679)$ 2,304$ 92,117$ 2024 92,117$ -$ -$ (20,059)$ 18 2,862$ 52,576$ 32,517$ 2,709$ 127,343$ 2025 127,343$ -$ -$ (20,059)$ 18 2,948$ 54,154$ 34,094$ 3,610$ 165,047$ 2026 165,047$ -$ -$ (20,059)$ 18 3,036$ 55,778$ 35,719$ 4,573$ 205,339$ 2027 205,339$ -$ -$ (265,295)$ 18 3,127$ 57,452$ (207,843)$ 2,504$ -$ Cash Flow Analysis Library - Seaton Prestige Employment Land Year D.C. Reserve Fund Opening Balance Dev't Related Expenditures Existing Debt Carrying Costs (P&I) Net Hectares per Year DC Rates w. Inflation (3%/Yr) Anticipated Revenues Revenues minus Expenditures Debenture Financing Requirement DC Reserve Fund Closing Balance after Financing Interest Nominal Inflated (3%/Yr) (2.5% on positive balances & 5% on negative balances) 2018 89,749$ (17,676)$ (18,206)$ (2,778)$ 1,118,519 0.07$ 78,738$ 57,755$ 2,966$ 150,470$ 2019 150,470$ (92,798)$ (98,449)$ (19,324)$ 1,118,519 0.07$ 81,100$ (36,673)$ 3,303$ 117,100$ 2020 117,100$ -$ -$ (35,871)$ 1,118,519 0.07$ 83,533$ 47,663$ 3,523$ 168,286$ 2021 168,286$ (33,987)$ (38,252)$ (35,871)$ 1,118,519 0.08$ 86,039$ 11,917$ 4,356$ 184,559$ 2022 184,559$ (62,714)$ (72,703)$ (35,871)$ 1,118,519 0.08$ 88,621$ (19,953)$ 4,365$ 168,971$ 2023 168,971$ (53,411)$ (63,776)$ (35,871)$ 1,118,519 0.08$ 91,279$ (8,367)$ 4,120$ 164,724$ 2024 164,724$ -$ -$ (35,871)$ 1,118,519 0.08$ 94,018$ 58,147$ 4,845$ 227,716$ 2025 227,716$ -$ -$ (35,871)$ 1,118,519 0.09$ 96,838$ 60,968$ 6,455$ 295,139$ 2026 295,139$ -$ -$ (35,871)$ 1,118,519 0.09$ 99,743$ 63,873$ 8,177$ 367,188$ 2027 367,188$ -$ -$ (474,402)$ 1,118,519 0.09$ 102,736$ (371,666)$ 4,478$ -$ Cash Flow Analysis Library - Other Non-Residential Year D.C. Reserve Fund Opening Balance Dev't Related Expenditures Existing Debt Carrying Costs (P&I) GFA per Year DC Rates w. Inflation (3%/Yr) Anticipated Revenues Revenues minus Expenditures Debenture Financing Requirement DC Reserve Fund Closing Balance after Financing - 277 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 35 2019 Update Study Table 4-14 Table 4-15 Interest Nominal Inflated (3%/Yr) (2.5% on positive balances & 5% on negative balances) 2018 (525,617)$ (952,802)$ (981,386)$ 2,499 286$ 714,730$ (266,656)$ (32,947)$ (825,220)$ 2019 (825,220)$ (651,391)$ (691,060)$ 2,499 295$ 736,172$ 45,112$ (40,133)$ (820,242)$ 2020 (820,242)$ (595,194)$ (650,384)$ 2,499 303$ 758,257$ 107,873$ (38,315)$ (750,684)$ 2021 (750,684)$ (463,220)$ (521,358)$ 2,499 313$ 781,005$ 259,647$ (31,043)$ (522,080)$ 2022 (522,080)$ (804,862)$ (933,056)$ 2,499 322$ 804,435$ (128,621)$ (29,320)$ (680,021)$ 2023 (680,021)$ (310,448)$ (370,691)$ 2,155 332$ 714,582$ 343,891$ (25,404)$ (361,534)$ 2024 (361,534)$ (310,448)$ (381,812)$ 2,155 342$ 736,020$ 354,208$ (9,221)$ (16,547)$ 2025 (16,547)$ (310,448)$ (393,266)$ 2,155 352$ 758,100$ 364,834$ 3,940$ 352,226$ 2026 352,226$ (717,763)$ (936,517)$ 2,155 362$ 780,843$ (155,674)$ 6,860$ 203,412$ 2027 203,412$ (751,655)$ (1,010,161)$ 2,155 373$ 804,269$ (205,893)$ 2,481$ 0$ Cash Flow Analysis Admin - Residential Year D.C. Reserve Fund Opening Balance Dev't Related Expenditures SDE per Year DC Rates w. Inflation (3%/Yr) Anticipated Revenues Revenues minus Expenditures Debenture Financing Requirement DC Reserve Fund Closing Balance after Financing Interest Nominal Inflated (3%/Yr) (2.5% on positive balances & 5% on negative balances) 2018 (53,171)$ (96,384)$ (99,276)$ 18 3,676$ 67,532$ (31,744)$ (3,452)$ (88,366)$ 2019 (88,366)$ (65,894)$ (69,907)$ 18 3,786$ 69,558$ (349)$ (4,427)$ (93,142)$ 2020 (93,142)$ (60,209)$ (65,792)$ 18 3,900$ 71,645$ 5,853$ (4,511)$ (91,800)$ 2021 (91,800)$ (46,859)$ (52,740)$ 18 4,017$ 73,794$ 21,054$ (4,064)$ (74,810)$ 2022 (74,810)$ (81,419)$ (94,387)$ 18 4,138$ 76,008$ (18,379)$ (4,200)$ (97,389)$ 2023 (97,389)$ (31,405)$ (37,499)$ 18 4,262$ 78,288$ 40,789$ (3,850)$ (60,449)$ 2024 (60,449)$ (31,405)$ (38,624)$ 18 4,389$ 80,637$ 42,013$ (1,972)$ (20,408)$ 2025 (20,408)$ (31,405)$ (39,782)$ 18 4,521$ 83,056$ 43,274$ (224)$ 22,641$ 2026 22,641$ (72,608)$ (94,737)$ 18 4,657$ 85,547$ (9,189)$ 451$ 13,903$ 2027 13,903$ (76,036)$ (102,186)$ 18 4,797$ 88,114$ (14,073)$ 170$ (0)$ Cash Flow Analysis Admin - Seaton Prestige Employment Land Year D.C. Reserve Fund Opening Balance Dev't Related Expenditures Net Hectares per Year DC Rates w. Inflation (3%/Yr) Anticipated Revenues Revenues minus Expenditures Debenture Financing Requirement DC Reserve Fund Closing Balance after Financing - 278 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 36 2019 Update Study Table 4-16 Interest Nominal Inflated (3%/Yr) (2.5% on positive balances & 5% on negative balances) 2018 (95,080)$ (172,355)$ (177,526)$ 1,118,519 0.11$ 120,761$ (56,764)$ (6,173)$ (158,018)$ 2019 (158,018)$ (117,832)$ (125,008)$ 1,118,519 0.11$ 124,384$ (624)$ (7,916)$ (166,558)$ 2020 (166,558)$ (107,666)$ (117,650)$ 1,118,519 0.11$ 128,116$ 10,466$ (8,066)$ (164,158)$ 2021 (164,158)$ (83,793)$ (94,310)$ 1,118,519 0.12$ 131,959$ 37,649$ (7,267)$ (133,776)$ 2022 (133,776)$ (145,594)$ (168,783)$ 1,118,519 0.12$ 135,918$ (32,865)$ (7,510)$ (174,151)$ 2023 (174,151)$ (56,158)$ (67,055)$ 1,118,519 0.13$ 139,995$ 72,940$ (6,884)$ (108,095)$ 2024 (108,095)$ (56,158)$ (69,067)$ 1,118,519 0.13$ 144,195$ 75,128$ (3,527)$ (36,494)$ 2025 (36,494)$ (56,158)$ (71,139)$ 1,118,519 0.13$ 148,521$ 77,382$ (401)$ 40,487$ 2026 40,487$ (129,838)$ (169,409)$ 1,118,519 0.14$ 152,977$ (16,432)$ 807$ 24,862$ 2027 24,862$ (135,969)$ (182,731)$ 1,118,519 0.14$ 157,566$ (25,165)$ 303$ (0)$ Cash Flow Analysis Admin - Other Non-Residential Year D.C. Reserve Fund Opening Balance Dev't Related Expenditures GFA per Year DC Rates w. Inflation (3%/Yr) Anticipated Revenues Revenues minus Expenditures Debenture Financing Requirement DC Reserve Fund Closing Balance after Financing - 279 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 37 2019 Update Study 5. Asset Management Plan 5.1 Introduction The changes to the D.C.A. (new section 10(c.2)) through Bill 73, require that the background study must include an Asset Management Plan (A.M.P) related to new infrastructure. Section 10 (3) of the D.C.A. provides: The A.M.P. shall, (a) deal with all assets whose capital costs are proposed to be funded under the development charge by-law; (b) demonstrate that all the assets mentioned in clause (a) are financially sustainable over their full life cycle; (c) contain any other information that is prescribed; and (d) be prepared in the prescribed manner. The A.M.P. analysis included in the 2017 D.C. Background Study, which found that the capital plan was deemed to be financially sustainable, has been updated to account for the capital cost revisions described herein. The updated A.M.P. analysis contained in Table 5-1 identifies: • $62.3 million in total annualized expenditures; and • Incremental operating revenues of $49.7 million and existing operating revenues of $94.6 million, totalling $144.3 million by the end of the period. In consideration of the above changes, the capital plan still deemed to be financially sustainable. - 280 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 38 2019 Update Study Table 5-1 2019 D.C. Amendment Asset Management – Future Expenditures and Associated Revenues (2017$) Sub-Total 2031 (Total) Expenditures (Annualized) Annual Debt Payment on Non-Growth Related Capital1 10,110,882 Annual Debt Payment on Post Period Capital2 2,107,688 Lifecycle: Annual Lifecycle - Town Wide Services $9,232,291 Annual Lifecycle - Area Specific Services 3 $3,574,002 Sub-Total - Annual Lifecycle $12,806,293 $12,806,293 Incremental Operating Costs (for D.C. Services)$37,289,166 Total Expenditures $62,314,030 Revenue (Annualized) Total Existing Revenue4 $94,578,893 Incremental Tax and Non-Tax Revenue (User Fees, Fines, Licences, etc.)$49,682,047 Total Revenues $144,260,940 4 As per Sch. 10 of FIR 3 Area-specific application of Transportation Services 1 Non-Growth Related component of Projects including 10% mandatory deduction on soft services 2 Interim Debt Financing for Post Period Benefit - 281 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 39 2019 Update Study 6. Process for Adoption of the Amending Development Charges By-law If approved, the changes provided herein will form part of the 2017 D.C. Background Study, as amended. Appendix A to this update study includes the draft Amending D.C. By-law being presented for Council’s consideration at the statutory public meeting on December 2, 2019. At that meeting a presentation will be made to the public regarding the recommendations of the D.C. Update Study, and Council may receive oral and written comments on the matter. It is anticipated that Council will consider for adoption the proposed amending by-law at a subsequent meeting of Council, witnessing the 60-day period between the release of the D.C. Background Study and the passage of the D.C. By-law (i.e. no earlier than December 16, 2019). If Council is satisfied with the proposed changes to the D.C. Background Study and D.C. By-Law, it is recommended that Council: “Approve the Development Charges Update Study dated October 16, 2019; subject to further annual review during the capital budget process;” “Determine that no further public meeting is required;” and “Approve the Amending Development Charge By-law as set out herein” - 282 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 1 2019 Update Study Appendix A – Draft Amending Development Charge By-law - 283 - The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. ____/19 Being a By-law Regarding Development Charges to amend By-law 7595-17 to make certain revisions to the City’s development charges involving capital cost estimates. WHEREAS Section 19 of the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c27 (“the Act”) provides for amendments to be made to development charges by-laws; AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering (hereinafter called “the Council”) has determined that certain amendments should be made to the Development Charge By-law of the Corporation of the City of Pickering, being By-law 7595-17; AND WHEREAS, in accordance with the Act, a development charges background study has been completed in respect of the proposed amendment; AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering has given notice and held a public meeting in accordance with the Act; and Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1. By-law 7595-17 is hereby amended as follows: Schedule “C” is deleted and the attached Schedule “C” substitutes therefor. 2. This by-law shall come into force on December 17, 2019. By-law passed this 16th day of December 2019 _____________________________ Mayor _____________________________ Clerk - 284 - Schedule “C” City of Pickering Schedule of Development Charges Effective January 1, 2018 Single and Semi- Detached Dwelling Apartments - 2 Bedrooms + Apartments - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom Other Multiples (per ft² of Total Floor Area) 2 (per net Ha of Prestige Employme nt Land in Seaton) Municipal Wide Services: Other Services Related to a Highway 441 279 197 356 0.15 5,451 Protection Services 920 581 412 743 0.35 11,828 Parks and Recreation Services 6,047 3,820 2,706 4,882 0.47 16,036 Library Services 1,003 634 449 810 0.07 2,397 Administration Studies 286 181 128 231 0.11 3,676 Stormwater Management 288 182 129 233 0.10 3,503 Total Municipal Wide Services 8,985 5,677 4,021 7,255 1.24 42,891 Outside of Seaton Lands Transportation 1 6,447 4,073 2,886 5,205 1.81 Total Services Outside of Seaton Lands 6,447 4,073 2,886 5,205 1.81 Seaton 8,985 5,677 4,021 7,255 1.24 42,891 Rest of Pickering 15,432 9,750 6,907 12,460 3.05 Service RESIDENTIAL NON-RESIDENTIAL 1. Subject to a separate agreement outside of the Development Charges Act concerning the provision of Transportation 2. Does not apply to prestige employment development in Seaton, as that development is subject to the per net Ha land area charge instead. - 285 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. 905-272-3600 November 19, 2019 info@watsonecon.ca Addendum to: 2019 Development Charges Update Study City of Pickering ________________________ For Public Circulation and Comment Attachment #2 to Report #24-19 - 286 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2019 DC Update\Report\2019 Update Study - Amendment.docx Table of Contents Page 1. Summary of Revisions to the 2019 Development Charges Update Study ................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ................................................................................................ 1 2. Discussion .......................................................................................................... 1 3. Changes to the Background Report ................................................................. 5 4. Process for Adoption of the Development Charges By-law ........................... 5 Appendix A – Amended Pages ................................................................................ A-1 - 287 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 1 2019 Update Study - Amendment 1. Summary of Revisions to the 2019 Development Charges Update Study 1.1 Background Commensurate with the provisions of the Development Charges Act (D.C.A.), 1997, the City of Pickering (City) has undertaken a Development Charges (D.C.) background study and has distributed the study to the public. The following provides a summary of the key dates in the D.C. by-law process: Release of the D.C. Update Study – October 16, 2019 Presentation of D.C. Update Study to Development Industry Stakeholders – November 19, 2019; Public Meeting – December 2, 2019; and By-law Passage – December 16, 2019 The purpose of this addendum to the October 16, 2019 D.C. Update Study is to provide for refinements to the capital needs for Transportation Services and to the calculation of the charge. The refinements are detailed in the subsequent sections of this report, and will form part of the D.C. background study for Council’s consideration and approval prior to adoption of the amending D.C. by-law. 2. Discussion Subsequent to the issuance of the 2019 D.C. Update Study, staff identified land acquisition costs of $807,464 related to the D.C. Transportation Services project #30 (i.e. A-11 (Plummer) - Sandy Beach Road to Krosno Creek). Deflating these land cost estimates to the study cost base (i.e. 2017$) and applying the 25% benefit to existing development deduction, approximately $565,205 is added to the calculation of the charge for Transportation Services. Revisions have also been made to decrease the D.C. eligible costs included in the calculation of the charge for Protection Services by $645,000. This reduction is provided to reflect the historical level of service cap calculations. - 288 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2 2019 Update Study - Amendment Table 2-1 summarizes the proposed charges arising from this addendum. Table 2-2 compares the charges contained in this addendum to those in the 2019 D.C. Update Study for residential single and semi-detached dwelling units, per sq.ft. of non- residential gross floor area, and per net hectare of prestige employment land in Seaton. These charges are presented in 2018$ values, consistent with the City’s 2017 D.C. Background Study. In total, the impact of the addendum on the 2019 D.C. Update Study for single and semi-detached residential dwelling units constructed outside of the Seaton Lands would increase by $29 per unit and the non-residential charge would remain unchanged. For development within the Seaton Lands, the single and semi- detached D.C. would decrease by $24 per unit, the non-residential charge (outside of the prestige employment lands) would decrease by $0.01 per sq.ft. GFA, and the prestige employment land charge would decrease by $306 per net hectare. Table 2-1 City of Pickering Calculated Schedule of Development Charges (2018$) The City’s D.C. By-law provides for annual indexing of the charges. To reflect the impacts of the proposed amendment on the City’s current charges, Table 2-3 presents the indexed amended charges and compares them to the City’s 2019 rates. In total, the single and semi-detached D.C. for developments outside of the Seaton Lands would Single and Semi- Detached Dwelling Apartments - 2 Bedrooms + Apartments - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom Other Multiples (per ft² of Total Floor Area) 2 (per net Ha of Prestige Employmen t Land in Seaton) Municipal Wide Services: Other Services Related to a Highway 441 279 197 356 0.15 5,451 Protection Services 896 566 401 724 0.34 11,522 Parks and Recreation Services 6,047 3,820 2,706 4,882 0.47 16,036 Library Services 1,003 634 449 810 0.07 2,397 Administration Studies 286 181 128 231 0.11 3,676 Stormwater Management 288 182 129 233 0.10 3,503 Total Municipal Wide Services 8,961 5,662 4,010 7,236 1.24 42,585 Outside of Seaton Lands Transportation 1 6,500 4,106 2,909 5,248 1.82 Total Services Outside of Seaton Lands 6,500 4,106 2,909 5,248 1.82 Seaton 8,961 5,662 4,010 7,236 1.24 42,585 Rest of Pickering 15,461 9,768 6,919 12,484 3.06 Service RESIDENTIAL NON-RESIDENTIAL 1. Subject to a separate agreement outside of the Development Charges Act concerning the provision of Transportation 2. Does not apply to prestige employment development in Seaton, as that development is subject to the per net Ha land area charge instead. - 289 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3 2019 Update Study - Amendment increase by $1,186 per unit (+8%) and the non-residential charge would increase by $0.09 per sq.ft. of GFA (+3%). For development within the Seaton Lands, the single and semi-detached D.C. would increase by $1,204 per unit (+14%), the non-residential charge (outside of the prestige employment lands) would increase by $0.09 per sq.ft. GFA (+7%), and the prestige employment land charge would increase by $2,959 per net hectare (+7%). - 290 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 4 2019 Update Study - Amendment Table 2-2 Comparison of Development Charges – October 16, 2019 D.C. Update Study vs. Addendum (2018$) Table 2-3 Comparison of Development Charges – Current vs. Proposed (2019$) 2019 D.C. Update Addendum Change ($) Change (%)2019 D.C. UpdateAmendmentChange ($) Change (%)2019 D.C. Update Amendment Change ($) Change (%)Municipal Wide Services:Other Services Related to a Highway 441 441 - 0% 0.15 0.15- 0%5,451 5,451 - 0%Protection Services920 896 (24) -3% 0.35 0.34(0.01) -3%11,828 11,522 (306) -3%Parks and Recreation Services6,047 6,047 - 0% 0.47 0.47- 0%16,036 16,036 - 0%Library Services1,003 1,003 - 0% 0.07 0.07- 0%2,397 2,397 - 0%Administration Studies286 286 - 0% 0.11 0.11- 0%3,676 3,676 - 0%Stormwater Management288 288 - 0% 0.10 0.10- 0%3,503 3,503 - 0%Total Municipal Wide Services8,985 8,961 (24) 0% 1.25 1.24(0.01) -1%42,891 42,585 (306) -1%Outside of Seaton LandsTransportation 16,447 6,500 53 1% 1.81 1.820.01 1%- - - Total Services Outside of Seaton Lands 6,447 6,500 53 1% 1.81 1.820.01 1%- - n/aSeaton8,985 8,961 (24) 0% 1.25 1.24(0.01) -1%42,891 42,585 (306) -1%Rest of Pickering15,432 15,461 29 0% 3.06 3.06- 0%- - - - ServiceResidential Single and Semi-Detached Dwelling Non-Residential (per ft² of Total Floor Area) 2Non-Residential (per net Ha of Prestige Employment Land in Seaton)2017 D.C. Addendum Change ($) Change (%)2017 D.C. Addendum Change ($) Change (%)2017 D.C. Addendum Change ($) Change (%)Municipal Wide Services:Other Services Related to a Highway 470 470 - 0% 0.16 0.16- 0%5,814 5,814 - 0%Protection Services948 955 7 1% 0.35 0.35- 0%12,194 12,291 97 1%Parks and Recreation Services5,175 6,451 1,276 25% 0.42 0.510.09 21% 14,146 17,106 2,960 21%Library Services1,158 1,069 (89) -8% 0.08 0.07(0.01) -13%2,779 2,557 (222) -8%Administration Studies296 306 10 3% 0.11 0.120.01 9%3,797 3,921 124 3%Stormwater Management307 307 - 0% 0.11 0.11- 0%3,738 3,738 - 0%Total Municipal Wide Services8,354 9,558 1,204 14% 1.23 1.320.09 7%42,468 45,427 2,959 7%Outside of Seaton LandsTransportation 16,952 6,934 (18) 0% 1.95 1.94(0.01) -1%- - - - Total Services Outside of Seaton Lands 6,952 6,934 (18) 0% 1.95 1.94(0.01) -1%- - - n/aSeaton8,354 9,558 1,204 14% 1.23 1.320.09 7%42,468 45,427 2,959 7%Rest of Pickering15,306 16,492 1,186 8% 3.18 3.260.08 3%- - - - ServiceResidential Single and Semi-Detached Dwelling Non-Residential (per ft² of Total Floor Area) 2Non-Residential (per net Ha of Prestige Employment Land in Seaton)- 291 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 5 2019 Update Study - Amendment 3. Changes to the Background Report Based on the foregoing, the following revisions are made to the pages within the 2019 D.C. Update Study. Accordingly, the revised pages are appended to this report: Pages 1, 7, 10, 11 and Table of Contents – reissued for housekeeping changes; Pages 13 to 14 – updated to reflect changes described in Section 2 herein; Pages 19 to 22 – reissued to reflect changes to the Transportation Services capital program and updates to Protection Services D.C. eligible costs; Pages 25 to 31 – revised to reflect the D.C. calculation changes as a result of this addendum; Pages 37 to 38 – Reissued to reflect this addendum; Page 39 – Revised to reflect this addendum; and Appendix A – Draft Amending Development Charge By-law – Reissued to reflect this addendum 4. Process for Adoption of the Development Charges By-law The revisions provided herein form the basis for the D.C. by-law and will be incorporated into the 2019 D.C. Update Study to be provided to Council and the general public prior to the public meeting on December 2, 2019 and Council’s consideration and adoption of the proposed D.C. By-Law. If Council is satisfied with the above noted changes to the D.C. background study and D.C. by-law, then prior to by-law passage Council must: Approve the 2019 D.C. Update Study, as amended; Determine that no further public meetings are required on the matter; and Adopt the amending D.C. By-Law. - 292 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-1 2019 Update Study - Amendment Appendix A – Amended Pages - 293 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2019 DC Update\Report\2019 Update Study - Amended Version.docx Table of Contents Page 1. Introduction......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Existing Policies (Rules) ............................................................................ 2 1.2.1 Payment in any Particular Case .................................................... 2 1.2.2 Determination of the Amount of the Charge .................................. 3 1.2.3 Application to Land Redevelopment ............................................. 4 1.2.4 Exemptions (full or partial) ............................................................ 4 1.2.5 Indexing ........................................................................................ 5 1.2.6 By-law Duration ............................................................................. 5 1.2.7 Date Charge Payable .................................................................... 5 1.3 Basis for D.C. By-law Update .................................................................... 6 1.4 Proposed Charges to the D.C.A.: Bill 108 – An Act to amend Various Statutes with Respect to Housing, Other Development, and Various Matters .......................................................................................... 7 2. Anticipated Development................................................................................. 10 3. Revisions to the Anticipated Capital Needs ................................................... 11 3.1 Revised Capital Costs.............................................................................. 11 3.1.1 Parks and Recreation Services ................................................... 11 3.1.2 Library Services .......................................................................... 12 3.1.3 Protection Services ..................................................................... 13 3.1.4 Transportation Services .............................................................. 13 3.1.5 Administration Studies ................................................................ 14 4. Revised D.C. Calculation and Schedule of Charges ..................................... 25 5. Asset Management Plan .................................................................................. 37 5.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 37 6. Process for Adoption of the Amending Development Charges By-law ....... 39 Appendix A – Draft Amending Development Charge By-law ................................ A-1 - 294 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 1 2019 Update Study - Amended Version 1. Introduction 1.1 Background The City of Pickering (City) imposes development charges (D.C.s) to recover the increase in the needs for service arising from growth. The basis for the calculation of the City’s existing schedule of residential and non-residential development charges is documented in the “City of Pickering 2017 Development Charges Background Study” dated October 5, 2017 (as amended). This Background Study provides the supporting documentation for the City’s D.C. By-Law 7595-17, which came into effective January 1, 2018. The resultant D.C. by municipal service and development type are summarized in Table 1-1. This schedule reflects the schedule of charges that came into force on January 1, 2018 (in 2018$) for development within the defined Seaton Lands, as the City elected to phase-in the charges for apartment units over the 2018-2020 period for development outside of the Seaton Lands. Table 1-1 City of Pickering January 1, 2018 Schedule of Development Charges Single and Semi- Detached Dwelling Apartments - 2 Bedrooms + Apartments - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom Other Multiples (per ft² of Total Floor Area) 2 (per net Ha of Prestige Employmen t Land in Seaton) Municipal Wide Services: Other Services Related to a Highway 441 279 197 356 0.15 5,451 Protection Services 889 562 398 718 0.34 11,431 Parks and Recreation Services 4,851 3,065 2,171 3,917 0.39 13,261 Library Services 1,086 686 486 877 0.08 2,605 Administration Studies 277 175 124 224 0.10 3,560 Stormwater Management 288 182 129 233 0.10 3,503 Total Municipal Wide Services 7,832 4,949 3,505 6,325 1.15 39,812 Outside of Seaton Lands Transportation 1 6,517 4,117 2,917 5,261 1.83 Total Services Outside of Seaton Lands 6,517 4,117 2,917 5,261 1.83 Seaton 7,832 4,949 3,505 6,325 1.15 39,812 Rest of Pickering 14,349 9,066 6,422 11,586 2.98 2. Does not apply to prestige employment development in Seaton, as that development is subject to the per net Ha land area charge instead. 1. Subject to a separate agreement outside of the Development Charges Act concerning the provision of Transportation Service RESIDENTIAL NON-RESIDENTIAL - 295 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 7 2019 Update Study - Amended Version 1.4 Proposed Charges to the D.C.A.: Bill 108 – An Act to amend Various Statutes with Respect to Housing, Other Development, and Various Matters On May 2, 2019, the Province introduced Bill 108 which proposes changes to the D.C.A. The Bill has been introduced as part of the Province’s “More Homes, More Choice: Ontario's Housing Supply Action Plan”. The Bill received royal assent on June 6, 2019. While having received royal asset, many of the changes to the D.C.A. do not come into effect until proclamation by the Lieutenant Governor. However, transitional provisions with respect to soft services are in effect as of the date of royal assent. The transitional provisions for soft services (i.e. services no longer eligible to be included in D.C. by-law once s.s. 2(4) of the Act is proclaimed) under an existing D.C. bylaw can remain in effect, even if the by-law expires, until the earlier of the prescribed date, the date a Community Benefits By-law is passed, or when the by-law is repealed. Moreover, as the new s.s. 2(4) is not yet in effect, municipalities are still permitted to pass a D.C. by- law based on the services currently eligible under the D.C.A., until the new section is proclaimed. A summary of the changes to the D.C.A. to take effect upon proclamation by the Lieutenant Governor is provided below: Changes to Eligible Services – the Bill will remove “Soft Services” from the D.C.A. These services will be considered as part of a new Community Benefit Charge (discussed below) imposed under the authority of the Planning Act. Once the new s.s. 2(4) is proclaimed, eligible services under the D.C.A. include: • Water supply services, including distribution and treatment services; • Wastewater services, including sewers and treatment services; • Storm water drainage and control services; • Services related to a highway as defined in subsection 1 (1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 or subsection 3 (1) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, as the case may be; • Electrical power services; • Policing services; • Ambulance services; • Fire protection services; - 296 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 10 2019 Update Study - Amended Version 2. Anticipated Development The 2017 D.C. Background Study provided for the anticipated residential and non- residential growth within the City of Pickering for the respective service forecast periods. The growth forecast associated with services included in this update study is summarized in Table 2-1 below. Table 2-1 City of Pickering 2017 D.C. Background Study – Growth Forecast Summary For the purpose of this Study, the 2017 D.C. Background Study growth forecast remains unchanged. The revised capital costs estimates have been considered in the context of this growth forecast. Adjustments to the total D.C. eligible costs are provided where necessary to ensure that the increase in the need for service pertains to the underlying increase in development. Net Population Residential Units Employment 1 Sq.ft. of Non- Residential GFA Early 2018 92,388 31,617 32,573 Early 2028 166,750 61,189 53,694 Mid 2031 179,356 65,530 63,899 10-year (2018-2028) Seaton 48,450 17,471 18,793 17,289,996 Rest of Pickering 25,912 12,101 2,328 2,795,958 14-year (2018-2031) Seaton 58,030 21,193 28,860 27,671,100 Rest of Pickering 28,936 12,720 2,466 3,090,862 Time Horizon Residential Non-Residential Incremental Change - 297 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 11 2019 Update Study - Amended Version 3. Revisions to the Anticipated Capital Needs The D.C. Background Study adopted by Council in the preparation of the City’s D.C. by- law justified the maximum amount that could be charged for residential and non- residential development. The study and by-law identified anticipated capital needs for recovery through D.C.s for Other Services Related to a Highway, Protection Services, Parks and Recreation Services, Library Services, Administration Studies, Stormwater Management, and Transportation. The City’s current by-law provides for the uniform City-wide recovery of growth-related costs for all services other than Transportation, which are imposed on an area-specific based for development outside of the Seaton Lands only. Development charges are imposed for all services though one by-law. The rules of the by-law effectively assess the charges appropriately for the imposition of D.C.s within the City. The intent of the amendment does not alter the City’s policy for the imposition of City-wide and area-specific D.C.s. As a result, it is not recommended that separate by-laws be implemented through this amendment process, and that the proposed revisions be considered as an amendment to the City’s current comprehensive D.C. by-law. 3.1 Revised Capital Costs The following subsections summarize the amendments made to the various capital projects comprising the D.C. amendment. For the purpose of calculating the amended D.C.s, the capital costs estimates have been deflated to 2017$, applying the change in the Statistics Canada Construction Price Statistics Index for the period (i.e. 6.7%). This reflects the indexing of the City’s D.C. over the period since by-law adoption. 3.1.1 Parks and Recreation Services The City’s 2017 D.C. Background Study identified parks and recreation projects to address the increase in the needs for services related to development. Projects included in the Study addressed recreation facilities contained within the City Centre project, including a Seniors’ and Youth Centre and the community use space within an Arts Centre. The City has completed updated design and capital cost estimates for the City Centre project. These updates provide the basis for amending the 2017 D.C. Background Study, as it relates to Parks and Recreation Services. - 298 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 13 2019 Update Study - Amended Version post-period capacity deduction of $12.6 million has been applied. The increase in the need for services attributable to the 10-year growth forecast period of $54.8 million, is subsequently reduced by $24.1 million for the benefit to existing development, and by a further $3.1 million for the 10% statutory deduction for soft services. After deducting a further $2.8 million for the existing D.C. reserve funds collected towards these capital needs, the D.C. eligible costs included in the calculation of the charge total approximately $24.8 million. Consistent with Parks and Recreation Services, in addition to the anticipated capital costs identified herein, debt financing for the City Centre project at 3% interest over a 25 year term has been assumed. Moreover, the revised D.C. recoverable costs are allocated 95% to residential development and 5% non-residential development. 3.1.3 Protection Services The Protection Services D.C. capital program within the City’s 2017 D.C. Background Study, identified the need for 2 additional fire stations within the Seaton Lands. The City has identified that in addition to the construction costs identified in the 2017 D.C. Background Study, additional capital costs for servicing and siteworks will be required related to the parcel of land for one of the additional fire stations. Additional capital cost estimates of $858,700 have been identified for this purpose. Approximately $192,000 of the gross capital costs have been allocated to new development after accounting for the benefit to existing development deduction of 2.5% and the benefit to development beyond the 10-year forecast period of $666,600. The revised D.C. recoverable costs are within the historic level of service cap for Protection Services. The D.C. recoverable costs are allocated 78% to residential development and 22% non-residential development, consistent with the City’s 2017 D.C. Background Study. The updated Protection Services D.C. capital program is included in Table 3-3. 3.1.4 Transportation Services Updates to the Transportation Services D.C. capital program have been provided for a new east/west collector road running parallel between Hwy 401 and Bayly Street (west of Brock Road), the crossing of Krosno Creek, and the north/south collector road that will connect to Bayly Street. These updates have been accounted for through updates to 2017 D.C. Background Study Transportation Services projects (i.e. projects no. 30, - 299 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 14 2019 Update Study - Amended Version 31,40, 41, 42), and the addition of a new project (i.e. A-13 (N/S Collector) Krosno Creek to Bayly Street Crossing), and presented in Table 3-4. The above noted revisions, result in a decrease in the gross capital costs within the Transportation Services D.C. capital program of $0.3 million to a total of $123.6 million. After accounting for the benefit to existing development deduction of $37.9 million and the existing D.C. reserve fund balance reflecting funds collected towards these needs, the D.C. eligible costs included in the calculation of the charge are $67.4 million. The revised D.C. recoverable costs are within the historic level of service cap for Transportation Services. These costs have been allocated to residential and non-residential development based on the anticipated population and employment growth outside of the Seaton Lands over the forecast period (i.e. 92% residential and 8% non-residential). 3.1.5 Administration Studies The City’s 2017 D.C. Background Study identified additional capital needs for administrative studies to address the increase in the needs for services related to development. Additional studies and updated costs have been identified including an updated cost for the Downtown Pickering Traffic Management Plan, D.C. Background Study Update and amendment costs, and a Fair Minded Pricing Policy related to the provision of Parks and Recreation Services. Table 3-5 summarizes the revised anticipated D.C. capital needs listing for Administration Services. The revised cost estimates, results in a total gross capital cost estimate of $12.8 million, an increase of approximately $0.3 million from the 2017 D.C. Background Study. Applying the required deductions for benefit to existing development and the 10% statutory deduction for soft services, results in D.C. recoverable costs of $8.2 million. This represents an increase of $0.3 million in D.C. recoverable costs from what was included in the previous study. The D.C. recoverable cost attribution has been maintained at 78% residential and 22% non-residential based on the share of net population increase as a percentage of the sum of the net population and employment increase for the planning period. - 300 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 19 2019 Update Study - Amended Version Table 3-3 Infrastructure Costs Covered in the D.C. Calculation – Protection Services Less: Prj .No Residential Share Non- Residential Share 2018-2027 78% 22% Facilities 1 Fire Station A (Seaton)2019 6,662,868 645,150 6,017,718 166,572 5,851,146 5,851,146 4,563,894 1,287,252 2 Fire Station B, including land (Seaton)2023 8,230,000 8,230,000 205,750 8,024,250 8,024,250 6,258,915 1,765,335 3 Animal Shelter & By-Law Services, including land 2020 8,066,000 - 8,066,000 1,963,896 6,102,104 610,210 5,491,894 4,283,677 1,208,217 Vehicles 4 1 small vehicle (Seaton)2018 45,000 - 45,000 1,125 43,875 43,875 34,223 9,653 5 1 Aerial (Seaton)2019 1,510,900 - 1,510,900 37,773 1,473,128 1,473,128 1,149,039 324,088 6 Aerial (Fire Station B) (Seaton)2023 1,510,900 - 1,510,900 37,773 1,473,128 1,473,128 1,149,039 324,088 7 Small vehicle (2) (Seaton)2023 90,000 - 90,000 2,250 87,750 87,750 68,445 19,305 8 Pumper (Fire Station B) (Seaton)2023 900,000 - 900,000 22,500 877,500 877,500 684,450 193,050 9 Provision for additional By-law and Animal Services Enforcement Vehicles 2018-2027 158,000 - 158,000 3,950 154,050 15,405 138,645 108,143 30,502 Equipment 10 Equipment for 20 Firefighters incl. Bunker Gear and Breathing Apparatus (Station A)2019 394,500 - 394,500 - 394,500 394,500 307,710 86,790 11 Equipment for 20 Firefighters incl. Bunker Gear and Breathing Apparatus (Station A)2021 394,500 - 394,500 - 394,500 394,500 307,710 86,790 12 Equipment for 20 Firefighters incl. Bunker Gear and Breathing Apparatus (Station B)2023 394,500 - 394,500 - 394,500 394,500 307,710 86,790 13 Equipment for 20 Firefighters incl. Bunker Gear and Breathing Apparatus (Station B)2024 394,500 - 394,500 - 394,500 394,500 307,710 86,790 Reserve Fund Adjustment 254,176 198,257 55,919 Total 28,751,668 645,150 28,106,518 2,441,587 - 25,664,930 625,615 25,293,491 19,728,923 5,564,568 Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated Development Timing (year) Benefit to Existing Development Grants, Subsidies and Other Contributions Attributable to New Development Total Potential DC Recoverable CostLess: Subtotal Other (e.g. 10% Statutory Deduction) Post Period Benefit Net Capital Cost Gross Capital Cost Estimate (2017$) - 301 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 20 2019 Update Study - Amended Version Table 3-4 - Infrastructure Costs Covered in the D.C. Calculation – Transportation Services Less:Potential DC Recoverable Cost Prj .No Residential Share Non- Residential Share 92% 8% Roads 1 Tillings Road oversizing - local to collector DH-3 2018-2024 294,800 - 294,800 29,480 265,320 244,094 21,226 2 William Jackson Drive - Urfe Creek to Taunton Road Urbanization, pedestrian trail DH-13 2018-2024 2,229,040 - 2,229,040 222,904 2,006,136 1,845,645 160,491 3 Sandy Beach Road 3-lane urban reconstruction, incl. storm B-29 2018-2024 6,500,000 - 6,500,000 3,250,000 3,250,000 2,990,000 260,000 4 DH-4 Valley Farm Rd. - Tillings Road to Brock Rd. Oversizing - local to collector DH-4 2018-2024 288,000 - 288,000 28,800 259,200 238,464 20,736 5 DH-14 William Jackson Dr. (Old Taunton). Urfe Creek Culvert Structure (Design/Approval).EA & Design DH-14 2018-2024 450,000 - 450,000 45,000 405,000 372,600 32,400 6 DH-14 William Jackson Dr. (Old Taunton). Urfe Creek Culvert Structure (Construction)Construction DH-14 2018-2024 3,455,100 - 3,455,100 345,510 3,109,590 2,860,823 248,767 7 Valley Farm Road - North of Third Concession to Tillings 3-lane urban construction, incl. storm DH-1 2020-2024 3,399,500 - 3,399,500 339,950 3,059,550 2,814,786 244,764 8 Twyn Rivers Drive - Hoover to West Limit 2-lane urban reconstruction RO-3 2025-2031 2,210,000 - 2,210,000 1,657,500 552,500 508,300 44,200 9 Finch Avenue - Townline to Altona 3-lane urban reconstruction, incl. storm RP-4 2018-2024 1,850,300 - 1,850,300 462,575 1,387,725 1,276,707 111,018 10 Pickering Parkway - Glenanna to Hydro Corridor (E)sidewalk TC-1 2018-2024 54,100 - 54,100 40,575 13,525 12,443 1,082 11 Diefenbaker Extension - East Limit to Pickering Parkway 2-lane, new construction TC-5 2025-2031 750,000 - 750,000 562,500 187,500 172,500 15,000 12 Notion Road - Kingston to 350m South 2-lane urban reconstruction, incl. Storm V-5 2018-2024 1,052,500 - 1,052,500 526,250 526,250 484,150 42,100 13 Sheppard Avenue - Whites to West Limit sidewalk, blvd., streetlight on north side WO-5 2018-2024 244,000 - 244,000 183,000 61,000 56,120 4,880 14 Sheppard Avenue - Whites to 600m East sidewalk, blvd., structures south side WO-9 2018-2024 395,000 - 395,000 296,250 98,750 90,850 7,900 15 Audley Road (Sideline 2) Conc. #5 to Hwy 7 2-lane rural reconstruction incl. structures RU-4 2018-2024 3,212,155 - 3,212,155 1,606,078 1,606,078 1,477,591 128,486 16 A-5, A-6, A-7 Arterial Connection Bayly to Kingston Rd.Feasibility Study & EA TC-31 2018-2024 2,698,000 - 2,698,000 674,500 2,023,500 1,861,620 161,880 17 Dunbarton Walkway - Dunbarton to Rambleberry walkway D-4 2018-2024 323,150 - 323,150 242,363 80,788 74,325 6,463 18 Valley Farm/Tillings Bridge - Ganatsekiagon EA & Design DH-2 2018-2024 500,000 500,000 50,000 450,000 414,000 36,000 19 Valley Farm/Tillings Bridge - Ganatsekiagon New Structure DH-2 2020-2024 13,489,900 - 13,489,900 1,348,990 12,140,910 11,169,637 971,273 20 Oakwood Drive - Rougemount to Mountain Ash 2-lane urban reconstruction R-4a 2018-2024 1,435,750 - 1,435,750 717,875 717,875 660,445 57,430 21 Oakwood Drive - Mountain Ash to Toynevale 2-lane urban reconstruction, incl. storm R-4b 2018-2024 718,225 - 718,225 359,113 359,113 330,384 28,729 22 Rougemount Drive - Woodgrange to Toynevale 2-lane urban reconstruction, incl. storm R-5 2018-2024 285,280 - 285,280 142,640 142,640 131,229 11,411 23 Finch Avenue - West of Altona (Structure)culvert replacement RP-2 2018-2024 1,000,000 - 1,000,000 500,000 500,000 460,000 40,000 24 Scar/Pickering Townline - Finch to CPR reconstruction/widen RP-14 2018-2024 866,800 - 866,800 433,400 433,400 398,728 34,672 25 Scar/Pickering Townline - CPR to Taunton/Steeles reconstruction/widen RU-7 2018-2024 5,634,200 - 5,634,200 2,817,100 2,817,100 2,591,732 225,368 26 Dixie Road - Kingston to South Limit sidewalk, east side TC-13 2018-2024 54,100 - 54,100 40,575 13,525 12,443 1,082 27 Granite Court - Whites to Rosebank sidewalk, north side W-4 2018-2024 207,085 - 207,085 155,314 51,771 47,630 4,142 28 Kellino Street - Squires Beach to Church 3-lane urban reconstruction, incl. storm BI-8 2019 2,236,500 - 2,236,500 1,118,250 1,118,250 1,028,790 89,460 29 Squires Beach Road - Bayly to CNR Tracks 3-lane urban reconstruction, incl. storm BI-18 2019 2,236,500 - 2,236,500 1,118,250 1,118,250 1,028,790 89,460 30 A-11 (Plummer) - Sandy Beach Road to Krosno Creek Oversizing to Collector B26B 2021 1,066,262 - 1,066,262 266,565 799,696 735,720 63,976 31 A-12 (Plummer) - Krosno Creek Crossing Bridge Structure B-27 2021 2,014,434 - 2,014,434 503,608 1,510,825 1,389,959 120,866 32 A-13 (N/S COllector) - Krosno Creek to Bayly Street Crossing Oversizing to Collector B-28 2021 50,398 - 50,398 12,600 37,799 34,775 3,024 33 Rosebank Road - CPR to Third Concession Rd.reconstruction/widen L-17 2025-2031 4,278,250 - 4,278,250 1,069,563 3,208,688 2,951,993 256,695 34 Rosebank Road - Third Concession Rd. To Taunton Rd.reconstruction/widen L-18 2025-2031 3,137,920 - 3,137,920 784,480 2,353,440 2,165,165 188,275 Total 2018-2031 Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated Development Roads Code Post Period Benefit Net Capital CostTiming (year) Gross Capital Cost Estimate (2017$) Benefit to Existing Development Grants, Subsidies and Other Contributions Attributable to New Development - 302 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 21 2019 Update Study - Amended Version Less:Potential DC Recoverable Cost Prj .No Residential Share Non- Residential Share 92% 8% 35 Montgomery Park Rd. - Sandy Beach Rd. To Mckay Rd.Urbanization /Full Load BI-21 2018-2024 3,710,000 - 3,710,000 1,855,000 1,855,000 1,706,600 148,400 36 Third Concession Rd. - Dixie Rd. To Whites Rd.Reconstruction/widen L-12 2025-2031 4,564,371 - 4,564,371 1,141,093 3,423,278 3,149,416 273,862 37 Third Concession Rd. - Whites Rd. To Altona Rd.Reconstruction/widen L-13 2025-2031 4,564,371 - 4,564,371 1,141,093 3,423,278 3,149,416 273,862 38 Third Concession Rd. - Altona Rd. To West Townline Reconstruction/widen L-14 2025-2031 4,564,371 - 4,564,371 1,141,093 3,423,278 3,149,416 273,862 39 Fairport Rd. - Lynn Heights To Third Concession Rd.Reconstruction/widen L-15 2025-2031 4,279,080 - 4,279,080 1,069,770 3,209,310 2,952,565 256,745 40 Dixie Rd. - Hydro Corridor To Third Concession Rd. Reconstruction/widen L-16 2025-2031 3,993,800 - 3,993,800 998,450 2,995,350 2,755,722 239,628 41 A-8 (Plummer) - Brock Rd. To Salk Road Reconstruction to collector road B-24 2025-2031 462,263 - 462,263 115,566 346,697 318,962 27,736 42 A-9 (Plummer) - Salk Road To Hydro Corridor (centre)New collector road B-25 2025-2031 369,773 - 369,773 92,443 277,330 255,144 22,186 43 A-10 (Plummer) - Hyrdo Corridor (centre) to Sandy Beach Road New collector road B-26 2025-2031 908,586 - 908,586 227,146 681,439 626,924 54,515 44 Walnut Lane Extension - construction and contract admin 2019 2,500,000 2,500,000 625,000 1,875,000 1,725,000 150,000 45 Walnut Lane Extension -EA and Design 2018 211,226 211,226 52,807 158,420 145,746 12,674 46 EA Study A8-A12 (Plummer) B-24 to B-28 2018-2024 500,000 - 500,000 125,000 375,000 345,000 30,000 Streetlights and Sidewalks 47 WO-2 Kingston Road - South Side Rosebank Rd. to Steeple Hill Includes pedestrian bridge WO-2 2018-2024 332,660 - 332,660 166,330 166,330 153,024 13,306 48 Kingston Road - Glendale Drive to Walnut Lane North side TC-9 2025-2031 351,000 - 351,000 175,500 175,500 161,460 14,040 49 Kingston Road - Dixie Road to Liverpool Road South Side TC-12 2018-2024 585,000 - 585,000 292,500 292,500 269,100 23,400 50 Sidewalk & Streetlights: Rosebank to Whites ES 2000 RO-10 Rosebank to 250 m west North Side RO-10 2018-2024 103,283 - 103,283 51,642 51,642 47,510 4,131 51 Sidewalks & Streetlights TC-7 (2005-2009) Kingston Rd. - Valley Farm Rd. East (south side) to Hydro Corridor. South Side TC-7 2018-2024 133,500 - 133,500 66,750 66,750 61,410 5,340 52 Sidewalks & Streetlights. N.E. Quadrant Delta Blvd 03-2321-01-21 WO-1 2025-2031 112,000 - 112,000 56,000 56,000 51,520 4,480 53 Sidewalks & Streetlights: Kingston Rd. Steeple Hill to Whites 04-2321-002-03 North Side WO-3 2018 317,000 - 317,000 158,500 158,500 145,820 12,680 54 Sidewalks & Streetlights: Kingston/Dixie-CNR tracks South Side TC-11 2025-2031 133,500 - 133,500 66,750 66,750 61,410 5,340 55 Streetlights & Sidewalks Brock Road-both sides-Forbrock Rd. to Taunton Road. DH-24 2018-2024 50,000 - 50,000 25,000 25,000 23,000 2,000 56 TC-6 - Valley Farm Road (East Side) Kingston Road to 100m South - Sidewalk/Blvd. in conjunction with adjacent development. TC-6 2018-2024 53,777 - 53,777 26,889 26,889 24,737 2,151 57 Kingston Road - West Limit of Neighbourhood 7 to Dixie Road north side D-1 2018-2024 570,000 - 570,000 285,000 285,000 262,200 22,800 58 Kingston Road - West Limit to East Limit of Neighbourhood 7 (Fairport to CN bridge)south side.D-2 2018-2024 694,535 - 694,535 347,268 347,268 319,486 27,781 59 Finch Avenue - Spruce Hill to East Limit of Neighbourhood 9 north side D-9 2018-2024 285,000 - 285,000 142,500 142,500 131,100 11,400 60 Finch Avenue - Spruce Hill to Fairport Road south side D-10 2018-2024 253,000 - 253,000 126,500 126,500 116,380 10,120 61 Finch Avenue - Brock Road to Hydro Corridor north side V-12 2018-2024 315,650 - 315,650 157,825 157,825 145,199 12,626 Total 2018-2031 Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated Development Roads Code Post Period Benefit Net Capital CostTiming (year) Gross Capital Cost Estimate (2017$) Benefit to Existing Development Grants, Subsidies and Other Contributions Attributable to New Development - 303 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 22 2019 Update Study - Amended Version Less:Potential DC Recoverable Cost Prj .No Residential Share Non- Residential Share 92% 8% 62 Whites Road - Granite Court to Hwy 401 west side W-5 2018-2024 95,000 - 95,000 47,500 47,500 43,700 3,800 63 Whites Road - North of 3rd Concession to Taunton Road sidewalk, multi-use trail, streetlight RU-8 2018-2024 1,153,000 - 1,153,000 57,650 1,095,350 1,007,722 87,628 64 Whites Road - Finch Ave to Seaton Boundary multi-use 2018-2024 1,741,100 - 1,741,100 174,110 1,566,990 1,441,631 125,359 65 Whites Road - Bridge over west Duffins Creek streetlighting RU-9 2018-2024 809,400 - 809,400 40,470 768,930 707,416 61,514 66 Brock Road - Bayly Street to Montgomery Road East and West Sides BI-4 2018-2024 1,861,600 - 1,861,600 930,800 930,800 856,336 74,464 67 Sideline 24 - Hwy 7 south to north limit of subdivision sidewalk/streetlights RU-12 2018-2024 389,600 - 389,600 58,440 331,160 304,667 26,493 68 Whites Rd. CPR Overpass sidewalk/streetlights A-6 2018-2024 269,800 - 269,800 40,470 229,330 210,984 18,346 69 Bayly Street - Church Street to West Limit Neighbourhood 4 north and south sides BI-1 2018-2024 1,162,300 - 1,162,300 581,150 581,150 534,658 46,492 70 Hwy 7 - Brock Rd to West Townline Sidewalk/streetlights north side RU-10 2018-2024 1,250,800 - 1,250,800 187,620 1,063,180 978,126 85,054 71 Church Street - Bayly Street to Kellino Street west side BI-17 2018-2024 325,000 - 325,000 162,500 162,500 149,500 13,000 72 Altona Road - Strouds Lane to North Limit of Neighbourhood 10 east and west sides H1 2018-2024 1,300,000 - 1,300,000 650,000 650,000 598,000 52,000 73 Finch Avenue - West Limit of Neighbourhood 7 to Duncannon Dr.north side L-6 2018-2024 150,000 - 150,000 75,000 75,000 69,000 6,000 74 Finch Avenue - Lynn Heights to East 80m north side L-7 2018-2024 40,000 - 40,000 20,000 20,000 18,400 1,600 75 Finch Avenue - Valley Farm Road to West 600m south side L-9 2018-2024 300,000 - 300,000 150,000 150,000 138,000 12,000 76 Finch Avenue - Valley Farm Road to East 300m north side L-10 2018-2024 150,000 - 150,000 75,000 75,000 69,000 6,000 77 Finch Avenue - Altona Road to Rosebank Road south side RP-6 2018-2024 250,000 - 250,000 125,000 125,000 115,000 10,000 78 Finch Avenue - Rosebank Road to 500m West north side RP-5 2018-2024 250,000 - 250,000 125,000 125,000 115,000 10,000 79 Altona Road - Finch Avenue to Hydro Corridor (N)east side RP-9 2018-2024 150,000 - 150,000 75,000 75,000 69,000 6,000 80 Altona Road - Finch Avenue to North Limit of Neighbourhood 14 west side RP-10 2018-2024 150,000 - 150,000 75,000 75,000 69,000 6,000 81 Altona Road - Finch Avenue to North Limit of Neighbourhood 14 east side RP-11 2018-2024 150,000 - 150,000 75,000 75,000 69,000 6,000 82 North Road - Hwy 7 south to north limit of subdivision sidewalk/streetlights RU-11 2018-2024 500,000 - 500,000 75,000 425,000 391,000 34,000 83 Whitevale Road - Altona Road to York/Durham Townline sidewalk/streetlights/multi-use trail RU-14 2018-2024 675,000 - 675,000 101,250 573,750 527,850 45,900 84 Taunton Rd. - Sideline 16 to Church St.sidewalk/streetlights/multi-use trail RU-17 2025-2031 375,000 - 375,000 56,250 318,750 293,250 25,500 85 Taunton Rd. - Whites Rd. To West Townline sidewalk/streetlights/multi-use trail RU-18 2025-2031 2,475,000 - 2,475,000 371,250 2,103,750 1,935,450 168,300 86 South Esplanade Pedestrian Mall walkway 2025-2031 900,000 - 900,000 450,000 450,000 414,000 36,000 87 Kingston Road - Fronting 820 Kingston Road to Fairport Rd North Side (455m)WO-10 2018-2024 270,000 - 270,000 135,000 135,000 124,200 10,800 88 Kingston Road - Rougemount Drive to 300m west North Side RO-12 2018-2024 175,500 - 175,500 87,750 87,750 80,730 7,020 Traffic Signals 89 Pickering Parkway at Glenanna Rd. - Signalization TC-4 2018-2024 300,000 - 300,000 30,000 270,000 248,400 21,600 90 Glenanna Road at Fairport Road Signalization D-8 2018-2024 300,000 - 300,000 30,000 270,000 248,400 21,600 91 Welrus Street at Fairport Road Signalization D-12 2018-2024 300,000 - 300,000 30,000 270,000 248,400 21,600 92 Rosebank Road at Sheppard Avenue Jog elimination/Signalization & EA WO-8 2018-2024 700,000 - 700,000 70,000 630,000 579,600 50,400 93 Rosebank Road at Highview Road/Deerhaven Lane Signalization A-5 2018-2024 300,000 - 300,000 30,000 270,000 248,400 21,600 94 Strouds Lane at Aspen Road/Shadybrook Drive Signalization A-7 2025-2031 600,000 - 600,000 60,000 540,000 496,800 43,200 95 Finch Avenue at Woodview Avenue Signalization RP-1 2025-2031 300,000 - 300,000 30,000 270,000 248,400 21,600 Reserve Fund Adjustment (18,249,536) (16,789,573) (1,459,963) Total 123,653,095 - 123,653,095 37,963,179 - 67,440,380 62,045,149 5,395,230 Total 2018-2031 Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated Development Roads Code Post Period Benefit Net Capital CostTiming (year) Gross Capital Cost Estimate (2017$) Benefit to Existing Development Grants, Subsidies and Other Contributions Attributable to New Development - 304 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 25 2019 Update Study - Amended Version 4. Revised D.C. Calculation and Schedule of Charges Based on the proposed amendments the 2017 D.C. Background Study and D.C. By- Law the calculated schedule of charges is provided in Table 4-1 below. The charges are provided in 2018$ consistent with Table 6-5 of the 2017 D.C. Background Study. As noted in Chapter 1 of this report, Council adopted specific exemption policies with respect to some types of development. These exemption policies, as well as all other D.C. policies (i.e. rules) contained in By-law 7595-17, remain unchanged through this process. Only the schedule of charges with respect to Parks and Recreation Services, Library Services, Administration Studies, Protection Services, and Transportation Services are being amended to reflect the updated capital cost estimates noted herein. A comparison of the amended charges herein (indexed to 2019$), with the City’s current 2019 D.C. rates is provided in Table 4-2. In total, the single and semi-detached D.C. for developments outside of the Seaton Lands would increase by $1,186 per unit (+8%) and the non-residential charge would increase by $0.09 per sq.ft. of GFA (+3%). For development within the Seaton Lands, the single and semi-detached D.C. would increase by $1,204 per unit (+14%), the prestige employment land charge would increase by $2,959 per net hectare (+7%), and the non-residential charge for all other uses would increase by $0.09 per sq.ft. GFA (+7%). Detailed cash-flow calculation tables underlying the calculation of the D.C.s, as revised by the amendments, are summarized in Tables 4-3 through 4-16. - 305 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 26 2019 Update Study - Amended Version Table 4-1 Amended Schedule of Development Charges (2018$) Single and Semi- Detached Dwelling Apartments - 2 Bedrooms + Apartments - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom Other Multiples (per ft² of Total Floor Area) 2 (per net Ha of Prestige Employmen t Land in Seaton) Municipal Wide Services: Other Services Related to a Highway 441 279 197 356 0.15 5,451 Protection Services 896 566 401 724 0.34 11,522 Parks and Recreation Services 6,047 3,820 2,706 4,882 0.47 16,036 Library Services 1,003 634 449 810 0.07 2,397 Administration Studies 286 181 128 231 0.11 3,676 Stormwater Management 288 182 129 233 0.10 3,503 Total Municipal Wide Services 8,961 5,662 4,010 7,236 1.24 42,585 Outside of Seaton Lands Transportation 1 6,500 4,106 2,909 5,248 1.82 Total Services Outside of Seaton Lands 6,500 4,106 2,909 5,248 1.82 Seaton 8,961 5,662 4,010 7,236 1.24 42,585 Rest of Pickering 15,461 9,768 6,919 12,484 3.06 Service RESIDENTIAL NON-RESIDENTIAL 1. Subject to a separate agreement outside of the Development Charges Act concerning the provision of Transportation 2. Does not apply to prestige employment development in Seaton, as that development is subject to the per net Ha land area charge instead. - 306 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 27 2019 Update Study - Amended Version Table 4-2 Comparison of Development Charges (2019$) 2017 D.C. Addendum Change ($) Change (%)2017 D.C. Addendum Change ($) Change (%)2017 D.C. Addendum Change ($) Change (%)Municipal Wide Services:Other Services Related to a Highway 470 470 - 0% 0.16 0.16- 0%5,814 5,814 - 0%Protection Services948 955 7 1% 0.35 0.35- 0%12,194 12,291 97 1%Parks and Recreation Services5,175 6,451 1,276 25% 0.42 0.510.09 21% 14,146 17,106 2,960 21%Library Services1,158 1,069 (89) -8% 0.08 0.07(0.01) -13%2,779 2,557 (222) -8%Administration Studies296 306 10 3% 0.11 0.120.01 9%3,797 3,921 124 3%Stormwater Management307 307 - 0% 0.11 0.11- 0%3,738 3,738 - 0%Total Municipal Wide Services8,354 9,558 1,204 14% 1.23 1.320.09 7%42,468 45,427 2,959 7%Outside of Seaton LandsTransportation 16,952 6,934 (18) 0% 1.95 1.94(0.01) -1%- - - - Total Services Outside of Seaton Lands 6,952 6,934 (18) 0% 1.95 1.94(0.01) -1%- - - n/aSeaton8,354 9,558 1,204 14% 1.23 1.320.09 7%42,468 45,427 2,959 7%Rest of Pickering15,306 16,492 1,186 8% 3.18 3.260.08 3%- - - - ServiceResidential Single and Semi-Detached Dwelling Non-Residential (per ft² of Total Floor Area) 2Non-Residential (per net Ha of Prestige Employment Land in Seaton)- 307 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 28 2019 Update Study - Amended Version Table 4-3 Table 4-4 Interest Nominal Inflated (3%/Yr) (2.5% on positive balances & 5% on negative balances) 2018 (198,257)$ (45,037)$ (46,388)$ 2,499 896$ 2,239,427$ 2,193,039$ 19,978$ 2,014,761$ 2019 2,014,761$ (6,031,458)$ (6,398,773)$ 2,499 923$ 2,306,610$ (4,092,163)$ (26,751)$ (2,104,153)$ 2020 (2,104,153)$ (4,294,492)$ (4,692,707)$ 2,499 951$ 2,375,808$ (2,316,899)$ (163,130)$ (4,584,182)$ 2021 (4,584,182)$ (318,524)$ (358,502)$ 2,499 979$ 2,447,083$ 2,088,581$ (176,995)$ (2,672,596)$ 2022 (2,672,596)$ (10,814)$ (12,537)$ 2,499 1,009$ 2,520,495$ 2,507,958$ (70,931)$ (235,568)$ 2023 (235,568)$ (8,479,374)$ (10,124,816)$ 2,155 1,039$ 2,238,964$ (7,885,852)$ (208,925)$ (8,330,345)$ 2024 (8,330,345)$ (318,524)$ (391,745)$ 2,155 1,070$ 2,306,133$ 1,914,388$ (368,658)$ (6,784,614)$ 2025 (6,784,614)$ (10,814)$ (13,699)$ 2,155 1,102$ 2,375,317$ 2,361,618$ (280,190)$ (4,703,187)$ 2026 (4,703,187)$ (10,814)$ (14,110)$ 2,155 1,135$ 2,446,576$ 2,432,466$ (174,348)$ (2,445,068)$ 2027 (2,445,068)$ (10,814)$ (14,534)$ 2,155 1,169$ 2,519,974$ 2,505,440$ (60,372)$ -$ Cash Flow Analysis Protection Services - Residential Year D.C. Reserve Fund Opening Balance Dev't Related Expenditures SDE per Year DC Rates w. Inflation (3%/Yr) Anticipated Revenues Revenues minus Expenditures Debenture Financing Requirement DC Reserve Fund Closing Balance after Financing Interest Nominal Inflated (3%/Yr) (2.5% on positive balances & 5% on negative balances) 2018 (20,055)$ (4,556)$ (4,693)$ 18 11,522$ 211,665$ 206,973$ 1,835$ 188,752$ 2019 188,752$ (610,134)$ (647,291)$ 18 11,868$ 218,015$ (429,276)$ (3,654)$ (244,177)$ 2020 (244,177)$ (434,425)$ (474,708)$ 18 12,224$ 224,556$ (250,152)$ (18,463)$ (512,792)$ 2021 (512,792)$ (32,221)$ (36,266)$ 18 12,591$ 231,292$ 195,027$ (20,764)$ (338,529)$ 2022 (338,529)$ (1,094)$ (1,268)$ 18 12,968$ 238,231$ 236,963$ (11,002)$ (112,568)$ 2023 (112,568)$ (857,762)$ (1,024,212)$ 18 13,357$ 245,378$ (778,834)$ (25,099)$ (916,502)$ 2024 (916,502)$ (32,221)$ (39,628)$ 18 13,758$ 252,739$ 213,111$ (40,497)$ (743,888)$ 2025 (743,888)$ (1,094)$ (1,386)$ 18 14,171$ 260,322$ 258,936$ (30,721)$ (515,673)$ 2026 (515,673)$ (1,094)$ (1,427)$ 18 14,596$ 268,131$ 266,704$ (19,116)$ (268,086)$ 2027 (268,086)$ (1,094)$ (1,470)$ 18 15,034$ 276,175$ 274,705$ (6,619)$ -$ Cash Flow Analysis Protection Services - Seaton Prestige Employment Land Year D.C. Reserve Fund Opening Balance Dev't Related Expenditures Net Hectares per Year DC Rates w. Inflation (3%/Yr) Anticipated Revenues Revenues minus Expenditures Debenture Financing Requirement DC Reserve Fund Closing Balance after Financing - 308 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 29 2019 Update Study - Amended Version Table 4-5 Interest Nominal Inflated (3%/Yr) (2.5% on positive balances & 5% on negative balances) 2018 (35,863)$ (8,147)$ (8,391)$ 1,118,519 0.34$ 378,502$ 370,110$ 3,282$ 337,529$ 2019 337,529$ (1,091,047)$ (1,157,491)$ 1,118,519 0.35$ 389,857$ (767,635)$ (6,534)$ (436,640)$ 2020 (436,640)$ (776,842)$ (848,876)$ 1,118,519 0.36$ 401,552$ (447,324)$ (33,015)$ (916,979)$ 2021 (916,979)$ (57,619)$ (64,850)$ 1,118,519 0.37$ 413,599$ 348,749$ (37,130)$ (605,360)$ 2022 (605,360)$ (1,956)$ (2,268)$ 1,118,519 0.38$ 426,007$ 423,739$ (19,675)$ (201,296)$ 2023 (201,296)$ (1,533,857)$ (1,831,505)$ 1,118,519 0.39$ 438,787$ (1,392,718)$ (44,883)$ (1,638,896)$ 2024 (1,638,896)$ (57,619)$ (70,864)$ 1,118,519 0.40$ 451,951$ 381,087$ (72,418)$ (1,330,227)$ 2025 (1,330,227)$ (1,956)$ (2,478)$ 1,118,519 0.42$ 465,509$ 463,031$ (54,936)$ (922,131)$ 2026 (922,131)$ (1,956)$ (2,552)$ 1,118,519 0.43$ 479,475$ 476,922$ (34,184)$ (479,393)$ 2027 (479,393)$ (1,956)$ (2,629)$ 1,118,519 0.44$ 493,859$ 491,230$ (11,837)$ 0$ Cash Flow Analysis Protection Services - Other Non-Residential Year D.C. Reserve Fund Opening Balance Dev't Related Expenditures GFA per Year DC Rates w. Inflation (3%/Yr) Anticipated Revenues Revenues minus Expenditures Debenture Financing Requirement DC Reserve Fund Closing Balance after Financing - 309 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 30 2019 Update Study - Amended Version Table 4-6 Interest Nominal Inflated (3%/Yr) (2.5% on positive balances & 5% on negative balances) 2018 16,789,573$ (4,976,978)$ (5,126,288)$ 1,145 6,500 7,444,765 2,318,477$ 448,720$ 19,556,771$ 2019 19,556,771$ (8,467,992)$ (8,983,693)$ 1,145 6,695 7,668,108 (1,315,585)$ 472,474$ 18,713,660$ 2020 18,713,660$ (7,482,297)$ (8,176,108)$ 1,145 6,896 7,898,151 (277,957)$ 464,367$ 18,900,071$ 2021 18,900,071$ (9,642,752)$ (10,853,002)$ 1,145 7,103 8,135,096 (2,717,906)$ 438,528$ 16,620,692$ 2022 16,620,692$ (7,482,297)$ (8,674,033)$ 1,145 7,316 8,379,149 (294,884)$ 411,831$ 16,737,639$ 2023 16,737,639$ (7,482,297)$ (8,934,254)$ 802 7,535 6,040,255 (2,893,999)$ 382,266$ 14,225,907$ 2024 14,225,907$ (7,482,297)$ (9,202,282)$ 802 7,762 6,221,463 (2,980,819)$ 318,387$ 11,563,475$ 2025 11,563,475$ (3,688,259)$ (4,672,176)$ 802 7,994 6,408,107 1,735,931$ 310,786$ 13,610,192$ 2026 13,610,192$ (3,688,259)$ (4,812,341)$ 802 8,234 6,600,350 1,788,009$ 362,605$ 15,760,806$ 2027 15,760,806$ (3,688,259)$ (4,956,711)$ 802 8,481 6,798,361 1,841,649$ 417,041$ 18,019,496$ 2028 18,019,496$ (3,688,259)$ (5,105,413)$ 76 8,736 661,647 (4,443,766)$ 394,940$ 13,970,670$ 2029 13,970,670$ (3,688,259)$ (5,258,575)$ 76 8,998 681,496 (4,577,079)$ 292,053$ 9,685,644$ 2030 9,685,644$ (3,688,259)$ (5,416,332)$ 76 9,268 701,941 (4,714,392)$ 183,211$ 5,154,464$ 2031 5,154,464$ (3,688,259)$ (5,578,822)$ 38 9,546 361,500 (5,217,323)$ 62,859$ (0)$ Cash Flow Analysis Transportation Services - Residential Year D.C. Reserve Fund Opening Balance Dev't Related Expenditures SDE per Year DC Rates w. Inflation (3%/Yr) Anticipated Revenues Revenues minus Expenditures Debenture Financing Requirement DC Reserve Fund Closing Balance after Financing - 310 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 31 2019 Update Study - Amended Version Table 4-7 Interest Nominal Inflated (3%/Yr) (2.5% on positive balances & 5% on negative balances) 2018 1,459,963$ (432,781)$ (445,764)$ 279,599 1.82$ 509,044$ 63,279$ 37,290$ 1,560,532$ 2019 1,560,532$ (736,347)$ (781,191)$ 279,599 1.88$ 524,315$ (256,876)$ 35,802$ 1,339,459$ 2020 1,339,459$ (650,635)$ (710,966)$ 279,599 1.93$ 540,044$ (170,922)$ 31,350$ 1,199,887$ 2021 1,199,887$ (838,500)$ (943,739)$ 279,599 1.99$ 556,246$ (387,494)$ 25,154$ 837,547$ 2022 837,547$ (650,635)$ (754,264)$ 279,599 2.05$ 572,933$ (181,331)$ 18,672$ 674,888$ 2023 674,888$ (650,635)$ (776,892)$ 279,599 2.11$ 590,121$ (186,771)$ 14,538$ 502,655$ 2024 502,655$ (650,635)$ (800,198)$ 279,599 2.17$ 607,825$ (192,374)$ 10,162$ 320,443$ 2025 320,443$ (320,718)$ (406,276)$ 279,599 2.24$ 626,059$ 219,783$ 10,758$ 550,985$ 2026 550,985$ (320,718)$ (418,464)$ 279,599 2.31$ 644,841$ 226,377$ 16,604$ 793,966$ 2027 793,966$ (320,718)$ (431,018)$ 279,599 2.38$ 664,186$ 233,168$ 22,764$ 1,049,897$ 2028 1,049,897$ (320,718)$ (443,949)$ 84,250 2.45$ 206,139$ (237,810)$ 23,275$ 835,362$ 2029 835,362$ (320,718)$ (457,267)$ 84,250 2.52$ 212,323$ (244,944)$ 17,822$ 608,240$ 2030 608,240$ (320,718)$ (470,985)$ 84,250 2.60$ 218,693$ (252,292)$ 12,052$ 368,000$ 2031 368,000$ (320,718)$ (485,115)$ 42,125 2.67$ 112,627$ (372,488)$ 4,488$ -$ Cash Flow Analysis Transportation Services - Non-Residential Year D.C. Reserve Fund Opening Balance Dev't Related Expenditures GFA per Year DC Rates w. Inflation (3%/Yr) Anticipated Revenues Revenues minus Expenditures Debenture Financing Requirement DC Reserve Fund Closing Balance after Financing - 311 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 37 2019 Update Study - Amended Version 5. Asset Management Plan 5.1 Introduction The changes to the D.C.A. (new section 10(c.2)) through Bill 73, require that the background study must include an Asset Management Plan (A.M.P) related to new infrastructure. Section 10 (3) of the D.C.A. provides: The A.M.P. shall, (a) deal with all assets whose capital costs are proposed to be funded under the development charge by-law; (b) demonstrate that all the assets mentioned in clause (a) are financially sustainable over their full life cycle; (c) contain any other information that is prescribed; and (d) be prepared in the prescribed manner. The A.M.P. analysis included in the 2017 D.C. Background Study, which found that the capital plan was deemed to be financially sustainable, has been updated to account for the capital cost revisions described herein. The updated A.M.P. analysis contained in Table 5-1 identifies: • $62.4 million in total annualized expenditures; and • Incremental operating revenues of $49.7 million and existing operating revenues of $94.6 million, totalling $144.3 million by the end of the period. In consideration of the above changes, the capital plan still deemed to be financially sustainable. - 312 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 38 2019 Update Study - Amended Version Table 5-1 2019 D.C. Amendment Asset Management – Future Expenditures and Associated Revenues (2017$) Sub-Total 2031 (Total) Expenditures (Annualized) Annual Debt Payment on Non-Growth Related Capital1 10,124,138 Annual Debt Payment on Post Period Capital2 2,153,082 Lifecycle: Annual Lifecycle - Town Wide Services $9,232,291 Annual Lifecycle - Area Specific Services 3 $3,591,152 Sub-Total - Annual Lifecycle $12,823,443 $12,823,443 Incremental Operating Costs (for D.C. Services)$37,294,559 Total Expenditures $62,395,222 Revenue (Annualized) Total Existing Revenue4 $94,578,893 Incremental Tax and Non-Tax Revenue (User Fees, Fines, Licences, etc.)$49,682,047 Total Revenues $144,260,940 4 As per Sch. 10 of FIR 3 Area-specific application of Transportation Services 1 Non-Growth Related component of Projects including 10% mandatory deduction on soft services 2 Interim Debt Financing for Post Period Benefit - 313 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 39 2019 Update Study - Amended Version 6. Process for Adoption of the Amending Development Charges By-law If approved, the changes provided herein will form part of the 2017 D.C. Background Study, as amended. Appendix A to this update study includes the draft Amending D.C. By-law being presented for Council’s consideration at the statutory public meeting on December 2, 2019. At that meeting a presentation will be made to the public regarding the recommendations of the D.C. Update Study, and Council may receive oral and written comments on the matter. It is anticipated that Council will consider for adoption the proposed amending by-law at a subsequent meeting of Council, witnessing the 60-day period between the release of the D.C. Background Study and the passage of the D.C. By-law (i.e. no earlier than December 16, 2019). If Council is satisfied with the proposed changes to the D.C. Background Study and D.C. By-Law, it is recommended that Council: “Approve the Development Charges Update Study dated October 16, 2019, as amended; subject to further annual review during the capital budget process;” “Determine that no further public meeting is required;” and “Approve the Amending Development Charge By-law as set out herein” - 314 - The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. ____/19 Being a By-law Regarding Development Charges to amend By -law 7595-17 to make certain revisions to the City’s development charges involving capital cost estimates. WHEREAS Section 19 of the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c27 (“the Act”) provides for amendments to be made to development charges by-laws; AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering (hereinafter called “the Council”) has determined that certain amendments should be made to the Development Charge By-law of the Corporation of the City of Pickering, being By-law 7595-17; AND WHEREAS, in accordance with the Act, a development charges background study has been completed in respect of the proposed amendment; AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering has given notice and held a public meeting in accordance with the Act; and Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1. By-law 7595-17 is hereby amended as follows: Schedule “C” is deleted and the attached Schedule “C” substitutes therefor. 2. This by-law shall come into force on December 17, 2019. By-law passed this 16th day of December 2019 _____________________________ Mayor _____________________________ Clerk - 315 - Schedule “C” City of Pickering Schedule of Development Charges Effective January 1, 2018 Single and Semi- Detached Dwelling Apartments - 2 Bedrooms + Apartments - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom Other Multiples (per ft² of Total Floor Area) 2 (per net Ha of Prestige Employmen t Land in Seaton) Municipal Wide Services: Other Services Related to a Highway 441 279 197 356 0.150 5,451 Protection Services 896 566 401 724 0.340 11,522 Parks and Recreation Services 6,047 3,820 2,706 4,882 0.470 16,036 Library Services 1,003 634 449 810 0.070 2,397 Administration Studies 286 181 128 231 0.110 3,676 Stormwater Management 288 182 129 233 0.100 3,503 Total Municipal Wide Services 8,961 5,662 4,010 7,236 1.24 42,585 Outside of Seaton Lands Transportation 1 6,500 4,106 2,909 5,248 1.82 Total Services Outside of Seaton Lands 6,500 4,106 2,909 5,248 1.82 Seaton 8,961 5,662 4,010 7,236 1.24 42,585 Rest of Pickering 15,461 9,768 6,919 12,484 3.06 Service RESIDENTIAL NON-RESIDENTIAL 1. Subject to a separate agreement outside of the Development Charges Act concerning the provision of Transportation 2. Does not apply to prestige employment development in Seaton, as that development is subject to the per net Ha land area charge instead. - 316 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. 905-272-3600 December 10, 2019 info@watsonecon.ca Addendum to: 2019 Development Charges Update Study City of Pickering ________________________ For Public Circulation and Comment Attachment #3 to Report #24-19 - 317 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2019 DC Update\Report\2019 Update Study - Amendment #2.docx Table of Contents Page 1. Summary of Revisions to the 2019 Development Charges Update Study ................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ................................................................................................ 1 2. Discussion .......................................................................................................... 1 3. Changes to the Background Report ................................................................. 7 4. Process for Adoption of the Development Charges By-law ........................... 7 Appendix A – Amended Pages ................................................................................ A-1 - 318 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 1 2019 Update Study - Amendment #2 1. Summary of Revisions to the 2019 Development Charges Update Study 1.1 Background Commensurate with the provisions of the Development Charges Act (D.C.A.), 1997, the City of Pickering (City) has undertaken a Development Charges (D.C.) background study and has distributed the study to the public. The following provides a summary of the key dates in the D.C. by-law process: • Release of the D.C. Update Study – October 16, 2019; • Issue Addendum to October 16, 2019 D.C. Update Study – November 19, 2019; • Presentation of D.C. Update Study to Development Industry Stakeholders – November 19, 2019; • Public Meeting – December 2, 2019; and • By-law Passage – December 16, 2019 The purpose of this second addendum to the October 16, 2019 D.C. Update Study is to provide for refinements to the capital needs for Transportation Services and to the calculation of the charge. Moreover, the City’s current D.C. By-law contains rules for the phase in of the charge for apartment dwelling units developing outside of the defined Seaton Lands. This addendum to the 2019 D.C. Update Study also serves to modify that provision. 2. Discussion 2.1 Transportation Services The 2019 D.C. Update Study (as amended) included revised capital cost estimates for the new east/west collector road running parallel between Hwy 401 and Bayly Street (west of Brock Road), the crossing of Krosno Creek, and the north/south collector that will connect to Bayly Street. Subsequent to the comments received at the public meeting, staff identified that cost estimates for following D.C. Transportation Services projects require further revision: - 319 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2 2019 Update Study - Amendment #2 • #30 (A-11 (Plummer) - Sandy Beach Road to Krosno Creek); • #31 (A-12 (Plummer) - Krosno Creek Crossing); • #32 (A-13 (N/S Collector) - Krosno Creek to Bayly Street Crossing); • #41 (A-8 (Plummer) - Brock Rd. To Salk Road); • #42 (A-9 (Plummer) - Salk Road To Hydro Corridor (centre)); and • #43 (A-10 (Plummer) - Hyrdo Corridor (centre) to Sandy Beach Road). In total, these capital cost revisions add approximately $294,000 to the gross capital cost estimates. After deducting the benefit to existing development for these projects, approximately $220,700 is added to the calculation of the charge for Transportation Services. 2.2 D.C. By-law Rules s. 7. (4) of By-law 7595/17 identifies the area (i.e. outside the defined Seaton Lands) to which the residential 2 bedroom and greater and one bedroom and bachelor apartments D.C.s in Schedule “D” of By-law 7595/17 are imposed until December 31, 2020. This by-law rule reflects a reduction in the D.C. for the phase in period. The City proposes to amend the applicable area of Schedule “D” of D.C. By-law 7595/17 to the lands identified in Figure 2-1 below. Furthermore, the date for the phase-in of the D.C.s under this rule will remain in effect until December 14, 2020. - 320 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3 2019 Update Study - Amendment #2 Figure 2-1 Applicable Area for Phase-In of D.C.s for Apartment Dwelling Units 2.3 Summary Table 2-1 summarizes the proposed charges arising from this addendum. Table 2-2 compares the charges contained in this addendum to those in the 2019 D.C. Update Study (as amended) for residential single and semi-detached dwelling units, per sq.ft. of non-residential gross floor area, and per net hectare of prestige employment land in Seaton. These charges are presented in 2018$ values, consistent with the City’s 2017 D.C. Background Study. In total, the impact of the addendum on the 2019 D.C. Update Study (as amended) for single and semi-detached residential dwelling units constructed outside of the Seaton - 321 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 4 2019 Update Study - Amendment #2 Lands would increase by $21 per unit, and the non-residential charge would increase by $0.01 per sq.ft. of G.F.A. For development located within the Seaton Lands, the D.C. for all development types would remain unchanged as the change noted above only effect the Transportation Services component of the charge. Table 2-1 City of Pickering Calculated Schedule of Development Charges (2018$) The City’s D.C. By-law provides for annual indexing of the charges. To reflect the impacts of the proposed amendment on the City’s current charges, Table 2-3 presents the indexed amended charges and compares them to the City’s current 2019 rates. In total, the single and semi-detached D.C. for developments outside of the Seaton Lands would increase by $1,209 per unit (+8%), and the non-residential charge would increase by $0.10 per sq.ft. of GFA (+3%). For development located within the Seaton Lands, the single and semi-detached D.C. would increase by $1,204 per unit (+14%), the non- residential charge (outside of the prestige employment lands) would increase by $0.09 per sq.ft. GFA (+7%), and the prestige employment land charge would increase by $2,959 per net hectare (+7%). Single and Semi- Detached Dwelling Apartments - 2 Bedrooms + Apartments - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom Other Multiples (per ft² of Total Floor Area) 2 (per net Ha of Prestige Employme nt Land in Seaton) Municipal Wide Services: Other Services Related to a Highway 441 279 197 356 0.15 5,451 Protection Services 896 566 401 724 0.34 11,522 Parks and Recreation Services 6,047 3,820 2,706 4,882 0.47 16,036 Library Services 1,003 634 449 810 0.07 2,397 Administration Studies 286 181 128 231 0.11 3,676 Stormwater Management 288 182 129 233 0.10 3,503 Total Municipal Wide Services 8,961 5,662 4,010 7,236 1.24 42,585 Outside of Seaton Lands Transportation 1 6,521 4,120 2,919 5,265 1.83 Total Services Outside of Seaton Lands 6,521 4,120 2,919 5,265 1.83 Seaton 8,961 5,662 4,010 7,236 1.24 42,585 Rest of Pickering 15,482 9,782 6,929 12,501 3.07 Service RESIDENTIAL NON-RESIDENTIAL 1. Subject to a separate agreement outside of the Development Charges Act concerning the provision of Transportation 2. Does not apply to prestige employment development in Seaton, as that development is subject to the per net Ha land area charge instead. - 322 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 5 2019 Update Study - Amendment #2 Table 2-2 Comparison of Development Charges – October 16, 2019 D.C. Update Study (as amended on November 19, 2019) vs. Addendum (2018$) Nov. 19, 2019 Addendum Dec 10, 2019 Addendum Change ($) Change (%) Nov. 19, 2019 Addendu m Dec 10, 2019 Addendum Change ($) Change (%) Nov. 19, 2019 Addendum Dec 10, 2019 Addendum Change ($) Change (%) Municipal Wide Services: Other Services Related to a Highway 441 441 - 0% 0.15 0.15 - 0%5,451 5,451 - 0% Protection Services 896 896 - 0% 0.34 0.34 - 0%11,522 11,522 - 0% Parks and Recreation Services 6,047 6,047 - 0% 0.47 0.47 - 0%16,036 16,036 - 0% Library Services 1,003 1,003 - 0% 0.07 0.07 - 0%2,397 2,397 - 0% Administration Studies 286 286 - 0% 0.11 0.11 - 0%3,676 3,676 - 0% Stormwater Management 288 288 - 0% 0.10 0.10 - 0%3,503 3,503 - 0% Total Municipal Wide Services 8,961 8,961 - 0% 1.24 1.24 - 0%42,585 42,585 - 0% Outside of Seaton Lands Transportation 1 6,500 6,521 21 0% 1.82 1.83 0.01 1%- - - - Total Services Outside of Seaton Lands 6,500 6,521 21 0% 1.82 1.83 0.01 1%- - - n/a Seaton 8,961 8,961 - 0% 1.24 1.24 - 0%42,585 42,585 - 0% Rest of Pickering 15,461 15,482 21 0% 3.06 3.07 0.01 0%- - - - Service Residential Single and Semi-Detached Dwelling Non-Residential (per ft² of Total Floor Area) 2 Non-Residential (per net Ha of Prestige Employment Land in Seaton) - 323 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 6 2019 Update Study - Amendment #2 Table 2-3 Comparison of Development Charges – Current vs. Proposed (2019$) 2017 D.C.Addendum Change ($) Change (%)2017 D.C.Addendum Change ($) Change (%)2017 D.C.Addendum Change ($) Change (%) Municipal Wide Services: Other Services Related to a Highway 470 470 - 0% 0.16 0.16 - 0%5,814 5,814 - 0% Protection Services 948 955 7 1% 0.35 0.35 - 0%12,194 12,291 97 1% Parks and Recreation Services 5,175 6,451 1,276 25% 0.42 0.51 0.09 21% 14,146 17,106 2,960 21% Library Services 1,158 1,069 (89) -8%0.08 0.07 (0.01) -13%2,779 2,557 (222) -8% Administration Studies 296 306 10 3% 0.11 0.12 0.01 9%3,797 3,921 124 3% Stormwater Management 307 307 - 0% 0.11 0.11 - 0%3,738 3,738 - 0% Total Municipal Wide Services 8,354 9,558 1,204 14% 1.23 1.32 0.09 7%42,468 45,427 2,959 7% Outside of Seaton Lands Transportation 1 6,952 6,957 5 0% 1.95 1.96 0.01 1%- - - - Total Services Outside of Seaton Lands 6,952 6,957 5 0% 1.95 1.96 0.01 1%- - - n/a Seaton 8,354 9,558 1,204 14% 1.23 1.32 0.09 7%42,468 45,427 2,959 7% Rest of Pickering 15,306 16,515 1,209 8% 3.18 3.28 0.10 3%- - - - Service Residential Single and Semi-Detached Dwelling Non-Residential (per ft² of Total Floor Area) 2 Non-Residential (per net Ha of Prestige Employment Land in Seaton) - 324 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 7 2019 Update Study - Amendment #2 3. Changes to the Background Report Based on the foregoing, the following revisions are made to the pages within the 2019 D.C. Update Study (as amended). Accordingly, the revised pages are appended to this report: • Table of Contents – Re-issued to reflect updated page numbering; • Page 6 – Revised to address the phase-in of D.C.s for apartment dwelling units; • Pages 14 and 20 to 22, – Re-issued to reflect the changes to the Transportation services capital program; • Pages 25 to 27 and 30 to 31 – revised to reflect the D.C. calculation changes as a result of this addendum; • Page 37 – New page to reflect the phase-in of D.C.s for apartment dwelling units; • Page 38 – Re-issued for page numbering changes; • Page 39 – Updated to reflect changes in capital costs; • Page 40 – Revised to reflect this addendum and the updated study process; and • Appendix A – Draft Amending Development Charge By-law – Reissued to reflect this addendum. 4. Process for Adoption of the Development Charges By-law The revisions provided herein form the basis for the D.C. by-law and will be incorporated into the 2019 D.C. Update Study (as amended) to be provided for Council’s consideration and adoption of the proposed D.C. By-Law. If Council is satisfied with the above noted changes to the D.C. background study and D.C. by-law, then prior to by-law passage Council must: • Approve the 2019 D.C. Update Study, as amended; • Determine that no further public meetings are required on the matter; and • Adopt the amending D.C. By-Law. - 325 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-1 2019 Update Study - Amendment #2 Appendix A – Amended Pages - 326 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2019 DC Update\Report\2019 Update Study - Amended Version v2.docx Table of Contents Page 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Existing Policies (Rules) ............................................................................ 2 1.2.1 Payment in any Particular Case .................................................... 2 1.2.2 Determination of the Amount of the Charge .................................. 3 1.2.3 Application to Land Redevelopment ............................................. 4 1.2.4 Exemptions (full or partial) ............................................................ 4 1.2.5 Indexing ........................................................................................ 5 1.2.6 By-law Duration ............................................................................. 5 1.2.7 Date Charge Payable .................................................................... 5 1.3 Basis for D.C. By-law Update .................................................................... 6 1.4 Proposed Charges to the D.C.A.: Bill 108 – An Act to amend Various Statutes with Respect to Housing, Other Development, and Various Matters .......................................................................................... 7 2. Anticipated Development................................................................................. 10 3. Revisions to the Anticipated Capital Needs ................................................... 11 3.1 Revised Capital Costs.............................................................................. 11 3.1.1 Parks and Recreation Services ................................................... 11 3.1.2 Library Services .......................................................................... 12 3.1.3 Protection Services ..................................................................... 13 3.1.4 Transportation Services .............................................................. 13 3.1.5 Administration Studies ................................................................ 14 4. Revised D.C. Calculation and Schedule of Charges ..................................... 25 4.1 D.C. Policy Recommendations and D.C. By-law Rules ........................... 37 5. Asset Management Plan .................................................................................. 38 5.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 38 6. Process for Adoption of the Amending Development Charges By-law ....... 40 Appendix A – Draft Amending Development Charge By-law ................................ A-1 - 327 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 6 2019 Update Study - Amended Version v2 1.3 Basis for D.C. By-law Update This D.C. Update Study provides for an amendment to the City’s D.C. By-Law. The purpose of the amendment is to provide for updates to the underlying capital cost estimates and to include additional capital needs within the City’s 2017 D.C. Background Study to determine the charges for Parks and Recreation Services, Library Services, Protection Services, Transportation, and Administration Studies. Moreover, the update study will also address changes to the phase-in provisions for apartment dwelling units located outside of the defined Seaton Lands. The amendments arise, in part, from Council’s direction to proceed with the Civic Centre Project, including a Seniors and Youth Centre, Performing Arts Centre, and Central Library, and updated capital cost estimates. In addition to the updated capital costs for these projects, the City has also provided updated capital costs or additional projects related to Protection Services, Administration Studies, and Transportation. The amendment is being recommended at this time due to the increase in capital costs and the resultant under-recovery of anticipated capital costs requirements under the existing D.C. by-law. Details on the capital cost updates are presented in Chapter 3 of this Study. The revised schedule of D.C.s is presented in the draft amending by-law contained in Appendix A herein. It should be noted that this report is provided as an amendment to By-law 7595-17, and as such the calculations are denominated in 2017 dollars (the City’s D.C. Background Study cost base). The amended D.C. rates are subsequently indexed to current rates for implementation. The notice of the Public Meeting will be advertised in accordance with the requirements of the D.C.A., i.e. 20 clear-days prior to the public meeting. This background study document will be released for public review and posted on the City’s website in accordance with provisions of the D.C.A. on October 16, 2019. The statutory public meeting will be held in Council Chambers, at the City of Pickering Municipal Offices on December 2, 2019. A presentation will be made to the public regarding the recommendations of this report, and Council will receive oral and written comments on the matter. It is anticipated that Council will consider for adoption the proposed amending by-law after the 60-day period between the release of the D.C. Background Study and the passage of the D.C. by-law (i.e. December 16, 2019). - 328 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 14 2019 Update Study - Amended Version v2 31,40, 41, 42), and the addition of a new project (i.e. A-13 (N/S Collector) Krosno Creek to Bayly Street Crossing), and presented in Table 3-4. The above noted revisions, result in a decrease in the gross capital costs within the Transportation Services D.C. capital program of approximately $36,000. After accounting for the benefit to existing development deduction of $38.0 million and the existing D.C. reserve fund balance reflecting funds collected towards these needs, the D.C. eligible costs included in the calculation of the charge are $67.7 million. The revised D.C. recoverable costs are within the historic level of service cap for Transportation Services. These costs have been allocated to residential and non-residential development based on the anticipated population and employment growth outside of the Seaton Lands over the forecast period (i.e. 92% residential and 8% non-residential). 3.1.5 Administration Studies The City’s 2017 D.C. Background Study identified additional capital needs for administrative studies to address the increase in the needs for services related to development. Additional studies and updated costs have been identified including an updated cost for the Downtown Pickering Traffic Management Plan, D.C. Background Study Update and amendment costs, and a Fair Minded Pricing Policy related to the provision of Parks and Recreation Services. Table 3-5 summarizes the revised anticipated D.C. capital needs listing for Administration Services. The revised cost estimates, results in a total gross capital cost estimate of $12.8 million, an increase of approximately $0.3 million from the 2017 D.C. Background Study. Applying the required deductions for benefit to existing development and the 10% statutory deduction for soft services, results in D.C. recoverable costs of $8.2 million. This represents an increase of $0.3 million in D.C. recoverable costs from what was included in the previous study. The D.C. recoverable cost attribution has been maintained at 78% residential and 22% non-residential based on the share of net population increase as a percentage of the sum of the net population and employment increase for the planning period. - 329 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 20 2019 Update Study - Amended Version v2 Table 3-4 - Infrastructure Costs Covered in the D.C. Calculation – Transportation Services Less:Potential DC Recoverable Cost Prj .No Residential Share Non- Residential Share 92% 8% Roads 1 Tillings Road oversizing - local to collector DH-3 2018-2024 294,800 - 294,800 29,480 265,320 244,094 21,226 2 William Jackson Drive - Urfe Creek to Taunton Road Urbanization, pedestrian trail DH-13 2018-2024 2,229,040 - 2,229,040 222,904 2,006,136 1,845,645 160,491 3 Sandy Beach Road 3-lane urban reconstruction, incl. storm B-29 2018-2024 6,500,000 - 6,500,000 3,250,000 3,250,000 2,990,000 260,000 4 DH-4 Valley Farm Rd. - Tillings Road to Brock Rd. Oversizing - local to collector DH-4 2018-2024 288,000 - 288,000 28,800 259,200 238,464 20,736 5 DH-14 William Jackson Dr. (Old Taunton). Urfe Creek Culvert Structure (Design/Approval).EA & Design DH-14 2018-2024 450,000 - 450,000 45,000 405,000 372,600 32,400 6 DH-14 William Jackson Dr. (Old Taunton). Urfe Creek Culvert Structure (Construction)Construction DH-14 2018-2024 3,455,100 - 3,455,100 345,510 3,109,590 2,860,823 248,767 7 Valley Farm Road - North of Third Concession to Tillings 3-lane urban construction, incl. storm DH-1 2020-2024 3,399,500 - 3,399,500 339,950 3,059,550 2,814,786 244,764 8 Twyn Rivers Drive - Hoover to West Limit 2-lane urban reconstruction RO-3 2025-2031 2,210,000 - 2,210,000 1,657,500 552,500 508,300 44,200 9 Finch Avenue - Townline to Altona 3-lane urban reconstruction, incl. storm RP-4 2018-2024 1,850,300 - 1,850,300 462,575 1,387,725 1,276,707 111,018 10 Pickering Parkway - Glenanna to Hydro Corridor (E)sidewalk TC-1 2018-2024 54,100 - 54,100 40,575 13,525 12,443 1,082 11 Diefenbaker Extension - East Limit to Pickering Parkway 2-lane, new construction TC-5 2025-2031 750,000 - 750,000 562,500 187,500 172,500 15,000 12 Notion Road - Kingston to 350m South 2-lane urban reconstruction, incl. Storm V-5 2018-2024 1,052,500 - 1,052,500 526,250 526,250 484,150 42,100 13 Sheppard Avenue - Whites to West Limit sidewalk, blvd., streetlight on north side WO-5 2018-2024 244,000 - 244,000 183,000 61,000 56,120 4,880 14 Sheppard Avenue - Whites to 600m East sidewalk, blvd., structures south side WO-9 2018-2024 395,000 - 395,000 296,250 98,750 90,850 7,900 15 Audley Road (Sideline 2) Conc. #5 to Hwy 7 2-lane rural reconstruction incl. structures RU-4 2018-2024 3,212,155 - 3,212,155 1,606,078 1,606,078 1,477,591 128,486 16 A-5, A-6, A-7 Arterial Connection Bayly to Kingston Rd.Feasibility Study & EA TC-31 2018-2024 2,698,000 - 2,698,000 674,500 2,023,500 1,861,620 161,880 17 Dunbarton Walkway - Dunbarton to Rambleberry walkway D-4 2018-2024 323,150 - 323,150 242,363 80,788 74,325 6,463 18 Valley Farm/Tillings Bridge - Ganatsekiagon EA & Design DH-2 2018-2024 500,000 500,000 50,000 450,000 414,000 36,000 19 Valley Farm/Tillings Bridge - Ganatsekiagon New Structure DH-2 2020-2024 13,489,900 - 13,489,900 1,348,990 12,140,910 11,169,637 971,273 20 Oakwood Drive - Rougemount to Mountain Ash 2-lane urban reconstruction R-4a 2018-2024 1,435,750 - 1,435,750 717,875 717,875 660,445 57,430 21 Oakwood Drive - Mountain Ash to Toynevale 2-lane urban reconstruction, incl. storm R-4b 2018-2024 718,225 - 718,225 359,113 359,113 330,384 28,729 22 Rougemount Drive - Woodgrange to Toynevale 2-lane urban reconstruction, incl. storm R-5 2018-2024 285,280 - 285,280 142,640 142,640 131,229 11,411 23 Finch Avenue - West of Altona (Structure)culvert replacement RP-2 2018-2024 1,000,000 - 1,000,000 500,000 500,000 460,000 40,000 24 Scar/Pickering Townline - Finch to CPR reconstruction/widen RP-14 2018-2024 866,800 - 866,800 433,400 433,400 398,728 34,672 25 Scar/Pickering Townline - CPR to Taunton/Steeles reconstruction/widen RU-7 2018-2024 5,634,200 - 5,634,200 2,817,100 2,817,100 2,591,732 225,368 26 Dixie Road - Kingston to South Limit sidewalk, east side TC-13 2018-2024 54,100 - 54,100 40,575 13,525 12,443 1,082 27 Granite Court - Whites to Rosebank sidewalk, north side W-4 2018-2024 207,085 - 207,085 155,314 51,771 47,630 4,142 28 Kellino Street - Squires Beach to Church 3-lane urban reconstruction, incl. storm BI-8 2019 2,236,500 - 2,236,500 1,118,250 1,118,250 1,028,790 89,460 29 Squires Beach Road - Bayly to CNR Tracks 3-lane urban reconstruction, incl. storm BI-18 2019 2,236,500 - 2,236,500 1,118,250 1,118,250 1,028,790 89,460 30 A-11 (Plummer) - Sandy Beach Road to Krosno Creek Oversizing to Collector B26B 2021 1,088,606 - 1,088,606 272,152 816,455 751,138 65,316 31 A-12 (Plummer) - Krosno Creek Crossing Bridge Structure B-27 2021 2,158,400 - 2,158,400 539,600 1,618,800 1,489,296 129,504 32 A-13 (N/S COllector) - Krosno Creek to Bayly Street Crossing Oversizing to Collector B-28 2021 54,000 - 54,000 13,500 40,500 37,260 3,240 33 Rosebank Road - CPR to Third Concession Rd.reconstruction/widen L-17 2025-2031 4,278,250 - 4,278,250 1,069,563 3,208,688 2,951,993 256,695 34 Rosebank Road - Third Concession Rd. To Taunton Rd.reconstruction/widen L-18 2025-2031 3,137,920 - 3,137,920 784,480 2,353,440 2,165,165 188,275 Benefit to Existing Development Grants, Subsidies and Other Contributions Attributable to New Development Total 2018-2031 Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated Development Roads Code Post Period Benefit Net Capital CostTiming (year) Gross Capital Cost Estimate (2017$) - 330 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 21 2019 Update Study - Amended Version v2 Less:Potential DC Recoverable Cost Prj .No Residential Share Non- Residential Share 92% 8% 35 Montgomery Park Rd. - Sandy Beach Rd. To Mckay Rd.Urbanization /Full Load BI-21 2018-2024 3,710,000 - 3,710,000 1,855,000 1,855,000 1,706,600 148,400 36 Third Concession Rd. - Dixie Rd. To Whites Rd.Reconstruction/widen L-12 2025-2031 4,564,371 - 4,564,371 1,141,093 3,423,278 3,149,416 273,862 37 Third Concession Rd. - Whites Rd. To Altona Rd.Reconstruction/widen L-13 2025-2031 4,564,371 - 4,564,371 1,141,093 3,423,278 3,149,416 273,862 38 Third Concession Rd. - Altona Rd. To West Townline Reconstruction/widen L-14 2025-2031 4,564,371 - 4,564,371 1,141,093 3,423,278 3,149,416 273,862 39 Fairport Rd. - Lynn Heights To Third Concession Rd.Reconstruction/widen L-15 2025-2031 4,279,080 - 4,279,080 1,069,770 3,209,310 2,952,565 256,745 40 Dixie Rd. - Hydro Corridor To Third Concession Rd. Reconstruction/widen L-16 2025-2031 3,993,800 - 3,993,800 998,450 2,995,350 2,755,722 239,628 41 A-8 (Plummer) - Brock Rd. To Salk Road Reconstruction to collector road B-24 2025-2031 495,300 - 495,300 123,825 371,475 341,757 29,718 42 A-9 (Plummer) - Salk Road To Hydro Corridor (centre)New collector road B-25 2025-2031 396,200 - 396,200 99,050 297,150 273,378 23,772 43 A-10 (Plummer) - Hyrdo Corridor (centre) to Sandy Beach Road New collector road B-26A 2025-2031 973,520 - 973,520 243,380 730,140 671,729 58,411 44 Walnut Lane Extension - construction and contract admin 2019 2,500,000 2,500,000 625,000 1,875,000 1,725,000 150,000 45 Walnut Lane Extension -EA and Design 2018 211,226 211,226 52,807 158,420 145,746 12,674 46 EA Study A8-A12 (Plummer) B-24 to B-28 2018-2024 500,000 - 500,000 125,000 375,000 345,000 30,000 Streetlights and Sidewalks 47 WO-2 Kingston Road - South Side Rosebank Rd. to Steeple Hill Includes pedestrian bridge WO-2 2018-2024 332,660 - 332,660 166,330 166,330 153,024 13,306 48 Kingston Road - Glendale Drive to Walnut Lane North side TC-9 2025-2031 351,000 - 351,000 175,500 175,500 161,460 14,040 49 Kingston Road - Dixie Road to Liverpool Road South Side TC-12 2018-2024 585,000 - 585,000 292,500 292,500 269,100 23,400 50 Sidewalk & Streetlights: Rosebank to Whites ES 2000 RO-10 Rosebank to 250 m west North Side RO-10 2018-2024 103,283 - 103,283 51,642 51,642 47,510 4,131 51 Sidewalks & Streetlights TC-7 (2005-2009) Kingston Rd. - Valley Farm Rd. East (south side) to Hydro Corridor. South Side TC-7 2018-2024 133,500 - 133,500 66,750 66,750 61,410 5,340 52 Sidewalks & Streetlights. N.E. Quadrant Delta Blvd 03-2321-01-21 WO-1 2025-2031 112,000 - 112,000 56,000 56,000 51,520 4,480 53 Sidewalks & Streetlights: Kingston Rd. Steeple Hill to Whites 04-2321-002-03 North Side WO-3 2018 317,000 - 317,000 158,500 158,500 145,820 12,680 54 Sidewalks & Streetlights: Kingston/Dixie-CNR tracks South Side TC-11 2025-2031 133,500 - 133,500 66,750 66,750 61,410 5,340 55 Streetlights & Sidewalks Brock Road-both sides-Forbrock Rd. to Taunton Road. DH-24 2018-2024 50,000 - 50,000 25,000 25,000 23,000 2,000 56 TC-6 - Valley Farm Road (East Side) Kingston Road to 100m South - Sidewalk/Blvd. in conjunction with adjacent development. TC-6 2018-2024 53,777 - 53,777 26,889 26,889 24,737 2,151 57 Kingston Road - West Limit of Neighbourhood 7 to Dixie Road north side D-1 2018-2024 570,000 - 570,000 285,000 285,000 262,200 22,800 58 Kingston Road - West Limit to East Limit of Neighbourhood 7 (Fairport to CN bridge)south side.D-2 2018-2024 694,535 - 694,535 347,268 347,268 319,486 27,781 59 Finch Avenue - Spruce Hill to East Limit of Neighbourhood 9 north side D-9 2018-2024 285,000 - 285,000 142,500 142,500 131,100 11,400 60 Finch Avenue - Spruce Hill to Fairport Road south side D-10 2018-2024 253,000 - 253,000 126,500 126,500 116,380 10,120 61 Finch Avenue - Brock Road to Hydro Corridor north side V-12 2018-2024 315,650 - 315,650 157,825 157,825 145,199 12,626 Benefit to Existing Development Grants, Subsidies and Other Contributions Attributable to New Development Total 2018-2031 Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated Development Roads Code Post Period Benefit Net Capital CostTiming (year) Gross Capital Cost Estimate (2017$) - 331 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 22 2019 Update Study - Amended Version v2 Less:Potential DC Recoverable Cost Prj .No Residential Share Non- Residential Share 92% 8% 62 Whites Road - Granite Court to Hwy 401 west side W-5 2018-2024 95,000 - 95,000 47,500 47,500 43,700 3,800 63 Whites Road - North of 3rd Concession to Taunton Road sidewalk, multi-use trail, streetlight RU-8 2018-2024 1,153,000 - 1,153,000 57,650 1,095,350 1,007,722 87,628 64 Whites Road - Finch Ave to Seaton Boundary multi-use 2018-2024 1,741,100 - 1,741,100 174,110 1,566,990 1,441,631 125,359 65 Whites Road - Bridge over west Duffins Creek streetlighting RU-9 2018-2024 809,400 - 809,400 40,470 768,930 707,416 61,514 66 Brock Road - Bayly Street to Montgomery Road East and West Sides BI-4 2018-2024 1,861,600 - 1,861,600 930,800 930,800 856,336 74,464 67 Sideline 24 - Hwy 7 south to north limit of subdivision sidewalk/streetlights RU-12 2018-2024 389,600 - 389,600 58,440 331,160 304,667 26,493 68 Whites Rd. CPR Overpass sidewalk/streetlights A-6 2018-2024 269,800 - 269,800 40,470 229,330 210,984 18,346 69 Bayly Street - Church Street to West Limit Neighbourhood 4 north and south sides BI-1 2018-2024 1,162,300 - 1,162,300 581,150 581,150 534,658 46,492 70 Hwy 7 - Brock Rd to West Townline Sidewalk/streetlights north side RU-10 2018-2024 1,250,800 - 1,250,800 187,620 1,063,180 978,126 85,054 71 Church Street - Bayly Street to Kellino Street west side BI-17 2018-2024 325,000 - 325,000 162,500 162,500 149,500 13,000 72 Altona Road - Strouds Lane to North Limit of Neighbourhood 10 east and west sides H1 2018-2024 1,300,000 - 1,300,000 650,000 650,000 598,000 52,000 73 Finch Avenue - West Limit of Neighbourhood 7 to Duncannon Dr.north side L-6 2018-2024 150,000 - 150,000 75,000 75,000 69,000 6,000 74 Finch Avenue - Lynn Heights to East 80m north side L-7 2018-2024 40,000 - 40,000 20,000 20,000 18,400 1,600 75 Finch Avenue - Valley Farm Road to West 600m south side L-9 2018-2024 300,000 - 300,000 150,000 150,000 138,000 12,000 76 Finch Avenue - Valley Farm Road to East 300m north side L-10 2018-2024 150,000 - 150,000 75,000 75,000 69,000 6,000 77 Finch Avenue - Altona Road to Rosebank Road south side RP-6 2018-2024 250,000 - 250,000 125,000 125,000 115,000 10,000 78 Finch Avenue - Rosebank Road to 500m West north side RP-5 2018-2024 250,000 - 250,000 125,000 125,000 115,000 10,000 79 Altona Road - Finch Avenue to Hydro Corridor (N)east side RP-9 2018-2024 150,000 - 150,000 75,000 75,000 69,000 6,000 80 Altona Road - Finch Avenue to North Limit of Neighbourhood 14 west side RP-10 2018-2024 150,000 - 150,000 75,000 75,000 69,000 6,000 81 Altona Road - Finch Avenue to North Limit of Neighbourhood 14 east side RP-11 2018-2024 150,000 - 150,000 75,000 75,000 69,000 6,000 82 North Road - Hwy 7 south to north limit of subdivision sidewalk/streetlights RU-11 2018-2024 500,000 - 500,000 75,000 425,000 391,000 34,000 83 Whitevale Road - Altona Road to York/Durham Townline sidewalk/streetlights/multi-use trail RU-14 2018-2024 675,000 - 675,000 101,250 573,750 527,850 45,900 84 Taunton Rd. - Sideline 16 to Church St.sidewalk/streetlights/multi-use trail RU-17 2025-2031 375,000 - 375,000 56,250 318,750 293,250 25,500 85 Taunton Rd. - Whites Rd. To West Townline sidewalk/streetlights/multi-use trail RU-18 2025-2031 2,475,000 - 2,475,000 371,250 2,103,750 1,935,450 168,300 86 South Esplanade Pedestrian Mall walkway 2025-2031 900,000 - 900,000 450,000 450,000 414,000 36,000 87 Kingston Road - Fronting 820 Kingston Road to Fairport Rd North Side (455m)WO-10 2018-2024 270,000 - 270,000 135,000 135,000 124,200 10,800 88 Kingston Road - Rougemount Drive to 300m west North Side RO-12 2018-2024 175,500 - 175,500 87,750 87,750 80,730 7,020 Traffic Signals 89 Pickering Parkway at Glenanna Rd. - Signalization TC-4 2018-2024 300,000 - 300,000 30,000 270,000 248,400 21,600 90 Glenanna Road at Fairport Road Signalization D-8 2018-2024 300,000 - 300,000 30,000 270,000 248,400 21,600 91 Welrus Street at Fairport Road Signalization D-12 2018-2024 300,000 - 300,000 30,000 270,000 248,400 21,600 92 Rosebank Road at Sheppard Avenue Jog elimination/Signalization & EA WO-8 2018-2024 700,000 - 700,000 70,000 630,000 579,600 50,400 93 Rosebank Road at Highview Road/Deerhaven Lane Signalization A-5 2018-2024 300,000 - 300,000 30,000 270,000 248,400 21,600 94 Strouds Lane at Aspen Road/Shadybrook Drive Signalization A-7 2025-2031 600,000 - 600,000 60,000 540,000 496,800 43,200 95 Finch Avenue at Woodview Avenue Signalization RP-1 2025-2031 300,000 - 300,000 30,000 270,000 248,400 21,600 Reserve Fund Adjustment (18,249,536) (16,789,573) (1,459,963) Total 123,947,405 - 123,947,405 38,036,757 - 67,661,112 62,248,223 5,412,889 Benefit to Existing Development Grants, Subsidies and Other Contributions Attributable to New Development Total 2018-2031 Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated Development Roads Code Post Period Benefit Net Capital CostTiming (year) Gross Capital Cost Estimate (2017$) - 332 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 25 2019 Update Study - Amended Version v2 4. Revised D.C. Calculation and Schedule of Charges Based on the proposed amendments, the 2017 D.C. Background Study and D.C. By- Law the calculated schedule of charges is provided in Table 4-1 below. The charges are provided in 2018$ consistent with Table 6-5 of the 2017 D.C. Background Study. As noted in Chapter 1 of this report, Council adopted specific exemption policies with respect to some types of development. With the exception of the changes summarized in Section 4.1, these exemption policies, as well as all other D.C. policies (i.e. rules) contained in By-law 7595-17, will remain unchanged through this process. Furthermore, the schedule of charges with respect to Parks and Recreation Services, Library Services, Administration Studies, Protection Services, and Transportation Services are being amended to reflect the updated capital cost estimates noted herein. A comparison of the amended charges herein (indexed to 2019$), with the City’s current 2019 D.C. rates is provided in Table 4-2. In total, the single and semi-detached D.C. for developments outside of the Seaton Lands would increase by $1,209 per unit (+8%) and the non-residential charge would increase by $0.10 per sq.ft. of GFA (+3%). For development within the Seaton Lands, the single and semi-detached D.C. would increase by $1,204 per unit (+14%), the prestige employment land charge would increase by $2,959 per net hectare (+7%), and the non-residential charge for all other uses would increase by $0.09 per sq.ft. GFA (+7%). Detailed cash-flow calculation tables underlying the calculation of the D.C.s, as revised by the amendments, are summarized in Tables 4-3 through 4-16. - 333 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 26 2019 Update Study - Amended Version v2 Table 4-1 Amended Schedule of Development Charges (2018$) Single and Semi- Detached Dwelling Apartments - 2 Bedrooms + Apartments - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom Other Multiples (per ft² of Total Floor Area) 2 (per net Ha of Prestige Employmen t Land in Seaton) Municipal Wide Services: Other Services Related to a Highway 441 279 197 356 0.15 5,451 Protection Services 896 566 401 724 0.34 11,522 Parks and Recreation Services 6,047 3,820 2,706 4,882 0.47 16,036 Library Services 1,003 634 449 810 0.07 2,397 Administration Studies 286 181 128 231 0.11 3,676 Stormwater Management 288 182 129 233 0.10 3,503 Total Municipal Wide Services 8,961 5,662 4,010 7,236 1.24 42,585 Outside of Seaton Lands Transportation 1 6,521 4,120 2,919 5,265 1.83 Total Services Outside of Seaton Lands 6,521 4,120 2,919 5,265 1.83 Seaton 8,961 5,662 4,010 7,236 1.24 42,585 Rest of Pickering 15,482 9,782 6,929 12,501 3.07 Service RESIDENTIAL NON-RESIDENTIAL 1. Subject to a separate agreement outside of the Development Charges Act concerning the provision of Transportation 2. Does not apply to prestige employment development in Seaton, as that development is subject to the per net Ha land area charge instead. - 334 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 27 2019 Update Study - Amended Version v2 Table 4-2 Comparison of Development Charges (2019$) 2017 D.C.Amendment Change ($)Change (%)2017 D.C.Amendment Change ($)Change (%)2017 D.C.Amendment Change ($)Change (%) Municipal Wide Services: Other Services Related to a Highway 470 470 - 0% 0.16 0.16 - 0%5,814 5,814 - 0% Protection Services 948 955 7 1% 0.35 0.35 - 0%12,194 12,291 97 1% Parks and Recreation Services 5,175 6,451 1,276 25% 0.42 0.51 0.09 21% 14,146 17,106 2,960 21% Library Services 1,158 1,069 (89) -8% 0.08 0.07 (0.01) -13%2,779 2,557 (222) -8% Administration Studies 296 306 10 3% 0.11 0.12 0.01 9%3,797 3,921 124 3% Stormwater Management 307 307 - 0% 0.11 0.11 - 0%3,738 3,738 - 0% Total Municipal Wide Services 8,354 9,558 1,204 21% 1.23 1.32 0.09 18% 42,468 45,427 2,959 17% Outside of Seaton Lands Transportation 1 6,952 6,957 5 0% 1.95 1.96 0.01 1%- - Total Services Outside of Seaton Lands 6,952 6,957 5 0% 1.95 1.96 0.01 1%- - - 0% Seaton 8,354 9,558 1,204 14% 1.23 1.32 0.09 7%42,468 45,427 2,959 7% Rest of Pickering 15,306 16,515 1,209 8% 3.18 3.28 0.10 3%42,468 45,427 2,959 Residential Single and Semi-Detached Dwelling Non-Residential (per ft² of Total Floor Area) 2 Non-Residential (per net Ha of Prestige Employment Land in Seaton)Service - 335 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 30 2019 Update Study - Amended Version v2 Table 4-6 Interest Nominal Inflated (3%/Yr) (2.5% on positive balances & 5% on negative balances) 2018 16,789,573$ (4,976,978)$ (5,126,288)$ 1,145 6,521 7,468,924 2,342,636$ 449,022$ 19,581,232$ 2019 19,581,232$ (8,467,992)$ (8,983,693)$ 1,145 6,717 7,692,992 (1,290,702)$ 473,397$ 18,763,927$ 2020 18,763,927$ (7,482,297)$ (8,176,108)$ 1,145 6,918 7,923,781 (252,327)$ 465,944$ 18,977,544$ 2021 18,977,544$ (9,759,991)$ (10,984,956)$ 1,145 7,126 8,161,495 (2,823,461)$ 439,145$ 16,593,228$ 2022 16,593,228$ (7,482,297)$ (8,674,033)$ 1,145 7,340 8,406,340 (267,693)$ 411,485$ 16,737,019$ 2023 16,737,019$ (7,482,297)$ (8,934,254)$ 802 7,560 6,059,856 (2,874,398)$ 382,496$ 14,245,117$ 2024 14,245,117$ (7,482,297)$ (9,202,282)$ 802 7,787 6,241,652 (2,960,630)$ 319,120$ 11,603,608$ 2025 11,603,608$ (3,700,521)$ (4,687,709)$ 802 8,020 6,428,902 1,741,192$ 311,855$ 13,656,655$ 2026 13,656,655$ (3,700,521)$ (4,828,340)$ 802 8,261 6,621,769 1,793,428$ 363,834$ 15,813,918$ 2027 15,813,918$ (3,700,521)$ (4,973,191)$ 802 8,509 6,820,422 1,847,231$ 418,438$ 18,079,587$ 2028 18,079,587$ (3,700,521)$ (5,122,386)$ 76 8,764 663,794 (4,458,593)$ 396,257$ 14,017,251$ 2029 14,017,251$ (3,700,521)$ (5,276,058)$ 76 9,027 683,707 (4,592,350)$ 293,027$ 9,717,928$ 2030 9,717,928$ (3,700,521)$ (5,434,340)$ 76 9,298 704,219 (4,730,121)$ 183,822$ 5,171,629$ 2031 5,171,629$ (3,700,521)$ (5,597,370)$ 38 9,577 362,673 (5,234,697)$ 63,069$ (0)$ Cash Flow Analysis Transportation Services - Residential Year D.C. Reserve Fund Opening Balance Dev't Related Expenditures SDE per Year DC Rates w. Inflation (3%/Yr) Anticipated Revenues Revenues minus Expenditures Debenture Financing Requirement DC Reserve Fund Closing Balance after Financing - 336 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 31 2019 Update Study - Amended Version v2 Table 4-7 Interest Nominal Inflated (3%/Yr) (2.5% on positive balances & 5% on negative balances) 2018 1,459,963$ (432,781)$ (445,764)$ 279,599 1.83$ 510,695$ 64,931$ 37,311$ 1,562,205$ 2019 1,562,205$ (736,347)$ (781,191)$ 279,599 1.88$ 526,016$ (255,174)$ 35,865$ 1,342,896$ 2020 1,342,896$ (650,635)$ (710,966)$ 279,599 1.94$ 541,797$ (169,169)$ 31,458$ 1,205,185$ 2021 1,205,185$ (848,695)$ (955,214)$ 279,599 2.00$ 558,051$ (397,163)$ 25,165$ 833,187$ 2022 833,187$ (650,635)$ (754,264)$ 279,599 2.06$ 574,792$ (179,472)$ 18,586$ 672,301$ 2023 672,301$ (650,635)$ (776,892)$ 279,599 2.12$ 592,036$ (184,856)$ 14,497$ 501,943$ 2024 501,943$ (650,635)$ (800,198)$ 279,599 2.18$ 609,797$ (190,401)$ 10,169$ 321,710$ 2025 321,710$ (321,784)$ (407,627)$ 279,599 2.25$ 628,091$ 220,464$ 10,799$ 552,972$ 2026 552,972$ (321,784)$ (419,856)$ 279,599 2.31$ 646,934$ 227,078$ 16,663$ 796,713$ 2027 796,713$ (321,784)$ (432,451)$ 279,599 2.38$ 666,342$ 233,890$ 22,841$ 1,053,445$ 2028 1,053,445$ (321,784)$ (445,425)$ 84,250 2.45$ 206,808$ (238,617)$ 23,353$ 838,182$ 2029 838,182$ (321,784)$ (458,788)$ 84,250 2.53$ 213,012$ (245,775)$ 17,882$ 610,288$ 2030 610,288$ (321,784)$ (472,551)$ 84,250 2.60$ 219,403$ (253,149)$ 12,093$ 369,233$ 2031 369,233$ (321,784)$ (486,728)$ 42,125 2.68$ 112,992$ (373,735)$ 4,503$ (0)$ Cash Flow Analysis Transportation Services - Non-Residential Year D.C. Reserve Fund Opening Balance Dev't Related Expenditures GFA per Year DC Rates w. Inflation (3%/Yr) Anticipated Revenues Revenues minus Expenditures Debenture Financing Requirement DC Reserve Fund Closing Balance after Financing - 337 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 37 2019 Update Study - Amended Version v2 4.1 D.C. Policy Recommendations and D.C. By-law Rules s. 7. (4) of D.C. By-law 7595/17 identifies the area (i.e. outside the defined Seaton Lands) to which the residential 2 bedroom and greater and one bedroom and bachelor apartments D.C.s in Schedule “D” of By-law 7595/17 are imposed until December 31, 2020. The City proposes to amend the applicable area of Schedule “D” of D.C. By-law 7595/17 to the lands identified in Figure 4-1 below. Furthermore, the phase-in of the charges will be in effect from January 1, 2018 to December 14, 2020. Figure 4-1 Applicable Area for Phase-In of D.C.s for Apartment Dwelling Units - 338 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 38 2019 Update Study - Amended Version v2 5. Asset Management Plan 5.1 Introduction The changes to the D.C.A. (new section 10(c.2)) through Bill 73, require that the background study must include an Asset Management Plan (A.M.P) related to new infrastructure. Section 10 (3) of the D.C.A. provides: The A.M.P. shall, (a) deal with all assets whose capital costs are proposed to be funded under the development charge by-law; (b) demonstrate that all the assets mentioned in clause (a) are financially sustainable over their full life cycle; (c) contain any other information that is prescribed; and (d) be prepared in the prescribed manner. The A.M.P. analysis included in the 2017 D.C. Background Study, which found that the capital plan was deemed to be financially sustainable, has been updated to account for the capital cost revisions described herein. The updated A.M.P. analysis contained in Table 5-1 identifies: • $62.4 million in total annualized expenditures; and • Incremental operating revenues of $49.7 million and existing operating revenues of $94.6 million, totalling $144.3 million by the end of the period. In consideration of the above changes, the capital plan still deemed to be financially sustainable. - 339 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 39 2019 Update Study - Amended Version v2 Table 5-1 2019 D.C. Amendment Asset Management – Future Expenditures and Associated Revenues (2017$) Sub-Total 2031 (Total) Expenditures (Annualized) Annual Debt Payment on Non-Growth Related Capital1 10,129,315 Annual Debt Payment on Post Period Capital2 2,153,082 Lifecycle: Annual Lifecycle - Town Wide Services $9,232,291 Annual Lifecycle - Area Specific Services3 $3,597,849 Sub-Total - Annual Lifecycle $12,830,140 $12,830,140 Incremental Operating Costs (for D.C. Services)$37,296,665 Total Expenditures $62,409,203 Revenue (Annualized) Total Existing Revenue4 $94,578,893 Incremental Tax and Non-Tax Revenue (User Fees, Fines, Licences, etc.)$49,682,047 Total Revenues $144,260,940 4 As per Sch. 10 of FIR 3 Area-specific application of Transportation Services 1 Non-Growth Related component of Projects including 10% mandatory deduction on soft services 2 Interim Debt Financing for Post Period Benefit - 340 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 40 2019 Update Study - Amended Version v2 6. Process for Adoption of the Amending Development Charges By-law If approved, the changes provided herein will form part of the 2017 D.C. Background Study, as amended. Appendix A to this update study includes the draft Amending D.C. By-law being presented for Council’s consideration. This draft D.C. By-law contains updates from the draft By-law presented to Council at the statutory public meeting on December 2, 2019. At that meeting a presentation was made to the public regarding the recommendations of the D.C. Update Study, and Council received comments on the matter. It is anticipated that Council will consider for adoption the proposed amending by-law at a subsequent meeting of Council (December 16, 2019), witnessing the 60-day period between the release of the D.C. Background Study and the passage of the D.C. By-law (i.e. no earlier than December 16, 2019). If Council is satisfied with the proposed changes to the D.C. Background Study and D.C. By-Law, it is recommended that Council: “Approve the Development Charges Update Study dated October 16, 2019, as amended; subject to further annual review during the capital budget process;” “Determine that no further public meeting is required;” and “Approve the Amending Development Charge By-law as set out herein” - 341 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 1 2019 Update Study - Amended Version v2 Appendix A – Draft Amending Development Charge By-law - 342 - The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. ____/19 Being a By-law Regarding Development Charges to amend By-law 7595-17 to make certain revisions to the City’s development charges involving capital cost estimates. WHEREAS Section 19 of the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c27 (“the Act”) provides for amendments to be made to development charges by-laws; AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering (hereinafter called “the Council”) has determined that certain amendments should be made to the Development Charge By-law of the Corporation of the City of Pickering, being By-law 7595-17; AND WHEREAS, in accordance with the Act, a development charges background study has been completed in respect of the proposed amendment; AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering has given notice and held a public meeting in accordance with the Act; and Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1. By-law 7595-17 is hereby amended as follows: a. S. 7. (4) is deleted and replaced with the following: 7. (4) Residential apartment dwelling units located within the lands defined in Schedule “E”, are subject to the charges set out in Schedule “D” for the period of January 1, 2018 to December 14, 2020. b. S. 20. is deleted and replaced with the following: Schedule "A" - Designated Municipal Services Under this By-law. Schedule "B" - City of Pickering and Seaton Lands. Schedule "C" - Schedule of Development Charges Effective January 1, 2018 - 343 - Schedule “D” - Schedule of Development Charges for Residential Apartments Dwelling Units. Effective January 1, 2018 to December 14, 2020 for the area defined in Schedule “E” Schedule “E” – Area to which the Schedule of Charges set out in Schedule “D” apply c. Schedule “C” is deleted and the attached Schedule “C” substitutes therefor b. Schedule “D” is deleted and the attached Schedule “D” substitutes therefor e. The attached Schedule “E” is added to the By-law 2. This by-law shall come into force on December 17, 2019. By-law passed this 16th day of December 2019 _____________________________ Mayor _____________________________ Clerk - 344 - Schedule “C” City of Pickering Schedule of Development Charges Effective January 1, 2018 Single and Semi- Detached Dwelling Apartments - 2 Bedrooms + Apartments - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom Other Multiples (per ft² of Total Floor Area) 2 (per net Ha of Prestige Employme nt Land in Seaton) Municipal Wide Services: Other Services Related to a Highway 441 279 197 356 0.15 5,451 Protection Services 896 566 401 724 0.34 11,522 Parks and Recreation Services 6,047 3,820 2,706 4,882 0.47 16,036 Library Services 1,003 634 449 810 0.07 2,397 Administration Studies 286 181 128 231 0.11 3,676 Stormwater Management 288 182 129 233 0.10 3,503 Total Municipal Wide Services 8,961 5,662 4,010 7,236 1.24 42,585 Outside of Seaton Lands Transportation 1 6,521 4,120 2,919 5,265 1.83 Total Services Outside of Seaton Lands 6,521 4,120 2,919 5,265 1.83 Rest of Pickering 15,482 9,782 6,929 12,501 3.07 Service RESIDENTIAL NON-RESIDENTIAL 1. Subject to a separate agreement outside of the Development Charges Act concerning the provision of Transportation 2. Does not apply to prestige employment development in Seaton, as that development is subject to the per net Ha land area charge instead. - 345 - Schedule “D” City of Pickering Schedule of Development Charges for Residential Apartments Dwelling Units for the Area defined in Schedule “E” Effective January 1, 2018 to December 14, 2020 Apartments - 2 Bedrooms + Apartments - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom Municipal Wide Services: Other Services Related to a Highway 223 163 Protection Services 449 329 Parks and Recreation Services 2,446 1,795 Library Services 548 402 Administration Studies 140 103 Stormwater Management 145 107 Total Municipal Wide Services 3,950 2,899 Outside of Seaton Lands Transportation 3,286 2,412 Total Services Outside of Seaton Lands 3,286 2,412 Rest of Pickering 7,236 5,311 Service RESIDENTIAL - 346 - Schedule “E” City of Pickering Area to Which the Charges in Schedule “D” Apply - 347 - Attachment #4 to Report #FIN 24-19 The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. ____/19 Being a By-law Regarding Development Charges to amend By-law 7595/17 to make certain revisions to the City’s development charges involving capital cost estimates. Whereas Section 19 of the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c27 (the “Act”) provides for amendments to be made to development charges by-laws; Whereas the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering has determined that certain amendments should be made to the Development Charge By-law of the Corporation of The City of Pickering, being By-law 7595/17; Whereas in accordance with the Act, a development charges background study has been completed in respect of the proposed amendment; Whereas the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering has given notice and held a public meeting in accordance with the Act; and Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1. By-law 7595/17 is hereby amended as follows: a. S. 7. (4) is deleted and replaced with the following: 7. (4) Residential apartment dwelling units located within the lands defined in Schedule “E”, are subject to the charges set out in Schedule “D” for the period of January 1, 2018 to December 14, 2020. b. S. 20. is deleted and replaced with the following: Schedule "A" - Designated Municipal Services Under this By-law. Schedule "B" - City of Pickering and Seaton Lands. Schedule "C" - Schedule of Development Charges Effective January 1, 2018 (dollars) Schedule “D” - Schedule of Development Charges for Residential Apartments Dwelling Units effective January 1, 2018 to December 14, 2020 (2018 dollars), for the area defined in Schedule “E”. Schedule “E” – Area to which the Schedule of Charges set out in Schedule “D” apply. - 348 - By-law No. Page 2 c. Schedule “C” is deleted and the attached Schedule “C” is substituted therefor. d. Schedule “D” is deleted and the attached Schedule “D” is substituted therefor. e. The attached Schedule “E” is added to the By-law. 2. This by-law shall come into force on December 17, 2019. By-law passed this 16th day of December, 2019 _____________________________ David Ryan, Mayor _____________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 349 - By-law No. Page 3 Schedule “C” City of Pickering Schedule of Development Charges Effective January 1, 2018 Single and Semi- Detached Dwelling Apartments - 2 Bedrooms + Apartments - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom Other Multiples (per ft² of Total Floor Area) 2 (per net Ha of Prestige Employme nt Land in Seaton) Municipal Wide Services: Other Services Related to a Highway 441 279 197 356 0.15 5,451 Protection Services 896 566 401 724 0.34 11,522 Parks and Recreation Services 6,047 3,820 2,706 4,882 0.47 16,036 Library Services 1,003 634 449 810 0.07 2,397 Administration Studies 286 181 128 231 0.11 3,676 Stormwater Management 288 182 129 233 0.10 3,503 Total Municipal Wide Services 8,961 5,662 4,010 7,236 1.24 42,585 Outside of Seaton Lands Transportation 1 6,521 4,120 2,919 5,265 1.83 Total Services Outside of Seaton Lands 6,521 4,120 2,919 5,265 1.83 Rest of Pickering 15,482 9,782 6,929 12,501 3.07 Service RESIDENTIAL NON-RESIDENTIAL 1. Subject to a separate agreement outside of the Development Charges Act concerning the provision of Transportation 2. Does not apply to prestige employment development in Seaton, as that development is subject to the per net Ha land area charge instead. - 350 - By-law No. Page 4 Schedule “D” City of Pickering Schedule of Development Charges for Residential Apartments Dwelling Units for the Area defined in Schedule “E” Effective January 1, 2018 to December 14, 2020 Apartments - 2 Bedrooms + Apartments - Bachelor and 1 Bedroom Municipal Wide Services: Other Services Related to a Highway 223 163 Protection Services 449 329 Parks and Recreation Services 2,446 1,795 Library Services 548 402 Administration Studies 140 103 Stormwater Management 145 107 Total Municipal Wide Services 3,950 2,899 Outside of Seaton Lands Transportation 3,286 2,412 Total Services Outside of Seaton Lands 3,286 2,412 Rest of Pickering 7,236 5,311 Service RESIDENTIAL - 351 - By-law No. Page 5 Schedule “E” City of Pickering Area to Which the Charges in Schedule “D” Apply - 352 - Report to Council Report Number: FIN 25-19 Date: December 16, 2019 From: Stan Karwowski Director, Finance & Treasurer Subject: Audit and Accountability – Service Review Report ______________________________________________________________________ Recommendation: 1.That Council receive report FIN 25-19 for information in regards to service review report for Public Wi-Fi; Building Permits & Fleet Management Solutions; 2.That staff be directed to include in the 2020 draft capital budget submission a new fleet management system and where applicable, apply for Provincial grant funding; and 3.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Executive Summary:On May 21, 2019, the Premier announced the creation of the Audit and Accountability Fund with funding of $7.35 million for large urban municipalities interested in conducting service delivery and administrative expenditure review with the goal of finding efficiencies while protecting front line City services. Council approved staff applying for this grant under report FIN 14-19 (Attachment 1). The City was successful in obtaining grant funding ($100,000) and hired Deloitte LLP to conduct a review of the following three items: provision of Public Wi-Fi; building permit process and fleet management system. Deloitte’s report is attached for information and as a condition of the grant funding will be posted on the City’s website. The public Wi-Fi section of the report examined the City’s current state of Wi-Fi deployment, took into consideration the provision or availability of free public Wi-Fi provided by the private sector and provided options for the City to consider. The building permitting process examined current processes (that is heavily paper based) and identified opportunities and possible efficiencies with a more interconnected (24/7 electronic application system) and its benefits. The City’s existing fleet management system and vehicle tracking are “old systems” that need to be replaced in order to - 353 - FIN 25-19 December 16, 2019 Subject: Audit and Accountability – Service Review Page 2 approve efficiencies and cost savings. In addition, a new system may also lead to increased worker safety and possible insurance premium savings. Based on Deloitte’s recommendation and recognizing the need to prioritize the City’s investment of critical resources including staffing, recommendation two directs staff to prioritize the delivery of a new fleet management system. In addition, the Province has announced possible future grant funding opportunities under the “Audit and Accountability” umbrella through a Municipal Modernization Program and the fleet management software system would be an excellent candidate due to fact it was increase staff efficiencies that translates into cost savings to the taxpayer. Financial Implications: The Audit and Accountability Fund covered 100 per cent of the City’s costs for delivery of the consultants’ report. The fleet management system represents for the City, the “best bang for the buck” due to the fact it can deliver possible cost savings up to $308,000 (page 106) per year. The Province under the Municipal Modernization Program has announced grant funding in the amount of $125 million through 2022-23 and City staff will be pursuing this opportunity to help support the cost and implementation of the fleet management system . Discussion: The Audit and Accountability exercise was a beneficial to the City due to the fact it identified “low hanging fruit” from an efficiency and cost savings perspective. With the possibility of further grant announcements related to “Audit and Accountability”, the City is well positioned to take advantage of these opportunities due to the fact the background work and justification has been completed through this exercise. Attachments: 1.Report FIN 14-19 regarding Provincial Audit & Accountability Fund 2.Service Review Report on Public Wi-Fi, Building Permits & Fleet Management Solutions Prepared / Approved By: Prepared /Approved By: Original Signed By: Original Signed By: Paul Bigioni Stan Karwowski Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor Director, Finance & Treasurer - 354 - FIN 25-19 December 16, 2019 Subject: Audit and Accountability – Service Review Page 3 Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer - 355 - Report to Council Report Number: FIN 14-19 Date: June 24, 2019 From: Stan Karwowski Director, Finance & Treasurer Subject: Provincial Audit and Accountability Fund ______________________________________________________________________ Recommendation: 1.That Report FIN 14-19 of the Director, Finance & Treasurer be received; 2.That staff be directed to submit an Audit and Accountability Fund: Expression of Interest for grant funding to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Central Region by June 30, 2019 deadline; 3.That Council grant the Chief Administrative Officer and the Director, Finance & Treasurer the authority to single source a third party consulting engagement in accordance with the City’s Purchasing Policy Item 10.03 and not to exceed $100,000 should the City of Pickering’s request for funding be approved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing; and 4.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Executive Summary: On May 21, 2019, the Premier announced the creation of the Audit and Accountability Fund with funding of $7.35 million for large urban municipalities and district school boards interested in conducting service delivery and administrative expenditure review with the goal of finding efficiencies while protecting front line services. Projects that are eligible can take the following forms: A line-by-line review of the municipality’s entire budget. A review of service delivery and modernization opportunities . A review of administrative processes to reduce costs. As part of the annual budget process, the City conducts a line-by-line review of the operating budget and detailed scrutiny of the capital budget to find savings. Staff are recommending that the review focus on assessing the implementation of free WIFI in all public property and study implementation of new technology to better serve Pickering residents. REVISED -C¾of- PJ(KERJNG Attachment #1 to Report #FIN 25-19 - 356 - FIN 14-19 June 24, 2019 Subject: Provincial Audit and Accountability Fund Page 2 Financial Implications: The Audit and Accountability Fund covers 100 per cent of the eligible costs, that includes the costs associated with a third-party consultant. The estimated eligible costs for this project is estimated to be up to $100,000. This cost reflects the total cost of the third-party consultant including non-recoverable HST. In the event the City receives confirmation written or otherwise of the Grant funding being awarded, Recommendation 3 provides staff the authority to proceed with the award of the sole source contract and hence expediting the commencement of the work required. Discussion: In a May 21st news release Premier Ford announced that “the Ontario government is offering to help large urban municipalities protect core public services for future generations by finding savings of four cents on every dollar spent. He announ ced that the government is providing $7.35 million for large urban municipalities interested in conducting municipal service delivery expenditure reviews to identify potential savings, while maintaining vital front-line services, through the “Audit and Accountability Fund.” Through the Audit and Accountability Fund, the Ontario government is offering large municipalities funding to undertake a third-party expenditure review of their service delivery and administrative expenditures with the goal of funding efficiencies and to modernize service delivery while protecting front-line jobs. On May 29th, Pickering was notified that the Expression of Interest (EOI) forms were being accepted for funding until June 28th. EOI submissions will be reviewed on a case- by-case basis. Funding amounts may depend on the available appropriation. This funding covers 100 per cent of the cost of a consultant/third party. Internal municipal costs are considered ineligible. The grant was released May 29th and the application process consists of two steps: June 14, 2019 – notify Ministry of intention to apply followed by a submission of an Expression of Interest (EOI) to the Province by Friday, June 28, 2019. The City notified the Province before June 14th that the City would be putting forward an EOI. By completing this step, staff kept the “Door Open” for the grant funding process, however, the City is not legally bound to complete Step Two. If Recommendation 2 is approved, staff will complete the EOI for submission on or before June 28, 2019. If Council does not approve Recommendation 2 – no application will be submitted. EOI forms will be reviewed and approved by the Province as they are received. Our understanding is that notification of the approval, or denial, of our EOI will be in July. It is our understanding that the eligible cost to date to commence expenditures will coincide with the receipt of verbal or written approval for the grant and that a formal Transfer Payment Agreement will follow for execution later this summer. As part of the funding agreement requirement, Pickering is required to “Publicly post the study results”, no later than November 30, 2019. The third-party report needs to be approved by City Council at the November 22, 2019 Council meeting. - 357 - FIN 14-19 June 24, 2019 Subject: Provincial Audit and Accountability Fund Page 3 The consultant’s final report will need to outline the analysis, findings and include any identified specific and actionable recommendations for cost savings and improved efficiencies. The focus is on savings of about 4 per cent of every $1, however, if the study does not yield the desired savings we have been advised that this would not jeopardize our funding. Conversely, if savings and efficiencies are found there is an expectation that they be implemented. If staff’s EOI is successful and if the City receives notification by the end of July, the project would basically have three months to complete all project tasks including: Award of contract to a consultant Consultant performing the review, completing and delivering the final report to the City Administration presenting final report to City Council on November 22nd, the last City Council meeting in November Approved report posted publicly by November 30, 2019 Recommendation Three (Single Source) is required to facilitate completing all tasks within the timelines outlined in the Audit and Accounta bility grant funding guidelines. Given the very tight timelines provided by the Province under this grant funding program, staff have identified the following services (Preliminary Priority Sequence) to be reviewed: 1.Review implementation of free WIFI in all City owned public property and also review the provision of free WIFI by other municipalities (excluding single tier municipalities.) Single tier municipalities are being excluded from the study to facilitate a more “apples to apples” comparison as it relates to population size and economic capacity. 2.Review and study the implementation of new technology to better serve Pickering residents. The anticipated outcome from this review would be to provide a roadmap or high level plan. As stated above with the tight timeframe and taking into consideration of available staffing resources, the above priority sequence may change. As Members of Council are aware, Finance Department staff is heavily involved in the implementation of a new financial system with a Go-Live date of January 2, 2020 and therefore, Finance staff ’s availability for this project is constrained. - 358 - FIN 14-19 Subject: Provincial Audit and Accountability Fund Attachments: 1. Audit and Accountability Fund: Expression of Interest Prepared By: Approved / Endorsed By: Stan Karwowski Stan Karwowski June 24, 2019 Page 4 Director, Finance & Treasurer Director, Finance & Treasurer Recommended for the consideration ofPic~I Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer - 359 - ATTACHMENT#_I_TO REPORT#MJl/--19 Ontario& Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Audit and Accountability Fund: Expression of Interest To apply to the Audit and Accountability Fund: 1.) Complete all required fields of this Expression of Interest. 2.) Ensure that the completed Expression of Interest has been attested to by the appropriate municipal staff. 3.) Include an outline of your project timeline and costs (procurement documents, a project charter, a project work plan, or any other document as appropriate). 4.) Email this Expression of Interest and any additional supporting materials to municipal.programs@ontario.ca by June 30, 2019. Attestation I have reviewed this expression of interest and the supporting material and can verify that it is accurate to the best of my knowledge and understanding. Signature Date (DD/MM/YYYY) Legal Name of Municipality Name of Signatory Position Title Applicant Information Mailing Address Name of Primary Contact Position Title Email Address Telephone Number 0 I acknowledge that it is a program requirement that the proposed third-party review project result in a publicly posted report by November 30, 2019. What is the anticipated cost of your proposed third-party review project? Note: only the cost of a third-party service provider should be included. Attach a document to support the timeline and costs of your project. Have you included a resolution of council demonstrating support for the proposed third-party review project? Note: this is not a program eligibility requirement. 0 Yes (If yes, please attach a copy to this Expression of Interest form) Q No CONFIDENTIAL ONCE SUBMITTED. Not to be copied or distributed without written consent of the owner. Page 1 of 2 - 360 - Review Project Description 1.) Provide a brief description of your proposed third-party review project. 2.) Provide a summary of the objectives of your proposed third-party review project. 3.) Provide a summary of expected outcomes of your proposed third-party review project. CONFIDENTIAL ONCE SUBMITTED. Not to be copied or distributed without written consent of the owner. Page 2 of 2 - 361 - City of Pickering Service Review Report on Public Wi-Fi, Building Permits & Fleet Management Solutions November 2019 Attachment #2 to Report #FIN 25-19 - 362 - | Table of contents . Table of contents Executive summary 1 Public Wi-Fi business case 4 Background and context 5 Current Wi-Fi deployment details 7 Jurisdictional scan 12 Wireless local-area networking components 14 The case for public Wi-Fi 16 Technological change impact 19 Risk assessment and legal liability strategy 22 Options analysis 27 Conclusion 31 Appendix – Public Wi-Fi 32 Building permitting system report 42 Background 44 Key findings 46 Cost-benefit analysis 54 Opportunity areas 61 Technology options 65 Functional Requirements 66 Non-Functional Requirements 73 Conclusion 84 Fleet management system report 86 Background 88 Key findings 90 - 363 - | Table of contents © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. .. Cost benefit analysis 102 Opportunity areas 107 Technology options 112 Functional requirements 113 Non-functional Requirements 117 Conclusion 127 - 364 - |Introduction 1 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Executive summary The City of Pickering engaged Deloitte to conduct a review of three functions which the City hopes to continue to develop over the next several years. The review included analysis and discussion on the provision of a free public Wi-Fi deployment, the building permitting system and the fleet management system. This report is written to inform the reader on the current state of these functions, to provide analysis on solutions which are available to enhance current functionality, as well as to provide potential options and considerations for a path forward. Each of the three assessment topics has a section within the report which presents the detailed analysis around that topic. In order to successfully implement the options mentioned in each section of the report, the City will need to assign internal resources with the appropriate skillset to perform the work required as part of those initiatives, as well provide ongoing maintenance of the new capabilities deployed. Public Wi-Fi The City of Pickering’s tax payer funded free public Wi-Fi deployment has been expanded over the past several years and has received positive feedback for the value and quality access to the internet that it provides to citizens. There is a need to ensure that their Wi-Fi deployment covers both the requirements of the City, as well as those of citizens using City buildings and parks. Currently, the private sector provides access to 25% of the free Wi-Fi available within the City of Pickering with the Pickering Town Centre being the largest of the deployments. A list of these locations is provided within this report. There are several factors which may have an impact on the City’s strategy moving forward, including new wireless technologies, locations and reach of a potential deployment, level of service to be provided and needs of the City’s potential new Internet of Things (IoT) technologies. The public Wi-Fi section of this report is written to: 1. Provide information on the current state of the Wi-Fi deployment at the City of Pickering, including usage at the various City locations and investment over the past 5 years. 2. Show what similar size municipalities in Eastern Ontario have accomplished with their Wi-Fi deployment. 3. Define benefits and consideration points when managing a public Wi-Fi deployment. 4. Introduce insights on new technologies available in the market today as well as technologies which will impact Wi-Fi deployments of the future. 5. Present potential options for the City to consider when planning for the future, including costs and benefits of each option. Building Permitting The City's current building permitting process is heavily reliant on paper and lacks the ability to automate key permitting tasks such as application submission, permit review, online payment processing, and automatic inspection assignment. The lack of integration and functionality required in order to realize efficiencies and reduce costs is resulting in the following challenges experienced by the City staff: • Added delays in issuing permits as staff is manually inputting data, processing payments, along with reviewing, and stamping plans for compliance on paper. • The current system lacks the ability of applicants to review their permit status in real-time, which results in delays as the City informs residents of additional information requests, outstanding payments, or status inquiries in person, or on the phone. • The current manual scheduling process for inspections is inefficient and it has resulted in scheduling errors, along with inspector task lists for inspections not being generated correctly. - 365 - | Executive summary 2 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. • Increased costs associated with paper consumption and clerical data entry. In efforts of achieving the City’s expected outcome of 24/7 electronic application submission, built-in tracking functionalities, reduction in staff and paper expenditures, along with faster issuance of building permits, it is recommended that a formal system selection be conducted. A system selection will include formal scoring and detailed solution demonstrations. Based on the initial cost-benefit analysis in this report, the potential annual savings of deploying an e- permitting system would be $56,550 (CAD expressed throughout report), along with an acceleration of permit revenue of $645,000, as a result of faster issuance of building permits. The assumptions used to calculate these figures are estimates, and actual cost savings, along with revenue increases will vary depending on the level of permit volumes. It should be noted that many of the vendors highlighted in the report support an e-portal for citizens who wish to submit an application for a variety of reasons, meaning that the solution may be able to support other lines of business beyond building permits, including the online portal, inspections booking and payment processing for Fire, Parks, Tax for example. When conducting a deeper analysis, considerations should be given to these other areas to ensure that a potential investment is maximized. Additional benefits of implementing an e-permitting system include enhancing client service and staff productivity from automating key permitting tasks. The high-level benefits include, but are not limited to, electronic applicant submission, electronic review, and automatic assigning as well as routing of inspections to inspectors. This will result in faster issuance of permits as the City will not only increase permit revenue, but also increase municipal tax revenue as a result of an adjustment to the tax roll from the betterments added under the work permits. Fleet Management The City’s existing fleet management and vehicle tracking solutions are legacy applications that have limited integration and functionality required in order to realize efficiencies, save costs and improve day-to-day activities. Based on interviews with the City staff, the main challenges around fleet management and vehicle tracking are: • The current solution does not provide fleet maintenance functionalities such as schedule maintenance appointments, does not record the frequency or cost of maintenance, and does not provide long-term asset utilization analysis of vehicles. • The current solution does not promote routing and dispatching optimization, which could improve the service reaction time and citizen’s satisfaction rate. • The current solution does not provide part management functionalities that would record part usage and enable cost analysis on individual vehicles. • The current solution does not support the City's reporting needs due to disparate data housed outside of the system in paper format, and limited ad-hoc custom reporting functionality. In the efforts of achieving the City’s expected outcome of lower risks associated with fleet investments, lower operating cost, higher volume of work output, increased worker safety, higher integration level across different departments and improved resident satisfaction, it is recommended that a formal system selection be conducted. A system selection will include formal scoring and detailed solution demonstrations. Currently, the City is spending $72,775 annually (the average of 2016 – 2019 total spending) on fleet management and vehicle tracking software solutions. A potential annual incremental cost savings of $308,667 could be achieved by upgrading Pickering’s fleet management and vehicle tracking systems to ensure the City’s requirements for Vehicle Maintenance, Dispatching and Routing, and Inventory Management are met. For additional information on how these potential cost savings may be realized, please see the full analysis within the fleet management section of this report. - 366 - | Executive summary 3 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. In an environment of scarce resources, including both staff and funding, the City will need to prioritize in order to best allocate the available resources to public Wi-Fi, building permit system, and fleet management system. Based on the facts pointed out by the research described in this report, priority should be given to fleet management project given it is the area where the highest potential savings have been identified. Upgrading the fleet management software would also improve the City’s public service delivery, and increase the overall resident satisfaction on this subject. - 367 - | Public Wi-Fi business case 4 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Public Wi-Fi business case Executive summary Analysis on Public Wi-Fi The City of Pickering is considering expanding their tax-payer funded public free Wi-Fi to all City owned public property (buildings and parks) and has engaged Deloitte to assist in developing a business case with options and considerations regarding free Wi-Fi services to be provided by the City. This study has investigated what other similar size municipalities are doing regarding the provision of free W-Fi in order to provide a comparable scenario for the City of Pickering to consider. The objectives of the Public Wi-Fi analysis as determined by the City were to answer the following questions: 1. Identify what buildings and/or facilities that currently have free public Wi-Fi. 2. What is the current cost of providing these services both externally and internally? 3. What is the current usage of the provided public Wi-Fi (volume) and type of usage (i.e.,, emails, web-searches and video streaming)? 4. What would be the cost of implementing and/or providing free public Wi-Fi in City buildings and parks? Define the phased rollout implementation strategy for equal level of service among the three wards over several years. 5. What are the “definable and measurable” benefits of offering free public Wi-Fi? If the benefits of free public Wi-Fi cannot be quantified, then what are the “evidence based” qualitative analysis factors? 6. What are the liability and reputational risks associated with the provision of free public Wi-Fi? The following reports aims to answer these questions and provides additional information by informing the reader of the topic and its intricacies, provides details on internal and external factors and trends which may have an impact on a potential decision, and provides options and a recommendation based on a cost-benefit analysis for potential paths forward. The Intelligent Community Forum (ICF) has recognized Pickering as a Smart21 Communities of 2017 and 2018. The award program recognizes the world's leading municipalities that are successfully leveraging the power of technology to develop inclusive and prosperous communities. - 368 - | Background and context 5 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Background and context Background Municipal public Wi-Fi is playing a growing role in enabling people to stay connected to the internet. There is a strong global trend towards increased access to free public Wi-Fi provided by carriers and municipalities, enabling people to be connected to the internet and other devices everywhere.1 In Eastern Ontario (region where Pickering is located), the trend is similar with significant and growing access to free pubic Wi-Fi in municipal facilities, town centres and private businesses. According to a Pickering Library study performed in 2016, 18% of Pickering residents do not currently have access to the Internet, either due to financial situations or lack of broadband availability in rural Pickering. This creates a digital divide and creates barriers in accessing online content relating to education, social inclusion, healthcare, government services and employment. In Eastern Ontario communities, there is a full range of municipal Wi-Fi offerings, from no service at all, to public Wi-Fi in all municipal facilities and town centres. As in other parts of the world, public Wi-Fi is established first in public libraries and cafés, before expanding to other public venues. Many communities have plans to expand pubic Wi-Fi service to additional recreational facilities, private locations, municipal offices and town centres. The most significant trends in public Wi-Fi are the growing demand for connectivity ‘everywhere, all the time’, the growth in carrier class Wi-Fi services, and the proliferation of venues where Wi-Fi is offered.2 There is an emergence of Smart Cities that use information and communications technology (ICT) to manage their operations and assets, including IT functions, transportation systems, power plants, law enforcement, 1 Municipal Public Wi-Fi a Sound Investment? https://www.eorn.ca/en/resources/Municipal-Wi-Fi/EORN_WP_WiFi_FINAL.pdf 2 https://cira.ca/resources/corporate/factbook/canadas-internet-factbook-2019 - 369 - | Background and context 6 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. community services, schools and libraries. The internet of things (IoT) is an important and growing part of this initiative. These cities use Wi-Fi for operations and for public access to the internet, and the more people are connected, the more relevant connectivity becomes to them. They access more and more information over the internet and become dissatisfied when disconnected. In response to the increased demand for connectivity, many municipalities are providing public Wi-Fi. The following analysis includes a sample of findings from other Eastern Ontario municipalities of similar size to Pickering, and provides an overview of their current public Wi-Fi deployment. Municipal Wi-Fi Networks including overview of deployment locations There are many municipalities, in Canada and around the world, that own and operate Wi-Fi zones to serve their downtown areas and Wi-Fi hotspots to serve more limited areas such as libraries, recreational facilities and other municipal facilities. These systems operate increasingly on municipally owned fibre networks, but also on public networks where the municipality pays for service. Municipal Wi-Fi systems can support a variety of applications for the City’s operations including fleet services, smart lighting to reduce energy usage, traffic management to improve mobility, parking meters and security video management that help make cities safer and greener. This constitutes the Smart City model. The same infrastructure can support free public Wi-Fi hotspots or zones. Fredericton, New Brunswick’s Fred-eZone, Stratford, Ontario’s Stratford Free and Olds, Alberta’s O-NET are notably successful Wi-Fi networks hosted on municipally owned fibre networks. Because these communities own their fibre backhaul facilities, there is no incremental backhaul cost to their public Wi-Fi services on top of the infra-structure they already have in place. Many municipalities have public Wi-Fi in their municipal offices, which might be used by employees and the public. Often this service is provided in council chambers and meeting rooms as well as common areas. If the municipal office is in a central location, people may stop by to use the internet. If it is more remote, the service is used mainly by people visiting the office for service or meetings. In the older stone municipal buildings, Wi-Fi signal does not extend beyond the room in which the access point is located. Often recreational facilities, including indoor recreation centres, arenas, community centres and outdoor facilities like parks, baseball fields and soccer pitches would have municipal public Wi-Fi, as this type of service is expected by the clients of these facilities. If they are used in sporting tournaments, results or scores are communicated. Sometimes video or live data from the game is posted, however this requires significant backhaul capacity and could be costly. If the facility is rented out, the venue may have more appeal and value if there is public Wi-Fi, which could lead to increased revenue. - 370 - | Current Wi-Fi deployment details 7 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Current Wi-Fi deployment details Buildings which currently have free public Wi-Fi in the City of Pickering The following table outlines all city buildings by ward, including details of Wi-Fi deployment per building. Location Access Points* Annual Usage Westshore Community Centre 1 280 GB George Ashe Community Centre 1 404 GB Delaney and O’Brian Arena 1 282 GB Fire Station 2 1 1040 GB Fire Station 5 2 1240 GB Fire Station 6 1 1130 GB Don Beer Arena 5 2535 GB Don Beer Meeting Rooms 0 None currently East Shore Community Centre 1 771 GB Pickering Operations Centre 4 854 GB Kinsmen Park 1 Unknown Millennium Park 1 295 GB Esplanade Park 1 369 GB Civic Centre 16 5210 GB Whitevale Community Centre 1 169 GB Pickering Village Museum 1 Unknown Brougham Hall 0 None currently Animal Shelter 1 128 GB Fire Station 4 2 675 GB CHD Recreation Centre 15 7920 GB Dr. Nelson F Tomlinson Community Centre 1 114 GB Greenwood Community Centre 0 None currently Mt Zion Community Centre 0 None currently *The number of access points listed above is indicative of a location having an area where public Wi-Fi is available but does not include details on how much Wi-Fi coverage is implemented, for example some facilities only have Wi-Fi coverage in the reception area. The analysis could be taken further to understand what would be required for full coverage by analyzing current usage with a heat map. Locations with 0 access points will be discussed further in the options analysis section later in this report. - 371 - | Current Wi-Fi deployment details 8 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Current cost of providing free Wi-Fi internally and externally (inclusive of staffing costs) The following table outlines the known costs that have been spent to maintain and expand the Wi-Fi network at the City of Pickering for the past 5 years. The cost for the City to extend the use of the internal Wi-Fi network to the public is nominal, as the amount of data used is the only incremental cost because hardware can be used for both City use and public use. Note that many of the costs below are for hardware needing to be replaced due to damage or compatibility issues with new devices. Type Cost Item Amount (CAD) Year Incurred Cost Occurrence Service Fee Access Point Maintenance for 67 APs $7,870 2019 Recurring Licensing System Management $220 2019 Recurring Data Usage Additional data for Wi-Fi $1,780 2019 Recurring Hardware Wi-Fi upgrades for arenas, squash courts, west shore, fire stations $13,240 2019 One-time Hardware Wi-Fi upgrades for museum, west shore, fire station #5, and recreation complex $7,850 2018 One-time Hardware Wi-Fi for facilities and public spaces $10,050 2017 One-time Hardware Wi-Fi for facilities and public spaces (Esplanade Park, Kinsmen Park, Millennium Square) $18,830 2016 One-time Hardware Wi-Fi for recreation complex and meeting rooms $7,790 2015 One-time Hardware Wi-Fi for city parks $2,850 2015 One-time Hardware Wi-Fi for civic complex $16,770 2014 One-time Hardware Wi-Fi for arenas $5,530 2014 One-time Total Annual Recurring $9,870 n/a Total One-time Hardware $84,690 2014-2019 Total 5 Year Cost $134,0400 2014-2019 The information above shows what the City needs to pay on an annual basis to maintain the current Wi-Fi service and infra-structure as well as a baseline for estimating additional expansion costs. It helps provide a baseline for assumed expansion costs when discussing options for the future of the free public Wi-Fi network, depending on how much hardware and access points are required. - 372 - | Current Wi-Fi deployment details 9 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Analysis on current usage of public Wi-Fi and type of usage The following chart shows the amount of data that has been consumed at the various City’s locations from January 2019 to June 2019. It provides an understanding of the scale of use and which types of locations should be emphasized in future development efforts given historical usage. Based on the results, it is apparent that community centres provide the most value as visitors typically spend their time waiting and passing time via connected devices. 114.12 GB, 0.47% 128.31 GB, 0.53% 169.29 GB, 0.70% 279.61 GB, 1.15% 282.54 GB, 1.16% 294.74 GB, 1.21% 368.90 GB, 1.52% 384.64 GB, 1.58% 404.98 GB, 1.67% 771.11 GB, 3.18% 853.61 GB, 3.52% 2,535.38 GB,10.44% 4,566.49 GB, 18.81% 5,210.45 GB, 21.46% 7,919.10 GB, 32.61% 0 5,000 10,000 Dr. Nelson F. Tomlinson Community… Animal Shelter Whitevale Community centre West Shore Community centre Delaney and O'Brien Arena Millenium Square Esplanade Park 1101 Kingston Road George Ashe Community Centre East Shore OPS Center Don Beer Firehall Civic Centre Rec Complex Usage (GB)LocationsData Usage by Location - 373 - | Current Wi-Fi deployment details 10 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. The following chart shows the amount of data used for particular activities, which indicates where value is being delivered to users of the Wi-Fi service. It is clear that the “other” category is the main use, which encompasses general web browsing, with video streaming following in second place. The following chart shows the amount of data used by various devices operating systems. It provides a rough understanding of the type of devices that are being used to consume the Wi-Fi service. iOS (Apple) is the main user as many mobile Apple devices are found in the technology ecosystem today (e.g., iPad, iPhone, Apple Watch). 700GB, 8% 1,353GB, 5% 1,960GB, 8% 4,370GB, 18% 7,420GB, 30% 8,990GB, 36% 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 Online backup VoIP, software updates, email, advertising Music Social web Video Other Usage (GB)ActivitiesPublic Wi-Fi Usage by Activities - 374 - | Current Wi-Fi deployment details 11 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 1,070GB, 4% 1,090GB, 4% 1,823GB, 8% 5,410GB, 22% 14,890GB, 61% 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 Windows 10 Mac OS X Other Android iOS Usage (GB)Operating SystemData Usage by Operating System - 375 - | Jurisdictional scan 12 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Jurisdictional scan As part of the analysis of free public Wi-Fi, a jurisdictional scan was conducted in order to understand what other municipalities in Southern Ontario of equal size to the City of Pickering have implemented regarding Wi-Fi services. Based on this, the cities of Niagara Falls, Waterloo, Cambridge, St Catharines, Oshawa and Burlington were selected as they have released some information on their public Wi-Fi deployments publically. This chart below shows their population size, number of facilities, how the Wi-Fi service is funded, how much it costs and whether ads are used to generate revenue. The latter is done by launching advertisements on the login page of the Wi-Fi network as a means to recoup a portion of the costs of offering the service. For larger Wi-Fi deployments in cities not listed here, this is sometimes used as an avenue to support a much more robust rollout of free public Wi-Fi with more access points and further reach. City Population Public Wi-Fi Facilities with Wi-Fi Funding Cost (CAD) Use of Ads Niagara Falls 88,071 Yes 6 Facilities incl.: City Hall City Parks Community Centres Libraries 100% funded by City Not available No Waterloo 104,986 Yes 18 Facilities incl.: City Hall Public Square 100% funded by City $6,552/year ongoing No Cambridge 129,920 Yes 12 Facilities incl.: Civic Square Community Centres Recreation Arenas Gardens 100% funded by City Not available Yes St. Catharines 133,113 Yes 2 Facilities incl.: City Hall Public Libraries Partnership with Bell Smart Kiosk Not available Yes Oshawa 159,458 Yes 2 Facilities incl.: Council Chambers Public Libraries 100% funded by City Not available No Burlington 183,314 Yes 17 Facilities incl.: City Hall Libraries Community Centres 100% funded by City Not available No This table shows that most of the deployments are managed and paid for fully by the lower tier municipality, which is the current case at Pickering. Only one municipality (St Catharines) has partnered with a service provider (Bell) in order to provision free public Wi-Fi. This may be an option for the City of Pickering in the future if it plans to have more access points per square foot to enhance the public Wi-Fi offering (Note: details of such an arrangement have been outlined in the options analysis). - 376 - | Jurisdictional scan 13 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. The following table outlines additional details from the jurisdictional scan which relate to the operation and characteristics of the public Wi-Fi deployment. Filtering factors are ways in which a City could choose to filter content consumption but is not being done at this time. Filtering systems are described in more detail later in this report but at a high-level are ways in which the City controls what the internet is being used for. The City asks users to “agree” to basic terms of use and runs software which monitors usage (sample terms and conditions provided in the Appendix section). The chart also highlights plans and efforts underway to improve or change the public Wi-Fi deployment. City Filtering System Filtering Factors Other program details Niagara Falls Basic terms & conditions None According to Niagara Falls Wi-Fi deployment overview: Public Wi-Fi improves citizen's sense of belonging, economic vibrancy, health behaviors and civic engagement and this will be accomplished by creating a digital ecosystem that makes ‘invisible’ members of society visible and by developing reimagined connectivity hubs that enable participation by all; and Plans to expand free Wi-Fi programs to include existing community gathering places (i.e., churches, school, social halls, etc.) through partnerships with local broadband providers. Waterloo Basic terms & conditions Filtered & unfiltered workstations at Library Inappropriate content Not available Cambridge Basic terms & conditions None Not available St. Catharines Basic terms & conditions None Not available Oshawa Basic terms & conditions None According to Oshawa Wi-Fi deployment overview: The City implemented an extensive consultation process to undertake an evidence based approach to assessing the needs of the community, possible challenge areas and deciding on a priority issue. Activities conducted including: commissioned the Oshawa Needs Assessment Study, which analyzed and summarized existing community focused studies conducted over the last five years, commissioned an Intelligent Communities Forum Report Card, Participated in the CIRA (Canadian Internet Registration Authority) Broadband Speed Test Study, Registered to become ISO 37120 certified with World Council on City Data (WCCD) in 2018; Residents who do not have access to the internet at home can now check out a mobile hot spot from their local library, which provides them with unlimited internet access for a week. Currently, the program has a waiting list of over 100 families. Burlington Basic terms & conditions None Not available - 377 - | Wireless local-area networking components 14 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Wireless local-area networking components The following section outlines the components of a Wi-Fi deployment, including an overview of the hardware and software required to effectively operate a large public network. It is important for the City to have an understanding of what is included in a physical network so that the options can be better understood.3 Wireless Access Points: A simple Wi-Fi hotspot requires an access point (AP) and an internet connection. The AP enables multiple devices to be connected to the internet using a single connection. There is a large offering of networking equipment on the market. Currently, the City has 67 APs and the fee paid was roughly $150 for each AP (Note: based on average cost over the past 5 years). Installation costs for each AP has varied over the years and accounts for a significant portion of overall costs. Network management and monitoring Monitoring and maintaining a single router takes little time. However, as the number of Wi-Fi hotspots a municipality operates increases, it becomes more onerous. Municipalities that have centrally managed Wi-Fi networks, have said that the cost and effort required to upgrade their systems have paid off in terms of their ability to manage them well. Several municipalities that have distributed systems stated that they are planning to move to a single controller for central management of their Wi-Fi networks. Performance management system Performance management is the collective techniques that enable, manage and ensure optimal performance levels of a computer network. Network performance management generally requires the performance and quality service level of each network device and component to be routinely monitored. These tasks are typically managed within a management system which the City licenses. Guest access Wireless "open" (unauthenticated) access is the easiest connectivity strategy for users. Users/guests have historically struggled with how to physically get password credentials for networks where there is no help desk and as such, will have a system where a login page is used to “apply’ to the Wi-Fi network by inputting personal information. This should be the continued strategy for the City of Pickering as there is no helpdesk at any of the locations for external use. Intrusion detection systems/wireless intrusion detection systems A network device that monitors the radio spectrum for the presence of unauthorized access points (intrusion detection), and can automatically take countermeasures (intrusion prevention). This is 3 https://meraki.cisco.com/solutions/government The estimated cost of Wi-Fi deployment is made up of the capital cost to deploy the equipment and the operating cost to manage and maintain the system. Understanding the cost element is the first step for the city to tailor a service offering that fits within the budget. - 378 - | Wireless local-area networking components 15 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. needed for the City to ensure that there are no attempts to enter into the internal side of the network available from the access points. Location services Devices that have both GPS and Wi-Fi can be used to send information about a network back to a GPS company so that they can determine where the network is. These location services can help with City with applying additional details to logins to the network, just making the information on the logins more relevant for analysis. The City may want to explore the details of this factor in the future as it could aid in making data consumed on the network more valuable for potential commercialization. Bandwidth Requirements The type of activity users perform on the internet drives the bandwidth required for the network. Although this information is not available for lower-tier municipalities, in town centres or sports venue of higher-tier municipalities, the typical on-the-go internet activities are not data intensive. In the case of the City’s free Wi-Fi, the usage breakdown is as follows: 30.55% of video streaming, followed by 17.98% of social media viewing and 8.07% of music hearing. It is clear that much of the use is for personal reasons like keeping users entertained during their visits to the various locations. In a public Wi-Fi, the connection to the internet requires sufficient bandwidth to support the expected traffic. Public Wi-Fi is provided on a best effort basis, but if there is truly not enough backhaul capacity to support users, they will be dissatisfied, causing a negative reaction to the service.4 A potential problem with public Wi-Fi is that a few people may attempt to use too much data. While most guests will engage in low bandwidth on-the-go activities, some may want to download large files, such as video files and will slow down the service for everyone else. To ensure that a few prolific file downloads do not disrupt the service for others, limits can be set for download and upload speeds. These limits should be established based on the expected use of the service and the total available bandwidth. The City can also establish limits on the daily data transfer per user. The town of Perth in eastern Ontario imposes a limit of 50 Mbps per user per day as an example. A municipality offering free public Wi-Fi is a provider but is not an ISP and provides service on a best effort basis. 4 https://meraki.cisco.com/solutions/government - 379 - | The case for public Wi-Fi 16 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. The case for public Wi-Fi Defining the case for the City’s public Wi-Fi Developing a business case for public Wi-Fi provides details on internal and external facts which may have an impact on the City’s decision, and provides options and recommendations based on a cost-benefit analysis. As municipal public Wi-Fi is typically provided at no direct cost to the user, the benefits are in the form of value to the municipality, its residents and businesses. While it is difficult to quantify the benefits of public Wi-Fi, they can be identified in qualitative terms. However, all costs currently are born by the tax payer. This report provides details on costs and benefits based on assumptions and feedback from the City of Pickering’s IT staff, legal counsel and industry reports. High-level qualitative benefits of free public Wi-Fi Before deploying or expanding municipal Wi-Fi, a community should assess the value the service can bring. Typical benefits to municipal public Wi-Fi are presented below. Wi-Fi provided by private enterprise can offer many of the same benefits to a municipality. Encouraging businesses to offer free public Wi-Fi can be a good way to get some of the desired benefits without spending tax payers’ money to provide it. The areas where public Wi-Fi tends to have the most impact are: business activity, community branding, support for municipal programs and services, and internet service to low income residents and residents without broadband access at home. Public Wi-Fi can enhance the vibrancy and attractiveness of communities, retaining and attracting young people and business and tourists 5. For the purpose of this analysis, the benefits of public Wi-Fi service are presented in qualitative terms. The following are elements a municipality should consider when weighing the value of Wi-Fi service in their community against the costs of installing and maintaining the Wi-Fi infrastructure. Business activity benefits Providing Wi-Fi in public places, whether downtown zones, recreational facilities or private businesses, encourages people to spend time and money in the community6. Social media users love to share photos of themselves and their friends. People sharing photos of themselves having a wonderful time is great promotion for the City. People will prefer free Wi-Fi over cell service if there is no cellular signal, if they have no mobile data plan, or if they are trying to stay within the usage allowance of their mobile data plan7. Splash screens, the screen users see when they log onto Wi-Fi, can suggest things to do in Pickering or be routed to the City’s homepage. They may suggest a local market or festival, a municipal service or activity or they can direct users to a business, perhaps for an advertising fee. Splash pages can also be used to conduct short focused surveys on relevant community issues and demographics. Answering a short survey can be included as part of the acceptance of the terms and conditions for using and signing into the free Wi-Fi. 5 Municipal Public Wi-Fi a Sound Investment? https://www.eorn.ca/en/resources/Municipal-Wi-Fi/EORN_WP_WiFi_FINAL.pdf 6 https://www.alepo.com/solutions/carrier-wifi/ 7 https://www.symantec.com/content/dam/symantec/docs/reports/2017-norton-wifi-risk-report-global-results-summary- en.pdf - 380 - | The case for public Wi-Fi 17 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Public Wi-Fi adds value to facility rental, attracting sporting events, fairs, festivals and meetings. Often, event organizers simply cannot hold events in venues that do not have public Wi-Fi. They need it for operations and their customers demand it. Presentations often include web links. Many sporting events require Wi-Fi to post results and to satisfy the fans’ need for constant access. For example, Wi-Fi in arenas will attract more and bigger tournaments. The City of Ottawa confirmed that when they rent conference rooms, they charge an additional fee to activate Wi-Fi. The meeting room Wi-Fi service draws more meetings to their facilities and is profitable. Retaining young residents in areas is important to the continuity and vitality of communities, especially since only 10% of the population is aged 20-29 8. Another key metric for City of Pickering is that around 25% of is population had immigrant status at a point in time9, in order to appeal to immigrants, City services like free public Wi-Fi may help in early connectivity. Connectivity is extremely important to these demographics as they would like to stay connected to their peers and access key public resources available online. Public Wi-Fi makes connectivity cheaper and more available to them and signals that the community is right for them. Service to Low-income residents Rural family income levels are 15 per cent lower than levels in metropolitan Ontario 10 and the high cost of access to internet and mobile data can be a hindrance to equality in access to education, employment, health and social connection. There are certainly opportunities to support low income residents 11: • Affordability of internet service: Rural service can be limited and expensive. • Affordability of mobile data plans: Residents who have cell phone plans may choose small data plans or no data plans, knowing that they can rely on public Wi-Fi in certain places. It is very expensive to supply a family with multiple children with data plans (defined further in unlimited data plan analysis). • According to a Pickering Library study performed in 2016, 18% of Pickering residents do not currently have access to the Internet, either due to financial situations or lack of broadband availability in rural Pickering. This creates a digital divide and creates barriers in accessing online content relating to education, social inclusion, healthcare, government services and employment. Through public Wi-Fi, low income residents can gain access to the benefits of internet connectivity, including: • Social connection (e.g., Social media, advertising, researching events, local outreach etc.). • Improved public access to government services and information. • Business potential: The ability to search for jobs online, to apply online, to operate home based businesses, to telecommute, to do online banking and investing. • Educational: The ability to take online courses, to do coursework at a bricks and mortar institution from home, to submit assignments from home, to do online research, to read online material. • Health care: To access health services (eHealth Ontario, online lab results, online consultations with medical professionals in another community), to use eHealth monitoring services (alarms, glucose monitors, etc.), remote diagnostics, to research health related topics, to find appropriate health services. Meet The Increased Demand for Data On The Go As more people carry mobile devices, especially smartphones, but also tablets and laptops, there will be more demand for data on the go. This will have an impact on the demand for data service.12 As the City creates more public spaces that cater to the various wants and needs of the population, there will be a growing demand to use the internet at these facilities. Beyond the benefit that a Wi-Fi deployment will give to citizens, it will also provide wider access for City staff. As the City continues to implement new systems, 8 https://www.pickering.ca/en/business/Demographics.aspx 9 https://www.pickering.ca/en/business/Demographics.aspx 10 Focus on Rural Ontario Fact Sheet, http://www.farms.com/news/focus-on-rural-ontario-fact-sheets-show-rural-incomelevels- and-trends-101871.aspx 11 Municipal Public Wi-Fi a Sound Investment? https://www.eorn.ca/en/resources/Municipal-Wi-Fi/EORN_WP_WiFi_FINAL.pdf 12 Economics of Public WiFi (Potts 2014) - 381 - | The case for public Wi-Fi 18 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. there will be a growing demand for data to access critical business information and conduct day-to-day tasks. Improve Business Activity Public Wi-Fi provides cities a way to improve business activity by means such as increasing sales of local businesses and through social media promotion of the region and its events supported by the community. Providing Wi-Fi in public places, such as downtown zones, recreational facilities or private businesses can connect people with the services they want, encourage them to spend time and money in the community.13 In some cases, the Wi-Fi network can generate revenue, including but not limited to: • Facilities can be rented at a higher price, and more frequently if they have public Wi-Fi. • Splash screen advertising and other ad-based revenue programs. • Exclusive rights to places where Wi-Fi hotspots are located and can be sold. • Add value to the renting properties that are near a location which provides Wi-Fi. Wi-Fi Zoning Analytics Data usage on the public Wi-Fi network is considerable at this time but in the future it is set to rise. Data on user traffic can be sold, used by the municipality, or made available to community members for a variety of purposes, similar to how it is done today by applications and service providers. The type of data available is aggregated in real-time data based on the number of users by area or by type of device, but could be captured with additional details so that additional analysis and mining tasks could be performed. Support Applications for Municipal Operations The municipal Wi-Fi network can support a variety of applications for municipal operations that could help make Pickering safer and better connected, such as 14: • Fleet services ‒ Access points around the City could be used for updating key information on fleet vehicles as they make stops at specific locations • Smart lighting ‒ Devices are available at an additional cost in the marketplace which turn City lighting in Wi-Fi enabled lights, providing citizens with light for seeing at night and access to view the content which they desire ‒ Connected smart lighting systems also allow for more active management to respond to daily changes in light conditions • Traffic management ‒ Connected traffic management devices help Cities provide quicker responses to traffic and road use, potentially supporting development efforts • Information kiosks ‒ Connected kiosk devices currently found in many major municipalities help citizens with staying informed on events around them, weather conditions and public service announcements ‒ Connected kiosks also help with expanding public Wi-Fi in locations that may otherwise not have Wi-Fi (outdoor public spaces) • Cloud-based business software ‒ Access to cloud applications will increase as the City implements the newest tools on the market ‒ Many of these tools require an internet connections to conduct day-to-day tasks and information monitoring, furthering the need for expanded connection options 13 Municipal Wireless Broadband: Policy and Business Implications of Emerging Access Technologies (Lehr, Sirbu and Gillet, 2014) 14 https://www.alepo.com/solutions/carrier-wifi/ - 382 - | Technological change impact 19 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Technological change impact Innovation Technology Insight – State of Unlimited Data Plans and rollout of Wi-Fi 6 and 5G To optimize city’s planning and deployment decisions, infrastructure and operations leaders responsible for managing network infrastructure need to understand the technological advantages that can potentially be utilized for a longer term. This section outlines two topics which should be understood before moving forward with any potential investments, namely Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) and 5G cellular. Building on the progress made by 802.11 technologies over the past 20 years, 5G represents a shift in focus to go beyond consumer handsets, to address the networking needs of a much broader group of wireless devices with very divergent requirements.15 Market reports show that people want either all of the data or none at all 16. Wanting unlimited data plans could be the result of clever advertising campaigns by the major carriers, or of all the extra perks that now come with these plans. On the other hand, consumers who are looking for plans with little to no data could be trying to save money by opting to utilize Wi-Fi as much as possible. In the past year there has been an extra push in an ongoing effort by the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) to review mobile wireless services. This has been brought on for many factors, however there are two that are noteworthy for the purposes of this report. 1. Affordability of data plans for all Canadians 2. Planning for implementation of 5G across Canada and the impact this will have on competitiveness The City of Pickering will likely be involved in the move to implementation of 5G infrastructure in the region as service providers will need to work with the City to develop appropriate implementation locations for the new network and assess the demographics to provide plans which meet the needs of the population. For a detailed explanation of the results of the review on wireless services in Canada by the CRTC, see the Appendix section. Mobile Data Trends Over the past 3 years, there has been a trend when it comes to mobile data. There has been a clear steady rise in preferences for both zero data plans and unlimited data plans.17 Note: ‘Unlimited’ in many cases refers to more data than customers can typically use with soft data caps on unlimited plans ranging from 20- 50GB, while searches for plans with 1-5GB of data have decreased at almost the same rate. It seems that there are two main groups of people—those who use a lot of data and those who just want the minimum amount. As described within this report, the regulators and market in Canada are still attempting to formulate an official standpoint and strategy on how to create right-size products for various groups of consumers. Many reports highlight 2020 as a year where many of these conclusions will be defined as 5G begins implementation across Canada and products will be rolled out to service the new paradigm.18 15 Innovation Tech Insight for Wi-Fi 6, Gartner, Inc. 16 https://cira.ca/resources/corporate/factbook/canadas-internet-factbook-2019 17 https://www.whistleout.ca/CellPhones/Guides/comparing-rogers-infinite-unlimited-data 18 Predicts 2019: 5 CSP Technology Trends to Plan for 5G, Open Source, Virtualization and Private Networks (Gartner 2018) - 383 - | Technological change impact 20 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. There is a significant number of people who need very little data (less than 6GB), potentially utilizing public Wi-Fi to access the internet. In fact, people are using Wi-Fi from their cell phones 3.75 times more than their cellular data, which may be an attempt to save money on their phone bills. 19 There a number of reasons for these trends over the past few years, the following are some of the causes: • The availability of Wi-Fi has increased dramatically resulting in consumers needing little to no mobile data. • Unlimited plans have become more available and affordable resulting in consumers opting for unlimited data vs a small data allowance (e.g., 5GB). • Unlimited plans may also seem to provide more value for money but benefits are difficult to calculate at this time. Typical unlimited data plans start at roughly ~$60 CAD for data only plans and from ~$100 CAD for voice, text and data. As 5G begins rollout in 2020 it will become more apparent how unlimited data plans are priced and delivered to the consumer. • Carriers tend to promote their unlimited plan more than their other plans, which is set to continue as bandwidth continues its growth. Benefits and Uses of Wi-Fi 6 Benefits of Wi-Fi 6 20 Wi-Fi 6 or 802.11ax has many benefits compared to the current Wi-Fi 5 which is in use at the City today. These benefits may be beneficial to the City due to the nature of use at their locations. A full description of the benefits are available in the appendix section however at a high-level these benefits are: 1. Backward Compatibility 2. Higher Data Rates 3. Device Battery Life Improvements 4. Connection for more devices 5. Data use balancing based on needs of the phone 6. Newer technology to increase lifespan of deployment Use Cases for Wi-Fi 6 and impact of IoT Public Connectivity Public areas are a combination of lower inter-device interference and high-density user environments. The ability to scale up easily and support higher bandwidth makes 802.11ax an improved Wi-Fi standard to support high-density user environments. For sport venues, shopping malls, convention centres and other more heavy usage environments, Wi-Fi 6 improves the ability to support and enhance faster Wi-Fi networks discovery and authentication processes. Public Wi-Fi provided by Private Sector Companies The biggest private providers of public Wi-Fi in Ontario are Bell Mobility and Cogeco (service providers or carriers). Hotspots are also provided by many coffee shops, restaurants, inns, hotels, marinas and smaller internet service providers (ISPs). Cogeco Free Wi-Fi is available mostly in the Kingston area, where there are 90 hotspots. There are also hotspots in Peterborough, Belleville, Kemptville and Smiths Falls. This service is a variant of the public free Wi-Fi model, as service is available only to Cogeco internet subscribers at no additional cost. It is nominally free, as the service is paid for as part of subscribers’ internet service fee. The Cogeco hotspots are located in restaurants, cafes, stores, inns, medical clinics and other customer facing outlets. 19 https://cira.ca/resources/corporate/factbook/canadas-internet-factbook-2019 20 Municipal Wireless Broadband: Policy and Business Implications of Emerging Access Technologies (Lehr, Sirbu and Gillet, 2014) - 384 - | Technological change impact 21 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Bell Mobility provides unlimited access to free public Wi-Fi in participating Tim Horton’s, McDonald’s and Chapters Indigo locations. There are over 1000 participating locations in Ontario. There are more of these locations in high density areas, but they are also present in small towns21. The following restaurants offer free WI-FI within the City of Pickering: Tim Horton’s (9); Starbucks (3), McDonalds (2), Burger King (1); Swiss Chalet (2); Wendy’s (1); Mary Brown’s (1); Kentucky Fried Chicken (1) and St. Louis Bar and Grill (1). It appears that every food chain restaurant big or small now offers free Wi-Fi. At a minimum, there are at least 25 locations in Pickering that provide free Wi-Fi, of which the Pickering Town Centre is the largest. As mentioned above, many business owners, including coffee shops, restaurants, retailers, hotels, clinics and others offer public Wi-Fi to their customers. Normally, businesses expect and appreciate it when Wi-Fi users buy something but it is usually not mandatory in order to have access to their WI-FI. Most retailers who offer public Wi-Fi service find that it keeps customers in their facilities longer and see a correlation between having public Wi-Fi and increased sales. In Central Frontenac, North Frontenac Telephone Company is providing public Wi-Fi service to visitors at Sharbot Lake beach. The original plan was to fund the service by selling advertising on splash page, however the population was not large enough for this model to be successful. There are several examples of successful free public Wi-Fi services across the world. Many of these deployments are in cities with populations over 1 million and as such have not been included in this report. If the reader would like to get a flavour of one of these examples, Link NYC is a success story of a Public- Private partnership which has made free public Wi-Fi accessible across New York City. Link NYC is powered by CIVIQ Smartscapes solutions. These solutions have started being tested within the City of Toronto in recent years. One of the key elements of these carrier supported free Wi-Fi deployments are the monetization methods. Direct monetization, that is charging for Wi-Fi access, is a valid but declining revenue channel. Other monetization opportunities play an increasingly important role. These include advertising, analytics, SME solutions, IoT, and others, as well as using Wi-Fi as a differentiator or last mile for mobile broadband. The combination that makes the most sense depends on the operator’s context but regardless, it is likely that more than one monetization channel will be needed for cost recovery. Drivers for carrier Wi-Fi include 22: 1. Cater to the demands from newly evolving smart cities 2. Compensate for gaps in network coverage 3. Expand services and complimentary infrastructure 4. Keep pace with competitors and market trends 5. Create compelling B2B (Business to Busienss) products 6. Protect and increase market share 7. Stopgap and augment 5G services 21 https://www.bell.ca/Mobility/Bell-Wifi-Internet-Locations 22 https://www.alepo.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Alepo_Solution-Brief_Carrier-WiFi-in-the-5G-Era.pdf - 385 - | Risk assessment and legal liability strategy 22 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Risk assessment and legal liability strategy There are manageable risks associated with providing public Wi-Fi, particularly in the area of security and liability. Using proper security practices and policies will help mitigate security risks. Liability factors for Wi-Fi network issues should be understood by the City and any organization that provides the service to the public. The following section aims to highlight these factors and provide an overview of why these are relevant to the City. The City of Pickering’s legal counsel was consulted when developing this section and were instrumental in assessing any legal liabilities. Filtering System and Best Practices for Wi-Fi Zones Different zones should be established in the network to support users with different privileges. Establish a guest (or public) zone that is a subset of the zones for employees. Zones can be implemented with Virtual Local Area Networks (VLANs) with access restrictions enforced by an upstream device such as a gateway, AP controller or firewall. This will allow for City staff to have a secure connection in areas where they are required to conduct their day-to-day operations and will allow the public to access the network in areas where they choose to consume the internet. Public Access Public internet access via Wi-Fi can either be secured or accessed without a password. The choice to provide security might hinge on the expected use. A public Wi-Fi zone on a street, where users are likely to engage in popular on-the-go activities (get directions, look for a restaurant, check the weather, use Twitter, check sports scores) might be suitable for no password required access. A meeting room or library, where users do work, would be a candidate for better security. If the network is secured, a password is required, along with agreement to a Terms and Conditions of Use Statement. Both appear on a splash page to log-on. If the network is not secured (no password) the Terms and Conditions of Use Statement should be agreed to at log-on. Use of a password provides protection for the network operator and other Wi-Fi users. The survey of upper-tier municipalities in Eastern Ontario revealed that of those communities that provide public Wi-Fi, 33% require a log-in with password, 42% leave their Wi-Fi network completely open and 25% have a combination of some open hotspots and some protected by password. The City has elected to provide access in an no password needed fashion, with users having to agree to Terms and Conditions on appropriate use upon access. This method is suitable going forward as it ensures that everyone who would like to access the network is in agreement of the guidelines and City of Pickering reputational risk is mitigated. Access Points The default SSID name on access points should be changed to something unique and that will help people identify the right network to join. Do not use the default name. The City should ensure that all access points across all locations follow the same naming convention so as to ensure consistency for users accessing the network from different locations. - 386 - | Risk assessment and legal liability strategy 23 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Web Filtering System (or secure web gateway) Secure web gateway (SWG, also known as web filtering) is the technology and market category for tools that filter users web browsing content to enforce acceptable use and protect against malicious content and reputational risk of the provider. SWGs have become key protection technologies for enterprises as the web evolves. The various types of malicious content can be detected using distributed filters on endpoints or gateways as well as cloud-based facilities by combining Uniform Resource Locator (URL) lists, reputation systems, real-time content detection, and blended techniques. An effective web filtering system can protect users from malware and online phishing exploits, filter inappropriate content, filter applications such as instant messaging (IM), multiplayer games, Web storage, wikis, peer-to-peer (P2P), public voice over IP (VoIP), blogs, data-sharing portals, Web backup, remote PC access, Web conferencing, chat, streaming media, blogging activity, and micro-blogging activity. As the City is currently using a management tool with some level of web filtering available, and no issues have been raised on improper use, there is no apparent need to make any changes going forward. It can also protect users from web-based exploits. Web-based attacks are implemented in many places, and may use blended techniques. Attacks are quite diverse, but tend to fall into a few basic categories23: • User-dependent: Social engineering using deceptive content that induces the user to take inappropriate action, such as download a Trojan horse malware file or give up personal information, perhaps simply by logging into the fake site. • Vulnerability dependent: Web code or scripts that trigger a flaw in the browser or browser plug-in code, thereby enabling a buffer overflow or some other remote code-execution exploit that takes control of the running process and ultimately the computer. • Protocol or content dependent: Attacks that take advantage of multi-site interactions, such as cross-site scripting attacks that inject code from one site to the other, or iFrames used to hide clickjacking attacks. Wi-Fi Deployment Components and Use Cases In order to understand a Wi-Fi deployment, it is critical to understand what comprises a Wi-Fi system. The following are the mandatory and optional components needed in order to have a successful deployment of Wi-Fi. The City currently has access to and uses all of the Wi-Fi deployment components in day-to-day operation of the network. Market leading cloud-based tools are being used, which ensures that the City is running the network on the latest versions of the software. Mandatory SWG components • Web filter, or gateway (enforcement point) • URL lists or reputation database • Management console (may be web-based) • Security research center Optional SWG components • Additional analysis engines in the cloud • Centralized management system, with optional separate policy database and/or reporting database 23Assessing secure web gateway, Gartner, Inc - 387 - | Risk assessment and legal liability strategy 24 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Other Considerations Endpoints physically located in sites that are directly connected to the Internet, or mobile endpoints travelling outside the firewall, do not get filtered by the SWG unless the organization: • Backhauls all network traffic from the site to the data center via virtual private network (VPN) for filtering Backhauls all network traffic from the mobile endpoint to the data center via VPN for filtering. • Configure the endpoint to direct web traffic to specific SWGs along with mobility, demand for computationally intensive real-time content inspection and larger URL lists is also driving need for more distributed gateway topologies, or cloud-based topologies that can throw more horsepower at the problem than premise-based ones. Increased complexity of policy requirements and protection objectives demands integration with related security infrastructures such as anti-spam and data leakage protection (DLP). Throughout it all rides the imperative to maintain performance and may result in slower internet. The City must ensure that all locations are managed in a centralized manner. For some of the locations which are remote, cellular Wi-Fi deployments are being used with additional monitoring licenses. The City should review these deployments and have them all managed within the same monitoring system network. Liability Neither the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) nor Industry, Science and Economic Development Canada have made statements about liability for activity conducted over a public Wi-Fi network or requirements relating to logon records, browser history or router logs. The information presented is based on common practices described in a research paper on public Wi-Fi.24 Public Wi-Fi network operators can protect themselves from liability for illegal activity on their networks by: • Securing their network • Terms and Conditions of Use Policies At a minimum, organizations should consider implementing URL lists or reputation databases to prevent users from unknowingly visiting sites with high malware or phishing risk. Beyond reducing malware and phishing, AUP enforcement can reduce risks to productivity and liability. In most cases, users are required to review and agree with the Terms and Conditions which specify that users can not use the Wi-Fi service or allow anyone to use the service on mobile device, for any unacceptable use. An example for Terms and Conditions: • Invading another person's privacy; misrepresenting yourself by posing as someone else; unlawfully promoting or inciting hatred; unlawfully using, possessing, posting, transmitting or disseminating obscene, profane, hate, terrorist or child pornographic material; • Posting, transmitting, distributing, disseminating, uploading or downloading content that is unlawful, threatening, harassing, abusive, libellous, slanderous, defamatory or otherwise offensive or objectionable; or encouraging conduct that would constitute a criminal offence, give rise to civil liability, or otherwise violate any municipal, provincial, federal or international law, order, rule or regulation; • Accessing any computer systems, software, data, or confidential, copyright-protected, patent-protected material or personal information of any other person without the person's knowledge and consent; making unauthorized attempts to gain access to any account or computer resource not belonging you, or otherwise gain unauthorized access to, alter or destroy information of another person by any means or device; 24 Municipal Public Wi-Fi a Sound Investment? https://www.eorn.ca/en/resources/Municipal-Wi-Fi/EORN_WP_WiFi_FINAL.pdf - 388 - | Risk assessment and legal liability strategy 25 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. • Uploading, posting, publishing, defacing, modifying, transmitting, reproducing or distributing information, software or other material that is confidential, protected by copyright or other intellectual, property or proprietary right, or related derivative works, without obtaining permission of the copyright owner or right holder; • Disrupting our network, directly or indirectly; use the service to restrict, inhibit or interfere with the ability of any other person to use or enjoy use of our products or services or the Internet, including, without limitation, knowingly posting or transmitting information or software that contains a virus, lock, key, bomb, worm, Trojan horse or other harmful, debilitating or disruptive feature; • Sending unsolicited email ("spamming"), large quantities of unwanted or unsolicited email messages ("mail bombing") or VoIP messages ("voice casting"); attempting to overload a system ("flooding"); participating in broadcast attacks; interfering with service to or by any user host or network; engaging in counterfeit, subterfuge or malicious activities; making inappropriate postings to news groups; sending false commercial messages; or engaging in any other abuse of email or news group servers; • Violating any system or network security measures, including engaging in unauthorized access or use of our network, data or information; • Using, intending or attempting to use, or allowing the use of our service in a way that violates any municipal, provincial, federal or international law, order, rule or regulation; • Using the service in a way that violates the decisions, orders, policies or other requirements of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunication Commission or any other regulatory body with jurisdiction over the service or the city; • Engaging in any activity which we advise you, in our sole and unfettered discretion, is an unacceptable use of telecommunications services, or is otherwise deemed an unacceptable use of our service will result in suspension of use of the Wi-Fi network. After reviewing the City’s terms and conditions, it is evident that there is full coverage of these industry suggested features. The City should review their terms and conditions on a periodic basis and make adjustments as required. Issues and breaches should be escalated to the necessary City staff in order to conduct any investigation and propose recommendations for the issue resolution. Privacy Considerations 25 Despite many of the positive benefits mentioned in this report regarding access to the internet, there are also considerations regarding privacy of data transmitted through an open network. These are risks which users should be aware of when accessing a public Wi-Fi network, regardless of who the operator is. The following are examples of such considerations: Man in the middle attacks One of the most common threats on these public Wi-Fi networks is called a Man-in-the-Middle (MitM) attack. Essentially, a MitM attack is a form of eavesdropping. When a computer makes a connection to the Internet, data is sent from point A (computer) to point B (service/website), and vulnerabilities can allow an attacker to get in between these transmissions and “read” them. So what the individual thought was a private interaction with the network, no longer is. Unencrypted Networks Encryption means that the information that is sent between the computer and the wireless router is in the form of a “secret code,” so that it cannot be read by anyone who does not have the key to decipher the code. Most routers are shipped from the factory with encryption turned off by default, and it must be turned on when the network is set up. If an IT professional sets up the network, this should be verified to ensure the encryption feature is enabled. 25 https://us.norton.com/internetsecurity-privacy-risks-of-public-wi-fi.html - 389 - | Risk assessment and legal liability strategy 26 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Malware Distribution A software vulnerability is a security weakness found in an operating system or software program. Hackers can exploit this weakness by writing code to target a specific vulnerability, and then inject the malware (computer virus) onto your device. Snooping and sniffing Cybercriminals can buy special software kits and even devices to help assist them with eavesdropping on Wi- Fi signals. This technique can allow the attackers to access everything that a person might be doing online — from viewing whole webpages visited (including any information filled out while visiting that webpage) to being able to capture login credentials, and even hijacking the corresponding accounts. Reputational and Brand Protection Considerations The City should continue to monitor any attacks on its reputation and brand, particularly when offering a public service such as Wi-Fi. Systems and tools are already in use at the City to restrict access to dangerous content and these should remain in the future. The City should also continue to monitor web links, URLs, domain names and page content that may contain potential threats to its brand and should investigate concerns related to misuse as soon as a potential issue is discovered. Some consideration should be given on what to do in the event of a crises including: • Identifying and preparing a response and mitigation for reputational risks • Using tools and techniques such as crisis simulations • Monitoring potential risks, risk sensing (early risk detection) and defining rapid response communication teams26 26 Risk Angles – Reputational Risk (Deloitte 2019) - 390 - | Options analysis 27 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Options analysis The City has made significant progress over the past several years in providing tax-payer funded free Wi-Fi at many of its public facilities. Moving forward, the City must determine a strategy for how they will keep supporting and potentially expanding this service to citizens, visitors and businesses and enable them to remain connected to the Internet while within Pickering’s city limits. The following section outlines 3 options which the City should consider when developing its strategy for the public Wi-Fi deployment moving forward. The options have been developed based on the information provided within this report. On one hand, the options are unique, on the other hand the options could be assessed and combined as a path forward depending on the City’s appetite for expanding the network and adopting new technology which is set to become widely available over the next 12-24 months. Based on the information gathered through the research around free public Wi-Fi, including what other municipalities are doing, the costs and risks involved as well as the benefits, three potential options are presented below for the City’s consideration in the decision whether to offer free Wi-Fi in all public areas. It should be noted that these options are not in any particular order and the City may which to choose one option, two options or all options going forward. 1. Expand coverage of free Wi-Fi services provided into all City managed facilities using present day technology 2. Offer public Wi-Fi in all public areas via a public-private partnership in order to reduce the cost to provide the service 3. Keep current Wi-Fi coverage and wait for next generation technologies to prove their models in 2020- 2021 before expanding Option 1 – Expand City Wi-Fi to managed facilities Option 1 – Expand Description Next Steps Costs and Benefits Expand free Wi- Fi into all City managed facilities Opportunity To have access points available at all City managed facilities. Current Operations There are already access points at many City managed facilities which enables staff and the pubic to use the internet. City is continuing to develop the network on an ongoing basis. Benefit Staff and the public will be able to use the internet for work or leisure wherever they choose to go, although speed might be limited in some areas due to the connection strategies used (i.e., cellular Wi-Fi or hardwired). Confirm if access point estimate provided here (Cost and Benefits column on the right) is accurate and would ensure full coverage. Identify if additional access points are required for facilities with aging equipment or limited reach. Contact preferred vendors to obtain cost quotes for additional access points and associated licenses (if required). One-Time Costs Assuming a cost of $650 per access point router and 2 access points required = $1300. Assuming a cost of $150 per access point antennas and 2 access points required =$300. Recurring Costs Assuming a cost of $250 per management cloud controller license and 2 licenses required =$250 recurring. Benefits City of Pickering would be able to claim that there is public Wi-Fi available at all City managed facilities. Access for residents in all 3 wards, further solidifying the - 391 - | Options analysis 28 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Option 1 – Expand Description Next Steps Costs and Benefits balanced implementation approach. City would continue to fulfill the benefits described in the early sections of this report. Risks/Pitfalls This approach does not assess the reach of the access points in the current locations, potentially missing an opportunity to expand internet access into more square feet of buildings with some level of access. Ease of Implementation – Low Deployment of Wi-Fi access points has been rather straightforward for the City in the past several years as the technology options in use (i.e., Cisco Meraki and Dell/EMC) are plug-and- play. The City has several individuals trained on the maintenance and management of these access points and could deploy the additional access points with its own staff. The following outlines the recommended implementation locations for Option 1 including the amount of access points suggested for each location. The City will need to determine whether additional hardware is required to support the new and expanded locations identified. Historical one-time costs for access points have been between about $600-$700 for an installed router and $100-$200 for an installed antenna. Recurring costs are for the controller management licenses which have ranged between $200-$300 annually. Operating cost will include backhaul and maintenance. Backhaul costs will depend on the type of internet service available and the bandwidth amount allocated to public Wi-Fi. Pricing will be different for different carriers and services if an additional cellular connection is needed. A municipality that has excess capacity in their connection to the internet will not incur additional cost for Wi-Fi backhaul. Option 2 – Offer Public Wi-Fi in all public areas via partnership with a carrier Option 2 – Private Partnership Description Next Steps Costs Expand free Wi- Fi into all public locations Opportunity Expand Wi-Fi into all public locations across the City, with an emphasis on outdoor locations and commercial locations (i.e. malls). Partner with service provider(s) (carriers) to implement free public Wi-Fi across applicable City locations. Use advertisements on the access screen to help with a monetization strategy. Current Operations Currently there are no partnerships with internet service providers to provide Research potential solutions providers (e.g., Alepo, CIVIQ Smartscapes, Bell Canada etc.) and community partners who may be able to support the development of the project. Attempt to meet with other jurisdictions who have deployed an expanded free Wi-Fi systems to gain additional insights. Document detailed requirements (e.g., functional, technical, level of service, geographic reach) for a broader free public Wi-Fi deployment. Costs Several cost models available including: City owned, service provider owned or Public-Private partnership. Detailed cost breakdown is unavailable at this time given each model is affected by a number of factors. Benefits Several monetization models exist in order to recover costs and continue providing free Wi- Fi. Some examples of this include: advertisements (video and static), capturing data using social logins, verification of SMS to connect to capture user data, filling of survey. - 392 - | Options analysis 29 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Option 2 – Private Partnership Description Next Steps Costs free public Wi-Fi in any of the locations. Consider starting with a pilot of the initiative in key locations that feedback can easily be gathered, and analyze results in order to refine strategy before expanding. Discuss public Wi-Fi partnering agreements with local businesses who are interested in being a part of a larger deployment. General benefits of using a service provider to expand free Wi-Fi at all locations include: lowering operational costs, elimination of coverage gaps, reduction in network congestion, improvement in customer experience, increased ability to drive revenue 27. Risks/Pitfalls Server down-time or inability to manage the level of service provided Reliant on the provider to offer the service, which could result in a loss of control over certain aspects of the deployment Lack of choice over locations chosen due to provider participating in the choice of areas and venues covered Potential concerns regarding ownership of data and user privacy related to the monetization of user information. The City will need to ensure that these concerns are included as considerations when discussing potential solutions with private companies and consult with experts for guidance on policies. Ease of Implementation – High Longer deployment timeline as the City would need to investigate the option(s) in more detail, meet with potential vendors (service providers) to discuss the options and plan for the implementation Implementation of the deployment would likely require managing a relationship with a vendor, which would add a degree of complexity Expanding free Wi-Fi into a wider region would require significant investment (of time, money or a combination of both depending on the type of deployment chosen) and would likely be a multi-year effort to operationalize Option 3 – No immediate action and wait for next generation technologies Option 3 – Wait Description Next Steps Costs and Benefits Wait for next generation technologies to be proven in the next 1-2 years before making an investment Opportunity Allow other organizations to try to the new Wi-Fi 6 technologies and share their results before becoming an early adopter. Work with ISPs to plan for the implementation of 5G across the community. Collect information and proposals from companies who are interested in developing the City’s Identify existing deployments which may benefit from enhanced Wi-Fi capabilities available through the potential implementation of Wi-Fi 6. Monitor vendor solutions to assess which have the best combinations of hardware and software to deploy in a larger area at a lower cost. Work with ISPs and other interested parties to plan how 5G will be implemented Costs Time investments by IT and City development team to monitor progress of technologies and work with ISPs. Benefits Allow market to prove next generation technologies allowing the City to learn from other jurisdictions mistakes or wins. 27 https://www.alepo.com/monetize-your-wifi-using-captive-portal/ - 393 - | Options analysis 30 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Option 3 – Wait Description Next Steps Costs and Benefits infrastructure and enabling IoT technologies Current Operations Continue ongoing management of existing Wi-Fi network and make adjustments where required without upgrading technology. Benefit Staff can focus on assessing other high priority initiatives which may have a larger impact for the community. across the City. Discuss whether the City can support in the development of cellular towers and where the initial deployments should be located in order to reach the most citizens. Showcase to the public that the City is committed to long-term growth, following a structured path. Risks/Pitfalls Public perception that the City is not making continued investments in order to expand Wi-Fi access to the residents despite scheduled upgrades and implementation of new hardware happening on an ongoing basis Ease of Implementation – Low As there is no actual implementation, the effort is generally low at this time as staff will be focused on research and planning of next-gen technologies, installing planned hardware maintenance upgrades, as well as liaising with interested development groups - 394 - | Conclusion 31 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Conclusion In Closing Public Wi-Fi (currently funded by tax-payer dollars) brings opportunities for municipalities to provide communications services to their residents, businesses and visitors. It can support the vibrancy of a community through business growth and community branding, by supporting and enhancing other municipal services and by providing internet connectivity for those who do not have access at home for reasons of income or lack of service availability. The City of Pickering already provides public Wi-Fi access in 19 facilities including almost all of their libraries and most of their other municipal facilities and parks. The City also makes a concerted effort to replace aging hardware and implement new access points on an as needed basis to improve the network coverage. Based on the facts collected as part of this research, particularly the minimal number of additional facilities requiring deployment and the state of next generation technologies, our analysis indicates that any of the options described in the previous section is suitable for the City’s public W-Fi strategy. Option 1 allows the City to make a small investment today and wait for next generation technologies to be proven in the coming years before purchasing them now, as described in Option 3. The City may decide to change its strategy on Option 2, if 5G data plans become cost prohibitive for some residents, however as mentioned, the CRTC is in the midst of an investigation and there is some likelihood that pricing for plans will change due to the ongoing scrutiny. If these plans are affordable and the 5G coverage is robust, the City may not need to focus on Wi-Fi as the way of getting access to internet to its citizens. As for ensuring security and legal coverage, proper security practices and policies mentioned in this report can be used to mitigate security risks to the City providing the Wi-Fi service and network users. Liability risks can be mitigated by providing Terms and Conditions of Use Policies. The City may elect to review their Terms of Use to ensure coverage addresses aspects like privacy and reputation. As stated in the opening section, free public Wi-Fi can provide business and social support to the City of Pickering in many ways for many people and should continue to be offered if costs can continue to be controlled and minimized. Like any purchase made by the City, the investment should be weighed against other priorities to ensure that tax payer dollars are spent in areas that will bring most value and reach more residents. As part of next steps, the City should consider implementing an additional or internal consultation process to undertake an evidence based approach to assessing the broader internet needs of the community. Activities could include: commission a needs assessment study to analyze and summarize existing community studies conducted over the last five years, commission an Intelligent Communities (Smart City) Forum Report Card, and begin to request feedback on the current free Wi-Fi deployment to understand levels of satisfaction. - 395 - | Appendix – Public Wi-Fi 32 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Appendix – Public Wi-Fi Review Results from CRTC on Wireless Services in Canada The results of the review on wireless services in Canada, including the following: 1. Affordability of data plans for all Canadians 28 From a technological perspective, wireless networks in Canada have also evolved, as carriers continue to roll out long-term evolution (LTE) and LTE-advanced (LTE-A) networks, contribute to the growth of the Internet of Things (IoT) market, and transition away from third-generation (3G) networks. Currently, the mobile wireless service market is on the verge of a major transformation, since wireless carriers are poised to begin introducing 5G wireless technology into their networks. This technology upgrade will mean that wireless networks will become exponentially faster, more pervasive, and more versatile. With a predicted maximum throughput of 10 gigabits per second (Gbps), this technology will support innovative and bandwidth-intensive new services, including self-driving cars, smart cities, and a multitude of interconnected devices that form the IoT. In order to begin introducing 5G technology, wireless carriers will be required to make significant investments in network infrastructure, and to negotiate with a variety of stakeholders to secure adequate access to fibre facilities, rights of way, and small-cell sites. It is therefore important to assess whether there are barriers to the introduction of new technologies by carriers, and the extent to which regulatory intervention by the Commission may be required to support investment and competition in the evolving marketplace. The mobile wireless service industry has evolved since the Commission’s last review of these services, due to, among other things, technological and market changes, and it will continue to evolve as carriers begin to introduce 5G networks. The Commission is concerned that the fact that (i) retail market concentration remains high (due in part to a series of acquisitions), and (ii) the Commission has been repeatedly required to intervene in the retail market, suggests that certain aspects of this market are not, in fact, sufficiently competitive in their current state to properly protect the interests of users. As a result, the Commission will include a review of the state of competition in the retail market. As part of this review, there will be a definition of the retail market and whether the retail mobile wireless services currently offered by wireless carriers, including prepaid services and lower-cost data-only plans, are meeting the needs of Canadians. Depending on the results of the review, the Commission will evaluate whether any changes to its mobile wireless service regulatory framework are required, which could include, for example, establishing new retail policies and imposing conditions of service. The review may also result in the Commission considering whether to reassert any previously forborne powers in order to apply any regulatory measures that are deemed appropriate. These could be in addition to any wholesale measures that may be required as a result of this proceeding. 28 https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2019/2019-57.htm - 396 - | Appendix – Public Wi-Fi 33 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. 2. Planning for implementation of 5G 29 • In the coming years, wireless carriers will begin to deploy 5G technology in their networks across the country. One of the first steps toward the introduction of 5G technology is the construction of the cellular network infrastructure that the technology requires. Going forward, carriers will continue to need to acquire and develop high-power cell sites where they can install radio equipment on ground- based masts, towers, rooftops, and other existing structures. Small cell deployment will require a change from the standard model of large macrocell sites delivering wireless signals over relatively long distances to also include numerous small-cell sites packed more densely together. Because small cells will be used in conjunction with high-frequency spectrum, which has limited propagation, a large number of small cells will be required to properly cover any given area. • Given the role that small cells will have in supporting next-generation services, it is clear that investment in these cells by wireless carriers will be of increasing importance in the coming years. In order to successfully deploy small cells, a wireless carrier must, among other things, (i) negotiate with owners (e.g., municipalities) for access to passive infrastructure, (ii) negotiate with carriers (in the absence of a tariff) and hydro companies for access to poles, and (iii) build or acquire access to fibre-based transport sufficient to support the service. Detailed Benefits of WIFI 6 30 Wi-Fi 6 Wi-Fi 6 is the last iteration of 802.11 standards developed through ratification in the past 20 years, starting with the original standard 802.11a (1997) and 802.11b (1999), 802.11g (2003), 802.11n (2009) and 802.11ac (2013). While pre-standard Wi-Fi 6 wireless LAN (WLAN) access points (APs) are available in the market, the 802.11ax standard won’t be officially ratified until late 2019. Backward Compatibility • Backward compatibility is an important aspect when a new Wi-Fi standard comes out. Historically the wireless local access network (WLAN) access points offerings included a separate “legacy” radio to support “legacy” devices, namely wireless clients that did not support the “new” technology. • Backward compatibility allows integration with legacy 802.11ac and 802.11n infrastructure. This provides the option for enterprises to gradually upgrade to Wi-Fi 6. • While it is backward compatible with 802.11a/g/n/ac, the full benefits of deploying it will only come into play when wireless clients also support Wi-Fi 6. Compared to the overall global installed base of wireless clients, a rather limited percentage of devices supporting Wi-Fi 6 will be available over the next three years. Higher Data Rates • Wi-Fi 6 promises better user experience and a higher number of users supported per access points. Wi-Fi 6 can provide up to 10 Gbps of wireless throughput operating in the 5GHz frequency band, which is an apparent upgrade from the previous 75 Mbps and 2.4GHz. Today the theoretical data rates of 802.11n at 2.4GHz are 75 Mbps per radio • The potential to deliver theoretical throughput close to 10 Gbps will struggle to find real-life implementation for the city public Wi-Fi due to limitations related to the data subcarrier (signal) modulation scheme. 29 https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2019/2019-57.htm 30 Magic Quadrant for the wired and wireless LAN access infrastructure (Gartner 2018) - 397 - | Appendix – Public Wi-Fi 34 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Internet of Things (IoT) There have been many reports in the past several years around the IoT which highlight how IoT is changing our world as we know it through the rollout of connected devices. The City has been approached by several companies who would like to implement technologies which will support the development of a connected community and enable the City to use IoT connected devices for many of their operations. These proposals are being assessed on an ongoing basis for appropriateness and viability. Some examples of potential outcomes would include: smart internet enabled light-posts, environmental sensors, additional cameras, and advanced tracking on fleet vehicles, to name a few. Broader access to free public Wi-Fi has been proposed by many companies, however the City must ensure that the business interest and privacy of the public is taken into consideration when reviewing these proposals, as ownership of user data is a key factor to consider. As a primer, key IoT technologies include: • Digital business technology platforms such as wireless payment processing, or corporate systems run on devices • Edge AI, which means that AI algorithms are processed locally on a hardware device. The algorithms are using data (sensor data or signals) that are created on the device. A device using Edge AI does not need to be connected in order to work properly, it can process data and take decisions independently without a connection. • Event stream processing • IoT edge architecture to ensure devices are running on latest code • IoT integration so that devices can be connected to management systems • Information technology/operational technology (IT/OT) - 398 - | Appendix – Public Wi-Fi 35 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Key use cases for IoT include autonomous vehicles, building information modeling, indoor location for assets, and IoT enabled product as a service, which could all be applicable to municipalities. The following image shows where key IoT technology are in their development and rollout. It is taken from Gartner’s hype cycle which shows the trend line for each of the pieces of the technology and where they are in their general development and roll-out. (Hype Cycle for the Internet of Things, 2019, Gartner, Inc.) Sample Wi-Fi Terms of Use Standard terms of use You must agree to the following text before using our wireless hotspot. Policy Statement Use of this network contrary to the operational and management objectives is unacceptable and prohibited. Scope This Policy applies to all customers and to all other users of this hotspot. Prohibited Uses Examples of prohibited uses of this hotspot are described below. The examples are guidelines and are not intended to be exhaustive. - 399 - | Appendix – Public Wi-Fi 36 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Illegal/Criminal Activity This network may not be used in connection with criminal or civil violations of laws, regulations, or other government requirements of any jurisdiction. Such violations include theft or infringement of copyrights, patents, trademarks, trade secrets, or other intellectual property, export control violations, fraud, forgery, pyramid or other prohibited business schemes; and theft, misappropriation, or unauthorized transmission or storage of funds, credit card information, personal information, or online services. Security Violations This hotspot may not be used to violate the security of a network, service or other system. Examples of this may include hacking, cracking, monitoring, or using systems without authorization; port scanning; conducting denial of service attacks; distributing viruses or other harmful software; smurf attacks; and unauthorized alteration or destruction of websites or other information. Threats This hotspot may not be used to transmit or store material of a threatening nature, including threats of death or physical harm, harassment, libel, and defamation. Offensive materials This hotspot may not be used to transmit or store material of an offensive nature, including obscene, pornographic, indecent, abusive and harmful materials, or to transmit to recipients material which is inappropriate for them, including obscene or offensive materials to children. Spam This hotspot may not be used to spam. Spam includes any of the following activities: • Sending any unsolicited email that could be expected to provoke complaints. • Sending email that does not accurately identify the sender, the sender’s return address, and the email address of origin. • Sending unsolicited email without identifying in the email a clear and easy means to be excluded from receiving additional email from the originator of the email. • Collecting the responses of unsolicited email. Sending email with charity requests, petitions for signatures, or any chain mail related materials. • Posting a single message, or messages similar in content to more that five online forums or newsgroups. • Posting messages to an online forum or newsgroup that violate the rules of the forum or newsgroup. Security System This hotspot may not be used, directly or indirectly, with systems that are not configured and maintained in a manner which prevents their use by others in violation of this Policy. Examples include improperly securing a server so that it may be used by others to conduct a denial of service attack, improperly securing a mail server so that it may be used by others to distribute spam, and improperly securing an FTP server so that it may be used by others to illegally distribute licensed software. Application visibility Application Visibility and Control (AVC) classifies applications using deep packet inspection techniques with the Network-Based Application Recognition (NBAR) engine, and provides application-level visibility and control (QoS) in wireless networks.31 This is relevant for the City as it will be needed for using enterprise applications at the various facilities where Wi-Fi is present. For example, accessing the ERP to make a request would need application visibility. Factors that will impact equipment selection include: 31 https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/wireless/controller/7- 4/configuration/guides/consolidated/b_cg74_CONSOLIDATED/b_cg74_CONSOLIDATED_chapter_01111.html - 400 - | Appendix – Public Wi-Fi 37 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. • Size of area to be served, which determines the number of access points required and the range of each access point; • Number of devices to be supported; • Mobility, such as if users need transparent handoff from one AP to the next; • Type of activity supported; • Network Control, per AP or centralized; • Spectrum and standards; • Content filtering; and • Indoor vs. outdoor deployment. Other This hotspot may not be used in a manner that damages the owner’s reputation or goodwill; violates another ISP’s acceptable use policy and/or terms of service; or interferes with another’s use of the network. Attempts This hotspot may not be used to attempt an activity prohibited by this Policy – whether or not successful. General Under no circumstances, including, but not limited to, negligence, shall the owner of this hotspot, its subsidiary and parent companies or affiliates be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, special or consequential damages that result from the use of, or the inability to use this hotspot. You specifically acknowledge and agree that the owner of this hotspot is not liable for any defamatory, offensive or illegal conduct of any user. If you are dissatisfied with these terms and conditions, your sole and exclusive remedy is to discontinue using this service Notable Definitions 1. Gigahertz is a measure of speed vibration 2. Gbps, short for Gigabits per second, a data transfer speed measurement for high-speed networks 3. Orthogonal frequency-division multiple access (OFDMA) is a method of encoding data on multiple carrier frequencies. Multiple access is achieved by assigning subsets of subcarriers to multiple users. 4. Basic Service Set (BSS) Coloring: “BSS Coloring” assigns a numerical identifier (color) based on the channel used by the basic service set (BSS, also known as the AP radio with the associated connected clients). This method is used to identify and mitigate overlapping BSSs, decreasing channel contention problems. 5. Backhaul technology: In a hierarchical telecommunications network, the backhaul portion of the network comprises the intermediate links between the core network, or backbone network, and the small subnetworks at the edge of the network. Visualizing the entire hierarchical network as a human skeleton, the core network would represent the spine, the backhaul links would be the limbs, the edge networks would be the hands and feet, and the individual links within those edge networks would be the fingers and toes. 6. Network topology: Network topology is the arrangement of the elements (links, nodes, etc.) of a communication network. Network topology can be used to define or describe the arrangement of various types of telecommunication networks, including command and control radio networks, industrial field busses and computer networks) Current Deployment Maps The following pages are visual representations of where there is currently free public Wi-Fi at the City. The representations are based on information received by the City and provide a more detailed view of the current Wi-Fi deployment by Ward. A green label indicates current Wi-Fi access, while a red label indicates no current Wi-Fi access. The maps also include the amount of access points at each location. - 401 - | Appendix – Public Wi-Fi 38 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. - 402 - | Appendix – Public Wi-Fi 39 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. - 403 - | Appendix – Public Wi-Fi 40 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. - 404 - | Appendix – Public Wi-Fi 41 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. - 405 - | Building permitting system report 42 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Building permitting system report Introduction Service Review Objective The objective of the building permit report was to identify technology options that can expedite the time to issue building permits, thus increasing productivity in the building permit division, and identify other areas which could realize cost savings, as well as understand the investment in an electronic permitting system. Figure 1: Project Steps Summary: The project steps diagram below illustrates the steps taken as part of this investigation beginning with initial interviews, information gathering, research analysis, followed by development, and finalization of report. Research Methodology The research methodology for the building permit report was to first conduct a preliminary analysis of the current building permitting process at the City of Pickering. This consisted of engaging with key members of the building permitting team in order to understand the City’s current operational deficiencies, along with researching technological advances in the permitting sector in order to identify current state gaps. Once the current state gaps were identified in terms of functional deficiencies of the current system and industry best practices, follow-up inquiries were made with the permitting team in order to better understand the department’s functional requirements for a new system. Scope The scope of the research conducted as determined by the City of Pickering is described below: • Understand the current paper-based building permit application process at the City of Pickering in order to identify deficiencies experienced by users in the current process. • Work with the City’s personnel to determine critical requirements for an electronic building permit system. • Perform research on available building permit systems that could assist the City of Pickering in improving its efficiency and productivity in the issuance of building permits. In particular, examining potential solutions that could provide benefits in areas including but not limited to permit intake, review and document management, system integration, payment processing, inspections, and built-in tracking functions. - 406 - | Building permitting system report 43 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Approach In order to conduct the research for the report, the following approach was used: • Research and understand the building permit industry in order to ensure the City of Pickering is in alignment with industry standards in terms of client service, productivity, and cost savings. • Analyze the City’s current operational state and identify current state gaps preventing the City from performing at optimal efficiency. • Use functional requirements derived from the City’s current state gap analysis developed in the previous step to identify and assess potential-fit building permit technology options. • Provide a cost-benefit analysis in order to quantify the benefits of purchasing and implementing an electronic permitting solution that would meet the City’s requirements. - 407 - | Background 44 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Background Industry Background Municipalities across Ontario and Canada are falling behind their international counterparts in adapting to emerging permitting technologies which is resulting in delays in permit approval time, along with increased construction costs. According to RESCON, “…many developers and builders alike believe that the time it takes to submit all of the required paperwork and receive the applicable approvals, and the building permit itself, is often longer than the actual physical construction of the project.”32 Likewise, adhering to Ontario building code requirements takes time, and having a paper-based application system only delays the process. Therefore, it is essential for the City of Pickering to optimize their permitting process through electronic submission and review in order to meet the following corporate priorities as discussed in figure 2 below.33 Figure 2: City of Pickering Corporate Priorities Summary: The City of Pickering’s corporate priorities are corporate engagement, corporate best practices, and financial management. The corporate priorities are described in the illustration below as follows: 32 Modernizing Building Approvals in Ontario Report, Rescon Residential Construction and Ryerson University, https://www.ryerson.ca/content/dam/cur/pdfs/RESCON/CUR_RESCON_Modernizing%20Building%20Approvals%20in%20 Ontario%20Report_2017.07.05.pdf 33 Corporate priorities derived from Business Case for Electronic Permit Solution - 408 - | Background 45 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. City of Pickering Background Currently, the City’s permitting application process is conducted by a paper-based system., and is confined to the City’s hours of operations as applicants have to physically visit the City to submit permit applications, and pay permit fees. The submission package is made up of application forms, construction drawings, approvals from other parties, and supporting documentation. This process is inefficient and is resulting in late tax revenue for the City and increased operational costs as a result of storing paper and stationary costs, along with staff performing clerical tasks such as data entry for application submission, and communicating status of application. The building permit department is responsible for the following: • Managing the City’s permit submission process • Communicating permit status to stakeholders • Scheduling residential and commercial inspections, and • Issuing permits and resolving permit disputes. The current building permitting software provider Calytera, formally known as CSDC, is a US-based company providing building permitting solutions with options of web-based, cloud, and on-premises data storage. The City has adopted the Amanda system as a back office tool to record permit intakes, schedule inspection requests, and process payments. The City currently pays $25,000 annually in licensing fees for the permitting software. Upon inquiries and meetings with the City, the team learned that the City is currently in the process of transitioning to a system upgrade next year as the existing system is not user-friendly. The City will upgrade to the Amanda 7 system next year as the current version of the software will no longer be supported after January 2021. The Amanda 7 upgrade will cost approximately $190,000 and will enhance greater efficiencies in the permitting process. These improvements include but are not limited to an upgraded user interface with the ability to make user level changes to enhance inter-department workflow, along with advanced search and analytical tools for graphical review and analysis. Therefore it’s essential for the new e-permitting system to integrate with the City’s existing Amanda system. Based on the above analysis, adopting an e-permitting solution would expedite the timely issuance of permits and will help rectify the critical issues identified in the current process. An e-permitting solution will electronically accept, review, schedule, and assign inspections, while communicating status updates in real- time to both applicants and staff. - 409 - | Key findings 46 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Key findings The following are the key findings uncovered during interviews with the City of Pickering as part of this service review. These findings were used when determining potential solution providers to include in the assessment described in the Functional and Non-Functional Requirement section of this report. 1. The City’s current permitting process is heavily reliant on paper and lacks the ability to automate key permitting tasks such as application submission, permit review, and payment processing. The lack of integration and functionality required in order to realize efficiencies, reduce costs, and improve day-to- day functions is resulting in the following challenges experienced by the City staff: • Added delays in issuing permits as staff is manually inputting data, processing payments, along with reviewing and stamping plans for compliance on paper. The legacy paper-based application system currently takes 3 weeks to review and issue a permit for a detached dwelling home permit, far below the industry standard of a few days under an e-permitting solution. • Increased costs associated with paper, office supplies, and stationary. • Increased clerical costs associated with data entry. 2. The current system does not calculate permit fees correctly and does not notify the City of any overcharges. The overcharges have resulted in $70,000 being returned to residents in 2018 based on the City’s internal review. There could be additional miscalculations that the City has still not uncovered, and it is recommended that the City performs an in-depth analysis to further uncover miscalculations in permit fees, and potentially hire external independent consultants to support the assessment. To rectify any future errors in overcharges, the new system needs to integrate with the City’s existing ERP system. 3. The current system lacks the ability of applicants to review their permit status in real-time, which results in delays as the City informs residents of additional information requests, outstanding payments, or status inquiries in person, or on the phone. To reduce the paper footprint and call volume of residents visiting or calling in to the City regarding their application status, the new system needs to provide users with the ability to review their application status online in real-time, and show which phase their application process is in (initial review or inspection). A built-in tracking function with active dashboards will enable the City to notify applicants of any pending application tasks such as outstanding payments, submission of plans, or missing application information, which further enhances efficiencies in the permitting process. 4. The current manual scheduling process for inspections is inefficient and it has resulted in scheduling errors, along with inspector task-lists for inspections not being generated correctly which is currently conducted by the scheduler. To reduce errors in scheduling, the new system should provide applicants with the ability to book inspections online, and the system should have the ability to automatically assign, route, and schedule inspections. The system should provide the City with the opportunity to configure the process of automatic scheduling based on custom defined rules and inspector availability. In addition, the new system will need to provide inspectors with the ability to generate and view task lists on mobile devices. 5. As mentioned above, inspectors currently do not have mobile capabilities to make field changes to plans regardless of geographic location. Instead, inspectors are currently logging in through VPN Citrix on their laptops to make changes. Thus, the new system must allow inspectors to view field data in real-time through GIS technology, enabling inspectors to see exactly what changes on the field will look like in real-time. The key features of GIS technology are discussed on page 47 of this report. - 410 - | Key findings 47 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. A new enhanced building permitting system will bring more automation to the current process, and convert documents to electronic format, which will result in improved citizen service, and reduced costs. The flow chart in figure 3 depicts the flow of an e-permitting process enabled by a system. Figure 3: E-Permitting System Process Flow Summary: An e-permitting system can automate a number of functions including submission of applications, payment processing, electronic review of permits, and issuance of permits. The illustration below depicts the process flow of a permitting application. The process flow steps in blue represent responsibilities of the applicants and green represents the responsibilities of the City that can be performed electronically through an e-permitting system. Legend: Current State Gaps The next section looks into current state gaps which were derived during meetings with key members of the building permitting team. During the meeting it was uncovered that the gaps the City is facing with the current building permit system revolve around: • Permit Intake • Review and Document Management • System Integration • Payment Processing • Inspections, and • Built-In Tracking Functions. The table in the next section depicts the current state gaps identified in the existing system. Submit Application + Review Fees Accept Application (Completeness Check) Review Application (Inspection + Fire) Approve Application Pay Building Permit Fees Issue Certificate of Occupancy Request Certificate of Occupancy Pay any Outstanding Fees and Submit Drawings, if Applicable Applicants City Staff Inspections Construction Issue Permit - 411 - |Key Findings 48 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Current State Gaps Permit Intake Review and Document Management System Integration Payment Processing Current System Current System Current System Current System Paper-based application submission in Amanda. The review process is currently conducted manually on paper. Amanda and the current SAP ERP system are not integrated, resulting in fees not being calculated correctly. Payments are currently made in- person at the City Hall. Current State Gaps Current State Gaps Current State Gaps Current State Gaps Applications are submitted on paper and entered into the system by staff which is taking up both time and cost associated with staff performing clerical tasks such as redundant data entry which can be automated. Additional functions required: Automatic 24/7 electronic application submission. The current review process consists of staff manually reviewing applications for errors and stamping each permit plan for compliance by hand. This is a highly time consuming process and electronic review can help automate this process. Additional functions required: Staff have the ability to mark- up and stamp applications online through e-review. Automatic routing of permit workflow to appropriate division (examination or zoning). The Amanda system does not integrate with the City’s current SAP accounting system. This has resulted in multiple errors in staff reconciling accounts incorrectly as the Amanda system only showcases sub-totals without illustrating the accounts receivables outstanding. Additional functions required: Ability to provide daily AR reconciliation summaries in order to avoid overcharges. Ability to integrate with SAP to enable effective processing of financial data in order to ensure data integrity and avoid overcharges. Payments are currently made by applicants in person. This leads to delay in the building permit process as applicants need to visit the City’s offices during business hours to make changes. Additional functions required: Notify applicants of outstanding payments in real-time. Ability to mandate fee payments both at the time of application and at the time of permit pick up. - 412 - | Key Findings 49 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Current State Gaps Inspections Built-In Tracking Function Current System Current System Calytera’s Amanda System is used for scheduling. Inspectors call into VPN Citrix to make changes. Calytera Amanda System. Current State Gaps Current State Gaps The scheduler books inspections in Amanda based on user requests (done by phone or online form). This has resulted in multiple scheduling errors. Similarly, inspectors have to login into Citrix VPN on their computer to make changes from the field as they currently do not have mobile capabilities. Additional functions required: Users schedule inspections through e-portal. GIS map integration allowing inspector to access data in real-time regardless of geographic location and device used (mobile or laptop). The current system is not user-friendly and it is only accessed by internal staff. Applicants currently do not have any ability to view the status of their application online, instead the back office staff provides status updates by phone or answer questions when residents visit the City office. Additional function is required for: Dashboards that enable residents to see status of application in real- time. - 413 - |Key Findings 50 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Key Features of E-Permitting System In addition to the current state gaps identified above, further research was conducted to identify other aspects of e-permitting systems deemed as critical capabilities within the permitting industry. These capabilities include but are not limited to payment processing tools, review and document management, built-in tracking functions, data analytics, as well as GIS integration and mobile capabilities. Payment Processing Tools Electronic payment processing tools are becoming a norm in the permitting industry as providers are going beyond normal security standards, while adhering to municipal financial and tax rules. Certain providers are offering financial tracking capabilities that can be audited, along with solutions that support fee creation, payments, waivers, refunds, chargebacks, NSF tracking for cheques, and deposits for prepayments. Given the current deficiencies in the payment processing system at the City, implementing a payment processing tool will enhance efficiencies at the City. As providers are beginning to offer applications that not only integrate with a municipalities existing ERP system, but also provide their own financial systems that can provide daily reconciliation summaries, this further heightens the benefits of implementing an e-permitting solution. Review and Document Management According to RESCON, the industry is moving towards electronic review and document management as a way for the future. 34 Reviewing applications, construction blueprints, and subsequent review documents in paper is leading to an increase in both paper and storage costs. As a result, the City of Pickering’s review of building permit applications is highly time consuming, as staff are manually reviewing and stamping documents in order to ensure compliance. Additionally, multiple case studies have demonstrated the inefficiencies experienced by municipalities across the globe. For instance “…Salt Lake City, Utah, reduced paper consumption by approximately 512,000 lbs, recognizing a cost savings of nearly $1.5M (CAD) per year and Miami Florida reduced plans review time from 322 days to 2 months.” 35 The municipality’s process entailed of processing and reviewing applications 100% on paper. The operational efficiencies experienced by municipalities is a result of certain systems ability to effectively route workflow to appropriate divisions, providing reviewers with the ability to electronically mark-up, approve plans, and request subsequent plans from applicants, while securely managing documents on the e- portal. Given the building department spent just under $6,500 last year in costs associated with photocopying permitting documents, this shows the cost savings opportunity to implement an e-permit review solution, hence leading to a more sustainable environment.36 34 Modernizing Building Approvals in Ontario Report, Rescon Residential Construction and Ryerson University, https://www.ryerson.ca/content/dam/cur/pdfs/RESCON/CUR_RESCON_Modernizing%20Building%20Approvals%20in%20 Ontario%20Report_2017.07.05.pdf. 35 Derived from Business Case for Electronic Permit Solution, provided by City staff. 36 Derived from Information derived from Total Activity Maps, provided by City staff. - 414 - | Key findings 51 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Built-in Tracking Function Dashboards create user specific reports in real-time which is currently not available in the existing system. Through interactive dashboards, both clients and staff can see exactly what stage of the permitting process their application is at. This further improves cross-functional communication channels between staff members, as users can derive, update, and upload documents, while communicating with clients in real-time. Data Analytics Through data visualization tools, certain systems provide management with the ability to improve service delivery to citizens by generating performance reports catered specifically to divisional results. This allows management to identify areas of critical weaknesses and to implement mitigating measures in a timely manner. GIS Integration and Mobile Capabilities Through geospatial data from satellite imaging, aerial photography and remote sensors, GIS technology can show exactly what changes on the ground will look like in real-time for effective decision making.37 Considering there is an industry wide trend in performing inspections through mobile-based applications, this will further enhance the City’s ability to deliver service excellence to the residents of Pickering as inspectors can view site data via mobile capabilities at any time regardless of geographic location. Similarly, certain providers are offering mobile-based applications or systems that configure with mobile apps, allowing inspectors to derive and update data in real-time, thus reducing the time spent by inspectors on reviews. According to Accela, GIS technologies helps inspectors maximize their time in the field and complete more inspections scheduled for the day. Functional and Non-Functional Requirement The diagrams depicted on the following pages illustrate the functional and non-functional requirements that the City expects the building permit system to meet. The functional and non-functional requirements are defined as follows: • A functional requirement defines the system abilities that a potential providers system should adhere to. • A non-functional requirement will place constraints on how the system will perform those functionalities. 37 Why GIS is important in Urban Planning, University of Southern California, 2019. “The use of mobile technology and interactive mapping capabilities allows our inspectors to accomplish their daily tasks more efficiently.” City of Washington, DC - 415 - |Key Findings 52 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Functional Requirements User-friendly System Built-in Tracking Function Cost Reduction System payment configuration Enables Data Analytics Timely Issuance of Permits Automation Goal: To research providers that offer user-friendly electronic portals. Users can easily submit permit applications 24/7 in a user-friendly portal. Functional Requirement Automation Goal: System enables applicants to view permit status. System enables users to view permit status in real-time, and submit subsequent information. Functional Requirement s Automation Goal: System reduces operational costs. Ability of system to automate clerical tasks, thus reducing costs associated with data entry and paper storage. Functional Requirement s Automation Goal: System interfaces with SAP accounting system to enable online fee payments. Ability of system to easily configure with SAP and other platforms to enable efficient online fee payments. Functional Requirement Automation Goal: System enables staff to enhance services through data analytics. Ability of system to integrate with GIS Maps and produce reports through data visualization tools. Functional Requirement s Automation Goal: System expedites the building permit process. Ability of system to automate clerical tasks, resulting in timely issuance of permits. Functional Requirement - 416 - |Key Findings 53 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Non-Functional Requirements Ontario Code Requirements Cloud/On- Premise Automation Goal: Ensure providers system adheres to Ontario building code requirements. Automation Goal: To research providers that offer cloud/on-premise deployment. Automation Goals: To research details on system recovery plans. Automation Goal: To research systems with high level of security and compliance. Automation Goal: To research providers that offer alternatives in communicating with users. Automation Goal To research providers that offer users with operational support. Provider has presence in Ontario, along with systems ability to easily adapt to changes in legislation. Non-Functional Requirements Provider offers a choice of either cloud or on premise services. The cloud platform must have reliable recovery solutions. The system must abide by high standards for security in order to ensure data integrity. Providers offer alternative methods to communicate such as instant e- mail notification or messaging via text and phone. The system should offer users with support guides, videos, and self-service tutorials as well as helpdesk. Data Recovery Security Communication User Support Non-Functional Requirements Non-Functional Requirements Non-Functional Requirements Non-Functional Requirements Non-Functional Requirements - 417 - |Cost-Benefit Analysis 54 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Cost-benefit analysis Overview This section looks at the high level cost-benefit analysis of implementing an e-permitting solution. The cost quotes discussed in this section are estimates, and the actual costs will vary depending on the City’s selected vendor, system functionality, integration, and deployment option (on-premise or cloud). One of the major deficiencies in the City’s existing paper-based permitting system is the time it takes to issue building permits. As mentioned in the Key Findings section on page 42, it currently takes takes 3 weeks to review and issue a permit for a detached dwelling home permit, far below the industry standard of a few days under an e-permitting system. Ultimately, delays in the permitting process, can have a significant financial impact such as delayed recognition of tax revenue. Not only does a paper-based permitting system impact delays in recognition of property tax revenue (as discussed on page 52), but it also has an impact on the housing market as a Fraser Institute report found that a 6 month delay in approvals, reduces growth in new housing supply by 3.7%.38 Thus, the City of Pickering should consider implementing an e-permitting solution in order to avoid a decline in new housing supply and prevent delays in tax revenue. The discussion below illustrates the market costs, benefits, and potential cost savings of implementing an e-permitting system. Also included in this section are results of our research on quotes from vendors providing e-permitting solutions to municipalities across Ontario, and a breakdown of the different cost components. On average the cost of implementing this type of system is between $1M to $1.8M.39 Market Cost & Illustrative Quotes This section looks into the high-level cost estimates derived from meeting minutes and council reports for the City of Windsor and the City of Kingston, which are publicly available. The costs include but are not limited to system installation, software maintenance, implementation, and training fees. The City has the option to purchase the system and host it on-premise or on the cloud through various hosting platforms not limited to Microsoft Azure, Amazon Web Servers (AWS), Google, or Salesforce cloud. Maintenance costs for e-permitting solutions can vary by provider and can be based on percentage of licensing fees, number of applications processed, or the number of subscriptions. Cloud-Based Deployment The costs below were derived from the City of Windsor’s deployment of a cloud-based e-permitting system.40 Please note that the costs outlined below are estimates from Evolta based on the City’s implementation plan, and actual figures will likely vary depending on the implementation strategy adopted. 38 Fraser Institute, The Impact of Land-Use Regulation on Housing Supply in Canada, 2016. 39 City of Windsor Meeting Minutes, June 2018 and City of Kingston Report to Council June, 2014. 40 City of Windsor Meeting Minutes, June 2018. - 418 - |Cost-Benefit Analysis 55 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Figure 4: Cloud-Based Development and Implementation Costs Summary: The following table outlines the cost estimates for a cloud-based deployment of an e-permitting system. The cost quotes include but are not limited to deployment of a cloud-based software system including development of user interface (both internal and external), mobile capabilities, GIS integration, electronic review portal, and training. Moreover, this includes system configuration and integration with the Amanda system, including implementation of an off-site cloud based system, and built-in tracking functionality enabling users to clearly see stages and progress of both application and inspection results. Cost Scope Cost (in CAD) Phase 1 Business process development Departmental staff and customer workshops Development of user interface software including: online application, engagement and consultation, payment, status updates, and issuance of permit $589,000 Phase 2 Development of inspections module Mobile interface for inspections Scan code development $195,000 Phase 3 Electronic archive development Document management and search engines Online document storage systems $189,000 Phase 4 System integration and internal staffing costs $414,785 Phase 5 Includes the following additional assumptions: ‒ Financing costs ‒ Equipment ‒ Contingency (10%) $125,000 $40,000 $150,000 $1,720,8875 Software Management and Maintenance Costs The ongoing system management and maintenance costs for the City of Windsor cover data storage, troubleshooting assistance, and any future upgrades to the system. This consists of both a fixed and variable fee (based on the number of applications processed). The City of Windsor processes approximately 5,400 applications per year, with an annual fee of $9,000, and a variable fee of $40 per application processed. The software management and maintenance costs are estimates, and actual fees will vary depending upon the number of applications processed. On-Premise Deployment The cost estimates discussed in this section were derived from the City of Kingston’s request for proposal process for an on-premise system deployment.41 Please note these costs are estimates to provide an 41City of Kingston Report to Council, June 2014. - 419 - |Cost-Benefit Analysis 56 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. illustrative quote that is being offered in the market, and actual costs will vary depending on the City’s defined scope and strategy for the implementation, as well as the system selected. The City of Kingston received quotes for deployment of an on-premises system from Accela, Computronix, and Calytera. The costs quoted from these vendors are as follows: $1,233,504 for Accela, $1,896,650 for Computronix, and $1,569,326 for the Calytera System. These quotes are based on the costs for software, hardware, training, along with support, and implementation services. As mentioned above, these are illustrative estimates, and actual costs will vary depending on the scope, solution, level of integration, and implementation strategy selected. The key features of the system quotes include enhancing user experience for both staff and residents through mobile capabilities, built-in tracking functions, document management, and automation of review tasks. Benefits This section describes the qualitative and quantitative (potential cost saving) benefits of implementing an e- permitting system for the City of Pickering, along with the cost savings experienced by municipalities across Ontario and Canada in implementing an e-permitting system. The high level qualitative benefits of implementing an e-permitting solution for the City includes: • Faster issuance of building permits • Increased tax revenue • Reduction in costs associated with paper storage • Increased workforce productivity as staff will be spending less time on clerical tasks, and • Improved communication channels between City Staff and applicants, as users will be able to view application status in real-time through active dashboards. Apart from the benefits discussed above, municipalities both in Ontario, and across Canada have experienced cost savings in multiple areas. According to Rescon and Ryerson University’s report on “Modernizing Building Permits”, municipalities have experienced the following cost savings as a result of implementing an e- permitting solution:42 • Reduction in manpower by 44% as staff are no longer needed to perform clerical data-entry duties • Reduction in printing costs associated with permit applications by 72%, and • Reduction of storage costs associated with storing permit documents and inspection blueprints by 65%. Along with the cost savings experienced by municipalities across Canada as discussed above, jurisdictions have also prevented delays in recognition of property tax revenue as a result of implementing an e- permitting system. According to the “Evaluation of Current Construction Permitting Process in City of Toronto and Future of Permitting in the Global Construction Industry” report, a one year delay in high-density buildings can result in millions of dollars delayed in tax revenue.43 For example, consider a high-density building with 250 units worth $400,000 each. A one year delay in building approvals at the City of Pickering based on the City’s 2018 tax rate of (0.01153004), could potentially result in delayed recognition in tax revenue of $4,612 per unit, and approximately $1,153,005 for the entire building.44 These figures are just estimates to highlight the impact of delays in the permitting process can have on property tax revenues. Actual recognition will vary depending on the number of units pending approval, market growth, and current delay in the permit process. 42 Modernizing Building Approvals in Ontario Report, Rescon Residential Construction and Ryerson University, 2017. 43 Shahi, Kamellia, Evaluation of Current Construction Permitting Process in City of Toronto and Future of Permitting in the Global Construction Industry, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON 2018. 44 City of Pickering, Property Taxes, Pickering, ON 2018. - 420 - |Cost-Benefit Analysis 57 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Potential Cost savings As discussed above, this section provides an overview of the potential cost savings of implementing an e- permitting system at the City. The analysis includes reviewing areas of the City’s expected outcomes (extracted from the Pickering Project description overview) such as implementing built-in tracking functionalities, reducing staff and paper resources, along with expediting faster issuance of building permits as discussed in the potential increase in revenue section on page 56. Based on meetings and information provided by City staff, along with the analysis conducted around permitting activities, the potential cost savings for the City can be realized in five areas: photocopying, scanning, public inquiries (status updates), clerical data entry, and inspection assignment. The goal of this analysis was to identify areas where the e-permitting system can reduce and/or eliminate the time spent by City staff on clerical duties, thus leading staff to spend more time on specialist tasks. Additionally, apart from the cost savings identified in the permitting activity analysis below, the team discovered that costs associated with photocopying of $6,500 (discussed on page 46, and costs associated with scanning documents of $40,000 annually can be reduced significantly, as the City will no longer need staff to scan the permitting documents in the future. Additional cost savings could be realized through automation of other permitting functions that municipalities across Ontario have experienced, including: 1. Public Inquiries (Status Updates) ‒ This activity includes the time spent by Clerks, Zoning Examiner, and Supervisor at the Building Permits department, along with the Supervisor at the Building Inspections department in answering public queries such as status updates. 2. Input into System (Clerical Data Entry) ‒ This activity includes the time spent by the Building Services Clerks in inputting application information into the system. 3. Assign Examiner (Inspection assignment) ‒ This activity looks at the time spent by the Zoning Examiner in assigning inspections to inspectors. The estimated cost savings identified per permitting activity are outlined in figure 5 below. The actual savings will vary depending on level of public inquiries, employee salary metrics, and the actual time spent on each activity, which vary depending on permit type. - 421 - |Cost-Benefit Analysis 58 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Figure 5: Permit Activity Analysis Cost savings Summary: The information in the chart below shows the staff time spent on each permit type activity, and it was obtained from the Pickering 2017 process maps workbook which was provided by the Building Permitting team. he Pickering 2017 process map workbook shows the time spent by staff in performing key permitting activities for each permit type category. Given the sensitivity of sharing salary information, a conservative estimate of $30/hr has been used to quantify the staff’s effort involved in each permit type. Based on those assumptions, the estimated cost savings are outlined below: Annual Cost savings per Permit Type Activity Permit Type Category Public Inquiries (Status Updates) System Input (Clerical Data-Entry) Assign Examiner (Inspection Assignment) Assembly (Finished) City Initiated - Assembly Institutional (Finished) City Initiated Projects - Institutional Residential (apartment) Residential (other) Residential (stacked townhouses) Residential Minor Structures Residential Alteration Business Personal Service Industrial (Finished) Minor Non-Residential Structures Non-Residential Alterations Authority to Occupy Conditional Permit Demolition Permit Change of Use Permit Signs 95 95 75 75 75 85 85 95 35 60 75 55 35 65 35 15 140 0 30 30 30 30 30 20 20 15 10 30 30 0 10 15 15 10 15 25 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 20 10 0 5 5 0 0 5 25 Total activity (minutes) per month 1195 365 115 Total activity (minutes) annually 14340 4380 1380 Total savings at $30/hr $7,170 $2,190 $690 The City is expected to save the costs outlined in figure 5 as a result of automating key activities in the permitting process. The built-in tracking functionality may gradually reduce the amount of status inquiries from in-person City visits and phone inquiries, as the residents of Pickering can view the status of their applications in real-time. Additionally, the clerical staff may no longer need to input applicant information in the system as applicants can submit their applications online, thus eliminating the amount of clerical data - 422 - |Cost-Benefit Analysis 59 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. entry. Similarly, the zoning examiner may no longer need to spend time in assigning inspections, as the system could automatically assign and route inspections requested by applicants to inspectors. The City should initiate a business case to uncover further cost savings in permitting activities in order to quantity more accurate cost savings of implementing an e-permitting solution. Total Cost savings Given the data points and assumptions described on pages 53-54 the potential cost savings for the City would be $56,550 per year based on the cost saving areas of photocopying, scanning, public inquiries (status updates), clerical data entry, and inspection assignment. These figures are estimates regarding the level of permit activity and resources in terms of time and effort the City may expect to save as a result of automating key permitting tasks. Figure 6 below provides an overview of the potential cost savings that the City could experience as a result of implementing an e-permitting system. Figure 6: Annual Cost savings Summary: The table below describes illustrative cost savings areas such as photocopying, scanning, public inquiries (status updates), clerical data entry, and inspection assignment. Overall, the costs, benefits, and potential cost savings discussed above are estimates of the level of cost savings the City could experience as a result of implementing an e-permitting system. These are based on the effort levels found in Figure 5 as well as based on information received from the City defining total time spent on the activities described below. 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 Photocopying Scanning Public Inquiries (Status Updates) Clerical Data- Entry Inspection AssigningPotentoal annual savings ($)Legend Annual Cost savings Photocopying Scanning Public Inquiries (Status Updates) Clerical Data-Entry Inspection Assigning - 423 - |Cost-Benefit Analysis 60 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Potential Revenue Increase This section discusses the potential increase in building permit revenue based on estimates provided by leading e-permitting solution providers. Industry leaders in building permitting systems have estimated that on average municipalities that implement e-permitting systems can expedite the issuance of permits by 30-90%. Not only does this lead to faster issuance of building permits as a result of automating key permitting tasks, but it also increases building permitting revenue. As the City’s current building permit revenue for fiscal 2018 is $2,150,000, based on the August BP Activity report, a conservative assumption of 60% has been used as a best case scenario in order to conduct a sensitivity analysis.45 The midrange estimate of 60% is based on the average percentage quoted by various industry leaders (high-level 90% and low-end 30%). The team has conducted a sensitivity analysis based on a low-level of 30%, mid-level of 45%, and a high-level of 60% to derive projected revenue increases of $645,000, $967,500 and $1,290,000 respectively. Note that these assumptions are just estimates, and actual increase in revenue will vary depending on permit type, volume, and permitting fee structure. Figure 7: Permit Revenue Sensitivity Analysis Summary: The figure below depicts a sensitivity analysis regarding the potential increase in revenue as a result of implementing an e-permitting system. Both the projected annual increase, along with the total cumulative revenue (assumption based on projected annual increase and 2018 figure of $2,150,000) is illustrated below. Permit Revenue Sensitivity Analysis Ranges 30% (Low- Level) 45% (Mid-Level) 60% (High-Level) Projected annual increase in revenue $645,000 $967,500 $1,290,000 Cumulative Revenue46 $2,795,000 $3,117,500 $3,440,000 The potential cost savings of $56,550 and projected revenue increases of a minimum of $645,000 discussed above are just estimates of the quantitative benefits the City could experience as a result of implementing an e-permitting system. The City should consider initiating a formal business case to further quantify and accurately calculate the expected cost savings of implementing an e-permitting solution. 45 Information derived from August BP Activity report – provided by City staff. 46 Cumulative revenue calculation: 2018 revenue of $2,150,000 + projected annual increase in revenue per sensitivity level. - 424 - | Opportunity Areas 61 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Opportunity areas Following the discussion in the preceding section, the three system specific cost savings categories identified are: system automation, built-in tracking function, and inspections. Within each category the research has derived an opportunity area that the City can leverage as a result of implementing the e-permitting solution. System Automation Built-in Tracking Function Inspections The existing and potential cost savings in these three areas are based on RESCON and the University of Ryerson data, along with the City’s input regarding costing metrics. The team has reviewed each opportunity area, while identifying potential risks, benefits, and cost savings to the City in the following diagrams below. Minimize Clerical Data Entry Automate the permitting process and reduce the time spent by staff in performing clerical data entry tasks. Real-time tracking of application Enhance service delivery though built-in dashboards in order to provide status updates in real-time Inspection – GIS Maps Mandate a system providing real-time data access to inspectors through GIS Maps, enabling inspections to be requested, assigned, and routed automatically. Eliminate Paper Storage Leverage the benefits of the automated system by eliminating costs associated with paper storage. Cross-Functional Communication Establish communication between departmental information systems. This will achieve increased accuracy in cross- functional decision making. Mobile Access Provide inspectors with greater flexibility in reviewing site data in real-time through mobile access. Electronic Payment Process Ability of system to configure the payment processing application both at the time of application and at the time of permit pick up. - 425 - |Opportunity Areas 62 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. System Automation Potential Opportunity Description Next Steps Potential Savings Minimize time & costs associated with issuing building permits Opportunity • To automate the building permit application process through implementing a 24/7 self- serve electronic permitting system while eliminating the need to store paper. Current Operations • Applications are submitted in person during the City Halls hours of operation (Monday – Friday from 8:30 am – 4:30 pm). • Residents pay for fees in person as there is no online payment processing system set-up. Benefits • Staff can focus on specialist tasks as the automation of the permitting process will eliminate the time spent by clerical staff data- entering applicant information. • Provides residents with the flexibility to submit applications at their convenience 24/7. • Reduction in paper storage costs. Identify average time spent by City staff in entering application data and processing payments. Determine current costs associated with storing blue-prints and applications for permits. Research platforms that can auto- calculate fee payments, and configure the payment processing application both at the time of application submission (collect initial fees) and at the time of permit pick up (collect final payment). The City will no longer need to hire additional staff to scan documents which will result in cost savings of $40,000 per year. Eliminate photocopying costs of $6,500 per year, as applications will be stored on e-portal. The cost savings realized from clerical staff not manually entering applicant information is $2,190 per year (as mentioned on page 54). Risks/Pitfalls Server down-time or inability to process payments will impact citizen satisfaction. Citizens may find the system not user-friendly if resources/instructions are not clear. Staff may be susceptible or resistant to change as they are used to doing tasks in a certain way. Change management will be key in order to have a successful implementation. - 426 - |Opportunity Areas 63 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Built-In Tracking Function Potential Opportunity Description Next Steps Potential Savings Reduce costs associated with communicating permit status and improve cross-functional communication channels Opportunity • Built-in tracking function enabling applicants to see the status of their applications at any time through dashboards, without the need to attend the City's office during business hours. Current Operations • Residents can request for status updates by either calling in or visiting the City during business hours. • City Staff follows up by phone regarding any missing documents. Benefit • Reduces the time spent by staff members communicating status or following up with applicants as currently various level of staff spend 14,340 minutes in answering public inquiries. • Improved communication between departments as the status of applications is viewed in real-time through dashboards. • Identify average time spent by the City staff in communicating status updates. • Determine cost savings of staff time saved in communicating status. • The potential cost savings from staff time spent in addressing public inquiries/status updates via phone or in-person City visits is $7,170 (as mentioned on page 54). Risks/Pitfalls • Residents may still call or visit the City for more information if they are not satisfied with the information provided through the dashboards. - 427 - |Opportunity Areas 64 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Inspections Potential Opportunity Description Next Steps Potential Savings Improve efficiency in the inspection scheduling process Opportunity System that provides real-time data access to inspectors through GIS Maps, enabling inspections to be requested, assigned, and routed automatically through mobile access. Current Operations Inspections are currently booked either by phone or online by filling out an “Inspection Request Form.” There is currently one staff member allocated to scheduling and assigning inspections. Inspectors run task lists, conduct inspections, and dial in through Citrix Amanda to physically make a change through VPN. Benefit Eliminate errors and time spent by scheduler coordinating inspections. Greater efficiency as inspectors can make changes in real-time from the field through mobile access. Investigate the current time spent in scheduling, and rectifying errors by City staff. Quantify the cost savings of automating the scheduling process. Scheduler will no longer need to communicate with residents in order to book inspections, as system will automatically assign and route inspections. Potential savings of $690 annually if the system auto-assigns inspections to inspectors (as mentioned on page 54). (Due to the limited amount of information available for the inspections process, further investigation is needed to accurately quantify the cost savings.) Risks/Pitfalls May require supplementary plan in case of service downtime/unavailability. - 428 - |Technology Options 65 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Technology options The research conducted evaluated six potential providers such as Accela, Avolve, BasicGov, Computronix, and Evolta, along with the new edition of Calytera’s Amanda System for comparability purposes. In selecting the providers, this study has taken into account companies that were not only industry leaders in automating the permitting application process, but also those that have excelled in reducing operating costs, and enhancing departmental efficiencies in the permitting process. All of the companies selected, except for BasicGov, are internationally-based, therefore having existing establishments or pilot projects in a Ontario or licensing services in a Canadian jurisdiction, was fundamental in ensuring these companies could adhere to the Ontario Building Code Requirements. Other considerations to selecting the providers were: industry reviews through Capterra and Medium, system compatibility with the City’s existing ERP system, and the provider’s industry success in expediting the permitting process through reviews from multiple municipalities. The following chart provides a high level overview of how each solution meets the City’s expected business outcomes. Expected Business Outcomes 24/7 application Submission Built-in tracking Function Reduction in resource expenditures Interface with SAP to enable online payments Data Analytics - Reports Faster Issuance of Building Permits Automatically reconcile and track payments x x x x Legend: Meet the Expected Outcome Fail to Meet the Expected Outcome - 429 - |Functional Requirements 66 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Functional Requirements The following section discusses the functional requirements that a building permit application system should meet in order to achieve the City’s mandate for each relevant category identified earlier in the report. Electronic Application Submission The chart below for electronic application submission outlines the key functional requirements of an e-permitting tool. Functional Requirement Accela Avolve BasicGov Computronix Calytera Evolta Ability of system to support electronic portal in which building permit applicants can submit applications in a user- friendly manner 24/7. Yes, user-friendly citizen portal through the Accela Civic Platform. Yes, user friendly applicant submission through OAS. Yes, user-friendly citizen portal through COTS software solution. Yes, user-friendly citizen portal through POSSE software solution. Yes, user-friendly citizen portal through POSSE software solution. Yes, user-friendly applicant submission through Lupapiste. Ability of system to allow users to submit and review multiple applications for a single personal or business account. Yes, users can submit and review past submission of applications. Yes, users can submit and review past submission of applications. Yes, users can submit and review past submission of applications. Yes, users can submit and review past submission of applications. Yes, users can submit and review past submission of applications. Yes, users can submit and review past submission of applications. Ability of system to print and automatically generate permit and send to applicants. Yes, permit is automatically generated and sent to applicants. Yes, system can be configured to allow approved plans to be printed. Yes, option to configure system to notify applicants of updates. Does not appear to be core functionality, City will have to follow up with vendor to clarify. Not core functionality. Yes, system can be configured to allow approved plans to be printed. Confirmed Not core functionality Needs further investigation Legend - 430 - |Non-Functional Requirements 67 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. System Functionality and Built-In Tracking Function The chart below outlines the essential system functionalities and built-in tracking function to enable residents to review the status of their application in real-time. These functionalities enhance staff productivity in the review process, along with improve citizen services, as residents can update documents and review results. Functional Requirement Accela Avolve BasicGov Computronix Calytera Evolta Ability of system to auto-detect errors in application submission thereby reducing the lead time of staff reviewing applications. Yes, automatic notifications are sent to applicants informing them of missing content which can be submitted online. Yes, City can configure application requirements to prevent users from submitting incorrect information. Yes, incomplete applications will not be processed. Yes, City can configure application requirements to prevent users from submitting incorrect information. Yes, City can configure business rules to ensure the application is complete and valid from submitting incorrect information. Yes, automatic notifications are sent to applicants informing them of missing content which can be submitted online. Ability of system to request additional information from builders and deliver pass/fail results via e- mail, or mail. Yes, system requests and delivers pass/fail results via phone, email or mail. Yes, applicants can monitor review status and upload additional information. Yes, option to configure system to notify applicants of updates. Yes, option to configure system to notify applicants of updates. Yes, option to configure system to notify applicants of updates. Yes, applicants can monitor review status and upload additional information. Ability of system to support applicants and process status checking in real-time through dashboards, thereby reducing the time spent visiting/calling City offices. Yes, applicants are informed of status in real-time through the Civic Platform dashboard and can respond to corrections and upload revisions. Yes, applicants are informed of status through OAS dashboard in real- time and can respond to corrections and upload revisions. Yes, the portal can be configured to notify applicants of status through the COTS software solution. Yes, customer self- service portal can be configured based on City’s needs to deliver status updates. Yes, customer self- service portal can be configured based on City’s needs to deliver status updates. Yes, applicants are informed of application status through Lupapiste in real-time. Confirmed Not core functionality Needs further investigation Legend - 431 - |Non-Functional Requirements 68 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Review & Document Management The chart below depicts the functional requirements involved in order to enhance the City’s review process with automatic routing of workflows between departments, along with 100% electronic review, resulting in a reduction of paper, storage, and stationary costs. Functional Requirement Accela Avolve BasicGov Computronix Calytera Evolta Ability of system to route documents to the appropriate division using workflow such as examination staff or zoning review. Yes, system can be configured to route workflow to appropriate departments. Yes, system can be configured to route workflow to appropriate departments. Yes, system can be configured to route workflow to appropriate departments. Yes, automatic routing of license applications to all required departments. Yes, automatic routing of license applications to all required departments. Yes, system can be configured to route workflow to appropriate departments. Ability for multiple reviewers to review plans electronically, mark-up documents, and approve sections of plans simultaneously. Yes, multiple reviewers can share, mark-up, comment, and approve plans at the same time. Yes, multiple reviewers can share, mark-up, comment and approve plans at the same time. Yes, reviewers can review plans online and approve plans at the same time. Yes, multiple reviewers can share, mark-up and comment approve plans at the same time. Not core functionality, only some improvements with documents can be made. Yes, reviewers can review plans online and approve plans at the same time. Ability of system to support document management and document workflow capabilities, reducing the consumption of paper, supplies, and staff resources. Yes, system supports document management and workflow capabilities. Yes, system supports document management and workflow capabilities. Yes, system supports document management and workflow capabilities. Yes, system supports document management and workflow capabilities. Yes, system supports document management and workflow capabilities. Yes, system supports document management and workflow capabilities. Confirmed Not core functionality Needs further investigation Legend - 432 - |Non-Functional Requirements 69 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Payment Processing The chart below depicts functional requirements associated with the current deviations in the payment processing system including automatic fee calculation, along with the systems ability to configure the timing of fee payments. Functional Requirement Accela Avolve BasicGov Computronix Calytera Evolta Ability of system to auto- calculate fees applicable to applicants. Yes, permit fees are auto-calculated and applicants can pay fees online. Yes, permit fees are auto-calculated and applicants can pay fees online. Yes, permit fees are auto-calculated and applicants can pay fees online. Yes, permit fees are auto-calculated and applicants can pay fees online. Yes, permit fees are auto-calculated and applicants can pay fees online. Yes, permit fees are auto-calculated and applicants can pay fees online. Ability of system to support POS systems, enabling applicants to pay online. Yes, supports POS system, and applicants can pay fees online. Yes, supports POS system, and applicants can pay fees online. Yes, supports POS system, and applicants can pay fees online. Yes, supports POS system, and applicants can pay fees online. Yes, supports POS system, and applicants can pay fees online. Yes, supports POS system, and applicants can pay fees online. Ability of system to configure the payment processing application both at the time of application and at the time of permit pick up. Yes system can be configured to take initial deposit and final fee payment. Yes, system can be configured to take initial deposit and final fee payment. Yes system can be configured to take initial deposit and final fee payment. Yes, system can be configured to change timing of fee structures, but City will have to follow-up with vendor to see if timing can be changed between different intervals. Not core functionality. Yes system can be configured to take initial deposit and final fee payment. Confirmed Not core functionality Needs further investigation Legend - 433 - |Non-Functional Requirements 70 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Payment Processing and Financial System The chart below looks into the functional requirements of the payment processing tool to provide notifications to clients regarding existing payments, along with the systems ability to integrate with SAP, and provide daily reconciliation summaries. Functional Requirement Accela Avolve BasicGov Computronix Calytera Evolta Ability of system to integrate with the payment processing system in order to send automatic notifications to applicants regarding outstanding payments. Yes, system can be configured to notify applicants of outstanding payments. Yes, system can be configured to notify applicants of outstanding payments. Yes, system can be configured to notify applicants of outstanding payments. Yes system can be integrated, but will have to follow up with vendor whether e-mail notifications can be sent to notify outstanding payments. System can be configured to send notifications to users. City will need to follow-up to ensure payment notifications can be sent. Yes, system can be configured to notify applicants of outstanding payments. Ability of system to provide seamless interface with the City's SAP ERP accounting system to send journal entries to GL. Yes, website states system integrates with all ERP systems. Follow-up will be required to ensure SAP integration. Yes, integrates with SAP accounting system to enable online fee payments. Yes, website and Gartner states integrates with payment processing services. Follow-up is required to ensure SAP configuration. Yes, open interface that connects with all enterprise applications. Follow up is required to ensure SAP configuration. Yes, integrates with SAP accounting system. Yes, integrates with SAP accounting system. Ability of system to provide daily reconciliation summaries tracking all payments, including overcharges. Yes, CivicPay reconciles accounts in real-time. Not core functionality but system integrates with third-party reconciliation systems. Yes, Payment Cart and Fund Accounting modules can track daily payments and delivers accurate reconciliation information. Not core functionality but system integrates with third-party reconciliation systems. Not core functionality. Not core functionality but system integrates with third-party reconciliation systems. Confirmed Not core functionality Needs further investigation Legend - 434 - |Non-Functional Requirements 71 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Inspections The chart below depicts the functional requirements necessary to enable the inspections department to be more efficient, thus reducing errors in the scheduling process through system automation initiated by applicants. Functional Requirement Accela Avolve BasicGov Computronix Calytera Evolta Ability of system to allow applicants to request inspections online, thus mandating the system to assign, route, and schedule inspections automatically. Yes, inspections are requested online and scheduled, assigned, and routed automatically. Yes, inspections are requested online and scheduled, assigned, and routed automatically. Yes, inspections are requested online and scheduled, assigned, and routed automatically. Yes, inspections are requested online and scheduled, assigned, and routed automatically. Yes, applicants can request inspections via the E-plan portal or by phone. Yes, inspections are requested online and scheduled, assigned, and routed automatically. Ability of system to allow inspectors to access field inspection data in real-time and connect with GIS-ESRI. Yes, GIS capabilities produce interactive maps and data visualizations. Yes, plans anywhere allows staff to have field access through geo-location. Yes, partnered with two-way GIS sync solution. Yes, integration with GIS maps to track and compare data onto a visual map. Yes, the system provides embedded GIS for inspector to access data in real– time and connect with GIS maps. Yes, GIS integration is available. Ability of system to provide mobile-based applications in order to ensure inspectors can review the checklist and update data in real-time, regardless of geographic location. Yes, mobile-based app available. Yes, mobile-based app available. Yes, mobile-based app available. Yes, mobile-based app available. Yes, mobile-based app available. Yes, configures with mobile interface. Confirmed Not core functionality Needs further investigation Legend - 435 - |Non-Functional Requirements 72 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Data Analytics and System Integration The chart below depicts the high level functional requirements of whether the potential solutions can generate performance reports through data visualization tools, along with the systems ability to integrate with key operating systems at the City. Functional Requirement Accela Avolve BasicGov Computronix Calytera Evolta Ability of system to produce performance reports through data visualization tools in order to enhance the services delivered by management to residents. Yes, reporting and dashboard functionality allows users to derive insightful reports. Yes, analytical reports available to derive insightful reports. Yes, reporting and dashboard functionality allows users to derive insightful reports. Yes, browser-based business intelligence tool allows users to derive insightful reports. Yes, Amanda analytics creates reports that allows users to derive insightful reports. Yes, reporting database is provided for custom/ad-hoc reports. Ability of system to integrate with existing Amanda platform (Parthos Technology). Yes, system integrates with API connections. Yes, system integrates with API connections. Yes, system integrates with API connections Yes, system integrates with API connections. The City is in the process of integrating with Parthos. Yes, system integrates with API connections. Ability of system to support document record retention and integrate with the City’s current retention system Laserfiche. Yes, Accela is a Laserfiche partner. Yes, Avolve is a Laserfiche partner. Yes, Salesforce integrates with Laserfiche. No, specific mention of integration with Laserfiche, therefore City will need to follow up as Posse claims to integrate with all platforms via API. Yes, integrates with Laserfiche. Not out of the box but vendor offers option to develop custom solution. Confirmed Not core functionality Needs further investigation Legend - 436 - |Non-Functional Requirements 73 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Non-Functional Requirements The following section discusses the non-functional requirements that a building permit application system should meet in order to achieve the City’s mandate for each relevant category identified earlier in the report. Compliance The diagram below looks into whether the system has the ability to comply and adopt to new legislative changes associated with the Ontario Building Code requirements. Non-Functional Requirement Accela Avolve BasicGov Computronix Calytera Evolta Ability of system to adhere to Ontario Building Code requirements. Yes, system aligns to building code jurisdiction. Yes, system aligns to building code jurisdiction. Yes, system aligns to building code jurisdiction. Yes, system aligns to building code jurisdiction. Yes, system aligns to building code jurisdiction. Yes, system aligns to building code jurisdiction. Ability of system to be flexible and easily adapt to legislative changes in building code requirements. Yes, system is flexible and can be configured to new rules at any time. Yes, system is flexible and can be configured to new rules at any time. Yes, system is flexible and can be configured to new rules at any time. Yes, system is flexible and can be configured to new rules at any time. Yes, system is flexible and can be configured to new rules at any time. Yes, system is flexible and can be configured to new rules at any time. Confirmed Not core functionality Needs further investigation Legend - 437 - |Non-Functional Requirements 74 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. IT Security & Support The diagram below depicts the systems ability to offer cloud and on-premises deployment of the system including details on data hosting solutions, along with the provider’s security practices in terms of recovery plans. Non-Functional Requirement Accela Avolve BasicGov Computronix Calytera Evolta Ability of system to offer cloud/ on-premise deployment. Yes, both cloud and on-premise deployment. Yes, both cloud and on-premise deployment. Cloud Only. On-premise deployment. Yes, both cloud, and on-premise deployment. Yes, both cloud and on-premise deployment. Details on cloud hosting solutions and associated data center locations. Microsoft Azure and data center location in Canada. Microsoft Azure and data center location in Canada with option to implement additional encryption depending on City needs. Salesforce and data center location in Canada. Not applicable. AWS and data center location in Canada. Google cloud platform (GCP) and data center location is in Canada. Details on recovery plans in order to protect information in the event of natural disasters or site-wide outages. Data is stored securely via synchronized disaster recovery sites in multiple remote locations. Data is backed up and accessible on own private network segment. Data is stored in two separate locations, transactions are replicating in real- time to other location for data recovery. Data is backed up to various host servers to support disaster recovery solutions. Yes, data is backed up to secondary database server. Databases are backed up to a secondary database server in real-time to ensure recoverability. Confirmed Not core functionality Needs further investigation Legend - 438 - |Non-Functional Requirements 75 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Other Functionalities The diagram below depicts the other areas of research that the advisory team conducted research on which will enable the City’s permitting process to be more efficient. Non-Functional Requirement Accela Avolve BasicGov Computronix Calytera Evolta The options available for City staff to communicate with applicants (instant e- mail notifications, messaging or phone). Yes, system can be configured to notify applicants of tasks outstanding through dashboard, phone, and e-mail notifications. Yes, system can be configured to notify applicants of tasks outstanding through dashboard, phone, and e-mail notifications. Yes, system can be configured to notify applicants of tasks outstanding through dashboard, phone, and e-mail notifications. Yes, e-mail notifications sent based on specific triggers. Dashboard available for applicants to see status. Yes, new notification tool alerts users based on custom rules. City will have to follow up with Calytera based on the level of customization. Yes, system can be configured to notify applicants of tasks outstanding through dashboard, phone, and e-mail notifications. Ability of system to allow review staff to electronically markup documents. Yes, mark up plans and insert comments using text, images, shapes or sketching. Yes, markup plans and insert comments using text, images, shapes or sketching. Yes, digital remarks are available. Yes, mark up plans and insert comments using text, images, shapes or sketching. Not core functionality. Yes, digital remarks are available. Ability of system to provide users with support through help guides, videos, and tutorials. Yes, support guides are available for users. Yes, a combination of videos and support guides available. Yes, support guides are available for users. Yes, support guides are available for users. Yes, support guides are available for users. Yes, support guides are available for users. Other reporting functionalities or reports generated by system. Highly flexible and can produce multiple reports. City will have to follow up with specific report adherence. Highly flexible and can produce multiple reports. City will have to follow up with specific report adherence. Highly flexible and can produce multiple reports. City will have to follow up with specific report adherence. Highly flexible and can produce multiple reports. City will have to follow up with specific report adherence. MPAC and Statistics Canada reports available. MPAC, Tarion and Statistics Canada reports available. Confirmed Not core functionality Needs further investigation Legend - 439 - |Non-Functional Requirements 76 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Core Concerns The following diagram discusses core concerns derived from costumer reviews of their permitting solution and findings from the research conducted. Non-Functional Requirement Accela Avolve BasicGov Computronix Calytera Evolta Core concerns derived from customer reviews and our research. City of Seattle experienced problems with the rollout of the system, as immediately after the system went live, the system could not handle a large number of applications, resulting in system crashes and glitches. Instead of automating tasks, staff were forced to leave their ordinary duties and assist applicants with their problems, resulting in more applicants visiting the City. 47 According to Capterra, users have found the software not to be user-friendly and not conducive for effective communication. A product demonstration will be needed to evaluate the user- friendly nature of the portal. No Canadian municipality has implemented this solution, however Province of Manitoba will be adopting the salesforce platform (Deal negotiated 2019/09/16). High price is one of the drawbacks of the solution which can be expensive for municipalities. According to Capterra, users have had problems with the stability of the platform including system crashes, and have found the provider to be slow in responding to inquiries when the system is down. No customer testimonies or accolades/ success rate mentioned outside of Finland. 47 The Seattle Times, Rocky Launch of Seattle’s new construction-permit system causes delays, August 2019. Confirmed Not core functionality Needs further investigation Legend - 440 - |Functional Requirements 77 © Technology options – Provider portfolio - 441 - 78 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. The sources for the technology options research include: Gartner report “Market Guide for U.S. Community Development and Regulation Applications”, the providers’ official websites, solution brochures provided by the providers, and customer reviews available on the web. Accela Accela is a cloud-based software solution which automates all aspects of the building permit process. This solution moves the building permit process online, thus removing paper, manual steps, and errors, while dramatically cutting the time and cost of permit processing. Highlights • Accela is headquartered in California and was founded in 1999. • Accela provides market-leading SaaS solutions that empower state and local governments to build thriving communities, grow businesses, and protect citizens. • Accela specializes in land management, licensing, emerging regulations (such as cannabis regulation), asset management, code enforcement, and citizen relationship management. • Industries: Supports a number of industries on an international level. • https://www.accela.com/ Core Strengths • According to a testimony from the Chief Building Official from the City of Texas, the Accela solution was “…able to reduce turnaround times for residential permits from approximately 3 weeks to 3 days, and for commercial permits, from two months to 5-10 days.” • GIS integration provides intuitive visualizations to access land parcel permit history, view code and zoning details, and map as well as route inspections efficiently. • According to Accela, agencies become “greener” due to less consumption of paper and reduce the public funds needed to process permits. Figure 8: Accela Application Portal Summary: The image below illustrates the user interface of the portal for submitting applications, scheduling payments, and submitting additional information. - 442 - 79 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Avolve Technologies Avolve is a secure on-premises and cloud-based software vendor dedicated exclusively to electronic building plan review. Avolve provides the option to customize the electronic review process in accordance with municipal requirements. Avolve offers efficient and user-friendly services to stakeholders resulting in faster building permit issuance. Highlights • Avolve Software is headquartered in Scottsdale, AZ and provides services across 150 Cities in North America. • Avolve has provided building plan review services since 2008, and has emerged as an industry leader in defining the building permit licensing process. • Industries: Supports a number of industries including government and municipalities on an international level. • https://www.avolvesoftware.com/ Core Strengths • According to the Fiatech assessment, jurisdictions using e-Plan technology have reduced plan review and approval times between 30–40% on average. • According to customer testimonies, ROI has been 80% as a result of reduced review times. • Avolve is well known for its ability to integrate with SAP. • Service is available 24/7, allowing applicants to receive status updates in real time. - 443 - 80 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. BasicGov BasicGov’s provides a cloud-based SaaS solution for building permits that can automate and streamline operations to cut costs, meet the ever changing demand for citizen services, and evolve into a more open, transparent, and collaborative organization. Highlights • BasicGov was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Vancouver, Canada. • The BasicGov COTS software solution provides multiple modules, including Permitting, Inspections, Code Enforcement, Licensing, Planning, Esri GIS Map Viewer & Sync, Fund Accounting, Payment Cart, and Citizen Portal for applications and payments. • Industries: Supports a number of government agencies across North America. • https://www.basicgov.com/ Core Strengths • Solutions are secure to the highest government standards and monitored 24/7 for any breach attempts. • BasicGov automates key tasks for planners, reviewers, inspectors as well as stakeholders involved in a project. • BasicGov uses the Salesforce Platform to enable cost-efficient delivery of services by allowing municipalities to improve the speed and efficiency of the inspection and permitting process. Figure 9: BasicGov Application Portal Summary: The image below illustrates the user interface portal for submitting applications, through the BasicGov System. - 444 - 81 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Calytera Calytera provides automation software to government agencies, providing a mobile and web user experience, along with delivery support. Calytera offers the Amanda E-Plan review system which is a comprehensive case management and flexible process automation platform that can be configured as private cloud, SaaS or on-premises. Highlights • Calytera is headquartered in Austin, Texas and provides services across more than 350 Cities across North America. • The e-permitting solution allows municipalities to log, route, manage and report on all requests, improving responsiveness and security while ensuring compliance with regulations and reporting. • Industries: Supports a number of government municipalities across North America. • https://www.calytera.com Core Strengths • Compared to the City of Pickering’s current edition, the latest edition of Amanda, allows users to submit applications online and configure the payment process to auto-calculate permit fees. • The latest edition of the Amanda system provides embedded GIS, for inspector to access data in real– time and connect with GIS maps. • The new system includes advanced analytics to allow users to see information in real-time. Figure 10: Calytera Application Portal Summary: The image below illustrates the user interface portal for submitting applications, through the Calytera system. - 445 - 82 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Computronix Computronix is a software development company, providing the Public One Stop Service (POSSE) line-of-business process automation solutions for government organizations in North America. POSSE specializes in providing licensing, permitting, inspection, code enforcement, and a wide variety of other process automation solutions. Highlights • Computronix is headquartered in Lakewood, Colorado and has been recognized consistently by Urban and Regional Information System Association (URISA) for exemplary systems in Government. • POSSE software has also been inducted into the Smithsonian Institution’s collection of innovative software. • The system can integrate to multiple ERP platforms. • Industries: Supports a number of government municipalities on an international level. • https://www.computronix.com/ Core Strengths • According to the City of Edmonton, the implementation of the POSSE software has resulted in greater efficiency and cost savings such as: ‒ Time to issue permits was reduced from days or weeks to minutes or hours. ‒ Number of wasted inspections reduced from 31% to 3%. ‒ Reducing the number of inspectors needed by 50%. • Adaptable system allows new workflows to be easily configured as the system is highly flexible and can adapt to changes in rules at any time. Figure 11: Computronix Application Portal Summary: The image below illustrates the user interface portal for deriving plans and performance reports. - 446 - 83 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Evolta Evolta is a globally oriented company focusing solely on the digitalization of building permits. The fully integrated on-premises, and cloud based solution is highly innovative, which allows government agencies to become more efficient, accessible, and responsive to the needs of the public. Highlights • Evolta is headquartered in Finland and currently serves 60% of the municipalities in Finland. • The system is able to integrate with SAP and payment system associated with SAP. • Industries: Supports a number of government municipalities on an international level. ‒ Currently branching out to Canada with the City of Windsor. • https://evolta.fi/en/ Core Strengths • Application customer times have reduced up to 90% for municipalities in some cases. • 24/7 service availability with massive efficiency savings for authorities and time savings for applicants. • Permit processing times have typically reduced from several weeks to just a few days. Figure 12: Evolta Application Portal Summary: The image below depicts the user interface for application submission. - 447 - 84 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Conclusion Based on the information gathered in this report, there is a gap between the current permitting software and the expected outcomes set by the City. The current permitting system in not aligned with industry best practices. The current paper-based permitting system has limited capabilities for electronic review and application submission, payment processing, system integration, and data analytics. In the efforts of achieving the City’s expectation of improving service delivery, expediting the time to issue permits, reducing operational costs from both staff and paper consumption, along with seamless integration with the City’s current ERP system, a list of functional and non-functional requirements have been developed, and potential providers of building permitting solutions have been assessed against the requirements. Please note that the analysis in this report has been conducted based on information made available during meetings and interviews with the City. The functional and non-functional requirements generated on pages 62-72 serve for the purposes of scanning e-permitting solutions offered in the market. A formal system selection with potential vendors and a full list of functional business requirements is needed in order to thoroughly assess the solutions and to accurately quantity the cost savings. A system selection will include formal scoring against the City’s defined criteria and detailed solution demonstrations based on real case scenarios. Below are the expected outcomes of implementing an e-permitting solution as demonstrated in this report: • Citizen service will be improved as residents of Pickering will have the ability to submit applications electronically, and dashboards will enable residents to receive notifications of their applications in real- time. • E-permitting solution will eliminate the consumption of paper in the permitting process leading the City to contribute to a more sustainable environment. • The City will reduce operational costs and will no longer experience delayed tax revenues as result of delays in the permitting process. The annual potential cost savings of deploying an e-permitting system could be around $56,550, along with a potential expected increase in permit revenue of $645,000, as a result of faster issuance of building permits and tax revenues from tax roll reassessments. The estimation of potential increase in permit revenue and savings are described in the cost-benefit analysis section of this report. These figures are estimates, and actual cost savings as well as increases in permit revenue will vary depending on the level of certain parameters such as permit volume. In some cases, the City may be able to expand the scope of the tools mentioned above to support other application processing requests, which could further increase the potential costs savings of such a solution and enhance citizen experiences with the City. In order to successfully implement such a solution, the City will need to review their internal resourcing levels to ensure adequate support for a transformational project and ongoing maintenance. It is recommended that the City initiates a formal business case to further quantify the benefits and cost savings of a e-permitting solution and develop a strategic roadmap before proceeding with the software procurement in order to accurately quantify the cost savings and justify the investment to the City council and residents. - 448 - | Table of contents 85 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. “Choose good fleet management software and use it in decision making. The main goals of any fleet management system are to provide information to improve efficiency, decrease downtime and in-service breakdowns, reduce inventory, lower ownership cost and avoid waste.” 48 48 Fleet Management Tips For Municipal Decision Makers, The Municipal Technical, Advisory Service, The University of Tennessee - 449 - 86 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Fleet management system report Introduction Service Review Objectives The objective of the fleet management and vehicle tracking service delivery review report was to identify technology options that can minimize or remove risks associated with the investment on a fleet management system, increase productivity in the maintenance facilities and identify other areas which could realize cost savings. Figure 13: Project Steps Summary: The project steps diagram below illustrates the steps taken as part of this investigation beginning with initial interviews, information gathering, research analysis, followed by development and finalization of report. Research Methodology The research methodology for the fleet management and vehicle tracking service delivery review report was to first conduct a preliminary analysis of the current operations of fleet management at the City of Pickering. This consisted of interviewing staff from operations, the municipal garage and fleet services department in order to understand the City’s current operational deficiencies, along with researching technological advances in the fleet management industry in order to identify current state gaps. The current state gaps and automation opportunities will help the advisory team to identify the functional requirements that the new fleet management software should be able to meet. Scope The scope of the research conducted as determined by the City of Pickering is described below: • Understand the current fleet management and vehicle tracking systems in place. (See Current State Gaps section on page 88-89) • Work with the end-users to determine critical requirements for a new system. (See Current State Gaps section on page 88-89) • Perform research on the key features and functionalities of available fleet management and vehicle tracking systems that could assist the City of Pickering in improving its efficiency and productivity. In particular, examining potential solutions that could provide benefits in areas including but not limited to vehicle telematics (GPS tracking and diagnostics), vehicle management, driver management, speed management and fuel management. (See Key Features section, page 90) - 450 - | Fleet management system report 87 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Approach The following approach was used during the research: • Research the fleet management industry and identify technological advances which could provide opportunities to improve the City’s operational efficiency and productivity. • Analyze the City’s current fleet management and vehicle tracking systems and identify gaps in functionality. • Use the functional requirements developed in the previous step as the criteria to identify and assess potential-fit fleet management technology options. • Provide a cost and benefit analysis in order to quantify the benefits of purchasing and implementing a new fleet management and vehicle tracking solution that would meet the City’s requirements. Figure 14: Fleet Management Wheel Summary: Fleet management can include a range of functions, such as fleet strategy, fleet acquisition, fleet services, fleet maintenance, fuel management, risk management (safety and compliance), tools and technology (telematics), and disposition and remarketing (asset utilization) - 451 - | Background 88 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Background Information in this section was obtained from the City of Pickering website, the Region of Durham website, and during meetings/interviews with the City. The current fleet size, vehicle type, services provided by the Operations and Fleet Services department, the City’s technology provider and the related cost are introduced in this section as they are essential in understanding the City’s current fleet operations. Fleet Vehicle Currently, the City has 212 vehicles that include Public Works Vehicles, Fire Vehicles and other “one-off“ vehicles custom made to suit the City’s needs. The fleet is expanding at a 2% to 5% rate annually. In 2018, the City added six new vehicles and five new vehicles in 2019. The number of the fleet vehicles changes frequently as the City auctions off equipment and vehicles at the end of their lifecycle. Overall, this is a reasonably modest sized 49. The City has a partnership relationship with the Region of Durham for tire management. Tires are ordered and managed by the Durham Tire Co-op. The benefits of the partnership include opportunities to tender for larger and more lucrative contracts. A detailed list that outlines the type, quantity, and size of the City’s vehicles and equipment can be found on section Cost Benefit Analysis (page 98). Services Operations and Fleet Services department is responsible for the following: • Public Works ‒ Manage the City’s municipal fleet ‒ Repair, maintenance, and construction of roads ‒ Winter control operations ‒ Installation and maintenance of playgrounds ‒ Boulevard and parkland grass cutting • Fire operations • Animal control services Fleet Management Solution The City’s current fleet management software provider is RTA, a U.S.-based company that provides hybrid (either cloud or on-site data storage) vehicle tracking and inventory management solution. The cost is $1,000 per year for maintenance and is considered minimal by the maintenance staff and facilities management team. RTA is also used for part procurement currently. The City is in the process of securing an in-house parts supplier which will create a synchronization between the supply and demand of parts inventory. Upon the City’s request, parts will be ready within 12 to 24 hours. No inventory would be kept by the City. This will promote operational efficiencies throughout the maintenance facilities. 49 Fleet Maintenance Software – City of Pickering, Ladder Up Consulting Ltd, 2019 - 452 - | Background 89 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Asset Management Solution The City uses VFA for asset management and capital planning purposes. VFA was implemented four years ago and provides services such as asset life cycle analysis. The annual licensing/maintenance fees for the VFA software in 2019 was $31,497.36 (excluding HST). GPS/AVL Solution The City’s current GPS/AVL (Automatic Vehicle Locator) solution provider is Focus, a fleet and fuel optimization system. Focus enables the City to remotely monitor the location of the vehicle fleet. The software maintenance and hardware cost of the Focus solution is $39,000 per year. More detailed costing information can be found in Current Spending on Fleet Management and Vehicle Tracking Software section on page 99. On Nov 5th, 2019, a public facing portal went live on the City of Pickering website. This portal allows residents to track the status of snow plows in the events of snow. Fuel Management Solution The City works with Coencorp for fuel management and uses their internet-connected peripheral devices on some of the fleet to adopt Internet of Things (IoT) technology in fuel management. - 453 - | Key findings 90 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Key findings The following are the key findings addressed during interviews with the City of Pickering. These findings are used when determining potential solution providers to include in the assessment included in the Functional and Non-Functional Requirement section of this report. 1. The City’s existing fleet management and vehicle tracking solutions are legacy applications that lack the integration and functionality required in order to realize efficiencies, save costs and improve day-to-day functions within several maintenance facilities: • The current solution does not provide part management functionalities that would record part usage and enable cost analysis on individual vehicles. • The current solution does not provide fleet maintenance functionalities such as schedule maintenance appointments, record the frequency and cost of maintenance, and provide long-term asset utilization analysis of vehicles. • The current solution does not promote routing and dispatching optimization, which could improve the service reaction time and citizen’s satisfaction rate. 2. Currently, staff are required to record information regarding the fleet vehicle conditions on paper, which results in delays in maintenance services and limited access to usable information such as maintenance needs identified by the technicians. 3. The City is in the process of securing an in-house parts supplier which will create a synchronization between the supply and demand of parts inventory. Upon the City’s request, parts will be provided by the supplier within 12 to 24 hours. No inventory would be kept by the City. This will promote operational efficiencies throughout the maintenance facilities. The new fleet management and vehicle tracking systems need to be integrated with the part supplier's system to ensure proper cost and part tracking. 4. The City has a partnership relationship with the Region of Durham for tire management. Tires are ordered and managed by the Durham Tire Co-op. The benefits of the partnership include opportunities to tender for larger and more lucrative contracts. 5. The City works with Coencorp for fuel management and uses their internet-connected peripheral devices on some of the fleet to adopt Internet of Things (IoT) technology in fuel management. The new fleet management and vehicle tracking systems can potentially replace Coencorp and provide an integrated fleet solution. 6. The City adopted VFA for facilities capital planning and asset management. According to the end users, the VFA software has been working well and is able to provide asset life cycle analysis, which is important in supporting asset replacement and vehicle financing decision makings. The new fleet management software will work in conjunction with VFA to track and analyze total cost of ownership, compare and contrast different vehicle options and create budgets for capital spending. 7. The City’s current GPS/AVL (Automatic Vehicle Locator) solution provider is Focus. Focus enables the City to remotely monitor the location of the vehicle fleet. However, it does not meet the City’s expectation due to: • Inability to display work orders assigned to each vehicle. - 454 - | Key findings 91 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. • Inability for the mechanics to update the work order status and communicate task progress with the central operations team. • Inability to track material usage such as salt usage. 8. The current fleet management software used by the City does not support the City’s reporting needs due to: • Disparate data housed outside of the system in paper format. • Limited ad-hoc custom reporting functionality resulting in the need for IT intervention for additional reports. 9. Currently, the City is able to react to emergency work orders promptly. The vision and long-term goal of the Operations team is to automate the fleet operation processes such as part sourcing and procurement, maintenance planning, dispatching and routing, and reporting. Essentially, a “hands-free” fleet management and vehicle tracking system can free up more resources and time, which can be put into efforts to improve resident satisfaction. Figure 15: Key Findings of the City’s fleet management and vehicle tracking systems Summary: The City’s part management solution, fleet management and vehicle tracking systems, and the ERP system (SAP S4/HANA) can all be integrated and have the technical capabilities to do so. These systems also work toward the same end goals - lower risks associated with fleet investments, lower operating cost, higher volume of work output, increased worker safety, higher integration level across different departments and improved resident satisfaction, however these are not integrated properly. SAP System •The current provider RTA and Focus do not meet the City's expectations •Looking for a new solution Vehicle Tracking and Fleet Management •SAP is the City's ERP system •The new fleet management and vehicle tracking system need to be integrated with SAP In-house Parts Supplier •In the process of securing a vendor (RFP drafted) •The new fleet management and vehicle tracking system need to be integrated with the part supplier's system to ensure proper cost tracking - 455 - | Key findings 92 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Current State Gaps Based on information obtained through interviews with different end users, the advisory team concluded that the gaps the City is facing with the current fleet management and vehicle tracking systems revolve around the following areas: Routing & Dispatching Parts Management Maintenance Scheduling User Interface Current system Current system Current system Current system RTA, Focus CityWide and VFA are used for asset tracking, asset planning, and budgeting Vailtech is used to record invoices, to be replaced by SAP RTA is used for parts procurement RTA RTA Current State Gaps Current State Gaps Current State Gaps Current State Gaps Currently, work orders are being processed manually on a excel spreadsheet. The current GPS tracking solution also does not display the work orders assigned to each vehicle. There are opportunities to improve routing and dispatching efficiency, and increase work output: System automatically generates and tracks work orders for each vehicle Optimize routing and prioritizing work orders by adopting dynamic routing Schedule work orders in real-time and enabling faster response to work orders received The current system tracks parts ordered by department/cost centres. However, there is no information regarding which vehicle the parts ordered are related to. Additional function is required for: Accurately track cost information to increase operational efficiency by tagging cost to specific vehicles and asset utilization for different types of vehicles Vehicle maintenance is mostly reactive rather than preventive. Additional function is required for: Maintenance scheduling: alert for regular maintenance appointment base on the type and condition of vehicles Record and retrieve data regarding the number of times the vehicle comes in for services; long-term maintenance requirement and life of the vehicle The current system is not user friendly and the technicians are reluctant to input data electronically due to the inexistence of data entry fields for certain types or information such as remaining life of the vehicle, historical maintenance records, outstanding repair and maintenance requirements, etc. Additional function is required for: Note-taking: enable the technicians to record findings and information such as worn out tires Image tagging: enable the technicians to include a photo evidence of the findings such as worn tires Easy data retrieval: enable the technician and management to search keywords in the system - 456 - | Key findings 93 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Vehicle & Equipment Reporting Labour Cost Reporting Job Cost Reporting Current system Current system Current system RTA RTA RTA Current State Gaps Current State Gaps Current State Gaps The system does not meet the reporting needs for vehicle and equipment analysis due to disparate data housed outside of the system in paper format and the limited ad-hoc custom reporting functionality resulting in the need for IT intervention for additional reports. Additional function is required for: Ability to provide reports on vehicle and equipment utilization, cost of ownership analysis, and other ad-hoc requests Compare operational efficiency and asset utilization of different types of vehicles The report can be used as a strong support in budgeting and funding decision makings The current system does not accurately track and bill mechanics labour to their cost centres. Discrepancy exists in the mechanics’ actual labour rates and the amounts charged back to the cost centres in the SAP system. Additional function is required for: Labour cost information in the backend maintenance system should transfer to the SAP system accurately The fleet management system should be fully integrated with the SAP system The current system does not accurately record the cost for each job or work order. Management has no means to evaluate the cost for different activities such as sign replacement, and pothole repairs. Additional function is required for: Custom reports to provide analysis on the costs of different job types or different work orders The report can be used as a strong support in budgeting and funding decision makings - 457 - | Key findings 94 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Key Features of Fleet Management System In order to paint a fuller picture of the features encompassing fleet management solutions, an analysis has been done on Vehicle Financing, Vehicle Maintenance, Vehicle Telematics, Driver Management, Speed Management, Fuel Management, Health and Safety Management, Dispatching and Routing, Public-facing Snow Plough Tracking, and Insurance Benefits. These are the areas that the City expects to see improvements on with the help of a new fleet management and vehicle tracking solution. Vehicle Financing Figure 16 Factors affecting the Economic Life of a vehicle50 Summary: From an economic perspective the optimal point to replace fleet assets is when the total cost of ownership is at its lowest. Fleet acquisition and fleet replacement decisions are made base on the estimation of a vehicle’s economic life, trade in values, and operating costs. Trade values can be estimated using the information of the fleet life cycle, travel length per year, and purchase price. This type of calculation and analysis can sometimes be done in a fleet management solution in order to assist vehicle financing decision makings. Some other fleet management software functionalities related to vehicle financing and asset utilization are as follow: • Describe the trend in operation and maintenance costs for the vehicles • Reduce fleet capital and operating costs to the City through targeted lifecycle analysis, which can determine how long assets can remain in the fleet before the operation is no longer cost-effective. The goal is to spread capital costs over as long as period as possible. This functionality is possible from a fleet management system or through an ERP system. Vehicle Maintenance Preventive maintenance is a regular part of fleet ownership, but additional repairs due to aggressive driving and vehicle misuse are an unnecessary cost to a fleet. Market research suggests that excessive maintenance-related costs are primarily driven by aggressive driving behaviors such as hard accelerations, harsh cornering, and harsh braking, which cause harmful wear and tear on critical vehicle components, drastically increasing a vehicle’s variable rpm. These effects materialize as reduced tire life, reduced brake life, more frequent scheduled maintenance, and more frequent non-scheduled maintenance and repair. These non-scheduled events often result in large losses to organizations that rely on its fleet assets for day- to-day operations. In fact, a non-scheduled maintenance interruption can result in lost profits of $530 to $928 per day, in addition to the cost of repairs.51 The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) reports that telematics technology can help a company reduce maintenance and repair costs by as much as 14%.52 As described above, much 50 H. Greene & R.E. Knorr, Managing Public Equipment, American Public Works Association, Kansas City, 1989 51 Understanding the true cost of fleet vehicle downtime. (n.d.) Retrieved from http://fleetanswers.com/content/understanding-true-cost-fleet-vehicle-downtime 52 Towards smarter supply chains. OECD Observer, No 279, Wright, J. May, 2010 - 458 - | Key findings 95 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. of these savings are tied to driver behavior, and therefore real-time driver management tools and in-cab alerts are the best way to minimize unnecessary wear and tear on fleets. Vehicle Telematics A Fleet Telematics System (FTS) allows the information exchange between a vehicle fleet and the Operations team. A FTS typically consists of mobile Vehicle Systems (VS) and a stationary Fleet Communication System (FCS). The FCS may be a stand alone application maintained by the motor carrier or an internet service running by the supplier of the system. The FCS usually includes a database in which all vehicle positions and messages are stored. Digital maps are often included which allow visualization of vehicle positions and traces. Communication with the FCS is realized by trunked radio, cellular, or satellite. Positioning of vehicles is usually realized by satellite positioning systems and/or dead reckoning using gyroscope and odometer.53 GPS can add value in both the tracking and optimization of cyclical work. It can support fuel reduction efforts and provide driver level feedback on performance as well as provide accurate time and location data in the event of a Motor Vehicle Accident (or to refute a claim against the City). Using the vehicle telematics to flag engine sensor issues early can alleviate costly unplanned failures. Driver Management Electronic on-board recorder/Tachograph can be used to analyze driver behavior and defend innocent drivers accused of causing accidents. This function enables additional compliance capabilities. Increased worker safety can also be achieved through GPS tracking and the ability to know where fleet assets or drivers are at all times. Geo-fencing technology allows users to set virtual boundaries. This helps manage a group of vehicles within a region to keep time traveling between jobs to a minimum. When drivers are organized within a specific area, response rates are quicker and the area is more attentively covered. Peer-to-peer and dispatcher-to- driver messaging can connect drivers for instant communication, messaging, and knowledge sharing. Most of these functionalities are tailored to large, long distance, remotely located and highly mobile fleets. As fleet size increases, the absolute payback on these types of investment increases and they become more attractive. At scale, these benefits begin to outweigh the costs (direct and indirect) of these approaches. Speed Management Certain fleet management solutions provide in-vehicle, proactive coaching with customized messaging and rules to limit speed, such as: • With in-cab real-time alerts, an audible buzzer reminds drivers when unsafe driving is detected, allowing them to correct the behavior immediately • In-vehicle, proactive coaching with customized messaging and rules These functionalities are tailored to large, long distance, remotely located and highly mobile fleets. More research need to be conducted to determine if the quantifiable benefit can outweigh the cost considering the size of the City’s workforce. As fleet size increases, the absolute payback on these types of investment increases and they become more attractive. At scale, these benefits begin to outweigh the costs (direct and indirect) of these approaches. 53 Fleet Telematics: Real-Time Management and Planning of Commercial Vehicle Operations. - 459 - | Key findings 96 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Fuel Management For many fleets, fuel is one of the largest expenses. Managing fuel costs can be a complicated endeavor involving a number of variables, including fluctuating gas prices and inconsistent driver behavior. In fact, the U.S. Department of Energy reports that rapid acceleration and heavy braking can reduce fuel economy by up to 33% for highway driving and 5% on city roads. Idling and speeding can also have drastic impacts on Miles per Gallon (MPG). Telematics Wire Market research has shown that the effective use of telematics can reduce fuel costs by as much as 14%.Driver coaching is instrumental in achieving these cost reductions. For example, for every 5 mph over 50 mph, a driver can reduce their MPG by approximately 7-14%. Therefore, getting drivers to slow down and observe the speed limit translates into monetary savings. Furthermore, real-time driver idling alerts can be used to drastically cut down on vehicle idling costs and wasted fuel. Health and Safety Management Collisions, speeding, and aggressive driving behaviors were found to be a contributing factor in 31% of all fatal crashes, while seat belt use was found to decrease the risk of a fatality by between 45% and 60% according to Guidelines for Employers to Reduce Motor Vehicle Crashes. Aggressive driving behavior can have a big impact on a fleet’s safety-related operating costs. The City can improve savings by monitoring driver behaviors and proactively coaching drivers via the use of telematics. Certain fleet management solutions provide the following functionalities to reduce accidents and minimize risk: • In-cab driver feedback tools and real-time audible alerts can drastically reduce the likelihood of an on- duty accident. • The driver safety program includes real-time monitoring of aggressive driving and video analytics to increase self-awareness and accountability on the road. Again, these functionalities are tailored to large, long distance, remotely located and highly mobile fleets. As fleet size increases, the absolute payback on these types of investment increases and they become more attractive. At scale, these benefits begin to outweigh the costs (direct and indirect) of these approaches. Dispatching and Routing Operations and Fleet Services department receives work orders for the following types of services: • Repair, maintenance, and construction of roads • Winter control operations • Installation and maintenance of playgrounds • Boulevard and parkland grass cutting The routing and scheduling for work orders can be achieved by using one of the three strategies described below: • Static Routing, which is driven by semi-annual or annual route plans in defined geographic areas, built around forecast work orders, and designed to maximize customer service. • Dynamic Routing, which is driven by daily-built route plans, built around both daily and forecast work orders, and designed to increase efficiency, increase resident satisfaction, and decrease response time of work orders. • Real-time Dynamic Routing, which is driven by daily-built route plans designed to efficiently deliver pre- orders and real-time work orders within its expected time window. - 460 - | Key findings 97 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Dynamic routing will allow drivers respond to areas based on priority and traffic, and ultimately to increase the level of service delivered to citizens. In municipalities, the distribution of the work can be either highly variable (i.e., the work locations can be new every day due to road repair, utility maintenance, etc.) or highly programmed and controlled/routed (e.g., street sweeping, snow plowing, garbage pickup, automated water meter reading). The City’s situation is vastly different from private sector services and it is rare for the fleet assets to be ‘optimally dispatched’ on a daily basis to respond to new and unique destinations. Dynamic Routing would result in improved resident satisfaction. However, more detailed analysis need to be conducted to determine if the routing optimization can provide quantifiable benefits which outweigh the costs in investing in the required technology. Public-facing Snow Plough Tracking Operations & Fleet Services department is responsible for the repair, maintenance, and construction of roads, and winter control operations. It is important to ensure transparency and accountability for Public-facing Snow Ploughing. Aligning on meaningful and impactful performance indicators will ensure that improvement is quantified and measured with accountability. Possible KPIs are as follows: • Equipment turnover rate/refill rate • Slip and fall claims vs. labour hours cleaning vs. snow levels • Maintenance cost per km per equipment unit • Minimize standby travel time A fleet management solution can benefit the winter maintenance in areas such as: providing real-time snow plough vehicle locations, ensuring transparency of asset usage, track time spent at job sites, and providing preventive maintenance reminders. Insurance Benefits Insurance companies have reported a 45% reduction in accidents and a 50% reduction in accident payout costs via the use of telematics.54 Moreover, this reduction in accident claims can translate into a 5% to 25% reduction in comprehensive insurance costs.55 Please note that these figures are not specific to municipalities and might vary depending on the area and size of cities. A fleet management solution can potentially help reduce insurance premiums in areas such as: • Provide historical reports that provide proof of safety driving record, making sure improvements are reflected in insurance rates. • Use GPS fleet tracking to locate stolen vehicles, increasing the chances for recovery and reducing insurance claim costs. • Provide telematics data that can be shared with insurance companies, improving fleet driving safety standards which could reduce insurance spend. • Provide accident detection and instant notification, and detailed second-by-second data that helps prove no-fault to insurance provider. Functional and Non-functional Requirements The diagrams on the following pages illustrate the high-level functional and non-functional requirements that the new fleet management and vehicle tracking systems should meet in order to achieve the City’s expected outcomes. 54 Attention Fleet Manager: Fleet Safety is Important Too! Driver’s Alert, Taylor, V., October 13, 2014. 55 How Telematics Can Help You Save on Car Insurance. Navigators Insurance, Zhukov, K, March 31, 2014. - 461 - | Key findings 98 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. A list of more detailed requirements can be found on page 109-115. The functional and non-functional requirements are defined as follows: • A functional requirement defines the system abilities that a potential providers system should adhere to. • A non-functional requirement will place constraints on how the system will perform those functionalities. - 462 - | Key findings 99 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Functional Requirements Fuel Management Dispatching & Routing Inventory Management Reduce Insurance Asset Utilization Automation goal: reduce fleet capital costs through targeted lifecycle analysis Automation goal: enable faster response to work orders Automation goal: reduce insurance costs Functional Requirements Ability of system to provide lifecycle analysis and to recommend strategies to reduce costs Functional Requirements Ability to test and implement innovative fuel management strategies, driver behaviour training, and anti‐idle technology Functional Requirements Ability to perform dynamic routing for all work orders Functional Requirements Ability to provide a robust part inventory and tire inventory control system Functional Requirements Ability to provide proof of safety driving record and/or partner with insurance companies. Automation goal: reduce overall fuel cost Automation goal: manage part inventory and tires - 463 - | Key findings 100 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Functional Requirements Automation goal: enable the city to track fleet assets and drivers Automation goal: manage driving behaviors and provide driving assistance Automation goal: provide geographical information system based planning and visualization Functional Requirements Ability to use GPS tracking technology in order to know where the fleet assets or driver are at all time Functional Requirements Ability to collect data on engine status and to provide preventative maintenance planning Functional Requirements Ability to detect and track aggressive driving behaviors and provide in-cab trainings Functional Requirements Ability to provide GIS Maps to the driver and interpret GIS data Automation goal: preventative maintenance planning & scheduling GPS Tracking Maintenance Planning Driver Management GIS Visualization Reporting Automation goal: provide custom reports that facilitate budgeting and funding decision making Functional Requirements Ability to provide reports on vehicle and equipment utilization, cost of ownership analysis, and other reporting - 464 - | Key findings 101 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Non-Functional Requirements System Integration User Interface System Integration User Interface User Support Automation goal: available software support guide and user manuals Automation goal: cloud deployment Non-functional Requirements Ability to integrate with SAP to speed up information flow and align information in different systems Non-functional Requirements Users can add fleet information, retrieve historical fleet data/reports and carry out intended action easily in the system Non-functional Requirements Software offers user with support guides, videos, and self- service tutorials. Non-functional Requirements Provider offers a cloud-based solution. Non-functional Requirements Ability to protect personal data such as emails, passwords, and vehicle information; maintain relevant records to facilitate audit and ensure compliance Automation goal: Intuitive and easy to navigate user interface Automation goal: Integrate with other systems city-wide Automation goal: Ensure compliance and data security - 465 - | Cost benefit analysis 102 © Cost benefit analysis Market Cost and Illustrative Quotes Most fleet management providers structure their software and services fees on a case-by-case basis. Factors that affect the pricing include the size of the fleet, the geographical location of the user, functionalities required, and others. The following table describes the cost information that is publicly available for the three potential providers analyzed in this report. Questions Coencorp RTA SAP Which entity use the software provided by this vendor? Ottawa Airport Winnipeg uses RTA and other supporting spreadsheet and timekeeping programs Edmonton’s fleet maintenance is primarily supported through the Plant Maintenance Module How much is the initial deployment cost of the software? $72,865 on software maintenance and technical support Purchased in 2002 for approximately $44,255 56 The Plant Maintenance Module can be added at no additional cost since City of Pickering is using SAP as their ERP solution What is the size of the City's fleet? 200 units Approximately 1,700 units 57 Over 5,000 units currently 58 What difficulty did the City experience with this software? No concerns found on the public-facing websites By 2010, nearly $2 million has been expended on IT consulting services with the fleet management information system still not fully implemented 59 Efficiency and effectiveness was reduced significantly when the Plant Maintenance application software replaced the old legacy fleet management software which had been custom developed over 20 years; The adoption of the Plant Maintenance Module has proven to be more difficult than initially anticipated Current Spending on Fleet Management and Vehicle Tracking Software The following table outlines the known costs that have been spent to manage and monitor fleet assets at the City of Pickering for the past four years. The costs include the maintenance fee incurred for the current fleet management system RTA, the current asset management and facility capital planning software VFA, and the current vehicle tracking software Focus. A new fleet management software could potentially replace RTA in managing fleet maintenance, work order scheduling, and analytics; replace Focus in tracking fleet locations and monitoring driver behaviors; replace 56 Winnipeg Fleet Management Performance Audit Final Report, January 2010. 57 https://www.winnipeg.ca/fleet/ 58 https://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/city_organization/fleet-services.aspx 59 Winnipeg Fleet Management Performance Audit Final Report, January 2010. - 466 - | Cost benefit analysis 103 © VFA in tracking and analyze total cost of ownership, comparing and contrasting different vehicle options and create budgets for capital spending. Type Cost Item Amount (Net of Tax) Year incurred One- Time/Recurring Maintenance RTA system maintenance fee $4,000.00 2016-2019 Recurring Licensing/ Maintenance VFA licensing and maintenance fee $31,497.36 2019 Recurring Licensing/ Maintenance VFA licensing and maintenance fee $29,478.65 2018 Recurring Licensing/ Maintenance VFA licensing and maintenance fee $28,074.90 2017 Recurring Licensing/ Maintenance VFA licensing and maintenance fee $26,738.00 2016 Recurring Licensing/ Maintenance Focus Public Facing Portal $1,130.00 per month starting October 2019 $3,390.00 2019 Recurring Maintenance Focus GPS all- inclusive fees and cellular service $39,006.60 2019 Recurring Hardware Focus GPS/AVL hardware for 4 additional Vehicles $902.50 2019 One-time Maintenance Focus GPS all- inclusive fees and cellular service (assume same rate as in January 2019) $37,500.60 2018 Recurring Maintenance Focus GPS all- inclusive fees and cellular service (assume same rate as in December 2016) $35,693.28 2017 Recurring Maintenance Focus GPS all- inclusive fees and cellular service $26,318.16 2016 Recurring Hardware Focus GPS/AVL hardware for 79 vehicles (installation fee included) $28,500.41 2016 One-time Total Recurring $261,697.55 2016-2019 Total Recurring Total Hardware $29,402.91 2016, 2019 Total One-time Total Cost $291,100.46 2016-2019 Total Annual Cost - 467 - | Cost benefit analysis 104 © The information above shows what the City needs to pay for software in a four-year period to run its fleet operations. It helps provide a baseline for assumed costs when discussing technology options for the future of fleet management and vehicle tracking. Potential Cost Savings The benefit for the City to upgrade its fleet management and vehicle tracking solutions can be grouped into four main areas: Safety, Asset Management, Maintenance and Repair, Productivity. These savings shown in the table below were observed in a use case of a company with a fleet size of 303 units and an average vehicle mileage of 10,920.81 miles. This fleet is similar to Pickering’s 212-unit fleet and the potential savings are expected to be comparable to Pickering’s. Type Annual Cost Savings for one HD Vehicle Annual Cost Savings for one MD Vehicle Annual Cost Savings for one LD Vehicle Safety $6,519 $1,240.2 $1,113 Asset and Fuel Management $6,519 $858.6 $524.7 Maintenance and Repair $4,611 $381.6 $318 Productivity $5,724 $763.2 $763.2 Municipal Benchmarking Network Canada defines light-duty (LD) vehicles as less than 4,500 kg, medium- duty (MD) vehicles as less than 9,000 kg but higher than 4,500 kg and heavy-duty (HD) vehicles as greater than 9,000 kg. The table below outlines the type, quantity, and size of the City’s vehicles and equipment. As of February 13, 2019, the City has 69 units LD vehicles, 22 units MD vehicles and 17 units HD vehicles. Type Quantity Size (Tare Weight) Full-size SUV 3 Light-duty Mid-size SUV 25 Light-duty 4x4 Pick-up Truck 2 Light-duty 1/2 Ton Pick-up Truck 13 Light-duty Cargo Van 6 Light-duty Utility Vehicles (UTV) 3 Light-duty Skid-Steer 2 Light-duty Trackless Sidewalk Tractor 9 Light-duty Wide Area Mowers 6 Light-duty LD Vehicle Sub Total 69 units 1 Ton Pick-up Truck 10 Medium-duty 1 Ton Truck 2 Medium-duty 1 Ton Van 1 Medium-duty 2 Ton Pick-up Truck 7 Medium-duty 2 Ton Truck 1 Medium-duty - 468 - | Cost benefit analysis 105 © Type Quantity Size (Tare Weight) 3 Ton Truck 1 Medium-duty MD Vehicle Sub Total 22 units 4 Ton Dump Truck 12 Heavy-duty 5 Ton Dump Truck 3 Heavy-duty Road Grader 2 Heavy-duty HD Vehicle Sub Total 17 units Snow Blower 5 N/A Chainsaw 20 N/A Plow and Wing Attachments 14 N/A Skid-Steer 2 N/A Equipment Sub Total 41 units Fire Vehicles (aerial truck, etc.) Unknown Depends on the size/type Tractors 5 units Depends on the size/type Other Custom Made Vehicles Unknown Depends on the size/type To determine the current fleet management system’s performance level and its potential cost saving opportunities, 11 expected outcomes (extracted from the Pickering Project Description and listed in the table below) have been used as a benchmark. Insurance Benefit, SAP Integration and User Friendly System, are excluded from cost saving analysis as no direct and measurable cost saving would be derived from them. Telematics, Driver/Speed Management, Fuel Management and Vehicle Financing are also excluded since the City is currently working with other solutions (Focus, Coencorp, and VFA) to address these areas. The table below illustrates that, for the 3 expected business outcome analyzed, each outcome would lead to potential cost savings in one area. The estimated potential incremental cost saving (%) represents the incremental cost saving that could be achieved if the new fleet management system meets three of the City’s expectation outcomes. An annual incremental cost savings of $308,667 can be estimated by multiplying the estimated annual cost saving for each vehicle type (see table on page 100), the quantity of the Pickering’s fleet vehicle (see above table on page 100), and the % of estimated potential incremental cost savings (see table below): Expected Business Outcome Type of Cost Saving Opportunities Estimated Current Cost Saving with RTA (%) Estimated Potential Incremental Cost Saving (%) Estimated Potential Incremental Cost Saving ($) Vehicle Maintenance Maintenance and Repair 0%; The City schedules maintenance appointments manually. Vehicle maintenance is mostly reactive rather than preventative. 100%; There are opportunities in collecting data on engine diagnostics and provide preventative maintenance and schedule regular maintenance based on the vehicle type. $108,724.20 Part Inventory Management Asset and Fuel Management 80%; The current RTA system does not meet the requirements based on the Current 20%; Additional functionality such as cost tagging can assist cost reduction $33,183.30 - 469 - | Cost benefit analysis 106 © Gap Analysis on page 88. strategy, asset utilization strategy and support better fleet acquisition and replacement decision- makings. Dispatching and Routing Productivity 0%; Dispatching and routing are done manually. 100%; There is an opportunity to increase productivity by re- designing routes to reflect dynamic data such as vehicle locations travel time, and incoming work orders (see page 107 for opportunity Areas – Productivity). $166,759.20 Total $308,667.00 Detailed calculation of estimated cost savings for each area is shown below: Expected Business Outcome Type of Cost Saving Opportunities Potential Incremental Cost Savings for HD Vehicle Potential Incremental Cost Savings for MD Vehicle Potential Incremental Cost Savings for LD Vehicle Estimated Potential Incremental Cost Saving ($) Vehicle Maintenance Maintenance and Repair 78,387.00 = 17 units*4,611.00 8,395.20 = 22 units*381.60 21,942.00 = 69 units*318.00 $108,724.20 Part Inventory Management Asset and Fuel Management 22,164.60 = 17 units* 6,519.11*20% 3,777.84 = 22 units* 1,240.20*20% 7,240.86 = 69 units* 1,113.00*20% $33,183.30 Dispatching and Routing Productivity 97,308.00 = 17 units*5,724.00 16,790.40 = 22 units*763.20 52,660.80 = 69 units*763.20 $166,759.20 Total $308,667.00 - 470 - | Opportunity areas 107 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Opportunity areas Following the discussion in the preceding section, the four cost saving categories identified are: Safety and Compliance, Capital and Operating Cost, Maintenance and Repair, and Productivity. Each cost saving category is considered an opportunity area that the City can improve and potentially achieve savings on. An analysis has been done for each opportunity area, including a description of the automation opportunity identified, the current state of the City’s operations, potential benefits, risks, and potential cost savings. Safety & Compliance Asset & Fuel Management Maintenance & Repair Productivity Minimize Aggressive Driving Ability of system to provide real-time alert to the driver and correct aggressive driving behaviors and/or provides visual in-cab training. Reduce Fuel Costs Find a fleet management solution that provides fuel management functionalities that meet the City’s needs. Ensure Scheduled Repair System enables maintenance scheduling. Ensure all maintenance appointments attendance. Dynamic Routing Re-designs routes to reflect dynamic data such as vehicle travel time, and incoming work orders. Optimize Fleet Replacement Strategy System provides custom reports that can assist cost reduction strategy, asset utilization strategy and support better fleet acquisition and replacement decision-makings. Minimize Non-scheduled Repair System collects data on engine diagnostics and provides predictive maintenance that helps maintain vehicle with minor repair cost. - 471 - | Opportunity areas 108 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Safety and Compliance Potential Opportunity Area Description Next Steps Potential Savings Monitor and correct aggressive driving behaviors Opportunity Monitor and correct aggressive driving behaviors such as hard accelerations, harsh cornering, and harsh braking that cause harmful wear and tear on critical vehicle component. Current Operations The current RTA fleet management system does not provide driver management or measures to minimize aggressive driving behaviors. Benefit Decrease a vehicle’s variable Cost per Mile (CpM). Increase tire life/brake life. Less frequent scheduled maintenance and non- scheduled repair. Fewer speeding incidents. Identify non-scheduled maintenance and repair and the costs incurred with them. Key components of total downtime costs are: the cost of labour, replacement parts, diagnostic fees and towing costs. Quantify the potential cost savings based on the current speeding violation costs, average non-scheduled maintenance cost that could be prevented from monitoring and correction of driving behaviors. Find a solution that provides real-time alert to the driver and correct aggressive driving behaviors and/or provides visual in-cab training. A non-scheduled maintenance interruption can result in losses of $530 to $930 per day per vehicle. Assuming: Non-scheduled repair results in inability to fulfill work orders for at least one full day. The figures represent the average downtime cost for fleet industry in North America. Risks/Pitfalls Change may be met with resistance as the driver behavior will be monitored and analyzed. Experienced drivers may find driving behavior management intruding and unnecessary. - 472 - | Opportunity areas 109 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Asset and Fuel Management Potential Opportunity Area Description Next Steps Potential Savings Reduce fuel costs and fleet capital costs Opportunity Fuel costs could be reduced by minimizing speeding incidents and limiting idle time. Reduce fleet capital costs through targeted lifecycle analyses on specific fleet groups. Current Operations The City works with Coencorp and uses their internet-connected peripheral devices on some of the fleet for fuel management. Parts and tires are not linked to vehicles, which makes it difficult to accurately analyze fleet costs and make informed decisions around fleet acquisition and fleet replacement. Benefit Reduce fleet capital cost by making more informed decisions around fleet acquisition and replacement with the help of accurate fleet cost analysis. Reduce fuel usage. Inquiry the fleet’s consumption of fuel per trip/per engine hours worked/per time spent idling in order to quantify the current level of preventable fuel wastes. Find a fleet management solution that provides fuel management functionalities that are aligned to the City’s needs. Find a fleet management solution that provides data analytics functionalities that can assist with cost reduction strategies, asset utilization strategies. The optimal fleet acquisition and replacement strategy will lead to lower replacement rate, longer service time, and lower operating costs. Risks/Pitfalls Fleet acquisition and replacement decisions involve a lot of factors and may involve policy changes. - 473 - | Opportunity areas 110 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Maintenance and Repair Potential Opportunity Area Description Next Steps Potential Savings Minimize scheduled and non-scheduled repair Opportunity Collect data on engine diagnostics and provide predictive maintenance that helps maintain vehicle with minor repair cost. Track regular maintenance based on the vehicle type and set up alerts for regular maintenance to have those vehicles pulled into the shop when needed. Current Operations The City schedules maintenance appointments manually. The City uses maintenance triggers such as odometer readings, vehicle breakdowns, and notes from drivers and mechanics. Benefit Be notified of minor or major defects before critical breakage occurs, helping minimize downtime and prolong vehicle health. Allow for better planning and scheduling for regular maintenance to ensure vehicle health. Inquiry the cost of reactive (unplanned) vehicle maintenance and quantify the potential cost savings if minimizing the reactive repair. Analyze historical repair and maintenance data to identify cues and triggers for maintenance needs. Find a fleet management software that enables maintenance scheduling and/or engine diagnostics functions. The Organization for Economic Co- operation and Development (OECD) reports that telematics technology can help reduce maintenance and repair costs by as much as 14% and much of these savings are tied to driver behavior, and therefore real-time driver management tools and in-cab alerts are the best way to minimize unnecessary wear and tear. The cost savings vary based on vehicle type and annual mileage. Risks/Pitfalls Lack of accountability from drivers can be detrimental to vehicle utilization and this issue will not be addressed solely with the assistance of a fleet management software. - 474 - | Opportunity areas 111 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Productivity Potential Opportunity Area Description Next Steps Potential Savings Increase routing and dispatching efficiency Opportunity Dynamic routing: re-designs routes to reflect dynamic data such as vehicle locations travel time, and incoming work orders. Current Operations Static-routing: uses a forecast of daily/weekly work orders to build the appropriate path a driver would take on each day/shift during the course of the week. Benefit The ability to reroute and create new plans throughout the day provides fleets with bigger flexibility. Routing can be adjusted for additional incoming work orders, weather changes, etc. Create scheduling and routing automatically much faster, reducing the time spent on manual adjustments. Quantify amount (cost/time) of work required in routing and dispatching. Quantify the cost saving if adopting dynamic routing technology. Analyze trending historical data to identify pain points and identify opportunities to revise the current shift structure to improve efficiency of routing and dispatching in complex areas. Cost savings vary based on the vehicle type. Municipal Benchmarking Network Canada defines light-duty vehicles as less than 4,500 kg, medium-duty vehicles as less than 9,000 kg but higher than 4,500 kg and heavy-duty vehicles as greater than 9,000 kg. $477 per month per heavy-duty (HD) vehicle with 80,000 miles. $64 per month per medium-duty (MD)/light-duty (LD) vehicle with 24,000 miles. The above mentioned cost savings are under the assumption that the current routing operation resulted delay in work order fulfillments. Additional cost incurs when drivers and vehicles being idle instead of being on the road as they are supposed to be if routing and dispatching is handled more efficiently. Risks/Pitfalls Dynamic routing might change the daily routine for drivers and might be met with resistance from staff. - 475 - | Technology options 112 © Technology options Based on the expected outcome identified by the City in the project description document and the high-level requirements described in this report, eight potential solution providers were selected: Verizon Connect, Fleet Complete, Coencorp, Geotab, Trimble Transportation, along with the new version of RTA, SAP plant maintenance module, and Focus for comparability purposes. The companies selected are not only industry leaders in fleet management, but also those that have experience in working with government fleets or municipal fleets. Verizon Connect and Trimble Transportation are U.S. based companies and SAP is a German company. The remainder of the companies on the list are Canadian-based companies. Further information regarding the providers can be found in Provider Portfolio section on page 117. The following table provides an overview of how each solution performs in each functional area identified by the City as in scope of this assessment. Expected Business Outcome Vehicle Maintenance x Telematics x x Driver Management x x x Speed Management x x x Fuel Management x Part Inventory Management x x x x x Dispatching and Routing x x Insurance Benefit x x x x x Integration with SAP User Friendly System x Legend: Meet the Expected Outcome Fail to Meet the Expected Outcome - 476 - | Functional requirements 113 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Functional requirements In order to achieve the City’s expected outcomes of the new fleet management and vehicle tracking system, 14 functional requirements were identified and used as the criteria in assessing the 8 technology options. Vehicle Tracking and Telematics The fleet vehicle tracking and telematics system allows the information exchange between a vehicle and the operation team from the City. The chart below outlines the key functional requirements related to vehicle tracking and telematics. Functional Requirement Verizon Connect Fleet Complete RTA Coencorp Geotab Trimble SAP Focus Ability to provide GPS tracking of assets This function is supported This function is supported Requires a separate vendor contract to enable GPS tracking This function is supported Geotab GO7 expandable plug & play telematics device enable GPS tracking Trimble’s Fleet & Asset Trackers provide GPS visibility, event monitoring, and remote asset data on a near- global basis Not core functionality This function is supported Geo-fencing capability This function is supported Not core functionality Not core functionality This function is supported This function is supported This function is supported Not core functionality This function is supported Ability to provide engine diagnostics Not core functionality This function is supported Not core functionality This function is supported This function is supported This function is supported Not core functionality Not core functionality Ability to provide maintenance scheduling This function is supported This function is supported This function is supported This function is supported This function is supported This function is supported This function is supported This function is supported Confirmed Not core functionality Needs further investigation Legend - 477 - | Functional requirements 114 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Supply Chain Tires, part inventories and fuel are three major components of the fleet supply chain. The chart below outlines the key functional requirements for the fleet supply chain. Functional Requirement Verizon Connect Fleet Complete RTA Coencorp Geotab Trimble SAP Focus Ability to track, record the procurement of tires This function is supported Not core functionality This function is supported Not core functionality Not core functionality Not core functionality Not core functionality Not core functionality Ability to track, record the procurement of part inventory Not core functionality Not core functionality This function is supported Provides part inventory tracking Provides part inventory tracking and ordering Not core functionality Not core functionality Not core functionality Ability to track, record and reduce fuel usage Not core functionality Provides fuel usage reports Allows fuel usage tracking and tank level monitoring This function is supported This function is supported Provides fuel theft detection Provide reports on fuel consumption per kilometer driven This function is supported Confirmed Not core functionality Needs further investigation Legend - 478 - | Functional requirements 115 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Driver Management The chart below outlines the key functional requirements related to driver management and enablement functionalities that promote driver-to-driver, dispatcher-to-driver communication, driving behavior coaching, and geographical information system-based capabilities. Functional Requirement Verizon Connect Fleet Complete RTA Coencorp Geotab Trimble SAP Focus Ability to enable real-time driver communication Enables messaging between drivers and dispatchers Not core functionality Not core functionality Not core functionality This function is supported This function is supported Not core functionality Provides instant messaging between drivers and dispatchers Provides visual in-cab training With in-cab real-time alerts, an audible buzzer reminds drivers when unsafe driving is detected Includes real- time monitoring of aggressive driving and video analytics with in-cab coaching Not core functionality Not core functionality Provides in- vehicle, proactive coaching with customized messaging and rules This function is supported Not core functionality This function is supported Geographical Information System (GIS)- based capabilities Records, collects, manipulates, analyzes and interprets all types of spatial or geographical data This function is supported Not core functionality Not core functionality Not core functionality Provides an interactive, easy-to-use interface with 2D, 3D and Driver Safety views Not core functionality This function is supported Electronic on- board recorder/Tacho graph This function is supported Vision dash cam uses sensor technology to track driver performance Not core functionality Not core functionality Geotab's GPS vehicle tracking and telematics starts recording as soon as the driver begins driving Provides a platform that brings forward- facing camera technology and PeopleNet’s Onboard Event Recording (OER) into an integrated system Not core functionality Not core functionality Confirmed Not core functionality Needs further investigation Legend - 479 - | Functional requirements 116 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Fleet Optimization The chart below outlines the functional requirements related to optimization of the fleet operation, productivity increase by adopting technology such as dynamic routing. Functional Requirement Verizon Connect Fleet Complete RTA Coencorp Geotab Trimble SAP Focus Dynamic dispatching and routing This function is supported This function is supported Not core functionality This function is supported This function is supported Not core functionality Not core functionality This function is supported Ability to reduce insurance premiums Provide proof of safety driving record; Verizon works with a number of insurance companies to leverage the telematics data, improving fleet driving safety standards Partnered with Intact Insurance to offer clients significant saving Not core functionality Not core functionality Assist to prove no-fault to insurance by providing safety driving records; No partnership with insurance companies Not core functionality Not core functionality Not core functionality Ability to provide custom reports to assist decision making This function is supported This function is supported Not core functionality Not core functionality This function is supported This function is supported This function is supported This function is supported Confirmed Not core Needs further Legend - 480 - | Non-functional Requirements 117 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Non-functional Requirements In order to achieve the City’s expected outcomes of the new fleet management and vehicle tracking system, 7 functional requirements were identified and used as the criteria in assessing the 8 technology options. IT - Integration & Compatibility The diagram below shows requirements that a fleet solution should be able to meet in order to achieve a direct integration with the City’s other applications and connect to Internet of Things (IoT). Non - Functional Requirement Verizon Connect Fleet Complete RTA Coencorp Geotab Trimble SAP Focus Ability to achieve direct integration with SAP Can be integrated with SAP Can be integrated with SAP API* features enabled Can be integrated with SAP Fleet telematics data can be integrated into City’s other system by leveraging software development kit (SDK)** API features enabled This function is supported This function is supported IoT application enablement This function is supported This function is supported This function is supported This function is supported This function is supported This function is supported This function is supported This function is supported *An application programming interface (API) is an interface or communication protocol between a client and a server intended to simplify the building of client-side software. It has been described as a “contract” between the client and the server, such that if the client makes a request in a specific format, it will always get a response in a specific format or initiate a defined action. **The SDK is available in the following ways: HTTP JSON web service, Native C# library and Native JavaScript library Confirmed Not core functionality Needs further investigation Legend - 481 - | Non-functional Requirements 118 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. IT – Deployment and Supports The chart below depicts the system’s ability to offer cloud-based solution and provide a user-friendly platform with fast issue resolution support. Non - Functional Requirement Verizon Connect Fleet Complete RTA Coencorp Geotab Trimble SAP Focus Ability of system to offer cloud-based solution This function is supported This function is supported This function is supported This function is supported This function is supported This function is supported This function is supported This function is supported Ability to provide intuitive and easy to learn user interface This function is supported This function is supported Received complaints from current users within the City This function is supported This function is supported This function is supported This function is supported This function is supported Ability to provide fast issue resolution supports Received complaints for poor customer support and issues with engine diagnostics synchronization , system glitches, and mileage tracking This function is supported RTA Fleet Management offers the following support options: FAQs, Forum, Knowledge Base, Online Support, Phone Support, Video Tutorials This function is supported This function is supported This function is supported This function is supported This function is supported Confirmed Not core functionality Needs further investigation Legend - 482 - | Non-functional Requirements 119 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Security & Safety The chart below depicts the system’s ability to ensure data security and safety to protect personal data such as emails, passwords, and vehicle information. Non - Functional Requirement Verizon Connect Fleet Complete RTA Coencorp Geotab Trimble SAP Focus Data Security Comprehensive data privacy policy in place to ensure personal data such as emails, passwords, and vehicle information are protected Networks and systems are secured, monitored and managed centrally to protect against unauthorized access or abuse Comprehensive data privacy policy in place to ensure personal data such as emails, passwords, and vehicle information are protected Comprehensive data privacy policy in place to ensure personal data such as emails, passwords, and vehicle information are protected Comprehensive data privacy policy in place to ensure personal data such as emails, passwords, and vehicle information are protected Comprehensive data privacy policy in place to ensure personal data such as emails, passwords, and vehicle information are protected Comprehensive data privacy policy in place to ensure personal data such as emails, passwords, and vehicle information are protected Comprehensive data privacy policy in place to ensure personal data such as emails, passwords, and vehicle information are protected Details on Cloud Hosting Within the United States of America Within Canada The service is controlled, operated, and administered by RTA within the United States of America Within Canada (Quebec) All Geotab server infrastructure is hosted in Google Cloud Platform Within the United States of America Depends on the location of SAP Cloud Platform (SCP) Vendor has data centres in Canada Confirmed Not core functionality Needs further investigation Legend - 483 - | Non-functional Requirements 120 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities Technology options – Provider portfolio - 484 - 121 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. The sources for the technology options research include: Gartner report “2018 Market Guide for Transportation Mobility Technology”, the providers’ official websites, solution brochures provided by the providers, and customer reviews available on the web. Verizon Connect Verizon Connect offers a cloud-based, software-as-a-service (SaaS) platform. It provides innovative fleet tracking solutions with advanced GPS tracking to seamlessly monitor and manage the entire mobile workforce. Highlights • Verizon Connect (formerly Verizon Telematics) is a U.S.-based company that offers telematics, field service management, routing and scheduling and analytics. • Verizon Connect has become the largest global fleet telematics provider after its acquisitions of Telogis and Fleetmatics in 2016. • Industries: Supports a number of industries including government and municipalities on an international level. • https://www.verizonconnect.com/ca/solutions/gps-fleet-tracking-software/ Core Strengths • According to Gartner Research’s Market Guide, Verizon is a large vendor with global reach that offers broader solutions, not only in telematics but also IoT. • With in-cab real-time alerts, an audible buzzer reminds drivers when unsafe driving is detected. • Verizon Connect uses asset utilization reports to make better use of the equipment and provides actionable suggestions to sell off rarely used assets and scale back on daily maintenance costs. • Enables reshuffle and prioritization of stops on the fly to decrease the distance traveled between jobs, improving response times. • Historical reports provide proof of safety driving record, helping lower insurance rates. Verizon also works with a number of insurance companies to leverage the telematics data, improving fleet driving safety standards which could reduce insurance spend. Fleet Complete Fleet Complete is a cloud-based fleet management solution for businesses of all sizes. It is a leading global provider of mission-critical fleet, asset and mobile workforce management solutions to over 6,000 customers worldwide. Highlights • Fleet Complete is a Canadian company based in Toronto, Ontario. • With a reported growth rate above 53% in 2018, Fleet Complete currently ranks as one of the fastest growing telematics companies among the top international aftermarket solution providers in fleet management. • Industries: Supports a number of industries including government and municipalities on an international level. • www.fleetcomplete.com Core Strengths • The driver safety program includes real-time monitoring of aggressive driving and video analytics with in- cab coaching to increase self-awareness and accountability on the road. • Fleet Tracker collects over 20 data points from the vehicle’s onboard computer, along with Diagnostic Trouble Codes. It notifies the fleet manager of minor or major defects before critical breakage occurs, helping minimize downtime and prolong vehicle health. • Fleet Complete partnered with Intact Insurance to offer clients savings and contribute to stable insurance costs. - 485 - 122 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. RTA Fleet Management Software RTA Fleet Management software is an integrated vehicle tracking and inventory management solution designed for transport businesses of all sizes. The solution can either be installed locally on-premises or hosted on a secure cloud facility. Highlights • RTA Fleet Management is a U.S.-based company. • RTA was founded in 1979 and based in Glendale, Arizona. • Industries: Supports a number of industries including government and municipalities in North America. • www.rtafleet.com/rta-mobile/ Core Strengths • RTA Fleet Management software offers a robust inventory management feature, allowing fleet managers to manage parts inventory, assign unique numbers to each item and keep a record of parts usage. It provides Vendor Tracking, Cost Markup, Unlimited Cross-Referencing, Warrant Tracking, and Back Order Tracking. • The solution also tracks warranties for each item and measures vendor performance. • Tire management: RTA provides Tire Size Tracking, PSI Tracking, Tires in Inventory List, Tire History, Tire Tread Depth Tracking, and Tires in Inventory. Figure 17: RTA Dashboard Summary: The dashboard shows a facility’s vehicle availability, inventory count/values and labour hours. - 486 - 123 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Coencorp Coencorp is a leading innovator of automated fleet and fuel management solutions. Site Manager 2 (SM2) is Coencorp’s web- based software platform that incorporates dedicated hardware peripheral devices to provide a fully integrated hardware and software solution. Highlights • Coencorp is a Canadian company founded in 1991 and headquartered in Montreal. • Industries: Supports a number of industries including government and municipalities on an international level. • www.coencorp.com/ Core Strengths • Coencorp aims to reduce environmental footprint, monitor fuel loss through leakage using the electronic system, and aid operators in recognizing the potential problem and halting the leak before both fuel is lost and damage to the environment is caused. This has a direct impact on insurance costs, labor and health expenses, as well as giving a potential extra access to green funding. • SM2 automatically monitors the remote generators and engine status, provides seamless and accurate updates of critical maintenance planning data such as mileage, engine hours, and fuel consumption. Figure 18: Coencorp Dashboard Summary: An example of Coencorp’s custom dashboard that can be configured according to the user’s needs. - 487 - 124 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Geotab Inc. Geotab Inc. is a privately held company that specializes in the area of global positioning system, fleet management and vehicle tracking. Geotab focuses on building a platform where businesses are able to customize their solution, access data, and discover actionable insights on one web-based software solution. Highlights • Geotab was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Ontario, Canada. In June of 2018 Geotab acquired FleetCarma, a telematics player in the electric vehicle fleet management space. • In 2018 Geotab announced the launch of "IoT Data Insight Solutions“. This publicly available tool helps enable smart cities, leveraging data collected from over 1 million vehicles equipped with Geotab telematics devices. • Industries: Supports a number of industries including government and municipalities on an international level. • www.geotab.com/ Core Strengths • Geotab has been included in Deloitte’s Technology Fast 500 list in North America for 5 years (2010– 2014). In 2014, Geotab was in the top 20 in the Software sector of the Fast 500. • Geotab uses customized driver “zone” for geo-fencing and provides exception reporting and notifications for exiting defined “zones”. • The system provides electronic logging device (ELD) compliance with alerts to minimize Hours of Service (HOS) violations with in-app driver warnings; Real-time alerts for violations and drivers not logged in; Compliance managers can track driver logs, violations and hours remaining. • Visibility into trends on fuel usage and fill-ups, access to critical engine data for proactive vehicle maintenance; Tracks key fuel metrics: Fuel consumption, Fuel economy (the actual MPG), Fuel level, Fuel idling, Engine faults (such as faulty oxygen sensor). Trimble Transportation Trimble Transportation, formerly PeopleNet, a Trimble (NASDAQ: TRMB) Company and leading provider of fleet mobility technology. Highlights • In 2018, Trimble unified PeopleNet, TMW and 10-4 under a singular brand, articulating its approach in providing a comprehensive fleet mobility, management and logistics platform, enabling customers to connect all aspects of their business—trucks, drivers, freight and assets—to make more informed decisions and reach new levels of productivity, efficiency and safety. • Industries: Supports a number of industries including government and municipalities in North America. • www.transportation.trimble.com Core Strengths • The system is capable of engine management and tele-diagnostics, and has options for extensive customization. • The platform utilizes a professionally managed network that uses satellites and wireless carriers to return all telematics data to the data centers almost instantly. The data stored in the system can be accessed via any web based software application, mobile devices, or 3rd party platform with an access to the API. • Trimble’s Fleet & Asset Trackers provide GPS visibility, event monitoring, and remote asset data on a near-global basis. • The system provides an interactive, easy-to-use interface with 2D, 3D and Driver Safety views; Safe, accurate and truck-legal spoken turn-by-turn navigation. - 488 - 125 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. SAP Fleet Solution SAP is a German multinational software corporation that makes enterprise software to manage business operations and customer relations. SAP offers a fleet management solution that can be added and integrated into its existing suite of solutions. Highlights • SAP is the City’s new ERP system and was included in the research given the City already has a software contract in place with the vendor. • Key SAP fleet management features are: ‒ Fleet Administration: Fleet administration manages the procurement, leasing, insurance, depreciation, and personnel allocation of fleet objects. ‒ Fleet Maintenance: Fleet maintenance includes repair, tire management, and warranty management. ‒ Transportation Logistics: This process includes capabilities for vehicle tracking, scheduling, and routing to improve fleet efficiency, productivity, accountability, and profitability. ‒ Fleet Analysis: Fleet-specific reporting that analyzes the cost of fleet, performance analysis, transportation logistics analysis, fleet consumption analysis. ‒ Capacity Planning Capacity requirements planning can help determine which fleet objects are available and when to assign them to order operations. Core Strengths • As a standalone solution, SAP S/4HANA's sophistication makes it a popular choice for fleets that form part of a larger supply chain. • SAP partners with companies in the fleet management sphere as well. These include a mix of global players: Telogis, ARI, TomTom, Chevin, and others. • The fleet object can be used as a reference object for maintenance or service tasks, notification or an order. User can also perform maintenance planning for a fleet object. - 489 - 126 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Focus Focus was established in 1972 and initially involved in the radio communication service industry. Focus later launched projects to develop cloud-based vehicle tracking software that transferred GPS data to fleet dispatchers and started to provide a solution that fully integrates fleet tracking, fuel inventory monitoring and maintenance management. Highlights • Focus is the fleet management provider for the Ministère des Transports du Québec. • Focus is a Canadian company founded in 1972 and headquartered in Quebec. • Industries: Supports a number of industries including government and municipalities on a national level. Core Strengths • Focus introduced its new fuel management system integrated with its fleet management solution with electronic driver and equipment I.D. These new services were designed to help users optimize productivity and achieve fuel savings. • Focus has a task management feature that monitors material resources used in predefined tasks. • The system generates calendar-based, mileage-based, and hour-based maintenance alerts. • Focus Fuel extension controls the activity of fuel tanks, supervises filling activities per equipment, per employee and per supplier, and provides analytical reports on fuel consumption. • For City of Pickering, Focus installed GNX-5P on-board model in each vehicle. It was the latest model offered by manufacturer and supports multiple wireless communication options including General Packet Radio Services (GPRS), 4G, 3G High Speed Packet Access (HSPA) and 2G Code-Division Multiple Access (CDMA). Figure 19: Focus Repair Report Screen Summary: Focus provides mechanical history for each vehicle, maintenance work category, mechanics, cost, and time spent associated with each repair. - 490 - 127 © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. Conclusion Based on the information gathered in this report, there is a gap between the City’s current software capability and processes, and the desired performance of its fleet operations. The City’s existing fleet management and vehicle tracking solution has aged. It lacks the functionality required to realize efficiencies, save costs and improve day-to-day functions. These functionalities are well- developed in some fleet management software on the market today. The current software has very limited capabilities in fleet data analytics, vehicle tracking, and maintenance scheduling, which were the areas identified with the most significant opportunities for improvement. In the efforts of achieving the City’s expected outcome of lower risks associated with fleet investments, lower operating cost, higher volume of work output, increased worker safety, higher integration level across different departments and improved resident satisfaction, a list of functional and non-functional requirements for a new fleet management software has been developed, and 8 potential providers of fleet management and vehicle tracking solutions have been assessed against the requirements. Please note that the analysis in this report was conducted based on information that was made available during the meetings and interviews with the City. The requirements generated are high-level and serve the purpose of scanning the potential fleet management and vehicle tracking solutions available on the market. A formal system selection with potential vendors and a full list of detailed functional and non-functional requirements is needed in order to thoroughly assess the solutions and to accurately quantify the cost savings. A system selection will include formal scoring and detailed solution demonstrations and should follow the City’s bylaws for software procurement and potentially a RFP (Request for Proposal) process. An estimate of potential cost savings is calculated based on the 108 vehicles that have been actively managed by the Operations team and the cost savings observed in a use case of a similar sized fleet. An annual incremental cost savings of $308,667 could potentially be achieved by upgrading Pickering’s fleet management and vehicle tracking system, assuming the new solution meets the City’s requirements around Vehicle Maintenance, Dispatching and Routing, and Inventory Management. In order to successfully implement such a solution, the City will need to review their internal resourcing levels to ensure adequate support for a transformational project, including system implementation, process changes and ongoing maintenance. - 491 - www.deloitte.ca About Deloitte Deloitte provides audit & assurance, consulting, financial advisory, risk advisory, tax and related services to public and private clients spanning multiple industries. Deloitte serves four out of five Fortune Global 500® companies through a globally connected network of member firms in more than 150 countries and territories bringing world-class capabilities, insights and service to address clients' most complex business challenges. To learn more about how Deloitte's approximately 264,000 professionals—9,400 of whom are based in Canada—make an impact that matters, please connect with us on LinkedIn, Twitter or Facebook. Deloitte LLP, an Ontario limited liability partnership, is the Canadian member firm of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, a UK private company limited by guarantee, and its network of member firms, each of which is a legally separate and independent entity. Please see www.deloitte.com/about for a detailed description of the legal structure of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited and its member firms. © Deloitte LLP and affiliated entities. - 492 - Report to Council Report Number: FIN 26-19 Date: December 16, 2019 From: Stan Karwowski Director, Finance & Treasurer Subject: Trillium Housing Oak Non-Profit Corporation - Request to Defer Payment of Development Charges Recommendation: 1. That Report FIN 26-19 of the Director, Finance & Treasurer be received; 2. That, pursuant to By-law 7595/17: a) the request by Trillium Housing Oak Non-Profit Corporation to defer the payment of the City’s share of Development Charges estimated to be $2,620,000 prior to any increase in any Development Charge Fees and the deferral be to December 14, 2020 be approved; b) that Trillium Housing Oak Non-Profit Corporation be required to enter into a Development Charge Deferral Agreement with the City on terms satisfactory to the Director, Finance & Treasurer and the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor; 3. That Council direct staff to develop a Development Charge deferral payment strategy for Trillium Housing Oak Non-Profit Corporation for the City Share Development Charge payments with an effective start date of December 15, 2020 that meets the legislation and regulations of the day; and 4. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Executive Summary: During the last federal election, all of the major political parties recognized the need to address and/or provide affordable housing. Today, there is a need in Pickering/Durham Region to provide affordable housing. In order to assist Trillium Housing Oak Non-Profit Corporation (Trillium), it is proposing to build a 212 entry level town houses (2 phases) and to provide affordable financing for up to 100 income-eligible buyers. Trillium is asking the City to defer payment of - 493 - FIN 26-19 December 16, 2019 Subject: Trillium Housing Oak Non-Profit Corporation - Request Page 2 to Defer Payment of Development Charges development fees from building permit issuance to 120 days after first occupancy of each phase. Bill 108, More Homes, More Choice Act, 2019, received Royal Assent on June 6, 2019. It is anticipated that Bill 108 will become fully proclaimed as of January 1, 2021 based on draft regulations. Under Bill 108, changes were made to the Development Charges Act, whereby soft services currently charged in the existing development charge fee such as recreation, libraries and studies will no longer be part of the development charge but instead will form part of the new Community Benefits Charge or CBC. The City’s work plan is to introduce the CBC By-law and revised Development Charge at the December 14, 2020 Council meeting. Therefore, Recommendation 2a) will meet the goal of deferring the Development Charge payments under the old legislation until Council passes or adopts the new CBC By-law and revised Development Charge By- law that is anticipated to be December 14, 2020. Recommendation 3 fulfills the spirit and/or intent of the City to support the deferral of Development Charge payments for Trillium based on legislation and regulations applicable to at that time. Unfortunately, the regulations that relate to the CBC haven’t yet been issued by the Province and that is why the City has to adopt this two-step process. Under recommendation 2a), the deferral will not result in any reduction in the amount of the development charges paid to the City by Trillium. _____________________________________________________________________ Financial Implications: Deferral of the payment of development charges will not result in any loss of Development Charge revenue for the City. There will be no requirements to secure the deferral. The deferral of development charges delays the receipts of revenue and impacts the cash flow position of the Development Charge reserve funds. ______________________________________________________________________ Discussion: The Council of the City of Pickering adopted Report FIN 28-17 of the Director, Finance & Treasurer on the 2017 Development Charges Study and enacted By-law No. 7595/17 of the City’s current Development Charge By-law. The Development Charge By-law requires payment of development charges prior to issuance of a building permit. Typically, a municipality will consider a request to defer the payment of development charges when it is in the broader community interest to do so. The Trillium proposal meets this test. - 494 - FIN 26-19 December 16, 2019 Subject: Trillium Housing Oak Non-Profit Corporation - Request Page 3 to Defer Payment of Development Charges The Trillium Housing model was created 5 years ago. It is a unique process that brings housing affordability within conventional housing developments. Trillium Housing Oak Non-Profit Corporation has 3 principals and outsources activities like mortgage brokerage and sales teams. In addition, their developer partner VanMar has been in the construction business for over 30 years, and currently has well over 1,000 housing units in production. The 3 principals have over 100 years in combined experience in housing development, finance, construction and management. The 3 principals have also had leadership positions in organizations such as Mainstay Housing, Toronto Community Housing and Canadian Mortgage Housing Corporation. During 2020, staff in conjunction with Watson & Associates will continue to monitor the legislation and/or regulations as they pertain to Development Charges and/or the CBC to ensure that the City’s Development Charge deferral for this project meets current and future legislative requirements. Staff have also informed Trillium that they should also continue to monitor the applicable legislation to identify new opportunities and to ensure that they are aware of any and all possible legislative changes that may impact their project. Attachments: None Prepared/Approved By: Original Signed By: Stan Karwowski, MBA, CPA, CMA Director, Finance & Treasurer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer - 495 - Report to Council Report Number: PLN 22-19 Date: December 16, 2019 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Universal City Precinct Plan Unique AT Holding Corporation, Universal City One Developments Inc., Nal-Band Holdings Inc. – Gestion Nal-Band Inc. Part of Lots 21 and 22, Concession 1 (1454, 1462, 1470 and 1474 Bayly Street) Files: D-1100-098 and A 10/19 Recommendation: 1. That City Council approve the Universal City Precinct Plan as generally illustrated in Appendix I, subject to any modifications identified through the Site Plan Approval process and implementation matters that may arise in the course of preparing the agreements referred to in Recommendations 2, 3 and 4; 2. That City Council authorize the execution and registration on title of the Infrastructure Agreement for the H6 Block, substantially in the form attached as Appendix II, between the City and the participating landowners (Unique AT Holding Corporation, Universal City One Developments Inc., and Nal-Band Holdings Inc. – Gestion Nal-Band Inc.) to implement the Universal City Precinct Plan, such agreement to be in a form satisfactory to the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor; 3. That City Council authorize the execution and registration on title of the Master Development Agreement, substantially in the form attached as Appendix III between the City, Unique AT Holding Corporation and Universal City One Developments Inc., such agreements to be in a form satisfactory to the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor; 4. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 10/19 to amend City Centre Zoning By-law-7553/17, as amended, to remove the “H6” Holding Symbol on lands municipally known as 1454, 1462, 1470 and 1474 Bayly Street, as set out in Appendix IV, be enacted by Council. 5. The appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto. Executive Summary: The participating Downtown Pickering Landowners Group has submitted a Precinct Study for the lands located on the north side of Bayly Street, south of Highway 401, east of the Pickering GO Station and west of Sandy Beach Road in support of removing the “H6” Holding Symbol on their lands (see Attachment #1, Air Photo Map). - 496 - PLN 22-19 December 16, 2019 Subject: Universal City Precinct Plan Page 2 The submitted Precinct Plan is a collaborative effort between the participating Downtown Pickering Landowners Group and City staff, which began with the Downtown Pickering Visioning exercise in 2011, to facilitate a high density mixed-use development that is well-designed, pedestrian friendly, and transit-oriented (see Attachment #2, Land Ownership Map). The new development consists of 6 towers ranging in height between 17-storeys and 50-storeys, and introduces approximately 2,296 new residential units and approximately 2,630 square metres of commercial/retail space at grade. The proposal also includes a new network of public and private streets, a new public urban square, and the realignment and re-habilitation of the Krosno Creek (see Appendix I, Submitted Universal City Precinct Plan). Staff have reviewed the Universal City Precinct Plan and supporting studies and materials. The Region of Durham is satisfied with the submitted Comprehensive Master Transportation Study indicating that the existing and planning transportation improvements can accommodate the high-density mixed-use development. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority are satisfied the proposed interim and ultimate works that are required to rechannelize and naturalize the Krosno Creek valley corridor. The required Cost Sharing Agreement, Infrastructure Agreement, and Master Development Agreement will secure the coordination of interim works and the long -term build out of the Precinct Plan. Any technical issues will be addressed on a site -specific basis through the Site Plan Approval Process. Staff recommend approval of the Universal City Precinct Plan as generally illustrated in Appendix I, and the enactment of the draft Zoning By-law Amendment as attached in Appendix IV to lift the remaining “H6” Holding Symbol on the lands owned by the Downtown Pickering Landowners Group. Furthermore, staff recommend that Council authorize the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor to execute and register on title the Infrastructure Agreement, and Master Development Agreement as attached in Appendices, II, and III, respectively. Financial Implications: No direct cost to the City are anticipated as a result of the proposed development. 1. Background On April 11, 2017, Pickering Council approved a new comprehensive City Initiated City Centre Zoning By-law 7553/17 and the City Centre Urban Design Guidelines. The By-law was approved by the Ontario Municipal Board on February 22, 2018. The By-law introduced new zone categories; permitted a broad range of uses, incorporated new development standards to regulate the size, location, massing and height of buildings; identified minimum and maximum floor space index provisions, and introduced new vehicle and bicycle parking standards. The design guidelines provide design direction for intensification, to guide building design and private development as well as investments in public infrastructure in the City Centre. - 497 - PLN 22-19 December 16, 2019 Subject: Universal City Precinct Plan Page 3 The new comprehensive City Centre Zoning By-law rezoned the lands located on the north side of Bayly Street, east of the Pickering GO Station, south of Highway 401 and west of Sandy Beach Road, municipally known as 1400, 1410, 1420, 1454, 1462, 1470 and 14 74 Bayly Street, to City Centre Two (CC2) and the lands associated with the Krosno Creek valley corridor were rezoned to Natural Heritage System (NHS). These lands are also subject to an “H” Holding Symbol, identified as H6 in the City Centre Zoning By-law (see Attachment #1, Air Photo Map). The following conditions are required to be completed by the participating Downtown Pickering Landowners Group, to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering, prior to obtaining a building permit,: approval of a block development plan (also referred to as a Precinct Plan) demonstrating the orderly development of the lands providing details regarding such matters as: street and block pattern; pedestrian, landscape and open space connections; parking strategy; community uses such as parks, community centres and other public uses; conservation and enhancement of natural features; public and private street right-of-way design; and phasing of the proposed development; completion of a comprehensive transportation study assessing the impact on the transportation system and ensuring appropriate road infrastructure is in place to support the development of the lands; execution of cost sharing agreements for matters such as community uses, public parks, municipal roads and infrastructure, are made between the participating landowners; submission of an Environmental Impact Study and a detailed engineering design and restoration plan for the rehabilitation of Krosno Creek; and execution of an agreement to ensure that the restored and rehabilitated Krosno Creek and the valley corridor will be conveyed into public ownership upon completion of the works, to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering. In December 2017, the participating Downtown Pickering Landowners Group, which includes Unique AT Holding Corporation and Universal City One Developments Inc. (referred to as “Chestnut Hill Developments”), and Nal-Band Holdings Inc. – Gestion Nal- Band Inc. (referred to as “Nal-Band Holdings”), submitted a detailed Precinct Plan, along with the supporting studies, in support of removing the “H6” Holding Symbol for the lands within the Universal City Precinct Study area (see Attachment #2, Land Ownership Map). While the Precinct Plan was under review by the TRCA, the Region, and the City, C hestnut Hill Developments requested removal of the ‘H6’ Holding Symbol on the first three phases of their development. Subsequently on June 25, 2018 and June 24, 2019, Council enacted amending by-laws to remove the ‘H6’ Holding Symbol on the first three phases. 2. Universal City Precinct Study The intent of the Precinct Study is to ensure that key details related to: the street and pedestrian networks; landscape and open space connections; park location and design; right-of-way design; servicing and grading for the area; and rehabilitation of the Krosno Creek, are planned and phased in a coordinated and orderly manner in consultation with the City, the Region of Durham and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). - 498 - PLN 22-19 December 16, 2019 Subject: Universal City Precinct Plan Page 4 In support of the Precinct Study, the participating Downtown Pickering Landowners Group and their consulting team have submitted various supporting documentation and studies to develop their proposal. These studies include: a comprehensive block development plan; detailed landscape plans; street and block pattern identifying public and private roads; right-of-way design details for the public and private roads; preliminary design details of the public urban square (piazza); shadow analysis; parking strategy; complete Krosno Creek realignment design and rehabilitation plan; functional serving and stormwater management; and a comprehensive transportation study. 2.1 Proposal for a mixed use high-density residential development The Downtown Pickering Landowners Group is proposing a new mixed-use high density residential development introducing approximately 2,296 new residential units and approximately 2,630 square metres of commercial/retail space at grade. A total of 6 towers are proposed ranging in height between 17-storeys and 50-storeys. Also proposed is a new east-west municipal collector road, referred to as City Centre South Main Street, and a north-south private street connecting Bayly Street to City Centre South Main Street . The proposal also includes a 1,250 square metre public urban square on the north side of City Centre South Main Street at the terminus of the private street from Bayly Street (see Attachment #3, Submitted Block Development Plan). Additional statistics are provided in Attachment #4 to this Report. The buildings will be developed in phases. Site Plan Applications for Buildings ‘E’, ‘D’ and ‘C’ (Phases 1, 2 and 3, respectively) have been submitted by Chestnut Hill Developments to permit 3 mixed-use buildings ranging in height between 17-storeys and 32-storeys, containing a total of 981 units, and approximately 1,025 square metres of at grade commercial/retail uses. 2.2 Proposed Street and Block Pattern The proposed street and block pattern illustrated on the submitted Block Development Plan generally implements the street, pedestrian and cycling network as illustrated in the approved City Centre Urban Design Guidelines. The proposed City Centre South Main Street will have a right-of-way width of 20 metres. Figure 1 on the next page is a cross-section illustrating: 2 travel lanes; a 2.1 metre wide sidewalk on both sides of the street; generous boulevards for street trees; landscaping, seating and utilities; and a 3.0 metre wide dedicated two -way buffered cycling lane. - 499 - PLN 22-19 December 16, 2019 Subject: Universal City Precinct Plan Page 5 The City will be acquiring lands from the Greater Toronto Transit Authority (“Metrolinx”) through the existing GO commuter parking lot on the west side of Sandy Beach Road in order to complete a portion of the City Centre South Main Street between Krosno Creek and Sandy Beach Road (refer to Report LEG 05-19 for further information regarding the acquisition of the lands). The City Centre South Main Street will be constructed in an interim configuration in order to provide vehicular access to Buildings ‘C’ and ‘D’. Underground parking structures for Buildings ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ will be const ructed under the buildings and the municipal road right-of-way. The ultimate construction and strata conveyance of the public road will not occur until the full build -out of Buildings ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ and construction of the associated underground parking structures. The proposed north-south private road will have a right-of-way width of 18.5 metres. Figure 2 below is a cross-section of the proposed private road. The road will have 2 travel lanes and a minimum 5.0 metre wide boulevard on both sides of the road for pedestrian walkways, street trees, landscaping, and seating. Figure 1: City Centre South Main Street Cross- Section Figure 2: North-South Private Road Cross-Section - 500 - PLN 22-19 December 16, 2019 Subject: Universal City Precinct Plan Page 6 2.3 Landscape Plan To give City Centre South an identity and create a sense of place for residents and visitors, a unified landscape plan has been developed. The proposed landscape plan emphasizes the use of deciduous trees along all public and the majority of all private streets and driveways. Trees will be spaced from 6.0 to 8.0 metres and have a planting soil depth of approximately 1.2 metres to ensure the trees can grow successfully. In situations where there is insufficient space to grow a tree, planting beds will be utilized. The ground surface will consist of pavers, coloured and exposed concrete paving, and coloured stamped asphalt. Bands of paving and consistent paving types are proposed throughout the landscape plan to unify the block. On the public and private roads, special surface treatment will be used at major intersections. The use of a surface treatment other than asphalt will naturally slow down traffic in these heavily pedestrianized areas while providing a delineated space for pedestrians to cross the street. 2.4 Parkland The Block Development Plan illustrates a 1,250 square metre public urban square (piazza) located on the north side of City Centre South Main Street at the terminus of the private road from Bayly Street. The proposed urban square will be a “strata park”, which is a public park located on top of an underground parking garage serving the adjoining develop ments. This block will satisfy the minimum parkland dedication requirements for Chestnut Hill Developments under the Planning Act for. Parkland dedication for Nal-Band Holdings will be satisfied through cash-in-lieu. The design of the public urban square will be completed at the detailed design phase in conjunction with Buildings ‘A’ and ‘B’ (Phases 4 and 5). This public space is envisioned to be hard landscaped and will incorporate opportunities for public art, water and ornamental features, generous soft landscaping elements and outdoor seating areas. The proposed landscaping treatment used within the public and private right-of-ways will be extended into the urban square to give it further prominence. The urban square will also be animated by grade related commercial uses helping to create a distinct gathering space for future residents as well as people visiting South City Centre. Figure 3 on the next page is a preliminary concept design for the public urban square and the landscape treatment for the City Centre South Main Street illustrating how the proposed landscaping and surface materials will unify the public realm. - 501 - PLN 22-19 December 16, 2019 Subject: Universal City Precinct Plan Page 7 As noted above, the public urban square will be a strata parcel located above an underground parking structure. Chestnut Hill Developments has agreed to design and construct the urban square, as well as provide a financial contribution towards the construction of the urban square in the amount of $1,366,170.00. The Master Development Agreement also includes a provision for Chestnut Hill Developments to provide an Interim Park within six months after the registration of the condominium plan for Building ‘D’ (Phase 2). The Interim Park will be located generally within Phases 4 and 5. Chestnut Hill Developments will be responsible for grading and sodding the Interim Park, and granting an easement in favour of the City over the Interim Park permitting access to the park by the residents of Buildings ‘D’ and ‘E’ (Phases 1 and 2). 2.5 Shadow Analysis In support of the tower locations and building heights, Kirkor Architects has submitted a Shadow Study illustrating the shadow impacts of the proposed mixed-use development on the public urban square located within the submitted Block Development Plan. The shadow study encompassed the Spring and Fall equinoxes and the Summer and Winter solstices. Shadows for the Spring and Fall equinoxes (March and September 21) and the Summer solstice (June 21) are documented from 9:18 am to 17:18 pm at 2 hour intervals. Shadows for the Winter solstice (December 21) are documented from 9:18 am to 15:18 pm. The study concludes that there would be some intermit shadow cast over the public urban square during the morning and early afternoon hours. However, late afternoon and evening hours the public open square will have no shadow cast from the proposed towers. Staff concur with the findings that the tower locations and building heights will allow for reasonable hours of sunlight over the public urban square to ensure a comfortable pedestrian environment. Figure 3: Conceptual design for the public urban square and landscape treatment for City Centre South Main Street - 502 - PLN 22-19 December 16, 2019 Subject: Universal City Precinct Plan Page 8 2.6 Servicing and Grading A functional servicing report and a detailed stormwate r management report have been submitted as part of the Precinct Study. These reports examined technical engineering matters related to water service, sanitary sewer service, grading and stormwater management. The City’s Engineering Services Department and the Region of Durham Works Department are generally satisfied with the reports and have advised that adequate municipal infrastructure is available to support the full build-out of the Universal City Precinct Plan. Minor technical details will be addressed through subsequent site plan applications. 2.7 On-site Parking The City Centre Zoning By-law outlines the minimum vehicular and bicycle parking requirements. The statistical information in Attachment #4 to this report summarizes the minimum vehicular and bicycle parking required for each phase of development, and the total vehicular and bicycle parking for the entire development. Chestnut Hill Developments has recently submitted a minor variance application requesting a slight reduction in the parking rate for apartment units from 0.8 spaces per unit to 0.74 spaces per unit for Buildings ‘C’ and ‘D’ (Phases 3 and 4). The parking rates for visitor spaces and retail space will be maintained. In support of Chestnut Hill Developments request, BA Group, a transportation consultant, completed a review of the current condominium parking sales information for Buildings ‘E’ and ‘D’ (Phases 1 and 2). The consultant acknowledges that sales information does not necessarily reflect ultimate demand information at condominium buildings, but it does provides a useful indication of current market demand for vehicle parking. The current parking sales information for the first two phases of the Universal City development indicates that demand for on-site parking space is 0.7 spaces per unit on an overall basis. Based upon parking uptake rates by unit type, the overall parking demand for Phases 2 and 3, results in an overall parking demand of approximately 0.71 spaces per unit. Based on this information, staff are supportive of a reduced parking rate of 0.74 spaces per unit for apartment dwellings for Phases 2 and 3. On November 13, 2019, the Committee of Adjustment approved a minor variance application to reduce the parking rate for apartment units from 0.8 spaces per unit to 0.75 spaces per unit for Buildings ‘C’ and ‘D’ (Phases 3 and 4). - 503 - PLN 22-19 December 16, 2019 Subject: Universal City Precinct Plan Page 9 2.8 Transportation Demand Management Strategies and Initiatives The Universal City Precinct Study area has convenient access to Highway 401, Bayly Street, and Liverpool Road, and is also located in close proximity to the Pickering GO Station transit hub. The central element of the transportation strategy for the Universal City Precinct Study area is to employ a sustainable transportation demand management (TDM) plan for the project that will attempt to influence the way people travel to and from the site. These strategies and initiatives will assist in reducing the overall reliance on single- occupancy vehicles while promoting the use of more active modes of transportation including walking, cycling and using public transit. Some of the strategies and initiatives that are being considered by the Downtown Pickering Landowners Group to assist in reducing travel and parking demands include: Implementing marketing programs aimed at new residential purchasers to ensure that residents are aware of available modal choices in the area; Exploring opportunities to offer car-share services on the site, ideally with car-share stations (parking spaces) located within the parking area of every residential building within the site; Providing unbundled parking for all resident development on -site, allowing purchasers to only pay for the amount of parking they require; Providing sidewalks on all new public and private streets within the project area; Providing for a cycling network within the project area; Where possible, providing bicycle parking in excess of the City’s Zoning By-law requirements; Exploring opportunities to implement a bike share system on the site and in the surrounding area; Consideration for providing subsidy/rebate towards a CAN-BIKE cycling course for purchasers for the first two years of occupancy; Consideration for the commercial component of the project, consideration for providing shower and change facilities to encourage active transportation as a commute option; and Consideration for providing PRESTO fare cards to purchasers of new condominium units for the first two years of occupancy. 3. Comprehensive Transportation Master Plan A comprehensive Transportation Master Plan, prepared by BA Group, was submitted as part of the Precinct Study submission. The purpose of the study was to ensure that the transportation infrastructure can appropriately accommodate the level of development contemplated within the Universal City Precinct Study area. The traffic study concludes that the development of approximately 1,658 residential apartment units within the Precinct Study area can be supported by the existing and planned area road network, prior to the widening of Bayly Street. This conclusion assumes that the planned installation of dual southbound left turn lanes at the intersection of Bayly Street and Brock Road is in place by the time these units are occupied. It also assumes that a road connection from the subject lands throu gh the GO commuter parking lot to Sandy Beach Road is completed as well as the north -south private road between Bayly Street and City Centre South Main Street. - 504 - PLN 22-19 December 16, 2019 Subject: Universal City Precinct Plan Page 10 The Region of Durham’s Transportation Master Plan, dated December 2017, identifies the widening of Bayly Street from 5 to 6/7 lanes between Liverpool Road and Brock Road as an improvement scheduled to occur between 2022 and 2026. With the full build out of all 6 buildings within the Precinct Plan, and the planned Bayly Street widening to 6 to 7 lanes, the area road network will operate at acceptable levels of service. Only modest signal timing improvements at the intersections along Bayly Street are recommended. The vehicular crossing of Krosno Creek and the future northerly extension of Krosno Boulevard is not required for the full build-out of the 6 buildings. The Region’s Works Department has reviewed the submitted Master Transportation Study and has indicated that the study adequately addresses the impacts and the phasing of development. Addendums to this report will be required to address technical matters that can be addressed through the related site plan applications. The Region has advised that they do not object to the removal of the “H6” Holding Symbol from the subject lands. 4. Krosno Creek rechannelization and naturalization works The conditions of lifting the “H6” Holding Symbol require the participating Downtown Pickering Landowners Group to submit an Environmental Impact Study, and detailed engineering drawings for the design and restoration plans for the rehabilitation of the Krosno Creek and associated valley corridor. In addition, the Landowners Group is required to execute an agreement with the City providing appropriate financial securities to ensure the timely completion of the works, and conveyance of the additional valley lands, including the 6.0 metre wide vegetation buffer, to the City. The Landowners Group has submitted a Scoped Environmental Impact Study, prepared by Savanta Inc., dated December 2017. This study assessed the potential impacts of the proposed development on the natural heritage features and associated functions. Also submitted are detailed engineering design and restoration plans for the rehabilitation of the Krosno Creek valley corridor, prepared by Geomorfix and Schaeffers. Krosno Creek originates north of Highway 401 within a system of storm sewers and flows south within a very narrow and modified open channel. To accommodate the proposed development, the existing channel is proposed to be realigned to a meandering configuration and naturalized. The works will be completed in phases. The Downtown Pickering Landowners Group will renaturalize easterly portion of the Krosno Creek and convey the appropriate valley lands and vegetation buffer to the City. The ultimate realignment and naturalization of Krosno Creek will be completed when the lands to be west are redeveloped. TRCA has reviewed the submitted Environmental Impact Study, Functional Site Servicing Report and the detailed design drawings for Krosno Creek. They have advised that the participating Downtown Pickering Landowners Group have resolved key matters related to the natural hazard, natural heritage and water management of this important urban redevelopment projects and have no objections to lifting of “H6” Holding provision on the subject lands. - 505 - PLN 22-19 December 16, 2019 Subject: Universal City Precinct Plan Page 11 The Downtown Pickering Landowners Group will be required to obtain permit(s) from TRCA and complete the renaturalization works along the east side of the Krosno Creek prior to the City issuing any shoring, or below or above grade building permits for Phases 4 and 5. The Master Development Agreement also include financial securities to ensure these works are completed to the City’s satisfaction. 5. Key Agreements to be executed by the Participating Downtown Pickering Landowners The participating Downtown Pickering Landowners are required to execute various agreements in order to facilitate the ultimate built out of the Universal City Precinct Plan. Below is a summary of the four separate agreements that are required to be executed and registered on title. 5.1 Infrastructure Agreement for the H6 Block The purpose of the Infrastructure Agreement for the H6 Block is to ensure the orderly implementation and final build-out of all of the lands with that are subject to the “H6” Holding Symbol. In consideration that the lands that make up the Universal City lands contain multiple parcel ownerships, differing construction schedules and development timelines, and varying physical conditions, the agreement seeks to: 1. Legally secure the timing and phasing of all public dedications and required public infrastructure improvements, including but not limited to the: City Centre South Main Street; Krosno Creek Crossing; Krosno Boulevard Extension; Krosno Creek Improvements; Sandy Beach Cycle Lanes; and, Watermain, Sanitary and Stormwater Infrastructure. Such works shall be at the developers’ expense or subject to applicable Development Charge credits as may be attributed. 2. Outline and secure appropriate interim conditions to allow for incremental development based on the differing construction schedules of abutting parcels and uncertainty of individual owners proceeding with development applications. 3. Identify appropriate financial securities and guarantees to be placed with the City in order to ensure the timely completion of the necessary works and to protect the City from any financial liabilities. Such securities are to be collected by the City at the time of Site Plan Approval of each respective development phase. Identify and indicate any and all works that are eligible for Development Charge Credits and the applicable mechanisms for the sharing of such credits among constructing landowners. 5.2 Cost Sharing Agreement for the H6 Block The purpose of the Cost Sharing Agreement for the lands subject to the “H6” Holding Symbol is to ensure appropriate and equitable cost sharing amongst all participant and non-participating landowners. The City of Pickering is not a signatory of the agreement. In consideration of the varying development timelines and current participants, the agreement seeks to: - 506 - PLN 22-19 December 16, 2019 Subject: Universal City Precinct Plan Page 12 1. Define and identify the applicable cost sharing items and associated works that are to be shared amongst participant and non-participating landowners. 2. Utilize best management practices in the cost sharing of necessary infrastructure works. 3. Define the determination of proportionate shares and the cost obligations for each individual landowner, as well as implement the necessary development milestones for the recalculation of proportionate shares and adjusted gross floor area until all of the lands subject to the “H6” Holding Symbol are fully developed. 4. Define and identify the various methodologies f or the equitable sharing of applicable costs amongst both participant and non-participating landowners. 5. Identify the administrative processes applicable to the management of the overall landowners group and the implementation protocols required to ensure the equitable cost recovery to landowners front ending construction. 6. Identify and indicate any and all works that are eligible for Development Charge Credits and the applicable mechanisms for the sharing of such credits among constructing landowners. 5.3 Master Development Agreement The purpose of the Master Development Agreement is to secure all necessary works that are not subject to Site Plan Approval and to ensure required infrastructure is in place as the various phases are completed. This agreement seeks to: 1. Define and establish the various development phases and the subsequent site plan obligations and required securities for the future phases. 2. Implement the required phasing strategy and secure all necessary securities for the construction of the City Centre South Main Street public road through the development lands, including the interim and ultimate road works, as well as the Metrolinx portion. 3. Provide for and implement the required parkland conveyances and necessary financial securities pursuant to Section 42 of the Planning Act. 4. Implement the Krosno Creek Rechannelization works and all necessary financial securities for the completion of the east side rechannelization. 5. Identify the administrative processes for the conveyance of lands, collection and release of financial securities, and any other financial obligations and insurance liabilities that may be required throughout the development timeline. - 507 - PLN 22-19 December 16, 2019 Subject: Universal City Precinct Plan Page 13 5.4 SCS Consulting was required to peer review the agreements The City has retained the services of SCS Consulting Group (SCS) to peer review the Cost Sharing Agreement, and Infrastructure Agreement prepared by the Downtown Pickering Landowners Group. SCS Consulting Group has extensive experience in developer group management and cost sharing services, and has also served as the Cost Sharing Engineer for numerous landowner groups in the Greater Toronto Area including the North Pickering (Seaton) Landowners. SCS have worked closely with City staff and the consultant team for the H6 Block Owners over the course of the last five months to refine the agreement principles and proportionate shares in both the Infrastructure and Cost Sharing Agreements to accurately reflect the Infrastructure requirements for the H6 Blocks. SCS has provided written confirmation that estimated community servicing costs and the ultimate proportionate shares allocated to all landowners, including the participating landowners (Universal City One Developments Inc., Unique AT Holding Corporation and Nal-Band Holdings Inc. – Gestion Nal-Band Inc.) and non-participating landowners (BMC Bayly Park Inc.) are fair and equitable. 6. Next Steps Chestnut Hill Developments have submitted Site Plan Applications for Buildings ‘E’, ‘D’ and ‘C’ (Phases 1, 2, and 3, respectively). They have also submitted Minor Variance applications requesting the following variances Buildings ‘D’ and ‘C’ (Phase 2 and 3, respectively), which were approved by the Committee of Adjustment at its meeting on November 13, 2019. Building Requested Variance Building ‘D’ (Phase 2) increase the maximum building height from 77 metres to 82 metres decrease the minimum outdoor amenity space per apartment dwelling unit from 2.0 square metres to 1.92 square metres decrease the minimum indoor amenity space per apartment dwelling unit from 2.0 square metres to 1.98 square metres Building ‘C’ (Phase 3) increase the maximum building height from 77 metres to 91 metres decrease the minimum outdoor amenity space per apartment dwelling unit from 2.0 square metres to 1.94 square metres decrease the minimum apartment dwelling parking requirements from 0.8 spaces per dwelling unit to 0.74 spaces per dwelling unit - 508 - PLN 22-19 December 16, 2019 Subject: Universal City Precinct Plan Page 14 The building heights for Buildings ‘B’ and ‘A’ (Phases 4 and 5, respectively), and Building ‘F’ as illustrated on the Block Development Plan, exceeds the maximum permitted building height in the City Centre Zoning By-law. Depending on the final design and configuration of these 3 buildings, Chestnut Hill Developments and Nal-Band Holdings may also require amendments to either the City’s Official Plan and/or the City Centre Zoning By-law to increase the maximum permitted floor space index and the maximum permitted building from 40-storeys to 42 and 50-storeys for Buildings ‘A’ and ‘B’ and from 15-storeys to 17-storeys for Building ‘F’. Chestnut Hill Developments and Nal-Band Holdings acknowledge that they will require amendments to either the City’s Official Plan and/or Zoning By-law to achieve the maximum building height identified in their plans. 7. Staff Recommend that the “H6” Holding Symbol applied to the lands owned by Pickering Downtown Landowners Group be lifted Staff are satisfied with the submitted Universal City Block Development Plan, which provides for an exceptional public realm with a network of new streets, parks, and open space connections within a mixed-use, compact, pedestrian-friendly and transit-supportive development. The Downtown Pickering Landowners Group has satisfied the conditions for lifting the “H6” Holding Symbol to the satisfaction of the Region of Durham, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the City. The various agreements including the Cost Sharing Agreement, Infrastructure Agreement, and Master Development Agreement will ensure the ultimate build out of the Universal City Precinct Plan is completed in a timely and orderly manner. Staff recommend that Council approve the Universal City Precinct Plan as generally illustrated in Appendix I to this report, as well as authorize the execution and registration on title of the Infrastructure Agreement, and Master Development Agreement as attached in Appendix II, and III, respectively, to this report. Staff also recommend that the remaining “H6” Holding Symbol on the lands owned by the Downtown Pickering Landowners group be lifted. Appendices Appendix I Universal City Precinct Plan (Block Development Plan) Appendix II Infrastructure Agreement for H6 Lands Appendix III Master Development Agreement Appendix IV Recommended Draft Zoning By-law Amendment (A 10/19) Attachments 1. Air Photo Map 2. Land Ownership Map 3. Overall Conceptual Plan for City Centre South 4. Universal City Precinct Plan – Statistical Information - 509 - PLN 22-19 December 16, 2019 Subject: Universal City Precinct Plan Page 15 Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review Chief Planner & Urban Design Kyle Bentley, P.Eng. Director, City Development & CBO Paul Bigioni Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor NS:ld Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer Original Signed By Original Signed By Original Signed By Original Signed By Original Signed By - 510 - Appendix I to Report PLN 22-19 Universal City Precinct Plan (Block Development Plan) - 511 - File Number: Date Drawn: Drawn By: Planner: Scale: CAD: see scale bar Drawing Number: SM REVISIONS LIST RG NOTE: 04 JUNE 2019 7920 20 MAR 2018EXISTING PRI VATE ROAD9 Revise channel per Schaeffer & Associates Ltd. linework dated March 2018 LEGEND H6 LANDS BOUNDARY OWNERSHIP BOUNDARIES HIGHWAY 401 C.N.R. BAYLY STREET SANDYBEACHROAD27 MAR 2018 Show road detailing SCALE 0 METRES 100 30 AUG 2018 Revise linework per July 25 2018 Master Plan & Block Plan. ALLIANCE KROSNO BLVDREGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM TOWN OF PICKERING BAYLY ST. & SANDY BEACH ROAD H6 LANDS BLOCK PLAN 6726-1/MASTER PLAN Concept 9.dgn A B E F 30 OCT 2018 INST. No. 60580PROPOSED TRCA PROPERTY LI NEPROPOSED TRCA PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED TRCA PROPERTY LI NEReduce plan detail 1 7 S1 S4.0 01 MAY 2019 Revise Building F podium and increase TRCA setback to 4 metres. 27 MAY 2019 6.57.34.0 FUTURE KROSNO BLVDRevise linework per Mar 29, 2019 Master Plan & Phase 2 Plan & update notes. lands are for illustration purposes only. Zoning By-law. The concept for these non-participating Centre Urban Design Guidelines and the City Centre within the context of the City's Official Plan policies, City (BMC Bayly Park and Metrolinx) can be redeveloped conceptually illustrate how non-participating lands 3. The block plan and supporting drawings/materials plans per Kirkor Architects. dated June 1, 2019 & Phase 3 dated June 4, 2019 2. Updated Universal City Master Site Plan, Phase 2 plan dated November 06, 2018. Associates Krosno Creek Flood Plain Analysis plan 1. Proposed TRCA Property Line per Schaeffer & 05 JUNE 2019 Revised per Master Plan, Phase 2 June 01, 2019 & Phase 3 June 04, 2019 Plans. D C ROAD 05 DEC 2019 Revise Tower heights Buildings A-F STOREYS42 STOREYS31 STOREYS17 STOREYS17 STOREYS28 STOREYS50 CONSULTING WESTON planning + urban design 1-800.363.3558 westonconsulting.com 201 Millway Ave. Suite 19 Vaughan, Ontario L4K 5K8 T. 905.738.8080 F. 905.738.6637 Vaughan: Toronto: T. 416.640.9917 F. 905.738.6637 268 Berkeley St. Toronto, Ontario M5A 2X5 - 512 - Appendix II to Report PLN 22-19 Infrastructure Agreement for H6 Lands - 513 - INFRASTRUCTURE AGREEMENT FOR THE H6 BLOCK THIS AGREEMENT made as of this ____ day of ___________, 2019. AMONGST: Universal City One Developments Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “Universal One”) OF THE FIRST PART — and — Unique AT Holding Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Unique”) OF THE SECOND PART — and — Nal-Band Holdings Inc. Gestion Nal-Band Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “Nal-Band”) OF THE THIRD PART — and — The Corporation of the City of Pickering (hereinafter referred to as the “City”) OF THE FOURTH PART Friedman Law Professional Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “Trustee”) OF THE FIFTH PART WHEREAS there is a holding by-law registered on all of the lands outlined in the plan attached hereto as Schedule “1” (the “H6 Lands”); AND WHEREAS Universal One, Unique and Nal-Band (each a “Participating Owner”, and collectively, the “Participating Owners”) are the registered owners of the lands legally described in Schedule “1A” (collectively, the “Participating Owner’s Lands”); AND WHEREAS the City is or will be the registered owner of the lands shown and labelled as Item 11 in the plan attached as Schedule “1”; - 514 - Page 2 of 27 AND WHEREAS in order to remove the holding by-law and further develop and service the H6 Lands, certain works, services and improvements benefitting some or all of the H6 Lands are required to be constructed and/or funded by the owners of the H6 Lands; AND WHEREAS the Participating Owners agree to design, construct and maintain the Community Services (as hereinafter defined) and upfront the Community Servicing Costs (as hereinafter defined); AND WHEREAS the Participating Owners wish to enter into this Agreement to set out their respective rights and obligations with respect to the Community Services (as hereinafter defined); AND WHEREAS the Participating Owners have entered into a cost sharing agreement dated ____________, setting out the methodology and terms and conditions of the sharing of the costs of the Community Services; AND WHEREAS by adoption of _____________ at a meeting held on _______, the City of Pickering approved the entering into of this Agreement to implement the Community Services and facilitate the lifting of the zoning “Hold” prefixes; NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH that in consideration of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, and the covenants herein contained, the parties hereto covenant and agree as follows: Article 1 DEFINITIONS Definitions In this Agreement and in the Schedules hereto, the following words and expressions shall have the meanings ascribed to them below: (a) “Actual GFA” means the GFA of a development set out in a site plan agreement approved by the City, for all or part of the H6 Lands, as same may be updated, amended or revised; (b) “Administrative Costs” all administrative costs related to this Agreement and the Cost Sharing Agreement, including without limitation: (i) preparation and administration (ii) amendments or to add additional parties; (iii) registration thereof on title to any lands, whether incurred prior to the execution of this Agreement and the Cost Sharing Agreement, or after the execution thereof; (c) “Approved Cost" means any of the cost items listed in the definition of Community Servicing Costs incurred by a Participating Owner and approved in accordance with Section 3.6; (d) “Bayly Street/Krosno Boulevard Traffic Signal” means the works identified as Item 10 in Schedule “2” and visually illustrated in Schedule “8”; (e) “Bayly Street/Krosno Boulevard Traffic Signal Costs” means the costs and expenses related to the Bayly Street/Krosno Boulevard Traffic Signal including without limitation, municipal, consulting, planning, design, engineering, surveying, construction, repairs, - 515 - Page 3 of 27 maintenance, acceptance and assumption, peer review, surveying, legal, cost of any financial security related thereto and any other fees that are payable in respect thereof; (f) “Benefitting Lands” means the H6 Lands and any part thereof (excluding any lands owned by or to be transferred to the City) which receive a benefit from the Community Services as determined by the Group Consultant; (g) “Benefitting Owners” means the Owners of the Benefitting Lands; (h) “BMC Lands” means all or part of the lands legally described as PT LTS 21 & 22 CON 1 PICKERING PTS 1 & 2, 40R6033; PT LT 22 CON 1 PICKERING PT 1, 40R12889 (PIN 26330-0007); (i) “City Centre South Main Street Works” means the works identified as Items 7, and 8 in Schedule “2” and visually illustrated in Schedule “5” with respect to the construction of road works extending from Sandy Beach Road to the eastern boundary of the Krosno Creek Lands; (j) “City Centre South Main Street Costs” means the costs and expenses related to the City Centre South Main Street Works including without limitation, Oversizing Costs, municipal, consulting, planning, design, engineering, surveying, construction, repairs, maintenance, acceptance and assumption, peer review, surveying, legal, cost of any financial security related thereto and other fees that are payable in respect thereof; (k) “City Centre South Main Street Lands” means that portion of the H6 Lands shown in Schedule “5” as Items 7, and 8; (l) “City’s Development Charges By-law” means any by-law approved by the Council of the City of Pickering pursuant to subsection 2(1) of the Development Charges Act, 1997 to impose development charges against land to pay for increased capital costs required due to increased needs for servicing arising from the development of the H6 Lands; (m) “City Solicitor” means the City Solicitor of the City of Pickering and shall include his or her designates; (n) “Community Services” means: (i) City Centre South Main Street Works; (ii) Krosno Boulevard Extension Works; (iii) Krosno Creek Rechannelization Works (Ultimate); (iv) Krosno Creek Rechannelization Works (Phase 1 – Initial); (v) Krosno Creek Rechannelization Works (Phase 2A – East); (vi) Krosno Creek Rechannelization Works (Phase 2B – West); (vii) Krosno Creek Crossing Works; (viii) Sanitary Sewers West Works; (ix) Sanitary Sewers East Works; - 516 - Page 4 of 27 (x) Storm Sewers West Works; (xi) Storm Sewers East Works; (xii) Watermain Works (Ultimate); (xiii) Watermain Works (West); (xiv) Watermain Works (East); and (xv) Bayly Street/Krosno Boulevard Traffic Signal, (xvi) Sanitary Pipe Downstream Upgrade Works (if applicable), when constructed by a Constructing Owner and not by the Region or the City; (o) “Community Servicing Costs” means, subject to any applicable Indexing Factor, costs and expenses related to the Community Services including without limitation, municipal, consulting, planning, design, engineering, topographic and subsurface surveying, construction, repairs, maintenance, acceptance and assumption, peer review, legal, cost of any financial security related thereto and other fees, that are payable in respect of works identified in Schedule “2 plus 10% thereon representing a contingency amount, plus 30% thereon representing an estimate of the Soft Costs, without any duplication, including but not limited to: (i) City Centre South Main Street Costs; (ii) Krosno Boulevard Extension Costs; (iii) Krosno Creek Rechannelization Costs (Ultimate); (iv) Krosno Creek Crossing Costs; (v) Sanitary Sewers West Costs; (vi) Sanitary Sewers East Costs; (vii) Storm Sewers West Costs; (viii) Storm Sewers East Costs; (ix) Watermain Costs (Ultimate); (x) Bayly Street/Krosno Boulevard Traffic Signal Costs; and (xi) GTTA Compensation, if applicable, (xii) Sanitary Pipe Downstream Upgrade Costs, if applicable (p) “Constructing Owner” means the Owner(s) other than the City or the Region, that construct all or any portion of the Community Services; (q) “Cost Sharing Agreement” means the agreement entered into by the Participating Owners with respect to the sharing of the Community Servicing Costs, dated __________, 2019; (r) “Cost Sharing Engineer” means Schaeffer & Associates Ltd.; - 517 - Page 5 of 27 (s) “DC Credit” means a credit which an Owner receives or is eligible to receive or will become eligible to receive as a reimbursement payment or credit against development charges payable pursuant to the City’s Development Charges By-law, as, as same are amended or replaced from time to time, and/or any agreement with the City; (t) “Development Event” means the earlier to occur of (a) the registration of a Plan of Subdivision against an Owner's lands; (b) the registration of a Plan of Condominium against an Owner's lands; (c) the final approval of a severance obtained for development purposes in respect of an Owner's lands pursuant to Section 53 of the Planning Act; for greater clarity, and notwithstanding the foregoing, a "Development Event" shall not be deemed to have occurred where lands are severed for purposes of proceeding with the development of the severed lands by means of any of the other means of development set out in items (a), (b), or (d) herein. Provided further that for lands for which the Development Event is a consent for severance, the occurrence of a "Development Event", thereby triggering cost sharing obligations pursuant to this Agreement, shall only apply to the land that is severed for development and not for the remainder land. In addition, and notwithstanding the foregoing, a "Development Event" shall be deemed not to have occurred where a severance is obtained for the purposes of granting easements, solely for the purposes of transferring land or an interest in land to a Governmental Authority; or (d) the execution of a site plan agreement in respect of an Owner's lands; however a Development Event shall be deemed not to have occurred where a site plan agreement is entered into solely for the purpose of the construction of a sales office or an unoccupied model home; (e) provided however that with regard to a consent for severance or a site plan agreement it shall mean the later of the date that final approval is obtained and all conditions are fulfilled; (u) “Director” means the Director of Engineering Services for the City of Pickering; (v) “Estimated Costs” means the estimated Community Servicing Costs prepared by the Group Consultant and/or the Cost Sharing Engineer, attached hereto as Schedule “2”. An additional 10% in respect of construction contingencies will be added initially to base cost estimates. The contingency amounts carried in cost sharing schedules will be reduced over time as estimated costs are replaced with actual costs of construction; (w) “GFA” means the Gross Floor Area as defined in Zoning By-law 7553/17 as amended, in the form which is in force and effect as at September 1, 2019, applicable to both residential and non-residential land uses; (x) “Governmental Authorities” means any federal, provincial, municipal, local or other government, governmental, regulatory or administrative authority, body, commission or agency, Crown corporations or any tribunal or quasi-governmental authority; - 518 - Page 6 of 27 (y) “Group Consultant” means Weston Consulting Group Inc. or such other consultant as may be appointed by the Participating Owners pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement; (z) “GTTA Compensation” means, subject to Section 3.7(i), the amount if any that the City pays to acquire that portion of the City Centre South Main Street Lands owned by Greater Toronto Transit Authority identified as Item 11 in Schedule “2” pursuant to an agreement of purchase and sale between the City and Metrolinx/Greater Toronto Transit Authority dated ________________; (aa) “GTTA CCSMS Lands” means the lands visually illustrated as Item 11 in Schedule “1”; (bb) “H6 Lands” means the lands legally described in Schedule “1A”; (cc) “Indexing Factor” means the indexing factor approved by the Group Consultant with reference to the Statistics Canada. Table 18-10-0135-01 – building construction price indexes, by type of building (Toronto), or with reference to any other substitute index designated by the Group Consultant in consultation with the Cost Sharing Engineer; (dd) “Krosno Boulevard Extension Costs” means the costs and expenses related to the Krosno Boulevard Extension Works including without limitation, municipal, consulting, planning, design, engineering, surveying, construction, repairs, maintenance, acceptance and assumption, peer review, surveying, legal, cost of any financial security related thereto, and any other fees payable in respect thereof; (ee) “Krosno Boulevard Extension Works” means the works identified as Item 9 in Schedule “2” and visually illustrated in Schedule “5” with respect to the Krosno Boulevard Lands; (ff) “Krosno Boulevard Lands” means the public road connecting to the City Centre South Main Street Lands from Bayly St., and visually illustrated in Schedule “5” as Item 9; (gg) “Krosno Creek Crossing Costs” means the costs and expenses related to the Krosno Creek Crossing Works including without limitation, Oversizing Costs, municipal, consulting, planning, design, engineering, surveying, construction, repairs, maintenance, acceptance and assumption, peer review, surveying, legal, cost of any financial security related thereto, and any other fees payable in respect thereof; (hh) “Krosno Creek Lands” means the lands upon which the Krosno Creek Rechannelization Works (Ultimate) will be completed, and which lands will be transferred to the City of Pickering, and is visually illustrated in Schedule “6”; (ii) “Krosno Creek Crossing Works” means the works identified as Item 1 in Schedule “2” and visually illustrated in Schedule “5” which for greater certainty includes but is not limited to the following: bridge, road works, watermain, sanitary and sewer pipes; (jj) “Krosno Creek Rechannelization Works (Ultimate);” means the Krosno Creek Rechannelization Works (Phase 1- Initial), Krosno Creek Rechannelization Works (Phase 2A – East), and Krosno Creek Rechannelization Works (Phase 2B-West), and is identified as Item 12 in Schedule “2” and visually illustrated in Schedule “6”; (kk) “Krosno Creek Rechannelization Works (Phase 1 – Initial)” means the works identified as Item 12.1 in Schedule “2” and visually illustrated in Schedule “6’; - 519 - Page 7 of 27 (ll) “Krosno Creek Rechannelization Works (Phase 2A – East)” means the works identified as Item 12.2A in Schedule “2” and visually illustrated in Schedule “6”; (mm) “Krosno Creek Rechannelization Works (Phase 2B – West)” means the works identified as Item 12.2B in Schedule “2” and visually illustrated in Schedule “6”; (nn) “Krosno Creek Rechannelization Costs (Ultimate)” means the costs and expenses related to the Krosno Creek Rechannelization Works (Ultimate) (which includes the Krosno Creek Rechannelization Costs (Phase 1 – Initial), Krosno Creek Rechannelization Costs (Phase 1 – Initial), Krosno Creek Rechannelization Costs (Phase 2A – East), Krosno Creek Rechannelization (Phase 2B – West)), including without limitation, municipal, consulting, planning, design, engineering, surveying, construction, repairs, maintenance, acceptance and assumption, peer review, surveying, legal, cost of any financial security related thereto, and other fees that are payable in respect thereof; (oo) Krosno Creek Rechannelization Costs (Phase 1 - Initial)” means the costs and expenses related to the Krosno Creek Rechannelization Works (Phase 1 - Initial) including without limitation, municipal, consulting, planning, design, engineering, surveying, construction, repairs, maintenance, acceptance and assumption, peer review, surveying, legal, cost of any financial security related thereto, and other fees that are payable in respect thereof; (pp) “Krosno Creek Rechannelization Costs (Phase 2A – East)” means the costs and expenses related to the Krosno Creek Rechannelization (Phase 2A – East) Works including without limitation, municipal, consulting, planning, design, engineering, surveying, construction, repairs, maintenance, acceptance and assumption, peer review, surveying, legal, cost of any financial security related thereto, and other fees that are payable in respect thereof; (qq) “Krosno Creek Rechannelization Costs (Phase 2B – West)” means the costs and expenses related to the Krosno Creek Rechannelization (Phase 2B – West)Works including without limitation, municipal, consulting, planning, design, engineering, surveying, construction, repairs, maintenance, acceptance and assumption, peer review, surveying, legal, cost of any financial security related thereto, and other fees that are payable in respect thereof; (rr) “New Owner” has the meaning ascribed to such term in Section 6.4; (ss) “Non-Participating Benefitting Owners” means the persons registered on title as owner of any Benefitting Lands, and who are not parties to this Agreement; (tt) “Non-Participating Benefitting Owners’ Lands” means any of the Benefitting Lands owned by Non-Participating Benefitting Owners; (uu) “Oversizing Costs” means all costs and expenses attributable to those services which are sized or located so as to benefit lands beyond the proposed development on an Owner’s Lands, and including without limitation, services which are oversized beyond the minimum size required by the development, and which may or may not abut the development on an Owner’s Lands and provide direct services to an adjacent owner’s lands; and services which are external to, or not required by a development on an Owner’s Lands; (vv) “Owner” means any person holding registered title to any lands which are H6 Lands including, without limitation, the Non-Participating Benefitting Owners and Participating Owners, but not including the City; - 520 - Page 8 of 27 (ww) “Owner’s Lands” means that portion of the H6 Lands owned by an Owner; (xx) “Participating Owner” means Universal One, Unique, Nal-Band, and in addition any New Owners who become a party to this agreement pursuant to Section 6.4; (yy) “Participating Owners’ Lands” means those lands shown on Schedule “1” hereto and legally described in Schedule “1A” hereto, and in addition also include lands of a New Owner after such New Owner becomes a party to this Agreement pursuant to Section 6.4; (zz) “person” means any individual, corporation, partnership, firm, incorporated or unincorporated association, syndicate, trust, unincorporated organization, government, governmental or quasi-governmental agency, board, tribunal, commission or authority or any other form of entity howsoever designated or constituted, or combination of the foregoing; (aaa) “Post-Development” means with respect to any Owner’s Lands, the final permitted use of such lands following the approval by the City after the date of this Agreement of any Development on such Owner’s Lands; (bbb) “Proportionate Share” for each Benefitting Owner shall have the following meanings, with respect to: (i) City Centre South Main Street Costs, is a fraction, the numerator of which is equal to 50% of its Benefitting Lands fronting on the City Centre South Main Street Lands and the denominator of which is equal to the total linear length on both sides of the City Centre South Main Street Lands, all as determined and calculated by the Group Consultant in consultation with the Cost Sharing Engineer; (ii) Krosno Boulevard Extension Costs, is a fraction, the numerator of which is 50% of its Benefitting Lands fronting on Krosno Boulevard Lands and the denominator of which is the total linear length on both sides of the Krosno Boulevard Lands, all as determined and calculated by the Group Consultant in consultation with the Cost Sharing Engineer; (iii) Krosno Creek Rechannelization (Ultimate) Costs, is a fraction, the numerator of which is the area of its Benefitting Lands within the ultimate floodplain as visually illustrated in Schedule “6”, and the denominator of which is the total area of all Benefitting Lands within the ultimate floodplain as visually illustrated in Schedule “6”, all as determined and calculated by the Group Consultant in consultation with the Cost Sharing Engineer; (iv) Krosno Creek Rechannelization (Phase 1 – Initial) Costs, is a fraction, the numerator of which is that portion of its Benefitting Lands within the ultimate floodplain as visually illustrated in Schedule “6”, and the denominator of which is the total area of all H6 Lands within the ultimate floodplain as visually illustrated in Schedule “6”, all as determined and calculated by the Group Consultant in consultation with the Cost Sharing Engineer; (v) Krosno Creek Rechannelization (Phase 2A – East) Costs, is a fraction, the numerator of which is the area of its Benefitting Lands within the ultimate floodplain as visually illustrated in Schedule “6”, and the denominator of which is the total area of all Benefitting Lands within the ultimate floodplain as visually illustrated in Schedule - 521 - Page 9 of 27 “6”, all as determined and calculated by the Group Consultant in consultation with the Cost Sharing Engineer; (vi) Krosno Creek Rechannelization (Phase 2B – West) Costs, is a fraction, the numerator of which is the area of its Benefitting Lands within the ultimate floodplain as visually illustrated in Schedule “6”, and the denominator of which is the total area of all H6 Lands within the ultimate floodplain as visually illustrated in Schedule “6”, all as determined and calculated by the Group Consultant in consultation with the Cost Sharing Engineer; (vii) Krosno Creek Crossing Costs, is a fraction, the numerator of which is the Total Permitted GFA on its Benefitting Lands, and the denominator of which is the Total Permitted GFA of the H6 Lands, all as determined and calculated by the Group Consultant in consultation with the Cost Sharing Engineer; (viii) Sanitary Sewers East Costs, is a fraction, the numerator of which is the sanitary flow attributable to the Post-Development number of residential units, dwellings, commercial units, commercial premises and GFA of buildings with non-residential use within its Benefitting Lands which are tributary to such sanitary sewer on a leg by leg basis, and the denominator of which is the total Post-Development number of residential units, dwelling, commercial units, commercial premises and GFA of buildings with non-residential use within the H6 Lands, all as determined and calculated by the Group Consultant in consultation with the Cost Sharing Engineer; (ix) Sanitary Sewers West Costs is a fraction, the numerator of which is the sanitary flow attributable to the Post-Development number of residential units, dwellings, commercial units, commercial premises and GFA of non-residential use within its Benefitting Lands which are tributary to such sanitary sewer on a leg by leg basis, and the denominator is the total Post-Development number of residential units, commercial units, commercial premises and GFA of buildings with non-residential use within the H6 Lands, all as determined and calculated by the Group Consultant in consultation with the Cost Sharing Engineer; (x) Storm Sewers East Costs is a fraction, the numerator of which is the flow attributable to the Post-Development tributary area to any sewer manhole on a leg by leg basis within its Benefitting Lands which are tributary to such storm sewer, and the denominator of which is the flow attributable to the total Post-Development tributary area to any sewer manhole on a leg by leg basis within the H6 Lands which are tributary to such storm sewer, all as determined and calculated by the Group Consultant in consultation with the Cost Sharing Engineer; (xi) Storm Sewers West Costs is a fraction, the numerator of which is the flow attributable to the Post-Development tributary area to any sewer manhole on a leg by leg basis within its Benefitting Lands which are tributary to such storm sewer, and the denominator of which is the flow attributable to the total Post-Development tributary area to any sewer manhole on a leg by leg basis within the H6 Lands which are tributary to such sewer, all as determined and calculated by the Group Consultant in consultation with the Cost Sharing Engineer; - 522 - Page 10 of 27 (xii) Watermain Costs (Ultimate) is a fraction, the numerator of which is the Total Permitted GFA on its Benefitting Lands, and the denominator of which is the Total Permitted GFA of the H6 Lands, all as determined and calculated by the Group Consultant in consultation with the Cost Sharing Engineer; (xiii) Watermain Costs (East) is a fraction, the numerator of which is the Total Permitted GFA on its Benefitting Lands, and the denominator of which is the Total Permitted GFA of the H6 Lands, all as determined and calculated by the Group Consultant in consultation with the Cost Sharing Engineer; (xiv) Watermain Costs (West) is a fraction, the numerator of which is the Total Permitted GFA on its Benefitting Lands, and the denominator of which is the Total Permitted GFA of the H6 Lands, all as determined and calculated by the Group Consultant in consultation with the Cost Sharing Engineer; (xv) Bayly Street/Krosno Boulevard Traffic Signal Costs is a fraction, the numerator of which is the Total Permitted GFA on its Benefitting Lands, and the denominator of which is the Total Permitted GFA of the H6 Lands, all as determined and calculated by the Group Consultant in consultation with the Cost Sharing Engineer; (xvi) GTTA Compensation is a fraction, the numerator of which is the Total Permitted GFA of its Benefitting Lands and the denominator of which is the Total Permitted GFA of all H6 Lands, all as determined and calculated by the Group Consultant; and (xvii) Administrative Costs is a fraction, the numerator of which is the Total Permitted GFA on its Benefitting Lands, and the denominator of which is the Total Permitted GFA of the H6 Lands, all as determined and calculated by the Group Consultant in consultation with the Cost Sharing Engineer; (xviii) Sanitary Pipe Downstream Upgrade Costs is a fraction, the numerator of which is the sanitary flow attributable to the Post-Development number of residential units, dwellings, commercial units, commercial premises and GFA of buildings with non- residential use within its Benefitting Lands which are tributary to such sanitary sewer on a leg by leg basis, and the denominator of which is the total Post -Development number of residential units, dwelling, commercial units, commercial premises and GFA of buildings with non-residential use within the H6 Lands, all as determined and calculated by the Group Consultant in consultation with the Cost Sharing Engineer, and which Proportionate Shares shall be adjusted from time to time in accordance with Section 3.4, Section 3.7 and Section 6.4. (ccc) “Qualified Person” means shall mean a person retained by a Participating Owner who meets the qualification requirements set out in Ontario Regulation 153/04 of the Environmental Protection Act. Ontario Regulation 153/04 of the Environmental Protection Act defines four different types of qualified persons and the Regulation sets out the qualifications for each type of environmental site assessment work; (ddd) “Region” means the Regional Municipality of Durham; - 523 - Page 11 of 27 (eee) “Sanitary Pipe Benefitting Area” means the area identified visually illustrated in Schedule “2”; (fff) “Sanitary Pipe Downstream Upgrade Works” means the works identified as Item 17 in Schedule “11” and visually illustrated in Schedule “9”, with respect to the upgrade of the sanitary pipes; (ggg) “Sanitary Pipe Downstream Upgrade Costs” means the costs and expenses related to the Sanitary Pipe Downstream Upgrade Works including without limitation, Oversizing Costs, municipal, consulting, planning, design, engineering, surveying, construction, repairs, maintenance, acceptance and assumption, peer review, surveying, legal, cost of any financial security related thereto, and any other fees that are payable in respect thereof; (hhh) “Sanitary Sewers East Works” means the works identified as Item 3 in Schedule “2” and visually illustrated in Schedule “4”; (iii) “Sanitary Sewers East Costs” means the costs and expenses related to the Sanitary Sewers East Works including without limitation, Oversizing Costs, municipal, consulting, planning, design, engineering, surveying, construction, repairs, maintenance, acceptance and assumption, peer review, surveying, legal, cost of any financial security related thereto, and any other fees that are payable in respect thereof; (jjj) “Sanitary Sewers West Works” means the works identified as Item 2 in Schedule “2” and visually illustrated in Schedule “4”; (kkk) “Sanitary Sewers West Costs” means the costs and expenses related to the Sanitary Sewers West Works including without limitation, Oversizing Costs, municipal, consulting, planning, design, engineering, surveying, construction, repairs, maintenance, acceptance and assumption, peer review, surveying, legal, cost of any financial security related thereto, and any other fees that are payable in respect thereof; (lll) “Soft Costs” means all costs and expenses incurred, or payable with respect to detailed design, construction administration, project management, municipal fees, consultant fees, fees charged by the Group Consultant and the Trustee, , and all administrative costs related to the Community Servicing Costs, this Agreement and the Cost Sharing Agreement, including without limitation all such costs incurred by one or more Participating Owners prior to the execution of this Agreement, including the Administrative Costs; (mmm)“Storm Sewers East Works” means the works identified as Item 5 in Schedule “2” and visually illustrated in Schedule “4”; (nnn) “Storm Sewers East Costs” means the costs and expenses related to the Storm Sewers East Works including without limitation, Oversizing Costs, municipal, consulting, planning, design, engineering, surveying, construction, repairs, maintenance, acceptance and assumption, peer review, surveying, legal, cost of any financial security related thereto, and any other fees that are payable in respect thereof; (ooo) “Storm Sewers West Works” means the works identified as Item 4 in Schedule “2” and visually illustrated in Schedule “4”; - 524 - Page 12 of 27 (ppp) “Storm Sewers West Costs” means the costs and expenses related to the Storm Sewers West Works including without limitation, Oversizing Costs, municipal, consulting, planning, design, engineering, surveying, construction, repairs, maintenance, acceptance and assumption, peer review, surveying, legal, cost of any financial security related thereto, and any other fees that are payable in respect thereof; (qqq) “Total Permitted GFA” means the GFA which is set out in the form of By-Law 7553/17 in effect as at September 1, 2019 which is permitted to be built on all or a portion of the H6 Lands, being 5.75 multiplied by the area of such H6 Lands; (rrr) “Trustee” means Friedman Law Professional Corporation or such other trustee as may be appointed by the Participating Owners pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement; (sss) “Trustee and Group Consultant Certifications” has the meaning set out in Section 5.1; (ttt) “Watermain Works (Ultimate)” means the works identified as Item 6 in Schedule “2” and visually illustrated in Schedule “4”; (uuu) “Watermain Costs (Ultimate)” means the costs and expenses related to the Watermain Works (Ultimate) including without limitation, Oversizing Costs, municipal, consulting, planning, design, engineering, surveying, construction, repairs, maintenance, acceptance and assumption, peer review, surveying, legal, cost of any financial security related thereto, and any other fees that are payable in respect thereof; (vvv) “Watermain Works (West)”: means the works identified as Item 6A in Schedule “2” and visually illustrated in Schedule “4”; (www) “Watermain Costs (West)” means the costs and expenses related to the Watermain Works (East) including without limitation, Oversizing Costs, municipal, consulting, planning, design, engineering, surveying, construction, repairs, maintenance, acceptance and assumption, peer review, surveying, legal, cost of any financial security related thereto, and any other fees that are payable in respect thereof; (xxx) “Watermain Works (East)”: means the works identified as Item 6B in Schedule “2” and visually illustrated in Schedule “4”; (yyy) “Watermain Costs (East)” means the costs and expenses related to the Watermain Works (West) including without limitation, Oversizing Costs, municipal, consulting, planning, design, engineering, surveying, construction, repairs, maintenance, acceptance and assumption, peer review, surveying, legal, cost of any financial security related thereto, and any other fees that are payable in respect thereof; Schedules Schedule “1A” – Legal Description Schedule “1” – Internal Works and Ownership Schedule “2” – Community Servicing Costs Schedule “3” – H6 Precinct Plan - 525 - Page 13 of 27 Schedule “4” – H6 City Works Infrastructure Schedule “5” – City Works Transportation Improvements Schedule “6” – TRCA Works Schedule “7” – H6 Parks Schedule “8” – Regional Works – Transportation Works Schedule “9” – DC Credits Schedule “10” – Ultimate Share Breakdown Schedule “11” – List of Approved Reports and Plans Schedule “12” – Arbitration Schedule “13” – Assignment and Assumption Schedule “14” – Assumption and Acknowledgement Recitals and Schedules Each of the parties hereto confirm that the recitals on the first page of this Agreement are true and accurate and are incorporated into and made a part of hereof with the same force and effect as if same were herein repeated fully and at length. Each of the Schedules attached to this Agreement (including any attachments and appendices thereto), and any amendments thereto from time to time, form an integral part of this Agreement and are incorporated herein by reference. Article 2 OWNERSHIP Land Owners Each Participating Owner hereby represents and warrants to the City that it is the registered and beneficial owner in fee simple, of the lands described under its name in Schedule “1A”. Postponements and Subordinations Each Participating Owner hereby agrees to obtain promptly prior to the registration of this Agreement such postponements and subordinations as may be deemed necessary by the City Solicitor of any encumbrance registered against a Participating Owner’s Land so that this Agreement shall have priority in all respects over any such encumbrance. Article 3 COMMUNITY SERVICES Construction of Community Services - 526 - Page 14 of 27 When an Owner develops its lands which are subject to this Agreement, it shall construct (initially at its own cost and expense but subject to the provisions in this Agreement) all Community Services located on such lands. No Owner shall be required to construct any Community Services on its lands prior to the date on which such Owner elects to develop its lands. All Community Services shall be constructed in a good and workmanlike manner, in conformity with plans and specifications approved by the Director. The location of the Community Services are depicted for illustrative purposes only in Schedules “1,4,5,6,7” and “10” of this Agreement. The parties acknowledge that the Community Services shall be completed by the various Constructing Owners in phases and will not be completed at the same time. Consistent with Section 3.1 above, the construction of the Community Services by the Participating Owners shall be completed as follows: (a) City Centre South Main Street Works Unique shall construct the City Centre South Main Street Works; (b) Krosno Creek Rechannelization Works (Phase 1 – Initial) Unique shall construct the Krosno Creek Rechannelization Works (Phase 1 – Initial); (c) Krosno Creek Rechannelization Works (Phase 2A – East) Unique shall construct the Krosno Creek Rechannelization Works (Phase 2A – East); (d) Sanitary Sewers East Works Unique shall construct the Sanitary Sewers East Works; (e) Watermain Works (West) Unique shall construct the Watermain Works (West). Each of the Constructing Owners shall be responsible for the delivery of all required security to the City and/or Region relating to the portion of the Community Services it is constructing and the appropriate Development Event. Such Constructing Owner shall also be responsible to satisfy any other requirements of the City with respect to any reduction and/or release of any security. Bayly Street/Krosno Boulevard Traffic Signal Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, the parties acknowledge that the Bayly Street/Krosno Boulevard Traffic Signal have been identified as works to be completed by the City and/or Region prior to December 31, 2022. Should the Bayly Street/Krosno Boulevard Traffic Signal be required by the Benefitting Owner identified in Section 3.5 of this Agreement in advance of its construction by the City and/or Region, then such Benefitting Owner shall construct the Bayly Street/Krosno Boulevard Traffic Signal. In the event that all or part of the Bayly Street/Krosno Boulevard Traffic Signal is constructed by the City and/or the Region, then to the extent constructed by the City and/or the Region, the Bayly Street/Krosno Boulevard Traffic Signal Costs will be reduced accordingly. - 527 - Page 15 of 27 Sanitary Pipe Downstream Upgrade Works Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, the parties acknowledge that the Sanitary Pipe Downstream Upgrade Works have been identified as works that may be completed by the City and/or Region at some point in the future. In the event that prior to the City and/or the Region commencing the Sanitary Pipe Downstream Upgrade Works, the development of the H6 Lands progresses such that the Sanitary Pipe Downstream Upgrade Works are required by the City and/or Region to be completed, then Unique shall construct the Sanitary Pipe Downstream Upgrade Works. In such event, the definition of Community Services shall include Sanitary Pipe Downstream Upgrade Works, and the definition of Community Servicing Costs shall include the Sanitary Pipe Downstream Upgrade Costs. The Participating Owners shall share in the Sanitary Pipe Downstream Upgrade Costs in its respective Proportionate Share of the Sanitary Pipe Downstream Upgrade Costs. Cost Sharing The Community Servicing Costs shall be initially paid by the Constructing Owner subject to the obligations of each of the Benefitting Owners to contribute to such costs in their respective Proportionate Shares prior to a Development Event on such Benefitting Owners Lands, pursuant to the Cost Sharing Agreement. The parties acknowledge that the Proportionate Share of the Community Servicing Costs of each Participating Owner will be adjusted from time to time as Development Events occur and New Owners are added as Participating Owners to this Agreement and the Cost Sharing Agreement. Until such time as a New Owner becomes a Participating Owner, the Owners who are then the Participating Owners shall share the Non-Participating Benefitting Owner’s Proportionate Share of the Community Servicing Costs. The Non-Participating Benefitting Owners’ Proportionate Share of Community Servicing Costs shall be borne by each of the Participating Owners as hereinafter set out. Each Participating Owner shall pay a fraction of the Non-Participating Benefitting Owners’ Proportionate Share, the numerator of which is the Proportionate Share of a Community Servicing Cost of a Participating Owner divided by the total Proportionate Share of such Community Servicing Cost of all Participating Owners. The Proportionate Share of each Community Servicing Cost of the Participating Owners shall be adjusted from time to time by the Group Consultant, as additional parties become Participating Owners, or otherwise agree to or are obligated to contribute to the Community Servicing Costs. Community Services Relating to the West of the Krosno Creek The parties hereto acknowledge that the Owner(s) of all or part of the BMC Lands shall be responsible, in addition to its Proportionate Share of the Community Servicing Costs, for constructing at its own expense, subject to the obligations of the other Participating Owners to contribute in their Proportionate Shares, the following Community Services, as the BMC Lands are the only Benefitting Lands for the associated Community Services: (i) Bayly Street/Krosno Boulevard Traffic Signal (subject to Section 3.2); (ii) Krosno Creek Rechannelization Costs (Phase 2B – West); - 528 - Page 16 of 27 (iii) Krosno Creek Crossing Works; (iv) Sanitary Sewers West Costs; (v) Storm Sewers West Costs; and (vi) Watermain Costs (West). The parties further acknowledge and confirm that all financial security related to the foregoing Community Services shall be the responsibility of the Owner of the BMC Lands. Approved Costs Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, the obligation of the Owners to contribute/share in the Community Servicing Costs shall mean such Community Servicing Costs that are Approved Costs. All Community Servicing Costs incurred by a Participating Owner shall first be certified and approved by the Group Consultant. Following certification and approval by the Group Consultant, the Group Consultant shall submit a schedule of such costs incurred by a Participating Owner (the “Incurred Costs”) to the City for the City’s review and approval as hereinafter set out. If the City does not deliver written objection to the Group Consultant within 30 days of receipt of the Incurred Costs, then such Incurred Costs shall be deemed to have been approved by the City, and shall be Approved Costs. In the event that the City delivers written objection of the Incurred Costs to the Group Consultant within the aforementioned 30 days, then, the parties agree to commence a peer review process to have the Incurred Costs reviewed by a n independent third party peer reviewer acceptable to the Group Consultant and the City, the costs of such peer review process to form part of the Soft Costs. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event that all or a portion of Incurred Costs are within 10% of the corresponding Estimated Costs, then such Incurred Costs or portion thereof shall be deemed to be approved by the City and shall be deemed to be Approved Costs and the City shall not have the right to object to same. The Soft Costs associated with the Community Services including without limitation, the Administrative Costs are assumed to be 30% of the approved construction hard costs. This amount will be included in the total cost of project. A detailed accounting of the Soft Costs will be provided once such costs are known, and the Group Consultant shall complete a reconciliation of estimated to actual Soft Costs, and shall make an adjustment to the Proportionate Shares accordingly. Adjusted GFA The parties hereto acknowledge that certain of the Estimated Costs and Proportionate Share calculations are currently based on projected permitted GFAs as determined by the Group Consultant in consultation with the Cost Sharing Engineer (the “Projected GFAs”), and as the Actual GFA of all or part of the H6 Lands changes from the Projected GFAs, the Proportionate Share calculations shall be adjusted and updated from time to time to reflect the then current Actual GFA applicable to the H6 Lands and accordingly the Participating Owners shall be required to contribute to the Community Servicing Costs in its updated Proportionate Shares. - 529 - Page 17 of 27 Development Charge Credits (a) The parties acknowledge that the items of Community Services identified by the City as being eligible for development charge credits are identified in Schedule “2” under the heading “DC Eligible Works”. The City agrees that a Constructing Owner shall be entitled to DC Credits if available under the City’s Development Charges By-law, as amended from time to time, which shall be applicable against the development charges payable by such Constructing Owner under the applicable development charge by-law for such Constructing Owner’s Lands. (b) The parties acknowledge and agree that this Agreement shall not restrict the City from identifying as being eligible for development charge credits, additional services which as at the date of this Agreement is not identified as eligible for development charge credits. For greater certainty, the City is not restricted from amending any existing development charge by- laws. (c) The Group Consultant shall provide upon request by the City, information regarding the status of construction of the Community Services which are eligible for DC Credits. (d) Constructing Owners shall receive DC Credits on the basis of the Approved Costs and not on the basis of the Estimated Costs. (e) All DC Credits shall be shared amongst the Participating Owners in their respective Proportionate Shares applicable to that portion of the Community Servicing Cost for which the DC Credit is granted. The distribution of DC Credits and allocation amongst the Participating Owners shall be administered by the Trustee and the Group Consultant pursuant to the Cost Sharing Agreement. For greater certainty, the parties confirm that the City shall not be responsible for any proportionate sharing of DC Credits pertaining to the Community Services amongst the Participating Owners, and the Group Consultant together with the Trustee shall administer the sharing of all DC Credits proportionately amongst the Participating Owners. Each Owner hereby releases the City from liability for payment of any DC Credit once the City has paid the amount of such DC Credit to the Trustee as required by Section 3.7(h). (f) Subject to Section 3.7(i) and (j) below, at the time of completion of a contract relating to an item of Community Services, the City shall pay to the Constructing Owner, that portion of DC Credits related to such item of Community Services, attributable to a benefit to existing developments, as identified in the City of Pickering 2017 Development Charges Background Study (and if applicable, as same may be updated and supplemented from time to time). (g) Until the full amount of the upfronted DC Credit eligible Community Services have been paid to the Trustee in full, the City agrees to not enter into any agreements with any other parties which will in directly or indirectly reduce the development charges payable by any Non- Participating Benefitting Owners with respect to any of the Community Services. - 530 - Page 18 of 27 (h) The City has agreed to include as being DC eligible, in its Development Charges By-law, the land acquisition costs associated with the City Centre South Main Street (Sandy Beach to Universal City Limits). The Constructing Owner of that item of Community Services shall front end (with the other Benefitting Owners being obligated hereunder to contribute in their Proportionate Shares), the portion of those acquisition costs attributable to a benefit to existing developments as identified in the applicable City DC Background Study (which shall mean 25% of the GTTA Compensation, indexed with reference to the Indexing Factor). Payment of such portion of the said acquisition costs shall be made to the City when development charges are due from such Constructing Owner. (i) The Constructing Owner is obligated to give the City 12 months’ written notice of anticipated completion of an item of Community Services so that the City can include the applicable project costs in its annual budget. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, the City shall pay for that portion of the City Centre South Main Street Costs identified as Item 7 on Schedule 5. Article 4 CONVEYANCE OF CITY CENTRE SOUTH MAIN STREET, PARK LANDS Conveyance (a) The Participating Owners of the City Centre South Main Street Lands shall prepare all necessary reference plans at their own expense. All reference plans shall be approved by the Director prior to being deposited on title to the H6 Lands. (b) Each of the Participating Owners shall convey its respective portion of the City Centre South Main Street Lands at no cost to the City free and clear of any encumbrances save and except as agreed to by the City, as and when required by the City. (c) Each Participating Owner agrees that the transfers of land and transfers of easements to the City required pursuant to this Agreement are to be messaged to the City Solicitor together with such Owner’s. (d) Concurrently with the execution by the City and a Participating Owner of a site plan agreement pertaining to any of the lands described under such Owner’s name in Schedule “1A” hereof, such Participating Owner shall convey and transfer its respective portion of the City Centre South Main Street Lands to the City. (e) Each Participating Owner shall prepare all necessary surveys and reference plans at its costs and shall convey to the City, at nominal cost, its respective portions of the City Centre South Main Street Lands with a collective 20 metre width, in fee simple and free and clear of any encumbrances save and except for: (i) the reservation of a temporary non-exclusive right of way for access purposes until such time as the lands have been dedicated as a public highway; (ii) the reservation of a temporary easement for construction purposes, including - 531 - Page 19 of 27 to install an underground system of tie back soil anchors and ancillary installations in order to provide support and to allow for the boom of a crane erected on the Participating Owner’s Lands to swing through the air space thereof , until such time as the lands have been dedicated as a public highway, subject to the indemnification and insurance provisions noted below; (iii) the Permitted Encumbrances; and (iv) any other encumbrances acceptable to Director in consultation with the City Solicitor. For clarity, conveyance of the City Centre South Main Street Lands may at the request of a Participating Owner be stratified to allow the Participating Owner of any underground private garages or other facilities, structures or erections under City Centre South Main Street to retain title thereto as shown on accepted plans and described by one or more reference plans approved by the Director. If the conveyance of the City Centre South Main Street Lands is stratified, the conveyance to the City shall provide easements for support satisfactory to the City Solicitor. (f) With respect to the reservation of a temporary easement for construction purposes contained in Section 4.1(e), each Participating Owner requiring such temporary easement shall: (i) from time to time and all times hereafter fully indemnify and save harmless the City, its elected officials, employees, agents, their successors and assigns, or any of them, from and against all actions, causes of action, suits, claims and other proceedings which may be brought against or made upon the City, its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, their successors and assigns, or any of them, and from and against all loss, liability, judgment, costs, charges, demands damages or expenses which the City, its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, their successors and assigns, or any of them may sustain, suffer or be put to resulting from or arising out of any loss, damage or injury (including death resulting from injury) to any person or property, howsoever caused, directly or indirectly, resulting from or sustained by reason of any act or omission of such Participating Owner or any person for whom it is in law responsible in connection with the temporary easement for construction purposes; and (ii) take out and maintain, at its expense, commercial general liability insurance with respect to the construction, pursuant to the temporary easement for construction purposes, acceptable as to form, limits and conditions to the City for a limit of not less than Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000.00) per occurrence (such limit to be increased from time to time to reflect an amount which would be maintained by a prudent owner as determined by the City acting reasonably) covering possible damages, losses, claims and expenses for or in connection with any personal injury, death or property damage that might be incurred on or about the lands which are the subject of the temporary easement. The insurance policy shall include the City as an additional insured and contain a cross-liability and severability of interest clause and include contractual liability coverage. The liability insurance policy shall provide that any breach of a - 532 - Page 20 of 27 condition of the policy by an insured shall not affect protection given by the policy to any other insured. The liability insurance policy shall contain a clause providing that the insurer will not cancel or refuse to renew the said insurance without first giving the City thirty (30) days prior written notice thereof. Upon the request of the City, such Participating Owner shall supply the City with satisfactory evidence of such insurance, and a certificate of insurance shall be remitted to the City Solicitor within thirty (30) days of issuance and evidence of continuance shall be remitted to the City at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of any insurance policy. Such Participating Owner shall provide to the City a copy of the insurance policy upon request. Parkland under Section 42 of the Planning Act If any lands of a Participating Owner are required to be dedicated to the City pursuant to Section 42 of the Planning Act as a condition of a Development Event on any of such Participating Owner’s Lands, then such Participating Owner shall be solely responsible for the dedication of such lands to the City or payment of cash in lieu thereof. The proposed locations of park lands to be dedicated to the City by the Owners are depicted in Schedule “7”. Article 5 APPROVALS BY CITY Undertaking to Collect As a condition of any approval granted by the City of a Development Event for any Non- Participating Benefitting Owners’ Lands located within the Benefitting Lands, the City hereby agrees and undertakes (subject to sections 5.3 and 5.4 below) to require all Non-Participating Benefitting Owners to: (i) pay their respective Proportionate Share of the Community Services Costs which have already been incurred, subject to indexing by the Indexing Factor, and subject to adjustment as set out in Section 3.7; and (ii) become a party to this Agreement and assume all obligations contained herein with respect to the Community Services and Community Servicing Costs as a Participating Owner. Prior to granting final approval to any development on a Non- Participating Benefitting Owners’ Lands, the City shall require written confirmation from the Trustee and the Group Consultant (the “Trustee and Group Consultant Certifications”) that the previously Non-Participating Benefitting Owner: (1) has become a Participating Owner; (2) is a party to this Agreement; (3) has paid all amounts required to be paid by it pursuant to this Agreement; and (4) to the knowledge of the Trustee and Group Consultant, is in compliance with all terms and obligations of this Agreement. Approval for Participating Owners Prior to granting approval under the Planning Act to any Development Events on any Participating Benefitting Owners’ Lands, the City shall require the Trustee and Group Consultant Certifications that the Participating Benefitting Owner: (1) has paid all amounts required to be paid by it pursuant to this Agreement and the Cost Sharing Agreement; and (2) to the knowledge of the Trustee and - 533 - Page 21 of 27 Group Consultant, is in compliance with all terms and obligations of this Agreement and the Cost Sharing Agreement. Conformity of Cost Sharing Agreement The Cost Sharing Agreement must be consistent with the provisions of this Infrastructure Agreement for the H6 Block. The City’s obligations under Section 5.1 shall be suspended in the event of any amendment to the Cost Sharing Agreement which renders it inconsistent with this Agreement. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Community Servicing Costs and Ultimate Share Breakdown in the Cost Sharing Agreement must be the same as set out in Schedules 2 and 10 of this Agreement. Subject to Applicable Laws and Rulings If the amounts of any Servicing Costs and/or the apportionment of same among the Owners is varied by the Local Planning Appeals Tribunal, any court of competent jurisdiction or any Governmental Authority to which the City is subject, then this Agreement and the Cost Sharing Agreement shall be deemed to have been amended accordingly. Article 6 GENERAL Compliance Each Participating Owner agrees that it will allow a condition to be inserted into both its draft plan approval, its subdivision agreement and/or site plan agreement with the City precluding the release by the City of a Subdivision Plan or Plan of Condominium for registration, or issuance of an above ground building permit, unless the Trustee and Group Consultant Certifications referred to in Section 5.1 are delivered to the City. Registration on Title The Participating Owners consent to the registration of this Agreement by the City against title to the Participating Owners’ Lands in priority to any registered mortgages. The Owners covenant and agree to pay to the City or reimburse the City for registration fees and administrative costs incurred by the City by reason of the registration of this Agreement, or any transfers or other documents required by or arising from this Agreement. Agreement Binding This Agreement and all of the terms, covenants, conditions and other provisions contained herein and all of the obligations under or pursuant to this Agreement shall run with the Owners' Lands and shall be binding upon and shall enure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns, including all subsequent mortgagees of any part of an Owner's Lands. All parties shall use their best efforts to obtain the written acknowledgement and consent of any current mortgagee to be bound by the terms of this Agreement. - 534 - Page 22 of 27 Subsequent Participating Owners An Owner of land within the H6 Lands who is not a signatory hereto may subsequently become a signatory hereto (a “New Owner”) provided that the following terms and conditions have been satisfied, as determined by the Trustee and Group Consultant: (a) the New Owner executes and delivers the form of assumption and acknowledgement of this Agreement attached hereto as Schedule “13”, agreeing, inter alia, to assume the obligations herein set forth with respect to Participating Owners, as if such New Owner had been originally named as a party to and Participating Owner in this Agreement; (b) the New Owner shall deliver payment to the Group Consultant of all amounts required to be paid by it pursuant to this Agreement and the Cost Sharing Agreement; and (c) the New Owner shall deliver payment to the Group Consultant of an amount, determined by the Group Consultant, representing the additional cost or financial consequences of any impact that the addition of the New Owner as a party to this Agreement will have on the Community Servicing Costs and any other costs, services related to this Agreement. Entire Agreement This Agreement constitutes the sole agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. There is no collateral agreement, condition or term applicable thereto, other than as expressed or referred to herein in writing. The parties hereto may only amend this Agreement by further agreement in writing executed by all parties hereto. In the event of any inconsistency between any provision of this Agreement and any provision of the Cost Sharing Agreement this Agreement shall prevail. Waiver The failure of the City or any other party to this Agreement, at any time to require performance by the Participating Owner of any obligation under this Agreement shall in no way affect their rights thereafter to enforce such obligation, nor shall the waiver by the City or such other party to this Agreement of the performance of any obligation hereunder be taken or be held to be a waiver of the performance of the same or any other obligation hereunder at any later time. The City and such other party to this Agreement shall specifically retain its rights at law to enforce this Agreement. Notices Any notices to be given under the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be give n to the applicable party by personal service or by mailing by first class mail with postage fully prepaid or by facsimile at the number herein set forth provided that, where mailed, it shall be deemed to be received on the fifth day following the date of mailing: To: Universal City One Developments Inc. 150 Ferrand Drive, Unit 801 Toronto, ON, M3C3E5 Attention: Dave Friedman To: Unique AT Holding Corporation - 535 - Page 23 of 27 150 Ferrand Drive, Unit 801 Toronto, ON, M3C3E5 Attention: Dave Friedman To: Nal-Band Holdings Inc. c/o Empack Spraytech Inc. 98 Walker Drive Brampton ON L6T 4H6 Attention: Ara Nalbandian To: The Corporation of the City of Pickering City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 Attention: Legal Services To: Friedman Law Professional Corporation 150 Ferrand Drive, Unit 800 Toronto, ON, M3C3E5 Attention: Bill Friedman & Shirley Bai Time of the Essence Time shall be of the essence of this Agreement and every part thereof. No Partnership Nothing herein contained shall be deemed or construed so as to make, render or constitute any of the parties hereto partners with one another. Severability If a court of competent jurisdiction should declare any clause or part of a clause of this Agreement to be invalid or unenforceable, such clause or part of a clause shall not be construed as being an integral part of this Agreement or having persuaded or influenced either party to this Agreement to execute the same, and it is hereby agreed that the remainder of this Agreement shall be valid and in full force and effect. Joint and Several A Party that is comprised of more than one person or entity shall be collectively treated as one Party and each member of such Party shall be jointly and severally responsible for the performance and the obligations of such Party. Jurisdiction This Agreement shall be interpreted under and is governed by the laws of the Province of Ontario and the parties attorn exclusively to the jurisdiction of the courts of the Province of Ontario located in the City of Toronto. - 536 - Page 24 of 27 Further Assurances Each of the parties hereto shall from time to time hereafter and upon any reasonable request of the other, execute and deliver, make or cause to be made all such further acts, deeds, assurances and things as may be required or necessary to more effectually implement and carry out the true intent and meaning of this Agreement. Adjustments to Schedules Notwithstanding anything contained in this Agreement to the contrary, it is understood, acknowledged and agreed by the parties that the Schedules appended hereto that detail the Estimated Costs are estimates prepared by the Cost Sharing Engineer to determine each Participating Owner's proportionate costs. The information contained in these schedules will be amended as development proceeds and Estimated Costs are replaced with Approved Costs as determined in accordance with Section 3.5. Counterpart Execution This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts and each such counterpart shall for all purposes constitute one agreement, binding on all the parties hereto notwithstanding that all parties are not signatories to the same counterpart. This Agreement may be executed by one or more of the parties by facsimile or electronically transmitted signature and all parties agree that the reproduction of signatures by way of facsimile device or electronic transmission will be treated as though such reproductions were executed originals. Arbitration If any party to this Agreement shall choose to challenge in any material manner, any determination made by the Group Consultant or Trustee, if any material claim or dispute shall arise with respect to any of the provisions herein or the performance or non-performance by any of the parties of the provisions hereof, any party may, by service of notice in writing to the other parties, the Trustee, and the Group Consultant, require that such claim, matter or dispute be submitted to and settled by arbitration in accordance with the procedure set out in Schedule “13” hereto, provided, however, that the parties shall continue their performance of the terms and conditions of this Agreement before and during any such arbitration proceeding. For greater certainty, with respect to any disputes or challenges involving a sum of money or an amount, a difference of 10% or more shall be deemed to be material. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement as of the day, month and year first above written. Universal City One Developments Inc. Per: Name: Title: - 537 - Page 25 of 27 I have authority to bind the Corporation. Unique AT Holding Corporation Per: Name: Title: I have authority to bind the Corporation. Nal-Band Holdings Inc. Gestion Nal- Band Inc. Per: Name: Title: I have authority to bind the Corporation. The Corporation of the City of Pickering Per: Name: Title: Per: Name: Title: I/We have authority to bind the Corporation. Friedman Law Professional Corporation Per: Name: Title: - 538 - Page 26 of 27 I/We have authority to bind the Corporation. - 539 - - 540 - REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM TOWN OF PICKERING BAYLY ST. & SANDY BEACH ROAD SCHEDULE 1 LEGEND H6 LANDS BOUNDARY OWNERSHIP BOUNDARIES HIGHW AY 401 C.N.R. INTERNAL WORKS & OWNERSHIP BENEFITTING INTERNAL NON PARTICIPANT BENEFITTING INTERNAL PARTICIPANTROADBEACHSANDY BAYLY STREET PURPOSES ONLY FOR DISCUSSION DRAFT 11 ITEM INFRASTRUCTURE AGREEMENT LANDS CITY OF PICKERING CORPORATION HOLDING UNIQUE AT METROLINX PARK INC. BMC BAYLY THE CORPORATI ON OF THE CI TY OF PI CKERI NGOF PICKERING OF THE CITY CORPORATION THE INC. DEVELOPMENTS CITY ONE UNIVERSAL NAL-BAND INC. GESTION INC. HOLDINGS NAL-BAND AUTHORITY TRANSIT TORONTO GREATER AUTHORITY TRANSIT TORONTO GREATER - 541 - SCHEDULE “2”- Community Servicing Costs Infrastructure Agreement Costed Item Location Ultimate Responsibility Estimated Cost Schedule Reference City Works 1. Krosno Creek Crossing Internal BMC $3,013,427 Schedule “5” 2. Sanitary Sewers (west) Internal BMC $127,120 Schedule “4” 3. Sanitary Sewers (east) Internal Unique $160,160 Schedule “4” 4. Storm Sewers (west) Internal BMC $275,520 Schedule “4” 5. Storm Sewers (east) Internal Unique $267,540 Schedule “4” 6. Watermains (Ultimate) Internal All $551,950 Schedule “4” 6A - Watermains (west) Internal BMC $164,500 Schedule “4” 6B - Watermains (east) Internal Unique $387,450 Schedule “4” 7. City Centre South Main Street (Sandy Beach to Universal City limits) Internal Unique $336,347 Schedule “5” 8. City Centre South Main Street (Within Universal City limits) Internal Unique $662,456 Schedule “5” 9. Krosno Boulevard Extension Internal BMC $703,670 Schedule “5” 10. Bayly Street and Krosno Boulevard Traffic Signal External BMC $500,000 Refer to Clause 3.2 Land Acquisition 11. GTTA Compensation Internal All $201,866 Schedule “1” TRCA Works 12. Krosno Creek Rechannelization (Ultimate), inclusive of 12.1, 12.2A, 12.2B Internal All $840,000 Schedule “6” 12.1 - Krosno Creek Rechannelization (Phase 1 - Initial) Internal Unique $220,000 Schedule “6” 12.2A - Krosno Creek Rechannelization (Phase 2 - East) Internal Unique $273,000 Schedule “6” 12.2B - Krosno Creek Rechannelization (Phase 2 - West) Internal BMC $347,000 Schedule “6” DC Eligible Works- City and/or Region 13. Krosno Creek Crossing Internal BMC $3,013,427 Schedule “9” 14. Watermains (Ultimate) Internal All $129,003 Schedule “9” 14A – Watermains (west) Internal BMC $43,190 Schedule “9” 14B – Watermains (east) Internal Unique $65,163 Schedule “9” 15. City Centre South Main Street (Sandy Beach to Universal City limits) Internal Unique $224,221 Schedule “9” 16. City Centre South Main Street (Within Universal City limits) – Oversizing Internal Unique $170,106 Schedule “9” 17. Krosno Boulevard Extension – Oversizing Internal BMC $185,125 Schedule “9” 18. Storm Sewer (Sandy Beach to Universal City Limits) Internal Unique $38,780 Schedule “9” - 542 - LEGEND H6 LANDS BOUNDARY OWNERSHIP BOUNDARIES HIGHWAY 401 C.N.R. BAYLY STREET SANDYBEACHROADSCALE 0 METRES 10040m ROW3.5m 3.3m 7.0m 4.5m 22.0m ROWR10.0mR 15.0mR10. 0 mR10.0mR 10.0mR10.0 mR6.0mALLIANCE RD.R15.0mB B R6.0mR6.0m SANDY BEACH ROAD3.5m 3. 5 m3. 5 m3.5m3.5m3.5m3.5m3.0m4.7m8.5m 4.25m4.25m S/W2.1m S/W2.1m 3. 0 m2.0m3.5mTr a c kCy cl e3.0mTrackCycle3.0m 3.0m 4.3m 7.0m R9 .0 mR6 .0m R9.0m R9 .0 mR9.0mR 15 .0mR15.0m R9.0m R15.0m R9.0mR6.0mR6.0m R6.0mR6. 0 mR6.0mR6.0mR9.0m FUTURE KROSNO BLVDKROSNO BLVD3.0mR 9.0m R9.0m20m ROWP ART 3, P L AN 4 0 R- 17 3 8 0 PURPOSES ONLY FOR DISCUSSION DRAFT 6.57.3 plan dated November 06, 2018. Associates Krosno Creek Flood Plain Analysis 1. Proposed TRCA Property Line per Schaeffer & NOTE: REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM TOWN OF PICKERING BAYLY ST. & SANDY BEACH ROAD SCHEDULE 3 H6 PRECINCT PLAN INFRASTRUCTURE AGREEMENT KROSNO CREEK LANDS - 543 - CYCLING CONNECTION TO GO STATION BAYLY STREET HIGHW AY 401 C.N.R.LEGEND H6 LANDS BOUNDARY OWNERSHIP BOUNDARIES PURPOSES ONLY FOR DISCUSSION DRAFT SANDYBEACHROADALLIANCE RD. plan dated November 06, 2018. Associates Krosno Creek Flood Plain Analysis 1. Proposed TRCA Property Line per Schaeffer & NOTE:KROSNO BLVDREGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM TOWN OF PICKERING BAYLY ST. & SANDY BEACH ROAD SCHEDULE 4 H6 CITY WORKS INFRASTUCTURE INFRASTRUCTURE AGREEMENT PUBLIC ROAD PRIVATE ROAD SANITARY SEWER TRUNK MANHOLE KROSNO CREEK CROSSING ITEMS 3,5,6 (6B) EAST WORKS ITEMS 2,4,6 (6A) WEST WORKS - 544 - BAYLY STREET SANDYBEACHROADHIGHW AY 401 C.N.R. LEGEND H6 LANDS BOUNDARY OWNERSHIP BOUNDARIES 8 ITEM 1 ITEM 9 ITEM KROSNO CREEK CROSSING UNIVERSAL CITY LIMITS) MAIN STREET (WITHIN CITY CENTRE SOUTH BOULEVARD EXTENSION KROSNO PURPOSES ONLY FOR DISCUSSION DRAFT 7 ITEM WEST EAST ITEM SANDY BEACH EXTENSION TO UNIVERSAL CITY LIMITS & MAIN STREET (SANDY BEACH CITY CENTRE SOUTH 7 8 9 plan dated November 06, 2018. Associates Krosno Creek Flood Plain Analysis 1. Proposed TRCA Property Line per Schaeffer & NOTE: REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM TOWN OF PICKERING BAYLY ST. & SANDY BEACH ROAD SCHEDULE 5 CITY WORKS TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS INFRASTRUCTURE AGREEMENT - 545 - BAYLY STREETSANDYBEACHROADHIGHWAY 401 C.N.R. LEGEND H6 LANDS BOUNDARY OWNERSHIP BOUNDARIES RECHANNELIZATION WORKS KROSNO CREEK PHASE 2A (EAST) PHASE 2B (WEST) PURPOSES ONLY FOR DISCUSSION DRAFT ITEM 12 plan dated November 06, 2018. Associates Krosno Creek Flood Plain Analysis 1. Proposed TRCA Property Line per Schaeffer & NOTE: REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM TOWN OF PICKERING BAYLY ST. & SANDY BEACH ROAD SCHEDULE 6 TRCA WORKS INFRASTRUCTURE AGREEMENT PHASE 1 (INITIAL) (ULTIMATE) 12.1 12.2A 12.2B - 546 - BAYLY STREETSANDYBEACHROADHIGHWAY 401 C.N.R. LEGEND H6 LANDS BOUNDARY PROPOSED PARKS SCALE 0 METRES 100 PURPOSES ONLY FOR DISCUSSION DRAFT TO BE DETERMINED CONCEPTUAL LOCATION PROPOSED PARK plan dated November 06, 2018. Associates Krosno Creek Flood Plain Analysis 1. Proposed TRCA Property Line per Schaeffer & NOTE: REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM TOWN OF PICKERING BAYLY ST. & SANDY BEACH ROAD SCHEDULE 7 H6 PARKS INFRASTRUCTURE AGREEMENT - 547 - SCALE 0 METRES H6 LANDS BOUNDARY SANDYROADSTREET BAYLY HIGHW AY 401 C.N.R.SANDYBEACHROADROADLI VERPOOLKROS NO BL VDRE YT AN BL VDTATRA DR MODLI N RDALLI ANCE RDBEACHBROCKROADSALKSTREET PLUMMER ROAD275 LEGEND SCHEDULE 8 REGIONAL WORKS TRANSPORTATION WORKS PURPOSES ONLY FOR DISCUSSION DRAFT ITEM ROAD10 ITEM 10 BAYLY STREET & KROSNO BOULEVARD TRAFFIC SIGNAL REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM TOWN OF PICKERING BAYLY ST. & SANDY BEACH ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE AGREEMENT - 548 - SCALE 0 METRES REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM TOWN OF PICKERING BAYLY ST. & SANDY BEACH ROADSANDYROADSTREET BAYLY HIGHW AY 401 C.N.R.ROADLI VERPOOLTATRA DR MODLI N RDALLI ANCE RDBEACHINFRASTRUCTURE AGREEMENT DC CREDITS D.C. CREDIT ELIGIBLE ITEMS ROADSALKSTREET PLUMMER ROAD275 & KROSNO BOULEVARD EXTENSION CITY CENTRE SOUTH MAIN STREET BROCK ROADPURPOSES ONLY FOR DISCUSSION DRAFT ITEM 13 ITEM 15-17 ITEM 15-17 14A ITEM 14B ITEM SANDYBEACHROADKROS NO BL VDRE YT AN BL VDSCHEDULE 9 KROSNO CREEK CROSSING13 CITY ITEM WATERMAIN - EAST14B WATERMAIN - WEST14A REGION - 549 - 1. Krosno Creek Crossing 4. Storm Sewers (west)2. Sanitary Sewers (west) Cost Breakdown by Owner:Percentage Cost Breakdown by Owner:Percentage Cost Breakdown by Owner:Percentage Unique AT Management:24%Unique AT Management:0%Unique AT Management:0% Nal-Band 5%Nal-Band 0%Nal-Band 0% BMC Bayly Park Inc.50%BMC Bayly Park Inc.100%BMC Bayly Park Inc.100% Metrolinx 21%Metrolinx 0%Metrolinx 0% TOTAL 100%TOTAL 100%TOTAL 100% 6. Watermains 5. Storm Sewers (east)3. Sanitary Sewers (east) Cost Breakdown by Owner:Percentage Cost Breakdown by Owner:Percentage Cost Breakdown by Owner:Percentage Unique AT Management:24%Unique AT Management:45%Unique AT Management:50% Nal-Band 5%Nal-Band 7%Nal-Band 4% BMC Bayly Park Inc.50%BMC Bayly Park Inc.0%BMC Bayly Park Inc.0% Metrolinx 21%Metrolinx 48%Metrolinx 47% TOTAL 100%TOTAL 100%TOTAL 100% 11. GTTA Compensation Cost Breakdown by Owner:Percentage Unique AT Management:0% Nal-Band 0% BMC Bayly Park Inc.0%Cost Breakdown by Owner:Percentage Metrolinx 100%Unique AT Management:45%Cost Breakdown by Owner:Percentage TOTAL 100%Nal-Band 55%Unique AT Management:0% BMC Bayly Park Inc.0%Nal-Band 0% Metrolinx 0%BMC Bayly Park Inc.0% TOTAL 100%Metrolinx 100% TOTAL 100% Cost Breakdown by Owner:Percentage Unique AT Management:37% Nal-Band 46%Cost Breakdown by Owner:Percentage BMC Bayly Park Inc.0%Unique AT Management:100% Metrolinx 17%Nal-Band 0% TOTAL 100%BMC Bayly Park Inc.0% Metrolinx 0% Cost Breakdown by Owner:Percentage TOTAL 100% Unique AT Management:0%9. Krosno Boulevard Extension Nal-Band 0%Cost Breakdown by Owner:Percentage BMC Bayly Park Inc.100%Unique AT Management:0% Metrolinx 0%Nal-Band 0% TOTAL 100%BMC Bayly Park Inc.100% Metrolinx 0% TOTAL 100% 10. Bayly St. and Krosno Blvd. Traffic Signal Cost Breakdown by Owner:Percentage Unique AT Management: Nal-Band BMC Bayly Park Inc. Metrolinx TOTAL 8. City Centre South Main Street (Within Universal City Limits) Breakdown based on Area Within the Ultimate Floodplain SCHEDULE 10 - ULTIMATE PROPORTIONATE SHARE BREAKDOWN Infrastructure Agreement 12.1. Krosno Rechannelization (Phase 1 - Initial) 12.2A. Krosno Rechannelization (Phase 2a - East) 12.2B. Krosno Rechannelization (Phase 2b - West) Breakdown based on Total Permitted GFA Breakdown based on Tibutary Drainage Area Breakdown based on Sanitary Flows Breakdown based on Road Frontage 7. City Centre South Main Street (Sandy Beach to Universal City Limits) Refer to Clause 3.2 - 550 - Schedule “12” – Arbitration Procedure 1. Notice Of Arbitration 1.1. Any Party may at any time initiate arbitration by delivering a written notice of arbitration (the “Notice of Arbitration”) to the other Parties involved in a dispute, pursuant to the notice provisions set out in the Agreement. 1.2. The Notice of Arbitration shall include: (a) an outline of the issues to be arbitrated; (b) the names of the parties involved in the dispute; and (c) the names of at least two (2) persons who the Party has selected to act as arbitrator ranked in order of preference. 1.3. Except as otherwise provided in this Schedule, the arbitration of a dispute, including its procedures, decision and enforcement, shall be in accordance with the Arbitration Act, 1991 (Ontario) and any amended or successor legislation and the other applicable laws of the Province of Ontario regarding arbitration and the enforcement of arbitral awards (collectively, the "Arbitration Act”) and any applicable federal laws of Canada. 2. The Arbitrator 2.1. The arbitrator shall be a member of the Arbitration and Mediation Institute of Ontario; or a Canadian former Judge who carries on business as a professional arbitrator and who is based in Ontario. 2.2. The arbitrator shall be impartial and independent of the Parties to the dispute and shall, if requested, confirm to the Parties that he/she has no current or past relationship of any kind with any of the Parties that might give rise to justifiable doubts as to his or her impartiality. 2.3. Within five (5) days of receipt of a Notice of Arbitration the recipients shall deliver to the other Party or Parties the names of two qualified individuals to act as the arbitrator, who have indicated a willingness to act as arbitrator, ranked in order of preference. 2.4. The Parties shall unanimously appoint, within ten (10) days of delivery of the Notice of Arbitration, an arbitrator from the names submitted. 2.5. If the Parties are unable to reach unanimous agreement on the selection of an arbitrator within ten (10) days after the date the Notice of Arbitration is delivered, the arbitrator shall be selected at random by draw by the Party who delivered the Notice of Arbitration and in the presence of the other Parties from among the names of the arbitrators submitted by the Parties. 2.6. If a Party fails to submit names in accordance with this Section 2, such Party shall be deemed to accept as the arbitrator, the person selected, by the other Party or Parties, in accordance with this Section 2. - 551 - 2.7. The place of arbitration shall be determined by the arbitrator in consultation with the Parties and the arbitrator will promptly advise the Parties of the location in the City of Toronto, time for commencement, schedule for and estimated cost of the arbitration. 2.8. Within ten (10) days after the date of the appointment of the arbitrator each Party shall deliver to the arbitrator and to the other Party or Parties a written arbitration brief which shall set forth each Party's position concerning the matters in dispute and shall include: (a) a statement of fact and law and copies of any authorities relied upon; (b) copies of all relevant documents that are in that Party's possession or within the Party's control; (c) a statutory declaration of the Party presenting the brief declaring that the documents included in the brief are all the documents relevant to the Dispute that are in that Party's possession or control; and (d) a statement of the relief sought. 2.9. Each Party shall deliver to the arbitrator, with their arbitration brief; or no later than twenty- four (24) hours before the commencement of the arbitration, a certified cheque payable to the arbitrator for such Party's pro rata share of the arbitrator's anticipated fees and expenses of the arbitration. 2.10. The fees and expenses of the arbitration shall be borne as specified in the arbitrator's award. 2.11. If a Party fails to deliver to the arbitrator a certified cheque the arbitrator may continue the arbitration and make an award on the evidence before him/her except that the arbitrator may not take into account any documents, briefs or evidence provided by the Party who failed to pay fees pursuant to Section 2.9. 2.12. If the Party who fails to deliver a certified cheque to the arbitrator in accordance with Section 2.9 is the Party who commenced the arbitration, the arbitrator may make an award dismissing the claim. 2.13. The arbitration shall be an oral hearing, conducted in the English language, unless the Parties and the arbitrator agree otherwise, and shall consist of examination in chief and cross examination of witnesses under oath, and oral arguments to be presided over by the arbitrator. Except for the statutory declaration there shall be no oral or documentary discovery under oath. 2.14. The Parties are entitled to be represented and assisted by legal counsel in connection with all aspects of the arbitration and any Party's legal counsel shall be permitted to attend and fully participate in all aspects of the arbitration. 2.15. The hearing shall begin not more than thirty (30) days after the Notice of Arbitration is delivered and shall be conducted over no more than five (5) consecutive business days whereby: (a) each Party shall be given a maximum of two (2) full business days to present his or her - 552 - case to the arbitrator; (b) the arbitrator shall have the discretion to regulate, among other things, the length of a Party's cross examination of the other Party's witnesses to ensure the fair and equal treatment of all Parties with regard to the time limits of the hearing; and (c) on the fifth (5th) business day of the hearing or earlier, each Party shall be given the opportunity to present oral and written arguments to the arbitrator. 2.16. The arbitrator shall have the discretion to determine all procedural matters, including but not limited to those relating to evidence, witnesses, documents and interpreters, and may require the Parties to attend at a preliminary meeting which may be held by teleconference, to discuss and determine any procedural matters that, in the discretion of the arbitrator, should be determined prior to the commencement of the arbitration hearing. 2.17. The arbitrator may make whatever award he/she considers just having regard to the dispute, and may do one or more of the following: (a) order an amendment to any document in dispute between the Parties, said amendment to be effective as between the Parties to the arbitration; (b) order a Party to do something; (c) order a Party to refrain from doing something; (d) order a Party to pay money as damages, compensation reimbursement; and (e) any other order as may be permitted by the Arbitration Act. 2.18. The arbitrator shall be required to make an award, in writing, signed by the arbitrator, within thirty (30) days after the conclusion of the hearing and a copy of the award is to be delivered to the Parties. 2.19. The award of the arbitrator shall be final and binding and shall not be subject to appeal save and except. 2.20. The arbitrator's award may include an order for costs, specifying the Party or Parties entitled to costs. If the arbitrator does not make an order respecting costs, a Party may, within twenty (20) days after being notified of the award, apply to the arbitrator for an order respecting costs. If no application is made to the arbitrator for an order respecting costs or, if following an application the arbitrator does not make an order respecting costs, then subject t o any agreement to the contrary, the Parties will bear their own costs of the fees and disbursements of the arbitrator in equal shares. 2.21. An arbitrator's award and/or order for costs may be filed in the Superior Court of Justice and, on being filed, will have the same effect as if it was an order of the Superior Court of Justice. - 553 - Appendix III to Report PLN 22-19 Master Development Agreement - 554 - This Master Development Agreement made as of the ____ day of ______________, 2019. AMONGST: UNIQUE AT HOLDING CORPORATION - and - UNIVERSAL CITY ONE DEVELOPMENTS INC. (collectively, the “Owner”) - and - CITY OF PICKERING (the “City”) WHEREAS the Owner proposes to develop the lands legally described in Schedule “A”, in the City of Pickering, in the Regional Municipality of Durham, as up to five (5) highrise condominiums as shown on Schedule “A1” consisting of (5) development phases. AND WHEREAS in connection with the development of the Universal City Project, the Owner is required as a condition of approval of the site plan for Phase 1, to enter into this Agreement with the City; NOW THEREFORE in consideration of the sum of $2.00 paid by the Owner to the City and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged by the parties, the parties agree as follows: 1. Definitions (a) “Above Grade Building Permit” means a building permit issued pursuant to Section 8 of the Building Code Act, which permits the construction of a building or portion thereof above grade, but excludes a building permit issued solely for the demolition, excavation, shoring or foundation of a building; (b) “City Centre South Main Street” means Part 1 City Centre South Main Street and Part 2 City South Centre Main Street; (c) “City Centre South Main Street Lands” means the Part 1 City Centre South Main Street Lands and the Part 2 City Centre South Main Street Lands; (d) “City Park Lands” means the lands described in Section 7(a); (e) “City Treasurer” shall mean the Director, Finance & Treasurer for the City and shall include his or her designates; (f) “Conveyance Date” means the date of registration of the transfer from the Owner to the City of City Park Lands; (g) “Director” means the Director of Engineering & Public Services and shall include his or her designates; (h) “Escrow Agent” means Friedman Law Professional Corporation; - 555 - Page 2 of 20 (i) “Estimated Cost of Initial Park Improvements” means the estimated costs to complete the Initial Park Improvements, as set out in Schedule “C” attached hereto; (j) “Estimated Cost of the Park Improvements” means the estimated cost to complete the Park Improvements for either Scenario 1 or Scenario 2, as applicable , as set out in Schedule “C” attached hereto; (k) “Final Acceptance Certificate” means written confirmation provided to the Owner by the Director that the requirements for acceptance of the Works or a portion thereof have been completed in a manner satisfactory to the Director; (l) “Financial Security” shall mean a letter of credit in a form and from an institution acceptable to the City Treasurer or a certified cheque payable to the City; (m) “Front-Ended Community Works” means those items of works defined as Community Services in the Infrastructure Agreement, for which the Owner has agreed to construct and front end the costs of construction for, including without limitation, the Krosno Creek Improvements, Park Improvements, and City Centre South Main Street; (n) “H6 Block” means the lands shown in Schedule “A” attached hereto; (o) “Indexing Factor” means the indexing factor approved by the Group Consultant with reference to the Statistics Canada. Table 18-10-0135-01 – building construction price indexes, by type of building (Toronto), or with reference to any other substitute index designated by the Group Consultant in consultation with the Cost Sharing Engineer; (p) “Infrastructure Agreement” means the Infrastructure Agreement for the H6 Lands entered into by the participating owners of lands located in the H6 Block for the sharing of costs and satisfaction of requirements for the lifting of the holding by-law designation over the H6 Block, dated _________________; (q) “Initial Parkland” means the lands shown in Schedule “B” attached hereto; (r) “Initial Park Improvements” means grading and sodding of the Initial Parkland; (s) “Initial Public Road Works” means the works described in Schedule “D” under the heading “Initial Public Road Works”; (t) “Krosno Creek Lands” means the lands owned by Unique AT Holding Corporation identified in Schedule “F” and shaded in the colour [•]; (u) “Krosno Creek Improvements” means the works identified in Schedule “F”; (v) “Krosno Creek Rechannelization Initial Works” means the works identified in Schedule “F”; (w) “Krosno Creek Rechannelization Ultimate Works” means the works identified in Schedule “F”; (x) “Lands” has the meaning set out in Section 2; (y) “Market Value” means the amount that the land is expected to realize if sold in the open market by a willing seller to a willing buyer; - 556 - Page 3 of 20 (z) “Metrolinx Public Road Lands” means those lands legally described as Part ___ on Plan 40R- __________; (aa) “Metrolinx Road Works” means the works described in Schedule “_____”; (bb) “Park Improvements” has the meaning set out in Section 8(a); (cc) “Phase 1” means the proposed condominium building to be located on the lands depicted in Schedule “A1”; (dd) “Phase 2” means the proposed condominium building to be located on the lands depicted in Schedule “A1”; (ee) “Phase 3” means the proposed condominium building to be located on the lands depicted in Schedule “A1”; (ff) “Phase 4” means the proposed condominium building to be located on the lands depicted in Schedule “A1”; (gg) “Phase 5” means the proposed condominium building to be located on the lands depicted in Schedule “A1”;“Proportionate Share” means the Total Approved GFA of the applicable buildings Phase 1 through Phase 5 divided by Total Approved GFA for the Universal City Project; (hh) “Scenario 1” means if the event set out in Section 7(d) occurs; (ii) “Scenario 2” means if the event set out in Section 7(e) occurs; (jj) “Total Approved GFA” means the total area of each and every floor whether located above, at or below grade, measured between the exterior faces of the exterior walls of the building at each floor level but excluding any porch, veranda, cellar, mechanical room or penthouse, or areas dedicated to parking within the building, which has been approved by the City to be developed on the lands as set out in the By-Law _______; in the event of any inconsistencies between the foregoing definition and the definition of Total GFA set out in By-Law __________, then the definition in the By-Law shall prevail; and (kk) “Truck Turning Radius” means Parts _______________ on Plan 40R-_________. 2. Lands Affected The lands affected by this Agreement are: firstly: PT LT 21 CON 1 PICKERING PT 2 PL 40R-17380; PICKERING, REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM, forming all of PIN 26330-0162 (LT); and secondly: PT LT 21 CON 1 PICKERING PTS 1 & 3 PL 40R-17380; PICKERING, REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM, forming all of PIN 26330-0163 (LT) (collectively, the “Lands”). 3. Status Of This Agreement (a) In the event that the Phase 1 condominium is not registered on or before December 31, 2025, this Agreement shall be null and void and of no further effect, and the City shall not be liable for any expenses, costs or damages suffered by the Owner as a result thereof. - 557 - Page 4 of 20 (b) This Agreement is entered into and executed by the Owner for the purpose of having the City act in reliance on the covenants by the Owner contained herein and the Owner hereby waives any right or claim which it now has which is inconsistent with the terms of this Agreement. 4. Binding Parties This Agreement shall be enforceable by and against the parties hereto, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, and the Agreement and all the covenants by the Owner contained herein shall run with the Lands for the benefit of the City and the land or interests in land owned by the City upon the registration of this Agreement on title to the Lands. 5. Notice (a) Any notice required to be given in this Agreement shall be in writing, as follows: to the Owner at: 150 Ferrand Drive, Unit 801 Toronto, ON, M3C 3E5 Attention: Dave Friedman Fax: 416-499-1844 and to the City at: Pickering Civic Complex, One The Esplanade, Pickering, ON, L1V 6K7 Attention: City Clerk Fax: 905-420-9685 (b) Notice shall be sufficiently given if delivered in person, sent by registered mail or sent by facsimile. (c) Each notice shall be deemed to have been received as follows: (i) if delivered in person before 5:00pm on a business day, on the day it was delivered; (ii) if sent by registered mail, on the third (3rd) business day after it was mailed (excluding each business day during which there existed any general interruption of postal services due to strike, lockout or other cause); or (iii) if sent by facsimile and received prior to 5:00pm on a business day, on the day it was delivered, and if sent by facsimile after 5:00pm or not on a business day, then the next business day. (d) The Owner may change its address for notice by giving notice to the City Clerk in the manner provided above. (e) In cases of emergency, in the opinion of the Director, such Director may act without prior notice but the Owner and its surety shall be notified forthwith. - 558 - Page 5 of 20 6. Interpretation (a) Whenever in this Agreement the pronoun "it" is used, it sha ll be read and construed as "he", "she", "they", "him", "her" or "them", and the number of the verb agreeing therewith shall be construed accordingly. (b) The words “hereof”, “herein”, “hereunder” and similar expressions used in any Section or Subsection of this Agreement relates to the whole of this Agreement and not to that section or subsection only, unless the context indicates otherwise. (c) If any provision of this Agreement or the application to any circumstances shall be held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable under any law, then such provision: (i) is deemed to be independent of the remainder of the Agreement and to be severable and divisible therefrom and its invalidity, unenforceability or illegality does not affect, impair or invalidate the remainder of the Agreement or any part thereof; and (ii) continues to be applicable to and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law and circumstances other than those as to which it has been held or rendered invalid, unenforceable or illegal. (d) Any reference made in this Agreement to a Director shall include the Director or his/her designate. (e) Schedule A – H6 Block; Schedule A1 – Development Phases Schedule B – City Park Lands; Schedule C – Park Improvements; Schedule D – City Centre South Main Street Lands; Schedule E – Financial Securities Schedule F – Krosno Creek Rechannelization Works Schedule G - Form of Certificate of Insurance; and attached hereto shall form part of this Agreement. 7. Parkland Conveyance and Financial Security (a) The parties acknowledges that pursuant to Section 42 of the Planning Act, a parkland dedication of 1250 m² of lands is required to be conveyed by the Owner to the City, which parklands consists of the Park Lands A and Park Lands B, and is described as Parts ⚫ on the draft reference attached hereto as Schedule “B” (collectively, the “City Park Lands”). (b) Within six months after the registration of the condominium forming the Phase 2 building, the Owner shall complete the grading and sodding of the Initial Parkland, provided that in the event that the six month period falls in the winter season (November – March), then the Owner shall have an additional six months in which to complete the grading and sodding work. - 559 - Page 6 of 20 (c) Upon completion of the grading and sodding of the Initial Parkland, the Owner shall grant an easement in favour of the City over the Initial Parkland permitting public access to the Initial Parkland until such time as the City Park Lands are conveyed to the City. (d) In the event that the Owner has not applied for a below grade building permit for either the Phase 4 building or the Phase 5 building on or before December 30, 2026 (the “Outside Date”), then the Owner shall either: (i) deliver Financial Security to the City in an amount equal to the sum of: (1) Market Value of the Phase 1 Proportionate Share of City Park Lands determined as at the date the Financial Security is posted (the “Phase 1 Parkland Amount”), plus the Phase 1 Proportionate Share of Park Improvements (the “Phase 1 Park Improvements Amount”); (2) Market Value of the Phase 2 Proportionate Share of City Park Lands determined as at the date the Financial Security is posted (the “Phase 2 Parkland Amount”), plus the Phase 2 Proportionate Share of Park Improvements (the “Phase 2 Park Improvements”); (3) Market Value of the Phase 3 Proportionate Share of City Park Lands determined as at the date the Financial Security is posted (the “Phase 3 Parkland Amount”), plus the Phase 3 Proportionate Share of Park Improvements (the “Phase 3 Park Improvements Amount”), (collectively the “Parkland Security”). The Parkland Security shall be held by the City subject to the provisions set out below: (1) In the event that the Owner has not applied for a below grade building permit for either the Phase 4 building or the Phase 5 building on or before December 29, 2028 (the “Extended Outside Date”), then the Owner’s obligations under Section 42 of the Planning Act for Phase 1, 2, and 3 shall be satisfied by the Owner delivering by certified funds, payment-in-lieu of parkland dedication to the City in an amount equal to the Parkland Security (the “Payment-in-lieu”) on or before January 15, 2029. If the Owner fails to deliver the Payment-in-lieu by such date, then the City may call upon the Parkland Security provider for payment. (2) In the event that the Owner has applied for a below grade building permit for either the Phase 4 building or the Phase 5 building on or before the Extended Outside Date, then Parkland Security shall continue to be held by the City, and the conveyance of the City Park Lands to the City shall be completed upon registration of the condominium forming Phase 4; or (ii) proceed to register the conveyance of the City Park Lands to the City, subject to the terms and conditions set out in Section 7(h), Section 7(i). (e) In the event that the Owner has applied for a below grade building permit for either the Phase 4 building or the Phase 5 building on or before December 30, 2026, then the conveyance of the City Park Lands to the City shall be completed on or before December 28, 2029, subject to the terms and conditions set out in Section 7(i) and Section 17. (f) All Financial Security shall be kept in full force and effect until the earlier of the Conveyance Date or the date that Payment-in-lieu is delivered to the City. (g) The Owner acknowledges and agrees any Financial Security received by the City in the form of a certified cheque will be placed in a non-interest bearing account and if in the form of a Letter of Credit shall be in the form and from a financial institution acceptable to the City Treasurer. - 560 - Page 7 of 20 (h) Promptly after the conveyance of the City Park Lands to the City, the City shall release the Financial Security provided by the Owner in respect of the City Park Lands. (i) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, the conveyance by the Owner to the City of the City Park Lands, shall be in fee simple and free and clear of any encumbrances save and except for (i) the retained ownership by the Owner of the stratified lands below the City Park Land s forming part of the Owner’s underground garages and/or building, (ii) the reservation of a temporary easement for access, construction staging and ingress and egress purposes until the assumption of the Park Improvements by the City in a form satisfactory to the City, (iii) the reservation of an easement for repair and maintenance of the Owner’s underground garages, (iv) easements related to third party utility companies, (v) any other encumbrances acceptable to the City. 8. Park Improvements (a) The Owner shall, design and construct at the sole cost of the Owner, the park improvements on the City Park Lands or portion thereof as applicable, described in Schedule “C” attached hereto (the “Park Improvements”), to the satisfaction of the City. (b) The Owner shall deliver Financial Security to the City in accordance with Section 12 for the Initial Park Improvements following the execution of this Agreement, the amount of such Financial Security to be increased by the Indexing Factor. (c) In the event that the Owner has applied for a below grade building permit for the Phase 4 building or the Phase 5 building on or before the Outside Date, or the Extended Outside Date, as applicable, then the construction of the Phase 4 Park Improvements shall be completed by the Owner to the satisfaction of the City, prior to the registration of the Phase 4 condominium, and the construction of the Phase 5 Park Improvements shall be completed by the Owner to the satisfaction of the City, prior to the registration of the Phase 5 condominium. The Owner shall, in such event, deliver Financial Security to the City prior to the issuance of an above grade building permit for each of the Pha se 4 building and Phase 5 building, in an amount equal to Phase 4 Proportionate Share of Park Improvements and Phase 5 Proportionate Share of Park Improvements, as applicable. 9. City Centre South Main Street The Owner, covenants and agrees at its cost to construct the following, subject to the sharing of such costs by benefitting owners as set out in the Infrastructure Agreement and Cost Sharing Agreement. (a) Metrolinx Public Road (i) Upon conveyance of the Metrolinx Public Road Lands to the City, the Owner agrees to construct and complete the Metrolinx Public Road Works, all in accordance with the configurations and designs to be determined to the satisfaction of the Director. (ii) The Owner shall deliver Financial Security to the City in accordance with Section 12, for the Metrolinx Public Road Works prior to site plan approval for the Phase 2 building. (b) Initial Public Road (i) The Owner covenants and agrees to construct the Initial Public Road Works, with specific configurations and designs to be determined to the satisfaction of the Director prior to the first residential occupancy of Phase 2. - 561 - Page 8 of 20 (c) Part 1 City Centre South Main Street (i) The Owner covenants and agrees, at its sole expense, to construct a new 20.00 m right of way on lands identified as Parts ⚫ on the draft reference plan attached hereto as Schedule “D” the “Part 1 City Centre South Main Street Lands) and all associated services (the “Part 1 City Centre South Main Street”), with the specific configurations and designs to be determined to the satisfaction of the Director prior to the first residential occupancy or Above Grade Building Permit issued for Phase 2. (ii) Prior to the issuance of an Above Grade Building Permit for the Phase 3 building, the Owner shall complete the base asphalt over the Part 1 City Centre South Main Street Lands. (iii) Upon the completion of the construction of the underground portion of the Phase 4 building and Phase 5 building, the Owner shall complete the Initial Public Road Works. (iv) The Owner shall complete the Part 1 City Centre South Main Street prior to the first residential occupancy of the Phase 5 building. (d) Part 2 City Centre South Main Street (i) Prior to the registration of the Phase 5 building, the Owner shall construct that portion of the City Centre South Main Street Lands shown as Part ⚫ on the draft reference plan attached hereto as Schedule “D” (the “Part 2 City Centre South Main Street Lands”) and all associated services (the “Part 2 City Centre South Main Street”). (e) The Owner shall deliver Financial Security to the City in accordance with Section 12, for the Part 2 City Centre South Main Street prior to site plan approval for the Phase 4 building. (f) Prior to Site Plan Approval for Phase 3, the Owner shall provide all necessary engineering drawings prepared by a qualified engineer, or other qualified consultant as applicable, for the construction of the City Centre South Main Street and those services and other facilities on the Lands associated with the City Centre South Main Street to the satisfaction of the Director. (g) The City Centre South Main Street and all associated services shall be constructed in accordance with the approved engineering drawings, plans, approved by the Director. (h) The City shall permit the City Centre South Main Street Lands and any portion thereof to operate as a private street to serve the Lands until such time as the City Centre South Main Street Lands or any portion thereof is dedicated and established as a public highway to be established by the City. Until such time as the City Centre South Main Street or any portion thereof is assumed by the City and dedicated as a public highway, the Owner shall be responsible for all maintenance and upkeep of the road and all appurtenances in good and proper repair. (i) The City Centre South Main Street shall be conveyed by the City prior to the registration of the Phase 5 condominium, subject to the terms and conditions set out in Section Error! Reference source not found.(j) and Section 17. (j) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Section 17, the conveyance by the Owner to the City of the City Centre South Main Street Lands, shall be in fee simple and free and clear of any encumbrances save and except for (i) the retained ownership by the Owner of the stratified lands below City Centre South Main Street Lands forming part of the Owner’s underground garages and/or building, (ii) the - 562 - Page 9 of 20 reservation of a temporary right of way for access purposes until such time as the City Centre South Main Street has been dedicated as public highway, (iii) the reservation of an easement for repair and maintenance of the Owner’s underground garages and/or building support structures over, (iv) easements related to third party utility companies, (v) any other encumbrances acceptable to the City. The configuration of the stratified parcel(s) and the terms of the said easements shall be satisfactory to the City. (k) Prior to the conveyance of the City Centre South Main Street Lands, the Owner shall grant a temporary easement in favour of the City over the Truck Turning Radius in order to allow for motor vehicles and trucks owned by City to turn, access, and ingress and egress to and from the Truck Turning Radius, until such time as the City Centre South Main Street has been dedicated as a public road and extended to the west and south connecting to an existing public road or a temporary cul-de-sac or other area or design acceptable to the Director. 10. Krosno Creek Conveyance and Rechannelization (a) The Owner agrees to convey to the City the Krosno Creek Lands on or before the period ended six months after the completion of the Krosno Creek Rechannelization Initial Works. (b) The Owner shall deliver Financial Security to the City in accordance with Section 12, for the Krosno Creek Rechannelization Initial Works), prior to site plan approval for the Phase 3 building. (c) The Owner shall obtain permit(s) from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and construct the Krosno Creek Rechannelization Initial Works prior to the issuance of any shoring, below grade, or above grade building permits for the Phase 5 building. (d) The Owner shall deliver Financial Security to the City in accordance with Section 12, for the Krosno Creek Rechannelization Ultimate, prior to site plan approval for the Phase 4 building. (e) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, the conveyance by the Owner to the City of the Krosno Creek Lands, shall be in fee simple and free and clear of any encumbrances save and except for (i) any necessary public infrastructure, (ii) the reservation of a temporary easement for access, construction staging and ingress and egress purposes until the completion of the Krosno Creek Improvements by the City, (iii) the reservation of an easement for repair and maintenance of the Owner’s underground garages and/or building support structures, (iv) easements related to third party utility companies, (v) any other encumbrances acceptable to the City. 11. Construction & Installation of City Works and Services (a) The Owner shall obtain all required approvals and shall construct or install to City standards and shall provide to the City, complete in every detail, the following City works and services (without duplication) (the "Works") as shown on engineering plans submitted by the Owner to the City and approved by the Director, in accordance with the City's specifications for such Works: (i) Initial Park Improvements and Park Improvements; (ii) Metrolinx Public Road Works (iii) Krosno Creek Rechannelization Initial Works, (iv) Krosno Creek Rechannelization Ultimate Works, - 563 - Page 10 of 20 (v) Part 1 City Centre South Main Street and Part 2 City Centre South Main Street; and (vi) Front-Ended Community Works. (b) The Owner shall satisfy the City with respect to providing for the coordination of services and roads with adjacent lands and any phasing of the Universal City Development. (c) All Works shall be constructed and installed in accordance with the City's specifications and in a good and workmanlike manner under the observation of the City's inspectors, as applicable. 12. Financial Security for the Works (a) As security for the completion of the Works, the Owner shall deliver Financial Security to the City in an amount equal to 100% of the estimated costs of the Works, as set out in Schedule “E”. (b) The Owner may, at any time after the first 40 percent of the Original Value of the Work s have been constructed, installed or performed, and paid for, apply in writing (ensuring reference to the registered plan number is made) for a reduction in the Security corresponding to the extent to which the Works have been constructed, and such application shall be made to the Director, Engineering Services. (c) Upon written verification from the Director, Engineering Services that the construction, installation or performance of the Works for which a reduction is being sought have been satisfactorily completed and paid for, the City’s Treasurer may reduce the amount of the Security to an amount not less than, (i) 60 percent of the Original Value, where no certificate or declaration of substantial performance has been made; (ii) 35 percent of the Original Value, where a certificate or declaration of substantial performance has been published, 45 days following such publication have expired and all liens that may be claimed against any holdback required to be retained by the City have expired or have been satisfied, discharged or provided for by payment into court; or (iii) 20 percent of the Original Value, where a certificate of final completion has been issued by the Owner's Consulting Engineer, 45 days following the making of such certificate have expired, all liens that may be claimed against any holdback required to be retained by the City have expired or have been satisfied, discharged or provided for by payment into court, all payments required by this Agreement have been made in full and a Completion Acceptance Certificate has been issued by the Director, Engineering Services. Such 20 percent portion shall secure the guarantee of Works, workmanship and materials, until a Final Acceptance Certificate has been issued by the Director, Engineering Services, wher eupon the balance of the Security shall be returned to the Owner subject to any deductions for rectification of deficiencies. (d) Upon the approval, if any, of a reduction in the amount of the Security required to be provided in subsection (1), the City’s Treasurer shall provide to the Owner any necessary assurance to effect the reduction. (e) Notwithstanding any other provision contained in this Agreement, there shall be no reduction in the Security referred to herein: (i) until the Owner provides a Statutory Declaration satisfactory to the City to establish that all contractors and sub-contractors have been paid to-date and that there are no claims under the - 564 - Page 11 of 20 Construction Act in respect of the Works or the Lands; and (ii) where such a reduction would result in the principal amount being less than: (1) the aggregate total of 100% of the value of uncompleted Works and 20% of the value of the completed Works; and (2) the amount that would be required to keep adequate insurance in effect, plus administration fees, until the issuance of a Final Acceptance Certificate by the City. (f) The Owner acknowledges and agrees that the Security referred to herein is available to cover the cost of doing any of the Works or performing any other obligation of the Owner under this Agreement. (g) Expiry of Securities (i) Should any Letter of Credit or Surety Bond Security required to be provided herein expire before the City releases the Owner from the terms and conditions hereof, the Owner shall provide to the City, at least 30 days in advance of the expiry date of the Security, a further Security to take effect forthwith upon the expiry. (ii) Such further Security shall be in a form and amount satisfactory to the City. (iii) Should no such further Security be provided as required, then the City shall have the right to convert the expiring Security into cash and to hold the cash in lieu of and for the same purposes as the expiring Security. 13. General Regulations Respecting Servicing (a) Where the construction or installation of services involves a continuation or extension of existing services, the Owner shall join into the existing services, including adjustment of grades where necessary, in a good and workmanlike manner. (b) The Owner shall not dump nor permit to be dumped any fill or debris on, nor remove or permit to be removed any fill from, any public lands, other than in the actual construction of roads in the Universal City Development without the written consent of the authority responsible for such lands. (c) The Owner shall: (i) relocate any existing services or utilities required to be relocated by the construction or installation of Works, services, or utilities in the project; and (ii) move any Works, services or utilities installed in driveways or so close thereto, in the opinion of the Director, as to interfere with the use of the driveway; (iii) in the event such works are not completed by the Owner to the satisfaction of the Director, the City will undertake such work and the cost of the works shall be paid by the Owner within 30 days of invoices being rendered. (d) The Owner shall provide and erect temporary signs of such nature and at such location s as designated by the Director. - 565 - Page 12 of 20 (e) Unless otherwise provided herein, the Owner shall perform any and all work required to be done under this Agreement to the specifications of the City and at the Owner’s cost. 14. Insurance (a) Before commencing any of the Works set out in this Agreement, the Owner shall supply the City with a completed “Certificate of Insurance” in the form attached hereto as Schedule “G” and which form will be provided by the City and satisfactory to the City, verifying that a liability insurance policy is in place. (b) As noted on the Certificate of Insurance, the policy shall include, among other provisions, (i) name the City of Pickering as an additional insured; (ii) set the minimum limit at $5,000,000.00 all inclusive for property damage and personal liability; (iii) contain a clause including blasting, if blasting is to occur; and (iv) remain in full force and effect until the Final Acceptance Certificate has been issued by the City. (c) The policy premium shall be paid initially for a period of one year and the policy shall be renewed for further one-year periods until the Final Acceptance Certificate has been issued by the City. (d) The Owner acknowledges that, the City may, at its discretion, draw upon the Owner’s Letter of Credit to pay for: (i) the Owner’s policy premium to keep adequate insurance in place until such time as the City has issued the Final Acceptance Certificate; and (ii) the City’s administration fee of $250.00, plus HST, per renewal, if at any time, prior to the Final Acceptance Certificate being issued by the City, the insurance policy referred to above is cancelled. (e) If the policy is subject to a deductible amount, the Security provided for by the Owner to the City pursuant to this Agreement shall also be available to be called upon by the City to pay for any amount required to be paid for by the Owner as the Owner’s deductible under the aforesaid insurance policy and not otherwise paid for by the Owner. (f) The provision of the insurance policy required by this section shall not relieve the Owner from liability for claims not covered by the policy or which exceed its limits, if any, for which the Owner may be held responsible. 15. Failure to Complete / Improper Performance (a) If, in the opinion of the Director, the Owner is not constructing or installing the Works, or causing them to be constructed or installed, within the specified time or so that they may be completed within the specified time, or is improperly performing the Works, or has neglected or abandoned them before completion, or has unreasonably delayed them so that the terms and conditions of this Agreement are being violated or executed carelessly or in bad faith, or has neglected or refused to renew or again perform Works rejected by such Director as defective or unsuitable, or has in any other manner, in the - 566 - Page 13 of 20 opinion of such Director, defaulted in the performance of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, then such Director may notify the Owner and his surety in writing of the default or neglect and if the notification be without effect for seven days, then such Director shall have full authority to make any payment or do anything, including but not limited to obtaining materials, tools and machinery and employing persons required for the proper completion of the Works or rectification of the default, at the cost and expense of the Owner or his surety, or both. (b) In cases of emergency, in the opinion of the Director, such Director may act without prior notice but the Owner and its surety shall be notified forthwith. (c) The cost of rectifying the default shall be calculated by the Director, whose decision shall be final, and may be charged to the Owner, together with a 25 percent engineering and administration fee, by drawing upon the letter of credit filed with the City. 16. Completion of Works and Maintenance Period (a) Upon the completion of all of the Works associated with the City Centre South Main Street and following receipt of the certificate or declaration of substantial completion, the Owner shall: (i) guarantee all of the Works, workmanship and materials employed or used in the construction, installation or completion of such Works, services and other requirements under this Agreement; and (ii) maintain such Works, including the rectification of any unsatisfactorily installed Works, for a minimum period of two (2) years (the "maintenance period"). (b) Prior to the end of the maintenance period, the City will re-inspect such Works and if, (i) all of the Works are acceptable and have been maintained; and (ii) the Owner has performed all of its obligations under the terms of this Agreement to the satisfaction of the Director, the City will issue to the Owner a Final Completion Certificate at which time the maintenance period will end and the Security provided for herein, or the remaining portion thereof applicable to such portion of the Works, shall be returned to the Owner. 17. Transfer of Lands (a) The Owner acknowledges that the conveyance of any/all lands or easements required by this Agreement shall be transferred to the City, free and clear of all encumbrances and at no cost to the City. (b) Prior to the release for registration of this Master Development Agreement, the Owner’s Solicitor shall provide to the City, electronic versions of the Transfers of Land required pursuant to this Agreement, as well as: (i) an undertaking from the Owner’s Solicitor that such conveyances will be effected immediately following the registration of this Agreement, free and clear of all encumbrances and at no cost to the City; - 567 - Page 14 of 20 (ii) copies of all required “Directions/Consents” from any individual and/or institution having an interest in the lands being conveyed to the City authorizing the removal of such interest; and (iii) a certificate of clear title to the Lands being conveyed to the City, in favour of the City, which certificate shall be prepared in a form acceptable to the City Solicitor at no cost to the City. (c) The Owner hereby warrants that, upon such conveyance, neither the title to the lands conveyed nor their physical state and condition shall prevent the City from lawfully or physically using the lands for the purposes for which they are being conveyed as set out in Schedule A. (d) The City may complete or alter any description of land in this Agreement or in any Transfer/Deed given pursuant to this Agreement so as to make the description correspond with the description of the land according to the plan which is to be registered pursuant to this Agreement. 18. Registration of this Agreement (a) The City shall attend to the registration of this Agreement and any/all Transfers, Discharges and Postponements, at the Owner’s cost. (b) The Owner shall execute such further assurances of the rights hereby granted as may be deemed necessary by the City. In witness whereof the Owner and the City have duly executed this Agreement as of the date first written above. Unique AT Holding Corporation Universal City One Developments Inc. Per: Per: Name: Name: Title: Title: I have authority to bind the Corporation. I have authority to bind the Corporation. The Corporation of the City of Pickering Per: David Ryan, Mayor Per: Debbie Shields, City Clerk - 568 - Schedule “A” – H6 Block - 569 - File Number: Date Drawn: Drawn By: Planner: Scale: CAD: see scale bar Drawing Number: SM REVISIONS LIST RG NOTE: 14 MAR 2019 7920 15 MAR 2019 LIMIT OF UNDERGROUND STREET A EXI STI NG PRI VATE ROADA 1st Draft LEGEND H6 LANDS BOUNDARY OWNERSHIP BOUNDARIES HIGHWAY 401 C.N.R. BAYLY STREET SANDYBEACHROADSCALE 0 METRES 100 ALLIANCE RD.FUTURE KROSNO BLVDKROSNO BLVDI BPURPOSES ONLY FOR DISCUSSION DRAFT REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM TOWN OF PICKERING BAYLY ST. & SANDY BEACH ROAD SCHEDULE A MASTER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 6726-1/schedules/MDA/6726 MDA Schedule A_2019_03_15.dgn B 25 S 8 S 6 S 40 S B8 S B8 S 6 S E2 C1 C2 A2 15 S 6 S 25 S 25 S D 15 S E1 F1 F2 6 S 25 S 15 S 6 S 25 S 6 S 6 S 6 S 40 S 40 S A1 25 SI2 6 S 25 SI1 4 S 25 S H1 6 S G2 40 S 6 S G1 40 S 3 S 7 S 40 SA B D 27 S C 27 S E 17 S F 14 S INST. No. 60580PROPOSED TRCA PROPERTY LINE Kirkor Architects dated October 24, 2018 2. Updated Universal City site plan per March 24, 2017. & Associates per TRCA comments of 1. Ultimate Floodline revised per Schaeffer PROPOSED TRCA PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED TRCA PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPOSED TRCA 4.0m 40S 3.2m 6 S24 S24 S25 S17 S1 S6 S 2 7 S7 S 1 SCONSULTING WESTON planning + urban design 1-800.363.3558 westonconsulting.com 201 Millway Ave. Suite 19 Vaughan, Ontario L4K 5K8 T. 905.738.8080 F. 905.738.6637 Vaughan: Toronto: T. 416.640.9917 F. 905.738.6637 268 Berkeley St. Toronto, Ontario M5A 2X5 - 570 - BAYLY STREET HIGHW AY 401 C.N.R.SANDYBEACHROADALLIANCE RD.KROSNO BLVD26 JUNE 2016 7920 27 JUNE 2019 SM REVISIONS LIST RG NOTE: File Number: Date Drawn: Drawn By: Planner: Scale: CAD: see scale bar Drawing Number: A1 1st Draft LEGEND SUBJECT LANDS UNIVERSAL CITY PHASING BOUNDARY PURPOSES ONLY FOR DISCUSSION DRAFT REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM TOWN OF PICKERING BAYLY ST. & SANDY BEACH ROAD SCHEDULE A1 MASTER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 6726-1/schedules/MDA/6726 MDA Schedule A1_2019_06_27.dgn approximate. To be confirmed by architect. 3. Location of phasing boundaries are Kirkor Architects dated October 24, 2018 2. Updated Universal City site plan per March 24, 2017. & Associates per TRCA comments of 1. Ultimate Floodline revised per Schaeffer PROPOSED TRCA PROPERTY LINE PHASE 5 PHASE 4 FUTURE KROSNO BLVDCONSULTING WESTON planning + urban design 1-800.363.3558 westonconsulting.com 201 Millway Ave. Suite 19 Vaughan, Ontario L4K 5K8 T. 905.738.8080 F. 905.738.6637 Vaughan: Toronto: T. 416.640.9917 F. 905.738.6637 268 Berkeley St. Toronto, Ontario M5A 2X5 PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 - 571 - Schedule “B” – City Park Lands - 572 - File Number: Date Drawn: Drawn By: Planner: Scale: CAD: see scale bar Drawing Number: SM CONSULTING WESTON planning + urban design 1-800.363.3558 westonconsulting.com 201 Millway Ave. Suite 19 Vaughan, Ontario L4K 5K8 T. 905.738.8080 F. 905.738.6637 Vaughan: Toronto: T. 416.640.9917 F. 905.738.6637 REVISIONS LIST RG 7920 B 268 Berkeley St. 1st Draft Toronto, Ontario M5A 2X5 LEGEND OWNERSHIP BOUNDARIES PURPOSES ONLY FOR DISCUSSION DRAFT REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM TOWN OF PICKERING BAYLY ST. & SANDY BEACH ROAD MASTER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT SCALE 0 METRES 40 R. AVIS SURVEYING INC. TORONTO, ONTARIO 235 YORKLAND BOULEVARD, SUITE 203 M2J 4Y8 SUITE 203 TEL.: (416) 490-8352 www.ravissurveying.com FAX: (416) 491-6206 FEBRUARY 5, 2019 SURVEY BY: CITY PARK LANDS SCHEDULE B 15 MAR 2019 6726-1/schedules/MDA/6726 MDA Schedule B_2019_03_15.dgn 15 MAR 2019 CONCRETE BLOCK ARENA IB(739) IB(OU) IB(OU)(P,M)152.10 IB PART 1,PLAN 40R-17380 PART 3, PLAN 40R-17380 PART 3, PLAN 40R-4771 PART 1, PLAN 40R-4771 P.I.N. 26330 - 0010(LT) P.I.N. 26330 - 0009(LT) P.I.N. 26330 - 0163(LT)4.644.69(P,SET)14.31(P,M)8.247.78CHAIN LINK FENCE0.06E 0.03N (1222)13.33(P,SET)69.630.02E131.72(P,M)P.I.N. 26330 - 0163(LT)47.181.52(P,M) 12.99 40.25 44.3717.236.15113.96CP(1525) 8.17 7.62 (P,M) CC(WIT) 1.50S SSIB (1525) 2.90 13.157.62 IB(739) 147.59 131.7217.76113.96(P,M)(P,M) (1525) (P,M) PART 2, PLAN 40R-17380 P.I.N. 26330 - 0162(LT) (SUBJECT TO RIGHT OF WAY AS IN DR727) No. 1447 1-STOREY CONCRETE BLOCK BUILDING CHAIN LINK FENCE CHAIN LINK FENCE CHAIN LINK FENCE PART 2, PLAN 40R - 5909P.I.N. 26330 - 0005(LT)SUBJECT TO EASEMENT AS IN D4706915.69PART 1, PLAN 40R-18785 P.I.N. 26330 - 0186(LT)(P,M)(P,SET) PART 2,PLAN 40R-4771 (P,M)(P,M)(P,M)(P,M)50.15(P,M)(P,M)(P,M)(P,M)(P,M )(P,M )(P,M)(P,M) PART 1, PLAN 40R-519 P.I.N. 26330 - 0008(LT) LOT 21, CONCESSION 1 PART 1, PLAN 40R-29288 PART 2, PLAN 40R - 29288PART 3, PLAN 40R-29288 PART 4, PLAN 40R-29288 1-STOREY CONCRETE BLOCK BUILDING9.03 9.04 9.349.1418.7318.92(P,M)(P,M)(P,M)(P,M)(P,M) (P,M) 69.86 65.1112.549.663.79CP(1525) CP (1525)13.84(P,SET)No. 1460 (P,M)(P,SET) (P,M)(P,M)(P,M)(P,M)BAYLY STREET(REGIONAL ROAD No. 22)(ROAD ALLOWANCE BETWEEN CONCESSION 1 & BROKEN FRONT CONCESSION)P.I.N. 26330 - 0121(LT)PART 1, PLAN 40R-6289SUBJECT TO RIGHT OF WAY AS IN INST. D127649INST. No. 58161 (SECONDLY) DEDICATED BY BY-LAW 136-78, INST. No. D77336(KNOWN AS)62.596.108.924.9865.00 67.1020.0065.00 12.416.108.924.9811.96 131.699.029.05122.64122.65122.65PART 9131.68PART 1020.00 122.66PART 3 PART 1 PART 2 PART 4PART 5PART 6 PART 7PART 8PART 11PART 12(SUBJECT TO RIGHT OF WAY AS IN DR727) 31 .69 (P,M)(P,M)11.8011.80(P,M)(P,M)(P,M) (P,M)40.0338.4013.37PART 13PART 1469.2418.25 18.25 18.25 5.202.832.83PART 15PART 165.93 5.20 7.1238.4030.8430.84SCALE 1:800 11x17 15 NOV 2019 Revise park - 573 - Schedule “C” – Park Improvements - 574 - Cost Estimate Number:2 Date:February 25, 2019 TLA number:17-170 To:Chestnut Hill Developments Class: D Project Name: Universal City - Piazza 1.0 PAVING/ HARDSCAPING Unit Estimated Quantity Unit Price Total 1.1 Vehicular grade paving (material TBD)m²590 250.00$ 147,500.00$ 1.2 Seating walls / planter walls (450mm - 600mm ht.)lm 100 750.00$ 75,000.00$ 222,500.00$ 2.0 SOFTSCAPE WORKS Unit Estimated Quantity Unit Price Total 2.1 Deciduous Tree (70mm)each 26 650.00$ 16,900.00$ 2.2 Shrub (60cm/3 GAL)m²120 80.00$ 9,600.00$ 2.3 Shredded Bark / Contractors (75mm depth)m²120 100.00$ 12,000.00$ 2.4 Planting Soil m³505 75.00$ 37,875.00$ 2.5 Topsoil and Sod (incl. fine grading)m²305 20.00$ 6,100.00$ 2.6 Soil Cells (1.2m depth)m²430 450.00$ 193,500.00$ 275,975.00$ 3.0 SITE FURNISHINGS Unit Estimated Quantity Unit Price Total 3.1 Benches / Bistro Tables each 50 5,000.00$ 250,000.00$ 3.2 Lighting (pedestrian scaled)each 20 7,000.00$ 140,000.00$ 3.3 Miscellanious (public art, public infrastructure, etc.) allowance 1 250,000.00$ 250,000.00$ 640,000.00$ 1,138,475.00$ 227,695.00$ 1,366,170.00$ Piazza Phasing Breakdown Area (m2)Percentage of Area (%)Cost Breakdown Total Piazza 1250 100 1,366,170.00$ UC4 687.5 55 751,393.50$ UC5 562.5 45 614,776.50$ Note: * this estimate is for preliminary cost estimate purposes * demolition and site prep is not included in the estimate * piazza design is to be coordinated with the City of Pickering and this could affect the estimate herein * taxes not included 20% Contingency TOTAL Attention: Steven Warsh 1.0 Subtotal 2.0 Subtotal 3.0 Subtotal Site Subtotal Schedule “D” – City Centre South Main Street Lands - 576 - File Number: Date Drawn: Drawn By: Planner: Scale: CAD: see scale bar Drawing Number: SM CONSULTING WESTON planning + urban design 1-800.363.3558 westonconsulting.com 201 Millway Ave. Suite 19 Vaughan, Ontario L4K 5K8 T. 905.738.8080 F. 905.738.6637 Vaughan: Toronto: T. 416.640.9917 F. 905.738.6637 REVISIONS LIST RG 7920 268 Berkeley St. 1st Draft Toronto, Ontario M5A 2X5 LEGEND OWNERSHIP BOUNDARIES PURPOSES ONLY FOR DISCUSSION DRAFT REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM TOWN OF PICKERING BAYLY ST. & SANDY BEACH ROAD MASTER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT SCALE 0 METRES 50 SCHEDULE D 15 MAR 2019 6726-1/schedules/MDA/6726 MDA Schedule D_2019_03_15.dgn 15 MAR 2019CONCRETE BLOCK ARENAIB(739)IB(OU)IB(OU)(P,M)152.10IBPART 1,PLAN 40R-17380PART 3, PLAN 40R-4771PART 1, PLAN 40R-4771P.I.N. 26330 - 0010(LT)P.I.N. 26330 - 0009(LT)4.64 4.69 (P,SET) 14.31 (P,M) 8.24 7.78CHAIN LINK FENCE 0.06E0.03N(1222)13.33(P,SET) 69.63 0.02E131.72(P,M)P.I.N. 26330 - 0163(LT)47.18 1.52(P,M)1 2.9 940.2544.3717.236.15 113.96 CP(1525)8.177.62(P,M)CC(WIT)1.50SSSIB(1525)2. 9 0 13.157.62 IB(739)131.72 17.76 113.96 (P,M)(P,M)(1525)(P,M)PART 2, PLAN 40R-17380P.I.N. 26330 - 0162(LT)(SUBJECT TO RIGHT OF WAY AS IN DR727)No. 14471-STOREYCONCRETE BLOCK BUILDINGCHAIN LINK FENCECHAIN LINK FENCEPART 2, PLAN 40R - 5909 P.I.N. 26330 - 0005(LT) SUBJECT TO EASEMENT AS IN D47069 15.69 (P,M)(P,SET)PART 2,PLAN 40R-4771(P,M)(P,M)(P,M)(P,M) 50.15 (P,M)(P,M) (P,M)(P,M)(P,M)(P,M)PART 1, PLAN 40R-519P.I.N. 26330 - 0008(LT)PART 1, PLAN 40R-29288PART 2, PLAN 40R - 29288 PART 3, PLAN 40R-29288PART 4, PLAN 40R-292881-STOREY CONCRETE BLOCK BUILDING 9.039.049.34 9.14 18.73 18.92(P,M) (P,M) (P,M) (P,M)(P,M)(P,M)69.8665.1112.549.66 3.79 CP(1525)CP(1525)13.84(P,SET)No. 1460(P,M)(P,SET)(P,M)(P,M)(P,M) (P,M) BAYLY STREET (REGIONAL ROAD No. 22) (ROAD ALLOWANCE BETWEEN CONCESSION 1 & BROKEN FRONT CONCESSION) P.I.N. 26330 - 0121(LT) PART 1, PLAN 40R-6289 SUBJECT TO RIGHT OF WAY AS IN INST. D127649 INST. No. 58161 (SECONDLY) DEDICATED BY BY-LAW 136-78, INST. No. D77336 (KNOWN AS)62.5967.1020.0065.0012.416.108.924.9811.969.02 9.05 20.00PART 3PART 2PART 4PART 5PART 6(SUBJECT TO RIGHT OF WAY AS IN DR727)31.69(P,M)(P,M)11.80 11.80 (P,M) (P,M)(P,M)(P,M)13.37 18.25SCALE 1:1000 11x17 PUBLIC ROAD LANDS D R. AVIS SURVEYING INC. TORONTO, ONTARIO 235 YORKLAND BOULEVARD, SUITE 203 M2J 4Y8 SUITE 203 TEL.: (416) 490-8352 www.ravissurveying.com FAX: (416) 491-6206 FEBRUARY 5, 2019 SURVEY BY: INTERIM PUBLIC ROAD PART 1 PUBLIC ROAD PART 2 PUBLIC ROAD METROLINX PUBLIC ROAD 40.03 38.40 PART 13 PART 14 69.24 18.2518.255.202.83 2.83 PART 15 PART 16 5.935.207.1238.4030.84 30.84 147.59CHAIN LINK FENCEPART 1, PLAN 40R-18785P.I.N. 26330 - 0186(LT)(P,M)(P,M)LOT 21, CONCESSION 16.108.924.9865.00131.69 122.64 122.65 122.65 PART 9 131.68 PART 10 122.66 PART 1PART 7 PART 8 PART 11 PART 12 PART 3, PLAN 40R-17380P.I.N. 26330 - 0163(LT)SANDY BEACH ROAD26 SEP 2019 Display Metrolinx Public Road, Part 1 & 2 Public Road & Interim Public Road - 577 - Schedule “E” – Form of Certificate of Insurance - 578 - SCHEDULE E – Financial Securities Public Park Works 1. Interim Parkland Works (Total) – $43,125.00 2. Ultimate Parkland Works (Total)- $1,366,170.00 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 UC-2 UC-3 UC-4 UC-5 Interim $ 43,125.00 $ - $ - $ - Ultimate $ - $ 751,393.00 $ 614,776.00 $ - Landscape Works 3. Landscape Costs (Total) - $2,765,522.00 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 UC-2 UC-3 UC-4 UC-5 Landscape $ 515,587.00 $ 515,660.00 $ 500,000.00 $ 500,000.00 TRCA Works 4. Krosno Creek Rechannelization (Phase 1 – Initial) - $220,000 5. Krosno Creek Rechannelization (Phase 2A – East) - $273,000 Regional Costs 6. Bayly Street Sidewalks and Curbs – $85,000.00 - 579 - Page 20 of 20 Schedule “F” – Overview of Project - 580 - REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM TOWN OF PICKERING BAYLY ST. & SANDY BEACH ROAD BAYLY STREETSANDYBEACHROADHIGHWAY 401 C.N.R. LEGEND H6 LANDS BOUNDARY OWNERSHIP BOUNDARIES 0.15 ha 0.19 ha TRCA WORKS CORPORATION UNIQUE AT HOLDING NAL-BAND INC INC. & GESTION NAL-BAND HOLDINGS PURPOSES ONLY FOR DISCUSSION DRAFT plan dated November 06, 2018. Associates Krosno Creek Flood Plain Analysis 1. Proposed TRCA Property Line per Schaeffer & NOTE: MASTER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT SCHEDULE F IMPROVEMENTS KROSNO CREEK(PHASE 1 - INITIAL) RE-CHANNELIZATION KROSNO CREEK (PHASE 2A - EAST) RE-CHANNELIZATION KROSNO CREEK - 581 - Appendix IV to Report PLN 22-19 Recommended Draft Zoning By-law Amendment (A 10/19) - 582 - The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. XXXX/19 Being a By-law to amend Zoning By-law 7553/17, as amended, to remove the holding provision “H6” (A 10/19) Whereas Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, as amended, permits a Council to pass a by-law prohibiting the use of land, buildings or structures within a defined area or areas; Whereas Section 36 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, as amended, permits a Council to pass a by-law to specify the use to which lands, buildings or structures may be put at such time in the future as the hold symbol is removed by amendment to the by-law; Whereas Zoning By-law 7553/17 is the governing By-law of The Corporation of the City of Pickering pertaining to the subject lands; Whereas the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering has deemed it advisable to amend Zoning By-law 7553/17; Whereas it has been confirmed to Council that all of the conditions required for the removal of the H6 Holding Symbol from a portion of the subject lands have been addressed to the satisfaction of the City; and Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering enacts as follows: 1. That By-law 7553/17 is hereby further amended as follows: 1.1 Schedule 8 of By-law 7553/17, as amended, is further amended by removing the “H6” Holding symbol for the lands outline on Schedule I attached hereto. 2. That By-law 7553/17, as amended, is hereby further amended only to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions of this By-law as it applies to the area set out in Schedule I attached hereto. Definitions and subject matters not specifically dealt with in this By-law shall be governed by relevant provisions of By-law 7553/17, as amended. 3. That this By-law shall come into force in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act. By-law passed this XX day of XXXX, 2019. ___________________________________ David Ryan, Mayor ___________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk Draft Draft Draft - 583 - Clerk Mayor Schedule I to By-Law Passed This Day of H6 XXXX/19 XXth XXX, 2019 65.87m Bayly Street Highway 40 1 Sandy Beach RoadPoprad Avenue Krosno BoulevardReytan Boulevard Pickering P a r k w a y Alliance Road 87mRemove H6 Hold Symbol 72.89m96.35m21.32m204.18m35 . 3 2 m 41.61m 31.17m131.73m 65mDraft Draft - 584 - Sandy Beach RoadKrosnoBoulevardBayly Street Alliance Road Highway 40 1 1:3,000 SCALE: © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City Development Department THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Oct. 07, 2019 L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\Other\CityDevelopment\D1100-98_Universal City Precinct Plan\D1100_98_AirPhoto.mxd ¯ File: Air Photo Map D 1100-98 Applicant:Downtown Pickering Landowners Group Property Description:1454, 1462, 1470, and 1474 Bayly Street Legend Downtown Pickering Landowners Group Lands Subject to the "H6" Holding Symbol Attachment #1 to Report #PLN 22-19 - 585 - Sandy Beach RoadKrosnoBoulevardBayly Street Alliance Road Highway 40 1 1:2,500 SCALE: © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City Development Department Land Ownership Map File: Applicant: Property Description: D1100-98 Downtown Pickering Landowners Group 1454, 1462, 1470, and 1474 Bayly Street THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Oct. 07, 2019 BMC Bayly Park Inc The Corporation of the City of PickeringUniversal City One Developments Inc. Bayly Street Downtown Pickering Landowners Group Land owners subject to the Cost Sharing Agreement Nal-Band Holdings Inc - Gestion Nal-Band Inc Unique AT Holding Corporation Toronto Area Transit (Metrolinx) Toronto Area Transit (Metrolinx) Canadian N a ti o n al R ail w a y Highway 4 0 1 Attachment #2 to Report #PLN 22-19 - 586 - L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\Other\CityDevelopment\D1100-98_Universal City Precinct Plan Oct 4, 2019DATE: City Development Department Submitted Block Development Plan FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. D 1100-98 Downtown Pickering Landowners GroupApplicant: Property Description: File No: 1454, 1462, 1470, and 1474 Bayly Street Building A 50-storey Building C 31-storey Building B 42-storey Building F 17-storey Building E 17-storey Building D 28-storey Attachment #3 to Report PLN #22-19 - 587 - Universal City Precinct Plan – Statistical Information Page 1 of 4 Phase 1 – (Building E) Aniticpated Commencement of Construction May 2019 Aniticpated Occupancy November 2021 Total Area 0.4679 ha Total Floor Area 19,757 m² Total Residential Units 275 Total Residential Storeys and Building Height 17 storeys (51.0 metres) Total Retail/Commerical Floor Area 241.51m² Floor Space Index (FSI) 4.2 Unit Sizes 78m2 (average) Dwelling Types 1 Bedroom 185 2 Bedroom 79 3 Bedroom 11 Private Amenity Areas Indoor Amenity Area provided 5,920 m2 Outdoor Amenity Area provided 5,920 m2 Parking Resident Parking 0.8 per unit for a total of 221 stalls Visitor Parking 0.15 per unit for a total of 42 stalls Retail/Commercial Parking 3.5 per 100m2 of retail GFA for 8 stalls Total Parking Provided 271 stalls Total Bicycle Parking 144 Phase 2 – (Building D) Aniticpated Commencement of Construction January 2020 Aniticpated Occupancy July 2022 Total Area 0.4367 ha Total Floor Area 24,183 m² Total Residential Units 336 Total Residential Storeys and Building Height 28 storeys (82 metres) Total Retail/Commerical Floor Area 389 m² Floor Space Index (FSI) 5.5 Unit Sizes 79m2 (average) Dwelling Types 1 Bedroom 182 2 Bedroom 128 3 Bedroom 26 Attachment #4 to Report #PLN 22-19 - 588 - Universal City Precinct Plan – Statistical Information Page 2 of 4 Amenity Area Indoor Amenity Area provided 668 m2 Outdoor Amenity Area provided 648 m2 Parking Resident Parking 0.8 per unit for a total of 269 stalls Visitor Parking 0.15 per unit for a totaal of 50 stalls Retail/Commercial Parking 3.5 stalls per 100m2 for a total of 13 stalls Total Parking Provided 332 stalls Total Bicycle Parking 169 Phase 3 – (Building C) Aniticpated Commencement of Construction March 2021 Aniticpated Occupancy March 2024 Total Area 0.4367 ha Total Floor Area 26,374 m² Total Residential Units 371 Total Residential Storeys and Building Height 31 storeys (91 metres) Total Retail/Commerical Floor Area 394 m² Floor Space Index (FSI) 6.0 Unit Sizes 77m2 (average) Dwelling Types 1 Bedroom 200 2 Bedroom 144 3 Bedroom 27 Amenity Area Indoor Amenity Area provided 742 m2 Outdoor Amenity Area provided 720 m2 Parking Resident Parking 0.74 per unit for a total of 275 stalls Visitor Parking 0.15 per unit for a total of 55 stalls Retail/Commercial Parking 3.5 stalls per 100m2 for a total of 13 stalls Total Parking Provided 343 stalls Total Bicycle Parking 186 - 589 - Universal City Precinct Plan – Statistical Information Page 3 of 4 Phases 4 & 5 – (Buildings A & B) Preliminary Estimates Only (No active application at this time) Aniticpated Commencement of Construction Spring 2024* Aniticpated Occupancy Spring 2026* Total Area (ha.) 1.1797 ha Total Floor Area 76,001m² Total Residential Units 1091 Total Residential Storeys and Building Height 42 + 50 Total Retail/Commerical Floor Area 1,392m² Floor Space Index (FSI) 6.4 Unit Sizes 78m2 (average) Dwelling Types 1 Bedroom 655 2 Bedroom 327 3 Bedroom 109 Amenity Area Indoor Amenity Area provided 2,182m2 Outdoor Amenity Area provided 2,182m2 Parking Resident Parking 0.75 per unit for a total of 819 stalls Visitor Parking 0.15 per unit for a total of 164 stalls Retail/Commercial Parking 3.5 stalls per 100m2 for a total of 49 stalls Total Parking Provided 1,032 stalls Total Bicycle Parking 546 * The timeline for construction of Phases 4 and 5 is subject to market conditions. Nal-band Property (Building F) Preliminary Estimates Only (No active application at this time) Aniticpated Commencement of Construction unknown Aniticpated Occupancy unknown Total Area 0.48 ha Total Floor Area 15,704m² Total Residential Units 223 Total Residential Storeys and Building Height 17 storeys (51 metres) Total Retail/Commerical Floor Area 213m² Floor Space Index (FSI) 3.41 Unit Sizes 71m2 (average) - 590 - Universal City Precinct Plan – Statistical Information Page 4 of 4 Dwelling Types 1 Bedroom 127 2 Bedroom 68 3 Bedroom 28 Amenity Area Indoor Amenity Area provided 394m2 Outdoor Amenity Area provided 394m2 Parking Resident Parking 0.74 per unit for a total of 167 stalls Visitor Parking 0.15 per unit for a total of 34 stalls Retail/Commercial Parking 3.5 stalls per 100m2 for a total of 8 stalls Total Parking Provided 209 stalls Total Bicycle Parking 99 stalls Project Summary Gross Site Area 3 ha Total Gross Floor Area 162,019 m² Total Residential Units 2,296 Total FSI 5.4 Total Retail/Commerical Floor Area 2,629.5 m² Total Number of Parking Spaces Provided 2,187 Parkland (Urban Square) 1,250 m² Public Road 8,400 m² Road Widening Conveyance 3,551.6 m² Krosno Creek Conveyance 1.06 ha - 591 - Report to Council Report Number: PLN 29-19 Date: December 16, 2019 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Consulting Services for Phase 1 of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review Request for Proposal No. RFP-7-2019 File: D-1100-101 Recommendation: 1. That the proposal submitted by WSP, dated November 6, 2019, to undertake the Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review in the amount of $412,387.85 (including HST) be accepted; 2. That the total gross project cost of $145,606.00 (HST included), for Phase 1 of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review, including the total net project cost of $131,123.00 (net of HST rebate), utilizing the funding identified for this project in the approved 2019 Current Budget for the City Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review (Account 2611.2392.0000), be approved; 3. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the Phase 1 net project cost in the amount of $131,123.00 as follows: a) The sum of $32,500.00 as approved in the 2019 Current Budget – Planning & Design Cost Centre be increased to $42,615.00 to be funded from property taxes; b) The sum of $67,500.00 as approved in the 2019 Current Budget – Planning & Design Cost Centre be increased to $88,508.00 be funded by a transfer from the Development Charges – Studies Reserve Fund; and 4. That the appropriate City of Pickering staff be authorized to enter into any agree ments to give effect hereto. Executive Summary: In response to Report to Planning & Development Committee PLN 18-19, in which staff outlined the need to update and consolidate the City’s zoning by-laws, City Council passed Resolution #109/19 endorsing the Work Program for a multi-year Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review (CZBR), authorizing staff to prepare and release a Request for Proposal to retain external planning consultants to assist with the com pletion of Phase 1, and to report back to Council on the recommendation of hiring a consultant. A Request for Proposal (RFP) was issued on October 16, 2019, calling for proposals by consultants to undertake the multi-year CZBR, with the intention of determining the upset cost of the full study. An upset cost will assist staff in budgeting for the remainder of the CZBR. - 592 - PLN 29-19 December 16, 2019 Subject: Consulting Services for the Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review Page 2 The RFP closed on November 6, 2019, and received two proposals. The Evaluation Committee reviewed the proposals against the criteria outlined in the RFP and conducte d an interview with the consultant achieving the highest score. The proposal from WSP received the overall highest ranking score best meeting the City’s requirements in completing project deliverables, considering their firm’s strengths relative to the scope of work required, and value for the money . Staff is recommending that the firm of WSP be retained to undertake the multi-year CZBR. Due to funding changes as a result of the More Homes, More Choice Act, 2019, staff is recommending to proceed with Phase 1 of the project at this time. Phase 1 will be initiated in December 2019 and continue into 2020. Staff is also recommending that funding identified for this project in the approved 2019 Current Budget for the City Development Department be increased to finance the Phase 1 net project cost. Phase 1 includes the finalization of the public consultation strategy, preparation of discussion papers, hosting of open houses to present the findings of the discussion papers and obtain feedback from the community, and reporting to Council of the findings of the discussion papers and comments received from the public and stakeholders. Staff will be recommending appropriate funds in the 2021 and 2022 Current Budgets for the City Development Department for the continuation and completion of Phases 2 and 3 of the CZBR in 2022 with the Council adoption of a new zoning by-law. Financial Implications: 1. Estimated Phase 1 Project Costing Summary Proposal No. RFP-7-2019 HST (13%) Total Gross Project Costs HST Rebate (11.24%) Total Net Project Costs $128,855.00 16,751.15 $145,606.15 (14,483.00) $131,123.00 - 593 - PLN 29-19 December 16, 2019 Subject: Consulting Services for the Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review Page 3 2. Approved Source of Funds – Phase 1 (2019 Current Budget) Account Code Source of Funds Budget Required 2611.2392.0000 Development Charges Reserve Fund – Growth Related (67.5%) $67,500.00 $67,500.00 Property Taxes (32.5%) $32,500.00 $32,500.00 Additional Funding Required Development Charges Reserve Fund – Growth Related (67.5%) 0 $21,008.00 Property Taxes (32.5%) 0 $10,115.00 Total Funds $100,000.00 $131,123.00 Net Phase 1 Project Costs Over Approved Funds By $31,123.00 As a result of the More Homes, More Choice Act, 2019, Development Charges Reserve Funds will not be available after 2020 for growth related studies. Staff will be recommending an appropriate new funding strategy in the 2021 and 2022 Current Budgets to complete Phases 2 and 3 of the CZBR. 1. Discussion: 1.1 Council passed a Resolution directing the initiation of a Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review Lands in Pickering are regulated by 6 parent Zoning By-laws 2511, 2520, 3036, 3037, 7364/14 and 7553/17 (see Attachment #1, Areas for Parent Zoning By-laws). With the exception of Zoning By-laws 7364/14 (Seaton Urban Area) and 7553/17 (City Centre), the older parent by-laws were prepared under different jurisdictional context and policy framework pre-dating the City’s Official Plan. In addition, these older parent by-laws have been amended by numerous site specific zoning by-laws, and contain provisions that are dated, not reflecting current performance and development industry standards. It is intended that official plans and zoning by-laws work together and that zoning by-laws be updated to implement the current official plan objectives and policies. Section 26(9) of the Planning Act requires official plans to be in conformity with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), and in 2016, the requirement was added that zoning by-laws be brought into conformity with the official plan within 3 years of an official plan update. - 594 - PLN 29-19 December 16, 2019 Subject: Consulting Services for the Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review Page 4 In June of this year, Report to Planning & Development Committee PLN 18-19 addressed the need to update and consolidate the City’s zoning by-laws, and recommended that Council authorize staff to undertake a Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review (CZBR). Subsequently, Council passed Resolution #109/19 endorsing the Work Program for a multi-year CZBR, authorizing staff to prepare and release a Request for Proposal to retain external planning consultants to assist with the completion of Phase 1, and to report back to Council on the recommendation of hiring a consultant. The primary purpose of the CZBR is to update and consolidate the City’s current by-laws into one zoning by-law that conforms with and implements the City’s Official Plan. A new by-law will implement recent policy changes regarding intensification, built-form, environmental matters and mapping changes. More specifically, the CZBR will: replace and remove outdated definitions and zoning provisions to provide for consistent interpretation, eliminate and amalgamate site specific zone provisions, make the zoning by-law available in an online and print accessible format, and allow the use of certain legislative tools such as the ‘two year time out’ provision of the Planning Act where amendments to City initiated zoning by-laws are prohibited two years following the adoption of a comprehensive zoning by-law. 1.2 A Request for Proposal (RFP) for Consulting Services for the Comprehensive Zoning Review was issued On October 16, 2019, the City issued RFP-7-2019 for consulting services for the CZBR. The RFP called for proposals for the full multi-year study and not just for Phase 1 as referred to in Resolution #109/19. The intention of the RFP-7-2019 was to determine an upset cost for the full Study to assist staff in budgeting for the remaining Phases 2 and 3. The scope of the work (see Attachment #2, Scope of Work – Excerpt of Appendix D from RFP-7-2019) outlined the following 3 phases for the Study: Phase 1, which will be initiated in December 2019 and continue into 2020 includes the finalization of the public consultation strategy, preparation of discussion papers, hosting of open houses to present the findings of the discussion papers and obtain feedback from the community, and reporting to Council of the findings of the discussion papers and comments received from the public and stakeholders. Phase 2, which is proposed to be initiated in 2021 for completion in 2022 includes the preparation of the draft by-law, public consultation, revisions to the draft by-law, and preparation of a recommended by-law. Phase 3, which is the presentation to Planning & Development Committee of the recommended By-law for Council adoption in 2022 and includes addressing appeals to the CZBR, if applicable. The RFP closed on November 6, 2019 with 2 proposals received. - 595 - PLN 29-19 December 16, 2019 Subject: Consulting Services for the Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review Page 5 1.3 Changes to Development Charges Funding Consulting studies are funded according to a funding ratio involving Development Charges – Studies Reserve Fund and property taxes. As a result of the More Homes, More Choice Act, 2019, Development Charges Reserve Funds will not be available after 2020 for studies such as a CZBR. Staff is recommending to proceed with Phase 1 of the CZBR at this time. Phase 1 will be initiated in December 2019 and continue into 2020. Staff will be recommending an appropriate new funding strategy in the 2021 and 2022 Current Budgets to complete Phases 2 and 3 of the CZBR. 1.4 WSP is Recommended for Selection to Undertake the CZBR The Evaluation Committee consisting of staff from City Development reviewed the proposals against the criteria outlined in the RFP. WSP was the consultant that received the highest score through the review process and was interviewed by staff (see Attachment #3, Memo from Supply & Services, dated November 19, 2019). WSP has proven recent experience in preparing comprehensive zoning by-laws for municipalities in the Greater Toronto Area. The proposal by WSP identified a thorough understanding of the project. The WSP in-house team brings expertise in all required areas of community engagement, GIS analysis, urban design, zoning by-law preparation, project management, and planning policy needed to complete the Study. 2. Recommendations It is recommended that WSP be retained to undertake the multi-year CZBR, and that the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to increase the funding identified for this project in the approved 2019 Current Budget for the City Development Department to finance the Phase 1 net project cost. It is further recommended that staff be authorized to enter into any agreements as required to give effect to these recommendations. Attachments: 1. Areas for Parent Zoning By-laws 2. Scope of Work – Excerpt of Appendix D from RFP-7-2019 3. Memo from Supply & Services, dated November 19, 2019 - 596 - PLN 29-19 December 16, 2019 Subject: Consulting Services for the Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review Page 6 Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner, Development Review Chief Planner Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP Kyle Bentley, P.Eng. Manager, Development Review Director, City Development & CBO & Urban Design Stan Karwowski, CPA, CMA, MBA Director, Finance & Treasurer DW :ld Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer Original Signed By Original Signed By Original Signed By Original Signed By Original Signed By Original Signed By - 597 - 1:100,000 SCALE: © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City Development Department Areas for Parent Zoning By-laws Applicant: THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Nov. 26, 2019 ¯ City Initiated (7364/14, 3037, 7553/17, 3036, 2511, & 2520) By-law 7364/14 By-law 3037 By-law 7553/17 By-law 3036 By-law 2511 By-law 2520 Lake Ontario Frenchman's Bay Attachment #1 to Report #PLN 29-19 - 598 - Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review RFP-7-2019 Page 21 of 52 Appendix D – Request for Proposals Particulars A. The Deliverables 1.Purpose of the Request for Proposal The City of Pickering (the “City”) is seeking proposals from qualified consulting firms to undertake a Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review (the “Study”). The purpose of the review is to: Consolidate the existing parent zoning by-laws and zoning by-law amendments into one comprehensive zoning by-law (the “By-law”) that conforms with the City’s Official Plan; Complete a detailed analysis of the City’s existing zoning provisions and update zone provisions to reflect development guidelines, and current development standards and approaches; Undertake any necessary background research to ensure the By-law is consistent with current legislation and policy; and Develop an accessible web based format for the By-law text and mapping, enhancing service delivery to City residents, businesses and the development community. The Study will be conducted in three phases: Phase 1 will include the preparation of 9 discussion papers, finalization of the public consultation strategy, and hosting of open houses to present the findings of the discussion papers and obtain feedback from the community. This phase concludes with the reporting to Council of the findings of the discussion papers and comments received from the public and stakeholders. Phase 2 will include the preparation of the draft By-law, revisions to the By-law by staff, public consultation to obtain feedback on the By-law, further revisions to the draft By-law based on stakeholder/public input, and the preparation of a recommended By-law. Phase 3 will include presentation to Planning & Development Committee of the recommended By-law for Council adoption. Should the City receive any appeals to the new Zoning By-law following Council adoption, assistance may be requested from the successful consulting team. An additional quote may be requested at a later date. 2.Background Study Area The study area comprises all of the City of Pickering, including the rural area and all of the urban neighbourhoods (see Attachment #1, Areas for Parent Zoning By-laws). Attachment #2 to Report #PLN 29-19 - 599 - Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review RFP-7-2019 Page 22 of 52 Planning Context The City’s Official Plan review has resulted in a series of amendments to the Official Plan implementing changes in legislation, updates to provincial plan and policy, and amendments to the Region of Durham Official Plan. Amendments to the Pickering Official Plan have included: a revised vision for the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood; new policies for the City Centre and intensification areas implementing the Provincial Growth Plan; updated Environment and Countryside policies; implementation of the Greenbelt Plan and the Central Pickering Development Plan (Seaton and the Agricultural Preserve); introduction of planning tools for Sustainable Placemaking resulting from changes to the Planning Act; and a general review of various policy tools. The City is regulated by six parent Zoning By-laws 2511, 2520, 3036, 3037, 7364/14 and 7553/17. With the exception of Zoning By-laws 7364/14 (Seaton Urban Area) and 7553/17 (City Centre), the other parent by-laws were originally enacted by Council in the 1960’s, and do not implement recent amendments to the Official Plan. These older parent by-laws were prepared under different jurisdictional context and policy framework pre-dating the City’s Official Plan, and have been amended numerous times by site-specific by-laws and minor variance applications. Many of the provisions are dated and do not reflect current performance and development industry standards. The older by-laws require updating to implement the City’s Official Plan, and to provide a strategic direction on a range of zoning issues. 3. Project Organization & Management The Study will be conducted by the Company’s Project Team (the “Project Team”). Staff and legal resources will be provided by the City to manage the Study, and to review the various reports and revisions to the draft By-law. A Project Manager assigned from City staff will manage the Study, and oversee a Project Leader assigned from the Project Team. A Project Steering Committee (the “Steering Committee”) will provide strategic direction and will consist of representatives from various City departments. Responsibilities of the Project Manager, Project Team, Project Leader, and Steering Committee are outlined below. 3.1 The City’s Project Manager The Study will be led by the City Development Department who will assign a Project Manager to this Study. The Project Manager will be responsible for the supervision of the Study ensuring it is carried out to the satisfaction of the City in accordance with this request for proposal, and the Company’s proposal. The Project Manager will monitor the progress of the Study, circulate reports for review and comment, liaise with the Company’s Project Leader, and exercise budgetary control. The Project Manager is to be: Kept informed through regular progress meetings with the Project Team and Steering Committee for the duration of the Study; Copied on all correspondence; - 600 - Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review RFP-7-2019 Page 23 of 52 Advised of significant problems, issues, options, and solutions considered; Involved in meetings with the public and stakeholders; Consulted prior to making any changes to the project schedule; and Advised of any additional work considered beyond the scope of work (additional work is not to be undertaken without prior written approval by the Project Manager). 3.2 The Company’s Project Team The Project Team shall have the necessary qualifications to undertake the scope of work and deliverables detailed in Section 4. 3.3 The Company’s Project Leader The Company will assign a Project Leader to make all day-to-day decisions, address requests for information, coordinate the Project Team’s work, ensure the Study is within budget, and be responsible for all the deliverables outlined in this request for proposal. The Project Leader will: Attend meetings with City staff, the public and stakeholders; Involve the Project Manager in any meetings with the public, agencies and stakeholders (all liaison with the public and stakeholders by the Company must be approved by the Project Manager); Prepare agenda, draft meeting notes, and final meeting notes for t he Steering Committee meetings and progress meetings; Provide written responses to questions raised at meetings, as required (the Project Manager is to review and approve responses prior to responding to the public and stakeholders); Liaise and correspond with the Project Manager to obtain and communicate information related to the Study; Advise the Project Manager of significant problems/issues and options considered; Update the Project Manager on a monthly basis on details of the Study; Co-ordinate project tasks with any related task undertaken by the City; Prepare and submit reports, drawings and other documentation to the City and obtain comments, and approvals; Submit progress reports to the Project Manager at least five (5) days prior to any progress meeting; Prepare for, operate, and follow-up on open houses and other consultations including presentations/displays, and dry-runs; Record and prepare a summary of comments; and Receive the Project Manager’s prior written approval for any significant change from the approved project schedule, budget or tasks. - 601 - Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review RFP-7-2019 Page 24 of 52 3.4 Steering Committee An internal Steering Committee, led by the Project Manager and comprising staff from City Development (Planning & Design, and Building Services), Engineering Services, Community Services, Corporate Services (Municipal Law Enforcement), and Office of the CAO (Economic Development & Strategic Projects) departments will provide strategic advice and direction. Steering Committee meetings will be held on an as needed basis and will be scheduled at the discretion of the Project Manager. 4. Scope of Work The following sections provide an overview of the scope of the work to be completed. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list of the work activities. The Company may outline additional tasks, meetings, workshops or other activities necessary to achieve the objectives of the Study (see Section 7.3, Additional Activities). The Company will be responsible for providing all the necessary personnel, mapping and resources to complete the Study, and ensuring that every part of the study process is covered within the upset limit provided in the Company’s proposal. To facilitate the execution of the work by the Company, the City will provide the resources and materials identified in Section 7.5, Study Resources. 4.1 Phase 1 – Discussion Papers The initial phase of the Study involves the preparation of a series of discussion papers focused on various topics that will inform the preparation of the new By-law. Attachment #2, Potential Topics for the Discussion Papers provides general details on the content of the discussion papers. The potential topics for the discussion papers include: guiding principles & parameters review and assessment of existing parent by-laws residential zoning employment zoning mixed-use/intensification areas agricultural/rural/hamlet open space & environment parking/active transportation cannabis production The following will be undertaken by the Project Team in Phase 1: attend the project kick-off meeting (introduction of team members, presentation of work plan, discussion of deliverables, review of community the consultation strategy) attend bi-monthly (one every two months) progress meetings (these meetings may be conducted by conference call) attend Steering Committee meetings as required - 602 - Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review RFP-7-2019 Page 25 of 52 background research and analysis into the areas of the discussion papers, including the review of: o the City’s Official Plan and Development Guidelines, zoning by-laws, and minor variances o City initiatives, engineering standards, relevant studies, and staff reports o relevant provincial plans and policies o key issues, trends, and assumptions o various recent development applications, and building permits prepare discussion papers finalize the public consultation strategy supporting the scope of work conduct public and stakeholder consultation to obtain comments and present findings: o a minimum of 5 community consultation sessions in appropriate formats (i.e., open houses, information sessions, workshops, roundtables) o at the public consultation, the Company will describe the purpose and objectives of the Study; provide an analysis of the existing zoning issues; provide a summary of each discussion paper; and summarize what the implications are for the draft By-law compile, summarize and include responses for comments received present the draft discussion papers to Planning & Development Committee and Council The City will be responsible for preparation and circulation of public notices for the public/stakeholder consultation meetings. Additional consultations with specific stakeholders may be identified through the course of the Study. Phase 1 Deliverables The Company will provide draft and final reports, conduct public consultation s, compile comments received, present to Planning & Developm ent Committee, and participate in meetings as outlined below: Discussion Papers first draft and second draft (10 bound hard copies) including an electronic version for review and comment by the Project Manager and Steering Committee final report (10 bound hard copies) including an electronic version for public and stakeholder consultation Public Consultation Strategy final public consultation strategy (3 bound hard copies) including an electronic version a minimum of 5 consultation sessions in appropriate formats (the Project Team will be responsible for preparation, operation and follow-up on open houses and other consultations, including presentations/displays, dry-runs, set-ups, attendance, and compilation of comments) - 603 - Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review RFP-7-2019 Page 26 of 52 Management of Comments generate and update a document summarizing public and agency comments received, recommendations, and action taken/comment Presentation to Planning & Development Committee presentation of the findings of the discussion papers to Planning & Development Committee Administration preparation of progress reports, meeting agendas, and meeting notes for the progress meetings and Steering Committee meetings City staff will prepare a covering information report to Planning & Development Committee for the discussion papers. 4.2 Phase 2 – Draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law Based on the work completed in Phase 1, the Project Team will draft a By-law for review and comment by stakeholders and the public. Public consultation will be facilitated by the Project Team and will be initiated once the draft By-law is written, reviewed and revised to the satisfaction of the City . All facilitation material will be discussed with and approved by City staff prior to finalization. Following the review of all submissions from stakeholders and the public, the Project Team will prepare revised drafts for review and comment by the City. The Company’s lump sum price on Table 1 of the Pricing Form, must include the costs for the preparation of a minimum of 3 draft By-laws and a recommended By-law. The Project Team is responsible for making all revisions to the draft By-laws, to the satisfaction of the City. The Project Team will also be responsible for recording and summarizing the comments received, and providing recommendations along with how the comments will be addressed. Any responses to comments must be reviewed and approved by the City. Additional public consultations may be required. Phase 2 Deliverables The Project Team will provide an initial draft By-law, revised drafts including a recommended By-law, conduct consultations, and present and attend Open Houses/Statutory Public Meetings as outlined below. The Company shall assume that each version of the draft by-law will undergo at least 1 review by the City and revision by the Project Team prior to public release. Draft By-laws first draft By-law (10 bound hard copies) including an electronic version for review and comment by the Project Manager and Steering Committee - 604 - Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review RFP-7-2019 Page 27 of 52 second draft By-law (10 bound hard copies) including an electronic version for stakeholder and public consultation third draft By-law (10 bound hard copies) including an electronic version for stakeholder and public consultation recommended By-law (10 bound hard copies) including an electronic version Public Consultation minimum of 3 consultation sessions in appropriate formats (the Project Team will be responsible for preparation, operation and follow-up on open houses and other consultations, including presentations/displays, dry-runs, set-ups, attendance, and compilation of comments) Management of Comments continue completion of document summarizing public and agency comments received, recommendations, and action taken/comment Open Houses/Statutory Public Meeting prepare and deliver presentation(s) to a minimum of 3 Open Houses/Statutory Public Meetings Administration preparation of progress reports, meeting agendas, and meeting notes for the progress meetings and Steering Committee meetings 4.3 Phase 3 – Council Adoption The City will prepare a recommendation report to Planning & Development Committee for consideration of the recommended By-law and adoption by Council. The Project Team will be responsible for attending the meeting, presenting, and answering questions. Phase 3 Deliverables The Company will present the recommended By-law and summarize comments received as outlined below: Planning & Development Committee Meeting attend, answer questions and present the recommended By-law Management of Comments complete document summarizing public and agency comments received, recommendations, and action taken/comment - 605 - Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review RFP-7-2019 Page 28 of 52 5. Consultation Initiating a dialogue with the public and stakeholders, and facilitating participation in the process is key to achieving broad support in the development and successful implementation of the new By-law. A strong emphasis placed on consultation in this Study. As such, the Project Team shall prepare, and include in their proposal, a consultation strategy that demonstrates how they propose to obtain early input from the public in an effort to advance the resolution of issues, and identify concerns requiring further research. Over the course of the Study, the Project Team will facilitate public consultation, host open houses, present the draft discussion papers and draft By-law to Planning & Development Committee and Council, and present the recommended By-law to Planning & Development Committee. The City shall be responsible for the preparation and circulation of public notices for public/stakeholder consultation meetings and public meetings. Additional consultations with specific stakeholders may be required. The Project Team will be responsible for the following: facilitation, presentation and subject matter expertise at public and stakeholder meetings, including the preparation and delivery of any presentations, preparation and printing of handout material and/or display boards, and, staffing for public consultation sessions; presentation and subject matter expertise at meetings of the Planning & Development Committee and Council; including the preparation and delivery of any presentations, display boards, and consolidation/summary of comments; creation and maintenance of a public consultation file, including a matrix documenting public and stakeholder comments with the Project Team and City staff responses; preparation of agenda, draft meeting notes, and final meeting notes for the progress meetings and Steering Committee meetings; advice/input on consultation proposed by The City, such as media releases and newspaper ads, social media advertisements, website page, brochures, etc; and, recommended approach for consultation (and form of consultation) with specific stakeholders that may be warranted or appropriate to seek input on specific topics. The Project Manager will be responsible for the following: establishment and updating of a study page on the City’s website to facilitate communication with the public; creation and maintenance of a database of public, stakeholder and agency contacts; posting of social media messaging; booking of venues and audio visual equipment, and provision of refreshments (as warranted) for all public and stakeholder meetings; circulation of any study documents/deliverables; and - 606 - Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review RFP-7-2019 Page 29 of 52 preparation and circulation of public notices in the local newspaper, mail, email, on the City’s website, etc. All external consultation elements will require pre-approval by the Project Manager and are subject to participation by the City. The consultation strategy proposed by the Company shall comply with Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act requirements. 6. Considerations 6.1 AODA Compliance and City of Pickering Brand Guidelines Studies, reports, plans and presentations that will be published on the City of Pickering website must be provided to the City in an accessible format compatible to Adobe Acrobat XI or higher. Companies performing the work for the City must comply with the Accessibility for Ontarians With Disabilities Act, 2005 (“AODA”), in particular the Integrated Accessibility Standards, O. Reg. 191/11. Unless determined by the City to not be practicable, Companies shall ensure that any information, products, deliverables and/or communications (as defined in the Integrated Regulation) produced pursuant to a contract shall be in conformity with World W ide Web Consortium Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 Level AA and shall be provided in accessible Word, Excel, PowerPoint, PDF, etc. Visit Ontario.ca for rules on how to comply. Materials produced must comply with the City’s Creating Accessible Documents Procedure. All documents and products produced by the Company that will be released to the public (electronic and hard copy) must also comply with the City’s Brand Guidelines. This includes PowerPoint presentations, reports, newsletters, broch ures and any other handout material. 6.2 Submission of Electronic Documents All electronic documents produced by the Project Team during the course of the study and at the conclusion of it will be compatible with the City’s Information Technology systems and software. At the conclusion of the Study, the Company will compile and submit to the City all electronic files corresponding, but not limited to, the following: letters and communications, memorandums, meeting minutes and agendas in Microsoft Word 2016 background and technical documents in Microsoft Word or Excel, as applicable study report(s) and appendices, including draft By-laws in the following formats, as applicable: o Microsoft Word 2016 o Adobe InDesign - 607 - Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review RFP-7-2019 Page 30 of 52 o PDF (compatible with Acrobat Pro Version 2019.010.20091) GIS and AutoCAD (Map 3D 2018) files in the following format: o GIS shapefile georeferenced to NAD_1983_UTM_Zone_17N o WKID: 26917 Authority: EPSG sketches, drawings, illustrations and graphics in the following, as applicable: o AutoCAD (map 3D 2018) georeferenced to NAD_1983_UTM_Zone_17N o Corel Draw (X8) o Adobe Illustrator 6.3 Meetings and Presentations The following lists the type and minimum number of meetings that are to be included in the proposal: Meeting Minimum Number Start-up Meeting 1 Bi-Monthly Progress Meetings/Conference Calls 15 Steering Committee Meetings 6 Consultation Sessions 12 Open Houses/Statutory Public Meetings at Planning & Development Committee 3 Planning & Development Committee for Recommended By-law 1 Additional meetings may be required over the course of the Study. These meetings will be identified by the Project Manager during the course of the Study. 7. Project Schedule and Management 7.1 Administrative Matters No material, data or information pertaining to the Study is to be released to any individual, group, organization or agency, without the prior express written consent of the Project Manager. All originals of reports, supporting documentation and presentation materials will be provided to the Project Manager upon completion of each project phase. All reports, supporting documentation and presentation materials will be in a form and quality acceptable for reproduction and presentation as described above and shall be acceptable to the Project Manager. All material will become the intellectual property of the City. 7.2 Study Schedule - 608 - Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review RFP-7-2019 Page 31 of 52 The Study is expected to take approximately thirty (30) months with an award and start-up meeting between the Project Team and Project Manager prior to December 31 , 2019. Proponents shall submit a work plan, in the form of a Gantt Chart (or other similar illustration), for all portions of the contract in accordance with the estimated timeline below. The work plan must contain detailed descriptions of all tasks to be performed, staff responsible for each task, key milestones and activities for completing the work. Proponents may propose alternative milestone events and/or dates, provided that the proposed overall duration does not exceed thirty (30) months. Expected Date Award Contract December 2019 Phase 1 – Discussion Papers Start-up Meeting December 2019 Finalized Public Consultation Strategy February 2020 Discussion Papers/On-going Consultation March 2021 Report to Council June 2021 Phase 2 – Draft By-law Consultation Ongoing First Draft By-law September 2021 Open House/Public Meeting & Information Report November 2021 Second Draft By-law December 2021 Open House/Statutory Public Meeting(s) & Information Report(s) If required Third Draft By-law February 2022 Open House/Statutory Public Meeting(s) & Information Report(s) If required Recommended By-law April 2022 Phase 3 – Adoption Council Adoption June 2022 Appeals to LPAT If applicable - 609 - Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review RFP-7-2019 Page 32 of 52 7.3 Additional Activities Should Proponents outline additional tasks, meetings, workshops or other activities necessary to achieve the objectives of the Study, those activities with their expected benefits shall be detailed in their submission. Costs indicating hourly rates for additional activities shall be indicated in Pricing Tables #2 and #3, Appendix C – Pricing Form. The Company will attend an in-person or conference call meeting with representatives of the City of Pickering at a minimum once a month to discuss work completed per task. In addition to the meeting once a month, please provide the costs for an additional meeting. 7.4 Study Initiation Following Award and prior to the commencement of any work, the Project Team shall meet with the Project Manager to complete the following tasks: Confirm the extent of services, work program, study schedule, communication and public engagement strategy, and all other relevant detail as outlined in the proposal; Establish contacts and procedures for communication between the Company and the City; and Make arrangements to acquire background information and data from the City. 7.5 Study Resources The City will, upon request, make a variety of documents and data available to the Company. In certain circumstances, the Company may need to enter into an agreement with the City or other public body to access or use certain data sets. The study resources include: City of Pickering City of Pickering Official Plan (Edition 8) City of Pickering Official Plan Compendium Documents City of Pickering Zoning By-law 3036 City of Pickering Zoning By-law 3037 City of Pickering Zoning By-law 2511 City of Pickering Zoning By-law 2520 Seaton Zoning By-law 7364/14 City Centre Zoning By-law 7553/17 City of Pickering Site Plan Review Manual City of Pickering Draft Plan of Subdivision Processing Manual City of Pickering Minor Variance Application Process City of Pickering Engineering Services Design Criteria City of Pickering Integrated Transportation Master Plan (in progress) City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan City of Pickering Community Profile - 610 - Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review RFP-7-2019 Page 33 of 52 City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register Pickering Demographics & Statistics City of Pickering Sustainable Development Guidelines and Scorecard for Neighbourhood Sustainability City of Pickering Brand Guidelines Pickering Public Library Pickering Local History Collection Digital Archive Region of Durham Durham Region Official Plan, Consolidation 2017 - 611 - Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review RFP-7-2019 Page 34 of 52 B. Material Disclosures The material disclosures that apply to this Request for Proposals, if any, are set out below. Not applicable for this Proposal. The pre-conditions of award that apply to this Request for Proposals, if any, are set out below. 1. The Proponent agrees to provide to the City for review after closing a) A copy of the City’s Health & Safety form (currently dated and signed); b) A certificate of insurance completed by the Company’s agent, broker or insurer (City form is attached); and c) Such further information as the City may require, as requested in writing. Items (a) and (b) do not have to be submitted with the proposal. Documentation (a) and (b) shall be provided within three (3) business days of written request by the City. The City’s findings shall be used to serve the best interests of the Corporation of the City of Pickering. 2. Supplementary Documents Subsequent to the Request for Proposal opening and upon request, the following documentation may be requested by the City for approval at any time throughout the duration of the project: a) A completed Accessibility Regulations for Contracted Services from; b) A completed Sub-contractors List, listing all sub-contractors who may be carrying out any part of this Contract; and c) Such further information, as the City may request in writing. Documentation shall be provided within three (3) business days of written request by the City. The City’s findings shall be used to serve the best interests of the Corporation of the City of Pickering. C. Mandatory Technical Requirements The mandatory technical requirements that apply to this Request for Proposals, if any, are set out below. Not applicable for this Proposal. - 612 - Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review RFP-7-2019 Page 35 of 52 D. Rated Criteria The following is an overview of the categories and weighting for the rated criteria of the Request for Proposals. Proponents who do not meet a minimum threshold score for a category will not proceed to the next stage of the evaluation process. Rated Criteria Category Weighting (Points) Threshold Proponent’s Experience and Qualifications 20 Understanding of Project 15 Work Plan and Deliverables 25 Project Leader, Project Team and Resources 25 Quality of References Pass/Fail Total Rated Criteria Points 85 51 Pricing 15 Total Points 100 Presentation (Up to 3 Proponents, if required) 25 Total Points (if interview required) 125 Proponent’s Experience and Qualifications = 20 Points a) Provide a company profile and three relevant examples of current/past projects within the last five years that are comparable in scope. This should include a project synopsis that identifies the team members assembled who worked on the project, the current project status, budgeted costs versus actual costs, scheduling issues and resolutions, and design challenges or efficiencies. Provide client names, contacts and up-to-date contact phone numbers; b) A description demonstrating the Proponent’s substantial resources and support services available; and c) A description of the Proponent’s’s proven methodology for communicating information to the applicable stakeholders. Understanding of Project = 15 Points The Proposal should include information that provides: a) Information that the Proponent understands the objectives and requirements of this project. Proponents must relate these objectives to past experience or expertise of the Proponent and/or their team; and b) A summary of the risks, problems or issues associated with the work and how they will be mitigated. - 613 - Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review RFP-7-2019 Page 36 of 52 Work Plan and Deliverables = 25 Points The Proponent is to provide a written response which clearly and concisely details the following: a) An indication of when the Proponent can commence the work; b) A draft public consultation strategy outlining the methods to engage and communicate with the public; c) A detailed work plan indicating and detailing the tasks, method(s) and deliverables for the Study; d) A preliminary work schedule that identifies work phases (by Gantt Chart or other similar illustration) including key dates for major deliverables (discussion papers, final public consultation strategy, management of comments, public consultation including open houses and statutory public meetings, and draft and final By-laws) in the proposed detailed work plan; e) Detailed project budget showing proposed staffing roles, number of hours per task per person dedicated to this project, and hourly rate per person; f) State the assumptions regarding the roles and involvement of City staff; g) Identification of “value-added” services brought by the Project Team; and h) A description of the quality control methods that will be employed throughout the work phases. Project Leader, Project Team and Resources = 25 Points It is important that the work be provided by a Project Team that can demonstrate knowledge of, and experience in providing similar services for projects of comparable nature, size and scope. In particular, the Proponent should provide an overview of the key personnel who would be primarily involved in the project and include the following: a) Identify the prime firm submitting the Proposal and the sub -consultant firms (if applicable) that will be assembled to undertake the work for each part of the deliverables; b) The name, title, mailing address, phone number and e-mail address of the Project Leader; c) Condensed resumes and professional credentials of each individual on the Project Team that highlights their education, training, and work history; d) The respective roles of the team members and their current office locations. Proponent’s Project Team members named in this RFP cannot be replaced without prior written approval from the City; e) Current and future project list that will be undertaken by members of the Proje ct Team including their current workload (i.e., identify other competing priorities that are assigned to each member within this project timeline); and f) Organizational chart that clearly defines the chain of command for each individual with the Project Team. - 614 - Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review RFP-7-2019 Page 37 of 52 Quality of References = Pass/Fail Relevance of projects similar in scope and value completed over the last five (5) years. Complete Appendix E – Reference Form (or supply on other paper stock) and submit with the proposal. The City will contact the references provided as part of its evaluation process. Pricing = 15 Points Proponents should review, complete and submit Appendix C, Pricing Form. Presentation and Questions = 25 Points (if required) Up to a maximum of three of the top-ranked Proponents may be selected to present an overview of their Proposal to the City followed by a question period at a mutually agreeable date/time at City of Pickering, City Hall. The presentation should address a brief overview of the proponents RFP submission, highlighting community engagement techniques, describing the approach to Phase One discussion papers, overview of Gantt chart, and any value -added services available. The City reserves the right to ask follow-up questions regarding a Proponent’s RFP submission or presentation. - 615 - To: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development November 19, 2019 From: Lisa Chang Buyer, Supply & Services Copy: Administrative Assistant, City Development Planner II Principal Planner, Development Review Manager, Development Review and Urban Design Manager, Supply & Services Subject: Proposal No. RFP-7-2019 Comprehensive Zoning By-Law Review Closing Date: Wednesday, November 6, 2019 -File: F-5300-001 Further to memo dated November 7, 2019, two proposals proceeded to Stage II evaluation. The Evaluation Committee, consisting of City Staff from City Development, conducted independent evaluations of the proposals. A summary of average scores is completed and a copy is attached. In accordance with Item 2.7 Stage VI – Ranking and Contract Negotiations, all scores from Stage II and Stage III have been added together, the proponents have been ranked based on their total scores, and may be selected to enter into contract negotiations. The Evaluation Committee has deemed that a Presentation with Meridian Planning Consultants is not necessary given the scoring difference during Stages II and III. WSP Canada Group Ltd. is the highest ranking proponent in the amount of $364,945.00 plus HST for all three phases of the work. A budget of $100,000.00 was provided to Supply & Services for the first phase of this procurement. For future phases, budget will have to be requested and approved prior to awarding the contract extension. If the recommendation to award exceeds the budgeted amount, refer to Financial Control Policy Item 11 for additional instructions. In accordance with Purchasing Policy Item 06.04, the authority for the dollar limit as set out below excludes HST. As such, in accordance with Purchasing Policy Item 10.04 (c), where written proposals are obtained by the Manager in accordance with procedures set out in Section 06 and funds are available in the approved budget: (c)An award over $50,000 is subject to the additional approval of Council. Memo Attachment #3 to Report #PLN 29-19 - 616 - RFP-7-2019 Page 2 of 2 Please include the following items in your Report to Council: 1. if Item (c) is acceptable to the Manager, Budgets & Internal Audit; 2. any past work experience with the highest ranking proponent WSP Canada Group Ltd. including work location; 3. the appropriate account number(s) to which this work is to be charged; 4. the budget amount(s) assigned thereto; 5. Treasurer’s confirmation of funding; 6. related departmental approvals; and 7. related comments specific to the project. Upon receiving Council’s approval, an approved requisition will be required to proceed. Do not disclose any information to enquiries during this time. The Proponent s will be advised of the outcome in due course. If you require further information, please fe el free to contact me or a member of Supply & Services. LC Attachments (3) - 617 - Report to Council Report Number: PLN 30-19 Date: December 16, 2019 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Two-year period Exemption Request for Minor Variance Application P/CA 03/20 9004897 Canada Inc. (Stonepay) Part of Lots 19 and 20, Concession 3, Now Parts 1 to 5, 40R-28547 Recommendation: 1.That Council grant an exemption in accordance with Section 45 (1.4) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990; c. P.13 as amended, and permit the Committee of Adjustment to consider Minor Variance Applications resulting from the further processing of the Site Plan or Building Permit applications submitted by 9004897 Canada Inc. (Stonepay), for Part of Lots 19 and 20, Concession 3, Now Parts 1 to 5, 40R-28547 before the second anniversary of the day on which an applicant initiated zoning by-law amendment was enacted for the subject lands. Executive Summary: This report recommends that Council adopt a resolution in accordance with Section 45 (1.4) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990; c. P.13 as amended, permitting the Committee of Adjustment to consider a Minor Variance Application submitted by 9004897 Canada Inc. (Stonepay), owner of Part of Lots 19 and 20, Concession 3, Now Parts 1 to 5, 40R-28547 (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The applicant is requesting approval of a minor variance application to permit air conditioning units to be located within the front yard for 2 residential blocks along Palmer’s Sawmill Road; whereas the site-specific zoning by-law amendment prohibits air conditioning units to be located between the front wall of a building or a dwelling and a public street. Financial Implications: There are no direct financial implications arising from Council’s adoption of the recommendation of this report. 1.Discussion: Bill 73, the Smart Growth for Our Communities Act, 2015, amended the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990; c. P. 13 by removing the ability for an applicant to apply for a minor variance for 2 years following the passing of the applicant’s initiated zoning by-law amendment. However, the amendment also permits municipal Council to allow minor variance applications to proceed on a case-by-case basis by Council resolution. The Province indicated that the intent of the amendment is to prevent, for a 2 year period, zoning provisions that Council determines to be important from being reversed through the minor variance process. - 618 - Report: PLN 30-19 December 16, 2019 Subject: 9004897 Canada Inc. (Stonepay) Page 2 2.Proposed Residential Development In 2017, 9004897 Canada Inc. (Stonepay) submitted applications for Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment for lands located north of Third Concession Road, south of Dersan Street, east of Tillings Road and west of Brock Road within the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The applicant proposes to develop the subject lands for a phased residential condominium development consisting of 4 blocks of 726 units including a mix of street townhouses, stacked townhouses and back-to-back townhouses (see Submitted Overall Concept Plan, Attachment #2). On December 1, 2017 Stonepay filed appeals to its applications for Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) on the basis that the City did not make a decision on the applications within the prescribed timelines as set out in the Planning Act. On June 25, 2018, City Council adopted Resolution #458/18 that the LPAT be advised that City of Pickering supports Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2017-02 and Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 05/17 submitted by Stonepay. On July 31, 2019, the LPAT ordered that the appeals be allowed in part, that the draft plan of subdivision be approved subject to conditions, and that Zoning By-law 7710/19 be enacted. Shortly after that approval, the applicant submitted a Site Plan Application for the first phase of the development (see Submitted Phase 1 Site Plan, Attachment #3). During the review of the site plan, staff noted that the location of air conditioning units between the front main wall of stacked townhouse Buildings 1 and 2, and Palmer’s Sawmill Road did not comply with the site-specific zoning by-law approved by the LPAT. 3.Minor Variance Application P/CA 03/20, 9004897 Canada Inc. (Stonepay) On November 29, 2019, the applicant submitted Minor Variance Application P/CA 03/20 requesting that Section 5.(1)(2)(g) of Zoning By-law 7710/19 be varied to permit air conditioning units in the front yard between the front wall of a building or dwelling and a street. The minor variance application falls within the 2 year “time out” provision of the Planning Act. A Council resolution is required to enable the Committee of Adjustment to consider this minor variance application. The applicant has indicated that the variance is required as certain units only have frontage or access to the front of the building. This results from the nature of the stacked townhouse built form where it is difficult to avoid locating air conditioning units between the front main wall and the street. - 619 - Report: PLN 30-19 December 16, 2019 Subject: 9004897 Canada Inc. (Stonepay) Page 3 The applicant is proposing to locate the air conditioning units on unit balconies or on top of porticos. The intent of the provision restricting the location of air conditioning units is to shield views of the units from a public street and to maintain a high-quality public realm. It is proposed that air conditioning units located between the main front wall and Palmer’s Sawmill Road will be screened with decorative metal panels shielding all views from the municipal right-of-way. The decorative metal panels will match seamlessly with the balcony railings to provide an attractive façade and streetscape. The proposed variance is in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the City’s Official Plan and Zoning By law, which is to permit primarily housing and related uses. Staff have reviewed the site plan application for Phase 1 and consider the proposed residential development to have been designed to appropriately accommodate the site and maintain a high quality public realm. The requested variance is considered to allow appropriate development for the site and to be minor. 4. Conclusion Staff are of the opinion that the submitted minor variance application will facilitate the intended use of the subject lands as residential condominium development, and is in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the City’s Official Plan and the site specific zoning by-law amendment. It is recommended that Council grant an exemption in accordance with Section 45 (1.4) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990; c. P. 13, and permit Minor Variance Application P/CA 03/20, submitted by 9004897 Canada Inc. (Stonepay) to be considered by the Committee of Adjustment along with any other Minor Variance Applications resulting from the further processing of site plans or building permit applications. Submitted rendering of the decorative metal panels to screen air conditioning units. - 620 - Report: PLN 30-19 December 16, 2019 Subject: 9004897 Canada Inc. (Stonepay) Page 4 Attachments: 1.Location Map 2.Submitted Overall Concept Plan 3.Submitted Phase 1 Site Plan Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review Chief Planner & Urban Design Kyle Bentley, P. Eng. Director, City Development & CBO NS:ld Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Tony Prevedel, P. Eng. Chief Administrative Officer Original Signed By Original Signed By Original Signed By Original Signed By - 621 - Majo rO a k s R o a d WilliamJacksonDriveValleyFarmRoadWinville Road LiatrisDriveSouthcottRoadTillings RoadB lu e R id g e C res centValley Farm Ravine Centennial Park Southcott Park Creekside Park Third Concession Road BrockRoad1:10,000 SCALE: © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City Development Department Location Map File: Applicant: Property Description: P/CA 03/20 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Nov. 29, 2019 ¯ 9004807 Canada Inc. (Stonepay) Part of Lots 19 and 20, Concession 3, Parts 1 to 5 40R-28547 (Tillings Road) SubjectLands L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\PCA\2020\PCA 03-20 - 9004807 Canada Inc. (Stonepay)\PCA03-20_LocationMap.mxd Attachment #1 to Report #PLN 30-19 - 622 - L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\PCA\2019 DATE: Applicant: Property Description: File No: Submitted Overall Concept Plan FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. City Development Department P/CA 03/20 9004807 Canada Inc. (Stonepay) P art of Lots 19 and 20, Concession 3, Parts 1 to 5 40R-28547 (Tillings Road) Phase 1 Nov 29, 2019 Attachment #2 to Report #PLN 30-19 - 623 - Submitted Phase 1 Site Plan City Development Department Nov 29, 2019FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. P/CA 03/20 9004807 Canada Inc. (Stonepay)Applicant: Property Description: DATE: File No: P art of Lots 19 and 20, Concession 3, Parts 1 to 5 40R-28547 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\PCA\2020 (Tillings Road) To permit air conditioning units in the front yard between the front wall of a building or a dwelling and a street N Attachment #3 to Report #PLN 30-19 - 624 - Report to Council Report Number: PLN 31-19 Date: December 16, 2019 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Request to deviate from Civic Number Protocol set out the Municipal Addressing Standard Operating Procedure: Durham Live Development File: D-9600 Recommendation: 1. That Council approve the request from Steve Apostolopoulos on behalf of Triple Properties to permit civic numbers to be assigned to parcels of land that do not adhere to the Civic Number Protocol set out in the City’s Municipal Addressing Standard Procedure, and authorize the use of numbers 888, 333 and 777 as municipal street numbers to the parcels shown on the Proposed Municipal Address Plan provided as Appendix I to Report PLN 31-19. Executive Summary: Council passed By-law 7686/19, the By-law to provide for the Civic Numbering of Buildings and Properties in the City of Pickering, earlier this year. Its purpose is to establish processes to assign street numbering that is consistent, predictable, and optimizes emergency response times. In that By-law, the Director, City Development & CBO is authorized to assign civic numbers to buildings/properties in accordance with the prescribed system for each lot and concession in the municipality. The Director is not authorized to assign a number that does not conform with this system. Staff received a request from Steve Apostolopoulos on behalf of Triple Properties to assign street numbers for select parcels of land within the Durham Live Development. The numbers have special meaning to the Apostolopoulos family regarding gaming and filming activity intended to occur on site. Staff recommend Council grant the request by Steve Apostolopoulos for the three civic numbers to be assigned to the parcels identified on Appendix I to this Report. Financial Implications: No direct costs are will occur as a result of Council adopting the recommendation of the report. - 625 - PLN 31-19 December 16, 2019 Subject: Request to deviate from Civic Numbering Protocol for the Durham Live development Page 2 1. Introduction The City Development Department received a request from Steve Apostolopoulos, on behalf of Triple Properties, to allocate the following municipal addresses (civic numbers) to three parcels within the Durham Live Development that are inconsistent with the provisions of the Municipal Addressing Standard Operating Procedure (SOP): Number 888 – at the new Casino site is being constructed; Number 333 – at the proposed film studios site; and Number 777 – at a development lot, located south and across from the new Casino site. For more perspective, please see the enclosed Proposed Municipal Address Plan (Appendix I). 2. Background By-law 7686/19 provides for the Civic Numbering of Buildings and Properties in the City of Pickering. It stipulates that the Director of City Development shall assign a civic number to every building or lot abutting or fronting on a street within the City, according to the processes described in the current standard operating procedure titled “Municipal Addresses”. The By-law 7686/19 stipulates that the Director, City Development & CBO shall only grant approval of an application for a civic number change if certain conditions can be met, including the requirement that the requested change to an existing number does not conflict with the SOP or other sections of the By-law. Additionally, the By-law stipulates that whenever City staff identifies the need to change the civic numbers on any street or portion of a street, the Director, City Development shall seek Council approval. However, such a change is intended to not conflict with the SOP. As the By-law contains no provisions for the selection of civic numbers that conflict with the prescribed numbering system for each lot and property’s location on a road, this request has been brought forward for Council’s consideration. 3. Discussion 3.1 In terms of the current Municipal Addressing SOP, the addressing (numbering) of lots follows an “odd and even” numbering format prescribed for specific road patterns in newly registered plans of subdivision. Specifically, even numbers would be allocated on the north and west side of roads, and odd numbers to the south and east side of roads . Diagrams reflecting various street patterns (including odd shaped streets such as courts/cul-de-sacs) with prescribed odd and even numbering formats have been incorporated in the Municipal Addressing SOP. - 626 - PLN 31-19 December 16, 2019 Subject: Request to deviate from Civic Numbering Protocol for the Durham Live development Page 3 Furthermore, addresses (civic number) for Range and Concession blocks are pre-assigned, to ensure the number range within a particular area is sequential to adjacent developed blocks and to prevent the repetition of address ranges in multiple neighbourhoods. For example, for streets running north-south in Concession 1, the address range is set at 1501-2000, and for streets running east-west in Lot 15 the address range is set at 2001-2100. The prescribed addressing formats ensure the application of a consistent and effective approach to municipal addressing across the City, creates predictability in its interpretation, and assist the public, municipality, utility companies and emergency services in service delivery and way-finding. 3.2 The proposed address numbers (888, 333, and 777) for the new Durham Live development fall outside the pre-assigned address range (2001-2100) for the particular geographic area, do not follow a logical sequence, and could potentially set a precedent. However, staff believe the civic number for this development warrants an exception to the SOP because: (a) the Durham Live development is a unique landmark development in the City of Pickering; and (b) the proposed numbers are befitting to the gambling industry, reflecting the uniqueness of the casino development and related uses, playing off the TriBro Studios name. Also, since the assignment of these address numbers does not constitute a change to existing addresses, the impact of this exception to the Municipal Addressing SOP on the surrounding land owners would be insignificant because the lands to the east falls within the Town and Ajax, while the lands immediately west and south of the subject parcels are also part of the Durham Live lands. 4. Conclusion Accordingly, it is recommended that Council grant an exception to the Municipal Addressing SOP by approving the request received from Steve Apostolopoulos on behalf of Triple Properties to allocate the municipal address numbers reflected on the enclosed Conceptual Plan (Appendix I) to parcels within the Durham Live development. Appendix Appendix I Proposed Municipal Address Plan - 627 - PLN 31-19 December 16, 2019 Subject: Request to deviate from Civic Numbering Protocol for the Durham Live development Page 4 Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Kyle Bentley, P.Eng. Chief Planner Director, City Development & CBO DJ:ld Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer Original Signed By Original Signed By Original Signed By - 628 - Appendix I to Report PLN 31-19 Proposed Municipal Address Plan - 629 - Highway 4 0 1 Bayly Street Church Street SSquires Beach RoadCasino Resort Site Film Studio Site 888 333 777 Street "C " S tre e t"A "XXXX Avenue Street " D " XXXX Avenue St r eet "B"1:5,500 SCALE: © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City Development Department Proposed Municipal Address Plan File:D-9600 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Dec. 04, 2019 ¯ L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\Other\CityDevelopment\DurhamLiveAddressingMemo\DurhamLiveMemoMap_WithTemplate.mxd Proposed Municipal Address Numbers - 630 - Report to Council Report Number: PLN 32-19 Date: December 16, 2019 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: The Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Durham Regional Official Plan: Growth Management Urban System Discussion Paper, June 2019 File: A-2100-020 Recommendation: 1. That, to strengthen the existing urban system goal of creating healthy and complete, sustainable communities that balances population and employment growth, stronger regional implementation policies, such as financial incentives (which could include Community Improvement Plans; deferral or reduction of development charges; and servicing of employment areas) should be considered for certain types and locations of job creating uses; 2. That, to strengthen the existing urban system goal of encouraging a mix of housing by type, size and tenure, stronger implementation policies are required to incentivize the delivery of seniors, affordable, and/or accessible housing (which could include Community Improvement Plans; deferral or waiving of development charges). 3. That an additional goal should be added for the urban system, to create a “smart” connected community, with the inclusion of policies addressing existing and next generation information and communication technologies, and that implementation policies be added requiring the Region to provide for broadband infrastructure in all Regional Roads. 4. That the Region adopt a “dig once” policy to ensure th at a comprehensive network is advanced across the Region, and that the Region allow for the shared use of its conduit and assist local municipalities in the development of localized networks and the provision of broadband services to rural settlement areas. 5. That the Regional Official Plan support the needs of an aging population by focusing on elements contained in the Age-Friendly Durham Strategy and Action Plan, including: providing opportunities for affordable, assisted housing options and encouraging development that complements the concept of “aging in place”; addressing accessibility needs and age-friendly design within the built environment; and ensuring that active and passive recreational facilities, and community and health services are available for the aging population. 6. That the following measures be considered by the Region to achieve its employment objectives: pre-servicing employment lands, ensuring that they are shovel ready for potential development; - 631 - PLN 32-19 December 16, 2019 Subject: The Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Durham Regional Official Plan Page 2 protecting employment lands from conversion to residential and commercial use; ensuring that uses are not introduced in employment areas that may be considered sensitive land uses and which would undermine the ability of employment areas to diversify and expand in accordance with existing zoning permissions; ensuring that lands adjacent to key goods movement corridors are protected for employment uses; providing lands close to highway interchanges for land uses that involve the shipping or receiving of goods via long combination vehicles; continue promoting the development of an airport in Pickering; and consider the implementation of Community Improvement Plans for employment generating uses/lands, which would include measures such as municipal grants, tax increment financing, development charges and building permit fee deferrals. 7. That the Region can influence how and where people work by: ensuring locally developed and available skilled labour/talent, by supporting and partnering with post-secondary institutions, centres of excellence, research institutes, and apprenticeship programs; providing stronger policy direction recognizing centres and corridors as locations for significant employment; assessing current and future trends in the micro and macro-economic contexts; providing insight into business and industry needs for employment land, urban form and tenure; developing and articulating the Region’s key differentiators and unique sales proposition; targeting high growth sectors; and developing a series of strategic economic development action plans along the following themes: sustainable economic development, entrepreneurship, innovation and the technology ecosystem; arts, culture and creative economy; international business development; urban growth centres; planning for diversity; and digital disruption on local commerce. 8. That to assist in achieving 50 percent of the jobs in designated Employment Areas, the Region should establish a program to upfront the cost of servicing vacant employment lands, and that a context sensitive analysis for any proposed Employment Area conversion be conducted, to ensure that job generating opportunities are not compromised or lost . 9. That the Region have regard for Pickering Council’s comments on proposed Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan to revise the Province’s proposed Provincially Significant Employment Zones, by among other matters, excluding the Durham Live lands. 10. That the measure of density at a Regional level should be undertaken on a modified gross basis (excluding the area of natural heritage lands and the transit/roadway), and refined to a net level through area municipal official plan, secondary plan, and zoning exercises. - 632 - PLN 32-19 December 16, 2019 Subject: The Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Durham Regional Official Plan Page 3 11. That stronger policy direction be provided in the Regional Official Plan regarding employment densities and the creation of complete communities within Urban Growth Centres. 12. That the Region continue to work collaboratively with the City of Pickering, and the other area municipalities, to delineate the extent of the Kingston Road corridor from the Toronto- Pickering Boundary to Simcoe Street (and the Simcoe Street corridor from Kingston Road to Highway 407) and to establish densities and floor space indexes that would be necessary to support Light Rail Transit (LRT) service in the future. 13. That it would be most appropriate for the balance of the priority bus corridors shown in the Metrolinx Regional Transportation Plan to be delineated and detailed in area municipal official plans as “Local Corridors”. Corridors with frequent regional express services along 400 series highways or GO rail services which have limited stops (either at key interchanges or GO Station sites) do not warrant such a corridor treatment. Instead, the stations sites are more appropriately detailed through a Major Transit Station Area (e.g., Lakeshore East GO Stations) exercise or a Local Centre approach (e.g., 407 Transit-way stations). 14. That the designation and delineation of Waterfront Places be dealt with as a local planning matter, similar to the approach for Local Centres. As such, it is suggested that the Waterfront Place symbols be removed from the Regional Official Plan, and that local municipalities be provided with greater discretion regarding the identification of areas for growth, and the distribution and density of development within their municipalities. 15. That the methodology for delineating Major Transit Station Areas (MTSA), and the resultant draft boundary delineation for Pickering’s MTSA (see Attachment #2 to Report PLN 32-19), are supported; 16. That the Region, when conducting the analysis to determine the location and amount of lands for any proposed settlement boundary expansion, should also consider buffer planning, by accounting for lands required to accommodate proper buffers between any new Community (Living) or Employment Areas and farmland. 17. That the Region, through Envision Durham, consider the implementation of additional measures/strategies to shift the balance and favour non-residential growth. Such measures should include: making Durham’s employment lands more attractive and market ready by: ensuring official plan and zoning designations are in place; pre-servicing strategic employment lands; and making financial incentives available (e.g., tax increment financing, municipal grants, building permit and development charges subsidies), where appropriate. 18. That, with respect to Northeast Pickering, the Region have regard to the Pickering Council Resolutions #140/19 and #173/19 (see Attachments #3 and #4 to Report PLN 32-19) requesting the inclusion of northeast Pickering in an urban area boundary expansion, and the request to use and alternate intensification rate of 45 percent. 19. That the Region’s Land Needs Assessment consider a scenario reflecting a future airport and the potential implications it may have in terms of population and employment allocation and growth. - 633 - PLN 32-19 December 16, 2019 Subject: The Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Durham Regional Official Plan Page 4 20. That appropriate policy provisions and designations be included in the Durham Region Official Plan to bring the ROP into conformity with the Central Pickering Development Plan, in a manner similar to the other Provincial Plans. 21. That the Region provide further policy support for the allocation of sufficient lands for community facilities (such as parkland, community centres and schools) within centres to assist in achieving strong, vibrant and healthy downtowns. 22. That the Region, through Envision Durham, also consider the means to address the challenges faced by places of worship to establish within residentia l areas, taking into account the functions and services they offer within the context of building “complete communities”. Executive Summary: On June 4, 2019, the Regional Municipality of Durham released the Growth Management Urban System Discussion Paper, the third in a series of discussions papers to be released as part of “Envision Durham” – The Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Regional Official Plan. The deadline for comments was September 2, 2019. Staff informed Regional staff that since Council would not be meeting in July and August, a report in that regard would only be considered by Council later in the year. Financial Implications: The recommendations of this report do not present any financ ial implications. 1. “Envision Durham” – The Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Durham Regional Official Plan An Official Plan provides a vision for the future orderly development of a municipality through a set of policies and maps. The Planning Act, which is provincial legislation governing land use planning in Ontario, requires that a municipality regularly review and update its Official Plan. With this in mind, the Region is reviewing the Durham Region Official Plan. Once the Region has completed its Official Plan review, the City will be in a position to review the Pickering Official Plan. The first stage of the Region’s Official Plan Review focuses on public engagement, and includes the preparation of a series of discussion papers. These discussion papers address the following major areas: agriculture and rural systems; climate change and sustainability; growth management; the environment and greenlands system; transportation system; and housing; (see Overview of the Region of Durham’s Municipal Comprehensive Review of its Official Plan, Attachment #1). - 634 - PLN 32-19 December 16, 2019 Subject: The Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Durham Regional Official Plan Page 5 2. The Growth Management Urban System Discussion Paper The Region has released the third of its discussion papers, Growth Management Urban System. The issues explored through this discussion paper are numerous, complex and interrelated, and multi-faceted. The Region is to be congratulated on its solid background information, well-written paper and thought-provoking questions to encourage dialogue on the topic of growth management and urban systems. The ever-shifting Provincial policy landscape is also layered onto the existing intricacies of growth management. The paper provides background of the current provincial policy context, and observations about growth management in Durham. Further, the paper provides an overview and discussion of a long list of growth related land use planning and policy matters, including: trends in demographics, economic and development patterns; population and employment forecasts; the Region’s urban structure; the mapping of the urban system; where to grow - intensification and greenfield development; the delineation of strategic growth areas; servicing growth; limited expansion of urban areas; growth outside the urban system; the growth management study process; the Federal airport lands; nuclear generations stations; and the Central Pickering Development Plan Area. The paper can be found online at: https://www.durham.ca/en/regional- government/resources/Documents/Council/Reports/2019 -Committee-Reports/Planning- Economic-Development/2019-P-31.pdf The Paper poses 20 questions for discussion. City Development staff have undertaken a detailed review of the Growth Management Urban System Discussion Paper (see Appendix I), and responded to the questions through the recommendations of this Report. Appendix Appendix I Staff Review of the Growth Management Urban System Discussion Paper Attachments 1. Overview of the Region of Durham’s Municipal Comprehensive Review of its Official Plan 2. Proposed Major Transit Station Area in Pickering 3. Pickering Council Resolution #140/19 4. Pickering Council Resolution #173/19 - 635 - PLN 32-19 December 16, 2019 Subject: The Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Durham Regional Official Plan Page 6 Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Déan Jacobs, MCIP, RPP Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Manager, Policy & Geomatics Chief Planner Kyle Bentley, P. Eng. Director, City Development & CBO DJ:ld Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer Original Signed By Original Signed By Original Signed By Original Signed By - 636 - Appendix I to Report PLN 32-19 Staff Review of the Growth Management Urban System Discussion Paper - 637 - Staff Review of the Growth Management Urban System Discussion Paper 1. Questions for Consideration On June 4, 2019, the Region, as part of the second stage (“Discuss”) of their public engagement program, released the Growth Management Urban System Discussion Paper (the Paper), the third in a series of discussions papers to be released as part of “Envision Durham”. The Paper provides an overview of the Region’s urban system and associated Regional Official Plan (ROP) policies; describes the Provincial planning regime that set the ground rules for land use planning; provides an overview of trends in demographic, economic and development patterns; and, identifies preliminary approaches to update the Region’s urban system. The Paper also poses a number of questions to leverage discussion and feedback, including: 1. Is the Urban System achieving the ROP vision of creating distinct Urban Areas, balancing population and employment growth, and achieving healthy and complete communities? 2. Are there any additional goals for the Urban System that should be included in the ROP? 3. How can ROP policies support the needs of an aging population? 4. Are there specific policies or other measures tha t are needed to enable the achievement of employment forecasts and/or the Regional Council target of one job for every two persons? 5. How can Regional policies recognize and support changing patterns of where and how people work? 6. What Regional policies and approaches could assist in achieving the ROP target that 50 percent of all jobs be in designated Employment Areas? 7. How should density (gross or net) be measured in the ROP? 8. Should the Region delineate only those corridors with significant intensification potential that are also within the Higher Order Transit Network? 9. Should Regional Corridors that are intended to be priority areas for the highest level of transit service (Highway 2 and Simcoe Street) be delineated in the ROP and assigned an increased minimum density target? 10. Should Waterfront Places be specifically designated in the ROP? 11. Is the proposed approach for delineating and assigning density targets to existing and future Major Transit Station Areas appropriate? 12. Do you have any feedback or input to the proposed draft Major Transit Station Area delineation? 13. Are there any other criteria that should be considered when evaluating Settlement Area Boundary Expansions? 14. Are there other criteria that should be considered when evaluating Employment Area conversions? - 638 - Staff Review of the Growth Management Urban System Discussion Paper Page 2 of 21 15. Are additional strategies or solutions required to support development in Strategic Growth Areas? 16. Should a Regional structure, consisting of appropriate Regional land use designations, be applied to lands located within the Central Pickering Development Plan Area? 17. What type of ROP policies should be provided to support deployment of broadband infrastructure? 18. How can ROP policies support the achievement of strong, vibrant, and healthy downtowns? 19. Should places of worship be permitted in Employment Areas? The Paper is the first step in the Region’s Growth Management Study. It does not present positions on potential changes that may be part of the ROP, and only provides information and poses questions for consideration. Following public input on the Paper, the next phase of the Growth Management Study will be the completion of a Land Needs Assessment (LNA) and related studies. The LNA is a comprehensive review of Durham’s existing land supply and its ability to accommodate forecasted population and employment growth. The Region retained the services of consultants from Urban Strategies Inc. in conjunction with CN Watson & Associates to assist the Region with the Growth Management Study. The following sections provide a high level overview of the Paper, and provide answers to the questions posed with recommendations (highlighted in bold) on matters that should also be addressed through the Municipal Comprehensive Review (MCR). 2. Ontario’s Planning Hierarchy 2.1 Provincial Policy impacting growth management The Paper provides an outline of the provincial plans that apply to Durham’s urban system (including the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, the Greenbelt Plan and the Central Pickering Development Plan). These plans provide direction where growth should occur and protecting areas where growth should not occur. Core policy directions in the Growth Plan include the allocation of population and employment growth forecasts to 2041 for each upper tier municipality, the requirement to optimize the existing urban land supply through intensification and infill before considering further settlement area boundary expansions, and the setting of intensification and density targets for built-up areas and greenfield areas. In terms of the Growth Plan, 2017 and most recent changes to the Growth Plan through Amendment 1, Durham Region is allocated a population of 1,190,000 and 430,000 jobs by 2041, and must be planned through its MCR to achieve a minimum intensification target of 50 percent jobs and residents within the “built boundary” as defined in 2008 (40 percent under the Growth Plan, 2006) and a Greenfield density target of 50 jobs and persons per hectare (the same as the Growth Plan, 2006). Pickering’s “built boundary” basically includes all lands south of the CP Rail line, and thus, all growth until Seaton commenced has been “intensification”. Seaton was designed to meet 50 jobs and persons per hectares. - 639 - Staff Review of the Growth Management Urban System Discussion Paper Page 3 of 21 However, in February 2019, Durham Regional Council requested the Minister of Municipal Affairs to permit a lower intensification rate of 45 percent within the identified built up area of the Region. Pickering Council also supported this request in Resolution #140/19 on September 23, 2019 (see Attachment #3). 2.2 Provincial Guidance documents to implement municipal growth management requirements The Paper discusses the requirement in the Growth Plan for upper tier municipalities to complete a Land Needs Assessment (LNA) to manage and plan for their share of population and employment growth in the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) to 2041. The Province released the LNA methodology for the GGH in May 2018. The LNA methodology outlines a series of required steps to mathematically determine the amount of land needed to accommodate forecasted growth. Only upon the completion of the LNA will the Region determine whether there is sufficient land within existing settlement areas to accommodate growth to 2041, or if additional lands are required. Despite the release of the methodology in 2018, the Province commenced a review of that methodology in mid-2019. 3. Durham Region’s structure The Paper describes the core components of the regional structure as well as the land use designations that make up the Urban System (e.g., Living Areas, Employment Areas, Urban Growth Centres, and Regional Corridors); and highlights the current ROP goals for the Urban System. The Paper notes that through the MCR, the Region is seeking feedback as to whether the Urban System is achieving the ROP vision of creating distinct Urban Areas, balancing population and employment growth, and achieving healthy and complete communities, and if there are any additional goals for the Urban System that should be included in the ROP? Since the inception of the Region of Durham in 1974, the population to job ratio in Durham has steadily decreased. In addition, the amount of out-commuting from the Region and its local municipalities has correspondingly increased. This suggests that there is an imbalance which is continuing to grow, as Durham becomes less of a “complete community” and even more of a “bedroom community”. The population and employment projections of the Province entrench this imbalance, even though the Growth Plan embraces the concept of complete communities. The Province has provided no direction for how the 905 ring, and in particular Durham Region, can achieve such a balance. The public transit system has been designed as a hub and spoke system favouring development within the Toronto core, while highway systems in the peripheral areas are tolled making them less competitive for goods movement and employment growth. Recent development applications also indicate this trend is continuing. While the City of Pickering has received a number of applications with higher densities, these applications are almost entirely residential, with a few commercial applications, and very litt le employment growth, in particular, of major office development. - 640 - Staff Review of the Growth Management Urban System Discussion Paper Page 4 of 21 To ensure that we achieve “complete communities”, there has to be assurances that opportunities for “living” are balanced with opportunities for “work” and “play”. While the current market may not show the need for major office employment, mixed use development, parkland and community facilities, it is important that official plans (and our local decision makers) not forfeit prime locations to allow for quick residential development approvals that may be in conflict with the overall long term vision for the area or do not provide requisite community services for the area. We often see opportunities foregone with the expectation that the next proponent would provide the site for an office building, or the location for a park. Another factor impacting our urban vision is the desire of the development industry to have the broadest range of residential densities, heights and uses permissible on strategic development locations. In other words a “blank check”. The higher end of the designation, reflecting higher land value, allows for greater flexibility with negotiations with financial institutions for project financing, while the lower end designation allows for greater flexibility for development if market conditions change. The difficulty with this is that the “community interest” can be compromised, particularly where densities reach or exceed the upper end of the range and there is no availability or recourse to secure parkland, community fac ilities, trails, or public roads. In response to Question 1, the goals for the Urban System in ROP include the matters that are important to our desired vision. However, as noted above, they do not appear to be achieving the balance of population and jobs resulting in more and more out-commuting. Further, with the challenge of the development industry providing seniors, affordable, and/or accessible housing, the goal of providing healthy and complete communities is not being achieved. The solutions to these require financial incentives for certain types of housing and servicing of existing employment land to attract companies. In response to Question 2, additional goals that should be added include the creation of a “smart” connected community by providing broadband infrastructure in all Regional Roads. Additionally, the Region should establish a goal to use its substantial financial resources to establish incentive programs (such as Community Improvement Plans; provide servicing to vacant but designated employment lands; grant programs; or programs that eliminate development charges for selected housing types). 4. Demographic and development trends in Durham The Region used various data sources to report demographic and development characteristics and trends in the Paper, including Statistics Canada, Durham’s annual business count, and the Region’s building permit database and subdivision activity reports. Some of the key characteristics and trends are: Durham’s population has increased significantly from 247,473 in 1976 to an estimated 697,800 in May 2019, representing an increase of 182 percent. The population is forecasted to grow by another 492,200 people over the next 21 years. The population in Durham comprises 92 percent urban and 8 percent rural. - 641 - Staff Review of the Growth Management Urban System Discussion Paper Page 5 of 21 Although low-density housing continues to be the most common form of housing (72 percent), there has been a clear shift towards more medium- and high-density housing forms in recent years, partly because of the growing trend of fewer people per household. Based on the Region’s short-term growth forecast for 2021 and the estimated actual population by 2021 (based on development application and building permit activity), Ajax and Oshawa should exceed their 2021 population forecast while Picke ring would fall short by approximately 66,300 people (59 percent). Lower than forecast growth in Pickering results from a slower than anticipated rate of growth in Seaton. Since 1976, the average household size has decreased steadily from 3.5 persons to below 3 per household in 2016. Over two thirds of the population growth in Durham over the past five years has been in the form of migration from foreign countries or from other areas in Ontario and Canada. The Ministry of Finance projects that by 2041, almost 24 percent of Durham’s population will be 65 years old or older. (The Paper notes that the Region has taken a proactive approach to planning for an aging population which includes its Age -Friendly Durham Strategy and Action Plan, dated April 2017.) The current ROP forecasts growth by area municipality to the year 2031. The Growth Plan requires the Region to plan and allocate population growth to 2041. The Region will, through the Land Needs Assessment, conduct a further analysis of the population and employment trends. The Paper also notes that through the MCR, the Region will consider policies that support an aging population. In response to Questions 3, to support an aging population, staff recommends that the Regional Official Plan focus on providing financial assistance programs, grants, waiver od development charges, etc., to assist in implementing elements in the Ag e-Friendly Durham Strategy and Action Plan, including: providing opportunities for affordable, assisted housing options and encouraging development that complements the concept of “aging in place”; addressing accessibility needs and age friendly design within the built environment; ensuring that active and passive recreational facilities, and community and health services are available for the aging population. 4.1 Employment trends and job growth in Durham The 2016 Census reported a total of 236,760 jobs in Durham, translating into an employment to population ratio of 1:2.83 and falling short of the Region’s target of 1:2. Other key characteristics and trends associated with employment in Durham include the following: Oshawa holds most jobs (26.1 percent), followed by Whitby (20.7 percent), Pickering (16.4 percent), Ajax (15.4 percent), and Clarington (12.1 percent), with the rest picked up by Brock, Scugog and Uxbridge. - 642 - Staff Review of the Growth Management Urban System Discussion Paper Page 6 of 21 Job creation in Durham has not kept pace with the employment forecast in the ROP . The ROP forecasted that in 2016 there would be a total of 265,115 jobs, whereas the actual number was 236,760, a shortfall of 28,355 jobs. To achieve the 2041 employment forecast in the Growth Plan, an annual growth of approximately 7,730 jobs is required, with most of the forecasted growth (30.9 percent) required by 2021. 59 percent of jobs are captured within Living Areas and Centres (also referred to as population-related employment), 31 percent by Employment lands, 6 percent by rural areas and 4 percent by other areas (source: 2018 Durham Business Count). The commercial sector accounts for 37 percent of jobs in Durham, followed by Institutional (26.7 percent), Industrial (24.2 percent), Office (10.6 percent), and Agriculture (1.5 percent) (Source: 2018 Durham Business Count). Through Questions 4 to 6 of the Paper, the Region is requesting: Whether there are specific policies or other measures needed in the ROP to enable the achievement of employment forecasts or the one job for every two persons ratio? How the ROP policies can recognize and support the changing pattern of where and how people work , and what ROP policies or approaches could assist in achieving the ROP target of 50 percent of all jobs to be in designated Employment Areas? Staff recommends that the following measures be considered by the Region to achieve its employment objectives: • pre-servicing employment lands, ensuring that they are shovel ready for potential development; • protecting employment lands from conversion to residential and commercial use; • ensuring that uses are not introduced in employment areas that may be considered sensitive land uses and which would undermine the ability of employment areas to diversify and expand in accordance with existing zoning permissions; • ensuring that lands adjacent to key goods movement corridors are protected for employment uses; • providing lands close to select highway interchanges for land uses that involve the shipping or receiving of goods via long combination vehicles; • establish intermodal facility locations that allow for the transfer of goods from one mode to another; • continue to promote the development of an airport in Pickering; • consider the implementation of Community Improvement Plans for employment generating uses/lands, which would include measures such as municipal grants, tax increment financing, development charges and building permit fee deferrals. In response to Question 5, the Region can influence how and where people work by: • ensuring locally developed and available skilled labour/talent, by supporting and partnering with post-secondary institutions, centres of excellence, research institutes, and apprenticeship programs; - 643 - Staff Review of the Growth Management Urban System Discussion Paper Page 7 of 21 providing stronger policy direction recognizing centres and corridors as locations for significant employment; • assessing current and future trends in the micro and macro-economic contexts; • providing insight into business and industry needs for employment land, urban form and tenure; • developing and articulating the Region’s key differentiators and unique sales proposition; • target high growth sectors; • developing a series of strategic economic development action plans along the following themes: sustainable economic development; entrepreneurship, innovation and the technology ecosystem; arts, culture and creative economy; international business development; urban growth centres; planning for diversity; and digital disruption on local commerce. During the previous MCR, the objective set by the Region was to achieve 60 percent of all jobs from designated Employment Areas. Now, the Region is requesting approaches to achieve a 50 percent target. This may be difficult to achieve, given that: higher yielding employment uses such as office development and the manufacturing sector have diminished considerably in Ontario; many office developments now prefer to be in downtown locations where transit and amenities are available to employees; and, there is greater demand for land consumptive, low employment generating uses (e.g., distribution centres, warehouses). Fewer industries create noxious fumes, odours or other adverse impacts that require them to be located in remote areas. Many of the new jobs being created are in the service and government/public sectors with locations outside of Employment Areas. As uses are becoming more “mixed”, the non-residential uses and their jobs are moving from the employment areas. In response to Question 6, to assist in achieving 50 percent of jobs in designated Employment Areas, vacant employment land needs to be serviced (and protected from conversion to Living Area). Servicing should include piped water, sanitary sewer, gas, hydro, broadband, etc. Minimize conversions of major blocks of employment land as this could start a domino effect of business moving out of the area, in hopes to be the next area for conversion. Also, in considering potential conversions, the effects of non-industrial traffic mixing with existing industrial vehicular movements (both time of day and volume) creates conflicts and could incite existing industries to relocate. When measuring vacant industrial land, ensure that natural heritage constraints that would be taken out for residential development are subtracted from the total, so the number of “vacant” hectares are as realistic as possible. 4.2 Designated Employment Areas In accordance with the Growth Plan and the ROP, a sufficient amount of employment lands needs to be maintained in appropriate locations to accommodate forecasted job growth. The ROP also requires that an adequate supply of vacant, serviced lands be maintained within designated Employment Areas. Some of the key characteristics and trends associated with Employment Areas in Durham that are highlighted in the Paper include the following: - 644 - Staff Review of the Growth Management Urban System Discussion Paper Page 8 of 21 In 2018, the total amount of designated Employment Area lands in urban areas covered 6,252 hectares, with Rural Employment areas covering 116 hectares and employment- related uses (such as OPG and the Oshawa airport) covering 871 hectares. In terms of development status of urban and rural employment area lands, 50 percent are estimated to be vacant, 28 percent built, 16 percent underutilized, and 6 percent constrained due to environmental constraints. In terms of the Region’s Employment Lands Inventory, 2018, 34.4 percent of the vacant Employment Area lands are fully serviced, while 43 percent are un-serviced (note: 370 hectares of designated Employment Area lands in Seaton was excluded from the un-serviced vacant Employment Lands Area figure, due to their rapidly evolving servicing status). The relatively high percentage of un-serviced Employment Area lands in Durham stifles industrial development and the creation of local jobs. Potential steps to address this concern have been listed in staff’s recommendations under section 4.1 of this review. 5. Where to grow The Growth Plan directs growth to urban areas. Growth within urban areas may occur through intensification (infill and redevelopment within the existing delineated built-up areas), or through the development of designated Greenfield areas (the vacant lands between the delineated built-up areas and the urban boundaries). The Paper highlights that, according to the Envision Durham public opinion survey, reducing “urban sprawl” was identified as one of the most important land use and planning issues in the Region of Durham today. In terms of intensification, it is estimated that approximately 1,000 secondary suites have been created in the Region over the past 5 years. The Paper also highlights that the Region, since 2014, has exceeded the initial minimum inten sification target of 40 percent as prescribed by the 2006 Growth Plan. In accordance with Durham Region building permit data, Pickering obtained the highest intensification rate amongst area municipalities with 98 percent of its growth occurring in 2014 within the delineated built-up area (the South Pickering urban area), but that number has been dropping steadily and sat at 50.6 percent in 2018. Staff wishes to point to recent changes to the Planning Act, through Bill 108, which included the requirement that municipalities authorize in their official plans and zoning by-law secondary suites in both a detached, semi-detached, and row house and in an ancillary building or structure (e.g., above a laneway garage). The MCR should consider the implications of this change on ROP policy direction regarding planning for intensification. In terms of designated Greenfield Areas development, several large secondary plans across Durham have been recently completed or are either in process of being completed. The majority of these areas are in the southern municipalities and include Seaton (Pickering), West Whitby, Kedron (Oshawa), Bowmanville and Newcastle. These areas will contribute to the long-term greenfield housing supply in Durham. - 645 - Staff Review of the Growth Management Urban System Discussion Paper Page 9 of 21 Some of the key characteristics and trends associated with the development of Designated Greenfield Areas in Durham that are highlighted in the Paper include the following: There are more than 30,000 units in draft approved and registered plans of subdivis ion and condominium, that have not been built, with Pickering holding the greatest proportion (14,081 units), followed by Whitby (4,200 units) and Oshawa (3,092 units). This does not include unit supply associated with freestanding site plan applications. There are currently 3,834 units remaining in draft approved plans that were originally proposed in the 1980s and 1990s. 6. Strategic Growth Areas (SGAs) Strategic Growth Areas include Urban Growth Centres, Major Transit Station Areas (MTSAs), and other major opportunities for growth including infill, redevelopment, brownfield and greyfield sites, lands along major roads, or areas with planned frequent transit service or higher order transit corridors (e.g., Kingston Road). The Growth Plan requires that the boundaries of SGAs be delineated in the ROP. At a minimum this includes Urban Growth Centres and MTSAs, and may also include other areas such as Regional Centres, Regional Corridors and Waterfront Places. The ROP currently assigns density targets for Urban Growth Centres, Regional Centres and Corridors, and Waterfront Places, as follows: Urban Growth Centres: 200 people and jobs combined per gross hectare and a minimum floor Space Index (FSI) of 3.0; Regional Centres: 75 units per gross hectare and a minimum FSI of 2.5; Waterfront Places: 60 units per gross hectare and a minimum FSI of 2.0. The Region will, through the MCR, evaluate these minimum density targets and update them, as appropriate. Through this Paper the Region is seeking feedback as to how density (gross or net) should be measured in the ROP. Misinterpretations or confusion as to how densities are calculated in accordance with the ROP versus local Official Plans, often occur when development applications are being prepared and/or reviewed . Providing clarification in the ROP, would address this concern. In response to Question 7, staff recommend that the measure of density at the Regional level should be undertaken on basis of a modified gross hectare (netting out the area of natural heritage lands, and the area of the transit/roadway), and refined to a net density (only the area of the lot that is developable), and established in area municipal official plans, secondary plans, and zoning by-laws. 6.1 Urban Growth Centres There are two Urban Growth Centres in Durham, one in Pickering and one in Oshawa. The Paper highlights the key objective of Urban Growth Centres as being the dominant centres with in the Region, to be planned as focal points for regional-wide public services, major office, commercial, recreational, cultural, entertainment and residential uses. The Region will, through the MCR, delineate the detailed boundaries of the two Urban Growth Centres, and consider any required policy updates to support the development of these areas. - 646 - Staff Review of the Growth Management Urban System Discussion Paper Page 10 of 21 The boundaries of the City Centre of Pickering is consistent with the boundaries of the Urban Growth Centre, as approved by the Province. The Paper points to 2016 statistics, estimating the density in the Pickering City Centre at 82 residents and jobs combined per hectare. This number is significantly less than the Growth Plan and ROP target of 200 residents and jobs combined per hectare. In 2015, the Ontario Municipal Board approved Amendment 26 to the Pickering Official Plan. Amendment 26 implemented the new vision for the redevelopment and intensification of the Pickering City Centre, a designated Urban Growth Centre. Amendment 26 set s a maximum FSI of 5.75 for development in the City Centre, which is well beyond the minimum FSI of 3.0 in the current ROP. Amendment 29, a subsequent City-initiated Official Plan Amendment, approved in 2017, removed the maximum net residential density of 570 dwellings per hectare from the City Centre, in order to maximize the build-out potential of lands within the City Centre. The redevelopment of the lands in the City Centre may still be in its infancy, but there are numerous redevelopment proposals, such as the redevelopment of the Pickering Town Centre lands and the Universal City towers (on City Centre South lands), that reflect residential densities well beyond that which was initially envisioned. Although it is expected that the desired residential densities in the City Centre will be attained or even exceeded over time, there is concern that the amount of new jobs that may be created through redevelopment in the City Centre may not be sufficient to create a proper live-work balance, since many of the new development applications in the City Centre reflect limited or no commercial or office floor space. Additionally, securing land for necessary public roadways and for parkland is challenging. To address this concern, staff recommend that the Region include stronger policy direction in the ROP regarding employment densities and the creation of complete communities within Urban Growth Centres. 6.2 Regional Corridors Regional Corridors form the key connections between Urban Growth Centres and other locations, and are intended to be higher density mixed-use areas that support higher order transit services and pedestrian oriented development. There are 13 Regional Corridors identified in the ROP, of which four are within Pickering: Kingston Road, Brock Road, Bayly Street, and Whites Road. The Paper states that preliminary discussions with area municipal staff indicate that not all Regional Corridors are equal in terms of their intensification potential, and that they do not share an equal level of current and planned transit service. Also, there are corridors that may be unsuitable or unable to accommodate intensification, and certain segments appear to be unable to achieve their intended function as outlined in the ROP. The Region will, through the MCR, consider the delineation of Regional Corridors that meet the definition of Strategic Growth Areas, and consider the policies that support the development of these areas. - 647 - Staff Review of the Growth Management Urban System Discussion Paper Page 11 of 21 The Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Study has recently concluded. Its conclusion has resulted in new draft urban design guidelines for the study area, and sets the stage for City-initiated Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments to facilitate the redevelopment and intensification of the lands along this Regional Corridor and within the node, in conformity with the Growth Plan and the ROP. Regional staff have been actively engaged in the study, and the study results should assist the Region in updating the Regional Corridor policies. Staff will continue coordinating with the Region to ensure consistency between any new local policy direction and any new regional policy direction regarding the corridor. The Paper also highlights the significance of the recently completed Regional Transportation Master Plan (RTMP), which sets out a higher order transit network, and points to the importance of aligning the RTMP with the Regional Corridors (Land Use) designations in the ROP. Accordingly, the Paper is seeking feedback as to whether the Region should delineate only those corridors with significant intensification potential that are also within the Higher Order Transit Network. City staff believes this is the best approach. There are only two high order transit corridors shown in the Metrolinx Regional Transportation Plan as “Frequent Rapid Transit – LRT/BRT”. These are Highway 2 (Kingston Road) from the Toronto-Pickering Boundary to Simcoe Street, and Simcoe Street from Highway 401 to Highway 407. In response to Questions 8 and 9, staff recommend that the Region in collaboration with each local area municipal staff, further review the extent of these corridors, uses, densities, and floor space indexes that would be necessary to support LRT service in the future. Staff does not believe a “corridor boundary” needs to be delineated in the ROP. The balance of the corridors shown in the Metrolinx Regional Transportation Plan that are priority bus corridors are best delineated and detailed in the area municipal official plans as “Local Corridors”. Corridors with frequent regional express services along 400 series highways or GO rail services which have limited stops (either at key interchanges or GO Station sites) do not warrant such a corridor treatment. Instead, the stations sites are more appropriately detailed through a Major Transit Station Area (e.g., Lakeshore East GO Stations) exercise or a Local Centre approach (e.g., 407 Transit-way stations). 6.3 Waterfront Places Waterfront Places are intended to be developed as focal points along the Lake Ontario waterfront and may include residential, commercial, and recreational uses, as well as marinas, tourism establishments and cultural and community facilities. There are five Waterfront Places identified in the ROP, including one in Pickering at Frenchman’s Bay. The ROP recognizes that each Waterfront Place has unique characteristics and permits development to occur at scale appropriate for the area. The Paper states that preliminary discussions with area municipal staff indicates a preference for continued flexibility to implement Waterfront Places, as opposed to delineating their boundaries in the ROP, and that not all Waterfront Places will continue to meet the definition of Strategic Growth Areas, since some are nearing built out while others have limited intensification potential. Accordingly, the Region is asking if Waterfront Places should be specifically designated in the ROP. - 648 - Staff Review of the Growth Management Urban System Discussion Paper Page 12 of 21 Although Waterfront Places are symbolically designated within the Regional Official Plan, there is no common definition of what comprises a Waterfront Place or standard method of delineating their boundaries. Furthermore, there is no rationale for the density target and floor space index target contained in the Regional Official Plan, and no requirement of the Province for the Region to detail such areas. While the plan provides a target density and FSI that can be applied where appropriate, this policy raises expectations that such targets will be applied to each area (i.e., not as an option, but as a requirement). In addition, the criteria in section 8A.2.13 of the Regional Official Plan for the waterfront places are not unique and could, and possibly should, be applied to any development that occurs along the waterfront. Since each location within Durham is unique, and in response to Question 10, staff recommend that the designation and delineation of Waterfront Places be dealt with as a local planning matter, similar to the approach for Local Centres. As such, it is suggested that the Waterfront Place symbols be removed from the Regional Official Plan, and that local municipalities be provided with greater discretion regarding the identification of areas for growth, and the distribution and density of development within their municipalities. 7. Major Transit Station Areas A Major Transit Station Area (MTSA) constitutes the area around existing or planned higher order transit within a settlement area, generally within 500 or 800 metre radius of a transit station, representing a 10 minute walk. The 2006 Growth Plan required MTSAs to be designated in official plans and planned to achieve a higher density and mix of uses, where appropriate. The new Growth Plan added more significance to MTSAs by prescribing density requirements for these areas, being a minimum density target of 150 residents and jobs combined per net hectare. The GO stations along the Lakeshore East GO Transit rail line through Durham have been identified as MTSAs, inclusive of the Pickering GO station. Under the Provincial Growth Plan, Pickering’s delineated Urban Growth Centre, which contains the GO station, must achieve an overall target of 200 residents and jobs combined per gross hectare. The Paper points to the new requirement in the Growth Plan that requires the detailed boundaries of MTSAs to be delineated in the ROP. The Paper also discusses the methodology Regional staff have developed, following the requirements of the Growth Plan and Provincial guidance documents, and by consulting with area municipal staff, to establish the principles and steps to guide the delineation of MTSAs in the ROP. The conceptual process for delineating MTSAs consists of a stepped “Start Big, Net Out, Net In, and Draft Boundary” process. Some of the key principles include: the application of a 500 and 800 metre radius from the centre of the rail platform, representing a 10 minute walking distance; avoiding non-developable areas, such as natural areas and highways; and excluding areas that are not intended or unsuitable for redevelopment, such as stable neighbourhoods that are intended to remain low density. - 649 - Staff Review of the Growth Management Urban System Discussion Paper Page 13 of 21 Regional staff held workshops with area municipal staff in January 2019, which resulted in the delineation of draft boundaries for each of the MTSAs in Durham. A copy of the draft MTSA in Pickering is contained in Attachment #2 to Report PLN 32-19. To be noted is that the majority of the proposed MTSA falls within the boundaries of the Pickering City Centre, where development is required to achieve a minimum density of 200 residents and jobs combined per gross hectare. In response to Questions 11 and 12, regarding the appropriateness of the proposed approach for delineating the boundaries for the MTSAs in the ROP, and the proposed draft MTSA delineation in Pickering, staff is of the opinion that the refined approach developed by the Region, in consultation with each of the local municipalities is appropriate, providing defensible and rational boundaries for these Major Transit Station Areas, as opposed to an arbitrary 500 metre or 800 metre radius from the centre of a station. Furthermore, the proposed boundaries of the MTSA in Pickering, shown in Attachment #1 of Appendix D of the Region’s Growth Management – Urban System Discussion Paper, are consistent with those discussed with Regional staff. 8. Growth Management Study Process The Paper outlines the key elements and steps of the Growth Management Study process, which can be summarized as follows. After the public consultation process in relation to this Discussion Paper, the Region will conduct a Land Needs Assessment (LNA) to plan for growth and determine the need for any settlement boundary expansions and/or employment area conversions. The LNA will determine the amount of land required to accommodate the Growth Plan’s 2041 population and employment forecast for Durham. The following studies will be undertaken by the Region to complete the LNA process: An Intensification Analysis and Strategy; A Designated Greenfield Area Analysis; an Employment Analysis; and a Housing Analysis. These studies will also assist the Region to answer other future growth related questions such as the following: Will the Region’s existing structure be able to accommodate the 2041 growth forecast? Are any additional Community (Living) Areas or Employment Areas required? Whether any of the prescribed targets in the Growth Plan cannot be met, and whether alternative targets are justified? 8.1 Settlement boundary expansion analysis If the LNA determines that additional land within the Community (Living) Areas or Employment Areas are needed beyond the existing urban boundary, a settlement boundary expansion analysis will be required. The outcome of that analysis would be to identify the most appropriate location(s) for the boundary expansion(s). The Growth Plan outlines the criteria for evaluating settlement are a boundary expansions, which includes matters such as: the capacity of existing or planned infrastructure and public service facilities; avoidance of key hydrologic areas and the Natural Heritage System for the Growth Plan; and the proposed expansion would be informed by applicable water and wastewater master plans or equivalent and stormwater master plans or equivalent, where appropriate. - 650 - Staff Review of the Growth Management Urban System Discussion Paper Page 14 of 21 In response to Question 13, other criteria that should be considered by the Region when evaluating settlement area boundary expansions, is “buffer planning”. The analysis to determine the location and amount of lands for any settlement boundary expansion, should also account for lands required to accommodate proper buffers between any new Community (Living) and Employment Areas, or Community Areas and Agricultural Areas, or Employment Areas and Agricultural Areas. Note: The Paper did not address the provision introduced through Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan that enables municipalities to advance residential and commercial development by permitting upper-tier municipalities to “adjust” or “expand” an urban settlement area boundary changes outside of a MCR, subject to specific criteria. Discussions with Regional staff confirmed that the Region would not consider a djusting or expanding any urban settlement area boundary outside the MCR process . Such a process would lead to piecemeal planning and is not supported by City staff. 8.2 Employment area conversion analysis If the LNA concludes that there is a surplus of Employment Area lands, the Region will consider the conversion of Employment Areas to non-employment uses. There are also several criteria, including criteria in the Growth Plan, aga inst which conversion request would have to be evaluated to determine the suita bility of non-employment uses. Some of the key criteria include the following: that there is a need for the conversion; and that the lands are not required over the horizon of the Plan for the employment purposes for which they are designated. Given that the ratio between population and jobs has been in decline, the Region needs to weigh the conversion of employment lands to other uses very carefully. In certain instances, the conversion of uses (e.g., from low intensity employment lands to higher intensity commercial or mixed use development) may render an increase in the total number of jobs being generated by the subject site. On the other hand, this may leave a municipality short of lands that it may need for large scale, but low intensity employment uses, which may need outside storage or may conflict with surrounding sensitive lands uses. In response to Question 14, staff recommend that a context sensitive analysis for any proposed Employment Area conversion be conducted, to ensure that job generating opportunities are not compromised or lost either on the subject lands, or as a result of impacts on the remaining employment lands. The Paper also provides a short discussion on Provincially Significant Employment Zones (PSEZ), which were identified in accordance with Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan. Requests for exclusions or additions to the PSEZ will be dealt with in accordance with the Province’s “Request for Reconsideration” process released in May 2019, and will be considered as part of the LNA process. Through the City’s comments on Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan, Council recommended that the Province revise the proposed PSEZ in Pickering by: excluding certain lands located within the City Centre South lands and a row of properties along the Bayly Street Mixed Use Corridor, as well as the Durham Live lands; and - 651 - Staff Review of the Growth Management Urban System Discussion Paper Page 15 of 21 including the Whites Road Prestige Employment Area in the West Shore Neighbourhood, and the Seaton Employment Lands along Highway 407 (the Pickering Innovation Corridor). Although these recommendations were not incorporated by the Province, Provincial staff met with the Region and area municipalities to discuss requested changes to the PSEZ. Regional staff provided the Province with a consolidated package of submissions from the area municipalities and the Region containing materials, (e.g., staff reports, Council resolutions, and mapping) in support of the reconsideration requests. Municipal staff were allowed to provide an overview of their municipality’s requests. An overview was also given of submissions from private landowners. No decisions were made at the meeting. Note: The Paper did not address the provisions introduced through Amendment 1 which enables upper-tier municipalities to designate new employment areas through an official plan amendment without the need for a MCR, and which provides municipalities with increased autonomy to convert lands within existing employment areas to non-employment uses prior to a MCR, subject to specific criteria. Discussions with Regional staff confirmed that the Region would not consider designating any new employment areas or the conversion of existing employment areas to non -employment uses outside the MCR process. 9. Additional Growth Management considerations 9.1 Servicing Growth The Region uses various financial tools to fund new infrastructure and services, with development charges (DCs) as the primary mechanism. The Region also has several funding programs to help support intensification projects that are eligible for financial incentives, such as the Intensification Servicing Policy, DCs credits for existing uses, the Regional revitalization program and the affordable housing program. The Paper highlights the importance of having a sufficient supply of serviced employment lands to expand industry, increase employment opportunities, and ensure jobs are located in proximity to Durham’s labour force. As with residential lands, the servicing of employment lands are done primarily through Regional DCs. The Growth Plan requires an integrated approach to land use planning and infrastructure investment. Accordingly, the Region will be considering matters such as leveraging existing infrastructure, directing infrastructure to appropriate areas to optimize infrastructure, considering full life cycle costs, providing sufficient infrastructure capacity in strategic growth areas, considering full life cycle costs, reviewing the impact of climate change on infrastructure in relation to its proposed growth management strategy, as well as the implications the changes to Development Charges Act through Bill 108 may have on how the Region finances services through growth. As previously noted, a key objective of the Growth Plan is to achieve complete communities. Whether they are urban, suburban or rural, complete communities: foster vibrant public interaction and give residents and workers a sense of place encourage active transportation - 652 - Staff Review of the Growth Management Urban System Discussion Paper Page 16 of 21 make efficient use of land and infrastructure support transit provide a mix of housing types and offer a range of affordability offer a range of employment opportunities offer access to healthy local food, and are designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address climate change. However, there is an extreme imbalance in the current composition of our communities within Durham (e.g., residential growth outpacing non-residential growth and the services necessary to support residential growth). The Region and area municipalities should be treating its Employment Areas as Strategic Growth Areas. In response to Question 15, staff recommend that the Region, through the MCR, consider the implementation of additional measures/strategies to shift the balance in favour non-residential growth. Such measures should include: making Durham’s employment lands more attractive and market ready, by: ensuring official plan and zoning designations are in place; pre-servicing strategic employment lands; and, making financial incentives available (e.g., tax increment financing, municipal grants, building permit and development charges subsidies), where appropriate. 9.2 Limited expansion for Urban Areas in the Greenbelt Plan and Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) The Growth Plan, the Greenbelt Plan and the ORMCP limit the amount of settlement area expansion that may be permitted in Durham’s northern urban areas namely, Uxbridge, Port Perry, Sunderland, Cannington, Beaverton and Orono. The Region will, through the L NA determine if any urban area boundary expansions within northern Durham are warranted. 9.3 Growth outside of the Urban System The amount of growth that may occur in areas outside the Durham Urban System, such as in rural settlements and on rural lands, are controlled by Provincial policy. For example, the minor rounding out of hamlets within the Greenbelt Plan is no longer permitted, which solidifies their boundaries, limiting growth to appropriate forms of infill and intensification. In spite of these restrictions, the Region estimates the potential for approximately 2,245 additional residential dwellings across Durham’s Rural Area. The majority of these lots (approximately 1,800) are located outside rural settlement areas. The Region will, through the MCR and LNA, consider development trends and potential in the Rural System. Staff note that Claremont Development Corporation’s appeal regarding their applications to develop a plan of subdivision on lands located partly outside the boundaries of the Hamlet of Claremont, remains before the LPAT. 9.4 Northeast Pickering The Paper refers to the Region’s LNA that was undertaken as part of its 2006 Growth Plan conformity exercise (ROPA 128), and notes that the Province, in its decision on ROPA 128: removed the proposed northeast Pickering urban expansion area (approximately 1,500 hectares), although Pickering’s overall population and employment allocations remained; and that as part of an Ontario Municipal Board settlement, ROPA policy 7.3.11 (p) was added to the ROP, requiring that the amount and rate of development in Seaton be - 653 - Staff Review of the Growth Management Urban System Discussion Paper Page 17 of 21 evaluated, and that the watershed plans for Carruther’s Creek and East Duffin Creek be updated, should urban area expansion be considered in this area during a future MCR process. The Carruther’s Creek Watershed Update Study is underway, with completion anticipated in the new year. With respect to the rate and amount of development in Seaton, the ROP defines the entire Seaton Urban Area as a “secondary plan area” and notes that prior to development occurring the next secondary plan area, 75 percent of the existing secondary plan area (i.e., 75 percent of the residentially developable lands) must be built-out. The Region will, through the MCR, consider the need to designate additional urban land, and the currently unallocated population and employment forecasts in Pickering, as part of the overall LNA process. In this regard, it is also important to note that the Council passed two motions on September 23, 2019 and November 25, 2019 respectively in relation to the possible future designation of additional urban land in Pickering. The motion passed by Council on September 23, 2019 requests that the Region of Durham include in their review: 1. All lands within the City of Pickering meeting 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, and • lands that have existing or planned infrastructure to support and accommodate growth; and 2. That the Region of Durham be requested to seek approval of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to use an alternate intensification rate of 45 percent for Durham Region that will enable greater flexibility to provide a more diverse range of grade related housing mix. A copy of this Motion (Council Resolution #140/19) is contained in Attachment #3 to Report PLN 32-19. The motion passed by Council on November 25, 2019 states that the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering supports the Vision and Community Planning Principles for the lands in northeast Pickering known as Veraine, and reaffirms its request that the Region of Durham include these lands in the settlement area boundary during its current Municipal Comprehensive Review. A copy of this Motion (Council Resolution #173/19) is contained in Attachment #4 to Report PLN 32-19. 9.5 Airports The ROP identifies the Pickering Federal Airport Lands in Pickering and the Oshawa airport on Schedule A (MAP A4), Regional Structure. The ROP contains “Economic Development” policies that recognize the importance of key economic drivers that will influence the future - 654 - Staff Review of the Growth Management Urban System Discussion Paper Page 18 of 21 growth of the Region, and policies that require Regional Council to request the Federal and/or Provincial Government to improve accessibility to Employment Areas and increase employment opportunities by expediting the construction of an airport on the Federal Airport Lands. The Paper provides information regarding the Oshawa airport and the function it fulfills, and discusses the Federal airport lands in Pickering by noting: the reduction of its initial size, with the redundant lands becoming part of the Rouge National Urban Park; the Federal Government’s update to the Airport Site Order and the Pickering Airport Zoning Regulations, initiated in 2015; that a decision has not yet been made by the Federal Government regarding whether or not to proceed with the airport in Pickering; and that the Regional Council confirmed its support, in principle, for the development of an airport in the City of Pickering. The Region will, through the MCR, consider the overall impacts of airports. Although there is still uncertainty as to whether the Federal Government is going to support the development of an airport in Pickering, the Region’s LNA should consider a scenario reflecting a future airport and the potential implications it may have in terms of population and employment allocation and growth. 9.6 Nuclear generating stations There are two nuclear generating stations in Durham, one in Clarington (the Darlington plant) and one in Pickering. The direct and indirect employment associated with the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station is estimated at 7,500 jobs, of which 4,500 are in Durham. The Paper notes that the Pickering station is expected to cease operation in 2024, and will then undergo a long process of decommissioning, followed by eventual demolition and site restoration. The 2014 PPS (and the draft 2019 PPS) provide policy direction regarding the separation of major facilities, such as nuclear stations, from sensitive land uses. Development within proximity of the two nuclear stations must consider the risks and impacts associated with these facilities, including appropriate separation and required road network improvements to ensure the ability to safely and quickly evacuate the areas in case of an emergency. The Region will, through the MCR, consider land use compatibility between major facilities, (including the two nuclear stations) and sensitive land uses, the ongoing refurbishment and potential expansion of the Darlington Nuclear Station, and the future closure of the Pickering station. It is anticipated that the Region’s Employment Analysis, which will form part of the LNA process, will consider the implications of the future closure of the Pickering station. 10. Policy Considerations The Paper provides an overview of a number of policy topics that will be further considered through the MCR, including Specific Policy Area A (Central Pickering Development Plan), - 655 - Staff Review of the Growth Management Urban System Discussion Paper Page 19 of 21 telecommunications and broadband, strong and vibrant downtowns, and places of worship in Employment Areas. 10.1 Specific Policy Area A – Central Pickering Development Plan (CPDP) Area The ROP identifies the CPDP area as Specific Policy Area A, and it is reflected on Schedules ‘A’ (Regional Structure), ‘B’ (Natural Heritage System & Key Natural Heritage and Hydrologic Features) and ‘C’ (Road Network), and the related policies in the ROP provide high-level direction on how development in the Seaton Urban Area will occur, including the requirement that all development be in accordance with the CPDP. The Paper refers to progress that has been made in the planning and development of Seaton and notes that various planning approvals have been put in places to enable development in Seaton (e.g., Amendment 22 to the Pickering Official Plan, Neighbourhoods plans, approval of draft plans of subdivision and zoning by-laws). Since the requisite planning approvals are in place to enable development, the Region will, through the MCR, consider whether it is appropriate to apply a Regional Structure, consisting of appropriate Regional land use designations to lands within the CPDP area. A comprehensive review of the Central Pickering Development Plan (CPDP) should have started in 2017. However, the Province has not taken steps to do so, and it appears that they do not have the resources to move forward with this undertaking or assist with the installation of key infrastructure in the Employment Lands. Accordingly, in response to Question 16, staff recommend that appropriate designations and policies be included in the Durham Region Official Plan, to bring the ROP into conformity with the CPDP. Where necessary, specific policies for select par ts of the geographic area of the Seaton Urban Area or the Agricultural Preserve may be required to capture the nuances of the CPDP. This would be consistent with the ROP being brought into conformity with the Greenbelt Plan, or A Place to Grow, for example. 10.2 Telecommunications and broadband In February 2019, Regional Council endorsed in principle “Connecting our Communities: a Broadband Strategy for Durham Region”. The Strategy identified certain actions to support improved broadband connectivity through the region, including that the Region consider the incorporation of new policies in its ROP that would support the inclusion of broadband infrastructure in new development. Through Amendment 31 (approved by the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal in June 2019), the City incorporated policies in the Pickering Official Plan to strengthen and support the development of an Information and Communication Technology (ICT) network, and the implementation of the “Dig Once” Standard. As noted in the response to Question 2, staff recommended that a goal should be added for the Urban System to become a “smart” connected community by such means as providing broadband infrastructure in all Regional roads. Further, in response to Question 17, staff recommend that the Region, through the MCR, examine the “Smart City” approach and consider the inclusion of policies addressing existing and next generation - 656 - Staff Review of the Growth Management Urban System Discussion Paper Page 20 of 21 information and communication technologies. The City of London Plan provides a good example of the type of policies that could be developed in this regard. With respect to broadband, staff recommend that the Region adopt a “dig once” policy to ensure that a comprehensive network is advanced across the Region, and that the Region allow for the shared use of its conduit and assist local municipalities in the development of localized networks and the provision of broadband services to rural settlement areas. 10.3 Strong and vibrant downtowns The Paper describes the various functions downtowns fulfill, noting their value as cultural, recreational, residential and employment centres, and serving as catalysts for economic development within Durham. The ROP currently deals with downtowns through its “Centres” polices, distinguishing between Urban Growth Centres (e.g., Pickering and Oshawa City Centres), Regional Centres (e.g., Whitby downtown) that are recognized as the key areas for intensification within the Region’s Urban System, and permits the designation of local centres in local official plans. The Region will, through the MCR, consider policies to further support the achievement of strong and vibrant, healthy downtowns. For the most part, staff is of the opinion that the Regional Official Plan provides sufficient direction and support for the development of Urban Growth Centres, Regional and Local Centres. Through Amendment 26 to the Pickering Official Plan (approved by the Ontario Municipal Board in 2015), the City incorporated a robust set of policies to facilitate the redevelopment and intensification of the City Centre into a vibrant mixed-use, transit oriented, pedestrian-friendly downtown. In response to Question 18, the one area staff has identified that could use further Regional policy support is the requirement for area municipalities to designate sufficient lands for community facilities (such as parkland, community centres, schools) within the centres so that as intensification takes place, the achievement of strong, vibrant and healthy downtowns can be achieved, instead of becoming mostly residential, devoid of the amenities that made the suburbs attractive places to live and raise a family. 10.4 Places of worship in Employment Areas The decrease of institutionally zoned lands and the diversification of the faith base of communities has resulted in faith groups seeking permissions to build on lands in other zones and designations, such as Employment Areas. According to the Region’s 2018 business count, there are 37 places of worship within Employment Areas in Durham. Through the last review of the ROP, the Province required the ROP to prohibit the establishment of new places of worship within Employment Areas, as places of worship are regarded as sensitive land uses that requires separation from noise, pollutants and other impacts from industrial operations. - 657 - Staff Review of the Growth Management Urban System Discussion Paper Page 21 of 21 Places of worship often operate with limited budgets. Since land costs and leases are often cheaper in Employment Areas, numerous places of worship have gravitated to such locations. Others seek a small, affordable spaces to start or grow their congregation, and often end up occupying smaller industrial units because it is more affordable than commercial floor space. Many places of worship have evolved into multi-functional community facilities addressing not only the spiritual, but also the mental, physical, and intellectual needs of people through services such as day care, soup kitchens, financial and relational counselling and other social services, fulfilling an important role in community building and wellbeing. However, their locations within Employment Areas are not always the best locations to serve their congregations, and such uses may negatively impact or conflict with certain industrial uses. To outright prohibit places of worship from Employment Areas may be appropriate from a land use compatibility point of view, but it is a “band aid” solution and is not satisfactorily addressing the problem. Accordingly, in response to Question 19, staff recommend that the Region, through the MCR, consider the means to address the challenges faced by places of worship to establish within residential areas , taking into account the functions and services they offer within the context of building “complete communities”. Additionally, the Region should request that the Province allow places of worship in Employment Area designations depending on the site -specific location and the particular suite of uses the place of worship plans to provide (e.g., day care; other education classes). The Region could also explore mandatory designation of institutional land for such facilities as an integral requirement through any employment land conversion or urban area expansion. 11. Conclusion The above review provides a synopsis of the Region’s Growth Management (Urban System) Discussion Paper, answers questions, and highlights key issues which, in the opinion of staff, should also be considered through the MCR process. - 658 - Attachment #1 to Report #PLN 32-19 Overview of the Region of Durham’s Municipal Comprehensive Review of its Official Plan 1. Background The Planning Act requires that municipal official plans be reviewed every five years to ensure that the plans have regard to matters of Provincial interest, are consistent with Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), and conform to Provincial Land Use Plans. The current Durham Regional Official Plan (ROP) was approved in 1993 and has over 150 amendments to keep it up-to-date with changing provincial plans and policies. On May 2, 2018, Regional Council authorized staff to proceed with the Municipal Comprehensive Review (MCR) of the ROP titled “Envision Durham, 2041 Our Region, Our Plan, Our Future” (or “Envision Durham”). “Envision Durham” offers a strategic opportunity to create a completely new plan with an advanced planning vision for the Region to 2041. 1.1 What are the key components of the Region’s MCR? The MCR is structured around the following strategic planning themes: The Agriculture and Rural System (Discussion Paper released March 5, 2019; Pickering Council commented through Council Resolution #94/19, dated May 27, 2019); Climate Change and Sustainability (Discussion Paper released May 7, 2019; Pickering Council commented through Council Resolution #150/19, dated October 21, 2019); Growth Management (Urban System Discussion Paper released June 4, 2019; subject of this Report; to be considered at the December 16, 2019 Council meeting); Environment and Greenlands System (released September 3, 2019; under review); Transportation System (released October 1, 2019; under review), and Housing (to be released in December 2019); 1.2 The MCR and Public Engagement The public engagement program and its timeline associated with the MCR consists of four stages: Discover (2019), Discuss (2019), Direct (2020), and Draft (2021 -2022). On February 5, 2019, the Region initiated the first stage (“Discover”) of the “Envision Durham” public engagement program by launching the project website: durham.ca/Envision Durham, as well as a public opinion survey, which closed on April 6, 2019. The Region also created an introductory video on the project, which can be viewed on the project website. In addition, the Region set up “pop-up” information kiosks in various locations, as part of their public engagement launch. In accordance with the public engagement program, each stage of the project will be promoted through news releases, the project website, social media platforms, and public service announcements. - 659 - Highway 40 1 DouglasAvenueLiverpoolRoadBowlerDrive FieldlightBoulevardGlenviewRoadBayly Street Modlin RoadK in g stonR oadG le nanna Road Begley StreetT a n z e r C ourtWalnutLaneSandy Beach RoadKrosnoBoulevardAlyssum Street D ra v a Street ZatorAvenueReytanBoulevardGarvolin Avenue Brixton L a n e ValleyFarmRoadTatra Drive St Martins DriveBem AvenueSangro LaneNaroch BoulevardFuschia Lane Grenoble BoulevardPatmore Lane Haller Avenue Bronwen Lane Morden L a n e RadomStreet Glendale DriveBicroftCourtPoprad Avenue ChapleauDriveAlliance RoadCharl otteCircleMalden CrescentBrands Court D ie f e n b aker CourtGlengrove RoadThe Esplan a d e S Pickering P a r k w a y Fordon Ave n u e FairviewA v e n ue T h e E s p la n a d e N Miriam RoadStorringtonSt r e e t Antonio StreetListowell CrescentBronteSquareAvonmore Square 1:10,000 SCALE: © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City Development Department Draft Delineation THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Feb. 05, 2019 ¯Proposed Major Transit Station Area Attachment #2 to Report #PLN 32-19 - 660 - Attachment #3 to Report #PLN 32-19 Council Decision Resolution #140/19 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; 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; - 661 - Council Decision Resolution #140/19 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; 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 a ge 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. - 662 - Attachment #4 to Report #PLN 32-19 Council Decision Resolution #173/19 WHEREAS, at the September 23, 2019 Council meeting, the City of Pickering adopted Resolution #140/19 “An Age Friendly Affordable Housing Strategy”; And Whereas, included in this Resolution was a request for Durham Region to include in their Municipal Comprehensive Review all lands within the City of Pickering that meet the following criteria: lands not restricted by availability of servicing lands that do not compromise 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; And Whereas, at the Planning and Development Committee meeting of November 4, 2019, the Community of Veraine presentation was made to the City of Pickering, being a new community proposed for northeast Pickering based on thriving, connected and complete community principles that comprise inclusivity and affordability; And Whereas, among other things Veraine provides an opportunity that can address the need for age friendly, affordable housing options for future generations for decades to come; Now therefore be it resolved that the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering: 1.Supports the Vision and Community Planning Principles for the lands in northeast Pickering known as Veraine, and reaffirms its request that the Region of Durham include these lands in the settlement area boundary during its current Municipal Comprehensive Review; 2.That City Staff be directed to report back to Committee in Q1 2020 outlining a process to initiate a secondary plan for the new community of Veraine based on the Community Planning Principles in Appendix 1 attached to this Motion; 3.That City Staff be directed through the CAO’s Office to discuss with the landowners an arrangement for a dedicated team that will work on the Veraine file, without impacting other priorities of the City of Pickering; and, 4.That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Region of Durham. - 663 -