The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutJanuary 4, 2021 Executive Committee Meeting Agenda January 4, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Ashe For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Due to COVID-19 and the Premier’s Emergency Orders to limit gatherings and maintain physical distancing, the City of Pickering continues to hold electronic Council and Committee Meetings. Members of the public may observe the meeting proceedings by viewing the livestream. A recording of the meeting will also be available on the City’s website following the meeting. Page 1. Roll Call 2. Disclosure of Interest 3. Delegations Due to COVID-19 and the Premier’s Emergency Orders to limit gatherings and maintain physical distancing, members of the public looking to provide a verbal delegation to Members of the Executive Committee, may do so via audio connection into the electronic meeting. To register as a delegate, visit www.pickering.ca/delegation, and complete the on-line delegation form or email clerks@pickering.ca. Persons who wish to speak to an item that is on the agenda must register by 12:00 noon on the last business day before the meeting. All delegations for items not listed on the agenda shall register ten (10) days prior to the meeting date. The list of delegates who have registered to speak will be called upon one by one by the Chair and invited to join the meeting via audio connection. A maximum of 10 minutes shall be allotted for each delegation. Please ensure you provide the phone number that you wish to be contacted on. Please be advised that your name and address will appear in the public record and will be posted on the City’s website as part of the meeting minutes. 3.1 Celia Cooper, Esther Forde, Nikosa Holland, and Michelle Francis Pickering Cultural Advisory Committee Re: Pickering Anti-Black Racism Taskforce (PABRT) Preparatory Subcommittee Action Plan Update 4. Matters for Consideration 4.1 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report CLK 01-21 1 Ward Boundary Review Executive Committee Meeting Agenda January 4, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Ashe For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca - Interim Report – Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Consultant Delegation Jack Ammendolia, Managing Partner and Director, Education, Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., and Dr. Robert J. Williams, Public Affairs Consultant, on Report CLK 01-21 Recommendation: That Report CLK 01-21, regarding the Ward Boundary Review Interim Report, from Watson & Associates Economist Ltd., be received for information. 4.2 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 01-21 54 Municipal Bridge Maximum Gross Vehicle Weight Restrictions -By-law to establish a load limit for certain bridges under the jurisdiction of the City of Pickering Recommendation: 1.That the attached draft By-law limiting the gross vehicle weight of any vehicle or any class thereof, passing over certain bridges, under the jurisdiction of The Corporation of the City of Pickering be enacted; and, 2.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 4.3 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report LEG 01-21 69 Broadband Service for Whitevale and Green River - ICON Grant Funding Stage 2 Recommendation: 1.That Council approve payment by the City of $150,000.00 towards the project to deliver broadband services to the residents and businesses of Green River and Whitevale, which payment will be made by the City upon receipt of the written commitment of Vianet Inc. to proceed with and complete construction of the project; Executive Committee Meeting Agenda January 4, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Ashe For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 2. That staff be directed to continue working with Vianet Inc. to complete its submission of an application for grant funding from the Province’s Improving Connectivity for Ontario (ICON) Program by January 27, 2021; and, 3. That appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 4.4 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 01-21 83 Pickering Environmental Schools Grant - Results of the First Year of Funding Recommendation: 1. That Report PLN 01-21 of the Director, City Development & CBO on the results of the Pickering Environmental Schools Grant be received for information; and, 2. That a copy of Report PLN 01-21 be forwarded to the Durham Catholic District School Board (DCDSB) and Durham District School Board (DDSB) Trustees for City of Pickering, DCDSB and DDSB Directors of Education, DCDSB Superintendent of Facilities Services, DDSB EcoSchools Facilitator, DDSB Education Officer (Curriculum Grades 7-12) and eLearning Administrator, DDSB, Administrative Assistant, Student Achievement & Curriculum Department. 5. Other Business 6. Adjournment Report to Executive Committee Report Number: CLK 01-21 Date: January 4, 2021 From: Paul Bigioni Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor Subject: Ward Boundary Review -Interim Report – Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. -File: A-1440 Recommendation: That Report CLK 01-21, regarding the Ward Boundary Review Interim Report, from Watson & Associates Economist Ltd., be received for information. Executive Summary: Pickering’s Ward Boundary Review is currently underway and this Report serves to provide an Interim Report from Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., the Consultants for the Review, which includes background information and preliminary options and concepts for the City’s ward boundaries and Council composition. The complete Interim Report is included as Attachment #1 to CLK 01-21 and is provided for information. An important facet of the Ward Boundary Review to date has been public consultation. On July 27, 2020, through Resolution # 381/20, Council adopted revised Terms of Reference for the approved Ward Boundary Review, to allow the use of electronic platforms for Phase 1 of the Review’s public engagement. The need to move to such electronic platforms was due to the Provincial Orders and restrictions in place arising from COVID-19. The use of electronic platforms allowed the Review to continue so that any changes to the City’s ward boundaries could be in place by the legislated timeframes and for the 2022 Municipal Election. A robust communication plan commenced on September 23, 2020 and four Virtual Open Houses were conducted in October. To complement the open houses, a survey was launched on October 7, 2020 and available until November 2, 2020. The data collected from the survey and the open houses, along with population and GIS data, have been used to inform the Interim Report from Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. (Attachment #1). Financial Implications: There are no financial implications associated with this Interim Report and any funds required to move forward with the Review have been previously approved by Council. Discussion: At the Council meeting of November 13, 2017, through Resolution # 365/17, Council approved proposal RFP-10-2017, to engage the consulting services of Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., in association with Dr. Robert J. Williams, to conduct the ward boundary review prior to the 2022 Municipal Election. That work was suspended pending a - 1 - CLK 01-21 January 4, 2021 Subject: Ward Boundary Review Interim Report – Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Page 2 decision on the Regional Government Review that was undertaken by the Province of Ontario in mid-2019. As there were no implications to the City’s existing geographic boundaries from the Provincial Review, City staff began to move forward with the project and presented the Terms of Reference which were adopted by Council, through Resolution #187/19, at the December 16, 2019 Council Meeting. Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic and the State of Emergency declared by the Province of Ontario on March 17, 2020, and the City of Pickering on March 24, 2020, the project was once again suspended. In order for the Ward Boundary Review to be completed and take effect for the 2022 Municipal Election, the By-law to amend the City’s Wards must be adopted and in full force and effect by December 31, 2021. Under the Municipal Act, there is also a 45 day appeal period once the By- law is adopted by Council. With these timeframes in mind, it is necessary to complete the Ward Boundary Review, and potentially adopt a Ward Boundary By-law, by mid-2021 so that there is time to complete all necessary work associated with any ward changes that will impact various aspects of the 2022 Municipal Election. To facilitate moving forward with the Review during the pandemic, electronic media and virtual opens houses were used to replace the typical in-person engagement that would have taken place outside of a pandemic. With the restrictions in place for COVID-19, it was paramount to utilize as many media as possible, both electronic and traditional, to promote and engage the public during Phase 1 of the public consultation process. This included a robust communication plan and virtual open houses using the Microsoft Teams platform which was fully facilitated by the Consultants. The following provides a list of the various media and efforts used to engage the public, and further details are included in the Interim Report provided by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. (Attachment #1): • Media release to kick-off Phase 1 • E-blasts through Corporate Communications and the City’s distribution lists • Dedicated Webpage advertised on all print and digital media • Whiteboard Animation Video to provide education on what a Ward Boundary Review entails • Brain Teaser Survey to provide a fun interactive tool to engage citizens • Virtual Public Open Houses – 4 in total, held on October 7th and 15th at 2:00 pm and 7:00 pm • Online and paper surveys (available at City Hall and Pickering Public Library – see Attachment #2) • Print newspaper advertisements on September 14th, 21st, and 28th to promote the webpage, survey and virtual open houses • Use of the Pickering Public Library website to promote the Review and display of a large floor banner in the Central Library lobby • Use of webpage banners on the City’s website homepage • Regular posts and promotion of the Review on all City social media platforms (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram) • Displays on all 4 of the City’s digital signs from September 15 to October 30, 2020 - 2 - CLK 01-21 January 4, 2021 Subject: Ward Boundary Review Interim Report – Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Page 3 •Promotion at the October Pickering Farmer’s Market •Flyer inserts in 300 curbside shred giveaway bags •Distribution of approximately 33,800 rack cards in the Interim Tax Bills (mailed to residents in November/December 2020 and January/February 2021) The Interim Report by Watson & Associates (Attachment #1) will be posted on the City’s dedicated Ward Boundary Review webpage following the Executive Committee Meeting and Phase 2 of public engagement will commence in February/March of 2021. Phase 2 will provide ward boundary and Council composition options to the public who will have an opportunity to comment and ask questions. Once all feedback from Phase 2 has been collected, a recommendation on the ward boundaries and Council composition will be brought forward to the Executive Committee in May for approval with subsequent adoption of a by-law (if applicable) before summer recess. This report is provided for Council’s information as the Ward Boundary Review enters Phase 2. Attachments: 1.Interim Report – Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. 2.Ward Boundary Review Phase 1 Survey Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Susan Cassel Paul Bigioni City Clerk Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor SC:sc Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Marisa Carpino, M.A. Interim Chief Administrative Officer Original Signed By:Original Signed By: Original Signed By: - 3 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. 905-272-3600 December, 2020 info@watsonecon.ca In association with: Dr. Robert J. Williams 2020/2021 Ward Boundary Review City of Pickering ________________________ Interim Report Attachment #1 to Report CLK 01-21 - 4 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report Table of Contents Page 1. Background ......................................................................................................... 1 2. Study Objective .................................................................................................. 1 3. Project Structure and Timeline .......................................................................... 2 4. Existing Population and Forecast Growth in the City of Pickering ................ 3 4.1 Existing Population and Structure .............................................................. 3 4.2 Forecast Population Growth, 2020 to 2030 ................................................ 4 5. Public Consultation ............................................................................................ 6 6. What We Heard ................................................................................................... 7 7. Evaluation of Existing Ward Structure ........................................................... 13 7.1 Representation by Population .................................................................. 14 7.2 Protection of Communities of Interest and Neighbourhoods .................... 15 7.3 Current and Future Population Trends..................................................... 17 7.4 Physical Features as Natural Boundaries ................................................ 18 7.5 Effective Representation .......................................................................... 19 8. Alternative Ward Boundary Options ............................................................... 21 8.1 Evaluation Summary ................................................................................ 43 8.2 Further Considerations ............................................................................ 44 - 5 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 1 Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report 1. Background The City of Pickering has retained Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., in association with Dr. Robert J. Williams, hereinafter referred to as the Consultant Team, to conduct a comprehensive and independent Ward Boundary Review (W.B.R.). The primary purpose of the study is to prepare Pickering Council to make decisions on whether to maintain the existing ward structure or to adopt an alternative. Other matters are integral to a comprehensive review, including: • What guiding principles will be observed in the design of the wards? • Is it appropriate to consider changing the composition (size) of Council as part of the same review? • Is it appropriate to consider dissolving the wards to elect councillors at-large (in what the Municipal Act, 2001 calls a “general vote” system)? This review is premised on the democratic expectation that municipal representation in Pickering would be effective, equitable, and an accurate reflection of the contemporary distribution of communities and people across the City. 2. Study Objective The project has a number of key objectives: • Develop a clear understanding of the present ward system, including its origins and operations as a system of representation; • Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the present ward system on the basis of guiding principles adopted for the study; • Develop and conduct an appropriate consultation process in accordance with Pickering’s public engagement practices during the coronavirus disease (COVID- 19) public health emergency to ensure community support for the review and its outcome; • Prepare population projections for the development and evaluation of alternative electoral structures for the 2022, 2026, and 2030 municipal elections; and • Deliver a report that will set out recommended alternative ward boundaries to ensure effective and equitable electoral arrangements for Pickering, based on the principles identified. - 6 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2 Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report In October 2020, the Consultant Team prepared a Discussion Paper that set out: • The basic electoral arrangements in Pickering; • Council’s legislative authority to modify electoral arrangements in the City; • A sketch of potential modifications open to Council (the size of Council, the method of election for councillors, alternative ward configurations); and • Guiding principles that could be considered by a municipality when establishing or modifying its ward system.1 The purpose of this Interim Report is to provide: • A summary of the work completed to date; • A summary of the information received from the public engagement sessions and tools, such as the survey and website; and • A series of initial ward boundary options for consideration. After the release of this report, the public will once again be engaged to provide feedback on each alternative model. 3. Project Structure and Timeline Council adopted the terms of reference for the W.B.R. in December 2019. Work completed to-date includes: • Research and data compilation; • Interviews with councillors, the Mayor, and municipal staff; and • Public consultation on the existing ward structure. Interviews with staff and Council, and meetings with the Clerk’s office and other staff concerning this study, were initially conducted in person but were suspended in March 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Following public health guidelines on gatherings, the Consultant Team conducted the initial round of public consultation (four sessions) electronically. 1 https://www.pickering.ca/en/city-hall/resources/WBR/Pickering-2020-Ward-Boundary- Review-Discussion-Paper.pdf - 7 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3 Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report 4. Existing Population and Forecast Growth in the City of Pickering As previously discussed, a basic premise of representative democracy in Canada is the notion that the geographic areas used to elect a representative should be reasonably balanced with one another in terms of population. Accordingly, a detailed population estimate for the City of Pickering, including its constituent wards and communities, was prepared to allow evaluation of the existing ward structure and subsequent alternatives in terms of representation by population in the current year (2020). The City of Pickering is forecast to experience significant and urbanized (both South Urban Lands and Seaton Lands) population growth over the next decade and beyond. For this reason, it is important that this study assesses representation by population for both existing and future year populations. In accordance with the study terms of reference, the analysis considered representation of population over the next three municipal elections through to 2030. A population and housing forecast for the City for the 2020 to 2030 period was determined, and the results of this analysis are discussed below. 4.1 Existing Population and Structure As mentioned, this study needs to look at the existing as well as future population distribution. A mid-2020 population estimate was derived by utilizing the 2016 Census and a review of building permit activity from 2016 through the end of 2019, with an assumed six-month lag from issuance to occupancy. Pickering’s estimated 2020 population is 99,900.1 The City’s 2020 total population is presented by area in Table 4-1. As shown, the South Urban Lands account for the majority of population, that is approximately 93% of the current population (93,000), and is anticipated to continue to grow. 1 Reflects a mid-2020 population estimate and includes Census undercount of approximately 4.0%. - 8 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 4 Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report Table 4-1: 2020 Population by Community 4.2 Forecast Population Growth, 2020 to 2030 The Consultant Team prepared a City-wide population forecast for the 2020 to 2030 period that is consistent with the City of Pickering’s latest growth projections.1 Community-level growth allocations were guided by a comprehensive review of opportunities to accommodate future residential growth through plans of subdivision (registered unbuilt, draft approved, and proposed), and site plan applications. By 2030, Pickering’s population is anticipated to grow by approximately 58,000, bringing the total population (including undercount) to approximately 157,900, an increase of approximately 58%. A majority of this growth is anticipated to occur north of the current urban lands and within the Seaton Lands south of Highway 407. Seaton is anticipating a growth of over 13,000 units over the ten-year horizon, equating to growth of approximately 38,200 persons.2 This accounts for 66% of the City’s growth, while the remaining 33% is expected to occur within the current South Urban Lands (19,400 persons) with minimal growth anticipated in northern rural Pickering (400 persons) as shown below in Table 4-2. 1 City of Pickering Detailed 20 Year Population Forecast (December 31, 2019). 2 Includes Census undercount of approximately 4.0%. Geographic Location 2020 Population1 South Urban Lands 93,000 Seaton Lands 2,500 Remaining Rural 4,400 Total 99,900 Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. 2020. 1 Includes Census undercount of approximately 4.0%. Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding. - 9 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 5 Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report Table 4-2: Population Growth, 2020 to 2030 The development of the Seaton Lands will change the landscape of Pickering from a southern urbanized City with a sparse northern rural community to a fully developed City south of Highway 407. Moreover, the growth in Seaton is anticipated to occur rapidly over the next 10 years. The Seaton urban neighbourhood is currently (2020) home to approximately 800 housing units and 2,300 people. It is anticipated that this area will grow by more than 13,000 units over the ten-year horizon, with approximately 56% (7,250) of those units being added by 2024. This rapid growth over the next five-year time horizon is equivalent to adding approximately 21,000 persons, similar to incorporating the current population of the Townships of Scugog or Uxbridge, into Pickering. The outcome will be that these central rural lands will be converted into a predominantly urban landscape.1 Figure 4-1: Population Growth by Area, 2020 to 2024 1 Source: City of Pickering Detailed 20 Year Population Forecast (December 31, 2019). Population figures exclude the Census undercount. Geographic Location 2020 Population1 2030 Population1 2020-2030 Growth South Urban Lands 93,000 112,400 19,400 Seaton Lands 2,500 40,700 38,200 Remaining Rural 4,400 4,800 400 Total 99,900 157,900 58,000 Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. 2020. 1 Includes Census undercount of approximately 4.0%. Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding. - 10 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 6 Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report 5. Public Consultation The W.B.R. incorporated a public engagement component that was delivered virtually and designed to: • Inform residents of Pickering about the reason for the W.B.R. and the key factors that were considered in the review; and • Engage the residents in a manner that provides valuable input to the evaluation of the existing ward structure and development of alternative ward boundaries. Following public health guidelines put in place following the COVID -19 outbreak, four public open houses were conducted on October 7 and October 15, 2020 with two virtual consultation sessions each day. The Consultant Team’s presentation and other information about the review, including the audio recording of the Virtual Public Open Houses, are available on the City’s website: https://www.pickering.ca/en/city-hall/ward-boundary-review.aspx Through the public consultation sessions, a survey, and the project website’s online comment/feedback form, participants were invited to provide their input/opinions with respect to the following: • Existing Ward Structure – Strengths and weaknesses of the current ward structure. • Guiding Principles – Which guiding principles should be given the greatest priority in the development of ward boundaries? The feedback and comments collected through the public consultation process are reflected in the analysis presented below and have helped inform the preliminary set of ward options. While public input from consultation provides valuable insight into the review, it is not relied on exclusively. The Consultant Team utilized the public input in conjunction with its professional expertise and experience in W.B.R.s, along with best practices, to develop the preliminary options presented herein. The public will have another opportunity in the near future to comment on alternative ward system options. - 11 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 7 Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report 6. What We Heard As discussed above, the Consultant Team has solicited feedback from staff, Council, and the public in the City of Pickering through three main avenues: • Interviews with members of Council, the Mayor, and key members of staff; • Four virtual public engagement sessions; and • A survey and engagement website where comments were collected. There was a moderate level of public participation in the W.B.R. public consultation process. Attendance at the public engagement sessions averaged approximately five persons per session. Each open house engagement session was done on an online video call-in platform where residents had the ability to sign in using their computers through the internet or, if technology or internet was a concern, there was also the option to call in (toll free) via telephone. A presentation and informational video were shown, followed by a question-and-answer session and discussions. Participants had the option to ask questions or leave comments either verbally or through the written chat feature. The open houses were advertised by the City through various means including the website, signage, and notices. For example, the City’s four digital signs were used to help advertise the W.B.R. between September 15 and October 30, 2020. In addition to the public information sessions, there are a number of resources available on the aforementioned web page dedicated to this W.B.R. process. Between July and October, there were almost 2,400 unique views of the W.B.R. website. The City’s social media presence was also used to raise awareness of the project and advertise important dates and events (see Figure 6-1). There were approximately 13 Twitter posts (tweets) between September and October reaching more than 12,500 people and those tweets were retweeted multiple times. There were also 13 Facebook posts reaching more than 20,500 people as well as Instagram posts and stories, all reaching thousands of residents. The online survey received 74 responses and asked questions ranging from the strengths and weaknesses of Pickering’s wards to thoughts on the guiding principles framing this study. - 12 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 8 Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report Figure 6-1: City of Pickering W.B.R. Survey Page Through each avenue, the Consultant Team has heard a number of consistent and important points about the current ward system and the principles used to guide this W.B.R. 1. Those living in Pickering felt strongly that the existing ward system suffers from both population imbalances as well as underrepresentation of certain communities, making it difficult to achieve effective representation. Residents were also concerned with how the significant growth expected in Pickering would be integrated into the existing ward boundaries. In particular, the Consultant Team heard about similar perspectives regarding the challenges in Ward 3 because of its geographic size, its existing and growing population, and the mix of residents and communities. 2. There are strong rural and agricultural interests and many well-established hamlets that are not specifically represented on Council. While the Consultant Team has been told the current councillors do an admirable job representing both rural and urban parts of Ward 3, it is not a foregone conclusion that the same would necessarily hold true for future Councils. Wards are not built around incumbent officeholders. There were responses in the survey that indicated there are “two distinct Pickerings, one rural and one urban. The issues are vastly - 13 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 9 Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report different. North Pickering deserves its own representation,” and another resident also said, “Create a new north Pickering ward.” The rural and urban issues, however, are further complicated by two main issues. Firstly, the existing rural portion of Pickering is sparsely populated, making it difficult to create a rural ward while still achieving any type of reasonable population parity . Secondly, a significant part of Pickering’s existing rural area (most of the area south of Highway 407) is projected to grow significantly over the next five to ten years, transforming into a dense urban area with significant housing and employment. 3. The role of Regional Councillors is not always well known to some members of the community. Having Regional Councillors attached to a specific location (that is, to specific wards) has proven helpful and has allowed residents a more direct connection to those representing them. Regional Councillors are also strong advocates for their wards on both the Local and Regional Councils and ease the workload of Local Councillors. This W.B.R. cannot make any recommendations on the number of Regional Councillors,1F 1 but there are indications that Pickering has been well served by having Regional Councillors attached to wards. 4. Adding wards is not explicitly in the mandate of this W.B.R. The Consultant Team, however, has heard that adding extra voices to the Council table may be prudent in the future to contribute to the democratic needs of the community. There were multiple mentions in the survey suggesting that there are too few representatives given the present population of Pickering, let alone the future population. Some quotes from residents included, “Council increases should be directly related to population increases” and, “As the population increases, there should be more representation and access to our municipal officials.” The population in the City is projected to increase by more than 58,000 people over the next ten years with a significant portion of that growth occurring in a concentrated area (the Seaton Lands). Residents, when asked if the number of councillors should be increased, were largely split over the issue with 46% responding “yes” and 54% “no” (Figure 6-2). 1 The authority to adjust the allocation of Regional Council seats is assigned to the Regional Council not to lower-tier municipalities like Pickering. Municipal Act, 2001, section 218. Durham Regional Council has affirmed that Pickering will elect three Regional Councillors in 2022. - 14 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 10 Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report Figure 6-2: Survey Results – Should the Number of Councillors be Increased? Given councillors in Pickering are part-time, the cost to add councillors would be somewhat modest in relation to the City’s overall budget and could increase the quality of representation across the community. It is important to note, however, that more than half the City felt that the number of councillors was adequate and a survey respondent stated, “Our taxes are too high. We cannot afford more politicians. I think you should even out to balance the number of residents in each ward.” A ward system with additional wards may be reasonable to consider as an alternative to the current model. Given the Consultant Team has heard the benefits of having Regional Councillors attached to specific wards, it may make sense to consider additional wards in even numbers so that each Regional Councillor can represent an equal number of wards on Pickering Council. 5. In the survey conducted primarily in September and October of 2020, respondents were encouraged to rank the guiding principles they believed should be given the greatest priority during the W.B.R. Respondents had the choice of ranking each of the five guiding principles as “High Priority,” “Medium Priority,” and “Low Priority.” Of the five guiding principles (described in the Discussion Paper and below), the survey found strongest support for effective representation (63% of votes were of high priority). Effective representation is largely dependent on the other guiding principles being achieved and, when analyzing Yes 46%No 54% - 15 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 11 Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report responses in the survey, there was a strong feeling that effective representation was related to a better balancing of the existing ward population disparities. One resident mentioned that, “Ward 3 is the largest ward and with the new homes on Taunton, it will have too many residents.” Multiple responses in the survey regarding the current weaknesses of the existing wards referenced “population inequity” and “unbalanced representation.” Representation by population and current and future population trends also scored high with residents in terms of their priority, reflecting the importance that future population growth will play in any ward boundary design. While future population growth and population parity are certainly noted as priorities that should be given significant consideration by the survey respondents, protection of communities of interest was also noted as an important priority. Nearly half the respondents (47%) ranked it as a principle that should be given a medium priority and based on the survey’s overall ranking of priorities, it was tied for third most important guiding principle with current and future population trends. There were various responses in the survey highlighting the importance of Pickering’s unique rural hamlets and communities. For example, one resident noted that, “Ward 3 is a strange ward…mixing urban with rural, in a very large geographic area” and another resident mentioned that their “ward is disproportionately represented by the urban southern residents. Claremont and the rural lands north of Taunton Rd. do not receive the attention they deserve.” It is difficult to say that any one of the principles is necessarily more important than another and they may occasionally conflict with one another. Getting a sense of the priority the community places on these principles, aids in the work of the W.B.R. and the consideration and design of new ward reconfigurations. - 16 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 12 Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report Figure 6-3: Priority Assigned to Guiding Principles 6. Each of Pickering’s three wards was fairly well represented by survey respondents – 33% came from Ward 1, 24% from Ward 2, 27% from Ward 3, and 16% of respondents were unsure of which ward they reside in. It should be noted that there is some difference when the survey results are broken down by ward. Those in Ward 2 were less inclined to value representation by population as highly as a guiding principle. Only 33% of the responses from Ward 2 selected representation by population as a top priority, compared to 50% in Ward 1, and 46% in Ward 3. This result may indicate dissatisfaction with Ward 2’s current boundary, since it is currently comprised of two components that are only loosely connected. This is corroborated by the preference rankings for protection of communities of interest, in which respondents from Ward 2 indicate a greater preference for that principle than respondents from other wards – 45% of respondents from Ward 2 ranked it as a High Priority, compared to 30% in Ward 1 and 38% in Ward 3. Another notable difference is how respondents from Ward 1 ranked current and future population trends compared to other wards – it was ranked as a High Priority by 56% of respondents from Ward 2 and by 46% from Ward 3, but only 20% of those residing in Ward 1 ranked it as a High Priority. It is unclear what the cause for this discrepancy might be, but it should be noted that when splitting the responses by ward the sample sizes are small, which limits the conclusiveness of findings at the ward level. - 17 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 13 Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report 7. Evaluation of Existing Ward Structure The survey conducted as part of the initial phase of public c onsultation also asked respondents to assess the current wards in terms of their strengths and weaknesses. These responses can be used to add depth to the preliminary evaluation of the existing ward structure included in the Discussion Paper that addressed the wards in terms of the guiding principles. The current wards are presented in Figure 7-1 for reference purposes. Figure 7-1: Existing Ward Structure - 18 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 14 Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report 7.1 Representation by Population The objective of population parity (every councillor generally representing an equal number of constituents within his or her respective ward) is the primary goal of a n electoral redistribution with some degree of variation acceptable in light of population densities and demographic factors across the City. The indicator of success in a ward design is the extent to which all the individual wards approach an “optimal” s ize. Optimal size can be understood as a mid-point on a scale where the term “optimal” (O) describes a ward with a population within 5% on either side of the calculated optimal size. The classification “below/above optimal” (O + or O -) is applied to a ward with a population between 6% and 25% on either side of the optimal size. A ward that is labelled “outside the range” (OR + or -) indicates that its population is greater than 25% above or below the optimal ward size. The adoption of a 25% maximum variation is based on federal redistribution legislation and is widely applied in municipalities like Pickering that include both urban and rural areas. An example of optimal sizes for a three-ward system for the 2020 and 2030 populations is shown below in Table 7-1. Table 7-1: Optimal Range for a Three-Ward System Symbol Description Variance 2020 Population Range 2030 Population Range OR+ Outside Range - High 25% 41,633 65,817 O+ Above Optimal 5% 34,972 55,286 O Optimal Population Range - 33,307 52,653 O- Below Optimal -5% 31,641 50,021 OR- Outside Range - Low -25% 24,980 39,490 - 19 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 15 Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report Based on the City’s estimated overall 2020 population (99,920), the optimal population size for a ward in a three-ward system in Pickering would be 33,307.2F 1 Table 7-2: Estimated Population by Existing Ward, 2020 Ward Estimated Population 20201 Variance 1 30,440 0.91 O - 2 22,550 0.68 OR - 3 46,940 1.41 OR+ Total 99,920 Optimal 33,307 Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Population includes Census undercount of approximately 4.0%. Note: Numbers have been rounded. Population data suggests two wards are below the optimal range of variance and one ward is above the acceptable range of variation. None of the wards can be considered to fall within what is referred to as the “optimal” range, that is, within 5% on either side of optimal. Based upon the empirical evidence and the observations of many survey respondents, the present wards fail to adhere to the representation by population principle. 7.2 Protection of Communities of Interest and Neighbourhoods The first principle is based on the number of people who reside in the City, but people live in a neighbourhood or community that is the most identifia ble geographic point in most people’s lives: it is where they make their home. More importantly, the responsibilities of the City are also closely associated with where people live, such as roads and their maintenance, the utilities that are connected to or associated with their dwelling, and the myriad of social, cultural, environmental, and recreational services are often based on residential communities. Even municipal taxation is inextricably linked to one’s dwelling. Identifying such communities comes from a recognition that 1 Population and growth trends for Pickering are included in the Discussion Paper, pages 11 to 13. - 20 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 16 Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report geographic location brings shared perspectives that the representational process should seek to reflect. Care should be taken to ensure communities of interest remain intact during the design of ward boundaries. Such communities represent social and economic groups that may have deep historical roots, but they can also be social, economic , or religious in nature, depending on the history and composition of the municipality in question. This principle addresses two perspectives: what is divided by ward boundaries , and what is joined together? The first priority is that communities ought not to be divided internally; as a rule, lines are drawn around communities, not through them. Secondly, as far as possible wards should be cohesive units composed of areas with common interests related to representation, not just contrived arithmetic divisions of the City. Wards should have a “natural” feel to those that live within them, meaning that they should have established internal communication and transportation linkages and boundaries should be drawn taking existing connections into mind. This is done to avoid creating wards that combine communities with dissimilar interests and no obvious patterns of interaction. Pickering’s urban settlement area contains several distinctive neighbourhoods located primarily in Wards 1 and 2, but more importantly also in Ward 3. The Bay Ridges and West Shore neighbourhoods are placed in two separate wards on either side of Frenchman’s Bay, even though both are isolated from the remainder of their own ward by the multi-lane Highway 401 and two Canadian National Railway (C.N.R.) lines, making for a tenuous connection between the two parts of Wards 1 and 2. North of the 401, a recognized urban neighbourhood on either side of Fairport Road (Dunbarton) is divided, while two other urban areas (east of Liverpool Road and west of Rosebank Road) are split from adjacent neighbourhoods and placed in the same ward as each other, even though they are not contiguous and share few demographic similarities. All told, the population in the urban settlement area of Pickering may have originally been divided internally to address the goal of population parity, but is grouped in a fashion that makes it difficult to claim that the wards constitute coherent electoral units. The majority of Pickering’s geography is located in Ward 3; much of Ward 3 is an active agricultural area dotted with numerous hamlets that can be differentiated from the urban area by its significantly lower population density and distinctive social and economic - 21 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 17 Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report characteristics. It is also the area where most future residential developments will occur in Pickering (namely in Seaton). We understand that in 1974 the areas on the eastern and western sides of the ward south of Finch Avenue were largely rural and it would have been appropriate to place them in Ward 3. Today that is not the case and Ward 3 thus includes not only rural Pickering but significant existing urban communities, as well as the rapidly developing new communities along the Brock Road corridor. All of this means this ward is also not a coherent electoral unit. A significant proportion of the survey comments highlighted the impact of having communities from north and south in the same ward (sometimes seen as a rural -urban mix). It is difficult to argue that the current ward system reflects communities in Pickering in an equitable way and may hinder giving a voice to a distinctive part of Pickering. 7.3 Current and Future Population Trends The composition of Pickering’s wards should adequately accommodate for future growth and population shifts to maintain the representation by population principle over time. Pickering is, and has been, growing quite rapidly which spurred the need for a W.B.R. now. This principle seeks to ensure that a ward design does not merely “catch up” with such changes, but addresses the City’s future by giving some weight to projected population growth within the City. In other words, it encourages the design of wards that will not be out-of-date the day after they are adopted. Although there are restrictions placed upon future residential development through the provincial growth plan, which directs the development to designated areas of Pickering, the City’s population is forecast to grow by more than 50% over the next ten years (see the Discussion Paper, page 16, and section 4.2 above). Although some of that growth will occur in the City Centre neighbourhood, most will occur in Seaton and other areas in Ward 3, such as Duffin Heights and Brock Ridge. The population in the present Ward 3 already exceeds that of Ward 1 and Ward 2. The development of Seaton means that future population growth will not correct this imbalance and will push that difference further away from parity, although forecast growth in the City Centre neighbourhood will offset some of the growth in Seaton. - 22 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 18 Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report Based upon the empirical evidence and the observations of many survey respondents, the present wards are unlikely to ensure that the representation by population principle can be sustained over the next decade. Table 7-3: Existing Wards Population Distribution, 2020 and 2030 7.4 Physical Features as Natural Boundaries Ward boundaries should be easily recognizable and take advantage of natural and built geographic features. Many of these features already tend to separate communities within the City, which usually explains their historical use as boundary lines between existing wards. Ward boundaries in Pickering are largely based on transportation corridors; the only exception is a notional line across Frenchman’s Bay from the C.N.R. right-of-way to the sandspit that separates the bay from Lake Ontario. Three of the transportation features, however, are not used consistently: a C.N.R. right-of-way serves as a boundary between the Toronto boundary and Rosebank Road but not further east; a Cana dian Pacific Railway (C.P.R.) right-of-way serves as a ward boundary but only between Rosebank and Fairport Roads; and Highway 401 is the ward boundary between the Ajax boundary and Liverpool Road but not further west. These are largely visible boundaries within the community, but each appears to be a “natural” boundary in one part of the City but not in another. Two of the three north-south ward boundaries (along Rosebank and Liverpool Roads) are significant arterial roadways that divide the neighbourhood s on either side of the Ward #2020 Population1 Variance Optimal Range 2030 Population1 Variance Optimal Range Ward 1 30,440 0.91 O-33,390 0.63 OR- Ward 2 22,550 0.68 OR- 28,120 0.53 OR- Ward 3 46,940 1.41 OR+ 96,460 1.83 OR+ Total 99,920 157,960 Average 33,307 52,653 Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. 1 Population includes Census undercount of approximately 4.0% Note: Numbers have been rounded Existing Wards - 23 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 19 Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report road. This is much less so with Fairport Road, which is more of a neighbourhood street than a divider. On the whole, the boundaries of the existing wards fall short of meeting the expectation of “natural” boundaries in the sense of being easily identifiable and consistent. 7.5 Effective Representation As stated above, the four principles are subject to the overarching principle of “effective representation,” meaning that each resident should have comparable access to an elected representative and each councillor should speak on behalf of an equal number of residents. Deviations from population parity can be justified if they contribute to more effective representation. As noted earlier, effective representation is not based on the performance of incumbent councillors. It is, rather, a concept that is premised on the on-going relationship between residents and elected officials – not just on the way the resident is “counted” on election day, although that is an important component of a fair system of representation. Are the individual wards plausible and coherent units of representation? Are they drawn in such a way that representatives can readily play the role expected of them? Do they provide equitable (that is, fair) access to councillors for all residents of the municipality? The combination of accelerating population imbalances, the mix of neighbourhoods and communities within the wards, and the extreme size of Ward 3 compared to the other two wards all suggest that the present wards in Pickering do not contribute to effective representation. One significant factor underpinning these undeniable limitations is the challenge of reflecting the increasing complexity of the City in only three wards. It bears repeating that this principle is not directed at the way present members of Pickering Council perform their responsibilities, but assesses the features of the electoral system and how they enhance or restrict the capacity of residents to be represented fairly at election time and throughout the term of the Counc il. In most ways, the present ward system in Pickering is an obstacle to overcome rather than a contribution to effective representation. - 24 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 20 Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report In our Discussion Paper we provided an initial evaluation of the current ward system. For the most part, the current arrangements failed to meet the principles in place for the W.B.R. We have since taken the feedback received through our various engagement activities and again, for the most part, members of the public have confirmed many of our initial perceptions. The current system largely fails to meet the W.B.R. principles and cannot be said to serve the residents of the City of Pickering well. Figure 7-2: Present Pickering Ward Configuration Evaluation Summary Principle Does the Current Ward Structure Meet the Respective Principle? Comment Representation by Population No One ward is outside the acceptable range of variation and two wards are below optimal. Protection of Communities of Interest and Neighbourhoods No None of the wards are coherent electoral units because of limited natural, social, or economic connections within them. Current and Future Population Trends No One ward is outside the acceptable range of variation and two wards are below optimal. Physical Features as Natural Boundaries Partially successful Most markers used as boundaries of the wards are straightforward but are not used consistently. Effective Representation No Effective representation is hindered by uneven population distribution and the inclusion of rural residents in a ward with predominantly urban population. Meets Requirements of Guiding Principle? Yes Largely successful Partially successful No - 25 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 21 Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report 8. Alternative Ward Boundary Options The evaluation of the current ward system in Pickering suggests that it largely fails when evaluated against the guiding principles for this review. Council could still choose to retain the status quo by turning down all recommended options for an alternative ward configuration. That decision, however, could result in a petition submitted u nder section 223 of the Municipal Act, 2001. The analysis presented here suggests that it could be difficult for the City to defend the existing ward system before LPAT. If Council decides to change the ward boundary system, what would alternatives look like? The consultants have prepared 4 preliminary options examining possible ward re- configurations under the existing 3-ward system. Keeping the identifiable communities of interest intact, creating wards with roughly equal populations and providing for effective representation throughout Pickering poses a significant challenge, given the large geography and population concentration discussed above. In response to this challenge, we have included additional alternative ward boundary configurations using four-, five- and six-ward formats. The preliminary options included herein are concepts intended to highlight the various configurations available in relation to the guiding principles and aforementioned issues. Preliminary Option 1: This is a three-ward system that grows into an acceptable population distribution in 2030 with minimal changes to the current three wards. The proposed Wards 1 and 2 include most of the present urban areas, with the downtown in a single ward. At present, both proposed wards include areas north and south of Highway 401 but a major regional road (Whites Road) is used as a boundary between them instead of Fairport Road. A cleaner and consistent northern boundary with the proposed Ward 3 along Concession Road 3 is used. The proposed Ward 3 encompasses the entire rural part of Pickering but still includes the Duffin Heights and Brock Ridge urban neighbourhoods that contribute the bulk of the population in 2020. By 2030, the population of the proposed ward is expected to triple in size, primarily associated with Seaton. The 2020 population distribution includes one proposed ward (Ward 3) in the optimal range but the other two proposed wards are outside the acceptable 25% variation. This would not meet the representation by population principle but, as Table 8-1 shows, it - 26 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 22 Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report comes very close to meeting the future population principle with one proposed ward in the optimal range and the other two within the margins of the acceptable 25% variation. In the shorter term, the proposed Ward 3 will include about two-thirds of the City’s land mass but only approximately 20% of the population. It is already the case that it is difficult to conclude that rural Pickering and its historic hamlets can claim effective representation in the present Ward 3; those communities within Pickering will be even less visible by the further transformation of rural Pickering. - 27 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 23 Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report Figure 8-1: Preliminary Option 1 - 28 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 24 Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report Table 8-1: Preliminary Option 1 – Population by Proposed Ward Figure 8-2: Preliminary Option 1 Evaluation Summary Principle Does the Ward Structure Meet the Respective Principle? Comment Representation by Population Partially successful Two wards are outside the acceptable range of variation, one ward is at optimal size. Protection of Communities of Interest and Neighbourhoods Partially successful Present urban area plausible groupings of neighbourhoods; third ward is a mix of urban and rural communities. Current and Future Population Trends Largely successful Two wards are narrowly within the acceptable range of variation, one ward is at optimal size. Physical Features as Natural Boundaries Yes Clean and recognizable features serve as boundaries. Effective Representation Partially successful Effective representation hindered by uneven population distribution and the inclusion of rural residents in a ward with predominantly urban population. Preliminary Option 2: Preliminary Option 2 provides a way to align the three wards in a manner that achieves the representation by population principle for the 2022 municipal election. In terms of Ward #2020 Population1 Variance Optimal Range 2030 Population1 Variance Optimal Range Ward 1 34,770 1.04 O 39,750 0.75 O- Ward 2 44,770 1.34 OR+ 53,760 1.02 O Ward 3 20,380 0.61 OR- 64,450 1.22 O+ Total 99,920 157,960 Average 33,307 52,653 Preliminary Option 1 Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Note: Numbers have been rounded - 29 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 25 Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report community of interest, it places the central business district, a significant concentration of employment and major cultural institutions that are components of the urban fabric of Pickering, in a single ward along with a number of well-established nearby neighbourhoods. It also locates all the shoreline and other neighbourhoods south of Highway 401 in a single ward. The common boundary of the proposed Wards 1 and 2 is Highway 401 from Ajax on the east side of the City through to Whites Road, but it becomes less clear-cut north of Highway 401 where it follows Sheppard Avenue and Rosebank Road. To achieve better parity in 2020, the northern boundary of the two proposed urban wards is Finch Avenue, effectively keeping several established neighbourhoods in Liverpool and the growing Brock Ridge and Duffin Heights neighbourhoods in the sam e ward as rural Pickering. Preliminary Option 2 maintains population parity as the population grows in Pickering over the next three elections – but only in the two proposed southern wards. The drawback of this Preliminary Option is that the population growth in proposed Ward 3 (forecast to be around 40,000) pushes the proposed ward well over the acceptable range – while the proposed ward also encompasses about 60% of the City’s land mass. This is not a desirable combination but it appears to be inevitable in a three-ward system in Pickering. In other words, Preliminary Option 2 is premised on “catching up” with the population growth since 1982 to arrive at population parity across the three wards but not on preparing for growth. This is a legitimate priority for the 2020/2021 W.B.R. but will likely mean that the boundaries will need to be reviewed again as the Seaton neighbourhood closes in on buildout. - 30 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 26 Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report Figure 8-3: Preliminary Option 2 - 31 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 27 Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report Table 8-2: Preliminary Option 2 – Population by Proposed Ward Figure 8-4: Preliminary Option 2 Evaluation Summary Principle Does the Ward Structure Meet the Respective Principle? Comment Representation by Population Yes One ward is optimal, two wards are well within the acceptable range. Protection of Communities of Interest and Neighbourhoods Partially successful Present urban area plausible groupings of neighbourhoods; third ward is a mix of urban and rural communities. Current and Future Population Trends No One ward is outside the acceptable range of variation and two wards are below optimal. Physical Features as Natural Boundaries Largely successful Boundary between two proposed wards uses less visible roadways west of Whites Road. Effective Representation Largely successful Effective representation is largely achieved for 2022 but is hindered by the area of one ward and its large population in 2030. Ward #2020 Population1 Variance Optimal Range 2030 Population1 Variance Optimal Range Ward 1 34,370 1.03 O 41,560 0.79 O- Ward 2 36,650 1.10 O+41,610 0.79 O- Ward 3 28,900 0.87 O-74,790 1.42 OR+ Total 99,920 157,960 Average 33,307 52,653 Preliminary Option 2 Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Note: Numbers have been rounded - 32 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 28 Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report Preliminary Option 3: The ultimate rationale for this Preliminary Option is a ward configuration that is forecast to achieve population parity for the 2030 municipal election. There are only two actual ward boundary lines in Preliminary Option 3: Concession Road 3 and Dixie Road. Although establishing the northern boundary for the two southern wards at Concession Road 3 means the 2020 population of proposed Ward 3 is well below the acceptable range of variation, councillors elected in that ward will need to be engaged in the complex task of representin g a brand new large urban community in the heart of the ward. As in some other Preliminary Options, population parity is not realistic in 2020, but the dynamics of growth in Pickering point to a successful population balance in 2030. The proposed Ward 1 begins as the ward with the largest population, but is largely built out and likely to experience minimal growth. The proposed Ward 2 is the smallest by area and population, but encompasses downtown Pickering and the associated neighbourhoods, businesses, and extensive employment lands south of Highway 401. The population of the proposed Ward 3 is only about a quarter that of the other two wards in 2020, but grows by about 40,000 residents by 2030 and into the optimal range (that is, within 5% of optimal). If achieving population parity in a three-ward system over the next two or three elections is Council’s priority, on balance Preliminary Option 3 is a plausible alternative. - 33 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 29 Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report Figure 8-5: Preliminary Option 3 - 34 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 30 Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report Table 8-3: Preliminary Option 3 – Population by Proposed Ward Figure 8-6: Preliminary Option 3 Evaluation Summary Principle Does the Ward Structure Meet the Respective Principle? Comment Representation by Population Partially successful All wards are within the acceptable range of variation, one ward is at optimal size. Protection of Communities of Interest and Neighbourhoods Partially successful Present urban area plausible groupings of neighbourhoods; third ward is a mix of urban and rural communities. Current and Future Population Trends Largely successful Two wards are narrowly within the acceptable range of variation, one ward is above the acceptable range of variation. Physical Features as Natural Boundaries Yes Clean and recognizable features serve as boundaries. Effective Representation Largely successful Effective representation is hindered by the inclusion of rural residents in a ward with significant urban population. Ward #2020 Population1 Variance Optimal Range 2030 Population1 Variance Optimal Range Ward 1 49,240 1.48 OR+ 54,960 1.04 O Ward 2 39,200 1.18 O+48,640 0.92 O- Ward 3 11,480 0.34 OR- 54,360 1.03 O Total 99,920 157,960 Average 33,307 52,653 Preliminary Option 3 Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Note: Numbers have been rounded - 35 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 31 Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report Preliminary Option 4: In this Option, the northern boundary line for the proposed Ward 1 and Ward 2 west of West Duffins Creek is Finch Avenue. The northern boundary of the proposed Ward 2 follows Concession 3 and the western boundary north of Finch Avenue is the West Duffins Creek. The boundary between the proposed Wards 1 and 2 south of Finch Avenue is located along Dixie Road north of Highway 401 and follows the existing notional boundary across Frenchman’s Bay to the south of Highway 401. These are all clear boundary lines. Expanding the proposed Ward 1 eastward makes it a little more compact but actually larger by population than in Preliminary Option 1; however, it is expected to achieve better population parity in the longer term because of the impact of the growth in other parts of the City. The proposed Ward 2 recognizes the community of interest of the downtown area that includes the central business district, a significant concentration of employment and cultural institutions that are components of the urban fabric of Pickering, rather than being located in the present Ward 3 along with the City’s extensive rural territory. Over the three-election cycle, these two wards will grow into parity with one another, despite the inclusion of the Brock Road corridor in the prop osed Ward 2. As in the present ward system, some urban neighbourhoods are included in the proposed third ward, a mix of the growing Duffin Heights neighbourhood and the more established subdivisions in the Liverpool neighbourhood. Despite the transfer of the heavily populated eastern and western urban neighbourhoods that currently bracket Wards 1 and 2 into the proposed Ward 3, the proposed Ward 3 is still well short of the acceptable range of variation in 2020. This is, however, where another rationale for this Option becomes clear: by 2030, the proposed Ward 3 will be able to absorb the 40,000 people expected to eventually move into the Seaton development, yet can remain within the acceptable range of variation for the City. - 36 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 32 Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report Figure 8-7: Preliminary Option 4 - 37 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 33 Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report Table 8-4: Preliminary Option 4 – Population by Proposed Ward Figure 8-8: Preliminary Option 4 Evaluation Summary Principle Does the Ward Structure Meet the Respective Principle? Comment Representation by Population Partially successful Two wards are outside the acceptable range of variation, one ward is just above the optimal size. Protection of Communities of Interest and Neighbourhoods Partially successful Present urban area plausible groupings of neighbourhoods; third ward is a mix of urban and rural communities. Current and Future Population Trends Yes Two wards are within the optimal range, one ward is just below the optimal size. Physical Features as Natural Boundaries Yes Only two lines used, both are clear and straight. Effective Representation Largely successful Effective representation is largely achieved for 2030 but is less successful in the shorter term. Ward #2020 Population1 Variance Optimal Range 2030 Population1 Variance Optimal Range Ward 1 44,400 1.33 OR+ 48,290 0.92 O- Ward 2 35,530 1.07 O+44,970 0.85 O- Ward 3 19,990 0.60 OR- 64,710 1.23 O+ Total 99,920 157,960 Average 33,307 52,653 Preliminary Option 4 Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Note: Numbers have been rounded - 38 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 34 Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report Further Preliminary Options: Four-, Five- and Six-Ward Models Pickering’s Council has included three local councillors since the municipality was created in 1974 when the population was less than 40,000 people. This report has repeatedly found that achieving the primary guiding principles (representation by population, protection of communities of interest, and current and future population trends) to elect three councillors has required designs that seriously compromise one or more of them, often impacting the objective of achieving effective representation. We believe that there are Preliminary Options outlined in this report than can bring more effective representation (as understood in the Carter decision) to the residents of Pickering, but in each case requiring a deliberate foregoing of some of the guiding principles to achieve another. The reasons for this outcome are numerous: Pickering’s present population is concentrated in the southern urban neighbourhoods while only about 5% of the population resides in the defined rural area that encompasses about two-thirds of the land mass. Within ten years, however, around 40,000 people will live in the Seaton neighbourhoods – as many people as lived in Pickering when the three -ward system was created. As mentioned above in section 4.2, Seaton is expected to grow rapidly, and this growth is anticipated to start development within the next five-year period. By 2024, Seaton is expected to grow from 2,300 people to over 23,500 people. Over the next five-year period, 76% of the City’s population growth is to be accommodated within the Seaton Lands, while 24% is to be accommodated within the South Urban Lands. Over the ten- year period, 66% of the population growth is expected within Seaton while 33% is anticipated in the South Urban Lands. The projected population growth in the Seaton neighborhoods is therefore a number that is approximately twice that of the present population of municipalities in Durham Region such as Scugog and Uxbridge. Each of those municipalities elects councillors in five wards, yet this review has been working to incorporate this very large new population cluster into a single ward alongside the existing population and clearly at the expense of the rural community of interest. On an overall basis, as shown in Figure 8-9, Pickering has the same size council as five of the other municipalities in Durham Region; however, it is much larger in population - 39 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 35 Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report than three of them (Brock, Scugog, Uxbridge). It is also worthwhile mentioning that, while Pickering and Clarington both have similar-sized populations and seven-member Councils, Clarington actually has four wards and four local councillors but one less Regional Councillor than Pickering. The Town of Ajax has the same council configuration as Pickering, albeit with a larger population (~120,000, 2016 Census). The Town of Whitby, similar in size to Ajax, has four Local Councillors and four Regional Councillors for a total Council size of nine with the Mayor. Oshawa, Durham’s most populous municipality (~160,000, 2016 Census) has a Council size of 11 with the Mayor and five Local and five Regional Councillors elected in five wards. While Council size varies throughout the Province and also within Durham Region, the City of Pickering’s population will be more in-line with the Towns of Whitby and Ajax in the next several years and is projected to approach the size of Oshawa over the next decade. Figure 8-9: Region of Durham Council Composition vs. Population While members of the present Council and many residents are reluctant to see a change in the composition of council – often citing costs – this report has demonstrated that there are constraints that prevent a three-ward system from providing the Pickering community with an equitable electoral system. Those conditions are given and cannot 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 Township of Brock City of Oshawa Township of Scugog Townshit of Uxbridge Town of Whitby Town of Ajax Municipality of Clarington City of Pickering # of Members on Council2016 Population2016 Population Number of Members on Council - 40 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 36 Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report be treated as unimportant in designing a ward system for a City that will be home to more than 150,000 people in about ten years. Kicking the ball down the road on the premise that it is “too soon” or “too expensive” to make a change to the Council structure overlooks the fact that the municipality’s population has doubled since the present design was established and is about to grow even more. Residents are already living in an inequitable ward configuration that this review seeks to address. What follows are models for three Preliminary Options to elect City Councillors that each can result in more equitable representation for the residents of Pickering by 2030 or earlier, while better reflecting the present and future communities in the City. At this time, these are exploratory concepts of what ward systems built around a slightly larger Council could look like. We urge the community and Council to see these as an opportunity to show vision, to look to a future Pickering where residents will be effectively represented through its ward configuration rather than despite it. - 41 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 37 Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report Preliminary Option 5: Six-Ward Model Figure 8-10: Preliminary Option 5 - 42 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 38 Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report Table 8-5: Preliminary Option 5 – Population by Proposed Ward Figure 8-11: Preliminary Option 5 Evaluation Summary Principle Does the Ward Structure Meet the Respective Principle? Comment Representation by Population No Only one proposed ward is within the acceptable range of variation. Protection of Communities of Interest and Neighbourhoods Yes Urban neighbourhoods are in plausible and coherent groupings; Seaton and rural areas in their own wards. Current and Future Population Trends Yes One proposed ward is in optimal range; others are within the acceptable range of variation. Physical Features as Natural Boundaries Yes Clean and recognizable features serve as boundaries. Effective Representation Largely successful Effective representation is achieved for 2030 but is less successful in the shorter term. Ward #2020 Population1 Variance Optimal Range 2030 Population1 Variance Optimal Range Ward 1 18,160 1.09 O+23,360 0.89 O- Ward 2 22,970 1.38 OR+ 27,440 1.04 O Ward 3 22,250 1.34 OR+ 23,920 0.91 O- Ward 4 24,730 1.48 OR+ 28,550 1.08 O+ Ward 5 7,860 0.47 OR- 32,100 1.22 O+ Ward 6 3,950 0.24 OR- 22,600 0.86 O- Total 99,920 157,960 Average 16,653 26,327 Preliminary Option 5 - 6-Wards Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Note: Numbers have been rounded - 43 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 39 Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report Preliminary Option 6: Five-Ward Model Figure 8-12: Preliminary Option 6 - 44 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 40 Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report Table 8-6: Preliminary Option 6 – Population by Proposed Ward Figure 8-13: Preliminary Option 6 Evaluation Summary Principle Does the Ward Structure Meet the Respective Principle? Comment Representation by Population No Only one proposed ward is within the acceptable range of variation. Protection of Communities of Interest and Neighbourhoods Partially successful Urban neighbourhoods are in four proposed wards south of Taunton Road; Seaton and rural areas are included in a single northern ward. Current and Future Population Trends Yes One proposed ward is in optimal range; others are within the acceptable range of variation. Physical Features as Natural Boundaries Largely successful Proposed boundaries for Wards 2 and 3 are potentially confusing. Effective Representation Largely successful Effective representation is achieved for 2030 but is less successful in the shorter term. Ward #2020 Population1 Variance Optimal Range 2030 Population1 Variance Optimal Range Ward 1 28,800 1.44 OR+ 33,770 1.07 O+ Ward 2 25,910 1.30 OR+ 30,680 0.97 O Ward 3 23,370 1.17 O+27,590 0.87 O- Ward 4 18,160 0.91 O-29,540 0.94 O- Ward 5 3,690 0.18 OR- 36,380 1.15 O+ Total 99,920 157,960 Average 19,984 31,592 Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Note: Numbers have been rounded Preliminary Option 6 - 5-Wards - 45 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 41 Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report Preliminary Option 7: Four-Ward Model Figure 8-14: Preliminary Option 7 - 46 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 42 Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report Table 8-7: Preliminary Option 7 – Population by Proposed Ward Figure 8-15: Preliminary Option 7 Evaluation Summary Principle Does the Ward Structure Meet the Respective Principle? Comment Representation by Population No Only one proposed ward is within the acceptable range of variation; proposed Ward 4 is difficult to justify in population terms. Protection of Communities of Interest and Neighbourhoods Partially successful Urban neighbourhoods are in three proposed wards south of Taunton Road; Seaton and rural areas are included in a single northern ward. Current and Future Population Trends Yes Two proposed wards are in optimal range; two are within the acceptable range of variation. Physical Features as Natural Boundaries Yes Clean and recognizable features serve as boundaries. Effective Representation Largely successful Effective representation is achieved for 2030 but is less successful in the shorter term. Ward #2020 Population1 Variance Optimal Range 2030 Population1 Variance Optimal Range Ward 1 32,700 1.31 OR+ 39,030 0.99 O Ward 2 38,320 1.53 OR+ 44,140 1.12 O+ Ward 3 25,210 1.01 O 38,420 0.97 O Ward 4 3,690 0.15 OR- 36,380 0.92 O- Total 99,920 157,960 Average 24,980 39,490 Preliminary Option 7 - 4-Wards Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Note: Numbers have been rounded - 47 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 43 Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report 8.1 Evaluation Summary Figure 8-16: Preliminary Options – Evaluation Summary Preliminary Option Representation by Population Protection of Communities of Interest and Neighbourhoods Current and Future Population Trends Physical Features as Natural Boundaries Effective Representation 1 Partially successful Partially successful Largely successful Yes Partially successful 2 Yes Partially successful No Largely successful Largely successful 3 Partially successful Partially successful Largely successful Yes Largely successful 4 Partially successful Partially successful Yes Yes Largely successful 5 No Yes Yes Yes Largely successful 6 No Partially successful Yes Largely successful Largely successful 7 No Partially successful Yes Yes Largely successful Meet Requirements of Guiding Principle? Yes Largely successful Partially successful No Higher Rating Lower Rating - 48 - Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 44 Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Interim Report 8.2 Further Considerations The options presented herein are preliminary; they reflect the application of the core principles for this review to the distribution of population and communities within Pickering. Designing an electoral system that will deliver effective representation to such a diverse and growing community requires some accommodation: designs that put an emphasis on representation by population today can hinder fair representation for residents who will locate in the northern part of the City in the coming decade. Designs that place a priority on grouping selected urban neighbourhoods can result in the over- representation of those same communities around the Council table. Grouping several distinctive communities in the same ward may systematically reduce the voice of minorities, whether they be geographic, economic, or social. The purpose of this report is to stimulate discussions in Pickering, to encourage residents to “think outside the box” of representation. The options included are deliberately called “preliminary” since the next step is to gather the perspectives of residents on these new approaches to electing the members of their municipal Council. - 49 - 1 Pickering Ward Boundary Review 905.420.4611 | pickering.ca/wbr Public Consultation Survey Please return completed surveys to Pickering City Hall, Clerk’s Office, One The Esplanade, or by email to clerks@pickering.ca. Final date to submit is October 30th, 2020. 1.Name (optional): ___________________________________________________ 2.Which ward do you reside in?  Ward 1  Ward 2  Ward 3  Don’t know 3.What is your postal code? (optional): ____________________ 4.Pickering’s Council is comprised of seven members: a Mayor, three Regional Councillors (one elected in each of three wards) and three City Councillors (one elected in each of three wards). Municipal Councils in Ontario can be composed of no fewer than five members, one of whom is the Mayor. Pickering’s Council must also include three Regional Councillors, as determined by Durham Regional Council in 2017. Should the number of City Councillors be increased to provide more effective representation in Pickering?  No  Yes If “yes”, how many more? ________ Attachment #2 to Report CLK 01-21 - 50 - 2 Pickering Ward Boundary Review 905.420.4611 | pickering.ca/wbr Please provide reasons for your preference: 5.How would you describe your ward? Is there anything you would change? 6.Please provide your assessment of the present wards (see map at end of survey.) In my opinion, the strengths of the current wards are: In my opinion, the weaknesses of the current wards are: - 51 - 3 Pickering Ward Boundary Review 905.420.4611 | pickering.ca/wbr 7.Five Guiding Principles will be applied in the assessment of the present wards and in the development of alternative ward designs. Please indicate which principles you believe should be given the greatest priority in the design of the wards (for each principle, identify as “High Priority,” “Moderate Priority” or “Low Priority”) Principle High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority Representation by Population Ensure that wards have reasonably equal populations while allowing for some variation in recognition of varied population densities across the City. Protection of communities of interest Avoid fragmenting existing communities of interest and neighbourhoods. Current and future population trends Consider anticipated population trends for the 2022 municipal election and beyond. Physical features as natural boundaries Use natural and manmade features as boundaries to keep ward boundaries easily identifiable. Effective representation Evaluate the capacity of each ward to give residents fair and effective representation in Council decision-making. Thank you for participating in the first phase of the Pickering Ward Boundary Review. Personal information contained on this form is collected pursuant to the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and will be used as a part of the Ward Boundary Review. Questions about this collection should be directed to the City Clerk, One The Esplanade, Pickering, ON, L1V 6K7, 905.420.4611. A Discussion Paper on the City of Pickering Ward Boundary and Council Composition Review and other information on the Review is available for viewing on the municipal website at www.pickering.ca/wbr. - 52 - 4 Pickering Ward Boundary Review 905.420.4611 | pickering.ca/wbr Pickeri ng Ward Boundaries - 53 - Report to Executive Committee Report Number: ENG 01-21 Date: January 4, 2021 From: Richard Holborn Director, Engineering Services Subject: Municipal Bridge Maximum Gross Vehicle Weight Restrictions - By-law to establish a load limit for certain bridges under the jurisdiction of the City of Pickering - File: A-1440 Recommendation: 1. That the attached draft By-law limiting the gross vehicle weight of any vehicle or any class thereof, passing over certain bridges, under the jurisdiction of The Corporation of the City of Pickering be enacted; and, 2. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Executive Summary: The Highway Traffic Act and Ontario Regulation 104/97 Standards for Bridges require that every bridge and/or structure be kept safe and in good repair through periodic inspections under the direction of a Professional Engineer and in accordance with the provisions of the Ontario Structure Inspection Manual, or equivalent. Further, The Highway Traffic Act establishes that municipalities having jurisdiction over a bridge may by by-law limit the gross vehicle weight of any vehicle or any class thereof passing over the bridge. The City of Pickering retains a qualified bridge inspection firm to perform regular bridge inspections every 2 years. In 2018, the City of Pickering retained Keystone Bridge Management Corporation to inspect and validate the gross vehicle weight limit restrictions for the bridge structures included in the parent by-law. Keystone Bridge Management Corporation conducted bridge load testing on 7 municipal bridges in support of determining the appropriate load limit for by-law purposes. As a result of the testing, load limits were assigned to the 7 bridges and established through By-law 7674/19 and accompanying Schedules A and B. Keystone Bridge Management Corporation was retained in 2020 to assess the City’s 71 bridges and culverts, of which 55 have a span of 3.0m or over. As a result of the recent assessments and inspections, 3 additional bridges require a load limit by-law and 1 bridge with an existing load limit by-law requires the load limit to be reduced, with a “Use at Own Risk” signage. Bridge #1002 on the Uxbridge Pickering Townline Road is currently being replaced, therefore a load limit will no longer be required. Based on the above, staff have prepared a proposed by-law which identifies the new recommended maximum weight load limits on 4 bridges (Bridge #7004, 8004, 8007 and 9003), - 54 - ENG 01-21 January 4, 2021 Subject: Municipal Bridge Maximum Gross Vehicle Weight Restrictions By-law to establish a load limit for certain bridges under the jurisdiction of the City of Pickering Page 2 maintains the existing maximum weight load limits on 5 bridges (Bridge #6003, 7002, 8001, 8003, 9006), and repeals the previously established associated by-law By-law 7674/19. Financial Implications: The cost for Keystone Bridge Management Corporation to inspect and re-affirm proposed load limits at the 9 bridge locations and to certify the by-law was $4,725.00 plus HST which is being charged to 2290.2392.0000 Engineering Services – Administration. In order to remove the bridge load limits, future expenditures will be required to rectify structural deficiencies and to bring the bridges up to current code requirements. Discussion: In January of 2019, staff presented report ENG 01-19 to the Executive Committee. The report, as adopted by the Committee and approved by Council: • identified the maximum vehicle load limits established on 7 bridges as a result of the inspections on all bridges currently under the jurisdiction of the City of Pickering; • presented for Council endorsement, the draft by-law necessary for bridge load designations; and, • established the necessary schedules for signature by 2 Professional Engineers certifying the safe load limits and the duration for which the limits apply. As a result of the inspections undertaken by Keystone Bridge Management Corporation in 2020, there is a need to reduce the maximum vehicular weight limit restriction of Bridge #7004 (Sideline 34 - 0.2km south of Eighth Concession Road), from 10 tonnes to 5 tonnes which was the cautionary load limit as set out in Municipal Bridge Load By-law 7674/19. Three additional bridges: Bridge #8004 (Lot 20/21 Conc 8); Bridge #8007 (Lot 12/13 Conc 8); and Bridge #9003 (Lot 28/29 Conc 9) require a load limit by-law. Bridge #10002 on Uxbridge Pickering Townline Road 0.10 km east of Sideline 30 is currently under construction and no longer requires a load limit. The maximum vehicular weight limit restriction for the remaining 5 bridges remains the same as set out in the current by-law (By-law 7674/19). A copy of bridge site location maps, the draft amending by-law and revised Schedule “A”, which identifies all structures to which the by-law applies, are attached. If passed by Council, a completed Schedule “B” will be signed and sealed by 2 Professional Engineers from Keystone Bridge Management Corporation and will form part of the new by-law. - 55 - ENG 01-21 January 4, 2021 Subject: Municipal Bridge Maximum Gross Vehicle Weight Restrictions By-law to establish a load limit for certain bridges under the jurisdiction of the City of Pickering Page 3 Attachments: 1. Being a by-law to limit the gross vehicle weight of any vehicle or class thereof passing over a bridge under the jurisdiction of The Corporation of the City of Pickering pursuant to The Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.8, as amended 2. Location Map – Bridge Load Limits – Structure ID #7004 (Hoover Bridge) & Structure ID #8001 (Lehman #2 Bridge) 3. Location Map – Bridge Load Limits – Structure ID #9006 (Lot 4/5, Conc. 9 Bridge) 4. Location Map – Bridge Load Limits – Structure ID #6003 (Wilson Bridge) 5. Location Map – Bridge Load Limits – Structure ID #7002 (Wilson Bridge) 6. Location Map – Bridge Load Limits – Structure ID #8003 (Lot 2, Conc.7/8 Bridge) 7. Location Map – Bridge Load Limits – Structure ID # 8004 (Lot 20/21 Conc 8 Bridge) 8. Location Map – Bridge Load Limits – Structure ID # 8007 (Lot 12/13 Conc 8 Bridge) 9. Location Map – Bridge Load Limits – Structure ID # 9003 (Lot 28/29 Conc 9 Bridge) - 56 - ENG 01-21 January 4, 2021 Subject: Municipal Bridge Maximum Gross Vehicle Weight Restrictions By-law to establish a load limit for certain bridges under the jurisdiction of the City of Pickering Page 4 Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Original signed by: Original signed by: Nadeem Zahoor, P.Eng., M.Eng. Richard Holborn, P.Eng. Transportation Engineer Director, Engineering Services Original signed by: Scott Booker Manager, Capital Projects & Infrastructure NZ:mjh Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original signed by: Marisa Carpino, M.A. Interim Chief Administrative Officer - 57 - The Corporation of the City Of Pickering By-law No. Being a by-law to limit the gross vehicle weight of any vehicle or any class thereof passing over a bridge under the jurisdiction of the Corporation of the City of Pickering pursuant to the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.H.8, as amended. Whereas, pursuant to Section 123 (2) of the Highway Traffic Act R.S.O. 1990 c.H.8, as amended, the municipal corporation or other authority having jurisdiction over a bridge may by by-law, limit the gross vehicle weight of any vehicle or any class thereof passing over the bridge. Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1.In this by-law “gross vehicle weight” means the total weight in tonnes transmitted to the highway by a vehicle or combination of vehicles and load. 2.No vehicle or combination of vehicles or any class thereof, whether empty or loaded, shall be operated over those bridges as set out in Column 1 and Column 2 of Schedule A to this by-law where the gross weight exceeds that set out in Column 3 of Schedule A to this by- law. 3.This by-law shall not become effective until a notice of the maximum limit of gross vehicle weight permitted, legibly printed, has been posted in a conspicuous place at each end of the bridge. 4.Any person violating the provisions of this by-law is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine as provided in the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, as amended from time to time. 5.That the engineers statement verifying the gross vehicle weight limit specified in Section 2 of this by-law are set out in Schedule B, attached and forms part of this by-law. 6.By-law Number 7674/19 is repealed. By-law passed this 25th day of January 2021. __________________________________ David Ryan, Mayor __________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk Attachment #1 to Report #ENG 01-21 - 58 - Schedule A Bridge Load Limits Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Bridge No. Bridge Location Maximum Gross Vehicle Weight 6003 North Road 0.4km south of Seventh Concession Road 15 tonnes 7002 Seventh Concession Road 2.1km east of Markham-Pickering Townline Road 15 tonnes 7004 Sideline 34 0.2km South of Eighth Concession Road 5 tonnes 8001 Eighth Concession Road 0.3km east of Markham-Pickering Townline Road 15 tonnes 8003 Eighth Concession Road 0.9km west of Regional Road #23 20 tonnes 9006 Sideline 4 1.4km north of Regional Road #5 10 tonnes 8004 Sideline 20 0.3km south of Regional Road #5 20 tonnes 8007 Sideline 12 0.1km south of Regional Road #5 20 tonnes 9003 Sideline 28 0.3km north of Regional Road #5 20 tonnes - 59 - Schedule B By-law /21 I ______________________________ and ______________________________, Professional Engineers representing the consulting firm Keystone Bridge Management Corporation, have reviewed the restriction of the gross vehicle weight passing over the bridges as identified in the above noted by-law. Effective as of the date of approval of the bylaw, I agree with the recommended gross vehicle weight limit as set out in By-law /21 for a period of twenty four (24) months. _____________________________ _________________________ Signed Signed _________________________ Dated - 60 - 1:10 000 Bridge Load Limits Structure ID #7004 (Hoover Bridge - Sideline 34) Structure ID #8001(Lehaman #2 Bridge - Eighth Concession Road) Dec 17/20 Engineering Services Department Attachment #2 to Report #ENG 01-21 - 61 - 1:10 000 Bridge Load Limits Structure ID #9006 (Lot 4/5 Conc 9 Bridge - Sideline 4) Dec 17/20 Engineering Services Department Attachment #3 to Report #ENG 01-21 - 62 - 1:10 000 Dec 17/20 Bridge Load Limits Structure ID #6003 (Wilson Bridge - North Road ) Engineering Services Department Attachment #4 to Report #ENG 01-21 - 63 - SCALE: Engineering Services Department Dl,lE: 1 :10 000 Dec 17/20 Bridge Load Limits Structure ID #7002 (Wilson Bridge - Seventh Concession Road) w z :J w a iii -C4of P](KER]NG Attachment #5 to Report #ENG 01-21 - 64 - TOWN OF WHITBY23 Bridge No. 8003 1:10 000 Dec 3/2020 Bridge Load Limits Structure ID #8003 (Lot 2, Conc. 7/8 Bridge - Eighth Concession Road) Engineering Services Department Attachment #6 to Report #ENG 01-21 - 65 - F 5 C 4750 Bridge No. 8004 1:10 000 Bridge Load Limits Structure ID #8004 (Lot 20/21 Conc. 8 Bridge - Sideline 20)Dec 17/20 Engineering Services Department Attachment #7 to Report #ENG 01-21 - 66 - 5 Bridge No. 8007 1:10 000 Bridge Load Limits Structure ID #8007 (Lot 12/13 Conc. 8 Bridge - Sideline 12)Dec 17/20 Engineering Services Department Attachment #8 to Report # ENG 01-21 - 67 - 5 Bridge No. 9003 1:10 000 Bridge Load Limits Structure ID #9003 (Lot 28/29 Conc. 9 Bridge - Sideline 28)Dec 17 2020 Engineering Services Department Attachment #9 to Report #ENG 01-21 - 68 - Report to Executive Committee Report Number: LEG 01-21 Date: January 4, 2021 From: Paul Bigioni Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor Subject: Broadband Service for Whitevale and Green River - ICON Grant Funding Stage 2 -File: A-3700 Recommendation: 1.That Council approve payment by the City of $150,000.00 towards the project to deliver broadband services to the residents and businesses of Green River and Whitevale, which payment will be made by the City upon receipt of the written commitment of Vianet Inc. to proceed with and complete construction of the project; 2.That staff be directed to continue working with Vianet Inc. to complete its submission of an application for grant funding from the Province’s Improving Connectivity for Ontario (ICON) Program by January 27, 2021; and 3.That appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. Executive Summary: Pursuant to Report LEG 08-20, City staff continue to work with Vianet Inc. (“Vianet”) to develop a proposal to extend broadband service to the residents and businesses of Whitevale and Green River. The Stage 1 application for ICON funding was submitted in August and has been approved by the Province. City staff continue to work with Vianet to complete the design of the project and submit the Stage 2 ICON application, which is due by January 27, 2021. While the bulk of the project costs would be borne by Vianet, and Provincial grant funding is being sought, a contribution of $150,000.00 by the City is needed for the project to proceed. The project would replace the poor and costly internet service that has been tolerated for years by the residents of Whitevale and Green River. If funded, this project would make it faster and less expensive to extend service directly into the Seaton Employment Lands. Vianet has completed its design and project budget and is ready to make the Stage 2 application for ICON funding. The City’s commitment of $150,000.00 toward the project is needed in order to proceed with the Stage 2 application. Financial Implications: The total project cost is $1,107,395.00. Provincial funding covers up to 25 per cent of project costs ($252,098.75), and the City’s proposed contribution is $150,000.00. The extent of provincial funding of this project will remain unknown until the Stage 2 ICON application is submitted and processed by the Province. Vianet will absorb the balance of the project costs. Funding of the City’s $150,000.00 contribution will be from the IT Capital Account: 5206.1813.6250 (Municipal Broadband Projects) in 2021. - 69 - LEG 01-21 January 4, 2021 Subject: ICON Grant Funding Stage 2 Page 2 Vianet has stated that it will apply for additional funding through the recently announced Federal Universal Broadband Fund program which identifies both Green River and Whitevale as eligible communities. This additional funding could reduce the financial contributions of both Vianet and the City. Discussion: Today, high-speed Internet access is essential for all Canadians, no matter where they live. It is necessary to telework, to access online medical advice, for distance learning and more. It helps businesses thrive, no matter where they are located, and it ensures that rural Pickering residents can transition smoothly to the digital economy. But there is a connectivity gap – residents living in rural and remote areas have less access to high-speed Internet than those living in urban areas. That is why, now more than ever, broadband connectivity for Pickering residents is an essential requirement and the support of Council as we work to bridge the connectivity gaps in Pickering is greatly appreciated. The Improving Connectivity for Ontario (ICON) Broadband program aims to support local collaborative projects to connect more unserved and underserved homes and businesses, often in rural, remote and northern communities. The evaluation criteria require that at least one project partner must have a minimum of three years’ experience in building, owning, servicing and/or operating broadband and/or cellular infrastructure in Canada. Vianet brings more than the required experience to the table and will enable Pickering to bring services to the Hamlets of Green River and Whitevale. Vianet is a full-service telecommunications company that has been offering internet, telephone and television services since 1995. It is based in Sudbury, Ontario with satellite offices in Northern, Eastern, and Southern Ontario. Vianet offers ultra-high-speed Internet with speeds ranging from 100Mbps to 1Gbps. At the special Council meeting of August 10, 2020 (Report LEG 08-20), Council authorized staff to work with Vianet Inc. to apply for provincial funding through the ICON program in order to bring high speed fibre broadband services to the Hamlets of Green River and Whitevale. The stage 1 submission for this project was jointly written by Vianet and City staff, and was submitted to the ICON program by Vianet on August 20th, in advance of the August 21st deadline. On September 25th, Vianet received confirmation that its application had been accepted and had been moved to the second stage of the ICON program. The second stage of the application process will further evaluate the project based on: •The ability to provide cost-effective access to households and/or businesses relative to the total amount of ICON funding requested; •Effectively leveraging other sources of public sector funding, if required; •The overall project cost in relation to technologies and operational planning; •How the project design meets community needs and accounts for unique community characteristics; and - 70 - LEG 01-21 January 4, 2021 Subject: ICON Grant Funding Stage 2 Page 3 •Affordability to end-users in relation to nearest large urban centre. Vianet submitted the application for the second stage of the ICON program for preliminary review and comment on December 11, 2020. The second stage of the application includes a detailed budget, financial forecast, logical network diagram and a technological solution overview. Detailed information about the project design and budget is included in Attachment Nos. 1 to 5. Vianet and City staff have until January 27, 2021 to answer questions from the Province regarding the evaluation of the project and viability of the business case. The final stage 2 application must be submitted by January 27, 2021. The City’s contribution must be committed to the project in advance of the finalization of the stage 2 application. Attachments: 1.Project Overview – Fibre Up Rural Pickering 2.Logical Network Diagram and Project Coverage Map 3.ICON Stage 2 Detailed Project Budget 4.ICON Stage 2 Financial Forecast 5.VIANET Service Offering for High Speed Internet Prepared By: Prepared/Approved/Endorsed By: Dale Quaife Paul Bigioni Division Head, Information Technology Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor PB:ks Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Marisa Carpino, M.A. Interim Chief Administrative Officer Original Signed By:Original Signed By: Original Signed By: - 71 - Fibre Up Rural Pickering – Technological Solution (Excerpt from ICON Application Document) This project will consist of approximately 12.5 km of new fibre optic network constructed in the communities of Green River and Whitevale at the western edge of the Town of Pickering. It will leverage Vianet’s existing dark fibre IRU assets to connect a new outdoor telecom shelter, which will act as the project POP site, connecting back to Vianet’s existing King City POP site at an initial backhaul capacity of 10 Gbps. This project will run on 100% Vianet controlled fibre optic network with no 3rd party transport services or leased capacity up to the Internet at transit/peering handoff points in Toronto and Barrie. This ensures simple, cost effective capacity upgrades with the ability to cost effectively over provision backbone bandwidth. By using of our own facilities throughout the entire project area, we are able to set service objectives of 99.99% uptime, latency and jitter below 10 ms and packet loss below 0.01% when measured to exchange points in Toronto or Barrie. This project will utilize a new Zhone MXK GPON aggregation shelf located at the newly created POP Site to provide speeds up to 1Gbps to residential and small business users. The Zhone MXK will require 1 16 port OLT line card, with each OLT port capable of servicing up to 64 end users by utilizing passive GPON splitters in the field and ONUs in the home. The ONUs will provide the end user with a minimum of four 1Gbps ethernet ports, one will be utilized to provision internet service and the remaining ports may optionally be used to deliver television service to IPTV set-top boxes. The ONUs also contains a minimum of 2 POTS ports to optionally provide telephone service. At the POP Site, the Zhone MXK will uplink via two 10Gbps ports to a Cisco ASR9000 series router. Connectivity over Vianet owned fibre from the new POP site to both Vianet’s Barrie and Toronto POP sites, via the King City POP site, will provide access to diverse 100 Gbps Internet transit feeds and TorIX peering, as well as to 3rd party carrier NNIs capable of terminating both ethernet transport services and serving as aggregation points for wholesale open access. Enterprise, carrier and WISP customers will connect directly to the ASR9000 router on dedicated fibres for ethernet transport or dedicated Internet transit services up to 10Gbps. Where services above 10Gbps are required, existing dark fibre and DWDM and optical repeaters will be utilized to connect customers directly to the Barrie or Toronto routers. The remainder of this project involves the installation of passive fibre infrastructure along roadways within municipal right of ways. Horizontal Directional Drilling will be used to install parallel duct structures for both transport and distribution networks. The transport network will consist of high count fibre Attachment #1 to Report LEG 01-21 - 72 - optic cable (216, 144 or 72 strands) in 1.5” duct and the distribution network will consist of lower count micro-fibre cable (24, 48, 72 or 144 strands) in 7-way micro-duct. Cable vaults and pedestals will be installed throughout the network to enable customer drop connections and distribution fibre aggregation as well as splicing of trunk and distribution fibres. Where customers are not serviced directly from a pedestal or vault, the 7-way micro-duct bundle will be “branched” by splicing the customer drop conduit, mid-span in the micro-duct bundle, to the allocated micro- duct. Roadside cabinets containing GPON splitters will be installed at vaults 1, 5 and 9, which will enable passive aggregation of 32 individual customers onto a single feeder fibre for transport to an OLT port at the new POP site. - 73 - Barrie POP (Existing) Cisco ASR9k Toronto 151 Front (Existing) Internet 100G 100G Zhone MXK 2x 10G Carrier NNIs New POP Site 100G Vianet Fiber King City POP (Existing) 10 G Vianet Fibre10G Vianet Fibre Logical Network Diagram Fibre Up Rural Pickering 10 G Dark Fibre IRU Sample FTTH Distribution Cable Vault Cable Vault Home 1. Direct to vault PedPedPed Home 2. Direct to Ped Home 3. Tie into 7-way micro-duct mid- span + back to ped or vault 144 count trunk in 1.5" conduit Dist micro fiber 24,48,72 in 7-way micro duct 3 options for drops to home (indicated in diagram) 1. Direct to vault 2. Direct to Ped 3. Tie into 7-way micro-duct mid-span + back to ped or vault 2020 -12-17 Carrier NNIs Attachment #2 to Report LEG 01-21 - 74 - Coverage Map Fibre Up Rural Pickering - 75 - Amount requested under ICON 252,098.75$ Lead Applicant Contribution 705,296.25$ Funding from all other sources 150,000.00$ Total Eligible Costs 1,008,395.00$ Other Provincial -$ Total Ineligible Costs 99,000.00$ Federal -$ Total Project Cost 1,107,395.00$ Municipal 150,000.00$ Territorial -$ Community Organization -$ Band Council -$ Private -$ ELIGIBLE COSTS Item Description Comments (If Applicable)Total Number of Units WIRED - Last-Mile ($)WIRED - Backbone ($)WIRELESS - Last-Mile ($)WIRELESS - Backbone ($)Total Amount ($) Direct Labour (enter hours or days) Project Management Overall PM of design and construction of Estimated 300 hours @$50/hr 300 8,750.00$ 6,250.00$ -$ -$ 15,000.00$ Engineering Design External design firm Charged on a /m rate, estimated at $4/m - 12500 50,000.00$ -$ -$ -$ 50,000.00$ Directional Drilling Conduit/vault/ped installation plus fibre j $44/m for drilling and $3/m for fibre jettin 12500 587,500.00$ -$ -$ -$ 587,500.00$ Fibre Splicing Internal staff 180 hours @$40/ - 80 last mile, 100 backb 180 3,200.00$ 4,000.00$ -$ -$ 7,200.00$ Others (Please Specify)-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Others (Please Specify)-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Others (Please Specify)-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Direct Materials Conduits Backbone conduit $4.00/m 144 count fibre, $2.00/m1.5" SDR 11200 -$ 68,320.00$ -$ -$ 68,320.00$ Vaults Vault, lid, ground plate, marker stick and Includes all materials located at each vault 25 -$ 26,875.00$ -$ -$ 26,875.00$ Pedestals Pedestal and small splice closure Includes all materials at each ped location 55 16,500.00$ -$ -$ -$ 16,500.00$ PON Cabinets + Splitters GPON field cabinets with 1x32 passive splitters 3 27,000.00$ -$ -$ -$ 27,000.00$ Conduit - Last Mile Last Mile conduit $1.50/m avg cost of mix of 24/48/72 coun 14000 94,500.00$ -$ -$ -$ 94,500.00$ Equipment Radio -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Routers Cisco ASR 920 Series - 12 x1/10GE SFP, D Core router for POP site 1 -$ 16,500.00$ -$ -$ 16,500.00$ Dishes -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Antennas -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Switches -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Servers -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Splices -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Power Systems(Generators, batteries, solar cells, etc)-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Fibre/Cable Fibre included in costing of Backbone and Last Mile conduit costing above -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Monitoring Systems -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Miscellaneous -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ GPON Shelf Zhone MXK GPON Shelf with 2x16 Port OLT cards and optics 1 41,500.00$ -$ -$ -$ 41,500.00$ Others (Please Specify)-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Others (Please Specify)-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Direct Satellite Capacity Contract -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Other Consulting Services (please specify)-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Other Consulting Services (please specify)-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Other Consulting Services (please specify)-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Other Consulting Services (please specify)-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Other Consulting Services (please specify)-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Direct Travel Flights -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Vehicle Rental -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Accommodations -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Others (please specify)-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Others (please specify)-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Others (please specify)-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Others (please specify)-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Others (please specify)-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Other Site Preparation Concrete pad for Telecom Shelter includes materials labour 1 -$ 4,000.00$ -$ -$ 4,000.00$ Hydro Connection Utility hookup for Telecom Shelter 1 -$ 3,500.00$ -$ -$ 3,500.00$ Make-ready -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Testing-Network Elements -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Testing-Power Systems -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Testing-Monitoring Systems -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Software( Please Specify)-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Telecom Shelter Outdoor telecom cabinet with built in DC Outdoor Telecom Shelter POP Site 1 -$ 15,000.00$ -$ -$ 15,000.00$ Special Crossing - Highway 407 Sepcial permit, blocker trucks, paid duty police and after hours works 1 -$ 30,000.00$ -$ -$ 30,000.00$ Sepcial Crossing - Railroad Special permit, rail flagmen 1 -$ 5,000.00$ -$ -$ 5,000.00$ Other(Please Specify)-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Other(Please Specify)-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 828,950.00$ 179,445.00$ -$ -$ 1,008,395.00$ 25%25% 207,237.50$ 44,861.25$ -$ -$ -$ INELIGIBLE COSTS Comments (If Applicable)Total Number of Units (If Applicable)Total Amount ($) Billing Support Systems Internally developed system already in place -$ Customer Care Systems Internally developed system already in place -$ Licenses N/A -$ General Liability Insurance Already in place -$ Testing – User Devices -$ Testing – Support Systems -$ Customer activations End customer activaton includes $150 fo 90 99,000.00$ Other (please specify)-$ Other (please specify)-$ Other (please specify)-$ Other (please specify)-$ 99,000.00$ Project Costing Project Costs 2020-21 2021-22 2022-2023 2023-2024 TOTAL Eligible -$ 750,000.00$ 258,395.00$ -$ 1,008,395.00$ Ineligible -$ 60,500.00$ 38,500.00$ -$ 99,000.00$ Total Project Cost -$ 810,500.00$ 296,895.00$ -$ 1,107,395.00$ Project Funding Project Funding Status of Funding Source of Funding Contact Information (Name, Phone, Email Address)2020-21 2021-22 2022-2023 2023-2024 TOTAL Amount Requested under ICON (Up to 25% of total eligible costs)To Be Requested -$ 187,494.00$ 64,604.75$ -$ 252,098.75$ Lead Applicant Contribution Confirmed/Received -$ 511,443.00$ 193,853.25$ -$ 705,296.25$ Funding from other Sources -$ 111,563.00$ 38,437.00$ -$ 150,000.00$ Other Provincial -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Federal -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Municipal Confirmed/Pending Transaction -$ 111,563.00$ 38,437.00$ -$ 150,000.00$ Territorial -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Community Organization -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Band Council -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Private -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total Financial Contributions -$ 810,500.00$ 296,895.00$ -$ 1,107,395.00$ 1. a) Indicate whether the project contains the following components. Does the project have a mobile component? SUMMARY TABLE Please fiil out this section Do Not Fill-This section is auto-populated Insert the following values into the Application Form under Section G (Budget Forecast & Confirmed Sources of Funding). The boxes below will be populated once the form is complete. Are you targeting a very remote community or an Indigenous community or a satellite dependent community? NO Improving Connectivity for Ontario (ICON) - DETAILED BUDGET TEMPLATE This template is part of Stage 2 of the ICON Program application. IMPORTANT: Do not copy or paste values into this template, it includes formulas designed to calculate totals. 1: Detailed Budget: The detailed budget table should be completed by the Applicant as part of ICON Stage 2 application process. a) Under the Summary Table, indicate if the project will be targeting a remote community, an Indigenous community, a satellite dependent community, and/or have a mobile component. Applicants MUST input information into all the grey cells, except if there is no information for that specific cell. Failure to provide the requested information may result in the application being deemed incomplete. ICON team may share application information with provincial and federal governments or other federal funding partners to improve coordination and bilateral decision-making related to broadband and mobile funding. g) Once completed, proceed to the Summary Project Budget table. 2: Summary Project Budget a) These tables are organized according to government fiscal year which runs from April 1st to March 31st. Applicants must ensure that costs are allocated accordingly. b) Verify that all budget line items correlate between Part 1 and Part 2 on the Detailed Budget Template. 3: Once Part 1 and 2 are completed, proceed to filling out Section G on the Application Form (Budget Forecast & Confirmed Sources of Funding) using the auto-populated values in the Summary Table, as specified. Once the Applicant has completed the template, the Applicant is required to resolve any error messages displayed. The template can b) Complete the eligible and ineligible cost categories ensuring that you are placing the items in the appropriate cost category. Costs must be rounded to the nearest whole dollar. c) Each budget category (i.e. equipment, materials, direct labour, etc.) have an extensive number of sub-categories (i.e. radios, routers, dishes, etc.). If your sub-category is not listed please use the “Other” subcategory row and specify, with as much detail as possible, explaining information on the nature of the item in the item description d) For categories that are not applicable, leave the cell empty. e) The following rows are automatically calculated based upon the allocations provided: total eligible, total ineligible and total project costs. f) Please indicate the funding ratio(s) requested from the ICON program. INDICATE SHARING RATIO (%) AMOUNT REQUESTED FROM ICON (Auto-Populated) TOTAL INELIGIBLE PART 2 - SUMMARY PROJECT BUDGET NO PART 1 - DETAILED BUDGET TOTAL ELIGIBLE Attachment #3 to Report LEG 01-21 - 76 - DATE:Applicant Name Project Name ? ? Annual expenses for that operational component should be entered under each of the five (5) years accordingly. Add any notes or comments as appropriate. 5) There is a section where the total civic addresses (serviceable addresses) captured by the proponents network solution are input. Estimate the customer acquisition or growth curve over the five (5) years. This input will be used in the SUMMARY TAB and also in the Customer Premise Equipment and Installation section of the NETWORK BUILD TAB. Add any notes or comments as appropriate. The spreadsheet automatically calculates the Capital $ required annually based on the percentage chosen by the proponent. A 40 year lifecycle suggests a 2.5% annual refresh rate. 7) There is an "OTHER" category where the proponent may include any other components which has not been covered in the category section. Add any notes or comments as appropriate. 6) A network technology lifecycle refresh component has been included which is typically based on a 40 year lifecycle for the Outside Plant, towers etc. The proponent can choose whatever lifecycle term they feel is appropriate for their solution. Your Project Name INSTRUCTIONS TAB: SUMMARY TAB: NETWORK BUILD (WIRED and WIRELESS Solution TABS): 6) There is an "OTHER" category where the applicant may include any other components which have not been covered in the category section. Add any notes or comments as appropriate. 1) This TAB provides Applicants Instructions for filling out this Financial Forecast template. 2) Applicants need only to fill the boxes in grey above in this TAB (Date / Applicant Name / Project Name). 1) The "Summary" TAB summarizes the inputs from both the "Network Build" (WIRED and WIRELESS) TABS and the "Operations" TAB. 2) The "Summary" TAB reflects total $ costs for both WIRED and WIRELESS solution proposals as well as normalized unit $ costs per customer. This also provides a "checking" mechanism for the applicant as the template is being filled in. Improving Connectivity for Ontario (ICON) - Financial Forecast Template Instructions 1) There are two separate TABS, a WIRED solution TAB and a WIRELESS solution TAB which are both protected so that only the "input fields" can be altered by the applicant. All formulas can be seen but not altered in any way. All white cells are calculated and NOT alterable. 2) There may be cases where a project has wired and wireless components, and certain infrastructure is required for both types of service to be operational. In those instances, please include the common infrastructure in only one of the "Network Build" TABS so the infrastructure is not double-counted. These TABS have been protected so that only the "input fields" can be altered by the applicant. All formulas can be seen but not altered in any way. All 4) On each relevant line, the proponent should simply provide the "Capital $" component required to support the start-up of the operations. If already captured under the "Network Build" TAB, DO NOT report it again. Your Company Name 4) Applicants should only fill in the "cell inputs" which are relevant to their network solution. For example, in a WIRED Solution, if no towers are used, DO NOT fill in any of the input cells which pertain to towers. If multiple technologies are used, then fill in the appropriate input cells in the appropriate TAB. Add any comments or notes to help support your numbers. 5) On each relevant line, the proponent should simply provide the "Quantity" and "Unit Cost" whether they are Materials or Labour as the input. Add any notes or comments as appropriate. 3) There is also an opportunity for the applicant to add any final Comments or Notes to the "Summary" TAB. 3) The "Network Build" TABS provide the "inputs" for the "Backbone" portion and "Last-Mile" portions of the proposed network solutions. All input cells are grey in colour. 1) This TAB has been protected so that only the "input fields" can be altered by the proponent. All formulas can be seen but not altered in any way. All white cells are calculated and NOT alterable. 2) This TAB provides the "inputs" for the "Operations" portion of the proposed network solution. All input cells are grey in colour. 3) Proponents should only fill in the "cell inputs" which are relevant to their network solution. OPERATIONS TAB: Attachment #4 to Report LEG 01-21 - 77 - Date:0-Jan-00 Project Name: QTY Material $Labour $TOTAL CAPITAL $AVG $/Unit AVG $/Pot Customer QTY Material $Labour $TOTAL CAPITAL $AVG $/Unit AVG $/Pot Customer 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Land Acquisition 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 11,201 $103,320 $0 $103,320 $9 $708 Wireless Towers Deployed (Qty)0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Fibre Deployment (m)0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Coax Plant Deployment (m)0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 25 $26,875 $4,000 $30,875 $1,235 $211 Outside Plant Materials (QTY)0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Transport Equipment (QTY)0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 1 $15,000 $7,500 $22,500 $22,500 $154 Back Office Facilities (QTY)0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 1 $16,500 $6,250 $22,750 $22,750 $156 Back Office Equipment (QTY)0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other Backbone Materials and Labour:0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL Backbone Network Capital $:$179,445 TOTAL Backbone Network Capital $:$0 AVG $/Customer:$1,229 AVG $/Customer:$0 Total ELIGIBLE $:$179,445 Total ELIGIBLE $:$0 Total INELIGIBLE $:$0 Total INELIGIBLE $:$0 QTY Material $Labour $TOTAL CAPITAL $AVG $/Unit AVG $/Customer QTY Material $Labour $TOTAL CAPITAL $AVG $/Unit AVG $/Customer 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Land Acquisition 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 14,000 $94,500 $637,500 $732,000 $52 $5,014 Wireless Towers Deployed (Qty)0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Fibre Deployment (m)0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Outside Plant Materials (QTY)0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 55 $16,500 $3,200 $19,700 $358 $135 Distribution Equipment (QTY)0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 1 $68,500 $8,750 $77,250 $77,250 $529 End Customer Termination @100% PEN (QTY)3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $99,000 $99,000 $0 $678 Other "Last Mile" Materials and Labour:0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL "LAST MILE" Network Capital $:$0 TOTAL "LAST MILE" Network Capital $: $927,950 AVG $/Customer:$0 AVG $/Customer:$6,356 Total ELIGIBLE $:$0 Total ELIGIBLE $:$828,950 Total INELIGIBLE $:$0 Total INELIGIBLE $:$99,000 $0 $1,107,395 YEAR #1 YEAR #2 YEAR #3 YEAR #4 YEAR #5 YEAR #1 YEAR #2 YEAR #3 YEAR #4 YEAR #5 55 25 15 5 5 55 25 15 5 5 55 80 95 100 105 55 80 95 100 105 37.7%54.8%65.1%68.5%71.9%1833.3%2666.7%3166.7%3333.3%3500.0% PROJECT COMPONENTS ELIGIBLE COSTS (Backbone) INELIGIBLE COSTS (Backbone) ELIGIBLE COSTS (Last MIle) INELIGIBLE COSTS (Last MIle)TOTALS TOTAL $Year #1 Year #2 Year #3 Year #4 Year #5 Core Backbone $7,500 $0 N/A N/A $7,500 $32,250 $9,000 $6,075 $5,650 $5,725 $5,800 Last Mile Distribution N/A N/A $50,000 $0 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Towers $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,750 $1,750 $1,750 $1,750 $1,750 $1,750 A/E Plant, Poles $35,000 $0 $0 $0 $35,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 U/G Plant, Fibre/Coax $99,195 $0 $778,950 $0 $878,145 $41,000 $10,750 $7,825 $7,400 $7,475 $7,550 Optical Transport and Back Office $37,750 N/A N/A N/A $37,750 AVG $/Customer:$195 $98 $78 #REF!#DIV/0! Misc – Travel Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pre-engineering N/A $0 N/A $0 $0 TOTAL $Year #1 Year #2 Year #3 Year #4 Year #5 Land Acquisition $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $32,250 $9,000 $6,075 $5,650 $5,725 $5,800 Customer Premise Equipment (CPE)N/A N/A $0 $99,000 $99,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $179,445 $0 $828,950 $99,000 $1,107,395 $8,750 $1,750 $1,750 $1,750 $1,750 $1,750 Contingency Amount $17,945 $0 $82,895 $9,900 $110,740 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $197,390 $0 $911,845 $108,900 $1,218,135 $758 $152 $152 $152 $152 $152 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $41,758 $10,902 $7,977 $7,552 $7,627 $7,702 AVG $/Customer:$198 $100 $79 #REF!#DIV/0! ERROR!$21,652 $15,802 $14,952 $15,102 $15,252 OVERALL AVG $/Customer:$271 $198 $157 #REF!#DIV/0! OPERATING EXPENSES SUMMARY GENERAL Office Expenses Network Back Office Expenses (Call Centre, Service Desk Network - Outside Plant Maintenance Expenses Network - Equipment Maintenance Expenses Network - Equipment Maintenance Expenses Technology Lifecycle Refresh Other Operating Capital (Included under each Category) Total Operating Expenses: OPERATING CAPITAL SUMMARY GENERAL Office Expenses Network Back Office Expenses (NOC and Service Desk) Network - Outside Plant Maintenance Expenses Land Acquisition Other "Last Mile" Materials and Labour: Coax Plant Deployment (m) DSLAM and FDH Deployments (QTY) Outside Plant Materials (QTY) Distribution Equipment (QTY) End Customer Termination @100% PEN (QTY) Transport equipment, transport cards, racking, cabling. Equipment installation. Supply and Install - Towers, Site Equipment, hydro transfers, hydro make-ready. Fibre Deployment (m) Supply and Install - Poles, achors, grounding and transportation. Pole placement, hydro transfers, hydro make- ready. Planning, design and engineering. Equipment installation. Planning, design and engineering. Equipment installation. TOTAL OSP INFRASTRUCTURE BUILD ESTIMATE Total Operating Cash Flow Estimate: Applicants Notes and Comments:Total Operating Capital Expenses: WIRELESS SOLUTION - "BACKBONE" INFRASTRUCTURE ESTIMATE WIRELESS SOLUTION - "LAST MILE" OSP INFRASTRUCTURE ESTIMATE DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITIES OPERATING CASH FLOW ESTIMATE - 3 YEAR OPERATIONS Pre-engineering Design and Bid Preparation. Leasing of land, buildings and other facilities; leasing equipment other than equipment directly related to the construction of the Project; real estate fees and related costs, purchase of Land for Towers and/or Backbone connections. 10% has been calculated into each individual component Total Estimated Project Costs Customer Premise Equipment (ie. Towers, Antennas, RF Amplifiers, Termination Hardware, Modems, Drops, Optical Network Terminals) Subtotals Fibre and/or Coaxial cable, associated hardware, terminals, cabinets, passive splitters, planning and design. ICON - Cost Estimate Summary WIRED SOLUTION - "BACKBONE" INFRASTRUCTURE ESTIMATE WIRED SOLUTION - "LAST MILE" OSP INFRASTRUCTURE ESTIMATE Land Acquisition / Leasing Fibre Deployment (m) Coax Plant Deployment (m) DSLAM and FDH Deployments (QTY) Your Project NameYour Company NameApplicant Name: Outside Plant Materials (QTY) Transport Equipment (QTY) Back Office Facilities (QTY) Back Office Equipment (QTY) Other Backbone Materials and Labour: Customer Growth Curve (Customers to be connected by Proposed Network Solution): Cumulative Connections: TOTAL Network Solution Reach: WIRELESS SOLUTION Customer Growth Curve (Customers to be connected by Proposed Network Solution): Cumulative Connections: TOTAL Network Solution Reach: WIRED SOLUTION - 78 - CAPITAL BUDGET $ ESTIMATE WORKSHEET DATE:0-Jan-00 ?= CELL INPUTS # of WIRED Connections Serviced 146 Households 138 Businesses 4 Anchor Institutions 4 BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE - Materials Item Eligible/ Ineligible Cost Units Unit $$ Estimate 1 Eligible 1 $35,000 $35,000 2 Ineligible 0 $0 $0 3 Eligible 11200 $6 $68,320 4 Eligible 0 $0 $0 5 Eligible 0 $0 $0 6 Eligible 0 $0 $0 7 Eligible 25 $1,075 $26,875 8 Eligible 0 $0 $0 9 Eligible 1 $15,000 $15,000 10 Eligible 1 $16,500 $16,500 Other Backbone Materials NOT Covered Above: 0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $161,695 $161,695 $0 Item Eligible/ Ineligible Cost Units Unit $Cost $ Estimate 1 Ineligible 0 $0 $0 2 Eligible 1 $0 $0 3 Ineligible 0 $0 $0 4 Eligible 0 $0 $0 5 Eligible 0 $0 $0 6 Eligible 0 $0 $0 7 Eligible 0 $0 $0 8 Eligible 0 $0 $0 9 Eligible 0 $0 $0 10 Eligible 0 $0 $0 11 Eligible 0 $0 $0 12 Eligible 0 $0 $0 13 Eligible 100 $40 $4,000 14 Eligible 0 $0 $0 15 Eligible 1 $7,500 $7,500 16 Eligible 125 $50 $6,250 Other Backbone Labour NOT Covered Above: 0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $17,750 $17,750 $0 Item Eligible/ Ineligible Cost Units Unit $Cost $ Estimate 1 Eligible 0 $0 $0 2 Ineligible 0 $0 $0 3 Eligible 14000 $7 $94,500 4 Eligible 0 $0 $0 5 Eligible 0 $0 $0 6 Eligible 0 $0 $0 7 Eligible 55 $300 $16,500 8 Eligible 1 $68,500 $68,500 9 Ineligible 0 $0 $0 Other "Last Mile" Materials NOT Covered Above: 0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $179,500 $179,500 $0 Item Eligible/ Ineligible Cost Units Unit $Cost $ Estimate 1 Ineligible 0 $0 $0 2 Ineligible 0 $0 $0 3 Eligible 0 $0 $0 4 Eligible 0 $0 $0 5 Eligible 12500 $4 $50,000 6 Eligible 12500 $47 $587,500 7 Eligible 0 $0 $0 8 Eligible 0 $0 $0 9 Eligible 0 $0 $0 10 Eligible 0 $0 $0 11 Eligible 0 $0 $0 12 Eligible 0 $0 $0 13 Eligible 80 $40 $3,200 14 Eligible 175 $50 $8,750 15 Ineligible 90 $1,100 $99,000 Other "Last Mile" Labour NOT Covered Above: 0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $748,450 $649,450 $99,000 $1,107,395 Assumptions (Notes and Comments) Fibre splicing of last mile fibre. NOTE TO BRIAN: This is actually for Project Management however there is no set spot for that and the "Other Last Mile Labour" section below End customer activaton includes $150 for ONT, $450 to run drop conduit and blow drop fibre in, $200 for drop materials including drop conduit, Includes design and permitting for parallel backbone network. $44/m directional drilling includes installation of conduit systems, vaults and peds both last mile and bakcbone. $3/m for cable jetting of both last $1.50/m avg cost of mix of 24/48/72 count micro fibre, $4.75/m 7-way microduct, $0.25/m microduct couplers, $0.25/m trace wire. Includes 12% Pedestals and small splice closures. $41,500 for 1 Zhone MXK Shelf with 2x16 Port OLT cards plus optics. 3 x $8,000 for PON cabinets. 12 x $250 for 1x32 splitters for PON Cabinets. Outside Plant Materials (Installation, Commissiong and Turn-up) ($/QTY) Assumptions (Notes and Comments) U/G design of backbone section piggybacked on parallel last mile build U/G installation of backbone section piggybacked on parallel last mile build $4000 to install concrete pad for shelter (includes material and labour) and $3,500 for hydro hookup.NOTE TO BRIAN: This is actually for Project Management however there is no set spot for that and the "Other Last Mile Labour" section below Fibre splciing of backbone fibre. TOTAL INELIGIBLE $: ICON - WIRED SOLUTION COST ESTIMATE Assumptions (Notes and Comments) BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE - Labour "LAST MILE" INFRASTRUCTURE - Materials "LAST MILE" INFRASTRUCTURE - Labour NOTE TO BRIAN: This is actually for 2 special permits and needs to be in Item 11 below but requires the spreadsheet to be fixed to allow it as an TOTALS: TOTAL ELIGIBLE $: Distribution Equipment (Installation, Commissiong and Turn-up) ($/QTY) End Customer Equipment (Customer Drop, Outside Home Termination, Internal Wiring, Cable/Data Modem, Home Terminal, etc) (QTY) 16 DSLAM/Node and FDH/FSA Design, Permits and Engineering ($/QTY) DSLAM/Node and FDH/FSA Install, Commissioning and Turn-up (Cabinet, Fibre/Copper Termination, Splitter Modules, Actives, etc) ($/QTY) $4.00/m 144 count fibre, $2.00/m1.5" SDR13.5 conduit, $0.10/m couplers Includes 12% account for wastage of fibre backloops and $475/cable vault, $550/large splice closure, $50/ground plate and marker stick at each vault location Outdoor telecom cabinet with built in DC power system and battery backupCisco ASR 920 Series - 12 x1/10GE SFP, Dual DC Model & Cisco ASR920 Series - Advanced Metro IP Access Assumptions (Notes and Comments) TOTALS: TOTAL ELIGIBLE $: End Customer Equipment (Customer Drop, Outside Home Termination, Internal Wiring, Cable/Data Modem, Home Terminal, etc) (QTY) A/E Coax Plant Install, Commissioning and Turn-up ($/m) U/G Coax Plant Extension Design, Permits and Engineering ($/m) U/G Coax Plant Install, Commissioning and Turn-up ($/m) U/G Fibre Design, Permits and Engineering ($/m) U/G Fibre Install, Commissioning and Turn-up ($/m) A/E Coax Plant Extension Design, Permits and Engineering ($/m) Fibre Network Pre-Engineering ($) Leasing of land, buildings and other facilities; leasing equipment other than equipment directly related to the construction of the Project; real estate fees and related costs, purchase of Land for Towers and/or Backbone connections Aerial Fibre Design, Permits and Engineering ($/m) Aerial Fibre Install, Commissioning and Turn-up ($/m) TOTAL ELIGIBLE $: TOTAL INELIGIBLE $: Description TOTALS: 10 DSLAM/Node and FDH/FSA Last Mile Deployments (Cabinet, Fibre/Copper Termination, Splitter Modules, Actives, etc) (QTY) Outside Plant Materials (FOSC, Peds, Handholds, Connectors, Power Supplies, etc) (QTY) Distribution Equipment (Optical Equipment and Splitters, RF Equipment, Routers, Switches, Spares, etc. ) (QTY) Leasing of land, buildings and other facilities; leasing equipment other than equipment directly related to the construction of the Project; real estate fees and related costs, purchase of Land for Towers and/or Backbone connections U/G Fibre Distribution Build (Cable, Conduit, Couplers) (U/G m) A/E Coax Distribution Plant Extensions (Aerial m) U/G Coax Distribution Plant Extensions (U/G m) TOTAL INELIGIBLE $: Description A/E Fibre Distribution Build (Poles, Cable, Strand, Lashing Wire, Anchors ) (Aerial m) Back Office Facilities (Building, Racks, Power, HVAC, Gensets, Fuel Tanks, Security) (QTY) Back Office Equipment (Transit Routers, Switches, Redundancy Equipment, Sparing, etc) (QTY) 11 Back Office Facilities (Design, Permitting and Engineering) ($/QTY) Back Office Equipment Install, Commissioning and Turn-up ( Transit Routers, Switches, Redundancy Equipment, etc) (QTY) 17 DSLAM/Node and FDH/FSA Install, Commissioning and Turn-up ($/QTY) Outside Plant Materials (Installation, Commissiong and Turn-up) ($/QTY) Transport Equipment (Installation, Commissiong and Turn-up) ($/QTY) U/G Coax Plant Extension Design, Permits and Engineering ($/m) U/G Coax Plant Install, Commissioning and Turn-up ($/m) DSLAM/Node and FDH/FSA Design, Permits and Engineering ($/QTY) U/G Fibre Install, Commissioning and Turn-up ($/m) Aerial Coax Plant Extension Design, Permits and Engineering ($/m) Aerial Coax Plant Install, Commissioning and Turn-up ($/m) A/E Fibre Design, Permits and Engineering ($/m) Leasing of land, buildings and other facilities; leasing equipment other than equipment directly related to the construction of the Project; real estate fees and related costs, purchase of Land for Towers and/or Backbone connections A/E Fibre Install, Commissioning and Turn-up ($/m) U/G Fibre Design, Permits and Engineering ($/m) TOTAL INELIGIBLE $: Description Fibre Network Pre-Engineering ($) TOTALS: TOTAL ELIGIBLE $: DSLAM/Node and FDH/FSA Deployments (QTY) Outside Plant Materials (FOSC, Peds, Handholds, Connectors, Power Supplies,etc) (QTY) Transport Equipment (Optical Transport, RF Transport, Redundancy Equipment, Sparing, etc) (QTY) Leasing of land, buildings and other facilities; leasing equipment other than equipment directly related to the construction of the Project; real estate fees and related costs, purchase of Land for Towers and/or Backbone connections U/G Fibre Build (Cable, Conduit, Couplers) (U/G m) A/E Coax Plant Extensions (Aerial m) U/G Coax Plant Extensions (U/G m) Description A/E Fibre Build (Poles, Cable, Strand, Lashing Wire, Anchors ) (Aerial m) - 79 - CAPITAL BUDGET $ ESTIMATE WORKSHEET DATE:0-Jan-00 ?= CELL INPUTS # of WIRELESS Connections Serviced 3 Households 1 Businesses 1 Anchor Institutions 1 BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE - Materials Item Eligible/ Ineligible Cost Units Unit $$ Estimate 1 Eligible 0 $0 $0 2 Ineligible 0 $0 $0 3 Eligible 0 $0 $0 4 Eligible 0 $0 $0 5 Eligible 0 $0 $0 6 Eligible 0 $0 $0 7 Eligible 0 $0 $0 8 Eligible 0 $0 $0 9 Eligible 0 $0 $0 10 Eligible 0 $0 $0 Other Backbone Materials NOT Covered Above: 0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Item Eligible/ Ineligible Cost Units Unit $Cost $ Estimate 1 Eligible 0 $0 $0 2 Ineligible 0 $0 $0 3 Ineligible 0 $0 $0 4 Eligible 0 $0 $0 5 Ineligible 0 $0 $0 6 Eligible 0 $0 $0 7 Eligible 0 $0 $0 8 Eligible 0 $0 $0 9 Eligible 0 $0 $0 10 Eligible 0 $0 $0 11 Eligible 0 $0 $0 12 Eligible 0 $0 $0 13 Eligible 0 $0 $0 14 Eligible 0 $0 $0 15 Eligible 0 $0 $0 16 Eligible 0 $0 $0 17 Eligible 0 $0 $0 Other Backbone Labour NOT Covered Above: 0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Item Eligible/ Ineligible Cost Units Unit $Cost $ Estimate 1 Eligible 0 $0 $0 2 Ineligible 0 $0 $0 3 Eligible 0 $0 $0 4 Eligible 0 $0 $0 5 Eligible 0 $0 $0 6 Eligible 0 $0 $0 7 Ineligible 3 $0 $0 Other "Last Mile" Materials NOT Covered Above: 0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Item Eligible/ Ineligible Cost Units Unit $Cost $ Estimate 1 Ineligible 0 $0 $0 2 Eligible 0 $0 $0 3 Eligible 0 $0 $0 4 Ineligible 0 $0 $0 5 Ineligible 0 $0 $0 6 Eligible 0 $0 $0 7 Eligible 0 $0 $0 8 Eligible 0 $0 $0 9 Eligible 0 $0 $0 10 Eligible 0 $0 $0 11 Eligible 0 $0 $0 12 Ineligible 3 $0 $0 Other "Last Mile" Labour NOT Covered Above: 0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Tower Site Pre-Engineering, Design, Permits and Bid Preparation ($/Site) Tower Site Design, Permits and Engineering ($/Site) Assumptions (Notes and Comments)Description "LAST MILE" INFRASTRUCTURE - Labour A/E Fibre Distribution Build (Poles, Cable, Strand, Lashing Wire, Anchors ) (Aerial m) U/G Fibre Distribution Build (Cable, Conduit, Couplers) (U/G m) TOTAL ELIGIBLE $: TOTAL INELIGIBLE $: "LAST MILE" INFRASTRUCTURE - Materials Assumptions (Notes and Comments) 8 Distribution Equipment (Optical Equipment and Splitters, RF Equipment, Routers, Switches, Spares, etc. ) (QTY) End Customer Equipment (Customer Drop, Outside Home Termination, External Mini-Tower and Antenna, Internal Wiring, Cable/Data Modem, Home Terminal, etc) (QTY) Outside Plant Materials (FOSC, Peds, Handholds, Connectors, Power Supplies, etc) (QTY) Description Towers, Equipment Shelter, Powering, HVAC, Antennas, Cabling (QTY) Leasing of land, buildings and other facilities; leasing equipment other than equipment directly related to the construction of the Project; real estate fees and related costs, purchase of Land for Towers and/or Backbone connections TOTAL INELIGIBLE $: 13 TOTAL ELIGIBLE $: TOTAL INELIGIBLE $: TOTALS: TOTAL ELIGIBLE $: Distribution Equipment (Installation, Commissiong and Turn-up) ($/QTY) End Customer Equipment (Customer Drop, Outside Home Termination, External Mini-Tower and Antenna, Internal Wiring, Cable/Data Modem, Home Terminal, etc) (QTY) U/G Fibre Design, Permits and Engineering ($/m) U/G Fibre Install, Commissioning and Turn-up ($/m) Outside Plant Materials (Installation, Commissiong and Turn-up) ($/QTY) Leasing of land, buildings and other facilities; leasing equipment other than equipment directly related to the construction of the Project; real estate fees and related costs, purchase of Land for Towers and/or Backbone connections Fibre Network Pre-Engineering ($) Aerial Fibre Design, Permits and Engineering ($/m) Aerial Fibre Install, Commissioning and Turn-up ($/m) Tower Site Installation, Commissioning and Turn up ($/site) TOTALS: ICON - WIRELESS SOLUTION COST ESTIMATE Assumptions (Notes and Comments) Transport Equipment (Installation, Commissiong and Turn-up) ($/QTY) Outside Plant Materials (Installation, Commissiong and Turn-up) ($/QTY) 11 U/G Coax Plant Install, Commissioning and Turn-up ($/m) U/G Coax Plant Extension Design, Permits and Engineering ($/m) Leasing of land, buildings and other facilities; leasing equipment other than equipment directly related to the construction of the Project; real estate fees and related costs, purchase of Land for Towers and/or Backbone connections A/E Fibre Build (Poles, Cable, Strand, Lashing Wire, Anchors ) (Aerial m) U/G Fibre Build (Cable, Conduit, Couplers) (U/G m) A/E Coax Plant Extensions (Aerial m) BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE - Labour Assumptions (Notes and Comments) Back Office Facilities (Design, Permitting and Engineering) ($/QTY) Back Office Equipment Install, Commissioning and Turn-up ( Transit Routers, Switches, Redundancy Equipment, etc) (QTY) 18 Aerial Coax Plant Install, Commissioning and Turn-up ($/m) A/E Fibre Install, Commissioning and Turn-up ($/m) U/G Fibre Design, Permits and Engineering ($/m) U/G Fibre Install, Commissioning and Turn-up ($/m) Leasing of land, buildings and other facilities; leasing equipment other than equipment directly related to the construction of the Project; real estate fees and related costs, purchase of Land for Towers and/or Backbone connections. Tower Site Installation, Commissioning and Turn up ($/site) Fibre Network Pre-Engineering ($) A/E Fibre Design, Permits and Engineering ($/m) Description Tower Site Design, Permits and Engineering ($/Site) Tower Site Pre-Engineering ($/Site) Description Backhaul Towers, Land, Equipment Shelter, Powering, HVAC, Antennas, Cabling (QTY) Back Office Facilities ( Building, Racks, Power, HVAC, Gensets, Fuel Tanks, Security) (QTY) Back Office Equipment ( Transit Routers, Switches, Redundancy Equipment, Sparing, etc) (QTY) TOTALS: U/G Coax Plant Extensions (U/G m) Outside Plant Materials (FOSC, Peds, Handholds, Connectors, Power Supplies,etc) (QTY) Transport Equipment (Optical Transport, RF Transport, Redundancy Equipment, Sparing, etc) (QTY) TOTALS: TOTAL ELIGIBLE $: TOTAL INELIGIBLE $: Aerial Coax Plant Extension Design, Permits and Engineering ($/m) - 80 - OPERATIONS $ ESTIMATE WORKSHEET DATE:0-Jan-00 ?= CELL INPUTS General Office Expenses Item Description Capital $Expense $Assumptions (Notes and Comments)YEAR #1 YEAR #2 YEAR #3 YEAR #4 YEAR #5 55 25 15 5 5 1 Direct Management Support - Oversight, Performance Management etc $0 $0 Serviced by existing staff, small enough project footprint to be negligible.$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2 HR - Staff Recruiting and Training Support $0 $0 Serviced by existing staff, small enough project footprint to be negligible.$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 3 Sales and Marketing Support, Customer Acquisition Costs $0 $4,000 Assume a town hall meeting to kickoff project and direct mailers first 2 years with word of mouth ongoing.$3,500 $500 $0 $0 $0 4 General Admin Support, office space and equipment i.e. photocopiers, furniture, telephones, computers, printers and office software $0 $0 No physical office in project area.$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5 Pole Rental - Recurring Pole Attachment Costs $0 $12,500 Not pole rental - ongoing locate costs as plant will be underground.$2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 6 Tower Site Rental - Recurring Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 7 Back-Office Building/Space Rental - Recurring Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 8 Field Maintenance & Repair Support, Vehicles, Office desk space, laptops, Tools, S/W licensing, Annual S/W maintenance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 9 Co-Location and Utility (Power) @ ALL Network Centres, Co-location sites $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 10 Fuel Costs for all Tower sites, Head Ends, Network Centre back-up Gensets $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 11 Utility Costs for all Tower sites, Head Ends, Central offices or Network Centres $0 $15,750 Minimal power requirments at a single head end.$3,000 $3,075 $3,150 $3,225 $3,300 12 Property Insurance - all Towers sites, Head Ends, Central Office, Network Centres or Back Office Facilities.$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 13 Land Lease Costs , Property Taxes, ROW annual fees, Legal Fees, Environmental or Archeological studies, Radio and Spectrum licensing fees, etc.$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other General Office Expenses NOT Covered Above: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $32,250 $9,000 $6,075 $5,650 $5,725 $5,800 Network - Back Office Expenses (Call Centre, Service/Help Desk and NOC Operations) Item Description Capital $Expense $Assumptions (Notes and Comments)YEAR #1 YEAR #2 YEAR #3 YEAR #4 YEAR #5 55 25 15 5 5 1 Establish or expand existing Call Centre Capacity, Resources, workstations, Specialized Training, etc $0 $0 Serviced by existing staff, small enough project footprint to be negligible.$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2 Establish or expand existing Service /Help Desk component, Resources, workstations, Specialized Training, etc $0 $0 Serviced by existing staff, small enough project footprint to be negligible.$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 3 Establish or expand existing Network Operation Centre component, Resources, workstations, Specialized Training, etc $0 $0 Serviced by existing staff, small enough project footprint to be negligible.$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 4 Estimated Transit Bandwidth Expenses (Based on Customer Growth Curve)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other Network Back Office Expenses NOT Covered Above: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Network - Outside Plant Maintenance Expenses Item Description Capital $Expense $Assumptions (Notes and Comments)YEAR #1 YEAR #2 YEAR #3 YEAR #4 YEAR #5 1 Field Maintenance & Repair Support, including Technician hand tools, safety equipment, Training etc $0 $0 Serviced by existing staff, small enough project footprint to be negligible.$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2 Corrective Maintenance - Outage Response $0 $5,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 3 Peventative Maintenance - Tower site maintenance, Genset Oil changes, Regular excercising, Battery levels, HVAC filters, antenna alignments, Construction Route Monitoring, Ped repairs, anchor repairs, lashing wire repairs, pole changes etc… $0 $3,750 $750 $750 $750 $750 $750 4 Network Construction & Physical Plant Repair Support $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5 Network Maintenance Standby Pay - On Call $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 6 Vehicles, Insurance, Licensing, Operation and Maintenance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 7 Network Test Instruments - OTDR, Power meter, Laptop, Fusion Splicer, Network Analyzers, Annual S/W licenses, Annual S/W Maintenance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 8 Fibre Reel Trailers, Conduit Reel, A/E Construction hardware, lashing wire, small lasher, brackets, standoffs, strand,anchors, etc $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 9 Tower maintenance, Inspections, Anchor-Guy maintenance, $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other Network Maintenance Expenses NOT Covered Above: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,750 $1,750 $1,750 $1,750 $1,750 $1,750 Network - Site and Equipment Maintenance Expenses Item Description Capital $Expense $Assumptions (Notes and Comments)YEAR #1 YEAR #2 YEAR #3 YEAR #4 YEAR #5 1 Outside Plant Equipment - General Construction repairs, replacements, plant related degradation $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2 Tower Site, Network Centres Site Maintenance, HVAC System, Standby Power System, Propane tanks and system, Batteries, Grounds weed control, Gate/Fence, Security, Access roads etc.$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 3 Tower Site, Network Centre/POP Points - Monthly Equipment Checks - Fibre Transport $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 4 Tower Site, Network Centres/POP Points - Weekly Equipment Checks - Battery/Power System Tests, HVAC Systems, Security systems, etc $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Network - Technology Lifecycle Refresh Item Description Percent (%)Capital $Assumptions (Notes and Comments)YEAR #1 YEAR #2 YEAR #3 YEAR #4 YEAR #5 1 BACKBONE NETWORK: Tower and Wireless Infrustructure, Outside Plant Lifecycle Refresh (Example: Based on 40 year operating life of network gives 2.5% of total construction cost/year)2.0%$123 $25 $25 $25 $25 $25 2 LAST MILE NETWORK: Tower and Wireless Infrustructure, Outside Plant Lifecycle Refresh (Example: Based on 40 year operating life of network gives 2.5% of total construction cost/year)2.0%$636 $127 $127 $127 $127 $127 $758 $152 $152 $152 $152 $152 Other Network Site and Equipment Maintenance Expenses NOT Covered Above: 5 TOTALS: TOTALS: TOTALS: ICON - OPERATIONS COST ESTIMATE TOTALS: 10 TOTALS: Estimated Customer Growth Curve:OR - Check Network Build TA 5 Estimated Customer Growth Curve:ERROR - Check Network Build TAB (C5) 14 - 81 - Attachment #5 to Report LEG 01-21 - 82 - Report to Executive Committee Report Number: PLN 01-21 Date: January 4, 2021 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Pickering Environmental Schools Grant -Results of the First Year of Funding -File: D-7000-007 Recommendation: 1.That Report PLN 01-21 of the Director, City Development & CBO on the results of the Pickering Environmental Schools Grant be received for information; and 2.That a copy of Report PLN 01-21 be forwarded to the Durham Catholic District School Board (DCDSB) and Durham District School Board (DDSB) Trustees for City of Pickering, DCDSB and DDSB Directors of Education, DCDSB Superintendent of Facilities Services, DDSB EcoSchools Facilitator, DDSB Education Officer (Curriculum Grades 7-12) and eLearning Administrator, DDSB, Administrative Assistant, Student Achievement & Curriculum Department. Executive Summary: On October 21, 2019 Council approved the creation of a Pickering Environmental Schools Grant and provided 2020 pre-budget approval in the amount of $8,750.00 (account 2195.2712.0000) for the initiative. The purpose of the grant was to provide thousands of Pickering students the opportunity to implement activities that contribute to a healthy environment. The Durham Catholic District School Board (DCDSB) and the Durham District School Board (DDSB) each had access to up to $4,000.00 for their respective schools. The Ontario French Public School Board could apply for up to $750.00, which was reflective of there being only one school in Pickering. Staff worked with the three school boards to communicate the grant opportunity to the schools and the feedback was very positive. Twelve schools applied for funds quickly reaching the maximum $8,750.00 of available dollars. Unfortunately, two significant occurrences impacted some schools’ ability to complete their project. Labour disruptions in late 2019 and early 2020 meant that certain tasks were not allowed to be performed. Then in March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a province-wide closure of schools until September. Most of the proposed projects were focused on engaging students in-person. As such, when schools reopened, City staff provided an extension to mid-November for initiatives to be completed. - 83 - Report PLN 01-21 January 4, 2021 Subject: Pickering Environmental Schools Grant Page 2 Seven of the twelve schools successfully completed their projects. A total of $7,476.07 was used The remaining schools were unable to undertake their projects due to the evolving COVID-19 restrictions in place to keep students and staff safe, which limited the intended scopes of work. Attached are DCDSB and DDSB summaries outlining the unique projects that were undertaken including: •planting multiple pollinator gardens; •installing shade trees in an outdoor classroom; •planting native shrubs and plants; •creating interpretive signage; •purchasing butterfly rearing kits; and •installing an indoor aeroponic growing tower for students to grow herbs, vegetables and plants in the school. Pickering’s Environmental Schools Grant initiative provided equitable access for thousands of students to be engaged in fun, educational and meaningful activities they otherwise would not have been able to pursue. Financial Implications: Not applicable to this report. Discussion: The parameters outlined in the Environmental Schools Grant Application Guidelines ensured that the funded activities/programs provided an environmental benefit to the Pickering community and its residents, had clear measurable benefits and results, and directly supported the City’s goals to continuously improve environmental sustainability. The City’s contribution was recognized in various ways such as through social media, school announcements, verbally at planting events, and with “thank you” signs and rocks displayed in the gardens and on the growing tower. Many schools have already inquired about the ability to apply for funds in 2021. Pending budget approval in 2021, Pickering’s Environmental Grant program will be offered again to the above-noted school boards. The attached reports provide a brief overview and photographs of the work that was undertaken. As documented, the grant provided valuable hands-on opportunities for Pickering students to broaden their skills and knowledge about environmental matters and empower them to take on an important role for improving sustainability within their community. The youth were able to share their experience with friends and family where it could influence further actions. An equally important note is that, as Pickering’s future decision-makers, these tools helped provide them with an understanding of the natural world and their role in protecting it. Despite the challenges presented this past year, many schools were able to modify and deliver exciting projects through the Pickering Environmental Schools Grant. It also provided a great opportunity for the City to work with new partners and help them to champion ‘on the ground’ sustainable projects. - 84 - Report PLN 01-21 January 4, 2021 Subject: Pickering Environmental Schools Grant Page 3 Attachments: 1.Durham Catholic District School Board Environmental Grant Final Report 2.Durham District School Board Environmental Grant Final Report Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Chantal Whitaker, BESc (Hons), CSR-P Kyle Bentley, P. Eng. Supervisor, Sustainability Director, City Development & CBO Stan Karwowski Director, Finance & Treasurer CW :ld Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Marisa Carpino, M.A. Interim Chief Administrative Officer Original Signed By Original Signed By Original Signed By Original Signed By - 85 - Pickering Environmental Grant Report St. Monica School, Pickering Tower Garden Project October 12, 2020 St. Monica’s Eco Team was the driving force to have the indoor Tower Garden brought to the school. When the team (students that represent each grade from 3 to 8) heard there was an opportunity to obtain a garden inside the school they were excited, but also brought up some concerns as well. They created PRO and CON list where they discussed the benefits vs cost of having the indoor garden. The positives on the list included better air quality inside the school, promoting healthy eating and providing many learning opportunities about the plants and the environment for the students. Some concerns were the supervision of the tower, distribution of produce and the responsibility of the maintenance. After meeting with a parent in the school community that has a tower garden in their home and having them explain how easy it is to maintain, and after a discussion on how we could manage the produce, the Eco Team felt confident enough to apply for the grant. As soon as we got the tower in February 2020 the ECO team planted the seeds in the Rockwool medium. The team tested the water’s pH and chose a variety of seeds to plant and made a map of the seeds. The seeds were transferred to the Tower Garden early in March (see picture below). Our principal Mrs. Wardle invited the sales Rep Joe Palumbo to speak at a Parent Council meeting to introduce the garden to the parent community. This is where the City of Pickering was acknowledged for granting our school the money to purchase the garden. Unfortunately, because of Covid-19, we did not see the harvest of the first crop of vegetables planted. This school year we are excited to begin planting again. A grade 3 class will be adopting the Tower Garden this year and will begin planting seeds within the next few weeks to coincide with the teaching the unit on Plants in the Science and Technology curriculum. We will be taking many pictures that we will share with the community via St. Monica’s Twitter account (using #cityofpickering) and our online schooling platform Edsby. The City of Pickering will surely be acknowledged as our benefactors for this fantastic addition to our school. Signage will also be Durham Catholic District School Board Attachment #1 to Report #PLN 01-21 - 86 - added to the base of the tower saying thank you to the City of Pickering for supporting our school and our ECO initiatives. Inga Spinoti Teacher, ECO lead This is a picture of the Tower garden right after the seedlings were planted. - 87 - PICKERING ENVIRONMENTAL GRANT REPORT FATHER FENELON CATHOLIC ELEMNETARY SCHOOL SLOPE PLANTING AND EROSION CONTROL NOV 2, 2020 Father Fenelon’s EcoTeam was part of the planting along the slope on the east side of the school. The school and board worked with the City of Pickering planning and sustainability teams to help with a planting project. This project would be mutually beneficial to the school for helping with some erosion control on the east side of the property as well as creating a natural habitat with some native species, and to the City to assist with some concerns about privacy and erosion that had been expressed by nieghbours of the school. The City of Pickering was acknowledged for granting our school the money to purchase the garden. The planting occurred the week of October 26th, 2020, so the growth of the plants and the filling out of the area will not be realized until the spring/summer of 2021. The board will also be adding some bordering shrubs to the project in the spring time, as these shrubs were not available at the time of planting. The funds provided by the City were allocated to the purchase of the plants, and part of the contractor work required to excavate the swale and the planting area. The school board contributed a portion of the cost for the contractor services. The City of Pickering will surely be acknowledged as our benefactors for this fantastic addition to our school. Below are many pictures of the planting days. - 88 - - 89 - City of Pickering Environmental Grant Final Report As of the end of 2020, the following schools in the Durham District School Board have completed their environmental grant projects in partnership with the City of Pickering. 1.William Dunbar PS Teacher: Michael Ringrose ($886.37) Out of the 30 ish plants we purchased we planted them in 5 different garden areas on our school grounds. We now have milkweed and other plants that support the various stages of the butterfly lifecycle in 5 different garden beds. We also now have made space for future planting of milkweed seeds and other bulbs for students in the future to continue the hands on planting experience. We had students digging holes in the garden, planting the various shrubs and flowers, and had an older group of students moving mulch from a large pile to the various garden beds around the school grounds. We used various gardening tools and gloves that the students and teachers brought in to complete the project.” A sign of thank you to the City of Pickering appears in the garden. 2.Vaughan Willard PS Teacher: Richard Munderich ($678.00) Two large maple trees were planted at the outdoor classroom of Vaughan Willard Public school. Both trees were around 14 ft tall and had a 32" root ball. They had to be planted by a DDSB contractor with a backhoe. A thank you sign appears in the garden with the trees with thanks to the City of Pickering for their generosity. Attachment #2 to Report #PLN 01-21 - 90 - 3.Claremont PS Teacher: Bianka Warren ($242.77) Throughout the fall of 2019, the Claremont Eco School team sent two representatives, along with Mrs. Warren (teacher in charge), to an event at Durham Forest that opened their eyes to a range of possibilities that would help sustain the environment. Eco team members thoroughly enjoyed the outdoor excursion and learning about the life of pollinators, who are so important to our environment. During a meeting following that excursion, the representatives were able to share their knowledge with other Eco team members, and consolidate an idea to create pollinator gardens at Claremont P.S. Measures to discuss the proposal with the principal was underway, and approval was given. As the Eco Team engaged in this endeavour throughout the fall and winter months, Mrs. Warren took the initiative to apply for the $250 grant offered by the City of Pickering as a promotion to benefit our environment. In the meantime, time was then spent on surveying the possible areas of the school that would best benefit our pollinator friends, but not be of any threat to students with bee allergies. With Mrs. Warren's guidance, the location of the pollinator gardens was chosen to be out front of the school and integrated into the existing flower beds. Word was soon received that the Claremont Eco Schools team was successful in acquiring the $250 grant (yahoo!). A number of meetings followed throughout the fall and winter with Eco team members learning about, and discussing the likes of pollinator plants that would best fit the school's location and purpose. The use of the internet and pamphlets obtained from the outdoor excursion were used. After the new year, the Eco School team simply met occasionally with the We Team (We Schools initiative) to further learn about initiatives that could help communities in our local area. They took a short hiatus from the project due to the fact that nothing could be done until the spring when the ground thawed out. Unfortunately, COVID-19 hit and school was out the rest of the year. As teacher in charge, Mrs. Warren knew that the native plants required for the project were predominately available in the spring season, so she took it upon herself to visit the Native Plants Nursery in Claremont, at the end of June, to purchase the required plants and deliver them to the school. The friendly service of the Native Plants Nursery personnel was greatly appreciated, and were also able to provide more information about the plants and composting soil that would benefit their growth. At the beginning of July, with the uncertainty of the return to school in the fall and physical distancing measures in place, Mrs. Warren, with the help of one of her family members, spent a day first weeding, then using little plant shovels to plant the flowers in the pollinator gardens. School custodians were gracious enough to help with some weeding on their spare time and provide water to Mrs. Warren for watering the plants throughout the summer. The garden was a success! Thank you to the City of Pickering for their generous grant. A thank you appears on a sign in the garden that speaks to our appreciation. 4.Dunbarton HS Teacher: David Gordon (1 160.85) Project was beautification of the front school garden and replacement of vandalized pollinator garden on Whites Rd. The work was complete October 24 through the labour of twenty students and three staff over two hours (in-kind 46 person hours @$15/hour=$690 in kind labour value). In the front garden, four yards of topsoil, 400 daffodil bulbs and ten shade tolerant shrubs were installed. Two cedar planter boxes were installed and planted with daffodils and allium. During this work a project was conceived to have each class paint inspirational messages on rocks to be installed in the garden by the end of November. The Whites Rd pollinator garden, created by students in 2017 to aesthetically enhance the new school sign, was recently vandalized and destroyed by the landscaping crew. All remnant plants were removed and replaced with over 50 indigenous perennials, with one Andropogon gerardii marking each side of the school sign. A sign of appreciation appears in the front garden to the City of Pickering for their partnership. 5.Maple Ridge PS Teacher: Victoria Jaspers-Fayer ($508.08) The final product of our project is the improvement of the garden beds at the front of the school. With the grant money, we were able to purchase new plants, including native, drought-tolerant and pollinator friendly species. We bought a new watering can to help our success in putting in new plants as well - 91 - as mulch to help cut down on the need for watering and in order to protect the plants from invasive weeds. Students in grades 5 - 8 participated in every phase of the project, including painting and writing on rocks to identify some of the plants in our garden along with symbols indicating pollinator-friendly and drought-resistant plants for anyone passing by the front of our school. In addition, kindergarten students were able to witness the butterfly life cycle by following their class website, as schools were closed in the spring during the time that the butterflies were hatching. A rock of appreciation has been added to the garden in thanks to the City of Pickering for their generous grant for this project. - 92 -