HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 3, 2021Executive Committee
Meeting Agenda
May 3, 2021
Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Butt
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 m eeting 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.
4. Matters for Consideration
4.1 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report CLK 02-21 1
2022 Municipal Election
- Approval of Voting Method and Changes to the Municipal Elections Act
Recommendation:
For information related to accessibility requirements please contact:
Committee Coordinator
905.420.4611
clerks@pickering.ca
Executive Committee
Meeting Agenda
May 3, 2021
Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Butt
1. That Report CLK 02-21, regarding the 2022 Municipal Election,
Approval of Voting Method and Changes to the Municipal Elections
Act be received;
2. That a hybrid solution including internet voting and paper ballots,
using vote tabulation equipment, be approved as the voting method
for the 2022 Municipal Election and any by-elections that may occur
during t he 2022-2026 Term of Council;
3. That the draft By-law, included as Attachment #1, be forwarded to
Council for enactment;
4. That the City Clerk be directed to proceed with a Request for
Proposal (RFP) for the approved voting method and associated
services and report back to Council to award the voting contract to
the most appropriate vendor(s); and,
5. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take
the necessary actions as indicated in this report.
4.2 (Acting) Director, Community Services, Report CS 17-21 9
Quotation No. Q2021-40
- Supply and Delivery of 1 Ton Trucks
Recommendation:
1. That each of the following bids be accepted under Quotation No.
Q2021-40:
a) East Court Ford Lincoln Sales Ltd. for Units A and B in the
amounts of $134,890.74 (HST excluded) and $85,364.24
(HST excluded), respectively;
b) Donway Ford Inc. for Unit C in the amount of $124,320.00
(HST excluded); and,
c) Blue Mountain Chrysler for the Western Wideout-X Plow in
the amount of $12,800.00 (HST excluded);
For information related to accessibility requirements please contact:
Committee Coordinator
905.420.4611
clerks@pickering.ca
Executive Committee
Meeting Agenda
May 3, 2021
Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Butt
2. That the total gross quotation cost of $403,833.73 (HST included)
and the total net project cost of $365,700.00 (net of HST rebate)
be approved;
3. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to
finance the project as follows:
a) The amount of $200,000.00 as approved in the 2021 Fleet
Capital Budget to be funded from Development Charges
Reserve Fund-Transportation Services be increased to
$225,149.00, and be revised by a transfer from the
Development Charges Reserve Fund-Other Services Related
to a Highway;
b) The sum of $127,526.00 as provided for in the 2021 Fleet
Capital Budget by a transfer from the Vehicle Replacement
Reserve;
c) The sum of $13,025.00 as provided for in the 2021 Roads
Equipment Capital Budget by a transfer from the
Development Charges Reserve Fund-Other Services Related
to a Highway; and,
4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized
to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report.
4.3 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 06-21 15
Bridge Modification Term Sheet Agreement
- Metrolinx GO Expansion Program – Granite Court Bridge
Recommendation:
1. That the City of Pickering enter into a Bridge Modification Term
Sheet Agreement with Metrolinx;
2. That the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute
the Bridge Modification Term Sheet Agreement between the City
of Pickering and Metrolinx for the purpose of affixing Metrolinx
infrastructure to the bridge on Granite Court, in substantially the
same form as attached to this report, subject to minor revisions
satisfactory to the City Solicitor; and,
For information related to accessibility requirements please contact:
Committee Coordinator
905.420.4611
clerks@pickering.ca
Executive Committee
Meeting Agenda
May 3, 2021
Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Butt
3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized
to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report.
4.4 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 11-21 61
Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park
- Consulting Services for Final Phase of the Master Plan Implementation
Recommendation:
1. That Council approve the hiring of The MBTW Group for Consulting
and Professional Services for the preparation o f detailed design
drawings and tender documents and for contract administration
services for the final phase of the implementation of the Rotary
Frenchman’s Bay West Park Master Plan, in accordance with
Purchasing Policy Item 10.03 (c), as the assignment is above
$50,000.00;
2. That the fee proposal submitted by The MBTW Group for
Consulting and Professional Services for the preparation of detailed
design drawings and tender documents and for contract
administration services for the final phase of the implementation of
the Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park Master Plan in the amount
of $160,273.55 (HST included) be accepted;
3. That the total gross project cost of $176,301.00 (HST included),
including t he fee amount and other associated costs, and the total
net project cost of $158,765.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved;
4. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance
the total net project cost of $158,765.00 as follows:
a) The sum of $79,382.00 to be funded by a transfer from the
Development Charges – City’s Share;
b) The sum of $79,383.00 to be funded by a transfer from the
Development Charges Reserve Fund – Parks & Recreation
Services; and,
5. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized
to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report.
For information related to accessibility requirements please contact:
Committee Coordinator
905.420.4611
clerks@pickering.ca
Executive Committee
Meeting Agenda
May 3, 2021
Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Butt
4.5 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 12-21 67
Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park
- Consulting Services for Proposed Park Washroom Facility
Recommendation:
1. That Council approve the hiring of The MBTW Group for Consulting
and Professional Services for the preparation o f detailed design
drawings and tender documents and for contract administration
services for a public washroom facility in Rotary Frenchman’s Bay
West Park, in accordance with Purchasing Policy Item 10.03 (c), as
the assignment is above $50,000.00;
2. That the fee proposal submitted by The MBTW Group for
Consulting and Professional Services for the preparation of detailed
design drawings and tender documents and for contract
administration services for a public washroom facility in Rotary
Frenchman’s Bay West Park in the amount of $148,453.75 (HST
included) be accepted;
3. That the total gross project cost of $163,299.00 (HST included),
including the fee amount and other associated costs, and the total
net project cost of $147,056.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved;
4. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance
the total net project cost of $147,056.00 as follows:
a) the sum of $73,528.00 to be funded by a transfer from
Development Charges – City’s Share Reserve;
b) the sum of $73,528.00 to be funded by a transfer from the
Development Charges Reserve Fund – Parks & Recreation
Services; and,
5. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized
to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report.
4.6 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 13-21 73
Amendments to Traffic and Parking By-law 6604/05
For information related to accessibility requirements please contact:
Committee Coordinator
905.420.4611
clerks@pickering.ca
Executive Committee
Meeting Agenda
May 3, 2021
Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Butt
- Proposed All-way Stop, Rosebank Road at Highview
Road/Summerpark Crescent
- Proposed Community Safety Zone Extension & Speed Limit Reduction
– Rosebank Road
Recommendation:
1. That the attached draft by-law be enacted to amend Schedule "7",
Stop Signs, to By-law 6604/05 to provide for the regulation of stop
signs on highways or parts of highways under the jurisdiction of The
Corporation of the City of Pickering, specifically to address the
proposed installation of an all-way stop control at the intersection of
Rosebank Road and Highview Road/Summerpark Crescent;
2. That the attached draft by-law be enacted to amend Schedule “14”,
Community Safety Zones, to By-law 6604/05 to provide for the
addition of community safety zones on highways or parts of
highways under the jurisdiction of The Corporation of the City of
Pickering, specifically to extend the existing Community Safety
Zone on Rosebank Road from Foxwood Trail to Highview
Road/Summerpark Crescent;
3. That the attached draft by-law be enacted to amend Schedule "9",
Speed Limits, to By-law 6604/05 to provide for the regulation of
speed limits on highways or parts of highways under the jurisdiction
of The Corporation of the City of Pickering, specifically that that
speed limit be reduced from 50 km/h to 40 km/h on Rosebank Road
from Foxwood Trail to Highview Road/Summerpark Crescent; and,
4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized
to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report.
4.7 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 07-21 82
Commodity Price Hedging Agreements Report
Recommendation:
It is recommended that Report FIN 07-21 from the Director, Finance &
Treasurer regarding commodity price hedging agreements be received for
information.
For information related to accessibility requirements please contact:
Committee Coordinator
905.420.4611
clerks@pickering.ca
Executive Committee
Meeting Agenda
May 3, 2021
Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Butt
4.8 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 08-21 86
2019 Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund
Recommendation:
It is recommended that Report FIN 08-21 from the Director, Finance &
Treasurer regarding the 2019 Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund
be received for information.
5. Other Business
6. Adjournment
For information related to accessibility requirements please contact:
Committee Coordinator
905.420.4611
clerks@pickering.ca
Report to
Executive Commitee
Report Number: CLK 02-21
Date: May 3, 2021
From: Paul Bigioni
Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor
Subject: 2022 Municipal Election
-Approval of Voting Method and Changes to the Municipal Elections Act
-File: A-1440
Recommendation:
1.That Report CLK 02-21, regarding the 2022 Municipal Election, Approval of Voting
Method and Changes to the Municipal Elections Act be received;
2.That a hybrid solution including internet voting and paper ballots, using vote tabulation
equipment, be approved as the voting method for the 2022 Municipal Election and any
by-elections that may occur during the 2022-2026 Term of Council;
3.That the draft By-law, included as Attachment #1, be forwarded to Council for enactment;
4.That the City Clerk be directed to proceed with a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the
approved voting method and associated services and report back to Council to award the
voting contract to the most appropriate vendor(s); and,
5.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary
actions as indicated in this report.
Executive Summary: The 2022 Municipal Election will take place on Monday, October
24, 2022. Section 42 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, c. 32, (the ‘Act’), states
that the council of a local municipality may pass by-laws, authorizing the use of voting and
vote-counting equipment such as voting machines, voting recorders or optical scanning vote
tabulators as well as authorizing electors to use an alternative voting method, such as voting
by mail or by telephone, that does not require electors to attend a voting place in order to vote.
For the 2018 Municipal Election, Pickering Council approved the use of Internet and
Telephone Voting for the first time. This method of voting proved to be successful overall aside
from a technical problem that occurred in the last remaining hours of voting on Voting Day, the
last day of the 8 day voting period. The technical issue was a result of human error by a third
party internet colocation provider, that placed a limit on incoming voting traffic, restricting
bandwidth to one-tenth of the system’s needs, causing voters to experience slow response
times and system timeouts. The issue impacted 51 municipalities across Ontario. Despite the
unfortunate circumstances surrounding the bandwidth issue, there were no associated security
concerns and no evidence of voter fraud or other issues that could have given cause for a
controverted election.
- 1 -
CLK 02-21 May 3, 2021
Subject: 2022 Municipal Election
-Approval of Voting Method and Changes to the Municipal Elections Act Page 2
The lessons learned from 2018 have provided an opportunity to effectively administer
alternative voting methods, and raise these, and other technical concerns with vendors in
upcoming elections to ensure that measures are taken to avoid technical problems in the next
election. Clerks and IT Staff will review the systems, security and network infrastructure to
ensure there is adequate capacity in place to deal with any performance issues. Given that
internet voting in 2018 proved successful overall, it is being recommended once again for the
2022 Municipal Election for use during the entire voting period, including Election Day.
In addition to the use of Internet Voting, a paper ballot component is also being recommended
for the 2022 Pickering Municipal Election for Election Day only, being Monday, October 24,
2022. This hybrid approach will provide the convenience of internet voting for those who prefer
using this method of voting, but will also provide for the more traditional in-person voting, using
paper ballots and vote tabulators to compile the voting results, should some electors prefer this
method. Additionally, the hybrid approach provides more options, given the unexpected
challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on a number of election
initiatives.
To give effect to a hybrid approach, staff are proposing to have a limited number (no more than
six) of “super” voting locations, which would be larger in size, and include more staff to
facilitate the voting process. For the first 7 days of the voting period, when only internet voting
would be offered, these voting locations will be open in a more limited capacity, to provide
assistance to electors who may have difficulty using technology, did not receive a voter
information package, or for those who do not have access to technology. On Election Day,
these super voting locations will be more heavily staffed and will offer the paper ballot option in
addition to internet voting. The voting period is proposed to be eight consecutive days
beginning Monday, October 17 to Monday, October 24, 2022 inclusive.
Financial Implications: It is anticipated that a hybrid method of internet voting and paper
ballots, using vote tabulators, will cost approximately $190,000 to $200,000 for the software,
hardware and support services. In addition to these costs, there will be costs incurred to
design, print, and mail individual voter packages to each elector, printing of paper ballots,
hiring of election staff to assist at designated Voting Centres, as well as a robust
communication plan to educate voters on all aspects of the Election, including any changes
that may occur with the final recommendations from the Ward Boundary Review. The
Treasurer has indicated that there are sufficient funds to cover these costs and other
unanticipated costs from the Election Reserve.
Discussion: The City Clerk, as the Returning Officer for the City of Pickering
under the Municipal Elections Act, has several criteria to consider before making a
recommendation on vote-counting equipment and alternative voting methods. The first is
whether a particular voting method upholds the principles of the Act and its Regulations. The
guiding principles established by the case law are as follows:
•the secrecy and confidentiality of the voting process is paramount;
- 2 -
CLK 02-21 May 3, 2021
Subject: 2022 Municipal Election
-Approval of Voting Method and Changes to the Municipal Elections Act Page 3
•the election shall be fair and non-biased;
•the election shall be accessible to voters;
•the integrity of the voting process shall be maintained throughout the election;
•there is to be certainty that the results of the election reflect the votes cast;
•voters and candidates shall be treated fairly and consistently; and,
•the proper majority vote governs by ensuring that valid votes are counted and invalid
votes are rejected so far as reasonably possible.
Since 1997, the City of Pickering has used paper ballots and vote tabulators to tabulate
election results with the exception of the 2018 Municipal Election where internet and telephone
voting were used for the first time. The number of eligible electors in 2018 was 68,494, and of
those electors, 19,777 voted, resulting in a 28.8% turnout. Despite the technical issues that
occurred in the final hours of voting in 2018, internet voting was well received overall by the
majority of the electorate and 18,801, or 95% of electors who voted, used this voting method.
Telephone voting was also offered as an alternative to internet voting in 2018 for electors who
did not have access to the internet or who were uncomfortable with the technology. In contrast
to the number of electors who used internet voting, only 976 voters, or 5% of electors who
voted, used telephone voting. This may be partly due to the cumbersome process required for
telephone voting. Telephone voting required electors to make selections using a recorded
message by working through a very detailed phone tree. The process was long, the digital
pronunciation of candidate’s names was at times difficult to understand, and it was difficult to
return to previous selections to make changes prior to casting a ballot.
With the proposed use of paper ballots (in addition to internet voting) for the 2022 Election, and
the arduous process involved with telephone voting, it is recommended that telephone voting
not be used in 2022. Voters preferring not to vote using the internet will have access to voting
by paper ballot on Election Day. It is also possible that some of those voters who used
telephone voting in 2018 may have since become more comfortable with internet voting.
Various voting methods are used in municipal elections including traditional in-person voting
with paper ballots, use of vote tabulating equipment, touchscreens, voting by mail, internet
voting, and telephone voting. Of the various methods available, more and more municipalities
are considering the use of internet voting. In 2003, approximately 12 municipalities used
internet voting, and it has continued to become more and more popular over time. In 2018, 178
municipalities used internet voting. It is anticipated that the number of municipalities using
internet voting will once again increase in 2022, especially in light of the physical restrictions
imposed in response to the Covid-19 pandemic.
In addition to the increased use of internet voting, some municipalities have successfully
utilized the hybrid method of both internet and paper ballots. Aurora, Brantford, Burlington,
Kingston, Markham, Newmarket, Peterborough, and Thunder Bay have all used the hybrid
- 3 -
CLK 02-21 May 3, 2021
Subject: 2022 Municipal Election
-Approval of Voting Method and Changes to the Municipal Elections Act Page 4
method, and are all recommending the hybrid method again for their 2022 elections. In the
Durham Region, the Town of Ajax has utilized internet and telephone voting for the last 2
elections, and the Municipality of Clarington has decided to use internet and telephone voting
for the first time in 2022. Both of these municipalities are offering internet and telephone voting
as the sole voting option with no paper ballot option. The northern Durham Region
municipalities typically use vote by mail as their alternative voting method, although at the time
of writing this report, they have not yet formally decided on their methods of voting. Oshawa
and Whitby are using traditional in-person voting for their 2022 elections, with Whitby offering a
special mail-in ballot as an alternative voting method in special circumstances.
Internet Voting offers several benefits to electors including:
•accessibility and the ability to access the ballot from different devices and from
anywhere with an internet connection;
•the ability for electors with disabilities to vote independently, from the location of their
choice, using any accessible devices that they may be accustomed to using;
•convenience for those less inclined to travel to a voting location to vote;
•removal of the need for voting proxies, which is a cumbersome process for both the
elector and the proxy;
•faster tabulation of election results;
•fewer voting centers and staff, with a resulting reduction in administrative costs; and,
•more streamlined administrative processes.
Given what has transpired with the global Covid-19 pandemic, another major benefit of internet
voting is that it removes the need for voters to congregate in a voting location to cast their
ballots. As has been seen over the past year, many businesses have moved to virtual
platforms, and families and loved ones have pivoted to more regular use of technology to keep
in contact with family and friends during mandated lockdowns. This has resulted in more
people becoming comfortable with the use of technology and may in turn result in even more
people using internet voting than before. Enabling voting from remote locations addresses
public health concerns by providing a safe and effective means for electors to cast their ballot
without risking exposure to the Covid virus in a public setting. Internet voting would also
provide for the continuation of the voting process should public health measures dictate that
voting locations cannot be open to the public. Internet voting would become the emergency
back-up solution to allow the election to continue as planned should voting locations offering
paper ballots not be allowed to open. In contrast, should internet voting not be available for any
reason on Election Day, electors can attend a voting location to cast a paper ballot allowing the
voting process to continue without any delays.
With any alternative voting method, there is an associated level of risk. With internet voting,
some of those risks include security, voter authentication, and reduced oversight of the casting
- 4 -
CLK 02-21 May 3, 2021
Subject: 2022 Municipal Election
-Approval of Voting Method and Changes to the Municipal Elections Act Page 5
of a ballot by election administrators and scrutineers. Despite these concerns, there has not
been a single example of voter fraud or a security breach in Pickering or any other Ontario
municipality that has used internet voting. It should also be noted that as internet voting has
evolved over time, so have the security measures that have been put in place, as well as best
practices and lessons learned from municipalities that have used this voting method. Currently
there are no Provincial regulations or standards applicable to internet voting.
Until such regulations are put in place, staff will review best practices and lessons learned from
other municipalities when preparing a Request for Proposal (RFP) for election services.
Information Technology staff will also be directly involved in the drafting of the RFP and
selection of the vendor, and will assist with ensuring that adequate security measures,
including firewalls, encryption protocols and user authentication systems are in place. Testing
and auditing will be performed throughout the various stages of implementation to ensure that
the security of the system is maintained and that back up protocols will be in place in the event
of a system failure. In addition to specific technical requirements in the RFP, the use of
independent third-party cybersecurity audits will also be considered as another layer of due
diligence to demonstrate and test the security measures within the voting system. In
considering the various voting methods available, as well as the associated risks, the benefits
of using internet voting, especially during the unpredictability of the current pandemic,
outweigh those risks.
The benefits of offering a paper ballot include:
•the familiarity of the voting practice that electors have been accustomed to for many
years in the City of Pickering;
•the ability to physically touch and mark a ballot, which is important to some electors;
•the symbolic significance (to some electors) of attending a voting location in person to
perform their civic duty; and,
•paper ballots and vote tabulators provide a streamlined, in-person process for electors
who prefer this method of voting.
One of the major success factors for voting is the quality and accuracy of the voters’ list.
Historically, the voters’ list, provided by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation
(MPAC) has not been highly accurate given that the data is based on property owners in the
municipality. Through Bill 204, which received royal assent on October 1, 2020, effective
January 1, 2024, MPAC will no longer prepare the preliminary list of electors, and this
responsibility will be moved to the Chief Electoral Officer for Elections Ontario. This will provide
for consistency between the Provincial and Municipal Voters’ Lists, and a more accurate list as
Elections Ontario uses federal, provincial and municipal sources to form and update their
voters’ list. Until we can move to this more reliable data source for the 2026 Municipal Election,
a robust communication plan will be launched to encourage voters to use the MPAC Voter
Lookup tool to check if they are on the list. Once the list has been provided to the City, staff will
review options for a convenient, electronic means for voters to check if they are on the list, or
request they be added or that their information be updated. In addition to electronic options, - 5 -
CLK 02-21 May 3, 2021
Subject: 2022 Municipal Election
-Approval of Voting Method and Changes to the Municipal Elections Act Page 6
voters will also be able to check if they are on the voters’ list by attending City Hall and any of
the City’s Library branches.
In addition to Bill 204, Bill 218, which received royal assent on November 20, 2020, amended
the Municipal Elections Act to remove the framework for conducting ranked ballot elections. Bill
218 also changed Nomination Day from the fourth Friday in July to the third Friday in August
resulting in August 19, 2022 being Nomination Day for the 2022 Municipal Election. Other
changes under Bill 218 include a change to the deadline to pass a by-law for the use of vote
counting equipment and alternative voting methods to May 1 in the year of the election. This
provision was previously required by May 1 in the year prior to the year of the election. Despite
this elongated period to pass such by-laws, due to the limited number of vendors and the
planning that needs to occur in the year prior to the Election, staff seek Council’s approval of
the method of voting as soon as possible in order that a vendor(s) may be secured. Lastly, Bill
218 changed the deadline for the Clerk to establish voting procedures from December 31st of
the year prior to the election to before June 1st in the year of the election. This change will be
beneficial to provide more time to include the necessary provisions into the procedures once a
vendor is secured and the details of the voting process are established.
Planning for the 2022 Municipal Election has commenced in the Clerk’s Office, and staff seek
approval from Council for the voting method in order to continue the planning process. By
employing a hybrid approach of internet and paper ballots with vote tabulators, the City will
give electors the option to cast their ballot by their preferred voting method. It is therefore
requested that Council approve the hybrid voting method as outlined in this Report for the
2022 Municipal Election. and for any by-elections that may occur in the 2022-2026 Term of
Council.
Attachments:
1.Draft By-law to approve alternative voting method and vote-counting equipment for the
2022 Municipal Election
Prepared By: Prepared By:
Susan Cassel Paul Bigioni
City Clerk Director, Corporate Services & City
Solicitor
Original Signed By:Original Signed By:
- 6 -
CLK 02-21 May 3, 2021
Subject: 2022 Municipal Election
-Approval of Voting Method and Changes to the Municipal Elections Act Page 7
Approved/Endorsed By:
Paul Bigioni
Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor
SC:sc
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City Council
Marisa Carpino, M.A.
Chief Administrative Officer
Original Signed By:
Original Signed By:
- 7 -
The Corporation of the City of Pickering
By-law No. XXXX/21
Being a by-law to authorize the use of internet voting, paper
ballots and vote tabulators for the 2022 Municipal Election
Whereas Section 42 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, c. 32, provides that the
council of a local municipality may pass by-laws,
(a)authorizing the use of voting and vote-counting equipment such as voting machines,
voting recorders or optical scanning vote tabulators;
(b)authorizing electors to use an alternative voting method, such as voting by mail or by
telephone that does not require electors to attend at a voting place in order to vote.
And Whereas Council has approved the use of internet voting, paper ballots and vote
tabulators for the 2022 Municipal Election and for any by-elections in the 2022-2026 Term of
Council;
And Whereas Section 42(5) of the Municipal Elections Act provides when a by-law authorizing
the use of an alternative voting method is in effect, sections 43 (advance votes) and 44 (voting
proxies) apply only if the by-law so specifies;
Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows:
1.That the use of internet voting, paper ballots and vote tabulators be authorized for the
2022 Municipal Election and for any by-elections in the 2022-2026 Term of Council;
2.That in accordance with the Municipal Elections Act, and due to the authorization of an
alternative voting method, that proxy voting provisions not be applicable for the 2022
Municipal Election or for any by-elections in the 2022-2026 Term of Council; and,
3.That By-law 7549/17 is hereby repealed.
By-law passed this 25th day of May, 2021.
________________________________
David Ryan, Mayor
________________________________
Susan Cassel, City Clerk
- 8 -
Attachment #1 to Report #CLK 02-21
Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: CS 17-21
Date: May 3, 2021
From: Brian Duffield
(Acting) Director, Community Services
Subject: Quotation No. Q2021-40
-Supply and Delivery of 1 Ton Trucks
-File: A-1440
Recommendation:
1.That each of the following bids be accepted under Quotation No. Q2021-40:
a)East Court Ford Lincoln Sales Ltd. for Units A and B in the amounts of $134,890.74
(HST excluded) and $85,364.24 (HST excluded), respectively;
b) Donway Ford Inc. for Unit C in the amount of $124,320.00 (HST excluded);
c)Blue Mountain Chrysler for the Western Wideout-X Plow in the amount of
$12,800.00 (HST excluded);
2.That the total gross quotation cost of $403,833.73 (HST included) and the total net project
cost of $365,700.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved;
3.That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the project as follows:
a)The amount of $200,000.00 as approved in the 2021 Fleet Capital Budget to be
funded from Development Charges Reserve Fund-Transportation Services be
increased to $225,149.00, and be revised by a transfer from the Development
Charges Reserve Fund-Other Services Related to a Highway;
b)The sum of $127,526.00 as provided for in the 2021 Fleet Capital Budget by a
transfer from the Vehicle Replacement Reserve;
c)The sum of $13,025.00 as provided for in the 2021 Roads Equipment Capital
Budget by a transfer from the Development Charges Reserve Fund-Other Services
Related to a Highway; and,
4.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the
necessary actions as indicated in this report.
Executive Summary: Two new 1 Ton Trucks with Aluminum Body and Plow were
approved in the 2021 Fleet Capital Budget to service new roads coming on stream in Seaton.
One 1 Ton Truck with Utility Body was approved for replacement for unit #024, which is a 2012
Ford that has met or exceeded its scheduled replacement date and was approved for
- 9 -
CS17-21 May 3, 2021
Subject: Quotation No. Q2021-40 Page 2
replacement in the 2021 Fleet Capital Budget. One Front Plow and Wing Attachments is a new
purchase which will be fitted to an existing unit in the City’s Fleet and is funded from the 2021
Roads Equipment Capital Budget.
Quotation Q2020-40 was advertised on the City’s website on February 19, 2021 and four
companies responded. In accordance with Purchasing Policy Item 06.11 (c), where the
compliant quotation or tender meeting specifications and offering best value to the City is
acceptable or where the highest scoring proposal is recommended and the estimated
total purchase price is over $250,000.00, the Manager may approve the award, subject to
the approval of the Director, Treasurer, CAO and Council.
Financial Implications:
1. Quotation Amount
Quotation No. Q2021-40
HST (13%)
$357,374.98
46,458.75
Total Gross Quotation Cost $403,833.73
2. Estimated Project Costing Summary
Quotation No. Q2021-40:
East Court Ford Lincoln Sales
Donway Ford Inc.
Blue Mountain Chrysler Ltd.
Licence Fees
Total project cost (excluding taxes)
HST (13%)
Gross Project Cost
HST Rebate (11.24%)
$220,255.00
124,320.00
12,800.00
2,000.00
$359,375.00
46,719.00
$406,094.00
(40,394.00)
Total Net Project Cost $365,700.00
- 10 -
CS17-21 May 3, 2021
Subject: Quotation No. Q2021-40 Page 3
3. Approved Source of Funds – 2021 Roads Equipment & Fleet Vehicle Capital Budget
Description Account Code Source of Funds Available
Budget
Required
(2) 1 Ton Dump
Trucks with
Aluminum Dump
Body Plow and
Salter
1 Ton Truck with
Utility Body
Replacement
Front Plow and
Wing Attachments
5319.2113.6458
5319.2112.6158
5319.2106.6478
DCRF-
Transportation
Services
DCRF-Other
Services Related to
a Highway
Reserve-Vehicle
Replacement
DC RC-Other
Services Related to
a Highway
$200,000.00
0.00
130,000.00
40,000.00
$0.00
225,149.00
127,526.00
13,025.00
Total Funds $370,000.00 $365,700.00
Net Project Cost under (over) Approved Funds $4,300.00
Note that the two 1 Ton Dump Trucks with Aluminum Dump Body Plow and Salter, project
account of 5319.2113.6458, as per the 2017 Development Charges Background Study are
approved to be funded from the Development Charges Reserve Fund (DCRF) – Other
Services Related to a Highway service category. As such, Table 3 above has been adjusted to
reflect the appropriate DCRF service category accordingly.
This same project has also exceeded the approved budget by more than 10 percent. As per
Financial Control Policy, section 11.05, Council approval is required for any over-expenditure
exceeding 10 percent of the approved budget. Council approval is being sought at this time in
order to proceed with the project.
Discussion: Two 1 Ton Trucks with Aluminum Body Plow and Salter were
approved for purchase in the 2021 Fleet Capital Budget and will be new additions to the City’s
Fleet. They are being purchased to meet the levels of service required for new roads coming
on stream for Seaton in 2021. These are purpose built vehicles to maintain narrow laneways in
newly established residential areas in Seaton. The purchase of a Front Plow and Wing
Attachments was approved in the Roads Equipment Capital Budget and is being purchased for
an existing unit in the City’s Fleet. The 1 Ton Truck with Utility Body is a replacement purchase
for unit #024, a 2012 Ford which has met or exceeded its scheduled replacement date. This
- 11 -
CS17-21 May 3, 2021
Subject: Quotation No. Q2021-40 Page 4
replacement unit will be used by the Roads section to install culverts, repair catch basins and
various other roads maintenance tasks.
An Evaluation Committee consisting of Public Works staff have evaluated the quotation based
on the rated criteria. It was determined that East Court Ford Lincoln Sales Ltd. is the top
ranked respondent for Units A and B, Donway Ford Inc. is the top ranked respondent for Unit
C, and Blue Mountain Chrysler Ltd. is the top ranked respondent for the Snow Plow and have
met the requirements of the requested quotation.
After careful review of the submissions received, Public Works staff recommends the
acceptance of Quotation No. Q2021-40 submitted by the aforementioned vendors for two new
1 Ton Dump Trucks with Aluminum Body, Plow and Salter, one new 1 Ton Dump Truck with
Utility Body, and one Snow Plow in the amount of $403,834.00 (HST included) and that the
total net project cost of $365,700.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved.
Attachments:
1.Supply & Services Memorandum April 6, 2021
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
Matt Currer Ray Rodrigues, CPPB
Supervisor, Municipal Garage Manager, Supply & Services
Brian Duffield Stan Karwowski, MBA, CPA, CMA
(Acting) Director, Community Services Director, Finance & Treasurer
MC:nw
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City Council
Marisa Carpino, M.A.
Chief Administrative Officer
Original Signed By: Original Signed By:
Original Signed By: Original Signed By:
Original Signed By:
- 12 -
To: Brian Duffield
Director, Community Services
April 6, 2021
From: Lisa Chang
Buyer, Supply & Services
Copy: Administrative Assistant, Community Services
Subject: Quotation No. Q2021-40
Supply & Delivery of 1 Ton Trucks
Closing Date: March 16, 2021 at 12:00 Noon.
File: F-5300-001
Quotation for Supply & Delivery of 1 Ton Trucks was advertised on the City’s website on February
19, 2021. Four companies have submitted a quotation.
Stage I – Mandatory Submission Requirements – determines which submissions satisfy all the
mandatory submission requirements and provides Respondents the opportunity to rectify
deficiencies. Respondents were allowed to submit four submissions, one for each respective
category. Two Respondents rectified deficiencies in their submission within the rectification period.
Fourteen proposals proceed to Stage II – Evaluation.
A summary of the Stage II and III evaluation results for each quotation is attached.
East Court Ford Lincoln Sales Ltd. is the top ranked respondent for Units A and B with a
submitted price of $134,890.74 (HST Excluded) and $85,364.24 (HST Excluded), respectively.
Donway Ford Inc. is the top ranked respondent for the 1-Ton Truck with Utility Body with a
submitted price of $124,320.00 (HST Excluded).
Blue Mountain Chrysler Ltd. is the top ranked respondent for the Western Wideout-X with a
submitted price of $12,800 (HST Excluded).
A budget of $370,000 was provided to Supply & Services for this procurement.
If the recommendation to award exceeds the budgeted amount, refer to Financial Control Policy
Item 11 for additional instructions.
In accordance with Purchasing Policy Item 06.04, the authority for the dollar limit as set out
below excludes HST.
In accordance with Purchasing Policy, Item 06.11, where the compliant quotation or tender meeting
specifications and offering best value to the City is acceptable or where the highest scoring proposal
is recommended and the estimated total purchase price is:
Memo
Attachment #1 to Report CS 17-21
- 13 -
Page 2 of 2
(c) Over $250,000, the Manager may approve the award, subject to the approval of the
Director, Treasurer, CAO and Council.
Subject to receipt of approvals on Health & Safety and insurance documents, please provide
your recommendation in report form. After receiving Council’s approval, an approved “on-line”
requisition will be required to proceed.
Please direct all enquiries to Supply & Services. Respondents will be advised in due
course.
If you require further information or assistance, do not hesitate to contact me or a member
of Supply & Services.
LC
- 14 -
Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: ENG 06-21
Date: May 3, 2021
From: Richard Holborn
Director, Engineering Services
Subject: Bridge Modification Term Sheet Agreement
-Metrolinx GO Expansion Program – Granite Court Bridge
-File: A-1440
Recommendation:
1.That the City of Pickering enter into a Bridge Modification Term Sheet Agreement with
Metrolinx;
2.That the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute the Bridge Modification
Term Sheet Agreement between the City of Pickering and Metrolinx for the purpose of
affixing Metrolinx infrastructure to the bridge on Granite Court, in substantially the same
form as attached to this report, subject to minor revisions satisfactory to the City Solicitor;
and,
3.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary
actions as indicated in this report.
Executive Summary: Metrolinx is preparing to undertake the GO Expansion Program
which involves electrification on the Lakeshore East GO Rail corridor. The electrification of this
corridor will allow GO Transit to convert their locomotives from diesel to electric and will
provide the public with a faster and more convenient way to move on this corridor. This will
require the construction of overhead wires to supply electricity to the trains. Where the rail
corridor crosses under a bridge, as is the case on Granite Court, Metrolinx requires bridge
modifications to support the overhead wire system. The bridge modifications will include
adding a protective barrier, flash plate attachments and overhead contact system supports.
Metrolinx has identified that the Granite Court bridge is the only bridge under the jurisdiction of
the City of Pickering that will require modifications.
Financial Implications: There are no financial implications for the City of Pickering
associated with the installation and maintenance of the protective barrier on the Granite Court
bridge. Metrolinx (or their contractor) will be responsible for the installation, inspection and
maintenance of the protective barrier, flash plate attachments and overhead contact support
systems.
- 15 -
ENG 06-21 May 3, 2021
Subject: Bridge Modification Term Sheet Agreement
Metrolinx GO Expansion Program – Granite Court Bridge Page 2
Discussion: The Metrolinx GO Expansion Program (formerly called Regional
Express Rail Program) involves electrification on the Lakeshore East GO Rail corridor which
will allow GO Transit to convert their locomotives from diesel to electric and will provide the
public with a faster and more convenient way to move on this corridor. Electrification will
require the construction of overhead wires along the railway corridor to supply electricity to the
trains. Where the rail corridor crosses under a bridge, as is the case on Granite Court,
Metrolinx requires bridge modifications to support the overhead wire system. The bridge
modifications will include adding a protective barrier, flash plate attachments and overhead
contact system supports.
Granite Court Bridge Protective Barrier:
Metrolinx has developed a standard base model barrier which will be installed across all
bridges in Durham Region. A conceptual image was prepared by Metrolinx which shows the
proposed protective barrier on the Granite Court Bridge (Attachment #1).
The proposed protective barrier is intended to protect the public from the energized equipment
that is being installed on the Lakeshore East Rail corridor. It will be a light grey, solid faced
opaque barrier, having a minimum height of 2m above the standing surface. It will extend 3m
beyond the overhead contact system supports that will be on the underside the bridge.
The Town of Ajax and Region of Durham have both selected the same light grey opaque
protective barrier type for their municipal bridges.
Bridge Modification Agreement:
As per the letter dated May 1, 2018 (Attachment #2), the City of Pickering required Metrolinx to
formalize the agreed upon modifications, through an agreement. Metrolinx has provided the
Bridge Modification Term Sheet Agreement (Attachment #3) that City staff have reviewed, and
recommend the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute.
Metrolinx has advised that the GO Expansion Project is scheduled to commence sometime in
2022.
Attachments:
1.Granite Court Bridge Protective Barrier Rendering
2.Letter Issued to Metrolinx Dated May 1, 2018
3.Bridge Modification Term Sheet Agreement
- 16 -
ENG 06-21 May 3, 2021
Subject: Bridge Modification Term Sheet Agreement
Metrolinx GO Expansion Program – Granite Court Bridge Page 3
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
Nadeem Zahoor, P.Eng., M.Eng. Richard Holborn, P. Eng.
Transportation Engineer Director, Engineering Services
NZ:mjh
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City Council
Marisa Carpino, M.A.
Chief Administrative Officer
Original signed by:Original signed by:
Original signed by:
- 17 -
“BASE MODEL” PROPOSED DESIGN –OPAQUE BARRIER
10BRIDGE BARRIER
Opaque Barrier
Street View
Attachment #1 to Report #ENG 06-21
- 18 -
“BASE MODEL” CUSTOMIZABLE COMPONENTS
11BRIDGE BARRIER
Opaque Barrier
Street View
Bottom frame + saddle plate (colour)
Medallion (design)
Bookend + top frame (colour)
Intermediate glazing supports –Visible from exterior side (colour)Vertical Support Structures –Visible from exterior side
(colour)
- 19 -
Attachment #2 to Report #ENG 06-21Engineering Services Department May 1, 2018 Constantin Urma Manager, Electrification Metrolinx 20 Bay Street, 18th Floor Toronto, ON M5J 2W3 Subject: Bridge Modifications for Metrolinx Electrification Project Granite Court File: T-2000-002 Following the Feb 7, 2018 meeting to discuss Metrolinx RER Electrification impacts on bridges under the jurisdiction of City of Pickering, this letter is a formal confirmation of the consensus reached between the City of Pickering and Metrolinx concerning all bridge modifications on the following bridge(s). ---~----··---····· ·------------------------· ---------------------------Bridge Name: Granite Court Structure ID: 4 ~1:Jbdivision ~ l\llil~~g~: . King§!_Q~ _:-f\/1L~_14_._~§ _____ ~~!Lg<>~~i~<>r: Lakeshore East The bridge modifications that the City of Pickering and Metrolinx Electrification have mutually agreed upon to be attached to the bridges are as follows: # 1. 2. 3. 4. Element Protective Barriers 1.1. Panels (type) 1.2. Frame colour -top and bookends 1.3. Frame colour -bottom bar and saddle plates 1 .4. Major fin colour -structural supports 1.5. Minor fin colour -intermediate 1.6. Medallion (design) Flash Plates Grounding and Bonding OCS attachments Specific Requirement Opaque Light grey colour Light grey colour Light grey colour Light grey colour Not required As required As required As required Pickering Civic Complex I One The Esplanade I Pickering, Ontario L 1 V 6K7 T. 905.420.4624 I F. 905.420.4650 I Toll Free 1.866.683.2760 I engser@pickering.ca I pickering.ca - 20 -
Bridge Modifications -Metrolinx Electrification Project May 1, 2018 Page 2 of 2 The City of Pickering requires Metrolinx to formalize the aforementioned agreed upon modifications through an agreement, which the City will review prior to approval through our respective legal teams. Any deviations from the elements listed above will require further discussion. Authority to execute the agreement will come from City of Pickering Council. The agreed upon aesthetics and structural needs and requirements contained within this letter will remain in force until a formalized legal agreement is in place. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Nadeem Zahoor, Transportation Engineer at 905.420.4660 ext. 2213 or by email at nzahoor@pickering.ca. Yours truly Ri ar rn, P.Eng. irector, Engineering Services NZ:mjh Copy: Manager, Capital Projects & Infrastructure Transportation Engineer - 21 -
TERM SHEET RE. MODIFICATIONS TO BRIDGE
LOCATED IN THE CITY OF PICKERING
This term sheet (Term Sheet) sets forth the terms of the agreement between Metrolinx and The
Corporation of the City of Pickering regarding, among other matters, design, construction and
maintenance obligations in connection with the modification of the “Bridge” outlined in Schedule “A”
attached hereto (as such schedule may be amended, restated or otherwise modified from time to time),
whereby such modifications are required in order to accommodate the GO Expansion Program.
SUBJECT DESCRIPTION
1. Parties Metrolinx (MLX)
The Corporation of the City of Pickering (the Road Authority)
2. Term This Term Sheet commences on the date it is executed by MLX and the
Road Authority, and will terminate on the earlier of: (i) the date upon which
the Bridge has been fully replaced and separate agreements that supersede
this Term Sheet relating to such replacement have been entered into by
MLX and the Road Authority, and (ii) the date upon which the Bridge is no
longer required by MLX for the purpose of affixing the Electrification
Infrastructure (the Term).
In the event that an individual Bridge is replaced as described in (i) above
or no longer required as described in (ii) above, such individual Bridge will
be deleted from Schedule “A” and the rights and obligations of the parties
hereto with respect to such Bridge will cease.
3. Modifications to Bridge MLX will construct, install and attach all Electrification Infrastructure and
any ancillary or incidental works that MLX may deem necessary thereto, in
its sole discretion (collectively, the Construction Work) in accordance
with the Design Documents and Road Authority Work Permits applicable
thereto.
The Road Authority grants MLX permission to perform the Construction
Work, and to operate and maintain the Electrification Infrastructure
thereafter, provided that MLX (i) complies with the terms contained in
Section 11 herein, and (ii) is otherwise not in default of the terms contained
in this Term Sheet and related schedules.
4. Design of Construction Work MLX will design the bridge modifications and ancillary works (the Design
and together with the Construction Work, collectively, the Work) and will
perform the Construction Work in accordance with (i) the Design, (ii) the
general terms of reference applicable to the Bridge, as set out in the Terms
of Reference – General Schedule attached hereto as Schedule “B” (the
Terms of Reference – General), and (iii) the specific terms of reference
applicable to a particular Bridge, as set out in the Terms of Reference –
Specific Schedule attached hereto as Schedule “C” (the Terms of
Reference – Specific, and together with the Terms of Reference – General,
collectively the Terms of Reference).
MLX will submit all plans, specifications, conceptual and detailed designs DraftAttachment #3 to Report #ENG 06-21
- 22 -
- 2 -
for the Electrification Infrastructure (collectively, the Design Documents)
to the Road Authority at 30% design and again at 100% final design.
The Road Authority will, within 20 days of receipt of such Design
Documents, provide comments to MLX as to the compliance of the Design
Documents with the Terms of Reference.
MLX agrees to review and respond to the Road Authority’s comments (if
any) within a reasonable time period and will exercise commercially
reasonable efforts to address such comments, having regard to impact on
overall costs and schedule.
5. Completion of Barrier Work MLX will provide the Road Authority 30 days’ prior written notice of the
expected completion date of the Construction Work pertaining to the
electrification protective barriers only (the Barrier Work), and the Road
Authority will have the right to attend with MLX at an inspection of the
Barrier Work. If the Road Authority notifies MLX that the Barrier Work
has not been constructed substantially in accordance with the Terms of
Reference – Specific, the Road Authority shall provide detailed particulars
of any such alleged non-compliance within fourteen (14) days of such
inspection (the Notification Period). MLX will review and consider any
comments provided by the Road Authority within the Notification Period,
and will cause appropriate changes to be made to the Barrier Work, if
necessary, to ensure construction in compliance with the Terms of
Reference – Specific. In the event the Road Authority does not provide
MLX with any comments within the Notification Period, the Barrier Work
shall be deemed to have been constructed in accordance with the Terms of
Reference – Specific.
MLX’s sole obligation is to perform the Barrier Work substantially in
accordance with the Terms of Reference – Specific, and provided that this
has been achieved, no further consent or approval of the Road Authority is
required.
6. Cost of the Work MLX will pay all costs relating to the Work, including without limitation,
any and all costs relating to obtaining Third Party Permits and Approvals
and utility relocations (if any), provided however, in the event the Road
Authority requests that there be any changes to the Terms of Reference,
then, if MLX agrees to such change (having regard to impact on costs and
scheduling), the Road Authority will pay any incremental costs relating to
the completion of any changes, including any incremental costs to MLX
associated with any delay, compensation or any other claims made by any
of MLX’s contractor(s).
7. Maintenance Obligations re. the
Electrification Infrastructure
For the purposes of this Term Sheet, the following capitalized terms will
have the meanings ascribed as follows:
“Electrification Infrastructure” means (i) any attachment(s) to a Bridge
that is or are required to electrify the rail corridor including, without
limitation, electrification protective barriers, fencing, grounding and
bonding, overhead contact system supports and flash plate attachments, and
(ii) any other infrastructure, attached or non-attached to a Bridge, that isDraft
- 23 -
- 3 -
ancillary to the overhead contact system; and
“Maintenance” means, collectively, inspection, maintenance, repair, minor
and major rehabilitation and partial reconstruction and replacement, but
excludes, for greater certainty, full replacement.
MLX will be responsible, at its sole cost, for the Maintenance of the
Electrification Infrastructure. Such Maintenance will be performed in
accordance with any required Road Authority Work Permits and Third
Party Permits and Approvals.
MLX and the Road Authority will coordinate the scheduling of any
Maintenance either party is responsible for that may interfere with road or
rail operations, as the case may be, or that will require access to the rail
corridor in order to perform such Maintenance.
Subject to the notice requirements in Section 8 below, if the Road Authority
needs to perform any Maintenance to a Bridge where the Electrification
Infrastructure interferes (not insignificantly) with such Maintenance, MLX
agrees to temporarily detach the Electrification Infrastructure, at its sole
cost, for a reasonable amount of time based on the specifications of such
Maintenance, as determined by MLX acting reasonably, in order for the
Road Authority to perform such Maintenance.
8. Notice Requirements re.
Maintenance
In the future, MLX will deliver to the Road Authority an access plan (the
Access Plan), which will be developed in accordance with the requirements
set out in Schedule “F” attached hereto. The Access Plan will provide the
Road Authority reasonable access to MLX’s rail corridors in order for the
Road Authority to perform certain Maintenance, and will cover items such
as visual and detailed bridge inspections (in both energized and de-
energized environments), maintenance, repair and minor and major bridge
rehabilitation.
The Road Authority must perform any of its Maintenance that could impact
the rail corridor, including the operation thereof, and/or the Electrification
Infrastructure, in accordance with the Access Plan. If the Road Authority
wishes to conduct Maintenance that is not contemplated in the Access Plan,
it must notify MLX reasonably in advance. For greater certainty, the Road
Authority will not be permitted to conduct any Maintenance that could
impact the rail corridor, including the operations thereof, and/or the
Electrification Infrastructure, outside of the access set forth in the Access
Plan.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, emergency events are not subject to the
provisions set out in this Section 8, but will be governed by the emergency
protocol established pursuant to Section 10 below.
9. Work Permits The parties will coordinate construction and Maintenance activities
affecting the other party’s rail or road operations, as the case may be, so to
(i) enable timely performance of the Construction Work and/or
Maintenance, and (ii) minimally interfere with the rail and road operations,Draft- 24 -
- 4 -
as the case may be, to the extent reasonably possible.
Prior to the commencement of any Maintenance by the Road Authority
which could interfere with or impact rail operations or that requires access
to the rail corridor, the Road Authority (and all of its contractors
performing such Maintenance) must execute any work permit(s), which
MLX (and/or its contractors) requires (the MLX Work Permit).
Prior to the commencement of any Construction Work and/or Maintenance
of the Electrification Infrastructure by MLX which could interfere with or
impact road operations or that requires access to lands owned by the Road
Authority, MLX (and all of its contractors performing such Construction
Work and/or Maintenance) must execute the standard Road Authority work
permits, which the Road Authority requires from all third parties prior to
such third parties carrying out work on lands owned by the Road Authority
(the Road Authority Work Permits).
10. Emergency Protocol MLX will develop a protocol for third party access, including the Road
Authority, to MLX’s property in and around a Bridge in the event of an
emergency. The Road Authority will be consulted during the development
of such protocol.
11. Third Party Permits/ Applicable
Laws / Standards
MLX will, in the performance of any Construction Work and/or
Maintenance of the Electrification Infrastructure: (i) comply with all laws
binding on it (Applicable Laws), the Road Authority Work Permits, any
required permits and approvals required from any third party having an
interest in a Bridge or lands and/or railway (the Third Party Permits and
Approvals) and those standards and codes applicable to MLX outlined in
Schedule “D” attached hereto (the Work Standards), (ii) be responsible
for obtaining any and all approvals, permits, permissions to enter or other
authorizations required in connection with same, (iii) perform such
Construction Work in a good and workmanlike manner, and (iv) promptly
attend and report to the Road Authority the discharge of any lien or security
interest registered against the Road Authority’s property claimed in
connection with the Construction Work. Upon MLX’s request, the Road
Authority will use commercially reasonable efforts to assist MLX in
obtaining any such approvals, permits, permissions to enter or other
authorizations, at no cost to the Road Authority.
The Road Authority (and its contractors) will, in the performance of any
Maintenance which could interfere with or impact rail operations or that
requires access to the rail corridor, comply with all Applicable Laws, the
MLX Work Permit and any Work Standards applicable to the Road
Authority.
12. Access re. Work and
Maintenance
Each party grants the other party a non-exclusive license to enter onto its
lands for the purposes of performing the Construction Work and/or the
Maintenance, as the case may be, in accordance with the terms of this Term
Sheet, including the requirements to obtain a work permit pursuant to
Section 9. Draft- 25 -
- 5 -
13. Ownership Notwithstanding any contribution by any party to the cost of the Works or
Maintenance, or any degree of affixation of any improvements to the lands
owned by either party, MLX and the Road Authority agree that MLX is the
sole owner of the Electrification Infrastructure.
14. Indemnity MLX hereby indemnifies and holds the Road Authority, and it’s
employees, agents, contractors and invitees, harmless from and against any
loss, cost and expense incurred by the Road Authority because of any
demand, action or claim brought against the Road Authority as a result of
any breach of this Term Sheet by MLX (or anyone for whom in law MLX
is responsible), or the loss of or damage to property, personal injury or
death, or any other direct losses or damages, howsoever and whatsoever
incurred, suffered or sustained by the Road Authority as a result of any act
or omission of MLX (or anyone for whom in law MLX is responsible) in
the performance of the Works and/or any Maintenance, save and except for
those losses or damages which have been caused or contributed to by any
negligence, negligent misrepresentation or breach of statutory duty on the
part of the Road Authority (or on the part of anyone for whom the Road
Authority is in law responsible), and the breach of any of the provisions of
this Term Sheet by the Road Authority (or by anyone for whom in law the
Road Authority is responsible), including, but not limited to, any negligent
act, willful misconduct or omission of the Road Authority (or by anyone for
whom in law the Road Authority is responsible), which causes or
contributes to any such injury, damage or loss.
The Road Authority is liable for and responsible to MLX for any breach of
any terms of this Term Sheet and any damage to the Electrification
Infrastructure caused by acts or omissions of the Road Authority (or by
anyone for whom in law the Road Authority is responsible), and hereby
indemnifies MLX, and it’s employees, agents, contractors and invitees,
from and against any loss, cost and expense incurred by the MLX because
of any demand, action or claim brought against MLX pertaining to such
breach or damage caused, save and except for any damage which has been
caused or contributed to by any negligence, negligent misrepresentation or
breach of statutory duty on the part of MLX (or anyone for whom MLX is
in law responsible), and the breach of any of the provisions of this Term
Sheet by MLX (or by anyone for whom in law MLX is responsible),
including, but not limited to, any negligent act, willful misconduct or
omission of MLX (or by anyone for whom in law MLX is responsible),
which causes or contributes to any such damage.
15. Future Replacement If at any time during the Term a Bridge is replaced, the terms associated
therewith will be agreed to by the parties in a separate agreement, which
agreement will then supersede this agreement per Section 2 herein. The
Road Authority will notify MLX at least three (3) years in advance of such
replacement.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Road Authority agrees that MLX will
be permitted to construct, install and attach the Electrification Infrastructure
on such replaced Bridge. Draft- 26 -
- 6 -
16. Agreement MLX and the Road Authority acknowledge and agree that this Term Sheet
constitutes a legal, valid and binding agreement between MLX and the
Road Authority, enforceable against both parties in accordance with the
terms and conditions contained herein.
This Term Sheet will enure to the benefit of, and be binding upon, the
parties hereto and their respective successors and permitted assigns.
17. Assignment Subject to the following paragraph, neither MLX nor the Road Authority
shall be entitled to assign this Term Sheet, in whole or in part, without the
prior written consent of the other party, which consent will not be
unreasonably withheld or delayed.
MLX may, in its sole discretion, and without prior consent of the Road
Authority, (i) assign any or all of MLX’s rights and obligations under this
Term Sheet to the Government of Ontario or to a Crown Agency (as
defined in the Crown Agencies Act (Ontario)) or to any third party
contractor or sub-contractor of MLX (each, an “Assignee”); and (ii) require
the Assignee to fully perform the obligations of MLX under the Term Sheet
and to be fully liable to the Road Authority in all respects for all liabilities
and obligations of MLX (including, for clarity, payment obligations) under
the Term Sheet. The Road Authority shall, within a timeframe prescribed
by MLX, acting reasonably, enter into any agreement that may be required
by MLX to give effect to any assignment and assumption or novation
contemplated under this paragraph, including any agreement with MLX and
the Assignee that requires the Road Authority to consent to the applicable
assignment and assumption or novation and to release MLX from the
applicable obligations and liabilities under the Term Sheet, provided the
terms and conditions of such agreement do not change or alter the terms
and conditions of this Term Sheet.
18. Governing Law This Term Sheet will be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the
laws of the Province of Ontario and the federal laws applicable therein.
19. Counterparts This Term Sheet may be executed in one or more counterparts, and any
single counterpart or a set of counterparts executed, in either case, by all
parties will constitute a full, original and binding agreement for all
purposes. Counterparts may be executed either in original or electronic
form, provided that the party providing its signature in electronic form will
promptly forward to the other party an original signed copy of this Term
Sheet which was so sent electronically.
20. Dispute Resolution Any dispute between the parties with respect to any matter arising out of
this Term Sheet will be referred to dispute resolution in accordance with
Schedule “E” attached hereto.
21. References to a Party For the purposes of this Term Sheet, all rights granted to a party hereunder
will extend to that party’s contractor(s), and any obligation that a party is
responsible for hereunder may be satisfied by that party’s contractor(s),
provided that each of the Road Authority and MLX shall remain liable for
its obligations contained hereunder. Draft- 27 -
- 7 -
SCHEDULES TO TERM SHEET DESCRIPTION
Schedule “A” List of Bridges
Schedule “B” Terms of Reference – General
Schedule “C” Terms of Reference – Specific
Schedule “D” Work Standards
Schedule “E” Dispute Resolution
Schedule “F” Access Plan
[signature page follows] Draft- 28 -
- 8 -
IN WITNESS WHEREOF this Term Sheet has been duly executed by the parties hereto as of the
______ day of _______________, 2020.
The Corporation of the City of Pickering
Per:
Name:
Title:
Per:
Name:
Title:
I/We have the authority to bind the corporation.
METROLINX
Per:
Name:
Title:
Per:
Name:
Title:
I/We have the authority to bind the corporation. Draft- 29 -
- 9 -
SCHEDULE “A”
LIST OF BRIDGES TO BE MODIFIED
Bridge ID Rail Corridor Mileage Description of Location Description of Bridge
Lakeshore East 314.95 Granite Court Overhead Bridge Draft- 30 -
- 10 -
SCHEDULE “B”
TERMS OF REFERENCE – GENERAL
With respect to the Works to be performed by MLX in accordance with this Term Sheet, MLX will:
a) with respect to the Design Work:
1. validate or obtain all field data necessary for detailed design and perform any investigations,
studies, tests and the like required in addition to the information supplied by the bridge owner or
MLX to complete the Work associated with and as described in Schedule “C” (Terms of Reference
– Specific) to the Term Sheet;
2. perform all design required in accordance with the design specifications defined in this Term Sheet
and project specifications;
3. perform all work required to secure approval of any deviations from the requirements specified in
this Term Sheet;
4. confirm locations of all utilities and be responsible for managing all scheduling impacts arising
from utilities relocations. Any utility relocations shall be performed in accordance with a separate
agreement with the appropriate utility company;
5. ensure that all final design, design reports, drawings, and calculations are sealed and signed by a
professional engineer licensed to practice in the Province of Ontario. All final structural reports,
structural drawings and foundation design reports shall be signed and sealed by two (2) professional
engineer(s), licensed to practice in the province of Ontario, one (1) who performs the design and the
other who checks such design; and
6. submit to the Road Authority the design submittals as listed in item 4 of the Term Sheet, and will
follow the Road Authority’s typical design review process. Such submittals will be made prior to
construction the relevant portion of the work
b) with respect to the Construction Work:
7. be responsible for all construction means, methods, techniques and provisions for all aspects of the
Work, including without limitation, labour, plant, equipment and materials required to undertake the
Work;
8. ensure structural integrity and safety during all stages of construction and for the rehabilitated
structure;
9. complete the work in accordance with Ontario Provincial Standard Specifications (OPSS), the
project specifications and all government and agency authorizations and approval without
outstanding infractions of laws and regulations;
10. comply with all quality inspection and testing of the work in accordance with the Project Quality
Management Plan and project documents;
11. upon request, provide the Road Authority access to the Work, in accordance with the terms of the
project agreement, for applicable testing, investigation, audit and the like and access to associated
inspection records, test results and testing facilities;
12. ensure all the foundations and substructures of the Bridge is adequate to support the proposed
modifications;
13. ensure that all products used for the Work are in accordance with the Road Authority requirements
and has a minimum of 75 years’ service life;
14. provide products, materials, and associated submittals (shop drawings, certifications, etc.) as
typically required by the Road Authority, and follow the Road Authority’s typical review process,
in accordance with applicable codes, specifications and standards articulated by the Road Authority;
15. ensure the following specifications are applied to each of the electrification protective barriers:
a. Solid-faced;
b. minimum height of two (2) metres above standing surface (including bridge railings); and Draft- 31 -
- 11 -
c. extends horizontally (i) a minimum of three (3) metres beyond the overhead contact
system electrified wires located under the Bridge and (ii) a minimum of five (5) metres
beyond centerline of the electrified rail tracks, each being measured perpendicular to the
wire/track; and
16. provide the Road Authority with “Record” drawings following completion of the Construction
Work.
Draft- 32 -
- 12 -
SCHEDULE “C”
TERMS OF REFERENCE – SPECIFIC
(see attached Specification Sheet for each Bridge)
FORM OF SPECIFICATION SHEET
Bridge Data
Bridge Name Granite Court
Bridge Type Concrete
Rail Corridor Lakeshore East
Subdivision Kingston
Mileage 314.95
Bridge Owner City of Pickering
Bridge ID 4
Bridge Barrier Aesthetics
Physical Element Specific Requirement
Panels (type) Opaque
Frame color – top and
bookends
Light grey colour
Frame color – bottom bar and
saddle plates
Light grey colour
Major fin color – structural
supports
Light grey colour
Minor fin color – intermediate Light grey colour
Medallion (design) Not required
New Bridge Attachments
Item
Specific
Requirement
Comments
Protective Barrier Yes
OCS As required
Flash plate Yes
Bonding and Grounding As required
Rehabilitation Work
1. N/A
Draft- 33 -
- 13 -
SCHEDULE “D”
WORK STANDARDS AND CODES
Project Specific Output Specifications (PSOS)
Metrolinx, General Guidelines for Design of Railway Bridges and Structures
Structures subjected to roadway loading (Overhead Structures):
a. Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code, CAN/CSA-S6-19 or superseded by the latest edition
available
b. Ministry of Transportation, Ontario, Bridge Design Manuals, latest edition:
i. Structural Manual, MTO
ii. Ontario Structure Inspection Manual, MTO
iii. Structural Rehabilitation Manual, MTO
iv. Structural Steel Coating Manual, MTO
v. All other applicable Bridge Standards, Guidelines, Memorandums and Manuals,
MTO
Structures subjected to railway loading (Subway Structures):
a. CN – Engineering Specifications for Industrial Tracks
b. CP – Requirements for the Design of Steel and Concrete Bridges Carrying Railway Traffic in
Canada
c. AREMA – American Railway Engineering of Maintenance-of Way Association, Manual for
Railway Engineering 2018
Other Structures:
a. Ontario Building Code (OBC), Building Code Act: O Reg. 332 – Building Code
b. National Building Code of Canada (NBC) 2015
c. CAN/CSA-A23.3 - Design of Concrete Structures
d. CAN/CSA-S16 - Design of Steel Structures
Ontario Provincial Specifications for Roads and Public Works, OPS Municipal, Provincial Common
and Provincial-oriented
Structures subjected to various types of loadings shall be designed in accordance with all relevant
codes and standards requirements
Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads, June 2017
Transport Canada, Guideline for Bridge Safety Management, February 2012
Draft- 34 -
- 14 -
SCHEDULE “E”
DISPUTE RESOLUTION1
1. Upon the written notice of a party, senior representatives of the Road Authority and Metrolinx
being the Manager Capital Projects and Infrastructure of the Road Authority and the Director,
Electrification, RER, Capital Projects Group of Metrolinx shall meet to discuss and resolve the
dispute set forth in the notice.
2. If the Manager Capital Projects and Infrastructure of the Road Authority and the Director,
Electrification, RER, Capital Projects Group of Metrolinx do not resolve the dispute within
fifteen (15) business days after such written notice, the parties shall further attempt to resolve
their dispute informally, as follows:
(a) the dispute shall be promptly referred for resolution to Metrolinx’s Vice President, RER,
Implementation and the Road Authority’s Director, Engineering Services;
(b) Metrolinx’s Vice President, RER, Implementation and the Road Authority’s Director,
Engineering Services shall meet as often as the parties reasonably deem necessary in
order to gather and furnish to the other all information with respect to the matter in issue
which the parties believe to be appropriate and germane in connection with its resolution
and upon which the parties intend to rely in resolving the dispute in question. Metrolinx’s
Vice President, RER, Implementation and the Road Authority’s Director, Major Capital
Infrastructure Coordination shall discuss the problem and negotiate in good faith in an
effort to resolve the dispute without the necessity of any formal proceeding;
(c) during the course of such discussions, all reasonable requests made by one party to the
other for non-privileged information, reasonably related to the issue in dispute under this
Term Sheet, shall be honored in order that each of the parties may be fully advised of the
other’s position; and
(d) the specific format for the discussions shall be left to the discretion of Metrolinx’s Vice
President, RER, Implementation and the Road Authority’s Director, Engineering
Services, but may include the preparation of agreed-upon statements of fact or written
statements of position.
3. If the dispute cannot be resolved by Metrolinx’s Vice President, RER, Implementation and the
Road Authority’s Director, Engineering Services pursuant to Section 2(b) within fifteen (15)
business days or such other time period as has been agreed, then the matter shall be referred to the
Chief Capital Officer of Metrolinx and the Road Authority’s Chief Administrative Officer for
dispute resolution substantially in accordance with the foregoing.
4. If the Chief Capital Officer of Metrolinx and the Road Authority’s Chief Administrative Officer
are not able to resolve the dispute within fifteen (15) business days or such other time period as
has been agreed, then upon agreement between the Chief Capital Officer of Metrolinx and Road
Authority’s Chief Administrative Officer, the matter shall be submitted to arbitration conducted
in accordance with the Arbitration Act, 1991 (Ontario) (as amended from time to time, the
1 NTD: Schedule “E” is tentative. It may be updated during the procurement process. Draft- 35 -
- 15 -
“Arbitration Act”) in the City of Toronto by a single arbitrator with suitable expertise, to be
agreed upon by the parties within fifteen (15) calendar days of the matter being submitted to
arbitration (the “Arbitrator Election Period”). If the parties are not able to agree on a single
arbitrator before the expiration of the Arbitrator Election Period, then either party shall be entitled
to make application to the Superior Court of Ontario pursuant to the Arbitration Act for selection
of the arbitrator, and the provisions of such Act shall govern such selection. In the event of the
failure, refusal or inability of the arbitrator to act, or continue to act, a new arbitrator shall be
appointed in his or her stead, which appointment shall be made in the same manner as
hereinbefore provided. The decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties and
not subject to appeal or challenge, except such limited relief provided under Section 45(1) (appeal
on a question of law, with leave) or Section 46 (setting aside award) of the Arbitration Act.
5. None of the provisions in this Schedule “E” shall be construed so as to prevent a party from
instituting (and a party is authorized to institute) litigation in a court of competent jurisdiction for
equitable relief, but only if a party makes a good faith determination that the damages to such
party (or to third parties) resulting from such continued non-resolution of the dispute in question
shall be so immediate, so large or so severe, and so incapable of adequate redress after the fact,
that a temporary restraining order or other immediate injunctive relief is the only adequate
remedy. To the extent any such litigation is instituted the parties agree that Section 7 of the
Arbitration Act shall not apply to such litigation, but only in respect of a claim for equitable
relief.
6. Each party agrees to continue performing its obligations under the Term Sheet while any dispute
is being resolved, to the extent performance is feasible prior to resolution of the dispute, unless
and until such obligations are terminated by the termination or expiration of this Term Sheet. Any
such performance by the parties shall be without prejudice to their positions in the dispute.
Draft- 36 -
SCHEDULE “F”
ACCESS PLAN
Prior to the Road Authority carrying out any Maintenance to a Bridge that requires access to a rail
corridor in order to perform such Maintenance, the Road Authority shall comply with the following
requirements:
1.The Road Authority shall submit to Metrolinx an application for access (an “Application for
Access”), which shall include, without limitation, the following:
a.a completed application for access form (an “Application for Access Form”), in the form
attached hereto as Appendix “1”. Metrolinx reserves the right to amend, supplement, update
or restate the Application for Access Form, from time to time;
b.a detailed description of the scope of works (the “Scope of Works”) being performed by the
Road Authority and a detailed work plan methodology for carrying out such works (a “Work
Plan Methodology”), prepared in accordance with the requirements and timelines prescribed
in the Work Plan Methodology user guide attached hereto as Appendix “2” (the “User
Guide”). For clarity, the Road Authority shall use the form set out in the User Guide when
preparing and submitting the Work Plan Methodology;
c.a proposed schedule for the completion of the Scope of Works, which shall identify, at a
minimum, the dates upon which the Road Authority intends to commence and complete the
Scope of Works (the “Proposed Schedule”);
d.a request for track protection confirmation (“Track Protection Confirmation”), as required
by the GO Transit Track Worker Safety Instructions (which may be amended, supplemented
or otherwise modified, from time to time), in respect of the Scope of Works. The Road
Authority shall use the guiding principles set out in Appendix “3” to this Schedule
when determining the type of track protection it requires; and
e.any and all additional information as may be requested by Metrolinx, from time to time.
2.Metrolinx shall promptly notify the Road Authority of any deficiencies in its Application for Access
and shall provide any comments Metrolinx has in relation thereto. The Road Authority shall re-submit
the Application for Access once it has had the opportunity to review and address any and all such
deficiencies and/or comments highlighted by Metrolinx. The Road Authority shall continue to re-
submit the Application for Access until Metrolinx is satisfied, in its sole discretion, with such
application.
3.In conjunction with its review of the Application for Access Form, Metrolinx will conduct a
complexity assessment (each, a “Complexity Assessment”). During a Complexity Assessment,
Metrolinx will review the Scope of Works in detail and designate such works as either “green” or
“red” works, as such works are further described in the User Guide.
4.If, during the Complexity Assessment, the Scope of Works is designated “green work”, then the
following provisions apply:
a.the Road Authority shall subsequently submit, for review and approval by Metrolinx, all
information and supporting documentation required pursuant to Appendix B to the User
Guide for “green works”, in accordance with the timelines set forth in Appendix “2” to this
Schedule;
b.Metrolinx may, in its sole discretion, conduct its own task-specific risk assessment in respect
of the Scope of Works if Metrolinx is not satisfied with the information or documentation
submitted by the Road Authority in accordance with this Section 5. Metrolinx shall perform
said assessment in accordance with the timelines set out in Appendix “2” to this Schedule. In
the event that Metrolinx identifies areas of concern during its task-specific risk assessment,Draft- 37 -
the Road Authority shall revise and resubmit its Work Plan Methodology to address such
concerns, to the satisfaction of Metrolinx, in accordance with the timelines set out in
Appendix “2” to this Schedule; and
c.Metrolinx may impose certain conditions or obligations on the Road Authority based on the
level of complexity identified during the Complexity Assessment.
5.If, during the Complexity Assessment, the Scope of Works is designated “red work”, then the
following provisions apply:
a.the Road Authority shall submit, for review and approval by Metrolinx, all information and
supporting documentation required pursuant to Appendix B to the User Guide for “red
works”, in accordance with the timelines set forth in Appendix “2” to this Schedule;
b.in connection with the Proposed Schedule, the Road Authority shall include a minimum
contingency of ten percent (10%) of the total estimated number of hours to complete the
Scope of Works, which contingency shall be added to the last activity set forth in the
Proposed Schedule. For clarity, the foregoing contingency (i) may include the two (2) hours
reduction per rail corridor access that Metrolinx is entitled to make, and (ii) shall in no event
extend the time granted to the Road Authority for access to the rail corridor pursuant to an
Application for Access;
c.the Road Authority shall organize and attend a series of meetings to take place at the work
site with Metrolinx and the Road Authority’s contractors, if any, and any other third parties
who are integral to the performance of the Scope of Works, to review and discuss the
following:
i.the description of the Scope of Works (and all activities related thereto) that will be
performed under the Access Permit (as defined below);
ii.the construction methods and construction equipment to be used by the Road
Authority and its contractors while performing the Scope of Works;
iii.the expected progress of the Scope of Works, including critical progress milestones,
in accordance with the Proposed Schedule;
iv.the names and roles of all contractors and subcontractors performing the Scope of
Works;
v.the location of all materials and equipment necessary to complete the Scope of
Works;
vi.loading and unloading procedures;
vii.all safety compliance procedures; and
viii.all other matters and information that will demonstrate to Metrolinx that the Road
Authority and its contractors understand the Scope of Works to be performed and
have the expertise to execute such works within an active rail corridor; and
d.Metrolinx may impose certain conditions or obligations on the Road Authority based on the
level of complexity identified during the Complexity Assessment.
6.If, as a result of the Complexity Assessment, the Application for Access has to be revised, amended
or otherwise modified, the Road Authority shall prompt do so and re-submit such application to
Metrolinx in accordance with the timelines set forth in Appendix “2” to this Schedule.
7. Following Metrolinx’s approval and satisfaction of an Application for Access and the corresponding
Complexity Assessment, Metrolinx shall issue an access permit (an “Access Permit”) to the Road
Authority to enter onto the rail corridor to perform the Scope of Works thereunder described, subject
to the terms and conditions set forth therein. Each Access Permit shall identify, at a minimum, the
following:
a.the limited Scope of Works permitted to be performed thereunder;
b. the designation of works being performed (either “green” or “red” works);Draft- 38 -
c.the duration of the Access Permit; and
d.any conditions or obligations to be satisfied by the Road Authority in respect of the access
granted thereunder. For clarify, these conditions may include, without limitation, training
requirements for parties performing the Scope of Works, compliance with certain work
standards identified by Metrolinx, time restrictions for the performance of the Scope of
Works, etc.
8.In conjunction with issuing an Access Permit, Metrolinx will confirm track protection for the Scope
of Works contemplated thereunder. The Road Authority is required to submit a request for Track
Protection Confirmation, in accordance with GO Transit Track Worker Safety Instructions, for the
Scope of Works covered under an Access Permit on a weekly basis, irrespective of the time period for
which the Access Permit applies. Each Track Protection Confirmation the Road Authority obtains
from Metrolinx will only apply to the Scope of Works being performed during the seven (7) day
period commencing on the fifteenth (15th) business day following the date upon which the Road
Authority submits a request for Track Protection Confirmation to Metrolinx. Each Track Protection
Confirmation is limited only to the duration specified therein, and the granting of Track Protection
Confirmation by Metrolinx does not by itself, authorize the Road Authority to carry out the Scope of
Works. For clarity, an Access Permit must be obtained, along with Track Protection Confirmation, for
the Road Authority to conduct any Maintenance activities within a rail corridor. The Road Authority
shall, in accordance with the timelines set out in Appendix “2” to this Schedule, submit to Metrolinx a
track protection forecast on a quarterly basis in respect of each location in which the Road Authority
anticipates it will be performing the Scope of Works in respect of the three (3) month period
following the submission to Metrolinx of such forecast.
9.Metrolinx may, in its sole discretion, grant an Access Permit and/or Track Protection Confirmation
for a single entry into a rail corridor or for multiple entries into a rail corridor covering a specified
period of time, each depending on the Scope of Works to be performed under the applicable Access
Permit or Track Protection Confirmation, as applicable.
10.Prior to the commencement of any works, the Road Authority shall display the applicable Access
Permit in a highly visible area at the work site.
11.For clarity, the Road Authority acknowledges as follows:
a.that it shall comply with the foregoing requirements each and every time it requires access to
the rail corridor to perform (or facilitate the performance of) any Maintenance activities; and
b.that the requirements set forth in this Schedule “F” only apply to rail corridors owned by
Metrolinx. Any access to rail corridors owned by Canadian National Railway Company,
Canadian Pacific Railway Company or any other third-party railway company shall be
obtained through a separate process prescribed by the applicable railway company.Draft- 39 -
APPENDIX “1” TO THIS SCHEDULE “F” – ACCESS PROTOCOL Draft- 40 -
August 13, 2019
Rail Corridor Access Request
Requests are due by 1200 Tuesday for the upcoming week (Mon – Sun)
PROJECT AND CONTACT INFORMATION
Oracle Task Code: Project #: Project Name: Permit #:
Metrolinx Contact AND Phone: Business Unit:
Consultant Name AND Phone: Company:
Contractor Name AND Phone: Company:
Date Submitted: Late Submission Business Critical / Safety Critical Justification:
WORK INFORMATION
Date OR
Date Range
Hours Track #(s)/ Min
Distance from
Rail (ft)
Work Limits
Miles/ Signals
Scope of Work
(Daily scope for each separated work group)
List of
Machinery
# of
Separated
Work
Groups
# of
Flagmen
Flagging
Contractor
(RCAC
Use only)
Meeting
Location
Protection
(RCAC
Use Only)
Additional Notes:
Revision Notes:
Draft- 41 -
August 13, 2019
OPERATIONAL IMPACT/APPROVALS CHECKLIST
Does Your Work Affect:
Track Signals Crossings
If you checked any of the above, have you submitted a work plan to Track
COE and/or Corridor Maintenance? Yes No
Are you working in an area where Metrolinx is Constructor?
Yes No
If Yes, have you submitted a work plan to CPG Health and Safety?
Yes No
3 -WEEK FORECAST
Date OR Date Range Hours Track(s)/ Min
Distance from Track
Work Limits
Miles/ Signals
Scope of Work
(Daily scope for each separated work group)
List of Machinery
Draft- 42 -
APPENDIX “2” TO THIS SCHEDULE “F” – ACCESS PROTOCOL Draft- 43 -
CPG-PGM-MAN-278
Work Plan Methodology
User Guide
Prepared by Rail Corridor Access and Control
Draft- 44 -
Work Plan Methodology User Guide
Purpose
The purpose of this User Guide is to provide direction for completing a Work Plan Methodology in accordance
with requirements established by Metrolinx.
The procedure described in this user manual is designed to provide the Work Group requesting access to the
rail corridor a common framework for developing and communicating work plan methodologies, and to
provide Metrolinx with an understanding of their roles during the review and administration process.
A completed and signed off Work Plan Methodology is required:
before access is granted to Metrolinx Rail Corridor or any Rail Corridor on behalf of Metrolinx;
for any work or activity in an active operational facility areas or public spaces; and,
for any work or activity that involves a high risk task.
or has the potential to,
Impact normal train operations;
Affect the railway track structure;
Affect the railway signal system.
Introduction
The completed Work Plan Methodology allows the Work Group to demonstrate awareness of the risks
associated with the work. It will indicate the method of working, mitigation to be used and the risks associated
with the work including the impacts on affected parties. The Work Group responsible for the work will
complete and revise the Work Plan Methodology as applicable to support the work activities and the
identification and mitigation of risks associated with the work planned in a rail and construction environment.
The Work Plan Methodology template has been developed to assist the Work Group to plan activities to be
carried out in a safe and productive manner taking into consideration the impacts on operations, neighbours,
infrastructure and the environment.
The risks associated with the work to be described include, but not limited to:
Construction or Activity risk,
Site risks,
Risk to Personnel,
Risk to Infrastructure and Utilities,
Risk to Rail Operations,
Risk to Passengers,
Risk to Roads,
Risk to Environment, and
Risk to Public
The Work Plan Methodology will also describe the disruption that may be incurred by Rail, Stations and Bus
Operations or the public.
Where the Work Group needs support to adequately develop the plan, Metrolinx will support the Work Group
communication of proposed methodologies to relevant specialists during the development and review of the
Work Plan Methodology. Draft- 45 -
Work Plan Methodology User Guide
The template and guide will be stored on the Metrolinx MyLinx site and will be issued to active workgroups
after contract award and whenever the template or guide is revised. For non Metrolinx Groups, contact your
Metrolinx contact to ensure correct template version.
General Information
Work plans must be site specific, detailing the maximum location limits for the activities. If needed, the work
can be broken down into stages for additional clarity. The Work Event detail and subsequent protection
provided for each shift and will be detailed in the publications and approvals for activities.
All Work Plans will need to be signed off by 5 weeks prior to the event.
Applications for Access, Published Work Events and Permits will reference the Work Plans that is
associated with it.
Track Protection Confirmation will not be issued until the Work Plan has been approved.
Rail Corridor Access and Control (RCAC) will co-ordinate the distribution and sign-off of the Work Plan
Methodology. The Work Groups Metrolinx contact will advise who can support the development of the Work
Plan, unless otherwise stated in the guide.
Work Complexity Assessment
At the point of first Application for Access a provisional Work Complexity Assessment (WCA) is conducted by
Metrolinx to define the risk of interruption to service. This information needs to be included in the cover page
of the Work Plan.
The Work Complexity Assessment is undertaken by Metrolinx and is used to assess the works and closures that
present the risk of the work overrunning into the following service. A preliminary result, based on a scope and
description of work, can be done prior to the Work Plan Methodology being submitted.
The result of the Work Complexity Assessment defines work as RED or GREEN.
Work Plan Type: A RED result will required an Event Work Plan and a GREEN result can be done in a General
Work Plan. Sections that apply to an Event Work Plan are marked as MANDATORY for RED Activities.
The Work Complexity Assessment will be reviewed based on the Work Plan Methodology submission; this
should only change if the detail of the work plan reveals additional risk of overrun. This will be reviewed
during the review stages of the Work Plan as more detailed information is provided.
As a guide, activities that required a Major Closure will be RED activities, and activities undertaken in Track
Protection Access must be GREEN.
Work Plan Types
The template is the same for all Work Plan Types.
General Work Plans
General Work Plans containing green activities can be valid for an extended period of time. Some sections are
not required to be completed for green activities or events. Draft- 46 -
Work Plan Methodology User Guide
General Work Plans must undergo a review of the content every three months, to check the continued validity
and potential need for revision.
New revisions must highlight the changes in content for faster review. Revisions must be distributed to all
relevant stakeholders through the RCAC team.
General Work Plans are intended to reduce repetition and number of work plans, reviews and revisions.
Event Work Plan (Major Track Closures and Red Activities)
All Red activities need an Event Work Plan valid only for the event detailed and must complete additional
sections, detailing the Work Schedule, GO / NO GO milestones and deadlines, and a robust contingency
plan.
Integrated Work Plan
Where there is more than one unrelated activity the individual work plans, those activities are supported by an
Integrated Work Plan, showing any risks and controls caused by the sharing access, include additional risks,
required order of activity.
The Integrated Work Plan Methodology will not repeat information provided by the individual Work Plan
Methodologies but will reference them and detail any additional or altered: risk and control, contingency,
mitigation, work schedule adjustments and dependencies between the groups.
The Integrated Work Plan will be completed by the Constructor for the site or Metrolinx.
Completing the Form
The Work Group must fill out the Work Plan Methodology form. Any fields within the document that do not
apply to the specific project or scope of work are not required to be filled out and must have an ‘N/A’
contained in the field. This step will ensure all components of the form have been reviewed and
acknowledged.
Sections marked in the template as MANDATORY for RED Activities and Events, must be completed. For
GREEN activities the information can be omitted however it is recommended to provide the information.
File naming
Save the Work Plan Methodology by the unique reference number at the start of the file name. The Work Plan
Methodology reference needs to be unique. Identifiers are separated by underscores, the first ID is the
contract number and the last is the Revision number.
The reference number is a combination of
the contract number,
the site or stage ref (optional),
a work plan number unique within the contract,
the revision number.
ContractNumber_SiteREF_WP##_REV## Draft- 47 -
Work Plan Methodology User Guide
If your work does not have a contract number, consult the RCAC planning team to ensure you have a unique
prefix for your documents.
Work Plan Methodology Sections
Work Plan Title
A title that easily identifies the scope of the document and differentiates the Work Plan Methodology from
others.
Suggestion: Depending on the complexity of the Project, some combination of Project, Stage, Work and
Location.
SECTION 1 - WORK PLAN INFORMATION
Section 1 describes the Work Plan Methodology and includes a Cover Page for the [work party] to identify the
key components of the work to be performed.
Competent Supervisor
The Competent Supervisor shall be identified on the cover page of the Work Plan Methodology by the Work
Group. A Competent Supervisor Declaration form must be appended to the Work Plan Methodology and a
reference to the Competent Supervisor Declaration shall be made in Section 5.2 – Additional Required
Procedures / Safety Plans. To identify more than one Competent Supervisor under this Work Plan
Methodology, a list shall be provided and appended in Section 2.3 – Resources and a Competent Supervisor
Declaration. The work groups site staff shall be coordinated and directed by the Competent Supervisor. They
shall be briefed on the content of the Work Plan Methodology prior to the commencement of the work and be
able to reference the Work Plan Methodology in the event of accident or incident occurrence.
Major Work
The Work shall be defined as Major Work if it has any of the following characteristics:
•Track will require surfacing or destressing after the works have been completed;
•A Temporary Slow Order (TSO) will be required on completion;
•The signal system will be disrupted;
•A risk of track settlement exists during or after completion of the work;
•The track layout will be changed.
SECTION 1.1 – WORK OVERVIEW
General information about the project including work, dates and contacts.
SECTION 1.2 – REVIEW AND APPROVAL
History of the document, status and last sign off. Comments to be included indicating what was changed since
last signature.
SECTION 1.3 - CONSTRUCTOR INFORMATION
Constructor information. Draft- 48 -
Work Plan Methodology User Guide
SECTION 1.4 – WORK COMPLEXITY ASSESSMENT (WCA) RESULT
Record the details of the last Work Complexity Assessment that was completed by Metrolinx.
SECTION 2 – WORK AND METHOD
Section 2 describes the scope and tasks covered by the Work Plan Methodology and then the requirements to
manage the risks associated with that work.
The information in this section must provide enough detail to ensure work is completed in the allotted time
with suitable arrangements for contingency.
SECTION 2.1 – SCOPE OF WORK
Description of the work, including all objectives that are to be accomplished and any multi-disciplinary
involvement.
SECTION 2.2 – DETAILED TASK DESCRIPTION
Description of each task involved in the work.
In the tables that refer back to the task list, it is permissible where the same item is common to multiple tasks to
enter all relevant tasks in the one line item, repeat the resource where the other elements vary, such as
quantity. This can be used to reduce the duplication.
Example below based on the labour resource table.
Task No Worker Company Quantity
All Tasks Competent Supervisor Alpha 1 per shift
1-4 Flagman TBC 1 per shift
1-4 General Labour Beta 5 per shift
8-11 General Labour Beta 10 per shift
1, 4, 8 and 11 Excavator operator Delta 1 per shift
9 Crane Operator Charlie 1 per crane per shift
If multiple tasks
worked in same shift
Sub Foreman TBC 1 per separated group
per shift
… … … …
SECTION 2.3 – RESOURCES
Specification of all critical Labour forces, Machinery, and Materials required for each task outlined in Section
2.2-Detailed Task Description.
2.3.1 Labour, list all labour and identify the quantity of a particular Worker Type for each task.
2.3.2 Machinery, list all machinery and identify if the owner/operator of the machinery is the Contractor (GC)
or the Subcontractor (Sub). Availability of a mechanic and spare parts to be addressed. Draft- 49 -
Work Plan Methodology User Guide
2.3.3 Materials, list materials to be used, if backup material is available and to which task the material
corresponds with.
SECTION 2.4 – SUPPORTING WORK GROUPS INVOLVED
Identify the work groups required to be coordinated to support the core activities for the work (Contractor and
Subcontractors)
Where the supporting group(s) provide their own methodology, this must be referenced and available for
review.
SECTION 2.5 – EVENT MILESTONES & POINT OF NO RETURN
Identify the planned start and end time of the event.
Critical Milestones
List critical milestones to be completed during the event referencing associated Task Numbers from Section
2.2 – Detailed Task Description.
Describe the planned and latest start time for each activity milestones, and show the links between related
milestones. The latest start time shows the flexibility of the schedule and triggers for Point Of No Return
Decision .
The Point Of No Return Decision is described in detailed in Section 2.9 – Contingency Plan, but the time the
decision is triggered is shown against the relevant milestone.
Provide the contingency period (no activities are permitted to be planned to end within the contingency
period).
Below is a simplistic example of a completed table. An appropriate level of detailed information regarding the
milestones is required to support the Work.
List outside influences that could potentially cause delays.
Planned
Time
Milestones Related
milestones
Latest Start
Time
Point Of No Return Decision and
contingency notes (detail Error! Reference
source not found.)
SAT
0900 Place Protection #1 Start SAT
1200
Cancel this and following
activities and utilise event for
alternative activities
SAT
1000 Cut Track #2 Start SAT
1300
Cancel this and following
activities and utilise event for
alternative activities
SAT
1100 Excavate #3 Start SAT
1400
Cancel this and following
activities and utilise event for
alternative activities
SUN
0900 Install structure SUN
1200
Cancel this activity and backfill
and reinstate
SUN Backfill #3 End SUN Notify NOC of overrun risk Draft- 50 -
Work Plan Methodology User Guide
Planned
Time
Milestones Related
milestones
Latest Start
Time
Point Of No Return Decision and
contingency notes (detail Error! Reference
source not found.)
1100 1500
MON
1400
Stress, Weld Track
and Pack #2 End SUN
2200
Notify NOC to initiate
arrangements to manage
overrun.
SUN
2200
Contingency
Period If working during this time Notify
NOC.
MON
0400 Lift Protection #1 End MON
0400
Notify NOC of estimated
overrun period
SECTION 2.6 – EVENT PLANNING and POINT OF NO RETURN DECISION (GO / NO GO)
List critical milestones to be completed prior to the event including minimum prescribed milestones.
Go/NoGo meeting at T-6 weeks;
Site meeting 5 days prior to the event; and,
Staff conference 2 days prior to the event.
Also include any milestones for the completion of critical pre-work.
In the 5 days prior to the work describe the activities that need to be completed in twelve hour increments.
How is the Decision Made?
For the event planning milestones describe in detail who makes the decision on Go/No Go and when this
decision will be made. Who from the Work Group will make the decision? Who from the stakeholders should
be consulted?
SECTION 2.7 – PRE-WORK
Identify and describe the activities that are critical to the delivery of the work event. Identify the criticality, the
timeline for completion and reference the documentation or Work Plan Methodology that covers these tasks.
Examples include, but not limited to: daylighting of utilities, movement of materials and positioning of lighting.
SECTION 2.8 – POST-WORK
Identify any work that must be completed after the work event. Identify the timeline for completing the task
and reference the documentation or Work Plan Methodology that covers these tasks.
Indicate the criticality of completing any post work activities.
Examples include, but not limited to: field welding, destressing, follow-up surfacing, installation of temporary
crossing, restore public road crossing surface, temporary slow order (Rule 43), General Bulletin Order (GBO),
test train, train observation, crossing deactivation, equipment removal and clean-up. Draft- 51 -
Work Plan Methodology User Guide
SECTION 2.9 – CONTINGENCY PLAN
Identify the number of hours allocated to contingency. For all track closures a minimum of ten percent
contingency time of the total protected hours is required.
Provide a list of resources that will be utilized should the contingency plan need to be implemented.
For each critical milestone describe the contingency plan associated and the Point Of No Return and who will
make that decision associated Task Numbers from Section 2.2 – Detailed Task Description.
describe when the point of no return is reached in the schedule providing a date and time
describe in detail who is allowed to make the decision
which the stakeholders should be consult with and
describe the influences that trigger the point of no return
For RED Activities and Events link these contingency plans to the table provided in SECTION 2.6 – Event
Milestones & Point Of No Return.
Point Of No Return is the point beyond which the task must be completed before the track can be returned to
planned service.
SECTION 2.10 – TRACK PROTECTION
If required consult the Rail Corridor Access and Control Team for advice on the appropriate protection
arrangements for the task.
For each task in Section 2.2 – Detailed Task Description, identify the protection required, including
planned protection
tracks required
the total mileage requested (this may not be the mileage you are granted for an individual shift)
the Class of Access
Note: The total protection listed here may not be provided in each event. For this information see publications
and approvals.
To Add
SECTION 2.11 – IN-SERVICE INSPECTION
Identify the specific inspections required to be completed prior to the infrastructure being returned to service,
from the list below. List the Inspectors, along with their qualifications and which Company they represent.
The Work is split into three categories:
Track
Walking Detailed
Installed Turnout
Rail Flaw Detection
Switch Pressure Test - No. 22 Switch Stand
Track Geometry - Hand
Track Geometry - Vehicle Draft- 52 -
Work Plan Methodology User Guide
Track In-Service Certificate
Bridges and Structures
Bridge Span
Tunnel
Culvert
Retaining Wall
Grade Build-up for Track
Signal Bridge Structure
Signals
Signals In-Service Certificate
SECTION 2.12 – UTILITY IMPACT
Identify if utility locates are required for the work and declare if locates are current and complete. The Work
Group shall list any utility companies that are impacted by the work and append copies of locates and/or other
supporting documentation regarding the protection of the utilities to the Work Plan Methodology, and
reference them in Section 5 as attachments. Telecoms - Bell 360 (Fibre)
Telecoms - Telephone
Telecoms - Cable TV
Natural Gas
Hydro
TransCanada
Water Lines
Sanitary Sewer Lines
Storm Sewer Lines
CN/CP Utilities
CN/CP Signals
Indicate any utility companies not previously identified.
SECTION 3 – STAKEHOLDER CONSIDERATIONS
Section 3 is used to detail what (if any impact) the work has on service and operations, the surrounding
community and public or private property.
Risks to operations, adjacent neighbors and the travelling public shall be identified in detail and included in
Section 7 – Risk Assessment Matrix.
3.1 – SERVICE AND OPERATIONAL IMPACT
Describe the impact on operations and service. Describe all mitigating measures to eliminate or reduce
operational and passenger impacts.
Consult Rail Corridor Access & Control for details if service needs to be altered.
3.2 – SURROUNDING COMMUNITY IMPACT Draft- 53 -
Work Plan Methodology User Guide
Describe the impact to the community in the surrounding area (such as noise, dust, lights, traffic control).
Indicate if special signage for the work will be posted. Provide details as to where, which kind and who will
provide the signage, etc.
Direct all communications with the public through Metrolinx.
3.3 – ROADWAY AND PRIVATE PROPERTY IMPACT
Describe any traffic control, road closures and private property encroachments that are required for the work.
List all permits required for the work and confirm if they have been obtained. A traffic plan shall be appended
and identified (if applicable) in Section 5 – Attachments and Personnel List.
SECTION 4 - ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SIGNAL WORK
Section 4 is completed if the scope of work includes a signal work component, the Signal Work methodology
shall be described in detail in Section 2.2 – Detailed Task Description.
SECTION 4.1 – TESTING DOCUMENTS
List all Testing Documents required to support the by GO Transit Signal & Communication Standards and all
GO Transit Signals & Communications Code of Practices and describe the track mileage where each test is
required will be performed.
Such as:
GO Transit Signal & Communication Standards:
SCMI-301(b) Installation and Commissioning Tests
SCMI-301(a) Working with Approved Plans
SCMI-301(b)(1) Installation and Commissioning Tests (Conventional)
SCMI-301(b)(2) Installation and Commissioning Tests (Staged)
SCMI-301(c) Recording Circuit Wiring and Design Errors
SCMI-301(d) Performing Vital Circuit Revisions
SCMI-301(e) Signal Installation and Testing Documentation
SCMI-301(g) Maintenance of Vital Tools and Test Instruments
SCMI-301(g) Maintenance of Vital Tools and Test Instruments
GO Transit Signals & Communications Code of Practices:
SCP-1 Location of Insulated Joints
SCP-2 Replacement Intervals for Railway Signal Lamps
SCP-3 Procedures to be followed by S&C Personnel in the Event of an Incident Involving a Signal
System
SCP-4 Track ad – Track Circuit Adjustment
SCP-5 Exothermic Track Connections
SCP-6 Mechanical Track Connections
SCP-7 Bootlegs and Bond Strand
SCP-8 Inspection and Maintenance of Insulated Joints
SCP-8 JOB AID Job Aid Guideline for Identifying Insulated Joint Breakdown Draft- 54 -
Work Plan Methodology User Guide
SCP-9 Switch Machine and Switch Helper Rod
SCP-10 Spring Switch Layout and Part List
SCP-11 Bonding and Fouling Turnouts
SCP-12 Wayside Signal Alignment Procedures
SECTION 4.2 – DESIGN DOCUMENTATION AND SUPPLEMENTAL DRAWINGS
Reference any additional relevant drawings or documents.
SECTION 4.3 – CROSSING DEACTIVATION
Identify any and all crossings that will be temporarily disabled to accommodate the anticipated works.
SECTION 4.4 – SIGNAL TEST EQUIPMENT AND TOOLS
Identify all specialized tools required for testing, as well as latest calibration date.
SECTION 5 – ATTACHMENTS AND PERSONNEL LIST
Identify on site staff and provide contact lists, ensuring the Contractor and Metrolinx have an established
means of communications.
SECTION 5.1 – OVERVIEW OF SITE
List Diagrams / Documents to support the Work Plan Methodology and provide reference as to where the files
are located.
SECTION 5.2 – ADDITIONAL REQUIRED PROCEDURES / SAFETY PLANS
Include both the Competent Supervisor Declaration Form and the Site Specific Emergency Plan (SSEP).
If applicable, reference the proposed use of Temporary Rail Bypass Couplers (TRBC), and any other applicable
plans or procedures listed.
SECTION 5.3 – ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENTS
Reference any additional documents that are attached to the Work Plan Methodology.
SECTION 5.4 – WORKGROUP STAFF & SIGN OFF
List key staff (direct and that of subcontractors) anticipated to be working on the task with responsibilities
described within this document. Each person listed must ensure that a briefing containing the main elements
of this Work Plan Methodology (including safety and emergency measures) takes place on site prior to the
work commencing. Workers involved in task to sign-off on Work Plan Methodology prior to commencing work.
SECTION 5.5 – PROJECT CONTACT LIST
Identify and list the support staff such as the Contract Administrator or Technical Advisor, as well as the
applicable Contract Maintenance Provider personnel. Draft- 55 -
Work Plan Methodology User Guide
SECTION 5.6 – METROLINX CONTACT LIST
Identify and list the Metrolinx staff involved in the project, such as the Project Coordinator, Project Manager, as
well as any applicable Specialist personnel.
SECTION 5.7 – EMERGENCY CONTACT LIST
Identify and list the applicable emergency contact information.
SECTION 6 – SAFETY PERMITS AND PLANS
Safety must always be the principle that guides all activities. Section 6 ensures all required safety components
have been considered and documented.
6.1 – REQUIRED PERMITS
Indicate which of the Metrolinx Constructor Work Permits are required for the work described within the Work
Plan Methodology, and provide any necessary documentation.
Where Metrolinx is not the Constructor, indicate if any of the Works fall within these categories and provide the
necessary documentation.
6.2 – EMERGENCY RESCUE PLANS
If the work involves activities requiring a rescue plan, the details of a Site Specific Emergency Rescue Plan must
be provided.
SECTION 7 – RISK ASSESSMENT MATRIX
Assess the risk and controls for the site and each activity described in Section 2.2 – Detailed Task Description in
the Risk Assessment Summary table.
Complete the MX-SMS-W001 Risk Assessment Worksheet and insert here.
For guidance use MX-SMS-G001 Risk Assessment Guide.
Appendices
Add appendices as needed.
Submission and Review
Submission Timelines
Each Work Plan Methodology will be subject to Metrolinx stakeholder Acceptance. Metrolinx will ensure
satisfaction of the fundamental objectives of safe execution while maintaining operational service in the review
of the Work Plan Methodology.
Rail Corridor Access and Control (RCAC) will co-ordinate the distribution and review schedule. Draft- 56 -
Work Plan Methodology User Guide
The Submission Process is:
For GREEN Activities
1. Detailed Work Plan Methodology must be submitted by the Work Group to RCAC the Monday at least
7 weeks prior to the first planned event.
2. RCAC will receive the Work Plan Methodology.
a. RCAC will distribute it to applicable internal stakeholders for their review,
b. RCAC will collect comments from internal stakeholders, compile them using the Metrolinx
Review Comments Worksheet; and,
c. deliver the comments to the Work Group
3. As required RCAC will organise and host a review of the Work PlanMethodology by the Tuesday 6
weeks prior to the first planned event.
4. The Work Group will review comments and make applicable revisions to the Work Plan Methodology
by the Monday 5 weeks prior to the first planned event.
5. The RCAC will confirm the status of the Work Plan signoff, by Friday 5 weeks prior to the first planned
event.
For RED Activities
1. Detailed Work Plan Methodology must be submitted by the Work Group to the RCAC the Monday at
least 10 weeks prior to the event.
2. RCAC will receive the Work Plan Methodology.
a. RCAC will distribute it to applicable internal stakeholders for their review,
b. RCAC will collect comments from internal stakeholders, compile them using the Metrolinx
Review Comments Worksheet; and,
c. Deliver the comments to the Work Group .
3. RCAC will organise and host a review of the Work Plan by the Tuesday 9 weeks prior to the event.
4. The Work Group will review comments and make applicable revisions to the Work Plan Methodology
by the Monday 8 weeks prior to the first planned event.
5. If required:
5.1. The last opportunity to submit a revision to the Work Plan Methodology Monday at least 7 weeks
prior to the event.
5.2. RCAC will organise and host a review of the Work Plan by the Tuesday 6 weeks prior to the event.
5.3. The Work Group will review comments and make applicable revisions to the Work Plan
Methodology by the Monday 5 weeks prior to the first planned event.
6. RCAC will confirm the status of the Work Plan signoff, by Friday 5 weeks prior to the first planned
event. This is the Go/No Go for the work event.
7. A Pre-Block meeting shall be held by the Work Group 5 days prior to track block with all major support
staff and stakeholders.
8. A Conference call shall be conducted by the Work Group within 48 hours of work block to ensure all
contractors and support staff are aware of requirements within the Work Plan Methodology and to
finalize any outstanding issues.
Stakeholder Distribution and Review
A) GENERAL
In addition to the Work Plan Methodology status, the Stakeholder Distribution will be defined by the Work
Groups] Metrolinx contact. A Review Log will be kept by RCAC and distribution will be managed and
coordinated through RCAC. Draft- 57 -
Work Plan Methodology User Guide
B) REQUIREMENTS
The Stakeholder conducting the review will indicate the revision number of the Work Plan Methodology,
review/distribution date, their name and the status of their review. Upon receiving Metrolinx comments
regarding a Work Plan Methodology submission, the Work Group shall update the Work Plan Methodology
and return to RCAC to ensure appropriate version control is accomplished.
A Work Plan Methodology will be returned with one of three
1. Draft
2. Final
3. Accepted
The Work Group shall abide by the status as determined by Metrolinx.
C) Stakeholder Distribution
Stakeholders shall be identified by the Metrolinx contact. The Metrolinx Contact shall indicate if the
Stakeholder receiving the Work Plan Methodology is expected to review the Work Plan Methodology (For
Review) or if the Work Plan Methodology is distributed to the Stakeholder for their Information Only (For
INFO). Draft- 58 -
APPENDIX “3” TO THIS SCHEDULE “F” – ACCESS PROTOCOL
GUIDING PRINCIPLES RE. TRACK PROTECTION
The Road Authority shall use the following “hierarchy of protection” principles to determine the type of
protection to be used, from most preferred and most utilized to least preferred and used sparingly. The
hierarchy is as follows:
(a)barrier protection with all construction equipment and activities without the potential of fouling
the adjacent live main track;
(b)barrier protection with the potential of construction equipment and activities fouling the adjacent
live main track. CROR Rule 842 or TOP protection is required on the adjacent main track;
(c)adjacent line closed (“ALC”) with no fouling in multi-track territory will use the inactive main
track adjacent to the work location as a form of barrier protection. All construction equipment
and activities will not foul past the ALC, thus allowing for continual work;
Note: TOP should be used to protect the inactive adjacent main track as first option, CROR Rule
842 with routing instructions as the secondary option if TOP unavailable.
(d)ALC with fouling in multi-track will use the inactive main track adjacent to the work location as
a barrier with some construction equipment or activities fouling the nearest live main track.
CROR Rule 842 is necessary for protection as train information is required. Routing instructions
would ensure that the adjacent main track is inactive. All non-fouling construction equipment of
the inactive adjacent main track would continue to work and fouling would be shut down when
trains are passing. If a risk assessment indicates that due to construction equipment positioning or
boom reach that inactive main track is an acceptable barrier, and then all Work may continue;
(e)CROR Rule 842 Protection;
(f)TOP Protection;
(g)ALC in multi-track (more than two (2) main tracks) territory uses an inactive main track as a
buffer in much the same manner as “Barrier Protection”. The Road Authority shall comply with
all requirements set forth in Appendix C. The track must be positively protected by the flagman at
all times through the continuous work zone.
(h)ALC through routing instructions is applied in two (2) main track territory. The Road Authority
will apply for the protection and ensure all the requirements set forth in Appendix C. The Road
Authority may continue to work while trains are passing on the furthest main track from the
works using the adjacent main track as a barrier.
(i)The Road Authority shall comply with all requirements set forth in Appendix C for each rail
corridor access.
(j)As more particularly described in Appendix C, the Road Authority is required to obtain Rule 842s
to perform the Scope of Works on the rail corridor, and, subject to the parameters set forth in
Appendix C, the Road Authority shall not perform the Scope of Works under more than four (4)
Rules 842s at any one time. The level of protection will defined by Metrolinx.Draft- 59 -
(k)The Road Authority shall use flagging services in an economical and efficient manner. In the
event the Road Authority fails to use flagging services in an economical and efficient manner,
Metrolinx may, in its sole discretion, require the Road Authority to pay all flagging costs and
expenses in excess of the flagging services that ought to have been used.
(l)In the event of a cancellation of a Track Protection Confirmation by the Road Authority, the Road
Authority shall provide Metrolinx with notice in writing of such cancellation no less than 96
hours before the scheduled start time noted in the Access Permit.
(m)If the Road Authority has failed to give written notice of the cancellation, the Road Authority
shall pay all costs and expenses for scheduled flagging services that the Road Authority fails to
use. The Road Authority is not permitted to schedule flagging services to be used on a standby
basis.Draft- 60 -
Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: ENG 11-21
Date: May 3, 2021
From: Richard Holborn
Director, Engineering Services
Subject: Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park
- Consulting Services for Final Phase of the Master Plan Implementation
- File: A-1440
Recommendation:
1. That Council approve the hiring of The MBTW Group for Consulting and Professional
Services for the preparation of detailed design drawings and tender documents and for
contract administration services for the final phase of the implementation of the Rotary
Frenchman’s Bay West Park Master Plan, in accordance with Purchasing Policy Item
10.03 (c), as the assignment is above $50,000.00;
2. That the fee proposal submitted by The MBTW Group for Consulting and Professional
Services for the preparation of detailed design drawings and tender documents and for
contract administration services for the final phase of the implementation of the Rotary
Frenchman’s Bay West Park Master Plan in the amount of $160,273.55 (HST included)
be accepted;
3. That the total gross project cost of $176,301.00 (HST included), including the fee amount
and other associated costs, and the total net project cost of $158,765.00 (net of HST
rebate) be approved;
4. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the total net project
cost of $158,765.00 as follows:
a) The sum of $79,382.00 to be funded by a transfer from the Development Charges
– City’s Share;
b) The sum of $79,383.00 to be funded by a transfer from the Development Charges
Reserve Fund – Parks & Recreation Services; and
5. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary
actions as indicated in this report.
Executive Summary: Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park (RFBWP), is owned by the
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) under Management Agreement by the
City of Pickering. The park underwent the first phase of improvements in 2018. In response to
the high water events experienced in 2017 and 2019, TRCA proposed a new 100-year static
- 61 -
ENG 11-21 May 3, 2021
Subject: Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park Page 2
Consulting Services for the Final Phase of the Master Plan
Implementation
lake level elevation. The current Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park Master Plan was revised
and endorsed by Council in November 2020 (Report ENG 05-20, Resolution #465/20).
As part of the 2021 Parks Capital Budget, $2 million was approved for the implementation of
the balance of works in the RFBW Park Master Plan. This budget amount includes funds for
design and contract administration consulting fees.
The MBTW Group have provided consulting services for the first phase of construction, Park
Master Plan revisions and the washroom study. In effort to provide continuity throughout the
project, staff are recommending that The MBTW Group be retained to provide and coordinate
the design and construction administration services for this project at a total cost of
$160,273.55 (HST included). The total gross project cost which includes the consulting fees
other associated costs, is estimated at $176,301.00 (HST included) and the total net project
cost is estimated at $158,765.00 (net of HST rebate).
Financial Implications:
1. Proposal Amount
The MBTW Group
Fee Proposal
$141,835.00
HST (13%) 18,438.55
Total Gross Proposal Amount $160,273.55
2. Estimated Project Cost Summary
The MBTW Group
Fee Proposal $141,835.00
Associated Costs
Contingency (10%) 14,184.00
Sub Total – Costs $156,019.00
HST (13%) 20,282.00
Total Gross Project Cost $176,301.00
HST Rebate (11.24%) (17,536.00)
Total Net Project Costs $158,765.00
- 62 -
ENG 11-21 May 3, 2021
Subject: Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park Page 3
Consulting Services for the Final Phase of the Master Plan
Implementation
3. Approved Source of Funds – 2021 Parks Capital Budget
Expense Code Source of Funds Budget Required
5780.2121.6129 Reserve – DC’s City’s Share
DC Res Fund – Parks & Recreation
Services
$1,000,000.00
1,000,000.00
$79,382.00
79,383.00
Total $2,000,000.00 $158,765.00
Net Project Cost under (over) Approved Funds $1,841,235.00
The costs for the consulting fees indicated in the tables above represents a portion of the
overall project costs. Funds for the actual construction of the park features, permit fees, and
geotechnical and materials testing and other associated project costs will come from this same
source of funds and will be itemized in a future Report to Council to award the construction.
Discussion: Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park (RFBWP) is located east of
West Shore Boulevard and south of Sunrise Avenue and includes the west spit to the harbour
entrance into Frenchman’s Bay as shown in Attachment #1. The park area was purchased by
the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) in the late 1960’s. In the early 1990’s,
TRCA, with the assistance from the local community, developed a master plan for this area.
The plan has been revised a number of times over the years. The 2012 version of the Rotary
Frenchman’s Bay West Park Master Plan that was endorsed by Council (Report #CS 39-12,
Resolution #140/12) was the basis for the 2018 work that was implemented as the first phase
of the Master Plan. This work included the reconstruction of Beachpoint Promenade complete
with lay-by parking, construction of a picnic area, interpretive area complete with a green
roofed kiosk and construction of a section of the waterfront trail, taking it off-road through the
park to West Shore Boulevard.
Based on the high water events experienced in 2017 and 2019 and proposed new 100-year
static lake level elevations, it was determined that some of the features in the updated 2017
version of the Master Plan were no longer be feasible. The west spit, including the boat launch
and access to the Pickering Rouge Canoe Club (PRCC) were closed to public access due to
unsafe conditions from the flooding for quite some time during these flood events. TRCA had
also advised that their planning policies and the Provincial Policy Statement would no longer
support the construction of a washroom/change room and a new facility for the PRCC on the
west spit. PRCC were advised that they would be required to vacate their current site. They
are currently in the process of seeking another site for their club facilities.
The 2012 Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park Master Plan was revised to accommodate the
newly established lake levels while being consistent with the objectives set out in the original
and previous revisions to the park plan. The revised Master Plan was endorsed by Council in
November 2020 (Report ENG 05-20, Resolution #465/20).
- 63 -
ENG 11-21 May 3, 2021
Subject: Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park Page 4
Consulting Services for the Final Phase of the Master Plan
Implementation
The proposed features shown in the Master Plan update that will form the second and final
stage of implementation of the park plan include:
• enhanced shoreline protection adjacent to the existing picnic area and interpretive kiosk;
• park washroom facility and staff area north of the existing parking lot;
• barrier free beachfront access in close proximity to the parking lot;
• primary pedestrian trail and service road running east from the existing roundabout and
drop-off area, to the harbour entrance;
• accessible non-motorized boat launch area;
• service vehicle turn-around and enhanced shoreline protection adjacent to the boat launch
area;
• elevated viewing/seating area with a shade structure east of the boat launch area;
• beach Access Links located at various points along the main pedestrian trail;
• passive waterfront recreation node in the area previously inhabited by the PRCC; and,
• waterfront interpretive node adjacent to the harbour entrance.
As part of the 2021 Parks Capital Budget, $2 million was approved for the implementation of
the balance of works in the RFBW Park Master Plan. This budget amount includes funds for
design and contract administration consulting fees.
The MBTW Group provided consulting services for the RFBW Park Master Plan updates,
phase 1 design and construction administration services and the RFBW Park Washroom
Study. This consulting firm has provided the City of Pickering with excellent service at a good
value. Their designs are creative and cost effective and they respond in a timely manner. In
effort to provide continuity throughout the project, staff are recommending that The MBTW
Group be retained to provide design development and contract documents, tendering and
construction administration services, to implement the balance of the Master Plan features.
In accordance with Purchasing Policy Item 10.03, the Manager may obtain the services of a
particular consultant selected by the initiating Director without going through a competitive
process. Where the funds are available in the approved budget and the project or annual cost
of a consulting or professional service assignment is expected to be:
(c) Above $50,000 is subject to the additional approval of Council. The initiating Director
shall submit the Report to Council to obtain approval.
The sum total cost of the assignment described herein is $160,273.55 (HST included) and falls
within this level of approval.
It is recommended that The MBTW Group be retained for the preparation of detailed design
drawings and tender documents, and for contract administration services for this project.
- 64 -
ENG 11-21 May 3, 2021
Subject: Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park Page 5
Consulting Services for the Final Phase of the Master Plan
Implementation
Attachments:
1.Location Map – Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
Arnold Mostert, OALA Richard Holborn, P.Eng.
Manager, Landscape & Parks Development Director, Engineering Services
Stan Karwowski, MBA, CPA, CMA
Director, Finance & Treasurer
Ray Rodrigues, CPPB
Manager, Supply & Services
AM:mjh
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City Council
Marisa Carpino, M.A.
Chief Administrative Officer
Original signed by:Original signed by:
Original signed by:
Original signed by:
Original signed by:
- 65 -
BREEZYDRIVEOKLAHOMA DRIVE
WEST SHORE BOULEVARDSURF
AVENUE
TULLO
STREET CHIPMUNK STREETSUNRISE AVENUE
BEACH
P
O
I
N
T
P
R
O
M
E
N
A
D
E
MINK STREET
SCALE:
Engineering Services
Department Rotary Frenchman's Bay West Park
Apr 16, 2021
DATE:
q
1:5,000
Frenchman's
Bay
Lake Ontario
Proposed
Shoreline Restoration
Proposed
Phase 2 Area
Attachment #1 to Report # ENG 11-21
- 66 -
Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: ENG 12-21
Date: May 3, 2021
From: Richard Holborn
Director, Engineering Services
Subject: Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park
-Consulting Services for Proposed Park Washroom Facility
-File: A-1440
Recommendation:
1.That Council approve the hiring of The MBTW Group for Consulting and Professional
Services for the preparation of detailed design drawings and tender documents and for
contract administration services for a public washroom facility in Rotary Frenchman’s Bay
West Park, in accordance with Purchasing Policy Item 10.03 (c), as the assignment is
above$50,000.00;
2.That the fee proposal submitted by The MBTW Group for Consulting and Professional
Services for the preparation of detailed design drawings and tender documents and for
contract administration services for a public washroom facility in Rotary Frenchman’s Bay
West Park in the amount of $148,453.75 (HST included) be accepted;
3.That the total gross project cost of $163,299.00 (HST included), including the fee amount
and other associated costs, and the total net project cost of $147,056.00 (net of HST
rebate) be approved;
4.That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the total net project
cost of $147,056.00 as follows:
a)the sum of $73,528.00 to be funded by a transfer from Development Charges –
City’s Share Reserve;
b)the sum of $73,528.00 to be funded by a transfer from the Development Charges
Reserve Fund – Parks & Recreation Services; and,
5.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary
actions as indicated in this report.
Executive Summary: Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park (RFBWP), which is owned by
the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and is under Management Agreement
by the City of Pickering, underwent the first phase of improvements in 2018. In response to the
high water events experienced in 2017 and 2019, TRCA proposed a new 100-year static lake
level elevation. The Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park Master Plan was revised and
endorsed by Council in November 2020 (Report ENG 05-20, Resolution #465/20). The original
- 67 -
ENG 12-21 May 3, 2021
Subject: Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park Page 2
Consulting Services for the Proposed Park Washroom Facility
Master Plan included a park washroom in conjunction with a change room facility and storage
building for the Pickering Rouge Canoe Club (PRCC), to be located adjacent to a small craft
boat launch. With the high water levels, TRCA could no longer support a facility at this location.
A washroom study has been completed and the washroom facility is now being proposed to be
constructed along with a staff room and parks maintenance storage area, located north of the
existing parking lot.
As part of the 2021 Parks Capital Budget, $1 million was approved for construction of a
washroom facility in RFBWP. This budget amount includes funds for design and contract
administration consulting fees.
The MBTW Group have provided consulting services for the first phase of construction, Park
Master Plan revisions and the washroom study. In effort to provide continuity throughout the
project, staff are recommending that The MBTW Group be retained to provide and coordinate
the design and construction administration services for this project at a total cost of
$148,453.75 (HST included). The total gross project cost which includes the consulting fees
and other associated costs, is estimated at $163,299.00 (HST included) and the total net
project cost is estimated at $147,056.00 (net of HST rebate).
Financial Implications:
1.Proposal Amount
The MBTW Group
Fee Proposal $131,375.00
HST (13%) 17,078.75
Total Gross Proposal Amount $148,453.75
2.Estimated Project Cost Summary
The MBTW Group
Fee Proposal $131,375.00
Associated Costs
Contingency (10%) 13,137.00
Sub Total – Costs $144,512.00
HST (13%) 18,787.00
Total Gross Project Cost $163,299.00
HST Rebate (11.24%) (16,243.00)
Total Net Project Costs $147,056.00
- 68 -
ENG 12-21 May 3, 2021
Subject: Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park Page 3
Consulting Services for the Proposed Park Washroom Facility
3.Approved Source of Funds – 2021 Parks Capital Budget
Expense Code Source of Funds Budget Required
5780.2123.6129 Reserve-DC’s City’s Share
DC Reserve Fund – Parks &
Recreation Services
$500,000.00
500,000.00
$73,528.00
73,528.00
Total $1,000,000.00 $147,056.00
Net Project Cost under (over) Approved Funds $852,944.00
The costs for the consulting fees indicated in the tables above represent only a portion of the
overall project costs. Funds for the actual construction of the washroom facility, permit fees,
geotechnical and materials testing and other associated project costs will come from the same
source of funds and will be itemized in a future Report to Council to award the construction.
Discussion: Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park (RFBWP), which is owned by
the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and is under Management Agreement
by the City of Pickering, underwent the first phase of improvements in 2018. In response to the
high water events experienced in 2017 and 2019, TRCA proposed a new 100-year static lake
level elevation. The Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park Master Plan was revised and
endorsed by Council in November 2020 (Report ENG 05-20, Resolution #465/20). The original
Master Plan included a park washroom in conjunction with a change room facility and storage
building for the Pickering Rouge Canoe Club (PRCC), to be located adjacent to a small craft
boat launch. With the high water levels, and due to current planning policies and the Provincial
Policy Statement, TRCA could no longer support a facility at this location. The alternate
location for the park washroom was located north of the existing parking lot.
The City of Pickering retained The MBTW Group in 2020, to prepare a Washroom Feasibility
Study in consultation with the Engineering and Community Services Departments and TRCA
planning staff. The proposed building program is to integrate public washrooms and space
allocated to operations and maintenance staff for secure storage and staff activities. The
following areas inside the building are recommended:
•three universal, non-gendered, self-contained washrooms large enough to accommodate a
user with a mobility aid accompanied by a caregiver (approximately 3m x 3m in area) and
equipped with a sink and toilet;
•secured storage for site Gator and other equipment (approximately 3m x 4m in area);
•staff room (approximately 4m x 4m in area) equipped with a sink; and,
•a seasonal hose bib and foot wash station to be provided on the exterior of the building.
- 69 -
ENG 12-21 May 3, 2021
Subject: Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park Page 4
Consulting Services for the Proposed Park Washroom Facility
As part of the 2021 Parks Capital Budget, $1 million was approved for construction of a
washroom facility in RFBWP. This budget amount includes funds for design and contract
administration consulting fees.
The MBTW Group provided consulting services for the RFBW Park Master Plan updates,
phase 1 design and construction administration services, and the RFBW Park Washroom
Study. This consulting firm has provided the City of Pickering with excellent service at good
value. Their designs are creative and cost effective and they respond in a timely manner. In an
effort to provide continuity throughout the project, staff are recommending that The MBTW
Group be retained to coordinate the design development and contract documents, tendering
and construction administration services. The full scope of proposed services is outlined in
their fee proposal. Their team includes a variety of sub-consultants in areas of architecture,
structural, mechanical, electrical, and site servicing.
In accordance with Purchasing Policy Item 10.03, the Manager may obtain the services of a
particular consultant selected by the initiating Director without going through a competitive
process. Where the funds are available in the approved budget and the project or annual cost
of a consulting or professional service assignment is expected to be:
(c) above $50,000 is subject to the additional approval of Council. The initiating Director
shall submit the Report to Council to obtain approval.
The sum total cost of the assignment described herein is $148,453.75 (HST included) and falls
within this level of approval. Note that the proposed consulting fee is an upset limit and that the
City will only be invoiced for actual hours spent on the project, particularly as it pertains
disbursements, the number of physical versus virtual meetings, and site inspections required.
It is recommended that The MBTW Group be retained for the preparation of detailed design
drawings and tender documents, and for contract administration services for this project.
Attachments:
1.Location Map – Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park
- 70 -
ENG 12-21 May 3, 2021
Subject: Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park Page 5
Consulting Services for the Proposed Park Washroom Facility
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
Arnold Mostert, OALA Richard Holborn, P.Eng.
Manager, Landscape & Parks Development Director, Engineering Services
Stan Karwowski, MBA, CPA, CMA
Director, Finance & Treasurer
Ray Rodrigues, CPPB
Manager, Supply & Services
AM:mjh
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City Council
Marisa Carpino, M.A.
Chief Administrative Officer
Original signed by:Original signed by:
Original signed by:
Original signed by:
Original signed by:
- 71 -
WEST SHORE BOULEVARDSURF
AVENUE
TULLO
STREET
OKLAHOMADRIVE
BREEZYDRIVECHIPMUNK STREETYEREMI STREETLEASIDE STREETSUNRISE AVENUE
BEACH
P
O
I
N
T
P
R
O
M
E
N
A
D
E
MINK STREET
SCALE:
Engineering Services
Department Rotary Frenchman's Bay West Park
Proposed WashroomApr 16, 2021
DATE:
q
1:5,000
Frenchman's
Bay
Lake Ontario
Proposed
Washroom
Attachment #1 to Report #ENG 12-21
- 72 -
Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: ENG 13-21
Date: May 3, 2021
From: Richard Holborn
Director, Engineering Services
Subject: Amendments to Traffic and Parking By-law 6604/05
-Proposed All-way Stop, Rosebank Road at Highview Road/Summerpark
Crescent
-Proposed Community Safety Zone Extension & Speed Limit Reduction –
Rosebank Road
-File: A-1440
Recommendation:
1.That the attached draft by-law be enacted to amend Schedule "7", Stop Signs, to By-law
6604/05 to provide for the regulation of stop signs on highways or parts of highways
under the jurisdiction of The Corporation of the City of Pickering, specifically to address
the proposed installation of an all-way stop control at the intersection of Rosebank Road
and Highview Road/Summerpark Crescent;
2.That the attached draft by-law be enacted to amend Schedule “14”, Community Safety
Zones, to By-law 6604/05 to provide for the addition of community safety zones on
highways or parts of highways under the jurisdiction of The Corporation of the City of
Pickering, specifically to extend the existing Community Safety Zone on Rosebank Road
from Foxwood Trail to Highview Road/Summerpark Crescent;
3.That the attached draft by-law be enacted to amend Schedule "9", Speed Limits, to By-
law 6604/05 to provide for the regulation of speed limits on highways or parts of highways
under the jurisdiction of The Corporation of the City of Pickering, specifically that that
speed limit be reduced from 50 km/h to 40 km/h on Rosebank Road from Foxwood Trail
to Highview Road/Summerpark Crescent; and,
4.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary
actions as indicated in this report.
Executive Summary: In response to the safety concerns from area residents,
Engineering Services staff completed investigations and analysis related to increased vehicle
volumes, vehicle speed, reduced sightlines, multiple collisions, and pedestrians having
difficulty crossing at the intersection of Rosebank Road and Highview Road/Summerpark
Crescent. Based on City staff’s review it is proposed that an all-way stop be installed at the
intersection of Rosebank Road and Highview Road/Summerpark Crescent to facilitate a safe
crossing point for pedestrians.
- 73 -
May 3, 2021 ENG 13-21
Subject: Amendments to Traffic and Parking By-law 6604/05
Proposed All-way Stop, Rosebank Road at
Highview Road/Summerpark Crescent
Proposed Community Safety Zone Extension &
Speed Limit Reduction – Rosebank Road Page 2
In addition, staff reviewed the limits of the current Community Safety Zone (CSZ) on Rosebank
Road which extends from Strouds Lane to the intersection of Woodsmere
Crescent/Charnwood Court. With the proposed all-way stop at the intersection of Rosebank
Road and Highview Road/Summerpark Crescent, it is recommended that the CSZ be
extended north on Rosebank Road to the intersection of Highview Road/Summerpark
Crescent and further south to Foxwood Trail, as many pedestrians and school age children
travel to and from the schools and the parks within this area. It is also recommended, that the
speed limit be reduced from 50 km/h to 40 km/h within the proposed new limits of the CSZ.
Financial Implications: The installation of stop signs, advance warning signs, Community
Safety Zone signs, 40 km/h speed limit signs, and the installation of stop bar and crosswalk
pavement markings on Rosebank Road can be accommodated within the 2021 Roads Current
Budget.
Discussion: Area residents have expressed safety concerns with the
intersection of Rosebank Road and Highview Road/Summerpark Crescent, with respect to
increasing vehicle volume, vehicle speed, sightlines and pedestrians having difficulty crossing
the street. Residents have also stated that there have been accidents at the intersection over
the years, with speed and sightlines playing a role, and that an all-way stop could possibly
reduce the number of collisions.
In response to these concerns, Engineering Services staff completed a review of the
intersection of Rosebank Road and Highview Road/Summerpark Crescent, which included the
following:
•collection of pedestrian and vehicle volumes, review of sightlines and collision data, and
completion of the municipal all-way stop warrants;
•review of speed and community safety zone limits;
•observations of vehicle and pedestrian traffic; and,
•review of existing signs and pavement markings.
An all -way s top would not be recommended based on the City’s All -way Stop Warrant
To determine if an all-way stop control is required at the intersection, an all-way stop warrant
was completed at the intersection in accordance with the City's 2003 Safer Streets Traffic
Management Strategy. The City's All-way Stop Warrant calculates whether an all-way stop
control is required taking vehicle volumes, collision data and sightlines into consideration.
- 74 -
May 3, 2021 ENG 13-21
Subject: Amendments to Traffic and Parking By-law 6604/05
Proposed All-way Stop, Rosebank Road at
Highview Road/Summerpark Crescent
Proposed Community Safety Zone Extension &
Speed Limit Reduction – Rosebank Road Page 3
The City’s All-way Stop Warrant was not met for the intersection of Rosebank Road and
Highview Road/Summerpark Crescent, as the following conditions within the warrant were not
achieved:
•minimum traffic volume – as side street traffic was minimal throughout the day the
intersection did not meet the minimum necessary traffic volume required to justify an all-
way stop;
•collision history – there have been 5 reported angle collisions at the intersection over the
past five years, however, this does not satisfy the municipal All-way Stop W arrant, which
states that there must be a minimum occurrence of 3 or more reportable right-angle
collisions of a type correctible through the installation of an all-way stop in a 12 month
period averaged over 3 years; and,
•sightlines – upon review the sightlines at the intersection, especially for vehicles entering
Rosebank Road from the side streets, it is determined that sightlines are acceptable
(greater than 85 metres for a road with a design speed of 60 km/h and a posted maximum
speed limit of 50 km/h).
Therefore, an all-way stop is not recommended based on vehicle volumes, collision data and
sightlines.
An all-way stop is recommended at the intersection to allow for a safe pedestrian
crossing point
Engineering Services staff recognize that Rosebank Road has two schools in the area, Altona
Forest Public School and St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic School, as such, has many pedestrians
crossing the road to access the schools and adjacent Woodsmere Park. Although there is a
school crossing guard at the intersection of Rosebank Road and Woodsmere
Crescent/Charnwood Court, the need for an additional safe crossing point is recommended,
especially during the hours when the crossing guard is not present.
Aside from the crossing guard location at Woodsmere Crescent/Charnwood Court, Rosebank
Road does not have a protected location to cross between Finch Avenue and Strouds Lane,
which spans approximately 1.2 kilometres in length.
Therefore, in order to facilitate a safe crossing point for pedestrians, Engineering Services staff
is recommending that an all-way stop be placed at the intersection of Rosebank Road and
Highview Road/Summerpark Crescent. In addition, to the proposal of an all-way stop being a
safe crossing point for pedestrians, an all-way stop at this location will also assist with reducing
angle collisions at the intersection.
- 75 -
May 3, 2021 ENG 13-21
Subject: Amendments to Traffic and Parking By-law 6604/05
Proposed All-way Stop, Rosebank Road at
Highview Road/Summerpark Crescent
Proposed Community Safety Zone Extension &
Speed Limit Reduction – Rosebank Road Page 4
It is recommended that the community safety zone and 40 km/h speed limit area on
Rosebank Road be expanded
The current Community Safety Zone (CSZ) on Rosebank Road extends from Strouds Lane to
the intersection of Woodsmere Crescent/Charnwood Court. With the proposed all-way stop at
the intersection of Rosebank Road and Highview Road/Summerpark Crescent, City staff also
recommend extending the CSZ north to the intersection. In addition, it is also recommended
that the CSZ be extended further south to Foxwood Trail, as many pedestrians and school age
children travel to the school from this area. The expanded CSZ will also include Amberlea
Park.
Within the proposed CSZ on Rosebank Road, Foxwood Trail to Highview Road/Summerpark
Crescent. it is also recommended, by Engineering Services staff, that the speed limit be
reduced from 50 km/h to 40 km/h. The standard speed limit within a CSZ on City of Pickering
maintained roads 40 km/h.
The proposed all-way stop control, CSZ extension and speed limit reduction to 40 km/h within
the community safety zone on Rosebank Road is shown graphically in Attachment #1. The
draft by-law amendment to Schedule “7”, Stop Signs, Schedule 9, Speed Limits, and Schedule
14, Community Safety Zones of By-law 6604/05 is provided in Attachment #2.
Attachments:
1.Location Map – Proposed All-way Stop Control, Community Safety Zone and Speed Limit
Changes – Rosebank Road
2.Draft By-law Amendments to Schedule “7”, Stop Signs, Schedule “9”, Speed Limits, and
Schedule “14”, Community Safety Zones to By-law 6604/05
- 76 -
May 3, 2021 ENG 13-21
Subject: Amendments to Traffic and Parking By-law 6604/05
Proposed All-way Stop, Rosebank Road at
Highview Road/Summerpark Crescent
Proposed Community Safety Zone Extension &
Speed Limit Reduction – Rosebank Road Page 5
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
Nathan Emery Richard Holborn, P.Eng.
Coordinator, Traffic Operations Director, Engineering Services
Scott Booker
Manager, Capital Projects & Infrastructure
NE:mjh
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City Council
Marisa Carpino, M.A.
Chief Administrative Officer
Original signed by:Original signed by:
Original signed by:
Original signed by:
- 77 -
Highview RoadSummerpark Cres.
Altona
Forest
Public
School
St. Elizabeth
Seton Catholic
School
Highbush
Public School
Legend
Existing Community
Safety Zone
400m290m390m550m from Highview to Finch
Proposed
All-way Stop
Existing
Crossing Guard
Existing
Crossing Guard
& All-way Stop
Existing
Crossing Guard
& Traffic Signal
Proposed Community
Safety Zone Extension
Existing 40 km/hProposed 40 km/h(Currently 50 km/h)Proposed 40 km/h(Currently 50 km/h)360m from Foxwood Trail to Sheppard
Rosebank Road
NTS April, 2021
Engineering Services
Department
N
Proposed All-way Stop,
Community Safety Zone and Speed Limit Changes
Attachment #1 to Report #ENG 13-21
- 78 -
The Corporation of the City of Pickering
By-law No.
Being a by-law to amend By-law 6604/05
providing for the regulating of traffic and
parking, standing and stopping on highways or
parts of highways under the jurisdiction of the
City of Pickering and on private and municipal
property.
Whereas By-law 6604/05, as amended, provides for the regulating of traffic and parking
on highways, private property and municipal property within the City of Pickering; and
Whereas, it is deemed expedient to amend Schedule 7, Schedule 9, and Schedule 14
to By-law 6604/05 to provide for the regulation of stop signs, speed limits and
community safety zones on highways or parts of highways under the jurisdiction of the
Corporation of the City of Pickering. Specifically, this by-law is to provide for the
installation of an all-way stop at the intersection of Rosebank Road and Highview
Road/Summerpark Crescent, and an extension to the 40 km/h speed limit zone and
community safety zone on Rosebank Road.
Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as
follows:
1. Schedule 7 to By-law 6604/05, as amended, is hereby further amended thereto
by the following:
Schedule 7
Stop Signs
Column 1 Column 2
Highway Compulsory Stop Facing Traffic
Add
Rosebank Road
@ Highview Road
@ Summerpark Crescent
Rosebank Road, northbound and southbound
Attachment #2 to Report #ENG 13-21
- 79 -
By-law No. Page 2
2. Schedule 9 to By-law 6604/05, as amended, is hereby further amended thereto
by the following:
Schedule 9
Speed Limits
Column 1 Column 2 Column 3
Highway Limits Speed
Delete
Rosebank Road Rodd Avenue to 100 metres north of
Granite Court,
100 metres south of Kingston Road to
Sheppard Avenue,
Strouds Lane to Springview Drive,
80m south of Third Concession Road to
100 metres north of Third Concession
Road
40 km/h
Add
Rosebank Road Rodd Avenue to 100 metres north of
Granite Court
40 km/h
Rosebank Road 100 metres south of Kingston Road to
Sheppard Avenue
40 km/h
Rosebank Road Foxwood Trail to Highview
Road/Summerpark Crescent
40 km/h
Rosebank Road 80m south of Third Concession Road to
100 metres north of Third Concession
Road
40 km/h
- 80 -
By-law No. Page 3
3. Schedule 14 to By-law 6604/05, as amended, is hereby further amended thereto
by the following:
Schedule 14
Community Safety Zones
Column 1 Column 2 Column 3
Highway Limits (From/To) Prohibited Times
or Days
Delete
Rosebank Road Strouds Lane to Anytime
Charnwood Court
Add
Rosebank Road Foxwood Trail to Anytime
Highview Road/
Summerpark Crescent
By-law passed this 25th day of May, 2021.
____________________________
David Ryan, Mayor
________________________________
Susan Cassel, City Clerk
- 81 -
Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: FIN 07-21
Date: May 3, 2021
From: Stan Karwowski
Director, Finance & Treasurer
Subject: Commodity Price Hedging Agreements Report
- File: F-5000-001
Recommendation:
It is recommended that Report FIN 07-21 from the Director, Finance & Treasurer regarding
commodity price hedging agreements be received for information.
Executive Summary: The primary purpose of a commodity price hedging agreement is to
provide price stability and cost certainty by fixing some portion of future commodity prices.
Using hedging allows for the option to lock in favourable pricing for commodity commitments
when long-term contracts are not practical or available. The Commodity Price Hedging Policy
FIN 060, approved by Council per Resolution #88/10, requires a Report to Council at least
once each fiscal year with respect to any and all commodity price hedging agreements in place
containing, at a minimum, all information required by Section 6(1) O. Reg. 653/05, as
amended, as well as:
1. A statement about the status of the agreements during the period of the Report, including
a comparison of the expected and actual results of using the agreements.
2. A statement by the Treasurer that all of the agreements entered during the period of the
Report are consistent with the municipality’s statement of policies and goals relating to
the use of Commodity Hedging Price Agreements; and
3. Such other information as Council may require.
The City has entered into hedging agreements for the commodities of natural gas and
electricity procurement through Local Authority Services Ltd. (LAS), which is a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO).
Financial Implications: The LAS Hedge Procurement Program currently includes 133
municipalities. It buys energy commodities at varying percentages of their total volume through
forward price hedge contracts, rather than being subject to 100 per cent of the price volatility
through the spot market.
The City has elected to continue with hedging 65 per cent of both the City’s natural gas and
electricity requirements while the remaining 35 per cent is purchased at fluctuating spot market
prices.
- 82 -
Report FIN 07-21 May 3, 2021
Subject: Commodity Price Hedge Agreements Report Page 2
Natural Gas
The 2021 natural gas budget is $341,457. To protect the City’s budget plan, the City has
entered into the LAS Natural Gas Procurement Program for the period November 1, 2020 to
October 31, 2021 at the hedge price of 10.1¢/m3.
Electricity
The 2021 hydro budget for all City operations including streetlights is $2.14 million. To protect
the City’s budget plan, the City has entered into the LAS Electricity Procurement Program
hedged purchase price is $24.64/MW (program fees included), which equates to a per kWh
contracted price of 2.464¢/kWh, for the period of January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2021. This
results in an expected commodity cost of 14.243¢/kWh.
Discussion: Volatile shifts in utility pricing create significant challenges in maintaining
utility budgets. This uncertainty in energy pricing can impact decision making and cost
controllability for the City. The LAS Hedge Procurement Program stabilizes energy pricing,
which assists in maintaining the Council approved budget every year. The City has hedged 65
per cent of the City’s municipal natural gas and electricity requirements at the prices contained
in this report with the remaining 35 per cent of the City’s energy consumption being purchased
at spot market prices for the 2021 term. This spot market exposure provides cost savings
opportunities to the City compared to the current Regulated Price Plan (RPP) for eligible
accounts, in addition to the price stability provided by the hedge purchase price.
LAS Natural Gas Hedge Procurement Program - Enrolled April 2006
Commodity Expenditure - 2020 (actuals) - $279,977
2021 Contract Price - November 1, 2020 - October 31, 2021 - 10.1¢/m3
Hedged Volume - 65%
The LAS 2021 hedged purchase price for the purchase only portion of natural gas increased
by 7.45 per cent (or 0.7¢/m3) from the 2020 rate. In October 2018, the Province cancelled its
Cap & Trade program. In response, the Federal Government implemented a carbon pricing
program in Ontario in 2019. As part of this program, a carbon charge applies to fossil fuels sold
in Ontario, including natural gas. This charge will increase annually each April. In April 2021,
this charge increased from 5.87 cents per cubic metre to 7.83 cents per cubic metre. The
savings from the hedge purchase price partially offset the increase in the federal carbon price
for natural gas.
- 83 -
Report FIN 07-21 May 3, 2021
Subject: Commodity Price Hedge Agreements Report Page 3
LAS Electricity Procurement Program - Enrolled January 2011
Commodity Expenditure - 2020 (actuals) - $1.75 million
Current Contract Price - January 1, 2021 - December 31, 2021 - 2.464¢/kWh
Total Average LAS 2021 Commodity Rate - 14.243¢/kWh which includes: 65% Hedge
Price + 35% Average Hourly Ontario Energy Price + Average Global Adjustment
The LAS 2021 hedged purchase price portion increased by 0.98 per cent (or 0.02¢/kWh) from
the 2020 rate. It is estimated that a cost avoidance of 0.757¢/kWh should be realized,
compared to the average Time of Use rates of 15.0¢/kWh. As of November 1, 2020, the LAS
hedge price has increased by only 1 per cent compared to the Time of Use (TOU) rates which
have increased 23 per cent during the same time period.
Additionally, LAS hedged a block of off -peak power for municipal streetlight accounts that is
expected to provide a rate of 13.251¢/kWh.
However, due to an increase in the Global Adjustment Rate and decrease in the Ontario’s
Average Hourly Energy pricing, an increase to the overall cost of electricity is expected of
4.69¢/kWh or 49.09 per cent compared to the 2020 all-inclusive rate.
Treasurer’s Statement:
The objectives of the LAS bulk hedging procurement programs are generally synonymous with
our municipal objectives:
1. Facilitates Budgeting – purchasing blocks of energy commodities will produce stable prices
for budgeting;
2. Competitive Pricing – provides savings on required purchases; and
3. Maximize Purchasing Power – pooling requirements with 133 municipalities and over 170
participating organizations can leverage better pricing than individual purchasing.
The LAS Natural Gas and Electricity Procurement Program has provided the City with a sound
commodity hedging strategy for its natural gas and electricity purchases. This benefits the City
when prices fall and protects the City as much as possible when prices rise. Annual price
stabilization and price benefits from bulk procurement along with individualized support, advice
and consumption data reports, provides the City with a means to monitor its usage and more
accurately forecast its annual utility budgets.
- 84 -
Report FIN 07-21 May 3, 2021
Subject: Commodity Price Hedge Agreements Report Page 4
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
Original Signed By: Original Signed By:
Ray Rodrigues, CPPB Stan Karwowski, MBA, CPA, CMA
Manager, Supply & Services Director, Finance & Treasurer
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City Council
Marisa Carpino, M.A.
Chief Administrative Officer
Original Signed By:
- 85 -
Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: FIN 08-21
Date: May 3, 2021
From: Stan Karwowski
Director, Finance & Treasurer
Subject: 2019 Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund
- File: F-4910-001
Recommendation:
It is recommended that Report FIN 08-21 from the Director, Finance & Treasurer regarding the
2019 Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund be received for information.
Executive Summary: Section 7(4) of the Building Code Act (the “Act”) requires the City to
prepare an annual report of building permit and inspection fees and related administrative and
enforcement costs. This report fulfills the requirements of Section 7(4) of the Act. This report
also contains information about the City’s Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund.
Financial Implications: This report contains information pertaining to the financial status of
the Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund as at December 31, 2019.
Discussion: In December 2005, Council approved report PD 41-05, which enacted a new
building permit process and fees under the Act. The Act requires permit fees to be accounted
for, and not used to subsidize City functions other than administration and enforcement of the
Act and the Ontario Building Code. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. was retained to
undertake a comprehensive analysis of all Planning & Development costs, fees and legislative
requirements and to develop an Activity Based Costing (ABC) model for the City. Using this
information, Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. recommended an increase in building
permit fees to provide for cost recovery.
For the 2018 budget, Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. undertook a review of the
Development Application Approval Process fees (DAAP). DAAP includes fees in Building,
Planning and Engineering. The purpose of this review was to quantify the City’s full costs in
processing application fees and building permit fees, assess the sufficiency of current
development fees to recover these costs and recommend full cost recovery of development
fees. The calculated full cost recovery fees were then adjusted after completing a market
comparison to ensure the fees were in line with surrounding municipalities. As a result of the
DAAP review, building permit fees were increased by 11 per cent in order to recover the
shortfall in the Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund and to build a fund balance for years
with decreased building activity.
- 86 -
Report FIN 08-21 May 3, 2021
Subject: 2019 Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund Page 2
The purpose of the Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund is to provide a source of funds
for current operating budget costs during an economic downturn to offset lower building permit
revenues. Without such a reserve fund, reduced growth and permit volumes during a downturn
could result in severe budgetary pressures which could impair the City’s ability to enforce the
Act and the Ontario Building Code.
The Act requires that an annual report be prepared that includes total Building Permit fees
collected in the previous 12 month period and a summary of directly and indirectly related
administrative costs.
In 2017 and 2018, Building Services had an excess of building permit revenues over costs.
However, due to the relatively low rate of development since the Building Permit Stabilization
Reserve Fund was established in 2006, the accumulated shortfall for this reserve fund as of
December 31, 2019 was $2.65 million. In 2019, there was a small shortfall of building permit
revenues over costs of ($104,206) as building permit revenues had declined from the prior
year.
Annual Report – Building Permit Fees
for the year ended December 31, 2019
Building Permit Revenue $3,101,416
Costs:
Direct Costs $ (2,695,403)
Indirect Costs (458,219)
Capital Costs (52,000) (3,205,622)
Excess (Shortfall) Revenue Over Costs ($104,206)
Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund
Opening Balance, January 1, 2019 $ -
2019 Contribution -
Closing Balance, December 31, 2019 $ -
Transfers to the Rate Stabilization Reserve
For the majority of municipalities, building permit revenues are sufficient to cover direct and
indirect operating costs. In addition, many municipalities have excess funds that are
transferred to their Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund and these funds are used to
cover any future operating shortfall in their Building Services section . As stated earlier,
Pickering has historically experienced a low level of construction activity that translated into
lower building permit revenues. For most municipalities, the budgeted and actual cost of their
Building Services section and/or department is fully funded from building permit revenues.
Historically, the Building Services section required a financial subsidy from the Pickering
taxpayer to fund their operations. As of December 31, 2019, the accumulated financial subsidy
or deficit was $2.65 million. From a financial perspective, this subsidy was funded from the
Rate Stabilization Reserve. The City’s financing strategy is to reduce this deficit (subsidy) over
- 87 -
Report FIN 08-21 May 3, 2021
Subject: 2019 Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund Page 3
time by transferring the Building Services operating surpluses to the Rate Stabilization
Reserve. In 2017 and 2018, as the City’s development activity significantly increased, Building
Services had operating surpluses of $83,440 and $2,061,582, respectively, which were
transferred from the Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund to the Rate Stabilization
Reserve which further reduced the deficit.
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
Original Signed By: Original Signed By:
James Halsall Stan Karwowski
Manager, Budgets & Internal Audit Director, Finance & Treasurer
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City Council
Marisa Carpino, M.A.
Chief Administrative Officer
Original Signed By:
- 88 -