HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 4, 2026
Executive Committee
Meeting Agenda
Electronic Meeting
May 04, 2026 - 02:00 PM
Chair: Mayor Ashe
Please be advised that in accordance with Section 10.04 of the Procedure By-law, the City of
Pickering is holding Council and Committee Meetings in an electronic format until further
notice.
Members of the public may observe the meeting proceedings by viewing the livestream on the
HTML Agenda or the archived video available on the City's website.
How to Participate
Individuals looking to make a verbal delegation may do so in accordance with the City’s
Procedure By-law. In lieu of a verbal delegation, individuals may also submit written
comments to clerks@pickering.ca. To register as a delegation, please submit a Delegation
Request Form by visiting pickering.ca/meetings.
For inquiries related to accessibility, please contact Legislative Services
Phone: 905.420.4611 | Email: clerks@pickering.ca.
Call to Order/Roll Call
Disclosure of Interest
Delegations
Matters for Consideration
Chief Administrative Officer, Report CAO 04-26 Page 7
Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Strategy Progress Update
2025 Annual Report and 2026 Work Plan
Recommendation:
1.
2.
3.
4.
4.1
That Report CAO 04-26 regarding the City of Pickering’s 2025 Equity, Diversity and
Inclusion Annual Report and 2026 Work Plan be received for information.
Chief Administrative Officer, Report CAO 05-26 Page 24
Pickering Anti-Black Racism Taskforce
2025 Year End Report and Proposed 2026 Work Plan
Recommendation:
That Report CAO 05-26 regarding the Pickering Anti-Black Racism Taskforce
2025 Year End Report and Proposed 2026 Work Plan be received for
information;
1.
That Council approve the 2026 4th Annual Community event in celebration of
the International Day for People of African Descent, proposed for August 28,
2026, per ADM 040 Committees and Taskforces of Council Policy, and on
terms and conditions satisfactory to the Director, Community Services and the
Chief Administrative Officer;
2.
That Council authorize staff to issue a park permit to the Pickering Anti-Black
Racism Taskforce for the use of Esplanade Park, per CUL 070 Community
Festivals and Events Policy, for the Community Event in celebration of the
International Day for People of African Descent; and,
3.
That Council approve the 5th Annual Black Joy Holiday Market event on
November 13 and 14, 2026, per ADM 040 Committees and Taskforces of
Council Policy, and on terms and conditions satisfactory to the Director,
Community Services and the Chief Administrative Officer.
4.
Director, Community Services, Report CS 11-26 Page 32
Consulting Services for Design of a New Animal Shelter & Municipal Law
Enforcement Services Offices
Request for Proposal No. RFP2026-2
Recommendation:
That the proposal submitted by Unity Design Studio Inc. in response to
Request for Proposal No. RFP2026-2 for Consulting Services for Design of a
New Animal Shelter & MLES Offices, in the amount of $1,107,149.00 (net
HST) or $1,229,440.00 (HST included) be accepted;
1.
That the total gross project cost of $1,506,999.00 (HST included), including
the amount of the proposal, contingency, and other associated costs, and the
total net project cost of $1,357,099.00 (net HST) be approved;
2.
That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to finance the net project 3.
4.2
4.3
Executive Committee Meeting Agenda
May 04, 2026
- 2 -
cost of $1,357,099.00 (net HST) as follows:
the sum of $284,061.00 to be funded from DC Protective Services
Development Charges Reserve Fund;
a.
the sum of $784,754.00 be funded by a transfer from the Animal Shelter
Reserve Fund; and,
b.
the sum of $288,284.00 be funded by a transfer from the Casino
Reserve;
c.
That the Director, Community Services be authorized to execute the OAA 600
2021 A Contract with the above-mentioned consultant pursuant to Request for
Proposal No. RFP2026-2; and,
4.
That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the
actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report.
5.
Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 05-26 Page 89
Cognac and Valley Farm SWM Pond Cleanouts
Request for Proposal No. RFP2026-4
Recommendation:
That the proposal submitted by Aquafor Beech Limited in response to
Request for Proposal No. RFP2026-4, Cognac and Valley Farm SWM Pond
Cleanouts, in the amount of $65,968.97 (net HST) or $73,255.64 (HST
included) be accepted;
1.
That the total gross project cost of $171,892.00 (HST included) including the
proposal fee amount, a contingency, and other associated costs, and the total
net project cost of $154,794.00 (net HST) be approved;
2.
That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the net
project cost of $154,794.00 (net HST) by a transfer from the Stormwater
Management Reserve Fund as approved in the 2026 Capital Budget;
3.
That the Director, Engineering Services be authorized to enter into and
execute the Form of Agreement with the above-mentioned consultant
pursuant to Request for Proposal No. RFP2026-4; and,
4.
That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the
actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report.
5.
Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 06-26 Page 95
Durham Meadoway Design Shared Services Memorandum of Understanding
Recommendation:
That Report ENG 06-26 regarding Durham Meadoway Design Shared 1.
4.4
4.5
Executive Committee Meeting Agenda
May 04, 2026
- 3 -
Services Memorandum of Understanding be received;
That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the Durham
Meadoway Design Shared Services Memorandum of Understanding in
substantially the same form as attached to this report, subject to revisions
acceptable to the Director, Engineering Services and the Director, Corporate
Services & City Solicitor;
2.
That the total gross project cost of $341,486.00 (HST included) and the total
net project cost of $307,519.00 (net HST) be approved;
3.
That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to fund the total net
project cost of $307,519.00 (net HST) as follows:
the sum of $153,759.00 be funded by a transfer from the Parks &
Recreation Development Charges Reserve Fund as approved in the
2026 Current Budget;
a.
the sum of $153,760.00 be funded by a transfer from the City Share
Development Charges Reserve as approved in the 2026 Current
Budget; and,
b.
4.
That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the
actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report.
5.
Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 07-26 Page 115
School Crossing Guard Program
Single Source - One Year Extension Quotation No. Q2023-37
Recommendation:
That Council approve the award of a one-year extension of the School
Crossing Guard contract to Carraway Inc. for the 2026/2027 school year in
accordance with the City’s Purchasing Policy Sections 09.03 (d);
1.
That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the 2026
portion of the School Crossing Guard Program in the amount of $264,730.00
(net HST) as approved in the 2026 Current Budget and that financing for 2027
portion, in the amount of $397,094.00 (net HST) be provided for in the 2027
Current Budget request, for a total amount of $661,824.00 (net HST); and,
2.
That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the
actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report.
3.
Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 08-26 Page 119
City Centre Park Preferred Concept Design
Recommendation:
4.6
4.7
Executive Committee Meeting Agenda
May 04, 2026
- 4 -
That Council endorse the City Centre Park preferred concept design, as set
out in Attachment 1, consisting of an outdoor skating rink and trail, misting
water feature, amenity building with public washrooms, a staff area,
mechanical/electrical room, and an ice re-surfacer storage room, walking
paths, site furniture, opportunities for public art, turf, planting beds, and trees;
1.
That staff and the consultant be authorized to proceed with the design
development and detailed design phase for the City Centre Park; and,
2.
That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the
actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report.
3.
Director, City Infrastructure, Report INF 06-26 Page 152
Supply and Delivery of One 4 Ton Dump Truck with Plow and Wing
Request for Quotation No. RFQQ2026-14
Recommendation:
That the Quotation submitted by Premier Truck Group of London in response
to Request for Quotation No. RFQQ2026-14 for the Supply and Delivery of
One 4 Ton Dump Truck with Plow and Wing, in the amount of $467,078.00
(net HST) or $518,670.00 (HST included) be accepted;
1.
That the total gross project cost of $518,670.00 (HST included), and the total
net project cost of $467,078.00 (net HST) be approved;
2.
That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer, to finance the total
net project cost of $467,078.00 as approved in the 2026 Capital Budget, with
the funding source changed from 5-year debt financing to DC-Other Services
Related to Highway Reserve; and,
3.
That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the
actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report.
4.
Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 10-26 Page 156
Development Application Approvals Process (DAAP) Fee Review
Proposed Building, Planning and Engineering Service Fees
Recommendation:
That the Development Applications Approvals Process (DAAP) Fee Review
prepared by Watson and Associates Economists Ltd. included as Attachment
1 be endorsed;
1.
That the recommended amendments to the City Development - Building and
Planning Fees and Development Services Fees included in Attachments 2, 3
and 4 to Report PLN 10-26 to establish fee adjustments, be approved; and
2.
4.8
4.9
Executive Committee Meeting Agenda
May 04, 2026
- 5 -
that the draft By-laws to adopt Fees be finalized and forwarded to Council for
enactment;
That the recommended fees outlined in Attachments 2, 3 and 4 to Report PLN
10-26 take effect on July 1, 2026;
3.
That all Planning, Building, and Development Services Fees continue to be
indexed annually, based on the City‘s annual budgeted cost increases or
other appropriate index (i.e., the Municipal Price Index) to maintain the
proposed level of cost recovery; and,
4.
That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the
actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report.
5.
Director, City Development & CBO, Report SUS 02-26 Page 272
Durham Greener Buildings Program and Challenge – City of Pickering
Participation
Recommendation:
That Report SUS 02-26 regarding the Durham Greener Buildings Program
and Challenge – City of Pickering Participation be received;
1.
That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the Terms and
Conditions Enrollment form to participate in the Region of Durham’s Durham
Greener Buildings Challenge program, subject to minor revisions as may be
required by the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor and/or Chief
Administrative Officer; and,
2.
That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the
actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report.
3.
Director, City Development & CBO, Report SUS 03-26 Page 279
2025 Sustainable Year-in-Review
Recommendation:
That Report SUS 03-26 regarding the 2025 Sustainable Pickering Year-in-Review
be received for information.
Member Updates on Committees
Other Business
Adjournment
4.10
4.11
5.
6.
7.
Executive Committee Meeting Agenda
May 04, 2026
- 6 -
Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: CAO 04-26
Date: May 4, 2026
From: Marisa Carpino
Chief Administrative Officer
Subject:
Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Strategy Progress Update
2025 Annual Report and 2026 Work Plan
File: A-1440
Recommendation:
That Report CAO-04-26 regarding the City of Pickering’s 2025 Equity, Diversity and Inclusion
Annual Report and 2026 Work Plan be received for information.
1.0 Executive Summary:
The purpose of this report is to provide progress updates on the City of Pickering’s Equity,
Diversity and Inclusion Strategy through the 2025 EDI Annual Report (See Attachment 1) and
the 2026 Work Plan. The report outlines key achievements from 2025 in alignment with the
EDI Strategy’s five areas of focus: Education and Awareness; Structure and Resources;
Community Consultation and Engagement; Policies, Practices and Programs; and,
Measurement and Accountability. This includes the following highlights:
• engaging over 350 employees across 17 EDI-focused trainings;
• distributing over 1,800 EDI education cards at municipal facilities and community events
across Durham Region to support community awareness and learning;
• collaboration on 30 EDI events throughout the year;
• strengthened partnerships with 25 community organizations; and,
• dedicated support to 3 Council-appointed bodies including, the Accessibility Advisory
Committee, the Community Safety and Well-Being Advisory Committee, and the
Pickering Anti-Black Racism Taskforce.
The report also identifies major initiatives set for implementation and completion in 2026, such
as a revision of the City’s Multi-Year Accessibility Plan (2026-2031), the creation of an Anti-
Black Racism Action Plan that informs the Pickering Anti-Black Racism Taskforce, and the
launch of an All Faith and Wellness Room as a dedicated space for City employees.
- 7 -
CAO 04-26 May 4, 2026
Page 2
2.0 Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan:
The recommendations in this report respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priorities of
Advocate for an Inclusive, Welcoming, Safe & Healthy Community; Strengthen Existing & Build
New Partnerships; and, Foster an Engaged & Informed Community.
3.0 Financial Implications:
The initiatives proposed in the work plan are consistent with the City’s Current Budget for
2026. There are no additional financial implications outside of the approved budget.
4.0 Discussion:
The purpose of this report is to provide progress updates on the City of Pickering’s EDI
Strategy based on the 2025 EDI Annual Report and the 2026 Work Plan.
4.1 Major Achievements in 2025
In 2025, the City delivered a total of 17 EDI-focused workshops, trainings and learning
opportunities, engaging over 350 staff members across the organization, including sessions on
topics such as workplace inclusion for gender and sexual diversity, Indigenous ways of
knowing, and intersectionality in municipal contexts. In addition to internal education efforts,
more than 1,800 educational resource cards were distributed across municipal facilities and
throughout Durham Region, recognizing days of significance such as National Day for Truth
and Reconciliation, International Day of Sign Language, and International Women’s Day.
A total of 30 EDI events, initiatives, and engagements were delivered or supported throughout
the year, including community events recognizing Black History Month, Pride Month, National
Indigenous Peoples Day, Emancipation Day, and National Truth and Reconciliation Day,
reaching several thousand residents across Durham Region. High-impact community initiatives
included the Pickering Anti-Black Racism Taskforce’s two-day Black Joy Holiday Market, which
attracted over 3,000 attendees, and the 4th Annual Truth and Reconciliation Community
Gathering, which engaged over 800 participants, including approximately 600 students and
200 community members. Additional community events, such as the Emancipation Day
Celebration in Esplanade Park, engaged over 300 attendees alongside numerous cultural,
educational, and commemorative events delivered throughout the year.
The City continued to strengthen collaborative relationships through engagement with 25
community partners, including organizations such as the Durham Community Health Centre,
Pickering Public Library’s Anti-Black Racism Working Group, Youth Pride Durham, and the
Durham Family Cultural Centre, while supporting three Council-appointed bodies and an
advisory community group: the Accessibility Advisory Committee, the Community Safety and
- 8 -
CAO 04-26 May 4, 2026
Page 3
Well-Being Advisory Committee, the Pickering Anti-Black Racism Taskforce, and the
Indigenous Relationship Building Circle.
Organizational capacity was further enhanced through the establishment of an internal EDI
Steering Committee with representation from ten City departments, supporting cross-
departmental alignment and integration of EDI considerations into corporate initiatives.
Key policy and program advances included the addition of a dedicated EDI Specialist role to
support the review and integration of EDI across policies and practices as well as Council’s
endorsement of the Hidden Disabilities Sunflower Program (per Resolution #740/25).
Implementation of this program, facilitated by the Accessibility Coordinator, is ongoing, with a
target of 80% of staff trained. The City’s Human Resources Department also launched the
Leaders’ Forum as full-day trainings for managers and supervisors, inclusive of dedicated
segments on inclusive leadership and equitable decision-making practices.
Collectively, these metrics reflect continued progress in embedding EDI principles across City
operations, strengthening internal capacity, expanding community reach, and advancing
measurable outcomes that support a more inclusive, accessible, and equitable organization
and community.
4.2 2026 Work Plan
City staff will continue to implement the EDI Strategy through the following initiatives in 2026,
in accordance with the five areas of focus. The following chart outlines key project activities to
support ongoing implementation, including target completion dates within the fiscal year.
Area of Focus Project Activities and Target Completion Date(s)
Education and
Awareness
• Collaboration with Human Resources staff to deliver the Leaders’
Forum for manager and supervisors with dedicated trainings on EDI
topics - including microaggressions (spring 2026) and human rights
(fall 2026)
• Launch of the Region of Durham’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Foundations Learning modules covering concepts of privilege, bias,
colonialism, and systemic injustice as a mandatory training for all
City staff (May 2026) and integration into Employee Onboarding
(ongoing)
• Focused training series and capacity-building for members of the
EDI Steering Committee (beginning June 2026)
• Continue to support employee onboarding through New Staff
Orientation program with Human Resources (ongoing)
• Launch of Anti-Hate Campaign (June 2026)
• Ongoing training and implementation of Hidden Disabilities
Sunflower program to ensure City achieves and maintains 80%
completion rate (September 2026)
- 9 -
CAO 04-26 May 4, 2026
Page 4
• Collaborate with Pickering Museum Village to support community
education on local histories with Indigenous Elders and Knowledge
Holders (September 2026)
Structure and
Resources
• Development of Multi-Year Accessibility Plan (2026-2031)
through Accessibility Coordinator, Accessibility Advisory
Committee, and Accessibility Core Staff Team
• Formal launch of All Faith and Wellness Room at the Civic
Complex as a dedicated, neutral and quiet environment to
support employee well-being and allow space for prayer,
meditation, and reflection. The formal launch will include
appropriate signage, furniture, and educational materials for staff
on uses.
• Collaboration with Community Services to enhance community
spaces and facilities through public art initiatives (March/April
2026)
• Pursue collaborative grant opportunities with internal and
external partners in support of Indigenous relationship building,
community safety, and accessibility initiatives (ongoing)
Community
Consultation and
Engagement
• As authorized per Resolution #925/26, development of Anti-
Black Racism Action Plan with Azmi and Warner Consulting
Inc., to define and identify the scope of work for the Pickering
Anti-Black Racism Taskforce and assess community-based
models of engagement (February 2026-2027)
• Direct support of Council-appointed committees and
taskforce, including the Accessibility Advisory Committee, the
Community Safety and Well-Being Advisory Committee, the
Pickering Anti-Black Racism Taskforce and all related
subcommittees and staff teams (ongoing)
• Ongoing involvement in regional and provincial networks
including the Regional DEI Network, Durham Region
Indigenous Collaborative Circle, Municipal Connections Circle
and other bodies organized around Accessibility and
Community Safety and Well-Being (ongoing)
• Implementation and collaboration on major community
commemorative events including, but not limited to: Black
History Month (February 2026), International Women’s Day
(March 2026), Red Dress Day (May 2026), Indigenous
Peoples Day (June 2026), Pride Month (June 2026),
Emancipation Day (August 2026), National Day for Truth and
Reconciliation (September 2026), World Homeless Day
(October 2026), International Day for People with Disabilities
(December 2026)
- 10 -
CAO 04-26 May 4, 2026
Page 5
Policies,
Programs and
Practices
• Creation of internal procedures: Housing Insecurity and
Encampment Procedure (April 2026)
• Finalize Anti-Hate Reporting procedure (May 2026)
• Reconciliation Audit to initiate long-term development of
Indigenous Relationship Building Framework (May 2026)
• Research and creation of internal policies: Smudging
• Creation of internal guides to support inclusive events,
communications, languages, and observances (June 2026)
• Research and review of internal policies related to
microaggressions, inclusive hiring, religious observances, and
accommodations (ongoing).
• Ongoing implementation and training toward Hidden Disabilities
Sunflower program (ongoing)
Measurement and
Accountability
• Development of internal EDI Report Card template (June 2026)
• Development of internal database to track corporate trainings for
employees, senior leadership, and Council (June 2026)
• Explore consultation opportunities to support the development of an
Indigenous Relationship Building Framework to guide City policies
and practices, separate from EDI Strategy (May 2026)
This Annual Report and Work Plan provides an overview of major achievements to date and
ongoing efforts to support implementation of the City’s EDI Strategy. It reflects the City’s
ongoing dedication to advancing EDI throughout the organization and across the broader
community in order to create a more equitable and inclusive workplace and community.
Attachment:
1. Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion 2025 Annual Report
Prepared By: Jaclyn San Antonio, Supervisor, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion
Approved/Endorsed By: Mark Guinto, Division Head, Public Affairs and Corporate
Communications
Approved/Endorsed By: Marisa Carpino, Chief Administrative Officer
Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council By:
Marisa Carpino, M.A.
Chief Administrative Officer
- 11 -
TITLE: Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion 2025 Annual Report
Land Acknowledgement
We acknowledge that the City of Pickering resides on land within the Treaty and traditional
territory of the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation and Williams Treaties signatories of
the Mississauga and Chippewa Nations. This includes Alderville First Nation, Chippewas of
Beausoleil First Nation, Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation, Chippewas of Rama First
Nation, Curve Lake First Nation, Hiawatha First Nation and the Mississaugas of Scugog Island
First Nation. Pickering is also home to many Indigenous persons and communities who
represent other diverse, distinct, and autonomous Indigenous nations. This acknowledgement
reminds us of our responsibilities to our relationships with the First Peoples of Canada, and to
the ancestral lands on which we learn, share, work, and live.
Equity, diversity, and inclusion practices and policies are often conflated with Indigenization,
Decolonization and Reconciliation. It is important to recognize that, though they share common
ground, Indigenization, Decolonization, and Reconciliation require distinct and focused efforts
that address settler colonialism, honour Indigenous self-determination and sovereignty, and
advance reconciliation as defined by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada.
Indigenous peoples have lived on Turtle Island, the land also referred to as North America, as
stewards of the lands and waters since time immemorial with their own unique cultures,
identities, traditions, languages and institutions. As the City of Pickering advances Equity,
Diversity and Inclusion, we honour all Indigenous Peoples as rights holders and commit to
building relationships of trust, respect, reciprocity, and friendship.
By actively engaging in relationship building, challenging colonial structures, and centering
Indigenous knowledge and perspectives, we are reminded of our roots as Treaty peoples with
responsibilities toward one another, protecting and preserving the safety, well-being, and
inherent dignity of all people wherever this may be challenged.
Table of Contents
1.Meet the Team
2.Summary of Events and Initiatives
3.Education and Awareness
3.1 Learning Opportunities
4.Structure and Resources
4.1 EDI Steering Committee
5.Community Consultation and Engagement
5.1 Pickering Anti-Black Racism Taskforce
5.2 Indigenous Relationship Building
5.3 Community Initiatives and Partnerships
5.4 Community Recognition
6.Policies, Practices and Programs
7.Measurement and Accountability
7.1 2025 Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Overview
Attachment 1 to Report CAO 04-26
- 12 -
SECTION 1: Meet the Team
Justine Wallace
Interim Supervisor, Equity, Diversity, & Inclusion
Office of the CAO
Elaine Knox
Community Safety and Wellbeing Advisor
Office of the CAO
Tim Higgins
Accessibility Coordinator
Office of the CAO
Deja Machado-Yew Woon
Community Engagement Coordinator, Equity, Diversity, & Inclusion
Office of the CAO
Jessica Mann
Equity, Diversity, & Inclusion Specialist
Office of the CAO
SECTION 2: Summary of 2025 Events and Initiatives
January 30: Unpacking Islamophobia with Canadian Council of Muslim Women
February 1: Cultural Expressions Black History Month Celebration
February 5: Together We Rise Durham: Black History Month Celebration
March 5: Region of Durham International Women’s Day Celebration
March 30: Royal Canadian Legion Ladies Auxiliary International Women’s Day Celebration
May 1: National Day of Awareness for Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls and
Two-Spirit People/ Red Dress Day Flag Raising Ceremony
May 2: Staff Learning Session: Red Dress Indigenous Beading Workshop
May 4: Community Indigenous Beading Workshop
May 26: Council approves City of Pickering corporate membership of the Hidden Disabilities
Sunflower Program
May 31: Pickering Public Library Drag Queen Storytime
June 1: Youth Pride Durham
June 3: Pride Month Flag Raising Ceremony
June 7: Pride Durham Annual Pride Parade and Festival
June 17: Staff Book Club: Disfigured by Amanda Leduc
June 19: Leaders’ Forum Session: Introduction to Intersectionality
June 20: National Indigenous Peoples Day/ National Indigenous History Month Flag Raising
Ceremony
June 20: Durham Community Health Center Big Drum Social
- 13 -
July 30: Durham Region Emancipation Day Celebration
July 31: Durham Opening Celebration Ceremony - Emancipation Day Freedom Train Ride
August 27: Pickering Anti-Black Racism Taskforce International Day for People of African
Descent Community Celebration and Movie Night
October 22: Leaders’ Forum Session: Inclusive Hiring Practices for Managers
September 29: National Day for Truth and Reconciliation / Orange Shirt Day Flag Raising
Ceremony
September 29: Staff Learning Session: Drop-in learning session on the National Day for Truth
and Reconciliation
September 30: 4th Annual Truth and Reconciliation Community Gathering
November 13: Staff Learning Session: Introduction to Carnival Culture and History
November 14 and 15: Pickering Anti-Black Racism Taskforce Black Joy Holiday Market
November 19: Staff Learning Session: Treaty Relations and Indigenous Ways of Knowing
November 27: Staff Training: Workplace Inclusion for Gender and Sexual Diversity with Egale
Canada
SECTION 3: Education and Awareness
The Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) Strategy Priority Area of Focus One identifies
Education and Awareness. Creating intentional learning opportunities is the first step in
integrating EDI within all facets of the workplace and broader community. Focusing on areas
such as anti-racism, decolonization, reconciliation, gender diversity, accessibility and social
justice aims to challenge our own unconscious biases, address systemic inequalities and
enhance cultural understanding.
Addressing and understanding these topics works to dismantle systemic barriers that exist
within the public sector. This knowledge can empower staff and community leaders to challenge
and change discriminatory practices, policies, and procedures. It allows individuals to develop a
deeper appreciation for the diverse perspectives, experiences, and contributions of their
colleagues and the communities they serve. This understanding fosters collaboration, empathy
and respect, creating a more inclusive and equitable City that serves the needs of all
communities.
SECTION 3.1: Learning Opportunities
In 2025, staff were invited to respond to calls to action for continuing education with the
following series of EDI-focused workshops, trainings and learning opportunities, engaging over
350 staff members across the organization:
Unpacking Islamophobia with Canadian Council of Muslim Women
In honour of the National Day of Remembrance of the Quebec City Mosque Attack and Action
Against Islamophobia, staff were invited to participate in a virtual learning session. Facilitated by
the Canadian Council of Muslim Women, the workshop provided a basic historical and
knowledge-building context on the history of Islam and Islamophobia to unpack the myth of the
- 14 -
Muslim monolith. Participants gained tools and tips to engage in allyship and solidarity with
Muslim communities as well as ways to engage in courageous conversations to foster inclusion.
Red Dress Indigenous Beading Workshop with Janet Dugan and Judith Keesic
In honour of Red Dress Day and National Day of Awareness for Missing and Murdered
Indigenous Women and Girls and Two-Spirit People (MMIWG2S), staff were joined by
Indigenous Artisans Janet Dugan and Judith Kessic who guided participants through beading
their own Red Dress Awareness pin using traditional beading techniques, and traditional
medicines and materials.
National Day for Truth and Reconciliation Share and Learn with Valerie Bayers
In honour of the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation / Orange Shirt Day, staff were invited
to a Drop-in learning and sharing session facilitated by Pickering Public Library’s Indigenous
Relations Outreach Associate, Valerie Bayers. Participants were given the opportunity to have
open conversations, learn honest truths, and take home resources and Orange T-Shirts to
support future education.
Introduction to Carnival Culture and History with Toronto Caribbean Carnival
Facilitated by Toronto Caribbean Carnival (TCC) CEO Mischka Crichton and General Manager
Adrian Charles, staff were invited to discover the world of Caribbean Carnival history and
culture. Known as the largest Caribbean festival in North America, with heavy participation from
the Caribbean community in Pickering and across Durham, Toronto Caribbean Carnival, often
referred to colloquially as Caribana, attracts over 1 million visitors to Toronto and the GTA per
year. With a history dating back almost 60 years, and recent designation as a part of Canada's
cultural heritage by UNESCO, participants learned about TTC's important history of resistance
and contemporary innovation through knowledge sharing, music and food.
Sharing Circle: Treaty Relations & Indigenous Ways of Knowing with Grandmother Kim
Wheatley
In honour of Treaties Recognition Week and in line with the cities' ongoing commitment to Truth
and Reconciliation, Traditional Anishinaabe Grandmother and Ancestral Knowledge Keeper,
Kim Wheatley facilitated a sharing circle for staff. Participants explored Indigenous ways of
knowing and being and how to navigate with confidence topics such as: terminology, land
acknowledgements, nation naming and treaty territorial importance—including discussions of
the TRC Report, MMIWG2S, the Indian Act, and their contemporary impacts.
Workplace Inclusion for Gender and Sexual Diversity with Egale Canada
Staff were joined by leading subject matter experts from Egale Canada for a 90-minute virtual
training on Workplace Inclusion for Gender and Sexual Diversity. This interactive session was
designed to help participants build supportive workplace environments and strengthen
relationships with 2SLGBTQIA+ colleagues and community. The session provided practical
strategies and inspiration to begin fostering positive change within individual roles and across
the organization.
- 15 -
Staff Book Club in partnership with PPL
In collaboration with Pickering Public Library staff participants were provided with the chosen
novel to read independently and later gather for an open sharing circle and discussion. In
November, staff read Disfigured: On Fairy Tales, Disability, and Making Space by Amanda
Leduc and came together to discuss, dissect, and share their thoughts on the novel.
Education Cards
Education cards were first developed by the EDI Team in 2021 as a tool for community
engagement and learning. More than 1,800 educational resource cards were distributed across
municipal facilities and throughout Durham Region, recognizing various days of significance. In
2025, the EDI Team expanded this collection to include and acknowledge various days of
significance including, National Indigenous Languages Day, International Day of Sign
Language, and Treaties Recognition Week.
Education cards are used to facilitate the dissemination of information and resources, inspire
individuals to take action, and promote a culture of continuous learning, engagement, and
collaboration towards creating positive social change. These cards were designed to provide
concise and impactful information on various topics while including important community
resources for individuals seeking knowledge, understanding, and support. Education Cards can
be found at the following city locations: City Hall Customer Care Front Desk, Pickering Public
Library Central Branch, George Ashe Library, and Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation
Center.
SECTION 4: Structure and Resources
The EDI Strategy priority area of focus two identifies Structure and Resources. Advancing EDI
in a meaningful and sustained way requires a strong organizational foundation. The structures
that are established and the resources that are allocated demonstrate the City’s commitment to
embedding EDI across all areas of operation. Having the appropriate supports in place
promotes consistency, alignment, and shared responsibility. A strong foundation enables EDI to
be integrated more effectively into the fabric of each department, contributing to a more
inclusive and equitable workplace and community.
SECTION 4.1: EDI Steering Committee
In support of strengthening internal structure and capacity to advance EDI, an internal EDI
Steering Committee was established in 2025, consisting of staff representatives across 10 City
departments and teams. This cross-functional approach supports the integration of EDI
considerations throughout the organization by ensuring that diverse operational perspectives
are reflected in ongoing initiatives and decision-making processes.
The EDI Steering Committee plays an important role in supporting organizational alignment and
fostering shared responsibility for EDI. By creating a dedicated space for collaboration,
knowledge sharing, and consultation, the Committee helps to embed EDI more consistently into
departmental work and contributes to building internal awareness and capacity.
- 16 -
In 2025, the Committee provided input and guidance on several key initiatives, including the
development of the All Faith and Wellness Room and the associated staff survey, the Multi-Year
Accessibility Plan Survey, and participation in the Hidden Disabilities Sunflower Program and
internal training initiative. Through this work, the Committee supported efforts to enhance
accessibility, inclusion, and overall employee well-being across the organization.
SECTION 5: Community Consultation and Engagement
The EDI Strategy priority area of focus three identifies Community Consultation and
Engagement. Building an inclusive city relies on ongoing dialogue and relationship-building with
residents, community groups, and partners. Meaningful engagement creates space for diverse
voices, experiences, and perspectives to inform the City’s work. Incorporating community input
strengthens the City’s ability to respond to evolving needs and priorities. This approach supports
building meaningful relationships, fosters trust, and ensures that decision-making is informed by
those it impacts, contributing to a more inclusive and connected community.
SECTION 5.1: Pickering Anti-Black Racism Taskforce
Established in January 2021, the Pickering Anti-Black Racism Taskforce (PABRT) is a Council
appointed body of community members, whose mandate is to address and combat anti-Black
racism in all its forms within the City of Pickering and broader community. The PABRT actively
works to dismantle systemic barriers and discriminatory practices that disproportionately affect
Black communities, while aiming to increase understanding and awareness of the historical and
contemporary issues faced by Black individuals. PABRT members play a vital role in fostering
dialogue, advocating for change, and promoting social justice within the community. In 2025, the
PABRT both partnered in and hosted various community initiatives throughout the year
including:
Cultural Expressions 18th Annual Black History Month Celebration
February 1, 2025: PABRT partnered with Cultural Expressions Art Gallery to host the 18th
Annual Durham Black History Month celebration at J. Clarke Richardson Collegiate in Ajax,
celebrating the beauty of Black culture and the diversity of the Black experience in Durham
Region. PABRT provided an information table as part of the community networking portion of
the event to engage event attendees and raise awareness about their work and community
initatives.
Together we Rise Durham: Resistance, Resilience, Possibility Black History Month
Celebration
February 5, 2025: The 2025 Together We Rise Durham: Resistance, Resilience, Possibility
Black History Month celebration was hosted by the Region of Durham, in partnership with
Durham Regional Police Service, Canadian Jamaican Club of Oshawa, City of Oshawa, City of
Pickering, DurhamOne, Lakeridge Health, Municipality of Clarington, Ontario Shores, Pickering
Anti-Black Racism Taskforce, Town of Ajax, Town of Whitby, Township of Brock and Township
of Uxbridge. The celebration took place at the Audley Recreation Centre, bringing over 300
community members from across the Durham Region together for an uplifting evening featuring
- 17 -
keynote speaker, Dr. Andrew B. Campbell (Dr. ABC), performances and a celebration of
champions, including awards for and recognition of community members.
Royal Canadian Legion Ladies Auxiliary International Women’s Day Celebration
March 30, 2025: The International Women’s Day Celebration hosted by the Royal Canadian
Legion Ladies Auxiliary took place in Pickering’s Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation
Complex to bring together community members, thought leaders, and professionals across
various fields to highlight women’s achievements and empower women from all walks of life.
PABRT was invited to host an information table and the PABRT Chair, Denise David was invited
to sit on the discussion panel.
Durham Opening Celebration Ceremony: Emancipation Day Freedom Train Ride
July 31 2025: Durham Region’s first annual coordinated participation in the 12th annual
Emancipation Day Underground Free Train Ride was hosted by the Durham Family Cultural
Centre in partnership with the Pickering Anti-Black Racism Taskforce, Ajax Anti-Racism
Taskforce, and Blackhurst Cultural Centre. The opening celebration took place at the Durham
Family Cultural Centre Head Office, followed by chartered transportation to the Blackhurst
Cultural Centre’s Emancipation Day Underground Free Train Ride at Vaughn Metropolitan
Centre, to honour the abolition of slavery in the British Empire and the legacy of the
Underground Railroad in Canada.
International Day for People of African Descent Community Celebration and Movie Night
August 27, 2025: PABRT hosted the 3rd Annual International Day for People of African
Descent Community Celebration in partnership with the Pickering Public Library's Anti-Black
Racism Working Group, Durham Family Cultural Centre (DFCC), Durham One, and in
Pickering’s Esplanade Park. Attended by over 100 community members, the day included a
resource village of local community organizations, performances and cultural activities for all
ages, concluding with a movie screening in the Park of Drumline.
4th Annual Black Joy Holiday Market and Afro-Caribbean Food Basket Initiative
November 14 and 15 2025: PABRT partnered with the DFCC to join the City of Pickering’s
Winter Nights City Lights Festival, bringing the 4th Annual Black Joy Holiday Market to the
community as a 2-day initiative at the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex. Open to
all community members, the holiday pop-up market included over 85 Black-owned local
businesses, youth entrepreneurs, artists, and performers, and had more than 3000 people
attended over its two days. The event coincided with a holiday food basket drive that provided
Black families with culturally significant, Afro-Caribbean diasporic food baskets, distributed to
families experiencing financial hardship and/or food insecurity in the Durham Region.
SECTION 5.2: Indigenous Relationship Building Action Plan
In 2020, the City of Pickering adopted a multi-year Indigenous Relationship Building Action Plan
that focused on establishing meaningful and international relationships with diverse Indigenous
communities. This led to the formation of the Indigenous Relationship Building Circle (IRBC), a
- 18 -
local network of Indigenous residents, Indigenous-led organizations, and allies that come
together to provide guidance and leadership on community initiatives that center the voices and
honour the contributions, history and cultures of First Nations, Metis and Inuit Peoples.
Responding to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada Call to Action 14 on “…the
preservation, revitalization, and strengthening of Aboriginal languages and cultures…”, and Call
to Action 79 calling on government “…in collaboration with Survivors, Aboriginal organizations,
and the arts community to develop a reconciliation framework for Canadian heritage and
commemoration,” the Indigenous Relationship Building Action Plan supported the following
community initiatives:
Community Dangle Earring Beading Workshop
May 4, 2025: Facilitated by Indigenous Artisans, Janet Dugan and Judith Keesic, this workshop
provided an opportunity for the community to engage with traditional Indigenous art and culture
through the practice of beadwork. The workshop introduced participants to foundational beading
techniques while sharing the cultural significance and history of Indigenous artistic expression.
In a hands-on and welcoming environment, participants were supported in creating their own
dangle earring pieces.
Durham Community Health Centre Big Drum Social
June 20, 2025: In honour of National Indigenous Peoples Day and National Indigenous History
Month, Durham Community Health Centre partnered with the City of Pickering to bring the
Annual Big Drum Social to Esplanade Park. A traditional celebration filled with music, dance,
storytelling, and more, this event is Durham Region’s largest gathering for National Indigenous
Peoples Day, where all are welcome to celebrate, learn, and connect with the community.
4th Annual Truth and Reconciliation Community Gathering
September 30, 2025: In commemoration of the ongoing legacy of residential schools, the IRBC
and the City of Pickering partnered with the Town of Ajax, the Ajax Indigenous Advisory Circle,
and community organizations to host a two-part community gathering for youth and community
members, featuring reflections, teachings, and traditions with Indigenous community leaders.
This was Durham Region's largest National Truth and Reconciliation gathering in 2025,
garnering participation from over 800 community members, residents, students, and community
organizations.
The Youth programming brought together students in Grades 6–12 for a meaningful, youth-
centered learning experience focused on Truth and Reconciliation. Activities began with spiritual
grounding and community intention-setting at the Indigenous Healing Garden, followed by
teachings and reflections led by Indigenous Elder and Knowledge Keeper Grandmother Kim
Wheatley and Community Leader and 60s Scoop Survivor, Noreen Labelle. Youth participants
engaged in guided dialogue on what Truth and Reconciliation means to today’s generation and
explored how they can act as allies in supporting ongoing pathways of healing and
- 19 -
understanding. The program provided a safe and supportive space for learning, reflection, and
connection.
The evening featured an Indigenous Arts & Wellness Vendor Market and powerful Indigenous-
led programming with Traditional Healer Grey Cloud (James Carpenter), storytelling by
Acclaimed Chef Joseph Shawana and Noreen Labelle and performances by Juno Award winner
The Smoke Trail Singers and Meegwans. The gathering concluded with a candlelight vigil to
honour survivors and remember those who were lost to the Canadian Residential School
System.
SECTION 5.3: Community Initiatives and Partnerships
Community initiatives and partnerships play a vital role in the City’s Equity, Diversity, and
Inclusion Strategy. Creating meaningful relationships with community organizations, partners,
and other municipalities provides invaluable resources and support while navigating EDI spaces
and discourse. These relationships have resulted in joint programming, sharing of best
practices, and achieving a wider impact across communities in the Durham Region. Engaging in
EDI initiatives with a collaborative approach fosters a sense of community and shared
responsibility, leading to sustainable and meaningful outcomes.
International Women’s Day Celebration
March 5, 2025: The Region of Durham partnered with municipalities and organizations across
the region to host the annual International Women’s Day celebration, held in Pickering at the
Chestnut Hills Developments Recreation Complex. As part of Durham Region’s largest annual
event recognizing International Women’s Day, the celebration honoured the achievements and
contributions of women in our communities. The 2025 theme, “The Time is Now – Women
Driving Change,” guided the event, which featured performances from local artists, a panel
discussion with women leaders, and opportunities for networking and connection.
Pickering Public Library Drag Queen Storytime
May 31, 2025: In partnership with Durham Children's Aid Society and Youth Pride Durham, all
libraries in Durham Region presented Drag Queen Story Time, featuring two local drag queens.
This family-friendly program hosted at the Pickering Public Library Central Branch showcased
stories celebrating diversity and inclusion, followed by musical performances and activities for
children.
Youth Pride Durham
June 1, 2025: The City of Pickering partnered with Youth Pride Durham to bring a safe,
inclusive celebration for youth, children and families who are part of 2SLGBTQIA+ communities,
as well as allies. This event championed acceptance through an afternoon of performances,
music, dancing, and a community resource village.
Pride Durham Annual Pride Parade & Festival
June 7, 2025: The City of Pickering was a proud partner in the 2025 Pride Durham Annual
- 20 -
Pride Parade, hosted in the Town of Ajax. With support from more than 20 City staff members
from various departments, volunteer community members, family and friends, the City of
Pickering was well represented while walking alongside the community. The Pickering walking
group also featured a Pickering Fire Services vehicle as part of its parade presence.
Durham Region Emancipation Day Celebration
July 30, 2025: The 2025 Rooted in Resilience: Embracing Empowerment Emancipation Day
Celebration was hosted by the Region of Durham in partnership with the City of Pickering,
Pickering Anti-Black Racism Taskforce and municipal partners and community organizations
across the Region. This family friendly event took place at Pickering’s Esplanade Park, featuring
live performances from local talent and black-owned local business vendors and community
organizations. Attended by over 300 community members, this celebration was an opportunity
to address anti-black racism through emancipation education and to create an avenue for
community members to connect and learn in a welcoming and engaging environment.
SECTION 5.4: Community Recognition
Throughout the year, the City of Pickering collaborated with local community organizations to
recognize and honour days of significance that aim to foster a culture of respect, understanding,
and belonging within our community. These acknowledgements allow both City staff and
community members to engage in meaningful conversations and learning that promote
awareness and appreciation for different cultures, histories, and lived experiences. Going
further, recognizing these days helps to raise awareness of the ongoing challenges faced by
marginalized communities, encouraging dialogue and reflection.
2025 Flag Raisings and Ceremonies
May: National Day of Awareness for Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls and
Two-Spirit People/ Red Dress Day
June: Pride Month
June: National Indigenous Peoples Day/ National Indigenous History Month
August: Emancipation Day
September: National Truth and Reconciliation Day/ Orange Shirt Day
November: Treaties Recognition Week
November: Transgender Day of Remembrance
SECTION 6: Policies, Practices and Programs
The EDI Strategy priority area of focus four identifies Policies, Practices and Programs. The
systems and processes that guide organizational work play a critical role in shaping equitable
outcomes. Applying an EDI lens to these areas helps ensure that they are inclusive, accessible,
and reflective of the diverse community the City serves. Examining policies, practices, and
programs through this lens creates opportunities to identify and address barriers. This ongoing
approach supports equity in service delivery and contributes to an environment where all
individuals can access and benefit from City services.
- 21 -
In 2025, the City expanded the EDI team with the addition of a dedicated Equity, Diversity, and
Inclusion Specialist. This role plays a key part in advancing the Policies, Practices and
Programs priority area by supporting the review of existing policies, procedures, and
organizational practices through an EDI lens.
Through this work, the position helps to identify systemic barriers, highlight opportunities for
improvement, and support the integration of more inclusive and equitable approaches across
departments. The addition of this role aims to strengthen the City’s capacity to embed EDI
considerations into decision-making processes and service delivery, contributing to more
responsive and inclusive outcomes for the community.
SECTION 6.1: Hidden Disabilities Sunflower Program
In 2025, the City of Pickering formally endorsed participation in the Hidden Disabilities
Sunflower Program through Council approval (May 26, 2025, Resolution 740/25). This globally
recognized initiative supports individuals living with non-visible or hidden disabilities by providing
a discreet way to indicate that they may require additional time, understanding, or assistance
when accessing services or navigating public spaces.
The program is centered around the use of the Sunflower symbol, which can be worn as a
lanyard, pin, or wristband to signal to staff that additional support may be needed. Participation
in the program includes staff training to build awareness and understanding of hidden
disabilities, which can include a wide range of physical, cognitive, sensory, or mental health
conditions that may not be immediately visible.
This initiative was coordinated through the City’s Accessibility Coordinator and represents an
important step in embedding accessibility and inclusion into service delivery. By increasing staff
awareness and capacity to respond to diverse needs, the program supports more inclusive,
respectful, and responsive interactions with the community and colleagues. Training efforts are
ongoing, with a goal of reaching 80 percent of staff, reinforcing the City’s commitment to
reducing barriers and enhancing equitable access to programs, services, and spaces.
SECTION 6.2: Human Resources Leaders’ Forum Program
The Leaders’ Forum Program was developed in collaboration with Human Resources to
strengthen leaders’ capacity to apply an equity lens to organizational practices and decision-
making. These sessions supported the ongoing work of identifying and addressing barriers
within internal systems, with a focus on fostering more inclusive leadership, reducing bias, and
embedding equitable approaches into people management and hiring practices. By building
shared understanding and practical skills among leaders, the program contributed to advancing
more consistent, fair, and inclusive practices across the organization.
In 2025, two targeted learning sessions were delivered through the Leaders’ Forum as full-day
trainings for managers and supervisors. The first, Introduction to Intersectionality for Municipal
Governments, was facilitated by the EDI Supervisor and external EDI consultant, Kianna
- 22 -
Bonnick, providing an overview of intersectionality theory, supported by interactive activities and
municipal case studies. The second session, Inclusive Hiring Practices for Managers, was
delivered by the Region of Durham’s Director of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion, Allison Hector-
Alexander and focused on recognizing and mitigating personal bias, removing barriers to
attracting diverse talent, and applying inclusive hiring principles through case study analysis.
SECTION 7: Measurement and Accountability
The EDI Strategy priority area of focus five identifies Measurement and Accountability.
Understanding progress is essential to advancing EDI in a meaningful and sustainable way.
Thoughtful measurement and reflection help to ensure that commitments are being translated
into tangible outcomes. Creating space for accountability encourages continuous learning and
growth across the organization. It reinforces the importance of transparency and shared
responsibility, helping to build trust while supporting the City’s ongoing efforts to foster equity
and inclusion.
SECTION 7.1: 2025 Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Overview
- In 2025, a total of 30 EDI events, initiatives, and engagements were delivered or supported
across the Durham Region.
- In 2025, the EDI Team disseminated 1800+ Education cards throughout the Durham Region.
- In 2025, the EDI Team engaged over 350 staff members in a total of 17 EDI focused
workshops, trainings, and learning sessions.
- In 2025, the Pickering Anti-Black Racism Taskforce hosted a two-day Holiday Market attended
by over 3000 people across Durham Region.
- In 2025, the Indigenous Relationship Building Action Plan supported the City of Pickering’s 4th
Annual Truth and Reconciliation Community Gathering in partnership with Town of Ajax
attended by over 600 local students from various elementary and secondary schools and 200
community members.
- 23 -
Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: CAO 05-26
Date: May 4, 2026
From: Marisa Carpino
Chief Administrative Officer
Subject:
Pickering Anti-Black Racism Taskforce
2025 Year End Report and Proposed 2026 Work Plan
File: A-1440
Recommendation:
1. That Report CAO 05-26 regarding the Pickering Anti-Black Racism Taskforce 2025 Year
End Report and Proposed 2026 Work Plan be received for information;
2. That Council approve the 2026 4th Annual Community event in celebration of the
International Day for People of African Descent, proposed for August 28, 2026, per ADM
040 Committees and Taskforces of Council Policy, and on terms and conditions
satisfactory to the Director, Community Services and the Chief Administrative Officer;
3. That Council authorize staff to issue a park permit to the Pickering Anti-Black Racism
Taskforce for the use of Esplanade Park, per CUL 070 Community Festivals and Events
Policy, for the Community Event in celebration of the International Day for People of African
Descent; and,
4. That Council approve the 5th Annual Black Joy Holiday Market event on November 13 and
14, 2026, per ADM 040 Committees and Taskforces of Council Policy, and on terms and
conditions satisfactory to the Director, Community Services and the Chief Administrative
Officer.
1.0 Executive Summary:
The purpose of this report is to provide the Pickering Anti-Black Racism Taskforce (PABRT)
2025 Year End Report and Proposed 2026 Work Plan to Council. The report also seeks
Council’s endorsement of PABRT’s signature events, including the 4th Annual Community
event in celebration of the International Day for People of African Descent and the 5th Annual
Black Joy Holiday Market. Additionally, it requests authorization for staff to issue a park permit
in Esplanade Park for the International Day for People of African Descent Community Event.
A key component of the 2026 work plan is the development of a comprehensive Anti-Black
- 24 -
CAO 05-26 May 4, 2026
Page 2
Racism Action Plan, to be undertaken in collaboration with external consultants, Azmi and
Warner Consulting. This process will include community engagement and consultation key
informants identified by PABRT members, City staff and the consultants, and will serve as a
foundational strategic priority guiding the Taskforce’s work.
The Committees and Taskforces of Council Policy (ADM 040) requires that PABRT seek
Council approval to hold public events. Per Section 04.03 and 18.01 of ADM 040, this report
includes information about the month in which the event will be held, the purpose of the event,
budget and any other confirmed details.
Additionally, the Community Festivals and Events Policy (CUL 070) outline the criteria,
guidelines and processes by which requests to host events in City parks are received and
considered for approval. Per section 04.01 of CUL 070, as a “Signature Park”, community
event requests for Esplanade Park must be approved by Council.
2.0 Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan:
The recommendations in this report respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priorities of:
Advocate for an Inclusive, Welcoming, Safe & Healthy Community; Strengthen Existing & Build
New Partnerships; and Foster an Engaged & Informed Community.
3.0 Financial Implications:
For 2026, PABRT has an approved operating budget of $85,000. These funds will be allocated
to the action areas indicated below.
Action Area Description Budget
Consultation Strategic visioning around the anti-Black racism
initiatives and impacts in the community
$60,000
Community
engagement, events,
and partnerships
Collaborations with community partners through
events, meetings, and other initiatives
$12,500
Marketing and
promotions
Supplies and materials to support and promote
community engagements (e.g., signage, literature,
reports, printing)
$8,500
Contingency For unanticipated expenses (e.g., related to the
Consultation process)
$4,000
TOTAL $85,000
- 25 -
CAO 05-26 May 4, 2026
Page 3
4.0 Discussion:
The purpose of this report is to provide the Pickering Anti-Black Racism Taskforce 2025 Year
End Report and Proposed 2026 Work Plan to Council and to seek Council’s endorsement to
hold public events and permit Esplanade Park.
4.1 2025 Year End Report
Cultural Expressions 18th Annual Black History Month Celebration (February 1, 2025):
PABRT partnered with Cultural Expressions Art Gallery to host the 18th Annual Durham Black
History Month celebration at J. Clarke Richardson Collegiate in Ajax, celebrating the beauty of
Black culture and the diversity of the Black experience in Durham Region. PABRT provided an
information table as part of the community networking portion of the event to engage event
attendees and raise awareness about PABRT.
Together we Rise Durham: Resistance, Resilience, Possibility (February 5, 2025): The
2025 Together We Rise Durham: Resistance, Resilience, Possibility Black History Month
celebration was hosted by the Region of Durham, in partnership with Durham Regional Police
Service, Canadian Jamaican Club of Oshawa, City of Oshawa, City of Pickering, DurhamOne,
Lakeridge Health, Municipality of Clarington, Ontario Shores, Pickering Anti-Black Racism
Taskforce, Town of Ajax, Town of Whitby, Township of Brock and Township of Uxbridge. The
celebration took place at the Audley Recreation Centre, bringing communities across Durham
Region together for an uplifting evening featuring keynote speaker, Dr. Andrew B. Campbell,
performances and a celebration of champions, including awards for and recognition of
community members.
Royal Canadian Legion Ladies Auxiliary International Women’s Day Celebration (March
30, 2025): The International Women’s Day Celebration hosted by the Royal Canadian Legion
Ladies Auxiliary took place in Pickering’s Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex to
bring together community members, thought leaders, and professionals across various fields
to highlight women’s achievements and empower women from all walks of life. PABRT was
invited to host an information table and the PABRT Chair, Denise David was invited to sit on
the discussion panel.
Pride Durham Annual Pride Parade and Festival (June 7, 2025): The City of Pickering and
PABRT Members represented the City of Pickering in the 2025 Pride Durham Annual Pride
Parade and Festival hosted by the Town of Ajax to walk alongside community members from
across the Durham Region.
Region of Durham Emancipation Day Celebration (July 30 2025): The 2025 Rooted in
Resilience: Embracing Empowerment Emancipation Day Celebration was hosted by the
- 26 -
CAO 05-26 May 4, 2026
Page 4
Region of Durham in partnership with the City of Pickering, Pickering Anti-Black Racism
Taskforce, City of Oshawa, Municipality of Clarington, Town of Whitby, Town of Ajax, Ajax
Anti-Racism Taskforce, Canadian Jamaican Club of Oshawa, Women’s Multicultural Resource
and Counselling Centre, Durham Family Cultural Centre, Ifarada Centre for Excellence,
Durham Community Health Centre, Cultural Expressions for Change, and Kenyan Women in
Canada Association. This family-friendly event took place in Esplanade Park, featuring live
performances from local talent and Black-owned local business vendors and community
organizations. This celebration was an opportunity to address anti-Black racism through
education on Emancipation Day and create an avenue for community members to connect and
learn in a welcoming and engaging environment.
Durham Opening Celebration Ceremony – Emancipation Day Freedom Train Ride (July
31, 2025): Durham Region’s first annual coordinated participation in the 12th annual
Emancipation Day Underground Free Train Ride was hosted by the Durham Family Cultural
Centre in partnership with the Pickering Anti-Black Racism Taskforce, Ajax Anti-Racism
Taskforce, and Blackhurst Cultural Centre. The opening celebration took place at the Durham
Family Cultural Centre Head Office, followed by chartered transportation to the Blackhurst
Cultural Centre’s Emancipation Day Underground Free Train Ride at Vaughan Metropolitan
Centre, to honour the abolition of slavery in the British Empire and the legacy of the
Underground Railroad in Canada.
International Day for People of African Descent Community Celebration and Movie Night
(August 27, 2025): PABRT hosted the 3rd Annual International Day for People of African
Descent Community Celebration in partnership with the Pickering Public Library's Anti-Black
Racism Working Group, Durham Family Cultural Centre (DFCC), DurhamOne, and in
Pickering’s Esplanade Park. The day included a resource village of local community
organizations, performances and cultural activities for all ages, concluding with a movie
screening in the Park of Drumline.
4th Annual Black Joy Holiday Market and Afro-Caribbean Food Basket Initiative
(November 14 and 15, 2025): PABRT partnered with the DFCC to join the City of Pickering’s
Winter Nights City Lights Festival, bringing the 4th Annual Black Joy Holiday Market to the
community as a 2-day initiative at the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex. Open
to all community members, the holiday pop-up market included over 85 Black-owned local
businesses, youth entrepreneurs, artists, and performers, and had more than 3000 people
attended over its two days. The event coincided with a holiday food basket drive that provided
Black families with culturally significant, Afro-Caribbean diasporic food baskets, distributed to
families experiencing financial hardship and/or food insecurity in the Durham Region.
- 27 -
CAO 05-26 May 4, 2026
Page 5
4.2 2026 Work Plan
In 2026, a key priority of PABRT will be the development of a comprehensive Anti-Black
Racism Action Plan to guide its work moving forward. Following a competitive procurement
process, Council authorized the award of Request for Proposal No. RFP2025-1 to external
consultants Azmi and Warner Consulting on January 26, 2026 (Resolution #925/26).
The Action Plan will serve as a strategic roadmap to support the Taskforce, as a Committee of
Council, in advancing its mandate to address systemic and institutional anti-Black racism
within the City of Pickering. The development process will include research, community
engagement, and strategic planning to identify key priorities, recommended actions, and
measurable outcomes. The Action Plan is anticipated to be completed by January 2027 and
presented to Council for consideration.
This initiative represents a significant and foundational undertaking for the Taskforce and will
be the primary focus of its work in 2026. Key components of this work will include:
a. engagement with Azmi and Warner Consulting to establish a project framework,
timelines, and engagement strategy;
b. participate in facilitated sessions, workshops, and strategic planning exercises led by
the consultants;
c. support and promote community engagement activities, including consultations with
Black residents, community organizations, and equity-deserving communities;
d. provide input and feedback throughout the development of the Action Plan to ensure
alignment with community needs and the Taskforce mandate; and,
e. identify opportunities for ongoing monitoring, evaluation, and accountability mechanisms
within the Action Plan.
In addition, through key partnerships, events, and initiatives, PABRT will also work to build on
existing successes and advance their mandate to: enhance the shared experience and
opportunities of Black residents; implement tangible and sustainable actions to support the
prevention, reduction, and response to systemic and institutional anti-Black racism in
Pickering; foster transparency and accountability in identifying and addressing systemic and
institutional anti-Black racism within Pickering; identify and coordinate opportunities for
community engagement; and, celebrate, conserve, and promote the Black community and
Black culture, heritage, and history.
Action Area Description Deliverables
Consultation and
Co-design
Strategic visioning
surrounding anti-Black
racism initiatives and
• Co-design, review and endorse a final
report with recommendations to address
Anti-Black racism and anti-oppression in
Pickering, for Council’s consideration,
- 28 -
CAO 05-26 May 4, 2026
Page 6
impacts in the
community
including a current state report, action
plan and implementation plan.
• Conduct community engagement and
consultation with key informants identified
by the PABRT members, City staff, and
the consultants.
Community
engagements,
events, and
partnerships
Collaborations with
community partners
through events,
meetings, and other
initiatives
• Nurture and develop new partnerships
with City of Pickering, Region of
Durham, Cultural Expressions,
Durham Family Cultural Centre,
DurhamOne and other municipalities
and service organizations.
• Plan and implement signature events:
Annual Community event in
celebration of the International Day for
People of African Descent and Black
Joy Holiday Market.
• Continued partnership in community
events such as those in support of
Black History Month (i.e. Together We
Rise Annual Black History Month
Celebration and Cultural Expressions
Black History Month Celebration),
International Women’s Day,
Emancipation Day and City of
Pickering events (i.e. Artfest, Cultural
Fusion, Winter Nights City Lights).
Marketing and
promotions
Supplies and materials
to support and
promote community
engagements
• Event signage, educational resources,
and other promotional and printed
materials.
• Event supplies for activations and
information tables at community events.
4.3 2026 Event & Permit Approvals
Per section 04.03 and 11.01 of the Committees and Taskforces of Council Policy (ADM 040),
“taskforces must seek Council approval to hold an event and each request to Council must
include the complete details of the event (e.g., budget, approximate number of staff required,
month the event would be held in, and purpose of the event).” The policy also requires that the
proposed event is in accordance with the Terms of Reference and mandate of the group.
While discussions with PABRT are still ongoing to finalize event details, Council approval is
required before these events can officially proceed. The following events and initiatives are
proposed and require Council approval for 2026.
- 29 -
CAO 05-26 May 4, 2026
Page 7
4th Annual Community Celebration for the International Day for People of African
Descent
Date: August 28, 2026
Location: Esplanade Park
Budget allocation: $4,000
Description: The International Day for People of African Descent commemorates the adoption
of the first declaration of the rights of people of African descent on August 31,1920, in New
York. In celebration of this historic milestone, PABRT, with the support of approximately 4 City
staff, will host a community gathering in Esplanade Park. The event will provide a platform for
Anti-Black racism community groups and Black-led service organizations to network and
engage with community members around programs, service and other initiatives. It may also
be used to advance PABRT’s strategic visioning and action plan initiative.
5th Annual Black Joy Holiday Market
Date: November 13 &14, 2026
Location: Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex
Budget allocation: $6,000
Description: In collaboration with the DFCC, PABRT will host its 5th annual Black Joy Holiday
Market within the existing “Winter Nights, City Lights” community festival hosted by the City of
Pickering. This event is an opportunity to uplift and economically support Black-owned
businesses and vendors, while creating an inclusive and celebratory space that centers Black
culture, entrepreneurship, and community connection during the holiday season. Building on
the strong community engagement the market attracts, the event will also coincide with a
holiday food basket drive coordinated by the DFCC with PABRT support, to address food
insecurity, alleviate financial hardship, and promote Black culture through the provision of
culturally relevant items.
City of Pickering staff from applicable departments support the events, in principle, subject to
various event requirements being met by PABRT during the event planning process. The
requirements may include, but are not limited to, the following:
• permit for rental facility (if applicable);
• proof of liability insurance (if applicable);
• rentals of event equipment and supplies;
• submission of site plan and emergency response plan;
• pre-registration that does not exceed capacity; and,
• adherence to the City’s Emergency Weather Standard Operating Procedure
hiring of site security and police officers to monitor event operations (if applicable).
- 30 -
CAO 05-26 May 4, 2026
Page 8
City of Pickering Events: PABRT will participate in the City of Pickering’s community events
for Artfest (May 23 & 24, 2026) and Cultural Fusion (September 12, 2026) by providing
information booths with small interactive activities to engage event attendees and raise
community awareness around the PABRT initiatives.
Attachment: None.
Prepared By: Deja Machado-Yew Woon, Community Engagement Coordinator, Equity,
Diversity and Inclusion
Approved/Endorsed By: Mark Guinto, Division Head, Public Affairs & Corporate
Communications
Approved/Endorsed By: Marisa Carpino, Chief Administrative Officer
Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council By:
Marisa Carpino, M.A.
Chief Administrative Officer
- 31 -
Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: CS 11-26
Date: May 4, 2026
From: Laura Gibbs
Director, Community Services
Subject:
Consulting Services for Design of a New Animal Shelter & Municipal Law Enforcement
Services Offices
Request for Proposal No. RFP2026-2
File: A-1440-001
Recommendation:
1. That the proposal submitted by Unity Design Studio Inc. in response to Request for
Proposal No. RFP2026-2 for Consulting Services for Design of a New Animal Shelter &
MLES Offices, in the amount of $1,107,149.00 (net HST) or $1,229,440.00 (HST included)
be accepted;
2. That the total gross project cost of $1,506,999.00 (HST included), including the amount of
the proposal, contingency, and other associated costs, and the total net project cost of
$1,357,099.00 (net HST) be approved;
3. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to finance the net project cost of
$1,357,099.00 (net HST) as follows:
a. the sum of $284,061.00 to be funded from DC-Protective Services Development
Charges Reserve Fund;
b. the sum of $784,754.00 be funded by a transfer from the Animal Shelter Reserve Fund;
and
c. the sum of $288,284.00 be funded by a transfer from the Casino Reserve.
4. That the Director, Community Services be authorized to execute the OAA 600 2021 A
Contract with the above-mentioned consultant pursuant to Request for Proposal No.
RFP2026-2; and,
5. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions
necessary to implement the recommendations in this report.
- 32 -
CS 11-26 May 4, 2026
Page 2
1.0 Executive Summary:
The purpose of this report is to award Request for Proposal No. RFP2026-2 for Consulting
Services for Design of a New Animal Shelter & Municipal Law Enforcement Services (MLES)
Offices. This consulting work includes site investigation, design, preparation of construction
documents, and construction contract administration. The project is to be located on City-
owned lands adjacent to Fire Station 1 & Headquarters, which is at 1700 Zents Drive.
2.0 Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan:
The recommendations in this report respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priorities of
Advocate for an Inclusive, Welcoming, Safe & Healthy Community; Advance Innovation &
Responsible Planning to Support a Connected, Well-Serviced Community; and Lead &
Advocate for Environmental Stewardship, Innovation & Resiliency.
3.0 Financial Implications:
RFP Amount
Proposal RFP2026-2 $1,088,000.00
HST (13%) 141,440.00
Total Gross Proposal Cost
HST Rebate (11.24%)
Total Net Proposal Cost
$1,229,440.00
(122,291.00)
$1,107,149.00
Estimated Project Costing Summary
Proposal RFP2026-2 $1,088,000.00
Testing and Inspection Costs (Design Phase) 60,000.00
Permits and Approvals 20,000.00
Commitments 35,067.00
Contingency (12%) 130,560.00
Total Project Cost $1,333,627.00
HST (13%) 173,372.00
Total Gross Project Cost $1,506,999.00
HST Rebate (11.24%) (149,900.00)
Total Net Project Cost $1,357,099.00
Approved Source of Funds – Animal Services Capital Budgets
Approved Code Source of Funds Approved Funds Funds Required
- 33 -
CS 11-26 May 4, 2026
Page 3
C10430.2101 DC - Debt Financing - 15 Year
$6,004,000 $0
C10430.2101 DC City's Share Reserve 1,626,000 0
C10430.2101 DC-Protective Services Oblig
610,686 284,061
C10430.2101
C10430.2101
Animal Shelter Res Fund
Casino Reserve
1,455,711
0
784,754
288,284
Total $9,696,397 $1,357,099
Project Cost under (over) approved funds by $8,339,298
The 2025 DC funding for this project included a component entitled “Post Period Benefit.” Post
Period Benefit (PPB) refers to the portion of an infrastructure project that is designed to
support growth after the current 10-year planning cycle that is used for a Development
Charges Study. In other words, you could view this phrase (PPB) as the “extra” capacity built
for people who will arrive after the 10-year DC Study period. This cost is set aside and not
charged to current developers, ensuring today’s builders don’t pay for benefits that only future
generations will use. From a funding perspective, the PPB costs are not DC eligible costs yet,
and therefore, they should not be funded by DCs. The PPB costs should be funded through
another City source and in this situation, the City used the Casino Reserve in the amount of
$288,284 as shown above. In the future, when the City undertakes its next DC background
study, those PPB costs are then moved int DC eligible costs and included in the calculation of
the next DC charge, and the original funding source could then be repaid from DCs.
4.0 Discussion:
The purpose of this report is to award Request for Proposal No. RFP2026-2 for Consulting
Services for Design of a new Animal Shelter & MLES Offices. This consulting work includes
site investigation, design, preparation of construction documents, and construction contract
administration.
4.1 Existing Facility
The existing animal shelter is in a leased space of less than 260 m2 (2,800 sq. ft.), located at
1688 Highway 7 in Brougham and no longer meets current animal welfare standards or
operational needs. The current shelter lacks many required features to effectively serve the
needs of animals, has limited administrative areas to accommodate operational needs, has
insufficient parking, and offers no capacity for expansion. As the facility is leased, renovations
to the facility are limited. The aging facility is comprised of aging infrastructure often requiring
repair.
When designing the new Animal Shelter, staff will be incorporating the Capacity for Care
model. This model is recommended by the Association of Shelter Veterinarians and helps
- 34 -
CS 11-26 May 4, 2026
Page 4
shelters better meet the needs of animals by creating conditions necessary to provide shelter
animals with the five freedoms. The five freedoms ensure that the welfare of each animal,
including its physical and mental state is improved while in an animal sheltering environment.
The five freedoms include: freedom from hunger and thirst; freedom of discomfort; freedom of
pain, injury or disease; freedom to express normal behavior; and freedom from fear and
distress.
The new animal shelter will also meet the guidelines recommended in the Canadian Shelter
Standards of Care for Animal Shelters. The shelter will be built appropriate for the species, the
number of animals receiving care, and the expected length of stay in order to ensure physical
and psychological wellbeing of the animals. The design will provide for proper separation of
animals by health status, age, gender, species, temperament, predator–prey status and
include sufficient space for shelter operations. Areas such as intake, examination, holding,
adoption, isolation, treatment, food storage, general storage, and laundry will all be included.
The current animal shelter was designed as a temporary solution. There is limited space which
restricts the ability to accept surrenders and house animals for longer periods of time without
creating health and safety issues for both staff and animals. The current shelter provides the
ability to house six dogs (with an additional two in the quarantine area) in an appropriate
manner, allowing staff to safely clean the cages by separating the cage with a guillotine door.
When more than six dogs are being housed, this is not possible and this impacts the health of
the dogs and the safety of staff. The dog quarantine area is only able to house two dogs; there
have been times that more than two dogs have needed to be housed which has created an
unsafe situation and the need to find temporary secure housing elsewhere. Dogs housed in
quarantine or that are dangerous do not have access to the outdoor area; the new animal
shelter will provide safe and secure areas for all dogs to have outdoor space without the risk to
staff or the public.
The new facility is being planned to provide housing of 44 cats. In the current facility, the
quarantine, stray, and adoption rooms are not separate and can lead to confusion for potential
adopters. This also risks disease transmission between animals in different stages of their stay
at the shelter. During busy times, cats are placed at satellite adoption facilities or in foster care
due to a lack of space.
Housing of small animals/birds at the current shelter is usually accommodated by placing them
in cages on tables in the general hallway area of the shelter. This does not provide adequate
separation of species, nor does it allow the animals to be free of public interaction. There is
limited ability for enrichment and interaction. The area is not quiet for the animals whenever
there are staff in the shelter, which does not allow them to relax and feel safe. Often small
animals/birds are required to be placed in foster care due to lack of space.
4.2 Facility Needs Assessment
In 2024, the City contracted Animal Arts to complete a facility needs assessment (Attachment
1) for the new animal shelter. The assessment developed and validated the program, scope,
scale and ballpark budget recommendation for a new animal shelter to serve the City of
Pickering.
- 35 -
CS 11-26 May 4, 2026
Page 5
Animal Arts worked with City staff to determine the facility program that is required in the new
animal shelter. Animal Arts conducted a site visit to the existing facility, conducted staff
interviews, and collaborated with the UC Davis Koret Shelter Medicine team to validate
capacity requirements for the new shelter. The facility study recommends approximately
11,000 gross square feet of interior climate-controlled space and 480 gross square feet of
exterior covered kennel space with an additional area of exterior yard for dog exercise. This
shelter size would accommodate 23 dogs, 44 cats, and 13 small animals.
This facility will support Pickering Animal Services by expanding its available space for service
delivery including sheltering of stray and impounded animals. There is insufficient space in the
existing shelter to offer surrender services to all persons in need of them. Offering surrender
services will reduce the number of animals that are abandoned not only in Pickering but in
near-by municipalities. During the busy seasons, the shelter is often at capacity and does not
allow for the animals in its care to have adequate access to the five freedoms. This also
creates a situation that affects staff’s ability to complete cleaning of cages and enrichment
activities with animals.
Adoptions, animal returns, and stray animal intake are completed in the main area of the
shelter where staff may be cleaning or eating lunch as there is no dedicated separation for
staff workspaces or lunches. There are times that animals may encounter one another due to
the confined space and limited ability to ensure that persons coming into the shelter with
animals are separated by species or temperament. Currently, animal enforcement staff work in
the general shelter area with no access to a private space for phone calls, meetings with
residents or animal owners. These staff are required to leave the shelter to have confidential
phone conversations and do not have adequate office space. Other shelter staff use the
enforcement workstations due to space constraints. The shelter is constrained by space and
layout and does not provide any space for community education. Having a functional shelter
space will allow for more community engagement and public interaction.
The City currently provides shelter services for a fee to Provincial Animal Welfare Service and
the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville and assists other municipalities when able to do so. These
partnerships will help to offset operating costs and gradually be scaled back as service
demand increases within the city, ensuring maximum use of the facility’s capacity from the
outset, with priority always being given to the needs of Pickering’s residents and animals. It is
important to be aware that as the City of Pickering grows and develops, there is the increased
need to house more stray, sick, or abandoned animals.
The new shelter is projected to accommodate service demand for the next twenty-five years.
Its design will incorporate leading animal welfare models, including Capacity for Care,
Canadian Shelter Standards of Care, Fear Free Standards of Practice, and Humane Animal
Support Services (HASS) Principles. Proposed features include specialized animal housing,
quarantine and treatment spaces, adoption and education rooms, an enclosed vehicle bay,
freezer facilities, storage areas, and outdoor runs, all aimed at improving animal welfare, staff,
public and animal safety, and customer service.
Office space will be provided for MLES to be located on a second floor. This group is currently
based out of City Hall, which is strained for capacity to accommodate current staffing levels.
- 36 -
CS 11-26 May 4, 2026
Page 6
During the summer months when there are additional staff, there are insufficient workstations
which result in staff waiting for an available location. There is limited storage for officer
uniforms and equipment which is required to be stored in a secure manner. There are no
locker facilities or change rooms for officers who may become dirty, have their uniform
damaged, or have been sprayed by a skunk. Further, the confidential nature of the officer’s
duties requires a space where they cannot be overheard or their documents easily viewable.
This is not possible in the current workspace at City Hall. Relocating MLES staff to this new
facility will help by alleviating pressures on existing administrative spaces and allow for future
growth required to maintain current levels of service. Not only will this allow for additional office
space but will free up much needed parking in the underground at City Hall by relocating
MLES fleet vehicles to a secure parking lot at the new facility.
There are currently five MLEO’s, four Parking Control Officers, three part-time Officers and
seven Summer Enforcement Officers sharing eight workstations. Additionally, the three
administrative staff and supervisory/management staff will be relocated to the new facility.
Administrative staff do not have suitable space at the counter to allow more than one person to
assist the public at a time. Having all MLES staff in the new shelter building will allow for
seamless staff collaboration. With the growth in residents and businesses, MLES will need to
add additional staff to keep up the increased workload. The new facility will provide for this
need.
The location of the Animal Shelter and MLES offices will provide a more central location as the
City expands to the north. This will reduce response time for officers and provide a more
accessible location for the public not only to attend the shelter but to receive enforcement and
licensing related services. There are safety challenges with the current Animal Shelter,
specifically due to its remote location and lack of lighting at night. Emergency response is
sometimes delayed due to the current, more remote location.
A purpose-built facility with adequate storage, parking, public and staff spaces will allow the
collaboration between staff in the various sections. It will also reduce the potential for staff and
animal injuries, a major concern with the current shelter space.
The current shelter not only compromises animal care, but it also lacks adequate working
space for staff. By constructing a purpose-built shelter, the City will get adequate space to
house animals and staff. This will not only result in healthier animals and happier staff but will
allow enhanced service provision to the community and partner agencies. The new shelter will
also create additional capacity to house other staff in the area at City Hall currently occupied
by MLES.
4.3 Animal Shelter Site and Design Standards
The permanent shelter will be located on the lands immediately to the west of the Pickering
Fire Station 1 & Headquarters, located at the northwest corner of Zents Drive and Brock Road.
A conceptual sketch showing a possible site layout is included as Attachment 2 (Site Map).
The new Animal Shelter and MLES office site is approximately 3.2 acres and located centrally
for improved public access and service response. Secure parking will be provided for fleet
- 37 -
CS 11-26 May 4, 2026
Page 7
vehicles used by both Animal Services and MLES staff, and the visiting public. Forested
wetlands located to the west will serve as a natural buffer between the new building and
existing neighbourhoods, while also ensuring a suitably pastoral background setting.
Preliminary concepts have already been reviewed with the Toronto Region and Conservation
Authority (TRCA) to ensure the viability of the site.
The proposed facility is intended to meet the latest Net Zero Carbon - Design Standard (ZCB –
Design) criteria in accordance with the requirements set by the Canada Green Building Council
(CaGBC). Net Zero Carbon Design is an objective of the City’s Corporate Energy Management
Plan (CEMP) and is frequently required to qualify for senior government grant funding
opportunities. Designing new facilities to this standard is essential for achieving environmental
stewardship objectives, such as managing overall greenhouse gas emissions, especially as
the city continues to grow.
4.4 Procurement Process
Request for Proposal No. RFP2026-2 was advertised on the City’s Bids & Tenders portal on
February 11, 2026, and closed on March 16, 2026. Nine proponents submitted proposals. The
evaluation committee, consisting of staff from Community Services and Corporate Services,
reviewed and evaluated the proposals received using criteria outlined in the bid document.
Subject to receipt and approval of all pre-conditions of award required in accordance with the
bid document, the top-ranked proposal submitted by Unity Design Studio Inc. in the amount of
$1,107,149.00 (net HST) or $1,229,440.00 (HST included), is recommended for approval. The
total gross project cost is estimated to be $1,506,999.00 (HST included), and the total net
project cost is estimated at $1,357,099.00 (net of HST rebate).
Attachments:
1. Facility Needs Assessment
2. Site Map
Prepared By:
Dennis Yip, P.Eng., PMP®, CEM, LEED® AP, Manager, Facilities Capital Projects
Vince Plouffe, OAA, MRAIC, Division Head, Facilities Management & Construction
Jason Litoborski, CPSO, Division Head, Municipal Law Enforcement Services
Approved/Endorsed By:
Laura Gibbs, MBA, MSc., Director, Community Services
Paul Bigioni, Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor
- 38 -
CS 11-26 May 4, 2026
Page 8
Cathy Bazinet, CPPB, NIGP-CPP, Manager, Procurement
Stan Karwowski, MBA, CPA, CMA, Director, Finance & Treasurer
LG:vp
Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council By:
Marisa Carpino, M.A.
Chief Administrative Officer
- 39 -
Attachment 1 to Report CS 11-26
City of Pickering, Ontario
Facility Needs Assessment
Final, December 2024
- 40 -
1
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary
2. Background Information
3. Workshop Notes
4. Program and Budget Recommendations
5. Materials Narrative
6. Appendix 1: Workshop Presentation
7. Appendix 2: Shelter Best Practices
8. Appendix 3: Functional Program Document (attached under separate cover)
- 41 -
2
1. Executive Summary
In 2024, the City of Pickering, a municipal corporation in Ontario, Canada, contracted with
Animal Arts, an animal care consulting firm in Colorado, USA, to assist in developing and
validating a program, scope, scale, and ballpark budget recommendation for a new animal
shelter to serve the City of Pickering and its contract areas.
After conducting the assessment, the recommended minimum size of the Pickering Animal
Shelter is: 10,986 GSF of interior conditioned space
480 GSF of exterior covered kennel space
Additional area of exterior yards for dog exercise
The above size does not include a classroom. A classroom is highly recommended, as it will
allow for outreach, indoor dog play in winter, and most importantly, revenue generation
opportunities for the shelter. With the classroom, the recommended sizes are:
• 12,752 SF of interior
conditioned space
• 480 GSF of exterior covered
kennel space
Additional area of exterior yards for dog exercise
The new animal shelter is programmed to house 23 dogs, 44 cats, and 13 small animals.
The anticipated cost of the project without the classroom, including hard and soft costs, but
not including offsite development costs such as building roads, or land acquisition, is
approximately $13.9 million CAD. This is based on comparable projects in Ontario and nearby
in the USA, in CAD.
Adding the classroom, including the classroom itself, a separate building entrance, an
additional public washroom, and a janitor closet, including hard and soft costs will add
approximately $2.2 million to the project.
We recommend employing local cost estimating services as the project is further developed.
The enclosed report explains the assessment in detail and provides information necessary to
develop a successful animal shelter construction project for the City of Pickering.
- 42 -
3
2. Background Information
The City of Pickering Animal Shelter provides animal control services to its citizens, as well as the
citizens of contracted jurisdictions. It provides animal holding, animal quarantine, limited
shelter medical treatment, and animal adoption services. The shelter is operated with best
practice methods as much as is feasible, but the current facility hinders operations because it is
too small in every functional area, and because it is not up to current standards for animal
sheltering.
Animal Arts conducted the needs assessment study using the following methodology:
• Site visit
• Staff interviews
• Presentation of best practices in animal sheltering
• Collaboration with UC Davis Koret Shelter Medicine team to validate capacity
requirements for the new shelter
• Development of Program of Spaces and refinement of the program
• Development of Functional Program Document, and refinement
• Ballpark Opinion of Costs based on other current animal shelter projects
• This final report document
The enclosed report and separately attached Functional Program Document shall assist in
guiding further development of the animal shelter plans. This report, as well as the Functional
Program Document, provide the following information:
• Size and numeric requirements for each program area. Please refer to the spreadsheet
program in this report for exact number of animal housing units.
• Functional requirements for each room.
• General material requirements and ventilation requirements.
In addition to the information provided by Animal Arts, the Ontario licensed architecture firm
chosen for this project shall also follow:
• The City’s environmental sustainability requirements
• The City’s facility standards
• Ontario Provincial Building Codes and local laws and regulations
The City of Pickering Animal Shelter is to be placed on a parcel of ground that is already
identified in the City of Pickering. Noise buffering will be required at the property boundary.
Other useful information about animal sheltering best practices may be found on the UC Davis
Koret Shelter Medicine Program website at Koret Shelter Medicine Program.
- 43 -
4
3. Workshop Notes
Enclosed are the notes from city and shelter staff stakeholder meetings conducted during the
assessment.
City Staff Planning Meeting
Discuss Concerns Regarding the Current Project Site
• Small space, limited resources currently present.
• Aging facility.
• Quite a number of small animals i.e., rabbits - currently in the lobby.
• Storage is very inadequate.
How Should We Work Together to Make this Project Successful?
• Develop a functional program, equipped with all required spaces.
• Take the individual room requirements and expand within.
• Room data sheets would be helpful.
• All individually established requirements of spaces.
• Functional needs with adjacency requirements.
• Options will be provided by a local architect once the project moves forward.
Needs for Now, and the Future
• Ensure that the building can expand in the future.
• Should absolutely build for a period of, at the very least, 25 years - one generation. The
building will likely be in service for 50+ years.
• Would like the ability to accommodate more animals than they will potentially house, given
ongoing talks with surrounding towns.
• Alternative source of income - If they have space, they will pay for it.
• Whitchurch Stouffville has Protective Custody - animals will stay longer than usual -
currently, unable to do it due to lack of space - would like to provide that service in
the future.
• Effects of Cross-Community Services:
o Can the city step back from sharing animal services if long-term needs cannot be met?
o Due to future population growth, is this connection feasible?
• Contingencies built within contracts - to protect themselves.
Site investigations
• Geotechnically, site is suitable.
• Thirteen-acre property.
• A part for Animal Shelter and a part for Work Depot.
- 44 -
5
o Separate entrance and exits.
• Planning and building - more information for constraints and policies.
• Provincial Agreement - may expedite the process - will have more information in February.
• Accessibility – oddly shaped property.
o Adjacent to a major highway - would have its own regulations/code regarding sound
buffers etc. Animals should be housed away from the sound of traffic.
Environment and Sustainability
• Gradually moving towards net-zero design.
• General targets for climate resilience.
• Flexibility is key - at least for the next 25 years.
o For example, larger pad for mechanical in order to be able to expand in the future.
• Utilities at new site are possible!
• On-site electric generation - orientation is good, no tall buildings or adjacency in the near future.
• Roof designed for good output.
• Cannot sell power back to the city - would like capacity for power storage and batteries.
• Sustainable source of edible vegetation for the small animals.
• Outside of nuclear zone, no requirement for emergency planning.
• Green roof may not be feasible - too much need for air handling structures on the roof.
• Wood construction would not be feasible due to fire hazards.
Pickering Design Standards of Office Spaces
• Tasked to create workplace modernization techniques.
• Harder to apply to smaller spaces - cater to a small custom design, as needed.
• Typically, 6.5 feet x 6.5 feet, with standing desks, hot desking etc.
• Open workstation with no built-ins.
• Enforcement Officers – these are required to have an enclosed space.
o Cannot have people hear them or see their work.
o Dedicated space for them at the shelter.
o Privacy concern is a real issue.
o Additional space for the rest of Enforcement Staff to jump on - e.g., printing
services, modernization of vehicles.
Animal and Field Services
• Any specific guidelines? Follow nothing, severely understaffed, looking for new staff.
• Currently, two officers and one officer for summer and several multi-use officers.
• Planning for future growth of the community - would like enough space provided for
adequate staffing.
Can you Provide Other Feedback
- 45 -
6
• Try and exceed standards for accessibility per provincial regulations.
• Facility's maintenance and animal techs:
o Would like more facilities assistance.
o Any space that is classified as an animal room, will be cleaned by staff.
• What are the specialized needs for cleaning at an animal shelter?
• Would like access to mechanical and service spaces with proper stairs, ideally.
o Ladders are fall hazards, especially when multiple things are in-hand.
o Ship-style ladder is okay if a full-size ladder is unfeasible.
• Data room - internal room for software etc.
o Current equivalency for requested technology standards.
o IT team can be invited at some point for their input.
o Away from anything "wet" - i.e., not under any pipes.
Shelter Staff Planning Meetings
What are the priorities for the design of the new shelter?
• Separate Wings for Cats and Dogs
o Existing - mixed common area, animals coming and going, especially in the reception
space - can often get chaotic, especially with adoptions.
o Stress management - separation of smells and sounds, especially between species.
o Separate entry for animals brought in by officers.
• Quarantine Rooms to be Separate
o Separate ventilation.
• Outside Access Doors
o Large quarantine dogs.
o Natural daylighting for quarantine/long-term resident dogs.
• Electrical Access Throughout
o Outlets, preferably counter height.
• Sinks in Animal Care Rooms
• Dedicated Computer Workstation
o Animal care.
• Soundproofing
o Protect cats from excess sounds - especially dog sounds.
o Dog spaces.
- 46 -
7
o Also, for humans - sounds make it difficult to hear/focus on tasks at hand, no reprieve
anywhere on site.
• Floor Drains
• Home-Like Atmosphere for Long-Term Cats
o A couple of rooms.
• Windows in Cat Spaces
o Gives cats something to look at.
o Island set-up. Looking away from each other but looking at something.
• Space for Bunnies and Guinea Pigs - Small Animal Room
o Environment where they can be more like themselves.
o Flexibility.
o Storage - small animals often come with many supplies.
o Floor space for rabbits - ability to build enrichment into their environment.
• Private Space for Officers
o Lack of privacy is an issue.
• Indoor Space for Loading/Unloading
o Measures to secure the space - ways to minimize dog escapes.
o Ease of cleaning within the space.
o Pulling in/backing out is okay.
• Multiple hoses
• More storage in reception area
• Keep small dogs contained in working spaces
• Station to bathe dogs
• Laundry and food prep space
• Overall storage and bulk storage
• Nice lunchroom with working appliances
• Separate staff and public washrooms
- 47 -
8
• Cat Housing Needs
o Storage - food, litter, toys, brushes, other paraphernalia.
o Homey environment.
o Quieter doors on housing - stress management.
• Dog Play Area
o Covered/uncovered.
o Length of space to allow for games - fetch, runs, other things dogs like to do.
o Multiple spaces, different types/focuses.
Enforcement Officer Planning Meetings
What are the priorities for the design of the new shelter?
Enclosed Soundproof and Secure Area for Officers
• Currently it can be difficult to communicate on the phone with residents if there are dogs
at the shelter making a lot of noise, or cats crying, or even staff communicating with each
other. We also regularly have staff using our desks, having access to private and sensitive
information. It is also common for residents to enter the shelter and to have access to our
desks and this information as well.
Soundproofing
• It is important that we have proper soundproofing in the shelter not only for the other
animals, but for staff as well. Currently our biggest concern is the quarantine cat room,
which might as well share common area with the dog room as it is incredibly loud. This
causes an extreme amount of stress to the cats in this room, and these cats are typically
under high stress to begin with, or very ill.
Indoor/Outdoor Run for Dogs
• This would be a great addition for quarantine dogs. Dogs in quarantine do not leave a
kennel for 10 days. With the addition of indoor/outdoor runs, these dogs would be able to
at least see sunlight and experience the outside in some way. This should also cut down on
the large amount of stress that some of these dogs are under.
Indoor Garage to Park Work Vehicle
• At the old shelter we had an indoor area for things like dog training, loading dogs and cats
into the van, as well as unloading dogs that are a potential flight risk. This would be a safer
option for animals, as well as staff. With an indoor garage, we can unload dogs that are a
- 48 -
9
safety risk much easier. Dogs that are trying to take off would no longer be able to, as they
would be contained indoors while being loaded into the van. We would be able to properly
clean and disinfect the van in the colder months, because at this time any spray is
immediately frozen inside the van making it impossible to clean.
Garage with Adequate Water Supply and Pressure Washer
• There should be a drain so that the vehicles can be washed inside and out with the water
draining rather than pooling in the bay.
Designated Small Animal Room
• Small animals are scattered throughout the shelter. Not only is this unsanitary, but it also
takes up a lot of room in the shelter and looks messy/cluttered.
Access to Multiple Water Outlets/Hoses for Efficient Cleaning of Kennels
Locations for Dead Animal Freezers and Secure Storage of Deceased
Animals Showers and Lockers for Staff.
Additional Workstations for Drop-In of Non-Animal Staff
Wishlist Sent by Shelter Staff under Separate Cover:
- 49 -
10
- 50 -
11
4. Program and Budget Recommendations
Animal Capacity Data
Prior to developing the recommended program for this facility, the City of Pickering worked
with the UC Davis Koret Shelter Medicine Program to help develop recommended animal
capacity requirements. The UC Davis report should be referenced for detailed analyses.
The UC Davis Report Recommends:
Working in collaboration with the City of Pickering, we recommend including slightly more housing than
recommended by UC Davis, because of the growth in the area, and because of the need to provide
flexibility in the shelter. Therefore, the recommended program of spaces includes the following:
44 23
Cats Dogs
In addition, 13 small animals should be accommodated.
Impact of the City of Ajax, Ontario
One of the questions posed for the needs assessment was whether or not taking on a contract
for the City of Ajax, Ontario, would have significant impact on the recommendations. We
believe that the City of Ajax can be accommodated without increasing the program. The
impact of the City of Ajax is approximately two dog kennels and two cat kennels, at three
weeks length of stay. Shorter lengths of stay would require only one kennel each for dogs and
cats.
Dogs 33 Div 365 0.09 Dogs/Day x LOS 21 = 2 Kennels
Cats 38 Div 365 0.10 Cats/Day x LOS 21 = 2 Cages
Figure 1 - dogs and cats
- 51 -
12
The model includes enough housing to accommodate these additional animals.
Recommended Program
After the workshop, Animal Arts refined the program of required spaces for the animal shelter.
Based on our analysis, we believe that the recommended program described below
encompasses the needs for the City of Pickering Animal Shelter. This program should be
referenced when developing preliminary drawings of the new animal shelter, as it includes
animal housing numbers and other quantity data, as well as a recommendation for the size of
the overall square footage of the animal shelter.
Zone
Room
#
Size
Net SF
Load Gross SF
Ext.
Cov.
GSF
Cats Dogs
Small
Public
Small Animals
Cat Housing
Dog Housing
Animal Support Spaces
Vestibule and Lobby
Reception Desk
Storage/Work Room
Training Room/Storage
Janitor Closet
Public Washrooms
Interview/Meeting Room
Small Animal Runs
Small Animal Shelving
Cat Condos
Cat Isolation + Quarantine
Cat/Nursery Runs
Cat Runs
Dog Runs - Small
Dog Runs - Large
Dog Isolation
Dog Runs Indoor/Outdoor
Outdoor Portion of Run
Dog Quarantine
Outdoor Portion of Run
1
2
1
0
0
3
1
7
1
24
2
3
3
4
10
2
4
4
3
3
20
6
10
30
4
8
14
5
3
2.5
9
5
5
4
5
5
5.5
5.5
6
6
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
30
9
10
40
9
9
20
6
9
5
10
6
6
8
10
10
8
6
8
6
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
600
108
100
0
0
216
280
210
27
300
180
90
90
128
500
100
176
132
144
108
1.35
1.35
1.35
1.35
1.35
1.35
1.35
2.50
4.00
3.00
1.35
2.50
2.50
2.50
3.00
3.00
3.00
2.00
3.00
2.00
810
146
135
0
0
292
378
525
108
900
243
225
225
320
1,500
300
528
432
264
216
24
8
6
6
4
10
2
4
3
7
6
- 52 -
13
Laundry/Dishes/Bathing 1 12 x 17 = 204 1.35 275
Food Storage 1 10 x 16 = 160 1.35 216
Bulk Storage
Intake Exam, Treatment
1
1
10
13
x
x
16
16
=
=
160
208
1.35
1.35
216
281
Vehicle Garage 1 19 x 32 = 608 1.05 638
Walk-in Freezer 1 10 x 10 = 100 1.35 135
Staff and Offices
Storage Room - Crates 1
10 x 10 = 100 1.35 135
Supervisor, Animal Services 1 10 x 12 = 120 1.35 162
Shelter Attendants 4 6.5 x 6.5 = 169 1.35 228
Enforcement Officers 6 6.5 x 6.5 = 254 1.35 342
Locker Room 1 10 x 14 = 140 1.35 189
Staff Shower/Washroom 1 8 x 12 = 96 1.35 130
Building Support
Staff Lunchroom 1
15 x 20 = 300 1.35 405
IT room 1 10 x 10 = 100 1.35 135
Electrical Room 1 10 x 16 = 160 1.35 216
Mechanical Room 1
10 x 16 = 160 1.35 216
6,528 Net SF
10,986 GSF Interior
480 Cov. Ext.
44 Cats
23 Dogs
13 Small
A site of approximately three to five usable acres is recommended for this program to allow for
dog walking paths, as well as future expansion.
It should be noted that the above square footage does not currently include space for a
classroom/training room. It is recommended that a training room be included. If we were to
include a training room, we would need to add one more public washroom, an additional
janitor closet, and the 30’ x 40’ classroom itself. The total size of the shelter would increase to
12,752 GSF.
Rationale for Recommending the Program, Including the Classroom
The new animal shelter, including the optional classroom, is recommended because:
• It meets all program requirements for best practice operations.
• It meets necessary animal capacity requirements.
• The current shelter must be replaced.
• The new shelter, including the classroom, will help provide outreach and education,
and other services to help keep pets in homes and reduce the impact of homeless
animals in the City of Pickering over time.
- 53 -
14
Best Practice Recommendations for Design of New Canine Housing
The best practice recommendations, which impact the budget for canine housing in the new building, consider
the realities of today’s animal sheltering in a municipal setting. Dogs are the largest driver of square footage
and budget, which is why a special description is needed.Dog Behavior. Unlike a non-profit organization,
counties and cities are mandated via animal control ordinances to protect and serve the public by impounding
and holding animals. During impounds and holds, the dogs belong to citizens; therefore, the city is obligated to
keep them safe during hold periods.
The average dogs entering municipal animal shelters have become much more challenging in
the last decade, for many reasons including, but not limited to, unstructured breeding, which is
often associated with a lack of access to veterinary care, under-socialization, neglect, etc. These
challenging dogs are rejected from entry by non-profit organizations, unless the non-profit
holds animal control contracts, which is rare. In contrast, challenging dogs regularly occupy
kennels in government-funded animal shelters.
The dogs entering animal control shelters can be challenging. It is the City of Pickering’s
obligation to keep the dogs and staff safe while holding potentially aggressive or anxious
animals. To keep the dogs safely contained, shelter design architects specify industrial-grade
materials, including cementitious-based flooring, heavy-duty bars, full enclosures including run
tops, vandal-proof drains, and pick-proof sealants (as would be used in human correctional
facilities).
To keep staff members safe, we provide large hallways, panic buttons, and other
communication devices in dog housing areas, double compartment runs (where dogs can be
shuttled from one side to another without handling), and good visibility with bright lighting
into dog housing areas.
Example of a high-quality, durable, and safe dog housing environment.
- 54 -
15
Dog Health. Just as dogs enter animal control shelters with a variety of behaviors, they may
also enter with a wide range of health concerns. Abused or neglected animals may be at higher
risk of having infectious diseases. A best practice animal shelter is designed to prevent the
spread of infectious disease, as diseases cost the city many dollars in treatments and staffing
resources, and cause the animals to stay in care longer, and to potentially have fewer positive
outcomes.
Best practices for ventilation, published in The Association of Shelter Veterinarians’ Guidelines
for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters, include the following:
• A range of 10-20 air changes per hour of FRESH air. This means that it is not acceptable
to house animals in environments that have anything less than industrial-quality
ventilation equipment.
• A temperature range between 64 and 80 degrees. Un-airconditioned kennels are
unacceptable and can be dangerous to the dogs.
• A humidity range not exceeding 60% RH, after which point, mold will grow (EPA.gov).
Best practices for maintaining a sanitary environment include:
• Highly cleanable finishes.
• No cross-contamination potential from enclosure to enclosure (this is one reason why
we do not recommend continuous trench drains).
• Finishes that do not promote the growth of biofilms.
• High lighting levels, which allow for better visibility of spaces, which is also associated
with better cleaning efficacy.
• Fewer dogs in each housing area, so as to separate dogs with higher risk, and/or to
contain outbreaks.
• Places for handwashing.
• Places for proper sanitization of equipment.
• Rodent and pest control.
• Dedicated isolation spaces, based on typical disease patterns of animals that are
entering the shelter.
Residential or light-commercial grade, poorly ventilated, and/or hard to clean environments,
and environments that are not durable enough to withstand abuse, will not last, and will
become unsafe.
On the next page is a photo example of the surfaces on the exterior of an indoor/outdoor, best-
practice dog enclosure, illustrating cleanable and sanitary environmental conditions and
industrial-grade construction. The purpose of the saloon door is to prevent conditioned air from
escaping to the outdoor environment (energy efficiency), as well as to prevent the intrusion of
mice, rats, and insects.
- 55 -
16
Positive Outcomes in the Shortest Possible Time. All animal control shelters have a certain
reasonable capacity for care. No municipal shelter has unlimited staffing or funding resources
to care for pets.
Therefore, it is essential that the animals do not stay in the shelter longer than necessary. At
the same time, the general public expects and demands that the city does its best to save as
many animal lives as possible. While it may at first seem counterintuitive, these two goals
support each other. The more quickly an animal moves through the shelter, the fewer total
animals are in care, which means that there are more resources available for caring for each
animal, which in turn allows each animal to be as healthy and behaviorally sound as possible,
which then increases each animal’s chance of adoption or placement in a home.
It is essential then that there are physical resources in place to support a short stay, and to
improve the speed of return to owner or adoption (or placement into foster homes). This starts
with best practice operations, which the City of Pickering has, but will be further supported by
the new animal shelter in these ways:
• Healthy and behaviorally appropriate housing (as already described).
• High-quality outside play and exercise areas, where the dogs can run and play, and use
their energy in a positive way, so they can be enriched during their short stay at the
shelter.
• Reducing any inefficiencies that cause dogs to stay longer, including inadequate
cleaning infrastructure and medical support areas.
• A great experience for the human adopter. The best way to do this is to display dogs in a
way that shows them at their best and does not increase fear, anxiety, and stress. Our
clients report to us that allowing the public to see animals without walking directly through
the kennel is very effective at creating a better experience for the humans and the animals.
Below is a photo of an adoption gallery, where a family looks through glass to view
adoptable dogs. This design has been effective at creating a calm and positive environment
- 56 -
17
for all.
Photo example of adopters viewing adoptable dogs from a gallery at Nebraska Humane Society.
Longevity. It is important to recognize that most cities get a chance to fund a new animal
shelter only about every thirty to forty years. A short-term building is never a good idea, as it
costs much more eventually. An animal shelter should be designed for this thirty-to-forty-year
lifespan from its inception. It should be resilient, energy efficient, industrial in quality, highly
durable, sanitary, and welcoming. It must be able to withstand 24-7 use by animals, staff
members, volunteers, and visitors. It must meet or exceed building code requirements. It must
meet today’s standards for animal housing in order to avoid becoming obsolete the moment it
is opened. It must be forward thinking about the problems faced by the shelter today, in order
to be prepared for the future.
Recommended Cost Model
Hard Cost Ballpark
Shelter Construction GSF x 10,986 $900 = $9,887,400 Excludes
Classroom
Exterior Covered GSF x 480 $600 = $288,000
Pricing and Escalation
Contingency
6%
= $10,175,400 $610,524 Subtotal
$10,785,924 Hard Cost CAD
Soft Cost Ballpark
Equipment/Furnishings
Professional
10%
9%
=
=
$1,078,592
$970,733
Owner Contingency 10% = $1,078,592
$3,127,918 Soft Cost CAD
Grand Total $13,913,842 Total CAD
- 57 -
18
The costs above do not include site development costs, as these are to be provided by the
City of Pickering as part of development of the overall campus upon which the animal shelter
is placed.
Additional Option for Recommended Classroom
We recommend adding the classroom, janitor closet, and one additional washroom to the
project. Refer to the room-by-room guideline to see the layout of this proposed area. Based on
increased square footage, associated soft costs and escalations, we believe this addition will
cost approximately an additional $2.2 million.
Budgetary Comparisons and Analyses
The opinion of costs included in this report was developed using shelter comparisons in Canada
and the USA. Emphasis was placed on current projects, which will have the most relevant
pricing, as well as projects in the same province or climate zone.
$/SF Over
Over or or (Under)
Pickering Comp (Under) Calculated Cost
GSF GSF Pickering Comp $/sf Total Model
Cost Model Recommendation 10,986 $900 $10,175,400 $0
Comp 1 - Whitby Ontario
10,986 20,000 (9,014) $700 $7,690,200 ($200)
Comp 2 - Brampton Ontario
Base with Sustainability 10,986 28,000 (17,014) $1,200 $13,183,200 $300
Comp 3 - Hamilton Burlington SPCA
Adjusted to 2025 10,986 52,000 (41,014) $814 $8,946,120 ($86)
Comp 4 - Alberta
Concept Level Budget 10,986 16,000 (5,014) $750 $8,239,500 ($150)
Comp 5 - Pawling, NY
Convert to CAD 10,986 33,650 (22,664) $787 $$8,643,236 ($113)
- 58 -
19
Notes regarding Comparisons in the chart above:
• Whitby, Ontario Animal Shelter comparison is based on a schematic level budget.
• Brampton, Ontario Animal Shelter comparison is on the high side because the site
being developed is without utilities. This tends to increase the cost of the shelter
structure as it will need special features such as greater percentage of on-site power
generation.
• Large projects such as Hamilton Burlington SPCA have greater economy of scale.
Based on these comparisons, we believe the costs allocated for this project are adequate,
although we recommend ongoing cost analysis as the project moves through the design
process.
5. Materials Narrative
The purpose of this document is to assist the local architects of record in understanding the
general basis for materials and systems for the Pickering Animal Shelter. The materials
contained in this narrative are preliminary only, are not finalized, and will be discussed as
normal during future phases of design. They simply establish a basis for quality typical for a
best-practice animal care facility.
Supporting Documents
• Room-by-Room Diagrams (enclosed under separate cover).
General Notes
• Codes and Regulations
o Meet local and provincial codes and regulations.
• General Assumptions
o Fully sprinklered building.
o Non-combustible construction.
o Corridors non-rated.
o Sustainability goals must be reviewed with the City of Pickering.
General Description of Construction by Area
• Site Construction
o Assume construction of new utilities on the project site. The opinion of costs does not
include the assumption of bringing utilities from off site to the project site.
o Provide a standby generator to cover limited building systems.
• Warehouse Construction (if not deferred)
o Pre-engineered metal building, 25’ bays.
o Insulated metal panel exterior skin, with Kynar/hylar finish.
• Barn Construction (if not deferred)
- 59 -
20
o Pole barn.
o Concrete slab floor interior.
o Heating to prevent freezing.
• Primary Building
o Masonry wall construction, slab on grade, metal joist roofs.
o Assume RTUs (the cost estimate likely does not cover the costs of a boiler/chiller
system unless that is taken from the Sustainability Allocation).
o Except at dog rooms and heavy wash down rooms, we assume metal stud construction.
• Construction of Kennel Walls
o Wall between interior hallway and kennel to be 8” nominal cmu block, burnished on
public side, high-performance coating on kennel side, with large, glazed openings.
Interior glazing to be described later in this section.
o Kennel partitions (inside and outside) and exterior wall shall be 4” and 8” nominal cmu
block (respectively). Medium weight, grey block, running bond. 4” partitions shall go to
4’-8” a.f.f. (with prefabricated kennel panels above), and 8” exterior block shall go full
height to structure.
o Block shall be tiled with porcelain tile OR coated with a high-performance coating. Tile
is a good solution and is preferred by our clients for block in contact with dogs, as it
costs less than glazed block, and holds up better than high-performance coated block.
More information about tile systems is provided later in this narrative.
o Exterior side of kennel: Insulation system on block to meet continuous insulation
requirements, cement board, water-proofing membrane, large-format porcelain
cladding up to 6’-8” a.f.f., any other wall finish above to the soffit.
o Photo example of exterior porcelain tile cladding at exterior kennel.
- 60 -
21
Exterior soffits
Prefinished metal.
o Slab on grade: 6” to be assumed for any kennel area and any other cat or rabbit run
room to allow for floor slopes. Outside animal run housing areas, 4” slabs are
acceptable. More information in the concrete section.
Site
• Additional Detailed Information about K9Grass. Include animal yards, with K9Grass
Classic by Foreverlawn, or equivalent product. The product needs careful prep. Below
is the manufacturer’s detail. However, we have discovered that additional aggregate-
7” +/- and possibly an underdrain system is required in damp climates to prevent
odors.
Additional Information About Fencing
o Fencing around dog yards shall be aluminum, pre-finished monumental fencing with
flat top, and alligator pickets at bottom up to 2’. See photo below. In addition, this
fencing needs coyote rollers on top. These are located at coyoteroller.com.
- 61 -
22
Division 3
Cast-in-Place Concrete Slab Design
The following are standards for animal care slabs on grade.
• 0.45 max. water/cement ratio.
• 4,000 psi concrete.
• Rebar reinforcement: #4 bars @ 18” o.c. both directions.
• Class A 15 mil polyolefin vapor barrier, WVTR < 0.009 perm, lapped 6” at seams and turned
up 6” at edges. Basis of design: Stego Wrap 15 mil with Stego Claw Crete tape.
• 6” slabs in all animal areas.
• 4” slabs elsewhere in buildings.
The most important feature of the slabs are the numerous slopes.
Miscellaneous Concrete
• Housekeeping pads for mechanical equipment on slab, as well as commercial laundry machines.
- 62 -
23
Division 6
Interior Architectural Woodwork
The following are typical quality standards for PLAM casework.
• Plastic-laminate cabinets.
o Quality standard: AWI.
o Grade: Custom.
o Horizontal grade.
o Knuckle hinges.
o Flush overlay.
o Edge banding: 1 mm at door/drawer faces.
• Plastic-laminate countertops and sills.
o Quality standard: AWI.
o Horizontal grade.
o Edge treatment: .080 PVC edge.
o PLAM windowsills used in office areas.
• Quartz-surfacing countertops.
o Used on all atrium counters, restroom counters.
o BOD: Silestone by Cosentino.
• Quartz sills used in animal rooms at exterior window openings.
Stainless steel counters with integral sinks for animal areas and stainless shelving.
See Division 11,12. For pricing purposes, kennel counters shall be stainless steel (no lower
cabinets). PLAM cabinets above. In laundry and food prep, use stainless counters and stainless
shelving.
Division 7
Thermal and Moisture Proofing
• Sound batts: Type I, unfaced, glass-fiber blanket to be used for soundattenuation in all
interior stud walls. These walls shall also be sealed for all penetrations, and at top and
bottom.
Light Monitors. Provide allowance for roof monitors in interior rooms without access to
natural light. Assume Kalwall or equivalent.
Other
• Provide high-performance joint sealants for animal areas as follows:
o Saw-cut control joints in concrete floors: BASF Masterseal CR 100.
o Vertical surfaces on walls: Masterseal CR 195.
o Expansion joints at wall/floor transitions: BASF Masterseal CR 195.
- 63 -
24
Division 8
Doors
• FRP doors in aluminum frame to be used in dog housing areas. Example spec: Specalite.
• Aluminum storefront doors and interior windows to be utilized in cat housing rooms and at
exterior entrances. Example spec: Kawneer.
• Galvanized and painted hollow metal doors and frames shall be used wherever storefront
and FRP is not required. Galvanize HM doors and frames in damp locations such as laundry
rooms.
Hardware should be heavy-duty grade. Kick plates are needed on all doors, and armor plates on
hallways, janitor closets, and entrances to kennel rooms, laundry room, euthanasia room, and
sallyport.
Glazing
• Interior glazing
o Clear float glass.
o Temper all glazing, interior and exterior, throughout the facility. This is required because
animal facilities are very prone to issues with broken glass from damage by animals,
impacts by carts, hose sprayers and the like. Laminated glass is unacceptable because it
breaks too easily.
• Interior insulated sound control glazing to be used in dog run room doors and interior
windows and lites. Two lites of tempered glass.
• Exterior glazing to be low-E, impact-resistant, double-glazed.
Division 9
Gypsum Board
• Type “X” 5/8” used throughout except as noted.
• Moisture resistant “green board” in restrooms.
• 5/8” cementitious backer board at interior tiled applications, finished to Level 2 finish prior
to water proofing.
- 64 -
25
Ceilings
• Open to structure ceiling is acceptable in the warehouse storage room.
• Acoustical panel ceiling APC-1 used in people office areas in warehouse.
o High-density, mineral-based acoustical panels with a high NRC.
o .75” Armstrong Ultima, square edge.
• Acoustical panel ceiling APC-2 in all dog areas, including kennels (no exposed ceilings).
o High-density, mineral-based acoustical panels with washable finish and a high NRC:
o Rockfon Medical Plus Ceiling Panel with 0.90 NRC.
• Gypsum ceilings: restrooms.
• Underside of exterior canopies, catios: Aluminum prefinished soffit.
• Architectural wood acoustic ceilings:
o Used as a placeholder for costs in kennel gallery hallway and atrium.
o Basis of design is Armstrong WOODWORKS Linear Solid Wood Panels | Armstrong
Ceiling Solutions – Commercial with NRC of .70.
Example Photo of a wood acoustic ceiling being used in a lobby.
• Aluminum capped suspension systems, to be used throughout due to damp location use.
- 65 -
26
Tiling
• Porcelain wall and floor tiles, used in public gallery, atrium, and restrooms, as well as
on top of kennel cmu in interior of kennel. Wall tiles shall be assumed to go ½ height
in public areas.
o Daltile, mid-price range, through-body porcelain tile. Example spec: Daltile City View,
18x18 field tile.
o Epoxy setting material: Latapoxy 300 Epoxy Setting Material.
o 100% solids epoxy grout: Laticrete 2000 IG for floor tile, Laticrete Spectralock
100% Epoxy Grout for wall tiles.
o Waterproofing and crack isolation membrane to be used at all applications: Laticrete Hydroban.
o Wall tiles: 6’-8” aff high in kennels, 4’-8” aff in public areas and restrooms.
Resinous Flooring (Cementitious Urethane) to be used inside new kennel rooms (interior and exterior).
• Basis of design: Dur-a-Flex Urethane Floor. This is an important consideration, as this
specification costs more than typical epoxy, and is required as basis of quality to
withstand cleaning chemicals used.
• Eight-inch coved resinous base, keyed into cmu walls wherever these occur.
• Resinous flooring keyed into floor drains.
• Requires an in-place mockup.
Sealed ConcreteTo be used throughout warehouse facility, and in new kennel in utility rooms (laundry,
food preparation).
Painting and High-Performance Coatings
• HPC 1 – used everywhere except CMU walls.
o Intermediate-duty application on gypsum substrate.
Sherwin-Williams Builders Solution Primer/Surfacer, A63W100, <100g/l.
o Intermediate Coat
Sherwin-Williams: Pro Industrial Water Based Pre-Catalyzed Epoxy Egg-shel,
K45W1150 Series, <50 g/l.
- 66 -
27
o Topcoat
Sherwin-Williams: Pro Industrial Water Based Pre-Catalyzed Epoxy Egg-shel,
K45W1150 Series, <50 g/l.
• HPC-3
o CMU substrates above tile.
o Two-part, water-based epoxy coating for intermediate-duty applications HPC-3:
Sherwin-Williams: Kem Cati-Coat HS Epoxy Filler/Sealer, B42 Series <250 g/l.
Sherwin-Williams: Pro Industrial Water Based Catalyzed Epoxy Gloss, B73-300
Series, <50 g/l.
Sherwin-Williams: Pro Industrial Water Based Catalyzed Epoxy Gloss, B73-300
Series, <50 g/l.
o High-build polysiloxane coating for heavy-duty applications HPC-3:
Sherwin-Williams: Kem Cati-Coat HS Epoxy Filler/Sealer, B42 Series <250 g/l.
Sherwin-Williams: Sher-Loxane 800 Polysiloxane, B80 Series <100 g/l.
Sherwin-Williams: Sher-Loxane 800 Polysiloxane, B80 Series <100 g/l.
• HPC 4 (used on all exposed ferrous and galvanized metal):
o Sherwin-Williams: Pro-Cryl Universal Acrylic Primer.
o Two coats Sherwin-Williams Acrolon 100 Polyurethane.
Division 10
Wall Protection
• Acrovyn wall protection panel butt jointed (no seam strips) to be provided where
reasonably attractive and highly cleanable wall protection is required, such as ½ inch in
meet and greet rooms.
• Food Prep rooms, janitor closets, etc. and other staff only “utility” type rooms will be
finished with FRP up to ceiling.
• All outside gyp board corners not receiving tile to receive a corner guard or end wall
guard – stainless steel is typical.
- 67 -
28
Division 11
Animal Housing and Other Equipment
• FFE budget for most items including:
o Dog caging and runs.
o Appliances.
o Furnishings.
• Exception: Cost estimator please include a saloon door, installed by contractor,
at each outdoor/indoor kennel. These are $1,100 per door.
Division 12
Food Service Equipment
• All animal areas with food prep rooms, all laundry rooms, and all kennel, and back-of-
house cat rooms will have stainless steel counters, NSF quality, with integral sinks.
Metro Shelving above counter.
Mechanical Ventilation Standards
• See typical standards below for ventilation in an animal care facility.
- 68 -
29
- 69 -
30
- 70 -
31
- 71 -
32
Electrical Narrative
• Outlets. Most will be GFI and/or waterproof in animal areas.
• Lighting in lobby: Architectural quality LED.
• General lighting in office areas: High efficiency 2’x4’ and 2’x2’ recessed direct/indirect LED
troffers. Upper floor workspaces and multipurpose: high-efficiency pendant
direct/indirect LED fixtures.
• Dog kennel and back-of-house animal areas: Lensed damp rated LED 2x2 and 2x4
troffers, all dimmable.
• Warehouse and barn (if not deferred) - strip LED utility fixtures with cages.
• An emergency fixture will be located over each required emergency egress door.
• Foot-candle requirements are very high. Think hospital. Tends to increase lighting budget.
o Utility rooms: 30 foot-candles.
o Office and lobby: 40 foot-candles.
o Animal rooms: 50-60 foot-candles.
END OF MEMO
- 72 -
33
6. Appendix 1: Workshop Presentation
- 73 -
34
- 74 -
35
- 75 -
36
- 76 -
37
- 77 -
38
- 78 -
39
- 79 -
40
- 80 -
41
7. Appendix 2: Shelter Best Practices
Best practice industry standards are important to analyze and incorporate when designing a
new shelter building. By considering these standards, a new shelter can be right sized and not
overbuilt. An overbuilt shelter costs more to build and operate than necessary. The basics for
best practices for animal care are:
• Hold only when essential, reduce time in care.
o Reduction of mandated holds, if possible.
o Provide in-house medical care to reduce the burden of illness and disease.
o Create a public-friendly building so people want to come to adopt animals.
o Utilize foster care to the greatest extent possible.
o Utilize resources to prevent relinquishments.
• Provide a healthy and sanitary environment:
o For staff.
o For animals.
• Design for easy operations.
Hold Only When Essential, Reduce Time in Care
A shelter is a stressful place for a pet. Therefore, reducing time in care is one of the most
important goals for best-practice animal sheltering. Animal behavior experts explain that two
weeks is about the length of time a dog can stay before it begins to deteriorate behaviorally.
Both dogs and cats are more likely to become ill in the shelter environment the longer they
stay. More information on this topic can be found at www.sheltermedicine.com.
Creating an adoption-friendly facility should be of high priority. This includes having a friendly,
welcoming space for adopters to view adoptable pets. After viewing, one-on-one meet and
greet spaces can be utilized to introduce shelter pets and potential adopters. The Humane
Society of the United States published a manual to help animal shelters design their adoption
programs called Adopters Welcome (https://humanepro.org/page/adopters-welcome-manual).
Adopters Welcome is a research-based set of guidelines that can be very helpful when
considering operational goals for renovations or new builds.
Utilize a foster care program to the greatest extent possible. More pets in foster care means
fewer pets in the shelter; therefore, less housing is needed, and a smaller capacity facility can
be designed.
Utilize resources to prevent relinquishments, such as public spay/neuter programs.
Provide a Healthy and Sanitary Environment
- 81 -
42
The most important aspect of providing for the well-being for shelter pets is to operate the
facility in such a way as to be able to provide humane care for each animal. This includes
strategies to reduce the number of pets in care, but also means constructing and staffing the
shelter such that each animal is housed in an environment that supports its well-being. For
more information about capacity for care, refer to Overview of Capacity for Care (C4C) |
Resources | Koret Shelter Medicine Program.
A healthy and sanitary environment is directly beneficial to shelter pets while supporting staff
during their day-to-day tasks. Laundry rooms, dishwashing, and food prep areas, along with
kennels that are well draining and easy to clean are all crucial infrastructure components for
staff to reduce the time they spend on essential tasks. This then provides more staff time for
animal enrichment and helps meet the goals of capacity for care.
A new animal shelter would typically have better areas for isolation of infectious disease.
Infectious disease increases the risk of euthanasia for the animals in the shelter. Isolation areas
should be dedicated to housing infectious animals and should not be used as overflow healthy
housing. Isolation areas can be designed for proper protocols such as the donning of personal
protective equipment and should be separated by species and type of disease, for safety and
the well-being of dogs and cats.
Create a Fear Free® environment. Fear Free is a movement that provides guidelines to reduce
fear, anxiety, and stress for pets in veterinary hospitals and shelters. Fear Free Sheltering
training is specific to animal shelters, is self-paced, and available online at no charge
(https://fearfreeshelters.com/).
Design for Easy Operations
As described in the previous section, easy-to-operate laundry, dishwashing, and food prep
areas, as well as easy-to-clean kennels, will free up hours per day of staff time. This time can be
better spent on customer service, animal enrichment, and animal placement efforts.
Best practice animal facilities are designed with efficient and safe intake areas. An enclosed
area for unloading transfers prevents animal escapes and increases staff and animal safety.
From the unloading area, animals should be able to be moved safely into intake examination
areas and housing.
Another task that can be very time-consuming for staff is moving dogs from housing into yards
for play. Flow from dog housing areas to yards should be short. Yards can be designed to
separate groups of dogs, or individual dogs depending on the dogs’ behavior and the staffing
or volunteers available to run play group programs. Yards should be partially covered for use
during hot weather and rain. Industry experts recommend daily play for shelter dogs.
On the customer service side of the building, safety and security should be considered in the
- 82 -
43
design. Public areas should be separated from staff areas with secure doors.
Feline Housing, Husbandry and Enrichment
The best practice standards for feline housing are as follows:
• Per the Association of Shelter Veterinarians (ASV), a cage that is appropriately four-to-five-feet long.
• Double compartment for safe handling and cleaning.
• With a variety of enrichment items in the housing.
• Cats housed away from dogs.
• Cats housed to fast track through the shelter.
Cat Portal
The above image shows a cat walking through a portal within their cat cage. This portal
connects two stainless steel cat cages together, which transforms inadequately sized cat cages
to fulfill the four-to-five-foot size requirement and the double-compartment requirement.
These requirements are extremely important to cats because to be happy and healthy they
need at least a three-foot separation between their litter box and their food. Double-
compartment cages allow for food to be on one side, and a litter box to be on the other side.
Additionally, while a staff member cleans one side of the housing, the cat can be on the other
side, which allows for a minimally stressful cleaning experience for all parties involved. Stress is
directly related to the incidence of upper respiratory infections in cats, so by providing
appropriate housing spaces and short lengths of stay, the rate will be reduced or mitigated
altogether.
- 83 -
44
Feline Housing
Another important factor for socialized felines in animal shelters is their ability to socialize with
either staff members, volunteers, or potential adoptees. The above image shows an example of
housing spaces large enough for people to socialize with the cats. The lower portion is frosted
glass which allows for privacy without promoting claustrophobia, while the upper portion is
metal grating which promotes air flow. These rooms are large enough for people and cats to be
together comfortably, which can help the
cats’ mental well-being, along with giving adopters a comfortable space to socialize with and
get to know different felines.
Appropriate double-compartment cages are a requirement for cats in confinement. Ample
space not only reduces stress for the cats and lowers rates of upper respiratory infections as a
result, but compartments with a door between them can be closed so the staff can spot clean
one side of the compartment safely. Spot cleaning is imperative as removing cats from their
enclosure to do a deep disinfection is contraindicated as it is stressful for the cats, removes
familiar scents, and increases risk for the staff. Full sanitation can be done once the cat leaves
the enclosure permanently.
Cats, like people, have a variety of preferences. Some cats may enjoy a free-roam room in the
company of other cats, while others prefer their own double-compartment housing. Options to
behave normally are crucial, so perching options in a free-roam room and hiding spots in both
types of housing are imperative. Some experts recommend only using free-roam rooms for
bonded cats as it may take up to three weeks for the cats to assimilate to one another (and the
industry standard recommendation is less than 14 days in the shelter to their live outcome
opportunity).
All animals in confinement need appropriate enrichment in their environment where they
can behave normally. For cats this includes scratching, interactive toys, and a soft bed. Since
cats are grazers, they should always have access to dry food and the option of canned food
- 84 -
45
twice daily.
Canine Housing, Husbandry, and Enrichment
The best practice standards for canine housing are as follows:
• Most importantly, durable housing.
• Sized appropriately for the dog.
• Double compartment for easy, safe handling and cleaning.
• Access to the out of doors.
• In-kennel enrichments.
• Strategies to reduce length of stay.
Canine Kennel
The above photo shows the interior portion of a double-compartment canine kennel. The
fronts of the kennels have metal grates, which allow the dogs to have ventilation and be aware
of what is going on outside of their kennel. This also allows staff members a view of the
canines, potentially even from another room through an interior window. Another important
aspect of interior housing for canines is cleanability, which involves flooring materials, drains,
and a means to clean. Ideally, non-slip, wet-application flooring is installed, with drains within
the kennels, as well as the hallways (so that each space can be cleaned independently), and
ceiling-mounted hoses for washing down and the application of disinfectant. The ability to clean
is especially important for canines because they are housed on the floor.
- 85 -
46
Outdoor runs, canine kennel
Indoor/outdoor runs are beneficial to canines’ mental well-being and physical health. The
outdoor portions of kennels should ideally be covered by an overhang to protect the canine
from harsh sunlight and rain. There are visual barriers between each dog, but the fronts of the
runs have metal grids which help the dog not feel trapped and promote quality air flow.
Canine Enrichment
Enrichment can be woven in with architecture as seen here. This is a designed, interactive play
yard, but something as simple as a kiddie pool filled with water can bring much joy into a
shelter dog’s stay.
Double-compartment kennels benefit both dogs and people. To easily sanitize the kennel,
which should be done each morning, the staff can sequester the dog on one side and close the
divider door. This is the safest and most efficient for the staff. Fresh food and water can be
provided after the kennel is cleaned, then the dog moves over so the opposite side of the
- 86 -
47
kennel can be sanitized. Dogs should be fed a mixture of consistent quality dry and canned food
twice daily. Food puzzles are another excellent way to provide added enrichment and treats to
occupy dogs while in confinement.
Play groups are an important part of the enrichment program for shelter dogs. Every dog, every
day should have play group time with the exception of those who do not enjoy play groups.
Dogs Playing for Life (dogsplayingforlife.com) and Shelter Playgroup Alliance
(shelterdogsplay.org) are the two organizations offering onsite training. When designing a new
shelter facility, appropriate play yard spaces should always be included.
Natural, free play and exercise are imperative for dogs in confinement. These programs have
proven to lower stress hormones, decrease the length of stay, and increase adoptions
(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21862471/,https://dogsplayingforlife.com/2021-impact-
report/).
Many of these programs are run 100 percent by volunteers and they offer the added benefit of
endless opportunities to get social media content of dogs at their best.
Human and canine companionship, in and out of kennel enrichment, and a comfortable, soft
bed to rest are key components of a Fear Free shelter environment for dogs.
8. Appendix 3: Room-by-Room Diagrams (enclosed under separate cover)
- 87 -
Attachment 2 to Report CS 11-26
PAf?T 1, PLi\N 40/i--122518 I
I
I
I
I
I
SITE STATISTICS Pl-•RT 2, PL/•.N 40/?--25842
Pl-•RT 6, FL/..,N 40/?--14541LOT AREA ,;;,eo
518REQUIRED: 3-4 ACRES (12, 140-16, 187 SM) (IBW)
PROVIDED: 3.19 ACRES (12,915 SM)
BUILDING AREA (GROUND GLOOR)
REQUIRED: 11,790 SF
PROVIDED: 11,880 SF
PARKING SPACES
REQUIRED:
-BY-LAW OFFICES 60-63
-ANIMAL SHELTER 10
TOTAL: 73
PROVIDED:
COVERED SHED -15
TOTAL: 99
AR
y ANIMAL SHEL T
&BY-!.J\'!)!EAfEFlqi,,/
/ ,1,?..4s¥orey buildmg0
I ~
(J") -coI
N/ pi-. ,;i,9' co 11111111 Ill Ill 1111111 1-11--11__11_11_11_11........,..II_II_II_II_II..,. co
I -----------1l
,;i,17, ~ 1'1> , ,;•,_,
,.
OIJTDOGR ,1i-
,;i,11SPJ\~.E
ZENTS D R,IVE
___fr
518
(JOB)
CSP 0.40• cvz SIB132.12 (JOB)
PL/•,N 401?--27228
SIB (JOB)
130.22 (TBM)
a'
1700 ZENTS DRIVE
SITE PLAN -SKETCH -N.T.S
OPTION 1
JUNE 27, 2025
(information taken from survey prepared by Ivan B. Wallace)
v
- 88 -
Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: ENG 05-26
Date: May 4, 2026
From: Richard Holborn
Director, Engineering Services
Subject:
Cognac and Valley Farm SWM Pond Cleanouts
Request for Proposal No. RFP2026-4
File: A-1440
Recommendation:
1. That the proposal submitted by Aquafor Beech Limited in response to Request for Proposal
No. RFP2026-4, Cognac and Valley Farm SWM Pond Cleanouts, in the amount of
$65,968.97 (net HST) or $73,255.64 (HST included) be accepted;
2. That the total gross project cost of $171,892.00 (HST included) including the proposal fee
amount, a contingency, and other associated costs, and the total net project cost of
$154,794.00 (net HST) be approved;
3. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the net project cost of
$154,794.00 (net HST) by a transfer from the Stormwater Management Reserve Fund as
approved in the 2026 Capital Budget;
4. That the Director, Engineering Services be authorized to enter into and execute the Form of
Agreement with the above-mentioned consultant pursuant to Request for Proposal No.
RFP2026-4; and,
5. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions
necessary to implement the recommendations in this report.
1.0 Executive Summary:
The purpose of this report is to obtain authorization to award Request for Proposal No.
RFP2026-4 to Aquafor Beech Limited to undertake the detailed design of the Cognac
Stormwater Management (SWM) Pond Cleanout and the Valley Farm SWM Pond Cleanout
projects.
On December 14, 2020, through Resolution #482/20, Council endorsed the Stormwater
Management Facilities Asset Management Plan (AMP) Final Report July 2020 and authorized City
staff to implement the recommendations subject to budget and further Council approval for
- 89 -
ENG 05-26 May 4, 2026
Page 2
individual projects. The purpose of the AMP was to assess the current condition of the City’s
existing SWM facilities and determine a prioritized list of maintenance and reconstruction/retrofit
projects to ensure an acceptable level of service is provided. The Cognac SWM Pond and the
Valley Farm SWM Pond cleanout projects were identified as priority maintenance projects in the
AMP.
Request for Proposal No. RFP2026-4 was posted on the City’s bids&tenders portal on
February 9, 2026, and closed on March 2, 2026. The Evaluation Committee, consisting of staff
from the Engineering Services Department, reviewed and evaluated the five proposals
received using criteria outlined in the bid document. The top ranked proposal, submitted by
Aquafor Beech Limited, in the amount of $65,968.97 (net HST) or $73,255.64 (HST included)
is recommended for approval. It is also recommended that the total gross project cost of
$171,892.00 (HST included) which includes the proposal fee amount, a contingency, and other
associated costs, and the total net project cost of $154,794.00 (net HST) be approved.
2.0 Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan:
The recommendations in this report respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priorities of
Advocate for an Inclusive, Welcoming, Safe & Healthy Community; and Lead & Advocate for
Environmental Stewardship, Innovation & Resiliency.
3.0 Financial Implications:
3.1 Proposal Amount
Request For Proposal RFP2026-4
Total RFP Amount $64,828.00
HST (13%) 8,427.64
Total Gross RFP Amount
HST Rebate (11.24%)
Total Net RFP Cost
$73,255.64
(7,286.67)
$65,968.97
3.2 Estimated Project Cost Summary
Proposal Amount $64,828.00
Tree, SAR & Ecological Assessment 32,500.00
Provisional Tasks 15,500.00
Contingency 12% 13,539.00
Regulatory Agency Permit Fees 25,750.00
Total Project Cost $152,117.00
HST (13%) 19,775.00
Gross Project Cost $171,892.00
HST Rebate (11.24%) (17,098.00)
- 90 -
ENG 05-26 May 4, 2026
Page 3
Net Project Cost $154,794.00
3.3 Approved Source of Funds Available
Expense Code Source of Funds Budget Required
C10525.2601 SWM Reserve Fund $80,000.00 $79,894.00
C10525.2602
SWM Reserve Fund
$75,000.00 $74,900.00
Total $155,000.00 $154,794.00
Net Project Cost Under (Over) Approved Funds $206.00
The Cognac SWM Pond Cleanout and the Valley Farm SWM Pond Cleanout projects were
approved in the 2026 Stormwater Management Capital Budget, in the combined amount of
$155,000.00 (net HST). The total net project cost is under the approved 2026 Capital Budget.
4.0 Discussion:
The purpose of this report is to obtain authorization to award Request for Proposal No.
RFP2026-4 to Aquafor Beech Limited to undertake the detailed design of the Cognac
Stormwater Management (SWM) Pond Cleanout and the Valley Farm SWM Pond Cleanout
projects.
On December 14, 2020, through Resolution #482/20, Council endorsed the Stormwater
Management Facilities Asset Management Plan (AMP) Final Report July 2020 and authorized City
staff to implement the recommendations subject to budget and further Council approval for
individual projects. The purpose of the AMP was to assess the current condition of the City’s
existing SWM facilities and determine a prioritized list of maintenance and reconstruction/retrofit
projects to ensure an acceptable level of service is provided. In addition, the AMP complied with
Ontario Regulation 588/17, which required municipalities to complete asset management plans for
its core infrastructure by July 1, 2021.
The AMP has identified the Cognac SWM Pond and the Valley Farm SWM Pond as cleanout
priorities for the City’s maintenance plan. The scope of work includes quantifying the amount of
accumulated sediment, sediment sampling, preparation of detailed engineering plans and reports,
agency approvals, permit acquisitions, tender document preparation, and preparing updated
database files. Staff recommended the Cognac and Valley Farm SWM Pond Cleanout projects in
the 2026 Stormwater Management Capital Budget, with the intent of proceeding with design and
approvals in 2026, followed by construction in 2027.
Request for Proposal No. RFP2026-4 was posted on the City’s bids&tenders portal on
February 9, 2026, and closed on March 2, 2026. The Evaluation Committee, consisting of staff
from the Engineering Services Department, reviewed and evaluated the five proposals
- 91 -
ENG 05-26 May 4, 2026
Page 4
received using criteria outlined in the bid document. Aquafor Beech Limited was the top-ranked
proponent and is recommended to be retained to complete the work.
The proposal, submitted by Aquafor Beech Limited, in the amount of $65,968.97 (net HST) or
$73,255.64 (HST included) is recommended for approval. It is also recommended that the total
gross project cost of $171,892.00 (HST included) which includes the fee amount and other
associated costs, and the total net project cost of $154,794.00 (net HST) be approved.
Attachments:
1. Location Map – Cognac SWM Pond
2. Location Map – Valley Farm SWM Pond
Prepared By: Bob Trajceski, Senior Water Resources Engineer
Prepared By: Irina Marouchko, Manager, Water Resources
Approved/Endorsed By: Cathy Bazinet, Manager, Procurement
Approved/Endorsed By: Richard Holborn, Director, Engineering Services
Approved/Endorsed By: Stan Karwowski, Director, Finance & Treasurer
BT:bt
Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council By:
Marisa Carpino, M.A.
Chief Administrative Officer
- 92 -
N
N.T.S APRIL 2026
COGNAC SWM POND
SUBJECT SITE
Finch A
v
e
n
u
e
W
h
i
t
e
s
R
o
a
d
Attachment 1 to Report ENG 05-26
- 93 -
N
N.T.S APRIL 2026
VALLEY FARM SWM POND
SUBJECT SITE
Finch A
v
e
n
u
e
Ki
n
g
s
t
o
n
R
o
a
d
B
r
o
c
k
R
o
a
d
Attachment 2 to Report ENG 05-26
- 94 -
Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: ENG 06-26
Date: May 4, 2026
From: Richard Holborn
Director, Engineering Services
Subject:
Durham Meadoway Design Shared Services Memorandum of Understanding
File: A-1440
Recommendation:
1. That Report ENG 06-26 regarding Durham Meadoway Design Shared Services
Memorandum of Understanding be received;
2. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the Durham Meadoway Design
Shared Services Memorandum of Understanding in substantially the same form as
attached to this report, subject to revisions acceptable to the Director, Engineering Services
and the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor.
3. That the total gross project cost of $341,486.00 (HST included) and the total net project
cost of $307,519.00 (net HST) be approved.
4. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to fund the total net project cost of
$307,519.00 (net HST) as follows:
a. the sum of $153,759.00 be funded by a transfer from the Parks & Recreation
Development Charges Reserve Fund as approved in the 2026 Current Budget; and,
b. the sum of $153,760.00 be funded by a transfer from the City Share Development
Charges Reserve as approved in the 2026 Current Budget.
5. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions
necessary to implement the recommendations in this report.
- 95 -
ENG 06-26 May 4, 2026
Page 2
1.0 Executive Summary:
The purpose of this report is to provide an update of recent progress made regarding the
Durham Meadoway project by the Region of Durham (the Region), and to seek Council
approval to execute the Shared Services Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (Attachment
1) for the Durham Meadoway preliminary design.
The Durham Meadoway is a 30 km active transportation and recreation corridor that will
stretch from the Pickering/Toronto boundary to Harmony Road in Oshawa through the
Gatineau Hydro Corridor. Regional staff appeared before the February 6, 2023 Executive
Committee to provide an overview of the Durham Meadoway Visioning Study. Resolution
#96/23 (Attachment 2) was passed at the February 27, 2023 Council meeting providing input
to the study. The Region presented a further update and the overall framework developed
from the Visioning Study at the November 6, 2023, Executive Committee meeting.
The Region completed the Visioning Study and received Regional approval in June 2024. The
Visioning Study identified an estimated cost of $1.2 million (HST included) to complete the
preliminary design, to be cost-shared between the City of Pickering, Town of Ajax, Town of
Whitby, City of Oshawa and the Region. Pickering’s share was estimated at 25.87% or
$310,442.00 (HST included) or $274,727.43 (excluding HST).
The Town of Ajax has decided not to participate in this joint venture and will not be entering
into the MOU. The total revised (excluding Ajax) estimated cost (as shown in MOU) will be
$1,080,708.00 (HST included). The share allocated to Pickering will remain the same as
$310,442.00 (HST included).
2.0 Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan:
The recommendations in this report respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priority of Advance
Innovation & Responsible Planning to Support a Connected, Well-Serviced Community.
3.0 Financial Implications:
City of Pickering’s share of the cost of the preliminary design services for the Durham
Meadoway project as indicated in the MOU is estimated at $310,442.00 (HST included) or
$279,563.00 (net HST). As part of the 2026 Current Budget, the Durham Meadoway Class EA
(including preliminary design) was approved as a project with a budget of $350,000.00 (net
HST) as informed by the 2025 Development Charges Background Study.
- 96 -
ENG 06-26 May 4, 2026
Page 3
1. Preliminary Design Services
City of Pickering Share $274,727.43
HST (13%) 35,714.57
Total Gross Proposal Amount
Less: HST Rebate (11.24%)
Net HST
$310,442.00
(30,879.36)
$279,562.64
2. Estimated Project Cost Summary:
City of Pickering Share $274,727.00
Associated Costs
Contingency (10%) 27,473.00
Sub Total – Costs $302,200.00
HST (13%) 39,286.00
Total Gross Project Cost $341,486.00
HST Rebate (11.24%) (33,967.00)
Total Net Project Costs $307,519.00
3. Approved Source of Funds – 2026 Current Budget
Expense Code Source of Funds Budget Required
10500.502230.0000
10500.502230.0000
Development Charges
(Parks & Recreation)
City Share DC
Reserve
$175,000.00
$175,000.00
$153,759.00
$153,760.00
Total Funds $350,000.00 $307,519.00
Net project costs under (over) approved funds $42,481.00
- 97 -
ENG 06-26 May 4, 2026
Page 4
4.0 Discussion:
The purpose of this report is to provide an update on recent progress made regarding the
Durham Meadoway project by the Region of Durham (the Region) and to seek Council
approval to enter into the Shared Services Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (Attachment
1) for the Durham Meadoway preliminary design.
The Durham Meadoway is a 30-kilometer active transportation and recreation corridor that will
stretch from the Pickering/Toronto boundary to Harmony Road in Oshawa through the
Gatineau Hydro Corridor. It will consist of a multi-use path, public spaces, connections to
adjacent neighbourhoods and parks, public art and areas for environmental restoration. Once
complete, it will become a signature destination in Durham Region, providing memorable
experiences for residents and visitors alike, connecting to Rouge National Urban Park and
Scarborough Meadoway.
The Region completed the Durham Meadoway Visioning Study, and it received Regional
Council approval in June 2024. The Visioning Study provided a robust vision and framework
that will guide the future detailed planning and implementation of the corridor. The study
identified a functional (high-level) route for the multi-use trail and created a concept plan for the
types of amenities, gateways, public art and other elements that community stakeholders
would like to see programmed or evolve over time. Regional staff appeared before the
February 6, 2023 Executive Committee to provide an overview of the Durham Meadoway
Visioning Study. Resolution #96/23 (Attachment 2) was passed at the February 27, 2023
Council meeting providing input to the study. The Region presented a further update and the
overall framework developed from the Visioning Study at the November 6, 2023, Executive
Committee meeting.
The Visioning Study identified an estimated cost of $1.2 million (HST included) to complete the
preliminary design, to be cost-shared between the City of Pickering, Town of Ajax, Town of
Whitby, City of Oshawa and the Region. Pickering’s share was estimated at 25.87% or
$310,442.00 (HST included) or $274,727.43 (excluding HST).
Town of Ajax has decided not to participate in this joint venture and will not be entering into the
MOU. The total revised estimated cost as shown in the MOU (excluding Ajax) is $1,080,708.00
(HST included). However, the share allocated to Pickering will remain the same as
$310,442.00 (HST included). The cost-sharing is based on the length of the respective
uncompleted sections of the Preferred Interim Route in each Area Municipality, as indicated in
Attachment 1, with 22% of the cost being paid by the Region and 78% being paid by the Area
Municipalities. Pickering’s cost-share percentage will be 28.73% which represents a City
contribution of $310,442.00 (HST included) or $279,563.00 (net HST).
As part of the 2026 Current Budget, the Durham Meadoway Class EA (including preliminary
design) was approved as a project with a budget of $350,000.00 as informed by the 2025
Development Charges Background Study. It is funded 50% from Development Charges and
50% from the City Share DC Reserve. The total estimated gross project cost, including a 10%
contingency, estimated at $341,486.00 (HST included), and the total net project cost of
$307,519.00 (net HST) is recommended for approval.
- 98 -
ENG 06-26 May 4, 2026
Page 5
The Region is planning to issue a Request for Proposals in Fall 2026, subject to approval of
the terms of reference by the affected Area Municipalities and the Region, to select a qualified
consultant to undertake the Preliminary Design study. City staff have reviewed a preliminary
draft terms of reference prepared by the Region, which outlines the scope of work required for
the Preliminary Design of the Durham Meadoway, and have provided comments to the Region.
The Preliminary Design exercise will provide the Area Municipalities and the Region with
sufficient design, background information and materials to identify future capital costs, reduce
risk for future trail implementation, and to be in a position to tender specific sections of the
Durham Meadoway for detailed design and construction, including road crossings. The
Preliminary Design will advance the trail and associated user amenities to a minimum 30%
level of design. The duration of the Preliminary Design exercise is expected to be
approximately 18 months and is anticipated to be complete in Q2 2028.
Attachments:
1. Durham Meadoway Design Shared Services Memorandum of Understanding
2. Resolution #96/23
3. Map and table
Prepared By: Nadeem Zahoor, Manager, Transportation & Traffic
Approved/Endorsed: Richard Holborn, Director, Engineering Services
Approved/Endorsed By: Stan Karwowski, Director, Finance & Treasurer
NZ:cg
Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council By:
Marisa Carpino, M.A.
Chief Administrative Officer
- 99 -
April 10, 2026 1
DURHAM MEADOWAY DESIGN SHARED SERVICES MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING
This Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) is made as of the XX day of XXXX, 2026
(the “Effective Date”).
BETWEEN:
THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM
(hereinafter referred to as the “Region”)
and the Area Municipalities of:
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF OSHAWA
(hereinafter referred to as the “City of Oshawa”)
and
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING
(hereinafter referred to as the “City of Pickering”)
and
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF WHITBY
(hereinafter referred to as the “Town of Whitby”)
(collectively referred to as “Area Municipalities”)
(with the “Region and the “Area Municipalities” collectively referred to as “the Parties”)
WHEREAS:
A.On June 26, 2024, Regional Council endorsed the Durham Meadoway Visioning
Study as the framework and strategy to implement the active transportation
corridor and linear park.
B.The Durham Meadoway Visioning Study identified a preferred route for the
Durham Meadoway trail, two interim route connections to implement in advance
of the preferred route, conceptual locations for related amenities such as
gateways, and areas for active play, nature spaces, garden and community uses.
C.The Durham Meadoway is located within publicly owned lands, including
transmission corridor lands owned by the Province (Infrastructure Ontario) and
Attachment 1 - Report ENG 06-26
- 100 -
April 10, 2026 2
managed by Hydro One, lands owned by the Province (Ministry of
Transportation) underneath the transmission corridor or part of future transitway
stations along Highways 407 and 412, lands owned by the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) and the Central Lake Ontario Conservation
Authority (CLOCA) including the Heber Down Conservation Area, area municipal
parks and open spaces, and within Regional and Area Municipal road rights-of-
way.
D. Regional Council authorized the Region to cost share with the Area
Municipalities the Preliminary Design Study for the Durham Meadoway trail
based on their respective uncompleted portion of the Durham Meadoway, subject
to the approval of the Commissioner of Finance and approval of Regional funding
through the Region’s 2025 Business Planning and Budgets process.
E. The Parties desire the Region to lead the procurement and project management
for the Preliminary Design Study work for the Durham Meadoway trail in
collaboration with the Area Municipalities.
F. A completed Preliminary Design Study will provide the Area Municipalities and
the Region with sufficient design and background materials to identify future
capital costs, reduce risk for future trail implementation, and tender specific
sections of the Durham Meadoway for detailed design and construction including
road crossings.
G. The Region and Area Municipalities intend to be bound by covenants and
obligations contained in this MOU.
NOW THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:
- 101 -
April 10, 2026 3
TERMS OF REFERENCE
1. The Region shall develop a Terms of Reference (“TOR”) covering the scope of
work required for the Preliminary Design Study in collaboration with the Area
Municipalities and in consultation with TRCA and CLOCA.
2. The Parties agree that the scope of work for the Preliminary Design Study will
include, but not be limited to, the required in-boulevard and off-road sections of
the Durham Meadoway trail as identified in the Visioning Study, the
identification of user amenities and gateways, review of new road crossing
locations to confirm appropriate traffic control types, warrants and feasibility,
and will only include the preferred route and the two interim routes. The
Preliminary Design Study will not include the Preferred Route where an Interim
Route is proposed. Schedule 1 identifies the length of uncompleted vs.
completed sections of the Preferred With Interim route.
3. The Parties agree that the Preliminary Design Study will advance the trail and
associated user amenities to a minimum 30 per cent level of design in order to:
(a) conduct environmental review of watercourse crossings and other
environmentally sensitive areas to inform the design for bridge structures,
culverts and the trail alignment itself;
(b) provide the opportunity for additional engagement with the public,
agencies and Indigenous communities;
(c) better position the Region and Area Municipalities for external funding
opportunities such as federal and/or provincial funding programs; and
(d) create economies of scale to conduct a preliminary design for the project
and help determine reliable construction cost estimates.
4. The Parties agree that the Preliminary Design Study scope of work may include
preliminary or functional designs for certain sections of in-boulevard multi-use
paths on Regional or Area Municipal roads, including where those paths are
already subject to budgeted preliminary and/or detailed design work as part of
- 102 -
April 10, 2026 4
an approved capital road budget and forecast, but may not be designed or
constructed within the next 10 years.
5. The Parties acknowledge that it is anticipated that the Municipal Class
Environmental Assessment (MCEA) process may be revoked by the Province
prior to development of the TOR. If the MCEA process is still in effect prior to
commencement of the study, then the project will be scoped as a Schedule C
project and comply with all requirements under the MCEA process. While the
Parties agree that if the MCEA is revoked before or during completion of the
Preliminary Design Study, the TOR will include at a minimum the completion of
the preliminary design component, completion of environmental background
reports and two rounds of public consultation.
PROCUREMENT OF THE PRELIMINARY DESIGN STUDY
6. The Region shall undertake a procurement process for the Preliminary Design
Study, including issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP) to select a qualified
consultant, evaluating the proposals, and awarding the RFP to the selected
bidder in accordance with the Region’s Purchasing By-law No.16-2020, as
amended. The Region shall provide the Area Municipalities with a draft of the
proposed evaluation criteria for the RFP for review and comment prior to
issuance.
7. The selection of a winning bidder during the RFP will be decided by the Region
in its sole discretion. The Region will make best efforts to complete the study
within 18 months from when the consultant team is retained by the Region
through a consulting services agreement.
8. The Region will make best efforts to issue an RFP containing the TOR in the
Fall of 2026, subject to the execution of this agreement by the Region and the
Area Municipalities.
9. The Area Municipalities agree to provide reasonable assistance to the Region
and take such further action as may be reasonably required to assist the Region
with the procurement of the qualified consultant, including but not limited to
- 103 -
April 10, 2026 5
providing prompt feedback on the TOR. The Region shall provide a draft of the
TOR to the Area Municipalities for comment within a reasonable time following
execution of this MOU.
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
10. The Region agrees to create a project management team led by the Region’s
Community Growth Division to oversee the consulting assignment for the
Preliminary Design Study. The project management team shall report to the
Region and the Area Municipalities on a monthly basis.
11. The Region agrees to establish a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to
oversee the technical aspects of the Preliminary Design Study. The TOR for
the consulting assignment will require updates and meetings with the TAC on a
regular basis to report on progress including key milestones for the project. The
TAC will be prepared in consultation with the Area Municipalities as part of the
draft RFP circulation contemplated by Article 6 above.
12. The TAC will be compromised of the following members:
(a) Region – 3 members
(b) City of Pickering – 2 members
(c) Town of Whitby – 2 members
(d) City of Oshawa – 2 members
13. The Parties shall appoint their respective member of the TAC. A Regional
representative on the TAC shall act as Chair of the TAC. The TAC members
will use good faith efforts to obtain decisions by consensus. Where, in the
opinion of the Chair of the TAC, a consensus cannot be reached following good
faith efforts, decisions will be made by simple majority vote of TAC members
present.
14. Additional staff from the Region, Area Municipalities, TRCA or CLOCA may be
invited to attend TAC meetings for specific topics, as needed. Any additional
staff will not be entitled to vote on any decisions to be made by the TAC.
- 104 -
April 10, 2026 6
15. TAC members agree to participate in specific technical meetings with agencies
that are not on the TAC, such as Infrastructure Ontario, Hydro One, Town of
Ajax, City of Toronto, Parks Canada (for Rouge National Urban Park interests)
and Ministry of Transportation Ontario, to review aspects of the Preliminary
Design.
16. TAC members from the Area Municipalities agree to arrange for the
endorsement of the Preliminary Design Study by their respective Committees
and/or Councils prior to the approval of the study by Regional Council.
COST SHARING
17. The Region and the Area Municipalities agree to share the actual costs of the
Preliminary Design Study. The cost-sharing is based on the length of the
respective uncompleted sections of the Preferred With Interim Route on the
Durham Meadoway in each Area Municipality, as identified in Schedule 1, with
approximately twenty-two (22) per cent of the cost paid by the Region and
approximately seventy-eight (78) per cent paid by the Area Municipalities.
18. The Parties acknowledge that the preliminary estimate of cost shares for the
Region and Area Municipalities are set out in Table 1, based on a projected
cost of $1,080,708 (inclusive of HST).
Table 1: Preliminary Design Study Cost Sharing Allocation by Municipality
Item City of Pickering Town of Whitby City of Oshawa Region of Durham Total
Contribution per Municipality
($)
310,442 304,779 225,487 240,000 1,080,708
Percentage Share 28.73 28.20 20.86 22.21 100.00
19. In the event that the RFP results in the recommendation of a consultant whose
bid exceeds $1,080,708 (inclusive of HST), such additional funds will be
committed by the Area Municipalities and the Region according to the
- 105 -
April 10, 2026 7
percentage share portions included in Table 1 though an addendum to the
MOU. The contract will be awarded following the execution of an addendum to
the MOU. If the RFP results in the recommendation of a consultant whose bid is
greater than $1,080,708 and the Parties cannot in good faith accept the bid and
the increase according to the percentage share portions included in Table 1, the
Parties shall make reasonable efforts to work with the TAC and the
recommended consultant to reduce the scope to achieve the desired
$1,080,708 price.
20. In the event that the RFP results in the recommendation of a consultant whose
bid is less than $1,080,708, the cost-sharing amounts for the Region and each
of the Area Municipalities will be adjusted according to the percentage share
portions included in Table 1.
21. The Area Municipalities acknowledge and agree that they shall pay their
respective contribution, up to the limits shown in Table 1 above and as may be
amended. The Region shall regularly invoice each Area Municipality as costs
are incurred by the Region. Invoices shall be paid by each Area Municipality
within thirty (30) days of receipt of the invoice.
22. Any scope changes required to complete the Preliminary Design Study will be
identified through the TAC, which will be consulted prior to the Region
approving any scope changes. Any scope changes must first be approved by
the TAC.
23. The Region submitted an application to the 2025 Federal Active Transportation
Fund (ATF) that includes the Durham Meadoway Preliminary Design Study. If
the Region were to be successful in obtaining funding through the ATF, the
federal share of the funding would be up to 60 per cent of the Preliminary
Design study. Accordingly, the ATF funding will be applied to eligible project
expenditures and the net cost of the Preliminary Design Study project, after
application of the ATF funding, will be cost shared by the Region and the Area
Municipalities by the percentage shares shown in Table 1.
- 106 -
April 10, 2026 8
PUBLIC CONSULTATION
24. The Region agrees to host two rounds of public facing consultation, and host an
engagement page using the Your Durham platform for the Preliminary Design
Study, at the Region’s cost.
25. The Region agrees to coordinate all communications on the Preliminary Design
Study, at the Region’s cost.
26. The Area Municipalities may host public open house events for consultation on
the Preliminary Design Study in public facilities under their jurisdiction at the
Area Municipality’s cost.
TERM
27. This MOU is effective as of the Effective Date first written above and will remain
in force upon completion of the Preliminary Design Study, subject to the Area
Municipalities complying with their obligations under the MOU.
28. An Area Municipality can terminate its participation in this MOU with one
hundred and twenty (120) calendar days written notice to the Parties. The
decision of an Area Municipality to terminate its participation in this MOU shall
not affect the application of the MOU with respect to the remaining Parties. If
an Area Municipality elects to terminate early, the Area Municipality or Area
Municipalities terminating early shall be responsible for any costs incurred by
the Region for portions of the Preliminary Design Study related to that
municipality. The Region shall not be obligated to complete the Preliminary
Design Study for the portion of the trail that is located within the terminating
Area Municipality or Area Municipalities.
29. The Region may terminate this MOU upon providing one hundred and twenty
(120) calendar days written notice to the Parties. If the Region terminates this
MOU, the Region will reimburse the Area Municipalities’ contributions less any
costs incurred up to the termination date.
- 107 -
April 10, 2026 9
DISPUTE RESOLUTION
30. In the event of any disagreement or dispute between Parties concerning the
interpretation, application or proposed amendment of this MOU which cannot be
resolved in the first instance by direct discussions between the senior staff
members of the Parties, the Parties involved shall use the services of a private
mediator to facilitate resolution of the disagreement or dispute.
31. Notwithstanding that a matter has been referred to the dispute resolution
process under this Part, the Parties involved shall, throughout the period of
dispute resolution, endeavour to perform their respective obligations under the
terms of this MOU in good faith and to the best of their abilities.
32. The Parties involved shall jointly select the mediator and the cost of the
mediator’s services shall be shared equally by each of the Parties involved.
33. In the event the Parties involved in a dispute are unable to resolve a
disagreement or dispute through mediation, such matter will be submitted to
arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitrations Act, 1991, S.O.
1991, c.17, as amended.
34. No person shall be appointed to act as arbitrator who has a primary interest in
or business relationship with the Parties involved, unless otherwise agreed by
the Parties involved.
35. The costs of the arbitration process shall be shared equally by all Parties
involved, but each Party shall be responsible for the costs of its own advisors
and experts, if any.
INDEMNITY
36. Each Party shall defend, indemnity and hold harmless the directors, officers,
elected officials, employees, agents and servants of the other Parties from and
against all damages, costs, expenses, losses or liabilities whatsoever (including
without limiting the generality of the foregoing, claims of third parties of
whatsoever kind, legal fees or otherwise) arising from negligent acts and/or
omissions by the other Party and any failure by the other Party to perform and
- 108 -
April 10, 2026 10
discharge its obligations pursuant to this MOU. This indemnity shall survive
expiry and/or termination of this MOU.
37. The Area Municipalities shall indemnity and hold harmless the directors,
officers, elected officials, employees, agents and servants of the Region from
and against all damages, costs, expenses, losses or liabilities whatsoever
(including without limiting the generality of the foregoing, claims of third parties
of whatsoever kind, special, incidental or consequential damages, legal fees or
otherwise) arising from any act undertaken by the Region at the direction of the
Area Municipalities under this MOU.
MISCELLANEOUS
38. This MOU shall enure to the benefit of and shall be binding upon the Parties
hereto and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors and
permitted assigns.
39. The Region and the Area Municipalities agree that this MOU in its entirety shall
create legally binding obligations upon the Parties.
40. All of the terms of this MOU are severable from each other and will survive the
invalidity of any other term of this MOU.
41. No amendment of this MOU will be effective unless it is in writing and signed by
the Parties. No waiver under this MOU will be effective unless it is in writing and
signed by the party granting the waiver. No waiver will be deemed to excuse
prospectively the other party’s satisfaction of a condition or non-performance of
an obligation, unless that waiver specifies otherwise.
42. This MOU includes schedules to this MOU. This MOU constitutes the entire
understanding between the Parties regarding the subject matter of this MOU
and supersedes all other MOUs, whether written or oral, between the Parties
regarding the Durham Meadoway Design Shared Services.
43. This MOU may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be
deemed to be an original and all of which, when taken together, shall be
deemed to be one and the same agreement or document. A signed copy of this
- 109 -
April 10, 2026 11
MOU transmitted by facsimile, email or other means of electronic transmission
shall be deemed to have the same legal effect as delivery of an original
executed copy of this MOU for all purposes.
44. If the Town of Ajax wishes to become a party to the MOU at a future date, an
addendum to the MOU will be prepared to include it as part of the TAC and the
cost-sharing allocation will be updated.
[REMAINDER OF PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK]
- 110 -
April 10, 2026 12
THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM
Date: ________________________, 2026 By: __________________________
Name:
Title:
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF OSHAWA
Date: ________________________, 2026 By: __________________________
Name:
Title:
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING
Date: ________________________, 2026 By: __________________________
Name:
Title:
Date: ________________________, 2026 By: __________________________
Name:
Title:
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF WHITBY
Date: ________________________, 2026 By: __________________________
Name:
Title:
- 111 -
Legislative Services Division Clerk’s Office Directive Memorandum
March 9, 2023
To: Richard Holborn Director, Engineering Services
Kyle Bentley Director, City Development
From: Susan Cassel
City Clerk
Subject: Direction as per Minutes of the Meeting of City Council held on February 27, 2023
Durham Meadoway Enhancements and Amendments
Council Decision Resolution #96/23
Please take any action deemed necessary.
Susan Cassel
WHEREAS, the Durham Meadoway is a proposed active transportation corridor and
greenspace connecting Rouge National Urban Park in the City of Pickering to Simcoe Street in the City of Oshawa;
And Whereas, the Durham Meadoway will connect four municipalities along 27 kilometres of the Gatineau Hydro Corridor;
And Whereas, the City of Pickering is a Municipal/Community Stakeholder;
And Whereas, the Visioning Study to create the Durham Meadoway will identify enhancements and amenities that will help foster a distinct sense of place and make the multi-use path easier and more comfortable to use;
Now therefore be it resolved, that the Council of The Corporation of the City of
Pickering makes the following recommendations to Durham Region for inclusion in the
Durham Meadoway:
1. Low level non-intrusive lighting along the Multi Use Trail System;
2.Rest Stations situated along the Multi Use Trail System;
3.Artificial Ice Surface Skating Trail to be located in either Segment 1 or 2; and,
4.That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to Alia Tulloch, Transportation and
Planning, Region of Durham and Staff to be included in the City’s completecomments submission to the Region of Durham.
Attachment 2 - Report ENG 06-26
- 112 -
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
- 113 -
Schedule 1
A)Durham Meadoway Preferred With Interim Route for Multi-Use Path (MUP)
Rossland Rd.
We
s
t
n
e
y
R
d
.
La
k
e
R
i
d
g
e
R
d
.
Hw
y
.
4
1
2
As
h
b
u
r
n
R
d
.
Co
c
h
r
a
n
e
S
t
.
Sa
l
e
m
R
d
.
Taunton Rd.
Winchester Rd.
Ha
r
m
o
n
y
R
d
.
Br
o
c
k
R
d
.
Wh
i
t
e
s
R
d
.
Si
m
c
o
e
S
t
.
Taunton Rd.
Th
i
c
k
s
o
n
R
d
.
Ba
l
d
w
i
n
S
t
.
Au
d
l
e
y
R
d
.
Finch Ave.
Al
t
o
n
a
R
d
.
Ri
t
s
o
n
Rd
.
Ro
s
e
b
a
n
k
R
d
.
Preferred With Interim Route:
Existing or Under Construction Multi-Use Path
Future Multi-Use Path
Hwy. 7
Br
o
c
k
S
t
.
An
d
e
r
s
o
n
S
t
.
Hwy. 401
Di
x
i
e
R
d
.
Ch
u
r
c
h
S
t
.
407 ETR
Th
o
r
n
t
o
n
R
d
.
Area Municipality
Existing MUP Length (km)Future MUP Length (km)Total Length (km)
Future MUP as Share of Total Future MUP (%)Cost Share Contribution (%)
Contribution for Each Municipality ($)
Pickering 2.68 8.77 11.45 36.93 0.7779 x 36.93 = 28.73 310,442
Whitby 1.33 8.61 9.94 36.25 0.7779 x 36.25 = 28.20 304,779
Oshawa 0.00 6.37 6.37 26.82 0.7779 x 26.82 = 20.86 225,487
Subtotal 4.01 23.75 27.76 100.00 77.79 840,708
Region of Durham 22.21 240,000
Total 100.00 1,080,708
B) Durham Meadoway Preferred With Interim Route Cost Sharing Formula Calculations for Preliminary Design Study
Kingston Rd.
Bayly St.
Co
r
o
n
a
t
i
o
n
R
d
.
Co
u
n
t
r
y
L
n
.
Rossland Rd.
Dundas St.
Wi
l
s
o
n
R
d
.
Attachment 3 - Report ENG 06-26
- 114 -
Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: ENG 07-26
Date: May 4, 2026
From: Richard Holborn
Director, Engineering Services
Subject:
School Crossing Guard Program
Single Source - One Year Extension Quotation No. Q2023-37
File:A-1440
Recommendation:
1. That Council approve the award of a one-year extension of the School Crossing Guard
contract to Carraway Inc. for the 2026/2027 school year in accordance with the City’s
Purchasing Policy Sections 09.03 (d).
2. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the 2026 portion of the
School Crossing Guard Program in the amount of $264,730.00 (net HST) as approved in
the 2026 Current Budget and that financing for 2027 portion, in the amount of $397,094.00
(net HST) be provided for in the 2027 Current Budget request, for a total amount of
$661,824.00 (net HST); and,
3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions
necessary to implement the recommendations in this report.
1.0 Executive Summary:
The purpose of this report is to request Council to authorize a one-year contract extension to
Carraway Inc., the City’s current school crossing guard service provider, for the 2026/2027
school year. The existing contract for the supply and administration of school crossing guard
services was awarded to Carraway Inc. through Quotation No. Q2023-37 for the 2023/2024
school year. The contract was extended for an optional second and third year to the 2025/2026
school year in accordance with the terms and conditions of Quotation No. Q2023-37.
The City’s contract with Carraway Inc. is set to expire on June 30, 2026. Staff recommends
that the contract with Carraway Inc. be extended for one additional school year until June 30,
2027. Carraway Inc. has provided an excellent level of service on this contract over the last
- 115 -
ENG 07-26 May 4, 2026
Page 2
three years, and staff believe a one-year extension would prove to be cost effective and
beneficial to the City.
There are sufficient funds approved in the 2026 Crossing Guard Current Budget for the first
four months of the extension from September 2026 to December 2026. The balance of the
extension, from January 2027 to June 2027, will be requested in the 2027 Current Budget.
2.0 Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan:
The recommendations in this report respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priorities of
Advocate for an Inclusive, Welcoming, Safe & Healthy Community; and, Advance Innovation &
Responsible Planning to Support a Connected, Well-Serviced Community.
3.0 Financial Implications:
The annual cost for the provision of the school crossing guard program is provided for in the
Crossing Guard Current Budget account 10505.502260.0000. The one-year extension of the
crossing guard contract with Carraway Inc. will see an increase to the cost to the program
equal to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) in accordance with the initial bid document. The initial
contract with Carraway Inc. stated that CPI would be determined 90 days prior to expiry of the
contract on June 30, 2026, therefore the amount of the CPI that will be applied to the contract
will not be available until May 2026. Staff however are seeking approval to the extension of this
contract prior to the CPI being known to ensure continued coverage of school crossing guards.
To estimate the cost of the 2026/2027 crossing guard program for this report, staff has
assumed a CPI of 2.1%, which was the annual average for 2025.
The estimated cost of the 2026/2027 Crossing Guard Program is detailed in the following
table. An amount of $676,289.00 (net HST) was approved in the 2026 Current Budget for the
school crossing guard program and includes three additional crossing guard locations, of
which only one additional guard station has been added to date.
3.1 Estimated Crossing Guard Program Cost
One-year Extension to Contract # Q2023-37 (2026/2027)
- 116 -
ENG 07-26 May 4, 2026
Page 3
September 2026 to December 2026
January 2027 to June 2027
Total 2026/2027
$260,151.00
$390,226.00
$650,377.00
HST (13%)
84,549.00
Total Gross Project Cost
HST Rebate (11.24%)
Net Project Cost
$734,926.00
(73,102.00)
$661,824.00
The school crossing guard program budget has sufficient funds for the remainder of 2026
(September to December). Funds for the balance of the one-year extension (January – June
2027) will be requested through the 2027 budget process.
4.0 Discussion:
The purpose of this report is to request Council to authorize a one-year contract extension to
Carraway Inc., the City’s current school crossing guard service provider, for the 2026/2027
school year.
The City of Pickering contracts the placement of adult school crossing guards at 37 school
crossing stations at various locations across the City. The current contract for the supply and
administration of school crossing guard services, Quotation No. Q2023-37, was awarded to
Carraway Inc. for the 2023/2024 school year and, was extended for the 2024/2025 and the
2025/2026 school year in accordance with the terms and conditions of Quotation No. Q2023-
37. The current school year ends on June 26, 2026, and the current contract with Carraway
Inc., is set to expire on June 30, 2026.
Staff recommend that Carraway Inc. be extended by one school year to continue to manage
the school crossing guard program until June 30, 2027. In accordance with Purchasing Policy
PUR 010, Section 9.03 (d) The extension or reinstatement of an existing contract would prove
most cost effective or beneficial. The extension shall not exceed one year. A new procurement
process will be initiated in spring 2027.
Over the last three years, Carraway Inc. has been providing excellent customer service and
has acted on all concerns brought forward by the community and City staff with respect to the
placement and training of the school crossing guards in a timely manner. The extension of the
existing contract for one additional school year would prove cost effective and beneficial to the
City and ensures that there is not a break in service.
- 117 -
ENG 07-26 May 4, 2026
Page 4
As a requirement of the extension, the City’s Health & Safety Regulation form, a current
Certificate of Clearance issued by the Workplace Safety & Insurance Board, and a Certificate
of Insurance will be submitted by Carraway Inc. The Certificate of Insurance will be reviewed
by the Division Head, Finance to be deemed acceptable.
The recommendation to extend the school crossing guard contract with Carraway Inc. for one
year is in accordance with the City’s Purchasing Policy Section 09.03 (d).
Attachment: None.
Prepared By: Nadeem Zahoor, Manager, Transportation & Traffic
Prepared By: Nathan Emery, Coordinator, Traffic Programs & Operations
Approved/Endorsed By: Richard Holborn, Director, Engineering Services
Approved/Endorsed By: Stan Karwowski, Director, Finance & Treasurer
Approved/Endorsed By: Cathy Bazinet, Manager, Procurement
Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council By:
Marisa Carpino, M.A.
Chief Administrative Officer
- 118 -
Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: ENG 08-26
Date: May 4, 2026
From: Richard Holborn
Director, Engineering Services
Subject:
City Centre Park Preferred Concept Design
File: A-1440
Recommendation:
1. That Council endorse the City Centre Park preferred concept design, as set out in
Attachment 1, consisting of an outdoor skating rink and trail, misting water feature, amenity
building with public washrooms, a staff area, mechanical/electrical room, and an ice re-
surfacer storage room, walking paths, site furniture, opportunities for public art, turf,
planting beds, and trees;
2. That staff and the consultant be authorized to proceed with the design development and
detailed design phase for the City Centre Park; and
3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions
necessary to implement the recommendations in this report.
1.0 Executive Summary:
The purpose of this report is to inform Council on the status of the City Centre Park design and
to receive their endorsement of the preferred concept design (Attachment 1) prior to
proceeding to the design development and detailed design phase of this project. Council
approved retaining MacLennan Jaunkalns Miller Architects Ltd. (MJMA) to provide design and
construction administration services for the City Centre Park at the September 23, 2024
Council meeting (Report ENG 16-24, Resolution #574/24).
Public input provided in 2021 and 2023, during the development of the City Centre Plan were
used to develop three concept strategies with different character: Urban Grove, Cultural Heart,
and Island of Serenity (Attachment 2). These alternatives were not intended as final designs
but rather as starting points to gather public feedback and define a direction that best reflects
Pickering’s needs and aspirations. The key features that were included for all three strategies,
based on previous public input were: trees, a washroom/amenity building, year-round
attractions such as a water feature and skating area, site furnishings, and public art.
- 119 -
ENG 08-26 May 4, 2026
Page 2
The community engagement process included both in-person public engagement and an on-
line survey through the City’s Let’s Talk Pickering platform between May and September 2025.
Public Engagement Boards were displayed at the Artfest event and were left on display at the
Pickering Public Library Central Branch and the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation
Complex throughout the engagement period.
The Let’s Talk Pickering website attracted a total of 776 visitors, with 308 of them responding
to the online survey. Feedback from the in-person events and online survey indicated a strong
support for elements of all three concept strategies, suggesting a hybrid design approach
would best reflect community priorities. Residents liked the concept of a large gathering space
to host year-round civic events, with a central water feature to animate the space over the
summer months, and skating to draw people into the park during the winter. They also liked
the idea of an abundance of green space and natural landscaping within the park.
MJMA has prepared a preferred concept design for City Centre Park for Council’s
endorsement (Attachment 1). The proposed plan features a large gathering/event space with a
central water misting feature. The gathering space will transform into a skating rink during the
winter months. The plan also features walking paths that meander through treed areas, some
which will transform to a skating trail during the winter months. The amenity building will be
sized appropriately to accommodate universal washrooms, staff facilities, mechanical/electrical
space, and indoor storage for the ice re-surfacer. In order to keep the building footprint to a
minimum, the chiller plant for the rink will be located on the building rooftop and screened from
view, making the building facade approximately two-storeys in height and able to
accommodate a large video screen. Trees will be located in turf areas and planting beds
around the site. A public art plaza is also being proposed, clearly visible from the street.
Seating areas in the form of traditional site furniture and seat walls will be incorporated into the
site design, scattered around the park.
A Class C Construction Cost Estimate is being prepared for the preferred concept design. The
goal is to achieve and maintain a construction cost of approximately $18,000,000 in 2027
dollars.
2.0 Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan:
The recommendations in this report respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priorities of
Advocate for an Inclusive, Welcoming, Safe & Healthy Community; Advance Innovation &
Responsible Planning to Support a Connected, Well-Serviced Community; and Lead &
Advocate for Environmental Stewardship, Innovation & Resiliency.
3.0 Financial Implications:
There are no financial implications to report at this time.
- 120 -
ENG 08-26 May 4, 2026
Page 3
4.0 Discussion:
The purpose of this report is to inform Council on the status of the City Centre Park design and
to receive endorsement of the preferred concept design prior to proceeding to the design
development and detailed design phase of this project. City Centre Park was confirmed to be
Council’s second capital budget priority, as the first phase of the City Centre redevelopment, at
a Special Meeting of Council held on January 18, 2024 (Resolution # 379/24). Council
approved retaining MacLennan Jaunkalns Miller Architects Ltd. (MJMA) to provide design and
construction administration services for the City Centre Park at the September 23, 2024
Council meeting (Report ENG 16-24, Resolution #574/24).
The Pickering City Centre Plan serves as the strategic blueprint guiding downtown
development, and City Centre Park represents its first foundational phase. Public input
provided in 2021 and 2023, during the development of the City Centre Plan, indicated a strong
desire for the park to be a vibrant downtown hub animated by art, performances, and civic
events. People emphasized the importance of comfortable, welcoming public spaces and
highlighted the need for gardens, shade and an abundance of seating. Amenities such as
outdoor skating and a water feature to support year-round programming were also noted as
priorities.
4.1 Concept Strategies
The new City Centre Park is to be a landmark, where nature, culture and community come
together to represent the best of Pickering. It is to be a year-round destination that is vibrant
with activity. In developing the vision for the City Centre Park, MJMA prepared three distinct
concept strategies to test different approaches to layout and character. Each strategy
integrated the community’s top priorities, while offering a unique perspective on how the park
could function as the civic heart of the downtown. Across the three strategies, several features
consistently appeared, shaped by past engagement and community expectations for a
successful park:
• Trees – An urban canopy plays a vital role in enhancing public spaces by offering
shade, improving air quality and managing stormwater runoff. It fosters biodiversity and
adds visual appeal throughout the year, enriching the city’s environment and livability;
• Washroom and Amenity Building – A dedicated building will house essential facilities,
including public washrooms, to support the site’s programming;
• Year-round Attractions – The park will be brought to life with year-round attractions,
including seasonal plantings that highlight the changing seasons. Winter will feature a
skating area, while summer will offer an interactive water element;
• Site Furnishings – The park will be designed to be accessible to everyone, offering a
range of furnishings that create a warm and inviting atmosphere. It will support diverse
activities, from relaxing alone, to enjoying a picnic, to meeting up with friends; and,
• Public Art – The park will incorporate public art, with installations designed to engage
visitors and complement the park’s overall environment.
- 121 -
ENG 08-26 May 4, 2026
Page 4
The park’s role within the larger city-wide network of public spaces and the city’s close
proximity to the Oak Ridges Moraine, underscoring the need for design strategies that respect
and reflect larger ecological systems, were also considerations in the concepts prepared.
Three concept strategies were developed to explore different ways the City Centre Park could
take shape. These alternatives were not intended as final designs but rather as starting points
to spark dialogue, gather feedback, and define a direction that best reflects Pickering’s needs
and aspirations. Each strategy responded to the same program elements but emphasized a
different character. The three strategies: Urban Grove, Cultural Heart, and Island of Serenity
are briefly described below with a more detailed description and rendering of each is included
in Attachment 2 of this report.
• The Urban Grove strategy blends urban plaza with the natural beauty of a shaded tree
canopy. At the core of the park is an open area for large city gatherings. A misting
system provides summer cooling. In winter, a skating trail winds through the trees and
open area, creating a distinctive seasonal experience.
• The Cultural Heart strategy is an urban design centered around a water feature as the
focal point of the plaza framed with a lush softscape of trees, gardens and lawn. In the
winter, the water feature transforms into a skating rink.
• The Island of Serenity strategy prioritizes lush green space surrounded by trees and
landscaping. Reflection ponds are woven throughout the site. Winter ice would need to
be achieved through the placement of mobile ice mats on the central lawn area.
4.2 Community Consultation
The community engagement process included both in-person public engagement and an on-
line survey through the City’s Let’s Talk Pickering platform between May and September 2025.
Public Engagement Boards were displayed and staffed at the Artfest event on May 24, 2025,
and were left on display at the Pickering Public Library Central Branch and the Chestnut Hill
Developments Recreation Complex throughout the engagement period. A list of the dates and
locations of the project information was shared with the residents and results of the
consultation process is included in Attachment 3.
The Let’s Talk Pickering website attracted a total of 776 visitors, with 308 of them responding
to the online survey. Feedback from the in-person events and online survey indicated a strong
support for elements of all three concept strategies, suggesting a hybrid design approach
would best reflect community priorities. The key takeaway for each strategy was as follows:
• Urban Grove: Incorporate pedestrian paths including a skating trail amongst the trees to
create a unique city experience;
• Cultural Heart: Feature a large gathering space with skating and an interactive water
feature at its center to host year-round civic events and provide day-to-day enjoyment;
and,
- 122 -
ENG 08-26 May 4, 2026
Page 5
• Island of Serenity: Emphasize an abundance of green space and natural landscaping to
create a restorative, welcoming environment.
Water elements such as the misting features and ground sprays ranked highly among the
respondents and were viewed as desirable for enhancing comfort. Similarly, ice skating was
favoured by many as a way to draw people to the park in the winter.
4.3 Preferred Concept Design
MJMA has prepared a preferred concept design for City Centre Park for Council’s
endorsement (Attachment 1). It draws from elements from all three strategies but
predominantly from the Urban Grove and Cultural Heart strategies.
The proposed plan features a large gathering/event space with a central water misting feature
that would operate over the summer months. The gathering space around the misting feature
will transform into a skating rink during the winter months. The plan also features walking paths
that meander through treed areas, some which will transform to skating trails during the winter
months. The amenity building will be sized appropriately to accommodate universal
washrooms, staff facilities, mechanical/electrical space, and indoor storage for the ice re-
surfacer. In order to keep the building footprint to a minimum, the chiller plant for the rink will
be located on the building rooftop and screened from view, making building facade
approximately two-storeys in height and able to accommodate a large video screen. Trees will
be located in turf areas and planting beds around the site, with the west and north sides of the
park more heavily treed. A public art plaza is also being proposed, clearly visible from the
intersection of Glenanna Road and Esplanade South. Seating areas in the form of traditional
site furniture and seat walls will be incorporated into the site design, scattered around the park.
4.4 Project Costing
MJMA had a Class D Construction Cost Estimate prepared to obtain a high-level order of
magnitude cost for the three concept strategies. The estimates, including a 10% design
contingency, a 10% construction contingency and a 15% escalation in costs to 2027 dollars
were as follows:
• Urban Grove: $20,100,000
• Cultural Heart: $24,300,000
• Island of Serenity: $16,200,000
Features in each estimate included an amenity building for public washrooms, a staff room and
service space, a water feature, a skating feature, flexible open space, paths, soft landscaping,
lighting, power supply and basic infrastructure for A/V and security systems. The Cultural Heart
strategy was the most expensive as it included a large skating rink, a water jet system, and a
larger amenity building to accommodate the required equipment. The Island of Serenity
strategy was the least expensive as there is no built-in/permanent rink refrigeration system
- 123 -
ENG 08-26 May 4, 2026
Page 6
(mobile ice mats were proposed with this strategy) or water feature equipment, and as such,
the building could be smaller. The misting system that was included in the Urban Grove
strategy has also been incorporated in the preferred concept design, requires much less
mechanical equipment and uses a small fraction of water in comparison to a jet system,
making both its installation and operating costs much lower.
The preferred concept design was developed in consultation with staff from the City
Development, City Infrastructure, Community Services, and Engineering Services
Departments. Staff recommend that Council endorse this plan and that the consultant be
directed to proceed to the design development and detail design stages.
A Class C Construction Cost Estimate is being prepared for the preferred concept design to
confirm it’s estimated value. The goal is to achieve and maintain a construction cost of
approximately $18,000,000 in 2027 dollars.
4.5 Project Schedule and Next Steps
Following authorization from Council, MJMA will proceed with the Design Development phase.
This phase will include meetings with the Community Safety & Well Being Advisory
Committee, the Accessibility Advisory Committee, and the Cultural Advisory Committee, to
present the Council endorsed concept design and to obtain their comments. This phase will
also include a review of the Class C Estimate, refining and further detailing the plan, and
preparation of a Class B Estimate to ensure the project costs stay in check. The preparation of
detailed design drawings and specifications will proceed through the fall and winter. It is
anticipated that the project can be tendered in Spring 2027 subject to 2027 budget approval,
with construction commencing in Summer 2027 pending Council approval of a Tender award.
The construction of the park features will take approximately 12 months to complete.
Attachments:
1. City Centre Park Preferred Concept Design
2. City Centre Park Concept Strategies
3. Public Engagement Summary
4. Location Map
Prepared By: Arnold Mostert, Manager, Landscape & Parks Development
Approved/Endorsed By: Richard Holborn, Director, Engineering Services
- 124 -
ENG 08-26 May 4, 2026
Page 7
AM:am
Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council By:
Marisa Carpino, M.A.
Chief Administrative Officer
- 125 -
Preferred Concept Design
By bringing together key elements from
each concept, a combined approach was
developed for City Centre Park. The design
creates a dynamic, year-round destination
with a vibrant central gathering space for
large events and everyday use. Trees and
planting form a lush canopy along the site
perimeter, offering shade, comfort, and
quiet retreat, while the sun-bathed northern
edge features pathways weaving through
gardens. Misting features animate the
centre of the park in warmer months, with
additional intimate experiences nestled
within the trees. In winter, the park offers a
range of skating experiences, with a central
urban rink complemented by skating trails
that weave through the canopy, creating a
distinctive seasonal experience.
Winding Winding
PathwaysPathways
Amenity Amenity
BuildingBuilding
Concept strategy integrating key elements from all three initial design approaches
The key elements of the design strategy are:
•Summer misting feature (water element)
•Winter ice skate rink & trails
•Flexible & fixed seating
•Perimeter planting and lawn spaces
•Winding pathways
•Amenity building along south
edge of site
N
Winter Skate Winter Skate
Trail / Summer Trail / Summer
Walking TrailWalking TrailWinter Central Winter Central
Skate RinkSkate Rink
Summer Mist Summer Mist
Water FeatureWater Feature
Public Art Public Art
PlazaPlaza
Attachment 1 - Report ENG 08-26
- 126 -
Urban Grove
Urban Grove blends urban plaza with the
natural beauty of a shaded tree canopy.
Trees are planted throughout the space,
offering generous shade over plentiful
places to sit and gardens to wander
through. At the core of the park lies an open
area for large city gatherings—clouds of fine
mist are created by nozzles embedded in
unit pavers, cooling the air and adding a
lively, playful ambiance. In winter, a skating
trail winds through the trees and open area,
creating a distinctive seasonal experience.
Fixed Fixed
SeatingSeating
Winter Skate Winter Skate
Trail / Summer Trail / Summer
Walking TrailWalking Trail
Summer Mist Summer Mist
Water FeatureWater Feature
Amenity Amenity
BuildingBuilding
Distributed Distributed
PlantingPlanting
Design for concept strategy ‘Urban Grove’
The key elements are:
•Summer misting feature (water element)
•Winter ice skate trail
•Abundant forest grove
•Fixed seating
•Distributed planting throughout site
•Amenity building along south of site
N
Attachment 2 - Report ENG 08-26
- 127 -
Cultural Heart
Cultural Heart is a vibrant urban design
proposal centered around a water feature
that serves as the focal point of the plaza.
Framed by a lush softscape of trees, gardens
and lawn along the site’s edges, the space
offers a welcoming balance between nature
and urban life. In the winter months, the
water feature transforms into an inviting
skating rink, bringing seasonal energy and
activity to the heart of the community.
Winding Winding
PathwaysPathways
Summer Water Ground Summer Water Ground
Sprays / Winter Ice RinkSprays / Winter Ice Rink
Amenity Amenity
BuildingBuilding
Perimeter Perimeter
Planting + LawnPlanting + Lawn
Design for concept strategy ‘Cultural Heart’
The key elements of the design strategy are:
• Summer water ground sprays
• Winter ice skate rink
• Perimeter forest grove
• Winding pathways
• Perimeter planting and lawn
• Amenity building along south east of site
N
- 128 -
Island of Serenity
Island of Serenity prioritizes lush green
space and surrounded by trees and
landscaping to create a peaceful retreat
within the city. Reflection ponds are woven
throughout the site, enclose a central open
lawn that offers a quiet, restorative escape
from the surrounding urban environment.
This flexible green core is not only a place
for relaxation but also serves as a venue for
community activities and gathering. As the
weather gets cold, the park transforms into
a winter wonderland featuring skating and
festive lights.
Summer Central Lawn / Summer Central Lawn /
Winter Ice RinkWinter Ice Rink
Amenity Amenity
BuildingBuilding
Distributed Distributed
Reflection PondsReflection Ponds
Perimeter Perimeter
PlantingPlanting
Flexible Flexible
SeatingSeating
Design for concept strategy ‘Island of Serenity’
The key elements of the design strategy are:
• Summer reflection ponds
• Winter ice rink (provided by mobile
ice mats)
• Large central lawn
• Flexible seating
• Perimeter planting
• Amenity building along north
edge of site
N
- 129 -
Public Outreach
Effective public outreach has been central to shaping City Centre Park. The City leveraged
both its Let’s Talk Pickering engagement platform and a series of in-person pop-up events to
invite residents, stakeholders, and local partners into the design conversation, ensuring that
the park reflects community values, needs, and aspirations. This following pages summarize
the results of the structured process that has been implemented to both inform the public
and gather meaningful feedback at this important phase of the project.
Attachment 3 - Report ENG 08-26
- 130 -
To complement the online survey, the City hosted a series of pop-up engagement sessions
at key community events. These sessions brought the design strategies directly into public
spaces, giving residents the opportunity to view design strategies, ask questions of staff and
consultants, and provide input in real time. This format was particularly effective in reaching
diverse audiences, including those less likely to participate online.
Project information was shared with the residents at the following events:
• May 24 at Artfest event
• Friday, June 20 from 4:30 pm to 7:30 pm at The Shops at Pickering City Centre
• Friday, July 4 from 5:30 pm to 7:30 pm at Rick Johnson Memorial Park (Summer Concert
event)
• Sunday, July 13 from 2:00 pm to 4:00 pm at Esplanade Park (Summer Concert event)
• Friday, July 18 from 5:30 pm to 7:30 pm at Rick Johnson Memorial Park (Summer Concert
event)
• Friday, August 8 from 5:30 pm to 7:30 pm at Rick Johnson Memorial Park (Summer
Concert event)
Post cards promoting the project and the on-line survey were handed out at all of these pop-
ups/events, highlighting how to access the online survey:
• Farmers’ Markets - July 15 & July 22 (10:00 am - 12:00 pm)
• Library Ovee Vehicle Stops - July 15 (6:00 pm to 7:00 pm in Greenwood), July 16 (10:00
am – 12:00 pm at Rick Johnson Memorial Park) & July 22 (6:00 pm – 7:00 pm at West
Shore Community Centre)
• Library Sessions - July 17 (4:00 pm – 5:30 pm at Youth Drop-In at Central Library) & July
22 (1:00 pm – 3:00 pm at Seniors Social at Central Library)
• Millennium Square Concerts - July 17 (7:00 pm to 9:00 pm) & July 23 (7:00 pm – 9:00 pm)
• Esplanade Park Concerts - July 20 (2:00 pm – 4:00 pm) & July 27 (2:00 pm – 4:00 pm)
• Rick Johnson Memorial Park Concerts - July 25 (5:30 pm – 7:30 pm)
In-Person Public Engagement Pop-up Dates - 2025
- 131 -
Public Engagement Boards
The following section presents the public engagement boards used during in-person public
engagement pop-ups. A total of 12 boards, including the title board, are shown below and
in enlarged format on the following pages.
- 132 -
- 133 -
- 134 -
- 135 -
- 136 -
- 137 -
- 138 -
- 139 -
- 140 -
- 141 -
- 142 -
- 143 -
- 144 -
Summary of Results for Digital Survey Q1-3
Option Average
Rank
A peaceful green space for relaxation amid the city 2.28
A daily-use park for workers, residents, and visitors 2.48
A civic gathering space for public events and celebrations 2.52
A flexible space adaptable for multiple uses 2.622.62
Q1 Results (Park Adjacency): City Centre Park will be located adjacent to City Hall and
the Central Library. What role should this central location play in the park’s design?
1 (MOST IMPORTANT) 4 (LEAST IMPORTANT)
Option Average
Rank
Include trees and natural landscaping throughout the park 2.99
Support year-round use through seasonal design features 3.24
Provide flexible space for public events and celebrations 4.13
Ensure the project is cost-effective and fiscally responsible 4.48
Incorporate environmentally sustainable design practices 4.49
Align with and enhance the existing programming in nearby Esplanade 5.15
Park
Create a distinct and recognizable community landmark 5.16
Honour and reflect Indigenous heritage and culture 5.785.78
Q2 Results (Park Priorities): The design will need to balance different priorities based on
spatial restrictions, budget, and timeline. Rank the choices.
1 (MOST IMPORTANT) 8 (LEAST IMPORTANT)
2.28
2.99 5.78
2.62
- 145 -
Option Average
Rank
Attending community or civic events (e.g., festivals, concerts, 4.83
ceremonies)
Enjoying seasonal features (e.g., winter lights, splash pad in summer) 5.1
Meeting friends or socializing 5.38
Casual walking or jogging 5.53
Skating (e.g., winter ice rink or trail) 5.56
Relaxing alone (e.g., reading, enjoying nature) 5.79
Letting kids play in a water feature 6.25
Having a picnic 6.99
Taking part in cultural or arts programming 7.42
Participating in fitness or wellness classes (e.g., yoga, tai chi) 7.73
Playing informal games (e.g., frisbee, bocce, lawn games) 7.73
Exploring art or educational installations 7.8
1 (MOST IMPORTANT) 12 (LEAST IMPORTANT)
Q3 Results (Park Activities): What kinds of activities would you most likely participate in
at the new City Centre Park?
4.83 7.80
- 146 -
Summary of Results for Digital Survey Q11-14
Water Fountains/Jets Skate Rink
Q10 Q11
Water Mist Skate Trail
Reflecting Pond Other
Other
#*&$$&0%(&0% &
'$+$
;
8@B-CD
8@B-CD
B<-CD
B<-CD
@8B-CD
@8B-CD
<B8-CD
<B8-CD
@= @C ?D . " #: ;
#0/& &&/
!
""
#*&$$&0%(&0% &/
+$;
"B "-8CD
"B "-8CD
B9<- CD
B9<- CD
9B"-8CD
9B"-8CD
( ( ( #: ;
#0/& &&/
!
@""
8% 8%
29%
40%
58%
23%
35%
The following graphs indicate survey results for Park Activities based on the following
questions:
Q10: How would you like to interact with water?
Q11: How would you like to skate in the winter?
Q12: How would you like to spend a summer weekend?
Q13: What would you like in an amenity building?
Q14: What kind of park seating would you enjoy?
- 147 -
Fixed benches
Q14
Movable seats
Picnic tables
Other
#< .+
( &7
/
4 $&0%( &0 )&;
"8B@-CD
"8 B@-CD
8B9@-CD
8 B9@-CD
88 B-9CD
88 B-9CD
@ B8-"CD
@ B8-"CD
=, C " , # , # : ;
#0/& &&/
"
!
""
9%
29%
36%
29%
Immersed in Gardens Skate Change
Q12 Q13
Lying on a Lawn Skate Rental
Listening to a Concert Snack Bar
Other Other
# *&$ $&0%( &0 % & /(
/0 $ (;
"B9-9CD
" B9-9CD
"B98-CD
" B98-CD
B9-CD
B9-CD
9 B"-@CD
9 B"-@CD
> # )
!! " " > # : ;
#0/& &&/
"
!
"""
8% 9%
23% 42%
39% 25%
30%
23%
- 148 -
Summary of Results for Digital Survey Q17-20
The following graphs indicate survey results for Park Activities based on the following
questions:
Q17: How often do you visit the downtown Pickering area (near City Hall/Central Library/The
Shops at Pickering City Centre)?
Q18: If you were to use the City Centre Park, how would you most commonly attend - select
the one option that resonates best.
Q19: What are the first 3 digits of your Pickering postal code?
Q20: What age group applies to you?
- 149 -
Q18
10%
16% 49%
25%
Q17
<1%
B-<CD
B-"CD
<"B"-<CD
11% 17%
CD 23%
49%
9B<8- CD
#"*&$&7(&&0:/+(&$&$ ' 4
B
*
%%H
%,
H+
+&/
' 4D;
<"B"-<CD
9B<8- CD
@B9-CD
@B9-
B-"CD
B-<CD
G @( = #
#0/& &&/
"
()
""
Weekly Monthly Never
Daily Rarely
Q19
L1W L1X
L1V L1Y
I don’t live in Pickering but still
reside within Durham Region
I live outside of Durham Region
With my spouse/ With my family/children
partner With my co-worker/friend
By Myself 1%
Q20
Under 18 18-24
25-34 35-44
45-54 55-64
65+ Prefer not to answer
<
B
-
9
C
D B
17% -"
C
D
@B
-
C
D
15% <1%
B
-2%
"C
D 2%
63%
#
.
+
+
?
/
9
(
4
/&
7
&0
'
4
&/
%
'
&(;
8 B
@
-
CD
8 B
@
-
CD
B
"-9
CD
B
"-9
CD
< B
-9
CD B
-"
CD @B
-
CD
B
-"
CD
>2
>2@
>2]
>2
"
P
(
,
")
# G
#
!
"G
#
!
#0/& &&/
()
""
<B-<CD
9B- CD 9B9-9CD
11% 13% B -CD
-@CD 5%
13%
15% <<
16%
-@CD
27%
#.+
44&0
%/&&0;
9B9-9CD
B -CD
<<B -CD
B -CD
"8B@- CD
"8B@- CD
<@B -@CD
<@B
9"B-@CD
9"B
9B- CD
<B-<CD
"2&2&'$+$-'1+1-'+++-'-+--'/+/-T )
#0/& &&/
()
9""
- 150 -
Legend
c:::I Proposed Location
for City Centre Park
Street
--PublicL-·Public (PROPOSED)
ENCORE STREET
0 ~ 0:: <z z ct z w ...J C)
Engineering Services LOCATION MAP Department -044-Proposed City Centre Park SCALE: DATE: PICKERING
1 :1,470 Apr. 09, 2026I
Attachment 4 - Report ENG 08-26
- 151 -
Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: INF 06-26
Date: May 4, 2026
From: Kevin Heathcote
Director, City Infrastructure
Subject:
Supply and Delivery of One 4 Ton Dump Truck with Plow and Wing
Request for Quotation No. RFQQ2026-14
File: A-1440-001
Recommendation:
1. That the Quotation submitted by Premier Truck Group of London in response to Request
for Quotation No. RFQQ2026-14 for the Supply and Delivery of One 4 Ton Dump Truck
with Plow and Wing, in the amount of $467,078.00 (net HST) or $518,670.00 (HST
included) be accepted;
2. That the total gross project cost of $518,670.00 (HST included), and the total net project
cost of $467,078.00 (net HST) be approved;
3. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer, to finance the total net project
cost of $467,078.00 as approved in the 2026 Capital Budget, with the funding source
changed from 5-year debt financing to DC-Other Services Related to Highway Reserve;
and,
4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions
necessary to implement the recommendations in this report.
1.0 Executive Summary:
The purpose of this report is to award Request for Quotation No. RFQQ2026-14 for the Supply
and Delivery of One 4 Ton Dump Truck with Snowplow and Wing. The Public Works Division,
within the City Infrastructure Department uses heavy trucks for critical municipal operations,
including winter road maintenance and seasonal construction projects. To support continued
urban growth, the acquisition of this additional unit was approved as part of the 2026 Fleet
Capital Budget.
On March 24, 2026, a Second Stage Quotation, RFQQ2026-14 through Canoe Procurement
Collaborative Agreement was advertised on the City’s bids&tenders portal. One company
responded by the closing date of April 9, 2026. The quotation from Premier Truck Group of
- 152 -
INF 06-26 April 27, 2026
Page 2
London complied with all of the technical requirements and received an acceptable score from
the Evaluation Committee.
In accordance with the Purchasing Policy, Item 13.01, the Manager may enter into arrangements
with municipalities, local boards and other public bodies on a cooperative or joint venture basis
where there are economic advantages and where the best interests of the City would be served.
The policy of the government agency or public authority hosting the cooperative call for bids is to
be the accepted policy of the City for the cooperative call and no other approval by the City is
required beyond that of the Manager, appropriate Director and Treasurer, unless debt funding is
required, then Council approval must first be obtained.
2.0 Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan:
The recommendations in this report respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priority of Advance
Innovation & Responsible Planning to Support a Connected, Well-Serviced Community.
3.0 Financial Implications:
1. Quotation Amount
Quotation No. RFQQ2026-14 $459,000.00
HST (13%) 59,670,00
Total Gross Quotation Cost
$518,670.00
2. Estimated Project Costing Summary
Quotation No. RFQQ2026-14 $459,000.00
HST (13%) 59,670,00
Total Gross Project Costs $518,670.00
HST Rebate (11.24%) (51,592.00)
Total Net Project Cost $467,078.00
- 153 -
INF 06-26 April 27, 2026
Page 3
3. Approved Source of Funds
Description Account Code
Source of
Funds
Approved
Budget
Required
4 Ton Dump
Truck with
Snowplow and
Wing – New
4 Ton Dump
Truck with
Snowplow and
Wing – New
C10315.2609
C10315.2609
DC Debt-5 Year
DC-Other
Services Related
to a Highway
Reserve
$520,000.00
0.00
0.00
$467,078.00
Total Funds $520,000.00 $467,078.00
Project Cost under (over) approved funds by $52,922.00
4.0 Discussion:
The purpose of this report is to award Request for Quotation No. RFQQ2026-14 for the Supply
and Delivery of One 4 Ton Dump Truck with Snowplow and Wing. The Public Works Division,
within the City Infrastructure Department uses heavy trucks for critical municipal operations,
including winter road maintenance and seasonal construction projects. To support continued
urban growth, the acquisition of this additional unit was approved as part of the 2026 Fleet
Capital Budget.
Dump trucks are highly versatile assets utilized across a range of operations within Public
Works. During the summer months, they support roadway maintenance, new construction
projects, and the transportation of various materials. In the winter season particularly during
on-call periods, these trucks are essential for salting and plowing City streets to ensure
compliance with the Minimum Maintenance Standards as outlined in Ontario Regulation
239/02 and City of Pickering Levels of Service. As new development and growth continue
across the city, new plow routes are created which require additional equipment and staff to
service them.
- 154 -
INF 06-26 April 27, 2026
Page 4
On March 24, 2026, a Second Stage Quotation, RFQQ2026-14 through Canoe Procurement
Collaborative Agreement was advertised on the City’s bids&tenders portal. One company
responded by the closing date of April 9, 2026.
The quotation from Premier Truck Group of London complied with all of the technical
requirements and received an acceptable score from the Evaluation Committee.
Canoe Procurement Group is a collaborative agency which the City is a member of, and
therefore, meets the criteria of a Cooperative Purchase as per Section 13.01 of the Purchasing
Policy.
Upon careful review of the responses received, the City Infrastructure Department recommends
the acceptance of the compliant response submitted by Premier Truck Group London for
Request for Quotation No RFQQ2026-14 in the amount of $467,078.00 (net HST) or
$518,670.00 (HST included) and that the total net project cost of $467,078.00 (net HST) be
approved.
Attachment: None
Prepared By: Matt Currer, Manager, Fleet & Roads Operations
Approved/Endorsed By: Kevin Heathcote, Director, City Infrastructure
Approved/Endorsed By: Cathy Bazinet, Manager, Procurement
Approved/Endorsed By: Stan Karwowski, Director, Finance & Treasurer
MC:mjh
Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council By:
Marisa Carpino, M.A.
Chief Administrative Officer
- 155 -
Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: PLN 10-26
Date: May 4, 2026
From: Kyle Bentley
Director, City Development & CBO
Subject:
Development Application Approvals Process (DAAP) Fee Review
Proposed Building, Planning and Engineering Service Fees
File: L-1100-031
Recommendation:
1. That the Development Applications Approvals Process (DAAP) Fee Review prepared by
Watson and Associates Economists Ltd. included as Attachment 1 be endorsed;
2. That the recommended amendments to the City Development - Building and Planning Fees
and Development Services Fees included in Attachments 2, 3 and 4 to Report PLN 10-26
to establish fee adjustments, be approved; and that the draft By-laws to adopt Fees be
finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment;
3. That the recommended fees outlined in Attachments 2, 3 and 4 to Report PLN 10-26 take
effect on July 1, 2026;
4. That all Planning, Building, and Development Services Fees continue to be indexed
annually, based on the City‘s annual budgeted cost increases or other appropriate index
(i.e., the Municipal Price Index) to maintain the proposed level of cost recovery; and,
5. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions
necessary to implement the recommendations in this report.
1.0 Executive Summary:
The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the recently completed Development
Application Approvals Process (“DAAP”) Fee Review. The report summarizes the tasks
completed as part of this review, outlines the findings of the DAAP Fee Review Report,
prepared by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. (“Watson”) (see Attachment 1), and
presents proposed fee changes for Building, Planning, and Engineering-related services with
the objective of obtaining full cost recovery.
On February 24, 2025, through Resolution #665/25 (see Attachment 5) the recommendations
and associated implementation of Streamlining the Development Application Review Process
(“DARP”), including a recommendation to conduct a future DAAP fee review, was endorsed.
- 156 -
PLN 10-26 May 4, 2026
Page 2
As a result, staff engaged Watson to conduct a comprehensive review of City Development
(Building and Planning) and Engineering Services (Development Services) fees to ensure the
services provided result in full cost recovery.
Staff recommend that Council endorse the DAAP Fee Review, as set out in Attachment 1,
approve the recommended fees as outlined in Attachments 2, 3 and 4, and that the draft By-
laws to adopt the recommended fee increases be finalized and forwarded to Council for
enactment, taking effect as of July 1, 2026.
2.0 Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan:
The recommendations in this report respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priorities of:
Champion Economic Leadership & Innovation; and Advance Innovation & Responsible
Planning to Support a Connected, Well-Serviced Community.
3.0 Financial Implications:
On average, the City's annual costs to process development applications are $11.5 million,
while annual development application fee revenue is $9.6 million. This creates a $1.9 million
shortfall, which must be funded either through the municipal tax base or, in the case of building
permit revenues, by drawing on the City’s Building Permit Reserve Fund. These cost estimates
include direct, indirect, and capital expenses associated with processing development
applications, based on average historical application volumes between 2022 and 2025.
While current fee revenue covers some service costs, adjustments are required to align fees
with actual processing costs. Some application fees will need to increase, others will need to
decrease, and some will remain unchanged. The recommended fee increases are intended to
cover current costs and the level of effort required to process development applications, and
reduce the financial burden on taxpayers. If the proposed fees are not adjusted, the funding
shortfall will need to be addressed through the tax base and/or the Building Reserve Fund.
The current and proposed development application fees are outlined in Attachments 2, 3 and 4
of this report and reflect cost recovery for development review services based on the number
of business units and staffing effort involved (direct costs), as well as indirect and capital costs,
and process changes. If approved, the new fees would come into effect on July 1, 2026, and
the budget impacts would be incorporated into the 2027 budget process.
Furthermore, it is recommended that all Building, Planning, and Development Services Fees
continue to be indexed annually to the City's budgeted cost increases or to another suitable
index, such as the Municipal Price Index. Annual indexing ensures fees keep pace with
inflationary pressures on expenses and avoid significant increases during future
comprehensive fee reviews.
Based on both historical and forecasted application volumes, fee recommendations have been
provided, which are expected to generate:
- 157 -
PLN 10-26 May 4, 2026
Page 3
$238,000 in additional annual planning fee revenue, increasing cost recovery from 73% to
79%;
$175,000 in additional annual engineering fee revenue, increasing cost recovery from 90%
to 100%; and
$895,000 in additional annual building permit fee revenue, achieving full recovery and
contributing to the reserve fund to support long-term sustainability.
4.0 Discussion:
The purpose of this report is to outline the recommendations provided by Watson on the DAAP
Fee Review, summarize the tasks completed as part of this review, and recommend the
proposed changes to Building, Planning, and Development Services Fees with the objective of
obtaining full cost recovery for processing planning and building permit applications, and
engineering review.
5.0 Background:
Development application fees, along with Development Charges, are crucial for funding
growth-related costs and minimizing impacts on the municipal tax base. A key principle in
establishing development-related fees is to fully cover the costs of processing development
applications and providing building code enforcement services within City Development, and
development-related reviews in Engineering Services.
Municipalities regularly review their fees to adapt to changes in development cycles,
application characteristics, and cost recovery goals, while also seeking fee structures that
more precisely align with processing levels.
Planning application and Building permit fees are updated every year through indexing.
Furthermore, in 2021, fees were approved under the General Municipal Fees and Charges By-
law after two reviews. The first review was prompted by provincial legislation relating to Bill
109. It introduced new fees related to the “pre-submission" phase, while also adjusting the
timing of fee payments to match the stage of the process better when the work is done. The
second review, unrelated to Bill 109, involved increasing development application fees to
better reflect the effort required of City staff. Before this, the most recent comprehensive Fee
Review was conducted by Watson & Associates in 2018.
On February 24, 2025, Council approved the recommendations for Streamlining the DARP and
the related implementation work plan (see Attachment 5, Directive Memo - Resolution
#665/25). A key component of the work plan was to conduct a thorough review of the DAAP
fee structure to incorporate future improvements and to ensure the City has the financial
resources needed to meet performance standards and regulatory review timelines.
Consequently, in June 2025, Watson & Associates was engaged to assist staff in carrying out
a detailed review of the DAAP fee structure.
- 158 -
PLN 10-26 May 4, 2026
Page 4
The DAAP fee review is necessary to ensure that development application fees (building,
planning, and engineering) accurately reflect the City’s current costs and the level of effort
required to process applications. The review also achieves the following:
responds to changes in the scope, complexity, and type of development applications in the
City of Pickering;
compliance with changing provincial legislation;
alignment with industry best practices;
refinement and streamlining of the development review processes resulting from the DARP
review, while also supporting the long-term financial stability of the development application
review function;
establishment of a fair user-fee structure for services rendered;
cost recovery for new planning responsibilities delegated to the City from the Region of
Durham;
demonstration of the City’s commitment to affordability, transparency, and excellent
customer service; and,
reduction of the portion of development review costs funded by taxpayers, while
considering stakeholder impacts.
6.0 Legislative Requirements:
Development-related fees are levied under the authority of the Planning Act, the Municipal Act,
and the Building Code Act.
6.1 Planning Act, Section 69, Planning Services Fees
Allows municipalities to impose fees through a By-law, and the expected costs of these
fees must be justified by application type as outlined in the Tariff of Fees By-law (e.g., fees
for processing application types such as Official Plan amendments, Zoning By-law
amendments, etc.).
Defines the requirements for determining Planning Fees. For example, they are designed
to recover the expected processing costs for each application type, reflecting the estimated
expenses for that type.
Fees can account for direct costs, capital-related costs, and support function costs directly
related to the service provided, and general overhead costs.
Cross-subsidization of planning fee revenues across different application types is not
allowed. For example, if Site Plan application fees are set below full cost recovery, this
discount cannot be funded by application fees that exceed full cost recovery and may need
to be covered by other general revenue sources, such as property taxes.
The payment of Planning Act fees can be made under protest to the Ontario Land Tribunal
(OLT) if the applicant believes the fees were inappropriately charged or are unreasonable.
Unlike other fees (e.g., Development Charges), there is no legislated appeal period related
to the timing of By-law passage, mandatory review period, or public process requirements.
- 159 -
PLN 10-26 May 4, 2026
Page 5
6.2 Municipal Act, 2001 Part XII, Development Services Fees
Allows municipalities to impose fees via the passage of a By-law, under Section 391(1):
a. For services or activities provided or done by or on behalf of it;
b. For costs payable by it for services or activities provided or performed by, or on behalf
of, any other municipality or local board.
c. For the use of its property, including property under its control
Allows municipalities to charge for capital costs related to services, including costs incurred
by the municipality, such as administration, enforcement, and the establishment,
acquisition, and replacement of capital assets that benefit residents and the public.
The statute does not allow for the appeal of fees to the OLT; appeals can be made to the
courts if municipalities exceed their legal powers.
The Act does not require public consultation or a mandatory term for the fees By-law.
6.3 Building Code Act, 1992, Building Services Fees
Section 7(1) of the Act grants municipalities the authority to impose fees via the passage of
a By-law, specifying:
(c) requiring the payment of fees and prescribing the amounts of those fees:
i) on application for and issuance of permits,
ii) for maintenance inspections,
iii) for providing information under subsection 15.10.4
iv) for providing information under subsection 15.10.6(2);
(c.1) requiring the payment of interest and other penalties, including payment of collection
costs, when fees are unpaid or are paid after the due date;
(d) Providing for refunds of fees under such circumstances as are prescribed.
The Building Code Statute Law Amendment Act, 2002, introduced additional requirements
for municipalities in setting fees, specifying that fees must not exceed the reasonable
anticipated cost for the principal authority to administer and enforce this Act within its
jurisdiction. Furthermore, the amendments also mandate that municipalities:
Reduce fees to reflect the portion of service performed by a Registered Code Agency;
Prepare and make available to the public annual reports with respect to the fees
imposed under the Act and associated costs;
Undertake a public process, including 21 days' notice and public meeting requirements,
when a change in the fee is proposed;
Fees must not exceed the anticipated reasonable costs of providing the service and
establish a cost justification test at the global Building Code Act level; and
Municipalities are required to report on annual direct and indirect costs related to fees,
which include general corporate overhead, indirect costs related to the provision of
service and related to future compliance requirements or fee stabilization reserve fund
contribution.
The Building Code Act recognizes the legitimacy of establishing a municipal reserve fund to
ensure service stability and reduce financial and operational risks associated with a
temporary slowdown in building permit activity. A reserve fund should be maintained to
- 160 -
PLN 10-26 May 4, 2026
Page 6
address staffing and budget challenges caused by cyclical economic downturns and
ongoing legislative compliance requirements. Without a reserve fund, reduced growth and
permit volumes during a downturn could lead to significant budget pressures, affecting the
City’s capacity to enforce the Building Code Act and the Ontario Building Code.
The Building Code Act does not require a specific method for establishing an appropriate
reserve fund. However, municipalities typically establish building permit reserve funds to
maintain service levels. During Watson's previous fee review, it was recommended that the
City set its reserve fund budget at 1.13 times the yearly cost of administering and enforcing
the Building Code Act. This target was based on an analysis of past housing downturns,
which showed that building permit activity and related revenue can decline significantly
relative to long-range historical averages. It was determined that approximately 1.5 years of
building permit revenue would be lost during an economic downturn, indicating that the
reserve fund should have 1.5 times the annual cost of service to maintain staff capacity
during those periods.
7.0 Process, Methodology and Analysis:
A Project Kick-Off Meeting was held on June 25, 2025, to introduce the consulting team,
confirm the scope and methodology, and review the work plan. The following tasks were
completed:
preliminary information was provided to Watson, including organizational charts, current fee
schedules, reserve fund policies and balances, annual development application volumes,
and annual building permit data and revenues;
more than 55 City staff involved in processing and reviewing planning applications
(including Engineering review) participated in meetings and interviews;
City Development staff participated in over 35 working sessions to establish categories for
assessing the full cost of service, identifying the resources used in delivering services, and
recording the time and effort spent per task; and
additional meetings were held to summarize key findings discussed at previous meetings,
and to analyze the data provided by City Staff.
Watson then applied an Activity-Based Costing methodology to this data. This approach
identifies the specific costs associated with processing each application to support full cost
recovery of development application fees. The costs assigned to processing activities and
application categories include:
Direct Costs – operating expenses tied to staff directly involved in service delivery activities
(including salaries, wages and benefits, materials, services, and contract services costs
assumed by the City that are directly related to the application processing);
Indirect Costs – operating expenses associated with departments that support direct
service delivery (e.g., Human Resources, Information Technology, Facilities and Fleet,
Finance, Corporate Services, etc.); and,
Capital costs – costs related to the replacement of capital assets and the proportional use
of City facilities.
- 161 -
PLN 10-26 May 4, 2026
Page 7
When developing the fee calculation categories, several factors that affect review and
processing effort were considered, including:
Planning Applications
standard and complex applications (e.g., Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law
Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision);
number of proposed units and gross floor areas for Site Plan applications;
submission of concurrent applications (e.g., Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-
law Amendment);
multiple variances within a single minor variance application;
consent applications, including those delegated from the Region of Durham; and,
other application types, such as Draft Plan of Condominium, Minister’s Zoning Orders
and Ontario Land Tribunal appeals.
Development Engineering Review
initial Engineering Review versus resubmissions; and,
inspections.
Building Permits
varying sizes of high-density development;
new construction versus alterations; and,
effort required for application review, inspection, enforcement, and administration.
This approach helps ensure that fees reflect the level of effort required and the associated
costs. Watson used the costing model results to support recommended changes to the City’s
fee structures and to develop the recommendations outlined in the final report (see Attachment
1).
- 162 -
PLN 10-26 May 4, 2026
Page 8
8.0 Annual Processing Costs, Existing Fee Revenues and Recommended Fees:
The City’s annual costs of reviewing development applications, annual revenues, and cost
recovery levels, in aggregate by service area, are shown in the table below. The estimated
annual costs reflect the organizational direct, indirect, and capital costs associated with
processing activities at average historical volume levels, and average annual application
between 2022 and 2025 and existing 2026, as well as fee calculation categories for these
applications (e.g., building area and number of residential units).
Annual Application Costs
and Revenue
Planning
Application
Fees
Development
Engineering
Fees
Building
Permit
Fees
Total
Direct Costs $ 3,211,728 $1,262,553 $4,530,239 $9,004,520
Indirect Costs $ 816,449 $372,559 $1,186,050 $2,375,059
Capital Costs $ 24,799 $10,772 $34,852 $70,422
Total Annual Costs $ 4,052,976 $1,645,884 $5,751,142 $11,450,001
Total Annual Revenue at
Existing Fees
$ 2,960,296 $1,474,290 $5,155,645 $9,590,232
Surplus/(Deficit) ($1,092,680) ($171,594) ($595,496) ($1,859,770)
Overall Cost Recovery %
(with no fee increase)
73% 90% 90% 84%
*Total revenues and processing costs are calculated using forecasted
average volumes and based on review of volumes and revenues from the
years 2022 to 2025.
Overall, the total annual costs of development review activities are $11.5 million, consisting of:
direct costs represent 79% of annual costs (approximately $9.0 million);
indirect costs represent 20% of annual costs (approximately $2.3 million); and,
capital costs represent 1% of annual costs (approximately $70 thousand).
In aggregate, revenues from current fees and average annual applications total $9.6 million, or
84% of costs, resulting in $1.9 million of the development fee review costs being funded by the
municipal tax base or drawn from the building permit reserve fund.
The current deficit of approximately $1.9 million indicates that the City Development and
Engineering Services Departments are not achieving full cost recovery. The primary goal of the
DAAP Fee Review is to determine appropriate fees that ensure full cost recovery. Accordingly,
Watson has provided recommendations for fee adjustments, as outlined in the following
sections.
8.1 Planning Fees
The planning application costing categories include all activities from Pre-Consultation through
final approval and file closure. These activities also account for time spent by Engineering staff
- 163 -
PLN 10-26 May 4, 2026
Page 9
on detailed engineering drawing reviews and the preparation of subdivision and site plan
agreements.
The table below summarizes current development application fees and the full cost-recovery
amounts.
Application
Type/Costing
Category Group
Total Costs Annual
Revenue
Surplus/(Deficit) Current Cost
Recovery (%)
Committee of
Adjustment
$983,977 $147,006 ($836,970) 15%
Official Plan &
Zoning By-law
Amendments
$1,022,506 $1,108,584 $86,079 108%
Draft Plan of
Subdivision
$717,791 $679,861 ($37,931) 95%
Draft Plan of
Condominium
$122,584 $67,088 ($55,497) 55%
Site Plan $1,078,341 $827,881 ($250,460) 77%
Other Planning
Applications
$127,777 $129,876 $2,099 102%
Subtotal –
Planning
$4,052,976 $2,960,296 ($1,092,680) 73%
The largest portion of the annual revenue shortfall comes from planning application review
fees (about $1.1 million annually), which are estimated to recover 73% of the yearly costs.
The proposed fee recommendations aim to enhance cost recovery within the legislative limits
of the Planning Act, while considering the affordability of fees, and general alignment with
other municipalities fees. The table below summarizes the proposed fee changes (proposed
increases or decreases) and comments by planning application type to strive for full cost
recovery. A complete list, including specific fees and proposed fee differences, is provided in
Attachment 4. Currently, for Zoning By-law Amendments, Draft Plan of Subdivisions, and Site
Plan Applications, the fee calculation includes a base fee and a variable fee per dwelling unit,
with no maximum cap on the number of units to which the fees apply.
Application Type Fee
Increase
Fee
Decrease
Comments
Major Official Plan
Amendment
Revenues currently generated from
these fees are recovering slightly
- 164 -
PLN 10-26 May 4, 2026
Page 10
Minor Official Plan
Amendment
above the full cost of service,
indicating that reductions to the fees
are needed to balance cost recovery.
Neighbourhood
Development
Guideline Amendment
Fee increased to achieve full cost
recovery. Currently, these fees are
below cost recovery, with costs being
recovered from Official Plan
Amendment fees.
Zoning By-law –
Removal of Holding Fee increased only for Removal of
Holding Fees, Extension of
Temporary Use and Minister’s Zoning
Order Fees. The per-unit variable fee
is capped at 400 units.
Zoning By-law –
Removal of Holding
(Complex/Block Plan
Required)
The fee has been increased to
improve cost recovery while remaining
comparable with other municipalities
fees.
Zoning By-law –
Extension of
Temporary Use By-law
The fee has been increased to align
with the base fee for a major Zoning
By-law Amendment.
Minister Zoning Order
Amendment – Major
Minister Zoning Order
Amendment – Minor
The Minister Zoning Orders fee
reflects the significant staff time and
effort involved in policy review and
associated report preparation.
Site Plan The base and variable application
fees increased to recover the full cost
of service. Variable fee capped at 400
units per application.
Revision to Draft
approved plan (redline
revision)
Draft Plan of
Subdivision
Minor decreases in per-unit fees to
align with cost recovery. Variable per-
unit fee capped at 400 units per
application, serving as the maximum
application fee. Minor decrease
proposed to variable per-unit fees.
Condominiums Fees for Draft Plan, Common
Element, Conversion, and red-line
revisions have been increased to full
cost recovery levels.
Committee of
Adjustment - Consent Fees were increased to the top end of
comparable municipalities' rates to
move closer to full cost recovery. In
addition, a per lot fee is introduced for
each new lot created after the first
(base fee).
- 165 -
PLN 10-26 May 4, 2026
Page 11
Committee of
Adjustment – Minor
Variance
Fees increased for accessory
buildings, structures, decks, platforms
and driveway widenings to keep fees
comparable with other Durham
Region municipalities.
Fees for other types of variances
have increased to recover a greater
share of costs.
Request for Zoning
Information Fee increased to achieve full cost
recovery.
Part Lot Control Fees The fee decrease is toward the
variable per-lot fee, not the base fee.
A new Fee Structure has been proposed for combined application submissions
In addition to the aforementioned fee changes, new fees are proposed when an Official Plan
Amendment (Major or Minor), Zoning By-law Amendment (Major), Draft Plan of Subdivision
and Draft Plan of Condominium Applications are submitted concurrently; a 20% reduction will
be applied to the total combined fee. The per-unit rate would still apply to up to 400 units.
The newly proposed combined fees also promote housing development by lowering the
application fees for the combined Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment
(major or minor), Zoning By-law Amendment, Draft Plan of Subdivision and Draft Plan of
Condominium, and by setting a maximum of 400 units for calculating the fee per residential
unit for Zoning By-law Amendments, Draft Plan of Subdivision and Site Plan applications.
Proposed Fee Adjustment Impacts
The above-mentioned fee adjustments would raise the average planning application fee
recovery rate from 73% to 79%, resulting in an additional $238,000 in annual revenue. The
table below shows the cost impacts based on the new fees.
Application
Type/Costing
Category Group
Total Costs Annual
Revenue
Surplus/(Deficit) Adjusted
Cost
Recovery
(%)
Committee of
Adjustment
$983,977 $282,126 ($701,850) 29%
Official Plan & Zoning
By-law Amendments
$1,022,506 $877,173 ($145,333) 86%
Draft Plan of
Subdivision
$717,791 $716,645 ($ 1,146) 100%
Draft Plan of
Condominium
$122,584 $122,833 $ 249 100%
- 166 -
PLN 10-26 May 4, 2026
Page 12
Site Plan $1,078,341 $1,079,120 $779 100%
Other Planning
Applications
$127,777 $119,975 ($7,802) 94%
Subtotal - Planning $4,052,976 $3,197,872 ($855,104) 79%
The remaining shortfall of $855,104, even after the recommended fee adjustments, is
attributed to the following:
A shortfall of $701,850 relates to the Committee of Adjustment Fees (Consent and Minor
Variance Applications), which are set below full cost recovery. When the City of Pickering
received delegated approval authority for Land Division from the Region of Durham, it
adopted the fee structure previously used by the Region’s Land Division Committee.
Although the DAAP review recommends increasing these fees to remain comparable with
other Durham Region municipalities, the adjusted fees will still not fully recover costs. Staff
recognize that in practice, minor variance applications associated with small projects
remain below cost recovery, this is intentional to ensure the financial burden on private
homeowners to bring their properties into compliance, is not overly burdensome. Watson
has recommended adjustments in future years to improve cost recovery;
The $145,333 shortfall for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications is a
result of City-initiated amendments, which do not generate fee revenue; and,
The remaining $7,802 is attributed to other miscellaneous applications.
In addition to the items listed above, all other planning application fees are set at full cost
recovery.
8.2 Development Services Fee
The engineering costing categories include time spent on inspection and other non-Planning
Act reviews led by Engineering Services. These activities include lot grading review, additional
subdivision review and inspections, additional site plan reviews and inspections, and land
division review.
The table below summarizes the current development application fees and their corresponding
full-cost recovery amounts.
Application
Type/Costing
Category Group
Total Costs Annual
Revenue
Surplus/(Deficit) Current Cost
Recovery (%)
Lot Grading $216,414 $139,646 ($76,767) 65%
Subdivision
Additional
Reviews
$49,209 $107,891 $58,682 219%
- 167 -
PLN 10-26 May 4, 2026
Page 13
Subdivision
Inspections
$799,071 $752,066 ($47,005) 94%
Site Plan
Additional
Reviews
$42,712 $12,762 ($29,950) 30%
Site Plan
Inspections
$305,165 $295,971 ($9,194) 97%
Land Division
(Consent)
$55,128 $51,580 ($3,548) 94%
Other Engineering $178,185 $114,375 ($63,811) 64%
Subtotal -
Engineering
$1,645,884 $1,474,290 ($171,594) 90%
The table below summarizes the proposed fee changes and explanatory comments by
application type to achieve full cost recovery. A complete list, including specific fees, is
provided in Attachment 4 of the Study.
Application
Type
Fee
Increase
Fee
Decrease
Comments
Subdivision
Additional
Review
The maximum fee will be decreased to 15% of
the engineering design review fee as the fees
were over-recovering costs. The fee for
additional submissions will be increased to a
minimum of $8,000 to increase the minimum
cost recovery of each review.
Subdivision
Inspections
Fees need to be increased to attain full cost
recovery. A minor increase to the inspection fee
is also proposed to achieve full cost recovery.
Site Plan
Additional
Review
The proposed fees are required to achieve full
cost recovery. A minor increase to inspection
fees is proposed.
Land Division
– Consent
(Clearance of
Conditions)
The engineering fee will remain unchanged, but
a slight increase is proposed to clear conditions
and allow for full cost recovery.
Lot Grading
and Infill Lot
Grading
Fees are proposed to achieve full cost recovery.
Miscellaneous
Engineering
Fees
Increases are proposed for Curb Cut, Municipal
Consent and Pool Enclosure Permits.
- 168 -
PLN 10-26 May 4, 2026
Page 14
Proposed Fee Adjustment Impacts
The above-noted fee adjustments would raise engineering review fees from 90% to 100% cost
recovery, resulting in an additional $175,000 in annual revenue. The table below shows the full
cost impacts of the proposed plan based on the recommended fees.
Application
Type/Costing
Category Group
Total Costs Annual
Revenue
Surplus/(Deficit) Adjusted Cost
Recovery (%)
Lot Grading $216,414 $216,510 $96 100%
Subdivision
Additional
Reviews
$49,209 $63,085 $13,876 128%
Subdivision
Inspections
$799,071 $800,203 $1,132 100%
Site Plan
Additional
Reviews
$42,712 $43,333 $621 101%
Site Plan
Inspections
$305,165 $305,643 $478 100%
Land Division
(Consent)
$55,128 $55,400 $272 100%
Other
Engineering
$178,185 $165,106 ($13,080) 93%
Subtotal -
Engineering
$1,645,884 $1,649,281 $3,397 100%
8.3 Building Fees
The building costing categories include all time spent on the administration and enforcement of
the Building Code Act, totaling approximately $5.8 million. Based on the City’s current fee
structure and average historical activity levels, annual revenues are estimated at $5.2 million,
which covers about 90% of costs.
The table below summarizes current building permit fees and the corresponding full cost
recovery amounts.
Application
Type/Costing
Category Group
Total Costs Annual
Revenue
Surplus/(Deficit) Current Cost
Recovery (%)
Demolition Permit $21,507 $5,083 ($16,424) 24%
New Residential
Building Permits
$4,556,928 $4,612,399 $55,471 101%
- 169 -
PLN 10-26 May 4, 2026
Page 15
New Non-
Residential
Building Permits
$128,004 $334,225 $206,221 261%
Residential
Alterations
$363,214 $48,872 ($314,342) 13%
Non-Residential
Alterations
$89,454 $19,619 ($69,836) 22%
Other $592,035 $135,448 ($456,587) 23%
Subtotal -
Building
$5,751,142 $5,155,646 ($595,496) 90%
As noted in Section 6.3 of this report, it was previously recommended that the City maintain
the policy of setting the Building Reserve Fund at 1.13 times the annual cost of service.
However, it is now recommended that the Building Code Act Reserve Fund be revised for
service stabilization at 1.5 times the annual cost of service. Based on current annual costs, the
2026 reserve fund balance would be $8.6 million. However, the actual reserve fund balance at
end of year 2025 was $4.5 million, which is only 53% of the reserve fund target.
An analysis was completed for the 2026 to 2035 forecast period to determine whether current
and proposed fees would fully recover the cost of service and maintain stability of the building
fund. The analysis was based on projected costs and revenues and assumed that permit
volumes would remain at historical averages. It also assumed that new residential construction
permits would decline by 10% in 2026, as anticipated by staff, before returning to average
levels for the remainder of the forecast period.
Further analysis was also conducted to understand the potential impacts on the reserve fund if
greater decreases to building permit activity were witnessed and these decreases were
sustained over a longer period of time. The analysis indicates that if annual historical
residential permit volumes were to decrease by 20% over the time period of 2026 to 2030, the
City would be able to sustain and fund the costs of building permit review from the reserve
fund. In this scenario, the reserve fund would decrease to approximately $1.8 million by the
end of 2030.
The figure below illustrates the forecast reserve fund position if current fees, plus inflation,
were applied to either average historical permit volumes or forecast permit volumes. In either
case, the reserve fund would be in a deficit position of between $2.2 million to $4.5 million by
2035.
- 170 -
PLN 10-26 May 4, 2026
Page 16
Proposed Fee Adjustment Impacts
The proposed fee adjustments assume an annual indexing rate of 3% beginning in 2027. The
key proposed changes to the building permit fees are summarized below.
New residential construction permits – 17% increase
New non-residential construction permits – 25% increase
Sign fees – 10% increase
Additional inspections (e.g., inspections related to deficiencies)
Base fee to cover up to four hours
An additional per-hour fee of $120 for time exceeding four hours
Increase the minimum fee to $180, including minor residential structures
Other annual City fee increases for 2026 to be maintained
Based on the recommended fee increases and historical application volumes, the reserve fund
could grow to $8.5 million by 2035. Under forecasted permit volumes, the reserve fund
would reach approximately 5.8 million, or 0.77 times annual costs by 2035. Under both
scenarios, the adjusted building fees would move the reserve fund closer to the target
threshold. The recommended fee adjustments would also align the City more closely with other
municipalities fees in the Region of Durham and across the Greater Toronto Area. The figure
below illustrates the reserve fund position, including the recommended fees and annual
inflationary increases.
- 171 -
PLN 10-26 May 4, 2026
Page 17
9.0 Municipal Fee Comparisons and Sample Analysis:
Watson also completed an interjurisdictional review to assess the affordability of the increases
and the City’s fee competitiveness relative to neighbouring municipalities in Durham Region
and the surrounding area. This review compared the City with 12 other municipalities to ensure
the recommended fees align with industry standards. Generally, municipalities regularly review
and update their fees every four to five years. Below identifies the comparable municipalities
included in Durham Region and across the Greater Toronto Area, and the known year in which
the municipality completed their last fee review:
City of Toronto – planning fees update (2025)
Town of Ajax – all development fees update (2023)
Town of Whitby – all development fees update (2024)
City of Oshawa – building fees update (2025)
Municipality of Clarington – planning fees update (2025)
City of Mississauga – all development fees update (2016)
City of Brampton – planning fees update (2023), building fees update (2025)
Town of Caledon – Unknown
Town of Halton Hills – planning and engineering fees update (2025)
City of Burlington – planning fees update (2022), building fees update (2019)
Town of Oakville - all development fees update (2014)
Town of Milton – all development fees update (2022)
- 172 -
PLN 10-26 May 4, 2026
Page 18
The results indicate that the proposed increases to building permit fees would align with the
fee range of other Durham Region municipalities. With respect to Planning & Development
Services fees, aside from Site Plan application fees, the results indicate that the proposed fees
would not be the highest compared to other municipalities and, in most cases, would remain
unchanged or drop in ranking. It is also noted that some of the comparative municipalities are
due for a comprehensive fee review, which may further adjust the comparison analysis.
Watson also performed an impact analysis across two development scenarios (e.g., a 200-unit
residential subdivision and a 400-unit residential site plan). The analysis assessed the
potential cost implications for each scenario. The results show that the City would rank
approximately 6th out of 12 municipalities for subdivision development review fees and 5th for
site plan development impacts, placing the City near the midpoint. The analysis also confirms
that the proposed fees are consistent with the cost-recovery practices and policies of the
comparable municipalities.
Overall, the findings support and validate Watson’s Fee Review.
10.0 Public Engagement Process:
Building Code-related fees and the process for establishing them are governed by the Building
Code Act, which requires at least one public meeting and a minimum of at least 21 days' notice
to all interested parties.
On March 5, 2026, the City created a webpage outlining the DAAP review (pickering.ca/daap)
and notified over 65 key stakeholders. Stakeholders were directed to the City’s website for
additional information, including Watson’s report and the draft fee schedules, and were invited
to provide comments and feedback. Notice of a virtual Stakeholder Meeting was also posted
on the City’s website, and staff shared information about the DAAP Fee Update on the City’s
social media channels.
On Monday, March 23, 2026 the virtual Stakeholder Meeting was attended by 31 individuals,
including 20 members of the building community, including but not limited to the Durham
Region Home Builders’ Association (DRHBA), the Building Industry and Land Development
Association (BILD), the Residential Construction Council of Ontario, among other private
developers and interested parties. At the meeting, Watson presented the preliminary findings
of the fee review, followed by a question-and-answer period. The table below outlines the
comments and questions which were received at the Stakeholder meeting and additional
correspondence received via email, along with Staff and Watson’s responses.
Comments/Questions Response
Is it correct that currently the review of
Zoning applications accounts for a cost
recovery of 108%?
The combination of Official Plan
Amendments and Zoning By-law
Amendments results in a 108% cost
recovery. As a result, the recommended fees
have been adjusted to not achieve a surplus.
- 173 -
PLN 10-26 May 4, 2026
Page 19
What other processes will the City be
undertaking to streamline the development
review process?
The City completed a Development
Application Review Process (DARP) last year
to streamline and improve the efficiency of
development approvals. Council endorsed
the recommendations arising from this
review.
This fee review was one of several initiatives
implemented as part of the DARP
recommendations, which took a
comprehensive approach to improving
service delivery, transparency, and cost
recovery.
Additional improvements to be implemented
in the coming months include:
Launching an online portal for
development submissions
Enhancing the City’s AMANDA system to
improve internal workflow, data tracking
and automation
Developing standard operating procedures
to ensure consistent and efficient
application review
Enabling online payment for development
applications
Creating a public-facing dashboard to
provide access to planning development
application information.
There needs to be a more focused effort to
reduce costs for developers, allowing
construction to occur in Pickering.
As part of this study, was there a trend
analysis of the fees developers have paid
historically, from 5 to 10 years ago?
No, the trend in developers' costs has not
been analyzed over a 5- to 10-year period.
However, development application fees in the
City of Pickering were examined from 2017 to
the present, reflecting the City’s progress
toward full cost recovery.
As part of this study, historical application
volumes, costs, and revenues were also
examined for the period from 2022 to the
present.
Has there been any consideration provided
to implement retroactive pay for
development application fees (i.e., fee
refunds?)
The City could consider this option. However,
the City did not meet its cost-recovery
objectives over the last couple of years, so
- 174 -
PLN 10-26 May 4, 2026
Page 20
fee refunds would be difficult to justify to the
taxpayer.
The proposed fee for draft plan of
subdivision includes a maximum variable fee
for up to 400 units. Would a per-unit variable
fee be required for an associated redline
revision to an approved draft plan of
subdivision?
That is correct. Under the proposed fee
recommendations, if a draft plan of
subdivision is submitted, a maximum variable
fee of 400 units would be applied in addition
to the base fee.
If subsequently, a red-lined revision is
submitted for the approved draft plan of
subdivision, the red-line fee would also
include the base fee and a variable fee of up
to 400 units.
When looking at recovery relative to
applications, was future tax revenue
considered in the calculation? Were market
considerations considered? For example,
how will the proposed fee recommendations
affect the market?
Tax revenue was not considered as part of
this review. This review only examined
development fees associated with planning
and engineering applications and building
permit fees.
One of the goals of this fee review was to
ensure that minimal tax burdens were placed
on the public. Historically, the City’s fees
have been low, requiring taxpayer subsidies;
this is no longer the City’s approach.
The final report from Watson presented the
development fees for 2 sample developments
within the scope of this review. The total
increase in per-unit development fees
proposed was between $559 and $683. As
these fee increases would represent less
than one-tenth of a percentage of the sales
price of new units, it is not expected that
these fee increases will have a meaningful
impact on the housing market.
The approach taken for the Building
Reserve, is this ‘reserve approach’ also
being taken for Planning and Engineering?
No, the building reserve is only being
undertaken for Building Permits, as permitted
by legislation.
Planning and Engineering fees are not
intended to generate surpluses for a reserve
fund to support future service sustainability.
- 175 -
PLN 10-26 May 4, 2026
Page 21
The City also received formal comments from DRHBA on April 2, 2026 and from BILD on April
6, 2026, these comments are included in Attachments 6 and 7. The letter from BILD formally
requested that the City of Pickering, along with other municipalities across the Greater Toronto
Area, forgo any increases to costs associated with residential development including
development application fees in 2026, which would allow short-term relief and help to support
project viability under current market conditions. Watson provided a formal response to the
below comments and questions dated April 9, 2026, (see Attachment 8).
Both DRHBA and BILD had similar questions. Watsons response is italicized:
1. Question: Clarification on the basis for the 400-unit cap on variable fees for Zoning By-
law Amendments, Site Plan and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications.
Response: The 400-unit cap, along with the decreasing block structure of the residential
per-unit fee, is recommended to achieve multiple objectives:
a. Recognize that as applications increase in size, the marginal costs typically do not
increase on a linear basis
b. Provide a maximum fee for larger applications
c. Increase revenue stability for the City to fund the anticipated processing costs.
The 400-unit cap was determined through a review of historical application sizes to
capture the majority of applications received. This policy would also align with the City’s
past practice.
2. Question: Whether the above cap on variable fees relates only to per unit fees, or
whether the cap is also intended to include other variable fees such as per-hectare fees
for development blocks or non-residential land area that may be part of the same
planning application?
Response: The cap relates only to residential per-unit fees. In a review of historical
application data, the development applications received containing development blocks
and non-residential floor area have been smaller and do not necessitate a maximum
fee.
3. Question: Whether the fee structure for Residential Lot Grading has changed – the
existing fee for Residential Lot Grading is $87.00/unit; however the proposed fee within
the background report prepared by Watson is $160. Clarification is requested on
whether this is intended to be a flat fee, or a rough doubling of the per unit fee.
Response: The proposed fee is $160.00 per unit.
Comments were also received from BILD regarding the impact of the proposed fee increases
on development costs. BILD requested that the City pause the fee increases, if possible,
further reduce fees or limit the size of any increases.
The City’s fee recommendations proposed would decrease fees in some cases. Where fees
are increasing, the impact is less than a 1% increase on overall development costs.
- 176 -
PLN 10-26 May 4, 2026
Page 22
In addition, the Federal and Provincial governments have recently announced the removal of
the Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) on new homes (or reduction for more expensive homes), as
well as the Canada-Ontario Plan to Build, which may require 30% to 50% reductions in
development charges (DC) for a 3-year period for select municipalities.
These HST reductions, along with the potential DC reductions, are expected to have a greater
impact on overall development costs in the City and on the final price paid by the homebuyers.
Given these recent announcements, and recognizing that a thorough review has been
completed and fees have been adjusted (and in some instances decreased) to ensure full cost
recovery, staff recommend approval of the revised fees.
11.0 Conclusion:
Report PLN 10-26 summarizes the DAAP fee review process, outlines the current and
proposed fees for Building, Planning, and Development Services, compares these fees with
those of other municipalities, outlines the public engagement process that was followed, and
presents Watson’s recommendations with the objective to achieve full cost recovery.
The recommended fee adjustments are intended to ensure that development-related services
are fully funded or moving in the direction of fully funded through user fees, without reliance on
property tax revenue, thereby reducing the burden on taxpayers.
Based on the analysis and findings presented in this report, staff recommend that Council
approve the new Development Application and Building Fee structure, with implementation
effective July 1, 2026.
Attachments:
1. Development Applications Approvals Process (DAAP) Fee Review, prepared by Watson
& Associates Economists Ltd.
2. Proposed Planning Services Fee By-law
3. Proposed Building Services Fee By-law
4. Proposed Development Services Fee By-law
5. Directive Memo - Resolution #665/25
6. Durham Region Home Builders’ Association Letter dated April 2, 2026
7. Building Industry and Land Development Association Letter dated April 6, 2026
8. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. Memorandum dated April 9, 2026
Prepared By: Amanda Dunn, Principal Planner, Development Review
Prepared By: Carl Kolbe, Manager, Building Services & Deputy CBO
Prepared By: Nilesh Surti, Division Head, Development Review & Urban Design
- 177 -
PLN 10-26 May 4, 2026
Page 23
Prepared By: Raghu Kumar, Senior Financial Analyst, Finance
Prepared By: Paal Helgesen, Division Head, Water Resources & Development Services
Approved/Endorsed By: Catherine Rose, Chief Planner
Approved/Endorsed By: Kyle Bentley, Director, City Development & CBO
Approved/Endorsed By: Richard Holborn, Director, Engineering Services
Approved/Endorsed By: Stan Karwowski, Director, Finance & Treasurer
Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council, By:
Marisa Carpino, M.A.
Chief Administrative Officer
- 178 -
Attachment 1 to Report PLN 10-26
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. 905-272-3600
April 14, 2026 info@watsonecon.ca
Development Application Fee Review
City of Pickering
________________________
Final Report
- 179 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Table of Contents
Page
1. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background Information .......................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Legislative Context for the Imposition of Development Application
Fees ........................................................................................................ 1-1
1.2.1 Planning Act, 1990 ..................................................................... 1-2 1.2.2 Municipal Act, 2001 .................................................................... 1-4 1.2.3 Building Code Act, 1992 ............................................................ 1-5
2. Activity-Based Costing User Fee Methodology ............................................ 2-1
2.1 Activity-Based Costing Methodology ...................................................... 2-1
2.2 User Fee Costing Category Definition..................................................... 2-2 2.3 Process Map Documentation .................................................................. 2-3 2.4 Processing Effort Estimate Collection, Reasonability Check, and Cost Allocations ...................................................................................... 2-4
2.5 Full Cost of Providing Development Application Review Services .......... 2-6
2.5.1 Direct Costs ............................................................................... 2-6 2.5.2 Indirect Costs ............................................................................. 2-7 2.5.3 Capital Costs .............................................................................. 2-8 2.6 Building Code Act Reserve Fund Policy ................................................. 2-8
3. Development Application Full Cost Assessment and Fee Recommendations .......................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 Full Cost of Providing Development Application Review Services .......... 3-1 3.2.1 Full Cost of Planning Application Review ................................... 3-2
3.2.2 Planning Application Fee Recommendations ............................. 3-4
3.2.3 Full Cost of Engineering Review .............................................. 3-15 3.2.4 Engineering Fee Recommendations ........................................ 3-16 3.2.5 Full Cost of Building Permit Review ......................................... 3-20 3.2.6 Building Permit Fee Recommendations ................................... 3-22
- 180 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
4. Impact of Recommended Fees on Sample Development Types ................. 4-1
4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................. 4-1
4.2 Subdivision Development Impacts .......................................................... 4-2 4.3 Site Plan Development Impacts .............................................................. 4-3
5. Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 5-1
Appendix A Planning, Engineering and Building Permit Fee Municipal
Comparators ................................................................................................... A-1
- 181 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Chapter 1
Introduction
- 182 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 1-1
1. Introduction
1.1 Background Information
The City of Pickering (City) retained Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. (Watson) to
conduct a review and update of its user fees relating to Building, Planning and
Engineering reviews. The ultimate goal of the user fee review is to develop an activity-
based costing (A.B.C.) model to substantiate the full costs of each service area within
the scope of the review. The full cost assessment (i.e., direct, indirect, and capital
costs) will be used to inform potential rates and fees to increase user fee revenue and
decrease the burden on property taxes. Planning and Engineering fees are imposed
under the authority of the Planning Act and the Municipal Act, respectively, while
building permit fees are imposed under the authority of the Building Code Act. This
review builds off the work that was previously completed by Watson in 2018 and 2021
when the City’s development application fees were last reviewed.
This update study consisted of the development of an A.B.C. user fee model to first
substantiate the full cost of service before fee and policy recommendations were
developed with regard for statutory requirements, the affordability of the fees, the City’s
market competitiveness, fiscal position, and internal/historical fee setting practices.
The following chapters of this report summarize the legislative context for user fees, the
user fee methodology developed, policy review, public consultation, and the findings
and recommendations of the user fee review.
This analysis and resulting recommendations are denominated in 2026$ values unless
otherwise stated. Unless explicitly stated in this report, the recommended fees within
this report should be indexed annually each year based on the City’s annual budgeted
cost increases or other appropriate index (i.e., the Consumer Price Index).
1.2 Legislative Context for the Imposition of Development
Application Fees
Development application fees are governed by multiple statutes, each with specific
requirements. The City’s statutory authority for imposing planning application fees is
provided under section 69 of the Planning Act. Building permit fees are imposed under
section 7 of the Building Code Act. For municipal services where specific statutory
- 183 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 1-2
authority is not provided (i.e., engineering fees), municipalities can impose fees and
charges under Section 391 of the Municipal Act. This section provides a summary of
the applicable legislative authority for the imposition of fees within the scope of this
review.
1.2.1 Planning Act, 1990
Section 69 of the Planning Act allows municipalities to impose fees through a by-law for
the purposes of processing planning applications. In determining the associated fees,
the Act requires that:
“The council of a municipality, by by-law, and a planning board, by resolution, may
establish a tariff of fees for the processing of applications made in respect of
planning matters, which tariff shall be designed to meet only the anticipated cost to
the municipality or to a committee of adjustment or land division committee
constituted by the council of the municipality or to the planning board in respect of
the processing of each type of application provided for in the tariff.”
Section 69 establishes the requirements that municipalities must consider when
undertaking a full cost recovery fee design study. The Act specifies that municipalities
may impose fees through by-law and that the anticipated costs of such fees must be
cost-justified by application type as defined in the tariff of fees (e.g., Subdivision, Zoning
By-law Amendment, etc.). Given the cost justification requirements by application type,
this would suggest that cross-subsidization of planning application fee revenues across
application types is not permissible. For instance, if Minor Variance application fees
were set at levels below full cost recovery for policy purposes, this discount could not be
funded by Subdivision application fees set at levels higher than full cost recovery. Our
interpretation of Section 69 is that any fee discount must be funded from other general
revenue sources, such as property taxes. In comparison to the cost justification
requirements of the Building Code Act, where the justification point is set at the
aggregate level of the Act, the requirements of the Planning Act are more stringent in
this regard.
The legislation further indicates that the fees may be designed to recover the
“anticipated cost” of processing each type of application, reflecting the estimated costs
of processing activities for an application type. This reference to anticipated costs
represents a further costing requirement for a municipality. It is noted that the statutory
requirement is not the actual processing costs related to any one specific application.
- 184 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 1-3
As such, actual time docketing of staff processing effort against application categories
or specific applications does not appear to be a requirement of the Act for compliance
purposes. As such, our methodology, which is based on staff estimates of application
processing effort, meets with the requirements of the Act, and is in our opinion, a
reasonable approach to determining anticipated costs.
The Act does not specifically define the scope of eligible processing activities and there
are no explicit restrictions to direct costs as previously witnessed in other statutes.
Moreover, amendments to the fee provisions of the Municipal Act and Building Code Act
provide for broader recognition of indirect costs. Acknowledging that staff effort from
multiple business units is involved in processing planning applications, it is our opinion
that such fees may include direct costs, capital-related costs, support function costs
directly related to the service provided, and general corporate overhead costs
apportioned to the service provided.
The payment of Planning Act fees can be made under protest with appeal to the Ontario
Land Tribunal (OLT) if the applicant believes the fees were inappropriately charged or
are unreasonable. The OLT will hear such an appeal and determine if the appeal
should be dismissed or direct the municipality to refund payment in such amount as
determined. These provisions confirm that fees imposed under the Planning Act are
always susceptible to appeal. Unlike other fees and charges (e.g., development
charges), there is no legislated appeal period related to the timing of by-law passage,
mandatory review period, or public process requirements.
1.2.1.1 More Homes for Everyone Act, 2022
The Province approved the More Homes for Everyone Act in 2022. One of the
amendments to the Planning Act now requires municipalities to refund Zoning By-Law
Amendment and Site Plan application fees if legislated timeframes for
decisions/approvals are not met. This requirement has subsequently been repealed by
Bill 185, Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024.
1.2.1.2 More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022
The More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022 received Royal Assent on November 28, 2022.
The Act imposes a number of changes to the Planning Act, and other growth
management and long-range planning initiatives at the municipal level, amongst
changes to other pieces of legislation. Some of the planning related changes include:
- 185 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 1-4
• Increased housing targets by municipality;
• Removal of planning policy and approval responsibilities for certain upper tier
municipalities in the province (as of January 1, 2025, Durham Region became an
upper-tier municipality without planning responsibilities) ;
• Integration of Place to Grow and Provincial Policy Statement; and
• Changes to expand/support rental and affordable housing supply opportunities.
1.2.1.3 Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024
Bill 185 received royal assent on June 6, 2024, which amended various acts, including
the Planning Act. In particular, Bill 185 removed the refund requirements for Zoning By-
law Amendment and Site Plan applications that was imposed by the More Homes for
Everyone Act, 2022. Furthermore, Bill 185 removed municipal Council or planning
boards ability to pass a by-law requiring applicants to consult with the municipality prior
to submitting a formal application.
1.2.2 Municipal Act, 2001
Part XII of the Municipal Act provides municipalities and local boards with broad powers
to impose fees and charges via passage of a by-law. These powers, as presented in
s.391 (1), include imposing fees or charges:
• “for services or activities provided or done by or on behalf of it;
• for costs payable by it for services or activities provided or done by or on behalf
of any other municipality or any local board; and
• for the use of its property including property under its control.”
• This section of the Act also allows municipalities to charge for capital costs
related to services that benefit existing persons. The eligible services for
inclusion under this subsection of the Act have been expanded by the Municipal
Statute Law Amendment Act. Moreover, the amendments to the Act have also
embraced the broader recognition for cost inclusion within municipal fees and
charges with recognition under s.391(3) that “the costs included in a fee or
charge may include costs incurred by the municipality or local board related to
administration, enforcement and the establishment, acquisition and replacement
of capital assets”.
Fees and charges included in this review, permissible under the authority of the
Municipal Act, would include development engineering fees.
- 186 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 1-5
In contrast to cost justification requirements under other legislation, the Municipal Act
does not impose explicit requirements for cost justification when establishing fees for
municipal services. In setting fees and charges for these services, however,
municipalities should have regard for legal precedents and the reasonableness of fees
and charges. The statute does not provide for appeal of fees and charges to the OLT;
however, fees and charges may be appealed to the courts if municipalities are acting
outside their statutory authority. Furthermore, no public process or mandatory term for
fees and charges by-laws are required under the Act. There is, however, a requirement
that municipal procedural by-laws provide for transparency with respect to the
imposition of fees and charges.
1.2.3 Building Code Act, 1992
The City’s statutory authority for imposing building permit fees is governed by the
provisions of section 7 under the Ontario Building Code Act. This section provides a
summary of the legislative authority for building permit fees imposed by the City.
Section 7(1) of the Building Code Act provides municipalities with general powers to
impose fees through passage of a by-law. The Act provides that:
“The council of a municipality…may pass by-laws
(c) requiring the payment of fees and prescribing the amounts of the fees,
(i) on application for and on issuance of permits,
(ii) for maintenance inspections,
(iii) for providing documentation, records or other information under section
15.10.4, and
(iv) for providing information under subsection 15.10.6 (2);
(c.1) requiring the payment of interest and other penalties, including payment of
collection costs, when fees are unpaid or are paid after the due date;
(d) providing for refunds of fees under such circumstances as are prescribed;
Section 7(2) imposes additional requirements on municipalities in establishing fees
under the Act, in that:
“The total amount of the fees authorized under clause (1)(c) must not exceed the
anticipated reasonable cost of the principal authority to administer and enforce this
Act in its area of jurisdiction.”
- 187 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 1-6
In addition, section 7 of the Act also requires municipalities to:
• Reduce fees to reflect the portion of service performed by a Registered Code
Agency;
• Prepare and make available to the public annual reports with respect to the fees
imposed under the Act and associated costs; and
• Undertake a public process, including notice and public meeting requirements,
when a change in the fee is proposed.
The Ontario Amendments to the National Building Code provides further details on the
contents of the annual report and the public process requirements for the imposition or
change in fees, including:
• With respect to the annual report, it must contain the total amount of fees
collected, the direct and indirect costs of delivering the services related to the
administration and enforcement of the Act, and the amount of any reserve fund
established for the purposes of administration and enforcement of the Act.
• It is also required that notice of the preparation of the annual report be given to
any person or organization that has requested such notice.
• Prior to a change in fees, municipalities must hold at least one public meeting
and that at least 21-days’ notice be provided via regular mail to all interested
parties. The notice shall also include, or be made available upon request to the
public, an estimate of the costs of administering and enforcing the Act, the
amount of the fee or change in existing fee and the rationale for imposing or
changing the fee.
The Act specifically requires that fees “must not exceed the anticipated reasonable
costs” of providing the service and establishes the cost justification test at the global
Building Code Act level. With the Act requiring municipalities to report annual direct and
indirect costs related to fees, this would suggest that Building Code Act fees can include
general corporate overhead indirect costs related to the provision of service. Moreover,
the recognition of anticipated costs also suggests that municipalities could include costs
related to future compliance requirements or fee stabilization reserve fund contributions.
As a result, Building Code Act fees modeled in this exercise include direct costs, capital
related costs, indirect support function costs directly consumed by the service provided,
and corporate management costs related to the service provided, as well as provisions
for future anticipated costs.
- 188 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Chapter 2
Activity-Based Costing User
Fee Methodology
- 189 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2-1
2. Activity-Based Costing User Fee Methodology
2.1 Activity-Based Costing Methodology
An A.B.C. methodology, as it pertains to municipal governments, assigns an
organization’s resource costs through activities to the services provided to the public.
Conventional municipal accounting structures are typically not well-suited to the costing
challenges associated with application processing activities, as these accounting
structures are business unit-focused and thereby inadequate for fully costing services
with involvement from multiple business units. An A.B.C. approach better identifies the
costs associated with the processing activities for specific application types and thus is
an ideal method for determining the full cost of processing applications and other user-
fee activities.
As illustrated in Figure 2-1, an A.B.C. methodology attributes processing effort and
associated costs from all participating municipal business units to the appropriate
service categories (user fee costing categories). The definition of these user fee costing
categories is further explained in Section 2.2. The resource costs attributed to
processing activities and user fee costing categories include direct operating costs,
indirect support costs, and capital costs. Indirect support function and corporate
overhead costs are allocated to direct business units according to operational cost
drivers (e.g., human resource costs allocated based on the relative share of full-time
equivalent positions supported). Once support costs have been allocated amongst
direct business units, the accumulated costs (i.e., indirect, direct, and capital costs) are
then distributed across the various user fee costing categories, based on the business
unit’s direct involvement in the processing activities. The assessment of each business
unit’s direct involvement in the user fee review processes is accomplished by tracking
the relative shares of staff processing efforts across the sequence of mapped process
steps for each user fee category. The results of employing this costing methodology
provides municipalities with a better recognition of the costs utilized in delivering user
fee processes, as it acknowledges not only the direct costs of resources deployed but
also the operating and capital support costs required by those resources to provide
services.
- 190 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2-2
Figure 2-1
Activity-Based Costing Conceptual Flow Diagram
2.2 User Fee Costing Category Definition
The City’s business units deliver a variety of user fee related services; these services
are captured in various cost objects or user fee categories. A critical component of the
full cost user fees review is the selection of the costing categories. This is an important
first step as the process design, effort estimation, and subsequent costing is based on
these categorization decisions.
The City’s A.B.C. user fee model allocates the service channel defined costs (i.e.,
direct, and indirect costs) presented in the following sections across the defined user
fee categories. Categorization of user fees occurred during the project initiation stage
of the study and through subsequent discussions with staff. Costing categories
developed as part of the City’s prior development application fee reviews, were used as
the starting point, with new/augmented categories created to reflect current application
types and review processes The user fee costing categories included in the A.B.C.
model and later used to rationalize changes to the City’s fee structure are presented in
tables throughout the report.
- 191 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2-3
Efforts included under planning application costing categories include all related
activities from pre-consultation through to final approval of applications and file closure.
These efforts also include time spent from engineering staff on detailed engineering
drawing review and agreement preparation for Subdivision, Site Plan, and
Condominium applications.
Efforts under engineering costing categories include time spent on inspection activities
and other non-Planning Act reviews that are led by the engineering department, such as
engineering review for Consent applications, Municipal Consents, and lot grading
review and inspection.
Efforts under building costing categories include all time associated with administration
and enforcement of the Building Code Act, and are primarily associated with staff from
the Building division.
When constructing the costing categories consideration was given to application
characteristics that may impact the processing efforts required to complete the review.
This approach ensures that complexity of review and revenue generation are closely
aligned. We assessed differences in process intensity based on permit type (e.g., new
construction vs. alterations), development type (e.g., residential vs. non-residential),
location (Oak Ridges Moraine/Greenbelt and vs. infill), and complexity (e.g., minor vs.
major applications).
2.3 Process Map Documentation
Once the user fee costing categories have been established, the next step in the
process is to create a link between the direct service departments and the costing
categories. This is done through documenting the City’s review activities and
generating process maps/steps. The process maps for planning application review
were developed based on the 2018 and 2021 studies and were updated to reflect
process changes that have occurred. Where no prior process maps existed, new
process maps were developed in consultation with City staff to reflect their
current/anticipated processes.
- 192 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2-4
2.4 Processing Effort Estimate Collection, Reasonability
Check, and Cost Allocations
To capture each participating City staff member’s relative level of effort in processing
activities related to user fees, staff were first asked to identify which departments and
individuals would be involved in each of the processes being analyzed. City staff then
estimated the amount of time each individual involved spends on any of the given
process steps for each costing category. This process was informed by referencing the
departments that had involvement in the processing of applications in the City’s 2018
and 2021 studies as well as their levels of involvement to guide staff in providing
estimates of time spent reviewing applications. Particular attention was paid to areas
where the process or level of involvement had changed, such as pre-consultation and
public consultation.
The effort estimates received were then applied against average annual user fee
volumes for the 2022-2025 period to assess the average annual processing time per
position spent on each user fee category. The time range used for historical
applications was assessed for each service to ensure the average annual
applications/permits was representative of the average applications that the City is
currently staffed to accommodate.
Annual processing efforts per staff position were then measured against available
processing capacity to determine overall service levels. The results of the initial
capacity analysis were reviewed with staff to ensure that the effort on an annual and per
application basis was appropriate. Time spent on non development review activities
was also discussed to ensure the responsibilities of each position was assessed across
all areas of involvement. This review ensures only the time associated with
development review is considered for cost recovery and gave an opportunity for any
further refinements to be made. Table 2-1 summarizes the utilization by department or
division and by major fee review category (i.e. Planning, Engineering, Building). The
utilization is presented as a percentage of available time by department/division and
also expressed in utilized full-time equivalents (FTEs).
- 193 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2-5
Table 2-1
Staff Capacity Utilization by Department and Business Unit
Across the organization 62.0 total FTEs, are utilized on development review activities.
50% of that effort (30.8 FTEs) is related to the administration and enforcement of the
Building Code Act, 35% (21.8 FTEs) is related to Planning Applications and 15% (9.5
FTEs) is related to engineering reviews. Of the total staff involvement, 85% is
contributed from the Planning, Water Resources & Development Services, and Building
divisions. The involvement of these divisions is discussed in greater detail below.
Of the 28 individuals within the Planning division, 51% or 14.3 FTEs are utilized on
planning, engineering and building reviews. 12% of the staff complement or 3.3 FTEs
are utilized on building permit reviews, this is primarily driven by the involvement of the
Planning division’s zoning staff on new construction building permits. With respect to
the planning division’s overall utilization of 51%, this reflects the significant amount of
staff time spent on non-planning review activities, such as policy development and
defense of applications at the OLT.
Of the 25 individuals within the Building division, almost 100% or 24.9 FTEs are utilized
on planning, engineering, and building reviews. 7.1% of the staff complement or 1.8
FTEs are utilized on activities that are not directly related to individual permits, but are
necessary to ensure the administration and enforcement of the Building Code Act.
Of the 16 individuals in the Water Resources & Development Services division, 86% or
13.8 FTEs are utilized on planning, engineering and building reviews. 33% of the staff
complement or 5.3 FTEs are utilized on planning application review alone. This reflects
Planning Engineering Building Total
Capacity
Utilization Utilized FTEs Capacity
Utilization Utilized FTEs Capacity
Utilization Utilized FTEs Capacity
Utilization Utilized FTEs
Office of CAO 1.00 3.7% 0.04 0.0%- 0.0%- 3.7% 0.04
City Admin.8.00 0.0% 0.00 0.0%- 0.0%- 0.0% 0.00
Corporate Services 1.00 7.5% 0.08 0.0%- 0.0%- 7.5% 0.08
Legal Services 3.00 4.4% 0.13 0.0%- 0.0%- 4.4% 0.13
Legislative Services 10.00 3.2% 0.32 0.0%- 0.0%- 3.2% 0.32
IT Department 5.00 6.5% 0.33 0.0% 0.00 10.7% 0.53 17.2% 0.86
Fire 10.00 1.0% 0.10 0.0%- 8.9% 0.89 9.9% 0.99
Finance 23.00 1.3% 0.29 0.0%- 1.2% 0.27 2.5% 0.57
Public Works 129.00 0.0%- 0.0% 0.03 0.0%- 0.0% 0.03
Engineering 3.00 16.6% 0.50 25.0% 0.75 0.0%- 41.6% 1.25
Capital Projects 11.00 0.2% 0.02 0.7% 0.08 0.0%- 0.9% 0.10
Landscape and Parks Development 4.00 3.0% 0.12 0.9% 0.04 0.0%- 3.9% 0.16
Transportation and Traffic 5.00 4.0% 0.20 0.0%- 0.0%- 4.0% 0.20
Water Resources & Development Services 16.00 33.4% 5.35 53.0% 8.48 0.0%- 86.4% 13.83
City Development 6.50 39.8% 2.59 0.0% 0.00 11.4% 0.74 51.2% 3.33
Planning 28.00 39.4% 11.04 0.0%- 11.7% 3.29 51.2% 14.33
Sustainability 5.00 12.4% 0.62 0.0%- 6.3% 0.31 18.6% 0.93
Building 25.00 0.1% 0.03 0.4% 0.10 99.1% 24.78 99.6% 24.91
Total 293.50 7% 21.75 3% 9.48 10% 30.81 21% 62.05
Department # of Staff
- 194 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2-6
the fact that the efforts of the staff related to engineering review of subdivision and site
plan applications have been captured under planning reviews. Any efforts related to 4th
or 5th resubmissions to the engineering review process have been captured under
engineering review. This approach was used to allow for proper cost recovery of
subsequent resubmissions which are imposed under a separate fee to discourage
incomplete submissions. 53% of the staff complement (8.5 FTEs) are utilized on
engineering reviews, which is primarily related to inspection activities for Subdivision,
Site Plan, and Lot Grading.
2.5 Full Cost of Providing Development Application Review
Services
As defined in Section 2.1, the full cost of providing development application review
services consist of direct, indirect, and capital costs. The following sections define each
of these cost objects and how each of these are allocated to the individual costing
categories.
2.5.1 Direct Costs
Direct costs refer to the employee costs (salaries, wages, and benefits), materials and
supplies, services, and rents that are typically consumed by directly involved
departments or business units. To identify the amount of direct costs that should be
allocated to the user fee categories, cost drivers have been identified. Cost drivers are
the non-financial operational data used to allocate shares of the defined costs across
multiple user fee categories. Ideally, cost driver data documents the relative intensity of
effort multiple employees deploy against a single cost object/fee category or the relative
intensity of effort a single employee deploys against multiple cost objects/fee
categories. For the purposes of a full cost user fee analysis, the cost drivers in an
A.B.C. user fee model presents the need to distribute multiple employee positions
(direct costs) across multiple cost objects. The cost drivers for direct costs are the
allocations of staff time to the individual user fee costing categories, which have been
summarized in aggregate in Table 2-1 above. The City’s budgets for the departments
directly involved in the development review processes were also examined to remove
costs that are not related to development review, such as consulting and professional
costs related to the City’s Official Plan and Zoning-By-law updates or studies related to
development charge eligible capital projects.
- 195 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2-7
2.5.2 Indirect Costs
An A.B.C. review includes not only the direct cost of providing service activities but also
the indirect support costs that allow direct service business units to perform these
functions. The method of allocation employed in this analysis is referred to as a step
costing approach. Under this approach, support function and general corporate
overhead functions are classified separate from direct service delivery departments.
These indirect cost functions are then allocated to direct service delivery departments
based on a set of cost drivers, which subsequently flow to the user fee categories
according to staff effort estimates. Cost drivers are a unit of service that best represent
the consumption patterns of indirect support and corporate overhead services by direct
service delivery departments or business units. As such, the relative share of a cost
driver (units of service consumed) for a direct department determines the relative share
of support/corporate overhead costs attributed to that direct service department. An
example of a cost driver commonly used to allocate human resource support costs
would be a department or business unit’s share of FTEs. Cost drivers are used for
allocation purposes, acknowledging that these business units do not typically participate
directly in the delivery of services, but that their efforts facilitate services being provided
by the City’s direct business units.
Table 2-2 summarizes the support and corporate overhead functions included in the
user fee calculations and the cost drivers assigned to each function for cost allocation
purposes. The indirect support and corporate overhead cost drivers used in the fees
model reflect accepted practices within the municipal sector.
Table 2-2 Indirect Support and Corporate Overhead Functions and Cost Drivers
Department:Driver(s):
General Government City Budgeted Expenditures
Council City Budgeted Expenditures
Corporate Services City Budgeted Expenditures, Number of Full-Time Employees
Human Resources Number of Full-Time Employees
Finance City Budgeted Expenditures, Number of Full-Time Employees
Culture and Recreation
Budgeted Culture and Recreation Expenditures, Assigned
Square Footage
Public Works
Budgeted Public Works Expenditures, Number of Buildings
,Number of Vehicles
City Infrastructure Budgeted City Infrastructure Expenditures
Engineering Services Budgeted Engineering Expenditures
- 196 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2-8
2.5.3 Capital Costs
The inclusion of capital costs within the full cost user fees calculations follows a
methodology similar to indirect costs. Replacement value of assets commonly utilized
to provide direct business unit services have been included to reflect the capital costs of
service. The approach used in estimating these costs includes the identification of the
proportion of capital assets by direct department (e.g., City Hall facility square footage
occupied), the estimation of annualized capital costs by employing sinking fund
replacement value or amortization, and the allocation of these annualized costs to the
cost objects/user fee categories based on the respective departmental effort deployed.
With respect to the City’s model, capital costs have been identified for use of facility
space and work stations. The annualized costs have been based on the Civic Centre’s
and work stations’ replacement cost, useful life, and square footage per department.
These costs have been allocated across the various fee categories, and non-user fee
activities, based on the underlying effort estimates of direct department staff.
2.6 Building Code Act Reserve Fund Policy
The Building Code Act recognizes the legitimacy of creating a municipal reserve fund to
provide for service stability and mitigate the financial and operational risk associated
with a temporary downturn in building permit activity. Specifically, a reserve fund should
be maintained to reduce the staffing and budgetary challenges associated with a
cyclical economic downturn and the requirement for ongoing legislative turnaround time
compliance. Without such a reserve fund, reduced permit volumes during a downturn
could result in severe budgetary pressures and the loss of certified building staff, which
would be difficult to replace during the subsequent recovery when mandatory permit
processing turnaround times apply.
Although the Building Code Act does not prescribe a specific methodology for
determining an appropriate reserve fund, municipalities have developed building permit
reserve funds with the aim of providing service stabilization. As part of the prior
Development Application Review Studies, it was recommended that the City set its
reserve fund target balance at 1.13 times the annual cost of administering and enforcing
the Building Code Act. This target was established by examining the decrease in
building permit activity during down-turns in housing activity in comparison with long-
range averages over the long-range historical period to inform the revenue that would
- 197 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2-9
be lost during those downturns. Approximately 1.5 years of building permit revenue
would be lost during an economic downturn, indicating that the reserve fund should
have 1.5 times the annual cost of service to maintain staff capacity during those
periods. The reserve fund accumulation target was reduced by 25% to 1.13 times
annual costs to recognize that the City’s obligation to manage some of these costs
during a downturn. Upon further review, the City has identified that there are minimal
costs allocated to the administration and enforcement of the Building Code Act, that
could be re-allocated and as such, the reserve fund target has been revised to 1.5 times
annual costs.
The impact of anticipated building permit activity on costs, revenues (based on current
and recommended fees), and reserve fund positions over the 2026 to 2035 period have
been assessed in Section 3.2.6 of this report.
- 198 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Chapter 3
Development Application Full
Cost Assessment and Fee
Recommendation
- 199 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-1
3. Development Application Full Cost Assessment
and Fee Recommendations
3.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the full costs, cost recovery levels of current fees, and
recommended fee structure and rates for the development application fees. To
maintain the cost recovery levels presented in this report for the recommended fees,
adjustments will need to be applied to the fee recommendations to index them annually
based upon the City’s annual budgeted cost increases or other appropriate index (i.e.,
the Consumer Price Index).
A municipal fee survey, for the fees within the scope of this review, was undertaken for
market comparison purposes. The survey results were considered in discussions with
City staff in determining recommended user fees. The impact of the proposed fees on
total costs of municipal development fees for sample developments are presented in
Chapter 4 of this report.
3.2 Full Cost of Providing Development Application Review Services
Table 3-1 presents the City’s annual costs of providing development application review
services as well as annual revenues and cost recovery levels in aggregate by service
area. The estimated annual costs reflect the organizational direct, indirect and capital
costs associated with processing activities at average historical volume levels. Annual
revenues are presented in aggregate and are based on average annual
application/permit volumes and existing 2026 fees. These historical averages span the
periods of 2023 to 2025 for planning applications. The charging parameters for these
applications (e.g., building area and number of residential units) were derived from
historical application data provided by City staff.
- 200 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-2
Table 3-1
Cost Recovery Assessment of Current Development Application Fees
(2026$)
Overall, the total annual costs of development review activities is $11.5 million. Direct
costs represent 79% of annual costs ($9.0 million). Indirect and capital costs make up
21% ($2.5 million) of total costs. In aggregate, revenues associated with current fees
and average annual applications total $9.6 million, or 84% of costs, resulting in $1.9
million of the costs of development review being funded by the municipal tax base or
draws from the building permit reserve fund.
When assessing the cost and revenues by major service area, the largest share of the
annual revenue shortfall is related to planning application review (i.e., $1.1 million per
year) as these fees are estimated to be recovering 73% of the annual costs.
Engineering fees are recovering 90% of costs, resulting in a $171,000 revenue shortfall
that would be funded from the tax levy. Building permit fees are also recovering only
90% of the full cost of service. The calculated shortfall of $595,000, which includes
indirect and capital costs, would be funded from the building permit reserve fund to the
extent funds are available. Further discussion on the sustainability of the building
permit reserve fund is provided in Section 3.2.6.
Further details on the cost recovery assessment, recommendations, revenue impacts
by application type are provided in the following sections.
3.2.1 Full Cost of Planning Application Review
Table 3-2 summarizes the costing results and recovery levels for each major planning
costing category within the City’s A.B.C. model. As noted earlier, the costs and
Costing Category Group Direct Costs Indirect
Costs Capital Costs Total Costs
Annual
Revenue
Cost
Recovery
Surplus/
(Deficit)
Planning Fees 3,211,728 816,449 24,799 4,052,976 2,960,296 73% (1,092,680)
Engineering Fees 1,262,553 372,559 10,772 1,645,884 1,474,290 90% (171,594)
Building Permit Fees 4,530,239 1,186,050 34,852 5,751,142 5,155,646 90% (595,496)
Grand Total 9,004,520 2,375,059 70,422 11,450,001 9,590,232 84% (1,859,770)
- 201 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-3
revenues presented with planning fees include costs and revenues associated with
engineering review on subdivision and site plan applications.
Table 3-2 Planning Fees Full Cost Impacts by Costing Category (2026$) Current Fees
When assessed by application type:
• Site Plan application account for the largest share of the total annual costs of
service at $1.1 million or 27% of total costs. Revenues generated from these
fees currently recover $827,900 or 77% of these costs. These fees account for
28% of total annual planning application revenue.
• Zoning By-law and Official Plan Amendments account for approximately $1
million or 25% of the total annual costs of service. Revenues generated from
these fees are recovering slightly above the full cost of service, indicating that
refinements are needed to these fees to balance cost recovery levels. These
fees account for 37% of total annual planning application revenue.
• Committee of Adjustment applications account for $984,000 or 24% of the total
annual costs of service. Revenues generated from these applications currently
recover $147,000 or 15% of these costs. These fees account for 5% of total
annual planning application revenue. Annual revenue shortfalls from Committee
of Adjustment applications (and primarily Minor Variance applications) total
$837,000 and represent 77% of the total annual planning application revenue
shortfall of $1.1 million.
• Subdivision applications account for $717,800 or 18% of the total annual costs of
service. Revenues generated from these applications currently recover
Costing Category Group Total Costs
Annual
Revenue
Cost
Recovery
Surplus/
(Deficit)
Committee of Adjustments 983,977 147,006 15% (836,970)
Other Planning Applications 127,777 129,876 102% 2,099
Zoning By-law & Official Plan Amendment 1,022,506 1,108,584 108% 86,079
Subdivision 717,791 679,861 95% (37,931)
Condominium 122,584 67,088 55% (55,497)
Site Plan 1,078,341 827,881 77% (250,460)
Subtotal - Planning 4,052,976 2,960,296 73% (1,092,680)
- 202 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-4
$679,900 or 95% of these costs. These fees account for 23% of total annual
planning application revenue.
• Condominium and other planning applications together account for $250,400 or
6% of the total annual costs of service. Revenues generated from these fees
currently recover $197,000 or 79% of these costs. Condominium fees are
recovering 55% of their associated costs, while other planning application fees
are recovering 102% of their associated costs. Jointly these fees account for 7%
of total annual planning application revenue.
3.2.2 Planning Application Fee Recommendations
Planning application fee recommendations are provided in Tables 3-4 to 3-12. These
recommendations are made to improve cost recovery within the legislative constraints
of the Planning Act, while recognizing the affordability and competitiveness of the fees
as well as the application characteristics (e.g., residential units and non-residential
gross floor area). All fee recommendations should be increased annually based on the
City’s annual budgeted cost increases or other appropriate index (i.e., the Consumer
Price Index) to maintain the proposed level of cost recovery. While it was noted earlier
that costs of engineering review for Subdivision and Site Plan applications have been
included within the planning application cost assessment, the fee recommendations for
engineering review fees are covered in Section 3.2.4 as those fees are included within
the engineering fee schedules.
The following provides a summary of the proposed planning application fee
recommendations to align anticipated application revenues to anticipated processing
costs by application type.
• Official Plan Amendments (Table 3-4)
o Reductions to major OPA fees from $110,180 to $95,000
o Minor rounding decrease to minor OPA fees
o Neighbourhood Development Guideline Amendment fees are proposed to
increase from $10,000 to $20,000 to improve cost recovery levels. These
processes are related to Official Plan Amendments and therefore a
greater level of cost recovery was deemed to be appropriate.
• Zoning By-Law Amendment Fees (Table 3-5)
o Removal of Holding fees increased to improve cost recovery while
remaining within comparator municipalities.
- 203 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-5
o Variable per unit fees to be capped at 400 units per application acting as a
maximum application fee. Maximum application fees imposed will also
improve revenue certainty and stability within the City.
o Extension of Temporary Use fees to be aligned to major ZBA base fee
o Introduction of fee reduction policies for ZBA applications that are received
concurrently with OPA, or Subdivision applications. Base application fees
for each application will be reduced by 50%. Full variable application fees
will apply.
o Minister Zoning Order Fees increased to full cost recovery levels ($18,000
for major application and $5,800 for minor applications). This increase is
to recover the full costs of service as these applications have are of a
significant benefit to the applicant.
•Site Plan (Table 3-6)
o Increases to base and variable application fees to recover the full cost of
service combined with variable per unit fees being capped at 400 units per
application to act as a maximum application fee. On average application
fees would increase by 32%.
o Minor revisions to an approved Site Plan to increase to full cost recovery
levels (i.e., $5,000)
•Subdivision (Table 3-7)
o Fees to remain unchanged with the exception of minor decreases to
variable per unit fees to align cost recovery levels
o Variable per unit fees to be capped at 400 units per application acting as a
maximum application fee
•Condominium (Table 3-8)
o Fees for Draft Plan, Common Element, Conversion, and red-line revisions
have been increased to full cost recovery levels as follows. These fees
would be at the top end of the Durham municipalities surveyed but within
the ranges imposed by the other surveyed GTA municipalities.
•Consent (Table 3-9)
o Fees increased to the top end of the comparator municipalities to move
fees close to full cost recovery levels. In addition to the proposed $12,000
fee for the creation of one new lot, a per lot fee of $1,000 would be
imposed for each new lot created after the first.
•Minor Variance (Table 3-10)
- 204 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-6
o Minor fee increases from $880 to $1,000 for accessory buildings,
structures, decks, platforms, and driveway widening would be applied to
keep these fees competitive within Durham Region as these fees are
commonly applied for by existing residents
o Fees for other types of variances would be increased more significantly to
recover a greater share of costs. It is recommended that further increases
to these fees are considered and monitored in future years to further
improve cost recovery levels
• Pre-Consultation (Table 3-11)
o No changes are proposed to pre-consultation fees within the full cost
recovery framework
• Other Fees (Table 3-12)
o Request for Zoning Information fees would increase from $65 to $150
o Preliminary Zoning Review fees would remain unchanged as they are
currently recovering the full costs of review
o No changes to other miscellaneous fees
o Part Lot Control fees would be decreased from $2,500 plus $116 per lot to
$2,500 plus $25 per lot.
The recommendations presented herein would result in the planning application fees
increasing from 73% to 79% cost recovery, generating an additional $238,000 in annual
revenue. The remaining revenue shortfall of $855,000 is related to $702,000 for
Committee of Adjustment fees (i.e., Consent and Minor Variance applications) that have
been set below full cost recovery levels, $145,000 for ZBA and OPA applications that
would be City-initiated and not generate additional fees, and $8,000 for other
miscellaneous applications. All other fees would be set at full cost recovery levels. The
proposed cost recovery levels by major application type are presented in Table 3-3
below.
- 205 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-7
Table 3-3
Planning Fees Full Cost Impacts by Costing Category (2026$)
Recommended Fee
Costing Category Group Total Costs
Annual
Revenue
Cost
Recovery
Surplus/
(Deficit)
Committee of Adjustments 983,977 282,126 29% (701,850)
Other Planning Applications 127,777 119,975 94% (7,802)
Zoning By-law & Official Plan Amendment 1,022,506 877,173 86% (145,333)
Subdivision 717,791 716,645 100% (1,146)
Condominium 122,584 122,833 100% 249
Site Plan 1,078,341 1,079,120 100% 779
Subtotal - Planning 4,052,976 3,197,872 79% (855,104)
- 206 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-8
Table 3-4
Recommended Planning Fees
Official Plan Amendments
User Fee or Charge 2026 Approved Fee
(Excluding HST)
2026 Proposed Fee
(Excluding HST)
Official Plan Amendment
Pickering Official Plan Amendment - Major 10
(May include an amendment to Envison
Durham (former Regional Official Plan)
$110,180.00 $95,000.00
Pickering Official Plan Amendment - Minor 11 $55,030.00 $55,000.00
Pickering Official Plan Amendment -
Recirculation 7
$2,180.00 $2,180.00
Additional fee if within Oak Ridges Moraine or
Greenbelt
$2,805.00 $2,805.00
Neighbourhood Development Guideline
Amendment 1
$10,000.00 $20,000.00
- 207 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-9
Table 3-5
Recommended Planning Fees
Zoning By-law Amendments1
1 Current per residential unit fees for Zoning By-Law Amendment applications are not
capped at 400 units
User Fee or Charge 2026 Approved Fee
(Excluding HST)
2026 Proposed Fee
(Excluding HST)
Zoning By-law Amendment
Zoning By-law Amendment - Major 3 - Base
Fee
$22,700.00 $22,700.00
Plus Fee per Residential Unit
First 25 units (1-25)$550.00 $550.00
Next 75 units (26-100)$410.00 $410.00
Next 100 units (101-200)$340.00 $340.00
All additional units (201-400)$145.00 $145.00
Plus Fee per Ha of Non-Residential Land
Area (or part thereof) 4
$1,540.00 $1,540.00
Plus Fee per Ha of Development Block
Land Area (or part thereof) 5
$715.00 $715.00
Zoning By-law Amendment - Minor 6 $14,420.00 $14,420.00
Zoning By-law - Recirculation 7 $2,180.00 $2,180.00
Additional fee if within Oak Ridges Moraine or
Greenbelt
$2,805.00 $2,805.00
Zoning By-law - Removal of Holding $4,355.00 $10,000.00
Zoning By-law - Removal of Holding
(Complex/Block Plan Required)
$21,475.00 $25,000.00
Zoning By-law - Extension of Temporary Use
By-law
$22,470.00 $22,700.00
Combined Application Fees Where two or more
applications for Official Plan
Amendment (Major or Minor),
Zoning By-law Amendment
(Major), Draft Plan of
Subdivision and Draft Plan of
Condominium are submitted
concurrently, a 20% reduction
to the total combined fee will
apply
Minister Zoning Order
Minister Zoning Order Amendment - Major 8 $3,330.00 $18,000.00
Minister Zoning Order Amendment - Minor 9 $2,770.00 $5,800.00
- 208 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-10
Table 3-6
Recommended Planning Fees
Site Plan1
1 Current per residential unit fees for Site Plan applications are not capped at 400 units
User Fee or Charge 2026 Approved Fee
(Excluding HST)
2026 Proposed Fee
(Excluding HST)
Site Plan 12
Residential See "All Uses (Residential,
Non-Residential,
Mixed-Use)"
See "All Uses (Residential,
Non-Residential,
Mixed-Use)"
Commercial See "All Uses (Residential,
Non-Residential,
Mixed-Use)"
See "All Uses (Residential,
Non-Residential,
Mixed-Use)"
Industrial See "All Uses (Residential,
Non-Residential,
Mixed-Use)"
See "All Uses (Residential,
Non-Residential,
Mixed-Use)"
All Uses (Residential, Non-Residential, Mixed-
Use) - Base Fee
$19,685.00 $20,000.00
Plus Fee per Residential Unit
First 25 units (1-25)$690.00 $750.00
Next 75 units (26-100)$530.00 $650.00
Next 100 Units (101-200)$375.00 $500.00
All additional units (201-400)$85.00 $160.00
Plus Fee per 2,000 m2 of Non-Residential
GFA
$6,670.00 $7,300.00
Site Plan Recirculation 7 $2,180.00 $2,180.00
Minor Revision to approved Site Plan 13 $2,650.00 $5,000.00
Major Revision to approved Site Plan Application base fee plus
additional units and
additional non-residential
GFA
Application base fee plus
additional units and
additional non-residential
GFA
Credit for Pre-submission Review Equal to the amount of the
Pre-submission Review fee
previously paid
Equal to the amount of the
Pre-submission Review fee
previously paid
Compliance Inspections/LC Release Report
(includes 2 inspections)
$1,060.00 $1,060.00
Additional Compliance Inspections $480.00 $480.00
- 209 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-11
Table 3-7
Recommended Planning Fees
Subdivision1
1 Current per residential unit fees for Subdivision applications are not capped at 400
units
User Fee or Charge 2026 Approved Fee
(Excluding HST)
2026 Proposed Fee
(Excluding HST)
Draft Plan of Subdivision
Base Fee $78,315.00 $78,315.00
Plus Fee per Residential Unit
First 25 units (1-25)$1,150.00 $1,150.00
Next 75 units (26-100)$925.00 $925.00
Next 100 units (101-200)$730.00 $730.00
All additional units (201+)$470.00 $470.00
Plus Fee per Ha of Non-Residential Land
Area (or part thereof) 4
$365.00 $365.00
Plus Fee per Ha of Development Block
Land Area (or part thereof) 5
$230.00 $230.00
Draft Plan of Subdivision - Recirculation 7 $2,180.00 $2,180.00
Additional fee if within Oak Ridges Moraine or
Greenbelt
$2,805.00 $2,805.00
Applicant-Initiated Major Revisions (prior to
Draft Plan Approval)
$24,340.00 $24,340.00
Revisions to Draft Approved Plan - (redline
revisions)
Base Fee $30,055.00 $30,055.00
Plus Fee per Additional Residential Units
First 25 units (1-25)$1,165.00 $1,150.00
Next 75 units (26-100)$950.00 $925.00
Next 100 units (101-200)$750.00 $730.00
All additional units (201+)$475.00 $470.00
Plus Fee per additional Non-Residential Ha
(or part thereof) of Land Area
$375.00 $365.00
Plus Fee per additional Development Block
Ha (or part thereof) of Land Area
$230.00 $230.00
Revision to Draft Approved Plan - Recirculation
7
$2,180.00 $2,180.00
Extension to Draft Approved Plan
Base Fee $3,085.00 $3,085.00
Release of Draft Plan of
Subdivision/Clearance Fee
$5,000.00 $5,000.00
- 210 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-12
Table 3-8
Recommended Planning Fees
Condominium
Table 3-9 Recommended Planning Fees Consent
User Fee or Charge 2026 Approved Fee
(Excluding HST)
2026 Proposed Fee
(Excluding HST)
Plan of Condominium
Draft Plan of Condominium $20,715.00 $44,000.00
Common Element Condominium $29,845.00 $50,000.00
Plan of Condominium Recirculation 7 $2,180.00 $2,180.00
Condominium Conversion $37,040.00 $50,000.00
Revisions to a Draft Approved Plan - (redline
revisions)
$3,385.00 $15,000.00
Release of Draft Plan of
Condominium/Clearance Fee
$5,000.00 $5,000.00
User Fee or Charge 2026 Approved Fee
(Excluding HST)
2026 Proposed Fee
(Excluding HST)
Consent
Application for severance (creation of new
lots)
$4,615.00 $12,000.00
plus fee per additional lot created beyond
the first new lot
$1,000.00
Application for Title Validation, Long Term
Lease, Easement, and Lot Line Adjustment
$2,100.00 $6,000.00
Stamping Fee $1,180.00 $1,180.00
Restamping Fee $300.00 $300.00
- 211 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-13
Table 3-10
Recommended Planning Fees
Minor Variance
Table 3-11 Recommended Planning Fees Pre-Consultation
User Fee or Charge 2026 Approved Fee
(Excluding HST)
2026 Proposed Fee
(Excluding HST)
Minor Variance
Applications to recognize an "as built condition" Double the regular fee Double the regular fee
Accessory buildings, structures, decks,
platforms & driveway widening
$880.00 $1,000.00
Residential Minor (a lot for a detached
dwelling unit, semi-detached dwelling unit
and/or freehold townhouse dwelling unit)
Single Variance $1,180.00 $2,500.00
Multiple Variances $1,495.00 $3,000.00
Residential Major (all other residential and
mixed use buildings)
Single Variance $2,675.00 $4,000.00
Multiple Variances $2,905.00 $4,500.00
Institutional, Commercial & Industrial
Single Variance $3,255.00 $4,500.00
Multiple Variances $3,810.00 $5,000.00
Tabling Fee & Recirculation (applicant
initiated)
$820.00 $820.00
Special Meeting $5,175.00 $5,175.00
User Fee or Charge 2026 Approved Fee
(Excluding HST)
2026 Proposed Fee
(Excluding HST)
Application for Pre-Consultation
Simple2 $370.00 $370.00
Site Plans $1,540.00 $1,540.00
All other applications $3,700.00 $3,700.00
- 212 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-14
Table 3-12
Recommended Planning Fees
Other Fees
User Fee or Charge 2026 Approved Fee
(Excluding HST)
2026 Proposed Fee
(Excluding HST)
Other Fees
Request for Zoning Information $65.00 $150.00
Preliminary Zoning Review - Residential
(single, semi, townhouse, accessory structure)
initial review + 1 revision
$170.00 $170.00
Preliminary Zoning Review - Accessory
buildings, structures, decks, platforms and
driveway widening; - initial review + 1 revision
$80.00 $80.00
Preliminary Zoning Review - Development
(within infill precincts, ORM, or requiring MDS
calculation) initial review + 1 revision
$630.00 $630.00
Preliminary Zoning Review - Mixed-use/Multi
Residential/Non-Residential (industrial,
commercial, institutional) initial review + 1
revision
$1,440.00 $1,440.00
Preliminary Zoning Review - All Fee Types
(After two reviews already provided.)
50% of the fee type 50% of the fee type
Peer Reviews Full recovery of City costs
+ 15% admin. fee
Full recovery of City costs
+ 15% admin. fee
Minor Revision to Approved Condo Site Plan
(by unit owner) i.e., decks, sheds, fences
$130.00 $130.00
File Reactivation 14 $5,700.00 $5,700.00
Opinion Letter for Complex Inquiries $5,000.00 $5,000.00
Add Street Name to Approved List $5,000.00 $5,000.00
Request to Change Municipal Address $5,000.00 $5,000.00
Request for Exception to Council Adopted
Policies on Municipal Addressing and Street
Naming
$10,000.00 $10,000.00
Any other matter requiring a Report to
Committee or Council
$10,000.00 $10,000.00
- 213 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-15
3.2.3 Full Cost of Engineering Review
Annual costs of the engineering review services total approximately $1.7 million. Costs
are compared with revenues derived from the application of current fees to average
parameters (e.g., number of applications and average cost of works). Costing and fee
recovery levels for the major engineering reviews are summarized in Table 3-13.
Annual revenues based on the City’s current fee structure and average historical activity
levels are estimated at $1.5 million or 90% of costs.
Table 3-13 Engineering Reviews Full Cost Impacts by Costing Category (2026$) Current Fees
When assessed by application type:
• Subdivision inspections account for $799,100 or 49% of total annual costs of
service. Revenues generated from these fees currently recover $725,100 or
94% of these costs. These fees account for 51% of total annual engineering
review revenue.
• Site plan inspections account for $305,200 or 19% of total annual costs of
service. Revenues generated from these fees currently recover $296,000 or
97% of these costs. These fees account for 20% of total annual engineering
review revenue.
• Lot grading reviews account for $216,400 or 13% of total annual costs of service.
Revenues generated from these fees currently recover $139,600 or 65% of these
costs. These fees account for 9% of total annual engineering review revenue.
Costing Category Group Total Costs
Annual
Revenue
Cost
Recovery
Surplus/
(Deficit)
Other Engineering 178,185 114,375 64% (63,811)
Lot Grading 216,414 139,646 65% (76,767)
Sudivision Additional Reviews 49,209 107,891 219% 58,682
Subdivision Inspections 799,071 752,066 94% (47,005)
Site Plan Additional Reviews 42,712 12,762 30% (29,950)
Site Plan Inspections 305,165 295,971 97% (9,194)
Land Division 55,128 51,580 94% (3,548)
Subtotal - Engineering 1,645,884 1,474,290 90% (171,594)
- 214 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-16
• Other engineering applications account for $178,200 or 11% of total annual costs
of service. Revenues generated from these fees currently recover $114,400 or
64% of these costs. These fees account for 8% of total annual engineering
review revenue.
• Additional subdivision and site plan engineering reviews, along with land division
applications cumulatively account for $147,000 or 9% of total annual costs of
service. Revenues generated from these fees are currently recovering $172,200
or 117% of these costs. This is primarily driven by the high cost recovery on
additional subdivision engineering reviews. Collectively these fees account for
12% of total annual engineering review revenue.
3.2.4 Engineering Fee Recommendations
Fee recommendations are presented in Tables 3-15 to 3-19. The recommended fees
are presented in 2026$ dollars. The following bullets highlight the major changes to the
City’s fee schedule:
• Subdivision Engineering Review and Inspection (Table 3-15)
o Fees will continue to be charged based on the costs of municipal
infrastructure, with minimum fees applied. The engineering review fee will
be increased from 1.5% to 1.75% of the total cost of municipal works and
the minimum fee will be increased to $8,000.
o Fees for additional submissions will be increased to a minimum of $8,000
to increase the minimum cost recovery on each review, while the
maximum fee will be decreased to 15% of the engineering design review
fee as these fees were over-recovering costs
• Minor increases to the inspection fees are proposed to close the cost recovery
gap from 94% to 100%.
• Site Plan Engineering Review and Inspection (Table 3-16)
o To close the cost recovery gap for Site Plan applications (included in
Table 3-2), increases to the Site Plan engineering review fee are also
required. The average fee will increase by 56% based on the proposed
increases.
o Minor increases to inspection fees are also proposed to improve cost
recovery from 97% to 100%
• Land Division Engineering Fees (Table 3-17)
- 215 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-17
o Engineering Review fees will remain unchanged as they reflect the level of
effort at this stage in the process
o Minor increases to clearance of condition fees to move to full cost
recovery levels and close the cost recovery gap from 94^ to 100%
• Lot Grading Review and Infill Building Permit Fees (Table 3-18)
o Fees for lot grading through the subdivision review process are to
increase from $87 per unit to $160 to recover the review costs
o Fees for infill lot grading review and inspection would increase from $847
per unit to $950 per unit
• Miscellaneous Engineering Fees (Table 3-19)
o Other fees within the scope of the review included Curb Cut fees
(proposed to increase from $375 to $410), Municipal Consent (proposed
to increase from $505 per street to $1,375 per application), and Pool
Enclosure Permits (proposed to increase from $393 to $550)
The recommendations presented herein would result in the engineering review fees
application fees increasing from 90% to full cost recovery, generating an additional
$175,000 in annual revenue. The proposed cost recovery levels by major application
type are presented in Table 3-14 below.
Table 3-14
Engineering Review Full Cost Impacts by Costing Category (2026$)
Recommended Fees
Costing Category Group Total Costs
Annual
Revenue
Cost
Recovery
Surplus/
(Deficit)
Other Engineering 178,185 165,106 93% (13,080)
Lot Grading 216,414 216,510 100%96
Sudivision Additional Reviews 49,209 63,085 128% 13,876
Subdivision Inspections 799,071 800,203 100% 1,132
Site Plan Additional Reviews 42,712 43,333 101% 621
Site Plan Inspections 305,165 305,643 100% 478
Land Division 55,128 55,400 100% 272
Subtotal - Engineering 1,645,884 1,649,281 100% 3,397
- 216 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-18
Table 3-15
Recommended Subdivision Engineering Review and Inspection Fees
User Fee or Charge 2026 Approved Fee
(Excluding HST)2026 Proposed Fee (Excluding HST)
Engineering Review Based on total cost of Municipal Works4 Based on total cost of Municipal Works4
Engineering Review Fee 2Detailed Design Package 1.50% with a minimum of $7,700.00 1.75% with a minimum of $8,000
Surcharge for 4th Submission of Detailed
Design Package (payable at submission)3
33.3% of total Engineering Design Review
Fee with a minimum of $2,945.00
15% of total Engineering Design Review Fee
with a minimum of$8,000.00
Additional surcharge for Submission of each Detailed Design Package after 4th
Submission (payable at submission) 3
20% of total Engineering Design Review Fee with a minimum of $2,945.00 15% of total Engineering Design Review Fee with a minimum of
$8,000.00InspectionBased on total cost of Municipal
Works 4<$250,000 8.25% with a minimum of $7,700.00 8.25% with a minimum of $8,000
$250,000 - 500,000 6.25%6.75%$500,000 - $1.5 million 4.75%5.25%
$1.5 million - $5.0 million 4.00%4.50%> $5 million 3.75%3.75%
Subdivision/Development /Road Servicing
Agreements
- 217 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-19
Table 3-16
Recommended Site Plan Engineering Review and Inspection Fee
Table 3-17 Recommended Land Division Engineering Fees
User Fee or Charge 2026 Approved Fee
(Excluding HST)2026 Proposed Fee (Excluding HST)
Site Plans
Engineering Review
Engineering Review Fee 2Detailed Design Package Development Site Area <= 1,000 m², fixed fee of $1,220.00 Development Site Area <= 1,000 m², fixed fee of $1,220.00
Development Site Area 1,001 m² to 3000 m² fixed fee of $3,600.00 Development Site Area 1,001 m² to 3000 m² fixed fee of $3,600.00
Development Site Area > 3,001 m² based on the sliding scale of total cost of Civil Works 5
noted below
Development Site Area > 3,001 m² based on the sliding scale of total cost of Civil Works 5
noted below
<$250,000 8.25% with a minimum of $7,700.00 10.25% with a minimum of $8,000
$250,000 - $500,000 6.25%9.25%$500,000 - $1.5 million 4.75%8.25%
$1.5 million - $5.0 million 4.00%7.25%> $5 million 3.75%4.25%
Surcharge for submission of each Detailed Design Package after 3rd
submission (payable at submission) 3
$2,945.00 $10,000.00
Inspection
Inspection Fees Development Site Area
<= 1,000 m², fixed fee of $1,220.00
Development Site Area
<= 1,000 m², fixed fee of $1,220.00
Development Site Area 1,001 m² to 3000 m² fixed fee of $3,595.00 Development Site Area 1,001 m² to 3000 m² fixed fee of $3,595.00
Development Site Area > 3,001 m² based on
the sliding scale of total cost of Civil Works5
noted below
Development Site Area > 3,001 m² based on
the sliding scale of total cost of Civil Works5 noted below
<$250,000 8.25% with a minimum of $7,500.00 8.5% with a minimum of $8,000
$250,000 - $500,000 6.25%6.50%$500,000 - $1.5 million 4.75%5.00%
$1.5 million - $5.0 million 4.00%4.00%> $5 million 3.75%3.75%
Surcharge for more than two inspections required due to unaddressed deficiencies
identified during earlier inspections (payable at inspection)
$915.00 per inspection $915.00 per inspection
User Fee or Charge 2026 Approved Fee
(Excluding HST)2026 Proposed Fee (Excluding HST)
Land Division
Engineering Review
up to 4 proposed lots $1,800.00 $1,800.00
>4 proposed lots if not completed as
a Draft Plan of Subdivision
$3,000.00 $3,000.00
Clearance of Conditions
up to 4 proposed lots $2,395.00 $2,800.00
>4 proposed lots if not completed as
a Draft Plan of Subdivision
$6,010.00 $6,300.00
- 218 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-20
Table 3-18
Recommended Lot Grading Review and Infill Building Permit Fees
Table 3-19 Recommended Miscellaneous Engineering Fees
3.2.5 Full Cost of Building Permit Review
Annual costs of the administering and enforcing the Building Code Act total
approximately $5.8 million. Costs are compared with revenues derived from the
application of current fees to average parameters (e.g., gross floor area) and permit
volumes. Costing and fee recovery levels for the major permit categories are
summarized in Table 3-20. Annual revenues based on the City’s current fee structure
and average historical activity levels are estimated at $5.2 million or 90% of costs.
User Fee or Charge 2026 Approved Fee
(Excluding HST)2026 Proposed Fee (Excluding HST)
Lot Grading Review
Residential Lot Grading Review Fee $87.00/unit $160.00
Infill Building Permit
New Construction and/or FoundationModification (any part thereof)$847.00 $950.00
Addition to existing structure $88.00 $88.00
User Fee or Charge 2026 Approved Fee
(Excluding HST)2026 Proposed Fee (Excluding HST)
Miscellaneous Charges
Curb Cut – new development not assumed by
municipality, infill building permit or industrial/commercial
$57.00 per metre or part thereof with a
minimum charge of $375
$57.00 per metre or part thereof with a
minimum charge of $410
Curb Infill $208.00/m $208.00/mSidewalk Repair $196.00/m2 $196.00/m2
Municipal Consent Fee $505.00/street $1,375.00Stormwater Maintenance Fee $2,620.00/hectare $2,620.00/hectare
Cash-in-lieu of water quality treatment $55,585.00/imp.ha $55,585.00/imp.ha
Newspaper Box Pad Permit Application $62.00/box $62.00/box
Newspaper Box Installation $275.00 - $540.00 $275.00 - $540.00
Newspaper Box Annual Maintenance $23.00/box $23.00/boxRoad Cleaning Contract cost + 10% admin fee Contract cost + 10% admin fee
Tree Removal Compensation 1 $640.00/tree to a max of $3,820.00/dwelling unit and $9,250.00/1000 m2 or any part
thereof for industrial and commercial developments
$640.00/tree to a max of $3,820.00/dwelling unit and $9,250.00/1000 m2 or any part
thereof for industrial and commercial developments
Pool Enclosure Permit $393.00 $555.00Streetlight Pole Numbering Fee $93.00/pole $93.00/pole
Re-inspection Fee 9
for more than two inspections required due to deficiencies identified during earlier
inspections
$180.00 per inspection $180.00 per inspection
- 219 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-21
However, as discussed in the following sections, fee recommendations should me made
in the context of a detailed analysis of forecast building permit activity, cost, revenues,
and Building Code Act reserve fund levels.
Table 3-20 Cost Recovery Assessment of Current Building Permit Fees (2024$)
When assessed by application type:
• New residential building permits account for $4.6 million or 79% of the total
annual costs of service. Revenues generated by these fees currently fully
recovering the marginal costs of review and inspection.
• New non-residential building permits account for $128,000 in annual costs,
compared to estimated revenues of $334,000, generating a revenue surplus of
$206,000.
• All other permit types account for 19% of the annual costs ($1.1 million) but only
4% of total revenue ($209,000) resulting in a cumulative under recovery of
$821,000.
The above points illustrate that the fees for new residential and non-residential
construction are generating revenues in excess of the marginal costs of processing
while all other permit types are recovering less than the full costs of service. This
pattern is typical across municipalities in Ontario as the cost recovery test is set in
aggregate at the Building Code Act level and not by type of individual permit.
Furthermore, the fee design strategy has been designed to recover costs while not
setting minor permit fees at levels that would disincentivize compliance with the Building
Code process, thereby driving up the cost of enforcement.
Costing Category Group Total Costs
Annual
Revenue
Cost
Recovery
Surplus/
(Deficit)
Demolition Permit 21,507 5,083 24% (16,424)
Other 592,035 135,448 23% (456,587)
New Residential Building Permits 4,556,928 4,612,399 101% 55,471
New Non-Residential Building Permits 128,004 334,225 261% 206,221
Residential Alterations 363,214 48,872 13% (314,342)
Non-Residential Alterations 89,454 19,619 22% (69,836)
Subtotal - Building 5,751,142 5,155,646 90% (595,496)
- 220 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-22
A detailed analysis of forecast building permit activity, revenues, and Building Code Act
reserve fund levels is contained in Section 3.26, which has been used to inform
recommended fee structure revisions.
3.2.6 Building Permit Fee Recommendations
As noted in the Section 2.6, the recommendation is that the City amend their policy to
set their Building Code Act Reserve Fund for service stabilization at multiple of 1.5
times annual cost of service. Based on the annual costs of service in Table 3-20, the
2026 reserve fund target balance would be $8.6 million. The actual 2025 year-end
reserve fund balance is $4.5 million or 53% of the reserve fund target. The ability of
current and proposed fees to recover the full cost of service and contribute to reserve
fund sustainability was assessed over the 2026 to 2035 forecast period based on
forecast costs and revenues. Furthermore, this was assessed if forecast permit
volumes remained at historical average levels, or if permit volumes for new residential
construction decreased by 10% in 2026, as is expected by staff, before returning to
average levels over the forecast period. The forecast and historical building permit
activity is presented in Table 3-21. .
- 221 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-23
Table 3-21
Building Permit Volume Forecast (2026-2035)
Costing Category Historical
Average 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
Demolition Permit 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.8
Other Building Permits 208.0 205.0 205.0 205.0 205.0 205.0 205.0 205.0 205.0 205.0 205.0
New Residential Building Permits 1,090.9 978.8 991.2 1,003.7 1,016.1 1,028.6 1,041.0 1,053.5 1,066.0 1,078.4 1,090.9 New Non-Residential Building Permits 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 Residential Alterations 111.7 111.7 111.7 111.7 111.7 111.7 111.7 111.7 111.7 111.7 111.7 Non-Residential Alterations 18.1 18.1 18.1 18.1 18.1 18.1 18.1 18.1 18.1 18.1 18.1 Total 1,464.1 1,349.0 1,361.5 1,373.9 1,386.4 1,398.8 1,411.3 1,423.7 1,436.2 1,448.6 1,461.1
- 222 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-24
Based on the forecast development activity and costs of service, the City’s current fees
with inflation would be insufficient to fund the full cost of service or make contributions to
the reserve fund for service sustainability. Table 3-22 shows the reserve fund continuity
over the forecast period considering the forecast costs, revenues, contributions/draws
from the reserve fund, and target reserve fund balance. At current fees, average annual
reserve fund draws of $901,000 would be required over the forecast period. By 2035,
the reserve fund would be a $4.5 million deficit, indicating that the City would have
provide that amount in tax-based funding support for the administration and
enforcement of the Building Code Act.
As such, fee increases have been recommended to ensure full cost recovery and
contributions to the reserve fund for future service sustainability. As shown in Table 3-
23, building permit fee revenue based on the recommended fees discussed herein, plus
continuing to increase fees annually at inflationary levels (3% annual indexing beginning
in 2027 has been assumed for the purpose of this report) would result in the City
accumulating a reserve fund balance of $5.8 million or 51% of the reserve fund target.
While the reserve fund would not reach the target threshold over the forecast period, if
average historical residential building permit activity was maintained (as opposed to the
10% decrease in 2026), the reserve fund would reach the prior target threshold of 1.13
times annual costs by 2035 if permit activity remained at historical levels.
Further sensitivity analyses were also conducted to understand the potential impacts on
the reserve fund if greater decreases to building permit activity were witnessed and
these decreases were also sustained over a longer period of time. If average annual
historical residential permit volumes were to decrease by 20% over the 2026 to 2030
period, the City would be able to sustain and fund the costs of building permit review
from the reserve fund. In this scenario, the reserve fund would decrease to
approximately $1.8 million by the end of 2030. However, if the City was to incur a
sustained decrease of this magnitude, the City may review their staffing needs to
manage costs being incurred and mitigate some of the downward impacts on reserve
fund levels.
- 223 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-25
Table 3-22
Reserve Fund Continuity
Current Fees (with annual inflationary increases)
Table 3-23 Reserve Fund Continuity Recommended Fees (with annual inflationary increases)
Description 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
Opening Balance 4,541,507 3,504,164 2,561,306 1,626,222 700,902 (212,545) (1,111,885) (1,994,755) (2,858,653) (3,700,939)
Revenue 4,762,799 4,950,642 5,145,469 5,347,530 5,557,084 5,774,398 5,999,750 6,233,427 6,475,723 6,726,948
Expense 5,751,142 5,923,676 6,101,386 6,284,428 6,472,961 6,667,150 6,867,164 7,073,179 7,285,374 7,503,936
Other Expense (IT Project)*49,000
Contribution/(Draw)(1,037,343) (973,034) (955,917) (936,898) (915,877) (892,751) (867,414) (839,752) (809,651) (776,987)
Interest 30,176 20,833 11,578 2,430 (6,589) (15,456) (24,146) (32,635) (40,894)
Closing Balance 3,504,164 2,561,306 1,626,222 700,902 (212,545) (1,111,885) (1,994,755) (2,858,653) (3,700,939) (4,518,821)
Reserve Fund Target (1.5 x Total Costs)8,626,713 8,885,514 9,152,079 9,426,642 9,709,441 10,000,724 10,300,746 10,609,768 10,928,061 11,255,903
Reserve Fund/Expense Ratio 0.41 0.29 0.18 0.07 (0.02) (0.11) (0.19) (0.27) (0.34) (0.40)
Description 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
Opening Balance 4,541,507 4,326,149 4,250,070 4,224,102 4,251,904 4,337,319 4,484,375 4,697,297 4,980,515 5,338,669
Revenue 5,584,784 5,804,930 6,033,258 6,270,061 6,515,643 6,770,316 7,034,406 7,308,248 7,592,190 7,886,590
Expense 5,751,142 5,923,676 6,101,386 6,284,428 6,472,961 6,667,150 6,867,164 7,073,179 7,285,374 7,503,936
Other Expense (IT Project)*49,000
Contribution/(Draw)(215,358) (118,746) (68,129) (14,367) 42,682 103,167 167,242 235,069 306,815 382,655
Interest 42,668 42,160 42,169 42,732 43,889 45,680 48,148 51,339 55,300
Closing Balance 4,326,149 4,250,070 4,224,102 4,251,904 4,337,319 4,484,375 4,697,297 4,980,515 5,338,669 5,776,624
Reserve Fund Target (1.5 x Total Costs)8,626,713 8,885,514 9,152,079 9,426,642 9,709,441 10,000,724 10,300,746 10,609,768 10,928,061 11,255,903
Reserve Fund/Total Expense Ratio 0.50 0.48 0.46 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.46 0.47 0.49 0.51
- 224 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-26
This analysis is shown graphically in Figures 3-1 and 3-2. Figure 3-1 shows the
forecast reserve fund position if current fees plus inflation were applied to either
average historical permit volumes or the forecast permit volumes. In either case, the
reserve fund would be in a deficit position of between $2.2 million to $4.5 million by
2035.
Figure 3-1 Forecast Reserve Fund Balance at Forecast and Historical Average Permit Volumes
Current Fees (plus annual inflationary increases)
Figure 3-2 shows the reserve fund position with the recommended fees plus annual
inflationary increases. At historical application volumes, the reserve fund would
increase to $8.5 million or 1.13 times annual costs by 2035. At the forecast permit
volumes, the reserve fund would reach 0.77 times annual costs or $5.8 million by 2035.
Under this scenario the reserve funds would continue to increase from their current
position and move towards the target threshold.
(5,000,000)
(4,000,000)
(3,000,000)
(2,000,000)
(1,000,000)
-
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
Reserve Fund Balance
Reserve Fund Balance - Forecast Reserve Fund Balance - Average Historical
- 225 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-27
Figure 3-2
Forecast Reserve Fund Balance at Forecast and Historical Average Permit Volumes
Recommended Fees (plus annual inflationary increases)
The fee recommendations, which have been made to remain within the range of fees
imposed by comparator Durham Region municipalities and other select GTA
municipalities and to have regard for the affordability and competitiveness of the fees
are presented in Table 3-24. It is anticipated that recommended building permit fees
would be implemented in mid-2026.
The key changes to the recommended fees are summarized as follows:
• New residential construction permits – 17% increase
• New non-residential construction permits – 25% increase
• Sign fees – 10% increase
• Additional inspections (i.e., related to deficiencies)
o Initial fee to cover up to four hours. Additional per hour fee of $120 for
additional time above the four hour threshold
• Increase minimum fee to $180. This would include fees for minor residential
structures
• Other City fee increases for 2026 to be maintained
0.75 0.67
0.77
0.83
1.01
1.13
-
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
8,000,000
9,000,000
2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
Reserve Fund Balance
Reserve Fund Balance - Forecast Reserve Fund Balance - Average Historical
- 226 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-28
Table 3-24
Recommended Building Permit Fees
Class of Permit 2026 Approved Fee
(Excluding HST)
2026 Proposed Fee
(Excluding HST)
Demolition Permit $165.00 $180.00
Conditional Permit 10%10%
Change of Use Permit $345.25 $345.25
Authority to Occupy Permit $426.50 $426.50
Alternative Solution $504.50 $504.50
Resubmission of incomplete application 25%25%
Revision to permit (houses)$165.00 $180.00
Revision to permit (all other building types)15%15%
Transfer of permit $165.00 $180.00
House Models – Re-examination $600.00 $600.00
House Models – Re-examination 10%10%
Certification of House Models $8.60 $8.60
Re-certification of House Models $546.00 $546.00
Reactivation of Dormant File $165.00 $180.00
Building Permit Surcharge Prescribed in Part B Prescribed in Part B
Additional Inspection $490.00 $490.00
Building Type:
Minimum Building Permit Fee $165.00 $180.00
Assembly Occupancies “A” Classification (BPA1)$27.10 $33.88
Care and Detention Occupancies “B” Classification
(BPB1)
$31.00 $38.75
Residential Occupancies “C” Classification (BPC1)
Apartment buildings, hotels, motels, detached, semi-
detached and townhouse dwellings, and other
residential occupancies
• 1 to 20 storeys $17.20 $20.12
• 21 to 40 Storeys $18.65 $21.82
• 41+ Storeys $20.15 $23.58
Business & Personal Services Occupancies “D”
Classification (BPD1)
• Single storey buildings *$17.10 $21.38
• Multi storey buildings **$21.20 $26.50
- 227 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-29
Table 3-24 (Cont’d)
Recommended Building Permit Fees
Class of Permit 2026 Approved Fee
(Excluding HST)
2026 Proposed Fee
(Excluding HST)
Mercantile Occupancies “E” Classification (BPE1)
• Single storey buildings *$17.10 $21.38
• Multi storey buildings **$21.20 $26.50
Industrial Occupancies “F” Classification
• Unserviced storage buildings, unfinished basements ^$7.00 $8.75
• Parking garages and other industrial buildings ^^$12.70 $15.88
Low Human Occupancies “G” Classification $7.00 $8.19
Alterations, Repairs and Other Structures:
Interior Partitioning and Finishing, including new
tenant fit-ups, apartments in houses, and finished
basements $6.30 $7.37
Minor Residential Structures and Alterations,
including
• Decks, gazebos, trellis, pergola, pool equipment shed,
cabanas (each)
• Loadbearing wall removal, basement walkout (each)
• Fireplace, wood stove (each)
• Garage, carport, storage shed (each)
• Water and sewer connection (each)
• Other similar minor projects associated with a
residential use (each)$165.00 $180.00
Temporary Sales Centres (max. 2 years)$2,021.00 $2,021.00
Minor Non-Residential Structures, including
• School portables (each)
• Decks, gazebos, sheds, trellis/sunshades (each)
• Temporary prefabricated trailers (each)
• Temporary tents or garden centres (each)
• Other similar minor structures associated with a non-
residential use $445.95 $490.55
Alterations, Buildings and Designated Structures not
provided above $17.10 $17.10
Solar Collector for All Buildings $305.20 $305.20
Wind Turbines $305.20 $305.20
Final Inspection Performance Deposit (new detached
and semi-detached dwelling units)$2,378.70 $2,378.70
Mag Locks (per building fee – allows for multiple
devices to be installed)$354.50 $354.50
Fire Alarm Installation/Replacement (stand alone)
• Include devices, panel and associated components $411.00 $411.00
Fire Suppression System (when submitted separately
from parent document – stand alone permit)
• include sprinklers, kitchen systems, and specialized
systems $411.00 $411.00
- 228 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-30
Table 3-24 (Cont’d)
Recommended Building Permit Fees
Class of Permit 2026 Approved Fee
(Excluding HST)
2026 Proposed Fee
(Excluding HST)
Sign Permit Fees
Ground Sign $631.90 $695.09
Wall Sign $631.90 $695.09
Development Sign $631.90 $695.09
Billboard Permit $631.90 $695.09
Additional fee for any sign installed prior to permit
issuance
$631.90
$695.09
Sign Variance – ground sign, wall sign or development
sign
$714.10
$785.51
Revision Fee $182.90 $201.19
Miscellaneous Fees:
Lawyer Compliance Letter
• Building Code and Zoning Matters $205.50 $205.50
• Legal Matters $205.50 $205.50
• Site Plan Control Matters $205.50 $205.50
• Licence/Zoning Compliance Letter $205.50 $205.50
Recovery of costs for Clandestine Investigations $3,069.10 $3,069.10
Administrative Fee for Processing Clandestine
Investigations
$640.15 $640.15
Request for Building and/or Planning Records (minor)$25.70 $25.70
Request for Building and/or Planning Records $58.00 $58.00
After Hours Inspections $257.00 $257.00
Records Management Fee
• Houses and other minor residential alterations $13.35 $13.35
• All other permit applications 3%3%
Daycare Compliance Letter $585.70 $585.70
AGCO Compliance Letter $171.60 $180.00
Complaint driven inspection after 2nd site visit for the
same matter or closely related as verified by City staff
$155.00 $180.00
Building Permit Surcharge (minimum permit fee
applies):
Footings/Foundations Commenced 50%50%
Framing Commenced 60%60%
Framing Substantially Complete 75%75%
Building Envelope is Substantially Complete 95%95%
Any other work requiring the issuance of a building
permit (i.e., HVAC, plumbing, site works etc.)
• If 25% of the scope of work substantially 25%25%
• If 50% of the scope of work substantially 50%50%
• If 75% of the scope of work substantially 75%75%
• If 95% of the scope of work substantially 95%95%
• Demolition or partial demolition has commenced 100%100%
- 229 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Chapter 4
Impact of Recommended Fee
on Sample Development
Types
- 230 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 4-1
4. Impact of Recommended Fees on Sample
Development Types
4.1 Introduction
The fee recommendations that were presented in Chapter 3 also considered the
affordability of the increases and the City’s competitiveness of their fees when
compared to neighbouring municipalities in Durham Region and the surrounding area.
Municipal fee comparisons for planning and building permit fees are included in
Appendix A for a cross section of sample developments. The proposed building permit
fees would increase the City’s position within the municipal rankings but still generally
be within the range of fees imposed by other Durham Region municipalities. With the
exception of Site Plan fees that would be increased towards the top end of the
municipal comparison, the City’s ranking for planning applications fees would remain
unchanged or decrease (e.g., major OPA applications).
To fully understand the overall impacts that these fee recommendations will have on the
competitiveness of the City’s total development fees (i.e., including planning, building,
engineering fees, and development charges), an impact analysis for two sample
developments has been prepared comparing the City’s current and proposed cost of
development to other comparable municipalities. The following section gives an
overview of what the potential cost implications would be on two sample of
developments (i.e., a 200 unit subdivision development, and a 400 unit Site Plan
development). To provide some context to the fees imposed in the comparator
municipalities and when they may be updated, a review of when each municipality last
undertook a public fee review was completed. Generally, municipalities that regularly
review their fees will comprehensively update them every four to five years. The dates
and fees reviewed by municipality are provided below:
• City of Toronto – Planning fees (2025)
• Town of Ajax – All development fees (2023)
• Town of Whitby – All development fees (2024)
• City of Oshawa – Unknown
• Municipality of Clarington – Planning fees (2025)
• City of Mississauga – All development fees (2016)
• City of Brampton – Planning fees (2023), Building fees (2025)
- 231 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 4-2
• Town of Caledon – Unknown
• Town of Halton Hills – Planning and engineering fees (2025)
• City of Burlington – Planning fees (2022), Building fees (2019)
• Town of Oakville – All development fees (2014)
• Town of Milton – All development fees (2022)
4.2 Subdivision Development Impacts
Figure 4-1 examines the total development fees and charges, including planning (i.e.,
ZBA and subdivision), engineering fees, building permit fees, and development charges,
related to a 200-unit (247 sq. m. per unit) subdivision. This provides a comprehensive
analysis of the impacts of the recommended fees and is presented on a per unit basis.
The recommended fees result in a $683 per unit increase which is an 8% increase in
the City’s planning, engineering, and building permit fees or a 0.5% increase in the total
development fees and charges payable for the development. This increase leaves the
City’s rank in the municipal comparison unchanged at the sixth out of the 13 comparator
municipalities. Furthermore, when examining what share of the total development fees
payable the proposed planning application, building permit, and engineering fees would
represent, the City’s fees would be 7% of the total fees, which is equal to the average
share of the 13 comparator municipalities, indicating these proposed fees are in line
with the cost recovery policies of the other municipalities.
- 232 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 4-3
Figure 4-1
200-Unit Subdivision Development Impacts
4.3 Site Plan Development Impacts
Figure 4-2 examines the total development fees and charges, including planning (i.e.,
ZBA and site plan), engineering fees, building permit fees, and development charges,
related to a 400-unit (106 sq. m. per unit) high density residential site plan. This
provides a comprehensive analysis of the impacts of the recommended fees and is
presented on a per unit basis. The recommended fees result in a $559 per unit
increase which is a 18% increase in the City’s planning, engineering, and building
permit fees or a 1% increase in the total development fees and charges payable for the
development. This increase adjusts the City’s rank in the municipal comparison to fifth,
from sixth, out of the 13 comparator municipalities. Furthermore, when examining what
share of the total development fees payable the proposed planning, engineering and
building permit fees would represent, the City’s fees would be 8% of the total fees,
which is inline with the average share of 7% for the 13 comparator municipalities,
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
Per Unit Total Development Related Fees (200-unit Subdivision, 247 sq.m. per unit)
Lower Tier Development Charges Upper Tier Development Charges Building Permit Fees
Planning Fees Engineering Fees
- 233 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 4-4
indicating these proposed fees are in line with the cost recovery policies of the other
municipalities
Figure 4-6 400 Unit Site Plan Development Impacts
-
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
Per Unit Total Development Related Fees (400-unit Site Plan, 106 sq.m. per unit)
Lower Tier Development Charges Upper Tier Development Charges Building Permit Fees
Planning Fees Engineering Fees
- 234 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Chapter 5
Conclusion
- 235 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 5-1
5. Conclusion
Summarized in this technical report is the legislative context for the imposition of
development review fees, the methodology undertaken, A.B.C. model results, the
associated full cost recovery, fee structure recommendations, and market impacts.
The intent of this review is to provide the City with a recommended fee structure, for
Council’s consideration, to appropriately recover the service costs from benefiting
parties. The recommended planning application fees would generate an additional
$238,000 in annual revenue, improving cost recovery from 73% to 79% (including
$145,000 in costs not recovered related to City initiated applications). Engineering fees
would generate an additional $175,000 in fee revenue, increasing cost recovery from
90% to 100%. Building permit fees would generate an additional $895,000 in revenue,
recovering the full costs of service and contributing to the reserve fund for future service
sustainability. As noted earlier, the cost recovery levels of the recommended are
presented in 2026$ values. The City should consider annual inflationary increases to
the fees to maintain desired cost recovery levels. Interim adjustments to fees may be
required if there are greater than inflationary increases to City review costs, changes in
organizational structure, or other legislative changes that impact the intensity of
involvement on a per application basis.
It is recommended that the City consider revisiting its development review fees every
four to five years to ensure the fees and associated revenue are aligned with processing
costs to maintain a sound fiscal position and mitigate any potential appeal risk
associated with the fees.
- 236 -
Appendices
- 237 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-1
Appendix A
Planning, Engineering and
Building Permit Fee Municipal
Comparators
- 238 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-2
Table A-1
100-Unit Subdivision
Planning Fees
Table A-2 400-Unit Subdivision Planning Fees
Municipality/Region
Pre-
Consultation
Additional
Fees Base Fee Variable Fee Total Fee
Toronto, City of - - 289,479 - 289,479
Brampton, City of*20,440 - 36,128 158,100 214,668
Pickering, City of - Current 3,700 5,000 78,315 98,125 185,140
Pickering, City of - Proposed 3,700 5,000 78,315 98,125 185,140
Halton Hills, Town of - 28,031 66,950 74,675 169,656
Whitby, Town of*- 11,443 44,661 80,875 136,979
Oakville, Town of 1,319 9,986 31,934 83,850 127,089
Ajax, Town of*3,485 4,018 37,750 67,990 113,242
Oshawa, City of 1,914 5,711 38,246 49,200 95,071
Milton, Town of 417 - 60,374 34,050 94,841
Burlington, City of 2,295 - 35,355 52,500 90,150
Mississauga, City of 5,825 - 10,494 68,100 84,419
Caledon, Town of 2,164 9,300 16,900 35,000 63,364
Clarington, Municipality of*1,055 6,938 19,670 31,000 58,663
Additional Fees include subdivision release, clearance, final approval and agreement fees
Municipality/Region
Pre-
Consultation
Additional
Fees Base Fee Variable Fee Total Fee
Brampton, City of*- 36,128 632,400 668,528
Whitby, Town of*- 11,443 44,661 323,498 379,602
Pickering, City of - Current 3,700 5,000 78,315 265,125 352,140
Pickering, City of - Proposed 3,700 5,000 78,315 265,125 352,140
Toronto, City of - - 289,479 - 289,479
Mississauga, City of 5,825 - 10,494 272,400 288,719
Halton Hills, Town of - 28,031 66,950 178,475 273,456
Oakville, Town of 1,319 9,986 31,934 222,550 265,789
Ajax, Town of*3,485 4,018 37,750 204,020 249,272
Oshawa, City of 1,914 5,711 38,246 153,200 199,071
Caledon, Town of 2,164 9,300 16,900 140,000 168,364
Clarington, Municipality of*1,055 6,938 19,670 124,000 151,663
Burlington, City of 2,295 - 35,355 100,500 138,150
Milton, Town of 417 - 60,374 74,850 135,641
Additional Fees include subdivision release, clearance, final approval and agreement fees
- 239 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-3
Table A-3
100-Unit Residential Site Plan
Planning Fees
Table A-4
400-Unit Residential Site Plan Planning Fees
Municipality/Region
Pre-
Consultation
Additional
Fees Base Fee Variable Fee Total Fee
Toronto, City of - - 43,605 48,330 91,935
Brampton, City of*- 29,720 65,400 91,842
Pickering, City of - Proposed 1,540 1,060 20,000 67,500 90,100
Halton Hills, Town of - 6,018 41,200 37,350 84,568
Oakville, Town of 1,319 14,220 15,615 50,375 81,529
Ajax, Town of*687 - 40,544 38,785 80,016
Pickering, City of - Current 1,540 1,060 19,685 57,000 79,285
Mississauga, City of 5,825 - 12,164 42,325 60,314
Caledon, Town of 2,164 - 21,220 33,600 56,984
Whitby, Town of*3,500 3,500 11,521 34,917 53,438
Milton, Town of 417 3,366 15,461 32,600 51,844
Oshawa, City of 1,914 4,372 6,011 39,300 51,597
Burlington, City of - - 12,200 36,500 48,700
Clarington, Municipality of*1,055 - 5,540 6,500 13,095
Assumed 90 m2 per residential unit
Municipality/Region
Pre-
Consultation
Additional
Fees Base Fee Variable Fee Total Fee
Toronto, City of - - 43,605 193,320 236,925
Pickering, City of - Proposed 1,540 1,060 20,000 149,500 172,100
Caledon, Town of 2,164 - 21,220 134,400 157,784
Halton Hills, Town of - 6,018 41,200 104,350 151,568
Pickering, City of - Current 1,540 1,060 19,685 111,500 133,785
Oakville, Town of 1,319 14,220 15,615 94,075 125,229
Ajax, Town of*687 - 40,544 75,295 116,526
Burlington, City of - - 12,200 102,500 114,700
Milton, Town of 417 3,366 15,461 86,600 105,844
Brampton, City of*- 29,720 189,300 91,842
Mississauga, City of 5,825 - 12,164 64,525 82,514
Oshawa, City of 1,914 4,372 6,011 157,200 79,568
Whitby, Town of*3,500 3,500 11,521 76,998 76,805
Clarington, Municipality of*1,055 - 5,540 26,000 32,595
Assumed 90 m2 per residential unit
- 240 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-4
Table A-5
10,000 Sq. M. Industrial Site Plan
Planning Fees
Table A-6 100-Unit Zoning By-law Amendment Planning Fees
Municipality/Region
Pre-
Consultation
Additional
Fees Base Fee Variable Fee Total Fee
Oakville, Town of 1,319 14,220 15,615 120,400 151,554
Toronto, City of - - 43,605 53,700 97,305
Milton, Town of 417 3,366 15,461 76,524 95,768
Brampton, City of*20,440 - 29,720 47,556 91,842
Halton Hills, Town of - 6,018 41,200 28,350 75,568
Pickering, City of - Proposed 1,540 1,060 20,000 36,500 59,100
Mississauga, City of 5,825 - 12,164 47,055 57,733
Pickering, City of - Current 1,540 1,060 19,685 33,350 55,635
Whitby, Town of*3,500 3,500 11,521 36,500 55,021
Ajax, Town of*687 - 40,544 5,090 46,321
Caledon, Town of 2,164 - 21,220 14,000 37,384
Burlington, City of - - 12,200 25,000 37,200
Oshawa, City of 1,914 4,372 6,011 14,100 26,397
Clarington, Municipality of*1,055 - 5,540 8,000 14,595
Municipality/Region
Pre-
Consultation
Additional
Fees Base Fee Variable Fee Total Fee
Toronto, City of - - 63,680 93,450 157,130
Mississauga, City of - - 38,712 118,175 156,887
Brampton, City of*- 42,602 64,000 88,821
Halton Hills, Town of - - 30,900 42,525 73,425
Milton, Town of 417 - 27,358 45,225 73,000
Pickering, City of - Current 3,700 - 22,700 44,500 70,900
Pickering, City of - Proposed 3,700 - 22,700 44,500 70,900
Burlington, City of 2,295 - 26,035 40,750 69,080
Ajax, Town of*3,485 2,510 52,718 - 58,713
Oakville, Town of 1,319 - 39,191 14,725 55,235
Whitby, Town of*3,500 - 50,000 - 53,500
Caledon, Town of 2,164 - 49,900 - 52,064
Oshawa, City of 1,914 - 21,855 - 23,769
Clarington, Municipality of*1,055 - 13,890 - 14,945
Assumed 150 m2 per residential unit
- 241 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-5
Table A-7
400-Unit Zoning By-law Amendment
Planning Fees
Table A-8
100-Unit Residential OPA Planning Fees
Municipality/Region
Pre-
Consultation
Additional
Fees Base Fee Variable Fee Total Fee
Toronto, City of - - 63,680 373,800 437,480
Mississauga, City of - - 38,712 204,075 238,453
Milton, Town of 417 - 27,358 115,425 143,200
Burlington, City of 2,295 - 26,035 112,750 141,080
Pickering, City of - Current 3,700 - 22,700 107,500 133,900
Pickering, City of - Proposed 3,700 - 22,700 107,500 133,900
Halton Hills, Town of - - 30,900 99,325 130,225
Brampton, City of*- 42,602 171,300 88,821
Oakville, Town of 1,319 - 39,191 39,325 79,835
Ajax, Town of*3,485 2,510 52,718 - 58,713
Whitby, Town of*3,500 - 50,000 - 53,500
Caledon, Town of 2,164 - 49,900 - 52,064
Oshawa, City of 1,914 - 21,855 - 23,769
Clarington, Municipality of*1,055 - 13,890 - 14,945
Assumed 150 m2 per residential unit
Municipality/Region
Pre-
Consultation Base Fee Variable Fee Total Fee
Toronto, City of - 232,603 232,603
Halton Hills, Town of - 72,100 69,525 141,625
Ajax, Town of*3,485 118,645 122,130
Pickering, City of - Current 3,700 110,180 113,880
Burlington, City of 2,295 98,610 100,905
Pickering, City of - Proposed 3,700 95,000 98,700
Brampton, City of*- 70,066 70,066
Whitby, Town of*3,500 55,022 58,522
Caledon, Town of 2,164 51,300 53,464
Milton, Town of 417 52,823 53,240
Oakville, Town of 1,319 38,642 39,961
Mississauga, City of - 29,562 29,562
Oshawa, City of 1,914 27,319 29,233
Clarington, Municipality of*1,055 27,030 28,085
- 242 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-6
Table A-9
400-Unit residential Combined Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment
Planning Fees
Table A-10
100-Unit Condominium Planning Fees
Municipality/Region OPA Fee ZBA Fee
Full OPA &
ZBA Fee
Combined
Application
Fee Discount (%)
Toronto, City of 232,603 437,480 670,083 450,051 -33%
Pickering, City of - Current 113,880 133,900 247,780 247,780 -
Halton Hills, Town of 188,025 130,225 318,250 218,925 -31%
Burlington, City of 100,905 141,080 241,985 216,759 -10%
Milton, Town of 53,240 143,200 196,440 196,440 -
Mississauga, City of 29,562 238,453 268,015 172,420 -36%
Pickering, City of - Proposed 98,700 133,900 232,600 166,350 -28%
Ajax, Town of*122,130 58,713 180,842 127,956 -29%
Oakville, Town of 39,961 79,835 119,796 119,796 -
Brampton, City of*70,066 88,821 158,887 119,165 -25%
Caledon, Town of 53,464 52,064 105,528 89,699 -15%
Whitby, Town of*58,522 53,500 112,022 74,904 -33%
Oshawa, City of 29,233 23,769 53,002 53,002 -
Clarington, Municipality of*28,085 14,945 43,030 33,975 -21%
Assumed 150 m2 per residential unit
Municipality/Region
Pre-
Consultation
Additional
Fees Base Fee Variable Fee Total Fee
Oakville, Town of - 9,986 23,592 121,700 155,278
Brampton, City of*- 704 31,549 65,400 97,653
Milton, Town of - - 60,374 34,050 94,424
Halton Hills, Town of - 36,301 42,040 - 78,341
Burlington, City of - - 67,120 - 67,120
Caledon, Town of 2,164 3,121 35,100 6,000 46,385
Pickering, City of - Proposed - - 44,000 - 44,000
Ajax, Town of*3,485 3,172 29,501 - 36,157
Pickering, City of - Current 3,700 - 20,715 - 24,415
Whitby, Town of 3,560 6,680 10,847 - 21,087
Mississauga, City of - - 15,764 4,200 19,964
Oshawa, City of 1,914 2,857 12,840 - 17,611
Clarington, Municipality of*1,055 3,498 8,960 - 13,513
Toronto, City of - - 12,619 - 12,619
- 243 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-7
Table A-11
Consent
Planning Fees
Municipality/Region
Pre-
consultation
Base Fee
(Lot
Creation)
Fee for Each
Additional Lot
Created
Halton Hills, Town of $14,567 $1,545
Pickering, City of - Proposed $370 $12,000 $1,000
Burlington, City of $11,940 $3,105
Brampton, City of*$10,381
Caledon, Town of $9,300
Milton, Town of $8,537
Oakville, Town of $8,319 $4,160
Toronto, City of $8,081 $6,561
Pickering, City of - Current $370 $4,615
Ajax, Town of*$687 $3,473
Whitby, Town of*$3,000
Mississauga, City of $2,540
Oshawa, City of $2,334
Clarington, Municipality of*$2,125
- 244 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-8
Table A-12
Minor Variance
Planning Fees
Municipality/Region
Minor
Variance -
Accessory,
decks,
driveways,
etc.
Residential
Minor - Single
Variance
Residential
Minor -
Multiple
Variances
Residential
Major - Single
Variance
Residential
Major -
Multiple
Variances
Residential
Major - Each
Variance
above 5
ICI - Single
Variance
ICI - Multiple
Variances
ICI - Each
Variance
Above 5
Halton Hills, Town of 3,379 3,379 3,379 6,768 6,768 6,768 6,768
Brampton, City of*3,056 3,056 3,056 3,056 3,056 12,212 12,212
Pickering, City of - Proposed 1,000 2,500 3,000 4,000 4,500 4,500 5,000
Milton, Town of 2,402 2,402 2,402 4,516 4,516 10,262 10,262
Toronto, City of 2,229 2,229 2,229 5,011 5,011 6,486 6,486
Oakville, Town of 2,152 2,152 2,152 4,303 4,303 4,303 4,303
Caledon, Town of 1,600 2,000 2,000 5,600 5,600 5,600 5,600
Ajax, Town of*846 1,639 2,049 3,483 4,097 614 4,097 4,652 614
Whitby, Town of*1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 3,001 3,001
Pickering, City of - Current 880 1,180 1,495 2,675 2,905 3,255 3,810
Burlington, City of 1,145 1,145 1,145 6,865 6,865 8,040 8,040
Clarington, Municipality of*910 910 910 1,480 1,480 2,110 2,110
Oshawa, City of 856 856 856 2,049 2,049 2,049 2,049
Mississauga, City of 794 794 794 1,361 1,361 1,730 1,730
- 245 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-9
Table A-13
Subdivision Engineering Review and Inspection (Cost of Works $7.7 Million)
Engineering Fees
Table A-14 Site Plan Engineering Review and Inspection (Cost of Works $1.3 Million) Engineering Fees
Municipalitity:
Engineering
Review Fee
Inspection
Fee
Total
Engineering
Fee
Caledon, Town of - - 730,000
Oakville, Town of 188,781 462,000 650,781
Burlington, City of 539,000 107,000 646,000
Halton Hills, Town of - - 579,500
Oshawa, City of 330,840 245,610 576,450
Whitby, Town of 145,530 391,130 536,660
Milton, Town of - - 535,500
Pickering, City of - Proposed 134,750 348,750 483,500
Pickering, City of - Current 115,500 325,000 440,500
Toronto, City of - - 385,000
Mississauga, City of - - 382,000
Ajax, Town of - - 375,300
Clarington, Municipality of 96,250 174,000 270,250
Brampton, City of - - 269,500
Municipalitity:
Engineering
Review Fee
Inspection
Fee
Total
Engineering
Oshawa, City of 324,284 - 324,284
Pickering, City of - Proposed 137,875 77,500 215,375
Halton Hills, Town of 55,900 - 198,000
Pickering, City of - Current 89,875 74,250 164,125
Whitby, Town of - - 132,640
Caledon, Town of - - 124,000
Milton, Town of - - 111,000
Burlington, City of - - 91,000
Oakville, Town of - - 78,000
Ajax, Town of - - 76,300
Mississauga, City of - - 74,250
Toronto, City of - - 65,000
Clarington, Municipality of 16,250 40,000 56,250
Brampton, City of - - 45,500
- 246 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-10
Table A-15
New Residential Building Permit (Per Sq. M., 3-Storey Semi-Detached)
Building Permit Fees
Table A-16 New Residential Building Permit (Per Sq. M., Apartments) Building Permit Fees
Size Block Structure:
Municipality:
Uniform Fee
Structure
($/M2)
Block 1 Fee
($/M2)
Block 2 Fee
($/M2)
Block 1
Range (M2)
Block 2
Range (M2)
Burlington, City of*$23.18 $29.90 0 - 300 301+
Halton Hills, Town of $23.54 $25.70 0 - 475 476+
Milton, Town of*$24.64
Whitby, Town of $22.37
Pickering, City of - Proposed $20.12
Mississauga, City of*$18.44
Caledon, Town of $18.12
Toronto, City of $17.85
Oakville, Town of $17.80
Brampton, City of*$17.28
Clarington, Municipality of**$17.21
Pickering, City of - Current $17.20
Oshawa, City of*$15.10
Ajax, Town of $14.22
*2025 Fees
**2024 Fees
Number of Storeys Block Structure:
Municipality:
Uniform Fee Structure
($/M2)
Block 1 Fee
($/M2)
Block 2 Fee
($/M2)
Block 3 Fee
($/M2)
Block 1
Range
(Storeys)
Block 2
Range
(Storeys)
Block 3
Range
(Storeys)
Burlington, City of*$21.35 $25.80 $30.28 0 - 3 4 - 7 8+
Milton, Town of*$24.64 $17.69 0 - 6 7+
Pickering, City of - Proposed $20.12 $21.82 $23.58 0 - 20 21 - 40 41+Oakville, Town of $17.80 $23.25 0 - 3 4+
Halton Hills, Town of $22.90
Whitby, Town of $22.37
Pickering, City of - Current $17.20 $18.65 $20.15 0 - 20 21 - 40 41+
Mississauga, City of*$19.93
Brampton, City of*$19.44Clarington, Municipality of**$18.35
Toronto, City of $17.85
Caledon, Town of $16.61
Oshawa, City of*$14.76
Ajax, Town of $11.40 $8.54 0 - 4 5+
*2025 Fees
**2024 Fees
- 247 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-11
Table A-17
New Business & Personal Services Building Permit
Building Permit Fees
Number of Storeys Block Structure:
Municipality:
Uniform Fee
Structure
($/M2)
Block 1 Fee
($/M2)
Block 2 Fee
($/M2)
Block 1
Range
(Storeys)
Block 2
Range
(Storeys)
Burlington, City of*(1)$32.61 $32.24 $34.47 0 - 10 11+
Pickering, City of - Proposed $21.38 $26.50 0 - 1 2+
Clarington, Municipality of**$26.10
Whitby, Town of $25.39
Toronto, City of $23.52
Oakville, Town of $23.25
Mississauga, City of*$23.15
Halton Hills, Town of $23.09
Milton, Town of*$21.88
Caledon, Town of $21.62
Pickering, City of - Current $17.10 $21.20 0 - 1 2+
Oshawa, City of*$19.09
Brampton, City of*$18.80
Ajax, Town of $15.36
*2025 Fees
**2024 Fees
(1) Burlington imposes a block fee structure for office buildings. All other developments are subject to the
uniform fee.
- 248 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-12
Table A-18
New Industrial Building Permit
Building Permit Fees
Size Block Structure:
Municipality:
Uniform Fee
Structure
($/M2)
Block 1 Fee
($/M2)
Block 2 Fee
($/M2)
Block 1
Range (M2)
Block 2
Range (M2)
Milton, Town of*$19.74 $16.87 0 - 10,000 10,001+
Halton Hills, Town of $19.51 $16.28 0 - 10,000 10,001+
Oakville, Town of $19.10 $15.10 0 - 5,000 5,001
Clarington, Municipality of**$18.35
Burlington, City of*$17.94 $12.24 0 - 4,650 4,651+
Whitby, Town of $17.42
Toronto, City of $16.36 $14.45 0 - 7,500 7,501+
Pickering, City of - Proposed $15.88
Oshawa, City of*$14.65 $7.33 0 - 11,600 11,601+
Mississauga, City of*$14.44 $13.86 0 - 10,000 10,001+
Brampton, City of*$12.97
Caledon, Town of $12.87
Pickering, City of - Current $12.70
Ajax, Town of $8.25
*2025 Fees
**2024 Fees
- 249 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-13
Table A-19
Residential Alterations Permit
Building Permit Fees
Fee ($/M2)
Municipality:
All/General Apartments
Additional
Dwelling
Unit
Toronto, City of $11.09
Whitby, Town of $10.65 $10.65
Halton Hills, Town of $10.42
Burlington, City of*$8.25
Pickering, City of - Proposed $7.37
Ajax, Town of $7.16 $9.68
Oshawa, City of*$7.56 $7.01
Mississauga, City of*$6.64 $11.00
Milton, Town of*$6.42 $9.39
Pickering, City of - Current $6.30
Caledon, Town of $5.64
Clarington, Municipality of**$5.33
Brampton, City of*$5.18
Oakville, Town of $4.90 $11.60 $12.00
*2025 Fees
**2024 Fees
- 250 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-14
Table A-20
Minimum Building Permit Fee
Building Permit Fees
Flat Fee
Municipality:Residential Non-
Residential Minor Permit Moderate
Permit Major Permit
Burlington, City of*$377.00
Brampton, City of*$316.71 $431.89
Whitby, Town of $305.00
Milton, Town of*$259.02
Halton Hills, Town of $255.70 $334.21
Mississauga, City of*$237.00 $375.00
Toronto, City of $206.53
Oakville, Town of $200.00
Caledon, Town of $193.00 $321.00
Pickering, City of - Proposed $180.00
Pickering, City of - Current $165.00
Oshawa, City of*$155.00
Ajax, Town of $141.00 $317.00 $529.00
Clarington, Municipality of**$131.37
*2025 Fees
**2024 Fees
- 251 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE J-5-15
- 252 -
Attachment 2 to Report PLN 10-26
User Fee or Charge 2026 Existing Fee
(Excluding HST)
2026 Proposed Fee
(Excluding HST)
HST
Applicable (Y/N)
2026 Fee
Effective Date
Building Permit Fees
Demolition Permit $33.00/each 100m ² of GFA min $165.00 $33.00/each 100m ² of GFA min $180.00 Y July 1, 2026
Conditional Permit 10% of Appl. Permit Fee to a
max of $5,140.00 in addition to applicable fee
10% of Appl. Permit Fee to a
max of $5,280.00 in addition to applicable fee
N
No increase
Change of Use Permit $345.25 $345.25 N No increase
Authority to Occupy Permit $426.50 $426.50 N No increase
Alternative Solution $504.50/hr (4 hour min) 1 $504.50/hr (4 hour min) 1 N No increase
Resubmission of Incomplete Application 25% of Application Fee 1 25% of Application Fee 1 N No Increase
Revision to Permit (houses) $165.00 $180.00 Y July 1, 2026
Revision to Permit (all other building
types)
15% of applicable permit fee
to a max of $3,454.50
15% of applicable permit fee
to a max of $3,454.50
N No increase
Transfer of Permit $165.00 $180.00 Y July 1, 2026
House Models Re-examination (required
by Code Changes) Reconfiguration of
interior does not qualify.
$600.00 plus the fee
prescribed in Part B as a
result of any additional area
10% of applicable permit fee to a
maximum of $1,552.55
$600.00 plus the fee
prescribed in Part B as a
result of any additional area
10% of applicable permit fee to a
maximum of $1,552.55
N
No increase
House Models Certification $8.60/m ² of GFA $8.60/m ² of GFA N No increase
House Models Re-certification (minor
change)
$546.00 $546.00 N
No increase
Reactivation of Dormant File $165.00 $180.00 N July 1, 2026
Building Permit Surcharge as prescribed in Part B No change N No increase
Additional Inspection $490.00 $490.00 N No increase
Minimum Building Permit Fee $165.00 $180.00 Y July 1, 2026
Assembly Occupancies "A" Classification
(BPA1)
$27.10/each m² of GFA $33.88/each m² of GFA Y July 1, 2026
Care and Detention Occupancies "B"
Classification (BPB1)
$30.15/each m² of GFA $38.75/each m² of GFA Y July 1, 2026
Residential Occupancies "C"
Classification (BPC1) 1- 20 Storeys
$17.20/each m² of GFA $20.12/each m² of GFA Y July 1, 2026
Residential Occupancies "C"
Classification (BPC1) 21 - 40 Storeys
$18.65/each m² of GFA $21.82/each m² of GFA Y July 1, 2026
Residential Occupancies "C"
Classification (BPC1) +41 Storeys
$20.15/each m² of GFA $23.58/each m² of GFA Y July 1, 2026
Business & Personal Services
Occupancies "D" Classification (BPD1) Single storey buildings *
Multi storey buildings **
*17.10 per m² of floor area
or part thereof ** 21.20 per m² of floor area
or part thereof
*21.38 per m² of floor area
or part thereof ** 26.50 per m² of floor area
or part thereof
Y
July 1, 2026
Mercantile Occupancies "E"
Classification (BPE1) Single storey buildings *
Multi storey buildings **
*17.10 per m² of floor area
or part thereof ** 21.20 per m² of floor area
or part thereof
*21.38 per m² of floor area
or part thereof ** 26.50 per m² of floor area
or part thereof
Y
July 1, 2026
Industrial Occupancies "F" Classification
Unserviced storage buildings,
XQILQLVKHGEDVHPHQWV ޔ
Parking garages and other industrial
EXLOGLQJV ޔޔ
ޔSHU Pð RI IORRU DUHD
or part thereof
ޔޔSHU Pð RI IORRU DUHD
or part thereof
ޔSHU Pð RI IORRU DUHD
or part thereof
ޔޔSHU Pð RI IORRU DUHD
or part thereof
Y
July 1, 2026
City Development - Building
These fees are imposed under the authority of the Building Code Act , 1992, C.23
- 253 -
User Fee or Charge 2026 Existing Fee
(Excluding HST)
2026 Proposed Fee
(Excluding HST)
HST
Applicable (Y/N)
2026 Fee
Effective Date
City Development - Building
Low Human Occupancies "G"
Classification
7.00 per m² of floor area
or part thereof
8.19 per m² of floor area
or part thereof
Y July 1, 2026
Interior Partitioning and Finishing (including new tenant fit-ups, apartments
in houses, and Finished basements).
$6.30/each m² of GFA $7.37/each m² of GFA Y
July 1, 2026
Minor Residential Structures and Alterations, including; (each)
Decks, gazebos, trellis, pergola, pool equip. shed, cabanas
Loadbearing wall removal, basement walkout
Fireplace, wood stove
Garage, carport, storage shed Water and sewer connection
Other similar minor projects associated with a residential use
$165.00 $180.00 Y
July 1, 2026
Temporary Sales Centres (Max. 2 Years) $2,021.00 $2,021.00 N No increase
Minor Non-Residential Structures,
including; (each)
School portables Decks, gazebos, sheds,
trellis/sunshades
Temporary prefabricated trailers Tents or Garden Centres
Other similar minor structures associated with a non-residential use
$445.95 $490.55 Y
July 1, 2026
Alterations, Building and Designated Structures Not Provided Above $17.10 per $1,000.00 of construction value
( i it f li )
$17.10 per $1,000.00 of construction value
( i it f li )
N
No increase
Solar Collector for All Buildings $305.20 flat fee $305.20 Flat Fee N No increase
Wind Turbines $305.20 Flat Fee $305.20 Flat Fee N No increase
Performance Deposit (new & semi-
detached, towns, row, stacked dwelling
units, and additions larger than 60 m2 in GFA)
$2,378.70 $2,378.70 N
No increase
Performance Deposit for additions, sheds, garages larger than 60m2,
secondary suites, finished basements
d b t lk
$1,000.00 $1,000.00 N
No increase
Mag Locks (Per building fee - allows for
multiple devices to be installed)
$345.00 Flat Fee $354.50 Flat Fee N
No increase
Fire Alarm Installation/Replacement
(stand alone) - include devices, panel and associated components
$400.00 $411.00 N
No increase
Fire Suppression System - include sprinklers, kitchen systems, and
specialized systems
(when submitted separately from parent document – stand alone permit)
$400.00 $411.00 N
No increase
Sign Permit Fees
Ground Sign $631.90 $695.09 Y July 1, 2026
Building permit fees are required to meet the City costs to administer and enforce the Building Code Act . Building permit fee amounts will
not exceed the anticipated reasonable City costs to administer and enforce the Act following implementation of the changes in this schedule. Note, GFA represents Gross Floor Area.
- 254 -
User Fee or Charge 2026 Existing Fee
(Excluding HST)
2026 Proposed Fee
(Excluding HST)
HST
Applicable (Y/N)
2026 Fee
Effective Date
City Development - Building
Wall Sign $631.90 $695.09 Y July 1, 2026
Development Sign $631.90 $695.09 Y July 1, 2026
Billboard Permit $631.90 $695.09 Y July 1, 2026
Additional fee for any sign installed prior
to permit issuance
$631.90 $695.09 Y July 1, 2026
Revision Fee $182.90 $201.19 Y July 1, 2026
Sign Variance - ground sign, wall sign or development sign $714.10 $785.51 Y July 1, 2026
Miscellaneous Charges
Lawyer Compliance Letter
Building Code and Zoning Matters $205.50 $205.50 N No increase
Legal Matters $205.50 $205.50 N No increase
Site Plan Control Matters $205.50 $205.50 N No increase
Recovery of costs for Clandestine Investigations $3,069.10 $3,069.10 N No increase
Administrative Fee for Processing Clandestine Investigations $640.15 $640.15 N No increase
Request for Building and/or Planning Records Search (Minor - Survey or single
page item)
$25.70 $25.70 N
No increase
Request for Building and/or Planning
Records (extensive search, multiple pages)
$58.00 $58.00 N
No increase
After Hours Inspections $257.00/hr. (4 hr. min) $257.00/hr. (4 hr. min) N No increase
Licence/Zoning Compliance Letter $205.50 $205.50 N No increase
Records Management Fee (houses (all forms) and other minor
residential alterations)
$13.35 $13.35 N
No increase
Records Management Fee
(all other permit applications)
3% to a maximum of
$311.00 ($13.35 min)
3% to a maximum of
$311.00 ($13.35 min)
N
No increase
Daycare Compliance Letter $585.70 $585.70 N No increase
AGCO Compliance Letters $171.60 $180.00 Y July 1, 2026
Complaint driven inspection after 2nd site visit for the same matter or closely related as
verified by City Staff
$155.00 $180.00 Y July 1, 2026
*** Building Permit Surcharges (min. permit fee applies)
Group "C" (Residential) Part 9
Footings/Foundations Commenced 50% of Fee 50% of Fee N No Increase Framing Commenced 60% of Fee 60% of Fee N No Increase Framing Substantially Complete 75% of Fee 75% of Fee N No Increase
Building envelope is substantially complete 95% of Fee 95% of Fee N No Increase
Any other work requiring the issuance of a
building permit (i.e.: HVAC, plumbing, site
works...) not within the scope of Group "C" (Residential), Part 9
No Increase
i) if 25% of the scope of work substantially
completed 50% of Fee 50% of Fee N No Increase
ii) if 50% of the scope of work substantially completed 60% of Fee 60% of Fee N No Increase
iii) if 75% of the scope of work substantially
completed 75% of Fee 75% of Fee N No Increase
iv) if 95% of the scope of work is substantially
completed 95% of Fee 95% of Fee N No Increase
Demolition or partial demolition has commenced 100% of Fee 100% of Fee N No Increase
- 255 -
Attachment 3 to Report PLN 10-26
User Fee or Charge 2026 Existing Fee
(Excluding HST)
2026 Proposed Fee
(Excluding HST)
HST
Applicable (Y/N)
2026 Fee
Effective Date
These fees are imposed under the authority of the Planning Act , R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13
Planning Documents
Pickering Official Plan $225.00 $225.00 Y No Increase Official Plan Compendium $50.00 $50.00 Y No Increase Guidelines and Special Studies - 30 pages or
less
$0.50 per page $0.50 per page Y No Increase
Guidelines and Special Studies - Greater than
30 pages
$50.00 $50.00 Y No Increase
Zoning By-laws
8149/24 - Set, 4 Volumes $1,330.00 $1,330.00 Y No Increase 8149/24 - Volume 1 $150.00 $150.00 Y No Increase 8149/24 - Volume 2, Schedules $100.00 $100.00 Y No Increase
8149/24 - Volume 3, Exceptions $600.00 $600.00 Y No Increase
8149/24 - Volume 4, Exceptions $500.00 $500.00 Y No Increase
3036 - Set 13 Volume $110.00 $110.00 Y No Increase 3036 - By Volume $15.00 $15.00 Y No Increase 2511, 2520, 3037, 7364/14 (Seaton), 7553/17
(City Centre)
$50.00 $50.00 Y No Increase
Zoning By-laws Digital (each) $15.00 $15.00 Y No Increase
20 Year Household & Population Projections $30.00 $30.00 Y No Increase
Fiche Prints Price Varies Price Varies Y No Increase Special Mapping Requests $71.00/hr. $71.00/hr. Y No Increase
Telecommunications Tower Approval $10,200.00 $10,200.00 N No Increase
Committee of Adjustment/Land Division
Minor Variance Applications to recognize an "as built condition" Double the regular fee Double the regular fee N No Increase
Accessory buildings, structures, decks,
platforms & driveway widening
$880.00 $1,000.00 N July 1, 2026
Residential Minor (a lot for a detached dwelling unit, semi-detached dwelling unit and/or
freehold townhouse dwelling unit)
Single Variance $1,180.00 $2,500.00 N July 1, 2026
Multiple Variances $1,495.00 $3,000.00 N July 1, 2026 Residential Major (all other residential and mixed use buildings)
Single Variance $2,675.00 $4,000.00 N July 1, 2026
Multiple Variances $2,905.00 $4,500.00 N July 1, 2026
Institutional, Commercial & Industrial
Single Variance $3,255.00 $4,500.00 N July 1, 2026
Multiple Variances $3,810.00 $5,000.00 N July 1, 2026
Tabling Fee & Recirculation (applicant initiated) $820.00 $820.00 N No Increase
Special Meeting $5,175.00 $5,175.00 N No increase
Consent
Application for severance (creation of new lots) $4,615.00 $12,000.00 N July 1, 2026
Plus fee per additional lot created beyond the
first new lot
$1,000.00 July 1, 2026
Application for Title Validation, Long Term Lease, Easement, and Lot Line Adjustment $2,100.00 $6,000.00 N July 1, 2026
Stamping Fee $1,180.00 $1,180.00 N No Increase
Restamping Fee $300.00 $300.00 N No Increase
Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland Conveyance
For the creation of up to 3 additional lots (price per lot created) $8,080.00 $8,080.00 N No increase
City Development - Planning
- 256 -
User Fee or Charge 2026 Existing Fee
(Excluding HST)
2026 Proposed Fee
(Excluding HST)
HST
Applicable (Y/N)
2026 Fee
Effective Date
City Development - Planning
For the creation of more than 3 additional lots See Parkland By-law See Parkland By-law N No Increase Council authorization to proceed by land
division instead of draft plan of subdivision1
$10,570.00 $10,570.00 N No Increase
Application for Pre-Consultation
Simple2 $370.00 $370.00 N No Increase
Site Plans $1,540.00 $1,540.00 N No Increase All other applications $3,700.00 $3,700.00 N No Increase
Zoning By-law Amendment
Zoning By-law Amendment - Major 3 - Base Fee $22,700.00 $22,700.00 N No increase
Plus Fee per Residential Unit
First 25 units (1-25) $550.00 $550.00 N No increase Next 75 units (26-100) $410.00 $410.00 N No increase Next 100 units (101-200) $340.00 $340.00 N No increase
All additional units (201 to 400)17 $145.00 $145.00 N No increase
Plus Fee per Ha of Non-Residential Land
Area (or part thereof) 4
$1,540.00 $1,540.00 N No increase
Plus Fee per Ha of Development Block
Land Area (or part thereof) 5
$715.00 $715.00 N No increase
Zoning By-law Amendment - Minor 6 $14,420.00 $14,420.00 N No increase
Zoning By-law - Recirculation 7 $2,180.00 $2,180.00 N No increase
Additional fee if within Oak Ridges Moraine or
Greenbelt
$2,805.00 $2,805.00 N No increase
Zoning By-law - Removal of Holding $4,335.00 $10,000.00 N July 1, 2026 Zoning By-law - Removal of Holding (Complex/Block Plan Required) $21,475.00 $25,000.00 N July 1, 2026
Zoning By-law - Extension of Temporary Use
By-law
$22,470.00 $22,700.00 N July 1, 2026
Combined Application Fees Where two or more applications for Official Plan Amendment (Major or
Minor), Zoning By-law
Amendment (Major), Draft
Plan of Subdivision and Draft Plan of Condominiums are submitted concurrently, a
20% reduction to the total
combined fee will apply.
N July 1, 2026
Minister Zoning Order
Minister Zoning Order Amendment - Major 8 $3,330.00 $18,000.00 N July 1, 2026
Minister Zoning Order Amendment - Minor 9 $2,770.00 $5,800.00 N July 1, 2026
Official Plan Amendment
Pickering Official Plan Amendment - Major 10
(May include an amendment to Envison
Durham (former Regional Official Plan)
$110,180.00 $95,000.00 N July 1, 2026
Pickering Official Plan Amendment - Minor 11 $55,030.00 $55,000.00 N July 1, 2026
Pickering Official Plan Amendment -
Recirculation 7
$2,180.00 $2,180.00 N No increase
Additional fee if within Oak Ridges Moraine or Greenbelt $2,805.00 $2,805.00 N No increase
Credit for Pre-submission Review Equal to the amount of the
Pre-submission Review fee
previously paid
Equal to the amount of the
Pre-submission Review fee
previously paid
N No Increase
Regional Official Plan - Amendment (not
part of a Pickering OPA)
$41,200.00 $41,200.00 N No Increase
- 257 -
User Fee or Charge 2026 Existing Fee
(Excluding HST)
2026 Proposed Fee
(Excluding HST)
HST
Applicable (Y/N)
2026 Fee
Effective Date
City Development - Planning
Neighbourhood Development Guideline
Amendment 1
$10,000.00 $20,000.00 N July 1, 2026
Draft Plan of Subdivision
Base Fee $78,315.00 $78,315.00 N No Increase
Plus Fee per Residential Unit First 25 units (1-25) $1,150.00 $1,150.00 N No Increase Next 75 units (26-100) $925.00 $925.00 N No Increase
Next 100 units (101-200) $730.00 $730.00 N No Increase
All additional units (201 to 400)17 $470.00 $470.00 N No Increase
Plus Fee per Ha of Non-Residential
Land Area (or part thereof) 4
$365.00 $365.00 N No Increase
Plus Fee per Ha of Development Block
Land Area (or part thereof) 5
$230.00 $230.00 N No Increase
Draft Plan of Subdivision - Recirculation 7 $2,180.00 $2,180.00 N No Increase
Additional fee if within Oak Ridges Moraine or
Greenbelt
$2,805.00 $2,805.00 N No Increase
Applicant-Initiated Major Revisions (prior to Draft Plan Approval) $24,340.00 $24,340.00 N No Increase
Credit for Pre-submission Review Equal to the amount of the
Pre-submission Review fee
previously paid
Equal to the amount of the
Pre-submission Review fee
previously paid
N No Increase
Revisions to Draft Approved Plan - (redline
revisions)
Base Fee $30,055.00 $30,055.00 N No Increase Plus Fee per Additional Residential Units
First 25 units (1-25) $1,165.00 $1,150.00 N July 1, 2026
Next 75 units (26-100) $950.00 $925.00 N July 1, 2026
Next 100 units (101-200) $750.00 $730.00 N July 1, 2026
All additional units (201 to 400)17 $475.00 $470.00 N July 1, 2026
Plus Fee per additional Non-Residential Ha (or part thereof) of Land Area $375.00 $365.00 N July 1, 2026
Plus Fee per additional Development
Block Ha (or part thereof) of Land Area
$230.00 $230.00 N No Increase
Revision to Draft Approved Plan - Recirculation
7
$2,180.00 $2,180.00 N No Increase
Credit for Pre-submission Review Equal to the amount of the
Pre-submission Review fee
previously paid
Equal to the amount of the
Pre-submission Review fee
previously paid
N No Increase
Extension to Draft Approved Plan
Base Fee $3,085.00 $3,085.00 N No Increase
Release of Draft Plan of
Subdivision/Clearance Fee
$5,000.00 $5,000.00 N No Increase
Plan of Condominium Draft Plan of Condominium $20,715.00 $44,000.00 N July 1, 2026
Common Element Condominium $29,845.00 $50,000.00 N July 1, 2026
Plan of Condominium Recirculation 7 $2,180.00 $2,180.00 N No Increase
Condominium Conversion $37,040.00 $50,000.00 N July 1, 2026
Revisions to a Draft Approved Plan - (redline revisions) $3,385.00 $15,000.00 N July 1, 2026
Credit for Pre-submission Review Equal to the amount of the
Pre-submission Review fee
previously paid
Equal to the amount of the
Pre-submission Review fee
previously paid
N No Increase
- 258 -
User Fee or Charge 2026 Existing Fee
(Excluding HST)
2026 Proposed Fee
(Excluding HST)
HST
Applicable (Y/N)
2026 Fee
Effective Date
City Development - Planning
Release of Draft Plan of
Condominium/Clearance Fee
$5,000.00 $5,000.00 N No Increase
Site Plan 12
Residential See "All Uses (Residential,
Non-Residential, Mixed-Use)"
See "All Uses (Residential,
Non-Residential, Mixed-Use)"
N No Increase
Commercial See "All Uses (Residential,
Non-Residential,
Mixed-Use)"
See "All Uses (Residential,
Non-Residential,
Mixed-Use)"
N No Increase
Industrial See "All Uses (Residential,
Non-Residential, Mixed-Use)"
See "All Uses (Residential,
Non-Residential, Mixed-Use)"
N No Increase
All Uses (Residential, Non-Residential, Mixed-
Use) - Base Fee
$19,685.00 $20,000.00 N July 1, 2026
Plus Fee per Residential Unit
First 25 units (1-25) $690.00 $750.00 N July 1, 2026 Next 75 units (26-100) $530.00 $650.00 N July 1, 2026 Next 100 Units (101-200) $375.00 $500.00 N July 1, 2026
All additional units (201 to 400)17 $85.00 $160.00 N July 1, 2026
Plus Fee per 2,000 m2 of Non-
Residential GFA
$6,670.00 $7,300.00 N July 1, 2026
Site Plan Recirculation 7 $2,180.00 $2,180.00 N No Increase
Minor Revision to approved Site Plan 13 $2,650.00 $5,000.00 N July 1, 2026
Major Revision to approved Site Plan Application base fee plus
additional units and
additional non-residential
GFA
Application base fee plus
additional units and
additional non-residential
GFA
N No Increase
Credit for Pre-submission Review Equal to the amount of the Pre-submission Review fee previously paid
Equal to the amount of the Pre-submission Review fee previously paid
N No Increase
Site Plan Agreement and Clearance of
Conditions
$0.00 $0.00 N No increase
Compliance Inspections/LC Release Report (includes 2 inspections) $1,060.00 $1,060.00 N No Increase
Additional Compliance Inspections $480.00 $480.00 N No Increase
Other Fees
Request for Zoning Information $65.00 $150.00 N July 1, 2026
Preliminary Zoning Review - Residential
(single, semi, townhouse, accessory structure) initial review + 1 revision
$170.00 $170.00 N No Increase
3UHOLPLQDU\ =RQLQJ5HYLHZ $FFHVVRU\
buildings, structures, decks, platforms and
driveway widening; - initial review + 1 revision
$80.00 $80.00 N No Increase
Preliminary Zoning Review - Development (within infill precincts, ORM, or requiring MDS calculation) initial review + 1 revision
$630.00 $630.00 N No Increase
Preliminary Zoning Review - Mixed-use/Multi
Residential/Non-Residential (industrial,
commercial, institutional) initial review + 1 revision
$1,440.00 $1,440.00 N No Increase
Preliminary Zoning Review - All Fee Types
(After two reviews already provided.)
50% of the fee type 50% of the fee type N No Increase
Peer Reviews Full recovery of City costs
+ 15% admin. fee
Full recovery of City costs +
15% admin. fee
Y No Increase
Minor Revision to Approved Condo Site Plan (by unit owner) i.e., decks, sheds, fences $130.00 $130.00 N No Increase
File Reactivation 14 $5,700.00 $5,700.00 N No Increase
- 259 -
User Fee or Charge 2026 Existing Fee
(Excluding HST)
2026 Proposed Fee
(Excluding HST)
HST
Applicable (Y/N)
2026 Fee
Effective Date
City Development - Planning
Opinion Letter for Complex Inquiries $5,000.00 $5,000.00 N No Increase Add Street Name to Approved List $5,000.00 $5,000.00 Y No Increase Request to Change Municipal Address $5,000.00 $5,000.00 Y No Increase
Request for Exception to Council Adopted
Policies on Municipal Addressing and Street
Naming
$10,000.00 $10,000.00 N No Increase
Any other matter requiring a Report to Committee or Council $10,000.00 $10,000.00 N No Increase
Fee Refunds
When an application 15 is withdrawn before it has been circulated 90% of original fee 16 90% of original fee 16 N No Increase
When an application 15 is withdrawn:
1. Before an Open House meeting or a
Statutory Public meeting has been held; or
2. After the first submission comments have
been provided to the applicant, but before a
second submission has been submitted.
50% of original fee 16 50% of original fee 16 N No Increase
When an application 15 is withdrawn:
1. After an Open House meeting or a Statutory Public meeting has been held; or
2. After the second submission has been
received.
No refund No refund N No Increase
Minor Variance or Land Division that is withdrawn before public notice is mailed 90% of original fee 16 90% of original fee 16 N No Increase
Minor Variance or Land Division that is
withdrawn after notice is mailed
No refund No refund N No Increase
When a request for a Pre-consultation has been withdrawn before a Pre-consultation 50% of original fee 16 50% of original fee 16 N No Increase
When a Pre-consultation has been held No refund No refund N No Increase
1. Charged only if no other planning applications or reports are being processed by Council.
- an application relating to more than one property
- a site specific application, if considered to represent a large scale redevelopment
- any change in use and/or zone category, except as identified under a minor amendment
- an application involving significant changes to the development standards or general provisions of the by-law
- an application which requires major technical studies and extensive consultation 4. Applies to blocks intended to be developed for commercial, industrial, and institutional uses (including school blocks).
5. Excludes lands to be conveyed for roads, parkland, natural hazards, and stormwater or other public infrastructure.
- request for additional permitted use, within an existing building with no significant impact on existing development standards
- changes in development standards or zone to accommodate a residential severance to create one additional lot
- application for Temporary Use
2. Applications for severance (creation of new lots), Oak Ridges Moraine applications, minor additions to existing bldgs (up to 20% of the current gross
floor area) and inclusion of related uses.
3. An application for an amendment that is more significant in scale and scope than a minor zoning amendment, and which may have greater impact beyond the subject lands, as determined by the Director, City Development or designate. Major applications must meet one or more of the following
conditions:
6. An application for minor or small scale zoning amendment having no significant impact on adjoining lands, as determined by the Director, City
Development or designate. Minor applications must be site specific and meet one or more of the following conditions:
7. Application fees include two resubmissions before re-circulation fees apply. Recirculation fees will be charged for the fourth submission and every
submission thereafter.
8. A major Minister's Zoning Order application is where the proposed use or standards do not comply with the City's zoning by-law and a Report to
Council is required. 9. A minor Minister's Zoning Order application is where the proposed use or standards comply with the City's zoning by-law.
10. An application that is more significant in scale and scope than a minor amendment and which may have greater impact or policy implications beyond the subject lands, as determined by the Director, City Development or designate. Major applications must meet one or more of the following conditions:
- 260 -
User Fee or Charge 2026 Existing Fee
(Excluding HST)
2026 Proposed Fee
(Excluding HST)
HST
Applicable (Y/N)
2026 Fee
Effective Date
City Development - Planning
12. Zoning review and comments are not included in the Site Plan Application Fee. Preliminary Zoning Review must be paid separately.
17. Fee applies to a maximum unit count of 400.
Some fees increased greater than 2.5% based on amount of work necessary to clear conditions of approval, or to prepare reports to Council
- an application involving significant changes to the policies of the Official Plan
11. An application for a minor, site specific and small scale amendment or exception to Official Plan policies and designations, having limited impact or policy implications beyond the subject lands, as determined by the Director, City Development or designate.
- a site specific application if considered to represent large scale redevelopment or significant change to the designations and permitted uses
- an application which requires major technical studies and extensive consultation
- an application relating to more than one property
13. Minor revisions to approved Site Plans include, but are not limited to: - accessory structures
- façade changes
- minor parking lot expansions (not to exceed 25% of the existing parking supply)
- development of detached dwellings and accessory structures on the Oak Ridges Moraine
- garden centres
- restaurant patios
- additions to existing buildings not exceeding, the lesser of, 1,000 square metres and 25% of the existing GFA
14. Fee applies to planning applications that have been inactive over 1 year
15. Applications include Official Plan Amendments, Zoning By-law Amendments, Draft Plan of Subdivision, Draft Plan of Condominium, and Site Plan Applications.
16. Also subject to deduction of credit card fee if paid by credit card.
NOTE: all application fees increased by at least 2.75%
- 261 -
Attachment 4 to Report PLN -26
User Fee or Charge 2026 Existing Fee (Excluding HST) 2026 Proposed Fee (Excluding HST)
HST Applicable
(Y/N)
2026 Fee Effective Date
Miscellaneous Charges
$57.00 per metre or part thereof
with a minimum charge of $375.00
$57.00 per metre or part thereof
with a minimum charge of $410.00
Y
Curb Infill $208.00/m $208.00/m Y No increase Sidewalk Repair $196.00/m2 $196.00/m2 Y No Increase Municipal Consent Fee $505.00/street $1,375.00 N July 1, 2026
Stormwater Maintenance Fee $2,620.00/hectare $2,620.00/hectare N No Increase Cash-in-lieu of water quality treatment $55, 585.00/imp.ha $55,585.00/imp.ha N No Increase
Newspaper Box Pad Permit Application $62.00/box $62.00/box N No Increase
Newspaper Box Installation $275.00 - $540.00 $275.00 - $540.00 N No Increase Newspaper Box Annual Maintenance $23.00/box $23.00/box N No Increase
Road Cleaning Contract cost + 10% admin fee Contract cost + 10% admin fee Y No Increase
Tree Removal Compensation 1 $620.00/tree to a max of
$3,720.00/dwelling unit and $9,000.00/1000 m2 or any part thereof for industrial and
commercial developments
$620.00/tree to a max of
$3,720.00/dwelling unit and $9,000.00/1000 m2 or any part thereof for industrial and
commercial developments
N No Increase
Pool Enclosure Permit $393.00 $555.00 N July 1, 2026
Streetlight Pole Numbering Fee $93.00/pole $93.00/pole N No Increase
Re-inspection Fee 9
for more than two inspections required due to deficiencies identified during
earlier inspections
$180.00 per inspection $180.00 per inspection N No Increase
Lot Grading Review
Residential Lot Grading Review Fee $87.00/unit $160.00 N July 1, 2026 Infill Building Permit New Construction and/or Foundation Modification (any part thereof) $847.00 $950.00 N July 1, 2026
Addition to existing structure $88.00 $88.00 N No Increase
Damage Deposits Pool $1,500.00 $1,500.00 N No Increase
Water/Sewer Connection $1,500.00 $1,500.00 N No Increase
Residential Building Permit-Rural up to $7,000.00 up to $7,000.00 N No Increase Residential Building Permit-Urban up to $7,500.00 up to $7,500.00 N No Increase
Commercial Building $7,500.00 - 12,500.00 $7,500.00 - 12,500.00 N No Increase
Fill/Topsoil Permit One Year Permit $1,215 + $1,215.00/hectare to a total maximum fee of $6,075.00 $1,215.00 + $1,215.00/hectare to a total maximum fee of $6,075.00 N No Increase
One Year Extension $1,215.00 $1,215.00 N No Increase
Penalty & Investigation Fee $6,090.00 $6,090.00 N No Increase Erosion & Sediment Control Security 100% of estimated cost of Erosion
& Sediment Control Measures
100% of estimated cost of Erosion
& Sediment Control Measures
N No Increase
Road Damage Security Paved Road $7,700.00/km $7,700.00/km N No Increase
Surface Treat/Gravel Road $12,845.00/km $12,845.00/km N No Increase
Subdivision/Development /Road Servicing Agreements
Engineering Review Based on total cost of Municipal
Works 4
Based on total cost of Municipal
Works 4
No Increase
Engineering Review Fee 2
Detailed Design Package
1.50% with a minimum of $7,700.00 1.75% with a minimum of $8,000.00 N July 1, 2026
Surcharge for 4th Submission of Detailed
Design Package (payable at submission)
3
33.3% of total Engineering Design
Review Fee with a minimum of $2,945.00
15% of total Engineering Design
Review Fee with a minimum of $8,000.00
N July 1, 2026
Development Services
Curb Cut – new development not
assumed by municipality, infill building permit or industrial/commercial
July 1, 2026
- 262 -
User Fee or Charge 2026 Existing Fee (Excluding HST) 2026 Proposed Fee (Excluding HST)
HST Applicable
(Y/N)
2026 Fee Effective Date
Development Services
Additional surcharge for Submission of
each Detailed Design Package after 4th
Submission (payable at submission) 3
20% of total Engineering Design
Review Fee with a minimum of $8,000.00
15% of total Engineering Design
Review Fee with a minimum of $8,000.00
N July 1, 2026
Inspection Based on total cost of Municipal
Works4
Based on total cost of Municipal
Works 4
<$250,000 8.25% with a minimum of $7,700.00 8.25% with a minimum of $8,000.00 N July 1, 2026 $250,000 - 500,000 6.25% 6.75% N July 1, 2026 $500,000 - $1.5 million 4.75% 5.25% N July 1, 2026
$1.5 million - $5.0 million 4.00% 4.50% N July 1, 2026 > $5 million 3.75% 3.75% N No Increase
Site Plans
Engineering Review
Engineering Review Fee 2
Detailed Design Package
Development Site Area <= 1,000 m
², fixed fee of $1,185.00
Development Site Area <= 1,000 m
², fixed fee of $1,220.00
N No Increase
Development Site Area
1,001 m ² to 3000 m ² fixed fee of $3,500.00
Development Site Area
1,001 m ² to 3000 m ² fixed fee of $3,600.00
N No Increase
Development Site Area
> 3,001 m ² based on the sliding scale of total cost of Civil Works 5
noted below
Development Site Area
> 3,001 m ² based on the sliding scale of total cost of Civil Works 5
noted below
N No Increase
<$250,000 8.25% with a minimum of $7,700.00 10.25% with a minimum of $8,000.00 N July 1, 2026
$250,000 - $500,000 6.25% 9.25% N July 1, 2026
$500,000 - $1.5 million 4.75% 8.25% N July 1, 2026 $1.5 million - $5.0 million 4.00% 7.25% N July 1, 2026
> $5 million 3.75% 4.25% N July 1, 2026 Surcharge for submission of each
Detailed Design Package after 3rd
submission (payable at submission) 3
$2,945.00 $1,000.00 N July 1, 2026
Inspection Based on total cost of Civil Works 5
Inspection Fees Development Site Area
<= 1,000 m², fixed fee of $1,185.00
Development Site Area
<= 1,000 m², fixed fee of $1,220.00 N No Increase
Development Site Area
1,001 m² to 3000 m² fixed fee of
$3,500.00
Development Site Area
1,001 m² to 3000 m² fixed fee of
$3,595.00
N No increase
Development Site Area > 3,001 m² based on the sliding scale
of total cost of Civil Works 5 noted
below
Development Site Area > 3,001 m² based on the sliding scale
of total cost of Civil Works 5 noted
below
N No Increase
<$250,000 8.25% with a minimum of $7,700.00 8.5% with a minimum of $8,000.00 N July 1, 2026 $250,000 - $500,000 6.25% 6.50% N July 1, 2026
$500,000 - $1.5 million 4.75% 5.00% N July 1, 2026 $1.5 million - $5.0 million 4.00% 4.00% N No Increase
> $5 million 3.75% 3.75% N No Increase Surcharge for more than two inspections required due to unaddressed deficiencies
identified during earlier inspections (payable at inspection)
$890.00 per inspection $915.00 per inspection N No Increase
Land Division
Engineering Review up to 4 proposed lots $1,800.00 $1,800.00 N No Increase
>4 proposed lots if not completed
as a Draft Plan of Subdivision
$3,000.00 $3,000.00 N No Increase
Clearance of Conditions
up to 4 proposed lots $2,395.00 $2,800.00 N No Increase >4 proposed lots if not completed
as a Draft Plan of Subdivision
$6,010.00 $6,300.00 N No Increase
- 263 -
Attachment 4 to Report PLN XX-26
User Fee or Charge 2026 Existing Fee (Excluding HST) 2026 Proposed Fee (Excluding HST)
HST Applicable
(Y/N)
2026 Fee Effective Date
Development Services
Other Fees
Re-circulation of Drawings due to revisions by Owner (payable at re-
circulation)
$2,945.00 $2,945.00 N No Increase
Engineering Studies 6 (payable at
submission of study)
New Study 6 $8,500.00 $8,500.00 N No Increase
New Study 7 $4,365.00 $4,365.00 N No Increase
Update or amendment to existing study $2,835.00 per Study $2,835.00 per Study N No Increase
Peer Reviews 8 Full recovery of City costs + 10% Admin. Fee Full recovery of City costs + 10% Admin. Fee Y No Increase
Miscellaneous submissions not identified
under a fee category as determined by the Director, Engineering Services or
designate
greater of percentage fee (based on
total cost of Civil Works) 6.6% or estimated hourly rate $134/hr min of
4 hours
greater of percentage fee (based on
total cost of Civil Works) 6.6% or estimated hourly rate $138/hr min of
4 hours
N No Increase
Consolidated Linear Infrastructure
Environmental Compliance Approval (CLI-ECA) Non-refundable
Storm Sewer $2,340.00 per application $2,340.00 per application N No Increase
Third Pipe Collection System $2,340.00 per application $2,340.00 per application N No Increase
SWM Facility $5,650.00 per application $5,650.00 per application N No Increase Storm Appurtenances (LID facility/OGS, etc.) $2,055.00 per application $2,055.00 per application N No Increase
Amendments $1,235.00 $1,235.00 N No Increase
Footnotes
9. Inspections associated with Pool Enclosure Permits and Building Permits
1. Tree Removal Compensation to be calculated in accordance with the City of Pickering Tree Inventory, Preservation and Removal
Compensation requirements, approved by Council January 15, 2018, Resolution # 387/18. 2. 75% of the Engineering Review Fee payable at 2nd Submission, with the resulting 25% payable at signature of subdivision/site
plan agreement. 3. Above noted surcharges shall be discounted by 50% should less than half of the total plans/reports require revisions at the
discretion of the Director, Engineering Services or designate.
4. Municipal Works are defined as all future owned Municipal Works, excluding sanitary and water distribution works.
5. Civil Works are defined as all privately owned Civil Works, excluding sanitary and water distribution works. 6. Review and approval of large scale
7. Review and approval of small to medium scale studies 8. Applicant is responsible for the City's full costs of undertaking the peer review of any study, report, drawing submitted in support of the design. This would include, but is not limited to hydrogeological, geotechnical & Slope stability, fluvial geomorphology, soils etc.
- 264 -
Legislative Services Division Clerk’s Office Directive Memorandum
February 28, 2025
To: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO
From: Susan Cassel City Clerk
Subject: Direction as per Minutes of the Meeting of City Council held on
February 24, 2025
Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 03-25 Streamlining the Development Application Review Process (DARP)
Council Decision Resolution #665/25
Please take any action deemed necessary.
SC:am
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
1.That Report PLN 03-25, regarding the City of Pickering Streamlining theDevelopment Applications Review Process, be received;
2.That the City of Pickering Streamlining the Development Applications ReviewProcess Final Report prepared by Dillon Consulting dated December 20, 2024,and provided as Attachment 2, be endorsed;
3.That the Implementation Work Plan prepared by staff, and provided as
Appendix I, be endorsed and considered through future budget processes; and,
4.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take thenecessary actions as indicated in this report.
$WWDFKPHQWWR5HSRUW3/110
- 265 -
Attachment 6 to Report PLN 10-26
April 2, 2026
Stan Karwowski
Director, Finance & Treasurer
City of Pickering
1 The Esplanade
Pickering, ON L1V 6K7
RE: City of Pickering – Development Application Fee Review
The Durham Region Home Builders’ Association (DRHBA) is the voice of the residential construction
industry in Durham Region. We value the strong and collaborative working relationship our
Association has developed with the City of Pickering and its staff, and we believe this partnership is
essential to fostering the development of complete, well-designed communities that residents will
enjoy for years to come.
We appreciate the opportunity to participate in the stakeholder meeting regarding the Development
Application Fee Review. Our members, together with our consultant, Daryl Keleher (KPEC), have
reviewed the proposed fee changes and welcome the opportunity to provide the following
comments and questions.
We acknowledge that several of the proposed fees will be reduced, which is a positive outcome for
our industry. However, the past several years have been particularly challenging for the residential
construction sector, with new home sales reaching historic lows throughout 2025 and into early
2026. While we understand and respect the City’s objective of achieving cost recovery through
application fees, we respectfully request that the current fee structure be maintained until market
conditions have stabilized and the industry has had sufficient time to recover.
We also note that, during the stakeholder meeting, City staff advised that an internal review is
currently underway to improve and streamline application review and processing procedures. Given
that planning fees are based on the anticipated level of staff time and effort required, we believe it
would be more appropriate to revisit and adjust the fee structure following the completion of this
internal process review, once any efficiencies have been fully realized.
Additionally, our consultant has raised the following questions for clarification:
•Could you please clarify the basis for the standard 400-unit cap applied to variable fees for
Zoning By-law Amendments, Site Plan Applications, and Plans of Subdivision?
•Further, does the above cap on variable fees relate only to the per unit fees, or does this
calculation also include other variable fees such as per-hectare fees for development blocks
or non-residential land area?
- 266 -
•The current fee for Residential Lot Grading is $87.00 per unit, while the proposed fee is
listed as a flat $160.00. Could you please confirm whether this is intended to be a flat fee, or
an approximate doubling of the per-unit fee?
DRHBA looks forward to continuing to work collaboratively with the City of Pickering. Please do not
hesitate to contact us should you have any questions or require further information.
Sincerely,
Stacey Hawkins
Executive Officer
Durham Region Home Builders’ Association
Cc:
Kyle Bentley, P.Eng, Director, City Development, City of Pickering
Tiago Do Couto, Chair, DRHBA GR Committee
DRHBA Membership
- 267 -
Attachment 7 to Report PLN 10-26
April 6, 2026
Stan Karowski, Director, Finance & Treasurer
Finance Department
City of Pickering
1 The Esplanade
Pickering, ON
L1V 6K7
Sent by email to: finance@pickering.ca
RE: City of Pickering – Development Application Fee Review
Dear Stan Karowski, Director, Finance & Treasurer
The Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD) acknowledges the City of Pickering’s ongoing
Development Application Review Process, scheduled to go before Council on May 4th, 2026. On behalf of our
members, we thank staff for consulting with the development industry on March 23rd, and for providing
opportunity to share our perspective on current market conditions and the ongoing housing challenges
impacting development within the City’s municipal boundaries.
With new home sales in 2026 continuing the trend from 2025 and remaining at historically low levels we
remain at a fragile moment for our industry and the economy as a whole. In February 2026, Durham Region
saw 76 total new home sales with 69 Single Family sales, down 59% from the same period two years prior.
Apartment sales are down 41% from two years prior. As such, affordability continues to be a significant
challenge for developers and homebuyers alike.
Given these pressures, BILD is formally requesting that the City of Pickering, along with municipalities
across the Greater Toronto Area planning to increase development application fees in 2026, forgo any
increases to costs associated with residential development. Pausing any planned fee increases, or possibly
decreasing a larger number of fees than proposed would provide immediate, short-term relief and help
support project viability under current market conditions. As an example of initiatives supporting this
request, on April 28th, Vaughan City Council is scheduled to adopt a report recommending a 25% reduction in
planning and engineering fees for all residential developments, along with a full exemption of these fees for
non-luxury rental applications, effective from April 28, 2026, to May 31, 2027. To provide the City with
additional assurance, staff will monitor the program’s impact and report back to Committee of the Whole
within six months, with the option to discontinue the program if market conditions have normalized.
In addition to our above request BILD has retained Daryl Keleher for his comments on the proposed fee
increases. In his review Daryl has identified three areas of concern and we are requesting clarification on the
following:
1.Clarification on the basis for the standard 400-unit cap on variable fees for each of the Zoning By-Law
Amendments, Site Plan and Subdivision.
2.Whether the above cap on variable fees relates only to the per unit fees, or whether this cap is also
intended to include other variable fees such as per-hectare fees for development blocks or non-
residential land area that may be part of the same planning application?
3.Whether the fee structure for Residential Lot Grading has changed – the existing fee for Residential
Lot Grading is $87.00/unit, however the proposed fee is shown in the background report prepared
by the City’s consultant as a flat $160 – please provide clarification on whether this is intended to be
a flat fee, or a rough doubling of the per unit fee.
- 268 -
BILD recognizes the City’s mandate to recover the cost of service, however, weakened consumer confidence,
elevated construction and financing costs, and broader economic uncertainty are collectively impacting
housing delivery across the GTA, including the City of Pickering. Taking this step would represent a tangible
and timely action the City can take to help stabilize the local development environment.
As your partners in community building, we offer these comments with respect and on behalf of the
development industry. We look forward to continuing to work in support of housing growth in the City of
Pickering.
Sincerely,
Katherine Berton, MUP
Manager, Policy and Advocacy
BILD
- 269 -
Technical Memorandum
Address Contact Information
Filepath
2233 Argentia Rd.
Suite 301
Mississauga, Ontario
L5N 2X7
Office: 905-272-3600
Fax: 905-272-3602
www.watsonecon.ca
To City of Pickering
From Sean-Michael Stephen, Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Date April 9, 2026
Re: City of Pickering Development Application Fee Review
Fax ☐ Courier ☐ Mail ☐ Email ☒
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. (Watson) has prepared a Development
Application Fee Review on behalf of the City of Pickering (City). The City held a
stakeholder consultation session to review the findings of the Development Application
Fee Review on March 23, 2026. Subsequent to that meeting, the City received
comments from the Durham Region Home Builders’ Association (DRHBA) and BILD.
This memorandum lists the questions received and our responses.
Question 1: Could you please clarify the basis for the standard 400-unit cap applied to
variable fees for Zoning By-law Amendments, Site Plan Applications, and Plans of
Subdivision?
The 400-unit cap, along with the decreasing block structure of the residential per-unit
fees, is recommended to achieve multiple objectives:
1.Recognize that as applications increase in size, the marginal costs typically do
not increase on a linear basis.
2.Provide a maximum fee for larger applications
3.Increase revenue stability for the City to fund the anticipated processing costs
The 400-unit cap was determined through a review of historical application sizes to
capture the majority of applications received. This policy would also align with the City’s
past practice.
Question 2: Further, does the above cap on variable fees relate only to the per unit
fees, or does this calculation also include other variable fees such as per-hectare fees
for development blocks or non-residential land area?
The cap relates only to residential per-unit fees. In a review of the historical application
data, the development applications received containing development blocks and non-
residential floor area have been smaller and do not necessitate a maximum fee.
Attachment 8 to Report PLN 10-26
- 270 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2
Question 3: The current fee for Residential Lot Grading is $87.00 per unit, while the
proposed fee is listed as a flat $160.00. Could you please confirm whether this is
intended to be a flat fee, or an approximate doubling of the per-unit fee?
The proposed fee is $160 per unit.
Comments were also received regarding the impact of the proposed fee increases on
the cost of development and requesting that the City pause and possibly decrease fees.
As demonstrated in the report, the fees are proposed to decrease in some cases, and
where fees are increasing, the impact is less than a 1% increase on development fees
for the sample developments assessed. Furthermore, the federal and provincial
governments have announced the removal of HST on new homes (or reduction for
more expensive homes) as well as the Canada-Ontario Plan to Build, which may require
30% to 50% reductions in development charges for a 3-year period for select
municipalities. The HST reductions along with the potential D.C. reductions, if
applicable to the City, will have a much greater impact on the cost of municipal
development fees within the City and the final costs, including taxes, to the home buyer.
- 271 -
Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: SUS 02-26
Date: May 4, 2026
From: Kyle Bentley
Director, City Development & CBO
Subject:
Durham Greener Buildings Program and Challenge – City of Pickering Participation
File: D-7003-032
Recommendation:
1. That Report SUS 02-26 regarding the Durham Greener Buildings Program and Challenge –
City of Pickering Participation be received;
2. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the Terms and Conditions
Enrollment form to participate in the Region of Durham’s Durham Greener Buildings
Challenge program, subject to minor revisions as may be required by the Director,
Corporate Services & City Solicitor and/or Chief Administrative Officer; and
3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the actions
necessary to implement the recommendations in this report.
1.0 Executive Summary:
The purpose of this report is to seek authorization to execute a Terms and Conditions
Enrollment form to enable the City of Pickering to participate in the Region of Durham’s
Durham Greener Buildings Challenge (DGBC). The Region of Durham developed and
launched the DGBC in 2024 and retained Windfall Ecology Centre to administer the program.
DGBC aims to help support municipalities, institutions, and businesses in improving energy
efficiency and lowering greenhouse gas emissions in existing buildings. The program is a
voluntary benchmarking and public disclosure initiative for non-residential and multi-unit
residential buildings across Durham Region.
The DGBC supports and advances various sustainability goals with an emphasis on those
identified in the 2024-2029 Corporate Energy Management Plan (CEMP). Participation in the
program can help support energy benchmarking to reduce operational, maintenance, and
utility costs. Additionally, the City will be able to showcase ongoing and planned energy
projects aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Through participation, the City will also
gain access to technical support, funding guidance, and opportunities to collaborate with other
municipalities and public-sector organizations across the region. At the time this report was
- 272 -
SUS 02-26 May 4, 2026
Page 2
written, all other municipalities in Durham Region had enrolled in the program, along with other
public sector agencies, such as the Durham Catholic District School Board and the Durham
District School Board for a total of 16 participants (13 from the broader public sector and 3
from commercial) across Durham Region.
To participate in the program, the City must execute the attached Terms and Conditions
Enrollment form, confirming authorization to enroll municipal buildings and share approved
energy and water consumption data through the ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager platform.
This data mirrors that which the City already submits annually for the provincial Ontario Energy
and Water Reporting regulation. Legal Services staff have reviewed the form and identified no
concerns.
2.0 Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan:
The recommendations in this report respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan’s Priorities of
Strengthen Existing & Build New Partnerships; and Lead & Advocate for Environmental
Stewardship, Innovation & Resiliency.
3.0 Financial Implications:
Not applicable to this report.
4.0 Discussion:
The Region of Durham developed and launched the DGBC and retained the Windfall Ecology
Centre to administer the program with the goal to help participants accelerate building retrofits
and the adoption of sustainable building practices across the region.
4.1 Key Benefits of Participation
a. Access to Expertise, Funding and Information Sharing
The DGBC provides access to technical experts and strategic guidance, helping participants
pursue funding from provincial, federal, and private sources. This support enhances the City’s
ability to develop high-impact energy projects without placing additional strain on municipal
budgets. Additionally, participation offers valuable learning opportunities through information
sharing with other Durham Region municipalities.
b. Alignment with Existing Commitments
DGBC enhances the City’s ability to measure and track energy use with a goal to reduce utility
costs. As reported in the 2024-2029 CEMP, Corporate building emissions have increased by
- 273 -
SUS 02-26 May 4, 2026
Page 3
19% since 2018 and are now responsible for 65% of the City’s emissions. Targeted energy
improvements will be critical to enhance operational sustainability and emission reductions.
Participation also supports the implementation of key focus areas identified in the 2024-2029
CEMP, including analytics and carbon tracking, and the development of a Carbon Reduction
Plan.
c. Demonstrated Leadership and Community Engagement
By joining the DGBC, Pickering can help set a positive example for local businesses,
institutions, and residents. Participation complements broader efforts to expand energy
benchmarking across commercial, institutional, and industrial sectors, with the aim to
contribute to community-wide emissions reductions.
4.2 Requirements for Participation
Program participants must execute the attached Terms and Conditions Enrollment form. The
form was reviewed by a Solicitor from Corporate Services. All program participants must also
have an active ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager account. Participants agree to share their
annual energy and water consumption data through the platform by August 1st of each year.
Since the City uses ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager to meet its requirements for the Ontario
Energy and Water Reporting regulation, with a standard annual reporting deadline of July 1st,
this obligation would require minimal extra staff time.
Through recommendations set out in this report, staff are seeking authorization for the Mayor
and City Clerk to execute the Terms and Conditions Enrollment form.
Attachment:
1. Durham Greener Buildings Challenge Terms and Conditions Enrollment Form
Prepared By: Atish Pereira, PMP, CEM, MEnvSc, Coordinator, Community Energy
Management
Prepared By: Chantal Whitaker, BESc (Hons), CSR-P, Manager, Sustainability & Strategic
Environmental Initiatives
Approved/Endorsed By: Kyle Bentley, P. Eng., Director, City Development & CBO
Approved/Endorsed By: Laura Gibbs, MBA, MSc., Director, Community Services
- 274 -
SUS 02-26 May 4, 2026
Page 4
AP:ld
Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council By:
Marisa Carpino, M.A.
Chief Administrative Officer
- 275 -
Attachment 1 to Report SUS 02-26
Durham Greener Buildings Program Terms and Conditions
To enroll in the Durham Greener Buildings program participants are asked to acknowledge the
following guidelines:
The participant (a building owner or his/her representative) confirms that they have the authority
to enroll their building(s) in the Durham Greener Building Program and to grant the rights for the
use and disclosure of approved energy performance and water data and building characteristics
including address as outlined in the program FAQs.
All Participants will have an active Energy Star Portfolio Manager Account. Participants agree to
share Portfolio Manager annual energy performance data by August 1st of each year of the
Durham Greener Buildings program.
Monthly building energy and water data will be entered into Portfolio Manager by the participant.
Monthly data allows for year-over-year building energy and water performance reporting on a
weather-normalized basis.
Only building and performance data approved by the participant through the Portfolio Manager
sharing request will be publicly disclosed. Building location and performance metrics will be
annually published on the Durham Greener Buildings website visualization.
If the Durham Greener Buildings Program modifies or replaces these Terms at any time, written
confirmation will be provided of any changes to the Participant within 30 business days.
The Participant agrees that the Regional Municipality of Durham or its agent, Windfall Ecology
Centre, shall not be responsible or liable, directly, or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused
or alleged to be caused by their enrollment in the Durham Greener Buildings Program.
Participants will be requested to acknowledge that they have reviewed the terms and
conditions by signing a form that they will receive as part of the enrollment process
to Durham Greener Buildings.
- 276 -
s
Building Name:
Building Address:
EWRB ID (if applicable):
Owner Name:
Building Name:
Building Address:
EWRB ID (if applicable):
Owner Name:
Building Name:
Building Address:
EWRB ID (if applicable):
Owner Name:
Durham Greener Buildings Challenge Enrollment Form
Participant Information
Please complete all fields to join the DGB Challenge.
Full Name:
Email Address:
Phone Number:
Organization Name:
Job Title:
Address:
Postal Code:
Building Information
Please provide detailed information about the building(s) you manage or own that you would like to
enroll in the Durham Greener Buildings Challenge.
Relationship to Building(s): Owner Property Manager Tenant
List of Buildings Managed/Owned
Please complete the following section.
List of Buildings:
1. Building Name:
a. Building Address:
b. EWRB ID (if applicable):
c. Owner Name:
2. Building Name:
a. Building Address:
b. EWRB ID (if applicable):
c. Owner Name:
3. Building Name:
a. Building Address:
b. EWRB ID (if applicable):
c.Owner Name:
- 277 -
4.Building Name:
a.Building Address:
b.EWRB ID (if applicable):
c.Owner Name:
5.Building Name:
a.Building Address:
b.EWRB ID (if applicable):
c.Owner Name:
6.Building Name:
a.Building Address:
b.EWRB ID (if applicable):
c.Owner Name:
Terms and Conditions
By submitting this form, you agree to abide by the terms and conditions set forth in this document
and those detailed on our website. For a complete list of terms, please review them at Durham
Greener Buildings Challenge Terms and Conditions.
Signature:
Date:
- 278 -
Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: SUS 03-26
Date: May 4, 2026
From: Kyle Bentley
Director, City Development & CBO
Subject:
2025 Sustainable Year-in-Review
File: D-7003-001
Recommendation:
1. That Report SUS 03-26 regarding the 2025 Sustainable Pickering Year-in-Review be
received for information.
1.0 Executive Summary:
The purpose of this report is to share the 2025 Sustainable Pickering Year-in-Review, as set
out in Attachment 1. For the past seven years, the City has produced a reader-friendly
summary of Pickering’s sustainability-related achievements, programs, and community
partnerships. The 2025 edition highlights the City’s ongoing work to advance environmental
stewardship, waste reduction, enhancements to the natural environment, energy efficiency,
sustainable development, and community engagement within these areas. It also showcases
the contributions of local organizations, volunteers, and residents who helped deliver
meaningful work and/or related actions throughout the year for the betterment of Pickering.
The 2025 Sustainable Pickering Year-in-Review will be made available on the City’s website
and promoted through various corporate communication channels to inform and inspire public
involvement.
2.0 Relationship to the Pickering Strategic Plan:
The recommendations in this report respond to the Pickering Strategic Plan Priorities of Lead
& Advocate for Environmental Stewardship, Innovation & Resiliency; Strengthen Existing &
Build New Partnerships; and, Foster an Engaged & Informed Community.
3.0 Financial Implications:
Not applicable to this report.
- 279 -
SUS 03-26 May 4, 2026
Page 2
4.0 Discussion:
The purpose of this report is to share the 2025 Sustainable Pickering Year‑in‑Review. The City
of Pickering continues to advance its commitment to environmental sustainability, community
resilience, and climate leadership through a wide range of initiatives. In 2025, staff delivered
programs that engaged residents in tree planting, pollinator protection, invasive species
management, litter cleanups, youth‑focused environmental activities, and workshops focused
on nature and energy efficiency. The City also hosted events such as World Environment Day,
a Sustainable Home Expo, the Everything Maple Syrup program, and the Pickering 55+ Plot to
Plate Program, helping residents learn more about biodiversity, food growing, and sustainable
living. These efforts were supported by strong partnerships with schools, non‑profit
organizations, and agencies such as the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Ontario
Power Generation, the Pickering Public Library, and many community volunteers.
Beyond community programs, the City advanced a number of corporate initiatives that support
long‑term environmental and community health. These included updates to the Urban Forest
Study, new municipal energy retrofit projects, Zero Carbon Building (Design) certification for
the Dorsay Community & Heritage Centre, and continued implementation of the Integrated
Sustainable Design Standards. A significant milestone in 2025 was Council’s endorsement of
Pickering’s first Community Climate Adaptation Plan, which provides a roadmap to help the
City and community prepare for extreme weather events. The City also expanded urban
agriculture opportunities through zoning updates that support vertical farming, and another
successful season of the Pickering City Centre Farmers’ Market.
Public awareness of these programs and initiatives is essential. To support this goal, staff used
a range of communication tools, including the City website, social media, eNewsletters, Let’s
Talk Pickering, public events, and on‑site signage, to connect with residents. In a
communications environment where residents receive information from numerous sources, the
2025 Sustainable Pickering Year‑in‑Review is intended to provide a concise and accessible
summary of the year’s key activities, partnerships, and measurable impacts.
The 2025 Sustainable Pickering Year‑in‑Review will be posted on the City’s website and
promoted through various corporate communication channels.
Attachment:
1. 2025 Sustainable Year-in-Review
- 280 -
SUS 03-26 May 4, 2026
Page 3
Prepared By: Melanie Edmond, HBSc., Coordinator, Sustainability
Prepared By: Chantal Whitaker, BESc (Hons), CSR-P, Manager, Sustainability & Strategic
Environmental Initiatives
Approved/Endorsed By: Kyle Bentley, P. Eng., Director, City Development & CBO
ME:ld
Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council By:
Marisa Carpino, M.A.
Chief Administrative Officer
- 281 -
Sustainable
Pickering
202520252025
Year-in-Review
Attachment 1 to Report SUS 03-26
- 282 -
Table of Contents
Message from the Mayor 03
04
05
09
13
14
16
Enhancing the Natural Environment
Reducing Waste
Becoming More Energy Efficient
Message from the CAO
Fostering Community Engagement
Growing Urban Agriculture
17Looking Towards the Future
2
- 283 -
Pickering is one of the fastest growing cities in Canada, but growth on its own does not create a community where
people truly want to live. A thriving city is shaped with intention. It balances opportunity, environmental
responsibility, and a strong quality of life. This is why Pickering continues to pursue the vision of a complete
community that attracts talented residents, forward looking businesses, and innovators who want to help build our
shared future.
The 2025 Sustainable Year-in-Review report reflects this commitment. It highlights the progress we have made and
the choices we must continue to make as we work toward a greener and more resilient city. Through careful
planning and responsible development, we are ensuring that Pickering grows with purpose. We are protecting
natural spaces, strengthening our economic foundation, and nurturing a strong sense of community.
As our population increases, so does our responsibility to provide the recreational and social infrastructure that
supports both long time residents and newcomers. Over the past year, we advanced the Beachfront Park
Revitalization and introduced a new elevated boardwalk along the lake. Frenchman’s Bay remains the shimmering
jewel of our city, and we are actively seeking tri-party funding from the federal and provincial governments so we
can return this treasured waterfront fully to the public realm and forever protect it from inappropriate development.
Our leadership in sustainability and community building is gaining national attention. For three years in a row, The
Globe and Mail has named Pickering one of the most livable cities in Canada. This recognition reflects what our
residents already know. Pickering is a place where people want to live, work, and thrive. It is also a testament to the
vision and dedication of our residents, businesses, community groups, and local leaders.
As Mayor of this great city, I’m proud that the 2025 Sustainable Year‐in‐Review reflects not only our progress, but
our unwavering commitment to shaping a greener, more connected Pickering for generations to come.
Kevin Ashe
Mayor, City of Pickering
Message from the Mayor
3
- 284 -
As CAO, I am proud to present our 2025 Sustainable Pickering Year-in-Review, showcasing the City’s key
sustainability initiatives and achievements over the past year.
In 2025, staff built meaningfully on the strong foundation established in previous years. We continued to engage
residents through impactful initiatives such as tree planting events, educational workshops, and the Bring Back
the Salmon program. These initiatives not only restore natural assets but also strengthen community stewardship.
We also introduced new programs that reflect our evolving understanding of sustainability and climate
leadership. A significant milestone this past year was Council’s endorsement of Pickering’s first Community
Climate Adaptation Plan (CCAP). This plan outlines actions the City will take to prepare for and respond to the
impacts of our changing climate, including extreme heat, rain events, and severe weather. It marks an important
shift from planning for sustainability to planning for resilience.
We also launched the “That’s So Trash” anti-litter campaign to address everyday waste and promote shared
responsibility for keeping our neighbourhoods clean.
Complementing these efforts was the introduction of the Shared E-Scooter Pilot Program, providing residents
with a convenient, low-carbon mobility option from April through October. Together, these initiatives
demonstrate how environmental action can be practical, visible, and community-driven.
These efforts directly advance the priorities outlined in our Corporate Strategic Plan, particularly our commitment
to lead and advocate for environmental stewardship, innovation, and resiliency. Sustainability is not a standalone
initiative. It is integrated into how we plan infrastructure, support economic development, design programs, and
serve our residents.
My sincere thanks go to City staff whose dedication and expertise continue to move this work forward, to our
community partners and residents who collaborate and participate in meaningful ways, and to Council for its
ongoing leadership and support.
I encourage you to explore the 2025 Sustainable Year-in-Review to learn more about our progress and the
practical actions each of us can take. Building a more sustainable Pickering is a shared responsibility, and
together, we are making measurable progress toward a resilient and thriving future.
Marisa Carpino
Chief Administrative Officer, City of Pickering
Message from the CAO
4
- 285 -
Enhancing the Natural Environment
In 2025, Pickering expanded tree planting, pollinator habitats, and
invasive species control to support biodiversity, shade opportunities,
and healthier ecosystems in parks and natural spaces.
Valley Farm Ravine Project
To support urban tree canopy growth, the City
collaborated with the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority (TRCA) to identify new
planting opportunities. Valley Farm Ravine
emerged as a priority site due to its existing
canopy gaps. As part of the restoration effort,
TRCA completed their site prep and planted 300
stems, 75 bare root trees, 25 potted trees, and
200 bare shrubs. These plantings strengthen
and enhance the surrounding natural area.
5
Updating the Urban Forest Study
The City is updating its 2012 Urban Forest Study
and Canopy Cover Assessment to expand the
study area, assess the current state of the urban
forest, monitor changes to its condition, and act
as a guide for long-term urban forest planning.
- 286 -
Backyard Tree and Shrub Planting
Program
In partnership with Local Enhancement and
Appreciation of Forests (LEAF), neighbouring
municipalities, and the Region of Durham, the
City completed its fifth year of the Backyard Tree
and Shrub Planting Program. This program
provides residents the opportunity to add
native trees or shrubs to their property at a
discounted rate. The program includes on-site
consultation, free delivery and tree planting, as
well as follow-up tree assessments.
Enhancing Parks and Boulevards
As part of the City’s annual tree planting
program, 225 large-caliper trees were planted
along boulevards to replace mature trees that
required removal. An additional 78 new
boulevard trees were planted on Dixie Road
between Glen Eden Court and Glenanna Road,
further increasing the City’s urban canopy.
Another 50 trees were added in parks including:
Beechlawn Park, Bonita Park, Claremont
Memorial Park, Kinsmen Park, Rick Hull
Memorial Park, and at the Chestnut Hill
Developments Recreation Complex to expand
shade coverage around play areas and
walkways.
6
Bring Back the Salmon
The City, in partnership with the Ontario
Federation of Anglers and Hunters, and the
Pickering Public Library, supported a salmon
hatchery at the Central Library. Patrons
observed and learned about the Atlantic
Salmon’s lifecycle and the importance of
biodiversity. The hatchery resulted in the release
of 261 Atlantic Salmon into Duffins Creek. To
date, the program has helped release over 1,200
Atlantic Salmon into Duffins Creek.
- 287 -
Mayors’ Monarch Pledge
In 2025, as a Leadership Circle member of the
Mayors’ Monarch Pledge, the City reaffirmed its
commitment to protecting pollinator species by
completing 11 targeted actions. These included,
for example, planting native plants, engaging
with the development community to create
monarch habitat, removing invasive species,
distributing native seeds, engaging local garden
groups, and running public education
campaigns to raise awareness.
The City extends its thanks and appreciation to
community garden volunteers, Dunbarton High
School students, and the Toronto Conservation
Youth Corps for their support in planting and
maintaining pollinator gardens across Pickering.
Invasive Species Management
The City worked with the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority on a pilot project to
control phragmites, an invasive plant, in the
ditches along Brockridge Community Park,
Sandy Beach Road, and Sunbird Trail Park.
Phragmites control was also undertaken by
Ontario Power Generation in Hydro Marsh, east
of Frenchman's Bay.
7
- 288 -
8
“OPG values our longstanding partnership with the
City of Pickering, especially through our shared
commitment to environmental restoration. The
Environmental Stewardship Committee is proud to
host the annual Take Pride in Pickering event—a
cherished tradition that brings together families,
neighbours, local service organizations, and faith
groups from across the community in celebration
and stewardship of our natural environment.”
Analiese St. Aubin, Sr. Manager, Corporate
Relations and Communications, Pickering
Nuclear
Take Pride in Pickering
As part of the City’s spring Take Pride in Pickering
Day initiative, over 100 volunteers participated in a
two-hour event at Alex Robertson Park, where they
collected litter and planted 250 trees and shrubs.
In the fall, the City partnered with Ontario Power
Generation (OPG), 10,000 Trees, and the TRCA to
host an additional planting event, at which 75
volunteers did a community cleanup and planted
500 trees and shrubs.
These events were delivered through Environmental
Stewardship Pickering - a collaborative initiative
between the City of Pickering, OPG, and TRCA.
25th Anniversary Silver Maple Planting
To celebrate Pickering’s 25th anniversary as a city,
25 silver maple trees were planted across all three
wards, including Esplanade Park. The silver
maples, chosen for their symbolic connection to
25 year milestones, serve as a lasting tribute to
the city’s growth while enhancing its urban tree
canopy and public green spaces.
- 289 -
Fostering Community Engagement
In 2025, hands-on programs, workshops, and civic events connected residents to
local sustainability efforts and encouraged broad community participation.
9
Community Litter Action
The City of Pickering continues to support
residents, schools, businesses, places of
worship, and community groups in reducing
litter and keeping public spaces clean. This year,
the City introduced its new “That’s So Trash”
campaign, adding fresh tools and education to
help residents take everyday action against
litter. Alongside this new initiative, the City
provided cleanup supplies and coordinated
waste disposal for over 3,220 volunteers. The
volunteers participated in over 50 community
cleanups through programs such as the
20‐Minute Makeover, the Plastics & Litter
Challenge, and the Provincial Day of Action on
Litter.
Earth Month
In celebration of Earth Month, the City of
Pickering hosted a series of free educational
webinars and workshops featuring expert guest
speakers. 338 participants took part in sessions
covering a range of sustainability and nature-
focused topics, including honey making,
vegetable gardening, and ecological importance
of birds.
- 290 -
World Environment Day
World Environment Day in Pickering was a
buzzing success as 175 community members
came together to celebrate and learn about
pollinators. A special thanks to the Fairport Beach
Neighbourhood Association, Pickering West
Shore Community Association, SoRo Good
Neighbours, TRCA, OPG, Pickering Public Library,
Native Plants of Claremont, and local artist Susan
Munderich for coming together to host this
engaging and educational event.
Nature Journaling Workshop
Residents of all ages explored their artistic side
by learning how to capture the natural beauty in
Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park through
sketching and writing activities guided by a
talented local artist. 35 participants enjoyed this
creative opportunity to observe the surrounding
landscape.
10
“Pickering's first celebration of World Environment Day provided an excellent opportunity for local
environmental volunteers and organizations to showcase opportunities for attendees to learn about and
celebrate the biodiversity around us.”
Craig Bamford
Pickering West Shore Community Association
Winter Wonders
The City, in partnership with OPG , TRCA, and
Earth Rangers hosted a free family workshop
event to kick-off the winter. At this event, 75
attendees had the opportunity to engage in
family‐friendly activities, including the creation
of environmentally themed crafts, the assembly
of bird feeders, cookie-decorating, and
opportunities to observe local wildlife up close.
- 291 -
11
Living Dinosaurs: Learn, Create &
Protect!
The City, in partnership with TRCA and the
Pickering Public Library, hosted an interactive
workshop for children aged 6 to 12. Participants
learned about the ecological importance of
birds, including their evolutionary connection to
dinosaurs, and explored practical ways to
support local wildlife. Attendees also created
DIY bird‐safe window stickers designed to help
prevent bird strikes.
Sustainable Home Expo
Pickering’s first Sustainable Home Expo at the
Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation
Complex drew over 200 attendees. Guests
engaged with experts on topics such as energy
conservation, grant/incentives, fire and home
safety, growing food, pollinators, wildlife, tree
planting, sustainable gardening, electric
vehicles, e-Scooters, and other green living
practices.
Everything Maple Syrup
The Everything Maple Syrup event was a hands-
on educational program hosted by the City,
TRCA, OPG, and the Pickering Public Library to
teach participants about the delicious origins of
maple syrup and the environmental significance
of maple trees.
- 292 -
12
Rodenticide Webinar
The City’s Animal Services with support from
Rodenticide Free Ontario, hosted a webinar
focused on effective wildlife‐proofing strategies
and the harmful impacts of rodenticides. The
session shared practical prevention tips and
highlighted the risks rodenticides pose to pets,
wildlife, and the environment. This initiative
supports Council’s 2023 Pest Management
Policy, which made Pickering the first
municipality in Ontario to restrict rodenticide
use on City‐owned properties.
Civic Awards
Pickering’s Civic Awards recognize
outstanding community contributions. This
year, the Environment Award went to local
artist Susan Munderich for using her work to
promote biodiversity and environmental
stewardship. The Region of Durham was given
the Green Builder Award for its sustainably
designed Seaton Long‐Term Care Facility,
which features high‐efficiency systems,
low‐impact development measures, native
landscaping, and solar‐ready infrastructure.
Know Before You Throw Workshop
Delivered in partnership with the Region of
Durham, this workshop introduced children aged
6–12 to responsible waste management practices.
Participants engaged in a storytellling activitity,
hands-on waste sorting exercises, and simple,
practical actions they can take to reduce waste in
their daily lives.
“By prioritizing prevention-first strategies such as
exclusion, waste management, structural
maintenance, and habitat modification, local
governments can address the root causes of rodent
conflicts rather than relying on toxic rodenticides that
fail to provide long-term solutions.”
Allison Hansen
Co-Founder and Campaign Director of Rodenticide
Free Ontario
Environmental Schools Grants
Pickering’s Environmental Schools Grant
supports school‐led environmental projects,
funding initiatives that contribute to a healthy
environment. In 2025, schools created pollinator
gardens, expanded food gardens, built outdoor
learning spaces, and delivered nature‐ and
science‐based workshops.
- 293 -
Reducing Waste
In 2025, Pickering helped residents reduce waste through practical
programs like battery recycling, compost giveaways, and textile
diversion.
Textile Waste Diversion
Pickering partnered with Diabetes Canada to launch
a Textile Diversion Program in late 2023, helping
reduce household waste. In 2025, the program
diverted 13.7 tonnes of textiles. Collection bins are
available at the Chestnut Hill Developments
Recreation Complex, Dunmoore Park,
and Esplanade South.
Battery Recycling Program
The Battery Recycling program offers residents
convenient drop-off locations at the Chestnut Hill
Developments Recreation Complex, East Shore
Community Centre, George Ashe Library, and the
Pickering Central Library. In 2025, 363 kilograms
of batteries were collected and recycled
responsibly.
Compost Giveaway
The City partnered with the Region of Durham to
host a compost giveaway event, where more
than 500 residents collected free compost
produced through the curbside paper bag leaf
collection program. The event also raised $1,000
and food donations for St. Paul’s on‐the‐Hill
Community Foodbank. A special thanks to the
Canadian Progress Club Durham Region Women
for helping with donation collection.
13
- 294 -
Growing Urban Agriculture
In 2025, the City continued its commitment to urban agriculture by
expanding opportunities for local food growing. Through new tools,
partnerships, and community programs, Pickering is supporting a more
resilient and locally connected community.
Pickering City Centre Farmers’ Market
The City of Pickering hosted another successful
season of the Farmers’ Market, helping residents
connect with local farmers, bakers, artisans, and
small businesses. Running for 17 weeks, the
market welcomed approximatley 22,300 visitors
and upwards of 25 vendors. Residents also
enjoyed weekly entertainment from local artists.
Pickering 55+ Plot to Plate Program
The 55+ Plot to Plate program supports healthy
aging by helping seniors grow vegetables in
raised garden plots and prepare nutritious
meals. Hosted at the George Ashe Library &
Community Centre, it promotes wellness, food
literacy, and community connection.
14
- 295 -
Pickering Public Library - Seed Library
The Pickering Public Library’s Seed Library is
back for a vibrant new season! Launched in
2024 with support from the TD Friends of the
Earth grant, this community‐powered initiative
continues to champion sustainability, food
literacy, and resource sharing for all.
In 2025, through the Seed Library, Library staff
distributed over 10,000 seed packages, hosted
15 hands‐on gardening and harvesting
programs, and welcomed dedicated community
volunteers who contributed more than
300 hours to help the program flourish.
New Zoning Definition for Vertical
Farming
The City’s new Consolidated Zoning By‐law
8149/24 introduced a new definition for vertical
farming, helping to clarify how and where this
activity could take place in Pickering. Vertical
farming was defined as “a building or part of a
building used for cultivating, growing,
producing, or processing of plant products or
by‐products and which may include
aquaponics.” Through this framework the City
supports new approaches to local food
production and encourages innovation in urban
agriculture across Pickering.
15
“St. Martin's Anglican Church was a recipient of the City of Pickering’s Grant 2025. Meeting this joy-filled
group of parishioners was inspiring. Their existing food gardens are not only impeccable but every bit of
food grown was shared not only in the church community, but with St. Martin's Center, a facility with 58
suites, next door. Adding new accessible raised beds, to expand their growing space made sense. They
shared a record harvest and increased interest in maintaining the space. They have solid plants for 2026,
showing sustainability at its best.”
Carol Vandersanden, Founder & President
We Grow Food
- 296 -
16
Energy Projects
In 2025, the City advanced several corporate energy
upgrades, including new heating circulators at the
Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex, a
hybrid heat pump HVAC unit at East Shore
Community Centre, and new hybrid heat pump units
and energy recovery ventilators at both George Ashe
Library and Community Centre and Redman House,
along with improved insulation at Redman House.
The newly built Dorsay Community and Heritage
Centre also achieved Zero Carbon Building (Design)
Certification, highlighting continued progress toward
low‐carbon, energy‐efficient facilities.
Becoming More Energy Efficient
In 2025, municipal retrofits reduced emissions, while energy
workshops helped residents learn more about energy efficiency and
how to reduce their own costs.
Energy Workshops
The City advanced its energy‐efficiency efforts by
hosting a series of free workshops for residents and
staff on home upgrade opportunities, attracting 161
participants and highlighting incentives from
partners such as Durham Greener Homes, Enbridge,
and Save on Energy. To further support low‐carbon
heating and the goals of the Durham Community
Energy Plan, the City also delivered Heat Pump
Training to 16 local Heating Ventilation & Air
Conditioning (HVAC) contractors through the Heat
Pump Advantage program, building regional
capacity.
- 297 -
Looking Towards the Future
Municipal Leadership in Sustainable
Development Recognized
Pickering received a Certificate of Recognition for
Municipal Leadership and Preserving Builder’s
Choice from the Sustainable Housing Foundation
for its Integrated Sustainable Design Standards
(ISDS). The Foundation recognized the standards for
being practical, flexible, and allowing different
approaches to achieving high‐performance building
outcomes. Pickering’s ISDS are now being used as a
model by other municipalities.
Overview of the Integrated Sustainable
Design Standards (ISDS)
Since 2023, the ISDS has guided new development in
Pickering by setting practical and flexible
expectations. Developed with input from the building
community, residents, stakeholders, and Council, the
standards support a more efficient and sustainable
community. Now in its third year, the ISDS continues
to shape new projects by promoting energy
efficiency, climate‐ready design, accessible
neighbourhoods, natural area protection, active
transportation, waste diversion, water efficiency,
urban agriculture, and stormwater management.
17
The City along with many partners and stakeholders, will continue to
strengthen community sustainability with tools such as the Integrated
Sustainable Design Standards and Community Climate Adaptation Plan.
- 298 -
Creating Accessible and Inclusive Public
Spaces
Parks, pathways, and outdoor gathering spaces
are becoming more accessible and welcoming
through Accessible for Ontarians with
Disabilities Act (AODA)‐aligned design and
Crime Prevention Through Environmental
Design (CPTED) principles. Improved lighting,
clear sightlines, and accessible seating help
create safer, more inclusive public spaces.
18
Protecting Birds through Bird-Safe Design
Where applicable, new developments in Pickering
are required to incorporate bird‐safe window
design features, such as appropriate glazing,
visible markers, and reduced nighttime lighting.
These measures help keep birds safe from deadly
building collisions, particularly during migration,
while also supporting compliance with the
Migratory Birds Convention Act.
Supporting Third-Party Sustainability
Certifications
The ISDS framework helps projects pursue
certifications such as LEED. In 2025, Porsche
Canada Ltd. achieved LEED Gold, and the Seaton
Paramedic Response Station and Training Facility
earned LEED Silver through high‐performance
building and site design.
- 299 -
“This Plan reflects the ideas and experiences of our residents, who helped shape it through surveys,
community sessions, and thoughtful collaboration. Addressing climate change is truly a shared responsibility,
and the City is committed to leading by example. Together, we can adapt to these changes, safeguard our
environment, and preserve Pickering’s vibrancy for future generations.”
Mayor Kevin Ashe
19
Community Climate Adaptation Plan
In May 2025, Pickering Council endorsed the
City’s first Community Climate Adaptation Plan
(CCAP). Developed with input from residents,
community organizations, technical experts,
and regional partners, the CCAP serves as a
roadmap to integrate climate resilience into City
operations, services, and the broader
community. The Plan outlines practical,
measurable actions to help prepare for and
respond to the impacts of extreme heat, heavy
rain, and severe weather. It also places a strong
focus on climate equity to support vulnerable
populations.
Campaign to Protect Frenchman’s Bay
The City launched a campaign urging federal and
provincial support to return Frenchman’s Bay to
public ownership, citing its ecological significance
and the risks associated with its continued private
ownership under an 1853 Crown Charter.
Residents were invited to show their support
through a community call‐to‐action as the City
reaffirmed its commitment to protecting the
waterfront from inappropriate development.
- 300 -
20
Measuring Sustainability Report Released
In 2025, the City released its updated Measuring
Sustainability Report, providing a clear snapshot of
progress toward environmental, social, and
economic sustainability metrics. The report
highlights key achievements, tracks long‐term
trends, and helps residents understand how local
actions are shaping a more resilient and
sustainable Pickering.
Shared E-Scooter Pilot Launch
In 2025, Pickering launched its Shared E‐Scooter
Pilot Program, introducing a low‐carbon,
convenient mobility option to support short trips
and connections to transit. Delivered in
partnership with Bird Canada, the pilot
emphasized safety, rider education, and equitable
access across neighbourhoods. Operating from
April to October, the program expanded active
transportation choices and advanced the City’s
vision for a more sustainable and connected
mobility network.
- 301 -
In 2026, the City of Pickering will continue its longstanding commitment to create
a more sustainable community. Join us on the journey to become one of the most
sustainable cities in Canada. There are many fun and inspiring ways to make
Pickering a better place socially, environmentally, and economically.
To learn how you can get involved, visit: pickering.ca/sustainable.
We welcome your feedback. Please contact the City's Sustainability staff at sustainability@pickering.ca
Alternate formats available upon request at 905.683.7575 customercare@pickering.ca
21
- 302 -