The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNovember 7, 2005 Council Meeting Agenda Monday, November 7, 2005 7:30 pm I) INVOCATION Mayor Ryan will call the meeting to order and lead Council in the saying of the Invocation. II) DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST III) ADOPTION OF MINUTES Regular Council Meeting of October 17, 2005 "Closed" Council Meeting of October 17, 2005 "Closed" Council Meeting of October 24, 2005 PAGE 1-16 Under Separate Cover ~v) PRESENTATIONS There are no presentations scheduled to be heard. v) DELEGATIONS 1. Mark Holland, M.P., Ajax-Pickering, will address Council with respect to the Gas Tax Announcement. Noel Gerry, Barrister & Solicitor, representing Ms. Anna Trojanowska, Brock Spa will address Council with respect to Report CS 83-05. The following delegations will address Council with respect to the taxicab fare increase Report CS 77-05 a) Bhupinder Bajwa b) Surinder Kumar c) Kewal Manoch -1- PICKERING Council Meeting Agenda Monday, November 7, 2005 7:30 pm w) (1) (2) (3) CORRESPONDENCE PAGE CORR. 1-05 MR. PATRICK McNEIL ONTARIO POWER GENERATION 889 Brock Road Pickerin.q, Ontario Receive for Information 17-18 Submitting to Mayor Ryan, a letter from Ontario Power Generation writing in response to the Working Group established through Report CAO 09-05 of the Chief Administrative Officer, which was endorsed by Council on June 20, 2005. Mr. McNeil advises that OPG has acted to set up an improved on-site incident command centre for future events, in response to concerns related to the June 3, 2005 incident. CORR. 2-05 PETITION FROM THE RESIDENTS OF WARD 3 VALLEY RIDGE CRESCENT Refer to Executive Committee Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer to Report 19-20 Submitting to Council a petition dated October 18, 2005 from the residents of Valley Ridge Crescent, protesting the increase in house taxes for the year 2005 due to their close proximity to a home destroyed by fire in 2002 and to date not re-built. CORR. 3-05 R.M. ANDERSON REGIONAL CHAIR REGION OF DURHAM 605 Rossland Road East Whitby, Ontario Receive for Information Reconfirm Resolution #46/03 21-51 Submitting to Council a copy of the GTA Task Force March 2003 report and requesting that Council endorse or reconfirm their endorsement of the March 2003 Task Force report. The City of Pickering endorsed the Report of the GTA Task Force on OMB Reform dated March 5, 2003 through Resolution #46/03 dated April 7, 2003. -2- Council Meeting Agenda Monday, November 7, 2005 7:30 pm VII) (1) (2) (3) REPORTS Executive Committee Report EC 2005-14 Public Meeting City Clerk Report CS 77-05 Proposed Increase to Taxicab Fares RECOMMENDATION 1. That Report CS 77-05 of the City Clerk be received; and, That By-law 2206/86, be amended to provide for an increase to taxicab fares effective November 15, 2005 as noted within this report and outlined as Attachment #1. Council Office, Report CO 04-05 Establishment of Benchmarking Standards for Sustainability Presentation by Councillor Brenner, Chair Benchmarkinfl, Sustainability Standards Committe~ RECOMMENDATION 1. That Council receive Report CO 04-05 regarding Benchmarking Standards for Sustainability; That Council approve the process outlined in the attached report submitted by the Benchmarking Sustainability Standards Committee (see Attachment #1) and that the Benchmarking Sustainability Standards Committee be authorized to continue to work on this project; That the Benchmarking Sustainability Standards Committee be authorized to retain Jack McGinnis of the RDC Group to act as the City's consultant and facilitator with respect to the attached process at a cost not to exceed $10,000 in 2005 and $25,000 in 2006; and, That Council authorize a 2006 pre-budget approval of $50,000 for this process. PAGE 52-53 54-57 58-74 -3- Council Meeting Agenda Monday, November 7, 2005 7:30 pm (4) Director, Operations & Emergency Services, Report OES 39-05 Tender No. T-5-2005 Tender for Storm Sewer Installation & Road Reconstruction for Finch Avenue Under Separate Cover 75 (5) City Clerk, Report CS 84-05 City of Pickerinq Preliminary Operating Plan for Animal Services RECOMMENDATION That Report CS 84-05 of the City Clerk be received for information; That the 2006 Preliminary Operating Plan for Animal Services for the City of Pickering encompass in-house enforcement services and contracted/partnership for aniimal shelter services; That 2006 Capital budget pre-approval be granted to allow for the purchase of one van equipped for animal services at an approximate cost of $30,000 and miscellaneous equipment costs at an approximate cost of $6,000 to be financed from 2006 current revenues for a total approximate cost of $36,000.; That 2006 Current budget pre-approval be granted to allow for recruitment of one full time Supervisor of Animal Services and two part time Municipal Law Enforcement Officers/Animal Control Officers for the January 1,2006 start-up of the City of Pickering enforcement services for animal control, at an approximate cost of $146,294; That in order to provide staffing effective January 1, 2006, that authority be given to commence the hiring process in accordance with Item 4 and the requisition for the purchase of the vehicle and equipment noted in Item 3 in 2005 and that the salaries and benefits for 2005 be funded from monies not otherwise required in the 2005 current budget; 76-90 -4- Council Meeting Agenda Monday, November 7, 2005 7:30 pm (6) That the City of Pickering accept the offer of the Municipality of Clarington dated September 7, 2005 with respect to the feed, care and sheltering of animals on an interim basis effective January 1,2006 at an estimated cost of $25,000 to June 30, 2006; That staff be authorized to pursue and obtain quotations and/or agreements in principle for the provision of longer term contracted/partnership for animal shelter services; and That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions to give effect thereto. City Clerk, Report CS 83-05 Request for Expansion of Permitted Area for Body Rub Parlours Brock Spa, 1600 Alliance Road, Pickerin,q RECOMMENDATION 1. That Report CS 56-05 of the City Clerk be received for information; 2. That Report CS 83-05 of the City Clerk with respect to a request to expand the permitted area for body rub parlours by the Brock Spa, municipally located at 1600 Alliance Road, Pickering, be received for information; and, 3. That the request from Ms. Anna Trojanowska, Brock Spa, 1600 Alliance Road, to expand the permitted area for body rub parlours to include Alliance Road be denied and the applicant be so advised. 91-111 -5- Council Meeting Agenda Monday, November 7, 2005 7:30 pm (7) Chief Administrative Office, Report CAO 13-05 Transport Canada Federal Airport Lands Due Diligence Review of Airport Master Plan RECOMMENDATION That Report CAO 13-05 concerning the Federal Government's due diligence review of the Greater Toronto Airports Authodty's Master Plan for the Federal Lands in Pickering be received; That the Federal Government be advised that Pickering Council supports the completion of a due diligence review of the Greater Toronto Airports Authority's (GTAA's) Master Plan for the Federal Lands in Pickering, by the Federal Minister of Transport; That the Feral Minister of Transport be requested to ensurE; that the due diligence review provides ample opportunity for Pickering Council and interested members of the community to participate in the process; That the Federal Minister of Transport be requested to ensure the due diligence review includes (but is not necessarily limited to) the following broad considerations: (i) A comprehensive airport supply and demand analysis of airport traffic growth, and a review of airport governance, in southern Ontario. (ii) A comprehensive business case analysis of a potential airport in Pickering. (iii) A peer review of the GTAA's Airport Master Plan and supporting documentation. 5. That a copy of this Report and resolutions be forwarded to tl~e Federal Minister of Transport, the Greater Toronto Airports Authority, the Region of Durham, Members of Parliament for Ajax-Pickering and Pickering-Scarborough East, and Member of Provincial parliament for Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge. 112-115 -6- PICKFRING Council Meeting Agenda Monday, November 7, 2005 7:30 pm (8) Proclamation: "Restorative Justice Week" - November 13-20, 2005 RECOMMENDATION That November 13 -20, 2005 be proclaimed as "Restorative Justice Week". 116-118 w,) BY-LAWS By-law 6592/05 Being a by-law to appoint By-law Enforcement Officers for certain purposes (Parking Regulation - 1355 Kingston Road and 1822 Whites Road).[Report CS 80-05] By-law 6593/05 Being a by-law to dedicate that part of Lot 31, Concession 2, Pickering, designated as Part 15, Plan 40R-23461 and that part of Lot 30, Concession 2, Pickering, designated as Part 21, Plan 40R- 23461, as public highway (Rosebank Road) By-law 6594/05 Being a by-law to stop-up and close that part of Lot 5, RCP No. 819, Pickering, being Part 2, Plan 40R-21838 as public highway and authorize the sale of the land as it is no longer required for municipal purposes.[Report PD 42-05] By-law 6595/05 Being a by-law to amend By-law 2206//86, Schedule "B", Tariff of Rates and Fares, Taxicab Licensing. [Report CS 77-05] 119 120-122 123 124-125 -7- HCKERING Council Meeting Agenda Monday, November 7, 2005 7:30 pm NOTICES OF MOTION At the October 17, 2005 meeting, the Notice of Motion with respect to Bill 124 was referred to the Chief Building Official for further' information. Attached for information is a memorandum dated October 31, 2005 to the Chief Administrative Officer from the C, hief Building Official with respect to this matter, along with correspondence from Solicitor representing Professional Engineers of Ontario, Professional Engineers of Ontario, Ontario Association of Architects, Consulting Engineers of Ontario, Ontario Association of Architects, 126-143 Building Code Statute Law Amendment Act, 2002 WHEREAS outstanding elements of Bill 124 relating to building code knowledge and insurance requirements come into effect January 1, 2006; WHEREAS the Ontario Association of Architects and the Professional Engineers of Ontario have initiated a letter-writing campaign in an attempt to exempt their professions from the requirements of Bill 24; WHEREAS this could result in a greater incidence of errors in building permit submissions and increased municipal liability since the submissions of architects and engineers would not need to be insured; WHEREAS, be it hereby acknowledged that the City of Pickering strongly objects to the request of architects and engineers for exemption from Bill 124; THEREFORE, the City of Pickering hereby requests that the Building Advisory Council (BAC) be set up in January 2006 to address the following issues regarding liability recommended by the Building Regulatory Reform Advisor Group (BRRAG) but omitted in Bill 24, -8- Council Meeting Agenda Monday, November 7, 2005 7:30 pm · Improved Code knowledge for builders/contractors, · Provisions for builder liability insurance for non-residential builders, · Longer liability insurance periods for designers; and NOW THEREFORE, be it hereby acknowledged that the City of Pickering requests that the Building Advisory Council (BAC) review the other recommendations of BRRAG that were omitted in Bill 124, which will create a more equitable building regulatory system iin Ontario; AND FURTHER that support from the following be hereby requested: · Mark Holland, MP · Dan McTeague, MP · WayneArthurs, MPP · Minister Gerretsen · Attorney General. x) Xl) x,) OTHER BUSINESS CONFIRMATION BY-LAW ADJOURNMENT FOR INFORMATION ONLY Minutes of the Taxicab Advisory Committee Meeting held on October 18, 2005 144-147 Minutes of the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee Meeting held on October 18, 2005 148-149 Minutes of the Statutory Public Information Meeting held on October 20, 2005 150-152 Minutes of the Benchmarking Standards/Sustainability Committee 153-154 meeting held on October 21,2005 -9- Council Meeting Minutes Monday, October 17, 2005 7:30 pm 0 PRESENT: Mayor David Ryan COUNCILLORS: K. Ashe M. Brenner D. Dickerson R. Johnson B. McLean D. Pickles ALSO PRESENT: T. J. Quinn N. Carroll G. Paterson S. Reynolds D. Bentley D. Shields - Chief Administrative Officer - Director, Planning & Development - Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer - Acting Director, Operations & Emergency Services - City Clerk - Deputy Clerk I) INVOCATION Mayor Ryan called the meeting to order and led Council in the saying of the Invocation II) PRESENTATIONS (1) Presentation of the Youth Friendly Community Award Graeme Barlow, Youth Council President and P.A.C. 4 'Teenz appeared before Council to recognize and congratulate the City of Pickering on winning the Youth Friendly Community Award and to acknowledge the initiatives Pickering is involved in for bringing free programs to the youth of Pickering. (2) Presentation of Proclamation and Update "Waste Reduction Week" Chantal Whittaker, Coordinator, Environmental Awareness Program for the City of Pickering appeared before the Council and gave a brief presentation on Waste Reduction Week and the events that are planned for the week of October 17th - 23rd, 2005. 0 2 PICKERING Council Meeting Minutes Monday, October 17, 2005 7:30 pm III) ~v) v) (3) Presentation of "Eyes on the Street" Pro,qram Chantal Whittaker, Coordinator, Environmental Awareness Program for the City of Pickering.appeared before Council and gave a brief presentation on the Eyes on the Street Program which focuses on illegal dumping, vandalism, graffiti and litter. DELEGATIONS (1) Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, Report CS 56-05 Request for Expansion of Permitted Area for Body Rub Parlours Brock Spa, 1600 Alliance Road, Pickering Noel Gerry, Barrister & Solicitor for Ms. Anna Trojanowska, owner of the Brock Spa, 1600 Alliance Road, Pickering, appeared before Council and requested that consideration be given to moving the boundaries for Body Rub Parlours to include his clients' property. Mr. Gerry also noted that they would be in favour of a further grandfathering if the boundaries could not be moved in order to give his client time to relocate. ADOPTION OF MINUTES Moved by Councillor Johnson Seconded by Councillor Brenner Regular Council Meeting of October 3, 2005 Special 'Closed' Council Meeting of October 3,200§ CARRIED REPORTS Confidential Matters (2) Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Confidential Report CS 75-05 Taxicab License Refusal COUNCIL DECISION That the recommendation contained in the 'Closed' minutes of October 11, 2005 be adopted. CARRIED 0 3 PICKEKING Council Meeting Minutes Monday, October 17, 2005 7:30 pm (3) Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Confidential Report CS 74-05 Taxicab License Refusal COUNCIL DECISION That the recommendation contained in the 'Closed' minutes of October 11,2005 be adopted. Resolution #179/05 Moved by Councillor Dickerson Seconded by Councillor Johnson That the recommendations contained in the 'Closed' minutes of October 3, 2005 be ADOPTED save and except Item 1. CARRIED (1) City Solicitor, Confidential Report CS 78-05 Municipal Liability for Flood Claims Resolution #180/05 Moved by Councillor Dickerson Seconded by Councillor Johnson That the recommendation contained in the 'Closed' minutes of October 11,2005 be adopted. CARRIED ON A RECORDED VOTE Yea Nay Councillor Ashe Councillor Johnson Councillor Pickles Mayor Ryan Councillor Brenner Councillor Dickerson Councillor McLean " 0 4 PICKERIN(5 Council Meeting Minutes Monday, October 17, 2005 7:30 pm Executive Committee Report EC 2005-12 (1) Director, Planning & Development, Report PD 37-05 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/05 First Capital (Steeple Hill Land) Corporation 670 Kingston Road North Part of Lot 29, Range 3, B.F.C. (40R-23222, Parts 1 & 2) City of Pickerin.q COUNCIL DECISION That Pickering Council RECEIVE Addendum to Report PD 37-05 relating to an amendment to the existing zoning on subject lands to permit a variety of office and commercial uses, on lands being North Part of Lot 29, Range 3, B.F.C. (40R-23222, Parts 1 & 2), in the City of Pickering. That the additional provisions affecting adjacent westerly lands are technical and minor in nature and do not affect the general intent and purpose of Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 8/05 therefore, NO FURTHER NOTICE is required to be given with respect to this application, in the City of Pickering. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 8/05, be APPROVED as set out in the draft by-law attached as Appendix I to Addendum to Report PD 37-05, to amend the existing zoning on the subject lands to permit a variety of office and commercial uses, on lands being North Part of Lot 29, Range 3, B.F.C. (40R-23222, Parts 1 & 2), in the City of Pickering. That the amending zoning by-law to implement Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 8/05, as set out in Appendix I to Addendum to Report PD 37-05 be FORWARDED to City Council for enactment. (2) Director, Operations & Emergency Services, Report OES 36-05 Supply and Delivery of Two (2) One-Ton Dump Trucks Quotation No. Q-45-2005 COUNCIL DECISION 1. That Report OES 36-05 regarding the supply and delivery of Two (2) One-ton Dump Trucks, be received; and 0 5 PICKERING Council Meeting Minutes Monday, October 17, 2005 7:30 pm o o That Quotation No. Q-45-2005 submitted by Donway Ford Sales Ltd. for the supply and delivery of two (2) One-ton Dump Trucks in the amount of $84,706.00 plus applicable taxes be accepted, with the estimated annual repayment of approximately $26,000 being included in the annual Current Budget; and That the total purchase price of $96,871.90 be approved; and That Council authorize the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer to finance the project through an internal loan; and That staff at the City of Pickering be given the authority to give effect hereto. (3) Director, Operations & Emergency Services Report OES 35-05 RFP-8-2005 - Request for Proposal, Bridge Design & Contract Administration - Bulmer Bridge and Reesor Creek Bridge COUNCIL DECISION o That Report OES 35-05 regarding a Request for Proposal, Bridge Design & Contract Administration be received; and o That the Reesor Creek Bridge (05-2320-009-06) and the Bulmer Bridge (05-2320-009-07) deck replacement projects as contained in the 2005 Capital Budget with estimated costs and financing of: Financing Bridge Estimated Costs COMRIF Debt Reesor Creek $267,300 $178,200 $89,100 Bulmer $291,500 $194,325 $97,175 be approved subject to final approval of construction costs by Council; and That RFP-8-2005 submitted by R.V. Anderson for Bridge Design and Contract Administration in the amount of $58,810 (G.S.T. extra) be accepted; and That the total gross cost of $70,952 and a net cost of $66,310, for the proposal amount and other project costs identified in this report be PI(2KERIN Council Meeting Minutes Monday, October 17, 2005 7:30 pm o o approved; and that, That the amount of $65,000 for Bridge Design and Contract Administration to be funded through the issue of debt financing be approved with the balance of $1,310 from Current Budget; and That Council authorize the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer to finance this portion of the project through the issuance of debt through the Region of Durham; and a) Debt financing not exceeding the amount of $65,000 for a period not exceeding 10 years, at a rate to be determined; and b) Financing and repayment charges in the amount of approximately $8,315 be included in the annual Current Budget for the City of Pickering commencing in 2006 and continuing thereafter until the loan is repaid; and c) The Treasurer be authorized to take any actions necessary in order to effect the foregoing; and That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take necessary action to bring effect thereto. (4) Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Report CS 76-05 Appointment to enforce the Parking By-law at 1100 Begley Street, 650 Kingston Road, 705 Kingston Road, 1915 Denmar Road and 1467 Whites Road North COUNCIL DECISION That Report CS 76-05 respecting the appointment of Special Municipal Law Enforcement Officers for the purpose of enforcing the Parking By- law on private property be received; and That the draft by-law to appoint persons to enforce the Parking By-law at 1100 Begley Street, 650 Kingston Road, 705 Kingston Road, 1915 Denmar Road and 1467 Whites Road North, be forwarded to Council for approval; and That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions to give effect thereto. PICKF, RING Council Meeting Minutes Monday, October 17, 2005 7:30 pm 0 7 (5) Director, Operations & Emergency Services Report OES 38-05 Frenchman's Bay Stormwater Management Master Plan Terms of Reference COUNCIL DECISION That Report OES 38-05 regarding the Frenchman's Bay Stormwater Management Master Plan Terms of Reference be received; and That the Terms of Reference be approved and staff be authorized to issue a request for an Expression of Interest (EOI) from qualified consulting firms to provide professional engineering services for the development of a Frenchman's Bay Stormwater Management Master Plan; and ° That staff, in conjunction with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority be authorized to short-list up to four (4) of the highest scoring firms on the EOI and issue a detailed Request for Proposal document; and o That the City of Pickering cost share on a 50/50 basis with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for retaining the firm of Gartner Lee Limited for project management services for the Frenchman's Bay Stormwater Management Master Plan, at a cost to the City not to exceed $15,000; and o That a Steering Committee be assembled to guide the process, and provide input into the direction of the Master Plan, whose membership shall consist of City staff, TRCA staff, one member from the Waterfront Coordinating Committee, external agencies and a resident of the City of Pickering; and That appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be given authority to give effect thereto. (6) South Asia Earthquake Donation to Canadian Red Cross COUNCIL DECISION WHEREAS, an enormous earthquake has struck South Asia and has resulted in untold thousands of lives lost and million more left homeless; 0 8 PICKERING Council Meeting Minutes Monday, October 17, 2005 7:30 pm (v) WHEREAS, this has occurred in an area of the world where, by Canadian standards, poverty and desperation are the norm; WHEREAS, the Federal Government has today (Oct. 11/05) announced that any relief funds donated to, amongst others, the Canadian Red Cross - South Asia Fund will be matched by the Federal Government if received by such authorized agency within fourteen days; WHEREAS, the City of Pickering has demonstrated on many occasions its generosity, on behalf of all residents, to assist financially and otherwise, those people, whether in Canada or abroad, who have experienced disaster but are least able to recover; BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, that the City of Pickering commits the sum of $5,000.00 to be donated to the Canadian Red Cross - South Asian Fund and that such amount be matched with contributing Federal dollars and that these monies be over and above the $20,000,000 already announced and committed by the Federal Government; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Pickering hereby extends its most heartfelt condolences to the Governments of Pakistan and India, to their citizens who have lost loved ones and homes, and to their many friends and relatives, and our friends and residents, living here in Pickering. Resolution #181/05 Moved by Councillor Ashe Seconded by Councillor Johnson That the Report of the Executive Committee EC 2005-12, dated October 3, 2005, be Adopted. CARRIED REPORTS (NEW & UNFINISHED BUSINESS) (1) Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, Report CS 56-05 Request for Expansion of Permitted Area for Body Rub Parlours Brock Spa, 1600 Alliance Road, Pickerin.q Resolution #182/05 Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Johnson 0 § PICKER1NG Council Meeting Minutes Monday, October 17, 2005 7:30 pm That Report CS 56-05 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, be referred back to staff for the purpose of preparing a comprehensive report on all Body Rub Parlour establishments with regard to land use zoning and municipal business licencing. CARRIED (2) Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, Report CS 70-05 Outstandinq Recovery of Water Bomber Costs Resolution #183/05 Moved by Councillor Johnson Seconded by Councillor McLean 1. That Report CS 70-05 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be received; 2. That the outstanding account receivable billed to Christopher Burkholder in the amount of $42,532.10 be written off in 2005; and, 3. The appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect thereto. CARRIED (3) Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, Report CS 79-05 Request to Medical Officer of Health for Permission to Allow City Of Pickering Municipal Law Enforcement Officers to Enforce the The Regional No Smokinq By-law Resolution #184/05 Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Dickerson That the City of Pickering request that the Region of Durham, Medical Officer of Health authorize Municipal Law Enforcement Officers of the City of Pickering to enforce the provisions of the Region of Durham Smoke- Free By-law No. 66-2002. CARRIED ON A RECORDED VOTE PICKER1NG Council Meeting Minutes Monday, October 17, 2005 7:30 pm Yea Councillor Brenner Councillor Dickerson Councillor McLean Councillor Pickles Mayor Ryan Councillor Ashe - Absent Councillor Johnson - Absent Nay 4) Report from the East Shore Community Centre Buildinq Committee Councillor Dickerson presented the report of the East Shore Community Centre Building Committee. Discussion ensued and Councillor Dickerson indicated that he would anticipate a further report on this matter on the construction of a new parking facility. Resolution #185/05 Moved by Councillor Dickerson Seconded by Councillor McLean That any funds remaining unused from this project be used to commence funding to a dedicated City account for the eventual construction of a new Senior Facility envisioned within the existing downtown core within easy walking distance to transit, shopping and professional care; That Council consider the construction of a new parking facility on the top of the hill immediately north of the existing East Shore Community Centre; and, 3. That Council considers the new routing and parking plan for the existing East Shore Community Centre. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY ON A RECORDED VOTE Council Meeting Minutes Monday, October 17, 2005 7:30 pm 011 w) Yea Councillor Ashe Councillor Brenner Councillor Dickerson Councillor Johnson Councillor McLean Councillor Pickles Mayor Ryan Nay (5) Proclamations: "Waste Reduction Week" - October 17 - 23, 2005 Resolution #186/05 Moved by Councillor Johnson Seconded by Councillor Ashe That October 17 - 23, 2005 be proclaimed Waste Reduction Week. (6)Due Diligence Study Report Resolution #187/05 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor CARRIED CARRIED BY-LAWS By-law 6587/05 Being a by-law to amend Restricted Area Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, by By-law 5438/99, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham, North Part of Lot 29, Range 3, B.F.C. (40R-23222, Parts I & 2), to permit a variety of office and commercial uses. (Refer to Report PD 37-05) That staff report back at the next Council meeting with regards to Transport Canada's Due Diligence Study. 0!2 Council Meeting Minutes Monday, October 17, 2005 7:30 pm By-law 6588/05 Being a by-law to appoint By-law Enforcement Officers for certain purposes (Parking Regulation - 1100 Begley Street, 650 Kingston Road, 705 Kingston Road, 1915 Denmar Road and 1467 Whites Road North). (Refer to Report CS 76-05) THIRD READING: Councillor Johnson, seconded by Councillor Ashe, moved that By-law Numbers 6587/05 and 6588/05 be adopted and the said by-laws be now read a third time and PASSED and that the Mayor and Clerk sign the same and the seal of the Corporation be affixed thereto. CARRIED VI) NOTICES OF MOTION 1. Building Code Statute Law Amendment Act, 2002 Resolution #188/05 Moved by Councillor Johnson Seconded by Councillor Ashe That the Notice of Motion regarding Building Code Statute Law Amendment Act, 2002 be referred back to the Chief Building Official for further investigation. CARRIED (2) Hydro One Cherrywood Station Transformer Leak into Pine Creek Watercourse Resolution #189/05 Moved by Councillor Johnson Seconded by Councillor Ashe WHEREAS, in October 2003, following a leak of 39,000 gallons of an oil substance, it is believed that 8000 gallons leaked into the Pine Creek watercourse; PICKE R1NG Council Meeting Minutes Monday, October 17, 2005 7:30 pm 013 WHEREAS, the source of this leak was from a transformer located at the Hydro One Cherrywood Station; WHEREAS, this accident is believed to have been one of the worst environmental accidents in Pickering's history; WHEREAS, the impact of this accident is believed to have compromised the sustainability of various inhabitants within the Pine Creek watercourse; WHEREAS, the Ministry of the Environment has charged Hydro One under Subsection 30(1) of the Ontario Water Resources Act which prohibits the discharge of any material of any kind into or in any waters or on any shore or bank thereof on into any place that may impair the quality of water or any waters; WHEREAS, if Hydro One is convicted of such offence it could be fined up to $6 million; WHEREAS, the City of Pickering and its community suffered socially, environmentally and financially as result of this incident and Hydro One's failure to properly respond to it; NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby directs staff to requ3st that the Ministry of the Environment give the city status in the court case in order to, (a) describe and explain the significant social, environmental and financial risks that the City and its residents were exposed; (b) request a significant fine in order to deter Hydro One from doing what it did in the future and to act as a deterrent to others; and, (c) request as a condition of sentencing that the Hydro One fine be awarded to the City of Pickering to be used towards projects outlined in the Pickering Waterfront and Frenchman's Bay Five Year Implementation Plan. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY ON A RECORDED VOTE PICKERING Council Meeting Minutes Monday, October 17, 2005 7:30 pm Yea Councillor Ashe Councillor Brenner Councillor Dickerson Councillor Johnson Councillor McLean Councillor Pickles Mayor Ryan Nay VII) OTHER BUSINESS (1) Councillor McLean noted that he had received a letter from an area resident looking for space with respect to an outreach program of the Pickering Library that teaches people to read and has existed in Pickering since 1992. Councillor McLean asked if the Chief Administrative Officer could look into this matter to see if we can assist the program. (2) Councillor Brenner advised that he had received correspondence inquiring what the City of Pickering and the Region of Durham are doing about the road conditions (paving, curbing, lack of lighting) on Hwy 2. Councillor Brenner requested that City staff look into working with the Region to see what can be done. (3)The following matters were considered prior to the regular meeting: Resolution #t90/05 Moved by Councillor Dickerson Seconded by Councillor Pickles That Council move into a closed meeting of Council in order to discuss a matter subject to litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the City; the receiving of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose; and, a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land for Regional Corporation purposes. CARRIED Discussion ensued with respect to a Confidential lease matter. Refer to the 'Closed' minutes of Council dated October 17, 2005. PICKER1NG Council Meeting Minutes Monday, October 17, 2005 7:30 pm Resolution #191/05 Moved by Councillor Johnson Seconded by Councillor Dickerson That Council rise and ratify the actions taken at the 'In Camera' session. CARRIED a) Confidential correspondence was received from the City Solicitor with respect to a taxicab matter. This matter was deferred to November 7, 2005 for further discussion. b) A verbal update was received from the City Solicitor with respect to an OPDA Judicial Review application. Declaration of Interest Councillor Ashe declared a conflict of interest with respect to the verbal update of the City Solicitor concerning an OPDA Judicial Review application, due to his interest in the Whitevale Golf Club. Councillor Ashe did not take part in the discussion on the matter. CONFIRMATION BY-LAW By-law Number 6589/05 Councillor Johnson, seconded by Councillor Pickles, moved for leave to introduce a By-law of the City of Pickering to confirm those proceedings of the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering at its Regular Meeting of October 17, 2005. CARRIED O!C, Council Meeting Minutes Monday, October 17, 2005 7:30 pm ~x) ADJOURNMENT The Meeting adjourned at 10:35 pm. DATED this 17TM Day of October, 2005 MAYOR DAVID RYAN DEBI A. BENTLEY CITY CLERK ONTARIOPOWER GENERATION D. Patrick McNeil Senior Vice President Nuclear Strategy and Support Ontario Power Generation 889 Brock Road, Picketing, Ontario L1W 3J2 Mr. Dave Ryan Mayor of the City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 Communications Review Tel: 905-839-6746 Ext. 5000 Fax: 905-837-3933 patric k.mcneil@opg.com October 18, 2005 08160 Ontario Power Generation's Pickering A nuclear facility experienced a security incident involving a suspicious package on June 3rd of this year. Materials commonly ased in construction activities associated with the Unit One Return to Service Project were fashioned to resemble an explosive device. The suspicious package was found by observant personnel on the conventional side of the plant in an area that posed no threat to the general public or the supply of power to Hydro One's transmission system. The City of Pickering received information from the City of Pickering Fire Department and the Durham Region Police Services during the June 3rd incident which appeared to be more specific and detailed than information Ontario Power Generation was able to provide and confirm. This resulted in significant concerns by City of Pickering senior staff and officials over the accuracy, credibility, and timeliness of the information provided by Ontario Power Generation (OPG). OPG initiated a Post Event Review of the Communications between the City of Pickering and OPG immediately after the incident. The Review involved representatives of the City of Pickering, OPG, Emergency Measures Ontario, Durham Region Emergency Measures, and Durham Regional Police Services. The scope of the Review was: · To review the communications between the identified organizations on June 3rd against established protocols; and, · To identify opportunities for improving existing protocols as appropriate. The cause of the communication concerns during the June 3rd incident appeared to be the flow of unconfirmed information from '~first responders" from the City of Pickering Fire Department and Durham Region Polices Services up through their respective chains of command to City of Pickering officials. That information, because of its timeliness and subsequent external repetition through media reports, had a higher degree of believability during the incident than information OPG was able to confirm during, or subsequent to, the event. Based on the recommendations of a Working Group consisting of representatives of all organizations participating in the Review, OPG has acted to set up an improved on-site incident command center for future events. This centre will perform a communications coordination function involving representatives of on-site and off-site responders to an incident, including OPG, City of Pickering Fire Department, and Durham Regional Police Services. All parties have agreed to support this function in order to ensure that information utilized in their respective internal notification is timely, properly developed, and confirmed. 019 PETITION We the undersigned residents in Ward 3, in the City of Pickering, on on Valley Ridge Crescent, are protesting the increase in house taxes for the year 2005, due to the fact of the circumstances of the house which sits directly in close proximity to our properties on Valley Ridge Crescent and/or White Pine Crescent. This house fire occurred on December 19, 2002 and as of this date, there seems to be no attempt by a builder for it to be re-built. This greatly decreases the values of the market for the re-sale or sale of properties in this area. It also esthetically does not present a good impression to people wanting to purchase and/or move into the area with young families. We moved into this area from many different regions of Ontario hoping to have a quiet peaceful neighborhood free from crime and break-ins which have increased substantially this last year. We have heard no feedback fi.om proper authorities as to what is being done in this regards. Name · Address Si J J . / 020 Name Address Signatures TASK FORCE ON OHB REFORH 021 GTA Task Force on ONB Reform Roger M. Anderson Chair c/o Region of Durham 605 Rossland Rd. East Whitby, ON LIN 6A3 Ph: 905-668-7711 Fax: 905-668-1567 October 12, 2005 TO: Clerks of Municipalities in the Greater Toronto Area FROM: GTA Task Force on OMB Reform Dear Madam or Sir: In March 2003, the GTA Task Force on OMB Reform released a report making practical recommendations to the Province for reforming the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) and Ontario's planning appeal process. At that time, municipalities in the GTA and beyond endorsed the report and urged the Province to enact the proposed reforms. In August, Minister Gerretsen indicated that OMB Reform would be on the government's legislative agenda this Fall. The need for these reforms is urgent and there are only a few weeks available to the House to deal with this issue. Thus, the GTA Task Force members reconvened via conference call to discuss how best to encourage the Government to move forward on OMB reforms without delay. The Task Force unanimously agreed to once again request that municipal councils of the Greater Toronto area formally endorse the March 2003 Task Force report. To that end, we attach a draft resolution to assist your Council. We also attach a list of previous municipal endorsement dates and related Council report reference numbers (where available to us) in case this will facilitate your Council's consideration of the matter. The GTA Task Force March 2003 report is attached as a PDF file. It also may be viewed on the Region of Durham website at www.re~qion.durham.on.ca by clicking on the "more highlights" button near the bottom of the home page, then selecting GTA Task Force on OMB Reform from the list on the next screen. In the interests of raising the priority of this issue in both the public and political arenas during the Fall sitting of the Legislature, we ask your Council to deal with this matter as quickly as possible. Please ensure that your MPP is aware that OMB reform is a priority issue for your municipality. Yours truly, Roger Anderson Regional Chair Region of Durham Attachments (3) O22 Council Meeting Minutes Monday, April 7, 2003 7:30 p.m. Resolution #46/03 Moved by Councillor Holland Seconded by Councillor McLean WHEREAS the Ontario Municipal Board was created to resolve municipal land use issues at a time when municipal governments were small and had limited planning expertise; and WHEREAS the role and mandate of the Ontario Municipal Board have not been significantly altered in response to increased municipal planning skills or expanded municipal responsibilities for land use planning under the Planning Act; and WHEREAS the Ontario Municipal Board has broad planning powers and can make decisions in the absence of a full municipal review of a planning application and can overturn local planning decisions; and WHEREAS Ontario municipalities invest significant resources in staff time, legal and other associated costs in establishing and implementing local planning policy; and WHEREAS there is growing concern from municipalities and citizens that the decisions of the Ontario Municipal Board are eroding local planning authority; and WHEREAS there have been numerous Council resolutions, municipal reports and reports from planning professionals and academics advocating reform of the Ontario Municipal Board; and WHEREAS the GTA Task Force on OMB Reform, an informed group of municipal elected representatives and' staff, after study and consultation, has made practical recommendations for improvements to the planning appeal process; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby endorses the Report of the GTA Task Force on OMB Reform dated March 5, 2003; and FURTHER THAT this resolution be circulated to the Chair of the GTA Task Force on OMB Reform, the Attorney General, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and the Provincial party leaders. CARRIED -5- 023 2005 MODEL RESOLUT:[ON FOR MUN:[C:[PAL ENDORSEMENT WHEREAS the Ontario Municipal Board was created to resolve municipal land use issues at a time when municipal governments were small and had limited planning expertise; AND WHEREAS the role and mandate of the Ontario Municipal Board have not been significantly altered in response to increased municipal planning skills or expanded municipal responsibilities for land use planning under the P/anning,4ct;, AND WHEREAS the Ontario Municipal Board has broad planning powers and can make decisions in the absence of a full municipal review of a planning application and can overturn local planning decisions; AND WHEREAS Ontario Municipalities invest significant resources in staff time, legal and other associated costs in establishing and implementing local planning policy; AND WHEREAS there is growing concern from municipalities and citizens that the decisions of the Ontario Municipal Board are eroding local planning authority; AND WHEREAS there have been numerous Council Resolutions, municipal reports and reports from planning professionals and academics advocating reform of the Ontario Municipal Board; AND WHEREAS the GTA Task Force on OMB Reform, an informed group of municipal representatives and staff, after study and consultation, made practical recommendations for improvements to the planning appeal process; AND WHEREAS the Ontario Government has indicated their intention to introduce legislation enacting significant reforms to the OMB and the planning appeal process in the Fall 2005 session of the Legislature, NOW THEREFORE BE :IT RESOLVED THAT the Council of the endorses the recommendations of the Report of the GTA Task Force on OMB Reform dated March 7, 2003 and urges the Province to enact OMB reforms by the end of 2005, AND FURTHER BE ~ RESOLVED THAT this resolution be circulated to, the Attorney General, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, local MPPs and the Chair of the GTA Task Force on OMB Reform. 024 Report of the GTA TASK FORCE ON OIVlB REFORM Recommendations for Reforming the Ontario Municipal Board and Ontario's Planning Appeal Process March 7, 2003 GTA TASK i~ORCE ON OMB REFORIVl 025 SUB.1ECT: Recommendations for Reforming the Ontario Municipal Board and Ontario's Planning Appeal Process REPORT: PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to recommend reforms to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) and the related land use planning appeal process, and to seek endorsement of these recommendations by the local and regional governments within the Greater Toronto Area. The Task Force will then forward the endorsed recommendations to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Attorney General and others who may be in a position to implement or influence those reforms. BACKGROUND Originally created as the Office of the Provincial Municipal Auditor in 1897 to supervise account keeping by municipalities, the Ontario Railway and Municipal Board was formed in 1906 with an added responsibility for railways. Renamed the Ontario Municipal Board in 1932, its powers have expanded greatly over time and the Board now obtains its jurisdiction from more than 100 statutes. This report is concerned with its jurisdiction under the Planning Act. The Board was created to arbitrate municipal issues in a predominantly rural society where municipal government was small and unsophisticated. After World War [T, Ontario's population became increasingly urban, planning departments began to emerge in Ontario cities and towns, and land use planning legislation began to be enacted provincially. At the dawn of the 21st century, Southern Ontario, in particular, is primarily an urban culture with rapid development in and around its major cities. Municipalities now possess considerable planning expertise. Since 1995, the Province has downloaded most land use planning responsibilities to the municipal level of government. The new I~lunicipalAct, 200i recognizes municipalities as an order of government. While the OMB has undergone some administrative changes over the years and recent procedural improvements, its role and mandate have not been significantly altered in response to the increasing maturity of the municipal planning role and process. 026 GTA TASK FORCE ON OMB REFORIVl FORMATION OF TASK FORCE Many Ontario municipalities have expressed growing frustration with the planning appeal process administered by the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). They feel it undermines their planning authority and is a drain on their financial and staff resources. Tn June 2002, Durham Regional Council discussed and endorsed a City of Mississauga resolution citing difficulties experienced by municipalities in relation to the OMB. Durham Council further directed the Regional Chair, Roger Anderson, to convene a meeting of Greater Toronto area (GTA) officials to see if, jointly, such a group could formulate and agree upon recommendations for reform of the OMB appeal process. On September 16, 2002, a group comprising GTA and Hamilton elected officials and municipal staff met at the Region of Durham Council Chamber. A possible course of action to stimulate meaningful reform of the OMB appeal process was discussed and the group agreed to work as a Task Force to pursue this objective. Attachment 1 lists the Task Force Members. The Terms of Reference adopted by the Task Force are provided as Attachment 2. The objective was to prepare a report to the Attorney General and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing recommending reforms that would address the key issues that municipalities face in the planning appeal process. Task Force members saw it as essential to engage stakeholders in their review process, to look at the appeal mechanisms used in other jurisdictions and, with a Provincial election approaching, to hear the position of each provincial party with respect to the OMB mandate and function. The Task Force invited a variety of stakeholders in the planning process to present their views. Representatives of each of the three provincial political parties were invited to present their party's perspective. The Ontario Municipal Board was also invited to provide information about the appeal process and any planned changes. The Task Force also hoped to generate some media interest in the process so that the broader community would become aware of the issues and the work underway. CONSULTAT]'ON PROCESS Based on suggestions from members of the Task Force, sixteen stakeholder groups and knowledgeable individuals including academics, ratepayer groups, government agencies and the development industry were invited to appear before the Task Force to present their recommendations for changes to the OMB appeal process. Three consultation dates were offered during December 2002 and January 2003. Nine representatives appeared before the Task Force (see Attachment 3). Of the groups invited, only 2 did not respond. Some stakeholders were unable to attend as they were involved with cases before the Board or because their schedule did not allow it. The Ontario Professional Planners Tnstitute (OPPI) felt that their February 2002 paper fully explained their position. GTA TASK FORCE ON OA'IB REFORIVl 027 In addition to the stakeholder groups, representatives of the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party spoke to the Task Force on Feb. 3, 2003, to explain the kinds of changes they envisioned making to the OMB or the planning process, if elected. The Chair of the OMB made a presentation on changes and improvements to the appeal process that had been made, were underway or were being considered by the OMB itself. He provided copies of their Code of Conduct, recently revised forms and some caseload statistics. Each group or individual that appeared before the Task Force was asked to make a short presentation and then respond to questions from Task Force IVlembers. This was an extremely informative process and covered a full spectrum of views on the OMB, from those who felt that very little or no change to the appeal process was needed, to those who felt it was beyond fixing and should be abolished. Various municipal resolutions calling for reform of the OIVlB had been passed on to the Task Force by its members and by the Durham Regional Clerk's Office. Several reports on the OMB from municipalities, planning professional groups and academics were also brought to the attention of the Task Force. These also represented quite a broad range of perspectives. Some focussed on procedural adjustments while others advocated radical reforms. The Task Force reviewed the notes and materials from all the presentations, the municipal motions and the various reports and extracted, grouped and summarized the recommendations contained in them. See Attachment 4, Summary of Consultation and Submission Recommendations. PLANNING APPEAL PRACTICES IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS Task Force research showed that the nature of appeal boards, both provincial and local, and the extent of their authority on land use planning appeals vary significantly from province to province. Each province has taken a different approach to planning appeals based upon what was decided, who made the decision, and how the decision was made. All provinces, with the exception of British Columbia and Quebec, have provincial boards that have jurisdiction to hear appeals of land use planning decisions made (or not made) by municipal councils, local or regional planning authorities, committees or boards. Generally, the range of planning instruments over which provincial boards have jurisdiction is limited. No provincial board in Canada has jurisdiction over planning- related matters as extensive as that of the Ontario Municipal Board. 3 028 GTA TASK FORCE ON OI¥1B REFORIVl In most provinces, provincial boards do not have appellate jurisdiction over official plans. The appellate jurisdiction of provincial boards with respect to other planning approvals varies from province to province. Generally, zoning by-laws cannot be appealed to provincial boards, but planning controls that affect the details of development proposals (for example, development permits and minor variances) can be appealed. Some provinces have local boards that hear appeals. However, to the extent that they have appellate jurisdiction, these local boards typically only review decisions of administrative officials. Every province has statutorily codified processes that provide for property owners and other interested parties to have a full and fair opportunity to present their views to the original decision-maker and/or an appeal board on planning-related matters. Where the provinces differ is in their views as to whether appeals to a provincial board and/or a local board are necessary to ensure that the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness are respected in the decision-making process. In provinces where appeals of certain municipal decisions are not allowed (for example, official plans and zoning bylaws in British Columbia and Alberta), the legislation sets out stringent procedural requirements. In these situations, a hearing before an appeal board is not seen as required to ensure that the process is fair. For those limited matters in respect of which provincial boards have appellate jurisdiction, the legislation typically provides for de novo hearingsz. ISSUES IDENTIFICATION The following key issues were identified as a result of the consultation and research: Role and Jurisdiction of the Board · The OMB: * can overrule or support decisions of elected councils · is not accountable to the electorate · often makes decisions that undermine local Official Plans created through considerable public consultation · 'deals with much more than Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) issues and approval of Official Plans ~ "de novo" headng: According to the Guide to the Ontario Municipal Board, p.9, a hearing before the OMB is "usually a new presentation of the issues. This means that the Member(s) look at each application or appeal from the beginning as if no decision had ever been made by a previous tribunal such as a municipal council, a committee of adjustment, land division committee or the Assessment Review Board (therefore you must prove your case again). The Board can make any decisions that the earlier tribunal could have made and the decision may be different". 4 GTA TASK FORCE ON OMB REFORM 029 · No other Canadian jurisdiction has an appeal body with a similar scope of planning appeal powers · Guidelines & limits on the OMB mandate are unclear. Procedural Complaints · 90 day appeal period is perceived as an unrealistic processing timeframe for municipalities · Hearing is not a true appeal or review, but a de novo hearing · Pre-hearing process and mediation often are not used. Barriers to Public Participation · OMB procedures are complex, legalistic and are perceived as a barrier to public participation · 90 day appeal provision can circumvent local planning process and may limit opportunity for public input · Citizen input is given less weight as evidence than professional opinion · Cost, time requirements are a barrier to public participation Cost of Municipal/Agency Participation · Deters municipal participation · Potential of costly OMB hearing affects local planning decisions · Diverts scarce municipal/agency resources from other planning needs and local expenditure priorities · Municipalities are forced to spend large sums if they are to defend local planning decisions Credibility/Impartiality of OMB · Appointment process, length of tenure could be revised to enhance the Board's independence · There is no transparent process for evaluating the performance of the OMB or its members Strength of the Planning Policy Framework · Planning Act could give the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) more weight · Provincial Policy Statements are vague in some respects · Local planning process/Official Plans could be given more weight Value Added by the OMB Process · No evidence to demonstrate that decisions of the Board are better planning decisions than those made at the municipal level · OMB perceived as being less open to innovative planning than it is to more traditional planning · Little evidence to show that the OMB is successful in taking into account cumulative impacts of discrete planning decisions. 030 GTA TASK i:ORCE ON ONIB REFORM ANALYS~S Two basic principles seemed to be at the heart of the issues discussed by stakeholders and form the basis for the Task Force's recommendations: Planning decisions of democratically elected Municipal Councils should not be replaced by the decision of a Provincially appointed body unless there is demonstrable evidence of error or impropriety on the part of the Council. Property rights are important and aggrieved parties should be entitled to some relief and remedy when a Municipal Council acts improperly, arbitrarily or outside of its jurisdiction. :In balancing these two guiding principles, the Task Force rejected the option of advocating the abolition of the Ontario Municipal Board. While abolition would clearly recognize the authority of elected Municipal Councils, it may not adequately provide for the rights and remedies of aggrieved parties. While the courts could play this role, the Task Force felt that the Ontario Municipal Board does possess helpful qualifications and experience with respect to municipal planning matters. These could not be easily duplicated and replaced by the Courts. Some stakeholders viewed the courts as a potentially more expensive and less inclusive mechanism for appeal. The Task Force believes that the current system of OMB planning appeals does not give adequate deference to the process that municipalities go through in developing their Official Plans, Changes should be made to the planning system that support and validate the plans and decisions generated through the municipal planning process, Therefore, in formulating its recommendations, the Task Force focused on what they felt were the primary flaws of the present system and the reforms that would most effectively address the issues identified in the research and consultation process. The Task Force anticipates that its recommendations would work best in conjunction with a stronger, clearer Provincial Policy Statement that should result from the PPS review currently underway. RECOMMENDATIONS The Task Force recommendations focus on four key areas of improvement: 1. Update the role of the Ontario Municipal Board 2. Enable timely municipal decisions based on complete information 3. Support citizen participation through intervenor funding 4. Promote an independent and fair tribunal. GTA TASK FORCE ON OMB REFORIVl 031 The Task Force believes that these improvements are achievable with the changes proposed. 1. Update the Role of the OMB Municipalities have grown and matured since the OMB was created. Provincial planning legislation and policy have also matured and support a rigorous public process for the development of municipal planning instruments such as Official Plans. The new MunicipalAct recognizes municipalities as an order of government. The Province has delegated approvals of local Official Plans to single and upper tier municipalities; The role and mandate of the OMB should be updated to recognize and respond to these changes. The Board should provide a true appeal or review mechanism as a last resort for dealing with faulty decisions, rather than substituting themselves as the planning decision-maker. Provincial legislation gives the primary responsibility for land use planning within a community to the municipal government. The Planning Act sets out a detailed procedure that municipalities are expected to follow in discharging that responsibility. A municipality is, and should be, required to go through a full, complete and open public process to establish or amend its Official Plan, zoning regulations and other planning instruments. Having gone through that mandated process, the municipality's decisions should be final and binding unless it can be demonstrated that a significant error or impropriety has taken place. The onus of demonstrating the error or impropriety should be placed on the complaining party. However, under the present system, appeals result in hearings de novo that effectively void the municipal planning process and decision, and allow the Board to substitute its own process and decision. The Task Force believes that an applicant's rights of appeal should arise only where a Municipal Council makes a clearly improper or unreasonable decision or deprives the parties of their rights to natural justice. Recommendation: The Task Force strongly recommends that the OMB process should be a review or true appeal of the municipal planning decision and not an automatic hearing de novo. To achieve this, the Task Force recommends that a two stage process be adopted. At the first stage, the Board would review the planning process and the complaint and determine whether leave to appeal should be granted. Leave to appeal would be granted only if the objecting party establishes to the Board's satisfaction that the Council has acted unreasonably. To make this determination, the Task Force suggests that Board could apply a test such as the following: 7 032 GTA TASK FORCE ON OMB REFORM That no reasonable Council, applying sound planning principles and acting in good faith, could have made the same decision or have failed to make a decision. Only if the Board finds that the Municipal Council demonstrably failed to act reasonably could an appeal proceed to the second stage, a hearing de novo. This screening process should greatly reduce the number of appeals by granting proper deference to the municipal planning process and requiring an appellant to demonstrate a substantial error as the basis for appeal. A de novo hearing should become an exception, reducing costs to all parties and providing for a more timely resolution of planning matters. 2. Enable Timely Municipal Decisions Based on Complete Information Most submissions to the Task Force highlighted difficulties related to the 90 day appeal provision in the Planning Act. This provision allows an applicant to launch an OMB appeal 90 days after submitting an application, if the municipality has not yet rendered a decision. Stakeholders cited numerous cases where the studies to support a proper planning decision could not possibly be completed in 90 days (e.g. a four-season environmental impact study) or where an applicant provided required studies only a few days before the 90 day deadline. These situations made it impossible for the municipalities or other commenting agencies to review the information before the deadline. Resources have to be diverted from normal business to hastily review last minute submissions. Only the Urban Development Institute and the Greater Toronto Homebuilders were satisfied with the present 90 day rule and felt that abuse of the rule was rare. :If a duly elected Council has the primary responsibility and authority to render well- considered planning decisions for its community, that Council must have sufficient time and reliable information to make such decisions. Based on the consultations, the Task Force believes that the 90 day appeal provision presents a major problem in this regard. A fundamental problem is the present definition of a "complete" application in the Planning Act and regulations. Currently, an applicant need only submit a planning application form and cheque for the application fee to "start the 90 day clock ticking". This definition of "completeness" fails to recognize that an applicant should provide necessary studies and information related to their application in a timely way, to permit municipalities to render an informed planning decision. Before removing the municipality from the decision-making process and substituting the Board, the municipality should be given a reasonable opportunity to make an informed decision. Based on statistics presented by David Johnson, Chair of the OMB, 75% of appeals are not referred in any case until 150 days after municipal receipt of the 033 GTA TASK FORCE ON OIVlB REFORI~I application. The Task Force believes it is sensible that an appeal period should not commence until a truly complete application is in the hands of the municipality. Where an application is submitted with all the information needed to make a decision, municipalities would be able to render a properly considered planning decision within 150 days on most applications. Straight-forward applications may be dealt with more quickly. There will also be complex applications that require a municipal review period of more than 150 days due to the need for extensive public consultation, multi-season studies or peer review of studies. The Province has seen fit to vest municipalities with land use planning responsibilities. Thus, the starting assumption for the planning appeal system should be that elected Municipal Councils can be trusted to properly fulfill legislative requirements, to act in good faith and to make timely, well-considered planning decisions. Re¢ommendation$: Therefore the Task Force recommends the following: Amend the Planning Act to create a definition of "complete application" that includes information and documentation required by a municipality to properly process the application and make an informed decision. The information required to constitute a complete application will include 1) any requirements of general application contained in municipal planning documents (e.g. Official Plan) and 2) any other information reasonably required to make a sound planning decision on that specific application. A municipality could reject an incomplete application. Amend the Planning Act to mandate pre-consultation between the municipality and the applicant on all Official Plan amendment applications. Municipalities should provide written confirmation of the information requirements to the applicant within a specified time after the pre- consultation. Amend the Planning Act to provide that a dispute, in regard to the information required in order to constitute a complete application, could be brought to the Board or arbitrated at any time. Give the OIVlB the jurisdiction and direction to stay any appeal process, including a request for leave to appeal, if it determines that any information required to make a decision has not been made available to the municipality or that the municipality has not had sufficient time to consider such necessary information, 9 O34 GTA TASK FORCE ON OIVlB REFORM Establish a time period of :L50 days from receipt of a complete application for municipal review and processing of an application. Only after :L50 days could leave to appeal a lack of decision be obtained by convincing the Board that the lack of decision is unreasonable (see the test for "reasonableness" proposed on page 8). 3. Support Citizen Participation - JTntervenor Fundinq All of the stakeholders who presented to the Task Force commented on the obstacles faced by ordinary citizens in participating in the OMB process. Expense, time commitment and legal complexity were repeatedly cited as barriers to citizen participation in the OMB process. Citizen groups often cannot effectively present and defend a public interest at an OMB hearing without legal representation and expert evidence. The 90 day appeal provision was seen as a means for developers to circumvent public participation. The frequent shift of a hearing into a negotiation of settlement was also noted as sometimes eliminating the public voice from the proceedings. The Task Force feels that public and third party participation in the OMB hearing process, especially on complex Official Plan and zoning matters, is no longer possible without expert assistance. Creating an intervenor funding mechanism may be the only way to ensure that citizens groups are able to participate on a level playing field with other parties in a de novo hearing. However the Task Force believes the best way to support public participation in planning matters is to make full use of the municipal planning process. That process includes both informal and structured opportunities for public involvement and is geared toward gathering citizen input into such things as Official Plans, secondary plans and zoning changes. Participation is inexpensive for citizens and does not require special expertise. This aspect of the planning process should be made as effective as possible to ensure that balanced plans and good decisions are made at the local level. Public participation should be supported and validated by an OMB process that affords an appropriate respect and deference to the plans developed and decisions made utilizing this public input. If municipal planning decisions are shown greater deference in the OMB appeal process, as suggested in the previous recommendations, and de novo hearings become the exception instead of the rule, the need for intervenor funding as a means to ensure public participation should be significantly reduced. lO GTA TASK FORCE ON ONIB REFORIVl 035 Recommendation: The Task Force recommends that the Province establish a program to fund 3rd party public participation in OMB de novo hearings with clear criteria defining eligibility. To qualify for funding a citizen's group should: · be incorporated or appropriately organized to take on the rights and responsibilities of participating in an OMB proceeding · have participated in the local planning process · have the ability to raise a portion of the funds required for the appeal process. ~[n addition, to qualify for funding, the case in which the group wishes to participate should involve issues of broad public or provincial interest (e.g. protection of environment, affordable housing or farmland). The province should allocate an amount annually to support intervenor funding, possibly supplemented with a small surcharge on development applications, and set a cap on the amount available to a single group. The government may wish to specify how funding could be used (e.g. to retain legal counsel). 4. Promote an Independent and Fair Tribunal The Task Force feels that generally the OMB members are well qualified and discharge their duty effectively. While statistics presented to the Task Force do not support the notion that the OMB is "a captured agency" in terms of its decisions, there is definitely a public perception that the Board and the appeal process, as currently structured, favour developers. Recommendation: The Task Force believes that several changes could be made to enhance both the reality and the perception of the Board as an impartial and fair arbiter. Tt is therefore recommended that: · The term of appointment be increased to 6 years · A job description, outlining the qualifications and expertise required of Board Members, be developed and used in the selection process · An open process be adopted for soliciting qualified applicants · A non-partisan, multi-stakeholder screening committee be created to interview and recommend to Cabinet candidates for appointment or reappointment · A more open performance evaluation process for Board Members be implemented. 11 036 GTA TASK FORCE ON OMB REFORIVl If the all the Task Force recommendations are implemented, the Province may find that fewer Board members are needed as the incidence of appeals and hearings should be significantly reduced. CONCLUSION In summary, the Task Force feels that if implemented, the recommendations above will substantially address the criticism of the current planning appeal process that was documented in our consultations. By updating the role of the OMB to make it primarily a review body, with a specific standard of review to guide it, the number of hearings should be significantly reduced, lowering the costs for all parties. The continued availability of a de novo hearing in the case of egregious error offers an incentive for municipalities to make sure they conduct themselves properly in planning matters. It also offers applicants and appellants recourse if a serious mistake occurs. However, the starting assumption must be that IVlunic'ipal Councils properly fulfill their legislated duty and responsibility to make good planning decisions for their communities. Official Plans and zoning bylaws are a result of the community input process mandated in the Planning Act. The OMB must not intervene to assume decision-making authority unless such intervention is demonstrably justifiable. This is essential to build citizen confidence in the process and will provide greater certainty for the development industry. If every planning decision of a Municipal Council can be challenged, then that confidence and certainty does not exist. The planning process loses credibility and the Municipal Council is considered ineffectual on planning matters. Municipal Councils must also live up to their plans in order to provide this certainty. Without the palpable threat of a full OMB hearing hovering over each planning decision, a Council's resolve to stand by their plan should be enhanced. With the system proposed, where a mistake is the basis for an appeal, municipalities will have added incentive to make sure their process is solid, that public input is widely sought and well reflected in their reports and decisions. This public input will be acquired in a setting which is much more informal and accessible than an OMB hearing. The "justified appeal" process recommended by the Task Force gives greater weight to both the local planning process and the public input that are part of that process. Documentation of both would be examined during the review stage of the two step process the Task Force has proposed. By reducing the incidence of appeals, costs should be reduced for all parties. Providing intervenor funding for exceptional cases that do warrant the full hearing de novo, due to some grave error, would ensure that effective participation by citizens in the more complex process can occur. 12 037 GTA TASK FORCE ON OMB REFORIVl While the OMB may never enjoy public popularity, its credibility as an impartial arbiter on important issues rests in part on a public perception of fairness and independence. The current 3 year terms for Board members, the political appointment process, a real or imagined association with a business-oriented government and the barriers to citizen participation have somewhat tarnished the public reputation of the Board. Revisions to the selection, appointment and tenure of Board members, as well as regular performance evaluation, would help considerably in achieving both the factual and perceptual independence critical for a quasi-judicial body. Various stakeholders expressed the desire for greater clarity and direction from the Province within planning legislation and the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). The Task Force agreed that the vagueness of the current PPS and the "have regard for" provision of the Planning Act are problematic. A key theme of.lohn Chipman's study2 of the OMB is that the Board developed and applied its own planning policy in the absence of clear provincial policy direction. Clearer provincial policy should strongly support municipal Official Plans and the municipal role in delivering land use planning at the local level. Since a review of the Provincial Policy Statement is currently underway and munidpalities have been active participants in that process, the Task Force decided to confine its recommendations to the planning appeal process. However the Task Force encourages the Province to expeditiously resolve these broader planning framework issues through the PPS review process. The GTA Task Force on OIVlB Reform has developed these recommendations with the objectives of resolving some specific issues and improving the planning appeal process for all involved. We hope our municipal colleagues will see fit to endorse these recommendations and that the Province will act upon them. 2 Chipman, John G. 2002. A Law Unto Itself Toronto:The Institute of Public Administration of Canada, University of Toronto Press. 13 9318 ATTACHMENT I GTATAsK FORCE ON OMB REFORM Membership List Cha/r.' Roger Anderson Chair, Region of Durham Members: Andrew Allison Senior Solicitor Region of Durham William F. Bell Mayor Town of Richmond Hill Frank D'Amico Councillor City of Hamilton Kevin Daniel Flynn Regional Councillor Ward 1 - Oakville Region of Halton Alex Georgieff Commissioner of Planning Region of Durham Mark Holland City/Regional Councillor City of Pickering Paul Mallard Manager, Development Planning Planning & Development Department City of Hamilton Howard Moscoe Councillor City of Toronto Gary Muller Senior Planner Planning & Development Town of Ajax Ann Mulvale Mayor Town of Oakville (alternate) Patrick O'Connor Director of Legal Services Region of Peel Steve Parish Mayor Town of Ajax Arvin Prasad Director of Planning Policy and Research Planning Department Region of Peel Don Sinclair Director, Development Law Corporate & Legal Services Department Region of York Nancy L. Smith Assistant Corporate Counsel City of Hamilton 14 039 GTA TASK I~ORCE ON OI~IB REFORIVl Staff Technical Support: Debi Bently Deputy Clerk Clerk's Department Region of Durham Stan Floras Assistant Corporate Counsel Legal Services Region of Halton Jody Wellings Manager of Current Planning Planning & Transportation Services Region of Halton Christine Drimmie Policy & Research Advisor Regional Chair & CAO's Office Region of Durham Lino Trombino Planner Planning Department Region of Durham Kai Yew Manager, Plan Implementation Planning Department Region of Durham 15 O4O GTA TASK FORCE ON OMB REFORM GTA TASK FORCE ON OPlB REFORt4 Terms of Reference (Revised @20020916) ATTACHt4ENT 2 In response to a motion from the City of Mississauga, the Region of Durham Council hstructed Chair Roger Anderson to invite GTA municipalities to form a task force on the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). OBJECTIVE The purpose of the task force is to review the mandate, purpose and function of the OMB, the OMB appeal process and related matters and make recommendations for its reform to the local and regional governments within the 905/705/416 areas and Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Attorney General. DELIVERABLE Report on Recommendations for Reform of the Ontario Municipal Board, endorsed by GTA Municipal Councils. R ESOUR CE COMMITMENT 'lime of Councillors and staff to attend several meetings; to research, read, review materials, prepare comments and suggestions; undertake tasks as assigned including consultations with invited stakeholders, research or writing; Council review of the resulting report. OPERATING PRINCIPLES FOR TASK FORCE · Members of the Task Force are asked to participate as equals, based on their expertise with OMB issues, not as representatives of thef municipality. · Decision-making will be based on consensus. · Task Force minutes will be recorded and distributed by staff of the Clerk's Department, Region of Durham. · Meetings to be open to public. REPORTING Members of the Task Force will be responsible for making information on the activities of the Task Force available to their respective Councils. APPROVAL PROCESS & DISTRIBUTION Final report will be sent to Councils in the GTA for their endorsement. Councils are asked to send notice of their endorsement to the Task Force. The Task Force will then submit the endorsed report to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Attorney General, the Opposition parties and AMO. Copies of the report could also be sent to the Red Tape Commission and the Central Ontario Smart Growth Panel. EVALUATION OF PROGRESS AND ZI~IPACT OF FINAL PRODUCT · Check at the end of each meeting that the tasks are on target. · Monitor changes to OMB legislation, Planning Act etc. that reflect the suggestions of the Task Force. Follow up with Ministers. 16 GTA TASK FORCE ON OfilB REFORIVl 041 ATTACHHENT 3 Stakeholders and Sources consulted by the Task Force in the preparation of this report: MUNICIPAL RESOLUTIONS AND REPORTS RECEIVED BY TASK FORCE Aurora- Sept. 24, 2002 Burlington - Mar. 18, 2002 Caledon - Sept. 21, 2001 Durham Region- June 19, 2002 Halton Hills - Oct. 2001 Halton Region- June 19, 2002 Mississauga - May 8, 2002 Oakville- April 2, 2002 Oshawa -Sept. 9, 2002 Ottawa - June 26, 2002 Peel Region- Aug. 8, 2002 Pickering - Feb. 4, 2002 Toronto- May 23, 2002 Whitchurch-Stouffville - Oct. 15, 2002 STAKEHOLDER PRESENTATIONS TO GTA TASK FORCE: Dr. John Chipman - Jan. 20, 2003 Greater Toronto Homebuilders Association - Jan. 20, 2003 Joshua Creek Ratepayers Association Inc. - Jan. 13, 2003 New Democratic Party (Ontario), Michael Prue - Feb. 3, 2003 Oakvillegreen - Jan. 13, 2003 Ontario Liberal Party, David Caplan - Feb. 3, 2003 Ontario Municipal Board, Chair, David Johnson - Feb. 3, 2003 Pickering East Shore Community Association - Jan. 20, 2003 John Sewell- Jan. 13, 2003 Toronto Region Conservation Authority - Jan. 20, 2003 Urban Development Institute (Ontario and Peel Chapter) - Jan. 20, 2003 0 THER R EPOR TS CONSUL TED: Greater Toronto Services Board, Countryside and Environment Working Group - Oct.5, 2001 Ontario Association of Chief Planning Officials (OACPO) - 1999 report to OMB Ontario Professional Planners Institute Report and Recommendations- Feb. 25, 2002 Chipman, John G. 2002. A Law Unto Itself Toronto: The Institute of Public Administration of Canada, University of Toronto Press Joint Recommendations - Ontario Municipal Board Process and Procedures- AMO,OPPI, Toronto Board of Trade, GTHBA, UDI, Feb. 20, 2003 Ontario Municipal Board Annual Report 1998-2000 OMB - Your Guide to the Ontario Municipal Board - Dec.2000 17 04 O45 047 04.~ Response to Request for Endorsement of Report of GTA Task Force on OMB Reform : : to their : # ReSpOnse council/Board : City of Hamilton x March 26, 2003 Report #7.2 Corporate Services, Legal Services City of Toronto x .luly 22, 23 & 24, Ref: #2003-:L0-.1(35) 2003 City of Kawartha x April 15, 2003 Lakes City of Barrie x .lune 16, 2003 Res. #03-G-348 Durham RegiOn x MarCh 26; 2003 Report #2003:P~35 Ajax x March 24, 2003 Brock Twp x Clarington September :1.5, 2003 Rec. #GPA-335-03 Report # PSD-098-03 Oshawa April 28, 2003 Report #DS-03-120 Pickering x April 7, 2003 Res. #46/03 Scugog Twp x Uxbridge Twp x Whitby x .luly :L4, 2003 Planning Director's Report :Item #118-03 Halton Region x Apri :L6~ 2003 ePort #~,23, 03/pPW55=03 Burlington x April 28, 2003 Report #L-8/03, CD-57-03-1, Legal Department CD-57-03-2, CD-57-03-3 Halton Hills x March 31, 2003 Milton x April 28, 2003 Rec. #A/P 69-03 Staff Report #PD 15- 03 Oakville x April 28, 2003 peel Region x MaY 29,2003 -2- Municipality Endorsed Date of Report #/ ' No Recommendation Recommendation response to their # Council/Board Peel Region con'td Brampton x Caledon X Mississauga May 14, 2003 Res. #0098-2003 York May 22, 2003 Report #5 of the planning & Econ. . Dev. Committee Aurora x East Gwillimbury x .lune 16, 2003 Planning Report #2003-35 Georgina x King Twp x Markham x Newmarket x Richmond Hill x April 14, 2003 Rec. C#12-03 Vaughan x Whitchurch - x Stouffville Lake Simcoe x April 25, 2003 Rec. #BOD-64-03 Region CA Staff Report 25-03- BOD CLOCA x April 15, 2003 Report #4375-03 Conservation x September 25, 2003 Staff Report #RP/WlVl Halton 04-03-04 Updated October 7, 2005 Report No. 14 of the Executive Committee Held on October 24, 2005 EC 2005-14 'That the Executive Committee of the City of Pickering hereby presents its fourteenth Report to Council: (1) Director, Planning & Development, Report PD 42-05 Disposal of Lands Part of Lot 5, RCP No. 819, Pickering Part 2, Plan 40R-21838 Helm Street, Pickerin,q 1. That a by-law be enacted to: (a) stop-up and close that part of Lot 5, RCP No. 819, Pickering, being Part 2, Plan 40R-21838 as public highway; and (b) declare that part of Lot 5, RCP No. 819, Pickering, being Part 2, Plan 40R- 21838 surplus to the needs of the Corporation for the purpose of sale by the Corporation; and (c) authorize the Mayor, City Clerk, Director, Planning & Development and the City Solicitor to obtain all relevant documentation and execute all documentation required to effect the sale of that part of Lot 5, RCP No. 819, Pickering, being Part 2, Plan 40R-21838 to the adjacent owner for nominal consideration, subject to any required easements. (2) Director, Planning & Development, Report PD 43-05 Street Name Change Old Brock Road to Jenash Court That the request of Ronald Hinchliffe to change the name of a portion of Old Brock Road to Jenash Court, be denied. (3) Chief Administrative Office, Report CAO 12-05 Public Alerting - Installation of Sirens and Related Matters 1. That Report CAO 12-05, concerning the installation of public alerting sirens and related matters be received; and Report No. 14 of the Executive Committee Held on October 24, 2005 EC 2005-14 053 o o That the Commission of Emergency Management Ontario and the Region of Durham be advised that the City agrees with the Commissioner's proposal to have four sirens installed in the Pickering Contiguous Zone and to conduct an evaluation of their effectiveness as outlined in the Commissioner's letter to Mayor Ryan dated September 13, 2005; and That the Region of Durham be requested to commence the process of installing the four siren design in the Pickering Contiguous Zone, as recommended by DPRNAercoustics, including detailed survey work, and that staff be authorized to grant municipal consent where required; and That the Province be requested to deal with the remaining nuclear public alerting issues (i.e. indoor public alerting and alerting within the 3-10 km area) only in the context of a comprehensive, community-wide public alerting system that addresses all types of potential community emergencies, and that staff be directed to work on this basis only with the Province and the Region on these issues; and That staff be authorized to request reimbursement from the Province and/or the Ontario Power Generation for the DPRNAercoustics re-design consulting costs that the City incurred; and That a copy of this Report and Resolutions be forwarded to the Province of Ontario, Region of Durham, M.P. Dan McTeague, M.P. Mark Holland, M.P.P. Wayne Arthurs and the Ontario Power Generation. (4) Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, Report CS 80-05 Appointment to enforce the Parking By-law at 1355 Kingston Road and 1822 Whites Road That Report CS 80-05 respecting the appointment of Special Municipal Law Enforcement Officers for the purpose of enforcing the Parking By-law on private property be received; and That the draft by-law to appoint persons to enforce the Parking By-law at 1355 Kingston Road and 1822 Whites Road, be forwarded to Council for approval; and 3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions to give effect thereto. 054 PICKERING REPORT TO COUNCIL Report Number: CS 77-05 Date: November 7, 2005 From: Debi A. Bentley, CMO, CMM III City Clerk Subject: Proposed Increase to Taxicab Fares - File: L-2330 Recommendation: 1. That Report CS 77-05 of the City Clerk be received; and, That By-law 2206/86, be amended to provide for an increase to taxicab fares effective November 15, 2005 as noted within this report and outlined as Attachment #1. Executive Summary: The current taxicab tariff rates were set in February 2001. Due to the large increases in operating costs such as fuel and insurance, a recommendation is being made to increase the fares for hiring a taxicab. Financial Implications: n/a Background: The City of Pickering Taxicab Advisory Committee has received many requests for the increase of taxicab fares. There have been substantial increases to operating costs in recent months, reducing the already limited income earned by taxicab drivers. A comparison of other municipalities' tariffs is outlined below. It should be noted that several of the municipalities surveyed are presently reviewing their taxicab fares. Municipality Drop Fee Additional fare 1 km Total 5 km Total Pickering $2.45 $0.13/each additional 1/10 km $3.75 $8.95 Whitby $2.50 $1.50 / kilometer $4.00 $10.00 (under review) Richmond Hill $3.00 $0.25/each 200 m $4.00 $9.00 Markham $2.75 $0.25/each 190 m $3.82 $9.08 Ajax $2.50 $0.10/each 1/15 km (67 m) $4.00 $10.00 Oshawa $2.50 $0.35/each 230 m $3.67 $9.75 Report CS 77-05 Subject: Proposed Increase to Taxicab Fares Date: November 7, 2005 Page 2 The primary increase in operating costs is due to a large increase in the price of gasoline. In 2001, the price of gasoline averaged 67.3 cents per liter over a twelve month period. Current gasoline prices average $1.149 per litre. This is an increase of over 50 per cent. Insurance costs have also increased dramatically since 2001. In 2001, the average cost for an independent owner to insure a taxicab for one year was $1,800. Independent insurance rates for 2005 range from $3,300 to $4,000.00. Drivers leasing plates through brokerages are paying $4,080.00 per year under fleet insurance. The increase in fees over the four year period is almost 100%. Drivers have been notified to expect a further 22% increase for 2006. Proposed change: Drop Fee Additional fare 1 km Total 5 km Total Present fare $2.45 $0.13/each 1/10 km $3.75 $8.95 Recommended $2.75 $1.80 / kilometer $4.45 $11.65 Increase ($0.18 each 1/10 km) The proposed increase represents an 18.6 per cent increase in a one kilometer taxicab fare. A five kilometer trip would increase by 30.1 per cent. The recommended fee increase has been reviewed by the Taxicab Advisory Committee and has received its support. It is also the recommendation of the committee that the Taxicab Advisory Committee review taxicab fares annually and report back to Council on recommended fare adjustments due to economic factors. Approval of this proposed fare increase will be communicated to the public through Community Page advertisements, hand outs to passengers regarding the impending fare increase and new tariff cards. Attachments: 1. Revised Schedule "B" to By-law 2206/86 CORP0227-07/01 f Sn Report CS 77-05 Subject: Proposed Increase to Taxicab Fares Date: November 7, 2005 Page 3 Prepared By: Manager, By-law Enforcement Services Approved / Endorsed By: Debi A.~entley, C~'O, CMMIII -~.. City Clerk Copy: Chief Administrative Officer .~llls Pj3f~ rso n, J/ / Directbr, Corporate Services & T asurer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering Ci~ Council The~a~ J. Quint, Chi~.~dmin "ative Offid'er / CORP0227-07/01 057' BY-LAW NUMBER 6595/05 SCHEDULE "B" TARIFF OF RATES AND FARES A. FARES For the first one-tenth kilometre or part thereof $2.75 For each additional one-tenth kilometre or part thereof $0.18 For waiting time while under engagement, per minute $0.40 (incl. GST) (incl. GST) (incl. GST) B. RATES For each passenger in excess of four $0.25 For each trunk exceeding 0.1 cubic meters $0.60 For each piece of luggage not carried inside the taxicab $0.15 C. NOTES Maximum total charge under B. 1, 2 and 3 shall not exceed $0.60 for any trip No rate is chargeable for the carriage of a wheelchair accompanying a handicapped person. O58 PICKERING REPORT TO COUNCIL Report Number: CO 04-05 Date: November 1, 2005 From: Regional Councillor Maurice Brenner Chair, Benchmarking Sustainability Standards Committee Subject: Establishment of Benchmarking Standards for Sustainability Recommendation: That Council receive Report CO 04-05 regarding Benchmarking Standards for Sustainability. That Council approve the process outlined in the attached report submitted by the Benchmarking Sustainability Standards Committee (see Attachment 1), and that the Benchmarking Sustainability Standards Committee be authorized to continue to work on this project. That the Benchmarking Sustainability Standards Committee be authorized to retain Jack McGinnis of the RDC Group to act as the City's consultant and facilitator with respect to the attached process at a cost not to exceed $10,000 in 2005 and $25,000 in 2006. 4. That Council authorize a 2006 pre-budget approval of $50,000 for this process. Executive Summary: This report is in response to Resolution #161105 passed at Council on September 19, 2005 to establish benchmarking standards for sustainability in Pickering. The Benchmarking Sustainability Standards Committee has prepared a process report (attached) for Council's consideration. Financial Implications: Funds are available in accounts 2121-2392 and 2192-2392 of the current budget to cover the proposed consulting costs for this project in 2005. Funding for this project in 2006 requires a 2006 pre-budget approval, as outlined in Recommendation 4. Report CO 04-05 Date: November 1,2005 Subject: Establishment of Benchmarking Standards for Sustainability Page 2 Background: The City of Pickering recognizes the need to achieve a distinctive community that is a desired place to live, work and raise a family. The City is currently embarking on several projects in the area of community sustainability, including a Partners for Climate Protection Plan and a Sustainable Neighbourhood Plan with the assistance of a grant from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities through its Green Municipal Fund. On September 19, 2005, to further reinforce and signify the City's commitment to sustainability, Council passed Resolution #161/05 to establish benchmarking standards for sustainability in Pickering through a consultation process with wide cross representation from all sectors of the community. The Resolution required that a plan for the consultation process be brought back to Council no later than November 7, 2005. In accordance with this Resolution, a Committee was struck with Councillor Brenner as Chair, Councillor Dickerson representing Ward 2, Councillor Johnson representing Ward 3 and Mayor Ryan as an ex-officio member. The Resolution also appointed the Director, Planning & Development and the Division Head, Corporate Projects & Policy to the Committee. Jack McGinnis, President of RDC Group was retained to help facilitate this work, and act as a consultant to the Committee. The Coordinator, Community Capacity Building was also asked to sit on the Committee, as this project has a direct link with a community consultation plan that the Coordinator is finalizing. The Committee met three times. At the outset, it became clear that the benchmarking exercise should not be undertaken as a "one-time" effort; that to be effective, long lasting and meaningful, the benchmarking exercise needs to be considered and undertaken within a broader context and larger process, referred to by the Committee as a "Sustainability Program". The program at this stage is more a journey than a destination, which is founded on three main pillars: economic, social and environmental. When viewed in this light, the benchmarking project can be seen as a living entity that will continue to grow and evolve over time. Attached is a report from the Committee outlining Phase One of the broader sustainability program. This Phase includes an effective and exciting public consultation program to support the benchmarking exercise and is designed to provide a context that will guide other aspects of sustainability across the City. It is recommended that Council approve the process outlined in the attached Report and authorize the Benchmarking Sustainability Standards Committee to continue this process, with the assistance of Jack McGinnis of the RDC Group. Attachments: 1. Committee Report on Benchmarking Sustainability Process CORP0227-07/01 Report CO 04-05 Date: November 1,2005 Subject: Establishment of Benchmarking Standards for Sustainability Page 3 Maurice S. Brenner Regional Councillor Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer CORP0227-07/01 ATTACHMENT# PICKERING BENCHMARKING SUSTAINABILITY REPORT Prepared by: Benchmarking Sustainability Standards Committee Regional Councillor Maurice Brenner, Chair Regional Councillor Rick Johnson City Councillor Doug Dickerson Mayor David Ryan (ex-officio) Neil Carroll, Director, Planning & Development Tom Melymuk, Division Head, Corporate Projects & Policy Shawna Mutton, Coordinator, Community Capacity Building Jack McGinnis, President, RDG Group Ltd. Angela Wheeler, Director of Research, RDC Group Ltd. BENCHMARKING SUSTAINABILITY 1.0 INTRODUCTION: In recent years, the City of Pickering has continually expanded its work in the area of sustainability. A number of exciting efforts have been launched as illustrated in the recent Progress Report to Our Citizens (Fall 2005). The momentum from these initiatives can now be combined in a coordinated sustainability program. In order to do this, we must engage residents and stakeholders throughout the City to establish a 'made in Pickering' plan for a new way of doing business and a new way of balancing economic, social, and environmental objectives. The process outlined here is Phase One of the sustainability program and is intended to represent the first solid steps in a continuing journey. This phase consists of establishing benchmarking standards for development in Pickering, while also creating an effective and exciting public consultation program to support and guide this and other aspects of sustainability planning throughout the City. A program is required that can realistically achieve a sustainable City, while taking into consideration the diverse needs of existing and future residents. In this regard, Councillors Brenner, Dickerson and Johnson, and Mayor Ryan have worked with senior staff and consultants to develop the benchmarking and consultation process for consideration by Council on November 7, 2005. The following objectives have been addressed: Educate and inform the public about the benefits of sustainable practices being adopted in residential, commercial, and municipal operations in Pickering. · Design Phase One so that it can be implemented immediately after November 7th and completed by June 2006 at the latest. Engage key stakeholders from all sectors in a concrete and practical discussion of the importance of sustainable practices, and facilitate feedback from the public on best practices, technological opportunities and the public's priorities. Design a process that ensures concrete and practical results, from now through the end of Phase One, while setting the foundation for a process that continues to grow and evolve through 2006 and beyond. O63 2.0 SCOPE: This process will take a balanced approach to sustainability whereby economic, social and environmental objectives are represented as equally important pillars. While economic demands are often a significant and immediate need, they must be balanced with the critical and long-term significance of social and environmental concerns. Balance is necessary - addressing issues in isolation will not result in a community that is truly sustainable. The components can be summarized as follows: Pillar One - Economic, e.g.: · 'Centre of Excellence in Sustainability' potential · Employment opportunities (innovation, green industries) · Live-work balance maintained Pillar Two - Social, e.g.: · Maintain healthy and diverse social fabric · Ensure facilities/services exist to support community · Ongoing opportunities for citizen involvement/action Pillar Three - Environmental, e.g.: · Alternate energy opportunities · Climate change, greenhouse gas reductions · Transit-supportive development I SUSTAINABILITY: "Meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs." - Brundtland Report (1987) We recognize that the word "sustainability" is not well understood. Recently, it has been used or overused to the point where some people consider it to have little concrete meaning. Therefore, a first priority in the proposed consultation process will be to help define this word for Picketing residents and ensure that it has a clear meaning and also clear relevance. 2 064 3.0 ELEMENTS OF PHASE ONE: Issues List Experience indicates that it's not realistic to approach the public with a blank page and ask them to fill it out. But it's also a mistake to develop a final list of issues without input from the public. Therefore, in the first weeks of the process (i.e. November), a prime focus will be on creating a draft list of issues within the three pillar framework. This work will logically start with major categories and then work into sub-areas as appropriate. Examples of major categories include: · Energy · Transportation · Land Use The process will then identify specific relevant issues in each group. In the case of energy, for example, this could include issues such as: alternate energy sources; conservation policies & programs; climate change; and, potential to become a "centre of excellence". Consultation Once a draft list of issues is assembled, formal consultation will begin. A number of mechanisms will be used to encourage input and to request suggestions for additions to the list from key stakeholders. From there, a full list of issues and priorities will be created. A wider public audience will then be asked to comment on the full list of issues and priorities, using a variety of methods such as small working groups, town hall meetings and other public events. At the conclusion of the consultation, clear priorities will be identified and a final list of issues created. Categorization As sustainability issues are identified in this process, there will be a need to distinguish those that the City has direct control and responsibility for, from those that are the responsibility of others (e.g. a senior level of government or the private sector). In addition, it will be important to distinguish which sustainability issues can realistically be benchmarked from those that are difficult or impossible to quantify or measure at this time. By categorizing issues in this way, an Issues Matrix will be developed as outlined below. This Matrix will assist in selecting issues for benchmarking in Phase One. 065 Figure 1: issues Matrix Benchmarkin.q As part of the benchmarking exercise, it will be necessary to evaluate the City's current performance before setting specific targets and plans for future performance. It will also be necessary to research other municipalities' actions and best practices (see section 6.0 Example Programs), and understand the legislative tools that can be used to implement benchmarking standards. Benchmarking: Process in which companies evaluate various aspects of their business in relation to how these same practices are carried out by other companies. Specifically, a company will measure their performance, against the highest standards that are achievable. This enables the company to develop plans for how to improve, how to achieve a higher goal. Continuous Improvement: Benchmarking can be a one-time event, but most progressive companies treat it as a continuous process in which they evaluate their performance on a regular basis, e.g., annually. Each issue may have its own approach to benchmarking, based on the type of issue. Below are three examples. Pasb Benchmarking Waste Diversion It has been important for municipalities to benchmark their performance in recycling and other aspects of waste diversion. Pickering (and the Region) developed methods of tracking results, i.e., tonnage diverted each year. Efforts were also made to identify the best practices carried out in other municipalities; in particular those already achieving higher levels of waste diversion. Plans are frequently revisited to ensure continual improvement in waste diversion performance. Recently, with the Province's goal of 60% diversion from landfill, a particular need was identified: implementation of a "green bin" composting 4 066 collection system. It became clear that organics collection and composting were necessary for the City to meet its own goals and those set by the Province. While this example is listed here as past, benchmarking of waste diversion is an ongoing process. Presenb Benchmarking Greenhouse Gas Reduction Earlier this year, the City joined over 125 municipal governments in the Partners for Climate Protection campaign - a benchmarking process related to climate change and the need to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions throughout Pickering. With support from the Federal Green Fund, several partners and stakeholders, the City is carrying out the first three of five milestones. It is expected that once completed (mid-2006), this campaign will continue on with the final two milestones. The full process is summarized as follows: 1. Inventory all greenhouse gas emissions 2. Develop a reduction target 3. Evaluate best practices, develop a Local Action Plan 4. Implement the Local Action Plan 5. Monitor and report all results. Future: Benchmarking Renewable Energy Renewable energy can play an important role in the City's future. New technological developments and system economics are combining to change the nature and cost of available options, as well as the incentives that influence decisions made by companies and individual consumers. An example of possible future benchmarking is the adoption of solar hot water heating in new residential housing. The steps in this process would be similar to those now being followed for GHG reduction. 1. Inventory existing installed solar units 2. Analyze best practices, potential for expansion 3. Develop Action Plan 4. Implement Action Plan 5. Monitor results It is likely this effort would be most successful if the City worked in partnership with others, such as utility firms like Veridian, equipment manufacturers, and/or senior government funding agencies (i.e., to provide financial support for initial pilot projects). 4.0 WORK PROGRAM: Sustainability is a journey that once started doesn't end with the completion of this particular project. The City will want to have a clear eye on the future by emphasizing the need to maintain efforts to embody sustainability in all developments after Phase One is completed (i.e. after June 2006). It will however be critical for an equivalent focus to be kept on the work and actions that need to be carried out over the next few months, in order to ensure the journey begins in a positive and meaningful way. Below are the detailed steps involved in Phase One: Step 1: DESIGN & INITIAL CONSULTATION November 2005. December 2005 · Refine framework and objectives - Review other municipal processes (see section 6,0 Example Programs) - Examine related City consultation exercises (GMS, PCP, etc.) -Review City's existing sustainability po/icy framework./acitivities - Review legislative tools, constraints, opportunities · Develop initial list of issues to be evaluated ~ Create categorization for all issues · Identify stakeholder audience for initial consultation - General public, as well as specific sector representatives · Conduct initial consultation - Feedback on draft list of issues, additional items added to list ~ Initial comments regarding prioritization ,J 068 Step 2: ENGAGING THE PUBLIC January 2006 - April 2006 · Review results of initial consultation, modi~ list and plans accordingly . Design program to facilitate wider public review of issues and benchmarking options · Conduct muiti-faceted consultation program with broader audience, e,g.: - Town hall meetings - Newsletters - Workshops - Design Charrettes - Public Events ~ Smaller working groups - Website - City staff consultation and training · Engage existing groups and foster new groups within the community to take action · Identify opportunities for pilot projects, fast-track actions - Evaluate funding opportunities (Green Fund, Sustainable Development Technology Corporation ~ NRCAN, etc,) - identify partnerships with private sector - Proceed immediately, where conditions permit Step 3: PHASE ONE REPORT April 2006. June 2006 ' Ongoing consultation · Prepare report to council for Phase One All efforts have been made to create a very cost-effective work program, in part by utilizing resources already in place. For example, City facilities will be used wherever possible and City staff will participate in certain tasks, where this does not take away from other existing priorities. 5.0 NEXT STEPS (i.e. beyond Phase One) The next phase of the sustainability program involves building on the benchmarking system and the implementation of action projects. Details on the next phases of work will be provided through the Phase One Report. The design of the subsequent steps in the journey towards sustainability will need to reflect the results of the public consultation program carried out during the first phase. 6.0 EXAMPLE PROGRAMS: In structuring this work program, it has been helpful for the Committee to look at sustainability initiatives by other municipalities in Canada and in other countries. While we need a unique approach for the City of Pickering, we can still learn from the approaches and the tools used in recent years by others. Some of the more relevant examples are summarized on the following pages. City of Windsor (population 210,000) Environmental Master Plan Summary: City driven corporate and community exercise, establishing goals and commitments, which will help guide the corporation over the next five years in issues and decisions related to the environment, taking into account the most recent trends, issues, priorities and community input. · 12 months (September 2005 to Summer 2006) · Streamlined City-wide environmental actions · Improved environmental performance for the City · Increased environmental awareness among staff and residents · Reduction in overlap and gaps in municipal environmental service delivery The Environmental Master Plan establishes environmental commitment in terms of: Air quality Water quality and stormwater management Land use planning Waste management Energy conservation Encompasses issues which the City has control over Includes residents and other relevant stakeholders Some of the tools that will be used include: Open houses/public meetings Public events - display local mall Stakeholder meetings Website - education, feedback, etc. Surveys - telephone to 500 residents, online and hard copies available at City Hall · In progress · Technical Committee formed and representatives from each department assigned as contacts to the consultant through which all necessary information is provided City of Hamilton (population 503,000) Vision 2020 Summary: Collection of goals, strategies, actions, and indicators developed by City council, community groups, organizations, businesses and citizens to make a sustainable community a reality and keep track of the process along the way. · 1992 - ongoing · Consultation Process: 2 1/2 years (t990 - 1992) · Provide a consistent foundation for all new policies and actions by the city that considers economic, social and environmental elements All encompassing strategy that includes every aspect of the City, including: - Local economy - Waste reduction - Energy consumption - ,Air quality - Transportation - Land use in the urban area - ,Arts and heritage - Safety and security - Education - Community well-being and capacity building · During the initial 2 % year consultation period, a citizen task force on sustainable development was created and met with over 800 citizens to develop Vision 2020 Some of the tools utilized included: - Newsletters - Town Hall Meeting - Focus Groups - Working Groups - Implementation Teams - Community Forums - Media campaign - Television programs - Staff seminars - Public displays - exhibits in major shopping malls Renewed and readopted in 2003 Today, an interdepartmental team works co-operatively on projects, maximizing the use of staff and financial resources as well as making better use of volunteer time from the city's stakeholder groups ]0 Resort Municipality of Whistler, BC (population 8,896) Whistler 2020 - Moving Toward a Sustainable Future Summary: Community-wide vision and long-range strategic plan that uses scientific principles of The Natural Step framework to describe Whistler's values, sustainability objectives, priorities and direction. Whistler 2020 also outlines how the vision will be achieved. · Summer 2004 - ongoing Numerous local partners including: Chamber of commerce Local businesses Housing authority Health agencies, committees and providers Community services groups Environmental groups Schools Arts council Residents' associations · Plan addresses 16 strategy areas, including economics, health and social, the natural and built environment, partnerships and transportation Over 140 community experts involved in creating strategy area plans During public consultation, Whistler used QUEST, an interactive software program that allows people to see the long-term impacts of various scenarios 1/3 of action items completed including: - Improved frequency and affordability of transportation - New recreational trails constructed - Fleet vehicles now using biodiesel · A dozen partnership agreements have been signed with local businesses that are committed to supporting the plan ]] City of Toronto (population 2,480,000) Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation (TWRC) Sustainability Framework Summary: The Sustainability Framework was created to ensure that sustainability principles are integrated into all facets of waterfront revitalization management, operations and decision-making. · 2004-2005 · Reduce energy consumption and promote greater use of renewable energy · Implement land use planning that supports sustainable community development · Make alternative transportation options and public transit the preferred choices · Implement building systems that reduce environmental impact and improve indoor air quality and comfort · Improve airquality · Build vibrant, welcoming, healthy communities · Ensure a high level of vibrancy and creativity · Enhance environmental integrity of waterfront · Improve water quality and reduce consumption of fresh water · Reduce waste · Encourage innovation · Energy · Land use planning · Transportation · Air quality · Water quality · Waste Framework was compiled/reviewed by a wide range of participants: All levels of government reviewed framework to determine priorities A 2-day working meeting was held with senior TWRC staff and experts on local and international sustainability Comments were gathered through TWRC website · Implementation · Sustainability Showcases: initiatives that showcase sustainability principles in action · Sustainability Handbooks: document will be developed for each revitalization activity 12 Greater London Authority, UK (population 7,420,000) 'The London Plan' Summary: The London Plan is a planning framework to guide London's development over the coming decades. It is a coherent vision for London's future, based on a practical response to the challenges facing London: accommodating population and economic growth, ensuring benefits are shared as widely as possible by all Londoners, and limiting adverse environmental impacts. The London Plan is designed to ensure that Londoners benefit from sustainable improvements to their quality of life. · May 2001 - February 2004 · Accommodate London's growth within its boundaries without encroaching on open spaces · Make London a better city for people to live in · Make London a more prosperous city with strong, diverse long term economic growth · Promote social inclusivity and tackle deprivation and discrimination · Improve London's accessibility · Make London a more attractive, well-designed and green city Wide scope, including: - Quality of life - Population and housing - Transport - Development Waste and recycling Draft underwent 3 month consultation period during which a variety of consultation methods were used, including: Questionnaires (received approximately 1,200 responses) Public meetings Seminars Conferences Public displays in stations and major shopping centres A government-appointment panel then examined the draft and the responses and provided recommendations to the mayor · Implementation ]3 CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM November 7, 2005 To: From: Subject: Mayor and Members of Council Debi A. Bentley City Clerk Report OES 39-05 of the Director, Operations & Emergency Services - Delay of Report - File: A-2140 Please be advised that Report OES 39-05 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer concerning Tender No. T-5-2005 - Tender for Storm Sewer Installation & Road Reconstruction for Finch Avenue will be provided under separate cover. It is being provided under separate cover due to the fact that it only closed on October 28, 2005 and due to these tight timelines, it could not meet the agenda deadlines. Therefore, the Chief Administrative Officer authorized approval for inclusion under separate cover. AH:db Debi A. Bentley O76 PICKERING REPORT TO COUNCIL Report Number: CS 84-05 Date: November 7, 2005 From: Debi A. Bentley, CMO, CMM III City Clerk Subject: City of Pickering Preliminary Operating Plan for Animal Services Recommendation: 1. That Report CS 84-05 of the City Clerk be received for information; o o That the 2006 Preliminary Operating Plan for Animal Services for the City of Pickering encompass in-house enforcement services and contracted/partnership for animal shelter services; That 2006 Capital budget pre-approval be granted to allow for the purchase of one van equipped for animal services at an approximate cost of $30,000. and miscellaneous equipment costs at an approximate cost of $6,000. to be financed from 2006 current revenues for a total approximate cost of $36,000.; That 2006 Current budget pre-approval be granted to allow for the recruitment of one full time Supervisor of Animal Services and two part time Municipal Law Enforcement Officers/Animal Control Officers for the January 1, 2006 start-up of the City of Pickering enforcement services for animal control, at an approximate cost of $146,294.; That in order to provide staffing effective January 1, 2006, that authority be given to commence the hiring process in accordance with Item 4 and the requisition for the purchase of the vehicle and equipment noted in Item 3 in 2005 and that the salaries and benefits for 2005 be funded from monies not otherwise required in the 2005 current budget; That the City of Pickering accept the offer of the Municipality of Clarington dated September 7, 2005 with respect to the feed, care and sheltering of animals on an interim basis effective January 1, 2006 at an estimated cost of $25,000. to June 30, 2006; That staff be authorized to pursue and obtain quotations and/or agreements in principle for the provision of longer term contracted/partnership for animal shelter services; and That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions to give effect thereto. Report CS 84-05 Animal Control Services November 7, 2005 Page 2 077 Executive Summary: At the Council meeting of September 19, 2005, the City of Pickering adopted a resolution acknowledging the termination of services with the Town of Whitby effective December 31, 2005 and directing staff to prepare a report with respect to animal services and outlining a proposed solution for animal services effective January 1,2006. Financial Implications: 1.0 Enforcement: It is estimated that enforcement services will be initially required for approximately 80 hours, therefore, it is recommended that pre-budget approval be obtained for one full time employee (Supervisor) working a 35 hour week and two part time employees working a 24 hour week each respectively. Preliminary estimated costs are based on current Municipal Enforcement Officer hourly paid rate of $25.23. for the part time employees. The full time position is estimated at a supervisor rate of approximately $60,000. plus benefits. 1 FTE Working Supervisod2PTE Estimated Overtime On Call * includes 25% benefits on FTE and 4% on PTE 140,494.* 4,000. 2,000. Total Estimated Cost: $146,494. 2.0 Ancillary Costs: There will be costs related to vehicle maintenance, fuel costs, uniforms etc., however, pre-budget approval for these items will follow in a subsequent report. Total Estimated Ancillary Costs: ' $25,000.* This entails costs related fuel costs, uniforms, veterinary fees, licensing software development, program development, staff training, administration costs, waste disposal fees etc.) Total Shelter Costs: $75,000.* Shelter fees relate to the sheltering of stray cats and dogs, adoption out and return to owner, isolation of quarantined animals, feed and care of animals. *costs have been estimated on the high side pending final negotiations. CORP0227-07/01 Report CS 84-05 Animal Control Services November 7, 2005 Page 3 3.0 Van (Equipment) One van is required to provide the appropriate service levels. In 2003, PAW estimated the cost of acquiring and converting a van at $27,000., however it is now estimated to be $30,000. per van. The acquisition will follow the City's purchasing policies and standards. Van $30,000. Equipment 6,000. (equipment costs are for the purchase of such items as catchpoles, leather gauntlets, transfer cage, leashes etc.)194,994. 4.0 Total Expenses Current Budget EXPENDITURES Travel Outside Agency Services Animal Control Services Livestock Killed 2006 Estimated Budget 50O. 22,000. 246,494. 5,000. 2005 Current Budget 500. 22,000. 236,500 5,000. TOTAL EXPENDITURES 273,994. 264,000 REVENUES Licences & Permits (73,000.) (6,000.) (79,000. $194,994. Specific Grants TOTAL REVENUES Net Cost Budg $71000. a (70,000.) (6,000.I (76,000. $188,000. CapitalBudget EXPENDITURE 2006 Estimated Budget $36,000 Budget 2005 $26;000:: ap~rox, increase Van & equipment ** Capital contribution for 2005 not approved by city Council 2005 Capital Budget $10,000.** Please note that the budget is strictly an estimated in order to obtain pre-budget approval and once details have been finalized and approved by the Chief Administrative Officer. they will be presented through the 2006 budget discussions. Further, staff did enquire into the possibility of acquiring existing PAW vehicles and equipment, but Whitby has indicated that it will retain these items for its own services. Details regarding the valuation and disposition of PAW assets, including property, vehicles and equipment remain ongoing. CORP0227-07/01 Report CS 84-05 November 7, 2005 079 Animal Control Services Page 4 Background: 1.0 General Overview On December 14, 2004, the Town of Whitby served The City of Pickering with a notice of termination of agreement with respect to the Town of Whitby providing animal control services to the City of Pickering. The agreement, which has been in existence since 1985, which includes Pickering, Ajax and Whitby (PAW)will terminate effective December 31,2005. As the City of Pickering has decided to confirm the Town of Whitby option to terminate the service, there will be anticipated costs to both Ajax and Whitby to buy out Pickering's assets, knowing that Ajax has opted to utilize Whitby for shelter services. It is anticipated that the Pickering Ajax Whitby Committee will have one final meeting to wrap a number of outstanding items up. Based on a review by the Clerks Division, it has been determined that the best approach to take is to provide in house enforcement services for animal services effective January 1, 2006 and pursue an external agreement and or contract with a provider of animal shelter services. Staff are pursuing a number of options and due to time constraints it is not feasible to issue a formal request for proposal on this matter (animal shelter services) in time for the January 1, 2006 start date. Staff are aiming to provide a confidential report on negotiations for shelter services over the next few months.. In the interim, staff are recommending that the Municipality of Clarington be thanked for their gracious offer and their services be requested on an interim basis with respect to the feed, care and sheltering of animals effective January 1, 2006. The City Clerk is currently in negotiations with Clarington staff to formalize costs associated with this service and a further update on this matter will be forthcoming. It is anticipated that this arrangement will be in place until at least June 30, 2006. With respect to providing in house enforcement services, the City is required to be prepared for a start up date cf January 1, 2006. In order to accomplish this, pre-budget approval is required to enable the hiring of staff and the acquisition of the proper vehicle and equipment. One full time Supervisor of Animal Control and two part time Municipal Law Enforcement Officer-Animal Control are being recommended at this time for enforcement purposes. This is based on a preliminary review of services offered in area municipalities, along with the level of service that the City of Pickering should initially maintain for its residents'. It is anticipated that this service will be under the direction of the City Clerk initially. This three member team is anticipated to work a variety of shifts to provide primary animal control enforcement services and as time permits, parking and other by-law enforcement services (although initially this is doubtful). It is anticipated that the existing full time Municipal Law Enforcement Officers will concentrate on property and other complaints, but will be available to provide animal control enforcement services as and when required. It should further be noted that this will provide a level of service about twice the current amount provided by PAW. CORP0227-07/01 080' Report CS 84-05 Animal Control Services November 7, 2005 Page 5 Once recruitment and equipment acquisitions are commenced, staff will prepare a communications plan in order to provide residents with the necessary information related to the change in service. In summary, once a number of details have been finalized, a formal business plan, including full budget costs will be completed 2.0 Statistical Information The following is a general overview of the present level of service offered by the PAW Animal Services Centre: 2004 Human Population: 94,400 Dogs Dogs Impounded Surrendered for Adoption Dogs Quarantined Dogs Claimed Dogs Adopted Dogs Rescued Dogs Euthanised: illness Dogs Dogs Dogs Euthanised: age Dogs: Dead on Arrival Euthanised: injury Euthanised: temperament 70 42 8 18 0 0 4 0 0 s Euthanised: homeless Cats Impounded Cats Surrendered for Adoption 77 2 4 2 17 8 Cats Quarantined Cats Claimed Cats Adopted Cats Rescued Cats Euthanised: Illness 14 4 Cats Euthanised: Injured Cats Euthanised: Temperament Cats Euthanised: Age Cats: Dead on Arrival Cats Euthanised: Homeless Non-domestic Animals Impounded Road Kills Pick Up Emergency Calls After 4:30 pm (call CORPO227-O7/Ol 23 0 14 0 2 122 51 Report CS 84-05 Animal Control Services November 7, 2005 Page 6 081 outs) 51 0 Emergency Calls after 4:30 pm (phone calls only) Charges Laid: Animals at Large Charges Laid: Dog Barking Charges Laid: Miscellaneous Animals at Large Warnings Dog Barking Warnings Other Animal Warnings Traps Loaned Out 0 49 4O 2O 34 3.0 Review of Services Required Shelter Services: sheltering of stray cats and dogs; owner surrendered cats and dogs, adoption out and return to owner of stray or owned cats and dogs. Veterinary care would be in accordance with the benchmarks established by the City of Pickering for animal care standards Field Services: animal related by-law enforcement; injured/distressed animal response; owned animal response; stray confined domestic animal pick up; dead animal pick up; after hours emergency responses and other general responses as required. Administration: dispatching and reception; facilitation of courts response; records requirements to be handled by City of Pickering staff and/or contracted personnel. All aspects of animal service licensing, along with reporting and representation at Council, will be handled by the Clerks Division. 4.0 Staffing Complement A key objective that the City will want to embrace is a new beginning in the service levels with respect to animal services for the citizens of Pickering. To start off effectively we need a full time staff complement, with specific responsibilities in relation to enforcement, education and awareness, along with development of a licensing strategy. One full time employee, (Working Supervisor position) and two part time employees are being recommended at this time, and this allows us to grow into a fully integrated program for 2007. It should further be noted that existing Municipal Law Enforcement staff would be back-up to these positions and allow the program to evolve in 2006. 5.0 Future Considerations As outlined in recommendation # 7, staff will be and continue to be pursuing a permanent solution in relation to shelter services. A large deterrent at this point is the possible need to construct a Pickering shelter. Shelters have been constructed recently CORP0227-07/01 Report CS 84-05 Animal Control Services November 7, 2005 Page 7 in other areas at an approximate size of 2500 sq. ft and cost of $200 per sq. ft., resulting in a possible total construction cost of over $400,000. Present Cost and Service levels: The following is a chart setting out Pickering's share of the costs of operating the PAW Animal Services Centre in Whitby for the past five years: 2001 $211,130 $9,000 $220,130 2002 $234,730 $9,000 $243,730 2003 $240,799 $10,000 $250,799 2004 $246,214 $10,000 $256,214 2005 $236,455 $10,000' $246,455 * Pickering Council did not approve the capital expenditure in 2005. 4.0 Summary In summary, a detailed business plan, including a communication strategy should still be prepared, once all final details have been formalized. The business plan will include financial impacts, including anticipated revenues relating to licensing, which we anticipate will be higher than the previous budget amount of $70,000. The business plan will also formulate the roles that the existing Municipal Law Enforcement Officers will play in ensuring that we provide the best possible customer service oriented animal services program for the City. Prepared By: Debi A. Bentley City Clerk Approved I Endorsed By: (~ illi. . Pat~ -'or~ - ( ~/ ,, /~r, Co rpo rate- S(e//~ices~"~Treas ~~ Copy: Chief Administrative Officer CORP0227-07/01 Report CS 84-05 Animal Control Services November 7, 2005 Page 8 08'3 Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council /'.,/~ ,,/ ,, Tho) d'as 5.-Quinn ~v(~ief ~ninistra~~ C0RP0227-07/01 084 EXCERPT OF PRESENTATION TO WORKING GROUP ON OCTOBER 27, 2005 BY CITY CLERK Animal Control Services 2005 Preliminary Operating Plan An,mai Control Services Options Reviewed I "1' City Self Operated · Contract Out · Shared Service with northern adjacent municipalities Options Not Pursued after June 2005: Status Quo with Town of Whitby Partnership with Town of Ajax O85 Animal Control Services Options Reviewed City Self Operated - Issues significant capital cost Time constraints as RFP should have been issued early spring for 2006 opening Administration of staff and benefits Shelter operating costs Staff training and associated costs Expensive - estimated $550,000 plus shelter operating costs City Self Operated - Benefits Establish desired level of service Enforcement under City control Animal Control Services Options Reviewed ~i ~-~ -c0ntract out , issue-s~ RFP should have been issued early spring Loss of direct control No available shelter, unless negotiate use for existing shelter (York Region area) Contract Out - Benefits Cost controlled over life of agreement Reduced administration requirements Professional staff Animal Control Services Recommended Approach In-house enforcement services Contracted/partnership for animal shelter services pursued and agreement in place effective no later than June 1, 2006 · Temporary shelter service agreement finalized with the Municipality of Clarington effective January 1, 2006 Animal Control Services Report presented to City Council November 7, 2005 Highlights of Report: 2006 Operating Plan to encompass in-house enforcement services and contracted/partnership for animal shelter services - Pre-budget approval for purchase of one van at cost of $30,000. plus equipment costs of $6,000. Pre-budget approval to allow for staff recruitment Staff authorization to pursue agreements for animal control shelter services - Formal acceptance of offer by the Municipality of Clarington 087 ~.l~ Animal Control Services '~--. ~"'I Recommended Interim Staffing Plan ~--.~ i Animal Control Services City Clerk I Working Supervisor Part Time Animal Control Attendant I Part Timel I Existing Animal MLEO's Control Backup Attendant Animal Control Services Recommended Interim Staffing Plan · Staffing plan provides for 83 hours of services per week, six day schedule · Shelter service to be finalized and may have an affect on hours · Existing MLEO's can provide back up service during first year of operation · Overtime is an unknown, however this will depend on a number of factors (communication plan, service levels) 088 Animal Control Services Future Animal Services Staffing Plan I FTE Animal Control Attendant Supervisor, Animal Control Services I FTE Animal Control Attendant (2) PTE Animal Contro Attendant I An,mai Control Serv, ces Financial Implications I · For 2006, the budget implications are noted as follows: Preliminary estimated costs for the part time staff are based on current Municipal Enforcement Officer hourly paid rate of $25.23. I FTE Supervisor 2 PTE (24 hour/week) Estimated Overtime On call expenses Benefits @ 25% Total Estimated Cost: 60,000. 62,974. 4,000. 2,000. 17,520. $146,494. O89 ~-: Animal Control Services I"'~.. ~"~ Financial Implications Ancilliary Costs: vehicle maintenance, fuel costs, uniforms etc. Purchase of Van: estimated to be $30,000. Equipment for Van: Information from Clarington indicates costs to equip van at $6,000. An,mai Control Serv,ces Financial Implications EXPENDITURES Travel Costs (Misc.) $ 500. Outside Agency Services $ 22,000. Animal Control Services $246,494. Livestock Killed $ 5,000. Total Expenditures $273,994. REVENUE Licences & Permits ($ 73,000.) Specific Grants ($ 6,000.) Total Revenues ($ 79,000.) NET COST $t 94,994.(2006) Current Cost Difference 2005 versus 2006 $7,000. Approx. $t88,000. (2005) 6 Animal Control Services Summary · Divisional Project Plan finalized based on Council decision · Communication Plan prepared ~. Budget formalized and provided to Finance by end of November · Formal agreements prepared and signed off 7 PICKERING REPORT TO COUNCIL Report Number: CS 83-05 Date: November 7, 2005 From: Debi A. Bentley, CMO, CMM III City Clerk Subject: Request for Expansion of Permitted Area for Body Rub Parlours - Brock Spa, 1600 Alliance Road, Pickering - Addendum to Report CS 56-05 of the City Clerk Recommendation: 1. That Report CS 56-05 of the City Clerk be received for information; That Report CS 83-05 of the City Clerk with respect to a request to expand the permitted area for body rub parlours by the Brock Spa, municipally located at 1600 Alliance Road, Pickering, be received for information; That the request from Ms. Anna Trojanowska, Brock Spa, 1600 Alliance Road, to expand the permitted area for body rub parlours to include Alliance Road be denied and the applicant be so advised. Executive Summary: To advise of a request from the owner of the Brock Spa at 1600 Alliance Road to expand the permitted area for body rub parlours to include Alliance Road and to provide further details on this matter per direction of City Council on October 17, 2005. Financial Implications: Not applicable Background: This report has been submitted further to the October 17, 2005 meeting of City Council, wherein staff were requested to investigate the matter further and report back. 092 Report CS 83-05 Expansion of Permitted Area for Body Rub Parlours November 1,2005 Page 2 A request had been received from Ms. Anna Trojanowska, owner of the Brock Spa located at 1600 Alliance Road, Pickering, to expand the permitted area for body rub parlours to include Alliance Road. Initially the report with respect to this matter was prepared for the July 25, 2005 meeting of the Executive Committee, however, Ms. Trojanowska had recently retained legal counsel and Mr. Gerry, Solicitor, requested deferral of this matter to the September 12, 2005 meeting due to a scheduled vacation. Due to the number of items scheduled for discussion on the September 12, 2005 Executive Committee agenda, and in consultation with Mr. Gerry, this matter was placed on the September 26, 2005 meeting of the Executive Committee. At the September 26, 2005 Executive Committee meeting, Mr. Gerry appeared on behalf of his client requesting that the by-law be amended to incorporate Alliance Road. In response to questions from the Committee, Mr. Gerry advised that his client was not aware of the initial by-law coming before Council five years ago. In support of his deputation, Mr. Gerry provided a written submission in support of the request of his client, requesting specific consideration of the following: 7. 8. 9. the establishment has been licensed and operating at its present location for a period exceeding five years; there have been no charges relating to the operation of the business; the premises are zoned industrial and directly abut the area already designated for the licensing of body rub parlours; the premises abut a hydro corridor; there are no schools, daycare centers, recreational centers, parks or places of worship within 120 metres of the premises; the owner of the unit supports this application; seven other unit holders support this application; the business employs six people; and the proprietor and employees of the business rely on the income earned at the establishment to support themselves and their families. Mr. Gerry further advised that he felt that the business would effectively be a ratification of the status quo and if his client was not granted permission to continue to operate, his client would face the unfortunate circumstance of closing a viable business and losing her investment. It should be noted that at the September 26, 2005 meeting of the Executive Committee, this matter was referred directly to Council for disposition. The matter was further deferred to the October 17, 2005 meeting of Council at the request of Mr. Gerry, due to personal reasons. At the October 17, 2005 meeting of Council, this matter was referred back to staff for further clarification in relation to number of body rub parlours currently licensed; number of licenses to lose grandfather status as of December 31, 2005; number of businesses that will lose grandfather status and are applying for rezoning; comments from the Police in relation to the grandfather status of the existing establishments; and the process for licensing body rub parlour attendants. Report CS 83-05 Expansion of Permitted Area for Body Rub Parlours November 1, 2005 Page 3 993 In response to the request of Council on October 17, 2005, the following comments are provided. The City of Pickering passed By-law 5764/00 on October 16, 2000, regulating body rub parlours in the municipality. The by-law required all Body Rub Parlours and their staff to be licensed, established minimum standards for the operation and staffing of Body Rub Parlours operating in the City of Pickering, as well as setting out an area where they would be permitted to locate. This by-law was passed at the request of the Durham Regional Police who reported a number of the Body Rub Parlours were already in operation in the City of Pickering under the pretext of aromatherapy spas, relaxation studios etc. Prior to the passage of By-law 5764/00, Body Rub Parlours were prohibited under our Zoning By-law. However, as the City was unaware there were any Body Rub Parlours in existence, no action was taken for zoning contraventions at that time. There was no requirement under the existing Municipal Act of the time to hold a public meeting and or notify any businesses in the City that the Clerks Division felt were operating as body rub parlours. Upon passage of the Body Rub Parlour by-law, the City of Pickering decided to offer existing businesses considered to be Body Rub Parlours a 'grandfathered status', which would permit them to obtain a license outside the permitted area provided all other licensing requirements were met. This grandfathered status would not be extended should the business be sold or transferred to a new owner. As Council is aware, this special status will come to an end after a period of five years, as of December 31,2005. This is in accordance with the regulatory by-law provisions of the new Municipal Act. After this date, all Body Rub Parlours in the City of Pickering will be required to be located within the designated area and granted zoning approval, to obtain a license. All Body Rub Parlour owners have been aware of this policy since receiving their first license, as it was outlined in the original letters sent to confirm their license in 2001. With respect to this applicant, on January 31, 2001 Municipal Law Enforcement staff sent out a letter with respect to the passage of By-law 5764/00 and outlined the specific regulations by which the applicants business could operate. On February 19, 2001, the City Clerk verbally granted the applicant legal non-conforming status at this location. On May 17, 2001, a license was issued to the applicant, along with an accompanying letter. Within the letter it noted the following: "the City of Pickering granted this license despite the fact that your business is not located within the permitted area for Body Rub Parlours and does not comply with the City's zoning by-laws. Even prior to the passage of the Body Rub Parlour By-law 5764/00 in October 2000, the City's Zoning By-laws prohibited Body Rub Parlours ..... This special status will come to an end after a period of five years, as of December 31, 2005. After this date, all Body Rub Parlours in the City of Pickering will be required to be located within the designated area and to apply for the necessary 'site specific' zoning approval to obtain a license." In a letter dated February 19, 2001, the applicant acknowledged By-law 5764~00 and stated "we agree to fulfill the regulations and all sub-sections of the new by-law over Report C$ 83-05 Expansion of Permitted Area for Body Rub Parlours November 1,2005 Page 4 and above the minimum requirements as set out by the municipality and to respect the needs of such requirements." On November 30, 2004, all Body Rub Parlours currently licensed were sent a letter from Municipal Law Enforcement staff with respect to their renewal license for 2005 and it specifically noted the following: 'You are reminded that your grandfathered status, permitting you to continue to operate a Body Rub Parlour outside the specified area and without proper zoning approval will come to an end on December 31, 2005. After this date, all Body Rub Parlours in the City of Pickering must be located within the area outlined in the City's Body Rub Parlour By-law 5764/00, and be zoned to permit the operation of a Body Rub Parlour at that location. Municipal Law Enforcement staff also sent letters to Body Rub Parlour landlords in February of this year, advising that any lease with a Body Rub Parlour tenant should not be extended past December 31, 2005. Municipal Law Enforcement staff have confirmed that the landlord for the applicant is aware of the special grandfathered status and that the business will not be allowed to operate after December 31,2005. With respect to existing licenses, the City of Pickering currently has five licensed Body Rub Parlours. These included; Licensee Location Status Pickering Spa 1162 Kingston Road (Licks Plaza) Re-zoning not possible Not in area permitted Brock Spa 1600 Alliance Road Unit 12 Applied for extension of permitted area Aristocrat Health Spa 1895 Clements Road Unit 161 Applied for Rezoning Application A20/05 Pending Bayly Health Spa 1480 Bayly Street Re-zoning not possible Unit 9 Not in area permitted (near Art Thompson Arena) Pickering's Angels 905 Dillingham Road Unit 3 Receiving zoning approval Will be licensed for 2006 Of the five currently licensed Body Rub Parlours, only two are located in the permitted area, and therefore entitled to apply for rezoning. One has receiving zoning approval, the other application is still pending. Of the remaining three, two cannot apply for rezoning as they are outside the permitted area. The third establishment, being the application before Council, is requesting the area be expanded as it is on the border of Report CS 83-05 November 1, 2005 O95 Expansion of Permitted Area for Body Rub Parlours Page 5 the permitted area. It is the intention of the Clerks Division to prosecute any unlicensed Body Rub Parlours operating after January 1, 2006. It should be noted that in 2001, the City of Pickering had eleven Body Rub Parlours in operation. Through various enforcement efforts, by both Durham Regional Police and Municipal Law Enforcement staff, only five licensed Body Rub Parlours remain today. These have all been in operation since 2001, by the same owners, as no change in ownership was permitted under the grandfathered status. The Police do not provide formal written comments with respect to body rub parlour rezoning applications and or licensing applications at the present time. With respect to Body Rub Parlour attendants, it should be noted that the City licensed 83 attendants in 2005. Body Rub attendants must submit a current medical certificate, extract of criminal record and two passport photos, along with their $100.00 license fee. Anyone providing massage services, who is not a provincially licensed Massage Therapist, requires a Body Rub Attendant license. Summary In summary, it is still the position of the Corporate Services Department that this application should be denied. The applicant has been provided sufficient time to relocate and has been well aware of her grandfathered status for over four years. At this time, there is no compelling reason to amend our by-law to accommodate the request of Ms. Trojanowska. In the event that Council wished to grant permission for the applicant to remain at this location, the following would be required: The applicant would have to apply to the City of Pickering for a rezoning of the subject property in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act, and in turn, statutory notice requirements would be followed. In accordance with the Municipal Act, the City is required to hold at least one public meeting at which any person who attends has an opportunity to make representation with respect to the matter at hand and ensure that notice of the public meeting is given. Provisions under the new Municipal Act with respect to regulatory by-laws have them deemed to expire on December 31, 2005 (five year term of by-law) and therefore, a new by-law will be required to be in effect January 1, 2006. The Clerks Division is in the process of completing an extensive review of existing regulatory by-laws that are scheduled to expire on December 31, 2005. Based on the fact that the Body Rub Parlour By-law 5764/00 is a regulatory by-law, it will expire on December 31, 2005 under the Municipal Act and a new by-law will be required to be in place by January 1, 2006. Body Rub Parlours, under the definitions within the Municipal Act, are 096 Report CS 83-05 Expansion of Permitted Area for Body Rub Parlours November 1, 2005 Page 6 considered an Adult Entertainment establishment. It is anticipated that the Clerks Division will be holding a public meeting on a number of regulatory by-laws due to expire on December 31, 2005 at the November 28, 2005 Executive Committee meeting, for presentation at the December 5 and/or December 19 meeting of City Council. Attachments: 1. Report CS 56-05 of the City Clerk dated September 1, 2005. Prepared By: Approved / Endorsed By: Debi A. Bentley City Clerk ~//(~ i! I is,/f~,. Pate~rs~n {/ ,- Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City 9ouncil · , o" Tl~rr~s ~ Ouli~'n, Cl~ef Admin~ j:A-2130 Reports to Council:05 Reports:CS 56 Expansion of Permitted Area for Body Rub Parlours EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Report Number: CS 56-05 Date: September 1, 2005 From: Debi A. Bentley, CMO, CMM III City Clerk Subject: Request for Expansion of Permitted Area for Body Rub Parlours Brock Spa, 1600 Alliance Road, Pickering Recommendation: That Report CS 56-05 of the City Clerk with respect to a request to expand the permitted area for body rub parlours by the Brock Spa, municipally located at 1600 Alliance Road, Pickering, be received; and That the request from Ms. Anna Trojanowska, Brock Spa, 1600 Alliance Road, to expand the permitted area for body rub parlours to include Alliance Road be denied and the applicant be so advised. Executive Summary: To advise of a request from the owner of the Brock Spa at 1600 Alliance Road to expand the permitted area for body rub parlours to include Alliance Road. Financial Implications: Not applicable Background: A request has been received from Ms. Anna Trojanowska, owner of the Brock Spa located at 1600 Alliance Road, Pickering, to expand the permitted area for body rub parlours to include Alliance Road. A copy of the request has been included as Attachment 1 to this report. On October 16, 2000, Council passed By-law 5764/00, being a by-law to licence and regulate body-rub parlours in the City of Pickering. The by-law restricted the location of these establishments to the Brock Industrial Area. Body rub parlours that were operating in compliance with the zoning by-laws at the time By-law 5764/00 was Report CS 56-05 Expansion of Permitted Area for Body Rub Parlours September 1, 2005 Page 2 enacted were grandfathered for five years so that they could continue to operate their establishment until December 31, 2005, at which time they would have to relocate their establishment to the permitted area. Extensive review of the licencing of body-rub parlours was undertaken in 2000 with the Police, Health and By-law Enforcement officials and therefore, from our perspective there is no compelling reason to amend our by-law at this time. Further, this location is in contravention of By-law 5764/00 and has been provided appropriate time to relocate the business into the permitted area. Attachments: Letter from Anna Trojanowska, owner of Brock Spa, 1600 Alliance Road Letter from Noel D. Gerry, Barrister & Solicitor on behalf of Ms. Anna Trojanowska Map showing the current permitted area for body rub parlours Map showing the expansion to the permitted area for body rub parlours if Ms: Trojanowska's request is approved Prepared By: Approved / Endorsed By: Debi A. Bentley City Clerk Gillis A. Paterson Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering C~/~y Council ,~ -TI~~". Quinn Chief(~dmin~/e OffiCer j:A-2130 Reports to Council:05 Reports:CS 56 Expansion of ~ub Parlours J,ATTACHMENT#,/ 099 Brock Spa 1600 Alliance Rd. Picketing, Ontario, LIW 3~2 905-831-0526 March 21, 2005 Dear Mr. Bruce Taylor and Mrs. Kimberly Thompson, My Grandfathered status is about to expire. This letter serves to request that the permitted area where body rub parlours may operate as set out in Schedule 'B' of BY-LAW 5764/00 be expanded. :It would be my intention to apply for an amendment to the current BY-LAW given your permission in this matter. The reasons for my request are listed below. Firstly, my proximity to the current line, the west most line in the permitted area runs through a hydro corridor which ends at my parking lot meaning that the actual line can be no more than 120 ft. from my premises. I also feel that ! have been in full cooperation with the city since ! established my business there over 4 years ago and have always been respectful of its policies and practices. ! think it should also be mentioned that ~ feel that i have the full backing of my landlord, neighbours and peers in this request and am willing to attain documentation to support my feeling. There are also the issues of employees and suppliers who depend on my business to support them and given the costs of moving ! may be forced to close if the area cannot be expanded. Another question would be the possibility of extending the grandfathered status, if this would be acceptable it would at least provide for further exploration of my options and the possibility of relocation which is improbable at this time but may be available to me in the future. ! would like to open channels of discussion for any concerns or questions that you may have, my cellular phone number is 416-910-4266, Please feel free to call me on this matter at your convenience. Anna O~nef-'/Brock Spa NOEL D. GERRY BARRISTER & SOLICITOR By Fax (905) 420-9685 and By Courier August23,2005 ATTACHMENT Cf., ~ ., TO REPORT #~_~/~5'[, ~C~R~NG AUG 2 5 2005 CLERK'8 CITY OF PICKERING I~ICKERING, ONTARIO 50 Richmond Street East Suite #100 Toronto, Ontario M5C IN7 Telephone: 416-972-1161 Fax: 416-362-9954 Corporation of the City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 Attention: Ms. Debi Bentley, City Clerk Dear Ms. Bentley: Re: By-law Amendment Application Brock Spa - 1600 Alliance Road, Picketing, Ontario CLERK'S DIVISION ! FILF__ t, lO.: j FORWARD COPY TO: iMAYOP, J ~'~ ItlFO SYSTEMS ':~ Iv' LEGAL SERVICES' I'" u .^RY " :::~¥ :,-:~' ,,J MUN. PROP. & ENG. ~(,::~: :?~[CEsI~ OPE~TIONS [ [e~";~D.', I)~VEL~ SUPPLY & SERV. I have been formally retained by Ms. Anna Trojanowska to act on her behalf in respect of her application for an amendment to By-law 574/2000 to expand the permitted area fbr the licensing of Body-rub Parlours to include the lands and premises municipally known as 1600 Alliance Road, Picketing, Ontario. I would be grateful if you could put this correspondence before the Executive Committee of Council for their consideration prior to the meeting of September 12, 2005. Ms. Trojanowska operates Brock Spa - a licensed Body-rub Parlour at 1600 Alliance Road in the City of Pickering. The establishment existed prior to the passage of By-law 574/2000. It is located just outside the western boundary of the area established by By-law 574/2000 as the permitted area for the licensing of body-rub parlours. The establishment lies approximately 120 feet from the western boundary line which runs through a hydro corridor. Notwithstanding that the fact that the establishment is located just outside the boundary established in By-law 574/2000, the City granted it "grandfathered" status and licensed the activities therein for a period of five years. This grandfathered status is set to expire on December 31, 2005. 101 My client is respectfully requesting that you amend By-law 574/2000 so that the grandfathered status it currently enjoys becomes permanent. In support of the request, my client requests that you kindly consider the following: 1. The establishment has been licensed and operating at its present location for a period exceeding five years; 2. There have been no charges relating to the operation of the business; 3. The premises are zoned industrial and directly abutt the area already designated for the licensing of body-rub parlours; 4. The premises abutts a hydro corridor; 5. There are no schools, daycare centres, recreational centres, parks or places of worship within 120 metres of the premises; 6. The owner of the unit supports this application. Please See attached letter; 7. Seven other unit holders support this application. Please see attached Acknowledgments; 8. The business employs six persons; 9. The proprietor and employees of the business rely on the income earned at the establishment to support themselves and their families. As the business has been operating and licensed for approximately five years, the proposed by- law amendment would effectively be a ratification of the status quo. If the by-law amendment is not granted, my client would face the unfortunate circumstance of closing a viable business and losing her investment therein. We understand that there is an element of discretion in your consideration of this request and graciously request that such discretion be exercised in favour of the applicant. In return, my client promises to continue abiding by By-law 574/2000 and all other relevant rules and regulations and to continue providing quality service and employment in the City of Pickering. We thank you for taking the time to consider these comments. Yours very truly L." ~ '' ,J/'ff"/ ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RE: BROCK SPA Unit #12, 1600 Alliance Road, Pickering, Ontario We, Walker Howes One Limited, are the owner of storage Unit #13_at 1600 Alliance Road, Pickering, Ontario, L1W 3V2. We hereby acknowledge that we are content that the Brock Spa, operated by Anna Trojanowska, located at Unit #12, 1600 Alliance Road, Pickering, Ontario, L1W 3V2, continue to operate on these premises. Dated at Pickering this 2nd day of May, 2005. ~lgnature Name ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RE: BROCK SPA Unit #12, 1600 Alliance Road, Picketing, Ontario 1600 Alliance Road, Pickering, Ontario, L1W 3V2. I hereby acknowledge that I am content that the Brock Spa, operated by Anna Trojanowska, located at Unit #12, 1600 Alliance Road, Pickering, Ontario, L1W 3V2, continue to operate on these premises. Dated at J/~ JO"t'(X '{'J~ this~ day of ,2005. ,/Sigffature of Tenant Name (printed) of Tenant 10'5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RE: BROCK SPA Unit #12, 1600 Alliance Road, Pickering, Ontario I, ?,M,.~ { P '~o°-~-~ , am the tenant of storage Unit # i"-1. at 1600 Alliance Road, Pickering, Ontario, L1W 3V2. I hereby acknowledge that I am content that the Brock Spa, operated by Anna Trojanowska, located at Unit #12, 1600 Alliance Road, Picketing, Ontario, L IW 3V2, continue to operate on these premises. Dated at ~ t"} / this -.~ ~ day of ~-,p-c' ~'1 ,2005. Signature of Tenant Name (printed) of Tenant ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RE: BROCK SPA Unit #12, 1600 Alliance Road, Pickering, Ontario I,//~c-",,q" /"/(//2.5'5'~' ,am the tenant of storage Unit # [tr at 1600 Alliance Road, Pickering, Ontario, L1W 3V2. I hereby acknowledge that I am content that the Brock Spa, operated by Anna Trojanowska, located at Unit #12, 1600 Alliance Road, Pickering, Ontario, L1W 3V2, continue to operate on these premises. Datedat /~/~,'7/t' ~. this-~ dayof ,,~)~?[c ,2005. '"Signatut~e of ~enai~t Name (printed) of Tenant 107 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RE: BROCK SPA Unit #12, 1600 Alliance Road, Pickering, Ontario I, "~CS~C~ ~[Q~ ~t4 [[~, , am the tenant of storage Unit # z( at 1600 Alliance Road, Pickering, Ontario, LlW 3V2. I hereby acknowledge that I am content that the Brock Spa, operated by Anna Trojanowska, located at Unit #12, 1600 Alliance Road, Pickering, Ontario, L1W 3V2, continue to operate on these premises. Dated at ~I'C_ ~--~Iv~5 this '~ ~C day of /q~9,~"'{ Ii ,2005. re of~enant Name (printed) of Tenant ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RE: BROCK SPA Unit #12, 1600 Alliance Road, Pickering, Ontario I, ¢~ ~ ~'~ '-/~ { ~"'/-L- ~'- , am the owner of storage Unit # 'q at 1600 Alliance Road, Pickering, Ontario, LlW 3V2. I hereby acknowledge that I am content that the Brock Spa, operated by Anna Trojanowska, located at Unit #12, 1600 Alliance Road, Picketing, Ontario, LlW 3V2, continue to operate on these premises. Dated at ~) I ~f ~'~-'~/Id 6:" this '~ ~ day of ,2005. Signature of Owner 77Jr Name (printed) of Owner 109 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RE: BROCK SPA Unit #12, 1600 Alliance Road, Pickering, Ontario I, , am the owner of storage Unitq#,/'~ at 1600 Alliance Road, Picketing, Ontario, L1W 3V2. I hereby acknowledge that I am content that the Brock Spa, operated by Anna Trojanowska, located at Unit #12, 1600 Alliance Road, Picketing, Ontario, L1W 3V2, continue to operate on these premises. Dated at ff~',/~ this ,,Z ~'" day of ,2005. Signature of Owner Name (printed) of Owner ATTACHMENT TO REPORT # ~'a_~-. ~.~- SCHEDULE 'B' TO BY-LAW 5764/00 DEFINED AREAS WHERE A BODY RUB PARLOUR MAY OPERATE LAKE ONTARIO ~T~A-CHMEN~ #. ¥ TO REPOR~ # ~ ~-~.~ ~ ~'~ ~ ~UNIT 12 STR ~ ~ City of Pickering Planning & Development Depa~ment PROPER~ DESCRIPTION DOC 89 UNIT ¢ 12 OWNER R, SIERECHON DATE JUNE 2~, 2005 DRAWN BY FILE No. BY-~WAMENDMENT SCALE 1:5000 CHECKED BY BT I12 PICKERING REPORT TO COUNCIL Report Number: CAO 13-05 Date: November 2, 2005 Thomas J. Quinn Chief Administrative Officer Subject: Transport Canada - Federal Airport Lands Due Diligence Review of Airport Master Plan File: D-7600-003 Recommendation: That Report CAO 13-05 concerning the Federal Government's due diligence review of the Greater Toronto Airports Authority's Master Plan for the Federal Lands in Pickering be received. That the Federal Government be advised that Pickering Council supports the completion of a due diligence review of the Greater Toronto Airports Authority's (GTAA's) Master Plan for the Federal Lands in Pickering, by the Federal Minister of Transport. That the Federal Minister of Transport be requested to ensure that the due diligence review provides ample opportunity for Pickering Council and interested members of the community to participate in the process. That the Federal Minister of Transport be requested to ensure the due diligence review includes (but is not necessarily limited to) the following broad considerations: (i) A comprehensive airport supply and demand analysis of airport traffic growth, and a review of airport governance in southern Ontario. (ii) A comprehensive business case analysis of a potential airport in Pickering. (iii) A peer review of the GTAA's Airport Master Plan and supporting documentation. That a copy of this Report and resolutions be forwarded to the Federal Minister of Transport, the Greater Toronto Airports Authority, the Region of Durham, Members of Parliament for Ajax-Pickering and Pickering-Scarborough East, and Member of Provincial Parliament for Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge. Report to Council CAO 13-05 Subject: Transport Canada - Due Diligence Review Date: November 2, 2005 Page 2 113 Executive Summary: This Report provides a position on the federal government's "due diligence" review of the work undertaken by the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA) with respect to a possible regional-reliever airport on the Federal Airport lands in Pickering. The Report recommends that Council request the Federal Minister of Transport to incorporate into the due diligence review the following: a comprehensive airport supply and demand analysis of airports in southern Ontario, a business case analysis of a Pickering airport, and a peer review of the GTAA's Airport Master Plan. As well the Report recommends the Federal Minister of Transport ensure that Pickering Council and interested members of the community be given ample opportunity to participate in the due diligence review. Financial Implications: None Background: In November 2004, the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA) released a Pickering Airport Draft Plan setting out the concept for a regional-reliever airport that could be developed on the Federal Lands in Pickering over the next 20 years. The Draft Plan was the culmination of more than a dozen studies, and was intended as background and input to a federal environmental assessment process that the GTAA had anticipated commencing in 2005. In December 2004, Pickering Council passed Resolution #172/04 directing staff to report back to Council no later than February 7, 2005, with appropriate terms of reference, a procedure and a proposed budget for a peer review of the Pickering Airport Draft Plan and updated FAA. The Resolution also directed that a request be made to the Federal Transport Minister and the CEO of the Greater Toronto Airports Authority for sufficient funding to enable the City to acquire qualified consultants to undertake the peer review. In furtherance of this Resolution, Report CAO 04-05 was prepared and considered by Council on February 7, 2005. Council received the Report and directed staff to pursue peer review funding with the Federal Government. On February 17, 2005, the Federal Transport Minister wrote to the City advising that his department is unable to be of assistance at this time (with respect to peer review funding) because the department is currently completing its own review of the GTAA's report, and that should his department determine that further review or additional studies are required, "appropriate action will be taken." Report to Council GAO 13-05 Subject: Transport Canada - Due Diligence Review Date: November 2, 2005 Page 3 In April 2005, the Chair of the GTAA responded to the City's request for peer review funding, noting that the City and GTAA staff have been discussing this matter and reviewing the opportunities to support the City's participation within the framework of an environmental assessment. On September 9, 2005, the Federal Transport Minister issued a news release confirming that Transport Canada would be conducting a comprehensive due diligence review of all related airport planning studies and that once completed, the department will be in a position to recommend next steps, including whether or not to proceed to a federal environmental assessment for a future possible airport. At the October 3, 2005, Council Meeting, Councillor Pickles referred to the due diligence review and asked if a report would be forthcoming on this matter. Mayor Ryan requested Members of Council to provide their comments to staff so that they could be considered along with any pertinent comments received from the public, by staff in preparing a Report to Council. Staff have subsequently contacted Transport Canada to advise them of the City's interest in providing input on the nature and scope of the due diligence review. Transport Canada noted that the matter is currently under consideration, and that more details should be available shortly. Accordingly, in light of Council's long-standing interest in the Federal Lands in Pickering, and given Council's previous request for assistance to undertake a peer review of the GTAA's work, the Federal Minister of Transport should be requested to ensure the due diligence review includes (but is not necessarily limited to) the following broad considerations: A comprehensive airport supply and demand analysis of airport traffic growth in southern Ontario including the potential opportunity and role of all existing southern Ontario airports in accommodating projected airport traffic growth, and a review of airport governance in southern Ontario. 2. A comprehensive business case analysis of a potential airport in Pickering should a Pickering airport be justified and confirmed by the airport supply and demand analysis. 3. A peer review of the GTAA's Airport Master Plan and supporting documentation. In addition, the Federal Minister of Transport should be requested to ensure the due diligence process is designed to provide ample opportunity for Pickering Council and interested members of the community to participate in the process and comment on the due diligence report before a decision is made with respect to the undertaking of a federal environmental assessment. Report to Council CAO 13-05 Subject: Transport Canada - Due Diligence Review Date: November 2, 2005 Page 4 115 Prepared By: Approved / Endorsed By: Thomas E. ~elyrr)Zik ~ T~iomas J. Quirth ' Division Head, C/orporate Projects"&~'olicyChief Administrative Officer TJQ:tm Copy: Directors Division Head, Corporate Projects & Policy Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council ,, Th~rn-~s J. Qui~, Chief _~'ninistr~. 116 PICKE_I'{IN PROCLAMATION DATE: NOVEMBER 7, 2005 WHEREAS, in the face of crime or conflict, restorative justice offers a philosophy and approach that views these matters principally as harm done to people and relationships; and WHEREAS, restorative justice approaches strive to provide support and opportunities for the voluntary participation and communication between those affected by crime and conflict (victims, offenders, community) to encourage accountability, reparation and a movement towards understanding, feelings of satisfaction, healing and closure; and WHEREAS, this year's theme for Restorative Justice Week is "Wisdom Gained through Experience", it is an opportunity to learn, educate and celebrate along with other communities across the country and restorative justice during the week. THEREFORE, The Council of the City of Pickering do hereby proclaim November 13-20, 2005 as Restorative Justice Week. MAYOR RYAN Correctional Service Service correctionnei Canada Canada Commissioner Ottawa, Canada K1A 0P9 fir'T 1t Commissaire As the new Commissioner of the Correctional Service ~oCf Cana a (CSC), it gives me great pleasure to call upon all Mayors, Reeves, Councillors and Community Leaders from across Canada to proclaim Restorative Justice Week 2005. CSC has been an active partner in the restorative justice conanunity for more than a decade and has been proud to provide leadership to the annual celebration of Restorative Justice Week since 1996. Restorative Justice Week 2005 will be held within Canada and throughout the world from November 13th through tO November 20th. The theme is "Wisdom Gained Through Experience" focussing on sharing the concrete learning and results that have come from the growing experience of practitioners and stakeholders in the application of restorative justice concepts and techniques. Things you could do as a leader in your community include the following: · Declare / proclaim Restorative Justice Week 2005 ............ Please._~isit our website for a printable copy of a generic proclamation,~t. ,,hftp://www.csc-scc;gc. ca/text/forum/restore2OO5/home e:s'htnll. / /" · Host a town hall meeting to promote an awareness of how restorative justice is exp.ress~ed in your comrgumtms. · Pro~;i~ 'ma Open, respectful dialogue in an effort to help members of your .community deal with issues such as community safety and relationship deterioration b~c'o~Tli~t';TihToriier.to nurture the healing process. // · Invite a guest speaker(s) f~0m your community involved in restorative justice to [share !h,~i.r perspectives. You ,m_aY fred such speakers in local community b.rganizafions or contact CSC s Restorative Justice and Dispute Resolution Branch for a"ISst of available speakeri h~ross the country at: RestorativeJustice~csc-scc. gc.ca 117 anaaa 118 -2- Last year's participation was a great success and we are hoping to build on that this year with your support. Please let us know if your city, town or village is planning an event or proclaiming Restorative Justice Week 2005 as we would like to recognise your participation in our national report. In this regard, if you choose to participate, it would be appreciated if you could fax a copy of the proclamation with contact information to the attention of John Green at (613) 992-2653. Sincerely, Keith Coulter THE CORPORATION Of THE CITY OF PICKERING BY-LAW NO. 6592/05 Being a by-law to appoint By-law Enforcement Officers for certain Purposes (Parking Regulation-1355 Kingston and 1822 Whites Road.) WHEREAS pursuant to section 15(I) of the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.15, as amended, a municipal council may appoint persons to enforce the by-laws of the municipality; and WHEREAS pursuant to section 15(2) of the said Act, municipal by-law enforcement officers are peace officers for the purpose of enforcing municipal by-laws; NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: That the following persons be hereby appointed as municipal law enforcement officers in and for the City of Pickering in order to ascertain whether the provisions of By-law 2359/87 are obeyed and to enforce or carry into effect the said By-law and are hereby authorized to enter at all reasonable times upon lands municipally known as: a) 1355 Kingston Road:. John Ly Jeff Kan b) 1822 Whites Road: Lisa Bindon The authority granted in section I hereto is specifically limited to that set out in section 1, and shall not be deemed, at any time, to exceed the authority set out in section 1. These appointments shall expire upon the persons listed in section l(a) ceasing to be employees of Pickering Town Centre for 1355 Kingston Road, or upon the person listed in section l(b) ceasing to be an employee of P.R.O. Security & Investigation Agency or upon P.R.O. Security & Investigation Agency ceasing to be agents for 1822 Whites Road, or whichever shall occur first. BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 7th day of November, 2005. David Ryan, Mayor Debi Bentley, City Clerk 119 120 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM October 13, 2005 To: From: Subject: Debi A. Bentley City Clerk Denise Bye Coordinator, Property & Development Services Request for Road Dedication By-law (Rosebank Road) Part Lots 30 and 31, Conc. 2, Pickering (Parts 15 & 21, Plan 40R-23461) Roadded.460 An application for development of a plan of subdivision on the northwest corner of Finch and Rosebank (40M-2254) has created the need for a realignment of Rosebank Road north of Finch Avenue. It is anticipated that such a realignment will accommodate the increased traffic volume in this area, provide an improved and safer intersection for both vehicles and pedestrians and will allow for future signalization when traffic volumes are warranted. Staff have negotiated with Hydro for the acquisition of the lands required to accommodate this realignment and once the City becomes the registered owner of the lands and the road is constructed to standards acceptable to the City, dedication is required. Accordingly, a By-law should be enacted authorizing the dedication of these lands. Attached hereto is a location map and a By-law. This By-law is in the form usually used in such cases and is attached for the consideration of City Council at its meeting scheduled for November 7, 2005. DB:bg J \Documents\Prop & Dev\ROADDED',SEC\460',mer'no to City Clerk doc Attachments Denise Bye Copy: Director, Planning & Development Division Head, Municipal Property & Engineering Supervisor, Development Control C.P.R. DRIVE c,o?..?-. FINCH AVENUE LANDS FINCH SQUARE AMBERLEA ROAD AVENUE DRIFTWO0[ SAUGEEN City of Pickering Planning & Development Department PROPERTY DESCRIPTION PT. LOTS 30 & 31, CONCESSION 2, BEING PARTS 15 & 21, 4OR-23461 OWNER CITY OF PICKERING DATE OCT. 3, 2005 DRAWN BY JB '/~ FILE No. ROADDED. 460 SCALE 1:5000 CHECl~D BY DB -, ..... , ,-~,.~,,,. ......... ,~ ,,...0,.,~ .... ^,, .,¢,,.. ...... ,,. ,.o, o ,., ....... .-,. PN-14 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING BY-LAW NO. 6593/05 Being a by-law to dedicate that part of Lot 31, Concession 2, Pickering, designated as Part 15, Plan 40R-23461 and that part of Lot 30, Concession 2, Pickering, designated as Part 21, Plan 40R-23461, as public highway (Rosebank Road). WHEREAS The Corporation of the City of Pickering is the owner of that part of Lot 31, Concession 2, Pickering, designated as Pad 15, Plan 40R-23461 and that part of Lot 30, Concession 2, Pickering, designated as Part 21, Plan 40R-23461 and wishes to dedicate them as public highway. NOW THEREFORE, the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: That part of Lot 31, Concession 2, Pickering, designated as Part 15, Plan 40R-23461 is hereby dedicated as public highway (Rosebank Road). That part of Lot 30, Concession 2, Pickering, designated as Part 21, Plan 40R-23461, is hereby dedicated as public highway (Rosebank Road). BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 7th day of November, 2005. David Ryan, Mayor Debi A. Bentley, City Clerk Roadded460 ! i ! THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING BY-LAW NO. 6594/05 Being a by-law to stop-up and close that part of Lot 5, RCP No. 819, Pickering, being Part 2, Plan 40R-21838 as public highway and authorize the sale of the land as it is no longer required for municipal purposes. WHEREAS the portion of Helm Street being that part of Lot 5, RCP No. 819, Pickering, designated as Part 2, Plan 40R-21838 was dedicated as public highway by By-law 6156/03; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Municipal Act, the Council of the City may pass by-laws to stop-up and close a highway, or part thereof, and to authorize its sale or the sale of a part thereof; and WHEREAS, Notice of this by-law has been published for two (2) consecutive weeks and the provisions of the Municipal Act, the Sale of Surplus Land Policy and the City's Notice By-Law relating to the stopping-up and closing of a highway have been complied with. NOW THEREFORE, the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. The following portion of highway is hereby stopped-up and closed to both vehicular and pedestrian traffic: · that part of Lot 5, RCP No. 819, Pickering, being Part 2, Plan 40R-21838. That part of Lot 5, RCP No. 819, Pickering, being Part 2, Plan 40R-21838 is hereby deemed surplus to the needs of the Corporation and shall therefore be offered for sale to the adjacent owner, for nominal consideration, subject to any required easements. The Corporation of the City of Pickering shall ensure that all utility easements over any of the lands described herein are conveyed to the appropriate utility authority for nominal consideration ($2.00). The Mayor, Clerk, Director, Planning & Development and City Solicitor are authorized to obtain all relevant documentation necessary and execute all documentation required to effect the stopping-up and closing of that part of Lot 5, RCP No. 819, Pickering, being Part 2, Plan 40R-21838 and to effect the conveyance of it. BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 7th day of Novermber, 2005. David Ryan, Mayor Debi A. Bentley, City Clerk RE0514 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING BY-LAW 6595/05 Being a by-law to amend By-law Number 2206/86 for the licensing, regulating and governing of taxicab drivers, owners and brokers WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering enacted By- law Number 2206/86 on May 5, 1986 to licence, regulate and govern taxicab drivers, owners and brokers; and WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to increase the rates and fares charged for hiring a taxicab. NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: Schedule 'B' to By-law Number 2206/86, as amended by By-law Number 3320/89 and 5807/01 is hereby deleted and Schedule '1' attached hereto is substituted therefore and shall come into force and effect on November 15, 2005. BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 7th day of November, 2005. David Ryan, Mayor 125 BY-LAW NUMBER 6595/05 SCHEDULE"B" TARIFF OF RATES AND FARES A. FARES For the first one-tenth kilometre or part thereof $2.75 For each additional one-tenth kilometre or part thereof $0.18 For waiting time while under engagement, per minute $0.40 (incl. GST) (incl. GST) (incl. GST) B. RATES For each passenger in excess of four $0.25 For each trunk exceeding 0.1 cubic meters $0.60 For each piece of luggage not carried inside the taxicab$0.15 C. NOTES Maximum total charge under B.1, 2 and 3 shall not exceed $0.60 for any trip No rate is chargeable for the carriage of a wheelchair accompanying a handicapped person. NOTICE OF MOTION DATE: November 7, 2005 MOVED BY: COUNCILLOR BRENNER SECONDED BY: COUNCILLOR MCLEAN WHEREAS outstanding elements of Bill 124 relating to building code knowledge and insurance requirements come into effect January 1, 2006; WHEREAS the Ontario Association of Architects and the Professional Engineers of Ontario have initiated a letter-writing campaign in an attempt to exempt their professions from the requirements of Bill 24; WHEREAS this could result in a greater incidence of errors in building permit submissions and increased municipal liability since the submissions of architects and engineers would not need to be insured; WHEREAS, be it hereby acknowledged that the City of Picketing strongly objects to the request of architects and engineers for exemption from Bill 124; THEREFORE, the City of Pickering hereby requests that the Building Advisory Council (BAC) be set up in January 2006 to address the following issues regarding liability recommended by the Building Regulatory Reform Advisor Group (BRRAG) but omitted in Bill 24, · Improved Code knowledge for builders/contractors, · Provisions for builder liability insurance for non-residential builders, · Longer liability insurance pedods for designers; and NOW THEREFORE, be it hereby acknowledged that the City of Pickering requests that the Building Advisory Council (BAC) review the other 127 recommendations of BRRAG that were omitted in Bill 124, which will create a more equitable building regulatory system in Ontario; AND FURTHER that support from the following be hereby requested: Mark Holland, MP · Dan McTeague, MP · WayneArthurs, MPP · Minister Gerretsen · Attorney General. 128 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM October 31,2005 To: From: Subject: Thomas J. Quinn ~~%~,,,ULATe Chief Administrative Officer ?~OUNCU. Tim Moore ~';~'~~ Ohief Building Official AMO Aled 05/073 Building Code Statute Law Amendmen~}ZZ~~:~T~ Notice of Motion, October 17, 2005 [Resolution ~188/05] This Notice of Motion strongly objects to architects and professional engineers being excluded from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) qualification requirements of Bill 124, as suggested by an alert issued by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. The matter of professional exemption is currently being addressed by the Attorney General of Ontario, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Professional Engineers Ontario and the Ontario Association of Architects. There is no need for City Council to obstruct this process or express an opinion on the matter. In particular, it would be unwise to express any support of AMO Alert 05/073, since it distorts the issues under debate and contains information which is untrue. The AMO communication implies that architects and engineers are technically incompetent, routinelY submit grossly inadequate documents, and that, unless the professions are legislated otherwise by MMAH, public safety will be compromised and building permits delayed. There is no factual basis for these statements, and they do not reflect the current state of professional practice I observe. The professions' concerns about the incoherent bureaucr, acy created by the MMAH imposed designer qualificatiOns are being improperly presented in this communiqub as resistance to appropriate qualification and competency standards. · The decision by MMAH to implement a qualification program affecting architects and engineers without the agreement and consent of the professional licensing bodies is risky. Under the current system of governance, the public in Ontario currently enjoys a very high standard of building safety. Any modification to the critical area of qualification which is not endorsed and implemented by the professional associations should be cause for concern. The ambiguity in oversight created by Bill 124 may, in the long term, eventually erode the mandate of the Ontario Association of Architects (OAA) and Professional Engineers Ontai-io (PEO)in protecting the public interest. AMO Alert 05/073 October 31,2005- Page 2 !29 Contrary to the AMO statements, there are probably no significant consequences to the professional associations being exempt from MMAH imposed qualifications, provided they remain comprehensively regulated through their licensing bodies. I have found no reason to believe there would be any effect on public safety, our insurance or liabilities, building permit timing, the required professional duty of care, or any responsibilities we carry out in enforcing the Building Code Act. Document submissions by professional designers generally have little impact on building permit delays, which are almost always due to Planning Act and other applicable law requirements. Due to our particular expertise in the regulations, we do commonly find areas of designer submissions which do not fully comply 'with building code requirements, and correct them. The great majority of errors or omissions are usually detail matters. Instances where major design problems exist which significantly affect public safety are the exception and not the rule. Under the current Building Code Act, I have powers to refuse any permit or refer a professional designers submission to the OAA or PEO if it is significantly faulty. I have filed one PEO complaint, which was completed in 2004. The PEO complaint process is, however, ineffective due to the length, formality and adversarial nature of the process. I have never had the necessity to file a complaint with the OAA. The additional designer qualification provisions of Bill 124 do not provide any additional mechanisms which are necessary for me to ensure that buildings comply with public safety regulations. In the event Council wishes to take a position on this matter, MMAH could be encouraged to reach a consensus with the professional associations on the qualification aspects of Bill 124 regulations, prior to putting them into effect. TM:kb J:\MGMT~tmoore~MEMOS\Memo 10.31.05 - Debi Bentley - AMO Alert.doc Copy: Director, Planning & Development City Clerk 'Ruby a Edwardh f arristers n Prince Arthur AVenUe "Toron¢o, Ontario Telephone 4x6 964'9664 ~ Facskn le 4x6 96443o5 October 1.$, 2005 BY,',fax on.!Y: 4i6~971~6191 Roger Anderson Pf6$ident. A~socia~!on of Mmsicipalities of Ontario .393 University Ave,, Suite 1701 'TOionto,.ON MSG Dear Mr. Anderson, 'I represent Professional Engineers of OntarJ, o.(PEO),' the l'icsnsing and .regulating bgdY.. "'". fro- engi'neer[ng 'in the province. PEO has 70,000 members across '{he province. PEO '" takes pr. ide in its;ability to protect the public by ensurillg that all professional engine'e~s." are qualified for licensing. '~ '; ".: ' '",.'." "" ' , , , .. . ;~.',f .'1. ~.,':. · My client has received a copy of an "Alert" dated Oa~0ber 3, 200S published 'a~'d ": -"~ . apparently.widely distributed.by the A~sociatior, of Municipalities re.gai-ding the £uil.,di'b~. . 'Code Statute Law Amendme'nt Act, 2002. The "Alert" con~a/n~ a :nm-nber of' ~atse.". ". '".". ..... 'statements which defame the Professional Engineers of Ontario and i.ts members. ' :' .~ ','"' ,:" ' ": ') '.." ."' I.n particular, the "Alert" states that exempting the professional engineers from application of.Bill. 124. "could result in greater incidence of' errors in bui. ldihg pianO-it '. saom~ss~o . The Alert.also' states that Municipal building officials have "lbng r~p'drt~d '...'...".~. ' a. significant incidence of ~rrors'.in building permit so. bmissi0hs prepared by. aro~t¢c¢ ,.. and professional engmeer. Neither of these stazements is true. . The City of Toronto issues approximately 3¢,000 building p~rmits eadh yea~. Last '~dar, · .wken Bill 124 was r~ot in .force, only one com.pl~iat'was filed.with PEO in re[atio'n to a~.... Builcting Code issue. This is the only complain~ ;~he PEO has receive'd 'from any btiil{irig''~ official in Ontario in. the pkst 10 :years.tha;~.one of its m~mbers was not suffi',c~'eJnrl~ E' d H(IEIb~PlEI2 :'8 ,kEt'PEJ 14d91:: PO SI3, S~ ~L70. .. · ' Ruby gz Edwardh knowledgeable about the relevant provis;ions Building Code, The PEO dealt with this...,... Complaint swiftly and in accordsmce wi~ their existing disciplinary proc~ess. There.is .::.. ..... s{mply no evidence tO substanl:iate your statement that a signifioant ntlmber of building ......... ' ......." permit applisations submitted by PEO members contain errors. Nor is there any evidence that"exempting bngineer$ from Bill 124 v,dil'~'dverselY affect public sgcty, We demand ttiat you take immediate steps to retract .these. false statements from ~our .... . . ... "Alert". We.further demand that you send an explanation .that clarifies the. matter to ottr .: ,., .... :satiSfaction to knyon~ who received the original "Alert." ," ',., · · . . . .,..... FleaSe pro'~ide me With a ¢o~y of your written retraction wlthin $ days~ S1~outd I not hear ' :'." .from you,'pEO rotenast°s~kredressanct'aamages''thr°ughtheC°urts' :" ' ' Yours v6ry tm)),, : : Clayton C. Ruby cc. The'Honourable John Oerrets~n (b;~ fax onJy: 4:16:-585-6470) The Hortotlrable Mi6hael Bryant (by fax. or,..Jy:i 416-326-,4016). 132 Professional Engineers Ontario October 4, 2005 The Hon. Michael Bryant Attorney General The Executive Council of Ontario 720 Bay Street, 11th Floor Toronto, Ontario MSG 2K1 !000-25 Sheppaxd Avenue West Toronto, ON M2N 6S9 Tel: 416 224--1100 800 339-3716 Fa.x: 416 224-8168 80O 268-04,96 Ea£o~cemen~ Ho "JL~ e: 416 224 9528 Ext, 1444 Dear Attorney General: Re: Letter from Ann Borooah, Chair, Large Municipalities Chief Building Officials Group (LMCBO), dated August 18, 2005 I am writing in response to the above noted letter to you and Minister Gerretsen wherein Ms. Borooah outlines LMCBO's reasons for opposing an exemption for professional engineers from the Bui/d/ng Code Statute Law Amendment Act changes. Ms. Borooah acknowledges the failure on the part of building officials to use the complaints process established under the Professiona/Engineers Act (PEA) when encountering problems with building code applications by professional engineers. Her comments go to the fundamental concern of PEO, which is that there is already a regulatory regime in place to address any problems that arise with professional engineers discharging their professional responsibilities. These concerns were outlined over a year ago in the attached letter from PEO to Minister Gerretsen, dated September 16, 2004. Given your legislatiVe role for the Act and its accompanying regulations (section 6 of the PEA), can we expect that you will respond in defense of the regulatory instruments that are impugned by the current LMCBO position outlined by Ms. Borooah? Section 72(2)(d) of Regulation 94t of the PEA holds professional engineers responsible for complying with "applicable statutes, regulations, standards, codes, by4aws and rules" in the discharge of their duties. Building Code officials are charged with reviewing building applications for code compliance. Their responsibility is not to ensure that the professional engineer making the application is meeting all the required tenets of professional licensure. This is the role of PEO. It is not appropriate for building officials to reject the processes enshrined by the government in the PEA to address allegations of professional misconduct or incompetence. Contrary to Ms. Borooah admissions, failure to make use of the statutory instruments for filing of complaints not only represents LMCBO's failure to recognize the legal requirements of natural justice under administrative law, but more importantly, it undermines the very public policy that created the regulatory complaints process in the PEA. -2- Minister, the lack of resolution of this issue and the attacks on the principle of self- regulation cannot be in the best interest of the public or of the government. I have been offering to meet with Minister Gerretsen to table some fresh approaches without even an acknowledgement of my letters. Could I entreat you to prevail on your colleague to meet with us and resolve this matter, before this becomes a major and damaging public confrontation to the detriment of all concerned? Yours sincerely, ~trick J. ©uinn, ~.~n§. ~resident-~lect cc: Hon. John Gerretsen, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Ms. Ann Borooah, Chair, LMCBO :1.34 July 12, 2005 The Hon. John Gerretsen Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing 17~h Floor, 777 Bay St. Toronto, Ontario M5G 2E5 Dear Minister: Thank you for your letter dated June 1,2005 regarding recent changes to the Building Code Act, 1992 and the Building Code resulting from the Building Code Statute Law Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 124). As stated in earlier correspondence to you, we appreciate your support with respect to the development of our own 'parallel system' related to Building Code qualifications and registration. Notwithstanding that we have proceeded with implementation of our Building Code Designation System ('parallel system'), we would like to meet with you to discuss further changes in the context of the six month delay rot implementation of the qualification and registration requirements for designers and the continued advocacy by the Professional Engineers Ontario (PEO) for exemption without conditions. If a full exemption for members of the PEO is to be granted, we would o¢ course expect the same treatment of the architectural profession in Ontario. As we have stated many times, the OAA maintains that mandatory requirements for additional certification related to Building Code knowledge, in particular the imposition of examination requirements, is an unnecessary intrusion on the self-regulating status of architects and engineers as licensed design professionals. We look forward to meeting with you in the near future to discuss this issue in more detail G. Randy Roberts, Architect B.Arch., MBA, OAA President cc: Professional Engineers Ontario I I i Moatfield Drive. Toronto, Ontario, C~n~da PI3B 3L6 Telephone 416.449.6898 Fax 416,449.57~;6 w~ew.oaa on,c~ 135 OConsulting Engineers of Ontario 10 Four Seasons Place, Suite 405, Toronto, OntadoM9B 6H7 Tel: (416) 620-1400 Fax: (416) 620-5803 E-Mail: staff@ceo.on.ca Advisory to Members September 19, 2005 Issue: CEO has responded to a misleading communication from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario issued in support of Bill 124 (see attached). Background: CEO is opposed to Bill 124 and its regutations which, if imptemented, woutd change the building permit process effective January 1, 2006. While supportive of the intentions of the Building Regutatory Reform Advisory Group to improve the building permit process, CEO betieves that Bill 124 witt actually increase the bureaucracy, time and costs associated with the process. Furthermore, CEO betieves that the registration and certification requirements of Bitl 124 wit[ be ineffective, costly and wit[ undermine the authority of the Professional Engineers Act. Current Situation: The Association of/~unicipatities of Ontario has issued Alert 05/073 to the attention of cterks and municipal councils across Ontario and to ail members of provinciat parliament. In the Alert, AMO has strongty endorsed Bilt 124 with particular emphasis on retaining the certification and registration requirements for professionat designers including professional engineers. The Atert further requests that all members of AMO have their municipal councils pass resotutions in support of Bitl 124 and its certification and registration requirements. Alert 05/73 is misleading and defamatory to the consultinR enRineerinR sector. The Alert suggests that the certification and registration of design professionats is necessary to enhance public safety. Recommended Action: CEO recommends that its members advise members of municipal councils and local members of provincial parliament of the nature of and reasons for CEO's opposition to Bill 124 and to assure them of the professionalism and the high [eve[ of service that consulting engineers provide to the municipal sector. Additional information on Bill 124 is available on the CEO website at www.ceo.on.ca. Page 1 of 1 GConsulting Engineers of Ontario October 19, 2005 ~ 10 Four Seasons Place, Suite 405 Toronto, Ontario MgB 6H7 Tel: (416) 620-1400 Fax: (416) 620-5803 E-mail: staff@ceo.on.ca www. ceo.on,ca Association of MunicipaLities of Ontario 393 .University Avenue, Suite 1701 Toronto, Ontario MSG 1E6 Attention: Roger Anderson President Alert 05/073 - Amendments to the Building Code Act Dear Mr. Anderson: Consutting Engineers of Ontario is a non-profit organization representing the business and professional interests of over 260 engineering firms from across Ontario. CEO's members have provided service to the municipal sector for over a centurY, and have planned and designed most of Ontario's infrastructure on behatf of municipat clients. We have consistently advocated for tong-term, significant investment in municipal infrastructure. Our members and Ontario's municipa[iUes have tong enjoyed re[atlonsMps characterized by professtonaUsm and mutual respect. With that background, we are concerned by Alert 051073 recently issued .by your association to the attention of clerks and municipal councils across Ontario and by your.letter of October 6, 2005 sent to att members of provincial parliament. We are disappointed that your association would proceed without verifying the position of the design industrY and in apparent disregard for the reputation of that industry. For the reasons outUned be[ow, we believe that your ALert is misleading, that it perpetuates assertions by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (bW~H) that have never been substantiated, and that it is harmful to competent and credible engineering and architectural practices across Ontario. We take great exception to any insinUation· that Bill 124 and its regulations are necessary to safeguard public safety. During consultations On Bi[[ 124, NV~AH reassured the professional design industry that its commitment to public safety has never been catted into question. The reason for objecting to the implementation of Bill 124 is that, notwithstanding assurances of/VWIAH, it will fundamentally fait to achieve the oHgtnal intent of the Building Regulatory Reform Advisory Group (BRRAG) to improve and streamline the Building Permit process. It is important to note that the design industry supported much of the Original intent of BRRAG. However in its current form, Bi[[ 124 will not Page 1 of 4 Roger Anderson Association of/~unicipaLities of Ontario October 19, 2005 I37 only fait to improve the Buttding Permit process but wit[ increase the bureaucracy, time and cost associated with processing a permit appUcation - precisely the opposite result to that originaLLy intended by BRRAG. This view is widely held throughout the stakeholder community, including designers, builders, developers and many building offida[s. We understand that many building departments are already creating new forms and procedures and seeking additional staff resources in order to implement the new changes. White we respect the position of the municipal sector, particuLarLy as it pertains to Uabi[ity concerns, we are compeLLed to respond to specific issues raised by your ALert. quality of submissions COntrary to its assertions, AAJV~H has never substantiated that the quality of submissions was unsatisfactory or that 1[ was a significant cause of delays in the BuiLding Permit process. WhiLe NtMAH did commission a report to document some · anecdotal interviews with a smart number of buikding departments, that same report noted that the most significant cause of delays were the required planning approvals. Not only does BiLL 124 not propose any improvements to the planning process, but the stipulated time frames in Bit[ 124 are based upon planning approvals already being in place. Furthermore, the same report noted that BuiLding Permit submission requirements varied significantly from municipaLity.to municipaUty and as such, "non-compUant" submissions where frequently matters of interpretation of Local policy rather than Code requirements. With respect to the "quaLification" requirements as proposed, our concern is that they wi[[ provide tittle benefit as they are based soLeLy on a series of open-book muLtipLe choice tests without any consideration of formal design training or practical experience. I)ui[dlng design is complex and the organization of the BuiLding Code and its requisite tests do not reaUsticatty reflect the practice of professional engineering and tong established disciplines and areas of practice within the profession (e.g. eLectricaL engineers compeLLed to now write examinations that predominantly feature questions on mechanical engineering). ALso, there are a number of "niche" areas of practice where it is unclear to what extent the qualification requirements apply. WhiLe AA/VtAH staff has recently made attempts to discuss the issue of "niche" areas of practice, we do not beUeve the issue can be effectively addressed under the proposed format. Nowhere in the AAMAH report is there any suggestion that public safety has been in any way compromised. Att the recommendations in the report where intended to improve "LeveLs of service". For the record, even with tens of thousands of permits applications being submitted to building departments, Professional Engineers Page 2 of 4 Roger Anderson Associatlon of Municipalities of Ontario October 19, 2005 Ontario has received only 25 comptaints over the past 10 years re!~arding compliance with the Ontario Building Code. Public safety has not been, and is not now, an issue and to su!~gest otherwise is a most serious and misleading affront to the professionalism and integrity of the thousands of members of the self- regulating design professions in this province. Exemption of other desisners With respect to requests for exemption by other designers, only professiona[ engineers and architects are regulated and accountabte under provincial statutes. It is also worth noting that the study commissioned by MMAH observed that incidents of non-compliance with the Code was stgnfficantty higher in sUbmissions made by non-regulated designers (i.e. submissions by professional engineers and architects were significantly more compliant). Duty of care Your assertion that building officials would be the "onty provinciat[y qualified practitioners" and would be held to a higher duty of care is factually wrong. Renu.[at,on 94! under the Proj:essfonai Engineers Act explicitly states that "faiture to make responsible provision for complying With appticabte statutes, regutations, standards, codes, by-taws and rules in connection with work being undertaken by or under the responsibitity of the Practitioner" constitutes professional misconduct and can result in the revocation of a practitioner's [icence to practice. The Architects Act has similar provisions. The licensing statutes woutd, and do, 'hold professional' engineers and architects to a higher, standard, as has been the case for many years. Insurance We do not dispute the desire of municipalities to have design firms carry sufficient insurance, and in fact endorse the principle of design firms carrying appropriate levels of insUrance. You Wit[ find that the vast majority of CEO member firms already carry sufficient insurance for the nature and value of the projects, which in many cases may even exceed the requirements of Bi[[ 1;[4 and its regulations. We however note that the proposed insuranCe requirements reflect the amount of fees bitted by a firm (ir~ the previous year) rather than the value of the work performed or the risk inherent in the project. We suggest that it is more sensible that bUitding officials simply be given the. authority to request proof of adequate insurance, based on local risks and needs, as part of the application rather retying on a government mandated registration regime. Page 3 of 4 Roger Anderson Association of MunicipaUtles of Ontario October 19, 2005 Resolution of Issues With respect to the Building Advisory Council recommended by BRRAG, one of our greatest disappointments is that the Building Advisory Council was not established immediatelY. The only reason that it is now fina[ty being estabUshed in' January 2006 is because of pressure from the stakeholder community [ed by the design, construction and development sectors. A series of meetings have been held by the ~cakeho[der community over the past year in preparation of the estabUshment of the Bui[dtng Advisory Council Unfortunate[y, despite numerous invitations, there has' been no representation from AMO at any of these meetings. This is regrettabte since it woutd have offered an appropriate forum to address the concerns stated in your Alert and to clarify any misunderstandings between any of the affected stakehotders. We now fear that AMO's actions wit[ have entrenched stakeholder positions on Bi[[' 124. These are our principle concerns with AMO's Alert document, which again strikes us as very'disappointing and counterproductive. We would respectfully request that your association immediately rescind Alert: 05/073. We further suggest any issues of concern or mutual interest that the municipal sector shares with the consuttin~ engineering commUnity would best be addressed by a direct dialogue between our two associations. We took forward to hearing from you as soon as possible. Sincerety, Anne Poschmann, P. Eng. Chair, 'Board of Directors Cc: Clerks and Munidpa[ Councils Members of Provincial ParUament Professional Engineers Ontario Ontario Association of Architects Ontario SOctetYof Professional Engineers Ontario Genera[ Contractors Association Municipal Engineers Association Ontario Building Officials Association Page 4 of 4 Ontario Asseciation of Architects August 2, 2005 The Honourable Michael Bryant Attomey General 720 Bay St., 11th Floor Toronto, Ontario MSG 2K1 Dear Minister: I am writing regarding the recent amendments to the Ontario Building Code that introduce new requirements for designer qualification and registration, including a requirement to pass a series of examinations developed and administered by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Those requirements were to take effect on July 1, 2005 but their implementation has been delayed until January 1, 2006. As we have stated many times since the recommendations which led to those requirements were first tabled in July 2000, the Ontario Association of Architects (OAA) maintains that the imposition of these requirements is an unnecessary intrusion on the self-regulating status of architects and engineers as licensed design professionals. The OAA has consistently sought exemption from these requirements, citing in particular new standards and programs which OAA Council has introduced in the past five years. As stated in earlier correspondence to you, we appreciate your support earlier this year with respect to the development of our own "parallel system" related to Building Code qualifications and registration. This includes the invaluable assistance of your office and ministry staff in the negotiation and execution of a Memorandum of Understanding with your ministry and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and the approval of regulations under the Architects Act. Notwithstanding that we have proceeded with implementation of our Building Code Designation System ("parallel system"), we would like to meet with you to discuss further changes in the context of the six month delay for implementation of the qualification and registration requirements for designers and the continued advocacy by Professional Engineers Ontario (PEO) for exemption without conditions. I II Hoatfield Drive, Toronto, Ontario Canada ht3B 3L6 TeJephonc 416.44~.6898 F~x 416-~49-$756 www.oaa.on.ca If a full exemption for members of the PEO is to be granted, we would of course expect the same treatment of the architectural profession in Ontario. We look forward to meeting with you in the near future to discuss this issue in more detail and trust that we can count on your continued support of architecture as a self-regulating profession. Sincerely, G. Randy Roberts, Architect B.Arch., MBA, OAA President cc. Adam Dodek, Executive Assistant Professional Engineers Ontario I I t Moatrmld Drive, Toronto, Ontario Canada M3B 3L6 Telephone 416.449.6898 Fax 4t6.449.$756 www.oaa.on.ca Ontario Association of Architects October 20, 2005 The Honourable Michael Bryant Attorney General 720 Bay St., 11th Floor Toronto, Ontario M5G 2K1 Dear Minister: The OAA wrote to you on August 2, 2005 indicating our intention to amend our Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with your ministry and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to eliminate requirements for qualification and registration of architects with respect to Building Code knowledge. A copy of that letter is attached for your reference. We understand from our colleagues at Professional Engineers Ontario (PEO) that they have successfully negotiated exemption for their members from requirements for designers set out in the Building Code. The Architects Act and the Professional Engineers Act were put in place simultaneously and are generally regarded as "parallel" statutes. Following are the amendments to our MOU which are required now to maintain the "parallel" status of our two professions. Architecture, like engineering, is a self-regulating profession, Under the Architects Act, the Attorney General is responsible for administering the statute, just as is the case with the Professional Engineers Act. We would therefore anticipate your ministry taking the lead in making these amendments, just as we understand you have done for PE0, including amendments necessary to better reflect the fact that the Attorney General has direct responsibility for administering the Architects Act. The rigorous qualifications for licensure as an architect are set out in Regulation 27 under the Architects Act. These requirements already include the necessary exposure to all types of building regulation, including the Building Code. It is unnecessary to impose any additional requirements on licensed architects. Therefore, the requirements for tests and for redundant registration in the MOU must be eliminated. The architectural profession is fully prepared to continue with the consumer protection mechanisms set out in the MOU, notably the complaints and discipline process, and with the OAA mandatory continuing education program. Further, the profession is prepared to maintain the requirement for mandatory professional liability insurance at the limits now set out in the Building Code. I I I Moatfield Drive, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M38 3L6 Telephone 416.449.6898 Fax 416.449.5756 www.oaa.on.ca 2 Amendments to Regulation 27 under the Architects Act will be necessary to reflect these changes to the MOU, principally the elimination of testing and redundant registration, and we would anticipate your assistance in again expediting the necessary amendments. Minister, the implementation date of January 1,2006 means we must move immediately to make these amendments to the MOU and Regulation 27. We would like to meet with you as soon as possible to conclude this process. We strongly suggest that PEO participate in the same meeting. Given the limited time available, OAA staff will contact your office immediately to coordinate that meeting. Sincerely, Lisa M. Bate B.Arch., OAA, MRAIC President CC. Encl. Hon. John Gerretsen, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing John Twohig, Senior Counsel, Policy Division, Ministry of the Attorney General Brian Watkinson, Executive Director, OAA Pat Quinn, President-elect, Professional Engineers Ontario Minutes I Meeting Summary TAXICAB ADVISORY COMMITTEE October 18, 2005 11:00 am Chair - Councillor Brenner Attendees: Councillor Maurice Brenner Councillor Bill McLean Gurbax Singh Mann Guram Jagpal Singh Jaswant Singh Pannu Kewal Manocha Muhammad Naeem Khan Debbie Shields, City of Pickering Kimberly Thompson, City of Pickering Debbie Watrous, City of Pickering Item / Details & Discussion & Conclusion Action Items / Status (include deadline as Ref # (summary of discussion) appropriate) 1. Welcome Councillor Brenner welcomed the Committee Members and guests and congratulated members on the extensive work carried out by the Committee within a short period of time. 2. Review and Approval of Minutes Moved by Guram Jagpal Singh That the minutes of the September 21, 2005 and October 5, 2005 meetings be approved. CARRIED 3. Presentation - By-law Comparison I Survey Results An overview of a Taxicab Licensing Survey, which compared many aspects of the Taxicab By-law with Ajax, Whitby, Oshawa, Markham and Richmond Hill was presented by the Manager, By-Law Enforcement Services. Detailed discussion ensued on the matter. Councillor McLean suggested that the Provincial or Federal Klm to review Government's might provide assistance to individuals taking Page Item / Details 8, Discussion & Conclusion Action Items / Status (include deadline as Ref # (summary of discussion) approprfate) courses relating to their job. This matter will be reviewed and the Committee will be advised. It was further questioned if a taxi driver taking the DurhamKimlDebbie to check College program is required to pay the same taxi driver test fee a second time if he fails the test on the first attempt. This issue will be checked and a response will be provided at the next meeting. The City of Mississauga will be contacted concerning their fee KimlDebbie to check for the taxi driver course for Sensitivity Training & Defensive Driving. 4. Presentation - Passenger Rights & Responsibilities An overview of Oshawa's Taxicab By-law 50-2003 concerning Taxicab Passenger Rights and Responsibilities was presented by the Manager, By-Law Enforcement Services. Discussion ensued on this matter. The Committee agreed that an information page must be Klm to prepare posted in each taxicab advising the passenger of their responsibilities and rights and also providing a phone number for those wishing to complain or compliment the drivers. 5. Presentation - Proposed Changes to Taxicab By-law ^ discussion took place concerning the ratio to be used by the City to calculate the number of plates to be issued. Moved by Kewal Manocha That the City Clerk be advised to include the following in the proposed draft by-law: That the ratio to be used by the City of Pickering to calculate the number of plates be 1 to 1,500; and That sustainable living for the industry be taken into consideration in this calculation. CARRIED Page 2 Item / Details & Discussion & Conclusion Action Items / Status Ref # (summary of discussion) (inc/ude deadline as appropriate) Through a lengthy discussion the committee agreed to many of the proposed changes to the Taxicab By-law and these changes will be provided at the next meeting. The following key points were made: · maximum age of vehicle should be 7 years with a 3 year grandfathering clause to allow taxi owners to come in to compliance · 4 door sedan, wagon or van are to be used · clean air certificate will be requested if required by Ministry of Transportation · recommend vehicles to have both air conditioning and heat · vehicles requiring re-inspection will be required to pay minimal re-inspection fee · inspection fee will not be required if minor repair (i.e. light bulb) · if vehicle has major damage, the vehicle must be taken off the road; if minor damage, owners given 15 days to repair · the installation of cameras in taxicabs will not be included in the proposed by-law · geographical testing of drivers will include emergency facilities, i.e. Ajax/Pickering Hospital and Centenary Hospital · emergency lighting will be required · dress code will include shirts/blouses with collars, proper footwear, pants/skirts and will exclude shorts, sweat pants, t-shirts, caps and slippers · all future plates will be Ambassador Plates owned by the City · vehicles "retired" from service as Police Cruisers or taxis in other municipalities will not be permitted The following issues require further information or consideration: ;~ Consideration of "Green Vehicles" was deferred to the Klm to invite Tom next meeting allowing for further information to be Melymuk to speak on obtained regarding defining what constitutes a green this matter vehicle. ;~ A review of Oshawa's By-law relating to type of vehicles Klm to review specified for wheelchair access plates will be undertaken and the Committee will be advised. ~ Vehicle Ownership/Plate Leasing was deferred to a Page 3 14 ? Item / Details & Discussion & Conclusion Action Items / Status Ref # (summary of discussion) (include deadline as appropriate) future meeting. 6. Next Meeting Tuesday, November 15, 2005 at 10:00 am in the Main Committee Room. Meeting Adjourned: 2:25 pm Copy: T. J. Quinn, Chief Administrative Officer Page 4 Minutes / Meeting Summary Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee October 18, 2005 7:00 PM Attendees: Regrets: Shawna Foxton, Chair John Sabean Gordon Zimmerman Charles Stinson Brenda Rappos Debbie Watrous - Committee Secretary Pamela Fuselli Karen Emmink Item / Details & Discussion & Conclusion Action Items / Status Ref # (summary of discussion) (include deadline as appropriate) '1. Minutes Moved by John Sabean That the minutes of the September 20, 2005 meeting be adopted. CARRIED 2. Business Arising 2.1 Brochure Development · the Committee agreed that 500 coloured brochures Shawna to continue to should be printed pursue. · Shawna to contact the design artist concerning the development of a logo and to discuss cost 2.2 Display Board Procurement · the Committee concurred that a display board should not be purchased until decisions have been made concerning where and when this item would be used and what will be displayed · this matter will be deferred at this time 2.30HA- Ministry Presentation · the preferred date to attend the Ministry Presentation of Committee Members the OHA revision to the Durham Heritage Committees is to attend Sunday, November 20th 2.4 Consultants * Gordon provided Shawna with the contact information for the Canadian Association of Professional Heritage Page Item / Details 8, Discussion & Conclusion Action Items / Status Ref # (summary of discussion) (include deadline as appropriate) Consultants (CAPHC) · Shawna will contact the CAPHC to request a list of Shawna to contact consultants and contact numbers which will be reviewed CAPHC and a priority list will be determined · consultants will be contacted to request pricing on the preparation of designation reports 3. Other Business 3.1 Concession 5 Desi,qnations Gordon Willson has volunteered to assist with the background research for properties to be designated. The Committee will pursue this offer and request Mr. Pam to speak with Mr. Willson to gather extensive information on the property Willson located at 1505 Whitevale Road, which will be used in the preparation of a comprehensive report. 3.2 Federal Lands Update John advised that the GTA Liberal Members unanimously voted for a moratorium on demolitions and evictions. 4. New Business a) John informed the committee of a business in Cobourg named Legacy Building Supplies which has every conceivable item to restore old structures b) John advised that Valerie McNaughton who resides in a Majors House, which is Provincially owned but which she wants to repair, has contacted him. She has requested financial assistance from the Province. 5. Next Meeting A special meeting has been called for Tuesday, October 25, 2005 at 7 pm in the Tower Room. The next regular meeting will be held on Tuesday, November 15th at 7:00 pm in the Tower Room. Meeting Adjourned: 8:50 pm Copy: Mayor Ryan Councillors T. J. Quinn, Chief Administrative Officer Directors and Division Heads Page 2 Statutory Public Information Meeting Pursuant to the Planning Act Minutes Thursday, October 20, 2005 7:00 P.M. PRESENT: STAFF: Lynda Taylor Geoff Romanowski Joyce Yeh Debbie Watrous - Manager, Development Review - Planner II - Planner I - Committee Coordinator The Manager, Development Review, provided an overview of the requirements of the Planning Act and the Ontario Municipal Board respecting this meeting and matters under consideration there at. ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 23105 WENCRAY HOLDINGS LIMITED 2000 CLEMENTS ROAD PART OF LOT 15, B.F.C., RANGE 3 (40R-6080, PART 1, 5) (CITY OF PICKERING) Geoff Romanowski, Planner II, provided an overview of property location, applicant's proposal and City's Official Plan policies pertaining to this site, as outlined in Information Report #22/05. Arnold Mostert, Barry Bryan & Associates, agent for Wencray Holdings Limited advised that they were present to answer any questions and submitted letters of support for this application from: Mark Goreski, Goreski Roofing & Lathing Ltd. Tony Tedesco, AMA Roofing & Sheet Metal Tom Moffatt, Moffatt Bros. Roofing Ltd. David Sullivan, D. Sullivan Condominium Service Dave Barr, Roofing Siding Sheetmetal Ltd. Segar Aggarwal, Bonamax Realty The following representatives/agents for Wencray Holdings Limited requested their names be included as attendees: -1- Statutory Public Information Meeting Pursuant to the Planning Act Minutes Thursday, October 20, 2005 7:00 P.M. 151 Craig Glynn, Wencray Holdings Wendy Spragge, Vice-President, Spar Marathon Dana Coverdale, Director, Sales & Marketing, Spar Marathon Steve Bronetto, Bonamax, Strategic Advisor, for Wencray Holdings (11) ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 24~05 DELCO HOMES INC. SPARROW CIRCLE (AT ALTONA ROAD) (BLOCK 17, PLAN 40M-1827) (CITY OF PICKERING) Joyce Yeh, Planner I, provided an overview of property location, applicant's proposal and City's Official Plan policies pertaining to this site, as outlined in Information Report #21/05. Bob Martindale, Martindale Planning Services, agent for the applicant, advised of his presence to answer questions. He further advised that the architect for Delco Homes Inc. was present and the owner would be along shortly. Walter Dawyd, 363 Chickadee Court, questioned the number of units proposed, the number of visitor's parking spaces available and the type of fencing to be used. The architect for Delco Homes Inc. advised that the fence would be made of wood and there are seven extra parking spaces planned for overflow parking. Lynda Taylor, Manager, Development Review, advised that visitor's parking is not required for a common element condominium development but that an extra seven spots are being proposed to assist with overflow parking from the units. Donna Walsh, 344 Chickadee Court, questioned how a proposal to access a court can be considered when notice was not given to the court residents. -2- Statutory Public Information Meeting Pursuant to the Planning Act Minutes Thursday, October 20, 2005 7:00 P.M. 10. 11. Mike Stocks, 359 Chickadee Court, advised that he purchased a home on a court with no knowledge that there were plans to open this court to provide access from another development. Joyce Yeh, Planner I, provided the delegates with the following information: a) two parking spots per unit is the standard in Pickering b) a traffic technician will undergo a traffic study c) the access is required as a secondary road for emergency vehicles to exit d) fire services and traffic staff from both the Region and the City will review the possibility of access to Altona Road rather than Chickadee Court Adam Svendsen, 340 Chickadee Court, stated that the number of parking spaces provided within this development will not be enough for the planned townhouse units. Lynda Taylor, Manager, Development Review, concurred that parking is an issue and will be reviewed. Bob Martindale, Martindale Planning Services, stated that the Fire Department advised that a second access is required for the emergency vehicles to exit and, therefore, Chickadee Court was proposed as the secondary access. (ltl) ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:30 pm. -3- PICKERING Minutes / Meeting Summary Benchmarking Standards/Sustainability Friday, October 21, 2005 2:30 pm Main Committee Room Attendees: Absent: Councillor Maurice Brenner, Chair Councillor Doug Dickerson Neil Carroll, Director, Planning & Development Tom Melymuk, Division Head, Corporate Projects & Policy Jack McGinnis, President, RDC Group Ltd. Angela Wheeler, Director of Research, RDC Group Ltd. Shawna Mutton, Coordinator, Community Capacity Building Maria Shim, Recording Secretary Mayor Dave Ryan Councillor Rick Johnson Councillor Brenner welcomed attendees to the meeting. Update on DisCussiOnS With siemensCan~da ;; : : · Meeting scheduled for October 24th with Craig Oldman of Councillors Brenner Siemens Canada to discuss various opportunities, including and Dickerson to meet wind farms, rapid transit and sustainable cities, with Siemens presentation/Review of Draft Sds~inabili~ M~ster Plan · Jack McGinnis noted that a "Sustainability Master Plan" RDC Group to finalize provides the framework and context for the benchmarking draft and prepare exercise PowerPoint · Comments were provided on the draft. The general presentation, and consensus was that it is going in the right direction and issue to committee should be finalized, members for comment · In addition to the Report to Council on the benchmarking exercise, a PowerPoint presentation will also be made at the November 7th Council meeting. Key issues and com~en~ · Consideration should be given to holding a design charrette to allow groups to get together and discuss their ideas and approaches to sustainability. CORP0228--2/02 Page 1 (include deadtine!as;~ : ~i;~:;~ · Target individual groups, e.g. multicultural and seniors. · Consider setting out a clear work program for 2005 vs. 2006 (for budgeting purposes). · Report to Council should come from Councillor Brenner, as Chair of the committee. · After November 7th Council meeting, invite groups (Rate Payers Association, etc.) to a larger event in December (location to be determined) to formally launch the program. · There will be a need for proper presentation package for distribution formal launch of the program. Consideration should be given to including a rewriteable CD of the PowerPoint presentation in the presentation material Tom Melymuk to work with his staff on presentation folders. Meeting Adjourned: 4:15 pm. The next meeting will be held at 10:00 am on November 3, 2005. Copy: Councillor Bill McLean Councillor Kevin Ashe Councillor David Pickles Chief Administrative Officer Department Heads Division Heads CORP0228--2/02 Page 2