Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 9, 2001PICKERING AGENDA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Thomas J. Quinn Chief Administrative Officer OCTOBER 9, 2001 Committee of the Whole Meeting Tuesday, October 9, 2001 Chair: Councillor McLean ADOPTION OF MINUTES Meeting of September 10, 2001 MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION CLERKS REPORT CL 36-01 PETITION SUBMITTED UNDER DRAINAGE ACT JOCELYN BARBER= 450 FINCH AVENUE PAGE 1-6 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIYT OFFICER REPORT CAO 07-01 A "MADE IN DURHAM" GOYTRNANCE STUDY FINAL REPORT - THE BERKELEY CONSULTING GROUP 7-19 CORPORATE SERVICES & TREASURER REPORT CS 34-01 WORKPLACE SAFETY & INSURANCE BOARD (WSIB) TRANSFER FROM SCHEDULE 1 TO 2 20-48 LEGAL REPORT L 21-01 RICHARD AND MARIE ANNIS AND ISABEL ANNIS PART OF THE ROAD ALLOWANCE BETWEEN LOTS 8 AND 9, CONCESSION 5, (SIDELINE 8 ROAD) - ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 49-54 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER REPORT CAO 08-01 TENDER APPROVAL BY THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER 2001 SUMMER COUNCIL RECESS 55-89 CLERKS REPORT CL 35-01 APPOINT LAURA MENEZES AS MUNICIPAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER TO ENFORCE PARKING BY-LAW 90-93 CLERKS REPORT CL 37-01 APPOINTMENT TO ENT'ORCE THE PARKING BY-LAW AT 905 BAYLY STREET, 1915 DENMAR ROAD, 1310 FIELDLIGHT BLVD., 1345 ALTONA ROAD .AND 726 KINGSTON ROAD~ IN PICKERING 94-99 CLERKS REPORT CL 34-01 APPOINTMENT TO ENFORCE THE PARKING BY-LAW AT 905 BAYLY STREET, 1915 DENMAR ROAD, 1310 FIELDLIGHT BLVD. AND 1345 ALTOiNA ROAD=IN PICKERING 100-105 Committee of the Whole Meeting Tuesday, October 9, 2001 Chair: Councillor McLean OTHER BUSINESS (IV) ADJOURNMENT 01 RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY 1. That Clerk's Report CL 36-01 regarding a Petition submitted by Jocelyn Barber, 450 Finch Avenue, under the Drainage Act, be 2. That pursuant to Section 5(1)(b) of the Drainage Act, the Petition submitted by Jocelyn Barber is hereby accepted; and That the engineering firm of K Smart Engineering Company, Kitchener, Ontario, be appointed to prepare the report as set out in Section 8( 1 ) of the Drainage Act. O2 PiCKERING REPORT TO COUNCIL FROM: Bruce Taylor, AMCT, CMM City Clerk DATE: October 1, 2001 REPORT NUMBER: CL 36-01 SUBJECT: Petition Submitted Under Drainage Act - Jocelyn Barber, 450 Finch Avenue RECOMMENDATION: That Clerk's Report CL 36-01 regarding a Petition submitted by Jocelyn Barber, 450 Finch Avenue, under the Drainage Act be received; and That pursuant to Section 5(1)(b) of the Drainage Act, the Petition submitted by Jocelyn Barber is hereby accepted; and That the engineering firm of K. Smart Engineering Company, Kitchener, Ontario, be appointed to prepare the report as set out in Section 8(1) of the Drainage Act. Petition submitted by Jocelyn Barber at the Committee of the Whole Meeting of September 10, 2001 AUTHORITY: Section 4 of the Drainage Act FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The cost of retaining an engineer and any subsequent costs for drainage works are assessed against the benefitting lands and the costs are recovered through taxes. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Jocelyn Barber, 450 Finch Avenue, has submitted a Petition under the Drainage Act requesting Council to appoint an engineer to examine the property that is situated to the east of her property and for which Jocelyn Barber claims has been filled and a watercourse has been altered. Ms. Barber contends that the altered watercourse has the potential to flood her property. Report to Council CL 36-01 Subject: Petition Submitted under the Drainage Act - Jocelyn Barber, 450 Finch Avenue Date: October 1, 2001 Page 2 O3 BACKGROUND: Members of Council will recall that at the Committee of the Whole meeting of September 10, 2001, Jocelyn Barber, 450 Finch Avenue, was a delegation and submitted a Petition under the Drainage Act that would have the effect of requiring Council to appoint an engineer to report on a possible drainage problem that has been created on lands to the east of Jocelyn Barber's property. Attached to this Report is a copy of Jocelyn Barber's Petition for Drainage Works, which has been properly completed under the requirements of the Drainage Act. There are a number of pictures and maps attached to the Petition that 1 have not included with the Petition because they are in colour and do not copy well. Also attached is a map of the area showing the properties in question and the extent of the alleged drainage problem. The 10.28 acre parcel immediatelv to the east of Jocelvn Barber's property is owned by Iris Holmes and a draPt plan of subdivision has been submitted to provide for the development of 69 dwelling units on this property. Ms. Barber contends that a watercourse flowed across the northeast quarter of the property draining the lands to the north of the Barber and Holmes properties. Fill has been placed on the north half of the Holmes property thus causing water to pond along the northern boundary of the Holmes property and threatening to spill over onto Jocelyn Barber's property. The following are the operative sections of the Drainage Act that must be considered by Council: s. Where a Petition .... has been filed, the Council shall forthwith consider the Petition and shall, within thirty days after the filing of the Petition, (a) if it decides not to proceed with the drainage works, give written notice of its decision to each Petitioner; or (b) if it decides to proceed with the drainage works, give written notice of the Petition and of its decision to each Petitioner, .... and the conservation authority that has jurisdiction over any lands in the area .... (1) Where the Council of the initiating municipality has decided to proceed with the drainage works described in a Petition, the Council shall by by-law or resolution appoint an engineer to make an examination of the area requiring drainage as described in the Petition and to prepare a report which shall include, (a) plans, profiles and specifications of the drainage works, including a description of the area requiring drainage; (b) an estimate of the total cost thereof; (c) an assessment of the amount or proportion of the cost of the works to be assessed against every parcel of land and road for benefit, outlet liability and injuring liability; (d) allowances, if any, to be paid to the owners of land affected by the drainage works; and (e) such other matters as are provided for under this Act. Report to Council CL 36-01 Subject: Petition Submitted under the Drainage Act - Jocelyn Barber, 450 Finch Avenue Date: October 1, 2001 Page 3 As can be noted in 8(c) above, the cost of any drainage works, including the cost of the engineer to prepare the report, will be assessed against the benefitting owners of land. The engineer will be required to hold an on-site meeting that must include Jocelyn Barber and all other owners in the area that may require drainage. Upon the site meeting being held, the engineer will prepare a report indicating if the Petition complies with the requirements of the Drainage Act and if so, what steps to take. If the Petition submitted by Jocelyn Barber is deemed by the engineer to not comply with the requirements of the Drainage Act, Ms. Barber has also submitted a Requisition under the Act that may provide her some relief. I will report to Council on what is involved with a Requisition only in the event that her Petition does not comply. I have been in contact with the Ministry of Agriculture in Guelph to seek their advice on processing this Petition. The Ministry did supply me with a couple of engineering firms who have experience in processing Petitions under the Drainage Act. I contacted by firms that were recommended by the Ministry of Agriculture and would recommend that Council contract the firm of K. Smart Engineering of Kitchener, Ontario that has extensive experience in dealing with Petitions and Requisitions under the Drainage Act and southwestern Ontario and in Victoria and Peterborough counties. ATTACHMENTS: Petition for Drainage Works Site Map Prepared/~ppproved/Endorsed By: Bruce Taylor Attachments Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council "-' l )]"homas J. 0,j~nn, Cl~ef Adrmm"-""-',~"r-r ~TTACHMEN~i ~__~_ TO REPORT# accordance with REGIIf, A'I'~ON 27a F 0 R ~! 3 D~a~na~e AcI' PI';TITION FOR DRAINAGE WORKS I . being_ an owner as shown by the last revised assessment ro]l. of lands ~n the Second Concession of the City of Pickerina- reuuirin~ tl~e restoration maintenance repair of a drainaae works on adioining ~ro~)ertv t~erebv petition that the area more ~}articularlv described as follows: 2030 gosebank Read Con Il S Pt l,ot '~1 Plus I metre acres Road allowance north of east-west culvert Rosebank Road Easement for York-l)uri~am 5ewer/C~ ~ ~ may be drained by means of Festoration Iaaintenance reuair of a drainaze works - a natural intermi trent watercourse now partially blocked. Signature of Petitioner Part [,ct Con Petition fSled this lOth day of September. 2001 Munic i pal ity Clerk Please see Explanatory Notes and Exhibits attached (]¥0~ ¥N0/-1¥ 07 RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMITTEE THE WHOLE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That Council receive for information, Report to Council CAO 07-01 summarizing the Final Report of The Berkeley Consulting Group entitled "A 'Made-in-Durham'Governance Solution" and that thanks be extended to The Berkeley Consulting Group for completing this study. That a copy of Report to Council CAO 07-01 be forwarded to the City of Oshawa, all other member municipalities in the Region, and The Berkeley Consulting Group. O8 PICKERING REPORT TO COUNCIL FROM- Thomas J. Ouinn Chief Administrative Officer DATE: September 28, 2001 REPORT NUMBER: CAO 07-01 SUBJECT: A "Made in Durham" Governance Study Final Report - The Berkeley Consulting Group File: IG 3401 RECOMMENDATIONS: That Council receive for information, Report to Council CAO 07-01 summarizing the Final Report of The Berkeley Consulting Group entitled ".4 'Made-in-Durham' Governance Solution" and that thanks be extended to The Berkeley Consulting Group completing this stud,,,. That a copy of Report to Council CAO 07-01 be tbrwarded to the City of Oshawa, all other member municipalities in the Region, and The Berkeley Consulting Group. ORIGIN: Joint study commissioned by Pickering Council and Oshawa Council. AUTHORITY: The Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The cost of the study was shared between Pickering and Oshawa on a weighted assessment basis. Total cost was $90,000 plus expenses. Pickering's share amounted to $37.000 and this was charged to Account 2126-2392 - General Government, Purchased Services. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Berkeley Consulting Group has submitted its Final Report entitled "A 'Made-in-Durham' Governance Solution." The Executive Summary of the Final Report is included as Attachment No. 1 to this Report. A full copy of Berkeley's Final Report was provided to Council earlier under separate cover. The Final report provides Berkeley's findings with respect to seven governance options examined in the study. In evaluating the options, Berkeley concluded that the three variations of the "Single-Tier Cities" options would be best for the long term. These options involved no Region of Durham and a consolidation of one or more area municipalities. Berkeley also reached the conclusion that merging all municipalities into a "One City of Durham" would be the least appropriate option. They felt that any potential cost savings in going to a single city would be consumed by wage and service leveling up, and that a single city Report to Council cae 07-01 SUbleCt: Berkeley Consultino Date: September 28. 2001 Final Report Page 2 0 9 would create duplication with the longor term role of tile (iT%f3 (in thc studx. Berkeley assumed that tiao (VI'St3 would exolve to take on more poxxcrsl. I3erkelev therefore concluded in their l'inal Report that keeping tho status quo. ex'ca in the short ternl, would not be alq appropriate option, l'hev tDlt that xxithout sonqc countervailing action, tiao current system would eventually Icad to a larger Region. making their least prcl~rred option tOne-City oF i)urhan~)more likely a rcalitx. [3crkclev therc/brc rcconamcnded a set of short term actions, including thc cstablishnacnt oF a single-tier structure, thc reassignment of regional services to local municipalities and or special purpose corporatioH5 or bodies, and the review of local amalgamations (to create bet\seen ' and 8 municipalities). [o assist the process. Ilerkelcv proposed a governance "vision" tbr thc Region and encouraged ()shaxxa and Pickering to lead a public consultation process on this x ision. In considering the Berkeley report. (,'oui~cil should note that tho consulting team included a kev assumption concerning the Greater Toronto Services }~oard that is no longer valid. Thc Report assumed that the (iTSB xxould cxolxc to take on additional pox\ers, including overall 'smart growth' planning, and responsibilit> lk)i' selected mauor inI~astructurc services and transportation. Ibc Province recently announced that it will Dc taking back responsibility [hr GO-Transit, xxincting down the GTSI3. and establishing Nmarl (h'oxvth Nlanagcmcnt C'ouncils. (}ix. eli this situation, rather than taking un\ spccilic short term actions at this time, it is rcc()mmended that Council receixc tho }'thai Report prepared bx Fine I3crkclox Consulting (Sroup for information only', and that t3crkclcx (_'omsuhin5 be thanked I'or completiHg this study. P,,,\CKGROUND: In June 2000, Oshawa City Ciouncil accepted a proposal l'rOlal The t3crkclex' Consulting Group to undertake a ~'Madc-ila-DurhanC' ()ox crnancc Study Thc other municipalities in the Region were asked il'thcs wanted to take part in thc studs, and in September 2¢)()0. l)ickoring C'ouncit agreed to participate. No other municipalities elected to do thc sanlc, and thc study became a joint study conamissioncd by the cities of ()shaxxa and Picketing. Thc study terms of reference called for the I3crkolex ('onsulting to undertake an independent, arms-length review of governance options. In the studs proposal. Berkeley identified five potential options lbr evaluation. A sixth option was later identified, and these six options were described in an "Options Paper" that was completed itl July 2()0(). :\/'tot obtaining input from the participating Councils on the Options Paper, additional reGncments were made to the governance options. In the end, Berkeley selected seven options for detailed evaluation, using tbur criteria (political accountability and representation, size/scope for strategic clTcctivencss, cost/value taxpasers, and fair tax impacts). Thc seven options are: Option 1: Region and Three Cities (l?,rock/Scugog [:xbridtzc - Pickering/~\jax - \\'hitbx ()shawa Clarington) Option 2: Region and Three Cities (Broc'k/Scugog'tixbridge - Picketing :\jax \Vhitbx - (.)shaxxat:Clarington) Option 3: Region and Four Cities (Brock/Uxbridgc- Picketing :\jax- \Vhitbx' ()shaxxa - Clarington/Scugog) ()ption 4: Two Single-Tier Cities (North and South) (Brock/Scugog.1;xbridgc C'larington - I)ickering :\jax \V}litby"Oshaxxa) Option 5: Three Single-Tier Cities (Brock/Scugog,[Jxbridge - Picketing :\jax - \Vhitbx ()shawa,'Clarington) Report to Council CAO 07-01 Subject: Berkeley Consulting Date: September 28. 2001 Final Report Page 3 Option 6: Three Single-Tier Cities (Brock/Scugog/Uxbridge - Pickering/Ajax/Whitby - Oshawa/Clarington) Option 7: One Region-wide Ci~ of Durham Preliminarv conclusions on these seven options were reported bv Berkelev Consulting in a Draft Report released tbr public consultation in June 2001. A set of Working Papers were also issued at that time, dealing with Governance and Service Realignment (Working Paper A): Assessment of Potential Cost Savings (Working Paper B); Risks of Change (Working Paper C); Financial Health (Working Paper D); and Tax Analysis (Working Paper E). The Draft Report and Working Papers are available for viewing through the CAO's Office. Public meetings on Berkeley's Draft Report were held on June 26'h in Oshawa and on June 27th in Pickering. Following these public meetings, Berkeley prepared the Final Report. BERKELEY'S FINAIJ REPORT The consulting team's evaluation of the seven governance options lcd to three key recommendations. The three "Single-Tier Cities" options are best for the long term (Options 4, 5 and 6); The "One Ciq; of Durham" option is least appropriate (Option 7); and Keeping the status quo, even in the short term. is not an option. The last recommendation was not included in the Draft Report. In the Draft Report. Berkeley essentially advised municipalities to work within the current governance structure to improve savings and efficiency through voluntary cooperation. This advise was based on the belief that the status quo could be maintained over the short term. In preparing the Final Report, Berkeley revisited its position on the status quo, and came to a new conclusion: that maintaining the current situation over the short term would not be an appropriate option. In the Final Report, Berkeley considered the possibility that without some countervailing action, the Region of Durham would assume more services, become less an agent of the area municipalities, and establish primacy over the lower tier municipalities. Berkeley therefore recommended some specific short term actions in order to stop the otherwise inevitably drift toward a "One City of Durham" option. A two-phase action plan was recommended in the Final Report. Phase One - Move To a Single-Tier Structure by 2003 · Develop a detailed plan · Obtain approvals for the plan · Establish Special Purpose Organizations and Boards · Transfer the regional functions · Northern municipalities develop a proposal of their governance and participation in the GTSB and Special Purpose Bodies Phase Two - Review' Local Amalgamation for 2006 · Implement the approved governance plans decided by the northern municipalities · Decide new boundaries between municipalities in the north and south · Decide what, if any, amalgamations make sense in the south of Durham Report to Council CAO 07-01 Subicct: Berkeley Consulting Date: September 28. 2001 t:inal f~eport Page 4 1! In addition to this two-phased action plan in thc t:inal b~cport [3erkclex' provided a proposed "vision" lbr governance, as set out belox~. (;ox'ernance "Vision" for i)urham Proposed by The Berkele,v Consulting (;roup %ingle-tier local government to bc established xxith bctxx cea tx~o and eight municipalities and no Region. (iTS}3 to assume the essential clements of its role {such as oxcrall 'sm~trt groxxth' planning. and responsibility tbr pla~q~qin~ :md l'undin~ selected major infrastructure services and transportation). Current regional services to bc reassigned to the local area municipalities xxhcrever practical (c.g. regional roads). Special purpose corporations or bodies to assume rcsponsibilit~ for other assigned regional services (such as a oint Police Services t3oard or am l-.mcv~c~qcx Scrxiccs ()rganization, a %ocial and Health %crx'iccs [goard, and a Utilitx or %crxicc5 Corporation with a Board t~3r xxater and sewer). l)iCl~rcnt approaches to gox crn~mcc to bc cstablisl~cd i~q thc rural nortl] xs. thc urban south. zX new rural/urban boundarx to bc established. l{ural no~hern municipalities to ctcxcloD their oxxn customized approach to governing and managing services, including Dossibl> becoming indcpcnctcnt ffrom thc GTA and mandatory involvemem in special purpose bodies and scrx ices boards. Mergers in thc southern lakcI'ront municipalities to bo addressed tater. In order to proceed, l?,erkelev Consulting set out thc I'olloxxing short term actions' 1. l~ocal municipal discussions ola tile vision (organi×ed bx Picketing and ()shaxva). and on the potential of developing a public consultation process. 2. Public consultation on the vision. 3. Development of a proposed plan flor establishing a ntmlber off special purpose bodies to assume regional service functions. 4. A separate study conducted by tho rural northern municipalities to determine their involvement in the new vision. ST~,5. F F COMMENTS Over the past number of years. Picketing C'otmcil }las consistcntlx pla>cd a strong leadership role with respect to the issue of governance reform in l)urham t'Legion. Despite the City's efforts and the eFlbrts of some others (including thc City off ()shaxva). there has not been any significant commitment amongst tile member municipalities in thc Region to seriously address the issue of governance relbrm. This is evidenced in part by the fi'act that with the exception of Pickering, no other municipality in Durham (including the Region), agreed to join Oshaxva in sponsoring the Berkeley Study. Municipal restructuring at the provincial level also appears to have a loxxer priorit> than itl tine past. Alter an initial flurry of actix'itx' (xvhic}a brought about a reduction in the number of Ontario municipalities from 815 in 1996 to 447 todax), other issues off municipal interest appear to be occupying the current provincial agenda, including the ()ak Ridges hloraine. Smart Growth, the Municipal Performance Measures Program, and the new Municipal :Xct. Report to Council CAO 07-01 Subject: Berkeley Consulting Final Report Date: September 28. 2001 Page 5 Moreover, the recent announcement bv the Province to take back responsibility for GO-Transit, wind down the Greater Toronto Services Board. and establish five new Smart Growth Management Councils across the Province calls into question a critical assumption of the Berkeley Study. In preparing their recommendations. Berkeley assumed that the Province would support the evolution of the GTSB toward a more responsible body that provides overall smart growth planning, and has funding and planning responsibility for selected major infrastructure services and transportation. For the above reasons, at this time it is not suggested that Council endorse the specific actions set out in Berkeley's Final Report. Rather, it is recommended that Council receive the Final Report of The Berkeley Consulting Group for information only, and that the consulting team be thanked tbr completing the study. ATTACHMENT: 1. Executive Summary - Final Report, The Berkeley Consulting Group Prepared By: Approved / Endorsed By: Thomag E. Melv~u-// ~ Division Head, 'CoO6rate Projec~ TM: Thcm~as J. Quinn Chief Administrative Officer Attachment Copy: All Directors Division Head. Corporate Projects & Policy Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council . ~ ,, ._:. /1 '"',,_ L.z/ Tlwffn~s J. Quint', Chi~nistra~ Offic~/r '"' /TUWNSHtP ,TI i OF BROCK ATTA~IMENT #__L- TO REPORT # ~ ~-~- ~ \ TOWNSHIP U×B~:tDGE A 'Made-in-Durham' Governance Solution -- Final Report - August, 2001 l' CITY OF P}CKERING L~ke Or~t~rto The Berkeley Consulting Group 4 Lansing Square, Ste. 119 Toronto, Ontario M4J 5A2 Ph (416)499-7459 Fax (416) 49~-8803 Email: bcg(C'ber keleycons ulting.com 14 ATTACHMENT# ~ TO REPORT#C-:-~C:~ Durham Governance Review Executive Summary August, 2001 -- Page i. Executive Summary Our Mandate is to Inform the Public The Municipal Councils of the Cities of Oshawa and Pickering commissioned The Berkeley Consulting Group to undertake an independent evaluation of governance options for Durham. Seven options were assessed using four criteria (political accountability and representation, size/scope for strategic effectiveness, cost/value for taxpayers, and fair tax impacts). The evaluation of the options for Durham Region municipalities was comprehensive but at a 'high level', not involving the operational details. Our evaluation will allow citizens and municipal councils to appreciate the 'high level' consequences of various governance options. With the information provided, all parties can take any desired next steps knowing that they are better informed. Current Governance Structure The table below shows the political structure of governance with the number of elected officials in each municipality. Regional Area Population Municipality Population Represent Represent per Elected Ajax 72,000 Mayor+2 Mayor+2+4=7 12,000 Brock 11,744 Mayor+ 1 Mayor+ 1 +5=7 1,957 Clarington 69,203 Mayor+2 Mayor+2+4=7 11,534 Oshawa 141,620 Mayor+7 Mayr+7+3= 11 14,162 Pickering 88,000 Mayor+3 Mayor+3+3=7 14,667 Scugog 19,428 Mayor+ 1 Mayor+ 1 +5=7 3,236 Uxbridge 16,752 Mayor+l Mayor+l+5=7 2,793 Whitby 83,200 Mayor+3 Mayor+3+4=8 11,886 Total-- Region I s01,947 I 29 . I ..... L 9,7% Source: Population statistics provided by Municipal Officials September 2000 Currently, the upper tier (Region) has the lead role to provide certain services -- social and health services, police, water/sewer, waste disposal and recycling. Both levels are involved in delivering some services -- roads, planning, economic development. Some services are primarily the responsibility of the most local level, the area municipalities -- fire, building permits, transit garbage collection, parks and recreation, and libraries. There has been a process of reviewing "who does what" in order to remove duplication and decide which level can best deliver these various functions and services. ATTACHMENT # ~._.~___TO REPORT Durham Governance Review Executive Summary August, 2001 -- Page ii. In the spring of 2001, the Greater Toronto Services Board (GTSB) adopted a proposed role whereby it would assume overall planning responsibility (smart growth), expand its role with inter-municipal transportation, and adopt responsibility for overseeing the planning funding and management of selected other infrastructure services over time. While the Province has not commented on the study, it has supported the transportation role with funding. The expanded role of the GTSB suggests a diminished role for Regions within the GTA. Options Evaluation Seven options were evaluated -- three variations of a two-tiered models with no Region, and one amalgamated City of Durham. model, three single-tier · Option #1: Region and Three Cities -- Rural Northern (Brock, Scugog, Uxbridge), Western Lakefront (Ajax, Picketing) and Eastern Lakefront (Whitby, Oshawa, Clarington). · Qption #2: Region and Three Cities- Rural Northern (Brock, Scugog, Uxbridge), Western Lakefront (Ajax, Pickering, Whitby) and Eastern Lakefront (Oshawa, Clarington). · Option #3: Region and Four Cities -- Rural Northwest (Brock, Uxbridge), Western Lakefront (Ajax, Picketing), Eastern Lakefront (Whitby, Oshawa) and Eastern Rural (Clarington, Scugog · Qption ~4: Two Single-Tier Cities (North and South) -- Northern Rural (Brock, Scugog, Uxbridge, Clarington), Southern (Ajax. Picketing, Whitby, Oshawa). · Qption #5: Three Single-Tier Cities -- Rural Northern (Brock, Scugog, Uxbridge), Western Lakefront (Ajax, Pickering) and Eastern Lakefront (Whitby, Oshawa, Clarington). · Option #6: Three Single-Tier Cities -- Rural Northern (Brock, Scugog, Uxbridge), Western Lakefront (Ajax, Pickering, Whitby) and Eastern Lakefront (Oshawa, Clarington). · Option #7: One Region-wide City of Durham. Evaluation Results Our evaluation led to the following overall results. The full report provides a detailed outline of the evaluation and our Working Papers offer the background analysis and research. Three Single-Tier Models Best for the Long Term -- The three options with no Region and a consolidation of some area municipalities made the most sense in terms of overall benefits and risks. Each provided moderate savings opportunities without great risks of cost increases due to wage or service leveling-up. They created a simplified accountability structure given the emergence of the GTSB. However, implementation any of these models was more suited to the medium or long term to allow for acceptable tax shifts. Single City of Durham Least Appropriate -- Merging all municipalities into one mega-city was the worst option, It created great risks that cost savings would be eaten up because of The Berkeley Consulting Group ~~ In collaboration with Grant Thornton LLP !6 ATTACHMENT Durham Governance Review Executive Summary August, 200'I -- Page iii. wage and service'leveling up. It also would create duplication with the role of the GTSB over the longer term. Keeping the Status Quo -- Not an Option -- Initially, we concluded that the municipalities should continue to work within the current structure in the short term. After public feedback and closer reflection, we concluded that the status quo was unsustainable. We predict that the current system would, most probably, evolve to a larger Region eventually making the mega- city a reality. Given that this governance option is the least appropriate of all those examined, action is needed in the short term to counter that evolution. Governance Vision for Durham While decisions about change may and will take time, a vision for the future is needed now as a target to work towards. Although setting out a proposed vision goes beyond our original mandate, we believe it is a necessary and constructive conclusion to this study. The most supportable governance structure for Durham should have the following features. Single-tier local government with between two and eight municipalities and no Region -- With the Region replaced by a combination of the GTSB, special purpose bodies and inter-municipal contracts, there may not be a compelling reason to amalgamate local municipalities. Hence, two to eight municipalities may still make sense. GTSB will assume the essential elements of its proposed role -- The GTSB will provide overall 'smart growth' planning and have funding and planning responsibility for selected major infrastructure services and transportation as proposed. Current regional services will be reassigned to the local area municipalities wherever practical -- For example, regional roads. Local municipalities may chose to contract with others to deliver the service as suggested by the C.D. Howe study. Special Purpose Corporations or Bodies should assume responsibility for other assigned regional services -- We envisage a number of separate organizations, each managing 'like' functions. The initial proposal is for three such organizations: > A joint Police Services Board or an Emergency Services Organization with ambulance, dispatch and emergency planning. > A Social and Health Services Board designated by the Province to be the Service Manager for these services. > A Utility or Services Corporation with a Board for water and sewer. Participating municipalities will set minimum service levels, where appropriate, and share those costs equitably. Additional services requested will be charged back. Naturally, user The Berkeley Consulting Group In collaboration with Grant Thornton LLP ATTACHMENT # TO RFP0tqT Durham Governance Review Executive Summary August, 200~ -- Page iv. I? pay services (water/sewer) will be self-funding and legislated funding arrangements (pooling) will be respected. Eacln Special Purpose Organization will have some flexibility to deliver its service in the most appropriate way -- private partnerships, inter-municipal ventures with adjacent areas, etc. This includes working with municipalities from other parts of the GTA and beyond. Local municipalities will have full representation and say on the governing bodies of these organizations reflective of their financial contribution to the service. Establish different approaches to governance in the rural north from the urban south- The rural municipalities, mainly in the north, have different interests and needs than those urban municipalities in the south. Each should have a different approach to service provision. Potentially, the rural communities should not be part of the GTA, at least for most of its roles -- GTA social service pooling, transportation subsidies, and so on. Likewise, service levels for the urban south cannot be applied in the rural municipalities. The planning, funding and delivery of urban services can be pooled and managed across like communities of interest but not such diverse ones. Establish a new rural/urban boundary -- With the division of interests between the northern rural municipalities and southern urban municipalities, the boundary line may need to be changed as a basis for longer-term growth and to define the limits of smart growth planning. Some have suggested using the Oak Ridges Moraine to create a new boundary line. There needs to be some assessment of whether the southern limit of the Moraine be used as the boundary line for the rural component. Rural northern municipalities should develop their own customized approach to governing and managing services including possibly becoming independent from the GTA and from mandatory involvement in Special Purpose Bodies and Services Boards. :,- Ability to contract for services with other municipalities for newly established special purpose bodies or other service providers (for example. OPP). ;- Consider possible alliances and mergers with other counties or municipalities. ~ Receive a transitional subsidy to the degree required, from southern urban municipalities for assuming certain downloaded regional responsibilities, for example, roads and recycling. Clarington presents a dilemma in terms of its place. It is unclear whether Clarington's interests are with the urban lakefront municipalities or with the rural north. This is not the issue of merger or amalgamation with one or the other group. Possibly, under this vision, Clarington needs to resolve this issue. The Berkeley Consulting Group ~~ collaboration xx ith (;rant Thornton LLP ATTACHMENT #. ,, \ TO REPORT ~",~ ~-~'-'b o \ Durham Govemance Review Executive Summary August, 2001 -- Page v. Address mergers in southern lakefront municipalities later -- Durham's four or five lakefront municipalities will need to consider the advantage of mergers at some point in the future. Given that the special purpose service bodies will provide the economies of scale to the southern communities, amalgamations may be unnecessary. The prime argument for mergers is that they would create a stronger and more unified voice on the GTSB. These trade-offs can be addressed after the single-tier system is established. Two-Phase Implementation Process This vision provides a basis for looking forward. While it is necessary, it is insufficient. There needs to be action to begin the process of putting the vision in place. We suggest this take place in two phases. Phase One -- Move To a Single-Tier Structure by 2003 Develop detailed plan and obtain approvals. Establish the Special Purpose Organizations and Boards. Transfer the regional functions. Northern municipalities develop a proposal of their governance and participation in the GTSB and Special Purpose Bodies. Phase Two -- Review Local Amalgamation for 2006 > Implementing the approved governance plans decided by the northern communities. > Deciding new boundaries between municipalities in the north and south. > Deciding what, if any, amalgamations make sense in the south of Durham. Recommended Action Steps In order to proceed, we recommend the following actions. Local Area Municipalities Discuss the Vision and Develop a Public Consultation Process -- The Cities of Pickering and ©shawa should organize a meeting with other area municipalities, to discuss the vision and the potential for organizing a public consultation program on this vision. 2. Public Consultation on the Vision -- A public consultation program should follow to obtain further public input. Develop a Proposed Plan for Establishing a Number of Special Purpose Bodies to Assume Regional Service Functions -- We recommend that a detailed plan be developed for establishing the Organization Structure to assume current regional functions through a combination of assignment to the GSTB, devolution to area municipalities, and establishment of a number of Special Purpose Bodies with Boards. Such a study would The Berkeley Consulting Group In collaboration with Grant Thornton LLP ATTACHMENT #~TO REPORT Durham Governance Review Executive Summary August, 2001 -- Page vi. outline the number of Boards. describe a governance composition and structure, assess the financial feasibility and impact, and identify implementation requirements (provincial approvals, legislation). Participating area municipalities should fund this study. We suggest the municipalities seek support from the Province. The study should be completed before the end of March 2002. That would allow sufficient time to implement the changes in time for the 2003 municipal elections. The Rural Northern Municipalities Should Separately Study and Propose Their Involvement in the New Vision -- The rural northern municipalities should study how they want to proceed given no Region and a Special Purpose Body structure. This should include the potential of not being involved in the GTSB (for at least some purposes) and possible non-involvement in Special Purpose Bodies established to provide formerly regional services to the southern municipalities of Durham. This study should also assess the need for transitional subsidies to support the municipalities assume certain regional responsibilities such as regional roads. Naturally, further steps will become clear as the area municipalities and the public decide whether there is support for the vision. We believe this provides a sound basis for moving forward with a truly 'Made-in-Durham Solution' to municipal governance. The Berkelev Consulting Group tn collaboration with Grant Thornton LLP 20 RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That Report Number CS 34-01 by the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer and the Division Head, Human Resources, concerning Workplace Safety & Insurance Board (WSIB) Transfer from Schedule 1 to 2, be received and that Council: 1. Approve the transfer from WSIB Schedule 1 to 2, retroactive to January 1,2001; 2. Approve the establishment of a workers' compensation reserve fund, in compliance with the requirements outlined in the Wor~ & Insurance Act (WSIA); 3. Approve the purchase of occupational accident insurance coverage, deemed acceptable by the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer; 4. Approve the purchase of Parklane WSIB Claims Management Software to fully automate the WSIB claims management function; and 5. Provide authority to the appropriate official of the City of Pickering to give effect thereto. PICKERING REPORT TO COUNCIL 21 FROM: Gillis Paterson DATE' October,. '~ 2001 Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Baba Gajadharsingh Division Head. t tuman Resources REPORT NUMBER: CS 34-01 SLIBJECT: Workplace Safety & Insurance Board {\VSIB) Transfer from Schedule 1 to 2 RECOMMENDATION: That Report Number CS 34-01 by the Director. Corporate Set\ices & ']'reasurer and the Division Head, Human Resources be received and that Council: 1. Approve the transfer from WSIB Schedule 1 to 2. retroactixe to January 1. 2001: Approxe the establishment of a workers' compensation reserve fund, in compliance with the requirements outlined in the II'or/cphwc 5,'~'c~v &/nsw'w~c'c .-tc'~ ( \VSIA): 3. ,Approve the purchase of occupational accident insurance cox eragc, deemed acceptable by the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer: 4. Approve the purchase of Parklane \VSIB Claims Nlanagement Soft\rare to fully automate the \VSIB claims management function: and 5. Provide authority to the appropriate official of thc City of Pickering to give effect thereto. ORIGIN: The Director, Corporate Services & 't'reasurcr and the Safety & Trainin,, Co-ordinator undertook a WSIB Feasibility Study to assess the merits of transferring from \VSIB's Schedule I to Schedule 2, under the general guidance of the Chief Administrative Officer. As the study involved both the Corporate Services Department and the Human Resources Division and it affects the Corporation as a whole, it was thought best to submit this Report to the Committee of the Whole for consideration. AUTHORITY: ~brkplace SafeO, & Insurance Act, 1997. s. 68, 74 Municipa/Act. R.S.O. 1990. as amended, s. 163. 252 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: ]'he net cost to transfer from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2. retroactive to January 1, 2001. is $7,000. (The total 2001 Schedule 2 costs tbr \VSIB coverage and associated transfer costs of $317,000 less the total 2001 Schedule 1 costs tbr premiums and experience rating surcharge of $310.000 results in a net cost of $7,000.) 22 Report to Council CS 34-01 October 2, 2001 Subject: WSIB Transfer from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2, retroactive to January, 17 2001 ' Page 2 The projected savings generated by the transfer to Schedule 2 are estimated to be in excess of $190,000 per annum from the year 2002 and beyond. The savings in 2002 and 2003 would be directed to the reserve fund to pay for any catastrophic claim-related costs which may occur, it is anticipated that the savings in 2004 and beyond would be transferred to the departmental budgets. A financial plan which outlines the projected costs, savings and disposition of savings is contained within the body of this report. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: WSIB has two classifications for employers: Schedule 1 employers pay premiums to WSIB based upon a percentage of their payroll expenses to cover pooled accident costs; whereas Schedule 2 employers pay for their individual accident costs. The Corporation, which is currently a Schedule 1 employer, is eligible to transfer to Schedule 2. The Corporation retained the services of Heath Lambert Benefits Consulting to conduct a comprehensive cost/benefit analysis on the merits of transferring to Schedule 2. In the final report, Heath Lambert Consulting indicated the following: · The net cost to transfer to Schedule 2, retroactive to JanualT 1, 2001 would be $7,000; · The Corporation would be able to generate gross savings of $190,00 per annmn (i.e. 60% of its annual workers' compensation costs) by transferring to Schedule 2; · The deadline to transfer to Schedule 2, retroactive to January 1, 2001 is November 5, 2001 Staff within the Corporate Services Department and the Human Resources Division verified the information contained in the consultant's report. The costs associated with transferring to Schedule 2, along with the projected future savings, are accurate financial forecasts. Accordingly, staff concur with the consultant's recommendation that the Corporation should transfer from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2, at this time. If the Corporation transfers to Schedule 2, then it will be even more important tbr employees, at all levels of the organization, to continue to fulfill their responsibilities as outlined in the organizational occupational health and safety and attendance management policies. The plan is to place a more rigorous emphasis on pro-active health and safety measures and efficient disability management, which will enable the Corporation to successfully minimize the frequency and severity of occupational accidents and illnesses. BACKGROUND: I. Workplace Safety & Insurance Board Overview: The Workplace Safely & Insurance Act has established two classification Schedules for employers in Ontario. Each employer is assigned to a Schedule which affects the manner in which the firm funds accident costs on behalf of their employees. The City of Pickering is registered as a Schedule 1 employer. Schedule 1 operates on the collective liability principle. Employers pay WSIB premiums which are based on a percentage of their payroll. Premium rates are established each year based upon pooled accident costs. Experience rating programs, which are mandatory for most Schedule 1 employers, provide rebates and surcharges to employers based upon their claims experience. In the event of a catastrophic claim (i.e. fatality or serious disabling injury), WSIB limits the claim costs charged to an individual employer. The remaining costs of the claim would be distributed amongst the other employers in Ontario. There are about 200,000 private and public sector employers in Schedule 1. Report to Council CS 34-01 October 2, 2001 Subject: WSIB Transfer from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2. retroactive to January 1, 2001 Page 3 23 Schedule 2 operates on the sell-insured principle. En~ployers pa) tbr their employees' actual accident costs, plus an administration fee. 'I he annual adn~inistration fee is established based upon a review of the WSIB's administratixe costs. There are no experience rating programs, as employers pay for their entire claim costs. In the event of a catastrophic claim, the Schedule 2 employer ~'ould rely upon resets'es and appropriate insurance policies to offset the excessix'e costs of the claim. There are approximatcl> 1.000 public sector employers in Schedule 2. (Schedule 2 is restricted to public sector employers. ) I'he II'ork.12/ace Sa/~l~, & h~xura,c'c: Ac'~' permits public sector employers to transfer between Schedules. Currently, the WSIB requires public sector employers transferring from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2 to pay a departure fee. I'his fee. which is the firm's calculated share of the Schedule 1 unfunded liability, is calculated on the basis of the employer's contributions to Schedule 1 over the years, and bears no relationship to the firm's claims experience. Accordingly. as a public sector emplo>er, tile ('ltv of Pickering is eligible to transfer from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2. When the \VSIB was initially established in l C)15. all public sector employers were placed in Schedule 2. duc to their lov~ risk of bankruptcy. During thc 1OT0s and 1980s, a number of municipalities and school boards transferred from Schedule 2. as it was believed that the Schedule l premium costs provided a cost-effective method of prox iding insurance coverage for catastrophic claim-related costs. There xx as a sense of"security in numbers". Unfortunately, when WSIB premiums began to rise sharply in the mid 1980s. Schedule 1 public sector employers began to realize that there was a verx high cost Ibr Schedule l's collective liability protection. WSIB's strategic plan to eliminate its 514 billion unfunded liability by 2014 required that all Schedule 1 employers pa> increased premiums. Commencing in the late 1980s. many of the larger Schedule 1 public sector employers transferred back to Schedule 2, as ttaex recognized that tile cost of sclI'-insurance, administration fees. optional insurance, reserves, and the departure fee was loxxer than the increasing Schedule 1 premiums. In the late 1990s, mid-sized and smaller municipalities started to transfer back to Schedule 2, as the WSIB Departure Fee and the costs for third party occupational accident insurance costs were significantly lox~er. It is expected that the trend for public sector employers transferring back to Schedule 2 will continue as they recognize that thex can a) effectively control their WSIB costs and risks by implementing effective *VSIB claims management and health and safety programs and b) generate significant savings by participating in WSIB's self-insurance scheme and obtaining the appropriate insurance and reserves. It should be noted that WSIB's services to i~jured employees is identical tbr all claims, regardless of the employers classification Schedule. \VSIB ad~iudicates and pays accident benefits for each injured/ill employee based on the merits of each claim. II. Current WSIB Premiums: The Corporation's 2001 Schedule 1 WSIB premium estimate is S290.000. It is anticipated that the Corporation will be required to pay an additional $20,000 experience rating surcharge in the Fall of 2001. which is based upon its claims experience in 1998 - 2000. It should be noted that 60% of the Corporation's current \VSIB premium (i.e. 5174.000) is directed towards the payment of the unfunded liability and WSIB's overhead costs. For 2002, the WSIB premium estimate is $312.000. This increase is based upon the Corporation's increased payroll expenses and a premium increase of 7.6% for the general municipalities rate group. The WSIB experience rating surcharge that would be levied in the fall of 2002 is estimated to be $20.000. which would be based upon its claims experience in 1999 - 2001. 24 Report to Council CS 34-01 October 2. 2001 Subject: WSIB Transfer from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2, retroactive to January 1, 2001 Page 4 If the Corporation transfers to Schedule 2, then its annual workers' compensation costs will substantially decrease. Based on the current WSIB claims experience, then it could expect to pay a total of $137,000 per annum for its workers' compensation and related expenses. This represents gross savings in the amount of $194,000 per annum. (Reserves would have to be offset from this total.) III. Staff Actions: In May 2000, the Chief Administrative Officer requested that a Feasibility Study be undertaken to assess the merits of transferring from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2. The Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer and the Safety & Training Co-ordinator conducted a preliminary Feasibility Study and determined that the Corporation would be able to generate significant savings in the area of workers' compensation by transferring from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2. In August 2000, the Corporation retained the services of Heath Lambert Benefits Consulting to conduct a comprehensive Schedule 2 Feasibility Study on a contingency basis. This arrangement operates on the premise that the Corporation would only be charged a consulting fee for this study if it transferred to Schedule 2, effective January 1, 2001. (A copy of Heath Lambert's final report is enclosed as Attachment 1.) As part of the Feasibility Study. the Corporation inlbrmed the WSIB of its intent to assess the merits of moving from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2, effective January 1, 2001. In July 2001, WSIB advised that should the Corporation choose to transfer to Schedule 2, retroactive to January 1. 2001, it would have to pay a departure fee in the amount of $179,583.29 by November 5, 2001. This payment would be offset by WSIB premiums which have already been paid in 2001. WSIB provided the Corporation with a one-time extension from the original deadline of September 7, 2001. Interest would be charged for payments made alter September 7, 2001. The Safety & Training Co-ordinator conducted an assessment of the current WSIB claims management program. It was determined that the current manual system should be replaced with an efficient computerized program. The Parklane WSIB Claims Management Software would enable Human Resources staff to significantly improve its WSIB claims administration process, verify WSIB costs and analyze trends associated with WSIB claims. In-depth accident/incident analysis would in turn, provide the Corporation with the necessary tools to identifT those areas of the health and safety program which require improvement. The Manager, Information Systems has confirmed that this Software is compatible with the Corporation's existing computer system. DISCUSSION: As indicated in the enclosed report, Heath Lambert Benefits Consulting has shown that the Corporation would generate over 60% savings in its workers' compensation costs by transferring from WSIB's Schedule 1 (the collective liability scheme) to Schedule 2 (the individual liability scheme). These significant savings are based on the fact that as a Schedule 2 employer, the Corporation would no longer be subsidizing the accident costs of other employers in Ontario and paying for WSIB's unfunded liability and second injury and enhancement fund. In addition, calculation of the payments made to WSIB would be closely aligned to the actual costs for each claim, as opposed to the inflated WSIB Schedule 1 costs which are based on (a) reserves that the WSIB would have to set aside to cover future claim costs and (b) WSIB overhead charges which are calculated as a percentage of the actual and future claim costs. In recent years, the Corporation adopted a strong WSIB claims management program, which successfully returns injured employees to modified duties as soon as they are able to do so. Over the past 2 years, the Corporation has successfully assisted over 90% of WSIB claimants in returning to work within 4 weeks of the injury/illness. In prior years, the Corporation struggled in returning WSIB claimants with minor injuries to work in a timely manner. Report to Council CS 34-01 October 2,2001 25 Subject: WSIB Transfer from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2. retroactive to January 1,2001 Page 5 In spite of the current successes, the Corporation's Schedule 1 WSIB costs have increased. This is primarily due to the changes that \VSIB has made in its experience rating charges, the severity ot' injuries sustained, and an aging xxorkforce. The \VSIB is currently making changes to the experience rating program which would make it even more difficult for Schedule 1 employers to contain WS1B costs in future years. Since the Corporation is considering a retroactive transfer to Schedule 2. it has a unique opportunity of reviewing its actual \VSIB costs in both Schedules for the year of the transfer. In 2001, the Corporation has experienced an increase in the number of serious injuries that have occurred. Within a six month period, there were 5 employees who sustained significant knee and back injuries and were absent/'rom their physically demanding positions for over 8 weeks. In Schedule 1. thc Corporation has already paid $145.000 for its \\'gib premiums from January' 1 - June 30. 2001. In addition, thc claim costs (calculated in excess of 5300.000) will expose the Corporation to experience rating surcharges of at least $20.000 in 2002 2004. In comparison, the Schedule 2 fee Ibr £001 claims, up to June 30. 2001. has been estimated by WS1B to be $43,486. (This total is comprised of thc actual claim costs and the Schedule 2 admi.nistration tee.) Accordingly, based on actual 2001 claim costs, the Corporation would generate gross savings of $101,514 tbr its workers' compensation coverage ii' it were in Schedule 2, instead of Schedule 1, tbr this six-month period. This is consistent with the consuhant's tbrecast that the Corporation would generate approximately $194,00() in gross savings bx transferring to Schedule 2. Thc time-limited window to transfer to Schedule 2. retroactixc to Januarx 1. 2001, provides the Corporation with an excellent opportunit) to generate significant savings in the area of workers' compensation now and in the future. FINANCIAL PLAN: I. Projected Cost Summary: Proiected Costs: WSIB Schedule 1 Departure Fee: Consultant Fee (Heath Lambert Benefits Consulting): 2001 Schedule 2 Claim Costs (projected. based on actual costs to June. 2001 ): 2001 Administration Fee (projected. based on actual costs to June, 2001 ): 2001 Occupational Accident Insurance Costs tOctober December 2001 t: Parklane WSIB Claims Management Soft\rare: Offset by: 2001 WSIB Premiums 2001 NEER Surcharge (projected. based on 2001 NEER Statements) Sub-total: Sub-total: $183,000 $ 10,000 $ 75,000 $ 24,000 $ 5,O00 $ 20,000 $317,000 $290,000 $ 20,000 $310,000 Net projected cost to transfer to \VSIB Schedule 2. retroactive to January 1. 2001: $ 7,000 The above cost estimates are based upon the Corporation's actual \VSIB claims experiences up to June 30, 2001. They are subject to final confirmation. Report to Council CS 34-01 October 2, 2001 Subject: WSIB Transfer from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2, retroactive to January 1,2001 Page 6 II. Projected Savings Summary: Proiected Schedule 2 Costs: 2002 Claim Costs 2002 Administration Fee Occupational Accident Insurance Investment in Health & Safety Training Program Sub-total: $ 75,000 $ 24,000 $19.000 $ 20,000 $138,000 Offset by Schedule 1 Costs: 2002 Schedule 1 WSIB Premium Cost 2002 Schedule 1 NEER Surcharge (projected, based on 2001 NEER Statements) Sub-total: $312,000 $ 20,000 $332,000 Projected annual savings generated by transfer to Schedule 2 $194,000 Based on the foregoing and the information contained within the Heath Lambert Report, it is anticipated that annual savings from $180,000 - $200,000 would be realized by transferring to Schedule 2. III. Disposition of Savings: If the Corporation transfers to Schedule 2, then the projected savings generated in 2002 and 2003 would be directed to a workers' compensation reserve fund. This fund, which is required by the WSIA for all Schedule 2 employers, would enable the Corporation to access additional funds in the event of any claims which result in permanent impairment or death. Commencing in 2004, when the reserve fund is fully funded, the projected savings would be transferred to the departmental budgets. It is anticipated that, at the recommended level of funding, the fund would be self-sustaining. A portion of the projected workers' compensation savings ($20,000 per annum) would also be allocated to the health and safety program. This investment would enable the Corporation to improve its accident prevention program and provide more effective training to its employees in priority subject areas (i.e. employee orientation, chainsaw, and confined space). This would result in a more rigorous emphasis on health and safety at all levels of the organization. During each budget period, the Safety & Training Co-ordinator will specify how the additional health and safety funds would be utilized to reduce the frequency and severity of work-related injuries and illnesses. These expenditures will be included in the annual budget for the Human Resources Division. ATTACHMENT: 1. Workers' Compensation Transfer from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2 Report, prepared by Heath Lambert Benefits Consulting, dated September 2001 Report to Council CS 34-01 October 2. 2001 Subject: WSIB Transfer from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2. retroactive to Januau 1. 2001 Page 7 27 Prepared By: Dcbra A. Wight Approved [indorsed Bx': Gillis :\. Paterson Approved }indorsed By: Baba Gajadtmrsingh Approved [indorsed Bx" Attachment Copy: Director, Operations & timergcncy Services Director. Planning 8: I)cvelopment Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council ~ ":'7 8 ATTACHMENT ~_L_ I}~enents C°nsu'~g Heath Lambert Experts conseilsenavanmgessociaux 305 - 191 The West Mai Toronto, ON Mgc Telephone: 416-620.077 Toll Free: 1-877- 1-877-432-848 Fax: 416-620-941 www. heathlambert.c THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING WORKERS' COMPENSATION Transfer from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2 September, 2001 Heath Lambed Benefits Consulting Inc./Expeds conseils en avantages sociaux inc, VANCOUVER WINNIPEG TORONTO OTTAWA INTRODUCTION By letter dated August 24, 2000, The Corporation of the City of Picketing informed the Workplace Safety and In- surance Board of its wish to assess the merits of leaving Schedule 1 and being added to Schedule 2, with effect fi-om January 1, 2001, as permitted by Sec. 74 of the Workplace Safety and Instwance Act_ It retained Heath Lambert Benefits Consulting to assist in assessing and, it'appropriate, in implementing such a move. Heath Lambert agreed to prepare a cost benefit study (projemd costs under Schedule 2 contxasted with those under Schedule 1), identifying the options available to the City, the recommended process to follow and the associated costs, and including an evaluation of third party alternatives, and supplementary options such as the payroll tax reductions available. The fee for the project is $10,000, payable only tithe City becomes a Schedule 2 employer. The company can offer a "contingent" fee because it acts in this matter for a significant number of school boards, colleges, municipalities, public library boards, municipal utilities and public health units. THE CONSULTANT Heath Lambert Benefits Consulting is a f'n-m of employee benefits consultants with offices in Toronto, Ottawa, Vancouver, Calgary and Winnipeg. It was formed in 1998 by the merger of CANADIAN ACTUARL~L AND CONSULIING GROUP and The Shasta Consulting Group of Vancouver. CANADL~ ACrUARLa, L AND CONSULTING GROUP was found- ed in 1979, and is recognized in the public sector as the consultant to the OSBEB group benefits plan for school boards. Donald G. (Don) Timmins is a Senior Consultant,. engaged in the workers' compensation project. He is a graduate of McMaster University (B.A. '66) and of Queen's University at Kingston ¢~.£d. '76'). He joined the company in 1992 following his early retirement from the position of Superintendent of Finance (chief financial officer), The Metropolitan Toronto School Board. DEFINITIONS SCHEDULE 1: the collective liability pool in which most employers are required to participate under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act. Employers are grouped into rate groups, and are assessed on a pooled basis. There are about 200,000 em- ployers in Schedule 1. SCHEDULE 2: a list of "industries", the employers in which are individually liable to pay compensation to, and medical aid on behalf of, their injured employees. Those "industries", as defined in O.Ree. 175/98, are municipalities, public utilities and other municipal commissions or boards (but excluding hospital boards), public literary boards, school boards, railways, federally regulated telephone companies, telegraph, navigational shipping, and railwav express companies, trans-border bridge author- ities, the provincial government, and airlines that provide regularly schedul}d intemahonal passenger service. With the ex- ception of the airlines, this list has not changed since it was created in 1913. There are nearly 1,000 employers in Schedule 2. A Schedule 2 employer may request placement in Schedule 1 and, in fact, most municipalities did so many years ago. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT: a lump sum payment that must be made by the employer at the time of its transfer. It is a calcu- lated share of the unfunded liability as of the effective date of exiting Schedule 1. It is calculated on the basis of the employer's contributions to Schedule 1 (and thus its "contribution" to the undeffunding) over the years, and bears no relationship whatever to its claims experience. Recently the Board has begun using a new term - "departure fee". NEER: the New Experimental Experience Rating Plan that, interestingly, is neither new nor experimental. Inlxoduced in 1986, NEER provides partial refunds to Schedule 1 employers with better-than-average claims records, and surcharges those whose records leave something to be desired. The entry of various rate groups was phased; most of the municipal sector enter- ed with the final phase in January, 1995. Adjusting premiums after the fact, it is a retrospective experience rating plan. MAP: the Merit Adjusted Premium Plan, the new, "simplified financial incentives programme for small employers", those whose annual premiums (three-year average) are between $1,000 and $25,000. Introduced in 1998, it adjusts premium rates based on the employer's claims record over the preceding three years. Thus, unlike NEER, it is a prospective experience rating plan. The Corporation of the City of Picketing Workers' Compensation Transfer from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2 September, 2001, Page 1 HISTORICAL DATA The records suggest that the City/Town/Township became a Schedule 1 employer effective January 1, 1974. We have obtained from the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, and from the City, the following respect of the City's cash flow history in Schedule 1. Transit is included. Years Premiums Claims Paid Loss Ratio Loss Ratio Rate 845 pre-1995 $3 507 960 $1 415 250 40.34% 75.18% 1995 333 225 95 515 28.66% 116.15% 1996 329 421 (41 031) (12.46%) not available 1997 329 829 21 767 6.60% not available 1998 272 938 162 087 59.39% not available 1999 325 966 529 154 162.33% not available 2000 322 507 17 953 5.57% not available Totals $5 421 846 $2 200 695 40.59% ~ EXPERIENCE RATING The City has been in the New Experimental Experience Rating Plan (NEER) since 1995. The following table, "what-if' analysis, a) attempts to demonstrate the NEER refunds and penalties that have accrued to the City to date, and b) compares the results with the projected financial impact of the accidents that occurred during each of those years if City had been a Schedule 2 employer. Transit is included in 1995 and 1996 only; it is not possible to exclude it because was not moved to Rate 580 until 1997. Schedule 2 is the ultimate in experience rating. Note that individual NEER costs change over time. Schedule 1 II I[ Schedule 2 l ~'~=- II ] Past SIEF Future ndmin'I Insurance I Total Premium NEER Year, H Awarth Costs Fees $ 333225 $ (61610) $ 271615 1995 $ 16452 $ 5609 $ 2156 $ 3514 $ $ 27731 329412 2508 331 920 1996 53 154 49208 14853 117215 227 709 (26 995) 200 714 1997 9 018 2 091 2 852 2 026 15 987 191 845 11 773 203 618 1998 40 018 33 078 18 600 17 872 109 568 235 774 (22 974) 212 800 1999 13 357 5 980 3 674 23 011 256 756 56 388 313 144 2000 32 287 104 531 25 995 162 813 $ 1574721 S (40910) S 1~33811 Total S164286 $40778 $ 183327 $67934 S S 456325 Net Cost, Schedule 1 with NEER $1,533,811 Total Cost, Schedule 2 456,325 Difference ("hindsight savings") $1,077,486 or 70.2 % Note the NEER "overhead factoF' - 45% in 2001, 59% in 2000, up fi.om 39% in 1998 and 1999, and 26% in and 1997. This "mark-up" contrasts sharply with the current Schedule 2 administrative fee rote of 31.54%, up from 19°/O 1999 and 2000. The Corporation of the City of Picketing Workers' Compensation Transfer ~rom Schedule '1 to Schedule 2 September, 2001, Page 2 3]. THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT (Del~rmre Fee) The City will be required to pay a special assessment ("depamam fee") before leaving Schedule l. The special assess- ment is a calculated share of the pooled unfunded liabilities of Class H, "Government and Related Services", at the date of transfer (December 31, 2000). The Workplace Safety and Insurance Board provided a "provisional" calculation, based on the Board's 1999 year-end financial data, and a recalculation following the release of the Board's 2000 year-end finan-cial data. Note that Transit has been excluded. Il City Class H A Liabilities, December 31, 2000 /~ $1 209 071 000 B Assets, December 31, 2000I~ 1 063 518 000 C Unfunded Liability (.q-B) $ 145 553 000 D Assessments/Premiumst°2000 [ $4673914 ji $3715353199 E Proportional Share (DI+D2) .12580% F Special Assessment (CxE) $183 105.67 The special assessment is only 63% of the estimated Schedule 1 premiums for 2001 ($290,000). Monthly payments of the 2001 premiums will be credited towards this special assessment. Note that the Board's calculation contains a mathematical error. The figure in line D ($4,583,914) is $90,000 less than the correct figure. Accordingly, its calculation of the special assessment is only 5179,583.29. Although the City should pay the lesser amount, be aware that the Board may claim the additional $3,522.38 if the error is discovered subse-quently. To be conservative, in this report we will use the correct calculation. If required, financing is available at a rate of"prime less ~A%". Under the provisions of the Workplace Safer,, and Insurance Act. the Board's unfunded liability is a liability of the in- dividual employers in Schedule 1. Under changes to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), contained in the new Section 3461 of the CICA Handbook- Accounting, a corporation's financial statements will be required to disclose its lia- bilities for employee future benefits. This could be interpreted to include a Schedule I employer's share of the Board's un- funded liability. In other words, under Section 3461 the City's 2000 financial statements might have been required to disclose a liability of $183,106 in respect of the Board's unfunded liability (excluding Transit). The special assessment is 73% less than that which would have been calculated only four years earlier. In 1998 the Board announced that.., the passage of Bill 99 will have an effect on the unfunded liabili.tv of each class as of Deceraber 31, 1997. In recognition of this, the.., calculation of the special assessment has been reduced... Although that reduction was 25%, subsequent information indicates that the actual impact was closer to 29%. The next two years saw further significant re- ductions of the unfunded liability of Class H; we attribute them to a significant increase in the number of transfers to Schedule 2, many of them "forced" by municipal and school board restructurings. The Corporation of the City of Pickering Workers' Compensation Transfer from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2 September, 2001, Page 3 32 INSURANCE As stated previously, Schedule 2 is the ultimate in "experience rating". On becoming a Schedule 2 employer, the City will become totally responsible for the costs of its employees' workers' compemation claims, will have no responsibility for the costs of other employers, and will be relieved of future responsibility for the unfunded liability of Schedule 1. Most employers entering Schedule 2 wish to maintain some level of protection - to "lay off" some of the risk. In- surance companies do just that, and the reinsurance industry exists as a result. It would not be reasonable to insure 100% of the risk; in fact, ff such coverage were available, it would be prohibitively expensive, and there would be little advantage in leaving Schedule 1. However, it is reasonable to seek protection fi-om the financial impact of a catastrophic loss. We are pleased to offer our clients two types of coverage. When combined appropriately, they offer the Schedule 2 employer excellent protection against serious losses. The first product is "excess of loss" or "stop-loss" insurance, known more correctly as "Excess Indemnity". In remm for payment of a modest premium, the insurer will cover all of the costs of an individual workers' compensation claim (or of two or more claims arising from a single accident) that exceed a predetermined amount, usually $250,000 (the self-insured retention or "de- ductible''), although it can be higher or lower. The insurer's maximum liability under this policy may be limited to $10,000,000 per accident, although $15,000,000 and $20,000,000 limits may be available as well, and also a "statutory" limit (no limi0. The cost of this coverage has been quoted as low as .073% of assessable earnings (7.3g per $100). The second product is Occupational Accident insurance. This is not the traditional AD&D insurance that employers offer within their employee benefit plans. Rather, this product is "accidental death and disablement" insurance. The owner of the policy, and the beneficiary thereunder, is the City. The insurer will pay the principal sum if the City is exposed to a work- related death or permanent disability (5o% in the case of a permanent partial disability). Although coverage can be purchased up to $500,000, it would be inappropriate - and wasteful - to purchase coverage in excess of the self-insured retention (deductible) under the excess indemnity policy. The annual cost of occupational accident insurance is $2.40 per $50,000 of coverage per full-time equivalent (FI'E) employee for the City, and only 95¢ per FTE for the Library and the Museum. Accordingly, the selection of coverage at the $250,000 level will cost $12.00 per year per FTE City employee, and only $4.75 per FTE Library or Museum employee. It should be noted that, while the excess indemnity will pay on the basis of the costs of claims as adjudicated by the Board, the occupational accident insurance will not. Payment under the former will be triggered by the cost of a claim, while payment under the latter will be triggered by the event - the death or disability. The occupational accident insurance will pay in full even in a case where the cost of benefits falls short of the principal sum. Heath Lambert is pleased to offer these insurance products at competitive cost. At this time the recommended car- riers of excess indemnity are American Re-Insurance Company (a member of the Munich Re Group, the world's largest reinsurance consortium) and Employers Reinsurance Corp. (a member of the General Electric group of companies, and now Canada's third-largest rein- surance company); the recommended carrier of occupational accident insurance is Chubb Insurance Company of Canada. Be assured that we continue to explore the insurance and reinsurance markets, and that we will always offer the best products available at the most favourable cost. The Corporation of the City of Picketing Workers' Compensation Transfer from Schedule I to Schedule 2 September, 2001, Page 4 COMHENT 33 During some recent years the rate group's Schedule 1 premiums increased by some 7% to 18% annually, a combin- ation of salary and rate adjustments, increased assessable earnings ceilings, and the switch to the "CPP method" of calculating premituns. Recently some rates have decreased - Rate 845 was decreased by 29.4% between 1996 and 1998, but was in- creased again by 20.5% in 1999 and 2000. The table to the leg displays the rate history fi.om 1993 through 2002. Al- though the Board "froze" the rates for 1993, and again for 1995, andin spite of apparent "overcharging" in some rate groups, the underfunding continues. Ac- cordingly, Schedule 1 premiums might be increased again in future years. With the introduction of NEEK some muni- cipalities might have experienced sig- nificantly larger cost increases. Rate 845 Rate 817 Rate 580 Ma~mum Year Target I Standard Target Standard Target Standard Assessable Rate[ Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Earnings 1993 $2.04 $2.10 55~ 42~ $7.00 $4.36 $52 500 1994 1.82 2.07 48g 45g 6.11 5.00 53 900 1995 1.61 1.87 46g 46~ 6.05 5.50 55 400 1996 1.60 1.87 45~ 46~ 5.91 5.50 55 600 1997 1.52 1.61 431~ 44~ 5.61 5.55 56 100 1998 ~ 132 ilil~iil~ 47¢ ~ 4.48 58 200 1999 ~ 1.49 ~ 46~ -- ~ 4.3~ 5-"~9 200 2oo---~ ~ 1.5----W-- ~ 44¢ ~ 3.04 59 300 2001 ~ 1.45 ~ 34¢ ~ 3.64 60 600 2002 ~ 1.56 ~ 34¢ ~ 3.94 64 600 Further, most municipal rate groups are in Class H w4th other employers of a municipal or quasi-municipal nature - including electric and gas utilities, hospitals and nursing homes. Effective Januarv l, 1993, the Board "shared" C~x,~.d) the un- funded liabilities of the fifteen rate ~oups in Class H. Rate 580 (Transit) is in Class~E, similarly "shared". During 1993 some Board officials stated publicly that they favour one rate for all employers, as is the case with em- ployment insurance. This would be a major change from the current rate group structure; given that the average rate in 2002 will be $2.11, it would represent an additional cost increase to municipalities (mate 845) of approximately 35%. These signals make a strong case for leaving Schedule 1 now. Although the New Experimental Experience Rating Plan (NEER) provides refunds and surcharges for favourable and unfavourable claims experience, they are only partial; the maximum refund is only one-half of the maximum sm'charge. With the provision of appropriate insurance arrangements, as a Schedule 2 employer ~e City will be protected against catas- trophe while benefitting fully fi'om its favourable experience. In an effort to assess the validity of the special assessment, we attempted to analyze the unfunded liability of the rate group and of Classes H and E. We were unable to do so because of a lack of data available fi'om the Board. The Board will require that the special assessment be paid within sixty calendar days following its notification. Akeady 154 clients have left Schedule I and transferred to Schedule 2. Nom~ithstanding that they have paid off :t;5 l millions of the unfimded liability, most achieved significant net savings within a year or two. DIRECT PAYMENT - A NEW "DEDUCTIBLE"? Although it is not in Bill 99, contained within New Directions for Workers' Compensation Reform (me 1996 te~rt of the Hon. Cam Jackson, Minister Without Portfolio Re~-ponsiblc for Workers' Compensation Reform) is a proposal for "Direct Paymenf'. It was pro- posed that every employer of twenty employees be required to pay directly - and to fund! - wage replacement benefits for the first six weeks of each claim. In effect thi~ would create a significant "deducffble". In many cases this "deductible" would rep- resent the bulk of an employer's claims costs. It was suggested that the implementation of this proposal "might" lead - eventually - to an average 4% reduction in Schedule I premiums. The Corporation of the City of Picketing Workers' Com~ensatton Transfer from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2 September, 2001, Page 5 A FilO~CIAL PLAN The following table, which exclud~ Transit, illnsu-ams the projected fm~cial impac~ of a decisio~ to wansfer to Schedule 2, with payment of the special assessment on or before November 6~. Although Schedule 1 pr~nim~ might be ina creased again, we have used a consea-va~ve flat-lin~ projeaion. This plan is not an actuarial study. Rather, it is a responsi- blc forecast of the City's cash flow requirements for workers' compemation, one that provides as well for modest reserves. 2000 2003 200S 2006 200? 2008 ~c~ 2009 2010 SpeciAl Asscssmem $ $183. $ $ $ $ $ $ S $ S S 183.1 Claims ° ?5.0 ?$.0 ?5.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 ?5.0 75.0 75.0 ?5.0 ?50.0 W$IB Adminiraali~ F~s 23.? 23.7 23.7 23.? 23.? 19.? 19.7 19.7 19.7 19.7 217.0 Insur-anc~ a~ nm,~ ~ 4.? IK6 18.6 18.6 18.6 18.6 18.6 18.6 18.6 18.6 1~2.1 Comul~m Fee ! 0.0 10.0 Annual Totals S 266.0 S 296~ $117.~ S 117.3 $ llTJ $117.3 $ IL~j S 113.3 $113.3 S 113.3 $113.~ $1 $ch~__~e I f"~;mium 266.0 290.0 312.0 31ZO 312.0 31ZO 312.0 312.0 312.0 312.0 312.0 3 ~4.0 Savings Nil S (63') $194.7 S 194.7 S 194.7 S 194.7 S 198.7 S 198.7 S 198.7 S 198.7 S 19~7 Sl ?~ac · Suggcs~ '~crvc~' 50.0 25.0 25.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 I0.0 10.0 Net Nil S {6.S) S 144.7 $169.7 $169.7 $184.7 $188.7 S 188.'7 $188.7 I s 188.7 S 188.7 $1 ~ · * This tine (Claims) excludes costs of pre-2001 injuries, not chargeable in Schedule 2. When the City has paid offits shar~ of the unfunded liability, it will be released from financial responsibility for accidents tha~ occurred while it was a Schedule 1 employer. Note that this financial plan excludes any impact of NEER refunds and/or surcharges. "Writing off" the special assessment immediately, this plan provides savings commencing in 2002, while at the same time building modest reserves for fluctuations in claims costs. Its record indicates ttm the City will benefit significantly by becoming a Schedule 2 employer. However, two other aspects should be comidered carefully in addition to the financial analysis. The more important is having or putting in place an effective claims management programme. Sound accident reporting and investig~on, when combined with meaningful modified work practice and ongoing claims monitoring, will reduce si~ificantly thc fi-~ncial risks of serf-insuring. The second is timing. City otficials should emnre that no major claim has occurred during 2001 prior to the purchase of in- surance protection. Although the wan.~er will be retroactive, the protection afforded by insuxance coverage will not. The Co~po~a~Lon of ~he CL~y of PLcke:Lng #orke~s' CC~l~nsa~Lon Transfer from Schedu~e ! ~o Schedu~ 2 Sep~eznbe~, 200~, ~&ge 6 35 HANDLING CLAIMS IN SCHEDULE 2 How are workers' compensation claims handled in Schedule 2? Basically, very little will change following a transfe fi.om Schedule 1 to Schedule 2. In fact, the only change visible to employees will be new account and firm numbers. Accidents will continue to be reported to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board on Form 7, and the $250 penal~ for failing to do so will continue to apply. Who actually pays wage replacement benefits need not change. If it has been th: practice to pay benefits "covered by advances" with salary top-ups, and to claim reimbursement fi-om the Board, that practict may continue although, following confirmation of transfer to Schedule 2, of course there will be no reimbursement of those ad vances. Conversely, if it has been the practice to permit the Board to pay some or all benefits, that may continue. Man3, em- ployers have some of each. NEL (Non-Economic Loss), FEL 0:utm Economic Loss) and pension benefits, when awarded, will be paid directly by thc Board. When such a benefit is awarded, the Board will capitalize the award, and will request a lump sum "Section 90" deposit That occurs in Schedule 1 as well, except that the capitalized value is charged in a lump sum to the employer's Schedule 1 ac- count. All costs paid by the Board, including physicians' fees and rehabilitation, etc., will be invoiced to the employer week- ly. Invoices should be paid within thirty, days to avoid late payment penalties; the current rate is 2% monthly. The Board levies administrative fees, currently at the rate of 31.54%, on all awards, whether paid by the Board or b> the City. Those fees will be invoiced monthly. Note that the administrative fees include the cost of membership in the Municipal Health and Safety Association (r~tus~a) and the Education Safety Association of Ontario (ESAO); 2.86;/o goes tc fund the various safe workplace associations (SW~). In addition the Board issues month-end statements that surnmar/ze all transactions posted during the calendar month. Every Schedule 2 employer is required to maintain with the Board a "Section 92" (working capital) deposit, based on the average weekly cost of benefits paid by the Board. The size of the deposit will be affected by the employer's payment pattern; consistently late payment of invoices will lead to a larger deposit requirement. The Corporation of the City of Pickering Workers' Co~q~ensation Transfer from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2 September, 2001, Page 7 THE TRANSFER PROCESS On your behalf we filed the City's letter of application with the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board on 31x, 2000. In effect that placed your foot in the door, and entitles the City to a 2001 transfer to Schedule 2. The letter cation does not commit the City to a transfer. You should have received a letter of acknowledgement from the Schedule 2 dustry Sector of the Board. You received another letter, dated July 9~, that acknowledges that, indeed, the City is eligible to transfer to Schel 2. Enclosed therewith was an "information package" that outlines the administrative process and funding requirements transfer, and the adminislxative guidelines and funding requirements after transfer. You are asked to confirm your standing and acceptance of those requirements. The Board documented, in its "Funds Required to Transfer Calculation" letter, a "provisional" calculation of th~ mount of the payment (the special assessmen0 required to transfer from Schedule 1. Subsequently it issued a revised calculation much lower, based on the its 2000 year-end financial data. Although the funds must be paid to the Board within days following the date thereon if the City intends to transfer, on the City's behalf we sought, and were granted, a extension, to November 6th -- with interest. The "Funds Required. ." letter includes an "Initial Payment Requirement" -- a deposit of $43,486 to cover the proximate cost of known 2001 claims and the Board's administrative fees therefor, and also a Section 92 (working capital) of $915. Following a decision to transfer from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2, the City will be required to prepare its cheque for special assessment. 2001 premiums paid to date should be netted out, and no further premiums should be paid. We will de- liver your cheque, and the required letter of understanding and intent, on the deadline date. Insurance coverage should be purchased immediately, and will be put in place with effect from 12:01 am on the following the receipt of your authorization. .Accidents that occurred during 2000 will remain the responsibility of Schedule 1. The City will become for the costs of accidents that occur after 2000. Based on previous years' experience, some time after having paid the special assessment the City will receive a munication stating that the retroactive la-ansfer has been completed, and providing new account and firm numbers. Prior to the receipt, of that notice, operations should be continued just as before -- in Schedule 1 -- except that no further premiums should be paid. Following the receipt of the notice, the City will be in Schedule 2, and it should begin to use its new account and firm numbers. Again, some time later the City will receive a "catch-up" invoice for costs paid in respect of accidents that after 2000, and a second for the administrative fees therefor. Those invoices should be paid within thirty days to avoid late payment penalties. Thereafter invoices will arrive at regular intervals -- weekly for the cost of benefits, and monthly for the administrative fees. Accordingly, following a decision to transfer, and payment of the special assessment, it will be several weeks before every aspect of the transfer has been completed. Patience is required. However, during that time the City will have the ad- vantage of positive cash flow, while it "sits on" funds that will be paid to the Board eventually. The Corporation of the City of Pickering Workers' Compensation Transfer from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2 Septenf~er, 2001, Page 8 37 ADMINISTRATION Although Schedule 2 employers may pay their own compensation awards - and some do - it might not be advan- tageous to do so. Workers' compensation benefits are not subject to income tax irrespective of how they are paid, but they are subject to other taxes if they are paid directly by the employer - payroll taxes such as emplo.vment insurance premiums. Ac- cordingly, in some circumstances it might be beneficial to have pa.vments made by a third party. However, benefits may be paid by the Board itself at no additional cost_ For those : ~t may wish to use the services of a third party payor, we recommend Ceridian Canada Ltd. A CO-OPERATIVE SELF-INSURANCE ORGANIZATION School boards have created -- and incorporated - a co-operative self-insurance organization, the School Boards' Co- operative Inc. (SBCI). The potential advantages of working together are numerous - the collective purchase of stop-loss in- surance, the review of claims and awards and the appeal of some, the collective purchase of services (rehabilitation, im, estment management, actuarial, legal, audit, etc.), and the abihty to speak with one voice to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board and the Government of Ontario. Each member's claims record can be improved further by the use of techniques that can be acquired by membership in such a co-operative. Our proposals to the Board have stated that, in transferring to Schedule 2, our clients intend to reserve responsibly for their self-insured workers' compensation liabilities. We provided actuarial services to the Co-operative, so that memb, er school boards had authoritative actuarial counsel to enable them to do so. Actuar/al services are available to municipahties, either in- dividually or collectively. IN SUMMARY A decision to become a Schedule 2 employer, with effect retroactive to January. I, 2001, will require the payment cfa special assessment of $183,105.67 (or 5179,583.29 as calculated by the Board). However, that pa.vment will be reduced by the Schedule 1 premiums paid for coverage during 2001; 2001 premiums are estimated at $290,000. Accordingly, no net ad- ditional funds will be due to the Workplace Safer;' and Insurance Board during 2001. The City will be required to reimburse the Board for the costs of claims arising from 2001 accidents, and it wilt be responsible for the cost of the insurance policies that will protect it from catastrophic losses, and also for the one-time con- sultant fee ($I0,000). We have projected 2001 claims costs at $98,700, and 2001 insurance premiums at $4,700. Further, we suggest that, in 2002, a fn-st contribution of at least $50,000 be made to a reserve to protect the City from fluctuating claims costs in the future. The net impact of the above is a short-fall in 2001, projected at only $6,500. This short-fall may be financed at a rate of"prime less 'A%", and will be recovered readily from projected savings of $194,700 in 2002. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that The Corporation of the CiD' of Picketing (excluding Transit) transfer from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2, with effect retroactive to January 1,2001, and that it pay to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board the re- quired special assessment of $179,583.29 (as calcul~d by the Board). It is recommended further that the City protect itself against f'mancial exposure to a catastrophic loss or losses by the purchase of insurance coverage - both excess indemnity and occupational accident insurance - at an appropriate level. The Corporation of the City of Picketing Workers' Compensation Transfer from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2 September, 2001, Page 9 APPENDIX The following are examples of how, as a Schedule 2 employer, the City would handle the costs ora si dent - a death or a permanent disability arising from a workplace accident. Example Survivor Benefits awarded as the result of a death Proceeds of the occupational accident insmrance Net Cost to the City $ 90,000 250.000 $(160,0000 In this case it has been assumed that an employee has been killed on the job; consequently no wage replacement bene fits would be awarded. Likely the insurance proceeds would be received prior to the Board's request for payment ora Section 90 deposit to cover the survivor benefits. Example 2 Wage Replacement Benefits, Medical and Rehabilitation, and Pension Award Proceeds of the excess indemnity Sub-total Proceeds of the occupational accident insurance Net Cost to the City $ 750,000 500,000 $ 250,000 250,000 $ Nil In this case it has been assumed that an employee has been injured seriously on the job, and has received wage re- placement benefits for some time. Rehabilitation and medical costs would be significant additions. Eventually, likely up to six years after the accident, and based on an assessment of permanent disability, pension benefits would be awarded, and the Board would request a Section 90 deposit to cover the "present value" of that award. Because the occupational accident insurance policy provides for an assessment of permanent disability twelve mOnths after the accident, the insurance proceeds would not be received until after that assessment has taken place. Accordingly, the City would have to finance the costs of benefits during that one-year period. If the excess indemmty insurer has been notified properly of the existence of a potential claim, the City would receive prompt reimbursements of claims costs awarded in excess of the self-insured retention (deductible). The Corporation of the City of Picketing Workers' Compensation Transfer from Schedule I to Schedule 2 Septe~nber, 2001, Page 10 CiW of 3,0 Schedule 2 2001 O1 O1 2001 _ . Schedule 1 Premiums $290,000 4] 2: m d '42 Insurance Board ONTARIO CSPgAT Commission de la s~curit~ professionnelle et de l'assur~., ce contre les accidents du travail July 9, 2001 COPY Toronto Office 200 Front Street West Toronto ON M5V 3J 1 Telephone: 416/344-3067 1-800-387-8638 Fax: (416)344;2140 Bureau de Torc 200, rue Front O Toronto ON T616phone: 4161344- 1-800-387-8638 Debra A. Wight The Corporation of the City Pickering One The Esplanade Picketing ON L1V6K7 See below When writing the Board please quote the above file number. Indiquez le num~ dans evec la Commiss Dear Ms. Wight: Re'. Request to Transfer to Schedule 2 Schedule 1 Acct. No. 1623796 This is further to your letter of August 24, 2000, the addition of Classification Unit (CU) 8551-000, for your Museum operation, and our subsequent telephone conversations. I am confirming that the business activities of your organizatio~a meet the classification criteria defined in Schedule 2 of Regulation 175/98 of the Workplace Safety & Insurance Act. Therefore, your organi~.ation is eligible to transfer to Schedule 2 effective January 1,2001. I further understand that your transit operations under CU 4571-001 will remain in Schedule 1 under account 9124888. To assist you in your decision to transfer to Schedule 2, please find enclosed: An Information Package for a Request to Transfer to Schedule 2, which includes: · the Administrative Process & Funding Requirements Before the Transfer to Schedule 2 can occur · A sample Letter of Understanding and Intent Regarding the Transfer to Schedule 2 (Attachment A) Administrative Guidelines, Funding Requirements and Other Employer Obligations as a Schedule 2 Employer The provisional Departure Fee (formerly the Special Assessment) calculation The Schedule 2 Working Capital (formerly the Schedule 2 Prepayment Requirement) calculation. A summary of premiums used to calculate your Provisional Departure Fee based on a table of Workplace Insurance Premiums Paid provided by Donald Timmins of Heath Benefits Consulting Inc. Your provisional Departure Fee is based upon 1999 financial information and your premiums up to December 31, 1999 (excluding urban transit premiums). An adjusted Departure Fee will be calculated upon receipt of the 2000 £mancial information from our Actuarial Branch and your premiums up to December 3 i, 1999. You are responsible for payment of the difference, if an},, between the provisional and adjusted Departure Fees. If, after reviewing and understanding all the enclosed information, your organization wishes to proceed with a transfer to Schedule 2, please ensure the following is received by the Workplace Safe~' & Insurance Board (WSIB) within sixty (60) calendar days of' the date of this letter. 1. Your letter of understanding and intent This will serve as confn-mation that your organization understands the schedule transfer process and requirements and also serT'es as confirmation that you wish to proceed with the transfer. ' o Your letter of agreement This will serve as confirmation that your organization understands that should the urban transit operation under account 9124888 ever wish to transfer to Schedule 2, additional Class E premiums of $691,384 will be added to the premiums under account 9124888 to calculate the Departure Fee for account 9124888. ¥ourpayment ors 171,717.10 Ensure that your cheque, payable to the Workplace Safety & Lnsurance Board, is sent to Carol Carbery, Manager, Revenue Support, 2nd floor. The pawnent was calculated as follows: ' Schedule 1 Account balance at July 9, 2001: Provisional Departure Fee: Adjustment required to revise 2001 Premiums to $0.00 Schedule 2 Prepayment Requirement 4,991.08 Cr 260,753.29 128,446.11Cr. 44,401.00 171,717.10 Any questions you may have about the Departure Fee calculation should be addressed to Carol Carbery at (416)344-3323. Questions about the Schedule 2 Prepayment Requirement calculation should be referred to Fay Tomlinson, Sr. Schedule 2 Specialist, at (416)344-3462. Upon receipt of the above, your transfer back to Schedule 2 will be reflected by the closure of your Schedule 1 account and the establishment of a new. Schedule 2 file. Following fulfillment of your payment obligation to Schedule 1 and Schedule 2, any overpayment will be either refunded or transferred to your Schedule 2 account. As well, the transfer of claims Under firm 222I 15A under CU's 8321-099 General Municipal/Regional Operations, 8541-000 Library Services, and 8551-000 Museums and Archives to your Schedule 2 firm number effective January 1,200i wil[be initiated.- .. '.,. If your letter and payment are not ~eceived, I will contact you to confirm that you do not Wish proceed with the transfer to Schedule 2 and to advise'that any subsequent requests to transfer will be treated as new. Sincerely, Mrs. Beverly Read Account Manager Municipal, Electrical Utilities and Education Sector Operations Enclosures C. Campbell,. Director, MEE Sector C. Carbery, Manager, Revenue Sector Supporf K. Wang, Director, Schedule 2 Industry Sector D. Timmins, Heath Benefits Consulting Inc. Corporation of the City of Pickering Account No: ./623796 Firm/'qo: .2.22115A These calculations have been made producing a Adjusted Departure Fee of A. Liabilities of Class' H as.ofDezernber3l, 2000 B. Assets of Class H as ofDecember 31, 2000 C. Unfunded I/abiLity o£Class H as o£Dec~rnber 3 I, 2000 D. Revc~nue of emploYer under Class H since 01Jan1974 E. Lifetime revenue of Class H since January 1, 1958 F. Employer's responsibilty to Class H (D/~) G. Empl.oy~s canm~bution toward unfunded liability of ~4 (cxv) H. Employ~s contribution towards un.mserv~ ~ndngm¢ies I. Employer's d~1~rture fe~ to Class I-I (G+~) $1,209,071,000.00 $1,063,518,000.00 $145,553,000.00 . $4,583,914:16 $3,715, 353,"199.00 0.00'12338 $179,583.29 $0.0o $179,583,29 Insurance Board ONT,'~mO CS P/ AT professionnelle et de l'assurance contre Ies accidents du travail EMPLOYER · TRANSFER EFFECTIVE ' FIRM NUMBER · RE ' CORPORATION JANUARY .1, 200'1 222115A (1623796) OF THE CITY OF PICKERING SCHEDULE 2 WORKING CAPITAL F_,XCEPT RATE CALCULATION BASED ON SCHEDULE 1 ACCIDENT COST FOR_FJRM # 222115A AS AT: June30, 200 PREPAYMENT- SECTION .92_ Estimated cost of Claims with Accident Dates After Januaw 01,2001 $ 33,059.( Estimated Administration Fees ($33,059.00 X 31.54%) = $10,426.81 $ 10,427.C Deposit Required - Experience on Schedule 1 account ($ 69,572.00 + .76 weeks) {Benefit costs incurred for claims since 01JAN2CKX) Divided By # of weeks from 01JAN2000 To date of Schedule 1 costs} = $ 915.42 $ 915;00 - EKoefience on Schedu/e 2 Firm # (Base on review period fn3m To -Required $ -On Hand $ CR $ .00 Overdue Balance Under Section 92 as at PREPAYMENT-- SECTION 90 : :. Deposit for Pension Claims on Schedule I account with accident dates after June 30, 2001 $ .00 f~J~ Tomlin-oo July 03, 2001 Heath Lambert Benefits Consulting Experts conseils en avantages sociaux 47 305 - 191 The West Mall Toronto, ON M9C 5K8 August 2, 2001 Workplace Safety. and Insurance Board 200 Front Street West Toronto, Ontario M5V 3J1 Telephone: 416-620-0779 Toll Free: 1-877-HEATH-TO 1-877-432-8486 Fax: 416-620-9416 www. heathlambert.ca Attention: Carol Carbery Manager, IndustO' Sector Revenue Support Centre Dear Carol, Writer's Direct Dial Number: (416) 620-1993, ext. 226 Writer's e-mail Address: d.timmins(~heath.ca The Corporation of the Cit~' of Picketing , 7 Account No. 1623796; Firm No. 222115A I acknowledge the receipt of copies of tv¢o ietters ~om Beverly Read, in respect of the potential transfer of our client from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2. As the f~rst letter is dated July 9m, in effect it establishes a sixty-day decision/payment deadline date of September 7% Unfortunately, as in many previous instances, this deadline requires decisions to be made during the summer vacation season and, as usual, that has proven to be difficult - likely impossible. It appears that the matter cannot be dealt with by Council's Executive Committee until September 24m, and the Committee's recommendation xxqll go to Council for decision on October 1~t. Respectfully I request an extension of the deadline date imposed on the City of Pickering. Six- ty days should be sufficient; I anticipate that a decision will be reached a month earlier. Thanking you, and anticipating your quick response, I remain, Cordially, Donald G. (Don) Timmins, Senior Consultant. cc: City of Pickering WSIB - 3rd Floor RECEIVED ON AU$ - 3 2UUl J. LEONE Heath Lambed Benefits Consulting Inc./Expels conseils en avantages sociaux inc, VANCOUVER WI N N 1PE G TO RONTO OTTAWA ONTARIO - CSP. AT Workplace Safety & Insurance Board Commission de la scacurit~ profes~i.'onnelle et de l'assumnce contre les accidents du travail August 10, 2001 Transmitted by Facsimile to ._dwight,,city. pickerin.q, on ca d.timminsC~,TORONTO. HEATH. CA Mr. Donald G. Timmins, Consultant Heath Lambert Benefits Consulting 191 The West Mall, Suite 305 Etobicoke, Qntario M9C 5K8 Toronto Office 200 Front Street West Toronto ON M5V 3J1 Telephone: (416) 344-3323 1-800-387-8638 TTY: 1-800-387-8638 Fax: (416) xxx-xxxx When wdting to board please quote the above file number. Bureau de Toronto 200. rue Front Ouest Toronto ON M5V 3J1 T~l~phone: (416) 344-1013 1-800-387.8638 ATS: 1-800-387_0050 T61~copieur: (416) xxx-xxxx Indiquez le num~ro de d( dans toute correspondan avec la Commission. Dear Mr. Timmins Re: Corporation of the City of Pickering - Account 1623796 This letter is further to your August 2, 2001 letter, requesting an extension of your client's due date for submission of their departure fee, required for transferring to Schedule 2. I have agreed to an extension of 60 days, from the previous deadline date noted on WSIB's letter to your client, dated July 9, 2001. Please be aware that this deadline will not be further extended and, in addition, interest will be charged from the original deadline date until payment is received. Sincerely, Carol Carbery Manager Revenue Sector Support Corporation of the City of Pickering Bev Read, Account Manager, WSIB Fay Tomlinson, Senior Schedule 2 Specialist, WSIB RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY By-laws should be enacted authorizing: (a) the execution of a Servicing Agreement respecting the upgrading of a portion of the Road Allowance between Lots 8 and 9, Concession 5, Picketing, (Sideline 8Road) to City rural standards along with the construction of a turning circle on those parts of Lot 8, Concession 5, Pickering, designated as Parts 1 and 2, Plan 40R-XXXX; (b) the acquisition of certain lands by the City tbr easement and dedicating purposes; and (c) the dedication of those parts of the Road Allowance between Lots 8 and 9, Concession 5, Picketing, and those parts of Lot 8, Concession 5, Picketing, designated as Parts 1 and 2, Plan 40R-XXXX (Sideline 8 Road) as public highway. 50 PICKERING REPORT TO COUNCIL FROM: John Reble Solicitor for the City DATE: October 2, 2001 REPORT NUMBER: L21-01 SUBJECT: Richard and Marie Annis and Isabel Annis Part of the Road Allowance between Lots 8 and 9, Concession 5. Pickering (Sideline 8 Road) - Road Improvements File: V0106 RECOMMENDATION: By-laws should be enacted authorizing, the execution of a Servicing Agreement respecting the upgrading of a portion of the Road Allowance between Lots 8 and 9, Concession 5. Picketing, (Sideline 8 Road) to City rural standards along with the construction of a turning circle on those parts of Lot 8 Concession 5. Pickering, designated as Parts 1 and 2, Plan 40R-XXXX: (b) the acquisition of certain lands by the City for easement and dedicating purposes: and (c) the dedication of those parts of the Road Allowance between Lots 8 and 9. Concession :5, Pickering, and those parts of Lot 8, Concession 5, Pickering, designated as Parts 1 and 12, Plan 40R-XXXX (Sideline 8 Road) as public highway. ORIGIN: Request from Richard Annis. AUTHORITY: Municipal Act, RSO 1990, chapter M.45, sections 191,262. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: None. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The owners of lands (Richard and Marie Annis and Isabel Annis) adjacent to an opened and unmaintained section of the Road Allowance between Lots 8 and 9, Concession 5, Pickering (Sideline 8 Road) wish to upgrade a roadway thereon, at no cost to the City, for the purpose of obtaining dedicated public road access to their lands; such access will enable them to obtain the permits necessary to construct single family dwelling units on each of their properties. The owners are prepared to enter into the necessary Servicing Agreement with the City respecting the construction thereof. BACKGROUND: Richard/Marie Annis and Isabel Annis are the owners of properties that front an opened, unmaintained portion of the Road Allowance between Lots 8 and 9, Concession 5, Pickering, (Sideline 8 Road). Both owners wish to construct single family residences on each of their properties and are seeking approval from the City to do so. Report to Council L21-01 Subiect: Richard. Marie and Isabel Annis Sideline 8 Road - Road Improx ements [)ate: ()ctober '~ 2001 Page 51 Prior to permitting development on their lands, thc Citx requires that they enter into the appropriate Servicing Agreement to pro~idc lbr the upgrading of thc portion of the Road :\llo~vancc between Lots 8 and 0. ('onccssion 5, (Sideline g Road l~o rural City standards and construct of full-sized turning circle. Thc existence of such a roadx~ax will enable them to obtain tile necessau permits (sub, jeer to obtaining Xlinister's Zoning ()rder approval) to construct single family al\veilings on their properties. ()ncc thc roadway and turning circle has boon constructed ~o Citx standards, the City will acquire, at no cost to thc City, thc certain portions of land required to complete flit turning circle and then dedicate tile entire new-Ix upgraded portion of the Road Allox~ancc bctxveen Lots 8 and 9, Concession 5. (Sideline 8 Road) as public highway, enabling thc adjacent owners to obtain building permits. }(nactment of the attached bv-lax~ s will aut}lori×o: (b) {d) thc entering into of thc appropriate Scrx'icing _\grocmont: the acquisition of any required casements: the acquisition of the portions of land required to complete tile turning circle; and the dedication of thc upgraded portion of roadxx ax and turning circle as public highway. ATTACt tMENTS: Bx-la~v authorizing thc Servicing Agreement and acquisition of thc lands required I'or dedication and easement purposes. Dedicating By-law. Location Map. Prepared By: l)cnisc Bye ~/ DB:jim Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Picketing City Council Thomas J. QuimL Chief Administrative Officer ATTACHMENT ~ ___~ .......... L~\-D\ THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF ~ICF~R]NG BY-LAW NO. Being a by-law to authorize the execution of a Servicing Agreement and to authorize the acquisition of lands respecting the upgrading of a portion of the Road Allowance between Lots g and 9, Concession 5, Pickering (Sideline g Road) and the construction of a turning circle on those parts of Lot 8, Concession 5, Pickering, designated as Parts 1 and 2, Plan 40R-XXXX. WHEREAS the owners of lands a4jacent to an opened, unmaintained section of the Road Allowance between Lots 8 and 9, Concession 5, Pickering (Sideline 8 Road) wish to improve a roadway thereon, at no cost to the City, for the purpose of obtaining dedicated public access to their lands and as such, are prepared to enter into a Servicing Agreement with the City pursuant to the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter M.45; WIIEREAS the upgrading of that roadway and construction of the turning circle will require the acquisition of certain lands adjacent to the Road Allowance between Lots 8 and 9, Concession 5, Pickering (Sideline 8 Road) for dedication and easement purposes; WHEREAS pursuant to the provision of the Municipal Act, the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering may pass by-laws for acquiring lands for the purposes of the corporation; NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF TIlE CITY OF PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: The Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized to execute a Servicing Agreement, in a form satisfactory to the Solicitor for the City between Richard and Marie Annis and Isabel Annis and The Corporation of the City of Pickering, respecting the upgrading of a section of the Road Allowance between Lots 8 and 9, Concession 5, Pickering (Sideline 8 Road) and the construction of a turning circle on those parts of I,ot 8, Concession 5, Pickering, designated as Parts 1 and 2, Plan 40R-XXXX. The Corporation of the City of Pickering shall acquire lands adjacent to Road Allowance between Lots § and 9, Concession 5, Pickering (Sideline 8 Road), in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the Servicing Agreement. The Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized to execute the necessary documentation to effect any such acquisition of lands by Thc Corporation of the City of Pickering and to obtain any/all easements over such lands that may be required. BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 15th day of October, 2001. Wayne Arthurs, Mayor Bruce Taylor, Clerk VOl06 ATTACHMENT# ,X TO REPORT::2k_~)_~_:~:~ THE CORPOILATION OF THE CITY OF PICKt:RING 53 BY-LAW NO. Being a by-law to dedicate parts of the Road Allowance between Lots 8 and O. Concession 5. Pickering? and those parts of Lot 8. Concession 5. Picketing. designated as Parts 1 and 2, Plan 40R- XXXX (Sideline ~, Road) as public highway. WHEREAS The Corporation of the City of Picketing is the owner of those parts of the Road Allowance between Lots 8 and 9, Concession 5. Picketing, designated as Parts 1 and 2, Plan 40R-XXXX and wishes to dedicate them as a public highxvay. NOW THEREFORE, the Council of Thc Corporamm of the City of Pickering HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: Those parts of the Road ,,\lloxxancc between I.ots 8 and 9. Concession 5, Pickering, and those parts of Lot 8, Concession 5. Picketing, designated as Parts 1 and 2, Plan 40R- XXXX are hereby dedicated as public highway/Sideline 8 Road's. BY-I.AW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 15~1' day o£ October. 2001. Wayne Arlhurs. Mayor Bruce Taylor, Clerk W2304 407 ATTACHMENT # c% _.~O kEPORT #.~,2)\~o x SIXTH CONCESSION / / / / I I / / / / I01 //~ // / / I I / I I I I i I //////// City of Pickering / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / FILE No. NA / / / / / /' / / / / / / / / / / I, ANNI$ / / // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / R. ANNIS LANDS Planning & Development Department N DATE SEPT 25, 2001 55 RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That the Report of the Chief Administrative Officer, CAO 08-01, respecting tender approval during Council's summer recess be received: and That Council pass a resolution rati~dng the approval of certain Tenders by the Chief Administrative Officer during Council's summer recess (i.e., from June 26 to August 3, 2001 and from August 8, 2001 to September 7, 2001). 56 PICKERING REPORT TO COUNCIL FROM: Thomas J. Quinn Chief Administrative Officer DATE: September 28, 2001 REPORT NUMBER: CAO 08-01 SUBJECT: Tender Approval by the Chief Administrative Officer 2001 Summer Council Recess File: CSll00 RECOMMENDATION: That the Report of the Chief Administrative Officer, CAO 08-01, respecting tender approval during Council's summer recess be received; and That Council pass a resolution ratifying the approval of certain Tenders by the Chief Administrative Officer during Council's summer recess (i.e., from June 26 to August 3, 2001 and from August 8, 2001 to September 7, 2001). ORIGIN: 2001 Summer Recess Council Resolution #75/01 (i.e.. from June 26 to August 3, 2001 and from August 8, 2001 to September 7, 2001). AUTHORITY: Council Resolution #75/01. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: T-3-2001 - Tender for road Improvements on ?ickering Parkway and Fairport Road (Top Asphalt) Tendered Amount Total Tender & Associated costs Approved Funding (2321-6181) Over (Under) Budget $ 74,278.39 $ 84,578.41 $ 85,000.00 $ (421.59) Even though the tender is under budget, it is only one component of an ongoing project. $ 68,322.09 $ 70,381.96 71,000.00 $(618.04) T4-2001 - Tender for Surface Treatment on Concession Road Seven Tendered Amount Total Tender & Associated costs Approved Funding (2320-6181) Costs Over (Under) Budget Even though the tender is under budget, it is only one component of an ongoing project. Report to Council CAO 08-01 Subject: Tender Approval of the Chief Administrative Officer - 2001 Summer Council Recess Date: September 28, 2001 Page 2 57 Tender T-9-2001 - Tender for Asphalt Overlay - Vicki Drive Tendered Amount Total Estimated Prqject Cost Approved Funding (2320-6181) Project Costs Over (Under) Budget This tender is the final phase of layering asphalt from 2000. budget. S 60,639.51 68,729.52 70,000.00 $( 1.270.48 The tender ~s under the approved Tender T-10-2001 -Tender for Road hnprovements Rosebank Road, Finch Avenue South to the CNR Brid~c Tendered Amount $328.753.19 Total Estimated Project Cost Approved Funding (2321-6181) Project Cost Over (Under) Approved Funds $355,358.50 $355358.50 $0.00 Based on the original approved budget in 1995 and 1996. there are insufficient funds to cover this project. Arrangements have been made to transfer excess funds from other capital projects to complete this project. Developer contributions xvill also be Ibrthcoming to fund part of this project. Total contribution matches thc tender anaount. Quotation Q-21-2001 - Playground (onstruction & RFP 4-2001 - Supply & installation of Plax'around Equipment Quotation Q-21-2001 $130,405.63 RFP 4-2001 $130,140.00 Total Quotation & Request for Proposal $260,545.63 Total Estimated Project Cost Approved Funding (2718-6181/ Project Cost (Under) Budget $281,145.63 301,800.00 $(20,654.37) The quotation and request for proposal are loxver than the budget. Invitational Quotes- Construction of Pickerinu Baseball Association Clubhouse Invitational Quotes S113,890.00 Total Estimated Project Cost Approved Funding (2718-6129) Project Cost (Under) Budget $117,306.93 $120.000.00 S (2,693.07) Invitational quotes were called Ibr this project in an effort to stax' within budget. The contract was awarded to the lowest bidder. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Not applicable 58 Report to Council CAO 08-01 Subject: Tender Approval of the Chief Administrative Officer - 2001 Summer Council Recess Date: September 28. 2001 Page 3 BACKGROUND: On June 4, 2001, Council passed Resolution #75/01 authorizing the Chief Administrative Officer to approve tenders during Council's summer 2001 recess (i.e., from June 26, 2001 to August 3, 2001 and from August 8.2001 to September 7, 2001) on condition that in each case, a) the lowest acceptable tender is approved. b) the cost thereof is within the budget previously allocated theretbre by Council. and c) are report respecting those tenders is subsequently submitted to council (for ratification purposes). Circumstances were such that four Tenders and two Quotations were required to be approved by the Chief Administrative Officer during Council's summer recess all of which conformed to the conditions as set out in the Resolution. It should be noted that the Treasurer's approval was received at the meeting of Council on June 5, 2000 by Council Resolution 85/00 authorizing the Director. Corporate Services & Treasurer to recommend and approve project financing to the Mayor and Chief Administrative Officer for projects contained in the annual capital budget or current budget, during recesses of City Council. ATTACHMENTS: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Council Resolution #75/01 Memorandum dated June 28, 2001 (T-3-2001) Memorandum dated June 28, 2001 (T-4-2001) Memorandum dated July 26, 2001 (T-9-2001) Memorandum dated August 23,2001 (T- 10-2001 ) Memorandum dated August 29, 2001 (Q-21-2001 & RFP-4-2001 Memorandum dated July 10, 2001 Invitational Quotes Council Resolution 85/00 Approved / Endorsed By: Tho/m~ ~f. Quinn ~J TJQ:jh Copy: Director, Corporate Services 8,: Treasurer Director, Operations & Emergency Services Manager, Supply & Services Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council ~ "~ ,- ,T'h~o(nhs J. Q~/nn, Chi~JAdministran~~ June 11, 2001 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT= c= v;_ ME MO t,U\N D U M '- DEVFL ' Thomas J. Quinn, ChiefAdnfinistrative Officer~/~ Gil Paterson. Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Bruce Taylor, City Clerk Referrals from the Council Meeting of June 4, 2001 Please be advised that the Council of the City of Pickering passed Resolution//75/01, at the Council Meeting of June 4. 2001. as tbllows: That Report to Council CA.O 04-01, seeking authorizmion tbr the approval of tenders by the Chief Administrative Officer during Council's Sununer Recess be received; and That the Chief Administrative ()fficer be authorized to approve tenders during Council's Summer Recess period (i.e. fi-om June 26 to August 3, 2001 and from August 8, 2001 to September 7. 2001 ). on condition that: a) the lowest acceptable tender is approved. b) the cost thereof is within the budget previously allocated theretbre by Council, and c) a report respecting those tenders is subsequently submitted to Council. BT:dk Copy: T.J. Quinn, Chief Administrative Officer Bruce Taylor 60 June 28, 2001 To: ATTACHHENT #.,, 2_ TO REPORT # ~ c~-o I ~R E C E ! V E ~ ~f:Y.D~ [ O~ ~ CtTYOF PICKERI OPE~TION~';&[E~KOENCY SER~ESDEP~~ JUL 11 2001 ~C~.~~-~ & ENG~~G DI~SION Thomas J. Qu~ C~ef Administrative Officer Richard Holborn Division Head, Municipal Property & Engineering Subject' Tender T-3-2001 - TendeX~for Road Improvemexits on Picketing Parkway and Fairport Road. (Top Asphalt) File: T-3-2001 With reference to the Resolution of Council authorizing the approval of tenders by the Chief Administrative Officer during Council's summer recess, Municipal Property'& Engineering requires approval to proceed with the awarding of this contract. RECOMMENDATION: That Tender No. T-3-2001 submitted by Furfari Construction Ltd. to complete Road Improvements in the amount of $77,162.84 including 7% G.S.T. be accepted, and That a project cost of $84,578.41 including the Tender amount and other associated costs be approved, and 3. That funding in the amount of $85,000.00 be approved ORIGIN: Year 2000 Capital Budget - Account Number 2321-6181 (Carry Over) Project Code - ES 2000 V,7 - Fairport Road - Reconstruction from rural to urban standards Project Code - ES 2000 D-11 - Picketing Parkway - Re-alignment east of Brock Road Thomas J. Quinn i ,*-TTACb!I'dEN-~T ~ '2- TO REPORT ~ .C~C? O~- O ~ ~ ~y,3~a 2- C,F L-~ ' June 28, 2001 Subject: Tender T-3-2001 - Tender mr Road Improvements on Picketing Parkway and Fairport Road. (Top Asphalt) Page 2 61 AUTHORITY: Carry-over fhnding - Capital Budget - Account Number 2321-6181 Completion of works ( Top Asphalt) from Year 200(3 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Tendered Amount: Construction - Picketing Parkway Construction - Fairport Road G.S.T GS.T. Rebate (4%) Total Amount $48,868.6O 23,246.20 5,048.04 (2,884.45) $74,278.39 Approved Source of Funds Account Number 2321-6181 Balance of funds - Project Code - ES 2000 V-7 Picketing Parkway Balance of funds - Project Code-ES 2000 13-11 - Fairport Road Total balance of'funds carried forward to year 2001 $144,920.00 94,155.00 $239,075.O0 Estimated Project Costing Summary Construction as per T-3- 2001 Material Testing Pavement Marking Contingencies Sub Total G.S.T. G.S.T. Rebate (4%) $72,114.80 2,50O.00 2,500.00 5,000.00 82,114.80 5,748.04 .(3,284.431 Total Project Cost $84,578.41 Project Cost (over) under Approved Funds $154,496.59 Thomas J. Quinn 1 ATTACHMENT# ~--- TO REPORT# ~3~SO 0~-0 I {~---~-~ :~ O~ ~:5 June28,2001 Subject: Tender T-3-2001 - Tender for Koad Improvements on Picketing Parkway and Fairport Road. (Top Asphalt) Page 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This Tender completes all required Capital works on Pickering Parkway - Job No. ES 2000 V-7 and Fairport Road - Job No. ES 2000 D-11 with the exception of a sidewalk on Fairport Road, some invoicing to be received on traffic signals for Picketing Parkway and as-built surveys for both projects. The balance of funds should be retained for this purpose. ¥ B ACKGR 0UND: Tenders for this project were opened on June 13, 2001 (see summary attached). The low bidder, Furfari Paving Limited have previously performed satisfactory work for the City per Tender- T-1-98 Road Improvements, on Alderwood Place, Breda Avenue, Franklin Street, Hanworth Court, Moretta Avenue and Parkham Crescent. The Health and Safety Policy, the Confined Space Entry Procedure document to be used on this project, a list of personnel trained, and the CAD 7 form issued by Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, as submitted by Furfari Paving Limited have been reviewed by the Supervisor, Municipal Works and Co-ordinator, Safety & Training. Furfari Paving Limited does not have staff trained in Confined Space Entry Procedures, therefore this contract will be awarded on the condition that Furfari Paving Limited hire a sub contractor with the required Confined Space Entry Procedures training or provide their own staff' with the required Confined Space Entry Procedures training to fulfill this requirement as stated in Section 21, Information To Bidders. Upon careful examination of all tenders received and relevant documents (Health and Safety Policy, CAD 7 form, Workplace Safety and Insurance Board clearance, etc) and with fulfillment of the conditions stated, I recommend the low bid by Furfari Paving Limited in the Tendered amount of $77,162.84 and a Capital project cost of $84,578.41. D/i~ision HeadfMunicipal Property /& Engineering BDK Attachments (T-3-2001) Funding Approved: 0~1 l~aterson ..... Director, Corporate Services and Treasurer Thomas J. Quinn x ATTACHMENT# 2 TO I:(I~PORT# Ct-tO C~-O t · - June 28, 2001 Subject: Tender T-3-2001 - Tender for ~oa~ tmprovements on Picketing Parkway and Fairport Road. (Top Asphalt) Page 4 63 Copy: Director, Operations and Emergency Serwices Director, Corporate Services and Treasurer Supervisor, Municipal Works ,~ATTACHMENT# ~ TOi~.POP, T# C_~© C~-OI MUNICIPAL PROPERTY & ENGINEERING Attachment For Tender: %3/2001 PICKERING PARKWAY / FAIRPORT ROAD SUBJECT AREA / I"fC3k E~I, J(; fDA [~ ~¢ W,~.~ J ?ICKERING PARKWAY "&! L I:L4ttachments for Tenderst2OOltT-3-2001.(~oc !ATTACHMENT# ~ TOI:~EPOKT~_diqO PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION INCLUDES' Road Improvements (Top Asphalt, · on Picketing Parkway from Brock Road to t tome and Leisure Entrance. · on Fairport Road f'rom Finch Avenue to Pine Creek. I.'LAttachment$ for Tenders1200 It T-3~2001 doc 6G June 28, 2001 To~ From: ATTACHMENT#1 ~ TO REPORT# ~ ~5~t~l~_. I o(--- L3t- RECEIVED: OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES MUNICIPAL PROPERTY & ENGINEERING Thomas J. Quinn Chief Administrative Officer MEMORANDUM CITY OF PICKERING JUL - 5 2001 Richard Holborn Division Head, Municipal Property & Engineerin~UPP[Y A~D SERVICES Subject: Tender T-4-2001 - Tender for Surface Treatment on Concession Road Seven File: T-4-2001 With reference to the Resolution of Council authorizing the approval of tenders by the Chief Administrative Officer during Council's summer recess, Municipal Property & Engineering requires approval to proceed with the awarding of this contract. RECOMMENDATION: That Tender No. T-4-2001 submitted by Duncor Enterprises Inc. for Surface Treatment of Concession Road Seven in the amount of $70,975.24 including 7% G.S.T be accepted, and That a project cost of $248,515.70 including the Tender amount and other associated costs be approved, and 3. That funding in the amount of $250,000.00 be approved Year 2001 Capital Budget - Account Number 2320-6181 Project Code - 01-2320-008-03 Thomas J. Quinn ATTACHMENT# ~ TO REPORT#(2~)C) 0~-01 Subject: TenderT-4-2001 ~ ¢.~,~_~s~ c._~, ~ ~r..¢~ 2. OF- L} Tender for Surface Treatment on Concession Road Seven June 28, 2001 Page 2 6'7 AUTHORITY: 2001 Capital Budget - Account Number 2320-6181 Project Code - 01-2320-008-03 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: 1. Tendered Amount: T-4-2001 - Surface Treatment - Concession Road Seven G.S.T. G. S.T. Rebate {'4?,0 I Total Amount $66,332.00 4,643.24 (2,653.15) $68,322.09 Approved Source of Funds 2001 Capital Budget - Account Number 2320-618i Project Code 01-2_320-008-03 Estimated Project Costing Summa~x' Surface Treatment as per T-4-200l ~ Material Testing ,; Frost Boil Excavation Iper Q-12-2001) Sub Total G.S.T G.S.T. Rebate (4%) Roads Division - Replace Cross Culverts and Granular Total Project Cost Project Cost (over) under Approved Funds EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: S("-66,149 00! ~34.481.00 9,413.67 This Tender completes Capital works on Seventh Concession Road as approved per 2001 Capital Budget - Project Code 01-2320-008-0i 68 ThomasJ. Quinn AITACHMENT# C-~ TOREPORT#C-~OO~-Ol Subject: Tender T-4-2001 ~fi- ~ O¢ ~ Tender for Surface Treatment on Concession Road Seven June 28, 2001 Page 3 BACKGROUND: Tenders for this project were opened on June 13, 2001 (see summary attached). The Iow bidder, Duncor Enterprises Inc. have not previously performed work for the City of Picketing, but a review of their references by the Supervisor, Municipal Works has been deemed acceptable. The Health and Safety Policy, the Confined Space Entry Procedure document to be used on this project, a list ofpersom~el trained, and the CAD 7 form issued by Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, as submitted by Duncor Enterprises Inc. have been reviewed by the Supervisor, Municipal Works and Co-ordinator, Safety & Training and are deemed acceptable. The frost boil excavation component of this-project has been awarded to Harnden & King Ltd. through Quotation Q-12,2001. This Work is underway and will be completed prior to work under T-4-2001. Upon careful examination of all tende~r.~--~cc~nd relevant documents (Health and Safety Policy, CAD 7 form, Wo/r, lqYlace Safety and"~nsurance Board clearance, etc), I recommend the Iow. bid by ~uncor Enterprises Ir~c. in the Tendered amount of $70,975.24 and a Capital projec cost ~.~8,51~ ,~i.vihs~;dn I~I;l~d,~vlu ni ci p al P r o p eft y & Engineering ~Fu~ Approved: ~ 6il 15aterson (J Ddtrde CTtrOer~suC?errP o r at e Services BDK Attachments (T-4-2001) AP Copy: Director, Operations and Emergency Services Director, Corporate Services and Treasurer Supervisor, Municipal Works :FICIER ATTACHMENT~ ~'~ TO REPORT MLrNICIPAL PROPERTY & ENGINEERING Attachment For Tender: T-4-2001 SEVENTH CONCESSION ROAD 69 SUBJECT AREA ~3 LOCATION MAP PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION INCLUDES. Granular Base Repairs, Minor Drainage Improvements. Surface Treatment and Slurry Seal · Seventh Concession Road - from Salem Road, east to Lakeridge Road (Regional Road#~, .>)."~' Complete Landscape Restoration (grading and sodding ~vhere required) · to all areas affected. I.'k~ttachments for Tenders ~2001 ~ T-4~200 l.doc July 26, 2001 To: From: Subject: '(ATTAcHHENI # ~ TO REPORT# OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL PROPERTY & ENGINEERING DIVISION RECEIVED: FILE ',,__:.2 Richard Holborn Division Head, Municipal Property & Tender T-9-2001 - Tender for Asphalt Overlay - Vicki Drive File: T-9-2001 With reference to the Resolution of Council authorizing the approval of tenders by the Chief Administrative Officer during Council's summer recess, Municipal Property & Engineering requires approval to proceed with the awarding of this contract. RECOMMENDATION: 1. That Tender No. %9-2001 submitted by Harnden & King Construction for Asphalt Overlay on Vicki Drive in the amount of $62,994.32 including 7% G. S. T. be accepted, and That a project cost of $68,729.52 including the Tender amount and other associated costs be approved, and 3. That funding in the amount of $70,000.00 be approved Year 2001 Capital Budget - Account Number 2320-6181 Project Code - 01-2320-006-00 Thomas J. Qmnn c-r.~-~C~N~-N-- ~ ~'~ 7-% RE?OR7 =Cf~O O~OI Subject: Tender T-9-200'1 ............. ~W',9~ c,2, o4 -~ Tender for Asphalt Overlay - Vicki Drive July 25,200t Page 2 71_ AUTHORITY: 2001 Capital Budget - Account Number 2320-6181 Project Code - 01-2320-006-0(1 FINANCIAL LMPLICATIONS: Tendered Amount: T-9-2001 - Asphalt Overlay - Vicki Drive G.S.T. GS.T. Rebate (4o,/0') Total Amount $58,873.20 4,121.12 i (2,354.81~ $60,639.51 Approved Source of Funds: 2001 Capital Budget - Account Number 2320-6181 Project Code 01-2320-006-00 $70,000.00 ]Estimated Project Costing Summa~': Asphalt Overlay as per T-9-2001 Material Testing Pavement Marking Roads Division labour G.S.T G.S.T. Rebate (4%) Total Project Cost Sub Total $58,873.20 2,OOO.0O 1,000.00 _ 5,000.00 66,873.20 4,331.12 (2,474.801 $68,729.52 Project Cost (over) under Approved Funds $1,270.48I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This Tender completes Capital xvorks on Vicki Drive as approved per 2001 Capital Budget- Project Code 01-2320-006-00 72 Thomas J. Quinn ' ATTACHHENT#. ~ TO P~PORT~,,C~O ©~-0 1 July 25, 2001 Subject: Tender T-9-2001 k>~l~-- ~ ©1: ~_.~" Tender for Asphalt Overlay - Vicki Drive Page 3 BACKGROUND' Tenders for this project were opened on July 25, 2001 (see summary attached). The low bidder, Harnden & King Construction have previously performed work for the City of Picketing on numerous projects, the most recent being Q-12-2001 - Frost Boil Excavation on Seventh Concession Road. The Health and Safety Policy, the Confined Space Entry Procedure document to be used on this project, a list of personnel trained, and the CAD 7 form issued by Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, as submitted by Harnden & King Construction have been reviewed by the Supervisor, Municipal Works and Co-ordinator, Safety & Training and are deemed acceptable. Upon careful examination of all tenders received and relevant documents (Health and Safety Policy, CAD 7 form, Workplace Safety and Insurance Board clearance etc), 1 recommend the Iow bid by Harnden & King Construction in the Tendered amount of $62,994.32 and a Capital project cost of $68,729.52 D/vision Head, Municipal Property & Engineering Funding Approved: Gil Paterson Director, Corporate Services and Treasurer BDK Attachments (T-9-2001) Copy: Director, Operations and Emergency Servi Director, Corporate Services and Supervisor, Municipal Works i! August 23, 2001 To: Subject: Thomas J. Quinn Chief Administrative Officer Robert Starr Supervisor, Development Control ATTACHMENT #-~..~mO REPORT #~_.~ O~ 0 OAO -- Tender T-10-2001 - Tender for Road Improvements Rosebank Road, Finch Avenue South to the C.N.R. Bridge With reference to the Resolution of Council authorizing the approval of tenders by the Chief Administrative Officer during Council's summer recess, Plarming & Development requires approval to proceed with the awarding of this contract. RECOMMENDATION: That Tender No. T-10-2001 submitted by Hamden and Krug Construction Ltd. for road improvements (Rosebank Road, Finch Avenue South to the C.N.R. Bridge) in the amount of $o44.520.:t including 7% G.S.T. be accepted, and That a project cost of S>~_.~>$.50 includin~ the Tender amount and other associated costs be approved, and 3. That funding in the amount of $370,000.00 be approved ORIGIN: Year 1995 Capital Budget (external subdMsion) Account No. 232 t-6181 Project No. ES 1995-01 - $66,514.90 Project No. ES 1995-03 - $4,395.84 Year 1996 Capital Budget (external subdivision) Account No. 2321-6181 Project No. ES 1996-01A - $78,543.76 Project No. ES 1996-03 - $24,700.00 AUTHORITY: 1995 and 1996 Capital Budget - Account Number 2321-6181 Project Codes- ES 1995-01, ES 1995-03, ES 1996-01A, ES 1996-03 74 Thomas J. Quinn ATTACHNENT# ~ TOREPOfl,T#Cr'~0~'-Oi August23, 2001 t~ 2 OF:-- /o Page ? FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Tendered Amount: T- 10-2001 - Road Improvements - Rosebank Rd. G.S.T. G.S.T. Rebate (4%) Total Amount $319,177.85 22,342.45 ~12,767.11) $328,753.19 Approved Source of Funds 1995 Capital Budget - Account Number 2321-6181 Project Code ES 1995-01 Project Code ES 1995-03 1996 Capital Budget - Account Number 2321-6181 Project Code ES 1996-01A Project Code ES 1996-03 Additional Funding (memo attached from Gil Paterson dated August 17/01 Re: T-10-2001) Contribution from adjacent developments Secured by agreements and letters of credits Total Amount $66,514.90 4,395.84 78,543.76 24,700.00 70,584.00 110,620.00 $355,358.50 Estimated Project Costing Summary Road Improvements as per T-10-2001 Material Testing Chain Link Fence (Altona Forest) G.S.T G.S.T. Rebate (4%) Total Project Cost Sub Total $319,177.85 6,830.40 19,000.00 345,008.25 24,150.58 (13,800.33) $355,358.50 Project Cost (over) under Approved Funds I $0.00 I Thomas J. Quinn ATTACHMENT#.:~ TO REPORT#CPi© O?nglAugust 23, 2001 EXECUTIX~E SUMSL, kRY: This Tender completes Capital works on Rosebank Road bepa, een Finch Avenue and the C.N.R. Bridge as approved per 1995 and 1996 Capital Budget - Project Codes ES 1995- 01, ES 1995-03, ES 1996-01A, ES i996-03, and 2001 Capital Budget Account Number 2320-2409. BACKGROUND: Tenders for this project were opened on August 3. 2001 (see summary, attached). The low bidder, Harnden and King Construction Ltd. have previously performed satisfactory work for the City of Pickering, and are therefore deemed acceptable for this contract. The Health and Safety Policy, the Confined Space Entry Procedure document to be used on this project, a list of personnel trained, and the CAD 7 fonn issued by Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, as submitted by Hamden and King Construction Ltd. have been reviewed by the Coordinator, Safety & Training and have been deemed acceptable. Upon careful exanlination of all tenders received and rclevant documents (Health and Safety Policy, CAD 7 form, Workplace Safety and ~nsurance Board clearance, etc), I recommend the low bid by Han~den and King Construction Ltd. in the Tendered amount of $344,520.30 and a Capital project cost of $355.35S.50. Funding Approved: Robert Starr Supervisor, Development Control Gil Paterson Director, Corporate Se~dces & Treasurer RS/kb Attachments Copy: Director, Corporate Sen'ices & Treasurer Director, Planning & Development Supervisor, Municipal Works ..ATTACHMENT # ~._~_TO REPORT COURT ROAD LANE City of Pickering Planning & Development Department ROSEBANK ROAD On Rosebank Road from Finch Avenue, South to the C.N.R_ Bridge (south of Foxwood Trail). On Foxwood Trail between Rosebank Road and Lauder Crescent (West leg). iDA'rE 'JUL 4, 2001 August 17, 2001 To: From: Subject: ATTACHMENT ~t.~ TO REPORT # C__.~O O"~- CORPOtL&TE SERVICES DEPARTMENT MEM OP~GNrD UM Thomas J. Quinn, Chief Administrative Officer Gil Paterson. Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer RECEIVED 77 Rosebank Road - Sheppa~d to Finch - Top Course Asphalt - Tender No. T-10-2001 Following our recent discussion this is to confirm my actions in regards to the above mentioned project. As discussed this project is the last of several projeers approved in prior years budgets. lin the 1991 Development Charge Study, a total of approximately 51.856.400 was identified for various projects on Rosebaak Road. However. only approxnnately $1,352,700 of expenditures have been approved to date. of which 5214.700 remains unspent. Additionally, $27,457 must be paid out as a hoidback or, previous projects mad $12,885 is due to TRCA, leaving a ncr balance of $174.154. The final pro] ecl involves curb repairs, sur£ace preparation mid placement of the top course of asphalt on Rosebank Road between She?pard and Finch. The lowest qualified bidder came in at approximately $319.177 to which $6,830 must be added for material testing and $19,000 for a fence along the Altona forest side of the Road for a total of $355,358.50 (includes GST + rebate). Additional]y, Bob Star. has in£omaed me that Developer contributions in the amount of approximately $110,620 wil! be available to reduce our share of the cost of this project. This leaves S.~44,/~3 to bt financed for a net funding shortfall of $70,584 ($244,73~ - S174,154). actual costs came in at $850,635. Capital Budget for Wixon Street. funds to cover th/s expenditure. As a solution I will be transferring approximately S49.365 of Coumcil approved debt funding for the 1998 Roseb'ank Road Reconstruction. Approval was for $900,000 and the I will also be trams£ernng_ $21,219 from the 1998 This project is completed and contains sufficient unspent G.A. Paterson GAP/vw Copy: E. Buntsma, Director, 'Operations & Emergency Services N. Carroll, Director, Planmng & Development R. Start, Supervisor, Development Control K. Senior, Manager, Accounting Services B. Tran, Buyer, Supply & Se~ices C. Kong, Senior Financial Analyst CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER J ?8 ATTACHMENT# --~ TO REPORT# 0 ATTACHMENT# ~_3 TO REPORT#O-D-~-OI OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES DEP,~~:~ ~Cm~ PROPERTY & ENG~EE~G ~~ MEMORANDUM August 29, 2001 To: Thomas J. QuLm~ Chief Administrative Officer S EP - b znm From: r:WD / CO PY/CI RCU LATE TO: :' :';": I 'I COUNCIL I ....... -,_ ,, ,_.f:_.=,:,: ...... ' '; L, Richard Holbom Division Head, Municipal Property & Engineering Subject: Q-21-2001 Play~ound Construction. and RFP-4-2001 Supply and Installation of Playground Equipment With reference to the Resolution of Council authorizing the approval of tenders by the Chief Administrative Officer during Council's sunnner recess, Municipal Property Engineering requires approval to proceed with the awarding of these contracts. RECOMMENDATION: That Quotation No. Q-21-2001 submitted by' Hamden & King Construction Inc. for the construction of play~ounds and pathways in various parks in the amount ofS135,469.93 including GST be accepted, and That Request for Proposal No. RFP-4-2001 submitted by Crozier Agencies for the supply and installation of playground equipment in various parks in the amount of $134,892.00 inc~T-"mTd-G~T--b~pted, and That a project 69,~t of 5281,145.63 inc~nz the tendered amounts and other associated costs bedrid ~ That funding in the amount of $282,000.00 be approved ORIGIN: Year 2001 Capital Budget 80 Thomas J. Quirm ATTACHMENT # ~ TO REPORT # ~--C,.I ~r-%5~_. Z_ August 29, 2001 Subject: Q-21-2001 Playground Construction and RFP-4-2001 Supply and Installation of Playground Equipment Page 2 AUTHORITY: Year 2001 Capital Budget FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: 1 Tendered Amount Q-21-2001: Playground Construction GST GST Rebate (4%) Total Amount Tendered Amount RFP-4-2001: Playground Equipment Installation PST (play equipment only) GST GST Rebate (4%) Total Amount $ 126,607.41 8,862.52 (5,064.30) $ 130,405.63 $ 97,200.00 21,600.00 7,776.00 8,316.00 (4,752.00) $ 130,140.00 Approved Source of Funds: 2001 Capital Budget Account Number 2718-6181 Project Codes: 01-2718-006-00 - Health & Safety 01-2718-006-05 - Forestbrook Park: 01-2718-006-06 - Mitchell Park 01-2718-006-08 - Fairport Beach P.S. 01-2718-006-11 - Douglas Park 01-2718-006-12 - Amaretto Park 01-2718-006-15 - Basketball Courts 01-2718-006-17 - Centennial Park Total Budget $ 25,000.00 45,000.00 45,000.00 45,000.00 45,000.00 25,000.00. Thomas ~. Quirm ATTACHMENT# TO REPORT# ~ 0~--0 I ~t~,~_ 3 ~ August 29, 2001 Subject: Q-21-2001 Playground Construction and RFP-4-2001 Supply and Installation of Playground Equipment Page 3 Estimated Project Costing SummaD': Construction as per Q-21-2001 Construction as per RFP-4-2001 Material Testing Contingencies Sub Total PST (play equipment only) GST GST Rebate (4%) Total Project Cost $ 126,607.41 118,800.00 5,000.00 15,000.00 265,407.41 7,776.00 18,578.52 (10,616.30) $ 281,145.63 Project Cost (over) under Approved Funds $ 20,654.37} EXECUTIYE SUMMARY: RFP-4-2001 involves the supply and installation of pla>' structures and swing sets in six (6) City of Picker/ng neighbourhood parks. The installation of this equipment is required to replace existing playground equipment that is in poor condition or to provide play opportunities in parks that currently do not have equipment. Q-21-2001 involves the construction of playground areas and pathways in the six (6) City of Pickering neighbourhood parks receiving new equipment. Playground area construction includes the development of concrete curbed play areas and concrete bench and trash receptacle pads, with the appropriate drainage pipe and safety mater/al required to house new play equipment, swing sets, benches and trash receptacles. Pathway construction involves the installation of asphalt pathways to allow universal access to all new playgrounds. Also included in this quotation is the construction of a basketball court, playground area, and pathway at East \Voodlands Park (adjacent to the Petticoat Creek Community Centre) and the construction of a basketball court at Don Beer Memorial Park (formerly known as Brougham Park'). At East Woodlands Park, the playground equipment was purchased in 2000 and will be installed following the construction of the playground area. 82 Thomas J. Qui~_n ATTACHMENT ¢/: ~_,~__TO REPORTer ~./30 O,~_~Alugust -. - 29, 2001 Subject: Q-21-2001 Playground Construction and RFP-4-2001 Supply and Installation of Playground Equipment Page 4 BACKGROUND: Bids for Q-21-2001 were received on August 17, 2001. Fourteen (14) companies were invited to bid on this project; and the City received five (5) bids at the time of closing. The low bidder, Hamden & King Construction Inc., have successfully completed similar projects for the City in the past, and are therefore recommended to be awarded the contract. Proposals for RFP-4-2001 were received on August 3, 2001. Twelve (12) companies were invited to bid on this project, and the City received nine (9) bids at the time of closing. An evaluation team, consisting of members from the Municipal Property & Engineering Division and the Supply & Services section, was established to review each proposal and make recommendation for the award of the contract. The evaluation team met on August 9, 2001 to review each submission in detail and score each according to play value, appearance, durability, warranty, maintenance and service. The evaluation team reconunended that Crozier Agencies be awarded the contract. Funding Approved: ard Holbfi~-n - ~ivision Hegd, Municipal Property &(&(&~Engineering Gil Paterson Director, Corporate Services and Treasurer JMB/ Attachments Copy: Director, Operations & Emergency Services Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Supervisor, Municipal Works Inspector, Landscape & Parks Development ! -'THOM/~ J. OLiN '~ II CHIEF ADMINISTiRATIVE OFFICEF, PICKERING ,~'TACHHENT # b TO I~PORT # C~,f:~D~ 6~-C' ~ $3 Picketing Civic Complex One The Esplanade Picketing, Ontaric Canada L1V 61G- Direct Access 905420466C dtyofpickenng.com CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT Department 905-42_,04634 North Picketing 905-683-2760 Facsimile 9054213-5313 corpserv ~_ ciD,.pickermg, on.ca SUPPLY & SERWOES Telephone: 905-420-4676 August 28, 2001 Via: Facsimile 905-679-9227 Harnden & King Construction inc. 83 Orchard Road Ajax, Ontario L1S 6K9 Attn: Eric Chynn Dear Sir: Subject: Quotation No. Q-21/2001 - Playground Construction Further to your conversation with Jamie Bronsema of today, this letter is to confirm that the City of Picketing has adjusted estimated quantities within the above mentioned quotation as follows: Reference: Form of Quotation, Item 6 Estimated quantity, 740 lin.m to De changed to 360 [in.m This letter will also confirm that Harnden & King have agreed to hold their unit pricing of $49.57/lin.m on this item. Based on this information, the total value of the quotation su3mitted has been changed to $135,469.93 (PST/GST included). In accordance with the quotation document, please provide the foliowing original documentation: 1. Performance Bond, and Labour & Materials Payment Bond in the amount of $135,469.93. Reference: Supplementary Standard Conditions Item 6 b, c & d: 2. Certificate of Insurance (City's form is attached) Reference: Supplementary Standard Conditions Item f 0 Please forward to the Supply and Services on or about Thursday, September 6, 2001, 12:00 noon. If you require further information, please feel free to contact me. Yours truly, Hone, CPPB, AMCT Buyer II Copy: Jamie Bronsema, Inspector, Landscape & Parks Development Attachment 8¸4 August 17, 2001 To.' From: Subject: "'ATTACHMENT # , TO P, EPOP, T # inter Departmental Memorandum CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT .SUpply & Services Richard Holborn, Division Head Municipal Property and Engineering Barbara Tran, Buyer II Supply and Services Q- 21/2001 Playground Construction QuotatiOns have been received for the above service.. Fourteen companies were invited to quote and five. acceptab bids were received. The summary of bids is as follows: Provincial Sales Tax and Goods and Services Tax Included Harnden & King Construction Inc. Royaicrest Paving & Contracting Ltd. Miwei Construction Limited Aurostar Inc. Mopal Construction Limited Miller Paving Limited $155,625.08 YES Y'ES 189,804.63 193,597.24 195,044.95 YES YES YES 1reference YES YES 218,477,95 YES YES UNABLE TO BID Received: Cad 7 & WSIB Receiyed: Certificate of Insurance The original quotations are attached for your perusal. Please review and return at your earliest convenience. Please advise if the Iow bidder Harnden & King Construction Inc. has performed satisfactor~ work for the City and would be an acceptable vendor. Pursuant to Supplementary Standard Conditions Item 10, the following documents have been received and have been deemed acceptable by the City's Safety & Training Co-ordinator.. (a) a copy of the Health and Safety policy to be used on this proiect; and (b) a copy of the current CAD 7 form or Cost and Frequency Report issued by Workplace Safety & Insurance Board. Continued, page 2 ~,TT~C~h~Ei~,T:____ ~ TOREPO~T~--,~ Q-21/2001 Piayground Construction, page 2 Please review original quotations and return. Include the following items in your recommendation: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) if items (a) and (b) noted above, are acceptable: any past work experience with Harnden & King Construction including work location; the appropriate account number(s) to which tnis wot,; is to be charged; the budget amount(s) assigned thereto; Treasurer's confirmation of funding; related departmenta! approvals; any reason(s) why the iow bid of Harnden & King Construction is not acceptable; and related comments specific to the project. An authorized "on-line" purchase requisition is required to proceed and will be subject to receipt of securities. If you require further information, please feel free to contact me. Thanks, Barbara Tran Buyerll Enclosures 86 zC~l !--,0 O~ Z '"' ~ ,,,gq: ATTACHMENT# ~ TO REPORT .4--' ~:~ o o o o o o o o o o ~ ~ o o ~ ~ ~ ~ o o o -~ · ~ fATTACHMENT# ~ TO REPORT# ~J~© o~-ol __ 8~ R E C ED CAO ' PICKE I G ~ ~ ' CiTY OF ~O~TE SERVICES DEPART~CEIVED:JUL l Z001 JUL 1 120O1 MEMO~DUM ~ A~, r~_ ~ ' SUPPLY~DSERViCES i ~'WO/COPW~~TETO: July 10, 2001 To: From: Subject: ~om~ J, Qui~, ChiefAdminis~ative Officer ,' ('-7~---,~7;7~:,~ h~s / I K~ow~k~ M~a~er Financial Se~qces Aw=ding of P=ch=e Order for the Cons=uction of Association Clubhouse As you are aware, the 2001 Capital Budget reflected $120,000 for the construction of the Pickering Baseball Association (PBA) clubhouse. PBA has agreed to partially fund the project and a separate reserve fu~2'Vq'~establis-~fk-Ned&v Council on September 30, 2000. The current balance of the reserve fu(~.~76318.96._~ As you know, Council approved the 2001 capital budget on May 23 of this year. The late budget approval this year, requires that purchasing policies be flexible in order to meet the summer building time period. It is my understanding that the PBA has asked that this building be completed as soon as possible. The projected cost of this prc(ject would dictate that a tender be issued. However, for those tenders that are above the $I 00,000 limit, the tender process provides for 15 calendar days for potential bidders to respond. To accommodate the urgent need of this faciliu', Supply and Services staff issued quotes and the results of the quotes are presented below: 1. B. Fayer & Son Construction Ltd. - $113.890 plus GST 2. Hollinger Construction Ltd. - $115.750 plus GST. 3. Dalar Contracting Ltd. $1._Y.78_~'- 5 plus GST. The 2001 capital budget provides financing as follows: PBA Donations City of Pickering Contributions Total Approved Budget $75,000 45,000 $120.000 The total cost of the project after GST rebate is $1 '7, ~ l, .~06.93 az~d is therefore, below the approved capital budgeted amount. Recommendation ATTACHMENT# ~ TO REPORT It is my understanding, that the PBA would like to have the clubhouse constructed as soon as possible due to the urgent need ofth~sociation' In order to accommodate their request, I respectfully requj;~'fthat you approve from'"th~ quotes provided that B. Fayer & S°n C°nstructi°n Limited, the l~kwest quot~, be approved and Sa)Purchase Order be issued. Your anticipated assistance ~n thi~armrecia~. Stem~ Karwowski Pc E. Buntsma, Director Operations & Emergency Services G. Paterson, Director Corporate Services & Treasurer ATTACHMENT # c:~ TO REPORT # Ctq~ 0~-0 / ec¢6 lc& 1 INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMOIL~NDUM CLERK'S DIVISION DATE: June 6, 2000 TO: G. Paterson Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer FROM: Bruce Taylor City Clerk CITY OF PlCKERiNDG JUN 0 6 2000 CORPORATE SERVICES Please be advised that the Council of the Ciw of Picketing passed Resolution 85/00, Item #1 at the Council Meeting of June ¢ 2000~ as £ollo~,s: That Report to Council CS 12-00 regarding authority for the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer to recommend project financing approval during recesses of Council be received, and The Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be authorized to recommend and approve project financing to the Mayor and Chief A&ninistrative Officer for projects contained in the annual capital budget or current budget, during recesses of City Council; and That appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to give effect thereto. This resolution is sent to you for your information. Bruce Taylor, City Clerk cc. T.J. Quinn, Chief Administrative Officer RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That Clerk's Report CL 35-01 regarding the appointmem of' Laura Menezes, Parking Control Officer, as a Municipal Law Enforcement Officer for the purpose of. enforcing the Parking By-law be received; and That the draft by-law to appoim Laura Menezes as a Municipal Law Enforcement Officer for the purpose of enforcing the Parking By-law be forwarded to Council for enactment. REPORT TO COUNCIL 91. FROM: Bruce Taylor, AMCT. CMM City Clerk DATE September 10, 2001 REPORT NUMBER CL 35-01 SUBJECT: Appoint Laura Menezes as Municipal Law Enforcement Officer to Enforce Parking By-law RECOMMENDATION: That Clerk's Report CL 35-01 regarding the appointment of Laura Menezes, Parking Control Officer, as a Municipal Law Enfbrcement Officer fbr the purpose of enforcing the Parking By-law be received: and That the draft by-law to appoint Laura Menezes as a Municipal Law Enforcement Officer for the purpose of enlbrcing the Parking Bv-laxv be/brwarded to Council for enactment. ORIGIN: Laura Menezes commenced employment as a Parking Control Officer on August 13, 2001 to replace Grant Mahon AUTHORITY: Sections 15(1) and (2) of the Police Services Act FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Not applicable EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: To appoint Laura Menezes as a Municipal La~' Enforcement Officer in order to entbrce the City's Parking By-law BACKGROUND: Please be advised that the City retains two pan-time Parking Control Officers whose duty is to enforce the City's Parking By-law. One of our Officers, Grant Mahon. took a full-time position in another Department and Laura Menezes was hired effective August 13. 2001 to replace Grant Mahon. Report to Council CL 35-01 Subject: Appointment of Parking Control Officer Date: September 10~ 2001 Page 2 Pursuant to Sections 15(1) and (2) of the Police Services Act, a Municipal Council may appoint persons to enforce the by-laws of the municipality and municipal law enforcements officers are peace officers for the purpose of enforcing municipal by-laws. The by-law that is attached to this Report confines Laura Menezes' authority to the enforcement of the Parking By-law only. Upon Council passing this by-law, I will request the Regional Council to appoint Ms. Menezes as a Municipal Law Enforcement Officer to enforce the Region's Parking By-law on Regional roads. ATTACHMENT S: 1. Draft By-law Prepared. B~g7 '~ruce Taylor Attachments Copy: Manager, By-law Enforcement Services Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council ATTACHMEb? :;- / I-O REPORT ~ cz_ 35--- c_> / THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PiCKER1NG 93 BY-LAW NO. Being a bv-laxv to appoint Laura Menezes as a municipal lax,,' enforcement officer fbr the purpose of enforcing By-law Number 2359/87. as amended, (Parking By-law) WltEREAS pursuant to section 15(11 of' the Po!ice 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 bx-law enforcement officers are peace officers for the purpose of entbrcmg municipal bv-laws: NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: Laura Menezes is hereby appointed as a municipal law enforcement officer 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. The authority granted in Section 1 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. This appointment shall expire upon Laura Menezes ceasing to be an employee ot'the City of Pickering. 4. This By-law shall take effect as of August 1.3. 2001. 5. By-law 5752/00 is hereby repealed. BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 15th day of October, 2001. Wayne Arthurs. Mavor Bruce Taylor. Clerk RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That the draft by-law to appoint two persons to enforce the Parking By-law at 905 Bayly Street, 1915 Denmar Road, 1310 Fieldlight Blvd., 1345 Altona Road, and two persons to enforce the Parking By-law at 726 Kingston Road, be forwarded to Council for approval. REPORT TO COUNCIL 95 FROM: Bruce Taylor, AMCT, CMM City Clerk DATE: October 1, 2001 REPORT NUMBER: CL 37/01 SUBJECT: Appointment to enforce the Parking By-law at 905 Bayly Street, 1915 Denmar Road, 1310 Fieldlight Blvd, 1345 Altona Road and 726 Kingston Road, in Picketing RE',C OMMENDATION: That the draft by-law to appoint two persons to enforce the Parking By-law at 905 Bayly Street, 1915 Denmar Road, 1310 Fieldlight Blvd., 1345 Altona Road, and two persons to enforce the Parking By-law at 726 Kingston Road, be forwarded to Council for approval. ORIGIN: Letters from Authorized Parking Only Ltd. dated September 5. 2001 and Citiguard Security Services Inc. dated September 28. 2001. AUTHORITY: Section 15(I) of the Police Services Act. R.S.O 1990, c.P 15 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: None EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: N/A BACKGROUND: Correspondence has been received from Authorized Parking Only Ltd. requesting the appointment of two persons as By-law Enforcement Officers for the purpose of enforcing the Parking By-law at 905 Bayly St., l 915 Denmar Rd., 1310 Fieldlight Blvd. and 1345 Altona Rd. and from Citiguard Security Ser~Sces Inc. requesting the appointment of two persons as By-law Enforcement Officers for the purposes of enforcing the Parking By-law at 726 Kingston Road. ATTACHMENTS: Correspondence from Authorized Parking Only Ltd. ,And Citiguard Security Services Inc. Draft By-law. Report to Council CL 37/01 Subject: Appointment of By-law Enforcement Officers Dated October 1, 2001 Page 2 Prepared By: Approved / Endorsed By: Debbie Kearns BT:dk Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Bruce Taylor Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Thomas J. Quinn, ef Administrative I ATTACHMENT # ~ Authorized Parkin9 Only Ltd. 2131 Williams Parkway East. Unit #8. Brampton, Ontario, L6S 5Z4 97 Phone: (416) 231 - TAGS City of Pickering Attention: I)ebbic One The L:splanade Picketing. Ontario LIV 6K7 Dear Debbie, September 5, 2001 SEP 1 4 Z001 CITY OF PICKERING PICKERING, ONTARIO We xvould like to have :\rsaian Baig and Corinne NlctTrea added u~ our list o£ people authorized to issue parking infraction notices in thc City of Picketing: Arsalan Baig 197 JeflUoat Drive Toronto. Ontario Mgw 3C4 Date of birth: April 4. 1979 Corim~e McCrea 9 Lisa Street Apt. 1406 Brampton, Ontario L6T 4}57 l)ate of birth: June 29. 1977 Please add thief names to tile l'olloxxing approved propertic.<: 995 Bayly Street 1915 Denmar Road 1310 Fieldlight Blvd. 1345 Attona Road If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me att 4l 6-231-8247 or fax 905-793-7436. 98 gl:S6 TEL: 4164_-,1 'qk'c TT~CHMENI#_ t TO ~57~T ~. CITIGUARD SECURITY SERVICES INC. Via ~ #905-420-05 l 5 September 28, 2001 The City of Picketing By-Law Department Attention: Debbie Kearns, Committee Coozdinal.ot Re: 726 Kingst¢~i_~ Road, P_ickering Please add tile following employee as By-law Enforcement Officer for tagging at tile above location: Mahananthan Sundaram SukeM~ Pandcy Thank d.~eve Boseov~ki IATTAOHMENi L THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PiCKER1NG BY-LAW NO. Being a by-law to appoint Bv-law Enforcement Officers for certain purposes (Parking Regulation 905 Bayly Street, 1915 Denmar Road, l 310 Fieldlight Blvd., 1345 Ahona Road and 726 Kingston 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 entbrcing municipal by-laws: NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPOKAT1ON OF THE CITY OF PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. That the following persons be herebv appointed as municipal taw enforcement officers in and for the City of Picketing in order to ascertain whether the provisions of By-law 2359/87 are obeyed and to enforce or carrv into effect the said By-law and is hereby authorized to enter at all reasonable times upon lands municipally known as: a) 905 Bayly Street, 1915 Denmar Road, 1310 Fieldlight Blvd. and 1345 Altona Road: Arsalan Baig Corinne McCrea b) 726 Kingston Road: Mahananthan Sundaram Sukesh Pandey The authority granted in section 1 hereto is specifically limited to that set out in section 1, and shall not be deemed, at any time, to exceed the authoritv set out in section 1. These appointments shall expire upon the persons listed in section l(a) ceasing to be employees of Authorized Parking Only Ltd. or upon Authorized Parking Only Ltd. ceasing to be an agent of 905 Bayly Street, 1915 Denmar Road, 1310 Fieldlight Blvd. or 1345 Altona Road., or in section l(b) ceasing to be employees of Citiguard Security Services Inc. or upon Citiguard Security Services Inc. ceasing to be an agent of 726 Kingston Road, or upon whichever shall occur first BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 15 day of October, 2001. Wayne Arthurs, Mayor Bruce Taylor, Clerk 100 RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That the draft by-law to appoint one person to enforce the Parking By-law at 905 Bayly Street, 1915 Denmar Road, 1310 Fieldlight Blvd., 1345 Altona Road, be forwarded to Council for approval. 01 REPORT TO COUNCIL FROM: Bruce Taylor, AMCT, CMM City Clerk DATE: September 10, 2001 REPORT NUMBER: CL 34/01 SUBJECT: Appointment to enforce the Parking By-law at 905 Bayly Street, 1915 Denmar Road, 1310 Fieldlight Blvd., 1345 Altona Road, in Pickering RECOMMENDATION: That the draft by-law to appoint one person to enforce the Parking By-law at 905 Bayly Street, 1915 Denmar Road, 1310 Fieldlight Blvd.. 1345 Ahona Road, be forwarded to Council for approval. ORIGIN: Letter from Authorized Parking Only Ltd dated September 5, 2001 AUTHORITY: Section 15(I) of the Police Serv'ices Act. R.S.O. 1990, c.P.15 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: None EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: N/A BACKGROUND: Correspondence has been received from Authorized Parking Only Ltd. requesting the appointment of one person as By-law Enforcement Officer for the purpose of enforcing the Parking By-law at 905 Bayly St., 1915 Denmar Rd., 1310 Fieldlight Blvd. and 1345 Altona Rd. and the removal of two persons as By-law Enforcement Officers. ATTACHMENT S: 1. Correspondence from Authorized Parking Only Ltd 2. Draft By-law. Report to Council CL 34/01 Subject: Appointment of By-law Enforcement Officers September 10, 2001 Page 2 Prepared By: Approved / Endorsed By: Debbie Kearns BT:dk Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council ,, Th~s J. Qui nn~hief~mini -'~ IATTACHMENT # I TO REPORT A.tt orized= ======-----Parking= ===Only Ltd. 2131 Williams Parkway East, Unit #8, Bra~ton, Ontario, L6S 5Z4 Phone: (416) 231 - TAGS City of Picketing Attention: Debbie One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 Dear Debbie. September 5, 2001 S EP 0 7 2001 CITY OF PIGKERING PICKERING, ONTARIO We would like to hawse \Vinder Joseph added to our list of people authorized issue parking infi'action notices in the ('ltv of Pickering" Winder Joseph 205-263 Dixon Road Toronto, Ontario M9R 1R6 Dateofbirth: Oct. 10.1974 Please add his name to the following ~pprovcd protocrtics: 905 Bayly Street 1915 Denmar Road 1310 Fieldlight Blvd. 1345 Altona Road If you have any questions, tolettse do not hcsit'=~tc tt, contaict ~2ac at 416-231-8247 or fax 905-793-7436. A uthorJze# Parking Onlj £ t#. 2131 Williams Parkway East, Unit #8, Brampton, Ontario, L6S 5Z4 Phone: (416) 231 - TAGS September 5, 2001 City of Picketing Attention: Debbie One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 SEP 0 7 2001 CITYOF'PICKERING PICKERING, ONT~,RIO Dear Debbie, Please be advised that Anil Lal and David Hart are no longer employed by Authorized Parking Only Ltd. Please have their names removed fi'om our list of approved properties: 905 Bayly Street 1915 Demnar Road 1310 Fieldlight Blvd. 1345 Altona Road If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours truly~ Ruth Tay~lor ! Office Manager TO REPORT THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING BY-LAW NO, Being a by-law to appoint Bv-law Enforcement Officers for certain purposes (Parking Regulation 905 Bayly Street, 1915 Demnar Road, 1310 Fieldlight Blvd., 1345 Altona Road) WHEREAS pursuant to section 15(1) of tile Police Services Act., RS.O. 1990, c.P.15, as amended, a municipal council may appoint persons to enforce the by-laws of the municipality and WHE, REAS pursuant to section t5(2) of the said Act, mumcipal by-law enfbrcement officers are peace officers for the purpose of entbrcing municipal by-laws~ NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORAI'ION OF THE CITY OF PICKER1NG HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: That Winder Joseph be hereby appointed as a municipal law cn£orcement officer in and fbr the City of Pickenng in order to ascertain whether the provisions of By-law 2359/87 are obeyed and to entbrce or carry into effect the said By-law and is hereby authorized to enter at all reasonable times upon lands municipally known as 905 Bayly Street, 1915 Denmar Road, 1310 Fieldlight Blvd and 1345 Altona Road The authority granted in section 1 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. This appointment shall expire upon tile person listed in section 1 ceasing to be an employee of Authorized Parking Only Ltd or upon Authorized Parking Only Ltd. ceasing to be an agent of 905 Bayly Street, 1915 Denmar Road, 1310 Fieldlight Blvd. or 1345 Altona Road., or upon whichever shall occur first. By-laws 4985/97 and 5572/99 are hereby amended bv deleting David Hart as a By-law Enforcement Officer. BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 15 day of October, 2001. Wayne Arthurs, Mayor Bruce Taylor, Clerk