Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
February 25, 2002
Ci q ,q PICKERING AGENDA FINANCE & OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Anne Greentree Supervisor, Legislative Services FEBRUARY 25, 2002 Finance & Operations Committee Meeting Monday, February 25, 2002 1:30 p.m. Chair: Councillor Holland ADOPTION OF MINUTES Meeting of January 28, 2002 DELEGATIONS The Chair shall ask if there are any persons who wish to address an item on the agenda. MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES REPORT OES 007-02 AMENDMENT OF PARKING BY-LAW 2359/87 STROUDS LANE AND ROSEBANK ROAD FRONTING ST. ELIZABETH SETON CATHOLIC SCHOOL PAGE 1-5 OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES REPORT OES 06-02 PICKERING FIRE SERVICES COMMUN1CATIONS/D1SPATC H TECHNOLOGY 6-13 OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES REPORT OES 008-02 PROPOSED EXTENSION AND EXPANSION OF THE "ROLLING TO REDUCE" THREE STREAM CART BASED WASTE DIVERSION PILOT PROJECT 14-19 STAFF ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION OTHER BUSINESS FIVE MINUTE RECESS CORPORATE SERVICES REPORT CS 04-02 STATEMENT OF THE TREASURER RESPECTING 2001 REML~%VERATION AND EXPENSE PAYMENTS TO MEMBERS OF COUNCIL AND COUNCIL APPOINTEES 20-23 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 07-02 REPORT FROM THE REGIONAL CHAIR'S TASK FORCE ON SUSTAINABLE/AFFORDABLE HOUSING 24-46 Finance & Operations Committee Meeting Monday, February 25, 2002 1:30 p.m. Chair: Councillor Holland STAFF ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION ~ER BUSINESS ~JOURNMENT 001 RECOMMENDATION OF THE FINANCE & OPERATIONS COMMITTEE DATE MOVED BY That a by-law be enacted to amend Schedule 'A' By-law 2359/87 regulating stopping restrictions and prohibitions on certain highways. PICKERING REPORT TO COUNCIL FROM: Richard W. Holborn, P. Eng. Division Head Municipal Property & Engineering DATE: February 15, 2002 REPORT NUMBER: OES 007 - 02 SUBJECT: Amendment of Parking By-law 2359/87 Strouds Lane and Rosebank Road fronting St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic School RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. That a by-law be enacted to amend Schedule 'A' By-law 2359/87 regulating stopping restrictions and prohibitions on certain highways. ORIGIN: Request from St. Elizabcth Scton Catholic School for a regulatory by-law condition required to support the implementation of the 'Kiss and Ride' pro,am. AUTHORITY: MunicipalAct, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.45, as amended, section 210.123. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The manufacture and installation of regulatory no-stopping signs costing approximately $2000.00 will be accommodated within the Roads Current Budget account, 2320-2409. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Not applicable. BACKGROUND: In Ontario, new initiatives are used to reduce the vehicular and pedestrian congestion associated with schools. The 'Kiss and Ride' or 'Parent Safety Patrol' pro,am has been a program specially designed to address the safety concern associated with school and residential community traffic. The 'Kiss and Ride' zone is an area allocated to drop-off and pick-up students in the parking lot of the school. These zones facilitate the safe coordinated arrival and departure of parent vehicle traffic on school property without creating traffic congestion on municipal roadways. In response to several inquiries, staff of the Operations & Emergency Services Department, Municipal Property & Engineering Division recently investigated and evaluated traffic movement operations on Strouds Lane and Rosebank Road adjacent to St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic School. Site visits confirm that there is a high level of unsafe traffic and pedestrian crossing movements resulting from the high volumes of parent vehicle traffic accessing the property during the morning and afternoon periods. The school has addressed these problems to the City and Durham Resional Police, and we suggested the 'Kiss and Ride' program lo the school administration. St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic School will be implementing the ~Kiss and Ride' program in February 2002. Report to Council OES 007 - 02 Subject: Amendment of Parking By-law 2359/87 Date: February 15, 2001. Page 2 To increase safety fronting St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic School and to protect sightlines associated with vehicular and pedestrian movements, thc proposed by-law amendment is required. The by-law amendmexn will prohibit "stopping" along the north and south sides of Strouds Lane from Rosebank Road to 215 meters west of Roscbank Road, and I}-onl Rosebank Road to 288 meters west of Rosebank Road, respectively. The by-law amendment will also prohibit "stopping" along the east side of Rosebank Road from Strouds Lane to Chamwood Crescent, and the west side of Rosebank Road from Strouds Lane to 116.5 meters north of Strouds Lane. Thc by-law amendment is to be in efl'ect Ibr Monday- Friday, from 7:30 a.m.- 4:30 p.m. The passing of these by-laws will improve tine visibility of thc roadways, increase tile sightlincs at the signalized intersection of Strouds Lane at Rosebank Road, as well as increase sightlines for vehicles entering and exiting the school property. Thc no-stopping protfibitions may increase the number of vehicles parking on the side streets; therelbre, a need lbr school crossing protection may exist in tile area of Strouds Lane at Autunm Crescent. The need tbr this level of protection will bo evaluated followin~ thc implementation of the 'Miss and Ride' pt-ogram and the respective no-stopping bv-laxvs. If approved, these bv-laxvs must 1-eccix'c regular cnibrceinent to bc clT~ctix c. ATTACH MENTS' 1. Draft By-laws 2. Location Maps Prepared By: Renata V. 5". Rozinger :~.J Technician, Traffic Control Submitted by: / Richard W. Ho o , P. Eng. Division Head, Municipal Property & Engineering Approvcd-~Endors, ed By: E ve~O:pACB untswra-''~' Director, Operations & Emergency Services Cop3': Chief Administrative Ot'ficer Super~'isor, Traffic Engineering & \Vaste Management Supervisor, Roads Manager, By-law Services Recommended for the consideration of Picketing City Council T/m~s J. Quin~t/Chief A4~tmin~o{5~r ATTACHMENT # ,/ TO REPORT#, ( - ~ . - THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING BY-LAW NO. Being a by-law to amend By-law 2359/87 regulating parking, standing and stopping on highways on private and municipal properO'. WHEREAS, pursuant to the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.45, as amended, sections 218.52, 210.73, 210.123-126, 210.131, 310, 314.7, and 314.8, the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering enacted By-law 2359/87 regulating parking, standing and stopping on highways an on private and on municipal property; NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS' Schedule 'A' to By-law 2359/87, as amended, is hereby amended by adding thereto the following items: Highway Side Between/And Prohibited Times and Days Strouds Lane North Rosebank Road and 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. 215 meters west of Monday to Friday, Rosebank Road. September 1st to June 30th. Strouds Lane South Rosebank Road and 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. 288 meters west of Monday to Friday, Rosebank Road. September 1 st to June i 30th. Rosebank Road East Strouds Lane and 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Charnwood Crescent. Monday to Friday. Rosebank Road West Strouds Lane and 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. 116.5 meters north of Monday to Friday. Strouds Lane. BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 4th day of March, 2002. Wayne Arthurs, Mayor Bruce Taylor, City Clerk PROPOSED~, NO~ LOCATIONS TRAFFIC REPORT SERVICE~ DEPARTMEXT MUNIC!PAL PROPERTY & ENGINEERING DIVISION LOCATION OF PROPOSED 1:4000 FEB 15/2002 NO STOPPING ZONES RECOMMENDATION OF THE FINANCE & OPERATIONS COMMITTEE DATE MOVED BY That the joint report of Corporate Services Department and Operations & Emergency Services Department OES 06-02, be received; and That Council endorse the concept of an 800 Mhz communication system in conjunction with the City of Oshawa; and That Council give pre-budget approval of the estimated cost of $1.4 million; and That Council authorize the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer to finance the project through the issuance of debt; and a) Debt financing in the amount of $1,400,000 for a period not exceeding 10 years, at a rate to be determined, be approved; and b) Financing and repayment charges in the amount of approximately $190,000 be included in the annual Current Budget for the City of Pickering commencing in 2002 and continuing thereafter until the loan is repaid; and c) The Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer has certified that this loan and the repayment thereof falls within the City's Debt and Financial Obligations approved Annual Repayment Limit for debt and other financial obligations for 2001 as established by the Province for municipalities in Ontario; and d) The Treasurer be authorized to take any actions necessary in order to effect the foregoing; and 5. That the appropriate staffbe given the authority to give effect thereto. Pi KERING REPORT TO COUNCIL F ROM: Everett Buntsma Director. Operations cq: Emergency Services Gillis Paterson Director. Corporate Services & Treasurer DATE: FebrualT 20. 2002 REPORT NUMBER: OES06-02 %['t3JECT: Pickering Fire Services Communications Dispatch Technology File: CO 1000 I(EC()MN1ENDATION: That the joint report of Corporate Services Department and Operations & Emergency Services Department No. ()ES 00-02 be received: and 1-hat Council endorse tile concept of an 800 Mhz communication system in conjunction with the City of Oshaxx a: and 3. That Council give pre-budget approx al of the estimated cost of $1.4 million; and That Council authorize the Director. Corporate Scrx'ices & Treasurer to finance the project through the issuance of debt; and a) Debt financing in the amount of $1.4()().0{){) Ibr a period not exceeding 10 years, at a rate to be determined, be approved: b) Financing and repayment charges in tile amount of approximately $190,000 be included in the annual Current Budget for tile City of Pickering commencing in 2002 and continuing thereat'~er until the loan is repaid: c) The Director. Corporate Services & Treasurer has certified that this loan and the repayment thereof falls within the C itx's Debt and Financial Obligations approved Annual Repayment Limit for debt and other financial obligations for 2001 as established by the Province lbr municipalities in Ontario; d) The Treasurer bc authorized to take any actions necessary in order to effect the foregoing; amd 5. That the appropriate staff be given the authoritx to give cf feet thereto. ()RIGIN: Industry Canada's advisement that thc C'itx's e×isting dispatch equipment will be non-compliant and therefore inoperative effective Januarx 1. 2004. AtlTHORITY: Municipal Act Section 210 Subsection 31(a) OO8 Report to Council OES 06-02 Date: February 20, 2002 Subject: Picketing Fire Services- Communications/Dispatch Technology Page 2 - File: CO 1 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Based on a loan term of 10 years, the interest cost would be $484,170, resulting to a total cost of $1,884,170 to the City of Pickering. The 2002 Capital Budget will be increased by the $1,400,000 cost of this project. Finance will be in the form of debt, most likely issued through the Region of Durham late in 2002 or early 2003. Debt charges in the amount of approximately $188,417 annual over the next 10 years will be included in the annual Current Budget funded from the tax levy. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Due to the introduction of legislation through Industry Canada the existing Communications/Dispatch equipment being used by Picketing Fire Services will no longer be legally compliant with federal laws. In August 2000 Council authorized staff through approval from the Chief Administrative Officer (copy attached) to proceed to investigate alternative Communications/Dispatch strategies. Thc result of this investigation is such that staff are recommending that Picketing join with the other lakefront communities of Durham and connect with Oshawa Fire Services Dispatch equipment at an estimated cost of $1.4 million. BACKGROUND: The City of Pickering as well as other lakefront communities (except Oshawa) all operate through a wide band low frequency Communications/Dispatch system. Industry Canada has advised that we must convert to a narrow band radio system by January 1, 2004. Our existing system will not be "legally" entitled to operate and should it continue to be operated it will be sharing frequency with non-fire service related companies such as taxis or trucking companies. Needless to say this would not be conducive to the operation of a safe communication system for Fire Service. KVA Consultants have since reviewed various options, as per Council Approval in August 2000, including a Public Communication Network (Telus, Bell Mobility) and separate communications systems. These options were explored through a cooperative RFP process through the City of Oshawa, Town of Whitby, Municipality of Clarington and Town of Ajax. Alter all of KVA's investigation the consultant has recommended a "trunked-in" system with Oshawa Fire Services 800 Mhz Communication Technology. All lakefront communities have now committed to this network. Consistent with this the supplier of the equipment provided a more recent detailed quote and schedule for the replacement of Pickering's Communications equipment through a cooperative quote through the City of Oshawa. The supplier has given the City and other communities a deadline of March 15, 2002 to commit to the svstem or face an increase in costs (approximately $150,000). The estimated cost from the supplier is $1.4 million for Pickering's portion of the new system. Pickering Fire Services staff have reviewed the proposal and recommend proceeding immediately with the acquisition of the new system to ensure installation by January 1, 2004. Report to Council OES 06-02 Date: FebruaU' 20, 2002 Subject: Picketing Fire Services Communications/Dispatch Technology Page 3 - File: CO 1000 FI'AC HMENTS: Confidential memo from the Chief Administrative Officer-dated ,August 1,2000 Confidential memo from Fire Chief- dated Juh' 27. 2000 l-9eerctt Buntsma I)ircct0r. Operations & Emergency Services EB:mld Attachments Copy: ChiefAdministratixe ()filter Approved / Endorsed By: Director. Corporate Services & Treasurer Recommended lbr thc consideration of Picketing (.'itv Council l-}(o~gas J. Quint. Chi~~at~ OiUcer .0i0 August 1, 2000 To: From: ATTACHMENT # / ..... TO REPORT #c~-S".~--O,,l, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER MEMORANDUM e./~t Mayor Arthurs Members of Council Thomas J. Quinn ChiefAdministmfivo Officer · Subject: Joint Fire Communications Centre - File: CA5032 oct` Please lind the ~'~hed confidential r~port from Rick Pearsall dated July 27, 2000. I am in agr~ment with the Fire .Chief's comments, which hav~ been endorsed by all Fire Chiefs in the Region of Durham. Based on the review by William Lanay, Hicks Morl~, the problems of a central fire dispatch ar~ very evident. As a result of the Human Resources issues, a central fire dispatch is not possible at this '&ne. Durham Region Governance must be dealt with before 'the possibility of one central dispatch centre may once again be explored. In concurrence with Industry Canada, municipalities within Durham Region must seize the · opportunity to establish tho most efficient radio communication system. As you can see, we are only now being informed of tho significant costs associated with this n~v technology. Picketing has no recourse but to join tho Oshawa Fire Radio System. The anticipa~d cost of this partnership is between eno and a half million dollars and two million dollars ($1,~00,000- $2,000,000). The recommendation in this report is that approval be granted to initiat~ phase 2 of the Joint Fire Communications Centre. Tho total project cost of $1.0,914.00 is to be shared equally between Ajax, Clarington, Picketing and W~itby, the cost to each municipality being $2,72g.50. The approval of this phase will provide us with more dg'miled costs and technical information that will be extremely advantageous to future considerations regarding a joint communications centre. I am r~spe~fully seeking further approval and direction from Council on this matter. TJQ:Ir Attachments To: From: PatriCk Pearsall Fire Chief Subject: Joint Fire Communications Centre - Phase 2 of Joint Fire Communications Project In August 1999, the City of Oshawa approached each of the region's fire chiefs regarding the possibility of a joint fire comm_unieations centre serving all eight area municipalities in Durham Region using Oshawa's existing radio system. Phase I of the report from KVA, "Proposal for Consulting Services. for an Amalgamated Dispatch System", has been completed. It is the architectural footprint, which encompasses the idea and feasibility of one common dispatch centre for all the Fire Services within Durham Region. Within the scope of the report, it further identifies the technical and the human resources issues that have a profound impact on the provision of communications within the Fire Services. HUMAN RESOURCES: As a result of Human Resources issues the possibility of one central fire dispatch are not possible at this particular time. In the view of Wm. LeMay of Hicks Morley the Human Resources issue was the most difficult issue inthe ,T°int Communications Centre project. ',overComing the labour relations challenges to operating a single dispatch operation may not be possible at this time. Therefore, the municipalities should consider the possibility of establishing two or three dispatch centres across the region." onCe the governance of the municipalities in Durham Region have been determined through provincial legislation the opportunity to proceed with one dispatch centre may present itself. 012 Subject: ATTACHMENT# ~ TO REPORT# ~'~:5'-C:~ ~ ~ .3 "' Joint Fire Communications Centre' - Phase 2 of Joint Fire Communications Project Page 2 As a result of ~e severe Human Resources issues, I am recommending that Pickering be the other dispatch centre location anchoring the western portion of the Region.· TECHNOLOGY: The'present radio.spectrum will be compressed by 50% in the year 2004, rendering our present system obsolete, and a further 50% in 2010. Industry Canada will no longer guarantee this operating range as the sole domain of public safety agencies, the resultant interference from other users will impair public and firefighter safety. To compensate for this change in frequency allocation Industry Canada has designated the frequency range $21 - 824 MHz Band as a Public Safety System, for the use of emergency users (Fire, Police, and Ambulance). In 1993 when Oshawa Fire were in the same position as our communications system is today, it was suggested they on a retaking system, at that time · Industry Canada put.them on the 800 MHz band.. Therefore, it is imperative to adopt the current recommended communication solution to ensure the best possible service to the community. The KVA report recomxn, ends that the Fire Departments within the Region of Durham move to the 800 MHz, if a private voice radio communicationsyStem is chosen. · 800 MHz provides better building penetration in built-up areas · 800 MPIz would facilitate improved interoperability among departments within the Region and towards the west (Scarborough Fire operates at 800 MHz and the · Fire Departments of York Region are strongly considering a move to 800 MHz) · there should be sufficient spectrum available, to support the proposed alternatives · ' 800 MHz radio channels are licensed as repeater pairs with 25 KHz bandwidth · remaining at vi-ne has long-term difficulties considering the 'Redeployment Plan of Industry Canada. · The system allows for simplex operation, at emergency scenes (talk around). A recent letter from Industry Canada states that there "are 'a limited number of channels and more demand than availability". All Public safety users therefore must use the most technologically efficient method of.dispatch available to stretch the scarce spectrum resources as far as possible. Furthermore, 'bee (Industry Canada) recommend that Durham Region seize the oppommity to establish the most efficient specmma Configuration at the onset to avoid disappointment later on as the 800 MHz spectrum resources become fully depleted. We concur that a tnmked system will provide greater spectrum efficiency than a conventional system." Subject: - Phase 2 of Joint Fire Communications Project Page 3 The Fire Services recognizes that the present VHF spectrum has been USed since the inception of our communications and has served our needs for over 47 years. However, it has outlived its usefulness ia comparison to today's current technology. Whereas the VHF system used manual systems for operations, the 800 MHZ system embraces digital technology to achieve more efficiency and effectiveness. The cOst of a modern fire radio system is expensive. To best service the needs of our City we have no recourse but to join the Oshawa Fire Radio System, the anticipated cost is between one and a half million dollars and t,&o million dollars ($1,500,000- $2,000,000), which does not includea "Computer Aided Dispatch" (CAD) system which will cost a further $423;832.63. It would be prudent for the City of Pickering Fire Services to join the Oshawa Fire Services Communications network and access the 800 MHZ thinking technology. This response to our technical needs will allow Picketing to potentially supply communications services to other Fire Departments in the Region with the goal of reducing costs to all participants. RECOMMENDATION: That approval be granted to initiate Phase 2 of the Joint Fire Communications Centre, project, at a cost of $10,914, inclusive of all applicable taxes, which includes the development of detailed technical specifications for the expansion of Oshawa's existing 800 MHz voice radio system; and That the costs associated with Phase 2 of this project be shared equally between Ajax, Clarington, Picketing and Whitby ($2,728.50 each). Prepared by: Patrick Pearsall Fire Chief. PP:mld Approved By: Everett Buntsma Director, Operations & Emergency Services KVA Report KVA letter to Industry Canada Industry Canada response to KVA Recommendation from the Regional Fire Chiefs RECOMMENDATION OF THE FINANCE & OPERATIONS COMMITTEE DATE MOVED BY That the Joint Report OES 008-02 from the Operations and Emergency Services Department and Corporate Services Department be received for informatiom and That City Council pre-approve the new line item in the 2002, Solid Waste Current Budget for the Operations & Emergency Services Department, Municipal Property & Engineering Division, to extend the term of the existing pilot project by nine (9) months from April 1, 2002, to December 31, 2002, at a cost orS155,250; and That City Council pre-approve the new line item in the 2002, Solid Waste Current Budget for the Operations & Emergency Services Department, Municipal Property & Engineering Division, to expand the cart based waste diversion pilot project into another neighbourhood area of approximately 500-600 homes for a period of seven (7) months from June 1, 2002, to December 31, 2002, at a cost of $60,000; and That a copy of this report be forwarded to the Region of Durham and that the Region be requested to costshare on the extension and expansion of the pilot project on a 50/50 basis. PICKERING REPORT TO COUNCIL OI 5 FROM: Richard W. lqolbom Division Head. Municipal Property& IEngmeermg DATE: February 18, 2002 REPORT NUMBER: OES 008-02 SUBJECT: Proposed Extension and Expansion of the "Rolling to Reduce" Three Stream Cart Based Waste Diversion Pilot Project RECOMMENDATION: That thc Joint Report OES C)()$-02 fFOi'n t}3. C Operations and Emergency Sen'ices Dcpanment and Corporate Services Departlnent be received for int'onnation: and That City Council pre-approve tile new line item in the 2002, Solid Waste Currcrlt Budget Ibr tile Operations & Emergency Services Department, Municipal Property & Engineering Division, to extend thc term of thc existing pilot project by nine (9) months from April 1, , t)_, to December 31, > " _()(),. at a cost of $1 >3,__'- '~'~0: and That City Council prc-approx c thc new line item in tiao 2002, Solid Waste Current Budget l~br tile Operations & Emergency Services Department, ?,lunicipal Property & Engineering Division, to expand the cart based xxaste diversion pilot project into another neighbourhood area of approximately 500-00i/ homes ibr a period of seven (7) months /'rom June 1, 2002, to December 31. 2002, at a cost of SOl).001); and That a copy of this report be tbrwarded to tile Region of Durham and that the Region be requested to costshare on the extension and expansion of the pilot project on a 50/50 basis. O~G~: Tile requirement of pre-budget approval by City Council to extend and also to expand the "Rolling to Reduce" Can based Waste Diversion Pilot Project in order to secure equipment and to commence the introduction of the program to a new area. AUTHORITY: Not applicable FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: An extension of the existing pilot project in the Ambcrlea Neighbourhood for nine (9) months from April 1, 2002, to December 31, 2002. would requn-e tlnat thc City incur thc full lease cost on the Heil split cart waste collection vehicle. The monthly cost for this specialized equipment is 515,000 per month, plus P.S.T and G.S.T, Ibr a total of $155,250 for the remainder of 2002. The Labrie organics collection vehicle is wholly ov,'ned bx *liller Waste Systems and as a result of their pannership on this project, no additional costs will apply Ibr the use of this truck. Should the extension be approved, the proposed expansion of tile can based waste diversion pilot project to another area of 500-600 homes in the City would only result in an additional expenditure to purchase and deliver cans and to print various educational and marketing tools. The split waste collection cans used in the Town of Markham will be available for purchase at Report to Council OES 008-02 Date: February. 18, 2002 Subject: Proposed Extension and Expansion of the Waste Diversion Pilot Project Page 2 half their new cost or approximately $60 each, while the organics carts will again be loaned to the City of Picketing by Schaefer industries. The proposed expansion to a ne~v area of 500-600 homes would cost between $30,000 and $36,000, plus applicable transportation costs of approximately $5000 and an additional $5,000 for program marketing for a total estimated cost of $50,000. Additional costs will not apply for the collection vehicles since, under the premise that the extension is approved, they will be leased exclusively to the City of Pickering. New line items have been included in the proposed 2002 Operations & Emergency Services Department, Municipal Property & Engineering Division, Solid Waste Operating Budget for the costs associated with the proposed extension and expansion of the waste diversion pilot project. Amounts have been included in account 2430-2393 Recycling Collection for $160,000 to provide for the extension of the current pilot project and for $60,000 to expand the pilot project. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The "Rolling to Reduce" three-stream cart based waste diversion pilot project, which has been operating in the Amberlea Neighbourhood since November 6, 2001, has continued to produce very positive results. The waste diversion from landfill rate for the pilot project area during the first three months of operation being, November, 2001, December, 2001, and January, 2002, averages 63%, while the traditional system of bags and blue box collection for the same period is 28%. Based on the encouraging waste diversion results that have continued to be presented and also the responses that have been received from our recent resident survey, an extension of the existing pilot project and an expansion to another neighbourhood area is suggested. The extension and expansion of the program is recommended to commence on April 1, 2002, and June 1, 2002, respectively, and continue until the end of the year. Pre-budget approval is required for both the extension and the expansion in order for the City to make commitments for equipment and to commence the implementation of the program into a new area. BACKGROUND: In accordance with Council Resolution #111/01, passed on September 17, 2001, City staff implemented a three-stream cart based waste diversion pilot project in the City. This pilot project involved a partnership between the City of Pickering, the Town of Markham, Miller Waste Systems and the Region of Durham and was officially launched in the Amberlea Neighbourhood with the first automated collection on November 6, 2001. A partnership with the Town of Markham was required so that the City of Pickering could cost share on the lease of a specialized collection vehicle equipped to automatically collect the split waste/recycling cart. Although the resolution directed that the pilot project commence on October 1, 2001, for a six- month trial period, the project could not be implemented until November, 2001, when all of the necessary equipment and promotional materials were on hand. Council Resolution #111/01 also requested that the Region of Durham participate in the funding of this project on a 50/50 basis in the amount of $75,000. To date, we have not received a response on the request. The term of the existing pilot project is scheduled to end coinciding with the Town of Markham's program on March 31, 2002. From the on-set of the program, the waste diversion and operational data has proved to be very encouraging. During the first three months of operation, November, 2001, December, 2001, and January, 2002, waste diversion rates have averaged 63%, while the rate using the traditional system of bags and blue box collection for the same period stands at 28°/,,. The three-stream system of collection in the Amberlea Neighbourhood is responsible for an increase in the amount of materials recycled and for over 60 tonnes of organic material being composted to date. Report to Council OES 008-02 Date: February 18, 2002 if} _'~ 7 Subject: Proposed Extension and Expansion of the Waste Diversion Pilot Project Page 3 On Tuesday, February 5, 2002, a resident sun'cv xxas delivered to eactn of tine 518 themes within the pilot project area. This survey requested individual responses fi'om eactn tnousehold on a variety of issues including the applicability of tine type and style of equipment used, comments on ttneir personal waste management habits, the effectiveness of tine pilot project and an overall rating of thc collection system. To date. a total of 225 or 430 o of the surveys have been returned. It's encouraging to note the fact that. winch rated on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest, the pilot project has been given an axcrage score of 8.2 by residents. Of equal importance is tine finding ttnat 88¢8 of the respondents would continue to participate in the pilot project if it was extended. ,:ks can be noted in the findings of the surveys received to date, these results confirm ttnat most residents are vet5, pleased v,'ittn tine environmental benefits of the collection system and wish to continue with the program due to tine relative ease of operation. Based on tine results of the resident survey and also tine waste diversion data, which continues to greatly outperlbrn~ tine traditional system of bags and blue boxes, an extension of the program beyond March 31, 2002, is suggested. Tine benefit of tile extension xvould not only result ina additional waste continuing to be dixerted I'i-oi22 landfill, but it would also provide staff wittn the ability to evaluate a cart based three-strean~ waste collection system during tile spring, sumnner and full montlns wtnen other unknoxxn operational ctnallenoes~ may arise. These particular clmllenoes may include tine attraction of animals or insects, smells associated with kitchen organics, boulevard trees being damaged, the continued long-term manageability and the aestlnetic placement of fine carts in an urban neighbourhood environment. An extended program will also provide better comparative data to help determine tine long-ten'n operational feasibility, acceptance and cost effectiveness of this type of collection system. Consideration tnas also been given to extending tine ttwee-strem'n cart based waste diversion system to anottner neigtnbourhood area of approxinlatcly 5()0-000 homes in the City. This opportunity is suggested due to tine relatively lox,,' cost tInat would be incurred, providing an extension of the existing pilot project is approved. Given that the specialized collection vehicles will only be utilized on Tuesday of eactn week in the Ambcrlea Neighbourtnood, a second area of the City could be collected on anottner day of the week. The only additional cost to the City for the proposed expansion program would be the purchase of split waste carts, the printing of pronnotional materials and a charge associated with thc delivery oftlne units. Our investigations have confirmed ttnat the extension o£ the "Rolling to Reduce" pilot project in the Amberlea Neighbourhood for another nine (9) months from April 1, 2002, to December 31, 2002, can be easily accommodated with a few minor contractual arrangements. An expansion of the program to another neighbourhood in tine City could also be managed xvithout major difficulty. All matters have been discussed with tine various parties involved resulting in the following preparatory agreements being reacincd: The R_~9_.gion of Durham has agreed to continue processing and marketing the commingled recycling materials from tine City's Pilot ProJect(s). The Region has advised that all materials from both the proposed extension and expansion areas can be accommodated. All charges for the manual sorting of these materials will be ctnarged to tine Regional Waste Management levy resulting in no direct costs being incurred by thc City o~' Picketing lbr this component of the program. The Town of' Markham's pilot project is scheduled to ol'I~ciallv end on .Xlarctn 31, 2002. The Bonar Plastics Split Waste Collection Carts that they arc currently rising will be available for purchase and could be obtained lbr our proposed expanded pilot project area. The Town of Markham is expected to sell the split carts for approximately tnalF the original cost or $60 per unit. Tine tern~ination of Markham's pilot project will also require ttnat the City of Pickering sign a lease agreement with Joe Johnson Equipment to secure the use o£ the Hell Split waste collection vehicle by Miller Waste Systems on our pilot project. Report to Council OE$ 008-02 Date: February. 18, 2002 Subject: Proposed Extension and Expansion of the Waste Diversion Pilot Project Page 4 SSI Schaeffer the supplier of the compostainer organics carts and the kitchen catchers has agreed to extend the present loan on their carts for the full term of the project at no additional cost to the City of Picketing. SSI Schaeffer has also agreed to provide the City of Pickering with the compostainer organics carts and the kitchen catchers currently used in the Town of Markham also at no extra cost should the expansion program be approved. SSI Schaefer will, however, require that the City pay for all costs required to deliver the equipment to the expanded pilot project area. Miller Waste Systems the owner and operator of the Labrie organics collection vehicle and its robotic arm has agreed to maintain service for the full term of the pilot project at no cost to the City. As a result of Miller's partnership on this project, the organics collection truck will be available to service both the existing and an expanded pilot project area. Joe Johnson Equipment has agreed to lease the Heil split cart waste collection truck to the City of Picketing following the termination of their existing lease agreement with the Town of Markham on March 31, 2002. A letter of intent, however, must be forwarded to Joe Johnson equipment immediately following Council's approval of this proposal to secure the truck for our extended and/or expanded ~vaste diversion pilot programs. The extension of the pilot project will require that the City incur the full lease cost on the Heil split cart waste collection vehicle for the proposed nine (9) month extension from April 1, 2002, to December 31, 2002. The full lease cost for the Heil waste collection vehicle is $15,000 per month, plus P.S.T and G.S.T, for a total of $155,250 for the remainder of 2002. The proposed expansion of the cart based waste diversion pilot project to another area of approximately 500- 600 homes in the City of Picketing will only result in additional costs for the purchase and transportation of carts and various educational and marketing tools. The split waste collection carts used in the Town of Markham will be available for purchase at half their new cost or approximately $60 each, xvhile the organics carts will be loaned to the City of Picketing by Schaefer industries. Given a proposed expansion to a new area of 500-600 homes, the used split carts are expected to cost between $30,000 and $36,000, plus applicable transportation costs of approximately $5,000 from the Town of Markham and an estimate of $5,000 for program marketing materials for a total estimated cost of $50,000. Additional costs will not apply for the use of the collection vehicles since they would already be leased exclusively to the City of Pickering. Although the above arrangements have been discussed and are feasible, it should be noted that the Town of Markham has just recently announced that their pilot project may again be extended for another three (3) month period from April 1, 2002, to June 30, 2002. If Markham Council confirms this decision, a new cost share arrangement would be implemented to jointly lease the Heil split cart waste collection vehicle between the Town of Markham and the City of Picketing on a cost share basis. A cost savings of up to 50% or $25,875 would be recognized from this type of lease arrangement, however, new split carts would have to be purchased by the City to expand the pilot project to a new area at a cost of between $60,000 and $72,000. The net increase in cost to expand the program after purchasing new carts and factoring in the truck lease savings would be between $4,125 and $10,125. Should Markham's program be extended SSI Schaeffer has again agreed to loan a sufficient number of new carts to the City of Pickering for the full term of the pilot project following which time the carts would either have to be purchased or cleaned and returned. It should be noted that even though an extension and an expansion of this program are recommended in this report, the long-term sustainability of the three-stream cart based system of waste collection in the City may be presently unachievable. The commingled recycling stream ultimately requires a mechanical sorting process for which local facilities may not exist. The hand sorting operation that is being undertaken as part of this pilot project is not maintainable from an economic perspective. As a result, the longevity of this type of system will require that the Region of Durham either adopt a commingled recycling stream and construct the necessary Report to Council OES 008-02 Date: February 18, 2002 Subject: Proposed Extension and Expansion of the Waste Diversion Pilot Project Page 5 infrastructure or that the City of Pickering seek private arrangements to process the materials elsewhere. As the pilot project develops these types of issues will be investigated further. New line items have been included in the 2002 Operations 8: Emergency Sen'ices Department, Municipal Property & Engineenng Division, Solid Waste Operating Budget for the costs associated with the proposed extension and expansion of the waste diversion pilot project· Amounts currently included in account 2430-2393 Recycling Collection are for S160,000 to provide for the extension of' the current pilot project and S60,000 to expand the pilot project. This cost will £orm part of the total 2002 Current Budget for the City to be financed through property taxes. ATTACHMENTS: Not Applicable Prepared By: Supervisor, Traffic Engineering & Waste Management Submitted By: D~vision He~.d, Municipal Property 8,: Engineering CSB E, o .~.c,~ P o P~ojcct,'Budgo Repo~l 1o (ourlci. Approved ,>F. nd~rsed By: Everett t~ffltsma Director. Operations & Emergency Services Approved Endorsed By: ~illis Paterson Director. Corporate Services & Treasurer Recommended for the consideration of Pickenng City Council I ,l,'tlck~as J. OUli~, L'hleI°A~ RECOMMENDATION OF THE FINANCE & OPERATIONS COMMITTEE DATE MOVED BY It is recommended that Council receive for information the Statement of the Treasurer respecting Remuneration and Expense Payments to Members of Council and Council Appointees for the year 2001. PICKERING REPORT TO COUNCIL F ROLl: Gillis A. Paterson Director. Corporate Services &. Treasurer DATE: Eebruary 10, 2002 REPORT NUMBER: CS 04-02 SUBJECT: Statement of the Treasurer Respecting 2001 Remuneration and Expense Pa9-nents to Members of Council and Council Appointees RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council receix e lbr inf'onnation tiao Statement of the Treasurer respecting Remuneration and Expense Payments to Members of Conncil and Council Appointees tbr tile year 2()01. ORIGIN: Director. Corporate Services & %'casurcr AUTHORITY: Municipal ,Act, R.S.O. 199{), as amended, Section 24711 ). FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Not Applicable EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Not Applicable BACKGROUND: Section 247(I) of the Municipal Act states in part that thc Treasurer of e\'erv municipality shall, in each year, submit to tile Council of the munic~palitx, an itemi×cd statement of the remuneration and expenses paid to each Xlember of (.'ouncil. The statement must also include remuneration and expenses paid to any other person v, tie has been Council appointed to serve as a member of a local board, excluding a hydro electric commission. Payments for expenses include travel, conferences, meals and taxable benefits paid. Report to Council CS 04-02 February 19. 2002 Subject: Statement of the Treasurer Respecting 2001 Remuneration and Expense Payment to Members of Council and Council Appointees Page 2 ATTACHMENTS' l. Statement of Treasurer Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Avril Payne¢~' Audit/Accounting Clerk Gillis A. Paterson, Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer GAP:vw Attachment Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council ~" -- /,41__ ~'~2o ~li'~o~a~ 7. Quinn~hief~d~/n'qs~ 2001 STATEMENT OF TREASURER REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES MEMBERS OF COUNCIL & COUNCIL APPOINTEES Remuneration Expenses (5) Total Members of ('ouncil Mayor W. Arthurs 5IL()()0 20.(12S 70,028 50,1)()0 ') '~ ' _ ~ . . _{),~)._~ 70,028 Councillors M. Brenner M. t tolland R..I o h n s o B. McLean D. Pickles D. Rvan 20,000 11.~58 31.858 20.000 11.813 31.813 20.()00 9.665 20,000 11,2-3 31.273 20.00() 9.~99 29.899 t 20~. 0 ()I) 90.42. _ 5 1 S {),_425 1.1~9 1.12 FcnccviCwCFS A. Burtncy M. O'Connor P. Scott 24() 91 331 Livestock Valuers .1. Laider S. Wideman 450 54 504 598 284 ~_ ''~ 53S Property Standards Comittee G. Femandes D. Mohr B. Young 0 () 0 ( () () () () STATEMENT OF TREASURER NOTES: (1) Authority: By-Law C-1 Scctioia The Municipal Act Scctio~ 24-(1 ) R.S.O. 1990 as amended (2) Authority: By-Law C-1 Section 214().15 The Municipal Act Section 244.1 (3) Authority: By-Laxx 1834 S4 Section 178 Building Code .Act - Section 15.6 Authority: Bv-kaxx C-I - Section 2140.1- & 1S The Municipal ,Act - Section 245 (5) Includes travel, conferences, meals and taxable benefits paid. Authority Notes 1,4 Notes 2.4 Notes 2,4 Notes 3,4 024 l ICK H,I G RECOMMENDATION OF THE FINANCE & OPERATIONS COMMITTEE DATE MOVED BY That Report PD 07-02 of the Director, Planning & Development on the Report from the Rej,,ional Chair's Task Fbrce on Sustainable/Affordable Housing be received; and That the Regional Chair be advised that the City of Pickering supports in principle, subject to further discussion and review as outlined in recommendation #3 below, the concept of Area Municipalities being a partner in a multi-partner approach to assist in providing financial incentives to encourage the supply to affordable rental housing; and That the Regional Chair be requested to establish an Affordable Rental Housing Working Group with appropriate Regional and Area Municipal representation to further refine, clarify and identify specific implementation program details, for presentation back to local Area Municipal Councils, including but not limited to the following matters: · investigating options and implementation mechanisms, other than direct reduction/waiving of fees, to off-set the area municipality costs attributed to an affordable rental unit program; · ensuring that the costs incurred by an area municipality in waiving area municipal fees and charges are fairly shared among the taxpayers of the Region, and do not result in an unfair financial burden to any area municipality; · ensuring a fair distribution throughout the Region of the maximum 100 subsidized units per year; · limiting the proposed area municipal participation for cost reductions/waivers to the Region's 100 subsidized units per year (whether private or public sector initiatives); · ensuring that subsidies result I reduced rental rates for the tenants; · ensuring the monthly rents will not be increased beyond the target affordable rents; · ensuring the units with subsidized production costs will remain as rental units; · establishing a completion date for the program; and · identifying a monitoring process for the program; That Pickering Council advocates a key role for both the Provincial and Federal governments in funding affordable housing, and urges most strongly the Premier of Ontario and the Deputy Prime Minister to act on those recommendations of Durham Region's Task Force directed at the Provincial and Federal Governments; and That a copy of Report PD 07-02 be forwarded to the Regional Clerk, the Regional Chair, the Clerk of each of Durham's Area Municipalities, the Premier of Ontario and the Deputy Prime Minister. PICKERING REPORT TO COUNCIL FROM: Nell Can-oil Director, Plannin*~ & Dex elopnlent and Gillis A. Paterson Director, Corporate SeB'iccs & Tr'easurer DATE: February 19, 2002 REPORT NUMBER: PD 0%02 'B SU JECT: Report from the Regional CTtnait-~s Task Force on Sustainable/Affordable Housing RECOMM EN DATI ON: That Report PD 07-0; of the Director, Planning & Development on the RcT;ort~/3'om zhe That the Regional Chair be advised that thc Citx of Picketing supports in principle. sub.jeer to further discussion and review as outlined in rcconlmendation #3 below, tile concept of' Area .Municipalities being a partner in a mt~lti-partncr approach to assist in providing financial incentix es to encourage the suppl> to at'fordable rental housing; That tile Regional Chair' bc reclucstcd to establish an :XI'lbrdable Rental Housing Working ©roup v, ith approp~-iate Regional and .~\rea XlunicipaI representation to furtlner refine, clarify and identitV specii~c in~plementation progranl details. Ibr presentation back to local Area Municipal Councils. including but i1ot linnted to tile following matters: investigating options and implementation n~echanisnls, other than direct reduction waiving o£ lees, to o/'I'-sct thc area municipality costs attributed to an affordable rental unit program; · ensuring that the costs incurred by an area n~tmicipality in waiving area municipal fees and charges arc l'airlv shared among the ta×-payers of the Region, and do not result in an unfair financial burden to any area municipality; · ensuring a fair distribution throughout the Region of the maximum 100subsidized units per year; limiting the proposed area municipal participation Ibr cost reductions/waivers to the Region's 100 subsidized units per >'ear Iv,'hettner private or public sector initiatives); ensuring that subsidies result in reduced rental rates for the tenants: ensuring the monthly rents will not be increased beyond the target affordable rents; ensuring the units with subsidized production costs will remain as rental units; establishing a completion date ~br the progranl: and identifying a monitoring process lbr thc program: That Picketing Council advocates a kev ~'olc ib~- both tile Provincial and Federal governments in funding al'Ibrdable housing, and urnes most strongly the Premier of' Ontario and thc Dcput.v Prime NIi~aiste~' to act oil th~se recommendations of Durham Region's Task Force directed at tllc Provincial and Federal Govenm-ients; and That a cop>' of Report PD I.)7-t)2 be Ibrwardcd to t}:c Regional Cle~'k. tile Regional Chair, the Clerk of each of Durham's .4rea Municipalities. the Premier of Ontario and the Deputy Prime Minister. Report to Council PD 07-02 Date: February 19, 2002 Subject: Report from Regional Chair's Task Force on Sustainable/Afl'ordable Housing Page 2 ORIGIN: December 5th, 2001 Regional Committee of the Whole recommending the Report from the Regional Chair's Task Force on Sustainable/Affordable Housing be referred to the area municipalities for consideration and comment; January 23rd, 2002 Regional Council extending deadline for comments to March 13th, 2002 in anticipation of Regional Council consideration on March 27t~, 2002. AUTHORiTY: The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P. 13 FINANCIAL iMPLICATIONS: The recommendations of the Task Force Report, if implemented by the City of Pickering, would haxc both short and long-term financial impacts. There would be short-term loss of revenue through the proposed waiving of application fees, engineering fees, cash-in-lieu of parkland fees, dexelopment charges and other fees. There would be long term loss of revenue from proposed changes to taxation rates for affordable rental housing. Both types of revenue loss would have to be made up by the municipality, most likely through the tax rate. The financial impact of the recommendations will, if adopted, be felt directly by each municipality in which development takes place under the program. If the development under the program is concentrated in one or more municipalities, an undue financial burden may result. Since the population in general, and the Region of Durham specifically, xvill be the beneficiaries, both policy wise and financially, it is suggested that the Region at least examine the concept of offering offsetting funding to any municipality so affected, thereby sharing the costs. The other municipalities in Durham would similarly benefit. While the waiving of fees is not debated, the lack of cost-sharing is. Without some mechanism for cost-sharing, staff views the proposal as a "downloading" of costs to area municipalities to meet Regional and Provincial objectives. Finally, should such financial exemptions be granted, there are no guarantees in the Task Force Report that the cost savings will flow through to the end renter of the dwelling unit. The exact extent of the impacts, or the fiscal implications, are not yet clear. However, there may be conditions that could be identified and applied to the financial obligations of the program that would help secure participation by the area municipalities. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: We congratulate the Region on completion of the Regional Chair's Task Force Report on Sustainable/Affordable Housing. The Task Force Report recommends area municipalities consider implementing financial and other incentives to stimulate the production of "affordable" rental housing in the Region of Durham (see Pages xi and xii of the Task Force Report's Executive Summary, Attachment #1). "Affordable" is defined as units that would rent in Durham Region for less than S1,250 per month, and serxe households having low and moderate incomes of up to $50,000. Pickering has a consistent track record of working with groups and organizations to assist in the supply of affordable rental housing, which at different times has included reductions or waivers of normal fees and charges. Pickering continues to support such initiatives in principle. Report to Council PD 07-02 Date: February 19, 2002 Subject: Report from Regional Chair's -]['ask Force on SustainableAf~:brdable Housing Page 3 02.7 \Ve concur that local municipalities have ail important role to pla_v in accommodating affordable housing. However, the important role tile Provincial and Federal governments should play in the binding of affordable housing must not be overlooked. Tile concept of an inclusive action plan aimed at involving each level of gox eminent ill tile provision of afl'ordable housing is supported. Tile extent to which local municipalities take on financial responsibilities that have been "downloaded" to the Region should be limited, recognizing the smaller financial capabilities of area municipalities. Before the City of Picketing cai1 fully commit to the level of participation enxisaged by the Task Force recommendations. ~vo need to more clearly understand the fiscal impacts of tile recommendations of the Task Force. and further investigate and discuss specific implen~cntation details of the program. There may be alternative approaches that accomplish tile Task Force's objectives while ensuring that implementation costs are fairly distributed across the Region. We recognize that local municipalities are part of the solution, and xxould be pleased to work witta tile Region in detennining an appropriate level of municipal participation. To this end. it is recommended that the Region establish a "working group" with Regional and Area Municipal representation, to dexolop a defined program ibr presentation back to Picketing CotmciI and the other Durtaam municipalities. BACKGROUND: 1.0 2.0 Re~oion of Durham ]['ask Force In May, 2001, Durham Regional Council approved tho creation cfa Regional Chair's Task Force on Sustainable Aftbrdablc Housing in response to the need ibr more afibrdable housing in the Region. There are approximately 4,500 households on the waiting list for affordable housing. The objectives of tile Task Force x~ ere: · to review with tile private sector tile t>pes of barriers which impede developers from constructing a range of aflbrdable housing in Durham; and · to develop an action plan that identifies ways to overcome these barriers and provide incentives to stimulate tile creation of new aftbrdable housing itl the Region. The Task Force presented its report at the December 5t~,. 2001, Regional Committee of tile Whole meeting. The Task Force staould be commended on its comprehensive report. A copy of the Executive Summarx of tine Report is provided as Attachment =1 to Report PD 07-02, and a cop5 of tile memorandum from the Regional Chair to the Regional Committee of tile \Vholc is proxided as Attachment #2. A full copy of the Task Force Report is available tbr x'iexxing at tile City of Picketing Planning & Development Department. Tile Task Force concluded that battlers prexonting tiao construction of aftbrdable rental housing in Durham Regional can be addressed, ttowcver, tl~e Report suggests on the basis of information available, that any proposed federal provincial housing supply strategy will require contributions from otlqer fcmding sources, including municipalities. Furthermore, the Task Force's analysis concluded that new aflbrdable rental housing xxill not be achieved in Durham without tiao participation of area municipalities. Definition of "Affordable Housing," The Task Force developed a working definition of "afIbrdablc housing" and xarious assumptions lbr use in applying the definition. Thc definition and the assumptions are provided on Page ii of the Executive Summary. The Task Force's aim is to supply aflbrdable housing at both the low and moderate levels of income. 0.9_8 Report to Council PD 07-02 Date: February. 19, 2002 Subject: Report from Regional Chair's Task Force on Sustainable/Affordable Housing Page 4 3.0 The Task Force Report concludes that for Durham Region, affordable housing initiatives should be aimed at producing rental housing with rents lower than $1,250 per month (excluding utilities) and ownership housing costing less than $172,900 (excluding insurance and utilities). This corresponds to household incomes of less than $50,000. The private market is creating ownership housing at the $100,000 to $173,000 price range. This range is within the Region's defined affordable limits. However, the gap between the rents required to support private sector rental accommodation and the Region's defined affordable limits is quite great. Private sector rental production for townhouses, walk-up apartments and high rise apartments is requiring monthly rents generally bet~veen $1,400 - $2,000. Consequently, the Task Force concluded its action plan would be focused on stimulating the consm~ction of new rental housing, not home o~vnership. Task Force Recommendations Directed at Area Municipalities The Task Force Report recommends actions directed at each of the levels of government involved in the supply of housing, including: Area Municipal; · Regional; · Provincial; and · Federal. The Task Force recommends that area municipalities be encouraged to: 1. Consider waiving the following fees and charges for new rental housing projects that meet the definition of affordable housing: · fees and charges for planning approval applications, including official plan amendments, zoning by-law amendments and site plan approvals; · building permit fees; · development fees and charges; · parkland dedication fees; and · stormwater management fees; 2. Consider innovative designs, reduced floor areas and reduced landscaped open space requirements for new rental housing projects as defined; 3. Amend zoning by-laws to permit accessory apartments as-of-fight in all detached dwellings, subject to Fire Code, Ontario Building Code and local building codes and standards; 4. Review zoning by-laws to eliminate any barriers to the provision of residential accessory apartments in commercial areas and permit standards and criteria that support such activity; 5. Amend official plans and zoning by-laws to permit rooming housing, boarding housing and lodging houses under specified conditions in appropriate zones; 6. Amend minimum floor areas where appropriate to permit bachelor apartment at the Ontario Building code standard of 22 m"; and 7. Adopt a policy supporting the conversion of "brownfield" sites to residential use for affordable housing under specified conditions and prepare inventories of such sites for consideration by developers and other housing providers. The full set of recommendations commence on Page x of the Executive Summary of the Task Force Report, provided as Attachment #1 to this Report. The recommendations of the Task Force Report complement existing Regional strategies aimed at addressing the supply of affordable housing. These other strategies include maintaining the current portfolio of affordable housing, and providing rent supplements. Report to Council PD 07-02 Date: February 19, 2002 Subject: Report from Regional Chair's Task Force on Sustainable/Aftbrdable Housing Page 5 029 4.0 Discussion The preparation of this Report x~as a collaborative effort between the Departments of Corporate Services. Operations & Emergency So, ices. and Planning & Development. with input fi-om the Chief Administrative Ofl2cer. Staff is supportive cfa multi-level strateg,v aimed at stimulating the production of affordable rental housing. Hey, ever, the Province and the Federal governments should play a kev role in this matter. The City and the Region should continue to advocate tine inx'olveinent of these senior levels of government itl the funding of affordable housin,, in Durham Region, and to urge the Province and the Federal governments to act on linc Task Force recommendations aimed at the Provincial and Federal governlnents. The recommended municipal zoniilg initiatives are consistent with current Pickering Official Plan policy and are supportable. The Planning eh Development Department anticipates forwarding a Report to Council respecting as-el:right accessory apartments later this year. Thc recommended polic.v support to enable conversion of "brownfield" sites to residential, and thc recommended decrease in minimum floor area sizes to allow bachelor apartments, are also supportable. Contrary to inlbm2ation published in the Task Force Report, a number of sitc-speciI~c bx-lax~ s passed in Picketing Ibr "afibrdable" housing projects do not have a minimum unit size, and one example of a senior citizen's project permitted 1-bedroom units at a minimLm: floor area of 51 square metres. Pickering has been and will continue to be responsive to suct7 needs. Tile reconnnended use of innoxativc designs is also supportable. However, the recommended reduction of required landscaped open space requires careful review. While landscaping is an element that can be examined at the site plan stage, the decision to reduce landscaped open space must be appropriate given such matters as the overall site desi~L target resident group, and sun'ounding land uses. Strategies such as reduced landscaped open space would reinIbrce the image of affordable housing as being "lower" quality development. Recognizing that the proposed unit mix within an afi'ordable rental housing development would still target one-third of tile units at market rent, the design objectives for the project should be to make tile quality indistinguishable from a building that is 100percent market rent. Great caution should be exercised in advocating a reduction in development standards. Lastly, the recommendations on waiving planning application processing fees, building permit fees, development lees, development charges, parkland dedication fees, and ston-nwater management tees max be supportable in a selective, and defined manner. This would be consistent with Pickering's approach in the past where Council waived the parkland dedication fee lbr the Rougemount Co-op, and waived a variance application tee and reduced legal agreement preparation fees lbr a recent Habitat-for-Humanity project. In addition, the City's cun-ent Development Charge By-law allows Council to grant a full or partial exemption Ibr development charges lbr non-profit housing. The Task Force Report estimates that the total cost to tile City to waive all tile recommended fees and charges Ibr a 9~)-unit, walk-up, rental apartment project in Picketing would be 5451.54.6. Thc Report further estimates that. with the recommended change in tax class for afIbrdable rental apartment units from multi-residential to residential, the annual reduction in total project taxes paid for a 90-unit project in Picketing would be 5155,139. These revenue and tax losses are very significant, and would have to be made up, primarily througln the tax rate. Thus, participation in the Task Force's recommended program will impact municipal finances, especially considering current budget pressures. O3O Report to Council PD 07-02 Date: February 19, 2002 Subject: Report from Regional Chair's Task Force on Sustainable/Affordable Housing Page 6 5.0 Using the same 90-unit, walk-up rental apartment noted above, the Task Force Report estimates that a municipal waiver of fees and charges could result in a per unit cost reduction of over $5,000. Waiving, or off-setting these municipal fees and charges, can certainly play a role in making rental housing more affordable, particularly when coupled with parallel Regional, Provincial and Federal cost reductions. However, before endorsing the reduction of or waiving of municipal fees and charges as recommended by the Task Force, staff would like an opportunity to further discuss and analyze options, including mechanisms other that direct reduction or waiving of municipal fees. For example, some fees may be more supportable than others, or should perhaps only be waived in part. Or, there may be other strategies that result in funding from other sources being allocated to off-set the municipal costs. Funding may be established at the Regional level, where a higher responsibility for housing rests, and where a larger tax base exists to absorb the impacts than at the local level. Alternatively, Provincial or Federal money may be available to off-set the municipal fees and charges, thereby accomplishing the same affordability goal. The Task Force Report indicates that the Region will commit to waive its fees and charges, and change tax rates, for a maximum 100 units per year. However, area municipalities can choose to consider waiving fees for a greater number of units. Further discussion is required to confirm a limit that would be acceptable to Pickering. The Task Force Report provides little or no information on what controls would be put in place to ensure that production incentives (savings) are passed on to the tenants once the units are available for rent, and to ensure that the units remain as rental suites, within the Region's defined afibrdability target. Staff is concerned that the establishment of a 'Regional rent review board' or similar administrative mechanism would be required to monitor and enforce these conditions. More clarity is required on these matters. It is also unclear from the Task Force Report whether this incentive program is intended to represent a long term approach to the provision of affordable housing, or whether the program has a specific implementation timeframe (e.g. 3 years, or 5 years). Further, we recommend that any program that may be adopted be subject to an audit, or monitoring program to assess the success of the strategy. Conclusion Although the Task Force recommends Regional, Provincial and Federal levels of government implement financial and other incentives, the Task Force clearly views municipal financial incentives as being required to stimulate the supply of affordable rental housing in Durham Region. We support a multi-partner approach to addressing this critical housing need in the Region. However, without further review and consultation with the Region and other area municipalities on the details of the program, the proposal to eliminate the entire range of municipal fees and charges cannot be fully endorsed at this time. Staff would be pleased to participate on a "working group" that would explore the implementation details of the Task Force recommendations and address the issues identified for further review and analysis in this Report to Council. Through this process, funding models can be explored and a defined program developed for Council's consideration, incorporating Pickering's financial contribution to stimulating rental housing supply across Durham Region. In addition, Pickering and Regional Council should continue to strongly urge the Provincial and Federal levels of government to resume their key roles in funding affordable rental housing and to act on the important tax reforms and initiate/implement affordable housing supply strategies. Report to Council PD 07-02 Date: February 19, 2002 Subject: Report from Regional Chair's Task Force on Sustainable:Affordable Housing Page 7 O31 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Report from Regional Chair's Task Force on Sustainable/Affordable Housing 2. Covering Memorandun~ I?om the Regional Ctuair to the Regional Committee of the Whole Prepared By: Catherine Rose Nlana,,cr Policy Approx ed ' Endorsed By: Director, Planning & Development Gillis A. Paterson Director. Cou>orate Services & Treasurer Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative O£ficer Director, Operations 8,: Emergency Services [Recommended lbr the consideration of Pickerin:4 City Council ,, 1~ liuan,t> a. t?unm,t,~lnCl .~cnnlI.k~ratlX"s.,~II'lCCr ATTACHMENT d i TO REPORT t PD ¢', ~- c~, ~ DURHAM REGION AFFORDABLE HOUSING TASK FORCE REPORT Final Report: December 5, 2001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1) Region of Durham Creates Task Force Within the Regional Municipality of DUrham a wide diverSity of residential dwellings by type, size and tenure to satisfy the social and economic needs of residents has not been provided in the last few years. A number of factors demonstrate the need for more affordable housing in the Region, including Iow rental housing vacancy rates (1.7%); rental rate increases outstripping inflation and real household income; the significant percentage of residents paying more than 30% of their gross income on shelter (22% of homeowners and 43% of tenants); the three-to-five year waiting list of some 4,700 applicants for social housing; and the growing number of homeless. The Region recognizes that the public sector lacks the resources to fill these gaps. Accordingly, in May 2001, Durham Regional Council approved the creation of a Regional Chair's Task Force on Sustainable/Affordable Housing. The objective of the Task Force was to review with the pdvate sector the types of barders which impede developers from constructing a range of affordable housing in Durham and to develop an action plan that identifies ways to overcome these barderS and provide incentives to stimulate the creation of new affordable housing in the Region. 2) Recent Provincial Legislation on Affordable Housing The Province of Ontado recently passed new legislation (i.e. the Social Housing Reform Act ) and made a number of changes to existing legislation (i.e. Municipal Act and Planning Act) and regulations to provide municipalities willh many of the tools necessary to address local housing needs. The Province has provided these new tools for municipalities designated as service managers to encourage affordable housing production. In particular, recent amendments to Section 210 of the Municipal ,Act allow designated municipalities (i.e. service managerS) to add 'housing' as a class of municipal facilities and complement the new municipal authority for housing under the Social Housing Reform Act. The amendments give the Region of Durham (and other service managerS) the authority to stimulate the production of new affordable housing by providing grants, loans and exemptions from development fees' and charges. Other forms of assistance can inolude providing land at less than market value and establishing a reserve for housing. ATTACHMENT #~_~.__TO REPORT # PD~ 033 DURHAM REGION AFFORDABLE HOUSING TASK FORCE REPORT Final Report: December 5, 2001 3) Definition of "Affordable Housing" In order to provide these incentives, the Municipal Act amendments require the Region of Durham to pass a municipal housing facilities by-law which would define "affordable" housing, establish policies for public eligibility, and set out provisions to be contained in site specific agreements for housing created under the by-law. The Task Force developed the following definition of affordable housing for use in the necessary by-law: Affordable housin_cl means housing which would have a market price or rent that would be affordable to households of Iow and moderate income. Households of Iow and moderate income are those households within the lowest 40 percent of the income distribution (40~h percentile) for the Region of Durham. Housing that is affordable to households of Iow and moderate income is defined as follows: Affordable rental housin~l is housing where monthly rent costs (excluding utilities) do not exceed 30 percent of tenant gross monthly household income Affordable ownershij2 housing_is housing where monthly housing expenses (including mortgage principle, interest and property tax but excluding insurance and utilities) do not exceed 30 percent of gross monthly household income. For the purposes of calculating affordable rent and housing prices the following criteria shall be applied: Household income distribution for the Region of Durham shall be in accordance with the most recent available Stat/st/cs Canada Census information or other accepted information. Ownership housing costs wifl be calculated using the foflowing assumptions: a monthly tax rate equal to O. 125% of the house value; a 10% down payment; a mortgage interest rate consistent with current average rates and a 25 year amortization period. The following table illustrates that affordable housing initiatives should be aimed at producing rental housing with rents lower than $1,250 per month (excluding utilities) and ownership housing costing less than $172,900 (excluding insurance and utilities). O34 ATTACHMENT~ / TO REPORT # PD L)~" ~ ~- DURHAM REGION AFFORDABLE HOUSING TASK FORCE REPORT Final Report: December 5, 2001 Affordable Rent and Ownership Costs Based on Household Income Household Income Under $10,000 $10,000 to $19,999 i $20,000 to $29,999 $30,000 to $39,999 $40,000 to $49,999 Number of Households 6,295 14,600 13,660 15,220 15,475 % of Total Households Affordable Rent (Monthly) Affordable Ownership (Unit Cost) $250 Under $500 $34,600 $750 $69,200 4.1% 9.5% 8.9% 9.9% 10.0% $34,600 to $69,200 to $103,700 to $138,300 to $172,900 Under $250 to $500 to $750 to $1,000 $1,000 to $1,250 $103,700 $138,300 Sub-total 65,250 42.4% $50,000 and over 88,850 57.6% $1,250 and higher $172,900 and higher Total 154,100 100.0% Source: Statistics Canada, 1996 Census, and Region of Durham Calculations The Region of Durham Housing Directions Study, anticipated to be published in 2002, is exploring ways to ensure the production of new affordable housing units occurs. Information gathered for this study has demonstrated that the pdvate market is creating housing in the $100,000 to $173,000 pdce range. For this reason, the Task Force decided to focus on an action plan that addresses the construction of new rental housing, not ownership housing. Accordingly, the target of.the TaskForce's action plan is the construction of new rental housing with rents below $1,250 per month (excluding utilities). 4) Barriers to the Production of New Affordable Housing Significant research has been undertaken in the last few years that identifies numerous barders to the construction of new affordable housing in Ontado. By understanding and addressing these barriers, approaches can be developed to help overcome identified concerns and generate the housing required to meet the Region's affordable housing needs. The barriers to the provision of affordable housing that are most commonly mentioned in the research and which were considered by the Task Force are listed by topic area below. They are discussed in detail in Section B of the Task Force report. /~TTACHL~,EHT ~__ / TO REPORT ~ PD~ 035 DURHAM REGION AFFORDABLE HOUSING TASK FORCE REPORT Final Report: December 5, 2001 a) b) c) d) e) g) h) i) J) Official Plan Zoning By-laws · Accessory apartments and Garden Suites · Rooming/Boarding/Lodging Houses · Development Standards · Minimum Unit Sizes Intensification Development Costs Development Fees and Charges Municipal Approval Process Control of Demolition and Conversion of Rental Housing Municipal Taxation Practice Affordable Housing Sites Senior Government Policies and Regulations · Key Income Tax Rules Affecting Rental Housing · Goods and Services Tax (GST) · Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) Mortgage Insurance · Provincial Sales Tax (PST) · Decline in Federal and Provincial Funding for Social Housing Development 5) Region's Potential Partners The Region can only achieve significant results in its action plan through working together with a number of key partners. These partners bring a variety of resources and capabilities to help meet the Region's housing needs. They include the private sector (e.g. development and finance industries), community agencies (e.g. non-profit housing agencies, service clubs, religious institutions), Area Municipalities, the Provincial Government and the Federal Government. 6) Cost to Develop New Rental Housing The Task Force used a real estate model to develop a number of "generic" case studies to illustrate the nature of the problem of developing affordable rental housing in Durham Region. The model is detailed in Section D of the Task Force report. The case studies determined development costs, operating costs, rate of returns on investment and resulting rents. The following table summarizes average monthly rent charges for existing rental units and the monthly rental amounts required to cover costs for newly constructed units as illustrated by the case studies: iv ATTACHMENT REPORT # PD, DURHAM REGION AFFORDABLE HOUSING TASK FORCE REPORT Final Report: December 5, 2001 Monthly Rent Cost for New Rental Housing Units Building Form Unit Type CMHC Required Rent Required Average Amounts for Household Rents in Reasonable Rate Income To Existing of Return (10%) Afford Buildings Rent* Townhouse** 1-bedroom n/a n/a n/a 2-bed room n/a $1,410 $56,400 3-bed room n/a $1,610 $64,400 Walk-up Apartment 1-bedroom $684 $1,065 $42,600 2-bed room $778 $1,265 $50,600 3-bedroom $879 $1,365 $54,600 High-rise Apartment 1-bedroom $684 $1,700 $68,000 2-bed room $778 $1,900 $76,000 3-bedroom $879 $2,000 $80,000 * Assumes 30% of household income is spent on housing ** Does not include utilities *** Average rents for Oshawa CMA, All Private Apartments Without incentives, the case studies demonstrated that the cost of constructing new rental housing would require monthly rent charges that exceed current average market rents and the affordability threshold of $1250 per month. The Task Force concluded that affordable rental housing cannot be constructed without incentives being introduced to reduce development costs. 7) Impact of Incentives on Monthly Rents Required to Cover Costs It is clear that, if some approaches could be found to help offset costs, rents could be reduced and the range of households able to afford such accommodation increased. Given the high demand for rental housing in the Region, there would be an incentive for private developers to move ahead with new rental development in the Region. ATTACHMENT # / .TO REPORT # PD c; -7 - ~' '2.. 0 3 7 DURHAM REGION AFFORDABLE HOUSING TASK FORCE REPORT Final Report: December 5, 2001 The Task Force considered the following incentives: · waiver of Regional development charges · waiver of Regional and area municipal development fees and charges · property taxes equal to residential property tax rate · inclusion of the proposed Federal capital grant of $12,500 per unit · availability of surplus government lands contributed at no cost The table below shows the cumulative effect on required monthly rents of potential incentives for two generic case studies. High-rise construction was deemed too expensive by the Task Force to warrant detailed analysis. Cumulative Effect on Monthly Amounts Required to Cover Construction and Operating Costs (Whitby Townhouses and Pickering Walk-up Apartments) Incentives Full Cost Recovery of Construction and Operating Costs/No Incentives Regional Waiver Only Monthly Amounts Required to Cover Costs Whitby Townhouses 2 bdrm ($) 1,410 1,320 3 bdrm ($) Area Municipality Waivers Only 1,345 Reg+Area Waiver+Residential Tax 1,080 Reg/AreaFFax + Fed. Grant 950 Reg/Area/Tax/Fed + Free Land 750 ~ 1,610 1,520 1,550 1,280 1,150 95O Note: Shaded areas reflect monthly amounts below the "affordable" Pickering Walk-Up Apartments 1 bdrm ($) 1,065 1,010 2 bdrm ($) 1,265 1,210 1,015 1,215 835 1,035 715 915 615 815 threshold of $1,25--~'~. 3 bdrm ($) 1,365 1,310 1,315 This table clearly shows the reductions in rent levels that are achievable through the various measures noted above and incorporated into the scenarios. It also shows the significant affordability gains that can be achieved through the combined efforts of several levels of government. The Task Force concluded that for every $10,000 reduction in development cost per unit, the rent required can be reduced by approximately $85 per month, which equates to a reduction in required household income of approximately $3,400 per year. ATTACHMENT #, ! ,TO REPORT # PD L~ '?-¢~ ~. DURHAM REGION AFFORDABLE HOUSING TASK FORCE REPORT Final Report: December 5, 2001 Similarly, the rent reductions achievable by taxing units at the residential rate as opposed to the mu/ti-residential rate are also significant, a/though they vary depending on the type of housing and local tax rate. The scenarios show that taxing units at the residential rate can bring rents down by over $100 per month for most forms of rental housing in most parts of the Region. Each $100 per month reduction in rent equates to a $4,000 per year reduction in required household income. 8) Regional Rent Supplement Program The above incentives can be successful in bringfng market rents to levels affordable by households with incomes up to $50,000. However, such rent levels are out of reach of those households wltl', incomes at the lowest levels, particularly those in receipt of social assistance or on fixed incomes. An approach that has been successfully applied by senior levels of govemment in the past has been to provide rent supplements to households at the lowest levels of income to enable them to pay no more than 30% of their income on housing. With the transfer of social housing to the municipal level, the responsibility for creating and funding any new rent supplement program is likely to fall on service managers such as the Region of Durham. The following table provides an example of potential costs for a rent supplement program for a 100 unit walk-up apartment in Picketing. The example assumes all available incentives have been applied and that rent supplement would be available to two-thirds of the tenants of which 50% would be at the deep level and 50% at the shallow level. vii ATTACHMENT # '/ .TO RFPORT # PD__(' 7'- C' DURHAM REGION AFFORDABLE HOUSING TASK FORCE REPORT Final Report: December 5, 2001 Potential Rent Supplement Costs For 100 Unit Pickering Walk-up with Full Incentives Applied Type of Supplement No Rent Supplement - Full Cost Recovery Rent Amount Shallow Supplement* Unit Type Monthly Amount Required/Unit to Cover Costs (A) 2 bdrm 11 units Monthly Rent/Unit by Type of Supplement (B) Annual Operating Cost Annual Rent Revenue (c) (D) 1 bdrm $615 $615 $81,180 $81,180 $0 11 units $815 $815 $107,580 $107,580 $0 $915 $615 $815 3 bdrm 12 units $915 $461.25 $611.25 1 bdrm 11 units $131,760 $81,180 $107,580 2 bdrm 11 units $131,760 $60,885 $80,685 Annual Regional Supplement Costs (D Minus C) $0 $20,295 $26,895 3 bdrm $915 $686.25 $120,780 $90,585 $30,195 11 units Deep 1 bdrm $615 $246 $81,180 $32,472 $48,708 Supplement* 11 units 2 bdrm $815 $326 $107,580 $43,032 $65,548 11 units 3 bdrm $915 $366 $120,780 $48,312 $72,468 11 units TOTAL 100 units $7035.00 $939,600. $676,491 $264,109 $5041.75 NOTE: For the purposes of calculating shallow and deep supplement levels, the median amounts of 40% income to rent and 75% of income to rent was used The annual costs for a rent supplement program for newly constructed rental housing will vary, depending on the unit rent amount and the actual household incomes of all tenants. In this example, the annual cost to the Region would be $264,109. 9) Impact of Incentives to Regional Levy & Foregone Revenues An analysis was conducted to show the maximum financial impact on the Region of the various incentives proposed. A number of assumptions were made in the analysis: · 100 units per year would be eligible to receive incentives · All 100 units receiving incentives are walk-up units ATTACHMENT # / TO REPORT # PD 0 '7 '- 0 '~... DURHAM REGION AFFORDABLE HOUSING TASK FORCE REPORT Final Report: December 5, 2001 One-third of the units produced would be at the cost recovery amount, one-third would require shallow supplement to make rental units affordable to moderate income households, and one-third would require deep supplement to make units affordable to households with very Iow income All other assumptions used in the case scenarios to estimate development costs are used (e.g. unit mix, land costs, construction costs). Cost Impact to Region of Potential Incentives 100 Unit Walk-up Apartment Example Incentive Potential Cost One Time Impact to Foregone for 100 units or Ongoing Regional Revenues Cost Levy ($) (%) Regional $581,500 ' One-time 0.24 n/a Development Charge Waiver Regional Rent $264,109 Annual 0.11 n/a Supplement (66 units) Regional Property $172,300/year Annual n/a $247,600/year Tax Reduction The impact to the Region to provide incentives to the pdvate and public sector to create new affordable rental housing is estimated to be as follows: one-time impact to the general levy of approximately 0.24% to supplement the development charges reserve fund; · annual impact to the general levy of approximately 0.11% to provide rent supplement for two-thirds of the units; · approximately $172,300 per year in foregone tax revenue. ix DURHAM REGION AFFORDABLE HOUSING TASK FORCE REPORT Final Report: December 5, 2001 10) Task Force Recommendations A) Areas of Regional Control It is recommended that Regional Council: Adopt the Regional Chair's Task Force on Sustainable/Affordable Housing report as Regional policy and that Area Municipalities be requested to also endorse the report. Enact a by-law to implement the Section 210 Municipal Act amendments that would enable the Region and Area Municipalities to provide incentives to stimulate affordable rental housing development. The by-law would include the definition of affordable housing developed by the Task Force, state policies regarding eligibility for the housing units to be created and summarize the provisions that agreements for affordable housing would be required to contain. For new rental housing projects that meet the definition of affordable housing established by the Region and other conditions set out in the Regional by-law related to Section 210 of the Municipal Act, incentives could include the following: · waiving the Regional portion of development charges; · waiving Regional fees and charges for planning approval applications, including official plan amendments; and, · property taxation at the residential rate. Project specific by-laws and associated agreements would need to be created detailing the incentives to be provided and the conditions under which they would be made available. Establish a "housing first" policy for surplus Regional lands in order to consider surplus Regional lands for housing first and make them available at a minimal amount (e.g. $1) on a long-term lease basis to applicants for projects that meet the definition of affordable housing established by the Region and other conditions set out in the Regional by-law related to Section 210 of the Municipal Act. Establish a maximUm of 100 units as the annual allocation of new rental housing units that would be eligible for the various affordable housing incentives approved by the Region. Ensure projects are distributed across 042 ATTLOH~¢ENT ,~__/ TO :EPORT# PD ~7'~ ~ DURHAM REGION AFFORDABLE HOUSING TASK FORCE REPORT Final Report: December 5, 2001 Area Municipalities. One-third of the units produced would be offered at market rent, one-third would require shallow subsidy and the remaining One- third would be occupied by households eligible for deep subsidy. Establish a complementary Regional Rent Supplement Program that would provide rent geared-to-income for up to two-thirds (maximum 66 units per year) of the new rental housing units that meet the definition of affordable housing established by the Region and other conditions set out in the Regional by-law related to Section 210 of the Municipal Act. Households eligible for rent supplement would be selected through the Housing Access Centre. Seek affordable housing proposals from the public and private sector that give consideration to a vadety of procurement techniques and management options, including using the Durham Regional Local Housing Corporation to build new rental housing, with a view to selecting the most cost-effective approach for the allocation of affordable housing incentives across the Region. Refer the findings and recommendations of the Regional Chair's Task Force on Sustainable/Affordable Housing to the ongoing Regional initiatives, in particular the Housing Directions Study, Property Tax Study, Revitalization Incentive Study, Official Plan Review and Development Charge Study, and any other related initiatives for consideration in future policy development. 8. Maintain Regional Official Plan policies that permit accessory apartments, infill and other intensification opportunities. 9. Maintain Regional Official Plan policies discouraging condominium conversion and demolition of existing affordable rental housing. 10. Work with Federal, Provincial and Area Municipal govemments to identify surplus government sites that may be suitable for affordable housing. Create an inventory of such housing and work with non-profit housing organizations and/or pdvate developers to make these sites available at nominal cost for affordable housing purposes. B) Areas Beyond Regional Control Area Municipalities It is recommended that Regional Council: 11 · Encourage Area Municipalities to consider waiving the following for new rental housing projects that meet the definition of affordable housing established by the Region and other conditions set out in the Regional by-law related to Section 210 of the Municipal Act: ATTACHMENT # / TO REPORT# PD. ~ '?-d? ~ DURHAM REGION AFFORDABLE HOUSING TASK FORCE REPORT Final Report: December 5, 2001 Fees and charges for planning approval applications, including official plan amendments, zoning by-law amendments and site plan approvals; · building permit fees; · development fees and charges; parkland dedication fees; and · storm water management fees. 12. Encourage Area Municipalities to consider innovative designs, reduced floor areas and reduced landscaped open space requirements for new rental housing projects that meet the affordable housing definition established by the Region and other conditions set out in the Regional by-law related to Section 210 of the Municipal Act. 13. Encourage Area Municipalities to amend their zoning by-laws to permit accessory apartments as-of-right in all single detached dwellings subject to Fire Code, Ontario Building Code and local building codes and standards. 14. Encourage Area Municipalities to review their zoning by-laws to eliminate any barders to the provision of residential accessory apartments in commercial areas and permit standards and criteria that support such activity. 15. Encourage Area Municipalities to amend their official plans and zoning by- laws to permit rooming houses, boarding houses and lodging houses under specified conditions in appropriate zones. 16. Encourage appropriate standard of Area Municipalities to amend minimum floor areas where to permit bachelor apartments at the Ontario Building Code 22 m2 (250 sq'). 17. Encourage Area Municipalities to adopt a policy supporting the conversion of "brownfield" sites to residential use for affordable housing under specified conditions and prepare inventories of such sites for consideration by developers and other housing providers. Provincial Government It is recommended that Regional Council: 18. Encourage the Ontario Government to reintroduce the Provincial Sales Tax (PST) rebate program for rental housing. xii ATTACHMENT ~ / TO REPORT ~ PD £, -7 * (? ;2- DURHAM REGION AFFORDABLE HOUSING TASK FORCE REPORT Final Report: December 5, 2001 19. Pursue the allocation of additional provincial rent supplement units for the Region of Durham. 20. Encourage the Federal and Provincial Governments to investigate how the Iow-income U.S. federal housing tax credits program could be applied in Canada. 21. Advocate to the Province that it adopt an affordable housing strategy and that it participate in the proposed new federal housing program. Federal Government It is recommended that Regional Council: 22. Advocate to the Federal Govemment for changes to federal taxation policies identified by the Provincial Housing Supply Working Group, regarding capital cost allowance, deductibility of soft costs, treatment of rental losses, treatment of capital gains and designation of rental housing aS a "passive" investment. 23. Advocate to the Federal Government to amend GST legislation to: eliminate or lower the GST on the costs of new rental construction; allow developers to pay GST on a pro-rated basis as units are rented; and, re-classify rents as "zero-rated" for GST so that input tax credits can be claimed against expenses. 24. Advocate to the Federal Government adopt a national housing strategy and that it immediately launch its proposed new federal housing program. Xlll ATTACHMENT ~ ~-.--'~TO REPORT ~ PDt__' -~ ' ' TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Memorandum Committee of the Whole Roger Anderson Regional Chair December 5, 2001 Report from the Regional Chair's Task Force on Sustainable/Affordable Housing DEC - 3 2001 CITy OF PICKERING PLANNING ,AND DEVELOPMENT D~PAR'rMEN'r The demand for affordable housing in our community is evidenced by a number of factors including the growing waiting list for social housing, increased demand for emergency shelter services - especially from women and children leaving abusive relationships, Iow vacancy rates, rising rental housing costs, and the increasing number of individuals and families who are homeless. A new supply of rental housing to meet this demand has not been forthcoming since 1996. In May 2001, Regional Council approved the creation of the Chair's Task Force on Sustainable/Affordable Housing. Over the past few months, representatives from Regional Council, the business community including real estate, property management, housing development and finance joined with representatives from the non-profit housing sector, agencies servicing the homeless and individuals with an interest in affordable housing to identify the barriers preventing affordable housing construction in Durham Region. The findings and recommendations of the Task Force are presented in the attached report for your consideration. The Task Force has concluded that barriers preventing the construction of affordable rental housing in Durham Region can be addressed. Information available at this time suggests that any proposed federal/provincial housing supply strategy will require contributions from other funding sources, including municipalities. Our Greater Toronto Area neighbours are all actively exploring means to create affordable rental housing. Initiatives approved to date include: · The City of Toronto's Let's Build Program makes available capital funding along with sites for certain projects and exemptions from fees and charges in the case of non- profit rental housing. A $21 million revolving capital fund has been established to provide grants and loans repayable over multi-year periods. In June 1999 Toronto approved a "housing first policy" for surplus or potentially surplus City-owned sites. In addition, a new multi-residential tax class has been established at the residential rate (1.07%). To date 214 units are under development with average City contributions of $45,500 per unit. · Peel Regional Council has approved in principle that $3 million of its $12 million social housing reserve fund be used as its contribution towards creating affordable housing. In addition, three regionally owned sites are being made available at no cost for non-profit housing. ATTACHMENT ~ ,~ .TO REPORT # PD ~..' 7- ~? ~L Page 2 To; Committee of the Whole Report from the Regional Chair's Task Force on Sustainable/Affordable Housing York Region has approved the use of $400,000 from its over $20 million social housing reserve to provide project development funding re-payable upon mortgage approval. To address housing needs in Durham Region, the Chair's Task Force on Sustainable/Affordable Housing is recommending that a "municipal facilities by-law" be created. This by-law will establish a framework under which incentives could be offered to stimulate the construction of a modest number of new affordable rental housing units in our community. It is clear from the Task Force's analysis that new affordable rental housing will not be achieved in Durham without the participation of our area municipalities. While the Region can take specific actions as outlined in the Task Force recommendations, we look to our area municipalities to also provide incentives and to ensure that their planning policies promote affordable housing opportunities. Programs that address the needs of our most vulnerable residents ultimately enhance the economic and social well being of the Region of Durham. The development of an affordable housing strategy significantly contributes to this principle and will ensure the long-term viability of our community. In closing, I would like to express my sincere thanks to members of the Task Force for their time, energy and insights. I would also like to thank the members of Regional staff who provided their support in this effort. Yours truly, Regional Chair