Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 6, 2006 I) II) III) IV) V) VI) VII) Council Meeting Agenda Monday, February 6, 2006 Council Chambers 7:30 pm INVOCATION Mayor Ryan will call the meeting to order and lead Council in the saying of the Invocation. DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST ADOPTION OF MINUTES PAGE Regular Council Meeting of January 16, 2006 1-11 PRESENTATIONS 12 DELEGA TIONS 13 CORRESPONDENCE 14-67 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE REPORT Executive Committee Report EC 2006-02 68-71 Executive Committee Minutes "In Camera" Executive Committee Minutes 72-79 Under Separate Cover 80-131 VIII) REPORTS - NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS 132 IX) MOTIONS AND NOTICE OF MOTIONS X) BY-LAWS XI) OTHER BUSINESS XII) CONFIRMATION BY-LAW 133-134 XIII) ADJOURNMENT . Minutes of the Taxicab Advisory Committee held on January 18, 2006 001 Council Meeting Minutes Monday, January 16, 2006 7:30 pm PRESENT: Mayor David Ryan COUNCILLORS: K. Ashe M. Brenner D. Dickerson R. Johnson B. Mclean D. Pickles ALSO PRESENT: 1. J. Quinn N. Carroll G. Paterson D. Bentley C. Rose D. Shields - Chief Administrative Officer - Director, Planning & Development - Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer - City Clerk - Manager, Policy - Deputy Clerk I) INVOCA TION Mayor Ryan called the meeting to order and led Council in the saying of the Invocation. II) DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST III) ADOPTION OF MINUTES Moved by Councillor Johnson Seconded by Councillor Brenner Regular Council Meeting of December 19, 2005 'In Camera' Meeting of December 19, 2005 CARRIED 1 002 Council Meeting Minutes Monday, January 16, 2006 7:30 pm IV) PRESENTATIONS 1. laurie McCaig News Advertiser Best Fitness Club in Pickering Re: Presentation of Readers Choice Award laurie McCaig of the News Advertiser presented Thomas J. Quinn, Chief Administrative Officer with the Readers Choice Award for the Best Fitness Club in Pickering. Sharon Milton, Supervisor Facility Programs thanked the News Advertiser for the award and spoke about the reasons the facility received the award. She noted that the Pickering Recreation Complex offered services to all ages and that staff provide excellent service to the members and community. V) 1. CORRESPONDENCE CORR. 1-06 PATTI L. BARRIE MUNICIPAL CLERK MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 Temperance Street ClarinQton. Ontario Advising that at a meeting held on December 12, 2005, the Municipality of Clarington passed a resolution concerning hydro services, and requesting any action. 2. CORR. 2-06 SANDRA KRANC CITY CLERK CITY OF OSHAWA 50 Centre Street South Oshawa, Ontario Advising that at a meeting held on December 19, 2005, the City of Oshawa passed a resolution concerning the future status of General Motors of Canada Limited in Oshawa. 2 003 Council Meeting Minutes Monday, January 16, 2006 7:30 pm Resolution #01/06 Moved by Councillor Dickerson Seconded by Councillor Brenner That CORR. 1-06 from Patti L. Barrie, Municipality of Clarington, be received for information. That CORR. 2-06 from Sandra Kranc, City of Oshawa, be received for information. VI) REPORTS CARRIED Executive Committee Report EC 2006-01 (1 ) Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, Report CS 03-06 Historical/Architectural Designation - Glen House - 1690 Whitevale Road. PickerinQ 1. That Report CS 03-06 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be received; 2. That the Executive Committee endorse the recommendation of Heritage Pickering for designation of Glen House; 3. That the City Clerk be authorized to begin procedures to have the Glen House, municipally known as 1690 Whitevale Road, designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; 4. That the City Clerk, in consultation with Heritage Pickering, draft and forward an appropriate 'Notice of Intent to Designate' to the owners of the property, the Ontario Heritage Foundation, the local newspaper; and 5. Further, that the City Clerk be directed to draft the necessary by- law together with the reasons for designation for Council approval. 3 004 (2) (3) Council Meeting Minutes Monday, January 16, 2006 7:30 pm Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, Report CS 04-06 Historical/Architectural Designation - Willson House - 1505 Whitevale Road. PickerinQ 1. That Report CS 04-06 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be received; 2. That the Executive Committee endorse the recommendation of Heritage Pickering for designation of Willson House; That the City Clerk be authorized to begin procedures to have the Willson House, municipally known as 1505 Whitevale Road, designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; 3. 4. That the City Clerk, in consultation with Heritage Pickering, draft and forward an appropriate 'Notice of Intent to Designate' to the owners of the property, the Ontario Heritage Foundation, the local newspaper; and 5. Further, that the City Clerk be directed to draft the necessary by- law together with the reasons for designation for Council approval. Director, Planning & Development, Report PD 05-06 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 19/05 Robert and Maria Graham 1610 Central Street, Claremont Part of lot 19, Concession 9, Part 1, 40R-15519 City of PickerinQ 1. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 19/05, be approved, to amend the current zoning of the subject property to permit a bed and breakfast establishment as an additional use, as submitted by Robert and Maria Graham, on lands being Part of lot 19, Concession 9, Part 1, 40R-15519, City of Pickering; and 2. That the amending zoning by-law to implement Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 19/05, as set out in Appendix I to Report PD 05-06, be forwarded to City Council for enactment. 4 ~ 005 (4) (5) Council Meeting Minutes Monday, January 16, 2006 7:30pm Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, Report CS 01-06 2006 Interim levy and Interim Instalment Due Dates 1. That Report CS 01-06 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be received; 2. That an interim levy be adopted for 2006 for all of the realty property classes; 3. That the interim levy instalment due dates be February 27 and April 27, 2006; 4. That the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be authorized to make any changes or undertake any actions necessary, including altering due dates, in order to ensure the tax billing process is completed; 5. That the attached By-law, providing for the imposition of the taxes, be read three times and passed by Council; and 6. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions to give effect thereto. Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, Report CS 05-06 Appointment to enforce the Parking By-law at 1822 Whites Road, 905 & 1600 Bayly Street, 1915 Denmar Road, 1310 Fieldlight Blvd., 1655 & 1665 PickerinQ Parkway and 1235 Radom Street 1. That Report CS 05-06 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer respecting the appointment of Special Municipal law Enforcement Officers for the purpose of enforcing the Parking By- law on private property be received; 2. That the draft by-law to appoint persons to enforce the Parking By- law at 1822 Wh ites Road, 905 & 1600 Bayly Street, 1915 Denmar Road, 1310 Fieldlight Blvd., 1655 & 1665 Pickering Parkway and 1235 Radom Street, be forwarded to Council for approval; and 3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions to give effect thereto. 5 006 Council Meeting Minutes Monday, January 16, 2006 7:30 pm Resolution #02/06 Moved by Councillor Dickerson Seconded by Councillor Pickles That the Report of the Executive Committee EC 2006-01, dated January 9, 2006, be adopted. CARRIED VII) MOTIONS 1. Heritage Pickering Council Appointment Resolution #03/06 Moved by Councillor Dickerson Seconded by Councillor Ashe That Councillor Johnson be appointed as Council representative on the Heritage Pickering Committee. CARRIED Councillor Dickerson indicated his interest to act as an alternate ifn the event that Councillor Johnson could not attend a meeting. 2. DesiQnation of HeritaQe Conservation District Resolution #04/06 Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Dickerson WHEREAS section 8.1 of the Pickering Official Plan states that Council shall respect the City's cultural heritage, and shall conserve and integrate important cultural heritage resources from all time periods into the community; and WHEREAS section 8.4 of the Pickering Official Plan states that City Council, in consultation with its heritage committee, shall implement the provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act, including the designation under the Act of heritage conservation districts where appropriate; and 6 007 Council Meeting Minutes Monday, January 16, 2006 7:30 pm WHEREAS policy 2.13(n) of Council adopted Amendment 13 to the Pickering Official Plan, which implements the results of the City's Growth Management Study, states that for the Central Pickering Area, Council . shall recognize the heritage character of the Whitevale Road Corridor and require the design of new development to be compatible with the existing heritage, features and sites; and WHEREAS policy 2.13(1) of Council adopted Amendment 13 to the Pickering Official Plan identifies the need for a neighbourhood planning process for Central Pickering; and WHEREAS the City of Pickering has designated by by-law the Hamlet of Whitevale and its surroundings, including lands on either side of Whitevale Road to the east of Sideline 26 as a heritage conservation district; and WHEREAS Heritage Pickering, the City's heritage committee, has approached Council requesting a potential extension of the heritage conservation district designation through Seaton along Whitevale Road, from the east limit of the existing heritage conservation district to Sideline 16, extending one half a concession in width north and south of Whitevale Road and including Whitevale Road itself (the "Study Area"); and WHEREAS section 40 of the Ontario Heritage Act permits the Council of a municipality, in consultation with its heritage committee, to undertake a study of an area of the municipality for the purpose of designation of a heritage conservation district; and WHEREAS section 40.1 of the Ontario Heritage Act permits a municipality undertaking a study under section 40 of the Act to designate by by-law a defined area as a "heritage conservation study area" for a period of up to one year. NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby directs staff, as input to the neighbourhood planning process for Seaton, to undertake a heritage study of the Study Area in the context of an urbanizing area consistent with the City's Growth Management Study / Amendment 13, and prepare an appropriate by-law designating such area as a heritage conservation study area; and 7 008 VIII) BY -LAWS 6590/05 Council Meeting Minutes Monday, January 16, 2006 7:30 pm THAT a copy of this resolution be forwarded to all landowners within the Study Area, Heritage Pickering, the Minister of Culture, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Ontario Realty Corporation, the North Pickering land Exchange Team, and DEL Property Management. CARRIED ON A RECORDED VOTE Yea Nay Councillor Ashe Councillor Brenner Councillor Dickerson Councillor Johnson Councillor Mclean Councillor Pickles Mayor Ryan A by-law to declare that part of lot 38, Plan 270, designated as By-law Part 8, Plan 40R-23867 and lot 39, Plan 170, now being Parts 9 and 10, Plan 40R-23867 surplus to the needs of the City of Pickering. By- law 6590/05 appeared before the Executive Committee on October 24, 2005 and is being forwarded to Council for approval. 6613/06 A by-law to repeal Smoking By-law No. 4290/03. 6614/06 6615/06 A by-law to amend Restricted Area Zoning By-law 3037, as amended to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham, Part of lot 19, Concession 9, Part 1, 40R-15519, City of Pickering. (A 19/05) This by-law implements the recommendation contained in Item #3 of the 1 st Report of the Executive Committee presented to Council on January 16, 2006. [Report PD 05-06] A by-law for the collection of taxes and to establish the installment due dates for the Interim levy 2006. This by-law implements the recommendation contained in Item #4 of the 1 st Report of the Executive Committee presented to Council on January 16,2006. [Report CS 01-06] 8 009 Council Meeting Minutes Monday, January 16, 2006 7:30 pm 6616/06 A by-law to appoint By-law Enforcement Officers for certain purposes, in accordance with parking regulation for 1822 Whites Road, 905 & 1600 Bayly Street, 1915 Denmar Road, 1310 Fieldlight Blvd., 1655 & 1665 Pickering Parkway and 1235 Radom Street. This by-law implements the recommendation contained in Item #5 of the 1 st Report of the Executive Committee presented to Council on January 16, 2006. [Report CS 05-06] THIRD READING: Councillor Mclean, seconded by Councillor Brenner, moved that By-law Numbers 6590/05,6613/06,6614/06,6615/06 and 6616/06, be adopted and the said by-laws be now read a third time and PASSED and that the Mayor and Clerk sign the same and the seal of the Corporation be affixed thereto. CARRIED IX) OTHER BUSINESS 1. The following matters were considered prior to the regular meeting: (a) The City Clerk provided a verbal update with respect to Pickering Animal Services, specifically in relation to the current level of in-house services. Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Pickles That Council move into an "In Camera" meeting of Council in order to discuss litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals. CARRIED (b) The City Solicitor provided a confidential verbal update to Members of Council with respect to Berrywoods Farms. Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Pickles That Council rise and ratify the actions taken at the 'In Camera' session. CARRIED 9 010 Council Meeting Minutes Monday, January 16, 2006 7:30 pm (c) Request for Waiver of Hall Rental Fee for West Salon - StarbriQht Children's Foundation The City Clerk provided Members of the Committee with a memorandum requesting the waiver of hall rental fees at the West Salon on April 21, 2006 for the Starbright Children's Foundation. Moved by Councillor Mclean Seconded by Councillor Dickerson THAT the request of Ms. Aleeya Mohammed on behalf of the Starlight Starbright Children's Foundation to waive the rental fee of the West Salon at the Pickering Recreation Complex, in support of a fund raising event for the organization be received; THAT a grant in the amount of $543.08 be made to Starlight Starbright Children's Foundation to offset the said rental fee of the West Salon on April 21,2006; and THAT this amount be charged to Account 2195 (Grants to Organizations & Individuals). CARRIED X) CONFIRMATION BY-LAW By-law Number 6617/06 Councillor Johnson, seconded by Councillor Pickles, moved for leave to introduce a By-law of the City of Pickering to confirm those proceedings of the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering at its Regular Meeting of January 16, 2006. CARRIED XI) ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:00 pm. 10 DATED this 16th Day of January, 2006 Council Meeting Minutes Monday, January 16, 2006 7:30 pm MAYOR DAVID RYAN DEBIA.BENTLEY CITY CLERK 11 Oil ûú¡ o~ PRESENTATIONS 1. 012 Presentation by Councillor Brenner Chair, Benchmarking Standards/Sustainability Re: BenchmarkinQ/Sustainability CiÚ¡ o~ 013 DELEGATIONS 1. Representatives of Ajax Pickering Board of Trade Re: Comments on City's Sustainability Initiatives Ciú¡ o~ 014 CORRESPONDENCE 1. CORR. 3-06 ELIZABETH MCLAREN ASSISTANT DEPUTY MINISTER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING 777 Bay Street, 14th Floor Toronto. Ontario Refer to Director, Planning & Development to Report Submitting for Council's information a copy of the proposed modifications to the proposed development plan developed by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and requesting written submissions to be submitted to the Ministry by March 3, 2006. 2. CORR. 4-06 P.M. MADill REGIONAL CLERK REGION OF DURHAM 605 Rossland Road East Whitby, Ontario Refer to Consideration of Item VIII) b) of New . Business Advising that at a meeting held on January 25, 2006, the Council of the Region of Durham considered Report #2006-F-4 and adopted a resolution with respect to Bill 206, Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System. 3. CORR. 5-06 P.M. MADill REGIONAL CLERK REGION OF DURHAM 605 Rossland Road East Whitby, Ontario Motion for Direction (Consent to Endorse By-law) Advising that at a meeting held on January 25, 2006, the Council of the Region of Durham adopted a resolution requesting that the City consent to endorsement of a by-law relating to the residential solid waste collection in the Town of Ajax. 015 5. 3. Receive for Information CORR. 6-06 P.M. MADill REGIONAL CLERK REGION OF DURHAM 605 Rossland Road East Whitby. Ontario Advising that at a meeting held on January 25, 2006, the Council of the Region of Durham adopted a resolution with respect to a Well Interference Protocol. CORR. 7-06 PICKERING-AJAX CITIZENS TOGETHER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (P.A.C.T.) David Steele, Chairperson c/o 966 Timmins Garden PickerinQ. Ontario Motion for Direction Submitting correspondence writing to the Honourable Minister laurel Broten, Minister of Environment, requesting that the Minister issue a "Part II Order" and bump up of the Environmental Assessment to that of an Individual Environmental Assessment under the provisions of the Environmental Assessment Act (EM). Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Planning and Development Division 777 Bay St 14th Fir TorontoON M5G2E5 Telephone: (416) 585-6427 Fax: (416) 585-6445 Ministère des @ Affaires municipales ~ et du Logement " V . Division de la planification et de l'aménagement du territoire 777. rue Bay 14'étage R EC E Toronto ON M5G 2E5 I V ED Téléphone: (416) 585-6427 CITY OF PICKERING Télécopieur: (416) 585-6445 FEB 0 1 2006 3-0b Ontario 016 CLERK'S DIVISION February 1, 2006 Dear Stakeholder: Re: Proposed Modifications to the Proposed Central Pickering Development Plan Please find attached a copy of the proposed modifications to the proposed development plan developed by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. As a result of information and comments gathered from consultations during the Summer of 2005, the Ministry has prepared a series of proposed modifications to the proposed Development Plan. Now, we want your comments on the proposed modifications. The proposed modifications to the proposed plan are being made available to the public and municipalities under the authority of subsection 4(4) of the Ontario Planning and Development Act, 1994 (OPDA). The release of the proposed modifications will mark the beginning of a consultation period during which the Ministry wants to get your feedback and written submissions. Written submissions are to be received by the Ministry by March 3, 2006. As part of the Province's strategy to protect the Oak Ridges Moraine, the Province is proposing to exchange provincially owned lands in Seaton for privately owned lands on the Moraine. In addition, and in order to lay the foundation for a well-planned, progressive urban and rural community in Pickering with a protected natural heritage system, the ministry is preparing a proposed Development Plan that reinforces the Province's Greenbelt Plan and key principles of the proposed Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. On behalf of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, I look forward to your participation in this important process. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please call the North Pickering land Exchange Team at (416) 585-6554. Yours truly, -Am~ Elizabeth A. Mclaren Assistant Deputy Minister Planning and Development Division Attachment 1322(06195) ~ ~ Diiedcý/ PICJ\~~9 ~ è£v~ 017 Central Pickering Development Plan Proposed Modifications The proposed Central Pickering Development Plan (CPDP) is prepared under the authority of the Ontario Planning and Development Act, 1994 (OPDA). The proposed Plan affects an area of land described in the Development Planning Area Order made under section 2(1) of the OPDA dated March 25, 2004. The Development Planning Area is bounded by the CPR Belleville Line in the south, Sideline 16/Pickering-Ajax boundary in the east, Highway 7 in the north and York-Durham Town Line in the west. The Development Planning Area is located entirely within the City of Pickering within the Regional Municipality of Durham. The proposed Plan was released for public review on July 14, 2005 for a 60-day consultation period and posted on the Environmental Bill of Rights Registry (EBR). The consultation period ended September 12, 2005. Over 60 submissions commenting on the proposed Plan were received and reviewed by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing staff and the project's consultants. The following modifications to the proposed CPDP are being proposed for public comment for 30 days. Modifications to the proposed Plan are identified, as appropriate, in italics. Editorial Changes I. Wherever Natural Heritage System primary designation is found, it should be changed to Natural Heritage System Primary Designation. 2. Wherever Natural Heritage System overlay designation is found, it should be changed to Natural Heritage System Overlay Designation. 3. Wherever Greenbelt Plan (Ontario Regulation 208/2005) is found, it should be changed to Greenbelt Plan (Order-In-Council 208/2005). 4. Wherever Minimum Distance Separation formulae is found, it should be changed to Minimum Distance Separation Formulae. 5. Wherever Draft Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe is found, it should be changed to Proposed Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Schedule Changes I. Replace the existing Schedule 2, Land Use; Schedule 4, Transportation Network; and Schedule 5, Servicing System, with the proposed attached schedules. Amendments to the OPDA Plan's Policies: In Section 1.3 - History and Context: 1. Amend item 2 on page 14 to read as follows: 2. The Places to Grow Act, 2005 provides a legal framework for growth planning in Ontario. The Act allows the Province to designate any area as a growth area and develop a Growth Plan for that area. A Growth Plan would integrate and build on other key provincial initiatives including the proposed Greenbelt Plan, the Niagara Escarpment Plan, Planning Act reform, infrastructure planning, and source water protection planning. The Central Pickering Development Plan will implement the basic principles of the proposed Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. 018 In Section 3.2 - Stage Two: 2. Amend Section 3.2 - Stage Two, by revising the first paragraph on page 25 to read as follows: Stage Two involves the logical phasing of Neighbourhood Planning through the preparation of a Master Environmental Servicing Plan, together with other required studies, including an Economic Development Study, Natural Heritage System Management Plan including a master trail plan, and Environmental Assessments. Detailed Neighbourhood Plans will be prepared concurrent with or prior to the processing of plans of subdivision. These Neighbourhood Plans will be completed in a manner consistent with the City's of Pickering's development planning process. All studies required by this Plan to permit future development of lands will be the financial responsibility of the benefiting landowners. 3. Amend Section 3.2 - Stage Two, by adding to the end of the third paragraph on page 25 to read as follows: It is a policy of this Plan to require that the timing for commencement and preparation of the Master Environmental Servicing Plan, any required environmental assessments, including those to be carried out by the City of Pickering and/or the Region of Durham and the Natural Heritage System Management Plan be co-ordinated as much as possible in order to avoid duplication of work and permit achievement of common and inter-related objectives. 4. Amend Section 3.2 - Stage Two, by adding a new requirement on page 26 to read as follows: 12. Identify existing and proposed major utility requirements, such as appropriate locations for large utility equipment and utility cluster sites, installations, corridors, easements and substations. In Section 4.1- Natural Heritage System: 5. Amend Section 4.1 - Natural Heritage System, by revising Objective 1 to read as follows: I. Protect, maintain and, where possible, enhance all environmentally significant features and functions, all significant connections to regional natural systems including the Oak Ridges Moraine, Rouge Park, Duffins Creek system, Lake Ontario, and the Greenbelt Area, as well as all key hydrological features in the Development Planning Area; 6. Amend Section 4.1 - Natural Heritage System, by deleting Policies 2 and 10 and replacing them with a new Policy 2, and renumber the remaining policies accordingly. The new policy will read as follows: 2. Require the preparation of an overall Natural Heritage System Management Plan for the lands referred to as Natural Heritage System Primary Designation on Schedule 2 by the owners of the land. The Natural Heritage Management System Plan will include the preparation of a master trail plan, and establish the long-term uses, maintenance requirements and responsibilities and programs for all elements of the Natural Heritage System. The Natural Heritage System Management Plan will also address cultural heritage protection. The planning and design of the master trail plan for the Natural Heritage System Primary Designation will consider the following: 2 019 a) Build on the heritage pattern of land division within the Development Planning Area by following open and unopened road allowances, lanes and hedgerows, where feasible; b) Link urban neighbourhoods with places of work, mixed-use centres, and social facilities; c) Connect with urban neighbourhoods via a series of trailheads located at the edges of urban neighbourhoods and linked with urban paths; d) Use the existing trail systems, including the Seaton Trail, the proposed Regional Trail Network and the proposed Whitevale Trailhead as a basis for providing a new comprehensive trail system for the Development Planning Area; e) Avoid the most sensitive features of the Natural Heritage System, including habitat of sensitive species, wetlands, and steep slopes; f) Avoid fragmentation of core forest habitat; and, g) Utilize educational signs to develop greater understanding of the value and protection needs of the Natural Heritage System. In Section 4.2 - Cultural Heritage: 7. Amend Section 4.2 - Cultural Heritage, by adding the following to subsection (e) of Policy I to read as follows: e) Requiring that urban design guidelines prepared as a component of the Neighbourhood Plans address the conservation of significant cultural heritage resources and landscape features, and the integration of significant views associated with these features into the design of the new urban community. In particular, these considerations shall be an integral element of the design of public spaces. Implementation of this policy shall be informed by the assessment and recommendations contained in the Fall 2005 report entitled "Cultural Landscape Assessment Central Pickering: Seaton Lands" prepared by Wendy Shearer Landscape Architect Limited; and, 8. Amend Section 4.2 - Cultural Heritage, by revising subsection (a) of Policy 2 to read as follows: a) Demonstrate appropriate transitional design and compatibility with the area's existing character, including use of social, institutional, open space and recreational facilities to serve as a buffer, as shown on Schedule 2 and referred to as Hamlet Heritage Open Space; 9. Amend Section 4.2 - Cultural Heritage, by deleting Policy 3 and replacing it with a new Policy 3 to read as follows: 3. Recognize First Nations' cultural and spiritual connection to the Development Planning Area and require the development process be undertaken in a respectful manner. This will include actively seeking the input and advice of First Nations in considering the most appropriate actions to take with respect to the protection, commemoration, long-term management and/or mitigative excavation of archaeological sites. I O. Amend Section 4.2 - Cultural Heritage, by adding a new policy following Policy 3 and renumber the remaining policies accordingly. The new policy will read as follows: 4. Permit the City of Pickering to require, as a condition of development approval, that an archaeology monitor, preferably of First Nations' ancestry, be retained by the proponent for any significant mitigative excavation activities, on known pre-contact archaeological sites. The purpose of this monitor would be to work co-operatively with the proponent's licensed professional archaeologist in order to report back on the results of the mitigative excavation activities to interested First Nations. 3 In Section 4.3 - Agriculture: 020 11. Amend Section 4.3 - Agriculture, by deleting subsection (b) of Policy 2 and replacing it with a new subsection (b) to read as follows: b) Secondary uses or ancillary activities as defined in the Provincial Policy Statement that are secondary to the principal use of the property, including home occupations, home and cottage industries, veterinary clinics and uses that produce value-added agricultural products from the farm operation on the property, such as community herb gardens, seasonal roadside produce stands, farm vacation uses, kennels and craft shops; 12. Amend Section 4.3 - Agriculture, by deleting subsection (e) of Policy 2 and renumber the remaining policies accordingly. In Section 4.4 - Social, Institutional, Open Space and Recreational Facilities: 13. Amend the opening statement of Section 4.4 - Social, Institutional, Open Space and Recreational Facilities, to read as follows: The new urban community will require a broad range of social, institutional, open space and recreational facilities, including educational facilities, arts and culturalfacilities, parks, recreation centres, health care facilities, childcare centres and places of worship. 14. Amend Section 4.4 Social, Institutional, Open Space and Recreational Facilities, by adding a new Policy 4, to read as follows: 4. Ensure that roadway lighting and outdoor lighting associated with development does not cause direct light trespass, glare or up light. In Section 4.5 - Transportation Network: 15. Amend Section 4.5 - Transportation Network, by revising the third paragraph on page 47 to read as follows: The Development Planning Area will be served by both major and minor transit corridors. Major transit corridors will have the potential to develop into higher order service in exclusive rights-of- way, and facilitate inter-regional and local travel. Major transit corridors identified on Schedule 4 to this Plan include the Highway 407 transitway (mainline and links), Highway 7, Brock Road, Taunton Road, and Whites Road/Sideline 26. These corridors: 16. Amend Section 4.5 - Transportation Network, by revising the third paragraph on page 48 to read as follows: Minor transit corridors facilitate a greater frequency of transit bus service with the opportunity to convert traffic lanes to higher occupancy vehicle lanes. Minor transit corridors identified in this Plan include, Rossland Road/Sideline 22 and other collector and arterial roads as identified in Schedule 4. The community has been planned such that 90% of residents will be within a 400- metre (i.e., five-minute) walk of a transit route. 4 021 17. Amend Section 4.5.1 - General Transportation, to revise objective 3 to read as follows: Ensure adequate inter-regional transportation infrastructure through connections with Highway 407, the potential future airport and transit corridors. To this end, the Province will encourage co- operation between provincial ministries, the Regional Municipalities of York and Durham and the City of Toronto to co-ordinate transportation planning decisions that support a more efficient inter-regional transit and roads network, in recognition of the importance of the movement of goods and people to the economy of the eastern Greater Toronto area; 18. Amend Section 4.5.2 - Transit and Active Transportation, to modify objective 11 to read as follows: 11. Facilitate the introduction and improvement of transit services as development occurs by ensuring, through conditions of plan of subdivision approval, that an interconnected road network is created, with linkages from all parts of the Development Planning Area to urban growth centres identified in the proposed Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, and major transit station areas identified in accordance with the proposed Growth Plan; 19. Amend Section 4.5 - Transportation Network, by revising Policy 1 to read as follows: 1. Determine the precise location of a future GO Transit Station, conceptually located on the west side of Brock Road north of the c.p Rail line as shown on Schedule 4: Transportation Network, through an environmental assessment; a) Should the environmental assessment result in the identification of alternate Iocation(s), the station location(s) may be moved without amendment to this Plan; and, b) Upon identifying the station location(s), re-examine the abutting land-uses to ensure an appropriate mix and intensity of land-uses is permitted. 20. Amend Section 4.5 - Transportation Network, by adding a new policy following Policy 2 and renumber the remaining polices accordingly. The new Policy will read as follows: 3. Require the development pattern throughout Central Pickering to accommodate transit routes, pedestrian and bicycle networks, and alternative transportation facilities (including park and ride, car pooling, bicycle storage areas, bus bays and accessible transit stop pads) in order to encourage and maximize the use of public transit within the City of Pickering and between neighbouring municipalities, from the earliest stage of development. Provision shall be made for commuter parking areas to accommodate transit stations and service transfer sites over time. 21. Amend Section 4.5 - Transportation Network, by adding subsection (d) to Policy 3 to read as follows: d) The appropriate location, structure design and intersection spacing for the Whitevale Road bypass over the West Duffins Creek. 22. Amend Section 4.5 - Transportation Network, by revising Policy 4 to read as follows: 4. Plan for the construction of two Highway 407 interchanges at Sideline 26 and Sideline 22. The timing for the construction of the interchanges will be based on a needs assessment conducted as part of the Master Environmental Servicing Plan in consultation with the Ministry of 5 Transportation and the 407 ETR Concessions Company. Interchanges at Sideline 26 and Sideline 22 and resultant spacing of the interchanges must meet applicable design, safety and operational standards, and any other applicable approvals. 022 23. Amend Section 4.5 - Transportation Network, by deleting subsection (c) of Policy 6 and replacing it with a new subsection (c) to read as follows: c) Recognizing the unique heritage character of the White vale Road corridor from the Whitevale Hamlet to the Whitevale Road bypass (west of Sideline 22), and to this end, during the preparation of Neighbourhood Plans adjacent to this corridor, i) integrating new development along this corridor in a manner that is compatible with existing cultural heritage value or interest of the landscape, properties and structures; ii) detennining an appropriate road cross-section, traffic management measures and accessibility that are compatible with the character of this corridor; and iii) considering measures such as lower rights-of-way widths and pedestrian oriented streetscape, as a way of conserving heritage attributes, context and character of this corridor. 24. Amend Section 4.5 - Transportation Network, by deleting subsection (e) of Policy 6 and replacing it with a new subsection (e) to reads as follows: e) Aligning Brock Road to the east to meet the possible Highway 407 interchange subject to the necessary approvals being obtained, pending the outcome of the Highway 407 East Environmental Assessment, and preserving the existing Brock Road alignment and providing local access to and from the highway near the Hamlet of Brougham. 25. Amend Section 4.5 - Transportation Network, by deleting Policy 8 and replacing it with a new Policy 8 to read as follows: 8. In order to achieve a compact development pattern, efficient use of land and a pedestrian oriented streetscape and to limit impacts on the Natural Heritage System and significant cultural heritage features, incorporate minimum rights-of-way widths in the preparation of Central Pickering's Neighbourhood Plans. These rights-of-way widths should, where feasible and appropriate, be at the lower end of the ranges identified for roads by the City of Pickering and Regional Municipality of Durham. Notwithstanding this policy, transit corridors on Type A arterials must be protected for six-lane cross-sections, including two dedicated transit lanes, and transit corridors on Type B arterials must be protected for a four-lane cross section, including two lanes for high occupancy vehicle use or transit priority measures. Should it be determined that a wider right-of-way width is necessary through the Neighbourhood Planning process to accommodate safety or transit objectives, it is a policy of this Plan to require that sufficient design and landscape detail be provided of the road cross-sections to achieve the creation of a high quality public realm, with particular emphasis on ease of pedestrian movement along and across the road. 26. Amend Section 4.5 - Transportation Network, by adding a new Policy 9 to read as follows: 9. Consider, during the preparation of Neighbourhood Plans, the potential for areas around highway interchanges; GO Stations; all major transit areas; and park and ride areas, to accommodate more intensive land use activities and higher densities over time in order to support increasing transit service levels. Provision shall also be made for the identification of intensification corridors. 6 023 27. Amend Section 4.5 - Transportation Network, by adding a new Policy 10 to read as follows: 10. Require that the Province, in making transportation infrastructure investment decisions that impact on the Development Planning Area, consult with affected municipalities to maximize the opportunity for aligning provincial and municipal capital priorities, within the context of achieving the intent of the proposed Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. 28. Amend Section 4.5 - Transportation Network, by adding a new Policy 11 to read as follows: 11. Pennit, as a condition of development approval, the requirement for an analysis of travel demand sensitivity to detennine that the transportation network, intersection capacity, level of service and community design objectives of this Plan will be achieved. 29. Amend Section 4.5 - Transportation Network, by adding a new Policy 12 to read as follows: 12. Support the timely completion of the environmental assessment for the easterly extension of Highway 407 beyond Brock Road in Durham Region, recognizing that previous studies have recommended the extension of Highway 407 from Brock Road to Highways 351115. In Section 4.6 - Servicing: 30. Amend Section 4.6 - Servicing, by adding a new objective to read as follows: 7. Promote co-ordinated public and private utility planning and infrastructure design. 31. Amend Section 4.6 - Servicing, by adding the following to the end of Policy 1 to read as follows: 1. Prepare a Master Environmental Servicing Plan detailing the functional servicing requirements for the entire Development Planning Area. As part of the Master Environmental Servicing Plan, a phasing plan shall be prepared for the construction of major community facilities, transportation links and stormwater, water and wastewater servicing that promotes a balanced live/work relationship and the provision of such facilities and services at the earliest feasible stage of the community development process. 32. Amend Section 4.6 - Servicing, by adding three policies following Policy 1 and renumbering the remaining policies accordingly. The new policies will read as follows: 2. Pennit the development of lands subject to the availability of servicing within the Development Planning Area. Servicing of the lands shall be phased to reflect a cost-efficient and logically sequential extension of infrastructure within the City of Pickering. 3. Notwithstanding Policy 2, require that the phasing plan prepared as part of the Master Environmental Servicing Plan address the early servicing of Prestige Employment areas so as to pennit an appropriate balance of employment opportunities in conjunction with the development of the residential neighbourhoods. 4. In order to anticipate and mitigate the potential impacts of land use changes on ground and surface water resources, require, prior to the approval of the first phase of development, the following matters be addressed, to the satisfaction of the appropriate approval agencies, through the use of a three-dimensional groundwater flow model: 7 024 a) Quantification of the sensitivity of the affected aquifers, aquitards and groundwater-fed wetlands and streams in relation to proposed land use changes in the Devebpment Planning Area; b) Identification of the relationship between land use changes and local and regional groundwater recharge dynamics and path flow regime; c) Where necessary, provision for the mitigation of potential development impacts (including de- watering, run-off, stream base flow reduction and potential sources of contamination) on private wells, groundwater flows and stream and wetland water quality and quantity through the establishment of quantitative and/or qualitative hydrogeological targets or performance standards that shall be integrated into development proposals; and d) Where necessary, identification of requirements for the on going monitoring of groundwater conditions and contingency strategies for mitigating negative impacts that may be identified over time. Preparation of this anàlysis shall be the responsibility of the affected development proponent(s), and take into account the 2003 Watershed Plan for the Duffins Creek and Caruthers Creek prepared by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. 33. Amend Section 4.6 - Servicing, by revising Policy 8 to read as follows: 8. In order to reduce streetscape clutter, where feasible, integrate, group or combine public and private above ground infrastructure. Consideration should be also given to the use of joint utility poles and submersible hydro facilities. Utility providers shall be encouraged to consider innovative methods of containing utility services on or within streetscape features such as gateways. lamp posts and transit shelters. 34. Amend. Section 4.6 - Servicing, by adding a new Policy 12 to read as follows: 12. Require that consideration be given to the installation of private and public utilities early in the development approvals process in order to minimize disruption to the community. In Section 4.7 - Employment: 35. Amend Section 4.7 - Employment, by revising the introduction, to read as follows: Balanced residential and employment growth in Central Pickering is intended to create an economically and fiscally sustainable community in the long term. The Plan provides for approximately 35.000 jobs. The Central Pickering Development Plan establishes the location and anticipated built form of employment uses in the Development Planning Area. The Plan's flexibility in respect of the built form and range of employment uses in identified employment areas is intended to respond to changing business preferences and methods of production, which have brought a wider range of uses into employment areas over the past twenty years. 36. Amend Section 4.7 - Employment, by replacing the preamble of Policy 4 with a new preamble, to read as follows: 4. Require, as a means to promote the timely marketing and disposition of provincially owned lands, the completion of a Highway 407 Economic Development Study prior to or coincident with the preparation of the first development proposal for an employment area within the lands designated for Prestige Employment. This study shall: 8 025 . 37. Amend Section 4.7 - Employment, by deleting subsection (a) of Policy 4, and replacing it with a new subsection (a) to read as follows: a) Identify the priority location(s) within the Prestige Employment area for servicing, including transit. 38. Amend Section 4.7 - Employment, by deleting subsection (c) of Policy 4, and replacing it with a new subsection (c) to read as follows: c) Evaluate the potential opportunities and constraints for the integration of a university/college campus site, which is highly accessible by roads and served by transit, within or immediately adjacent to the employment lands. Specific consideration shall be given, in this regard, to the lands generally south of Highway 407 and adjacent to Brock Road. 39. Amend Section 4.7 - Employment, by deleting subsection (d) of Policy 4, and replacing it with a new subsection (d) to read as follows: d) Establish the creation of appropriate zoning and design performance standards, including for transit-supportive facilities and road cross-sections. 40. Amend Section 4.7 - Employment, by revising subsection (e) of Policy 4 to read as follows: e) Identify the appropriate interface between the new land-uses and the Hamlets of Green River and Brougham, which may include buffering, performance standards and land-use restrictions. In particular, identify the preferred uses for the parcels of land located on the west side of Sideline 16, north of Highway 407 and south of the Hamlet of Brougham. 41. Amend Section 4.7 - Employment, by adding subsection (f) to Policy 4 to read as follows: f) Identify the nature and form of employment uses that are expected to locate in the lands designated Prestige Employment in order to determine appropriate lot sizes and performance standards. Consideration shall be given to identifying precincts for large and small employment parcels. 42. Amend Section 4.7 - Employment, by adding the following sentence to the end of Policy 5, to read as follows: 5. Large format retail warehouses are not permitted in Prestige Employment areas. 43. Amend Section 4.7 - Employment, by adding a new Policy 8 to read as follows: 8. Require the City of Pickering and the Regional Municipality of Durham to work co-operatively with affected landowners to assess and rationalize, through the process for creating the first Neighbourhood Plan, the necessity for a Main-Central Area designation in the Development Planning Area, as identified in the Regional Municipality of Durham's Official Plan. In the event that it is determined that a Main-Central Area is appropriate, consideration will be given to an amendment to this Plan. 9 026 In Section 4.8 - Housing and Mixed Use: 44. Amend Section 4.8 - Housing and Mixed Use, by revising objective 3 to read as follows: 3. Plan for a community with a population of up to 70,000 residents; 45. Amend Section 4.8 - Housing and Mixed Use, by adding a new Policy 7 to read as follows: 6. Require Neighbourhood Plans to make provision for the realization of this Plan's objectives for higher density, transit supportive development by: c. Providing for the early introduction of transit services, alternative transportation facilities and retail and service uses to accommodate residents' needs; Setting timeframes and targets for the construction of higher density residential uses along transit spines; Providing for financial incentives for the creation of higher density and/or affordable housing, including reduced development charges and building permit and planning approvals fees; and Encouraging development intensification over time. a. b. d. In Section 5.1 - Implementation Process for the Urban Community: 46. Amend Section 5.1 - Implementation Process for the Urban Community, by revising the first sentence of Policy 3, to read as follows: 3. It is a policy of this Plan that the scope of Chapter II of the City of Pickering's Official Plan, which provides policies for each of the City's 15 existing urban neighbourhoods, be amended to include the fifieen neighbourhoods (as set out in the diagram on the next page) in the urban portion of Central Pickering as shown on Schedule 2 of this Plan. 47. Amend Section 5.1- Implementation Process for the Urban Community, by adding a new Policy to read as follows: 6. It is a policy of this Plan that the preparation, review and approval of development applications within the Central Pickering community will be carried out. with a view to achieving six broad sustainable community principles. These principles include: I. fostering a healthy natural environment; 2. encouraging a healthy built environment; 3. ensuring economic health; 4. creating opportunities for education and public awareness; 5. fostering social and cultural well-being; and 6. providing appropriate measures for monitoring and measuring success. Neighbourhood Plans shall integrate these principles through the identification of short-, medium- and long-term actions that address these principles. Perfonnance measures should be incorporated in the Neighbourhood Plans and will playa role in the on-going assessment of the Plan's success at achieving sustainability. In order to provide greater certainty for integrating these principles into the Neighbourhood Planning process, interested stakeholders, under the direction of the City of Pickering, shall establish a committee whose mandate will include establishing benchmarks for energy conservation, building and community design, cultural heritage conservation, accessibility for the disabled, air quality, human health promotion and environmental net gain, that shall be 10 027 incorporated into Neighbourhood Plans to guide future development. This committee's work shall be undertaken prior to or concurrent with the approval of the first Neighbourhood Plan. In Section 5.4 - Accommodating and Monitoring Change: 48. Amend Section 5.4 - Accommodating and Monitoring Change, by adding a new sentence following the first paragraph on page 73, to read as follows: In addition, the boundaries and alignments of the land-use designations shown in Schedule 2 are approximate, and provided the general purpose and intent of the Plan is maintained, minor adjustments may be made without amendment to the Plan except where such boundaries are established by fixed features such as railways, highways and roads, lot and concession lines, or property lines. As part of the preparation of Neighbourhood Plans, minor modifications to the land use boundaries may be considered to reflect differences in scale and levels of detail or to better integrate natural and urban land uses so as to achieve a more compact efficient urban form, provided such modifications do not negatively impact the Natural Heritage System or natural features and functions. 49. Amend Section 5.4 - Accommodating and Monitoring Change, by revising the last paragraph on page 73 to read as follows It is a policy of this Plan that the goals, objectives, policies and accompanying Schedules contained herein shall be reviewed every five years by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The purpose of this review will be to assess the relevance and currency of the Plan, including the scope of coverage of the Development Planning Area, in light of the changing market, demographic, social, environmental and economic conditions within Central Pickering. The review should also consider what, if any, remedial or adaptive measures need to be undertaken through amendment to the Plan to address environmental and public safety conditions and any other appropriate matters that may have changed since the Plan's approval based on experience in monitoring build out of the community. Such monitoring shall be a shared responsibility of landowners, the Province, municipalities, relevant public agencies and interested members of the public. Subject to following the requirements of the Ontario Planning and Development Act, 1994, the need for an amendment to the Central Pickering Development Plan will be determined by, and at the sole discretion of, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. In Section 8 - Urban Design Guidelines: Schedule 9 50. Amend Schedule 9: Urban Design Guideline titled Site Sustainability - Roadway and Streetscape Design on page 97 by adding a new point to read as follows: public and private utilities should be clustered or grouped where possible to mlmmlze visual impact. 11 In Section 5.1 - Implementation Process for the Urban Community: 51. Amend Section 5.1 - Implementation Process for the Urban Community, by replacing the existing Neighbourhood Plan diagram on page 68, with the attached Neighbourhood Plan diagram 12 028 029 The Regional Municipality of Durham Clerk's Department 605 ROSSLAND RD. E. PO BOX 623 WHITBY ON L 1 N 6A3 CANADA ' 905-668-7711 1-800-372-1102 Fax: 905-668-9963 E-mail: clerks@region.durham.on.ca www.region.durham.on.ca Pat M. Madill, A.M.C.T., CMM I Regional Clerk "Service Excellence for ourComrnimities" January ce~~ 1-0b RECEIVED CITY OF PICKERING FEB 0 ~ 2006 CLERK'S DIVISION The Honourable Dalton McGuinty Premier and Minister of Research and Innovation Room 281, Main legislative Building Toronto, Ontario M7A 1A4 RE: BILL 206: ONTARIO MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM ACT (2006-F-4) Please be advised that the Finance and Administration Committee of Regional Council considered the above matter and at a meeting held on January 25, 2006, Council adopted the following recommendations ofthe Committee: THAT AMO's position in opposition to Bill 206, Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System, 2005 be supported; "a) THAT copies of this resolution and Report# 2006-F-4 of the Commissioner of Finance, be forwarded to the Premier of Ontario, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Minister of Finance, Opposition leaders, all Durham MPP's and the area municipalities; and b) THAT the area municipalities be requested to endorse this resolution and forward similar resolutions to the Premier of Ontario, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Minister of Finance, Opposition leaders and all Durham MPP's.1I c) )<fJf~~t the l:)ß copy 13&- TO: ( CORR.""") FI.E TAKE APPR. ACTION Enclosed as directed, is a copy of Report #20 Commissioner of Finance. /fiì" /1 .1 " 'J J !, /'.' .~:i"U,'i, './,' (/ ;!.. !I '~ .J, P.M. Madill, AM.C.T., CMM I Regional Clerk PMM/nb Encl. @ 100% Post Consumer l~Of ~ '> c: 030 The Honourable John Gerretsen, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing The Honourable Dwight Duncan, Minister of Finance Mr. Wayne Arthurs, MPP (PickeringlAjax/Uxbridge) The Hight Honourable Paul Martin Mr. Jack layton, leader of the New Democratic Party Mr. Jim Flaherty, MPP (Whitby/Ajax) Mr. John O'Toole, MPP (Durham) Mr. Jerry Ouellette, MPP(Oshawa) Ms.laurie Scott, MPP (HaliburtonNictoria/Brock) Mr. M. de Rond, Clerk, Town of Ajax Mrs. P.L. Barrie, Clerk, Municipality of Clarington Ms. D. Bentley, Clerk, City of Pickering Ms. D. leroux, Clerk, Township of Uxbridge Mr. G.S. Graham, Clerk-Administrator, Township of Brock Ms. S. Kranc, Clerk, City of Oshawa . Ms. K. Coates, Clerk, Township of Scugog Mr. P. Jones, Clerk, Town of Whitby Mr. R. J. Clapp, Commissioner of Finance ~ o. The Regional Municipality of Durham Report to: The Finance and Administration Committee From: RJ. Clapp, Commissioner of Finance Report No.: 2006-F- 4 Date: January 18, 2006 SUBJECT: Bill 206: Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act RECOMMENDATION: That the Finance and Administration Committee recommend to Regional Council that AMO's position in opposition to Bill 206. Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System, 2005 be supported and copies of this report be forwarded to Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and all Durham MPP's. REPORT: 1.0 BackÇlround . In June 2005, the Province of Ontario introduced Bill 206, Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System. 2005. This bill, among other things, introduces a new governance plan for the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System (OMERS) as well as supplemental pension plans for certain groups of employees. The Bill, with a number of amendments, received second reading in December 2005 and has now been referred back to Standing Committee. . In December, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Honourable John Gerretsen, sent a letter to the Regional Chair's office providing an update on the status of the Bill (Attachment 1). . This report provides a brief overview of the Bill and the Minister's letter as well as the Association of Municipalities of Ontario's (AMO) comments on Bill 206 (Attachment 2). 2.0 Financial Implications of Amendments to Bill 206 . More than 100 amendments to Bill 206 have been tabled for the Standing Committee's review. One of the new amendments is the inclusion of paramedics in the group to which the supplemental plans apply (previously just police and fire fighters). In addition, the proposed new Sponsors Corporation, which will govern OMERS, must set up supplemental plans within two years of the Act coming into force - this is no longer optional. Decisions around implementation of supplemental plans will now move to the local level. The local employer and employee groups will now have to bargain for these enhancements. Report No.: 2006-F-4 Page No.: 2 032 . AMO has expressed concern that the inclusion of paramedics in the group to which supplemental plans apply will increase costs dramatically. In addition, by moving the decisions on supplemental plans to the local level, AMO is concerned about the unintended affect this amendment may have in shortening the duration of contracts, as the amended Bill limits the provision of supplemental plans to one per round of collective bargaining. . The Minister in his letter has also addressed the issue of solvency funding requirements for the supplemental plans. Solvency funding is the cost to settle the plan benefits if the plan were to be wound up. A letter has been issued to OMERS indicating that the Province is prepared to recommend that these plans be exempted from solvency funding. (Solvency funding, if required, is expected to have a much higher cost impact on the plan.) While the proposed exemption from solvency funding is good news, there is no guarantee that it will occur. Without the guarantee, it is difficult to predict with any degree of certainty the cost implications of the supplemental plans. . AMO has indicated that they are not in a position to reduce their cost estimates of an average of 3% property tax increase, or about $380 million per year because there is no guarantee that the solvency rules will be changed. In addition, they are indicating that the addition of the- paramedic group and the guarantee of supplemental benefits could drive the cost impacts even higher. . The Minister indicates that OMERS has been requested to provide stakeholders with costing information on the potential benefit enhancements, as they maintain the data necessary to complete the analysis. However, municipalities would still have to make assumptions about the type of supplemental plan to be implemented and a prudent financial analysis would suggest that this should be done on a worst case scenario. While trade-offs in salary and benefit packages may be possible to obtain in local negotiations, the reality is that supplemental plans will result in cost increases if reductions are not made elsewhere. 3.0 Governance Structure . A Sponsors Corporation is still the proposed governance structure for OMERS. This structure was previously described in Report 2005-F-75 (Attachment 3). . The amendments to Bill 206 include a complicated and unusual new decision making protocol. The Sponsors Corporation may make a specified change (e.g. benefits or contribution rates) with an affirmative vote of two-thirds of its members. If a proposal is neither accepted nor rejected (in accordance with the rules for each), an affirmative vote by simple majority could be used to refer the decision to mediation and arbitration. 033 Report No.: 2006-F- 4 Page No.: 3 4.0 Summary Despite the amendments now being considered, Bill 206, Ontario Municipal Emplovees Retirement System, 2005 is expected to have significant cost implications for municipalities. Therefore, the Finance Department will continue to monitor closely the progress of Bill 206 and provide updates on new developments. In the meantime, the AMO position should be supported and the Region should not support Bill 206 and the proposed changes to OMERS as it will result in a more costly pension scheme for municipalities. This report has been reviewed by the Human Resources Department who concurs with the recommendation. ~.". "~J" R. J. Clapp, CA Commissioner of Finance Recommendation for Presentation to Committee ~ G. H. Cubitt, M.S.W. Chief Administrative Officer Attmts. MG\2006REPORTS\omers bill 206 Attachment #1 Page 1 of 2 Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing M"t d Aft. " I ~111~ InIS re es alres mumclpa es - et du Logement 777, rue Bay. 17°étage REGION OF DURHA Toronto ON M5G 2E5 ~ ~ (Ç fC:'.ll o/! Tél. (416) 585-7000 )J !:::J ~ ~:fD) Ontario Téléc (416) 585-6470 1 ~ U, www,mah.Qov.on.ca 034 777 Bay Street. 17'" Floor Toronto ON M5G 2E5 Tel. (416) 585-7000 Fax (416) 585-6470 www.mah.Qov.on.ca DEe 3 0 2005 (O5.{ 1436) December 20, 2005 Roger Anderson Chair Regional Municipality of Durham PO Box 623, 605 Rossland Road East Whitby, ON LIN 6A3 OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL CHAIR }~ ~. d -'~V l r ,Ïfritr-. /' \jl 11 ) If -' /, /1 V ri Ý' I ~~ r.f Dear Roger Anderson: Re: Bill 206: Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act I am writing to you with an update now that I have introduced Bill 206 into the legislature for second reading. Many of your submissions indicated a concern about the potential cost of a supplemental benefit plan for the police and fire sectors and for paramedics. This is a natural concern but the government is moving forward to require the implementation of specific pension benefits because we believe it is important to provide police, fire and paramedic employees with the option to bargain 10caUy for these enhancements. We have also introduced a number of amendments at the Standing Committee on General Government that should help to contain the costs of these potential benefits and potential future benefits. Bill 206, if passed, will not impose any new cost or pension benefit on any employer or employee. It win require that the proposed new Sponsors Corporation set up, within 24 months, a supplemental benefit plan that will include the optional pension benefits outlined in the Bill. Once the supplemental benefit plan is made available, it will be up to local groups of employees and employers to decide whether or not they wish to access a new pension benefit. The bill allows for no more than one of the potential new supplemental benefits to be negotiated between individual employer and its employees at a time. With respect to the decision-making and dispute resolution process, the Bill, as amended following first reading, would require that decisions on specific major plan changes, such as changes in benefits or contribution rates, could be approved by a two-thirds majority vote of the Sponsors Corporation. This would ensure that there was significant support by both employees and employers. Access to mediation and arbitration with respect to any specified changes in benefits would now require majority support by the Sponsors Corporation representatives of both employees and employers. ' /2 1322(06/95) 035 Attachment #1 Page 2 of 2 -2- Roger Anderson,Chair Regional Municipality of Durham The Bill continues to propose the requirement of a stability reserve of 105 per cent before benefits could be increased and a cap of 0.5 per cent for both employees and employers on awards arbitrated for the Sponsors Corporation. This government recognizes that the costs of supplemental benefits, if they are subject to the full requirements of the Pension Benefits Act, such as the solvency funding requirements, would be quite onerous for both employees and employers. Therefore, in addition to the changes outlined above, I am pleased to advise you that the Minister of Finance has issued a letter to the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System (OMERS) indicating that he is prepared to recommend, subject to certain conditions, that new supplemental benefit plans under OMERS be exempted from the solvency funding rules through an amendment to the Pension Benefits Act Regulation. It is my understanding that OMERS sent a copy of this letter to all stakeholders. This exemption would occur at the time that the plans are created and registered with the Superintendent of Financial Services. This would contain costs and make supplemental benefits more affordable for both employees and employers. In closing, I would like to clarify that our government asked OMERS to provide all stakeholders with costing information on potential benefit enhancements, as only OMERS maintains data necessary to conduct these types of actuarial analyses. Individual municipalities can apply the OMERS actuarial estimates to their specific conditions in order to estimate potential local costs under various benefit scenarios. A number of stakeholders have used the data and have made a number of assumptions that presume that every municipality will immediately give all eligible employee groups several expensive benefits. This analysis also appears to assume that employees and employers would not make any trade-offs with any other salary or benefit items throughout the collective bargaining process. I trust this information is helpful and I look forward to receiving further recommendations or comments on this important matter. Sincerely, c: Roger Anderson, President, Association of Municipalities of Ontario Fred Biro, Chair, Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System The Honourable Dwight Duncan, Minister of Finance AMO I OMERS - Bill 206 Receives Second Reading and Heads Back to Standing Comm... Page 1 of 3 Attachment #2 Page 1 of 3 ~bt. Association of Muoidpalilits of úmonìo 036 To the immediate attention of the Clerk and Council December 15,2005 - Alert 05/092 OMERS - BILL 206 RECEIVES SECOND READING AND HEADS BACK TO STANDING COMMITTEE Issue: Amendments to Bill 206 make some substantive changes to the governance structure, voting and supplemental plans. The Bill has become even less permissive and more costly. (Iinklo the Ç!m~ndg_çl__JH!1 ) Action: Municipal governments need to continue the message that neither the Bill nor its amendments have been analyzed for cost impacts and that the Bill is creating a very complex pension plan. The amended Bill has been referred back to Standing Committee for further consideration prior to Third Reading - the dates for which are yet to be confirmed. AMO will prepare a further submission to the Standing Committee and keep members informed of the commentary and amendment requests. Members should take every opportunity inform MPPs and taxpayer groups of the devastating impact that Bill 206 will have on Ontario's communities. Understanding the Amendments to the Bill: At clause-by-clause review there were more than 100 motions for amendments to Bill 206 tabled for review by the Standing Committee members. Some of the most significant Government (i.e;, Liberal) proposals that amended the Bill as passed at Second Reading included: . Paramedics- Are included in the meaning of "police and fire sectors" and were not part of our costing. It has also been clarified that civilian officers are included. This will increase costs dramatically. . Supplemental Plans- Supplemental plans shall be provided to police and fire sectors (no longer optional) and paramedics. Bill 206 would now require 4 supplemental plans to be made available for local negotiations within two years of the Act coming into force: 0 2.33 accrual rate for NRA 60 0 unreduced at 80 (if age 50 or older) for NRA60 0 unreduced at 85 (if age 55 or older) for NRA65 0 best 3 years or best 4 years (compared to best 5 years in basic plan) The amended Bill limits the provision of these supplemental plans to one per round of local collective bargaining - which will likely have the unintended affect of reducing the length of contracts to one year. . Funding of rebound costs - assets from the supplemental plan will be transferred to the primary plan to fund liabilities created by supplemental plans. . Cap on Contributions - the 60 months BAE and 0.6% CPP offset limits only apply to the primary plan, not applicable to supplemental plans. . Arbitration Decisions - Prohibits awards that would result in a three year cumulative increase of more than 0.5% of pensionable earnings. . Composition of Sponsors and Administration Corporation(s) - Includes two (2) additional http://www.amo.on.ca/AM/PrinterTemplate.cfm?Section=OMERS - Supplemental- Plans&... 1/11/2006 .f AMO I OMERS - Bill 206 Receives Second Reading and Heads Back to Standing Comm... Page 2 of 3 Attachment #2 0 3 7 Page 2 of 3 members on the Sponsors Corporation for AMO for a total of 5 appointments on the Sponsors Corporation, and a total of 3 appointments to the Administration Corporation. In addition, AMO will be required to make two appointments to an advisory committee on supplementary plans for the police and fire sectors and 3 appointments to an advisory committee on supplemental benefits for other employees. In total, AMO will be required to make 13 appointments. AMCTO will be provided with a seat as an erTlJ21~E; representative on behalf of all management/union exempt OMERS members. . Decision Making - The government has introduced a complicated and unusual new decision making protocol. The Sponsors Corporation may make a specified change (e.g. change to benefits or contribution rates) with an affirmative vote of two-thirds of its members. If a proposal is neither accepted (2/3 majority), nor rejected (simple majority votes against), within a 30-day period, the Sponsors Corporation may, by an affirmative vote of a simple majority of its members (Le., 50% + 1), refer the proposal to mediation and arbitration. . Solvency - Current pension solvency rules under the Pension Benefits Act (PBA) make supplemental plans considerably more expensive for employers and employees than they would be if the solvency rules did not apply. On December 8, 2005, Finance Minister Dwight Duncan, wrote to the OMERS Board indicating that he is prepared to "... recommend to Cabinet" that new supplemental plans created under Bill 206 be exempted from solvency requirements, through a regulation amendment, under the following conditions: 1. that, subject to the approval of Cabinet, the supplemental plans are prescribed by regulation as jointly sponsored pension plans under the PBA as amended by the Budget Measures Act, 2006 (which passed Third Reading on December 14, 2005.) 2. that, subject to the approval of Cabinet, the supplemental plans will be exempted from coverage under the Pension Benefits Guarantee Fund (PBGF). The plans would not be covered by the fund if the plans were not funded on a solvency basis. 3. that the supplemental plans be created in a way that ensures that, in the event that the plan is wound up, if there are insufficient assets to pay for the accrued benefits, members would only receive benefits to the extent that they are already funded, (Le., the pension plans will reduce benefits if there are insufficient assets rather than require additional payments by employers or employees.) The difference related to solvency rules is illustrated in the OMERS Board's hypothetical costing analysis. The actuarial consultant hired by OMERS prepared an example of a "Hypothetical Employer" with 1000 employees: 260 NRA60 employees and 740 NRA65 employees. In the "Hypothetical Employer" example, OMERS costs increase from $4.04 million to $5.35 million a year with solvency rules in place - an increase in pension costs of 30%. With an exemption from solvency rules, the same employer's costs would increase about 10%, from $4.04 million to $4.41 million. However, the costing assumed only QJ]~ supplemental plan per employee group, which is now an unrealistic scenario given the aforementioned amendments to Bill 206 adding paramedics and making a menu of supplemental plans mandatory over time. Although the intent of the Minister's letter is helpful, it provides no guarantee that the solvency exemption will occur. Consequently, it would be irresponsible to consider the cost implications of Bill 206 outside of the current solvency rules. Potential Fiscal Implications: Because there are no guarantees that the solvency rules will be changed, AMO is not in a position to reduce its cost estimates of an average 3% property tax increase or up to $380 million a year. In http://www.amo.on.caJAMIPrinterTemplate.cfm?Section=OMERS - Supplemental_Plans&... 1/11/2006 ftlVlV I VlVltK;) - 15111 LOb Keceives Second Reading and Heads Back to Standing Comm... Page 3 of 3 Attachment #2 Page 3 of 3 fact, with the addition of paramedics and a new guarantee of additional supplemental benefits, costs could be higher than initially estimated by the more than 120 municipal treasurers in Ontario who undertook a costing analysis on behalf of AMO. 038 Although AMO and others have requested costing information from the Government, the Government has provided no information on costs. In an effort to determine if the government has carried out any cost analysis of Bill 206's original or amended provisions, AMO is proceeding to make an information request under the provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Summary: While some municipalities, and AMO, were permitted to participate in the Committee hearings, many municipal stakeholders were shut out of the process entirely. More than 160 municipal governments have passed resolutions asking the government to reconsider Bill 206. Instead the government appears to be forging ahead with amendments that ignore the concerns of municipal governments and substantially meet virtually all of the expectations of the police and fire service unions. If Bill 206 becomes law in Ontario, municipal governments will need to prepare for continuing property tax increases and/or significant service reductions to pay for enriched retirement benefits. It is clear that Liberal government is creating its own legacy, akin to the downloading legacy of the Harris government. Municipal governments and their residential and commercial taxpayers deserve nothing but full disclosure of the government's costing analysis as part of their due diligence on this major policy initiative. For more information, contact 416-971-9856: Pat Vanini, Executive Director, at ext. 316 or Brian Rosborough, Director of Policy at ext. 318 Bacl~ http://www.amo.on.caJAM/PrinterTemplate.cfm?Section=OMERS _Supplemental - Plans&... 1/1112006 0 Attachment #3 Page 1 of 6 The Regional Municipality of Durham Report to: The Finance and Administration Committee From: RJ. Clapp, Commissioner of Finance Report No.: 2005-F-75 Date: September 21, 2005 SUBJECT: Changes to the OMERS Pension Plan for 2006 RECOMMENDATION: That the Finance and Administration Committee recommend to Regional Council that this report be forwarded to Regional Council for information. REPORT: 1.0 INTRODUCTION . Recently, the Province of Ontario announced several changes to the OMERS Pension Plan for 2006: 1) Employee/Employer contribution rate increases; and 2) legislation for an autonomous self governing OMERS Board. . The purpose of this report is to provide further information regarding these changes. 2.0 EMPLOYEE/EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION RATE INCREASES . In 1998, the Province of Ontario approved a "contribution holiday" for employees and employers in which contributions were suspended for both employees and employers participating in OMERS as a result of a funding surplus within the plan. . In 2004, OMERS fully reinstated contribution rates at levels higher than they had been prior to the "contribution holiday" in 1998. In addition, although it had been anticipated that the rates would be phased back in, the full rate increase was implemented in 2004. . The higher than anticipated rates and the elimination of the phase-in reflected the performance of OMERS investment portfolio as a result of the market downturn in 2001 and 2002. R~port No.: 2005-F-75 Page No.: 2 Attachment #3 . During the summer, the Board of Directors of OMERS submitted a proposal Page 2 of 6 to the Province of Ontario recommending an average increase in contribution rates of 0.6% of earnings for both employers and employees effective January 1, 2006 (normal retirement age of 65). If approved by the Province, the new rates will come in effect on the first full pay in January 2006. 040 . The contribution rates will be 6.5% up to the YMPE (Yearly Maximum Pensionable Earnings) of $41,100, up from 6.0% for 2005. In addition, earnings above the YMPE will have a contribution rate of 9.6%, up from 8.8% in 2005: Percentage of Annual Earnings 2005 2006 Normal retirement Up to the YMPElìT 6.0% 6.5% age 65 Over the YMPE 8.8% 9.6% Normal retirement Up to the YMPE{TT 7.3% 7.9% age 60 Over the YMPE 9.8% 10.7% Note: (1) The Year's Maximum Pensionable Earnings is the limit up to which members also contribute to the CPP: $41,100 in 2005. . For individual employees, the increase in contribution rates as outlined in the table above will result in an increase in the total amount contributed by employees of 8.3% based on a $30,000 annual salary and will vary according to the salary level as indicated in the table below. Annual Earnin s $30,000 $50.000 $70,000 $30,000 $50,000 $70,000 Increase $ % $5.77 8.3 $10.64 8.5 $16.80 8.7 e 60 $6.91 8.2 $12.57 8.4 $19.49 8.7 . Employer contributions will also increase by similar amounts. For the 2006 fiscal year, it is estimated that the Region's payments to OMERS will increase by approximately $2.2 million (which includes an estimate of approximately $0.8 million to $0.9 million for the Police Services) and will represent a property tax increase for 2006 of approximately 0.5% to 0.7%. Report No.: 2005-F-75 041 3.0 Page No.: 3 Attachment #3 Page 3 of 6 AUTONOMOUS SELF GOVERNING BOARD OF DIRECTORS . On June 1, 2005, the Ontario government tabled legislation for an autonomous or self-governing model for OMERS. Bill 206, Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act, 2005 proposes a model to put OMERS on par with other major public sector plans, which are already governed by their sponsors. . The government will hold committee hearings in the fall and interested parties will be able to provide input on the Bill as it goes through the legislative process. . Like all other pension plans, OMERS would remain subject to a rigorous regulatory framework. The main difference is that the proposed Sponsors Corporation would approve plan changes instead of the Ontario government. . If passed, Bill 206 will change the governance structure of the OMERS Board whereby the Government of Ontario would no longer be the Plan's sponsor. The governance structure of the OMERS Board would change so that the sponsorship would fall to a Sponsors Corporation with representatives from employer and employee groups. . The following chart compares the current OMERS governance model with the model proposed in Bill 206: OMERS Governance Models Current Model Proposed Model OMERS Board Ontario Government Administration Sponsors Corporation (Plan Sponsor) Corporation (Plan Sponso~) . Made up of 13 . Appoints members to . Made up of an . Made up of an equal members: six employer OMERS Board equal number of number of employer representatives; six . Has final approval on employer and and employee member plan design and employee representatives representatives; contribution rates representatives . Will take over the including one retired . Will continue to government's role with member; one Ontario oversee plan responsibility for plan government administration and design and contribution representative Fund investments rates . Oversees plan administration and Fund investments . The Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) has expressed concern regarding the potential cost implications of this legislation in terms of cost of the new plan sponsor. In addition, the Province would no longer be responsible for approving contribution rate increases including the increase proposed for 2006 (refer to latest AMO Alert dated September 9, 2005 in Attachment #1). Report No.: 2005-F-75 Page No.: 4 042 4.0 NEXT STEPS Attachment #3 Page 4 of 6 . Finance staff will keep the Finance and Administration Committee and Regional Council advised of any new financial information that becomes available regarding OMERS changes and/or developments initiated by AMO along with the Human Resources staff for Human Resources related issues. ~~'~1" R. J. Clapp, CA Commissioner of Finance Attach. MG\2005REPORTS\OMERS changes 2006 AMO I Bill 206 OMERS Update 043 ~~. ""u<i.\lion t'¡ Munjd¡>...lili~~ (lj Onlariu Attachment #3 Page 5 of 6 To the immediate attention of the Clerk and Council September 9, 2005 - Alert 05/069 Bill 206 OMERS Update Issue: Update to members on AMO's activities to respond to Bill 206, the proposed Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act. Status: When the AMO Board of Directors met in August, it approved the creation of an AMO-OMERS Steering Committee made up of the Chairs of the AMO Caucuses, the Chair of the Large Urban Mayors' Caucus of Ontario (LUMCO) and the Chair of the Mayors and Regional Chairs of Ontario of Single Tier Cities and Regions (MARCO). AMO President Roger Anderson is Chair of the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee is charged with representing the interests of municipal governments as employers who have to collect property taxes to contribute the employer portion of OMERS benefits. One of the Steering Committee's key objectives is to facilitate and support a common and cohesive response from Ontario's municipal governments and other OMERS employers, with an ultimate goal of protecting the viability of the $36 billion OMERS pension fund for the benefit of current and future OMERS members, while also protecting the interests of property taxpayers who they represent. The Steering Committee is leading a review of all aspects of Bill 206 to develop a response to the Bill and to prepare for Committee Hearings expected later in the Fall. This work will be shared with AMO members over the coming weeks and months to assist municipalities in preparing to respond to the Bill. The Steering Committee is supported by a staff-level Working Group, which includes two municipal staff associations which are aligned with the interests of municipal governments as employers: the Municipal Finance Officers' Association (MFOA) and the Ontario Municipal Administrators' Association (OMAA). AMO has made a formal request to OMERS for a detailed analysis of potential costs related to the supplemental plans that the legislation, if passed, would permit. This information will be shared with members when it becomes available. We are advised that it will be in a format that each OMERS participating municipality can use to determine their specific municipal impacts and will be built on a base that assumes the 9% increase for 2006 will occur. AMO's preliminary estimates indicate that the potential costs of supplemental plans are extremely high. Background: Bill 206 was introduced in June 2005. It would, if passed, change the governance structure of the OMERS Board whereby the sponsorship would fall to a "Sponsors Corporation" with representatives from employer and employee groups. (Comparisons to other devolved pensions fail to recognize the diversity of interests among both employer groups and employee groups.) As well, the Bill sets up an "Administration Corporation", which would be responsible for the investment side of OMERS. The proposed changes to the OMERS Board governance mean that the Government of Ontario would no longer be the plan's sponsor. Instead, employer and employee groups would have equal representation and would assume the role of plan sponsors as part of the new Sponsors Corporation. How this employer/employee representation is achieved is also set out in the legislation, including transition provisions for the appointment of a transitional Sponsors Corporation for one year. The Bill also provides for the creation of supplemental plans. The framework for supplemental plans would enable the Sponsors Corporation to set up plans in such a way as to enable local bargaining for customized benefits for some plan members. Upon the request of fire and police union associations, the Ministry is facilitating meetings to scope out the characteristics of supplemental plans. AMO and the Ontario Association of Police Services Boards (OAPSB) declined to participate in the meetings as these are matters to be considered by the Sponsors Corporation, should the Bill in its current form be passed by the Legislature. httn'//UlUlUl ~mn nn ('~/ A M/PrintprTpmnl<1tp rfrn?C:;:prt;nn=')()()'\ 111pyfc " ::;,VTC~TTPl\¡fPT !J. T 0/1'1 J')()()'\ .' J~N 24 2006 11:08 FR CLERKS DEPT 905 668 9963 TO 919054209685 P.02 1118 Region.. Mul\lOIpa.ny . of Durham C*k's Department 605 ROSSLAND RD. E. PO BOX &23 WHITBY ON L1N 5A3' CANADA, . 905-668-7711 1-800-372-1102 Fax: 905-6158-00&3 E-nlall: gltf1a¡Oregion.dumam. on .ca www.reglol1',rjurhaTl.on.ca hi M. MadBl, "-M.C.T" CMM I ~io"aI Clerk . . ' ,,' , - I ' "~~~ce for:p'I¡r~Ifiø" . :' :i:,:~ " , , . THIS LETTER HAS BEEN FORWARDED '5,. 0'- TO THE EIGHT AREA CLERKS V ',' 044 , January 4, 2006 . . MS. D. ~-y1t{ 'CltyOfW~ ' ' 1 The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 ' , Transfer of Res.identlål Wast. ColleCtion Rel!ponsibllity from' the Town of AjaX to the Regional Municipality of Durham '~ , The Joint Works and Finance and Administration Committees considered the above matter and at a meeting held on November 30, 2005. Council a~opted the 10llowing recomm$~dations: 'Ia) THAT,the proposed by-law (Attachment No..1 to Report #2005-J-27 of the Commissioners of Finance 'and Works), providing for'the transfer of the lower-tier p()wer, relating to resld~ntlal solid waste collection In the Town of Ajax,' to the, , Region of Durham be presente,d to Council and.,enac~ed; and THAT the enacted by-law be forwarded to the. Councils' of the ' lower tier municipalities requesting resolutions consenting to the by-law,. ' b) Enclosed, is a copy of By-law #53-2005, Pursuant to the MuniCipal Act, a I'triple, majority- must be received prior to the by-law coming into force and effect. Your-CounciPs favourable consideration is requested. P.M, Madill, A.M.C,T., CMM ~ RegIonal Clerk. : PMM/nb Encl. c. B:J. Roy, Regional Solicitor C. Curtis, Commissioner of WoÌ'ks RJ. Clapp, Commissioner of Finance e '00" Post 00- , .~..- 045 JRN 24 2006 11:08 FR CLERKS DEPT 905 668 9963 TO 919054209685 BY-LAW NUMBER 53-2005 OF THE REGIONAL MUNICIPAUTY OF DURHAM being a by-law to transfer the lower-tier power relating to the collection of household solid waste to the Region from the Town of Ajax. WHEREAS section 189 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25, as amended (the "Acf') provides that an upper-tier municipality may pass a by-law to provide for the transfer of all of part of a lower-tier power to the upper-tier municipality from one or more of its lower-tier municipalities which are specified in the by-law; AND WHEREAS waste management is defined In section 188 of the Act as a lower-tier power: AND WHEREAS the Council of the Regional Municipality of Durham desires to provide for the transfer of that part of the power relating to waste management consisting of the collection of household solid waste to the Region from the Town of Ajax. NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED AND IT IS HEREBY ENACTED as a by-law of The Regional Municipality of Durham through its Council thereof as follows: 1. The Regional Municipality of Durham hereby transfers the lower-tier power relating to the collection of household solid waste to the Region from the Town of Ajax, effective January 1, 2006. BY-LAW read a first time this 30th day of November 2005. BY-LAW read a second time this 30th day of November 2005. BY.LAW read a third time and finally passed this 30th day of November 2005. P.03 5-0f0 ** TOTRL PRGE.03 ** The Regional Municipality of Durham Clerk's Department 605 ROSSLAND RD. E. PO BOX 623 WHITBY ON L1 N 6A3 CANADA 905-668-7711 1-800-372-1102 . Fax: 905-668-9963 E-mail: clerks@region.durham.on.ca www.region.durham.on.ca Pat M. Madill, A.M.C.T.. CMM I Regional Clerk "Servic.e Excellence for our Communities" January 26, 2006 h-Ob ECe\VEO t\T't OfP\CKER\NG JAM:3 0 200b, OLER\(S O\V\S\ON 046 RE: ADOPTION OF THE WELL INTERFERENCE PROTOCOL FOR THE SOUTHEAST COLLECTOR TRUNK SEWER INDIVIDUAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA) (2006-W-1) ~ Please be advised the Works Committee of Regional Council considered the above matter and at a meeting held on January 25, 2006, Council adopted the following recommendations of the Committee: '. "a) THAT the Region of Durham adopt the Well Interference Protocol for the Southeast Collector Trunk Sewer Individual Environmental Assessment (EA) as described in Attachment No.2 to Report No. 2006..W-1; and ' THAT a copy of Report No. 2006-W-1 of the Commissioner of Works be sent to the City of Pickering and Region of York." b) Enclosed as directed is a copy of Report #2006-W..1 of the Commissioner of Works. ORIGINAL TO: copy TO: E6 Pat M. Madill, AMCT, CMMI Regional Clerk PMM/cb Encl. c: D. Bentley, Clerk, City of PickerinQ C. Curtis, Commissioner of Works, FU TAKE APPR. ACTION @ l ~ ~o ) 100% Post Consumer 047 Regional Municipality of Durham To: The Works Committee From: Commissioner of Works Report: 2006-W-1 Date: January 11, 2006 SUBJECT: Adoption of the Well Interference Protocol for the Southeast Collector Trunk Sewer Individual Environmental Assessment RECOMMENDATIONS: THAT the Works Committee recommends to Regional Council that: a) The Region of Durham adopt the Well Interference Protocol for the Southeast Collector Trunk Sewer Individual Environmental Assessment (EA) as described in Attachment No.2; and b) A copy of this report be sent to the City of Pickering and Region of York. REPORT: Attachment No.1: Works Committee Report No. 2005-W-30 Individual Environmental Assessment on the Southeast Collector Trunk Sewer for the York Durham Sewage System Attachment No.2: Protocol for Management and Settlement of Claims Related to Private Well Interference and Associated Damages Due To Construction Activities for York Region 1. BACKGROUND The southeast collector trunk sewer is part of the York Durham Sewage System (YDSS), conveying sewage flows through southeast Markham, northeast Toronto, and central Pickering (to the north of Finch Avenue). Report No.: 2006-W-1 Page No.: 2 048 In order to address capacity constraints in the southeast collector, Durham Region is currently a co-proponent with York Region for an Individual Environmental Assessment (EA) (Attachment No.1). Since the capacity constraints in the southeast collector need to be resolved solely to accommodate additional growth in York Region. all costsJor the Individual EA are being borne by York Region, including settlement of any well mitigation claims. If the recommended method of resolving the capacity constraints in the southeast collector is found to include a new trunk sanitary sewer through Pickering, the resulting construction activities may involve trenching, tunneling and/or temporary dewatering. In order to identify the potential impact that the construction activities would have on private well supplies, comprehensive background studies are currently underway within the study area. This will ensure that if a new sewer is recommended through Pickering, all private well supplies potentially affected by construction activities will have mitigation measures implemented prior to construction. 2. WELL INTERFERENCE PROTOCOL A well interference protocol has been developed to resolve any unforeseen claims that may arise on water and wastewater projects in York Region (Attachment No.2). In order to provide a consistent means of resolving any well interference claims within the study area, and to facilitate funding from York Region for resÇ>lution of any impacts, it is recommended that the proposed well interference protocol be adopted for the purpose of resolving any well mitigation claims in Pickering that arise out of the southeast collector Individual EA. York Region would take the lead on administering any claims, and Durham Region Staff will be assigned to monitor any claims and provide assistance to the claimant as required. The level of protection offered to private well owners by the project protocol is similar to that offered by Durham Region's well interference policy. To ensure that the well mitigation protocol is not specific to York Region's geologic or hydrogeologic conditions, Durham Region staff have reviewed the protocol with assistance from the hydrogeological consultant retained for the Individual EA. Staff are satisfied that the protocol's commitment to "provide alternative water supplies for all cases where the Region's construction projects have interfered with the quantity and/or quality of water supply" can successfully address conditions local to Pickering, including methane gas in the deep aquifer, and the impact of excavations on perched water tables and groundwater levels. 049 Report No.: 2006-W- 1 Page No.: 3 3. CONCLUSION In order to provide a consistent means of resolving any well interference claims within the study area, and to facilitate funding from York Region for any well interference settlements, it is recommended that the well interference protocol for the southeast collector, described in Attachment No.2, be adopted for the purpose of resolving any well mitigation claims in Pickering that may potentially arise from the southeast collector Individual EA project. Clifford is, P. Eng., MBA, Commissioner of Works Recommended for Presentation to Committee ~' G... ~ ¡tt.T/iw., . Chief Administrative Officer EPS3/cb/ps Attachment No.1 Report No. 2006-W-1 Regional Municipality of Durham To: The Works Committee From: Commissioner of Works Report: 2005-W-30 Date: March 30,2005 050 SUBJECT: individuai Environmentai Assessment (EA) on the Southeast Coiiector Trunk Sanitary Sewer Project for the York/Durham Sewerage System (YDSS) RECOMMENDATION: THAT the Works Committee recommends to Regional Council that: a) The Region of Durham act as co-proponent with the Region of York on the Individual Environment Assessment (EA) on the Southeast Collector Trunk Sanitary Sewer Project for the York/Durham Sewerage System (YDSS); and b) A copy of this report be sent to the City of Pickering, Region of York and Ministry of the Environment. REPORT: Attachment No.1: Area Map showing the location of the Existing York/Durham Sewerage System (YDSS) Southeast Collector Sanitary Trunk Sewer 1. BACKGROUND The existing York/Durham Trunk Sanitary Sewer (YDSS) conveys sanitary sewage flows from the Region of York to the York/Durham Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) in the City of Pickering (Attachment No.1). Capacity deficiencies have been identified throughout sections of this trunk sanitary sewer. Attachment No.1 Report No. 2006-W-1 Page No.: 2 051 Report No.: 2005-W-311 The Region of York had initiated a Class Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate various options for dealing with deficiencies in trunk sanitary sewer capacity in the York/Durham Trunk Sanitary Sewer (YDSS) sections through the southeast corner of the Town of Markham and the City of Toronto, known as the Southeast Collector Sewer. The project was reviewed by the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) and the Minister of the Environment ordered that the project be completed as an Individual EA. The scope of work for an Individual EA is more detailed and requires more time than the Class EA planning process. The work program for the southeast r-nllar-tr,,- Inri i"irl, ,~I ~ ð. in,.." Inac ~n avn~nnon rO\lit:>'M nf nntt:>nti::ll tn I nl< C:::Init::l 1\/ VVIIVV'VI ..",,'VI,",......... '-,. "'V""""VV ..... ~"t""""""~'" IV.'~.' v, t"'V.v....~. ..~.." V~""~'J sewer alignments within the City of Pickering, in the Region of Durham, which will connect to the YDSS section co-owned by the Regions of York and Durham. The section of the trunk sanitary sewer located in Durham will be at or near capacity within the next ten (10) years and any twinning of the sewer will be part of the York/Durham Sanitary Sewer jointly owned by both Regions. The Region of Durham currently operates and maintains the primary system of the YDSS, which includes the trunk sanitary sewer and associated works within the Region of Durham. Based on the potential interconnection with the YDSS primary system jointly owned by York and Durham Regions, the Region of Durham will be a co-proponent with York Region for the Indívidu,al EA for the southeast collector sewer project. The first step in an Individual EA is to develop a Terms of Reference for the project and have it approved by the Minister of the Environment. The Regions of York and Durham will develop the Terms of Reference and plan to have them approved by the end of this summer. The schedule is to have the Individual EA completed and approved within two (2) years of the approval of the Terms of Reference, or by the end of summer 2007. Construction of the recommended infrastructure works are planned to begin in 2008 at the earliest. The project will include developing an Advisory Committee for the project, comprised of interested stakeholders. This Committee will include members of the public, representatives of regulatory agencies, and representatives from municipalities including the City of Pickering. Staff from the Region of Durham Planning and Works Departments will also participate on the Committee. Representatives from the development community and the local Chambers of Commerce, in the Regions of York and Durham, will be invited to participate. Report No.: 2005-W- 3 v Attachment No.1 Report No. 2006-W-1 Page No.: 3 2. CONCLUSION 052 An Individual EA has been initiated for providing additional capacity in the Southeast Collector Sanitary Trunk Sewer. The Region of Durham will be a co-proponent of the Individual EA for the southeast collector sewer. If the potential alignment of the southeast collector sewer is built in Durham, then the sanitary sewer within Durham will be part of the jointly owned primary system. Region of Durham Works and Planning Departments staff will participate in the study and will report back to Works Committee as the project proceeds, with updates. is, P. Eng., MBA, loner of Works Recommended for Prestentation to Committee ~J G. . u ítt.~W.. Chief Administrative Officer EPS1/ps LEGEND MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY - YORK SOUTHEAST COLLECTOR . .. ., . .. . YDSS PRIMARY SYSTEM ATIACHMENT No.1 YORK DURHAM SANITARY SEWERAGE SYSTEM 0 Ut w ::O:Þ (1) - -oS 0 (') ;4::1 z3 ? ~ N~ o~ OC 0)' ~- ..:.... CD ::¡ "0 ro 0 ('") ;::¡.:::; z3 CD SOUTHEAST COLLECTOR ~;? INDIVIDUAL ENVIRONMENT! § ~ ASSESSMENT ~~ I W 0 PRIMARY SYSTEM ELEMENTS Attachment No.2 Report No. 2006-W-1 O~4 THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK Transportation and Works Committee February 2, 2005 Report of the Commissioner of Transportation and Works PROTOCOL FOR MANAGEMENT AND SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS RELATED TO PRIVATE WELL INTERFERENCE AND ASSOCIATED DAMAGES DUE TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES FOR YORK REGION 1. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that: 1. Regional Council adopt the proposed wen interference claims resolution protocol outlined in this report. 2. Regional Council delegate authority to the Chief Administrative Officer and the Commissioner of Transportation and Works to take all actions required giving effect to the management and settlement of all well interference claims for all water and wastewater projects as outlined in this report. 3. The Commissioner of Transportation of Works report to Regional Council on the use of the delegated authority on an annual basis. 2. PURPOSE This report has been prepared pursuant to a request by Regional Council at its meeting on June 24, 2004 to submit a Regional protocol to manage well interference claims due to construction activity. It outlines the principles for the due consideration of valid claims and the mechanism for proper settlement of said claims. 3. BACKGROUND :!)iþ The implementation of water and wastewater infrastructure within York Region sometimes requires temporary dewatering at strategic locations to facilitate construction activities. This dewatering activity, while kept to a reasonable minimum, may have a temporary effect on the private wells within the dewatering zone of influence. Consequently, there may be private well interference complaints during and for a specified period following completion of construction activities. These complaints may cover both water supply quantity and.~ater quality issues. The Region is responsible for 7.ä."'iN'¡";;':"""~ ...;u,~ ~u"u..iíi"" February 2, 2005 0 íJ 055 Attachment No.2 Report No. 2006-W-1 Protocol for Management and Settlement of Well Int8rf8renc;. ClaIms for York Region 38 ensuring all well interference confirmed to be caused by dewatering associated with the construction activity, is fairly and constantly remedied. The Region is committed to the investigation of all complaints and will provide alternative water supplies for all cases where the Region's construction projects have interfered with the quantity and/or quality of water supply. This includes the reimbursement for direct costs incurred by impacted residents. As a result. the Region will implement a well mitigation program for construction of all Regional water and wastewater infrastructure. 4. ANALYSIS AND OPTIONS The basis of addressing any claims related to impacts due to private well water quantity and quality issues was committed to by Regional Council on November 21,2002 through the adoption of Clause No. I, Report No.9 of the Transportation and Works Committee meeting and the protocol established by the Well Mitigation Program under the 16th Avenue Trunk Sewer Project as approved by Regional Council on March 27,2003. TIùs program relies on the basis of establishing a valid well interference claim due to construction activity. (see Attachment J). 4.1 Regional Well Mitigation Program All well interference claims must withstand the scrutiny of an independent audit. Therefore, the claims must be quantifiable for a specified period of time and defensible through the use of Ministry of Environment (MOE) accepted water quality testing methods. In establishing the tÌ"amework for the settlement of claims, the Region must implement the following components: . An impact assessment program. . A well mitigation program. . Rigorous monitoring practices. . A secondary review process. 4.1.1 Impact Assessment In conducting a preconstruction impact assessment, Regional hydrogeologists will work with the regulatory agencies and the affected local municipalities towards establishing the predicted zone of influence due to the temporary construction dewatering activities. The assessment shall be made through; private well surveys in the area, MaE well records, pump tests and the use of the "YPD Groundwater Modelling Tool" which is accepted as the most current model in detennining such impacts within the Greater Toronto Area by the regulatory agencies and the Geological Survey of Canada. The weIl surveys are conducted to gather both quantitative and qualitative data. TIús information is a crucial step in helping the Region to detennine in advance the resident's water supply risk due to dewatering activities. 2 Transportation and Works Committee February 2. 2005 Attachment No.2 Report No. 2006-W-1 Protocol for Management and Settlement of Wall Interference Claims fOt' York Region 39 The end product of a properly conducted impact assessment is a predicted zone of influence for potential residential well impacts. 056 4.1.2 Well Mitigation The Region's well mitigation program is established to ensure that residents are not inconvenienced due to dewatering activities. The well mitigation program is classified under two categories; proactive and reactive mitigation. 4.1.2.1 Proactive Well Mitigation . The proactive well mitigation is the mitigation of wells identified to be impacted prior to construction dewatering activities. The implementation of the proactive measures will include one of the following: . . Lowering of the pumps in the existing wens. . Providing a new deeper drilled well. . Connecting to a local watennain where feasible. . Provision of water in tanks for anticipated short-tenn impacts (shorter than 12 months). 4.1.2.2 Reactive Well Mitigation The reactive well mitigation program implementation is available for any unforeseen well inteñerence complaints that may arise during the construction dewatering activities. All residents who experience well issues will have their concerns addressed in the following . sequence: . A temporary tank and bottled water will be provided within 24 hours. . The complaint will be investigated. If the well issue is confinned to be a result of the dewatering activity, the reactive implementation measures will be one of the following; lowering of the pumps in the existing wells, provision of a new deeper drilled well or a connection to a local watermain where feasible. If the well issue is found not to be the result of the dewatering activity, the Region will provide a letter to the resident explaining the outcome of the wen investigation complaint and the reason for the decision. 4.1.3 Monitoring A rigorous well monitoring program is established to gauge the zone of influence during the construction period. This well monitoring program will provide an on-going assessment of the gfoundwater trends. Integral to the monitoring activity is the monitoring of the groundwater recovery. Upon . 80% recovery of the groundwater water levels, confinnation of an upward trend in the water level over the course of the following month and no ongoing negative impacts to the well, any temporary works provided to mitigate the well interference will be removed. Transportation and Works Committee <:o......"'...,? ?tV\J:: . --.--., -. ---- 3 057 Attachment No.2 Report No. 2006.W~1 Protocol for Manq8ment and Settlement of Well Interf8nnce Claim. 4 Ofor York Region 4.2 Complaint Review Committee Process York Regional Council approved the establishment of the Complaint Review Committee (CRC) on May 29, 2003. The CRCeXÌsts to review the cases of residents who are not satisfied with the outcome of the Regional assessment of their well. Described simply, the CRC provides residents with an opportunity to present their case as to why the Region should implement an alternative alternate/permanent water supply solution for them. Thus, the mandate of the CRC is to provide dissatisfied residents with a forum to present their case. The scope of the CRC is to review situations where the Region's project team has detennined that the scientific evidence does not support a resident's claim ofproject- related well impact. The CRC is authorized to recommend that the pr.oject team provide an alternate/pennanent water supply to the resident, subject to ratification by Regional Counci1. 4.2.1. CRC Deliberation Criteria The dehòeration criteria the CRC uses to make its decisions in reviewing the well mitigation response program includes: . The protocol foHowed. . The basis of the hydro geologist's decision. . The length of time the resident resided at the address. . A detennination if the problem existed before the project commenced. . Well maintenance infonnation and a review of the well maintenance records. . An assessment of the condition of neighbouring wells. . Any other pertinent influencing fàctors. 4.2.2 CRC Process The CRC process is outlined below: . Resident calls the 24 call centre at 1-888-445-4418 to request a review by CRC. . The Region contacts resident to gather information and provide options for review date. . The CRC Review is held. Regional Council then reviews CRC recommendation and renders final decision. . The decision is communicated to the resident within 3 days of the Regional Council decision. Any decision to provide a permanent solution is implemented by the project team within 30 days of the Regional Council decision while any decisions to remove any temporary water supply is implemented after 30 days has passed since the Regional Co~cil decision. 4.2.3. Independent Technical Advisory Support . On October 1, 2004, the Minister of the Environment, conditioned the provision of an independent technical advisor for the individual property owners to facilitate well interference complaints. 4 Transportation and Works Committee February 2. 2005 AttaCnment 1'10. ¿, Report No. 2006-W-1 058 Protocol for M.nagement .nd Settlement of Well Interference CI.lmB for York Region Accordingly, the Region is proposing to provide the following enhancements to the CRC process. . The Region will set up a list ofprequalified hydro geologists who have expertise and experience as expert witnesses in this area. When the resident cans in for a CRC review, the Region will provide the resident with the contacts on this list and the resident can then choose one individual to review the assessment conducted by the Regional hydrogeologist and can have the technical advisor accompany them to the CRC to assist in presenting their case. It is currently proposed that a fee ofup to $1,500 (GST exclusive) be dedicated for the independent technical advisor for each CRC request. 4.3 Post Construction Claims For all construction projects with dewatering related well interference claims following completion of construction and where these construction projects did not have a well mitigation program, the following methodology is recommended towards addressing these claims (see Attachment 2). . The Region must ensure that all well interference related claims received following construction of the works are legitimate and represent the direct costs incurred by the resident in addressing any well interference as a result of any Regional water or wastewater construction project. In addition. these claims will only be entertained if they are submitted within two years ofTota! Performance of the constructed works. This timeframe is accepted by the regulatory agencies as being reasonable for evidence of well recovery due to construction impacts. . In order to ensure fairness and integrity of the process, when more then three post- construction claims are received relating to well interference, the local municipality shall advertise twice in the local newspaper. The residents within that particular community will be given 90 calendar days to submit any outstanding claims to the local municipality. The local municipality shall then receive, collate and submit all of these claims to the Region's Commissioner of Transportation and Works for review. 4.3.1 Eligibility of Direct Costs for Post-Construction Well Claims Under normal circwnstances. if any private well is deemed to be interfered with by virtue of the dewatering activity, all costs associated with potable water supply, bulk water supply, tank installation inclusive of heating during the winter season, well investigation, well system repairs, new well system installation and connection to a local watennain may be deemed to be eligible. While most of the noted costs above may be paid directly to the resident upon detennination that the well interference claim is legitimate, hydro costs associated with treatment enhancements such as Ultra Violet treatment and heat tracing of any temporary water supply will be compensated directly to the resident's account with the local electrical utility. The Region will work with the local electrical utility in detennining the resident's nonnal consumption pattern and compare it to the usage during the claim Transportation and Works Committee ~""'""'"/~ ~ 5 059 Attachment No.2 Report No. 2006-W-1 Protocol for Management and aettJeníent of Well Interferwnce Claim. for York Region 42 period. Any differences noted win be reviewed and the appropriate adjustments will be credited against the resident's electricity account. As part of the well interference complaints, compensation may also be entertained for any damage to internal plumbing fixtures or clothes due to quality issues such as iron staining. In order for this type of claim to be entertained, the resident must provide water quality data fTom a MaE accredited laboratory demonstrating water quality data prior to construction being better than water quality data at the point of well interlerence. This approach will also be used to review claims relating to high salt content and microbial contamination (Coliform indicators). Any treatment system employed to address such changes in water quality will only be entertained with conclusive evidence that the water quality prior to construction was better than the water quality at the noted point of well interference. 4.3.2 Review of Post-Construction Well Claims The Region shall review all claims submitted by the local municipality through the use of an independent certified hydro geologist. In reviewing the claim, the Region will only entertain claims nom residents within the zone of influence identified by the Hydrogeological assessment conducted for the project or a radius of one kiIometre fTom the point(s) of dewatering, whichever is greater. All claims received by the Region will then be reviewed by an independent hydrogeologist and a decision made within 90 calendar days of receiving the claims. For a claim to be deemed valid, it must satisfy all of the following conditions: . The well must be located within the greater of the dewatering zone of influence or a one kilometre radius of the project . The well interference investigation satisfies a hydrogeological assessment based on the well monitoring program undertaken for the project. This monitoring program encompasses both water quantity and quality issues. . The resident provides receipts for all direct costs borne to mitigate the well interference. .. The resident allows the on-site inspection of their well system by a Regional inspector for corroboration of work undertaken. The decision of the independent hydrogeologist will then be reviewed and recommended . to boththe project manager of the Region and the Director of Engineering of the local municipality. 4.3.3 Payment of Post-Construction Well Interference Claims Prior to settlement of any well interference claims submitted by residents, the Region must receive a signed release from the local municipality and a signed release fÌom the resident. Accordingly, once the claims have been approved for payment, the local municipality will then secure the necessary releases and submit them to the Region's Commissioner of Transportation and Works. 6 TransportatIon and Works Committee February 2.2005 Attacnment NO.2 Report No. 2006-W-1 Protocol for Management and Settlement of Well Interference Claim. for Yortt RegIon 060 Upon receipt of the releases, the Regjon shall transfer the appropriate funds to the local municipality in order to compensate the approved well interference claims. At the conclusion of the claims process or within two years of the total performance of the construction project, Regional staff will submit to Regional Council an update report of the well interference claims approved under the project. 5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS All approved well interference claims wjll be funded from development charges (80%) and wastewater user rates (20%). It will be treated as the well mitigation program costs associated with the relevant water or wastewater project. 6. LOCAL MUNICIPAL IMPACT Addressing well interference complaints in a timely and consistent manner will undoubtedly lead to a more effective means of mitigating any inconveniences experienced by local residents due to Regional construction projects. It will ultimately lead to a fair and equitable means of identifying legitimate well interference claims and resolving these claims in a just manner. 7. CONCLUSION This well interference claims resolution mechanism for claims received during and up to a period of two years following construction will facilitate a consistent, equitable and defensible approach. Transportation and Works Canmittee F"hn I:trv ') ?OO!'> 7 061 . ...--.....-... . --. - Report No. 2006-W-1 4 j Protocol for MIIn81J8ment 8nd Settlement of W811Int8rf8ntnc8 Cl81rh8 'i for York R8g1on The Senior Management Group has reviewed this report. Prepared by: irector InfÏ'astructure Design and Construction ~/, . Subramaniam, P. Eng. . roject Manager . ftastructure Design and Construction Recommended by: (c, ~r-- Kees Schipper, P.EnA. Commissioner of Transportation and Works January 12, 2005 Attachments 2 NSlko/mh/kol cplko IDC:\P06\200S-I\Feb 2\Management and Settlement of Claims Related 10 Privale Welllnlcrferencc 26Nov04.doc \";:!';¡,,:)C;-¿;':>::'-~--j,:. 8 Transportation and Works Committee ".'------" -"~- . V~'-'l ~ ~""" Attachment No.2 Report No. 2006-W-1 COUNCIL A1TACHMENT 1 WELL INTERFERENCE CLAIMS RESPONSE FLOW CHART 062 I Resident I ~ 24 HOUR CALL CENTRE . Log can and details . Contact Regional Consultant 1 1 INVESTIGA nON . Provide 25 litres of water . Regional consultant confirms physical details ~ ASSESSMENT CONFIRM FINDINGS . Regional Consultant assesses WITH THE REGION impacts and cause ~ , IMPLEMENTATION - NOTIFICATION . Implement necessary action based ...- . Notify resident of intended action(s) , on assessment I REVIEW WITH THE RESIDENT ¡ ¡ . If mitigation is discontinued and IMPACT CERTAIN NO IMPACT resident is not satisfied continue beJow . Provide tank water . Discontinue temporary ... suppJy within 24 hours water supply ~ MITIGATION MEETING , 1 . Optional . Review findings and present LONG TERM IMPACT SEASONAL IMPACT information i.e. Greater than ] season i.e. Less than I season . Explore possible alternatives on tank ~ DISPUTES REVIEW BODY ,~ . Convene Review Body hearing IMPLEMENT COST ~ EFFECI'IVE LONG TERM SOLUTION IMPLEMENT DISPUTE REVIEW BODY DECISION I r . 006\2004-4\Dcc I \Attachments\Management and Settlement of Claims Attachment I.doc ,..u La \,0 , ""CIIL I'fU. ¿, Report No. 2006-W-1 063 COUNCIL ATTACHMENT 2 POST CONSTRUCTION CLAIMS REVIEW PROCESS Yes No Action Local Municipality advertises in local newspapers twice Residents have 90 calendar days to respond Local municipality shall review, collate and subm.jt claims to the Regional Project Manager Independent Hydrogeologist reviews claims on behalf of the Region (Decision made within 90 business days) VALID INVALID Releases secured from the local municipality and the resident (All releases to be submitted to the Region by the director of the local municipality) The Regional Project Manager advises the Director of Engineering of the local municipality and the resident The Regional Project Manager advises the Regional Treasurer to transfer funds to the local municipality Local municipality compensates the resident ::ODMA\PCDOCS\ YORK\I 02382\1 7-010 PICKERING-AJAX CITIZENS TOGETHER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (P.A.C.T.) c/o 966 Timmins Garden, Pickering Ontario, l 1W 2l2, Attention: David Steele, Chairperson Tel: 905-837- 0117; e-mail: dLsteele@sympatico.ca 064 January 27th, 2006 Honourable Minister laurel Broten Mnister of Environment 1ih Floor 135 St Clair Ave.W. Toronto, ON M4V 1 P5 Honourable Minister for the Environment Dear Minister: This letter is in response to your request for receiving any environmental concerns regarding the Class Environmental Assessment of the Oak Ridges Moraine/Seaton lands transaction. This has very recently been the subject of an Environmental Study Report (ESR) by Marshall Macklin Monaghan (MMM) under the Class Environmental Assessment Process for ORC Realty Activities (1995). The purpose of our letter is to request that you issue a "Part II Order' and bump up the Environmental Assessment to that of an Individual Environmental Assessment under the provisions of the Environmental Assessment Act (EM). We argue that the rationale for this request is very clear and strongly based on the enhanced environmental value of the Seaton lands most notably the presence of major aquifer systems that feed area cold streams, Duffin Creek and riverine habitats that support rare fish species. The environmental value of the Pickering lands is not adequately recognized by the existing Class Environmental Assessment, which only defers to the transaction that will simply recompense developers holding land in the environmentally sensitive Oak Ridges Moraine with provincially owned land in Pickering. Future impacts on the Seaton lands, while certainly expected, are not recognized during the analysis of the undertaking in this EA. The Environmental Study Report indicates that the Class Environmental Assessment is limited to consideration of environmental impacts arising solely from the transaction process itself. We fully understand that the assessment is not a land use study. However, in this particular case, the purpose of the (no7íoD Fof¿ }), eEcT'o~ 065 undertaking has been extended well beyond consideration of the transaction alone to 'protect ecologically sensitive lands on the ORM in Richmond Hill from development' (MMM, Section 3.11.1, p. 3.25). As you will readily appreciate, this statement represents a very significant departure from existing practice under a Class Environmental Assessment. The scope of the undertaking has now moved well beyond considering the transaction only, to one of minimizing future environmental impacts to the Oak Ridges Moraine. This extended scope is now greatly extended beyond what is normally covered by a Class Environmental Assessment and warrants reconsideration. It is the opinion of many individuals, public groups and professional organizations (such as the T.R. C. A. ) that the Pickering lands are environmentally sensitive, perhaps more so than the land in question on the ORM. The Pickering landscape is quintessentially that of southern Ontario farmland and is the largest remaining tract close to Canada's largest metropolis. The many special attributes of these lands (First Nation burial sites, heritage homes, cold water streams, wood lots, aquifers, aquatic organisms) have been spelled out in numerous reports. The environmental value of these lands is indisputable and increases with every year that these lands remain undeveloped. Indeed, the value of the groundwater resources of this area was described out in great detail by MMM in their recent report. These waters are the very same waters that enter the ORM to the north and which there are subject to protection by your Government. As these waters move south to lake Ontario they are augmented by local water infiltrating through the Pickering lands; several hydrogeological studies some funded by the Provincial Government, others by the City of Pickering and P.A.C.T and other work supported by Federal research dollars to University groups, have all concluded that these infiltrating waters (and the entire aquifer systems that enclose them) are particularly susceptible to contamination by urban contaminants associated with development. What is the logic of protecting groundwater in one part of the watershed and promoting its contamination in another? While it is the view of your Government and Ministry that the future welfare of these lands will be protected by the Ontario Planning and Development Act (OPDA) it is very clear that existing provisions under the Act cannot guarantee the preservation of these aquifers as being fit for human consumption. It is a known fact that urban development on a scale envisioned for the Pickering lands is incompatible with the continued use of groundwater for this purpose. As groundwater quality deteriorates, so will surface water and habitat. The available technology for urban storm water management can only manage surface water quantity; it cannot protect groundwater or surface water quality. The MMM report scarcely mentions the environmental attributes of the lands to be protected in the ORM; only the briefest mention is made, on p. 3.11.2, to the fact that the area contains headwaters for the Don, Humber and Rouge rivers and contains kettle lakes, wetlands and forest tracts. There is a totally inadequate characterization of the area's geology and hydrogeology in that Report. Why are the environmental attributes of land to be protected from 066 development down played in comparison with those of the lands to be given up in exchange and developed? This is illogical and betrays an explicit recognition of the environmental sensitivity of the Pickering lands by the writers of the MMM Report. In short, the lands in the ORM and those in Pickering have not been given equal weighting in the current Class Environmental Assessment Process. Under the terms of reference for the assessment the former are specifically declared to be worthy of preservation and protection, the latter are not. You will agree that this is inconsistent with your Government's promotion of Smart Growth initiatives by saving environmentally sensitive lands under various recent Greenbelt and Source Water Protection Act legislation. Enclosed you will find Prof. Ken Howard's hydrogeology report. You will also have by now received 3500 petitions from concerned citizens of Pickering and Ajax. You will also have received copies of letters of correspondence between P.A.C.T. and Liverpool West Community Association that show we have participated in the class environmental process with MMM consultant Mr. S. Willis from the beginning of the class environmental process. We have tried to resolve issues with ORC and MMM but were informed that many of our Questions could not be addressed under the class environmental assessment. We urge you to act in favour of environmental protection and move to issue a Part II Order requesting an Individual Environmental Assessment. Given their well known environmental and heritage value, the Pickering lands deserve no less. David Steele Chair of P.A.C.T. Recipient Queen Elizabeth Golden Jubilee Award Recipient City of Pickering Healthy Community Award Cc Liverpool West Community Association Cc Fairport Beach Community Association Cc East Shore Community Association Cc Mayor D.Ryan, City of Pickering Cc City of Pickering Regional Councilor, M. Brenner Liaison to P.A.C.T. Cc Clerk, City of Pickering Cc Mark Holland, M.P. Cc Dan McTeague, M.P. Cc Wayne Arthur's, M.P.P. Cc Jim Flaherty, M. P. Enclosed: P.A.C.T. letter addressed to Minister of Environment, laurel Broten. 27/1/06. P.A.C.T. letter addressed to Mr.S.Willis, M.M.M. 30/10/04. 067 P.A.C.T. letter addressed to Minister of Environment, leona Dombrowsky. 12/12/04. P.A.C.T. letter addressed to Mr.S.Willis, M.M.M. 23/4/05 P.A.C.T. letter addressed to Minister of Environment, L.C.Broten. 6/7/05 P.A.C.T. letter addressed to Minister of Environment, laurel Broten August 2005. P.A.C.T. letter addressed to Minister of Environment with Prof. Ken Howard August, 10th 2005 Final report Petitions from 3,500 Pickering-Ajax citizens requesting a bump up to an individual environmental assessment. 4 CiÚ¡ o~ 068 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE REPORT Executive Committee Report EC 2006-02 1. 2. Director, Planning & Development, Report PD 03-06 672003 Ontario Limited Plan of Subdivision 40M-1919 1298989 Ontario Inc. Plan of Subdivision 40M-1969 Final Assumption of Plans of Subdivision That By-laws be enacted to: 1. Dedicate Blocks 33 and 36, Plan 40M-1919 as public highways; 2. Assume roads and services within Plan 40M-1919 (save and except from lot 10, Block 30 and those parts of Block 35, being Parts 1 and 7, 40R- 19037) and Plan 40M-1969 (save and exceptfrom Blocks 124,129,130, 131 and 132); 3. Amend By-law 1416/82 (Places of Amusement) to include the roads within Plans 40M-1919 and 40M-1969; and 4. Authorize the release and removal of the Subdivision Agreements from title relating to Plan 40M-1919 (save and except from lots 10, 11 and Block 30) and Plan 40M-1969. Director, Planning & Development, Report PD 08-06 lease of City of Pickering lands to The Rockport Group Block 16, 40M-1231 & 40R-7765, Part 26 (Eastern half of the City lands located on the southwest corner of Valley Farm Road and The Esplanade South) City of PickerinQ 1. That the request by The Rockport Group to lease City land at the southwest corner of Valley Farm Road and The Esplanade South for construction staging/storage purposes associated with the development of a seniors project at the southeast corner of Valley Farm Road and Diefenbaker Court be approved; and nt9 3. 4. 2. That the Mayor and the City Clerk be authorized to sign a lease agreement with The Rockport Group involving City lands, substantially on terms set out in Section 2.1 of this Report. PD 08-06 of the Director, Planning & Development. Director, Planning & Development, Report PD 09-06 Places to Grow - Better Choices. Brighter Future. Proposed Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe November 2005 EBR ReQistrv Number: XR05EOO02 - Informational Notice 1. That Pickering Council receive Report PD 09-06 on the Proposed Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, prepared by the Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal, dated November 2005; 2. That Pickering Council advise the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal that it continues to support: (a) a growth plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe; (b) Pickering's inclusion within the sub-area that includes the Greater Toronto Area and Hamilton; (c) the identification of downtown Pickering as an urban growth centre; and (d) protection of designated employment lands from conversion to non-employment or major retail land uses; 3. That Pickering Council request the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal to: (a) amend the final Growth Plan to identify the Cherrywood Community as a designated greenfield area and to coordinate with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing the removal of this area from the Greenbelt Plan; and (b) respond in writing to Pickering Council regarding the Minister's rationale for his decision on this matter; That Pickering Council request the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal to incorporate the following recommended changes into the final Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, such that: (a) the adequacy of the designated urban land supply in the Growth Plan is reviewed at least every five years; (b) lower-tier municipalities, in addition to the upper and single-tier municipalities, are formally consulted on the: (i) reviews of the population, household and employment forecasts; undertaking of sub-area assessments; delineation of the built boundary; identification of the boundary for and scale of development in Pickering's urban growth centre; (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) 070 determination of the timing for and location of future designated greenfield areas; (c) the content of sub-area assessments are refined to focus on regional scale infrastructure, economic development, transportation and transit, and urban boundary expansion matters and that the identification of the natural system, prime agricultural and rural areas are the responsibility of upper, lower and single-tier municipalities; (d) a schedule identifying the sub-areas is re-introduced; (e) a new policy is added to section 2.2.3 - General Intensification, allowing the Minister to permit achievement of the 40% intensification in Durham Region at a point in time after the year 2015, following review of the current intensification opportunities and supply of existing approved greenfield developments; (f) the term "municipality" in policy 2.2.3 2., (which requires those municipalities currently achieving an intensification ratio of higher than 40% within their built-up area to continue to achieve that ratio), is clarified to refer to an "upper or single-tier municipality" only, and that it is not to be applied at the lower-tier municipal level; (g) the employment to population ratio is increased to 50% (one job for every two persons) for Durham Region; (h) the employment areas along Highways 407 and 401 within Durham Region are recognized and identified as provincially significant in the Growth Plan; (i) the transportation system is revised to: (i) add a proposed higher order transit route along Taunton Road and Kingston Road; add a proposed higher order transit route on the CP Belleville rail line through Durham Region; (iii) add a proposed higher transit route from the Pickering GO Station to the Highway 407 transitway; and (iv) extend Highway 407 easterly to Highway 35/115 in the pre- 2031 timeframe, and add a proposed higher order transit route on Highway 407 through Durham Region; (ii) 5. That Pickering Council continues to request that, prior to finalizing the Growth Plan, the Province release details of the fiscal, regulatory and other tools that will be made available to properly implement the Growth Plan policies at the local level; 6. That Pickering Council authorize staff to prepare and bring back to Council for authorization, terms of reference for a "Downtown Pickering Urban Growth Centre Study" to determine the scope, scale and nature of the downtown centre, in consultation with the Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal and the Region of Durham; and 7. That the City Clerk forward a copy of Report PD 09-06 to the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Region of Durham, Durham area municipalities, and Wayne Arthurs, MPP, Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge. 071 4. Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, Report CS 07-06 Appointment to Enforce the ParkinQ By-law on Private Property 1. That Report CS 07-06 respecting the appointment of Special Municipal law Enforcement Officers for the purpose of enforcing the Parking By-law on private property be received; and 2. That Council approve that the City Clerk be authorized to bring a By-law directly to Council with no report due to the fact that the amendments are only housekeeping in nature. 5. Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer CS 09-06 Formal Quotations - Quarterly Report for Information That Report CS 09-06 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer concerning Formal Quotations - Quarterly Report for Information be received for information. 6. Confidential Matter That the recommendations contained in Item #1 of the "In Camera" minutes of January 24,2006 be adopted. Executive Committee Meeting Minutes Tuesday, January 24, 2006 7:50 pm Chair: Councillor Ashe 072 PRESENT: COUNCILLORS: K. Ashe M. Brenner D. Dickerson R. Johnson B. Mclean D. Pickles Mayor Ryan - Absent due to municipal business ALSO PRESENT: T. J. Quinn N. Carroll G. Paterson D. Bentley C. Rose D. Shields - Chief Administrative Officer - Director, Planning & Development - Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer - City Clerk - Manager, Policy - Deputy Clerk (I) ADOPTION OF MINUTES Moved by Councillor Johnson Seconded by Councillor Pickles Meeting of January 9,2006 CARRIED (II) MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION 1. Director, Planning & Development, Report PD 03-06 672003 Ontario Limited Plan of Subdivision 40M-1919 1298989 Ontario Inc. Plan of Subdivision 40M-1969 073 2. Executive Committee Meeting Minutes Tuesday, January 24, 2006 7:50 pm Chair: Councillor Ashe Final Assumption of Plans of Subdivision Moved by Councillor Dickerson Seconded by Councillor Brenner That By-laws be enacted to: 1. Dedicate Blocks 33 and 36, Plan 40M-1919 as public highways; 2. Assume roads and services within Plan 40M-1919 (save and except from lot 10, Block 30 and those parts of Block 35, being Parts 1 and 7, 40R- 19037) and Plan 40M-1969 (save and except from Blocks 124,129,130, 131 and 132); 3. Amend By-law 1416/82 (Places of Amusement) to include the roads within Plans 40M-1919 and 40M-1969; and 4. Authorize the release and removal of the Subdivision Agreements from title relating to Plan 40M-1919 (save and except from lots 10, 11 and Block 30) and Plan 40M-1969. CARRIED Director, Planning & Development, Report PD 08-06 lease of City of Pickering lands to The Rockport Group Block 16, 40M-1231 & 40R-7765, Part 26 (Eastern half of the City lands located on the southwest corner of Valley Farm Road and The Esplanade South) City of PickerinQ Moved by Councillor Dickerson Seconded by Councillor Pickles 1. That the request by The Rockport Group to lease City land at the southwest corner of Valley Farm Road and The Esplanade South for construction staging/storage purposes associated with the development of a seniors project at the southeast corner of Valley Farm Road and Diefenbaker Court be approved; and Executive Committee Meeting Minutes Tuesday, January 24, 2006 7:50 pm Chair: Councillor Ashe 074 3. 2. That the Mayor and the City Clerk be authorized to sign a lease agreement with The Rockport Group involving City lands, substantially on terms set out in Section 2.1 of this Report. PD 08-06 of the Director, Planning & Development. CARRIED Director, Planning & Development, Report PD 09-06 Places to Grow - Better Choices. Brighter Future. Proposed Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe November 2005 EBR ReQistrv Number: XR05EOO02 - Informational Notice Detailed discussion ensued on this matter. Moved by Councillor Johnson Seconded by Councillor Pickles 1. That Pickering Council receive Report PD 09-06 on the Proposed Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, prepared by the Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal, dated November 2005; That Pickering Council advise the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal that it continues to support: (a) a growth plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe; (b) Pickering's inclusion within the sub-area that includes the Greater Toronto Area and Hamilton; (c) the identification of downtown Pickering as an urban growth centre; and (c) protection of designated employment lands from conversion to non-employment or major retail land uses; 2. 3. That Pickering Council request the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal to: (b) amend the final Growth Plan to identify the Cherrywood Community as a designated greenfield area and to coordinate with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing the removal of this area from the Greenbelt Plan; and in the absence of this, (c) amend the final Growth Plan to identify lands in the northeast sector of Pickering, having an area equivalent in size to the Cherrywood Community, as a designated greenfield area instead of Greater Golden Horseshoe Growth Plan Area; and , 075 Executive Committee Meeting Minutes Tuesday, January 24,2006 7:50 pm Chair: Councillor Ashe 4. (d) respond in writing to Pickering Council regarding the Minister's rationale for his decision on this matter; That Pickering Council request the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal to incorporate the following recommended changes into the final Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, such that: (a) the adequacy of the designated urban land supply in the Growth Plan is reviewed at least every five years; (b) lower-tier municipalities, in addition to the upper and single-tier municipalities, are formally consulted on the: reviews of the population, household and employment forecasts; undertaking of sub-area assessments; delineation of the built boundary; identification of the boundary for and scale of development in Pickering's urban growth centre; determination of the timing for and location of future designated greenfield areas; (c) the content of sub-area assessments are refined to focus on regional scale infrastructure, economic development, transportation and transit, and urban boundary expansion matters and that the identification of the natural system, prime agricultural and rural areas are the responsibility of upper, lower and single-tier municipalities; (d) a schedule identifying the sub-areas is re-introduced; (e) a new policy is added to section 2.2.3 - General Intensification, allowing the Minister to permit achievement of the 40% intensification in Durham Region at a point in time after the year 2015, following review of the current intensification opportunities and supply of existing approved greenfield developments; (f) the term "municipality" in policy 2.2.3 2., (which requires those municipalities currently achieving an intensification ratio of higher than 40% within their built-up area to continue to achieve that ratio), is clarified to refer to an "upper or single-tier municipality" only, and that it is not to be applied at the lower-tier municipal level; (g) the employment to population ratio is increased to 50% (one job for every two persons) for Durham Region; (h) the employment areas along Highways 407 and 401 within Durham Region are recognized and identified as provincially significant in the Growth Plan; (i) the transportation system is revised to: (i) add a proposed higher order transit route along Taunton (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) 076 Executive Committee Meeting Minutes Tuesday, January 24, 2006 7:50 pm Chair: Councillor Ashe 5. Road and Kingston Road; add a proposed higher order transit route on the CP Belleville rail line through Durham Region; add a proposed higher transit route from the Pickering GO Station to the Highway 407 transitway; and extend Highway 407 easterly to Highway 35/115 in the pre- 2031 timeframe, and add a proposed higher order transit route on Highway 407 through Durham Region; That Pickering Council continues to request that, prior to finalizing the Growth Plan, the Province release details of the fiscal, regulatory and other tools that will be made available to properly implement the Growth Plan policies at the local level; (ii) (iii) (iv) 6. That Pickering Council authorize staff to prepare and bring back to Council for authorization, terms of reference for a "Downtown Pickering Urban Growth Centre Study" to determine the scope, scale and nature of the downtown centre, in consultation with the Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal and the Region of Durham; and 7. That the City Clerk forward a copy of Report PD 09-06 to the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Region of Durham, Durham area municipalities, and Wayne Arthurs, MPP, Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge. CARRIED AS AMENDED LATER IN THE MEETING (SEE FOllOWING MOTIONS) Moved by Councillor Dickerson Seconded by Councillor Brenner That the main motion be divided in order to deal with Item 3) separately CARRIED Item 3) of the main motion was then before Committee for consideration. Moved by Councillor Dickerson Seconded by Councillor Brenner 077 Executive Committee Meeting Minutes Tuesday, January 24, 2006 7:50 pm Chair: Councillor Ashe That parts (a) and (c) of Item 3) be approved. CARRIED Moved by Councillor Dickerson Seconded by Councillor Brenner That part (b) of Item 3) be deleted in its entirety and parts a) and c) be re-Iettered to parts a) and b). CARRIED The main motion of Councillors' Dickerson and Pickles was then put to a vote and CARRIED AS AMENDED. 4. Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, Report CS 07-06 Appointment to Enforce the ParkinQ By-law on Private Property Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Dickerson 1. That Report CS 07-06 respecting the appointment of Special Municipal law Enforcement Officers for the purpose of enforcing the Parking By-law on private property be received; and 2. That Council approve that the City Clerk be authorized to bring a By-law directly to Council with no report due to the fact that the amendments are only housekeeping in nature. CARRIED 5. City Clerk, Report CS 08-06 Public Meeting - Notice of the Passing of a By-law for Council Rules of Procedure Moved by Councillor Dickerson Seconded by Councillor Brenner Executive Committee Meeting Minutes Tuesday, January 24, 2006 7:50 pm Chair: Councillor Ashe 078 That Report CS 08-06 of the City Clerk be referred back to staff for the purpose of consulting members of Council on the proposed changes. CARRIED 6. Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer CS 09-06 Formal Quotations - Quarterly Report for Information Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Dickerson That Report CS 09-06 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer concerning Formal Quotations - Quarterly Report for Information be received for information. CARRIED (III) 1. OTHER BUSINESS The following matters were considered prior to the regular meeting: (a) Confidential Matters Moved by Councillor Mclean Seconded by Councillor Pickles That Committee move into an 'In Camera" meeting of Committee in order to discuss advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose. CARRIED Refer to the "In Camera" minutes of the Executive Committee dated January 24, 2006. Moved by Councillor Mclean Seconded by Councillor Pickles 079 Executive Committee Meeting Minutes Tuesday, January 24,2006 7:50 pm Chair: Councillor Ashe That Committee rise and ratify the actions taken at the 'In Camera' session. CARRIED (b) The Chief Administrative Officer provided an update with respect to the demolition of buildings, not of heritage value, by the Ontario Realty Corporation. (c) The Chief Administrative Officer provided a 2006 proposed budget schedule to Members and requested comments by provided as soon as possible. (IV) ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:00 pm. CitJ¡ o~ 030 REPORTS - NEW AND UNFINISHED PAGE 1. Report PD 12-06 of the Director, Planning & Development Class Environmental Assessment Environmental Study Report on the Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill and the Sale of Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton) Prepared by Marshall Macklin Monaghan Limited on behalf of the Ontario Realty Corporation Dated January 2006 EBR Reaistrv Number XN06EOO01 82-119 1. That Pickering Council RECEIVE Report PD 12-06 on the Environmental Study Report on the Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton), prepared by Marshall Macklin Monaghan Limited, on behalf of the Ontario Realty Corporation, dated January 2006, EBR Registry Number XN06EOO01 . 2. That Pickering Council ENDORSE the findings of the Report Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR, prepared by Dillon Consulting Limited on behalf of the City, dated January 2006 (see Attachment #1 to Report PD 12-06) and ADVISE the Minister of Environment that, (a) Pickering has serious concerns with the technical quality of the Environmental Study Report (ESR); (b) the issues identified, individually and in combination, are of significance; and (c) the issues must be fully resolved to the satisfaction of the City before the undertaking proceeds; 3. That, to ensure the concerns identified in the Dillon Peer Review Report are adequately addressed, Pickering Council REQUEST the Minister of Environment to issue a Part II Order (a "bump-up" to a Category D - Individual Environmental Assessment), as it is warranted under Chapter 7.0 of the ORC Class EA for the following reasons: (a) there are significant omissions to the "alternatives to" and "alternative methods" considered in the EA; 081 2. (b) there are significant errors in the analysis of "alternatives to" and "alternative methods" that could result in significant negative environmental impacts; and (c) the undertaking has the potential for significant negative environmental impacts and consequently, the errors and omissions are of major concern. 4. That the City Clerk FORWARD a copy of Report PD 12-06 to the Minister of Environment, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Ontario Realty Corporation, the Project Director for the North Pickering land Exchange Team, the Region of Durham, and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Report HR 01-06 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer and Division Head, Human Resources Bill 206, Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act 120-131 1. That Report HR 01-06 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer and Division Head, Human Resources be received; 2. That Council support the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO)'s position in opposition to Bill 206, an Act to revise the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act; 3. That the Resolution attached (see Attachment 1) be adopted by Council. C¿tq o~ REPORT TO COUNCIL 082 Report Number: PO 12-06 Date: February 6, 2006 From: Neil Carroll Director, Planning & Development Subject: Class Environmental Assessment Environmental Study Report on the Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton) Prepared by Marshall Macklin Monaghan Limited on behalf of the Ontario Realty Corporation Dated January 2006 EBR Registry Number XN06EOO01 Recommendation: 1. That Pickering Council RECEIVE Report PO 12-06 on the Environmental Study Report on the Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton), prepared by Marshall Macklin Monaghan Limited, on behalf of the Ontario Realty Corporation, dated January 2006, EBR Registry Number XN06EOO01. That Pickering Council ENDORSE the findings of the Report Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR, prepared by Dillon Consulting Limited on behalf of the City, dated January 2006 (see Attachment #1 to Report PD 12-06) and ADVISE the Minister of Environment that, (a) Pickering has serious concerns with the technical quality of the Environmental Study Report (ESR); (b) the issues identified, individually and in combination, are of significance; and (c) the issues must be fully resolved to the satisfaction of the City before the undertaking proceeds; 2. 3. That, to ensure the concerns identified in the Dillon Peer Review Report are adequately addressed, Pickering Council REQUEST the Minister of Environment to issue a Part II Order (a "bump-up" to a Category D - Individual Environmental Assessment), as it is warranted under Chapter 7.0 of the ORC Class EA for the following reasons: (a) there are significant omissions to the "alternatives to" and "alternative methods" considered in the EA; (b) there are significant errors in the analysis of "alternatives to" and "alternative methods" that could result in significant negative environmental impacts; and (c) the undertaking has the potential for significant negative environmental impacts and consequently, the errors and omissions are of major concern. 0 8 ~eport PD 12-06 February 6,2006 Subject: ORC Class EA Environmental Study Report Page 2 4. That the City Clerk FORWARD a copy of Report PD 12-06 to the Minister of Environment, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Ontario Realty Corporation, the Project Director for the North Pickering land Exchange Team, the Region of Durham, and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Executive Summary: Since 2003, Council has been consistent in its position that the Province undertake a full and proper assessment before finalizing the Oak Ridges Moraine/Seaton land exchange. In April 2004, the Ontario Realty Corporation (ORC) announced it would be commencing a Class EA for the land exchange, not an Individual EA as requested by the City and others. In early January 2006, ORC released its completed Environmental Study Report (ESR) for comment. The deadline for comments is February 10,2006. . The City retained Dillon Consulting Limited to peer review the ESR. The Dillon Peer Review Report (see Attachment #1) concludes there are numerous serious technical concerns with the EA, and that given the gravity of the concerns, the City should request the Minister of the Environment to issue a Part II Order (a "bump-up"). Staff concurs with the findings of the Dillon Report. It is recommended that Council request the Minister of Environment to issue a Part II Order in order to ensure the issues raised in the Peer Review Report are fully resolved to the City's satisfaction before any land exchange occurs. Financial Implications: of this Report. No direct financial implications in adopting the recommendations BACKGROUND: 1.0 ONTARIO REALTY CORPORATION CLASS EA ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY 1.1 In April 2004, Ontario Realty Corporation (ORC) commenced a study for the Oak Ridges Moraine/Seaton land exchange, under the approved Class Environmental Review Process for ORC Realty Activities In April 2004, ORC commenced an environmental assessment for the acquisition of lands on the Oak Ridges Moraine together with the sale or disposition of provincially owned lands in the City of Pickering (Seaton). The study has followed the process for Category C projects under the approved Class Environmental Review Process for ORC Realty Activities. Marshall Macklin Monaghan Limited conduced the EA for ORC. Report PD 12-06 February 6, 2006 Page 3 084 Subject: ORC Class EA Environmental Study Report 1.2 Three Public Open Houses for the Class Environmental Assessment have been held in both Pickering and Richmond Hill PickerinQ . Open House # 1 - September 1, 2004 At the first Open House meeting, Marshall Macklin Monaghan explained the general ORC Class EA process, and gave an overview for Category C projects. Forty-five people signed in at the Open House and approximately fifteen additional people attended the meeting but did not sign in. . Open House # 2 - October 20,2004 At the second meeting, Marshall Macklin Monaghan explained the undertaking; described the "alternatives to" the undertaking; described the evaluation criteria for "alternatives to"; and identified the recommended alternative. Fifty-three people signed in at the Open House and approximately three additional people attended the meeting but did not sign in. City staff made a presentation advising that the undertaking did not meet the criteria for using the Class EA process and should therefore be an Individual EA, and submitted a copy of the speaking notes. . Open House # 3 - December 6, 2005 At the third meeting, Marshall Macklin Monaghan explained the undertaking; provided an update on "alternatives to"; described the "alternative methods" and evaluation criteria; and identified recommended "alternatives to" and "alternative methods". Thirty-one people signed in at the Open House. City staff attended, advised the consultants of a serious misrepresentation of the City's natural heritage system for Seaton and resulting inaccurate evaluations, and submitted a map showing the correct natural heritage system for Seaton under the Growth Management Study. City staff also attended the Richmond Hill open houses. Written comments were provided respecting the mapping error and the need to re-evaluate the "alternative methods". Staff also met on several occasions with Marshall Macklin Monaghan and ORC representatives respecting the EA, including Council's request for a full and proper environmental assessment for the Oak Ridges Moraine/Seaton land exchange. 1.3 Notice of Completion of the Environmental Study Report On January 11, 2006, Marshall Macklin Monaghan on behalf of the ORC issued a revised Notice of Completion of the Environmental Study Report for the Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton). (The revised Notice superceded a notice issued on January 7, 2006.) 0 8 ~eport PD 12-06 Subject: ORC Class EA Environmental Study Report February 6, 2006 Page 4 1.4 A "bump-up" request to the Minister of the Environment must be made within the 30-day review period, which began January 11, 2006 (the first scheduled publication date of the revised Notice of Completion) On June 8, 2004, the Minister of the Environment issued an Order under the Environmental Assessment Act directing aRC to comply with certain requirements in addition to those required by the Class Environmental Assessment Process for ORC Realty Activities, approved December 9, 1992. The Order specifically directed ORC to inform review agencies and public participants that, if a bump up request is received, the Minister of the Environment has 45 calendar days beginning from the last day of the 3D-day period in which to make one of the following decisions: require the ORC to comply with Part" of the EAA; refer the request to mediation; or deny the request, with or without conditions. If a decision to deny the request is made, the Minister shall inform the requester and the proponent of the decision, stating the reasons for the decision. The undertaking may then proceed. In accordance with the Minister's Order and the revised notice, the Minister has until March 27, 2006 to make a decision on any bump-up request. 2.0 DISCUSSION 2.1 The City's consultants, Dillon Consulting Limited, has peer reviewed Ontario Realty Corporation's Class EA Environmental Study Report (ESR) and has identified serious concerns with the document The City retained the services of Dillon Consulting Limited to review and analyze ORC's Class EA ESR. Dillon has identified numerous concerns that individually, and in combination, are considered to be of significance (see Peer Review Report, Attachment #1 ). Concerns identified through the Peer Review relating to "alternatives to" the undertaking include: . incomplete list of "alternatives to" the land exchange; . inconsistent "alternative to" definitions; . inconsistent land area data; . incomplete economic analysis; . incomplete social and environmental analysis in comparison of additional "alternatives to"; . important alternatives omitted from the evaluation; and . incomplete evaluation of alternatives for advantages, disadvantages and net effects; Report PD 12-06 February 6, 2006 Page 5 OBi, Subject: ORC Class EA Environmental Study Report Concerns identified through the Peer Review relating to "alternatives methods" of carrying out the undertaking include: . incomplete analysis of all significant negative effects; . incomplete identification of the specific portion of Seaton lands required for the exchange and consequently the impacts for the relevant area cannot be identified and assessed; . incorrect analysis used for Natural Heritage System comparisons; . inadequate information to ensure that significant environmental effects will not occur; and . insufficient data used to analyze impacts. Staff concurs with the concerns and issues identified in the Dillon Peer Review with ORC's Environmental Study Report. Further, staff concurs with the recommendations of the Peer Review that the Minister of the Environment be advised that: . Pickering has serious concerns with the technical quality of the ESR; . the issues must be fully resolved to the satisfaction of the City before the project proceeds; . given the gravity of the concerns, a Part II Order "bump-up" is requested in order to best ensure that the issues are adequately addressed; and . the bump-up is requested based on the following issues as per Chapter 7.0 of the ORC Class EA: 0 there are significant omissions to the "alternatives to" and "alternative methods" considered in the EA; 0 there are significant errors in the analysis of alternatives that could result in significant negative environmental impacts; and 0 the undertaking has the potential for significant negative environmental impacts and consequently the errors and omissions are of major concern. It is recommended that Council request the Minister of the Environment to issue a Part II Order to ensure that the issues with the Class EA ESR are adequately addressed to the City's satisfaction. Attachment: 1. Peer Review Report prepared by Dillon Consulting Limited Report PD 12-06 087 Subject: ORC Class EA Environmental Study Report February 6, 2006 Page 6 Prepared By: Approved I Endorsed By: ~ Director, Planning & Development Grant McGregor, MCIP, PP Principal Planner - Policy ~4= Catherine Rose, MCIP. P Manager, Policy GM:ld Attachment Copy: Chief Administrative Officer All Directors Division Head, Corporate Projects & Policy Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council 1/ ATTACHMENT #---L-. TO REPORT # PO IL -010 088 Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR January 2006 Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006) and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton) Project No. 50-0007 Submitted by Dillon Consulting Limited 089 ATTACHMEr-IT # I TO REPCJnT t! PD~ Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006) and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTR 0 D U CTI 0 N ....... ................ ...... ....................... """"" ......... ................ ..... """"""" ....1 2.0 KE Y POINTS....................... ....... ...... .... ........ .................... ............... ""'" ........ ...................1 2.1 Alternatives To........................................................................................................ 1 2.2 Alternative Methods.............................................. ....................... .................... ....... 5 3.0 GENERAL COMMENTS ........................ ....... .......................... ............. ......., ............ ....... 7 4.0 REPO R T COMMENTS ........... .... ........................ ................. ........... ......... ................. ....... 7 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Table 2: Table 3: Detailed Comments on ORC Class EA ESR for Richmond Hill and Seaton..........8 Review of Natural Heritage Systems ................................. ..... ......... ........... ..........29 Review of Core Natural Heritage Features .......... .......... ..... ......... ..........................30 M:\PROJECTS\DRAFT\O6\O6....Pickering Peer Review\Draft Peer Report Jan. 30.doc Dillon Consulting Limited Page i 0--( þ,!){.,;un # J TO HI:i-'úfll t! PLi.. 12-Dfo 090 Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006) and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton) 1.0 INTRODUCTION The following provides a peer review of the ORC Class EA ESR (January 2006) Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton). The review provides a critique of the document with respect to EA requirements and practice. EA requirements are defined by the EA Act and the ORC Class EA Process as defined in the parent documents. 2.0 KEY POINTS This section lists the key concerns that have been identified for the Class EA process. Individually and in combination, these concerns are considered to be of significance. A full listing of issues and concerns is contained in Section 4.0 (Table 1). Given the significance of the concerns, it is recommended that the MOE be advised that: . Pickering has serious concerns with the technical quality of the ESR; The issues must be fully resolved to the satisfaction of the City before the project proceeds; Given the gravity of the concerns, a Part II Order "bump-up" is requested in order to best ensure that the issues are adequately addressed; The bump-up is requested based on the following issues as per Chapter 7.0 of the ORC Class EA: . . . 0 There are significant omissions to the alternatives to and alternative methods considered in the EA; 0 There are significant errors in the analysis of "alternatives to" and "alternative methods" that could result in significant negative environmental impacts; 0 The undertaking has the potential for significant negative environmental impacts and consequently the errors and omissions are of major concern. The following is a list of the key concerns identified. 2.1 Alternatives To 1. List of "alternatives to" is too narrow because only ORC owned sites were considered. A wider range of publicly and privately owned sites that reflect Provincial growth priorities should have been considered. The list of "alternatives to" considered is too narrow because ORC considered only lands owned by ORC. Lands not owned by ORC should have been considered as alternatives to a land exchange with ORC lands. Private lands or lands easily available to the Ontario government (e.g. lands owned Dillon Consulting Limited Page 1 091 ATTACHMENT # RH¡OR1 # PO I TO 12- - {)(o Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006) and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton) by other governments - federal or municipal) need to be considered as alternatives given that the ORC/Government of Ontario has expropriation powers and powers to purchase lands. Alternative properties for consideration for exchange or purchase/expropriation should have been selected based on their ability to reflect the purpose and spirit of the undertaking - i.e. to protect sensitive lands in the ORM and to reflect provincial growth policy and priorities and not primarily on expediency of exchange/availability/cost. Criteria such as availability of servicing, proximity to existing urban boundaries/location in an existing urban boundary, minimal provincially significant features, potential to be supported by transit and to provide mixed use areas within transit distance of employment should have been applied to select exchange sites in order to achieve a better growth outcome for Ontario and to better meet the social and economic priorities of the EA process (in addition to the ORC criteria that land be unencumbered and not have planning restrictions). 2. "Alternatives to" are not defined consistently. The Seaton alternative should have been restricted to the areas required for the transfer only rather than considering all of Seaton and Duffins Heights as one alternative. ORC considered all of Seaton and Duffins Heights in the comparison rather than identifying the specific fraction of this area actually needed for the exchange. In this way, the EA would have considered equal areas for impact analysis. The list of "alternatives to" should also have considered combinations of alternative sites that included a portion of the Seaton lands if necessary to meet area or price targets. There is no rationale for including all or none of Seaton and Duffins Heights in the alternatives given that the other properties are considered alone and in combination. 3. Comparisons are based on inconsistent gross and net land areas for different properties In the report, a gross area for Richmond Hill (1050 acres) is compared to net areas for other ORC properties (e.g. Oakville where environmental features and infrastructure areas are excluded). For the Richmond Hill lands, at a minimum, the net area should exclude a reasonable portion for environmental protection (estimated as 25-75% of gross land for environmental protection in the GTA). The portion set aside for the Seaton NHS might be a consistent starting point (approx. 60% protection). Using this percentage, a more relevant and consistent net exchange acreage is in the range of 420 acres for Richmond Hill. 4. A significant economic effect of undertaking is not considered The economic analysis does not consider the very significant cost to the residents of Ontario of giving away the Seaton or other lands to the developers from Richmond Hill. This will amount to a loss of revenues to the taxpayers/Province in excess of $28 000 000 (cost of land plus any other compensation to developers). The status quo option and Alternative 4 (freeze) will not incur these costs. This is a significant omission that unfairly biases the outcome to a land transfer rather than a direct purchase, status quo or development freeze. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 2 ATTACHMENT # ---L- TO REPORT # PO I L-Do 092 Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006) and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton) While it is true that costs for compensation or purchase will require spending within the government's capital budget, this cost is equal to the cost to taxpayers for the transfer/exchange options where equal revenues from sale of Seaton will not come to the Province to supply their capital budget. Thus costs are likely similar for these options. Similarly, while costs of any legal issues (hearings, lawsuits) may apply to Option 4, there are also significant costs associated with the land transfer that are not calculated or considered. Similarly, there are potential legal costs associated with the land transfer should stakeholders launch court action regarding the transfer. Other provincially incurred costs of the land transfer are also not considered such as the costs of the aRC Class EA, the OPDA Plan, consultation, and staffing at MMAH and aRC to proceed with the transfer. Pickering has also incurred significant cost due to the transfer and OPDA process that are not accounted for in the analysis. 5. Economic impacts are unfairly presented because the portion of Seaton to be exchanged is not identified or valued. The analysis defines that lands of equal value must be considered for exchange. The value is set at 28 million dollars for 1050 acres in Richmond Hill based on MPAC assessment. There are several problems with this approach. First, no property value is provided for a specific comparable acreage for the Seaton lands. Rather, the EA considers the entire 8000 acre Seaton area. Data provided to the City indicates that only about 30% of the Seaton lands will be exchanged. The value of the specific exchange area should be calculated specifically to be comparable to other sites. The specific exchange area must be identified and valued to make the Seaton property option legitimate according to the aRC rules applied. Second, we have concerns that the economic valuation may not be equitable and ask that the following questions be answered: Were gross or net land areas applied for each property to establish costs? If the cost for Richmond Hill is for the gross area (1050 acres), then the property values for each aRC site (e.g. 2,3 and 16, 17) must also be on a gross basis for comparison. Were the MPAC assessments completed with equal and accurate/real assumptions regarding development potential? 6. Significant social and environmental effects are not considered in comparison of "additional" alternatives to First, the comparison of the "additional alternatives" to (added to the EA process at the request of stakeholders) identifies uncertainty with respect to Alternative 4 (Freeze) as a constraint to this alternative but not to Alternatives 5 and 6. Alternative 4 is considered less preferred because the zoning order could be overturned. However, in reality, the Province could eliminate any uncertainty for Alternative 4 because it is within the power of the province to use other existing Dillon Consulting Limited Page 3 093 ATTACHMENT # REPOR1 # PO I TO Il..-CI.O Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006) and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton) legislation to "freeze" development without allowing such an appeal or to enact new legislation to achieve the same effect. On the other hand, the analysis does not consider the uncertainty that exists for Alternatives 5 and 6 because a land transfer/exchange can be turned down by the Richmond Hill landowners as the "details of a deal" are defined or should other court action be launched with respect to the exchange. Such uncertainty is a significant constraint to these options. Second the evaluation indicates that a development freeze would result in loss of investment, construction jobs and related taxes in Richmond Hill. This loss is not certain because those lands were not approved for development and as such, no such loss can be calculated or anticipated with any certainty. (p. 3-20). 7. Important alternatives are missing from the evaluation Using consistent gross or net land areas, there is enough land to equate to the Richmond Hill land area by combining aRC sites. Portions ofthe Seaton and Duffins Heights land should have been included in the combinations. For example: Roueh Estimate of Net Land Area (acres) 3 16,17 2 21 ESR Site # Richmond Hill- 420 (40% of 1,050) Oakville - 266 Whitby - 150 (40% of376) Parkway Belt - 128 (40% 320) Seaton - 3,566 (40% of8,916) Clearly a range of area combinations will add up to the net Richmond Hill land area. Similarly: Roueh Estimate of Gross Land Area (acres) ESR Site # 3 16,17 2 21 Richmond Hill - 1,050 Oakville - 1,150 Whitby - 376 Parkway Belt - 320 Seaton - 8,916 Clearly a range of combinations will add to the gross Richmond Hill land area. The economic comparison of equal land values must be done in the same manner with gross to gross or net to net analyses and including only parts of Seaton/Duffins Heights as appropriate. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 4 ATTACHMENT # REPOR1 # PO I TO i1.. - DID 094 Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006) and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton) 8. Omission of alternatives - Legitimate alternatives are not considered or evaluated for advantages and disadvantages and net effects A number of combinations of sites would appear to have been reasonable as noted above. Since these were not identified, they were not compared and net effects were not identified to ensure that the Seaton land exchange is the preferred solution. 2.2 Alternative Methods 9. ESR does not address all significant negative environmental effects as required by the EA Act and the ORC Class EA Parent document The purpose of the EA process is to assess "the effects that will be caused or that might reasonably be expected to be caused to the environment" by the undertaking, alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking and the alternatives to the undertaking" (EA Act). Effects of the transfer of land include both the direct loss of environmental attributes due to the land transfer for development as well as impainnent of features due to adjacent development activities including both urban development and the construction of infrastructure crossing protected and transferred land. The ESR considers only direct loss effects. It is ORC's stated commitment to consider what land is suitable for transfer through site planning methods (direct effects) and to assess construction methods/effects to ensure sustainable environmental protection. (pA-14 of ORC 1995 Class EA). This is not done in the ESR. The ESR should have completed an analysis of construction alternatives and/or a carrying capacity assessment to provide guidance to the associated planning processes being conducted by the province, Durham Region and Pickering regarding how much development the land to be transferred can support and with recommendations regarding necessary studies, construction, design and mitigation to be implemented through land use planning and subsequent EA processes. Follow up work to be undertaken at subsequent stages of the planning for the communities should be described in detail in this section. It is not acceptable to simply defer this responsibility to other planning processes assuming that the environment will be fully protected. This approach does not meet the minimum Class EA requirements. 10. The specific portion of Seaton required for the exchange is not identified and consequently the impacts cannot be identified and assessed for the relevant area. The description of existing conditions in the report clearly highlights the sensitivity of the Seaton area and potential for significant environmental effects. Given this sensitivity, it is essential that the specific area being exchanged by ORC at this time be identified in such as way as to minimize impacts. As noted above, this is likely in the range of30% of the total Seaton area. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 5 095 ATTACHMENT # I TO HEPUR11! PO I L - DID -----,_c- Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006) and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton) In addition, the specific impacts associated only with this exchange land area (i.e. the undertaking) must be the subject of the EA. A clear delineation of the land area specifically needed for the exchange is needed to clearly define the undertaking and thus define impacts of the undertaking. Only this acreage is of concern to the EA and not the entire Seaton area. The full 8916 acreages are not needed nor are they developable. 11. NHS system comparison for alternative methods has significant errors The approach to defining the most appropriate lands to be protected for Seaton is flawed. There is no justification for choosing among three natural heritage systems, none of which is tested to determine if it meets criteria for a healthy and robust NHS (referencing for example, Provincial and Federal policy documents) (e.g. protects all provincially significant features, meets buffer requirements, includes pre-defined requirements for corridors and linkages). In addition, the areas to be protected must be defined to support a sustainable community form. Criteria for defining the area of land to be transferred must be pre-defined and include NHS criteria (e.g. protect defined significant features, linkages and buffers) as well as pre-defined criteria for cultural heritage and landscape protection, public safety and size of developable blocks for complete, transit and pedestrian friendly, economically viable neighbourhoods. Not only is the idea of comparing NHS systems flawed but the analysis used also contains errors. The attached Tables 2 and 3 show how the numbers used in the comparison for natural environment are incorrect. The numbers for the Pickering lands are related to a different land area than the other two options (i.e. the OMS excludes Duffins Heights). The two attached tables show the corrected numbers. Table 2 includes total areas including core features, corridors and linkages and shows that the Pickering OMS system protects the most land overall in Seaton. Table 3 contains the areas for the individual core features only and shows that the three systems are nearly equal with the 2005 system having slightly higher areas as would be expected as these numbers reflect field work conducted by the Province. Clearly, any NHS taken forward must protect 100% of these core features. 12. There is potential for significant environmental effects from an undertaking in the Seaton area. The information in the existing conditions section of the EA confirms the environmental significance of both the Richmond Hill and Seaton sites and indicates that a full EA is justified. Given the flaws of the EA, it does not provide adequate information to ensure that significant environmental effects will not occur as a result of the undertaking 13. The data used to analyze impacts is insufficient The amount of data presented to reflect the three NHSs is insufficient to evaluate the potential impacts of siting and construction on each system even though the fieldwork data is available through the combined work of Pickering and the Province. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 6 ATTACHMENT # I TO REPCJRì # PD__Jk.~OIp--~..... 096 Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006) and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton) 3.0 GENERAL COMMENTS Use of 1995 Class EA Document The Class EA used for this project (1995 version) had been updated by the time of project commencement (April 2004). Nevertheless the consultant relied on the outdated 1995 Class EA Process for ORC Realty Activities. The first mandatory public contact and notice of study commencement was published on April 28-30, 2004. The most current ORC parent document was also approved and ordered on April 28, 2004 by the Minister of Environment and thus was in place at the time of study commencement. In fact, this version had been released in September 2003. Section 9.1.1 of the 2004 Class EA allows proponents to choose which of the two versions to use for six months after commencement (which appears to be defined as second mandatory contact). However, if the process is not complete in two years they must recommence using the updated Class EA. Although allowed, why was an outdated Class EA document used? Management Board Secretariat/ORe as Proponent Should Advance All of the Interests of the Province The Class EA states that ORC must "ensure that these activities are done following the Ontario Government's policies objectives and programs" (p. 2). As such, ORC's mandate is to advance the interests of the province through its activities. Thus, it seems reasonable that the undertaking for the EA should encompass the Province's complete role in the development of Seaton as a package - i.e. 1) the transfer of land; and 2) the planning and approval of development of the Seaton lands. 4.0 REPORT COMMENTS Table 1 provides a summary of our comments Dillon Consulting Limited Page 7 Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006) and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton) Table 1 Detailed Comments on ORC Class EA ESR for Richmond Hill and Seaton Pa!!e Issue Comment Executive Summary Executive Summary reflects errors and All comments made regarding the body of the text omissions in the body of the report. that are copied into the Executive Summary apply and the Executive Summary should be amended accordinglv p. 1-1 Sec. 1-1 The Undertaking ESR does not address all significant The purpose of the EA process is to assess "the negative environmental effects as required effects that will be caused or that might reasonably be by the EA Act. expected to be caused to the environment" by the undertaking, alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking and the alternatives to the undertaking" (EA Act). Effects of the transfer of land include both the direct loss of environmental attributes due to the land transfer for development as well as impainnent of features due to adjacent development activities. The ESR considers only direct loss effects. It is ORC's stated commitment to consider what land is suitable for transfer through site planning methods (direct effects) and to assess construction methods/effects to ensure sustainable environmental protection. (p.4-14 of ORC 1995 Class EA) p. 1-1 Sec. 1-1 The Undertaking Class EA document applied was out of date See Section 3.0 General Comments of Peer Review at study commencement Report Section 2.0 Existing Condition The description of environmental features The document contains detailed descriptions of both reflects the sensitivity of the environment areas but the level of detail for each component and potential for significant negative differs, e.g. more hydrogeology infonnation IS environmental effects orovided for the Seaton Lands, making comparisons Dillon Consulting Limited Page 8 0 c..o -..:I :::rJþ n1- .C:' - c» ::v C") -<:x: ""$: m u :;::: 0 - ¡ '1 , i6r ~a I Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006) and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton) Table 1 Detailed Comments on ORC Class EA ESR for Richmond Hill and Seaton Pa2e Issue Comment of specific environmental conditions difficult. Both areas clearly have unique environmental features and therefore have potential for significant effects from development, although the primary land use at present in both is agricultural. The significance of the environmental features as supported in various documents (e.g. PPS, Federal Fisheries Act) requires updated information through field investigations to assess sensitivity and properly compare the two arease Some description of the environment of the ORC lands in other locations (listed in this report but not selected for further study) is necessary to confirm that Seaton, with its unique environmental features, is the best choice for the "land swap". Also consideration of exchange of ORC lands in one or more of these other locations, based on environmental criteria should be examined. p. 3-2 Sec. 3.3 The Undertaking and Opportunity The information in this section confirming environmental significance of both sites indicates that a full EA is justified. 'The purpose of the undertaking is to protect ecologically sensitive lands on the Oak Ridges Moraine in Richmond Hill from Development." This purpose does not unduly restrict the EA process. The list of alternatives included in combined Sections 3.5 and 3.9 is too narrow. Purpose of undertaking is appropriate p. 3-3 Section 3.5 Description ofInitial Alternatives List of alternatives to is too narrow Dillon Consulting Limited Page 9 JJþ .'1.:: 6» ::;0 Ç) -':): ""'<'" - m "02 CJ- IJ I I ~..... 0 <:::> <.:) 00 Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006) and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton) Table 1 Detailed Comments on ORC Class EA ESR for Richmond Hill and Seaton Pa2e Issue Comment Section 3.3 Lands in Pickering include Seaton and also Duffins Heights. Lands not owned by ORC should have been considered as alternatives to a land exchange with ORC lands. Private lands or lands easily available to the Ontario government (e.g. lands owned by other governments - federal or municipal) need to be considered as alternatives given that the ORC/Government of Ontario has expropriation powers and powers to purchase lands. Alternative properties for consideration for exchange or purchase/expropriation should have been selected based on their ability to reflect the purpose and spirit of the undertaking - protect sensitive lands in the ORM and to reflect provincial growth policy and priorities and not primarily on expediency of exchange/ availabi lity / cost. Criteria such as availability of servicing, proximity to existing urban boundaries/ location in an existing urban boundary, minimal provincially significant features, potential to be supported by transit and to provide mixed use areas within transit distance of employment should have been applied to achieve a better growth outcome for Ontario and to better meet the social and economic priorities of the EA process (in addition to the ORC criteria that land be unencumbered and not have planning restrictions}. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 10 0 CD W .:u:x> tTJ- D~ C' ::t> :J.J C) -i;:¡: ""5: n, \) Z 0-1 I ~ I I j - ..-- I~¡ , : ~u €"' Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR Acquisition bjOak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006) and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton) Table 1 Detailed Comments on ORC Class EA ESR for Richmond Hill and Seaton Pa2e Issue p. 3.4 Section 3.4 Assumptions Alternatives To are significantly narrowed by stated assumptions that have no legitimate basis Dillon Consulting Limited Comment The list of alternatives should also have considered combinations of alternatives that included a portion of the Seaton lands if necessary to meet area or price targets. There is no rationale for including all or none of Seaton in the alternatives given that the other properties are considered alone and in combination. The specific portion of SeatonlDuffins Heights needed for the exchange must be defined (i.e. about 30% of the total area) in order to identify the undertaking and effects of the undertaking. The assumptions noted do not have any documented legitimate basis as a starting point for the EA. Were these defined in an agreement with the Richmond Hill landowners that was documented and can be provided to stakeholders? Please provide further support for these assumptions as they constrict the alternatives available to respond to the purpose of the undertaking as noted - "to protect ecologically sensitive land on the Oak Ridges Moraine in Richmond Hill from development." In particular the criterion that lands are needed to be of comparable size or value is of concern because the ESR compares gross to net land areas. Does the "comparable area" include natural heritage features that would require protection in accordance with the PPS and other Provincial Policy? At a minimum, the Page 11 :01>- m -I ì:' -; 01>- ::0 0 ~ :r: "! .,~ m "2 0-; 'II: 1'""'- , ;0 1'6 -< c ; ¡ ~ 0 0 Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006) and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton) Table 1 Detailed Comments on ORC Class EA ESR for Richmond Hill and Seaton Pa2e Issue Assumptions pre-judge that Seaton will be part of the undertaking before the EA commenced. The assumptions pre-judge that a land transfer is the only reasonable outcome of the evaluation Dillon Consulting Limited Comment net area should exclude an average value for such protection (estimated as 25-75% of gross land for environmental protection versus net land for development). The comparable value must be based on equal assumptions with respect to approved land uses, i.e. as the land in Richmond Hill was not approved for development, the value for comparable land should also be on that basis. The final assumption specifically refers to the Seaton lands as a starting point for the EA even though alternatives had yet to be evaluated. This implies that Seaton WILL be part of the outcome of the EA process before it has begun. An assumption that any plans for any alternative parcel considered would conform to provincial and municipal policy would have been appropriate. There is also an unstated assumption that the exchanged lands will be residentially designated although no evidence is provided that this is the best use of the land and has the least impacts/benefits. The assumptions refer to the 'exchange' of lands which indicates that an exchange is the only outcome of the process. The purpose of the EA (which is to objectively evaluate effects of alternatives and the undertaking) is compromised if the outcome is pre- determined at the outset. Page 12 ~ 0 ¡...-. :I:I:I> tB=I 0:1> :I:I C') ~::J: ,:5: m "2 0-1 ,~ ~-I 0 Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006) and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton) Table 1 Detailed Comments on ORC Class EA ESR for Richmond HiD and Seaton Pal!e Issue Comment First Mandatory Contact - Notice of The undertaking was pre-defined before the The Notice of Commencement pre-defines the Commencement EA commenced preferred undertaking to include the sale of Seaton lands even though many other alternatives were available to protect the lands in Richmond Hill (the stated purpose of the undertaking). The notice of commencement pre-judges that the EA study has pre-defined a preferred outcome - severance and sale or disposition of provincially owned lands in Seaton that will be tested against other alternatives in the EA. The commencement would more appropriately have identified the purpose of the undertaking. p. 3-4 Section 3.5.2 Acquire Richmond Hill Comparisons are inconsistent and illogical - Later in the report this gross figure is compared to Lands and Exchange Seaton Lands Gross exchange land area (1050 acres) land areas "net" of non-developable areas. A should also be expressed as an area net of reasonable net area must be defined for consistency. natural features to be consistent for Data is available from UDl and other studies showing comparison purposes comparable figures in the GT A (25-75% of land to be set aside for natural heritage protection). The value used for Seaton NHS might be a consistent starting point (approx. 60%). Thus a more relevant net exchange acreage is in the range of 420 acres. p. 3-4 Sec 3.5.3 Acquire Richmond Hill Lands List of criteria for ORC lands identification Did the list of land parcels include all lands owned by and Exchange Some Other Contiguous ORC may narrow alternatives ORC or was a minimum acreage used? Lands List of possible alternatives to is too narrow Why were private lands or lands easily available to the government (e.g. lands owned by other governments - federal or municipal) not considered as alternatives given that the ORC/Government of Ontario has exDrooriation Dowers? Dillon Consulting Limited Page 13 :JJ1>- ~::f 01>- :JJ C"J - ;:¡: "I , $ m "'tJ2 0....., I~.~ I¿ i~_d, ç ¡.... a l'V Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006) and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton) Table 1 Detailed Comments on ORC Class EA ESR for Richmond Hill and Seaton Page Issue p.3-5 Restrictions not consistently applied in Table 3.2 so that reasons for excluding alternative land parcels are not clear p.3-5 Alternatives are not compared fairly Dillon Consulting Limited Comment In addition, it does not seem reasonable to require lands to be contiguous given that there were multiple owners in Richmond Hill who typically own non- contiguous lands. In particular, portions of Seaton/Duffins Heights could have been considered along with other properties to make up the total required. The restrictions are not consistently noted in Table 3.2 summarizing the reasons for excluding most of the lands noted based on pre-existing restrictions. An example is site 12 which is initially included as an option in Markham and then excluded because it is in the Greenbelt. The Restrictions column does not note this significant restriction. Similarly, it is not clear if the Caledon properties 9 and 18 or Scugog areas have Greenbelt restrictions. Why put forward some of these sites for consideration in the following text if they are not available? The status for many sites is also missing and is needed for a consistent comparison. Only two candidate alternative areas are listed but no reasons are provided for screening the 9 sites that show no restrictions on Table 3.2 (1, 9, 10, 11,13,14,15,18,19). Consistent infonnation is needed to explain this outcome. Are sites 13-15 screened because of Greenbelt status? The screening is not consistent. Site 8 is screened based on a long-tenn lease which can be changed yet Page 14 ~ 0 C,.ù :D:J> ~:: 0» :D a -I:J: '11>5 m " 2: 0-1 ~;~ ¡ --; I a ¡ Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006) and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton) Table 1 Detailed Comments on ORC Class EA ESR for Richmond Hill and Seaton Pal!e Issue p. 3-10 Table 3.5 Significant flaws with evaluation of alternatives to p.3-12 and 3-23 Exhibits 3.5 and 3.7 Significant economic effect of undertaking is not considered Dillon Consulting Limited Comment the Seaton site is retained and preferred with 80 leases in place many of which will be affected. On the other hand, Site 12 (which is carried forward) should have been screened for Greenbelt restrictions though this is not noted on the table or text. The subsequent screening of the Markham and Oakville sites is based on a gross target of 1050 acres. It is inconsistent to use the net size for the Oakville site for comparison (266 acres) to a gross area for Richmond Hill (1050). This is an exceptionally inconsistent and unsupportable comparison. The net land area from the 1050 acres in Richmond Hill will likely be more in the order of 40% of the total or 420 acres. The following flaws in the evaluation must be addressed: - purpose of undertaking might be achieved with several individual aRC properties or combinations if a net to net land analysis is used; - alternatives have been unfairly and inconsistently screened to a short list with no supporting documentation; - conclusions for Alternative 3 might be different if more properties were considered in a fair and consistent manner. Alternatives 2 and 3 - The economic analysis does not consider the very significant cost to the residents Page 15 i¥ ~. c;;: ::v " -'::J: "". $' r;-¡ -0 Z 0-; ¡ "I¡c , ¡-->- ~ ~ a ,.¡:::.,. Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006) and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton) Table 1 Detailed Comments on ORC Class EA ESR for Richmond Hill and Seaton Page Issue Comment of Ontario of giving away the Seaton or other lands to the developers from Richmond Hill. This will amount to a loss of revenues to the taxpayers/Province in excess of $28 000 000 (cost of land plus any other compensation to developers). The status quo option and Alternative 4 (freeze) will not incur these costs. This is a significant omission that unfairly biases the outcome to a land transfer rather than a direct purchase, status quo or development freeze. While it is true that costs for compensation or purchase will require spending within the government's capital budget, this cost is equal to the cost to taxpayers for the transfer/exchange options where equal revenues from sale of Seaton will not come to the Province to supply their capital budget. Thus costs are likely similar for these options. Similarly, while costs of any legal issues (hearings, lawsuits) may apply to Option 4, there are also significant costs associated with the land transfer that are not calculated or considered including the costs to respond to legal actions by stakeholders. Other provincially incurred costs of the land transfer are also not considered such as the costs of the ORC Class EA, the OPDA Plan, consultation, and staffing at MMAH and ORC to proceed with the transfer. Pickering has also incurred significant cost due to the Dillon Consulting Limited Page 16 1-1' c:> c.n :Dþ !:B~ 0):> ::I) C"J ....j::t: ~$: m '"C :2: 0-1 lì þl- ~ ¡ a I Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006) and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton) Table 1 Detailed Comments on ORC Class EA ESR for Richmond Hill and Seaton Pal!e Issue p.3-19 and Table 3-7 Significant social and environmental effects are not considered in comparison of additional alternatives Dillon Consulting Limited Comment transfer and OPDA process that are not accounted for in the analysis. Uncertainty from the unknown results of the (this) EA process were also not considered as a constraint. Such a constraint did not exist with straight payment for the land or land freeze. I. The comparison of additional alternatives addresses uncertainty with respect to Alternative 4 (Freeze) (zoning order can be overturned by OMB) but not for Alternatives 5 and 6. Alternative 4 is considered less preferred because the zoning order could be overturned. However, in reality, the Province could eliminate any uncertainty for Alternative 4 because it is within the power of the province to use other existing legislation to "freeze" development without allowing such an appeal or enact new legislation to achieve the same effect. On the other hand, the analysis does not consider the uncertainty that exists for Alternatives 5 and 6 because a land transfer/exchange can be turned down by the Richmond Hill landowners as the "details of a deal" are defined or uncertainty due to court actions or the outcome of this EA. 2. The evaluation indicates that a development freeze would result in loss of investment, construction jobs and related taxes in Richmond Hill. This loss is not certain because those lands were not approved for Page 17 ~ -, Þ C") :c: 't;', $; r-, "2 0 -, ¡--->- ~ 00-4 a OJ Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006) and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton) Table 1 Detailed Comments on ORC Class EA ESR for Richmond Hill and Seaton Pa2e Issue pp. 3-18 to 3-20 Alternative 4 description is biased against this option p. 3-20 Economic impacts may be unfairly presented Impacts are overstated for Seaton as not all land is needed for the exchange Dillon Consulting Limited Comment development and as such, no such loss can be calculated or anticipated with any certainty. (p. 3-20). This section is not a description of the option but rather an evaluation showing this option in a poor light. Note that courts do not create laws - the government creates laws... The analysis defines that lands of equal value must be considered for exchange. The value is set at 28 million dollars for 1050 acres in Richmond Hill based on MP AC assessment. It is perplexing that the 28 million is considered an estimate because roll numbers were not available for all lands. Municipalities have infonnation and roll numbers for all land parcels that would be available to the Province. First, no property value is provided for a comparable acreage for the Seaton lands. This must be provided to make this option legitimate according to the ORC rules applied. Second, a clear delineation of the land area specifically needed for the exchange only is needed to clearly define the undertaking and thus define impacts of the undertaking. Only this acrea !e is of concern to the EA and not the entire Seaton area. The full 8916 acres are not needed nor are thev developable. Page 18 ...... C,) -:I :~ ~. '0- :::: ~( "" ~~ <,,-, Dc ÇJ ~, '4c, ¡--.>- Q ~ Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006) and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton) Table 1 Detailed Comments on ORC Class EA ESR for Richmond Hill and Seaton Pae;e Issue p. 3-21 Exhibit 3.6 Comparison has errors - Net and gross land values are mixed p. 3-21 Section 3.10.3 ---- Important options are missing from the evaluation Dillon Consulting Limited Comment Third, we have concerns that the economic valuation may not be equitable and ask that the following questions be answered: -were gross or net land values applied for each property to establish costs? If the cost for Richmond Hill is for the gross area (1050 acres), then the property values for each ORC site (e.g. 2,3 and 16, 17) must also be on a gross basis for comparison. -were the MPAC assessments completed with equal and accurate/real assumptions regarding development potential? As noted above, the property values should be on a consistent gross or net basis for Richmond Hill and the other properties. Using either consistent gross or net areas, there is enough land to equate to the Richmond Hill land area by combining ORC sites. Portions of the Seaton land should have been included in the combinations. For example: Roue;h Estimate of Net Areas ( teres) Richmond Hill - 420 (40% of 1,050) 3 Oakville - 266 16,17 Whitby -150 (40% of376) 2 Parkway Belt - 128 (40% 320) 21 Seaton - 3,566 (40% of8,916) Page 19 :J:Jl- !"!õ -¡ '-¡-1 -' .-'- :t- :Do .... I ~S; m -02" 0 -; I "IIc ¡ -f I¡->,- c , I C'I !~\. Ie I , ¡....to a 00 Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006) and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton) Table 1 Detailed Comments on ORC Class EA ESR for Richmond Hill and Seaton Pa2e Issue Omission of alternatives - Legitimate alternatives are not considered or evaluated for advantages and disadvantages and net effects Dillon Consulting Limited Comment Clearly a range of area combinations will add up to the net Richmond Hill area. Similarly: Rou!!h Estimate of Gross Areas (acres) Richmond Hill - 1,050 3 Oakville - 1,150 16,17 Whitby-376 2 Parkway Belt - 320 21 Seaton - 8,916 Clearly a range of combinations will add to the gross Richmond Hill area. The economic comparison of equal land areas must be done in the same manner with gross to gross or net to net analyses includes parts of Seaton as appropriate. A number of combinations of sites would appear to have been reasonable as noted above. Since these were not identified, they were not compared and net effects were not identified to ensure that the Seaton land exchange is the preferred solution. Such an evaluation of land options should make reference to provincial policy priorities for growth and complete communities. Page 20 ...... 0 CO :D~ m -; ~ -. c.' :Þ :D 0 ~::r: "I!o~ IT' "'Cz 0 -¡ !~ .¡::3J- !61 !~-, I a i ¡ ¡ Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006) and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton) Table 1 Detailed Comments on ORC Class EA ESR for Richmond HiD and Seaton Page p. 3-21 Section 3.11 Evaluation of Additional Alternatives p.3-28 Section 3.12 Recommended Alternative Dillon Consulting Limited Issue Possibility of negative effects and errors in comparIsons Recommendation is based on inadequate information and may result in significant negative environmental effects Comment Exhibit 3.7 and the text in 3.11 contain a number of omissions and inconsistencies as noted above for the comparison of options. The information presented for the two short list options (Seaton exchange and purchase/expropriate/freeze) does not adequately reflect the environmental effects as noted above: -significant economic effects of Alternative 4 are not included in the analysis -Alternative 4 is in fact three very different alternatives that should be considered separately (purchase versus expropriate versus freeze) -social, natural, cultural and built impacts are described for two unequal land areas. Only the land necessary for the exchange should be considered in this ESR (for Seaton this will be considerably less that the full 8000 acres...). In fact the undertaking land requirements or costs to the taxpayers in Ontario for Seaton are never defined in the ESR. -uncertainties with respect to the land exchange being implemented are not accounted for. These options are not equal. The real differences in impacts for these, and other legitimate "alternatives to" need to be more fully explored and presented to the public before a decision is made. Page 21 ::X;¡þ M-; -c' - 0 » ::x;¡ t, -¡ ::c "11>5; m ""2 0.....; Ii , !t3¡- ~i rs--i ! c ..... ~ 0 Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006) and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton) Table 1 Detailed Comments on ORC Class EA ESR for Richmond Hill and Seaton Page p. 4-1 Alternative Methods Issue Cut and paste error in text (and Exec. Summary) Alternative methods are too narrowly defined and do not address significant negative environmental effects Dillon Consulting Limited Comment The second paragraph pastes a paragraph from Chapter 3.0. The ORC Class EA defines alternative methods as " different ways of doing the same thing". Functionally different alternatives are alternatives to. The purpose of the EA process is to assess "the effects that will be caused or that might reasonably be expected to be caused to the environment" by the undertaking, alternative methods of carrying out the undertaking and the alternatives to the undertaking" (EA Act). Effects of the transfer of land include both the direct loss of environmental attributes due to the land transfer for development as well as impairment of features due to adjacent development activities. The ESR considers only direct loss effects. The ORC Class EA states that methods should consider site planning methods and construction methods (p.4-14). A quick internet check of comparable ORC projects indicates that the range of methods considered by the Seaton ESR is inadequate to meet conventional ORC ESR standards. Consideration of the construction methods for the project that will be enabled by the sale of land must be considered. In other words, it is conventional practice to address methods that relate to design and construction of the facilitated project to protect from impairment due to the project Page 22 ~ ~ ~ :Up IT, ...... V....¡ c' Þ ::D 0 -I:¡: ' ,5; m ""'02 0-1 ' , r-J'- ,I I (j ~ ~ Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006) and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton) Table 1 Detailed Comments on ORC Class EA ESR for Richmond Hill and Seaton Pa2e Issue Comment consequences. This is demonstrated in a recently completed aRC ESR found on the aRC website - the Category C ESR for Granting An Easement for a Brine Pipeline (Project No: Moore 636.1-527). Like the Seaton ESR it is for land transfer and not construction of the pipeline itself. Nevertheless, in this case the alternative methods consider both where and how the pipeline should be built. In this example, the site planning alternatives relate to siting issues and the construction methods alternatives relate to how the subsequent pipeline project should proceed to ensure environmental protection. Unlike the Seaton ESR, this example provides clear guidance to the subsequent planning processes regarding construction methods to ensure adequate environmental protection. Construction methods are not considered in the Seaton ESR. It would have been practical for aRC to consider construction and mitigation because the project to follow on the lands was very well known and clearly defined in two plans for development (GMS and OPDA) at the time the EA was conducted. In order to meet the Class EA requirements, at a minimum, aRC should have identified for each environmental category (natural, social, economic, cultural, built) the significant environmental impacts and mitigation necessary. Mitigation can be defined precisely or in the form of necessary studies with Dillon Consulting Limited Page 23 :á '" ,., ,', -' :X1 Õ ....¡ -,- '*~ m " 2: 0-.., II~ ¡..... ¡.-. l\:) Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006) and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton) Table 1 Detailed Comments on ORC Class EA ESR for Richmond Hill and Seaton Page Issue Comment detailed terms of reference provided. It is ORC's obligation to both consider what land is suitable for transfer (direct effects) and to determine any conditions for land that is sold to ensure sustainable environmental protection. The alternative methods analysis considers only the shape of the land transfer and not the potential for impairment to features due to adjacent development activity. The ESR should have completed an analysis of construction alternatives and/or a carrying capacity assessment to provide guidance to the associated planning processes being conducted by the province, Durham Region and Pickering regarding how much development the land to be transferred can support and with recommendations regarding necessary studies, construction, design and mitigation to be implemented through land use planning and subsequent EA processes. It is not acceptable to simply defer this responsibility to other planning processes assuming that the environment will be fully protected. This approach does not meet the minimum Class EA requirements. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 24 ¡....r. ~ C'.ù ;.:,~ .~. 8;;: :::00 --j :c ~$; m "'t!2 0-1 % I ;...¡ a Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006) and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton) Table 1 Detailed Comments on ORC Class EA ESR for Richmond Hill and Seaton Pae:e Issue Comment Consideration of the PPS and other provincial policy would provide guidance regarding priorities (e.g. water quality, natural systems, complete communities, sustainable communities, etc.) Section 4.0 Effects of the undertaking are not understood The effects of the undertaking are not fully described or defined as defined above and consequently mitigation cannot and is not fully defined in the ESR. p. 4-1 Description of Alternative Methods Alternative methods are too narrowly defined See comments above. No explanation is provided for comparing the three NHS systems as the basis for defining the land to be transferred. The identification of land to be transferred must be based on an objective set of criteria reflecting public policy and good planning. The final outcome would likely be a blended NHS that reflects objectives for ecological system health, cultural heritage/landscape protection, public safety, optimized recreation opportunities and a neighbourhood size to support transit, pedestrian based communities that are economically viable. NHS system comparison has significant errors The attached Tables 2 and 3 show how the numbers used in the comparison for natural environment are incorrect. The numbers for the Pickering lands are related to a different land area than the other two options (i.e. the GMS excludes Duffins Heights). The two attached tables show the corrected numbers. Table 2 includes total core features, corridors and linkage area numbers and shows that the Pickering Dillon Consulting Limited Page 25 þ ~; ~ ""s;, rOo \J;Z 0-1 '1;:. i~ 0 1-4 t..... ~ Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006) and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton) Table 1 Detailed Comments on ORC Class EA ESR for Richmond Hill and Seaton Pa2e Issue Alternative methods do not take into account importance of all open space areas to ecological system health Dillon Consulting Limited Comment GMS system protects the most land overall in Seaton. Table 3 shows the numbers for the individual core features only and shows that the 2005 provincial system protects the most core features. Clearly, any NHS taken forward must protect 100% of these core features. The comparison of NHS systems does not take into account the differences between the systems with regard to corridors, linkages and systems effects including protection of water quality and quantity. It also does not take into consideration the use of open space lands as a significant component of the overall natural heritage system, as well as serving other purposes e.g. parkland, trails etc. The greater protection of significant cultural heritage landscape afforded by the GMS should be noted in the evaluation with reference to provincial policy on this matter. Additional work on carrying capacity and system- wide environmental protection is needed to complete the comparison of site planning alternatives. The final comparison of the NHS systems should highlight advantages and disadvantages with respect to core features, carrying capacity issues as well as cultural heritage, social, economic, neighbourhood design and building effects and tradeoffs. For example, the Pickering GMS Reports indicates that Page 26 ~ ~..... CJ\ ~~. ~5, m '"0 2: ~f I Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006) and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton) Table 1 Detailed Comments on ORC Class EA ESR for Richmond Hill and Seaton Page Issue p. 4-3 Section 4.5 Evaluation of Alternative Configurations of the Natural Heritage System No clear criteria for evaluating the Natural Heritage Systems are applied. Dillon Consulting Limited Comment the NHS was designed to protect natural heritage corridors AND the significant cultural heritage landscape along Whitevale Road as well as optimize neighbourhood configurations to support sustainable neighbourhood design and provide workable recreation linkages. These advantages are not highlighted or compared to similar opportunities/benefits from the other corridor options from the 2004 and 2005 Provincial systems. The Natural Heritage Systems are evaluated against one another, rather than against criteria which are clearly justified from Provincial and Federal planning documents. In addition, the amount of knowledge presented on each area is insufficient to evaluate the potential impacts of development on each system although the fieldwork is available through the combined work of the Pickering and the Province. Hence, the comparison of individual environmental components (e.g. terrestrial, aquatic, groundwater) could have been undertaken with accuracy to take advantage of the detailed infonnation available. The evaluation should be expanded to include detailed effects/mitigation potential etc. Results of this analysis may justify expanding the range of alternatives to include portions of other ORC lands eliminated early in the planning process (described earlier in this report). Page 27 -v ;C' IT -: '"t' --- .~. :t> ;)Jc ""'¡:r: 'ìl>5:; m "'02 O.....¡ ~ 0 <:5"~ 0 ~ ~ 0) Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006) and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton) Table 1 Detailed Comments on ORC Class EA ESR for Richmond Hill and Seaton Page Issue ESR does not provide adequate information to ensure environmental protection as a result of the undertakin2; Dillon Consulting Limited Comment Follow up work to be undertaken at subsequent stages of planning for the communities should be described in detail in this section. Studies should include, for example: Environmental Impact Report on draft plans, Master Environmental Servicing Plan, aquifer vulnerability studies, minimum standards for sustainable community design (Tables of Contents to be provided in the Class EA ESR). It is the responsibility of the proponent (ORC) to ensure that the land transfer will not have significant negative environmental effects. As such, the EA process must provide guidance on methods for the subsequent planning and development of the land by other parties. The necessity of this to an acceptable EA process is defined by precedent. An obvious EA precedent or model for approaching land transfer sales is the CEAA process. For a CEAA screening triggered by a federal land transfer, the Responsible Authority focuses the screening process on defining the mitigation necessary for the new owners to ensure environmental protection. Whether the new owners are public or private is irrelevant. This is consistent with the direction provided to assess construction impacts in the Class EA. Page 28 ~ ~..... -.1 'XI» m ...., as:; :JJ Cö ..... ::::: 'j¡,S; m '"'02 r~ IE;" -' ç: I Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006) and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton) Table 2: Review of Natural Heritage Systems 2 3 - Revised Area without Area Stated in aRC Duffins Heights Natural Heritaae Svstem ESR Table 4-5 Neiahbourhood* Recalculated Area Provincial Natural Heritage System 2004 1914.1 ha 1505.4 ha Provincial Natural Heritage System 2005 2054.5 ha 1645.8 ha Pickering Growth Management Study Natural Heritaqe System 1773.1 ha 1773.1 ha 1790.5 ha *Area of Natural Heritage System in the Duffins Heights Neighbourhood is 408.7 ha for both the 2004 and 2005 Provincial plans. Column 1 reflects the numbers cited in the ORC ESR. Column 2 reflects the revised numbers. These figure represent the Natural Heritage System without the lands located in the Duffins Heights Neighbourhood (i.e. the lands south of the rail line outside our original study area). These numbers are based on scans of both of the Province's maps and then referencing them the GIS maps and calculated areas. Column 3 reflects a more accurate recalculated figure, based on GIS data received directly from City of Pickering. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 29 ~ :~ '* " 0 ! 'c;., !r-",- ;~L ,^, ~ ¡""" 00 Peer Review for ORC Class EA ESR Acquisition of Oak Ridges Moraine Lands in Richmond Hill (January 2006) and the Sale or Disposal and Severance of Lands in Pickering (Seaton) ~ ¡.-to W Table 3: Review of Core Natural Heritage Features 2 3 4 Area Stated in Revised Area without Recalculated aRC ESR Table Area of Feature in Duffins Heights Area of Natural Heritaae System I Measures 4-5 Duffins Hei hts Nei hbourhood* Features Woodlands 855.7 211.3 644.4 Lake Iroquois Shoreline 50 0 50 ::D:Þ Wetlands 116.7 0.8 115.9 q¡~ 48.3 390 0):> ESAs 438.3 :DC') -I:J: Provincial Natural Heritage L Total for Core Natural ,s:; System 2004 Features 1200.3 "t m c~ Woodlands 876.3 211.3 665 I , Lake Iroquois Shoreline 50 0 50 I I L,.- Wetlands 116.7 0.8 115.9 ESAs 438.3 48.4 389.9 ra Provincial Natural Heritage Total for Core Natural System 2005 Features 1220.8 Woodlands 662.5 0 662.5 I 694.3 Lake Iroquois "" Shoreline :..""," 0 "36.3 35.3 Wetlands 0 " 103.6 107.9 ESAs 0 362.7 384.1 Total for Core Natural Features 1 1165.11 01 1165.1 I 1221.6 Column 4 represents the numbers based on the GIS layers received directly from the City of Pickering. These numbers indicate one of two things: 1) Either ORC has made errors in calculating the data for the Pickering NHS or 2) The City of Pickering does not have the most up to date version of the Province's data. These discrepancies should be reconciled. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 30 CiÚ¡ o~ REPORT TO COUNCIL 120 Report Number: HR 01-06 Date: February 2, 2006 From: Gillis A. Paterson Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Baba Gajadharsingh Division Head, Human Resources Subject: Bill 206 - Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act Recommendation: 1. That Report HR 01-06 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer and Division Head, Human Resources be received. 2. That Council support the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO)'s position in opposition to Bill 206, An Act to revise the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act. 3. That the Resolution attached (see Attachment I) be adopted by Council. Executive Summary: The existing Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System (OMERS) plan serves approximately 355,000 members including 98,000 retirees and 900 employers with a portfolio of investments valued at $36 billion. Currently the Ontario government appoints members to the OMERS Board and has the final approval on plan design, changes and contribution rates. In June, 2005 the Province of Ontario introduced Bill 206, An Act to revise the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act. This Bill, among other things, introduces a new governance plan for OMERS as well as Supplemental Pension Plans for Fire, Police and Paramedics. This Bill, with a number of amendments, received second reading in December, 2005 and has been referred back to Standing Committee. Public hearings were held on January 25th and 26th, and Standing Committee commenced clause-by-clause review of the Bill on February 1, 2006. In December, 2005 the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Honourable John Gerretsen, sent a letter to the Durham Regional Chair's office providing an update on the status of the Bill (see Attachment II). ~eport HR 01-06 Date: February 2,2006 12Jubject: Bill 206 - Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act Page 2 This Report provides an overview of the Minister's letter, as well as the Bill (as it stands following second reading), AMO's comments on the Bill (see Attachment III) and the Canadian Union of Public Employee's reaction to the Bill. Financial Implications: Currently, OMERS has a significant cost impact on local property taxes of over $450 million which represents between 1 % and 3% of average municipal budgets (source: Ontario Municipal Human Resources Association). The cost of Supplementary Plans would, most certainly, result in significant additional property tax levies to municipalities. Analysis undertaken by AMO, using actuarial estimates developed by OMERS, concluded that the potential cost to municipalities could be as much as $380 million per year. This analysis was achieved with the assistance of one-hundred and twenty municipal treasurers in Ontario. This translates (on average) to an additional property tax increase of 3% for municipalities. In Pickering's case, this would be an increase of approximately $1 million per year. Discussion: OMERS PLAN GOVERNANCE If passed, Bill 206 will change the governance structure of the OMERS Board whereby the Government of Ontario would no longer be the Plan's sponsor. The governance structure of the OMERS Board would change so that the sponsorship would fall to a Sponsors Corporation with equal representatives from employer and employee groups. An Administration Corporation, also with equal representation from employer and employee groups, would assume the core responsibilities currently held by the OMERS Board. The diagram below outlines the current governance structure as well as the proposed governance structure. CORPO227-07/01 Report HR 01-06 Date: February 2, 2006 122 Subject: Bill 206 - Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act Page 3 CURRENT STRUCTURE PROPOSED STRUCTURE OMERS BOARD ADMINISTRATION CORPORATION . 6 employer reps. . 6 member reps. (including 1 retiree) . 9 employer reps. . 1 Ontario government rep. -^' . 9 member reps. (including 1 retiree) V' Oversees plan administration and fund investments Oversees plan administration and fund investments PLAN SPONSOR (Ontario Gov't) SPONSORS CORPORATION Appoints members to OMERS Board . 11 employer reps. 11 member reps. Has final approval on plan design & contribution rates . Responsible for contribution rates plan design & The proposed structure would permit the Sponsors Corporation to make a specified change (i.e. benefit levels or contribution rates) with a two-thirds majority vote. If a proposal receives only a simple majority vote (i.e. fifty-one % in favor) then it could be referred to mediation and binding arbitration. In addition to the contributions paid by both employers and employees to the pension plan, both groups will also be responsible for paying fees to cover costs associated with the mediation and arbitration of a proposed specified change. Given the size of the Sponsors Corporation, it is likely that the need to resort to binding arbitration may occur very frequently. SUPPLEMENTAL PLANS In addition to the traditional OMERS "Primary" Plan (the plan currently in place), Bill 206 requires the establishment of Supplemental Pension Plans. These plans would be stand alone pension plans that are operated by OMERS in conjunction with the Primary Plan. The Bill requires that Supplemental Plans be established by the Sponsors Corporation within 24 months of the date that the Act comes into force to provide Fire, Police and Paramedics with the opportunity to negotiate access to the following benefits at the local level: CORPO227-07/01 123 Report HR 01-06 Date: February 2, 2006 Subject: Bill 206 - Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act Page 4 . 2.33% accrual rate (compared to 2% accrual rate for Primary Plan) . unreduced pension with 80 factor (if age 50 or older) for Normal Retirement Age (NRA) 60 members . unreduced pension with 85 factor (if age 55 or older) for NRA 65 members . 3 or 4 best average years formula (compared to best 5 years for primary plan) . buy-back option (to be paid by plan members) for service before the date that any of the above benefits are made available locally If the Pickering Professional Firefighters' Association (PPFA) wishes to obtain these benefits, they would have to do so through the collective bargaining process and ultimately, through interest arbitration if collective bargaining is unsuccessful. Under the revised Bill, the benefits listed above can only be offered one at a time (i.e. one per collective agreement). Consequently, this may lead to the Association seeking to shorten the terms of collective agreements in order to accelerate its access to additional benefits. The cost of Supplemental Plans are to be shared equally between employers and employees. These costs can be quite substantial. Currently, OMERS is required to provide for solvency funding (the cost to settle the plan benefits if the plan was to be dissolved). Solvency funding requirements can have a significant impact on employer and employee contributions. The Honourable John Gerretsen's letter to the Durham Regional Chair states that correspondence has been issued to OMERS indicating that the Province is prepared to recommend that Supplemental Plans be exempted from solvency funding. This proposed exemption from solvency funding would help to lessen the short term cost of Supplemental Benefits; however, at this point there is no guarantee that this will occur. CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES (CUPE) Currently, CUPE represents 45% of the OMERS active membership. While CUPE supports OMERS autonomy in principle, they are opposed to the governance model and the Bill's structure around Supplemental Plans. CUPE demands that they have representation on both the Sponsors Corporation and the Administration Corporation that reflects the size of their membership in the plan (45%). Also, CUPE wants immediate access to the same types of Supplemental Benefits that are being prescribed for Fire, Police and Paramedics. The leadership of all CUPE locals met in Toronto on January 25, 2006 to approve an action plan which includes conducting area strike votes to approve a province-wide strike action if the Ontario Government continues to pursue approval of Bill 206 in it is current form. This action plan was approved unanimously by the 450 delegates. Strike votes will be held during the week of February 6, 2006. CUPE will determine by February 10, 2006 whether or not the Ontario Government has met their demands. A CORPO227-07/01 Report HR 01-06 Date: February 2, 2006 124 Subject: Bill 206 - Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act Page 5 further CUPE emergency provincial leadership meeting will be held prior to the implementation of any province-wide strike action. CONCLUSION Bill 206 is very complex and has the potential to impact municipalities significantly through cost, and their ability to control and offer benefits to employees in a fair and equitable manner. The Bill also has the potential to adversely affect every past, present and future member of OMERS. The Province has provided only a narrow window of time, prior to the passage of the Bill, for stakeholders to conduct a thorough analysis of the implications of this legislation and provide their input. We will continue to monitory closely the progress of Bill 206 and provide updates as new developments occur. Attachments: 1. Resolution - Bill 206 - Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act 2. letter to Roger Anderson from John Gerretsen dated December 20, 2005 3. AMO Alert dated December 15, 2005 Approved I Endorsed By: . -~.j=-- ~ Gillis A. Paterson Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Attachments Co : Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering Ci C "I Ba a a rsingh Division H ad, Human Resources d CORPO227-07/01 125 ATTACHMENT # -L-. Hí\'o\ Db Bill 206 - Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act WHEREAS the provincial Standing Committee on General Government is currently debating Bill 206, An Act to revise the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act; and WHEREAS the OMERS pension fund is currently equal to approximately 8% of Ontario's annual GDP; and WHEREAS the OMERS pension fund serves approximately 900 employers and 355,000 diverse employee groups including, current and former employees of municipal governments; school boards; libraries; police and fire departments; children's aid societies; and, electricity distribution companies; and WHEREAS Ontario's municipalities and their employees depend upon the prudent management of the $36 billion plan and to ensure that employees and employers are paying for benefits they can afford; and WHEREAS OMERS employer and employee members are facing an increase in OMERS contributions in 2006 of approximately 9% as a result of a significant deficit in the OMERS fund; and WHEREAS the Bill includes significant, potentially costly and unnecessary changes to the governance structure of OMERS including a Sponsors Corporation structured to be governed by arbitration; and WHEREAS the Bill mandates the creation of expensive Supplementary Plans to provide optional enhanced benefits that will impose new collective bargaining obligations on municipalities, the operating costs of which cannot yet be fully assessed; and WHEREAS the Province has responsibility to study the potential impact of the changes it is proposing and to share the results with employers and employee groups; and WHEREAS AMO and others have urged the government to consider the potential implications of Bill 206 and to ensure the proposed policy changes protect the interests of employers, employees and taxpayers; and WHEREAS the Government is moving in haste with a Bill, which in its current form raises significant technical, public policy and economic issues; Page1 \ ATTACHMENT # ----- THEREFORE BE IT RESOVlED THAT the Corporation of the City of Pickering does not support Bill 206, and requests that the Government of Ontario reconsider the advisability of proceeding with Bill 206 in its current form; and FURTHER IT BE RESOVlED THAT Dan McTeague, MP Pickering-Scarborough East, Mark Holland, MP Ajax-Pickering, the Honourable John Gerretsen, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Honourable Dalton McGuinty, Premier of Ontario, and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario be advised that this Council does not support proposed changes to the OMERS Pension Fund contained in Bill 206. Page2 HR 0\ -ob 126 Mlnisler ot Municipal Atfairs and HoI,.Is/ng ATTACHMENT #- _!- . . Wtlj. Minlstre des Ana/res mun/CIP&les. ~ . ct du Logemcnt Tn. rue Bay,17"élago REGION OF DURHA . TcrOl"\toON M5G2E5 ~~~re.Do/J~' Tél. (416) 585--7000 )) ~ ~ CfD) .Ontario Téléc (416)585-6470 ~ C. . . . WYNJ.møh.aov.on.C8 . . . . , . , I-\~ 01 .(1; 127 777 Bay Slreol, 17'" Floor Toronto ON MSG 26 Tel. (416) 585-7000 Fax (416) 585-6470 www.mah.Clov,on.ca DEe 3 0 2005 (O5~1436) December 20, 2005 Roger Anderson Chair Regional Municipality of Durhapl . PO Box 623, 605 Rosslai:id Road East Whitby, ON L1N 6A3 O~F~ÇE:OF TH'E REGIONAL CHAIR ..". . Dear Roger Anderson: Re: . Rill 206: Ontario Municipal Emplovees Retirement System Act I am writing to you with an update now that I have introduced Bill 206 mto the legislature for second reading. .' . . '. . Many of your submissions indicated a concern about the potential cost of a.supplemental benefit. plan for the police and fire sectors and for paramedics- This is a natural concem;buctþe' '. government is moving forward to require the implemenlaúon of specific pension benefits . because we believe it is important to provide police, fire and paramedic. employees!:~iththe option 10 bargain locally for these enhancements. We. have also introd~~d~é:l,nUII1beriof. amendmentS at the Standing Committee on General Government that should help to contain the costs of these potential benefits a.Dd potential future benefits. Bill 206, if passed, will not impose any new cost or pension benefit on any employer Or employee. It will require that the prop9sed new Sponsors Corporation set up, wÜbin 24 months, a supplëmental benefit plan that will include tbe optional pension benefits outlined in tbe Bill. Once tbe supplemental benefit plan is made a....a.il~blc, it wiu be up to local grocps of employees and employers to decide whether or Dot £hey wish to access a new pension benefit. The bill allows for no more than one of the potential new supplemental benefits to be negotiated between individual employer and itS employees at a time. With respect to the decìsion-making and dispute resolution process, the Bill, as amended following first reading, would require that decisions on specific major plan changes, such as changes in benefits or contribution rates, could be approved by a tWo-thirds majority vote of the Sponsors Corporation. This would ensure tbat there was significant support by both employees and employers. Access to mediation and arbitration with respect to any specified changes in benefits would now require majority support by the Sponsors Corporation representatives of both employees and employers. . /2 "Z>¡Oðl9Oj 58 ATTACHMENT#~.TOREPORT# ~~ ~i-Db - 2- 128 Roger Anderson,Chair Regional Municipality of Durham The Bill continues to propose the requirement of a stability res¿ri.r~ ôf iOs ~er cent before benefits could be increased and a C<1p of OS,per cellt for bothemploy~es anc1:eznployers on awards arbirratedforthe Sponso'rs Corporation. " ' " This govemmeIit recognÌ?es that the costs of supplemental benefits, if theYiare"subjed to:the full ' reC¡ uire.inòn,Ì5 of the PeDsion Benefits Ac~ such as the solvency:funâlliii reqúirêíiîerits/"'oÌ1ll~e, quite onerous for both employees and employers. Therefore, in addition to the changeso'ûUmêd above, I am pleased to advise you tba[ the Mirúster of Finance .has issued a letter. to the Ontario, Municipal Employëes RetiremenrSyst~in(OME~S)*d1êat4I&-~~(¥~){pr~jj~~'4 to.." ','. " , recommend, subject tocertáin conditions, that new si.tþþlemerÚal benefit plans under OMERS be exempted from the solvency funding rules through an amendment to the Pension Benefits Aci Regulation. ~tjs my_understanding thatOMERS sent,.a:copyof¡this.Ietter,to(aÙst:éù::ehôlders. This èxeaiptidn woUld .occur at thc' time tlÌattheplans are .creàtediuid;;reg;isteied:with the" '.. ,', "" S ~pe rirHen~e:nt. òi F mandaI S e"" j O:s. TIû s' weill d at n taÎ1i' ëösÌ5 ãiìd'm~e š~p¡;liiirì~'¡@~è;'¿iï Is, more affordablefOrbothempIOyceS',and"e~ploýers~",",;,->':''.-:; t~;"¡~,:' ,,'~:;':.',',,::"" " , " " ' " " In closing. I would like to clarity that our government,~~~~,(:)1~~,~~![O"p'~o,~iq~{;~!'s~eholders ' with costing information on potential benefit enhancemeÌ1ts,aS,onIy OMERS maintains d~ta nccessaryt,o çC?nduct lh~se typeset actuarjal ~al)'ses~ Jndi'lidualmunicipalities;can;apply the;' " 0 MER~ ~ëtûari~l, 4tinlat"s.. ~ò thèir specifi c co ad; lions in òrde r, to est,ÏID¡à~e; R~ t.¥ii¡Ù'1 ò~: \"'~ ts ' under:vanous benefil scenanos.~ A number of stakeholders,have~used-the'datrand 'ha.vemade a number of assumptions that presume that every municipality will ÎImnediate!}t give all ~ligiblc: em ployee groupS ,s.-era! e,.eosive beiu:fit.s.. TIils aña¡ÿsi~ &¥~p~:~"#§,?i~ Ì!>~('," " employees and 'employers would not make any rrdde~offs WIth any other salary or benefit ,Items through()U,rt.h~.c91l,ecúve bargain~ngprocess~ ", ':,' -,-,\:,> ;, ,'. ','" " ' , ' " , " "',,' "'" " , '- , , r trust this infònnatlon is helpful and I look forward,to receivin'gfurtherreCQmme~dar.ionsor comments on this important maner. .',,' '" ' ,",: i",,::, "-, "":;,"'-;, "', ' Sincerely, , , " " , ", , ' J oha GerrcLSen Minister' : " " ':. \ , ': ,i ' ",,' c: Roger Anderson, President, Association of Municipaliti~sofÒniari~ ' ' '. '" , Fp:d~Íro,Cbair, Ontario Municipal .Er.nployees RetiremectSystel11 : The Honourable Dwight Duncan, Mínisler of Finance' " "'",' '" ,"", , , 59 AMO I OMERS - Bill 206 Receives Second Reading and Heads Back to Standing Comm... Page 1 of 3 129 ATTACHI'1H<. .3 itf< oj -01::> ~bt. I\ssociation of Municipalities of Ontario To the immediate attention of the Clerk and Council December 15, 2005 - Alert 05/092 OMERS - BILL 206 RECEIVES SECOND READING AND HEADS BACK TO STANDING COMMITTEE Issue: Amendments to Bill 206 make some substantive changes to the governance structure, voting and supplemental plans. The Bill has become even less permissive and more costly. (lin!<:tQt:he ~ menc:JectBil D Action: Municipal governments need to continue the message that neither the Bill nor its amendments have been analyzed for cost impacts and that the Bill is creating a very complex pension plan. The amended Bill has been referred back to Standing Committee for further consideration prior to Third Reading - the dates for which are yet to be confirmed. AMO will prepare a further submission to the Standing Committee and keep members informed of the commentary and amendment requests. Members should take every opportunity inform MPPs and taxpayer groups of the devastating impact that Bill 206 will have on Ontario's communities. Understanding the Amendments to the Bill: At clause-by-clause review there were more than 100 motions for amendments to Bill 206 tabled for review by the Standing Committee members. Some of the most significant Government (i.e., Liberal) proposals that amended the Bill as passed at Second Reading included: . Paramedics- Are included in the meaning of "police and fire sectors" and were not part of our costing. It has also been clarified that civilian officers are included. This will increase costs dramatically. . Supplemental Plans- Supplemental plans shall be provided to police and fire sectors (no longer optional) and paramedics. Bill 206 would now require 4 supplemental plans to be made available for local negotiations within two years of the Act coming into force: a 2.33 accrual rate for NRA 60 a unreduced at 80 (if age 50 or older) for NRA60 a unreduced at 85 (if age 55 or older) for NRA65 a best 3 years or best 4 years (compared to best 5 years in basic plan) The amended Bill limits the provision of these supplemental plans to one per round of local collective bargaining - which will likely have the unintended affect of reducing the length of contracts to one year. . Funding of rebound costs - assets from the supplemental plan will be transferred to the primary plan to fund liabilities created by supplemental plans. . Cap on Contributions - the 60 months BAE and 0.6% CPP offset limits only apply to the primary plan, not applicable to supplemental plans. . Arbitration Decisions - Prohibits awards that would result in a three year cumulative increase of more than 0.5% of pensionable earnings. . Composition of Sponsors and Administration Corporation{s) - Includes two (2) additional 02/02/2006 AMO I OMERS - Bill 206 Receives Second Reading and Heads Back to Standing Comm... Page 2 of 3 ATTACHMENT#~ TO REPORT#.!t€.OI-Ob members on the Sponsors Corporation for AMO for a total of 5 appointments on the Sponsors Corporation, and a total of 3 appointments to the Administration Corporation. In addition, AMO will be required to make two appointments to an advisory committee on supplementary plans for the police and fire sectors and 3 appointments to an advisory committee on supplemental benefits for other employees. In total, AMO will be required to make 13 appointments. 130 AMCTO will be provided with a seat as an employee representative on behalf of all management/union exempt OMERS members. . Decision Making - The government has introduced a complicated and unusual new decision making protocol. The Sponsors Corporation may make a specified change (e.g. change to benefits or contribution rates) with an affirmative vote of two-thirds of its members. If a proposal is neither accepted (2/3 majority), nor rejected (simple majority votes against), within a 30-day period, the Sponsors Corporation may, by an affirmative vote of a simple majority of its members (i.e., 50% + 1), refer the proposal to mediation and arbitration. . Solvency - Current pension solvency rules under the Pension Benefits Act (PBA) make supplemental plans considerably more expensive for employers and employees than they would be if the solvency rules did not apply. On December 8, 2005, Finance Minister Dwight Duncan, wrote to the OMERS Board indicating that he is prepared to "... recommend to Cabinet" that new supplemental plans created under Bill 206 be exempted from solvency requirements, through a regulation amendment, under the following conditions: 1. that, subject to the approval of Cabinet, the supplemental plans are prescribed by regulation as jointly sponsored pension plans under the PBA as amended by the Budget Measures Act, 2006 (which passed Third Reading on December 14, 2005.) 2. that, subject to the approval of Cabinet, the supplemental plans will be exempted from coverage under the Pension Benefits Guarantee Fund (PBGF). The plans would not be covered by the fund if the plans were not funded on a solvency basis. 3. that the supplemental plans be created in a way that ensures that, in the event that the plan is wound up, if there are insufficient assets to pay for the accrued benefits, members would only receive benefits to the extent that they are already funded, (i.e., the pension plans will reduce benefits if there are insufficient assets rather than require additional payments by employers or employees.) The difference related to solvency rules is illustrated in the OMERS Board's hypothetical costing analysis. The actuarial consultant hired by OMERS prepared an example of a "Hypothetical Employer" with 1000 employees: 260 NRA60 employees and 740 NRA65 employees. In the "Hypothetical Employer" example, OMERS costs increase from $4.04 million to $5.35 million a year with solvency rules in place - an increase in pension costs of 30%. With an exemption from solvency rules, the same employer's costs would increase about 10%, from $4.04 million to $4.41 million. However, the costing assumed only one supplemental plan per employee group, which is now an unrealistic scenario given the aforementioned amendments to Bill 206 adding paramedics and making a menu of supplemental plans mandatory over time. Although the intent of the Minister's letter is helpful, it provides no guarantee that the solvency exemption will occur. Consequently, it would be irresponsible to consider the cost implications of Bill 206 outside of the current solvency rules. Potential Fiscal Implications: Because there are no guarantees that the solvency rules will be changed, AMO is not in a position to reduce its cost estimates of an average 3% property tax increase or up to $380 million a year. In 02/02/2006 AMO I OMERS - Bill 206 Receives Second Reading and Heads Back to Standing Comm... Page 3 of 3 131 ATTACHMENT#~._- TO REPORT#i!E._~i'O'" fact, with the addition of paramedics and a new guarantee of additional supplemental benefits, costs could be higher than initially estimated by the more than 120 municipal treasurers in Ontario who undertook a costing analysis on behalf of AMO. Although AMO and others have requested costing information from the Government, the Government has provided no information on costs. In an effort to determine if the government has carried out any cost analysis of Bill 206's original or amended provisions, AMO is proceeding to make an information request under the provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Summary: While some municipalities, and AMO, were permitted to participate in the Committee hearings, many municipal stakeholders were shut out of the process entirely. More than 160 municipal governments have passed resolutions asking the government to reconsider Bill 206. Instead the government appears to be forging ahead with amendments that ignore the concerns of municipal governments and substantially meet virtually all of the expectations of the police and fire service unions. If Bill 206 becomes law in Ontario, municipal governments will need to prepare for continuing property tax increases and/or significant service reductions to pay for enriched retirement benefits. It is clear that Liberal government is creating its own legacy, akin to the downloading legacy of the Harris government. Municipal governments and their residential and commercial taxpayers deserve nothing but full disclosure of the government's costing analysis as part of their due diligence on this major policy initiative. For more information, contact 416-971-9856: Pat Vanini, Executive Director, at ext. 316 or Brian Rosborough, Director of Policy at ext. 318 Back 02/02/2006 ûú¡ o~ 132 MOTIONS AND NOTICE OF MOTIONS 1. Request from Councillor Pickles on behalf of the Pickering Advisory Committee on Race Relations & Equity to proclaim February 19-25, 2006 as HeritaQe Week THEREFORE, The Council of the City of Pickering do hereby proclaim Heritage Week as February 19 - 25, 2006 in celebration of the rich cultural diversity in the City of Pickering and the awareness of the leadership of the municipal government to foster equality, respect and diversity. ûú¡ o~ BY -LAWS 6618/06 6619/06 6620/06 6621/06 6622/06 133 A by-law to permit the implementation of Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2005-02 containing 12 detached dwellings. This by-law implements the September 19, 2005 resolution of Council for the approval of Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2005-02 and Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 06/05 to permit the development of 12 detached dwellings on 12 metre frontage lots along the extension of Wingarden Crescent and Shade Master Drive, on lands being Part of lot 21, Plan 819 (40R-20799, Parts 1, 8,9& 10), Pickering. A by-law to appoint Special Municipal law Enforcement Officers to enforce the Parking By-law at 1100 Begley Street and 1775 Valley Farm Road, Pickering. This by-law implements the recommendation contained in Item #4 of the Executive Committee Report EC 2006-02. [Report CS 07- 06] A by-law to dedicate Blocks 33 and 36, Plan 40M-1919, Pickering as public highways. . This by-law implements the recommendation contained in Item #1 of the Executive Committee Report EC 2006-02. [Report PD 03-06] A by-law to assume the roads as public highways and the services within Plan 40M-1919 (save and except from lot 10, Block 30 and those parts of Block 35, being Parts 1 and 7, 40R-19037) and Plan 40M-1969 (save and except from Blocks 124,129,130,131 and 132) under the jurisdiction of the City of Pickering. . This by-law implements the recommendation contained in Item #1 of the Executive Committee Report EC 2006-02. [Report PD 03-06] A by-law to amend By-law 1416/82 providing for the regulation and licensing of places of amusement. . This by- law implements the recommendation contained in Item #1 of the Executive Committee Report EC 2006-02. [Report PD 03-06] 134 6623/06 A by-law to authorize the release and removal of the Subdivision Agreement from title respecting Plan 40M-1919 (save and except from lots 10, 11 and Block 30), Pickering. This by-law implements the recommendation contained in Item #1 of the Executive Committee Report EC 2006-02. [Report PD 03-06] 6624/06 A by-law to authorize the release and removal of the Subdivision Agreement from title respecting Plan 40M-1969, Pickering. This by-law implements the recommendation contained in Item #1 of the Executive Committee Report EC 2006-02. [Report PD 03-06] OiL¡ o~ Minutes I Meeting Summary TAXICAB ADVISORY COMMITTEE January 18, 2006 10:30 am Chair - Regional Councillor Maurice Brenner Attendees: Guest: Maurice Brenner, Regional Councillor, Chair Gurham Jagpal Singh Jaswant Singh Pannu Gurbax Singh Mann Kewal Manocha Bajwa Bhupinder Chris Del Duca Kimberley Thompson, City of Pickering Renée Michaud, City of Pickering Grant Smith, City of Pickering Chantal Whitaker, City of Pickering Alex Palenov, RJA Transportation System Ron Roffey, RJA Transportation System Ashok Sharma, Durham Rapid Taxi Colin McCarthy, Durham College, Business & Industry Development Service (BIDS) Joy lavergne, Durham College, BIDS Carl Bogner, Taxicab, Training Course Instructor 2. CORPO228-2/02 Actio'n Items'lS ~, "(incl¡¡d~d~(;/ji;'e:¿'!; , approp(Íater<' "(';. . ",,' , "",. T '., That the minutes of the November 15, 2005, meeting be approved. CARRIED Councillor Brenner mentioned that the committee's mandate was defined and is very task oriented. We are operating under tight timelines and must complete our goals by the end of Council's term in November 2006. Committee Protocol Presentation Committee members were reminded of the protocol to be followed after presentations. Committee members will be given an opportunity to ask questions followed by input from the uests. Page 1 Alex Palenov, RJA Transportation System, gave a presentation on mobile security systems developed by their company which could be used in local taxi cabs. Committee members were given a copy of the CD presentation to show their partners and employees. The product is available on a trial basis pilot project at no cost. A prototype product would be set up in each vehicle allowing the taxicab companies to evaluate the system and decide if it is feasible and what the cost benefits would be. Ron enquired if the City would consider implementing this mobile security system in their fleet vehicles. Grant agreed that it could be beneficial for the "Eyes on the Street" program and some of the Operations fleet vehicles. Councillor Brenner expressed an interest in having a prototype system in the bylaw enforcement vehicles. Questions from committee members: . Mr. Buphinder asked how the software was controlled and/or monitored and if any improvements are easy to upgrade and whether there is a warranty for the equipment. Mr. Palenov indicated that the software is distributed as part of the technology, no license required and upgrades can be done on site with minimum disruption to users. He noted that at this time the system is video based only since audio technology is restricted in Canada as per the Freedom of Information policies. The system can handle audio once it is legalized for use in Canada. . Mr. Manocha enquired about the cost for the system. Mr. Palenov indicated that the cost runs between $1,200 to $1,700 based on installation, model and number of units. The cost would be worked out with each company based on their needs. . Councillor Brenner reiterated that RJA Transportation System is offering one demo unit to each taxicab company as a pilot project. This is at no cost. . Mr. Manocha asked if any studies had been done to determine any cost savings on insurance. Page 2 CORPO228-2/02 . Mr. Palenov stated that the only study available is based on the system installed in a transit service, where the annual insurance costs were $35,000 and have now been reduced to $18,000. . Councillor Brenner indicated that the insurance companies would probably consider a rate reduction for taxicab companies if this system were installed in their fleet. . Mr. Palenov indicated that his team would be pleased to present this to the insurance companies to show the benefits involved. . Councillor Brenner asked if the system could be used in other areas such as parks to monitor vandalism. Mr. Palenov mentioned that the system has been used in bait cars and parking lots and that it has proven very beneficial. Ron Roffey indicated that the night optics feature is very good. The system can also be accessed from anywhere via Internet. Councillor Brenner stated that, subsequent to presentation and endorsement by Senior Management, the City would certainly be interested in participating in the pilot project for the bylaw enforcement fleet cars and a demo for the parks and invited Mr. Palenov to attend the CAVE meeting to do the same presentation. The Wind City Taxicab company indicated that they would discuss with their partners first and advise if they are interested. Councillor Brenner indicated that no one is obligated to buy the product after the test pilot project period is completed. Each taxicab company makes their own arrangements with the supplier. The Committee will however, conduct an evaluation process after the pilot project phase. Mr. Manocha advised that he is interested in the project especially if the insurance companies endorse it and their rates are reduced. Councillor Brenner suggested that Mr. Manocha provide feedback to the committee once the system has been installed for the pilot project. Further discussions to follow between the individual taxicab companies and the supplier to make their own arranQements. CORPO228-2/02 Mr. Manocha to provide feedback once pilot project is completed. Page 3 Kim Thompson advised that she would contact the Pick N Go company to distribute the information and let them decide if they wish to enter into an agreement for the pilot project. Councillor Brenner stated that the City has not made any endorsement at this time. Mr. Bhupinder indicated that this is a good opportunity for their industry since there is no obligation, however, he expressed some concerns as to what happens when the unit fails, and how long the repair time would be. Mr. Palenov advised that the unit would be replaced immediately. Mr. Palenov mentioned that their goal as a new company is to get the product out in the market to get exposure, support and feedback. They are also interested in working closely with the insurance agencies. Councillor Brenner stated that this is a great opportunity for the taxicab companies to get involved and be proactive with this project because there will be a major launch, with press conference which would provide free advertisement for the com anies involved. Subsidies Available for Green Vehicles -IPurchaseor conversion As requested in November 2005, Ms. Whitaker gave a presentation on Alternative "Green" options to fuel the taxicab industry within Pickering. Ms. Whitaker also provided a comparison of "green" vehicles including Bio-diesel, Ethanol, Natural Gas, Propane and Hybrid Electric. Each option is described based on the following criteria: ability to convert environmental impact vehicle safety vehicle performance fuel availability expense financial incentive Mr. Manocha indicated that he converted to propane in 2004 and has already seen about a 40% reduction in fuel cost. Mr. Singh mentioned that his company has converted some of their fleet vehicles to ethanol. Councillor Brenner stated that there are definite benefits for the taxicab indust but also an advanta e for the Ci to artner CORPO228-2/02 Kim Thompson to contact Pick N Go to offer them the pilot project. Page 4 with them to conduct the research on these alternatives to find out the best alternatives. There may also be incentives for taxicab companies to have additional plates known as "green" plates. The City will work closely with the taxicab companies interested in converting some of their fleet vehicles. Mr. Manocha mentioned that for taxicab ratio is 1:10 for regular vehicles. This is a great initiative since it helps the environment by converting late model cars and provides assistance to the individual owner operators and be proactive. Councillor Brenner advised that a decision needs to be reached with regards to what type of incentive the industry wants, i.e. waiver of fee for plate, additional plates known as "green ambassador" plates and we also need to determine the number of plates to be allocated to each company. We need to confirm if there is an interest in moving ahead with this project. Kim Thompson suggested that the taxicab companies develop a proposal for the City's review and consideration. Mr. Bhupinder indicated that it might be a good idea to convert some surplus plates into this project. Councillor Brenner stressed that some form of "green" taxicab plate will be part of the new by-law. The City does not want to impose any restrictions on the industry. The 3 options put forward were: 1. Set target to convert specific % of fleet to green. 2. Voluntary conversion of plates to green. 3. Introduction of green ambassador plates by City. Mr. Bhupinder suggested that the taxicab companies work collectively to come up with recommendations for review and discussion at the next meeting, utilizing the 3 options outlined, or alternate suggestions. The information provided by Chantal Whitaker will be used to determine if a vehicle meets "green" criteria. Ms. Whitaker indicated that the "Eyes on the Street" windshield decals are now available and will be issued with the 2006 license renewal. CORPO228-2/02 The taxicab companies to provide their recommendations at the next meeting. Page 5 At the request of the Taxicab Advisory Committee and the demand for better driver training, Kim Thompson researched available training programs for taxi drivers and has been working with the Durham College, Business Industry Development Services (BIDS), to develop a program that would meet the needs of the drivers in Pickering. Durham College presently provides the service to the City of Oshawa. Mr. McCarthy handed out a sample of the proposed Taxicab training course, which will be held at the Durham College training centre. (Note: The City would consider offering the course at a Pickering facility if there is a high demand from local area taxicab companies.) The College has developed three (3) programs for the drivers: . A 3-week (2 evenings/week - Monday & Wednesday), 18 hours to be completed within 2 years, 1 st License, mandatory for all drivers. . A 1-day Taxicab Driver Refresher Course (6hrs), mandatory after 5 years, 1 st test, for license renewal. . A 2-hour Exemption Exam for drivers. If failed, then drivers must register for the1-day Refresher Course for license renewal. Mr. McCarthy noted that the program was originally designed as a 3-day course, but was too time consuming for the drivers and not feasible. The tuition fee for the 3-week program is $275 (tax deductible). The course outline includes: . Driver training, road rage and safety. . Business Management & Financial Planning . Vehicle Care and Maintenance . Cultural Awareness . Review . Final Exam (multiple choice questions) It was also noted that if a student fails the program, the City is notified and the license is revoked or suspended until the student passes. The passing mark is 75%. Students must also enroll in a First Aid/CPR course. The 3-day course will be offered every two months and requires a minimum of 10 articipants. The instructor is Carl Bo ner. Page 6 CORPO228-2/02 The course curriculum was developed in consultation with local taxicab companies and focused on the needs of the industry in the Durham Region. The Driver Certificate applies to all of Durham Region and reciprocal agreements could be arranged with other regional municipalities. Councillor Brenner stated that the Durham College course would be a mandatory requirement for obtaining a license in the City of Pickering. There were concerns raised with regards to literacy level for some new drivers and whether it would be a barrier for them to take the course and attempt to write the exam. Mr. McCarthy indicated that the College certainly recognizes that there may be some issues with literacy and that they would be willing to work with the student to offer alternatives to the writing tests. If a student fails the course and feels that it may be due to a language barrier, they can always file an appeal with the College. Mr. McCarthy indicated that the students must have a 100% attendance record, unless they are absent for medical reasons or religious holidays. Councillor Brenner indicated that Durham College is committed to diversity and recognizes human rights and recommended that the College consult a multi-faith calendar before scheduling any of the courses to ensure that the sessions do not fall during any religious holidays. The Taxicab companies may offer to pay for the training up front and deduct a weekly fee from the drivers to help them cover the cost of the course. It was noted however, that the tax-deductible receipt is still issued to the student and not the company. It was suggested that the committee should be given an opportunity to review and evaluate the course after the first year. Mr. Bhupinder stated that the taxicab drivers are often the first point of contact for visitors to the area and are known as ambassadors for the City, therefore it is essential for the drivers to be able to communicate with clients. Mr. Manocha enquired if the City would consider course exemptions for older drivers. Page 7 CORPO228-2/02 Councillor Brenner advised that the City would not consider giving exemptions at this time. The course has been designed to offer the least financial impact on drivers and is easily accessible. Moved by Mr. Manocha that the committee endorse the Durham College Taxicab Driver Training course and make it mandatory for all drivers. It was further moved that the committee evaluate the program after the first two sessions have been held and then make recommendations regarding the course curriculum. CARRIED Discussion ..Plate leasin Kim Thompson advised that the 2006 plate renewal letters would be issued shortly. The Clerk's division is clearing up the waiting list for outstanding plates and will be contacting the taxicab companies either by telephone or letters. 7. The provision for leasing plates has been deferred. Further details to follow. 200QMeeting Schedul.e 8. The next meeting will be held on Wednesday, February 22" at 10:30 am in the Main Committee Room. Moved by Mr. Manocha that the meeting be adjourned at 2: 15 m. Copy: CAO City Clerk Page 8 CORPO228-2/02