Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 18, 2006 Council Meeting Agenda Tuesday, April 18,2006 Council Chambers 7:30 pm 1. NO PRE-MEETING HAS BEEN SCHEDULED I) INVOCATION Mayor Ryan will call the meeting to order and lead Council in the saying of the Invocation. II) DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST III) ADOPTION OF MINUTES PAGE Regular Council Meeting of April 3, 2006 1-23 IV) PRESENTA TIONS V) DELEGA TIONS 24 VI) CORRESPONDENCE 25-59 VII) EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE REPORT a) Executive Committee Report EC 2006-06 60-65 Executive Committee Minutes [For information only] 66-77 VIII) REPORTS - NEW AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS 78-117 IX) MOTIONS AND NOTICE OF MOTIONS 118-119 X) BY -LAWS 120-121 XI) OTHER BUSINESS XII) CONFIRMATION BY-LAW XIII) ADJOURNMENT Council Meeting Minutes Monday, April 3, 2006 7:30 PM PRESENT: Mayor David Ryan COUNCILLORS: K.Ashe M. Brenner D. Dickerson R. Johnson B. McLean D. Pickles ALSO PRESENT: T. J. Quinn E. Buntsma N. Carroll G. Paterson D. Bentley D. Shields - Chief Administrative Officer - Director, Operations & Emergency Services - Director, Planning & Development - Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer - City Clerk - Deputy Clerk (I) INVOCATION Mayor Ryan called the meeting to order and led Council in the saying of the Invocation. (II) DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST 1. Councillor Ashe declared a conflict of interest in accordance with the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act with respect to the current and capital budgets for employer contributions due to a business relationship with a consulting firm that the City deals with. Councillor Ashe did not take part in the discussion or vote on the matter. 2. Councillor Brenner declared a conflict of interest in accordance with the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act with respect to the current and capital budgets for the Clerk's Division, Animal Services & Culture & Recreation Division due to family members employed by the City in these areas. Councillor Brenner did not take part in the discussion or vote on the matter. - 1 - Council Meeting Minutes Monday, April 3, 2006 7:30 PM 3. Councillor McLean declared a conflict of interest in accordance with the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act with respect to the current and capital budgets for the Culture & Recreation Division due to family members employed by the City in this area. Councillor McLean did not take part in the discussion or vote on the matter. (III) ADOPTION OF MINUTES Moved by Councillor Johnson Seconded by Councillor Brenner Regular Council Meeting of March 20, 2006 CARRIED (IV) PRESENTATIONS 1. Nick Trantos Durham Business Times Readers Choice Award Re: 151 in Durham ReQion for PickerinQ Recreation Complex Nick Trantos, Durham Business Times, presented the Readers Choice Award to Mayor Ryan and Thomas J. Quinn, Chief Administrative Officer for the Pickering Recreation Complex, which was voted as being the best sport and recreation club in Durham Region. Special acknowledgement was made to Thomas J. Quinn in acknowledgement of his foresight and vision in relation to the Pickering Recreation Complex. Sharon Milton, Supervisor, Facility Programs thanked the community for the Readers Choice Award. She also thanked the Pickering Recreation Complex staff for their dedication and hard work in providing the community with a high level and variety of services. 2. Corporate Sponsor RecoQnition - 20 Minute PickerinQ Makeover Mayor Ryan presented certificates to Pizza Pizza, Home Depot Canada, Tim Hortons, McDonald's Restaurants of Canada, TD Canada Trust Branch and TD Friends of the Environment Foundation, the Toronto Star and the Toronto Sun for their support in the 20 Minute Makeover in Pickering program. Mayor Ryan also thanked Chantal Whittaker, Coordinator, Environmental Awareness Programs for her dedication to the program. - 2 - Council Meeting Minutes Monday, April 3,2006 7:30 PM 3. True Sport Community Councillor McLean noted that the City of Pickering had received a $10,000.00 cheque from Bell Canada in support of Pickering's True Sport Community program. The True Sport Community program is a National movement that teaches core values in sports which includes fairness, excellence and fun and respectfulness in the conduct of sports. Councillor McLean noted that Pickering was one of three communities to receive the donation. (V) DELEGA TIONS 1. Update on how Rouge Valley Health System is meeting the needs of constituents through new services, partnerships with other healthcare providers and RVAP redevelopment Hume Martin, President & CEO, Rouge Valley Health System and Dave Sinclair, Rouge Valley Health System, Board of Directors appeared before Council to provide an update on the Rouge Valley Health System and how they are meeting the needs of the residents through new services and partnerships. They noted their thanks to Council and to the Friends of the Ajax-Pickering Hospital group for their continued efforts in providing quality care to area residents and in their support of hospital redevelopment. Morgan Devin, Friends of the Ajax-Pickering Hospital appeared before the Council and also thanked Council for their continued support in making sure service reductions were not implemented. He noted that they still continue to have concerns with the services provided at the Ajax-Pickering Hospital and stated it should be a full service major hospital with additional beds and operating rooms, 24/7 obstetrical and paediatric services and future needs for the growing population in the area should be addressed. A question and answer period ensued. 2. Murray Evans Evans Planning Representing the Operator of the Business 1050 Brock Road, Pickering Re: PO 22-06. Zoninq Bv-Iaw Amendment Application A22/05 Murray Evans of Evans Planning appeared before the Council on behalf of the applicant, in support of Zoning By-law Amendment Application A22/05. Mr. Evans noted he represented the business owner and requested that Council not - 3 - Council Meeting Minutes Monday, April 3, 2006 7:30 PM deny the application. He further noted that even though massages would be conducted, there would be no one under the age of 18 allowed on the premises and all attendants would be fully clothed, therefore concluded the business was in fact a spa and not a Body Rub Parlour. He questioned whether a special definition could be created with special restrictions for this property. He noted that the owner was willing to be over controlled and would accept additional requirements to operate at this location. 3. Samantha Keser, Barrister & Solicitor Solicitor Representing an Interested Party Re: PO 22-06, Zoning By-law Amendment Application A22/05, And CS 14-06 ChanQes to Proposed Body Rub Parlour By-Ia~ Samantha Kesser, Barrister & Solicitor appeared before the Council in opposition to application A22/05 and noted her support in Council's denial of this application. She noted that her client was also interested in the property and questioned whether applications that were already submitted would be allowed to continue even though they would be going over the recommended 3 parlour limit. She noted that she felt those applications should be grandfathered into the system. 4. Dan Dragan Gavrilovic, Barrister & Solicitor Solicitor Representing a number of Commercial Tenants at 1050 Brock Road, Pickering Re: PO 22-06. ZoninQ Bv-Iaw Amendment Application A22/05. Dan Gavrilovic, Barrister & Solicitor appeared before the Council representing a number of Commercial Tenants at 1050 Brock Road and noted their opposition to application A22/05. Mr. Gavrilovic reiterated his comments made at the Executive Committee and noted that they stood by those comments and would like to see the application denied. (V) CORRESPONDENCE 1. CORR. 17-06 P.M. MADILL REGIONAL CLERK REGION OF OURHAM 605 Rossland Rd. E. Whitby, Ontario L 1 N 6A3 Resolution #36/06 -4- Council Meeting Minutes Monday, April 3, 2006 7:30 PM Moved by Coucillor Dickerson Seconded by Councillor Brenner That Council endorse the resolution passed by Regional Council with respect to Provincial Commitment to Honour the Allocations for Best Start Program and National Early Learning and Child Care Program. CARRIED ON A RECORDED VOTE YEA NAY Councillor Brenner Councilor Dickerson Councillor McLean Councillor Pickles Mayor Ryan Councillor Ashe Councillor Johnson 2. CORR. 18-06 YVONNE BOSCH, CO-CHAIR BILL PARISH, CO-CHAIR FRIENDS OF THE AJAX PICKERING HOSPITAL 68 Hills Road Ajax. Ontario L 1 S 2W4 Resolution # 37/06 Moved by Coucillor Oickerson Seconded by Councillor Brenner That the submission to the Social Policy Review Committee on Bill 36 and requesting Council to endorse their submission or their recommendations and forward the endorsement to the Minister of Health and Long Term Care be received for information. CARRIEO 3. CORR. 19-06 CUSTOMS EXCISE UNION OOUANES ACCISE NATIONAL OFFICE 1741 Woodward Orive Ottawa. Ontario K2C OP9 - 5 - Council Meeting Minutes Monday, April 3, 2006 7:30 PM Resolution # 38/06 Moved by Coucillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Brenner That a letter with respect to the matter of border security in Canada and requesting the City to support the Customs Excise Union bid asking the GovE~rnment of Canada to create a border patrol under the Canada Border Services Agency and that the necessary resources be provided so that our community is adequately protected along the border be received for information. CARRIEO 4. CORR. 20-06 WILLIAM HARFORO, CHAIR OAY OF MOURNING COMMITTEE OURHAM REGIONAL LABOUR COUNCIL 110 Albert Street Oshawa. Ontario L 1 H 4R3 Resolution # 39/06 Moved by Coucillor Ashe Seconded by Councillor Johnson That Council proclaim Friday, April 28, 2006 as "Oay of Mourning", in the City of Pickering. CARRIIEO 5. CORR. 21-06 RHONOA BARKLEY, LIAISON ONTARIO FAMILY FISHING WEEKEND STEERING COMMITTEE C/o ONTARIO FEOERATION OF ANGLERS ANO HUNTERS P.O. Box 2800. PeterborouQh. Ontario K9J 8L5 Resolution # 40/06 Moved by Coucillor Ashe Seconded by Councillor Johnson - 6 - Council Meeting Minutes Monday, April 3, 2006 7:30 PM That Council proclaim July 7 to July 9,2006 as "Ontario Family Fishing Weekend", in the City of Pickering CARRIED 6. CORR. 22-06 LYNDA SHEPHERD AOMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT THE CANADIAN HEARING SOCIETY 44 Richmond Street West, Suite 200A Oshawa. Ontario L 1 G 107 Resolution # 41/06 Moved by Coucillor Ashe Seconded by Councillor Johnson That Council proclaim the month of Mayas "Hearing Awareness Month", in the City of Pickering. CARRIED (VII) EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE REPORT Executive Committee Report EC 2006-05 of March 27, 2006 1. Oirector, Planning & Oevelopment, Report PO 01-06 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 13/05 Wal-Mart Canada Inc. 1899 Brock Road Part of Lot 18, Concession 1 (40R-12591, Part 1 & 40R-19801 Parts 3,4,5,6,7,8 & 10) City of PickerinQ 1. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 13/05, be approved as set out in the draft by-law attached as Appendix 1 to Report PD 01-06, to amend the existing zoning on the subject lands to permit a seasonal drive-thru garden centre for outdoor sales and display on lands being Part of Lot 18,Concession 1 (40R-12591, Part 1 & 40R-19801, Parts 3, 4,5,6,7,8,.Sc: 10), in the City of Pickering. - 7 - Council Meeting Minutes Monday, April 3,2006 7:30 PM 2. That the amending zoning by-law to implement Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 13/05, as set out in Appendix 1 to Report PD 01-06 be forwarded to City Council for enactment. 2. Director, Planning & Development, Report PD 15-06 Oisposal of Lands Part of Lot 31, Concession 1, Pickering Part 2. Plan 40R-24050 Sheppard Avenue, Pickering File No. RE0602 That a by-law be enacted to: 1. Stop-up and close the portion of Sheppard Avenue described as that part of Lot 31 Concession 1, Pickering, being Part 2, Plan 40R-24050, as public highway; 2. Oeclare the lands described as that part of Lot 31, Concession 1, Pickering, being Part 2, Plan 40R-24050, surplus to the needs of the Corporation for the purpose of sale to the abutting owner, in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act and the Acquisition and Oisposal of Land Policy Subject to any required easements; and 3. Authorize the Mayor, City Clerk, Director, Planning & Oevelopment and the City Solicitor to obtain all relevant documentation necessary and execute all documentation required to effect the stopping-up and closing of that part of Lot 31, Concession 1, Pickering, being Part 2, Plan 40R- 24050 and to effect the conveyance of it to the abutting owner for nominal consideration, subject to any required easements. 3. Director, Planning & Oevelopment, Report PD 22-06 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 22/05 1430658 Ontario Inc. 1050 Brock Road, Unit 25 South Part of Lot 19, Concession 1 City of PickerinQ That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 22/05, to amend the existing zoning on the subject property to add a body-rub parlour as a permitted use on lands being South Part of Lot 19, Concession 1, City of Pickering, be denied. 4. Oirector, Planning & Development, Report PD 23-06 - 8 - Council Meeting Minutes Monday, April 3, 2006 7:30 PM Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 26/05 1044910 Ontario Inc. 1890 Glenview Road (Part of Lot 41, Plan 509) City of PickerinQ 1. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 26/05 be approved, as set out in the draft by-law attached as Appendix 1 to Report PO 23-06, to amend the existing zoning on the subject property to permit professional office uses, on lands being Part of Lot 41, Plan 509, City of Pickering. 2. That the amending zoning by-law to implement Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 26/05, as set out in Appendix 'I to Report PO 23-06, as amended, be forwarded to City Council for enactment. 5. Director, Planning & Oevelopment, Report PO 24-06 Ourham Regional Official Plan Review Recommended Oirections Report for Population, Employment and Urban Land, dated January 2006 Proposed Amendments for Transportation, Commercial, Rural and Environmental components, dated November 2005 Recommended Arterial corridor Guidelines. dated November 2005 1. That Council receive Report PO 24-06 of the Oirector, Planning & Oevelopment as the City's comments on the Recommended Oirections Report for Population, Employment and Urban Land, dated January 2006, Proposed Amendments for Transportation, Commercial, Rural and Environmental components of the Ourham Regional Official Plan, dated November 2005; and the Recommended Arterial Corridor Guidelines, dated November 2005; 2. In preparing the amendments to the Ourham Regional Official Plan to implement the Recommended Oirections Report for Population, Employment and Urban Land, dated January 2006, that Council REQUEST the Region to identify the Cherrywood Community as a Future Urban Policy Area and to expand the urban area boundary to include lands in the northeast area of Pickering (lands outside of the Greenbelt Plan) and to designate these lands as Future Urban Study Area in order to accommodate Pickering's growth potential; and in addition, review the matters set out in Appendix I to Report PO 24-06; 3. That Council request the Region to address the issues identified by City staff regarding the assumptions used in the analysis of population and - 9 - Council Meeting Minutes Monday, April 3, 2006 7:30 PM land supply in the Recommended Oirections Report for Population, Employment and Urban Land, dated January 2006, as set out in Appendix I to Report PO 24-06; 4. To provide clarity to the Proposed Amendments on Transportation, Commercial, Rural and Environmental policies of the Ourham Regional Official Plan and the Recommended Arterial Road Guidelines, that Council request the Region to incorporate the revisions as set out in Appendix II, Appendix III and Appendix IV to Report PD 24-06, which among other matters would include the following: · continue to permit the severance of a farm retirement lot; · permit as-of-right stand-alone farm-related commercial uses (such as farm markets, auction barns); · allow the limits of development for Hamlets located outside the urban area boundary to be reviewed by local area municipalities at the time of the ten- year comprehensive review of Provincial Plans; · identify Downtown Pickering (Liverpool and Kingston Roads) as an Urban Growth Centre; · phase the minimum density target of 2.5 FSI for Regional Centres over the timeframe of the Regional Official Plan in conjunction with transit and infrastructure upgrades; · identify the Greenbelt Plan area as a separate component of the Natural Heritage System and retain the existing Major Open Space designation for lands outside of the Greenbelt; · designate four additional major arterial roads segments as Regional Corridor, and · correction of editorial and technical matters; 5. That Council request the Region to defer the Proposed Amendments to the Ourham Regional Official Plan affecting Central Pickering in order to re- examine, in consultation with the City of Pickering, policies, schedules and outstanding deferrals including Oixie Road, in light of more recent planning initiatives for this area; 6. That Council request the Region to examine Bill 51, the Planning and Conservation Land Statute Law Amendment Act and incorporate any enabling policies in the Durham Regional Official Plan such as the funding of community improvement plans; 7. That Council request the Region to defer its approval of the Recommended Arterial Road Guidelines, and further, that Council direct City staff to - 10- Council Meeting Minutes Monday, April 3, 2006 7:30 PM continue discussions with the Region on cost sharing arrangements and to report back; and 8. That the City Clerk forward a copy of Report PO 24-06 to the Region of Ourham and to local municipalities in Ourham Region. 6. Oirector, Operations & Emergency Services, Report OES 15-06 Oraft Regional Trail Network Durham Trail Coordinating Committee (DTCC) File A-2130 1. That Report OES 15-06 regarding the Oraft Regional Trail Network be received; and 2. That Council endorse the comments received from staff in this report and provide direction for staff to forward a copy of Report OES 15-06 to the Region for their consideration 7. Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, Report CS 14-06 Changes to Proposed Body Rub Parlour By-law L-2314 1. That Report CS 02-06 of the Oirector, Corporate Services & Treasurer be received for information; 2. That Report CS 14-06 regarding changes to the proposed Body Rub Parlour By-law be received; 3. That the draft by-law presented by the City Clerk in a memorandum dated March 24, 2006, be enacted to provide for the licensing and regulation of Body Rub Parlours within the City of Pickering, and 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be given the authority to give effect thereto. 8. Oirector, Corporate Services & Treasurer, Report CS 15-06 Statement of the Treasurer Respecting 2005 Remuneration and Expenses of Members of Council and Council Appointees to Boards, Agencies and Other Bodies That Report CS 15-06 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, Statement of the Treasurer respecting Remuneration and Expenses of Members of Council and Council Appointees for the year 2005, be received. - 11 - Council Meeting Minutes Monday, April 3, 2006 7:30 PM 9. Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, Report CS 18-06 Sidewalk Snow Removal By-law File: L-2200 1. That Report CS 18-06 regarding a revised Sidewalk Snow Removal By- law be received; 2. That the attached draft by-law be enacted to require the removal of ice and snow from sidewalks within the City of Pickering, and 3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be given the authority to give effect thereto. Resolution # 42/06 Moved by Councillor Johnson Seconded by Councillor Oickerson That the Report of the Executive Committee EC 2006-05, dated March 27, 2006, be adopted. CARRIED 10. Oirector, Corporate Services, Report CS 16-06 2006 Current and Capital BudQets The Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer briefly outlined the contents of Report CS 16-06 and outlined key highlights of the budget through a PowerPoint presentation. A question and answer period ensued. Resolution # 43/06 Moved by Councillor McLean Seconded by Councillor Ashe 1. That Report CS 16-06 from the Oirector, Corporate Services & Treasurer be approved and: 2. a) That the 2006 Current (Operating) Budget expenditure for salaries & wages (Account 1100) in the amount of $25.939,177 be approved; - 12- Council Meeting Minutes Monday, April 3, 2006 7:30 PM b) That the 2006 Current (Operating) Budget expenditure for employer contributions (Account 1400) in the amount of $6,481 ,800 be approved; c) That the 2006 Gross Current (Operating) Budget for City purposes in the amount of $26,088,916 (which excludes employer contributions, salaries and wages) and includes capital expenditures from current revenues in the amount of $2,469,128; less estimated current operating revenues of $21,479,836 and transfers from the following reserves: Rate Stabilization Reserve of $1,320,000, Easement Settlement Agreement Reserve of $1,280,113 and funds from previous years capital projects funded from property taxes of $386,000 which results in a net overall levy for City Operations of $33,943,944 which is approximately a 5.79 percent increase over 2005, be approved; d) That the Treasurer be authorized to fund Pickering's share of any over expenditure or shortfall in revenue related to APT A's operations or capital expenditures by a transfer from the Transit Reserve and that if there are any funds left in this Reserve they be transferred to general revenue to be used to offset any outstanding liability associated with the transfer of transit to the Region of Ourham; and, if funds remain, to reduce the City's cost of transit in prior years; 3. That the Oirector, Corporate Services & Treasurer present the 2006 final tax rates for adoption by Council when further information regarding 2006 (Non Residential Education Tax Rates) from the Province of Ontario and Region of Ourham is available; 4. a) That the 2006 Capital Budget for the City of Pickering with a Gross Expenditure of $12,824,103 be adopted as presented. b) That the following capital financing sources be approved as presented in the 2006 Capital Budget. Transfer from Current Fund to Capital Fund $2,469,128 Transfers from Reserves: - Surcharge Program Reserve (7031) - Ounbarton Pool Reserve (7032) - Oon Beer Arena (7033) - Rec Complex Core Reserve (7034) - Rec Complex Arena Reserve (7036) - Vehicle Replacement Reserve (7040) - 13- 56,000 20,000 25,000 36,000 47,000 70,000 Council Meeting Minutes Monday,ApriI3,2006 7:30 PM Transfers from Reserve Funds - Oevelopment Charges - Community Facilities (4225) - Parkland Development (4230) - Federal Gas Tax Funds - City Share Oev. Charges Projects - Third Party Contribution (4235) Debt - 5 yr Oebt - 1 0 yr Oebt - 20 yr Internal Loans - 4 yr. Internal Loans - 5 yr. 676,550 130,000 920,000 1,698,000 264,550 50,000 637,000 1,318,335 2,910,000 596,000 90,000 Provincial Grants (1623) Donations (4905) 733,540 77.000 $12.824.103 TOTAL c) That total external debt financing of $4,865,335 for the projects identified in the 2006 Capital Budget, and as indicated in this report, in the amount of $637,000 for a period not to exceed 5 years and; $ 1,318,335 for a period not to exceed 10 years and $2,910,000 for a period not to exceed 20 years be approved; d) That projects identified in the 2006 Capital Budget as being financed through the issuance of debt be subject to additional, specific approval by Council of the expenditure and the financing before proceeding; e) That internal loans or dealer financing as indicated in this budget in amount of $686,000 may be undertaken at the discretion of the Oirector, Corporate Services & Treasurer be approved; f) That any debt repayment, interest or financing provisions contained in the annual Current Operating Budget not used in the current year's payments requirements may, at the discretion of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, be used to apply towards principal amounts remaining to be financed; - 14 - Council Meeting Minutes Monday, April 3, 2006 7:30 PM g) That all Capital expenditures or portions thereof, approved in the 2006 and future Capital Budgets to be financed through the issuance of debt, may, at the discretion of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, be financed through internal loans, dealer financing, current funds or a combination thereof; 5. That the Oirector, Corporate Services & Treasurer be authorized to transfer: a) Any surplus current operating funds at any year-end in excess of $110,000 to the Rate Stabilization Reserve; b) Any funds necessary from the Rate Stabilization Reserve in order to ensure that in any year the Current Budget results in a year end surplus of no less than $110,000; c) Any revenue resulting from the disposition of land or other assets in excess of $100,000 to the Reserve for Replacement of Capital Equipment; 6. a) That the Oirector, Corporate Services & Treasurer be authorized to make any changes or undertake any actions necessary, in order to ensure that the budget plan including any re-allocation of 2006 current operating expenditures and revenues resulting from any reorganization and including any adjustment in taxes or tax rates due to Provincial and Regional tax policy changes to ensure that the tax billing process is proper and complete; b) That the recently announced "Move Ontario" Provincial Government funding in the amount of $1,851,578 be transferred to the "Move Ontario" Reserve to be used to fund roads and bridges expenditures; c) That, if permitted under the "Move Ontario" funding program guidelines and or regulations, those 2006 road and bridge projects, with an estimated total debt financing requirement of $1,018,335 (excluding the 401 Pedestrian Bridge) currently to be financed by debt as indicated in the 2006 Capital Budget, be now financed by this program (as listed in this report); d) That any new additional Provincial and Federal Government funding announcements for municipal government in the form of grants or new taxing authority/powers be deemed where applicable to be new revenue sources for the lower tier municipality and to be applied to future Current and Capital budgets; - 15 - Council Meeting Minutes Monday, April 3,2006 7:30 PM e) That the 2006 Current Fire Services Division Operating Budget for Accounts 1100 (Salaries & Wages) and 1400 (Employer Contributions) be restated for the 2006 Budget once contract negotiations have been completed; 7. That the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be authorized at his discretion to close any prior year's capital expenditure accounts, and to first apply any excess funding to any overexpenditure in accounts utilizing the same source of funds and to secondly transfer any remaining excess funding back to the original source of the funds; 8. That the provisions of the Municipal Act, 2001 (s.299 and s.300), that require municipalities to provide public notice regarding the improvements and barriers to improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness of municipally delivered services, be fulfilled by the service level standards provided in the detailed program budget sections of the 2006 City Budgets; by compliance with the Municipal Performance Measurement Program and by the reporting to the public as required under the Act, later this year; 9. That Council enact the attached General Municipal Fees and Charges By-law which provides for the fees and charges that are incorporated into the 2006 Current Budget; 10. That Council approve the revised financing for the 2005 Capital financing for the 401 Pedestrian Bridge (Capital project code (05-232-001-01)) by reducing the transfer from the Easement Settlement Agreement Reserve from $270,000 to $85,000 and this reduction be offset by a transfer from the Federal Gas Tax Reserve Fund from the 2005 Federal Gas Tax Funds in the amount of $185,000; 11. That Council authorize and approve the establishment of the Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund and that the attached By-law be read three times and passed; 12. That the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be authorized to adjust, where appropriate the per kilometre travel expense re-imbursement rate at any time in order to maintain the appropriate level of re-imbursement with any increase in cost being met from under expenditures in other accounts; 13. That Council adopt the following 2007 Budget Guidelines for the development and presentation of the budget to the 2007 Council Budget committee meeting as follows: - 16 - Council Meeting Minutes Monday, April 3,2006 7:30 PM a) That there be no new full or part-time positions, or increase in part-time hours unless these additional costs are offset by additional program revenues, reduced expenditures or is mandated by Federal or Provincial legislation; b) That debt financing for capital projects only be permitted either for health and safety reasons or to participate in financial cost sharing programs; c) That there may be no new, enhanced or expanded current or capital budget programs; d) That the 2007 budget be developed based on a reduced reliance on one-time funds and reserves; 14. That the Oirector, Corporate Services & Treasurer be authorized to transfer funds from the Assessment Appeal Reserve to fund any successful appeals resulting in write-offs in excess of the budget provision; and, 15. That the appropriate staff of the City of Pickering be given authority to give effect thereto. CARRIEO LATER IN THE MEETING (See Following Motion) Resolution # 44/06 Moved by Councillor Dickerson Seconded by Councillor Brenner That Item 2 d) of the main motion be amended by adding 'with the approval of Council' after 'That the Treasurer'. CARRIEO Resolution # 45/06 The main motion as amended was then put to a recorded vote and CARRIEO AS AMENOED. [See Following Recorded Vote] CARRIED ON A RECOROEO VOTE ANO AMENOEO AS FOLLOWS: - 17 - Council Meeting Minutes Monday, April 3,2006 7:30 PM YEA NAY Councillor Ashe Councillor Brenner Councillor Oickerson Councillor Johnson Councillor McLean Councillor Pickles Mayor Ryan (VI) MOTIONS AND NOTICES OF MOTIONS 1. Councillor McLean and Ashe gave notice that they will at the next or subsequent meeting of Council present the following motion: PUBLIC LIBRARY FUNOING "WHEREAS public libraries in Ontario receive an annual grant from the Province of Ontario to support resource-sharing between libraries and the direct delivery of public library service; AND WHEREAS the City of Pickering recognizes that the public library is the best place in the community to access information in a variety of formats, with the support and expertise of trained staff, ANO supports the public library in its endeavours to manage AND share information ANO build community capacity in the knowledge-based economy; AND WHEREAS the City of Pickering believes in the importance of the flow of information and collaboration across borders and among municipalities, and supports partnerships between public libraries to achieve a strong public library service to all communities; AND WHEREAS the City of Pickering and its citizens share the Province of Ontario's understanding about the importance to the future of the province of a healthy, educated and motivated work force, and the key role of public libraries in delivering this mandate; AND WHEREAS the Province of Ontario is increasingly regarding libraries as public access points for e-government services, and as distribution points for information relating to legislation and government programs and services; AND WHEREAS the City of Pickering is vitally interested in its citizens having the widest possible access to the growing number of government programs and services to further community aspirations, improve public safety and ensure equitable access to - 18- Council Meeting Minutes Monday, April 3,2006 7:30 PM literacy and the life-long learning opportunities that are central to a growing, vibrant community, and which are the cornerstone of a literate and democratic society; AND WHEREAS between 1992 and 2005 the Provincial grant for Pickering Public Library declined 30% from $151,500 to the current $106,425, with similar reductions in funding for all public libraries across the Province; AND WHEREAS the Provincial base funding to all public libraries in the Province of Ontario has not increased since 1999 in spite of significant increases in service, population and operating costs; AND WHEREAS the annual Provincial grant for libraries is based on 1997 statistics from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for the number of households in a community, calculated using the 1998 rate of $4.08 per household; BE IT RESOLVED THAT: 1) The Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering understands the value and significance of the public library, and its role in creating a dynamic, connected community, and calls on the Premier of Ontario, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Minister of Culture to: a) recognize the impact of public libraries across Ontario as a vital resource that works across sectors to meet the demands of the new knowledge- based economy, ANO supports the future growth and prosperity of Ontario; b) provide increased provincial funding for public libraries, and base the Provincial library grant on an updated and sustainable indexing model; 2) A copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Premier of Ontario, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Minister of Culture, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, and the Regional Municipality of Ourham and all area municipalities and local members of the Provincial Legislature; and 3) The Pickering Public Library Board be requested to circulate this resolution to the Ontario Library Association and Federation of Ontario Public Libraries, requesting support for this resolution." CARRIEO - 19 - Council Meeting Minutes Monday, April 3,2006 7:30 PM (VI) BY-LAWS 6646/06 A by-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 3036, as amended, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Ourham on Part of Lot 41, Plan 509, in the City of Pickering. The purpose and effect of this by-law is to permit the establishment of professional office uses on the subject lands including a chiropractic clinic. (A 26/05)[Refer to pages 89-92 of Executive Agenda] 6647/06 A by-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 3036, as amended by By-laws 5511/99,5692/00, and 6011/02, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Ourham, being Part of Lot 18, Concession 1 (40R-12591, Part 1& 40R-19801, Parts 3,4,5,6,7,8 & 10), in the City of Pickering. The purpose and effect of this by-law is to permit a seasonal drive-thru garden center for outdoor sales and display. (A 13/05)[Refer to pages 20-24 of Executive Agenda] 6648/06 A by-law to dedicate that part of Block W-1, Plan M-1058, Pickering, designated as Part 3, Plan 40R-23981, as public highway (New Street). (This by-law implements Land Oivision Application LO 238/05 to sever Lot 28, RCP 1041, Pickering, into 2 lots.) 6649/06 A by-law to license, regulate and govern body-rub parlours within the City of Pickering. [Refer to Hand Out memorandum dated March 24, 2006 from City Clerk] 6650/06 A by-law to regulate the removal of ice and snow from roofs and sidewalks. [Refer to pages 231-232 of Executive Agenda] 6651/06 A by-law to provide for the establishment of a Reserve Fund to be known as the Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund. [Refer to pages 75-76 of Report CS 16-06] 6652/06 A by-law to amend By-law # 6191/03, as amended, to confirm General Municipal Fees and Charges pursuant to the Municipal Act, 2001. [Refer to pages 23-52 of Report CS 16-06] - 20- Council Meeting Minutes Monday, April 3,2006 7:30 PM THIRD READING: Councillor Ashe seconded by Councillor McLean, moved that By-law Numbers 6646/06 to 6625/06 be adopted and the said by-law 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. CARRIEO (VII) OTHER BUSINESS a) City of Toronto Source Separated Organics (SSO) PlanninQ Study The Director, Planning & Oevelopment, provided a brief overview with respect to City of Toronto Source Separated Organics (SSO) Planning Study. He advised that two memorandums had been previously provided to Mayor and Council on March 3 and March 15, 2006. A question and answer period ensued. Moved by Councillor McLean Seconded by Councillor Brenner That Council move 'In Camera' with respect to personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees. CARRIED b) Oiscussion ensued with respect to Report CS 20-06 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer with respect to Appointments to Heritage Pickering. c) Council discussed the matter of ongoing fire negotiations. Based on the discussions, it was the consensus of Council that the Fire Chief be advised of the continued support of his leadership. Moved by Councillor McLean Seconded by Councillor Brenner That Council rise and ratify the actions taken at the 'In Camera' session. CARRIEO - 21 - Council Meeting Minutes Monday, April 3, 2006 7:30 PM d) Oirector, Corporate Services & Treasurer, CS 20-06 Appointments to Heritage Pickering 2006 Vacancies Council discussed this matter 'In Camera'. Moved by Councillor Johnson Seconded by Councillor Pickles a) That the following applicants be appointed to Heritage Pickering: i) Theresa Abernethy ii) Kim Sahadath iii) Jim Simpson; and b) Further, that the City Clerk advise the successful applicants and Heritage Pickering. CARRIED VIII) CONFIRMATION BY-LAW By-law Number 6653/06 Councillor Johnson, seconded by Councillor McLean, 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 April 3, 2006. CARRIEO (IX) ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:15 pm. - 22- Council Meeting Minutes Monday, April 3,2006 7:30 PM DATED this 3rd day of April, 2006. MAYOR DAVID RYAN DEBIA.BENTLEY CITY CLERK - 23- CiÚ¡ o~ April 18, 2006 DELEGATIONS 1. Mark Holland, MP Ajax-Pickering SpeakinQ to local issues connected to the federal Qovernment 2. June S. Morrison The Canadian Red Cross Society, Region of Ourham Branch Re: 151 Annual Eleqant Gala EveninQ Fundraiser Event - May 6.2006 3. Anthony Biglieri The Biglieri Group Ltd. Re: PO 27-06 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A29/05 4. Anthony Niceforo OOT Patio & Home Re: PO 27-06 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A29/05 Citq ,,~ April 18, 2006 CORRESPONDENCE 1. CORR. 23-06 Motion to Endorse MARTHA A. PETTIT, MANAGER LEGISLATIVE SERVICES/OEPUTY CLERK Town of Ajax 65 Harwood Avenue South Ajax. Ontario L 1 S 2H9 Advising that at a meeting held on April 1 0, 2006, the Council of the Town of Ajax passed a resolution with respect to Endorsement of F.T.E. Position for the Associate Medical Officer of Health (AMOH). 2. CORR. 24-06 ANORE MARIN OMBUOSMAN Ontario's Watchdog Bell Trinity Square 483 Bay Street 10lh Floor, South Tower Toronto. Ontario M2G 2C9 Receive for Information Submitting a copy of the Final Report under s. 11 of the Ombudsman Act, with respect to the investigation into the transparency of the property assessment process and the integrity and efficiency of decision-making at the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation. 3. CORR. 25-06 Receive for Information OEBBIE ZIMMERMAN CHAIR, BOARO OF OIRECTORS MUNICIPAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT CORPORATION 1305 Pickering Parkway PickerinQ. Ontario L 1V 3P2 Submitting correspondence advising of the changes that MPAC is planning as part of their response to the Report of the Ombudsman of Ontario. Ms. Zimmerman states that a detailed response to the 22 recommendations of the Ombudsman has been posted on their website. 3. CORR. 26-06 Motion to Oeclare HENRY CHARLES COWEN REGIONAL VICE-DIRECTOR CANAOIAN TRANSPLANT ASSOCIATION CT A, Ontario Region 1 Emerald Lane, Suite 503 Thornhill. Ontario L4J 8N2 Advising that each year thousands of Ontarians get a second chance to live life to its fullest, thanks to the kindness of people who have donated organs and tissue. The dire need for transplants requires the urgent cooperation of all Mayors across Ontario to proclaim April 23-30, 2006 as 'Organ and Tissue Oonor Awareness Week' to help alleviate the critical situation and the sufferings of those who are waiting for transplants. 4. CORR. 27-06 BETH ANN KENNY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR THE ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF SPEECH LANGUAGE PATHOLOGISTS AND AUDIOLOGISTS Motion to Declare Advising that help is needed to communicate the importance of speech and hearing to the residents of Pickering and requesting the City of Pickering to declare the month of Mayas 'Better Speech, Language and Hearing Month'. ~/2006 10:26 FAX 905 683 1061 TOWN OF A.JAX CLERKS DEPT ... PICKERING !ãI 002 ..- ,) 195,i~2005 Town of AJ ax OI1'arÙ) 's First ISO 900] Quality Communif)-' 65 HarwoQd Avenue South Ajax, Ontario L1S 2H9 Cat1ada 905-683-45:50 www.townofajax.com (905) 619~2529.. ~xt. 342 (905) 683-1061 m;tttha. petti I@townofajax.com CDR.£. .2.3-Öb ApIil 11., 2006 P. Madill, Regionai Clerk Regional MI,.1l1içipality ofD1.lrham P.O. Box 623 605 RO$s!and Road East Whitby, ON LIN 6A3 Dear Ms. Madill: Rc; Town of Ajé\X Endorsement of F.T.E. Position fQr the Associate Medical Officer of Hea.lth (AMOH} ________ Please be advised that the folJowin.g resolution was lU1animously endorsed by Town of Ajax Council at its meeting held on Monday, Aplil J 0, 2006. Whereas the 0.8 F.T.E. position for the Associate Medical Officer of HeaJtb (Al'10H) as proposed in the 2006 Health Department budget was to be funded by 100% Provincial dollars and therefore has no impact on the Regional tax levy; \\'hereas additional support at the AMOH level was requested and approved by the Healtb and Social Services Committee during the 2005 bu.dget process and subsequently denied by Regional Council; Whereas the 2005 Annual Compliance Report indicates a number of areas where standards of the Ma.udatory Health Programs and Standards Guidelines are not met; \Vhereas the province's Chief Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Sheela Basrur, in her 200S Annual Report to the Legislature articulated her concern regarding longstanding vacancies in Medical Officer ofHealtb positions due to ulisustai.nable caU schedules and limited buman and other .resources as being major deterrants to attracting new entrants to the field; Whereas the ìncruses in workload and areas of resPQnsibility have increased since 1994 when tbe first AMOH position was approved in Durham Region; For example, by 2004, . the population of Durham Region had increased by 23.8% ., # of pubJicaJly funded vaccines bas increased by 45.5% ...,.2 ~1!2006 10:26 FAX 905 683 1081 TOWN OF AJAX CLERKS DEPT ~ PICKERING @003 1955~2005 Town of Aj ax O,i(¡J;-Ì(>'S First ISO 9001 Qualif;l; Community 65 Harwood. Avenue South Aja.-.;, Ontario LIS m9 Canada 905-683-4550 WV.'I)" to..',;nofajax. com -·2- · #of chHdren aged 0-19 years bas jncreased b~' 14.3% # of reportable diseases investigated has increased by 46.1 %, #01' desígnated reportable diseases has increased by 13 to 85 or 18.1 %; · · Wbereas a number of Durham municipalities are designated underserviced by physicians and the 0.8 FTE AMOH could provide the opportunity for the incumbent to provide some clinical services within the community; Whereas tbe Ai'\10H provides medical consultation and autbority with regards to infectious diseases for public health staff, hospitals, long term care facilities and the community in .Durham Region; Whereas pandemic influenza planning al~d a consolidated community response led by Dnrham Region Healtb Department win provide protection in order to reduce morbidity and hospitalizations, and minimize societal disru}>tion and economic losses; Whereas the recent examples of emerging infectious diseases such as West Nile virus, multi-drug resistant tu berculosis, the \Valkerton water disaster, outbrenks of new antibiotic resistant Juicrobes, avian influenza and SARS, has required a strong public health system 'with effective adequately f'esoul'ced medjcalleadel'sbip; Therefore be it resolved tbat the Couodl of the Town of Ajax recommends that the 0.8 FTE Associate Medical Officer of Health position as proposed ill the original submission of the 2006 Health Department budget be approved in tbe 2006 Regional budget. I trust this n1atter will receive the Regional Council's full attention. Sincerelv. ~~~_ ~-ý~l' Martha A, Pettit Manager, Legislative Services/Deputy Clerk Copy: R. Anderson, Chair Dr. Kyle, Medical Officer of HeaHh All Durham Munjçipalities Association of Public Health Agencies (ALPHA) COR£. ;;¿If -{) b . !:.~ \~U¡\TC1TL'()C DE 3,i(,iT\i'':''i\.;\·~·O ^A'" :'1' .. ;\¡, C; , ;')/D'" ".~ dh ~ ",;; ,,':.. l;r C"'" ~ rt':..# !õ"'",' aa" t r~ f"'ì~ R ". € I f.:-~, n ~\J ,.~_¡;~~.,¡¡~~ V îJi VI ....¡VI" March 28, 2006 City Clerk The Corporation of the City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario LIV 6K7 Re: Ombudsman Report: Getting It Right Enclosed is my Final Report under s. 11 of the Ombudsman Act, regarding my investigation into the transparency of the property assessment process and the integrity and efficiency of decision-making at the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation. I have also enclosed the responses to my Report received from the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and the Minister of Finance. I am satisfied with the positive commitments made by MP AC and the Minister to consider and implement my recommendations. Yours truly, André Marin Ombudsman ORIGINAL TO: COPY TO: . .J . G· Pcdors Encl. Bell Trinity Square 483 Bay Street, 10th Floor, South Tower, Toronto, ON M5G 2 CORR FILE 483, rue Bay, 10e étage, Tour sud, Toronto (Ontario) M5G 2C9 TAKE APPR CT 416-586-3300 ' A ION 416-586-3485 1-866-411-4211 ( ~Ve:. -fòr \"fo·\ A p-i I I 'ij'-t1-\ C:o W'\C:L.I . ;\1 0_ _ ,_ .'. f':.I ALA- _I,f',..., ~ --..;;::;,,¡- Ontario Ministry of Finance OffIce of the Mlnistar Ministêro des Fln~nces Bureau du mlnlsrre 7" Floor. Frosl BUilding South 7 Queen's Park Crescent Toronto ON M7 A 1Y7 Telèphone: 416325-0400 Faosimlle; 416325-0374 78 étagé, Édifioe Frost Bud 7, Queen's Park Crescent Toronlo ON MiA 1\'7 Táléphone: 416325-0400 Téléoopieur; 416325-0374 March 22, 2006 Mr. André Marin Ombudsman of Ontario Bell Trinity Square 483 Bay Street 10th Floor) South Tower Toronto, Ontario M5G 2C9 Dear Mr. Marin: Thank you for providing us with a copy of your report entitled "Getting 11 Righf' - Final Report on the Investigation into the Transparency of the Property Assessment Process and the Integrity and Efficiency of Decision-Making at the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC). Ministry of Finance officials have completed a thorough review of the report and have taken careful note of the commentary and detailed list of recommendations stemmingfrom your investigation. While most of the recommendations in the report deal with internal prooesses and procedures at MPAC, we have identified the following two recommendations which propose specific actions on the part of the Province: '" Recommendation 8 - Undertake a review of whether the public interest is better served by permitting MPAC to maintain confidentiality over it~ intellectual products or by requiring full disclosure of property assessment methodology to taxpayers. ... Recommendation 21 - Place the onus of proof on MPAC (rather than the taxpayer) to substantiate the correctness of assessments upon appeals to the Assessment Review Board. We note that a third recommendation which was directed to the Province in the preliminary version of the report has been removed. Specifically, the former recommendation number 14, which proposed an amendment to subsection 44(2) of the Assessment Act regarding the degree of emphasis to be placed upon actual sale prices, has not been included in the final report. ...!cont'd ~ 2 " As noted in my previous correspondence, we all share a common goal of maintaining a property tax system that is transparent and accountable to taxpayers and munioipalities, and we appreciate reoeiving suggestions for ongoing improvements to this system. With respect to recommendation 8 of your final report regarding the nature and scope of assessment information that is made available to the public, we agree with your statement that this is a complex question of public policy. There is a delicate balance to be struck betlNeen the amount of information that should be made publicly available to maintain transparency in the tax system, and the need to safeguard the privacy rights of individuals as well as the legal and contractual rights of various stakeholders. We believe it would be helpful to bring clarity to these issues so that all affected parties will be aware of the rules that govern the disclosure of assessment information. It is our intention to proceed with oonsultations on this issue following the public release of your report. Input will be sought from a variety of stakeholders, including MPAC, Teranet, and the Information and Privacy Commissioner. With respect to recommendation 21 of your final report regarding the onus of proof on assessment appeals, we have noted the proposal to reverse the traditional onus and we intend to explore this idea further by engaging in consultations with the Ministry of the Attorney General, the Assessment Review Board, MPAC, and the legal community. We also intend to engage in discussions with other jurisdictions, including Manitoba, to learn from their experiences. With respect to the 20 recommendations in the report that are directed towards MPAC, the Ministry of Finance is prepared to work closely with MPAC in its examination of measures . that may be undertaken to bring about the recommended changes. Thank you again 'for your advice on these important issues and for the opportunity to provide feedback on your report. Sincerely, 1!!;; - - D;!ght Duncan Minister M U N I elF' A L F'R C PER TV A 5 5 E 5 5 MEN Tee R peR AT Ie N RECEIV'ED MAR 2 2 2006 March 22, 2006 , OMBUDSMAN ONTARIO . CORPORATE SERVICES Mr. André Marin Ombudsm,an .Bell Trinity Square . 483 Bay S1reet, 10th Floor South Tower, Toronto ON MSG 2C9 Dear Mr. Marin: Thank you for the opporturiity to respond to 'your final report and recommendations. As mentioned in the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation's (MP AC) response to 'your preliminary report,' we strongly believe that transparency and openness are fundamental in building trust in the property assessment system. We note your acknowledgment ofMPAC's rigorous quest for improvement and your comment that the public as a whole remains prepared to support MP AC in this quest. To this end, we welcome your suggestions for improvement and agree that it is important to ensure that Ontario taxpayers know morê about the system and how their own property is assessed. As we requested previously, the full MP AC Board of Directors would like to meet with you prior to the public release of this report. We were pleased to provide feedback and comments on the preliminary report and .- . appreciatè the changes made in the final report. In your final report's 22 remaining recommendations, there are two that' are the responsibility of the Government of Ontario. Of the 20 that are within our purview; there are 17 that we will implement and in several cases had already begun addressing. There are three recOnimendations that will require a more in-depth review due to the potential impact for significant resource requirements. We will ensure all recommendations in your report are reviewed by the MP AC Board of Directors in a timely manner, and provide direction in those matters that will require. funding support or legislative changes. . Office of the Chair c/o Municipal Property Assessment Corporation 1305Pickerilig Parkway, Pickeririg. Ontario LlV 3P2 T: 905.688.0990 extension 225 F: 905.831.0040 www.mpac.ca Mr. André Marin MP AC's Response to the Final Report March 22, 2006 Page 2 of21 As'noted by the Ombudsman in his preliminary report, MP AC's corporate culture is one, of continuous'improvement. As an example" in 2004 the Board of Directors approved a strategy to improve MP AC's services in four key areas: product quality, service delivery, productivity and communications. We have made great strides in improvement in these areas in the last two years. · We add 80,000 properties annually to the assessment rolls. Since 1998, we have added more than half a million properties,' which is roughly equivalent to the City of Toronto. · We are committed to improving our data. Upon the completion of three years of negotiation with the Government of Ontario and Teranet Inc., an agreement was reached wherein MP AC will.receive electronic transfer of critical Land Registry documents. The benefits we will derive from this agTeement include improvements in the timeliness and quality of data, aS,well as the associated operational efficiencies. MuniCipalities will also benefit from this agreement through improved services such as the processing of severances .and consolidations. · We responded to increases in the number of properties by adding more than $25 billion of in-year construction assessment to the 2005 municipal rolls. · .We made steady progress in processing. building permits to deliver more timely " supplementary and omitted' assessments. We also met our target in 2005 to bring severances and consolidations up to date. For severances and consolidations where information is complete and accurate, we are meeting our performance standard of completing severances within 30 days of receipt. · Our work to build a new relational database to replace our legacy mainframe system is progressing well. The new Integrated Property System is scheduled to be fully implemented in late 2006 and will allow us to further improve quality, speed and accuracy. It will allow us,to include additional fufonnátion on the Property Assessment Notice and other materials :..- a ,capability we did not have in the past. · In 2004, staff visited more than 370,000 properties as part of a dedicated reinspection program. Taking the success of this progTam one step further, we are ' implementing a data integrity project this year. The integrity of our data is critical to the delivery of accurate assessments. · Customer service improved in 2005., The time to review taxpayers' concerns through MP AC's Request for Reconsideration program decreased by half. Our Office of the Gmir c/o Municipal Property Assessment Corporation 1305 Pickering Parkway, Pickering, Ontario LlV 3P2 T: 905.688.0990 extension 225 F: 905.831.0040 www.mpac.ca . Mr. André Marin MPAC's Response to the Final Report March 22, 2006 Page 3 of21 average speed to answer taxpayers' calls into the Customer Contact Centre decreased from 5.5 minutes to an average of30 seconds in 2005. . MP AC committed to improving communications with taxpayers. m 2005, we launched a province"'wide outreach program. Additional information was provided on the Property Assessment Notice; over 600 open houses and information sessions were held where more than 1 0,000 property owners attended to hear about how their assessed values were determined; and we contacted hundreds of media outlets to ensure reporters had information about the assessment function and how values are determined. This program was built on the results of polling with a random, sample size 'of 1,300 Ontario taxpayers, focus groups, and interviews with over 1 00 municip~land government elected representatives and their staff. ' m our response, we have not identified the full cost for implementfug the recommendations. The MP AC Board of Directors, as representatives of municipalities, businesses and taxpayer groups will need to consult fully with the Government of Ontario and municipalities to determine how additional costs may be borne by the taxpayer. As stated in our response to the preliminary report and in our representations with the Ombudsman, :MP AC requested that the report be disclosed to the Assessment Review Board, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the City of Toronto and Teranet me. prior to its final release. MP AC continues to encourage the Ombudsman to seek representations' from these organizations before the release of your final report. Response to the recommendations and MP AC's capacity for implementing them Many of the recommendations of this report are consistent with:MP AC's four key priority areas - product quality, service delivery, productivity and communications - as identified by the Board of Directors. Our Board of Directors will review all recommendations to ensure we have, through existing resources and current legislation, the capacity to move faster and further on these much needed changes. Our current commitments are in the following three areas, and we will make changes where possible to accommodate further changes: . delivering on our legislative responsibility to complete the 2006 Assessment Update for the 2007 taxation year; Office of the Chair cio Municipal Property Assessment Corporation 1305 Pickering Par1.'Way, Pickering, Ontario L 1 V 3P2 T: 905.688.0990 extension 225 F: 905.831.0040 www.mpac.ca Mr. André Marin MPAC's Response to the Final Report March 22, 2006 Page4of21 · delivering on our legislative responsibility to provide services and products in support of the November 2006 municipal. and school board elections, including carrying out our enumeration project; and · implementing MP AC' s Integrated Property System (WS) including the completion of development projects which will enable a complete migration ftom our legacy mainftame system (OASYS) and the associated decommissioning of our mainftame operàtions. The completion of this project will facilitate the implementation of many of the Ombudsman's recommendations; We have grouped the final recommendations into three categories: · Recommendations that are the responsibility of the Government of Ontario; · Recommendations that require more review prior to implementation; and · Recommendations "that we will implement. Recommendations that are the responsibility of the Government of Ontariò Recommendation 8: That the Government of Ontario undertake a review of whether the" public interest is better served by permitting the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation to maintain confidentiality over its intellectual products, or by requiring full disClosure of property assessment methodology "to" Ontario taxpayers. If the Government of Ontario undertakes such a review, MP AC believes it should be called upon to make representations, and will be pleased to respond if requested. Recommendation 21: That the onus in assessment matters be placed on the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation to substantiate its "assessments when they are challenged. This recommendation will require a legislative change to the Assessment Act and a change in the practices of the Assessment Review Board, both of which fall under the purview of the Government of Ontario. If the Government of Ontario undertakes such a review, we believe MP AC should be called upon to make representations, and will be pleased to J;"espond if requested. See Addendum for additional infonnation. Office of the Chair c/o Municipal Property Assessment Corporation 1305 Pickering ParJ....'Way. Pickering, Ontario L1 V 3P2 T: 905.688.0990 extension 225 F: 905.831.0040' www.mpac.ca Mr. André Marin MP AC's Response to the Final Report March 22, 2006 Page 50f2l Recommendations that require more review prior to implementation Recommendation 5: That the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation provide a copy of the Property Profile Report relating to the property when it sends out its property assessment notices. MP AC agrees with the recommendation. In 2006, MP AC will undertake a pilot project in one geographic area to help develop strategies for wider distribution and detennine the additional production costs, as well as the increased staffing requirements for responding to an anticipated increase in enquiries. Recommendation 10: That the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation review its current Customer Contact Centre practices with a view to ensuring that property owners gain· access to those staffwho can most appropr:iately address their enquiries. MP AC agrees with the Ombudsman's recommendation that property owners gain access to staff who can most appropriately address their enquiries. MPAC has undertaken this review in the past to arrive at our CUlTent business and staffing models in order to address the high volume of enquiries we receive. We continuously review this model. The Ombudsman has noted that.MP AC has a massive and challenging task in administering the property assessment system in Ontario. One of the challenges facing MP AC in early 2000 was how to efficiently and effectively deliver annual assessment updates to over 4 million property owners and respond to their enquiries in a timely and appropriate manner. The need to change the business processes at :MPAC to respond to this challenge was the driver to implementing the Customer Contact Centre. The Centre, like the call centers established by most large organizations, provides the first point of contact for all customers. :MP AC' s Contact Centre provides level one support to all property owners in Ontario and handles over 500,000 enquiries on an annual basis. . MP AC's Contact Centre representatives are extremely effective in responding to general . customer enquiries and resolve 92%·of all phone enquiries. However, complex customer enquiries requiring local property lmowledge and or in-depth assessment knowledge are forwarded to the field offices for further action. These enquiries are forwarded via e-mail and typically customers are contacted within one to two business days. Office of the Chair c/o Municipal Property Assessment Corporation 1305 Pickering Parkway. P.ickering, Ontario LlV 3P2 T: 905.688.0990 extensjon225 F: 905.831.0040 www.mpac.ca Mr. André Marin MPAC's Response to the Final Report March 22, 2006 Page 60f21 Requests for Reconsideration and Guidelines for the Release of Assessment Data (GRAD) requests such as comparable reports are some ofthe key actiVities managed by field office staff. These requests are often detaí1ed in nature and can take weeks or months to fulfill. These requests are typically the issues that customers want or need to speak to field office staff about. Service has improved dramatically in these areas over the course of the last four years. With a combined improvement in the ability of Call Centre staff to respond to first calls, field office employees have been able to improve their turn around time for completion of Requests for Reconsideration and Assessment Review Board appeals. MPAC encourages walk-in visits at each of our 33 local field offices. During every assessment update, including 2005, we extended hours to give every opportunity for taxpayers to have their enquiries addressed. Recommendation 11: That the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation undertake a review of its staffing needs to determine whether staffing strategies can be identified and pursued for improving the accurate collection of property data. MP AC agrees with this reconnnendation. However, to address the issue fully, we need to go further than reviewing 'staffing strategies. Storage, processing and integration of attribute and spatial data and the organizational structure to support high quality data must also be considered. . It is MP AC' s practice to continuously strive to improve the accuracy of its data. Just as accurate property values are the cornerstone of the property tax system, accurate data is the foundation of accurate values. We have. never lost sight of this important issue nor the sense of urgency to achieve accunicy of data. In 2004, we undertook a $2.5 million dedicated reinspection program. Of the 319,022 residential properties that were inspected, 201,795 properties, or 63.3%, resulted in no data changes. Of the remaining 117,227 properties inspected where a change was recorded, the total absolute value change was $663.3 million or an absolute average value change of approximately $5,700, which represents 2% of the average value in the province ($267,000). The inspection audit conducted in late 2004 indicated a change rate' of 50% after a field inspection. The request to have a recent inspection audit include similar statistics that were generated in the 2004 reinspection program was to gauge the significance of the en-ors in real terms on the same. basis and in no way was there any attempt to diminish the findings. This year MPAC has a $1.7 million project for data integrity. Future years' forecasts have included a similar provision for data integrity, subject to the Board's review and approval of annual budgets. Office of the Chair do Municipal Property Assessment Corporation 1305 Pickering Park'way. Pickering, Ontario L 1 V 3P2 T: 905.688.0990 extension 225 F: 905.831.0040 "fW'l1! .mpac.ca Mr. André Marin MP AC's Response to the Final Report r') (', , March 22, 2006 Page 70f21 MP AC has made a number of strategic investments to improve data quality. The Integrated Property System (IPS) is a multi-million dollar and multi-year project representing the largest single capital investment to date by MP AC. The primary purpose of IPS, an enterprise-wide Oracle database platform, is to improve MP AC's handling of data. The Ontario Assessment System (OASYS), which is currently used by MP AC, is a 25-year-old legacy system incapable of meeting MPAC's business needs from service, data capture, processing, and reporting perspectives. With the new 'system in place, MP AC will be able to store and retrieve data effiéiently as well as run new automated audits that will identify data anomalies. This system has just come out of development and is being rolled out in a phas'ed implementation this year. As a result of this initiative, . MP AC will no longer be hampered in our ability to systematically and efficiently review our data. As noted by the Ombudsman, the valuation model process was prone to errors as identified by MPAC's internal audits. . However, the errors identified in the report were issues that were appropriately corrected before values were produced. The cause of the errors is an inability to integrate a statistical package model building application and OASYS (our existing data system). As a result, staff were required to manually enter all of the necessary output data from a statistical software package to OASYS. Not surprising, this manual process was prone to error. With the implementation of IPS this February, we have greatly reduced the opportunity for error through the automation of this process. Approximately three years ago, MP AC introduced a new organizational structure to improve quality, consistency, and productivity of capturing and processing data, by creating a separate and dedicated Property Inspection group and Central Processing Facility (CPF) to focus on collecting and processing data. In doing so, MPAC also moved from paper and pencils to electronic devices to record and capture data. Through audits, MP AC identified shortcomings and areas for improvement. MP AC established . uniform work procedures and training across·the province. Since iinplementation, MP AC continues to see improvements in the quality and consistency of our data as documented by the Quality Services department. . MP AC has also recently signed·an agreement to secure electronic Land Transfer Tax Affidavits/Statements, registered plans and other documents associated with ownership. Processes have been redesigned to implement more efficient and accurate transfer of information. This information will be used to update, assess and correct inaccurate information on file. However, all these advanced tools andorgwational restructuring do not relieve MP AC of the need to physically inspect property. To this end, MP AC will'be conducting data integrity reviews via field inspection and questionnaires and will be piloting new Office of the Chair c/o Municipal Property Assessment Corporation 1305 Pickering Park--way, Pickering, Ontario LlV 3P2 T: 905.688.0990 extension 225 F: 905.831.0040 \\"vw.mþac.ca (, \ i (~ - , Mr. 'André Marin MPAC's Response to the Final Report March 22, 2006 Page 8 of21 electronic data collection devices and fOmis. The intent of this project is to improve the accuracy and speed with which data can be collected. . To catTY out a site review of every property within a five-year cycle would cost significantly more than MP AC' s current funding allows. Most assessment jurisdictions target 4 to 6 year physical reviews; however, most"have difficulty achieving their targets . because of alack of resources. The 2004 reinspection proj ect demonstrated the effectiveness of such a program in identifying and correcting errors. MP AC believes that a dedicated reinspectíon program, combined with major technology investments and organization changes, as outlined above, are the basic building blocks to improving data accuracy. MP AC will continue to highlight data accuracy in our strategic planning and budgets, as recommended by the Ombudsman. . Recommendations that we will implement Recommendation 1: That the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation should amend the Brochure' that accompanies its Notice of Assessment to describe .the importance to taxpayers of ensuring that the Muriicipal Property Assessment Corporation has accurate information about the taxpayer'sproperty, and describing alternative means for learning about all of the information the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation has relating to the subject property. MP AC agrees with the recommendation and will implement the changes to the brochure for the 2006 Assessment Upd~te. In preparation for the province-wide communications and outreach program implemented by MP AC in 2005, focus groups and province-wide surveys were conducted which gave MP AC the basis for improving the assessment information provided to taxpayers. The Property Assessment Notice and the brochure were cited as a primary source for information used by taxpayers. For these reasons, we believe this recommendation will further enhance the information already provided to property owners. Office of the Chair c/o Municipal Property Assessment Corporation 1305 Pickering Parkway, Pickeling, Ontario L 1 V 3P2 T: 905:688.0990 extension 225 F: 905.831.0040 w\V\¥.mpac.ca Mr. André Marin MPAC's Response to the Final Report f'.. ( I '... / (~, March 22, 2006 Page 90f21 Recommendation 2: That the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation should amend the Notice of Assessment to describe, for cases where "multiple regression analysis" techniques have been used, not only the average municipal-assessment increase : or decrease but also the average percentage change within the particular neighbourhood zone the property falls within. MP AC is in agreement with the Ombudsman's recommendation to provide more complete information concerning the performance of the local real estate market. The recent change to this year's notice was the result of focus group sessions with property owners. From these sessions, MP AC learned the primary concern- for property owners was how the change in value would affect their taxes. By providing the percentage change at the municipal level as well as the percentage rate of change on the individual property, taxpayers were able to gauge the likely impact their new current value assessment will have on their taxes. As well, taxpayers also received last year's assessed value for comparison purposes. MP At also discussed internally whether-market percentage change by neighbourhood and property type (i.e., detached, semi~detached, toWnhouse, and condominium) would also be helpful as recommended by the Ombudsman. It is felt that all of this infonnation helps to set the context for the market change on properties that are similarly situated. However, these statistics are averages and do not dñve the individual property value. There are typically five key factors in determining the våluation of a property. However, MP AC also tracks and evaluates a large number of property characteristics to determine their potential influence on the price, if-any. The significance of these characteristics on value depends on the market in which the property resides and to a large extent on the variables present within the valuation model. For example, a condominium valuation model will not have the same property characteristics as a waterfront recreational model.' To communicate these concepts in a clear manner poses a real challenge. The communications strategy will also take into account the infonnation and operational requirements of the other stakeholders in the property assessment process; the ARB, the muniCipalities and the Ontario Government. MP AC has begun workirig on strategies to clearly communicate the complexity of the valuation process and, in a way that accurately reflects the situation's specific nature ofthe valuation process. MP AC will hold focus groups before launching its revised communications program. The Property Assessment Notice will provide the basic level of information that answers the vast majority of concerns raised by the typical taxpayer. The brochure will contain more general information about the subject and how to obtain much more specific information as discussed above. Office of the Chair c/o Municipal Property Assessment Corporation 1305 Pickering Par1..-way. Pickeling.Ontmio LlV 3P2 T: 905.688.0990 extension 225 F: 905.831.0040 www.mpac.ca Mr. André Marin MP AC's Response to the Final Report (I ,~-# ( () March 22, 2006 Page 10 of21 MPAC will make additional infonnation available-on its web site and through the Customer Contact Centre. This infonnation could include market analysis broken down· by neighbourhood, design type, and by the variables within the model. MP AC suggests that the primary approach used to derive the value (i.e., sales comparison approach, cost approach, income approach) be identified on the Property Assessment . Notice. iv1P AC would target implementation of this recommendation as part of the 2007 Assessment Update. . Recommendation 3: That the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation should amend the Brochure that accompanies its Notice of Assessment to describe how information about comparable properties can be useful on appeal, furnish accurate and complete information as to exactly how many com parables can be secured and how these' compardbles can be accessed, making particular note that the six com parables the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation selects are likely to be relied upon by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation in the event of an appeal to the ARB. MP AC agrees with this recommendation and will implement for the 2006 Assessment Update. Recommendation 4: That the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation should include a box on the Notice of Assessment provided to property owners recording the previous years where Requests for Reconsideration settlements or Assessment Review Board reassessments were achieved. The box should record "No" if the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation believes there are none, and the years in question and type of review process used, where the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation is aware that reassessments have occurred. . MP AC agrees with this recommendation ~d will target implementation in 2007. Recommendation 6: That the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, in providing information about com parables, should include all information about those properties that may be relevant to the evaluation of the property. MP AC agrees with this recommendation and will undertake a broader review of our release of infonnation about comparables. The immediate implementation of this recommendation is captured in the Multiple Regression Analysis proposal, outlined under Recommendation 7, with the release of the Valuation Detailed Enquiry (VDE) screen infonnation. Office of the Chair cio Municipal Property Assessment Corporation 1305 Pickering Parh."Way. Pickering. Ontario LlV 3P2 T: 905.688.0990 extension 225 F: 905.831.0040 \,'WW .mpac.ca c¡ (\ ... ) . Mr. André Marin MPAC's Response to the Final Report March 22, 2006 Page 11 of21 Recommendation 7: That the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation implement the changes in its Proposal for Release of MRA Related Data, dated November 17, 2005. MP AC agrees with this recommendation. An internal MP AC team has been struck to implement the Proposal. Recommendation 9: That the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation ensure that its administrative procedures regarding assessments and inspections, disclosure of information, requests for reconsideration and Assessment Review Board appeals be set out in writing and made available to the public on its website. These procedures should include those administrative procedures incorporating the recommendations set out in this report. MP AC agrees with this recommendation. Recommendation 12: That the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation standardize its inspection audit reports, and provide the Ombudsman with the results of its inspection audits ånd quality reviews for 2006, as they become available. MP AC agrees with this recommendation. Recommendation 13: That, when a property assessment is challenged based on an actual sale price proximate to the valuation date, the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation should generally accept that sale price as the best evidence afthe property assessment. The actual sale price should also be treated as an important factor in assessing the current value of the particular property in future years. MP AC should deviate from these general rules only if there are concrete, cogent reasons for believing that the sale has not been made under market conditions or does not otherwise reflect actual market value. MP AC agrees with this recommendation. When·a property's current value is challenged based on an actual sale price proximate to the valuation date, MP AC will generally accept that the sale price is evidence of great weight in determining current value. The sale price will also be treated as an important factor in assessing the current value of the property in future years, absent economic or physical change. MP AC will deviate from these general rules only if there are concrete, cogent reasons for believing that the sale has not been made under market conditions or does not otherwise reflect current value. Office of the Chair CIO Municipal Property Assessment Corporation 1305 Pickering Parkway, Piqkering, Ontario LlV 3P2 T: 905.688.0990 extension 225 F: 905.831.0040 w'ww.mpac.ca (', \ ) '-..-..' (') Mr. André Marin MP AC's Response to the Final Report March 22, 2006 Page 12 of21 Further to paragraph 105 ofthe Ombudsman's Report, some examples of why a sale of a property may not be the best indicator of cun-ent value are: (i) there may be evidence that the sale was not an arms length transaction between willing and knowledgeable buyers ~d setlers. For example, the sale was between related parties, or was compelled under a power of sale, family break-up or as part of winding up of an estate; (ii) upon inspection and investigation 'Of the property and similar properties sold in the same time frame, it is demonstrated. that the sale is anomalous; and, (iii) there may be evidence of circumstances affecting the sale price so that the price does not reflect the current value ofthe unencumbered fee simple. Such circumstances may include: (a) the composition of tenants, (b) leases or transactio~ terms that do not reflect the current market, or ( c) lack of exposure of the propertý to the market. :NIP AC will take steps to ensure that this principle is properly communicated. Further, :NIP AC will place stronger emphasis on this issue in its ongoing staff training. Where :NIP AC's current value is challenged based on a sale and the sale is not considered to be the best indicator of current value, taxpayers will be fully informed of the reasons for this detennination. Recommendation 14: That the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation should apply Assessment Review Board findings of value at specific valuation dates when carrying out assessments for future years based on the same date. The Assessment Act now requires annual assessment updates so this situation is not expected to occur in the future. However, if it should, :NIP AC agrees that decisions of the Assessment Review Board (ARB) will be carried forward to future assessment years where the valuation date has not changed. Exceptions will be made if there has been a physical change to the property that affects the current value, a change in use affecting the classification, or new evidence comes to light that clearly demonstrates that the adjustment of the ARB is no longer warranted.. Office of the Chair cio Municipal Property Assessment Corporation 1305 Pickering Parkway, Pickering, Ontario LlV 3P2 T: 905.688.0990 extension 125 F: 905.831.0040 www.mpac.ca Mr. André Marin MPAC's Response to the Final Report (', , I '-..' () ....._/. March 22, 2006 Page 13 of2.1 Recommendations 15 & 17: That the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation should be bound to apply any assessment reductions imposed by the Assessment Review Board to future years' market value "assessments of the same property, unless they have been determined to be wrong by a court of law or the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation can clearly demonstrate that the circumstances justifying the assessment reduction have changed~ In such case the reasons justifying the change should be set out in the taxpayer's assessment notice. That the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation should be bound to apply reductions agreed to in minutes of settlements to future years' assessments of the same property unless the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation can clearly demonstrate that the circumstances justifying the assessment reduction have changed. In such case the reasons justifying the change should be set out in the taxpayer's assessment notice. MP AC agrees with the Ombudsman, that reductions granted by the Assessment Review Board (ARB), whether by Minutes of Settlement or decisions of the Board, will be carried forward. Adjustments made under Requests for Reconsideration will also be carried forward unless circumstances as noted by the Ombudsman prevent the carry forward. As noted by the Ombudsman, in cases where circumstances justify changing the assessment reduction, MP AC will notify the taxpayer. As the "Ombudsman acknowledged, MPAC has already undertaken laudable steps, through the efforts of the Year-End Process Improvement Team established in 2004, to improve in this area. The following steps havè or will be taken to address this issue: · Electronic tools have been developed to scan the various databases involved in the appeal process. · Exception listings with possible anomalies are produced for staff to review. · Exception listings will be reviewed several times throughout the year to ensure appeal adjustments are properly updated as they happen. · With the implementation of the Integrated Property System in 2006, MP AC will examine options for automating the process to minimize the chance of error. · Clear directives will be provided to staff to ensme a consistent understanding of those occasions when, as noted by the Ombudsman, decisions cannot legally be carned "forward. · A better coding system will be established to carry forward decisions. Office of the Chair c/o Municipal Property Assessment Corporation 1305 Pickering Parkway, Pickering, Ontario LIV 3P2 T: 905.688.0990 extension 225 F: 905.831.0040 www.mpac.ca Mr. André Marin MPAC's Response to the Final Report f'. I '., ~. / () March 22, 2006 Page 14 of21 . Audits will be conducted. In terms of communicating carrying forward deciSions to property taxpayers, MP AC will· examine options, including the recommended use of the Property Assessment Notice, to determine the most effective method for communicating the decision to affected taxpayers. Recommendation 16: That the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation should ensure that all minutes of settlement it enters into relating to the assessment reductions contain reasons clearly explaining why a reduction- has been agreed to, and that these reasons are recorded. MP AC agrees that it can provide additional information to the· taxpayer to explain the reasons for the settlement. MP AC will record the reasons for the Minutes of Settlement in its files. AIl parties to the settlement should continue to have the option of not recording the . reasons for the settlement in the Minutes. For appeals to the Assessment Review Board (ARB), settlements are complicated by the fact that more than two parties are legally involved. MP AC, the assessed person, and the municipality are statutory parties to all assessment complaints. Other parties, such as regional municipalities or counties may apply to the ARB to be joined as parties. In other cases, third parties commence appeals on properties owned by others. Assessment complaints for a property may also involve several tax years and may include supplementary and omitted assessments. The parties may have the same. reasons for settling, different reasons for settling, they may agree ona value but not the reasons, and/or they may differ for each tax year under complaint. CUlTently, taxpayers, municipalities or MP AC do not have to agree to the reasons for any settlement, only the revised value or classification, when they sign the Minutes of Settlement. Some of the parties to the appeal, particularly those represented by agents or legal counsel, will object to the inclusion of reasons, either as part of the Minutes of Settlement, or as a separate document. Most assessment complaints before the Board are the result of a difference of opinion as to the COlTect value and are not factual in nature. In many cases, especially for high value commercial and industrial properties, both parties undertake an extensive analysis of the market using one or more of the three approaches to value and each have a range of value that they believe is appropriate for the property, and within which they believe a settlement is possible. Through discussions and negotiation they come to a 'meeting of the minds' on the appropriate assessed value. Office of the Chair cío Municipal Property Assessment Corporation 1305 Pickering Parkway, Pickering, Ontario Ll V 3P2 T: 905.688.0990 extension 225 F: 905.831.0040 www.mpac.ca Mr..André Marin MPAC's Response to the Final Report n ..........- () March 22. 2006 Page 15 of21 In these situations, settlement discussions between parties are usually done on a "without prejudice" basis, and as such the details of the discussions are privileged. Many of the discussions leading to the settlement are solicitor-client privileged and cannot be disclosed. Such discussions are protected based on a public policy that favours attempts by parties to reach amicable settlements and reduce the costs to the taxpayer, which would otherwise be incucred if all disputes had to be resolved through the courts. In some cases, a party will settle at the high or low end of the value range in order to conclude the matter quickly and minimize their legal fees and other costs. As a result, there will be times when parties agree on the assessed value or the classification, but not the reasons, or where. the parties do not wish to disclose the reasons. As well, any of the parties to the litigation may be reluctant to document the reasons for the settlement because they feel that they would then be "estopped" ftom . raising the same, or a closely related, issue in a future appeal. Recommendation 18: That the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation should request reasons for Assessment Review Board decisions if the basis for an assessment decision is unclear, and record all Assessment Review Board reasons. :MP AC agrees with this recommendation. Recommendation 19: That the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation immediately cease the practice of bringing new property com parables to Assessment Review Board , hearings without sufficient prior disclosure. . :MP AC agrees with this recommendation. Our practice is to provide comparable reports prior to the appeal hearing dates; however, due to various circumstances there may be exceptions. MP AC will establish standards and review staffing requirements to sufficiently notify the property owner prior to the hearing date (such as 7 days' prior notice) when different comparables will be used. In circumstances where sufficient înformation is not given, and the other party requires more time to consider the new information" MP AC will consent to an adjournment of the hearing. Recommendation 20: That the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation give direction to its staff to ensure that challenges to assessment are seriously considered and resolved at the earliest opportunity and that last minute settlements before the Assessment Review Board are discouraged. MP AC agrees with tbis recommendation. Office of the Chair CIO Municipal Property Assessment Corporation 1305 Pickering Parkway, Pickering, Ontario L1V 3P2 T: 905.688.0990 extension 225 F: 905.831.0040 w'¥'¥.mpac.ca n '-- o Mr. André Marin MP AC 's Response to the Final Report March 22, 2006 Page 16 of21 Significant improvements in the timely resolve of Requests for Reconsideration have already occurred. During the 2005 Assessment Update, the time required for completing a Request for Reconsideration was reduced by half. For appeals to the Assessment Review Board, MP AC will establish standards and review staffing requirements for contact with taxpayers to encourage early resolution. The new standards will reduce the number oflate settlements. However, due diligence requires that careful consideration must be given to all the evidence and circumstances surrounding each challenge. While a timely resolution will be achieved in most cases, there will continue to be last minute settlements as many of the presiding Assessment Review Board members ask MP AC to meet with each property owner as the hearing commences to determine if a last minute agreement can be reached. During these last minute discussions, new evidence may be presented that may lead to an agreement between the parties. RecommendatilJn 22: That the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation report back to the Ombudsman's office in six months time on its progress in implementing the Ombudsman's recommendations. MP AC agrees with this recommendation. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this report. Yours truly, Debbie Zimmennan Chair, MP AC Board of Directors Attachment Office of the Chair c/o Municipal Property Assessment Corporation 1305 Pickering Parkway; Pickering, Ontario LIV 3P2 T: 905.688.0990 extensiòn225 F: 905.83] .0040 www.mpac.ca Mr. André Marin . MPAC's Response to the Final Report c) n ..__l March 22, 2006 Page 17 of21 Addendum Re: Recommendation 21 The Onus of Proof MP AC is bound by cUlTeÍlt assessment legislation, regulations, common law and the ARB Rules of Practice and Procedure, all of which are determined by the provincial government, under the Ministries of Finance and the Attorney General. Any decision to change the onus on an assessment appeal will have to be made by the Province, rather than MP AC. Onus is important from a legal perspective because the party with the onus must prove. their contention, or their case fails. Some refer to this as "the risk of non persuasion" because the party with the onus wil110se unless the tribunal is satisfied that the contention they raise, has merit. Under current assessment appeal proceedings, as in most other legal matters, the person who alleges is usually the person who must prove what is alleged. That basic principle is applied in most other assessment jurisdictions in North America, with the exception of the Province of Manitoba. Typically, in assessment matters, the complainant must prove the assessment is not correct, or the assessment as returned on the roll is assumed to be correct. While the ultimate onus to prove the assessment is incorrect lies with the appellant or property owner throughout a hearing, the Courts have ruled that the onus can shift to the assessor if the assessment is not prepared in compliance with the Act. The Ontario Court of Appeal in Re Empire Realty Co. Ltd. And R.A. C. for Metropolitan Toronto (1968), recognized this: II... notwithstanding that there re.sts on the assessee, as appellant, the onus of establishing error (the ultimate onus), when the Assessment Commissioner admits that he has departed from the direçtives in the Act, the onus of going forward (the intermediate onus) thereupon requires the Assessment Commissioner to adduce evidence to prove that the method he has adopted has resulted in an assessment which will result in the same distribution of tax burden .as would have maintained if the assessments had been strictly made as required by the Act. " If the ultimate onus were on the assessing authority, as the Ombudsman is recommending, then MP AC would have to satisfy the ARB that the assessment is correct. Office of the Chair c/o Municipal Property Assessment Corporation 1305 Pickering Parkway, Pickering, Ontario L 1 V 3P2 T: 905.688.0990 extension 225 F: 905.831.0040 www.mpac.ca n " , CJ Mr. André Marin MPAC's Response to the Final Report March 22, 2006 Page 18 of21 While it is difficult, having no experience with such a model to understand the operational impacts such a change would have, at the very least it would require MP AC to alter the way it prepares for appeals to ensure the onus is met, where it believes the assessed value is accurate. Since municipalities are statutory parties to every appeal, and many participate as a full party to the proceedings, this change may have similar implications for them. The Ombudsman has indicated in his report that he believes that the onus on the taxpayer is in place to discourage appeals. The reason may simply be that this is an historic principle with respect to onus in tax assessment legislation of all types and was not introduced with a view to either encourage or discourage appeals. The appeal statistics cited for Manitoba are recent and do not take into account the record high appeal levels in the City of Winnipeg that followed assessment reform in 1990 and resulted in a forecast of potential losses of $200 to $250 million in tax revenue by an inquiry report by John Spurfield in 1996. Although final losses on appeal were much lower by the time all complaints and appeals were disposed, the Winnipeg appeal experience was not as neutral as the more recent appeal statistics indicated. The Winnipeg City Assessor reported to Council on May 17, 1999 that Winnipeg was found in a nation-wide survey to have a higher level of appeals than any other jurisdiction. The Evidential Onus During the trial of any matter, there is another type of onus, referred to as the evidential onus, which is the burden of producing suffident evidence to raise a particular issue. All parties during the course of a hearing will have an evidential onus, which requires that they prove or disprove the facts that are in contention. Once the ARB is satisfied that the evidence provided by the assessor supports'the assessed value, the appellant will have the evidential onus to prove it does not and that an alternate value is more appropriate. If the assessor could not prove the assessed value was accurate, the onus would then lie with the property owner to prove an alternate value. Practically speaking, both parties have an onus to discharge and are still required to prove their case, regardless of to whom the onus is initially assigned. During the proceedings, the party with the ultimate onus leads evidence first and the other parties respond or rebut that evidence. The existing ARB order of proceeding at a hearing calls upon the assessor to provide a preliminary explanation of the ''manner in which the assessment was anived at ..." (s. 40(8) of the Assessment Act), before the complainant provides details of his or her assessment complaint. It can sometimes be advantageous to lead evidence first. When a party leads evidence first, that party has the initial opportunity to establish the issues in the proceeding. Leading evidence first also provides a party with the right to call reply evidence and to make submissions in reply. In essence, the party who starts first has the opportunity to have the last word in the Office of the Chair c/o Municipal Property Assessment Corporation 1305 Pickering Parkway, Pickering, Ontario LIV 3P2 T: 905.688.0990 extension 225 F: 905.831.0040 ,...'W\v.mpac.ca () ....../ 'j ('m/ Mr. André Marin MPAC's Response to the Final Report March 22, 2006 Page 19 of21 . evidence and the submissions. If a change in 'onus is adopted in Ontario, there is a risk the taxpayer may feel that they lost before they began, since MP AC would no longer simply provide an introductory explanation, but set the stage at the hearing by establishing its full case before the owner has a chance to state her or his case. MP AC would also have the last word. The Assessment Review Board, could however, establish rules of practice under the authority granted in the Statutory Powers Procedures Act to alter the order of proceedings. The Standard of Proof The standard of proof in assessment matters is the balance of probabilities, which means that the party bearing the onus must satisfy the tribunal that it is more probable than not that his version of the facts are true. The Ombudsman refers to this in his report as the benefit of doubt going to MP AC (i.e., if the' ARB can't decide, or the case is 50/50, the taxpayer loses and MP AC wins). A decision by the ARB, which defaults the outcome to MP AC because the evidence is 50/50 occurs rarely, if ever. Currently, if the owner does not satisfy the onus of proving the assessment is incorrect, MP AC could put forward a motion for non-suit - in other words, ask the Board to dismiss the appeal without calling any evidence because the property owner didn't prov.e his case, so the case must fail. This too is rare. MP AC does not as a matter of practice, motion for non-suit, especially with unrepresented residential property owners. Reversing the onus does not, however, give the taxpayer the non-suit option if MP AC doesn't prove its case. As pointed out above, they will still need to show on balance of probabilities that an alternate assessed value is appropriate. Where the taxpayer does so, the result would not default to the taxpayer's suggested value, but would instead be a win by the taxpayer on the evidence However, what happens when the Board is not satisfied that the assessor has properly detennined the assessed value and the taxpayer does not provide sufficient evidence to show on balance of probabilities that an alternate assessed value is appropriate? Does the ARB digress :trom its adjudicative role and assume the role of an investigative tribunal in the place of the assessor under section 45(1)? Section 45(1) provides: 45. (1) Upon a complaint or appeal with respect to an assessment, the Assessment Review Board may review the assessment and, for the purpose of the review. has all the vowers and functions of the assessor in makinf! an assessment. determination or decision under this Aä. and any assessment, determination or decision made on review by the Assessment Review Board shall, except as provided in subsection (2), be deemed to be an assessment, determination or decision of the assessor and has the same force and effect. (Underlining added) Office of the Chair c/o Municipal Property AsseSSt11ent Corporation 1305 Pickering Parkway. Pickering, Ontario L1 V 3P2 T: 905.688.0990 extension 225 F: 905.831.0040 www.mpac.ca C) ,~', ( ) Mr. André Marin MPA-C's Response to the Final Report March 22, 2006 Page 20 of21 It appears that the recommendation to reverse the onus was made in the context of a residential appeal, where the property owners are not as likely to be represented by legal counsel and don't have MP AC' s familiarity with the appeal process. This is not the case for appeals involving large commercial and industrial properties where property owners are represented by legal counsel and tax agents. In these situations, the property owners often have a much more specialized understanding of their industry, the value of their real estate holdings, the current trends and economics of their industry than MP AC. The Manitoba Model MP AC has not had a lot oftime to review the Manitoba appeal model that the Ombudsman suggests be adopted for Ontario, and only has a preliminary understanding of how their appeal system works. While both provinces work on a market value based assessment system, there are differences, not only in the complaint/appeal practices, but also in the broader Property assessment system. .One key difference is that assessment updates are only conducted every four years in Manitoba, rather than annually. The Manitoba appeal model would need to be analyzed and understood in the broader context of how it works within their property assessment system to know whether the onus provisions 'could be adopted in isolation or whether there are other differences in the two systems that allow their model to work. Some of the differences that would need to be reviewed include: · Municipalities are not parties to assessment appeals in Manitoba, whereas they are a statutory party in Ontario. This raises questions respecting the obligations of municipalities if they take the same position as MP AC or support a taxpayer; or how does the standard of proof (balance of probabilities) apply to municipalities? · Third party or stranger appeals are not allowed under Manitoba's Municipal Assessment Act, only the owner or tenant who pays taxes can appeal, whereas any . person may appeal the assessment of anothedn Ontario. This raises questions similar to those that arise when a municipality is involved in the appeal as to how . the onus applies to .the third party. · In Ontario, there is a single level of appeal to the ARB and only an opportunity to request a review of the decision of the ARB, or appeal to the Divisional Court on a question oflaw. A two-tier appeal system exists in Manitoba - the first level of appeal is to the Board of Revision, with an appeal to the Manitoba Municipal . Board. Typically on an appeal to a higher 1ribunal, the appellant has the onus, regardless of who had the onus in the initial complaint. On a request for a review of a decision, the person requesting the review has to prove to the ARB that a Office of the Chair c/o Municipal Property Assessment Corporation 1305 Pickering Parkway, Pickering. Ontario L1 V 3P2 T: 905.688.0990 extension 225 F: 905.831.0040 ·www.mpac.ca Mr. André Marin MPAC's Response to the Final Report () .....--/ (.) March 22, 2006 Page 21 of21 review is necessary. However, in Manitoba, the onus remains with the assessor on issues of value, even at the appeal level. · Manitoba's Municipal Assessment Açt has a different test on appeal than Ontario. The dominant test is of equity, rather than accuracy of the value. Section 60(2) of the Manitoba Act states that "The Board shall not change an assessed value where the assessed value bears a fair and just relation to the assessed values of other assessable property ". As a result, an assessor in Manitoba has to show on balance of probabilities, that he treated similar property equitably. . Another difference is that the Municipal Assessment Act includes a presumption of accuracy clause, which changes the onus requirements on the assessor. Section 18 of the Manitoba legislation provides that: "Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, an assessment is presumed to be properly made and the assessed value to be fixed at a fair and just amount where the assessed value bears a fair and just relation to the assessed values of other assessable property" :MP AC suggests that a review of Manitoba's system would need to be undertaken by the provincial government in consultation with the Assessment Review Board, . municipalities, the assessment bar and :MP AC to better understand how a reversal of onus ,- would work in Ontario. Office of the Chair clo Municipa1·PropertY Assessment Corporation 1305 Pickering Parkway, Pickering, Ontario L] V 3P2 T: 905.688.0990 extension 225 . F: 905.831.0040 w\vw.mpac.ca Coe.e.... ~5-ð6 @1pa~ '"'--.. MUNICIPAL PRIJPItRïY A5SE$$ME::Nï CùRPORAiltJN April 11 , 2006 Dear Heads of Council: As Chair of the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MP AC), I would like to bring you up to date on the changes we are planning as part of our response to the Report of the Ombudsman of Ontario. I would like to take this opportunity to convey that our Board welcomed the Ombudsman's review when it began last October and have cooperated fully with the Ombudsman's office prior to and during his review. We will continue to cooperate with the Ombudsman's office in the months ahead. In all, the Ombudsman made 22 recommendations. Of these: · Since 2004, we have worked on and can implement 17 recommendations as soon as possible; · Two recommendations are the responsibility of the provincial government and beyond our control; and · Three have significant resource, technology and cost implications and require further review before they can be implemented. Weare now conducting this reVIew. Our detailed response to each of the 22 recommendations is posted on our web site at www.mpac.ca. As you are aware, the Minister of Finance extended the assessment appeal deadline for the 2006 tax year from March 31 to June 30. In keeping with the Ombudsman's recommendations, we will be providing taxpayers with additional infonnation about their property and how they can have their concerns addressed. Office ol'thc Chair .>'0 Munlcipa! Pro )(>rty Assessment Corporation 1305 Plckcnng ['atkwn)', Pickering, Ontario L I V 3P2 r· 905 6ð~:.0990 cxt. },25 F: 905.331.0040 \N\'.'\~:. Ulpac .ca lKc:£-¿vc- for ~fo·) All Heads of Council April 11. 2006 Page 2 of3 By moving forward with 17 of the Ombudsman's 22 recommendations, we believe that we will be able to significantly increase transparency and the accuracy of the 4.5 million properties we assess. This is consistent with the direction that MPAC's Board of Directors established for the organization in 2004 when we identified four key priorities - product quality, service delivery, productivity and communications. Significant progress has been made in each of these four areas. For example: · The cost of assessing a single property has been reduced from $34.17 in 2000 to $33.23 today as a result of productivity improvements; · Last fall during the 2005 assessment update, we held more than 600 meetings with municipal councils, municipal officials and taxpayer groups; · We extended hours at our field offices so that more taxpayers could have their questions answered; · In total, we met with more than 10,000 people including elected and non-elected municipal officials and taxpayers across Ontario; · The time it took to answer a taxpayer's call at our Customer Contact Centre was reduced from an average of 5.5 minutes to 30 seconds; · We have cut the time it takes to respond to a request from a taxpayer to review his or her assessment in half; · Our new computer system will be fully online this year. The Integrated Property System (IPS) is a multi-million dollar and multi-year project. It played a significant role in improving the quality of our data for the 2005 assessment update and, in keeping with the recommendations of the Ombudsman, will allow us to provide more information about individual properties in 2006; and · We added new information to the Property Assessment Notice, including the previous assessed value, the percentage increase for the property's assessed value, and the percentage increase for the municipality. orner of ¡he Chai! ,~/(> ÎV1l1nicipaì Property Assessment Cmponaìùn 1305 Pickering Parkway. l'¡àcring, Ontario L 1 V 31'2 T' 905.(,)!;-\.(if)90 nt 225 F. z)05.~U 1.0040 \.v\V\\.'. rnpae,ca All Heads of Council April 11, 2006 Page 3 of 3 The Ombudsman's Report confirms that we are heading in the right direction. His report will add impetus to these initiatives. Three recommendations deal with increased rates of property inspection, providing a Property Profile Report with assessment Notices and greater access to MP AC assessors. Most of the costs would involve hiring added staff to conduct more physical inspections of properties, production costs for including the Property Profile Report with 4.5 million assessment Notices and increasing staffing levels in the field offices to meet with local taxpayers. As members of this corporation, I encourage you to review our response if you have not already . You have my commitment that I will keep you fully informed of our progress in implementing the recommendations as we proceed. Yours truly, "Original Signed by" Debbie Zimmerman Chair, Board of Directors Copy Carl Isenburg, President and Chief Administrative Officer, MPAC Ofticc of the Chait cotv]mJlcip,'! Property Asscssml'lll Corpo1(nion 1.'05 Picken!!)!, Parkway, P!d.<.:ring, tJntarJo LJ V 31'2 I' 9Ü5('X~.09qO ex! 2.25 F: 90S.i<1] .0040 V-/\V\\:.Hlpac ,ca CTA Canadian Transplant Association WWW.ORGAN-DONAllON-WORKS.ORG TEL: 1· 888 · 532· 9999 CHARITABLE TAX No. I 3 I 8 I RROO I Ontario Region Honorary Patrons Mel Davis Basil (Buzz) Hargrove Bob Rae linda Rowe ~:;: Regional Director Henry Charles Cowen ;.;. Regional Vice-Director Tony Cammareri :j:;: Regional Treasurer Julie-Anne Stangroom .¡ Regional Secretary Sandra Holdsworth ;~;: RegionalManager, Public Relations Brian Noad ;:; RegionalManager, Sports Ontario Region Representatives Donna Fleming :j::;' Aubrey Goldstein :;::¡: Robert Kolatschek :çt Audra Manning :;J; Barry O'Connor ;:; Deby O'Connor Dennis Segatto ;::; Niva Segatto Sponsorships * Canadian Automobile Workers Canadian Liver Foundation Clarica Fujisawa Hoffmann-Ia Roche Miracle of Life Brampton Golf Tournament Novartis Pharmaceutical Schering Canada Inc. Kidney Foundation of Canada Tyszka Family Wyeth-A verst ;. Organ Donor :çi Transplant Recipient · Sponsors known at this time Reply to: 103-348 Muskoka Road # 3N Huntsville, Ontario PI H IH8 c () ~R- I ;2.(0 - 0 Ç:, " March 13, 2006C,:.. His Worship Mayor David Ryan The Corporation of the City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario, Canada L1 V 6K7 Dear Mayor Ryan, This year, Organ and Tissue Donor Awareness Week will take place ITom April 23"30, 2006. Each year, thousands of Ontarians get a second chance to live life to its fullest thanks to the kindness of people who have donated organs and tissue. Organ and tissue donation can save lives, restore health, and give hope for new beginnings. Over 4000 Canadians are presently on the organ transplant waiting list. The need for organs is far greater than the available supply, and many Canadians die each year waiting for a transplant. The dire need for transplants requires the urgent cooperation of all mayors across Ontario to proclaim this week as Organ and Tissue Donor Awareness Week to help alleviate the critical situation and the sufferings of those who are waiting for transplants. A private member's bill was introduced in this respect at the Ontario Legislature and is awaiting the first reading. At the same time, that Member of the Provincial Parliament, at a press conference, strongly stated that "heaven does not need these organs: we need them here and now on earth to help those in need of organs." J~ I am approaching you to help us promote organ and tissue donor awareness week, April 23"30, 2006, by passing a Proclamation in Council and giving it the proper publicity. Please accept my hearty thanks for your prompt action and cooperation in this instance as Mayor of the great City of Pickering. Respectfully yours, U¥~ ~",....~.....~ Henry Charles Cowen (Hon.) Regional Vice-Director CT A, Ontario Region 1 Emerald Lane, Suite 503 Thornhill, ON, L4J 8N2 905-762-1444 "Sign your Donor Card" l ~e:L~c"Y'-- -\0 De.d~ Page 1 of2 {J'DR.£' . ;;{ 7 - 0 f, Bentley, Debi From: Buchan, Adriana on behalf of Clerks Web Email Sent: March 28, 2006 8:48 AM To: Bentley, Debi Subject: FW: Request for Proclamation for May 2006 -----Original Message----- From: Rhonda Jacobson, OSLA [mailto:rjacobson@osla.on.ca] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 7:44 AM To: Clerks Web Email Subject: Request for Proclamation for May 2006 . l"b OS LA " t!'\! Or.t,¡fÍo Av¡.:v.:i.11 ion at SpeeC1,t¡¡ngl..~')(! ><tth{)~o;¡~'Ih dfKÍ AL¡jIOroq\~I:> Dear Sir or Madam, Your help is needed to communicate the importance of speech and hearing to the residents of Pickering. May is "Better Speech, Language and Hearing Month", and we would encourage you to consider a proclamation to help us share important messages about healthy communication. Today, an estimated 1 in 10 Canadians have some type of communication disorder, many of which can be treated or better handled with appropriate support. In addition to social and psychological effects of communication disorders on families and communities, economic costs continue to rise due to lost work productivity, special education, and medical treatment. Awareness is the key to beginning achieving better speech, language and hearing. Members of OSLA, the Ontario Association of Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiologists - the professionals who specialize in the identification and treatment of communication disorders - make a special effort during the month of May to inform and educate people about speech, language and hearing disorders. With proper and timely treatment, most people with communication disorders can lead full and productive lives. Unfortunately, many people with communication disorders are unaware that the treatment to remedy or minimize the impact of their condition is available. Our goal as professionals is to educate the public that help is available. I hope we can count on your support. On behalf of OSLA members and the many who live with communication disorders, I encourage you to I help raise awareness about these critical issues and help those in need by issuing a proclamation in ( May, "Better Speech, Language and Hearing Month". For your convenience, I enclose suggested textJ for this year's message. We thank you in advance for your help and continued concern for the cause of better speech, language and hearing. 28/03/2006 ( fJtDÍ-cYrV +0 hc1aÌÜ-') Page 2 of2 Sincerely Beth Ann Kenny, Executive Director enclosure: Sample Proclamation No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by A VG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385/ Virus Database: 268.3.2/293 - Release Date: 26/03/2006 28/03/2006 Proclamation "Better Speech, Language and Hearing Month" Whereas: And Whereas: And Whereas: And Whereas: And Whereas: Therefore: May 2006 Over one million Ontarians of all ages suffer from communication disorders relating to Speech, Language and/or Hearing There is a growing need for awareness of the profound developmental, economic and social consequences that communication disorders have on people and their families Persons with communication problems require access to the professional services of audiologists and speech-language pathologists who provide treatments to improve and enhance quality of life Effective treatment of communication disorders benefits all of society by allowing otherwise disadvantaged persons to achieve their academic and vocational potentials Investments in treatments for communication disorders pays economic dividends in reduced reliance on other social services In conjunction with the Ontario Association of Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiologists, the City of Pickering proclaims May 2006 as "Better Speech, Language and Hearing Month" APRIL 18, 2006 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE REPORT Executive Committee Report EC 2006-06 of the meeting held on April 1 0, 2006 1. Oirector, Planning & Oevelopment, Report PO 19-06 Rougecrest Construction Inc. / Grand Oak Homes (Eastern Division) Inc. Plan of Subdivision 40M-1439 Rougecrest Construction Inc. / Headgate Investments Limited Plan of Subdivision 40M-1440 / Plan 40R-1 0805 Rougecrest Construction Inc. Plan of Subdivision 40M-1441 Final Assumption of Plans of Subdivision That by-laws be enacted to: 1. Assume roads and services within Plan 40M-1439 (save and except from Blocks 75,80 and 82), Plan 40M -1440 and Plan 40M-1441; 2. Amend By-law 1416/82 (Places of Amusement) to include the roads within Plans 40M-1439, 40M-1440 and 40M-1441; and 3. Authorize the release and removal of the Subdivision Agreements and related Amending Subdivision Agreements from title relating to Plan 40M-1439 (save and except from Blocks 75,80 and 82), Plan 40M-1440 / Plan 40R-10805 and Plan 40M-1441. 2. Oirector, Planning & Oevelopment, Report PO 21-06 Plan of Subdivision 40M-2014 Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision That by-laws be enacted to: 1. Assume roads and services with Plan 40M-2014 (save and except from Blocks 29 and 32); 2. Amend By-law 1416/82 (Places of Amusement) to include the roads within Plan 40M-2014; and 3. Authorize the release and removal of the Subdivision Agreement from title relating to Plan 40M-2014 (save and except from Lots 8 and 9 and Blocks 30,31 and 32). 3. Director, Planning & Oevelopment, Report PO 26-06 Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 02-004/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 21/02 Minister's Zoning Order Application 18-Z0-02903-01 Bill & Ann Clancey (Part of Lot 8, Concession 5, Parts 1, 2 and 3, Plan 40R-16157) (South side of Concession 6, east of Westney Road) City of Pickerinq That by-laws be enacted to: 1. That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 02-004/P, submitted by Bill & Ann Clancey, to amend the Pickering Official Plan to permit the development of a golf driving range on lands being Part of Lot 8, Concession 5, Parts 1,2 and 3, Plan 40R-16157, City of Pickering, be tabled, until such time as an Environmental Assessment for the Westney Road By-pass is complete; 2. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 21/02, submitted by Bill & Ann Clancey, to amend Zoning By-law 3037 to permit a golf driving range on lands being Part of Lot 8, Concession 5, Parts 1, 2 and 3, Plan 40R- 16157, City of Pickering, be approved as revised, as a temporary use for an initial period of three years, subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix I, as amended to reflect the deletion of Condition 1 (a), to Report PD 26-06; and 3. That Council recommend to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing that Minister's Zoning Order Application 18-Z0-0293-01 to permit a golf driving range be approved as revised, to permit the golf driving range as a temporary use subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix \I, as amended to reflect the deletion of Condition 1 (a), to Report PO 26-06. 4 Director, Planning & Development, Report PO 27-06 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 29/05 2075729 Ontario Inc. 1962 Guild Road and 1640 Kingston Road (Part of Lots 1 & 2, Plan 316 and Part of Lot 20, Concession 1) City of PickerinQ 1. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 29/05 be approved, as set out in the draft by-law attached as Appendix I to Report PO 27-06, as amended to relect a revised antiques market definition, to amend the existing zoning on the subject property to permit limited retail and commercial uses including a patio furniture outlet and an antiques market for a temporary period of three years, on lands being Part of Lots 1 & 2, Plan 316 and Part of Lot 20, Concession 1, City of Pickering; 2. That the applicant's request to permit the full range of uses permitted under Section 12, "C2" - General Commercial Zone, By-law 3036, as amended, be denied; and 3. That the amending zoning by-law to implement Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 29/05, as set out in Appendix I to Report PO 27-06, be forwarded to City Council for enactment. 5. Oirector, Operations & Emergency Services, Report OES 01-06 Quotation Q-7-2006 Quotation for Street LiQhtinQ - Capital Installation 1. That Report OES 01-06 regarding Street Lighting Capital Installation be received; 2. That Quotation Q-7-2006 submitted by Oundas Power Lines Limited for Street Lighting Capital Installation in the amount of $116,630 (GST included) be accepted; 3. That the total gross project cost of $130,527 (GST included) and a net project cost of $121 ,988 including the above quotation amount and other project costs identified in this report be approved; and 4. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take necessary action to bring effect thereto. 6. Oirector, Operations & Emergency Services, Report OES 16-06 Encroachment of City of Pickering lands, Milton Road road allowance Web-Tech Safety Products Inc., 500 Rosebank Road, Pickering, Part Lots 82, 83 & 84 on Plan 350 File: A-2130 1. That Report OES 16-06 regarding an encroachment agreement be received; 2. That the request by Web-Tech Safety Products Inc. (the "Owner") to encroach upon the Milton Road road allowance (the "Highway") be approved; and 3. That the Mayor and the City Clerk be authorized to sign an encroachment agreement with Web-Tech Safety Products involving City lands, subject to certain terms and conditions as set out in the Encroachment Agreement prepared by the City Solicitor. 7. Oirector, Operations & Emergency Services, Report OES 17-06 Encroachment on City of Pickering lands, Milton Road road allowance Harold Lloyd Ferguson and Carol Ferguson, 503 Oakwood Orive, Pickering,. Lot 81 on Plan 350, Save and Except Part 1 on Plan 40R-11951 - File A-2130 1. That Report OES 17-06 regarding an encroachment agreement be received; 2. That the request by Harold Lloyd Ferguson and Carol Ferguson (the "Owners") to encroach upon the Milton Road road allowance (the "Highway") be approved; and 3. That the Mayor and the City Clerk be authorized to sign an encroachment agreement with Harold Lloyd Ferguson and Carol Ferguson involving City lands, subject to certain terms and conditions as set out in the Encroachment Agreement prepared by the City Solicitor. 8. Director, Operations & Emergency Services, Report OES 18-06 Encroachment on City of Pickering lands, Milton Road road allowance Monica Porter, 481 Oakwood Orive, Part Lot 110 on Plan 350 - File: A-2130 1. That Report OES 18-06 regarding an encroachment agreement be received; 2. That the request by Monica Porter (the "Owner") to encroach upon the Milton Road road allowance (the "Highway") be approved; 3. That the Mayor and the City Clerk be authorized to sign an encroachment agreement with Monica Porter involving City lands, subject to certain terms and conditions as set out in the Encroachment Agreement prepared by the City Solicitor. 9. Oirector, Operations & Emergency Services, Report OES 19-06 Extension of Encroachment / Licence Agreement between Gerard Cryan and Lorrie Cryan and City of Pickering upon lands Known as Block 50, Plan 40M-1627, Pickering - File: A-2130 1. That Report OES 19-06 regarding the extension of an Encroachment / Licence Agreement be received; 2. 'That the request by Gerard Cryan and Lorrie Cryan, collectively called "Cryan" to encroach upon the land known as Block 50, Plan 40M-1627 be approved; and 3. That the Mayor and the City Clerk be authorized to sign an Extension Agreement with Gerard Cryan and Lorrie Cryan involving City lands, subject to certain terms and conditions as set out in the Extension Agreement prepared by the City Solicitor. 10. Director, Operations & Emergency Services, Report OES 20-06 Extension of Encroachment / Licence Agreement between Caryn Johnston and John Johnston and City of Pickering upon lands Known as Block 50, Plan 40M-1627, Pickering - File: A-2130 1. That Report OES 20-06 regarding the extension of an Encroachment / Licence Agreement be received; 2. That the request by Caryn Johnston and John Johnston, collectively called "Johnston" to encroach upon the land known as Block 50, Plan 40M-1627 be approved; 3. That the Mayor and the City Clerk be authorized to sign an Extension Agreement with Caryn Johnston and John Johnston involving City lands, subject to certain terms and conditions as set out in the Extension Agreement prepared by the City Solicitor. 11. Director, Corporate Services, Report CS 12-06 Section 354 of the Municipal Act - Write-off of Taxes 1. That Report CS 12-06 of the Oirector, Corporate Services & Treasurer be received; 2. That under the authority of the Municipal Act, 2001, Section 354(3) provides for the write-off of property taxes due to an unsuccessful tax sale; and 3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect hereto. 12. Oirector, Corporate Services, Report CS 13-06 Section 357/358 of the Municipal Act- Adjustment to Taxes 1. That Report CS 13-06 of the Oirector, Corporate Services & Treasurer be received; 2. That the write offs of taxes as provided under Section 357/358 of the Municipal Act, 2001 be approved; and 3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect hereto. 13. Oirector, Corporate Services, Report CS 21-06 Cash Position Report as at Oecember 31. 2005 That Report CS 21-06 from the Oirector, Corporate Services & Treasurer be received for information. Executive Committee Meeting Minutes Monday, April 1 0, 2006 7:30 pm Council Cham bers Chair: Councillor McLean PRESENT: Mayor Ryan COUNCILLORS: K. Ashe M. Brenner D. Dickerson R. Johnson B. McLean O. Pickles ALSO PRESENT: N. Carroll - Oirector, Planning & Oevelopment G. Paterson - Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer O. Bentley - City Clerk C. Rose - Manager, Policy O. Shields - Deputy Clerk (I) DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST Councillor Johnson declared a conflict of interest in accordance with the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act with respect to Report PD 27-06 of the Oirector, Planning & Oevelopment. Councillor Johnson did not take part in the discussion or vote on the matter. (I) ADOPTION OF MINUTES Moved by Councillor Johnson Seconded by Councillor Pickles Meeting of March 27, 2006 CARRIEO Executive Committee Meeting Minutes Monday, April 10, 2006 7:30 pm Council Chambers Chair: Councillor McLean (II) DELEGATIONS 1. Anthony Biglieri The Biglieri Group Ltd. Re: PD 27-06 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A29/05 Anthony Biglieri, the representative for the applicant, appeared before the Committee in support of Zoning By-law Amendment Application A29/05. Mr. Biglieri noted that although they would have liked to have a full range of "C2" uses, they were in agreement with Planning's recommendations. He stated that his client was looking to develop the property in the future and that the uses requested would only be temporary. He also stated that his client agreed with the City about not wanting a Flea Market or Exhibition Hall at the site. Mr. Biglieri questioned whether the Committee would accept a change in the definition for an Antique Market in the zoning by-law and stated that the amended wording would define the use more appropriately. A copy of the proposed definition was provided to the Committee. 2. Anthony Niceforo OOT Patio & Home Re: PO-27 -06 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A29/05 Anthony Niceforo, the owner of the subject property, appeared before the Committee in support of Zoning By-law Amendment Application A29/05. He stated that they had completed extensive work on the property to clean it up and noted that he wanted to be proud of his site and was willing to work with the City in this regard. He noted that he understood the City's mistrust as to what went on previously at this location but stated that he was at the site on a daily basis and would be able to monitor the tenants and make sure they abided by the zoning regulations. (III) MA TTERS FOR CONSIDERATION 1. Oirector, Planning & Oevelopment, Report PO 19-06 Rougecrest Construction Inc. / Grand Oak Homes (Eastern Oivision) Inc. Plan of Subdivision 40M-1439 Rougecrest Construction Inc. / Headgate Investments Limited Plan of Subdivision 40M-1440 / Plan 40R-1 0805 Rougecrest Construction Inc. Executive Committee Meeting Minutes Monday, April 10,2006 7:30 pm Council Chambers Chair: Councillor McLean Plan of Subdivision 40M-1441 Final Assumption of Plans of Subdivision Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Oickerson That by-laws be enacted to: 1. Assume roads and services within Plan 40M-1439 (save and except from Blocks 75,80 and 82), Plan 40M -1440 and Plan 40M-1441; 2. Amend By-law 1416/82 (Places of Amusement) to include the roads within Plans 40M-1439, 40M-1440 and 40M-1441; and 3. Authorize the release and removal of the Subdivision Agreements and related Amending Subdivision Agreements from title relating to Plan 40M-1439 (save and except from Blocks 75, 80 and 82), Plan 40M-1440 / Plan 40R-10805 and Plan 40M-1441. CARRIEO 2. Oirector, Planning & Oevelopment, Report PO 21-06 Plan of Subdivision 40M-2014 Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision Moved by Councillor Ashe Seconded by Councillor Brenner That by-laws be enacted to: 1. Assume roads and services with Plan 40M-2014 (save and except from Blocks 29 and 32); 2. Amend By-law 1416/82 (Places of Amusement) to include the roads within Plan 40M-2014; and 3. Authorize the release and removal of the Subdivision Agreement from title relating to Plan 40M-2014 (save and except from Lots 8 and 9 and Blocks 30, 31 and 32). CARRIEO Executive Committee Meeting Minutes Monday, April 10, 2006 7:30 pm Council Chambers Chair: Councillor McLean 3. Oirector, Planning & Oevelopment, Report PO 26-06 Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 02-004/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 21/02 Minister's Zoning Order Application 18-Z0-02903-01 Bill & Ann Clancey (Part of Lot 8, Concession 5, Parts 1,2 and 3, Plan 40R-16157) (South side of Concession 6, east of Westney Road) City of PickerinQ Ann and Bill Clancey appeared before the Committee in opposition to Report PO 26-06 of the Oirector, Planning & Oevelopment. Mr. and Mrs. Clancey stated that they did not want a Temporary Use By-law, but rather permanent zoning put in place for the driving range. They felt that it could be years before the decision on the by-pass location was made and noted that they would be spending a large amount of money on this endeavour, so they wanted the zoning to be permanent. It was noted to the Clancey's that the Regional Municipality of Ourham would object to the permanent use therefore the temporary use on the property was being recommended. Serge Rielau, 345 Greenwood Road, appeared before the Committee and noted his support of the driving range. He stated that a driving range was better than a subdivision on the property. Mr. Rielau stated that his concerns for any development in the area related to how the development would affect the Ouffins & Carruthers Creek system. He stated that he didn't feel traffic would be a problem, however if a problem were encountered, it would not be hard to rectify. Joel Oahl, 2745 Concession 6, appeared before the Committee and noted his concerns with possible drainage issues as his property was immediately east of the subject property and sloped down from the site. He also noted his concerns on how the development would affect Ouffins & Carruthers Creek system and stated that they needed to be protected. He further advised he had no problem with a driving range use provided his drainage concerns were addressed. Michael Fearon, 3620 Westney Road, appeared before the Committee and expressed concerns with the effect of the development on the Carruthers and Ouffins Creek system. He felt that pesticides and herbicides used on the property would damage the water and felt that the area was environmentally sensitive. Mr. Fearon stated that the Toronto & Region Conservation Authority should review the Executive Committee Meeting Minutes Monday, April 1 0, 2006 7:30 pm Council Chambers Chair: Councillor McLean use to make sure the development would not be environmentally detrimental to the area. Russell Phillips, 2595 Concession 6, appeared before the Committee and stated that he was west of the property and expressed concern with increased traffic in the area. He stated that traffic calming devices were put in this area to reduce traffic and the traffic would increase due to this development. Mr. Phillips felt that by approving the application it would be giving false hope due to the fact that no decision had been made on the Westney Road by-pass. The Committee was provided with correspondence from the Oirector of Current Planning, Region of Ourham dated April 1 0, 2006 advising that the Region did not require the applicant to enter into an agreement with the Region to address the future alignment of Westney Road, as part of the temporary use by-law process. Moved by Councillor Ashe Seconded by Mayor Ryan 1. That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 02-004/P, submitted by Bill & Ann Clancey, to amend the Pickering Official Plan to permit the development of a golf driving range on lands being Part of Lot 8, Concession 5, Parts 1,2 and 3, Plan 40R-16157, City of Pickering, be tabled, until such time as an Environmental Assessment for the Westney Road By-pass is complete; 2. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 21/02, submitted by Bill & Ann Clancey, to amend Zoning By-law 3037 to permit a golf driving range on lands being Part of Lot 8, Concession 5, Parts 1, 2 and 3, Plan 40R-16157, City of Pickering, be approved as revised, as a temporary use for an initial period of three years, subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix I to Report PO 26-06; and 3. That Council recommend to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing that Minister's Zoning Order Application 18-Z0-0293-01 to permit a golf driving range be approved as revised, to permit the golf driving range as a temporary use subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix II to Report PO 26-06. CARRIEO LATER IN THE MEETING (See Following Motions) Executive Committee Meeting Minutes Monday, April 10,2006 7:30 pm Council Chambers Chair: Councillor McLean Moved by Councillor Ashe Seconded by Councillor Pickles That Item #2 of the main motion be amended by adding the following after the words 'Appendix I'; 'as amended to reflect the deletion of Condition 1 (a) '; and That Item #3 of the main motion be amended by adding the following after the words 'Appendix II'; 'as amended to reflect the deletion of Condition 1 (a). CARRIEO The main motion, as amended, was then put to a vote and CARRIEO AS AMENOED. 4. Director, Planning & Development, Report PO 27-06 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 29/05 2075729 Ontario Inc. 1962 Guild Road and 1640 Kingston Road (Part of Lots 1 & 2, Plan 316 and Part of Lot 20, Concession 1) City of PickerinQ Ian Rankin, owner of the Pickering Markets appeared before the Committee in support of the revised definition for an Antique Market. He noted that an additional clause should be placed in all lease agreements for the property, which would state the definition of an Antique Market and felt that would give more support to the enforcement of the zoning on the property. He stated that he believes the owner would like to do the right thing and supported the application with the definition change. Based on the delegation heard earlier in the meeting, it was the consensus of the Committee that the definition of Antiques Market be amended to reflect the following definition; Antiques Market - shall mean a building or part of a building in which is provided for the sale of any old, used, collectible and authentic objects of personal property and which has unique appeal and enhanced value mainly because of its age and/or, due to public demand, has attained a value in a recognized commercial market which is in excess of its original value, but shall not include a flea market or exhibition hall. Executive Committee Meeting Minutes Monday, April 10, 2006 7:30 pm Council Chambers Chair: Councillor McLean Moved by Councillor Ashe Seconded by Councillor Johnson 1. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 29/05 be approved, as set out in the draft by-law attached as Appendix I to Report PD 27-06, as amended to reflect a revised antiques market definition, to amend the existing zoning on the subject property to permit limited retail and commercial uses including a patio furniture outlet and an antiques market for a temporary period of three years, on lands being Part of Lots 1 & 2, Plan 316 and Part of Lot 20, Concession 1, City of Pickering; 2. That the applicant's request to permit the full range of uses permitted under Section 12, "C2" - General Commercial Zone, By-law 3036, as amended, be denied; and 3. That the amending zoning by-law to implement Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 29/05, as set out in Appendix I to Report PO 27-06, be forwarded to City Council for enactment. CARRIEO LATER IN THE MEETING (See Following Motions) Moved by Councillor Oickerson Seconded by Councillor Ashe That Item #1 of the main motion be amended by replacing the words "period of three years", with the following, "period of two years". MOTION LOST The Committee then had before it the main motion, which was CARRIEO. 5. Oirector, Operations & Emergency Services, Report OES 01-06 Quotation Q-7-2006 Quotation for Street Liqhtinq - Capital Installation A question and answer period ensued. Staff were requested to obtain information related to energy efficient and solar powered lighting. Executive Committee Meeting Minutes Monday, April 10,2006 7:30 pm Council Chambers Chair: Councillor McLean Moved by Councillor Ashe Seconded by Mayor Ryan 1. That Report OES 01-06 regarding Street Lighting Capital Installation be received; 2. That Quotation Q-7-2006 submitted by Dundas Power Lines Limited for Street Lighting Capital Installation in the amount of $116,630 (GST included) be accepted; 3. That the total gross project cost of $130,527 (GST included) and a net project cost of $121,988 including the above quotation amount and other project costs identified in this report be approved; and 4. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take necessary action to bring effect thereto. CARRIEO 6. Oirector, Operations & Emergency Services, Report OES 16-06 Encroachment of City of Pickering lands, Milton Road road allowance Web-Tech Safety Products Inc., 500 Rosebank Road, Pickering, Part Lots 82, 83 & 84 on Plan 350 File: A-2130 Moved by Councillor Ashe Seconded by Councillor Brenner 1. That Report OES 16-06 regarding an encroachment agreement be received; 2. That the request by Web-Tech Safety Products Inc. (the "Owner") to encroach upon the Milton Road road allowance (the "Highway") be approved; and 3. That the Mayor and the City Clerk be authorized to sign an encroachment agreement with Web-Tech Safety Products involving City lands, subject to certain terms and conditions as set out in the Encroachment Agreement prepared by the City Solicitor. CARRIED Executive Committee Meeting Minutes Monday, April 10,2006 7:30 pm Council Chambers Chair: Councillor McLean 7. Oirector, Operations & Emergency Services, Report OES 17-06 Encroachment on City of Pickering lands, Milton Road road allowance Harold Lloyd Ferguson and Carol Ferguson, 503 Oakwood Orive, Pickering,. Lot 81 on Plan 350, Save and Except Part 1 on Plan 40R-11951 - File A-2130 Moved by Councillor Ashe Seconded by Councillor Brenner 1. That Report OES 17-06 regarding an encroachment agreement be received; 2. That the request by Harold Lloyd Ferguson and Carol Ferguson (the "Owners") to encroach upon the Milton Road road allowance (the "Highway") be approved; and 3. That the Mayor and the City Clerk be authorized to sign an encroachment agreement with Harold Lloyd Ferguson and Carol Ferguson involving City lands, subject to certain terms and conditions as set out in the Encroachment Agreement prepared by the City Solicitor. CARRIED 8. Director, Operations & Emergency Services, Report OES 18-06 Encroachment on City of Pickering lands, Milton Road road allowance Monica Porter, 481 Oakwood Orive, Part Lot 110 on Plan 350 - File: A-2130 Moved by Councillor Ashe Seconded by Councillor Brenner 1. That Report OES 18-06 regarding an encroachment agreement be received; 2. That the request by Monica Porter (the "Owner") to encroach upon the Milton Road road allowance (the "Highway") be approved; 3. That the Mayor and the City Clerk be authorized to sign an encroachment agreement with Monica Porter involving City lands, subject to certain terms Executive Committee Meeting Minutes Monday, April 1 0, 2006 7:30 pm Council Chambers Chair: Councillor McLean and conditions as set out in the Encroachment Agreement prepared by the City Solicitor. CARRIED 9. Director, Operations & Emergency Services, Report OES 19-06 Extension of Encroachment / Licence Agreement between Gerard Cryan and Lorrie Cryan and City of Pickering upon lands Known as Block 50, Plan 40M-1627, Pickering - File: A-2130 Moved by Councillor Ashe Seconded by Councillor Brenner 1. That Report OES 19-06 regarding the extension of an Encroachment / Licence Agreement be received; 2. That the request by Gerard Cryan and Lorrie Cryan, collectively called "Cryan" to encroach upon the land known as Block 50, Plan 40M-1627 be approved; and 3. That the Mayor and the City Clerk be authorized to sign an Extension Agreement with Gerard Cryan and Lorrie Cryan involving City lands, subject to certain terms and conditions as set out in the Extension Agreement prepared by the City Solicitor. CARRIEO 10. Oirector, Operations & Emergency Services, Report OES 20-06 Extension of Encroachment / Licence Agreement between Caryn Johnston and John Johnston and City of Pickering upon lands Known as Block 50, Plan 40M-1627, Pickering - File: A-2130 Moved by Councillor Ashe Seconded by Councillor Brenner 1. That Report OES 20-06 regarding the extension of an Encroachment / Licence Agreement be received; Executive Committee Meeting Minutes Monday, April 1 0, 2006 7:30 pm Council Chambers Chair: Councillor McLean 2. That the request by Caryn Johnston and John Johnston, collectively called "Johnston" to encroach upon the land known as Block 50, Plan 40M-1627 be approved; 3. That the Mayor and the City Clerk be authorized to sign an Extension Agreement with Caryn Johnston and John Johnston involving City lands, subject to certain terms and conditions as set out in the Extension Agreement prepared by the City Solicitor. CARRIEO 11. Oirector, Corporate Services, Report CS 12-06 Section 354 of the Municipal Act - Write-off of Taxes Moved by Councillor Oickerson Seconded by Councillor Ashe 1. That Report CS 12-06 of the Oirector, Corporate Services & Treasurer be received; 2. That under the authority of the Municipal Act, 2001, Section 354(3) provides for the write-off of property taxes due to an unsuccessful tax sale; and 3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect hereto. CARRIED 12. Director, Corporate Services, Report CS 13-06 Section 357/358 of the Municipal Act - Adjustment to Taxes Moved by Councillor Oickerson Seconded by Councillor Ashe 1. That Report CS 13-06 of the Oirector, Corporate Services & Treasurer be received; 2. That the write offs of taxes as provided under Section 357/358 of the Municipal Act, 2001 be approved; and Executive Committee Meeting Minutes Monday, April 10,2006 7:30 pm Council Chambers Chair: Councillor McLean 3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect hereto. CARRIED 13. Oirector, Corporate Services, Report CS 21-06 Cash Position Report as at Oecember 31.2005 Moved by Councillor Dickerson Seconded by Councillor Ashe That Report CS 21-06 from the Oirector, Corporate Services & Treasurer be received for information. CARRIED (IV) OTHER BUSINESS (V) ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:35 pm. CitJ¡ D~ April 18, 2006 REPORTS - NEW AND UNFINISHED PAGE 78-117 1. Oirector, Planning & Oevelopment and Oirector, Operations & Emergency Services, Report PD 29-06 City of Toronto Consideration of Pickering Sites as the Potential Location for a City of Toronto Composting Facility in its: Planning Study for an Expanded Public Source Separated Organics Processing System - Recommendation Reqardinq Sites and Technoloqies 1. That Council receive Report PD 29-06 regarding City of Toronto consideration of Pickering sites as the potential location of a City of Toronto composting facility; 2. That the City of Toronto be advised that the City of Pickering is opposed to the consideration of the Brock West and Brock North landfill sites within Pickering, and the Brock South and Beare Road landfill sites that abut Pickering, as potential sites for new City of Toronto facilities to process organic waste (Green Bin recycling) into compost and that these four sites be removed from consideration when Toronto City Council deals with the Works Committee report at the Council meeting of April 25-27, 2006; 3. That City staff continue to be involved in monitoring the City of Toronto Source Separated Organics (SSO) Planning Study to better understand the proposal, to protect City of Pickering interests and to report back to Council on the matter; and, 4. That Report PO 29-06 be forwarded to the City of Toronto, Regional Municipality of Ourham, Town of Ajax, Transport Canada, Greater Toronto Airports Authority, Rouge Park Alliance, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Ministry of Environment, and MPP Wayne Arthurs. CilL¡ o~ REPORT TO COUNCIL Report Number: PD 29-06 Date: April 18, 2006 From: Neil Carroll Director, Planning & Oevelopment Everett Buntsma Director, Operations & Emergency Services Subject: City of Toronto Consideration of Pickering Sites as the Potential Location for a City of Toronto Composting Facility in its: Planning Study for an Expanded Public Source Separated Organics Processing System - Recommendations Regarding Sites and Technologies Recommendation: 1. That Council RECEIVE Report PO 29-06 regarding City of Toronto consideration of Pickering sites as the potential location of a City of Toronto composting facility; 2. That the City of Toronto be ADVISED that the City of Pickering is opposed to the consideration of the Brock West and the Brock North landfill sites within Pickering, and the Brock South and Beare Road landfill sites that abut Pickering, as potential sites for new City of Toronto facilities to process organic waste (Green Bin recycling) into compost and that these four sites be removed from consideration when Toronto City Council deals with the Works Committee report at the Council meeting of April 25 - 27,2006; 3. That City staff continue to be involved in monitoring the City of Toronto Source Separated Organics (SSO) Planning Study to better understand the proposal, to protect City of Pickering interests and to report back to Council on the matter; and, 4. That Report PO 29-06 be FORWARDED to the City of Toronto, Regional Municipality of Ourham, Town of Ajax, Transport Canada, Greater Toronto Airports Authority, Rouge Park Alliance, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Ministry of Environment, and MPP Wayne Arthurs. Financial Implications: Not applicable. Executive Summary: Not applicable. Report PO 29-06 Date: April 18, 2006 Subject: City of Toronto Composting Facility Page 2 1.0 BackQround: The City of Toronto is conducting a planning study to determine appropriate technology and suitable site(s) for expanded compost processing facilities for Toronto's Green Bin materials. Potential sites of concern are the former Brock West and Brock North landfill sites within Pickering, and the former Brock South landfill in the Town of Ajax and former Beare Road landfill site in the City of Toronto, both abutting the Pickering boundary (see Attachments #1, #2 and #3, which show the locations and the surrounding context). Five other sites were also identified within Toronto. Pickering staff advised Toronto staff, in late February 2006, that: · waste management facilities would be considered industrial operations not permitted by current official plan and zoning provisions on the two Pickering landfill sites; · Pickering Airport Site Zone Regulations would apply to both sites; and, · Minister's Zoning Order #2 would apply to the Brock North site. Concerns were expressed about compatibility of such facilities with existing and designated residential development for Pickering sites and abutting sites. On March 7, 2006, the City of Toronto Works Committee approved a Toronto Staff Report which recommended consideration of a number of sites, including the two Pickering sites and the two abutting sites as potentially suitable sites for new composting facilities and to enter into discussions with the Town of Ajax, City of Pickering and the Region of Durham about possible use of any or all of the sites for such purpose (the Toronto Report and the Works Committee Decision are provided; see Attachments #4 and #5). The Works Committee recommendations will be considered by Toronto City Council at its April 25th to 2ih meeting. City of Toronto Works staff are prepared to make a presentation to Pickering Management Forum on May 1st. Toronto City staff are also preparing to distribute a flyer to advise nearby residents and businesses about this Toronto initiative and to receive comments. 2.0 Discussion: Staff is concerned that the City of Toronto is considering use of the closed waste disposal sites within and in proximity to Pickering for the processing of organic waste. It was understood that waste operations had ceased on all of the sites. On the Brock West site, for example, the City of Toronto agreed to "cease to receive or dispose of any waste" in 1996. At this time, detailed examination of past Council resolutions on similar matters and related legal agreements is underway and results will be forwarded to Council under separate cover. Report PD 29-06 Date: April 18, 2006 Subject: City of Toronto Composting Facility Page 3 The reason for concern is that the two Pickering sites and the two abutting sites are not suitable for waste management uses given the potential impacts on adjacent uses. When Toronto acquired the lands many years ago, they were in the countryside with significantly less potential impact on urban residents. Now, there are existing and proposed urban residential and recreational areas that abut the sites and the sites are no longer suitable for waste management operations. Staff is concerned that one or more waste processing facilities may have the following types of impacts in Pickering: · Operational impacts such as litter, increased truck traffic, noise and odour; · Impacts on existing and future communities in the South Urban, Central Pickering (particularly Seaton) and Rural areas (Hamlets of Brougham and Greenwood); · Impact on the Pickering Museum Village; · Bird hazards for a possible future Federal airport; and · Environmental impacts both within and beyond the lands designated in the Greenbelt Plan. Staff recommend that Pickering Council advise the City of Toronto that Pickering is not willing to be a 'host' community for such facilities, nor are the abutting sites appropriate. All four sites should be removed from consideration by Toronto City Council. As set out in Recommendation #2, Pickering City Council should advise Toronto City Council that Pickering is opposed to the consideration of the two sites within Pickering and the two sites that abut Pickering as potential sites for new City of Toronto facilities to process organic waste into compost and request that City of Toronto Council remove the four sites from further consideration at its meeting commencing April 25, 2006 which will deal with the Works Committee report. Staff also notes that unless the City of Toronto removes the four sites from consideration, significant staff resources and expenditures may be required to evaluate the impacts and to protect Pickering's interest respecting this initiative of the City of Toronto. Until the four sites are removed from the potential site list, it is recommended that staff continue to monitor the progress of the Toronto planning study for composting facilities and seek Council direction as appropriate. Staff will remain involved with the study to better understand the impacts, to ensure that Pickering interests are protected, and to be able to report back to Council as appropriate. Report PO 29-06 Date: April 18, 2006 Subject: City of Toronto Composting Facility Page 4 Attachments: 1. Map 1: Potential Toronto Composting Sites 2. Map 2: Beare Road Site 3. Map 3: Surrounding Context of Potential Toronto Composting Sites 4. Toronto Staff Report: "Planning Study for an Expanded Public SSO (Source Separated Organics) Processing System - Recommendations Regarding Sites and Technologies" 5. Excerpts from Toronto City Works Committee Oecision Document, March 7, 2006 Prepared By: Approved I Endorsed By: ke1J~ Steve Gaunt, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner . -IB, RPP ng & Development SG:ld Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Director, Operations & Emergency Services Division Head, Municipal Property & Engineering City Clerk City Solicitor Recommended for the consideration of Pickering CiWCouncil /." ;';' f"0' / 1:) : ~v ~ \.J ... o iñ ...:¡ ... ' ~ (, ~ W III ft( a ~ ~ j ~UJ: ~ ~ " ~ \HIGHWAY 7 ~ ~ ~ ì ~ w > -'\: I ~~~ iñ \ ~~ ~ Xx ~...... CK< x ~ x >< NO"" ~.t X ~ v<x LANi. )_~ ~ rx- ~ X)< X iñ %x- ~Y l ~& .') ROAD 8 W\ ( I ~0x ~~ ì ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ (~ BROCK 15 \ ... SOUTH II ~ :> ~ ~ xXx )(V~ --- . I X \b ...._ j ~ ~,~ _~ Dn(. ~ -\~ ~v . I z . :?: I ~ N N ~ ~ ~-ì.J - / ) .... 'NTON ~"ífJ ROAO v----'" co~~'oo.... ) ~ ~ ~~DRO __~~! :)~~\O R ~ ') ~ - '\ \ 5..~ ('.~t \ ~ ~-:J-=:4~'~¡e~K~ ><xx LANC!~J<T \-,. ON'vss,n... R A~ ~ ~ CON. ~ ROAD ~---í~: ~ ~D~~~' :,JJ ~ L---- ~_ '--;;fi,\: '--. .4 ~ ~ \.. !i(/rl ~ / .~ j~ ~~'lj ----- ...< ~,~ -, ~ l' City of Pickering Planning & Development Department ~~a ;:tourc..: i ~~8~·~p~·~n'"~·i~. 1~~p,:.~~.!t~II·~r~~~~r·R.~:':~9d~t\~.~.r;~Qd,; :rts~~:.n of swrvey. PN-RUR ATTACHMEf'H ,..... / TO REPOA111 PD ,71-0<0. Mal: 1: Potential Toronto ComDostina Sites J ~ -/ (. ..- N .. N ... z ::¡ ... o iñ ... z ::¡ ... o iñ ""_\ ~,/ ¡ ~ ( J ~ ::¡ ... o iñ WHITEVALE l ~ ~ o iñ ¡V - .. ... > 1 ä "'\ -.:j a-- ~ ~ ~ " D I~ r~ ,,31 I ATTACHMENT I () TO REPORT II PD" ~C\ -0<0 MaD 2: Beare Road Site ¡I y ~ {I ~ ~ II 0. t . II -~~ Wv I II 'U , ¡ I · .~:¡ / I i ß co"'o' l- "~., ¡ ..' "VD:~--- LJ ¡ F\ i ~ ~ ,- -. \ '"~ \ \j 1,Jl~.- ~ .. \"" J ~ -t- ~ Ih ~\ R "'::16 '" ~ . ~N· j~ ~/ ~ '\ HYDRO ~R ~ ?\ () "'(\: , /~ " "- ~ /- ( ~ : ~ ¡ ~~ ¡\,~/./~~ ~ \ ~ ~ \.'--- - ~ ~' '- c..... j ~~. ,,~,,-.tII1t ~. r2' ~I H - --: ~ AV:::-':; ~.1ì1::» ~ \i [ -)<XX~ [L~ 1_ ~ BEAi1~a~AD ,~-Ç:' ~ - lUJ~'i ~)í ~- £ I' J c:: =3- r, 110 Ii ) S :F1 ~\ I-r:IJ == t- ru: -ð ¿f tr'';~ i \ lfia: ~ - I I - \~( .n ] rc.::a. ~ - \ 1 J.. ~ U~ ~ \ _~ Er~\('I--' r~~)rr1 ~~~ V~ ="" ( . ':"'HEPPARD --- ..... AvE. ;; G" ~ ~:!':: L.- ~ II:: - ,~~ _ I~ ~ ~ ~ 'II'&.; ~ tt::~ A ~ ~~h \4~ ~ I ¿¿J7~ r ) ... 'Il"" \\ l.R - ~ S" -.. J ~¡:;A'" T -- ~ mr IT ì!:, .~ " ¡¿ 1000 ~ ~I L 1= N , .. City of Pickering Planning & Oevelopment Department l' Q 0 :sourc..: ~-1õö;.~p~.~:~.~i. '~:~~::.~.:t~"II·,;r~~~':r·R.~~,.;~t;d~t·N,:·~·r:~:~ :;tS~t'::,I:.n of aurve..,. PN-N/A ATTACHMENT I..J TO REPORT I PO ð\ - Ob Context for Potential Toronto Com ð " ROAO BAl.SAM ~ ~ ~ þ = 25 ~ ~ © ~ ~ © þ ~ Z I- UI ... J ROAD ICHTH ROAD ð .. " o o " m ROAD NTH CONCE SION ROAD ... z :; ... o iii HIGHWAY GE . I ~ o ~ < F'CURT C N TAUNTON o < o .. THIR AJAX URBAN LANDS ...,..-< ~ 0 " STREET " 0 0 " m 1HIS IIAF' IIMS PRODUCCD III' 1HC CITY OF' PIC1fDIINC Pt.NNNG . Dfl£l..(J/If £Nr D£PARTllENt Nl':MllMTIDN ~ SUPf'QIIT SÐI'Iofa3: _'/l2t1fM. þTTÞ';i-'i!rrrn I/: q. TO ,. ~', !It-II_'ì. . ........,."'.,....,.,.".,,,...,.,.,....,.,...,..,.'"'-"C".. :·"¡::¡-'P1 Ii D¡'¡ '~q-Ch ','....: ".r.o,. ... '. I", .."..",.".,."..,Q..,., .. _~""",",""...........,.~_;.."_<,~,,,,, IIJill.. TORONTO STAFF REPORT March 3, 2006 To: SSO Sub-Committee of Works Committee From: General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services Subject: Planning Study for an Expanded Public SSO Processing System Recommendations Regarding Sites and Technologies Purpose: The purpose of this report is to report the progress-to-date of the above study and obtain Council approval of the recommendations regarding system capacity, products, technologies and potentially suitable sites. Financial Implications and Impact Statement: There are no direct financial implications resulting from this report. Recommendations: It is recommended that: System Capacity 1. the expanded publicly owned and/or operated (public) SSG processing system be sized to receive and process a total input of 110,000 tonnes-per-year of SSO material plus any required amendment materials on a two-shift basis as described in this report; Products 2. the expanded public SSG processing system be designed to produce: a. high quality compost material, which meets the provincial regulatory requirements for unrestricted use and has no visible plastic or glass, as its primary finished product; and b. if the system includes anaerobic digestion, either electricity or heat or natural gas suitable for use in City vehicles, as its secondary products; and þTTÞ,CHMEI\iT #__LTO # Pft ~) -Db - 2 - 3. the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services and the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation be authorized and directed to develop a plan for the utilization of some or all of the compost products and soil amendment products derived from the City's SSG within the City's Parks, Forestry and Recreation Division; 4. the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services and the Director, Fleet Services be authorized and directed to investigate the feasibility of using natural gas derived from the anaerobic digestion ofthe City's SSG in City vehicles; Technolo~ies 5. the following technologies be short-listed for further consideration in the study: a. mechanical bag openers and rotary drums for bag opening; b. wet pre-processing for physical contaminant removal; c. anaerobic digestion; d. in-vessel horizontal bays or basins with mechanical agitation and forced aeration, and, if sufficient buffer is available, enclosed static piles with forced aeration and periodic mechanical agitation for active phase aerobic compo sting; and e. indoor or outdoor aerobic curing and storage; 6. in addition to the 110,000 tonnes per year of processing capacity described in recommendation 1, the expanded public SSG processing system may include a 5,000 to 10,000 tonne-per-year demonstration scale ATAD (autothermal thermophilic aerobic digestion) facility; Sites 7. the following potentially suitable City-owned sites, along with any potentially suitable sites identified pursuant to recommendation 10, be considered in the next phase of the study: a. the Disco, Dufferin and Ingram transfer station sites; b. the closed Beare Road, Morningside, Brock North, Brock South and Brock West landfill sites; and c. 3301 Markham Road; 8. the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services be authorized and directed to conduct public consultation with the municipalities, government agencies and boards and ATTACHMENTH"~~~__TO REPORT # PD <_<iR -6kz....~..=.""""""' - 3 - the public living in the local communities in the vicinity of the sites under consideration to obtain feedback on potential impacts and mitigation measures; 9. the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services be authorized to make presentations to the respective Councils of Town of Ajax, the City of Pickering and the Region of Durham to describe the study if so requested by the municipalities; 10. prior to developing the system options to be evaluated in the next phase of the study, the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services be authorized and directed to: a. develop conceptual designs for expanded pre-processing and anaerobic digestion if feasible at the Dufferin, Disco and Ingram transfer station sites and for pre- processing, anaerobic digestion and active phase composting if feasible at the closed Beare Road and Momingside landfill sites; b. enter into discussions with any or all of the Town of Ajax, the City of Pickering and the Region of Durham with respect to the possible development and use of any or all of the sites within their respective municipalities, as described in this report or otherwise as deemed appropriate by the General Manager, and report back to the SSO sub-committee with the results of any such discussions; c. enter into discussions with the General Managers of other City Divisions with respect to the possible use of sites currently under the control of other City Divisions and report directly to the April 2006 meeting of Council with the results of any such discussions. Background: At its special meeting held on October 25, 2005, the Works Committee approved the recommendations contained in the joint report from the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services and the Treasurer to the SSO Sub-Committee, dated October 19,2005 and entitled "Request for Proposals 9121-05-7304, Planning Study for an Expanded Public Source Separated Organic Material (SSO) Processing System". In so doing, the Works Committee authorized the Acting General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services to negotiate and enter into an agreement with Mac Viro Consultants Inc. to provide professional technical services to carry out a planning study for an expanded public SSO processing system. The October 2005 report indicated that an interim report would be brought to the March 2006 meeting of the SSO sub-committee to: . confirm the capacity of the system, taking into consideration the total amount of SSO to be generated, less the 70,000 awarded to the private sector through RFP 9155-03-5280 plus a reasonable contingency; ¡r,,,,.,,,,,~,,,.,,,,,,,, ('·n"··..'·. " ,,~, .·1~ -Dfç," ~'~'·i"·. t¡-\ 1 :if P ¡ (Jf ;I ',.", " "L.._",o., ~'.'.~"""="""'" -4- · identify suitable products for the system, specify appropriate product quality standards for the products, produce a plan for marketing the products to external users and identify opportunities to use the products in ongoing City operations; · identify potentially suitable City-owned sites, including Dufferin, at which system facilities might be located, by developing and applying technical screening criteria to a long list of closed landfill sites, solid waste transfer stations and other available city sites (the report indicated that for non City-owned sites to be considered, the study schedule would have to be extended); · recommend suitable, proven mechanical and biological processing technologies for the main processing system. Comments: MacViro was retained as authorized by the Works Committee and commenced work on the study in November 2005. The study is being carried out by MacViro under the direction of staff from the Solid Waste Management Services Division (SWMS). This interim report describes the study team's key findings and conclusions to date and makes a number of recommendations regarding capacity, products, technologies and sites. The information is presented in three sections, as follows: · System Goals and Obiectives - presents the study team's conclusions and recommendations with respect to system capacity and products and describes, in general terms, the planning and environmental approval requirements; · Sites - describes the site screening process and the results of the evaluation of City-owned sites; · Technologies - describes the functional requirements of the system components and recommends suitable, proven technologies for the main processing train and also recommends further investigation into a possible small scale demonstration facility using AT AD (autothermal thermophilic aerobic digestion) technology. System Goals and Obiectives Capacity The Council direction is to size the expanded public system so it can process all of the City's SSO, less the 70,000 tonnes awarded through RFP 9155-03-5280, plus a reasonable contingency. Some components of the system will also require amendment materials such as wood chips or leaf and yard waste in order to function properly. The year 2020 is considered a reasonable planning horizon for this type of system taking into consideration the state of the art, future expandability, and the useful life of the equipment. ,if L/ ..lÇ}fcþ' - 5 - Considering existing and planned SSO policies and programs and taking the City's growth projections into account, it is expected that the city will collect between 144,000 and 180,000 tonnes per year by 2020. For facilities of this nature, it is customary to size the facility utilizing two operating shifts per day with the third shift being reserved for cleaning, maintenance and contingency. Although it is important to build in enough contingency capacity to handle periodic downtime at other facilities, it is also important not to over build the system in case the actual SSO generation rate is at the low end of the expected range. Sizing the system to process 110,000 tonnes-per-year of SSO on a two shift basis satisfies the sizing requirements of 180,000 minus 70,000 tonnes-per-year and provides a reasonable contingency on the third shift. If the actual SSO generation rate is lower than 180,000 tonnes per year, options include cutting back production at the public facility or cutting the private sector contracts back to their 70% put-or-pay amounts, or a combination of the two. It is therefore recommended that individual components be sized to accommodate the 110,000 tonnes of SSO feedstock plus any required amendment materials on a two shift basis. Some individual system components, which can not be quickly or easily changed to a three-shift operation, will be designed with adequate contingency capacity. The recommended capacity of each component will be reported in final study report. Products and Product Marketing Strategy One of, if not the most, significant risk in the development of new SSO processing systems is the possibility that the processing system may not produce a marketable product. The importance of minimizing this risk was recognized at the outset of the Study and was reflected in the SSO processing system goals, which indicated that the SSO processing system must produce an unrestricted use product for which stable markets exist and that the SSO processing system must be capable of consistently satisfying the regulatory and market quality requirements for the intended products. Separate product marketing assessments were completed by the Consultant, who examined markets external to the City, and SWMS staff in cooperation with staff from Parks, Forestry & Recreation Division (PF&R), who examined marketing opportunities within the City's operations. It was concluded that, while it may be technically possible to produce a variety of products from municipal SSO, including different qualities of compost and liquid and solid fertilizers, at this time in Ontario a stable market exists only for high quality compost. Therefore the goal of producing an unrestricted use product for which a stable market exists can only be satisfied by producing a high quality compost product. High quality compost is that which: . satisfies the quality requirements specified in the Ontario Ministry of the Environment's Interim Guidelines for the Production and Use of Aerobic Compost (Updated 2004), and is thereby deemed to be suitable for unrestricted use (i.e. exempt from provincial waste management regulations); and which, ~ Þ.: ;u,,~i,;. ~\¡' i! ~ ':/;,_:¡r"'~"7-;~,~..c:rfJ ::~DC¡H¡1! PD ....,,'~.9..::{:iQ~=~=... -6- . satisfies the additional, and typically more stringent, quality requirements specific to the intended end use. It is therefore recommended that the system be designed to produce the highest quality compost product possible given the feedstock. PF&R currently consumes a significant quantity of compost annually, either purchased from local producers or obtained from SWMS (compost from the City's leaf and yard material). Other City Divisions and Agencies including Homes for the Aged, Toronto Fire Services, Transportation Services, Toronto District School Board and Toronto' Catholic District School Board, also use compost either purchased directly or as part of contracted grounds-keeping services. The ability to use compost produced by the SSO processing system in ongoing City operations, particularly in P,F&R's horticultural and turf management operations, would greatly reduce the risk of product marketing failure. PF&R staff assessed the opportunities and requirements for the use of compost derived from SSO within their ongoing programs and reported that: · PF&R operations could potentially consume more high quality compost than the expanded public SSO processing system could produce, provided that the compost satisfies specific end use requirements; · different grades of compost are required for specific uses, where grades are distinguished by specific physical (e.g. particle size) and chemical (e.g. nutrient content) characteristics; · quality requirements applicable to all grades of compost product are that it cannot contain 'any glass shards or other sharp foreign inert materials and that it must be virtually free of other visible contaminants and that it must be stable and odour free. Staff from PF&R and SWMS further considered the requirements of a program to utilize compost from the SSO processing system in ongoing City operations and concluded that: · the SSO processing system must be capable of producing the different grades of compost required for specific end uses and must provide a minimum of 6 months product storage; · local depots for temporary compost storage and distribution must be established; · dedicated trucks will be required seasonally to transport compost from the SSO processing facility(ies) to the local depots and from the local depots to the specific application sites; · specialized and dedicated equipment is required for some compost applications; · staff need to be trained in compost utilization; and, · dedicated management and ongoing intra-Divisional co-operation will be required to ensure the success of the program. :¡. y c99-C1.ç - 7 - It is recommended that the SWMS and PF&R develop a plan for the utilization of some or all of the compost products derived from the City's SSO within PF&R. Experience with the launches of the City's Green Bin program has taught that some citizens have concerns about the safety of compost derived from the SSO. Proactive communications efforts must therefore be made to demonstrate the safety of the compost product and to gain acceptance of its use in public areas. Approval Requirements One of the goals of the study is to recommend a system that can be approved within a reasonable time without the need for an Environmental Assessment. Two categories of major approvals for new and expanded SSO processing facilities are planning approvals and environmental approvals. Additional technical approvals, which are generally required at the time of facility construction, are not discussed in this report. Planning Approvals The Planning Act requires municipalities to develop Official Plans which establish general policies for land use and designate the types of uses intended for specific areas or sites. If SSO processing is not compatible with the designated uses identified in the Official Plan, it will be necessary to apply for an Official Plan amendment. Official plan amendments, if required, would add considerable time to the development timeline and uncertainty to the approval process. The Planning Act also provides for municipal zoning bylaws which specify permitted uses and site specific development requirements (e.g. set-back distances, etc.). If SSO processing is not a permitted use within the current zoning designation, it will be necessary to apply to for rezoning, or for an exception to the current zoning bylaw, to permit the intended use. If the site is within an area controlled by the province's Greenbelt Plan, or an area controlled by the federal Pickering Airport Site Zoning Regulations, as some of the city-owned sites are, additional restrictions and requirements will apply. Environmental Approvals SSO processing facilities ofthe scale considered would not trigger an Environmental Assessment under the provincial Environmental Assessment Act (EAA). However, the Minister of the Environment could, in response to concerns about the impacts of the proposed facility, order that an Environmental Assessment be undertaken. SSO processing facilities would require approval as waste processing sites under Part V, section 27 of the provincial Environmental Protection Act (EP A). Although public hearings are not mandatory for the type and scale of facilities being contemplated, the Director of the Ministry of the Environment's Approvals Branch has the discretionary power under section 32 of the EPA to 'I (A-c:Jo - 8 - hold a public hearing prior to deciding whether or not to issue an approval for a waste processing site. SSO processing facilities would also require approval under section 9 of the EP A for any air emissions, such as those from an odour control system. If an SSO processing facility is proposed at a landfill that has received waste within the past 25 years, approval under section 46 of the EPA would also be required. If the SSO processing facility discharges effluent from an on-site sewage treatment system into a receiving water body (because the site is not serviced by a municipal sewage system), approval of the sewage works would be required under section 53 of the Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA). A class environmental assessment would also be required for the new sewage works. All approvals granted by the provincial Ministry of the Environment must be posted on the Ministry's environmental registry for a minimum of 30 days as required by the province's Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR). If an SSO processing facility is built in the vicinity of a cold water fishery, it would have to be demonstrated, to the satisfaction of federal Fisheries Act officials, that deleterious materials would not be deposited in the fishery and that the fishery would not be negatively affected. Consultation The above planning and environmental legislation includes specific requirements for public consultation with potentially affected parties including the local municipality, government agencies and boards and the public living in the vicinity of the site. The Minister of the Environment and the Director of the Approvals Branch will also consider the level of public consultation in deciding whether or not to order an Environmental Assessment or hold a public hearing. In order to obtain feedback from potentially affected parties and to demonstrate that the City followed a fair and open site process, it is recommended that public consultation begin as soon as practicable. Sites New capacity to satisfy the City's outstanding long-term SSO processing requirement will require the construction of one or more new facilities, as an addition to or replacement for the Dufferin organic processing facility. The Study work plan includes the identification of sites potentially suitable for an SSG processing facility. At this stage of the Study work plan, potential suitability was taken to mean that the site has sufficient usable area (allowing for reasonable set backs from neighbouring land uses), reasonable truck access and is not zoned for residential land use. VTT"f'Pr.,'v,',·'" .'! 4" -.:: ,h..:r ~¡1,:;¡..Il, t /t.__ _.,ø__. ." í)P'1D -Ct.ì ,~ : .·,·...,.,J.:x;:;)"."....,.. - 9 - A subsequent task of the Study work plan, the comparative evaluation of alternative processing system configurations, will assess how other site specific factors affect the relative suitability of a particular site for the each type and scale of SSO processing facility considered. Site specific factors to be considered will include the configuration of the available area, the nature and proximity of adjacent land uses and the status of existing site services and subsurface conditions. The Study was first to consider properties currently owned by the City. In the event that potentially suitable City-owned sites do not provide for an acceptable SSO processing system configuration, the scope of the siting task was to be enlarged to include non City-owned sites. Three categories of City-owned sites were considered: solid waste transfer stations; closed landfills and landfill properties; and, other City-owned properties. Solid Waste Transfer Stations The City's seven operating transfer stations were considered: Disco Road, Dufferin Waste Management Facility, Ingram Drive and adjacent property, Commissioners Street, Bennondsey, Scarborough and Victoria Park. Also considered were two closed transfer stations: Symes Road and Wellington Road. Closed Landfills and Landfill Properties The following five City-owned closed landfills and landfill properties were considered: · the Beare Rd. landfill site which is a closed landfill within the municipal boundary of the City; · the Morningside landfill site which is a closed landfill site within the municipal boundary of the City; · the Brock West landfill site which is a closed landfill located in the City of Pickering (Region of Durham); · the Brock North landfill site which is a former landfill site located in the City of Pickering from which the waste has been removed; and, · the Brock South landfill property which is located in the Town of Ajax (Region of Durham) and which was intended to be, but never used as, a landfill. Other City-owned Properties Facilities and Real Estate Division conducted a review of the City's property portfolio to identify potential sites that could be suitable for this program. The initial list included properties identified as surplus to operational requirements and at least 2 hectares in SIze. Facilities and Real Estate Division identified three other City-owned properties for consideration: · 3301 Markham Road (east of Markham Road, south ofSteeles Ave.); if.. ,. .tt·...,". " .. .'Y) '(b.. "~W~·· . a site identified as 0 ConI ins Road (east of Mornings ide Ave., north of Ellesmere Ave.); and, . a site identified as the former Glendale Sewage Treatment Plant (at the end of Westgate Boulevard, southeast of Sheppard Ave. and Bathurst St. Properties currently used by other City Divisions have not been considered thus far in the Study. TEDCO has substantial land holdings currently zoned for industrial uses, specifically in the Toronto Portlands and also in south Etobicoke. SWMS staff met with TEDCO to assess whether or not any of their currently held properties could be considered. A new SSO processing facility was considered to be incompatible with the land use plans for the TEDCO properties. Therefore, TEDCO properties have not been considered thus far in the Study. Screening Criteria Screening criteria were developed by the Consultant and SWMS staff and applied to each of the sites under consideration to determine whether or not it is potentially suitable for a SSO processing facility. The criteria used to identify potentially suitable sites are presented in the following Table. ,<Î "j~'t"f!9':;". - 11 - Table: Criteria to Identify Potentially Suitable Sites # I Sites are excluded for further consideration if: Land Use · some or all of the available site area is zoned Residential; or · there are Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) or Areas of Natural or Scientific Interest (ANSIs) located within the available site area. #2 Sites are excluded for further consideration if: Site Accessibility · the only access to the site is via a local road through a residential area. Note: if current site access is through a residential area but an acceptable entrance can be constructed to avoid access through residential areas, then the site may be considered. #3 Sites are excluded for further consideration if: Size and Configuration of Available Site Area · the available site area is insufficient for a mInImUm facility footprint PLUS appropriate setbacks from the property line based on the surrounding land uses. Note: The minimum facility footprint is 0.4 hectares with a minimum width of 40m. The minimum set-back requirements are: · 30 m from the footprint of the facility (buildings) to the property line of the site; · 100 m from footprint of the facility (buildings) to the boundary of any adjacent property that is zoned residential; and, · 100 m from the footprint of outdoor operations to the site's property line. The above screening criteria caused the following sites to be excluded from further consideration: · the Commissioners Street, Bennondsey, Scarborough, Victoria Park, Wellington Road and Symes Road transfer stations because they did not have adequate available area; · the property identified as the fonner Glendale Sewage Treatment Plant because it can only be accessed through a residential area; and, · the property identified as 0 Conlins Road because it is currently zoned for residential use. Potentially Suitable Properties 'I ¿}e¡ -00' - 12 - The following properties are identified as potentially suitable locations for a new SSO processing facility: · Disco Road, Dufferin and Ingram Drive solid waste transfer stations; · Morningside Ave., Beare Rd., Brock West, Brock North and Brock South closed landfill sites and landfill properties; and, · 3301 Markham Rd. A brief description of each potentially suitable site, including comment on the unique requirements of municipal and provincial environmental approvals for that site, is provided Attachment 2 to this report. No properties located within the City have sufficient space to store the compost product while it is being prepared for market and over the winter months when compost utilization is not possible. The Brock North and South properties, located in the Region of Durham, do have sufficient area for product storage. However, as described in Attachment 2, use of either of the sites for SSO processing would require amendments to the Regional and local municipal Official Plans and municipal rezoning, or zoning amendments. Even with the cooperation of the local and regional governments, it would take two years or longer to amend the Official Plans, including the time required to complete the necessary technical studies (e.g. predicting impacts on the local environment, traffic and air and water quality etc.). Facing opposition, the Official Plan amendment process would take much longer and success is not guaranteed. It is recommended that SWMS staff hold discussions with the Region of Durham, the City of Pickering and the Town of Ajax regarding use of the sites located in their municipalities. It is also recommended that SWMS staff hold discussions with other City Divisions regarding possible use of their sites. Technologies A series of sequential processing operations are required to convert SSO into a marketable compost product: pre-processing, processing and product finishing. Technology options exist for the pre-processing, processing and product finishing operations. The Study work plan included review of available processing technologies and identification of suitable proven technologies by generic technology classification. The Consultant and City Staff developed criteria to identify suitable proven technologies for the pre-processing, processing and product finishing operations. Included were criteria to assess the suitability and effectiveness of each generic technology category, and criteria to assess the commercial status of each generic technology category, i.e. whether or not the technology is proven in the marketplace. Suitable and proven technology categories, and sub-categories, for the pre-processmg and processing operations are listed in the following Table. '/, t\ :7i:¿Þ - 13 - Table: Suitable and Proven Technoloev Cateeories, and Sub-cateeones Operation Suitable and Proven Technology Categories and Sub-categories Pre- Suitable and proven technologies are: Processing . Mechanical bag-openers; · Rotary drums; and, · Wet pre-processing systems. Satisfying the functional requirements of the pre-processing operation will require a combination of these technologies. Suitable and proven technologies are: · Anaerobic Digestion, all sub-categories; · Aerobic Compo sting - In-vessel Horizontal Bays and In-vessel Horizontal Basin Reactors; and where adequate buffer area exists, · Enclosed Aerobic Static Piles with periodic agitation. Because Anaerobic Digestion produces digestate and not compost, the digestate must be further processed by Aerobic Composting. The short list of technologies/approaches includes: · Enclosed Aerobic Static Piles; and, · Open Windrows and Static Piles. Open Windrows and Static Piles can only be used where the buffer area is sufficient to control odours. Processing Product Finishing AT AD technology is excluded from the above Table because no facilities exist that satisfy all of the commercialization status criteria. Despite the relatively underdeveloped commercialization of the AT AD technology, the process theory suggests that it has the potential to offer significant advantages as a replacement for Aerobic Composting in SSO processing operations. AT AD systems require less land area than Aerobic Composting systems of similar capacity because of the shorter retention times and because A TAD is a liquid phase process which enables the reactors to have a greater vertical dimension. AT AD can achieve better pathogen reduction than Aerobic Compo sting because of the higher sustained temperatures in the reactor; typically sustained at greater than 55°C throughout the process. Also, AT AD produces a smaller amount of more stable material than Aerobic Compo sting because AT AD does not require the addition of amendment material and also because a larger portion of the volatile material is degraded. However, the AT AD process theory has not been proven on SSO (after wet phase pre-processing operations) and the regulatory status and end market suitability of the stabilized, pathogen free organic material resulting from A TAD processing of SSO are unknown. Pilot scale trials of AT AD processing of pre-processed SSO could usefully contribute to a fuller understanding of the potential ofthis technology. " L/ dCJ -ct.) - 14- The process to identify suitable proven processing technologies is presented in greater detail in Attachment 1 to this report. Conclusions: This report describes the findings to-date of the SSO Study Team, makes recommendations regarding system capacity, products, suitable proven technologies and potentially suitable City- owned sites and recommends next steps in the SSO Planning Study. Contact: B. Van Opsta1 Senior Engineer - Operational Planning Solid Waste Management Services Phone: 416-397-0143 Fax: 416-392-4754 E-mail: bvanops@toronto.ca Richard Butts General Manager Solid Waste Management Services (p:/2006/swms/mar/O 1 OWC _ SSO.Sub-Committee.doc) Attachment 1: Processing Technologies Ii d9-(j:? A series of sequential processing operations are required to convert SSO into a marketable compost product: pre-processing, processing and product finishing. Technology options exist for the pre-processing, processing and product finishing operations. The Study work plan included review of available processing technologies and identification of suitable proven technologies by generic technology classification. The Study Team identified vendors supplying technologies for: · pre-processing operations including bag opening, material separation and SIze reduction; · processing operations including aerobic composting, anaerobic digestion and autothermal thermophilic aerobic digestion (AT AD); and, · product finishing operations including curing, material separation and blending. For processing operations, each major technology category ( Le. aerobic composting, anaerobic digestion and ATAD) is comprised of distinctly different sub-categories, as presented in Table AI-I. Table AI-I: Major Categories and Sub-categories of Processing Technologies Major An engineered and controlled process, conducted in the presence of atmospheric oxygen, whereby naturally occurring microorganisms convert putrescible organic material into a stable substance called compost. Aerobic compo sting IS a solid phase process. Anaerobic Digestion Sub-cate or In-vessel horizontal bays with mechanical a itation In-vessel horizontal basin reactors with mechanical a itation Modular tunnels aka "biocells" In-vessel vertical reactors Enclosed static pile with periodic a itation Open windrows and static piles Solids within reactor content the Distinct Features Material moves horizontally through open-top channels and is agitated by specialized turning equipment. Forced aeration is rovided. Material moves horizontally through large basin (Le. without internal channel divisions), and is agitated by specialized turning equipment. Forced aeration is rovided. Modular, static, fully enclosed reactor vessels. Forced aeration is rovided. Material moves vertically downward through the reactor vessel. Material is not a itated. Aeration is forced or assive. Modular, static process enclosed in a membrane reactor (film plastic or similar cover material). Forced aeration is rovided. No reactor vessel. Material is turned (windrow) or static (static pile). Aeration is forced or assive. Wet systems operate less than 15% solid material. Dry systems operate at more than 20% solid material. Attachment I - I 4 dq -de;; Attachment 1: Processing Technologies Major Processing Technolo!!v Category An engineered and controlled process, conducted in the absence of atmospheric oxygen, whereby naturally ., . occurnng mlcroorgamsms convert putrescible orgamc material into combustible biogas and a partially stabilized material called digestate. Anaerobic digestion can be a liquid or solid phase process. Autothermal thermophilic aerobic digestion (ATAD) An engineered and controlled process, conducted in the presence of atmospheric oxygen, whereby naturally .. . occurrmg mlcroorgamsms convert putrescible orgamc material into a stable, pathogen free substance. AT AD is a liquid phase process. Sub-category Process stages Process temperature regime Process flow Mixing regime Aeration and mixing systems Process flow Distinct Features Single stage; all biological reactions occur in one vessel. Two-stage systems separate the biological process into two stages and provide a separate reactor for each. Mesophilic processes operate at 35°C to 4SoC. Thermophilic processes operate at 45°C to 60°C. Material can flow through the reactor continuously or in batches. Material in the reactor can be completely mixed or static (i.e. no mixing) or can flow through the reactor as a plug. A variety of technologies exist to aerate and mix the reactor vessel. General sub- categories include: recirculation - venturi svstems and naturally aspirated svstems. Material can flow through the reactor in batch (i.e. all in - all out) or semi-batch modes (i.e. some in - some out) modes. The Consultant and City staff drew on their knowledge of North American facilities and also visited municipal organic materials processing facilities in Europe. The trip itinerary and facility selection were intended to encompass the widest possible variety of pre- processing and processing technologies. Key observations included: · SSG can be successfully processed by either aerobic composting or anaerobic digestion and these technologies can be used in combination; · only high quality compost could be reliably marketed; · low quality compost material could only be marketed where dedicated uses had been established; · facilities were challenged to produce a high quality compost product from SSG containing significant amounts of film plastic and contaminants, and of the processing Attachment 1 - 2 t¡ ¿lq-do Attachment I: Processing Technologies challenges, removal of small shards of glass and other inert foreign material was the greatest; . plastic film and contaminant removal was most successful when applied at the pre- processing stage, and of the pre-processing technologies observed, wet systems (i.e. where the SSO is diluted and processed as a liquid) appeared to achieve better separation of small contaminants, e.g. glass shards, than did dry systems (i.e. where the SSO is processed as a solid); and, . that operator skill and commitment is key to successful operation. The Consultant and City Staff developed criteria to identify suitable proven technologies for the pre-processing, processing and product finishing operations. Included were criteria to assess the suitability and effectiveness of each generic technology category, and criteria to assess the commercial status of each generic technology category, i.e. whether or not the technology is proven in the marketplace. Each processing operation must fulfill key functions if the processing system is to produce a compost product suitable for unrestricted use and be capable of consistently satisfying the regulatory and market quality requirements for the intended product. Technology suitability criteria were derived from these functional objectives and are summarized in Table AI-2. Table Al-2: Technology Suitability Criteria Must provide mIxmg and a itation Must provide aeration o erations Must enable control of key process parameters Product Finishin Must be enclosed except where sufficient buffer area is available Must provide turning Processin for odour Must be enclosed for odour control Must open bags Must not grind or shred film plastic or contaminants to a small article size Must achieve separation and removal of coarse film plastic and contaminants Must achieve separation and removal of grit, glass shards and other fine contaminants Must size reduce the organic material to the appropriate for the biological eration forced Must prevent pathogen (aerobic reinoculation Must enable control of key process parameters· Must achieve pathogen Must achieve stability and reduction and prevent maturity requirements reinoculation Must effectively reduce volatile solids, i.e. the material must be stabilized Must provide for screening, blending and a minimum of 6 months on- site roduct stora e Attachment 1 - 3 q.. (;X-,-(::Io Attachment 1: Processing Technologies Regarding the commercialization status; for the technology to be considered to be proven there must be at least one representative facility in North America or Europe using the technology and which has been operating at a minimum of 20,000 tonnes per year of SSO material for at least 3 years. Suitable and proven technology categories, and sub-categories, for the pre-processing and processing operations are listed in Table Al-3. Table Al-3: Suitable and Proven Technology Categories, and Sub-categories o eration Pre- Processing Suitable and Proven Technolo Cate ories and Sub-cate ories Suitable and proven technologies are: · Mechanical bag-openers; · Rotary drums; and, · Wet pre-processing systems. Processing Satisfying the functional requirements of the pre-processing operation will re uire a combination ofthese technolo ies. Suitable and proven technologies are: · Anaerobic Digestion, all sub-categories; · Aerobic Composting - In-vessel Horizontal Bays and In-vessel Horizontal Basin Reactors; and where adequate buffer area exists, · Enclosed Aerobic Static Piles with periodic agitation. Product Finishing Because Anaerobic Digestion produces digestate and not compost, the di estate must be further rocessed b Aerobic Com ostin . The short list of technologies/approaches includes: · Enclosed Aerobic Static Piles; and, · Open Windrows and Static Piles. Open Windrows and Static Piles can only be used where the buffer area is sufficient to control odours. ATAD technology is excluded from Table Al-3 because no facilities exist that satisfy all of the commercialization status criteria. A total of about 60 ATAD facilities were in operation worldwide in 2001, the largest of which processed wastewater sludge at the rate of about 5 dry tonnes per day (equivalent to approximately 5,000 tonnes of SSO per year). Larger facilities have been constructed in the last 5 years treating up to about 10 dry tonnes per day (equivalent to approximately 10,000 tonnes of SSO per year). Twenty- one full-scale ATAD facilities were operating in North America in 2001; fifteen in the U.S., six in Canada. These facilities processed wastewater sludge or liquid industrial organic waste. None of these facilities processed municipal SSO. Attachment 1 - 4 'I dq -ck~ Attachment I: Processing Technologies Despite the relatively underdeveloped commercialization of the ATAD technology, the process theory suggests that it has the potential to offer significant advantages as a replacement for Aerobic Compo sting in SSO processing operations. A TAD systems require less land area than Aerobic Composting systems of similar capacity because of the shorter retention times and because AT AD is a liquid phase process which enables the reactors to have a greater vertical dimension. AT AD can achieve better pathogen reduction than Aerobic Composting because of the higher sustained temperatures in the reactor; typically sustained at greater than 5SoC throughout the process. Also, ATAD produces a smaller amount of more stable material than Aerobic Composting because A TAD does not require the addition of amendment material and also because a larger portion of the volatile material is degraded. However, the ATAD process theory has not been proven on SSO (after wet phase pre- processing operations) and key process parameters such as retention times and aeration requirements may differ from those of full-scale ATAD systems processing other materials. Also, the regulatory status and end market suitability of the stabilized, pathogen free organic material resulting from ATAD processing of SSO are unknown. Pilot scale trials of ATAD processing of pre-processed SSO and could usefully contribute to a fuller understanding of the potential of this technology. Attachment 1 - 5 '-I ';¿C¡-(;b Attachment 2: Sites This Attachment provides a brief description of each potentially suitable site, including comment on the unique requirements of municipal and provincial environmental approvals for that site. Disco Road Transfer Station Disco Road Transfer Station is located in the City of Toronto, north of Dixon Road and west ofHwy 27. Existing facilities include: transfer station, drop-off depots for electronics and HHW, a weigh scale building, outdoor transfer for leaf and yard waste and outdoor transfer trailer storage. A new bi-Ievel depot for public drop-off of recyclable materials is planned. A closed municipal waste landfill site underlies the transfer station building and most of the site. Disco Landfill closed in 1967. Based on estimated waste volume, approximately 500,000 tonnes of waste were landfilled. Planning Approvals Planning approval requirements for a new SSO processing facility would include a site plan approval and approval of minor variances under the existing zoning bylaws. Environmental Approvals Environmental approval requirements for a new SSO processing facility would include amending the existing EP A Part V waste site and EP A Section 9 air emissions approvals. Because the landfill has been closed for more than 25 years, approval under EP A Section 46 would not be required. Ingram Drive Transfer Station and Adjacent Property Ingram Road Transfer Station is located in the City of Toronto, near Keele Street and Eglinton Avenue. Ingram Road Transfer Station is currently in operation and is a transfer facility for waste, leaf and yard waste, computers, and HHW. There is bi-Ievel depot in the northeast comer of the site. Attachment 2 - 1 :r .. LJ. .~-~'i) Attachment 2: Sites A recommendation to use the property adjacent to the Ingram transfer station for a new reuse facility and for site modifications to improve operational efficiencies and customer services at the transfer station is presented in a staff report entitled Solid Waste Requirements for Lands at the Ingram Transfer Station, submitted to the 7 March meeting of the Works Committee. Planning Approvals Planning approval requirements at the transfer station property for a new SSG processing facility would include a site plan approval and approval of minor variances under the existing zoning bylaws. The adjacent property was formerly used as a golf driving range. The zoning bylaw was amended in 1997, to permit the driving range and related commercial uses on the portion of the adjacent property fronting on Keele Street. The general zoning category for the property is Industrial M2. Amendment to the zoning bylaw, or a rezoning of the property, would be required for a new SSO processing facility. Environmental Approvals Environmental approval requirements for a new SSG processing facility would include amending the existing EP A Part V waste site and EP A Section 9 air emissions approvals. The amended waste site approval would apply to both the current transfer station site and to the adjacent property. Dufferin Waste Mana~ement Facility The Dufferin Waste Management Facility is located near the intersection of Dufferin Street and Finch Avenue and consists of two properties: 75 Vanley Crescent and 35 Vanley Crescent 75 Vanley Crescent has one structure, the former Dufferin Street Incinerator, currently used as a single-stream recyclable materials transfer station and also houses SWMS facilities and maintenance operations. 35 Vanley Crescent houses three structures and ancillary facilities. The structures are a solid waste transfer station, a material recovery facility (MRF), and an organics processing facility. Ancillary facilities include a weigh scale, outdoor material storage, trailer parking and a biofilter treating odours from the organics processing facility. There are plans to construct a personnel building on the south central part of the site. Attachment 2 - 2 '-I .QìCI-{;6 Attachment 2: Sites Ash fill from the former Dufferin Street Incinerator (closed in 1982) underlies most of the site area not currently in use. The currently approved alignment for the Spadina subway extension diagonally bisects the site and makes a large portion of the site unavailable for construction of permanent structures. The TTC is currently undertaking an Environmental Assessment to select and approve a different alignment for the Spadina subway extension. A new alignment which avoids the Dufferin Waste Management Facility has been selected and it is expected that by the end of the year the Environmental Assessment will be submitted to the Minister of the Environment for approval. Once the Environmental Assessment of the new alignment is approved the TTC will release the development hold on the current right of way. Planning Approvals Planning approval requirements for a new SSO processing facility would include a site plan approval and approval of minor variances under the existing zoning bylaws. Environmental Approvals Environmental approval requirements for a new SSO processing facility would include amending the existing EP A Part V waste site and EP A Section 9 air emissions approvals. Beare Road Landfill Site Beare Road Landfill is located near Beare Road and Finch Avenue East and its eastern property line is on the municipal boundary with the City of Pickering. Approximately nine million tonnes of waste were landfilled between 1968 and 1983. There is a landfill gas collection and utilization system on the southwest comer of the site that began operations in 1996, and is currently operated by E.S. Fox Limited. The total site area is approximately 80.9 Ha, most of which is consumed by the landfill fill area and the landfill gas plant. The remaining area is largely occupied by the stormwater control ditch which is a narrow strip between the fill area and the property boundary. There is a wetlands creation project on the Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) property on the west boundary of the landfill site. The TRCA is replanting the area with trees and establishing a trail system. Planning Approvals Attachment 2 - 3 t.f . ,;ì'rf;:Þ.. . Attachment 2: Sites The City of Toronto Official Plan designates the site as Other Open Space and the site is currently zoned as Natural Environment. Waste management is not a permitted use within the Official Plan designation or zoning. Amendment of the Official Plan and rezoning would be required. The site lies within the boundaries of the Rouge Park. The Rouge Park Management Plan (1994) identifies the Beare Road landfill site as a special management zone. In a special management zone, land use is determined on a site-by-site basis through agreements between the park management entity and other agencies and private landowners. Environmental Approvals The site has an EPA Part V waste disposal site approval, originally issued in 1982 (A280401). The approval was amended in 1994, to permit construction of the landfill gas plant. The landfill gas plant has an EP A Section 9 approval for air emissions. Environmental approval requirements for a new SSO processing facility would include amending the existing EP A Part V waste site and EP A Section 9 air emissions approvals. Because the landfill would have been closed for more than 25 years, approval under EP A Section 46 would not be required. Momingside Landfill Site and Adiacent Property Momingside Landfill and adjacent property are located at the southeast comer of Highway 401 and Momingside Road. The former landfill site and the City owned property adjacent to and north of the landfill site are being considered together. The landfill was closed in 1960. A passive landfill gas system was constructed on the east side of Momingside Road (to the west of the Momingside Landfill) in 1997. A passive landfill gas system was constructed immediately to the east of the Momingside Landfill in 2000, and 2001. The system also incorporates a shallow groundwater/leachate collector. There is a flat concrete pad to the northeast of the site that was previously used as a yard waste composting area. Transportation Division has a yard with a salt dome between the landfill and adjacent property. The total combined area of the landfill site and adjacent property is approximately 18.5 Ha, however the landfill occupies most of the site area. Attachment 2 - 4 L/ d9.ç:iq Attachment 2: Sites . Planning Approvals The new City of Toronto Official Plan designates this site as a Mixed Use Area. The Momingside landfill site is currently zoned as Institutional which does not permit waste management activities. An amendment to the new Official Plan and rezoning would be required to use this site for SSO processing. Environmental Approvals The site does not currently have an EP A Part V waste site approval. A new SSO processing facility would require a new EP A Part V waste site approval and a new EP A Section 9 approval for atmospheric emissions. Because the landfill has been closed for more than 25 years, approval under EP A Section 46 would not be required. Brock North The Brock North landfill is located in the City of Pickering, just south of Highway 7 and east of Brock Road. The site is easily accessible from Concession 5 or a direct entrance could be established from Brock Road. The total site area is approximately 280 Ha. Between October 1978 and April 1979 approximately 120,000 tonnes of waste were landfilled on approximately 4.9 Ha in the northwest area of the property. Between December 1996, and March 1997, all of the waste was removed and relocated to the Brock West landfill site to prevent previously unforeseen water quality impacts. The site does not have water or sewer services. Planning Approvals SWMS staff met with planning staff from the City of Pickering but have not yet met with planning staff from the Region of Durham. The Region of Durham Official Plan designated this site as Major Open Space System. The City of Pickering's Official Plan designates this property as Open Space System - Natural Area. A portion of the property is zoned Q (Pit and Quarry) and the remainder is zoned A (Rural Agriculture). Waste management is not a permitted use within any of current land use designations. Attachment 2 - 5 Ll d/i ~plo Attachment 2: Sites The property is also subject to the requirements of the Provincial Green Belt Plan. Regional and local municipal Official Plans must incorporate the requirements of the Green Belt Plan. Green Belt plan requirements relevant to the proposed use of this property are a prohibition of the extension of "lake based services" meaning water and sewage services into rural areas designated as Protected Countryside. At this property, the Green Belt Plan also requires protection of topographical features associated with the Lake Iroquois shoreline. This site is included in the area covered by a Provincial Minister's Order issued under the Planning Act in 1974. The Order restricts land use to agricultural and places corresponding restrictions on land development. The site is also included in the Pickering Airport Site Zoning Regulation (Transport Canada) which restricts land uses that could potentially interfere with airport operations, including building height, electronic interference and bird nuisances. The property is located in the Duffins Creek watershed which is a designated coldwater fishery. A portion of the site is also within the jurisdiction of the TRCA. A 1970 agreement between Metropolitan Toronto and the Township of Pickering states that on completion of the refuse disposal sites (i.e. the Brock West, North and South sites), the property would be turned over to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for Recreational Purposes. The TRCA was not a party to the agreement and has not accepted ownership of the Properties. This issue remains unresolved. A 1978 agreement between the Regional Municipality of Durham, the Town of Pickering, the Town of Ajax and the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto requires Durham, Pickering and Ajax to amend their Official Plans and zoning bylaws to penn it the use of the Brock North, South and West sites for waste disposal. A 1996 settlement agreement between the Town of Pickering and Metropolitan Toronto requires that a restrictive covenant, registered against title, prohibiting the use of any part of the Brock North site for waste disposal. Environmental Approvals A portion of the property has an existing EP A Part V waste site approval, originally issued in 1977 (A390405). A new SSO processing facility would require a new EPA Part V approval or amendment to the existing approval. A new EP A Section 9 approval would be required for atmospheric emissions. Attachment 2 - 6 Attachment 2: Sites 'I ¡;¿q~Ci-; Approval under EP A Section 46 may be required for any construction on the approved landfill area. An approval under Section 53 of the Ontario Water Resources Act would be required if any discharge of SSO processing effluent or stormwater to Brougham Creek (a tributary of Duffins Creek) is proposed. Sewage works necessary to treat process effluent or stormwater to meet discharge requirements would require a Class EA for a new sewage works. In addition, the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, through the Fisheries Act, prohibits discharge of deleterious substances into waters designated as coldwater fisheries. Discharge limits for the on-site sewage works would be subject to the provisions of the Fisheries Act. Brock South Landfill Property The Brock South Landfill is located in the Town of Ajax directly south of Brock North (Concession 5 separates the two former landfill sites). The site has not been used for waste disposal. The total site area is approximately 180 Ha. There is access to the site from Concession 5 or an entrance could be established directly from Brock Road. The site does not have water or sewer services. Planning Approvals SWMS staff met with planning staff from the Town of Ajax. Ajax staff have been authorized by their Council to hold discussions with the City regarding future use of the Brock South site. SWMS staff have not yet met with planning staff from the Region of Durham regarding this site. The Region of Durham Official Plan designated this site as Major Open Space System. The Town of Ajax's Official Plan designates this site as Major Open Space and has zoned the site as Permanent Countryside. Waste management is not a permitted use within any of current land use designations. The requirements of the Provincial Green Belt Plan apply to this site as they do to the Brock North Site. Also applicable to this site are the Pickering Airport Site Zoning Attachment 2 - 7 q: .... 011 .. boLo -~ ,'...,,, ..,...,-.....-. Attachment 2: Sites Regulation, Duffins Creek watershed related issues and the 1970 and 1978 agreements between Metro Toronto and the Durham municipalities. Environmental Approvals A portion of the property has an existing EP A Part V waste site approval, originally issued in 1975 (A390404). A new SSO processing facility would require a new EPA Part V approval or amendment to the existing approval. A new EP A Section 9 approval would be required for atmospheric emissions. Because no waste was landfilled on the site, approval under EP A Section 46 would not be required. Approval requirements for the discharge of process effluent or stormwater to Brougham Creek are as for the Brock North site. Brock West Landfill Site The Brock West landfill is located in the City of Pickering, north of Finch Avenue and west of Brock Road. Between 1975 and 1996, approximately 18 million tonnes of waste were landfilled. Approximately 288,000 tonnes of this waste were fro_m Brock North Landfill, which was transferred between 1996 and 1997. Also, approximately 1.1 million tonnes of sewage sludge were disposed in the southeast part of the site between 1975 and 1991. A landfill gas collection and utilization system was installed in 1985, and is owned and operated by Eastern Power Developers. Planning Approvals SWMS staff met with planning staff from the City of Pickering but have not met with planning staff from the Region of Durham. The Region of Durham's Official Plan designates this site as an Employment Area. The City of Pickering's Official Plan designates this property as Freeways and Major Utilities - Potential Multi-Use Area. The zoning bylaw was amended in 1974, to permit waste disposal. Further discussion with Durham and Pickering planning staff is required to determine whether or not Official Plan amendments and rezoning, or zoning amendments, are required. Attachment 2 - 8 l.j ;?1 ~öf:.~ Attachment 2: Sites Environmental Approvals A portion of the property has an existing EP A Part V waste site approval, originally issued in 1980 (A390402). A new SSO processing facility would require a new EPA Part V approval or amendment to the existing approval. A new EP A Section 9 approval would be required for atmospheric emissions. Approval under EP A Section 46 would be required for construction on the approved landfill area. 3301 Markham Road (Part 3 only) The 3301 Markam Road site is located southeast of the intersection of Markham Road and Steeles Avenue. The property consists of four parts: Part 1 (3.6 Ha) which abuts Tapscott Road will be transferred to Toronto Water for construction of a stonnwater retention pond; Part 2 (0.72 Ha) to be used for the extension of Select Ave.; Part 3 (1.9 Ha) which abuts Markham Road; and, Part 4 (0.01 Ha) to be declared surplus and sold. Only Part 3 is available. Emergency Management Services (EMS) is considering this site for a Centralized Book- On Station (CBOS). The CBOS would consist of a large, multi-function EMS facility for deploying a large number of emergency paramedic and other Operational vehicles to the eastern half of the City. Planning Approvals The new Toronto Official Plan designates this site as an Employment Area. The current zoning is Agricultural. Waste management is not a pennitted use in areas zoned for agricultural use. Rezoning would be required. Environmental Approvals The site would require a new EP A Part V waste site approval and a new EP A Section 9 approval for atmospheric emissions. Attachment 2 - 9 5.....¡(;; -'}j ch ,·4ï:-f,,:·····,,··~·.. ."........ ~ TORONTO Excerpts from the WORKS COMMITTEE DECISION DOCUMENT MEETING 2 Report 2 to be considered by City Council on April 25, 2006 Date of Meeting: Time: Location: Tuesday, March 7, 2006 9:30 a.m. Committee Room 1 City Hall 100 Queen Street West Toronto, Ontario Enquiry: Rosalind Dyers Committee Administrator 416-392-8018 rdyers@toronto.ca SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES 43. Planning Study for an Expanded Public SSO Processing System Recommendations Regarding Sites and Technologies Report 2, Clause 23 The Works Committee recommended that City Council adopt the recommendations of the SSO Sub-Committee contained in the communication (March 7, 2006) from the Sub-Committee, as follows: "It is recommended that: (1) the staff recommendations in the Recommendations Section of the report (March 3, 2006) from the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services be adopted; and (2) the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services be authorized to explore opportunities to work with the Province of Ontario and the Federal Government to co-operatively examine source separated organic technologies, including the production and use of alternative fuels." r.::::: :::> ~'Y) -úfo 4r"" ' Report (March 3, 2006) from the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services advising of the progress-to-date of the planning study for an expanded public Source Separated Organic (SSO) Processing System; and requesting Council approval of the recommendations regarding system capacity, products, technologies and potentially suitable sites. Recommendations: It is recommended that: System Capacity (1) the expanded publicly owned and/or operated (public) SSO processing system be sized to receive and process a total input of 110,000 tonnes-per-year of SSO material plus any required amendment materials on a two-shift basis as described in this report; Products (2) the expanded public SSO processing system be designed to produce: (a) high quality compost material, which meets the provincial regulatory requirements for unrestricted use and has no visible plastic or glass, as its primary finished product; and (b) if the system includes anaerobic digestion, either electricity or heat or natural gas suitable for use in City vehicles, as its secondary products; and (3) the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services and the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation be authorized and directed to develop a plan for the utilization of some or all of the compost products and soil amendment products derived from the City's SSO within the City's Parks, Forestry and Recreation Division; (4) the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services and the Director, Fleet Services be authorized and directed to investigate the feasibility of using natural gas derived from the anaerobic digestion of the City's SSO in City vehicles; Technologies (5) the following technologies be short-listed for further consideration in the study: (a) mechanical bag openers and rotary drums for bag opening; (b) wet pre-processing for physical contaminant removal; , ..5.._JÜ Q.8 -c0 ·43"·'············· (c) anaerobic digestion; (d) in-vessel horizontal bays or basins with mechanical agitation and forced aeration, and, if sufficient buffer is available, enclosed static piles with forced aeration and periodic mechanical agitation for active phase aerobic composting; and ( e) indoor or outdoor aerobic curing and storage; (6) in addition to the 110,000 tonnes per year of processing capacity described in Recommendation (1), the expanded public SSG processing system may include a 5,000 to 10,000 tonne-per-year demonstration scale AT AD (autothermal thermophilic aerobic digestion) facility; Sites (7) the following potentially suitable City-owned sites, along with any potentially suitable sites identified pursuant to Recommendation (10), be considered in the next phase of the study: (a) the Disco, Dufferin and Ingram transfer station sites; (b) the closed Beare Road, Morningside, Brock North, Brock South and Brock West landfill sites; and (c) 3301 Markham Road; (8) the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services be authorized and directed to conduct public consultation with the municipalities, government agencies and boards and the public living in the local communities in the vicinity of the sites under consideration to obtain feedback on potential impacts and mitigation measures; (9) the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services be authorized to make presentations to the respective Councils of Town of Ajax , the City of Pickering and the Region of Durham to describe the study if so requested by the municipalities; (10) prior to developing the system options to be evaluated in the next phase of the study, the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services be authorized and directed to: (a) develop conceptual designs for expanded pre-processing and anaerobic digestion if feasible at the Dufferin, Disco and Ingram transfer station sites and for pre-processing, anaerobic digestion and active phase compo sting if feasible at the closed Beare Road and Morningside landfill sites; 5 ···,;7cy& 44····················· (b) enter into discussions with any or all of the Town of Ajax, the City of Pickering and the Region of Durham with respect to the possible development and use of any or all of the sites within their respective municipalities, as described in this report or otherwise as deemed appropriate by the General Manager, and report back to the SSO sub- committee with the results of any such discussions; and (c) enter into discussions with the General Managers of other City Divisions with respect to the possible use of sites currently under the control of other City Divisions and report directly to the April 2006 meeting of Council with the results of any such discussions. 43(a) Communication (March 7, 2006) from the SSO Sub-Committee of the Works Committee advising that the Sub-Committee on March 7, 2006, recommended to the Works Committee that City Council: (1) adopt the staff recommendations in the Recommendations Section of the report (March 3, 2006) from the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services; and (2) authorize the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services to explore opportunities to work with the Province of Ontario and the Federal Government to co-operatively examine source separated organic technologies, including the production and use of alternative fuels. and further requested the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services to: (i) review the designation of the lands in the Official Plan and Zoning By-law as one of the criteria for detennining appropriateness of the proposed sites for a SSO processing facility; (ii) use the currently zoned M3 area of the site, during consideration of the Ingram Transfer Station site, be directed to use the currently zoned M3 area of the site; and (iii) consider creating a community benefit fund for the local community/area nearest to the potential SSO facilities as part of the overall site evaluation process. CitJ¡ (J~ April 18, 2006 MOTIONS AND NOTICE OF MOTIONS At the Council meeting held on April 3, 2006, Councillor McLean and Ashe gave notice of the following motion: PUBLIC LIBRARY FUNOING "WHEREAS public libraries in Ontario receive an annual grant from the Province of Ontario to support resource-sharing between libraries and the direct delivery of public library service; AND WHEREAS the City of Pickering recognizes that the public library is the best place in the community to access information in a variety of formats, with the support and expertise of trained staff, ANO supports the public library in its endeavours to manage ANO share information AND build community capacity in the knowledge-based economy; AND WHEREAS the City of Pickering believes in the importance of the flow of information and collaboration across borders and among municipalities, and supports partnerships between public libraries to achieve a strong public library service to all communities; AND WHEREAS the City of Pickering and its citizens share the Province of Ontario's understanding about the importance to the future of the province of a healthy, educated and motivated work force, and the key role of public libraries in delivering this mandate; AND WHEREAS the Province of Ontario is increasingly regarding libraries as public access points for e-government services, and as distribution points for information relating to legislation and government programs and services; AND WHEREAS the City of Pickering is vitally interested in its citizens having the widest possible access to the growing number of government programs and services to further community aspirations, improve public safety and ensure equitable access to literacy and the life-long learning opportunities that are central to a growing, vibrant community, and which are the cornerstone of a literate and democratic society; AND WHEREAS between 1992 and 2005 the Provincial grant for Pickering Public Library declined 30% from $151,500 to the current $106,425, with similar reductions in funding for all public libraries across the Province; AND WHEREAS the Provincial base funding to all public libraries in the Province of Ontario has not increased since 1999 in spite of significant increases in service, population and operating costs; AND WHEREAS the annual Provincial grant for libraries is based on 1997 statistics from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for the number of households in a community, calculated using the 1998 rate of $4.08 per household; BE IT RESOLVED THAT: 1) The Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering understands the value and significance of the public library, and its role in creating a dynamic, connected community, and calls on the Premier of Ontario, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Minister of Culture to: a) recognize the impact of public libraries across Ontario as a vital resource that works across sectors to meet the demands of the new knowledge-based economy, ANO supports the future growth and prosperity of Ontario; b) provide increased provincial funding for public libraries, and base the Provincial library grant on an updated and sustainable indexing model; 2) A copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Premier of Ontario, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Minister of Culture, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, and the Regional Municipality of Ourham and all area municipalities and local members of the Provincial Legislature; and 3) The Pickering Public Library Board be requested to circulate this resolution to the Ontario Library Association and Federation of Ontario Public Libraries, requesting support for this resolution." CitJ¡ ,,~ BY-LAWS 6653/06 6654/06 6655/06 6656/06 6657/06 6658/06 April 18, 2006 Being a By-law to dedicate that part of Lot 30, Range 3, Broken Front Concession, Pickering, designated as Part 5, Plan 40R-23855, as public highway (Sheppard Avenue). This by-law is a result of Land Oivision Applications LO 62/05 and LD 63/05. Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 2658/88, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham, Part of Lots 1 & 2, Plan 228, (Rose Valley Homes Inc., 1355 Altona Road) in the City of Pickering. This is further to Council's approval of Zoning By-law 2658/88 on January 18, 1988 and now removes the U(H)" - Holding Symbol from the subject lands. (A 04/06). Being a By-law to assume the roads as public highways and the services within Plan 40M-1439 (save and except from Blocks 75,80 and 82), Plan 40M-1440 and Plan 40M-1441, under the jurisdiction of the City of Pickering. [Refer to Executive pages 18-19] Being a By-law to amend By-law 1416/82 providing for the regulation and licensing of places of amusement, by adding thereto the streets within Plans 40M-1439, 40M-1440 and 40M-1441, City of Pickering. [Refer to Executive page 20] Being a By-law to authorize the release and removal of the Subdivision Agreement and related Amending Subdivision Agreement respecting Plan 40M-1439 (save and except from Blocks 75, 80 and 82), Pickering, from title. [Refer to Executive page 21] Being a By-law to authorize the release and removal of the Subdivision Agreement and related Amending Subdivision Agreement respecting Plan 40M-1440, Pickering, from title. [Refer to Executive page 22] 6659/06 Being a By-law to authorize the release and removal of the Subdivision Agreement and related Amending Subdivision Agreement respecting Plan 40M-1441, Pickering, from title. [Refer to Executive page 23] 6660/06 Being a By-law to assume the roads as public highways and the services within Plan 40M-2014 (save and except from Blocks 29 and 32), under the jurisdiction of the City of Pickering. [Refer to Executive page 28-29] 6661/06 Being a By-law to amend By-law 1416/82 providing for the regulation and licensing of places of amusement, by adding thereto the streets within Plan 40M-2014, City of Pickering. [Refer to Executive page 30] 6662/06 Being a By-law to authorize the release and removal of the Subdivision Agreement respecting Plan 40M-2014 (save and except from Lots 8 and 9 and Blocks 30,31 and 32), Pickering from title. [Refer to Executive page 31] 6663/06 Being a By-law to amend restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 3036. as amended to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Ourham, on Part of Lots 1 and 2, Plan 316 and Part of Lot 20, Concession 6, in the City of Pickering. (A 29/05) The purpose and effect of this by-law is to permit limited retail and commercial uses including a patio furniture outlet and an antiques market for a temporary period of three years. [Refer to Executive page 103-107, noting Antique Market definition change] 6664/06 Being a By-law to stop up and close that part of Sheppard Avenue described as that part of Lot 31, Concession 1, Pickering, being Part 2, Plan 40R-24050, (Sheppard Avenue) as public highway and authorize the sale of the land to the abutting owner.