Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
May 10, 2010
eitqoo Executive Committee Meeting Agenda Monday, May 10, 2010 I KERING Council Chambers 7:30 pm Chair: Councillor Dickerson (1) MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION PAGES 1. Chief Administrative Officer's Report, CAO 05-10 1-6 Proposed Nuisance By-law RECOMMENDATION That the draft Nuisance By-law, included as Attachment 1, providing restrictions regarding littering, public urination, spitting, and fixture vandalism within the City of Pickering, be enacted. 2. Chief Administrative Officer's Report, CAO 08-10 7-9 2010 Toys for Tickets/Food for Fines Promotion RECOMMENDATION That the Toys for Tickets/Food for Fines Promotion be implemented for December 16 and 17, 2010. 3. Director, Operations & Emergency Services, Report OES 12-10 10-17 New Carbon Monoxide Detector By-law RECOMMENDATION 1. That Report OES 12-10 of the Director, Operations & Emergency Services regarding "Carbon Monoxide Detector By-law" being a by-law to require the installation of carbon monoxide detectors in residential occupancies be received; and 2. That the attached draft "Carbon Monoxide Detector By-law", requiring the installation of carbon monoxide detectors in residential occupancies be enacted. Accessible # For information related to accessibility requirements please contact PICKER, n ' V~ G Linda Roberts Phone: 905.420.4660 extension 2928 TTY: 905.420.1739 Email: Iroberts(cDcitvofoickerina.com Citq o0 Executive Committee Meeting Agenda Monday, May 10, 2010 PI CKERING Council Chambers 7:30 pm Chair: Councillor Dickerson 4. Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, Report CS 08-10 18-31 LAS Energy Procurement Program RECOMMENDATION 1. That Report CS 08-10 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be received; 2. That the Commodity Hedge Pricing Policy attached to this report be approved; 3. That the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be authorized to execute Agency Appointment Agreements with Local Authority Services (LAS) and any other related documents to provide for the hedging of energy prices; 4. That Council authorizes Local Authority Services, through its appointed agent, to have access to electricity consumption data from the local electrical utility on an as needed basis, in order to compile load profile information for the procurement program; and, 5. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to give effect thereto. 5. Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, Report CS 11-10 32-41 Cash Position Report as at December 31, 2009 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that report CS 11-10 from the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer regarding cash position as at December 31, 2009 be received for information. 6. Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, Report CS 12-10 42-45 Request by SR&R Bay Ridges Ltd. to Defer Payment of Development Charges RECOMMENDATION 1. That Report CS 12-10 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be received; and, eitq 00 Executive Committee Meeting Agenda _ Monday, May 10, 2010 DICKERING Council Chambers 7:30 pm Chair: Councillor Dickerson 2. That the request by SR&R Bay Ridges Ltd. to defer the payment of Development Charges be denied. 7. Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, Report CS 14-10 46-53 Development Charges Reserve Fund - Statement of the Treasurer for 2009 RECOMMENDATION That. Report CS 14-10 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer respecting the Development Charges Reserve Fund be received for information. 8. Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, Report CS 15-10 54-63 2010 Tax Rates for all Classes of Property and Final Tax Due Dates for All Realty Tax Classes Except for Commercial, Industrial & Multi-Residential Realty Classes RECOMMENDATION 1.. That Report CS 15-10 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be received; 2. That the 2010 tax rates for the City of Pickering be approved as contained in Schedule A of the By-law attached hereto; 3. That the tax levy due dates for the Final Billing be June 28, 2010 and September 28, 2010 excluding the industrial, multi-residential and commercial realty tax classes; 4. That the City of Pickering continue its policy of providing property tax relief to the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 483 (Claremont), for the City's share of property taxes for the taxation years 2010 to 2020; 5. That the attached By-laws providing for the imposition of the tax rates approved under Recommendation 1 and 4 above, be read three times and approved; 6. That the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be authorized to make any changes or undertake any actions necessary, including altering due dates, in order to ensure the tax billing process is completed; l Executive Committee Meeting ; Agenda Monday, May 10, 2010 PI CKERING Council Chambers 7:30 pm Chair: Councillor Dickerson 7. That the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be authorized to make any changes to the final tax rates to comply with Provincial regulations; and, 8. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions to give effect thereto. 9. Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, Report CS 16-10 64-66 2009 Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund RECOMMENDATION That Report CS 16-10 from the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer regarding the 2009 Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund be received for information. 10. Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, Report CS 17-10 67-76 Investment Portfolio Activity for the Year Ended December 31, 2009 RECOMMENDATION That Report CS 17-10 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer regarding Investment Portfolio Activity for the Year Ended December 31, 2009 be received for information. 11. Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, Report CS 18-10 77-79 Formal Quotations - Quarterly Report for Information RECOMMENDATION That Report CS 18-10 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer regarding Formal Quotations - Quarterly Report for Information be received for information. 12. Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, Report CS 19-10 80-82 Section 357/358 of the Municipal Act- Adiustment to Taxes RECOMMENDATION City 00 Executive Committee Meeting Agenda Monday, May 10, 2010 DICKERING Council Chambers 7:30 pm Chair: Councillor Dickerson 1. That Report CS 19-10 of the Director, 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. Chief Administrative Officer's Report, CAO 11-10 83-187 Proposed Firearms By-law RECOMMENDATION That the proposed Firearms By-law (Attachment No. 1 to this Report) be adopted. (II) OTHER BUSINESS (III) ADJOURNMENT i cis, Report To _ ;A Executive Committee PICKERING Report Number: CAO 05-10 Date: May 10, 2010 01 From: Andrew C. Allison City Solicitor Subject: Proposed Nuisance By-law File: L-2000-001-10 Recommendation: 1. That the draft Nuisance By-law, included as Attachment 1, providing restrictions regarding littering, public urination, spitting, and fixture vandalism within the City of Pickering, be enacted. Executive Summary: The proposed Nuisance By-law introduces regulations regarding actions or behaviours deemed inappropriate or unacceptable by the City. The prohibitions regarding public urination, spitting or defecating have been initiated at the request of Durham Regional Police Service. The provisions regarding damaging fixtures and littering are expanding upon or replacing previous regulations. All regulations in the by-law will have set fines established for contraventions of the by-law. Financial Implications: Minimal revenue generated from issuance of Part I Offence Notices with set fines. Sustainability Implications: The provisions in the by-law are intended to eliminate undesirable impacts on the social environment. Background: The proposed Nuisance By-law addresses a variety of issues. In the training sessions provided to improve the knowledge of Durham Regional Police Officers in relation to City by-laws, a number of officers inquired as to by-laws prohibiting urinating, defecating, spitting or vomiting in public. It was stated that a by- law regulating this behaviour could assist officers in the performance of their duties. The provisions relating to boulevard fixtures are an expansion of regulations in the boulevard by-law and were drafted to enable set fines to be created for actions which may not result in damage to the fixtures, however, do create a public nuisance. Regulations have also been included relating to the discharge of water from swimming pools, hot tubs and ponds onto neighbouring properties. This issue has come up on a Report CAO 05-10 May 10, 2010 Subject: Proposed Nuisance By-law Page 2 02 number of occasions and the City has no by-law that regulates such activity. Under the proposed by-law, this type of action would be an offence and an officer could issue a ticket to a property owner draining their pool to a neighbouring property. The proposed by-law exempts the accepted practice of draining the water into a municipal storm sewer. Finally, the provisions relating to littering and illegal dumping are being consolidated into the proposed by-law. The existing stand alone Littering By-law 5330/98 should be repealed. The inclusion of the regulations prohibiting littering and illegal dumping will ensure the by-law has updated enforcement and penalties sections. This provision is also another which may be enforced more effectively with set fines. The proposed Nuisance By-law will provide additional tools to both staff and Durham Regional Police to deal with various issues which affect the public from time to time. The provisions incorporated are similar to those found in many other municipal nuisance by-laws. Attachment: 1. Proposed Nuisance By-law Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: " Kimb ly Thomp on Debbie Shields Manager, By-law Enforcement Services City Clerk Andrew C. Allison City Solicitor Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering Cites ou cil lee A ~ o as J. Qui n, DMR M III Chief Administr ve Officer CORP0227-07/01 revised THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING 03 BY-LAW NO. ****/10 Being a by-law to prohibit and regulate public nuisances within the City of Pickering. WHEREAS section 128 of the Municipal Act, 2001 provides that a local municipality may prohibit and regulate with respect to public nuisances, including matters that, in the opinion of-Council, are or could become public nuisances; and WHEREAS, in the opinion of Council, the act of urinating, defecating, spitting or vomiting in a public place is a public nuisance; and WHEREAS, in the opinion of Council, the act of knocking over or damaging mailboxes, relay boxes, newspaper boxes, recycling boxes, garbage containers, permitted signs or other public fixtures is a public nuisance; and WHEREAS, in the opinion of Council, the act of throwing, placing or depositing refuse on property without permission from the owner or occupant of such property is a public nuisance; and WHEREAS, in the opinion of Council, the act of depositing certain liquids or materials into municipal storm sewers is a public nuisance. NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: PART I - INTERPRETATION Definitions 1. In this by-iaw, "City" means The Corporation of the City of Pickering or the geographical area of the City of Pickering, as the context requires; "Council" means the Council of the City; "fixture" means any structure that the City permits to be located within a boulevard including a utility box, newspaper vending box, bench, transit shelter, telephone box, telephone booth, transformer box or vault, telephone pole, hydro pole, streetlight, stoplight pole, recycling waste module, mailbox, street sign, a Canada Post relay mailbox, permitted signs, or a blue box, green bin or other garbage container; BY-LAW NO****/10 Page 2 0 "highway" has the same meaning as in subsection 1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act and includes unopened and unassumed road allowances; "public place" includes a highway and any other place to which the public has access as of right or by invitation, expressed or implied, and any private property that is exposed to public view, but does not include a washroom facility; "refuse" includes garbage or debris of any kind and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, includes a vehicle that. appears by reason of its appearance, mechanical condition or lack of current licence plates to be inoperative, inoperative mechanical equipment, automotive and mechanical parts, appliances, furnaces, heater or fuel tanks, disused furniture, table waste, paper, cartons, crockery, glassware, cans, garden refuse, earth or rock fill, old or decayed lumber, material from construction or demolition projects, and old clothing; and "storm sewer" means a pipe, conduit, drain, open channel or ditch for the collection and transmission of storm water, drainage from land, or from a watercourse, or any combination thereof. References 2. In this by-law, references to any Act, regulation or by-law is a reference to that . Act, regulation or by-law as it is amended or re-enacted from time to time. Word Usage 3. This by-law shall be read with all changes in gender or number as the context may require. 4. A grammatical variation of a word or expression defined has a corresponding meaning. Conflicts 5. If a provision of this by-law conflicts with a provision of any applicable Act, regulation or by-law, the provision that establishes the higher or more restrictive standard to protect the health, safety and welfare of the general public shall prevail. Severability 6. Each section of this by-law is an independent section, and the holding of any section or part of any section of this by-law to be void or ineffective for any reason shall not be deemed to affect the validity of any other section or parts of sections of this by-law. BY-LAW NO****/10 Page 3 05 PART II REGULATIONS General Prohibitions 7. No person shall urinate, defecate or spit in a public place. 8. No person shall vomit by reason of being intoxicated in a public place. Fixtures 9. No person shall knock over, attempt to knock over or otherwise attempt to damage a fixture. I 10. No person shall alter or deface a fixture. Swimming Pools 11. No person shall drain or cause or permit the drainage of water from a swimming pool, hot tub or ornamental pond onto property other than the property from which it originated. Storm Sewers 12. No person shall deposit or cause or permit to be deposited any liquids (other than storm water) or materials into a municipal storm sewer. Exceptions 13. Sections 11 and 12 shall not apply to a person who drains water from a swimming pool, hot tub, ornamental pond, downspout, eaves trough or sump pump directly into a municipal storm sewer. Littering & Illegal Dumping 14. No person shall throw, place or deposit or cause or permit to be thrown, placed or deposited any refuse on any property without permission from the owner or occupant of such property. PART III - ENFORCEMENT Enforcement .15. In this Part, "officer" means a police officer, municipal law enforcement officer or other individual duly appointed for the purpose of enforcing this by-law. BY-LAW NO****/10 Page 4 0 16. This by-law may be enforced by any officer. 17. An officer may, at any reasonable time, enter upon any property for the purpose . of determining whether or not the provisions of this by-law have been complied with. 18. No person shall prevent, hinder or interfere or attempt to prevent, hinder or interfere with an officer. Offences and Penalties. 19. Every person who contravenes any provision of this by-law is guilty of an offence and upon conviction is liable to a fine pursuant to the provisions of the Provincial Offences Act. PART IV - GENERAL Short Title 20. This by-law may be cited as the "Nuisance By-law". Repeal 21. By-Law No. 5330/98 is hereby repealed. Effective Date 22. This by-law shall come into force and effect on the day it is passed. BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this day of May, 2010. David Ryan, Mayor Debbie Shields, City Clerk e~ty o~ Report To Executive Committee ICKERIN G Report Number: CAO 08-10 Date: May 10,- 2010 • 07 From: Andrew C. Allison City Solicitor Subject: 2010 Toys for Tickets / Food for Fines Promotion File: L-2220-001-10 Recommendation: That the Toys for Tickets / Food for Fines Promotion be implemented. for December 16 and 17, 2010. Executive Summary: Staff are requesting approval for the Toys for Tickets / Food for Fines promotion to return for the 2010 holiday season. The dates for the 2010 Toys for Tickets / Food for Fines promotion will be December 16 and 17, 2010. Approval is being requested now'.due to the upcoming 2010 Municipal Election and the accompanying disruption to the fall Council schedule. The 2009 Toys for Tickets / Food for Fines Promotion operated December 10 & 11 th, with 75 tickets paid by donations, and $2,100.00 in toys or food donated to the Durham Regional Police Food &Toy Drive. The Toys for Tickets / Food for Fines program accepts toys or groceries in lieu of payment for parking tickets. Toy or food donations must be dropped off to City Hall, and a receipt must be presented to confirm the value of the donation equals or exceeds the fine. Tickets for parking in a Disabled Parking Space are not eligible for the program The Toys for Tickets / Food for Fines program is a worthy cause which was well- received by the public and created positive customer relations with parking ticket recipients. The Toys for Tickets / Food for Fines promotion benefits needy families, demonstrates community involvement and enhances the image of the City's Municipal Law Enforcement Services section. Report CAO 08-10 May 10, 2010 Subject: 2010 Toys for Tickets/ Food for Fines Promotion Page 2 Financial Implications: The lost revenue associated with the Toys for Tickets / Food for Fines promotion was approximately $1,820.00 in fines. Sustainability Implications: This promotion supports the social aspect of sustainability by providing assistance to families in need. Background: In 2009, Council approved the introduction of the first Toys for Tickets / Food for Fines promotion in the City of Pickering. The response from the public and*the media was overwhelming. In its first year of offering the program, Pickering surpassed the donations received by other municipalities that had participated in a Toys for Tickets program for a number of years. The Toys for Tickets / Food for Fines promotion generated great interest from the media, with coverage from such outlets as 680 News, CBC Radio, Rogers TV, the Toronto Sun, UPI, and City TV's Breakfast Television. The program sets a range of eligible dates for tickets issued, then sets two days only where payment for the tickets issued during the eligible dates may be made with donations. The date range proposed for eligible tickets would be from December 7 - 15, 2010, with the Toys for Tickets / Food for Fines dates as December 16 & 17, 2010. Tickets may be paid with the donation of toys or food equal to or exceeding the value of the fine on the ticket. A receipt for the donation 'must be presented to verify the amount. Food must be non-perishable. Toys and food collected will be donated to the Durham Regional Police Food and Toy Drive. As the City of Pickering already participates with the Durham Regional Police Food & Toy Drive, the Toys for Tickets / Food for Fines program would be a continuation of this partnership. The program will be promoted with flyers distributed with the tickets issued during the eligible date range, as well as newspaper and website promotions. The first Toys for Tickets / Food for Fines promotion in 2009 was a tremendous success. Staff would' like to see this worthwhile program continue as an annual event to support families in need. CORP0227-07/01 revised l Report CAO 08-10 May 10, 2010 Subject: 2010 Toys for Tickets / Food for Fines Promotion Page 3 09 illvS~tukrl - f(md finc 4•' Al 1 - Tf IS(Ult Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: I qKierly CMM I, CPSO Debbie Shields Manager, By-law Enforcement Services City Clerk. Andrew . Allison City Solicitor. Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Cou Th J. Quinn, M , C PM III Chief Administrative Offic CORP0227-07/01 revised CiN 00 Report to Executive Committee PIC KE Report Number: OES 12-10 Date: May 10, 2010 0 From: Everett Buntsma Director, Operations & Emergency Services Subject: New Carbon Monoxide Detector By-Law - File: A-1440-001-10 Recommendation: 1. That Report OES 12-10 of the Director, Operations & Emergency Services regarding "Carbon Monoxide Detector By-Law" being a by-law to require the installation of carbon monoxide detectors in residential occupancies be received; and, 2. That the attached draft "Carbon Monoxide Detector By-law", requiring the installation of carbon monoxide detectors in residential occupancies be enacted. Executive Summary: As detailed in this report, in the interest of the health, safety and well-being of the public, Pickering Fire Services recommends that the new draft "Carbon Monoxide Detector By-Law" be adopted. Financial Implications: Carbon monoxide detectors, akin to smoke detectors, cost $20.00 to $40.00; combination smoke alarms/carbon monoxide alarms are available at a cost of $40.00 to $80.00. Cost to the municipality is primarily for administrative services, time spent for field inspections and if necessary, enforcement in court. I i Sustainability Implications: There is no effect on the environment. The purpose of the new draft "Carbon Monoxide Detector By-Law" is to prevent carbon monoxide poisoning, including fatalities from carbon monoxide poisoning. i I I Report OES 12-10 May10, 2010 Subject: New Carbon Monoxide Detector By-Law Page 2 Background: On July 25, 1998, the Ontario Fire Code, created under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, required smoke alarms to be installed adjacent to sleeping areas in existing residential dwelling units. A subsequent amendment to the Ontario Fire Code on March 1, 2006, required smoke alarm installations on every floor level in existing residential dwelling units. In accordance with Section 79 of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, this , amendment to the Ontario Fire Code regarding smoke alarm installations in residential dwelling units supersedes By-Law No. 5247/98; being a by-law to require the installation of Smoke Alarms and Carbon Monoxide Detectors in residential occupancies. However, there is no regulatory authority under the Ontario Fire Code, Ontario Regulation 213/07 mandating the use of carbon monoxide detectors in existing residential dwelling units; they are not classified as fire safety devices. The Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997 does not contain authority to regulate public safety matters that. go beyond the scope of fire safety. This regulatory authority is provided in Subsection 11(2) of the Municipal Act, 2001, indicating that a municipality may pass by-laws for the health, safety and well-being of persons. The draft Carbon Monoxide Detector- By-Law is a more comprehensive document than By- Law No. 5247/98. Overview of Draft Carbon Monoxide Detector By-Law: • Carbon monoxide detectors are not required in residential occupancies that do not contain a fuel-burning appliance or a storage garage. • Covers a large spectrum in its scope of buildings; includes, but is not limited to group homes with developmentally challenged residents, hospitals and nursing homes. It should be noted that the 2006 Ontario Building Code does not require carbon monoxide detectors to be installed in these types of occupancies. • Sleeping areas located on different floor levels in suites of residential occupancy (Individual dwelling units), requires that a carbon monoxide detector be installed adjacent to each sleeping area. • Multiple residential buildings require carbon monoxide detectors installed in suites of residential occupancy adjacent to service rooms containing a fuel-burning appliance or a storage garage, including service rooms containing a fuel-burning appliance. Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colourless, odourless, tasteless and toxic gas and is often referred to as the "silent killer". CORP0227-07/01 revised Report OES 12-10 May10, 2010 Subject: New Carbon Monoxide Detector, By-Law Page 3, 12 Carbon monoxide bonds with the hemoglobin in blood. It displaces and replaces the oxygen molecules that cells need to function. As the level of carbon monoxide in blood accumulates, vital organs, such as the heart and brain become deprived of oxygen. To compensate the heart rate increases, breathing may become difficult and cardiac trauma, brain damage, coma and even death may result. Carbon Monoxide is a by-product of incomplete combustion of fuels such as natural gas, propane, heating oil, kerosene, coal, charcoal, gasoline or wood. This incomplete combustion can occur in any device that depends on burning for energy or heat, such as furnaces, room heaters, fireplaces, hot water heaters, stoves or grills and any gas powered vehicle or engine. Automobiles left running in attached garages, gas barbeques operated inside the house, grills or kerosene heaters that are not properly vented, or chimney or vents that are dirty or plugged may create unsafe levels of carbon monoxide. In 2009, Pickering Fire Services responded to approximately 238 incidents regarding carbon monoxide detector activation. According to the Canada Safety Council, carbon monoxide (CO) is the leading cause of fatal poisonings in North America. Every year in Canada there are approximately 1,000 reported poisonings and 250 deaths due to carbon monoxide poisoning. Since 1997, the Ontario Building Code requires carbon monoxide detectors be installed in new residential occupancies. On April 2, 2009, Conservative MPP Ernie Hardeman (Oxford) pushed through the second reading of Private - Member Bill 143, which would require carbon monoxide detectors in all residential buildings. He sponsored the Bill in memory of the Hawkins family = OPP Constable Laurie (nee Gignac), husband Richard and their children Cassandra and Jordon - who died December 1, 2008 in their Chippewa Avenue home in Woodstock, Ontario from carbon monoxide poisoning from a blocked basement natural gas fireplace vent-pipe. Constable Laurie (nee Gignac) was found alive, however succumbed to carbon monoxide poisoning eight days later. The bill is named The Hawkins Gignac Act in their honour. Unfortunately, Private - Member Bill 143 died on the order paper and did not advance to a third reading. In the interest for health, safety and well-being of the public and in the interim, until government legislation is enacted requiring the installation of carbon monoxide detectors in existing residential occupancies, Pickering Fire Services recommends that the new draft "Carbon Monoxide Detector By-Law" be adopted by Council. CORP0227-07/01 revised i I Report OES 12-10 May10, 2010 Subject: New Carbon Monoxide Detector By-Law Page 4 - Attachments: 1. Draft "Carbon Monoxide Detector By-Law" Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: ,c L~a~-- Brian Hol es William T. Douglas Fire Ins ctor, F Ke ervices Division Fire Chief CJ Gord Fe us n QPr( Everett Buntsma Deputy Chi f, Training & Fire Prevention I Director, Operations & Emergency Services BT: n rm Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City it , 23 v Th J. Quin DM, M III Chief Administrative Officer CORP0227-07/01 revised ATTACHMENT #_I-TO REPORT #~12 `1a -6 4f . . THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING 14 BY-LAW NO. /10 A by-law to require the installation of carbon monoxide detectors in residential occupancies. WHEREAS paragraph 6 of subsection 11(2) of the Municipal Act, 2001 authorizes lower-tier municipalities to pass by-laws respecting the health, safety and well-being of persons; and WHEREAS the City considers it necessary to require carbon monoxide detectors to be installed in residential buildings in order to reduce the health risks to occupants. NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: PART I - INTERPRETATION Definitions 1. In this by-law, "carbon monoxide detector" means a carbon monoxide detector that is installed in the manner required by the Ontario Building Code and conforms to the standards set out in the Ontario Building Code; "City" means The Corporation of The City of Pickering or the geographic area of the City of Pickering, as the context requires; "dwelling unit" means a suite operated as a housekeeping unit, used or intended to be used as a domicile by one or more persons and usually containing cooking, eating, living, sleeping and sanitary facilities; "Fire Chief"means the Chief of the City's Fire Services Division or a designate; "fuel-burning appliance" means a furnace, refrigerator, clothes dryer, water heater, boiler, fireplace, wood stove, charcoal grill, gas range, space heater and any other appliance that is fired by a flammable fuel such as natural gas, propane, heating oil, kerosene, coal, gasoline, wood or charcoal; "occupant" means any lessee, tenant, mortgagee in possession or any other person who appears to have care and control of any property; "officer" means a member of the Fire Prevention Section of the City's Fire Services Division and includes the Fire Chief; t-.Q-T•# - Carbon Monoxide Detectors By-Law No. XXXVIG.HME,N'a C -Page 2 "Ontario Building Code" means Ontario Regulation 350/06 issued under the Building Code Act, 1992; "owner" means the person identified in the most recent tax roll as the owner of any property; "person" includes a corporation and the heirs, executors, administrators or other legal representatives of a person to whom the context can apply according to law; residential occupancy means the occupancy or use of a building or part thereof by persons for whom sleeping accommodation is provided including persons who are harboured or detained to receive medical care or treatment or are involuntarily detained; "storage garage" means a building or part of a building that is intended for the storage or parking of motor vehicles and that contains no provision for the repair or servicing of motor vehicles; and "suite" means a single room or series of rooms of complementary use, operated under a single tenancy, and includes dwelling units, individual guest rooms in motels, hotels, boarding houses, rooming houses and dormitories, as well as individual stores and individual or complementary rooms for business and personal services occupancies. References to Legislation 2. In this by-law, reference to any Act, regulation or by-law is reference to that Act, regulation or by-law as it is amended or re-enacted from time to time. Word Usage 3. This by-law shall be read with all changes in gender or number as the context may require. 4. A grammatical variation of a word or expression defined has a corresponding meaning. Construction 5. Headings in this by-law are for convenience of reference only and shall not affect the construction or interpretation of this by-law. 6. Unless otherwise specified, references in this by-law to sections and schedules are to sections and schedules in this by-law. -5~"O REPORT#- 12- -16 Carbon (Monoxide Detectors By-Law No. XXXX/10 Page 3 16 Conflicts 7. If a provision of this by-law conflicts with a provision of any applicable Act, regulation or by-law, the provision that establishes the higher or more restrictive standard to protect the health, safety and welfare of, the general public shall prevail. PART II - REGULATIONS Application .8. This Part applies to every building that, (a) contains a residential occupancy; and (b) contains a fuel-burning appliance or a storage garage. Location of Carbon Monoxide Detectors 9. Where a fuel-burning appliance is installed in a suite of residential occupancy, the owner of the suite shall install or cause to be installed a carbon monoxide detector adjacent to each sleeping area in the suite. 10. Where a fuel-burning appliance is installed in a service room that is adjacent to a suite of residential occupancy, the owner of the suite shall install or cause to be installed a carbon monoxide detector, (a) adjacent to each sleeping area in every suite of residential occupancy that is adjacent to the service room; and (b) in the service room. 11. Where a storage garage is located in a building containing a residential occupancy, the owner of the building shall install or cause to be installed a carbon monoxide detector adjacent to each sleeping area in every suite of residential occupancy that is adjacent to the storage garage. 12. Where a storage garage. serves only the dwelling unit to which it is attached or built in, the' owner of the dwelling unit shall install or cause to be installed a carbon monoxide detector adjacent to each sleeping area in the dwelling unit. Maintenance 13. Every occupant shall maintain all carbon monoxide detectors located in their suite of residential occupancy in proper operating condition at all times. 14. No person shall disable a carbon monoxide detector so as to make it inoperable. i REPORT #-P-D-2 -f Carbon Monoxide Detectors By-Law No. XXXX/10 c f 11 . Page 4 17 PART III - ENFORCEMENT Inspections 15. An officer may, at any reasonable time, enter upon any land for the purpose of carrying out an inspection to determine whether or not the provisions of this by- law have been complied with. 16. No person shall prevent, hinder or interfere or attempt to prevent, hinder or interfere with an inspection undertaken by an officer. Offences and Penalties 17. Every person who contravenes any provision of this by-law is guilty of an offence and upon conviction is liable to a fine pursuant to the provisions of the Provincial Offences Act. PART IV - GENERAL Short Title 18. This by-law may be referred to as the "Carbon Monoxide Detectors By-law". Repeal 19. By-law No. 5247/98 is repealed in its entirety. Effective Date 20. This by-law shall come into force on the day of its passing. BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this day of , 2010. David Ryan, Mayor Debbie Shields, City Clerk City b~ Report To Executive Committee PICKERING Report Number: CS 08-10 Date: May 10,'2010 18 From: Gillis A. Paterson Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Subject: LAS Energy Procurement Program Recommendation: 1. That Report CS 08-10 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be received; 2. That the Commodity-Hedge Pricing Policy attached to this report be approved; 3. That the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be authorized to execute Agency Appointment Agreements with Local Authority Services (LAS) and any other related documents to provide for the hedging of energy prices; 4. That Council authorizes Local Authority Services, through its appointed agent, to have access to electricity consumption data from the local electrical utility on an as needed basis, in order to compile load profile information for the procurement program; and, 5. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to give effect thereto. Executive Summary: Adoption of the above recommendations will allow the City of Pickering to participate in the LAS Electricity Procurement Program. LAS purchases bulk electrical power for its many municipal customers in a forward market through a competitive bid process to obtain the best possible price. Purchasing of commodities such as electricity in a forward market requires the municipality to have a "Commodity Hedge Pricing Policy." Therefore, Council approval is required to adopt the necessary Commodity Price Hedging Policies. The objectives of the LAS bulk hedging program are generally synonymous with our municipal objectives: a. Facilitates Budgeting - purchasing blocks of electricity will produce stable prices for budgeting b. Competitive Pricing - provide savings on required purchases c. Maximize Purchasing Power - pooling requirements can leverage better pricing than individually. Report CS 08-10 May 10, 2010 Subject: LAS Electricity Procurement Program Page 2 LAS requires the following Council actions: 1. Adopt the attached Commodity Hedge Pricing Policy as required under the Municipal Act, 2001. 2. Adopt the Recommendationauthorizing the enrollment in the program. Sustainability Implications: By joining the LAS program, the City will reduce its electricity costs that in-turn will continue to assist the City in maintaining its financial sustainability objectives. Financial Implications: Adoption of the recommendations will allow the City to participate in the LAS "bulk" electricity.purchasing program resulting in savings to the City. The 2010 electrical utilities budget was based on the assumption that the City would participate in a bulk purchase program. A major cost saving opportunity through this program is that the City will now be able to obtain "off-peak" power rates for its streetlights. (Off-peak power rates are usually a minimum of 10% lower). In 2009, the streetlight electricity costs were $551,022 and the 2010 budget was reduced to $501,000 resulting in a projected savings of $56,500. It is possible actual savings may exceed this projection. Background: Since 2005, Pickering has paid electricity rates as set out by the Ontario government's Regulated Price Plan (RPP). Currently, Ontario municipalities can choose to purchase electricity through one of the alternatives listed below: 1. The Regulated Price Plan (RPP); the rate the City's pays with a fixed price set by the Province that is reset semi-annually, which has resulted in savings and rebates. 2. Market pricing for interval metered accounts or larger volume municipal accounts post May 2009: Weighted Average hourly Price (WAP) will apply to conventional meters; and Hourly Ontario Electricity Pricing (HOEP) will apply to interval meters. 3. A Retail Contract: where the price is set now for the future supply of electricity such as the LAS program - (recommended) Local Authority Services Electricity Procurement Program There are several vendors in the de-regulated marketplace selling fixed price contracts. The Municipal, Universities, School Boards and Hospitals (MUSH) sector is large enough to support its own dedicated approach. As our Local Distribution Company (LDC) Veridian Inc., does not earn its revenue based on where electricity is purchased, they will continue to earn their revenues through the "wires business" - by distributing the power. Purchasing electricity from LAS or any other retailer will not affect Veridian's Report CS 08-10 May 10, 2010 . . . Subject: LAS Electricity Procurement Program Page 3 20 financial performance. Veridian will still be responsible for the distribution of electricity to the City. LAS isa wholly owned subsidiary of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO). This organization has developed an electricity procurement program to assist municipalities in achieving cost savings on electricity purchases by leveraging the advantages of bulk purchasing power. This program is similar in operation to their longstanding Natural Gas Procurement Program and as a point of information, the City of Pickering has had an agreement with LAS for the purchase of natural gas for the last three years. LAS has offered the Natural Gas Program since 1992 and have consistently provided savings for program members. Due to low gas prices the City is roughly breaking even on this arrangement which will be renewed in October, 2010 under the above Recommendation. The LAS program provides strategic advice related to purchases, effective program oversight, and ongoing accountability. Regular program oversight is provided by the LAS Energy Advisory Committee and LAS Board of Directors, both of which are comprised of municipal representatives. While LAS functions as a retailer for electricity in conjunction with Shell Energy North America, this program is offered as a service to AMO/LAS member municipalities and is not operated under the same expectations for profit as other retailers. In addition, the LAS Energy Services Division offers a range of conservation and demand management services to members of the LAS procurement programs. LAS is paid a fixed fee of 0.10/kWh (75% to the program administrator and 25% to LAS) for all electricity hedged on behalf of the municipality, as well as 0.05¢/kWh for required billing services. LAS is required to account for all amounts paid under the agreement and any consumption left to the spot market is not charged an administration fee. Ontario is progressively adopting time based electricity pricing. This government is committed to ensuring energy conservation through the true cost of electrical power and has instructed related regulatory agencies to ensure this is the case. Using cost saving opportunities by switching some of our electricity requirements to off-peak hours, such as at the Recreation Complex, the City has helped reduce Ontario's on-peak electricity demand and reliance on purchasing power outside the province from non-sustainable sources. The LAS program takes a blended approach to purchasing electricity. They purchase up to 75% of our electricity requirements from the forward market (fixed for terms from 6 months up to 1.5 years) and the remaining 25% (or more) is left to the spot market. LAS will acquire blocks of electricity based on the requirements of the program load profile for each program purchasing pool. All LAS program tenders are competitive and involve as many as five pre-qualified suppliers. The balance of the load requirements will be purchased on the spot market at the Hourly Ontario Energy Price (HOEP) and we can choose our desired hedging level. LAS does not allow for a hedging level of more than 75%, however, we may customize - I Report CS 08-10 May 10, 2010 Subject: LAS Electricity Procurement Program Page 4 21 our own lower hedge level if desired - the 75% hedge ensures that there is no over- buying for any program. members and leaving 25% of usage to the spot market provides flexibility and avoids claims of speculation. Street lighting accounts are treated differently in the LAS program, as there is more opportunity for savings on the spot market for these accounts because most consumption is during "off-peak" hours. After we enroll, LAS will move our street lighting accounts to the spot market (we cannot do this on our own) and they will charge a $6 per account fee for this service as a cost recovery. Current LAS program members are realizing streetlight savings of upwards of 20% - 25% (depending on the month) for `off-peak' street lighting accounts. These figures are inclusive of the program fees paid to LAS. There are currently 78 Ontario municipalities enrolled in the LAS Electricity Procurement Program. A complete list of members is included as an attachment to this report. Hedging Policy The Municipal Act, 2001 Ontario Regulation 653/05, s 6(1) states: "Before a municipality passes a by-law authorizing a commodity price hedging agreement, the council of the municipality shall adopt a statement of policies and goals relating to the use of financial agreements to address commodity pricing and costs." As per the legislation, the City must first adopt a Commodity Price Hedging Policy as indicated in the Municipal Act. A Commodity Hedge Pricing Policy is attached to this report. The purpose of a hedging strategy is to maintain price stability with volatile commodities by entering into a fixed price and volume contract. Price hedging agreements are frequently used for the acquisition of natural gas and electricity. The confirming By-law for the Council meeting at which this report's Recommendations are approved will be used to satisfy that requirement of the Regulation. Attachments: 1. Commodity Hedge Pricing Policy 2. LAS Electricity Program - Pricing Details - 2010 3. List of Current Municipal Members of LAS Electricity Program 4. Excerpt from Municipal Act, 2001, Ontario Regulation 653/05 Report CS 08-10 May 10, 2010 Subject: LAS Electricity Procurement Program Page 5 22 Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: i B -6b Ku ma Gillis A. Paterson Senior Purc sing Analyst Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Prepared By: Prepared By: Stan Karwowski Vera Felgemacher Manager, Finance & Taxation Manager, Supply & Services GAP:t Ik Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering CZhief ity P J. Quin D , CMM Administra e Officer try 000 ATTACHMENT#.LTO REPORT# ' ` - /o City POIICy PICKERING Policy Title: Commodity Price Hedging Policy Policy Number: FIN 060 Reference' Date Originated: Date Revised: Municipal A, ct, 2001 April 1, 2010 Approval: Chief Administrative Officer Point of Contact: Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Policy, Objective The purpose of this policy is to conform to the requirements of the Municipal Act, 2001 (and any regulations passed thereunder) as it relates to Commodity Price Hedging Agreements. Section 6(1) of O. Reg 653.05 of the Act requires the adoption of this policy before the City may enter into a Commodity Price Hedging. Scope This policy applies to all commodity price hedging agreements and provides the framework for the consideration of commodity hedge pricing by the City. Index 01 (Definitions 02 'Statement of Commodity Hedging Policies and Goals 03 Authority 04 Responsibility, 05 (Reporting Requirements 01 Definitions 2 4 01.01 Contract Agent - means an individual or organization acting on behalf of the City as an independent contractor, external to the City to provide advice on a price hedging strategy and/or to execute agreements and transactions to acquire a Commodity. 01.02 Commodity - means, a product or products bought and sold in commerce, including but not limited to electricity, natural gas and foreign currencies. 01.03 Price Hedging Agreement - means a financial agreement to provide price stability and/or minimize the cost, financial and other risks associated with the procurement of a Commodity. 01.04 Hedge - means, the purchase of a commitment to acquire a specified quantity of a commodity, at a specific price, at some future point in time. 02 Statement of Commodity Price Hedging Policies and Goals The City will consider commodity price hedging agreements as a means of fixing, directly or indirectly, or enabling the City to fix the price or range of prices to be paid by the City for the future delivery of some or all of the commodity or the future cost to the City of an equivalent quantity of the commodity, where it is advantageous for the City to do so. The Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer is responsible for determining whether a particular commodity price hedging agreement is advantageous for the City, whereby the following considerations will be taken into account: (i) any and all projects of the City are projects for which commodity price hedging agreements will be appropriate; (ii) if, at the time, it is the opinion that fixed costs and estimated costs of the City will be reduced by virtue of the use of such an agreement; (iii) if, at the time, it is the opinion that the future price or cost to the City of the applicable commodity will be lower or more stable than it would be without the agreement; (iv) if, at the time, the project includes a detailed estimate of the expected result of using such an agreement; (v) if, at the time, it is the opinion that the financial and other risks to the City that would exist with the use of such an agreement, will be lower than the Policy Title: Commodity Price Hedging Policy Page 2 of 3 Policy Number: FIN 060 I { 25 financial and other risks to the City that would exist without such an agreement; (vi) if, at the time, it is the opinion that the agreement contains adequate risk control measures relating to such an agreement, such as: a) limited credit exposure based on credit ratings and/or on the degree of regulatory; b) oversight and/or on the regulatory capital of the other party to the agreement; c) a standard agreement; or d) ongoing monitoring with respect to the agreement. 03 Authority The, Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, or designate, is authorized to enter into contracts for the purpose of engaging a Contract Agent to acquire a Commodity. 04 Responsibility The Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer or Manager, Supply & Services, in conjunction with the Senior Purchasing Analyst, are responsible for the application, implementation and interpretation of this policy. 05 Reporting Requirements The Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer shall report to Council at least once each fiscal year with respect to any and all commodity price hedging agreements in place. The report shall contain, as a minimum, all requirements as set out in O. Reg. 653/05 of the Municipal Act. Policy Title: Commodity Price Hedging Policy Page 3 of 3 Policy Number:) FIN 060 ATTACHMENT# TO REPORT#_L_og- (0 ~ 26 November 2009 L A C Local Authority J-~~ Services Ltd. LAS Electricity Program Pricing Details for Pool 1/2/3 Purchase Calendar Year 2010 This purchase included 58 municipalities for a 12 month term, commencing on January 1, 2010 and continuing to December 31. Of the 58 municipalities, 6 are new members of the LAS program and 52 are current members with hedges ending at December 31, 2009. This purchase reflects the blending of our Pool 1, 2 & 3 groups into a single aggregated group. The only other LAS purchasing group (Pool 4 with 17 municipalities) will be rolled into the larger group at the end of their current purchase term in December 2010, resulting in additional buying power for all program members. The purchase price was $37.55/MW (7x24 block). Unless a different hedge amount has been chosen, LAS has hedged 75% of each program member's electricity requirement at the above noted price; this leaves a minimum of 25% of total exposure to the spot market, which provides municipalities with flexibility in terms of consumption and prevents any claim of speculation. For all hedged electricity - 75% of total requirements unless advised otherwise: The new contract cost of power for members for 2010 is $39.05/MWh or 3.9050/kWh; this price includes all program fees as outlined in the Agency Agreement between each municipality and LAS. For usage left to spot market - 25% or greater, depending on municipal choice: It is impossible to predict this figure given that it is dependant on the supply and demand of electricity on a day by day basis, but spot market (HOEP) prices have averaged 4.2820/kWh over the past 24 months - November 2007 to October 2009. Similar HOEP pricing during this purchase term should produce commodity only cost savings of 2.60/kWh compared to the Regulated Price Plan (RPP). Although there will be points during the purchase term when the HOEP cost of electricity may be lower than the hedge contract, LAS program members are ensuring budgetable and predictable commodity pricing by hedging a portion of required electricity. In addition, some spot market exposure for all accounts ensures that these savings opportunities are being leveraged. Expected Commodity Savings (7x24 usage) Block, ; Volume Price (c/kWh) Hedge Purchase Price (including program fees) 3.905 75% of Load 2.93 Avg. HOEP (1) 4.282 25% of Load 1.07 Expected Cost = Purchase Price + Spot (2) 100% of Load 4.00 RPP (3) 6.60 Expected Commodity Only Savings (cents/kWh) 2.60 Notes: 1) The HOEP price is reflective of the average HOEP from November 2007 to October 2009. Past averages are not always indicative of future performance. 2) This does not include any Provincial Benefit (charges/credits). 3) The RPP presented is an average price of the two-tiers based on typical municipal account usage. Page 1 27 Streetlight Accounts: The streetlight accounts of all program members will settle at the prevailing HOEP rate as this is the best cost saving option for program members. The reason for low market prices for streetlight accounts is that these lights are in operation when demand for power is typically low, and with a low demand comes advantageous "off-peak" power prices. For the November 2007 to October 2009 period the average streetlight commodity price was 3.330/kWh (see note 4 below). Similar pricing for the purchase term would result in commodity only savings of 3.270/kWh compared to current RPP prices. Expected Streetlight Savings HOEP (c/kWh) Avg. HOEP (4)(5) 3.33 RPP (6) ; 6.60 Expected Commodity Only Savings (cents/kWh) 3.27 Notes: 4) Average HOEP price is reflective of the average streetlight cost based on the Hydro One Networks OEB approved streetlight profile for November 2007 to October 2009. Savings within different LDC service areas may vary. 5) This does not include any Provincial Benefit (charges/credits) or OPG Rebate dollars. .6) The RPP presented is an average price of the two-tier price based on a typical streetlight account usage. Current RPP Price - at November 1, 2009: The new RPP rate for non-residential consumers (including municipalities) is: - Up to 750 kWh - 5.80/kWh - Additional Usage - 6.70/kWh This new RPP price represents an increase of 0.1 cents/kWh for both pricing tiers compared to the May-November 2009 period price. Note that the RPP ended at November 1, 2009 for municipal accounts with annual consumption of greater than 250, 000kWh. Accounts that exceed this volume threshold, and which are not enrolled with a retailer program (like the LAS program), will now be billed at less budgetable spot market rates. The LAS program is unaffected by changes to the RPP, and was created specifically to help municipalities proactively exit the RPP and take control of their energy costs by providing budgetable energy commodity costs. Page 2 I 28 5x16 Hedge - Only for members .with identified interval meter accounts: The cost of the "peak load" (5x16) power purchase was $48.20/MWh or 4.820/kWh; this price includes all program fees as outlined in the Agency Agreement between each municipality and LAS. The hedge provides designated interval meters with a 75% level of coverage for "peak period" consumption (Monday-Friday - 7am to 11pm). Usage over and above the 75% level in peak hours will be settled at the HOEP. It is impossible to predict the spot price as noted above, but the peak HOEP price averaged 5.270/kWh from November 2007 to October 2009. All Usage outside of this peak period (i.e. nights and weekends) is "off-peak", and will be settled 100% at the prevailing HOEP. The average off-peak HOEP average for the same period was 3.270/kWh.. Similar HOEP pricing during this purchase term would produce savings of approx. 2.26¢/kWh for all interval meter usage compared to the RPP. Across all enrolled interval metered accounts, the 5x16 hedge purchase represents 36% total usage coverage (all hours). Expected Commodity Savings 5x16 usage) Block Volume Price c/kWh Hedge Purchase Price (including program fees) 4.82 36% of Total Load 74 (75% of Peak Load) Avg. HOEP (7) 4.06 64% of Total Load 2.60 Expected Cost = Purchase Price + Spot (8) 100% of Load 4.34 RPP (9) 6.60 Expected Commodity Only Savings (cents/kWh) 2.26 . Notes: 7) The average (HOEP) price is reflective of the blended on/off peak weighted spot market price for the period of Nov 2007 to Oct 2009. Past averages are not indicative of future performance 8) This does not include any Provincial Benefit (charges/credits). 9) The RPP presented is an average price of the two-tiers based on typical municipal account usage. I Page 3 2 9 ATTACHMENT # TO REPORT # C S a T' / U t° m v Y c m fa m ~ O -FO u Y L c LL m C C N O O N N L= E E O _ .aL d N -O_ O C Y m E O O O N S 4 co u i oD « J J N W E mL N N 00 C N C L ~J C m m am+ in w -o O L L O..C -O g o o u co w u c~ E H c c_ -c u o L a o 3 voi voi Y o °0 3 m C 6 O T w w 6 w .T O w w C L >m Ol o o 0 0 0 o = o o 0£= - m 0 a 2 ai J m m ~ n z n 'o n a 0 v m - U a 0 -j c c o c c a c -c -c c c c •n c c v o n o c c J N O 3 3 y 3 3 3 3 3 3 s n 3 0 3 3 L. 0 a °O "v i°- fo- to- H H vii o H Z) U ~c H o ~n ~ n w m o ' v v b ~ ~ rv m G O z m }A N m O T 1 m n C ~ O u i 2 Y Z a N G/ K •C N u r O c m w w V O N 0 t/'1 C7 2 cc N in in > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n n n n o- : a a p- L L L L L L L L C C C C C C C C m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CNJ C Q x 12 Y ~ >V N N O~'~`~~ Y E m o 2 aci > c °C m = u v `l Y oo - o ~ - v d N E y E U m Y O Y L p v o m v - c m L u" 3 y c° o o j-° > m °1 0 •o v c v o c i E m G N N F d y> Y N O M N p> i' >.o v E °c c n Se N Y m 0 m u u w O MO m 7 m i m m y 0 0 0 0 0 0 m m m m m a a n n n n V a n .Q n So 0 0 0 0 0 1'8 0 0 0 0 0 0 116 J:E s JL L m I:E = c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c LLI 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 LLI 2 2 2 2 2 H H H F H t°- F FO- FO- H 10- H N b N op T O N M p b 1~ ap O1 O N M Q In b -I~ e0 O~ O Q N N N N M M M M M M M ~'f M M C O R Q V er e} er O V ut ' J v ~ c v v~ O _ C O1 7 Q C m C -O -O C S O c m o ~n w O w w t! 0 p t M= C C C u m w T O E U a+ N W O 2 O C 2 O Ol m C J N m Y .II OD n v 7 v m x ur c L Q m U G 0 2 J p_ 'j C N y p N i c w c o o o o o o o o E u v f0 v c c m w U o a 3>> 86 m` o Y 0 U v H o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o F a S. S.°° a .L .L O O o O O O o - u u u V u u u u O C C C C c c c c f6 .C 'C c c C C c c +T+ aT+ Y ate. aT+ +T+ +T. ° 7 3 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 3 7 7 7 uuvvu'vv'vvuuU, UOUOuu N M V H b n b T O ti ff C ~l b n n ti N N N N N N ATTACHMENT #-.4.-TO REPORT #-a5-.0 S Excerpt from Municipal Act, 2001, Ontario Regulation 653/05 30 Debt-Related Financial Instruments and Financial Agreements COMMODITY PRICE HEDGING AGREEMENTS Commodity price hedging agreements 5. (1.) A municipality that has entered, or plan to enter, an agreement under Part 11 of the Act for the supply of a commodity required for a municipal system may enter into one or more financial agreements to minimize the cost or financial risk associated with incurring debt for the commodity. O. Reg. 653/05,s 5(1). (2) The financial agreement must fix, directly or indirectly, or enable the municipality to fix the price or range of prices to be paid by the municipality for the future delivery of some or all oflthe commodity or the future cost to the municipality of an equivalent quantity of the commodity. O. Reg. 653/05,s 5(2). (3) Subject to subsection (4), the municipality shall not sell or otherwise dispose of the financial agreement or any interest of the municipality in the agreement.. O. Reg. 653/05,s 5(3). (4) The municipality may sell or dispose of the financial agreement or an interest of the municipality in the agreement, if in the opinion of the Treasurer of the municipality, the sale or disposition is in the best interests of the municipality and if either of the following conditions is satisfied: 1. The sale or disposition is part , of a transaction for the sale of real property by the municipality relating to a change in the use of the property by the municipality. 2. The municipality has ceased to carry on any activity relating to the municipal system for which the commodity was being acquired. O. Reg. 653/05,s 5(4). Statement of Commodity Price Hedging Policies and Goals 6. (1) Before a municipality passes a by-law authorizing a commodity price hedging agreement, the council of the municipality shall adopt a statement of policies and goals relating to the use of financial agreements to address commodity pricing and costs. O. Reg. 653/05,s 6(1) (2) The council of the municipality shall consider the following matters when preparing the statement of policies and goals: i 1. The types of projects for which commodity price hedging agreements are appropriate. 2. The fixed costs and estimated costs of the municipality resulting from the use of such agreements. 3.' Whether the future price or cost to the municipality of the applicable commodities will be lower or more stable than it would be without the agreements. 4. A detailed estimate of the expected result of using such agreements. 5. The financial and other risks to the municipality that would exist with and without the use of such agreements. 31 6. Risk control measures relating to such agreements, such as: (i) credit exposure based on credit ratings and on the degree of regulatory oversight and on'the regulatory capital of the other party to the agreement, (ii) standard agreements, and (iii) ongoing monitoring with respect to the agreements. O. Reg. 653/05,s,6(2). Report on commodity price hedging agreements 7. (1) If a municipality has any subsisting commodity price hedging agreements in a fiscal year, the of the Treasurer of the municipality shall prepare and present to the municipal council once in that fiscal year, or more frequently if Council so desires, a detailed report on all of those agreements. O. Reg. 653/05,s 7(1). (2) The report must contain the following information and documents: 1. A statement about the status of the agreements during the period of the report, including a comparison of the expected and actual results of using the agreements. 2. A statement by the Treasurer indicating whether, in his or her opinion, all of the agreements entered during the period of the report are consistent with the municipality's statement of policies and goals relating to the use of financial agreements to address commodity pricing and costs. 3. Such other information as the council may require. 4. Such other information as the Treasurer considers appropriate to include in the report 0. Reg. 653/05,s 7(2). I City n0 Report To PICKERING Executive Committee ' Report Number: CS 11710 Date: May 10, 20,10 32 From: Gillis A. Paterson Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Subject: Cash Position Report as at December 31, 2009 Recommendation: It is recommended that report CS 11-10 from the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer regarding cash position as at December 31, 2009 be received for information. Executive Summary: The attached schedules provide the City of Pickering's cash position, continuity of taxes receivable, outstanding investments, development charges collected and other development contribution information for the six months ended December 31, 2009. In summary, the global economic downturn has had adverse effects on our operations in 2009. Tax arrears are slightly up over 2008. Development charges collected are up over the same period in 2008 but total 2009 collections are down by almost 150% . compared to the total collections in 2008. Building permits issued in 2009 are likewise down by about 62% compared to 2008 making this the year with the fewest permits issued in the last 9 years. The City's investment portfolio remains well balanced although yields dropped considerably in the last year, especially for the short term investments (Current Operating Fund). Financial Implications: The cash position of the Corporation for six months ended December 31, 2009 was a net increase in cash of $4,758,648 to $8,030,555. Sources of Funds totalled $110,900,119 and Uses of Funds totalled $106,141,471. Sustainability Implications: This report does not contain any sustainability implications. n Report CS 11-10 Date: May 10, 2010 Subject: Cash Position Report as at December 31,2009 Page 2 33 Background: This report presents a six-month period of activity ending December 31, 2009. The discussion below describes the purpose and the information contained in each of the attached schedules. Statement of Cash Position: Attachment 1 reflects the City's sources and uses of funds for the second half of 2009. Subcategories have been identified to highlight those cash transactions that are material in nature or with large dollar values for the City. Over the last six months, the schedule summarizes the increase in cash of $4,758,648 from $3,271,907 to $8,030,555. Although the 2009 year end balance is approximately $3.6 million more than the 2008 balance, year to year periodical comparison may not be useful due to the timing differences of receipts and disbursements which is typical in any government or business. Continuity of Taxes Receivable: Attachment 2 summarizes the tax related transactions from July 1 to December 31, 2009 and provides the outstanding taxes receivable as at December 31, 2009. The total balance represents all three levels of taxes billed which include the City, Region and School Boards. This total has increased over the past several years but differences may vary where due dates and amounts for supplementary billings change from year to year. Current year's taxes receivable of about $7.8 million is approximately 4.8% (2008 - 4.4%, 2007 - 4.3%, 2006 - 4.2%) of the $163.0 million total faxes billed as at December 31, 2009. The total outstanding balance of $17.1 million is approximately 10.5% (2008 - 9.2%, 2007 - 8.7%, 2006 - 8.2%) of the $163.0 million total taxes billed in 2009. Outstandinq Investments: Attachment 3 reflects the short- and long-term investments for both Current and Reserve Funds outstanding as at December 31, 2009. Total investments vary from year to year depending on the timing of the collection and remittance of development charges and supplementary taxes. Total investment portfolio as at December 31, 2009 is $62.0 million with $2.3 million coming from internal loans and $59.7 million from general investments. Note that interest rates in general on both short- and long-term investments are down vis-a-vis prior year. Development Charges Collected: As the City is responsible for the collection of development charges on behalf of all levels of government, Attachment 4 shows the total amounts collected for the City, Region and School Boards. The total collection amount of $2,094,665 as reported under the Sources of Funds on Attachment 1 does not match the remittance amounts to the Region and School Boards indicated under the Use of Funds also in Attachment 1. This variance is a result of timing differences in payments to the Region and School Boards as monies become due 25 days following the month of collection. Report CS 11-10 Date: May 10, 2010 Subject: Cash Position Report as at December 31, 2009 Page 3 34 Other Development Contributions: Attachment 5 is provided to show other significant development contributions received in 2009. Multi Year Receipts: The balance of the Attachments shows multi year receipts of the City's portion of development charges. The collections for 2009 have decreased by 54.4% or $1,317,412 from $2,422,276 in 2008 to $1,104,861 in 2009. Note that this year's collection shows the lowest City portion of development charges in the last 18 years. Similarly, building permits issued during 2009 have decreased by 38.1 % or 249 from 653 in 2008 to 404 in 2009. Again, total permits issued in 2009 was the fewest in the last nine years. Attachments: 1. Statement of Cash Position 2. Continuity of Taxes Receivable 3. Outstanding Investments 4. Statement of Development Charges Collected 5. Other Development Contributions 6. Building Permits Issued 2000 - 2009 7. City Portion of Development Charges Collected 1991-2009 Prepared By: Approved / Endorsed By: Dennis P. Arboleda Gillis A. Paterson Supervisor, Accounting Services Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer :da Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City C u cil T ma J. Quin DM , CMM III Chief Administra ve Officer ATTACHMENT#,L.TO REPORT#-Lj! - io City of Pickering Cash Position Statement 35 for six months ending December 31, 2009 Sources of Funds: Accounts Receivable collected $ 709,709 Development charges collected 2,094,665 Operating 32,520,347 Grants-in-lieu: Federal 1,199,874 Provincial 1,259,162 Ontario enterprises 7,513,777 Municipal enterprises 1,502,923 Linear Properties 2,011,235 Federal specific grants 28,364 Ontario specific grants 282,651 Interest Income 422,511 Sale of land 175,000 Tax payments received 61,042,240 POA Revenue - 137,661 Total $ 110,900,119 Use of Funds: Operating and Capital Expenditures $ 36,490,524 Payroll 17,957,741 Region Levy 28,238,445 Regional portion of Dev. Charges 729,854 School Board Levies 20,880,978 School Board portion of Dev. Charges 68,697 Debenture payment to Region 1,775,232 Total $ 106,141,471 Net Cash Increase (Decrease) $ 4,758,648 FINANCIAL POSITION Bank Balance Net Cash Bank Balance Jul 1, 2009 Provided Used December 31, 2009 Current Fund $ 3,271,907 $ 4,758,648 $ 8,030;555 TOTAL $ 3,271,907 $ 4,758,648 $ 8,030,555 Note: Includes City, Region and School Boards Cash Position Dec 2009NET CHANGES ATTACHMENT#_ 2- TO REPORT #-LS-j 16 d Q~ M~ ~ O Lo (D r` N 0 f` J _ OC co co O O O N M O N OD O co 36 O ~ (O O V L1~ 0 111i d: ~ ~ > N C co r- Lo Lo O N (D (D v d M U r` OD 0 V) (D N 00 (D r` ~ r c) ; r- N• ti IT 00 M 00 N O x E 0) V 'C N M (D C M O O V O O C) 1A O C Lo 0 L(') M 0 L(') - N N N w N Ri "a, m O O W ti (D 0 a- ~ r- O U 0 d O(-VLr Ln I~i (D O L c r; N (D (D 00 r` P Lo L(7 O r 0 _ N fA r` M 00 N N v 04 ^ O C) O O E to to C) c r 04 =3 (L (L C N C 0 +S+ (p N O O E (ten V C co ce r- O m r Ln 00 N U 0 E (S E K 0 O 00 0) Ln 00 U N O ,N Q 06 > O Q r` o N Q 0 ((D O O 000 O 00 N (Q * c7 Il- (D co N N cl~ (6 0) O N 0-0 C .0- C Ln co a N O d m 64 ` E (n r r L L) -0 > U Q X t9 a) Z N C) N M 0O N N (O N U pl- (D ccO O Q t6 06 d d ~ ti -=3 O p X EA 0 01 N m m M M ` -O O N N N m 0 E c: E N O N M a (D r` Lo Lo co co U v p d M - (D Lo - co Z' v p 00 N N r O m co +R C r N C: 0) Q O 0) VO ti (O ti = C) N N t` N N m= E O E a) 0) _ r E m a co N 4) (a Q~ (n a r+ +J _C =3 w = C LL U) EA Q I- V Lo O Ln N (D rn 00 r. C ti M M N IT O rn r` v w r O O C1 r` 00 N N Nll;;~ N M Oo rn It E O ti (D Lo co 0 0 0) N 0 M clO) N e- ! Lo IT m m NT 0 ti ti (D ~ le U y (V co O N M N Lo a) ) 7 r N r r r Q 7 O 4 N p a C (D N c 7 O 0) N w (n (n U) N N N N N C L L) O a) a) a) m a) E a o C C C C C - M cu 06 N N N N N ` N N L0 r N X - O co c N N a`)) N N M N (0 N N J m •L C Q •O N X C X C X C X C X C N (a a) O cc N m a) CD N N N a) F a) F- d 00 F- a 00 F- d C) I- a ° F- d p C) cu m ate) U 04 04 04 1-11 N F- F- (n ATTACHMENT #_,~_TO REPORT #.C.J(, 10 3.7 (n w a, N C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O _ O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O D U ` c o . ooooo.oo o OOoov6wc)000oO co co d N c)O O 0000 O to O O O O O VIO 0 0 0 0 0 O O 07 0000000 O WOOOOONOOOOOO CD W L. 0) U) Ld N O(o O d7 M 00 COO(o~ (n MOOOOMO N N V r 7 r Lo O O CD N 00 a M (O w (n M O O N N O I- M m m O Q. M (3 (6 O 00 N N 0) (D P_ CD CD N (n N I--O W O W M O O N r Co p > > M N N M W M M N (V V N M ~ N_ CV N M M M N C ~ ~ N C d (A 64 (n to V 64 va c U a o!S o(S warn _H Cl o n N M °6 N 0 y a> co 2 (L W N O w a w U) co ~ M N 00 (D 0) ¢ U) Z U) 0 U) ° 0 ¢ y - cu O lC w O O a) ao ao .6 06 .6 C.6 ° 06 o($ -a ¢1 Q Q U 3k 000 U) 0) 00 J 00 co r U) (n fn O z W ¢Q} ¢ F-F- 0 co I-O V'0M N L2g°200 I~vaOV(DOOM T7 J Z F- z z (o a+ y cl) ~ N co N Q¢ Q¢ ¢ m¢ Q¢ W W W 0) cy) N) O O d7 L 00 ~ O 0) D D Z) D D Z O (n N - O Z Z Z Z Z J z z z ct M Z Z Z Z Z z¢ z z Z m m m C R i 55 QQ Q 0 Q= Q¢ Q I~ -a o_-°---aaa _ ~ 2 2 D 2 w~~~ w w w wwwwOwwwwwF-F-F- u~ (n (n (n U U (n ~ (n (n m U N U F- O N M O M O N O M CD V r- 0 0 0 0 0 0 w O (n - (D M N CD r I~ n r N N 00 Cl O N O O O Co o! O O (D to N (n 0 r r N'T rn IT O O O (_n O O O 'a Co Co M N 00 O 00 N W N 00 0) M M 0 0) M 0 0 O O O (O D. O O O V' N O co N C m M (D - O M N O O O O O O O I M Co 'V 0 O 0) 0) 00 O n M O V' M to -7 0) O O N O M O h W C O O O M (n 00 V. M ~ NON- M O N I- O t-M N O O) E f~ N d7 CO I~ to (D N O M O- ITO O O O O N O N a Q M N N M 06 M M A c \f N cr) _ N C N M (M N O N N M (n I (fl fA ffl EA (s 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o0 0 -0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 y M N M 0) O (n M r O co N O (n O Ul) O O ` O N N N N N f_ 0) I- O (n N N M M O O 0) O N O R M 0 0 0 0 O O O M M~ M (n M N M N N N d' ~ _O O O O O O O O O O O O M M N (D M N M i ` i ` i~ ~ i ~ i ~ i i i e-• i ~ i i d U 2] L1 C C U a a U 0) U_ U_ (d O 00 (O N 6 M oo c6 N 0o T p) N co (D co co U) N M N O N O O N O O O O O N O d O M O O O M O) O) oo ao ao D) d7 ao d) d7 d7 O O U) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 gad L>>>>UU L >,6 > j 6 c c as t« 0) 0 0 0 0 0 0) (a 0 m o 0 0) 0 0 7 0 0) U v (nzzzz°° ~ozcncn0 M (O w m Iq N O N C6 4 O 6 w w O N M N CL N O O N N N M N_ 0 0 0 O- - O N O F- F- Z 00 0 j O Z ~ Z Z (n F- F- ¢W F- QFr 0 U) 0 Q_ W ZJQ~¢JJ 2 O d » Z~OZOOO~w(D co COi W 00 0z-0oz°J°~F- F- o U U U) LL LL F- F- ¢ z z z z z a v~cn Y Z ~p~00zz°000¢00 LL 0 E E- D Z W E W O =WOO ° 2 2= 2 2 2 z a N yw¢CD00¢m yZwpzOLL LL OwOOp000 (a z C(n(nU(n(ncoU) W EOcnz000UZZZOzz N 0 azz°_°zzz~ ? w awzQwwwm¢¢¢o:¢Q > 2 mmUmmm(i 2 r- IL mUaa.awmmL)(L z h N LL 2 F- (i F- aJ W W d 2 z W ui N ~ d 4' W p Z Z y y y y y y y > 0 0 y 0 0 y 0 0 0 y y y W 2 y c c` c F- Z d c c c c c c c c` c c c c F- F- y 3 y 7 0 0 0 co 7 y>>> 7 7 7 7 7 7> j 7 7 - N > Z a) W w co co co m co co O co co co co m co co co co co co co co z W - ie _ O ~ 06 F- a a N F- a s.0 a m m m m m~.0 .0 .0 J Z F- ~ y y y y y y y J ~ y y y y y y y y y y y y y J J m y N 0) N 0) N 0) N Q L7 d 0) N O N N 0) Q Q c ` Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 z ` Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z F - N v O O V O O I ATTACHMENT # TO REPORT # r.5 iv 38 c m o . d V N O _ co ti 00 M w 00 00 U .z 00 0 LO rn co 0) 0 C) CD LO r- 0) N O cf) N O N ~ N N O N G U-t _ co o v G1 c s ca d o V m co v (D N M N LO d N E O M N I~ t O E x -a 04 O m N M M a) (D N E C r ate-C6 L6 t t 3 V R t 0) co C) co CY) O LO cD ( o V- r r N CY) O d C O r LO CY) W) G O N M O a 64). O U') N r- W) U1 I- C ~ O N' N M U7 O r U O W H U W J 0 N U E J H z o a) ~ Q m >1 0) 0 ~ ¢ in O z o ~ a ATTACHMENT# 5 TO REPORT#-LL)l - /o N 39 L C O U L 0 CY) 0 0 N U C) 0 O O O 0 V' ~ C r N O Jc ff3 EA V M a O p .0 U V E: G1 U 4) 4) E a O c a~ `m O E x •N O v c , cn a 0 a~ J C W Z M Z_ O M ' x F U N M Q m V J O O V ~ ATTACHMENT#-.~--TO REPORT#.C,~l/ / U 40 as E N a U c y- (D O O N O O O Z N V / O O O N O ° N o 0 o 1 N N ° co 0. O ° N O M cm O ° 0 c- N 04 N ° O N 00 V- ~ O O W O O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O LO O M O M O LO O M O M O LO O LO O U) 0) 00 00 1- 1- (0 t0 M LO d M CO) N N r r 4 1 ATTACHMENT # TO REPORT #.l f' 1 U t ~ 60 a °°o _ 9° - o ~ O 40 4- A U °e O to d7 eo, 0 C41, O z 0°° CL ~ ~ O os ~ 96 O spot O o~ o~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD CD CD CD w CD to o ° o w ~ M M N N = r ~itq Report To Executive Committee PICKERING Report Number: CS 12-10 Date: May 10, 2010 42 From: Gillis A. Paterson Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Subject: Request by SR&R Bay Ridges Ltd. to Defer Payment of Development Charges Recommendation: 1. That Report CS 12-10 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be received; and, 2. That the request by SR&R Bay Ridges Ltd. to defer the payment of Development Charges be denied. Executive Summary: SR&R Bay Ridges Ltd., in its letter of March 17, 2010 to the Chief Administrative Officer, has requested that they be allowed to defer payment of the City portion their Development.Charges to assist them financially with this project. This request, which has its merits for the requesting party, could be requested by all individuals and companies required to pay Development Charges. Any person or company would rather defer an obligation to pay a sum to a later date. . The Recommendation is to deny the request as it is not based on any exceptional circumstances or broad community interest or benefit as would usually be the basis for such a request. Financial Implications: There are no financial implications for the City upon approval of the Recommendation. Sustainability Implications: This report does not contain any sustainability implications. Report CS 12-10 Date: May 10, 2010 Subject: Request by SR&R Bay Ridges Ltd. Page 2 3 to Defer Payment of Development Charges Background: The Council of the City of Pickering adopted the Report CS 26-09 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer on the 2009 Development Charges Study. Included in this Report was By-law No. 6978/09 which included how and when Development Charges are applicable and payable, including the following: "Section 17 Development charges are payable by cash or certified cheque at the rates in effect at the time of payment upon issuance or the building permit(s) or as otherwise may be approved by Council." Many municipal Development Charge By- laws contain such a provision to provide Councils with very limited discretionary powers in this regard. Limited so as to not be taken lightly or abused but a provision nonetheless so that Councils could exercise some discretion when it was in the municipality's interest to do so. Typically a Council will consider a request to defer the payment of Development Charges when it is in the broader community interest to do so. A deferral might be sought on the basis of serving a particular community goal or objective. The only recent request for a deferral was from Options for Homes to assist the development company in providing affordable housing. The Council agreed that it was in the City's interest to provide limited support and agreed. In the specific request before us the Company has requested a deferral to assist them, presumably, in meeting cash flow requirements. They are requesting deferral to the earlier of six months after the commencement of foundation construction or when above grade work commences. The amount requested to be deferred is $1,069,361 being the City's charges only. Total Development Charges payable to the City, Region and School Boards is $3,108,975. From a financial perspective it is not whether or not such a deferral would cost the City, as the loss of interest would not be significant at today's rates, but rather is it a good business practice to grant such requests simply because they are made. The precedent that would be set is not one the City can support financially. This request, which has its merits for the requesting party, could be requested by all individuals and companies required to pay development charges. Any person or company would rather defer an obligation to pay a sum to any later date. No community interest or City objectives would be met by granting the request, therefore, it is recommended to be denied. Report CS 12-10 Date: May 10, 2010 Subject: Request by SR&R Bay Ridges Ltd. Page 3 to Defer Payment of Development Charges 44 Attachments: 1. Letter dated March 17, 2010 from SR&R Bay Ridges Ltd. Prepared By: Approved / Endorsed By: Gillis A. Paterson Gillis A. Paterson Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering Ci Cou i~ T o as J. Quinn DMR., MM III hief Administrat e Officer S R & R Bay Ridges Lt oR~G~~A~ C OR J COPY ATTACHMENT #J-TO REPORT#.z ' 10 To: CORR = ~ - City of Pickering March 17,20.11-07- Pickering Civic Centre One the Esplanade ~r . v y c~ KCPdr4" e Pickering, Ontario S Canada L1V 6K7 Attention: Mr. Thomas J. Quinn Chief Administrative Officer f Dear Sirs Re: San Francisco by the Bay - Deferral of Development Levies We are proceeding with development of our San Francisco by the Bay 16 storey residential condominium tower, and have recently filed our building permit application with the City. The project involves substantial underground construction. We are requesting that the City defer the payment of its development charges until six months after the commencement of foundation construction, or until we commence work above grade. This will assist us in proceeding with this important project. City staff has advised that the City's development charges by-law requires payment prior to issuing our foundation permit, unless Council approves otherwise and advises staff accordingly. Please accept this letter as my request, pursuant to section 17 of by-law 6978/09, that Council approve the deferral of the City development charges applicable to our 16 storey tower project. We would request that the charges be payable the earlier of six months after the commencement of foundation construction, or when we commence work above grade, instead of prior to underground construction. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. I would be pleased to provide anything further to assist in Council's approval of this request, as necessary. Yours Truly SR & R Bay Ridges Ltd. Per: Steven Warsh 150 Ferrand Drive, Suite 801, Toronto, ON M3C 3E5 Tel: 416-649-4470 Fax: 416-497-3809 Report To Executive Committee TAT 1 ICKERI G Report Number: CS 14-10 Date: May 10; 2010 46 From: Gillis A. Paterson Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Subject: Development Charges Reserve Fund - Statement of the Treasurer for 2009 Recommendation: That Report CS 14-10 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer respecting the Development Charges Reserve Fund be received for information. Executive Summary: Section 43 of the Development Charges Act, 1997 (Act) requires that the Treasurer furnish to Council a Statement in respect of each Reserve Fund (i.e. for each Development Charge) established under Section 33 of the Act. Accordingly, the enclosed Attachments 1 to 5 details the activity in the Development Charges Reserve Fund for the year ended December 31, 2009 in the manner as prescribed by the Act. As required under Section 43(3) of the Act, the Treasurer will be forwarding a copy of this same.Statement to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing within 60 days upon furnishing the Statement to the Council. Financial Implications: There are no financial implications associated with this report. Sustainability Implications: The availability of funding from Development Charges Reserve Funds assists in sustaining infrastructure related to growth. Background: Funds are not transferred out of the Development Charges Reserve Fund for projects until the funds are actually needed, as required under accounting rules, which ensures that the Reserve Fund continues to earn interest income on these unspent monies until such time that the actual expenses are incurred. Attachment 1 presents the total Reserve Fund balance under "Fund Balance - Prior to Budget Commitments" of $27,714,332. Taking into account the "Budget Commitments" as at December 31, 2009 of $3,442,897 the "Fund Balance - After Budget Commitments" available for future expenditures is $24,271,435. Report CS 14-10 Date: May 10, 2010 Subject: Development Charges Reserve Fund - Statement Page 2 of the Treasurer for 2009 47 The development charges collected in 2009 were $1,104,861 a decrease of 54% from amounts collected in 2008 ($2,422,276). This significant decrease is a reflection of the economic times that we had experienced in 2009. Attachment 2 provides a chart showing the 10-year historical pattern of the development charges collected, notably the sharp decline starting from 2005 and continuing in 2009 compared to those collected in 2003 and 2004 due to the limited land available for development in Pickering. The cumulative total collected for this 10-year period was $22,378,969. The 2009 budgeted and additional funding as approved by Council from this Reserve Fund was $1,376,300 as detailed on Attachment 3. The capital and current expenditures actually incurred in 2009 that were funded from this Reserve Fund amounted to $798,614 (see Attachment 4). These expenditures pertained to capital and current projects approved in 2005 to 2009. Attachment 4 provides a summary by projects of these expenditures funded by development charges and other sources as prescribed by O.Reg. 82/98 Section 12(3). In 2009, the City undertook a 10-year internal loan from this Reserve Fund in the amount of $500,000 for the Associated Tools & Equipment related to the Fire Heavy Rescue Vehicle. Attachment 5 provides detailed information on repayments pertaining to internal loans undertaken from 2001 to 2009. As of December 31, 2009, the total outstanding internal loans undertaken from 2001 to 2009 are $2,244,209 (see Attachment 5). The principal and interest of $1,179,958 paid in 2009 as indicated on Attachment 5 are related to 2001 to 2007 internal loans. This amount was funded from the general tax levy. This Attachment also provides a summary of amount and source of any money used by the municipality to repay money borrowed from the fund and interest on such money as required by O.Reg. 82/98 Section 12(2)3,4,5. Caution has to be used when budgeting for draws for capital projects due to the limited availability of land in Pickering and the uncertainty of economic times ahead of us. Attachments: 1. 2009 Annual Statement of Development Charges Reserve Fund 2. Development Charges Collected 1999 - 2009 3. Projects Approved in 2009 to be Funded from Development Charges Reserve Fund 4. 2009 Actual Capital and Current Expenditures Summarized by Projects 5. Development Charges Reserve Fund Internal Loans - Annual Repayment for the Year Ended December 31, 2009 Date: May 10, 2010 Report CS 14-10 Subject: Development Charges Reserve Fund - Statement Page 3 of the'Treasurer for 2009 48 Prepared By: Approved / Endorsed By: Caryn Kong Gillis A. Paterson Senior Financial Analyst -Capital & Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Debt Management GP:ck Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering Cit nc ~2 T as J. ' n,, D C Chief Administrati Ve-Officer ATTACHMENT #-.L-To REPoRT#&5j4-to 49 LO 0) to (O Go N I~ In M 0 M N N 0 to CO co (D N GOD I m M p M 00 a C N (D N 00 N O O N 0 n W n N F- (D N n M N N N a dS y r N_ O M O 0 . N U) R t N O CA ('O D M (MD (MO C \f M (n M Lfi 0) 0) 4) 61): cl) c\l cl) (0 L6 o r LL I O LO O 00 0 M M a0 (n U C y 00 rn N O m d a) aD O N LO CA N (0 CA O OD O LO 0) r- zT co - O N N N O O C6 rl.: Q En o p N r 4j t0 r 00 0 LL O O _ 3 O LO 00 0 a) 0 C~ O M V cl) Q r-, Cri (fl ~ (O ago ado O (O' Vtn C1 N O E C7 r rn N N N m N c CL i O O O Y O N C \F a > d 0 y cCOn M 0 uO 00 O N 00 O co m, O) co O V N r O O O rl- a+ N E N ((D r r- O (O v O w ' O O O O O O co co M M d C W. 0 O 0 CA Q d O U, i 000 N 0 LO 0 N N 0 N cl) r (D o~j -O N (n (h ('7 CA C7 co V V (D V N H « (A M O N co m m (D (D O LO - It CY) co -6 It cm O N C C O CL M LL O' (n L O co (0D N m co 7 U) W O co N (D co co C6 U) (D LL 461 N U V.. > ro co V O N V 0 00 00 CA (D N O O N co N N V CO E ^ (p V N M M f~ O I~ LO co (o (R j v GNo v 0 N V > yi C D 9 N _ O 0: 0 a o ,rt T., w~ V W 0 > N M y M ~ r C U d 0 M y y Q 0 0 0 c: N o co (D E f E E _ co U Q c O > y y W y V O R N i 'D ~ d N i m cOi to o > U- 0 S :3 0 c « U) Q ° aUi m m X °x . m a( Q cc Q v m' Z a>> Z w 0 - C W U in in W N c w m; U m (o c; > co d m O a ! N CO O; 0 m S S Z F- W U U j LL m LL i ATTACHMENT#=TO REPORT 0 50 s V T u { O O i I { i O O 01 I Ln o - _ _ _T.. N : u i a ~ I s { C) a N W { i 4J ~ _ i ] i i i - 1 i { cn L* O O O O O O O O i (D CD CD O O O O O O O O O lfl O u'7 O Lrl O Ln ~ rr1 M N N ATTACHMENT#,!-TO REPORT #_r J 51 • Projects Approved in 2009 to be Funded from Development Charges Reserve Fund Source of Funding GL Dev. Charge D.C-City's Debt Other Total Account Res. Fund Share Res. Capital Budget External Subdivision( Roads ) RU-3 Sideline #4 to 1200m South 5321.0901 $190,000 $0 $680,000 $150,000 a $1,020,000 DH-5 De_rsan St-Tillings Rd to 200m E 5321.0902 92,600 17,000 0 109,600 DH-6 Dersan St-Brock Rd to 210m W 5321.0903 117,000 21,390 0 138,390 DH10 William Jackson Dr-Old Taunton to 300m S :5321.0904 236,800 43,275 280,075 Woodview Ave Urbanization Finch Av to Hydro Corridor 5321.0911 142,000 178,000 320,000 Total-Ext Subdivision (Roads) $778,400 $259,665 $680,000 $150,000 $1,868,065 External Subdivision ( Sidewalks & Streetlights ) BR-3 Brock Rd-3rd Conc to Dellbrock E side + Median 5321.0905 $177,500 $56,500 $165,000 $399,000 BR-5 Brock Rd-3rd Conc to Centennial Prk- W side 5321.0906 72,900 90,900 - 163,800 RO 8 Altona Rd-Kingston Rd to Sheppard Av-E side 5321.0907 54,000 77,300 131,300 RO-6 Altona Rd-Sidewalk in bridge 5321.0908 80,000 100,000 180,000 RO-6 Altona Rd-Sheppard Av to Strouds lane 5321.0909 105,000 130,000 235,000 Total-ExtSubdivision (Sidewalks&Streetlights) $489,400 $454,700 $165,000 $0 $1,109,100 External Subdivision ( Storm Water) ) BI-20 Krosno Creek Stormwater Facility K25 5321.0910 $0 $1,034,000 $716,000 b $1,750,000 Storm Water Management 0 Pine Creek S.__..~_ __._...w...•.~ m._._._ anitary Sewer 5410.0906 46,000 304,000 ° 350,000 Total-Storm Water $46,000 $0 $1,034,000 $1,020,000 $2,100,000 Parks Duffins Trails. As approved OES 46-09 5780.0504 15,000 90,000 d 105,000 Total-Parks $15,000 $0 $0 $90,000 $105,000 Total-Capital Budget $1,328,800 $714,365 $1,879,000 $1,260,0001 1 $5,182,165 Current Budget DC Study-Appeal 2126.2392 $10,000 $10,000 Library Master Plan 2745.2392 37,500 12,500 e 50,000 Total-Current Budget $47,500 $12,500 $60,000 Grand Total-Capital & Current Budget $1,376,300 $714,365 $1,879,000 $1,272,500 $5,242,165 Notes a Third Party Contribution. Approved under OES 34-09 b DC Funded Debt C Federal Gas Tax Reserve Fund d Parkland Reserve Fund e Property Taxes ATTACHMENT #--'~LTOREPORT #-.Li. lq-/a 52 co N co M va Ncorn r co N r- r- a co tm "t N GOO M N O Lo N w T co c60 r0 M N M r M I~ O O V r- M N co N N M a0 r . cC c0 'a to rN M O r d O M M LO 69 EA co O O E:p N r N N r V O C \L 613 EA ,e O N cm 661 6s ci Q WQ) 40- 0) r- LO r- 00 It I;r r- 6s r- 09 LD "t Gi r N N 0 d O O M c0 O C r 6s v a v c (D 6s c0 r LO LO 69 to ~ _ n O. X I ~ O F. iA a rn O Of) O 60 6 o 601 c L ° L6 LO LO > O M co cl) M Lr) O C cR 69 r L L t LO LO 60 69 6s 69 Ln O C Il' N R LL 6s LO LO ta L~ -19 N 61) N a ac U (D CY) a) 00 CL M cM0 N LO 0 0 T 669 N 6s co N O (D 6q r N p O f- T c) M M M CO LO M LO M tM cMO M d U 6s Ef? Q9 A\ ~ L N ~ L U) p n LO (D N (O O O C 1- LO O O O O O LO LO O Ln Ln O co co N r O O r CO O N N~ O (~O 000 N v m O v r- co N M ~O LL O _ O co co co r- co N 06 co W t d M N co 6 69, r Ln LO N N c0 f~ to fR O NE.FT N co U) > r cR n 60- N ti fn y rn N m "It co N c0 N N I~ N N N Ln O 6 O O N_ O O O O O O O O LOO Ln Ln LO f- f- Go au O r co co co Ln I- O O O O O O O O O O O N N N O O ~ 6N G°o N N N N N N N N N N T v r-4 x -J Q rr- M M M M M M M M co W f- Ln LO LO LO LO LOO Ln Ln m m LO N N N n LO O C o L Y LO m L O U Ln O Y + c O a U UO r~ j y co O 6 a, 'o > Y O N 7 2 O co 'OO iC 3 O c~`G Ln 7 2 C d ? cc:.. p U 'O C O O Om O d p~ d LL t ° O fG U) Z U) Q c L •75 ~ c c c 0 o o O t C 0 °C o cc v E m C OD V O O LL m d~ v Q 0 = U m aa Y O N> r W O 'D U) fY 'd d y c -0 Q) ~C ca co c Q o (D U o c) d co a .0 2 -0 3: N c m J v v O W a(n 0) U c CL co s; 75 S~ O Q m o -0 O N C a- Y Y O ao c LO 0 K 3 H c U o o m o - o o CD o co O = Y fn d 'O ~ Y H fn (n (n m ►O. N Fl J LO L a+ co ) N U a w M V F~- ATTACHMENT# S- TO REPORT# =4-14 53 Development Charges Reserve Fund Internal Loans - O.Reg. 82/98 Annual Repayment for the Year Ended December 31, 2009 S 12(2)3,4,5 - Outstanding Principal Outstanding Principal Repayment Principal Interest Loans Jan. 1, 2009 2009 Dec. 31, 2009 2009 Undertaken in 2001 Rosebank Road 214,300 (105,523) 108,777 (6,625) Eastshore Community Ctr 185,964 (91,571) 94,393 (5,749) Fire Tanker 37,859 (18,643) 19,216 (1,170) 1999 Roads Projects 222,636 (109,627) 113,009 (6,883) 2000 Roads Projects 198,345 (97,669) 100,676 (6,132) Aerial Truck 95,245 (46,899) 48,346 (2,944) Library-Western Branch 336,689 (165,789) 170,900 (10,409) 1,291,038 (635,721) 655,317 (39,912) Undertaken in 2002 Parks 70,849 (35,923) 34,926 (2,756) Sidewalks 35,653 (8,411) 27,242 (1,387) Storm Water Management 50,544 (15,989) 34,555 (2,758) Streetlight 15,906 (15,906) - (619) Arena & Recreation 25,140 (5,931) 19,209 (978) Roads 316,761 (74,730) 242,031 (12,320) 514,853 (156,890) 357,963 (20,816) Undertaken in 2003 Roads 55,772 (10,261) 45,511 (2,336) Rec.Complex-Core 4,176 (768) 3,408 (175) 59,948 (11,029) 48,919 (2,511) Undertaken in 2004 Parks 113,810 (16,999) 96,811 (4,973) Roads 12,879 (12,879) 0 (473) Streetlights (0) (0) - 126,689 (29,878) 96,811 (5,446) Undertaken in 2005 Roads 21,105 (10,392) 10,713 (652) Library 72,599 (35,749) 36,850 (2,244) Parks 27,435 (13,510) 13,925 (848) 121,139 (59,651) 61,488 (3,745) Undertaken in 2006 Protctive Srvcs (Fire) 23,958 (11,797) 12,161 (741) Protctive Srvcs (ByLaw) 41,664 (20,516) 21,148 (1,288) Transportation-Roads 15,624 (7,693) 7,931 (483) Parks 64,058 (31,543) 32,515 (1,980) Recreation Facilities 45,712 (14,719) 30,993 (1,596) 191,016 (86,268) 104,748 (6,088) Undertaken in 2007 Gen Govt(Civ Cmplx) 33,949 (4,233) 29,716 (1,528) Protctive Srvcs (Fire) 122,526 (28,906) 93,620 (4,765) Parks 193,445 (42,584) 150,861 (8,522) Rec Facilities (Arena & Cmmty Ctr) 168,635 (23,869) 144,766 (7,595) 518,555 (99,592) 418,963 (22,411) Undertaken in 2009 Fire(Tools & Equipment for Vehicle) 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 Total 3,323,238 (1,079,029) 2,244,209 (100,929) Source of Funding Gen. Tax Levy Annual Charges (Principal & Interest) (1,179,958) i Cis, Report To Executive Committee PICKERII G Report Number: CS 1'5-10 Date: May 10, 2010 i 54 From: Gillis A. Paterson Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Subject: 2010 Tax Rates for all Classes of Property and Final Tax Due Dates for All Realty Tax Classes Except for Commercial, Industrial & Multi-Residential Realty Classes Recommendation: .1. That Report CS 15-10 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be received; 2. That the 2010 tax rates for the City of Pickering be approved as contained in Schedule A of the By-law attached hereto; 3. That the tax levy due dates for the Final Billing be June 28, 2010 and September 28, 2010 excluding the industrial, multi-residential and commercial realty tax classes; 4. That the City of Pickering continue its policy of providing property tax relief to the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 483 (Claremont), for the City's share of property taxes for the taxation years 2010 to 2020; 5. That the attached By-laws providing for the imposition of the tax rates approved under Recommendation 1 and 4 above, be read three times and approved; 6. That the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be authorized to make any changes or undertake any actions necessary, including altering due dates, in order to ensure the tax billing process is completed; 7. That the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be authorized to make any changes to the final tax rates to comply with Provincial regulations; and, 8. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions to give effect thereto. Report CS 15-10 Date: May 10, 2010 Subject: 2010 Tax.Rates for all Classes of Property and Final Page 2 55 Tax Due Dates for All Realty Tax Classes Except for Commercial, Industrial & Multi-Residential Realty Classes Executive Summary: Adoption of the above Recommendations and the attached By-law provides for the approval of tax rates required to raise the levy approved in the 2010 Current Budget of the City of Pickering and to levy taxes for School Boards and for the Region of Durham. Financial Implications: Adoption of the recommendations and passing the By-law will allow staff of the Corporate Services Department to bill the Final 2010 levy for all properties except for the industrial, commercial and multi-residential tax classes. Passing of the by-law will assist the City of Pickering to meet its financial obligations and reduce any borrowing costs. Sustainability Implications: Passing the attached By-law will allow the City to obtain the funds require to maintain it's financial sustainability objectives. Background: The 2010 final tax billing process will consist of two separate components: 1. Residential and residential related (farm, managed forest) properties; and, 2. Commercial, industrial and multi-residential realty classes. Later this year, a report will be presented to Council asking for Council's approval to bill the non-residential tax classes. The non-residential tax classes are subject to tax capping and Pickering's staff in conjunction with the other lower tier municipal tax staff and the Region's finance staff will be working on the tax capping calculations during the next few months. City's Net Tax Levy and Tax Rate Increase The 2010 budgetary increase of 3.90% was adopted by Council through Corporate Services Report CS 07-10. That report approves a budgetary levy increase of $43,788,348 and includes assessment growth of $292,000. For taxation billing purposes, the assessment growth is added to the budgetary levy to arrive at the total property tax levy of $44,080,348. Tax Due Date Instalments Recommendation 3 provides for the due dates for the payment of residential taxes being June 28, 2010 and September 28, 2010. The table below lists the tax instalment due dates for the last three years. Report CS 15-10 Date: May 10, 2010 Subject: 2010 Tax Rates for all Classes of Property and Final Page 3 Tax Due Dates for All Realty Tax Classes Except 5 6 for Commercial, Industrial & Multi-Residential Realty Classes Year 1S Instalment 2" Instalment 2010 June 28, 2010 September 28, 2010 2009 June 26, 2009 September 28, 2009 2008 Jul 9, 2008. September 26, 2008 2007 Jul 11, 2007 September 27, 2007 Communication Strategy In addition to mailing the tax bills, the City will advertise the tax installment due dates on the City's webpage and in the Pickering News Advertiser newspaper prior to each tax due date. Pre-Authorized Payment Plans (PAP) The City offers two Pre-Authorized Payment Plans (PAP): monthly and installment based. The monthly plan consists of eleven payments starting on January 1St of each month. The monthly plan has approximately 6,900.participants resulting in a monthly cash flow of approximately $3.2 million per month. The installment based (introduced last year) has 150 participants and is based on debiting the property tax payers bank account on the due date: (The installment based plan appeals to the "snow bird" segment.) Taxation staff advertise these two plans on the City's website and in the property tax brochures that are mailed with the tax bills. Other Recommendations 2 and 3 provide for the levying of all tax rates on all classes of property except for the non-residential properties where the tax rates and the property taxes will be billed at a later date because the claw back percentages have not yet been determined. Staff have received advice that the claw back percentages should be included in the billing By-law. Therefore, staff will bring a.separate report to Council regarding the non-residential billing hopefully for Council's June meeting. Staff's preliminary estimate for the final non-residential due date is October 14, 2010. Recommendation 4 - Exemption of City Share Property Taxes Royal Canadian Legion Branch 483 (Claremont) Members of Branch 483 have requested that the City renew its current exemption from City share property taxes for another ten year period. This exemption is available to those veteran military organizations that own their property and not rent. The City of Pickering with the Region of Durham have been giving property tax relief to this branch of the Royal Canadian Legion. This exemption was allowed under the Municipal Act 2001, section 325(1). This section was repealed and replaced by subsection 6.1(1) of the Assessment Act R.S.O. 1990. Under this section of the Assessment Act, the Report CS 15-10 Date: May 10, 2010 Subject: 2010 Tax Rates for all Classes of Property and Final Page 4 57 Tax Due Dates for All Realty Tax Classes Except for Commercial, Industrial & Multi-Residential Realty Classes maximum exemption period is ten years. For 2010, the property tax relief is $1,232. Recommendation 4 provides for the continuation of this exemption. Legion Branch.606 (located in a commercial plaza on Bayly Street) rents their space. This organization receives the charity property tax rebate under section 361 of the Municipal Act. It has received this rebate for at least ten years. This program provides a refund of 40% of the property taxes billed. In order to receive this rebate, the property has to be in either in the commercial or industrial property tax class. (Legion Branch 483 is in the residential tax class and therefore is not eligible to participate) in this program. Changes to the Billing Schedule Recommendation 6 and 7, will allow the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer some latitude, limited by Provincial legislation, in effecting whatever may be necessary in order to ensure that the taxes are billed properly and in a timely fashion. It was always staff's understanding that Recommendation 6 would be used to change the due dates by a few days in order to meet Provincial legislation requirements. (Section 343, subsection one of the Municipal Act states the property owner must have at least twenty-one days to pay their taxes.) A report would be prepared to Council if there was a substantial delay in the billing of the final taxes. Attachments: 1. By-law to Establish the 2010 Tax Rates and Final Instalment Due Dates for All Realty Classes Except Non-Residential 2. By-law to Provide Royal Canadian Legion Branch 483 an Exemption from Property Taxation for a Period Not Exceeding Ten Years Report CS 15-10 Date: May 10, 2010 Subject: 2010 Tax Rates for all Classes of Property and. Final Page 5 Tax Due Dates for All Realty Tax Classes Except 58. for Commercial, Industrial & Multi-Residential. Realty Classes Prepared By: Approved / Endorsed By: Tracy Pars s Gillis A. Paterson Coordinator, Taxation Services (Acting) Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Coun Th s J. Quinn, MR MM III Cfiief Administrative Officer ATTACHMENT #-L-TO REPORT#.a ji- l0 The Corporation of the City of Pickering 59 By-law No. Being a by-law to adopt the estimates of all sums required to be raised by taxation for the year 2010 and to establish the Tax Rates necessary to raise such sums and establish the final due dates for the residential, pipeline, farm and managed forest realty tax classes. Whereas it is necessary for the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering, pursuant to the Municipal Act, 2001, S. 0. 2001, c25, as amended, to pass a By-law to levy a separate tax rate on the assessment in each property class; and, Whereas the property classes have been prescribed by the Minister of Finance under the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, ch.A.31, as amended and its Regulations; and, Whereas it is necessary for the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering, pursuant to the Municipal Act, to levy on the whole rateable property according to the last revised assessment roll for The Corporation of the City of Pickering the sums set forth for various purposes in Schedule "A", for the current year; and, Whereas the Regional Municipality of Durham has passed By-law No. 12-2010 to establish tax ratios and By-law 10-2010 to adopt estimates of all sums required by The Regional Municipality of Durham for the Durham Region Transit Commission and By- law 11-2010 to set and levy rates of taxation for Regional Solid Waste Management and By-law No. 9-2010 to set and levy rates of taxation for Regional General Purposes and set tax rates on Area Municipalities; and, Whereas the Province of Ontario has provided the 2010 education tax rates for the realty classes; and, Whereas sub section 342(2) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c25, as amended, permits the issuance of separate tax bills for separate classes of real property for 2010; and, Whereas an interim levy was made by the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering (pursuant to By-law No. 7014/10 before the adoption of the estimates for the current year). Now therefore the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1. For the year 2010, The Corporation of the City of Pickering (the "City") on March 29, 2010, approved Council Report CS 07-10 and corresponding schedules and attachments as presented resulting in a taxation levy of $44,080,348. By-law No. Page 2 2. For the year 2010, the City shall levy upon the Property Classes set out in 60 Schedule "A", the rates of taxation as set out in Schedule "A", for the City of Pickering, the Region of Durham and for Education purposes on the current value assessment as also set out in Schedule "A". Where applicable, taxes shall be adjusted in accordance with Bill 140, as amended and its Regulations. 3. The levy provided for in Schedule "A" shall be reduced by the amount of the interim levy for 2010. 4. The Tax Levy due dates for the Final Billing be June 28, 2010 and September 28, 2010 for all classes excluding the non-residential tax classes (commercial, industrial and multi-residential). 5. If any section or portion of this By-law or of Schedule "A" is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, it is the intent of Council for The Corporation of the City of Pickering that all remaining sections and portions of this By-law and of Schedules "A" continue in force and effect. 6. This By-law comes into force on the date of its final passing. By-law read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 17th day of May 2010. David Ryan, Mayor Debbie Shields, Clerk 61 M M (N O N r m m V N m N O M~ O N M co M't (q M M M (0 - V N m q •7 O N J UI m M0 (O N V V m r 70 7 r a (O M r M Q Z r O"t N N r CO (0 (O M O O M F J C N (O ( N co V 10 V u) r M M r O J O r M F m N 0 O M a0 N r 00 O r N m N CO d' O C) M r M (0 ,,t oo 00 c v_ N m (MO 7 ii ~ O m 7 N m n O (N M ((f (LQ M M O (0 O - 0 M N r M N (O O a0 N (O Cl) m C r M M m r N N G (MD M (r7 N m N M 0 M a W N V M (0 (O M O) r r O r (O N O V 7 M M r v a0 M CO (0 N O N O OM P O (O M O M m r N m m M r r O m M N C p~ r o M (O O 'T 't (O O M 7 r O 7 N V M C n M N D r) (O (O N u) N O U rn N M N r r I- N N o r r r r r Cl) V O r N O o M M M co M M co 7 (O M M (O r m O N to r (0 O M M O O) O) N It (n q cM N a N. O r M (0 M c l! N C l! C do (O Co to r N co Lo N Co co P, O r r er co O00 ^ CO CD M O V N N r Yj. CO C11 M N r a cl) d r M N O M O (O (O O (D (D (D O (O v r r a r V 0 m N M M M M M M m m M m _N O N r N N M M M N M O O co O (O N m O 0 (0 (0 (0 (0 M (0 (O (O O V IT O V (~0 r M 7 (0 M (O l0 M (O M (0 M (O O) (O to m 0 O M N M M M m O O m O C) O m O M M M CO M O O N N N N N N N N N N N V N N IT N m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M M N M N M N M M M M 00000( O (0 (O O O O M M O M N O N N O O_ M M z m z m N N o 000 ra 0Prat- or0p-mmrrv 7 0 0 M 7 m O O m O m O m 0 M. m m m m N O O <t N N m m N m m N m M M c X O O O O O O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O N ' WC F O 00 '00 O O O 00 O O O O O O O O O O O N r M M (0 N N N N N ti) r r 0 r y r m M M o o M O M O M O r (0 m r 10 O w N r (0 m m", 0 0 . O" O"r O m (O 0 m U) r Q A C N O M 0 7 V It It V It 0 0 (O O 10 w O (0 (0 M N O m 0 0 m M m m m m O O O O O O 'm r m y o r r o r o r o r r r Z 0 lXp w m O O O o 0 0 o 0 0 0 o 0 o o 0 0 0 o 0 ~ N F w F OO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O L O m N N M (r0 m 0 m M m to (D m M m v m M O m ) Ov r- ( N O (f N M 7 M aD N m m m m m r N N r N r r r r m (O M r N N r N r N r N N V LO N a (o 0 O v v m v a co LO LO N L 2 M o 0 O r (0 a0 M m M (0 M (0 a0 M (0 co M co (0 (0 a0 (0 U X O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C. 0 0 0 0 0 F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M O M O r m M (O N O O 7 M '(0 (0 m M (O M O r M O (O M l0 . (0 r l0 M M M (n M M M (0 r C m M ? (O O O? C N! (0 O to m (O N •Q M O O (O a M In co r 0 M O QI_ v r co (0 -,t r N r M v m't 0 r (0 O M N r (O N O (0 V (0 (0 M (0 N M (O M r N U ( 0- N M M M M l0 (7 O O M M 0 O ~ . O M N (D M ID to r N N (N M co V N M O C O J V) N N _ - U LL L X y W 6 C C C • CJ o 0 m c r c h m m o N (0 'O tq J N F J C Mc c N N 2,0 N d y _J00 X MM X N C U U W U J J W U (p N N Wx u X U d N N N C o W > Z ~ Z c C U w c) LL 'O lD f0 _m (0 03 U U v a W (n y 'O (A (q 2 U U U m m J J (D (U f0 a N 0) CG~(D N N N N C C ~O ~O .C C C , N E c a) " E E E E E o o u>>> rn o) o m o 5 o 0 0 0 o t t e E a o v wLL 2a UUUUU(n(nOO5 s s 62 V m co V) N V O N O 0 M M O W V M O N O m L) l0 M W W m V O L) W O N- W W W O m V N W r r a0 0 L) O n 0 O O? N m ~ N N m m r r 7 N p ~ N y r V) 0~ M co JQ U n W (V O m O M W m W N O N W r 0 W n 0 N m O m Z 0 O co m N co n (D V) W co W W M V 0) H J 0 r L) N (D M N N W m V OJ r m F m O (r0 N W CD V M V m m W 0 n o 0 v m 0 W L) N O N W V M m d, O O O m O M N W m N O n N V n W co r C O V O N M r C N! lc q L) r W W (0 m N O O LO N OV W r v N V r 00 CD M r N N V7 10 m W r C N co N M r r r L) r 0 Cl) ' m Cl) ~ W co V Cl) N (D O W 00 N 0 CO V) V) 00 O co O 0) V CO) O m W M W r N W m L) N 00 W co m V W O co V co 00 V) 00 (D V W (D N N~ r(7 a L9 O a) W O o M m V) W M V) (MD C r r (D m L) 00 W V (D N CO) 00 Cl) Cl) W ` N W O N co V) m W Cl) N( V) O N n W V) 1- W M M L) V N W r m m 00 . W r W W r r W m M (O W V V O M m M V O W m W m W m V 0 w W M P, N n O M V O r W V) L) m W n W O N co L) OI m M W CO W N r M M m V) W N W W m N N V) C el co C V a co O r Li N N M N Co V) Co V M P- (O O L) O W Y C V N N L) r V) r W N Cl) co M C N m CL r r n n W W O O 'O W W W W W O O V V n r r O n V V V mm m m O O O O N N W W w (WO - m W O W W 0 0 0 0 0 0W0 W w '0 W W W (0 0 00 0 W W 0 0 0 0 0 V V V O V 0 0 0 YU of r n M n W W M M M M 0` V 0 M O m m 0 L) 0 O 0 m m m O M M M N N m m m W O o m O M M W W W O W M M M P X O O N N N N N N 0 V V N N N O N V V V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N o W CD O W N V V co M Cl) M V V V O O O O 0 0 O ~ 0 0 O O W W W W 0 0 0 C O O O O O N N M M M O O O M N N N N N 0 0 0 W o n r r o m o 0 0o r r r v v v V r n r 0 p Cl) co M V V o t W m m m 0 0 0 O O m M M m m m M RN N 0 N 0 o N N N O m o o m N W W-- W W W =X 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000- Co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m N N N N W W n n r n W W W V V M M M M O O o O M r n L) V) L) L) n n p- 4) 0 0 V v v o 0 0 0 V m m W W W W m m m C l r r r n (a N N N N o 0 V V T V 0 0 W L) L) L) 0 0 0 O m 0 0 L) N m m m m,m W w 00 m 00 O O O O r n n n n n n n r O O O 0 r r r In o O O O m 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000000000000 00000 0000 co W W (D n n r r r r W co W (D n- V V r r r r V V V M M M M W W M M M M m m m m m O O 0 0 W W O O O O M M M M? s~ m m m m r r N N N N n r r r r r r (O 0 n n n n N N N N r N N V V V V N N N . n n n r 0 r V V V V W W W V (O W W W W L) M M M M O O V) W to L) W M M M M L) W W W W W N V) V) V) W co co U x O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O H O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CC! CO O O 0 V O O 0 0 W (O V W 0 0 0 0 0 M O M O O M O O W V M M O C U) N VM' ( 7 (O W (N M n 0 q (WO ' M (OD V-I (OO ' m co N (OO O co V M P- O V) W N N m m V M W m V V) m N M N C3) L) co p QI Li m n m V M co L) V L) L) M W O m L) r m (O m (O V , m V V M V m N r L) W V) r M n M N r M L7 N U m r (O O N M N 0 M N M N O W 00 L) O V) V co L) M N N Cl) n r L) r O J CL u LL m a J J ~ U a J LL a L c N d a m J d LL a d d m m cu FL U _J Q. G J N J co a LL C y L t 0 (n C J LL a a) N a) C a a1 J_ C a s (d (n U .C m H NO ((pp C N L O C C N X UU J L 4' C (0 H U U a m (n (a C, m co C d C 0) (0 L U) ~ O W co (Ctp0 Co- (n (X6 C_ (C (0 N N F a`) (n C • N • N U L ~ J 11 y C N H N C? E m aci c- 5 aa)) C CD a) (i CO LL C7 LL C7? m m m as maw) c c m ~C~LL d LL ~LL n- i F O__ C ] 7 J J U X a) p N X (a (a (a (a (a (0 as m a LL LL N N j N W (7 Z (0 L (a (a ` J a) m a a a a a J O N N N N ~ a) a) a) a) a) 0 a) d m m 'C C X X C C C C C C H a a a a E E E E E E E E d c N w w w a d m d 0 a) a v N w u E E E E E E E E E E 0 > m m m m m d m a) a~ a) m Q 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 ('t m a a a -o a LL LL 0 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 LL C C C C C J J J J J H 0 Q-TO REPORT # /V /p ATTACHMENT#.- 63 The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. Being a by-law to provide Royal Canadian Legion Branch 483 an exemption from City property taxation for a period not exceeding ten years effective January 1, 2010. Wheras Royal Canadian Legion Branch 483 has requested the City of Pickering to provide an exemption in City share property taxes for a period not exceeding ten years. Whereas, the City of Pickering under the Assessment I Act, R.S.O., 1990, under Sub section 6.1 and(1) may pass a bylaw to exempt from taxation any premises used by persons who served in the armed forces of Her Majesty. Now therefore the Council of the Corporation of the City of ickering hereby enacts as follows: 1. That Royal Canadian Legion Branch 483 located at 4937 Brock Road North in the Municipality of the City of Pickering be exempt from City share property taxation for a period not exceeding ten years effective January 1, 2010. 2. If the property is sold, leased, or the use changes, the property taxation exemption ends when legal title is transferred, or when the lease agreement comes into effect, or when the use changes. 3. This By-law comes into force on the date of its passing. By-law read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 17th day of May 2010. David Ryan, Mayor Debbie Shields, Clerk City o¢~ Report To PICKERING Executive Committee Report Number: CS 16-10 Date: May 10, 2010 6 4 From: Gillis A. Paterson Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Subject: 2009 Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund Recommendation: That Report CS 16-10 from the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer regarding the 2009 Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund be received for information. Executive Summary: Section 7(4) of the Building Code Act requires that "every 12 months each principal authority shall prepare a report... of building fees and related costs." This report provides this information. Financial Implications: This report contains information pertaining to the financial status of the Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund as at December 31, 2009. Provincial legislation requires an annual report on this fund be presented to Council. Sustainability Implications: This report does not contain any sustainability implications. Background: In December 2005, Council approved report PD 41-05, which enacted a new building permit process and fees under the Provincial Building Code Statue Law Amendment Act or Bill 124. The premise of Bill 124 was the requirement that municipalities will no longer be able to subsidize planning services or other City areas through building permit fees. C.N. Watson was retained to undertake a comprehensive analysis of all Planning & Development service costs fees and legislative requirements and to develop an Activity Based Costing (ABC) model for the City. Using this information, the consultant recommended a small increase in building permit fees to provide for cost recovery and to establish a building permit stabilization reserve fund. The purpose of this reserve fund is to provide a source of funds during an economic downturn to offset lower building permit revenues. Without such a reserve fund, Report CS 16-10 Date: May 10, 2010 Subject: 2009 Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund Page 2 65 reduced growth and permit volumes during a downturn could result in severe budgetary pressures. The Building Code Act requires that an annual report be prepared including total fees collected in the previous 12 month period, a summary of indirect and direct costs of delivering the service. The following statements indicate that expenses exceeded revenues and therefore there was no transfer to the reserve fund as required by the Act. The accumulated shortfall for this reserve fund is approximately $2.4 million. Annual Report - Building Permit Fees For the year ended December 31, 2009 Building Permit Revenue $ 668,764 Costs: Direct Costs $(1,146,126) Indirect Costs (221,252) (1,367,378) Excess (Deficit) Revenue Over Costs $(698,614) Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund Opening Balance, January 1, 2009 $ - 2009 Contribution Closing Balance, December 31, 2009 $ - Attachments: None Report CS 16-10 Date: May 10, 2010 Subject: 2009 Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund Page 3 66 Prepared By: Approved / Endorsed By: Stan Karwowski Gillis A. Paterson Manager, Finance & Taxation Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer S K/vw Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering Ci Council as J. u n , R Chief Administrative fficer Cit', Report To Executive Committee T ~ T~~I 1~ T P1CKE1~ Report Number: CS 17-10 6 7 Date: May 10, 2010 From: Gillis A. Paterson Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Subject: Investment Portfolio Activity for the Year Ended December 31, 2009 Recommendation: That Report CS 17-10 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer regarding Investment Portfolio Activity for the Year Ended December 31, 2009 be received for information. Executive Summary: The following report and attachments represent a summary of the investment activity and year end balance in the portfolio. Investment activity for the year 2009 totaled approximately $196.8 million with a year end balance in the portfolio of approximately $62.1 million. Current Fund investments are limited to one year or less and Reserve Funds to 10 years or less under the Council approved policy. As discussed below and as confirmed by the attached Performance Report from BMO Nesbitt Burns, the return on the City's portfolio, although significantly lower then in previous years, has performed favourably comparative to market benchmarks again. Financial Implications: Total investment income, including bank account interest for 2009 was $1.6 million (2008 - $2.5M) of which $171,000 (2008 - $1.1 M) was for the Current (Operating) Funds. The balance of the income was allocated to the various reserve funds. Sustainability Implications: This report does not contain any sustainability implications. Background: The City's investment portfolio is comprised of two main areas: Reserve Funds and balances available in the Current Fund when not required to meet current operating expenditures. This latter balance can vary greatly depending upon many factors including the timing of the receipt of property taxes and levy payments to the School Boards and the Region. Investments are undertaken as one consolidated pool of funds and interest earned is credited back to the appropriate funds. Report CS 17-10 Date: May 10, 2010 Subject: Investment Portfolio Activity for the Year Ended Page 2 December 31, 2009 68 As the Treasurer of the City of Pickering there are certain information and opinions that I must report under Provincial Regulation to the Committee and Council. The attached schedules are also included as part of the information requirements. The portfolio balance at December 31, 2009 of $62.1 million (2008 - $66:8M) is slightly lower than the prior year which is primarily driven by the reduction in the short-term investment balance. Grant and debt proceeds that were received. in November 2008 led last year's short-term investment balance to unexpectedly increase. During 2009 this balance decreased as expenditures were incurred on the related capital projects and these funds used. This resulted in a short-term investment balance at the end of 2009 of $27.6 million (2008 - $34.2M). The overall increase in the Reserve Fund balances of approximately $.1.7 million led to an increased long-term investment balance of $32.2 million (2008 - $29.6M). The return on the portfolio significantly declined in 2009 with a weighted yearly rate of return of 1.54% (2008 - 4.92%) on the combined short-term and long-term investments excluding interfund investments. As everyone knows the economy began stalling near the end of 2008 and did not recover during the course of 2009. This significantly impacted short-term rate of returns which started at the beginning of 2009 around 1.5% and ended the year at 0.21 The City's portfolio was somewhat protected by having a . favourable mix between the short-term (highly liquid) and longer term investments, in addition to taking advantage of selling some bonds early when they were selling at a premium and recognizing a monetary gain. As you are aware investment parameters are much narrower for the City than permitted for money market funds due to the Municipal Act and Regulations limiting the selection of qualified investments for municipal entities. However, notwithstanding these restrictions, the annual return of 1.54% still out performed the annual returns for the CIBC World Markets 91-Day T-Bill Index (0.5%) and the Morningstar Canadian Money Market Mutual Fund Index (0.5%). These returns are deemed comparative benchmarks for reviewing the portfolio's performance and considered the standard for analysis of investment funds in the industry. Over the past couple of years there have been efforts to maximize the portion of long- term investments allowed to the overall portfolio to allow the City to take advantage of more stable rates of return rather than fluctuating with the short-term markets. You can see from the portfolio's rate of return compared to the performance indicators this has proven to be successful leaving the City somewhat protected from the fall of short-term rates that commenced at the end- of 2008 and continued to decline through most of 2009. Unfortunately the operating fund's investment income does not benefit from this protection and significantly declined due to the drop in short-term rates. Report CS 17-10 Date: May 10, 2010 Subject: Investment Portfolio Activity for the Year Ended Page 3 6 9 December 31, 2009 The average return on interfund investments was 3.5% (2008 - 4.1%). This reduction was due to an interest rate revision to a number of loans to reflect the current economic climate. Of the year end total portfolio of some $62.1 million, approximately $32.2 million or 51.8% were external long-term investments and approximately $2.3 million or 3.7% were Interfund Investments (Internal Loans). The balance of approximately $27.6 million is short-term investments of 90 days or less. It is my opinion that all investments were made in accordance with the Investment Policy approved by Council. Attachments: 1. Investment Activities for 2009 2. Outstanding Investments as at December 31, 2009 3. Correspondence dated March 31, 2010 from BMO Nesbitt Burns Prepared By: Approved / Endorsed By: C 4diine Senior Gillis A. Paterson Manager, Accounting Services Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer KS:vw Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City u o J. Q trative , R R., C I ;PChielfAd m inVficer ATTACHMENT #.LTO REPORT #-L-1 7 - o 70 rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn o rn rn T o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o r o 0 d c~~ c a> c c c ac $ c 6)D')L aaa> > c b-0 c c ~ ~ ro m m ~ (`t3 ~ (`a m (`t3 Q m ro ° ° ~ m ° ~ ~ > > m o ro m m o o . o mmm a~ a~ ~p -3 LL u ~~~~~~Qcn~~~~cn~Q~~¢¢cnZCncncnz0z00LL N O N 4 6 66 0 0 0 r 0 0 0 N O O O° Lo -t N N (D 4 N N O N O N 0 N O N 0- 0 M N 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 M M M M m M O M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M W O) O O p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 9 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 m (u b b b 6 b b c.6 -6 >'>'c c c c c CD 0) aaaa > .C " ° O O N O d N N O ro N 0 CC (d N (0 (O Q ro ro 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 N O N N° O ~0 0ZZoppoin o~LL U-.7 ~~Q~~~-»~~~Q¢(D(n(n(n0Z O~ (D r Lb 6 O v r O O~ co Cp (fl f0 7 M (O O) r r N N ao v v (a o) O r (p 6 (b d IL N r N O r r r r r N O N 0 0 r r N r N N O O r N N N N N r r r N 0 0 04 E y ao m ooo W °2 000 ONO W W N M 0 N OMO O N 0 M N r, (o r N COD M 'IT O N w Lo M 0 LL 00 0o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o0 -80 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 180 180 0 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 U o 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 N 0 ^ (n 0 0 M 0 0 O M CO 0 co co O 00 0 M 0 0 0 N 0 O O M 0 0 co M o O 0 0 M r r r- W -O O O 0 (f) CD n t` M N V M N ~t N (D r f~ M N M (D M (D M W O O M co co CD N O T U~ It c? T (D r T MN CD (D V V 0 M V r r r N r r r r r r r r O r r _ } N r r O V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 g O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M 0 0 U O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Q 00000000000000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O. C c O O c O O O c O O C C O O O O O O O_ 0 0 0 0 0 M 0 W M m 'm (A _ r M M It n M W N M Lo M r N V Mr~ O Lo M M Z M M M M M r CO I M M 0 M W N M 0 O M 0 O 0 V o Lo 00 O M 0 0 M O C O O r 0 0 Ln n t` M r O r (D 0 L` n M 'I O N 1~ O M M 0 ~ N L` O r'I O r O ' W M co cr) C+•) v~ v MCI) M N C'Y) M y M y M N co co E It V) 00 M M ce) ~ (n Cl) Cl) Cl) O. r r ~ a H W V co 00 'IT. co r- V N C`') L- 00 co V V O L~ It (9 0 0 (D M L- N N (D O O O (D O LLI r M n M M 0 M 0 O N W 00 r~ N M M 0(0 0 0 M M M't O O r' 00 M r- M n O > r N N r N r" V M 00 N O n c V a a N M 0'I ~ O u7 C\ r CD "I V N M O M r Nt Itt co a) 0) (.o rn 01 Lo Lo V co - Or Lo 00 00 M M (o (D rn 00 M r- CO 0) r` M 0 (o a) 'It ~!M(nOOO V M(n(naoMN(nOaoM Z y r~ t NL~MOMT co N0(DN (o O O O r U) 'It 'It 0 L, 00 r O r Co ((7 L, n oc M V O C \L O O 0 0'I Np' O r V_ rr, M R co co M M V V V M M M M co) M V M V M M T M co V M 00 M M M M (n M M M O Z W Y 0 U U U N O a E E r z 0 ° z z z z z z z z z z z z z z p z 0 0 0 0 U Zooo Q0 00¢00¢0000 00¢ 0 o o ,'mmm mm¢mmmmmmmmmm mmmin m E O Y co Y ro ro ro M ro m co (u (c 5 (a m ro m ro ro ro ro ro ro ro - c o c o o o o o c o Z 'o Z 'o 'o Z Z o -o o 'o t 0 o V c min co °cc(DU))U) in U) E_inc°)wU)ciininU)wU)n in inin(n in O (a> `-°m>>>> >>E>>>>>>>>>>Q>>>>¢> O =zzz zzozzzzzzzzzzmzzzzmz a)p,Z~c page ¢ (ca(com(co o(co m o0omoo°00000`o0000co o000co ']----Z Y~Z.n w Y,[Y 0,[YYYY Y -\e Y 1Y 2 YYYY2 ,C O U`1 h N e O C t~ C C C C m C C C C C C C C C C C C i C C C C i C ro o ro ro ro ro- ro ro `o ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro co ro ro ro ro m LL LL L L LL 0 co LL U LL U m co m U m m H co m co m co m m co m m LL m m m m LL M E L N 4! C ~ a. 7 C f6 o m = C 7 . N C ; N d iLL Z 71 a ° ° a FZ 10 -5 75 E U V owV E o. M O N r V (n r O 7 7 7 7 O 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N r (D O (y r N N 7 0 0 0 0 0 r rrrrrr r rr rr ~(n77LL(n0(n m ro (a (c (`a aUi n m a°i m m c aUi LO co 0 N 0 0cncoU)0~ NON O N(3) Cl) N 00 a) ao C 6 6 oo N M N N ~ N O N O r N r O r r O O N 0 0 ~ a0 au M a0 CD M au 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > q U) 00999 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO M :3 Q L n a) Q Q R a) U U c C a s V > 2 7 .a 0 0 0 0 0 0 W 0>> 7 0 0 O d) _ N N N NO - N r0 ~p ZZZZ00 2 2-»~c~cn0Z 00 7 (D (o Cl) 'V N O ao N co m M N Cl) 'N - O. O O N N N M N O O N 0 0 CD r~ LO N O D) CO CO 0) t CV E coM (po0o0I-Ln000 CO o r- r CO r r M N ~ N a) co a) 000 co MO co U*) O n r r r N r r r O r r CD r N M r LL N o 0 0 0 o o 0 0 o o 0 o o 0 0 o 0 0 0 o 0 OR 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 rtO CO a) CD 0 0 o0000) OLn 000 LO 00 W a co N (n 0 0 0 0 Ln LO LO LO O LO 0 LO O Lo co r r (o v (D N N r N N N O I~ O 0P N O N O LO V co -If V .4 .4 V d' } 0 0 0 0 0 0 C'M O N Cl) Cl) N N N r U 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O (D 0 0 0 0 0 0 V O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 o O Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O to 0 0 0 0 0 0 o (D (D O (D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co (D O CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O l4 NO(oO(n r- 0006 OmO6 O1-of Ln O Ln 6 r.000C6 0Ln v 000 NM 0 -OM N NMOEM 0 r- O r~ LO NOOCO Or- LO Z 'V N ocN O (D r' O O (D (D M O O (n N I~ r N to r- (D a) co O O co O v LO W ` CV N M co co C`') ~ N -7 N M N M M N N C\l (6 0 C N r P') N C M N rn IL H Cl) W LO r` M LO (D 00 M O N 00 IT 0 0 0 m O It m N O O O LA O 00 m co N0 co CM (D CD OCoO MOOOO o (D LO C) LO O CO 'ctM M > C (n -It r N O O O M O O N O O O CO o O (D r 0 r 0 r- O 00 LO C) of Co r 00 r-: r-: O O N r O CM 0 Ln M O CO C O (o O M _ rn P- Z (n D) M Ln 00 0 0 M N ~ r 0 r- M 'N (D CO f- N't 0 M r~ Lo 00 ° r I- N M CD I~ M O (D (D O r 0 O N (D N N CD O (D O O 00 O LO f- R V C \i M Co M. M M N r M M N M M N N (D N r C+j N M M N (A V r cm m r MZ 1.V W Y U a LL r 0 Qooa > 0 >>Z° } a) co co m m O U O h O C C 0 h r_ 0 0 N to E (a co co (o > > c ° m H Y 0.0.0.6 u).o<n~ cn(ncn o c °-f- Z H y U U U V N O N m 0 i0 id (J J a) R O) C6 (C m ca 0) C Cn Cn Cn fn a) c d C O O > C .C 'y C C >>>>Q cOcZ) (`o'Fcc~ i O cac OFn 0 en :3 QZZZZm aa))2=O~2i 20 to °1 0 m C :C. N 0000cca 0~0-o0O000 d ~-0 -00 -0 Y Y Y Y 4~ Y Y (0 > > Y Y > E y Im Co ,C ,C Co (a m C C C C i a O C C O O C C O - - C O C C C C C (C (4 C7 (d 05 (C Cs (t) C N C V O C3 w a) - w (0 O (C 0mmmco F maco Ua.aco mLL 0) 4) Q J o Um<m0CL E c 0 E _ o U) r y w R > E y 7 c) i C U) O d co m H J W j c O C U) c C y O a) O O O O O y lL C H Z J H F- c H D ATTACHMENT# TO REPORT #-Cl-t7- /O 72 CO - aD r W co L N r r co N j) •7 7) o 0 7 a) o o a a a) N , W L W 0 od G G 0 0 W C/) (n w O d 00 itt r N io 00 0 06 06 00 N N N M M d cc ;_a ;O U U C O a) fC a3 ca co ca 7 0 (6 N (0 Q a) a) CL LL' CL LL22(Lm n~~22Q ~D 000 00 00 00 O O r M 0') N r d' (o M N O r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r. 4) 0 U C C U d Q Q U U fC c0 N c0 (0 a) a) (o m a 0 a a) a) a) m N N cc LL LL LL c~ w oo N N N 0o N N 00 6 & N O w 00 T w N N N co .O (0 p) D) O Q) O O O rn 00 00 00 rn 00 O) O O rn 0 ).0) 0) rn C N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N O O O O 0 d U> U z1a c C 3 a s '1' c f° m 0 0 o a) 0 0 ~ co U) ~o CnZZZZ00 22gozo~~~Ma)coo r O M CD (O M v N O N cb r r It O) oo ao O N c%~ N CL N N N N Q) N N c _ W w m O N M O O 0 N M v 0o O 0 O M O w w Lo O 00 M Lo It O O 0) Lo m m N M CA O (O D Ln I- co Ln r (D O D) co Lo V O C E r r r N W a1 N 0 W > 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o 0 o 0 00 M N co 0 0 (n M Lo O (D N O Lo Lo O O O~ a ~ a) N N r N N N O f_ O (t7 M O 9 0 0) N O CM N O r M 0 0 0 0 0 0 O M O') T r Lo 0 N M O') N N N C6 --t y O Q } 0\o N co Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 O O LU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O C 0 0 000 0 0 O w 00 0 ~ 0 00 000 0 0 (D O O m co 't c Q. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O N co .V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O C \L 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cn W CD N cu rl (A N O (D O O M W (O O m r M O O D (O O M O N Lo Lo 'T a) Lo W (n O O (O N co V M (D co cn O O N N O O r- M O M (n IT O M L O 00 N N m 0 n (D O N 0 N n 00 O w m O O o) N r 00 N N LL 06 C \T O') 00 07 06 P C \T N r C \T C \F C \F O') C \F c \i N (O Z N M Lo N M O (D O M L` Lo O r- O O 00 L` O O O N Lo z a0 r (D co N (D N 'IT r r co O O (D M O O D (D M w (D Lo N Lo (D L- N (o (o r- 0) O) O O V O O O O O N 00 O 0o N co O C0 T O O O) O O O M O 0 0 CA O Z jp O o) O V r C \L o' M L` 00 0 0') 0 0 0"' M 0 0 0 llzt N Q O o) O CA 00 Oo r- co CD N 7 (n M O O D O O M O N (D U co o) o) - Lr) 00 N M (D m 00 N m O N M O O r- M L- ' O N r N (n (O L' (D (D N 0 N 0't 0 0 0 r O M N co Lo cl) M N N M a0 M M N r N-` N r N r M M N M M co d O (n O a 4) z E LL N w 0 Y 0- (D ) C a a v U v a~ m c 0 a) n. E ~z E0 cu ~ 3 LL r z z 'a LL 0) LL a1 on E! •O •o o O co 0 a) c0 O C Q 3 7 > c6 O O) 03 ca m 70 N a) d '-c (o (C L?~ C) O U U C C Z. C C C N N .O O ca N N 0 « a) U y N co (n Q a O Z) 0 0 c c c~ Z 2 c 5,m ~ E r _ d p p pp 0 o o -a 0 0 0 0 0 d N U a) Q°° Y LL N 0- = ai aoi ~m 2 2= p 2 2 E Q d . } (0n m m m m m ca d c 0 -0a c c lL o o'a o c°° ayi 0 ca ° C -0 E Z Z m Z Z Z i Y) y 2 Z cm 22m o a (00 2 wccm a y c`C a) C V 3 m m U m m m tL 0 Q co U Q LL m m m U LL Q co co a) Q D 3 d N V 'C m m C > 0 O C i s of E 0 m O Lm l O E co 0 X . N Z + r .r w r _ M LL 3 E m r C1 R ns r N (n O O C O _0 O a) m ~ J ~ F C ~ F- iL C Z cn i 7 3 ATTACHMENT # TO REPORT # ~ 5 l 7 d Y V 'a w 0 U m t o c V o p O 0 Ll. U 0 rv: ry N m a e °R a 4 O ~ s 04 e o d Vi ftl rv N C r d C5 N ~cS ev ad a p 3 co ~ vi w it w w +e~ w N r-. ~ . :n rr rn rt VJ V e- M rA P'1 G 8 wi C r U O c§ ^ cd ca 7 c O N M 0 C-4 L m N M If c3 c6 ^ N )9 .q M `0 4 vI ~ U C ^ acs c5 a6 ^ ~ v C 0) w ~ ^ c° o E C) c: - V: t rv b m a w w o N O ~ :n d C rya O N O > c c C o v ` o W x t w ° E m a) LU U L C c s m m `N $ sp y a, N C 8 4 C a N C Lu 9 ~agAj~ Q Y d E c c ' w r H m c£ O 'SP cm < Ls 2 E _ 4 l7 r~R, 'ter A iv = IL CO Q C /L~ l7 m Q Sc o $ r¢ E d b d d X m a~ Z. z ni N U v v x V 6 - v a 6U V J O 5 s c -c N - Y U O az o CU 4- 0 U Y ) C a > > U N 2 O ccEo Q~ O 0 f0~~ 0.` O .c (0 C N N U- N (0 N N r fB 600- _ cq co cn CU ch a 0 vLU U U U c 0 O a) co c F- Q N 2 2ou_.- v w CCi w d, ai _ 7 4 c a ~T o a, Q ,x o a cis N o LC€~a~~„«r~±+ w °/c ~s °E~aB;L° ° ;off V Iwo R, ewcdO~yp^p b10~rtsa~,~; 'c fea C RC9 R`r ,C ° t Q1 C w ` 63 `a '~17 E w ° w© ] 0 10 y urnT~s w no L. Zo w- L c: Ir C = e- L 'm 0! E G O 'o 4 O tU P O V of E m 47 C a, C 0 un 10 ~ ~ liJ C Cs ~ - ~ ~ L 4 w ~ w ~ m ~ Q L 'a v. C rq G L4% w ` V a, v + fi~i ~3 a ° E c [a b a, p y, w `O O N ro ro ~ +c c o H w T7 >1 E e ra - e r W Z7 c c u, w B W I w w E_ v 3 Qi Q w L> C E~~ O ON _ " GU CT V A` C 0 O O d d D v" G -wo w Q ro mm w e am"` W~ m v~ 9-6 Ty ,Q vN U-i O O dV G ~ V C N rss v o E = s v = o, c W ' L3 r` in •%i, C~ r.. ~g rrw DJ CS in 9 L ` V Y p c Q CT ro c s c ° ~s m < w - uj ra `ec to v ° .v o M- d; L {S ayi C: D' ro G c q c w O rn rs`+ C O tU C C? Z E O _ O O d O ° 141 N d C G O= C C t5~ i-~ G O a L% `C GA ~C w V rp 'J G O ~n 0 m C ` N CC ~n fu . w F3 O E 7 r~ L ~7 R C p ii; SV d L tn W R1 U! C C 1 C7 d L w` C-= D O = LL N R iwn £ w O V <C a. w w t`U D ® 9 L w C E v SIl 'S Cc- 10 !2 O aEi _ r» C m rCC C cv s1 i per! C Mc- et c a n © ~c C~ v Q W H O c 47 m rp !n V St rp C-T ate, 0 a as+ Ov Am . n CT c cu vd• uo2 CA C a CY N £2 w` is C a; O d p O d!` = v d7 O C B C vy e c L a3 v v Z3 ,y .O C c p w 1•+ . ti .N V O CT Y p Q C y c w C 0~n Z V Q ro a 0 C O p d S C :C © to 11- SC 1§ w RS L € C w y~+ C co Y Q %A C O ~Z a W 00 ~ w SC W B 0 ac, © 0 :56 O ti7 y_, ~ ~ c ¢ M ~7: C u C w u C OD ro N ui a, C rs, C p`® C y, i d m 4- 'tn w u'+ s = V =O O. S C <~I, V 2 FJ ~ to .d N N ~i 3 G C w S2 O Giy C j5 0 W N '4.. W c kn 6° c d o on y ,C v a ~ i = N vv E w o fU a+ a O rn [n G. O N C- p E 'p c 4J ® G3 V t6 O ep crs D O W kn s c C3 C w c rN O a Gl y, 0- s M N C s v+ Ln d, 4 L C c c° a a s Q Q, E ~C m a 0- d, c d In- L N 0 -w E o d v '+n O v 'c E' ai E= °a `a <u u +O o v e° y c .y c LL E -6 L cn ` E N i T+ Q. e~ 9 r,V © mo, E a~° O. d E E s n c o° v 0 D A E E B t w d O • • V V E d _ c _ _ ®vY c E £ cm Al _ W , w w Y A 4 c c r-u aw. w c o w O c c = w v o c - y a L - D-0 cg s€ S `c o 1 0 pay a o W G% l aEi i tp C tW ° 'a E~5 ryg 3 } w GO (n 45 q! 3 0 1 N C w E c a di L C j V ~ vs E ? a x- a, > fa cn 4- W L r ra N ,o v+ O W O C C O Y W C O` d2 V b ®1 35 C1/ w 4 .G ° r p M 'M V , •T`.i t O .G L, O s w V N d iR 4: sri Q w Q Cr _ ns C ; is O p O w ° ° C c w E O O Cb C L' a' O ro C ;m m 7 3: c3, CIL E d d= A 10 E wL o <S+d u c'~° E a©~cr`C E vii~'y z c is B w 10 A O N ° 0 ' E aA ap 'k " c ' rn,~c "mss ° Z o v eL ru 6,,' .G ~t L 4, o iy B y a) 4 -0 + ° sn C C = t+i C W O 0 -0 N 'a d E O ~av ul :F= w _ L v C b ` w 2h C: a~ !2 Ln a GT = n V iii ` `5 ~n p~ d y O a w 0 CL , m c a, ,y s v e w E o ap C ,a L° is wi rt5 E L A d C fl, ec 4, w- w d w o p = O s i Lt B cu e fl em t t✓ ° E v X E a +r o c s /c ° zs cl CL LE w E 4'v- awl - I. 10 4' Q 1 O c c j CL E ryr d m re N C t cn -1 a1 w Tr %A 0 O E C ~ O. 4 N a C vi n C b 1y„ r3 c Vt O Q cv c C v~ C em a cr _ .0 4 m, x ~o c v, E c 'tn s W d c CT O N v, H y w M O o o C c n ai = s cis c ai ° v rc E a, e r ii L L G k, a, c Z .o s Os O . m, € rs w E a vi ,0 2 240 Z? 'U a Q as v+ E to Asa ~•+d~=~ c o 7:E c eF o.R? c caw ram CA c a ti, = C i S. - v a, ° Oi m -CL C2 - u c m .o ° w k) E , ° d ate, s a 'A a of c w a" S" E c to em o w Ot c = E b M C ate, 47 3 L E O ~5., O' CT L, © h E m C = •a 3 ~ O eC6 O ra ~ i _ V © p, 'm s r® w l7 C ch 'D t9 f+1 Qy a`, ° ve Q1 w ~t - L w rry~ p = CA © +O . 0 p O n CO © tT rd r 2 L N U IV p G d 'a aJ t 0 kA 'IJA' t9 06 GT ui C ? C JA ?i 0 .0 C R c E C C a L 40 1 to C N E D. E G a~j d awea a kn Os a, v"' °swe 'cs t? ,w ° w CN v w _ w 10 1!1 C - tU E S O t ai C a`.. m E V Z Z O° 0 Q' O C T' L kA ~.Lz- V ¢ CL- 40 E ms i~C3 CL i.l E.. 7rm ZJ m c`U~ ~ i' i 75 ~ - kA u N CM 4S 1! - LA 4Er W1 N V 4Jr w v G V Y w C W ,tiS "J Eo C '`S C CT G L rz WI fa cn w 2 m~ w E 10 M a p w kJ w ma 'S -0 Z5 -0 E dr a t E cr c VIL Q 0 9~ p o" % s o a aci o 7: 'S CL 0 v ro E b L p ` : df! CT O T T" t~'L 3C i E [2 4° C E 0~/ Q C ` S3 L,., . M, w ~3 to c a .0 I - ° Y LS . O c i c v Ir-j et = ° l7 th S Q o. Q zs Q Q c. u, E w Q '0oro4-Q ~c sc0E_~ovc,.cE ~Qa~ zs,L. 10 vi p o E ; O r C3 'a, EL `o ti " 0 ~ L. rd _ W C a g C1 i TS 7 ~t r[ S1 - kJ G E CT S3 lJ 7 w w r W! W N cY e® C 0 .c ro i Q (V N O rL rc C Q G ET y a c d v n N a ~C - ~ C = N L O u, rd V B L A .52 in i9 r6 C O d C sn 9l C C C ~6 S] S Y ay - V cy1 C W1 E CLT ` 4o w-' L wl W6 p ra t OL CT zs WJ w Z 4a. s CYt `y v c c a ~S-Z Q Q `C Q GIJ C t9' r0 E w G d E^ .C Q i 0 41 0 4- 'A .2 C; E -,A IWA 5 do tA ;A :3 J2 N AJ ro ~~i. +'Cv w N C C C !CJ F- 15 ` GU V'Y W L O to a V 2 vP 1] L d C L 2 E €a sa c c¢ Q ~ s , d° r6 c is W; V _ "mac, c ~i -E m N 8 c v ~ r- iv c C b W ,o CD ro fol al 0 0 Q W! ~ L V ~ Q C ~ OO B+ v+ 0 u~ C FL E a' `a 04 in w a ° 2: 41 ` = l' a a `v~° Wes! B Q N 'ups S V ° O¢, ~4 ~4,45 vw cam' 3 cv E te = a 03 35 a Q d 0 0 ~ c Y- 0 = CL O ~ ccu B ° Q 'r =n 'p ~ Q +R C E c c '+o as a~ O rv O v ~3 d c° ° sue- w M C c c C N L c O 63 vi M `9 Cyr' 14 5+ Cr Is L E ea E fa m -5 -5 2 =mss o c LO r. C`aoE~ o-0 c0 a°o=o 'QV ~ l,! Ln NS 1A ~r N c `'r d L U a Co L m v, B w s. E V v O 4 b O O w L rA AJ in ui o } L _ C vl 'Lf ZS © p C C; s d 7C Q 'C3 V w ° T'^' +L--' 4 (2 25 u , ! r: v 4- C> cm C v - N ~ WJ Q ~j .Z' 16 V 0 M C ~ R ^L~ ~ ~ O do V ti o R tA- c° L E E at c Gs' ea O ar a p tA ate, w- o w° N C, C Q rro ,C k N ~0 tL j~ rp N e A w m C C C v G, Wl C 0 © C C l I- _ uyj '0 'g ` rp d C r 3 B C. Q, © C i.u 0 u£i d w o S ° W, . rho kA E 4°- ro Ol' v Z3 Q C a/ d p 4a _ d W/ M W 1 rn a• E E w A v ° m Y Q Q ,a H .SAC u 5u c ins o a v a ro lb c 4, 'o 0 °c Q, n c a o E a, z > L 'rCO 4 r_ T3 ~n Qu o a fu D p L3 u C N v v N ° +CG G B M rCg 4.1 fo w l^,V 4° GT C c _ i WJ r'~0 WI .Z C J... © © WJ i+ C L 0'.- f.. Z3 W/ 7ti' 0 NF/ V f~ Q E Csts EC o ~j ~.t $`r y i r-`o cn v E ° 6 CN E P a s+ o tj E C 40 4- 3t CS C; 'o Y a C c ° B C L t a ro C `p E ro ° a° L q- E E . i-i W! Vi O 2 d o RS ? M Wd 90 E Q 41 C w V C LL C 0 N d] Wi p w A Q C or V C awe W+ €a t) C Wl C S3 ? C N O O 1A t o E C7 a= u ~O &2 L rG p W a? O a s: c w C C s+ O O .0 Qr v► (v ` r`o tG ry C CT ma 6 un Q i^ 'm 5 Q t - r ar cv g u v N ° s r c Y c as c" rho ,°1 IA a R C f 4 w-. o f o 3 c Q CT 7+ L O •p N L Q ro QV ® V - L `1 r 6 O C M_ v cno S Lu 1- v ~Q±S © WJ ` C C i ' '0 C Q~ ,H' u _ r C 'D m E C cp a E fl t Q + W/ Q_ C C C O (U Q °:b. g p ` TS a' w L ~p E a W, ` c n t"` ;c o O~ C er o o v o C M O C t3 C R E E w .C FL' 'OD k` a) v_ E -r- o c O m A a © c (u Y aE` •Cj L ra N w C C W! C O L 5 To Q w O r o N m C m m ~U 3 O!',' C py C O S7'' C Pry G p rR ` a C C C 'ter y v+ - N fO v N© c A L .c W U C O 41 C d caW! 3 Q CT cm © O r 0o c.~=E ~E -po= u2"" c <li i 4A y C a ,n N" 'Q 'D p .c Q B 'C C ro Oa L, w O o 'g Lc O 40 O ui ` O C L a LL O ^ u O c .0 ~ C ` w ` F .0 LA P- o w ~n Ll 2 C`! rCl9 rho th w 10 O 'I M v -0 WJ i= Z7 a ° C IA a~ -0 Q Q M +O. O O O O O ' c :2 cu O ~ o o N w N 'O c (D w T C V O O O 0 76 c'>,c w~° w N r ao co 3 c ° w O L O a) C C O p O) E -p rn c t N O O o a 0 _ c (n j cn o o e w c ci N U L 0 ' o o N O 0 w- U c U ;g CL ` O O -0 C O 000 Dr- co c vii a) U) (1) a) C4 1q: cli CD 0 a) O CD v E:°.~ CM - E N c cp C E C C V O 03 a) co co 0 0 o w N 02 'L c- O t N o o E E co -0 0 q) LL a) tt 0 N a O O M N O) 't 000 1- m t O w N O co o a) U N N cV c C N (D .V cn cn Q- Q co L) 'a CD .L. O 7 Z .2-0.s ` Y C O O O e o 2 C O 03= (D- CL co a) OI rn N e- mw v CO E E co N N N M > U (D O) c S co U •V " C L Q -0 aN co f0 X O N O -p co +O' L N r., 7 QC > (D ~Hw 0 0 C r C o o O O > 'e w 0 w c- a) O- C OI O O CA 2 O C c (D N M LLB M (~6 a) r>- co a) E-c c Co N E M W C CO 7 N O C O N C :3 0 c as > N CL C C > N U -p 7 p 03 O C w 7 cc w C N O' fA o o e N O ` cu O N 7 N N Q ~C O rn( OI O O T" NL TU= O N O c Cl) c Co 0) O 5 w O C Q ~~L 0- O co N N ~j CV y 'O•N y c .O. O 4: o 3~ r o O rnyt 0-0 U C O '0)- Q N tC o 0 o V a RS w N O c 0 w O N L OI O O r U C m O -0 0 co CY E co U 0` O N M M M co w (D = w E E ~ 0) ` O co o D Q -0 p 0 7 O N L cu a) 0 a- N cp to cn E E U N > N O N co 'p p C 'O c of rn o ti (D O L I N. N N co N = 0 0)2 0.- N N~ E -cow C ri ri v 0 W>> O w rn N N - o aa) L' c ~>Eca +r L =0- (D E c O i~c.5 o E E N ao 0 0 0 o~ m vaE~UW>O N o0 ° co 0N) ~f° ar LSE c o w c C M N CF w 0 o N c Q C O U O N V N O O 01 ~-0 U N c C 0) 0 p y p C 'o O 2 cu O fl. E 0 0 0 3 0 :X -p N X` 0) 0 0 a) L D M LO O O Q C) O C) ' E w co N •L 03 =3 0 N p t N r O O O N O l O (0 0 w w c c O .E w O) ~ C L c ` N E C C: N X .c O O -0 0 cr 3: 20 (D > c E co w m 'a 0) O - a): E w N 0 0 t Q.? (D C '3 v~ c 0 L O M> 0) C N N N r+ y a) c w N cu 41 C 3 E c H E° E m_N > c 0 a) a) -ca a) 0) L N O p°c-U CU C: r 0 :3 C p ed v a) o = co rn` U N (L)~5-2 EcCLLL >;L t aa)) m Q >>>a `O ~ 0 d 0 L C V y O V "O c N OS S•V N V a 0> CL .c 0) N c O L m Q ° CU = E N c y a w E c p d cn C_ O w 0) co a) m c N Y C oO E N N - = OUV~vEEE"- d m cap m oE00ccm ~'Uc Q O N in o f- X w ° 3 v°i E Q QU 2 w> y O c a O= ns co N w E c -~QCO.Ec w U d w _~ui ~¢3 c w m cc a ca d wY O coY.0 Y z c co E co c O O) C CLE. W ~•ca -0 r- Nm ~ 0 c (DV G Co 0) c a co ° co CU .(D O U) LL j Ovi o p t c72 n can ~ E E> u' V c E> o m a~~ EE2 a) O O0 c N at co w N Q'0) L T U C 7 L E QO O L L IL Z t' ` 7" M c C+. U co O 7 O H Y•> U OU O O c p~ O O m a) U of U a) ns c C v_ d Ll cn >,U E >,EE~ w« E w to Q>m e't '0 Report To Executive Committee 1 iCKERI V G Report Number: CS 18-10 Date: May 10, 2010 From: Gillis A. Paterson Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Subject: Formal Quotations - Quarterly Report for Information Recommendation: That Report CS 18-10 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer regarding Formal Quotations - Quarterly Report for Information be received for information. Executive Summary: Council approved the Purchasing By-law on November 5, 2001 which includes a request to have a summary of contract awards arising from the formal quotation process be forwarded to Council as information only on a quarterly basis. Financial Implications: Not applicable Sustainability Implications: The City's participation in cooperative purchasing initiatives reduces paper and administrative costs. Background: In accordance with Purchasing Policy Item 04.06, a summary of contract awards arising from the formal quotation process is provided herein for the information of Council. Report CS 18-10 May 10, 2010 Subject: Formal Quotations - Quarterly Report for, Information Page 2 78 Formal Quotations Summary January 1, 2010 to March 31, 2010 PST Included / GST Extra (unless stated otherwise) Reference No. Description Award Status Award Date_ Q-71-2009 Quotation for Daily Courier Ongoing January 5, 2010 Service $29,165.76 operating Vendor: Quest Courier costs 2010 Co-operative tender for Registry for Supply, Delivery and/or Pick-up of Asphalt Host: City of Oshawa Various unit Ongoing C2009-127 Participants: Region of prices operating January 18, 2010 Durham, Oshawa, Whitby, costs 2010- Pickering, Clarington, Scugog 2011 Vendor: Coco Paving Inc. and Innovative Surface Solutions Year 1 of 1 Co-operative tender for Supply & Delivery of Duplicating. Paper & Cover Stock Host: Town of Whitby Various unit Ongoing W01-C2009 Region of Durham, Durham prices operating March 15, 2010 College/UOIT, Durham Non- costs 2010- Profit Housing, Ajax, Whitby, 2011 Oshawa, Pickering, Clarington, Scugog, Uxbridge & MPAC Vendor: Buntin Reid Year 2 of 3 Quotation for Miscellaneous Q-31-2010 Foundation Improvements - March 31, 2010 Pickering Museum Village $32,295.00 May 20, 2010 Vendor: Nashid Construction Corp. Quotation for Supply & Q-9-2010 Installation of Resilient March 31, February 24, 2010 Flooring - Pickering $6,085.00 2010 Recreation Complex Vendor: Durham Floor Trends Report CS 18-10 May 10, 2010 Subject: Formal Quotations - Quarterly Report for Information Page 3 79 Reference No. Description Award Status Award Date Quotation for the Supply Rental period Q-21-2010 Delivery of Rental Vehicles April 1, 2010 March 17, 2010 Vendor: Somerville National $43,205.40 to August Leasing & Rentals 30,2010 approx. Attachments: Not applicable PrepaR, d By: Approved/Endorsed By: f~ Vera A. Felgemacher Gillis A. Paterson Manager, Supply & Services Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer C.P.P., CPPO, CPPB, C.P.M., CMM III Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering Ci oun it T s J. Quinn, MR, M III hief Administrative Officer Report To Executive Committee 1 ICKERIlyG Report Number: CS 19-10 Date: May 10,2010 80 From: Gillis A. Paterson Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Subject: Section 357/358 of the Municipal Act - Adjustment to Taxes Recommendation: 1. That Report CS 19-10 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be received; I 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. Executive Summary: Not Applicable Financial Implications: If approved, the write-off of taxes as contained in this report represents a gross cost of $1,551.06 with a net cost to the City of approximately $340.21 the balance being charged back to the Region of Durham and the School Boards. Pickering's share of the costs will be charged to the 2010 Current Budget allocation under General Government - Provision for Uncollectable Taxes. The 2010 budget provision is $275,185 and $1,594.84 including the above has been spent to date. Sustainability Implications: This report does not contain any sustainability implications. Background: The Municipal Act provides the Treasurer with various tax tools regarding the administration and collection of property taxes. Under the provisions of Section 357 of the Municipal Act, reduction of taxes due to fire, demolition, exemption, assessment change or error is allowed for the current year only. Section 358 of the Municipal Act, allows for the reduction of taxes due to assessment error and this section can be applied to property taxes for the two preceding years. Change in realty tax class can translate into lower property taxes if the property went from industrial to commercial tax class or commercial to residential tax class. Report CS 19-10 Date: May 10, 2010 Subject: Section 357/358 of the Municipal Act - Adjustment to Taxes Page 2 Demolitions, and other physical changes to a property, such as removing or filling in a swimming pool, or damage caused by fire result in a reduction in assessment and taxes. One property reflects "no recommendation" in their property taxes which is shown as having zeros in the corresponding columns. In general, "no recommendation" means that either a reduction in assessment was not warranted or further property tax reduction was not necessary as per the Assessment Act. If the property owner does not agree with MPAC's recommendation, they have the right to appeal to the Assessment Review Board under subsection 7 of the Municipal Act, 2001. Attachments: 1. Section 357/358 Adjustment to Taxes - Taxable Prepared By: Approved / Endorsed By: Tracy Parso s Gillis A. Paterson Acting, Coordinator Taxation Services Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer GAP:tp Cop : Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City ounci T J. Quinn, D R., tW'll Chief Administrativ Officer A A W W W , - Oo00DmU7 > . O O O O (D OCO CD CD (D . _0 cn K 82 Am0° m D D K z~000 m G) z z z z W -a m m ;7DDD~ p;0 vvo n n m z m m 0 K K K D K D D D m o > o > D ~mC7C7n 0 ~R1rrr O 0 0 m m m z (q CO .Z_1MZ_1 T 0-< n n n O ~M D ?c000 U) m (n °0000 m 0 G) C: c c - m - rrr CO) n m m m Drmmm m=.cDi)U)CDi) z ;o mNCncn 0~ cmi)c i) m cmi) cn lA cn W n m m m U l z z z OD ~ -a D 0 000 ° M M m M N C -u -u m o CO) 0 m 0 0 0 -q z 0 000 - n mm~ p 2 z z z z y N N N N N m 00000 m 00000 D mm0m-4 m 00000 M Q N W N N N 0 0 0 0 0 r 28222 r T (3)11) V V V z L- I V A A A C 4 41 0 0 0 co (nOOco CC) OCD (n(n(n m Oo(ncnCn M O O (OD N D7 OD { O W W V O m co N N W G) -r OD O V p 0 W O W (An W O z m 0 C 0 N O - N O H O s 0 Z N OA - Oo(D r O O W FO . . . r _ O O O O W O O 00 CD -+O City Report To Executive Committee PICKERING Report Number: CAO 11-10 8 3 Date: May 10, 2010 From: Andrew Allison City Solicitor Subject: Proposed Firearms By-law File: L-2000-001-10 Recommendation: 1. That the proposed Firearms By-law (Attachment No. 1 to this Report) be adopted. Executive Summary: On February 8, 2010, Council approved a public consultation process for the proposed Firearms By-law to allow staff to solicit input from stakeholders and the general public prior to preparing a final draft for Council's consideration. Copies of the draft by-law and Report No. CAO 01-10 to Executive Committee were distributed to the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, the Pickering Rod & Gun Club, the Durham Agricultural Advisory Committee, and 16 individuals who had requested the opportunity to review the draft by-law. Advertisements were placed on .the local community page on February 24, March 3 and March 10, 2010 inviting comments from the public until March 31, 2010. Information was also placed on the City's website, advising of the proposed by-law and the opportunity to provide comments. A total of 32 comments were received regarding the proposed by-law. A summary of the comments is included in this report. Copies of all the comments received are attached. Staff reviewed the comments received and prepared a revised draft of the by-law (Attached No. 1 to this Report) based on the information received. Financial Implications: No financial implications. Sustainability Implications: The regulation of the use of firearms and bows reduces the risk of dangerous unintentional interactions between persons discharging firearms and members of the community. Report CAO 11-10 May 10, 2010 Subject: Proposed Firearms By-law Page 2 $4 Background: Comments The public consultation process for the proposed Firearms By-law was intended to solicit input from.the stakeholders directly affected by the changes to the existing Firearms By-law, and the general public who may have concerns regarding the use of firearms and bows. Of the 32 comments received, 17 were from hunters who were opposed to expanded regulations which may limit the opportunities for hunting in Pickering. Of the 17 hunters who commented, seven live in Pickering. Comments received from the hunting community include: • bow hunting is necessary to control the deer population and limit damage to farmers crops and vehicle accidents • there are no current by-law provisions applicable to bows, and bow hunting can presently take place anywhere in Pickering • there are no clear provisions relating to the use of shotguns • interactions between legitimate hunters and the public are usually the result of the public trespassing • statistics do not support the concept that hunting is unsafe or creates a danger to the public • what constitutes protection of property from nuisance wildlife, and how would this relate to Canada Geese • the restricted and permitted areas are both rural, why can the same rules not apply • hunting has taken place in many areas of Pickering for years without incident, why change the rules • hunting is an appropriate way to aid in control of the coyote population • it is the Ministry of Natural Resources' role to regulate hunting and control the wildlife populations, the City's by-law should not be trying to limit the MNR's ability to do so • archery hunting is very safe and should be treated differently than firearms • hunters work in cooperation with farmers and provide a necessary service • legitimate hunters follow the rules, and have permission to be on the property, increasing by-law restrictions will only impact the people who have followed the rules. Issues are clearly with the hunters who do not follow the rules and no changes to a by-law will resolve • hunting is part of Canada's cultural heritage One comment was received from a hunter who supported the draft by-law, and one comment was received from an area resident who wished to be permitted target .shooting with an air rifle on his own property. CORP0227-07/01 revised Report CAO 11-10 May 10, 2010 Subject: Proposed Firearms By-law Page 3 85 The agricultural community also provided comments regarding the proposed by-law (two farmers, Durham Agricultural Advisory Committee, York Region Federation of Agriculture, and Ontario Federation of Agriculture). Their comments were as follows: • the two farmers requested revisions to the map attached to the by-law, to allow for the agricultural preserve areas between the CP Rail lines and Taunton Road to be incorporated in the Restricted Area, rather than the Urban Area • the restricted area exemptions be expanded to allow the use of bows to hunt deer, as the MNR regulations only permit the hunting of deer with bows south of the Pickering/Uxbridge Townline. Deer cause significant damage to crops and farmers require the ability to permit hunters to control the deer population in their fields • the Ontario Federation of Agriculture expressed similar concerns regarding the control of the deer population and the need to permit the use of bows in the Restricted Area under the exemptions outlined in Section 13 • the Durham Agricultural Advisory Committee suggested changing section 13 (ii) from "the property is classified under the Assessment Act in the Farm Property Class", to "the property has a Farm Business Registration number" • the Durham Agricultural Advisory Committee also suggested changing section 13 (v) from "the firearm's caliber is not greater than .275." to "the firearm is regulated through the Wildlife Management Unit of the Ministry of Natural Resources" • the York Federation of Agriculture ("YFA") provided statistics indicating the estimated 2008 impact of wildlife damage on farmers was $51 million • YFA also indicated crop damage in the GTA adjacent to urban areas appears to be more severe and bow hunting to help manage the wildlife population was a necessary requirement • YFA also commented that farmed areas in the City of Pickering are integral to food production and need to be recognized by the urban population There were also five responses received from members of the public, indicating concerns with the proposed Firearms By-law in the form of the following comments: • the maps provided were difficult to read • there was a concern that those consulted had a vested interest in hunting, yet naturalist groups were not included • desired a public meeting to discuss issue • how can the public be assured hunters know where the boundary line is for the property they have permission to hunt on • why can a farmer determine what a "pest" is? Ministry of Natural Resources should be responsible for issuing a "cull" if there is a problem • by-law does little to address illegal hunting going on in prohibited areas • who has the ability to determine if the hunter possesses a letter of permission, and how can there be any assurance it is legitimate • why can tenants as well as owners grant permission to hunt and how would situations be handled where the two conflict CORP0227-07/01 revised Report CAO 11-10 May 10, 2010 Subject: Proposed Firearms By-law Page 4 • agricultural land owners should be held accountable for the animals they kill as pests • suggest "Pest Management Request Form" for each request and a review process • ensure use of firearms is prohibited around hamlets and Seaton Natural Heritage System • how can you distinguish whether the hunter is there to control nuisance wildlife or hunting for sport • enforcement by MNR is inadequate • there should be a complete ban of any kind of firearm discharge or hunting on any land in the Restricted Area • agree farmers need a way to control nuisance wildlife • believe it is the MNR's role to manage wildlife conservation In addition to the above comments, the Pickering Rod and Gun Club, the Ontario Federation of Anglers & Hunters and the Ministry of Natural Resources provided recommendations. Their comments are summarized individually below: Pickering Rod & Gun Club: • the by-law is trying to address a perceived clash between user groups and trespass issues by imposing expanded firearms regulations on most of the rural lands • there must be a clear difference between public open space versus private lands. There is a broad misconception that if the government owns the land, anyone can enter without permission. This is wrong, there are no "crown lands" in Pickering which permit access to all. Provincially and federally owned lands are still subject to the same requirements for permission to enter onto the property as all privately owned lands • if there are conflicts between hunters with written permission to be on the land and the public using private property without consent, it is the public who are trespassing • adjusting'the boundaries to simplify the area, or prohibit firearms use adjacent to Taunton Rd cannot be justified on the basis of safety concerns • the existing by-law permits archery equipment and if the hunter has permission from the land owner, the hunting is legal. Do the people entering onto these properties have permission to be there? Are they aware that interfering with a person legally hunting is a contravention of the Fish & Wildlife Act • with all of the recent complaints regarding increased wildlife, the City should be considering expanding the legal hunting areas • the Rod & Gun Club would like to see all lands zoned agricultural in Pickering, including Federal and Provincial lands, and the Agricultural Preserve to be unrestricted by the firearms by-law. Allow the Trespass to Property Act, Occupiers' Liability Act, the Ministry of Natural Resources Hunting Regulations and the land owners/tenants to control the issues that have been brought to CORP0227-07/01 revised Report CAO 11-10 May 10, 2010 Subject: Proposed Firearms By-law Page 5 87 Council about illegal hunting. There is sufficient legislation in place to deal with these issues. MNR regulations already prohibit the possession of a loaded firearm, including archery equipment, within 8 m from the travelled portion of a road or fence line and no discharge of a firearm from or across a right of way for passage of vehicles • the Rod & Gun Club understands the need to stop poaching and would be willing to sit down with Council to discuss implementing a "Report a Poacher" program in Pickering, particularly along the boundary of the Rouge Park Ontario Federation of Anglers & Hunters: • the OFAH members and the vast majority of legal, law-abiding, licensed and trained hunters are dedicated to safe hunting practices and the full enforcement of laws designed to ensure public safety and the sustainable use and conservation of wildlife • since the introduction of a mandatory Hunter Safety Education Program in the 1960's, the rate of accidents related to hunting has been reduced to virtually zero • based upon statistics, the suggestion that the regulation of firearms and bows is necessary to reduce the risk of dangerous interactions between persons discharging firearms and members of the community is highly inaccurate and unsubstantiated by fact • according to Statistics Canada, hunting today is measurably safer than bicycling, boating, swimming, horseback riding, most recreational field sports, including baseball and golf • trained licensed hunters present no risk to the non-hunting public • while the Municipal Act allows municipalities to introduce no discharge by-laws In the interest of public safety", any municipality that unduly restricts the discharge of firearms, including bows, that cannot be justified, or that is not clearly demonstrated to be necessary to protect the public safety based upon the frequency and legitimacy of complaints, intrudes upon the provincial jurisdiction to manage and control wildlife populations and the hunting of wildlife • there are already a number of Federal and Provincial laws in place that are enforced with respect to the use of firearms by hunters and other legitimate users • unnecessary restrictions can impact the Province's ability to manage wildlife populations • by restricting hunting a larger public safety hazard may be created since the number of collisions between cars and deer can be anticipated to increase. • deer/car collisions in Ontario have increased by 86% over the last decade • OFAH would be pleased to participate in any working group established by Council to create a firearms by-law all could support CORP0227-07/01 revised Report CAO 11-10 May 10, 2010 Subject: Proposed Firearms By-law Page 6 8 Ministry of Natural Resources: • two of MNR's most serious concerns are the proposed vast areas of no discharge within rural lands and the missed opportunity to retain archery-only areas • regardless of how rural properties are zoned or their ownership, the safety concerns are the same as those zoned agricultural • the proposed by-law severely restricts discharge of archery firearms and long gun firearms throughout most of Pickering, even in areas MNR believes there would be no safety concerns • the Municipal Act empowers municipalities to enact by-laws that regulate firearms for the purpose of public safety. These by-laws are for public safety only and should not be used to inhibit or restrict legal activities such as hunting where there is no public safety concern • MNR recognizes the need for no discharge of firearms by-laws in urban areas for the purpose of public safety but encourages municipalities to recognize that MNR is responsible for managing wildlife populations and the most effective means we have of doing that is through regulated hunting and trapping • hunting regulations take into consideration both the safety of hunters and the general public by prescribing such things as permitted types of firearms and ammunition that can be used to hunt various species of wildlife • all hunters must take a Hunter Safety course and pass a written and practical test before they are eligible to purchase a hunting licence in Ontario • the proposed by-law would also impact private landowners' ability to utilize licenced trappers and hunters as agents to effectively help control human-wildlife conflicts such as crop depredation and livestock predation • the MNR urges the City of Pickering to take into account the separate safety concerns regarding the discharge of archery firearms (bows and crossbows) and long guns including shotguns and/or rifles. All have varying safety factors to consider. Shotguns and archery equipment have a limited range and therefore can be discharged safely in areas where rifles may not. Archery firearms have a very short range (usually under 30 m) and emit no noise when fired. . Because of this, archery hunting can safely occur in near urban areas • the approach of providing areas where archery firearms can only be discharged and areas where both archery and long guns can be discharged has proven effective in other municipalities in the GTA, in allowing hunting to occur while addressing public safety concerns. We would encourage Pickering to consider this approach, so as not to restrict or eliminate hunting opportunities unnecessarily • Ontario hunting regulations do not require a hunter to have written permission to hunt on private property. However, it is an offence to trespass to hunt. The requirement to have permission to be on private property to hunt is already in provincial legislation. MNR does not feel that it is necessary, or possibly even in the municipality's area of jurisdiction to require this CORP0227-07/01 revised Report CAO 1140 May 10, 2010 Subject: Proposed Firearms By-law Page 7 89 • MNR's Conservation Officers enforce the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act and Regulations which govern hunting and trapping. They do not enforce municipal by-laws. We would ask that the reference to "conservation officer" be removed from the enforcement provisions of the draft by-law • the proposed by-law seeks to set a discharge distance of 10 m from a roadway. Please be advised that this matter is already addressed in Ontario Regulation 665/98 (hunting regulations) under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act Revisions to the Proposed Firearms By-law Based on the comments received, staff have revised the proposed by-law as follows: 1. Section 1 - The definition of firearm was revised by removing the specification regarding ammunition types and types of firearms included. This eliminates the contradiction in the previous definition as air and pellet guns.do not use rimfire or centrefire ammunition, but should be regulated. See additional provision added under Section 15 (d), exempted activities, regarding air or pellet guns. 2. Section 1 - The definition of "park" has been changed from "City owned greenspace" to "publicly owned greenspace". This clarification will ensure the Natural Heritage System in the Seaton Lands, the Seaton Hiking Trail and any other properties owned by the Toronto Region Conservation Authority, as well as all provincially and federally owned greenspace areas are included in this definition. .3. Section 1 - A definition has been added for "Prohibited Areas" to represent the areas added to the attached map, (Schedule A) prohibiting the use of firearms and bows in the hamlets and the Seaton Hiking Trail. 4. Section 1 - The definition of "Urban Area" has been changed to "the portion of the City south of the Canada Pacific Rail Line" to accommodate the agricultural lands between the CP Rail line and Taunton Road. There are no urban areas between the CP Rail line and Taunton Road. 5. Former Sections 11 and 12 - Both sections (which prohibited the discharge of bows in the Restricted Area) have been removed as bows will be included in agricultural exemption (new Section 11). 6. Section 11 - Revised to include bows in exemptions for agricultural purposes as follows: "No person shall discharge a firearm or bow in the Restricted Area unless all of the following conditions have been met:" This revision allows the use of bows on farm properties for the control of deer that are damaging crops. 7. Section 11 (ii) - (formerly Section 13 (ii)) Revised from "the property is classified under the Assessment Act in the Farm Property Class" to "a valid Farm Business CORP0227-07/01 revised Report CAO 11-10 May 10, 2010 Subject: Proposed Firearms By-law Page..8 90 Registration Number exists for the farm business operating on the property" per the recommendation of the Durham Agricultural Advisory Committee. 8. Former Section 13 (iii) removed. This change was made to recognize that not all farm operations meeting the criteria for a Farm Business Registration Number have a minimum of 10 acres. 9. Former Section 13 (v)) - removed. This change has been made in accordance with MNR recommendations advising firearms are already regulated under O. Reg 665/98 and there is no need for the by-law to specify acceptable types of firearms. 10. Section 12 (former Section 14) - Amended to read "No owner of a property in the Restricted Area shall permit the discharge of a firearm or bow on such property. unless all of the conditions set out in Section 11 have been met". This amendment includes bows in the exemptions as previously outlined. 11. Former Section 15 (d) and former Section 16 (c) (discharges within 10 metres of any highway) have been removed in accordance with MNR's comments advising this is already regulated through O. Reg 665/98. 12. Section 15 (previously Section 17) - An exemption has been added to permit the use of air guns and pellet guns in the Restricted Area, provided the same restrictions regarding City property, proximity to specific types of properties, and property owner permission as outlined in Section 13 are complied with. 13. Section 15 (previously Section 17) -At the suggestion of Councillor Littley at the Executive Committee Meeting of February 8, 2010, an addition has been made to the Exempted Activities section as follows: 15. (e) where the discharge is for the purposes of humanely euthanizing livestock where circumstances require." 14. Section 17 (previously Section 19) - The reference to "conservation officer" has been removed at the request of MNR. The Ministry of Natural Resources has recommended that the by-law contain less restrictive provisions relating to the use of bows so as not to restrict or eliminate this type of hunting unnecessarily. If Council wishes to take a less restrictive approach to the use of bows, the following three sections could be substituted into the "Restricted Area" section of the proposed by-law in place of sections 11 and 12 of (with consequential section numbering changes): 11. No person shall discharge a bow in the Restricted Area, (a) on any property owned by the City; CORP0227-07/01 revised I Report CAO 11-10 May 10, 2010 Subject: Proposed Firearms By-law Page 9 91 (b) within 100 m of any school, place of worship, day nursery, community recreation centre, conservation area or park; (c) within 100 m of any dwelling, other than a dwelling owned by the person discharging the bow, (d) unless he or she is the owner or occupier of the property, or (e) unless he or she has received written permission from the owner of the property and carries such permission on his or her person at all times while on that property. 12. No person shall discharge a firearm in the Restricted Area unless all of the following conditions have been met. (i) the person discharging the firearm is the owner of the property, or a licensed hunter of trapper with the written permission of such owner, (ii) a valid Farm Business Registration Number exists for the farm business operating on the property, (iii) the discharge is for the purpose of protection of property from nuisance wildlife that may be killed or harassed in accordance with applicable provincial and federal legislation; and 13. No owner of a property in the Restricted Area shall permit the discharge of a firearm on such property unless all of the conditions set out in section 12 have been met. The effect of these changes would be to permit the use of bows in the Restricted Area in accordance with the Ministry of Natural Resources Hunting Regulations as set out by 0. Reg. 665/98, in support of the MNR's position that regulated hunting and trapping remains the most effective means for managing wildlife populations. The use of bows would not be required to be in relation to the protection of farm property, however, the requirements for written permission from the property owner, and prohibitions relating to City property and proximity to specific types of properties would remain. Summary The proposed Firearms By-law is intended to ensure public safety while recognizing the rights of members of the public to discharge firearms and bows for a variety of legitimate purposes. CORP0227-07/01 revised Report CAO 11-10 May 10, 2010 Subject: Proposed Firearms By-law Page 10 Attachments: 1. Proposed Firearms By-law 2. Copies of all comments received Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: imber Thompson CMM L, CPSO Debbie Shields anager, By-law Enforcement Services City Clerk Andrew C. Allison City Solicitor Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City nct WWII- I . Quinn, R R, d~fi III f Chief Administrative Officer CORP0227-07/01 revised 9 3 ATTACHMENT NO.1 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING BY-LAW NO. /10 Being a by-law to regulate the discharge of firearms and bows WHEREAS pursuant to section 119 of the Municipal Act, 2001, a local municipality may, for the purpose of public safety, prohibit or regulate the discharge of guns or other firearms, air-guns, spring-guns, cross-bows, long-bows or any other weapon. NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: PART I - INTERPRETATION Definitions 1. In this by-law, "bow" means a long-bow, compound bow, re-curve bow, cross-bow, or any other class of bow; "City" means The Corporation of the City of Pickering or the geographical area of Pickering, as the context requires; "community recreation centre" means a facility owned by the City used by the general public for recreational or other community activities; "dwelling" means a residential unit that is capable of being occupied on a permanent, seasonal or part-time basis; "firearm" means any barreled weapon from which any shot, bullet, or other projectile can be discharged; "highway" has the same meaning as in subsection 1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act and includes all roads, streets, lanes, unopened and assumed road allowances; "owner" means the person identified in the most recent tax roll as the owner of a property, or a lessee, tenant, mortgagee in possession or any other person who has care and control of a property; "park" means a recreational area for use by the general public and includes a sports field, passive park area, playground, or any other publicly owned greenspace; "Permitted Area" means the area identified as such in Schedule "A"; Firearms By-law Page 2 94 "person" includes an individual, a corporation and the heirs, executors, administrators or other legal representatives of a person to whom the context can apply according to law; "Prohibited Area" means the area identified as such in Schedule "A"; "property" means a parcel of land and any buildings or structures on the land, and includes.a portion of the property; "Restricted Area" means the area identified as such in Schedule "A"; "school" includes an elementary school, a secondary school, a community college or university, and any private school; and "Urban Area" means the portion of the City south of the Canadian Pacific Railway Line. References 2. In this by-law, reference to any Act, regulation or by-law is reference to that Act, regulation or by-law as it is amended or re-enacted from time to time. 3. References in this by-law to a Part, section or schedule are to a Part, section and schedule in this by-law. Word Usage 4. This by-law shall be read with all changes in gender or number as the context may require. 5. A grammatical variation of a word or expression defined has a corresponding meaning. Schedule 6. Schedule "A" (DEFINED AREAS) is attached to and forms part of this by-law. Conflicts 7. If a provision of this by-law conflicts with a provision of any applicable Act, regulation or by-law, the provision that establishes the higher or more restrictive standard to protect the health, safety and welfare of the general public shall prevail. Firearms By-law Page 3 9 Severability 8. Each section of this by-law is an independent section, and the holding of any section or part of any section of this by-law to be void or ineffective for any reason shall not be deemed to affect the validity of any other section or parts of sections of this by-law. PART II - REGULATIONS General Prohibitions 9. No person shall discharge a firearm or a bow in the Urban Area or a Prohibited Area. 10. No owner of a property in the Urban Area or the Prohibited Area shall permit the. discharge of a firearm or a bow on such property. Restricted Area 11'.. No person shall discharge a firearm or bow in the Restricted Area unless all of the following conditions have been met: (i) the person discharging the firearm is the owner of the property, or a licensed hunter or trapper with the written permission of such owner; (ii) a valid Farm Business Registration Number exists for the farm business operating on the property; and (iii) the discharge is for the purposes of protection of property from nuisance wildlife that may be killed or harassed in accordance with applicable provincial and federal legislation. 12. No owner of a property in the Restricted Area shall permit the discharge of a firearm or bow on such property unless all of the conditions set out in section 11 have been met. Permitted Area 13. No person shall discharge a firearm or a bow in the Permitted Area, (a) on any property owned by the City; (b) within 100 metres of any school, place of worship, day nursery, community recreation centre, conservation area or park; (c) within 100 metres of any dwelling, other than a dwelling owned by the person discharging the firearm; Firearms By-law Page 4 96 (d) unless the person is the owner of the property; or (e) unless the person has received written permission from the owner of the property and carries such permission on his or her person at all times while on the property. 14. No owner of a property in the Permitted Area shall permit the discharge of a firearm or a bow on such property within, (a) 100 metres of any school, place of worship, day nursery, community recreation centre, conservation area, or park; or (b) 100 metres of any dwelling, other than a dwelling owned by them. Exempted Activities 15. None of the prohibitions or restrictions in this Part apply, (a) where the discharge is blank ammunition fired for the purpose of a ceremonial event, historical display or education program, theatrical, film or television production, sporting event, or the training of animals; (b) where the discharge is within an indoor paint ball facility operating in accordance with approved zoning and site plan regulations; . (c) where the discharge is within a shooting range or a firearms business, the use and location of which is in compliance with applicable zoning and building requirements and any other applicable federal, provincial and municipal laws; (d) to the discharge of an air gun or pellet gun in the Restricted Area in compliance with the same restrictions set out in Section 13; or (e) where the discharge is for the purposes of humanely euthanizing livestock where circumstances require. Exempted Individuals 16. None of the prohibitions or restrictions in this Part apply to the following persons in the performance of their duties: (a) a police officer; (b) an animal control officer, conservation officer, or an inspector or agent of the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals; or (c) any officer appointed to enforce federal or provincial legislation. . Firearms By-law Page 5 97 PART III - ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES Enforcement 17. In this Part, "officer" means a police officer, municipal law enforcement officer, or any other officer appointed to enforce provincial or federal legislation. 18. This by-law may be enforced by any officer. 19. An officer may, at any reasonable time, enter upon any property for the purpose of determining whether or not the provisions of this by-law have been complied with. 20. No person shall prevent, hinder or interfere or attempt to prevent, hinder or interfere with an officer. Offences and Penalties 21. No person permitted under this by-law to discharge a firearm or bow shall permit the projectile discharged to leave the property from where the discharge took place. 22. Every person who contravenes any provision of this by-law is guilty of an offence and upon conviction is liable to a fine pursuant to the provisions of the Provincial Offences Act. PART IV - GENERAL Other Applicable Laws 23. Nothing in this by-law shall in any way derogate from any person's responsibility to obtain approvals from any other government authority having jurisdiction over the use of firearms or bows. Short Title 24. This by-law may be referred to as the "Firearms By-law". Repeal 25. By-law No. 247/75, as amended, is repealed. Firearms By-law Page 6 98 Effective Date 26. This by-law comes into effect on the date of its passing. BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this day of , 2010. David Ryan, Mayor Debbie Shields, City Clerk Firearms By-law Page 7 '9'9 "Schedule A" lOWfGHIP OF W[liwppE d4i Ill 1 U! I NJIV-71 .1 "k 11. F-I o Al 1. , o I W ¢ W { pp A Y Nuf j - Tr. -6 Pn7hd711Md ■Ew AMUNOd A1Nd diMMULE 5 TO MY LAW PAEBEo TId6 OMIYCr Mto hbnratim Quad w of Fek 1, WIM ATTACHMENT NO. 2 Thompson, Kim D. From: 100 Sent: March 24,2010 05 PM To: Thompson, Kim D. Subject: Re: Draft Firearms By-taw for Comment Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the draft bylaw: My name is I am a lawyer at the Whitby firm of L lived in Pickering until 2005, when I moved to Ajax near Rossland and Audley. I still f requentlyhunt in Pickering. In 2009 I hunted de.er,.ducks and geese in Pickering. I am presently representing a group of approximately 50 Pickering hunters in relation to this draft bylaw: of hunting in Pickering, when compared to The draft bylaw represents a dram aticrestriction the'1975 bylaw (with it's numerous amendments since 1975). My comparison of the present bylaw, with the draft bylaw, brings to light (based on what I can see), the following additional restrictions that will be placed on hunters if this new bylaw passes; BOWS There are presently a lot of bowhunters in Pickering, because of the abundant deer population. Under the present bylaw; there are no restrictions o.n bowhunting in Pickering, In other words, bowhunters can hunt anywhere in Pickering. Of course, Provincial hunting laws and landowner rights always apply. Under the proposed bylaw, there is no bowhunting allowed under any circumstances in the Restricted Area, or the Urban Area. This is somewhat bizarre. Hunters will be allowed to usesmall caliber rifles in the Restricted Area if they comply with a restrictive list of conditions ( i.e only for the purpose of nuisance wildlife, on a 'Farm Property' under the Assessment Act, that is at least 10 acres in size etc...). But, hunters will not be allowed to use bows in the Restricted area in any circumstances. This obviously needs fixing. Bowhunting is a farmer's best defense against deer, and is certainly.safer than small caliber rifles. Bowhunting is only allowed in the Permitted Area under a limited set of. circumstances. The Permitted Area is only east of Brock Road, and north of Hwy 7. Of course, as I understand it, much of this is, Federal land„where hunting is presently not, permitted by the landowner (ie the Federal Government). In addition, if hunters are able to find areas in the Permitted.Area that are not Federally controlled, under the new bylaw hunters still cannot hunt on any property in the Permitted Area owned by the City, or within 100 meters of any dwelling, conservation area or park (as well as some other less onerous locations.). "Park" is defined in the draft bylaw as ....a recreational area for use by the general public and includes a ...passive park area ...or any other City owned greenspace. If (along with some other less onerous locations). This broad definition of "Park" will further limit hunting w;fhin the "Permitted Area". Translation ?The proposed.bylaw pretty much stops bowhunting in Pickering. SHOTGUNS 1 101 Because of theabundant waterfowl population, many farmers are happy to allow Pickering -hunters to hunt ducks and geese on their properties. Of course, for numerous legal and 1practi a ileasons, hunters cannot hunt waterfowl with a rif le, they have to use a shotgun. Under the present bylaw, as I read it, hunters are allowed to use a shotgun in almost half of Pickering, with landowner permission. Under the proposed bylaw, there are no shotguns allowed in the Urban Area, which seems pretty reasonable, and no real change from the previous bylaw. Under the proposed bylaw, it is not clear whether shotguns are allowed in the Restricted Area. Clearly, under the proposed bylaw, anyone using any firearm in the Restricted Area must comply with a restrictive. list of conditions (see above); but proposed clause 13(v) also indicates that "the firearm's caliber (cannot be) greater than .275". Shotguns are not measured in caliber's. This really needs clarif ication. Are shotguns to be allowed in the Restricted area if the restrictive list of conditions are otherwise met ? Even if this uncertain wording of the proposed bylaw is resolved in favor of shotgun use in the Restricted Area; the proposed bylaw still severely limits shotgun use in Pickering. Shotgun use would.then only be allowed in the Permitted Area', unless the restrictive list of conditions were met in the-Restricted Area. As indicated in the above section on bows, much of the Permitted Area, as I understand, is Federally controlled, and hunting is not -permitted by the Feds. The big problem here is that the Federal lands are north of hwy 7. Under the present'bylow, this left most of the good shotgun.hunting land south of hwy 7. Under the proposed bylaw, shotgun hunting south of hwy 7 is now prohibited. In addition, please read the above section on bows regarding other the problems with finding huntable property under the proposed bylaw, in the. Permitted Area. . At best; the proposed bylaw will make hunting with a shotgun in Pickering very .difficult. At worst, it will essentially stop shotgun hunting in Pickering. RIFLES Under the present bylaw, a hunter is allowed to use a rifle of "no greater caliber than .275" in about half of Pickering, with the landowner's consent. Under the proposed bylaw, hunters are allowed to use the same size of rif le( no greater than .275) in the Restricted Area, if the restrictive list of conditions are met (see the above section on bows). As I read the proposed bylaw, this does allow hunting with the some size of rifle in a large area of Pickering (le a large portion of the proposed Restricted area), where rifles were previously. prohibited. Of course, such hunting would only be allowed.where the restrictive list of conditions are met. Under the proposed bylaw, hunters are allowed to use the some size of rifle in the Permitted Area. Of course, all of the same problems-outlined in the above sections on bows and shotguns apply to hunting with rif les in the Permitted area (le above hwy 7). Under -the.present bylaw, rifle hunting was allowed in about half of Pickering. Under the proposed bylaw rifle hunting will potentially be allowed in a larger area of Pickering, but only where the restrictive list of conditions are met. Open hunting, with landowner permission, will only be allowed north of hwy 7 and east of Brock Road., where we have the Federal land problem outlined above. SUGGESTIONS FOR REVISION 2. I have outlined some of my suggestions for revision above. My primary suggestion would be to make no revision to the existing bylaw. Hunters are presently only hunting on private 1 ropertY. "Unintentional interactions" between a legal .Pickering hunter and a non hunter 2 P essentially only occur-when the non hunter is trespassing.. The legal hunter will have landowner permission to be on the private property, The non hunter invariably does not. If the hunter is not legal, then he/she should be charged. Perhaps the same should apply to the trespasser. In any case, I doubt that changing the Pickering hunting Taws will dramatically effect the behavior of hunters that are already hunting illegally. The change in bylaw will only effect the legal hunter. I find it a little bewildering that-these bylaws are being changed to essentially protect the illegal trespasser, to the detriment of the legal hunter. The Report to the.Executive Committee.seems to indicate,thatthe reason behind this proposed change is that it "reduces the risk of unintentional interactions between persons discharging firearms and members of the community..." Setting aside the issue of trespasser vs legol hunter, I have still heard of no such dangerous interactions, I am not convinced that there have been any dangerous or potentially dangerous interactions, I may be wrong in this, but I understand that the population in north Pickering is not growing, and may actually begetting smaller, given the lack of development in the Airport lands. This should actually limit the chances of such "unintentional interactions". So, why the need for a bylaw change ? A bow is only dangerous within about 50 yards, and the person using the bow is always very - intent on the target area. The potential for dangerous interactions is extremely minimal. Bow hunting in urban areas is quite common in the U.S. and I have never heard of a citizen being hit .accidentally by a bowhunter. Similarly, the force of a shotgun dissipates very.quickly, and presents a minimal danger to any member of the public who is not directly in front of, and close to; the shooter.. Waterfowl hunting in Pickering takes place in fields, in front of decoys. The prospect of citizen walking out in front of a hunter in these circumstances, without the hunter spotting the citizen, is hard to imagine. Why is the City of Pickering now intent on changing a bylaw that seems to be working well ? Almost everyone in Durham knows someone who has hit a deer with a car. The deer population in Durham is out of control and growing. That is why the Ministry of Natural Resources allows Pickering hunters. to shoot up to 7 deer each year. The Ministry is strongly in favor of keeping the bylaw the way it is. They indicate that hunting is their only deer management tool in Durham. There is a very substantial deer population south of Taunton Road, in the area that.will become the Urban Area under the proposed bylaw. Bowhunting should continue to be allowed in. this area. One of my tree stands is 200 yards south of Taunton Road and I see deer every time I sit in it. I once saw 17 deer at once sitting in that stand (I was doing the sitting, the deer were, walking). What will happen to this deer population once the hunters have gone ? How will Pickering council respond if deer/vehicle collisions increase or result in fatalities ? Once the hunters are gone, what.will happen to the coyote problem ? What if the coyote population increases What if coyotes continue to become more aggressive ? Also, How will the farmers feel if the hunters are gone and the devastation of their crops (presently a serious problem) by deer and waterfowl increases (which is likely) ? 3 103 Many of the men and women I represent have been hunting in Pickering for decades. There has t1o be a good reason before their rights are restricted. in the manner set out in the proposed bylaw. I do not think that a hypothetical risk of "dangerous unintentional interactions" without some evidence of a recent, increase in that risk, is enough of a basis to make the bylaw changes suggested. This is tiarticularly true in light of the above evidence, which supports no change to the bylaw. - I look forward to making further submissions at a future council meeting. Unlimited Disk, Data Transfer, PHP/MySQL Domain Hosting http://www.doteasy.coin 4 Thompson, Kim D. From: Sent: February 18, 2010 12:12 PM To: Thompson, Kim D, 04 Subject: RE: Draft Firearms By-law for Comment Thank you Kim. My address Ems I am responding as a hunter. KNOWS From: "Thom son Kim D." <kthompson@cityofpickering.com> To: Date: 02/18/2010 Subject: RE: Draft Firearms By-law for Comment Mr your comments regarding the proposed firearms by-law have been received and will be reviewed by.staff and included in the report to Council with the final by-law draft. Could you please provide your residential address to confirm whether you are providing comments as a resident of Pickering, or a person who hunts in the municipality. Thank you Kimberly Thompson Manager, Municipal Law Enforcement Services Clerk's Office City of Pickering Telephone: 905.420.4660 ext 2187 Toll Free: 1.877.420.466.6 Fax- 905.420.9685 TTY: 905.420.1739 kthompson(d.)cityofpickering.com www.cityofpickering.com. SAPlease consider your environmental responsibility - think before you print! www.sustainablepickering.com 105 From: Sent:.February 18, 2010 11:5.3 AM To: Thompson, Kim D. Subject: Re: Draft Firearms By-law for Comment Kim, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft by-law. Please consider this email my submission to the Council on this issue. I have two major areas of concern,, both of which relate to the 'restricted area' set out in the draft by-law. My first concern is in respect of.subparagraph 13(iv) which states that a discharge must be for purposes of protection of property from nuisance wildlife that may be killed or harassed in accordance with applicable provincial or federal legislation. I question what sorts of legislation is contemplated in the draft. For example, we currently have large . numbers of Canada Geese that use the restricted area. There is, under federal legislation, a 'late season' to harvest some of these resident birds, but I do not believe that the federal legislation officially terms the season as being a nuisance' season. I would appreciate clarification as to the federal or provincial legislation that the Council has in mind. . Also, what constitutes protection of property? I would assume that would include geese that are eating planted winter wheat crops. Would it also include geese eating hay or other crops? Clarification should be made on this point. My second concern is with respect to the distinction between the restricted area and the permitted area. From the. extensive travelling I have done through both areas I do not see how they are different in any substantive way. Both areas seem to be equally 'rural', i.e. generally unpopulated with much of the land being used for agricultural purposes. Why is there a need to draw a.distinction between the two? I would suggest that the restricted area be wholly considered as being permitted area. Clearly safety is the issue with respect to discharge of firearms. The control. mechanism to achieve safety is in respect of the written permission that a hunter must have together with the minimum distance from residences et al. Again, I thank you for the opportunity to provide input. Please feel free to contact me at the below phone number should you wish to discuss my comments. Regards, soma 2 Thompson, Kim D. From: Sent: March 3, 2010 10:07 AM 1 06. To: Thompson, Kim D. Subject: Re: proposed by-law change I would prefer not to give my address, however I do live in ajax and I hunt in the area frequently From: "Thompson, Kim D." <kthompson@cityofpickering.com> Date: Wed, .3 Mar 2010 09:01:38 -0500 To: Subject: RE: proposed by-law change MINIM your comments have been received and will be incorporated into the follow up Report to Council. Could you please provide your residential address to allow comments to be categorized as residents and non-residents? Thank you Kimberly Thompson Manager, Municipal Law.Enforcement Services Clerk's Office City of Pickering Telephone: 905.420.4660 ext 2.187 Toll 'Free: 1.877.420.4666 Fax: 905.420.9685 TTY: 905.420.1739 kthompson(a~cityofpickering. com www.citvofpickering.com APlease consider your environmental responsibility - think before you printi www.sustainablepickering.com Fro Sent: March 2, 2010 5:54 PM To: Thompson, Kim. D. Subject: proposed by-law change I am a member of the O.F.A.H. and was recently contacted with information regarding the proposed Discharge by-law . changes. 1 have. numerous concerns regarding this. Under the proposed by-law, no person may discharge a bow within the restricted area, but you will be allowed to discharge a firearm under certain circumstances? 10 acres is more than sufficient to ensure that a responsible hunter may discharge a firearm safely. That being said, a .22 long rifle is potentially deadly, if discharged, up to lkm away; I think that one would be hard pressed to explain how bow is somehow more dangerous. Responsible owners, be they either hunters or target shooters, are required to find a clear shot (and be 100%0 1 sure of what they are shooting at), and to find an appropriate backstop. This ensures the safety of everyone involved in any type of outdoor activity and allows us all to enjoy the outdoors in the way which we choose individually 107 If a person is the owner of an. appropriately sized portion of property, what difference does it make if they are the only ones shooting on it? And by that same note, can someone please explain to me how 10 acres of . farmland is different than 10 acres of non-farmland? A safe shooting area is a safe shooting area and a licensed shooter is a licensed shooter. Inventing classifications is pointless and unfairly restricts the access to legitimate hunting and target shooting areas. The section about being 100 metres away from a dwelling, unless you own it is again pointless and I will point back to my second bullet The old by-law was more than sufficient and I personally take offence to the proposed amendments due to the lack of research and understanding of responsible shooting practices. If the town is going to make changes to a by-law such as this, I believe that they have to consider all of the residents of the community, not just people who are against firearms for the sake of being against them. Knowledge is the key. Thanks for taking the time to review my concerns; I hope to hear back from you soon. Concerned resident PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE As regulated by the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, S.C. 2000 C5, this electronic transmission, including all attachments, is directed in confidence to the person(s) to which it is addressed or an authorized recipient, and may not otherwise be distributed, copied, printed or disclosed. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by return transmission and then immediately delete this transmission, including all attachments, without copying, printing, distributing or disclosing same. Thank you 2 Thompson, Kim D. From: 0 8 Sent: March 4, 2010 6: M To:, Thompson, Kim D. Subject: RE: comments on proposed firearms by-law I am aware :that hunting takes place on private land, but since that is private land, if it does not infringe on others, it should not be regulated by the government. That is why my previous comment asked that the by-law be restricted to crown land. I am also aware that the older by-law had many of these restrictions in place already. It was my understanding that part of the review and update of by-laws is to consider the previous regulations and if any changes are warranted. Since this by-law is under review and open for public comment, I felt this was the right time. to bring the problems with the by-law to the attention. of council. Also, just because most municipalities have such by-laws does not mean that Pickering should. Let us be a model to other municipalities that we value the rights of our residents. appreciate the. report that you sent me, it clarified the changes well. For the reasons I have previously stated, I strongly oppose the expansion of the prohibited area as well as the additional restrictions it seeks to add. In addition, I strongly urge council to approach this by-law from a blank slate perspective and review its goals, if those goals are fair and just, and if this by-law is likely to achieve those goals. Thanks again, From: Thompson, Kim D. [mailto:kthompson@cityofpickering.com] Sent: March 4, 2010 10:08 . Tdl~ Subject: RE: comments on proposed firearms by-law Ms. JORIM Hunting takes place in many areas other than crown land. The City's existing firearms by-law prohibits the use of firearms in the urban area and most of the areas west of Brock Rd in the north. The proposed firearms by-law is intended to replace a by-law that has been in existence since 1975. The majority of the restrictions remain the same, and are common in most municipalities in Ontario. In case you have not had the opportunity to review the report to Executive Committee outlining the reasons for the by-law update, I have attached it for your review. Please note the public consultation phase for the proposed by-law will run until March 31St. If you have any further comments. you wish to have incorporated in the report to Council, please forward them to me by March 31St. You may submit them by e-mail. Please include your residential address. Thank you From Sent: March 4, 2010 9:54 AM To: Thompson, Kim D. Subject: RE: comments on proposed firearms by-law Ms. Thompson, 1 While I am aware that there is other legislation involved, the proposed by-law specifically says that I cannot use any type of barrelled projectile firing. weapon, including rifles, air guns, pellet guns, and paintball guns, unless I am a police officer or *similar. Yes, other regulations limit my rights; is that reason to pass yet another piece of legislation to further limit thlem? .109 As I. do not own any type of firearm or bow, I can assure you that I meet all requirements for storage. I see no benefit to the proposed by-law, only further limits on the rights of law-abiding innocent citizens. If this by-law is truly about hunters using firearms in the open, then please restrict the areas of enforcement to crown land. For example, the restrictions in place in the proposed "permitted area" seem to take care of any such concerns. What is the rational for further restrictions in other area? Why not eliminate those sections of the by-law and have all areas fall under the "permitted area" section? From: Thompson, Kim D. [mailto:kthompson@cityofpickering.com] Sent: March 4, 2010 09:11 Subject: RE commends on proposed firearms by-law Ms e circumstances you are describing are better dealt with under the criminal code. The City's firearms regulations generally apply to hunters wishing to use firearms out in the open, in accordance with all other regulatory requirements. Your concerns regarding firearms in your home are regulated under totally different legislation which you may wish to discuss with Durham Regional Police to ensure you have met any requirements for storage, as.well as your legal ability to use in self defence situations. Thank you for taking the time to express.your concerns. Kimberly Thompson Manager, Municipal Law Enforcement Services Clerk's_ Office City of Pickering Telephone: 905.420.4660 ext 2187 Toll Free: 1.877.420.4666 Fax: 905.420.9685 TTY: 905.4201739 kthompson(&cityofpickering.com www.cityofpickeringcom APlease consider your environmental responsibility - think before you print! u<nnnv.sustainabiepickerinc.com Fro Sent: March 3, 2010 10:05 PM To: Thompson, Kim D. Subject: comments on proposed firearms by-law Dear Kimberly Thompson, 2 am a Pickering resident and property owner. I live in what the proposed by-law describes as the "urban area"..According to this proposal, should someone break into my home, it would be illegal for me to defend my person and my prope y using a firearm. I take great offense to this. Studies have shown guns to be the safest and most effective means of 110 defence. Using a gun for protection results in fewer injuries to the defender than using any other means of defence and is. safer than not resisting at all (Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991.). The myth that 'guns are dangerous when used for protection" disappears when exposed to scientific examination and data. The myth persists because it is repeated so frequently and dogmatically that few think to question it by examining the mountains of data available. In fact, the people who would benefit most from this by-law are criminals. It would make their jobs much safer, The brilliant criminologist Cesare Beccaria says "Laws that forbid the carrying. of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants-, they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.". Instead of gun control why not focus on firearms safety education? I hope you will pass my comments onto the rest of council and reconsider this by-law. Let's work to protect the innocent, not the criminals. _Sincerely, PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY. NOTICE As regulated by the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, S.C. 2000 C5, this electronic transmission, including all attachments, is directed in confidence to the person(s) to. which it is addressed, or an authorized recipient, and may not otherwise be distributed; copied, printed or disclosed. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify.the sender immediately by return transmission and then immediately delete this transmission, including all attachments, without copying, printing, distributing or disclosing same. Thank you PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE As regulated by the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, S.C. 2000 C5, this electronic transmission, including all attachments, is directed in confidence to the person(s) to which it is addressed, or an authorized recipient, and may not otherwise be distributed, copied, printed or disclosed. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by return transmission and then immediately delete this transmission, including all attachments, without copying, printing, distributing or disclosing same. Thank you 3 Thompson,.Kim D. From.: Thompson, Kim D. Sent: March 10 201.0 11:08 AM To: Subject: RE: Another attempt to screw up Pickering!! Mr. the process approved by Council to solicit public input is outlined in the previous e-mail Upon receiving the comments provided, staff will review and prepare a final draft of the proposed by- law in a report for Council's consideration. The comments provided by the public will be included in. this final draft. Councii will then determine if the proposed by-law is passed. If you have any further comments to add, please e-mail them to me prior to March 31, 2010.. Thank you for your interest in the proposed Firearms By-law. Kimberly Thompson Manager, Municipal Law Enforcement Services Clerk's Office City of Pickering Telephone: 905.420.4660 ext 2187 Toll Free: 1.877.420.4666. Fax: 905.420.9685 TTY: 905.420.1739 kthompson(a-)_cityofpickering.com www.cityofpickering.com MAPlea,se. consider your environmental responsibility - think before you print! www.sustainablepickering.com Fro Sent: March 10, 2010 10:50 AM To: Thompson, Kim D. Subject: RE: Another attempt to screw. up Pickering!! Hello Kim Please put me on, the committee for input on the final draft proposal.Keep me posted by E mail. . Thank you On Wed, 2/17/10, Thompson, Kim D. <kthompson@cityofpickering.com> wrote: From: Thompson, Kim D. <kthompson@cityofpickering.com> i Subject: RE: Another attempt to screw up Pickering!! To: Date: Wednesday, February 17, 2010, 12:15 PIv 1 12 Mr. s we discussed this morning by telephone, City of Pickering Council has approved the request to solicit input from stakeholders and the public regarding the draft firearms by-law, prior to presenting a final recommended draft to Council. Please find attached the Report to Executive Committee which outlines the rationale for the revisions made in the draft firearms by-law. The report also contains the proposed draft of the firearms by-law for your review and comment. Please note the final page of the report is the map associated with the current by-law to provide the opportunity for comparison. The existing firearms by-law may be viewed in its entirety by clicking this link: http://www.cityofpickering com/standard/cityhalUbylaws/images/fireatms.pdf Please provide any comments in writing by March 31st, 2010. Please. ensure you include your address in any comments submitted for review.. You may send via e-mail or mail to the contact information below. If you have any questions or require clarification of the interpretation of the proposed by-law, please contact me by e- mail or telephone as outlined below. Thank you for participating in the consultation process for the firearms by-law. Any comments received will be included in the report to Council with the final proposed firearms by-law. Kimberly Thompson Manager, Municipal Law Enforcement Services Clerk's Office City of Pickering Telephone: 905.420.4660 ext 2187 Toll Free: 1.877.420.4666 Fax: 905.420.9685 -TTY: 905.420.1739 kthompsonna,cityofpickerin com 2 www.6tvofpickering.com i 113 , ,Please consider your environmental responsibility - think before you print! www.sustainablepickering.com From: _ Sent: February 16, 2010 10:31 PM To: Thompson, Kim D. Subject: Another attempt to screw up Pickering!! This proposal to (Lets face it) end hunting in Pickering is totally misguided.I don't see why I as a law abiding citizen of Pickering cannot bow hunt in places where I have been hunting with permision and without incident for 15 years.I also speek for a countless numbers of fellow Bow hunters in the.area who have an impecable-safety record. Sitting in a tree, not making noise being quiet as a church mouse,trying to put a little meat in the freezer in which we pay dearly for.Did you ever calculate how much money is generated to the city of Pickering through deer,turkey and small game licences.The money that is generated from bunting is in the.hundreds of thousands. Not to mention the huge coyote problem which we as hunters are your only hope to corral this infes tati on. There will be stong ramifications with such a short sighted proposal.Who is this proposal serving ? Let me guess, is it a very few relentless individuals with a chip on there shoulder towards hunting and hunters in general. . This witch hunt is wrong and must be thrown to the way side.lt is a one sided proposal to stop honest law. abiding, tax paying people who have been hunting in Pickering before any by-law even existed. . Please stop this big mistake and tell these anti-hunters to take a long look at themselves because one day it might be their children who are attacked by the uncontolable population of coyotes! Like I've been saying we have a right to hunt in our beautiful township ! ! let's not screw it up because of a 'prejudice minority PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE As regulated by the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, S. C. 2000 C51 this electronic transmission, including all attachments, is directed in confidence to the person(s) to which it is addressed, or an authorized recipient, and may not otherwise be distributed, copied,. printed or disclosed. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by return transmission and then immediately delete this transmission, including all attachments, without copying,' printing, distributing or disclosing same. Thank you 3 Thompson, Kim D. From: Sent: March 15, 2010 11:49 AM 1 4 To: Thompson, Kim D. Subject: RE: Commentary on Draft By-law From: kthompson@cityofpickering.com To: Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 09:23:53 -0400 Subject: RE: Commentary on Draft, By-law thank you for providing your comments below. Could you please provide your residential address so that your comments can be.incorporated into the follow up report to Council? Thank you Kimberly Thompson Manager, Municipal Law Enforcement Services Clerk's Office, City of Pickering Telephone: 905.420.4660 ext 2187 Toll Free: 1:877.420.4666 Fax: 905.420.9685 TTY: 905.420.1739 kthompson6Dcityofpickerinq.com www.cityofpickering..com APlease consider your environmental responsibility = think before you print! www.sustainablegickering.com Fro Sent: March 14, 2010 12:32 PM To: Thompson, Kim D. Subject: Commentary on Draft By-law Mrs. Thompson, My name i nd I am a. hunter that hunts deer, turkey, ducks and geese in the. pickering area. During t e last few.years the howling of coyotes being heard during any time.of a hunt was not a ,common sight. The coyote population is increasing in great numbers and are moving into urban areas. We know from recent news stories that there has been a chocolate lab that was mauled from a pair of coyotes while it was being walked.. Another more recent event where a smaller breed of dog, not sure, what it was, was attacked and kill.ed by a coyote while on leash and being walked by its owner. This shows that coyotes have no fear of `humans, especially when they are hungry, and have to move into urban areas for food. I also have witnessed this sprawl into urban areas when I was coming off,. the offramp from the 407 onto Markham road and a coyote the size of a german shepherd walked infront of my truck. This very year,-maybe 10 to 15 minutes after my father had shot a deer he followed the blood trail to find where the deer had died and two or three coyotes ran out from under some pine trees and scattered. This was right by the spot where the deer had layed down to rest for the first time after being shot. This is an example of one species that has become a nusance and that requires hunters to control their populations. The proposed by-law suggests that in order for one to use a firearm is if the property is at least 10 acres 1 115 in size and only for protection of property from wildlife. What would be the case if the property was 9 or even 8 acres in size? Would this restrict people from protecting their own property because their lot is too small? The concern for firearms being discharged within certain areas of HIGHLY populated areas is . understandable, but too increase boundaries of a restricted area because a certain road has become a commuter corridor is highly illogical. It is a known fact that one is to shoot away from roads and home and into an area with a backdrop that would stop the projectile, bullet or arrow. Also, eliminating the discharge of firearms would eliminate hunting in turn which would allow deer populations to increase. These increases in deer population increases not only the amount of damages to farmer's crops, but to the amount of collisions that could occur cm this 'major commuter corridor.' The proposed by-law seems to be suggested by people who have a negative notion of hunting or the use of firearms and who are trying to find a reason to eliminate it. The problems. that would follow the restriction of firearm use stated io this by-law, would be larger in scale and more. probable-than the possibilities that hikers, who do not look like deer or any other type of wildlife, could be harmed by firearms. rl Since Stay in touch. Get Messenger onyour phone now. PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE .As, regulated by the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, S. C. 2000 C5, this.electronic transmission, including all attachments, is directed in confidence to the.person(s) to which it is addressed, or an authorized recipient, and may not otherwise be distributed, copied, printed or disclosed. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by return transmission and then immediately delete this transmission, including all attachments; Without copying, printing, distributing or disclosing same. Thank you IM on the go with Messenger on your phone. Try now. Thompson, Kim D. 1 6 From: Sent: March 2 0 2:43 PM To: Thompson, Kim D. Subject: Re: Draft Firearms By-law Comment wrote: > Attention Kimberly Thompson > I'am concerned that there is some thought being given to ? changing the bye- law for firearms in Pickering: I 'am a cross- bow hunter for deer and have been hunting deer > in the Claremount area in Pickering for over fifteen years. We have > always had and still have a wonderful relationship with the local >'residents and farmers whose properties we hunt: > They are quite pleased to have us harvest deer that are > continually damaging crops, running into, and damaging vehicles at thousands of dollars a pop and causing safety concerns for drivers. > > I have not heard of cross-bow hunters causing problems or > damage to the residents or farmers in Pickering, and see no practical > reason why this.bye law should be changed. > > Please contact me should you require futher information that > could supply. > > 1 Thompson, Kim D. From:- 117 Sent: March 29,2010 4:59 PM To: Thompson, Kim D. Subject: Draft Firearms By-law for Comment I understand that the purpose behind this bylaw "reduces the risk of unintentional interactions between persons discharging firearms and members of the community:.." As this could be serious I would like to know the circumstances where this has occurred and the number of incidents you are basing the implementation of this bylaw upon. I am sure there is documented. evidence demonstrating this risk to be statistically significant if not this is nothing more than a waste.of taxpayers money. Meddlesome urbanites unfounded fears being jammed down the throats of a rural population. What about.automobile deer collisions? Do you care nothing for the lives of those injured or killed as result of these collisions. These incidents will increase commensurate with the increased deer population. What about the wasting diseases? The encephalopathy's that. follow ungulate overpopulations. More commonly known.as "Mad Cow Disease" the farmers are going to love the town when these show up, as they have in the Midwest of the USA. If ignorance and fear are what you are basing this bylaw and not rational, statistical evidence, please STOP WASTING MY MONEY. The.Ontario- Ministry of Natural Resources monitors deer populations across Ontario. Unless Pickering possess the knowledge and have access to the deer population data they do, perhaps you should consult the REAL EXPERTS on this topic and find out what the deal is before you start PLAYING GOD, with city bylaws. MEMO Pickering ON 1 Thompson, Kim D. 1 8 From: MEOW Sent: March 29, 2010 5:57 PM To: Thompson, Kim D. Subject: Firearms discharge bylaw proposed ammendment To whom it may concern: Hello my name is .I grew up in Pickering 1964 to 19961 now live in Ajax. I have hunted in Pickering for close to 30 years on the property the town now wants to restrict, In my opinion I find this ridiculous. by my observation I see a decline in human population in these areas and a increase in wildlife.I believe this is being changed by pressure from anti hunting groups and has absolutely nothing to do with public safety on these lands as reporte.11 find it humorous that a town councillor will enter on land without proper permission pose for a picture. for the paper when she and the photographer are the only ones breaking the law in this scenario.My friends and I have worked hard as a user group to gain proper permission from farmers and land owners to go on these leased properties We seem to be the only ones to have done this. I have been cheeked many times by Durham Police over the years while hunting and have never had a issue with them or them with me. Maybe the biggest problem is that people think this is"crownland" and trespass and it is clearly not.Archery hunting is probably the safest form of hunting in urban settings and should continue on. these lands. Thank You 1 Thompson, Kim D. From:- 1 1 9 Sent: March 29, 2010 8:27 PM To: Thompson, Kim D. Subject: BYLAW CHANGES-HUNTING IN PICKERING Hi my name is Ihave the good fortune of li ving and hunting in Pickering. Due to my interest in .this I am a firm believer in conservation. One of the mechanizims of conservation is.control! I believe.with the NiNR&OFAH,that opportunities for hunting should be expanded not restricted. The township should be involved in a controlled hunt of deer and coyotes. Particularily coyotyes with thier expanding population contributing to the spread of caninne distemper and rabies. The fear the public has of this I'm sure is greater than the want to see it get out of control. The restricted travel of arrows is a much safer avenue and would-be less likely to create unnessisary calls for police services. If there is any doubt about the uncontrolled deer population, I know that the insurance companies would like to not have to pay.out the large sums they do each year.Asfor the agrculture in Durham every farmer would like.to,have a higher yeild from their fields,andfecl secure in the fact their livestock is unmolested. I spend a good deal of time teaching my son the.values the land provides to us and would like to have more chances to do so. I hope that good sense will prevail and that a fine tradition for young people will endure. Regards 1 , Thompson, Kim D. From: 1 20 Sent: March 29, 2010 11:41 PM To: Thompson, Kim D. Subject: Firearms By law - proposed changes i To The City of Pickering My name is m `a long time resident and hunter in the Durham Region. Residing in Pickering from 1989-1997,. I have lived in South Ajax since that time. Thank you for the opportunity to express my concerns directly to you via this email. Since 1994 1 have possessed landowners permission to hunt two parcels of farmland south and east of the village of . Claremont. I am an avid , deer, wild turkey, .goose, duck and coyote hunter. The various changes the.existing by law seems very problematic and unsupportable in my opinion. Council seems to be considering these restrictive changes for change sake, just to freshen up and replace something that in my opinion is working well. I am in favour of no changes at all.. Lawful hunters and farmers have always. enjoyed a rich and cooperative, relationship. I personally have a good relationship with several farmers in the Pickering area, all expressing the same negative sentiments with respect to these proposed by law changes you are considering. I am a very concerned stakeholder in the Pickering hunting community and do not feel our interests are being considered. Please-be advised I plan to support the groundswell of likeminded law abiding hunters. and farmers in opposing these proposed changes.. Sincerely, 1 Thompson, Kim D. From: 1 21 _ Sent: March 10.40 A To: Thompson, Kim D. Subject: Draft Firearms Bylaw for Comment Kim, it is my intention to respond to the proposed changes in the hunting bylaws in Pickering. My name i nd I am a hunter. I do not apologize nor do I feel I need to justify this fact to anyone. I have resided in Whitby for over thirty years. I decided to take up bow hunting approximately 25 years ago and the majority of this pastime was within the boundaries of Pickering. The report that was given to the executive committee implies that by changing the reguIations of the use of firearms and bows, the risk of dangerous unintentional interactions will be reduced. During this time have met many members of the community that were using the green spaces and the off-road trails that have been mentioned in the report, however not once was there any risk to any member of the community be it a dog walker or another hunter. In the:majority of these "interactions" the.community member(s) were on private property without the landowners permission. In almost every case, community members did not realize that.there was even a deer hunting season in Pickering with bows or that they were on private property. For the most part, all of my "discussions" with.the person(s) were cordial and based on facts surrounding bow hunting, provincial hunting laws and landowner permission. There has only been a few times in the many years I have bow hunted in Pickering where a community member has been belligerent and unreasonable to deal with. I suspect that these people have "-forced" a review of the existing Firearm By-law that has served all members of the community- well, for over 30 years. I trust that the council will decline to be swayed by the voices of the few that have proved over and over again that they have a personal agenda to discredit all activities carried out by hunters in Ontario. Neither the footer nor anything else in this E-mail is intended to or constitutes an <br>electronic signature.and/or legally binding agreement in the absence of an <br>express statement or Autoliv policy and/or procedure to the contrary.<br>This E-mail and any attachments hereto are Autoliv property and may contain legally <br>privileged, confidential and/or proprietary information.<br>The recipient of this E-mail is prohibited from distributing, copying, forwarding or in any way <br>disseminating any material contained within this E-mail without prior written <br>permission from the author. If you receive this E-mail in error, please <br>immediately notify the author and delete this E-mail. Autoliv disclaims all <br>responsibility and liability for the consequences of any person who fails to <br>abide by the terms herein. <br> 1 i Thompson, Kim D. From: 1 22 Sent: March 30, 2010 107 PM To: Thompson, Kim D Subject: hunting bylaw changes Hello, my name is 1 have lived in Pickering since 1989 at 851 Miriam Rd. I have been hunting in and .around Pickering since I have lived here. The opportunities for hunting and fishing so close to home are what I love about living here. I hunt with a shotgun and a bow. for deer, ducks and geese. As I understand the proposed changes are being brought forward to address the issue of "unintentional interactions" between hunters and non hunters. If a hunter has permission to hunt on private property and he has an unintentional interaction with a none hunter, that person would have to be a trespasser` Perhaps the laws that need to be changed are the trespassing laws. The hunter would be the one abiding by the laws; the other person would be there unlawfully. Please don't penalize me for following the laws. Hunters like myself and others go to great lengths to comply with all of the laws and hunting regulation, we take the courses, and we get the licenses and permits and comply with the registrations. We are likely the most regulated group around. Please don't make things. anymore difficult than they already are. To this end I give my full support to The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters and for their work to protect my right to hunt in Pickering. Thank you. 1 Thompson, Kim D. From:' 123 Sent: March 30, 2010 6:41 PM To: Thompson, Kim D. Subject: Draft Firearms By-law for Comment I thank you for allowing me to make this submission. I am 46 years old, a Chartered Accountant and Chartered Business Valuator working in the Toronto area. I hunt in Pickering and will be affected by the change in the Bylaw. I am of Metis heritage and hunt to provide healthy, organic, drug free food for my family. I am sure there have been arguments put forth regarding the safety of hunting, the lack of any record of injury or accident from hunting and the benefit it provides the farmer and the conservation of the animal population in hunting areas. You have no doubt been given the statistics on how urban sprawl is killing wild life and endangering existing population and how hunters assist Natural Recourse Ministries to maintain balance. In other words, repealing hunting rights and all the benefits that it provides will have a detriment effect without any empirical benefit of their repeal. You, really, then have to ask yourself why is this an issue. When I tell people I hunt in the professional environment in which I work, I am many times scorned by people who detest killing of animals. Typically this assault is while they are cutting into a medium rare steak; their hypocrisy. alludes them. The problem with people against hunting is that they are too far away from the harvest, they are ill informed of the needed benefits hunting provides and refuse to accept the negative impact their subdivisions have in destroying environmental habitat. for animal and bird populations. Yet, these very people who cause huge problems in the. environment are the .very people who condemn hunting on the basis of the environment. In my opinion, their voice is rife with ignorance and should lose standing in any debate on. the topic. Canada was founded on hunting and fishing traditions, they existed before Canada was discovered. These traditions have survived and are an integral part of our culture; I assume the rural culture is welcome in the Canadian multicultural mosaic. Farmers and,.the hunters that assist them have no problem accommodating the increase in population in the traditional hunting areas, there would be expected a mutual respect. We understand there will be more development encroaching in our hunting areas, but that must not erode our rights and traditions that have existed for generations. Hunting has existed, in Pickering since Canada was founded. It is the longest tradition we have. I would like to appeal to your sense of fairness and reason when you review this bylaw. There is no need for any change. There is no need to accommodate the intolerant. Hunters and non-hunters can continue to live side by side in mutual respect, any bylaw change creates an environment of intolerance toward the hunter. Sincerely; 1 - Thompson, Kim D. 124 From: Sent: March 30, 2010 9:03 PM To Thompson, Kim D. Subject: Draft Firearms By-Law Dear Kimberly Thompson t wish to express my dislike of the proposed Firearms By-law. My wife and myself have been residents of Pickering for the past 13 years and have been avid bow-hunters for the past 7. The proposed by-law is making hunters sound like law breaking tresspasser. My wife and I have been hunting in the Whitevale area over the past 7 years and we have never had any incidents that were dangerous in. nature and we have never come into contact with people walking dogs or even going out for a stroll in the bush. We have always had written permission for the landowners and have never caused any damage or scared anyone while hunting. Quite frankly, I'm appauled that my treestand was published in the . local newspaper and the comments that were made regarding it's location. My treestand was on property that I have permission from the landowner and the idiot who had taken the picture was actually the one who was trespassing. I have insurance that I provide the landowner should I fall and provide reasonable assurance that they will not be sued should anything misfortunate happen to me. I highly doubt that individual that was taking pictures had permission or insurance. I enjoy harvesting deer with my family and sharing the meat that I harvest with neighbours and friends. As you well know there is a very high deer population in the Durham area and not to mention the coyote population has exploded,and are even taking small dogs from residents. Not only do I enjoy hunting with my family but I provide a service to the landowners. I hunt about 6 properties in the Whitevale area and the landowners and renters are very pleased. that I take care of the coyotes that are always getting closer and closer to their pets and thankfully not their children. I also hunt all the properties on Paddock Rd. who were complaining of coyotes getting to close for comfort. I have yet to this day been denied access to property for the purpose of hunting deer or coyote. I hope those people who are responsible for this attack on hunters are prepared to face a family and compensate-them for a loss of a pet or heaven forbid an attack ona child. My family and I are responsible hunters and not trespassers. We hunt with guns and crossbows which are not considered firearms by any organization in Canada so I don.'t know where thay are getting these facts from. The police has never been called to any placewhere I've ever hunted and I'm very well know in the areas that I have mentioned. I am very upset at the fact that they are portraying us as evil. Development will soon take over the areas that I'm hunting and once this happens you can be rest assured that I will not put anyone in danger and will not continue hunting in areas that are being developed. I have a family and I know what the word responsible means. I will not put workers or anyone for that matter at risk for my own enjoyment. I would like to make some suggestions. Primarily I suggest that the current by-law remain in place and that the primary issue of landowner permission be at the forefront. If one does not have permission to be somewhere then they should'nt be there period. Not to walk dogs, not hunt, not ride their ATV, not there period. I suggest that the areas which are currenity being hunted remain the same and gradually be eliminated as development spreads.We really have only. about 3 years left in some of the areas so let's just leave it alone and let's us as responsible hunters go in peace. The idea of crossbows being firearms is absolutley rediculous and not defined anywhere in Canada as being a firearm so that really should not even be discussed. If these members of council are really interested in doing something, why don't they clamp down on AN traffic which is more dangerous to people than a hunter who climbs in a tree at 5:00 Am and are back home way before any. of these people who are complaining are even up. I'll speak my mind the night of the meeting and I'll demand an apology for making us sound like criminals. Let them hide behind their newspaper articles but they will have to answer that night. I hope that person who took the picture is there that night. Probably won't be. Coward. 1 Thompson, Kim D. From: 125 Sent: March 31, 20108:07 PM To: Thompson, Kim D. Cc: Subject: Proposed Firearms By-Law File: L-2000-001-10 Dear: Kim Thompson March 31, 2010 Re: Proposed Firearms By-Law. File: L-2000-001-10 I write this letter in regards to the proposed Firearms By-Law File: L-2000-001-10,- the proposed changes to the hunting bi-laws in the Pickering area. I'm writing to express my opposition in banning the. hunting activity. Over the past 10 years that I have resided and hunted in the Pickering area, I have never had any altercations with the-residents of the community nor have we had any safety issues as we all take the necessary precautions in ensuring that we as well as those around,us remain out of. harms way. As avid hunters we pride ourselves on the respect we provide both the farmers, the residents and other fellow sportsman. We often see.The MNR diligently patrolling the hunting areas to oversee the activity and ensure that the hunting regulations are abided by. In the 20 years that I have held a valid hunting license, I have never had any hunting infractions, accidents or confrontations. In a recent publishing re: hunting in Pickering, it clearly depicts hunters as criminals and lawbreakers. It's disheartening to read that a law is being implemented to ban the sport and the control of the wildlife population in the community. By . implementing this by-law; you will lose. control of herd populations that will inevitably cause a high amount of vehicle accidents. I truly hope that we can come to an agreement that will be beneficial to all parties. Sincerely, . WOMEN WWWN§W=~ 1 Thompson, Kim D. 126 From: Sent: March 31, 2010-T-.29 PM To: Thompson, Kim D. Subject: Proposed Firearms Bylaw.Amendments Importance: High Dear City of Pickering Attention Ms. Kimberly Thompson As a long time resident of Pickering and a former Fish and Wildlife Biologist with the Province I object to this proposed Bylaw amendment. I live in the Duffin-Rouge Agricultural Preserve, Ham very concerned that the city would even contemplate an amendment to the Firearms Bylaw. I live with the impacts of wildlife on my life on a daily basis. The land, I rent to a local farmers to cultivate crops on, is continually devastated by the impacts of White-tailed Deer, Canada Geese, Waterfowl, and Raccoons. The only management option available to farmers.and land owners is through hunting and only then during open season and by prescribed methods as defined and controlled by provincial. regulations. The sport of hunting has been and continues to be a historic traditional recreational pursuit that is recognized in law and controlled through the vigorous enforcement of those laws. The encroachment of the urban envelope has altered the methods in which hunters partake in their sport... The change from rifles to bows and arrows or crossbows for the physically challenged (as .I am) with their limited range has allowed hunting to continue. The creation of the Agricultural Preserve restricted the encroachments of all things "Urban". This protection is recognized in provincial laws, easements and ministerial zoning orders. One of the Agricultural Easements on my property severely restricts my ability to do many things; right down to the simplest thing like paving my driveway. The Agricultural Preserve is in place to recognize agriculture and farming as necessary pursuits required by our society. Yet the implementation of this bylaw would make it more difficult and. less financially rewarding for those who chose to farm the land to make a living. Hunting is a necessary part of farming within the preserve because when farming fails to be a viable economic pursuit then the Agricultural Preserve will cease to exist. The Agricultural Preserve. is privately owned land the public does not have trails through it. There. is no conflict with people because any one walking in the preserve has permission or is trespassing which is illegal. The issue of public health and safety has and continues to be ignored by both the City of Pickering and the Province of Ontario when both parties opted to continue to have a "Seaton Trail in the valley lands. The current valley trail is unsafe and accessible to only the few. While it is without a doublet poorly located. The Province owns lands in Seaton that are ideally suited to an accessible trail that could be used. year round in safety by all citizens, far from any conflict with the wildlife management activities on private within the Duffin Rouge Agricultural Preserve. Please just drop this silly bylaw amendment.that was started by Councillor O'Connell and a resident of Toronto who if the report in the popular press is correct regularly trespasses on private property in Pickering. I believe that the interests of the residents of Pickering and the fate of the Agricultural Preserve are best served by continuing to allow responsible wildlife management through hunting. Should council pass this new bylaw you should be expecting that I will attend council seeking both protection from the wildlife I am no longer able to personally manage and compensation for lost revenue due to crop damage. Council may chose to hire "professional hunters and trappers" to remove the offending wildlife as the models in Caledon and Hamilton Wentworth in Ontario or many 1 of the. US States & Cities. I addition council my be forced to compensate drivers who hit deer on Taunton Road as a consequence of your decision. I trust that you will use your best judgment. 127 specifically sections to which I object and why are as follows Section 1 "dwelling" means a residential unit that is capable of being occupied on a permanent, seasonal or part-time basis;" This subsection definition is too vague and could include a simple garden shed as it would-be capable of being used as a residence. "highway,' has the same meaning as in subsection 1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act and includes all roads, streets, lanes, unopened and assumed road allowances;" This subsection definition includes Unopened Road allowances which should not be considered "Permitted Area means the area identified as such in Schedule A This subsection definition omits sections of the Duffin Rouge Agricultural Preserve which require wildlife management activities a.k.a. hunting to control in a legal responsible manor the wildlife populations that decimate crops. Modify the schedule accordingly. "Restricted Area means the area identified as such in Schedule A" This subsection definition includes sections of the Duffin Rouge Agricultural Preserve which require wildlife management activities a.k.a. hunting to control in a legal responsible manor the wildlife .populations that decimate crops.. Modify the schedule accordingly. "Urban Area" means the portion of the City south of and.including Taunton Road This subsection definition includes sections of the Duffin Rouge Agricultural Preserve which can not be considered Urban anything. Section 6 Should revert back to the original Map / schedule with the exceptions of those lands in Seaton which due to there pending development could be excluded from any management activities on a time line schedule that. is commensurate with the development of the Seaton lands.. Modify the schedule accordingly. Section 9 "No person. shall discharge a firearm or a bow in the Urban Area" Should revert back to the original Map / schedule with the exceptions of those lands in Seaton which due to there pending development could be excluded from any management activities on a time line schedule that is commensurate with the development of the Seaton lands. Section 9 "No owner of a property in the Urban.Area shall permit the discharge of a firearm or a bow on such property" Unenforceable, you can not make a landowner responsible for the actions an other individual, just delete it! Section 11 No person shall discharge a bow in the Restricted Area 2 128 This subsection includes sections of the Duffin Rouge Agricultural Preserve which require wildlife .management activities a.k.a. hunting to control in a legal responsible manor the wildlife populations that decimate crops. Modify the schedule accordingly and..delete this section. Section 12 No owner of a property in the Restricted. Area shall permit the discharge of a bow on such property Unenforceable,.you can not make a landowner responsible for the actions an other individual, just delete it! Section 13 "No person shall discharge a firearm in the Restricted Area unless all of the following conditions have been met:" This subsection includes sections of the Duffin Rouge Agricultural Preserve which have agricultural easements .placed on title by the city of Pickering and that are different & contrary to other legislation, policy and Modify the schedule accordingly and delete this section. Section 14 .."No owner of a property in the Restricted Area shall.permit the discharge of a firearm on such.property unless all of the conditions set out in section 13 have . been met Unenforceable, you can not make a.landowner responsible for the actions an.other individual, just delete it! Section 15b within 100 metres of any school place of worship day nursery community recreation centre conservation area or park All of these Must be Legal and in compliance with a.nd operating in accordance with approved zoning and site plan regulations,-all provincial and municipal bylaws. Section 16 No owner of a property in the.Permitted Area shall permit the discharge of a firearm or a bow on such property within , a 100 metres of.any school place of worship day nursery community recreation centre conservation area or park b 100 metres of any dwelling other than a dwelling owned by them or c 10 metres of any highway Unenforceable, you can not make. a landowner responsible for the actions an other individual, just delete it! Section 18c any officer appointed to enforce federal or provincial legislation Only Police and Conservation Officers may carry firearms so this is unacceptable.... unbelievable just delete it! Section.21 An officer may at any reasonable time enter upon any property for the purpose of determining whether or not the provisions of this bylaw have been complied .with 3 129 Contrary to Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms so it is unenforceable, you can not give an officer of the law rights which are not give by statute, just delete it! Officers require Reasonable and probable grounds for search and seizure Section 22 No person shall prevent hinder.or interfere or attempt to prevent hinder or interfere with an officer Contrary to both Provincial and Federal legislation thus it is redundant unbelievable just delete it! SECTION 23 No person permitted under this bylaw to discharge a firearm or bow shall permit the projectile discharged to leave-the property from where the discharge took place Unenforceable, you can not make a. landowner responsible for the actions an other individual, just delete it! i Thompson, Kim D. From: Sent: March 31, 2010 9:40 PM To: Bylaw Web Email 1 3:0 Cc: Thompson, Kim D. Subject: Proposed Firearms By-Law Attachments: Hansen signature logo.jpg; ATT00001.htm Dear Kimberly, I read the notice for the proposed by-law in the News Advertiser, dated February 24th, 2010. Unfortunately I noticed it a.little late. Having read the proposal on the web site, I noticed that it did not compare. the proposal to what currently exits. The map is extremely hard to decipher,. leaving me in .a. difficult position when asked to comment. I am a long time resident of pickering, living on and in the. Petticoat Creek Area. I would., very much oppose any legislation that would prohibit target shooting with an air rifle on my own property in a properly set up range. Your announcement of a new bylaw concerns me since I don't have a clear knowledge of what it truly represents or replaces. I would therefore strongly oppose any change until a much. clearer picture is presented to myself and the public, and not tried to be passed under the .table. I do regret not - being made aware. of this notice sooner, but sincerely hope my comments will be expressed at your meeting. Sincerely Yours, OMEWMMM Thompson, Kim D. From:. Sent: 1 31 February 19, 2010 5:48 AM To: Thompson, Kim D Subject: Re: Draft Firearms By-law for Comment The draft seems reasonable thanks for your email.. NEW riginal Message FromO:-Thompson;: Kim D To. Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 11:09 AM Subject: Draft.Firearms By-law for Comment, . You`have previously expressed an interest in the City of Pickering's review of the current firearms by-law and requested the opportunity to comment on any proposed firearms by-law. City of Pickering Council has approved the request to solicit input from stakeholders and the public regarding the draft firearms by-law, prior to presenting a final recommended draft to Council. Please find attached the Report to Executive Committee which outlines the rationale.for the revisions made in the draft firearms by-law. The report also contains the proposed draft of the firearms by-law for your review and comment. Please note the final page of the report is the map associated with the current by-law to provide the opportunity for comparison. The existing firearms by-law may be viewed in its entirety by clicking.this link- http://www.cityofpickering cbm/standard/cityhall/bylaws/images/firearms.pdf Please provide any comments in writing by March 31St, 2010.. Please en.sure you include your address in any comments submitted. for review. You may send via e-mail or mail to the contact information below. If you have any.questions or require clarification of the interpretation of the proposed, by-law, please contact me. by e-mail or telephone as outlined below. Thank you for participating in th.e consultation process'for the firearms by-law. Any comments received will be included in the report to Council with the final proposed firearms by-law. Kimberly Thompson Manager, Municipal Law Enforcement Services Clerk's Office City of Pickering Telephone: 905.:420.4660 ext 2187 Toll Free: 1:877.420.4666 Fax: 905.420.9685 TTY: 905.420.1739 kthompson(Zr cityofpickering. corn www.cityofpickerin'q.com Aplea-se consider your environmental responsibility - think before you print! www.sustainablepickering.com 1 i Dear Kimberly Thompson, . 132 After reviewing the proposed Firearms By-Law I received on February, 2010 I would submit some changes as a farmer trying to make a living within the effective boundaries. The first change I would propose is including the Ag-preserve area south of Taunton and"north of the CP railway as a restricted area and not an urban area. This area is primarily agricultural fields. I would also like to propose allowing bows in the restricted area as they are the only legal tool allowed to use in the harvesting of problem deer. The federal fish and wildlife has mandated that farmers be.allowed to manage problem wildlife that cause crop damage. Firearms are not allowed to control deer in the effected lands. We farm land from Uxbridge Township to Scarborough and it is in the above mentioned areas that I experience my heaviest losses due to wildlife damage. We farm over 300 acres in the affected area. Thank you for considering my request. Respectfully Yours, Thompson, Kim D. From: Sent: 1 33 -March 2, 2010 8:58 AM To: Thompson, Kim D. . Subject: FW: re bi-law firearms Dear Kimberly. Thompson; Please note.the change.I made to the letter submitted on the 17th of Feb. I would like to change the. boundary I' stated to north of the CP railway line instead of Finch as I realize that in the last couple of years there are new homes on the north side of Finch Ave. From: To: kthompsonCa-ocityofpickerinc.com Subject: re bi-law firearms Date.: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 15:45:06 +0000 Now low . Dear Kimberly Thompson, After reviewing the proposed Firearms By-Law I received on Thursday the 11th of February, 2010 I would submitt some changes as a farmer trying to make a living within the effective boundaries. The first change I would propose is including the Ag-preserve area south of Taunton and north of the CP railway. as a restricted area and not an urban area. Fields north of the landfill as well should be restricted and not urban. I would also like to propose allowing bows in the restricted area as they are the only legal tool allowed to use in the harvesting of problem deer. The federal fish and wildlife. has mandated that.farmers be allowed to manage problem wildlife that cause crop damage. Firearms are not allowed to control deer in the effected lands. It is the above mentioned areas that I experience my heaviest losses due to wildlife damage. Respectfully Yours, I< - 1 Thompson, Kim D. From: Sent: February 17, 2010 10:45 AM 1 34 To Thompson, Kim D. Subject: re bi-law firearms INN Dear Kimberly Thompson, After reviewing the proposed Firearms By-Law I received on Thursday the llth.of February, 2010 I would submitt some changes as a farmer trying to make a living within the effective boundaries. The first change I would propose is including the Ag-preserve area south of Taunton and north of Finch Ave. as a restricted area and not an urban area. Fields north of the landfill as well should be restricted and not urban. I would also like to propose allowing bows in the restricted area as they are the only legal tool allowed to use in the harvesting of problem.deer. The federal fish and wildlife has mandated that farmers. .be allowed to manage problem wildlife that cause crop damage. Firearms are not allowed to control deer in. the effected lands. It is the above mentioned areas that I experience my heaviest losses due to wildlife damage. Respectfully Yours, ' , i now 4 i 1 i Thompson, Kim D. From: Thompson; Kim D. Sent: 1 3 5 February. 17, 2010 10:34 AM To: Subject: RE: re- firearms bylaw Attachments: Firearms By-law Report to Exec Com.pdf Mr. 0100as per our telephone conversation, I'm attaching a copy of the Report to Executive Committee regarding the.proposed firearms by-law. As we discussed, your comments regarding issues with the urban boundary in relation to your farms, and the ability to control deer with the use of bows rather than firearms to comply with MNR regulations are valid concerns which City staff need to consider in a final draft of the firearms by-law. I look forward to receiving your written comments regarding these and any other concerns you have, to ensure the final by-law.draft addresses as many potential issues as possible. Thank you for taking the time to provide your input.. Kimberly Thompson Manager, Municipal Law Enforcement Services Clerk's Office City of Pickering Telephone: 905.420.4660 ext 2.187 Toll Freer 1.877.420.4666 Fax: 905.420.9685 TTY: 905.420.1739 kthompson6a~cityofpickering.com www.cityofpickering.com APlease consider your environmental responsibility think before you print! www.sustainablepickering.com From: Sent: February 17, 2010 9:53 AM To: Thompson, Kim D.: Subject: re- firearms bylaw Dear Kimberly Thompson I am writing this letter in opposition to the proposed new.bi-law changes in Pickering regarding firearms. My wife Lois and I are partners in Sweet Ridge Farms and we own a large sweet corn retail business as 1 136 well as grow soyabeans, corn and wheat. I have been farming in south-west pickering for 25 years. We own 111 acres at 170 concession 4 pickering and rent hundreds of other acres in Pickering. I am sure. you are aware of the economic challenges farmers are faced with in todays marketplace. I would like to inform the city council about the magnitude of damage Canada Geese and deer can do to crops. As a farmer and wildlife enthusiast I enjoy seeing the abundance of wildlife in our area. At the same time, I am in favour of managing them properly. An example of the damage can be seen now in my planted, fields of winter wheat that will be eaten in the early spring as the snow (lack of snow) melts off my crop, and devastating' deer damage to my field and sweet corn near the edges of river valleys and wooded areas. Our small livestock and chickens and pets are constantly threatened by coyotes. Changing this bylaw inhibits the right I have as a farmer to protect my crops and livestock as specified in- the federal fish and wildlife act. .As a way of controlling wildlife damage, I allow responsible licenced hunters access to my farm fields. In my experience, all.the hunters I have dealt with are skilled and.very respectful to the environment. Allowing this to happen has been.a highly successful deterent to wildlife damage. I also object to your boundaries for. Urban and Restricted areas. Many of my fields lie in the ag-preserve north of Finch Ave. and south of Taunton, west of Duffins Creek. If you are familiar with this area it is almost all fields with 2 small subdivisions, in cherrywood east and west: This area is my area of heaviest losses and I object to any change that will takeaway my right to protect my crops in this. area. Any area in the Ag-preserve should not be an Urban area and if farmers rights are restricted, why have an Ag- preserve. I also object to the restriction of bows as they are quiet, efficient,'and pose no threat to, citizens. They are a valuable tool in managing wildlife. I would suggest instead of changing this bilaw that has been effective for many years, why not enforce . the problem of poaching,and tresspassing of unlicenced hunters with no permission from farmers. These people are a problem and any bi-law restriction will not stop them.- Poachers disregard trespassing laws and hunting regulations and they could be stopped if Game Wardens patrolled south west pickering. I appreciate the opportunity to voice my opinion on this important bylaw change and hope that you can respect my opinion as a farmer with lots at stake on your decision. Sincere) P.S.. On another angle I would recommend a by-law restricting the abundant damage to my crops due' to ATV's and dirt bike's, as well as dog walkers with no permission who take liberty to treat my fields. as a racing track or walking park. The hunters I allow on my fields often confront these riders and walkers and remind them of the damage they can do to my crops. 2 3 e 13 7April 1, 2010 L ~ I Ms. D. Shields ® ® Clerk City of Pickering 1 The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1 V 6K7 The Regional Municipality . of Durham RE: DAAC RESOLUTION - CITY OF PICKERING PROPOSED Clerk's Department HUNTING BAN OUR FILE: C00 605 ROSSLAND RD. E. PO BOX 623 Ms. Shields, the Planning Committee of Regional Council considered CANADA ON uN 6A3 CANADA the above matter and at a meeting held on March 31, 2010 Council 905-668-7711 adopted the following recommendations of the Committee: 1-800-372-1102 Fax: 905-668-9963 . E-mail: clerks@durham.ca "THAT the following comments from the Durham Agricultural Advisory www.durham.ca Committee (DAAC) with respect to the City of Pickering's proposed Pat M. Madill, A.M.C.T., CMM III firearms by-law currently being circulated for public comment be Regional Clerk forwarded to the City of.Pickering: e In Section 13 i) - add the words 'or occupa t' after the word 'owner'; In Section 13 ii) - delete and replace with 'the property has a Farm Business Registration number'; and G In Section 13 v) - delete and replace with 'the firearm is regulated through the Wildlife Management Unit of the Ministry of Natural Resources'." P.M. Madill; AMCT, CMM III . Regional Clerk PMM%tf c: A.L. Georgieff, Commissioner of Planning "Sefvice Excellence for our C lahities" 100% Post Consumes i i c + ? April 1, 2010 1 38 t Ms. D. Shields ® Clerk City of'Pickering s 1 The Esplanade y n a Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 The Regional, . . - Municipality of Durham RE: DAAC RESOLUTION - CITY OF PICKERING PROPO,'ED - 7---' Clerk's Department HUNTING BAN OUR FILE: C00. 605 ROSSLAND RD. E. PO BOX 623 Ms. Shields, the Planning Committee of Regional Council considered WHITBY ON L1N 6A3 the above matter and at a meeting held on March 31, 2010 Council CANADA 905 -668-7711 adopted the following recommendations of the Committee. 1-800-372-1102 Fax: 905-668-9963 E-mail: clerks@durham.ca ".THAT the following comments from the Durham. Agricultural Advisory www.durham:ca Committee (DAAC) with respect to the City of Pickering's proposed Pat M. Madill, A.M.c.T, cMM In firearms by-law currently being circulated for public.comment be Regional clerk forwarded to the City of:Pickering: ® In Section 13.i) - add the words 'or occupant' after the word owner,, ® in Section 13 ii) - delete and replace with 'the property has a Farm Business Registration number', and. In Section 13 v) delete and replace with 'the' firearm is regulated through the Wildlife Management Unit of the Ministry of Natural Resources'." if P.M..Madill, AMCT, CMM III Regional Clerk ' PMM/tf c: A.L. Georgieff, Commissioner of Planning ,t , 7 c- A 2_o0 Service Excellence fc! OW Communities" 100% Post Consumer Fro 1 3 SC ~ vim, -k C~ ...5 b) THAT a copy of Report #2010-P-19 be forwarded to the area ` municipalities, the Federal Minister of Natural Resources, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, the Ontario Minister of the ...Environment, the Ontario Minister of Energy and Infrastructure, Ontario Power Generation (OPG), Hydro One, Durham's MPs and MPPs, and the Canadian Association of Nuclear Host Communities (CANHC). 5. DAAC RESOLUTION - CITY OF PICKERING PROPOSED HUNTING See BAN Pages RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL 608-609 & Agenda Page 71 THAT the following comments from the Durham Agricultural Advisory Committee (DAAC) with respect to the City of Pickering's proposed firearms by-law currently being circulated for public comment be forwarded to the City of Pickering: In Section 13 i) - add the words 'or occupant' after the word 'owner'; In Section 1.3 ii) - delete and replace with 'the.property has a Farm Business Registration number'; and ® In Section.13 v) -delete and replace with 'the.firearm is regulated through. the Wildlife Management Unit of the Ministry of Natural Resources'. Respectfully submitted, J. Gray, Chair Planning Committee 403 running uommittee - 8 - March 16, 2010 f) MONITORING OF GROWTH TRENDS FILE: D01-02-01 (2010-P-2140 Report #2010-P-21 from A.L. Georgieff, Commissioner of Planning, was received. MOVED by Councillor Grant; (65) "THAT Report #2010-P-21 of the Commissioner of Planning be received for information." CARRIED g) 2009 ANNUAL BUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITY REVIEW, FILE: D03-02 (2010-P-22) Report.#2010-P-22 from A.L. Georgieff, Commissioner of Planning, was received. MOVED by Councillor Grant, (66) "THAT Report #2010-P-22 of the Commissioner of Planning be received for information." CARRIED 7. EARLY RELEASE REPORTS a) APPLICATION TO AMEND THE DURHAM REGIONAL OFFICIAL PLAN, SUBMITTED BY KEITH SHIER, TO PERMIT THE SEVERANCE OF A SURPLUS FARM DWELLING AS A RESULT OF THE CONSOLIDATION OF TWO NON-ABUTTING FARMS IN THE TOWNSHIP OF BROCK, FILE: OPA 2010-001 A Report of the Commissioner of Planning will be. considered at the April 6,. 2010 meeting. 8. ADVISORY COMMITTEES a) DURHAM AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE i) DAAC RESOLUTION - CITY OF PICKERING PROPOSED HUNTING BAN MOVED by Regional Chair Anderson (67) "THAT we recommend to Council,- THAT the following comments from the Durham Agricultural Advisory Committee (DAAC) with respect to the City of Pickering's proposed firearms by-law currently being circulated for public comment be forwarded to the City of Pickering- 608 Planning committee - _ ` In Section 13 i) - add the words 'or occupant' after the word 141 owner', • In Section 13 ii) - delete and replace with 'the property has a Farm Business Registration number'; and In Section 13 v) - delete and replace with 'the firearm is regulated through the Wildlife Management:Unit of the Ministry of Natural . Resources'." CARRIED ii) MINUTES OF MARCH 2, 2010' MOVED by Regional Chair Anderson, (68) "THAT the minutes of the Durham Agricultural Advisory Committee meeting held on March 2, 2010 be received for information." CARRIED b) DURHAM ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MOVED by Regional Chair Anderson, (69) "THAT the minutes of the. Durham Environmental Advisory Committee meeting held on February 11, 2010 be received for information." CARRIED. C) DURHAM TRAIL CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEE There were no minutes presented at this time. The Committee had before it the outstanding items listing relating to the Advisory Committees for information purposes. 9. REGIONAL OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS CURRENTLY. BEING PROCESSED AND BEFORE THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD MOVED by Regional Chair Anderson (70) "THAT the Status Report, Regional Official Plan Amendment Applications currently being processed and before the Ontario Municipal Board, be received for information." CARRIED 10. CORRESPONDENCE OUTSTANDING ITEMS r MOVED by Regional Chair Anderson, (71) "THAT the items currently outstanding be received for information." CARRIED 609 - i Thompson, Kim D. From: 4 2 Sent: March 29, 2010 4:37 PM To: Thompson, Kim D. Subject: RE: by-law Hi Kim; Further to the last Durham Agricultural Advisory Committee. meeting, I wanted to send. you the input/feedback from the Committee regarding the proposed hunting ban by-law. This resolution has gone to Planning Committe already and will go to Council session tomorrow... further to our discussion I wanted you to have a heads up on the comments. You will receive these formally throught Clerk's Dept. after Council. -we can chat about this further, give me a call. Thanks b) PICKERING PROPOSED HUNTING BAN IR"WRpraw circulated a copy of an e-mail from Kim Thompson, Manager, Municipal Law Enforcement Services, City of Pickering, advising that the proposed firearms by- law is presently being circulated for public comments and inviting the DAAC to provide their input on the'draft by-law. Discussion ensued regarding the exemptions to permit the control of nuisance wildlife on agricultural lands in the restricted area. It was questioned if tenant farmers who rent agricultural lands are still permitted to hunt, particularly on federal or provincially owned lands. It was noted that there seems to be reluctance to give permission to hunt on developer owned lands. Discussion also ensued regarding the need to indicate a maximum firearm caliber in the by-law. The Committee requested that the following comments be forwarded to the City of Pickering for their consideration: In Section 13 i) - add the words "or occupant" after the word "owner"; • in Section 13 ii) - delete and replace with "the property has a Farm Business Registration number"; and • In Section 13 v) - delete and replace with "the firearm is regulated through the Wildlife Management Unit of the Ministry of Natural Resources." N. Rutherford advised she will.forward the e-mail from Kim Thompson, as well as the by-law and corresponding map to the Committee members for their review. She asked the Committee members to forward any additional comments to her. MOVED by.D. Risebrough, "THAT we recommend to the Planning Committee for approval and subsequent recommendation to Regional Council: THAT the following comments from the Durham Agricultural Advisory Committee (DAAC) with respect to the City of Pickering`s proposed firearms by-law currently being circulated for public comment be forwarded to the City of Pickering: 1 143 • In Section 13 i) - add the words 'or occupant' after the word 'owner', • In Section 13 ii) - delete and replace with 'the property has a Farm Business Registration number'; and • In Section 13 v) - delete and replace with 'the firearm is regulated through the Wildlife Management Unit of the Ministry of Natural Resources'." CARRIED "Thompson, Kim D." zkthompson@cityofpickering.com> 02/03/2010 11:03 am 118 INI, the proposed firearms by-law is presently being circulated for public comment. The timing is perfect for the Durham Agricultural Advisory Committee to provide their input prior to a final draft of the by-law.. I have attached the Report to Executive Committee and the draft by-law for their, review. The last page of the file is the existing firearms map for comparison. The new by-law provides exemptions for agricultural lands in the restricted area to permit the control of nuisance wildlife which may damage crops or property. The specific provision is as follows: 13, No person shall discharge a firearm in the Restricted Area unless all of the following conditions have been met- 1) the person discharging the firearm is the owner of the property or .a licensed hunter or trapper with the written permission of such-owner ii) the property is classified under the Assessment Act in the Farm Property Class iii) the property is a minimum of 10 acres in size iv) the discharge is for the purposes of protection of property from nuisance wildlife that may be killed or harassed in accordance with applicable provincial and federal legislation and, v the firearm caliber is not greater than 275 14 No owner of a property in the Restricted Area shall permit the discharge of a firearm on such property unless all.of the conditions set out in section 13 have been met The public consultation, process is open until March 31, 20101. Any comments the Durham Agricultural Advisory Committee wishes to make should be submitted in writing to me either bye- .mail or regular mail at the contact information below. Please feel free to contact me if there are any questions. Thank you Kimberly Thompson Manager, Municipal. Law Enforcement Services Clerk's Office City of Pickering Thompson, Kim D. From: Sent: March 29, 2010 1 OA6 AM 44 To: Thompson, Kim D. ~ Cc: FIRM Subject: proposed firearms by-law file L-200-001-10 Attachments: Wild life_Update_Repcrt_051109.pdf Kim - thanks for discussing the above with me this morning. You indicated that the Municipality will be incorporating an additional exemption to the draft bylaw which has the effect of recognizing Provincially approved and regulated bow hunting seasons in the Municipality and permitting the discharge of bows on farm properties during the apporved season. This an amendment which our organization supports. In the absence of approved deer h.unting seasons the only option for farmers to mitigate destruction of crops by deer is to apply to the Ministry . of Natural Resources for nuisance deer removal authorizations - a process which MNR considers to be a last resort. The Provincial provisions for protection of property do not apply to white tail deer. ( Section 31 subsection 3 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act ) As such we consider that Provincially regulated hunting seasons do play a major and important role in deer population management and subsequent control of damage to agricultural crops by deer. We appreciate Council's recognition of the need for farmers to protect their livestock and crops from nuisance wildlife other than deer) by way the continuation of the exemption provided by Section 13 of the draft by-law. have included for your and Council's information a May 2009 report updating the economic impact of wildlife damage to Ontario crops and livestock. OEM= r~ i • 1 1 4.5 GE OR G 1, ."I 0i" I E Er'7iilF f °t .frtt}t rt; f I f1 s '1•; 7 .'F, AN ECONOMIC UPDATE OF THE WILDLIFE IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR ONTARIO AGRICULTURE' Prepared for: Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association Attention: Andy Graham Prepared by: AI Mussel and Claudia Schmidt George Morris Centre 225-150 Research Lane Guelph, Ontario N 1 G 4T2 Telephone: 519-822-392 9 ext 209. Fax: 519-837-8721 Email: al@georgemorris.org Date: May 13, 2009 'The authors wish to acknowledge and thank Ingrid Taylor for her willing and valued assistance in completing this project I An Economic Update of the Wildlife Impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 146 The- purpose of this project was to update the 2000 :Wildlife Impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture report based on the current economic data.' Historic survey results located in the material provided by OSCIA were used to determine the loss rates for crops and livestock for 1998. Some technical complications were introduced by data collected directly in the 2000 study that could not be directly updated and aggregated consistently with published data. Thus, the 1998 results were recalibrated based on data publicly available today, and then updated -for the period 2005 to 2007. The results showed the following: • Since 1998, the year the primary survey was undertaken, nominal prices have increased. . for all horticultural and field commodities and sheep. On average, acreage of major. crops has increased. • The wildlife damage compensation requests for livestock damages to OMAFRA have increased since the time of the.original study. While precise and unequivocal data on wildlife population are not available, data on damage rates and harvest are consistent with wildlife populations increasing • Based on .consistent data, wildlife damage in Ontario has increased by about 20% in value since 1998. The table below provides a summary of changes in wildlife damage from .1998 to 2005/2007, based on the loss rates determined by the wildlife damage survey undertaken in 1998, and with average yield/price/acreage data from 2005 to 2007. The table shows that, based on commodities covered in the study, wildlife damage in Ontario costs Ontario farmers approximately $41 million per year. The results of this study should be understood as conservative. Because a new survey was beyond the scope of this study, the existing loss rate from the. 2000 study was used and applied to more recent data. The indication'from secondary sources in terms of expenditure on wildlife claims, wildlife harvest levels, and emergence of new wildlife species that damage crops, suggests that the wildlife damage issue is increasing. In addition, some of the vegetable crops included in the 2000 study could not be updated here. Thus, the costs of wildlife damage appear quite material in the current context, and even at that there is ratio nale to expect that the value of losses estimated for 2005/2007 is conservative. I 1 An Economic Update of the Wildlife Impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture . 4 7Chan e in wildlife damage to selected crops and livestock from 1998 to 2005/2007 Commodity 1998 2005/2007 Percentage Change Livestock Beef $1,010,783 $828,812. -18.0 % Sheep $495,180 $730,505 47.0% Field Crops Corn $13,805,506 $17,220,451 24.74% Soybeans . $5,290,917 $5,833,636 10.26% Wheat $506,021 $979,171 93.50% Forages (Hay) $6,684,159 $8,491,312 27.04% Fruit Apples $1,988,756 $1,642,583 -17.40%° Grapes $1,831,888 $2,443,179 33.37% Blueberries $319,191 $157,326 -8.84% Strawberries $102,613 $1.12,979 10.10% Tender Fruit $1,992,794 $2,330,806 16.96% Vegetables Sweet corn $217,344 $151,329 -30.30%- Total $34,245,153 $40,922,089 19.50% 'Recalibrated based on current data availability 2 An Economic Update of the Wildlife Impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture .Table of Contents 1 4 8 1. Introduction " ........................................................................................................................5 1.1 Purpose and Objectives 1.2 Organization of the Report 5 6 2. Review: Wildlife Impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture 2.1 Estimation of wildlife damage to crops and livestock .....................................................6 . 2.2 Data Availability 7 3.. Update of data.- 1998 to 2005/2007 ..................................................................................8 4. Assessment of current value of wildlife damage in Ontario for selected crops and livestock ....::......................................:..........................................................................................11 4.1 Field and Horticultural Crops ........................................................................................11 4.1.1 Estimation of loss rate ...........................""..............................................................11 4.1.2 Re-calibration of the values in the 2000 report 12 4.1.3 Application of the loss rate to 2005/2007 ..:....................................13 4.2 Livestock ......................................................................................................................14 4.2.1 Sheep and Lambs 14 4.2.2 Beef Cattle .....................................:...............................:..:.............:................"......1,5 5. Updates to the investment in the abatement of wildlife damages- CO FSP .....17 6. Potential options to minimize the impact of wildlife-caused losses ...................................18 7. Observations and Conclusions ........................................................................................19 7.1 Recommendations ..........:.................................................................................:...........19 References 23 i i I 3 An Economic Update of the Wildlife impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture J F, cl Tables . Table 1 Crops - Changes in yield, prices and volumes marketed from 1998 vs. 2005/2007 ......8 Table 2 Changes in number of animals marketed and prices from 1998 to 2005/2007 8 Table 3 Percentage of volume lost in Ontario's crop sector (1998) .............................................1 1 Table 4 Percentage of volume lost in Ontario's horticultural sector 1998 Table 5 Recalibration of survey values for field crops ................................................................1, 2 Table 6 Recalibrated 1998 values for horticultural crops ...........................................................13 Table 7.Estimation of the value of wildlife damage .......::.............................................................14 Table 8 Recalibration of Wildlife losses in Sheep and Lambs with 1998 values 15 Table 9 Wildlife losses in Sheep and Lam bs .................................................:............................15 Table 10 Valuation of Beef- 1998 values ................................................:...15 Table 11 Recalibration of Wildlife losses in Beef with 1998 values ............................................16 Table 12 Updated wildlife losses in Beef .16 Table 13 Claims for preventative measures (COFSP) ................................................................17 Table 14 Wolf/Coyote Predation compensation program ........................:..................................18 Table 15 Bear Damage to Livestock compensation program ...:.................................................18 Table 16 Change in volum e lost due to wildlife damage for selected crops and livestock from 1998 to 2005/2007 21 Table 17 Change in wildlife damage to selected crops and livestock from 1998 to 2005/2007..22 Figures Figure 1 Method used to determine economic impact for crop damage ......................................6 Figure 2 Estimated White-tailed Deer Harvests in Ontario, 1930-2005 ........................................9 Figure 3 Canada Goose Harvest Estimates for Ontario 9 Figure 4 Registered inju red/killed animals due to wildlife in.1998/99 and 2007/08 in Ontario ....10 i I 4 An Economic Update of the Wildlife Impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture F. I:i Ht k. . r;;C. 150 1. Introduction In 2000, a Wildlife Impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture was initiated by the Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association (OSCIA, 2000). The study intended to investigate the economic impacts of wildlife on agriculture in the province. Apartnership was established to draw on the advice and experience of a wide range of selected experts and to build cooperation in working toward solutions. The partnership included farm organizations, academics, wildlife conservation groups, government and government-directed organizations. The research examined wildlife-related losses to different field crops, fruits, vegetables and livestock. The study was based on surveys, of farmers, logs of documented damage, and on-site assessments to collect information on the positive and negative impacts of wildlife as well as commodity specific, information on wildlife losses. 1.1 Purpose and Objectives The purpose of this project is to update the 2000 Wildlife Impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture report based on the current economic data. The specific objectives of this project are: 1.1.1 To review the Wildlife Impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture in order to identify how losses were determined, and, areas where economic information can be updated to reflect the current situation. 1.1.2 To collect recent economic data and trends on wildlife. 1.1.3 To calculate a revised cost estimate of wildlife damages in Ontario based on current economic data. 1. 1.4 To update.the investment in the. abatement of wildlife damages based on the 2000 report and current economic data. 1.2 Organization of the Report First, the report Wildlife Impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture (2000) is reviewed to assess .how losses were estimated in the 2000 study. This is followed by an overview of changes to economic and wildlife population data in the last decade. Crop and livestock damages due to wildlife. are re-estimated based on loss rates determined in the 1998 survey. The report concludes with a section on. potential options f or mitigating wildlife-caused losses. 5 An Economic. Update of the Wildlife -Impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture 51 Review: Wildlife Impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture. The following section reviews the methods used in the OSCIA report Wildlife Impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture. The purpose of the review is to assess how loss estimates were determined, and areas where economic information could be updated to reflect the current situation and help to understand the analysis, findings and recommendations contained within the 2000 report: 2.1 Estimation of wildlife damage to crops and livestock, In the OSCIA (2000) study, a survey was undertaken to -estimate the economic damage of wildlife to cash crops, fruits, vegetables and livestock. The survey was developed in 1999 and split into a spring and fall survey and a summer logbook to record wildlife damage. A random sample of 900 farms was collected. Some groups were over-represented (strawberry and blueberry growers) and results were weighted appropriately. In the spring.survey, producers were asked to indicate the wildlife losses that occurred in 1998, and the changes over the last 5 years. The. 1999 survey was aimed at collecting information on the damages that occurred in 1999. In 1999, 250 log books were distributed to producers so that they could actively record the damage that occurred, with the help of AGRICORP and OMAFRA field staff. Figure 1 shows the method used to determine the impact of crop damage, from respondents surveyed. The average county yield where the survey respondent operated his/her farm was multiplied by the respondent's acreage and the percentage of the yield loss reported. The resulting lost volume through wildlife damage was then multiplied by the dollar value of the crop in the given year. The volume of loss was then multiplied by the dollar value of the crop in the year 1998. The estimation of livestock damage. was based on the losses and dollar values recorded by livestock producers: An attempt was undertaken to use publicly available market pricing and average weight from the OMFRA website. However, only the survey results were used to calculate the losses Figure 1 Method used to determine economic impact for crop damage From survey respondents in 2000 1. Average Respondent X0 Yield Loss Respondent County Yield X 4 of Acres `in x Reported - VOILrme of C.ru1) Loss Volume of ~ $ Value S Value for Crop per Loss of Crop Respondent 6 An Economic Update of the Wildlife Impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture 2.2 Data. Availability 15 2 In the 2000 study, a survey was conducted to establish loss rates due to damage. This provided a snapshot of what happened in 1998. The data collected directly from survey responses, by nature cannot be updated, and the identity, location, and demographics associated with respondents are protected by confidentiality.. Technical challenges were also observed in aggregating responses from the survey to the provincial level, particularly in fruits and vegetables. These technical issues, related to data and aggregation, prevented an exact extrapolation of the survey results from 2000. To bridge the gap, the results from the.2000 study for 1998 were recalibrated, given the loss rates from the sample, and acreage, yield, and price data publicly available today. In many crops, this resulted in little change. In other cases, notably in fruits in vegetables, this: resulted in some adjustments; in particular, data for certain crops were not available and had to be dropped. Given these technical challenges, the recalibrated 1998 values are lower than those reported in the 2000 study. 7 An Economic Update of the Wildlife Impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture 3 Update of data - 1998 to 2005/2007 In order to update the economic value of wildlife damage since 1998, the following data were gathered: Changes in yield, prices and acreage for crops - Changes in number of livestock and livestock prices Changes to wildlife trends The 2000 report used values from 1998. In updating the data, to correct for annual fluctuations in acreage, populations, market prices and yield, an average of three years is taken. In Table 1, data from 1998 are compared with the average prices, yields and acres data based on a 2005/2007 three-year average.. Table 1 Crops - Changes in yield, prices and volumes marketed. from 1998 vs. 2005/2007 change in % change in acres % change in yrelci/acre price Corn 11.10 -4.90 18.06 Soybeans -2.44 6.68 5.94 Wheat 20.95 15.02 39.09 Apples .16.64 -31.09 2.76 Grapes -0.75 9.23 23.03 Blueberries -0.66 25.67 25.16 Source: http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/stats/crops/index.html Table 1 shows that prices have, on average, increased for all commodities. The price has increased more than 20% for wheat, grapes and blueberries. Wheat stands out, as the yield per acre increased by 'an average of 20% and acreage increased by 15%. The. yield per. acre has increased by 16%.for apples. However, this has been balanced out by a.decrease in acreage of 31%• Table 2 shows the changes in the livestock sector from 1998 to 2005/2007. The change focuses on sheep and beef cattle as these. were the livestock the survey was concerned with. The number of livestock, overall, decreased from.1998 to 2005/2007, except for lambs. All.numbers . . refer to July values. Referring to Table 2, nominal prices for sheep and calves and breeding heifers increased from 1998 to 2005/2007. Table 2 Changes in number of animals marketed and prices from 1998 to 200512007 %.e`haizge is~ %'change in inventory from prices from ,1998 to 200512007 ' 1998 to 2005%2007 Beef Cull Cows -9.9 -32.2 Beef Bulls -8.0 -25.2 Beef Breeding Heifers -33.8 ..6.1 Beef Calves -15.2 24.4 Sheep -32.3 13.0 Lambs 39.6 13.5 Source: http://wwW.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/stats/livestock/index.htmt, July values 8 An Economic Update of the Wildlife Impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture 154 Wildlife population trends Inventory on wildlife is not readily available. According to the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (Wildlife Section, Fish and Wildlife branch), no estimates regarding the coyote and raccoon populations are available. The most commonly used method to identify trends in wildlife population for deer and geese is to look at the number of animals hunted or harvested. Figure 2 shows the development of deer harvest since the 1930's. In 1980, the harvest amounted to approximately 10,000 deer annually. However, this number has increased dramatically over the last two decades, with deer harvest of up to 100,000 deer a year (Government of Ontario). According to Environm ent Canada (2004), harvest for Canada Geese has, been on the rise. Figure 3 shows the harvest estimates for Ontario from 1992 to 2002. The number of harvested geese has nearly doubled in this decade. Figure 2 Estimated White-tailed Deer Harvests in Ontario, 1930-2005 120000 100000 80000 0 60000 - - - - t- 40000 - 20000 - -kill 0 w O < O O ~ O O h O O O N O 1 O,. g O O h; O Source: Ministry of Natural Resources: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/244545.pdf Figure 3 Canada Goose Harvest Estimates for Ontario 180000 _ _ 160000 ` - 140000 120000 I' 100000 ._i._ _ 80000 i 60000 cl-- 40000 i-- 20000 _ 0 ..t..._..... _ 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 _ . Source: Environment Canada, 2004 i 9 I An Economic Update of the Wildlife Impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture F-ig'dre.4 shows the number of. injured or killed animals claimed under OMAFRA's Livestock, Poultry and Honey Bee Protection Act. The number of claims has increased by 92% for cattle (from 493 killed/injured animals to 948 animals) and for sheep by 55% (from 1990 killed/injured animals to 3076 animals). Figure 4 Registered injured/killed animals due to wildlife in 1998/99 and 2007108 in Ontario 3500 _ 3.000 rt--------- = - - . 2,500 t 2,000 - - - - p 2007/08 r ._I. - - - - 1,000 500 1 - } cattle boat Sheep Poultry _ ess Risk Management Divisi_on.. (pe.rsonal communication) source: OMAF -Busin' Thus, for all commodities, in comparison to the 2000 study of wildlife damage, the marketed volume of all commodities under study has increased, as have the nominal prices. Wildlife number estimates could not be obtained for all species, but for deer and Canada geese the population trend. appears to be markedly increasing.. Furthermore, the number of injured and killed animals claimed through the protection of livestock and poultry act has increased significantly from 1998 to 2008. 10 . An Economic Update of the Wildlife Impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture 4. Assessment of current value of wildlife damage in Ontario for selected 156 crops and livestock In this study, we revise estimates of the magnitude of the cost of wildlife damages in Ontario, based. on'the losses identified in the 2000 report and current economic' data. Since the collection of new survey data on estimated losses was beyond the scope of this update, the loss rates are obtained using the survey values, and applied to updated crop and livestock data for the period of 2005/2007. ,First, the update of wildlife damage for field and horticultural crops is presented,.follo.wed by the estimation for livestock. 4.9 . Field and Horticultural Crops 4.1.1 Estimation of loss rate The following procedure was employed to estimate loss rates due to wildlife damage in crops. Loss rates can be interpreted as the average percentage of volume lost in crops due to wildlife damage. Based on the. 2000 survey, the total crop volume lost. due to wildlife damage was b divided by the total acreage reported by survey participants. This value was then divided by the average yield in 1998. The.survey values were retrieved from summarized 1998 survey results, which were provided by OSCIA. The historical yield data were retrieved from OMAFRA. The approach is illustrated in Equation 1 below. Sirrvev value volume lost Percentage of volume lost = ( V avg vield 1998) [1] Stc te. va:tue: acres in the sec.mpl'e Based on the approach defined by equation 1, the loss values for field crops. presented in Table 3 were obtained. For forages, hay acreage and yields were applied. The results show a loss rate due to wildlife damage of 0.4-1.9%: These values are used to extrapolate the past and current values of damage, which will be illustrated in the next section. Table 3 Percentage of volume lost in Ontario's crop sector (1998) Commodity Unit Percentage of volume lost in 1998 surve results Corn bu 1.94% Soybeans bu 0.81 % Wheat bu 0.35% Forages Ha ton 1.45 % Table 4 presents the percentage of volume lost for horticultural crops for Ontario in 1998.. The category of tender fruit was composed of apricots, sweet cherries, nectarines, peaches, pears and prunes. The average marketed production, area harvested, price, :and the following percentage loss per acre were determined with OMAFRA data. Losses for vegetables, except sweet corn, presented in the 2000 report could not be traced back and were, therefore, excluded.. 11 An Economic Update of the.Wildlife ImpactAssessment for Ontario Agriculture Table 4 Percentage of volume lost in Ontario's horticultural sector (1998) Commodity Unit" Percentage of` . volum0ost in-1998 surve results Fruit Apples Ibs 2.33% Grapes Ibs 4.28 % Blueberries Ibs 13.50% Strawberries. Ibs 0.58 Tender Fruits Ibs 4.50% Vegetables Sweet corn Ibs 2.84% 4.1 .2 Re-calibration of the values in the 2000 re port The loss rate, as determined in the previous section; .is applied to the provincial average yield and prices from 1998 for the respective field crops and horticultural crops to re-calibrate the values from the 2000 report. To determine the total damage to crops in Ontario, the loss rate was multiplied by the average yield per acre (2). The volume lost in Ontario was then multiplied by.average price per bushel or pound (3). Volu:m.e lost in Ontario = percentage field loss per acre ~ a.vg.yi.eld per acre [2] Total damage in Ontario = Volume lost in Ontario average price [3] Table 5 shows the results of the recalibration.of the. 1998 losses as indicated in the study, based on the available information. For field crops, specific dollar values were mentioned in the original report, whereas values for fruits and vegetables are combined into one value. The. last column indicates the percentage difference, where available, of the study and the recalculated, value. . As described above, the 2000 study definition of forages was imprecise; in this study, hay is used to represent forages, and the table shows that this creates some discrepancy relative to the 2000 study results. Similarly, the recalibrated value for wheat. is 22% lower than was mentioned in the original. report. The reason -for this discrepancy could not be determined. Table 5 Recalibration of survey values for field crops `Com`modity 1998 Results Recalibrat ed 1998 Perce`ritage Reported in the 2000 values difference Stud Field Crops Corn $ 14,629,972 $ 13,805,506 -6,55% Soybeans $ 5,290,917 $ 5,687,087 7.49 % Wheat $ 621,546 $ 506,021 -22.83% Forages Ha $ 5,242,745 $ 6,684,158.60 27.49% 12 An Economic Update of the Wildlife ImpactAssessment for Ontario Agriculture 158 Table 6 shows. the recalibrated total damage to horticultural fruits in Ontario in 1998. The recalibrated value of total damage to fruit was $6,235,243. However, the 2000 report lists $11,626,886 as total damage to fruits, which is an 86% difference. This difference. can be attributed to the broader range of crops for which data were collected in the 2000 study, and the manner in which damage to horticultural crops was aggregated. For the purpose of the update in Table.6, the data were aggregated based on acreage. Table 6 Recalibrated 1998 values for horticultural crops Commodity Recalibrated Values Fruit Apples $ 1,988,756.34 Grapes $ 1,831,888 Blueberries $ 319,191 Strawberries $ 102,613 Tender Fruit $ 1,992,794.68 Vegetables Sweet corn $ 217,344 4 1 3 Application of the loss rate to 2005/2007 Section 3 showed that yield and price data have varied significantly over time. In order to provide a longer term picture of wildlife damage, data for the commodities whose loss function could be traced _ back were averaged from 2005 to 2007. The total damage in Ontario was calculated by using the approach explained before for the re-estimation of the. 1998 values. Average yield, acreage and price data from 2005 to 2007 were retrieved from OMAFRA. The next table shows the results of the calculation. The second column of Table 7 shows the recalibrated values for.1998 as they were listed in Table 5 (field crops) and 6. (horticultural crops). The third column of the table shows the results of the calculation when the 1998 loss rate was applied to 2005/2007 average yield, price and acreage data. The last column of Table 7 shows the percentage difference between the re-estimated values from 1998 and the ,estimated values from 2005/2007, to give an indication of crops for which the economic values of wildlife damage have increased or decreased. For example, the.damage.to corn has increased by almost 24.8% and for soybeans by 10.3%. The biggest change occurred for wheat, which is mainly based on the increased acreage planted and the increased commodity price. The same is true for sweet corn and corn. The wildlife damage for apples was estimated to have decreased by 17%. This is based on the decrease in acreage by 31% in 2005/2007 as compared to 1998 (see Table 1). 13 I An Economic Update of the Wildlife Impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture .;fL811. J '1 1 Table 7 Estimation of the value of wildlife damage 2005/2007 Results Percentage Commodity 1998 change using 1998 loss rate 1998 =20051,2007 Field Crops Corn $ 13,805,506 $ 17,220,451 24.74% Soybeans $ 5,290,917 $ 5,833,636 10.26% Wheat $ 506,021 $ 979,171 93.50% Forages (Hay) $ 6684159 $ 8491312 27.04% Fruit Apples $1,988,756.00 $1,642,583.00 -17.4% Grapes $1,831,888.00 $2,443,179.00 33.37% Blueberries $319,191.00 $157,326.00 -8.84% Strawberries $102,613.00 $112,979.00 10.10% Tender Fruit $1,992,794.68 $2,330,806.23 16.96% Vegetables Sweet corn $ 217,344 $ 151,329 47.47% *Recalibrated based on current data availability 4.2 Livestock The following section shows the method used to recalibrate the survey values, in order to update the economic losses for livestock losses due to wildlife. The valuation of killed and lost livestock was captured directly in the original study survey, as reported directly by farmer- participants. Thus, the 1998 results were recalibrated based on Ontario livestock statistics. 4.2.1 Sheep and Lambs In the survey, a total of 151 adult sheep and 688 lambs were claimed as being lost to wildlife. The total number of sheep owned by farmers who participated in the survey was 22,325. Hence, the probability.of loss for adult sheep was 0.68% and for lambs 3.08%. On average, farmers valued the sheep and lam bs they lost at $183 and $ 105 respectively. It is unclear how this was aggregated to the provincial level in the 2000 study; however, if we assume that total sheep and lamb populations were 148,800 and 100,200 respectively in 1998 in Ontario, the total value of sheep and lamb lost through wildlife in Ontario in 1998 would have been $508,618. Table 8 presents recalibrated results for sheep and lamb kills. The last column gives the recalibrated value with the 1998 determined loss values. The start weight of lambs is 65 pounds and finishing weight is 90 pounds. Hence, 'an average weight of 77 pounds was assumed. For sheep, a weight of 140 pounds was assumed. Prices were 'retrieved from the OMAFRA statistics. The recalibrated value for lost sheep, assuming the loss rate determined in the 1998 survey due to wildlife in 1998, was $495,180. 14 An Economic Update of the Wildlife Impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture 1,60 and Lambs with 1998 values Table 8 Recalibration of Wildlife losses in Sheep Survey .;Value of # Livestock Valuation Populati Losses value of Avg losses in,<. head # in Loss Survey survey, on in in Ont kills in Ont. Prices Ont in r per;head floss 1598 n 1998 c in ;1.998 in .1998 1998 Sheep lost ' Survey— ° Adult 151 22,325 0.68 183 27,582 148,800 1006 $ 183,842 176.3 $177,465 Lambs . 688 3.08 105 72,362 100,200 3088 $ 324,776 102.9 $317,714 Total 839 22,325 249,000 $ 508,618 $495,180 Table 9 shows the application of the loss function from the 1998 survey values to. average prices and livestock numbers for 2005/2007. Compared with recalibrated 1998 survey values, the wildlife loss in sheep and lambs increased by 47% in 2005/2007.com pared to 1998. Table 9 Wildlife losses in Sheep and Lambs Avg Loss Avg Pop 0 celanimal - #:of animals Value of~ Sheep % 2005/2007 +1,2005/2007 lost animals lost . Adult 0.68 168,667 199 1141 $227,358 Lambs 3.08 139,833 117 4309 $503,147 Total 308,500 5450 $730,505 4.2.2 Beef Cattle The survey results showed that farmers. in the 1998 survey owned a total of 14,942 head of . beef. In the survey, a total of 2 adult animals and 68 calves and newborns were reported as killed, missed or aborted. The actual numbers of cows, bulls, heifers and calves/newborns the survey participants owned was not available. To facilitate the classification, bulls one year and over, beef cows and beef heifers for breeding were included in the adult category, and feeder calves in the calves and newborns category. Dairy cows, dairy heifers, steers and heifers for breeding were excluded in this. analysis as these animals are kept in confinement and are not commonly subjected to wildlife damage. The loss rate for adult beef cattle, according to the survey, was 0.013%, .and for calves and. newborns 0.46%. Market prices were not used in the original survey. For the recalibration, the following prices (Table 10) were retrieved from OMAFRA enterprise budgets, the survey and OMAFRA price lists. For the calf category, feeder calf prices were used to value calf and newborn mortalities. For the adult category; an average price of slaughter cows, bulls and cattle was used. Table 10 Valuation of Beef - 1998 values Beef Age Average Price Definitions Weight k .$/1001k-< Adult greater.than 2 years 635 128.85 Calf 1-6 months 227 233.18 Newborn less than one month 45 233.18 The actual value of beef cattle losses due to wildlife in Ontario in the original rep ort (OSCIA, 2000) was $1,334,394. The calculations followed the same procedure as in the section above for sheep losses. The recalibrated losses for 1998 amounted to $1,010,783 (see T able 11). 15 An Economic Update of the Wildlife Impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture 161 , Table 11 Recalibration of Wildlife losses in Beef with 1998 values Survey value of Avg # of. # of Valuation Livestock, Lost in kills in value of Value of Livestock. Livestock' Loss Survey' Survey Population Ont in Ont in animal in kills in Ont. =Beef - lost in_Surve ' % per head Loss in 1998 1998: 1998 1998 in 1998 Adult 2 14942 0.013 850 1700 532000 71 $60,527 $818 $58,263 Calves and newborns 68 14942 0.455 282 19193 660000 3004 $847,770 $317 $952,520 Total $908,297 $1,010,783 The update of wildlife losses in beef for the 2005/2007 period is presented in Table 12. Applying 1998 loss rates to the 2005/2007 data, the wildlife loss in beef decreased 18% in 2005/2007, compared to 1998. The difference is based on the price difference between the two periods and the decrease in. beef cattle populations. Table 12 Updated wildlife-losses in Beef Value of beef Beef Loss Avg Pop # of Avg lost in Ont. Price/animal 2005/2007 animals lost with 2005/2007 2005/2007 values Adult 0.013 460833 60 $717.00 $42,954.28 Calves and Newborns 0.455 559767 2547 $308-55 $785,857.82 Total $828,812.10 .16 An Economic Update of the Wildlife Impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture 5. Updates to the investment in the abatement of wildlife damages- COFSP 162 The Canada - Ontario Farm Stewardship program (COFSP) provides incentives for. farmers to improve management of agricultural land. The following data were provided by OSCIA. Category 23 of the 2008 Project Eligibility Guidelines for COFSP provides incentives for farmers to help reduce crop, livestock or property damages caused by certain wildlife species (deer, geese, bear, coyotes and songbirds). Preventive measures aimed at controlling damage from varmint species such as raccoons, woodchucks and mice are not eligible for cost share. There are.three practice codes in category 23 that serve to group the types of preventative measures implemented: 2,301 Forage Buffer Strips- Convert cropland to forage buffer strips of tall grasses around wetlands where geese cause recurring damage; 2302 Fencing or.Netting- specialized predator-proof fencing or netting to protect stored feed, concentrated livestock, high value crops, drip irrigation sy stems, and other critical agricultural activities; 2303 Scaring and Repellent Systems and Devices- could include the use of electronic devices, noise, guard animals, and chemicals. All devices must be approved and currently registered for use by regulatory agencies. The Project Eligibility Guidelines also identify ineligible practices and costs within category 23. Table 13 reflects the activities in Category 23 from April 2005 through to September 12, 2008' - Table 13 Claims for preventative measures COFSP Practice Code Claims, Paid to TotalSum of Gross Project Number of Date Federal Claims Costs Unique farm Paid Businesses 2301- 3 $1,520. $4,093 3 2302 165 $598,978. $2,072,205 150 2303 44 $42,167- $141;354 44 Totals 212 $642,665 $2,217,652 197 Source: OSCIA, 2008 17 An Economic, Update of the Wildlife Impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture -1 b 6. Potential options to minimize the impact of wildlife-caused losses The following section will provide an overview on the current status of federal, provincial and municipal programs that address the wildlife damage problem. However, most policies have not changed since the 2000 report. Nevertheless, some updated numbers on insurance payments, will be provided. Update on the Status of Policies in Ontario Addressing Nuisance Wildlife The Ministry of Natural Resources collaborates with other ministries and municipalities to help resolve issues around crop damage caused by wildlife. According to the Fish and Wildlife conservation act, during the open se ason, farmers or immediate family members of a farmer are allowed, without a license, to hunt game birds and hunt and trap game mammals, except black bear, white-tailed deer, moose, caribou and elk. In a release from September 2008, the Ministry of Natural Resources informed municipalities south of the French and Mattawa Rivers of current changes in the Fish and Wildlife Act regarding Sunday hunting. As of the release.date, of 230. municipalities, 167 requested Sunday hunting. The Migratory Bird Convention Act changed in that hunting of migratory birds (geese; ducks, etc.) will be also allowed in municipalities on Sundays, where Sunday hunting is allowed (MNR, 2008). Compensation payments OMAFRA provides payments to farmers who have experienced livestock damage. The following numbers are payments made under the Livestock, Poultry.and Honey Bee Protection. Act Part I and Part II (Protection of livestock and poultry - Wolf, Coyote predation) and Order in Council (Bear damage to livestock compensation program). The values provided in Table 14 show that the payments, based on wolf/coyote damage in 2006107, were significantly higher for cattle and sheep than in 1998/99 (the time of the original wildlife damage survey). Table 14 Wolf/Coyote Predation compensation program 1998/1999.' 2006./2007 claimed Payment $ - claimed Payment $ Livestock # Injured/Killed adjusted 2007 # InjurediKilled Cattle 493 258,075 948 479,057 Goat 111 12,156 91 11,494 Horse 2 1,190 7 3,500 Sheep 1,990 323,040 3,076 448,671 Poultry. 478 9,393 442 7,953 Table 15 Dear Damage to Livestock compensation program 1998/1999 , 2006/2007 'Amount $ - # Inured/Killed # Injured/Killed Amount $ Livestock adjusted 2007 Cattle 11 6816 39 24,949 Horse 1 476 3 1,250 Sheep 9 1249.5 4 599 18 An Economic Update of the Wildlife Impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture 7. Observations and Conclusions 64 The purpose of this study was to update the 2000 Wildlife Impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture report based on the current economic situation of farmers in Ontario, where possible. Historic survey results located in the material provided by OSCIA were used to determine the loss rates for crops and livestock for 1998. Some technical complications were introduced by data collected directly in the 2000 study that could not be directly updated and aggregated consistently with published data. Thus, the 1998 results were recalibrated based on data publicly available today: Table 16 presents a summary of changes in wildlife damage from 1998 to 2005/2007 in total volume lost, based on the loss rates determined by the wildlife damage survey undertaken. in 1998, and with average yield and acreage data from 2005 to 2007.- The volume lost was calculated by multiplying the average yield loss per acre times the number of acres in Ontario for the respective time. period. Hence, the percentage change is heavily influenced by the . change in number of acres over the years. Table 17 provides a summary of changes in wildlife damage from 1998 to 2005/2007, based on the loss rates determined by the wildlife damage survey undertaken in 1998, and with average yield/price/acreage data from 2005 to 2007. The table shows that, based on commodities covered in the study, wildlife damage in Ontario costs Ontario farmers approximately $41 million per year. This represents about a 20% increase relative to consistent data measuring losses in 1998. The results of this study should be understood in the following context. First, because a new survey was beyond the scope of this study, the existing loss rate from the 2000 study, which is representative of 1998, was used and applied to more recent data. By nature, wildlife inventory is difficult to obtain, but the indication from secondary sources in terms of expenditure on wildlife claims and wildlife harvest levels suggest that the wildlife damage issue is increasing, perhaps markedly. Moreover, while most of the major Ontario crops are considered here, there.is a range of minor crops not considered, which collectively could increase wildlife damage estimates significantly. Finally, there are new wildlife populations such wild turkey, elk, and sandhill cranes that damage farm products in the growing phase, which are not accounted for here. Thus, the loss rate from the 2000 study is probably conservative, which probably makes the 2005/2007 results conservative. Second, because of the technical issues related to updating survey -collected estimates in the 2000 study with secondary, published data sources, some vegetable commodities had to be excluded. This exclusion is unfortunate, and leads to anothe r source of understatement in the results. Clearly, if all the crops included in the 2000 study could have been included in this update, the damage estimates would be significantly higher. Thus, the costs of wildlife damage appear quite material in the. current context, and even at that there is ratio nale to expect that the value of losses estimated for 2005/2007 is conservative. 7.1 Recommendations Wildlife in Ontario is publicly held, and managed in trust for its citizens by the Province. At the same time, throughout eastern, central, southern and southwestern Ontario, much of the wildlife habitat is provided by private landholders who are farmers. The provision of this wildlife habitat comes at a cost. Based on the data that we have available today, we can track crop and livestock losses due to wildlife at approximately $34 million in 1998 and $4.1 million in 2005/2007. Different data 19 An Economic Update of the Wildlife Impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture C.F IiN V I t-CPE, JVAAle in 2000 showed wildlife damage values of $41 million even in 1998. If the same full range of data from the 2000 study was available now, estimated losses for 2005/2007 would clearly be higher. Wildlife damage and the attempts to prevent it affect many interest groups such as farmers, taxpayers, consumers and wildlife conservation groups. Ideally, a new survey should be undertaken and structured in such a way that it can be easily updated from year to year. This would serve to identify the actual volume of wildlife damage, to evaluate the effects of prevention measures and to assess the costs incurred thro ugh wildlife damage to evaluate compensation schemes to farmers. Responsibility for such an activity should be shared by farm organizations, wildlife conservation groups and government. 20 An Economic Update of the Wildlife Impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture artiut„ i.•rc:ri, Table 16 Change in volume lost du.e to wildlife damage for selected crop s and livestock 166 from 1998 to 2005/2007 Percentage Commodity , Unit::. 1,998 2005/2007 Change Livestock Beef (adult) # 71 60 -15.5 Beef (calves and newborn) # 3004 2547 -15.2 Sheep (adult) # 1006 1141 13.4 Sheep (lambs) .3088 4309 39.5 Field Crops Corn bu 4,617,226 4,390,824 -4.9 Soybeans bu 698,010 744,642 6.7 Wheat bu 156,179 217,271 39.1 Forages (Hay) ton 67,517 87,578 29.7 Fruit Apples Ibs 11,767,789 9,458,253 -19.6 Grapes Ibs 4,457,149 4,831,599 8.4 Blueberries Ibs 203,306 253,798 24.8 Strawberries Ibs 114,014 89,007 -21.9 Tender Fruit Ibs 490836 .488400 29.7 Vegetables Sweet-corn Ibs 3,563,009 2,151,591 I 21 An Economic Update of the Wildlife Impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture ii Fl.Nll~TS; 161 Table 17 Change in wildlife damage to selected crops and livestock from 1998 to 2005/2007 Percentage Commodity 1998 2005/2007 Change Livestock Beef $1,010,783 $828,812 -18.0 % Sheep $495,180 $730;505 47.0% Field Crops Corn $13,805,506 $17,220,451 24.74% Soybeans $5,290,917 $5,833,636 10.26% Wheat $506;021 $979,171 93.50% Forages (Hay) $6,684,159 $8,491,312 27.04% Fruit Apples $1,988,756 $1,642,583 -17.40% Grapes $1,83.1,888 $2,443,179 33.37% Blueberries $319,191 $157,326 -8.84% Strawberries $102,613 $112,979 10.10%0 Tender Fruit $1,992,794 $2,330,806 16.96% Vegetables Sweet corn $217,344 $151,329 -30.30%- Total $34,245,153 $40,922,089 19.50% 'Recalibrated based on current data availability 22 An Economic Update of the Wildlife Impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture - (:Fig. Ct rl<:ti'FrL References 1 68 Environment Canada (2004): Population Status of Migratory Game Birds in Canada Canadian Wildlife Service Waterfowl Committee, CWS Migratory Birds Regulatory Report Number 13: MNR.2008. Sunday hunting. OMAFRA.2007. The Fish and Wildlife Act (January 1, 1999), Last amendment: 2007..- http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/enllish/elaws statutes 97f41 e.htm Accessed, December; 2008: OMAFRA.2008. The Livestock, Poultry and Honey Bee Protection Act. http://www.e-iaws.gov.on.ca/html%statutes/english/elaws statutes 90124 e.htm Accessed: December, 2008. Ontario Government.n o year. Strategy for Preventing and Managing Human-Deer Conflicts in Southern Ontario. Internet Source: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/244545.pdf OSCIA. 2.000. Wildlife_Impact Assessment for Ontario Agriculture. Rollins, K. 2004. Wildlife Damage Compensation for Ontario Producers. Principles and Prospects - Summary. Draft report. Migratory Birds Convention Act. 1994. Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994nh,ttp://law s.justice. gc.ca/en/M -7.01/ 23 Thompson, Kim D. From: Sent: 69 March 31, 20102:27 AM To: Thompson, Kim D, Subject: Re: Draft Firearms Bylaw To Kim Thompson and City of Pickering Council: While it is a commendable effort to update the Firearms Bylaw, and is long overdue,.I have concerns with some of the proposed changes. First of all I would like to comment that the maps provided could hardly have been more frustrating to work with. Wiry are they not, at least, oriented the same way, with North at the top as is the standard? I'm new to Pickering and these maps are headache-inducing. If Lmake the "new". bylaw map small enough to see the whole overview, I carmot read the street names. I cannot do a side-by-side comparison with the "old bylaw map. And the old map is partly, unreadable! I would like to know why Pickering Council made a special effort to get the opinions of those who have a vested interest in hunting (gun clubs, OFAH, etc.) but no effort to get a balanced viewpoint from any of the,. local naturalist groups (eg. Pickering Naturalists, Durham Naturalists), stewardship groups (eg. Friends of Seaton Trail), local homeowners (who may or may not be hunters), birdwatchers, dog walkers, hikers etc? This does not seem very democratic to me. As a citizen of Pickering I am very concerned that no public meeting could be held to discuss this issue due to the fact that Pickering Council felt threatened by the very vocal, minority pro-hunting lobby, some of whom are not even residents of Pickering (as was confirmed by Maurice Brenner). This is not fair to the people who pay taxes here, vote here, and live here, and wish to feel safe enjoying the outdoors (or at home if living north of Taunton Road!). Perhaps in fairness the comment period should be extended, with notices posted, for example, near the Seaton Trail where people will now be permitted to hunt (it used to be in the Prohibited area)! I have heard that the boundary that was initially discussed as the northern limit for the new prohibited area was the first Concession north of Highway 7, but was then lowered to Taunton Road due to the outcry by the pro- hunting lobby. Where does the average public citizen's opinion enter into this? There are far more people who don't hunt than those who do. How many people does Pickering Council think there are who hike, birdwatch, walk their.dogs, trailride horses, ride bikes, picnic etc, compared to those who hunt? I have read that birdwatchers alone outnumber legal hunters by an average of 10 to 1-. Hiking along public trails and hunting are not compatible, as shown by the shooting death of Marianne Schmid . in Simcoe County Forest in 2006. The proposed bylaw says hunters must be 100 metres from the trail but how far can a bullet travel? How will hunters be expected to automatically know they are. 100 metres away, will there be a posted, continuous fence line? Likewise if someone has permission to hunt on a specific property, how likely is it that they will not cross property lines (either knowingly or inadvertently) in pursuit of their quarry, as is presently known to happen? Regarding the "Restricted" hunting areas, why are individuals allowed to determine whether the wildlife are "pests" on their own whim? If they really are a problem, why not leave it to the MNR to issue a cull, rather than. 1 170 having no idea how- many of a particular species are being killed until they are possibly extirpated from the area? Do we really want NO wildlife to be able to live peacefully in these areas of Pickering? Does being a landowner mean you get to decide that just because a migrating bird, animal, turtle or whatever travels over your land, you can kill it at will? What if someone living on the neighbouring property enjoys seeing that wildlife come by? Should one person's right to hunt trump another's right to observe and enjoy the local wildlife? The places where one can observe wildlife in southern Ontario are becoming fewer and smaller with every new housing development, shopping mall complex, and industrial area built. Shouldn't Pickering be making every effort to keep what little we have left of the natural world? There is presently a lot of illegal hunting going on in the Prohibited areas, this bylaw seems to do little to address or stop this. Saying that someone needs to carry a "letter of permission" only opens up a.can of worms. Who will be able to ask to see it? I suspect you'd only ever see one if you're an officer of the law. And how would.one determine the letter was genuine? Will every supposed signer of a letter of permission be visited by an officer? Or will it betaken on faith? At present there are poachers who loudly claim to have permission to hunt in areas where it is illegal and has been for decades. (They have even gone up to residents'. doors, weapons in hand, to "ask for permission" to hunt on their land; .in prohibited areas! There are also many deer hunting stands and bait stations found in prohibited areas.) There are very few MNR Conservation Officers available, so many poachers have been getting away with it, and will continue. to do so, no doubt. However, it is good to see that Pickering bylaw officers and police officers will be able to enforce this bylaw as well, so maybe the illegal hunting can be cut down a little. The whole issue of hunting in Pickering is said to be revenue-neutral, so why would Pickering cater to those who hunt, when hunter and non-hunter alike pay local taxes and vote. (Excluding those hunters who don't live here!) Why.would landowners AND tenants (or lesees) alike be able to give permission to hunt? What if they disagree with each other, how would it be decided? What about co-owners of land, would there have to be unanimous agreement, or would one individual be able to give permission regardless 'of what the others thought about it? These are not idle speculations, but are actual arguments .that are already taking place.. I would still like to see a public meeting held, Council should not allow itself to be intimidated into not allowing the public to be truly heard. If police or bodyguards must be present in order to allow democracy; then do whatever it takes, invite.the media, and let everyone see who is.being reasonable or not. Sincerely; ickering Resident p ease leave me anonymous if this letter is to be published online, as I do not wish to be threatened by the same people Pickering Council are afraid of but I would certainly come to a public meeting if one.were held) Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! 2 Thompson, Kim D. From: .11 Sent: 7 arc 31, 2010 :29 AM To: Thompson, Kim D. Subject: Re: Draft Firearms By-law for Comment Thank you for inviting me to comment on the proposed Firearms Bylaw. While the proposed changes to the bylaw are a start,.the.y are still not strong enough. The changes we impose on wildlife are immeasurable. As humans, some of us think we should be the "controllers" of wildlife and nature. Yet are we not causing the greatest damage? We deem certain animals to be "pests because they might cause some damage to what we've claimed as "our" property; as if we can exclude nature without causing detriment to ourselves. Yet they still try to eat, nest, and make an existence out of what little we leave them. Even when they die, they decompose and give back to the land. What do .we give the earth? Dumps, toxic settling ponds, pavement, poison, genetic. modifications for our own short-term gain, with little or no thought to the consequences, even to ourselves. I want to feel safe living in Pickering, we recently moved here from Toronto to feel safer, please do not take this away. I was shocked at the amount of seemingly unchecked hunting in Pickering, legal and illegal, anyone with a bow or worse. Please do not be swayed by the pro-hunting factions. What can be gained by this? Pickering can do so much better. It's time to stop listening to the few, and be more restrictive to hunting now. I read that hunters and farmers were pre-consulted just to reach. this draft. Of course OFAH, gun clubs and hunting groups want less restrictions on hunting. But there are 5 to 15 bird watchers for every single hunter, for one example. There is something wrong here, Pickering makes no money from hunting so I don't understand why you would be less restrictive to hunting, as seems to be the case from the increased "restricted" zone being proposed, where hunting will be allowed, in some cases where it used to.be completely prohibited. If there is wildlife deemed to be a "pest", the MNR can issue a cull. Would people on agricultural lands be made to keep track of what they kill? You can't just let them kill whatever they want, this is unsustainable. Some of the hunters are not behaving like good citizens, poaching is rampant in Pickering, even the legal hunting is not just for "pest control". There are people leading hunting parties for paying customers from out of town, even on land that is presently prohibited to hunting. Hunters are allowed to put out food to bait wildlife, then shoot at what eats it. Should that even be called hunting? If the poachers and hunters push against this too hard, I can show you. photos that will disgrace the "good killing" they say they do; and show it is not just "pest" animals suffering. At least shooting the animals usually kills them faster than the poison some are using, I have found rings of dead animals around some farms, not just deemed nuisance animals. Some people seem to just think they need to kill things, and that it is their human right to do so. I would like to see a "Pest-Management Request Form" have to be filled out for each-request, even a review process. The unchecked slaughter must stop. Armed hunters have knocked on the doors of friends of mine in North Pickering asking if they could hunt there (even in the prohibited areas)! Hunters must be told they cannot do this. How would any of you feel if an armed person came to your door? I would be enraged! 1 172 Why even have the right to hunt in Pickering? It says there is "no financial impact to the proposed bylaw, but allowing hunting can have a huge financial impact. What if someone is killed, for example?;Even the accidental shooting of a pet can have a financial impact. The right to hunt has been tainted by poachers and various wingnuts. I prefer my wingnuts unarmed! It is concerning that Pickering couldn't even hold a public meeting about this proposed bylaw because the pro=hunting faction were so obnoxious and threatening it was deemed unsafe! Yet this bylaw is so old it really needs to be updated. What was the population of Pickering in 1973, when the original bylaw was written, compared to the population now? Please consider moving the no-hunting area further north, at least north of the proposed Seaton development lands and NHS, or you will have to revise it again very soon. They're proposing to put at least forty thousand new citizens there shortly; with another thirty thousand to follow! Also please take valley lands out of the hunting zone. These lands are not farmed. The Seaton NHS is not for hunting, it is supposed to be what area is left for the wildlife after development. It is also where there will be . the greatest risk of accidental shootings to occur, once the new residents start using the, proposed walking and biking trails through it., And are valley lands notparkland,city-owned.greenspace? How about prohibiting hunting in greensPaces also? Why should there now be hunting allowed near the Seaton Trail? And shouldn't t er built-u huntin be rohibited entirely around Whitevale, Brougham, Greenwood and o h p residential areas? g p And is hunting going to be allowed in hydro corridors, for example? 1.0 metres is also way to close.to roadways ! i Can citizens request to see hunters' permits, or landowner letters? A big part of the poaching problem is that there is too much grey area in interpretation of the present laws. Poachers I have. spoken to always claim they have "landowner's permission". Lesees and tenants, I do not feel should be able to give permission to hunt. It just adds another level of confusion over who to contact and how you prove permission was given. A written . letter can be fraudulent and who will check on this? At present no one questions the person who supposedly gave permission. We need to start protecting wildlife in earnest .or there will be very little left. Thank you for your continuing efforts, I hope you will reconsider some of.the proposed revisements and make them much more restrictive rather than less. Sincerely; (name and address are not for publication) On Wed, Feb 17; 2010 at 11:09 AM, Thompson, Kim D. <khompson@citYofpic_k ring.com> wrote: 2 Thompson, Kim D. From: Thompson, Kim D. Sent: 7 3 March 29, 2010 3.13 PM To: Subject: RE: Commen s Related to Proposed Changes to Pickering Firearms By-Law Mrank you for providing your comments regarding the proposed firearms by-law. To clarify, the regulations being imposed are more stringent than the existing by-law. The public consultation process is underway, with ads placed in our local paper and on our web-site advising of the proposed by-law and seeking comments until March 31, 2010. In addition, organizations such as the Ministry of Natural Resources, Durham Regional Police, Ontario Federation of Anglers & Hunters, the Durham Agriculture Advisory Committee, Pickering Rod & Gun Club and individuals who have expressed an interest were all sent copies of the Report to Executive Committee and the draft by-law for comment. Upon conclusion of this consultation period, staff will prepare a final draft by-law for Council's review. The final report will also include the comme.nts received from the public. Please allow me to clarify several of your concerns: Farmers have to be actively utilizing their land for agricultural purposes and must meet the Farm Class Assessment requiring a minimum of $7,000.00 income per year relating to farming operations. Agricultural zoning alone does not meet the criteria. The provisions to. allow farmers to manage wildlife which may damage their crops or livestock is a basic provision of most other municipal firearms by-laws. The provisions requiring setbacks while utilizing firearms in the permitted area are new and intended to set basic requirements. As an aside, there are no schools in the permitted area. - The Ministry of Natural Resources actually advised the 100m setback was excessive and could be reduced further. Finally, the Seaton Trail lands would be prohibited from discharging firearms and bows, firstly because they do not meet the farm class requirement, and secondly because we would include them as park area which would prohibit the use of firearms. The new by-law clarifies bows, which were previously-not addressed at all, increases the area where firearms are restricted (as large acreages between Taunton Rd and Whitevale Rd previously permitting the use of firearms have been eliminated and lands west of Brock between Taunton Rd and Hwy 7 have been added) and sets out far clearer regulations as to what is actually permitted to occur. 'Again, thank you for taking the time to express your concerns, and if you have any further questions, please contact me. Kimberly Thompson Manager, Municipal Law Enforcement Services Clerk's Office City of Pickering Telephone: 905.420.4660 ext 2187 Toil Free: 1.877.420.4666 Fax- 905.420.9685 TTY: 905.420.1739 kthompson(cicityofpickering. corn mAiw.cityofpickering.com i WAPlease consider your environmental responsibility - think before you print! www.sustainablepickering.com 1,74 From Sent: March 28, 2010 2:04 PM To: Thompson, Kim D. Subject: Comments Related to Proposed Changes to Pickering Firearms By-Law Ms. Kimberly Thompson: am writing with reference to the proposed changes to the Pickering firearms by-law which I have read at the following link: http //www citVofpickerinq com/standard/cityhall/notices/PDF/Propo8edFirearmsBylaw.pdf. I am shocked and hope I have been misinformed by what I have heard relating to this proposed changes. Specifically that these changes are being made without the traditional public consultation on the subject. Please tell me this is not truly the result of. intimidation by the hunting lobby. When I read the conditions related to the Restricted Area it occurs to me that the wording effectively permits hunting with rifles up to .275 calibre and does nothing to impose any restrictions on shotguns. Although the wording suggests an intent to permit the discharge of a. firearm only for the purposes of controlling nuisance or threatening animals on properties of at least 10 acres the provision to allow hunting with written permission from the owner (and do I also understand tenant?) which I believe effectively opens this up to sport hunting. I do not see how it would be possible to distinguish a hunter walking a property for the purpose of exterminating a nuisance from one hunting for the purpose of sport. I understand and agree with the requirement for farmers to protect their land however this should only be accomplished by the land-owners themselves or with the land owner in attendance. Any provision for a hunter to carry written permission and hunt freely opens this up far beyond the implied intent of the language for. all practical purposes. The second provision that makes absolutely no sense to me are the proximity restrictions to schools, places of worship and others as defined in section 15 bullet (b) with reference to the Permitted Area. -Discharging a firearm within 100m of a School within the Permitted Area of Pickering is absolutely INSANE. Where there are schools there are children. When l completed my hunter safety training program I learned bullets can travel for miles. With this by-law, a load like a 130 grain .270 cartridge is fair game. Even shot horizontally I've read this shell is only going to drop about 19 inches in 400 yards and is not a bad option for killing a deer. Why would we only have a perimeter of 100m around our schools? This has to be at least 1000m. Please help me understand what is the rational for amending the existing by-law to permit the discharging of a firearm through-out the Seaton Trail system. When I compare the map on the existing by-law to the proposed changes the areas around Whitevale; Greenwood, Brougham and Green River change from being Prohibited to Restricted. There is no doubt in my mind that this proposed by-law is a definite step backwards in terms of the safety of our communities. 2 Thompson, Kim D. From: Sent: 175 March 31, 2010 4:27 PM- To: Thompson, Kim D. Subject: draft firearms by-law Importance: High Good afternoon Ms. Kimberly Thompson, I have looked at the proposed draft firearms by-law. I strongly disagree with many points. i First, let me say, I am a hunter, but haven't hunted for a good number of years. So, I am not at all opposed to hunting: However, I am very strongly opposed to people hunting (especially illegally) both with firearms and . bows, around my house and neighbourhood. I believe there are violations. of the hunting regulations, and no ready enforcement by Ministry of Natural Resources officers. A resident of my community cannot legally challenge a person who is hunting, and ask to see his letter of permission, or hunting licence, which may or may not exist. Without the necessary enforcement, which does not exist in any meaningful way, then all hunters are free to do whatever they want, anywhere, at any time! It is well-recognized and documented that there is illegal hunting on-going in Rouge Park. As efforts are mounted to monitor and stop that poaching practice, the hunters will move east to the Central Pickering area, which already has many people discharging firearms at present. .I have seen people parked at the side of the road (beside my house) well-after dusk, waiting for an opportunity to drag their game out of the bush when few people are around to catch them, with their multiple and illegal number of killed animals. One person even told me, "The Game Warden said it is OK to hunt." Well, we have no Game Wardens in Ontario. I believe that these hunters are not from Pickering. One of my neighbours who hunts, travels well,-over a 100 kilometres away to do his hunting. I have seen several tree stands permanently chained and padlocked to trees, just south of my home. Also, as a resident.-of Seaton, which will soon become a densely populated urban area, firearms can be very dangerous. The fact is.that discharged bullets can be deadly. beyond one mile. I have heard multiple rapid fire shots not far from my house. This pattern of discharging firearms is not in keeping with any kind of hunting that I am aware. The easiest way to ensure that safety is maintained and no violations can occur is to completely ban any kind of firearm discharge or hunting on any land in the "Restricted Area". In other words, the.defined Urban Area should include all land in the Restricted Area. I realized.the draft by-law may be stronger than what exists presently. However, these changes still do not go far enough to protect the residents of Pickering. I do understand the need of legitimate farmers to control nuisance wildlife. 1 i 176 There needs to be more public awareness and input about this proposed firearms by-law. I have spoken to many people who are completely unaware of the pending by-law. I look forward to "seeing this matter on the Council Agenda, so that it can be properly addressed by concerned citizens, Please pass my concerns to all members of Council. . Thank you. eta . j I ' I Thompson, Kim D. From: Sent: 7.7 March 31., 20104:44 PM To, Thompson, Kim D.; pat sheridan Subject hunting by-law My name is I have lived in Pickering for the past twenty years. For the last ten years I. have lived in North Pickering in the Hamlet of Whitevale. I would like to express my disappointment with the . recent.proposed by-law change with regards to firearms in the City of Pickering. I have faith that the MNR is able to manage wildlife conservation. I cannot believe that there is to be no.pubiic debate with regards to these changes. I am strongly opposed to`changes in law without debate. Take your contacts everywhere. Try Messenger for mobile 1 178 March 30, 2010 Ms. Kimberly Thompson Manager, Municipal Law Enforcement Services Clerk's Office One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1U 6K7 Dear Ms. Kimberly Thompson: The Pickering Rod and Gun Club wish to thank the City of Pickering for the opportunity to comment on the proposed new draft Firearms Bylaw... The Club understands the need to revise.the current bylaw because it does not. address the use of archery equipment in Pickering BUT we do not agree with the way in which the proposed bylaw is drafted. It appears that the City is trying to address a perceived clash between user groups and trespass issues by imposing an expanded discharge of firearms bylaw on most of the rural lands in Pickering. Under your "Sustainability Implications", you note that there is an issue between off-road trails and green space with the discharge of firearms. Fo.r starters, if you are meaning public open space versus private lands. your bylaw MUST delineate the public lands and private lands. Unfortunately there is a very BIG. misconception that if the government owns the land anyone can enter there upon without permission. This is WRONG, there are no unalienated lands "Crown Land" to be found in Pickering like i.n 1 79. Northern Ontario, which is open for all to enjoy in most cases. All the lands in Pickering are "fee title" one way or the other including the Federal and Provincial lands which means anyone. other than the owner/tenant must have permission to enter onto the property, NO ONE MAY TRESPASS without permission. There are publicly owned lands open to the general public such as the Seaton Trail., Rouge Valley Park and other designated public areas, but it is doubtful that the responsible government agency for these lands.wou.ld give permission to discharge a firearm within the limits of the trail and green spaces. There is an abundant amount of land owned by both the Federal and Provincial Governments and more recently by private developers in Pickering but they are not open to the general public use. These lands for the most part are :under cultivation and anyone other than the owner/tenant must have written permission to enter thereupon or . theyare "trespassing". Now if the hunter must have written permission by law and there. is a conflict with off-road trails and green space users who is. i.n the wrong on these lands which are NOT open for general public use? Certainly not the hunter with the written permission in his pocket! So why does this proposed bylaw discriminate against the hunter with the expansion of limits of the no discharge bylaw on the majority of available agricultural lands which are NOT available for general public use? Reading further into the report by the City Solicitor it is noted that the expansion of the prohibited areas suggested is only being done as a matter of convenience or ease of drawing boundaries. The perceived urban presence because of Taunton Road has little or no justification, does council have any idea haw may heavily travelled roadways/highways in Ontario have hunting being carried on annually beside them with no incidents. The agricultural portions of Pickering have. been legally hunted for years without incident under the existing bylaw. Some recent newspaper accounts and some pictures supplied to Council of tree stands and blinds have questioned the legality of the hunt but one must accept that the current bylaw allows the use of archery equipment and if the 180 hunter has written permission to be there what is taking place is legal hunting. Those who are complaining and taking the photos do they have the legal right to be there? Are these people aware that interfering with a person legally hunting on these lands that they are subject to charges under the Fish and Wildlife Act. Maybe that part of the Act should be enforced more vigorously to curtail this perceived conflict with the hunter! So again th.e question is raised why is the hunter being discriminated against with the expansion of the prohibited area and not the trespasser. If anything maybe the current prohibited area should be adjusted to allow more land to be used for legal hunting. With all the recent wildlife complaints the City,is receiving the Club does not.understand why you would want to further restrict this legal pastime. The Club like any rational minded person does not want to see individuals letting fly with arrows in. their residential backyards or the City Parks which the current bylaw allows. The Club concurs with the rational to include archery equipment in the new bylaw BUT only.in the URBAN'setting of. Pickering, being forthe most part the built up areas south of the Third Concession Road, the hamlets of Cherrywood, Whitevale, Green River, Brougham, Greenwood, and Claremont zoned for residential uses. - What the Club would like to see.is all lands zoned agricultural in Pickering including all the Federal and Provincial lands, the Agricultural Preserve on the west boundary of Pickering be unrestricted by this bylaw. Allow the Trespass to Property Act, Occupiers` Liability Act, the Ministry of Natural Resources Hunting Regulations and the land owners/tenants control the issues that have been brought to Council about illegal hunting. Contained within these Acts and Regulations there sufficient legislation and regulations such as how close to a roadwaya firearm can be discharged, that hunters must have written permission to be on the lands and people can be charged for trespassing on lands not open to the general public without permission. The prohibiting of discharge of firearms within in Zoo meters of the various described structures and open spaces requires.some rethinking when archery equipment is being included in the description of firearms. The. furthest recommend dispatching distance for an.arrow is usually 40 yards which J's just a little more than third the distance suggested in the new bylaw. The restriction to say the least is a little suppressive when one knows that most of the hunting is with archery equipment. An allowance should be incorporated for the use of archeryequipment versus a firearm. The discharge distance from.a roadway of io meters is also unnecessary since the MR regulations already prohibit anyone from the possession of a loaded firearm, including archery equipment within 8 meters of the travelled portion of a road or fence line where one exists at any time and no discharge of a firearm from or across a right of way for passage of vehicles at anytime in.all of Durham. - The Club understands the need.to stop poaching and would be willing to sit .,down with Council representatives to discuss.implementing a REPORTA POACHER. program. in Pickering~especially along the boundarywith the Rouge Park at a later time. ' In summary, the Pickering Rod and Gun Club requested that items 13 to 1.6c be rewritten to reflect the concerns stated above. The club is prepared to sit. down and discuss these matters with all interested parties, the City, MNR, OFAH , OFA and any landowners/tenants who wish to have input. Conservation First and Foremost, . Pickering Rod and Gun Club r OF ANGLERS & HUNTERS P.O. Box-2300,4601 Guthrie Drive, Peterborough, Ontario K9J 8Lj Phone: (705) 748.6324 . Fax: (705) 748.9577 • Visit: www.ofah.org a Email: o£ah rr ofah.org 182 OFAH FILE: 353B March 30, 2010 Ms. Kimberly Thompson, Manager Municipal Law -Enforcement Services Clerk's Office . City of Pickering One the Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 Dear Ms. Thompson: On behalf of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (O.F.A.H.), our 100,000 members, supporters and subscribers, our 660 member clubs (including the Pickering Rod & Gun Club), and most particularly, the 1,200 O.F.A.H. members who live in the area covered by the proposed bylaw, we are pleased to comment on proposed Firearms By-law L-2000-001-10. O.F.A.H. members, and indeed, the vast majority of legal, law-abiding, licensed and trained hunters are dedicated to safe hunting practices and the full enforcement of laws: designed to ensure public safety and the sustainable use and conservation of wildlife. In the 1960's, the O.F.A.H.. partnered with the Ministry of Natural Resources on the introduction of a mandatory Hunter Safety Education Program. The success of this program can be measured in the impeccable safety record of Ontario hunters. Since the inception of the hunter education program, the rate of accidents related to hunting has been reduced to virtually zero. In addition, since the introduction of the mandatory wild turkey hunting seminars in 1987, over 80,000 hunters have take the course, with only one accident being recorded. Based upon the statistics, the suggestion in the report that the regulation of the use of firearms and bows is necessary to "reduce the risk of dangerous interactions between persons discharging firearms and members of the community who are using the off-road trails and green spaces" is highly inaccurate and unsubstantiated by fact. According to Statistics Canada, hunting today is measurably safer than bicycling, boating, swimming, horseback riding and most recreational field sports, including baseball and golf. In fact, both the Canada Safety Council and the National. Safety Council are on record as stating that hunting in Canada is responsible for 0.001 accidents, which is miniscule in comparison to the aforementioned sports, or the injuries that occur as a result of insect bites and even lightning strikes. Trained, licensed hunters present no risk to the nonhunting public. The introduction of restrictions against hunting through increasingly restrictive no discharge bylaws, which are based upon poor information, or a perceived "threat" to the public safety, withoutproof, are unwarranted. While Section 119 of the Municipal Act does allow municipalities to introduce no discharge bylaws "in the interest of the public safety," any municipality that unduly restricts the discharge of firearms, including bows, in a manner or geographical area that can not be justified, or that is not clearly demonstrated to be necessary to protect the public safety based upon the frequency or legitimacy of.complaints, the number of charges laid and convictions achieved, intrudes upon the provincial jurisdiction to manage and control wildlife populations and the hunting of wildlife. Accordingly, these may be subject to challenge. .6e VOICE ofAnGlers and Hunters ONTARIO FEDERATION OF ANGLERS AND HUNTERS Ms. Kimberly Thompson March 30, 2010 Page Two 183 In this case, it would appear that the impetus for a review of the current bylaw was either wholly, or in part, spurred on by accusations made about "illegal" hunting by a Toronto resident who has apparently set himself up as judge and jury of local hunters, despite the fact that he himself does not live in the municipality, nor quite frankly, does he appear to understand what delineates "legal" and "illegal" hunting. In the process, this same individual appears to have convinced a local Councillor that "illegal" hunting is rampant in the area and needs to be "controlled." We would respectfully remind the Members of Council that there are already a number of federal and provincial laws in place that are enforced with respect to.the safe use of firearms by hunters and other legitimate users. These include the Criminal Code of Canada, Sec. 86(1) that lays out the foundations of an offense committed by anyone who acts in a careless manner, or without reasonable precautions for the safety of other persons. Similarly, the Ontario Fish & Wildlife Conservation Act (FWCA) contains provisions regarding hunting and creates an offense for anyone hunting carelessly in Sec. 16(1), which reads, "a person who is in possession of a firearm for the purposed of hunting or.trapping shall not discharge or handle the firearm, or cause it to be discharged or handled without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for people or property." Both the Criminal Code of Canada and the FWCA contain penalty provisions for contravention of these sections of the Acts, which can include fines and jail terms. The same is true regarding trespassing for the purposes of hunting as spelled out under the Trespass to Property Act. The FWCA also provides for fines and/or jail time for contravention of the trespass sections of the Act above and beyond what is provided for in the Trespass to Property Act. The mandatory provincial hunter education course and the mandatory federal firearms safety course ensures that hunters in Ontario have taken two separate courses related directly to the safe use, storage and transportation of firearms. Licensed hunters are knowledgeable about the range of their firearms, crossbows or compound bows, and are trained to discharge a firearm or bow only when they know it is safe to do so. Unnecessary restrictions, through no discharge bylaws, on the areas that may be hunted, or where firearms and bows may be discharged, can drastically and needlessly impact on hunting on rural lands within municipal boundaries-and impact on the province's ability to manage wildlife populations. This is particularly important given the continued increase of wildlife/car collisions in may urban areas, and increasing populations of some predatory wildlife; including coyotes, which have recently threatened even domestic pets. By introducing an unnecessarily restrictive no discharge bylaw, Council may inadvertently create a larger public safety hazard since it is anticipated that local wildlife populations will increase, as will the number of collisions between cars and wildlife, most notably white-tailed deer, resulting in more damage, deaths and injuries and the potential for increased predation on agricultural crops and livestock. We understand that the Ontario Federation of Agriculture has asked Council to consider an exemption that would allow for bow hunting on farm properties during regulated hunting seasons, which would be helpful in addressing the latter point. The number of deer/car collisions in Ontario; particularly in urban areas, has increased by 86% over the last decade. There is presently a wildlife/car collision every 38 minutes somewhere in the province, 90% involving deer, and 1 out of every 18 motor vehicle collisions involves some form of wildlife. The number of collisions across the province has passed 15,000 annually, and the Ontario Provincial Police estimate that the number is actually double that which is reported. Wildlife experts have also estimated that in some areas, the elimination of hunting as a means of wildlife population control could result in collisions with wildlife increasing by more than 200%. I I ONTARIO FEDERATION OF ANGLERS AND HUNTERS Ms. Kimberly Thompson March 30, 2010 Page Three 184 Over the past decade, the O.F.A.H. has worked.with over two-dozen municipalities on their no discharge bylaws. One of the most recent examples was the Region of Halton, who, after receiving a significant amount of input in response to proposed changes to their no discharge bylaw, withdrew the draft proposal in favor of the status quo. Others, such as the City of Sudbury, decided, upon review, that current legislation at the provincial and federal levels of government was more than adequate to address any issues that might arise. Sudbury and several other municipalities, including most recently the Town of Innisfil, felt it was valuable to strike a working group, which included the O.F.A.H. and local club representatives, to work with members of municipal staff and Council on the crafting of a bylaw that all could support. We would be pleased to participate in any such group at the Town of Pickering. Any consideration of an expanded no discharge bylaw should consider whether it is necessary in the interest of public safety; include due consideration of the implications of such a proposal on local wildlife populations; the Ministry's ability to manage these populations; and the potential increased threat to public safety from increased wildlife populations and subsequent wildlife/car collisions. No one, particularly legal, law-abiding, licensed hunters, who understand and practice the safe discharge of firearms, would suggest that hunting in the immediate area of residential subdivisions is appropriate. However, as others have already pointed out, the imposition of minimum acreage sizes (10 acres); and buffer zones (10 metres) that ignore what is already established under the FWCA can have serious implications, particularly for local farmers. The definitions contained in the proposed bylaw could potentially do far more than simply establish locations around which hunting should not occur, and may in fact be intended to ban hunting through the backdoor by imposing such onerous restrictions that the ability to hunt would be severely, if not entirely, compromised. We would also respectfully remind you that the Ministry of Natural Resources' Conservation Officers do not enforce municipal bylaws, and it will be the responsibility of municipal staff to become aware of all of the provisions under the Criminal Code, FWCA, Trespass Act, Firearms Act, and any other applicable statutes in order to enforce fairly. The use of Taunton Road as a boundary is justified by the suggestion that the area along the road is now significantly more utilized as compared to when the bylaw was passed in 1975, with Taunton Road now considered to be a major commuter corridor. We would respectfully point out that between Peterborough and Ottawa, hunting occurs on both sides of Highway 47, a major thoroughfare commuter route across the province, with no threat to the safety of the public. Thank you again for affording us with an opportunity to comment on the proposed draft bylaw. We look forward to appearing as a deputation before Committee and/or Council when the issue comes forward, and reiterate our willingness to serve on a committee examining this issue. Yours in Conservation, P . Affmkomw MMW cc: 'oN oF4 YORK REGION a N FEDERATION. OF AGRICULTURE Y SERVING THE FARM COMMUNITY SINCE 1940 March 29, 2010 Ms. Kimberly Thompson Manager, Municipal Law Enforcement Services Clerk's Office City if Pickering I Dear Ms.. Thompson: Subject: Proposed Bow Hunting Ban We are writing in support of members of York Region Federation of Agriculture , and York Soil and Crop Improvement Association who also farm in the Pickering area who have concerns about.the proposed hunting bylaw. Wildlife damage to crops is a significant expense to all food producers: In 2000, the Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association (OSCIA) published the results of its 2-year study assessing the impact of wildlife damage on farmers. OSCIA determined that wildlife damage cost Ontario farmers $41 million in 1998. By simply adjusting the 1998 loss to account for inflation, the loss in 2008 dollars would be almost $51 million. This is a staggering loss to Ontario farmers. Testimony from farmers in the GTA and in areas bordering urban areas suggests that damages clear urban areas are more severe than in other parts of Ontario. We believe and accept the fact that populations of wildlife need to be managed in these near urban areas and that bow hunting of deer provides a safe and effective method to achieve this, if only in a, small way, at the same time providing some measure of crop protection. Fanned areas in the municipality of Pickering are integral to food production and need to be recognized as such by the urban population. Respectfully, BUY THE FOOD ONTARIO GROWS Ministry of. Ministere des ry- Natural Resources Richesses naturelles Aurora District Office Ontario .50 Bloomington.Road West Telephone: (905) 713-7400 1 86 Aurora, Ontario L4G 3G8 Facsimile. (905) 713-7361 Kimberly Thompson Manager, Municipal Law Enforcement Services Clerk's Office City of Pickering Dear Kim Thompson, March 30, 2010 On behalf of the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) Aurora District, we would like to thank you for the invitation to review and comment on the proposed new Pickering Firearm Discharge Bylaw. Some of the revisions we suggested and the information we provided following our face to face meeting in late 2009, appears to have been considered within the new bylaw. However, we are concerned the revised draft does not recognize many of the key recommendations made during that meeting. Two of our most serious concerns include a) the proposed vast areas of no discharge within rural lands and b) the missed opportunity to retain archery-only areas. Regardless of how rural properties are zoned or their ownership, the safety concerns are the same as those zoned agricultural. The proposed bylaw severely restricts discharge of archery firearms and long gun firearms throughout most of Pickering-, even in areas that MNR believes there would be no safety concerns. Subsection 210(36) of the Ontario Municipal Act empowers. municipalities to enact bylaws that prohibit or regulate the discharge of firearms for the purpose of public safety. These bylaws are for public safety only and should not be used to inhibit or restrict legal activities such as hunting where there is no public safety concern.. MNR recognizes the need for no discharge of firearms bylaws in urban areas for the purpose of public safety but encourages municipalities to recognize that MNR is responsible for managing wildlife populations and the most effective means we have of doing that is through regulated hunting and trapping. . In Ontario, hunting is regulated under the. Fish and Wildlife. Conservation Act and its Regulations. The exception is for migratory birds such as geese and waterfowl that are managed federally by the Canadian Wildlife Service under the Migratory Birds Convention Act and Regulations with input from the provinces.and territories. Licences, seasons, bag limits, hunting methods, firearm types and other regulations relative to hunting, are administered and enforced by MNR. Hunting regulations take into consideration both the safety of hunters and the general public by prescribing such things as permitted types of firearms and ammunition that can be used to hunt various species of wildlife. All hunters must take a Hunter Safety course and pass a written and practical test before they become eligible to purchase a hunting licence in Ontario. The proposed discharge bylaw would also impact private landowners' ability to utilize licenced trappers and hunters as.agents to effectively help control human-wildlife conflicts such as crop depredation and livestock predation. 187 We urge the municipality to take into account the separate safety concerns regarding discharge of archery firearms (bows and crossbows), and long guns including shotguns and/or rifles. All have varying safety factors to consider. Shotguns and archery equipment have a limited range and therefore can be discharged safely in areas where rifles may.not. Archery firearms have a very short range (usually under .30 metres), and emit no noise when fired..' Because of this, archery hunting can safely occur in near urban areas. The approach of providing areas where archery firearms only can be discharged and. areas where both, archery and long guns can be discharged has proven effective in other municipalities in the GTA (Whitchurch-Stouffville, King Township, Town of East Gwillimbury) in allowing hunting to occur while also addressing public safety concerns. We would encourage Pickering to consider this approach so as to not restrict or, eliminate hunting opportunities unnecessarily. .Ontario hunting regulations do not require a hunter to have written permission to hunt on private property. However, it is an offence to trespass to hunt. The requirement to have permission to be on. private property to hunt is already in provincial legislation.; MNR does not feel that it is necessary, or possibly even. within the municipalitie's area of jurisdiction to require this. MNR's Conservation. Officers enforce the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act a'nd Regulations which regulate hunting and trapping They do not enforce municipal bylaws. Notwithstanding that the NINR does not believe that the City of Pickering has the legal authority under the Municipal Act to unilaterally appoint MNR conservation.officers as an "officer" under. this draft by-law, the MNR Enforcement Branch is not willing to have its staff become involved in the enforcement of any municipal bylaws. We would ask that the reference to "Conservation Officer" be removed from your draft by-law which is intended to' replace by-law 247/75. Finally, the proposed bylaw seeks to set a discharge distance of 10 meters from a roadway. Please be advised that this matter is already addressed in Ontario regulation .665/98k (the Hunting Regulations) under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997. We appreciate the opportunity to.review this proposed new discharge bylaw. Please feel free to contact me directly to discuss further or to attend an additional meeting or presentation to. council. Thank you very much! Yours truly,