HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 7, 2020
Executive Committee
Meeting Agenda
December 7, 2020
Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm
Chair: Councillor McLean
For information related to accessibility requirements please contact:
Committee Coordinator
905.420.4611
clerks@pickering.ca
Due to COVID-19 and the Premier’s Emergency Orders to limit gatherings and maintain
physical distancing, the City of Pickering continues to hold electronic Council and
Committee Meetings.
Members of the public may observe the meeting proceedings by viewing the livestream.
A recording of the meeting will also be available on the City’s website following the
meeting.
Page
1. Roll Call
2. Disclosure of Interest
3. Statutory Public Meetings
Statutory Public Meetings are open to the public to receive input and feedback on various
Statutory matters. Due to the need to hold electronic meetings during the COVID-19
pandemic, members of the public who wish to address the Executive Committee for any
matters listed under Statutory Public Meetings may do so via an audio connection into the
electronic meeting. To register as a delegate, visit www.pickering.ca/delegation and
complete the on-line delegation form or email clerks@pickering.ca by 12:00 noon on the
business day prior to the meeting. Please ensure that you provide the telephone number
you wish to be called at so that you can be connected via audio when it is your turn to
make a delegation.
Please be advised that your name and address will appear in the public record and will
be posted on the City’s website as part of the meeting minutes.
3.1 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 17-20 1
Statutory Public Meeting Regarding Development Charges Update Study
Consultant Delegation
Andrew Grunda, Principal, Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., on
Report FIN 17-20
Recommendation:
1. That Report FIN 17-20 of the Director, Finance & Treasurer be
received;
Executive Committee
Meeting Agenda
December 7, 2020
Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm
Chair: Councillor McLean
For information related to accessibility requirements please contact:
Committee Coordinator
905.420.4611
clerks@pickering.ca
2. That Council receive for information the City of Pickering –
Development Charges (DC) Update Study prepared by Watson &
Associates Economists Ltd. dated October 15, 2020 and Addendum
to the DC Update Study dated November 2, 2020;
3. That all written submissions made at the December 7, 2020 Public
Meeting or received in writing from the public by December 9, 2020
be referred to staff and to Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. for
consideration in preparation of the final Development Charges
recommendations and By-law for Council’s consideration on
December 14, 2020; and,
4. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take
the actions as indicated in this report.
4. Delegations
Due to COVID-19 and the Premier’s Emergency Orders to limit gatherings and maintain
physical distancing, members of the public looking to provide a verbal delegation to
Members of the Executive Committee for any matters under Section 5 of the agenda,
may do so via audio connection into the electronic meeting. To register as a delegate,
visit www.pickering.ca/delegation, and complete the on-line delegation form or email
clerks@pickering.ca. Persons who wish to speak to an item that is on the agenda must
register by 12:00 noon on the last business day before the meeting. All delegations for
items not listed on the agenda shall register ten (10) days prior to the meeting date..
The list of delegates who have registered to speak will be called upon one by one by the
Chair and invited to join the meeting via audio connection. A maximum of 10 minutes
shall be allotted for each delegation. Please ensure you provide the phone number that
you wish to be contacted on.
Please be advised that your name and address will appear in the public record and will
be posted on the City’s website as part of the meeting minutes.
5. Matters for Consideration
5.1 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report BYL 05-20 64
Deferral of Implementation of Accessible Service Supplement Fees
Vehicle for Hire By-law
Recommendation:
Executive Committee
Meeting Agenda
December 7, 2020
Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm
Chair: Councillor McLean
For information related to accessibility requirements please contact:
Committee Coordinator
905.420.4611
clerks@pickering.ca
1. That Report BYL 05-20 respecting a deferral of the implementation
of the Accessible Service Supplement enacted in the Vehicle for
Hire By-law 7739/20 be received;
2. That the implementation and collection of the Vehicle for Hire
Accessible Service Supplement be deferred until January 1, 2022;
and,
3. That appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the
actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report.
5.2 (Acting) Director, Community Services, Report CS 31-20 67
Cultural Strategic Plan
- Mid-term Update
Recommendation:
1. That Report CS 31-20 regarding the City of Pickering’s Cultural
Strategic Plan Mid-term Update be received for information; and,
2. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized
to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report.
5.3 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 11-20 146
Stormwater Management Facilities Asset Management Plan
- Final Report July 2020
Recommendation:
1. That the Stormwater Management Facilities Asset Management
Plan, Final Report July 2020, prepared by The Municipal
Infrastructure Group Ltd. a T.Y. LIN International Company be
received for information;
2. That Council endorse the Stormwater Management Facilities Asset
Management Plan to be used by staff as a resource document for
identifying and planning maintenance projects for the Stormwater
Management Facilities under the jurisdiction of the City of Pickering;
Executive Committee
Meeting Agenda
December 7, 2020
Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm
Chair: Councillor McLean
For information related to accessibility requirements please contact:
Committee Coordinator
905.420.4611
clerks@pickering.ca
3.That staff be authorized to implement the recommendations within
the Stormwater Management Facilities Asset Management Plan,
subject to budget and further Council approval for the individual
projects; and,
4.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized
to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report.
5.4 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 14-20 217
Proposed All-way Stop Control, Pickering Parkway and Glenanna Road
Recommendation:
1.That the attached draft by-law be enacted to amend Schedule "7" to
By-law 6604/05 to provide for the regulation of stop signs on
highways or parts of highways under the jurisdiction of The
Corporation of the City of Pickering, specifically to address the
proposed installation of an all-way stop control at the intersection of
Pickering Parkway and Glenanna Road; and,
2.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized
to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report.
5.5 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 15-20 223
2021 Interim Spending Authority
Recommendation:
1.That the 2021 Interim Operating Expenditures be approved at 50
per cent of the prior year’s budget, including adjustments, as
contained in Attachment 1, pending approval of the 2021 Current
Budget by Council; and
2.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take
the necessary actions as indicated in this report.
5.6 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 16-20 226
2021 Temporary Borrowing By-law
Recommendation:
Executive Committee
Meeting Agenda
December 7, 2020
Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm
Chair: Councillor McLean
For information related to accessibility requirements please contact:
Committee Coordinator
905.420.4611
clerks@pickering.ca
1.That the temporary borrowing limit of $55 million be established to
meet 2021 current expenditures pending receipt of taxes and other
revenues for the period of January 1 to September 30, 2021
inclusive, and $27 million thereafter until December 31, 2021;
2.That the temporary borrowing limit for capital purposes for 2021 be
established at $63 million;
3.That the attached draft by-law providing for the temporary
borrowing of monies be enacted; and,
4.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take
the necessary actions as indicated in this report.
5.7 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report LEG 10-20 231
Retail Sale of Cannabis in Pickering
Recommendation:
1.That the City of Pickering hereby opts in to allow cannabis retail
stores within Pickering;
2.That a copy of these recommendations be forwarded to the Alcohol
and Gaming Commission of Ontario ("AGCO"); and,
3.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take
such actions as are necessary to implement the recommendations in
this report.
5.8 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 31-20 262
Heritage Property Tax Relief Program and Implementing By-law
City of Pickering
Recommendation:
1.That the Heritage Property Tax Relief Program and By-law be
approved and the implementing by-law to provide property tax relief to
eligible heritage properties in the City of Pickering, as set out in
Appendix I to Report PLN 31-20, be enacted by Council;
Executive Committee
Meeting Agenda
December 7, 2020
Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm
Chair: Councillor McLean
For information related to accessibility requirements please contact:
Committee Coordinator
905.420.4611
clerks@pickering.ca
2.That the City Clerk give notice of this by-law to the Minister of Finance
and the Region of Durham within 30 days of the passing of the by-law;
and,
3.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take
actions as necessary to implement the recommendations in this report.
6.Other Business
7.Adjournment
Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: FIN 17-20
Date: December 7, 2020
From: Stan Karwowski
Director, Finance & Treasurer
Subject: Statutory Public Meeting Regarding Development Charges Update Study
Recommendation:
1. That Report FIN 17-20 of the Director, Finance & Treasurer be received;
2. That Council receive for information the City of Pickering – Development Charges
(DC) Update Study prepared by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. dated
October 15, 2020 and Addendum to the DC Update Study dated November 2,
2020;
3. That all written submissions made at the December 7, 2020 Public Meeting or
received in writing from the public by December 9, 2020 be referred to staff and to
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. for consideration in preparation of the final
Development Charges recommendations and By-law for Council’s consideration
on December 14, 2020; and
4. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions as
indicated in this report.
Executive Summary: Council passed the 2017 Development Charge (DC)
Background Study on December 11, 2017 under By-law No.7595/17, and amended in
2019 under By-law No. 7727/19 mainly to reflect the revised costs for the City Centre
project resulting in a higher level of DC funding.
The current DC Update Study provides for a further amendment to the City’s DC By-
laws. The purpose of the amendment is to provide for updates to the underlying capital
cost estimates and to include additional capital needs to those included within the City’s
2019 DC Update Study for Transportation Services (roads and bridges), Administration
Studies, Parks and Recreation Services, and Library Services. This DC Update Study
also provides for the removal of the statutory 10 percent deduction for Parks and
Recreation Services, Library Services, and Administration Studies as identified in Bill
197, COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act, 2020. Moreover, amendments to the
Development Charges Act with regard to the timing of the calculation and collection of
DCs and statutory exemptions will also be addressed through this DC Update Study
and By-law amendment.
- 1 -
Report FIN 17-20 December 7, 2020
Subject: Statutory Public Meeting Regarding Development Page 2
Charges Update Study
The purpose of this Report is to present the 2020 DC Update Study, as amended and
proposed By-law for consideration at a statutory public meeting, as required by the
Development Charges Act.
The proposed increase in DC fees for single and semi-detached dwelling units outside
of Seaton is $4,040 per unit, and $999 per unit for the development within the Seaton
Lands. There are 34 municipalities in the GTA and after applying the proposed fee
increase, Pickering has the 10th lowest DC fees of the group. To put it another way,
Pickering has the lowest DC rates for those municipalities that border Toronto.
Moreover, Pickering’s new DC rate continues to be lower than those of Whitby,
Oshawa, and Ajax.
After the statutory public meeting, it is proposed that staff review the submissions
received from the public. Staff have prepared a final report with a proposed DC By-law
for Council’s consideration at the December 14, 2020 Council meeting. The new
Development Charge By-law will, if passed by Council, be effective on December 15,
2020.
Financial Implications: The proposed Development Charges Update Study adds
DC dollar funding for the Notion Road/Squires Beach Road 401 Crossing and smaller
increases for the removal of the 10 percent statutory deduction associated with the DC
“soft services”. The financial impact of the removal of the 10 percent statutory deduction
as it relates to the City Centre project is presented below.
Table One
DC Recoverable Costs in 2017 Dollars
Comparison of City Centre DC Funding
2019 Update
Study
2020 Update
Study
Increase
Arts Centre $12,170,369 $13,466,841 $1,296,472
Youth & Seniors Centre 49,018,115 55,683,609 6,665,494
New Central Library 19,478,356 21,642,616 2,164,260
Total $80,666,840 $90,793,066 $10,126,226
The original 2017 DC Background Study is denominated in 2017 dollars and the above
table reflects this approach for comparison purposes. As the above the table indicates,
approximately $10.1 million in taxpayer funded costs (casino revenues) has been
transferred to the DC funding stream.
Parks and Recreation Services
Under the DC Parks and Recreation Services category, there are several projects in
addition to the City Centre project that will benefit from the removal of the 10 percent
- 2 -
Report FIN 17-20 December 7, 2020
Subject: Statutory Public Meeting Regarding Development Page 3
Charges Update Study
statutory deduction. The net benefit to the City is an increase of $18.8 million that will
now be funded through DC fees.
This increase in eligible costs would increase the DC fee by $849 per single or semi-
detached dwelling unit.
Library Services
The City has identified the need to acquire a Library Services Outreach Vehicle to
provide service to communities as the City develops in advance of the construction of
new facilities. The estimated cost of the vehicle is $220,000. The DC eligible costs have
been revised to account for the removal of the statutory 10 percent deduction.
The above noted changes increase the DC recoverable costs for Library Services by
$3.1 million. This increase in eligible costs would increase the DC fee by $137 per
single and semi-detached dwelling unit.
Transportation
The Transportation DC Capital program has been updated to reflect the proposed
construction of the Notion Road/Squires Beach Road 401 Crossing and other updates
to cost estimates.
The Notion Road/Squires Beach Road 401 Crossing has been identified at a capital cost
of $71.2 million (2020$) including construction and utility relocation costs identified in the
Municipal Class Environmental Assessment for the crossing prepared by AECOM as well
as anticipated design and land acquisition costs. Approximately 24 percent of the growth-
related costs have been deducted as a post period benefit (beyond 2031). When the City
undertakes the next full review of the DC Background Study in 2022, the post period
benefits costs will be considered for inclusion in the DC fees.
Further changes to the DC capital program include the removal of Transportation
Services 2019 projects #12 (Notion Road-Kingston to 350m South), #28 (Kellino Street-
Squires Beach to Church), and #29 (Squires Beach Road-Bayly to CNR Tracks) within
the 2019 Update Study as these projects will be replaced by the construction of the
Notion Road/Squires Beach Road 401 Crossing. The removal of these projects
decreases the DC recoverable costs by $2.8 million.
Lastly, the City has received updated cost estimates for 2019 project #44 (Walnut Lane
Extension – construction and contract admin) of $5.7 million compared to $2.5 million in
the 2019 Update Study. Please note, for comparison purposes, these cost figures are
stated in 2017 dollars.
Taking into account the above noted changes, and after deducting existing DC reserve,
this would increase the DC fee by $3,041 per single and semi-detached dwelling unit.
- 3 -
Report FIN 17-20 December 7, 2020
Subject: Statutory Public Meeting Regarding Development Page 4
Charges Update Study
Administration Studies (Consulting)
The studies included in the City’s 2019 Update Study under the Administration Studies
Service have been included in the DC calculation under the Growth -Related Studies
class of services. The studies include both service specific studies that pertain to one of
the DC eligible services included in the DC by-law or in some cases more general
growth-related studies. For general growth-related studies, a deduction of 10 percent
has been applied to recognize the extent to which the studies relate to non -DC eligible
services.
Additional study costs included in this Update Study are for: Geographic Information
Systems (GIS) Corporate Strategic Plan, Northeast Pickering (Veraine) Land Use
Studies, and the 5-year Capital and Operating Cost Financial Impact Analysis. The net
growth-related costs from the above noted changes are $7.9 million. The existing
Administration Studies Reserve Fund deficit of $673,900 has been added resulting in a
net DC eligible cost of $8.6 million. In other words, when a DC Reserve Fund
component has a deficit, the deficit amount is added to the growth related costs to
determine the new fee.
This net impact would increase the DC fee by $13 per single or semi-detached dwelling
unit.
Discussion: A comparison of the DC rates (indexed to 2020 dollars) by component
between current and proposed December 15, 2020 is presented below.
- 4 -
Report FIN 17-20 December 7, 2020
Subject: Statutory Public Meeting Regarding Development Page 5
Charges Update Study
Table One
Single and Semi-Detached Residential Rate
Comparison of Current Rates to Proposed Rates (in 2020 Dollars)
Service
Current Proposed
December
15, 2020
Change
Increase/
(Decrease)
Municipal Wide Services:
Other Services Related to a Highway $483 $483 -
Protection Services 983 983 -
Parks and Recreation Services 6,639 7,488 $849
Library Services 1,100 1,237 137
Administration Studies 315 328 13
Stormwater Management 316 316 -
Total Municipal Wide Services (Line A) $9,836 $10,835 $999
Outside of Seaton Lands
Transportation 1
7,159
10,200
3,041
Total Outside of Seaton Lands (Line B) $7,159 $10,200 $3,041
Rest of Pickering (Line A+B) $16,995 $21,035 $4,040
Seaton $9,836 $10,835 $999
1 Does not apply to Seaton Lands, Seaton Lands subject to a separate agreement outside of the Development Charges Act
concerning provision of Transportation requirements in addition to other funding contributions.
For either a single or semi-detached home, the proposed DC fee increase for the “Rest
of Pickering” is $4,040 or 24 percent. For Seaton area, the DC fee increase is $999 or
10 percent. While the percentage increases may appear to be above average, the more
important factor to consider is what the overall total DC fee is charged and how does
this fee compare to other municipalities. As stated earlier, Pickering still retains its
competitive position in relation to its GTA neighbours.
- 5 -
Report FIN 17-20 December 7, 2020
Subject: Statutory Public Meeting Regarding Development Page 6
Charges Update Study
Table Two
Non-Residential Rate
Comparison of Current Rates to Proposed Rates (in 2020 Dollars)
Service
$ Per Sq. ft. of Floor
Area
Non-Residential (per
Net Ha of Prestige
Employment Land in
Seaton)
Current Proposed
Dec 15/20
Current Proposed
Dec 15/20
Municipal Wide Services
Other Service Related to Highway $0.17 $0.17 $5,983 $5,983
Protection Services 0.36 0.36 12,647 12,647
Parks and Recreation 0.53 0.58 17,602 19,633
Library Services 0.07 0.09 2,631 2,956
Administration Studies 0.12 0.12 4,035 4,222
Stormwater Management 0.11 0.11 3,846 3,846
Total Municipal Wide Services
(Line A)
$1.36 $1.43 $46,744 $49,287
Outside of Seaton Lands
Transportation 1
2.02
2.87
Total Outside of Seaton Lands
(Line B)
$2.02 $2.87
Rest of Pickering (Line A+B) $3.38 $4.30
Seaton $1.36 $1.43 $46,744 $49,287
1 Does not apply to Seaton Lands, Seaton Lands subject to a separate agreement outside of the Development Charges Act
concerning provision of Transportation requirements in addition to other funding contributions.
The non-residential DC for lands outside of the Seaton Prestige Employment Lands are
recovered from development on a per sq. ft. of total floor area basis. The increases
above follow the similar pattern as single and semi-detached homes. The increase for
“Rest of Pickering” non-residential DC fees based on a square footage basis is 27
percent or $0.92 cents per square foot.
For Seaton non-residential development (industrial and commercial), a different
approach was applied as it relates to development charges . A land area specific charge
(per net hectare) is used in contrast to a floor area charge . Under the floor area charge
approach, the DC charges are based on the size of the building. Using the land area
approach in Seaton, the developer pays the full DC at the time of the first development
regardless of the fact that there may be several phases of construction development.
- 6 -
Report FIN 17-20 December 7, 2020
Subject: Statutory Public Meeting Regarding Development Page 7
Charges Update Study
This approach encourages expedient buildout, discourages land banking and creates a
more favourable cash flow scenario for the City.
Attachment 3 provides the amended schedule of development charges for both
residential and non-residential development for areas outside of Seaton-“Rest of
Pickering” and the Seaton Lands.
Competitive DC Rates
The graph below shows that Pickering’s proposed single detached residential DC rate is
competitive in comparison with both its Durham Lakeshore neighbours and the City of
Toronto. What is interesting to note that even after Pickering’s proposed moderate
increase, those Durham Lakeshore municipalities that are east of Pickering (excluding
Clarington) have higher DC rates. Pickering’s proposed DC rates as a percentage of the
new home cost would be lower than its Durham Lakeshore municipal neighbours.
Residential Development Charges
Single Detached Dwelling
as of October 15, 2020
$-
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
$80,000
$90,000
Toronto Ajax Oshawa Whitby Pickering
(City
Wide)-
Calculated
Brock Scugog Pickering
(City
Wide)-
Current
Clarington Uxbridge
Upper Tier Education Lower/Single Tier
$78,923
$64,667 $62,257 $61,496
$58,663 $58,203 $55,007 $54,622 $53,579 $53,312
- 7 -
Report FIN 17-20 December 7, 2020
Subject: Statutory Public Meeting Regarding Development Page 8
Charges Update Study
Indexing
Based on our current DC By-law, DC rates will be adjusted annually as of July 1 each
year based on the Non-residential Building Construction index in order to keep DC
revenues current with construction costs. The previous indexing was done on July 1,
2020, and would be due for indexing again on July 1, 2021. Staff will continue the
practice of indexing every year on July 1st.
Transition to New Rates
The proposed rates will come into effect on December 15, 2020. Any complete building
permit applications received after December 16, 2020 will be subject to the new DC
rate.
Communications Strategy
The Development Charges Act has a mandatory communication/advertising
requirement for at least one public meeting, and the Clerk is required to carry out such
advertising at least 20 days in advance of the meeting date. The Statutory Public
Meeting was first advertised in the Pickering News Advertiser on November 12, 2020
and was continued every Thursday until December 3, 2020. In addition, reference to the
Statutory Public Meeting has been advertised on the City’s website. The City has met
the requirements of the Development Charges Act.
On October 23, 2020 staff reached out to the development industry by distributing the
DC Update Study dated October 15, 2020 and holding a stakeholder consultation on
November 12, 2020. City staff emailed/invited 50 industry/developer representatives of
which 3 individuals representing 3 different organizations attended the virtual meeting.
Following receipt of comments at the Public Meeting, and written submissions no later
than December 9, 2020, staff have prepared a final report and proposed DC By-law for
Council’s consideration at the Council meeting to be held on December 14, 2020. If
enacted, the new DC By-law will be effective December 15, 2020.
Attachments:
1. Residential Development Charges per Single Detached Dwelling for Greater
Toronto Area Municipalities, as of October 15, 2020
2. Non-Residential Development Charges per GFA of Commercial Floor Area for the
Greater Toronto Area Municipalities, as of October 15, 2020
3. Amended Schedule of Development Charges (2020$)
- 8 -
Report FIN 17-20 December 7, 2020
Subject: Statutory Public Meeting Regarding Development Page 9
Charges Update Study
4. Development Charges Update Study - Office Consolidation of October 15, 2020 DC
Update Study and November 2, 2020 Addendum
Prepared By: Prepared By:
Original Signed By: Original Signed By:
Caryn Kong, CPA, CGA James Halsall, CPA,CA,CIA
Senior Financial Analyst – Capital & Manager, Budgets & Internal Audit
Debt Management
Approved / Endorsed By:
Original Signed By:
Stan Karwowski, CPA, CMA, MBA
Director, Finance & Treasurer
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City Council
Orginal Signed By:
Marisa Carpino, M.A.
Interim Chief Administrative Officer
- 9 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2020 DC Amendment\2020 Update Study - Survey Results.docx $- $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 $140,000$ per unitResidential Development ChargesPer Single Detached Dwelling for Greater Toronto Area Municipalitiesas of October 15, 2020Upper TierLower/Single TierEducationBB=Built Boundary & GF=Greenfield.(1) A component of the charge has been converted from a per hectare chargeAttachment # 1 to Report FIN #17-20- 10 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Pickering\2020 DC Amendment\2020 Update Study - Survey Results.docx $- $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 $800 $900$ per sq.m.Non-Residential Development ChargesPer GFA of Commercial Floor Area for Greater Toronto Area Municipalitiesas of October 15, 2020Upper TierLower/Single TierEducationBB=Built Boundary & GF=Greenfield.Attachment #2 to Report #FIN 17-20- 11 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Pickering\2020 DC Amendment\Report\2020 Update Study - Office Consolidation.docx
Table 4-2
Amended Schedule of Development Charges (2020$)
Single and
Semi-Detached
Dwelling
Apartments - 2
Bedrooms +
Apartments -
Bachelor and 1
Bedroom
Other Multiples (per ft² of Total
Floor Area) 2
(per net Ha of
Prestige
Employment
Land in
Seaton)
Municipal Wide Services/Classes:
Other Services Related to a Highway 483 306 216 391 0.17 5,983
Protection Services 983 621 440 795 0.36 12,647
Parks and Recreation Services 7,488 4,730 3,351 6,045 0.58 19,633
Library Services 1,237 782 554 999 0.09 2,956
Growth-Related Studies 328 207 147 266 0.12 4,222
Stormwater Management 316 200 142 256 0.11 3,846
Total Municipal Wide Services/Classes:10,835 6,847 4,851 8,751 1.43 49,287
Outside of Seaton Lands
Transportation 1 10,200 6,444 4,565 8,235 2.87 -
Total Services Outside of Seaton Lands 10,200 6,444 4,565 8,235 2.87
Rest of Pickering 21,035 13,290 9,416 16,986 4.30
Service/Class
RESIDENTIAL NON-RESIDENTIAL
1. Subject to a separate agreement outside of the Development Charges Act concerning the provision of Transportation requirements in addition to
other funding contributions
2. Does not apply to prestige employment development in Seaton, as that development is subject to the per net Ha land area char ge instead.
Attachment #3 to Report #FIN 17-20
- 12 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
905-272-3600
November 2, 2020 info@watsonecon.ca
Development Charges Update Study
City of Pickering
________________________
Office Consolidation of October 15, 2020 D.C.
Update Study and November 2, 2020 Addendum
Attachment #4 to Report #FIN 17-20
- 13 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
H:\Pickering\2020 DC Amendment\Report\2020 Update Study - Office Consolidation.docx
Table of Contents
Page
1. Introduction......................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Existing Policies (Rules) ............................................................................ 2
1.2.1 Payment in any Particular Case .................................................... 2
1.2.2 Determination of the Amount of the Charge .................................. 2
1.2.3 Application to Land Redevelopment ............................................. 3
1.2.4 Exemptions (full or partial) ............................................................ 4
1.2.5 Indexing ........................................................................................ 4
1.2.6 By-law Duration ............................................................................. 5
1.2.7 Date Charge Payable .................................................................... 5
1.3 Changes to the Development Charges Act, 1997: More Homes,
More Choice Act (Bill 108) the Plan to Build Ontario Together Act
(Bill 138), and the COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act (Bill 197) ............... 5
1.4 Basis for D.C. By-law Update .................................................................... 8
2. Anticipated Development................................................................................. 10
3. Revisions to the Anticipated Capital Needs ................................................... 11
3.1 Parks and Recreation Services ................................................................ 11
3.2 Library Services ....................................................................................... 12
3.3 Transportation Services ........................................................................... 12
3.4 Administration Studies ............................................................................. 13
4. Revised D.C. Calculation and Schedule of Charges ..................................... 26
5. D.C. Policy Recommendations and D.C. By-law Rules ................................. 36
5.1 D.C. Calculation and Collection Policies .................................................. 36
5.2 Statutory Exemptions ............................................................................... 37
6. Asset Management Plan and Long-Term Capital and Operating Costs ...... 39
6.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 39
7. Process for Adoption of the Amending Development Charges By-law ....... 42
Appendix A – Draft Amending Development Charge By-law ................................ A-1
- 14 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 1
H:\Pickering\2020 DC Amendment\Report\2020 Update Study - Office Consolidation.docx
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
The City of Pickering (City) imposes development charges (D.C.s) to recover the
increase in the needs for service arising from growth. The basis for the calculation of
the City’s existing schedule of residential and non -residential development charges is
documented in the “City of Pickering Development Charges Update Study” dated
October 16, 2019 (as amended on November 19, 2019 and December 10, 2019 ), which
was issued as an update to the City’s 2017 D.C. Background Study dated October 5,
2017, as amended. This Background Study provides the supporting documentation for
the City’s D.C. By-Law 7595-17, as amended. The current D.C.s by municipal service
and development type are summarized in Table 1 -1. This schedule reflects the indexed
charges that are currently in force in 2020 dollars for development within the defined
Seaton Lands, as the City elected to phase-in the charges for apartment units over the
2018-2020 period for development outside of the Seaton Lands.
Table 1-1
City of Pickering
Current (Indexed) Schedule of Development Charges
Single and
Semi-Detached
Dwelling
Apartments - 2
Bedrooms +
Apartments -
Bachelor and 1
Bedroom
Other Multiples (per ft² of Total
Floor Area) 2
(per net Ha of
Prestige
Employment
Land in
Seaton)
Municipal Wide Services:
Other Services Related to a Highway 483 307 216 391 0.17 5,983
Protection Services 983 621 439 795 0.36 12,647
Parks and Recreation Services 6,639 4,192 2,971 5,358 0.53 17,602
Library Services 1,100 695 493 889 0.07 2,631
Administration Studies 315 200 141 253 0.12 4,035
Stormwater Management 316 201 142 255 0.11 3,846
Total Municipal Wide Services 9,836 6,216 4,402 7,941 1.36 46,744
Outside of Seaton Lands
Transportation 1 7,159 4,522 3,203 5,780 2.02
Total Services Outside of Seaton Lands 7,159 4,522 3,203 5,780 2.02
Seaton 9,836 6,216 4,402 7,941 1.36 46,744
Rest of Pickering 16,995 10,738 7,605 13,721 3.38
Service
RESIDENTIAL NON-RESIDENTIAL
1. Subject to a separate agreement outside of the Development Charges Act concerning the provision of Transportation requirements in addition to
2. Does not apply to prestige employment development in Seaton, as that development is subject to the per net Ha land area charge instead.
- 15 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2
H:\Pickering\2020 DC Amendment\Report\2020 Update Study - Office Consolidation.docx
1.2 Existing Policies (Rules)
The following subsections set out the rules governing the calculation, payment, and
collection of D.C.s as provided in By-law 7595-17 (as amended), in accordance with the
Development Charges Act (D.C.A.), 1997.
1.2.1 Payment in any Particular Case
In accordance with the D.C.A., the D.C. shall be calculated, payable, and collected
where the development requires one or more of the following :
• the passing of a zoning by-law or of an amendment to a zoning by-law under
section 34 of the Planning Act;
• the approval of a minor variance under Section 45 of the Planning Act;
• a conveyance of land to which a by-law passed under section 50(7) of the
Planning Act applies;
• the approval of a plan of subdivision under Section 51 of the Planning Act;
• a consent under Section 53 of the Planning Act;
• the approval of a description under section 9 of the Condominium Act, 1998, S.O.
1998, c. 19; or
• the issuing of a building permit under the Building Code Act in relation to a
building.
1.2.2 Determination of the Amount of the Charge
The calculation for residential development is generated on a per capita basis and
imposed based on four housing types - single and semi-detached, apartments –
bachelor and one bedroom, apartments - two bedrooms and greater, and other
multiples. The eligible D.C. cost calculations are based on the net anticipated
population increase. The total eligible D.C. cost is divided by the “gross” (new resident)
population to determine the per capita amount. The cost per capita is then multiplied by
the average occupancy of the new units to calculate the charges by type of residential
dwelling unit.
- 16 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3
H:\Pickering\2020 DC Amendment\Report\2020 Update Study - Office Consolidation.docx
The non-residential D.C. for the Seaton prestige employment lands has been calculated
on a per net hectare basis. The non-residential D.C. for development in all other areas
of the City has been calculated on a per square foot of gross floor area (G.F.A.) basis.
The calculations of the maximum D.C.s that could be imposed by Council have been
undertaken based on a cash flow analysis to account for the timing of revenues a nd
expenditures and the resultant financing needs. The cash flow calculations have been
undertaken by service for each forecast development type, i.e. residential, prestige
employment lands within the Seaton Lands, and non-residential development in areas
outside of the Seaton Lands. The cash flow calculates interest paid/received on reserve
fund balances to account for the differences in timing of projects and when development
is anticipated to occur. In year transactions are reduced by ½ to reflect D.C.
contributions and expenditures occurring at different times throughout the year. For
cashflow purposes, capital costs and D.C.s are indexed at 3% annually, debt is
calculated at 5% and investment return is calculated at 2.5%.
1.2.3 Application to Land Redevelopment
Despite any other provisions of the by-law, a redevelopment credit is applied against the
D.C. payable where a building permit has been issued for development or
redevelopment within five years from the date a demolition permit was issued for the
same building or structure, or where a building is being converted from one principal
use to another, in an amount equivalent to the D.C. otherwise payable for the units or
floor area demolished or converted. Moreover, the applicant must also provide proof
that the building being demolished was subject to, and paid a D.C., under a prior by-law
or a lot levy under by-law 322/89.
Where redevelopment occurs on a property that does not have municipal services that
include sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and watermain, the period between demolition and
building permit issuance is extended to ten years. Furthermore, for building permit
issuances that occurred between January 1, 2018 and June 29, 2018, the demolition
must have occurred no more than 10 years prior to building permit issuance in order to
be eligible for the redevelopment credit.
- 17 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 4
H:\Pickering\2020 DC Amendment\Report\2020 Update Study - Office Consolidation.docx
1.2.4 Exemptions (full or partial)
The D.C. by-law applies to all lands within the City, with the exception of the following
lands which are exempt:
Statutory exemptions
• Residential development that results in the only the enlargement of an existing
dwelling unit, or that results online in the creation or enlargement of an accessory
dwelling building for a lawful residential use, or that results only in the creation of
up to two additional dwelling units within an existing single detached dwelling, or
the creation of one additional dwelling unit in any other existing residential
building where the total G.F.A. of the additional unit is equal to or less than the
G.F.A. of the smallest unit contained within the residential building;
• Land owned by and used for the purposed of a Municipality, a Local Board, or a
Board of Education; and
• Industrial additions of up to and including 50% of the existing G.F.A. of the
building.
Non-statutory exemptions
• The development of a non-residential farm building used for bona-fide
agricultural purposes will be exempt from paying D.C.s for Parks and Recreation
Services, Library Services, Administration Services, and Stormwater
Management Services;
• A building or structure that is used in connection with a place of worship an is
exempt from taxation under the Assessment Act as a result;
• Development where no additional dwelling units are being created or no
additional non-residential gross floor area is being added;
• Nursing homes and hospitals; and
• Garden Suites.
1.2.5 Indexing
The by-law provides for indexing of the D.C., without amendment, annually on July 1st of
each year, in accordance with the change in the index for the most recently available
- 18 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 5
H:\Pickering\2020 DC Amendment\Report\2020 Update Study - Office Consolidation.docx
annual period ending March 31 for the Statistics Canada Quarterly Construction Price
Statistics, Catalogue Number 62-007
1.2.6 By-law Duration
The by-law will expire at 12:01 AM on January 1, 2023 unless it is repealed by Council
at an earlier date.
1.2.7 Date Charge Payable
Development charges imposed under the by-law are calculated, payable, and collected
on or before the day a building permit is issued in relation to a building or structure on
land to which a D.C. applies.
1.3 Changes to the Development Charges Act, 1997: More
Homes, More Choice Act (Bill 108) the Plan to Build
Ontario Together Act (Bill 138), and the COVID-19
Economic Recovery Act (Bill 197)
On May 2, 2019, the Province introduced Bill 108, which proposed changes to the
D.C.A. The Bill was introduced as part of the Province’s “More Homes, More Choice:
Ontario's Housing Supply Action Plan.” The Bill received Royal Assent on June 6,
2019.
While having received Royal Assent, many of the amendments to the D.C.A. would not
come into effect until they are proclaimed by the Lieutenant Governor. As of January 1,
2020, the following provisions had been proclaimed:
• Transitional provisions were in effect which have been subsequently replaced by
updated provisions within Bill 197.
• Effective January 1, 2020, rental housing and institutional developments will pay
D.C.s in six equal annual installments, with the first payment commencing at the
date of occupancy. Non-profit housing developments will pay D.C.s in 21 equal
annual installments. Interest may be charged on the installments, and any
unpaid amounts may be added to the property and collected as taxes.
• Effective January 1, 2020, the D.C. amount for all developments occurring within
two years of a site plan or zoning by-law amendment planning approval (for
- 19 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 6
H:\Pickering\2020 DC Amendment\Report\2020 Update Study - Office Consolidation.docx
applications submitted after this section is proclaimed) shall be determined based
on the D.C. charge in effect on the day of site plan or zoning by-law amendment
application. If the development is not proceeding via these planning approvals,
or if the building permit is issued after the two-year period of application approval,
then the amount is determined the earlier of the date of issuance of a building
permit or occupancy.
In response to the global pandemic that began affecting Ontario in early 2020, the
Province released Bill 197, the COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act, which provided
amendments to a number of Acts, including the D.C.A. and Planning Act. This Bill also
revised some of the proposed changes identified in Bill 108. Bill 197 was tabled on July
8, 2020 and received Royal Assent on July 21, 2020; however, the changes would not
come into effect until proclaimed by the Lieutenant Governo r. On September 18, 2020,
the Province proclaimed the remaining amendments to the D.C.A. that were made
through Bill 108 and Bill 197. The following provides a summary of the changes to the
D.C.A. that are now in effect:
List of D.C. Eligible Services
• Under Bill 108 some services were to be included under the D.C.A. and some
would be included under the Community Benefits Charge (C.B.C.) authority.
However, Bill 197 revised this proposed change and has included all services
(with some exceptions) under the D.C.A. These services are as follows:
o Water supply services, including distribution and treatment services.
o Wastewater services, including sewers and treatment services.
o Storm water drainage and control services.
o Services related to a highway.
o Electrical power services.
o Toronto-York subway extension, as defined in subsection 5.1 (1).
o Transit services other than the Toronto-York subway extension.
o Waste diversion services.
o Policing services.
o Fire protection services.
o Ambulance services.
o Library Services.
o Long-term care services.
- 20 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 7
H:\Pickering\2020 DC Amendment\Report\2020 Update Study - Office Consolidation.docx
o Parks and recreation services (but not the acquisition of land for
parks).
o Public health services.
o Childcare and early years services.
o Housing services.
o Provincial Offences Act Services.
o Services related to emergency preparedness.
o Services related to airports, but only in the Regional Municipality of
Waterloo.
o Additional services as prescribed
Classes of D.C. Services
The D.C.A. had allowed for categories of services to be grouped together into a
minimum of two categories (90% and 100% services).
The Act (as proclaimed) repeals that provision and replaces the above with the four
following subsections:
• A D.C. by-law may provide for any eligible service or capital cost related to any
eligible service to be included in a class, set out in the by-law.
• A class may be composed of any number or combination of services and may
include parts or portions of the eligible services or parts or portions of the capital
costs in respect of those services.
• A D.C. by-law may provide for a class consisting of studies in respect of any
eligible service whose capital costs are described in paragraphs 5 and 6 of s. 5 of
the D.C.A.
• A class of service set out in the D.C. by-law is deemed to be a single service with
respect to reserve funds, use of monies, and credits.
10% Statutory Deduction
As well, the removal of 10% deduction for soft services under Bill 108 has been
maintained.
- 21 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 8
H:\Pickering\2020 DC Amendment\Report\2020 Update Study - Office Consolidation.docx
Statutory Exemptions
Statutory exemptions to the payment of D.C.s for the creation of secondary residential
dwelling units in prescribed classes of existing residential buildings or structures
ancillary to existing residential buildings. Furthermore, the creation of a second dwelling
unit in prescribed classes of proposed new residential buildings, including structures
ancillary to dwellings.
Transition
Services, other than those described in paragraphs 1 to 10 of subsection 2 (4) of the
D.C.A. (i.e. ‘soft services’) within an existing D.C. by-law can remain in effect, even if
the by-law expires, until the earlier of the day the by-law is repealed, the day the
municipality passes a C.B.C. by-law under subsection 37 (2) of the Planning Act, or the
specified date (i.e. September 18, 2022).
1.4 Basis for D.C. By-law Update
This D.C. Update Study provides for a further amendment to the City’s D.C. By-Law.
The purpose of the amendment is to provide for updates to the underlying capital cost
estimates and to include additional capital needs to those included within the City’s
2019 D.C. Update Study to determine the charge for Transportation Services,
Administration Studies, Parks and Recreation Services, Library Services. This update
study also provides for the removal of the statutory 10% deduction for Parks and
Recreation Services, Library Services, and Administration Studies as identified in
Section 1.3. Moreover, amendments to the D.C.A. with regard to the timing of the
calculation and collection of D.C.s and statutory exemptions w ill also be addressed
through this D.C. Update Study and By-law amendment.
The following Chapters of this Study include:
• Chapter 2 – Anticipated Development
• Chapter 3 – Revisions to the Anticipated Capital Needs
• Chapter 4 – Revised D.C. Calculation and Schedule of Charges
• Chapter 5 – D.C. Policy Recommendations and D.C. By-law Rules
- 22 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 9
H:\Pickering\2020 DC Amendment\Report\2020 Update Study - Office Consolidation.docx
• Chapter 6 – Asset Management Plan and Long-Term Capital and Operating
Costs
• Chapter 7 – Process for Adoption of the Amending Development Charges By -law
• Appendix A – Draft Amending D.C. By-law
It should be noted that this report is provided as an update to the 2017 D.C. Background
Study and as such the calculations are denominated in 2017 dollars (the City’s D.C.
Background Study cost base). The amended D.C. ra tes are subsequently indexed to
current rates for implementation.
The notice of the Public Meeting will be advertised in accordance with the requirements
of the D.C.A., i.e. 20 clear-days prior to the public meeting. This background study
document will be released for public review and posted on the City’s website in
accordance with provisions of the D.C.A. on October 15, 2020. The statutory public
meeting will be held in Council Chambers, at the City of Pickering Municipal Offices on
December 7, 2020. A presentation will be made to the public regarding the
recommendations of this report, and Council will receive oral and written comments on
the matter. It is anticipated that Council will consider for adoption the proposed
amending by-law after the 60-day period between the release of the D.C. Background
Study and the passage of the D.C. by-law (i.e. December 14, 2020).
.
- 23 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 10
H:\Pickering\2020 DC Amendment\Report\2020 Update Study - Office Consolidation.docx
2. Anticipated Development
The 2017 D.C. Background Study provided for the anticipated residential and non -
residential growth within the City of Pickering for the respective service forecast periods.
The growth forecast associated with services included in this update study is
summarized in Table 2-1 below.
Table 2-1
City of Pickering
2017 D.C. Background Study – Growth Forecast Summary
For the purpose of this Study, the 201 7 D.C. Background Study growth forecast remains
unchanged. The revised capital costs estimates have been considered in the context of
this growth forecast. Adjustments to the total D.C. eligible costs are provided where
necessary to ensure that the increase in the need for service pertains to the underlying
increase in development.
Net Population
Residential
Units Employment 1
Sq.ft. of Non-
Residential GFA
Early 2018 92,388 31,617 32,573
Early 2028 166,750 61,189 53,694
Mid 2031 179,356 65,530 63,899
10-year (2018-2028)
Seaton 48,450 17,471 18,793 17,289,996
Rest of Pickering 25,912 12,101 2,328 2,795,958
14-year (2018-2031)
Seaton 58,030 21,193 28,860 27,671,100
Rest of Pickering 28,936 12,720 2,466 3,090,862
Time Horizon
Residential Non-Residential
Incremental Change
- 24 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 11
H:\Pickering\2020 DC Amendment\Report\2020 Update Study - Office Consolidation.docx
3. Revisions to the Anticipated Capital Needs
The 2017 D.C. Background Study and 2019 Update Study adopted by Council in the
passing of the City’s D.C. by-law (as amended) justified the maximum amount that
could be charged for residential and non-residential development. The studies and by-
laws identified anticipated capital needs for recovery through D.C.s for Other Services
Related to a Highway, Protection Services, Parks and Recreation Services, Library
Services, Administration Studies, Stormwater Management, and Transportation
Services.
The following Sections summarize the amendments made to the var ious capital projects
and D.C. eligible capital costs for Parks and Recreation, Library, Administration Studies,
and Transportation Services comprising the D.C. amendment. No changes have been
proposed for Protection Services, Other Services Related to a Highway, and
Stormwater Management.
For the purpose of calculating the amended D.C.s, the capital costs estimates have
been deflated to 2017$, applying the change in the Statistics Canada Construction Price
Statistics Index for the 2018-2020 period (i.e. 9.8%). This reflects the indexing of the
City’s D.C. over the period since by-law adoption.
3.1 Parks and Recreation Services
The City’s 2019 D.C. Update Study identified updated cost estimates for the Youth &
Senior’s Centre and Arts Centre (Community Uses) within the City Centre project of
$55.9 million and $13.8 million respectively ($69.7 million total)
The capital cost estimate for the Youth & Senior’s Centre and Arts Centre in the 2019
Update Study inappropriately excluded $1.2 million which has been included with this
Update Study.
This study also serves to remove the statutory 10% deduction that is no longer required
in the D.C.A methodology.
With these updates, the revised gross capital cost estimates total $215.1 million. After
deduction $17.4 million as a benefit to development beyond the 2027 forecast period,
$16.6 million for the benefit to existing development, and $16.5 million for existing D.C.
- 25 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 12
H:\Pickering\2020 DC Amendment\Report\2020 Update Study - Office Consolidation.docx
reserve fund balances, the D.C. eligible costs for inclusion in the calculation of the
charge total approximately $164.6 million. These D.C. recoverable costs are within the
historical level of service cap for Parks and Recreation Services. Compared with D.C.
eligible costs in the 2019 D.C. Update Study of $145.8 million, this represents an
increase of $18.8 million in D.C. eligible costs arising from the revisions.
The revised D.C. recoverable costs are allocated 95% to residential development and
5% non-residential development, consistent with the City’s 2017 D.C. Background
Study, and based on the recognition that residential users are the primary users of
Parks and Recreation Services.
3.2 Library Services
The City has identified the need to acquire a Library Services Outreach Vehicle to
provide service to communities as the City develops in advance of the construction of
new facilities. The estimated cost of the vehicle is $220,000, of which 10% or $22,000
has been deducted as benefit to existing development. As the increase in need for
service identified in the 2019 Update Study exceeded the average historical level of
service, this change does not increase the D.C. eligible costs included in the calculation
of the charge. However, as with Parks and Recreation Services, the D.C. eligible costs
have been revised to account for the removal of the statutory 10% deduction
The above noted changes increase the D.C. recoverable costs for Library Services from
$24.8 million to $27.9 million. These eligible costs have been apportioned 95% to
residential and 5% to non-residential development
3.3 Transportation Services
The Transportation D.C. Capital program has been updated to reflect the proposed
construction of the Notion Road/Squires Beach Road 401 Crossing and other updates
to cost estimates.
The Notion Road/Squires Beach Road 401 Crossing has been identified at a capital
cost of $71.2 million (2020$) including construction and utility relocation costs identified
in the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment for the crossing prepared by AECOM
as well as anticipated design and land acquisition costs. Deflated to 2017$ values, the
- 26 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 13
H:\Pickering\2020 DC Amendment\Report\2020 Update Study - Office Consolidation.docx
gross capital cost estimate is $64.9 million. To recognize the benefits to existing
residents of the improved road network connectivity as well as benefits to development
beyond the City of Pickering, 40% of the costs have been deducted as a benefit to
existing development. Moreover, as the crossing will be of a benefit to non-residential
development of the Durham Live Lands south of the 401 which are in addition to the
anticipated development included in the 2018 -2031 D.C. growth forecast, approximately
24% of the growth-related costs have been deducted as a post period benefit. After
accounting for these deductions, $29.5 million has been included in the calculation of
the charge for the Notion Road/Squires Beach Road 401 Crossing.
Further changes to the D.C. capital program include the removal of Transportation
Services projects #12, 28, and 29 within the 2019 Update Study as these projects will
be replaced by the construction of the Notion Road/Squires Beach Road 401 Crossing.
The removal of these projects decreases the D.C. recoverable costs by $2.8 million.
Lastly, the City has received updated cost estimates for project #44 (Walnut Lane
Extension – construction and contract admin) of $5.7 million (2017$) compared to $2.5
million in the 2019 Update Study.
The above noted revisions increase the gross capital costs for the Transportation
Services needs to $186.5 million. After accounting for the benefit to existing
development deduction of $62.0 million, the post period benefit deduction of $9.4
million, and the existing D.C. reserve fund balance of $18.2, the D.C. eligible costs
included in the calculation of the charge are $96.8 million. The revised D.C.
recoverable costs are within the historical level of service cap for Transportation
Services.
These costs have been allocated to residential and non-residential development based
on the anticipated population and employment growth outside of the Seaton Lands over
the forecast period (i.e. 92% residential and 8% non -residential).
3.4 Administration Studies
The studies included in the City’s 2019 Update Study under the Administration Studies
Service have been included in the D.C. calculation under the Growth-Related Studies
class of services. The studies include both service specific studies that pertain to one of
- 27 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 14
H:\Pickering\2020 DC Amendment\Report\2020 Update Study - Office Consolidation.docx
the D.C. eligible services included in the D.C. by-law or in some cases or more general
growth-related studies. Table 3-5 identifies for each study, the benefitting service or
group of benefitting D.C. services to which th e study relates.
For general growth-related studies, a deduction of 10% has been applied to recognize
the extent to which the studies relate to non -D.C.-eligible services. All general growth-
related studies have been allocated to the eligible services in the following manner:
• Other Services Related to a Highway – 6.2%
• Protection Services – 10.4%
• Parks and Recreation Services – 67.8%
• Library Services – 11.5%
• Stormwater Management – 4.1%Stormwater
The gross capital cost of these studies is $13.8 million including $1.0 million in
additional study costs for the Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Corporate
Strategic Plan, the Northeast Pickering (Veraine) Land Use Studies , and the 5-yesr
Capital and Operating Cost Financial Impact Analysis. Deductions of $4.9 million for
the benefit to existing development and $211,600 for the benefit to development beyond
the forecast period (North East Pickering (Veraine) Land Use Studies) have been
applied. After deducting a further $5 10,000 to recognize the portion of general growth-
related studies to D.C.-ineligible services (as mentioned above) and $263,200 for other
contributions towards the growth-related costs, the net growth-related costs are $7.9
million. The existing reserve fund deficit of $673,900 has been added resulting in a net
D.C.-eligible cost of $8.6 million to be included in the calculation of the charge.
The D.C. recoverable cost attribution has been maintained at 78% residential and 22%
non-residential based on the share of net population increase as a percentage of the
sum of the net population and employment increase for the planning period.
- 28 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 15
H:\Pickering\2020 DC Amendment\Report\2020 Update Study - Office Consolidation.docx
Table 3-1
Infrastructure Costs Covered in the D.C. Calculation – Parks and Recreation Services
Less:
Prj.No Residential
Share
Non-
Residential
Share
2018-2027 95%5%
Parks
1 Parking lot expansion - Village East Park 2018-2027 107,900 - 107,900 80,925 26,975 25,626 1,349
2 Washroom/changerooms - Rotary Frenchman's Bay West Park 2019 500,000 - 500,000 250,000 250,000 237,500 12,500
3 Frenchman's Bay Waterfront Master Plan Implementation (ph 1A & ph 1B)2018 2,755,000 - 2,755,000 1,377,500 1,377,500 1,308,625 68,875
4 Frenchman's Bay Waterfront Master Plan Implementation (ph 2)2018-2019 2,000,000 - 2,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 950,000 50,000
5 Frenchman's Bay Waterfront Master Plan Implementation (ph 3)2019-2020 950,000 - 950,000 475,000 475,000 451,250 23,750
6 Community Park - Greenwood Conservation Lands (ph 1)2021-2023 5,396,000 - 5,396,000 2,698,000 2,698,000 2,563,100 134,900
7 Community Park - Greenwood Conservation Lands (ph 2)2024-2027 3,777,200 - 3,777,200 1,219,561 2,557,639 2,429,757 127,882
8 Park - Krosno Creek valley - Hwy 401 to Bayly 2019-2023 269,800 - 269,800 26,980 242,820 230,679 12,141
9 Park - The Piazza - downtown south intensification 2019-2023 539,600 - 539,600 53,960 485,640 461,358 24,282
10 Skate Board Park - Community Size (Civic Centre)2019 700,000 - 700,000 350,000 350,000 332,500 17,500
11 Skate Board Park - Skate Spots (2 locations)2018-2022 400,000 - 400,000 200,000 200,000 190,000 10,000
12 Village Green Construction - Kindwin Development
(Brock Road)2018 250,000 - 250,000 6,250 243,750 231,563 12,188
13 D.H. Neighbourhood Park (Dersan & Tillings Road)2018-2019 600,000 - 600,000 15,000 585,000 555,750 29,250
-
Seaton Parkland -
14 Neighbourhood Park P-102 2018 950,000 - 950,000 23,750 926,250 879,938 46,313
15 Village Green P-103 2018 210,000 - 210,000 5,250 204,750 194,513 10,238
16 Village Green P-104 2018-2019 285,000 - 285,000 7,125 277,875 263,981 13,894
17 Village Green P-105 2019-2020 230,000 - 230,000 5,750 224,250 213,038 11,213
18 Village Green P-106 2019-2020 120,000 - 120,000 3,000 117,000 111,150 5,850
19 Neighbourhood Park P-107 2019 440,000 - 440,000 11,000 429,000 407,550 21,450
20 Village Green P-108 2019-2020 250,000 - 250,000 6,250 243,750 231,563 12,188
21 Neighbourhood Park P-109 2019-2020 550,000 - 550,000 13,750 536,250 509,438 26,813
22 Village Green P-110 2019-2020 230,000 - 230,000 5,750 224,250 213,038 11,213
23 Village Green P-111 2019-2020 170,000 - 170,000 4,250 165,750 157,463 8,288
24 Village Green P-112 2021 260,000 - 260,000 6,500 253,500 240,825 12,675
25 Village Green P-113 2021 150,000 - 150,000 3,750 146,250 138,938 7,313
26 Village Green P-114 2019-2020 222,000 - 222,000 5,550 216,450 205,628 10,823
27 Community Park at Recreation Centre P-115 2022 3,000,000 - 3,000,000 75,000 2,925,000 2,778,750 146,250
28 Village Green P-116 2020-2021 230,000 - 230,000 5,750 224,250 213,038 11,213
29 Neighbourhood Park P-117 2020-2021 540,000 - 540,000 13,500 526,500 500,175 26,325
30 Village Green P-118 2020-2021 230,000 - 230,000 5,750 224,250 213,038 11,213
31 Village Green P-119 2020-2021 480,000 - 480,000 12,000 468,000 444,600 23,400
Gross Capital
Cost Estimate
(2017$)
Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated
Development Timing (year)Post Period
Benefit
Other
Deductions Net Capital Cost
Potential DC Recoverable Cost
Benefit to
Existing
Development
Grants, Subsidies
and Other
Contributions
Attributable to New
Development
TotalParks Code
- 29 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 16
H:\Pickering\2020 DC Amendment\Report\2020 Update Study - Office Consolidation.docx
Table 3-1 (Cont’d)
Infrastructure Costs Covered in the D.C. Calculation – Parks and Recreation Services
Less:
Prj.No Residential
Share
Non-
Residential
Share
2018-2027 95% 5%
32 Neighbourhood Park P-120 2020-2021 500,000 - 500,000 12,500 487,500 463,125 24,375
33 Village Green P-121 2020 390,000 - 390,000 9,750 380,250 361,238 19,013
34 Neighbourhood Park P-122 2021 590,000 - 590,000 14,750 575,250 546,488 28,763
35 Community Park P-123 2024-2025 2,550,000 - 2,550,000 63,750 2,486,250 2,361,938 124,313
36 Neighbourhood Park P-124 2023 540,000 - 540,000 13,500 526,500 500,175 26,325
37 Village Green P-125 2023-2024 240,000 - 240,000 6,000 234,000 222,300 11,700
38 Village Green P-126 2023-2024 260,000 - 260,000 6,500 253,500 240,825 12,675
39 Village Green P-127 2023-2024 230,000 - 230,000 5,750 224,250 213,038 11,213
40 Neighbourhood Park P-128 2026 590,000 - 590,000 14,750 575,250 546,488 28,763
41 Community Park at Recreation Centre II P-129 2028-2031 800,000 800,000 - - - - -
42 Village Green P-130 2026 230,000 - 230,000 5,750 224,250 213,038 11,213
43 Neighbourhood Park P-131 2026 600,000 - 600,000 15,000 585,000 555,750 29,250
44 Village Green P-132 2028-2031 230,000 230,000 - - - - -
45 Village Green P-133 2028-2031 210,000 210,000 - - - - -
46 Neighbourhood Park P-134 2028-2031 700,000 700,000 - - - - -
47 Neighbourhood Park P-135 2028-2031 560,000 560,000 - - - - -
48 Village Green P-136 2028-2031 230,000 230,000 - - - - -
49 Village Green P-137 2027 230,000 - 230,000 5,750 224,250 213,038 11,213
50 Village Green P-138 2027 230,000 - 230,000 5,750 224,250 213,038 11,213
51 Village Green P-139 2027 300,000 - 300,000 7,500 292,500 277,875 14,625
52 Village Green P-140 2028-2031 270,000 270,000 - - - - -
53 Community Park P-141 2028-2031 3,300,000 3,300,000 - - - - -
54 Neighbourhood Park P-142 2028-2031 890,000 890,000 - - - - -
55 Village Green P-143 2028-2031 230,000 230,000 - - - - -
56 District Park (Phase 1)P-144 2027 9,000,000 - 9,000,000 225,000 8,775,000 8,336,250 438,750
57 District Park (Phase 2)P-144 2028-2031 9,000,000 9,000,000 - - - - -
-
Trails -
58 Seaton Primary Neighbourhood Connection Trails 1 major stream crossing T-1 2020 360,000 - 360,000 9,000 351,000 333,450 17,550
59 Seaton Primary Neighbourhood Connection Trails 1 minor stream crossing T-2 2020 360,000 - 360,000 9,000 351,000 333,450 17,550
60 Seaton Primary Neighbourhood Connection Trails 1 major stream crossing T-3 2021 410,000 - 410,000 10,250 399,750 379,763 19,988
61 Seaton Primary Neighbourhood Connection Trails 1 major stream crossing T-4 2021 380,000 - 380,000 9,500 370,500 351,975 18,525
62 Seaton Primary Neighbourhood Connection Trails 2 major stream crossing T-5 2021 710,000 - 710,000 17,750 692,250 657,638 34,613
63 Seaton Primary Neighbourhood Connection Trails 2 major stream crossing T-6 2024 800,000 - 800,000 20,000 780,000 741,000 39,000
64 Seaton Primary Neighbourhood Connection Trails 1 minor stream crossing T-7 2024 370,000 - 370,000 9,250 360,750 342,713 18,038
65 Seaton Primary Neighbourhood Connection Trails 2 major stream crossing T-8 2026 930,000 - 930,000 23,250 906,750 861,413 45,338
Gross Capital
Cost Estimate
(2017$)
Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated
Development Timing (year)Post Period
Benefit
Other
Deductions Net Capital Cost
Potential DC Recoverable Cost
Benefit to
Existing
Development
Grants, Subsidies
and Other
Contributions
Attributable to New
Development
TotalParks Code
- 30 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 17
H:\Pickering\2020 DC Amendment\Report\2020 Update Study - Office Consolidation.docx
Table 3-1 (Cont’d)
Infrastructure Costs Covered in the D.C. Calculation – Parks and Recreation Services
Less:
Prj.No Residential
Share
Non-
Residential
Share
2018-2027 95% 5%
66 Seaton Primary Neighbourhood Connection Trails 1 minor stream crossing T-9 2022 140,000 - 140,000 3,500 136,500 129,675 6,825
67 Seaton Primary Neighbourhood Connection Trails 1 major stream crossing T-10 2022 320,000 - 320,000 8,000 312,000 296,400 15,600
68 Seaton Primary Neighbourhood Connection Trails 1 major stream crossing T-11 2027 340,000 - 340,000 8,500 331,500 314,925 16,575
69 Seaton Primary Neighbourhood Connection Trails 1 major stream crossing T-12 2028-2031 310,000 310,000 - - - - -
70 Seaton Primary Neighbourhood Connection Trails 1 major stream crossing T-13 2028-2031 290,000 290,000 - - - - -
71 Seaton Primary Neighbourhood Connection Trails 1 major stream crossing T-14 2028-2031 340,000 340,000 - - - - -
72 Multi-purpose trail - Duffin Heights (Mattamy dev't) to Ajax 2025 539,600 - 539,600 269,800 269,800 256,310 13,490
73 Multi-purpose trail - Hydro Corridor (Liverpool to Whites)2019-2023 982,100 - 982,100 491,050 491,050 466,498 24,553
74 Trail - Bayly Street from waterfront trail to Go Station 2019-2023 539,600 - 539,600 269,800 269,800 256,310 13,490
75 Trail - Bayly Street from Go Station to Hydro Corridor 2019-2023 377,700 - 377,700 188,850 188,850 179,408 9,443
76 Trail - Finch to Brockridge Park (45m bridge)2019-2023 917,300 - 917,300 458,650 458,650 435,718 22,933
77 Trail - Wharf Street to Sandy Beach Road 2019-2023 431,700 - 431,700 215,850 215,850 205,058 10,793
78 Mulit-pupose trail - Hydro Corridor (Whites to Townline)2024-2027 1,618,800 - 1,618,800 809,400 809,400 768,930 40,470
Recreation Facilities -
79 Seaton Recreation Complex 2020 75,000 - 75,000 1,875 73,125 69,469 3,656
2021 10,700,000 - 10,700,000 267,500 10,432,500 9,910,875 521,625
2022 42,800,000 - 42,800,000 1,070,000 41,730,000 39,643,500 2,086,500
2023 2,600,000 - 2,600,000 65,000 2,535,000 2,408,250 126,750
80 Community Centre 2018 388,673 - 388,673 166,399 222,273 211,160 11,114
(Part of Pickering Heritage and Community Centre)2019 2,040,531 - 2,040,531 873,597 1,166,934 1,108,588 58,347
2021 916,152 - 916,152 192,417 723,736 687,549 36,187
2022 4,809,800 - 4,809,800 1,010,188 3,799,612 3,609,631 189,981
81 Youth & Seniors' Centre 2019 5,428,840 - 5,428,840 135,721 5,293,119 5,028,463 264,656
2020 25,841,277 - 25,841,277 646,032 25,195,245 23,935,483 1,259,762
2021 25,841,277 - 25,841,277 646,032 25,195,245 23,935,483 1,259,762
82 Arts Centre (Community Uses)2019 13,812,145 - 13,812,145 345,304 13,466,841 12,793,499 673,342
-
Gross Capital
Cost Estimate
(2017$)
Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated
Development Timing (year)Post Period
Benefit
Other
Deductions Net Capital Cost
Potential DC Recoverable Cost
Benefit to
Existing
Development
Grants, Subsidies
and Other
Contributions
Attributable to New
Development
TotalParks Code
- 31 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 18
H:\Pickering\2020 DC Amendment\Report\2020 Update Study - Office Consolidation.docx
Table 3-1 (Cont’d)
Infrastructure Costs Covered in the D.C. Calculation – Parks and Recreation Services
Less:
Prj.No Residential
Share
Non-
Residential
Share
2018-2027 95%5%
Parks Operations Vehicles and Equipment -
83 Area Mower 2020 115,000 - 115,000 - 115,000 109,250 5,750
84 Area Mower (2)2018-2027 230,000 - 230,000 - 230,000 218,500 11,500
85 Litter Picker Vacuum 2018 30,000 - 30,000 - 30,000 28,500 1,500
86 Garbage Packer 2018-2027 150,000 - 150,000 - 150,000 142,500 7,500
87 Garbage Packer 2018 150,000 - 150,000 - 150,000 142,500 7,500
88 Enclosed Trailers (3)2018-2027 36,000 - 36,000 - 36,000 34,200 1,800
89 Zero Turn Mower (6)2018-2027 108,000 - 108,000 - 108,000 102,600 5,400
90 Pickup Trucks (2)2018-2027 74,000 - 74,000 - 74,000 70,300 3,700
91 1 Ton Dump Trucks (2)2018-2027 130,000 - 130,000 - 130,000 123,500 6,500
92 SUV (2)2018-2027 70,000 - 70,000 - 70,000 66,500 3,500
93 4 Ton Dump Truck 2018-2027 270,000 - 270,000 - 270,000 256,500 13,500
94 Utility Vehicle 2019 25,000 - 25,000 - 25,000 23,750 1,250
Parks Operations Facilities -
95 New Operations Centre (Growth Related Share)2017 3,839,435 - 3,839,435 3,839,435 3,647,463 191,972
96 New Northern Satellite Operations Centre, including land 2024 3,433,300 - 3,433,300 - 3,433,300 3,261,635 171,665
Reserve Fund Adjustment (16,528,412) (15,701,991) (826,421)
Total 215,073,731 17,360,000 - 197,713,731 16,630,316 - 164,555,003 156,327,253 8,227,750
Gross Capital
Cost Estimate
(2017$)
Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated
Development Timing (year)Post Period
Benefit
Other
Deductions Net Capital Cost
Potential DC Recoverable Cost
Benefit to
Existing
Development
Grants, Subsidies
and Other
Contributions
Attributable to New
Development
TotalParks Code
- 32 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 19
H:\Pickering\2020 DC Amendment\Report\2020 Update Study - Office Consolidation.docx
Table 3-2
Infrastructure Costs Covered in the D.C. Calculation – Library Services
Less:
Residential
Share
Non-
Residential
Share
2018-2027 95%5%
Facilities
Central Library Facility 2018 3,509,764 3,509,764 1,833,898 1,675,866 1,592,073 83,793
2019 20,908,168 20,908,168 10,924,793 9,983,375 9,484,207 499,169
2020 20,908,168 20,908,168 10,924,793 9,983,375 9,484,207 499,169
Seaton Regional Library, including land (including
material)2021 4,138,000 2,964,262 1,173,738 103,450 1,070,288 1,016,774 53,514
2022 6,860,000 4,914,170 1,945,830 171,500 1,774,330 1,685,614 88,717
2023 6,861,000 4,914,886 1,946,114 171,525 1,774,589 1,685,860 88,729
Archives and Library Space 2018 612,454 612,454 - 612,454 581,831 30,623
(Part of Pickering Heritage and Community Centre)2019 3,215,383 3,215,383 - 3,215,383 3,054,614 160,769
2021 61,449 61,449 - 61,449 58,377 3,072
2022 322,609 322,609 - 322,609 306,478 16,130
Library Outreach Vehicle 2021 220,000 220,000 22,000 198,000 188,100 9,900
Reserve Fund Adjustment (2,798,782) (2,658,843) (139,939)
Total 67,616,995 12,793,317 54,823,678 24,151,959 - 27,872,937 26,479,291 1,393,647
Total
Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated
Development Timing (year)
Gross Capital
Cost
Estimate
(2017$)
Post Period
Benefit
Net Capital
Cost
Benefit to
Existing
Development
Grants,
Subsidies and
Other
Contributions
Attributable to
New
Development
Potential DC Recoverable Cost
- 33 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 20
H:\Pickering\2020 DC Amendment\Report\2020 Update Study - Office Consolidation.docx
Table 3-3
Infrastructure Costs Covered in the D.C. Calculation – Transportation Services
Less:Potential DC Recoverable Cost
Prj .No Residential
Share
Non-
Residential
Share
92%8%
Roads
1 Tillings Road oversizing - local to collector DH-3 2018-2024 294,800 - 294,800 29,480 265,320 244,094 21,226
2 William Jackson Drive - Urfe Creek to Taunton Road Urbanization, pedestrian trail DH-13 2018-2024 2,229,040 - 2,229,040 222,904 2,006,136 1,845,645 160,491
3 Sandy Beach Road 3-lane urban reconstruction, incl. storm B-29 2018-2024 6,500,000 - 6,500,000 3,250,000 3,250,000 2,990,000 260,000
4 DH-4 Valley Farm Rd. - Tillings Road to Brock Rd. Oversizing - local to collector DH-4 2018-2024 288,000 - 288,000 28,800 259,200 238,464 20,736
5 DH-14 William Jackson Dr. (Old Taunton). Urfe
Creek Culvert Structure (Design/Approval).EA & Design DH-14 2018-2024 450,000 - 450,000 45,000 405,000 372,600 32,400
6 DH-14 William Jackson Dr. (Old Taunton). Urfe
Creek Culvert Structure (Construction)Construction DH-14 2018-2024 3,455,100 - 3,455,100 345,510 3,109,590 2,860,823 248,767
7 Valley Farm Road - North of Third Concession to
Tillings 3-lane urban construction, incl. storm DH-1 2020-2024 3,399,500 - 3,399,500 339,950 3,059,550 2,814,786 244,764
8 Twyn Rivers Drive - Hoover to West Limit 2-lane urban reconstruction RO-3 2025-2031 2,210,000 - 2,210,000 1,657,500 552,500 508,300 44,200
9 Finch Avenue - Townline to Altona 3-lane urban reconstruction, incl. storm RP-4 2018-2024 1,850,300 - 1,850,300 462,575 1,387,725 1,276,707 111,018
10 Pickering Parkway - Glenanna to Hydro Corridor (E)sidewalk TC-1 2018-2024 54,100 - 54,100 40,575 13,525 12,443 1,082
11 Diefenbaker Extension - East Limit to Pickering
Parkway 2-lane, new construction TC-5 2025-2031 750,000 - 750,000 562,500 187,500 172,500 15,000
- - - - - -
12 Sheppard Avenue - Whites to West Limit sidewalk, blvd., streetlight on north side WO-5 2018-2024 244,000 - 244,000 183,000 61,000 56,120 4,880
13 Sheppard Avenue - Whites to 600m East sidewalk, blvd., structures south side WO-9 2018-2024 395,000 - 395,000 296,250 98,750 90,850 7,900
14 Audley Road (Sideline 2) Conc. #5 to Hwy 7 2-lane rural reconstruction incl. structures RU-4 2018-2024 3,212,155 - 3,212,155 1,606,078 1,606,078 1,477,591 128,486
15 A-5, A-6, A-7 Arterial Connection Bayly to Kingston
Rd.Feasibility Study & EA TC-31 2018-2024 2,698,000 - 2,698,000 674,500 2,023,500 1,861,620 161,880
16 Dunbarton Walkway - Dunbarton to Rambleberry walkway D-4 2018-2024 323,150 - 323,150 242,363 80,788 74,325 6,463
17 Valley Farm/Tillings Bridge - Ganatsekiagon EA & Design DH-2 2018-2024 500,000 500,000 50,000 450,000 414,000 36,000
18 Valley Farm/Tillings Bridge - Ganatsekiagon New Structure DH-2 2020-2024 13,489,900 - 13,489,900 1,348,990 12,140,910 11,169,637 971,273
19 Oakwood Drive - Rougemount to Mountain Ash 2-lane urban reconstruction R-4a 2018-2024 1,435,750 - 1,435,750 717,875 717,875 660,445 57,430
20 Oakwood Drive - Mountain Ash to Toynevale 2-lane urban reconstruction, incl. storm R-4b 2018-2024 718,225 - 718,225 359,113 359,113 330,384 28,729
21 Rougemount Drive - Woodgrange to Toynevale 2-lane urban reconstruction, incl. storm R-5 2018-2024 285,280 - 285,280 142,640 142,640 131,229 11,411
22 Finch Avenue - West of Altona (Structure)culvert replacement RP-2 2018-2024 1,000,000 - 1,000,000 500,000 500,000 460,000 40,000
23 Scar/Pickering Townline - Finch to CPR reconstruction/widen RP-14 2018-2024 866,800 - 866,800 433,400 433,400 398,728 34,672
24 Scar/Pickering Townline - CPR to Taunton/Steeles reconstruction/widen RU-7 2018-2024 5,634,200 - 5,634,200 2,817,100 2,817,100 2,591,732 225,368
25 Dixie Road - Kingston to South Limit sidewalk, east side TC-13 2018-2024 54,100 - 54,100 40,575 13,525 12,443 1,082
26 Granite Court - Whites to Rosebank sidewalk, north side W-4 2018-2024 207,085 - 207,085 155,314 51,771 47,630 4,142
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
27 A-11 (Plummer) - Sandy Beach Road to Krosno
Creek Oversizing to Collector B26B 2021 1,088,606 - 1,088,606 272,152 816,455 751,138 65,316
28 A-12 (Plummer) - Krosno Creek Crossing Bridge Structure B-27 2021 2,158,400 - 2,158,400 539,600 1,618,800 1,489,296 129,504
29 A-13 (N/S COllector) - Krosno Creek to Bayly Street
Crossing Oversizing to Collector B-28 2021 54,000 - 54,000 13,500 40,500 37,260 3,240
30 Rosebank Road - CPR to Third Concession Rd.reconstruction/widen L-17 2025-2031 4,278,250 - 4,278,250 1,069,563 3,208,688 2,951,993 256,695
31 Rosebank Road - Third Concession Rd. To Taunton
Rd.reconstruction/widen L-18 2025-2031 3,137,920 - 3,137,920 784,480 2,353,440 2,165,165 188,275
Grants, Subsidies
and Other
Contributions
Attributable to New
Development
Total
2018-2031
Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated Development Roads Code Post Period
Benefit
Net Capital
CostTiming (year)
Gross Capital
Cost Estimate
(2017$)
Benefit to
Existing
Development
- 34 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 21
H:\Pickering\2020 DC Amendment\Report\2020 Update Study - Office Consolidation.docx
Table 3-3 (Cont’d)
Infrastructure Costs Covered in the D.C. Calculation – Transportation Services
Less:Potential DC Recoverable Cost
Prj .No Residential
Share
Non-
Residential
Share
92%8%
32 Montgomery Park Rd. - Sandy Beach Rd. To Mckay
Rd.Urbanization /Full Load BI-21 2018-2024 3,710,000 - 3,710,000 1,855,000 1,855,000 1,706,600 148,400
33 Third Concession Rd. - Dixie Rd. To Whites Rd.Reconstruction/widen L-12 2025-2031 4,564,371 - 4,564,371 1,141,093 3,423,278 3,149,416 273,862
34 Third Concession Rd. - Whites Rd. To Altona Rd.Reconstruction/widen L-13 2025-2031 4,564,371 - 4,564,371 1,141,093 3,423,278 3,149,416 273,862
35 Third Concession Rd. - Altona Rd. To West Townline Reconstruction/widen L-14 2025-2031 4,564,371 - 4,564,371 1,141,093 3,423,278 3,149,416 273,862
36 Fairport Rd. - Lynn Heights To Third Concession Rd.Reconstruction/widen L-15 2025-2031 4,279,080 - 4,279,080 1,069,770 3,209,310 2,952,565 256,745
37 Dixie Rd. - Hydro Corridor To Third Concession Rd. Reconstruction/widen L-16 2025-2031 3,993,800 - 3,993,800 998,450 2,995,350 2,755,722 239,628
38 A-8 (Plummer) - Brock Rd. To Salk Road Reconstruction to collector road B-24 2025-2031 495,300 - 495,300 123,825 371,475 341,757 29,718
39 A-9 (Plummer) - Salk Road To Hydro Corridor
(centre)New collector road B-25 2025-2031 396,200 - 396,200 99,050 297,150 273,378 23,772
40 A-10 (Plummer) - Hyrdo Corridor (centre) to Sandy
Beach Road New collector road B-26A 2025-2031 973,520 - 973,520 243,380 730,140 671,729 58,411
41 Walnut Lane Extension - construction and contract
admin 2019 5,648,000 5,648,000 1,412,000 4,236,000 3,897,120 338,880
42 Walnut Lane Extension -EA and Design 2018 211,226 211,226 52,807 158,420 145,746 12,674
43 EA Study A8-A12 (Plummer) B-24 to B-28 2018-2024 500,000 - 500,000 125,000 375,000 345,000 30,000
44 Notion Road/Squires Beach Road 401 Crossing 2022-2024 64,900,000 9,405,378 55,494,622 25,960,000 29,534,622 27,171,852 2,362,770
45 WO-2 Kingston Road - South Side Rosebank Rd.
to Steeple Hill Includes pedestrian bridge WO-2 2018-2024 332,660 - 332,660 166,330 166,330 153,024 13,306
46 Kingston Road - Glendale Drive to Walnut Lane North side TC-9 2025-2031 351,000 - 351,000 175,500 175,500 161,460 14,040
47 Kingston Road - Dixie Road to Liverpool Road South Side TC-12 2018-2024 585,000 - 585,000 292,500 292,500 269,100 23,400
48 Sidewalk & Streetlights: Rosebank to Whites ES
2000 RO-10 Rosebank to 250 m west North Side RO-10 2018-2024 103,283 - 103,283 51,642 51,642 47,510 4,131
49
Sidewalks & Streetlights
TC-7 (2005-2009) Kingston Rd. - Valley Farm Rd.
East (south side) to Hydro Corridor.
South Side TC-7 2018-2024 133,500 - 133,500 66,750 66,750 61,410 5,340
50 Sidewalks & Streetlights. N.E. Quadrant Delta Blvd
03-2321-01-21 WO-1 2025-2031 112,000 - 112,000 56,000 56,000 51,520 4,480
51 Sidewalks & Streetlights: Kingston Rd. Steeple Hill to
Whites 04-2321-002-03 North Side WO-3 2018 317,000 - 317,000 158,500 158,500 145,820 12,680
52 Sidewalks & Streetlights: Kingston/Dixie-CNR tracks South Side TC-11 2025-2031 133,500 - 133,500 66,750 66,750 61,410 5,340
53
Streetlights & Sidewalks
Brock Road-both sides-Forbrock Rd. to Taunton
Road.
DH-24 2018-2024 50,000 - 50,000 25,000 25,000 23,000 2,000
54
TC-6 - Valley Farm Road (East Side) Kingston Road
to 100m South - Sidewalk/Blvd. in conjunction with
adjacent development.
TC-6 2018-2024 53,777 - 53,777 26,889 26,889 24,737 2,151
55 Kingston Road - West Limit of Neighbourhood 7 to
Dixie Road north side D-1 2018-2024 570,000 - 570,000 285,000 285,000 262,200 22,800
56 Kingston Road - West Limit to East Limit of
Neighbourhood 7 (Fairport to CN bridge)south side.D-2 2018-2024 694,535 - 694,535 347,268 347,268 319,486 27,781
Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated Development Roads Code Post Period
Benefit
Net Capital
CostTiming (year)
Gross Capital
Cost Estimate
(2017$)
Benefit to
Existing
Development
Grants, Subsidies
and Other
Contributions
Attributable to New
Development
Total
2018-2031
- 35 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 22
H:\Pickering\2020 DC Amendment\Report\2020 Update Study - Office Consolidation.docx
Table 3-3 (Cont’d)
Infrastructure Costs Covered in the D.C. Calculation – Transportation Services
Less:Potential DC Recoverable Cost
Prj .No Residential
Share
Non-
Residential
Share
92%8%
57 Finch Avenue - Spruce Hill to East Limit of
Neighbourhood 9 north side D-9 2018-2024 285,000 - 285,000 142,500 142,500 131,100 11,400
58 Finch Avenue - Spruce Hill to Fairport Road south side D-10 2018-2024 253,000 - 253,000 126,500 126,500 116,380 10,120
59 Finch Avenue - Brock Road to Hydro Corridor north side V-12 2018-2024 315,650 - 315,650 157,825 157,825 145,199 12,626
60 Whites Road - Granite Court to Hwy 401 west side W-5 2018-2024 95,000 - 95,000 47,500 47,500 43,700 3,800
61 Whites Road - North of 3rd Concession to Taunton
Road sidewalk, multi-use trail, streetlight RU-8 2018-2024 1,153,000 - 1,153,000 57,650 1,095,350 1,007,722 87,628
62 Whites Road - Finch Ave to Seaton Boundary multi-use 2018-2024 1,741,100 - 1,741,100 174,110 1,566,990 1,441,631 125,359
63 Whites Road - Bridge over west Duffins Creek streetlighting RU-9 2018-2024 809,400 - 809,400 40,470 768,930 707,416 61,514
64 Brock Road - Bayly Street to Montgomery Road East and West Sides BI-4 2018-2024 1,861,600 - 1,861,600 930,800 930,800 856,336 74,464
65 Sideline 24 - Hwy 7 south to north limit of subdivision sidewalk/streetlights RU-12 2018-2024 389,600 - 389,600 58,440 331,160 304,667 26,493
66 Whites Rd. CPR Overpass sidewalk/streetlights A-6 2018-2024 269,800 - 269,800 40,470 229,330 210,984 18,346
67 Bayly Street - Church Street to West Limit
Neighbourhood 4 north and south sides BI-1 2018-2024 1,162,300 - 1,162,300 581,150 581,150 534,658 46,492
68 Hwy 7 - Brock Rd to West Townline Sidewalk/streetlights north side RU-10 2018-2024 1,250,800 - 1,250,800 187,620 1,063,180 978,126 85,054
69 Church Street - Bayly Street to Kellino Street west side BI-17 2018-2024 325,000 - 325,000 162,500 162,500 149,500 13,000
70 Altona Road - Strouds Lane to North Limit of
Neighbourhood 10 east and west sides H1 2018-2024 1,300,000 - 1,300,000 650,000 650,000 598,000 52,000
71 Finch Avenue - West Limit of Neighbourhood 7 to
Duncannon Dr.north side L-6 2018-2024 150,000 - 150,000 75,000 75,000 69,000 6,000
72 Finch Avenue - Lynn Heights to East 80m north side L-7 2018-2024 40,000 - 40,000 20,000 20,000 18,400 1,600
73 Finch Avenue - Valley Farm Road to West 600m south side L-9 2018-2024 300,000 - 300,000 150,000 150,000 138,000 12,000
74 Finch Avenue - Valley Farm Road to East 300m north side L-10 2018-2024 150,000 - 150,000 75,000 75,000 69,000 6,000
75 Finch Avenue - Altona Road to Rosebank Road south side RP-6 2018-2024 250,000 - 250,000 125,000 125,000 115,000 10,000
76 Finch Avenue - Rosebank Road to 500m West north side RP-5 2018-2024 250,000 - 250,000 125,000 125,000 115,000 10,000
77 Altona Road - Finch Avenue to Hydro Corridor (N)east side RP-9 2018-2024 150,000 - 150,000 75,000 75,000 69,000 6,000
78 Altona Road - Finch Avenue to North Limit of
Neighbourhood 14 west side RP-10 2018-2024 150,000 - 150,000 75,000 75,000 69,000 6,000
79 Altona Road - Finch Avenue to North Limit of
Neighbourhood 14 east side RP-11 2018-2024 150,000 - 150,000 75,000 75,000 69,000 6,000
80 North Road - Hwy 7 south to north limit of subdivision sidewalk/streetlights RU-11 2018-2024 500,000 - 500,000 75,000 425,000 391,000 34,000
81 Whitevale Road - Altona Road to York/Durham
Townline sidewalk/streetlights/multi-use trail RU-14 2018-2024 675,000 - 675,000 101,250 573,750 527,850 45,900
82 Taunton Rd. - Sideline 16 to Church St.sidewalk/streetlights/multi-use trail RU-17 2025-2031 375,000 - 375,000 56,250 318,750 293,250 25,500
83 Taunton Rd. - Whites Rd. To West Townline sidewalk/streetlights/multi-use trail RU-18 2025-2031 2,475,000 - 2,475,000 371,250 2,103,750 1,935,450 168,300
84 South Esplanade Pedestrian Mall walkway 2025-2031 900,000 - 900,000 450,000 450,000 414,000 36,000
85 Kingston Road - Fronting 820 Kingston Road to
Fairport Rd North Side (455m)WO-10 2018-2024 270,000 - 270,000 135,000 135,000 124,200 10,800
86 Kingston Road - Rougemount Drive to 300m west North Side RO-12 2018-2024 175,500 - 175,500 87,750 87,750 80,730 7,020
Grants, Subsidies
and Other
Contributions
Attributable to New
Development
Total
2018-2031
Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated Development Roads Code Post Period
Benefit
Net Capital
CostTiming (year)
Gross Capital
Cost Estimate
(2017$)
Benefit to
Existing
Development
- 36 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 23
H:\Pickering\2020 DC Amendment\Report\2020 Update Study - Office Consolidation.docx
Table 3-3 (Cont’d)
Infrastructure Costs Covered in the D.C. Calculation – Transportation Services
Less:Potential DC Recoverable Cost
Prj .No Residential
Share
Non-
Residential
Share
92%8%
Traffic Signals
87 Pickering Parkway at Glenanna Rd. - Signalization TC-4 2018-2024 300,000 - 300,000 30,000 270,000 248,400 21,600
88 Glenanna Road at Fairport Road Signalization D-8 2018-2024 300,000 - 300,000 30,000 270,000 248,400 21,600
89 Welrus Street at Fairport Road Signalization D-12 2018-2024 300,000 - 300,000 30,000 270,000 248,400 21,600
90 Rosebank Road at Sheppard Avenue Jog elimination/Signalization & EA WO-8 2018-2024 700,000 - 700,000 70,000 630,000 579,600 50,400
91 Rosebank Road at Highview Road/Deerhaven Lane Signalization A-5 2018-2024 300,000 - 300,000 30,000 270,000 248,400 21,600
92 Strouds Lane at Aspen Road/Shadybrook Drive Signalization A-7 2025-2031 600,000 - 600,000 60,000 540,000 496,800 43,200
93 Finch Avenue at Woodview Avenue Signalization RP-1 2025-2031 300,000 - 300,000 30,000 270,000 248,400 21,600
Reserve Fund Adjustment (18,249,536) (16,789,573) (1,459,963)
Total 186,469,905 9,405,378 177,064,527 62,021,007 - 96,793,984 89,050,466 7,743,519
Grants, Subsidies
and Other
Contributions
Attributable to New
Development
Total
2018-2031
Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated Development Roads Code Post Period
Benefit
Net Capital
CostTiming (year)
Gross Capital
Cost Estimate
(2017$)
Benefit to
Existing
Development
- 37 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 24
H:\Pickering\2020 DC Amendment\Report\2020 Update Study - Office Consolidation.docx
Table 3-5
Infrastructure Costs Covered in the D.C. Calculation – Growth-Related Studies
Less:
Prj.No Residential
Share
Non-
Residential
Share
2018-2027 78%22%
1 Development Charges Background Study See note 1 2022 125,000 - 125,000 - 125,000 97,500 27,500
2 Development Charges Background Study See note 1 2027 125,000 - 125,000 - 125,000 97,500 27,500
3 South Pickering Intensification Study (Incl. Parts 4-5)See note 1 2018-2020 400,000 - 30,000 370,000 100,000 270,000 210,600 59,400
4 South Pickering Heritage Inventory See note 1 2018-2020 54,000 - 1,350 52,650 40,500 12,150 9,477 2,673
5 Municipal Comprehensive Review See note 1 2022 500,000 - 37,500 462,500 125,000 337,500 263,250 74,250
6 Official Plan Review See note 1 2027 250,000 - 12,500 237,500 125,000 112,500 87,750 24,750
7 Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review See note 1 2018-2021 431,700 - 32,378 399,323 107,925 291,398 227,290 64,107
8 Planning Application Fee Review Study See note 1 2018 25,000 - 2,500 22,500 - 22,500 17,550 4,950
9 Community Improvement Plans for Durham Live
Lands and for City Centre Lands See note 1 2019-2022 150,000 - 11,250 138,750 37,500 101,250 78,975 22,275
10 Infill and Replacement Housing in Established
Neighborhoods See note 1 2018-2026 150,000 - 7,500 142,500 75,000 67,500 52,650 14,850
11 Library-Strategic Plan Library Services 2018 60,000 - 60,000 15,000 45,000 35,100 9,900
12 Library-Facilities/Master Plan Library Services 2018 54,000 - 54,000 13,500 40,500 31,590 8,910
13 Library-Strategic Plan Library Services 2022 60,000 - 60,000 15,000 45,000 35,100 9,900
14 Library-Strategic Plan Library Services 2026 60,000 - 60,000 15,000 45,000 35,100 9,900
15 Traffic Management Plan for Downtown Pickering Other Services Related to a
Highway 2026 373,320 - 373,320 37,332 335,988 262,071 73,917
16 Transportation Demand Management Plan/Parking
Management Plan (Seaton)
Other Services Related to a
Highway 2026 161,900 - 161,900 16,190 145,710 113,654 32,056
17 Neighbourhood Traffic Calming Measures Other Services Related to a
Highway 2018-2027 150,000 - 150,000 15,000 135,000 105,300 29,700
18 Transportation Master Plan Update Other Services Related to a
Highway 2027 400,000 - 400,000 40,000 360,000 280,800 79,200
19 Esplanade Study Provision See note 1 2018-2026 50,000 - 3,750 46,250 12,500 33,750 26,325 7,425
20 Fire Master Plan Protection Services 2019 134,900 - 134,900 33,725 101,175 78,917 22,259
21 Brock Industrial Drainage Master Plan Stormwater Management 2018-2027 300,000 - 300,000 30,000 270,000 210,600 59,400
22 Stormwater Management Study for Infill Development Stormwater Management 2018-2027 215,800 - 215,800 53,950 161,850 126,243 35,607
23 Frenchman's Bay Stormwater Management Master
Plan Update Stormwater Management 2018-2027 700,000 - 700,000 70,000 630,000 491,400 138,600
24 Pickering City Centre Stormwater Management
Strategy Update Stormwater Management 2018-2027 250,000 - 250,000 25,000 225,000 175,500 49,500
25 SWM User Fee Study Stormwater Management 2018-2027 200,000 - 200,000 100,000 100,000 78,000 22,000
Net Capital
Cost
Benefit to
Existing
Development
Grants, Subsidies
and Other
Contributions
Attributable to
New Development
Total
Potential DC Recoverable Cost
Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated
Development Timing (year)
Gross Capital
Cost
Estimate
(2017$)
Post Period
Benefit
Other
DeductionsBenefitting Services
- 38 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 25
H:\Pickering\2020 DC Amendment\Report\2020 Update Study - Office Consolidation.docx
Table 3-5 (Cont’d)
Infrastructure Costs Covered in the D.C. Calculation – Growth-Related Studies
Less:
Prj.No Residential
Share
Non-
Residential
Share
2018-2027 78%22%
26 Community Engagement on Economic Impact and
Employment - Highway 407 Corridor See note 1 2018 150,000 - 6,523 143,477 84,773 58,704 45,789 12,915
27 Pickering Corporate Energy Plan Update See note 1 2019 50,000 - 2,174 47,826 28,258 19,568 15,263 4,305
28 Seaton Corporate Energy Plan Update See note 1 2022 50,000 - 5,000 45,000 - 45,000 35,100 9,900
29 Pickering Climate Adaption Plan See note 1 2020 150,000 - 6,523 143,477 84,773 58,704 45,789 12,915
30 Broadband Strategy and Implementation Plan See note 1 2019 75,000 - 3,261 71,739 42,387 29,352 22,895 6,457
31 Natural Capital Asset Evaluation See note 1 2022 75,000 - 3,261 71,739 42,387 29,352 22,895 6,457
32 Facilities Management Plan See note 1 2018 150,000 - 11,250 138,750 37,500 101,250 78,975 22,275
33 Facilities Management Plan Update See note 1 2027 167,000 - 12,525 154,475 41,750 112,725 87,926 24,800
34 Facilities Renewal Plan See note 1 2018-2026 200,000 - 8,697 191,303 113,031 78,272 61,052 17,220
35 Facilities Way Finding Study See note 1 2018-2026 50,000 - 2,174 47,826 28,258 19,568 15,263 4,305
36 Space Use Study See note 1 2018 35,000 - 875 34,125 26,250 7,875 6,143 1,733
37 Urban Forest Management Parks and Recreation Services 2018-2026 97,100 - 97,100 24,275 72,825 56,804 16,022
38 Seaton Primary Trails IO EA Phase 1 & 2 Lands (including
site walks, surveying, archaeology)Parks and Recreation Services 2018 400,000 - 400,000 - 400,000 312,000 88,000
39 Diversity and Inclusion Plan Parks and Recreation Services 2020 75,000 - 75,000 42,387 32,613 25,438 7,175
40 Age Friendly Community Plan Parks and Recreation Services 2018 75,000 - 75,000 42,387 32,613 25,438 7,175
41 Seniors Recreation Strategic Plan Parks and Recreation Services 2019 75,000 - 75,000 37,500 37,500 29,250 8,250
42 Recreation Services Master Plan Update Parks and Recreation Services 2027 170,000 - 170,000 42,500 127,500 99,450 28,050
43 Waterfront Park Needs Assessment Parks and Recreation Services 2019-2020 100,000 - 100,000 25,000 75,000 58,500 16,500
44 Whitevale Park Revitalization Study Parks and Recreation Services 2021 80,000 - 80,000 20,000 60,000 46,800 13,200
45 New Financial System See note 1 2018-2026 5,000,000 - 217,422 4,782,578 2,825,781 1,956,797 1,526,302 430,495
46 D.C. Amendment See note 1 2019-2020 60,664 - 60,664 - 60,664 47,318 13,346
47 Fair Minded Pricing Policy See note 1 2020 60,664 - 2,638 58,027 34,285 23,742 18,518 5,223
48 Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Corporate Strategic
Plan: See note 1 2021-2022 136,600 - 5,940 130,660 77,200 53,460 41,699 11,761
49 Northeast Pickering (Veraine) Land Use Study See note 1 2021-2024 911,000 211,575 81,990 617,435 91,100 263,168 263,168 205,271 57,897
50 5-year Capital and Operating Cost Financial Impact Analysis See note 1 2021 25,000 - 1,087 23,913 14,129 9,784 7,632 2,152
- -
Reserve Fund Adjustment 673,868 525,617 148,251
Total 13,798,649 211,575 510,068 13,077,006 4,909,033 263,168 8,578,674 6,691,366 1,887,308
1. Growth related studies have been included in relation to the eligible services in the following manner: 7,904,806 6,165,749
Service Share of Study Costs
Other Services Related to a Highway 6%
Protection Services 10%
Parks and Recreation Services 68%
Library Services 11%
Stormwater Management 4%
Increased Service Needs Attributable to Anticipated
Development Timing (year)
Gross Capital
Cost
Estimate
(2017$)
Post Period
Benefit
Other
DeductionsBenefitting Services Net Capital
Cost
Benefit to
Existing
Development
Grants, Subsidies
and Other
Contributions
Attributable to
New Development
Total
Potential DC Recoverable Cost
- 39 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 26
H:\Pickering\2020 DC Amendment\Report\2020 Update Study - Office Consolidation.docx
4. Revised D.C. Calculation and Schedule of
Charges
Based on the proposed amendments to the D.C. eligible costs included in the 2017 D.C.
Background Study and 2019 Update Study that have been detailed in in Chapter 3, the
calculated schedule of charges is provided in Table 4-1 below. The charges are
provided in 2018$ consistent with Table 6-5 of the 2017 D.C. Background Study. Table
4-2 provides the amended schedule of charges indexed to 2020$ values.
A comparison of the amended charges herein (indexed to 20 20$), with the City’s current
2020 D.C. rates is provided in Table 4-3. In total, D.C.s for the single and semi-
detached dwelling units outside of the Seaton Lands would increase by $4,040 per unit
(+24%) and the non-residential charge would increase by $0.92 per sq.ft. of GFA
(+27%). For development within the Seaton Lands, the single and semi-detached D.C.
would increase by $999 per unit (+10%), the prestige employment land charge would
increase by $2,543 per net hectare (+5%), and the non-residential charge for all other
uses would increase by $0.07 per sq.ft. GFA (+5%).
Detailed cash-flow calculation tables underlying the calculation of the D.C.s, are
provided in Tables 4-4 through 4-14.
Table 4-1
Amended Schedule of Development Charges (201 8$)
Single and
Semi-Detached
Dwelling
Apartments - 2
Bedrooms +
Apartments -
Bachelor and 1
Bedroom
Other Multiples (per ft² of Total
Floor Area) 2
(per net Ha of
Prestige
Employment
Land in
Seaton)
Municipal Wide Services/Classes:
Other Services Related to a Highway 441 279 197 356 0.15 5,451
Protection Services 896 566 401 724 0.34 11,522
Parks and Recreation Services 6,821 4,309 3,053 5,507 0.53 17,885
Library Services 1,127 712 505 910 0.08 2,693
Growth-Related Studies 299 189 134 242 0.11 3,846
Stormwater Management 288 182 129 233 0.10 3,503
Total Municipal Wide Services/Classes:9,872 6,237 4,419 7,972 1.31 44,900
Outside of Seaton Lands
Transportation 1 9,292 5,870 4,159 7,502 2.61
Total Services Outside of Seaton Lands 9,292 5,870 4,159 7,502 2.61
Rest of Pickering 19,164 12,107 8,578 15,474 3.92
Service/Class
RESIDENTIAL NON-RESIDENTIAL
1. Subject to a separate agreement outside of the Development Charges Act concerning the provision of Transportation requirements in addition to
other funding contributions
2. Does not apply to prestige employment development in Seaton, as that development is subject to the per net Ha land area charge instead.
- 40 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 27
H:\Pickering\2020 DC Amendment\Report\2020 Update Study - Office Consolidation.docx
Table 4-2
Amended Schedule of Development Charges (20 20$)
Single and
Semi-Detached
Dwelling
Apartments - 2
Bedrooms +
Apartments -
Bachelor and 1
Bedroom
Other Multiples (per ft² of Total
Floor Area) 2
(per net Ha of
Prestige
Employment
Land in
Seaton)
Municipal Wide Services/Classes:
Other Services Related to a Highway 483 306 216 391 0.17 5,983
Protection Services 983 621 440 795 0.36 12,647
Parks and Recreation Services 7,488 4,730 3,351 6,045 0.58 19,633
Library Services 1,237 782 554 999 0.09 2,956
Growth-Related Studies 328 207 147 266 0.12 4,222
Stormwater Management 316 200 142 256 0.11 3,846
Total Municipal Wide Services/Classes:10,835 6,847 4,851 8,751 1.43 49,287
Outside of Seaton Lands
Transportation 1 10,200 6,444 4,565 8,235 2.87 -
Total Services Outside of Seaton Lands 10,200 6,444 4,565 8,235 2.87
Rest of Pickering 21,035 13,290 9,416 16,986 4.30
Service/Class
RESIDENTIAL NON-RESIDENTIAL
1. Subject to a separate agreement outside of the Development Charges Act concerning the provision of Transportation requirements in addition to
other funding contributions
2. Does not apply to prestige employment development in Seaton, as that development is subject to the per net Ha land area charge instead.
- 41 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 28
H:\Pickering\2020 DC Amendment\Report\2020 Update Study - Office Consolidation.docx
Table 4-3
Comparison of Development Charges (2020$)
Current
2020
Amendment Change ($)Change (%)Current
2020
Amendment Change ($)Change (%)Current
2020
Amendment Change ($)Change (%)
Municipal Wide Services/Classes:
Other Services Related to a Highway 483 483 - 0%0.17 0.17 - 0%5,983 5,983 - 0%
Protection Services 983 983 - 0%0.36 0.36 - 0%12,647 12,647 - 0%
Parks and Recreation Services 6,639 7,488 849 13%0.53 0.58 0.05 9%17,602 19,633 2,031 12%
Library Services 1,100 1,237 137 12%0.07 0.09 0.02 29%2,631 2,956 325 12%
Growth Related Studies 315 328 13 4%0.12 0.12 - 0%4,035 4,222 187 5%
Stormwater Management 316 316 - 0%0.11 0.11 - 0%3,846 3,846 - 0%
Total Municipal Wide Services/Classes 9,836 10,835 999 10%1.36 1.43 0.07 5%46,744 49,287 2,543 5%
Outside of Seaton Lands
Transportation 1 7,159 10,200 3,041 42%2.02 2.87 0.85 42%-
Total Services Outside of Seaton Lands 7,159 10,200 3,041 42%2.02 2.87 0.85 42%- - - 0%
Seaton 9,836 10,835 999 10%1.36 1.43 0.07 5%46,744 49,287 2,543 5%
Rest of Pickering 16,995 21,035 4,040 24%3.38 4.30 0.92 27%46,744 49,287 2,543
Residential Single and Semi-Detached Dwelling Non-Residential (per ft² of Total Floor Area) 2 Non-Residential (per net Ha of Prestige Employment
Land in Seaton)Service/Class
- 42 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 29
H:\Pickering\2020 DC Amendment\Report\2020 Update Study - Office Consolidation.docx
Table 4-4
Cash Flow Analysis
Transportation Services – Residential
Interest
Nominal Inflated
(3%/Yr)
(2.5% on
positive
balances & 5%
on negative
balances)
2018 16,789,573$ (4,907,814)$ (5,055,049)$ 1,145 9,292 10,642,390 5,587,341$ 489,581$ 22,866,496$
2019 22,866,496$ (8,513,368)$ (9,031,832)$ 1,145 9,571 10,961,661 1,929,829$ 595,785$ 25,392,110$
2020 25,392,110$ (7,413,133)$ (8,100,530)$ 1,145 9,858 11,290,511 3,189,981$ 674,678$ 29,256,768$
2021 29,256,768$ (9,690,827)$ (10,907,111)$ 1,145 10,154 11,629,226 722,115$ 740,446$ 30,719,329$
2022 30,719,329$ (16,470,417)$ (19,093,727)$ 1,145 10,458 11,978,103 (7,115,624)$ 679,038$ 24,282,742$
2023 24,282,742$ (16,470,417)$ (19,666,539)$ 802 10,772 8,634,624 (11,031,915)$ 469,170$ 13,719,997$
2024 13,719,997$ (16,470,417)$ (20,256,535)$ 802 11,095 8,893,663 (11,362,872)$ 200,964$ 2,558,089$
2025 2,558,089$ (3,700,521)$ (4,687,709)$ 802 11,428 9,160,473 4,472,764$ 119,862$ 7,150,715$
2026 7,150,715$ (3,700,521)$ (4,828,340)$ 802 11,771 9,435,287 4,606,947$ 236,355$ 11,994,016$
2027 11,994,016$ (3,700,521)$ (4,973,191)$ 802 12,124 9,718,346 4,745,155$ 359,165$ 17,098,336$
2028 17,098,336$ (3,700,521)$ (5,122,386)$ 76 12,488 945,832 (4,176,554)$ 375,251$ 13,297,034$
2029 13,297,034$ (3,700,521)$ (5,276,058)$ 76 12,862 974,207 (4,301,850)$ 278,653$ 9,273,836$
2030 9,273,836$ (3,700,521)$ (5,434,340)$ 76 13,248 1,003,434 (4,430,906)$ 176,460$ 5,019,389$
2031 5,019,389$ (3,700,521)$ (5,597,370)$ 38 13,646 516,768 (5,080,602)$ 61,212$ 0$
Year
D.C. Reserve
Fund Opening
Balance
Dev't Related Expenditures
SDE per Year
DC Rates w.
Inflation
(3%/Yr)
Anticipated
Revenues
Revenues
minus
Expenditures
Debenture
Financing
Requirement
DC Reserve
Fund Closing
Balance after
Financing
- 43 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 30
H:\Pickering\2020 DC Amendment\Report\2020 Update Study - Office Consolidation.docx
Table 4-5
Cash Flow Analysis
Transportation Services – Non-Residential
Interest
Nominal Inflated
(3%/Yr)
(2.5% on
positive
balances & 5%
on negative
balances)
2018 1,459,963$ (426,766)$ (439,569)$ 279,599 2.61$ 729,556$ 289,986$ 40,124$ 1,790,073$
2019 1,790,073$ (740,293)$ (785,377)$ 279,599 2.69$ 751,443$ (33,934)$ 44,328$ 1,800,467$
2020 1,800,467$ (644,620)$ (704,394)$ 279,599 2.77$ 773,986$ 69,592$ 45,882$ 1,915,940$
2021 1,915,940$ (842,681)$ (948,444)$ 279,599 2.85$ 797,205$ (151,239)$ 46,008$ 1,810,709$
2022 1,810,709$ (1,432,210)$ (1,660,324)$ 279,599 2.94$ 821,122$ (839,202)$ 34,778$ 1,006,285$
2023 1,006,285$ (1,432,210)$ (1,710,134)$ 279,599 3.02$ 845,755$ (864,379)$ 14,352$ 156,258$
2024 156,258$ (1,432,210)$ (1,761,438)$ 279,599 3.12$ 871,128$ (890,310)$ (16,398)$ (750,450)$
2025 (750,450)$ (321,784)$ (407,627)$ 279,599 3.21$ 897,262$ 489,635$ (25,282)$ (286,096)$
2026 (286,096)$ (321,784)$ (419,856)$ 279,599 3.31$ 924,180$ 504,324$ (4,425)$ 213,803$
2027 213,803$ (321,784)$ (432,451)$ 279,599 3.40$ 951,905$ 519,454$ 11,838$ 745,095$
2028 745,095$ (321,784)$ (445,425)$ 84,250 3.51$ 295,436$ (149,989)$ 16,753$ 611,859$
2029 611,859$ (321,784)$ (458,788)$ 84,250 3.61$ 304,299$ (154,488)$ 13,365$ 470,736$
2030 470,736$ (321,784)$ (472,551)$ 84,250 3.72$ 313,428$ (159,123)$ 9,779$ 321,393$
2031 321,393$ (321,784)$ (486,728)$ 42,125 3.83$ 161,416$ (325,312)$ 3,919$ 0$
Year
D.C. Reserve
Fund Opening
Balance
Dev't Related Expenditures
GFA per Year
DC Rates w.
Inflation
(3%/Yr)
Anticipated
Revenues
Revenues
minus
Expenditures
Debenture
Financing
Requirement
DC Reserve
Fund Closing
Balance after
Financing
- 44 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 31
H:\Pickering\2020 DC Amendment\Report\2020 Update Study - Office Consolidation.docx
Table 4-6
Cash Flow Analysis
Parks and Recreation Services – Residential
Table 4-7
Cash Flow Analysis
Parks and Recreation Services – Seaton Prestige Employment Land
Interest
Nominal Inflated
(3%/Yr)
(2.5% on
positive
balances & 5%
on negative
balances)
2018 15,701,991$ (4,023,685)$ (4,144,396)$ -$ 2,499 6,821$ 17,042,615$ 12,898,219$ (438,576)$ 548,295$ 28,709,930$
2019 28,709,930$ (4,630,064)$ (4,912,035)$ (1,023,477)$ 2,499 7,025$ 17,553,893$ 11,618,381$ (438,576)$ 857,496$ 40,747,231$
2020 40,747,231$ (3,759,154)$ (4,107,729)$ (2,398,041)$ 2,499 7,236$ 18,080,510$ 11,574,740$ (438,576)$ 1,157,883$ 53,041,277$
2021 53,041,277$ (15,274,431)$ (17,191,507)$ (3,772,605)$ 2,499 7,453$ 18,622,926$ (2,341,186)$ (438,576)$ 1,291,285$ 51,552,800$
2022 51,552,800$ (47,901,351)$ (55,530,794)$ (3,772,605)$ 2,499 7,677$ 19,181,613$ (40,121,786)$ (438,576)$ 781,815$ 11,774,254$
2023 11,774,254$ (4,651,901)$ (5,554,613)$ (3,772,605)$ 2,155 7,907$ 17,039,090$ 7,711,872$ (438,576)$ 385,273$ 19,432,822$
2024 19,432,822$ (6,768,092)$ (8,323,900)$ (3,772,605)$ 2,155 8,144$ 17,550,262$ 5,453,758$ (438,576)$ 548,510$ 24,996,514$
2025 24,996,514$ (2,340,973)$ (2,965,475)$ (3,772,605)$ 2,155 8,388$ 18,076,770$ 11,338,690$ (438,576)$ 761,164$ 36,657,793$
2026 36,657,793$ (3,080,382)$ (4,019,200)$ (3,772,605)$ 2,155 8,640$ 18,619,073$ 10,827,268$ (438,576)$ 1,046,303$ 48,092,789$
2027 48,092,789$ (10,258,819)$ (13,786,995)$ (53,631,360)$ 2,155 8,899$ 19,177,645$ (48,240,710)$ (438,576)$ 586,497$ -$
Year
D.C. Reserve
Fund Opening
Balance
Dev't Related Expenditures
Existing Debt
Carrying Costs (P&I) SDE per Year
DC Rates w.
Inflation
(3%/Yr)
Anticipated
Revenues
Revenues
minus
Expenditures
Debenture
Financing
Requirement
DC Reserve
Fund Closing
Balance after
Financing
Interest
Nominal Inflated
(3%/Yr)
(2.5% on
positive
balances & 5%
on negative
balances)
2018 2,760$ (75,953)$ (78,232)$ -$ 18 17,885$ 328,549$ 250,318$ (8,279)$ 3,094$ 247,894$
2019 247,894$ (87,399)$ (92,722)$ (19,320)$ 18 18,421$ 338,406$ 226,364$ (8,279)$ 8,923$ 474,903$
2020 474,903$ (70,960)$ (77,539)$ (45,267)$ 18 18,974$ 348,558$ 225,752$ (8,279)$ 14,591$ 706,967$
2021 706,967$ (288,328)$ (324,515)$ (71,214)$ 18 19,543$ 359,015$ (36,714)$ (8,279)$ 17,112$ 679,086$
2022 679,086$ (904,209)$ (1,048,226)$ (71,214)$ 18 20,129$ 369,785$ (749,655)$ (8,279)$ 6,517$ (72,330)$
2023 (72,330)$ (87,812)$ (104,852)$ (71,214)$ 18 20,733$ 380,879$ 204,814$ (8,279)$ (256)$ 123,949$
2024 123,949$ (127,758)$ (157,126)$ (71,214)$ 18 21,355$ 392,305$ 163,966$ (8,279)$ 5,045$ 284,681$
2025 284,681$ (44,189)$ (55,978)$ (71,214)$ 18 21,996$ 404,074$ 276,883$ (8,279)$ 10,475$ 563,760$
2026 563,760$ (58,147)$ (75,868)$ (71,214)$ 18 22,656$ 416,197$ 269,115$ (8,279)$ 17,354$ 841,950$
2027 841,950$ (193,650)$ (260,250)$ (1,012,372)$ 18 23,336$ 428,682$ (843,939)$ (8,279)$ 10,268$ -$
Year
D.C. Reserve
Fund Opening
Balance
Dev't Related Expenditures
Existing Debt
Carrying Costs (P&I)
Net Hectares
per Year
DC Rates w.
Inflation
(3%/Yr)
Anticipated
Revenues
Revenues
minus
Expenditures
Debenture
Financing
Requirement
DC Reserve
Fund Closing
Balance after
Financing
- 45 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 32
H:\Pickering\2020 DC Amendment\Report\2020 Update Study - Office Consolidation.docx
Table 4-8
Cash Flow Analysis
Parks and Recreation Services – Other Non- Residential
Table 4-9
Cash Flow Analysis
Library Services – Residential
Interest
Nominal Inflated
(3%/Yr)
(2.5% on
positive
balances & 5%
on negative
balances)
2018 4,936$ (135,820)$ (139,894)$ -$ 1,118,519 0.53$ 587,515$ 447,620$ (14,804)$ 5,534$ 443,286$
2019 443,286$ (156,288)$ (165,806)$ (34,548)$ 1,118,519 0.54$ 605,140$ 404,787$ (14,804)$ 15,957$ 849,225$
2020 849,225$ (126,891)$ (138,657)$ (80,946)$ 1,118,519 0.56$ 623,295$ 403,692$ (14,804)$ 26,092$ 1,264,204$
2021 1,264,204$ (515,590)$ (580,301)$ (127,345)$ 1,118,519 0.57$ 641,993$ (65,652)$ (14,804)$ 30,599$ 1,214,347$
2022 1,214,347$ (1,616,915)$ (1,874,447)$ (127,345)$ 1,118,519 0.59$ 661,253$ (1,340,539)$ (14,804)$ 11,654$ (129,341)$
2023 (129,341)$ (157,025)$ (187,496)$ (127,345)$ 1,118,519 0.61$ 681,091$ 366,250$ (14,804)$ (457)$ 221,647$
2024 221,647$ (228,458)$ (280,974)$ (127,345)$ 1,118,519 0.63$ 701,523$ 293,205$ (14,804)$ 9,021$ 509,069$
2025 509,069$ (79,020)$ (100,100)$ (127,345)$ 1,118,519 0.65$ 722,569$ 495,125$ (14,804)$ 18,731$ 1,008,120$
2026 1,008,120$ (103,979)$ (135,668)$ (127,345)$ 1,118,519 0.67$ 744,246$ 481,233$ (14,804)$ 31,033$ 1,505,583$
2027 1,505,583$ (346,287)$ (465,381)$ (1,810,332)$ 1,118,519 0.69$ 766,574$ (1,509,139)$ (14,804)$ 18,361$ -$
Year
D.C. Reserve
Fund Opening
Balance
Dev't Related Expenditures
Existing Debt
Carrying Costs (P&I) GFA per Year
DC Rates w.
Inflation
(3%/Yr)
Anticipated
Revenues
Revenues
minus
Expenditures
Debenture
Financing
Requirement
DC Reserve
Fund Closing
Balance after
Financing
Interest
Nominal Inflated
(3%/Yr)
(2.5% on
positive
balances & 5%
on negative
balances)
2018 2,658,843$ (581,831)$ (599,286)$ (91,429)$ 2,499 1,127$ 2,817,098$ 2,126,383$ 93,051$ 4,878,276$
2019 4,878,276$ (3,054,614)$ (3,240,640)$ (636,087)$ 2,499 1,161$ 2,901,611$ (975,116)$ 109,768$ 4,012,928$
2020 4,012,928$ -$ -$ (1,180,745)$ 2,499 1,196$ 2,988,659$ 1,807,914$ 122,922$ 5,943,765$
2021 5,943,765$ (1,263,251)$ (1,421,800)$ (1,180,745)$ 2,499 1,232$ 3,078,319$ 475,774$ 154,541$ 6,574,080$
2022 6,574,080$ (1,992,092)$ (2,309,381)$ (1,180,745)$ 2,499 1,269$ 3,170,669$ (319,457)$ 160,359$ 6,414,982$
2023 6,414,982$ (1,685,860)$ (2,013,004)$ (1,180,745)$ 2,155 1,307$ 2,816,515$ (377,234)$ 155,659$ 6,193,407$
2024 6,193,407$ -$ -$ (1,180,745)$ 2,155 1,346$ 2,901,011$ 1,720,266$ 176,339$ 8,090,012$
2025 8,090,012$ -$ -$ (1,180,745)$ 2,155 1,387$ 2,988,041$ 1,807,296$ 224,841$ 10,122,149$
2026 10,122,149$ -$ -$ (1,180,745)$ 2,155 1,428$ 3,077,682$ 1,896,937$ 276,765$ 12,295,852$
2027 12,295,852$ -$ -$ (15,615,814)$ 2,155 1,471$ 3,170,013$ (12,445,801)$ 149,949$ -$
Year
D.C. Reserve
Fund Opening
Balance
Dev't Related Expenditures
Existing Debt
Carrying Costs (P&I) SDE per Year
DC Rates w.
Inflation
(3%/Yr)
Anticipated
Revenues
Revenues
minus
Expenditures
Debenture
Financing
Requirement
DC Reserve
Fund Closing
Balance after
Financing
- 46 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 33
H:\Pickering\2020 DC Amendment\Report\2020 Update Study - Office Consolidation.docx
Table 4-10
Cash Flow Analysis
Library Services – Seaton Prestige Employment Lands
Table 4-11
Cash Flow Analysis
Library Services – Other Non-Residential
Interest
Nominal Inflated
(3%/Yr)
(2.5% on
positive
balances & 5%
on negative
balances)
2018 50,190$ (10,983)$ (11,312)$ (1,726)$ 18 2,693$ 49,475$ 36,436$ 1,710$ 88,336$
2019 88,336$ (57,660)$ (61,172)$ (12,007)$ 18 2,774$ 50,959$ (22,220)$ 1,931$ 68,047$
2020 68,047$ -$ -$ (22,288)$ 18 2,857$ 52,488$ 30,199$ 2,079$ 100,325$
2021 100,325$ (23,846)$ (26,839)$ (22,288)$ 18 2,943$ 54,062$ 4,935$ 2,570$ 107,830$
2022 107,830$ (37,604)$ (43,593)$ (22,288)$ 18 3,031$ 55,684$ (10,197)$ 2,568$ 100,201$
2023 100,201$ (31,823)$ (37,998)$ (22,288)$ 18 3,122$ 57,355$ (2,932)$ 2,468$ 99,737$
2024 99,737$ -$ -$ (22,288)$ 18 3,216$ 59,075$ 36,787$ 2,953$ 139,477$
2025 139,477$ -$ -$ (22,288)$ 18 3,312$ 60,848$ 38,559$ 3,969$ 182,005$
2026 182,005$ -$ -$ (22,288)$ 18 3,412$ 62,673$ 40,385$ 5,055$ 227,445$
2027 227,445$ -$ -$ (294,772)$ 18 3,514$ 64,553$ (230,219)$ 2,774$ -$
Year
D.C. Reserve
Fund Opening
Balance
Dev't Related Expenditures
Existing Debt
Carrying Costs (P&I)
Net Hectares
per Year
DC Rates w.
Inflation
(3%/Yr)
Anticipated
Revenues
Revenues
minus
Expenditures
Debenture
Financing
Requirement
DC Reserve
Fund Closing
Balance after
Financing
Interest
Nominal Inflated
(3%/Yr)
(2.5% on
positive
balances & 5%
on negative
balances)
2018 89,749$ (19,640)$ (20,229)$ (3,086)$ 1,118,519 0.08$ 88,471$ 65,156$ 3,058$ 157,963$
2019 157,963$ (103,109)$ (109,388)$ (21,471)$ 1,118,519 0.08$ 91,125$ (39,734)$ 3,452$ 121,682$
2020 121,682$ -$ -$ (39,856)$ 1,118,519 0.08$ 93,859$ 54,003$ 3,717$ 179,401$
2021 179,401$ (42,641)$ (47,993)$ (39,856)$ 1,118,519 0.09$ 96,675$ 8,825$ 4,595$ 192,822$
2022 192,822$ (67,243)$ (77,953)$ (39,856)$ 1,118,519 0.09$ 99,575$ (18,235)$ 4,593$ 179,180$
2023 179,180$ (56,906)$ (67,949)$ (39,856)$ 1,118,519 0.09$ 102,562$ (5,243)$ 4,414$ 178,351$
2024 178,351$ -$ -$ (39,856)$ 1,118,519 0.09$ 105,639$ 65,783$ 5,281$ 249,414$
2025 249,414$ -$ -$ (39,856)$ 1,118,519 0.10$ 108,808$ 68,952$ 7,097$ 325,463$
2026 325,463$ -$ -$ (39,856)$ 1,118,519 0.10$ 112,072$ 72,216$ 9,039$ 406,719$
2027 406,719$ -$ -$ (527,113)$ 1,118,519 0.10$ 115,434$ (411,679)$ 4,960$ -$
Year
D.C. Reserve
Fund Opening
Balance
Dev't Related Expenditures
Existing Debt
Carrying Costs (P&I) GFA per Year
DC Rates w.
Inflation
(3%/Yr)
Anticipated
Revenues
Revenues
minus
Expenditures
Debenture
Financing
Requirement
DC Reserve
Fund Closing
Balance after
Financing
- 47 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 34
H:\Pickering\2020 DC Amendment\Report\2020 Update Study - Office Consolidation.docx
Table 4-12
Cash Flow Analysis
Growth-Related Studies Services – Residential
Table 4-13
Cash Flow Analysis
Growth-Related Studies– Seaton Prestige Employment Lands
Interest
Nominal Inflated
(3%/Yr)
(2.5% on
positive
balances & 5%
on negative
balances)
2018 (525,617)$ (994,626)$ (1,024,465)$ 2,499 299$ 747,694$ (276,771)$ (33,200)$ (835,588)$
2019 (835,588)$ (661,018)$ (701,274)$ 2,499 308$ 770,125$ 68,851$ (40,058)$ (806,795)$
2020 (806,795)$ (604,440)$ (660,487)$ 2,499 317$ 793,228$ 132,741$ (37,021)$ (711,075)$
2021 (711,075)$ (515,024)$ (579,664)$ 2,499 327$ 817,025$ 237,361$ (29,620)$ (503,334)$
2022 (503,334)$ (857,615)$ (994,210)$ 2,499 337$ 841,536$ (152,674)$ (28,984)$ (684,991)$
2023 (684,991)$ (363,177)$ (433,652)$ 2,155 347$ 747,539$ 313,887$ (26,402)$ (397,507)$
2024 (397,507)$ (363,177)$ (446,662)$ 2,155 357$ 769,965$ 323,303$ (11,793)$ (85,996)$
2025 (85,996)$ (311,859)$ (395,054)$ 2,155 368$ 793,064$ 398,010$ 1,750$ 313,765$
2026 313,765$ (722,684)$ (942,938)$ 2,155 379$ 816,856$ (126,082)$ 6,268$ 193,951$
2027 193,951$ (772,130)$ (1,037,678)$ 2,155 390$ 841,362$ (196,316)$ 2,365$ (0)$
Year
D.C. Reserve
Fund Opening
Balance
Dev't Related Expenditures
SDE per Year
DC Rates w.
Inflation
(3%/Yr)
Anticipated
Revenues
Revenues
minus
Expenditures
Debenture
Financing
Requirement
DC Reserve
Fund Closing
Balance after
Financing
Interest
Nominal Inflated
(3%/Yr)
(2.5% on
positive
balances & 5%
on negative
balances)
2018 (53,171)$ (100,615)$ (103,633)$ 18 3,846$ 70,647$ (32,987)$ (3,483)$ (89,641)$
2019 (89,641)$ (66,868)$ (70,940)$ 18 3,961$ 72,766$ 1,826$ (4,436)$ (92,251)$
2020 (92,251)$ (61,144)$ (66,814)$ 18 4,080$ 74,949$ 8,135$ (4,409)$ (88,525)$
2021 (88,525)$ (52,099)$ (58,638)$ 18 4,202$ 77,197$ 18,559$ (3,962)$ (73,928)$
2022 (73,928)$ (86,755)$ (100,573)$ 18 4,328$ 79,513$ (21,060)$ (4,223)$ (99,210)$
2023 (99,210)$ (36,738)$ (43,868)$ 18 4,458$ 81,899$ 38,031$ (4,010)$ (65,189)$
2024 (65,189)$ (36,738)$ (45,184)$ 18 4,592$ 84,356$ 39,172$ (2,280)$ (28,297)$
2025 (28,297)$ (31,547)$ (39,963)$ 18 4,730$ 86,886$ 46,923$ (475)$ 18,151$
2026 18,151$ (73,106)$ (95,386)$ 18 4,872$ 89,493$ (5,893)$ 380$ 12,638$
2027 12,638$ (78,108)$ (104,970)$ 18 5,018$ 92,178$ (12,792)$ 154$ -$
Year
D.C. Reserve
Fund Opening
Balance
Dev't Related Expenditures
Net Hectares
per Year
DC Rates w.
Inflation
(3%/Yr)
Anticipated
Revenues
Revenues
minus
Expenditures
Debenture
Financing
Requirement
DC Reserve
Fund Closing
Balance after
Financing
- 48 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 35
H:\Pickering\2020 DC Amendment\Report\2020 Update Study - Office Consolidation.docx
Table 4-14
Cash Flow Analysis
Growth-Related Studies – Other Non-Residential
Interest
Nominal Inflated
(3%/Yr)
(2.5% on
positive
balances & 5%
on negative
balances)
2018 (95,080)$ (179,921)$ (185,318)$ 1,118,519 0.11$ 126,331$ (58,987)$ (6,229)$ (160,296)$
2019 (160,296)$ (119,573)$ (126,855)$ 1,118,519 0.12$ 130,121$ 3,265$ (7,933)$ (164,964)$
2020 (164,964)$ (109,339)$ (119,477)$ 1,118,519 0.12$ 134,024$ 14,547$ (7,885)$ (158,301)$
2021 (158,301)$ (93,164)$ (104,857)$ 1,118,519 0.12$ 138,045$ 33,188$ (7,085)$ (132,199)$
2022 (132,199)$ (155,136)$ (179,845)$ 1,118,519 0.13$ 142,186$ (37,659)$ (7,551)$ (177,409)$
2023 (177,409)$ (65,696)$ (78,445)$ 1,118,519 0.13$ 146,452$ 68,008$ (7,170)$ (116,572)$
2024 (116,572)$ (65,696)$ (80,798)$ 1,118,519 0.13$ 150,846$ 70,048$ (4,077)$ (50,601)$
2025 (50,601)$ (56,413)$ (71,462)$ 1,118,519 0.14$ 155,371$ 83,909$ (849)$ 32,458$
2026 32,458$ (130,728)$ (170,571)$ 1,118,519 0.14$ 160,032$ (10,539)$ 680$ 22,600$
2027 22,600$ (139,673)$ (187,708)$ 1,118,519 0.15$ 164,833$ (22,875)$ 276$ 0$
Year
D.C. Reserve
Fund Opening
Balance
Dev't Related Expenditures
GFA per Year
DC Rates w.
Inflation
(3%/Yr)
Anticipated
Revenues
Revenues
minus
Expenditures
Debenture
Financing
Requirement
DC Reserve
Fund Closing
Balance after
Financing
- 49 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 36
H:\Pickering\2020 DC Amendment\Report\2020 Update Study - Office Consolidation.docx
5. D.C. Policy Recommendations and D.C. By -law
Rules
The City’s current D.C. by-law provides for the uniform City-wide recovery of growth-
related costs for all services other than Transportation, which are imposed on an area -
specific for development outside of the Seaton Lands only. D.C.s are imposed for al l
services though one by-law. The rules within the City’s by-law effectively assess the
charges appropriately for the imposition of D.C.s within the City. The intent of the
amendment does not alter the City’s policy for the imposition of City -wide or area-
specific D.C.s. As a result, it is not recommended that separate by-laws be
implemented through this amendment process, and that the proposed revisions be
considered as an amendment to the City’s current comprehensive D.C. by-law.
Other than those polices revisions identified in Sections 5.1 and 5.2, all other rules and
polices contained within By-law 7595-17 (as amended) remain unchanged.
5.1 D.C. Calculation and Collection Policies
The recent amendments to the D.C.A. provide for mandatory installments payments of
D.C.s for rental housing, non-profit housing, and institutional development as follows:
• Effective January 1, 2020, rental housing and institutional developments will pay
D.C.s in six equal annual installments, with the first payment commencing at the
date of occupancy. Non-profit housing developments will pay D.C.s in 21 equal
annual installments. Interest may be charged on the installments, and any
unpaid amounts may be added to the property and collected as taxes.
Furthermore, the D.C.s for development proceeding through the site plan or zoning by-
law amendment planning approvals processes will be calculated on the date the
planning application is received and will be payable at building permit issuance.
• Effective January 1, 2020, the D.C. amount for all developments occurring within
two years of a site plan or zoning by-law amendment planning approval (for
applications submitted after this section is proclaimed) shall be determined based
on the D.C. charge in effect on the day of site plan o r zoning by-law amendment
application. If the development is not proceeding via these planning approvals,
- 50 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 37
H:\Pickering\2020 DC Amendment\Report\2020 Update Study - Office Consolidation.docx
or if the building permit is issued after the two-year period of application approval,
then the amount is determined the earlier of the date of issua nce of a building
permit or occupancy.
The D.C.A. also provides that municipalities may charge interest on the installment
payments and charges calculated when the planning application is received. The City
will be charging interest as set out in the City of Pickering D.C. Interest Policy (FIN 090).
5.2 Statutory Exemptions
The amendments to the D.C.A. provide for the following additional statutory exemptions
to the payment of D.C.s.
Residential intensification exemptions have been expanded to allow for the creation of
additional dwelling units within ancillary structures to existing residential payments
without the payment of D.C.s.
• S.2(3)(b) of the D.C.A. provides that D.C.s are not payable for residential
development that results only in the creation of up to two additional dwelling units
in prescribed classes of existing residential buildings or prescribed structures
ancillary to existing residential buildings, subject to the prescribed restrictions set
out in section 2(1) of O.Reg. 82/98 (see Table 5 -1).
Table 5-1
Prescribed Classes of Existing Residential Buildings, Prescribed Additional Dwelling
Units, and Restrictions
tem
Name of Class of
Existing
Residential
Building
Description of Class of Existing Residential
Buildings
Maximum Number
of Additional
Dwelling Units
Restrictions
1 Existing single
detached dwellings
Existing residential buildings, each of which
contains a single dwelling unit, that are not
attached to other buildings.
Two
The total gross floor area of the additional
dwelling unit or units must be less than or equal
to the gross floor area of the dwelling unit
already in the building.
2
Existing semi-
detached dwellings
or row dwellings
Existing residential buildings, each of which
contains a single dwelling unit, that have one or
two vertical walls, but no other parts, attached
to other buildings.
One
The gross floor area of the additional dwelling
unit must be less than or equal to the gross
floor area of the dwelling unit already in the
building.
3 Existing rental
residential buildings
Existing residential rental buildings, each of
which contains four or more dwelling units.
Greater of one and
1% of the existing
units in the building
None
4 Other existing
residential buildings
An existing residential building not in another
class of residential building described in this
table.
One
The gross floor area of the additional dwelling
unit must be less than or equal to the gross
floor area of the smallest dwelling unit already
in the building.
- 51 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 38
H:\Pickering\2020 DC Amendment\Report\2020 Update Study - Office Consolidation.docx
The creation of a second dwelling unit in prescribed classes of proposed new residential
buildings, including structures ancillary to dwellings are now also exempt from the
payment of DCs, subject to the prescribed restrictions set out in section 2(3) of O.Reg.
82/98 (see Table 5-2)
Table 5-2
Prescribed Classes of Proposed New Residential Buildings, and Restrictions
Item
Name of Class of
Proposed New
Residential Buildings
Description of Class of Proposed New
Residential Buildings Restrictions
The proposed new detached dwelling must only contain two
dwelling units.
The proposed new detached dwelling must be located on a
parcel of land on which no other detached dwelling, semi-
detached dwelling or row dwelling would be located.
The proposed new semi-detached dwelling or row dwelling
must only contain two dwelling units.
The proposed new semi-detached dwelling or row dwelling
must be located on a parcel of land on which no other
detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling or row dwelling
would be located.
The proposed new detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling
or row dwelling, to which the proposed new residential building
would be ancillary, must only contain one dwelling unit.
The gross floor area of the dwelling unit in the proposed new
residential building must be equal to or less than the gross
floor area of the detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling or
row dwelling to which the proposed new residential building is
ancillary.
3
Proposed new residential
buildings that would be
ancillary to a proposed new
detached dwelling, semi-
detached dwelling or row
dwelling
Proposed new residential buildings that would be
ancillary to a proposed new detached dwelling,
semi-detached dwelling or row dwelling and that
are permitted to contain a single dwelling unit.
1 Proposed new detached
dwellings
Proposed new residential buildings that would not
be attached to other buildings and that are
permitted to contain a second dwelling unit, that
being either of the two dwelling units, if the units
have the same gross floor area, or the smaller of
the dwelling units.
2
Proposed new semi-
detached dwellings or row
dwellings
Proposed new residential buildings that would
have one or two vertical walls, but no other parts,
attached to other buildings and that are permitted
to contain a second dwelling unit, that being either
of the two dwelling units, if the units have the
same gross floor area, or the smaller of the
dwelling units.
- 52 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 39
H:\Pickering\2020 DC Amendment\Report\2020 Update Study - Office Consolidation.docx
6. Asset Management Plan and Long-Term Capital
and Operating Costs
6.1 Introduction
The changes to the D.C.A. (new section 10(c.2)) through Bill 73, require that the
background study must include an Asset Management Plan (A.M.P) related to new
infrastructure. Section 10 (3) of the D.C.A. provides:
The A.M.P. shall,
(a) deal with all assets whose capital costs are proposed to be funded under the
development charge by-law;
(b) demonstrate that all the assets mentioned in clause (a) are financiall y
sustainable over their full life cycle;
(c) contain any other information that is prescribed; and
(d) be prepared in the prescribed manner.
The A.M.P. analysis included in the 2017 D.C. Background Study, which found that the
capital plan was deemed to be financially sustainable, has been updated to account for
the capital cost revisions described herein.
The updated A.M.P. analysis contained in Table 6-1 identifies:
• $65.6 million in total annualized expenditures; and
• Incremental operating revenues of $49.7 million and existing operating revenues
of $94.6 million, totalling $144.3 million by the end of the period.
In consideration of the above changes, the capital plan still deemed to be financially
sustainable.
- 53 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 40
H:\Pickering\2020 DC Amendment\Report\2020 Update Study - Office Consolidation.docx
Table 6-1
2020 D.C. Amendment
Asset Management – Future Expenditures and Associated Revenues (2017$)
As a requirement of the D.C.A., 1997 under subsection 10(2)(c), an analysis must be
undertaken to assess the long-term capital and operating cost impacts for the capital
infrastructure projects identified within the D.C.
Table 6-2 summarizes the changes to the incremental annual operating costs
associated with the D.C. eligible costs at full emplacement.
Sub-Total 2031 (Total)
Expenditures (Annualized)
Annual Debt Payment on Non-Growth
Related Capital1 10,365,787
Annual Debt Payment on Post Period
Capital2 2,828,786
Lifecycle:
Annual Lifecycle - Town Wide Services $9,945,029
Annual Lifecycle - Area Specific Services3 $4,757,161
Sub-Total - Annual Lifecycle $14,702,190 $14,702,190
Incremental Operating Costs (for D.C.
Services)$37,752,031
Total Expenditures $65,648,794
Revenue (Annualized)
Total Existing Revenue4 $94,578,893
Incremental Tax and Non-Tax Revenue (User
Fees, Fines, Licences, etc.)$49,682,047
Total Revenues $144,260,940
4 As per Sch. 10 of FIR
3 Area-specific application of Transportation Services
1 Non-Growth Related component of Projects including 10% mandatory deduction on
soft services
2 Interim Debt Financing for Post Period Benefit
- 54 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 41
H:\Pickering\2020 DC Amendment\Report\2020 Update Study - Office Consolidation.docx
Table 6-2
2020 D.C. Amendment
Operating and Capital Expenditure Impacts for Future Capital Expend itures
SERVICE
ANNUAL
LIFECYCLE
EXPENDITURES
ANNUAL
OPERATING
EXPENDITURES
TOTAL ANNUAL
EXPENDITURES
1.Transportation 4,757,161 1,187,488 5,944,649
2.Stormwater Management 329,725 398,784 728,509
3.Other Services Related to a Highway 646,471 2,696,435 3,342,906
4.Protection Services 1,034,090 17,073,413 18,107,504
5.Parks and Recreation Services 6,720,101 9,909,507 16,629,608
6.Library Services 1,214,641 6,486,404 7,701,045
7.Growth-Related Studies -
Total 14,702,190 37,752,031 52,454,221
- 55 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 42
H:\Pickering\2020 DC Amendment\Report\2020 Update Study - Office Consolidation.docx
7. Process for Adoption of the Amending
Development Charges By -law
If approved, the changes provided herein will form part of the 2020 D.C. Background
Study. Appendix A to this D.C. Update Study includes the draft Amending D.C. By-law
being presented for Council’s consideration . The D.C. Update Study, as amended and
draft amending D.C. By-law will be presented to the public at a public meeting of
Council to solicit public input on the proposed D.C. by -law.
It is anticipated that Council will consider for adoption the proposed amending by -law at
a subsequent meeting of Council (December 14, 2020), witnessing the 60-day period
between the release of the D.C. Background Study and the passage of the D.C. By -law
(i.e. no earlier than December 14, 2020). If Council is satisfied with the proposed
changes to the D.C. Background Study and D.C. By-Law, it is recommended that
Council:
“Approve the Development Charges Update Study dated October 15,
2020, as amended; subject to further annual review during the capital
budget process;”
“Determine that no further public meeting is required;” and
“Approve the Amending Development Charge By-law as set out herein”
- 56 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-1
H:\Pickering\2020 DC Amendment\Report\2020 Update Study - Office Consolidation.docx
Appendix A – Draft
Amending
Development Charge
By-law
- 57 -
The Corporation of the City of Pickering
By-law No. ____/20
Being a By-law Regarding Development Charges to amend By-law 7595/17, as
amended by By-law 7727/19 to make certain revisions to the City’s development
charges involving capital cost estimates and policies.
WHEREAS Section 19 of the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c27 (“the
Act”) provides for amendments to be made to development charges by-laws;
AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering (hereinafter
called “the Council”) has determined that certain amendments should be made to the
Development Charge By-law of the Corporation of the City of Pickering, being By-law
7595-17, as amended by By-law 7727/19;
AND WHEREAS, in accordance with the Act, a development charges background study
has been completed in respect of the proposed amendment;
AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering has given noti ce
and held a public meeting in accordance with the Act; and
Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as
follows:
1. By-law 7595/17, as amended by By-law 7727/19 is hereby amended as follows:
a. The following sections are added to the by-law
2. (3) Notwithstanding subsection 2. (1), development charges for rental
housing and institutional developments are due and payable in 6
installments commencing with the first installment payable on the
date of occupancy, and each subsequent installment, including
interest, payable on the anniversary date each year thereafter.
2. (4) Notwithstanding subsections 2. (1), development charges for non-
profit housing developments are due and payable in 21 installments
commencing with the first installment payable on the date of
occupancy, and each subsequent installment, including interest,
payable on the anniversary date each year thereafter.
- 58 -
2. (5) Notwithstanding subsections 2. (1) to 2. (4), where the development
of land results from the approval of a Site Plan or Zoning By-law
Amendment received on or after January 1, 2020, and the approval
of the application occurred within 2 years of building permit
issuance, the Development Charges under Section 2 shall be
calculated based on the rates set out in Schedule “C” on the date of
the planning application, including interest. Where both planning
applications apply, Development Charges under Section 2 shall be
calculated on the rates, including interest, set out in Schedule “C”
on the date of the later planning application.
2. (6) Interest for the purposes of subsections 2. (3) to 2. (4) shall be
determined as set out in the City of Pickering # FIN-090, as
amended from time to time.
2. (7) For the purposes of subsection 2. (3) “institutional development”
means development of a building or structure intended for use:
(a) as a long-term care home within the meaning of subsection 2
(1) of the Long Term Care Homes Act, 2007;
(b) as a retirement home within the meaning of subsection 2 (1) of
the Retirement Homes Act, 2010;
(c) by any institution of the following post-secondary institutions for
the objects of the institution:
i. a university in Ontario that receives direct, regular and
ongoing operation funding from the Government of
Ontario;
ii. a college or university federated or affiliated with a
university described in subclause (i); or
iii. an Indigenous Institute prescribed for the purposes of
section 6 of the Indigenous Institute Act, 2017;
(d) as a memorial home, clubhouse or athletic grounds b y an
Ontario branch of the Royal Canadian Legion; or
(e) as a hospice to provide end of life care;
2. (8) For the purposes of subsection 2. (3) ““Rental housing” means
development of a building or structure with four or more dwelling
units all of which are intended for use as rented residential
premises;
- 59 -
2. (9) For the purposes of subsection 2. (4) “Non-profit housing
development” means development of a building or structure
intended for use as residential premises by:
(a) a corporation without share capital to which the Corporations Act
applies, that is in good standing under that Act and whose
primary objective is to provide housing;
(b) a corporation without share capital to which the Canada Not -for-
profit Corporation Act applies, that is in good standing under
that Act and whose primary objective is to provide housing; or
(c) a non-profit housing co-operative that is in good standing under
the Co-operative Corporations Act;
7. (5) Section 6 shall not apply in respect of the creation of a second
dwelling unit in prescribed classes of proposed new residential
buildings, including structures ancillary to dwellings, subject to the
following restrictions:
b. Section 7.(1) is deleted and replaced with the following:
Subject to subsections (2) and (3), Section 6 shall not apply in respect of a
renovation, addition or installation which involves the creation of:
(a) one or two additional dwelling an existing single-detached dwelling,
or ancillary structure thereto;
Item
Name of Class of
Proposed New
Residential Buildings
Description of Class of Proposed New
Residential Buildings Restrictions
The proposed new detached dwelling must only contain two
dwelling units.
The proposed new detached dwelling must be located on a
parcel of land on which no other detached dwelling, semi-
detached dwelling or row dwelling would be located.
The proposed new semi-detached dwelling or row dwelling
must only contain two dwelling units.
The proposed new semi-detached dwelling or row dwelling
must be located on a parcel of land on which no other
detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling or row dwelling
would be located.
The proposed new detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling
or row dwelling, to which the proposed new residential building
would be ancillary, must only contain one dwelling unit.
The gross floor area of the dwelling unit in the proposed new
residential building must be equal to or less than the gross
floor area of the detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling or
row dwelling to which the proposed new residential building is
ancillary.
3
Proposed new residential
buildings that would be
ancillary to a proposed new
detached dwelling, semi-
detached dwelling or row
dwelling
Proposed new residential buildings that would be
ancillary to a proposed new detached dwelling,
semi-detached dwelling or row dwelling and that
are permitted to contain a single dwelling unit.
1 Proposed new detached
dwellings
Proposed new residential buildings that would not
be attached to other buildings and that are
permitted to contain a second dwelling unit, that
being either of the two dwelling units, if the units
have the same gross floor area, or the smaller of
the dwelling units.
2
Proposed new semi-
detached dwellings or row
dwellings
Proposed new residential buildings that would
have one or two vertical walls, but no other parts,
attached to other buildings and that are permitted
to contain a second dwelling unit, that being either
of the two dwelling units, if the units have the
same gross floor area, or the smaller of the
dwelling units.
- 60 -
(b) an additional dwelling unit in any other existing residential building,
or ancillary structure thereto; or
(c) garden suites
c. Schedule “A” is deleted and the attached Schedule “A” substitutes therefor
d. Schedule “C” is deleted and the attached Schedule “C” substitutes therefor
2. This by-law shall come into force on December 15, 2020.
By-law passed this 14th day of December 2020
_____________________________
Mayor
_____________________________
Clerk
- 61 -
Schedule “A”
Designated Municipal Services Under this By-law
(a) Transportation Services, including roads, structures, sidewalks, streetlights, traffic
signals and services related thereto;
(b) Other Services Related to a Highway, including facilities, vehicles and equipment;
(c) Protection Services, including facilities, vehicles, equipment, and services related
thereto;
(d) Parks and Recreation Services, including parkland development, trail development,
facilities, vehicles, equipment, and services related thereto;
(e) Library Services, including facilities, furnishings, equipment, and services related
thereto, including circulating and non-circulating materials generally provided to
library users by public libraries;
(f) A class of service pertaining to Growth-Related Studies, including development-
related capital studies and services related thereto;
(g) Stormwater Management, including storm drainage and management works,
equipment and services related thereto.
- 62 -
Schedule “C”
City of Pickering Schedule of Development Charges
Effective January 1, 2018
Single and
Semi-Detached
Dwelling
Apartments - 2
Bedrooms +
Apartments -
Bachelor and 1
Bedroom
Other Multiples (per ft² of Total
Floor Area) 2
(per net Ha of
Prestige
Employment
Land in
Seaton)
Municipal Wide Services/Classes:
Other Services Related to a Highway 441 279 197 356 0.15 5,451
Protection Services 896 566 401 724 0.34 11,522
Parks and Recreation Services 6,821 4,309 3,053 5,507 0.53 17,885
Library Services 1,127 712 505 910 0.08 2,693
Growth-Related Studies 299 189 134 242 0.11 3,846
Stormwater Management 288 182 129 233 0.10 3,503
Total Municipal Wide Services/Classes:9,872 6,237 4,419 7,972 1.31 44,900
Outside of Seaton Lands
Transportation 1 9,292 5,870 4,159 7,502 2.61
Total Services Outside of Seaton Lands 9,292 5,870 4,159 7,502 2.61
Rest of Pickering 19,164 12,107 8,578 15,474 3.92
Service/Class
RESIDENTIAL NON-RESIDENTIAL
1. Subject to a separate agreement outside of the Development Charges Act concerning the provision of Transportation requirements in addition to
other funding contributions
2. Does not apply to prestige employment development in Seaton, as that development is subject to the per net Ha land area charge instead.
- 63 -
Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: BYL 05-20
Date: December 7, 2020
From: Paul Bigioni
Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor
Subject: Deferral of Implementation of Accessible Service Supplement Fees
Vehicle for Hire By-law
-File: L-2200-01-20
Recommendation:
1.That Report BYL 05-20 respecting a deferral of the implementation of the Accessible Service
Supplement enacted in the Vehicle for Hire By-law 7739/20 be received;
2.That the implementation and collection of the Vehicle for Hire Accessible Service
Supplement be deferred until January 1, 202 2; and,
3.That appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to
implement the recommendations in this report.
Executive Summary: The City’s Vehicle for Hire By-law was enacted on February 24, 2020.
Included in the By-law is an Accessible Service Supplement to be paid by all vehicle for hire
license holders that do not provide accessible service. The Accessible Service Supplement will be
used to fund an Accessible Taxicab Incentive Program, outlined in Section 93 of the Vehicle for
Hire By-law.
Based on the current economic challenges faced by the Vehicle for Hire Industry caused by the
Covid-19 pandemic, staff recommend deferring collection of the Accessible Service Supplement
until January 1, 2022.
Financial Implications: The Accessible Service Supplement was not budgeted as revenue
generated for the City. In the initial report to Council regarding the Vehicle for Hire By-law, staff
estimated approximately $28,000.00 would be generated annually through the Accessible Service
Supplement. This was based on a 7 cent per trip fee to be paid by Personal Transportation
Companies, as well as Accessible Service Supplements applicable to Taxicab Brokerage fees of
$2,500.00 and Taxicab Plates of $75.00 per plate.
Deferring the collection of the Accessible Service Supplement will delay the implementation of the
Accessible Taxicab Incentive Program, however, the pressures on the Vehicle for Hire industry
deem it necessary to provide some type of financial relief during this extremely difficult time.
- 64 -
BYL 05-20 December 7, 2020
Subject:Deferral of Implementation of Accessible Service Supplement Fees
Vehicle for Hire By-law Page 2
Discussion:The Vehicle for Hire Licensing By-law prescribes an Accessible Service
Supplement fee to be applied to all vehicles for hire that do not provide accessible services.
Fees charged in relation to the Accessible Service Supplement are as follows:
1)Personal Transportation Companies are subject to a 7 cent per trip fee;
2)Taxicab Brokerages that do not have at least 10 per cent of their fleet as accessible
vehicles must pay $2,500.00 per year; and
3)Individual Taxicab Plate Licensees that are not affixed to an accessible vehicle must
pay $75.00 annually.
The funds raised through the Accessible Service Supplement are to be used to fund an
Accessible Taxicab Incentive Program. Section 93 of the Vehicle for Hire By-law indicates that the
Accessible Taxicab Incentive Program may include, but is not limited to:
i)requirements for grant or incentive eligibility;
ii)criteria for receiving any incentive or grant;
iii)the amount and frequency of the disbursement of any incentive or grant, including
pro-rated or discretionary amounts;
iv)sanctions, including reductions in the amount of any incentive or grant for non-
compliance with the conditions of the program; and
v)reporting or auditing requirements for brokerages, Personal Transportation
Companies, and Taxicab Plate Licensees.
The Accessibility Advisory Committee, City staff and the Vehicle for Hire Advisory Committee are
tasked with determining how the fund may be best utilized to improve accessible services
provided to Pickering residents.
Both the Personal Transportation Companies and the Taxicab Industry have seen a severe
reduction in their business due to Covid-19 related Emergency Orders. Furthermore, it appears
that the economic impact caused by the pandemic will continue well into the year 2021, even if a
vaccine is introduced in the next few months.
In an effort to provide some financial relief to the Vehicle for Hire Industry, deferring the
implementation of the Accessible Service Supplement is a reasonable measure to assist in
mitigating the financial hardship being experienced.
Prepared By:Approved/Endorsed By:
Kimberly Thompson, CMM III, CPSO Paul Bigioni
Manager, Municipal Law Enforcement Services Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor
Original Signed By:Original Signed By:
- 65 -
BYL 05-20 December 7, 2020
Subject:Deferral of Implementation of Accessible Service Supplement Fees
Vehicle for Hire By-law Page 3
KT:kt
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City Council
Marisa Carpino, M.A.
Interim Chief Administrative Officer
Original Signed By:
- 66 -
Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: CS 31-20
Date: December 7, 2020
From: Brian Duffield
(Acting) Director, Community Services
Subject: Cultural Strategic Plan
- Mid-term Update
- File: A-1440
Recommendation:
1. That Report CS 31-20 regarding the City of Pickering’s Cultural Strategic Plan Mid-term
Update be received for information; and,
2. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary
actions as indicated in this report.
Executive Summary: The City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan (Plan) sets a vision for the
place of arts, culture and heritage in the City and identifies strategic directions for policy,
investment, partnerships and programs over the course of 10 years.
The Cultural Strategic Plan was adopted by Council Resolution #247/14 dated June 18, 2014. The
Cultural Strategic Plan details the important work of:
1. Defining Pickering’s identity and mapping out its cultural assets and resources;
2. Collecting input from Pickering’s valued partners that define its cultural opportunities,
priorities and identity; and,
3. Developing a comprehensive strategy to reach Pickering’s economic, environmental and
cultural goals.
The Cultural Plan enables the City to retain its unique heritage and culture while keeping pace
with the demands of the 21st century and globalization. Extensive research was conducted for the
Plan and the findings revealed a wide array of cultural attractions and opportunities; a high level of
cultural diversity; and, a strong commitment from organizations and individuals to the cultural life
of the City. The research also identified gaps in support of arts, culture and heritage; some
fragmentation of the City’s cultural sector; a need to connect culture and economic development;
and, barriers preventing the City’s arts, culture and heritage from reaching its full potential.
City of Pickering staff identified six strategic directions that comprise the Pickering’s Cultural
Strategic Plan:
a) Broaden and deepen City leadership and investment;
b) Build a strong and collaborative cultural sector;
- 67 -
CS 31-20 December 7, 2020
Subject: Mid-Term Update Cultural Strategic Plan Page 2
c) Strengthen culture-led economic development;
d) Conserve and promote history and heritage;
e) Celebrate and support diversity and inclusion; and,
f) Culture opportunities for the creation, education and enjoyment of the arts.
The City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan was presented in two documents: the first entitled
“Cultural Strategic Plan, Final Report – June 2014” (Attachment 1) which summarized the
research findings and details the six strategic directions and action plan; and the second entitled
“A Cultural Map of Pickering: Background Information, Final Report – June 2014” which detailed
the community profile and research findings used to support the development of the Plan. These
documents were adopted by Council at the Council meeting of June 18, 2014, as per Council
Resolution #247/14. Since that time, staff have worked collaboratively with each other and the
community to move forward the strategic actions of the Plan. This mid-term report provides a
broad overview of this work, and progress for Council’s information.
Financial Implications: Many of the strategies within the Plan utilize existing staff resources
and existing Current and Capital Budgets. Those strategies that require additional or new
allocation of funds in the current and capital budgets are subject to the approval of Council
through the annual Budget approval process.
The recommendations to establish reserve funds will be further explored and incorporated within
newly created policies; which will once again be subject to Council approval. S ince the creation of
the Cultural Strategic Plan, Council has approved the Public Art Policy (Council Resolution
#167/19 dated November 29, 2019), and a reserve fund for Public Art. A Heritage Reserve will be
contemplated in future years, and new positions such as a Diversity Coordinator and Tourism
Coordinator will also be explored in future years.
Discussion: Cultural planning is evident in many communities across the world and is
rapidly spreading throughout North America. With the decline of heavy industry and the rise of the
“creative economy”, decision makers understand the value of a culturally vibrant community to
sustain the economy, protect the environment and attract creative thinkers. The City of Pickering
is a vibrant community rich in diversity, history and the arts, featuring irreplaceable and unique
natural heritage landscapes and is on the verge of tremendous growth and development.
Development of the Plan:
The Plan was undertaken by an interdepartmental staff. Community leaders in the field of arts,
business, culture, ethno-culture and heritage participated in the preparation of the Plan as
members of the Community Stakeholders. The role of the Community Stakeholders Committee
was to provide feedback to the interdepartmental staff team on the development of the Cultural
Strategic Plan. As such, they provided input, guidance and advice to City staff throughout the
project. The services of Monteith Brown Planning Consultants were utilized to execute and
summarize the findings of the community through online and telephone surveys in 2010. The
services of Dr. Greg Baeker, Director Cultural Development, Miller Dickinson Blais was utilized to
- 68 -
CS 31-20 December 7, 2020
Subject: Mid-Term Update Cultural Strategic Plan Page 3
facilitate the City of Pickering staff visioning session on June 27, 2012 at which time the strategic
directions were identified.
Cultural Mapping:
Cultural mapping is defined as a systematic approach to identifying, recording, classifying and
analyzing a community’s cultural resources. The map was developed in the years leading up to
the adoption of the Plan by a staff team. The Cultural Directory can be found on the City’s website
and provides a comprehensive listing of Pickering’s cultural assets within the following categories:
Creative Industries; Cultural Heritage; Facilities & Spaces; Natural Heritage; and Non Profit
Organizations. Due to extensive community engagement, approximately 300 Pickering cultural
assets are profiled on this website for the world to access.
Since its inception staff have promoted the directory, accepted new applicants, and undertaken an
annual internal review. The Planning GIS Section have been approached to move the Cultural
Directory into the open data portal. This first test of this system is in place in the form of the Public
Art Directory. The proposed revision to the Cultural Directory will provide an interactive, layered
map with search capabilities.
Community Consultation:
The foundation of the City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan is community consultat ion and
public input. For this Plan to be successful and most importantly “authentic”, staff knew that the
planning process must be “with the people” not “for the people”.
As a result, consultation with all levels of municipal government, staff, community stakeholders
and community residents was completed during the cultural planning process. The information
was gathered utilizing a variety of methods and they include:
Online Surveys with stakeholders;
Community Telephone Surveys;
Interviews with Council, CAO and Senior Staff;
Questionnaires to Advisory Committees of Council;
Focus Group Sessions with Youth and Seniors; and,
The formation of a Community Stakeholders Committee.
Strategic Directions:
Research findings revealed that Pickering has a wide array of cultural attractions and
opportunities, a high level of cultural diversity, and strong commitment from organizations and
individuals to the cultural life of the City. However, the research also identified gaps in the support
of arts, culture and heritage; fragmentation of the City’s cultural sector, a need to connect culture
and economic development; and better networking and collaboration to allow the City’s cultural
sector to realize its full potential.
For this reason, City staff identified six Strategic Directions:
1. Broaden and deepen city leadership and investment;
- 69 -
CS 31-20 December 7, 2020
Subject: Mid-Term Update Cultural Strategic Plan Page 4
2. Build a strong and collaborative culture sector;
3. Strengthen culture-led economic development;
4. Conserve and promote history and heritage;
5. Celebrate and support diversity and inclusion; and,
6. Culture opportunities for the creation, education and enjoyment of the arts.
For each Strategic Direction, the City has identified actions, timelines, and staff responsibilities on
pages 33-53 in Attachment 1 for implementation. This update provides details on the actions
undertaken to support the strategic directions.
Implementation of the Plan:
A departmental cross section of staff were identified as leads within their areas to champion the
implementation of the Cultural Strategic Plan.
Since the adoption of the Plan, the Cultural Advisory Committee (CAC) has been formed, and is
now in its second term. The CAC is made up of stakeholders and community appointees. The
group of experts and community advocates provides feedback to staff on the implementation of
the Plan, and an update on their activities annually to Council.
Strategic Directions:
1. Broaden and deepen City leadership and investment
1.1. Expand communications efforts related to cultural resources and opportunities.
a) A Cultural Portal has been established on the City website pickering.ca to expand,
centralize, and simplify the delivery of cultural initiatives, and recognition of Culture in
Pickering.
b) Developed and installed sustainability related interpretive signs within many parks,
Sustainable Pickering eNewsletter, regular social media posts, dedicated section on City
website, produced annual Year-in-Review, coordinated a minimum of 6 educational
workshops (webinar platform in 2020 due to COVID-19, participation excellent as capacity
for the platform was continually reached).
c) New outreach and publications have been created to promote heritage and public art
installations. These materials are available in library branches and online.
d) Have utilized the City’s social media channels, as well as outdoor digital signs to promote
opportunities and resources as it relates to culture.
e) A new layer has been added to the Open Data Portal to present and document Pickering’s
public art work.
f) Expanded promotions for opportunities for artists and performers promotions on City
website, family calendar, community page and local signs. - 70 -
CS 31-20 December 7, 2020
Subject: Mid-Term Update Cultural Strategic Plan Page 5
g) Regular communication on cultural initiatives and opportunities provided to Cultural and
Community organizations.
h) Round table and networking sessions offered between Community and Cultural
Organizations.
i) Developed and installed interpretive signage at heritage and arts installations.
j) The Pickering Community Banner Program celebrates the culture, heritage and beauty of
our City, and is now an annual budgeted item. The City of Pickering invites Canadian artists
of all ages, or artist teams, to create, design and submit artwork to be used for the
Community Banner Program.
1.2. Form a Cultural Advisory Committee made up of staff, Council, and community
representation that champions the implementation of the Cultural Strategic Plan.
a) The CAC has been in place since 2016 with the following mandate: The CAC will assist
City staff with the implementation of the City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan. The CAC
will identify and coordinate opportunities for cultural industries, associations, and the
community to engage and provide expertise and input o n matters relating to the provision
of cultural services in Pickering. The Committee submits a work plan and annual report to
Council.
1.3. Establish a cross-departmental Culture Team to build the capacity of the City to
“adopt a cultural lens” and support the implementation of the Cultural Strategic
Plan.
a) The Corporate Cultural Plan Committee is in place and is represented by Cultural Services,
City Development, Economic Development, Engineering Services, Office of the CAO,
Pickering Museum Village, and Library staff. Committee members meet in sub-groups to
address individual projects and initiatives.
1.4. Increase investment in cultural development.
a) $4,000,000 secured from the Canada Cultural Spaces Fund (Department of Canadian
Heritage) in 2019 for the Pickering Heritage & Community Centre. $100,000 secured from
the Museum Assistance Program for COVID-19 relief funding in 2020 by the Pickering
Museum Village.
b) The new Performing Arts Centre is one of three municipal facilities that comprises the new
City Centre project.
a) The Durham Live site will be home to one of Canada’s largest purpose-built film studios
that could cater to tent-pole productions, as well as multiple performance venues of varying
sizes that will be able to accommodate a variety of differe nt performers, acts, and shows
both indoors and outdoors.
- 71 -
CS 31-20 December 7, 2020
Subject: Mid-Term Update Cultural Strategic Plan Page 6
b) The City will construct 40 new parks in the next few years. Many of these parks will include
public art and heritage features.
c) Development staff work with applicants to include public art works within areas identified as
priority areas for public art.
1.5. Development of City Tourism Program.
a) City staff have formed a sub-group to undertake a tourism inventory for Pickering and
develop a strategy in 2021/2022. The sub-group includes representatives from Pickering
Museum Village, Economic Development, Cultural Services, Pickering Museum Village,
Engineering Services, Durham Tourism and Central Counties.
1.6. Increase the City’s role in supporting and facilitating networking and collaboration
among cultural groups.
a) Cultural Services has in place an ongoing call to local community groups to participate in
the Community Mentorship Program that is creating Opportunities for Community
Organizations to Collaborate & Thrive. Organizations interested in developing their event
planning skills, that want to share their message and create a lasting impression on the
residents of Pickering are encouraged to apply. Successful applicants will partner with a
business or community organization and the City event planning team to plan and execute
an activity during a City-operated event.
b) The Place4Arts program launched in 2018 was developed by Cultural Services as part of
the Cultural Plan. The Place4Arts program encourages local organizations to enhance their
space, encourage new interest, and promote culture, by hosting local artists and
performers.
1.7. Appoint a dedicated cultural staff position.
Supervisor, Cultural Services position established in 2014
Coordinator, Cultural Services position established in 2015
Supervisor of Museum Services position established in 2018
1.8. Ensure the Cultural Strategic Plan is well integrated into the City’s five Corporate
Priorities.
a) The Cultural Plan staff team met in 2017 to review the corporate priorities and look for
areas to better improve the integration of culture. The team determined that culture is well
represented within the priorities.
1.9. Identify leading practices (in Canada and abroad) in cultural planning.
a) Cultural Services staff research best practices annually, along with modern cultural
presentation methods, that align with community inquires and requests. The City is a
member of Creative Cities, which highlights Cultural Programs/Events best practices
- 72 -
CS 31-20 December 7, 2020
Subject: Mid-Term Update Cultural Strategic Plan Page 7
across Canada, and globally. Findings are shared with relevant internal and external
stakeholders.
1.10. Identify a strategy to address transportation issues that occur at venues hosting
major events, and consider transportation in the selection and design of new venues.
a) The City is finalizing its Integrated Transportation Master Plan (ITMP). This is a key
strategic planning document that will shape Pickering’s long-term transportation issues.
The ITMP will provide direction for transportation policies, programs, and infrastructure.
The Plan addresses various transportation issues for existing venues that host major
events and creates a template for future venues. Strategies include a proposed city-wide
cycling network, improving the safety of streets to attract users to non -automobile modes of
travel, and initiatives that aim to reduce trip demand by single-occupant vehicles.
2. Build a strong and collaborative cultural sector
2.1. Convene networking and peer-to-peer learning events for a cross-section of the
cultural sector.
a) Ten Cultural Networking Meetups have been arranged for cultural groups to increase
information sharing and to create the opportunity for community groups to work on shared
events. Since 2014, two aspirational meetings have been held to identify key topics of
interest, such as grant funding opportunities, grant writing tips, volunteer management,
marketing and promotion.
2.2. Address a need for more small venues to support cultural activities (e.g., for
exhibitions and performances).
a) The design (to date) of the Performing Arts Centre, as part of the City Centre, includes two
performing spaces, and outdoor space for busking and small scale presentations. T he new
Pickering Heritage and Community Centre at Pickering Museum Village has a dedicated
events space that includes a stage.
b) Cultural Services staff have expanded performance venues into parks, trails and at smaller
City facilities with impromptu performances in 2020. Likewise, Sustainability staff have
included performances at the Farmers Market since its inception in 2017.
c) In 2020 due to the pandemic, the summer concert series was moved online. The series
garnered an increased audience of more than 10 times by moving into social media, and
expanded opportunities to attend to those unable to travel to City parks.
d) In 2018, staff introduced the Place for Art program which identifies opportunities for local
businesses to partner with performers to provide entertainment venue, and increase
community draw.
e) Although the Central Library has not expanded to date, in 2017 staff re -arranged the
physical collections to create a new area that doubles as a study and events space. This
space has been used for a weekly drop-in for youth and weekly seniors’ socials. The
- 73 -
CS 31-20 December 7, 2020
Subject: Mid-Term Update Cultural Strategic Plan Page 8
Central Library lobby is available for small table-top cultural displays. In pre-pandemic
times, music recitals were often booked in the Central Library auditorium which has a baby
grand piano.
f) The Reading Garden was added to the George Ashe Library to create a new area for
leisure reading, studying and programming in 2017. It continues to be used for preschool
story times during the warmer months
g) In 2018, a Makerspace was opened at the Central Library. This new digital learning space
allows Pickering residents to develop their digital skills, develop maker skills and express
creativity in a safe learning environment. The sound-proof recording booth is extremely
popular for podcasting and music creation. Pickering residents also enjoy: 3D printi ng,
using the vinyl cutter and carvery machine for signage and design creations, the large scale
printer for photographic printing and posters, a sewing machine, a digital conversion station
and button maker which allow for self-expression. We also provide a Mac design center
with dedicated Macs loaded with creative software for graphic, video and sound editing.
h) In 2020, the Pickering Public Library was able to move their events online for all ages to
continue connecting with the community during the pandemic. Highlights include: Stay at
Home Storytimes, a Drag Queen Storytime, virtual summer reading clubs, genealogy
workshops and bibliotherapy. A staff team called The Disruptors are working to prototype
new online events and to establish the strategic direction for virtual programming. This
community has engaged with online events and has shown that this format is here to stay.
i) This year Pickering Public Library ran its third annual Makerfest but for the first time ever it
ran as a fully online festival. A highly anticipated program by the community and a day filled
with online maker themed programs.
j) The Library recently hosted the 2nd annual 5-Minute Film Festival (5MFF) also completely
online. This event engaged 130 guests throughout the event, shared an amazing night of
screening films made by community members and industry experts, and gave out 4 awards
for outstanding entries. 5MFF is a culminating event for a series of filmmaking workshops
held from April to July 2020.
2.3. Develop and implement a “module” on culture and heritage that could be easily
delivered in the school system.
a) Pickering Museum Village welcomes on average 10,000 school children to the museum
annually, who participate in the museum’s education program. The museum delivers an
immersive, hands-on education program that features Pickering’s culture and heritage. In
2020 the museum converted existing education programs to a virtual model, during
COVID-19 to be delivered in schools.
- 74 -
CS 31-20 December 7, 2020
Subject: Mid-Term Update Cultural Strategic Plan Page 9
2.4. Engage cultural groups in the development of strategies that stimulate and cultivate
resident cultural engagement between north and south Pickering.
a) In 2017, staff along with the Claremont Community offered Party in the Park with Tom
Thompson. The event built new partnerships between the City and Claremont res ident
groups, as well as between south and north Pickering organizations.
b) In 2018, staff engaged members of the Whitevale Community on the CAC, and have
expanded pop-up events into the community. Staff are engaging resident organizations in
the operation of events in both north and south Pickering. Prior to the cancellation of 2020
events due to COVID-19, Claremont groups were planning to participate in Canada Day
celebrations in Kinsmen Park. Since that time staff have worked directly with the
organizations to offer community pop-ups within the hamlets to maintain relationships
pending the ability to collaborate further.
c) In 2020, Pickering Museum Village is leading a tourism initiative, partnering with cultural
attractions, local businesses and tourism agencies to collectively package and promote
tourism experiences in Pickering and surrounding areas. This project aims to encourage
visitors to lengthen their stay by visiting more attractions and b usinesses in the area. The
project runs from 2020 – 2022.
2.5. Expand the Central Library to include community and cultural meeting spaces.
a) Tentative plans are underway to create a new Central Library that includes meeting rooms
where community and cultural groups can meet. In the interim, the Library launched a new
website in October. This new virtual branch will help reach out to the community during the
pandemic and promote online resources: ebooks, audiobooks, music, movies and
magazines and our virtual events.
3. Strengthen culture-led economic development.
3.1. Examine the opportunity to leverage cultural festivals to define a strong cultural
brand for Pickering and increase its reputation as a significant cultural destination.
a) This is a long-term goal of the Plan. As part of the tourism strategy, staff will identify and
undertake an events strategy to address this goal.
3.2. Integrate cultural and economic planning related to growing the creative economy
and increasing the number of creative cultural industries in Pickering.
a) Over the past five years, film location activity has been steadily on the rise in the City of
Pickering. As such, in 2019 the City took initial steps to establishing a formal Film Office,
with the intent of attracting increased investment from the Film Industry and elevating the
City’s profile as a ‘film friendly community’. The provision of online, digital application
processes, to ensure expedited approvals, kept the City open for business despite the
restrictions imposed by COVID-19 emergency protocols. The City has also leveraged the
- 75 -
CS 31-20 December 7, 2020
Subject: Mid-Term Update Cultural Strategic Plan Page 10
opportunity to promote City-owned lands for use as a ‘back stage’ to attract larger
productions.
b) Pickering City Centre Farmers’ Market was started in 2011 by the Pickering Town Centre.
The City of Pickering took over operation of the Market in 2016. The award -winning market
was designed to be a comprehensive weekly event to feature local farmers and food
producers and showcase local artisans, crafters, and musicians.
3.3. Examine opportunities to engage the private sector and encourage corporate
sponsorships that will maximize resources/investment for cultural initiatives.
a) In 2017, the City adopted a sponsorship policy and procedure to undertake sponsorship
work for primarily events and programs. In recent years, the program focus pivoted towards
facility naming rights. The program has been successful with naming rights secured for
what is now the Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex.
b) Work with corporate sponsors for various sustainability events (e.g. Sustainable Seaton):
Community-Building Series and plantings (e.g. annual pollinator planting & butterfly tagging
with Canada Bread Ltd.). The former Celebrating Sustainable Neighbourhoods Program
was largely supported though sponsorship.
c) Pickering events such as the annual Tree Lighting, Canada Day and Summer Concert
series are supported by Sponsorship dollars.
3.4. Create and introduce online user-friendly tools such as a Community Events
Application and Community Media Guide to encourage community organizations,
residents, and corporate partners to take the lead in the provision of cultural
initiatives.
a) Complete - Cultural Services within the Corporate Events Team developed the Community
Festivals and Events manual and Policy to assist event organizers to plan public events
and activities within Pickering. Festivals and events are a significant investment of
resources. The contents of the manual assist with the safe and successful operation of
festivals and events within the City of Pickering. This manual clearly outlines all areas of
responsibility for Community Festival and Event Organizers. The manual includes
information on permits, policies, and procedures along with critical paths, checklists, tips,
and contact information. This valuable information assists organizations to complete the
event planning process ensure all of your necessary approvals are in place prior to a
community event. This tool is reviewed annually, and expanded to ensure safe operation of
community events.
3.5. Sustain and promote Pickering’s online Cultural Directory as a means of celebrating
and increasing the profile of Pickering’s cultural assets
a) Over the last six years, staff have maintained and promoted the existing Cultural Directory.
However the format of the present Directory is not user friendly or compatible with
advancing technology. As such, staff sought out an alternative, or updated pro gram. Staff
- 76 -
CS 31-20 December 7, 2020
Subject: Mid-Term Update Cultural Strategic Plan Page 11
see the Open Data Portal as a solution to the needs to replace the Cultural Directory as is,
and support the need for a Corporate wide GIS strategy.
b) Open Data is digital data that is made available with the technical and legal characteristics
necessary for it to be freely used, reused, and redistributed by anyone, anytime and
anywhere.
3.6. Establish tourism as a corporate priority (with a strong emphasis on cultural
tourism).
a) City staff have formed a sub-group to undertake a tourism inventory and develop a strategy
in 2021/2022. The sub-group includes representatives from Economic Development,
Cultural Services, Pickering Museum Village, Engineering Services, Durham Tourism and
Central Counties.
b) Food plays an important part in many cultural initiatives. Economic Development is
advancing a local food security strategy, as well, there is a Region-wide local food strategy
group. It may be appropriate to integrate elements into this action section.
c) $44,440 secured from Rural Economic Development Fund (Ontario Government) in 2019 to
develop a permanent exhibit and attract tourists to the Pickering Museum Village’s
Blacksmith Shop.
d) $150,000 secured from the Canada Cultural Investment Fund (Department of Canadian
Heritage) in 2020 by Pickering Museum Village to lead a cultural tourism initiative and
attract tourists to Pickering.
e) Pickering Museum Village became a formal partner in Central Counties Tourism
“Temperance and Temptation” packaged tourism experiences in South Durham in 2020 .
3.7 Ensure a strong focus in the Cultural Strategic Plan on the needs of commercial
cultural activities and enterprises.
a) Over the last 5 years, ongoing efforts to increase Pickering’s profile to the domestic,
national and international film industries resulted in a near tripling of permitted film activity
on our roads and private properties in 2019. This activity, together with the City’s review
and support of a new film production studio on Durham Live lands, will increase the
opportunity for local job creation in this creative industry, and further the profile of the City
as a place to invest by the filming industry.
4. Conserve and promote history and heritage
4.1 Strengthen the promotion of local history assets.
a) A dedicated page has been developed on the Cultural Portal at pickering.ca/culture. This
page links heritage assets across the website.
- 77 -
CS 31-20 December 7, 2020
Subject: Mid-Term Update Cultural Strategic Plan Page 12
b) A heritage panel including images and Information on the history and changes to the
Claremont Bridge was included at the site, along with remnants of the old structure.
c) History of Frenchman’s Bay and the history of Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park was
included in a series of interpretive signs that were installed at the site .
d) Information on the history of boating on Frenchman’s Bay was included in an interpretive
sign that was installed in Frenchman’s Bay Ratepayer’s Memorial Park as part of the parks
reconstruction
e) Visits to the Pickering-Ajax Digital Archive website held steady over the first 3-year period
of the Cultural Strategic Plan until a technical failure in March of 2017 made it inaccessible
to anyone outside of the Library or City facilities. This meant a much lower number of visits
to the Digital Archive in 2017. A new solution, in partnership with the City, was launched to
the public at the end of November 2017. The new Pickering Local History Collection Digital
Archive provides improved searching and availability of materials. The site provides access
to 8,904 community newspaper issues, 4,006 images, and 2,468 documents dating to
between 1798 and 2010. Usage statistics show an average of 21,000 unique user sessions
each month and a total of 620,000 items viewed since the new site launched .
f) Programming and community outreach has increased each year since the adoption of the
Strategic Plan. This includes both a higher number of programs run each year over the
previous year and greater attendance overall.
g) The number of in-person and remote requests for information have also increased each
year. Since 2015, 3,500 residents have attended local history programming and outreach
events and 1,700 people have had their information requests answered.
4.2 Leverage opportunities to connect culture and heritage programming with the new
Rouge Park.
a) Currently, the Rouge National Urban Park has proposed a new Northeast Trail system. The
proposal is an 11 km wilderness/backcountry trail within the northeast quadrant of Rouge
National Urban Park located within the rural areas of Pickering and Uxbridge.
b) Sustainability, Museum and Culture Teams have supported Rouge National Park through
participation in their events as well as inviting them to participate in City events help to raise
awareness about their efforts.
c) Collaboration is underway with the Region of Durham, Heritage Pickering and Parks
Canada to establish a Heritage Path linking the Rouge National Urban Park entrance to the
west part of the Kingston Road corridor in accordance with the Council endorsed
intensification plan for the corridor.
- 78 -
CS 31-20 December 7, 2020
Subject: Mid-Term Update Cultural Strategic Plan Page 13
4.3 Develop strategies to highlight and celebrate Pickering’s heritage properties that
include additional or improved signage to identify arts, cultural, and heritage
designations and public properties.
a) A residential development at the northwest corner of Finch Avenue and Altona Road
resulted in the loss of a historic farmhouse. Through the Site Plan Approval process, City
Development staff worked with Heritage Pickering and the developer to establish a
commemorative feature within the amenity area that will include fieldstone from the original
historic farmhouse and a plaque with a description of the property and historical timelines.
4.4 Develop funds to acquire and preserve heritage properties.
a) $450,000 secured from Canada Cultural Strategic Fund (Department of Canadian Heritage)
to retrofit the Gas & Steam Barn into the Conservation Lab at Pickering Museum Village
(2017 – 2019). This project established climate-controlled collections storage, an
operational conservation lab and wood shop at the museum.
b) City Planning and Development staff have prepared a Heritage Property Tax Relief By-law
in consultation with Heritage Pickering. Following review with City Finance Department, a
draft by-law to establish the program has been prepared for Council’s consideration in
December 2020. The program provides an incentive for owners to make regular
investments in the ongoing maintenance and conservation of their properties.
c) There is a growing trend for municipalities to develop Heritage Preservation policies and
reserve funds. This is an area that could be considered by the City.
4.5 Establish a Visitors’ Centre at the Pickering Museum Village.
a) The City has designed the Heritage & Community Centre at Pickering Museum Village. The
originally conceived Visitor’s Centre is being called the Pickering Heritage & Community
Centre (PHCC) with multi-purpose community spaces, intended to replace aging
infrastructure at the Greenwood Community Centre. The PHCC meets the criteria of the
originally conceived visitor’s centre with collections and archival storage space, office
spaces, rental facilities including catering and cooking, exhibition and program spaces. The
PHCC will provide visitor services including: museum admissions, gift shop, washrooms,
cloak room, and parking.
4.6 Develop programs and facilities to house and conserve archival collections.
a) The Library has obtained climate controlled, off -site storage to accommodate a growing
archival collection. Library and City staff are also working together to plan for the upcoming
purpose-built Pickering Heritage & Community Centre which will ensure the l ong term
preservation of cultural heritage materials.
- 79 -
CS 31-20 December 7, 2020
Subject: Mid-Term Update Cultural Strategic Plan Page 14
4.7 Establish an Indigenous Peoples Interpretive Centre and archive room, with
appropriate partnerships.
a) The City has become the first municipal member of HIP (Honouring Indigenous Peoples).
b) As per Council Resolution #372-20, the Supervisor, Cultural Services was directed to work
with the Cultural Advisory Committee to develop an Indigenous Land Acknowledgement
Statement. The advisory committee members approved the creation of an Indigenous
Relationship Building Sub-committee, and have (with support from staff) finished a public
call for sub-committee members.
4.8 Continue to operate the Doors Open program.
a) Declining attendance and increased event costs did not warrant continuing the Doors Open
program through 2019. Staff continue to monitor the community desire to participate and
would welcome a community partnership to once again deliver the program.
5. Celebrate and support diversity and inclusion
5.1 Ensure representation from diverse communities on the proposed CAC
a) The CAC composition includes a diverse membership, by inviting a mixture of community
appointed membership and community stakeholders. Each term membership provides the
opportunity to revise the composition and make recommendations to change based on the
needs of the community.
b) The current composition allows for 12 Committee members, 4 members from the public,
and 8 representatives from related community organizations. Members from the public
must reside in Pickering and represent a broad range of interests and experience in the
cultural sector. Community organization representatives must be from organizations who
serve the City of Pickering. Where possible, appointments to the Committee shall include
representatives of the following organizations/associations:
PineRidge Arts Council
Durham West Arts Centre
Pickering Historical Society
Pickering Public Library
Ajax/Pickering Board of Trade
Diversity and Ethno-Cultural Organizations
c) In 2020, 2 additional sub-committees were formed to address specific needs of the
community.
d) The CAC, with the support of designated City staff, prepared an action plan and the terms
of reference for a taskforce, which included committee composition, selection and
recommended areas of focus. The Pickering Anti-Black Racism Preparatory Sub-
committee will lead the process of community engagement, recruitment and
- 80 -
CS 31-20 December 7, 2020
Subject: Mid-Term Update Cultural Strategic Plan Page 15
recommendation, and have developed an action plan to support successful impl ementation
of the PABRT. The Pickering Anti-Black Racism Taskforce will be a community driven
initiative, where City staff will act as a liaison providing operational and organizational
support.
The Anti-Black Racism Taskforce also worked in partnership with the Pickering community,
Durham-based organizations, businesses, stakeholders, and the City:
to identify barriers and areas of opportunity, in order to enhance the shared
experience and opportunities afforded to Black residents;
to identify and coordinate opportunities for stakeholder and community
engagement;
to provide expert input and action on matters relating to the provision of anti -
Black racism initiatives within the community; and
to celebrate and promote the Black community, and promote Black culture.
e) As per Council Resolution #372-20, the Supervisor, Cultural Services was directed to work
with the Cultural Advisory Committee to develop an Indigenous Land Acknowledgement
Statement. The advisory committee members approved the creation of an Indigenous
Relationship Building Sub-committee, and have (with support from staff) finished a public
call for sub-committee members.
5.2 Actively engage these communities in defining cultural interests, needs, and
opportunities.
a) Pickering Museum Village provided the following response: Pickering Museum Village
secured $4,000 from the Canada Cultural Investment Fund, Spark Initiative, in 2019, to
establish a temporary Indigenous Steering Committee, comprised of 8 members, who
advised the museum on Indigenous partnerships, programs and planning.
b) The action plans listed above provide staff direction for actions in the coming 3 years.
5.3 Work closely with the school system to increase understanding of, and appreciation
for, the importance of local culture and heritage among youth.
a) Pickering Museum Village established a teacher’s focus group in 2020 to advise City staff
on trends, priorities and practical program delivery of the museum’s education programs.
b) Pickering Museum Village established relationships with educational consultants in the
Durham District School Board in 2019 to advise City staff on trends, priorities and practical
program delivery of the museum’s education programs.
c) In 2020, Pickering Museum Village initiated the development an education web page and
its promotion to educators. Content on the web page included videos, on-line lesson plans,
worksheets and activity pages that can be accessed for free by formal and informal
educators of youth from Grade 2 level to high school age – all content has curriculum
connections.
- 81 -
CS 31-20 December 7, 2020
Subject: Mid-Term Update Cultural Strategic Plan Page 16
d) A Pickering Environmental School Grant was newly implemented and is resulting in further
engagement from local schools in actions that help further sustainability goals. In addition
to the grant, the Sustainability staff continues to work with schools for other environmental
initiatives (e.g. Take Back the Salmon, plantings, pollinator garden care, litter cleanups ).
5.4 Develop cross-culture programming by connecting heritage, historic and arts
businesses/organizations.
a) Cultural Services executed the Tom Thompson Celebration in Claremont under the
direction of City Staff in partnership with Lions Club of Claremont, Rotary, Claremont
District Residents Association, local churches, Owasco Scouts, local businesses, and
Masons. This one-off event was used as a community mentorship project, and provided
hands-on training on public event production.
b) Cultural Services continues to operate and execute several community festivals that
include programming and developed by heritage, historic and arts
businesses/organizations, Winterfest, Mayor’s New Year’s Day Levee, Artfest, Canada
Day, continue our traditional celebrations, and continue to develop new community
partnerships.
c) Pickering Museum Village has engaged many community partners in running cultural
events on-site at the Museum from 2014 to 2019. Events of significance include: Museum
Minecraft, Christmas in the Village, and History in Action Saturdays.
5.5 Support programming in cultural centres through marketing and event guidelines
for community engagement.
a) Cultural Services developed, implemented and provided guidance on Marketing and Event
Guidelines for Community Engagement.
b) The @PickeringEvents social media channel has been set up to promote cultural
programming, local tourism, and community partners.
6. Cultivate opportunities for the creation, education and enjoyment of the arts.
6.1 Develop and implement a public art policy, program, and funding formula.
a) Cultural Services established: CUL 130 Public Art Policy, which was approved by Council
at their Council meeting of November 25, 2019.
6.2 Establish Public Art Reserve Fund.
a) A reserve fund has been established
b) Once the Public Art Program is established, a Council endorsed policy or guidelines will be
drafted to establish new development-based funding strategies for public art located either
in public areas or private publicly accessible areas within the City. The example of “The
- 82 -
CS 31-20 December 7, 2020
Subject: Mid-Term Update Cultural Strategic Plan Page 17
Percent for Public Art Program” established by the City of Toronto, could act as a
precedent of means to provide funding to include and maintain public art not only in
prominent areas, as identified by the Official Plan and the City’s Urban Design Guidelines,
but in other areas within the City.
6.3 Develop connections with local colleges and universities to foster arts education.
a) Economic Development & Strategic Projects staff are currently building connections with
Durham College staff to promote their School of Media, Art and Design, to attract
arts/cultural businesses to the City and stimulate entrepreneurial talent.
b) Staff have met with Durham College to connect local businesses with students for potential
co-op placements.
6.4 Encourage public art in appropriate private developments within the City.
a) Through the design process, negotiate with private developers to include Privately-Owned
Publicly Accessible Spaces, as part of the development application review. These are a
specific type of open space to which the public is welcome to enjoy, but remains privately
owned. Many of these spaces in the City of Toronto include street furniture, public art or
water features.
b) Staff have confirmed three works in private developments in the past year. A procedure will
be developed and submitted to Council as an amendment to the Public Art Policy.
6.5 Use art to enhance public spaces, particularly within the City Centre.
a) City Development staff will work with Cultural Services and developers to include public art
at strategic entrances and gateways and as identified in the Pickering Official Plan and
Council endorsed City’s Urban Design Guidelines.
b) Staff have committed three new works at Treasure Hill Development, a new Chartwell
facility, and at the Shell at Highway 2 and Whites Road. A third piece is planned for the
front of Zents Fire Hall following construction.
c) Six public art pieces have been installed in Esplanade Park as part of the Ontario Main
Street Revitalization Initiative. Two metal sculptures having a pollinator theme were created
by Ron Baird. Geordie Lishman created four individual metal figures representing the City
Centre’s theme of Live, Work, Gather and Inspire. The artwork was placed amongst new
raised planters and site furniture to create a new gathering space at the east end of the
park.
d) A public art piece called “Our House” by wood sculptor Dorsey James was installed in
Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park. The piece was donated by the Rotary Club of
Pickering.
- 83 -
CS 31-20 December 7, 2020
Subject: Mid-Term Update Cultural Strategic Plan Page 18
6.6 Ensure that the City plays a leadership role in addressing the need for a new
performing arts or multi-purpose cultural facility preferably in the City Centre.
a)The City Centre project, reflected in the City’s 2020 Capital Budget, includes a Performing
Arts Centre facility.
b)Community Services established the position of: Executive Director, Performing Arts
Centre.
A great deal of progress has been achieved to -date with respect to the City’s Cultural Plan, with
the support of staff, the community and Council. This Mid-term Update to the Cultural Strategic
Plan has been prepared a progress update to Council.
Attachment:
1.Cultural Strategic Plan, Final Report – June 2014
- 84 -
CS 31-20 December 7, 2020
Subject: Mid-Term Update Cultural Strategic Plan Page 19
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
Tanya Ryce Brian Duffield
Supervisor, Cultural Services (Acting) Director, Community Services
TR:bd
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City Council
Marisa Carpino, M.A.
Interim Chief Administrative Officer
Original Signed By: Original Signed By:
Original Signed By:
- 85 -
Cultural
Strategic
Plan
Final Report ● June 2014
Attachment #1 to Report CS 31-20
- 86 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
1
Contents
Executive Summary 3
1 Introduction 5
1.1 Why Cultural Planning? 7
1.2 A Made-in-Pickering Cultural Plan 9
1.3 Definitions 11
1.3.1 Culture 11
1.3.2 Cultural Planning 11
1.3.3 Cultural Resources 12
1.3.4 Cultural Mapping 12
1.3.5 Arts 12
1.3.6 Heritage 13
1.3.7 Ethno-culture 13
2 The Value of Culture 14
2.1 Impact on Community Character 15
2.2 Impact on Social Capital 17
3 Summary of Research Findings and Public Input 18
3.1 Background 20
3.1.1 Pickering’s Geography 20
3.1.2 Pickering’s History 21
3.1.3 Pickering’s Demographics 21
3.1.4 Pickering’s Economy 21
3.1.5 Pickering’s Natural, Cultural and Recreational Assets 22
3.1.6 Pickering’s Cultural Organizations 24
3.2 Public Input 25
3.2.1 Community Telephone Survey 25
3.2.2 Stakeholder Group Survey 26
3.2.3 Interviews: Council Members 28
3.2.4 Interviews: Senior Managers 28
3.2.5 Committee of Council Questionnaires 29
3.2.6 Focus Group: Youth 29
3.2.7 Focus Group: Seniors 30
- 87 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
2
4 Vision and Strategic Directions 31
4.1 Vision 32
4.2 Strategic Directions 33
4.2.1 Strategic Direction 1: Broaden and Deepen City Leadership and Investment 34
4.2.2 Strategic Direction 2: Build a Strong and Collaborative Cultural Sector 35
4.2.3 Strategic Direction 3: Strengthen Culture-led Economic Development 36
4.2.4 Strategic Direction 4: Conserve and Promote History and Heritage 37
4.2.5 Strategic Direction 5: Celebrate and Support Diversity and Inclusion 38
4.2.6 Strategic Direction 6: Cultivate Opportunities for the Creation, Education,
and Enjoyment of the Arts 39
5 How to Use These Strategic Directions: Integrating Planning for Culture
in City Decision-Making 40
Appendix A: Members of the City of Pickering Staff Committee 54
Appendix B: Members of the Community Stakeholders Committee 55
Appendix C: List of Organizations that Completed the Survey 56
Appendix D: Participants in Visioning and Strategy Session 59
Over the past 22 years, Young Singers
has worked with over 800 talented young
children, enriching their lives through the
power of music. They have also acquired
an appreciation for the arts, and developed
life skills which will serve them in their future
as upstanding and caring leaders of our
community.
Contributed by the Young Singers
“
”
- 88 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Cultural Strategic Plan establishes a vision for the place of arts, culture and heritage in the City
and strategic directions for policy, investment, and City programs in the next few years. Cultural
planning is intended to help the City retain its unique heritage and culture while keeping pace with the
demands of the 21st century and globalization. It is also part of the City’s Journey to Sustainability,
intended to balance the needs of the environment, the economy, and the social community and
achieve sustainable growth.
The research conducted for this plan was wide-ranging and highly detailed. Pickering staff first
gathered background information from statistics, historical documents, and other sources to help
define Pickering’s cultural make-up, as well as its cultural and heritage assets. The City also
canvassed opinion from the community through a telephone survey of Pickering residents; online
surveys for community organizations; interviews with members of Council and senior City managers;
and focus group sessions with youth and seniors.
The findings (which are summarized in this report and presented in more detail in a separate report
titled A Cultural Map of Pickering) revealed a wide array of cultural attractions and opportunities,
a high level of cultural diversity, and strong commitment from organizations and individuals to the
cultural life of the City. However, the research also identified gaps in support for arts, culture and
heritage, some fragmentation of the City’s cultural sector, a need to connect culture and economic
development, and barriers preventing the City’s arts, culture and heritage from reaching its full
potential.
City staff drew on these findings in a final visioning session and used them to identify six
Strategic Directions.
1. Broaden and deepen city leadership and investment
2. Build a strong and collaborative cultural sector
3. Strengthen culture-led economic development
4. Conserve and promote history and heritage
5. Celebrate and support diversity and inclusion
6. Cultivate opportunities for the creation, education and enjoyment of the arts
- 89 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
4
For each Strategic Direction, the City has identified concrete actions that the City can undertake to
support and promote culture, arts and heritage. These include:
• creating new staff positions related to Culture
• forming a Cultural Advisory Committee
• developing educational programs for youth focused on local heritage
• expanding the Central Library to provide additional meeting space
• completing a Tourism Strategy
• establishing a Visitors’ Centre at the Pickering Museum Village
• creating a Cultural Roundtable with representation from diverse communities
• using art to enhance public spaces
• addressing the need for a new performing arts or multi-purpose cultural facility
Leading hikes of interested students or
adults into the [Altona] Forest to study plants,
animals or natural features such as ponds,
is extremely enjoyable, especially when
seeing the enthusiasm and appreciation of
the environment of young people who will be
stewards of our environment in the future.
Contributed by a member of the Altona
Forest Stewardship Committee
“
”
- 90 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
5
1 Introduction
The City of Pickering has embarked on a Journey to
Sustainability to integrate the needs of the environment, the
economy, and the social community and achieve sustainable
growth. The City boasts unique and irreplaceable built and
natural heritage; a thriving economy with a strong cluster of
energy, environmental and engineering businesses; and a
diverse community with a passion for multiculturalism, arts,
heritage, and our environment.
- 91 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
6
Pickering has developed this Cultural Strategic Plan to answer the following questions:
• How can the City of Pickering retain its unique heritage and culture while keeping pace with
the demands of the 21st century and globalization?
• How can the City of Pickering ensure that sustainability (environmental, social and economic)
remains at the forefront of the City’s agenda, considered in a integrated, holistic way and held
paramount in decision making, not an afterthought?
Arts, culture, and heritage define a community and create a sense of place and belonging. These
cultural resources send a clear message to the world about the community – its values, beliefs, and
customs. The creation of Pickering’s Cultural Strategic Plan involved:
• mapping the City’s cultural resources
• collecting input from residents and valued partners to define cultural opportunities, priorities,
and identity
• developing a comprehensive, strategic approach to achieve the City’s vision for culture
Pickering’s place in Canada as a
cultural centre will be measured by its
ability to promote artistic expression.
We can achieve cultural prominence
through the funding of public places
where artistic performance can occur.
Contributed by a member of
Pine Ridge Secondary School
“
”
- 92 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
7
1.1 Why Cultural Planning?
Cultural planning, which is believed to have emerged first in Europe in the 1960s and 1970s, is the
strategic and integral use of cultural resources in holistic community development.1 Economists
and urban planners know that culture provides vitality to a community and has important economic
and social spinoffs. A culturally vibrant community attracts artists, innovative thinkers, and educated
citizens, and contributes to urban renewal, economic regeneration, and environmental improvements.
Cultural planning spread to Australia in the 1990s.2 Government officials there understood that civic
departments could no longer work in silos, but need to adopt a common vision to ensure sustainable
growth and development.
More recently, cultural planning has spread to North American communities. With the decline of heavy
industry and the rise of the “creative economy,” decision makers understand the value of a culturally
vibrant community to attract the creative class, sustain the economy, and protect the environment.3 A
new model for economic and social development has emerged, and culture is its central driving force.
Decision makers realize that culture is at the heart of any community, not just a fringe activity.
The Canadian and Ontario governments have endorsed municipal cultural planning and provided
resources to municipalities to support cultural planning processes, as outlined on the website of the
Ontario Ministry of Culture in 20084:
1 Sirayi, Mzo, “Cultural Planning and Urban Renewal in South Africa,” Journal of Arts Management, Law and Society, vol. 47,
no. 4 (Winter 2008): 333-45.
2 Baeker, Greg. “Municipal Cultural Planning: Combating ‘The Geography of Nowhere,’ ” Municipal World, 2005.
3 Wilenius, Markku, “Cultural Competence in the Business World: A Finnish Perspective,” Journal of Business Strategy, vol. 27,
no. 4 (July-August 2006): 43-50.
4 The original document was posted in 2008, but is no longer available on the website of the Ontario Ministry of Tourism,
Culture and Sport.- 93 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
8
Many people today are feeling disconnected
and looking for their spiritual or cultural
connections to help connect them to like-
minded people, but [this] often further
disconnects them from other groups. As we
create silos, we only see our perspective and
lose sight of our commonalities. Culture defines
people, communities, and neighbourhoods
through creative expression, traditions, and
specific viewpoints… Girls Rights Week is an opportunity to showcase activities
that encourage the development and understanding of each of the rights. Having
the right to resist gender stereotypes, take pride in success, appreciate my body,
have confidence in myself and be safe in the world, have the right to prepare for
interesting work and economic independence.
Contributed by Girls Incorporated of Durham
Municipal Cultural Planning creates a place where people want to live, work, and visit and
where students can return to find work. Municipal Cultural Planning contributes to:
a. Economic Development (Tourism, Downtown Revitalization, Creative Jobs)
b. Cultural Vibrancy
c. Community Safety
d. Enriching and Engaging Children and Youth
e. Citizen Engagement
f. Population Growth/Retention
g. Sustainable Placemaking
h. Walkable Communities
Pickering has a wealth of cultural resources. It is time to map those resources, craft a clear identity
for this community, and develop a plan that identifies strategies that will foster our community
development.
“
”
- 94 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
9
1.2 A Made-in-Pickering Cultural Plan
The City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan builds upon existing municipal plans and drew on the
cooperation of all departments.
The foundation of the City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan was community consultation and public
input. The overwhelming research in the field of cultural planning indicates that cultural planning is
best pursued with a “bottom-up” strategy; a process developed “with the people, not for them.”5
Great care was taken to incorporate consultation with all levels of municipal government and staff,
community stakeholders, and community residents. The information was gathered through various
methods.
• Online surveys were used for community cultural organizations, businesses, and individuals.
• A telephone survey was used to collect ideas from a random sample of Pickering residents.
• Interviews were used to gain insight from all members of Council, the Chief Administrative
Officer, and all department heads.
• Focus group sessions were conducted with youth and seniors in Pickering.
• Regular meetings were conducted with a Community Stakeholders Committee, the
members of which represented the heritage, arts, ethno-cultural, business, education, and
environment sectors in Pickering.
This comprehensive approach has helped ensure that the City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan is
inclusive and reflects the community’s ideas and values.
5 Sirayi, Mzo, op. cit.- 95 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
10
The planning process began in fall 2007 and was spearheaded by a team of staff that reflected the
entire organization. See Appendix A for members of the City of Pickering Staff Committee. Regular
consultation was sought from a Community Stakeholders Committee throughout the process. See
Appendix B for the list of Community Stakeholders Committee. See Appendix C for those who
participated in the survey.
Finally, on July 27, 2012, a Cultural Strategic Plan Visioning Session took place at the Pickering
Museum. The session involved 16 City of Pickering staff members from across a range of
departments, all of whom were involved in the cultural planning process. See Appendix D for a list of
participants. The purpose of the session was to consider the results of the community consultation
and use these insights to develop Strategic Directions to guide the Cultural Strategic Plan. Dr.
Greg Baeker, Director of Cultural Development at Millier Dickinson Blais, facilitated the session and
prepared a summary report.
The four-hour session generated rich and insightful discussion. It began with a review of the work
completed to date in the cultural planning process by Marisa Carpino, Manager of Culture and
Recreation. Dr. Baeker outlined core concepts and tools in municipal cultural planning.
Following the presentation, participants were divided into smaller groups to generate ideas related to
the following questions.
1. What did the community consultations tell us about what we are doing well in culture in
Pickering? What are our strengths?
2. What did those consultations suggest we are not doing or not doing as well as we could?
3. What key words have emerged from our research that must form part of a vision statement to
guide the Cultural Strategic Plan?
4. What “big ideas” or strategies have been put forward to advance this vision?
5. What are some signs that we are moving in the right direction?
The results of this discussion are described in the section on “Vision and Strategic Directions.”
- 96 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
11
1.3 Definitions
1.3.1 Culture
Culture is defined as “the values, attitudes and behaviours shared by a people.”6 It includes
customs, beliefs, language, way of life and traditions that serve to distinguish a community. Culture
enables members of the same community to interact and communicate with each other.
Culture is a resource that can be leveraged to fuel human and community development. It is no
longer considered as a product that should be subsidized, but a community resource in which to
invest.7
1.3.2 Cultural Planning
Cultural planning is “the strategic and integrated planning and use of cultural resources in
community development.”8 It involves identifying a community’s cultural resources, through
community consultation, and leveraging those resources to support economic and community
development to help a community achieve its civic goals.
Cultural planning supports sustainable communities, because communities with a shared and valued
culture retain existing residents and businesses, while attracting new residents, new businesses,
skilled workers, innovative thinkers, and tourists.
6 Hoffman, Richard C., “The strategic planning process and performance relationship: does culture matter?” Journal of Business
Strategies, vol. 24, no. 1 (Spring 2007): 27-49.
7 Cultural Planning Toolkit, Creativecity.ca: A partnership between 2010 Legacies Now and Creative City Network of Canada, 2008.
8 Municipal Cultural Planning website: http://www.ontariomcp.ca/what-is-mcp/- 97 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
12
1.3.3 Cultural Resources
Cultural resources are “all those things that together define a community’s unique identity
and sense of place.”9 They may be tangible, such as natural environment, heritage assets, and
institutions (landscapes, historic buildings, museums, libraries, organizations), or intangible (stories,
values, beliefs, customs, identities).10
1.3.4 Cultural Mapping
Cultural mapping is the foundation for municipal cultural planning. It is defined as “a systematic
approach to identifying, recording, classifying and analyzing a community’s cultural
resources.” There are two kinds of cultural mapping:
• Mapping tangible resources: identifying and recording physical (or tangible) cultural resources
across a range of categories
• Mapping intangible resources: identifying and exploring the stories and traditions that help
define a community’s unique identity and sense of place
1.3.5 Arts
The arts represent only a single facet of culture. Art is the process of human creation or invention
of an original idea with aesthetic content.11 The arts include visual arts, performance arts, media
arts, dramatic arts, and related disciplines.
9 Baeker, Greg. “Municipal Cultural Planning,” see above.
10 Municipal Cultural Planning website: http://www.ontariomcp.ca/what-is-mcp/
11 Arts, Heritage and Culture Master Plan. Region of Waterloo and Goldsmith Borgal and Company Ltd. and NetGain Partners Inc.,
October 2002.- 98 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
13
1.3.6 Heritage
Heritage includes both tangible and intangible elements of the natural and cultural past. Tangible
assets include buildings, cemeteries, monuments, artifacts, specimens, collections, archaeological
sites, cultural landscapes, and sacred spaces. Intangible aspects include beliefs, ideas, customs,
traditions, languages, and religions.12
1.3.7 Ethno-culture
Every person belongs to one or more ethnic groups and each identifies with some cultural heritage
shared with others from similar national, religious, or language backgrounds. The term ethnocultural
refers to an ethnic identity supported by cultural practice, tradition, and institutions. Canada’s
population includes a wide variety of ethnocultural groups among people of indigenous Northern,
Central, and South American backgrounds and those who have originally come (or whose forebears
came) from African, Asian, or European countries.13
12 Arts, Heritage and Culture Master Plan. Region of Waterloo.
13 Glossary of Access and Equity Terms, City of Toronto Task Force on Community Access and Equity (1998-1999).
Torontoartscouncil.org.- 99 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
14
2 The Value of Culture 2 The Value of Culture
- 100 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
15
2.1 Impact on Community Character
Over the past few decades, societal shifts have led to a new appreciation of the value of community
and culture. These shifts include increased mobility and immigration, free trade, non-traditional
families, workplace transitions, and new technologies. As the traditional ways of connecting with
others are changing, people look for opportunities to feel a sense of belonging in their communities.
Arts and cultural activities provide these opportunities for people to connect with the “community of
humanity.”14 These opportunities also allow people to share their experiences, recognize common
cultural values as well as cultural differences, and reflect on the past.
Culture contributes to the quality of life and reflects the “health” of a community.15 It helps create a
strong sense of identity and belonging in a community.
Each community has its own unique, “authentic” identity. The goal is to identify and reinforce the
authentic identity of Pickering through the cultural planning process. The process must identify
community relationships, shared memories, and a sense of place.16
Cultural planning can support citizens who want to give back to their community. A 2008 study by Hills
Strategies Research Inc., funded by the Canada Council for the Arts, the Department of Canadian
Heritage, and the Ontario Arts Council, found that those who participated in cultural activity were
more likely than non-participants to volunteer, donate, do a favour for a neighbour, and have a sense
of belonging to Canada.
14 Milner, Jennifer, “Arts Impact: Helping Us Determine Who We Are,” Performing Arts & Entertainment in Canada, Summer 2002.
15 Culture: Passion That Inspires Us. Cultural Policy of the City of Gatineau, 2003.
16 Sirayi, Mzo, see above.- 101 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
16
There is a very broad base of capable volunteers across a broad range of
heritage and cultural groups that would willingly volunteer their efforts to enable
growth in this sector, but investment in the basic infrastructure is a necessary
starting point. The timing is right in that there have never been more people with
the right skills and right energy to support such an endeavour. Such a plan would
be welcome by educators, arts and culture advocates and industry, but it needs
leadership from the City to get started.
Contributed by the Pickering Gas & Steam Club
“
”
Culture is important for youth as well. Through the arts and culture sector, youth find ways to belong
and to express themselves. This is especially important for youth who feel isolated or marginalized,
but it is true of all young people. And as some of these young people become professionals in the
cultural sector, they give back to their communities.
Crafting a clear cultural identity and attracting those who share in that vision to our community will
increase community capacity and community development in Pickering – both key components of
a sustainable community. Our cultural identity will be reflected in the City beyond our people; in our
streetscapes, street plans, public spaces, historic sites and buildings. It is what makes it distinct from
any other place on earth.
- 102 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
17
2.2 Impact on Social Capital
The World Bank distinguishes four basic forms of capital:
• natural capital, consisting of a locality’s endowment of natural resources
• constructed capital, which is generated by human beings and includes infrastructure, capital
goods, financial capital, and trade capital
• human capital, which is determined by the levels of nutrition, health, and education of the
population
• social capital, defined by the networks, norms, and social trust in a community that facilitate
cooperation for mutual benefit
Some studies consider that the last two forms of capital are responsible for most of the economic
development of nations since the late 20th century and assert that they represent the keys to
technological progress, competitiveness, sustained growth, good government, and stable democracy.
Research on the social impact of the cultural sector remains in the early stages of development.
Many studies have tended to focus on the economic significance of the arts (for example, in boosting
tourism and creating jobs). More recently, however, studies in Canada and elsewhere have shown
that a strong cultural sector adds to the development of a community that has lower crime rates,
greater tolerance for diversity, and higher levels of civic engagement.17
17 See, for example, Jones, Ken, Tony Lea, Tim Jones and Sue Harvey. Beyond Anecdotal Evidence: The Spillover Effects of Investments
in Cultural Facilities. Centre for Commercial Activity, Ryerson University, Toronto, 2003.- 103 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
18
3 Summary of Research
Findings and Public Input
The research conducted for this plan was wide-ranging
and highly detailed. In order to keep this Cultural Plan as
concise and accessible as possible, we have summarized
the findings here; the full results are available in a separate
document. Interested readers are encouraged to consult this
document to appreciate the wealth of information, insight,
and passion of all those who contributed to the Plan. A
few of those insights and comments have been selected
and highlighted in this plan, to show how it reflects the
community consultation process.
- 104 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
19
A strong and positive volunteer sector
breeds success and sustainability from
within… I don’t think anything says more
than the value of the volunteer in-kind
donation that supported this museum’s
operation in 2009… $585,000 dollars of
time is not insignificant… 305 volunteers
believe this facility is worth investing in,
and we could not receive the awards, the
accolades, or offer the public programs
without those volunteers and their
commitment.
Contributed by volunteers from
Pickering Museum Village
”
“
Woodworking was a major activity in 19th-century rural society. The Woodwrights
have completed 53 on-site projects since inception in 2007. This doesn’t include
the many hours involved in constructing the new Woodwrights shop. These are
outstanding accomplishments from a small group of volunteers. The quality of our
work has been noted by all those who remember “how it was like.”
Contributed by the Woodwrights’ Guild
“
”
Pickering staff first gathered background information from statistics, historical documents, and other
sources to help define Pickering’s cultural make-up, as well as its cultural and heritage assets.
The research also included canvassing opinion from the community through a telephone survey of
Pickering residents; online surveys for community organizations; interviews with members of Council
and senior City managers; and focus group sessions with youth and seniors.
- 105 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
20
3.1 Background
3.1.1 Pickering’s Geography
Pickering’s environmental heritage includes the waterfront on Lake Ontario, the nationally renowned
Rouge Park, and the provincially significant Oak Ridges Moraine. Within its boundaries are 79 parks
and four conservation areas. These areas support recreational opportunities such as paddling along
the shores of Frenchman’s Bay, walking the West Duffins Trail and Seaton Trail systems, cycling
the Waterfront Trail, hiking through Altona Forest, and swimming in Ontario’s largest outdoor pool at
Petticoat Creek Conservation Area.
Pickering’s 231.59 square kilometres of land and waterways are situated within five watersheds:
Petticoat Creek, Frenchman’s Bay, Duffins Creek, Carruthers Creek, and Lynde Creek. Watershed
plans have been or are in the process of being completed for each of these areas.
The urban part of Pickering is focused on the “Downtown”, which we now refer to as the “City Centre”.
The City Centre includes the Pickering Civic Precinct (City Hall, Main Central Library, Esplanade Park
and the Pickering Recreation Complex), and Pickering Town Centre (a large regional shopping centre
with more than 200 stores and services), as well as office buildings and a bridge to the Pickering
GO Station. Approximately 5,000 people live in the City Centre today, and 5,000 people are currently
employed here.
Pickering’s rural area occupies about two-thirds (15,200 hectares) of Pickering’s land mass. In 1996,
Pickering’s rural residents made up approximately 6% of Pickering’s population, mostly in rural
hamlets, rural clusters, and country residential settlement areas.
- 106 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
21
3.1.2 Pickering’s History
The first people to live in Pickering settled there approximately 4,000 years ago. By the mid-
17th century, the Huron were driven away by the Five Nations Iroquois, who established villages
throughout the area. By the late 1600s, French explorers made their way into the area and
established trade and missionaries. English settlers followed, fought against the French settlers, and
defeated them, which ultimately led to the acquisition of Pickering Township by England in 1785.
The Township of Pickering was settled by farmers, most of them from Great Britain or Ireland, starting
in the 18th century. In addition to a settlement focused on the harbour at Frenchman’s Creek, there
were hamlets scattered throughout the rural area, many of which have survived to this day (such as
Brougham, Cherrywood, and Whitevale). The harbour declined in importance in the 19th century, but
the growth of the City of Toronto led to a rise in the number of summer cottages in the Pickering area.
New suburban communities were built, starting in the 1960s. By the 1990s, in response to concerns
about environmental impacts and the loss of farmland, the City began a Journey to Sustainability to
chart a new course for the City.
3.1.3 Pickering’s Demographics
At the end of 2013, the City of Pickering had a population of approximately 95,000. Between 2006
and 2011, Pickering’s population increased by 1%. Pickering is planned to grow to approximately
225,000 people by 2031. Of this number, 61,000 people (about 25%) are expected to live in the
Seaton Community by 2031. The Seaton Community is nearing the end of the planning stage.
Two important trends are evident: the population is aging and is becoming more ethnically diverse.
The majority of Pickering’s population is between the ages of 45 and 59. More than 35% of
Pickering’s population is made up of a visible minority and more than 24% (statistic 21,240/87,920
working numbers) of the population speaks a language other than English or French. Pickering’s
largest visible minority is Black Canadians with Caribbean origins, followed closely by residents from
South Asia.
3.1.4 Pickering’s Economy
Pickering is a leading centre for energy in Ontario. Its core business sectors include companies in
Energy, Environment, and Engineering (known as the EN3 Cluster). It is home to Ontario Power
Generation (OPG), the City’s largest employer and one of the largest electricity producers in North
America, as well as Eco-Tec, Siemens/Trench Canada Ltd. and Intellimeter. Other important
industries and sectors include advanced manufacturing, logistics, pharmaceuticals, electronics, and
consulting.
- 107 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
22
3.1.5 Pickering’s Natural, Cultural and
Recreational Assets
Pickering has a range of natural, recreational, heritage, arts, and cultural attractions for residents and
visitors that include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Frenchman’s Bay is a shallow coastal lagoon on the Lake Ontario shoreline, protected by a
barrier beach that is well used by residents and visitors for walking, boating and fishing.
• Waterfront Trail is a scenic haven for cycling, in-line skating, and leisurely strolls.
• Altona Forest is an environmentally significant area that provides essential habitat for many
plants and animals and is used for hiking, bird watching, wildlife photography, and educational
interpretative walks.
• The Seaton Trail is located along the West Duffins Creek and follows historic hunting and fishing
routes on the creek. The trail passes heritage buildings from Pickering’s pioneer days, such as the
grist mill at Whitevale.
• Petticoat Creek Conservation Area on the shores of Lake Ontario offers spectacular views of
the coastal bluffs, and opportunities to see wildlife and enjoy picnics and walks in a 70-hectare
park. The 35-year-old swimming pool, one of Petticoat Creek's main attractions, was recently
reconstructed as a new aquatic entertainment facility. The new facility includes a 3,200 square
metre wading pool, a 750 person capacity swimming area, and a splash pad with interactive water
features.
• Greenwood Conservation Area on Duffins Creek is managed by the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority and open to the public for hiking, cross-country skiing, fishing, and bird
watching.
• Claremont Field Centre is located on the banks of the Duffins Creek East and Mitchell Creek and
is on the Trans Canada Trail. The Centre is managed by the Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority. Outdoor education programs are offered for school, Scouts, Guides, and other groups.
• Diana Princess of Wales Park is a well-used park adjacent the City Centre that offers a ball
hockey rink, basketball court, mini soccer pitch, skateboard park, soccer/football field, tot
equipment, and volley ball court.
• Millennium Square is a large public square at the southern tip of Liverpool Road, on the shores
of Lake Ontario. From the Square visitors can access the Waterfront Trail system, or picnic at the
adjacent Beachfront Park. Events such as concerts are often held here in summer.
- 108 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
23
• Beachfront Park, south of Hydro Marsh, offers an elevated beachfront boardwalk, beautiful views
across Lake Ontario, generous seating and picnicking areas. In addition to the beach, children can
enjoy the recently constructed splash pad play area, modern accessible play structures, swings,
and beach volleyball.
• Alex Robertson Park is home to the popular art installation "Homeplace” and the newly created
Butterfly Garden. Alex Robertson Park includes hiking and running trails and is popular with
cricketers, dog walkers, cyclists, and hikers on the Waterfront Trail.
• Homeplace, located on the north side of Alex Robertson Park, is a structural design by Canadian
artist, Dorsey James, which was installed in 2001. The different designs of the structure symbolize
a variety of periods, cultures, and beliefs. The most recognizable is the hydro pole arrangement
atop the hill. The poles grow in height toward the centre, acknowledging individual growth as well
as the growth, evolution, and prosperity of the community.
• Nautical Village is a community of residences, shops, services and marinas anchored by a core
of live/work units, located at the base of Liverpool Road. Nestled between the edge of Lake
Ontario and the western shores of Frenchman’s Bay, Nautical Village offers a waterfront lifestyle
including recreational opportunities for boating, paddling, fishing and cruising, all supported by
specialty shops, full service restaurants and cafes.
• Frenchman’s Bay Marina was established on the north shore of Lake Ontario in Frenchman's
Bay during the summer of 1972. The Marina serves several hundred boating customers.
• Wind Turbine: This 117-metre turbine (measured from the ground to the highest blade tip) can
produce enough emission-free energy to supply the annual electricity needs of about 600 average
Ontario homes.
• Pickering Museum Village is located on the banks of Duffins Creek in historic Greenwood. The
largest living history museum in the Durham Region, this award-winning site has 20 restored
heritage buildings dating from as far back as 1810, including a blacksmith and woodworking shop,
a general store, a schoolhouse, houses, barns, and places of worship. Tours at PMV re-create the
daily life of Pickering Township’s settlers from the early pioneer days onward.
• Whitevale Heritage Conservation District contains more than 50 buildings dating from the 19th
century, which are listed on a heritage inventory. The district is located on West Duffins Creek and
retains traces of its past as an important rural centre and mill site.
• Heritage Properties listed on Pickering’s Cultural Directory range from Victorian schoolhouses to
unique modernist properties to historic cemeteries.
• Pickering Town Centre Farmers’ Market was started in 2011, and was designed to be a
comprehensive community event to feature local farmers and food producers, support local food
banks, and showcase local artisans, craft workers, and musicians. - 109 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
24
• Pickering Recreation Complex, a nationally accredited fitness centre in the heart of Pickering,
offers world-class training to athletes such as Olympian Perdita Felicien. The Complex celebrated
its 30th anniversary in 2013. It offers more than a quarter-of-a-million square feet of facility space
and top-of-the-line cardio and fitness equipment, twin ice pads, and programs for all ages and
abilities, including fitness, aquatics, tennis, squash, and racquetball.
• Durham West Arts Centre in the Pickering Recreation Complex showcases local, national, and
international talents, ranging from visual to performing arts.
• Pickering Public Library: Pickering has one central public library and three branches. A Central
Library Expansion and Renovation Study was completed with stakeholder and community input in
2012. The Library’s current Strategic Plan is moving services away from a more traditional model
of providing physical materials to providing access to technology and training to produce creative
and intellectual products.
• Shopping and Dining: The Pickering Town Centre offers more than 200 stores, restaurants, and
services. Pickering is also home to a SmartCentre, The Shops at Pickering Ridge, and Brookdale
Centre, the Pickering Markets, and many stand-alone shops and restaurants.
3.1.6 Pickering’s Cultural Organizations
Pickering’s Culture & Recreation Department offers thousands of programs each year, promoted
through the City of Pickering Leisure Guide. Programs include culinary arts, visual arts, performing
arts, language, and heritage programs (offered by the Pickering Museum Village). The Department
coordinates many free events, including Theatre in the Park, Waterfront Concert Series, Treble in the
Park, Heritage Day, Artfest, Spirit Walk, Steam Up & Opening, The Settler Trail, and Christmas in the
Village.
The stakeholder survey completed for this plan identified 79 other cultural organizations in Pickering,
listed in Appendix C. These include schools, places of worship, ethnocultural groups, businesses
focused on the arts, recreational organizations, and environmental groups. The diversity of Pickering’s
cultural fabric and the commitment of its volunteer sector are evident in the list and in the responses
to the survey.
- 110 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
25
3.2 Public Input
3.2.1 Community Telephone Survey
In January and February 2010, a household telephone survey of Pickering residents was conducted
by the firm of Monteith Brown Planning Consultants; 450 households participated, making the findings
statistically significant.18
Participation in cultural activities: The most popular activity was singing or playing music (33%),
followed by painting, drawing, crafts, sculpture, pottery, or other visual arts (27%), and multi-
cultural activities (19%). The top two activities can generally be undertaken in an unstructured and
unscheduled manner, which is becoming increasingly important as people have less free time.
Place of participation: Most people participated in cultural activities in the City of Pickering,
but some went outside the City to participate in multicultural activities (45%); acting or theatrical
performance (36%); and heritage activities, such as classes or workshops at a museum or historic
site (35%). If respondents participated more often outside Pickering, they were asked to provide
reasons. The top three responses were: facility/program not available in the area (29% of those
participating outside Pickering); connected to the other community/used to live there (18%); and
special events/variety (16%).
Most popular events: The top three most-attended facilities, events, or performances were:
community events (e.g., Canada Day, Santa Claus Parade, RibFest, etc.) (65%); a musical
performance, such as a concert or opera (57%); and a dance performance, such as a recital (54%).
18 These 450 households represent approximately 1,400 Pickering residents. Although this accounts for only 1.5% of the City’s
population, statistical modelling proves that this is a significant figure and it would take thousands more completed surveys to
improve survey confidence (and only marginally at that). The survey response level is similar to those frequently used to report on
regional or provincial research polls. In statistical terms, this represents a confidence interval of ±4.6% (that is, the survey provides
for an accuracy of ±4.6%, 19 times out of 20).- 111 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
26
Gaps: When asked about events that they would like to see in Pickering that are not currently
offered, respondents most often suggested musical performances, theatre, art exhibits and galleries,
educational programs, and ethnic or multicultural festivals and events.
Awareness: The most common ways in which people learn about cultural offerings are newspapers
(42% of all households); mail outs (21%); e-mail (13%); newsletter/magazines (12%); and bulletin
boards/posters/flyers (12%). Households with children were more likely to feel that their household
is generally aware of the heritage, arts, and culture opportunities that are available in Pickering than
households without children.
Barriers to participation: The most common reason given for not participating as often as they
would like was lack of personal time (59%), followed by health problems or disability (16%) and lack
of desired facilities or programs (8%).
Spending on culture: Respondents were asked how much money their entire household spends on
heritage, arts, and culture in a typical month. This spending includes subscriptions, tickets, donations,
program fees, and materials, but excludes movies. We learned that 54% of respondents spent $0–
$50 per month, followed by 15% each for those that spend $50–$99 per month and $100–$199 per
month. Only 8% of households spent more than $200 per month on heritage, arts, and culture.
Spending priorities for the City: The facility type thought to be most in need of additional public
spending was parkland for festivals and special events (66%), followed by a performing arts centre
for theatrical and musical performances (55%), museum or heritage sites (43%), rehearsal spaces for
dance, theatre or music (43%), art galleries and exhibition space (31%), and art studios for creating
visual arts, crafts, and other works (31%).
3.2.2 Stakeholder Group Survey
Between January and March 2010, the City contacted cultural groups and community organizations
and asked them to complete a survey about their activities. A total of 79 organizations completed the
surveys. Of those organizations completing the survey, 22% were incorporated not-for-profit, followed
by not incorporated not-for-profit (19%), other (16%), for profit (15%), school/educational institution
(15%), government (9%), and church/place of worship (4%).
The most common primary discipline of the organizations represented by respondents was
cultural heritage (39%), followed by community events (37%) and other (34%), such as education,
ethnocultural groups, photography, and environment.
- 112 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
27
I propose to establish a big enough place in which Jewish, Christians, Muslims,
Hindus, Sikhs may be allowed to one day teach in order to offer their heritage,
arts, and culture events and participated by community and City officials who
would like to participate.
Contributed by a member of the Muslim Youth & Community Centre
for Pickering/Durham
“
”
Participation trends: Of the sample that provided feedback, 44 respondents (67%) reported an
increase in their organization’s participation, attendance, and membership over the past five years,
25% saw no change, and 8% experienced decreases.
Cultural assets: 39 organizations (49%) reported owning or managing significant collections or other
physical heritage, arts and culture resources, from buildings to costumes to musical instruments to
archival materials.
Funding: 23 organizations (29%) stated that they had received government funding from federal,
provincial, and/or municipal sources in 2009. The total amount of funding received by the 23
organizations was $50,615,876, for an average of $2,200,690 per organization.
Need for City support: 48% of the 62 respondents that provided feedback regarding this question
stated that their organization required additional support from the City of Pickering relative to heritage,
arts, and culture, including:
• Promotion and increased awareness
• Facility upgrades/expansion
• Financial assistance/lower fees
• More cultural staff at the City
• Partnership for marketing and sponsorship
• Grants
• Expanded programming
• Long-term planning
Challenges: Respondents were provided a list of 8 options and asked to select the 3 greatest
challenges facing their organization relative to heritage, arts, and culture. Lack of community
awareness and promotion (56% of all organizations) was the primary challenge, followed by shortage
of facility space (42%), level of funding (40%), and staff or volunteer resources (36%).
- 113 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
28
3.2.3 Interviews: Council Members
In May and June 2011, interviews were conducted with members of Pickering Council.
Pickering’s strengths: When asked to identify the strengths of Pickering’s current cultural
community, the most common response was Pickering’s diversity.
Gaps: Many members of council felt that a gap in the current delivery of cultural services and facilities
was Art Facilities (performing arts, visual arts, art studios, meeting spaces, etc.). Pickering’s city
centre was identified as the ideal location for an Arts Centre and so a strategic use of municipal and
provincial lands in the city centre must be considered.
Priorities: All members of Council felt that culture should be a high priority for the City of Pickering,
but recognize that it is not, as is evident in current budgets, facilities, and staff allocations. Many feel
that active recreation holds a greater priority than the arts, culture, and heritage. But members are
not sure that is where the community is headed – as diversity continues to grow, cultural services will
become increasingly important.
3.2.4 Interviews: Senior Managers
In May and June 2011, interviews were conducted with seven senior management staff members with
the City.
Pickering’s strengths: The diversity of its people was once again recognized as a strength of
Pickering’s cultural community. Staff also recognize and value the engagement of our residents and
community organizations as a major strength.
Gaps: Many staff felt that the development and support of the arts was a critical gap and opportunity
for the City of Pickering to address in this plan. Dedicated space is needed for proper artifact storage,
archives, and visual and performing arts programs and services.
Challenges: Staff wanted to see more engagement of cultural community members, better
development and promotion of Pickering’s natural heritage (trail maps, sites), better historical
connections, ways to overcome the urban and rural split within the community, and more funding for
artistic placemaking in the municipality.
- 114 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
29
3.2.5 Committee of Council Questionnaires
In June 2011, Pickering staff invited committees of Council to participate in a questionnaire related
to the cultural plan. The committees included Heritage Pickering, Pickering Museum Village Advisory
Committee, and the Accessibility Advisory Committee. Four completed surveys were returned to staff.
Pickering’s strengths: Respondents indicated that Pickering’s diverse community, parks, waterfront,
museum, and library are all invaluable.
Gaps: Respondents suggest that more be done to promote and support these pillars of the
community. This includes better access to the waterfront, more programs at the Recreation Centre,
increased park safety, and development of the arts through an arts centre, better collaboration and
communication among like-minded groups (i.e., Heritage Pickering, Pickering Museum Village,
Pickering Historical Society, the Central Library) and the creation of an economic plan to support
tourism. One respondent also recommended increased support and funding for Pickering heritage so
that a specific staff member is responsible for heritage matters.
Challenges: Respondents suggested that the Cultural Plan should address the need to include
northern Pickering in activities that take place in the city centre and the waterfront; to include advisory
committee participation in the planning of cultural services; and to assign a coordinator who can
facilitate cultural development. Also, housing developments should be designed to support residents
through their lifespan and not segregate seniors, but integrate them in the community.
3.2.6 Focus Group: Youth
In September 2011, youth from Pickering Activity Council for teens (PAC4Teens) and Pickering’s
youth programs were invited to participate in a focus group session led by Pickering staff.
Preferred activities: Many youth reported participating in the following cultural activities during their
free time: dancing, drawing, painting, playing music, writing, visiting historic sites, and attending
multicultural events. Youth most often participated in these cultural activities at home, at a friend’s
house, at a City facility and to a lesser extent, at school.
Awareness: Many youth reported becoming aware of cultural programs and services through their
friends, schools, parents, leisure guide, and newspapers. They also recommend that the City promote
programs and services to them through schools, Facebook, and Twitter.
Gaps: When asked what cultural activities they think should be offered, the responses included
dances (for kids older than pre-teens), breakdancing, ballroom dancing, and a new facility for art
classes.
- 115 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
30
I have been involved with the Pickering Museum Village as staff and volunteer
for 20 years. It always surprises me that at each event there, I run into someone
who is attending the site for the first time, and “never knew” that Pickering had
a museum; has lived in Pickering for years and paid taxes to help support the
museum (unknowingly) and has now discovered what a wonderful, enjoyable,
educational experience the museum is! … This must happen in other cultural
groups also. Are we missing an opportunity for communication or promotion here?
Contributed by a member of Bloomers & Britches Heritage
Gardeners, Pickering Museum Village
“
”
3.2.7 Focus Group: Seniors
In June 2012, seniors from the South Pickering Seniors Executive Committee were invited to
participate in a focus group session led by Pickering staff.
Preferred activities: The seniors reported the following cultural activities as important to them: crafts,
heritage activities that include Scottish and Irish events (Robbie Burns Supper and St. Patrick’s Day
Celebration), Pickering Concert Band performances, dancing, playing music, computer courses
(which include assistance with photos), graphics, honour library (where books are available to borrow
without the need to sign them out), and theatrical performances.
Restrictions: Seniors Club Executive members did not feel particularly restricted from participating
in cultural activities. They feel that they have the support and resources to offer their membership
cultural activities of interest. They also appreciate the programs the City of Pickering offers and are
often invited by other agencies to attend specific activities or events.
Gaps: When asked what City of Pickering programs could be offered to seniors but currently are not,
the following programs were listed: line dancing (club led), Zumba, Tai Chi, clog dancing, art classes,
and a pole walking club (inside during winter). When asked what cultural facilities should be offered to
seniors, the response was a theatre in Pickering featuring an accessible location, with weekday and
weekend matinee show times. The membership also wanted a dance hall that would be accessible
and large enough for big events.
- 116 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
31
4 Vision and Strategic
Directions
- 117 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
32
A community that offers opportunities
to live, work and engage makes for
an ideal destination for many families
and a strong heritage, arts and culture
sector plays a key role in achieving that
balance.
Contributed by Durham College
“
”
4.1 Vision
Staff considered all of the information collected through the cultural planning process and have
identified the following vision statement: Pickering will collaborate with the community to celebrate
our cultural diversity, heritage and the arts; to sustain our natural environment; to foster a creative
economy; and to strengthen our vibrant neighbourhoods.
- 118 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
33
An image: a cheerful streetscape inducing people to
smile, bringing them together, making them feel part of
the community, people sitting on park benches enjoying
each other’s company, concerts in the park, children
playing unstructured games. Wishes: parks & public
gardens, gathering places, bicycle trails, theatres,
upgraded outdoor sports facilities.
Contributed by a member of the Pickering
Horticultural Society
“
”
4.2 Strategic Directions
From the visioning session and the discussions that followed, six Strategic Directions were proposed
for the Cultural Plan.
1. Broaden and deepen city leadership and investment
2. Build a strong and collaborative cultural sector
3. Strengthen culture-led economic development
4. Conserve and promote history and heritage
5. Celebrate and support diversity and inclusion
6. Cultivate opportunities for the creation, education and enjoyment of the arts
For each Strategic Direction, there are recommended actions (not listed in any order of priority).
- 119 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
34
4.2.1 Strategic Direction 1: Broaden and Deepen
City Leadership and Investment
4.2.1.1 Where we are now
During the public consultation phase and interviews with Pickering Council members and municipal
staff, we heard that Pickering’s unique advantages in the area of leadership and investment include:
• the active engagement of Culture and Recreation staff, with strong networks and connections
in the community
• increasing understanding on the part of Council and senior management about the importance
of culture
• a strong belief in community engagement and transparent decision-making (evident in the
recently launched Virtual Town Hall meetings)
We also heard that there is a need to broaden and deepen the City’s role and commitment to cultural
planning and cultural development.
4.2.1.2 Recommended actions
• Expand communications efforts related to cultural resources and opportunities.
• Increase the City’s role in supporting and facilitating networking and collaboration among
cultural groups.
• Form a Cultural Advisory Committee made up of staff, Council, and community representation
that champions the implementation of the Cultural Plan.
• Increase investment in cultural development.
• Appoint a dedicated cultural staff position with the following responsibilities:
• serve as a champion for the implementation of the Cultural Strategic Plan
• play a community development and capacity-building role within the cultural sector in
Pickering
• support ongoing cultural planning and the integration of culture across departments (the
focus of this position would not be on the delivery of cultural programs or services)
• Ensure the Cultural Strategic Plan is well integrated into the City’s five Corporate Priorities.
• Identify leading practices (in Canada and abroad) in cultural planning.
• Establish a cross-departmental Culture Team to build the capacity of the City to “adopt a
cultural lens” and support the implementation of the Cultural Strategic Plan.
• Identify a strategy to address transportation issues that occur at venues hosting major events,
and consider transportation in the selection and design of new venues.
- 120 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
35
As Spanish-speaking immigrants, we share a common
language, culture, food, music and the challenge
to learn a new language and integrate into our new
homeland: Canada.
Contributed by the Hispanic-Canadian
Alliance of Ontario
“
”
4.2.2 Strategic Direction 2: Build a Strong and
Collaborative Cultural Sector
4.2.2.1 Where we are now
The cultural mapping project completed by the City revealed a large and diverse range of cultural
organizations and activities in the community (see, for example, the list of organizations that
participated in our survey, provided in Appendix C).
However, the survey indicated that some of these organizations are working in isolation from others.
Among the barriers preventing the cultural sector from reaching its potential, organizations cited
problems such as “lack of cohesion” and “the need for more information sharing.”
In other words, the cultural sector in Pickering tends to be fragmented. Combating this fragmentation
through stronger networking and collaboration helps strengthen individual organizations and the
sector as a whole. The Visioning Session also identified a range of specific needs including those
related to new or expanded cultural spaces and facilities.
4.2.2.2 Recommended actions
• Convene networking and peer-to-peer learning events for a cross-section of the cultural sector.
• Address a need for more small venues to support cultural activities (e.g., for exhibitions and
performances).
• Engage cultural groups in the development of strategies that stimulate and cultivate resident
cultural engagement between north and south Pickering.
• Develop and implement a “module” on culture and heritage that could be easily delivered in the
school system.
• Expand the Central Library to include community and cultural meeting spaces – ensure the
library is seen as one of the City’s strongest cultural assets.
- 121 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
36
4.2.3 Strategic Direction 3: Strengthen Culture-led
Economic Development
4.2.3.1 Where we are now
Research and reports produced to date for the Cultural Strategic Plan acknowledge the important
role played by creativity and culture in strengthening the local economy. However, there is still a lack
of broad community understanding of the economic importance of culture, and the need for concrete
strategies and actions to leverage these opportunities.
For example, in our survey of Council committees, we heard that there needs to be a connection
between economic development, heritage and culture, and not such a singular focus on business
development. Integrating all three can help the City sell a lifestyle to newcomers and new business.
4.2.3.2 Recommended actions
• Shift the mindset in the community toward thinking about culture as an asset; change the
thought process from culture as an expense to culture as an investment.
• Establish tourism as a corporate priority (with a strong emphasis on cultural tourism).
• Examine the opportunity to leverage cultural festivals to define a strong cultural brand for
Pickering and increase its reputation as a significant cultural destination.
• Ensure a strong focus in the Cultural Strategic Plan on the needs of commercial cultural
activities and enterprises.
• Integrate cultural and economic planning related to growing the creative economy and
increasing the number of creative cultural industries in Pickering.
• Examine opportunities to engage the private sector and encourage corporate sponsorships
that will maximize resources/investment for cultural initiatives.
• Sustain and promote Pickering’s online Cultural Directory as a means of celebrating and
increasing the profile of Pickering’s cultural assets.
• Create and introduce online user-friendly tools such as a Community Events Application and
Community Media Guide to encourage community organizations, residents, and corporate
partners to take the lead in the provision of cultural initiatives.
- 122 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
37
4.2.4 Strategic Direction 4: Conserve and Promote
History and Heritage
4.2.4.1 Where we are now
Pickering has a rich and diverse history and heritage that is not sufficiently supported or promoted.
For example, we heard of many first-time visitors to the Pickering Museum Village who had not
previously heard about it, and were astonished at the quality of the experience available there. And
more than 80% of the respondents in the household survey agreed that more should be done to
publicize and promote heritage, arts and culture activities in Pickering. Respondents also felt that the
City, cultural groups, and private businesses all have a role to play in promoting culture and heritage.
The vision of history and heritage in the community must be a broad and inclusive one – one that
includes early history (and settlement) in addition to more recent developments (including the arrival
and rich cultural traditions of diverse communities).
4.2.4.2 Recommended actions
• Develop programs and facilities to house and conserve archival collections.
• Strengthen the promotion of local history assets.
• Establish a Visitors’ Centre at the Pickering Museum Village.
• Leverage opportunities to connect culture and heritage programming with the new Rouge Park.
• Develop strategies to highlight and celebrate Pickering’s heritage properties that include
additional or improved signage to identify arts, cultural, and heritage designations and public
properties.
• Allocate funds to acquire and preserve heritage properties.
• Establish a First Nations Interpretive Centre in partnership with relevant stakeholders.
• Continue to operate the Doors Open program.
- 123 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
38
4.2.5 Strategic Direction 5: Celebrate and Support
Diversity and Inclusion
4.2.5.1 Where we are now
Over and over again in our research, we heard that cultural diversity represents one of the
community’s greatest strengths and opportunities. Our Community Profile found that approximately
35% of Pickering’s population belongs to a visible minority.
Greater efforts must be made to engage diverse communities in determining their cultural needs. The
City (working in partnership with community groups) must move to address these needs. An inclusive
approach to cultural planning and development must also address the needs of youth and seniors in
the community.
4.2.5.2 Recommended actions
• Ensure representation from diverse communities on the proposed Cultural Roundtable.
• Actively engage these communities in defining cultural interests, needs, and opportunities.
• Work closely with the school system to increase understanding of, and appreciate for, the
importance of local culture and heritage among youth.
• Develop cross-culture programming by connecting heritage, historic and arts businesses/
organizations.
• Support programming in cultural centres through Marketing and Event guidelines for
community engagement
Creating with power is more than just learning how to use
the tools. The students learn about themselves through the
expression of their own ideas and the telling of their own
stories. They also learn patience, empathy for others and
how to focus. Our youth today have become accustomed
to instant gratification…. Taking one’s time to achieve a
finer final product results in higher marks and positive
recognition. This same patience, when shown in the home,
also produces rewards... Ultimately, the youth begins to feel better
about himself or herself, which results in better citizenry for our community.
Contributed by a local sculptor
“
”
- 124 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
39
4.2.6 Strategic Direction 6: Cultivate Opportunities
for the Creation, Education, and Enjoyment of
the Arts
4.2.6.1 Where we are now
Pickering has a dynamic and energized arts community that includes performance, fabric, visual and
media arts. Many of the artists in the City participated in our public consultation program, offering
insights and suggestions.
However, the household survey identified a need for more cultural opportunities: more than half of
respondents were only “somewhat satisfied” or were not satisfied with the available opportunities in
Pickering. In particular, teens were the least satisfied with the cultural opportunities.
We also asked about gaps in the current array of cultural offerings. The top five identified gaps were
concerts and musical performances; theatre and plays; art exhibits; educational programs; and ethnic
or multicultural festivals and events.
Existing organizations and individuals need municipal, community, and corporate support to sustain
and showcase their activities and educate the next generation of artists. Support is also needed to
develop the next generation of artists, artisans, and audiences. The City needs policies, partnerships,
and programs that support the artists of Pickering and leverage their art for the enjoyment and
education of others. Such strategies could help organizations such as the PineRidge Arts Council
whose volunteers operated the SilverStone Gallery for 3 years until it closed in 2013 due to a lack of
funding and available space.
4.2.6.2 Recommended actions
• Develop and implement a public art policy, program, and funding formula.
• Use art to enhance public spaces, particularly within the City Centre.
• Assign a 1% contribution to public art from the capital budgets of applicable new or renovated
facility and park projects.
• Establish Public Art Reserve Fund. Public art is considered to include, but is not limited to,
sculpture, fountains, architectural components, special lighting or landscaping and murals.
• Ensure that the City plays a leadership role in addressing the need for a new performing
arts or multi-purpose cultural facility preferably in the City Centre (this must become a City
responsibility and priority rather than being driven by the community).
• Develop connections with local colleges and universities to foster arts education.
- 125 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
40
5 How to use the Strategic
Directions: Integrating
Planning for Culture in City
Decision-Making
5 How to use the Strategic
Directions: Integrating
Planning for Culture in City
Decision-Making
- 126 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
41
A defining feature of municipal cultural planning is integrating culture and cultural resources across
many aspects of municipal planning and decision-making. At a fundamental level, this requires asking
three questions:
1. How can cultural resources contribute to addressing broader municipal goals and priorities
(e.g., economic diversification, retaining youth, growing cultural tourism, etc.)?
2. How do local planning decisions affect cultural resources (e.g., what is the impact of new
developments on existing and valued natural or cultural heritage resources)?
3. How can cultural resources enhance the quality of place, form and function of the built
environment and the public realm (e.g., through commissioned public art, strong urban design
guidelines, interpretive materials related to local history, cultural programming in public spaces,
etc.)?
The Municipal Cultural Plan will help build the capacity of staff to integrate culture into ongoing
planning by:
• Establishing a set of shared definitions and assumptions to support cross-departmental
planning
• Supporting more informed planning through sustained cultural mapping of cultural resources
“
”
When I visited Chicago, I was so impressed by the
power of the physical space to inspire. Everywhere
I went in the downtown area, I saw images that
provoked and engaged me… There was a sense
that this environment could make you better,
more creative.... not just yourself but the whole
community together. This type of vision takes
strong leadership to get community alignment…
I hope that the Cultural Strategic Plan can provide
this vision. As a community leader, I would do
whatever I could to support such vision.
Contributed by a member of the Pickering
Public Library - 127 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
42
The following Strategic Directions chart provides more details on the proposed actions within this
10 year plan:
Strategic
Direction Action Responsibility Resources Timeline
Measurement
Guidelines
1.
Broaden
and deepen
City
leadership
and
investment
Expand
communications
efforts related to
cultural resources
and opportunities
City Development
Culture & Recreation
Current Budget
(existing)
Short Number of people
attending cultural
events
Investment in
Pickering
Cultural awareness
in local businesses
Form a Cultural
Advisory
Committee
made up of
staff, Council,
and community
representation
that
champions the
implementation of
the Cultural Plan
Culture & Recreation City Clerk
section and
Council for
resources
(approval of
positions)
Short Establishment
of the Cultural
Advisory Committee
with monthly
meetings
Established
committee mandate
and terms of
reference
Establish a cross-
departmental
“Culture Team”
to build the
capacity of the
City to “adopt
a cultural lens”
and support the
implementation
of the Cultural
Strategic Plan
Culture & Recreation
Supervisor, Cultural
Services as lead of the
“Culture Team”
Staff Time Short Establishment of
the Culture Team
with regular staff
meetings
Increase
investment
in cultural
development
City Development
Culture & Recreation
Library
Current Budget
($30,000
additional)
Consultant
Report required
Short Completion of
Financial Impact
Report
Development of a
Financial Incentives
Report
Development
of City Tourism
Program
Cultural Services
City Development
Current Budget
($100,000
additional)
Medium Completion of
Corporate Tourism
Strategy
- 128 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
43
Strategic
Direction Action Responsibility Resources Timeline
Measurement
Guidelines
1.
Broaden
and deepen
City
leadership
and
investment
(cont’d)
Increase the
City’s role in
supporting and
networking
cultural groups
within the
community
Library Meeting Space
Staff Time
Short Host meetings with
each cultural sector
throughout the year
Maintain
and promote
comprehensive
cultural calendar of
events
Appoint a
dedicated cultural
staff person
Culture & Recreation Current Budget
(existing)
Short Position of
Supervisor, Cultural
Services was
established in
early 2013 and is a
dedicated resource
to the City’s cultural
affairs
Monitor ongoing
workload to assess
need for additional
staff resources in
the long term
Ensure the
Cultural Strategic
Plan is well
integrated
into the City’s
five Corporate
Priorities
All Departments
Lead is Culture &
Recreation
Staff Time Short Reports to
Council regarding
integration of five
Corporate Priorities
Identify leading
practices in
cultural planning
in Canada and
abroad
Culture & Recreation Staff Time Short Updates to the
City’s Cultural Plan
Identify a strategy
to address
transportation
issues at venues
that host major
events. Consider
transportation in
the selection and
design of new
venues
Engineering & Public
Works
Culture & Recreation
City Development
Corporate Services
Staff Time Medium Development and
implementation of
strategy; reduction
in the number of
complaints
- 129 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
44
Strategic
Direction Action Responsibility Resources Timeline
Measurement
Guidelines
2.
Build a
strong and
collaborative
cultural
sector
Convene
networking and
peer-to-peer
learning events
for a cross-
section of the
cultural sector
Library Staff Time Short Number of
meetings
Number of
participants
Address a
need for more
venues to
support cultural
activities (e.g., for
exhibitions and
performances)
Culture & Recreation
Library
Staff Time Medium Inventory of
cultural spaces in
Pickering (City and
private), including
restaurants
Develop a
communications
program
Develop and
implement a
“module” on
culture and
heritage that
could be easily
delivered in the
school system
Culture & Recreation Staff Time Medium Development and
use of module
Engage cultural
groups in the
development
of strategies
that encourage
resident cultural
engagement
between north
and south
Pickering
Culture & Recreation Current Budget
(existing)
Medium Research and
development of
strategies
Expand the
Central Library
to include
community and
cultural meeting
spaces
Council
Library
Capital Budget Medium /
Long
Library expansion
Amount of new
meeting space as
well as meetings
scheduled in new
space
- 130 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
45
Strategic
Direction Action Responsibility Resources Timeline
Measurement
Guidelines
3.
Strengthen
culture-led
economic
development
Examine the
opportunity to
leverage cultural
festivals to
define a strong
cultural brand
for Pickering
and increase
its reputation
as a significant
cultural
destination
City Development
Culture & Recreation
Staff Time
Current Budget
(existing)
Medium Increase
participation in
City events by
10%
Increase number
of existing and
new vendors/
participants
Measure feedback
though participant
satisfaction
Integrate cultural
and economic
planning related
to growing the
creative economy
and increasing
the number of
creative cultural
industries in
Pickering
City Development
Culture & Recreation
(as resource)
Staff Time Medium Identify existing
business with
Durham Region
Business
Information
Track business
openings in
Pickering and
achieve 10%
increase in
creative cultural
industries
Examine
opportunities
to engage the
private sector
and encourage
corporate
sponsorships
that will maximize
resources/
investment for
cultural initiatives
Culture & Recreation Staff Time Medium Completion
of Corporate
Sponsorship
Package/Program
Increased
sponsorship
revenue and
number of
sponsors by 20%
- 131 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
46
Strategic
Direction Action Responsibility Resources Timeline
Measurement
Guidelines
3.
Strengthen
culture-led
economic
development
(cont’d)
Create and
introduce online
user-friendly
tools such as
a Community
Events
Application &
Community
Media Guide
to encourage
community
organizations,
residents and
corporate
partners to take
the lead in the
provision of
cultural initiatives
Culture & Recreation Staff Time Short Applications
completed and
launched on
website
Number of
applications
returned
Sustain and
promote
Pickering’s online
Cultural Directory
as a means
of celebrating
and increasing
the profile of
Pickering’s
cultural assets
& cultural
community
organizations
Culture & Recreation Staff Time Short Track number of
website visits,
number of listings,
economic impact
of cultural events
Establish tourism
as a corporate
priority (with a
strong emphasis
on cultural
tourism)
Culture & Recreation
City Development
(as resource)
Current Budget
($65.000
dedicated to
additional staff
resources)
Long Implementation of
Corporate Tourism
Strategy
- 132 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
47
Strategic
Direction Action Responsibility Resources Timeline
Measurement
Guidelines
3.
Strengthen
culture-led
economic
development
(cont’d)
Ensure a
strong focus
in the Cultural
Strategic Plan
on the needs
of commercial
cultural activities
and enterprises
City Development Staff Time
(existing)
Long Measure the
number of new
businesses and
level of investment
We recognize that in order for art and culture
to survive and prosper, we need a healthy
community where everyone feels at home
and that’s exactly what our members have, a
sense of belonging.
Contributed by the Indo-Canadian
Cultural Association of Durham
“
”
- 133 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
48
Strategic
Direction Action Responsibility Resources Timeline
Measurement
Guidelines
4. Conserve
and promote
history and
heritage
Strengthen the
promotion of local
history assets
Culture & Recreation
Library
Related Advisory
Committees
Current Budget
($12,000
additional for
signage)
Staff Time
Short Increase of the
following: number
of website visits
(PMV & PADA)
Number of
attendees
Number of
heritage events
Number of
questions
submitted to
Library relating
to historical
documents
Improve signage
for heritage
districts
Leverage
opportunities to
connect culture
and heritage
programming
with the new
Rouge National
Park
Engineering & Public
Works
Staff Time Long Number of
programs
and events in
Rouge Park
of cultural and
natural heritage
significance
Develop
strategies to
highlight and
celebrate
Pickering’s
heritage
properties
that include
additional or
improved signage
to identify
arts, cultural,
and heritage
designations and
public properties
City Development
Heritage Pickering
Staff Time
Current Budget
(existing)
Medium Completion of
Council-adopted
program strategies
- 134 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
49
Strategic
Direction Action Responsibility Resources Timeline
Measurement
Guidelines
4. Conserve
and promote
history and
heritage
(cont’d)
Develop funds
to acquire and
preserve heritage
properties
City Development Reserve Fund
(new)
Long Council-adopted
program to
establish reserve
fund
Establish a
Visitors’ Centre
at the Pickering
Museum Village
Culture & Recreation Capital Budget Medium /
Long
Opening of
Visitors’ Centre
Develop
programs
and facilities
to house and
conserve archival
collections
Culture & Recreation
Library
Heritage Pickering
(as a resource)
Capital Budget Medium Opening of
facilities (Library &
Visitor Centre)
Establish a
First Nations
Interpretive
Centre and
archive room,
with appropriate
partners
Culture & Recreation
Heritage Pickering
Pickering Village
Museum Advisory
Committee (as
resource)
Capital Budget Long Opening of
Interpretive Centre
(as part of the
Museums’ Visitors
Centre) and
number of artifacts
displayed
Continue to
operate the
Doors Open
program
Heritage Pickering Staff Time
Current Budget
(existing)
Short Host Doors Open
Event
- 135 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
50
Strategic
Direction Action Responsibility Resources Timeline
Measurement
Guidelines
5. Celebrate
and support
diversity and
inclusion
Ensure
representation
from diverse
communities on
the proposed
Cultural Advisory
Committee
Council Staff Time Short Promote advisory
committee
appointment
opportunities
to the general
public but also
to the full range
of Pickering’s
community cultural
organizations
Actively
engage diverse
communities in
defining cultural
interests, needs,
and opportunities
Culture & Recreation Staff Time Medium Incorporate into
the Advisory
Committee Terms
of Reference
Conduct data
analysis & prepare
report
Work closely
with the
school system
to increase
understanding of
and appreciation
for the
importance of
local culture and
heritage among
youth
Culture & Recreation Staff Time Medium Develop, promote
and offer school
presentations and
develop website
content that
educate youth
Albert Camus said, “Without culture, and
the relative freedom it implies, society, even
when perfect, is but a jungle. This is why any
authentic creation is a gift to the future.” And
John F. Kennedy said, “If art is to nourish the
roots of our culture, society must set the artist
free to follow his vision wherever it takes him
[or her].”
Contributed by the Backwoods Players
“
”
- 136 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
51
Strategic
Direction Action Responsibility Resources Timeline
Measurement
Guidelines
5. Celebrate
and support
diversity and
inclusion
(cont’d)
Develop
cross-culture
programming
by connecting
heritage,
historic and arts
businesses/
organizations
Culture & Recreation
Library
City Development
Staff Time Medium Support Cultural
sector initiatives
and relationships
developed in
stakeholders
group meetings
Encourage
partnerships by
promotion of
opportunities to
cultural sector
groups through
Cultural Directory
eBlasts
Support
programming
in cultural
centres through
Marketing and
Event guidelines
for community
engagement
Culture & Recreation
Library
Staff Time
Current budget
(existing)
Medium Development of a
community event
resource
Tracking of
related events and
participation rates
Development
of City outreach
program for
community
engagement
similar to
Destination
Pickering
- 137 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
52
Strategic
Direction Action Responsibility Resources Timeline
Measurement
Guidelines
6.
Cultivate
opportunities
for the
creation,
education
and
enjoyment of
the arts
Develop and
implement a
public art policy,
program, and
funding formula
City Development
Council
Capital Budget Medium Adoption of
policy/programs
to include a
contribution
of 1% of all
major municipal
buildings and
parks projects
be dedicated to
public art and
will encourage
the private sector
through planning
and site plan
approvals to do
the same
Number of art
installations
Catalogue
development
Establish Public
Art Reserve
Fund
Culture & Recreation
Council
Reserve Fund
(new)
Medium Establish Public
Art Reserve Fund
to be used to
purchase and/or
commission public
art for display in
public spaces
Develop
connections with
local colleges/
universities
to foster arts
education
City Development Staff Time Long Development of
courses/seminars/
information
sessions
Encourage
public art in
appropriate
private
developments
within the City
City Development Staff Time Short Private
contribution to
public art in new
development
projects within
identified areas
- 138 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
53
Strategic
Direction Action Responsibility Resources Timeline
Measurement
Guidelines
6.
Cultivate
opportunities
for the
creation,
education
and
enjoyment
of the arts
(cont’d)
Use art to
enhance existing
public spaces,
particularly within
the City Centre
City Development
Engineering & Public
Works
Staff Time Medium Established Public
Art Policy and
Program
The total number
of public art
commissions
by the City and
the total value of
those public art
commissions
Ensure the
City plays a
leadership role in
addressing the
need for a new
performing arts
or multi-purpose
cultural facility in
the City Centre
City Development
Culture & Recreation
Current Budget
($30,000
additional)
Short Complete
Business Case for
an Arts Centre in
Pickering
- 139 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
54
Appendix A: Members of
the City of Pickering Staff
Committee
Marisa Carpino – Director, Culture & Recreation
Kathy Williams – Director of Public Services, Pickering Public Library
Catherine Rose – Chief Planner
Darrell Selsky – Manager, Capital Projects & Infrastructure
Kim Thompson – Manager, By-law Enforcement Services
Tanya Ryce – Supervisor, Cultural Services
Arnold Mostert – Senior Coordinator, Landscape & Parks Development
Catherine Hodge – Coordinator, Economic Development
Michelle Pearce & Jesse St. Amant – Coordinator, Environmental Awareness
Chantal Whitaker – Coordinator, Sustainability
Melissa Markham – Principal Planner, Development Review
Ashley Yearwood – Planner II
Even in this age of multiculturalism, the heritage of Pickering must include the fact
of the churches’ foundational presence in Pickering and its binding together of the
community.
Contributed by a member of Dunbarton-Fairport United Church
“
”
- 140 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
55
Appendix B: Members
of the Community
Stakeholders Committee
Cathy Grant – Chief Executive Officer, Pickering Public Library
Cathy Schnippering & Mary Cook – PineRidge Arts Council
Pamela Fusselli – formerly of Heritage Pickering
John Sabean – Pickering Historical Society
Kathy McKay – Ajax/Pickering Board of Trade
Laura Drake – Pickering Museum Village Advisory Committee
Pat Dunnill – formerly of the Pickering Museum Village Foundation
Shashi Bhatia – Indo-Canadian Cultural Association of Durham
Without the maintenance of our history, we are a
community without a past. It is critical for Pickering
to ensure the further development of the Museum
and the maintenance of the significant heritage
homes, landscapes, cemeteries, archaeological
sites and artefacts, stories and descriptions of who
we were and what made us as a community.
Contributed by a member of
Heritage Pickering
“
”
- 141 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
56
Appendix C: List of
Organizations that
Completed the Survey
Altona Forest Stewardship Committee
Artists and Poets Ltd.
Backwoods Players
Bayview Heights Public School
Bloomers & Britches Heritage Gardeners, Pickering Museum Village
Canadian Multicultural Forum
Canadian Progress Club - Durham South
Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
City of Pickering - Culture & Recreation
City of Pickering - Engineering & Public Works
City of Pickering - Municipal Operations
City of Pickering - Operations & Facilities
Claremont District and Community Association
Community Development Council Durham
Conseil Scolaire District Catholique Centre Sud - French Catholic School Board
D. James Sculptor
Dalebrook Neighbourhood Association
Dunbarton High School
Dunbarton-Fairport United Church
Durham College
Durham Mountain Biking Association
Durham Radio Inc.
Durham Region Branch Ontario Genealogical Society
Durham West Arts Centre Foundation
Entertainment Unlimited
Fusion Art
Ganadatsetiagon Public School
Girls Incorporated of Durham
Glengrove Public School
Great Walls of Art
- 142 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
57
Heritage Pickering
Hispanic-Canadian Alliance of Ontario
Hurst Communications
Indo-Canadian Cultural Association of Durham
Jehovah’s Witnesses
L’Amicale du Centre Communautaire Francophone de Durham(ACCFD)
Legend Music Enterprises Corp.
Managhan Design Solutions Inc.
Mary Cook Photography
Muse on Design
Muslim Youth & Community Centre for Pickering/Durham (MYCC)
one twin design
PAC 4 Teens
Pickering Ajax Italian Social Club
Pickering Community Concert Band
Pickering Gas & Steam Club
Pickering Horticultural Society
Pickering Italian Senior Association
Pickering Museum Village
Pickering Museum Village Advisory Committee
Pickering Museum Village Singers
Pickering Potters Studio
Pickering Public Library
Pine Ridge Arts Council
Pine Ridge Secondary School
PMV Woodwrights Guild
RAI Architect Inc.
Rosebank Road Public School
Rouge Valley Chapter IODE
Royal Scottish Country Dance Society
Sir John A. Macdonald Public School
St. Isaac Jogues Parish - Roman Catholic Church
St. John Ambulance
St. Monica Catholic School
St. Nedela Macedonian Orthodox Church
Sunshine Publishing
The Arms of Jesus Children’s Mission Inc.
The Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto
The County Town Singers
The Driftwood Theatre Group
The Woodwright’s Guild
- 143 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
58
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Toronto Scottish Country Dance Association
UOIT - University of Ontario Institute of Technology
Vaughan Willard Public School
Vintage Victuals
Westcreek Public School
Young Singers
Zahra’s School of Middle Eastern Dance
Working out of Pickering since I began over 15 years ago, I have seen the effect
technology has had on musicians’ ability to stay in the town they love with their
families and still have the opportunity to have a global impact with their work.
Just 15 years ago, there were no MP3 downloads, and largely no websites, so
networking was really difficult with a small budget… The advent of new tools
has made global marketing more affordable and in many cases possible where
it was almost impossible back then… With these advances, artists who are
world-class, and often come from towns just like Pickering, no longer have to
relocate to larger cities to have their music be made and heard, and that’s a
relief, because I never wanted to do that.
Contributed by a member of Artists and Poets Ltd.
“
”
- 144 -
City of Pickering Cultural Strategic Plan 2014
59
Appendix D: Participants
in Visioning and Strategy
Session June 27, 2012
Dr. Greg Baeker – Director, Cultural Development – Miller Dickinson Blais - Speaker
Tony Prevedel – Chief Administrative Officer
Tom Melymuk – Director, City Development
Everett Buntsma – Director, Community Services
Neil Carrol – Director, Planning & Development
Bill Douglas – Fire Chief
Debbie Shields – City Clerk
Kathy Williams – Director of Public Services
Steve Reynolds – Department Head, Culture & Recreation
Jen Parent - Division Head, Human Resources
Stan Karwowski – Treasurer
Marisa Carpino – Director, Culture & Recreation
Catherine Rose – Chief Planner
Chantal Whitaker – Coordinator, Sustainability
Katrina Pyke – Coordinator, Museum Operations
Jody Morris – Supervisor, Facility Programs
Ashley Yearwood – Planner II
- 145 -
Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: ENG 11-20
Date: December 7, 2020
From: Richard Holborn
Director, Engineering Services
Subject: Stormwater Management Facilities Asset Management Plan
- Final Report July 2020
- File: 1440
Recommendation:
1. That the Stormwater Management Facilities Asset Management Plan, Final Report July
2020, prepared by The Municipal Infrastructure Group Ltd. a T.Y. LIN International Company
be received for information;
2. That Council endorse the Stormwater Management Facilities Asset Management Plan to be
used by staff as a resource document for identifying and planning maintenance projects for
the Stormwater Management Facilities under the jurisdiction of the City of Pickering;
3. That staff be authorized to implement the recommendations within the Stormwater
Management Facilities Asset Management Plan, subject to budget and further Council
approval for the individual projects; and,
4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary
actions as indicated in this report.
Executive Summary: The Stormwater Management Facilities Asset Management Plan Final
Report July 2020 (SWMF AMP) (Attachment #1) provides a comprehensive review and inspection
of 18 of the 20 existing stormwater management facilities that are owned and operated by the
City. The 2 remaining facilities owned by the City were recently constructed/reconstructed,
therefore, were excluded from the SWMF AMP review scope. The SWMF AMP will comply with
Ontario Regulation 588/17, which requires municipalities to complete asset management plans for
its core infrastructure by July 1, 2021.
The recommended management plan includes a priority list for facility maintenance (cleanout)
projects and recommends a number of reconstruction/retrofit (capital) projects. All maintenance
projects and reconstruction/retrofit projects can proceed directly to detailed design and/or
construction stages. It is recommended that the SWMF AMP be endorsed by Council as a
resource document to be used by staff.
Financial Implications: Council endorsement of the SWMF AMP is a commitment, in principal,
to implement a maintenance program for the City’s existing stormwater management facilities
(SWMFs), in order to meet the level of service required by the Ministry of the Environment,
- 146 -
ENG 11-20 December 7, 2020
Subject: Stormwater Management Facilities Asset Management Plan
Final Report July 2020 Page 2
Conservation and Parks. The recommended maintenance (cleanout) projects are estimated to
have a total cost of approximately $6.1 million, and the recommended reconstruction/retrofit
projects are estimated to have a total cost of approximately $2.0 million. The 2020 budget
includes an annual contribution of $200,000 .00 to the Stormwater Management Reserve Fund.
These funds can be used to help offset the costs identified above. Council will have to consider
increasing the annual contribution to match the planned expenditure levels. All projects
recommended in the SWMF AMP will need to be included and approved in future capital budgets
in order to be implemented.
Discussion: The City owns and operates 20 SWMFs with the majority of these
facilities being constructed in the 1980’s or 1990’s and in need of major repairs and cleanouts.
Currently, the City does not have a comprehensive SWMFs maintenance program or dedicated
funding program to ensure that proper maintenance is completed in a timely manner.
The Municipal Infrastructure Group Ltd. a T.Y. LIN International Company was retained by the City
of Pickering in June 2019 (Resolution #111/19) to prepare the SWMF AMP. The purpose of the
SWMF AMP was to assess the current condition of the City’s existing SWMFs and determine a
prioritized list of maintenance and reconstruction/retrofit projects to ensure an acceptable level of
service is provided. In addition, the SWMF AMP will comply with Ontario Regulation 588/17, which
requires municipalities to complete asset management plans for its core infrastructure by July 1,
2021.
The SWMF AMP provides a comprehensive review and evaluation of 18 existing SWMFs (12 wet
and 6 dry SWMFs). The 2 remaining facilities owned by the City were recently
constructed/reconstructed, therefore, they were excluded from the SWMF AMP review scope.
The objectives of the SWMF AMP were as follows:
assess current physical conditions of the SWMFs through visual inspections;
quantify sediment volumes in wet ponds through sediment accumulation surveys and assess
the current performance of the SWMFs;
determine sediment quality in each facility to recommend disposal methods;
complete screening of the vegetation level and sensitive species assessment at each facility to
determine vegetation restoration needs and costs associated with environmental requirements
for recommended works;
update and populate the City’s GIS database with information reviewed and collected through
the SWMF AMP process;
identify public safety and regulatory policy concerns;
identify the potential of retrofitting SWMFs for improved performance under a capital works
plan that outlines recommended works, regulatory requirements and estimated costs ; and,
- 147 -
ENG 11-20 December 7, 2020
Subject: Stormwater Management Facilities Asset Management Plan
Final Report July 2020 Page 3
evaluate the maintenance required at the SWMFs to develop a prioritized list of recommended
works in a SWMFs maintenance plan that outlines sediment cleanout needs, recommended
repairs, ongoing maintenance requirements and estimated costs.
The SWMF AMP provides an overall evaluation of each facility, as well as a short and long term
maintenance and capital projects plan, based on SWMF condition assessments, including a cost
estimate for required maintenance tasks for each facility. The SWMFs were evaluated to establish
a ranking that identifies which SWMFs are most in need of maintenance, and they were also
evaluated for their suitability for retrofit/reconstruction to improve their performance and level of
service.
The recommendations from the SWMFs evaluation included a retrofit of 2 facilities and sediment
cleanout at 12 other facilities with priority ranking and cost estimates as follows:
Recommended SWMF Reconstruction/Retrofit (Capital) Projects
Priority SWMF Name (ID) Estimated Retrofit Cost
1 Lisgoold (C2-08-GC) $716,300.00
2 Rouge (C1-01-ER) 1,287,000.00
Total Estimated Recommended/Retrofit Cost $2,003,300.00
Recommended SWMF Maintenance (Cleanout) Projects
Priority SWMF Name (ID) Estimated Cleanout Cost
1 Rouge (C1-01-ER) $838,500.00
2 Lisgoold (C2-08-GC) 313,300.00
3 Autumn (C1-03-PT) 620,100.00
4 Begley Street (R3-02-AB) 315,900.00
5 Chickadee (C1-05-PT) 297,700.00
6 Dixie Estates 2 (C2-02D-PC) 336,700.00
7 Cognac (C2-01-DN) 412,100.00
8 Valley Farm (C2-06-WD) 347,100.00
9 Durham Woods (R3-04-LD) 1,031,400.00
10 Calvington Trail (C1-04-PT) 370,500.00
T11 Bopa (C1-02-PT) 374,400.00
T11 Mattamy (C3-08-UC) 804,700.00
Total Estimated Maintenance (Cleanout) Cost $6,062,400.00
- 148 -
ENG 11-20 December 7, 2020
Subject: Stormwater Management Facilities Asset Management Plan
Final Report July 2020 Page 4
The estimated cleanout costs can be used to plan for future capital budgets with an indexing
factor to be applied to reflect the change in construction costs. The actual costs for the
reconstruction/retrofit projects will be updated through the detailed design process. All projects
recommended in the SWMF AMP must be approved in future capital budgets in order to be
implemented.
The SWMF AMP provides the City with a GIS database that gives staff the ability to quickly
access and retrieve information, to promptly respond to inquiries from residents, government
agencies and consultants. Also, the database will be used to effectively communicate internally,
between departments. The database provides a consistent method to enter new information from
new or existing facilities and track inspections and maintenance records. City Staff will update the
database regularly based on projects as they are completed and new SWMFs when they are built.
During the existing conditions assessment of the SWMFs, there were qu ite a number of
encroachments that were found. The most common violations included private structures, such as
fences, furniture, retaining walls and plantings placed on City owned lands. Staff are investigating
the violations, and will focus first on the encroachments that impact (or potentially impact) the
operation and maintenance of the SWMF.
The maintenance and capital projects plan recommended in the SWMF AMP will provide multiple
benefits to the City, such as; helping to safeguard public health, reducing flooding potential for
public and private properties, improving water quality in the receiving creeks and demonstrating
due diligence with respect to good asset management principles and practices.
Attachments:
1. Stormwater Management Facilities Asset Management Plan Final Report July 2020
2. Stormwater Management Facilities Location Map
- 149 -
ENG 11-20 December 7, 2020
Subject: Stormwater Management Facilities Asset Management Plan
Final Report July 2020 Page 5
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
Original signed by: Original signed by:
Irina Marouchko, P.Eng. Richard Holborn, P.Eng
Senior Water Resources Engineer Director, Engineering Services
Original signed by:
Marilee Gadzovski, M. Sc. (Eng), P.Eng.
Division Head, Water Resources &
Development Services
IM:mjh
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City Council
Original signed by:
Marisa Carpino, M.A.
Interim Chief Administrative Officer
- 150 -
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT ▪ JULY 2020
REPORT PREPARED FOR
CITY OF PICKERING
ONE THE ESPLANADE
PICKERING, ON L1V 6K7
REPORT PREPARED BY
THE MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE GROUP LTD.
A T.Y. LIN INTERNATIONAL COMPANY
8800 DUFFERIN STREET, SUITE 200
VAUGHAN, ON L4K 0C5
(905) 738-5700
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
REPORT PREPARED IN ASSOCIATION WITH
GROUNDWATER ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT SERVICES
Attachment #1 to Report #ENG 11-20
- 151 -
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE i
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND............................................ 1
1.1 Overview and Purpose .................................................................. 1
1.2 Background Review ...................................................................... 4
1.2.1 GIS Database ................................................................................ 4
1.2.2 Design Drawings and SWM Reports ............................................. 4
1.2.3 Facility Inspection Records ............................................................ 5
1.2.4 Other Information ........................................................................... 5
2 FACILITY INSPECTIONS AND SURVEYS ....................................... 6
2.1 Visual Inspection ........................................................................... 6
2.2 Sediment Survey ........................................................................... 6
2.2.1 Sediment Volume .......................................................................... 6
2.2.2 Sediment Quality ........................................................................... 6
2.3 Ecology .......................................................................................... 6
3 FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT ............................................ 7
3.1 Physical Condition ........................................................................ 7
3.2 Sediment and TSS Removal Efficiency ....................................... 7
3.2.1 Sediment Volumes ........................................................................ 7
3.2.2 TSS Removal Efficiency ................................................................ 8
3.2.3 Sediment Quality and Disposal Methods ..................................... 10
3.3 Ecological Assessment .............................................................. 11
3.3.1 Vegetation and Wildlife ................................................................ 11
3.3.2 Fish Management ........................................................................ 11
3.4 Facility Condition Summary ....................................................... 11
4 SWM FACILITY DATABASE .......................................................... 30
4.1 Database Fields ........................................................................... 30
4.2 Database Functionality and Limitations .................................... 31
5 FACILITY EVALUATION ................................................................. 36
5.1 Evaluation Criteria ....................................................................... 36
5.1.1 Weighted Scoring ........................................................................ 38
5.1.2 Maintenance Evaluation Criteria Interpretation ........................... 38
5.1.3 Retrofit Opportunity Evaluation .................................................... 43
5.2 Evaluation Results ...................................................................... 46
6 CAPITAL PROJECTS PLAN ........................................................... 47
6.1 Priority No. 1: Lisgoold Pond ..................................................... 47
6.1.1 Issues .......................................................................................... 47
6.1.2 Recommended Works ................................................................. 47
6.1.3 Cost Estimate .............................................................................. 48
6.2 Priority No. 2: Rouge Pond ......................................................... 49
6.2.1 Issues .......................................................................................... 49
6.2.2 Recommended Works ................................................................. 49
6.2.3 Cost Estimate .............................................................................. 50
7 MAINTENANCE PLAN .................................................................... 52
- 152 -
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE ii TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
7.1 SWMF Cleanout Priority Ranking ............................................... 52
7.2 Cost Estimate ............................................................................... 54
7.3 SWMF Cleanout Schedule and Checklist .................................. 54
7.4 SWMF Inspections ....................................................................... 56
7.4.1 SWMF Inspections and Minor Maintenance ................................ 56
7.4.2 Sediment Accumulation Assessments ........................................ 57
8 SUMMARY ....................................................................................... 58
9 REFERENCES ................................................................................. 61
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A FACILITY INSPECTION FORMS
APPENDIX B SEDIMENT SURVEYS AND CALCULATIONS
APPENDIX C ECOLOGY ASSESSMENTS AND SEDIMENT
QUALITY SAMPLING
APPENDIX D EVALUATION MATRICES
APPENDIX E COST ESTIMATES
APPENDIX F SWMF INFORMATION FILES (DIGITAL FILES)
- 153 -
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE iii
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
FIGURES
Figure 1-1 SWM Facility Locations ................................................................ 2
Figure 6-1 Lisgoold Pond Recommended Works ....................................... 48
Figure 6-2 Rouge Pond Recommended Works ........................................... 50
TABLES
Table 1-1 Existing GIS Attribute Table for SWMFs...................................... 4
Table 3-1 SWMF Sediment Volumes............................................................. 8
Table 3-2 Water Quality Storage Relationships (Table 3.2 of MOE
SWM Manual) ................................................................................. 9
Table 3-3 SWMF Sediment Removal Efficiencies ...................................... 10
Table 3-4 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Autumn Pond ....... 12
Table 3-5 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Begley Street
Pond ............................................................................................. 13
Table 3-6 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Bopa Pond ............ 14
Table 3-7 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Calvington Trail
Pond ............................................................................................. 15
Table 3-8 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Chickadee Pond ... 16
Table 3-9 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Cognac Pond ........ 17
Table 3-10 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Dixie Estates
Pond 2 ........................................................................................ 18
Table 3-11 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Durham Woods
Pond ........................................................................................ 19
Table 3-12 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Lisgoold Pond ...... 20
Table 3-13 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Mattamy Pond ...... 21
Table 3-14 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Rouge Pond.......... 22
Table 3-15 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Valley Farm
Pond ........................................................................................ 23
Table 3-16 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Braeburn Pond ..... 24
Table 3-17 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Brock Ridge
Pond ........................................................................................ 25
Table 3-18 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Dixie Estates
Pond 1 ........................................................................................ 26
Table 3-19 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Steeple Hill
Pond ........................................................................................ 27
Table 3-20 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Strathmore
Crescent Pond ............................................................................. 28
Table 3-21 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Pine Ridge High
School Pond ................................................................................. 29
Table 4-1 GIS Database for SWMFs (Main Feature) .................................. 32
Table 4-2 GIS Database for SWMFs (Stormwater Management Pond) .... 33
- 154 -
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE iv TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 4-3 GIS Database for SWMFs (Additional Data) .............................. 33
Table 4-4 GIS Database for SWMFs (Inspection, Operation and
Maintenance) ................................................................................ 34
Table 5-1 SWMF Maintenance Assessment Criteria ................................. 37
Table 5-2 SWMF Retrofit Assessment Criteria .......................................... 38
Table 5-3 Maintenance Questions for Performance / Health and
Safety Issues ................................................................................ 39
Table 5-4 Maintenance Questions for Operations Considerations .......... 40
Table 5-5 Maintenance Questions for Statutory and Regulatory
Requirements ............................................................................... 41
Table 5-6 Maintenance Questions for Environmental Concerns ............. 42
Table 5-7 Maintenance Questions for Community Concerns .................. 42
Table 5-8 Retrofit Questions for Performance / Health and Safety .......... 43
Table 5-9 Retrofit Questions for Operations Considerations ................... 44
Table 5-10 Retrofit Questions for Cost-Benefit Analysis ............................ 44
Table 5-11 Retrofit Questions for Statutory and Regulatory
Requirements ............................................................................... 45
Table 5-12 Retrofit Questions for Environmental Issues ............................ 45
Table 5-13 Retrofit Questions for Community Concerns ........................... 46
Table 7-1 SWMF Maintenance Priority ....................................................... 53
Table 7-2 SWMF Cleanout Schedule .......................................................... 55
Table 8-1 Recommended SWMF Retrofits (Capital Works Plan) ............. 58
Table 8-2 SWMF Maintenance Priority (Maintenance Plan) ...................... 59
- 155 -
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 1
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1.1 Overview and Purpose
The Municipal Infrastructure Group Ltd. (TMIG), in association with Groundwater Environmental
Management Services Inc. (GEMS), was retained by the City of Pickering to complete a Stormwater
Management Facilities Asset Management Plan (SWMF AMP). The SWMF AMP builds upon the City’s
existing facility inspection records and database with a comprehensive review and field program to develop
practical capital works and maintenance plans to manage the City’s SWMFs.
The City of Pickering owns and operates 20 SWM facilities, of which 18 were included in this SWMF AMP. A
total of 12 wet facilities six (6) dry ponds were evaluated in this study and included in the capital works and
maintenance plans. The two remaining facilities owned by the City (Abbott Crescent Pond and Operations
Center Pond) were recently constructed or reconstructed and were therefore excluded from this evaluation.
Several of the SWM facilities have deteriorated physical components and performance due to inconsistent
maintenance over their lifespan. The City required a review of its SWMFs to plan maintenance and retrofit
projects to ensure an acceptable level of service is provided for the foreseeable future.
The purpose of the SWMF AMP is to assess the current conditions of the City of Pickering’s SWMFs and
determine a prioritized list of capital works and maintenance requirements for the short to medium term (up
to 10 years).
The objectives of the SWMF AMP are as follows:
■ Assess the current physical conditions of the SWMFs through visual inspections.
■ Quantify sediment volumes in wet ponds through sediment accumulation surveys and assess the
current performance of the SWMFs.
■ Determine sediment quality in each pond to recommend disposal methods.
■ Complete screening level vegetation and sensitive species assessments at each pond to determine
methods and costs associated with environmental requirements for recommended works.
■ Update and populate the City’s GIS database with information reviewed or collected through the SWMF
AMP.
■ Identify public safety and regulatory policy concerns.
■ Identify the potential for retrofitting SWMFs for improved performance under a capital works plan that
outlines the recommended works, regulatory requirements and estimated costs.
■ Evaluate the maintenance required at the SWMFs to develop a prioritized list of works requirements in a
SWMF maintenance plan that outlines sediment cleanout needs, recommended repairs, ongoing
maintenance requirement, regulatory requirements and estimated costs.
This SWMF AMP report describes the background review of the City’s SWMFs (Section 1.2), outlines the
site inspections completed (Section 2), summarizes current facility conditions and updates to the City’s GIS
database (Sections 3 and 4), and describes the facility evaluation and resulting maintenance and capital
works plans (Sections 5 through 7).
- 156 -
Durham Woods PondR3-04-LD
Begley Street PondR3-02-AB
Steeple Hill Pond R3-01D-PT
Autumn PondC1-03-PT
Braeburn PondC1-06D-PT
Calvington Trail PondC1-04-PT
Chickadee PondC1-05-PT
Rouge PondC1-01-ER
Bopa PondC1-02-PT
Cognac PondC2-01-DN
Dixie Estates Pond 1C2-03-PC
Dixie Estates Pond 2C2-02D-PC Strathmore Crescent PondC2-05D-WD
Lisgoold PondC2-08-GC
Mattamy PondC3-08-UC
Pine Ridge High SchoolC2-04D-WD
Valley Farm PondC2-06-WD
Brock Ridge ParkC2-07D-WD
Highway 401
Finch Avenue
Whites RoadKingston RoadAltona RoadBayly StreetDixie RoadLiverpool RoadBrock RoadRosebank RoadThird Concession Road
Valley Farm RoadStrouds Lane
Glenanna RoadFairport RoadSheppard Avenue
Pickering Parkway
Church Street SSpruce Hill RoadSideline 34Clements RoadSquires Beach RoadSandy Beach RoadGlendale DriveOklahoma Drive
Aspen Road
Notion RoadTwyn Rivers DrivePine Grove AvenueAmberlea RoadAppleview RoadBowler DriveKellino Street
Modl
in
Road
Granite C
o
u
r
tRougemount DriveHighview Road
Woodview AvenueWalnut LaneFawndale RoadOld
Forest
Road
Dunbarton Road
Dillingham RoadRockwood DriveSalk RoadSo
u
t
h
c
o
t
t
R
o
a
d
Marshcourt DriveDouglas AvenueNew Street
Linwood Street
Breezy Drive Glenview RoadAlliance RoadRosefield RoadVicki Drive Longbow DriveCommerce Street
Bayl
a
w
n
D
r
i
v
e
Vistula Drive
Littleford Street Denmar
Road
Martins Street
Davidson Street
Huntsmill DriveDarwin Drive
Rossland Road W
Fairview AvenueEagleview DriveSilicone Drive
Post Drive
Lawson Street
Sunbird TrailMir
iam
Road
Craighurst Court
Cherrywood Avenue
Charnwood Court
Bonita Avenue
Hoover Drive
The Esplan
a
d
e
NLydia CrescentAnton SquareBrands Court
The Esplanad
e
S
Falconcrest DriveBurnside DriveBicroft CourtThird Concession RoadRosebank RoadFairport RoadCITY OF PICKERING SWMF ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN
SWMF LOCATIONSDocument Path: G:\Projects\2019\19163 - Pickering - SWMF Asset Management Plan\4. Drawings\GIS\2020-07-24- Figure 1-1.mxdSCALE
DATE
JULY 2020
³
0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25
Kilometers
FIGURE NO.
1-1
1 :30,000
PROJECT NO.
19163
ID WATERSHED
PT Petticoat CreekAB Armor Business Park (Frenchman's Bay)LD Low Duffins CreekER East Rouge RiverDN Dunbarton CreekPC Pine CreekWD West Duffins CreekED East Duffins CreekGC Ganatsekiagon CreekUC Urfe CreekWV Whitevale Creek
- 157 -
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 4 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
1.2 Background Review
A background review of information available from the City was completed prior to the existing conditions
assessment and development of the AMP. The available background information for the SWMFs in this AMP
included the existing GIS database, 2018 orthophotos, drainage area plans, plan, profile and details
drawings of the SWMFs, SWM reports, and SWMF inspection forms from the last several years. Other
information available for select SWMFs include digital drawing files and Ministry of the Environment,
Conservation and Parks (MECP) Environmental Compliance Approvals (ECAs). Additional details of the
background information is provided in the following sections.
1.2.1 GIS Database
The City’s existing GIS database includes SWMF information as well as property parcel boundaries, City
owned property, storm sewer information (sewers, maintenance holes, outfalls), and ditches. In particular,
the existing SWMF shapefile contains the facilities as polygons depicting the pond basin and an attribute
table (Table 1-1). Some storm sewers, maintenance holes, and outfalls within the pond blocks are included
with their respective layers in the City’s database and represented by polylines and points. Pond blocks are
represented within the Parcel layer of the database.
Table 1-1 Existing GIS Attribute Table for SWMFs
Field GIS Nomenclature Notes
Object ID OBJECTID
Shape Shape All SWMFs represented by polygons
SWMF ID POND_ID
Common Name for SWMF Assetname
Owner Owner All SWMFs are owned by the City of Pickering
Facility type Type Wet or dry
Project number Project_Num Unknown project number reference
Sort Number Sort_Num
TCA ID TCA_ID
Polygon shape length Shape_Length Length in meters
Polygon shape area Shape_Area Area in meters
1.2.2 Design Drawings and SWM Reports
Design drawings were available for each of the SWMFs, which included at least one or more of the
following: drainage area plans, SWMF plan, profile and details drawings, landscaping plans, and erosion
and sediment control plans. For older SWMFs, digital scans of the drawing in PDF format were available.
Select new facilities had digital (PDF) drawing files or AutoCAD files. The available drawings are organized
under the SWMF information files (digital files) found in Appendix F.
These design drawings and associated SWM reports were reviewed and referenced for their information on
SWMF components, control structures, drainage area, and design specifications, which were used to
complete the facility condition assessments and determine the recommended works in the capital and
maintenance plans.
- 158 -
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 5
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
1.2.3 Facility Inspection Records
SWMF inspection reports were available for 2012, and 2015 to 2018 for most SWMFs. The inspections were
completed by City staff and reported in excel files. The inspections include visual observations of key
components at each facility and recommended actions to monitor, clean out or repair concerns.
From the City’s inspections, SWMF inspection memos were completed in 2016, 2017 and 2018 that
highlighted maintenance concerns requiring action at several SWMFs. These memos were addressed to the
City’s operations staff. All previous inspection records are found in the SWMF information files (digital files)
found in Appendix F.
In general, common issues at the SWMFs included excessive vegetation growth and debris at outlet
structures causing blockages, minor damage to fence posts and outlet grates, and beaver activity at select
ponds. Many of these issues had not been rectified and were reviewed ahead of TMIG’s facility inspections.
1.2.4 Other Information
Other information that was reviewed for this AMP include the following:
■ Environmental Compliance Approvals (ECAs) (formerly known as Certificates of Approval – C of As)
were available for:
□ Bopa Pond (ECA no. 9557-4ZZS3D)
□ Calvington Trail Pond (ECA no. 7347-6LRRBE)
□ Durham Woods (ECA no. 7098-5ZKPEP)
□ Lisgoold Pond (ECA no. 3-0348-93-006)
□ Mattamy (ECA no. 0871-89PR2R)
□ Rouge Pond (ECA no. 3-0372-93-006)
■ 2018 City of Pickering Orthophotos
■ Online mapping regarding natural heritage through the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry
Natural Heritage Areas mapping application.
General SWMF asset management and maintenance information from guideline documents and recent
studies at other municipalities and conservation authorities were also reviewed to assist with developing this
AMP, which included the following:
■ Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority’s report on Stormwater Inspection and Record
Management Best Practices, and Data Model Design (GHD, 2017).
■ Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program (STEP) Inspection and Maintenance Guide for SWM
Ponds and Constructed Wetlands (TRCA and CH2M, 2016).
■ Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) Stormwater Management Planning and
Design Manual (MOE, 2003).
■ City of Pickering Stormwater Management Design Guidelines (July 2019).
- 159 -
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 6 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
2 FACILITY INSPECTIONS AND SURVEYS
SWMF inspections and surveys were completed in the summer and fall of 2019 by TMIG, GEMS, and
GEMS’ Environmental Monitoring and Compliance (EMAC) division. The following sections describe the
work that was completed.
2.1 Visual Inspection
TMIG completed visual inspections of SWMF components between July 18 and July 31, 2019, at the 12 wet
ponds and six (6) dry ponds in this AMP. Follow-up inspections were completed on November 20, 2019 at
select facilities. The inspections involved locating components detailed on design drawings to assess their
condition and function. Maintenance hole covers containing flow splitting weirs or control structures were
opened and visually inspected from ground level where possible. Pond access barriers such as bollards and
gates were inspected and general public safety concerns were noted. Incidences of encroachment on City
property (within the pond block) were also documented.
The inspection results were recorded on a modified version of the City’s pond inspection forms. Photographs
were taken of the SWMFs and items of concern. Inspection forms and photographs are provided in the
SWMF information files (digital files) found in Appendix F.
2.2 Sediment Survey
2.2.1 Sediment Volume
Bathymetric surveys and sediment depth measurements were completed by EMAC between July 23 and
August 31, 2019, at the 12 wet ponds. Both traditional survey methods and echosounder survey equipment
were used depending on the amount of vegetation, debris, and depth of water impacting the equipment.
Results from the sediment volume surveys were summarized in Section 3.2.1 and in Appendix B.
2.2.2 Sediment Quality
GEMS completed sediment quality sampling at the 12 wet ponds between July 18 and August 22, 2019. A
ponar dredge was used to collect the sediment samples at each sampling location. The number of samples
collected at each wet pond varied between one (1) and four (4) depending on the size of the pond and
access restrictions. The sediment samples were analyzed at Bureau Veritas in Mississauga, Ontario. The
sampling results were compared against criteria in Table 1 of Ontario Regulation 153/04. A leachate test
(Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure – TCLP) was also completed and compared against Ontario
Regulation 588/00 to determine whether the sediment is considered hazardous (and cannot be disposed in
a landfill). Sediment sampling results are summarized in Section 3.2.3 and full methodology, sampling
locations and results are found in Appendix C.
2.3 Ecology
GEMS completed ecological assessments between July 18 and September 5, 2019 for the 18 wet and dry
ponds included in this AMP to identify general vegetation communities in and around the pond, incidental
wildlife observations, review adjacent environmental features, and recommend mitigation measures for
future pond works. The vegetation assessment was completed in general accordance with standard
Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario (ELC) protocols. Recommendations on fish
management during pond retrofits or cleanouts was also provided. Ecologic assessment findings are
summarized in Section 3.2.3 and full results are found in Appendix C.
- 160 -
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 7
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
3 FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENT
The results of the facility inspections and analysis are described in the following sections. A general
overview of the assessments is provided in Sections 3.1 to 3.3, while summary tables for individual ponds
are found in Section 3.4.
3.1 Physical Condition
Visual inspections were completed for each of the 18 wet and dry ponds in this AMP. In general, there were
no items of concern that require emergency attention and repair for public safety concerns. However,
conditions at several ponds require maintenance to restore the operating functions. In general, the SWMFs
had signs that indicated insufficient routine maintenance such as debris cleanup and minor repairs to outlet
grates, fences, etc.
Common items of concern noted throughout the inspection of the SWMFs are summarized below. Specific
notes on each facility are found on inspections forms in Appendix A and summary tables in Section 3.4.
■ Outlet pipes, catchbasins, and hickenbottoms were blocked by debris and vegetation growth in the
immediate area. As a result, water levels above design were observed and likely decreased extended
detention and active storage volumes.
■ Damage to headwalls such as loose fence posts, missing or damaged fence components, missing or
damaged grates.
■ Scour and erosion around inlet and outlet headwalls.
■ Beaver activity was observed at several ponds, which contribute to the debris and blocked outlets.
■ Invasive phragmite growth at several ponds, which in some instances was contributing to blocked
outlets.
■ Insufficient signage, fence damage, missing gate locks, and other items related to site security.
3.2 Sediment and TSS Removal Efficiency
3.2.1 Sediment Volumes
Sediment volumes were estimated from the sediment surveys for each wet pond. The sediment volumes
ranged from 41 m3 to 1030 m3 (Table 3-1). These volumes consider the top of sediment and an assumed
bottom of the pond, based on field survey rod probes and echosounder survey results. The sediment
volumes were used to further calculate suspended solids (TSS) removal efficiencies and was a key factor to
determining the priority of pond cleanout.
- 161 -
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 8 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 3-1 SWMF Sediment Volumes
SWMF Name SWMF ID Date of Survey Sediment Volume (m3)
Autumn Pond C1-03-PT July 24, 2019 764
Begley Street Pond R3-02-AB August 16, 2019 200
Bopa Pond C1-02-PT July 29, 2019 188
Calvington Trail Pond C1-04-PT July 26, 2019 211
Chickadee Pond C1-05-PT August 22, 2019 155
Cognac Pond C2-01-DN August 9, 2019 441
Dixie Estates Pond 2 C2-02D-PC August 20, 2019 41
Durham Woods Pond R3-04-LD August 1, 2019 1618
Lisgoold Pond C2-08-GC August 22, 2019 119
Mattamy Pond C3-08-UC August 31, 2019 1030
Rouge Pond C1-01-ER August 19, 2019 850
Valley Farm Pond C2-06-WD July 23, 2019 117 (Note 1)
1 The sediment volume surveyed within the pond was 117 m3, however, the total sediment volume surveyed was 293 m3
which accounted for an additional 176 m3 sediment accumulated adjacent to the pond from an external drainage diversion
channel.
3.2.2 TSS Removal Efficiency
The TSS removal efficiency at the wet ponds was assessed using design methods outlined in the
Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual (SWM Manual) (MOE, 2003). In particular, Chapter 3
of the SWM Manual provides water quality criteria that are currently used in the design of wet ponds,
recognizing that a number of facilities were designed prior to the standards described in the SWM Manual.
In particular, a number of facilities were not designed with a permanent pool (including Chickadee Pond,
Dixie Estates 2 Pond, Lisgoold Pond, and Rouge Pond). For these facilities, the TSS removal efficiencies
were not calculated, except for Rouge Pond, which was assumed to have an average permanent pool depth
of 0.15 m that is comparable to a wetland facility.
For wet ponds designed with a permanent pool, the as-designed TSS removal efficiency (percentage) was
obtained from SWM reports where available. For many ponds that predate the 2003 SWM Manual, the
removal efficiency was calculated using the as-designed permanent pool volume (from SWM reports or
estimated from design / as-built drawings) and the contributing drainage area / imperviousness. The
relationships presented in Table 3.2 of the SWM Manual were interpolated and extrapolated for the wet
ponds, noting that extrapolations far beyond the lower and upper values presented in the table were viewed
with discretion.
- 162 -
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 9
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 3-2 Water Quality Storage Relationships (Table 3.2 of MOE SWM Manual)
In general, the design TSS removal efficiencies of six (6) of the wet ponds were above Normal Protection
Levels (70% long-term TSS removal). The remainder includes Cognac Pond (65%) and the five (5) ponds
without permanent pools in their design.
The current TSS removal efficiencies were calculated using the same method above, but considered the
surveyed sediment volume, which was assumed to reduce the permanent pool volume and thus reduce the
TSS removal efficiencies. The results of the current TSS removal efficiency calculation help determine the
urgency for sediment cleanout at each facility. As a guide, the SWM Manual recommends sediment cleanout
of the pond when TSS removal efficiencies are reduced by more than 5%. Overall, the reduction in TSS
removal efficiencies at the SWMFs ranged from 1% to 10%, of which, Autumn Pond, Begley Street Pond,
Cognac Pond, and Rouge Pond had TSS removal efficiencies reduced by more than 5% from design and
are below 80% TSS removal efficiency. Results of the calculations are provided in Table 3-3 and
calculations are found in Appendix B.
Of note, the Mattamy Pond had a high sediment accumulation volume that is likely attributable to the
continued construction activity within its contributing drainage area. However, the pond also included a large
permanent pool volume and thus has the capacity to accumulate more sediment before a reduction in
- 163 -
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 10 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
settling efficiency below 80%. A sediment assessment is recommended at the Mattamy Pond once the
contributing drainage area has been fully built out.
Table 3-3 SWMF Sediment Removal Efficiencies
SWMF Name SWMF ID As-designed TSS Removal
Efficiency
Current TSS Removal
Efficiency
Autumn Pond C1-03-PT 81% 71%
Begley Street Pond R3-02-AB 78% 72%
Bopa Pond C1-02-PT 77% 75%
Calvington Trail Pond C1-04-PT >90% 87%
Chickadee Pond C1-05-PT N/A (not designed with
permanent pool) N/A
Cognac Pond C2-01-DN 65% 57%
Dixie Estates Pond 2 C2-02D-PC N/A (not designed with
permanent pool) N/A
Durham Woods Pond R3-04-LD 87% 82%
Lisgoold Pond C2-08-GC N/A (not designed with
permanent pool) N/A
Mattamy Pond C3-08-UC 90% 86%
Rouge Pond C1-01-ER
62% (not designed with
permanent pool, assumed
0.15 m wetland depth)
51%
Valley Farm Pond C2-06-WD N/A (not designed with
permanent pool) N/A
3.2.3 Sediment Quality and Disposal Methods
The TCLP (leachate test) analysis (O. Reg. 558/00) results for samples collected during facility inspections
were not considered hazardous and therefore can disposed of in a landfill. The samples were also
compared to Table 1 of Ontario Regulation 153/04 for sediment. Table 1 criteria determine the suitability of
the sediment for reuse at other locations. Ponds that do not exceed Table 1 criteria, with the exception of
Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) and electrical conductivity (EC), are generally candidates for sediment
reuse at other locations.
However, the presence of phragmites at many of the SWMFs requires the sediment to be disposed at
landfill. This is based on the recommended landfill disposal for phragmites, a highly invasive plant species
which grows in the sediment and would be removed at the same time. In general, sediment reuse for the
relatively small volumes of sediment at the SWMFs do not provide a cost advantage over landfill disposal.
The sediment quality sampling completed for the SWMF AMP was to inform the disposal methods for
planning cleanouts, for example, to estimate costs and identify any potential challenges with sediment
disposal. The testing does not provide sufficient sampling data to proceed with disposal. Additional testing is
required under O. Reg. 406/19: On-site and Excess Soil Management and the sediment disposal testing and
disposal shall refer to the Rules for Soil Management and Excess Soil Quality Standards (Soil Rules)
(MECP, 2019), particularly the sections that refer to stormwater management pond sediment. In general, the
- 164 -
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 11
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
excavation and removal of sediment from SWM ponds will require a sampling and analysis plan with specific
requirements for SWM pond sediment with respect to sampling frequencies and test parameters.
3.3 Ecological Assessment
3.3.1 Vegetation and Wildlife
The vegetation assessment covered the stormwater management block for each pond and adjacent areas
where appropriate, such as the outlet areas. The wet pond blocks generally had cultural thicket-type
vegetation communities as well as vegetation consistent with cultural seed mixes that were used at pond
construction. Vegetation communities and species noted at each pond were documented in Appendix C.
Common amongst several wet ponds is the presence of invasive phragmites (Phragmites australis), which
were especially heavy at the Begley Street Pond and Calvington Trail Pond.
Butternut trees were identified at the ponds, with one each at Cognac Pond and Valley Farm Pond. The
butternut trees will require confirmation and guidance from a butternut health assessor to determine the
required protection and/or mitigation requirements of the tree ahead of a sediment cleanout or retrofit
project.
There was also a presence of milkweed at several ponds which is associated with the observations of
Monarch butterflies. While Monarch butterflies are not protected by the Species at Risk Act due to the
ranking as special concern, it is recommended that any vegetation removal should ensure the replacement
of milkweed within the area to maintain Monarch butterfly habitat.
With respect to wildlife, the only Species at Risk observed was Barn Swallow at Calvington Trail Pond,
Durham Woods Pond, Mattamy Pond, and Rouge Pond. Sediment cleanout and/or retrofit works are
required to take measures to not harm the species or its habitat but adhering to the Migratory Birds
Convention Act. Any vegetation removals required within the core breeding bird season (between April 1st
and August 31st) will require clearance surveys for active nesting. The removal or disturbance of active nests
that contain eggs or young birds is prohibited unless a permit is obtained from the MNRF. If any significant
habitat for the barn swallow is altered or destroyed, mitigation measures (such as nest cups or structures)
must be put into place once construction works are complete.
Other incident wildlife observations that were common amongst the ponds include green frog, great blue
heron, red wing blackbird, and dragonfly species. There was also evidence of beaver activity in several
ponds that had caused blockages in outlet structures (or has the potential to cause blockages). If beavers
persistently interfere with the function of a SWMF, the beaver should be relocated to a more suitable habitat.
3.3.2 Fish Management
At many wet ponds, numerous goldfish were observed. Based on the habitat within the pond, it is likely that
other species are also present at all ponds.
A Fish Relocation Program is recommended prior to sediment cleanout works at each SWMF, to be carried
out by a qualified crew, led by an Aquatic/Fisheries Biologist or Technician. The relocation effort should
ensure that all fish and aquatic species are released into a suitable habitat after capture. Rescue efforts
should be undertaken during the pre-drawdown and the drawdown phase. A License to Collect Fish for
Scientific Purposes is required from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) to capture and
transport any aquatic wildlife. Fish may also need to be euthanized if deemed necessary by the MNRF.
3.4 Facility Condition Summary
The following tables summarize the facility condition assessment for each of the SWMF in this study. The
tables highlight major findings with respect to the physical condition of the SWMF, sediment volumes and
TSS removal efficiency, sediment quality and disposal methods, and ecological assessment.
- 165 -
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 12 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 3-4 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Autumn Pond
SWMF ID C1-03-PT
SWMF Name Autumn Pond
Physical
Condition
Summary
■ Overgrown vegetation along
maintenance access road prevents
vehicle access around pond.
■ Poison ivy observed on trail near
outlet of the facility.
■ Beaver activity noted in the vicinity.
SWMF discharges to ponded area
upstream of railway and outlet pipe is
partially submerged.
■ Informal trails connecting the pond to
Calvington Pond and Altona Forest
Trails.
■ No rip-rap surrounding the outlet CSP
riser and the filter fabric is exposed.
■ Vegetation growth around outlet
structure.
■ The outlet pipe is likely clogged with
debris, which has caused an elevated
water level and partially submerged
inlet.
■ Fence damage at south-east corner of
pond site adjacent the railway.
Recommendations: Clean out sediment, remove debris around hickenbottom outlet structure, repair
riprap material around the outlet CSP riser, and repair damaged fence. Add signage noting the presence
of poison ivy.
If present, beaver in the area should be relocated to avoid operational issues associated with debris.
Pond
Sediment
Volume: 764 m3
Disposal Method: Landfill
TSS Removal
Efficiency
Current: 71%
Design: 81% (estimated from design drawings)
Ecological
Assessment
Summary
Species at Risk: None observed
Discharge Receiver Habitat: Petticoat Creek tributary with north and south woodlands of unknown
significance.
Additional Mitigation: n.a.
- 166 -
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 13
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 3-5 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Begley Street Pond
SWMF ID R3-02-AB
SWMF Name Begley Street Pond
Physical
Condition
Summary
■ Maintenance access road requires
vegetation clearing for vehicle
access.
■ Heavy phragmite growth in pond.
■ Outlet headwall and pipe submerged.
■ Heavy vegetation around outlet area.
■ Overland flow route potentially drains
toward townhouses rather than
overland flow dispersion swale.
■ Overland flow dispersion swale not
well defined.
Recommendations: Clean out sediment and clean out vegetation at outlet area.
Confirm overland flow route by survey and regrade if necessary.
Pond
Sediment
Volume: 200 m3
Disposal Method: Landfill. Potential for reuse near roadways, subject to geotechnical requirements,
however, phragmite removal (during sediment removal) will require landfill disposal.
TSS Removal
Efficiency
Current: 72%
Design: 78% (estimated from design drawings)
Ecological
Assessment
Summary
Species at Risk: Monarch Butterfly (special concern)
Discharge Receiver Habitat: Frenchman’s Bay Coastal Wetland Complex (Provincially Significant
Wetland) to the west of the pond.
Additional Mitigation: Replacement of milkweed in area to accommodate Monarch butterflies.
- 167 -
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 14 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 3-6 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Bopa Pond
SWMF ID C1-02-PT
SWMF Name Bopa Pond
Physical
Condition
Summary
■ Evidence of beaver activity within the
pond.
■ The PVC riser may be partially clogged.
■ CSP riser / protection for PVC outlet
pipe not present.
■ Outlet headwall.
Recommendations: Clean out sediment, clean out perforated outlet riser and install CSP riser. Relocate
beaver from pond if present.
Pond
Sediment
Volume: 188 m3
Disposal Method: Landfill
TSS Removal
Efficiency
Current: 75%
Design: 77%
Ecological
Assessment
Summary
Species at Risk: None observed
Discharge Receiver Habitat: Petticoat Creek tributary with north and south woodlands.
Additional Mitigation: n.a.
- 168 -
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 15
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 3-7 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Calvington Trail Pond
SWMF ID C1-04-PT
SWMF Name Calvington Trail Pond
Physical
Condition
Summary
■ Signage not present at pond.
■ Heavy phragmite growth in pond.
■ Encroachment along north edge of
pond block (plantings by residents).
■ Evidence of beaver activity in vicinity
of the pond.
■ Inlet headwall fence post damaged
(loose fence post).
■ Outlet headwall fence damage
(missing crossbar)
Recommendations: Clean out sediment, repair headwall fencing and install signs. Relocate beaver if
present.
Pond Sediment Volume: 211 m3
Disposal Method: Landfill.
TSS Removal
Efficiency
Current: 87%
Design: >90%
Ecological
Assessment
Summary
Species at Risk: Barn Swallow, Monarch Butterfly (special concern)
Discharge Receiver Habitat: Petticoat Creek and woodland of unknown significance.
Additional Mitigation: Construction adherence to the Migratory Birds Convention Act. Vegetation
removals within core breeding bird season, between April 1st and August 31st, will require clearance
surveys for active nesting. Removal or disturbance of active nests is prohibited unless permit is
obtained.
Replacement of milkweed in area to accommodate monarch butterflies.
- 169 -
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 16 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 3-8 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Chickadee Pond
SWMF ID C1-05-PT
SWMF Name Chickadee Pond
Physical
Condition
Summary
■ Heavy vegetation within pond block.
■ No signs at access gate to inlet
(northeast access).
■ Steep maintenance access to inlet
and outlet areas.
■ Evidence of beaver activity within
pond.
■ Outlet hickenbottom submerged and
surrounded by vegetation and
debris.
■ Outlet likely partially blocked
causing elevated water level.
■ Inlet area and pipe submerged.
Recommendations: Clean out sediment and vegetation, clean or replace hickenbottom outlet, and
install signs at northeast access gate. Relocate beaver if present.
Pond Sediment Volume: 155 m3
Disposal Method: Landfill
TSS Removal
Efficiency
Current: N/A
Design: N/A (not designed with permanent pool)
Ecological
Assessment
Summary
Species at Risk: None observed
Discharge Receiver Habitat: Petticoat Creek and woodland of unknown significance
Additional Mitigation: n.a.
- 170 -
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 17
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 3-9 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Cognac Pond
SWMF ID C2-01-DN
SWMF Name Cognac Pond
Physical
Condition
Summary
■ Phragmite growth within west side of
pond.
■ Fallen tree at east side of pond.
■ Evidence of beaver activity within
pond.
■ Scour pool, deteriorated riprap and
exposed filter fabric at inlet.
■ Minor erosion along south berm.
Recommendations: Clean out sediment, repair inlet area, monitor erosion areas on berm and stabilize
if required.
Pond Sediment
Volume: 441 m3
Disposal Method: Landfill. Potential reuse subject to further sediment sampling. Phragmites require
landfill disposal.
TSS Removal
Efficiency
Current: 57%
Design: 65%
Ecological
Assessment
Summary
Species at Risk: Potential butternut tree, Monarch butterfly (special concern)
Discharge Receiver Habitat: Dunbarton Creek and woodland of unknown significance.
Additional Mitigation: Butternut health assessment. Replacement of milkweed in area to accommodate
Monarch butterflies.
- 171 -
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 18 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 3-10 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Dixie Estates Pond 2
SWMF ID C2-02D-PC
SWMF Name Dixie Estates Pond 2
Physical
Condition
Summary
■ Facility water level elevated and
inlet pipe partially submerged.
■ Encroachment along west side of
pond block from homeowner
plantings and yard furnishings.
■ Seepage through berm around inlet
headwall.
■ Signs of bank erosion (undercut and
slumping) in downstream
watercourse.
■ Outlet riprap spillway washed out.
Recommendations: Cleanout facility outlet, repair inlet pipe and repair outlet spillway.
Pond Sediment Volume: 41 m3
Disposal Method: Landfill
TSS Removal
Efficiency
Current: N/A
Design: N/A (not designed with permanent pool)
Ecological
Assessment
Summary
Species at Risk: None observed
Discharge Receiver Habitat: Pine Creek tributary and woodlands of unknown significance.
Additional Mitigation: N/A
- 172 -
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 19
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 3-11 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Durham Woods Pond
SWMF ID R3-04-LD
SWMF Name Durham Woods Pond
Physical
Condition
Summary
■ View of pond looking east towards
access gate.
■ Access gate unlocked and
obstructed by brush.
■ Cracks in concrete headwalls at
north and south inlets.
■ Cracks in headwall at fence posts at
north and south inlets.
■ Erosion gullies along berm.
■ Drainage from adjacent vacant
property to the east had causes
erosion gullies (approximately 1.5 m
wide and 0.5 m deep).
Recommendations: Repair headwalls and repair/stabilize erosion rills in berms. Complete maintenance
on access gate.
Pond
Sediment
Volume: 1618 m3
Disposal Method: Landfill
TSS Removal
Efficiency
Current: 82%
Design: 87%
Ecological
Assessment
Summary
Species at Risk: Barn Swallow, monarch butterfly (special concern)
Discharge Receiver Habitat: Duffins Creek and Duffins Creek Marsh (Provincially significant wetland)
about 500 m downstream of SWMF.
Additional Mitigation: Construction adherence to the Migratory Birds Convention Act. Vegetation
removals within core breeding bird season, between April 1st and August 31st, will require clearance
surveys for active nesting. Removal or disturbance of active nests is prohibited unless permit is
obtained.
Replacement of milkweed in area to accommodate monarch butterflies.
- 173 -
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 20 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 3-12 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Lisgoold Pond
SWMF ID C2-08-GC
SWMF Name Lisgoold Pond
Physical
Condition
Summary
■ Outlet clogged with debris causing
elevated water level.
■ Fallen tree in pond.
■ Degraded channel downstream of
west inlet (washed out riprap
spillway, knickpoint, eroded side
slope).
■ Exposed headwall and degraded
riprap at south inlet.
Recommendations: Clean out sediment, clean outlet structure, repair inlet channel and repair riprap
around south inlet.
Pond
Sediment
Volume: 119 m3
Disposal Method: Landfill
TSS Removal
Efficiency
Current: N/A
Design: N/A (not designed with permanent pool)
Ecological
Assessment
Summary
Species at Risk: None observed
Discharge Receiver Habitat: Ganatsekiagon Creek tributary (occupied or recovery reach for Redside
Dace) and woodlands of unknown significance.
Additional Mitigation: In-water works/construction may be limited to the fisheries timing window of July 1
to September 15.
- 174 -
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 21
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 3-13 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Mattamy Pond
SWMF ID C3-08-UC
SWMF Name Mattamy Pond
Physical
Condition
Summary
■ Evidence of beaver activity within
pond block.
■ Signage at pond for park rules, does
not provide warnings for SWMF.
■ Wetland flow spreader.
Recommendations: Install signs with SWMF warnings. Relocate beaver if present.
Pond
Sediment
Volume: 1030 m3
Disposal Method: Landfill. Potential reuse subject to further sampling.
TSS Removal
Efficiency
Current: 86%
Design: 90%
Ecological
Assessment
Summary
Species at Risk: Barn Swallow, Monarch Butterfly (special concern)
Discharge Receiver Habitat: Urfe Creek tributary (occupied or recovery reach for Redside Dace),
woodlands of unknown significance, and unevaluated wetland.
Additional Mitigation: Construction adherence to the Migratory Birds Convention Act. Vegetation
removals within core breeding bird season, between April 1st and August 31st, will require clearance
surveys for active nesting. Removal or disturbance of active nests is prohibited unless permit is
obtained.
Replacement of milkweed in area to accommodate monarch butterflies.
In-water works/construction may be limited to the fisheries timing window of July 1 to September 15.
- 175 -
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 22 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 3-14 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Rouge Pond
SWMF ID C1-01-ER
SWMF Name Rouge Pond
Physical
Condition
Summary
■ Outlet from quality pond likely
blocked resulting in high water level.
■ Evidence of beaver activity in vicinity
of pond.
■ Encroachment at along east edge of
pond block (landscaping and
plantings by residents)
■ Outlet from quality pond likely
blocked resulting in high water level.
■ Vegetation surrounding
hickenbottom.
■ Inlet grate at quality pond unhinged.
Recommendations: Cleanout sediment and cleanout outlet from water quality pond. Repair inlet grate.
Relocate beaver if required.
Pond
Sediment
Volume: 850 m3
Disposal Method: Landfill. Potential reuse where site locations meet the Excess Soil Guidelines.
TSS Removal
Efficiency
Current: 51%
Design: 62% (assumes 0.15 m average wetland depth)
Ecological
Assessment
Summary
Species at Risk: Barn Swallow, Monarch Butterfly (special concern)
Discharge Receiver Habitat: Rouge River. Discharge to an Area of Natural and Scientific Interest
(ANSI), which consists of woodlands of unknown significance and Provincially Significant Wetland
northwest (upstream) of SWMF.
Additional Mitigation: Construction adherence to the Migratory Birds Convention Act. Vegetation
removals within core breeding bird season, between April 1st and August 31st, will require clearance
surveys for active nesting. Removal or disturbance of active nests is prohibited unless permit is
obtained.
Replacement of milkweed in area to accommodate monarch butterflies.
- 176 -
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 23
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 3-15 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Valley Farm Pond
SWMF ID C2-06-WD
SWMF Name Valley Farm Pond
Physical
Condition
Summary
■ Debris and vegetation surrounding
hickenbottom outlet.
■ Heavy vegetation within pond.
■ No signage at the pond.
■ Heavy vegetation around outlet
headwall.
■ Water ponded downstream of outlet.
■ Ponded water downstream of outlet
at pedestrian trail.
■ Ponded water and sediment
accumulated adjacent to the pond
berm from an external drainage
channel.
Recommendations: Clean out sediment, remove debris around hickenbottom outlet and downstream
headwall. Install signs. Consider installing culvert and grading trail at outlet channel of pond. Consider
removing sediment from adjacent ponded area and restoring the external drainage diversion channel.
Pond
Sediment
Volume: 117 m3 within the pond. An additional sediment volume of 176 m3 was surveyed in the area
adjacent to the pond where an external drainage diversion channel is located. The total sediment
volume surveyed was 293 m3.
Disposal Method: Landfill
TSS Removal
Efficiency
Current: N/A
Design: N/A (not designed with permanent pool)
Ecological
Assessment
Summary
Species at Risk: Potential butternut tree
Discharge Receiver Habitat: West Duffins Creek tributary and woodlands of unknown significance.
Additional Mitigation: Butternut health assessment and associated recommendations.
- 177 -
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 24 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 3-16 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Braeburn Pond
SWMF ID C1-06D-PT
SWMF Name Braeburn Pond
Physical
Condition
Summary
■ Basin is manicured lawn.
■ Minor ponding at inlet channel.
■ Downstream end of culverts near
outlet with small scour pool.
Recommendations: Clear debris to improve drainage at inlet culvert. Repair minor scour pool.
Pond
Sediment
Volume: N/A
Disposal Method: N/A
TSS Removal
Efficiency
Current: N/A
Design: N/A
Ecological
Assessment
Summary
Species at Risk: Monarch butterfly (special concern)
Discharge Receiver Habitat: N/A (storm sewer)
Additional Mitigation: Replacement of milkweed for Monarch butterflies.
- 178 -
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 25
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 3-17 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Brock Ridge Pond
SWMF ID C2-07D-WD
SWMF Name Brock Ridge Park
Physical
Condition
Summary
■ Outlet pipe is damaged.
■ Spillway and berm have collapsed
above outlet pipe.
■ Ponding at inlet channel to pond
basin and entrance to parking lot
■ Minor ponding and vehicle ruts in
inlet grassed swale.
Recommendations: Repair outlet pipe and spillway berm. Regrade inlet channel to reduce ponding.
Pond
Sediment
Volume: N/A
Disposal Method: N/A
TSS Removal
Efficiency
Current: N/A
Design: N/A
Ecological
Assessment
Summary
Species at Risk: Monarch butterfly (special concern)
Discharge Receiver Habitat: West Duffins Creek and woodlands of unknown significance.
Additional Mitigation: Replacement of milkweed for Monarch butterflies.
- 179 -
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 26 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 3-18 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Dixie Estates Pond 1
SWMF ID C2-03-PC
SWMF Name Dixie Estates Pond 1
Physical
Condition
Summary
■ Gravel access road containing control
culvert, view looking west.
■ Erosion at edge of gravel road at
downstream headwall.
■ Upstream side of control culvert
headwall fence damaged (leaning).
■ Debris and vegetation around
upstream grate.
■ Debris at downstream DICB
(downstream of pond).
■ Erosion around headwall and
immediately upstream of DICB.
■ MH at DICB not secured to structure.
■ Pedestrian path downstream of
facility eroded by channel flows
(public safety hazard).
Recommendations: Repair headwall fence damage, clean debris from control culvert. Repair
downstream DICB.
Pond
Sediment
Volume: N/A
Disposal Method: N/A
TSS Removal
Efficiency
Current: N/A
Design: N/A
Ecological
Assessment
Summary
Species at Risk: Monarch butterfly (special concern)
Discharge Receiver Habitat: N.A. (storm sewer at Maple Ridge Park).
Additional Mitigation: Replacement of milkweed for Monarch butterflies.
- 180 -
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 27
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 3-19 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Steeple Hill Pond
SWMF ID R3-01D-PT
SWMF Name Steeple Hill Pond
Physical
Condition
Summary
■ Main basin of pond well vegetated,
view looking east.
■ Grate at north inlet pipe damaged.
■ Upstream side of outlet culvert across
Kingston Road.
Recommendations: Repair north inlet pipe grate.
Pond
Sediment
Volume: N/A
Disposal Method: N/A
TSS Removal
Efficiency
Current: N/A
Design: N/A
Ecological
Assessment
Summary
Species at Risk: Monarch butterfly (special concern)
Discharge Receiver Habitat: Petticoat Creek tributary
Additional Mitigation: Replacement of milkweed for Monarch butterflies.
- 181 -
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 28 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 3-20 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Strathmore Crescent Pond
SWMF ID C2-05D-WD
SWMF Name Strathmore Crescent Pond
Physical
Condition
Summary
■ Main basin of pond well vegetated.
■ Minor debris at inlet pipe grate.
■ Damaged outlet pipe.
■ Approximately 1 m deep scour pool in
creek downstream of outlet pipe.
Recommendations: Monitor low flow channel erosion. Potentially modify outlet culvert to reduce scour
in receiving creek.
Pond
Sediment
Volume: N/A
Disposal Method: N/A
TSS Removal
Efficiency
Current: N/A
Design: N/A
Ecological
Assessment
Summary
Species at Risk: Monarch butterfly (special concern)
Discharge Receiver Habitat: West Duffins Creek and woodland of unknown significance.
Additional Mitigation: Replacement of milkweed for Monarch butterflies.
- 182 -
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 29
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 3-21 SWMF Condition Assessment Summary – Pine Ridge High School Pond
SWMF ID C2-04D-WD
SWMF Name Pine Ridge High School
Physical
Condition
Summary
■ Ponded water at inlet.
■ Minor sediment noted in basin of
pond.
■ Two (2) outlet pipes located with
small scour pool downstream of
pipes.
Recommendations: Continue monitoring and inspections.
Pond
Sediment
Volume: N/A
Disposal Method: N/A
TSS Removal
Efficiency
Current: N/A
Design: N/A
Ecological
Assessment
Summary
Species at Risk: Monarch butterfly (special concern)
Discharge Receiver Habitat: West Duffins Creek and woodland of unknown significance.
Additional Mitigation: Replacement of milkweed for Monarch butterflies.
- 183 -
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 30 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
4 SWM FACILITY DATABASE
The City’s GIS database information on SWMF was updated to include the information reviewed and
collected as part of this AMP. The database was also set up in anticipation of future data inputs and
information needs.
The GIS database update was based on a best practices review of stormwater management inspection and
record management completed by Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) (GHD, 2017). The
best practices review included surveys and workshops with municipalities within the LSRCA to determine a
data model design, which is a description of the rules by which data is defined, organized, queried and
updated within a database. The TRCA, Region of Durham and MECP also participated in the workshops for
the data model design.
4.1 Database Fields
The LSRCA proposed data model included a comprehensive list of fields pertaining to SWM and LID
facilities. The attributes pertaining to SWMFs were reviewed and it was determined that the list of fields from
the LSRCA data model were generally appropriate for the City’s database, considering future data needs of
the City and the information that would be available from new SWM infrastructure. With respect to the
SWMFs in this AMP, the data fields were populated to the extent possible using information from available
drawings, reports, and the site inspections (Appendix F).
The data model proposes four (4) categories of data, all of which can be stored within the attribute tables for
the ‘Stormwater Management Ponds” layer of the City’s database. The exceptions are SWM facility features
that are represented as a polygon or point within the geodatabase, such as specific control structures within
the pond, the pond block or easements. The main categories are as follows:
■ Main Feature – these fields are applicable to all stormwater management infrastructure such as SWM
Ponds, LID facilities, and oil-grit separators. Fields include the name, ECA, facility location, etc. (Table
4-1). This data is stored under the SWMF layer of the GIS database.
■ Stormwater Management Pond – these fields pertain specifically to SWM ponds to describe their type
and function (Table 4-2). This data is stored under the SWMF layer of the GIS database.
■ Additional Data – the fields are intended to apply to all SWM infrastructure and includes technical
specifications and hyperlinks to SWM reports, drawings, etc. (Table 4-3). The data is to be stored with
the feature that represents the data, for example, specifications for a control structure is to be stored
with a point that represents the structure.
■ Inspection, Operation and Maintenance – the fields include information regarding maintenance and
hyperlinks to inspection reports, monitoring reports, operating manuals, etc. (Table 4-4).
The database fields listed in the tables above are also marked as ‘mandatory’ or ‘optional’. The intent of the
mandatory designation is to define fields that are required for each facility, recognizing that older facilities
may not have the complete information available. New/future facilities are expected to have information for
most, if not all the mandatory fields. The optional fields generally cover information that will be available from
inspections, maintenance and operations of the SWMF, or more detailed information with respect to pond
design specifications. It is recommended that fields be filled out with all available information. New/future
SWMFs will generally include more information in drawings and reports than older facilities and allow the
database to be populated more easily.
To that end, from the background and information review to complete this SWMF AMP, all available
information that fit the database fields were entered. Note that SWMF features recommended to be stored in
the database as point or polygons (such as controls structures) were not entered into the database as these
features did not have available survey data or digital as-built drawings to assist.
- 184 -
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 31
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
4.2 Database Functionality and Limitations
The database defines, organizes, and provides the ability to query data for SWMFs, which allows City staff
to access information more quickly and better respond to requests between departments, other government
agencies and public requests. The database provides a consistent method to enter new information from
new or existing facilities and keep track of inspections and maintenance records. Future SWMFs condition
assessments can be completed with less effort with information readily available.
The City is also expecting a large number of SWMFs to enter service from new developments and the
reliance on City staff ‘knowledge’ of specifications to manage the infrastructure will be less feasible moving
forward without tools such as a database. Overall, it allows the City to more effectively manage their SWM
infrastructure.
The database is most valuable if the information is up-to-date, recognizing that maintaining the database
requires regular effort from City staff or retaining a consultant. The database should be reviewed and
updated after site inspections and maintenance works at each facility. It is also important to correct
misinformation where needed. The recommended frequency of review is annual, to coincide with the
recommended minimum SWMF inspection frequency of once per year.
- 185 -
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 32 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 4-1 GIS Database for SWMFs (Main Feature)
Field GIS
Nomenclature
How it is
represented
in GIS
How the data is
represented in
attribute table
Recommended
Data Collection Definition
Common Name FacName Polygon Text Mandatory Common name of
works/facility
Unique ID –
primary key SWMID Polygon Text Mandatory SWM ID
ECA/C of A ID ECAID Polygon Text Mandatory ECA / C of A ID
ECA/C of A Date ECADate Polygon Date Mandatory Date of authorizing letter
ECA/C of A
Description ECADesc Polygon Hyperlink Mandatory Hyperlink to authorizing letter
Cert. of Completion
ID CofCompID Polygon Text Optional Cert. of Completion ID (if
applicable)
Cert. of Completion
Date CofDate Polygon Date Optional Date of authorizing letter
Cert. of Completion
Description CofDesc Polygon Hyperlink Optional Hyperlink to authorizing letter
Facility Location Location Polygon Text Mandatory Intersection/Address
Facility Location II Northing Polygon Double Mandatory Coordinates (UTM) (captured
at outfall)
Facility Location III Easting Polygon Double Mandatory Coordinates (UTM) (captured
at outfall)
Subdivision Name SubName Polygon Text Optional Subdivision name in which
works/facility is located
Parcel ID ParcelID Polygon Text Optional Registered plan (M-Plan)
parcel ID (if applicable)
Municipality MunName Polygon Text Mandatory Municipality name
Conservation
Authority ConsAuth Polygon Text Mandatory Conservation Authority name
Subwatershed Wtrshed Polygon Text Mandatory Subwatershed within
Conservation Authority
Drainage/Catchme
nt Area CatchArea Polygon Double Mandatory
Unique ID of
drainage/catchment area
spatial layer
Ownership Owner Polygon Text Mandatory Includes private land
name/description
Management Mgmt Polygon Text Optional Details/name of management
(if applicable)
Online/Offline OnOffline Polygon Text Mandatory Online/offline
Year Built YrBuilt Polygon Text Mandatory Year facility was constructed
Year Assumed YrAssmd Polygon Text Optional Year facility was assumed
Year Inspected YrInspect Polygon Text Optional Most recent year
works/facility was inspected
Year Cleaned YrCleaned Polygon Text Optional Most recent year
works/facility was cleaned
GIS metadata last
date modified GISDate Polygon Date Optional Most recent date GIS data
was modified
GIS metadata last
editor GISStaff Polygon Text Optional Most recent name of GIS
editor of data
Notes Notes Polygon Text Optional Notes / Important information
- 186 -
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 33
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 4-2 GIS Database for SWMFs (Stormwater Management Pond)
Field GIS
Nomenclature
How it is
represented
in GIS
How the data
is represented
in the attribute
table
Recommended
Data Collection Definition
Multi-Stage Facility MSFac Polygon Text Optional Y/N
Facility Draw Down
Method FDDMthd Polygon Text Optional Drawdown method within
facility
Facility Area FacAreaM Polygon Double Optional Area of facility (polygon)
Facility Material FacMat Polygon Text Optional Material contained within
facility
Facility Type FacType Polygon Text Mandatory Wet/Dry/Wetland/Hybrid
/Other
Facility Function FacFunc Polygon Text Optional Water Quality / Erosion /
Quantity
Table 4-3 GIS Database for SWMFs (Additional Data)
Field GIS
Nomenclature
How it is
represented
in GIS
How the data
is represented
in the attribute
table
Recommended
Data Collection Definition
Easement Esmt Polygon Text Optional Description of easement
Access FacAccess Polygon Text Optional Y/N
Access Type Access Typ - Text Optional Driveway, Turnaround,
Gate, Lock
Facility Fence and
Type Fence Type Polyline - Optional Chain link, other
Overland Flow
Elevation OvFlElev Polygon Double Optional Overland flow elevation
Overland Flow
Location OvFloc Polygon Text Optional Overland flow location(s)
Emergency Spillway
By-Pass Elevation EmSpElev Polygon Double Optional Emergency spillway
elevation
Emergency Spillway
By-Pass Location EmSpLoc Polygon Text Optional Emergency spillway
location
100 Year Elevation Elev100y Polygon Double Optional 100-year elevation
Permanent Pool
Elevation PoolElev Polygon Double Optional Permanent pool elevation
(as-built)
Permanent Pool
Volume PoolVol Polygon Double Optional Permanent pool volume
(as-built)
Sediment Drying
Area SDADesc Polygon Text Optional Sediment drying area
location description
Utilities Nearby UtilDesc Point/Line/
Polygon Text Optional Description of nearby
utilities
Inlet Pipe size InSize Point Short Integer Optional Inlet pipe size
Inlet Pipe type InType Point Text Optional Inlet pipe type
Inlet Invert Elevation InvtElev Point Double Optional Inlet invert elevation
Outlet Pipe Size OutSize Point Short Integer Optional Outlet pipe size
Outlet Pipe Type OutType Point Text Optional Outlet pipe type
Outlet Invert
Elevation OutElev Point Double Optional Outlet invert elevation
- 187 -
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 34 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Field GIS
Nomenclature
How it is
represented
in GIS
How the data
is represented
in the attribute
table
Recommended
Data Collection Definition
Submerged Inlet InSubmerg Point Text Optional Y/N
Control Structure
description CoStDesc Point/
Polygon Text Optional Control structure
description
Control Structure
orifice-type CoStOrif Point/
Polygon Text Optional Plate, pipe, weir, etc.
Control Structure
Size CoStSize Point/
Polygon Short Integer Optional Control structure size
Control Structure
Elevation CoStElev Point/
Polygon Double Optional Control structure
elevation
Control Structure
Quantity CoStQuan Point/
Polygon Double Optional Quantity control volume
(m3)
Control Structure
Quality CoStQual Point/
Polygon Double Optional Quality control volume
(m3)
Safety Features SafeFeat Point/Line/
Polygon Text Optional Lifesaving stations,
grading
Special Features SpecFeat Point/Line/
Polygon Text Optional Clay liner, underdrain,
lined forebay, etc
Retrofits RetDesc Point/
Polygon Text Optional Retrofit description
Table 4-4 GIS Database for SWMFs (Inspection, Operation and Maintenance)
Field GIS
Nomenclature
How it is
represented
in GIS
How the data
is represented
in the attribute
table
Recommended
Data Collection Definition
Inspector’s Name InspName Polygon –
SWM/LID Text Optional Name of inspector(s)
Sediment
Accumulation Status
Date
SACDate Polygon –
SWM/LID Date Optional Date of sediment volume
survey
Sediment
Accumulation Status
Volume (m3)
SACVol Polygon –
SWM/LID Double Optional Measured volume of
sediment
Condition FacCond Polygon –
SWM/LID Text Optional Overall facility condition
Sampling Sampling Polygon –
SWM/LID Hyperlink Optional Previous sediment survey
records
Cleaning Frequency FreqClean Polygon –
SWM/LID Text Optional Frequency of cleanouts
Inspection
Frequency FreqInsp Polygon –
SWM/LID Text Optional Frequency of inspections
Maintenance Record - Polygon –
SWM/LID Hyperlink Optional Link to folder with
maintenance records
Complaints - Polygon –
SWM/LID Hyperlink Optional Link to folder with
complaints records
SWM reports - Polygon –
SWM/LID Hyperlink Optional Link to folder with SWM
reports
Inspection Reports - Polygon –
SWM/LID Hyperlink Optional Link to folder with
inspection forms
Monitoring Reports - Polygon –
SWM/LID Hyperlink Optional Link to folder with
monitoring reports
- 188 -
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 35
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Field GIS
Nomenclature
How it is
represented
in GIS
How the data
is represented
in the attribute
table
Recommended
Data Collection Definition
O & M Manual - Polygon –
SWM/LID Hyperlink Optional Link to folder with O & M
manual
Drawings - Polygon –
SWM/LID Hyperlink Optional Link to folder with
drawings
Surveys - Polygon –
SWM/LID Hyperlink Optional Link to folder with surveys
Costs - Polygon –
SWM/LID Hyperlink Optional Link to folder with costs
Site Photos/ Drone
Video - Polygon –
SWM/LID Hyperlink Optional Link to folder with photos
- 189 -
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 36 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
5 FACILITY EVALUATION
The SWMFs were evaluated on specific parameters that are based on the current physical condition and
assessed performance, public safety, regulatory compliance, environmental issues and community concerns
related to the SWMFs. The results of the evaluation prioritize the SWMFs for the capital projects and
maintenance plans. The SWMF evaluation is also intended to provide a consistent method to re-evaluate
the SWMFs in later years.
5.1 Evaluation Criteria
The SWMFs were evaluated using a set of criteria developed with the City of Pickering to establish a ranking
that identifies the SWMFs most in need of maintenance. Separately, the SWMFs were also evaluated for
their suitability for retrofit. The SWMFs that were identified as both a high priority for maintenance and highly
suitable retrofit candidate were recommended for inclusion in the City’s capital projects plan (Section 6). Of
the remaining SWMFs, the facilities requiring cleanout or major maintenance were recommended for
placement on the City’s maintenance plan (Section 7).
The general criteria and associated weightings for the maintenance and retrofit assessments are outlined in
Table 5-1 and Table 5-2, respectively, and are very similar for both assessments. The rubric questions are
tailored to identify maintenance priorities or retrofit candidacy. The weighting of the criteria were selected to
provide practical differentiation between the SWMFs in the evaluation results. Therefore, the weighting for
‘performance / health and safety’ was (by far) the highest because this category had the greatest variation in
scoring and was expected drive the prioritization of the maintenance and retrofit works. However, this does
not suggest that certain criteria are more important than others with respect to the overall management of
the SWMFs.
It is important to note that the retrofit evaluation is to develop retrofit candidacy, however, the capital works
plan will consider the result of both the maintenance evaluation and retrofit evaluation to determine which
SWMFs are both in need of maintenance and will benefit from a retrofit. The rationale for retrofitting a
SWMF can be varied and requires a case-by-case review of the SWMF. The retrofit evaluation rubric serves
as a guide to begin the discussion.
Both wet ponds and dry ponds were evaluated using the same rubric and ranked through the same
evaluation. The wet ponds were expected to score higher (and be higher priority) for maintenance works due
to the performance aspects and higher complexity of the facilities providing higher scores.
Detailed descriptions of the evaluation criteria and rubric questions are provided in the following sections.
- 190 -
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 37
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 5-1 SWMF Maintenance Assessment Criteria
Criteria Weight
1. Performance / Health and Safety
■ Sediment accumulation and settling efficiency
■ Condition of SWMF structures and berms
■ Erosion and deposition in receiving watercourse
■ Water quantity (flood) control performance
■ Security and public safety hazards
60
2. Construction Considerations
■ Disposal method for removed sediment
■ Complexity of the permitting, approvals for cleanout or retrofit
15
3. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
■ Future level of service according to O. Reg. 588/17
■ Federal and Provincial regulatory requirements (MECP ECAs, TRCA Permitting)
■ Compliance with City policies, by-laws, standards and criteria
10
4. Environmental
■ Environmental benefits/impacts (ecological habitat and sensitive plant and fish
communities)
10
5. Community Concerns
■ Community concerns/complaints (aesthetics and safety1)
■ Recreational use in the area (trails or walkways)
5
TOTAL 100
1 Note that public safety is primarily addressed in Criteria 1: Performance / Health and Safety Issues
- 191 -
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 38 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 5-2 SWMF Retrofit Assessment Criteria
Criteria Weight
1. Performance / Health and Safety
■ Land area for potential facility expansion
■ Facility structure improvements for performance, functionality or durability
■ Increases in storage volume and associated performance
■ Security and public safety improvements
50
2. Construction Considerations
■ Complexity of the permitting, approvals for cleanout or retrofit 15
3. Cost-Benefit Analysis
■ Cost relative to potential damages related to downstream flooding and erosion
■ Benefitting drainage area
■ Cost effectiveness of the retrofit vs. cleanout
10
4. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
■ Future level of service according to O. Reg. 588/17
■ Federal and Provincial regulatory requirements (MECP ECAs, TRCA Permitting)
■ Compliance with City policies, by-laws, standards and criteria
10
5. Environmental
■ Environmental benefits/impacts (ecological habitat and sensitive plant and fish
communities)
10
6. Community Concerns
■ Community concerns/complaints (aesthetics and safety1)
■ Recreational use in the area (trails or walkways)
5
TOTAL 100
1 Note that public safety is primarily addressed in Criteria 1: Performance / Health and Safety Issues
5.1.1 Weighted Scoring
Each category rubric consists of a number of questions, with a maximum score of 3 per question. The
maximum possible total score for a category such as the Performance/ Health and Safety Issues for
maintenance is 18 points (6 questions x 3 points). This category in particular is the most important and
contained the highest number of questions, therefore it was assigned a value of 60 out of 100. The weighted
score for this category is multiplied by the ratio of the actual score and the criteria weighting, as follows:
𝑊𝑐�ℎ𝑖�𝑟𝑐𝑐 𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑐=∑𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑟 × 60
18
For example, if the answers to the six questions in this category total 12 (out of a possible score of 18), the
weighted score would be:
12 × 60
18 =40
This approach is used for each SWMF across all of the evaluation criteria categories.
5.1.2 Maintenance Evaluation Criteria Interpretation
5.1.2.1 Performance / Health and Safety Issues
The performance / health and safety issues with respect to assessing the maintenance of the SWMFs are
scored according to the rubric in Table 5-3. Each of the six (6) rubric questions in the performance / health
and safety issues category are discussed below.
- 192 -
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 39
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 5-3 Maintenance Questions for Performance / Health and Safety Issues
Evaluation Criteria
Scoring
0 1 2 3
How severe is sediment accumulation in the SWMF? None or n/a Minor Moderate Severe
What is the current TSS removal efficiency of the SWMF? > 80% or
n/a 70-80% 60-70% < 60%
What is the condition of the SWMF inlet/outlet structures
and berms?
Good
Condition
Minor
Concerns
Moderate
Concerns
Poor
Condition
How effective is the erosion control performance of the
SWMF?
As
Designed
Slightly
Ineffective
Moderately
Ineffective
High
Ineffective
How effective is the SWMF in achieving quantity control to
prevent downstream flooding?
As
Designed
Slightly
Ineffective
Moderately
Ineffective
High
Ineffective
Are there security and public safety hazards associated
with the SWMF? None Minor Moderate Severe
1. How severe is sediment accumulation in the SWMF? The accumulation of sediment leads to
clogged outlet structures and decreased sediment removal efficiency in the pond. The approach of the
MOE SWM Planning and Design Manual (2003) to TSS removal efficiency is to estimate the long-term
suspended sediment removal in wet ponds. In this evaluation, the long-term suspended sediment
removal was calculated by determining the current permanent pool volume in the pond (design
permanent pool volume minus accumulated sediment volume determined by survey).
The MOE SWM Planning and Design Manual (2003) recommends that a 5% reduction in removal
efficiency is acceptable from a maintenance frequency perspective. Therefore, removal efficiencies
within 5% of the original design is considered to be within intended operational range (rating = 0).
The remaining scoring is as follows: 5% to 20% below design efficiency is minor severity (rating = 1),
20% to 50% is moderate severity (rating = 2) and greater than 50% is severe (rating = 3). The rating
scale is intended to prioritize the ponds with the greatest sediment accumulation, however, ponds with a
greater than 5% reduction in removal efficiency should be cleaned out. Dry ponds have a rating of 0 for
this question.
2. What is the current TSS removal efficiency of the SWMF? The City’s SWMF have design removal
efficiencies ranging from Enhanced (80% long-term suspended sediment removal) to Basic (60% long-
term suspended sediment removal) or worse. To maintain at least basic levels of treatment, SWMFs
with lower removal efficiencies are prioritized.
3. What is the condition of the SWMF inlet/outlet structures and berms? This criteria is based on a
qualitative risk assessment of the outlet structures and berm. For facilities that require immediate repair,
it is considered to be in poor condition (rating = 3), repairs that need to be completed in the near future
is considered a moderate concern (rating = 2), and if the components have minor signs of damage that
need to be monitored, it is considered a minor concern (rating = 1). SWMFs with components in good
condition were rated 0.
4. How effective is the erosion control performance of the SWMF? For facilities that provide erosion
control, the design erosion control storage is compared with what currently exists on site. Additionally,
the amount of sediment observed downstream and signs of erosion at the receiving watercourse are
also taken into consideration. The rating for this question was assigned based on a qualitative
assessment of whether erosion control is hindered by malfunctioning components (i.e. clogged orifice
- 193 -
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 40 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
controls and high water levels) or if there are observations of the SWMF’s ineffectiveness in providing
erosion control.
5. How effective is the SWMF in achieving quantity control to prevent downstream flooding? For
facilities that provide quantity control, the design storage and outlet structures are qualitatively assessed
for their function. Recorded / anecdotal observations or public complaints of flooding issues are also
considered.
6. Are there security and public safety hazards associated with the SWMF? Each facility should
adhere to City standards for security and public safety, such as adequate signage, fencing and gates.
Additionally, any facility containing hazardous vegetation such as giant hogweed, wild parsnip or poison
ivy would require additional signage. SWMFs that were observed with security and public safety
hazards had higher scores.
5.1.2.2 Construction Considerations
The construction considerations with respect to assessing the maintenance of the SWMFs are scored
according to the rubric in Table 5-4. The two (2) rubric questions in this category are discussed below.
Table 5-4 Maintenance Questions for Construction Considerations
Evaluation Criteria
Scoring
0 1 2 3
What is the disposal method for removed sediment? n/a Hazardous
Waste Landfill Other Uses
How complex is permitting, approval and construction of
the recommended maintenance? n/a Major Medium Minor
1. What is the disposal method for removed sediment? The sediment quality sampling completed for
the facility conditions assessment provided insight into the potential disposal methods for removed
sediment at each wet pond facility. Higher scores are assigned to SWMFs where sediment has a
potential for reuse such as off-site fill (score=3). Lower scores are given to facilities where the sediment
requires hazardous waste disposal (score=1). Note that the sediment in the majority of wet pond
facilities requires landfill disposal (score=2), that is typical for pond cleanouts, based on sediment
quality and/or the need to dispose of phragmites with the sediment.
2. How complex is the construction, permitting and approval processes of the recommended
maintenance? Each facility was scored on the difficulty, cost and duration of work required to clean out
the pond and repair the facility. This also considers the complexity of permitting and approvals. For
example, a maintenance recommendation of cleaning out a large amount of sediment, removing and
replanting vegetation and repairing an eroded outlet channel with limited site access will be challenging
and would receive a lower rating. A straight-forward cleanout with good site access was given a higher
rating.
5.1.2.3 Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
The statutory and regulatory requirements with respect to assessing the maintenance of the SWMFs are
scored according to the rubric in Table 5-5. Each of the three (3) rubric questions in this category are
discussed below.
- 194 -
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 41
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 5-5 Maintenance Questions for Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
Evaluation Criteria
Scoring
0 1 2 3
Is the current Level of Service less than the proposed
Level of Service (under O. Reg. 588/17)? No n/a n/a Yes
Is maintenance required by Federal or Provincial
Agencies or the Conservation Authority? No n/a n/a Yes
Are the site conditions currently in violation of any City
policies or by-laws? No n/a n/a Yes
1. Is the current Level of Service less than the proposed Level of Service under O. Reg. 588/17
Section 6? The question addresses whether the level of service of the SWMF is below the anticipated
level of service under O. Reg. 588/17 Section 6 (proposed levels of service). If yes, a rating of 3 was
given. Otherwise, the rating for the SWMF was given a rating of 0. The evaluation recognizes that the
‘proposed levels of service’ for stormwater management assets under Section 6 of O. Reg. 588/17 has
not been established by the City.
To that end, the assumption used in this evaluation is that the current level of service for all SWMFs is
equivalent to the proposed level of service. For example, if a SWMF is operating according to its
designed performance, it is assumed to be operating at the current and proposed level of service.
2. Is maintenance required by Federal or Provincial Agencies or the Conservation Authority? A key
regulatory requirement for SWMFs in operation is the Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) from
the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP), which typically include a condition for
maintaining the facility in good operating condition. Through the ECA and the authority of the MECP
through the Water Resources Act (OWRA Section 53), orders can be potentially issued to rectify issues
with SWMFs, which would escalate the priority for maintenance or repair. In general, for the evaluation
scoring, SWMFs were scored a rating of 0 unless a clear and major violation of the SWMF’s ECA was
identified and/or a Provincial Officer’s Order had been issued.
3. Are the site conditions currently in violation of any City policies or by-laws? The most common
violation of City by-law applicable to the SWMF is encroachment, which includes private structures
(fences, furniture, retaining walls, plantings etc.) on City owned lands. A scoring scale from 0 to 3 was
used to rate the severity of City by-law violations, with particular consideration for instances where it has
impacts (or potential impacts) to the operation and maintenance of the SWMF.
5.1.2.4 Environmental Concerns
The environmental concerns with respect to assessing the maintenance of the SWMFs are scored according
to the rubric in Table 5-6. The three (3) rubric questions in this category are discussed below.
- 195 -
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 42 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 5-6 Maintenance Questions for Environmental Concerns
Evaluation Criteria
Scoring
0 1 2 3
What is the current impact of the SWMF on ecological
habitat?
No Impact
or Positive
Slightly
Negative
Moderately
Negative
Significantly
Negative
What is the proximity of the SWMF discharge to sensitive
plant and fish communities?
No
sensitive
receivers
Distant Moderate Near
What is the impact of maintenance on ecological habitat? n/a or
Negative No Impact Moderately
Positive
Significantly
Positive
1. What is the current impact of the SWMF on ecological habitat? A qualitative assessment was
made of the degree of invasive species, presence of Species at Risk, and the temperature and quality
of the SWMF’s discharge water. A higher score indicates that the current condition of a SWMF is
negatively impacting the adjacent natural heritage system.
2. What is the proximity of the SWMF discharge to sensitive plant and fish communities? The
proximity to sensitive habitat, namely Redside Dace contributing watercourses or Provincially significant
wetlands, are indicative of the potential benefit of cleaning out a SWMF and are thus given priority (with
higher scores).
3. What is the impact of maintenance on ecological habitat? This question evaluates the impact of the
maintenance works (cleanout, repairs, component replacements, etc.) on ecological habitat, with
particular consideration for sensitive plant and fish communities, and the effectiveness of mitigation
measures during the works.
5.1.2.5 Community Concerns
The environmental concerns with respect to assessing the maintenance of the SWMFs are scored according
to the rubric in Table 5-7. The two (2) rubric questions in this category are discussed below.
Table 5-7 Maintenance Questions for Community Concerns
Evaluation Criteria
Scoring
0 1 2 3
Are there known or potential community concerns with the
SWMF? No Minor Moderate Major
Are there opportunities to repair or enhance public
amenities? No Minor Moderate Major
1. Are there known or potential community concerns with the SWMF? SWMFs that have damaged
physical components and signs of environmental degradation that are visible to the public were given a
score of 3, while SWMFs that are not accessible to the public were given a score of 0. Documented
public complaints for issues such as aesthetics, odours or safety were also considered.
2. Are there opportunities to repair or enhance public amenities? If public amenities such as trails,
look out points or park features can be improved during recommended maintenance works, a score of 3
was given. A score of 0 is given if such improvements are not applicable.
- 196 -
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 43
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
5.1.3 Retrofit Opportunity Evaluation
5.1.3.1 Performance / Health and Safety
The potential gain in performance / health and safety with respect to the potential retrofit of SWMFs are
scored according to the rubric in Table 5-8. Each of the four (4) rubric questions in the performance / health
and safety category are discussed below.
Table 5-8 Retrofit Questions for Performance / Health and Safety
Evaluation Criteria
Scoring
0 1 2 3
What is the available land area to expand the SWMF? None Minor Moderate High
What is the potential to replace inlet or outlet structures for
improved performance or functionality? None Minor Moderate High
What is the potential gain in storage volume and
associated performance? None Minor Moderate High
What is the potential to improve public health and safety? None Minor Moderate High
1. What is the available land area to expand the SWMF? The ratio of current SWMF area to available
land area for expanding the SWMF was calculated. In general, the SWMFs with most available land
area to expand could increase their footprint by 50% or more, and thus were given the highest score.
The available land area for expanding a SWMF was measured in GIS, however, it considered a number
of factors determined through the review of background information and field observations to assess the
suitability for expansion. This includes the extent of the City’s parcel for the SWMF, available
topographic information, location of sensitive environment features, and the location of the floodplain.
Specific considerations for each SWMF is outlined in the evaluation results (Section 5.2).
2. What is the potential to replace inlet or the outlet control structure for improved performance,
functionality or durability? This question evaluates the degree to which the SWMF can be improved
by redesigning the inlet or outlet structures without expanding the footprint of the pond. For example,
higher scores were assigned to SWMFs that can provide a larger permanent pool by raising the outlet
invert (if there is available freeboard to maintain erosion control and quantity control volumes). The
question also addresses potential improvements for durability or resilience of the SWMF to
deterioration.
3. What is the potential gain in storage volume and associated performance? Similar to Question 2,
the degree to which the SWMF can be improved by expanding the permanent pool or active storage
volume. This would generally require an expansion of the SWMF’s footprint, or a steepening of s ide
slopes. Higher scores were assigned to SWMFs that have the potential to provide significantly more
storage volume.
4. What is the potential to improve public health and safety? Potential improvements to public health
and safety include measures to restrict access and / or the removal of safety hazards such as steep
slopes. The SWMFs were scored according to the impact of health and safety improvements that could
be incorporated into a retrofit project.
5.1.3.2 Construction Considerations
The construction considerations with respect to the potential retrofit of the SWMFs are scored according to
the rubric in Table 5-9. The single (1) rubric question in this category is discussed below.
- 197 -
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 44 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 5-9 Retrofit Questions for Construction Considerations
Evaluation Criteria
Scoring
0 1 2 3
How complex is permitting, approval and construction of
the retrofit? n/a Major Medium Minor
1. How complex is the permitting, approval and construction process of the retrofit? Each facility is
scored on difficulty, cost and duration of construction required to implement the retrofit and any
enhancements to the natural environment. This considers the complexity of permitting and approvals in
addition to implementation. For example, completing the works in a site with limited access will be
challenging and would receive a lower score, while sites with good access, staging areas and straight-
forward permitting would score highest.
5.1.3.3 Cost-Benefit Analysis
The cost-benefit analysis with respect to the potential retrofit of the SWMFs are scored according to the
rubric in Table 5-10. The three (3) rubric questions in this category are discussed below.
Table 5-10 Retrofit Questions for Cost-Benefit Analysis
Evaluation Criteria
Scoring
0 1 2 3
What is the cost effectiveness of a retrofit relative to
potential damages related to downstream flooding and
erosion?
n/a Low Medium High
What is the drainage area to the SWMF? < 5 ha or
n/a 5 to 10 ha 10 to 20 ha > 20 ha
What is the potential cost efficiency of a retrofit in lieu of a
SWMF cleanout? n/a Low Medium High
1. What is the cost effectiveness of a retrofit relative to potential damages related to downstream
flooding and erosion? The cost of a potential retrofit was compared to the cost the potential gain in
suspended sediment removal, erosion control and peak flow control. Potential retrofits with high costs
but provide major gains in performance were scored the highest. Similarly, low cost retrofits with
performance gains also had high scores.
2. What is the drainage area to the SWMF? The drainage area to a SWMF is representative of the
amount of stormwater runoff and associated pollutant loading that is treated where the larger the
drainage area, the greater the benefit to downstream receivers, and thus a higher score.
3. What is the cost efficiency of a retrofit in lieu of a SWMF cleanout? This question compares the
cost estimates of a potential retrofit to a SWMF cleanout where only sediment is removed and minor
repairs are completed. A higher score is given if there is potential to complete retrofit works without
significant costs beyond a regular SWMF cleanout.
5.1.3.4 Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
The statutory and regulatory requirements with respect to the potential retrofit of the SWMFs are scored
according to the rubric in Table 5-11. Each of the three (3) rubric questions in this category are discussed
below.
- 198 -
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 45
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 5-11 Retrofit Questions for Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
Evaluation Criteria
Scoring
0 1 2 3
Will the potential retrofit achieve the proposed Level of
Service under O. Reg. 588/17 Section 6? No n/a n/a Yes
Is a retrofit required by Federal or Provincial Agencies or
the Conservation Authority? No n/a n/a Yes
Will a potential retrofit be in violation of any City policies or
by-laws? No n/a n/a Yes
1. Will a retrofit achieve the proposed Level of Service under O. Reg. 588/17 Section 6? The
question addresses whether the level of service of the SWMF is equivalent to the anticipated level of
service under O. Reg. 588/17 Section 6 (proposed levels of service). If yes, a rating of 3 was given.
Otherwise, the rating for the SWMF was given a rating of 0. The evaluation recognizes that the
‘proposed levels of service’ for stormwater management assets under Section 6 of O. Reg. 588/17 has
not been established by the City.
To that end, the assumption used in this evaluation is that the current level of service for all SWMFs is
equivalent to the proposed level of service, unless otherwise discussed with the City. For example, if a
SWMF is operating according to its designed performance, it is assumed to be operating at the current
and proposed level of service.
2. Is a retrofit required by Federal or Provincial Agencies of the Conservation Authority? A key
regulatory requirement for SWMFs in operation is the Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) from
the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP), which typically include a condition for
maintaining the facility in good operating condition. To that end, a cleanout and repair of a SWMF would
be sufficient to satisfy ECA conditions and thus, there would be limited instances where a retrofit would
be required by agencies.
3. Will a retrofit be in violation of any City policies or by-laws? With the potential expansion of a
SWMF, the project will need to consider the City’s policies around land use, infrastructure placement,
works within or near the natural heritage system, and parks.
5.1.3.5 Environmental Issues
The environmental issues with respect to the potential retrofit of the SWMFs are scored according to the
rubric in Table 5-12. The two (2) rubric questions in this category are discussed below.
Table 5-12 Retrofit Questions for Environmental Issues
Evaluation Criteria
Scoring
0 1 2 3
What is the impact of the retrofit on ecological habitat and
sensitive species?
n/a or
Negative No Impact Moderately
Positive
Significantly
Positive
What is the proximity of the SWMF discharge to sensitive
plant and fish communities?
No
sensitive
receivers
Distant Moderate Near
1. What is the impact of the retrofit on ecological habitat and sensitive species? This question
evaluates the impact of the retrofit on ecological habitat, with particular consideration for sensitive plant
and fish communities, and the effectiveness of mitigation measures during the works. Examples of
- 199 -
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 46 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
retrofit components that could provide ecological benefit include bottom draw outlets for lower discharge
temperatures to receiving watercourse, reduced sediment loadings in the discharge, and native
vegetation plantings.
2. What is the proximity of the SWMF discharge to sensitive plant and fish communities? The
proximity to sensitive habitat, namely Redside Dace contributing watercourses or Provincially significant
wetlands, are indicative of the potential benefit of retrofitting a SWMF and are thus given higher scores.
5.1.3.6 Community Concerns
The community concerns with respect to the potential retrofit of the SWMFs are scored according to the
rubric in Table 5-13. The two (2) rubric questions in this category are discussed below.
Table 5-13 Retrofit Questions for Community Concerns
Evaluation Criteria
Scoring
0 1 2 3
Are there potential community concerns? No n/a n/a Yes
Are there opportunities to expand or enhance public
amenities? No n/a n/a Yes
1. Are there potential community concerns regarding construction of the retrofit? Retrofit projects
that are in close proximity to residential areas have the potential to concern local residents during
construction, with the increase in noise, vibration, dust and traffic.
2. Are there opportunities to repair or enhance public amenities? If public amenities such as trails,
look out points or park features can be improved or implemented as part of the retrofit project, a score of
3 was given. A score of 0 is given if such improvements are not applicable or feasible.
5.2 Evaluation Results
The evaluation scores for the SWMF maintenance and retrofit opportunities are provided in Appendix D.
The results of both evaluations were reviewed in conjunction to develop the recommended capital projects
plan and maintenance plan for the SWMFs.
The results indicated that there are generally two groupings of SWMFs where the first group consists of
facilities that require cleanout and/or major repairs and a second group consists of ponds that are
recommended for ongoing monitoring and routine maintenance instead of a cleanout. The SWMFs that
require cleanout and major repairs were further separated and ranked in the recommended capital works
plan and maintenance plan with specific recommendations at each facility. Further discussion for these
SWMFs is provided in Sections 6 and 7.
General monitoring and maintenance recommendations are provided for the remaining ponds, which were
determined to be in good operating condition.
- 200 -
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 47
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
6 CAPITAL PROJECTS PLAN
The SWMF AMP has been prepared to assist with the development of the City’s capital plan. From the
facility evaluation, two facilities were identified to have retrofit opportunity due to their advanced state of
deterioration and/or the potentially favourable cost-benefit analysis of a retrofit. Each of the identified
facilities, Lisgoold Pond and Rouge Pond, have unique factors that justify their recommendation for the
capital plan, as described in the follow sections. The recommended works at each facility are intended to
provide guidance on the potential improvements at each facility and have not undergone analysis or design
to evaluate its feasibility.
6.1 Priority No. 1: Lisgoold Pond
6.1.1 Issues
As described in Section 3, the facility inspection noted several areas of deterioration at the Lisgoold Pond
(ID C2-08-GC). This included a degraded west inlet channel that receives flow from an 825 mm storm
sewer. The riprap lining the channel has eroded along the entire length to the main pond basin. There was
some bank erosion and a knickpoint along the channel.
The hickenbottom outlet was clogged with debris that prevented the pond from draining to the outlet invert.
The water level was elevated to the top of the riser pipe, where there was additional debris partially blocking
the top of the riser pipe. There was a large amount of vegetation in the pond, including a fallen tree, and
many trees growing on the pond slopes. Accumulated sediment was estimated to be 119 m3 by survey.
The Lisgoold Pond was recommended for the capital works plan because the amount of repair is beyond a
typical facility cleanout scope. There are also opportunities to implement modifications to the pond design
that could provide more resilience to future deterioration and facilitate future maintenance.
A review of potential facility performance improvements was also completed. The current facility was
designed in the early 1990s as a water quality pond that provided extended detention of the 30 mm storm.
The design volume of the 30 mm storm was 1,674 m3 with a provided volume of 2,026 m3 at a depth of 3.8
m (top elevation of 99.8 m) (Paul Wisner & Associates, 1993). The original facility design did not provide a
permanent pool or quantity control beyond the 30 mm storm, however, based on the 3:1 side slopes, the
narrow pond block and small pond base, there is little opportunity to excavate a larger storage volume at
Lisgoold Pond.
6.1.2 Recommended Works
The recommended works are related to the restoration of the existing pond design, with improvements to
structures to provide greater resilience to future deterioration. There are limited opportunities to provide
greater performance for treating runoff. The location of the facility adjacent to the well vegetated creek valley
and the small pond block area limits the ability to expand the pond.
Thus the recommended works focus on reconstructing deteriorated components of the facility, as follows:
■ Reconstruct west inlet channel with channel armouring and a plunge pool or other energy dissipater
downstream of the headwall to mitigate erosion.
■ Repair south inlet spillway and consider implementing more robust energy dissipater downstream of
headwall.
■ Replace outlet structure with a reversed slope outlet pipe. Excavate a deep pool at outlet area to
implement the outlet, which will prevent clogging and lower the temperature of water discharge to the
receiving watercourse, which is an occupied or recovery reach for Redside Dace.
- 201 -
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 48 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
There are some challenges to consider in the design and construction of the SWMF retrofit at Lisgoold
Pond:
■ The pond discharges to a tributary of Ganatsekiagon Creek, which is an occupied or recovery reach for
Redside Dace. This requires construction to adhere to the in-water works timing window of July 1 to
September 15.
■ The pond block is small and only has one site entrance for construction. There are limited (if any) areas
for staging and the pond berms are in close proximity to residential properties.
Figure 6-1 Lisgoold Pond Recommended Works
6.1.3 Cost Estimate
A high-level cost estimate for the retrofit was prepared based on the recommended works described in
Section 6.1.2. Without a design for the retrofit, the cost estimate provides general categories of items and
assigns quantities using conservative measurements of available information (such as sediment volume and
pond areas) or assumptions based on past experience with similar projects while considering the
constructability challenges of the site. Unit rates are based on TMIG’s recent project experience with SWMF
retrofits in Greater Toronto Area municipalities, including the City’s Abbott Crescent Pond Reconstruction
project in 2018.
Quantities were estimated for earthworks and landscaping. The quantity (volume) of earthworks was
conservatively estimated by assuming that the entire area of works/disturbance will have an average
earthworks depth of 1 m. The landscape quantity (area) was based on the estimated total area of
disturbance that will require replanting.
The total estimated cost of the Lisgoold Pond retrofit was $716,300, which includes a cost contingency of
30% that accounts for engineering, landscape architecture, environment consultants, permitting, and
Reconstruct west inlet channel
Repair south inlet spillway
Replace outlet structure with
reverse slope pipe
- 202 -
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 49
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
contract administration. This compares to the cost estimate of $313,300 for the cleanout and basic repair of
the facility. The cost estimate breakdown is provided in Appendix E.
6.2 Priority No. 2: Rouge Pond
6.2.1 Issues
As described in Section 3, the facility inspection noted an elevated water level at the water quality (wet cell)
of the facility, likely due to a clogged hickenbottom outlet. The outlet cover was damaged and not accessible
for inspection (which may have also contributed to the lack of cleaning). The elevated water level reduces
the amount of active storage available at the facility. The sediment volume survey results indicated that
estimated accumulated sediment was 850 m3. The high level of sediment also contributes to the reduction in
active storage at the facility, since the design of the facility did not include a permanent pool. Conversely,
with an informal permanent pool volume due to the clogged outlet, there is likely some suspended solids
settling function at the facility in its current condition. Note that the water quantity control cell (dry cell) was
found to be in good condition at the time of inspection, however, the function of the water quantity cell was
not observed or monitored.
Outside of the facility, the overland land flow route from the north was designed as a swale through an
easement between two homes on White Pine Crescent. During recent utilities maintenance in the boulevard
of White Pine Crescent where the easement is located, the curb and boulevard were reconstructed without a
depression (and the addition of a transformer box), which has cut off the overland flow route to the pond
from the north.
There are two additional considerations from a design perspective in a potential retrofit of the Rouge Pond.
First, the inlet for the wet cell discharges into the middle of the basin with the outlet located in one corner.
There is a short circuiting of flows from the inlet to outlet and a ‘dead zone’ at the far eastern corner of the
wet cell. Lengthening the flow path will provide additional settling effectiveness. Secondly, the facility was
designed without a permanent pool in the wet basin, though the size and layout of the facility suggest it will
benefit from adding deeper pockets to establish a permanent pool, similar to a wetland SWM facility. Note
that the facility was designed in the early 1990s and predates more recent SWM facility design guidelines.
6.2.2 Recommended Works
The recommended works include sediment removal from the wet cell. The retrofit will include the addition of
modern wetland facility features:
■ The reconfiguration of the inlet pipe and headwall to be further east towards the eastern corner of the
basin to increase flow path, recognizing the slope of the inlet storm sewer may limit the extension of the
inlet pipe. A berm or silt curtain are also options to lengthen the flow path.
■ Construct a forebay with 1 m depth downstream of the inlet to provide pretreatment. Construct an
access ramp to the forebay to facilitate regular sediment removal without disturbing the main wetland
cell.
■ Replace outlet structure and excavate a deep pool immediately upstream of the outlet with a reverse
sloped pipe to prevent vegetation growth and clogging of the outlet.
■ Excavate the bottom of the pond to create an average permanent pool depth of between 150 mm and
300 mm. Create low flow path and deeper wetland pockets scattered throughout the basin. An average
permanent pool depth of 300 mm across the bottom of the wet basin will allow the facility to achieve
about 70% TSS removal efficiency (Normal protection). This an improvement over the original design
that did not have a permanent pool.
■ Plant appropriate native wetland vegetation.
■ Reconstruct the depressed curb at the north overland flow route to reinstate the drainage path.
In addition, it is recommended that the function of the water quantity cell be monitored to determine if
modifications or repairs are necessary or feasible during the retrofit of the facility.
- 203 -
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 50 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
With respect to the retrofit’s constructability, it has the benefit of having a relatively large pond block area
and frontage along Valley Ridge Crescent to facilitate vehicle access and staging. It also has the advantage
of a separate dry cell where flows can be diverted during construction in the wet cell, thus simplifying
dewatering requirements. A temporary sediment basin can be implemented within the dry basin for sediment
control during construction if needed.
Figure 6-2 Rouge Pond Recommended Works
6.2.3 Cost Estimate
A high-level cost estimate for the retrofit was prepared based on the recommended works described in
Section 6.2.2. Without a design for the retrofit, the cost estimate provides general categories of items and
assigns quantities using conservative measurements of available information (such as sediment volume and
pond areas) or assumptions based on past experience with similar projects while considering the
constructability challenges of the site. Unit rates are based on TMIG’s recent project experience with SWMF
retrofits in Greater Toronto Area municipalities, including the City’s Abbott Crescent Pond Reconstruction
project in 2018.
Quantities were estimated for earthworks and landscaping. The quantity (volume) of earthworks was
conservatively estimated by assuming that the entire area of works/disturbance will have an average
earthworks depth of 1 m. The landscape quantity (area) was based on the estimated total area of
disturbance that will require replanting.
The estimated cost of the Rouge Pond retrofit was $1,287,000, which includes soft cost contingency of 30%
that accounts for engineering, landscape architecture, environment consultants, permitting, and contract
administration. This compares to the cost estimate of $838,500 for the cleanout and basic repair of the
Create low flow path and
deeper wetland pockets
Water quality (wet) basin
Water quantity (dry) basin
Construct forebay and
maintenance access for
cleanouts
Replace hickenbottom outlet
with reverse slope pipe and
excavate deep pool
Reconfigure inlet towards
the east side of basin
Reconstruct depressed
curb for overland flow route
- 204 -
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 51
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
facility. The relatively small increase in cost from a cleanout to a retrofit is a cost-benefit advantage of
selecting the Rouge Pond for retrofit. A factor that contributes to this relative small price difference is the
cost of landscaping the entire bottom of the pond, which would be required regardless of a retrofit or a
cleanout. The cost estimate breakdown is provided in Appendix E.
- 205 -
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 52 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
7 MAINTENANCE PLAN
The SWMF AMP maintenance plan provides a prioritized list of pond cleanout projects and recommended
procedures. From the facility evaluation, ten facilities were identified to require a cleanout to maintain their
design performance or mitigate risks associated with deteriorated components. Lisgoold Pond and Rouge
Pond were also identified as retrofit candidates as described in Section 6, which not coincidently, are the
top two ranked SWMF for the maintenance plan. Those SWMFs have been included in the maintenance
plan to illustrate the relative priority for maintenance among all the facilities. The City will ultimately decide
what works are to be completed at each facility.
General monitoring and maintenance recommendations are provided for the dry ponds, which were
determined to be in good overall operating condition and are not ranked in the maintenance plan.
7.1 SWMF Cleanout Priority Ranking
The SWMF cleanout priority ranking is summarized in Table 7-1 and includes all the wet ponds evaluated in
this SWMF AMP. However, based on the conditions assessment, the top eight (8) facilities in the ranking are
considered the priority facilities because of observed performance or operational concerns that require a
cleanout or maintenance beyond basic upkeep or monitoring. For the remaining facilities (ranked below no.
8), minor repairs and regular inspections are recommended.
In general, these concerns affect the ability of the SWMFs to mitigate runoff impacts, such as decreased
storage volumes leading to reduced water quantity and quality control. There are also operational and safety
risks associated with deteriorated SWMF components that, if allowed to worsen, may lead to safety
concerns or costly repairs in the future. Note that at the time of inspection, there were no observed concerns
that required emergency action.
- 206 -
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 53
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 7-1 SWMF Maintenance Priority
Priority
(Score)
SWMF Name
(ID)
Sediment
Volume (m3) Key Issues Estimated
Cleanout Cost
1
(53.9)
Rouge
(C1-01-ER) 850
■ Accumulated sediment volume.
■ Outlet from quality pond likely blocked resulting in
elevated water level and reduced active storage.
■ TSS removal efficiency below basic level.
■ Encroachment at along east edge of pond block
(landscaping and plantings by residents)
$838,500
2
(48.1)
Lisgoold
(C2-08-GC) 119
■ Outlet blocked resulting in high water level and
reduced active storage.
■ Degraded channel downstream of west inlet (washed
out riprap spillway, knickpoint, eroded side slope).
$313,300
3
(45.3)
Autumn
(C1-03-PT) 764
■ Accumulated sediment volume.
■ The outlet pipe is likely clogged with debris, which has
caused an elevated water level and partially
submerged inlet.
$620,100
4
(42.5)
Begley Street
(R3-02-AB) 200
■ Heavy phragmite growth and debris in pond and outlet
area.
■ Overland flow route potentially drains toward
townhouses rather than overland flow dispersion
swale.
$315,900
5
(40.3)
Chickadee
(C1-05-PT) 155 ■ Outlet partially blocked causing elevated water level
and reduced active storage. $297,700
6
(38.6)
Dixie Estates 2
(C2-02D-PC) 41
■ Facility water level elevated and inlet pipe partially
submerged.
■ Seepage through berm around inlet headwall.
■ Signs of bank erosion (undercut and slumping) in
downstream watercourse.
■ Encroachment along west side of pond block (resident
plantings and yard furnishings)
$336,700
7
(35.3)
Cognac
(C2-01-DN) 441
■ Scour pool, deteriorated riprap and exposed filter
fabric at inlet.
■ TSS removal efficiency below basic level.
$412,100
8
(35.3)
Valley Farm
(C2-06-WD) 117
■ Heavy vegetation growth and debris in pond and
outlet area.
■ Ponded water and sediment adjacent to facility.
$347,100
9
(24.7)
Durham Woods
(R3-04-LD) 1618
■ Access gate unlocked and obstructed by brush.
■ Drainage from adjacent vacant property to the east
had caused erosion gullies
$1,031,400
10
(24.2)
Calvington Trail
(C1-04-PT) 211
■ Heavy phragmite growth in pond.
■ Encroachment along north edge of pond block
(plantings by residents)
$370,500
T11
(23.6)
Bopa
(C1-02-PT) 188 ■ The PVC riser may be partially clogged. $374,400
T11
(23.6)
Mattamy
(C3-08-UC) 1030 ■ Evidence of beaver activity within pond block. $804,700
- 207 -
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 54 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
7.2 Cost Estimate
High-level cost estimates for the SWMF cleanouts were prepared for the ranked facilities (Appendix E).
Without a design for the cleanout, the cost estimate provides general categories of items and assigns
quantities using conservative measurements of available information (such as sediment volume and pond
areas) or assumptions based on past experience with similar projects while considering the constructability
challenges of the site. Unit rates are based on TMIG’s recent project experience with SWMF retrofits in
Greater Toronto Area municipalities, including the City’s Abbott Crescent Pond Reconstruction project in
2018.
A review of SWMF cleanout guidelines and cost estimates from Greater Toronto Area municipalities was
also completed. In general, the cost of SWMF cleanouts is greatly varied:
■ Pond cleaning costs are generally higher per cubic meter of sediment for smaller sediment volumes.
Data collected by the City of Markham suggests that for volumes of sediment under 1,000 m3 (which
was the case for most of the SWMFs surveyed), total project costs can vary between $100 per m3 to
$900 per m3. The median cost is about $550 per m3, noting that these costs exclude engineering,
permitting and contract administration fees.
■ The STEP Inspection and Maintenance Guide for Stormwater Management Ponds and Constructed
Wetlands described total project costs for pond cleanouts range from $53 per m3 to $512 per m3 of
sediment removed, from a total of 11 projects. Sediment disposal costs alone ranged from $76 to $112
per m3 from five of those projects.
SWMF cleanout costs have increased in the last several years, in part, due to the timing for cleanouts.
Guidance on mitigation measures from the MNRF notes that most SWMFs support amphibians and reptiles,
as such, cleanouts are likely required to be completed during the active season for those species, which is
generally from April 15 to September 30 (MNRF, 2016). With that, tendering for SWMF cleanout projects
compete with larger scale construction projects for contractor services during the core construction season.
This is in contrast to previous practice where SWMFs were commonly cleaned out during the winter, during
slower construction activity at costs that were more favourable to the municipality.
The cost estimate for the SWMF cleanouts included the following assumptions:
■ The unit cost of the sediment cleanout was assumed to be $300 per m3 of sediment, which is
conservative due to the low total volumes of sediment at all of the City’s facilities (most SWMFs less
than 1,000 m3, with many under 500 m3).
■ Unit costs for earthworks ($20 per m3), landscaping ($30 per m2), and other components such as outlet
structures were estimated based on past project experience. The quantities (volume) for earthworks
was based on an average 0.5 m depth of grading across the permanent pool area. The quantities for
landscaping is based on an estimated disturbed area that requires replanting.
■ General construction costs (mobilization and demobilization, traffic control, erosion and sediment
control, dewatering, topographic survey and other miscellaneous items) were estimated as a lump sump
of $100,000 for each SWMF.
■ Soft costs and contingency (engineering, landscape architecture, environmental, permitting and contract
administration) was estimated as 30% of construction cost.
7.3 SWMF Cleanout Schedule and Checklist
The SWMF cleanout schedule and checklist (Table 7-2) outline the major steps required for a cleanout
project and considered the requirements of the SWMFs reviewed in this AMP. Note that the STEP
Inspection and Maintenance Guide for Stormwater Management Ponds and Constructed Wetlands includes
more detailed guidance on specific tasks outlined on this checklist, or other items that were not anticipated
to be required of the City’s SWMFs.
Preparation for SWMF cleanouts should be initiated the year prior to the scheduled works, recognizing that
specific construction timing windows are likely required and considering the time required for permitting. In
- 208 -
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 55
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
TMIG’s recommended schedule, the cleanout projects are to be initiated in August of the year prior to the
cleanout and begin with retaining the engineering consultant who will prepare the design and tender
package for the project.
Table 7-2 SWMF Cleanout Schedule
Date Task Description Lead
August
(of year prior
to cleanout)
Obtain
Consultants
Obtain engineering consultant (lead consultant) and
subconsultants for surveying, environmental, and others as
required.
City of Pickering
September to
October
(of year prior
to cleanout)
Site Inspection Site inspection to confirm facility condition and determine
required works or repairs during sediment cleanout.
Engineering
Consultant
Ecology and Tree
Survey
Complete ecology and tree surveys for all SWMFs that require
environmental mitigation and tree removals.
Environmental
Consultant
Bathymetric
Survey
A detailed survey is required to obtain an accurate volume of
sediment that has been accumulated.
Surveyor
Sediment
Sampling
Collect sediment samples and submit for laboratory analysis.
Results should be presented in a report.
Environmental
Consultant
November
(of year prior
to cleanout)
Sediment
Disposal and
Removal Method
Based on the sediment quality, determine how to dispose and/
or if it can be reused. Analyze the sediment sample collected
and provide a report on the results.
Engineering
Consultant
Dewatering Plan Determine dewatering plan. Engineering
Consultant
Engineering
Drawings
Prepare engineering drawings for the cleanout, including
erosion and sediment control plan.
Engineering
Consultant
December
(of year prior
to cleanout)
Initiate Tender
Package
Preparation
Begin preparing tender package which includes drawings, cost
and tender documents.
Engineering
Consultant
January Authorization
under
Endangered
Species Act
If potential species at risk (SAR) are on site, the MECP should
be contacted to determine the presence of these at risk species
and direction on mitigation or avoidance strategies. Wet ponds
that have potential SAR include:
■ Begley Street (monarch butterfly)
■ Calvington Trail (Barn Swallow, Monarch Butterfly)
■ Cognac (Butternut Tree, Monarch Butterfly)
■ Durham Woods (Barn Swallow, Monarch Butterfly)
■ Lisgoold (Redside Dace)
■ Mattamy (Redside Dace, Barn Swallow, Monarch Butterfly)
■ Rouge (Barn Swallow, Monarch Butterfly)
■ Valley Farm (Butternut Tree)
Environmental
Consultant
DFO Screening /
Fisheries Act
Authorization
Conduct DFO Screening by complying with the fish habitat
protection provisions of the Fisheries Act and incorporating
measures that will avoid the death of fish and any disruptions to
their habitat due to the cleanout work.
Environmental
Consultant
- 209 -
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 56 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Date Task Description Lead
January
(continued)
Development
Interference with
Wetlands and
Alterations to
Shorelines and
Watercourse
Permit or Routine
Infrastructure
Works Permit
Required from TRCA if the SWMF is located within a Regulated
Area or is an online facility. If none of these conditions apply, a
permission for Routine Infrastructure Works (RIW) can be
obtained, subject to qualification criteria. Consultation with the
TRCA is recommended.
■ Facilities that may require a permit: Autumn Pond, Begley
Street Pond, Bopa Pond, Chickadee Pond, Dixie Estates
Pond 2, Lisgoold Pond, Mattamy Pond, Rouge Pond, Valley
Farm Pond
■ Facilities that may qualify for permission for RIW: Calvington
Trail Pond, Cognac Pond, and Durham Woods
Engineering
Consultant
Licence to Collect
Fish for Scientific
Purposes
Issued under O.Reg. 664/98 for the collection, handling and
deposition of fish, which may be required as a result of
dewatering of SWMF.
Environmental
Consultant
Wildlife Scientific
Collector’s
Authorization
Issued under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act for any
collection, handling and deposition of protected wildlife species
Environmental
Consultant
February Finalize and
Release Tender
Release Tender for contractors to bid on. City of Pickering
March Award Tender Award a contractor with tender. City of Pickering
Prior to
Construction
By-Law Permits Any by-law permits required (i.e. any permits required as a
result of the trees being removed, dust and/ or noise being
created)
Engineering
Consultant or
Contractor
Dewatering
Permits
Any required MECP Permit to Take Water or EASR registration
for construction dewatering.
Engineering
Consultant or
Contractor
April to
September
Construction Complete cleanout works within the construction timing window
specific to each facility, as determined through the permitting
and approvals for the cleanout.
City of Pickering
and Engineering
Consultant
(Contract
Administrator)
7.4 SWMF Inspections
7.4.1 SWMF Inspections and Minor Maintenance
Regular inspection and corrective actions for deficiencies at the City’s SWMFs are recommended. The
SWMF cleanout priority ranking recognizes that the cleanouts cannot be completed all at once, therefore, a
number of facilities will not receive major maintenance work for several years. Thus it is important to
complete regular inspections of the facilities and complete minor corrective actions where possible. The
SWMF inspections completed for this AMP noted some relatively minor action items that could be completed
by City staff without retaining a contractor, such as:
■ Unclogging of hickenbottom outlets pipes that are plugged by vegetation. This also includes removal of
vegetation in the vicinity of the outlet structures. This is one of the most common observations amongst
the City’s SWMFs. Completing this work will lower elevated water levels and restore active storage
volumes at many of the SWMFs.
■ Repairing or replacing damaged outfall grates to maintain safety measures at the SWMF.
- 210 -
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 57
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
■Repairing or replacing damaged chain link fencing around headwalls or facility perimeters to maintain
safety measures at the SWMF.
■Ensure that adequate signage is present at all SWMFs.
A complete list of action items for each facility is found on the SWMF inspection forms (Appendix A).
The recommended minimum inspection frequency at each SWMF is once per year under dry weather
conditions and a rainfall event inspection once per year. Note that the STEP Inspection and Maintenance
Guide for Stormwater Management Ponds and Constructed Wetlands recommends inspections of major
components four times a year, and increasing the inspection frequency would be beneficial for components
that are showing signs of deterioration.
The rainfall event inspection is intended to observe the SWMF function immediately after a large (>25 mm)
rainfall event that cannot be inspected during dry weather conditions. This includes the operation of orifice
and other flow controls, drawdown times, flow split manholes, water levels and storage volumes, spillways,
among other items.
Inspection forms and other records shall be retained within the City’s electronic filing system and GIS
database.
7.4.2 Sediment Accumulation Assessments
Sediment accumulation and removal efficiency assessments are recommended every three to five years to
establish an accumulation rate for each SWMF. Once the sediment accumulation rate is known for each
SWMF, sediment volumes can be estimated and the frequency of sediment surveys can be decreased,
assuming that the contributing drainage areas do not change. SWMF cleanout frequency for each facility
can also be established.
Section 3 outlines the methods and specifications of the SWMFs designed with permanent pools and
describes the calculation for sediment removal efficiency. Assessing sediment accumulation will require
surveying the sediment.
- 211 -
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 58 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
8 SUMMARY
The City of Pickering owns and operates 20 SWM facilities, of which 18 were included in this SWMF AMP. A
total of 12 wet facilities six (6) dry ponds were evaluated and included in the capital works and maintenance
plans to ensure an acceptable level of service is provided for the foreseeable future. The purpose of the
SWMF AMP is to assess the current conditions of the City of Pickering’s SWMFs and determine a prioritized
list of capital works and maintenance requirements for the short to medium term (up to 10 years).
A background information review, facility inspections, sediment surveys, and conditions assessments were
completed. Available data was also consolidated into a database to be incorporated to the City’s GIS
database and recommendations for future data and upkeep of the information was provided.
The facility conditions assessment provided data and performance analysis to evaluate the SWMFs through
criteria, where the scoring was used to prioritize sediment cleanout and retrofit projects. The
recommendations from the evaluation included the retrofit of two facilities (Table 8-1) and sediment cleanout
at the remaining facilities, with priority for the top 8 in the ranking (Table 8-2).
Table 8-1 Recommended SWMF Retrofits (Capital Works Plan)
Priority SWMF Name
(ID) Proposed Retrofit Works and Rationale Estimated
Retrofit Cost
1 Lisgoold
(C2-08-GC)
■ Reconstruct west inlet channel with channel armouring and a plunge
pool or other energy dissipater downstream of the headwall to
mitigate erosion.
■ Repair south inlet spillway and consider implementing more robust
energy dissipater downstream of headwall.
■ Replace outlet structure with a reversed slope outlet pipe. Excavate
a deep pool at outlet area to implement the outlet, to prevent
clogging and lower the temperature of water discharge to the
receiving watercourse, which is an occupied or recovery reach for
Redside Dace.
$716,300
2 Rouge
(C1-01-ER)
■ The reconfiguration of the inlet pipe and headwall to be further east
towards the eastern corner of the basin to increase flow path,
recognizing the slope of the inlet storm sewer may limit the
extension of the inlet pipe. A berm or silt curtain are also options to
lengthen the flow path.
■ Construct a forebay with 1 m depth downstream of the inlet to
provide pretreatment. Construct an access ramp to the forebay to
facilitate regular sediment removal without disturbing the main
wetland cell.
■ Replace outlet structure and excavate a deep pool immediately
upstream of the outlet with a reverse sloped pipe to prevent
vegetation growth and clogging of the outlet.
■ Excavate the bottom of the pond to create an average permanent
pool depth of between 150 mm and 300 mm. Create low flow path
and deeper wetland pockets scattered throughout the basin. An
average permanent pool depth of 300 mm across the bottom of the
wet basin will allow the wetland facility to achieve about 70% TSS
removal efficiency (Normal protection). This an improvement over
the original design that did not have a permanent pool.
■ Plant appropriate native wetland vegetation.
■ Reconstruct the depressed curb at the north overland flow route to
reinstate the drainage path.
$1,287,000
- 212 -
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 59
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
Table 8-2 SWMF Maintenance Priority (Maintenance Plan)
Priority SWMF Name
(ID)
Sediment
Volume (m3) Key Issues Estimated
Cleanout Cost
1 Rouge
(C1-01-ER) 850
■ Accumulated sediment volume.
■ Outlet from quality pond likely blocked resulting in
elevated water level and reduced active storage.
■ TSS removal efficiency below basic level.
■ Encroachment at along east edge of pond block
(landscaping and plantings by residents)
$838,500
2 Lisgoold
(C2-08-GC) 119
■ Outlet blocked resulting in high water level and
reduced active storage.
■ Degraded channel downstream of west inlet (washed
out riprap spillway, knickpoint, eroded side slope).
$313,300
3 Autumn
(C1-03-PT) 764
■ Accumulated sediment volume.
■ The outlet pipe is likely clogged with debris, which has
caused an elevated water level and partially
submerged inlet.
$620,100
4 Begley Street
(R3-02-AB) 200
■ Heavy phragmite growth and debris in pond and outlet
area.
■ Overland flow route potentially drains toward
townhouses rather than overland flow dispersion
swale.
$315,900
5 Chickadee
(C1-05-PT) 155 ■ Outlet partially blocked causing elevated water level
and reduced active storage. $297,700
6 Dixie Estates 2
(C2-02D-PC) 41
■ Facility water level elevated and inlet pipe partially
submerged.
■ Seepage through berm around inlet headwall.
■ Signs of bank erosion (undercut and slumping) in
downstream watercourse.
■ Encroachment along west side of pond block (resident
plantings and yard furnishings)
$336,700
7 Cognac
(C2-01-DN) 441
■ Scour pool, deteriorated riprap and exposed filter
fabric at inlet.
■ TSS removal efficiency below basic level.
$412,100
8 Valley Farm
(C2-06-WD) 117
■ Heavy vegetation growth and debris in pond and
outlet area.
■ Ponded water and sediment adjacent to facility.
$347,100
9 Durham Woods
(R3-04-LD) 1618
■ Access gate unlocked and obstructed by brush.
■ Drainage from adjacent vacant property to the east
had caused erosion gullies
$1,031,400
10 Calvington Trail
(C1-04-PT) 211
■ Heavy phragmite growth in pond.
■ Encroachment along north edge of pond block
(plantings by residents)
$370,500
T11 Bopa
(C1-02-PT) 188 ■ The PVC riser may be partially clogged. $374,400
T11 Mattamy
(C3-08-UC) 1030 ■ Evidence of beaver activity within pond block. $804,700
- 213 -
Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
CITY OF PICKERING
PAGE 60 TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
We trust that is SWMF AMP report meets the current needs of the City at this time. Please feel free to
contact the undersigned should you have any questions.
Sincerely,
THE MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE GROUP LTD.
A T.Y. LIN INTERNATIONAL COMPANY
Tony Dang, P.Eng. Steve Hollingworth, P.Eng.
Water Resources Engineer Director of Stormwater Management
tdang@tmig.ca shollingworth@tmig.ca
- 214 -
CITY OF PICKERING Stormwater Management Facilities
Asset Management Plan
FINAL REPORT • JULY 2020
TMIG PROJECT NUMBER 19163 PAGE 61
2020-07-09 - 19163 - CITY OF PICKERING SWMF AMP.DOCX
9 REFERENCES
GHD (2017). ‘Stormwater Inspection and Record Management Best Practices, Data Model Design, and
Comprehensive Report’. Prepared for the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority. February
2017.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) (2019). ‘Rules for Soil Management
and Excess Soil Quality Standards’. Queen’s Printer for Ontario.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) (2003). ‘Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual.’
Queen’s Printer for Ontario.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) (2016). ‘Stormwater Management Pond Clean-
out Best Management Practices.’
Paul Wisner & Associates. (1993). ‘Addendum to the Storm Water Management Strategy Report for the
Lisgoold Residential Development.’ Letter Report to Ministry of Natural Resources. March 23,
1993.
Toronto and Region Conservation (TRCA) and CH2M Hill Canada Ltd. (CH2M) (2016). ‘Inspection and
Maintenance Guide for Stormwater Management Ponds and Constructed Wetlands.’ 2016 (revised
April 2018).
- 215 -
/
Ta u nton Road
0
0 =
�
0
L ____ ___::[?:__ ___ ---1f------,---T_h_i
7
r d_C_o_n_c_e_s_s_io_n_R_o_a_d __
1 IIL-------,-�T�h�i r�d�C�o�n c'.:e::s�s�io�n'..'....'.:R�o�a�d'.......,'----------,
;-
""' M
Q) C:
Q) :E II)
0 (J
�
Twyn Riv, rs Drive
0
1 ½ • ;1 •
�
\f • •
Fi
I I J •
Shepp r d Aven u e
"C lt1 &.
.ll: C: lt1 .c Q) II) &.
Granite court /
Toy�ale R oad �
D
... C: :::l
0 E Q) Cl :::l
(;)
0
•
t::
0 e"iij u.
"E
f----�,-� _._______,
:::l f--�-,----L�c:)-ID
...._-+-----+---+--+-+--+�-0 ..c: II) ... rn-
� I--�--�
Frenchman's
Bay
Lake Ontario
-cit! &.
e[ .. Q) > ::i
JJ
e-1----�
0 c.�-� ..
� ::i
Thi r d Con c ession Road
• •
"C lt1 ,------'----, &. �+-___[�,---�e-ltl u.
>, .!!!
•
��
"C lt1 L------,&_-,-�
.ll:
•
(.) e ID
>< ro -�<( ..... 0
C 5
�
•
0
�ayly Str eet =
Clem ents R oad
M ontgo m e ry Pa rk Ro d
"C lt1 &.
..c: (.) lt1 Q) ID
0
Kelli no Str eet
0
I)
•
II) ...
� ... II) ..c:
� :::l ..c:
(.J
B , ly Str eet W
>< ro -�<( ..... 0
C 5
� C)
-�6/P1CKER1NG
ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
a
Legend
e SWM Facility
1 :15,000
Attachment #2 to Report #ENG 11-20
- 216 -
Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: ENG 14-20
Date: December 7, 2020
From: Richard Holborn
Director, Engineering Services
Subject: Proposed All-way Stop Control, Pickering Parkway and Glenanna Road
-File: A-1440
Recommendation:
1.That the attached draft by-law be enacted to amend Schedule "7" to By-law 6604/05 to
provide for the regulation of stop signs on highways or parts of highways under the
jurisdiction of The Corporation of the City of Pickering, specifically to address the proposed
installation of an all-way stop control at the intersection of Pickering Parkway and Glenanna
Road; and,
2.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary
actions as indicated in this report.
Executive Summary: Numerous residents have expressed concerns with the reduced
sightlines at the intersection of Pickering Parkway and Glenanna Road due to the construction of
a retirement residence on the northeast corner of the intersection. In particular, the sightline
concerns are contributing to potential conflicts at the intersection when turning onto Pickering
Parkway from Glenanna Road. City staff investigated the intersection of Pickering Parkway and
Glenanna Road and, based on the review, the following information is presented:
the intersection has met the requirements, based on provincial warrants, for a traffic signal;
a traffic signal is not recommended by staff at this time due to ongoing construction of the
retirement residence at the intersection of Pickering Parkway and Glenanna Road, and
potential future disruption of the intersection and Glenanna Road as part of the City Centre
development;
to improve safety at the intersection until a traffic signal can be installed , an all-way stop was
analyzed, which would alleviate the sightline issues; and
the traffic analysis at the intersection indicated that queuing at the intersection would be
minimal and that the intersection would operate well, if an all-way stop was installed.
Therefore, based on the review, it is recommended that an all-way stop be installed at the
intersection of Pickering Parkway and Glenanna Road to improve safety at the intersection and
alleviate sightline concerns.
- 217 -
ENG 14-20 December 7, 2020
Subject: Proposed All-way Stop Control
Pickering Parkway and Glenanna Road Page 2
Financial Implications: The installation of stop signs, advance warning signs, and stop bar and
pavement markings at the intersection of Pickering Parkway and Glenanna Road can be
accommodated within the 2020 Roads Current Budget.
Discussion: City of Pickering staff have received complaints from numerous area
residents with respect to increased difficulty turning from Glenanna Road onto Pickering Parkway.
The main concern that has been raised is the reduced sight of traffic on Pickering Parkway when
stopped on Glenanna Road. The reduced sightline is caused from the construction of a retirement
residence on the northeast corner of the intersection.
City staff have investigated the intersection of Pickering Parkway and Glenanna Road previously
and determined that the intersection has met the requirements for the insta llation of a traffic signal
based on provincial warrants. The intersection has met these warrants based on existing traffic
volumes, without the addition of traffic from the proposed City Centre or from the retirement
residence which is currently under construction.
However, due to ongoing construction of the retirement residence at the intersection, and impacts
to both the intersection and Glenanna Road due to the proposed City Centre project , it is
recommended that a traffic signal not be installed at the intersection until all roadway construction
is completed.
An all-way stop is recommended at the intersection to improve safety until a traffic signal
is installed
To improve safety at the intersection until a traffic signal can be installed, staff investigated the
possibility of making the intersection an all-way stop. The City’s All-way Stop warrant permits an
intersection, that has been warranted for a traffic signal, to have an all-way stop installed in the
interim until a traffic signal can be installed.
Traffic volumes were then analyzed to ensure that there would be no significant queuing or traffic
volume concerns with the installation of an all-way stop. The traffic analysis was completed using
Synchro, a traffic analytical program that can m easure the capacity, queuing and operation of an
intersection. The analysis was completed, using traffic volumes from 2017, and indicated that
queuing at the intersection, if an all-way stop was installed, would be minimal and that the
intersection would operate well.
Therefore, based on the review, it is recommended that an all-way stop be installed at the
intersection of Glenanna Road and Pickering Parkway to improve safety at the intersection,
particularly sightline concerns, which are contributing to potential conflicts as motorists attempt to
predict acceptable gaps in traffic when turning from Glenanna Road.
The proposed all-way stop control at the intersection of Pickering Parkway and Glenanna Road is
shown graphically in Attachment 1. The draft by-law amendment to Schedule “7”, Stop Signs of
By-law 6604/05 is presented in Attachment 2.
- 218 -
ENG 14-20 December 7, 2020
Subject: Proposed All-way Stop Control
Pickering Parkway and Glenanna Road Page 3
Attachments:
1. Proposed All-way Stop Control – Pickering Parkway and Glenanna Road
2. Draft By-law Amendments to Schedule “7”, Stop Signs, to By-law 6604/05
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
Original signed by: Original signed by:
Nathan Emery Richard Holborn, P. Eng.
Coordinator, Traffic Operations Director, Engineering Services
Original signed by:
Scott Booker
Manager, Capital Projects
NE:mjh
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City Council
Original signed by:
Marisa Carpino, M.A.
Interim Chief Administrative Officer
- 219 -
Proposed All-way Stop Control
Pickering Parkway and Glenanna RoadNTSNovember, 2020
Engineering Services
Department
N
Pick
eri
n
g
P
ark
w
ayGlenanna
Road
Proposed
All-way Stop
Pickering
Town Centre
Retirement Residence
(under construction)
High
w
a
y
4
0
1
Attachment #1 to Report #ENG 14-20
- 220 -
The Corporation of the City of Pickering
By-law No.
Being a by-law to amend By-law 6604/05
providing for the regulating of traffic and
parking, standing and stopping on highways or
parts of highways under the jurisdiction of the
City of Pickering and on private and municipal
property.
Whereas By-law 6604/05, as amended, provides for the regulating of traffic and parking
on highways, private property and municipal property within the City of Pickering; and
Whereas, it is deemed expedient to amend Schedule 7, Stop Signs, to By-law 6604/05
to provide for the regulation of parking restrictions and stop signs on highways or parts
of highways under the jurisdiction of the Corporation of the City of Pickering.
Specifically, this by-law is to provide for the installation of an all-way stop at the
intersection of Pickering Parkway and Glenanna Road.
Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as
follows:
1.Schedule 7 to By-law 6604/05, as amended, is hereby further amended thereto
by the following:
Schedule 7
Stop Signs
Column 1 Column 2
Highway Compulsory Stop Facing Traffic
Add
Glenanna Road @
Pickering Parkway
Pickering Parkway @
Glenanna Road
Glenanna Road, southbound
Pickering Parkway, eastbound and westbound
Attachment #2 to Report #ENG 14-20
- 221 -
By-law No. Page 2
By-law passed this 14th day of December, 2020.
____________________________
David Ryan, Mayor
________________________________
Susan Cassel, City Clerk
- 222 -
Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: FIN 15-20
Date: December 7, 2020
From: Stan Karwowski
Director, Finance & Treasurer
Subject: 2021 Interim Spending Authority
Recommendation:
1. That the 2021 Interim Operating Expenditures be approved at 50 per cent of the
prior year’s budget, including adjustments, as contained in Attachment 1, pending
approval of the 2021 Current Budget by Council; and
2. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary
actions as indicated in this report.
______________________________________________________________________
Executive Summary: Adoption of the interim current operating spending authority will
provide funding authorization for the payment of salaries, overhead and such other
accounts as may be necessary for the normal day-to-day operations of the City pending
approval of the 2021 Current Budget.
______________________________________________________________________
Financial Implications: Adoption of the interim current operating appropriations
does not constitute approval of a formal budget but rather is required to provide funding
authorization at the transitional stage. At the conclusion of the budget process, all
interim current operating appropriations are nullified and replaced with the
appropriations as approved by Council.
______________________________________________________________________
Discussion: Each year, pending approval by City Council of the annual Current
Budget, it is necessary to provide expenditure authority respecting the payment of
accounts for the interim period from January 1 until the Budget is adopted by Council.
Such authority is in the form of interim current operatin g appropriations to meet
estimated expense requirements of the individual departments, agencies and boards .
Staff are seeking approval to provide for interim spending authority for up to the first 6
months of 2021 or when Council approves the 2021 Budget, whichever occurs first. The
Roads cost centre has been adjusted to reflect greater than 6 months of the annual
Budget due to the seasonal nature of this cost centre and past spending patt erns. This
has been reflected in Attachment 1.
- 223 -
FIN 15-20 December 7, 2020
Subject: 2021 Interim Spending Authority Page 2
With the requirements of the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) regarding tangible
capital assets being effective since January 1, 2009, small capital items previously
included under the Capital Budget have been gradually transferred to the Current
Budget in the last few years. The 50 per cent interim provision is sufficient to cover this
change.
Under the same PSAB requirements regarding tangible capital assets, library materials
have been deemed capital and included in the Capital Budget starting from 2010 . In the
library business, the publishing cycle demands that materials be purchased while they
are “in print”. As a result, certain materials must be purchased in a timely manner, and it
is essential for the Library to continue purchasing materials throughout the year. On this
basis, 50 per cent of last’s year library capital materials has been included in the interim
appropriations and reflected in Attachment 1.
A minor provision has been included for small capital expenditures from current funds.
Specific capital projects proposed prior to the approval of the 2021 Capital Budget will
require specific approval by Council.
Attachment:
1. 2021 Interim Appropriations for Current Budget Operating Expenditures
______________________________________________________________________
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
Original Signed By: Original Signed By:
Caryn Kong, CPA, CGA Stan Karwowski, CPA, CMA, MBA
Senior Financial Analyst – Capital & Director, Finance & Treasurer
Debt Management
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City Council
Original signed By:
Marisa Carpino, M.A.
Interim Chief Administrative Officer
- 224 -
Attachment #1 to Report #FIN 15-20
City of Pickering
2021 Interim Current Operation Appropriations
Cost Centres
2020 Approved
Budget
2021 (Jan. 1-
June 30) Interim
Appropriations
2121 Office of the CAO - Admin $1,565,878 $782,939
2129 Customer Care Centre 455,760 227,880
2621 Public Affairs & Corp. Comm.683,929 341,965
2610 City Development - Admin 705,805 352,903
2611 Planning & Design 3,162,474 1,581,237
2612 Building Services 2,613,618 1,306,809
2620 Strategic Initiatives & Sustainability 764,358 382,179
2630 Committee of Adjustment 10,464 5,232
2743 Heritage Pickering 19,725 9,863
2711 Cult. & Rec. - Admin.3,320,179 1,660,090
2124 Civic Centre 800,840 400,420
2572 Senior Citizens Centre 571,268 285,634
2712 Programs 2,558,783 1,279,392
2713 Dunbarton Pool 397,090 198,545
2715 Don Beer Arena 1,389,966 694,983
2719 Community Centres 907,594 453,797
2731 Recreation Complex - Central Core 3,549,595 1,774,798
2733 Recreation Complex - Pool 977,979 488,990
2735 Recreation Complex - Arenas 1,086,577 543,289
2744 Museum 1,202,234 601,117
2740 Pickering Arts Centre 140,296 70,148
2500 Operations - Admin.1,202,092 601,046
2132 Property Maintenance 1,195,700 597,850
2315 Fleet Services 1,663,024 831,512
2320 Roads 7,836,354 4,701,812
2718 Parks 4,785,779 2,392,890
2196 Information Technology 2,383,720 1,191,860
2125 Legal Services 774,293 387,147
2122 Clerks Office 498,011 249,006
2191 Records Management & Elections 210,805 105,403
2199 Print Shop/Mail Room 521,358 260,679
2220 By-law 1,516,638 758,319
2293 Animal Services 595,665 297,833
2290 Engineering Services - Admin.2,894,711 1,447,356
2230 Crossing Guards 376,828 188,414
2613 Water Resources & Development Services 2,190,852 1,095,426
2323 Sidewalks 488,415 244,208
2325 Street Lights 952,979 476,490
2127 Finance 4,277,185 2,138,593
2133 Supply & Services 427,189 213,595
2240 Fire Protection 17,237,370 8,618,685
2241 Emergency Operations 168,793 84,397
2139 Human Resources 1,227,229 613,615
2141 Health & Safety 172,745 86,373
2745 Libraries 5,945,522 2,972,761
Gen Government -Various 28,357,528 14,178,764
Capital-Library Materials 305,000 152,500
Capital-Equipment & Furniture 0 200,000
TOTAL 115,090,197 58,528,734
- 225 -
Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: FIN 16-20
Date: December 7, 2020
From: Stan Karwowski
Director, Finance & Treasurer
Subject: 2021 Temporary Borrowing By-law
Recommendation:
1. That the temporary borrowing limit of $55 million be established to meet 2021
current expenditures pending receipt of taxes and other revenues for the period of
January 1 to September 30, 2021 inclusive, and $27 million thereafter until
December 31, 2021;
2. That the temporary borrowing limit for capital purposes for 20 21 be established at
$63 million;
3. That the attached draft by-law providing for the temporary borrowing of monies be
enacted; and
4. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary
actions as indicated in this report.
______________________________________________________________________
Executive Summary: Staff recommend that Council approve temporary 2021
borrowing limits as set out in the above recommendations. Council approval is required
to undertake temporary borrowings, if necessary, for current operations and capital
projects in order to meet the expenses of the City for 2021, until the taxes are collected
and other revenues are received. Approval is always sought at the end of the City’s
fiscal (calendar) year in order to be prepared, in the event that loans are necessary, as
we proceed into the new year. The approval of this report and the attached By-law will
provide the City with financial flexibility to deal with unanticipated negative events . Put
another way, this report provides the City with a financial safety net.
Financial Implications: At this time, it is difficult to estimate the interest costs as it is
uncertain how much temporary financing may be required and for how long . The City
will undertake external borrowing from The Regional Municipality of Durham (the
“Region”) in 2021 for approved capital expenditures. For current purposes, the $53
million limit for January 1 to September 30, 2020 has been increased to $55 million for
- 226 -
Report FIN 16-20 December 7, 2020
Subject: 2021 Temporary Borrowing By-law Page 2
January 1 to September 30, 2021 and the $26 million limit for October 1 to December
31, 2021 has been increased to $27 million for October 1 to December 31, 2021.
The limit for capital purposes for 2021 has been established at $63 million based on the
draft 2021 Capital Budget dated November 4, 2020. The actual amount to borrow may
have to be adjusted once the 2021 Capital Budget has been approved by Council.
______________________________________________________________________
Discussion: The borrowing of funds for current and capital purposes may become
necessary in the normal course of operations during 2021. Under Section 407 of the
Municipal Act, 2001, as amended (the “Act”), Council may pass a by-law to provide for
the temporary borrowing of funds to meet current operating expenditures pending
receipt of taxes and other revenues of the City. Under the Act, The Corporation of the
City of Pickering (the Corporation) may also undertake temporary borrowings under
individual project approvals, and for capital projects, pending permanent financing.
Current Budget Financing
The amount of such temporary borrowing outstanding at any one time is limited by the
Act, unless otherwise approved by the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT), to 50 per
cent of the estimated annual revenues from January 1 to September 30 and to 25 per
cent thereafter.
Until the current year’s estimates are adopted, the limitation may be calc ulated upon the
revenues set forth in the estimates adopted for the preceding year. Based upon the
2020 estimates of the Corporation, the allowable level of temporary borrowing
outstanding under the Act is estimated at $55 million from January 1 to September 30
and $27 million thereafter.
The requested $55 million should be sufficient to meet the current expenditures of the
City until the levies for 2021 are received. It is expected that this amount will provide a
sufficient level of temporary borrowings, taking into account the potential effects of
taxation legislation and its impact on cash flows.
Capital Budget Financing
Borrowing for capital purposes under the Act can only be undertaken on projects
approved by Council and will only be undertaken in the event that sufficient funds are
not available at the time they are required. Recommendation 3 provides the authority for
staff to obtain additional temporary interim financing (internal or external) for capital
projects approved by Council. The $63 million capital borrowing limit should provide
sufficient funds to cover the estimated 2021 capital expenditures.
- 227 -
Report FIN 16-20 December 7, 2020
Subject: 2021 Temporary Borrowing By-law Page 3
Attachment:
1. By-law to Authorize the Temporary Borrowing of Monies to Meet the Current and
Capital Expenditures of the City of Pickering for the Year 2021
______________________________________________________________________
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
Original Signed By: Original Signed By:
Caryn Kong, CPA, CGA Stan Karwowski, MBA, CPA, CMA
Senior Financial Analyst – Capital & Director, Finance & Treasurer
Debt Management
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City Council
Original Signed By:
Marisa Carpino, M.A.
Interim Chief Administrative Officer
- 228 -
Attachment #1 to Report #FIN 16-20
The Corporation of the City of Pickering
By-law No.
Being a by-law to authorize the temporary
borrowing of monies to meet the current and
capital expenditures of the City of Pickering
for the year 2021.
Whereas Section 407(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, provides that the Council of the City
of Pickering may by by-law authorize the Mayor and Treasurer of the City to borrow
from time to time by way of promissory note such sums as the Council may deem
necessary to meet, until the taxes for the current year are collected and other revenues
are received, the current expenditures of the City for the year, including the amounts
required for principal and interest falling due within the year upon any debt of the C ity,
and the sums required by law to be provided by the Council for any local board of the
City;
Whereas Section 407(2) limits the total of such borrowings to not exceed 50 per cent of
the estimated annual revenues from January 1 to September 30, and 25 per cent
thereafter;
Whereas it is deemed necessary by the said Council to borrow the sum of fifty-five
million dollars ($55,000,000) to meet, until the taxes for the current year are received,
the current expenditures of the City for the year 2021, including the amounts and sums
aforesaid;
Whereas the said sum of fifty-five million dollars ($55,000,000) plus any similar
borrowings that have not been repaid, is less than 50 per cent of the total amount of the
estimated revenues of the City from January 1 to September 30 as set forth in the
estimates adopted by the Council for the year 20 20 exclusive of revenues derivable
from the sale of assets, borrowings or issues of debentures or from a surplus including
arrears of levies, and twenty-seven million dollars ($27,000,000) is less than 25 per
cent of the estimated revenues thereafter;
Whereas the Municipal Act, 2001, provides that if a municipality has by by-law approved
an undertaking to be financed in whole or in part by incurring long-term debt, the
Council may by by-law authorize temporary borrowing to meet expenditures made in
connection with the undertaking; and,
Whereas it is deemed necessary by the Council to borrow the sum of sixty-three million
dollars ($63,000,000) to meet the capital expenditures approved by Council.
- 229 -
By-law No. Page 2
Now therefore the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows:
1. The Mayor and Director, Finance & Treasurer of the City of Pickering are hereby authorized to
borrow from time to time by way of promissory notes a sum or sums not exceeding f ifty-five
million dollars ($55,000,000) to meet, until the levies for the year 2021 are received, the
current expenditures of the City for such year, including the amounts required for principal and
interest falling due within the year upon any debt of the City for the period January 1 to
September 30, 2021 inclusive and twenty-seven million dollars ($27,000,000) thereafter until
December 31, 2021.
2. The Mayor and Director, Finance & Treasurer of the City of Pickering are hereby authorized to
borrow from time to time by way of promissory notes a sum or sums not exceeding sixty-three
million dollars ($63,000,000) to meet the capital expenditures as approved by Council of the
City including the amounts required for principal and interest.
3. Any promissory notes made under the authority of this by-law shall be sealed and signed in
accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act, 2001, and may be countersigned in
writing by the Manager, Accounting Services of the Corporation in accordance with the
provisions of the said Act.
4. This By-law shall come into effect on the first day of January, 2021.
By-law passed this 14th day of December, 2020.
_______________________________
David Ryan, Mayor
_______________________________
Susan Cassel, City Clerk
- 230 -
Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: LEG 10-20
Date: December 7, 2020
From: Paul Bigioni
Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor
Subject: Retail Sale of Cannabis in Pickering
-File: L-2000-003-18
Recommendation:
1.That the City of Pickering hereby opts in to allow cannabis retail stores within Pickering;
2.That a copy of these recommendations be forwarded to the Alcohol and Gaming
Commission of Ontario ("AGCO"); and
3.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take such actions as are
necessary to implement the recommendations in this report.
Executive Summary: After conducting public consultation and seeking input from residents
and stakeholders, staff recommend that the City opt in to allow the retail sale of cannabis within
Pickering.
Financial Implications: There are no direct financial implications to this report. Allowing the
retail sale of cannabis is likely to result in the establishment of one or more retail sales locations
within Pickering, which will add to Pickering’s overall level of economic activity.
Discussion: On December 10, 2018, Council decided to opt out of allowing the retail sale
of cannabis within Pickering. Instead, Council directed City staff to solicit input from residents and
stakeholders on the subject. Factors in favour of opting out included (i) uncertainty about how the
retail sale of a newly legalized substance would impact the community, (ii) the lack of municipal
power to regulate retail sales, and (iii) the inadequacy of Provincial public consultation on new
retail locations. It must also be noted that, as of 2018, if the City had opted in to allow the retail
sale of cannabis, Provincial law would have prevented the City from opting out subsequently. By
opting out in 2018, the City reserved the ability to opt in at a later date . It was therefore deemed
prudent to opt out, and instead to consult Pickering residents about this issue and also to observe
and learn from the experiences of those municipalities who previously chose to opt in.
The City engaged the community in a 4-month public consultation which was completed in August
2019. Pursuant to a Communications Plan drawn up by City staff, the public consultation was
promoted via a media release, Pickering News Advertiser, outdoor digital signs, City’s website
and Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. A telephone poll was conducted, and 1,380 responses
were received. Staff also hosted 3 informal pop-up sessions to further promote the survey.
- 231 -
LEG 10-20 December 7, 2020
Subject: Retail Cannabis Opt-In Page 2
Attachment No. 1 is the survey results. Attachment No. 2 is a listing of additional comments
received from survey respondents. The results of the survey are summarized as follows:
1.62.9% of respondents support private retail cannabis stores in Pickering.
2.38.62% of respondents confirmed that they use cannabis.
3.Of 1,380 respondents, 27.25% were between the ages of 26-35, 23.84% were between the
ages of 36-45, and 26.23% were over the age of 55.
Ajax, Whitby and Oshawa have opted in to allow retail sale s of cannabis. City staff have made
inquiries of those municipalities and confirm that they have encountered no enforcement problems
as a result of retail cannabis sales in their jurisdictions.
If allowed in Pickering, retail cannabis sales would be governed by the Criminal Code, the
Cannabis Act (Canada), the Cannabis Licensing Act (Ontario) and Provincial Regulation O. Reg.
468/18, as amended. Under the Cannabis Licensing Act (Ontario), municipalities cannot impose
additional regulations on retail cannabis sales. This means that Pickering cannot enact official
plan policies, zoning by-laws or licensing restrictions on cannabis sales. If Pickering experiences
problems of any kind with retail cannabis sales locations, it has no legal authority to change the
rules by which retail vendors operate.
Although zoning by-laws will not be permitted in relation to cannabis, retail cannabis storefronts
will be required to be located on properties with commercial or industrial designations. If this is the
case, there should be no concern about storefronts adjacent to recreation centres, long-term care
and child care centers, as these uses are not permitted in the City's commercial or industrial
zones.
It must be noted that the Province's public notification process for proposed retail locations is
somewhat limited. There is no direct notification to municipalities of proposed retail cannabis
stores. The only notification will be in the form of a placard posting and a notice on the AGCO
website for 15 days. In any event, the AGCO has no authority to exceed the standards set out in
the applicable legislation. This means that concerns expressed within the notice period by
concerned residents are of limited relevance.
The responsibility for addressing cannabis issues will fall upon the Region of Durham through the
role of Durham Regional Police, the Region's Tobacco Enforcement Unit, Public Health Education
initiatives, Emergency Medical Response, and the Provincial Offences Courts. The primary
concerns relating to retail cannabis storefronts in the community include unauthorized access by
minors, advertising that promotes use to minors, public consumption or loitering on the exterior of
the property. Provincial legislation addresses these issues, but municipalities wanting additional
restrictions have been deprived of the zoning and other legal powers required to impose them.
The Province's regulations establish rules relating to the sale, distribution, purchase, possession,
cultivation and consumption of cannabis. Sales are prohibited to anyone under the age of 19, and
youth are prohibited from possessing, cultivating, consuming or sharing cannabis. Sales are also
prohibited within 150m of any school. The ACGO has established a zero-tolerance policy for any
retailer who provides cannabis to anyone under the age of 19. Licensed or illegal cannabis stores
will be subject to seizure, removal of people from premises and closure orders for premises that
- 232 -
LEG 10-20 December 7, 2020
Subject: Retail Cannabis Opt-In Page 3
are suspected of being used for the illegal sale of cannabis. All private retail cannabis storefronts
will be required to be stand-alone stores only, and the operator, location and manager will all be
Provincially licensed.
Federal cannabis advertising rules are strict, and similar to those in place for tobacco and alcohol.
Promotional restrictions in the Federal Cannabis Act will apply to all media including newspapers
and magazines, digital content, signage, broadcast media, and communications sent by mail.
They also include cannabis accessories and cannabis-related services. The law prohibits
promoting cannabis in any way that "could be appealing to young persons," or by using
testimonials or celebrity endorsements. Presenting a cannabis product or even cannabis "brand
elements" like brand names, logos, or slogans cannot be done in any way that "evokes a positive
or negative emotion about or image of, a way of life such as one that includes glamour, recreation,
excitement, vitality, risk or daring."
If Council adopts the Recommendations in this report, City staff will add information to the City's
website regarding where cannabis can and cannot be sold, and how to report illegal cannabis
sales.
Attachments:
1.Answers to survey questions regarding retail sale of cannabis
2.Additional comments of survey respondents
Prepared By:
Paul Bigioni
Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor
PB:ks
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City Council
Marisa Carpino, M.A.
Interim Chief Administrative Officer
- 233 -
Original Signed By:
Original Signed By:
0.94%13
7.46%103
27.25%376
23.84%329
14.28%197
26.23%362
Q1 How old are you?
Answered: 1,380 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 1,380
Under 19
19-25
26-35
36-45
46-54
55+
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Under 19
19-25
26-35
36-45
46-54
55+
Cannabis Retail & Public Alcohol Consumption
Attachment 1 to Report LEG 10-20
- 234 -
38.62%533
61.38%847
Q3 Do you use cannabis?
Answered: 1,380 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 1,380
Yes
No
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Cannabis Retail & Public Alcohol Consumption
- 235 -
62.90%868
37.10%512
Q4 Would you support private cannabis retail stores in Pickering?
Answered: 1,380 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 1,380
Yes
No
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
Cannabis Retail & Public Alcohol Consumption
- 236 -
Q10 Please provide any additional comments you have
Answered: 554 Skipped: 826
#RESPONSES DATE
1 Alcohol and cannabis will be a part of all of our lives in some way or form. We shouldn't try to
hinder legal, safe, responsible distribution and consumption because of bad stigmas. Ajax and
Oshawa have legal cannabis stores and they're very nice stores, with good owners,
knowledgeable/friendly staff and wide range of customer types. We should encourage that type of
business in our city. As for drinking in parks, we should allow people to have drinks, but ticket and
discourage drunk and disorderly behaviour. We shouldn't treat these issues as yes or no, but
decide on how we can make them work in our city.
8/30/2019 8:56 AM
2 Designate a space, by signage, where alcohol and cannabis consumption is clearly prohibited, and
ENFORCE IT.
8/28/2019 2:26 PM
3 Drink at home. Who is going to police this if the public can now drink in parks?8/26/2019 7:29 AM
4 Please ask province to sell cannabis in minimal recyclable/reusable packaging and allow
consumers to provide own clean and dry containers for refilling. Suggest deposit system similar to
amber beer bottles and cans. Regarding alcohol consumption, people should only be arrested if
they are disturbing the peace (i.e. public intoxication, disorderly conduct).
8/21/2019 8:54 AM
5 Kids are going to get drunk in the park regardless of the law. May as well make it ok for more
responsible people to have one or two during an event, barbecue or picnic.
8/19/2019 2:41 PM
6 Life is changing 8/14/2019 12:08 AM
7 If I’m walking my dog at 1am I should be able to consume without bothering anyone 8/12/2019 4:33 PM
8 vote Pickering in now 8/11/2019 11:50 AM
9 I only support medical cannabis and I feel this should not be sold in retail stores.8/6/2019 4:27 PM
10 There is presently a serious problem with drunk drivers. Alcohol in parks will increase littering,
unsupervised drinking underage, increase in crime with reduced inhibitions of the consumers, and
then danger to women and children who could become victims. Public nuisance from mischief and
noise levels of intoxicated people ruining park enjoyment for children, seniors, dog walkers and
solitary runners, without monitoring. We don't have a policing budget for those who would abuse
the alcohol consumption to enforce the new law or protect the innocent. Keep the party at home,
where the home owner has to be accountable. It would be too easy for a law-breaker to cause
harm and vandalism in a park and then escape, unidentified. The public should never have to
consider will they be safe on a walk-in-the-park, just because other people may be drinking there. I
could not allow my children to play in the park with friends without being supervised. They deserve
their freedom at play, as they grow, but not at the expense of potential harm. There is a place for
alcohol at celebrations and in licensed facilities, but we all have seen someone abuse alcohol in
those places. We cannot have someone abuse alcohol in public playgrounds. This law would have
no respect for the non-drinkers in Pickering. Do not bring alcohol to our public parks, cannabis to
our retail zones, nor vaping to our community. Look how hard people have fought to reduce or
eliminate smoking in our schools, hospitals, airplanes, buses, restaurants and cars! We know it is
harmful. Why now permit something that we know will be harmful to so many people in our city,
because a minority are requesting the privilege? Please respect the peaceful majority. Thank you.
8/3/2019 7:46 PM
11 Public places are for people to enjoy free of alcohol and any smoking. Nobody has to put up with
others unhealthy habits. Do it privately.
8/3/2019 2:59 PM
12 I fully support cannabis retail locations in Pickering.7/31/2019 10:44 AM
13 Alcohol does not make an event any better because you are drinking.Let people go to bars or
restaurants where alcohol could be controlled hopefully by a fully trained bartender.We already
have enough drinking and driving deaths .Is Pickering willing to accept responsibility for more
drunk driving deaths and abuse of families by intoxicated people.
7/30/2019 2:28 PM
14 Should only be available to drink in parks for special events and require a license.7/30/2019 7:43 AM
Cannabis Retail & Public Alcohol Consumption
Attachment 2 to Report LEG 10-20
- 237 -
15 Who is going to be there to monitor the drinkers in a designated area? Here again, people will be
leaving the park under the influence of alcohol.
7/29/2019 12:16 PM
16 Alcohol should not be restricted. People should have etiquette. If they over drink and become
intoxicated, the fees should be raised to combat the allowance of the by-law.
7/29/2019 8:00 AM
17 I feel that this would self regulate. Any abuse would be reported to police for public drunkenness. 7/28/2019 5:10 PM
18 My children already exposed to too much public drunkeness, do not increase frequency or areas
of public displays of inebriation. Our already stretched police service already must patrol drinking
establishment areas, do not add our numerous public parks to the their workload. Keep parks for
safe, peaceful, worry-free enjoyment by my family.
7/27/2019 3:33 AM
19 Please leave alcohol out of parks. Would be difficult to police and ensure compliance. We don't
need more opportunities and venues for people to overindulge. How would you ensure there's no
underage drinking?
7/26/2019 2:33 PM
20 Children are our future we need to show good example no drug sale drugs are addictive alcohol
kills Pickering is a safe place for family’s promote clean neighbourhood build new playground
invest in our deteriorating schools .selling drugs and drinking in parks were children play is no way
to raise respectful human beings.
7/26/2019 5:04 AM
21 These questions seem to have predetermined answers desired. The availability for more detailed
and thoughtful answers would be useful.
7/26/2019 5:04 AM
22 WE do not want any drug's of and gun's coming into Pickering.7/25/2019 5:48 PM
23 Having designated hours will allow for those who wish to attend a particular park (close to home,
accessibility, etc.) can do so even if their local park happens to be alcohol friendly.
7/25/2019 9:23 AM
24 When alcohol is consumed in specific area during specific times it helps control it from getting to
the hands of minors. I have been to large venues in the USA were alcohol can be consumed in the
whole park, and I wonder at the age of some of the participants. The server asks for ID or checks
for ID bracelet, but once free of the bar minors surely can get the alcohol from a friend and there is
no effectively way of monitoring that. Serving is a specific place and time is just civilized, sit relax
and have a conversation enjoying the environment which likely decreases the risk of wandering
about drinking more than the individual truly intended.
7/23/2019 1:56 AM
25 When alcohol is consumed in specific area during specific times it helps control it from getting to
the hands of minors. I have been to large venues in the USA were alcohol can be consumed in the
whole park, and I wonder at the age of some of the participants. The server asks for ID or checks
for ID bracelet, but once free of the bar minors surely can get the alcohol from a friend and there is
no effectively way of monitoring that. Serving is a specific place and time is just civilized, sit relax
and have a conversation enjoying the environment which likely decreases the risk of wandering
about drinking more than the individual truly intended.
7/23/2019 1:56 AM
26 we already have alot of people who are problem drinkers even younger people i think this would
make their problem worse
7/22/2019 9:18 AM
27 Let people drink in parks during regular hours. Enforce ban during off hours.7/18/2019 4:50 AM
28 If alcohol consumption is permitted on a park area, police/ security rounds need to be
implemented as well for the safety of the community.
7/10/2019 4:57 PM
29 No 7/10/2019 2:10 PM
30 Again, chose yes because I was forced to choose. While we are adults, there are many adults that
act like idiots and will take advantage of drinking in parks where children play, people relax etc. I
don't care to see drunks in the park. You're going to get a lot of young adults or older teens taking
advantage and partying in the parks that are close to people's homes etc. Public drinking in parks
becoming a privilege/right will become a problem.
7/10/2019 12:11 PM
31 Enough with the backwards thinking time to move forward and not be pet of the nanny state 7/7/2019 10:34 AM
32 Let responsible adults be responsible adults - no nanny state 7/7/2019 10:29 AM
Cannabis Retail & Public Alcohol Consumption
- 238 -
33 There are already issues with people smoking in parks, off-leash dogs, and garbage. People have
difficulty following rules and alcohol consumption in parks introduces multiple issues. Even if you
have restrictions on alcohol use in the park, most people will choose to ignore these limitations. It
will be the other park attendees (mainly children) and nearby residents that will have to
immediately deal with the issues such as alcohol consumption by minors, public drunkenness, use
of the park outside set hours, broken bottles, etc. Do you expect that the police is called each time
when there is an issue? (This is a waste of police resources.)
7/5/2019 1:22 PM
34 Have a great day!7/5/2019 11:04 AM
35 As soon as you have a law that says you can drink legally in parks with some set of conditions,
people may see it as a grey area and hear it as you can drink in all parks any time. There are
signs today telling people they can't smoke in the park and people still do thinking it's fine because
they're outside.
7/5/2019 9:26 AM
36 don't miss what u have never had. don't need more use of drugs and alcohol in public spaces. 7/2/2019 4:21 PM
37 Europe has been doing this for years with limited issues.7/2/2019 12:22 PM
38 These are not values or the type of community Pickering should be associated with, especially
with Seniors and families with young children.
6/30/2019 8:06 PM
39 Pickering to set good examples for other neighbourhoods 6/30/2019 4:35 AM
40 Law-abiding adults should be free to consume alcohol wherever they like, as long as they do so in
a respectful manner towards the community.
6/29/2019 4:28 AM
41 I chose "no" to number 9, as I think these limitations could too easily go overboard. As stated in
number 8, primary children's areas should have a setback. Likewise, public consumption should
have reasonably set hours that could maybe reflect sales hours for clubs, bars, restaurants, pubs,
etc.
6/27/2019 11:55 AM
42 Public place consumption will likely lead to the decline of public spaces due to the irresponsibility of
all few.
6/24/2019 8:33 PM
43 Law abiding adults deserve a certain level of respect and freedom. I believe anyone responsible
enough, should be able to enjoy a nice beverage in the park, and there shouldn’t be any laws
against that.
6/24/2019 5:51 PM
44 Set hours, yes. Designated areas not so much.6/24/2019 9:21 AM
45 That’s extra 6/23/2019 3:03 PM
46 I don”t think alcohol or cannabis should be allowed in parks 6/23/2019 8:57 AM
47 I work midnight shifts,,,,,,my drinking time is not the same as yours 6/23/2019 6:36 AM
48 There are enough places to consume alcohol without opening up public spaces. New York has
fewer restrictions and they now have a problem they have to deal with. I don't want Pickering going
that route.
6/23/2019 6:35 AM
49 Nothing good ever comes out of youth getting drunk in parks 6/22/2019 7:02 PM
50 You have an opportunity here to show that we are a forward thinking community and tap into
lucrative revenue stream...I don't personally indulge in those shenanigans but I can see there is a
growing demand and if I have to smell it every where I go, I want to know those folks are
contributing their fair share to the system.
6/22/2019 5:28 AM
51 This is a progressive step in allowing adults to make thier own choices. It has been successful in
other countries and I cannot see why Canada cannot be as forward thinking as they are. With the
right education and rules that are agreed upon. This could be a good opportunity to show that we
do not need to be over policed and that with slightly more relaxed rules, we can be just as civil as
our European counterparts.
6/21/2019 7:26 PM
52 A designated area for alcohol. I drink alcohol and as a parent if I am walking through a park I
would want to avoid the alcohol designated area for obvious reasons.
6/21/2019 3:07 PM
53 Alcohol and Cannabis are unnecessary societal evils. They cause unnecessary harm to both users
and non users. All consumption should be tightly controlled
6/21/2019 12:43 PM
54 I am glad City of Pickering take its time to do this survey, thanks.6/21/2019 12:03 PM
55 Not necessary in public areas where children are 6/21/2019 11:50 AM
Cannabis Retail & Public Alcohol Consumption
- 239 -
56 Use of cannabis will not have a happy ending 6/21/2019 10:51 AM
57 We see crime and driving under the influence increasing - keep it private 6/21/2019 10:48 AM
58 Pickering resident for 65 years 6/21/2019 10:15 AM
59 I think it's a good idea during specific times 6/21/2019 7:37 AM
60 As an adult who has seen a lot of problems with alcohol abuse and just alcohol use in general, I
have never understood why drinking has always been acceptable in this society, as I have seen so
much death attributed to the effects of alcohol and absolutely none associated with just cannabis
6/21/2019 6:20 AM
61 There is no need to encourage and begin to perpetuate the idea that alcohol is necessary to enjoy
a family picnic or a sports event.
6/21/2019 6:15 AM
62 I think drinking in public should only be allowed in certain situations such as, ribfest, Canada day,
winter fest, adult sports game etc.
6/21/2019 5:39 AM
63 It has to be monitored if police won’t be involved I would prefer no having the choice of alcohol in
the parks. It won’t be safe. And by involvement I mean having police on the site.
6/21/2019 5:27 AM
64 I do not drink alcohol. But my answers were based on a bipartisan perspective between marijuana
and alcohol.
6/21/2019 3:39 AM
65 I THINK THIS SO STUPID!!!!!!! STOP IT IS A WHOLE FOR THE PUBLIC!6/20/2019 8:51 PM
66 As it is we already have enough problems with alcohol and substance addiction. This just going to
cause more...59year old.
6/20/2019 11:40 AM
67 Not past 11pm or Midnight. Designated areas would also be appropriate as it would contain all the
drinkers in one area. Maintenance, cleanup etc. would be much easier to deal with.
6/19/2019 8:48 PM
68 Alcohol and marijuana consumption should not be allowed in public areas 6/19/2019 7:42 PM
69 Should always be prohibited.6/19/2019 4:51 PM
70 No alcohol should be allowed in the public parks.6/19/2019 8:38 AM
71 Cannabis and alcohol are both legal and the government should have no right to restrict
responsible adults from buying and using them as they want. Pickering's economy shouldn't be
held back by this kind of red tape.
6/19/2019 7:27 AM
72 Drinking leads to problems and drunk in public areas is not appropriate behaviour. .people leave
bottles lying around and dont clean up after themselves
6/19/2019 6:36 AM
73 It would be great to see some of these initiatives come into play this year. There are a lot of
people doing these things already, but because there are no rules or regulations, aside from don't
do it, we are losing out on potential tax revenue - this is specific to the cannabis stores.
6/18/2019 11:52 AM
74 Drinking in public parks should be allowed, but I do think that there should be strict rules for public
intoxication - especially if people are belligerent/violent. Time limitations, or different rules for
different parks will cause a lot of confusion, and will clog up court system with people fighting
cases.
6/18/2019 11:19 AM
75 Designated smoking areas are very helpful 6/18/2019 9:47 AM
76 see commit #8 6/16/2019 2:21 PM
77 I find the smell of pot extremely offensive, and resent being exposed to it in public places.6/15/2019 2:48 PM
78 I don’t support any kind of smoking 6/15/2019 2:23 PM
79 Europe has less alcohol related issues and very open access. We will adapt properly to freer
access.
6/15/2019 2:18 PM
80 This provides a reasonable accommodation while minimizing the risk of misuse and overnight
irritations to residences near public parks
6/15/2019 8:21 AM
81 Again, by allowing people to act responsibly with consumption at parks, you are encouraging an
environment of responsible expectation.
6/14/2019 2:26 PM
82 Citizens should be allowed to practice responsibility instead of forced on.6/14/2019 12:03 AM
83 As soon as you alcohol is allowed in parks, more garbage and potential problems, including fights. 6/13/2019 12:42 PM
84 It is time to leave the Victorian ages and treat adults like adults.6/13/2019 10:09 AM
Cannabis Retail & Public Alcohol Consumption
- 240 -
85 N/a 6/11/2019 12:28 PM
86 the fact that we are doing this now and not a year ago means that you as our city reps were
listening to dictator ford and not your citizens that you were elected to represent. very sad and
dissapointing
6/11/2019 7:30 AM
87 This could help to limit exposure of alcohol to children and youth.6/10/2019 2:20 PM
88 Allowed at home or in licensed settings 6/10/2019 10:18 AM
89 Adding these city improvements will help with minor laws the city can be more focused on bigger
things.
6/10/2019 6:25 AM
90 I see nothing wrong with the consumption of alcoholic beverages in parks if people are responsible
but how do you police it? We live near a park and there have been occasional problems with
young people celebrating at night so set hours would at least provide a legal basis to control this.
6/10/2019 6:17 AM
91 Just drink a home or a bar like a normal person. There's no reason to be getting wasted in a park. 6/10/2019 5:50 AM
92 Drink at home. Really, this is nuts.6/9/2019 2:52 PM
93 I go to a park to enjoy the day, not be around a bunch of drunk, pot smoking zombies.6/9/2019 2:50 PM
94 Our parks and public spaces are for family and personal enjoyment, to get outside. We have ample
places for drinking. Our parks should be completely off-limits.
6/9/2019 2:45 PM
95 Consumption of alcohol should be banned in all public parks at all times. There should be no
permitted hours.
6/7/2019 4:09 PM
96 I strongly believe that the consumption of alcohol in public parks would have an overall negative
impact on the community, (ex. possibly resulting in a greater amount of DUIs, vandalism, personal
injuries, alcoholism in general, etc.). I don't see any benefits with allowing the consumption of
alcohol in public parks. Public safety is more important than any financial gains that would come
from this.
6/7/2019 12:53 PM
97 Easier to control and police if the area is specified. Infraction fines for out of area.6/6/2019 7:15 PM
98 There is a definite different between people who consume alcohol and those who use cannabis 6/6/2019 5:25 PM
99 Alcohol should not be consumed in public parks. God people can't even clean up their Tim's in a
public park !!
6/6/2019 3:39 PM
100 I support commercial cannabis in Pickering. I have lived here most of my life. I do not think it is a
problem for Pickering.
6/6/2019 3:43 AM
101 I don't like the way the questions are worded. It appears that it is in favour of drinking in parks.
Question 7 & 9 requires a "yes" answer from me when I do not agree with drinking in parks
because if I answer "no" it means that it is ok to drink everywhere in the park or at different venues.
At least this is how I interpret the questions.
6/5/2019 6:31 PM
102 I am strongly opposed to the consumption of alcohol in parks. We have had enough public violence
without fueling the problem with public drinking.
6/5/2019 6:23 PM
103 Free Natural Budz!!!6/5/2019 6:08 PM
104 I am very concerned with this provincial government's focus on increasing ease of access to
alcohol. Increasing alcohol consumption in society in general is a negative thing. We are shooting
ourselves in the foot from a health promotion perspective - at the same time we are limiting
smoking and vaping areas for health reasons, we are making access to drinking alcohol easier and
easier. I am very concerned about the impacts on drivers, parents, workers... with an increased
prevalence of drinking alcohol, especially since the government is cutting so many social services
to support people who are negatively impacted by their drinking or that of family members or
others who impact them.
6/5/2019 12:40 PM
105 No alcohol at all in public places 6/5/2019 12:01 PM
106 I am very hesitant about having wide open access to alcohol in the parks. With drunk driving being
such an issue, there is the possibility that allowing it would encourage more people to drink and
drive. Realistically, there are already people who bring their drinks to parks... and hope they don't
get caught, so it seems silly that sensible and mature people cannot - but, of course, that is the
issue. The people who either drink or use cannabis must be sensible and mature and understand
the possible risks to both themselves, their children and others. Unfortunately, laws cannot make
people smart.
6/5/2019 11:14 AM
Cannabis Retail & Public Alcohol Consumption
- 241 -
107 If alcohol consumption is permitted in designated areas during set hours, municipal will have to
find a way to monitor this. Monitoring cost will likely be added to our property taxes (and more
taxes)!
6/5/2019 10:51 AM
108 Please wear your brains and think about people, ethics, family values, seniors, children. Why are
you catering to people who like drugs and alcohol? You are not making it safe to send the kids to
the park anymore. where is sacred and safe anymore with alcohol and cannabis being served in
the parks, controls or no controls. Stop thinking of money for a change and think about humanity.
please. Let these cannabis and alcohol loving people stay safely in their homes and enjoy. Make
Pickering safe!
6/5/2019 10:43 AM
109 we need cannabis outlets in Pickering 6/5/2019 9:58 AM
110 Do not see any need or advantage to adjusting this policy.6/5/2019 9:15 AM
111 I am not a supporter of smoking drugs and drinking alcohol in our public parks. If you want to do
that you can do it at your own home/back yard.
6/5/2019 8:48 AM
112 There should be no permission for alcohol consumption.6/5/2019 8:34 AM
113 Alcohol should be allowed in picnic areas only with restricted ti.es and security. Permits should be
bought to use
6/5/2019 7:24 AM
114 Responsible people will be responsible. I don’t think retail Cannabis stores and public drinking are
going to make responsible people any less responsible. There will be growing pains but done
properly this should work.
6/5/2019 6:45 AM
115 We should have access and be able to use as freely as people smoke or drink. Everyone should
be responsible for keeping it away from children. Being respectful as you would when someone
smoking should be.
6/5/2019 6:38 AM
116 Safety of others should be the first priority in creating these laws 6/5/2019 6:34 AM
117 BBQs and “beer league” sports already have some consumption going on.6/5/2019 6:24 AM
118 Thank you for taking a democratic approach to these important decisions.6/5/2019 3:28 AM
119 I am originally from a town in BC where drug addicted people took over some parks. They drank
alcohol which led to disturbances, passing out and sleeping in these parks. This made others feel
uncomfortable to use these areas. The problem started small but got worse over the years. I don't
want to fear using a park in the afternoon or evening because of people drinking.
6/4/2019 2:35 PM
120 Pickering needs to deal with the weeds issue it has in all its parks, rather than worrying about
alcohol in the parks.
6/4/2019 9:07 AM
121 No to beer being sold in corner stores. Beer stores and LCBO monitor age etc properly 6/4/2019 7:38 AM
122 People already drink in parks. Allowing it with certain restrictions could help control any drinking
related issues (fights, obnoxious behaviour etc.) and could help control littering of empty
containers.
6/3/2019 7:35 PM
123 When I went to Montreal, their laws was that you must have food if you choose drinking alcohol in
parks. That seems reasonable because then you have something in your system that will help the
digestion of alcohol.
6/3/2019 6:28 PM
124 Unlimited alcohol in parks wiii lead to behaviour problems and make parks less family friendly. 6/3/2019 11:17 AM
125 Allowing alcohol to be consumed at parks will increase the number of impaired drivers on our
roads in Pickering. I do not want my family put in danger because someone wants to drink in
public. You want to drink outside then go home and drink in your own yard at least then you wont
be tempted to drive impaired.
6/3/2019 8:08 AM
126 When people drink some of them get rowdy and aggressive. I am concerned about people
destroying public property costing taxpayers to repair/replace. Maybe the taxes from cannabis
could be used to fix these things. Police should have better things to do than be concerned about
people drinking in a park. Simplify things, most people drinking in parks will not cause problems.
6/3/2019 7:59 AM
127 It’s actually sad when folks can’t go enjoy an event without having the need to do drugs or drink.
And weed is drugs no matter how you look at it.
6/3/2019 7:54 AM
128 Sometimes the hours in which people drink widely differ.6/3/2019 7:52 AM
Cannabis Retail & Public Alcohol Consumption
- 242 -
129 Should only be allowed is a licence has been given to do so. ie: Ribfest Licence to cover alcohol
as well as pot. Other then that it should not be allowed in parks or smoking while walking down the
street.
6/3/2019 7:51 AM
130 That would limit the amount of pollution drinking in public causes. I'm not a supporter of drinking in
public spaces though.
6/2/2019 5:38 PM
131 Who is even asking for permiting alcohol consumption in public parks? Is there some significant
constituency of folks that want this badly? Weird.
6/2/2019 4:39 PM
132 With Cannabis users in our neighbourhood we can never sit in our backyard or have windows
open in our house. I am tired of having to live this way.
6/2/2019 4:16 PM
133 Ideally, most people will consume these products in a responsible manner but since there are
those who abuse privledges for one reason or another, rules and regulations should apply.
6/2/2019 7:33 AM
134 Let us not sacrifice common sense at the altar of political correctness or popularity (i.e. vote bank
politics). Let's do the right thing for the majority of the people who lead normal lives, have children
and work hard and pay taxes.
6/2/2019 7:31 AM
135 Alcohol in parks is a dumb idea. Not sure why the provincial government is so concerned about
alcohol consumption.
6/2/2019 6:16 AM
136 First of all ban alcohol. Secondly these questionnaires are biased toward promoting alcohol . If
alcohol had to be encouraged , provide it near police station or court facilities . Public parks are
family spots and no room for drinking alcohol to be allowed as eventually normal people and family
will stop visiting these places due to insecurity and safety reasons due to open alcohol and
Canabis consumption. at worst case, This should be strictly private activity in their homes and not
in public spots.if desired to have it in parks it should be after 11 Pm to 1 am with strict police
watch.
6/2/2019 5:52 AM
137 Sounds like a good idea. Never really thought about it before.6/1/2019 10:28 PM
138 Please don't normalize alcoholism and cannabis use in Pickering City. We love this city and want
to maintain it's beauty and family values.
6/1/2019 9:07 PM
139 I travel and work in holistic medicine for some time now & work with charities that work with
medical marijuana patients suffering from PTSD, anxiety and many other ailments cannabis has
drastically helped and changed their lives. Pickering stores will make this panacea accessible to
those who truly need it.
6/1/2019 7:55 PM
140 Even today you can go to parks and see people (incl. minor ages) consuming alcohol. Such
regulations no matter how stringent will be abused and require monitoring, which is not
sustainable as it can always be impacted based on economic conditions.
6/1/2019 2:57 PM
141 Substance use of any kind (alcohol or cannabis) should not be used in public places like parks and
sports fields or anywhere there may be children around.
6/1/2019 2:01 PM
142 If designated areas prohibit kids and pets.6/1/2019 12:38 PM
143 No restrictions. Existing laws on public intoxication and being disorderly are sufficient 6/1/2019 8:07 AM
144 Drinking in public is fine, being belligerent is not, and that distinction should be made.6/1/2019 7:48 AM
145 We must stop the nanny state and understand that those who will abuse these rules will be in the
minority we must trust the citizens of our great city to make responsible adult decisions
6/1/2019 7:33 AM
146 To reiterate I am against both issues 6/1/2019 6:47 AM
147 More in favour of pot stores than drinking (or smoking) in the parks 6/1/2019 6:45 AM
148 I don’t understand question 9. No alcohol permitted at any time in Parks is my vote.6/1/2019 5:44 AM
149 Freedom is wonderful but we need boundaries / rules, law and order in order for us all to co-exist.
We are losing respect for others in this world. Empathy is dead.
6/1/2019 4:25 AM
150 I would not be happy if City allows smoking pot and drinking in parks and public place. City does
NOTHING to enforce any bylaw signs . Fedup about this
6/1/2019 4:14 AM
151 No additional comment 6/1/2019 3:52 AM
152 No alcohol needs to be consumed in a public park. One can drink at home or in a restaurant where
one is supervised. No one is available in a park to say, 'You've had enough'.
5/31/2019 7:06 PM
Cannabis Retail & Public Alcohol Consumption
- 243 -
153 Should be allowed but not to excess, enforcement of the liquor Act of Ontario ie intoxicated in a
public place should be enforced if allowed. A Beer at a picnic or sone wine would be enjoyable.
But people sitting all day and getting intoxicated should not be. Everything in moderation.
5/31/2019 6:12 PM
154 I wish that people here had a European attitude about liquor in public, but unfortunately we are not
as sophisticated and I fear that ding dongs would be day drinking to the point of intoxication, not to
mention teenagers. A campaign around what acceptable behaviour is would be great! For
example: people on a picnic blanket having a lovely meal among family and friends of varying
ages with a glass of wine or a beer contrasted by a group of people with a cooler overflowing with
drinks, clearly intoxicated (insert visuals as risqué as fits, like someone being sick in the bushes).
Campaigns all over Pickering. We could become known as the classy place to imbibe at an
outdoor concert or by the water etc
5/31/2019 5:31 PM
155 I think people are generally responsible and careful with their alcohol and canibis use and their are
laws to deal with abuse
5/31/2019 3:41 PM
156 Just have the proper permit to do such. At least this way we will always have someone or a group
accountable.
5/31/2019 2:32 PM
157 Alcohol consumption should be controlled by existing prohibitions on the age of the consumer, not
the location of where the consumption occurs. We already have existing restrictions on public
intoxication and nuisance.
5/31/2019 1:06 PM
158 This is a yes or no question.Where are the designated areas? Are the rules going to be too rigid
and take all the fun out of have a beer or two. Limit the amount of booze each person may have in
their possession.
5/31/2019 12:52 PM
159 I do not support substance use of any kind in public parks.5/31/2019 12:23 PM
160 who is going to clean up afterwards. Broken bottles etc. Fights. I do not want it outside the home.
It will cost us more and governments think we the taxpayers are their private pot of gold WE ARE
NOT.
5/31/2019 12:03 PM
161 Re Cannabis consumption - last week we were at a public baseball diamond where our special
needs CHILDREN and older athletes were playing baseball. The playing area was consumed with
the smell of someone smoking Cannabis outside of their home. The city and province needs to
regulate this somehow. The majority of people do not smoke Cannabis and as a non smoker I do
not want to get high or take in second hand smoke everywhere I go. People should not be
exposed to this. We cant please a small minority of smokers at the expense of the majority. This is
beyond ridiculous.
5/31/2019 11:15 AM
162 The current public intoxication laws should be more strictly enforced in those area 5/31/2019 11:14 AM
163 As long as the person(s) are reasonable and not intrusive to others' enjoyment of the space, I
don't think there should be significant restrictions.
5/31/2019 11:13 AM
164 Don’t support cannabis sales or alcohol in outside public areas 5/31/2019 11:11 AM
165 I do not know what areas in a park would be designated and what hours would be allotted that
would eliminate nuisances to neighboring residences.
5/31/2019 10:42 AM
166 Alcohol should be available in corner stores.5/31/2019 10:26 AM
167 I don't agree with the beer store shut down. Because there it is controlled.5/31/2019 10:24 AM
168 Let people manage themselves. if someone is unruly / rude / a mess they should be arrested/cops
called. This seems to work just fine in Europe. The less we make alcohol a taboo thing, the
healthier our relationships with it can be.
5/31/2019 9:24 AM
169 Alcohol should not be allowed in parks because litter will increase.5/31/2019 9:21 AM
170 None 5/31/2019 8:34 AM
171 I feel that public places should be drug, alcohol free as they are used by all ages.5/31/2019 8:17 AM
172 Should not be allowed after dusk, as there seems to be more trouble under the cloak of darkness. 5/31/2019 7:57 AM
173 If you do allow drinking in parks, why set the times to earlier in the day when children might be
around. Makes no sense.
5/31/2019 7:01 AM
174 When children are in bed adults can drink.5/31/2019 6:36 AM
Cannabis Retail & Public Alcohol Consumption
- 244 -
175 Create a limit on how much cannabis an individual can purchase at the Beer Store, and cut them
off if they keep coming back repeatedly. Cannabis is still a drug and should be used in moderation
5/31/2019 4:15 AM
176 The majority of citizens in Pickering are already quite unruly. No need to throw gas on a fire you
are trying to put out.
5/31/2019 4:03 AM
177 No to public consumption 5/30/2019 7:50 PM
178 By answering park questions regarding alcohol it was only answered to respond to the question.
We do not support alcohol in parks period. Parks are calm, community family place and should be
kept respectful.
5/30/2019 6:48 PM
179 It really depends what is considered a park.5/30/2019 6:23 PM
180 Drugs (including cigarettes and cannabis) and alcohol should not be permitted in public at all. It is
a blatant disrespect to the safety of the general public.
5/30/2019 5:37 PM
181 80 percent of people will abide by the rules and enjoy this liberation. 20 percent may abuse the
leniency. Their abuse should not deter the majority who would enjoy and appreciate the freedom.
Thankyou for asking.
5/30/2019 5:33 PM
182 There are enough problems with people drinking and driving, now cannabis and driving.5/30/2019 4:54 PM
183 Every one has the right to enjoy the parks and allowing of alcohol and cannibus consumption in
parks will result in residents, such as my family from enjoying the parks due to drunkedness and
the foul smell from smokimg marijuana.
5/30/2019 4:47 PM
184 I've lived in a few countries where public consumption of alcohol was legal (heck, you could buy it
in vending machines in Japan). Never saw any issues with it.
5/30/2019 4:33 PM
185 We should have restaurants with nice patios in parks and beaches. More people will come to have
a bear with a nice view. Look to Europe.
5/30/2019 4:28 PM
186 I am worried the survey will not reach a balanced representation of the population and only the
nanny state folks that want to imprint their view of right and their definition of wrong on
people....and opening cannabis shops will be further delayed.
5/30/2019 4:11 PM
187 There are more important community items that need immediate attention....gun control,
employment, criminal activity, to name a few
5/30/2019 3:41 PM
188 cannabis needs to be debunked. alcohol is soo deadly yet sold aoo freely. cannabis has soo many
uses from medicinal ro recreational. let people be free of that choice
5/30/2019 3:34 PM
189 People who have consumed too much alcohol act irrational and lack Judgement. There is no way
to control amounts of consumption
5/30/2019 3:25 PM
190 Would not like to have to have alcohol consumption in public parks etc. The behaviour of those
who will be consuming will still out pour into areas where there are children who are exposed and
into parking lots causing nuisance and other issues.
5/30/2019 3:07 PM
191 Should have a curfew. No drinking after say 11pm. This would promote safer parks.5/30/2019 2:25 PM
192 Thanks for taking such survey and listening to the concerns of others who do not consume Alcohol
or Cannabis. Public places should be safer where every person should feel comfortable and enjoy
in there own personal way.
5/30/2019 2:03 PM
193 Treat citizens like adults. We have families and are law abiding. We follow rules, so begin treating
us that way.
5/30/2019 1:41 PM
194 Hosting a public meeting about this information would be helpful, somewhere we can have
questions and concerns answered by city officials.
5/30/2019 1:37 PM
195 Drunk people will get too rowdy after dark.5/30/2019 1:08 PM
196 Limiting alcohol consumption in parks is such an old and restrictive concept. People who live in
condos/apartments should be able to hold private outdoor events in parks with friends and family,
with alcohol, just like house owners can do so in their own backyards.
5/30/2019 12:33 PM
197 Please close the retails outlet on the intersection of Kingston and Walnut lane, next to Enterprises
car rental.
5/30/2019 12:30 PM
198 Dont be stupid and stifle small business.5/30/2019 12:20 PM
Cannabis Retail & Public Alcohol Consumption
- 245 -
199 5/30/2019 11:57 AM
200 5/30/2019 11:23 AM
201 5/30/2019 11:18 AM
202 5/30/2019 11:15 AM
203 5/30/2019 11:10 AM
204 5/30/2019 10:57 AM
205 5/30/2019 10:53 AM
206 5/30/2019 10:29 AM
207 5/30/2019 10:13 AM
208 5/30/2019 10:08 AM
209 5/30/2019 9:50 AM
210 5/30/2019 9:22 AM
211 5/30/2019 8:40 AM
212 5/30/2019 8:20 AM
213 5/30/2019 8:03 AM
214 5/30/2019 7:53 AM
215 5/30/2019 7:47 AM
216 5/30/2019 7:41 AM
217 5/30/2019 7:32 AM
218 5/30/2019 7:00 AM
219 5/30/2019 6:37 AM
220 5/30/2019 6:16 AM
221
With the Pickering Casino coming, it can only add to additional revenue for Pickering to grow in
value.
Been in cities in states where alcohol consumption is openly permitted in parks and on streets and
there is a lot more drunkeness
My only real concern for public alcohol drinking is litter. To be honest a person drinking anything in
a disposable container has the potential to litter just people who are drunk are a more impulsive
due to the alcohol. All the empty beer/wine bottles and cans could generate a little revenue from
returning the empties.
not AT ALL anywhere near public parks where children play from 8AM-8PM at the least. These
spaces are for children, not adults. Why change their use/purpose. Kids will stay away if people
and teens are boozing 24/7 in their parks.
Alcohol is VERY different than cannabis. I don’t know believe people should be allowed to smoke
that substance in any park or public area whatsoever. Zero tolerance. That being said, if people
are drinking in parks or others area and then try to drive home, it’s up to the community/people to
report to the authorities.
Cannabis is a plant with very beneficial benefits , such as pain managment, aides in sleep, helps
with anxiety and stress.
I am not opposed to alcohol consumption at events like ribfest, which currently occurs. I am
opposed to any consumption of alcohol at our waterfront parks. There are currently numerous
problems with unregulated use of alcohol in our local waterfront parks including Rotary
Frenchman’s Bay West Park and along the waterfront trail. Residents and families should be able
to enjoy our parks and trails without the problems alcohol brings including broken glass on our
beach and litter, which residents constantly clean up. A mechanism also needs to be found to
change the rules so smoking of cannabis is not allowed in our parks.
not a good plan to have alcohol in parks unless you have resources to oversee randomly.
I don't agree with public alcohol consumption whatsoever.
Let’s catch up with the times Pickering. I’ve lived here 38 yrs. time to start collecting taxes from
this legal product.
Such complicated issues.
Let's make sure we protect our city. We are not city of Toronto. We are in Pickering and that's one
of the reasons we choose this city because of clean, good law, less populated.
If you could rely on people making responsible choices...not over drinking and not drinking and
driving then sure drink in parks. I don’t believe it’s possible.
Limiting late night consumption of alcohol would be the only type of limitation I believe should be
enforced.
As someone who only smokes cannabis, and probably drinks alcohol 3-5 times a year, I'd be
pretty annoyed by parks being overrun with alcohol drinkers while cannabis is still frowned upon
on the city. Pickering should step up and be a good example of drug consumption in public. If it's
illegal for cannabis to be in an area with children, then also, so too should alcohol.
No alcohol in public parks; no retail cannabis stores
(redacted) I work in the cannabis industry, and know many legal professionals as well as
cultivators interested in this topic. Please feel free to call to further discuss. Cheers
No public consumption should be allowed.
Pickering should evolve with the newer legislations and allow it's residents to make their own
choices as to whether or not they want to partake.
Should be the same hours as bars & restaurants.
Also, approval should be available for extended hours for festivals and events.
My concern is for safety for those individuals consuming and those not consuming. There are
enough places they can go to consume without the need to do it in such a large area
Cannabis and alcohol do not need to be anywhere where there is a possibility of underage
consumption and the repercussions from that.
5/30/2019 5:42 AM
Cannabis Retail & Public Alcohol Consumption
- 246 -
222 There is no need for public consumption of alcohol or drugs in municipal spaces that should be
open to all people. Why should I have to walk through clouds of pot smoke when walking down the
sidewalk or park? Drink driving is already a big enough issue without making it legal to drink in
public places. There is no need for either of these initiatives.
5/30/2019 5:32 AM
223 I feel strongly that whatever the final decision, the laws will be broken by the same people who
always go against regulations. I don't think there are enough people in charge of imposing the
regulations on those who choose to smoke cannabis or consume alcohol in prohibited areas.
5/30/2019 5:16 AM
224 Just lighten up, people. This os not the Middle Ages!5/30/2019 5:00 AM
225 Parks are a public place and should be able to be enjoyed by all. If a park was to be given
permission for alcohol consumption, there need to be strict controls in place to ensure the safety of
the surrounding community, such as special hours, driver checks at the exits and throughout the
park, and additional policing of public intoxication.
5/30/2019 4:08 AM
226 I believe public alcohol consumption in parks should not be allowed. One, because actually
enforcing the restrictions that would need to be put in place would be either impossible, or a
burden on our resources, and two, because these are important places where people go to
replenish their mental health, relax, exercise, and engage with the community. Allowing alcohol
consumption is not a step in the direction that public parks are meant to go. While I think incidents
may be seldom, it takes only a few for people to begin to feel unsafe, which will change the type of
person who can feel welcome in the park.
5/30/2019 4:03 AM
227 What benefit to the city of Pickering do you see that should allow this. It will cost taxpayers more
for police enforcement as wrll as park cleanup
5/30/2019 3:51 AM
228 We are a sleepy community. Get with the times and be a leader versus a very late follower 5/30/2019 3:24 AM
229 Banning a cannabis store front only helps the black market sellers.5/30/2019 3:22 AM
230 We need to catch up the rest of the world. Stop the hand holding that governments do. We should
be able to take responsibility of our own actions.
5/30/2019 3:16 AM
231 Ensure reasonablr rules and regulations are in place to manage the public drinking issue.5/30/2019 2:38 AM
232 Same as restaurants and bars 5/30/2019 2:06 AM
233 Public drinking in parks is not necessary. There would be no controls in place, no means of
monitoring consumption or behaviour and no checks on people driving home after consuming
alcohol in parks. It is trouble waiting to happen and a bad idea.
5/30/2019 1:55 AM
234 Why making safe family spaces more riskier 5/30/2019 12:35 AM
235 Alcohol is very different from cannabis.5/29/2019 11:16 PM
236 Trust the residents of this city/province/country, we are all good people.5/29/2019 11:10 PM
237 Alcohol should be consumed either at a licensed venue or at home. This would set a bad example
for children.
5/29/2019 9:07 PM
238 This will be next to impossible to enforce. Rules will not work. Better just keep it restricted.5/29/2019 8:56 PM
239 If you want to keep Pickering beautiful and a great place to raise children, keep the alcohol rules
the way they currently are and keeping cannabis away from our schools, malls and restaurants.
Kids should not be exposed to this crap and it brings nothing more than trouble to the area. Keep
Pickering a beautiful place to live!!!
5/29/2019 8:43 PM
240 Pickering needs to chill 5/29/2019 8:27 PM
241 we should not allow alcohol in public parks. families and kids should feel safe in these spaces. 5/29/2019 8:22 PM
242 I would limit alcohol consumption to daytime hours.5/29/2019 7:56 PM
243 Punish poor behaviours, not certain drug preferences.5/29/2019 7:29 PM
244 Alcohol consumption in public parks is too difficult to police.5/29/2019 7:26 PM
245 People drink in parks after dark already so this would just be formalizing something that already
happens
5/29/2019 6:43 PM
246 I do not support alcohol consumption in any public park. There is too much liability on too many
levels.
5/29/2019 6:43 PM
247 Since Scarborough has no cannabis store, it's a great opportunity for Pickering.5/29/2019 6:26 PM
Cannabis Retail & Public Alcohol Consumption
- 247 -
248 If there is strict rules with cigarettes the same should be for cannabis and alcohol 5/29/2019 6:16 PM
249 People already sneak alcohol where they want it. Who is going to enforce these restrictions. More
than likely people will just do what they want when they want if permitted. Drinking should be be
allowed in Public places especially close to children.
5/29/2019 6:04 PM
250 I feel alcohol should not be permitted at all in parks 5/29/2019 5:49 PM
251 We should always encourage people to spend more time outdoors and I think this a way of doing
that and also giving people more options, like if me and my friends want to pre drink before a
concert but none of us have a free house we could just gather in a designated area to do it.
5/29/2019 5:43 PM
252 Because our taxes will increase because we will have to pay for police officers to reinforce the
law.
5/29/2019 5:43 PM
253 No, there are many other places for people to drink 5/29/2019 5:35 PM
254 Once you start getting lenient with anything, you are opening a can of worms. Never supported
the legalization of cannabis. Do not believe in extending the time for serving alcohol, so definitely
do not believe in drinking in public places. Sure there are people that will obey the rules, but what
you cannot afford are those that will not rather having the intent or not. Just like the speed limits.
Most follow, some only dare to go over a bit, then there are those that disregard it, anyone,
anything. Especially, the police force is stretched to the max, there are already not enough of their
presence.
5/29/2019 5:21 PM
255 We are not in Vegas we don’t need to be drinking publicly in parks 5/29/2019 5:18 PM
256 I see no issue with the consumption of alcohol in public places. Just because it may be legal in
Pickering doesn't automatically mean people will drink to excess and be belligerent. If someone
wants to consume a drink and is not disturbing others, they should be allowed to do so.
5/29/2019 4:40 PM
257 Government is approved for making money don’t think about younger generations 5/29/2019 4:22 PM
258 Crime is increasing in Durham. When I moved to Pickering in 2003, it appeared crime was
nonexistent. I went years without seeing a police car or hearing police sirens. This has changed
with the changing demographics and the introduction of these elements will only exacerbate our
social problems. I no longer feel the same sense of safety and security that I once felt. I now
wonder if Pickering will remain my place of residence in the future.
5/29/2019 4:01 PM
259 I am against alcohol consumption in parks, but if it is allowed i think there should be very strict
regulations and that these regulations are actually policed
5/29/2019 3:52 PM
260 overall both a bad idea..just because the Feds legalized pot (to garnish votes) does not mean
municipalities should follow big brother..
5/29/2019 3:22 PM
261 Please, please don't bring a cannibis store here, and do everything you can to keep our kids safe! 5/29/2019 3:01 PM
262 People already drink and drive as well as use cannabis while operating a motor vehicle. They
cannot be trusted. I consume alcohol and I do not believe this is a good idea!
5/29/2019 2:37 PM
263 There may need to be some sort of patrolling to check people are casually drinking and not getting
hammered.
5/29/2019 2:30 PM
264 Love the survey! Curious to see how it gets used and how much of it plays a role in any decision
making. Good luck
5/29/2019 2:21 PM
265 When alcohol is used in excess violence is never far behind.5/29/2019 2:17 PM
266 Please allow physical retail cannabis stores in Pickering. As someone with severe anxiety issues,
CBD strains are the only thing that has given me relief. Having these stores nearby with easy
access will be life changing. Cannabis is much safer than alcohol and should be easy accessible
by all. I know many older people that would like to try cannabis but they do do any online
shopping.
5/29/2019 2:08 PM
267 No alcohol consumption at all in any parks in Pickering.5/29/2019 2:01 PM
268 With the legalization of cannabis, people can enjoy it from the comforts of their homes but when
this is done publicly this is imposed on individuals that do not use cannabis or drink alcohol for that
matter. There are enough locations where this can be enjoyed, I don't think there needs to be any
more.
5/29/2019 1:48 PM
269 Like during events in parks, concerts and such.5/29/2019 1:48 PM
Cannabis Retail & Public Alcohol Consumption
- 248 -
270 Make it smart and keep it simple! Dont overthink it. Sadly, the "nanny state" has ruined society. 5/29/2019 1:47 PM
271 Allowing drinking in public parks is a tricky subject with the potential for wide spread
consequences. While it would be nice to have a beer while walking at the waterfront, these rules
might also encourage heavy drinking individuals which might detract from the safety and appeal of
our public parks. Suffice to say, allowing public drinking is a serious decision that would require
appropriate services.
5/29/2019 1:47 PM
272 I don’t want to see any Cannabis retail stores in Pickering.5/29/2019 1:46 PM
273 Montreal has the right ideas on alcohol in parks, let's follow their lead!5/29/2019 1:45 PM
274 Why not support local merchants? The alternatives other than online shopping support someone
else's community or criminals
5/29/2019 1:45 PM
275 Alcohol consumption in parks are for family events to enjoy a day out. Restriction will just defeat
the purpose because drinking areas will only just fill up and rest of the park will be empty.
5/29/2019 1:43 PM
276 I do not want an airport in Pickering 5/29/2019 1:41 PM
277 I have lived in Pickering for over 25 years and I have enjoyed all of the pathways of the waterfront
and surrounding areas where my friends and I merrily smoked cannabis, drank a few drinks and
relaxed for awhile with food! Also taking my garbage with me to dispose properly because I love
and care about what beauty of nature Pifreeing has to offer....MY Way! :)
5/29/2019 1:11 PM
278 I think having consumption during set hours would be difficult to enforce.5/29/2019 1:09 PM
279 Alcohol consumption will not be controlled on an individual basis leaving great risk for higher rates
of drinking and driving, indecency, dirtier public facilities due to uncontrolled drinking accessibility
to underage drinkers in unsupervised areas...
5/29/2019 1:04 PM
280 legalize cannabis. people are smoking cigarettes everywhere. why not cannabis?5/29/2019 1:02 PM
281 If alcohol allowed in parks who will control the amount of drinking and making sure anyone driving
is not under the influence
5/29/2019 1:00 PM
282 Too much regulation hurts consumers and drives tax dollars to other cities that allow stores.
Residents will drive to the nearest store to buy cannabis.
5/29/2019 12:38 PM
283 Pickering already voted against these stores why are you looking to change we do not need the
revenue
5/29/2019 12:35 PM
284 Pickering already voted against these stores why are you looking to change we do not need the
revenue
5/29/2019 12:35 PM
285 Let people have as much fun as possible while being responsible. Life is short.5/29/2019 12:32 PM
286 Yes to more jobs in the legal cannabis industry No to drunks in the parks. I saw a man doing tai
chi the other day in a Pickering park, turns out he was just drunk and stumbling doing animal
poses. Too many drunks in public already. Animals Strike Curious Poses (from Prince)
5/29/2019 12:31 PM
287 Hopefully people or respectful to the people around them and dont cause trouble 5/29/2019 12:23 PM
288 Drinking is already permitted at events such as Ribfest. I assume a permit is required. Perhaps it
should be kept that way. There are already to many impaired drivers on our roads.
5/29/2019 12:20 PM
289 Alcohol / spirits are just that. It is a drug it alters mind state, it is something to enjoy minimally with
a balanced meal of protein veggies, desserts but it should be consumed minimally. Don't
encourage alcohol because what will it teach the future generations? To be drunk in the streets,
possibly walk on the roads by accident get killed? I also know that many people in Durham have
mental health issues, a large portion, alcohol is a depressant and will make things worse! I
guarantee that. Sorry but it is the truth.
5/29/2019 12:15 PM
290 Please don't bring cannabis to retail stores in Durham area. If possible consider NOT to legalize it. 5/29/2019 12:05 PM
291 Please do not promote such things. It is killing our society.5/29/2019 11:53 AM
292 There are many muncipalities around the world where public consumption of alcohol is
permissible. It is about time that adults are treated as such without the government internvening as
a nanny-state. You will find that most adults are responsible and the ones that are not are probably
consuming alcohol in parks already without much issue...
5/29/2019 11:37 AM
Cannabis Retail & Public Alcohol Consumption
- 249 -
293 This survey limits the scope of consideration re: public consumption in public parks. It would seem
obvious that where there is a concern regarding public safety or public nuisance, limitations need
to be considered.
5/29/2019 11:22 AM
294 It’s great you are considering legalizing alcohol consumption in public. Canada seems so behind
the developed world in this manner. It would be wonderful to enjoy a drink with a picnic. Public
drunkenness should still be enforced
5/29/2019 11:18 AM
295 It is an undeniable fact that alcohol consumption can have undesirable consequences. The Parks
are meant for the public common use and allowing alcohol will limit many people from going there.
The parks are widely used by young kids and allowing alcohol within the parks increases the
chances of driving under influence around the parks making it dangerous for young kids.
5/29/2019 11:17 AM
296 There is no way to regulate drinking and driving if alcohol consumption in parks is allowed.5/29/2019 11:14 AM
297 Revenue from cannabis sales via taxation is a source we need to tap, just like alcohol and tobacco.
We should embrace it as a revenue stream worth having.
5/29/2019 11:06 AM
298 Please consider the no option..we dont want our children to have easy access to something that
can disturb their education at a time when so many other factors effect their educstion
5/29/2019 11:00 AM
299 Proper recycling depots should be increased in the parks. Our alcohol laws in parks currently are
not fair to the public. You should be able to enjoy an alcoholic beverage in a park.
5/29/2019 10:48 AM
300 A trial run at a select few locations would be good.5/29/2019 10:40 AM
301 I believe it is our right to have access to cannabis, as well as to enjoy alcoholic beverages in public
parks. I see no harm in either, as long as certain rules and regulations were set in place.
5/29/2019 10:15 AM
302 Alcohol leads to disorderly conduct and cannot be controlled as it is. It is not ideal to allow the
consumption of alcohol in parks.
5/29/2019 10:09 AM
303 Unmonitored alcohol use in parks is not a good idea. It will lead to public intoxication by some
people and that reflects poorly on the city. Money and time shouldn't be wasted to monitor possible
incidents of public intoxication. Also there are parks in Pickering that don't have areas where
people can eat and drink. Not having those areas, there is little littering and it should stay that way.
5/29/2019 10:07 AM
304 Anywhere with children, should not have 19+ activities exposed. If there were certain parks where
children do not frequent, alcohol could be considered.
5/29/2019 9:41 AM
305 Cannabis is much safer than drinking alcohol.5/29/2019 9:30 AM
306 Should be restricted to those parks with picnic facilities 5/29/2019 9:27 AM
307 In much of europe, there are no restrictions about alcohol consumption and their countries have
not burned up in the fiery pits of hell. No reason to believe that Pickering would fare worse.
5/29/2019 9:20 AM
308 Consumption in Parks from 11am-11pm 5/29/2019 9:16 AM
309 Treat people like adults, but give them rules. Booze and pot are legal, just create guidelines for
usage.
5/29/2019 9:16 AM
310 Behind or near benches located on baseball fields are decent locations to allow consumption of
alcohol as long as cleanup is done after the fact.
5/29/2019 9:12 AM
311 Pickering is a nice clean area, and although residents do already smoke weed having a store in
the area could be a catalyst for an increase in usage in the area which negatively and unfairly
impacts children and those who do not wish to partake in weed usage
5/29/2019 9:01 AM
312 The public should be able to take their own alcohol to approved park areas. As well cannibis
should be allowed in approved park areas, however cannabis does present a very unpleasant
odour for many and must be controlled.
5/29/2019 9:01 AM
313 Alcohol in parks could be permitted based on the event...beer or wine tasting 5/29/2019 8:53 AM
314 Either go all in on alcohol consumption or opt out. I drink myself but can’t see why we would need
to open it up to parks and drive up public intoxication. Maybe exceptions for long weekends or
holidays when groups are getting together
5/29/2019 8:50 AM
315 If #9 is yes a requirement for policing would arise and likely costs would be absorbed via raise in
taxes.
5/29/2019 8:46 AM
316 No because if responsibly drunk there shouldn’t be a problem with time of day, same goes for
someone on their private property.
5/29/2019 8:46 AM
Cannabis Retail & Public Alcohol Consumption
- 250 -
317 5/29/2019 8:43 AM
318 5/29/2019 8:39 AM
319 5/29/2019 8:38 AM
320 5/29/2019 8:21 AM
321 5/29/2019 8:17 AM
322 5/29/2019 8:14 AM
323 5/29/2019 8:11 AM
324 5/29/2019 7:45 AM
325 5/29/2019 7:32 AM
326 5/29/2019 7:26 AM
327 5/29/2019 7:12 AM
328 5/29/2019 7:06 AM
329 5/29/2019 6:51 AM
330 5/29/2019 6:15 AM
331 5/29/2019 5:30 AM
332 5/29/2019 5:30 AM
333 5/29/2019 4:49 AM
334 5/29/2019 4:48 AM
335 5/29/2019 4:48 AM
336 5/29/2019 4:30 AM
337 5/29/2019 3:57 AM
338 5/29/2019 1:45 AM
339 5/28/2019 5:27 PM
340
Cannabis stores are open all over the place. There has been no documented increase in crime or
usage amongst minors. People are still going to be buying it, so why are we encouraging them to
spend their time and money in other municipalities? I would rather have well-regulated stores who
do not sell to minors and encourage responsible use than have prohibition. Like it or not, Cannabis
is here to stay. Either we have this conversation now, or drive people away from doing business in
our city.
I don't want cannibis or alcohol in parks where children play!
I appreciate the public being consulted on this.
I do not support public consumption of alcohol in parks as I fear that these areas are the one place
underage drinkers will head to and the dangers to public will be much too high.
Limit consumption to metal/plastic. Restrict glass alcohol containers from all public areas to prevent
hazards.
N/A - I don't think it should be allowed
Public consumption of alcohol and cannabis should be allowed. People that are intoxicated and
causing problems should be fined.
Free alcohol consumption everywhere.
VOTE FOR SCHEER, (redacted) TRUDEAU!!!!
Public drinking should never be allowed I have a park right beside my house and honestly I
wouldn’t feel safe with a bunch of drunks running around that’s where my kids play!!!!I would have
to move
Great to see Pickering starting to view alcohol as a social activity rather than a problem activity
Wouldn't want drinking too early; maybe past 11am. I also think by about 10pm it should be closed
and people encouraged to go to the bars if they want.
with the correct supervision it can work but not if left to others to think it out.
No, it would be to hard to in force.
Alcohol consumption in parks (or in public in general should be limited to reasonable levels, in the
same way as level of intoxication in public currently is.
Alcohol in parks may be fun for a few people who want a cheap place to party, but it will cost the
rest of us money and the quality of our public experiences.
No allowed after 10pm as goal should be for it to be okay for responsible consumption
Very misleading survey. Q4 suggest, no matter what would be my answer stores would located be
in Pickering. Q9 the same, yes or not in my answer is suggesting that I give consent to alcohol
consumption in public places. No matter what I do not want people in public places to consume
alcohol or cannabis or driving cars under influence.
Parks are public places. Drinking and consuming cannabis should not occur in public places
where everyone would be exposed and where supervision of these activities are limited or non-
existent.
It's important that Cannabis be available from a legally approved seller, otherwise consumers will
gravitate to illegally obtained Cannabis due to the convience factor.
So essentially permitted "hours" of allowances? A curfew on when adults have to stop drinking?
That seems like alot of unnecessary time and effort to police people.
No any form of drugs and alcohol in the city!
We need to start small and then expand our ideas with regards to alcohol consumption in public
parks. Test out the waters and see how responsible people can be. Please do your best to take
care of our city's young people.
I think designated spaces is a good idea, but hours set barriers that could be based on biased
values. Giving people a space to consume as long as it is not off in a far corner of the park making
it difficult for parents who may want to consume alcohol while being able to keep an eye on their
child. As well cannabis is legal and can be smoked in a public place, so limiting alcohol
consumption in the same space seems counter productive
5/28/2019 4:47 PM
Cannabis Retail & Public Alcohol Consumption
- 251 -
341 designated areas would require disposal bins for the empties.5/28/2019 1:45 PM
342 I truly hope the City of Pickering can be a little more open minded when it comes to the future. As
a Resident of Pickering of over 25yrs, I haven't seen much progress in terms of Business
Development.
5/28/2019 7:38 AM
343 Yes, not unlike bars and restaurants that currently have restriction times on sales My only other
concern are bike riders who may have consumed alcohol and using public roads. How do we deal
with that?
5/28/2019 7:05 AM
344 I don't see anything wrong with an afternoon picnic, family gathering, outing with friends etc.
allowing alcohol, and I would make use of this. That being said, I would not want it to lead to
loitering, deterioration of public areas and safety, unruly public behaviour for authorities to have to
deal with. I would rather go without the privilege, if there are risks of public areas deteriorating. I
think it should be limited to no later than 7 pm (unless a permit has been obtained).
5/28/2019 6:08 AM
345 Please keep our parks safe and family friendly.5/28/2019 3:33 AM
346 There are plenty of other options for people to buy cannabis. We don't need stores in our city. 5/28/2019 3:18 AM
347 My experience with alcohol in parks has always been negative. There are plenty of other facilities
in Pickering to consume alcohol. We dont need it in our parks.
5/27/2019 1:13 PM
348 Consumption in parks will only encourage late night illegal activity 5/27/2019 1:08 PM
349 Alcohol consumption brings is tax dollars and revenue, but at the expense of societal harm. Public
disorderly conduct, glass & can litter, and driving impairment will increase. There are plenty of
places to consume alcohol. It doesn't need to spill over into the shared public space.
5/27/2019 12:37 PM
350 Alcohol should not be permitted in Parks or any outdoor sporting events.5/27/2019 11:39 AM
351 Last December, my family attended the Pickering Tree Lighting festival, the way we have done for
the past 4-5 years. My children were exposed to second-hand cannabis smoke that night, and it
actually affected/changed their behaviour. There should be strict restrictions when there are public
events that children attend, such as Ribfest, Artfest etc. What is going to happen this summer in
places such as the beach (Millennium Square) in terms of cannabis use in the same areas that
children play?
5/27/2019 10:22 AM
352 Public consumption of alcohol should be allowed so that a picnic with wine or other beverages can
be consumed responsibly. Public intoxication rules already exist, so if no one is driving or
bothering anyone, i don't see the harm. Age of consent rules should still be enforced until 19 for
both substances
5/27/2019 10:15 AM
353 Allowing public consumption of alcohol in parks is inviting trouble from intoxicated people, and is a
big step backwards in public health policy overall. Establishments that deal with intoxicated people
have things like bouncers and SmartServe-trained staff because of the issues involved - clearly
these would not be present in public parks which would make them more dangerous.
5/27/2019 9:23 AM
354 Only that cannabis should not have anymore restrictions placed on it than alcohol. Never heard of
a group getting out of control because they smoked to much weed. Alcohol; now that's a different
story.
5/27/2019 9:21 AM
355 More freedom for citizens to live their lives and accept that not everyone works 9-5 and live
different lifestyles. For those who work 12-8 or 2-10 or any other combination of hours should be
able to enjoy the same rights as those who work 9-5.
5/27/2019 9:21 AM
356 My 18 year old is an addict as he chose marijuana to help him through mental health when the
system could not. Where is my help as a parent to deal with this? Money should be spent on fixing
the mental health problems not on trying to find ways to drown them out.
5/27/2019 8:55 AM
357 I have kids play in my backyard with my in-laws drinking alcohol. I don't think it affects children's
developed negatively - unless people get pickled and start acting out. I think that we are all adults
here, and I think that enforcement should be behaviour-centric, not consumption-centric.
5/27/2019 8:43 AM
358 I don't think there should be alcohol at all in our parks 5/27/2019 7:34 AM
359 Europe has been doing this for years and their societal values have not collapsed.5/27/2019 7:29 AM
Cannabis Retail & Public Alcohol Consumption
- 252 -
360 Most people are reasonable. A family out for a picnic should not be penalized if mom or dad wants
to have a cooler or a beer instead of a coke. Likewise, if adults want to walk the boardwalk with an
open drink versus an ice cream cone, it shouldn’t be a big deal. Public drunkeness is never okay
and driving while intoxicated is of course illegal. As long as public safety is not compromised,
people should be able to consume adult beverages when they wish without penalty. This is how
most of the world (not including the US) treats these issues.
5/27/2019 6:06 AM
361 We do not need drunk people around children. Go to a restaurant, bar or home.5/27/2019 5:56 AM
362 Please consider a cannabis shop in Pickering - for a safe choice 5/27/2019 4:06 AM
363 Public drinking and drug use only has negative effects for everyone and endangers lives. Both the
user and the innocent people exposed to it.
5/27/2019 4:02 AM
364 Parks are often more utilized by children in the morning. Thus alcohol consumption should not be
allowed in the morning.
5/27/2019 3:52 AM
365 As an EU and Canadian duel citizen, I have seen firsthand that drinking in public is not the scary
Armageddon that previous governments have made it out to be. We do not need to live in such a
restrictive society where all levels of government control what the public can and cannot do.
5/27/2019 3:08 AM
366 As stated previously I believe the cost of the necessary monitoring of alcohol use in public parks,
would be a drain on municipal budgets, and as a taxpayer I want my tax dollars spent in other
areas, such as road and park maintenance, library services, animal services, etc
5/26/2019 10:37 PM
367 Pickering is a family-friendly town, and as a mom of two young kids I encourage our city to be
responsible by supporting policies that encourage all citizens to live in a clean and safe community
(so please don't permit public and open drug and alcohol use in our city).
5/26/2019 7:42 PM
368 History witnessed that alcohol creates a law and order problem. If some one has to consume
alcohol they can enjoy with in their home or in the bar not in the public place
5/26/2019 2:52 PM
369 As long as people aren't belligerently drunk or being ignorant and disruptive theres no reason you
shouldn't be able to have a beer in a public space
5/26/2019 1:09 PM
370 Let people live and make their own decisions. If they behave badly then they have to live with the
consequences.
5/26/2019 12:30 PM
371 My biggest concern is with the way 2nd hand smoke can effect people. It's not fun going through
the GO train parking lot and smelling cannabis all the time. As for alcohol the conditions should
allow for some consumption but not over consumption. Perhaps with special attention to parking
lots near parks for those who decide they only let me 2 minutes away.
5/26/2019 11:01 AM
372 I have a toddler and a dog I would be deeply saddened to see people consuming alcohol in our
parks at any time of the day. Drinking in public parks opens up opportunities for underage drinking
as well because it takes alcohol out of homes where parents may have more control over what is
happening with their teens. Additionally, many sidewalks, parks and catwalks have broken glass
when I walk my dog I worry that permitting consumption of alcohol will increase the amount of
glass in our parks.
5/26/2019 9:23 AM
373 Let Pickering finally legalize cannabis 5/26/2019 8:16 AM
374 N/A 5/26/2019 8:16 AM
375 Alcohol is a big enough problem as it is. Drinking in properly licensed establishments as it is now
and at home is good enough.
5/26/2019 7:26 AM
376 With the new Durham live there will be a large influx of new people to Pickering and Durham. This
creates an excellent retail opportunity plus additional tax revenue for the city.
5/26/2019 7:11 AM
377 Shouldn’t be allowed.5/26/2019 6:59 AM
378 I feel the City of Pickering has let down the residents and is all about the Business owners. Sadly
that is what's going on!
5/26/2019 6:57 AM
379 Alcohol in public should not be permitted at all. Especially in areas where kids are present. It could
dangerous for children because people who are drink don't have inhibitions or are not even aware
of the difference between right or wrong. Not only that, they could also engage in lewd behavior in
front of children due to lowered inhibitions.
5/26/2019 6:55 AM
Cannabis Retail & Public Alcohol Consumption
- 253 -
380 If I’m walking down the street with my kid, and I happen to pass by some people smoking weed.
My child can Inhale second hand smoke. If I walk by people sipping a tall can. There is no second
hand consumption possible. If it’s ok for one, it should be ok for another. As long as you’re of age
and being responsible, there’s no problem. Not to mention this already goes on and has been
forever. So there really is no difference. Besides the fact that people don’t have to have anxiety
about it, and police can concentrate on matters that actually matter. Thanks
5/26/2019 6:25 AM
381 If any times to be set should be same time as alcohol is allowed to be served elsewhere. Not sure
of the start time but currently morning till 2am
5/26/2019 4:54 AM
382 Alcohol is more strongly linked to violence than any other drug. Pickering already has a history of
stabbings and shootings in parks. Adding alcohol could lead to more crime.
5/26/2019 4:35 AM
383 No need to have alcohol where the public can come together and enjoy the day. With alcohol
some times come guns, do not want to take this chance. DO Not need misbehaviour, only takes
one when I go to enjoy a park or any public space. Let them go to Bar that is why we have them.
5/26/2019 4:23 AM
384 I'm concerned with the city's ability to enforce the rules. I am also concerned with possible
increase of driving under the influence. Lastly, given human nature, I think there's a strong
potential of abuse of the rules on this type of activity. So unless the rules could be effectively
enforced, I'd vote "No".
5/26/2019 3:43 AM
385 Again, people should be responsible and have consideration toward others who don't drink alcohol
or smoke
5/26/2019 3:20 AM
386 Try to enforce different rules. Drink/smoke/toke on your own property.5/25/2019 8:03 PM
387 Alcohol should not be consumed in public areas 5/25/2019 6:45 PM
388 No drinking in public.5/25/2019 5:06 PM
389 It shouldn’t be allowed at all.5/25/2019 2:58 PM
390 Don’t it just leads to dangerous situations because parks are not frequently policed 5/25/2019 2:37 PM
391 Both alcohol and smoking of any kind should only be done in private residences.5/25/2019 2:27 PM
392 I think getting high by weed is ridiculous and should of never been appoved in the first place. Its
just a cash grab & hurting the next gens coming. Idiots
5/25/2019 2:13 PM
393 It’s would be best if alcohol consumption in parks would be prohibited period!!5/25/2019 2:00 PM
394 Laws should default to liberty. The ability of responsible adults to consume alcohol in public parks
should not be abridged by government for reasons of moral panic. The government should not
punish adults who engage in this harmless practice.
5/25/2019 1:21 PM
395 With drinking and driving a problem, we do not need to make consuming alcohol more available in
public places.
5/25/2019 12:48 PM
396 With drinking and driving a problem, we do not need to make consuming alcohol more available in
public places.
5/25/2019 12:48 PM
397 Very strict rules that are effectively policed will need to be in place 5/25/2019 12:35 PM
398 Designating alcohol consumption hours would be impossible to control. If there is an adult event
happening in the park I understand allowing alcohol and cannibis for the event only.
5/25/2019 12:28 PM
399 Should have set hours or a guard so they don't hurt themselves and can get someone to call home
and also prevent robberies
5/25/2019 11:58 AM
400 pls dont legalize cannabis and alcohol consumption in public places in pickering 5/25/2019 11:54 AM
401 Enforce existing laws for public intoxication and disorderly conduct. No need for new restrictions. 5/25/2019 11:46 AM
402 Under supervision 5/25/2019 11:34 AM
403 We don't have enough bylaw officials or police to enforce this. You will just make more work for the
police. They have enough to do. And why would you put any 1 life at risk.
5/25/2019 11:32 AM
404 Pickering is already developing a reputation for increased hooliganism and criminal behaviour (e.g.
the shooting death behind the recreation centre in early April, and shots fired at Island Mix on a
couple occasions). I am absolutely not in favour of pot shops in Pickering, and not in favour of
alcohol in parks (except at special organized and licensed events like Rib Fest with a beer tent
which is closely regulated and supervised).
5/25/2019 11:21 AM
Cannabis Retail & Public Alcohol Consumption
- 254 -
405 People do it anyway. No schools and kids though 5/25/2019 11:19 AM
406 I don't want my peace and quiet ruined by rowdies drinking in the park which is right behind my
house.
5/25/2019 10:57 AM
407 Simply, don’t allow it 5/25/2019 10:43 AM
408 I WILL NEVER DO DRUGS 5/25/2019 10:34 AM
409 Do not do this to our city please.5/25/2019 10:33 AM
410 If you allow alcohol consumption the only suggestion would be that there be no consumption
between midnight and 6am
5/25/2019 10:33 AM
411 If cannabis is legal in public places then so should alcohol 5/25/2019 10:30 AM
412 None in parks 5/25/2019 10:27 AM
413 being brought up in an alcohol environment i was introduced to alcohol at an early age. so i
oppose alcohol anytime in parks where children are present
5/25/2019 10:19 AM
414 I’m a recovering alcoholic and drug addict. I have great experience with the use and misuse of
substance.
5/25/2019 10:12 AM
415 There are already two stores of cannabis on Kingston Road near Loblaws. This must affecting the
other retail businesses in the plaza as people like myself avoid going to that plaza due to the
cannabis stores there.
5/25/2019 10:05 AM
416 Approving consumption will increase littering, underage drinking, excessive consumption.5/25/2019 9:46 AM
417 Would enjoy having a beer by the lake in Pickering. I dont want to be restricted by time. Please
provide enough garbage bins/ recycling to throw away empty bottles and cans.
5/25/2019 9:42 AM
418 Set hours is a lovely idea but hard to enforce and users will ignore it 5/25/2019 9:37 AM
419 There would have to be provisions for clean up and security. Also rowdiness by people drinking in
parks may tie up police who get called for disturbing the peace instead of more serious crimes.
5/25/2019 9:28 AM
420 I do not agree with drinking in public parks.5/25/2019 9:21 AM
421 Public alcohol consumption will lead to rampant public drunkenness. Public consumption will also
lead to a drastic rise in littering of empty bottles and cans. These items will be found and picked up
by young unsuspecting children. People can drink at sporting events. They can drink in their
backyards. They don't need to drink in a public park where kids play.
5/25/2019 9:12 AM
422 It is rediculous to have alcohol consumption in public and in parks etc ..also marijuana is a bit less
offensive but also should not be consumed in public busy places. .* should be done discreetly. .. It
is rediculous and almost offensive to put them both in the same category. I am a firm beleiver
marijuans is 20x safer and more benefits then alcohol could ever have .. Less dangerous. Alcohol
is much worse .. Thx
5/25/2019 9:09 AM
423 Pickering should put this to a vote rather than by survey only. Voting more likely reaches more
citizens.
5/25/2019 9:06 AM
424 Please keep our parks and city drug and alcohol free in all public areas.5/25/2019 9:03 AM
425 Although I support the choice to have public alcohol consumption permitted, I think in contrast the
fine for public intoxicating should be increased dramatically to deter public intoxication.
5/25/2019 9:00 AM
426 No alcohol in any parks, no alcohol in any sports areas. No cannabis stores in Pickering 5/25/2019 8:58 AM
427 There should be no consumption at any hour.5/25/2019 8:56 AM
428 I don't support public consumption of cannabis and alcohol in any public areas except for bars and
taverns. It should not be allowed in parks of any kind. Crime waiting to happen and we have
enough crime without adding impaired persons to the mix...
5/25/2019 8:56 AM
429 There should be no consumption at any hour.5/25/2019 8:56 AM
430 How would Pickering ensure that children are Procter from drunks, trash from bottles and cans. 5/25/2019 8:54 AM
431 If Done Right rolling out brick and mortar stores could bring a lot of Revenue that is being missed
out on. Not just from the storefront alone but other businesses that will Thrive from it as well.
eventually there could be conventions or festivals held and that could bring up the tens of
thousands of people
5/25/2019 8:52 AM
Cannabis Retail & Public Alcohol Consumption
- 255 -
432 Still shouldn't be permitted at all.5/25/2019 8:50 AM
433 Mandatory water fountains in any park that allows alcohol. Also an emergency contact option and
better recycling for the additional empties.
5/25/2019 8:47 AM
434 alcohol and canabis should net be permiited in public areas 5/25/2019 8:33 AM
435 neither is necessary to enjoy friends and family 5/25/2019 8:31 AM
436 The majority of adults are level headed and would not abuse the use of alcohol or weed in parks
etc. They do it anyways. Why not allow it and keep better track of its use.
5/25/2019 8:23 AM
437 should be monitored for too much drinking 5/25/2019 8:20 AM
438 People are going to do whatever they want anyways.5/25/2019 8:13 AM
439 Again, no alcohol should be allowed near where children play. The city is unable to even keep up
with the large crowds, alcohol, garbage and fireworks that already happen on the beachfront of
Liverpool Rd.
5/25/2019 8:04 AM
440 Lots of concerns about alcohol. Proven fact there are more police incidents including death with
alcohol. Ive never really heard of any major issues from someone smoking pot. They are usually
passive people.
5/25/2019 7:48 AM
441 Neither legal drugs or alcohol should be allowed in public spaces. It impedes the rights of those
who choose to use the spaces and don't want to use either. There's second hand smoke and then
additional garbage like broken alcohol bottles, late night parties etc. Question 9 is both mandatory
and poorly written for survey research. It will give false answers - because respondants were not
able to have an option to say not at all.
5/25/2019 7:32 AM
442 thank you for taking our thoughts in 5/25/2019 7:28 AM
443 Enforcement is vital 5/25/2019 7:26 AM
444 Let people be as long as they don't abuse the situation 5/25/2019 7:20 AM
445 having a cold drink after a hockey game or tennis , golf or other sports is ok About time we get
treated as grown up's
5/25/2019 7:14 AM
446 beer in many countries is treated the same as pop. not booze. its time we embrace this. drinking a
beer outdoors should not be illegal. being a drunken idiot should be illegal.
5/25/2019 7:04 AM
447 Both drug and alcohol use should be limited and away from children or family oriented events and
venues.
5/25/2019 6:56 AM
448 None 5/25/2019 6:56 AM
449 Once you allow an inch, people tend to abuse priviledge 5/25/2019 6:53 AM
450 This is an oppertunity to change the public opinion of what pickering is viewed as, expecially with
the expansion of the casino
5/25/2019 6:30 AM
451 Don't restrict people from enjoying the legal products that they enjoy, in this day and age with
people wanting to be more inclusive and diverse, we can't turn a blind eye on any specific group
because some of our moral values differ.
5/25/2019 6:21 AM
452 Designating the areas and times allowed would likely be a challenge to enforce, unless there is a
consistent law enforcement presence.
5/25/2019 5:56 AM
453 I do not want young children believing that alcohol is the thing to do in parks and everywhere else.
Public consumption gives children the example that alcohol is a good thing. Parents can explain
alcohol consumption i their homes much better than when children see young people (late teens)
drinking in public.
5/25/2019 5:30 AM
454 If cannabis is illegal from parks then alcohol should be too. If alcohol is allowed, then there is
precedence for cannabis consumption in public places.
5/25/2019 5:26 AM
455 If people want to drink they are going to do it anyway, good luck policing that.5/25/2019 5:15 AM
456 No public alcohol consumption except at licensed special events.5/25/2019 5:13 AM
457 It’s not rules on consumption but people acting badly. You shouldn’t restrict people acting
responsibly.
5/25/2019 4:39 AM
Cannabis Retail & Public Alcohol Consumption
- 256 -
458 Alcohol consumption should not be permitted in public parks. To do so would compromise safety
and the enjoyment of these spaces by the majority of citizens who simply wish to enjoy time and
outdoor activities with their families.
5/25/2019 4:37 AM
459 It's a fine line between allowing people to have a drink in the park for a picnic or just to enjoy a nice
afternoon and making it acceptable to get drunk in a park. Will be interesting to see how that plays
out, but ultimately I think most people will be responsible.
5/25/2019 4:21 AM
460 I want to know what the city and province are doing about the vast number of people smoking
canibis while driving or other public places.
5/25/2019 4:08 AM
461 The hours should be restricted to a range of 9am to 11pm. This allows for adults to consume
alcohol after games in public places, but not overly Impact the surrounding neighbourhood after
11pm
5/25/2019 3:58 AM
462 I’m for no public consumption of cannibis or alcohol with out a permit.5/25/2019 3:23 AM
463 We already have problems with substance abuse in this country. We need to control this and stop
making it so each to access.
5/25/2019 3:17 AM
464 My concern with alcohol in parks is the litter which may come of it. I feel that intoxicated
individuals would be more inclined to litter their bottles as opposed to others. However, those who
choose to drink in parks regardless of regulations may be more inclined to throw out their bottles if
it is legal as they will not be concerned being seen with alcohol beverage containers in their way to
the park trash bin as opposed to feeling they need to ditch the container in the bushes.
5/25/2019 3:17 AM
465 I do not agree with public drinking at all!5/24/2019 8:24 PM
466 Consumption of alcohol in any public area cannot be controlled. Families would not feel
comfortable or safe.
5/24/2019 7:32 PM
467 There’s nothing wrong with having a few social drinks in a public place, beaches, parks etc. If it’s a
nice summer day I want to be outside enjoying it with friends and have the liberty to have a few
drinks without worry
5/24/2019 7:13 PM
468 I'd question 6 answer is no than 7, 8 and 9 are void 5/24/2019 6:40 PM
469 I have lived in Pickering a long time and am looking forward to all the positive changes I see
happening with the increase in new business and improvements to our city. We don't need retail
weed stores or have alcohol in parks. That would ruin our city. We need to try to keep our kids
away from this nonsense. If people want to smoke up, go buy it somewhere else. As for parks,
they are a place for families, if you need alcoho that badly then go to a bar or drink at home. Just
my opinion.
5/24/2019 4:56 PM
470 I am against public consumption of alcohol especially in places where children are around.5/24/2019 4:36 PM
471 Don't permit alcohol in public spaces. It creates dangerous and unsafe places for children and
seniors and women.
5/24/2019 4:27 PM
472 Alcohol is dangerous and *actually* addictive (not made-up claims but well researched). People
drink enough already at home, restaurants, bars/pubs, sporting events, theatres (Need i go on?)
without needing to get sauced at the park too. We are already too accommodating about alcohol.
5/24/2019 4:16 PM
473 Yes designated areas with permits only. Single purchase beers are being purchased (like a soda)
and then consumed in the local wooded area and then disgarded, who is policing this?
5/24/2019 4:09 PM
474 Family picnics / barbecues / events should have alcohol consumption by. Permit only 5/24/2019 4:07 PM
475 I think we should have a bylaw in Pickering that prohibits smoking Cannabis near the entrance of
public spaces
5/24/2019 3:58 PM
476 Appreciate opportunity to participate.5/24/2019 3:51 PM
477 Just like restrictions on use of alcohol, marijuana use should not be allowed in public areas such
as parks and other public property in the neighbourhood.
5/24/2019 3:46 PM
478 Byzantine regulations will help no one and will do more harm than they do good. Please make the
regulations regarding cannabis and alcohol as clean and simple as possible with our communities
best interested at heart.
5/24/2019 3:18 PM
479 I think alcohol and other recreational drug that can affect someone's state of mind in anyway
should be kept away from public spaces and should be encouraged to be used in private spaces.
5/24/2019 2:56 PM
Cannabis Retail & Public Alcohol Consumption
- 257 -
480 5/24/2019 2:31 PM
481
Thanks for the survey. Maybe put out more info about Cannibis benefits and usage so the public is
more educated. The (redacted) is doing a 2 yr study on concussed players using cannabis!
Supported by Pickerings own (redacted)! Crazy.
Consuming alcohol is not the problem. It is people giving alcohol to minors or behaving badly
because they are drunk. Both of those situations can be managed through existing laws, by-laws
and community policing without having to ban alcohol entirely for responsible people in public
spaces or restrict it where there are playgrounds
5/24/2019 2:13 PM
482 We need to have a responsible and open mind 5/24/2019 1:44 PM
483 As a French person, you guys just got to relax.5/24/2019 1:38 PM
484 After 8am until 2am.5/24/2019 12:55 PM
485 5/24/2019 12:53 PM
486 5/24/2019 12:52 PM
487 5/24/2019 12:37 PM
488 5/24/2019 12:35 PM
489 5/24/2019 12:22 PM
490 5/24/2019 12:20 PM
491 5/24/2019 12:16 PM
492 5/24/2019 12:07 PM
493 5/24/2019 11:35 AM
494 5/24/2019 11:17 AM
495 5/24/2019 10:56 AM
496 5/24/2019 10:39 AM
497 5/24/2019 10:29 AM
498 5/24/2019 10:23 AM
499 5/24/2019 10:22 AM
500 5/24/2019 10:18 AM
501 5/24/2019 10:18 AM
502
Alcohol in public should be allowed. The rules for public intoxication exist, therefore self-respecting
citizens who would like to enjoy an alcoholic beverage should be allowed to do so if it is done
within the law and access is not provided to minors.
Over reguling isn't you going to accomplish anything. Most people have common sense and the
ones that don't wouldn't follow the rules anyway.
Cannabis should be like cigarettes. In a park, outside anywhere, pot and alcohol should be
divided. Different locations for both those products.
People are already drinking and driving and not being responsible. Making it ok to drink in public
parks can only cause more issues with intoxication, vandalism, violence and drunk driving.
IT LEADS TO A LOT OF TROUBLES --DO IT AT HOME
I would put signs up saying that "if it get abused it will be removed" I would not like to see
rowdiness or drunken fools hurting themselves or others
Most people that would enjoy an adult beverage in public will not abuse the privilege. So our rules
should not be designed solely for the purpose of controlling the few people that have a disregard
for rules in general.
people will drink anyway. Is it a good use of public resources to be trying to control this . Drink
responsibly of course but this is something that's time has come
The one thing I would like to regarding alcohol consumption in designated areas, is that it is limited
to containers that are not glass to prevent hazards from broken glass. I would also like to see that
public intoxication is dealt with seriously.
I do not support cannabis retail or public alcohol consumption in Pickering.
Parks/beaches/playgrounds etc. are currently a safe environment for family and children. We must
first think of the public safety before the economical (profit) benefits.
Licenced for special events
In the UK, it is legal to drink in any public place. It only becomes a crime if a law enforcement
officer requests that you surrender your alcohol and you refuse.
How about you let dogs run around first instead of worrying about getting blitzed. Or how to deal
with the people who will engage in boozing up at parks then driving home, endangering people.
You have your (redacted).
I realize that opening up distribution of cannabis would be financially advantageous to the city in
the added taxes but not worth added health risks.
Pickering residents need to get with the times. It's not the 1950s anymore.
Responsible consumption should be permitted.
No Alcohol at all should be aloud in our public parks. We will already have people running around
our parks high off of pot. We don't need to add drunk people to that list....
5/24/2019 10:16 AM
503 It'd be nice to enjoy wine & a picnic during events held at the Gazebo.5/24/2019 10:14 AM
504 I think that being aloud to drink at say Canada Day Celebration is a great idea. People already
drink by hiding it so making it legal I think is a great idea. As long as no one is driving I don't see
the harm. Also I think that Baseball parents would like to be able to have a couple of drinks while
watching a 3 hour game.
5/24/2019 10:09 AM
Cannabis Retail & Public Alcohol Consumption
- 258 -
505 Public alcohol consumption will definitely increase public nuisance and public intoxication resulting
in more crime and chaos ultimately costing the city millions of dollars. The cost of policing such
incidents will also go up.
5/24/2019 10:06 AM
506 In no circumstance should it be allowed. Would not represent a 'good neighborhood' if it is.
Pickering already have a very negative stigma to people in the GTA and allowing this would make
it worse.
5/24/2019 9:53 AM
507 Legal consumption of legal products can be self regulated in public spaces as we have laws on the
books to deal with public intoxication or causing a disturbance. Smoke is smoke regardless from
source of tobacco or weed and should be handled in the same manner. Be more concerned with
littering and opening drug injection sites for the usage of illegal products. Be concerned with
rampant gang members with lengthy rap sheets using illegal guns who get minimum sentencing.
Be more concerned with why repeat offenders who drink and drive, keep getting slapped on the
wrist by judges who let them off consistently. A bottle of wine at the beach or taken to a park with a
picnic lunch, some edible weed brownies taken to concerts at the park, not an issue as long as no
one drives impaired.
5/24/2019 9:49 AM
508 I see no reason why anyone needs to consume alcohol or cannabis in a public park.5/24/2019 9:49 AM
509 Dont 5/24/2019 9:30 AM
510 Alcohol during such events as RibFest makes sense, but not as a regular occurrence. Can’t we
enjoy ourselves without having to have the lingering scent of pot (skunk smell) or an intoxicated
person who will get in their car afterwards.
5/24/2019 9:14 AM
511 Only by permi for events with strict rules to prevent unruly behavior and drunk dricing 5/24/2019 9:12 AM
512 Please don't let the City make irresponsible choices that will affect families.5/24/2019 9:08 AM
513 My concern is people making pickering a less desirable city and looking trashy. There is a
gentleman in my neighborhood who likes to drink at all hours of the day with his pants at his hips,
and his buttocks showing. It us on his own property but on the front yard for all to see. If we allow
drinking everywhere, I'd be concerned more of this type of person will be visible.
5/24/2019 8:56 AM
514 I believe that glass bottles should be prohibited in certain areas where it is at risk of harming
others. Example being park facilities as identified in Survey 7. As the city/police officials may
experience strained resources, a compromise of only certain parks should be set.
5/24/2019 8:53 AM
515 We have witnessed public drinking in our neighbourhood park late into the night on weekends and
during the summer with extreme noise and poor behaviour. Don't allow it to take place .
5/24/2019 8:46 AM
516 We have to be careful that we don’t make decisions that impact a healthy and safe environment for
families.
5/24/2019 8:43 AM
517 There is no need to allow cannabis stores in pickering.5/24/2019 8:42 AM
518 Its about time for people to self-regulate and not be told ... common sense should prevail but there
are limits ...
5/24/2019 8:34 AM
519 Stop being old fashion in your thinking...5/24/2019 8:27 AM
520 See # 5 5/24/2019 8:16 AM
521 ABSOLUTELY NO TO ANY OF THESE CRAZY IDEAS I HOPE THE MAYOR FOR WHOM WE
VOTED WILL BE ABLE TO DECLINE THIS
5/24/2019 8:12 AM
522 I would enjoy one Saturday a month in the summer where there is a public picnic event allowing
alcohol - it could be clearly advertised so families could choose to be there or not. I don't think
public consumption in parks needs to be allowed 365/24/7. Also - we DO NOT need alcohol in
corner stores.
5/24/2019 8:12 AM
523 No exceptions when indivuals 19 and under are aloud to be present, no alcohol or drug use
should be permitted. Giving a wrong example, especially when this is taught in school to the
students. PERIOD.
5/24/2019 7:59 AM
524 I think advertising alcohol and cannabis in close proximity to high schools should not be allowed. 5/24/2019 7:56 AM
525 I think that there are going to be some people that don't respect others and will overdo whether it
be smoking pot or drinking; however, hopefully those will be few and far between.
5/24/2019 7:51 AM
526 None 5/24/2019 7:30 AM
Cannabis Retail & Public Alcohol Consumption
- 259 -
527 Less of alcohol and drugs on street and public places, less worry, less stress and more security. 5/24/2019 7:21 AM
528 Public consumption of alcoholic products is allowed in many countries without any real problems. 5/24/2019 7:06 AM
529 During hours when bars would be able to serve you should be able to consume.5/24/2019 7:04 AM
530 We have to go with the flow here. It is silly to say not in my town or city, it is going to happen so we
might as well have a say in it.
5/24/2019 6:56 AM
531 There would be need of enforcement of the rule and law. Even today there is a law to put dogs on
leash but still a lot of people don’t follow that. If reminded they feel offended.
5/24/2019 6:49 AM
532 I do not support alcohol or canabis use in parks 5/24/2019 6:47 AM
533 Not allowed at all 5/24/2019 6:41 AM
534 Here's the thing about hours. If the park is within 100m or something from residential areas, then
there should be a strict 10pm limit. But the bylaws saying it's illegal to even be in a park past 11pm
is crazy. Why can't public parks be enjoyed in twilight? As long as there's accessible and visible
refuse containers, they'll be used.
5/24/2019 6:35 AM
535 The consumption of alcohol and cannabis are personal choices and consuming threes substances
can alter one’s behaviour and decision making abilities. Therefore, I strongly believe that to avoid
endangering others, especially children, their consumption should not be permitted in public at all.
5/24/2019 6:26 AM
536 Permitting the consumption of alcohol and cannabis in parks even when there are boundries is still
going to have its problems. I I ow if it were myself and some of the people I know it would be
without problems but unfortunately I can't say that or others. There is always that one group of
people that have to take things too far and ruin it for everyone else.
5/24/2019 6:24 AM
537 Policing would be difficult but this would be an ideal arrangement.5/24/2019 6:14 AM
538 Just because alcohol and cannabis are legal does not necessarily make them safe.5/24/2019 6:11 AM
539 Biggest concern would be enforcement of laws, for both cannabis stores and public alcohol
consumption.
5/24/2019 6:09 AM
540 I think the rules around public consumption should of alcohol and cannibas should be lightened but
done so in a logical way
5/24/2019 5:38 AM
541 Alcohol consumption is dangerous. Pickering does not have parks that are easily accessible by
walking or public transit. This would mean people would have to drive/ride a bike there, which
would be dangerous after consuming alcohol.
5/24/2019 5:36 AM
542 No place for alcohol when participating in or observing sporting activities - HEALTH FIRST 5/24/2019 5:35 AM
543 Please really listen to the cannabis community on their recommendations. Leaders in the industry
do not want unsafe or underage consumptions, they have done the research and they understand
that the people of this community come first. We need at least one cannabis lounge and one
cannabis storefront. Not having them will not prevent marijuana consumptions, it will only make
illegal purchasing more common and could cause more crime and unsafe situations for citizens.
5/24/2019 5:34 AM
544 I feel there are ample places already to purchase and consume alcohol without it being in public
spaces like parks and children's sports fields or sold in corner stores.
5/24/2019 5:34 AM
545 There should be no permission of public consumption in any parks period. This just opens the
door for people driving under the influence as well as disruptive behavior. Alcohol consumption
needs to be limited to home or at bars/restaurants where consumption can be monitored and
controlled. Underage drinking is likely to increase if there are no controls in place.
5/24/2019 5:32 AM
546 If you have alcohol consumption in parks this would lead to the smoking of cannabis in parks too. I
don’t want to be subjected to the smell of cannibis and I don’t want my grandchild to be subjected
to the behavioural effects of alcohol or cannibis in the park system.
5/24/2019 5:21 AM
547 I think the current government has not thought through the long term affects of substance use on
minors and that making it all legal does show children a sense of acceptance. All of these
substances are addictive and can have a great many negative outcomes. They also can make
events far less pleasurable when full of drunk or high participants. I live in a very expensive
desirable Pickering neighbourhood and now spend each day inside as my neighbours smoke
marijuana daily on their yard and the smell completely affects my enjoyment of my home and yard.
5/24/2019 5:20 AM
548 Users of parks should be trusted to be responsible with the consumption of alcohol in parks. Yes,
there will always be some who abuse but that happens everywhere.
5/24/2019 5:20 AM
Cannabis Retail & Public Alcohol Consumption
- 260 -
549 Thank you.5/24/2019 5:06 AM
550 Alcohol is being consumed in parks now by responsible adults. Do not have blanket laws that
restrict responsible persons.
5/24/2019 5:04 AM
551 I strongly disagree with public consumption of alcohol. Especially at our parks. I hope this does not
pass.
5/24/2019 5:02 AM
552 It would be good to have more choice, and I think the City of Pickering would be well advised to
support the legal selling of cannabis at local stores. Thank you
5/24/2019 5:00 AM
553 Additional staff will be needed to clean up parks after lazy ignorant people leave their party
messes. And additional police patrols will be required in all park areas.
5/24/2019 4:53 AM
554 hello 5/23/2019 6:15 AM
Cannabis Retail & Public Alcohol Consumption
- 261 -
Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: PLN 31-20
Date: December 7, 2020
From: Kyle Bentley
Director, City Development & CBO
Subject: Heritage Property Tax Relief Program and Implementing By-law
City of Pickering
File: A-3300-049
Recommendation:
1. That the Heritage Property Tax Relief Program and By-law be approved and the implementing
by-law to provide property tax relief to eligible heritage properties in the City of Pickering, as
set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 31-20, be enacted by Council;
2. That the City Clerk give notice of this by-law to the Minister of Finance and the Region of
Durham within 30 days of the passing of the by-law; and
3. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take actions as necessary to
implement the recommendations in this report.
Executive Summary: The Municipal Act provides a tool for municipalities to provide property
tax relief to eligible heritage properties through the enactment of a by-law. The program provides
an incentive for owners to make regular investments in the ongoing maintenance and conservation
of their properties. Further, with ongoing repair and maintenance, costly major renovation projects
can be avoided.
Eligible properties include those either individually designated or those designated within the
Whitevale Heritage Conservation District, under the Ontario Heritage Act (the “Act”), specifically
those listed as having cultural or architectural significance within the district. Eligible properties
must also be subject to a Heritage Easement Agreement with the City under Section 37 of the Act
and must comply with other additional criteria as set out in the by-law. Additionally, through this
program, property owners will be required to make an application to the City each year, and City
staff must be permitted to arrange a site visit to inspect the property when appropriate.
Heritage Pickering supports the proposed Heritage Tax Relief Program and recommends that the
by-law to provide property tax relief to eligible heritage properties in the City of Pickering be
approved. Accordingly, staff recommend that Council approve the Program and corresponding by-
law to provide property tax relief to eligible heritage properties in the City of Pickering. The draft by-
law to be enacted is attached as Appendix I.
- 262 -
Report PLN 31-20 December 7, 2020
Subject: Heritage Property Tax Relief Program and Implementing By-law Page 2
Financial Implications: Approximately 50 properties could be eligible for this program in the
City of Pickering. The by-law identifies a 20 percent refund to properties enrolled in the program,
which represents a refund of approximately $22,000 in City taxes yearly.
Any costs associated with enrollment into the program will be paid for by the property owner.
1. Discussion
At the September 28, 2020 Council meeting, staff were directed to report back to Council, by
the end of 2020, with a Heritage Property Tax Rebate Program, based on the Notice of
Motion presented at the July 27, 2020 Council meeting.
Heritage property tax relief is a financial tool for municipalities to help owners of eligible
heritage properties continue to maintain and restore these properties. Section 365.2 of the
Municipal Act gives municipalities the option of establishing a program to provide property tax
relief to owners of heritage properties. Municipalities must first pass a by-law to adopt the
program.
The draft by-law to provide property tax relief to eligible heritage properties, attached as
Appendix I to this report, has been prepared in consultation with the City’s Finance
Department and Corporate Services Department.
2. Benefits of a heritage property tax relief
Well maintained heritage properties enrich the quality of life and give communities a sense of
place and unique character. However, many are privately owned. The program provides an
incentive for owners to make regular investments in the ongoing maintenance and
conservation of their properties, which avoids costly deferred major renovation projects.
3. Property Tax Relief Amount
The Municipal Act allows municipalities to provide between 10 and 40 percent tax relief . The
refund amount for this program is proposed to be 20 percent. The refund is applied to the
City of Pickering portion of municipal taxes, as well as on the education portion.
For example, a property owner would receive a 20 percent refund on the City’s portion of
their tax bill and a 20 percent refund on the education portion of their tax bill. Should Council
approve the attached by-law, a notice will be sent to the Ministry of Finance so that the
province can fund the education portion.
The Region of Durham is currently not participating in the program.
- 263 -
Report PLN 31-20 December 7, 2020
Subject: Heritage Property Tax Relief Program and Implementing By-law Page 3
Municipalities may choose between a reduction and a refund to provide tax relief to the
homeowner. Staff recommend that the City provide a credit to the property tax account
similar to the Low Income Seniors/Persons with Disabilities Property Tax Grant program.
The amount of taxes a property owner pays depends on the assessment of the property from
the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC). Municipalities can work with MPAC
to determine the area of a property that will be subject to the heritage tax relief. It is assumed
that most properties will be straightforward to assess as the tax relief would typically apply to
the area of the entire property. However, in some instances, a heritage house may be
located on a large farm, with other outbuildings and farming activities not described in the
heritage by-law. The municipality may then apply the tax relief to only the assessed portion
surrounding the dwelling or a portion of the dwelling.
4. Eligible Properties
The Municipal Act sets out minimum criteria for an eligible property and also allows the
municipality to have flexibility with additional criteria. The draft by-law includes the following
eligibility requirements:
designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act (an individually designated
property);
a property that is part of a heritage conservation district under Part V of the Ontario
Heritage Act, except for properties listed without having historical or architectural
significance within the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District Guide;
subject to a Heritage Easement Agreement with the City of Pickering under Section 37 of
the Ontario Heritage Act;
has a realty tax class of R – Residential, and a realty tax qualifier of T – Taxable;
complies with the additional eligibility criteria, including: a building that is in a good and
habitable condition, as determined by the City; staff are permitted to conduct a site
inspection by the owner; the property is not in contravention of work orders, municipal
requirements or liens; and applicable taxes, penalties, interest and other charges for the
property have been paid to the City.
There are approximately 50 eligible properties in Pickering, both within the Whitevale
Heritage Conservation District and outside of the District. This number excludes properties
that are currently owned by the provincial or federal governments. Should those properties
be purchased by a private owner in the future for residential use, they may be considered
eligible for the program.
The heritage tax relief program intends to incentivize the maintenance and repair of buildings
with cultural and architectural significance. Accordingly, properties within the Whitevale
Heritage Conservation District that are on the list as not having historical or architectural
significance, as noted in the District Guide, are excluded from the program.
- 264 -
Report PLN 31-20 December 7, 2020
Subject: Heritage Property Tax Relief Program and Implementing By-law Page 4
5. Application process and enrollment
For any given year the owner is seeking to obtain a heritage property tax refund for an
eligible property, the owner may apply for the program at any time before the last day in
February of the following year (a deadline mandated by the Municipal Act). The property
owner will be required to submit an application form along with any additional information
such as photos of the property and proof of ownership.
Staff will then confirm the heritage attributes of the property and whether it meets the eligibility
requirements, and may conduct research and a site visit to verify conditions. A Heritage
Easement Agreement must be registered on title with the Land Registry Office. This one-time
process of executing and registering the Agreement could take a few weeks to finalize.
Finance staff will then enroll the eligible property into the program.
The owner will be responsible to pay to the City all costs incurred by the City relating to the
registration of the Heritage Easement Agreement on title with the local Land Registry Office.
No additional fee will be charged by the City for enrollment.
Applications must be made each year that an Owner wishes an eligible property to be
considered. Staff anticipate that the homeowner, if enrolled, will receive a credit directly on
their tax bill.
6. Heritage Easement Agreement
A heritage easement agreement is a voluntary legal agreement between the municipality and
an owner to protect the heritage features of a property and to encourage good stewardship of
the property. As the agreement is voluntary, it recognizes the intention of both parties to
protect the heritage character of the property. The heritage easement agreement is binding
on future owners of the property.
The agreement is required because, under Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, municipal
designation alone does not oblige owners to maintain their properties on an ongoing basis.
As the purpose of the tax relief measure is to offer an incentive for heritage property
conservation, relief will only be made available to those owners who have made a long -term
commitment to conserving their heritage properties.
The City of Pickering has prepared a draft Heritage Easement Agreement to reflect its by-law
and program (see Heritage Easement Agreement, Schedule “A” of Appendix I). In addition to
identifying the heritage characteristics of the property, all agreements contain certain core
elements to ensure the conservation of heritage properties, including requirements for the
owner to maintain the property in good condition and seek approval for alterations that would
affect its heritage attributes or features, and provisions for the municipality to monitor the
condition of the property periodically.
- 265 -
Report PLN 31-20 December 7, 2020
Subject: Heritage Property Tax Relief Program and Implementing By-law Page 5
7. Program promotion
The Heritage Property Tax Relief program will be advertised on the City’s website. The
website will outline the process, fees, eligibility criteria and steps to make an application.
Applicants will be encouraged to consult with City Development staff before making an
application to ensure eligibility.
Staff also plan to send potentially eligible property owners a letter by first class post each
year and will advertise the program on the City's social media pages. Other options for
promotion may include listing the enrolled properties on the website so that the public can
view which properties are participating in the program.
8. Heritage Pickering supports the draft by-law and program
The Heritage Property Tax Relief Program and the draft by-law was presented to
Heritage Pickering at its October 28, 2020 meeting. Staff from the City’s Finance Department
and City Development Department responded to various questions regarding the program
including matters related to: the cost to run the program; the gradual growth of the program
over time; how the refund will be physically given to the eligible property owner; how the
program will be funded; promotion of the program; how the eligible property owner is held
accountable to the program; what happens when the eligible property is sold; and, what the
consequences are to an enrolled property owner opting out of the program. The Committee
further noted that many heritage properties have gone through unsympathetic changes and
whether those properties would be eligible, to which staff noted a site visit would be required
before eligibility is determined.
Heritage Committee members noted that it is very costly to maintain and repair a heritage
home, so the program is a good incentive for a heritage homeowner to build up a reserve
through a tax credit. They further noted it would make the City an attractive place. The
Committee passed the following motion:
Heritage Pickering recommends that Council approve the by-law to provide
property tax relief to eligible heritage property in the City of Pickering.
9. Staff recommend approving the program and by-law to provide property tax relief to
eligible heritage property in the City of Pickering
Recognizing that preserving built heritage is a community benefit, the by-law provides an
incentive for property owners to provide ongoing maintenance before repairs become too
costly. Staff recommend that the by-law and program be approved.
Appendix:
Appendix I Draft By-law to provide property tax relief to eligible heritage property in the City of
Pickering and Heritage Easement Agreement
- 266 -
Report PLN 31-20 December 7, 2020
Subject: Heritage Property Tax Relief Program and Implementing By-law Page 6
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
Elizabeth Martelluzzi Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP
Planner II, Heritage Chief Planner
Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP Kyle Bentley, P. Eng.
Manager, Development Review Director, City Development & CBO
& Urban Design
Stan Karwowski
Director, Finance & Treasurer
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City Council
Marisa Carpino, M.A.
Interim Chief Administrative Officer
Original Signed By
Original Signed By
Original Signed By
Original Signed By
Original Signed By
Original Signed By
- 267 -
Appendix I to
Report PLN 31-20
Draft By-law to provide property tax relief to eligible heritage property
in the City of Pickering and Heritage Easement Agreement
- 268 -
The Corporation of the City of Pickering
By-law No. XXXX/20
Being a By-law to provide property tax relief to eligible
heritage property in the City of Pickering.
Whereas Subsection 365.2 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25, as amended,
provides that a local municipality may establish a program to provide tax reductions or
refunds in respect of eligible heritage property;
And whereas The Corporation of the City of Pickering finds it in the public interest to
provide financial assistance in the terms set out in this by-law as an incentive for
property owners to renovate, restore and maintain heritage property in the City of
Pickering;
Now therefore The Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as
follows:
Part 1 – Definitions
“Act” means the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18, as amended.
“Assessment Corporation” means the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation.
“City” means The Corporation of the City of Pickering or the geographic area of the City
of Pickering as the context requires.
“Council” means the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering.
“Eligible Property” means a property or portion of a property located within the limits of
the City, that
a) is designated under Part IV of the Act;
b) is part of a heritage conservation district under Part V of the Act, except for
properties listed without having Historical or Architectural Significance within the
Whitevale Heritage Conservation District Guide;
c) is subject to a Heritage Easement Agreement with the City under Section 37 of
the Act;
d) complies with the additional eligibility criteria set out in this by-law;
e) has a realty tax class of R – Residential, and a realty tax qualifier of T – Taxable;
and
f) is in a good and habitable condition, as determined by the City.
Draft
- 269 -
By-law No. XXXX/20 Page 2
Draft
“Heritage Easement Agreement” means an agreement made under Section 37 of the
Act, which sets out easement or covenant obligations with respect to but not limited to
the preservation of heritage features and value of heritage property and is registered on
title to an Eligible Property in the Land Registry Office, and which is enforceable by the
City against the Owner and subsequent Owner of an Eligible Property.
“Owner” means the registered owner(s), from time to time, of an Eligible Property, and
includes a corporation and partnership and the heirs, executors, administrators and
other legal representatives.
“Program” means the Heritage Property Tax Relief Program.
Part 2 – Application and Eligibility
2.1 An Owner of an Eligible Property must make an application to the Program by
submitting the prescribed application form to the City no later than the last day of
February in the year following the year for which the Owner is seeking to obtain a
heritage property tax reduction or refund. Applications received after this deadline
will not be accepted.
2.2 Upon acceptance of a satisfactorily completed application, the Director, City
Development & CBO, and if necessary in consultation with the Heritage
Committee, may approve a Heritage Easement Agreement with the Owner. Upon
confirmation that the Heritage Easement Agreement has been approved,
executed and registered on title to the Eligible Property, the City’s Finance
Department shall enroll the Eligible Property in the Program.
2.3 Applications to the Program must be made each year that an Owner wishes an
Eligible Property to be considered for a heritage property tax reduction or refund.
2.4 In order to determine eligibility for the Program, the Owner consents to the
inspection of the potentially Eligible Property as and when deemed necessary by
the City Development Department of the City or its designate.
2.5 Where multiple Heritage Easement Agreements are registered on title to one
parcel of land comprising an Eligible Property, multiple heritage property tax
reductions or refunds will not be provided in respect of the same heritage
features of the Eligible Property.
2.6 The Program is subject at all times to funding made available by Council in its
annual budget. This by-law does not obligate Council to provide funding for the
Program, and the heritage property tax reduction or refund contemplated by this
by-law may be eliminated by Council through repeal of this by-law at any time
with no notice whatsoever to any affected persons.
2.7 The Program is subject to any regulations that the Minister of Finance may make
governing by-laws on tax reductions or refunds for heritage property.
- 270 -
By-law No. XXXX/20 Page 3
Draft
Part 3 – Non-Compliance
3.1 In the event that:
(a) Pickering’s City Development Department or its designate determines that
the Heritage Easement Agreement has not been complied with to the
satisfaction of the City;
(b) the Eligible Property is in contravention of work orders, municipal
requirements or liens; or
(c) applicable taxes, penalties, interest and other charges for the Eligible
Property have not been paid to the City, then
no heritage property tax reduction or refund will be issued to the Owner and the
City shall require the Owner to repay part or all of any heritage property tax
reduction or refund previously provided to the Owner during any period of
non-compliance. Upon the City Development Department or its designate being
satisfied that the Owner has brought the Eligible Property back into compliance,
the Eligible Property will be re-enrolled in the Program.
3.2. Pickering’s City Development Department or its designate shall send written
notice to the Owner of the Eligible Property informing the Owner that the Eligible
Property was found to be out of compliance. The written notice shall describe the
nature of the non-compliance.
3.3. An Owner who has received written notice pursuant to Section 4.1, shall have
thirty (30) days to:
(a) bring the Eligible Property into compliance to the satisfaction of the
Pickering’s City Development Department or its designate; or
(b) satisfy Pickering’s City Development Department or its designate that a
workable plan has been developed to bring the Eligible Property into
compliance.
3.4 Upon being satisfied that the Eligible Property is back in compliance, Pickering’s
City Development Department or its designate shall provide written notification to
the Owner and the City’s Finance Department indicating that the Eligible Property
is in compliance and that the heritage property tax reduction or refund will
continue.
3.5 In the event the Owner does not bring the Eligible Property back into compliance
within the timeline pursuant to Section 4.3, the City shall remove the Eligible
Property from the Program.
3.6 Should an Eligible Property be removed from the Program for non -compliance,
the City shall add the value of any heritage property tax reduction or refund
previously provided, plus applicable penalties and interest, to the Owner’s
property tax bill.
- 271 -
By-law No. XXXX/20 Page 4
Draft
Part 4 – Annual Tax Reduction or Refund
4.1 Subject to the conditions set out in this by-law, an Owner shall receive a heritage
property tax reduction or refund for each year in which the Owner and the Eligible
Property meet all of the requirements of this by-law.
Part 5 – Amount of Tax Reduction or Refund
5.1 The amount of heritage property tax reduction or refund provided in respect of an
Eligible Property shall be twenty percent (20 percent) of the taxes for municipal
and school purposes levied on the whole or a portion of the Eligible Property.
5.2 The Owner shall pay to the City all costs incurred by the City to register the
Heritage Easement Agreement on title to the Eligible Property prior to such
registration.
Part 6 – Property Assessment
6.1 The City will work with the Assessment Corporation to determine the whole or
portion of a property’s total assessment that is attributable to the building or
structure that is an Eligible Property, and the land used in connection with it . It
will be solely the City’s decision to determine the amount of heritage property tax
reduction or refund applicable to the Eligible Property.
6.2 In the event that an Eligible Property’s assessed value, as determined by the
Assessment Corporation, changes for any reason whatsoever, then the amount
of the heritage property tax reduction or refund shall be recalculated accordingly.
Part 7 – Interest
7.1 The City may require the Owner to pay interest on the amount of any repayment
under this by-law, at a rate not exceeding the lowest prime rate reported to the
Bank of Canada by any of the Banks listed in Schedule I of the Bank Act (Canada),
calculated from the date or dates the heritage property tax reduction or refund
was provided.
Part 8 – Penalty
8.1 If the Owner of an Eligible Property demolishes the property or breaches the
terms of a Heritage Easement Agreement, the City shall require the Owner to
repay part or all of any heritage property tax reductions or refunds provided to the
Owner for one or more years under this by-law.
- 272 -
By-law No. XXXX/20 Page 5
Draft
Part 9 – Sharing of Repayment
9.1 Any amount repaid to the City by the Owner pursuant to this by-law shall be
shared by the City and the School Boards and the Region of Durham, if the
Region has enacted a heritage property tax by-law, that share in the revenue
from taxes on the Eligible Property, in the same proportion that they shared in the
cost of the heritage property tax reduction or refund on the Eligible Property.
Part 10 – Notification
10.1 The City Clerk is hereby directed to give notice of this by-law to the Minister of
Finance and the Region of Durham within thirty (30) days of the passing of this
by-law.
Part 11 – Schedules
11. 1 Schedule “A” (Form of Heritage Easement Agreement) is attached to and forms
part of this by-law.
11.2 Unless otherwise specified, references in this by-law to Parts, Sections and
Schedules are to Parts, Sections and Schedules in this by-law.
Part 12 – Delegation
12.1 Council delegates to the Mayor and City Clerk the authority to execute all
Heritage Easement Agreements, and any amendments thereto, as required from
time to time, in the form attached hereto as Schedule “A” and subject to such
revisions as are satisfactory to the Director, City Development & CBO, for the
purpose of satisfying the City’s requirements for such Agreement pursuant to this
by-law.
Part 13 – Force and Effect
13.1 This by-law shall come into force and effect on the date it is passed.
By-law passed this XX day of XXXX, 2020.
________________________________
David Ryan, Mayor
________________________________
Susan Cassel, City Clerk
- 273 -
Schedule “A”
Form of Heritage Easement Agreement
This Heritage Easement Agreement made _________________,
B e t w e e n:
*
(the “Owner”)
and
The Corporation of the City of Pickering
(the “City”)
Whereas:
(1) The Owner is the registered owner of certain lands and premises situated in the
City of Pickering in the Regional Municipality of Durham and Province of Ontario,
and municipally known as ________________________, and more particularly
described in Schedule “A” attached hereto (the “Property”) and on which is
erected a heritage building (the “Building”).
(2) One of the purposes of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18, as
amended or re-enacted from time to time (the “Act”), is to support, encourage
and facilitate the conservation, protection and preservation of the heritage of
Ontario.
(3) By Subsection 37(1) of the Act, the City is entitled to enter into easements or
covenants with owners of real property, or interests therein, for the conservation,
preservation and protection of property of historic or architectural value or
interest.
(4) By Subsection 37(3) of the Act, such easements and covenants entered into by
the City when registered in the proper Land Registry Office against the real
property affected by them shall run with the real property and may, whether
positive or negative in nature, be enforceable by the City or its assignee against
the Owner or any subsequent owner of the real property, even where the City
owns no other land which would be accommodated or benefited by such
easements and covenants.
(5) The Owner and the City recognize the heritage significance, ch aracter and
features of the Property as set out in the by-law designating the Property to be of
cultural heritage value or interest (the “Heritage Features”) which Heritage
Features are described in Schedule “B” attached hereto.
Draft
- 274 -
Draft
(6) The Owner and the City desire to conserve the historical, architectural,
contextual, aesthetic, scenic and heritage characteristics and condition of the
Property through the conservation of its Heritage Features.
(7) To this end, the Owner and the City agree to enter into this heritage easement
agreement (the “Agreement”).
The parties agree that in consideration of the sum of Two Dollars ($2.00) of lawful
money of Canada now paid by the City to the Owner (the receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged), and for other valuable consideration, and in further consideration of the
granting of the easements herein and in further consideration of the mutual covenants
and restrictions hereinafter set forth, the Owner and the City agree to abide by the
following covenants, easements and restrictions which shall run with the Property
forever.
1. Purpose
(1) It is the purpose of this Agreement to ensure that the heritage character of
the Property will be preserved in perpetuity as part of the herit age of
Ontario (the “Purpose”). To achieve this Purpose, the Owner and the City
agree that the Heritage Features will be retained, maintained and
conserved by the Owner through the application of recognized heritage
conservation principles and practices and that no change shall be made to
the Heritage Features that will adversely affect the heritage character of
the Property as set out in the Heritage Character Statement (as
hereinafter defined).
(2) Any reference in this Agreement to the Property includes the Building.
2. Heritage Character Statement
The Owner and the City agree that the heritage character statement, as outlined
in By-law ____/__ and set out in Schedule “B” attached hereto (the “Heritage
Character Statement”), explains the heritage significance and character of the
Property and that the Heritage Features comprise the features of the Property
that are to be conserved under this Agreement in order to preserve and protect
the heritage significance and character of the Property.
3. Photographs Relevant to Duties of Owner
(1) The Owner and the City agree that the photographs, contained in
Schedule “C” attached hereto (the “Photographs”), the originals of which
are filed with, and may be examined at, the City or wherever they may be
from time to time located, generally depict certain significant features of
the appearance or the construction of the Property. The Heritage
Character Statement, Heritage Features and the Photographs shall be
referred to in determining the duties of the Owner under this Agreement.
- 275 -
Draft
(2) In the event that alterations are made to the Property pursuant to
Section 4(2), the Owner shall, within ninety (90) days of completion of
such alterations and at the Owner’s expense, provide to the City new
photographs taken from the same vantage point and identifying the same
features of the appearance or construction as the original Photogra phs
contained in Schedule “C”. Such replacement photographs shall be
incorporated immediately into Schedule “C” by way of amendment to this
Agreement, and shall replace the Photographs contained in Schedule “C”.
After such amendment is made, all references in this Agreement to the
Photographs contained in Schedule “C” shall be taken to be references to
such replacement photographs.
4. Duties of Owner
(1) The Owner shall at all times and, subject to compliance with the
requirements of Section 4(2), maintain the Property in as good and sound
a state of repair as a prudent owner would normally do so that no
deterioration in the present condition and appearance of the Heritage
Features shall take place except for reasonable wear and tear. The
Owner’s obligation to maintain the Property shall require that the Owner
undertake such preventative maintenance, repair, stabilization and
replacement whenever necessary to preserve the Property in substantially
the same physical condition and state of repair as that existing on the date
of this Agreement and to take all reasonable measures to secure and
protect the Property from vandalism, fire and damage from inclement
weather.
(2) The Owner shall not, without the prior written approval of the City,
undertake or permit any demolition, construction, reconstruction,
renovation, restoration, alteration, remodeling, or any other thing or act
which would materially affect the condition, appearance or construction of
the Heritage Features. The Owner may, without the prior written approval
of the City, undertake or permit the repair or refinishing of the Property
where damage has resulted from casualty, loss deterioration or wear and
tear, provided that such repair or refinishing is not performed in a manner
which would materially affect the condition, appearance or construction of
the Heritage Features.
(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 4(2), the Owner may undertake
such temporary measures in respect of the Property as are reasonably
necessary to deal with an emergency situation which puts the security or
integrity of the Property at risk of damage or occupants of the Property at
risk of harm provided that such measures are:
(a) in keeping with the Purpose of this Agreement;
(b) consistent with the conservation of the Heritage Features;
(c) consistent with the requirements of the Building Code Act, 1992,
S.O. 1992, c.23, as amended or re-enacted from time to time; and
(d) where time permits, the City is consulted before any such
measures are undertaken.
- 276 -
Draft
In any case, the Owner shall advise the City forthwith when it undertakes
temporary measures in respect of the Property in an emergency situation.
(4) The Owner shall not place or affix on the Property any signs, permanent
storm screens, awnings, satellite receiving dishes, or other similar objects
and fixtures without the prior written approval of the City. Such approval
may, in the sole discretion of the City and for any reason which the City
considers necessary, be refused.
(5) The Owner shall not in respect of the Property, except with the prior
written approval of the City:
(a) grant any easement or right-of way which would adversely affect
the easement hereby granted;
(b) erect or remove or permit the erection or removal of any building,
sign, fence or other structure of any type whatsoever;
(c) allow the dumping of soil, rubbish, ashes, garbage, waste or other
unsightly, hazardous or offensive materials of any type or
description;
(d) except for the maintenance of existing improvements, allow any
changes in the general appearance or topography of the lands,
including and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the
construction of drainage ditches, transmission towers and lines,
and other similar undertakings as well as the excavation, dredging
or removal of loam, gravel, soil, rock, sand or other materials;
(e) allow the planting of trees, shrubs or other vegetation which would
have the effect of (i) reducing the aesthetic value of the Building or
the Property; or (ii) cause any damage to the Building or the
Property;
(f) allow any activities, actions or uses detrimental or adverse to water
conservation, erosion control and soil conservation; and
(g) allow the removal, destruction or cutting of trees, shrubs or
vegetation except as may be necessary for (i) the prevention or
treatment of disease; or (ii) other good agriculture practices.
5. Owner’s Reserved Rights
The Owner expressly reserves for itself the right to use the Property and carry
out such activities as are consistent with the Purpose of this Agreement and
which do not materially affect, directly or indirectly, the Heritage Features in an
adverse manner.
- 277 -
Draft
6. Alterations and Development
(1) Where the Owner seeks pursuant to Subsection 33 of the Act to alter or
develop the Property, the Owner shall, at its expense, provide to the City
such information in such detail as the City may reasonably require in order
for the City to consider and assess the Owner’s request including without
limitation the following:
(a) plans, specifications and designs for any proposed work;
(b) materials samples;
(c) work schedule; and
(d) such other reports, studies or tests as may in the circumstances be
reasonably required for the City to assess appropriately the impact
of the proposed work on the Heritage Features.
(2) Where any request for approval required under this Agreement is
submitted to the City, the determination of the City may be based upon
choice of materials, architectural design, historical authenticity or any
other grounds, and not limited to purely aesthetic or historical grounds. In
giving its approval, the City may specify such conditions of approval as the
City considers necessary or appropriate in the circumstances to ensure
the conservation of the Heritage Features.
(3) If the approval of the City is given, the Owner in undertaking or permitting
the construction, alteration, remodeling, or other thing or act so approved
of, shall comply with all of the conditions of approval specified by the City
in its approval including its use of materials and methods.
(4) In the event that the Owner is in default of any of its obligations under this
Agreement and the City has, pursuant to Section 11(1), notified the Owner
of such default, then the City may refuse to consider any request for
approval submitted by the Owner whether requested before or after such
notice of default has been given to the Owner.
(5) Any approval given by the City under this Agreement shall have
application only to the requirements of this Agreement and does not
relieve the Owner from obtaining any approvals, pe rmits or consents of
any authority whether federal, provincial, municipal or otherwise that may
be required by any statute, regulation, by-law, guideline, policy or by any
other agreement.
- 278 -
Draft
7. Indemnity
The Owner shall hold harmless and indemnify the City, its employees, officers,
elected officials, agents, contractors and representatives against and from any
and all actions, claims costs, damages, demands, judgments, liabilities, losses,
proceedings, suits, expenses or costs whatsoever (including all costs of
defending such claims) arising out of, incidental to, or in connection with any
injury or damage to person or property of every nature and kind (including death
resulting therefrom), occasioned by any act or omission of the Owner related to
this Agreement, save and except for any such liabilities and claims caused by the
City, its employees, officers, elected officials, agents, contractors and
representatives.
8. Insurance
(1) The Owner shall deliver to the City upon the execution of this Agreement a
certificate of insurance in a form satisfactory to the City, evidencing that
the Building is insured against normal perils that are coverable by fire and
extended coverage insurance in an amount equal to the replacement cost
of the Building. Thereafter, evidence satisfactory to the City of the renewal
of the insurance shall be delivered to the City at least thirty (30) days
before the termination thereof. The insurance policy shall, state that the
policy will not be altered, cancelled or allowed to lapse without thirty (30)
days prior notice to the City.
(2) If the Owner fails to obtain the insurance or if the insurance is cancelled,
the City may effect such insurance and the premium and any other
amount paid in so doing shall forthwith be paid by the Owner to the City,
or if not, shall be a debt owing to the City and recoverable from the Owner
by action in a court of law.
(3) All proceeds receivable by the Owner under the insurance shall, on the
written demand and in accordance with the requirements of the C ity, be
applied to the replacement, rebuilding, restoration or repair of the Building
to the fullest extent possible having regard to the Heritage Features, the
particular nature of the Building and the cost of such work.
9. Damage or Destruction
(1) The Owner shall notify the City of any damage or destruction to the
Building within ten (10) days of such damage or destruction occurring.
(2) In the event that the Building is damaged or destroyed and the
replacement, rebuilding, restoration or repair of it is impractical because of
the financial costs involved, or because of the particular nature of the
Building, the Owner shall, in writing within forty (40) days of the giving by
the Owner of notice under Section 9(1) of such damage or destruction,
request written approval by the City to demolish the Building in
accordance with Section 4(2).
- 279 -
Draft
(3) In the event that either the Owner does not request or the City does not
give the approval referred to in Section 9(2), the Owner shall replace,
rebuild, restore or repair the Building so as to effect the complete
restoration of the Building. Before the commencement of such work, the
Owner shall submit all plans and specifications for the replacement,
rebuilding, restoration or repair of the Building to the City for its written
approval within one hundred and thirty-five (135) days of the damage or
destruction occurring to the Building. A refusal by the City to approve any
plans and specifications may be based upon choice of materials,
appearance, architectural style or any other ground or grounds including,
but not limited to, purely aesthetic grounds, and the determination of the
City shall be final. The Owner shall not commence or cause such work to
be commenced before receiving the written approval of the City of the
plans and specifications for it, and such work shall be performed upon
such terms and conditions as the City may stipulate. The Owner is
required to obtain any approvals, permits or consents of any authority
whether federal, provincial, municipal or otherwise that may be required by
any statute, regulation, by-law, guideline, policy or by any other agreement
as necessary. The Owner shall cause all replacement, rebuilding,
restoration and repair work on the Building to be commenced within thirty
(30) days of the approval by the City of the plans and specifications for it
and to be completed within nine (9) months of commencement, or as soon
as possible thereafter if factors beyond their control prevent completion
within the said nine (9) months, and the Owner shall cause all such work
to conform to the plans and specifications approved of and terms and
conditions stipulated by the City.
(4) In the event that either the Owner does not request or the City does not
give the approval referred to in Section 9(2) and the Owner fails to submit
plans and specifications pursuant to Section 9(3) which are acceptable to
the City within one hundred and thirty-five (135) days of the damage or
destruction occurring to the Building, the City may prepare its own set of
plans and specifications for the work and shall deliver a set of the City’s
plans and specifications to the Owner. The Owner shall have thirty (30)
days from receiving a copy of such plans and specifications to notify the
City in writing that it intends to undertake the work in accordance with
those plans and specifications.
(5) If the Owner does not so notify the City within the said thirty (30) days, the
City may (but shall not be obligated to) undertake the work. The Owner
shall reimburse the City for all expenses incurred by the City in
undertaking the work, including any professional or consulting costs
reasonably incurred in connection with the work. Such expenses incurred
by the City shall, until paid to it by the Owner, be a debt owing to the City
and recoverable by the City from the Owner by action in a court of law.
- 280 -
Draft
(6) The Owner grants to the City the right and licence to enter and occupy the
Property and the Building or such part of parts thereof that the City
considers necessary or convenient for the City and its contractors to
undertake and complete the work. Such licence shall be exercisable by
the City on the commencement of any work undertaken by the City and
shall terminate when such work has been completed.
10. Inspection
The City or its representatives shall be permitted at all reasonable times during
normal business hours to enter upon and inspect the Property and the Building
upon giving at least twenty-four (24) hours prior written notice to the Owner.
11. Remedies of City
(1) If the City, in its sole discretion, is of the opinion that the Owner has
neglected or refused to perform any of its duties or obligations set out in
this Agreement, the City may, in addition to any of its other legal or
equitable remedies, give the Owner written notice setting out the
particulars of the Owner’s default and the actions required to remedy the
default. The Owner shall have thirty (30) days from receipt of such notice
to remedy the default in the manner specified by the City or to make other
arrangements satisfactory to the City for remedying the default within such
period of time as the City may specify.
(2) Where the Owner does not rectify the default as required by the City or
make arrangements satisfactory to the City for remedying the default, or if
the Owner does not carry out the arrangements to remedy the default
within the period of time specified by the City, the City may,
(a) cancel the Owner’s heritage tax reduction or refund; and/or
(b) enter upon the Property and carry out the Owner’s obligations and
the Owner shall reimburse the City for any expenses incurred
thereby. Such expenses incurred by the City shall, until paid to it by
the Owner, be a debt owed by the Owner to the City and
recoverable by the City by action in a court of law. The provisions of
Section 9(6) shall apply with all necessary changes required by the
context to any entry by the City onto the Property to remedy the
default.
- 281 -
Draft
12. Notice
(1) Any notices to be given or required under this Agreement shall be in
writing and sent by personal delivery, electronic transmission (facsimile or
email), or by ordinary prepaid mail to the following addresses:
to the Owner at: Address:
Attention: _______________________, Fax No./Email:
and to the City at:
Pickering Civic Complex, One The Esplanade, Pickering, ON L1V 6K7
Attention: City Clerk, Fax No.: 905.420.9685
(2) The parties may designate in writing to each other a change of address at
any time. Notice by mail shall be deemed to have been received on the
fifth (5th) business day after the date of mailing, and notice by personal
delivery or electronic transmission (facsimile or email) shall be deemed to
have been received at the time of the delivery or transmission. In the
event of an interruption in postal service, notice shall be given by personal
delivery or electronic transmission (facsimile or email).
13. Plaque and Publicity
The Owner agrees to allow the City, at its expense, to erect a plaque on the
Property, in a tasteful manner and in such location as the City may determine,
acting reasonably, indicating that the City holds a heritage conservation
agreement on the Property. The Owner also agrees to allow the City to publicize
the existence of this Agreement and the Heritage Features in its publications,
educational materials and research databases.
14. General
(1) The failure of the City at any time to require performance by the Owner of
any obligation under this Agreement shall in no way affect its right
thereafter to enforce such obligation, nor shall the waiver by the City of the
performance of any obligations hereunder be taken or be held to be a
waiver of the performance of the same or any other obligation hereunder
at any later time. Any waiver must be in writing and signed by the City.
(2) Time shall be of the essence of this Agreement. Any time limits specified
in this Agreement may be extended with the consent in writing of the City,
but no such extension of time shall operate to be deemed to operate as an
extension of any other time limit, and time shall be deemed to remain of
the essence of this Agreement notwithstanding any extension of any time
limit. Any extension must be in writing and signed by the City.
- 282 -
Draft
(3) All covenants, easements and restrictions contained in this Agreement
shall be severable, and should any covenant, easement or restriction in
this Agreement be declared invalid or unenforceable, the validity and
enforceability of the remaining covenants, easements and restrictions
shall not be affected.
(4) In the event that a dispute arises between the parties hereto because of
this Agreement, each party shall be responsible for its own legal fees,
court costs and all other similar expenses that may result from any such
dispute except where costs are awarded by a court or a tribunal.
(5) This Agreement embodies the entire agreement of the parties with regard
to the matters dealt with herein, and no understandings or agreements,
verbal, collateral or otherwise, exist between the parties except as herein
expressly set out.
(6) Notice of this Agreement shall be inserted by the Owner in any
subsequent deed, lease or other legal instrument by which it transfers the
fee simple title to or its possessory interest in the whole or any part of the
Property provided that such notice shall not be required where the Owner,
in leasing and licensing premises associated with the Property, retains
responsibility for the alteration of any Heritage Features forming part of the
licensed or leased premises and the tenant or licensee has no authority to
alter such Heritage Features.
(7) The Owner shall immediately notify the City in the event that it transf ers
either the fee simple title to or its possessory interest in the whole or any
part of the Property, provided that such notice shall not be required where
the Owner, in leasing and licensing premises associated with the Property,
retains responsibility for the alteration of any Heritage Features forming
part of the licensed or leased premises, and the tenant or licensee has no
authority to alter such Heritage Features. Notice of these covenants,
easements and restrictions shall be inserted by the Owner in any
subsequent deed or other legal instrument by which they divest
themselves either of the fee simple title to or of their possessory interest in
the Property.
(8) This Agreement shall be registered on title to the Property by the City, at
the Owner’s expense, and the covenants, easements and restrictions set
out herein shall run with the Property and enure to the benefit of and be
binding upon the parties hereto and their heirs, executors, administrators,
personal representatives, successors and assigns, as the case may be.
(9) The Owner shall, at its expense, obtain and register any postponements
or other agreements that the City may require to ensure that this
Agreement shall be a first encumbrance on title to the Property in all
mortgages, charges, leases and other encumbrances or agreements
affecting the Property.
- 283 -
Draft
(10) The City may assign all of its interest in this Agreement to any person in
accordance with Subsection 37(4) of the Act. The City shall not be liable to
the Owner for any breach or default in the obligations owed to the Owner
under this Agreement committed after notice of the assignment of this
Agreement has been given to the Owner.
(11) No person who is an Owner shall be liable to the City for any breach of or
default in the obligations of the Owner owed to the City under this
Agreement committed after the registration of a transfer by such person of
that person’s entire interest in the Property to another person, provided
that the Owner has delivered to the City notice of such transfer and an
acknowledgement and assumption executed by the new registered owner,
acknowledging the priority of this Agreement and the interest of the City,
and assuming the obligations of the Owner under this Agreement.
(12) Words importing the masculine gender include the feminine or neutral
gender and words in the singular include the plural, and vice versa.
Whenever the Owner comprises more than one person, the Owner’s
obligations in this Agreement shall be joint and several.
(13) The headings in the body of this Agreement form no part of the Agreement
but are inserted for convenience of reference.
(14) The recitals at the head of this Agreement are true and accurate and form
a part thereof.
(15) Schedules “A”, “B” and “C” are attached to and form part of th is
Agreement.
(16) This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, and
each of such counterparts shall constitute an original of this Agreement
and all such counterparts together shall constitute one and the same
agreement. This Agreement or counterparts hereof may be executed and
delivered by fax or email, and the parties adopt any signatures provided or
received by fax or email as original signatures of the applicable party or
parties.
- 284 -
Draft
In Witness Whereof the City and the Owner have executed this Agreement as of the
date first written above.
Witness:
____________________________ __________________________________
Print Name: *
Witness:
____________________________ __________________________________
Print Name: *
The Corporation of the City of Pickering
__________________________________
David Ryan, Mayor
_________________________________
Susan Cassel, City Clerk
- 285 -
Draft
Schedule “A”
Description of the Property
[insert complete legal description (include PIN if available)]
- 286 -
Draft
Schedule “B’”
Heritage Character Statement and Heritage Features
1. Heritage Character Statement
[to be inserted]
2. Heritage Features
[to be inserted]
- 287 -
Draft
Schedule “C”
Photographs
[to be inserted}
- 288 -