Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
March 22, 2021
Council Meeting Agenda March 22, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 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. 6:30 pm In Camera Council Page 1. Roll Call 2. Invocation Mayor Ryan will call the meeting to order and lead Council in the saying of the Invocation. 3. Indigenous Land Acknowledgment Statement Mayor Ryan will read the Indigenous Land Acknowledgment Statement. 4. Disclosure of Interest 5. Adoption of Minutes Council Minutes, February 22, 2021 1 Executive Committee Minutes, March 1, 2021 18 Special Council Minutes, March 1, 2021 26 Planning & Development Committee Minutes, March 1, 2021 29 Executive Committee Budget Minutes, March 4, 2021 36 6. Presentations 7. Delegations Due to COVID-19 and the Premier’s Emergency Orders to limit gatherings and maintain physical distancing, members of the public may provide a verbal delegation to Members of Council via electronic participation. To register as a delegate, visit www.pickering.ca/delegation, and complete the on-line delegation form or email clerks@pickering.ca. Delegation requests must be received by noon on the last business day before the scheduled meeting. All delegations for items not listed on the agenda shall register ten (10) days prior to the meeting date. Council Meeting Agenda March 22, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 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. 7.1 Mitch Martin, Inspector of West Division, Durham Regional Police Service Re: Durham Regional Police Service - West Division Community Safety Plan 7.2 Carion Fenn, President & CEO, Carion Fenn Foundation Mike Young, Principal, Durham Catholic Virtual Elementary School Re: Durham Kids Health Week - April 18, 2021 – April 24, 2021 7.3 Lisa Dost Re: Report CAO 02-21 Request for Partial Revocation of Minister’s Zoning Order 607/20 - Lands Located West of Squires Beach Road, North of Bayly Street 8. Correspondence 8.1 Corr. 15-21 53 Elizabeth Harvey, Director, Intergovernmental Relations Métis Nation of Ontario Re: Delegation Provided by David Grey Eagle at the January 25, 2021 Pickering Council Meeting Recommendation: That Corr. 15-21, from Elizabeth Harvey, Director, Intergovernmental Relations, Métis Nation of Ontario, dated March 1, 2021, regarding the delegation provided by David Grey Eagle at the January 25, 2021 Pickering Council Meeting, be received for information. 8.2 Corr. 16-21 55 Lisa Brancaccio, Age-Friendly Communities Knowledge Broker Seniors Health Knowledge Network Council Meeting Agenda March 22, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Re: Creating a More Inclusive Ontario - Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations Recommendation: 1. That Corr. 16-21, from Lisa Brancaccio, Age-Friendly Communities Knowledge Broker, Seniors Health Knowledge Network, dated March 16, 2021, regarding Creating a More Inclusive Ontario - Age- Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations, be received for information; and, 2. That Corr. 16-21 be referred to the CAO to direct the Staff Lead for Age Friendly Communities to review it within the context of the 2021 Business Plan for this initiative. 9. Report EC 03-21 of the Executive Committee held on March 1, 2021 Refer to Executive Committee Agenda pages: 9.1 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 03-21 1 Integrated Transportation Master Plan Study Recommendation: 1. That the Draft Integrated Transportation Master Plan prepared by IBI Group dated January 2021 be endorsed in principle; 2. That the recommendations from the Draft Integrated Transportation Master Plan be considered, along with all other municipal priorities, through future annual municipal plans and budget processes; and, 3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 9.2 (Acting) Director, Community Services, Report CS 13-21 429 Cultural Strategic Plan- Mid-term Update Recommendation: Council Meeting Agenda March 22, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 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. 9.3 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 04-21 510 Beachfront Park Rehabilitation & Needs Assessment - Public Engagement Work Plan and Project Status Update Recommendation: 1. That Report ENG 04-21 regarding a Public Engagement Work Plan and Project Status Update for Beachfront Park, as a follow-up to Report ENG 12-20 and in response to Resolution #465/20, be received for information; 2. That the Draft Concept Plans attached to Report ENG 04-21 be used to commence the public engagement and consultation process to arrive at a final preferred concept plan for Council endorsement through a future report; 3. That staff be directed to report back with a status update on the Beachfront Park Rehabilitation & Needs Assessment Project no later than the third quarter of 2021; and, 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 9.4 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 05-21 521 Automated Speed Enforcement Implementation Recommendation: 1. That the automated speed enforcement program as outlined in Report ENG 05-21 be endorsed by Council for implementation in 2021 subject to budget approval; 2. That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute the required agreements for operation of the program in a form satisfactory to Council Meeting Agenda March 22, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, the Director, Finance & Treasurer, and the parties, namely: a. Redflex Traffic Systems (Canada) Limited; b. The Ministry of Transportation, Ontario; and, c. The City of Toronto; 3. That one automated speed enforcement mobile camera be installed in the Community Safety Zone on Liverpool Road between Bayly Street and Wharf Street, consistent with Resolution #364/20, as part of the initial rollout of the program and that additional mobile cameras be added as approved funds permit; 4. That Council request the Province of Ontario to permit the use of an Administrative Monetary Penalty System for offenses issued by Automated Speed Enforcement; 5. That staff be directed to report back on the status of the Automated Speed Enforcement Implementation program no later than the end of June, 2021; and, 6. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 9.5 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 03-21 530 Statement of the Treasurer Respecting 2020 Remuneration and Expenses of Members of Council and Council Appointees to Boards, Agencies and Committees Recommendation: It is recommended that Report FIN 03-21 of the Director, Finance & Treasurer regarding the Statement of the Treasurer respecting Remuneration and Expenses of Members of Council and Council Appointees for the year 2020 be received for information. 9.6 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 08-21 538 2020 Sustainable Pickering Year-in-Review Council Meeting Agenda March 22, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca That Report PLN 08-21 of the Director, City Development & CBO, on the release of the 2020 Sustainable Pickering Year-in-Review, be received for information. 10. Report PD 03-21 of the Planning & Development Committee held on March 1, 2021 Refer to Planning & Development Agenda pages: 10.1 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 09-21 5 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/17 Request for Red-Line Revision of Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-11(R) 1133373 Ontario Inc. and Lebovic Enterprises Limited Part of Lot 22, 23, 24 & 25, Concession 4 Seaton Community City of Pickering Recommendation: 1. That the Revision to Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-11(R) submitted by 1133373 Ontario Inc., to permit a red-line revision to a draft approved plan of subdivision on lands being Part of Lots 22, 23, 24 & 25 Concession 4, as shown on the Applicant’s Revised Plan Attachment #2 to Report PLN 09-21, be endorsed; 2. That the proposed amendments to the conditions of draft plan of subdivision approval to implement Draft Plan of Subdivision SP- 2008-11(R) as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 09-21 be endorsed; 3. That the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal be advised of City Council’s decision on the request for a red-line revision to Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-11(R) and that the City Solicitor be authorized to attend any Local Planning Appeal Tribunal hearing on the requested red-line revision; and, 4. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/17, submitted by 1133373 Ontario Inc. and Lebovic Enterprises Limited, to implement the red-line revision to Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-11(R), and rezone a remnant block of land at 1255 Whitevale Road for Community Node uses be approved, and Council Meeting Agenda March 22, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca the draft zoning by-law contained in Appendix II to Report PLN 09- 21 be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment. 10.2 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 11-21 27 Pickering Housing Strategy Study - Status Update Recommendation: That Report PLN 11-21 of the Director, City Development & CBO, providing an update on the status of the City of Pickering Housing Strategy Study, be received for information. 10.3 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 12-21 36 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 12/18 Stuart Mark Golvin and JMPM Holdings Ltd. Part of Lot 19, Range 3, B.F.C., Part 1, 40R-8832 and Part 1, 40R-10527 (1635 Bayly Street) Recommendation: That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 12/18, submitted by Stuart Mark Golvin and JMPM Holdings Ltd., to permit “animal boarding establishment”, “auction and estate sales house”, “day care centre”, and other site-specific modifications to By-law 6974/09, as amended, on the lands municipally known as 1635 Bayly Street, be approved, and that the draft Zoning By-law Amendment as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 12-21 be finalized and forwarded to Council. 11. Reports – New and Unfinished Business 11.1 Chief Administrative Officer, Report CAO 02-21 153 Request for Partial Revocation of Minister’s Zoning Order 607/20 - Lands Located West of Squires Beach Road, North of Bayly Street Recommendation: 1. That the letter to Mayor Ryan, from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, dated March 12, 2021, asking if the City would like the Minster to consider amending Minister’s Zoning Order 607/20 to exclude the portion of the lands that would allow for the construction of a distribution centre, be received; Council Meeting Agenda March 22, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 2. That the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing be requested to revoke Minister’s Zoning Order 607/20 from the lands located west of Squires Beach Road, municipally known as 1802 Bayly Street, in the City of Pickering; 3. That the Mayor be authorized to write to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, in response to the Minister’s letter, to make the formal request on behalf of Council; and, 4. That Council’s resolution on this matter be forwarded to: the Pickering-Uxbridge MPP, the Honourable Peter Bethenfalvy; the MPP for Ajax, the Honourable Rod Phillips; the Region of Durham; the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority; and Triple Properties. 11.2 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 04-21 158 2021 Current Budget and Financial Statements Excluded Expenses Reporting as Required by Ontario Regulation 284/09 Recommendation: It is recommended that Report FIN 04-21 of the Director, Finance & Treasurer regarding the exclusion of certain expenses from the 2021 Budget be adopted in accordance with the provisions of Ontario Regulation 284/09 of the Municipal Act, 2001. 11.3 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 05-21 162 2021 Current & Capital Budget Recommendation: 1. That Report FIN 05-21 of the Director, Finance & Treasurer be approved; 2. That the following budget recommendations be approved; a) That the 2021 Current Budget expenditure for personnel costs, consisting of salaries and wages (Account 1100), overtime (Account 1200) and employer contributions Council Meeting Agenda March 22, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca (Account 1400), excluding Cost Centres 2712 and 2293, in the total amount of $60,364,218 be approved; i) That the 2021 Current Budget for Cost Centre 2712 (Programs) expenditure for personnel costs, consisting of salaries and wages (Account 1100), overtime (Account 1200) and employer contributions (Account 1400) in the total amount of $1,137,031 be approved; and, (ii) That the 2021 Current Budget for Cost Centre 2293 (Animal Services) expenditure for personnel costs, consisting of salaries and wages (Account 1100), overtime (Account 1200) and employer contributions (Account 1400) in the total amount of $506,210 be approved; b) That the 2021 General Government Budget for grant expenditures in the total amount of $184,068 be approved; c) That the Heritage Property Tax Rebate in the amount of $10,000 be approved; d) That the 2021 Gross Current Budget expenditures for City purposes in the amount of $54,684,613 (excluding personnel costs, grant expenditures and Heritage Property Tax Rebate) less estimated current revenues of $47,004,304 (City revenues of $40,667,304 plus $4,000,000 for estimated casino gaming revenue, $2,037,000 for assessment growth plus supplementary taxes of $300,000), less Phase One and Phase Two Safe Restart Funding of $2,802,100 and net transfer from the Rate Stabilization Reserve of $1,500,000 for City operations be approved; e) That the $4,000,000 in estimated casino gaming revenues be transferred to the newly established Casino Reserve; f) That the Capital from Current expenditure in the amount of $731,660 funded from property taxes be approved; and, Council Meeting Agenda March 22, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca g) That the total final City levy under paragraphs a), b), c), d) and e) above, plus the following additions that result in a total final levy of $70,841,695 being an increase of approximately 1.45 percent over the 2020 Budget, be approved: i) Hiring of three additional firefighters ($283,000) for the Seaton fire station; and, ii) Service level increases that consist of $51,000 for additional staffing for seasonal By-law enforcement at the waterfront and parks, an investment of $121,300 for the City to meet provincially legislated accessibility requirements and $75,000 to establish a Community Investment Fund; 3. That the 2021 Capital Budget for the City of Pickering with a Gross Expenditure of $73,041,800 be adopted as presented: a) That the following capital financing sources be approved as presented in the 2021 Capital Budget: Transfer from Current Fund to Capital Fund $731,660 Transfers from Reserves: - Rate Stabilization Reserve (7021) 4,040,043 - City Share Dev. Charges (7022) 1,811,500 - Vehicle Replacement (7040) - Major Equipment Reserve (7062) 1,547,000 1,345,000 - Capital Replacement (7001) 384,600 - Facilities Reserve (7055) 385,000 - Self-Insurance Reserve (7020) 200,000 - Property Fence Line Reserve (7057) 180,000 - Tennis Court Reserve (7061) 90,000 - Artwork Reserve (7067) 50,000 - Don Beer Arena Surcharge (7033) 40,000 - Rec. Complex Pool Surcharge (7035) 30,000 Transfers from Reserve Funds: - Development Charges (7601 – 7630) 25,024,180 Council Meeting Agenda March 22, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca - Third Party Contribution (7501) 9,041,375 - Parkland (7502) 4,180,000 - Federal Gas Tax Funds (7505) 3,567,000 - Roads & Bridges (7709) 790,000 - Animal Shelter (7706) 291,400 - Seaton Land Group FIA (7713) 145,785 Debt - 20 yr 11,391,900 Internal Loan - 2 yr 2,175,000 Internal Loan - 5 yr 200,000 Internal Loan - 10 yr 247,500 Donations 10,000 Canada Cultural Spaces Fund (CCSF) 4,000,000 Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program (ICIP) – COVID -19 Resilience Infrastructure Stream 222,500 Federal Grant – TBD 40,000 Provincial Grant – Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund (OCIF) 880,357 Total $73,041,800 b) That total external debt financed by property taxes of $11,391,900 for the projects identified in the 2021 Capital Budget, and as indicated in this report, for a period not to exceed 20 years be approved; c) That the internal loans in the amount of $2,622,500 be undertaken at the discretion of the Director, Finance & Treasurer; d) That projects identified in the 2021 Capital Budget as being financed through the issuance of debt be subject to additional, specific approval of the expenditure and the financing by Council; e) That the source of financing for the Demolition & Site Remediation capital project (5315.1901) be changed from future land sales to Operations Centre Reserve Fund to eliminate the unfinanced capital liability when the project is converted to the new financial system; f) That any debt repayment, interest or financing provisions contained in the annual Current Operating Budget not used Council Meeting Agenda March 22, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca in the current year’s payments requirements may, at the discretion of the Director, Finance & Treasurer, be used to apply towards additional principal repayment, outstanding loan or debt charges or to reduce debt not issued, balloon payments in future years through transfer to Rate Stabilization Reserve, internal loans or any other amounts to be financed; g) That all Capital expenditures or portions thereof approved in the 2021 Capital Budget to be financed through the issuance of debt may, at the discretion of the Director, Finance & Treasurer, be financed through internal loans, current or capital funds or a combination thereof; h) That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to make draws from Reserve and Reserve Funds for projects included in the approved Capital Budget up to the amount approved; and, i) That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized at his discretion to apply any excess funds obtained through the issuance of debentures as provided for under Section 413 of the Municipal Act, 2001 as amended; 4. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to transfer: a) Any surplus current operating funds at year-end in excess of approximately $125,000 be allocated in the following manner: the first $70,000 be allocated to the Elected Officials Life Insurance Reserve and the remaining surplus be allocated in the following ratio: 25 percent to the Rate Stabilization Reserve (7021); 20 percent to the Facilities Reserve (7055); 5 percent to the Artwork Reserve (7066) and 50 percent to the City Share DC Projects Reserve (7022); b) Any surplus funds from the Emergency Operational Capital Needs Account (2901.0000.0000) to the Facilities Reserve; and, Council Meeting Agenda March 22, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca c) The revenue from the sale of used vehicles recorded in account (1593.0001.0000) to the Vehicle Replacement Reserve (7040); 5. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to make any changes or undertake any actions necessary including: adjusting the budget plan to meet provincial COVID reporting requirements while maintaining the approved levy; to accommodate any labour relations settlements including adjusting the Personnel related accounts and that any revenue shortfall as a result of a Provincial tax policy change be adjusted through the 2021 final tax rates; 6. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to use any under expenditures from projects funded from Reserves or Reserve Funds to fund over expenditures for approved projects funded from the same source(s) and any unfinanced capital be funded from a transfer from reserves or reserve funds; 7. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized at his discretion to fund Property Tax Write-offs account (2134.0000.000) that exceed the budget provision due to assessment appeals that translates into a deficit position for the corporation and this shortfall be funded from a transfer from the Assessment Appeal Reserve (7011) and if this reserve is depleted then the shortfall be funded from the Rate Stabilization Reserve (7021) and that any shortfall from Payment-in-Lieu Education Share revenue estimates be funded from a transfer from the Rate Stabilization Reserve (7021); 8. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to revise the funding ratio’s for development charge funded projects where applicable to reflect the removal of the 10 percent statutory deduction that was eliminated through the adoption of Bill 197, COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act, 2020; 9. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized at his discretion to close any current and completed prior year’s capital expenditure accounts and to first apply any excess funding from property taxes to any over expenditure in other accounts and to secondly transfer any remaining excess funding back to the original sources of funds; Council Meeting Agenda March 22, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 10. That Council approve a change in funding source for capital project 5325.2105 Accessible Pedestrian Signals from 100 percent funded from the Rate Stabilization Reserve to: a) $169,838 to be funded from unused provincial grant funding (Invest in Ontario and Provincial Budget) from accounts 5999.0898.1623 and 5999.0899.1623; and, b) $190,562 to be funded from the Rate Stabilization Reserve (7021); 11. That Council approve the cancellation of the following previously approved Capital projects: a) Two 1 Ton Dump Trucks with Aluminum Body, Plow and Salter – New (Seaton) (5319.2003) - $140,000; b) Front Plow and Wing Attachments for Seaton – New (5319.2014) – $20,000; c) 1 Ton Truck with Utility Body Replacement (5319.2004) – $110,000; d) Duffin Heights Sewer (5320.1116) – $196,612; e) Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Implementation – Construction (5320.1901) – $2,250,000; f) RU-13 Salem Road – Road Reconstruction (5321.1608) – $155,635; g) RP-10 Altona Road – Sidewalks & Streetlights (5321.1909) – $150,000; h) Accessible Pedestrian Signals – 4 Locations (5325.2004) – $360,400; i) FS #2 Accessibility Upgrades & Interior Renovations (5340.1809) – $94,875; j) FS # 2 Lighting Retrofit (5340.2001) – $60,000; Council Meeting Agenda March 22, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca k) Civic Centre Backup Generator Replacement – Construction (5700.2002) – $800,000; l) CHDRC Tennis Court Flooring Replacement (5731.2004) – $1,200,000; m) Animal Shelter – Design (5219.2003) – $881,850; n) Animal Shelter – Construction (5219.2004) – $8,273,650; and, o) Animal Shelter – FF&E (5219.2005) – $300,000; 12. That Council approve an increase to the Fire Protection Cost Centre (2240) budget, in the amount of $27,200 for the purchase of technology upgrades and the corresponding cost be offset 100 percent by Provincial Fire Safety Grant; 13. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized at his discretion to close any capital or consulting account expenditure and corresponding revenue source that is over three years from the original purchase order date of issuance; 14. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized at his discretion to refinance any capital expenditures that failed to meet the Federal Gas Tax reporting criteria from other sources including transfers of funds from reserves and reserve funds; 15. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to: a) Undertake transactions in the spot or forward (12 months or less) currency markets in order to effect United States dollar denominated expenditures in the Current or Capital Budgets; b) Sign leases or rental agreements (including summer rentals) on the City’s behalf for the provision of vehicles or equipment required for temporary use during periods of equipment breakdown or repair or during periods of increased need (e.g. inclement weather); Council Meeting Agenda March 22, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca c) Restate the 2021 Current Operating, User Fees and Capital Budgets to reflect: (i) any Council changes made at the March 22 Council meeting; (ii) any reorganization or personnel account changes (salary, benefits and overtime), (iii) reclassifications that result from salary increases or negotiated labour settlements; and, d) To process budget transfers during the fiscal year which do not change the overall approved property tax levy; 16. That Council waive the Purchasing Policy where the estimated vehicle repair cost is below $30,000 (HST excluded) for all fleet vehicles and off road vehicle equipment in 2021; 17. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to administer the Community Investment Fund by following the general intent of the Community Grants program; a) That any grant funding request up to $2,500 be jointly approved by the Chief Administrative Officer and the Director, Finance & Treasurer and any grant request above this amount be approved by Members of Council and staff report to Council regarding the use of these funds through the 2022 Budget process; 18. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to amend Section 06.01 b) and 06.02 b) of Policy ADM 190 such that the word “every” be replaced with “Starting in 2022”; 19. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized at his discretion to draw from the Winter Control Reserve to fund any Current Budget deficit as a result of higher than budget winter control costs; 20. That Council approve the continuing engagement of the firm of Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. to be used for the Five Year Capital & Operating Financial Plan; for the engagement of the new Development Charge Background Study and new Community Benefit Charge Study and in support of the DC Background Study and issues related to the City, Seaton and/or Duffin Heights; Council Meeting Agenda March 22, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 21. That Council approve the continuing engagement of the following firms: Nixon Poole Lackie LLP, Municipal Tax Advisor Group and Municipal Tax Equity Consultants for any studies related to the reassessment or other property tax issues and for to protect the property tax base by defending assessment appeals through proactive assessment base management; 22. That Council approve the award of professional services in accordance with the City's Purchasing Policy Item 10: 03 (c) to Public Sector Digest Inc. for the completion of the Ontario Regulation 588 (2021) Compliant Asset Management Plan in the amount of a maximum of $70,000; 23. That Council approve the establishment of the WSIB Excess Indemnity Reserve Fund and that the draft by-law attached hereto for the establishment of the reserve fund be enacted; 24. That Council approve the transfer of $136,775 to the WSIB Excess Indemnity Reserve Fund; 25. That Council approve the annual transfer of funds from the WSIB Reserve when its year-end balance is greater than $4.0 million, and that these excess funds be transferred to the WSIB Excess Indemnity Reserve Fund; 26. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to initiate any additional assessment appeals necessary to protect the assessment base of the City; 27. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized at his discretion to transfer any green energy rebates and revenue associated with the Claremont solar roof rental project account (1530.2620.0000) and other incentives and rebates account (2620.9993.0000) to the Reserve for Sustainable Initiatives; 28. That Council amend the Community Grant policy as follows: a) That the grant application deadline date for the 2022 Community Grant Program be October 29, 2021 to give community groups sufficient time to complete their applications; Council Meeting Agenda March 22, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 29. That any unused funds in excess of $1,000 for accessibility capital projects (6183) be transferred to the Reserve for Accessibility Initiatives (7053); 30. That Council approve the following to be added to the 2021 Budget to be funded from the Rate Stabilization Reserve (7021); a) $35,000 for the rental of an additional radar camera; and, b) $150,000 for Pickering Fire Services’ share of the cost for NG911 Dispatch equipment (text to 911); 31. That any unspent 2021 Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) funds budgeted under General Government consulting account (2126.2392) be transferred to the Tennis Court Reserve (7061); 32. That Council approve the 2021 Low Income Seniors & Persons with Disabilities grant amount to be increased from $375 to $450 per household; 33. That Council pass the attached General Municipal Fees and Charges By-law and incorporate the user fee schedule into the 2021 Current Budget: a) That Council approve revising “Schedule B – Fees Payable for Building Permits” of the Building By-law with the Building Permit fees listed in the 2021 User Fee Schedule; 34. That Council approve the establishment of the 2021 COVID-19 Recovery Reserve Fund and that the draft by-law attached hereto for the establishment of the reserve fund be enacted and that the Provincial funds received be transferred to this reserve fund; 35. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to draw from the 2021 COVID-19 Recovery Reserve Fund to maintain the City’s financial and business plans due to direct and indirect affects of COVID-19; 36. That Council approve the levy allocation of the $121,300 for Provincial accessibility requirements to the following accounts: Council Meeting Agenda March 22, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 2621.2479.0000 Sfwr/Hdwr Maint Contracts $13,800 2621.2340.0000 Seminars & Education 7,500 2621.1100.0000 Salaries & Wages 70,000 2621.2399.0000 Outside Agency Services 30,000 37. That Council approve the funding of the Coordinator, Community Safety position (Cost Centre 2712), either by senior government grants or by a transfer from the Rate Stabilization Reserve (7021); and, 38. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 11.4 (Acting) Director, Community Services, Report CS 16-21 208 Tender for GALCC RTU-1 Replacement - Tender No. T2020-15 Recommendation: 1. That Tender No. T2020-15 submitted by 1747204 Ontario Inc. Ace Services, in the amount of $146,787.00 (HST included), be accepted; 2. That the total gross project cost of $214,858.00 (HST included), including the amount of the tender, and other associated costs, and the total net project cost of $193,486.00 (net of HST rebate), be approved; 3. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to finance the total net project cost of $193,486.00 as follows: a) the sum of $100,000.00, as provided for in the 2020 Community Centres Capital Budget be funded by a transfer from the Federal Gas Tax Reserve Fund; b) the additional sum of $93,486.00 be funded by a transfer from the Federal Gas Tax Reserve Fund; c) the Treasurer be authorized to make any changes, adjustments, and revisions to amounts, terms, conditions, or Council Meeting Agenda March 22, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca take any actions necessary in order to effect the foregoing; and, 4. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect hereto. 11.5 Fire Chief, Report FIR 01-21 215 Tender for the Construction of a New Fire Station Headquarters at Brock Road and Zents Drive - Tender No. T2020-3 Recommendation: 1. That Tender No. T2020-3 submitted by Percon Construction Inc., in the amount of $9,260,350.00 (HST included), be accepted; 2. That the total gross project cost of $9,972,250.00 (HST included), including the amount of the tender, and other associated costs, and the total net project cost of $8,980,320.00 (net of HST rebate), be approved; 3. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to finance the total net project cost of $8,980,320.00 as follows: a) the sum of $2,765,000.00, be financed by the issue of debentures by The Regional Municipality of Durham over a period not to exceed 20 years; b) the sum of $6,213,000.00 be financed by the issue of debentures by The Regional Municipality of Durham over a period not to exceed 20 years to address the funding shortfall of the Development Charges-Protection Services Reserve Fund, and this amount be repaid from future development charge collections; c) the sum of $2,320.00 be funded from property taxes; d) the annual repayment charges in the amount of approximately $194,550.00 be included in the annual Current Budget for the City of Pickering commencing 2021, or such Council Meeting Agenda March 22, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca subsequent year in which the debentures are issued, and continuing thereafter until the debenture financing is repaid; e) the annual repayment charges in the amount of approximately $437,155.00 be included in the annual Current Budget for the City of Pickering commencing 2021, or such subsequent year in which the debentures are issued, and continuing thereafter until the debenture financing is repaid from future development charge collections as the first source of repayment, and the cost of the annual repayment charges be included in the next Development Charges Background Study; and, f) the Treasurer be authorized to make any changes, adjustments, and revisions to amounts, terms, conditions, or take any actions necessary in order to effect the foregoing; 4. That the draft debenture by-laws attached to this report be enacted; and, 5. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect hereto. 11.6 Director, Human Resources, Report HUR 02-21 227 Diversity & Inclusion Strategy - Request for Proposal No. RFP 2020-10 Recommendation: 1. That Proposal No. RFP 2020-10 submitted by Goss Gilroy Inc. dated November 26, 2020 to facilitate the completion of a Diversity & Inclusion (D&I) Strategy for the Corporation of the City of Pickering and the Pickering Public Library in the amount of $74,163.31 (HST included) be accepted; and, 2. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 11.7 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 15-21 234 Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review, Phases 2 and 3 Council Meeting Agenda March 22, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Consultant Delegation Bobby Gauthier, WSP, on Report PLN 15-21 Recommendation: 1. That the conclusions and recommendations of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review – Phase 1 – Discussion Papers, be received; 2. That the total gross project cost of $266,804.00 (HST included) for Phases 2 and 3 of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review, and the total net project cost of $240,265.00 (net of HST rebate), be approved; 3. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the Phases 2 and 3 net project cost in the amount of $240,265.00 as follows: a) The sum of $78,086.00, identified for this project in the 2021 Current Budget – Planning & Design Cost Centre, be funded from the Rate Stabilization Fund; and, b) The sum of $162,179.00, identified in the 2021 Current Budget – Planning & Design Cost Centre, be funded by a transfer from the Development Charges – Studies Reserve Fund; 4. That Council authorize staff to request that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing undertake a review of the Minister’s Zoning Orders being Ontario Regulations 102/72, 19/74 and 154/03, to harmonize agricultural and rural provisions with the City’s new zoning by-law; and, 5. That the appropriate City of Pickering staff be authorized to enter into any agreements to give effect hereto. 11.8 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 14-21 287 Environmental Registry Posting 019-3136 Response to consultation regarding growing the Provincial Greenbelt Recommendation: Council Meeting Agenda March 22, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 1. That the comments in Report PLN 14-21, on Environmental Registry Posting (ERO) 019-3136 regarding growing the Provincial Greenbelt, be endorsed; 2. That the Province maintain the current established Greenbelt boundary within the City of Pickering on the basis that: a. Any consideration or decision regarding expanding the Greenbelt in Pickering would be premature and not in the public interest, prior to the completion of the Region of Durham’s Municipal Comprehensive Review and in particular, prior to the completion of the Land Needs Assessment, updated Natural Heritage System mapping, and review and implementation of the Provincial Agricultural System, in order to fully understand the implications and determine appropriateness of growing the Greenbelt; b. All lands within Pickering are covered by the policies of A Place to Grow and the Greenbelt Plan, which were further strengthened through the most recent updates to the provincial plans, and the Provincial Policy Statement, and which together provide the highest level of protection for natural heritage and hydrologic features and areas, as well as agricultural areas; and, c. The City, by Resolutions 140/19 and 173/19 affirmed its position that the lands in Northeast Pickering, be reserved to accommodate future urban development; 3. That in order to minimize competing interests and priorities, the Province should explore opportunities on the outer fringes of the existing Greenbelt for further expansion, rather than the areas closest to the existing built up urban areas which may be needed to accommodate future development within proximity to transit and other existing and planned infrastructure investments by municipalities and the Province; 4. That should the Province decide to consider growing the Greenbelt within the City of Pickering: Council Meeting Agenda March 22, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca a. Any additions to the Greenbelt Plan be considered in the context of the Region of Durham’s Municipal Comprehensive Review; b. The legislated public process for amendments to the Greenbelt be followed, including consultation with City of Pickering, the Region of Durham, Indigenous communities, and affected property owners, prior to any final decision being made; c. Any decision to expand the Greenbelt should not compromise the ability of the municipality to accommodate future urban growth; and, d. Criteria be established and implementation guidance be provided to guide refinement to the Greenbelt Natural Heritage System by municipalities, similar to the criteria and guidance that have been established for the Growth Plan Natural Heritage System; and, 5. That staff be directed to respond to ERO Posting 019-3136 with a copy of Report PLN 14-21 and Council’s resolution thereon, and that a copy of Report PLN 14-21 be forwarded to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, MPP Peter Bethlenfalvy, the Regional Municipality of Durham, and other Durham area municipalities. 12. Motions and Notice of Motions 13. By-laws 13.1 By-law 7823/21 185 Being a by-law to amend By-law No. 6191/03 to confirm General Municipal Fees. [Refer to Item 11.3 FIN 05-21] 13.2 By-law 7824/21 186 Being a By-law to Provide for the Establishment of a Reserve Fund to be Known as the WSIB Excess Indemnity Reserve Fund. [Refer to Item 11.3 FIN 05-21] Council Meeting Agenda March 22, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 13.3 By-law 7825/21 187 Being a By-law to Provide for the Establishment of a Reserve Fund to be Known as the 2021 COVID-19 Recovery Reserve Fund. [Refer to Item 11.3 FIN 05-21] 13.4 By-law 7826/21 223 Being a by-law to authorize the Construction of a New Fire Station Headquarters at Brock Road and Zents Drive project in the City of Pickering and the issuance of debentures in the amount of $6,213,000.00 for Development Charges-Protection Services Reserve Fund funding for the Construction of a New Fire Station Headquarters at Brock Road and Zents Drive project, and that the first source of repayment for this debt is future development charge collections. [Refer to Item 11.5 FIR 01-21] 13.5 By-law 7827/21 225 Being a by-law to authorize the Construction of a New Fire Station Headquarters at Brock Road and Zents Drive project in the City of Pickering and the issuance of debentures in the amount of $2,765,000.00. [Refer to Item 11.5 FIR 01-21] 13.6 By-law 7828/21 296 Being a by-law to amend Zoning Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 2511, as amended, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham, on Part of Lot 19, Range 3, B.F.C., Part 1, 40R-8832 and Part 1, 40R-10527, in the City of Pickering. (A 12/18) 13.7 By-law 7829/21 303 Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 7364/14, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham, for land at Part of Lot 22, 23, 24 & 25 Concession 4, City of Pickering (A 04/17) Council Meeting Agenda March 22, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 13.8 By-law 7830/21 308 Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 3036, as amended, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham, Part of Lots 31 and 32, Concession 2 South, Now Parts 2 to 4 and 6, 40R-29566 and Part 2, 40R-29965, City of Pickering (A 01/19) 13.9 By-law 7831/21 321 Being a by-law to exempt Block Q, Plan M-15, Pickering, from the part lot control provisions of the Planning Act. 13.10 By-law 7832/21 325 Being a by-law to exempt Blocks 224 to 264, Plan 40M-2625, Pickering from the part lot control provisions of the Planning Act. 14. Confidential Council – Public Report 15. Other Business 16. Confirmation By-law 17. Adjournment Council Meeting Minutes February 22, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm Present: Mayor David Ryan Councillors: K. Ashe M. Brenner S. Butt I. Cumming B. McLean D. Pickles Also Present: M. Carpino - Chief Administrative Officer K. Bentley - Director, City Development & CBO P. Bigioni - Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor B. Duffield - (Acting) Director, Community Services J. Eddy - Director, Human Resources J. Hagg - Fire Chief J. Flowers - CEO & Director of Public Libraries, Pickering Public Library R. Holborn - Director, Engineering Services F. Jadoon - Director, Economic Development & Strategic Projects S. Karwowski - Director, Finance & Treasurer S. Cassel - City Clerk C. Rose - Chief Planner C. Blumenberg - Deputy Clerk R. Perera - Committee Coordinator 1. Roll Call The City Clerk certified that all Members of Council were present and participating electronically in accordance with By-law 7771/20. 2. Invocation Mayor Ryan called the meeting to order and led Council in the saying of the Invocation. 3. Indigenous Land Acknowledgment Statement Mayor Ryan read the Indigenous Land Acknowledgment Statement. 4. Disclosure of Interest - 1 - Council Meeting Minutes February 22, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm No disclosures of interest were noted. 5. Adoption of Minutes Resolution # 519/21 Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Pickles In Camera Council Minutes, January 25, 2021 Council Minutes, January 25, 2021 Special Council Minutes, January 26, 2021 Special Council Minutes, January 28, 2021 Executive Committee Minutes, February 1, 2021 Planning & Development Committee Minutes, February 1, 2021 Carried 6. Presentations There were no presentations. 7. Delegations 7.1 Jackie Flowers, CEO & Director of Public Libraries Sarah Sheehy, Board Chair Pickering Public Library Re: 2020 Year in Review Sarah Sheehy, Board Chair, Pickering Public Library, and Jackie Flowers, CEO & Director of Public Libraries, Pickering Public Library, joined the electronic meeting to provide a 2020 review of the Pickering Public Library. Through the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, Ms. Sheehy highlighted a number of notable events, which included the introduction of curbside pickup, the hiring of a new CEO, a website update, and a number of new virtual programs for the public. She added that despite the months of closure and restricted levels of service due to the COVID-19 pandemic, residents continued to use the library services, adding that 40 per cent of the City’s population had an active library card. Ms. Sheehy stated that the Board had recently completed a virtual board retreat outlining the future plans for the remaining two years of the term, which included refreshing t he home bound library services for seniors, an Anti-Black Racism Working Group, and a curated collection of popular picks. Ms. Sheehy concluded her delegation by advising that the library had reopened to the public following the lifting of the provincial COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, adding that more information was available on their website. - 2 - Council Meeting Minutes February 22, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm A brief question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and Ms. Sheehy regarding: • the status of the pilot program to increase the operational hours of the Claremont Library; and, • the importance of the innovative work accomplished to provide programs during the Pandemic and whether the Pickering Public Library would continue to provide online services and programs after the restrictions pertaining to the COVID-19 pandemic had been lifted. 7.2 Andrew Simanovskis Re: Request for City Endorsement of Land Division Application - LD 175/17 Lot 27, Concession 1 Andrew Simanovskis, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection to seek City endorsement for his Land Division Application - LD 175/17. Mr. Simanovskis noted that City Staff had advised him that his application was inconsistent with the Council approved Pickering O fficial Plan and the Dunbarton Neighbourhood Development Guidelines, and that an extension and completion of Helm Street would be required. He added that the objectives of the Official Plan encouraged new roads, to connect with existing roads, to minimize dead-ends, and create opportunities for infill development, noting that the City’s plan for achieving these objectives was to create a partial extension of Helm Street into the subject property. Mr. Simanovskis added that should Helm Street be extended, it would still be a dead-end, and would not create n ew lots, and that the extension would not be supported by the present owner. He further stated that there was no justification for a turning circle on the subject property unless the City extended Helm Street to connect it to Strouds Lane. Mr. Simanovskis concluded his delegation by stating that Council had flexibility in implementing the Official Plan, and that Official Plans were intended to be broad and flexible. A question and answer ensued between Members of Council and A ndrew Simanovskis regarding: • viable solutions that Mr. Simanovskis could suggest regarding the outstanding road issue; • whether Mr. Simanovskis had been advised by Staff of the importance of the turning circle as it pertains to garbage and fire trucks; • communicating with City Development Staff regarding the application; and, • land division matters being under the jurisdiction of the Regional Land Division Committee and not City Council. - 3 - Council Meeting Minutes February 22, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 8. Correspondence 8.1 Corr. 06-21 Alexander Harras, Manager of Legislative Services/Deputy Clerk Town of Ajax Re: Funding Sick Leave Resolution # 520/21 Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Pickles 1. That Corr. 06-21, from Alexander Harras, Manager of Legislative Services/Deputy Clerk, Town of Ajax, dated January 28, 2021, regarding Funding Sick Leave, be endorsed; and, 2. That a copy of this Resolution be forwarded to Jennifer O’Connell, MP, Pickering-Uxbridge, and the Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy, MPP, Pickering- Uxbridge. Carried 8.2 Corr. 07-21 Corey Bridges, Manager of Finance / Treasurer Perth County Re: Significant Negative Impacts of Current Value Assessments in Perth County Resolution # 521/21 Moved by Councillor McLean Seconded by Councillor Cumming 1. That Corr. 07-21, from Corey Bridges, Manager of Finance/Treasurer, Perth County, dated February 2, 2021, regarding Significant Negative Impacts of Current Value Assessments in Perth County, be received; and, 2. That Corr. 07-21 be referred to the Director, Finance & Treasurer, for review and comment and a report back to Council on the associated impacts specific to the City of Pickering no later than the May 25, 2021 Council Meeting. Carried 8.3 Corr. 08-21 Mayor Dan Carter - 4 - Council Meeting Minutes February 22, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm City of Oshawa Re: City of Oshawa – COVID-19 Economic Recovery and Provincial Occupancy Restrictions Members of Council noted their support for the City of Oshawa’s motion, adding the need for the Province to base indoor capacity on the occupancy level of a facility rather than the maximum single number of customers, to create a more equitable and fair approach in applying restrictions pertaining to the COVID-19 pandemic. Resolution # 522/21 Moved by Councillor McLean Seconded by Councillor Cumming 1. That Corr. 08-21, from Mayor Dan Carter, City of Oshawa, dated February 2, 2021, regarding the City of Oshawa – COVID-19 Economic Recovery and Provincial Occupancy Restrictions, be endorsed; and, 2. That a copy of this Resolution be forwarded to all Durham Region MPPs and the C ouncil of the Regional Municipality of Durham. Carried 8.4 Corr. 09-21 Ralph Walton, Regional Clerk/Director of Legislative Services The Regional Municipality of Durham Re: Request from the Region of Durham that the Region of York affirm by Resolution its support for the Lake Simcoe Solution as Documented in the Upper York Sewage Solutions (UYSS) Environmental Assessment Erin Mahoney, Commissioner of Environmental Services The Regional Municipality of York Upper York Sewage Solutions Individual Environmental Assessment Approval Status Update Members of Council inquired whether staff had received any updates from the Region or the Province noting that a decision was expected from the Province following the Family Day weekend regarding this matter. Richard Holborn, Director, Engineering Services, advised that staff had not received any further information and that they would reach out to the Region of Durham for an update. Resolution # 523/21 Moved by Councillor McLean Seconded by Councillor Brenner - 5 - Council Meeting Minutes February 22, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 1. That Corr. 09-21, from Ralph Walton, Regional Clerk/Director of Legislative Services, the Regional Municipality of Durham, dated F ebruary 5, 2021, and from Erin Mahoney, Commissioner of Environmental Services, the Regional Municipality of York, dated January 14, 2021, regarding the Upper York Sewage Solutions (UYSS) Environmental Assessment, be endorsed; and, 2. That a copy of this Resolution be forwarded to the Hon. Doug Ford, Premier of Ontario, the Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy, MPP, Pickering-Uxbridge, Rod Phillips, MPP, Ajax, and the Council of the Regional Municipality of Durham. Carried 8.5 Corr. 10-21 Gary Muller, Director of Planning The Regional Municipality of Durham Re: Bill 229, Protect, Support and Recover from COVID-19 Act (Budget Measures) – Changes to the Conservation Authorities Act and Planning Act Members of Council noted that the report to Council would be an opportunity for Staff to review the Region’s report and provide comment to Council, adding t hat the requested report was not required to be too detail specific. Resolution # 524/21 Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Butt 1. That Corr. 10-21, from Gary Muller, Director of Planning, the Regional Municipality of Durham, dated January 22, 2021, regarding Bill 229, Protect, Support and Recover from COVID-19 Act (Budget Measures) – Changes to the Conservation Authorities Act and Planning Act, be received; and, 2. That Corr. 10-21 be referred to the Director, City Development & CBO, for review and a report back to Council on the associated impacts to the City of Pickering no later than the April 26, 2021 Council Meeting. Carried 8.6 Corr. 11-21 Keley Katona, Director, Conservation and Source Protection Branch Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks - 6 - Council Meeting Minutes February 22, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm Re: Implications of Proclamation of Various Provisions of the Conservation Authorities Act: Frequently Asked Questions Resolution # 525/21 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Butt That Corr. 11-21, from Keley Katona, Director, Conservation and Source Protection Branch, Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, dated February 5, 2021, regarding the Implications of Proclamation of Various Provisions of the Conservation Authorities Act: Frequently Asked Questions, be received for information. Carried 8.7 Corr. 12-21 Jennifer O’Connell, Member of Parliament, Pickering-Uxbridge Re: Funding Streams under the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change - Grants and Contribution Currently Open to Apply A brief question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and Marisa Carpino, Chief Administrative Officer, regarding: • whether the waterfront rehabilitation project would qualify for a grant; • whether staff would be able to meet the deadline noted in the correspondence; and, • ensuring that Council is kept appraised of City applications for grants. Resolution # 526/21 Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor McLean 1. That Corr. 12-21, from Jennifer O’Connell, Member of Parliament, Pickering-Uxbridge, dated February 9, 2021, regarding Funding Streams under the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change - Grants and Contribution Currently Open to Apply, be received; and, 2. That Corr. 12-21 be referred to the CAO to direct City Staff to initiate actions to apply for specific grants that may be relevant to the City’s work in Storm Water Management and its impact on the Great Lakes and shore land restoration damage to the City’s Waterfront. - 7 - Council Meeting Minutes February 22, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm Carried 8.8 Corr. 13-21 Nicole Gibson, Executive Director Ajax-Pickering Board of Trade Re: Ajax-Pickering B oard of Trade Pre-Budget Submission Resolution # 527/21 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Ashe 1. That Corr. 13-21, from Nicole Gibson, Executive Director Ajax-Pickering Board of Trade, dated February 10, 2021, regarding the Ajax-Pickering B oard of Trade Pre-Budget Submission, be endorsed; and, 2. That a copy of this Resolution be forwarded to the Hon. Doug Ford, Premier of Ontario , and the Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy, Minister of Finance. Carried 8.9 Corr. 14-21 The Honourable Steve Clark, Minister Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Re: Consulting on Growing the Size of the Greenbelt Resolution # 528/21 Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Pickles 1. That Corr. 14-21, from the Hon. Steve Clark, Minister, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, dated February 17, 2021, regarding Consulting on Growing the Size of the Greenbelt, be received; and, 2. That Corr. 14-21 be referred to the CAO to direct City Staff to review, with an emphasis on expanding and further protecting Urban River Valleys, and report back to Council on the City of Pickering’s response, prior to the April 19, 2021 deadline. Carried Unanimously on a Recorded Vote - 8 - Council Meeting Minutes February 22, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 9. Report EC 02-21 of the Executive Committee held on February 1, 2021 9.1 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 02-21 Kinsale Road - Speed Limit Reduction Council Decision: 1. That the draft by-law, as set out in Attachment 2, be enacted to amend Schedule “9”, Speed Limits, to By-law 6604/05 to provide for the regulation of parking and speed on highways or parts of highways under the jurisdiction of The Corporation of the City of Pickering. The amendment specifically provides for the reduction of the speed limit on Kinsale Road, from 1000 metres north of Highway 7 to Seventh Concession Road, from 50 km/h to 40 km/h, which will create a uniform speed limit of 40 km/h on the entire length of Kinsale Road; and, 2. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 9.2 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 04-21 Annual Update on Corporate Waste Initiatives Council Decision: 1. That Report PLN 04-21 of the Director, City Development & CBO regarding corporate waste initiatives be received for information; and, 2. That City staff continue to report annually to Council the results of corporate waste initiatives. Resolution # 529/21 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Butt That Report EC 02-21 of the Executive Committee Meeting held on February 1, 2021 be adopted. Carried 10. Report PD 02-21 of the Planning & Development Committee held on February 1, 2021 10.1 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 05-21 - 9 - Council Meeting Minutes February 22, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 14/18 2184107 Ontario Inc. Part of Lot 18, Concession 3; Now Part 2, 40R-6962 (East side of Brock Road, north of Rex Heath Drive) Council Decision: That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 14/18, submitted by 2184107 Ontario Inc., to permit a 6-storey apartment building containing 44 dwelling units, on lands located on the east side of Brock Road, north of Rex Heath Drive, be endorsed subject to the provisions contained in Appendix I to Report PLN 05-21, and that staff be authorized to finalize and forward an implementing Zoning By-law Amendment to Council for enactment. Resolution # 530/21 Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Cumming That Report PD 02-21 of the Planning & Development Committee Meeting held on February 1, 2021 be adopted. Carried 11. Reports – New and Unfinished Business 11.1 (Acting) Director, Community Services, Report CS 14-21 Public Works Winter Activities update - Information Report Resolution # 531/21 Moved by Councillor Cumming Seconded by Councillor Pickles That Council receive Report CS 14-21 regarding Public Works Winter Activities for information. Carried 11.2 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 10-21 The Municipal Comprehensive Review of the Durham Regional Official Plan: Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions, December 2020, and the Framework for a new Regional Official Plan - 10 - Council Meeting Minutes February 22, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm A question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and Staff regarding: • whether staff would be applying the principles identified by the Region as it pertains to integrated transportation systems in studies related to intensification; • whether staff would be applying the recommendations from the Regional Comprehensive Review to Liverpool Road South; • the waterfront place not having a transit corridor system and in turn being in conflict with the Region’s Official Plan; • enabling decisions regarding the waterfront place to be at the discretion of municipalities and not the Region of Durham; • whether staff would be responding to the Region and providing a copy of the response to Council; • reinforcing the City’s position regarding the need for high speed rail transit systems in North Pickering; • ensuring that planning studies pertaining to transit and the environment are collaborative and s upportive of one another to ensure that Pickering downtown is livable and walkable; and, • the City’s long term planning initiatives being a response to the City’s designation as an urban growth centre by the Province. Resolution # 532/21 Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Pickles 1. That Council support the Region of Durham’s Major Transit Station Areas Proposed Policy Directions and endorse staff comments contained in Table 1 of Appendix I to Report PLN 10-21; 2. That Council welcome the proposed restructuring of the new Regional Official Plan, and congratulate the Region on this new approach; and, 3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried 12. Motions and Notice of Motions 12.1 Full Traffic Signalization of Intersection of Usman Road and Brock Road (Regional Road #1) - 11 - Council Meeting Minutes February 22, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm A discussion and a question and answer period ensued between Members of Council regarding: • the neighbourhood on the east side of Brock Road, near the P ickering Islamic Centre, being a dense neighbourhood, with the only south bound exit to Brock road being through Usman Road; • concerns regarding the high volume of traffic already in this area; • the Region’s decision to close the direct access to the Pickering Islamic Centre from Brock Road and its adverse impact to traffic movement on Usman Road; • the impacts of future development within the area and its adverse impact to traffic; • a signalized road alleviating the traffic concerns and providing better access to the park in the neighbourhood; • requesting that the Region reconsider a signalized traffic light due to the loss of direct access to Brock Road from the Pickering Islamic Centre and possible future development on the subject lands; • the nearest signalized road to the subject property; and, • the traffic design of the road behind the Pickering Islamic Centre. Resolution # 533/21 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Butt WHEREAS, in the Brock Ridge Neighbourhood, the Duffins Precinct is located on the east side of Brock Road (RR#1), and that part of the Duffins Precinct located opposite Major Oaks Road has 146 existing homes and a population of 425 individuals, with a very busy place of worship/school/community centre; And Whereas, there is presently an application under consideration for an additional 380 homes with a projected population of 765 individuals; And Whereas, the only access to southbound Brock Road, the most frequent turning movement from the neighbourhood, is on the north side of the neighbourhood at the signalized intersection of Brock Road and the northern leg of Usman Road, opposite Major Oaks Road; And Whereas, the place of worship and proposed new development is at the south end of the neighbourhood with no immediate point of access to southbound Brock Road, as the existing southern leg of Usman Road and Brock Road is restricted to left in, right in and right out only; - 12 - Council Meeting Minutes February 22, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm And Whereas, the Region of Durham is requiring the closure of the direct access laneway from the Pickering Islamic Centre to Brock Road which will further exacerbate traffic concerns in the neighbourhood; And Whereas, the major community park for the area is on the west side of Brock Road with no direct access across Brock Road, requiring park goers to walk to signalized intersections at Major Oaks Road or Finch Avenue, a distance of up to 600 metres for pedestrians. Access to the park is important given the number of young families and expected new population growth; Now therefore be it resolved that the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering requests: 1. That the Region of Durham consider the expedited approval and installation of full traffic and pedestrian signals at the intersection of Brock Road (RR#1) and the southern leg of Usman Road in place of the existing left in, right in and right out only access; 2. That the installation of signals be completed prior to the beginning of construction of the new development in order to address construction traffic from having to drive through the existing neighbourhood; and, 3. That a copy of this motion be sent to the Region of Durham Commissioner of Works and Chair of the Works Committee. Carried Unanimously on a Recorded Vote 12.2 Municipal Heritage Register – 450 F inch Avenue A question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and Staff regarding: • whether staff had further conversations with t he applicant, with Kyle Bentley, Director, City Development & CBO, advising that Staff had provided the City’s comments and requirements to the applicant but had not yet received a response back; • the importance of protecting the City’s history and previous Council decisions pertaining to the protection of City heritage properties; • the history and the heritage significance of this particular property; • the impacts of placing the subject property on the heritage register, with Kyle Bentley, Director, City Development & CBO, advising that the listing of the property would enable staff to conduct a heritage impact assessment and would provide Council 60 days to designate the property should an application be received for a demolition permit to demolish the building. - 13 - Council Meeting Minutes February 22, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm Resolution # 534/21 Moved by Councillor McLean Seconded by Councillor Brenner WHEREAS, applications for Draft Plan of Subdivision (SP-2020-20) and Zoning By-law Amendment (A 10/20) have been submitted by Medallion Developments (Pickering Finch) Ltd. proposing to demolish a 2-storey stone building located at 450 Finch Avenue; And Whereas, the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines (Section N1.10.1) identifies the building at 450 Finch Avenue as one of four dwelling having significant cultural heritage resource within this neighbourhood; And Whereas, the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines states that prior to development oc curring on the subject lands, an assessment of the architectural and heritage significance of the structure should be undertaken by the applicant, and strategies to retain the structure on the site should be explored, if appropriate; And Whereas, the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee met on November 25, 2020 and made the following recommendations: • Council list the subject property on the Municipal Heritage Register under Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act; • The Heritage Impact Assessment be revised as per the recommendations of Branch Architecture; and, • Once the revised Heritage Impact Assessment resubmission is received by the City of Pickering, that it is circulated to Heritage Pickering to consider future designation and conservation of the property. And Whereas, the Council for The Corporation of City of Pickering believes that the 2-storey stone building at 450 Finch Avenue has cultural heritage value; Now therefore be it resolved that the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering endorses the recommendations of the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee pertaining to 450 Finch Avenue and directs staff to list 450 Finch Avenue on the Municipal Heritage Register forthwith. Carried Unanimously on a Recorded Vote - 14 - Council Meeting Minutes February 22, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm 13. By-laws 13.1 By-law 7817/21 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. 13.2 By-law 7818/21 Being a by-law to establish certain roads within the City of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham as public highways. (Kubota Drive and Sideline 24) 13.3 By-law 7819/21 Being a by-law to assume Block 21, Plan 40-2565, Pickering (Fairport Road) as public highway. 13.4 By-law 7820/21 Being a by-law to appoint Marisa Carpino as the Chief Administrative Officer for The Corporation of the City of Pickering. Resolution # 535/21 Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Ashe That By-law Numbers 7817/21 through 7820/21 be approved. Carried 14. Other Business 14.1 Councillor Brenner inquired about the status of the Liverpool house, noting the importance of ensuring that the property is protected from demolition. Kyle Bentley, Director, City Development & CBO, advised that the Liverpool house is included on the Heritage Register and that should the applicant propose to demolish the building, Council would be required to make a decision of designating the property within 60 days of being notified of possible demolition. Cathy Rose, Chief Planner, responded to questions noting t hat the applicant intends to preserve the Liverpool house and repurpose it to be a useful part of the development. It was requested that Staff discuss with the City’s Heritage Planner - 15 - Council Meeting Minutes February 22, 2021 Electronic Meeting 7:00 pm and provide an update to Council regarding the process for designating the Liverpool House as a Heritage property. 14.2 Councillor Brenner inquired about the status of the City’s strategic plan, with Marisa Carpino, Chief Administrative Officer, noting that the strategic plan was paused until fall 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and that with the proposed rollout of the vaccine to the public, work would continue this fall. Councillor Brenner further inquired whether there w as a plan B should the restrictions pertaining to the COVID-19 pandemic remain after fall 2021, with Ms. Carpino advising that Staff could continue the work in fall 2021 using various community engagement opportunities that were identified during the COVID-19 pandemic, should the restrictions pertaining to the COVID-19 pandemic remain in effect. 14.3 Councillor Brenner raised the matter of 7/11 Stores’ intent for the retail sale of alcohol, noting one of the stores close proximity to Dunbarton High School and the struggles faced by restaurants due to the COVID-19 Pandemic. Marisa Carpino, Chief Administrative Officer, commented that the subject matter was a topic of discussion at the Big City Mayor’s Meeting and a resolution was passed similar to the comments expressed by Councillor Brenner. Mayor Ryan noted that his office would be issuing a letter to the P rovince echoing the concerns of City Council. 14.4 Councillor Brenner gave notice that he would be bringing forward a Notice of Motion regarding the framework for a lobbyist registry. 15. Confirmation By-law By-law Number 7821/21 Councillor McLean, seconded by Councillor Pickles moved for leave to introduce a By- law of the City of Pickering to confirm the proceedings of February 22, 2021. Carried 16. Adjournment Moved by Councillor Cumming Seconded by Councillor Butt That the meeting be adjourned. Carried - 16 - Council Meeting Minute February 22, 202 Electronic Meetin 7:00 p The meeting adjourned at 8:29 pm. Dated this 22nd of February, 2021. David Ryan, Mayor Susan Cassel, City Clerk s 1 g m - 17 - Executive Committee Meeting Minutes March 1, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor McLean Present: Mayor David Ryan Councillors: K. Ashe M. Brenner S. Butt I. Cumming B. McLean D. Pickles Also Present: M. Carpino - Chief Administrative Officer K. Bentley - Director, City Development & CBO P. Bigioni - Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor B. Duffield - (Acting) Director, Community Services J. Hagg - Fire Chief J. Eddy - Director, Human Resources J. Flowers - CEO & Director of Public Libraries, Pickering Public Library R. Holborn - Director, Engineering Services F. Jadoon - Director, Economic Development & Strategic Projects S. Karwowski - Director, Finance & Treasurer S. Cassel - City Clerk S. Booker - Manager, Capital Projects & Infrastructure T. Ryce - Supervisor, Cultural Services C. Whitaker - Supervisor, Sustainability N. Zahoor - Transportation Engineer A. Mostert - Senior Coordinator, Landscape & Parks Development N. Emery - Coordinator, Traffic Operations C. Blumenberg - Deputy Clerk 1. Roll Call The City Clerk certified that all Members of Council were present and participating electronically in accordance with By-law 7771/20. 2. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 1 - 18 - Executive Committee Meeting Minutes March 1, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor McLean 3. Delegations There were no delegations. 4. Matters for Consideration 4.1 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 03-21 Integrated Transportation Master Plan Study Consultant Delegation John Kemp, Transportation Planner, Bruce Mori, Director | Sr. Practice Lead, Transportation Planning; and, Zibby Petch, Associate - Manager, Active Transportation, IBI Group, on Report ENG 03-21 John Kemp, Transportation Planner, Bruce Mori, Director, Sr. Practice Lead, Transportation Planning; and, Zibby Petch, Associate - Manager, Active Transportation, IBI Group, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection to provide an overview of the Integrated Transportation M aster Plan Study (ITMP). Mr. Kemp, with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation discussed the p urpose of the ITMP, noting that the ITMP is a long term strategic planning document that would help direct the City’s policies and infrastructure to effectively meet current and future transportation needs, including accommodating growth and maximizing potential for all modes of transportation. Mr. Kemp noted that the Study process began in late 2017, in accordance with Phase 1 and 2 of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment process, and noted that the vision is to have a safe and well-connected transportation system that offers inclusive mobility, supports complete and sustainable communities, and facilitates continued economic growth. The consultants further highlighted the feedback received through public and stakeholder consultation, including improving safety for all road users, improving w inter maintenance, and additional connectivity to the GO station. A question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee and John Kemp, Bruce Mori, and Zibby Petch, regarding: • collaborating with other levels of government, and cost sharing opportunities with neighbouring municipalities; • how the new developments, intensification, and maximizing factors had been integrated into the study; • integration with other current municipal studies and plans such as the Affordable Housing Strategy, provincial policy statements, and studies with respect to population and density targets; 2 - 19 - Executive Committee Meeting Minutes March 1, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor McLean • whether a covered pedestrian/bike lane had been considered on the new Hwy 401 crossing between Brock and Liverpool Roads; and, • the importance of supporting active transportation and connectivity throughout the City. A further question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee and Richard Holborn, Director, Engineering Services, regarding: • collaboration between various City departments, including the Finance department to ensure the ITMP is financially sustainable; • timelines for reporting back, with Mr. Holborn advising that once endorsed, the Plan will be out for public and stakeholder engagement for 30 days to provide input, then the final ITMP report would be publicly available; • creating a dedicated bike network in the downtown area, and pr ioritizing connecting new density areas to the GO station; • examining a partial interchange alternative, and widening of Church Street, south of the 401 and extension of 5th Concession Road, • exploring all financial options and possibilities either through developers, development charges, oversizing costs for arterial roads, or other funding sources; • the importance of the Taunton/Steeles connection, and the widening of Steeles Road prior to the widening of Taunton Road; • capital budget forecast for the trail expansion system of $1.8 million, with Staff advising that trail projects can also be accommodated through road reconstruction projects where there are opportunities for trail expansions; • streamlining timelines for active transportation projects, integrated road systems, multi-use paths on boulevards, and resurfacing pr ograms; • the importance of improving traffic flow, and interchanges at Whites Road and Brock Road; and, • the City applying f or a “Bicycle Friendly Community Award”. Recommendation: Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Brenner 1. That the Draft Integrated Transportation Master Plan prepared by IBI Group dated January 2021 be endorsed in principle; 2. That the recommendations from the Draft Integrated Transportation Master Plan be considered, along with all other municipal priorities, through future annual municipal plans and budget processes; and, 3 - 20 - Executive Committee Meeting Minutes March 1, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor McLean 3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried 4.2 (Acting) Director, Community Services, Report CS 13-21 Cultural Strategic Plan- Mid-term Update A question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee and Staff regarding: • an update on the public engagement process for the cultural strategic plan, with staff advising that they are in regular contact with stakeholders to collect feedback and adapt the Plan to changing economies, and unforeseen events; • the importance of engaging seniors, and staff conducting cultural check-ins to identify and address gaps, and engage communities in the City’s hamlets; and, • the Performing Arts Centre Executive Director position, with Marisa Carpino, Chief Administrative Officer, advising that the hiring for the position was paused, along with the City Centre Project, and that funds were allocated in the 2021 budget to reflect a 4th quarter hire should the project continue at that time. Recommendation: Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Mayor Ryan 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. Carried 4.3 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 04-21 Beachfront Park Rehabilitation & Needs Assessment - Public Engagement Work Plan and Project Status Update 4 - 21 - Executive Committee Meeting Minutes March 1, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor McLean A question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee and Richard Holborn, Director, Engineering Services, regarding: • ensuring clarity on timelines, with a May 2021 start-date and plan for Committee approval on the Beachfront Park Rehabilitation & Needs Assessment plan in November 2021; • providing quarterly or semiannual status updates on the Project; • ensuring that the design of the elevated boardwalk is resilient to high water levels and wave action along the shoreline with Mr. Holborn advising that the conceptual design consultant and c oastal engineer worked collaboratively with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority on the boardwalk design; and, • whether higher lighting options could be considered above the minimum pedestrian scale lighting to increase safety for those walking at night. Recommendation: Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Cumming 1. That Report ENG 04-21 regarding a Public Engagement Work Plan and Project Status Update for Beachfront Park, as a follow-up to Report ENG 12-20 and in response to Resolution #465/20, be received for information; 2. That the Draft Concept Plans attached to Report ENG 04-21 be used to commence the public engagement and consultation process to arrive at a final preferred concept plan for Council endorsement through a future report; and, 3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried Later in the Meeting (See Following Motion) Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Cumming That the main motion be amended by adding the following as a new Item 3 and the recommendation renumbered accordingly: That staff be directed to report back with a status update on the Beachfront Park Rehabilitation & Needs Assessment Project no later than the third quarter of 2021. 5 - 22 - Executive Committee Meeting Minutes March 1, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor McLean Carried The Main Motion, as amended, was then Carried. 4.4 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 05-21 Automated Speed Enforcement Implementation A question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee and staff regarding: • inclusion of the Automated Speed Enforcement Implementation project in the 2021 budget when the funds had already been approved in 2020, with Staff advising that the project was budgeted in 2020, however, due to the COVID-19 Pandemic the implementation of the project was paused, and the funds needed to be reallocated in 2021 in order to move the initiative forward; • an overview of the costs associated to partake in the program; • automated Speed Enforcement Implementation launching in July, 2021 once all agreements were executed and mechanisms were in place to issue tickets and monitor the camera; • the Project being feasible due to Bill 65, Safer School Zones Act, 2017, and the City entering into an agreement with the City of Toronto for the joint processing centre that would store data from the camera; • a plan for the implementation of one camera that would be rotated throughout each of the 13 community safety zones, • the intent of the project being to reduce safety hazards and make the community safer, and not being revenue driven, with Staff confirming that the revenue is shared with the Region of Durham, and would not cover the cost of the program; • signage to inform the public 90 days in advance of the new speed enforcement camera which may defeat the purpose and the possibility of advising the P rovince of this viewpoint; and, • staff providing an update report in June 2021 on the status of the agreements and the list of the rotating locations. Recommendation: Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Cumming 1. That the automated speed enforcement program as outlined in Report ENG 05-21 be endorsed by Council for implementation in 2021 subject to budget approval; 6 - 23 - Executive Committee Meeting Minutes March 1, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor McLean 2. That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute the required agreements for operation of the program in a form satisfactory to the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, the Director, Finance & Treasurer, and the parties, namely: a. Redflex Traffic Systems (Canada) Limited; b. The Ministry of Transportation, Ontario; and, c. The City of Toronto; 3. That one automated speed enforcement mobile camera be installed in the Community Safety Zone on Liverpool Road between Bayly Street and Wharf Street, consistent with Resolution #364/20, as part of the initial rollout of the program and that additional mobile cameras be added as approved funds permit; 4. That Council request the Province of Ontario to permit the use of an Administrative Monetary Penalty System for offenses issued by Automated Speed Enforcement; and, 5. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Carried Later in the Meeting (See Following Motion) Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Mayor Ryan That the main motion be amended by adding the following as a new Item 5 and the recommendation renumbered accordingly: That staff be directed to report back on the status of the Automated Speed Enforcement Implementation program no later than the end of June, 2021. Carried The Main Motion, as amended, was then Carried Unanimously on a Recorded Vote. 4.5 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 03-21 7 - 24 - Executive Committee Meeting Minutes March 1, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor McLean Statement of the Treasurer Respecting 2020 Remuneration and Expenses of Members of Council and Council Appointees to Boards, Agencies and Committees Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Brenner Recommendation: It is recommended that Report FIN 03-21 of the Director, Finance & Treasurer regarding the Statement of the Treasurer respecting Remuneration and Expenses of Members of Council and Council Appointees for the year 2020 be received for information. Carried 4.6 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 08-21 2020 Sustainable Pickering Year-in-Review Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Butt Recommendation: That Report PLN 08-21 of the Director, City Development & CBO, on the release of the 2020 Sustainable Pickering Year-in-Review, be received for information. Carried 5. Other Business There was no other business. 6. Adjournment Moved by Councillor Cumming Seconded by Councillor Butt That the meeting be adjourned. Carried The meeting adjourned at 3:41 pm. 8 - 25 - Special Council Meeting Minutes March 1, 2021 Electronic Meeting Immediately Following the Executive Committee Meeting Present: Mayor David Ryan Councillors: K. Ashe M. Brenner S. Butt I. Cumming B. McLean D. Pickles Also Present: M. Carpino - Chief Administrative Officer K. Bentley - Director, City Development & CBO P. Bigioni - Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor B. Duffield - (Acting) Director, Community Services S. Karwowski - Director, Finance & Treasurer S. Cassel - City Clerk C. Rose - Chief Planner N. Surti - Manager, Development Review & Urban Design C. Blumenberg - Deputy Clerk E. Martelluzzi - Planner ll, Heritage 1. Roll Call The City Clerk certified that all Members of Council were present and participating electronically in accordance with By-law 7771/20. 2. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 3. Delegations There were no delegations. 4. Matters for Consideration 4.1 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 13-21 Recommendation to List 301 Kingston Road on the Municipal Heritage Register - 301 Kingston Road - 26 - Special Council Meeting Minutes March 1, 2021 Electronic Meeting Immediately Following the Executive Committee Meeting A question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and City Development Staff, regarding: • the subject property being identified as a potential heritage site through the Kingston Road Corridor Study and the pertinence of the property in question, with regards to the Cultural Heritage Plan and its inclusion on the register. Mr. Bentley advised that Staff were intending to bring a report forward for all properties, however due to the risk of this building being demolished, the listing of 301 Kingston Road needed to be expedited; • how this property may meet the qualifications of designation and whether it would be restored, Nilesh Surti, Manager, Development Review & Urban Design advised that staff needed time to conduct a detailed needs analysis on the heritage attributes, including built and cultural characteristics, as well as consultation with the Heritage Advisory Committee; • ensuring that the forthcoming evaluation of the property occurs within the context of further development and intensification. Mr. Bentley advised that the Municipal Heritage Register is a tool to protect heritage assets to permit re-development of the site and continuation of integrating the building in future development; and, • timelines for staff to report back on the additional identified properties along the Kingston corridor that may need to be added to the Heritage Registry to protect these heritage assets. Resolution # 536/21 Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Butt 1. That Report PLN 13-21 of the Director, City Development & CBO, regarding the listing of 301 Kingston Road on the Municipal Heritage Register be received; 2. That Council endorse the recommendations of the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee, dated November 25, 2020 to list 301 Kingston Road on the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register; and, 3. That staff be directed to take necessary actions to include 301 Kingston Road on the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register. Carried on a Recorded Vote as Follows: Yes No Councillor Ashe Councillor Cumming Councillor Butt - 27 - Special Council Meeting Minutes March 1, 2021 Electronic Meeting Immediately Following the Executive Committee Meeting Councillor Brenner Councillor McLean Councillor Pickles Mayor Ryan 5. Confirmation By-law By-law Number 7822/21 Councillor McLean, seconded by Councillor Pickles moved for leave to introduce a by-law of the City of Pickering to confirm the proceedings of March 1, 2021. Carried 6. Adjournment Moved by Councillor Ashe Seconded by Councillor Cumming That the meeting be adjourned. Carried The meeting adjourned at 4:08 p.m. Dated this 1st of March, 2021. David Ryan, Mayor Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 28 - Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes March 1, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles Present: Mayor David Ryan Councillors: K. Ashe M. Brenner S. Butt I. Cumming B. McLean D. Pickles Also Present: M. Carpino - Chief Administrative Officer K. Bentley - Director, City Development & CBO P. Bigioni - Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor F. Jadoon - Director, Economic Development & Strategic Projects S. Cassel - City Clerk C. Rose - Chief Planner N. Surti - Manager, Development Review & Urban Design D. Wylie - Manger of Zoning and Administration C. Blumenberg - Deputy Clerk M. Kish - Principal Planner, Policy C. Morrison - Planner II I. Lima - Planner I 1. Roll Call The City Clerk certified that all Members of Council were present and participating electronically in accordance with By-law 7771/20. 2. Disclosure of Interest No disclosures of interest were noted. 3. Statutory Public Meetings Councillor Pickles, Chair, gave an outline of the requirements for a Statutory Public Meeting under the Planning Act. He outlined the notification process procedures and also noted that if a person or public body does not make oral or written submissions to the City before the By-law is passed, that person or public body are not entitled to appeal the decision of City Council to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT), and may not be 1 - 29 - Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes March 1, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles entitled to be added as a party to the hearing unless, in the opinion of LPAT, there are reasonable grounds to do so. Catherine Rose, Chief Planner, appeared before the Committee to act as facilitator for the Statutory Public Meeting portion of the meeting, explaining t he process for discussion purposes as well as the order of speakers. 3.1 Information Report No. 06-21 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 03/21 City Initiated Part of Lot 18, Concession 9, Part of Lot 2, Plan 12 (5015 Brock Road) A statutory public meeting was held under the Planning Act, for the purpose of informing the public with respect to the above-noted application. Isabel Lima, Planner I, provided the Committee with an overview of Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 03/21. Through the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, Ms. Lima outlined the subject lands, the previously approved zoning permissions, the revised proposals, and the planning policy framework, noting that the primary purpose of the amendment is to correct a mapping error and re-zone to ORM-Z2-1. Ms. Lima noted that the subject land has an existing commercial and residential use, with 6 parking spaces and complies with the Oakridge’s Moraine Conservation Plan. Sofia Caiado, 14 Oldfield Court, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection and inquired how the zoning amendment would impact surrounding commercial buildings. Ms. Caiado noted that the application may set a precedent, due to it not being an owner initiated process. Catherine Rose, Chief Planner explained that the purpose of the application is to correct a mapping error to restore the existing permissions that the landowner has, in order to bring the property into conformity. Luis Romeiro, 14 Oldfield Court, did not connect to the electronic Committee Meeting to provide his delegation. Chair Pickles asked that the comments from Mr. Romeiro, should he provide any, be shared with the Committee. 4. Delegations 4.1 Glen Easton, GHD Limited 2 - 30 - Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes March 1, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles Re: Report PLN 09-21 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/17 Request for Red-Line Revision of Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-11(R) 1133373 Ontario Inc. and Lebovic Enterprises Limited Part of Lot 22, 23, 24 & 25, Concession 4 Seaton Community City of Pickering Glen Easton, GHD Limited, Planning Consultant for the applicant, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection and reported that their client is in agreement with the recommendations of Report PLN 09-21 and that he was available for questions from the Committee. 4.2 Mark Jacobs, The Biglieri Group Limited Re: Report PLN 12-21 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 12/18 Stuart Mark Golvin and JMPM Holdings Ltd. Part of Lot 19, Range 3, B.F.C., Part 1, 40R-8832 and Part 1, 40R-10527 (1635 Bayly Street) Mark Jacobs, The Biglieri Group Limited, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection on behalf of the applicant and noted that the ap plication proposes to add animal boarding, a retail store, a private school, and an additional restaurant. Mr. Jacobs expressed enthusiasm for the increased number of businesses the proposal would create, adding that his clients support the staff recommendations of Report PLN 12-21. Mr. Jacobs discussed the supporting studies completed, including a traffic study to provide traffic calming measures. A question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee and Mr. Jacobs regarding: • traffic concerns and the need for a stop light at Bayly and Salk Road noting that the Region of Durham required a distance separation of at least 300 m and the di stance being only 250 metres from the existing signal at Brock Road and Bayly Street; • whether the applicant would be undertaking a new traffic study to obtain current traffic information; • ensuring more pedestrian connectivity with pedestrian crossings; and, the use of an environmental assessment to examine traffic signals and increase safe crossing opportunities for pedestrians. 3 - 31 - Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes March 1, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles 5. Planning & Development Reports 5.1 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 09-21 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/17 Request for Red-Line Revision of Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-11(R) 1133373 Ontario Inc. and Lebovic Enterprises Limited Part of Lot 22, 23, 24 & 25, Concession 4 Seaton Community City of Pickering A brief question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee and Staff regarding the public notification process and ensuring t hat any public comments from residents were addressed, with Catherine Rose, Chief Planner, advising that the application was circulated to those living within a 150 metre radius of the subject lands as well as any interested parties, and that no concerns were expressed by any individuals. Ms. Rose added that the application was proposing a modest change to the existing plan, and zoning by-law due to grading. Recommendation: Moved by Councillor McLean Seconded by Councillor Ashe 1. That the Revision to Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-11(R) submitted by 1133373 Ontario Inc., to permit a red-line revision to a draft approved plan of subdivision on lands being Part of Lots 22, 23, 24 & 25 C oncession 4, as shown on the Applicant’s Revised Plan Attachment #2 to Report PLN 09- 21, be endorsed; 2. That the proposed amendments to the conditions of draft plan of subdivision approval to implement Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-11(R) as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 09-21 be endorsed; 3. That the Local Planning A ppeal Tribunal be advised of City Council’s decision on the request for a red-line revision to Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-11(R) and that the City Solicitor be authorized to attend any Local Planning Appeal Tribunal hearing on the requested red-line revision; and, 4. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/17, submitted by 1133373 Ontario Inc. and Lebovic Enterprises Limited, to implement the red-line revision to Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision SP-2008-11(R), and rezone a remnant block of land at 1255 Whitevale Road for Community 4 - 32 - Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes March 1, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles Node uses be approved, and the draft zoning by-law contained in Appendix II to Report PLN 09-21 be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment. Carried 5.2 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 11-21 Pickering Housing Strategy Study - Status Update A question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee and Staff regarding: • the next phase of the Housing Strategy, which includes public engagement and the release of the consultant’s report in April 2021; • ensuring the phase 1 report include a gap analysis, and the phase 2 progress report is presented to the Committee in June 2021; • the stakeholders for the Study, which included developers, representatives from the building community, representatives from the non-profit sector, Region of Durham Housing Department, real estate agents, and other interested parties; and, • clarification on the timelines for the various phases outlined in the Report and the need to include timelines and target dates for each phase in future reports on this matter. Catherine Rose, Chief Planner advised that a public open house would be held at the end o f April 2021, and that the date would be provided to Members of the Committee in advance. Staff further noted that a preferred housing strategy and action plan would be presented at the June 2021 Planning and Development Committee meeting, with the f inal draft housing strategy being presented to Council for endorsement in September 2021. Recommendation: Moved by Councillor Butt Seconded by Councillor Brenner That Report PLN 11-21 of the Director, City Development & CBO, providing an update on the status of the City of Pickering Housing Strategy Study, be received for information. Carried 5.3 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 12-21 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 12/18 5 - 33 - Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes March 1, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles Stuart Mark Golvin and JMPM Holdings Ltd. Part of Lot 19, Range 3, B.F.C., Part 1, 40R-8832 and Part 1, 40R-10527 (1635 Bayly Street) A brief question and answer period ensued between Members of the Committee and Staff regarding: • expected growth from the development of the subject lands and its adverse impact to traffic; • receiving distance information between the traffic signals at Brock Road and Toy Avenue from Staff for continued discussions at the Durham Region Works Committee; and, • the need for another traffic study, as the one conducted in June 2020 was during t he height of the COVID-19 pandemic and the P rovincial “Stay at Home” orders. Recommendation: Moved by Councillor McLean Seconded by Councillor Ashe That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 12/18, submitted by Stuart Mark Golvin and JMPM Holdings Ltd., to permit “animal boarding establishment”, “auction and estate sales house”, “day care centre”, and other site-specific modifications to By-law 6974/09, as amended, on the lands municipally known as 1635 Bayly Street, be approved, and that the draft Zoning By-law Amendment as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 12-21 be finalized and forwarded to Council. Carried 6. Other Business 6.1 Councillor Brenner inquired about the list of pre-consultations, with Kyle Bentley, Director, City Development & CBO, advising that the list was provided to Members of Council last week, and would be provided on a monthly basis going forward and that staff would monitor that timeframe to see if any changes were needed. 6.2 Councillor Brenner inquired about utilizing a cumulative impact approach of how transportation, new developments, and traffic impact one another, and questioned whether staff could complete this review holistically, to understand the cumulative effect. Kyle Bentley, Director, City Development & CBO advised 6 - 34 - Planning & Development Committee Meeting Minutes March 1, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles that staff are engaged in the transportation master plan process and would examine appropriate tracking mechanisms. 7. A djournment Moved by Councillor Ashe Seconded by Councillor McLean That the meeting be adjourned. Carried The meeting adjourned at 7:50 pm. 7 - 35 - Executive Committee Budget Meeting Minutes March 4, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 9:00 am Chair: Mayor Ryan Present: Mayor David Ryan Councillors: K. Ashe M. Brenner S. Butt I. Cumming B. McLean D. Pickles Also Present: M. Carpino - Chief Administrative Officer K. Bentley - Director, City Development & CBO P. Bigioni - Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor J. Eddy - Director, Human Resources J. Hagg - Fire Chief R. Holborn - Director, Engineering Services F. Jadoon - Director, Economic Development & Strategic Projects S. Karwowski - Director, Finance & Treasurer J. Flowers - CEO, Pickering Public Library B. Duffield - Director, Community Services S. Cassel - City Clerk C. Rose - Chief Planner D. Quaife - Division Head, Information Technology J. Halsall - Manager, Budgets & Internal Audit V. Plouffe - Manager, Facilities Capital Projects D. Wylie - Manager, Zoning & Administration C. Blumenberg - Deputy Clerk J. Hanna - Supervisor, Administrative Services J. Litoboroski - Supervisor, Licensing & Enforcement L. Narraway - Supervisor, Animal Services 1. Roll Call/Introduction The City Clerk certified that all Members of Council were present and participating electronically in accordance with By-law 7771/20. 1 - 36 - Executive Committee Budget Meeting Minutes March 4, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 9:00 am Chair: Mayor Ryan Mayor Ryan provided opening remarks, noting that 2021’s Budget is the first electronic budget meeting. He commended staff for their efforts, especially the Finance Department, and highlighted that this is the lowest tax increase in 20 years. 2. Disclosure of Interest 2.1 Councillor McLean declared a conflict of interest under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act with respect to General Government, Heritage Property Tax Rebate, as he has a family member who owns a heritage property, and Grants to Organizations for PARA Marine Search & Rescue, as he is the Chair of the Pickering Auxiliary Rescue Association (PARA). Councillor McLean did not take part in the discussion or vote on these matters. 2.2 Councillor Brenner declared a conflict of interest under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act with respect to salaries and wages in the 2020 Current Budget for Culture, Recreation & Facilities, Programs and the Corporate Services Department, Animal Services, as he has family members employed in these areas. Councillor Brenner did not take part in the discussion or vote on these matters. 3. Delegations Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Brenner That the rules of procedure be suspended to allow a delegation from Paul White. Carried on a Two-Thirds Vote 3.1 Paul W hite, President Fairport Beach Neighbourhood Association Re: Frenchman's Bay Rotary Park West - Hours of Operation and Parking on Adjacent Streets in the Summer Mr. Paul White, President, Fairport Beach Neighbourhood Association, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection and spoke to the importance of Frenchman’s Bay Rotary West Park. Mr. White stated that the Fairport Beach Neighbourhood Association has been involved with the park since the 1990’s. Mr. White spoke to the signage at the park and the hours of operation being until 12:00 am, which can be correlated to after hour issues related to public nuisance i ssues at the park. He advised that hours of operations at other municipal parks are until 2 - 37 - Executive Committee Budget Meeting Minutes March 4, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 9:00 am Chair: Mayor Ryan 10:00 pm, and requested that Council re-examine the ho urs of operation at Frenchman’s Bay Rotary West Park. 3.2 Mark Mariano, City of Pickering Senior Tennis League Re: Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex – Lack of Adequate Lighting in the Indoor Tennis Courts Mark Mariano, Senior Tennis League, joined the electronic meeting via audio connection to highlight that many residents enjoy and utilize the indoor tennis courts, and that tennis is a form of exercise and interaction for many people in the community. Mr. Mariano illustrated the conditions of the courts, specifically the diminished brightness of the lights. Mr. Mariano advocated that budget funds be allocated for LED lighting and court surface improvements. He also offered the assistance of Senior Tennis League members to do a walk through with staff to provide feedback on the lighting improvements. 4. Presentations 4.1 Presentation by the Chief Administrative Officer and the Director, Finance & Treasurer with respect to the 2021 Current and Capital Budgets Marisa Carpino, Chief Administrative Officer, appeared before the Committee and introduced the 2021 Current and Capital Budgets, and thanked staff for their efforts in bringing the budget before the Committee. She stated that the 2021 Budgets have a recommended levy increase of 1.45% for the City’s share. Ms. Carpino noted that the 2021 Budgets ensure continuity of core services, and will also help the City achieve its strategic objectives, including but not limited to purchasing land for the bridge ov er the 401, connecting Squires Beach Road, Whitevale Master Plan Drainage project, completing a Diversity and Inclusion Strategy, the Nuclear Generating Station Financial Economic and Social Impact Study and the Waterfront Nautical Village Visioning Exercise. Ms. Carpino applauded staff for adapting to unforeseen circumstances, delivering services virtually, and resilience through the continuing COVID-19 pandemic. She noted that the financial health of the City is stable, despite pressures of COVID-19 and highlighted the lessons learned which are reflected in the 2021 Current and C apital Budgets. Stan Karwowski, Director, Finance & Treasurer, appeared before the Committee via electronic connection and thanked fellow Directors and their teams for their assistance in preparing the 2021 Current and Capital Budgets. Through the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Karwowski provided a 2021 Budget financial overview. He outlined the 2021 Draft Current and Capital Budgets, and emphasized the 2021 Budget Levy increase, and compared this increase with neighboring municipalities. He provided an overview of the 2021 Budget net expenditures and revenues, noting 3 - 38 - Executive Committee Budget Meeting Minutes March 4, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 9:00 am Chair: Mayor Ryan that assessment growth continues to be the City’s major source of revenue. Mr. Karwowski explained that the 2021 Budget increases funding to reserves to reduce reliance on external debt and loans, and noted that the proposed 1.45% levy increase does not take into consideration t he re-assessment of homes as this is not being completed until 2022 by MPAC, noting there is no financial impact due t o reassessment this year. Mr. Karwowski explained that the average daily cost of municipal services is $5.55 per day for a wide range of City services, including but not limited to 24hr/7 day a week fire services, snow removal and other vital services. Mr. Karwowski spoke about the City’s debt capacity, and the intent to bring forward a 5 year Financial Strategic Plan, which will take into consideration planned capital projects, such as the animal shelter and replacement of Fire Hall number 5, inclusive of op erational costs and revenue inputs for Council’s consideration. He advised that the City will issue the RFP for the 5 year Financial Strategic Plan in the near future. Mr. Karwowski continued his presentation explaining that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, community and sports groups will save approximately $170,000 per year due to most user fees remaining at 2020 rates, and change of user permit fees from seasonal to hourly at the November 2019 rate. Mr. Karwowski emphasized the 2021 Budget communication statistics, including the social media campaign, and the budgets being posted on the City website for one month for public input. He highlighted the Council endorsed Property Tax Deferral Program, which is a 3 month deferral to assist residential property owners that have been financially impacted by the COVID-19, the Tax Arrears Program and Low Income Seniors/Persons with disabilities Property Tax Program. A question and answer period ensued between Members of Council and Stan Karwowski, Director, Finance & Treasurer regarding: • emphasis that the 1.45% tax levy increase would impact the average Pickering household by approximately $28.00 per year and the City maintaining a leadership position on having the lowest tax rate amongst Durham lakeshore municipalities; • promoting the pre-authorized payment plan with the City of Pickering as a great tool for property tax payments; • differentiating between the City of Pickering tax levy and Durham Region tax levy; • Mr. Karwowski advised that 8% of taxes paid by residents for goods and services is provided to municipalities, where t he remaining 90% is shared by upper levels of government noting that the local government level is responsible for infrastructure and v ital services which highlights an imbalance between revenues and responsibilities; 4 - 39 - Executive Committee Budget Meeting Minutes March 4, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 9:00 am Chair: Mayor Ryan • appreciation for the social conscience lens on the 2021 Draft Current and Capital Budgets; • increase in assessment growth, being 2.9%, and the correlation to building permit r evenue, with Staff noting there is a delay between when building permits are issued and when the assessment growth is realized and when MPAC adds the new property to the assessment roll; • ways to reduce the residential tax burden, and the possibility of setting a special tax rate for seniors and whether this could be advocated by AMO to the Province; • inclusion of government grants in the B udget, and the recent announcement by the province for an additional $500 million to help municipalities respond to ongoing and unprecedented 2021 and 2022 COVID-19 operating pressures; • whether the additional funding from the provincial government could be used to offset existing deficits, with Mr. Karwowski responding that it would be premature to provide a r esponse as the announcement was just made, however Staff would review and provide a response to Council prior to the March 22nd Council Meeting; • what percentage of the budget goes into the Rate Stabilization Reserves and the amount transferred from 2020 to 2021; • unfunded liability and the City’s position in this regard, with Mr. Karwowski noting that the City self-insures WSIB claims and that $700,000 would be contributed to this fund in 2021. He stated that approximately $200,000 that was spent on insurance policies will now be redirected to this fund with a goal of continuing to build it up t o cover future claims; • importance of key performance indicators, that are realistic and achievable and that expenses and projects are tracked to ensure they are completed by the end of the year in which they were budgeted and providing updates to Council on what budget projects had been achieved; • percentage of non-residential vs residential, noting it has been decreasing due to the strong residential growth in Seaton and that a significant commercial opening would be occurring this year and would be added to the tax roll for 2022; • the risk and status of assessment appeals, with staff confirming t hat internal employees deal with the majority of these appeals unless they are unique; • maximum debt ratio, which is based on 25% of City owned revenues noting that the City cannot exceed $24.3 million; and, • exploring ideas for new revenue streams, and contributing funds in a reserve for unanticipated needs. It was the consensus of the Committee to take a short recess. 5 - 40 - Executive Committee Budget Meeting Minutes March 4, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 9:00 am Chair: Mayor Ryan The Committee recessed at 10:41 am and reconvened at 10:55 am. Upon reconvening, the City Clerk certified that all Members of Council were once again present and participating electronically in accordance with By-law 7771/20. 5. Matters for Consideration 5.1 Review and Recommendations of the 2021 Capital Budget Summary A question and answer period ensued regarding capital expenditures for the Civic Complex and whether any of the provincial grant money or development charges (DC’s) could be used for this project. Staff advised that the grant funding rules would need to be reviewed prior to confirming whether they could be used for this purpose and that certain rules also applied to the use of DC funds. Moved by Councillor Butt That the 2021 Capital Budget for the Civic Complex be approved and presented to Council on March 22, 2021. Carried Moved by Pickles That the 2021 Capital Budget for the Dunbarton Pool be approved and presented to Council on March 22, 2021. Carried Moved by Councillor Butt That the 2021 Capital Budget for the Don Beer Arena be ap proved and presented to Council on March 22, 2021. Carried A question and answer period ensued regarding the Community Centres budget, and the Pickering Heritage Community Centre, with staff confirming the space will be utilized by the community, and will include archival storage space for City and Library records. Ms. Carpino noted that a detailed plan will be brought forward in the fall of 2021 for Council approval, outlining the $4 million dollar grant that had be en received, and exploring options such as the sale of the East Shore Community Centre as a strategy being considered, as the facility is at the end of life. Staff advised that opportunities are being sought with developers, and other 6 - 41 - Executive Committee Budget Meeting Minutes March 4, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 9:00 am Chair: Mayor Ryan organizations, confirming that the project will not impact the Green Lawn Bowling Club. Further questions were raised regarding the inclusion of the sale of the East Shore Community Centre in the budget and confirmation that this would be brought back before Council prior to any action being taken, as to date, there had been no Council direction provided in this regard. Moved by Councillor Pickles That the 2021 Capital Budget for Community Centres be approved and presented to Council on March 22, 2021. Carried A question and answer period ensued regarding the Seaton Community Centre, with staff providing an upd ate on the design process underway to understand the needs. Staff noted that the construction will include a multi-purpose facility, with a leisure pool, lane swim area, senior’s older activity space and library. Further discussion ensued regarding the possibility of designating the Community Centre as an older adult facility to open up funding opportunities with Marisa Carpino, CAO, advising that staff would look into this and noted that the Centre will align with the Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan, and that staff would be exploring naming rights with stakeholders. Moved by Councillor Pickles That the 2021 Capital Budget for the Seaton Community Centre be approved and presented to Council on March 22, 2021. Carried A brief question and answer period ensued regarding the earlier delegation and confirmation that funds were included in the 2021 Budget to address the indoor tennis court revitalization. Moved by Councillor McLean That the 2021 Capital Budget for the Recreation Complex – Core be appr oved and presented to Council on March 22, 2021. Carried A brief question and answer period ensued regarding the opening of the Recreation Complex Pool, and availability of Dubarton Pool, with staff confirming that they were 7 - 42 - Executive Committee Budget Meeting Minutes March 4, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 9:00 am Chair: Mayor Ryan taking an optimistic approach to reopen the Recreation Complex Pool in late August, early September. Staff noted Dunbarton Pool is being used daily, since being permitted to re-open due to COVID-19. Moved by Councillor Pickles That the 2021 Capital Budget for the Recreation Complex – Pool be appr oved and presented to Council on March 22, 2021. Carried A question and answer period ensued regarding security cameras at the Recreation Complex arenas. Staff advised that the cameras are being upgraded, simultaneously as the space is being used by Public Health as a COVID-19 vaccination site. Staff noted that it has been a beneficial partnership in permitting capital improvements to occur as long as it does not affect vaccination plans. Moved by Councillor Brenner That the 2021 Capital Budget for the Recreation Complex – Arenas be approved and presented to Council on March 22, 2021. Carried A question and answer period ensued regarding the repairs to address drainage issues, temporary office space, and the path from upper to lower side and whether any of these uses would carry over into the long term use for the Museum. Moved by Councillor Butt That the 2021 Capital Budget for the Museum be approved and presented to Council on March 22, 2021. Carried Moved by Councillor Butt That the 2021 Capital Budget for Property Maintenance be approved and presented to Council on March 22, 2021. Carried 8 - 43 - Executive Committee Budget Meeting Minutes March 4, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 9:00 am Chair: Mayor Ryan Moved by Councillor Pickles That the 2021 Capital Budget for Roads Equipment be approved and presented to Council on March 22, 2021. Carried A question and answer period ensued regarding the ball diamond in Claremont Memorial Park, and the 2022 Capital Budget forecast for Parks. Staff advised that the Playground Equipment Master Plan will be utilized for the 2022 capital forecast. A discussion ensued on funding for the Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park project completion, with staff confirming that the project is 50% funded by the City and 50% funded by Development Charges. Council enquired about the proposed new skateboard park, with staff advising that potential locations are being narrowed down, following the Skateboard Park Strategy and community consultation. A brief discussion ensued on parks recreation equipment requirements and flexibility in meeting community needs, including the use of age friendly equipment. Staff advised that the Playground Equipment Master Plan is used in tandem with the yearly inspection process which comes out of the 2021 Current Budget. Moved by Councillor Butt That the 2021 Capital Budget for Parks be approved and presented to Council on March 22, 2021. Carried A question and answer period ensued regarding the purchase of a library vehicle, which will allow mobility for community programming. Staff advised that the mobile library will be launched in 2021. Moved by Councillor Butt That the 2021 Capital Budget for Fleet Vehicles be approved and presented to Council on March 22, 2021. Carried A question and answer period ensued on the Municipal Broadband Strategy, and Provincial and Federal funding opportunities, including extending Wi-Fi coverage to parks and video surveillance. Staff advised that there are currently 84 parks to target, noting that power connectivity and CCTV camera monitoring may be a 9 - 44 - Executive Committee Budget Meeting Minutes March 4, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 9:00 am Chair: Mayor Ryan challenge for cameras in public parks and that staff are considering all options and will bring forward a report to Council at an appropriate time. Moved by Councillor McLean That the 2021 Capital Budget for Information Technology be approved and presented to Council on March 22, 2021. Carried Moved by Councillor Cumming That the 2021 Capital Budget for Animal Services be approved and presented to Council on March 22, 2021. Carried A question and answer period ensued regarding the recurring issues with the streetlights on Valley Farm near the Recreation Centre despite the replacement of lamps and bulbs and whether any budget dollars could be used to address this issue. Further discussion ensued regarding the traffic signals and accessibility measures that were slated to be installed in 2020 with Staff advising that the delay was caused by COVID and that the initiative would restart in 2021. Moved by Councillor Butt That the 2021 Capital Budget for Streetlights & Signalization be approved and presented to Council on March 22, 2021. Carried Moved by Councillor Pickles That the 2021 Capital Budget for Sidewalks be approved and presented to Council on March 22, 2021. Carried A question and answer period ensued regarding the drainage study in Claremont, to ensure the work is undertaken in an efficient manner, and the Whitevale Master drainage Plan Implementation timeline for release of tender. Moved by Councillor Brenner 10 - 45 - Executive Committee Budget Meeting Minutes March 4, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 9:00 am Chair: Mayor Ryan That the 2021 Capital Budget for Roads Projects be approved and presented to Council on March 22, 2021. Carried Moved by Councillor Brenner That the 2021 Capital Budget for Water Resources & Development Services be approved and presented to Council on March 22, 2021. Carried Moved by Councillor Cumming That the 2021 Capital Budget for Development Projects – (DC Funded) be approved and presented to Council on March 22, 2021. Carried Moved by Councillor Cumming That the 2021 Capital Budget for Finance and Taxation be approved and presented to Council on March 22, 2021. Carried A brief discussion ensued regarding the significance of the new fire station in Duffin Heights, due to the significant development of Seaton and Duffin Heights community. Moved by Councillor Pickles That the 2021 Capital Budget for Fire Services be approved and presented to Council on March 22, 2021. Carried Moved by Councillor Cumming That the 2021 Capital Budget for Human Resources be approved and presented to Council on March 22, 2021. 11 - 46 - Executive Committee Budget Meeting Minutes March 4, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 9:00 am Chair: Mayor Ryan Carried A question and answer period ensued regarding the Claremont Library hours of operation. Jackie Flowers, Chief Executive Officer, Pickering Public Library, confirmed that a new technological card access system will permit t he library to be open for extended hours, and residents will be able to enter the library and access services, such as the public Wi-Fi, during the same hours of operation as other library branches. Ms. Flowers further noted that this will be possible through a card access system and self-checkout machines and that this would be a one year pilot project. Moved by Councillor Cumming That the 2021 Capital Budget for the Library be approved and presented to Council on March 22, 2021. Carried Moved by Councillor Butt That the 2021 Capital Budget for the Seaton Regional Library be approved and presented to Council on March 22, 2021. Carried Moved by Councillor McLean That the Committee recess for lunch. Carried The Committee recessed at 12:00 p.m. and reconvened at 1:00 p.m.Upon reconvening, the City Clerk certified that all Members of Council were once again present and participating electronically in accordance with By-law 7771/20. 5.2 Review and Recommendations of the 2021 Current Budget Summary A question and answer period ensued regarding the 2021 Current Budget on key performance indicators and leveraging dollars, i ncluding the Economic Development Strategy to identify what exists, what the gaps are and what the municipality is looking to achieve to identify and measure success. Staff were requested to provide an update on the KPI’s in September as the City enters into budget preparations for 2022. Further discussion ensued regarding the Food Security Strategy and using resources from the Region of Durham to report back to Council at the end of June or 12 - 47 - Executive Committee Budget Meeting Minutes March 4, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 9:00 am Chair: Mayor Ryan in September on this program. Discussion continued regarding the two new staffing positions being proposed in the Office of the CAO and whether the positons were unionized, whether they needed to be made permanent in 2021 and the various tasks and projects that they would be responsible for. Moved by Councillor Butt That the 2021 Current Budget for the Office of the CAO Department be approved and presented to Council on March 22, 2021. Carried Moved by Councillor Butt That the 2021 Current Budget for the City Development Department be approved and presented to Council on March 22, 2021. Carried A discussion ensued regarding the Pickering Arts Centre and Executive Director position with the City Centre Project currently on hold, with Staff noting that the amount budgeted this year was a quarter of the salary amount should the Project move ahead after a report is presented to Council in the fall. Moved by Councillor Cumming That the 2021 Current Budget for Culture, Recreation & Facilities be appr oved and presented to Council on March 22, 2021 save and except items related to salaries and wages for Programs. Carried Having previously declared a conflict of interest, Councillor Brenner did not vote on the following i tem. Moved by Councillor Cumming That the 2021 Current Budget items related to the salaries and wages for Programs be approved and presented to Council on March 22, 2021. Carried Moved by Councillor Brenner 13 - 48 - Executive Committee Budget Meeting Minutes March 4, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 9:00 am Chair: Mayor Ryan That the 2021 Current Budget for Public Works be approved and presented to Council on March 22, 2021. Carried Moved by Councillor Pickles That the 2021 Current Budget for the Corporate Services Department be approved and presented to Council on March 22, 2021, save and except the salaries and wages for Animal Services. Carried Having previously declared a conflict of interest, Councillor Brenner did not vote on the following i tem. Moved by Councillor Cumming That the 2021 Current Budget items related to salaries and wages for Animal Services be approved and presented to Council on March 22, 2021. Carried A question and answer period ensued regarding the cost for the Automated Speed Enforcement program being o ffset by revenues, with Staff confirming that there are several unknowns with regards to the Program and that there is a delay in when the City will receive funds from tickets due to the processing through the Provincial Offenses Act process. Further discussion ensued regarding the possibility of purchasing a second camera and the associated financial obligations. Moved by Councillor Butt That the 2021 Current Budget for the Engineering Services Department be approved and presented to Council on March 22, 2021. Carried A question and answer period ensued regarding the interest on investments, and how the money is invested. Staff confirmed that a safe and secure investment strategy is being explored, including pooling of investments and development of the strategy with the Region. Moved by Councillor Butt 14 - 49 - Executive Committee Budget Meeting Minutes March 4, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 9:00 am Chair: Mayor Ryan That the 2021 Current Budget for the Finance Department be approved and presented to Council on March 22, 2021. Carried A question and answer period ensued regarding new positions, and ensuring there is access to fire and rescue training grounds, due to COVID-19 delays. Staff noted that recruitment is on-going, and does address diversity to be reflective of the community. Moved by Councillor Pickles That the 2021 Current Budget for the Fire Services Department be approved and presented to Council on March 22, 2021. Carried Moved by Councillor Cumming That the 2021 Current Budget for the Human Resources Department be approved and presented to Council on March 22, 2021. Carried Moved by Councillor Brenner That the 2021 Current Budget for Libraries be approved and presented to Council on March 22, 2021. Carried Moved by Councillor Ashe That the 2021 Current Budget for General Government be approved and presented to Council on March 22, 2021, save and except items related to the Heritage Property Tax Rebate. Carried Having previously declared a conflict of interest, Councillor McLean did not vote on the following i tem. 15 - 50 - Executive Committee Budget Meeting Minutes March 4, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 9:00 am Chair: Mayor Ryan Moved by Councillor Cumming That the 2021 Current Budget for items related to the Heritage Property Tax Rebate Program be approved and presented to Council on March 22, 2021. Carried Moved by Councillor Ashe That the 2021 Current Budget for Mayor Ryan be approved and presented to Council on March 22, 2021. Carried Moved by Councillor Pickles That the 2021 Current Budgets for Councillor Ashe, Councillor McLean, Councillor Pickles, Councillor Brenner, Councillor Cumming, and Councillor Butt be approved and presented to Council on March 22, 2021. Carried Moved by Councillor Brenner That the 2021 Current Budget for Council Support be approved and pr esented t o Council on March 22, 2021. Carried Moved by Councillor Butt That the 2021 Current Budget for Grants to Organizations be approved and presented to Council on March 22, 2021, save and except items related to the Pickering Auxiliary Rescue Association (PARA) Marine Search and Rescue grant. Carried Having previously declared a conflict of interest, Councillor McLean did not vote on the following i tem. Moved by Councillor Brenner 16 - 51 - Executive Committee Budget Meeting Minutes March 4, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 9:00 am Chair: Mayor Ryan That the 2021 Current Budget for the items related to the PARA Marine Search & Rescue grant be approved and presented to Council on M arch 22, 2021. Carried 5.3 Review of Proposed Fees and Charges Brief discussion ensued regarding the start date for ice rentals and user fees for leagues utilizing Don Beer Arena with staff confirming that the start date depends on COVID-19 restrictions, and staff will do all they can to facilitate the use of the Don Beer Arena as soon as feasible. Further discussion ensued on the Provincial announcement for COVID-19 relief to help ensure m unicipalities do not carry operating deficits into 2021. Committee asked staff to identify mechanisms to make changes to the 2021 Budget before it is approved on March 22, 2021, given the approximate $1.5 million Pickering is expected to receive. Mayor Ryan advised that the Treasurer will examine ways how money could be deployed and report back on pr eliminary options for Council approval on March 22, 2021. Moved by Councillor Cumming That the Current budget for User Fees and Charges be approved and presented to Council on March 22, 2021. Carried 6. Other Business There was no other business. 7. Adjournment Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Cumming That the meeting be adjourned. Carried The meeting adjourned at 2:01 p.m. 17 - 52 - Métis Nation of Ontario Intergovernmental Relations March 1, 2021 Mayor Dave Ryan One The E splanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 Dear Mayor Ryan, I am writing to you on behalf of the Métis Nation of Ontario to address an incident of misrepresentation, which occurred during a meeting of the Pickering City Council, on January 25, 2021. An individual by the name of David Grey Eagle attended the m eeting and declared he was representing the Métis Nation of Ontario. Mr. Grey Eagle also noted the Métis had filed a land claim and trespass with the Ontario Superior Court, and that the City of Pickering must consult with the Métis Nation of Ontario with respect to specific municipal lands. While Mr. Grey Eagle may identify as a Métis individual, he does not represent, nor speak on behalf of the Métis Nation of Ontario. The association referred to as the Anishinabek Solutrean Métis Indigenous Nation is not affiliated with the Métis Nation of Ontario. Furthermore, the Métis Nation of Ontario has not filed a land claim and trespass with the Ontario Superior Court, and the Métis Nation of Ontario currently receives consultation notices from the City of Pickering on a regular basis. As you may be aware, the Government of Canada recognizes Métis peoples under Section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982, and the Métis Nation of Ontario is the official government of Métis Citizens in the Province of Ontario. As per the Métis Nation of Ontario’s Regional Consultation Protocols, the Métis Nation of Ontario works with its Regional Consultation Committees to review all consultation notices we receive, including t hose from the City of Pickering. The Métis Nation of Ontario’s Regional Consultation Protocols are posted on our website, www.metisnation.org. We value all of our relationships with municipal partners, and look forward to a continued relationship with the City of Pickering. If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to me directly. 311 – 75 Sherbourne Street | T oronto, ON M5A 2P9 | Tel: 416-977-9881 | metisnation.org Corr. 15-21 - 53 - Elizabeth Harvey, Director, Intergovernmental Relations CC: Councillor Kevin Ashe Councillor Bill McLean Councillor David Pickles Councillor Maurice Brenner Councillor Ian Cumming Councillor Shaheen Butt Susan Cassel, City Clerk 311 – 75 Sherbourne Street | Toronto, ON M5A 2P9 | Tel: 416-977-9881 | metisnation.org 2 - 54 - From: Seniors Health Knowledge Network <brancacl@providencecare.ca> Date: March 16, 2021 at 8:48:20 AM EDT To: "Brenner, Maurice, Councillor" <mbrenner@pickering.ca> Subject: Ontario AFC Network Exchange March 2021 Reply-To: Seniors Health Knowledge Network <brancacl@providencecare.ca> View this email in your browser Dear Maurice, I am excited to share Ontario’s new Creating a more inclusive Ontario: Age-friendly community (AFC) planning guide for municipalities and community organizations. This planning guide replaces Finding the Right Fit: Age-Friendly Community Planning. The new AFC planning guide will better support municipalities and communities in creating, implementing and sustaining local plans that foster age-friendly, inclusive and accessible environments. The 2021 AFC planning guide includes three supporting documents: •Creating a more inclusive Ontario: Diverse populations addendum which offers information to consider when engaging small/urban, immigrant and Indigenous communities with aging populations. •Creating a more inclusive Ontario: Age-friendly community planning toolkit which provides tools and templates to support work throughout the AFC planning and development cycle. Corr. 16-21 - 55 - •Age-friendly community remote events planning resource which provides advice on how to bring a project team and stakeholders together. All four documents are available at ontario.ca/agefriendly and on the provincial AFC website at agefriendlyontario.ca. I encourage you to check out this valuable resource and share it with your stakeholders! Kind regards, Lisa _ Lisa Brancaccio Age-Friendly Communities Knowledge Broker brancacl@providencecare.ca - 56 - Creating a More Inclusive Ontario Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations - 57 - The Creating a More Inclusive Ontario: Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations (https://files.ontario.ca/msaa-age-friendly- community-planning-guide-municipalities-community- organizations-en-2021-01-01.pdf) is supported by two companion documents: •Creating a More Inclusive Ontario: Diverse Populations Addendum (https://files.ontario.ca/msaa-diverse- populations-addendum-en-2021-01-01.pdf). •Creating a More Inclusive Ontario: Age-Friendly Community Planning Toolkit (https://files.ontario.ca/msaa-age-friendly- community-planning-toolkit-en-2021-01-01.pdf). These are Government of Ontario documents produced by the Age-Friendly Communities Outreach Program with funding from the Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility. The Age-Friendly Community Remote Events Planning Resource (https://files.ontario.ca/msaa-age-friendly-com- munities-remote-events-planning-resource-en-2021-01-01.pdf) is a guide to planning and delivering virtual events as a safe, effective and low-cost way to bring your project team and stake- holders together while COVID-19 remains active in Ontario. All URLs provided in this document were accurate and live prior to publication. Ontario is committed to providing accessible customer service. On request, we can arrange for accessible formats and communications supports. For alternative formats requests, please contact ServiceOntario: •Telephone: 1-800-668-9938 •TTY: 1-800-268-7095 •Send an email at www.ontario.ca/contact-us. Read our accessible customer service policy at www.ontario.ca/page/accessible-customer-service-policy. Ce document est disponible en français. ISBN 978-1-4868-4878-2 (PDF) © Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2021 - 58 - 3 Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations Important Considerations During the COVID-19 Outbreak This guide is intended to provide municipalities and organizations with a detailed approach to Age-Friendly Community planning. Many of the strategies contained in the guide recom- mend community consultation, such as town meetings and planning discussions with local leaders, stakeholders and members of the public. However, it is important to note that this kind of in-person activity may not be appropriate while COVID-19 remains active in Ontario. All planning, implementation and evaluation activities and actions must follow local public health advice to prevent and stop the spread of COVID-19. This includes, but is not limited to: •holding virtual meetings and events •maintaining physical distance of 2 metres or 6 feet •wearing masks •handwashing •staying at home when feeling unwell •following public health guidelines to limit participants at indoor and outdoor events and meetings. Read the Remote Events Planning Resource (https://files.ontario.ca/msaa-age-friendly- communities-remote-events-planning-resource-en-2021-01-01.pdf) for information and tips on hosting safe and accessible virtual meetings. Find resources to prevent the spread of COVID-19 (https://www.ontario.ca/page/resources- prevent-covid-19-workplace). - 59 - 4 Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations Table of Contents Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 About Age-Friendly Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Age-Friendly Community Domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Physical Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Outdoor Spaces and Public Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Social Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Social Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Respect and Social Inclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Civic Participation and Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Personal well-being . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Communication and Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Community Support and Health Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 In This Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Supporting documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Step 1: Define Local Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Step 2: Assess Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Step 3: Develop an Action Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Step 4: Implement and Evaluate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Origins of the Age-Friendly Community Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 The Benefits of Age-Friendly Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 Using This Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 The AFC Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 What’s New in the Revised Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 Age-Friendly Community Planning Toolkit and other resources . . . . . . . . . . 28 Diverse Populations in Ontario Addendum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Navigating the Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Key Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 STEP 1: Define Local Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 Question 1: Are the right voices at the table? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Question 2: What is the vision for your work together? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 - 60 - 5 Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations Table of Contents Continued. STEP 2: Assess Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43 Question 3: What are the underlying needs and assets in the community? . . . . . .47 STEP 3: Develop an Action Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52 Question 4: What are the short-term and long-term goals, target populations and objectives?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53 Question 5: What changes, interventions, or programs should be used to reach your AFC goals and objectives? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 Question 6: What actions need to be taken so that the selected strategies “fit” the community context? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Question 7: What skills, organizational capacities, partnerships, and resources will be needed to implement the Action Plan? . . . . . . . . . . . .57 STEP 4: Implement and Evaluate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61 Question 8: How will the Action Plan be implemented? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Question 9: How will the implementation of the Action Plan be monitored? . . . . 64 Question 10: How well did the Action Plan perform? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Question 11: How can the quality of the Action Plan be improved over time? . . . . 69 Maintain Momentum and Sustain Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71 Question 12: If the Action Plan is successful, how will it be sustained and refreshed? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72 Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74 Outdoor Spaces and Public Buildings – Age-Friendly Outdoor Spaces in London . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74 Housing – Accessible Housing Units for Seniors in Petawawa . . . . . . . . . . . .75 Transportation – Let’s Get Moving in Hamilton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77 Social Participation – Sip and Learn in Temiskaming Shores . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Respect and Social Inclusion – Sewing for Ages Intergenerational Program in Simcoe County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81 Respect and Social Inclusion – Capital Aging: An Age-Friendly Businesses Initiative of the Council on Aging of Ottawa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Civic Participation and Employment – Age-Friendly Thunder Bay Senior Service Award Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Communication and Information – Age-Friendly Seniors Expo in Wasaga Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Community Support and Health Services – Age-Friendly Communities and Fall Prevention (Stay On Your Feet) in the North East LHIN . . . . . . . . . . 87 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Resource Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 - 61 - 6 Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations The Age-Friendly Communities Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations is a Government of Ontario document that was produced by the Age-Friendly Communities Outreach Program Team: This team consists of: •Dr. John Puxty | Department of Medi- cine, Queen’s University and Centre for Studies in Aging and Health at Provi- dence Care Hospital •Dr. John Lewis | School of Planning, University of Waterloo •Sarah Webster | Centre for Studies in Aging and Health at Providence Care Hospital •Dr. Christian Keresztes | Centre for Studies in Aging and Health at Provi- dence Care Hospital •Jessica Insogna | Centre for Studies in Aging and Health at Providence Care Hospital. The Outreach Program appreciates the support of the Government of Ontario, who funds the program via the Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility. The development of this guide was informed by the experiences and local development of 80+ age-friendly communities from across the province of Ontario. We want to thank the commun- ities who provided case-examples of age-friendly strategies, as well as offered tips along the way for other groups. A special acknowledgment to those who reviewed the guide and companion docu- ments: •Gail Hawley-Knowles | Centre for Studies in Aging and Health at Provi- dence Care Hospital •Bethany Pearce | Neighbourhood Programs and Services, City of Kitch- ener •Jackie White | Township of Assiginack •Robin Paquette | Planning, Town of Arnprior •Cinthia Pagé | Partner and Stakeholder Initiatives, City of Ottawa •Dr. Raza Mirza | Institute for Lifecourse and Aging, University of Toronto and National Institute for the Care of the Elderly •Dr. Sander Hitzig | St. John’s Rehab Research Program, Sunnybrook Research Institute and Rehabilitation Sciences Institute, University of Toronto •Dr. Birgit Pianosi | Gerontology, Huntington University •Dr. Elizabeth Russell | Psychology, Trent University •Mahrukh Abid | MPH Student through Queen’s University. Acknowledgements - 62 - 7 Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations “Getting to Outcomes” was adapted for this Guide with permission by the RAND Corporation, from: Getting to Outcomes® 2004 Promoting Accountability through Methods and Tools for Planning, Implementation, and Evaluation. Matthew Chinman, Pamela Imm, and Abraham Wandersman. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica CA Report TR-101-CDC. The GTO trademark and the “Getting to Outcomes” phrase are copyrights owned by the University of South Carolina. - 63 - 8 Executive Summary Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations About Age- Friendly Communities This guide is intended for municipalities, community organizations and others working to develop and support Age- Friendly Communities (AFCs) in Ontario. Age-Friendly Communities can help create more accessible environments for people of all ages, abilities and backgrounds. AFCs respond to both the opportunities and challenges of an aging population by creating physical and social environments that support independent and active living and enable older adults and people with disabilities to continue contributing to all aspects of community life. In AFCs, community leaders and residents work together to ensure that local policies, programs and services are inclusive and support the social and physical environ- ments that enable Ontarians to live safe, active and meaningful lives. AFCs align with the government’s Advan- cing Accessibility in Ontario framework (https://www.ontario.ca/page/accessibility- in-ontario) which aims to make the province more inclusive and accessible for everyone by focusing on four key areas: •breaking down barriers in the built environment •government leading by example •increasing participation in the economy for people with disabilities and •improving understanding and aware- ness about accessibility AFCs help create more accessible environments for people of all ages and abilities across diverse communities in our province. Age-Friendly Community Domains The World Health Organization identified eight domains of community life that overlap and intersect to affect an indi- vidual’s personal well-being and their independent and active living in physical and social environments. These eight domains are the basis for the steps outlined in this guide and are summarized below. Executive Summary - 64 - Executive Summary 9 Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations Physical Environment Outdoor Spaces and Public Buildings When people view a neighbourhood as safe and accessible, it encourages partici- pation in outdoor activities and engage- ment with the community. Accessibility involves removing barriers that limit opportunities for people with disabilities, including older adults with age-related limitations and/or disabilities. Transportation The condition and design of transporta- tion-related infrastructure such as signage, traffic lights and sidewalks, affect personal mobility. Access to reliable, affordable public transit becomes increasingly important when driving becomes stressful or challenging, or when driving is no longer available as an option. Housing The availability of a range of appropriate, affordable, accessible and supportive housing options that incorporate flexibility through adaptive features, style and loca- tion choices, are essential for AFCs. Social Environment Social Participation Social participation involves the level of interaction that older adults and people with disabilities have with other members of their community and the extent that the community itself makes this interaction and inclusion possible. Respect and Social Inclusion Community attitudes, such as a general feeling of respect and recognizing the role that older adults and people with disabilities play in our society, are critical factors for establishing an inclusive and age-friendly community. Civic Participation and Employment Civic engagement includes the desire to be involved in aspects of community life that extend beyond day-to-day activities, such as volunteering, becoming politically active, voting or working on committees. The ability to continue working or find new employment provides economic security for older adults, as well as people of all ages and abilities. This includes having access to accessible environments, including accessible workplaces. - 65 - 10 Executive Summary Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations Personal well- being Communication and Information AFCs provide information about community events or important services that is both readily accessible and in formats that are appropriate for older adults and people with disabilities. An AFC recognizes the diversity of its population and promotes initiatives to reach as many people as possible. Community Support and Health Services Access to and awareness of community support services and mental and physical health programs contribute to quality of life and age-friendliness. In This Guide This planning guide combines emerging research with what Ontario communities have learned from their Age-Friendly Community (AFC) initiatives. It offers a widely used and comprehensive approach to planning, implementing and evaluating community programs that are intended to foster self-determination, inclusiveness and accountability. This guide provides information about, and resources for, each of the interconnected steps in the process which form the main sections of the guide: Step 1: Define Local Principles Step 2: Assess Need Step 3: Develop Action Plan Step 4: Implement and Evaluate The guide also has a section on how to Maintain Momentum and Sustain Success, with a table summarizing the factors that successful AFC initiatives in Ontario have identified as contributing to sustainability. Becoming an Age-Friendly Community is an iterative and ongoing process that complements and fits into existing plan- ning and development work in munici- palities. The revised guide emphasizes the import- ance of promoting sustainability for AFCs and includes new items such as: •Getting to Outcomes® (GTO) imple- mentation framework. •sustainability planning framework. - 66 - Executive Summary 11 Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations •community tips from members of local AFCs who have had experience with the steps in the process (offered throughout the guide). •case studies showing what commun- ities have done to improve age-friend- liness across the eight domains. Each case describes the initiative, program partners, funding, challenges, impact and plans for sustainability. A list of resources, navigation guide and glossary of key terms are also included. Supporting documents The following documents are referenced throughout the guide and are offered to support your AFC development processes. Creating a More Inclusive Ontario: Diverse Populations Addendum (https://files. ontario.ca/msaa-diverse-populations- addendum-en-2021-01-01.pdf): Ontario is a province rich in diverse history and culture and has many unique rural and small urban communities, ethno-cultural immigrant and Indigenous communities that all have aging populations embedded within them. This resource offers detailed information about these populations and factors to consider when engaging them in your work to create inclusive and accessible age-friendly communities. Creating a More Inclusive Ontario: Age-Friendly Community Planning Toolkit (https://files.ontario.ca/msaa- age-friendly-community-planning- toolkit-en-2021-01-01.pdf): This toolkit includes tools and templates to support your work throughout the process to create an inclusive and accessible Age-Friendly Community. When the guide references a tool or template from this document, the word ‘Toolkit’ will appear in parentheses. Step 1: Define Local Principles In this step, you will learn how to create a planning structure around a local initiative and determine which AFC domains are most relevant to your community. Defining local AFC principles is funda- mental to grassroots community develop- ment and is a task any dedicated group of individuals can complete. This section high- lights approaches that communities have used to begin their age-friendly planning. You will learn about the process to: •form a steering committee to provide leadership to the local AFC initiative by deliberating, making decisions, providing strategic direction, advo- cating for the cause and ensuring accountability. •build your team to gather people from various backgrounds, professional disciplines and experiences who are willing to help create and promote a vision for your AFC initiatives. •define roles and responsibilities, consider a Terms of Reference and governance structure so that members of your team have clear roles and responsibilities. •create infrastructure and consider funding since each community is different, some AFCs seek grants or municipal funds early for planning and - 67 - 12 Executive Summary Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations community consultation, while others seek funding later to support imple- mentation. Regardless, it is important to consider funding early. •create guiding principles to act as a moral compass and foundation to help steer your decisions and ensure commitment to the initiative over time. •create an Age-Friendly Community profile, which is a snapshot of your community’s current age-friendly status. •discuss goals using the informa- tion from your AFC vision, steering committee and community profile. Step 2: Assess Needs In this step, you will learn how to collect more detailed information about the age-friendly priorities in your community and identify your community’s person-en- vironment fit for older adults. This includes a consultation phase to gather evidence from a complete range of community stakeholders, particularly older adults, people with disabilities, caregivers, community organizations and service providers. This section provides detailed information to help you engage stake- holders through a combination of consul- tation methods such as: community-wide needs assessment (survey), key informant interviews, focus groups and community meetings. You will learn about the process to: •leverage your assets that already exist within the community to accelerate and strengthen your work. If your local muni- cipality is leading or supporting your AFC movement, your efforts will benefit greatly from the experience of municipal staff or councilors. Successful strategies that communities have used include: –collaborating with a university or college –getting advice and technical assistance from professionals in a relevant field –accessing the experience and expertise of other AFC committees –submitting a grant application for funding to support a needs assess- ment •carry out a Community-wide Needs Assessment (survey) designed for your unique geographic, social and demo- graphic circumstances, with questions addressing local realities. This includes creating a list of questions and adminis- tering a survey, using a variety of methods. •collect information using multiple methods (for example, interview local stakeholders, conduct focus groups and host community meetings) to ensure you are reaching a representa- tive sample of the older adults and key stakeholders in your community. •update your Age-Friendly Community Profile developed during Step 1 after you have conducted consultations within your community. Step 3: Develop an Action Plan In this step, you will learn how to select specific actions that address the key gaps in your community’s person-environment - 68 - Executive Summary 13 Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations fit and develop an age-friendly Action Plan that includes short- and long-term strat- egies to enhance older adults’ quality of life and typically has: •a community profile •a description of the consultation process •an overview of the current state •a definition of the future state (the Action Plan) You will learn about the process to: •select priorities that will be the focus of your Action Plan, and for which you will further refine your initial goals and objectives. The Developing Priorities Worksheet found in the Age-Friendly Community Planning Toolkit (https:// files.ontario.ca/msaa-age-friendly- community-planning-toolkit-en-2021- 01-01.pdf) can help you organize your findings and clarify priorities. •refine goals and select objectives that determine what will change, for whom, by how much and by when. Aim to make your objectives Specific, Measur- able, Achievable, Relevant and Time- bound (S.M.A.R.T). •identify strategies (actions) to address gaps in order to develop a coherent set of changes, interventions and/or programs that address some or all of the eight AFC domains in response to local needs and assets. •identify leads, including those your steering committee has developed, as well as key stakeholders, and other partners who can be at your disposal to share their experience and connections. •assess the fit between proposed actions and community needs and capacities before moving ahead to assess community preparedness and anticipated barriers. •identify timelines and resource allocation to assess whether your steering committee and partners have the capacity, time and resources to implement the proposed actions in your community. Key considerations include human resources, partnerships, finances and readiness. •create a Program Logic Model (PLM) that is a road map for how your community’s vision to become more age-friendly and accessible will be achieved. This will also support communicating your AFC vision and Action Plan. A PLM is a living docu- ment of the best possible guess, or hypothesis, of how your Action Plan is intended to work. •draft Action Plan using the eight domains to structure it. This will help ensure that a comprehensive set of strategies is developed with continuity to the AFC process. •present AFC Action Plan to municipal council, since having your municipal council officially adopt your Action Plan will increase the likelihood that key strategies will receive continued atten- tion from the community. - 69 - 14 Executive Summary Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations Step 4: Implement and Evaluate In this step, you will learn how to begin implementation, identify primary users, determine the purpose of your evaluation, plan for both process and outcome evalu- ation activities and improve your existing AFC Action Plan. You will learn about the process to: •capitalize on quick wins to give you early successes, build the case and garner support for larger scale projects. •leverage funding opportunities. This may come from local sources (e.g., municipality, community partners, local businesses), or provincially/federally (e.g., government grants, other grants such as Ontario Trillium Foundation). •adjust governance structure, if you find that the original governance structure of your group no longer makes sense. •seek out academic partnerships through opportunities to engage academic partners (researchers, students) at this point in your process to support implementation of a specific action, or garner support for further evaluation activities. •identify primary users and target audi- ences. Identify the specific people, group(s) and/or organization(s) who will use the results of evaluation activ- ities, and who have the capacity to make changes to the initiative and its programs, services or projects. •define the purposes of evaluation, through ongoing dialogue with primary users and stakeholders. •monitor implementation activities. Once implementation is underway, monitoring and evaluation are needed to understand how well the activities in the Action Plan are implemented. •conduct process evaluation to help your community see if your age-friendly activities are achieving the goals and objectives they were originally designed to accomplish. •choose outcome evaluation questions to measure the effects of the program in the target population by assessing the progress in the outcomes or outcome objectives that the program is intended to achieve. •choose indicators based on the key outcome questions to be addressed during the evaluation. A good indicator is specific and measurable. Choose at least one indicator for each outcome; having more than one indicator for an outcome will provide more information on which to draw conclusions about the effects of your AFC initiative. •choose an evaluation design that will help you measure how well your AFC initiative achieved its goals. •perform quality improvement to improve your AFC Action Plan imple- mentation in an ongoing way, by using the data from its process and outcome evaluations. •report back to stakeholders on prog- ress and success to help with future age-friendly decision-making, generate new collaborative opportunities and add to the credibility and accountability of your initiative. - 70 - Executive Summary 15 Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations Conclusion This planning guide combines emerging research with what Ontario communities have learned from their Age-Friendly Community initiatives. It offers a widely used and comprehensive approach to planning, implementing and evaluating community health programs that is intended to foster inclusiveness, self-determination and accountability. We hope that you find the processes, tools and resources in this guide helpful in fulfilling the goals you have for your community. By working together, sharing best prac- tices and learning from success, we can support the development of Age-Friendly Communities in Ontario that are sustain- able, inclusive and accessible to everyone. - 71 - 16 Background Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations Origins of the Age-Friendly Community Concept Improvements in health status and longer life expectancy have contributed to rapid growth in the number and proportion of older adults in our generation. As a result, this trend has led to unprecedented global shifts in population structure.1 Although population growth in Canada is predicted to decline over this century, the number and proportion of older people are expected to continue to rise, with conse- quent declines in old-age dependency ratios.2 Aging populations are expected to present ongoing significant challenges to, and require innovative solutions from communities and health care, social, polit- ical, and fiscal systems. Starting from a definition of healthy aging as “the process of developing and main- taining the functional ability that enables well-being in older age”, the World Health Organization (WHO) set out a broad public health agenda to: a)align health systems with the needs of older persons; b)develop systems of long-term-care, and; c)create physical and social environments that are age-friendly.3 Background Recognizing the profound impact of large populations of older people on commun- ities and community infrastructures, the WHO initiated the Global Age-Friendly Cities Project in 2005 to promote policies, services, settings and structures that enable older adults to actively age-inplace.4 The WHO identified eight domains of community life that overlap and interact to directly affect older adults that are the following: aspects of the physical environ- ment (outdoor spaces and public build- ings, housing, and transportation); social environment (social participation, respect and social inclusion, and civic participation and employment); as well as dimensions of personal well-being (communication and information, and community support and health services) (Table 1). These eight dimensions align closely with the Public Health Agency of Canada’s (PHAC’s) Deter- minants of Health Framework, supporting a good fit between age-friendly commun- ities (AFCs) and a public health approach to aging. - 72 - Background 17 Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations Table 1: WHO Age-Friendly Domains Physical Environment Outdoor Spaces and Public Buildings When people view a neighbourhood as safe and accessible, it encourages outdoor activities or engagement with the community. Accessibility involves removing barriers that limit opportunities for people with disabilities, including older adults with age-related limitations and/or disabilities. Transportation The condition and design of transportation-related infrastructure such as signage, traffic lights and sidewalks affect personal mobility. Access to reliable, affordable public transit becomes increasingly important when driving becomes stressful or challenging, or when the privilege of driving is no longer available as an option. Housing The availability of a range of appropriate, affordable and supportive housing options that incorporate flexibility through adaptive features and offer a choice of styles are essential for an AFC. Social Environment Social Participation Social participation involves the level of interaction that older adults have with other members of their community and the extent that the community itself makes this interaction and inclusion possible. Respect and Social Inclusion Community attitudes, such as a general feeling of respect and recognizing the role that older adults play in our society, are critical factors for establishing an inclusive and age-friendly community. Civic Participation and Employment Civic engagement includes older adults’ desire to be involved in aspects of community life that extend beyond their day-to-day activities, such as volunteering, becoming politically active, voting or working on committees. The ability of an older adult to remain employed or find new employment provides economic security. This includes having access to accessible environments including accessible workplaces. - 73 - 18 Background Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations WHO Age-Friendly Domains Personal Well-Being Communication and Information Age-friendly communities provide information about community events or important services that are both readily accessible and in formats that are appropriate for older adults and persons with disabilities who are aging. Community Support and Health Services Access to and awareness of services and mental and physical health programs contribute to quality of life and age-friendliness. History of AFCs in Ontario Prior to 2013, Ontario made several incre- mental AFC efforts, including the use of policy tools, funding, technical support, and engagement of researchers to prepare an Ontario-specific planning guide and creation of a passive website repository of AFC materials. By 2013, 36 AFC initiatives had been started in Ontario.5 Between 2013 and 2018, the Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility (MSAA) facilitated the launch of four new linked strategic investments: 1.Finding the Right Fit: Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide (2013). This provincial planning guide provided a common framework and resources to communities and planners for the development, implementation and evaluation of AFCs. The provincial planning guide outlined an adaptable, community-level process in four steps: (1)defining local principles; (2)conducting a custom needs assessment; (3)developing an action plan, and; (4)implementing and evaluating. 2.Ontario Age-Friendly Community Plan- ning Grants (2015 – 2017). In 2015, the ministry awarded 56 communities with AFC Planning Grants. Grants provided up to $25,000 for municipalities with populations fewer than 20,000 and up to $50,000 for those with over 100,000 residents. The 56 funded AFCs included 46 new initiatives and 10 pre-existing ones, spanning a wide range of geog- raphies, population densities, and municipal governance structures, with commensurate variations in local needs, gaps, and priorities. 3.Ontario Age-Friendly Communities Outreach Program (2015 – present). The Government of Ontario also funded, through the Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility, the AFC Outreach Program. The AFC Outreach Program is managed by the Centre for Studies in Aging and Health in partnership with Queen’s University and the University of Waterloo.The AFC Outreach Program (https://agefriendlyontario.ca/age- friendly-communities) uses a Table 1: Continued - 74 - Background 19 Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations knowledge translation and exchange approach to strengthen and accel- erate AFCs by raising awareness about age-friendly communities, increasing connectivity within and between communities, and helping to strengthen capacity at a local level. It works with more than 80 AFC initiatives (in 2018, 18.9% of Ontario’s 444 municipalities), four regional networks of age-friendly communities, the Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility, non-governmental organizations and academic researchers. 4.Ontario AFC Recognition Program (2018) (https://www.ontario.ca/page/ honours-and-awards-community# section-0). Forty communities received an award from the province recognizing their commitment and leadership in becoming age-friendly. The Benefits of Age- Friendly Communities Age-friendly communities (AFCs) leverage the strengths of older adults by creating physical and social environments in which they are active, valued, and supported members of society. By increasing oppor- tunities for older adults to experience competence, autonomy and relatedness, AFCs enhance their quality of life. Some of the reported benefits for older adults include: reduced isolation and improved participation, increased voluntarism, improved mental health and feelings of self-worth, increased physical activity and reduced risk of injury (falls), improved accessibility and awareness of community and health services.6-10 Communities that provide the services, social environments and physical environ- ments to be age-friendly reap similar benefits for all residents, irrespective of age. Accessible spaces in the built environment that accommodate those who are older or have disabilities, also help others who encounter functional obstacles in their daily lives, such as parents with infants and strollers and people with chronic health ailments. Table 2 outlines the various community benefits of AFCs and can be used to help ‘build the case’ when communicating with diverse AFC stakeholders. - 75 - 20 Background Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations Table 2: Benefits for the Community of Age-Friendly Communities Economic Benefits Strong Consumers – Older adults generally have more assets and fewer debts than other age groups. They have potentially enormous economic clout as consumers. Tourism Revenue – Older adults bring tourism dollars into the economy. Strengthened Work Force – Many older adults work, from which they generate income for themselves and their community. They are also a potential source of mentorship to younger new employees. Economic Growth – Older adults often are more likely to start new businesses than younger adults, helping to grow the local economy.11 Retention for Economic Development – Attracting or retaining older adults who might otherwise leave a community can be an important economic development strategy. Social Capital Benefits Volunteer Base – AFCs reduce barriers to volunteering and enable older adults to continue serving the community through volunteering and civic engagement. More Donations – Canadians between the ages of 65 and 74 made donations averaging $715 in 2013, and those aged 75 and over made donations averaging $726, compared to $513 for all Canadians.12 Caregiving – Many older residents support their extended family as caregivers to younger generations. This support strengthens social cohesion and allows younger family members to gain independence and join the local economy. Vibrant, Intergenerational Communities – AFCs are inherently diverse. When people at different life stages live side by side, collaboration between generations leads to a stronger, more vibrant community. Strengthened Community Connections – Strong ties to neighbours and community activities are linked to better physical and mental health in later stages of life. Opportunities for meaningful relationships and social roles support the independence and self-reliance of older people.13 Opportunities Related to Housing Greater Housing Options – Creation of affordable and accessible housing can have positive economic and fiscal impacts for both public and private sectors, by increasing demand and creative options for alternative housing arrangements. - 76 - Background 21 Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations Benefits for the Community of Age-Friendly Communities Delay of Health Expenditures – AFCs offer a continuum and greater flexibility of housing options and supportive services, allowing for aging in one’s present home or community, thereby reducing the need for moves, and preventing or postponing costly public and private expenditures for long-term institutional care. Opportunities Related to Physical Infrastructure Accessible Communities for All – AFCs create physical and more inclusive environments that work for everyone. Connected Neighbourhoods – AFCs have a range of accessible transportation options, facilitating mobility and connected neighbourhoods that save residents time and money and improve quality of life. Cost Savings – Investing in age-friendly housing and environments can lead to public as well as private cost savings by enabling aging in place and avoidance of long-term care. Health Benefits Increased Healthy Behaviours – AFCs facilitate healthy behaviours of older adults through their design and infrastructure. Neighbourhoods that are “walkable” are associated with higher physical activity across the age spectrum.13 Increased Inclusion – Age-friendly environments reduce social isolation and improve health and community engagement and inclusion. Targeted Health Benefits – AFC principles support the reduction in falls, dementia and depression within communities. Table 2: Continued - 77 - 22 Background Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations This revised planning guide combines emerging research with what Ontario communities have learned from their AFC initiatives. It offers a widely used compre- hensive approach to planning, imple- menting, and evaluating community health programs that is intended to foster self- determination and accountability. Some communities are already well along the AFC path, while others are just begin- ning. You can use this guide as a step-by- step reference for the AFC process, or as a directory for quick reference to tools and resources that are relevant to your commun- ity’s immediate AFC planning purposes. Table 4 at the end of this section can help you determine where to start in the Guide, depending on the stage/progress level of your AFC initiative. The AFC Process This guide provides information about and resources for each of the interconnected steps in the AFC process: Step 1: Define Local Principles Step 2: Assess Need Step 3: Develop Action Plan Step 4: Implement and Evaluate Becoming an AFC is a cyclical and ongoing process that complements and fits with ongoing or existing planning and develop- ment work underway in communities. After implementing and evaluating community projects in the fourth step, communities often recognize the need to revisit their original needs assessment and determine if their community’s goals and values have changed or if there are other areas or projects that could further strengthen their community. It is important to consider and flag the issue of sustainability early, in order to maintain momentum, sustain important achievements and activities, and to continue responding to the evolving needs of your community (see section below for more information on Sustainability). It is also important to acknowledge that evaluation activities do not start only after implementation is underway. Evaluation should be an integral and ongoing activity throughout all four steps of the AFC plan- ning process in order to continually inform your community’s needs assessment, as well as support the planning and imple- mentation of your AFC strategy. The need for ongoing attention to evalu- ation and sustainability is reflected within the AFC planning cycle. Using This Guide - 78 - Background 23 Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations Figure 1: The AFC Process What’s New in the Revised Guide Getting to Outcomes: Governance, Vision and Accountability This Guide aims to help your local AFC group develop and implement your AFC Action Plan so that it achieves its intended results and addresses the need for ongoing attention to evaluation and sustainability throughout the AFC planning cycle. The AFC Process in this Guide uses the Getting to Outcomes® (GTO) framework for implementation. The GTO® framework is an approach to community collabora- tion that is grounded in accountability and improvement through self-determina- tion. GTO® has been widely used to promote self-direction and quality improvement in community-led health improvement programs of all kinds for more than thirty years.15-17 The GTO® approach inte- grates evaluative thinking and activities into all steps of the AFC Process to ensure that the Action Plan is responsive to local population needs, builds on local assets and capacities, and to help make the case for sustainability of the initia- tive’s efforts and activities. Using the GTO tools will help produce a detailed plan for implementing and evaluating your AFC Action Plan. The word ‘accountability’ can be intimi- dating because it often carries the impli- cation of a punitive response if something goes wrong. For collaborative community initiatives like AFCs, accountability is demonstrating responsibility to its stake- holders: residents – especially older people, partners, municipality, and funders, among others. GTO® defines accountability in a way that can be applied to any initiative or program: Accountability is the systematic and comprehensive inclusion of critical elements of program planning, imple- mentation, and evaluation to achieve results.18(p.1)Susta in Evaluate Define Local Principles Implement Aging In Place Develop Action Plan Assess Needs Main Guide, with “What’s New in the Revised Guide”, Figure 1: The AFC Process - 79 - 24 Background Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations The revised guide builds on the 10 GTO® program accountability questions, to which two questions on governance and vision have been added as a starting point to ensure that the planning group is repre- sentative of the community and guided by a larger community vision for collab- oration. Thus, governance, vision and accountability for your community’s AFC initiative can be enacted by addressing the following 12 AFC Planning Questions within this guide and related tools for collaborative thinking: 1. Are the right voices at the table? (Governance) 2. What is the vision for our work together? (Vision) GTO ® questions 3.What are the underlying needs and assets in the community? (Needs/ Resources) 4.What are the short-term and long-term goals, target populations and object- ives? (Goals) 5.What changes, interventions or programs should be used to reach your AFC goals and objectives? (Best Practices) 6.What actions need to be taken so that the selected strategies “fit” the community context? (Fit) 7.What organizational capacities, part- nerships and resources are needed to implement the Action Plan? (Capacities) 8.How will the Action Plan be imple- mented? (Plan) 9.How will implementation of the Action Plan be monitored? (Process Evaluation) 10.How well did the Action Plan perform? (Outcome Evaluation) 11.How can the quality of the Action Plan be improved over time? (Quality Improvement) 12.If the Action Plan is successful, how will it be sustained and refreshed? (Sustain). You can use the AFC planning questions, processes and tools at any step of your AFC’s work. Although the questions are arranged in a specific order, they do not have to be taken up in that order. If plan- ning and implementation of your AFC Action Plan are already well underway, you do not have to go back to the begin- ning and the first question. Rather, start with the question(s) that is (are) the most relevant to what you are doing now and/ or will do next. By using the 12 questions to tie together the key elements of your AFC work, your planning group is demon- strating results-based accountability for the valuable work that it is doing to improve the lives of older adults in your community. Community Cases and Tips Acknowledging, sharing and learning from the successes of AFC initiatives in Ontario are key to continued success. As examples, this guide also includes: •Cases – Nine case studies explore initiatives that communities have imple- mented to improve their age-friendli- ness across the eight WHO domains. Each case describes the initiative that was implemented, as well as program partners, funding, challenges, impact and plans for sustainability. - 80 - Background 25 Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations •Community Tips – Throughout each step, you will see process tips and lessons learned from AFC initiatives to shed light on common questions that arise during the planning and imple- mentation processes. Sustainability Generally, progressing though the four steps of the AFC Process takes at least 3-4 years. This can be a challenge for groups without supportive infrastructure, processes and resources to sustain and maintain their efforts. To promote sustaina- bility, it is necessary to: •Establish ongoing and productive partnerships between a network of individuals, groups, organizations and planners committed to planning and incorporating age-friendly principles within a community; •Encourage existing organizations to incorporate age-friendly activities into their core missions; •Produce evaluation and document findings on the benefits of age-friendly communities; and •Secure long-term sources of both non-financial and financial support. Unfortunately, many grants are relatively small, time-limited, and do not cover the necessary time span for AFC develop- ment. Also, planning groups may lack needed resources, dedicated staff and supports. Despite these limitations, many communities in Ontario have been able to keep AFC initiatives moving forward. These communities have identified eight factors listed in Table 3 as key to sustaining AFC initiatives. Consider these factors throughout your AFC planning process – a checklist is provided at the end of the guide under the section Main- tain Momentum and Sustain Success. - 81 - 26 Background Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations Table 3: Factors that Support Sustainability 1. Funding • Seek flexible funding from multi-sources • Leverage existing funding from aligned initiatives • Use a business case that speaks to aspects that are value-added for groups such as businesses, municipality, health care etc. 2. Leadership, governance and infrastructure • Connect age-friendly planning and activities to the priorities of key partners (e.g. municipalities, public health, etc.) • Include champions who represent various stakeholder groups and geographic areas within the community • Dedicate a staff person/portfolio • Coordinate and communicate efforts between upper and lower tier municipalities (if applicable) and between municipal departments • Establish a key sponsor/lead that can commit resources • Establish/strengthen municipal-community partnership 3. Strategic alignment • Align with municipal, regional, provincial and federal priorities • Leverage opportunities such as elections, budget setting timelines etc. 4. Communication strategies • Share locally relevant messages and stories • Use a broad media strategy to connect with a wide audience •Consider whether you will need to provide materials and communications in other languages, including identifying if your community is in a designated francophone area • Establish bi-directional communication channels • Avoid applying large urban city communication solutions to rural communities - 82 - Background 27 Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations Factors that Support Sustainability 5. Long-term strategies • Embed AFC lens/language in important local and provincial priorities (e.g. accessibility and transportation plans) and established organizations and programs • Consider alignment with local accessibility priorities and removing barriers to access • Consider succession planning throughout the 4 AFC steps 6. Inclusivity of diverse populations • Be aware of diverse needs of the community • Engage all groups meaningfully and appropriately • Provide cultural sensitivity training 7. Involving academics • Use students and interested academic partners as a resource • Access academic skills and experience in grant writing, evaluation, survey techniques, indicator development, data analysis, etc. 8. Establish a critical mass •Engage older adults • Network with stakeholders • Participate in regional and provincial networks to share knowledge and experiences • Ensure broad cross-sector partnerships from public, voluntary and private sectors • Ensure planning and implementation is informed by a bottom-up versus top-down approach • Apply an intergenerational focus. Table 3: Continued - 83 - 28 Background Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations Age-Friendly Community Planning Toolkit and other resources Throughout the Guide, you will see refer- ences to the following to support your AFC development processes: •Toolkit –The Creating a More Inclu- sive Ontario: Age-Friendly Community Planning Toolkit (https://files.ontario. ca/msaa-age-friendly-community- planning-toolkit-en-2021-01-01.pdf) includes tools and templates to support your work throughout the AFC Process. •Online Resource List (https://sagelink. ca/age-friendly-communities-ontario/ age-friendly-communities-planning- guide/) – is a dynamic list of resources to provide additional context, promising practices and background information to inform your work. •Ontario AFC Outreach Program (https://agefriendlyontario.ca/ age-friendly-communities) – The Outreach Program was established to provide assistance to Ontario commun- ities throughout the AFC planning process. The program aims to increase awareness about AFCs connectivity within and between AFCs, and capacity for local planning, implementation and evaluation. Diverse Populations in Ontario Addendum As one of Canada’s founding provinces, Ontario enjoys a rich and diverse history and culture. This includes a considerable number of unique rural and small urban communities, immigrant and Indigenous communities with aging populations. In the Creating a More Inclusive Ontario: Diverse Populations Addendum, (https:// files.ontario.ca/msaa-diverse-popula tions- addendum-en-2021-01-01.pdf) you will find more detailed information about these populations and factors to consider when engaging them in your AFC work. Small urban and rural communities may require unique strategies to counteract limit- ations in funding, demographic composition, transportation and distances involved, gaps in infrastructure, differing cultures, reduced access to planning and policy expertise and fewer potential partnerships.19 There may be limited access to skill sets in project management, capital planning, community development and change management, which can force a reliance on costly external consultants, many of whom may have little or no direct experience with AFC plan- ning and cannot work with communities to sustain initiatives in the long term. In 2016, immigrants represented 29.1% of Ontario’s population, the highest share the province has seen in almost a century.20 Most recent immigrants are non-European, with over half of the recent older adult immigrants (age 55 or older) coming from China or South Asia.20 Less than 50% of older immigrants identify themselves as having fluency in either English or French, despite - 84 - Background 29 Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations mental health and chronic disease challenges and needs. AFC principles, resources and interventions should be adapted in ways that promote thoughtful and culturally appropriate engagement, collaboration and inclusion. The Creating a More Inclusive Ontario: Diverse Populations Addendum (https:// files.ontario.ca/msaa-diverse-populations- addendum-en-2021-01-01.pdf) describes the unique context for each of the above-mentioned groups, as well as provides recommendations and consider- ations for customization and adaptation of the AFC planning process when working with them. often having a higher education level than their Canadian peers.21,22 Poverty may also be an issue: chronic low-income rates were highest among immigrant older adults at 30% compared to 2% for the Canadian-born older adults.23 In addition, there is evidence that traditional filial piety relationships are declining as younger immigrants adopt Western cultural attitudes.24 The data suggests that recent older immigrants are more vulnerable in terms of their financial, living, and health supports. Older immigrants, especially women, when compared with Canadian-born women, are more vulnerable to poor health, more financially disadvan- taged, and face a greater number of barriers when accessing the services needed to maintain and/or promote their health.25 With the increasing diversity in the province, these population trends and issues contribute to a heightened awareness about the needs of the older immigrant populations in planning Ontario’s communities. When embarking on AFC development, visit the Statistics Canada demographic profile for your community to understand the specific ethno-cultural composition of your area. The demographic and policy significance of AFC planning is no less significant for Indigenous communities than it is for the larger Canadian population, and may be more urgent. The number of people over the age of 65 that identified as Indigenous more than doubled between 2006 and 2016.26 Older Indigenous people living in Ontario merit specific recognition given the intergenerational impacts of resi-dential schools and related policies, which have contributed to a substantive and unique set of socio-economic, geographic, - 85 - 30 Background Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations Navigating the Guide Table 4: Navigating the Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations Is this your community?Are you considering these questions? Start here •Little discussion about the needs of older adults’ has happened in the general community. •The idea of becoming an AFC has never arisen at municipal councils. •Focus groups have not been held to discuss the implications of being an ‘older’ community. •No community-wide survey of older adults’ needs has been conducted. •More people in your community are being diagnosed with disabilities, or more seniors/older adults being diagnosed with disabilities as result of the aging process? •No steering committee exists to carry the AFC movement. 1.Are the right voices at the table? (Governance) 2.What is the vision for our work together? (Vision) Step 1: Define Local Principles - 86 - Background 31 Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations Navigating the Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations Is this your community?Are you considering these questions? Start here •The idea of becoming an AFC is part of discussions in the community and at municipal councils. •Several focus groups have been held to discuss the implications of being an ‘older’ community. •A community-wide assessment of older adults’ needs is the logical next step, but questions about what data to collect and how to collect it still exist. •Knowing the range of existing information gathering tools and what AFC-related areas they focus on would make the path forward clearer. 3.What are the underlying needs and assets in the community? (Needs/resources) Step 2: Assess Need •Several focus groups have been held to discuss the implications of being an ‘older’ community. •A community-wide assessment of older adults’ needs has been conducted and the results have been compiled into a council report. •An advisory group exists to lead the AFC process. •The municipal councils report will serve as the basis for an age- friendly Action Plan, but questions about creating, implementing and monitoring such a plan still exist. 4.What are the short-term and long-term goals, target populations, and objectives? (Goals) 5.What changes, interventions or programs should be used to reach your AFC goals and objectives? (Best Practice) 6.What actions need to be taken so that the selected strategies “fit” the community context? (Fit) 7.What organizational capacities, partnerships and resources are needed to implement the Action Plan? (Capacities) Step 3: Develop Action Plan Table 4: Continued - 87 - 32 Background Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations Navigating the Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations Is this your community?Are you considering these questions? Start here •A community age-friendly Action Plan exists, but questions remain about how to begin implementation. •Your community is unsure about how to evaluate your age-friendly work. 8.How will the Action Plan be implemented? (Plan) 9.How will the implementation of the Action Plan be monitored? (Process Evaluation) 10.How well did the Action Plan perform? (Outcome evaluation) 11.How can the quality of the Action Plan be improved over time? (Quality Improvement) Step 4: Implement and Evaluate •Your community wants to maintain and sustain the momentum and success of your AFC initiative but it is unclear about how to do so. 12.If the Action Plan is successful, how will it be sustained and refreshed? (Sustain) Maintain Momentum and Sustain Success Table 4: Continued - 88 - Background 33 Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations Key Terms Accessibility – A general term for the degree of ease that something (e.g., device, service, physical environment and information) can be accessed, used and enjoyed by everyone. The term implies conscious planning, design and/or effort to make sure something is barrier-free to persons with disabilities. Accessibility also benefits the general population, by making things more usable and practical for everyone, including older people and families with small children. Action Plan – A sequence of steps that must be taken, or activities that must be performed well, for a strategy to succeed. Action plans usually answer the following questions: What will be done, when, by who and what resources are needed? Assets – Local programs, services, posi- tive experiences, and qualities that support active and independent aging at home, even as function may decline. It is important to build on and leverage the array of available assets (organization, community or individual skills) to improve the quality of life for older adults in the community. Community – A group of people who live in the same place or who have a particular characteristic in common (e.g. interests, goals or identity). A community can be identified at different levels – by municipal borders, more broadly by region, or more finely (e.g. by village or neighbourhood). Goals – Broad statements that describe the long-term impacts of what your AFC initiative aims to accomplish in the future. Goals provide the overall direction for plan- ning and implementing your strategies in your AFC Action Plan. Need – A need is a problem that “should be attended to or resolved” – it is a differ- ence or gap between how things are now and how they should be for a target group in context, i.e. for older adults in your community.27 Needs Assessment – A systematic process to identify discrepancies/gaps between how older people are in your community now and how they should be, to priori- tize these discrepancies/gaps, and to set criteria for decision making about feasible solutions and resource allocation. Objectives – The specific and measurable changes anticipated for older adults in your municipality as a result of your AFC Action Plan. In other words, objectives are the desired AFC outcomes. Outcome/Effectiveness Evaluation – Measures the effects of the program in the target population by assessing the progress in the outcomes or outcome objectives that the program is intended to achieve.28 Outcome Indicators – Specific, observable and measurable (quantitatively or qualita- tively) characteristic or change that repre- sents progress towards a goal.29 Person-Environment Fit – The fit between what people need to age well and the resources available in the community to support them in doing so. Process Evaluation – Assesses whether program activities have been implemented as intended. - 89 - 34 Background Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations Program Logic Model (PLM) – A picture that shows how the resources and activ- ities in your AFC Action Plan will lead to the expected outcomes. Quality Improvement – Is a planned, formal, systematic and ongoing process intended to improve outcomes.30 Quality improve- ment aims to use process measure of the quality of services delivered (where applic- able) and outcome indicators of the results of the process of service delivery (where applicable) on an ongoing basis to find ways to improve. Stakeholder – Any individual, group, organization, department, structure or network with a vested interest. Stake- holders stand to gain or lose if conditions stay the same or if conditions change. Steering Committee – A committee that decides on the priorities or order of business of an organization/cause and manages the general course of its oper- ations. Within the field of age-friendly communities, this term is used broadly to include whoever the local ‘group’ is that is leading the age-friendly work. Target population(s) – Who your AFC Action Plan will be directed to, based on the needs and assets in your community and how they are prioritized. The target population might be broad (e.g. “all older adults in our municipality”), or it might be very specific (e.g. “all older adults who live in the ‘X’ neighbourhood”). There are likely to be different target populations for different parts of your AFC Action Plan. - 90 - STEP 1: Define Local Principles - 91 - 36 Step 1: Define Local Principles Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations In this step, you will learn how to create a planning structure around a local initiative and determine which AFC dimensions are most relevant to your community. Defining local AFC principles is basic to grassroots community development and is a task any dedicated group of individ- uals can complete. This section highlights approaches that communities have used to begin their age-friendly planning. Question 1: Are the right voices at the table? Form a Steering Committee The purpose of your Age-Friendly steering committee is to provide leadership to the local AFC initiative by deliberating, making decisions, providing strategic direction, advocating for the cause and ensuring accountability. Community Tip: “[You] need a named group (e.g. sen- iors council, public health unit, council, steering committee) to lead the work” – Northeastern Regional Network Participant Having a named group will add cred- ibility and legitimacy to your work. Having diverse stakeholders commit to working together expands the skill sets on your team, as well as your sphere of influence. The AFC process views the community and its leaders as change agents. Communities – including both public and private stake- holders – are made up of active citizens with the potential to create change in their own domains and spheres of influence. In the early stages of planning for an AFC, you require local champions from multiple sources who can build momentum, progressing towards more structured discussions (e.g., focus groups). Ultim- ately, the goal is to build collaboration among a group of local and diverse stake- AFC Planning Questions Key Tasks 1.Are the right voices at the table? (Governance) •Form a steering committee •Build your team to be inclusive of different population groups •Define roles and responsibilities •Create infrastructure and consider funding 2.What is the vision for your work together? (Vision) •Create guiding principles •Create an Age-Friendly Community profile •Discuss goals - 92 - Step 1: Define Local Principles 37 Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations holders (municipal council and staff; busi- ness leaders; local committee members; social planning councils; university/ college faculty organizations) to develop guiding principles, a vision and goals for your AFC movement. Community Tip: “Find municipal staff and politicians who can help champion the work” – Western Regional Network Participant As you move through AFC develop- ment, it will be important to have mu- nicipal champions who can provide leadership necessary for change, par- ticularly across the physical environ- ment AFC domains. You will also likely be looking for Council endorsement of your Action Plan later in the process. Establish these relationships early and engage those municipal and political stakeholders who will be spokespeople and champions for your work. Build Your Team Gather people from various backgrounds, professional disciplines and experi- ences who are willing to help create and promote a vision for your AFC movement. Your team does not need to include an exhaustive list of everyone who might interact with or advocate for older adults in your community. Rather, the steering committee is an early gathering of people who are passionate about and inter- ested in the inclusive and age-friendly concept. Members should have the time to contribute and make the committee a priority. Your steering committee should include representation from: •Diverse older adults (e.g. persons with disabilities who are aging, Black, Indigenous and People of Colour (BIPOC), francophone, older immigrant and 2SLGBTQI+ seniors) •Community service providers •Municipal staff •Other key stakeholders . Community Tip: “Engage a range of external partners with a range of expertise” – Central Regional Network Participant Consider not only organizational rep- resentation, but also the soft skills of those you are working with. Are there stakeholders who are strong facilitators, leaders, evaluators? Are there people who are well-connected in the com- munity? Or people who have experi- ence designing documents? It is not necessary to have all these skills – but it’s good to think broadly about who to reach out to and what other skills they could bring to the table. “Establish early support from the muni- cipality and between tiers” – Eastern Regional Network Participant These communication channels will be incredibly important to ensure key decision makers are involved and there is not a duplication of efforts. Stakeholder analysis can be used to identify key stakeholders (primary and secondary) who have a vested interest in the issues pertaining to AFCs. Tools like the Power Versus Interest Grid (Toolkit) can support this process. Consider where your - 93 - 38 Step 1: Define Local Principles Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations stakeholders fall along each axis to better understand how to strategically engage and communicate with your partners. Define Roles and Responsibilities As the team grows, members should have clear roles and responsibilities. As a team, create a Terms of Reference (Toolkit) to make roles and responsibilities explicit. Consider including: •Purpose •Scope •Decision-making process/authority •Membership •Meeting frequency/procedures •A review date. Your governance structure may change as your age-friendly work progresses – committee structures often shift once an AFC moves into implementation. The review date will help your committee check back in later to determine if the governance structure is still appropriate. Age-friendly steering committees in Ontario have a wide range of stewardship governance models. These include: •Committee of Council •Advisory committee •Community-based steering committee •Constellation collaborative (i.e. a central group stewards the movement and satellite groups work on particular issues or priorities). Create Infrastructure and Consider Funding Whatever shape your steering committee takes, it will require someone to act as a champion/chair/overall project leader to move the initiative forward and build capacity. This could be a volunteer, a dedi- cated staff person, or someone who has age-friendly activities included as part of their portfolio. Community Tip: “You need a go-to person – someone who is dedicated to moving the work along, and not off the side of their desk” – Western Regional Network Participant At some point, your group may require funding to move ahead. Each community is different – some AFCs seek grants or municipal funds early for planning and community consultation, while others seek funding later to support implementation. Regardless, it is important to consider funding early. Join related mailing lists to stay ‘in the know’ about funding opportun- ities so that you can respond quickly when a call for proposals is issued. - 94 - Step 1: Define Local Principles 39 Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations Question 2: What is the vision for your work together? Create Guiding Principles Guiding principles are like a moral compass that helps to steer your deci- sions. They act as a foundation for a unique age-friendly vision and ensure commitment to the initiative over time. Host a planning session with your steering committee members to establish your community’s unique age-friendly vision and values to help develop overarching guiding princi- ples for action. Guiding principles can include broad aspirational values and criteria, like: •Respect and support for all citizens •Access and inclusion for all •Community engagement in decision making •Livability •Accountability. Community Tip: “Use common and consistent language in messaging” “Need bottom-up, not just top-down planning for long-term sustainability” – Western Regional Network Participants Your guiding principles, the language you use and the approach you take needs to be driven by your unique context and what resonates in your community. This will help partners and citizens ‘see themselves’ in the work. Create an Age-Friendly Community Profile An age-friendly profile is a snapshot of your community’s current age-friendly status. When seeking funds and partnerships, an accurate profile can prove invaluable to communicate the local strengths of your community, the need for AFC planning and the potential benefits of becoming more age-friendly. To create your profile, you will have to access a range of information sources. See Table 5 for types of informa- tion to include in your profile. Unfortunately, accurate projections for some indicators may not be readily avail- able for all communities (for example, living arrangements), may be impractical to create in others (for example, health) and could be expensive to obtain in many cases. Still, understanding the future demographics in your community is vital to creating a proactive plan. Projections should include age, gender, income and ethnicity distribu- tions at 5-year, 10-year and 20-year horizons. - 95 - 40 Step 1: Define Local Principles Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations Table 5: Types of Information to Include in a Community Profile Data Sources An overview of the current socio-demographic makeup and projections for future demographic condi- tions (for example, age, race, sex, gender, income, ethnicity, health status, and disability status) Most municipal economic development departments will have a general community profile with demographic summaries and projections. Many will have more specialized data about specific topics like household travel patterns, recreation pref- erences and satisfaction with municipal services. To determine what specialized data may exist in your community, consider contacting individuals within key municipal divisions. A public health unit or social planning council in your community is also a great resource for accessing data. Many provincial, federal and non-government organizations also collect and house relevant data. Review your community’s Census Profile from Statistics Canada for further information. A review of existing local policies that support the goals of your AFC move- ment Review local policy, strategic documents, existing planning and development plans and strategies to determine how you can draw on existing community projects to support your movement. Some examples to consider are: •Official Plan/Community Improvement/Secondary Plans •Strategic Plan •Growth Management Strategy •Sustainability Plan •Recreation and Culture Master Plan •Accessibility Plan •Transportation Master Plan •Pedestrian and Cycling Plan •Economic Development Strategy •Asset Management Plan - 96 - Step 1: Define Local Principles 41 Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations Types of Information to Include in a Community Profile Data Sources A list and description of key local services that promote older adults’ quality of life Review your local 211 website (https://211ontario.ca/) as well as the provincial Guide to Program and Services for Seniors (https://www.ontario.ca/page/guide-programs-and- services-seniors) to build a list of local services for older adults. Talk to community partners to make sure you are not missing anything. Some communities take this information and create a print and/or online local information guide for older adults. The Designing an Information Guide for Older Adults (https://sagelink.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/ Seniors-Guide-tips-FINAL.pdf) can help you with this. A description of your AFC committee members’ (and potential partners’) key skills and strengths Discuss this with your steering committee. Consider the skills that each member brings to the group (for example, connec- tions to local decision-makers; experience facilitating focus groups; proposal-writing skills), as well as what skill sets the group might be missing. Related local and provincial initiatives Consider how age-friendly communities link to other initia- tives and priorities within your community, as well as at a provincial level. Consider the alignment and intersection between age-friendly and accessibility principles (e.g. universal design), which aim to reduce barriers and facilitate inclusion. For example: •Under the Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2001, and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, municipalities with 10,000 or more residents must establish local Accessibility Advisory Committees. Municipal Accessibility Advisory Committees (AACs) work with Municipal Councils to identify and eliminate barriers for people with disabilities within their communities. Given the shared goals between AACs and AFC, consider reaching out to your AAC. •Municipal Council priorities •Local public health unit priorities •Dementia-Friendly communities. Table 5: Continued - 97 - 42 Step 1: Define Local Principles Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations Discuss Goals Using the information from your AFC vision, steering committee and community profile, your community can start to iden- tify local AFC goals. At this point, it may be useful to see AFC goals that other Ontario communities have identified. (https:// agefriendlyontario.ca/). - 98 - STEP 2: Assess Needs - 99 - 44 Step 2: Assess Needs Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations AFC Planning Questions Key Tasks 3.What are the underlying needs and assets in the community? (Needs/ resources) •Leverage your assets • Carry out a community-wide needs assessment (survey) •Create a draft list of questions •Distribute the survey and collect data •Interview local stakeholders •Conduct focus groups •Host a community meeting •Update your Age-Friendly Community profile •Describe the consultation process •Describe the current state COVID-19 Advisory: In-person activity may not be appropriate in your community while COVID-19 remains active in Ontario. All planning, implemen- tation and evaluation activities and actions must follow local public health advice to prevent and stop the spread of COVID-19. Read the Remote Events Planning Resource (https://files.ontario.ca/msaa-age-friendly- communities-remote-events-planning- resource-en-2021-01-01.pdf) for information and tips on hosting safe and accessible virtual meetings. In this step, you will learn how to collect more detailed information about the age-friendly priorities in your community and identify your community’s person- environment (p-e) fit for older adults. At this point, you have probably collected some helpful information from existing sources. However, a key strategy to achieving meaningful, long-term change is to base your Action Plan on detailed evidence collected systematically from a complete range of community stakeholders, particularly older adults, caregivers and service providers. The consultation phase is an opportunity to collect information from the community that does not already exist. This section will help you consider how to engage stakeholders through a combination of consultation methods such as: community-wide needs assessment (survey), key informant inter- views, focus groups, and community meet- ings. Each community must decide based on their specific needs and resources which methods are best for them. Table 6 describes the differences between the various methods which can help you decide which will best meet your needs and resources. There are numerous resources available on the Online Resource List (https://sagelink. ca/age-friendly-communities-ontario/ age-friendly-communities-planning-guide/) to help you collect data using these methods and think about the level that you are engaging seniors. - 100 - Step 2: Assess Needs 45 Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations Table 6: Comparing Data Collection Methods Interviews with Key Informants Focus Groups Community Meetings Community Survey What In-depth interviews with people who know what is going on in the community. Small group discussions led by a facilitator that explore the opinions and views of the participants. Organized public gathering to engage community members and share input. Online/Hard copy survey to be completed by individuals. Why Gather a deep understanding of the local experience. Further partnerships with people who can influence local policy, rally staff, and offer other valuable resources. Inform your priority setting. Create rich discussion on age-friendly topics relevant to the community. Inform your priority setting and generate excitement around AFC and connect stakeholders with similar interests and motivations. Reach a wider audience than focus groups. Gather a broad understanding of the assets and gaps within the community. - 101 - 46 Step 2: Assess Needs Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations Comparing Data Collection Methods Interviews with Key Informants Focus Groups Community Meetings Community Survey Who The interviewer should have training in conducting interviews. Participants should be well- informed leaders within relevant stakeholder groups. The focus group leaders should be trained facilitators. Range of participants: older adults, persons with disabilities, caregivers, service providers, various ethnic and racial backgrounds and income levels, and local businesses. The community meeting leaders should be trained facilitators Range of participants: older adults, persons with disabilities, caregivers, service providers, various ethnic and racial backgrounds and income levels, and local businesses. Older adults and caregivers in the community; opportunity to connect to sub-populations such as socially isolated and marginalized groups. How Key question: What AFC dimension(s) are most significant in our community? Key question: What AFC dimension(s) are most significant in our community? Key question: What AFC dimension(s) are most significant in our community? Key question: How age-friendly is our community and What AFC dimensions are most significant? Use a list of topics as a guide and ask open ended questions. Present basic social, demographic, geographic, and economic characteristics of your community to guide the discussion. Use technology such as Open Space to host large groups and allow people to participate from home. Use online programs such as Survey Monkey to collect electronic survey responses. Collect hard copy surveys as well. Table 6: Continued - 102 - Step 2: Assess Needs 47 Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations Question 3: What are the underlying needs and assets in the community? Leverage Your Assets Consider the potential skills and resources (programs, organizations and champions) that already exist within your community and might be willing and able to accelerate and strengthen your work. If your local municipality is leading or supporting your AFC movement, your efforts will benefit greatly from the experience of municipal staff or councillors. Other successful strat- egies that committees have used include: 1.Collaborating with a university or college. Faculty and students are often looking for ways to integrate their research with meaningful community initiatives, and most will have the skills and resources needed to facilitate a needs assessment. 2.Getting advice and technical assistance from professionals in a relevant field (e.g., community planners, professors or medical practitioners), from a commun- ity-based research organization, or the knowledge broker from the AFC Outreach Program. 3.Accessing the experience and exper- tise of other AFC committees that have already completed a needs assess- ment in their community. A shared commitment to the value of the AFC movement has been, and will continue to be, central to its success. 4.Submitting a grant application for funding to support a needs assessment. The Assets and Capacities of our AFC Initiatives Worksheet (Toolkit) will help your group consider and build on your local strengths. Carry out a Community-wide Needs Assessment (Survey) Your community can and should create a custom needs assessment designed for your unique geographic, social and demo- graphic circumstances, with questions addressing local realities. This will ensure that any new programs, strategies or initia- tives directly address your community’s current and unique needs. Create a Draft List of Questions To facilitate this task, you can select questions for your assessment from a database of questions complied from existing AFC and quality-of-life surveys (http://sagelink.ca/wp-content/ uploads/2020/11/2020-AFC-Instrument- Database.xlsx). This database provides easy and efficient access to a range of age-friendly and quality-of-life questions but does not prescribe what questions you should ask. It will save you the time of crafting questions from scratch and allow you to draw on the expertise that other communities and organizations offer through questions that have been developed and refined through research and/or practice. In the database, the survey questions have been classified into the WHO’s eight age-friendly domains, so you can quickly find questions related to the priorities you have identified. If you have identified specific priorities and issues in earlier phases of your AFC process, you may - 103 - 48 Step 2: Assess Needs Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations want to focus on questions from those AFC domains. Some communities select questions across all 8 domains and choose ones that represent the local context and issues understood to-date. Given enough time and (financial and human) resources, you may wish to struc- ture your needs assessment so that it asks questions about both: •People: what are the issues and needs of older adults? •Environment: what assets and resources are available that could help them? Assessing what a community needs to become age-friendly is about the fit between people and their community environment, or person-environment fit, and one approach to building a needs assessment is to pose questions and obtain information about both. For more on how to create person-environment pairs for your needs assessment survey, refer to the Toolkit. Distribute the Survey and Collect Data Once your survey is finalized, have it translated as needed into any additional languages for your community. You may also wish to pre-test your survey before sending it out to your community to check for problems. There are resources in the Age-Friendly Community Planning Toolkit to help with this. Once your survey is ready for distribution, many communities have used a combination of the following strat- egies to distribute the survey to a broad and diverse number of older adults: •Hard copy survey: Have print copies of the survey available at places that older adults frequent in your community. In addition, work with your community partners (e.g. local libraries, services like Meals on Wheels that reach isolated seniors) to help share and collect surveys. If you are hosting a community meeting, have print copies available at the meeting for participants to complete and make sure facilitators are available to provide assistance if needed. Note: When designing print copies of your survey, make sure the font is easy to read. Age-Friendly Communication: Facts, Tips and Ideas (https://www.canada.ca/content/ dam/phac-aspc/migration/phac- aspc/seniors-aines/alt-formats/pdf/ publications/public/various-varies/ afcomm-commavecaines/AFComm- Commavecaines-eng.pdf) is a great resource to help with this. •Online Survey: Use an online service (e.g. Survey Monkey) to distribute and collect survey responses electronically. Many communities post the survey link on their municipal website and asked their partners to share the link out to their clients. •Telephone Survey: Some communities have hired consultants to conduct a telephone survey. Using multiple methods is a great way to ensure you are reaching a representative sample of the older adults and key stake- holders in your community. Remember, if you are using more than one of the above methods, make sure you plan time to have all hard copy or telephone survey responses transcribed electronically (into a spreadsheet or database table) so that all responses can be analyzed together. - 104 - Step 2: Assess Needs 49 Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations Community Tip: “Leverage language-specific social groups/festivals to engage local older adults” – Northwestern Regional Net- work Participant Hosting focus groups/community meetings with existing groups or dis- tributing surveys to group members will help broaden the reach and depth of your engagement. Recognize that there is diversity among the target population including those who are isolated, those from diverse cultural groups, those with accessibility challenges, vision problems etc.” – Eastern Regional Network Participant Work with community partners to help you reach all older adults in your com- munity. For example, can meal delivery or home care workers take surveys in to social isolated seniors? Make sure perspectives from various sub-groups of older adults are integrated includ- ing but not limited to rural, Indigenous, newcomers, ethno-cultural, Black, In- digenous and People of Colour (BIPOC), Francophones, LGBTQ, low-income, and other relevant diverse populations in your community. Interview Local Stakeholders Conducting key informant interviews with committed local service providers and business owners can illustrate the positive effects of becoming age-friendly, and help you understand what AFC dimension(s) are most significant in your community. Interviewing these stakeholders can also provide insights and lead to further part- nerships with people who can influence local policy, mobilize staff and offer other valuable resources. Find out which AFC dimensions stakeholders think are most important — their responses will help you prioritize your AFC actions. Use a list of questions as a guide but allow open- ended responses from stakeholders. The Online Resource List (https://sagelink. ca/age-friendly-communities-ontario/ age-friendly-communities-planning-guide) has several items that provide tips on conducting key informant interviews. Conduct Focus Groups Focus groups are small group discussions led by a facilitator that explore the opinions and views of the participants. The World Health Organization (WHO) held focus groups in 33 cities/towns as part of its participatory research and published the Vancouver Protocol, a guide for conducting AFC focus groups that provides the necessary prompts to collect the informa- tion needed on the AFC domains in your community (Toolkit). When discussing local issues, the WHO recommends first presenting some basic demographic, geographic, social and economic charac- teristics of your community – the informa- tion you collected from existing sources and interviews is a great start. Ideally, someone with facilitation experience should lead the focus groups, which should include a diverse range of stakeholders: •Older adults (who live in the local region but also reflect those living rurally and near urban centers) •Persons with disabilities who are aging, and/or older adults who acquire disabilities as they age. - 105 - 50 Step 2: Assess Needs Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations •Caregivers •Service providers •People of various races, ethnic back- grounds and income levels •Indigenous populations •Francophones •Local businesses A key question to ask during your focus groups is which AFC domains are most important to your community. Read out or distribute a list of the 8 AFC dimensions and generate a discussion or conduct a vote based on it. You will need this later when you prioritize your AFC goals. Host Community Meetings Community meetings are another valuable way of collecting information. Although community meetings tend to produce less detailed information than focus groups, they typically reach a wider audience. They are also a great way to generate excite- ment and interest about your AFC initiative and to connect stakeholders with similar interests and motivations. Ideally, a community meeting would include diverse participants such as older adults, persons with disabilities who are aging, community stakeholders, volun- teers, politicians and municipal staff. Again, a key question to ask during your meeting is which AFC domains people think are most important. Update your Age-Friendly Community Profile After you have conducted consulta- tions within your community, revisit the community profile developed during Step 1. Update the profile to include any information about context and key messages that have emerged during the consultation process. This community profile will be included later as part of your Action Plan and will help describe what makes your community unique. Describe the Consultation Process Provide a summary of the procedure used to collect information from older adults and key stakeholders about the strengths and challenges within the community. This description will be later included in your Action Plan. Any other key developments that have occurred since your initiative started could be included here. Consider including: •Key community partnerships and individual champions that carried the initiative; •The processes you followed to conduct focus groups and the community-wide needs assessment, including the sampling approach that you used; •An overview of the sample you obtained during focus groups and the needs assessment; and •Key limitations to the methods that you used. Describe the Current State The current state of your community will include an overview of the current community environment, with a focus on describing the physical and social environ- ments, and the programs and services that are essential to the daily lives of older adults. Draw on key findings from Steps - 106 - Step 2: Assess Needs 51 Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations 1 and 2 and consider organizing your information by the 8 AFC domains. Keep in mind that the current state includes what the community has already done to support the needs of older adults (strengths/assets), as well as what needs to be done in the future (gaps). This infor- mation will later be included in your AFC Action Plan. Community Tip: “Apply an age-friendly lens to common priorities and initiatives (e.g. demen- tia-friendly, fall prevention)” – Northwestern Regional Network Participant Consider as well how the needs of older adults are represented in organizational and municipal plans. This contributes towards long-term culture change within communities. - 107 - STEP 3: Develop an Action Plan - 108 - Step 3: Develop an Action Plan 53 Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations AFC Planning Questions Key Tasks 4.What are the short-term and long-term goals, target populations, and objectives? (Goals) •Select priorities •Refine goals •Select objectives 5.What changes, interventions, or programs should be used to reach your AFC goals and objectives? (Best Practice) •Identify strategies (actions) to address gaps •Identify leads 6.What actions need to be taken so that the selected strategies “fit” the community context and need? (Fit) •Assess the Fit between Proposed Actions and Community Needs and Capacities 7.What organizational capacities, partnerships and resources are needed to implement the Action Plan? (Capacities) •Identify timelines and resource allocation •Create program logic model •Draft Action Plan •Present AFC Action Plan to council Question 4: What are the short-term and long-term goals, target populations and objectives? Select Priorities Once you have collected information via a combination of the methods outlined in Step 2, your AFC planning group can now select the priorities that will be the focus of your Action Plan, and for which you will further refine your initial goals and objectives. The Developing Priorities Worksheet (Toolkit) can help you organize your findings and clarify priorities. You may also want to consider hosting another community gathering and taking the needs assessment findings In this step, you will learn how to select specific actions that address the key gaps in your community’s p-e fit and develop an age-friendly Action Plan that includes short and long-term strategies to enhance older adults’ quality of life. The Action Plan should be a stand-alone document that can supplement existing policies that may be included in other local plans (e.g. City’s official plan). Broadly, AFC Action Plans include the following sections: •Community profile (See Steps 1 and 2) •Description of consultation process (See Step 2) •Current State (See Step 2) •Future State – The Action Plan - 109 - 54 Step 3: Develop an Action Plan Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations back to the community. Local older adults, stakeholders and municipal partners can successfully help you interpret findings, and prioritize action based on “low-hanging fruit” (i.e. actions that are easy and quick to implement). See Kensington-Chinatown Case Study in Creating a More Inclusive Ontario: Diverse Populations Addendum (https://files.ontario.ca/msaa-diverse- populations-addendum-en-2021-01-01. pdf) for an example of this process. Not all actions need to be completed immediately. When considering timelines for implementation of each action, some communities identify short- medium- and long-term goals; others identify specific years within which each action will be completed. These decisions require an understanding of the current priorities and capacities of the key partners, as well as the urgency and scope of each action. To support these conversations, consider having your steering committee and part- ners start to complete an impact-effort matrix (Toolkit). By plotting actions along the two dimensions of the matrix, this graph will help teams quickly filter out solutions which are not worth doing (fill in jobs/thankless tasks) and pick out solu- tions that get the biggest impact from the least effort (quick wins and major projects). Refine Goals You will have already had conversations with your steering committee about the goals of your AFC initiative. Ask yourselves: •What are we trying to accomplish by making our community more age-friendly? •How would we like conditions (i.e., needs and resources) to change? •What results do we want to see? •Do our original goals still make sense, given the current state of our community and findings from the needs assessment? Select Objectives For objectives to be useful, describe the changes you expect will happen as a direct result of your Action Plan. An objective should say what will change, for whom, by how much, and by when. There will prob- ably be more than one objective for each goal and objectives should be ordered and logically linked to show how the goal will be achieved. When writing objectives, aim to make them S.M.A.R.T i.e. Specific, Meas- urable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time- bound. Consider the following: •What do you expect the immediate changes to be for the target popula- tion(s) of older adults as a result of your AFC initiative? •What changes can reasonably be expected? •How would you be able to see whether the outcome(s) of the objective have been reached? For evaluation, what measure(s) would you need and can you use or access it (them)? •There will probably be more than one objective for each goal. - 110 - Step 3: Develop an Action Plan 55 Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations Community Tip: “Piggyback domains or actions on other focus areas as well as ongoing events” – Eastern Regional Network Participant You don’t need to start over, nor do you need to do everything yourself. Pool together resources, establish part- nerships and share information about programs, services and events already being led by other groups. GTO ® Tools in the Toolkit •Developing Goals Worksheet •Developing Objectives Worksheet Question 5: What changes, interventions, or programs should be used to reach your AFC goals and objectives? Identify Strategies (Actions) to Address Gaps Now it is time to describe what your community will need to do to become more age-friendly (i.e. the plan). To make your community more age-friendly, your Action Plan will need a coherent set of changes, interventions and/or programs that address some or all of the eight AFC domains in response to local needs and assets. The key to creating a successful Action Plan is to link actions to the guiding principles and vision statement you developed during Step 1, while also thinking ahead to the eventual implemen- tation of the plan. Look at existing programs and best practices to see whether they might be worth adopting or adapting, and/or whether you will have to design your own local innovations. You can look at communities near you and across the province to learn more about the range of possibilities. The Ontario AFC Outreach Program has an online listing of AFC programs and initiatives for each AFC in Ontario (https://sagelink.ca/age-friendly- communities-ontario/age-friendly- communities-planning-guide/). In many cases, local Action Plans and other planning and evaluation documents are also available to download. You can also review Ontario Interactive Maps (https://sagelink.ca/age- friendly-communities-ontario/age-friendly- communities-ontario-interactive-maps/) to see initiatives communities have tested specific to each of the 8 AFC domains. Often, these programs or initiatives can be replicated or adapted to meet your local needs and address gaps. Community Tip: “Leverage opportunities to link AFC with younger generations – this lends legitimacy to AFC planning” – Western Regional Network Participant The goal of Age-Friendly Community development is not to create commun- ities that meet the needs of one popu- lation, but rather to create communities that meet the needs of all. Reflect this in your Action Plan by exploring pro- grams, services and initiatives that bring together generations. - 111 - 56 Step 3: Develop an Action Plan Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations Identify Leads The most important resources at your disposal are the experience and connec- tions your steering committee has developed, as well as key stakeholders and other partners. Not all interventions have to be imple- mented by the AFC planning group; in fact, many actions (for example, improving access to transit for older adults, seniors and persons with disabilities etc.) require involving specific municipal departments, service providers and community organ- izations. Involving these stakeholders in developing the plan generates their commitment and puts the proposals of your Action Plan on a practical and feas- ible path. Your municipality could integrate elements of the Action Plan into other key municipal plans, such as official plans, secondary plans, accessible housing strat- egies, accessible transportation and transit master plans, urban design guidelines and street designs. When determining who will be respon- sible for implementing various strategies in your plan, find out what person or group of persons ‘personally care’ about the issue of AFC. If you cannot identify such a person or group, you may need to look at different partnerships. Remember, in any strategic exercise, people (not organizations) are at the centre of change. Consider each action and what organization or person will be most appropriate to lead implementation. Some actions naturally align with existing or planned work of specific municipal departments or other community organiza- tions. Conversely, some actions will require new sub-committees or working groups to be developed to support implementation. Involve stakeholders (community service providers, local members of the business community and other community leaders) in the action planning process. Rallying support in the community means your age-friendly resolutions will have more support when you place them before city/ town council. Question 6: What actions need to be taken so that the selected strategies “fit” the community context? Assess the Fit between Proposed Actions and Community Needs and Capacities Before moving ahead, it is important to pause and see how well your proposed actions fit the needs of your target popu- lation and community. Is the community ready for what the AFC Action Plan aims to accomplish? What barriers can be anticipated? Survey for Review and Discussion of AFC Action Plan Fit within your Community (Toolkit) provides a template for discussion with your steering committee. Ask each member of your AFC planning group and stakeholders to answer the questionnaire on their own and then discuss as a group. See where there are either consistently low ratings or disagreements – what needs to be done to resolve differences? - 112 - Step 3: Develop an Action Plan 57 Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations Since you will be seeking official recogni- tion from municipal or regional council, try to balance visionary solutions with a plan that is practical within the local socio-eco- nomic context. Only through collaboration, using creativity and insight, can you strike this balance. Question 7: What skills, organizational capacities, partnerships, and resources will be needed to implement the Action Plan? Identify Timelines and Resource Allocation It is important to assess whether your steering committee and partners have the capacity, time and resources to implement the proposed actions to make the interven- tion work in your community. Consider: •Human Resources – Does the action require the time or focus of a specific person or organization in your community? Does it require new staff to be hired? •Partnerships – Do multiple stake- holders need to collaborate for the action to be successful? •Finances – Does the action require additional funding for implementation? Is this funding available already? What is the estimated cost? •Readiness – Does the action require a certain political climate or prioritization from stakeholders? Consider the resources needed and capacity of partners when identifying time- lines for each action. Revisit the Impact Versus Effort Matrix (Toolkit) developed for Question 4 and look for your community’s “quick wins” – these are considered the ‘low-hanging fruit’ and are likely actions that can be acted on quickly and add maximum value to your community. Many AFC planning groups have found that those quick wins can be initiated even before the Action Plan is completed and help communicate progress and commit- ment to the broader community. Table 8 suggests language to use when indicating timelines for each action. - 113 - 58 Step 3: Develop an Action Plan Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations Community Tip: “Align domains and actions with emer- ging trends, priorities and opportunistic funding pots” – Northwestern Regional Network Participant “Seek small grants [early] for pilots and start-up projects” – Western Regional Network Participant Create a Program Logic Model A big step toward communicating your AFC vision and Action Plan is to create a Program Logic Model (PLM) that is a road map for how your community’s vision to become more age-friendly will be achieved. A PLM: 1.Is a picture of why and how you believe your AFC initiative will work. 2.Shows a chain of reasoning that links resources and activities with results. 3.Is a series of “if-then” relationships that lead to the desired outcomes. 4.Shows how your AFC Action Plan has been designed and implemented. 5.Provides a foundation for program plan- ning, implementation, and evaluation. 6.Creates dialogue and shared under- standing among stakeholders.31 A PLM Template is included in the Toolkit. In Table 9, you can see how a program logic model will link activities and outcomes to the problems and needs they are addressing. GTO ® Tools in the Toolkit •Developing Assumptions Worksheet •Building Your Logic Worksheet Table 8: Communicating Timelines Time Frame for Actions Timing of Action In progress Action on this item is already underway Immediate/Short Term Target of 1-2 years Future/Long-Term Target of 3-5 years Future – Contingent Action is contingent on additional resources (i.e. funding, human, partnerships) - 114 - Step 3: Develop an Action Plan 59 Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations Table 9: Sample Template for Program Logic Model Needs and Assets that the AFC Action Plan will address through its activities Resources (eg people, partner- ships, financial, comm- unity) available to implement our Action Plan Groups or areas of related activities IF we access these resources, THEN we can use them to implement these activities in our AFC IF we implement our planned activities, THEN we expect to deliver this no. or amount of activities IF we accomplish our planned activities, THEN we expect these short-term positive impacts IF we achieve o ur short-term outcomes , THEN we expect these significant long-term benefits For each component in your PLM, list the planned activities. For each activity, identify the outputs, or tangible, countable results that it will produce. List collaboration part- ners for each component and their roles, as well as potential implementation barriers. Working Through Roadblocks Worksheet (Tookit) may help you with this process. Importantly, a Project Logic Model is not a fixed blueprint. Think of it as a living docu- ment or snapshot of the best possible guess, or hypothesis, of how your Action Plan is intended to work. If the Action Plan has to be adapted because of changes in the situation, the model can be updated accordingly. Draft Action Plan You should now have the information needed to develop and design your Action Plan. Order the proposed actions using the 8 AFC domains you used in your community assessment. Using these eight dimen- sions to structure your Action Plan ensures that a comprehensive set of strategies is developed and offers continuity to the process. Most communities use such a table to organize their actions (Table 10). An Action Plan Template can also be found in the Toolkit. Identified Need Inputs and Resources Components Activities Outputs Short-Term Outcomes Long-Term Outcomes - 115 - 60 Step 3: Develop an Action Plan Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations Table 10: Sample Action Plan Template Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 AFC Domain Action/Strategy Lead Timeline Resource Allocation Remember that the final design of your document is an opportunity to ensure your message comes through clearly. Consider what branding is needed and in which format you will be presenting your Action Plan. Making accessible print and web-based documents requires more consideration than just font size. Consult accessibility resource guides (https:// www.ontario.ca/page/accessibility- ontario-information-businesses#section-1) for information about how to create an accessible AFC Action Plan. The simple planning tools presented here will help ensure that your AFC initiative and its programs, services, and projects are implemented to maximize success and sustainability. These planning tools will also help anticipate what evaluation activities will be needed before, during, and after implementation. GTO ® Tool in the Toolkit •Identify AFC Action Plan Components Worksheet Present AFC Action Plan to Council Having your municipal council officially adopt your Action Plan will increase the likelihood that key strategies will receive continued attention from the community. Prepare for the council vote. Schedule a deputation — a presentation — to the council that focuses on the benefits of age-friendliness to the community, the key messages heard from your needs assessment, and a high-level presentation of proposed actions. Note that in some cases, only municipal staff can present a plan to council for adoption and the city needs to play a leading role in the Plan for presenting to council to be a consideration. - 116 - STEP 4: Implement and Evaluate - 117 - 62 Step 4: Implement and Evaluate Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations AFC Planning Questions Key Tasks 8.How will the Action Plan be implemented? (Plan) •Capitalize on quick wins •Leverage funding opportunities •Adjust governance structure •Seek out academic partnerships 9.How will the implementation of the Action Plan be monitored? (Process Evaluation) •Identify primary users •Define the purposes of evaluation •Monitor implementation activities •Conduct process evaluation 10.How well did the Action Plan perform? (Outcome evaluation) •Choose outcome evaluation questions •Choose indicators •Choose an evaluation design 11.How can the quality of the Action Plan be improved over time? (Quality Improvement) •Perform quality improvement •Report back to stakeholders COVID-19 Advisory: In-person activity may not be appropriate in your community while COVID-19 remains active in Ontario. All planning, implemen- tation and evaluation activities and actions must follow local public health advice to prevent and stop the spread of COVID-19. Read the Remote Events Planning Resource (https://files.ontario.ca/msaa-age-friendly- communities-remote-events-planning- resource-en-2021-01-01.pdf) for information and tips on hosting safe and accessible virtual meetings. In this step, you will learn how to begin implementation, identify primary users, determine the purpose of your evaluation, plan for both process and outcome evalu- ation activities and improve your existing AFC Action Plan. The goal of the process thus far has been to explore and embrace the unique char- acter of your community and develop an AFC Action Plan that responds to its needs and capacities. A thorough evalu- ation of the Action Plan increases the likelihood that the plan (and the evalu- ation results) will influence future deci- sion-making. Evaluation can help secure future funding, demonstrate proof of concept and help communicate both progress and impact. - 118 - Step 4: Implement and Evaluate 63 Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations Question 8: How will the Action Plan be implemented? Capitalize on Quick Wins As mentioned previously, quick wins are the “low-hanging fruit”. These are actions that take little effort but have a positive impact. Starting with these strategies and interventions will give you early successes, build the case and garner support for larger scale projects. These quick wins also demonstrate early to your community that you are committed to change. Share your AFC goals and Action Plan with others; you may find that one of your actions lends itself to a new partnership or aligns with the priorities or work of another group. Implementation of an AFC Action Plan does not rest solely on the shoulders of one individual or planning group; rather it takes the commitment, energy and time of a diverse group of partners. Talking regularly with others about your AFC Action Plan often surfaces new collabora- tive opportunities and accelerates imple- mentation activities. GTO ® Tools in the Toolkit •Identifying Anticipated Outputs Work- sheet •Planning Each Program Component Worksheet •Implementation Plan Worksheet Leverage Funding Opportunities Some of your age-friendly actions may require funding to be implemented. This funding may come from local sources (e.g. municipality, community partners, local businesses), or provincially/federally (e.g. government grants, other grants such as Ontario Trillium Foundation). Often grant applications require you to articulate the community need and intended program to address that need. Through your needs assessment process and Action Plan development, you have already collected this information and are primed to be able to more quickly turn around strong appli- cations for funding. The more diverse your own professional network is, the more likely you will hear about funding opportunities as they arise. Seek out funding opportunities from sources that may have a direct interest in the proposed action (e.g. Ministries of Transportation, Health or Long-Term Care). Consider also proactively seeking out funding. If you have actions that align with local, regional or provincial priorities, approach potential funders and communi- cate how your proposed work will be mutually beneficial. Finally, some communities have secured funding from private businesses through sponsorship opportunities, which has enabled them to move forward on specific actions including a local seniors expo, or development of an information guide for older adults. Get creative and consider who would have the most interest in the outcomes of your proposed action. - 119 - 64 Step 4: Implement and Evaluate Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations Adjust Governance Structure As your AFC planning group begins moving forward with implementation, you may find that the original governance structure of your group no longer makes sense. Given the specificity of actions to each of the 8 age-friendly domains, new partners may be required to support implementation, yet it may not make sense to have these part- ners participate as part of a larger steering committee. Many communities have found it helpful to develop working groups or sub-committees to support implementa- tion. These groups are often organized by the 8 age-friendly domains, or instead by the local AFC goals of the initiative. These groups report back to the larger steering committee, but the focus is more directly on action and less on strategic direction. Seek out Academic Partnerships There may be opportunities to engage academic partners at this point in your process to support implementation of a specific action, or garner support for further evaluation activities. Reach out to academic institutions to see if there may be a researcher interested in partnering with you. In addition, many academic programs require students to complete a community practicum placement. Students from multiple disciplines can provide invaluable time and expertise to move age-friendly actions forward. Question 9: How will the implementation of the Action Plan be monitored? Identify Primary Users and Target Audiences Think ahead about how you will know whether the program has been imple- mented successfully. Planning for evalu- ation begins with asking whom the evaluation is for and how will they use the information from it. Identify the specific people, group(s) and/or organization(s) who will use the results of evaluation activ- ities, and who have the capacity to make changes to the initiative and its programs, services, or projects. These are the primary intended users for the evaluation. They need to be part of the planning for evalu- ation from beginning to end to make sure that the process, findings, conclusions and learning are useful. You may find that your primary user is an individual or group already involved in your AFC process, although this does not necessarily mean they will be responsible for implementing the project or program being evaluated. Also, there may be many different target audiences who will be interested in knowing the results of the evaluation, but not necessarily in an active way, and so do not have to be involved in planning it. Iden- tifying their interest early in the process will however, help inform what data should be collected and how it should be shared. - 120 - Step 4: Implement and Evaluate 65 Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations Define the Purposes of Evaluation Bring together your primary users and stakeholders (e.g. via a small working group that includes members from, and reports back to the steering committee, champions, staff, administrators, program participants) for ongoing dialogue about planning the evaluation, which will be designed to respond to their needs. Decide on the purposes and uses of evalu- ation. Start with questions like: •Why are we going to do this? •What is the purpose(s) that the evalua- tion is going to serve? •Who will use the information and how? The discussion will flow into key evalu- ation questions, the timing of evaluation activities, and finding feasible ways of answering the key evaluation questions. Monitor Implementation Activities Once implementation is underway, monitoring and evaluation are needed to understand how well the activities in the Action Plan are implemented. Monitor the initiatives you’ve started by collecting data as they happen. Tools such as the Age-Friendly Dashboard created by Hamilton’s Age-Friendly Committee (https://sagelink.ca/creating-an-age- friendly-dashboard-to-monitor-and- communicate-progress/) can help your community track and communicate prog- ress of your age-friendly actions. Collecting and using this type of information is called process evaluation. The focus of process evaluation is learning and improvement. Process evaluation questions are along the lines of the following: •Were the Action Plan and its activities implemented? •How well were the Action Plan and its activities implemented? Were they implemented as intended? •What were the barriers to, and facilita- tors of program activities? •Did activities and programs/services in the Action Plan reach their target popu- lations? Are participants being reached as intended? Who participated? How many? Who did not participate? •What outputs resulted from the activ- ities? •How are AF programs/services oper- ating? •What is the quality of the AF programs/ services? •What are users’ perceptions of the programs/services? •What external factors influenced the implementation of the Action Plan and its activities? How? Conduct Process Evaluation A process evaluation will help your community see if your age-friendly activ- ities are achieving the goals and objectives they were originally designed to accom- plish. Start from the AFC Action Plan and program logic model and with your AFC planning group, work through the steps outlined in Table 11 to plan your process evaluation. - 121 - 66 Step 4: Implement and Evaluate Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations Table 11: Process Evaluation 1.Brainstorm evaluation questions. What is it that you and your stakeholders want to know? You can use the questions above as a starting point. 2.Sort the questions you have generated into groups or categories that matter to stakeholders/intended users. 3. Decide which questions to answer. The most important ones are those that: a.Are important to intended users and stakeholders. b.Respond to identified needs. c.Build on assets. d.Can be answered with available resources. e.Can be answered within the timeframe that matters to intended users and stakeholders. f.Yield information that can be used for improving the Action Plan, its activities, and programs/services. 4.Review the evaluation questions you have chosen to make sure they are connected to your Action Plan. 5.Figure out who, what, and how to collect the data. The above process was adapted from Evaluation ETA Evaluation Brief.32 In drawing conclusions from your process evaluation, consider that there are two main requirements for getting to intended outcomes: 1.A program that has been found by others to respond to the need that was identified; OR a theory about how your program deals with the causes of the problems it is meant to address. 2.High quality implementation. Know- ledge about the quality of implementa- tion from a process evaluation can help guide your AFC planning, as shown below in Table 12. GTO ® Tool in the Toolkit •Process Evaluation Planning Tool - 122 - Step 4: Implement and Evaluate 67 Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations Question 10: How well did the Action Plan perform? Choose Outcome Evaluation Questions Outcome evaluation measures the effects of the program in the target population by assessing the progress in the outcomes or outcome objectives that the program is intended to achieve. Think ahead about how you will be able to measure whether your AFC initiative, program, service or project meets its intended goals, and achieves its desired outcomes. Outcome evaluation questions have to do with what changes are expected to take place as a result of your Action Plan. Here are some examples: •To what extent did the AFC Action Plan meet its intended goals and achieve its intended results? In which AFC domains? •For whom, in what ways and in what circumstances? •Which plan components were most effective? Which components need improving? •What unintended outcomes (positive and negative) were produced? •To what extent can observed changes be attributed to the program? •What was the influence of other factors? •What evidence is there that funders should reinvest in the AFC Action Plan and its continuing and/or future activ- ities? •Were the results worth the cost of particular age-friendly strategies and programs? Table 12: Getting to Intended Outcomes17 If the process evaluation showed: And the outcome evaluation showed: Then it is likely that the Action Plan used: High-quality implementation Positive outcomes Appropriate activities and program theory High-quality implementation Negative outcomes Inappropriate program activities and program theory Poor-quality implementation Negative outcomes Appropriate OR inappropriate activities and program theory - 123 - 68 Step 4: Implement and Evaluate Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations •Can those strategies and programs be sustained? •What is needed to continue or change the Action Plan? Additional Tools in the Toolkit •Outcome Evaluation Tool Choose Indicators Having determined the key outcome questions to be addressed during the evaluation will then influence the choice of indicators. Remember, outcome indicators are a “specific, observable and measurable (quantitatively or qualitatively) charac- teristic or change that represents prog- ress towards a goal.”27 A good indicator is specific and measurable. Choose at least one indicator for each outcome; having more than one indicator for an outcome will provide more information on which to draw conclusions about the effects of your AFC initiative. Look first at indicators that are already available. A great place to look is the Public Health Agency of Canada’s Age-Friendly Communities Evaluation Guide (https:// www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/seniors-aines/ alt-formats/pdf/indicators-indicateurs- v2-eng.pdf) to learn about the selection and use of indicators to measure the outcomes of AFC initiatives. The PHAC Guide has a list of 43 indicators across the eight AFC domains, and four indicators of longer-term health and social outcomes, along with suggested ways to use them for developing an AFC Action Plan and measuring a community’s progress toward becoming age-friendly. The indicators recommended by PHAC can be used to assess the impact of a large initiative aimed at several or all AFC domains, or for a single, small project targeted at one AFC domain. If the indicator(s) is not available, consider whether and how it might be feasible to collect the data. Ultimately, the overriding concern will be the usefulness of the data you collected. In other words, will results obtained from alternative methods be accurate, cost-effective and useful? Consider contacting your municipal- ity’s Public Health Unit (PHU). The public health units in Ontario are responsible for a population health approach in the following areas: assessing the health of their local populations, the social deter- minants of health, healthy behaviours and healthy communities. They administer health promotion and disease preven- tion programs to inform the public about, among others, healthy lifestyles, healthy growth and development, and health education for all age groups. Your municip- ality’s PHU has qualified team members who are experienced in accessing and using Statistics Canada and provincial health system data for community health planning purposes. PHU staff may also be able to offer advice on selecting evaluation design and methods. Other sources for potential outcome data can be found on the Online Resource List . (https:// sagelink.ca/age-friendly-communities- ontario/age-friendly-communities- planning-guide/) - 124 - Step 4: Implement and Evaluate 69 Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations Choose an Evaluation Design The kind of design you use will deter- mine how well it is possible to know that your AFC initiative was the cause of any changes in outcomes. Your evaluation questions will point to the design that will provide the most confidence in attrib- uting changes to the initiative. In choosing an evaluation design, there is always a tradeoff between rigour and relevance. Select the methods that will be used and make a plan for collecting the data. Question 11: How can the quality of the Action Plan be improved over time? Perform Quality Improvement An important way to ensure that your AFC Action Plan reaches its goals and object- ives is to improve its implementation in an ongoing way by using the data from its process and outcome evaluations. Originally developed to reduce errors in manufacturing, quality improvement can be applied to implementing community health improvements. The “Plan-Do- Study-Act” (PDSA) cycle33 is a straight- forward way to test a program or strategy within a small focused setting, make small incremental adjustments and slowly expand the program. Table 13 provides an overview of the PDSA Cycle and a PDSA Worksheet is included in the Toolkit. - 125 - 70 Step 4: Implement and Evaluate Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations GTO ® Tool in the Toolkit •Quality Improvement Worksheet Report Back to Stakeholders The primary users identified at the begin- ning of this step, as well as the many stakeholders, older adults and other part- ners who have contributed to the process along the way will be interested to know about successful change and outcomes of age-friendly implementation. The format within which you share information will depend on the intended audience. Consider the following methods to share your successes: •Draft a high-level progress report to share publicly within the community that highlights successes and impact; •Draft a more in-depth evaluation report for evaluation primary users; •Share specific success stories via local media channels (newspaper, radio); •Share success stories and lessons learned with other AFCs via regional networks or the provincial AFC website; and/or •Hold a community forum to present the Action Plan and celebrate progress. Communicating your progress and success will help with future age-friendly deci- sion-making, generate new collaborative opportunities and add to the credibility and accountability of your initiative. Table 13: The PDSA Cycle Plan What the strategy or initiative intends to do Do Implement the new strategy or initiative within a small focused setting. Study Ask and answer “Did we do the plan as it was intended? Your evaluation data can be used to answer the question. Consider whether any additional sources of information are needed – if so, this information needs to be easily and quickly available. Then ask: Did the plan produce the intended results? If the plan was implemented as it was intended to be and the results are poor, then the plan needs to be changed. If the plan was not implemented as intended, then the implementation needs to be changed. Act Based on “study” findings, decide if the group will adopt the change, adapt the change or abandon the change. More information about the PDSA cycle and other approaches to quality improvement is available on the Online Resource List (https://sagelink.ca/age-friendly-communities- ontario/age-friendly-communities-planning-guide/). - 126 - Maintain Momentum and Sustain Success - 127 - 72 Maintain Momentum and Sustain Success Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations Question 12: If the Action Plan is successful, how will it be sustained and refreshed? Both momentum and sustainability will be needed to keep your AFC initiative and its programs/services going. Sustainability is the ability to continue at a certain level over time. How can AFC planning and implementation be sustained to respond effectively to the rapid and durable demo- graphic shift underway to an aging popu- lation?33 To achieve long-term goals, AFC initiatives will require iterative cycles of planning and implementation supported by resources, activities, engagement with the community and collaboration among institutional stakeholders in an ongoing way over many years. Table 14 summarizes the factors that successful AFC initiatives in Ontario have identified as contributing to sustainability. Table 14: Factors that Support Sustainability – Aligned with AFC Process 1. Funding •Seek flexible funding from multi-sources •Leverage existing funding from aligned initiatives •Use a business case that speaks to aspects that are value-added for groups such as businesses, municipality, health care etc. 2. Leadership, governance and infrastructure •Connect age-friendly planning and activities to the priorities of key partners (e.g. municipalities, public health, etc.) •Include champions who represent various stakeholder groups and geographic areas within the community •Dedicate a staff person/portfolio •Coordinate and communicate efforts between upper and lower tier municipalities (if applicable) and between municipal departments •Establish a key sponsor/lead that can commit resources •Establish/strengthen municipal-community partnerships (including MAACs) 3. Strategic alignment •Align with municipal, regional, provincial and federal priorities •Leverage opportunities such as elections, budget setting timelines etc. - 128 - Maintain Momentum and Sustain Success 73 Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations Factors that Support Sustainability – Aligned with AFC Process 4. Communication strategies •Share locally relevant messages and stories • Use a broad media strategy to connect with a wide audience •Consider whether you will need to provide materials and communications in other languages, including identifying if your community is in a designated francophone area •Establish bi-directional communication channels •Avoid applying large urban city communication solutions to rural communities 5. Long-term strategies •Embed AFC lens / language in important local and provincial priorities (e.g. accessibility and transportation plans) and established organizations and programs •Consider succession planning throughout the 4 AFC steps 6. Inclusivity of diverse populations •Be aware of diverse needs of the community •Engage all groups meaningfully and appropriately •Provide cultural sensitivity training 7. Involving academics •Use students and interested academic partners as a resource •Access academic skills and experience in grant writing, evaluation, survey techniques, indicator development, data analysis, etc. 8. Establish a critical mass •Engage older adults •Network with stakeholders •Participate in regional and provincial networks to share knowledge and experiences •Ensure broad cross-sector partnerships from public, voluntary and private sectors •Ensure planning and implementation is informed by a bottom-up versus top-down approach •Apply an intergenerational focus Table 14: Continued - 129 - 74 Maintain Momentum and Sustain Success Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations Cases The following nine case studies explore initiatives that communities have imple- mented to improve their age-friendliness across the eight domains. Each case describes the initiative that was imple- mented, as well as program partners, funding, challenges, impact and plans for sustainability. These initiatives: •are adaptable and represent a mix of both innovative as well as ‘tried and true’ approaches; •include a mix of partners (municipal- ities, private business, academics, community service providers); and •include representation across geog- raphy and community size. For more initiative examples across all domains, visit the AFC Interactive Maps (https://agefriendlyontario.ca/age-friendly- communities-interactive-maps). Outdoor Spaces and Public Buildings – Age- Friendly Outdoor Spaces in London City of London, population: 383,822 (2016) Background: In 2013, the City of London developed the City’s first Age-Friendly Action Plan in consultation with over 500 older adults, caregivers, and stakeholders. The need for more seating in parks and trails throughout the city was identified as a priority in the Action Plan, as well as improving the overall age-friendliness of parks (i.e. walkability, accessible parking, and clear signage). Initiatives: Age-Friendly Checklist: The Outdoor Spaces & Buildings Working Group, in partnership with students from Western University’s Gerontology in Practice course, investigated how an Age-Friendly Parks Checklist might be used to identify the age-friendliness of parks and opportunities for improve- ments. The Working Group chose to adapt an existing age-friendly parks checklist created by Age-Friendly Philadelphia. With permission from Age-Friendly Philadel- phia, and informed by London’s Facilities Accessibility Design Standards, the Check- list was modified to suit the local context in London and has been revised since its creation in 2013 to incorporate additional safety considerations. The intended users of the City of London Age-Friendly Parks Checklist (https://sagelink.ca/wp- content/uploads/2020/04/London- AFParksChecklist_2017.pdf) are municipal staff; however, the checklist is user-friendly and could be used by anyone. The Check- list was added to the World Health Organ- ization’s Global Database of Age-Friendly Practices and is shared with other age-friendly communities upon request. Changing Outdoor Spaces: New benches were installed along the Thames Valley Parkway (TVP), the longest pathway system in London. The decision to install more benches along the TVP aligned with existing Corporate objectives to improve seating and encourage walking and recrea- tional use of pathways. New benches that were installed had a more age-friendly design that also met Accessibility for - 130 - Maintain Momentum and Sustain Success 75 Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations Ontarians with Disabilities Act require- ments. Design features include arms on the benches and seats that were higher off the ground. New signage was also installed that met current accessibility guidelines and improved way-finding for pathway users. Funding: The benches, signage, and Age-Friendly Parks Checklist projects were all completed using existing resources and the in-kind support and guidance of the City of London Parks and Recreation staff and Western University’s Gerontology in Practice course. Partners: Critical partners for this project included the City of London Parks and Recreation, Neighbourhood, Children, and Fire Services, and students in the Gerontology in Practice course at Western University. Challenges: Challenges encountered in this project include: •Creating a checklist that incorpor- ated all the essential features of an age-friendly park while still being concise and user-friendly. •Completing projects within existing resources. •Time, capacity and resources needed to complete park assessments. Impact: •2013 – 15 benches, directional signage and mileage markers were installed along the Thames Valley Parkway. •2014-2015 – 31 new age-friendly benches with arms were installed in parks and along trails; new direc- tional signage and new guidelines for way-finding in parks and along trails were developed to make it easier to find washrooms, hours of operation, and other amenities; and 377 parks were scored using the checklist. •2015-2016 – 20 additional benches were installed and new signage was developed for park entrances to iden- tify the locations of washrooms. Sustainability: Benches continue to be installed within existing budgets. The Age-Friendly Parks Checklist is used and updated on an ongoing basis as new parks projects are implemented. Housing – Accessible Housing Units for Seniors in Petawawa Town of Petawawa, population: 17,187 (2016) Background: During age-friendly consul- tations in Petawawa in 2016, it was iden- tified that there were older adults and those with accessibility needs who could not remain in the community as a result of lack of reasonable and affordable accom- modation. This confirmed that access- ible housing units for seniors were a high priority for this community. By undertaking the Age-Friendly Community Planning process, Petawawa was able to bring together diverse stakeholders to collab- oratively continue to bring the project forward and ultimately obtain financing to ensure the accessible units were realized. Initiative: Fourteen new units were attached to an existing housing unit run by the Petawawa Housing Corporation. This provided some cost savings for the new build, but some unique challenges in terms - 131 - 76 Maintain Momentum and Sustain Success Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations of site plan needed to be addressed. Four of the fourteen units were fully accessible while the other units were designed with accessible features. All fourteen units are affordable as it is required that they be rented at 20% under market value. Funding: The Petawawa Housing Corpor- ation actively petitioned the County of Renfrew in 2017 and made applications for financing the affordable accessible housing units. At the same time, they commenced their fundraising efforts and came before Council to make a presentation and obtain the necessary endorsements for upper tier requirements as well as request funding support from Petawawa towards the project. The total project cost was $3 million. The majority of funding came from a $2 million grant from the Ontario Investment in Afford- able Housing program. The remaining $1 million was covered by: a $200,000 mort- gage and a fundraising campaign; $325,000 from reserves contributed by the County of Renfrew; and $100,000 made in equal payments during 2017 and 2018 budget years by the Town of Petawawa. Partners: The Petawawa Housing Corpor- ation (PHC) was the lead applicant of the project and are the facility management. They worked with the local municipal government, the County of Renfrew, as well as the Ontario government through their Investment in Affordable Housing program. The PHC has a very dedicated board of directors with reach and influ- ence, which has helped realize the project in the span of just over two years and will allow for sustainability. Challenges: Funding was a stumbling block to this initiative. The estimate for the build came in higher than the envelope of money available and plans had to be modified to bring the build in line with the budget. Fundraising the $200,000 was a difficult as many other worthy efforts were being solicited for at the same time. The fundraising committee got creative and did what they could to reach the goal. As utility costs continue to rise, main- taining the units at 20% less than market value remains a challenge. The mix of unit models provides some leverage to ensure success. The original build had 21 units (16 rentals that were geared to income and 5 available at full market value). There are now 14 additional units available at the reduced rental rate. Impact: All units in both the original and newly built sections are now full; however there remains a need for additional units in the community. As a success to this story, the original build is now fully mortgage free, which was also a key consideration in the PHC being able to finance a mortgage for the new build section. Sustainability: There are no additional plans by PHC to build any more units, nor is there space in their current land envelop to do so at this time. Money available to support these types of builds is currently not available. However, a developer who participated in the Age-Friendly workshops has undertaken a new rental accommo- dation build, which will realize 39 addi- tional apartment rental units within the community. While they are not restricted to being offered under an affordable rental program, this build will have units with fully regulated accessible features, required now under the building code, and will offer more housing options in the Petawawa community. - 132 - Maintain Momentum and Sustain Success 77 Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations Transportation – Let’s Get Moving in Hamilton City of Hamilton, population: 539,917 (2016) Background: In 2013, the Hamilton Council on Aging (CoA) partnered with the City of Hamilton and the Seniors Advisory Committee to develop Hamilton’s Plan for an Age-Friendly City. The Age-Friendly Plan includes several recommendations to improve how older adults move in and around the city. Research data indicates that while older adults value the importance of physical activity, they have the lowest exercise rates of all Canadians.34 Physical activity plays an important role in improving well-being and preventing illness and dependence. The Let’s Get Moving Project responds to the Age-Friendly Plan recommendations, as well as current research findings to enhance social participation and further promote physical activity to help older adults main- tain health, reduce the risk of falls, and enhance overall health and well-being. Hamilton has a unique infrastructure that it is in a position to promote active trans- portation as a form of getting around and also to increase physical activity. In 2017, the decision was made to align existing initiatives (Let’s Take the Bus and Let’s Take a Walk) and incorporate a cycling component as part of a combined Let’s Get Moving workshop series. Initiative: Let’s Get Moving (2017-2019) consists of 30 free workshops for older adults, each with an educational and experiential component. There are three parts to the workshop series: Let’s Take the Bus, Let’s Take a Walk, and Let’s Ride a Bike. The core structure of each workshop is the same, though some are tailored to meet the needs of targeted groups. Partici- pants sign up for single workshops in any of the three series. Let’s Get Moving: An Age Friendly Guide to 18 of Hamilton’s Outdoor Recreational Trails (https://coahamilton.s3.amazonaws. com/uploads/2014/09/ALG49659-HCA- Walk-Book-web.pdf ) is a primary resource for the program and includes information about Hamilton’s outdoor trail systems, bus stop information, and locations of Hamil- ton’s Social Bicycles (SOBIs). 1. Let’s Take the Bus Workshops: These workshops introduce and reintro- duce older adults to Hamilton’s public transit system and address any barriers that may prevent the use of public transit. Workshops are structured over 3 hours and include: •Presentation (45 minutes) – Presenta- tion about taking the bus •Demonstration (15 minutes) – Participants board the bus. The bus driver provides a tour that highlights the accessible features of buses, demonstrates how to board with an accessibility device, points out storage areas for groceries and answers participants’ questions. •Bus Ride (30 minutes) – The bus driver takes participants on a bus ride, repli- cating an actual route to a pre-determined destination for lunch. Destinations are planned to be relevant to various groups of seniors (e.g. for seniors who have a membership valid at two loca- - 133 - 78 Maintain Momentum and Sustain Success Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations tions, the trip might demonstrate the ride between both sites). •Lunch (1 hour) – Lunch adds fun and incentive to the workshop and provides an opportunity for participants to engage with facilitators and each other. •Bus Ride Back and Evaluation (30 minutes) – Ride back to point of origin and evaluation. Read a brochure about the workshops. (https://coahamilton.s3.amazonaws.com/ uploads/2016/05/Lets-Take-the-Bus- Brochure-May-2017.pdf) While the focus of this workshop is on utilizing public transit, information is also provided about alternative transportation options available in the community. Partici- pants are encouraged to speak with the Project Coordinator or Facilitator for more information about these alternatives. 2. Let’s Take a Walk Workshops These workshops educate older adults about the benefits of walking and encourage use of Hamilton’s outdoor trails. Workshops are structured over 3 hours and include: •Presentation (1 hour) – Presentation by the Project Coordinator about the benefits of walking and the Let’s Get Moving Trail Guide. •Guided Walk (1 hour) – An older adult volunteer leads a walk along an age-friendly trail within proximity to the host location while discussing the bene- fits of walking. The project team also works with community partners and local fitness instructors to include a special walk for each workshop (e.g. Nordic pole walking) to offer participants an oppor- tunity to try other available programs that they may wish to explore further. •Lunch (1 hour) – Lunch back at the host site. 3. Let’s Ride a Bike Workshops These workshops reintroduce cycling fundamentals and resources, and help older adults gain confidence to get back on their bikes. Hamilton’s SOBIs and helmets are available for participants. Workshops are three hours and modeled after the CanBike Program. •Presentation (1 hour) – Presentation about the benefits of cycling, cycling basics, riding skills, SOBIs and cycling resources. •Bike Ride (1 hour) – Cycling coaching session and group ride along an outdoor trail. •Lunch (1 hour) – Lunch Funding: Let’s Take a Bus (2011) was funded by a New Horizons grant. Let’s Take a Walk (2013-15) was resourced by the Ontario Sport and Recreation Communities Fund. Let’s Get Moving Workshops (2017- 2019) are funded by the Ontario Sport and Recreation Communities Fund. Let’s Get Moving workshops are organized by a Project Coordinator. For all the work- shops, senior volunteers act as facilitators. Senior volunteers are recruited through community partners and communication channels. Facilitators for each workshop have expertise on the subject matter: Let’s Take the Bus facilitators ride the bus regularly, Let’s Take a Walk facilitators are typically retired health and wellness professionals, and Let’s Ride a Bike facilita- tors are intermediate to expert cyclists. - 134 - Maintain Momentum and Sustain Success 79 Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations Let’s Take the Bus and Let’s Take a Walk are a train-the-trainer model. For Let’s Ride a Bike, facilitators must attend and pass a 2-day CanBike Coach Training. Training costs were covered through the current grant. In-kind resources include: buses provided by the City, staff time from numerous part- ners and workshop space. Partners: The current Project is led by the Hamilton CoA, with members from the City of Hamilton, Seniors Advisory Committee and Retired Teachers of Ontario (Chapter 13) on the Steering Committee. Additional partners included in the specific workshops include: Hamilton Street Railway, DARTS, Hamilton Conservation Authority, the Iroquoia Bruce Trail Club, McMaster University Rehabili- tation Sciences, New Hope Community Bikes and Hamilton SOBI. Challenges: The workshops can be weather dependent. It is difficult to know if the program is reaching all of the people who would really benefit (e.g. those who are not typically joiners). To expand the Let’s Take the Bus workshop to a new demographic, a workshop will be offered in partnership with the local Alzheimer Society that will focus on transportation options for those who may have been car-dependent and now no longer drive due to memory loss. Impact: With the current funding, it is anticipated that 600 older adults will participate. Many participants indicated that they are more confident riding the bus, they plan to walk along Hamilton’s trails, and they are more confident about cycling. Sustainability: The in-kind contributions listed above, as well as the complementary resources (i.e. Let’s Get Moving Resource Guide, Let’s Take the Bus brochure in different languages, and Directory of Local Walking Groups) contribute to the sustainability of the program. However, the Hamilton CoA continues to seek funding for staff coordination time, as well as work- shop lunches that provide extra incentive for people to attend the workshops. Social Participation – Sip and Learn in Temiskaming Shores City of Temiskaming Shores, population: 9,920 (2016) Background: In 2015, an age-friendly survey that was conducted in Temisk- aming Shores showed a need for community social groups that were focused more on socialization and discus- sion versus specific interest areas (i.e. card games or sports programs). The community also identified the need to offer bilingual programming in both main communities that make up the City of Temiskaming Shores. The community also identified communications gaps and indi- cated an interest in receiving more infor- mation about local services and supports. Initiative: In response to the needs identified above, SipNLearn was established by the Temiskaming Shores and Area Age-Friendly Community in 2017. SipNLearn is a regular social program for older adults with an educational component. It is an opportunity for older adults to socialize in a meaningful way with other community members at no cost. The Program is intended to benefit those who are at lower income and/or risk of social isolation. The Program is run at a - 135 - 80 Maintain Momentum and Sustain Success Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations local bookstore/café in one community and at a local motel common room in the other. During each session, the City of Temisk- aming Shores Age-Friendly/GetActive! Coordinator greets everyone and provides an introduction to the guest speaker. SipN- Learn is a bilingual program; it is preferred that the guest speaker is also bilingual (or accompanied by someone who is). Partici- pants take ownership of the Program; they assist with arranging tables and chairs, preparing and cleaning up, as well as request topics and speakers of interest. A communication strategy was developed to support the Program: •Radio – The Age-Friendly Coordinator goes on the local radio station monthly to discuss upcoming programs and activities. •Newspaper – The City buys a weekly page in the local weekly newspapers. Age-Friendly programs (including SipN- Learn) are included. •Posters – Program information is posted on throughout the community and monthly calendars outline upcoming speakers. •Social Media – Information is shared on the City of Temiskaming Shores Facebook page and often shared by Timiskaming Health Unit, and other community groups and programs. •Email distribution list – Older community members as well as local businesses and professionals receive monthly ‘Age-Friendly updates.’ •Presentations – Presentations are made to groups of older people and professionals working in the area. Funding: SipNLearn received a 1-year grant from the New Horizons for Seniors Program for $10,200 with a municipal contribution of $1,000. In-kind support was provided by two local businesses that provided space for the program. Annual funding set aside by the City of Temisk- aming Shores covers the relatively small cost of coffee and tea after the initial grant expired. A designated coordinator, as well as organizations interested in guest speaking, have been vital in the continued success of SipNLearn. Partners: The City of Temiskaming Shores partnered with local businesses and organ- izations to host the Program. In total, over 40 different community groups, services, health care organizations and clubs have attended SipNLearn as guest speakers. Presenters have included: the local MPP, the Temisk- aming Art Gallery, the Canadian Hearing Society, the City of Temiskaming Shores recycling and waste management program, archaeologists and dental hygienists. Challenges: Offering consistent bilingual SipNLearn sessions can be a challenge as not all guest speakers are able to provide bilingual presentations. Where possible, the Coordinator brings in another Franco- phone community group to present on the same topic. At times, the help of a bilingual translator is enlisted if necessary. Initially, the Program was held weekly. Once the funding expired, participants expressed that they were interested and committed in seeing the program continue. As a result, the program moved from weekly to monthly sessions, and instead of offering a nutritious snack during each session, the business partners contribute coffee and tea only. - 136 - Maintain Momentum and Sustain Success 81 Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations It can be difficult to ensure everyone in the community is aware of the program and understands there is no specific ‘target audience’ (i.e. there is no age requirement); all are welcome and valued regardless of age, gender, and/or linguistic preference. Continued advertising efforts have assisted in promoting the program to all members of the community. Impact: SipNLearn participation numbers have improved substantially over time. The Program draws 17-25 participants per session; over 200 community members have attended to-date. Several partici- pants have noted that they feel better equipped with knowledge when speaking with health professionals. Some partici- pants have indicated that the ‘meetings’ have become important in their sched- ules. Temiskaming Shores does not have a designated Older Adult Centre, and SipNLearn has become a de facto ‘seniors centre’. Community partners expressed that they have gained insight from the discussions and are now better able to understand the needs of the community. For example, following a presentation to the group, the local ‘Golden Age Club’ saw their membership numbers increase. Sustainability: The City of Temiskaming Shores has set aside money to fund age-friendly projects. SipNLearn costs $30/ location to contribute toward space usage and coffee/tea for participants. Guest speakers that have taken part in the program have a mandate to engage with the public as part of their job and therefore do not require payment. Respect and Social Inclusion – Sewing for Ages Intergenerational Program in Simcoe County Simcoe County, population: 479,650 (2016) Background: During the Simcoe County Age-Friendly Communities’ consultation process in 2016, older adults cited a lack of opportunities to interact with youth. The Simcoe County Age-Friendly Communities Advisory Committee endorsed increasing intergenerational programming as a priority within the 2018-2023 Positive Aging Strategy. As a result of this recommenda- tion, the Sewing for Ages Intergenerational Program was implemented by Sunset Manor to increase the delivery of inter- generational programs. Initiative: The Sewing for Ages Intergener- ational Program was initiated in 2018 by a retired nurse and volunteer at Sunset Manor, a municipal Long-Term Care home in Collingwood, Simcoe County. This champion noticed that there was a need to increase social stimulation for residents and met with the Programs and Support Services Supervisor of Sunset Manor to propose a new opportunity to engage both young and old in a mutually beneficial Sewing for Ages Intergenerational Program. The program was facilitated by the acti- vation staff at Sunset Manor and led by a volunteer. The Programs and Support Services Supervisor of Sunset Manor and the volunteer created posters asking - 137 - 82 Maintain Momentum and Sustain Success Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations for donations of sewing machines and materials to start up this new program. Word-of-mouth quickly spread through the community and eight sewing machines and other items were donated to the Program. Program staff used word-of-mouth, social media and a newspaper article to recruit children ages 8-12 from the community. Parents called to enroll their child in the program. Program staff hung posters in each ‘home area’ of Sunset Manor, the elevator, and public bulletin boards to recruit residents. The Program was also added to the monthly resident program calendars and staff encouraged partici- pation. Eleven pairs of children and residents were then matched and a meet-and-greet was organized to provide the participants an opportunity to get to know each other and discuss the project. Each child was provided with a sewing kit, which included thread snips, two measuring tapes, a daily journal and a bag. The program was held in a common area where other residents were welcome to observe and join in. Family members would also bring and accompany their loved one to the program. Over an eight-week period, the children were taught introductory sewing skills using the machines and with the support of residents. The participants worked for an hour and a half on creating customized fidget blankets. Fidget blankets are polar fleece lap-sized blankets covered in items like patches, pockets, zippers, buttons and small toys intended to engage indi- viduals living with dementia. At the end of the Program, participants presented their handmade gift to another resident living with dementia at Sunset Manor. Funding: No funding was obtained to run this program. All programming equip- ment, supplies and snacks were donated by volunteers and members of the community (i.e., sewing machines and material). Partners: The Simcoe County Age-Friendly Advisory Committee partnered with Sunset Manor for this Program. The Program was facilitated by staff at Sunset Manor and led by a volunteer with advanced sewing experience. Challenges: At first, participants were a little timid in getting to know each other. To address this, children attended an orienta- tion session to learn about aging and the purpose of the Program. Impact: As a result of the impact of this program, two separate sewing classes are being held to accommodate local interest. The Program continues to receive dona- tions of sewing machines and fabric from the community and receive calls from parents interested in enrolling their child in this program. Similar programming will be initiated at the other three County of Simcoe long-term care homes in 2019. Sustainability: The Program is now being expanded at Sunset Manor to two evening sessions per eight-week period so more children can participate. During future sessions, children will sew nightgowns for residents who are palliative, as well as bags that can be hung on assistive devices such as walkers and wheelchairs. In addition, the program will include a tour of the home so children can see where their senior partner lives and engage with other seniors prior to starting their projects. - 138 - Maintain Momentum and Sustain Success 83 Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations Respect and Social Inclusion – Capital Aging: An Age-Friendly Businesses Initiative of the Council on Aging of Ottawa City of Ottawa, population: 934,243 (2016) Background: In 2013, The Council on Aging (CoA) of Ottawa launched an Age-Friendly Business (AFB) initiative to encourage older adults to nominate “senior consumer choice” local businesses as age-friendly. An information package was developed for both older adults and businesses that included a bilingual checklist and nomin- ation form available on the Age-Friendly Ottawa website. Since its inception, the AFB initiative in Ottawa recognized 20 ‘senior-nominated’ businesses. Busi- nesses were awarded a certificate and a window decal to display the recogni- tion. In 2016, the AFB Working Group was reconvened to evaluate the effectiveness of this program. A student undertook the evaluation activity and visited 16 of the 20 recognized businesses. The certificate and window decal were only visible at the store front in one business. Despite the free publicity through the website and newsletter, businesses did not see the value of the program. Though AFB met the objective of engaging older adults, it did not engage businesses to actively promote themselves as age-friendly. A larger impact on how seniors were served by businesses was missing. This was iden- tified as the problem and became the strategy behind the Capital Aging Initiative. In addition, the Ontario government intro- duced mandatory accessibility standards for businesses to better service Ontarians with disabilities. The Integrated Access- ibility Standards Regulation provides stan- dards for Customer Service, Information and Communications, Transportation, Employment, and Design of Public Spaces (Built Environment). Standards are currently being developed for Heath Care and Education. Initiative: The goals of Capital Aging are to increase the number and types of busi- nesses who serve older adults well in Ottawa and generate sustainable revenue for CoA Ottawa. With funding, CoA Ottawa was able to hire a social enterprise coach to further develop the business model of Capital Aging. The following were identi- fied as priorities for the initiative: training/ education, networking, recognition, and market research about older consumers. With the support of the coach and the guidance of the Capital Aging working group (six volunteers representing older adults and businesses that serve older adults), a survey with business partners was completed, as well as testing of two of the service offerings: networking and market research. Additionally, meetings were held with key leaders in the business community including West Ottawa Board of Trade, Ottawa Chamber of Commerce, and Ottawa Tourism. In December 2017, CoA Ottawa hosted a pilot breakfast networking event that was attended by 12 business leaders to provide feedback on the model and concept of Capital Aging. The market research paper, Tapping into - 139 - 84 Maintain Momentum and Sustain Success Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations Ottawa’s older consumer market: Worth $12.6B a year and growing!, was released at the breakfast networking event. Funding: CoA Ottawa applied for funding through Innoweave to further develop Capital Aging and both prototype and test the two service offerings: networking and market research. In addition, several business leaders in both the profit and non-profit sector volunteered their time as members of the Capital Aging working group to help develop the concept. Partners: Several working group members are business leaders in the profit and non-profit sectors and have been crucial partners in further developing the concept. These members also brokered introduc- tions to the wider business community, including the West Ottawa Board of Trade, the Ottawa Chamber of Commerce and Ottawa Tourism. Promotion: The events to date, as well as the market research paper were promoted through the CoA Ottawa newsletter and website. The joint breakfast networking event was hosted by West Ottawa Board of Trade and was promoted through their network of 700+ members. Challenges: The CoA Ottawa board is supportive but wishes to proceed cautiously to minimize risk and ensure success while further developing the initiative. In addition, a change in part- ners occurred during the process; right after the breakfast networking event the West Ottawa Board of Trade merged with Ottawa Chamber of Commerce to create a new single entity serving the business community. This relationship is now slowly rebuilding. Finally, competing priorities have seen the attention shift to other emerging age-friendly issues. Impact: The survey of business leaders received 76 responses and confirmed most leaders saw being age-friendly as a competitive advantage. Over 40 business leaders attended the networking break- fast event, which included a presentation of key findings from the paper and a panel discussion from the perspective of the community, tourism sector, and retire- ment living sector. Presently, 25 corporate members have been engaged and this number continues to grow. Sustainability: A plan to seek another seed funding to complete a feasibility study and address operational readiness for the Capital Aging initiative is slowly moving ahead. Civic Participation and Employment – Age- Friendly Thunder Bay Senior Service Award Program City of Thunder Bay, population: 107,909 (2016) Background: The Age-Friendly Thunder Bay Senior Service Award Program was developed to honour older adults who have made an outstanding voluntary contribution to enrich the social, cultural or civic life of the community in the areas of arts, leadership, community service, health living or humanitarian activities. Initiative: To be eligible for the award, the older adult must be 65 years or older; - 140 - Maintain Momentum and Sustain Success 85 Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations contributed to the enrichment of the social, cultural, or civic life of the Thunder Bay community; made the commitment without thought of personal or financial gain; provided the special work or service during/after the age of 65. A Nomination Review Committee, made up of other older adults in the community, reviewed the nominations and voted on the best candidate based on eligibility criteria that covered need, impact, focus, diversity, leadership, originality, and volunteer time. A reception was held in June, during Seniors Month, where the award recipient was presented with a framed certificate and $100.00 in gift certificates to the local Country Market. Funding: Age-Friendly Thunder Bay secured a single sponsor to contribute $500 towards the Senior Service Award Program. Program costs included: •Refreshments for the reception (approximately $100) •Four gift certificates for the award recipient in denominations of $25 ($100). •Hiring of a student to design the certifi- cate ($75) *this design will be used for future awards. •Frame for the award ($15) Partners: Nurse Next Door agreed to be the lead sponsor of the Senior Service Award Program. The Owner/Manager of Nurse Next Door has agreed to continue the sponsorship in the future. The NorWest Community Health Centres hosted the reception and the Centre for Education and Research on Aging and Health provided a video of the award winner, which was shown at the reception. Promotion: All members of Age-Friendly Thunder Bay (approximately 50 organiz- ations/ individuals) promoted the Senior Service Award Program. The Award Program was also promoted through the Age-Friendly Thunder Bay website, social media, print media, fax/email blast through the Lakehead Social Planning Council, and public service announcements. Challenges: The Senior Service Award Program required upfront time to develop eligibility and review criteria and secure the sponsor, but it is anticipated that this time would be significantly reduced for future years now that a process is in place. For the next year, Age-Friendly Thunder Bay will try to obtain more nominations. Impact: In 2018, six nominations were received, and one award recipient was selected, so as not to dilute the intent of the award. The Senior Service Award Program received support from Council and extensive media coverage. The award recipient was very appreciative of the recognition and gift certificates. Sustainability: The award will be continued on an annual basis. Nurse Next Door has agreed to sponsor the Senior Service Award Program again. - 141 - 86 Maintain Momentum and Sustain Success Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations Communication and Information – Age- Friendly Seniors Expo in Wasaga Beach Town of Wasaga Beach, population: 20,675 (2016) Background: The Town of Wasaga Beach’s Age-Friendly Community Plan (2016) included recommendations to both increase coordination of local services, and to raise awareness about existing services and supports for older adults. This recommendation was an item selected by the Wasaga Beach Age-Friendly Community Advisory Committee when establishing an action plan framework. Initiative: The Advisory Committee decided to offer an annual Expo event to help connect older adults in Wasaga Beach to local information and services. During the first Expo (2017), there were guest speakers, politicians, door prizes and 25 information booths. To help predict food quantity, attendees were asked to pre-register through the library and the 100-ticket cap was reached several weeks prior. The first Expo was free for exhibitors and attendees. For the second Seniors Information and Active Living Expo (2018), a larger venue was chosen, a working sub-committee was established to plan, organize and coordinate the event. Four speakers provided presentations throughout the day on topics such as seniors and fraud, cognitive decline, interactive benefits of active living, and transitioning to long-term care. 50 exhibitors provided information about local housing, financial, health and other community services. There was no fee for non-profit agencies; for-profit agen- cies were charged $20 per table. All 50 exhibitors were asked to contribute a door prize. The Expo ran from 10-2 at the Town’s Recreation Complex. Funding: The first Expo was funded by a New Horizons grant, which allowed the Advisory Committee to purchase t-shirts, nametags, a catered lunch, and print materials for the Advisory Committee to be used annually. Leftover funds made the second Expo possible. Addition- ally, a community partner provided a $500 donation for food, and the Town of Wasaga Beach donated the room rental. The Advisory Committee contributed their time organizing and running the event and the Wasaga Beach Public Library provided additional staff on the day of the event. Partners: Both years, community part- ners on the Advisory Committee each had exhibitor tables at the event: Wasaga Beach Public Library; Red Cross; South Georgian Bay Community Healthy Centre; Simcoe-Muskoka District Health Unit; Town of Wasaga Beach; County of Simcoe Social Housing Department; Wasaga Beach YMCA and Healthy Community Network. During the second year, some of the part- ners were also guest speakers. Promotion: The event was promoted via the local newspaper, radio, printed flyers, press release, Town of Wasaga Beach Age-Friendly Website, Age-Friendly Facebook page, Town of Wasaga Beach Recreation Guide, as well as at community speaking engagements. - 142 - Maintain Momentum and Sustain Success 87 Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations Challenges: Some challenges include: •More exhibitor demand than could be accommodated in the space. •In 2018 the catered lunch was changed to pre-packed lunch bags to reduce cost; however, there was no pre-registration for the event and the group ran out of food. •With speakers in the same room as exhibitors, it was difficult to hear the presentations. In the future, the Advisory Committee will plan to have a secondary room for speakers or offer only the information booths. •The facility prohibited the selling of products and some potential vendors were disappointed that the event was for information purposes only. •It is difficult to establish an annual event without funding. Impact: The Expo increased in reach from the first to second year; growing from 100 participants and 25 exhibitors to close to 500 participants and 50 exhibitors. Aware- ness about the Advisory Committee and its initiatives has increased dramatically throughout the area. Sustainability: The Advisory Committee collected a contact database of potential exhibitors for future promotion efforts, and many community partners confirmed their interest for the next year’s event. Community Support and Health Services – Age- Friendly Communities and Fall Prevention (Stay On Your Feet) in the North East LHIN City of North Bay, population: 51,553 (2016) Background: With funding from the North East Local Health Integration Network (North East LHIN), the North Bay Parry Sound District Health Unit began imple- mentation of the Stay on Your Feet (SOYF) strategy in 2009. The need to increase the number and type of stakeholders beyond the health sector, especially in the muni- cipal sector, was recognized as a factor for success of the strategy. Many community partners, including the Mayor, felt passionate about improving the quality of life and maintaining independ- ence for our local senior population. Connecting SOYF and Age-Friendly communities across the north east reduces duplication of work and resources and builds a larger base on which to improve the quality of life for an aging population. Though the SOYF Pillars and the 8 AFC domains are complementary, both frame- works share a common goal: building healthy public policy. - 143 - 88 Maintain Momentum and Sustain Success Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations SOYF Pillars AFC Domains Strengthen Community Action Social Participation Respect and Social Inclusion Civic Participation and Employment Develop Personal Skills Communication and Information Create Supportive Environments Outdoor Spaces and Buildings Transportation Housing Re-Orient Health Services Community Support and Health Services Build Healthy Public Policy Initiative: SOYF is the fall prevention strategy now being implemented by the North East LHIN, five North East Public Health Units and multiple partners and stakeholders across the region. SOYF aims to reduce the rate and severity of falls among adults 65+ years of age through offering a variety of falls preven- tion resources, free exercise classes in the community, and opportunities for networking, and training. Community collaboration and action is the cornerstone of this best practice strategy. SOYF works across all sectors: public health, primary care, acute care, home and community care, residential care, long-term care and others like municipalities, paramedicine, social services and YMCAs. The priorities of SOYF follow the five pillars of the Ottawa Charter of Health Promotion: strengthen community action, develop personal skills, create supportive environments, develop health policies and re-orient health services to focus on prevention. Activities include: education on nine risk factors, promotion of free exercise classes for older adults, community events, region-wide campaigns and distribution of SOYF resources. Integrating best practice standards into the work flow of primary care and long-term care help expand the reach of the strategy. Activities are scheduled throughout a fiscal year and are dependent on the capacity of the coalition members and network. Funding: Three years of funding from the North East LHIN for two public health units for SOYF began in 2009 and was renewed from 2015 – 2018 for five public health units. As a minimum, in-kind contributions from the local public health units must match the LHIN funding provided. In-kind - 144 - Maintain Momentum and Sustain Success 89 Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations resources from community partners, such as meeting rooms and distribution of resources throughout the district, were contributed. Partners: There are many groups and organizations that network together to make SOYF happen. At the regional level, the North East LHIN and five public health units work together to operationalize the SOYF strategy at the local and regional level. The regional strategic committee works to create links both regionally and provincially. Each of the five public health units involved work to connect the age-friendly initiatives within their areas. Some community partners belong to the core of the SOYF coalition and others are part of the network and assist as capacity permits (or depending on the activity). Members of the coalition include multiple partners from across all sectors: acute care hospitals, long term care homes, retirement homes, community support agencies, Red Cross, older adult volun- teers, primary care, family health teams, community health centre, North East LHIN home and community care, lifeline, care link, indigenous friendship centres, First Nations health centres, senior mental health outreach, paramedicine, YMCA, paramedicine and more. Promotion: SOYF activities, campaigns, messages and events are promoted through paid and earned media, and social media. Community partners also help promote SOYF through their communication channels. The health units distribute information about SOYF through community partners, at activities and at events, such as the North Bay Seniors Expo. Challenges: It can be difficult to balance the priorities and capacity of community partners. Impact: In the first 6 months of 2018-2019, 100 older adults have been involved with SOYF planning at a local level and over 2,500 have participated in SOYF activities. Additionally, screening at one nurse prac- titioner clinic and 8 family health teams across the NE LHIN identified that 40% of older adults screened were deemed at risk for a fall, of these 50% were at risk of malnutrition. Sustainability: SOYF has renewed funding and partnership agreements between the North East LHIN and the five public health units that spans 2018-2021. One key priority is to embed SOYF into the day-to-day activities of key stakeholders, so that if the funding is no longer available, the fall prevention work continues. Get more infor- mation on SOYF in North Bay. (https:// www.myhealthunit.ca/en/health-topics/ stay-on-your-feet.asp) - 145 - 90 References Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations References 1. World Health Organization. Measuring the age-friendliness of cities: A guide to core indi- cators. 2015. Kobe, Japan: 1-128. (https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/2038 30/9789241509695_eng.pdf;jsessionid=91001FBB710B2324D7F50DAB95AF38DD? sequence=1) 2. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World Population Prospects: The 2017 Revision, Volume II: Demographic Profiles. (ST/ESA/ SER.A/400). 2017. New York, USA: 1-883. (https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/publications/ files/wpp2017_volume-ii-demographic-profiles.pdf.) 3. World Health Organization. Global strategy and action plan on ageing and health. 2017. Geneva, Switzerland. (https://www.who.int/ageing/WHO-GSAP-2017.pdf?ua=1&ua=1) 4. World Health Organization. Global Age-Friendly Cities Guide. 2007. Geneva, Switzer- land: 1-82. (http://www.who.int/ageing/publications/Global_age_friendly_cities_Guide_ English.pdf.) 5. Denton, M. Age-friendly cities and communities in Ontario. Paper presented at: Sympo- sium of the Institute for Research and Public Policy, Age-friendly communities in Ontario: Multi-level governance, coordination challenges and policy implications. November, 2013; Toronto, ON. (http://irpp.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/research/ faces-of-aging/age-friendly-communities/Nicole-Report-Nov-4-5-2013.pdf) 6. Lachapelle U, Frank L, Saelens BE, Sallis JF, Conway TL. Commuting by Public Transit and Physical Activity: Where You Live, Where You Work, and How You Get There. Journal of Physical Activity and Health. 2011;8(s1). doi:10.1123/jpah.8.s1.s72. (https://journals. humankinetics.com/view/journals/jpah/8/s1/article-pS72.xml) 7. Boltz M, Resnick B, Chippendale T, Galvin J. Testing a Family-Centered Intervention to Promote Functional and Cognitive Recovery in Hospitalized Older Adults. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2014. doi:10.1111/jgs.13139. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/25481973/) 8. Mueller N, Rojas-Rueda D, Cole-Hunter T, et al. Health impact assessment of active transportation: A systematic review. Preventive Medicine. 2015;76:103-114. doi:10.1016/ j.ypmed.2015.04.010. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25900805/) 9. Novek S, Menec V, Tran T, Bell S. Social Participation and its Benefits. Chapter 1: Exploring the Impacts of Senior Centres on Older Adults. Winnipeg, MB: Centre on Aging, May 2013. (https://www.gov.mb.ca/seniors/publications/docs/senior_centre_report.pdf.) - 146 - References 91 Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations 10. Tindale J, Denton M, Ploeg J, et al. Social determinants of older adults’ awareness of community support services in Hamilton, Ontario. Health & Social Care in the Community. 2011;19(6):661-672. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2524.2011.01013.x. (https://onlinelibrary. wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2524.2011.01013.x) 11. Stangler D. The coming entrepreneurship boom. Ewing Marion Kauffman Founda- tion; 2009. (https://www.kauffman.org/-/media/kauffman_org/research-reports-and- covers/2009/07/thecomingentrepreneurialboom.pdf.) 12. Statistics Canada. CANSIM Table 45-10-0004-01 Donor rate and average annual dona- tions, by age group. Ottawa: Statistics Canada; 2013. Accessed February 20, 2019 (https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=4510000401) 13. Scharlach AE, & Lehning A. Creating aging-friendly communities. New York: Oxford University Press; 2016. 96-99. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959420.2016.1168072 (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08959420.2016.1168072?scroll=top &needAccess=true&journalCode=wasp20) 14. Sallis JF, Bowles HR, Bauman A, et al. Neighborhood Environments and Physical Activity Among Adults in 11 Countries. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2009;36(6):484- 490. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2009.01.031. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19460656/) 15. Fetterman, D.M., Kaftarian, S.J., Wandersman, A. Empowerment Evaluation: Knowledge and Tools for Self-Assessment & Accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publica- tions, Inc.1996 doi: 10.4135/9781452243573. (https://sk.sagepub.com/books/empower- ment-evaluation) 16. Minkler M. Community Organizing and Community Building for Health and Welfare. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press; 2012. pp. 171-186. (https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/298082225_Community_organizing_and_community_building_for_health_ and_welfare_Third_edition) 17. Wandersman A, Alia K, Cook BS, Hsu LL, Ramaswamy R. Evidence-Based Interventions Are Necessary but Not Sufficient for Achieving Outcomes in Each Setting in a Complex World. American Journal of Evaluation. 2016;37(4):544-561. doi:10.1177/1098214016660613. (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1098214016660613) 18. Chinman M, Imm P, Wandersman A. Getting To Outcomes™ 2004: Promoting account- ability through methods and tools for planning, implementation, and evaluation. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation; 2004. (https://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/ TR101.html) 19. Menec V, Bell S, Novek S, et al. Making Rural and Remote Communities More Age-Friendly: Experts’ Perspectives on Issues, Challenges, and Priorities. Journal of Aging & Social Policy. 2015;27(2):173-191. doi:10.1080/08959420.2014.995044. (https:// pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25647697/) - 147 - 92 References Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations 20.Statistics Canada. 2016 Census topic: immigration and ethnocultural diversity. Statistics Canada Catalogue 98-402-X2016002. Ottawa: Statistics Canada; 2017. Accessed on July 29, 2018. (https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/rt-td/imm-eng.cfm) 21.Mahboubi P. The Power of Words: Improving Immigrants’ Literacy Skills. Commentary # 486. CD Howe Institute; 2017. isbn 978-1-987983-39-5 (https://www.cdhowe.org/sites/ default/files/attachments/research_papers/mixed/Commentary_486.pdf) 22.Statistics Canada. National Household Survey, Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 99-010- X2011033. Ottawa: Statistics Canada; 2011. (https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/ dp-pd/dt-td/Rp-eng.cfm?LANG=E&APATH=3&DETAIL=0&DIM=0&FL=A&FREE=0&GC=0& GID=0&GK=0&GRP=0&PID=105897&PRID=0&PTYPE=105277&S=0&SHOWALL=1&SUB=0& Temporal=2013&THEME=96&VID=0&VNAMEE=&VNAMEF=) 23.Picot G, Lu Y. Chronic Low Income Among Immigrants in Canada and its Commun- ities. Ottawa: Statistics Canada; 2017. No. 391. Catalogue no. 11F0019M. (https://www150. statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/11f0019m/11f0019m2017397-eng.pdf?st=ijO1IlMU) 24.Diwan S, Lee SE, Sen S. Expectations of Filial Obligation and Their Impact on Prefer- ences for Future Living Arrangements of Middle-Aged and Older Asian Indian Immi- grants. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology. 2010;26(1):55-69. doi:10.1007/s10823-010- 9134-6. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21161355/) 25.Guruge S, Birpreet B, Samuels-Dennis JA. Health Status and Health Determin- ants of Older Immigrant Women in Canada: A Scoping Review. Journal of Aging Research. 2015:1-12. doi:10.1155/2015/393761. (https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ jar/2015/393761/) 26.Statistics Canada. Aboriginal identity population by both sexes, total – age, 2016 counts, Canada, provinces and territories, 2016 Census – 25% Sample data. Ottawa: Statistics Canada; 2020-10-02. (https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/ hlt-fst/abo-aut/Table.cfm?Lang=Eng&S=99&O=A&RPP=25) 27.Altschuld JW. Bridging the gap between asset/capacity building and needs assess- ment: Concepts and practical applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. 2015. (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/bridging-the-gap-between-assetcapacity- building-and-needs-assessment/book237565) 28.Hunter SB, Ober PA, Chinman M, Ebener AJ, Huang CY. Promoting success: A Getting to Outcomes guide to implementing continuous quality improvement for community service organizations. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2015 : (https://www.rand.org/ pubs/tools/TL179.html) 29.Centre for Disease Control. Evaluation Briefs. Developing Process Evaluation Questions. CDC; 2009. Accessed on January 30, 2019 (https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/ evaluation/pdf/brief4.pdf) - 148 - References 93 Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations 30. Rogers T, Chappelle EF, Wall HK, Barron-Simpson R. Using Indicators for Program Planning and Evaluation. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2011. (https://silo.tips/download/using-indicators-for-program-planning-and-evaluation) 31. Porteous N, Sheldrick B, Stewart P. Introducing the program to logic models: Facili- tating the learning process. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation. 2002;17(3). (http:// med-fom-familymed-research.sites.olt.ubc.ca/files/2012/03/faciliter_modele_logiques_ CJPE-2002_f.pdf) 32. Health Quality Ontario. Quality Improvement Guide. 2012;1-64. (http://www.hqontario.ca/ portals/0/Documents/qi/qi-quality-improve-guide-2012-en.pdf.) 33. Hartt MD, Biglieri S. Prepared for the silver tsunami? An examination of municipal old-age dependency and age-friendly policy in Ontario, Canada. Journal of Urban Affairs. 2017;40(5):625-638. doi:10.1080/07352166.2017.1360744. (https://www.tandfonline.com/ doi/abs/10.1080/07352166.2017.1360744) 34. Public Health Agency of Canada, Health Status of Canadians 2016: A report to the Chief Public Health Officer. 2016;1-68. (https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/hc-sc/ healthy-canadians/migration/publications/department-ministere/state-public-health- status-2016-etat-sante-publique-statut/alt/pdf-eng.pdf) - 149 - 94 References Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations URL (TBD) Resource Summary Hyperlink descriptive text URL Advancing Accessibility in Ontario framework https://www.ontario.ca/page/accessibility- in-ontario AFC Outreach Program https://agefriendlyontario.ca/age-friendly- communities AFC Ontario Interactive Maps https://sagelink.ca/age-friendly- communities-ontario/age-friendly- communities-ontario-interactive-maps/ Age-Friendly Communication: Facts, Tips and Ideas https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/ phac-aspc/migration/phac-aspc/seniors- aines/alt-formats/pdf/publications/public/ various-varies/afcomm-commavecaines/ AFComm-Commavecaines-eng.pdf Age-Friendly Communities Evaluation Guide https://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/seniors- aines/alt-formats/pdf/indicators- indicateurs-v2-eng.pdf Age-Friendly Community Remote Event Planning Resource https://files.ontario.ca/msaa-age-friendly- communities-remote-events-planning- resource-en-2021-01-01.pdf Age-Friendly Dashboard created by Hamilton’s Age-Friendly Committee https://sagelink.ca/creating-an-age- friendly-dashboard-to-monitor-and- communicate-progress/ City of London Age-Friendly Parks Checklist https://sagelink.ca/wp-content/ uploads/2020/04/London- AFParksChecklist_2017.pdf Creating a More Inclusive Ontario: Diverse Populations Addendum https://files.ontario.ca/msaa-diverse- popula tions-addendum-en-2021-01-01.pdf Creating a More Inclusive Ontario: Age-Friendly Community Planning Toolkit https://files.ontario.ca/msaa-age- friendly-community-planning- toolkit-en-2021-01-01.pdf - 150 - References 95 Age-Friendly Community Planning Guide for Municipalities and Community Organizations Resource Summary: Continued Hyperlink descriptive text URL Database of questions complied from existing Age-Friendly Community and Quality-of-Life surveys http://sagelink.ca/wp-content/ uploads/2020/11/2020-AFC-Instrument- Database.xlsx Designing an Information Guide for Older Adults https://sagelink.ca/wp-content/ uploads/2020/04/Seniors-Guide-tips- FINAL.pdf Find accessibility resource guides.https://www.ontario.ca/page/accessibility- ontario-information-businesses#section-1 Find more information on Stay on Your Feet (SOYF) in North Bay. https://www.myhealthunit.ca/en/health- topics/stay-on-your-feet.asp Guide to Program and Services for Seniors https://www.ontario.ca/page/guide- programs-and-services-seniors Let’s Get Moving: An Age Friendly Guide to 18 of Hamilton’s Outdoor Recreational Trails https://coahamilton.s3.amazonaws.com/ uploads/2014/09/ALG49659-HCA-Walk- Book-web.pdf Ontario AFC Recognition Program (2018)https://www.ontario.ca/page/honours-and- awards-community#section-0 Online Resource List: an interactive list of age-friendly resources from Age-Friendly Ontario. https://sagelink.ca/age-friendly- communities-ontario/age-friendly- communities-planning-guide/ Read a brochure about the Let’s Take the Bus Workshops. https://coahamilton.s3.amazonaws.com/ uploads/2016/05/Lets-Take-the-Bus- Brochure-May-2017.pdf Visit the 211 website.https://211ontario.ca/ - 151 - - 152 - Report to Council Report Number: CAO 02-21 Date: March 22, 2021 From: Marisa Carpino Chief Administrative Officer Subject: Request for Partial Revocation of Minister’s Zoning Order 607/20 - Lands Located West of Squires Beach Road, North of Bayly Street - File: A-1440-001 Recommendation: 1. That the letter to Mayor Ryan, from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, dated March 12, 2021, asking if the City would like the Minster to consider amending Minister’s Zoning Order 607/20 to exclude the portion of the lands that would allow for the construction of a distribution centre, be received; 2. That the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing be requested to revoke Minister’s Zoning Order 607/20 from the lands located west of Squires Beach Road, municipally known as 1802 Bayly Street, in the City of Pickering; 3. That the Mayor be authorized to write to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, in response to the Minister’s letter, to make the formal request on behalf of Council; and 4. That Council’s resolution on this matter be forwarded to: the Pickering-Uxbridge MPP, the Honourable Peter Bethenfalvy; the MPP for Ajax, the Honourable Rod Phillips; the Region of Durham; the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority; and Triple Properties. Executive Summary: On October 30, 2020, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (the “Minister”) responded to a request from the City of Pickering by enacting Minister’s Zoning Order 607/20 (the “MZO”) on the Durham Live lands. The map that accompanied the MZO is provided as Attachment #1. The MZO established a number of new uses on the lands, including permission for a major warehouse/distribution centre on the lands west of Squires Beach Road (1802 Bayly Street). This facility was anticipated to have significant employment opportunities and economic benefits. The company originally interested in the site has recently indicated that they are no longer considering the use of the property at 1802 Bayly Street. The Minister has reached out to the Mayor, essentially inviting the City to reconsider its position on the use of an MZO on the lands at 1802 Squires Beach Road. Staff recommend that Council request that the Minister revoke the MZO as it applies to the lands west of Squires Beach Road. The MZO will remain in place on the lands east of Squires - 153 - Report CAO 02-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: Request for Partial Revocation of MZO 607/20 Page 2 Beach Road. The Minister must conduct a mandatory consultation prior to amending the Order. Should the Order be amended as recommended, the zoning on the lands west of Squires Beach Road. would revert to “UR” – Urban Reserve, as identified in the City’s Zoning By-law 2511 as amended by By-law 7404/15. The only permissible uses in zone “UR” are: • outdoor recreation uses without buildings or structures; • preservation and conservation of the natural environment, soil and wildlife; or • existing lawful uses located on the land, or in existing buildings or structures, provided they continue in the same manner as prior to the passing of By-law 7404/15. Financial Implications: The recommendations of this report present no financial implications to the City. Discussion: On May 13, 2020, Pickering City Council passed Resolutions #293/20 to #295/20, requesting that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (the “Minister”) use his authority to pass a Minister’s Zoning Order (“MZO”) on the Durham Live lands. The request to City Council came as a submission from Durham Live to add additional uses to complement the Casino Pickering Resort, such as major retail use, a film studio and limited residential. Additionally, Durham Live indicated they had interest from a major distribution centre and production facility that required approximately 30 hectares of land. It was anticipated that this facility would generate substantial short and long-term economic benefits, as well as generate a significant number of jobs. On October 30, 2020, the Minister enacted MZO 607/20. Among other matters, the MZO established a “Warehouse and Logistics” zone on land located west of Squires Beach Road, municipally known as 1802 Bayly Street. (The map that accompanied the MZO is provided as Attachment #1). This property was approximately 25 hectares in size. The establishment of the Warehouse and Logistics zone would allow the project to move directly to the site plan approval and building permits application processes. It has now come to the Minister’s attention that this major company has indicated they no longer intend to pursue 1802 Bayly Street as the location for its facility. On March 12, 2021, the Minister wrote to Mayor Ryan asking if the City would like the Minister to consider amending the MZO to exclude those lands that would allow for the construction of a distribution centre (see Attachment #2). If an amendment to the MZO is requested by the City, there is a requirement for the Minister to undertake a public consultation prior to making a decision. In the absence to the Zoning Order on 1802 Bayly Street, the zoning of the lands would revert to “UR” – Urban Reserve, as identified in the City’s Zoning By-law 2511, as amended by By- law 7404/15. The only permissible uses are: outdoor recreation uses without buildings or structures; preservation and conservation of the natural environment, soil and wildlife; or - 154 - Report CAO 02-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: Request for Partial Revocation of MZO 607/20 Page 3 existing lawful uses located on the land, or in existing buildings or structures, provided they continue in the same manner as prior to the passing of By-law 7404/15. Staff recommends that Council pass a resolution that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing be requested to revoke Minister’s Zoning Order 607/20 from lands located west of Squires Beach Road, in Pickering, with the MZO remaining in place on the lands east of Squires Beach Road., and authorize the Mayor to respond to the Minister’s letter accordingly. Attachments: 1. Map 239 for Minister’s Zoning Order 607/21 2.Letter from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to Mayor Ryan, dated March 12, 2021 Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Kyle Bentley, P. Eng. Chief Planner Director, City Development & CBO CR:ld Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer Original Signed By Original Signed By Original Signed By - 155 - E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E HIGHWAY 40 1 BAYLY STREET CHURCH STREET SOUTHSQUIRES BEACH ROADKELLINO STREET PICKERING PARKWAY SILICONE DRIVENOTION ROADCOPPERSTONE DRIVEBAYLY STREET WEST ASHFORD DRIVELARKSMERE COURT HIGHWAY 40 1 HIGHWAY 40 1 HIGHWAY 401 Information provided by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, under licence with the Ministry of Natural Resources.© 2020, Queen's Printer for Ontario. Produced by: GIS Unit - Advanced Analytics & Data Visualization, Data Collection and Decision Support Solutions Branch, Community Services I&IT Cluster. G:\GIS_All\LEGAL_SERV\LGL_ADV_004\MZO\MZOs\MZO_239\MZO_239_20200617.mxd P a r t o f L o t s 1 5 , 1 6 a n d 1 7 , C o n c e s s i o n 1 P a r t o f L o t s 1 5 , 1 6 a n d 1 7 , C o n c e s s i o n 1 C i t y o f P i c k e r i n g , R e g i o n a l M u n i c i p a l i t y o f D u r h a m C i t y o f P i c k e r i n g , R e g i o n a l M u n i c i p a l i t y o f D u r h a m 0 140 28070 Metres K LEGEND MAP No. 239 Map filed at the office of the Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, 777 Bay St., Toronto, Ontario, Planning Act Ontario Regulation: Date: Original Signed By: Land Subject to Zoning Order Parcel Boundary Roads Mixed Employment Zone Mixed Use Major Tourist and Entertainment Zone E E E E E E E E Natural Heritage and Open Space Zone Warehousing and Logistics ZoneMinister of Municipal Affairs and Housing October 30, 2020 607/20 Attachment #1 to Report #CAO 02-21 - 156 - 234-2021-1476 March 12, 2021 Your Worship Mayor Dave Ryan City of Pickering mayor@pickering.ca Dear Mayor Ryan: As you know, in response to a request made by the City of Pickering with the support of the Region of Durham, I made a Minister’s Zoning Order (MZO) under Section 47 of the Planning Act, for a site located at 1802 Bayly Street in the City of Pickering, which would allow for the construction of a distribution centre, among other uses. It is my understanding that a Fortune 50 company intended to utilize the lands for a significant employment opportunity – which would help drive the economic recovery of the City of Pickering and employ 2,000 Ontarians. However, it has now come to my attention that the Fortune 50 company reportedly has indicated that it no longer intends to pursue its potential use of the site. Given this new development, I am writing to ask if the City of Pickering would like me to consider amending the MZO to exclude the portion of lands that would allow for the construction of the distribution centre, now that the Fortune 50 company has apparently backed out. As you know, every MZO made on non-provincial land has been at the request of the local municipality, and if the City of Pickering no longer wishes to have the MZO in place for the distribution centre, I will issue the mandatory public notice to consult on amending the MZO which is a pre-condition to an amendment Thank you for your consideration, and all the work you are doing to keep your residents safe and ensuring that the City of Pickering plays a leading role in Ontario’s economic recovery. Sincerely, Steve Clark, Minister c.John Henry, Durham Regional Chair john.henry@durham.ca Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Office of the Minister 777 Bay Street, 17th Floor Toronto ON M7A 2J3 Tel.: 416 585-7000 Ministère des Affaires municipales et du Logement Bureau du ministre 777, rue Bay, 17e étage Toronto ON M7A 2J3 Tél.: 416 585-7000 Attachment #2 to Report #CAO 02-21 - 157 - Report to Council Report Number: FIN 04-21 Date: March 22, 2021 From: Stan Karwowski Director, Finance & Treasurer Subject: 2021 Current Budget and Financial Statements Excluded Expenses Reporting as Required by Ontario Regulation 284/09 - File: A-2000-001 Recommendation: It is recommended that Report FIN 04-21 of the Director, Finance & Treasurer regarding the exclusion of certain expenses from the 2021 Budget be adopted in accordance with the provisions of Ontario Regulation 284/09 of the Municipal Act, 2001. Executive Summary: Under Ontario Regulation 284/09, municipalities are required to report on whether amortization expenses, post-employment benefits and other expenses are included in their annual Current Budget. This Regulation allows a municipality to exclude estimated expenses for these items from the 20 21 annual Budget, however, the municipality is required to report on the financial effects. The required reporting provides a reconciliation between the budget preparation method (cash flow) and the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) standards for financial statement reporting purposes . Adoption of this report by Council fulfills the reporting requirements of the Regulation. Financial Implications: There is no financial impact from the exclusion of these expenses as the annual Budget is prepared on a cash flow basis. This document provides an accounting reconciliation between the two reporting methods employed in the annual Current and Capital Budgets and the 2021 Audited Financial Statements. Discussion: Ontario Regulation 284/09 under the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, C. 25 as amended, allows a municipality to exclude expenses from the 2021 Budget for the following: amortization expenses post-employment benefit expenses Since 2009, changes by the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) require municipalities to report Tangible Capital Assets (TCA) and record TCA in the statement of financial position, and amortize the asset over its useful life in the statement of operations. The new accounting standards, however, do not require budgets to be prepared on the same basis. The City o f Pickering, like most municipalities, continues to prepare budgets on the traditional cash basis, which provides a clear and concise understanding of critical budget information. - 158 - FIN 04-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: 2021 Current Budget and Financial Statements Page 2 Excluded Expenses Reporting as Required by Ontario Regulation 284/09 The annual budget process is an important municipal exercise that considers plans for the current and future activities of the City. One of the main outcomes of this process is to set the tax rate which Council is asked to approve. The tax rate is determined by the cash basis of accounting and does not include PSAB reporting requirements or accrual accounting and accounting for non-financial assets and liabilities such as amortization (depreciation) and post - employment benefits. Ontario Regulation 284/09 requires municipalities to prepare a report regarding the excluded expenses and adopt the report by resolution prior to the approval of the annual budget. The report must contain the impact of the excluded expenses on the City's accumulated surplus. The equity of a municipality is defined as “accumulated surplus”, which mainly consists of: any operating fund surpluses equity in Tangible Capital Assets reserves and reserve funds equity in Elexicon Corporation capital funds The City's accumulated surplus, which is largely comprised of equity in tangible capital assets, as at December 31, 2019 was $424.8 million. A. Amortization Expenses Amortization expense (frequently referred to as depreciation) is defined as the annual expense or use of an asset over its estimated useful life. The expense is calculated by allocating the cost of the asset over its estimated useful life. For 2021, the estimated amortization expense is $ 11.7 million, based upon net assets of $273.1 million, which will reduce the City's accumulated surplus. However, offsetting amortization is $7.7 million in estimated additions to tangible capital assets for 2021. The net impact of tangible capital asset adjustments will result in a decrease of approximately $4.0 million to the City's accumulated surplus. B. Post-Employment Benefit Expense Post-employment benefit expense represents the change in the accrued benefit liability for both post-retirement extended healthcare benefits and accrued sick leave entitlement. Since the City is self-insured for the purpose of workplace injury claims, it also represents the accrued liability for Workplace Safety and Insurance Act Benefits. PSAB standards do not require liabilities associated with these benefits to be fully funded, however, actuarial reviews are conducted to estimate these unfunded liabilities. The projected increase in the post- employment benefits liability is estimated to reduce the City's accumulated surplus by approximately $820,056 for 2021. - 159 - FIN 04-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: 2021 Current Budget and Financial Statements Page 3 Excluded Expenses Reporting as Required by Ontario Regulation 284/09 C. Transfers To/From Reserves and Reserve Funds The Current Budget, prepared using the cash method, includes transfers to/from reserves and reserve funds and is not considered an expense under the accrual method accounting. In 2021, the net transfers to/from reserves and reserve funds is $8.4 million, which will increase the City’s accumulated surplus by the same amount. D. Debt Principal Repayment The Current Budget also includes a provision for the annual repayment of debt including both interest and principal. Under the accrual method, debt principal repayments are a repayment of a long-term liability and not an expense. The debt principal repayments are for internal loans and external debentured debt held at the Region of Durham . The estimated debt principal repayment in 2021 is $3.9 million, which will increase the City's accumulated surplus by the same amount. E. Financial Summary The estimated change in the accumulated surplus of the City for 2021 resulting from the net exclusion of these expenses from the budget is summarized below. PSAB Additions to 2021 Budget (Reduces Surplus) Amortization ($11,721,800) Post-Employment Benefits (820,056) Total PSAB Additions ($12, 541,856) PSAB Reduction to 2021 Budget (Increases Surplus) Tangible Capital Asset Acquisition $7,680,502 Net Transfers To/From Reserves and Reserve 8,352,234 Funds Debt Principal Payments 3,887,114 Total PSAB Reductions $19,919,850 Net Increase in Accumulated Surplus $7,377,994 The changes to accounting and reporting requirements under PSAB are a financial accounting treatment only and do not affect operating surpluses. This difference is one of financial statement presentation only. - 160 - FIN 04-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: 2021 Current Budget and Financial Statements Page 4 Excluded Expenses Reporting as Required by Ontario Regulation 284/09 Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By: Original Signed By: James Halsall Stan Karwowski Manager, Budgets & Internal Audit Director, Finance & Treasurer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer Original Signed By: - 161 - Report to Council Report Number: FIN 05-21 Date: March 22, 2021 From: Stan Karwowski Director, Finance & Treasurer Subject: 2021 Current & Capital Budget - File: A-2000-001 Recommendation: 1. That Report FIN 05-21 of the Director, Finance & Treasurer be approved; 2. That the following budget recommendations be approved; (a) That the 2021 Current Budget expenditure for personnel costs, consisting of salaries and wages (Account 1100), overtime (Account 1200) and employer contributions (Account 1400), excluding Cost Centres 2712 and 2293, in the total amount of $60,364,218 be approved; and i) That the 2021 Current Budget for Cost Centre 2712 (Programs) expenditure for personnel costs, consisting of salaries and wages (Account 1100), overtime (Account 1200) and employer contributions (Account 1400) in the total amount of $1,137,031 be approved; and (ii) That the 2021 Current Budget for Cost Centre 2293 (Animal Services) expenditure for personnel costs, consisting of salaries and wages (Account 1100), overtime (Account 1200) and employer contributions (Account 1400) in the total amount of $506,210 be approved; b) That the 2021 General Government Budget for grant expenditures in the total amount of $184,068 be approved; c) That the Heritage Property Tax Rebate in the amount of $10,000 be approved; d) That the 2021 Gross Current Budget expenditures for City purposes in the amount of $54,684,613 (excluding personnel costs, grant expenditures and Heritage Property Tax Rebate) less estimated current revenues of $47,004,304 (City revenues of $40,667,304 plus $4,000,000 for estimated casino gaming revenue, $2,037,000 for assessment growth plus supplementary taxes of $300,000), less Phase One and Phase Two Safe Restart Funding of $2,802,100 and net transfer from the Rate Stabilization Reserve of $1,500,000 for City operations be approved; e) That the $4,000,000 in estimated casino gaming revenues be transferred to the newly established Casino Reserve; - 162 - Report FIN 05-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: 2021 Current and Capital Budget Page 2 f) That the Capital from Current expenditure in the amount of $731,660 funded from property taxes be approved; and g) That the total final City levy under paragraphs a), b), c), d) and e) above, plus the following additions that result in a total final levy of $70,841,695 being an increase of approximately 1.45 percent over the 2020 Budget, be approved: i) Hiring of three additional firefighters ($283,000) for the Seaton fire station; and ii) Service level increases that consist of $51,000 for additional staffing for seasonal By-law enforcement at the waterfront and parks, an investment of $121,300 for the City to meet provincially legislated accessibility requirements and $75,000 to establish a Community Investment Fund; 3. That the 2021 Capital Budget for the City of Pickering with a Gross Expenditure of $73,041,800 be adopted as presented: a) That the following capital financing sources be approved as presented in the 2021 Capital Budget: Transfer from Current Fund to Capital Fund $731,660 Transfers from Reserves: - Rate Stabilization Reserve (7021) 4,040,043 - City Share Dev. Charges (7022) 1,811,500 - Vehicle Replacement (7040) - Major Equipment Reserve (7062) 1,547,000 1,345,000 - Capital Replacement (7001) 384,600 - Facilities Reserve (7055) 385,000 - Self-Insurance Reserve (7020) 200,000 - Property Fence Line Reserve (7057) 180,000 - Tennis Court Reserve (7061) 90,000 - Artwork Reserve (7067) 50,000 - Don Beer Arena Surcharge (7033) 40,000 - Rec. Complex Pool Surcharge (7035) 30,000 Transfers from Reserve Funds: - Development Charges (7601 – 7630) 25,024,180 - Third Party Contribution (7501) 9,041,375 - Parkland (7502) 4,180,000 - Federal Gas Tax Funds (7505) 3,567,000 - Roads & Bridges (7709) 790,000 - Animal Shelter (7706) 291,400 - 163 - Report FIN 05-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: 2021 Current and Capital Budget Page 3 - Seaton Land Group FIA (7713) 145,785 Debt - 20 yr 11,391,900 Internal Loan - 2 yr 2,175,000 Internal Loan - 5 yr 200,000 Internal Loan - 10 yr 247,500 Donations 10,000 Canada Cultural Spaces Fund (CCSF) 4,000,000 Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program (ICIP) – COVID -19 Resilience Infrastructure Stream 222,500 Federal Grant – TBD 40,000 Provincial Grant – Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund (OCIF) 880,357 Total $73,041,800 b) That total external debt financed by property taxes of $11,391,900 for the projects identified in the 2021 Capital Budget, and as indicated in this report, for a period not to exceed 20 years be approved; c) That the internal loans in the amount of $2,622,500 be undertaken at the discretion of the Director, Finance & Treasurer; d) That projects identified in the 2021 Capital Budget as being financed through the issuance of debt be subject to additional, specific approval of the expenditure and the financing by Council; e) That the source of financing for the Demolition & Site Remediation capital project (5315.1901) be changed from future land sales to Operations Centre Reserve Fund to eliminate the unfinanced capital liability when the project is converted to the new financial system; f) That any debt repayment, interest or financing provisions contained in the annual Current Operating Budget not used in the current year’s payments requirements may, at the discretion of the Director, Finance & Treasurer, be used to apply towards additional principal repayment, outstanding loan or debt charges or to reduce debt not issued, balloon payments in future years through transfer to Rate Stabilization Reserve, internal loans or any other amounts to be financed; g) That all Capital expenditures or portions thereof approved in the 2021 Capital Budget to be financed through the issuance of debt may, at the discretion of the Director, Finance & Treasurer, be financed through internal loans, current or capital funds or a combination thereof; h) That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to make draws from Reserve and Reserve Funds for projects included in the approved Capital Budget up to the amount approved; and - 164 - Report FIN 05-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: 2021 Current and Capital Budget Page 4 i) That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized at his discretion to apply any excess funds obtained through the issuance of debentures as provided for under Section 413 of the Municipal Act, 2001 as amended; 4. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to transfer: a) Any surplus current operating funds at year-end in excess of approximately $125,000 be allocated in the following manner: the first $70,000 be allocated to the Elected Officials Life Insurance Reserve and the remaining surplus be allocated in the following ratio: 25 percent to the Rate Stabilization Reserve (7021); 20 percent to the Facilities Reserve (7055); 5 percent to the Artwork Reserve (7066) and 50 percent to the City Share DC Projects Reserve (7022); b) Any surplus funds from the Emergency Operational Capital Needs Account (2901.0000.0000) to the Facilities Reserve; and c) The revenue from the sale of used vehicles recorded in account (1593.0001.0000) to the Vehicle Replacement Reserve (7040); 5. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to make any changes or undertake any actions necessary including: adjusting the budget plan to meet provincial COVID reporting requirements while maintaining the approved levy; to accommodate any labour relations settlements including adjusting the Personnel related accounts and that any revenue shortfall as a result of a Provincial tax policy change be adjusted through the 2021 final tax rates; 6. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to use any under expenditures from projects funded from Reserves or Reserve Funds to fund over expenditures for approved projects funded from the same source(s) and any unfinanced capital be funded from a transfer from reserves or reserve funds; 7. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized at his discretion to fund Property Tax Write-offs account (2134.0000.000) that exceed the budget provision due to assessment appeals that translates into a deficit position for the corporation and this shortfall be funded from a transfer from the Assessment Appeal Reserve (7011) and if this reserve is depleted then the shortfall be funded from the Rate Stabilization Reserve (7021) and that any shortfall from Payment-in-Lieu Education Share revenue estimates be funded from a transfer from the Rate Stabilization Reserve (7021); 8. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to revise the funding ratio’s for development charge funded projects where applicable to reflect the removal of the 10 percent statutory deduction that was eliminated through the adoption of Bill 197, COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act, 2020; 9. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized at his discretion to close any current and completed prior year’s capital expenditure accounts and to first apply - 165 - Report FIN 05-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: 2021 Current and Capital Budget Page 5 any excess funding from property taxes to any over expenditure in other accounts and to secondly transfer any remaining excess funding back to the original sources of funds; 10. That Council approve a change in funding source for capital project 5325.2105 Accessible Pedestrian Signals from 100 percent funded from the Rate Stabilization Reserve to: a) $169,838 to be funded from unused provincial grant funding (Invest in Ontario and Provincial Budget) from accounts 5999.0898.1623 and 5999.0899.1623; and b) $190,562 to be funded from the Rate Stabilization Reserve (7021); 11. That Council approve the cancellation of the following previously approved Capital projects: a) Two 1 Ton Dump Trucks with Aluminum Body, Plow and Salter – New (Seaton) (5319.2003) - $140,000; b) Front Plow and Wing Attachments for Seaton – New (5319.2014) – $20,000; c) 1 Ton Truck with Utility Body Replacement (5319.2004) – $110,000; d) Duffin Heights Sewer (5320.1116) – $196,612; e) Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Implementation – Construction (5320.1901) – $2,250,000; f) RU-13 Salem Road – Road Reconstruction (5321.1608) – $155,635; g) RP-10 Altona Road – Sidewalks & Streetlights (5321.1909) – $150,000; h) Accessible Pedestrian Signals – 4 Locations (5325.2004) – $360,400; i) FS #2 Accessibility Upgrades & Interior Renovations (5340.1809) – $94,875; j) FS # 2 Lighting Retrofit (5340.2001) – $60,000; k) Civic Centre Backup Generator Replacement – Construction (5700.2002) – $800,000; l) CHDRC Tennis Court Flooring Replacement (5731.2004) – $1,200,000; m) Animal Shelter – Design (5219.2003) – $881,850; n) Animal Shelter – Construction (5219.2004) – $8,273,650; and - 166 - Report FIN 05-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: 2021 Current and Capital Budget Page 6 o) Animal Shelter – FF&E (5219.2005) – $300,000; 12. That Council approve an increase to the Fire Protection Cost Centre (2240) budget, in the amount of $27,200 for the purchase of technology upgrades and the corresponding cost be offset 100 percent by Provincial Fire Safety Grant; 13. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized at his discretion to close any capital or consulting account expenditure and corresponding revenue source that is over three years from the original purchase order date of issuance; 14. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized at his discretion to refinance any capital expenditures that failed to meet the Federal Gas Tax reporting criteria from other sources including transfers of funds from reserves and reserve funds; 15. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to: a) Undertake transactions in the spot or forward (12 months or less) currency markets in order to effect United States dollar denominated expenditures in the Current or Capital Budgets; b) Sign leases or rental agreements (including summer rentals) on the City’s behalf for the provision of vehicles or equipment required for temporary use during periods of equipment breakdown or repair or during periods of increased need (e.g. inclement weather); c) Restate the 2021 Current Operating, User Fees and Capital Budgets to reflect: (i) any Council changes made at the March 22 Council meeting; (ii) any reorganization or personnel account changes (salary, benefits and overtime), (iii) reclassifications that result from salary increases or negotiated labour settlements; and d) To process budget transfers during the fiscal year which do not change the overall approved property tax levy; 16. That Council waive the Purchasing Policy where the estimated vehicle repair cost is below $30,000 (HST excluded) for all fleet vehicles and off road vehicle equipment in 2021; 17. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to administer the Community Investment Fund by following the general intent of the Community Grants program; and a) That any grant funding request up to $2,500 be jointly approved by the Chief Administrative Officer and the Director, Finance & Treasurer and any grant request above this amount be approved by Members of Council and staff report to Council regarding the use of these funds through the 2022 Budget process; - 167 - Report FIN 05-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: 2021 Current and Capital Budget Page 7 18. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to amend Section 06.01 b) and 06.02 b) of Policy ADM 190 such that the word “every” be replaced with “Starting in 2022”; 19. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized at his discretion to draw from the Winter Control Reserve to fund any Current Budget deficit as a result of higher than budget winter control costs; 20. That Council approve the continuing engagement of the firm of Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. to be used for the Five Year Capital & Operating Financial Plan; for the engagement of the new Development Charge Background Study and new Community Benefit Charge Study and in support of the DC Background Study and issues related to the City, Seaton and/or Duffin Heights; 21. That Council approve the continuing engagement of the following firms: Nixon Poole Lackie LLP, Municipal Tax Advisor Group and Municipal Tax Equity Consultants for any studies related to the reassessment or other property tax issues and for to protect the property tax base by defending assessment appeals through proactive assessment base management; 22. That Council approve the award of professional services in accordance with the City's Purchasing Policy Item 10: 03 (c) to Public Sector Digest Inc. for the completion of the Ontario Regulation 588 (2021) Compliant Asset Management Plan in the amount of a maximum of $70,000; 23. That Council approve the establishment of the WSIB Excess Indemnity Reserve Fund and that the draft by-law attached hereto for the establishment of the reserve fund be enacted; 24. That Council approve the transfer of $136,775 to the WSIB Excess Indemnity Reserve Fund; 25. That Council approve the annual transfer of funds from the WSIB Reserve when its year-end balance is greater than $4.0 million, and that these excess funds be transferred to the WSIB Excess Indemnity Reserve Fund; 26. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to initiate any additional assessment appeals necessary to protect the assessment base of the City; 27. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized at his discretion to transfer any green energy rebates and revenue associated with the Claremont solar roof rental project account (1530.2620.0000) and other incentives and rebates account (2620.9993.0000) to the Reserve for Sustainable Initiatives; 28. That Council amend the Community Grant policy as follows: - 168 - Report FIN 05-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: 2021 Current and Capital Budget Page 8 a) That the grant application deadline date for the 2022 Community Grant Program be October 29, 2021 to give community groups sufficient time to complete their applications; 29. That any unused funds in excess of $1,000 for accessibility capital projects (6183) be transferred to the Reserve for Accessibility Initiatives (7053); 30. That Council approve the following to be added to the 2021 Budget to be funded from the Rate Stabilization Reserve (7021); a) $35,000 for the rental of an additional radar camera; and b) $150,000 for Pickering Fire Services’ share of the cost for NG911 Dispatch equipment (text to 911); 31. That any unspent 2021 Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) funds budgeted under General Government consulting account (2126.2392) be transferred to the Tennis Court Reserve (7061); 32. That Council approve the 2021 Low Income Seniors & Persons with Disabilities grant amount to be increased from $375 to $450 per household; 33. That Council pass the attached General Municipal Fees and Charges By-law and incorporate the user fee schedule into the 2021 Current Budget: a) That Council approve revising “Schedule B – Fees Payable for Building Permits” of the Building By-law with the Building Permit fees listed in the 2021 User Fee Schedule; 34. That Council approve the establishment of the 2021 COVID-19 Recovery Reserve Fund and that the draft by-law attached hereto for the establishment of the reserve fund be enacted and that the Provincial funds received be transferred to this reserve fund; 35. That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to draw from the 2021 COVID-19 Recovery Reserve Fund to maintain the City’s financial and business plans due to direct and indirect affects of COVID-19; 36. That Council approve the levy allocation of the $121,300 for Provincial accessibility requirements to the following accounts: 2621.2479.0000 Sfwr/Hdwr Maint Contracts $13,800 2621.2340.0000 Seminars & Education 7,500 2621.1100.0000 Salaries & Wages 70,000 2621.2399.0000 Outside Agency Services 30,000 37. That Council approve the funding of the Coordinator, Community Safety position (Cost Centre 2712), either by senior government grants or by a transfer from the Rate Stabilization Reserve (7021); and - 169 - Report FIN 05-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: 2021 Current and Capital Budget Page 9 38. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Executive Summary: This report contains a summary of the 2021 Current and Capital Budgets and a discussion of the recommendations. Staff have worked hard to ensure that the 2021 Budget is respectful of each dollar contributed by taxpayers, reinvesting those revenues back into our infrastructure and the many services the City provides to our residents. The big differences between municipal government and federal and provincial governments are the number of revenue streams that fund their budgets and the impact on residents. Municipal governments have limited revenue, consisting primarily of property taxes and service fees, such as for recreation, by-law and planning. The 2021 Budget strikes a balance between providing the level and types of services that residents expect and ensuring affordability for all residents. The 2021 Budget builds upon the success of the 2020 Budget and continues to be a good news story. It keeps property taxes affordable and provides the following benefits to our residents and community: • Funding for a new full-time Coordinator, Diversity & Inclusion position (CAO Department). • Increase in seniors property tax grant from $375 to $450. • Major 2021 Capital Projects: Pickering Heritage & Community Centre, Highway 401 Road Crossing Land Acquisition, Waterfront Trail Land Acquisition, Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Improvement Construction and Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West - Park Completion & Washroom Facility. • Increase in Capital Budget roads and bridges projects expenditures from $4.9 million to 6.1 million - an increase of $1.3 million or 26 percent. • Funding for By-law enforcement coverage at the waterfront and park areas from mid- May to Labour Day. • Investment of $121,300 to help meet the new Provincial Accessibility standards for website compliance. • Funding of $50,000 for mechanical harvesting of Eurasian Water-Milfoil weeds in Frenchman’s Bay. • An increase of 3 positions for front line firefighting staff (Seaton). • Establishing a Community Investment Fund ($75,000) to provide financial assistance to Pickering community groups. Financial Implications: The 2021 Current and Capital Budgets, if adopted as amended, will result in a property tax levy increase of 1.45 percent (City Share Only) over last year which translates into a 0.44 percent increase in the City’s share of the total property tax bill. This increase, when combined with the Region and the School Boards increase, results in an average increase of 1.54 percent on the total property tax bill. - 170 - Report FIN 05-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: 2021 Current and Capital Budget Page 10 Discussion: At the Executive Budget Meeting, a question was raised by a Member of Council regarding general taxation and infrastructure funding. The information below addresses that question. According to Statistics Canada, National Economic Accounts Division and the Association of Municipalities Ontario, municipalities receive a small portion of total taxes paid by individuals in Canada, when sales taxes, income taxes, property tax, etc. are considered. For example, Ontario municipalities receive only 9 cents of every dollar tax dollar raised in Canada, while the Provincial and Federal governments receive 44 cents and 47 cents respectively. In contrast to this, municipalities own approximately 60 percent of the capital infrastructure, while the Provincial Government owns 38 percent of the infrastructure and the Federal Government 2 percent. Chart One Ownership vs. Funding Gap 0%20%40%60%80%100% Municipal Provincial Federal Taxes Infrastructure Ownership The municipal reference in the legend above includes both upper and lower tier. It is interesting to note, that the Toronto Star editorial of March 14, 2021 makes the following comment: “Municipal Governments are at the bottom of the pile when it comes to powers and financial resources in Canada”. The above chart supports the statements as it relates to financial resources/taxation. - 171 - Report FIN 05-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: 2021 Current and Capital Budget Page 11 Explanation of Key Recommendations Cancellation of Capital Projects – Recommendation 11 The capital projects listed in Recommendation 11 in many cases have been rebudgeted in the 2021 Capital Budget or included in the 2022-2025 Capital Forecast because the original budget amount was too low due to the project delay. In most cases, by rebudgeting a higher amount, the project can proceed without staff either reducing the project’s scope to address the funding shortfall or trying to find additional funds to cover the project’s shortfall. In other cases, the projects cancelled or deferred were dependent on senior government grant funding which was not received. Increase to Fire Services Budget ($27,200) – Recommendation 12 Since the start of the pandemic, Ontario’s fire services have faced unprecedented challenges. In Pickering, our ability to train our Fire Services staff in a COVID environment brought with it new challenges due to restrictions on gatherings and our own commitment to best practices in an effort to curtail the spread of the virus. Additionally, our ability to conduct fire code enforcement inspections and public fire safety education classes have been slightly eroded for the same reasons. The Provincial Fire Safety Grant will help to support Fire Services and will assist in meeting the mandates and to overcome these ongoing challenges. These grant funds are intended to provide fire departments with the flexibility to support in the two priority areas as identified above. Fire Services plans include technology upgrades to ensure that we can safely continue to conduct training for fire crews and that inspections and public education programs can safely continue for our residents and businesses. This project is in line with the grant requirements and it will ensure that Fire Services is able to continue to serve our customers/residents in the City with the services they have come to expect and deserve. Planned expenditures include items such as computer hardware and software, including desktops and rugged laptops. Establishment of WSIB Excess Indemnity Reserve Fund – Recommendation 23 The City is a Schedule 2 employer under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, and therefore, self-insures the entire risk of its own WSIB claims, and is 100 percent liable for reimbursing WSIB for all claim costs. Every year the City budgets $710,000 dollars for WSIB claims and any remaining dollars are then transferred to the City’s WSIB Reserve Fund (7705). The 2019 year-end position of this reserve fund was $3,930,110. To reduce the WSIB financial risk exposure, the City purchases an Occupational Accident policy. The City previously purchased an Excess Indemnity Insurance policy, however, staff are recommending that the City establish a separate reserve fund to replace the insurance coverage from this policy. City staff consulted with an actuarial consultant regarding this strategy and they support the City adopting this plan. The Excess Indemnity Reserve Fund will be funded from two sources. The first source is from premiums that were previously paid for purchase of the Excess Indemnity Insurance and recommendation 24 is transferring $136,775 to this reserve fund. The second source is - 172 - Report FIN 05-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: 2021 Current and Capital Budget Page 12 from the WSIB Reserve Fund (7705) whereby if the year-end balance exceeds $4.0 million, the residual amount would then be transferred to the WSIB Excess Indemnity Reserve Fund. (This transfer is accomplished through Recommendation 25). The financial goal of the WSIB Excess Indemnity Reserve fund is to reach a balance of $2.5 million. The budget target for this reserve fund will be reviewed in three years when the City undertakes its next actuarial WSIB liability review. Establishment of 2021 COVID-19 Recovery Reserve Fund – Recommendation 34 On March 4, 2021 the City received unexpected good news that it was receiving $1,598,618 from the Province. The City will receive these funds in two equal instalments – on or before May 1, 2021 and the other on or before November 1, 2021. These funds are to be used to address COVID-19 operating costs and pressures. Provincial documentation provides direction that any unused funds are to be transferred to a reserve fund to be used for any future COVID-19 operating costs. Recommendation 34 provides the Treasurer the authority to transfer or use funds from this reserve fund to mitigate any negative impacts due to COVID-19 on the City’s financial and or business plans. One of the lessons learned from the pandemic is its unpredictability and its corresponding impact on municipal operations. 2021 Current Budget At the March 4, 2021 Executive (Budget) Committee meeting, Council was presented with a proposed budget levy increase of 1.45 percent, which was accepted by the Executive Committee. Based on an average assessment of $612,000 the 1.45 percent increase will result in an average increase of approximately $28.89 per year or 56 cents per week for the average single detached dwelling in Pickering. Unlike goods purchased by consumers where there is a tangible product that is received each time there is a transaction, many City services provided to residents such as park or road maintenance are not paid for as the services are used or received. For this reason, many residents may not be aware of the costs associated with the vast array of services offered by the City. Attachment 5 shows a breakdown of the average daily cost of the City’s municipal services (based on the average assessed value of a single detached dwelling - $612,000). Tax Increase Summary The 1.45 percent City share tax increase translates into an increase of 0.443 percent on the total residential tax bill. The 1.45 percent levy increase compares favourably to other municipalities, especially given that Pickering has had the lowest tax rate among its Durham Region Lakeshore neighbours for over nineteen years (1998 up to 2017) and has experienced relatively low assessment growth for many years. Adding the Region’s (1.98%) tax increase and Pickering’s (1.45%) and the School Board’s estimated 0 percent increase, the total increase for the average residential ratepayer will be approximately 1.54 percent. In 2000, Pickering Council approved a zero percent levy increase and since then, budget levy increases have ranged from 9.8 to 2.47 percent. - 173 - Report FIN 05-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: 2021 Current and Capital Budget Page 13 Chart Two Budget Levy Increases 2001 to 2021 For the last few years, the levy increase has been under 3.0 percent. The average increase for the current term is 2.3 percent which is below the average for the last few terms. The table below provides a summary of the financial impact of the proposed 2021 tax levy increase based on various assessed values. Financial Impact of Budget Increase City Share Only Residential Assessment $100,000 $530,000 $612,000 $900,000 Increase (Over 2020 ) $4.72 $25.02 $28.89 $42.48 The 1.45 percent City share tax increase translates into an increase of 0.443 percent on the total residential tax bill. Durham Region’s 1.98 percent increase translates into 1.095 percent on the total residential property tax bill. Adding the Region’s (1.095% ) tax increase and Pickering’s (0.44%) and the School Board’s estimated 0 percent increase, the total increase for the average residential ratepayer will be approximately 1.54 percent. - 174 - Report FIN 05-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: 2021 Current and Capital Budget Page 14 Chart Three Impact of Budget Levy Increases on Total Residential Property Tax Bill Durham Region 1.095% City 0.44% 1.54% Combined Increase For 2021, Pickering’s levy increase was below Durham Region’s. No reassessment for 2021 The good news for Pickering residents is that there is no reassessment for 2021. (The reassessment is being deferred to 2022.) In a two tier municipal government structure, there is always going to be property tax reassessment shifts among municipalities. With Pickering’s location bordering Toronto, the real estate property values have historically increased at a higher rate than those municipalities who are located further away from Toronto. In the past, an uneven increase in property values has resulted in property tax shifts among lower tier municipalities. On the front page of the Final Residential Property Tax Bill, on the bottom left corner, is a schedule entitled “Explanation of Tax changes from 2019 to 2020”. This schedule includes a line called Tax change due to Reassessment and for 2021 and this line should be zero for this year. At the February 22, 2021 Council meeting, Council adopted a motion related to the correspondence from the Manager of Finance/Treasurer from Perth County. The Perth County correspondence lamented that the reassessment was deferred to 2022 further complicating the assessment challenges that are specific to a weighted farmland residential property tax base. His argument is that for Perth County, the last reassessment, resulted in a property tax shift to the farmland class. Therefore, the arguments being put forth are: reassessment should not be delayed and that for the next reassessment, Perth County is reasoning that there will be a reassessment shift away from the farmland class. For Pickering, farmland accounts for 0.3 percent of the property tax base. Therefore, the assessment issues of Perth County are not related to Pickering and as stated in the previous paragraph, not having the reassessment likely benefits Pickering residents. - 175 - Report FIN 05-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: 2021 Current and Capital Budget Page 15 Risk Analysis As one looks forward, it is extremely difficult to project future year budget requirements with a high level of certainty. The most significant uncertainty remains the ongoing financial impacts from the COVID pandemic. There remains a significant risk that expenditures and revenues may take a longer period to return to historical levels. In some cases, COVID related impacts might cause certain services to establish a new normal resulting in corresponding budget increases in future years. The introduction of the higher level of cleaning within City facilities may become a permanent standard for the City to adopt. 2021 Challenges and Opportunities Outstanding Assessment Appeals There is currently $2.0 billion in outstanding assessment appeals for the commercial and industrial property tax class for the City. These are multi-year appeals that range from 2013 up to 2020. These appeals are mostly for large commercial and industrial properties with complex valuations that often have interests from multiple parties. The appeal schedules are set by the Assessment Review Board and the appeals can take years to resolve. The ARB made some progress in 2020 due to the fact the multi – year appeal for the Pickering Town Centre (PTC) was settled. It is staff’s understanding that the only outstanding appeal for PTC is for the year 2020. Any assessment appeals that are not settled during the current year are automatically deemed outstanding for the 2021 taxation year. Every year these appeals remain outstanding, the settlement cost increases, creating additional financial risk to the Corporation. For the last few years, staff have budgeted for the outstanding commercial and industrial appeals and any funds remaining from these prior years has accrued to fund anticipated settlements in 2021. If the budget provisions are insufficient to fund the reductions, the City would draw on the Assessment Appeal reserve to fund any shortfall. Development Charge and Community Benefit Studies In the Finance Department budget, there is funding for $80,000 to undertake the a Development Charge and Community Benefits Study. The DC and CBC studies are funded 100 percent from the Development Charges Reserve Fund. The Province of Ontario has recently made changes to the Development Charges Act and Planning Act and provided a transition period of until September 18, 2022 to comply with the changes. The City needs to complete a new Community Benefit Charge Study before this date and prepare a new DC background study to reflect the changes in legislation and to allow the City to continue to collect DC’s after the expiry of the current DC By-law on December 31, 2022. The work plan is to commence both studies in the fall with a target completion date of second quarter 2022. This is a major inter- departmental project that will draw resources from almost every City department. Currently, funding for the new animal shelter is under the Development Charges - 176 - Report FIN 05-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: 2021 Current and Capital Budget Page 16 Protective Services component and the City cannot use this funding source once the new DC By-law is adopted. The finance strategy is to replace some of DC funding with the Community Benefit Charge (CBC) for the Animal Shelter. However, you have to complete the Community Benefits Study before you can apply the CBC. It should be noted that the CBC can only be charged to buildings with more than 4 floors or have in excess of 10 residential units. Elexicon Revenues & Forecast 2021 to 2024 On January 28, 2021, the CAO and the Director Finance & Treasurer attended a meeting by Elexicon Corporation where they presented their 2021 budget and a financial forecast for the years 2022 up to and including 2025. The financial information from that meeting as it relates to dividends and interest income (promissory notes) is presented below. The City holds $25.069 million of Elexicon promissory notes. The income from promissory notes is based on an interest rate of 4.13 percent and the interest rate is approved by the Ontario Energy Board (OEB). The 2019 accounting book value of the City’s Elexicon investment, is $96.376 million. The financial plan is to use the Rate Stabilization Reserve to mitigate the decrease in dividend payments for the years 2022, 2023 and 2024. Therefore, the draft financial plan for 2022 will include an additonal draw of approximately $547,000 from the rate stabilization reserve. $- $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000 $4,000,000 $4,500,000 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Elexicon Projected Payments Interest on Prom Notes Forecast Dividends - 177 - Report FIN 05-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: 2021 Current and Capital Budget Page 17 2021 User Fees and Charges Schedule Every year, the City reviews its user fees, mainly for various recreational and cultural programs, to partially reflect the cost of delivering these programs. Council passed Resolution # 149/03 confirming the City’s existing user fees through a specific by-law. This By-law has been updated as part of each year’s budget process. Other fees have been introduced for virtual programs due to the pandemic. User Fees and Charges have been established so that those who benefit directly from programs and services contribute to the cost of the service. The City’s user fees and charges have been updated for 2021 to reflect such things as inflationary increases, adjustments to ensure greater cost recovery and updates based on comparable fees in neighbouring municipalities. Members of Council should note that due to the pandemic, the implementation of the Council approved sports field permit hourly increase of September 2020 will be deferred to November 2023. As such, the user fee schedule of 2021 includes the sports field (seasonal) user fees of November, 2019. Therefore, the deferred implementation of hourly sports field permit fees is estimated to save community and sports groups approximately $170,000 in 2021. Asset Management Maintaining public infrastructure in a state of good repair is a significant responsibility and cost for municipalities. Critical investments in our assets at the right time help extend the life of the assets and lower the overall cost of ownership while ensuring that the assets remain current and safe for public use. These assets are used to provide residents, businesses, employees and visitors access to services including transportation, recreation, culture and economic development and have a direct link on the quality of life for Pickering residents. Every year, the City has been increasing its funding of reserves and reserve funds to ensure that it has the dollars available or required to purchase the replacement of the critical and core assets. For 2021, the Draft Budget as submitted to Council includes additional funding for the roads and bridges reserve fund; storm water management reserve fund, vehicle replacement reserve, animal shelter reserve fund and tennis court reserve. Please find below a quick snapshot of select Durham Lakeshore municipalities measuring the consumption of their assets. A ratio of over 50 percent means that the City has consumed more than half of the asset’s life. - 178 - Report FIN 05-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: 2021 Current and Capital Budget Page 18 Table One Asset Consumption Ratio 2014 (%) 2015 (%) 2016 (%) 2017 (%) 2018 (%) 2019 (%) Whitby 35.40 36.80 37.80 38.40 38.90 39.09 Clarington 37.90 38.00 38.80 40.00 40.69 40.92 Oshawa 38.60 39.10 39.90 40.60 42.45 44.08 Pickering 52.00 50.30 50.60 50.20 50.40 47.86 The Ministry of Municipal Affairs considers a ratio of 26 to 50 percent moderately new and 51 to 75 percent to be moderately old. As the above data indicates, the City is making progress on replacing its old assets. As the above ratio indicates, the City has consumed less than 50 percent of its assets. 2021 Tax Rates As has been the case for the last few years, the 2021 Property Tax rates and corresponding levy By-law will be presented to Council after the City has received the education tax rates from the Province. 2021 Capital Budget This year the draft Capital Budget is $73.0 million. Major capital projects in 2021 include the Pickering Heritage and Community Centre ($29.1 million), Highway 401 Road Crossing Land Acquisition - Phase 2 ($14.5 million), Waterfront Trail Land Acquisition ($3.1 million), Whitevale Master Drainage Plan Improvement Construction ($3 million ), Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West - Park Completion & Washroom Facility ($3 million) and many bridge and road resurfacing and reconstruction projects ($3.1 million). Five Year Capital & Operating Financial Plan The City’s growth continues to drive a variety of capital investments that will have a significant impact on the future of the community. These are capital projects that will either provide the community with benefits in the short-term or capital projects that will provide supporting amenities for a growing community. All of these capital investments are needed, however, there are competing priorities with limited funding that needs to be considered in the development of the capital financial plan. The overall goal of this financial exercise is to maintain good financial management. From a high level perspective, the financial exercise will consider the following inputs: construction costs, operating cost impact of the capital projects and asset management costs for the replacement of existing infrastructure. For capital project costs, the financial exercise will also examine the funding strategies of these projects as it relates to debt, development charge funding and other financing sources such as casino “gaming” revenues, naming rights and community fundraising. The study will also examine the - 179 - Report FIN 05-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: 2021 Current and Capital Budget Page 19 City’s debt capacity as it relates to the Annual Repayment Limit (ARL) to ensure that the City is compliant with Provincial legislation. The capital project costs being considered for this exercise are: City Centre; Highway 401 Road Crossing; Animal Shelter; Seaton Community & Library Centre; Pickering Heritage & Community Centre; Civic Complex Renovation and Replacement of Fire Hall #5. In addition, staff will also consider other debt financed capital projects identfied in the capital forecast to ensure that the City is either compliant with the ARL or develops a strategy to address this issue. The end result of the financial exercise is to produce a financial “road map” with possible options for Council to consider in the context of “Council required actions” and possible increases to the tax levy for future years. One of the challenging aspects of this exercise is that assumptions have to made regarding the “post pandemic environment” and its impact on City operations. Municipal Debt Limits and Annual Repayment Limit (ARL) Managing the debt capacity or dollar borrowing amount is important to the City due to the financial limitations imposed by the Province through the Annual Repayment Limit or (ARL). (The Municipal Act regulation permits a maximum of 25 percent of net operating revenues to be used to fund principal and interest charges for debt. A municipality can only exceed the 25 percent limit through prior approval from the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal). For Pickering, the net operating revenues consists of the following major items: • property tax revenue • user fees & charges • fines, penalties & interest on taxes • license fees, permit fees & rents • gaming & casino revenues As stated above, every year the budget levy increases, the City’s annual repayment limit increases that in-turn results in a higher debt borrowing capacity or dollar amount. The City’s annual repayment limit for 2021, based on the prescribed calculation and using the City’s 2019 Financial Information Return (FIR) was $23.447 million. The proposed 2021 budgeted annual debt payments (interest and principal) is $6.027 million and therefore, the City had $17.45 million in unused debt payment capacity before hitting the 25 percent cap. As Members of Council are aware, the 2020 pandemic has resulted in a decrease in revenues generated by user fees and charges, especially for the Community Services Department. Therefore, a possibility exists that the City’s debt borrowing capacity could decrease based on 2020 financial results for the fiscal year 2022. However, for the following year (2023), you could also see a significant increase in debt borrowing capacity with the introduction of casino revenues as part of the 25 percent revenue calculation. - 180 - Report FIN 05-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: 2021 Current and Capital Budget Page 20 Please find below a historical comparison of the City’s annual debt cost (that includes principal and interest) in relation to the ARL. The source of the data was the annual FIR, Schedule 81 for each respective year. The 2020 financial information is currently not available due to the fact the City is still processing its 2020 closing adjustments. As the chart below indicates, the City has been operating slightly below the 5 percent level of its debt limit. Chart Four City’s Debt Measured Against the ARL Limit It is estimated that the 2021 year-end financial data should reflect an upward direction of the slope of the line due to Council’s approval of the following two major debt financed projects: Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex Renovation and Seaton Fire Hall. Debt Payments and Debt Financing of Capital Projects The 2021 Current Budget includes $5.2 million of taxpayer funded debt charges (interest and principal), excluding the City Centre project. The taxpayer funded debt charges represent 7.2 percent of the 2021 property taxes levied. In other words, for every dollar collected - 7 cents is applied to debt charges. A high level summary of the City’s debt, excluding the City Centre project is presented below: 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Debt %ARL - 181 - Report FIN 05-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: 2021 Current and Capital Budget Page 21 Debt Summary Millions ($) 2020 Debt External Debt Commitments $33.4 External DC Debt 8.7 Internal Loans 1.9 Total 2020 Commitments $44.0 Add: 2021 Debt Commitments External Debt $11.4 New Internal Loans 1.6 Total Debt Commitments $57.0 The 2021 debt financed Capital Projects, are listed below. External Debt and Internal Financing of Capital Projects City of Pickering 2, 5, 10 and 20 Year Debt Financing 2021 Capital Budget Capital Project Code Debt - 2 Years ($) Description 5321.2101 $2,175,000 Hwy 401 Road Crossing – Land Acquisition – Phase 2 Total Two Year Debt $2,175,000 Capital Project Code Debt - 5 Years ($) Description 5731.2101 $200,000 CHDRC Lobby & Core Area Renovations - Contingency Total Five Year Debt $200,000 Capital Project Code Debt - 10 Years ($) Description 5700.2107 $247,500 Civic Complex Parking Garage Ramp Replacement Total Ten Year Debt $247,500 Capital Project Code Debt - 20 Years ($) Description 5719.2101 $11,391,900 Pickering Heritage Community Centre - Construction Total Twenty Year Debt $11,391,900 Total Debt Financed Projects $14,014,400 Borrowing or debt financing should not be viewed as a negative. The proper use of debt is an essential component of prudent fiscal strategy. The use of debt promotes intergenerational equity. By borrowing, Pickering can distribute the cost of the asset over the lifetime of the asset. - 182 - Report FIN 05-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: 2021 Current and Capital Budget Page 22 2022 – 2025 Capital Forecasts The City’s 2022 – 2025 Capital Forecast outlines the City’s current financial plan. Provided below is a breakdown of the various funding sources related to the capital forecast. Draft 2021 Capital Budget and 2022-2025 Capital Forecast ($M) 2021 Budget Amount 2022-2025 Planned Amount Total % Total Funding Development Charges $25.0 $165.9 $190.9 42.6 Debenture Financing 14.0 109.8 123.8 27.6 Other 4.3 4.7 9.0 2.0 Reserve & Reserve Funds 25.4 73.4 98.8 22.0 Federal Gas Tax 3.6 14.8 18.4 4.1 Capital from Taxation .7 6.9 7.6 1.7 $73.0 $375.5 $448.5 100% As shown above, the City is relying on a substantial level of development charge funding and debt financing for the City’s future capital needs. The debt amount can change over time with increasing contributions to reserves. Attachments: 1. By-law to Confirm General Fees and Charges 2021 2. By-law to Provide for the Establishment of a Reserve Fund to be Known as the WSIB Excess Indemnity Reserve Fund 3. By-law to Provide for the Establishment of a Reserve Fund to be Known as the 2021 COVID-19 Recovery Reserve Fund 4. Budget Presentation, March 4, 2021 5. Average Daily Cost of Municipal Services - 183 - Report FIN 05-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: 2021 Current and Capital Budget Page 23 Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By: Original Signed By: James Halsall Stan Karwowski Manager, Budgets & Internal Audit Director, Finance & Treasurer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer Original Signed By: - 184 - Attachment #1 to Report #FIN 05-21 The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. 7823/21 Being a by-law to amend By-law No. 6191/03 to confirm General Municipal Fees Whereas the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering enacted By-law 6191/03, as amended, on October 14, 2003 to confirm general municipal fees. Whereas Schedule “I” to By-law 6191/03 was updated and replaced under By-law, 6338/04, By-law 6519/05, By-law 6652/06, By-law 6677/06, By-law 6748/07 By-law 6857/08, By-law 6951/09, By-law 7032/10, By-law 7119/11, By-law 7194/12, By-law 7268/13, By-law 7339/14, By-law 7411/15, By-law 7478/16, By-law 7542/17, By-law 7605/18; By-law 7679/19 and By-law 7740-20; Now therefore the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1.Schedule “I” to By-law Number 6191/03, as amended, is hereby deleted and Schedule “I” attached hereto is substituted therefore. By-law passed this 22nd day of March, 2021. __________________________________ David Ryan, Mayor __________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 185 - Attachment #2 to Report #FIN 05-21 The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. 7824/21 Being a By-law to Provide for the Establishment of a Reserve Fund to be Known as the WSIB Excess Indemnity Reserve Fund. Whereas under the Municipal Act, S.O., 2001 as amended, Section 417(1), the Council of the City of Pickering may establish and maintain a reserve fund for any purpose for which it has authority to expend funds; and Whereas it is desirable for the City of Pickering to establish such a reserve fund for the purpose of paying potential claims and other related costs arising out of extraordinary WSIB claims such as multiple injuries arising from one incident, severe burns or paraplegic or quadriplegic claims. Now therefore the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1.That the establishment of a reserve fund known as the WSIB Excess Indemnity Reserve Fund is hereby authorized. 2.That WSIB Excess Indemnity Reserve Fund shall be used to pay potential claims and other related costs arising out of extraordinary WSIB claims. 3.That the financial goal of this fund is to reach a balance $2.5 million, subject to actuarial valuations of the City’s future WSIB liabilities. 4.That the Interest earned on the investment of fund balances shall form part of this reserve fund. 5.That this By-law shall come into force on the date of its enactment. By-law passed this 22nd day of March, 2021. __________________________________ David Ryan, Mayor __________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 186 - Attachment #3 to Report #FIN 05-21 The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. 7825/21 Being a By-law to Provide for the Establishment of a Reserve Fund to be Known as the 2021 COVID-19 Recovery Reserve Fund. Whereas under the Municipal Act, S.O., 2001 as amended, Section 417(1), the Council of the City of Pickering may establish and maintain a reserve fund for any purpose for which it has authority to expend funds; and Whereas it is desirable for the City of Pickering to establish such a reserve fund for the purpose of capturing 2021 COVID-19 Recovery Grant Funding received from the provincial government to be used for 2021 and/or future COVID-19 operating costs and pressures. Now therefore the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1.That the establishment of a reserve fund known as the 2021 COVID-19 Recovery Reserve Fund is hereby authorized. 2.That the 2021 COVID-19 Recovery Reserve Fund shall consist of grant monies received from the Province from the COVID-19 Recovery Funding for Municipalities program. 3.That the 2021 COVID-19 Recovery Reserve Fund shall be used to address the City’s 2021 and/or future COVID-19 operating costs and pressures. 3.That the Treasurer has the discretion to draw from this fund to maintain the City’s financial and business plans due to direct and indirect affects of COVID-19. 4.That the Interest earned on the investment of fund balances shall form part of this reserve fund. 5.That this By-law shall come into force on the date of its enactment. By-law passed this 22nd day of March, 2021. __________________________________ David Ryan, Mayor __________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 187 - 1 pickering.ca Executive (Budget) Committee March 4, 2021 2021 Draft Current & Capital Budgets pickering.ca Introduction Page 2 Two Themes: A Budget Presentation Budget Assumption Financial Snapshot Budget Impact on Residential Taxpayer Budget Impact on the Commercial/Industrial Taxpayer Capital Budget Budget Report and Housekeeping Items B Pickering’s Social Conscience – Financial Measure Attachment #4 to Rpt #FIN 05-21 - 188 - 2 pickering.ca 2021 Budget Assumption Page 3 • COVID Restrictions remain for Q1, Q2, Q3. • Vaccine (that is effective against variants) is distributed to large percentage of population by September. • City moves to the “New Normal” transitioning in Q4 Budget reflects traditional City Events: Remembrance Day Service Tree Lighting Santa Claus Parade New Year’s Eve Countdown pickering.ca What are the Financial Implications if the Budget Assumption is “Off Target”? Page 4Rate Stabilization Reserve is the City’s Financial Safety Net. - 189 - 3 pickering.ca 2021 Recommended Current Budget 2021 Recommended Capital Budget $73,041,800 Net $70,841,695 Gross $121,617,800 2021 Budget Financial Snapshot Page 5 pickering.ca Page 6 - 190 - 4 pickering.ca 2021 Budget Snapshot Page 5 2020 Increase 2021 Draft Budget (Decrease)BudgetATotal City Revenues ($44,173,039)($2,831,265)($47,004,304)-4.05%B Total City Expenditures 115,501,660 6,116,140 121,617,800 8.76%C $71,328,621 $3,284,875 $74,613,495 4.70% One-Time FundingDRate Stabilization Reserve ($1,500,000)0 ($1,500,000)0.00%E Provincial Restart Funding (Phase 1 & 2)(2,802,100)(2,802,100)-4.01%F ($1,500,000)($2,802,100)($4,302,100)-4.01% G Base Budget (Line C Minus F)$69,828,621 $482,775 $70,311,395 0.69% Growth Related IncreasesH3 Fire Fighters For New Seaton Fire Hall $283,000 $283,000 0.41% Service Level IncreasesIWaterfront By-law Enforcement 51,000 51,000 0.07%J Investment to Meet Accessibility Compliance 121,300 121,300 0.17%K Community Investment Fund 75,000 75,000 0.11%L 530,300 530,300 0.76%M $1,013,075 $70,841,695 1.45% Net City (Line A Minus B) Sub Total (Lines D to E) Sub Total (Lines H to K) Budget Levy Increase (Line G + L)2021 I mpact on Resi de nti al Tax Bill 0.44% Page 7 pickering.ca Assessment Growth Page 8 $2,037,000 - 191 - 5 pickering.ca Fire Services Overtime & Seaton Staffing Strategy Page 9 Budget 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Council Approved Hiring 2223 3 44 Cumulative 46912 1620 Projected 24 Hour Shifts Start Jan 1, 2015 24 Hour Shifts Start Jan 1, 2015 pickering.ca 2021 Other Key Current Budget Highlights Page 10 $50,000- Mechanical harvesting of Eurasian Water-Milfoil (weeds in Frenchman’s Bay) $25,000 – Concrete gaming structures for 3 City parks $85,000 – Diversity & Inclusion consultant to facilitate the completion of a Diversity & Inclusion strategy Target Hiring Date Q2 - For a full time coordinator, Diversity & Inclusion Position $746,000 - Increase in Contribution to reserves & reserve funds - 192 - 6 Budget Levy Increases 2001 to 2021 Page 11 Average Property Tax Increase Term Per Term 2006 to 2009 6.0% 2010 to 2014 3.4% 2015 to 2018 3.2% Current 2.3% pickering.ca 2021 Budget Levy Increase Comparison with Our Durham Lakeshore Neighbours Page 12 City/Town Share (%) Oshawa 1.41 Pickering 1.45 Whitby 1.61 Clarington 2.04 Ajax 3.07 Total Residential Tax (%) NA 0.55 0.67 0.95 0. - 193 - 7 pickering.ca How is the Residential Tax Bill Allocated? Pickering 30.60% Durham Region 55.03% School Boards 14.37% Residential Tax Bill Pickering Share Page 13 pickering.ca Budget Levy Impact on Total Residential Property Taxes Page 14 City Share Proposed 2021 Levy Inc.1.45% Percentage of Allocation 30.60% Increase on Total Tax Bill 0.44% - 194 - 8 pickering.ca Budget Levy Impact on Total Residential Property Taxes Page 15 Residential Assessment 100,000$ 530,000$ 612,000$ 900,000$ Increase over Last Year 4.72$ 25.02$ 28.89$ 42.48$ Financial Impact of Budget Levy Increase The residential assessment value is based on a market valuation date of January 1, 2016. pickering.ca Impact of Delayed Reassessment on Residential Property Taxes Page 16 For 2021, the reassessment is being delayed to 2022. Therefore, there should be no financial impact due to reassessment. The highlighted line should be ZERO for 2021. Last Year - 195 - 9 pickering.ca Pickering’s 2021 Budget Levy Increase On The Total Residential Tax Bill 1.91% Page 17 pickering.ca Page 18 - 196 - 10 pickering.ca Budgetary Impact on Commercial/Industrial Property Owner In November 5, 2020 Budget Statement, the Provincial Government announces significant reductions in the Business Education Tax Rate. The tax reductions are significant because the “Education Share” is the largest component of the property taxes. 2020 2021 Education Education Percentage Tax Rate Tax Rate Decrease Commercial 0.0098 0.0088 10.20% Industrial 0.0125 0.0088 29.60% Page 19 pickering.ca Budgetary Impact on Commercial/Industrial Property Owner Page 20 Every commercial & industrial property owner should see a reduction in their 2021 property taxes. Reduction is due to the Provincial initiative to reduce the education taxes. Est. 2020 2021 Total Total Property Property Percentage Example Taxes Taxes Savings Change A Stand Alone Fast Food 42,179$ 40,779$ 1,399$ 3.31% B Strip Plaza 84,496$ 81,695$ 2,800$ 3.31% C Industrial Building 223,388$ 199,063$ 24,325$ 10.89% - 197 - 11 pickering.ca Non Residential Assessment as a % of the Total Property Assessment Base Residential $1.00 = Commercial $1.45 Residential $1.00 = Industrial $2.26 Page 21 pickering.ca Pickering’s Debt Picture *The above debt amount excludes City Centre.Page 22 Original Borrowed Amount ($) Outstanding Principal Balance A Total "Issued" Debt Commitments-Dec. 31, 2020 45,528,000$ 30,575,692$ Add: B Debt Funded Projects from Prior Year's Budgets 13,482,180 C 2021 Debt Funded Projects 12,999,400 D Estimated City Debt Commitments - December 31, 2021 57,057,272$ * - 198 - 12 pickering.ca Pickering’s Debt & Debt Capacity The Province through O. Reg 403/02 establishes the municipality’s debt limit. Using the 2019, Council approved financial statements, the Province has calculated, that the Upper City’s debt repayment limit cannot exceed $23.4 million. Interest Rate 4.00% 4.50% 5.00% Term 20 Year 20 Year 20 Year Upper Borrowing Capacity Limit $317.00 $305.00 $292.00 Less: 2021 Est. Debt Commitments 57.06 57.06 57.06 Available Debt Capacity $259.94 $247.94 $234.94 Millions The Debt Capacity changes every year.Page 24 pickering.ca 5 Year Financial Strategic Plan Cost Inputs Revenue Inputs Options Page 25 - 199 - 13 pickering.ca Capital Budget Summary Major Capital Projects of Interest: • Pickering Heritage & Community Centre (Combined Museum, Community Centre and Library Archives) • Waterfront Trail Land Acquisition • Whitevale Road & Drainage Improvements • Frenchman’s Bay West Park (Pedestrian Walkway & Washroom Facility) Page 26 pickering.ca City of Pickering 2021 Capital Budget by Financing Source Page 27 - 200 - 14 pickering.ca Roads & Bridges Program 2018 to 2021 Page 28FGT – Federal Gas Tax pickering.ca Parks Program 2018 to 2021 Page 29 - 201 - 15 pickering.ca User Fees Goal To charge comparable fees where there are other comparable municipal comparisons. User Fees are reviewed every year as part of the budget process. The User Fee schedule provides a summary of the City fees including all proposed changes.` Deferral of Sports Field user permit fees from seasonal to hourly. User Fees proposed to be set at November 2019 rates. Community & sports groups will save approximately $170,000 per year. Page 30 pickering.ca . 2021 Budget Communication Statistics Page 31 • Capital budget posted on the website on Feb 5th. • Current budget posted on the website on Feb 22nd. • Community Page ad ran four times starting February 4 th. Social Media Posted to corporate Facebook, Twitter and Instagram Available @CityofPickering Facebook 13,136 people reached Twitter 3,715 impressions Instagram 1,666 people reached - 202 - 16 pickering.ca 2021 Budget Report (Housekeeping) Recommendations will include the following: 1. Council to confirm that the budget was developed using the cash basis of accounting as per Ontario Regulation 284/09. 2. Any committee decisions to be re-allocated to their proper cost centre for accounting and expenditure control purposes. 3. Grant housekeeping recommendations – change application deadline to October 29th. 4. Increase seniors grant amount from $375 to $450. 5. The budget report will seek Council’s approval to establish an Excess Indemnity Reserve Fund. Page 32 pickering.ca . Measuring Pickering’s Social Conscience Page 33 - 203 - 17 pickering.ca Residential Property Tax Deferral Program Program approved by Council on January 25, 2021 (FIN 02-21). Program will defer property tax payments that were due at the end of February and April to the end of May. (3 Month deferral) To qualify for the program, your property taxes had to be in good standing from February 29, 2020 or up-to-date by December 31, 2020. Provide verifiable documentation to demonstrate financial hardship related directly to the COVID-19 pandemic through prolonged suspension of pay, reduction in pay, or loss of employment Page 34 pickering.ca Update on Residential Property Tax Deferral Program Communication Strategy Advertised in the Community Page (February 11 & 18) Promoted in Interim Property Tax Brochure (approximately 16,000 copies) Promoted on Social Media using Facebook, Twitter and Instagram Social Media Statistics Facebook - 10,029 reached (the number of individuals who saw the ad) Instagram – 1,503 individuals reached Twitter – 838 impressions The Pickering News Advertiser ran a story on the Program in early February Next Step: Promoted through mailing of Arrears Notices in March Page 34 - 204 - 18 pickering.ca Low Income Seniors/Persons with Disabilities Property Tax Grant Statistics The City had 244 participants in the program in 2020 Page 35 pickering.ca . Social Conscience – A Financial Measure Pickering’s financial “giving” is equivalent to 0.58% levy Page 36 - 205 - 19 pickering.ca Page 37 - 206 - Attachment #5 to Rpt #FIN 05-21 2021 Draft Budget Average Daily Cost of Municipal Services Average Daily Cost of Municipal Services: $5.55* 22.82% Fire Services $1.27 17.86% Roads $0.99 7.53% Library $0.42 7.72% Parks & Property $0.43 6.76% Debt Services $0.37 5.77% Community & Rec. Centres $0.32 4.99% Corporate Services $0.28 4.97% Culture & Recreation - Other $0.28 2.74% City Development $0.15 1.54% Mayor, Council & Council Support $0.09 1.23% Streetlights $0.07 1.14% Recreation Programs $0.06 0.68% Animal Services $0.04 0.64% Customer Care $0.04 1.10% Museum $0.06 0.51% Crossing Guards $0.03 1.63% Arenas $0.09 0.33% Community Grants $0.02 0.91% By-law Services $0.05 9.12% All Other Areas $0.51 * Calculated based on the average assesed value of $612,000 for a residential property. - 207 - Report to Council Report Number: CS 16-21 Date: March 22, 2021 From: Brian Duffield (Acting) Director, Community Services Subject: Tender for GALCC RTU-1 Replacement -Tender No. T2020-15 -File: A-1440 Recommendation: 1.That Tender No. T2020-15 submitted by 1747204 Ontario Inc. Ace Services, in the amount of $146,787.00 (HST included), be accepted; 2.That the total gross project cost of $214,858.00 (HST included), including the amount of the tender, and other associated costs, and the total net project cost of $193,486.00 (net of HST rebate), be approved; 3.That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to finance the total net project cost of $193,486.00 as follows: a)the sum of $100,000.00, as provided for in the 2020 Community Centres Capital Budget be funded by a transfer from the Federal Gas Tax Reserve Fund; b)the additional sum of $93,486.00 be funded by a transfer from the Federal Gas Tax Reserve Fund; c)the Treasurer be authorized to make any changes, adjustments, and revisions to amounts, terms, conditions, or take any actions necessary in order to effect the foregoing; and, 4.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect hereto. Executive Summary: Tender T2020-15 was issued for the replacement of the existing rooftop heating, ventilation unit (RTU-1) serving the common areas at George Ashe Library & Community Centre. The existing unit is original to the building, installed in 2000, and is at the end of its serviceable life. Tender No. T2020-15 was released and made available to the public on the City’s websi te on Thursday, December 10, 2020. An optional site visit was held on Thursday, December 17, 2020. - 208 - CS 16-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: GALCC RTU-1 Replacement Page 2 The tender closed on Wednesday, January 20, 2020. Eight companies submitted bids for this project. The low bid submitted by 1747204 Ontario Inc. Ace Services, in the amount of $146,787.00 (HST included), is recommended for approval. The total gross project cost is estimated to be $214,858.00 (HST included) and the total net project cost is estimated at $193,486.00 (net of HST rebate). Financial Implications: 1.Tender Amount Tender No. T2020-15 $129,900.00 HST (13%) Total Gross Tender Cost $16,887.00 $146,787.00 2.Estimated Project Costing Summary Tender No. T2020-15 $129,900.00 Consulting & Pre-Tender Costs 25,240.00 Controls 20,000.00 Contingency 15,000.00 Total Cost $190,140.00 HST (13%) 24,718.00 Total Gross Project Costs $214,858.00 HST Rebate (11.24%) (21,372.00) Total Net Project Costs $193,486.00 3.Approved Source of Funds – Community Centres Capital Budget Approved Code 5719.2002.6500 Source of Funds Federal Gas Tax Federal Gas Tax Total Funds Funds Available $100,000.00 Funds Required $100,000.00 93,486.00 $193,486.00 Project Cost under (over) approved funds by ($93,486.00) Discussion: George Ashe Library & Community Centre was constructed and opened in 2000. Many of its major component mechanical units are now starting to reach the end of their lifecycle. Existing rooftop unit (RTU-1) has been identified as the first of the packaged HVAC units - 209 - CS 16-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: GALCC RTU-1 Replacement Page 3 need to be upgraded to ensure that the equipment is connected to the City’s central building automation system for remote monitoring and adjustment. The original project budget was based on pre-pandemic pricing. Disruptions to existing supply and logistical chains is the most likely cause of the increased cost, and is resulting in significant price fluctuations. Availability of materials, production delays for equipment, and backlogged shipping channels have also been affecting delivery timelines. Tender No. T2020-15 was released and made available to the public on the City’s website on Thursday, December 10, 2020. An optional site visit was held on Thursday, December 17, 2020. The tender closed on Wednesday, January 20, 2020. Eight companies submitted bids for this project. The low bidder, 1747204 Ontario Inc. Ace Services, has submitted a signed copy of the City’s Health & Safety form. The Certificate of Insurance is deemed acceptable to the Manager, Budgets & Internal Audit. Staff have reviewed previous work experience of 1747204 Ontario Inc. Ace Services, and their submitted waste management plan, and deemed them to be acceptable. Community Services’ staff will initiate a requisition upon approval of requested funding. Upon careful examination of all bids and relevant documents received, the Community Services Department recommends the acceptance of Tender No. T2020-15 submitted by 1747204 Ontario Inc. Ace Services, in the amount of $146,787.00 (HST included) and that the total net project cost of $193,486.00 be approved. Attachments: 1.Supply & Services Memorandum dated January 26, 2021 - 210 - CS 16-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: GALCC RTU-1 Replacement Page 4 Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Vince Plouffe, OAA, RAIC Ray Rodrigues, CPPB Manager, Facilities Capital Projects Manager, Supply & Services Brian Duffield Stan Karwowski, MBA, CPA, CMA (Acting) Director, Community Services Director, Finance & Treasurer BD:vp Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer Original Signed By: Original Signed By: Original Signed By: Original Signed By: Original Signed By: - 211 - To: Brian Duffield Director, Community Services January 26, 2021 From: Lisa Chang Buyer, Supply & Services Copy: Administrative Assistant, Community Services Manager, Supply & Services Coordinator, Facilities Capital Projects Manager, Facilities Capital Projects Subject: Tender No. T2020-15 Tender for GALCC RTU-1 Replacement Closed: Wednesday, January 20, 2020 – 2:00pm File: F-5400-001 Tender No. T2020-15 was advertised on the City’s website on December 10, 2020. An optional site visit was held on December 17, 2020 at 10:00 am. Eight companies have submitted a bid for this project. Dael Thermal Group Inc. was rejected in accordance with Purchasing Policy item 23.02.1. A copy of the Record of Tenders Opened and Checked used at the public tender opening is attached. Tenders shall be irrevocable for 60 days after the official closing date and time. Purchasing Procedure No. PUR 010-001, Item 13.03 (r) provides checking tendered unit prices and extensions unit prices shall govern and extensions will be corrected accordingly, which has been completed below. The unsuccessful Bidder’s tendering deposit, other than a bid bond, shall be returned to the applicable bidders as provided for by Purchasing Procedure No. PUR 010-001, Item 13.03 (w). Three (3) bids have been retained for review at this time and are attached. Summary Harmonized Sales Tax Included Bidder Total Tendered Amount After Calculation Check 1747204 Ontario Inc. Ace Services $146,787.00 $146,787.00 Mapleridge Mechanical Contracting Inc. $153,607.68 $153,607.68 Memo Attachment #1 to Report #CS 16-21 - 212 - Page 2 Bidder Total Tendered Amount After Calculation Check Dael Thermal Group Inc. $155,178.46 $155,176.12 Canadian Tech Air Systems Inc. $169,274.00 $169,274.00 HVAC For Life Inc. $179,557.00 $179,557.00 Smith and Long Limited $196,563.50 $196,563.50 MJK Construction Inc. $197,699.00 $197,699.15 Vanguard Mechanical Inc. $213,570.00 $213,570.00 Pursuant to Information to Bidders Item 31 Pre-Condition of Award and Item 20 Tendering Specifications, the following documentation will be requested of 1747204 Ontario Inc. Ace Services for your review during the evaluation stage of this tender call. Please advise if Supply & Services is to proceed with collecting the following documentation: (a)A copy of the City’s Health and Safety Policy form currently dated and signed; (b)A copy of the current Clearance Certificate issued by Workplace Safety & Insurance Board; (c)The City’s certificate of insurance or approved alternative form completed by the Bidder’s agent, broker or insurer; and (d)Waste Management Plan. A budget of $100,000 was provided to Supply & Services for this procurement. If the recommendation to award exceeds the budgeted amount, refer to Financial Control Policy Item 11 for additional instructions. In accordance with Purchasing Policy Item 06.04, the authority for the dollar limit as set out below excludes HST. As such, in accordance with Purchasing Policy Item 06.11, where the compliant quotation or tender meeting specifications and offering best value to the City is acceptable or where the highest scoring proposal is recommended and the estimated total purchase price is: (b)Over $75,000 and up to $250,000 the Manager may approve the award, subject to the approval of the Director, Treasurer and CAO. Please include the following items in your memo: 1.if Items (a) through (b) noted above are acceptable to the Co-ordinator, Health & Safety or designate, if required; 2.if Item (c) is acceptable to the Manager, Budgets & Internal Audit; 3.if the list of subcontractors is acceptable to Community Services; 4.if Item (d) is acceptable to Community Services; 5.any past work experience with low bidder 1747204 Ontario Inc. Ace Services including work location; - 213 - Page 3 6. without past work experience, if reference information is acceptable to Community Services; 7. the appropriate account number(s) to which this work is to be charged; 8. the budget amount(s) assigned thereto; 9. Treasurer’s confirmation of funding; 10. related departmental approvals; and 11. related comments specific to the project. After receiving CAO’s approval, an approved “on-line” requisition will be required to proceed. Enquiries can be directed to the City’s website for the unofficial bid results as read out at the public tender opening or to Supply & Services. Bidders will be advised of the outcome in due course. If you require further information, please feel free to contact me or a member of Supply & Services. lc Attachments - 214 - Report to Council Report Number: FIR 01-21 Date: March 22, 2021 From: John Hagg Fire Chief Subject: Tender for the Construction of a New Fire Station Headquarters at Brock Road and Zents Drive -Tender No. T2020-3 -File: A-1440-001-21 Recommendation: 1.That Tender No. T2020-3 submitted by Percon Construction Inc., in the amount of $9,260,350.00 (HST included), be accepted; 2.That the total gross project cost of $9,972,250.00 (HST included), including the amount of the tender, and other associated costs, and the total net project cost of $8,980,320.00 (net of HST rebate), be approved; 3.That the Director, Finance & Treasurer be authorized to finance the total net project cost of $8,980,320.00 as follows: a)the sum of $2,765,000.00, be financed by the issue of debentures by The Regional Municipality of Durham over a period not to exceed 20 years; b)the sum of $6,213,000.00 be financed by the issue of debentures by The Regional Municipality of Durham over a period not to exceed 20 years to address the funding shortfall of the Development Charges-Protection Services Reserve Fund, and this amount be repaid from future development charge collections; c)the sum of $2,320.00 be funded from property taxes; d)the annual repayment charges in the amount of approximately $194,550.00 be included in the annual Current Budget for the City of Pickering commencing 202 1, or such subsequent year in which the debentures are issued, and continuing thereafter until the debenture financing is repaid; e)the annual repayment charges in the amount of approximately $437,155.00 be included in the annual Current Budget for the City of Pickering commencing 202 1, or such subsequent year in which the debentures are issued, and continuing thereafter until the debenture financing is repaid from future development charge collections as the first source of repayment, and the cost of the annual repayment charges be included in the next Development Charges Background Study; f)the Treasurer be authorized to make any changes, adjustments, and revisions to amounts, terms, conditions, or take any actions necessary in order to effect the foregoing; - 215 - FIR 01-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: Construction of New Fire Station and Headquarters on Zents Drive Page 2 4.That the draft debenture by-laws attached to this report be enacted; and, 5.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect hereto. Executive Summary: Tender T2020-3 was advertised on the City’s website on Wednesday, December 23, 2020 for the construction of a new Fire Station and Headquarters facility to be located at the northwest corner of Brock Road and Zents Drive. The new facility is approximately 1,950 square meters (20,000 square feet) in size, including three tandem pull through bays, complete fire station amenities on the ground floor and separate facilities for Administrative, Training and Fire Prevention staff on the second level. Five bidders were pre-qualified to submit bids for the project, through RFPQ-8-2019. Only bids from these bidders could be accepted. An optional site meeting was held on Tuesday, January 5, 2021. The site itself is an open field and was readily available for access to all bidders throughout the tender process. Three compliant bids were submitted for this project. The low bid submitted by Percon Construction Inc., in the amount of $9,260,350.00 (HST included), is recommended for approval. The total gross project cost is estimated to be $9,972,250.00 (HST included) and the total net project cost is estimated at $8,980,320.00 (net of HST rebate). Financial Implications: 1.Tender Amount Tender No. T2020-3 $8,195,000.00 HST (13%) Total Gross Tender Cost 1,065,350.00 $9,260,350.00 2.Estimated Project Costing Summary Tender No. T2020-3 $8,195,000.00 Contingency 630,000.00 Total Cost $8,825,000.00 HST (13%) 1,147,250.00 Total Gross Project Costs $9,972,250.00 HST Rebate (11.24%) (991,930.00) Total Net Project Costs $8,980,320.00 - 216 - FIR 01-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: Construction of New Fire Station and Headquarters on Zents Drive Page 3 3.Approved Source of Funds – Fire Services Capital Budget Approved Code 5340.2007.6400 5340.2007.6400 Source of Funds Debt – 20 Years DC – Protection Services RF Property Taxes Total Funds Funds Available $2,767,180.00 6,214,820.00 0.00 $8,982,000.00 Funds Required $2,765,000.00 6,213,000.00 2,320.00 $8,980,320.00 Project Cost under (over) approved funds by $1,680.00 Currently the Development Charges-Protection Services Reserve Fund (“DC-Protection Services RF”) component does not have sufficient funds to meet the financial obligation of this project. Therefore, it will be necessary to issue debentures to finance the development charge share of the project. Under the Development Charges Act, 1997, a municipality may borrow when insufficient development charges are on hand. The debt repayment, including interest costs can be incorporated into the development charge rate and the debt repayment is funded from future development charge collections. Discussion: Design of this new Fire Station commenced in mid-2016, intending to provide a 2-bay single storey facility. In January 2019, the scope of work was expanded to include administrative areas and an additional vehicle bay to allow for the relocation of Administrative, Training and Fire Prevention and related support staff from their existing facilities at Fire Station 5 on Bayly Street in South Pickering. Fire Station 5 is at the end of its serviceable life and due for replacement in the coming years. Geographically, this new station is centrally located within the municipality. The new 1.77 acre site is also much larger and can better accommodate the additional amenities than the existing headquarters, such as parking for Fire Services fleet of support vehicles. Electric vehicle charging stations will also be installed at the new site to accommodate expansion of the City’s fleet of electric vehicles. To be designated as Pickering Fire Station No.1 and Headquarters, this new facility will be constructed on property owned by the City on the northwest corner of Brock Road and Zents Drive. The site was selected after extensive review of available lands and based on response time requirements for existing and future developments. The station is needed to ensure that the Ci ty maintains appropriate emergency facilities and coverage as development moves north, especially with active and ongoing growth in the Seaton lands. As such, the facility has been reflected in the last two iterations of the City’s Development Charges Study. - 217 - FIR 01-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: Construction of New Fire Station and Headquarters on Zents Drive Page 4 Construction is expected to take approximately 18 months, followed by several months of internal fit-out prior to commencing operations. Related vehicle and major equipment purchases required to prepare and staff the station for active duty have been addressed through separate procurement processes. The contract does include provision of a plinth for the future installation of public art to be located near the property line on Brock Road, slightly north of the new building, where it will be most visible without obstructing vehicular sight lines. Tender T2020-3 was advertised on the City’s website on Wednesday, December 23, 2020 , for the construction of a new fire station and headquarters facility. Five bidders were pre-qualified to submit bids for the project. An optional site meeting was held on Tuesday, January 5, 2021. The site itself is an open field and was readily available for access to all bidders throughout the tender process. Three compliant bids were submitted for this project. The low bidder, Percon Construction Inc., has submitted a signed copy of the City’s Health & Safety form. The Certificate of Insurance is deemed acceptable to the Manager, Budgets & Internal Audit. Staff have not previously worked with this vendor, but were satisfied with the references received through the pre-qualification process. Their submitted waste management plan has been reviewed and deemed to be acceptable. Community Services’ staff will initiate a requisition upon approval of requested funding. Upon careful examination of all bids and relevant documents received, the Community Services Department recommends the acceptance of Tender No. T2020-3 submitted by Percon Construction Inc., in the amount of $9,260,350.00 (HST included) and that the total net project cost of $8,980,320.00 be approved. Attachments: 1.Supply & Services Memorandum dated February 25, 2021. 2.Draft By-law authorizing the construction of the new Fire Station HQ-DCRF. 3.Draft By-law authorizing the construction of the new Fire Station HQ-Taxes. - 218 - FIR 01-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: Construction of New Fire Station and Headquarters on Zents Drive Page 5 Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By Original Signed By Vince Plouffe, OAA, RAIC Brian Duffield Manager, Facilities Capital Projects (Acting) Director, Community Services Original Signed By Original Signed By John Hagg Ray Rodrigues, CPPB Fire Chief Manager, Supply & Services Original Signed By Caryn Kong, CPA, CGA Senior Financial Analyst-Capital & Debt Management Original Signed By Stan Karwowski, MBA, CPA, CMA Director, Finance & Treasurer JH:jm Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer Original Signed By: - 219 - To: Brian Duffield Director, Community Services February 25, 2021 From: Lisa Chang Buyer, Supply & Services Copy: Administrative Assistant, Community Services Manager, Supply & Services Manager, Facilities Capital Projects Fire Chief Subject: Tender No. T2020-3 Tender for Construction of New Fire Station and Headquarters On Zents Drive Closed: Wednesday, February 24, 2021– 2:00pm File: F-5400-001 Tender No. T2020-3 was advertised on the City’s website on Wednesday, December 23, 2020. An optional site visit was held on Tuesday, January 5, 2021 at 10:00 a.m. Five companies have submitted a bid for this project. Chandos Construction Ltd. was rejected in accordance with Purchasing Policy 23.02.10c. Harbridge & Cross Limited was rejected in accordance with Purchasing Policy 23.02.1. A copy of the Record of Tenders Opened and Checked used at the public tender opening is attached. Tenders shall be irrevocable for 60 days after the official closing date and time. Purchasing Procedure No. PUR 010-001, Item 13.03 (r) provides checking tendered unit prices and extensions unit prices shall govern and extensions will be corrected accordingly, which has been completed below. The unsuccessful Bidder’s tendering deposit, other than a bid bond, shall be returned to the applicable bidders as provided for by Purchasing Procedure No. PUR 010-001, Item 13.03 (w). Three (3) bids have been retained for review at this time and are attached. Summary Harmonized Sales Tax Included Bidder Total Tendered Amount After Calculation Check Percon Construction Inc. $9,260,350.00 $9,260,350.00 J.J. McGuire General Contractors Inc. $9,315,720.00 $9,315,720.00 Memo Attachment #1 to Report # FIR 01-21 - 220 - Tender No. T2020-3 Page 2 JR Certus Construction Co. Ltd. $9,608,390.00 $9,608,390.00 Chandos Construction Ltd. $10,329,095.27 $10,329,095.27 Pursuant to Information to Bidders Item 31 Pre-Condition of Award and Item 20 Tendering Specifications, the following documentation will be requested of Percon Construction Inc. for your review during the evaluation stage of this tender call. Please advise if Supply & Services is to proceed with collecting the following documentation: (a)A copy of the City’s Health and Safety Policy form currently dated and signed; (b)A copy of the current Clearance Certificate issued by Workplace Safety & Insurance Board; (c)The City’s certificate of insurance or approved alternative form completed by the Bidder’s agent, broker or insurer; and (d)Waste Management Plan. A budget of $8,982,000.00 was provided to Supply & Services for this procurement. If the recommendation to award exceeds the budgeted amount, refer to Financial Control Policy Item 11 for additional instructions. In accordance with Purchasing Policy Item 06.04, the authority for the dollar limit as set out below excludes HST. As such, in accordance with Purchasing Policy Item 06.11, where the compliant quotation or tender meeting specifications and offering best value to the City is acceptable or where the highest scoring proposal is recommended and the estimated total purchase price is: (c)Over $250,000, the Manager may approve the award, subject to the approval of the Director, Treasurer, CAO and Council. Please include the following items in your report: 1.if Items (a) through (b) noted above are acceptable to the Co-ordinator, Health & Safety or designate, if required; 2.if Item (c) is acceptable to the Manager, Budgets & Internal Audit; 3.if the list of subcontractors is acceptable to Community Services 4.if Item (d) is acceptable to Community Services 5.any past work experience with low bidder Percon Construction Inc. including work location; 6.without past work experience, if reference information is acceptable to Community Services. 7.the appropriate account number(s) to which this work is to be charged; 8.the budget amount(s) assigned thereto; 9.Treasurer’s confirmation of funding; 10.related departmental approvals; and 11.related comments specific to the project. - 221 - Tender No. T2020-3 Page 3 After receiving Council’s approval, an approved “on-line” requisition will be required to proceed. Enquiries can be directed to the City’s website for the unofficial bid results as read out at the public tender opening or to Supply & Services. Bidders will be advised of the outcome in due course. If you require further information, please feel free to contact me or a member of Supply & Services. lc - 222 - The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. 7826/21 Being a by-law to authorize the Construction of a New Fire Station Headquarters at Brock Road and Zents Drive project in the City of Pickering and the issuance of debentures in the amount of $6,213,000.00 for Development Charges-Protection Services Reserve Fund funding for the Construction of a New Fire Station Headquarters at Brock Road and Zents Drive project, and that the first source of repayment for this debt is future development charge collections. Whereas Section 11 of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, provides that a lower-tier municipality may pass by-laws respecting matters within the spheres of jurisdiction described in that Section; and, Whereas Subsection 401(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, provides that a municipality may incur a debt for municipal purposes, whether by borrowing money or in any other way; and, Whereas Subsection 401(3) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, provides that a lower-tier municipality in a regional municipality does not have the power to issue debentures; and, Whereas The Regional Municipality of Durham has the sole authority to issue debentures for the purposes of its lower-tier municipalities including The Corporation of the City of Pickering (the “City”); and, Whereas the Council of the City wishes to proceed with debenture financing for the Construction of New Fire Station Headquarters at Brock Road and Zents Drive project; and, Whereas before authorizing the construction in respect to the Construction of New Fire Station Headquarters at Brock Road and Zents Drive project, the Council of the City had the Treasurer update the City’s Annual Repayment Limit, the Treasurer calculated the estimated annual amount payable in respect of such project and determined that such annual amount would not cause the City to exceed the updated limit and therefore, Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) approval is not required as per Section 401 of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, and the regulations made thereunder; And whereas after determining that Local Planning Appeal Tribunal approval is not required, the Council of the City approved report FIR 01-21 on the date hereof and Attachment #2 to Report # FIR 01-21 - 223 - By-law No. 7826/21 Page 2 approved the Construction of New Fire Station Headquarters at Brock Road and Zents Drive project in the City of Pickering; Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1.That the City proceed with the project referred to as “Construction of New Fire Station Headquarters at Brock Road and Zents Drive ”; 2.That the estimated costs of the project in the amount of $8,980,320.00 be financed as follows: a). the sum of $2,765,000.00 be financed by the issue of debentures by The Regional Municipality of Durham over a period not to exceed 20 years; b). the sum of $6,213,000.00 be financed by the issue of debentures by The Regional Municipality of Durham over a period not to exceed 20 years to address the funding shortfall of the Development Charges-Protection Services Reserve Fund (“DC-Protection Services RF”), and that this amount be repaid from future development charge collections as the first source of repayment; c). the sum of $2,320.00 be funded from property taxes; and such financing arrangements are hereby authorized; 3.That the funds to repay the principal and interest of the debentures be provided for in the annual Current Budget for the City commencing in 2021 or such subsequent year in which the debentures are issued and continuing thereafter until the debenture financing is repaid for 2 a) noted above; 4.That the funds to repay the principal and interest of the debentures be provided for in the annual Current Budget for the City commencing in 2021 or such subsequent year in which the debentures are issued and continuing thereafter until the debenture financing is repaid from future development charge as the first source of repayment for 2 b) noted above. By-law passed this 22nd day of March, 2021 ___________________________________ Dave Ryan, Mayor ___________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 224 - The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. 7827/21 Being a by-law to authorize the Construction of a New Fire Station Headquarters at Brock Road and Zents Drive project in the City of Pickering and the issuance of debentures in the amount of $2,765,000.00. Whereas Section 11 of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, provides that a lower-tier municipality may pass by-laws respecting matters within the spheres of jurisdiction described in that Section; and, Whereas Subsection 401(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, provides that a municipality may incur a debt for municipal purposes, whether by borrowing money or in any other way; and, Whereas Subsection 401(3) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, provides that a lower-tier municipality in a regional municipality does not have the power to issue debentures; and, Whereas The Regional Municipality of Durham has the sole authority to issue debentures for the purposes of its lower-tier municipalities including The Corporation of the City of Pickering (the “City”); and, Whereas the Council of the City wishes to proceed with debenture financing for the Construction of New Fire Station Headquarters at Brock Road and Zents Drive project; and, Whereas before authorizing the construction in respect to the Construction of New Fire Station Headquarters at Brock Road and Zents Drive project, the Council of the City had the Treasurer update the City’s Annual Repayment Limit, the Treasurer calculated the estimated annual amount payable in respect of such project and determined that such annual amount would not cause the City to exceed the updated limit and therefore, Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) approval is not required as per Section 401 of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, and the regulations made thereunder; And whereas after determining that Local Planning Appeal Tribunal approval is not required, the Council of the City approved report FIR 01-21 on the date hereof and approved the Construction of New Fire Station Headquarters at Brock Road and Zents Drive project in the City of Pickering; Attachment #3 to Report # FIR 01-21 - 225 - By-law No. 7827/21 Page 2 Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1.That the City proceed with the project referred to as “Construction of New Fire Station Headquarters at Brock Road and Zents Drive ”; 2.That the estimated costs of the project in the amount of $8,980,320.00 be financed as follows: a). the sum of $2,765,000.00 be financed by the issue of debentures by The Regional Municipality of Durham over a period not to exceed 20 years; b). the sum of $6,213,000.00 be financed by the issue of debentures by The Regional Municipality of Durham over a period not to exceed 20 years, to address the funding shortfall of the Development Charges-Protection Services Reserve Fund, and that this amount be repaid from future development charge collections as the first source of repayment; c). the sum of $2,320.00 be funded from property taxes; and such financing arrangements are hereby authorize; 3.That the funds to repay the principal and interest of the debentures be provided for in the annual Current Budget for the City commencing in 2021 or such subsequent year in which the debentures are issued and continuing thereafter until the debenture financing is repaid, for 2 a) noted above; 4.That the funds to repay the principal and interest of the debentures be provided for in the annual Current Budget for the City commencing in 2021 or such subsequent year in which the debentures are issued and continuing thereafter until the debenture financing is repaid from future development charge as the first source of repayment for 2 b) noted above. By-law passed this 22nd day of March, 2021 ___________________________________ Dave Ryan, Mayor ___________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 226 - Report to Council Report Number: HUR 02-21 Date: March 22, 2021 From: Jennifer Eddy Director, Human Resources Subject: Diversity & Inclusion Strategy - Request for Proposal No. RFP 2020-10 - File: A-1440 Recommendation: 1. That Proposal No. RFP 2020-10 submitted by Goss Gilroy Inc. dated November 26, 2020 to facilitate the completion of a Diversity & Inclusion (D&I) Strategy for the Corporation of the City of Pickering and the Pickering Public Library in the amount of $74,163.31 (HST included) be accepted; and 2. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Executive Summary: The City sought proposals from consulting firms with expertise in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and who have experience working with municipalities across Canada. While over the years we have engaged in several initiatives to address the needs of the changing and diverse population, a more fulsome and strategic review of our practices is required. With the changes in the demographics of the City’s residents and its workforce, we continue to acknowledge the need to evaluate the diversity and inclusion of the workforce to reflect the Pickering community and to better serve our diverse needs. A consultant is required to facilitate the completion of a Diversity & Inclusion (D&I) Strategy, by conducting an unbiased third party review of the current state of diversity and inclusion within the Corporation of the City of Pickering (City) and the Pickering Public Library (PPL). The D&I Strategy will be a Council approved document that will guide current and future decisions, to ensure a culture of inclusion for its workforce and for the residents of the City of Pickering as we serve the needs of the residents, now and in the future. The Strategy will address the development and implementation of diversity and inclusion policies, practices, programs and services, and other diversity and inclusion related initiatives and activities. Accordingly, Request for Proposal No. RFP 2020-10 was issued on October 28, 2020 calling for proposals to undertake this endeavour. The closing date for the bid call was November 26, 2020, with the City receiving and evaluating four proposals. An evaluation committee made up of staff from the City of Pickering (including PPL focused Human Resources employees) reviewed all proposals against criteria outlined in the RFP. The - 227 - HUR 02-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: Diversity & Inclusion Strategy Page 2 RFP allowed for a presentation/interview of which two proponents were invited to participate. The highest ranking proponent following all stages of the evaluation is Goss Gilroy Inc. It is therefore recommended that the proposal submitted by Goss Gilroy Inc., in the amount of $74,163.31 (HST included), be accepted and that Goss Gilroy Inc. be retained to undertake the development of the Diversity & Inclusion Strategy. Financial Implications: The cost of retaining a consultant to facilitate the development of a Diversity & Inclusion Strategy is $74,163.31. These funds have been budgeted for under consulting in the Human Resources Department budget (2139). Discussion: On October 28, 2020, the City issued RFP 2020-10 for the facilitation of the development of a Diversity & Inclusion Strategy. The framework of the D&I Strategy will include the development and implementation of diversity and inclusion practices which will encompass a broad cross-section of activities, including, but not limited to: • Diversity and Inclusion in the Workplace Policy; • employment opportunities, policies, and practices (recruitment, development, performance management, training, retention, and succession planning); • programs and services (delivery and intake models); • community and civic engagement; • neighbourhood strengthening initiatives; • planning and development of community designs and housing opportunities; and • economic development programs and services. The D&I Strategy will identify recommendations to ensure all residents have access to City and PPL employment opportunities, programs, and services, and feel welcomed in Pickering. It is important that all of our residents are assured inclusivity, access, and representation in the way we conduct business. Similarly, the D&I Strategy will assist us as an employer to identify gaps and implement initiatives to ensure our employees experience inclusion, as well as demonstrate inclusive behaviours as we work together to serve the diverse needs of the Pickering community. The intended outcome of the D&I Strategy is to develop and nurture an organizational culture that consistently: a. provides a foundational framework that defines a common understanding of what diversity and inclusion means for City and PPL leaders and employees alike; b. promotes a respectful, diverse, and inclusive environment where our employees can embrace the discomfort that comes with introspection and challenging implicit bias; - 228 - HUR 02-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: Diversity & Inclusion Strategy Page 3 c. inspires employees to become culturally aware, explore new paradigms and engender trust with residents as they strive to deliver inclusive, high quality services to the diverse Pickering community; d. fosters consideration of alternative views; where people feel empowered to be their true selves in the workplace and can express their voices and perspectives, leading to an enhanced mindset of informed risk taking and the weakening of mental silos; and, e. creates an environment that values and recognizes the uniqueness of individu als and respects these individuals for their talents, skills, and abilities. The Consultant shall complete a final D&I Strategy, outlining the Vision, Mission and Values developed with and for the City and PPL including the processes used to develop the Strategy, highlighting the findings from the various inputs, and making recommendations with associated rationale and costing. The Consultant will be responsible to: a. complete an inventory of key data to be reviewed (with support of staff), including, but not limited to: available employee demographic data, key HR policies and procedures, practices and market data; develop and implement a custom needs assessment based on extensive consultation with our workforce and other crucial partners and community members; b. create a current state inclusivity report outlining the findings and identifying unique issues and barriers to diversity and inclusion and proposed recommendations (Report #1); c. develop a 10-year comprehensive D&I Strategy with phased/multi-year implementation action plans, timelines, responsible persons/agencies, and estimated costs (if any) to address any deficiencies or further improve on our strengths (Report #2); d. ensure staff, the community and other stakeholders provide input to the action plan recommendations within the Strategy document; and, e. provide overall consulting service as a subject matter expert, and ongoing support in implementing the D&I Strategy should additional support be required. The reports submitted, including the Strategy document, will be divided into short-term, medium-term and long-term goals. The goals will be clearly defined, and include recommendations, actions, preliminary plans and accountabilities, resources, timelines, and measurement guidelines, that show how we will move from the current state to the desired stage by 2030. City Council will receive a final Report from the Consultant documenting the findings. An advertisement was placed on the City’s website and social media platforms. The RFP closed on November 26, 2020, with four proposals being received. An evaluation committee including City of Pickering staff reviewed the proposal against the criteria - 229 - HUR 02-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: Diversity & Inclusion Strategy Page 4 outlined in the RFP (see Attachment 1). The proposal submitted by Goss Gilroy Inc. was the highest scoring proposal. Goss Gilroy Inc. is a Canadian company that has been providing quality management consulting services to all levels of government since 1981. They have worked with organizations to review their Diversity & Inclusion policies and practices , developing strategic frameworks for advancing recommendations that will ensure residents, and external and internal stakeholders have access to opportunities, programs and services that are diverse and inclusive. Their team includes subject matter expertise in t he areas of diversity, equity and inclusion and experience working with anti -racism and anti- oppression in the workplace. It is recommended that the proposal submitted by Goss Gilroy Inc. in the amount of $74,163.31 (HST included) be accepted and that Goss Gilroy Inc. be retained to undertake the facilitation and creation of a Diversity & Inclusion Strategy. Attachments: 1.Supply & Services Evaluation Memorandum 2.Supply & Services Summary Memorandum Prepared/Approved/Endorsed By: Jennifer Eddy Director, Human Resources JE:lb Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer Original Signed By: Original Signed By: - 230 - To: Marisa Carpino Interim Chief Administrative officer November 30, 2020 From: Ray Rodrigues Manager, Supply & Services Copy: Jennifer Eddy Director, Human Resources Subject: Proposal No. RFP2020-10 Diversity and Inclusion Strategy Closing Date: November 26, 2020 -File: F-5300-001 Terms of Reference for RFP2020-10 were advertised on the City’s website on October 28, 2020. Four companies have submitted a proposal. Stage I – Mandatory Submission Requirements – determines which submissions satisfy all the mandatory submission requirements and provides Proponents the opportunity to rectify deficiencies, which was not required for this RFP. Four proposals proceed to Stage II – Evaluation. Proposals are attached for evaluation along with the evaluation criteria included in the RFP document. Each member of the evaluation committee shall independently review and score the submissions on the basis of the rated criteria outlined in Terms of Reference, Part 2, Item D – Rated Criteria and sign the evaluation form (electronic signature acceptable). Attachments: 1.Stage I – Evaluation of Submission Requirements 2.Evaluation Form/Pricing Info 3.Copy of the Terms of Reference 4.Copy of the proposals received Evaluation committee members shall forward the completed evaluation forms to Ray Rodrigues. In accordance with Purchasing Procedures 14.02 Item 17, committee members’ scores for each Respondent will be totaled to establish an average score. A summary of average scores will be prepared by Supply & Services for review and discussion at a meeting set up for the evaluation committee, if required. Please direct all enquiries to Supply & Services. Respondents will be advised of the outcome when the contract has been awarded. If you require further information, please contact me, or a member of Supply & Services. RR:rr Attachments (7) Memo Attachment #1 to Report #HUR 02-21 - 231 - To: Marisa Carpino Chief Administrative officer February 17, 2021 From: Lisa Chang Buyer, Supply & Services Copy: Director, Human Resources Subject: Proposal No. RFP2020-10 Diversity and Inclusion Strategy Closing Date: November 26, 2020 by 12:00 pm -File: F-5300-001 Further to memo dated November 30, 2020, four proposals proceeded to Stage II evaluation. The Evaluation Committee, consisting of City Staff, conducted independent evaluations of the proposals. A summary of average scores is completed and a copy is attached. In accordance with Item 2.5 Stage IV – Ranking and Contract Negotiations, all scores from Stage II and Stage III have been added together, the proponents have been ranked based on their total scores, and may be selected to enter into contract negotiations. Presentations were conducted for Munro Strategic Perspective and Goss Gilroy Inc. The Evaluation Committee has confirmed that presentations for the remaining proponents were not required. Goss Gilroy Inc. is the highest ranking proponent in the amount of $65,631.25 plus HST. A budget of $85,000 was provided to Supply & Services for this procurement. If the recommendation to award exceeds the budgeted amount, refer to Financial Control Policy Item 11 for additional instructions. As a pre-condition of award, the selected proponent, Goss Gilroy Inc. will be required to provide the following documents for review: (a)A copy of the City’s Health and Safety Policy form currently dated and signed; (b)The City’s certificate of insurance or approved alternative form shall be completed by the Proponent’s agent, broker or insurer. Please advise if we are to proceed with this task. In accordance with Purchasing Policy Item 10.04, where written proposals are obtained by the Manager in accordance with procedures set out in Section 06 and funds are available in the approved budget: (c)An award over $50,000 is subject to the additional approval of Council. Please include the following items in your Report to Council: Memo Attachment #2 to Report #HUR 02-21 - 232 - RFP2020-10 Page 2 of 2 1.if Item (a) noted above are acceptable to the Co-ordinator, Health & Safety or designate, if required; 2.if Item (b) is acceptable to the Manager, Budgets & Internal Audit; 3.any past work experience with the highest ranking proponent Goss Gilroy Inc. including work location; 4.the appropriate account number(s) to which this work is to be charged; 5.the budget amount(s) assigned thereto; 6.Treasurer’s confirmation of funding; 7.related departmental approvals; and 8.related comments specific to the project. Upon receiving Council’s approval, an approved requisition will be required to proceed. Do not disclose any information to enquiries during this time. The Proponents will be advised of the outcome in due course. If you require further information, please feel free to contact me or a member of Supply & Services. lc attachments - 233 - Report to Council Report Number: PLN 15-21 Date: March 22, 2021 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review, Phases 2 and 3 File: D-1100-101 Recommendation: 1. That the conclusions and recommendations of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review – Phase 1 – Discussion Papers, be received; 2. That the total gross project cost of $266,804.00 (HST included) for Phases 2 and 3 of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review, and the total net project cost of $240,265.00 (net of HST rebate), be approved; 3. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the Phases 2 and 3 net project cost in the amount of $240,265.00 as follows: a) The sum of $78,086.00, identified for this project in the 2021 Current Budget – Planning & Design Cost Centre, be funded from the Rate Stabilization Fund; and b) The sum of $162,179.00, identified in the 2021 Current Budget – Planning & Design Cost Centre, be funded by a transfer from the Development Charges – Studies Reserve Fund; 4. That Council authorize staff to request that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing undertake a review of the Minister’s Zoning Orders being Ontario Regulations 102/72, 19/74 and 154/03, to harmonize agricultural and rural provisions with the City’s new zoning by-law; and 5. That the appropriate City of Pickering staff be authorized to enter into any agreements to give effect hereto. Executive Summary: In 2019, after City Council’s acceptance of the consulting proposal submitted by WSP, the multi-year Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review (CZBR) was initiated. Phase 1 of the CZBR continued throughout 2020 during which time, staff along with the consultant, prepared a public consultation strategy and worked towards the completion of 8 draft discussion papers. The City hosted an electronic open house on November 5, 2020 where the findings of the discussion papers were presented. A recording of the open house can be viewed on the City’s YouTube Channel. Electronic community engagement sessions with smaller community groups will be held during 2021, as needed. Initially, Council approved funding for Phase 1 only as there was concern that Development Charges would not be available past 2020 to fund growth related studies. It has since been - 234 - Report PLN 15-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review, Phases 2 and 3 Page 2 confirmed that growth related studies continue to be an eligible class of service under the Development Charges Act. The City is able to fund Phases 2 and 3 of the CZBR through the Development Charges Reserve Fund in part. And, in lieu of property taxes funding the remaining amount, the Treasurer has identified use of the Rate Stabilization Fund. Phase 2 will include the preparation of the draft by-law including revisions, public consultation, and preparation of a recommended by-law. Following completion in early 2022, Phase 3 will comprise the presentation to Planning & Development Committee of the recommended by-law for Council adoption later that year. Staff is recommending that Council receive the conclusions and recommendations of the CZBR Phase 1 Discussion Papers, authorize staff to initiate Phases 2 and 3 of the CZBR, and authorize staff to request that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing undertake a review of Pickering’s rural area Minister’s Zoning Orders to harmonize agricultural and rural provisions with the City’s new zoning by-law. Financial Implications: 1. Phases 2 and 3 Project Costing Summary Proposal Number RFP-7-2019 Project costs for Phase 2 Project costs for Phase 3 Total Project Costs (excluding HST) HST (13%) Total Gross Project Costs HST Rebate (11.24%) Total Net Project Costs $228,112.00 7,997.50 $236,109.50 30,694.50 $266,804.00 (26,539.00) $240,265.00 2. Source of Funds – Phases 2 and 3 (2021 Current Budget) Account Code Source of Funds Funds Available Funds Required 2611.2392.0000 Development Charges Reserve Fund – Growth Related Studies (67.5%) $162,179.00 $162,179.00 Rate Stabilization Fund (32.5%) 78,086.00 78,086.00 Total Funds $240,265.00 $240,265.00 Project Cost under (over) approved funds by $00.00 - 235 - Report PLN 15-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review, Phases 2 and 3 Page 3 1. Background 1.1 Report to Planning & Development Committee PLN 18-19 outlined the need for a zoning review as 4 of the City’s 6 parent by-laws (see Attachment #1, Areas for Parent Zoning By-laws) were originally enacted by Council in the 1960s, and have been amended hundreds of times by site specific by-laws and minor variance approvals. The report also noted that not only are the by-laws outdated, they are not in an accessible format, and are not available online. In June 2019, City Council endorsed a work program for a comprehensive review of the City’s zoning by-laws, and authorized the release of a request for proposal to retain external planning consultants to assist staff in a zoning review. A Request for Proposals was issued in October 2019, calling for consultant proposals for a multi-year zoning review. City Council accepted the consulting proposal submitted by WSP to undertake a multi-year Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review (CZBR) at a total cost of $412,387.85 (HST included). At the same time, Council approved the total gross project cost of $145,606.00 (HST included) to proceed with Phase 1. Report to Council PLN 29-19 indicated that staff will recommend appropriate funds in the 2021 and 2022 Current Budgets (City Development Department) for the initiation of Phase 2 in 2021 and the completion of Phase 3 in 2022. Phased funding approval for the CZBR was due to proposed legislative changes in 2019 resulting from the More Homes, More Choice Act. At the time, it was not certain that Development Charges Reserve Funds would be available after 2020 for growth related studies. It has since been confirmed that growth related studies continue to be an eligible class of service for Development Charge funding. With funding now identified for the study, we are now requesting authorization to proceed with Phases 2 and 3 of the CZBR. 1.2 The purpose of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review The primary purpose of the CZBR is to update and consolidate the City’s current by- laws into one zoning by-law that conforms with and implements the City’s Official Plan. More specifically, the CZBR will: • implement recent policy changes regarding intensification, built-form, environmental matters and mapping changes; • replace and remove outdated definitions and zoning provisions to provide for consistent interpretation; • eliminate and amalgamate site specific zone provisions; and • make the zoning by-law available in an online and print accessible format. 1.3 The multi-year review commenced in 2019 Initiated in late 2019, the CZBR comprises 3 phases. The following outlines the tasks to be undertaken in the phases: - 236 - Report PLN 15-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review, Phases 2 and 3 Page 4 • Phase 1, initiated in December 2019, and concluding with this report, includes the preparation of a public consultation strategy, preparation of 8 discussion papers, hosting of open houses to present the findings of the discussion papers and obtain feedback from the community, and reporting to Council on the findings of the discussion papers and comments received from the public and stakeholders. • Phase 2, to be initiated early 2021 for completion in 2022, includes the preparation of the draft by-law, public consultation, revisions to the draft by-law, and preparation of a recommended by-law. • Phase 3, is the presentation to Planning & Development Committee of the recommended by-law for Council adoption in 2022. 2. Phase 1 2.1 Discussion Papers Eight draft discussion papers along with summaries and videos are available on the Zoning Review webpage for review and comment. Discussion papers 1 and 2 provide a high-level framework for the Comprehensive Zoning By-law to be drafted in Phase 2. The 6 other discussion papers provide an overview of the relevant provisions in each of the existing parent zoning by-laws along with an analysis of how the existing zoning relates to planning policies and legislation at the local, regional and provincial levels. Discussion papers 3 to 6 also discuss recent best practices in Ontario municipalities that have undertaken a comprehensive zoning by-law review. These discussion papers provide guiding principles for the preparation of the new zoning by-law, identify and assess key policy gaps and issues, and propose a recommended zone category structure. Excerpts of the conclusions and recommendations of each Discussion Paper are contained in Attachment #2. The topics of the discussion papers, major findings and recommendations are: • Discussion Paper 1 – Guiding Principles and Parameters, recommends a single, user friendly, online comprehensive zoning by-law to address the needs of the City and communities, and emerging issues. • Discussion Paper 2 – Assessment of Existing Parent By-laws, found that there is a lack of consistency between the existing Zoning By-laws. This Paper concludes that the existing zoning by-laws be consolidated and harmonized to provide continuity for residents, the development industry and staff. • Discussion Paper 3 – Residential Areas, and Discussion Paper 4 – Employment Areas, explore a range of key issues and potential updates including a framework for consolidating and renaming residential and employment zones and updating general provisions. • Discussion Paper 5 – Mixed Use Areas/Intensification Areas, identifies that the existing mixed use and commercial zones align well with the Official Plan policies but a new zone structure is recommended integrating the City Centre, the Seaton - 237 - Report PLN 15-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review, Phases 2 and 3 Page 5 Urban Area and new zones for the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node (incorporating the outcomes of the upcoming official plan Amendment and zoning by-law amendment for the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node). • Discussion Paper 6 – Agricultural, Rural, Hamlet, Open Space and Environmental Areas, recommends that zoning categories and provisions be updated to harmonize zones and implement the Natural Heritage System policies of the Official Plan, integrate Minister’s Zoning Order provisions, and create new provisions addressing agricultural related and on-farm diversified uses. • Discussion Paper 7 – Parking, Active Transportation and Loading, identifies that while there are modern aspects in the City Centre and Seaton Urban Area by-laws, there are opportunities outside of these areas to introduce new updated zoning provisions that better align with City, Regional and Provincial approaches to reducing automobile dependence and increasing active transportation and transit use. • Discussion Paper 8 – Cannabis Production Facilities & Retail Businesses, provides zoning recommendations based on a review of best practices in other municipalities. However, the paper concludes that it is premature to develop zoning provisions for cannabis production facilities until the City establishes clear policy direction for cannabis production facilities through an Official Plan Amendment. 2.2 Community Engagement At the start of Phase 1 in early 2020, information about the zoning review including informational videos and draft discussion papers were posted to the project’s web page. This web page provided opportunities for the public to monitor the status of the review and submit comments throughout 2020 when in-person open houses and meeting were restricted due to the COVID-19 pandemic. On November 5, 2020, the City hosted an electronic open house, where the consultant presented the findings of the discussion papers. A recording of this open house can be viewed on the City’s YouTube Channel. Electronic community engagement sessions with smaller community and stakeholder groups during 2021 will be conducted in keeping with the safety requirements of COVID-19. There will be an emphasis on small, by appointment meetings to bring the content of the discussion papers to the community and stakeholders. 2.3 Comments Received Throughout Phase 1 comments have been received from the public, and stakeholder groups. Staff have responded directly to comments received and have forwarded comments to the appropriate departments and agencies (see Attachment #3). Key comments are summarized as follows: • Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has provided detailed comments on the pertinent discussion papers. Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA) has provided support for TRCA’s comments. Responses from City staff are contained in Attachment #3. City staff will continue discussions with TRCA and CLOCA regarding their feedback. - 238 - Report PLN 15-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review, Phases 2 and 3 Page 6 • The Seaton landowners commented that the Seaton Zoning By-law 7364/14 should not be included in a consolidation of the six area specific zoning by-laws citing that Seaton is subject to a different planning regime, and expressed concern that the smallest change in provisions can have significant implications for development in Seaton. Staff and the City’s consultants are reviewing options for incorporating the Seaton Zoning By-law into the new comprehensive by-law, including maintaining the Seaton By-law as a separate chapter. • Various residents have provided comments on all the discussion papers. Responses from City staff on the various comments and requests for information are contained in Attachment #3. 3. Minister’s Zoning Orders In 1972, the provincial Minister’s Zoning Order (MZO), Ontario Regulation 102/72, was enacted to ensure that land use and new development proposals on lands adjacent to the Federally owned lands (expropriated for the potential development of a new airport) would remain compatible with a future airport and its operations. A second MZO, Ontario Regulation 19/74, was enacted that prohibits all uses except agricultural uses, and single-family dwellings used in connection with an agricultural operation. Later in 2003, a third MZO, Ontario Regulation 154/03, was enacted to prevent new urban development on lands designated rural and agricultural within the Greenbelt Plan (Rouge Duffins Agricultural Preserve lands). MZOs are enacted as regulation under the Planning Act and take priority over any existing municipal zoning by-laws in the event of conflict. Where there is no conflict, municipal zoning applies. Landowners may apply to amend or remove a MZO from their property by making an application to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH). MZO Regulation 102/72 has been the subject of numerous costly and lengthy amendments to permit development and improvements to properties in the rural and agricultural areas. Through the City’s Zoning By-law Review, zoning in the rural and agricultural areas will be updated to bring zoning into compliance with provincial policy permitting second suites, agriculture related uses, and on-farm diversified uses where appropriate and supported by the Ministry. Staff is recommending that Council authorize staff request the Ministry to undertake a review of the MZOs to harmonize agricultural and rural provisions with the City’s new zoning by-law. The objective of the review is to create a more efficient zoning by-law to administer, that is easier for residents and the agricultural community to understand and take advantage of the full scope of permissible uses. - 239 - Report PLN 15-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review, Phases 2 and 3 Page 7 4. Next steps 1. A preliminary draft by-law will be established to consolidate the definitions, general provisions, zones, and mapping of the six parent by-laws. Approaches to formatting found in both the Seaton and City Centre by-laws may be used for the consolidated by-law. The preliminary draft by-law will contain updated definitions and general provisions, and merged and/or revised zone categories and provisions. Zone mapping of the six parent zoning by-laws will be consolidated and will reflect the merged and/or revised zone categories. The development of the consolidated zoning text and mapping will be undertaken with the goal of delivering a by-law that will be available online. 2. The first draft of the consolidated by-law is scheduled for public release in 2021 followed by community workshops and open houses. A statutory public meeting will be held in the fall of 2021. The draft by-law will be released in an interactive online format allowing the searching of definitions, general provisions, zoning provisions and the zoning of properties. 5. Recommendations Staff recommend that Council receive the conclusions and recommendations of the 8 Discussion Papers as set out in Attachment #2, and authorize staff to initiate Phases 2 and 3 of the Study. In addition, it is recommended that Council authorize staff to request that the MMAH undertake a review of the MZOs enacted in the agricultural and rural areas with the objective to harmonize the MZOs with the new future zoning by-law. Attachments: 1. Areas for Parent Zoning By-laws 2. Conclusions and Recommendations of Discussion Papers 1 to 8 3. Staff’s Response to Comments Received - 240 - Report PLN 15-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review, Phases 2 and 3 Page 8 Prepared By: Original Signed By Deborah Wylie, MCIP, RPP Manager, Zoning & Administration Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner DW:ld Original Signed By Kyle Bentley, P. Eng. Director, City Development & CBO Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 241 - 1:100,000 SCALE: © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City Development Department Areas for Parent Zoning By-laws Applicant: THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Nov. 26, 2019 ¯ City Initiated (7364/14, 3037, 7553/17, 3036, 2511, & 2520) By-law 7364/14 By-law 3037 By-law 7553/17 By-law 3036 By-law 2511 By-law 2520 Lake Ontario Frenchman's Bay Attachment #1 to Report #PLN 15-21 - 242 - Page 1 of 15 Attachment #2 to Report #PLN15-21 Conclusions and Recommendations of Discussion Papers 1 to 8 Discussion Paper #1: Guiding Principles and Parameters Recommendations The purpose of this Discussion Paper was to introduce the Zoning By-law Review process by discussing the state of the current Pickering Zoning By-laws, the policy and legislative framework, how zoning by-laws work, and to go over best practice examples on how zoning by-laws are being modernized for easier use. Through this discussion, there are several conclusions and guiding principles that can be established as the Review moves forward. Those key guiding principles are: 1.Consolidation of existing Zoning By-laws – Currently there are six separate parent Zoning By-laws in the City. In order to ensure consistency and to have a holistic approach to zoning in the City, it is crucial to have one comprehensive Zoning By-law that addresses the needs of the City. It is anticipated that the Zoning By-law will be based upon a consolidation and modernization of the existing Zoning By-laws. Other discussion papers will explore the harmonization and modernization of the standards and zones in more detail. 2.Conformity with the Official Plan and local studies – Over the years, there have been many changes to the Official Plan and several planning studies conducted that impact zoning in the City and ensuring that the new Zoning By-law conforms to the applicable policy is a key requirement of this Review process. 3.Conformity with Provincial and Regional Plans and policies – There have been several updates to the policies within the Growth Plan and the Provincial Policy Statement which require the zoning by-law conformity. It is important to ensure these are implemented through the Official Plan to the Zoning By-law, where it is possible to do so. In many cases, Provincial and regional policy will need to be implemented initially through the local official plan prior to zoning. 4.Creating a User-Friendly Document – As the current Zoning By-laws are dated, this Review is an opportunity to create a document that is accessible, easily understandable and clear in its style and structure. 5.Addressing Emerging Issues – Many emerging issues are not addressed in the existing Zoning By-laws including contemporary issues such as climate change and sustainability, affordable and diversified housing, promoting a mix of uses and pedestrian-friendly environments, and protecting natural resources such as source water, among many others. The new Zoning By-law has a role in contributing to these broad policy and public issues and these issues will be explored further in subsequent Discussion Papers. 6.Innovation – Several best practice examples were presented in this paper proposing innovative approaches to zoning, such as the use of overlays, form-based zoning and the use of illustrations and notations to create a user-friendly zoning by-law. In order to create a modern and contemporary Zoning By-law, it is important that the City takes the opportunity to implement innovative approaches that are locally and contextually appropriate. - 243 - Page 2 of 15 7. Contemporary Mapping – As the current Zoning By-laws are dated, it is crucial that the new Zoning By-law implement a robust and modern GIS database with zoning data that can complement the Zoning By-law text and provide for opportunities of analysis and also have clear, legible and easy-to-understand zoning maps that will orient the reader in understanding the Zoning By-law provisions. Discussion Paper #2: Review and Assessment of Existing Parent By-laws Conclusions The outcome of this Zoning By-law Review will be a new comprehensive Zoning By-law to replace the existing Zoning By-laws. Rather than fulsomely replace all elements of the By-laws with new text, this discussion paper suggests an approach of consolidating and harmonizing the provisions of the By-laws to provide a level of continuity for residents, development proponents and City staff. This would also help communicate how the zoning regime within the City will change, allowing for comparisons that are close to apples-to-apples. The definitions, general provisions, administration and interpretation sections of the by-laws will be reviewed with the aim of simplifying and streamlining the By-law text. This may include moving certain provisions to different sections, combining direction or updating terminology to reflect current practices. The objective will be to retain the general intent of the current zoning by-laws, ensuring the new document conforms to the Official Plan and reflects the current approach to development within the City. Consolidating and harmonizing the existing six Zoning By-laws into a single new zoning by-law will require the elimination of some zones by name, and collapsing various zones/provisions into one zone. The result will be a streamlined suite of zones that conform to the Official Plan and provide consistency across the City. The minor variances and site-specific amendments that have been approved over the years provide an indication of changes to the parent by-laws that may be considered reasonable and desirable. Variances related to decks and porches suggest the current zoning provisions may not reflect today’s attitudes towards these features. The prevalence of site-specific amendments within “one-family detached” zones, for example, may indicate acceptance of more housing types with different standards than those that have been in place since 1960. As discussed previously, it is recommended that a comprehensive review of site-specific exception zones be conducted to assess opportunities to delete, update and restructure the exception zones in a comprehensive fashion. This provides the best balance of minimizing appeal risk, ensuring Official Plan conformity and providing the City with a more streamlined, consistent structure to administer moving forward. Future Discussion Papers will explore how specific issues are currently addressed by the existing by-laws and how they may be regulated under the new by-law. Discussion Papers #3 to 6 will specifically discuss the following: • Residential; • Employment; • Mixed Use/Intensification Areas; and • Agricultural/Rural/Hamlet/Open Space/Environment. - 244 - Page 3 of 15 Each Discussion Paper will provide a deep dive on its topics, looking at data, Official Plan and other policy direction and best practices related to each subject matter. The papers will provide options for addressing key issues identified through public consultation and stakeholder input. Specific recommendations for new zoning provisions will be provided and the papers will be written to help communicate the recommended direction to residents, stakeholders and City staff. Discussion Paper #3: Residential Areas Conclusions and Recommendations The Urban Residential Areas of the City encompass a diverse range of different neighbourhoods, from mature neighbourhoods to newly developing communities. The City currently administers a wide range of zones amongst its six parent Zoning By-laws, which reflects this contextual diversity. As the City has grown, the existing Zoning By-laws for the older areas have become outdated and are not as comprehensive in terms of residential zone provisions compared with the newer Zoning By-laws for Pickering City Centre and Seaton. This Discussion Paper has included a review of existing policy for the Urban Residential Areas, comprised of its three subcategories, and its existing zoning. This Paper has explored a range of key issues and potential updates, including a framework for consolidating and naming the residential zones, as well as updates to a wide range of general provisions and permitted uses, based on the Official Plan and other practice in Ontario. In summary, the following are the recommendations arising from this Discussion Paper: 1. It is recommended that a conformity checklist for the neighbourhood policies and guidelines be completed when developing the Draft Zoning By-law. These documents contain some detailed requirements that will have to be assessed individually in comparison with site-specific amendments and requirements which is beyond the scope of this Paper. This is the best means of ensuring conformity with these requirements and to ensure that the permitted uses are in conformity with the Official Plan, since the Urban Residential Areas land use designation contains a very broad list of permitted uses. 2. Consideration will be made to rezone any agricultural lands now designated for urban uses to an Urban Reserve or similar zone. However, the risk of leaving the lands as agriculture is minimal and would not conflict with the Official Plan. 3. It is recommended that some of the existing parent residential zones be merged as noted in this Report. Generally, the City Centre zones and Seaton zones will need to be retained and cannot likely be further merged or consolidated. 4. It is recommended that some key zone provisions be added into the harmonized zones where common standards are missing in the current zones. For example, some of the parent residential zones in the older zoning by-laws do not include a maximum height requirement, which should be introduced to help maintain community character. The introduction of any new standard should be made in consideration of the context where the zone is applied to ensure the standard reflects the community character and enables an appropriate degree of intensification. This may be informed by the City’s ongoing Infill and Replacement Housing Study. - 245 - Page 4 of 15 5. It is recommended that a new residential zone structure be developed which utilizes density and permitted uses as the basis for organizing and naming the zones. For example, the R1 zone will address single detached dwellings. Sub-zones can be created to address variations in the form of R1A, R1B, etc. In particular, the Seaton zones can be integrated into this hierarchy in the form of R1S, for example. Exception zones would be denoted as a suffix with a dash followed by the exception zone number. a. Zone symbology should follow a more consistent approach. The parent zone codes, should not utilize specialized symbols such as prefixes or suffices with a dash, but should follow the approach above. b. Any one-off site-specific zone codes will be rezoned with an appropriate parent zone described above, and consideration will be made to create a site-specific amendment to carry forward any special permissions, if appropriate and if the permissions conform to the Official Plan. Another option to organizing the new zones is to organize the zones by location first, and secondly by density. Further consultation and analysis of the exception zones will help inform the most suitable approach. Overall, the goal of harmonizing the zones is to achieve an appropriate balance of minimizing the number of zones while maintaining sufficient detail to recognize and reflect the character of Pickering’s diverse neighbourhoods. The option that best achieves this balance should be used in the new Zoning By-law. 6. The accessory building and structure requirements will need to be harmonized and City-wide standards should be introduced. The Seaton requirements represent an appropriate basis for this. Further consideration and consultation is required to inform the implications of applying the Seaton standards to other areas of the City, because there are some minor to modest differences and risks of creating legal non-compliance. 7. It is recommended that some minor updates and refinements to accessory building and structure provisions, including detached garages, be considered using best practice, minor variances and other sources. 8. When the new Zoning By-law is developed, it is recommended that frequent variances as noted in the Report be reviewed to assess potential updates to the residential zone provisions. 9. It is recommended that the new City-wide Zoning By-law adopt a framework wherein accessory buildings and structures are only accessory if they are detached from the main building. An attached accessory building or structure would more simply form a component of the main building and be subject to the zone requirements. This can be complemented by additional standards related to individual accessory structures (e.g., permitted encroachments into minimum yards). This approach will harmonize the various approaches used by the by-laws and introduce a more conventional approach that is easier to interpret. 10. It is recommended that City-wide requirements for amenity areas be adopted. The definitions and terms for amenity areas should be harmonized as they differ between Pickering City Centre and Seaton. No standards exist outside these areas, except perhaps through exception zones or other zones created via amendment. The - 246 - Page 5 of 15 requirements for Seaton and City Centre can be retained. Seaton should form a general basis for the City-wide standards, but modifications may be required to address locational or other contexts. It is appropriate to continue to include minimum amenity area requirements in the zone provision tables rather than the general provisions. Consideration can be made to elaborate on these requirements as has been done in other Ontario zoning by-laws, such as requiring a minimum contiguous amenity area. 11. A framework for regulating garages and driveways should be introduced City-wide. The detailed requirements in Seaton should be retained, but consideration should be made to introduce relatively simpler and contextually appropriate requirements across other areas of the City, such as maximum projection for garages from the main wall of the dwelling into the front yard setback and maximum width for driveways and garages. Consideration could be made to enabling driveway expansions by setting out standards for minimum pervious surface. 12. It is recommended that the new Zoning By-law incorporate a framework to address detached garages across the City, including addressing a wide range of configurations and potential accessory dwelling units (coach houses). 13. It is recommended that the framework for home-based businesses be carried forward with some refinements, including alignment with the Official Plan (such as the use of the term home-based business), and other refinements to permitted uses as well as consideration to permit the use within a private attached garage, subject to restrictions. It may also be desirable to differentiate work-from-home to distinguish the use from a home-based business, which would appear to require a business license. Further, consideration should be made to permit home-based businesses more broadly amongst the existing zones where residential uses are permitted. 14. A City-wide framework for secondary suites (accessory dwelling units) is required. These uses should be permitted in conjunction with any single detached, semi-detached and townhouse dwelling subject to any servicing constraints. It is recommended that reduced restrictions (parking, maximum floor area) be considered. Further, consultation with the City is required to address the new requirement for the permission of accessory dwellings in detached buildings/structures, which would benefit from policy direction. 15. It is recommended that the Zoning By-law permit group homes broadly across the City where residential uses are contemplated. The options include being silent on group homes (i.e., relying on the interpretation that a group home is the same as another permitted use) or explicitly defining and permitting group homes with different categories based on the intensity of the use. A site plan approval process may also apply depending on the intensity of the use. 16. It is recommended that a best practice review be conducted on zoning provisions for short-term accommodations. Based on the findings of the best practice review, the City will consider conducting a study or review of short-term accommodations to assess a more fulsome framework of implementation tools. However, if this will not be conducted, then zoning regulations can be introduced based on best practice, local context and input. 17. It is recommended that the new Zoning By-law incorporate a framework to address boarding, rooming and lodging homes, generally permitting them across the City in appropriate forms. There is also an opportunity to limit these uses to certain areas of the City, such as the higher density zones, or to establish other provisions to manage the intensity of the uses. - 247 - Page 6 of 15 Discussion Paper #4: Employment Areas Conclusions and Recommendations The Employment Areas of the City permit a range of employment uses, as well as some cultural and community-oriented uses and complementary, limited commercial uses. Generally, the existing employment zoning aligns fairly well with the policies for the Employment Areas, but zone structure and some modifications to permitted uses is required to bring the zoning into conformity with the Official Plan. Additionally, there is an opportunity to modernize and update the permitted uses and regulations associated with Employment Areas, such as outdoor storage requirements. This Discussion Paper has included a review of existing policy for the Employment Areas designation, comprised of its three subcategories, as well as existing zoning. This Discussion Paper has explored a range of key issues and potential updates, including a framework for consolidating and naming the employment zones, as well as updates to general provisions and permitted uses, based on the Official Plan and other practice in Ontario. In summary, the following are the main recommendations made within this Discussion Paper: 1. It is recommended that the new Zoning By-law establish three new parent employment zones that are based on the Official Plan’s subcategories: a General Employment (GE) zone, Prestige Employment (PE) zone, and Mixed Employment (ME) zone. The basis for these zones is as noted in this Discussion Paper, with adjustments to align with the associated Official Plan subcategory. 2. It is recommended that the permitted uses and definitions of uses be reviewed and updated to align with the Official Plan, best practice and against any added uses in the minor variance or site-specific exception zone history. There is a need to ensure precision and avoid permitting non-employment uses while also providing flexibility. 3. It is recommended that some of the existing employment zones be merged and realigned with the new zone structure, as noted in this Discussion Paper. Generally, the Prestige Employment (PEG and PEN) zones used in the Seaton Zoning By-law 7364/14 will need to be retained and can be integrated as variations or sub-zones to the new Prestige Employment (PE) zone. 4. Modifications to permitted uses will be required to align the zoning with the Durham Regional Official Plan, and this may require coordinated amendments to the City of Pickering Official Plan. In particular, office uses are anticipated to be permitted in all employment zones, and outside storage will not be permitted in the Prestige Employment and Mixed Employment areas. 5. There is an opportunity to review how the zoning implements the specific policies of Neighbourhood 9, Village East, and the Mixed Employment area that serves as transition between the residential neighbourhood to the west and industrial uses to the east. 6. It is recommended that the City and the Region of Durham be consulted further to identify whether there is any need to incorporate compatibility related provisions for any sensitive uses proposed in proximity to the Duffin Creek Water Pollution Control Plant. - 248 - Page 7 of 15 7. There is an opportunity to review the current parking requirements related to Employment Uses through the parking-related Discussion Paper #7. 8. The existing Industrial and Commercial (MC) zone is recommended to be replaced by the new Mixed Employment (ME) zone. Where this exists in the Prestige Employment and General Employment areas, further review is required to confirm Official Plan conformity and ensure that inappropriate commercial development is not permitted. 9. When the new Zoning By-law is developed, it is recommended that site-specific amendments be reviewed in detail to identify potential updates to the employment zone provisions, particularly with regard to permitted uses and parking requirements. This will help reduce the need for future amendments. Additionally, other base zones that have been applied in only one or a few instances, as well as certain other zones (e.g., a few existing residential zones) in the Employment Areas will need to be reviewed for conformity with the Official Plan. 10. It is recommended that the lot and building requirements for the employment zones be reviewed and updated to integrate and consider the Official Plan’s urban design principles. 11. A new framework for outdoor storage should be developed and integrated into the new Zoning By-law, as described in this Discussion Paper. 12. A framework for integrating landscaping and setback requirements based on adjacent sensitive zones should be implemented in the new Zoning By-law, as described in this Discussion Paper. Discussion Paper #5: Mixed Use Areas/Intensification Areas Conclusions and Recommendations The Mixed Use Areas of the City are intended to have the widest variety of uses and highest levels of activities. Generally, the existing mixed use and commercial zones align fairly well with the policies for the Mixed Use Areas, but a new zone structure for areas outside of the City Centre and Seaton Urban Area is required to achieve greater alignment with the Official Plan. This Discussion Paper has included a review of existing policy for the Mixed Use Areas designation, comprised of its five subcategories, and its existing zoning. This Discussion Paper has explored a range of key issues and potential updates, including a framework for creating a new set of mixed use zones and consolidating the commercial zones. In summary, the following are the main recommendations made within this Discussion Paper: 1. It is recommended that a policy conformity checklist be completed for the Neighbourhood policies and Development Guidelines when developing the Draft Zoning By-law. These documents contain some detailed requirements such as, additional permitted uses and building requirements, that will have to be assessed individually in comparison with the existing zoning and exceptions which is beyond the scope of this Discussion Paper. This is the best means of ensuring conformity with these requirements and to ensure that the permitted uses are in conformity with the Official Plan, since the Mixed Use Areas - 249 - Page 8 of 15 designation contains a wide range of permitted uses. This conformity matrix would not be applied to the City Centre or Seaton Urban Area due to the recent implementation of their area-specific Zoning By-laws. 2. It is recommended that this Discussion Paper be reviewed/updated in the future to incorporate the outcomes of the Official Plan Amendment for the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Study Area. It is anticipated upon completion of this amendment there will be recommendations that will be implemented through a City-initiated Zoning By-law Amendment, or that implementing zoning will be developed through this Zoning By-law Review process. City Staff will be presenting the approach to zoning the lands within the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node in detail as the Zoning By-law Review process moves forward. 3. It is recommended that any agricultural lands that are currently designed Mixed Use Areas be reviewed to determine whether they can be rezoned to an “Urban Reserve” or similar zone. However, the risk of leaving the lands as agriculture is minimal and would not conflict with the Official Plan. 4. It is recommended that the existing mixed use zones found in the City Centre and Seaton Zoning By-laws be retained. The zones in these existing Zoning By-laws likely cannot be further merged or consolidated due to their specific nature. The City Centre zones will be differentiated by CC and the Seaton zones will be denoted by an “S” symbol following the initial parent zone. 5. It is recommended that a new mixed use zone structure be developed, integrating the City Centre, the Seaton Urban Area and new zones for the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node. This new mixed use zone structure should be established to align with the Mixed Use Areas subcategories, and can include area-specific sub-zones to relate to the Neighbourhoods. In both cases, there is a need to consolidate and eliminate the wide range of exception zones, which will require detailed review to determine which zones should be carried forward or elevated as new parent zones. A streamlined approach to zone symbology should be utilized. Upon consolidation of common exception zones, remaining exceptions zones can be retained as exceptions and denoted as a suffix with a dash followed by the exception zone number. 6. It is recommended that where policy is directing intensification, or change to occur in the Neighbourhoods located outside of the City Centre, Seaton Urban Area, and the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Study Area, that individual properties be reviewed to determine if they can either be pre-zoned to an appropriate mixed use zone category or be rezoned “Urban Reserve”. 7. It is recommended that the existing commercial zones within the older Zoning By-laws be consolidated and updated to reflect the existing commercial typologies and the City’s intent for some areas to evolve. It is recommended that exceptions be reviewed in detail to identify potential updates to the existing commercial zone provisions. This will help reduce the need for future amendments. Additionally, other commercial parent zones may need to be established to reflect common commercial exception zones, such as the Local Central Area (LCA) zone and the Special Commercial (SC) zone. These exceptions will need to be reviewed for conformity with the Official Plan and for integration into the overall zone structure. - 250 - Page 9 of 15 8. There are conformity issues regarding automotive uses prohibited in some Neighbourhoods yet permitted in the existing zoning. It is recommended that where zoning for these uses exist, the zoning be thoroughly reviewed against the applicable policies in the Neighbourhoods and Development Guidelines. As such, the completion of a conformity matrix is again recommended to provide assurance that the zoning is in line with the uses permitted by the Official Plan. The zoning can be left as is and modified to remove prohibited uses or the zoning can be modified to permit only existing uses. It is recommended that a new parent zone that permits only automotive uses be established. 9. The City Centre and Seaton Zoning By-laws utilize approaches and tools that are common in other Ontario municipalities to create a more prescriptive, form-based approach to mixed use, higher density areas and mid-and high-rise buildings and also to address compatibility with lower-density, adjacent areas. It is recommended that some of these tools be integrated into a new zoning framework for the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node and as part of the zones used to implement the Mixed Use Areas in other Neighbourhoods. This Discussion Paper incorporates some potential ideas about how the City Centre zones in particular can be modified. There appears to be limited opportunity to make changes to the Seaton zones, since they are so highly aligned with the policies. 10. When consolidating all of the existing Zoning By-laws into one new City-wide Zoning By-law, consideration will need to be made to harmonizing the form-based zones and introducing more consistency in terminology and approach. This may include utilizing a form-based approach to the text included in the zone symbols, such as indicating height or density requirements directly into the zone symbols, to permit a greater amount of flexibility and minimize the number of zone categories and exceptions. 11. It is recommended that the variances noted in the Discussion Paper be reviewed to assess potential updates to the mixed use and commercial zone provisions during the completion of the Draft Zoning By-law. The site-specific zones will need to be reviewed and integrated into the new zone structure. 12. It is recommended that a City-wide set of zoning provisions be developed to address refuse/waste storage in employment, mixed-use, commercial areas and in conjunction with multi-unit residential development. Discussion Paper #6: Agricultural, Rural, Hamlet, Open Space and Environmental Areas Conclusions and Recommendations The agricultural, rural, hamlet, open space and environmental areas collectively represent the majority of the City’s land area. The Official Plan provides some prescriptive requirements regarding permitted uses, in response to Provincial policy and the goals of protecting the environment and the agricultural land base. There is a need for the zoning to be reviewed and updated across these areas. This Discussion Paper incorporates a review of the policy framework and the zoning. The areas reviewed by this Discussion Paper include a wide range of Rural Settlement categories as well as open space and other rural/agricultural areas of the City. In summary, the following are the main recommendations made within this Discussion Paper: - 251 - Page 10 of 15 1. It is recommended that a conformity checklist for assessing implementation of the Rural Settlement Area Plans be completed when developing the Draft Zoning By-law. These Plans include some detailed policies and site-specific policies that will need to be reviewed against the current zoning, including any site-specific exception zones. 2. This Discussion Paper includes a recommended framework for the zone structure which is intended to harmonize the existing zones while aligning more with the Official Plan’s land use designations and terminology. The use of zone symbols, suffixes/prefixes as described in Discussion Paper #3 are also relevant recommendations to ensure consistency across the City’s zones. The recommended zone structure includes a wide range of zones to implement the various policies of the various designations. 3. It is recommended that further consultation with the Province and Conservation Authorities be undertaken to identify opportunities for the Zoning By-law to help implement the Natural Heritage System. This Discussion Paper includes several options in this regard. It is generally recommended that zoning updates for the Natural Heritage System be considered only where accurate and recent data is available. Other options could include creating an overlay for hazardous lands/sites or to illustrate the regulated area for the Conservation Authorities. 4. It is recommended that provisions related to the application of Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) be reviewed and considered in the new Zoning By-law. 5. It is suggested that the zoning of lands located in the Rouge National Urban Park is generally appropriate, but that Parks Canada be consulted to identify potential opportunities for the Zoning By-law to support the objectives for the Park’s Management Plan. 6. It is recommended that the Minister’s Zoning Orders be referenced or that the provisions be integrated into the new Zoning By-law to provide clarity that the Zoning Orders are applicable. 7. It is recommended that the new Zoning By-law more explicitly and clearly regulate where open storage is permitted and that provisions be established to guide open storage (e.g., buffering, setbacks, screening, permitted locations on a lot). This Discussion Paper sets out a series of principles to form the basis for these regulations. 8. It is recommended that an updated and harmonized framework for regulating commercial and oversized vehicles be integrated into the new Zoning By-law, based on the principles set out in this Discussion Paper. 9. It is recommended that the new Zoning By-law consider a new set of provisions for agriculture-related and on-farm diversified uses including criteria, and that a range of appropriate on-farm diversified uses be permitted in the Zoning By-law where they are accessory to a farm operation. This would include a series of definitions of these types of uses, associated provisions and permissions in the applicable zones. Some of these uses, particularly those which serve a broader farming community, are best permitted only through a rezoning application or may be permitted in the Rural Settlement Areas or within appropriate urban zones. The Province’s Guidelines, best practice and community input will provide the basis for the new framework. It is recognized that the City’s policies for agriculture-related uses and on-farm diversified uses may change through Envision - 252 - Page 11 of 15 Durham and the City’s next Official Plan Review. As such, the development of zoning provisions for these uses, if appropriate, will need to be coordinated with these other processes. 10. It is recommended that minor variances and site-specific exceptions be reviewed in detail to inform improvements to the zone standards. This Discussion Paper identifies some potential focus area with respect to minor variances and notes that the site-specific exception zones will be subject to a detailed review in conjunction with the preparation of the new Zoning By-law. 11. It is recommended that the Zoning By-law be prepared in a manner that aligns with Envision Durham to the extent possible, particularly with respect to land use permissions and policy directions regarding the agricultural, rural, hamlet, open space and environmental areas. However, it is recognized that some policy directions emerging from Envision Durham may require City implementation in its Official Plan before provisions can be incorporated into the Zoning By-law. Discussion Paper #7: Parking, Active Transportation and Loading Conclusions and Recommendations This Discussion Paper has reviewed a very wide range of parking, active transportation and loading topics. Overall, there are modern aspects of the City’s existing zoning, particularly in the City Centre and Seaton Urban Area. However, there are also aspects of the City’s which are outdated compared to other municipalities. There are significant opportunities to introduce a new zoning approach to these matters which better aligns with City, Regional and Provincial policy for reducing automobile dependence and increasing the modal split. The recommendations of this Discussion Paper have been presented throughout this Discussion Paper. For convenience, all of the recommendations are included as follows: General 1. Align and consolidate the list of land uses. 2. Align minimum parking requirements based on a tiered approach with the lowest parking rates in the City Centre and intensification areas with immediate access to higher order transit (e.g., Kingston Road), and highest in the parking rates in the areas outside the City Centre and intensification areas. 3. Align minimum parking requirements across land uses where obvious discrepancies exist. 4. Fill gaps where parking requirements are missing for parts of the City. 5. Use a consistent approach to organize regulations related to different aspects of parking. 6. Modifications to the Zoning By-law’s parking requirements may precipitate a need for the City to review alignment with other documents, such as design guidelines or Site Plan requirements. - 253 - Page 12 of 15 Minimum residential parking requirements 7. Reduce minimum parking requirements for apartments in areas outside the City Centre and intensification areas, and consider potential reductions for other dwelling types, including accessory dwelling units or second suites. 8. Realign the general parking requirement for detached dwellings. 9. Apply a consistent approach to visitor parking requirements across dwelling types. 10. Align parking requirements for live-work and related uses. Minimum commercial parking requirements 11. Set minimum parking requirements for medical office and equivalent land uses based on floor area. 12. Clarify bus parking versus bus loading requirements and eliminate any duplications. 13. Consider removing bus related requirements from the minimum parking requirements table. 14. Use a consistent standard for converting bench space to seating capacity, or eliminate references to bench space. 15. Relax the minimum parking requirements for retail, office, and medical uses based on benchmarking, and consider parking reductions for other commercial uses. 16. Consider supplemental parking provisions to facilitate temporary use of parking spaces, including parking requirements for the temporary use, temporary parking reductions for existing uses, and requirements to maintain adequate vehicular access. 17. Maintain minimum parking requirements for restaurants in the areas outside the City Centre and intensification areas. 18. Consider clarifying the land use definitions to address “mega” religious facilities to aid interpretation of the new Zoning By-law. 19. Consider the tier of parking requirements that should apply to the Kingston Road Intensification Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node. Minimum industrial parking requirements 20. Consider relaxing the minimum parking requirements for industrial uses based on benchmarking. 21. Minimum parking requirements for industrial uses do not need to be defined in the City Centre. Minimum parking requirements for Institutional and other uses 22. Use a consistent unit or set of units for calculating school parking requirements. - 254 - Page 13 of 15 23. Consider removing parking requirements for any land uses that are no longer relevant, subject to further consultation with City staff. 24. Consider consolidation of miscellaneous land uses, subject to further consultation with City staff. 25. Consider supplementary provisions such as permitting off-site and shared parking for non-private community and institutional uses, subject to further consultation with City staff. Minimum parking space and drive aisle dimensions 26. Consider establishing City-wide minimum dimensions for a garage space based on the Seaton Urban Area regulations. 27. Consider establishing minimum dimensions for tandem parking, angled parking, and small car parking. 28. Maintain existing minimum parking space and drive aisle dimensions. 29. Address minimum parking space and drive aisle dimensions in the General Provisions of the Zoning By-law. 30. Consider vertical height clearance or other requirements related to accommodating storage in private residential garages. Minimum landscaped areas with parking facilities 31. Incorporate a streamlined, City-wide framework for minimum landscape strips in conjunction with parking areas, particularly along any rear lot line or interior side lot line abutting more sensitive uses, and provide a minimum landscape strip or buffer where a parking area abuts a street. This may include varied requirements in different contexts in the City. Shared parking 32. Implement shared parking framework City-wide. 33. Consider updating and expanding the parking formula based on benchmarking and industry resources. Bicycle parking 34. Expand the existing bicycle parking requirements City-wide and consider tiered reductions for mixed use and the areas outside the City Centre and intensification areas. 35. Maintain existing minimum bicycle parking space dimensions. 36. Address minimum bicycle parking space dimensions in the General Provisions of the Zoning By-law, including consideration for setbacks to address compatibility. - 255 - Page 14 of 15 Drive-through lanes 37. Address minimum drive-through lane dimensions in the Zoning By-law based on minimum dimensions for a one-way drive aisle that does not abut a parking space. 38. Ensure that the permission of drive-throughs conforms to the City’s Official Plan. 39. Address minimum drive-through lane dimensions in the General Provisions of the Zoning By-law. Loading 40. Consider the expanding existing loading space requirements (Bay Ridges area or Seaton Urban Area) to the rest of the City. 41. Define minimum dimensions for a consistent set of loading types across the City. 42. Address minimum loading space dimensions in the General Provisions of the Zoning By-law. Cash-in-lieu of parking 43. Implement cash-in-lieu (CIL) of parking in the Zoning By-law only with confirmation of financial viability of a CIL program and appetite for CIL amongst developers. Parking maximums 44. Consider setting parking maximums in the City Centre and within intensification areas. Discussion Paper #8: Cannabis Production Facilities and Retail Businesses Conclusions and Recommendations Many other municipalities have recently initiated studies and zoning amendments to regulate cannabis production facilities and retail businesses, in response to recent federal and provincial legislation. There is an opportunity through the Zoning By-law Review process for the City of Pickering to introduce a regulatory framework that is reflective of the local context on this topic. This should be considerate of different rural and urban contexts and the varied nature of the types of cannabis production facilities that may be proposed. Following is a summary of the key recommendations arising from this Discussion Paper: 1. The City may consider initiating an Official Plan Amendment to establish a clear policy statement on the topic of cannabis facilities in the City. Should this be conducted by the City, the new Zoning By-law can be prepared to implement any proposed policies. It may be premature to develop zoning provisions if it is the City’s intent to establish policies in the near future, so this should be understood before proceeding with preparing draft zoning requirements. Additionally, the City may wish to utilize other regulatory tools such as site plan control to help ensure that proposed cannabis uses are compatible with and do not adversely affect adjacent or surrounding land uses. - 256 - Page 15 of 15 2. It is recommended that cannabis cultivation be permitted in the new agricultural zone in the new Zoning By-law. There is an opportunity to consider defining cannabis cultivation in the rural context and permitting the use explicitly. 3. It is recommended that a limited amount of processing and related activities be permitted in the context of an on-farm diversified use in conjunction with any cannabis cultivation use in the rural areas of the City. Large-scale operations involving the processing of cannabis products from off-site sources should not be permitted as-of-right and should require a zoning by-law amendment to evaluate the use. 4. It is recommended that setbacks and minimum lot area requirements be considered for proposed cannabis production in the rural areas to address potential odour and character impacts. As odour can be addressed on-site with a suitable air filtration/ventilation system, it is recommended that the requirements vary depending on whether such a system is used. 5. It is recommended that cannabis production and processing facilities be permitted in applicable employment areas and zones. This should include setbacks to address potential odour impacts which can similarly vary depending on whether there is an air filtration system. Additional requirements may be used in prestige employment areas to limit or prohibit security fences and outdoor storage as appropriate. In these areas, the cannabis production and processing facilities would be more permissive than in the rural areas with respect to allowing for a wide range of processing, production and research activities, including processing cannabis produced off-site. 6. It is recommended that the new Zoning By-law not specifically define or regulate cannabis retail businesses, as the uses are subject to Provincial licensing requirements. By using this approach, the cannabis retail business would be interpreted as a retail use and permitted where retail uses are permitted in the Zoning By-law, and subject to the same requirements. - 257 - Responses to Public and Agency Comments Name/Organization Comment(s) Response Mary-Ann Burns, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Upon review of the two Discussion Papers that have been released (“Guiding Principles and Parameters” and “Review and Assessment of Existing Parent By- laws”, March 2020), we note that the Papers do not mention conservation authority (CA) regulations. CA regulations can affect permissions under a zoning by- law pursuant to section 28 regulations under the Conservation Authorities Act. Therefore, we recommend the City’s new By-law include a section on CA Regulations and a schedule of CA Regulated Areas within Pickering. For the City’s consideration, TRCA staff can provide examples of wording and schedules for this purpose extracted from other zoning by-laws within TRCA’s jurisdiction. Staff will have further conversations with TRCA regarding this comment. Mary-Ann Burns, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Discussion Paper #1, Section 4.7 We recommend re-zoning the remaining Seaton lands after the Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Reports are reviewed and satisfactory to the City and TRCA. The size and location of SWM facilities and therefore the zoning boundaries within the development blocks cannot be determined until the FSSRs are complete. Through the Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review, Staff are considering zoning the Seaton Natural Heritage System. Consideration to other lands will need further discussion with between TRCA and City Staff (possibility to zone Seaton employment lands). Mary-Ann Burns, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Discussion Paper #1, Section 4.9 Consistent with Provincial Policy Statement 3.1 and the Pickering Official Plan policies for Special Policy Areas and other flood vulnerable lands, please plan to include in the By-law, zoning provisions prohibiting development within hazardous lands (and include in the By-law, hazardous lands as a defined term as per the PPS definition). Staff will have further conversations with TRCA regarding this comment. Mary-Ann Burns, Toronto and Region Discussion Paper #1, Section 4.13 Suggest that "applicable law" be mentioned here. For example, CA permitting requires certain setbacks Staff will have further conversations with TRCA regarding this comment. Attachment #3 to Report #PLN 15-21 - 258 - Name/Organization Comment(s) Response Conservation Authority from natural hazards and the natural heritage system, which is consistent with the Official Plan policies (i.e. 10 m setback from stable top of bank as determined by TRCA). The zoning should include certain provisions to ensure consistency between the zoning and the CA requirements. TRCA can provide examples of these types of policies from other municipalities’ by-laws in our jurisdiction if the City so desires. Mary-Ann Burns, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Discussion Paper #1, Section 5.3 Re: Holding Zones – other studies that may be required are flood plain delineation and natural heritage impact studies. The City Centre by-law north of Hwy 401 has multiple holding designations and is complicated by the need for a future comprehensive flood management and natural heritage studies to address these challenges. It is complex and results in uncertainty for the landowners and is not recommended by TRCA when natural hazard or natural heritage matters must be addressed. Staff will have further conversations with TRCA regarding this comment. Mary-Ann Burns, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Discussion Paper #1, Section 7.2 Re: Zoning provisions for restricting development in flood-prone areas and other hazardous lands, including setbacks – This is very much supported. We recommend a minimum of 10 metres to primary structures and 6 metres to accessory structures; May wish to add: restricting development in the natural heritage system, including buffers. Noted Mary-Ann Burns, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Discussion Paper #2, Section 3.1 It is noted that Pickering will be evaluating the opportunity to consolidate zones, and that “subsequent discussion papers will look closely at the similarities and differences between zones within categories, and assess how the zones can be consolidated into a single, comprehensive Zoning By-law, while Staff have requested a list of TRCA owned properties. - 259 - Name/Organization Comment(s) Response considering the impact of eliminating zones and changing the standards or permitted uses.” Conservation Authorities own thousands of hectares of conservation land and, unless they qualify for provincial property tax incentive or exemption programs, or are exempt as a municipal capital facility, pay property taxes on those lands. One of the criteria to support an application for tax exemption is if the lands are designated/zoned as an environmentally sensitive area, environmentally significant area, environmental protection area, natural heritage system or another area with an equivalent designation within a municipal official plan or zoning by-law. Some of the existing zones for “Public Use and Environmental Protection” in the existing zoning by- laws include Public Open Space, Open Space, Waterfront Zones, Oak Ridges Moraine Recreational, Natural Heritage System, etc. When undertaking the review of zoning and categories, TRCA staff request that Pickering staff take into consideration the implications zoning can have on tax exemptions for Conservation Authorities, particularly for properties that may serve multiple purposes (i.e., natural heritage corridor/linkage lands that are used for passive recreation). Mary-Ann Burns, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Discussion Paper #2, Section 3.2 TRCA would be pleased to provide any additional floodplain or natural heritage mapping required by the City to ensure appropriate Open Space Zoning boundaries are incorporated into the new by-law and reflect current technical information. Staff would appreciate TRCA sharing any mapping to assist the consultants in zoning the Natural Heritage System & Floodplain. Mary-Ann Burns, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Discussion Paper #2, Section 4.2 It may be helpful to have an illustration of natural hazard and natural heritage setbacks as well. Staff will have further conversations with TRCA regarding this comment. - 260 - Name/Organization Comment(s) Response Mary-Ann Burns, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Discussion Paper #2, Section 4.3 It will be important that there is no "up-zoning" within natural hazards; That is, even if a proposed zone is compatible with the OP land use designation, it may not be compatible with PPS or CA Regulations if, for example, a zone that does not currently allow a secondary suite or residential is now proposed to include those uses, and the site is in a flood plain or erosion zone. TRCA would be happy to discuss the semantics/implications of this with the City. Noted. Staff will have further conversations with TRCA regarding this comment. Mary-Ann Burns, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Discussion Paper #2, Section 8 TRCA staff request the opportunity to participate in the development of the Open Space and Environment discussion paper; at that time, for any discussion regarding zoning provisions for Source Water Protection, staff can also provide advice regarding conformity with the Credit Valley – Toronto and Region – Central Lake Ontario Source Protection Plan. TRCA has been given the opportunity to comment on the Open Space and Environment discussion paper. At this time, Staff have implemented Official Plan Policies for Source Waste Protection, however zoning provisions have not been contemplated. Staff will work with TRCA to discuss the appropriateness to add zoning provisions for Source Water Protection. Mary-Ann Burns, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Discussion Paper #3, Section 4.4.1 It is important to recognize that additional dwelling units (including intensified group homes, secondary suites, coach house, etc.) or dwelling units for vulnerable populations such as long-term care homes and retirement homes are not permitted within natural hazards, including floodplains and areas of slope instability. The ZBL should recognize this with special provisions excluding these as permitted uses within natural hazards. Staff will have further conversations with TRCA regarding this comment. Mary-Ann Burns, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Discussion Paper #3 This paper briefly discusses the needs for reports to show mitigation strategies to meet stormwater management (SWM) requirements associated with development, but Papers 4, 5, and 7 have nothing related to SWM. Further, none of the papers discuss Staff will have further conversations with TRCA regarding this comment. - 261 - Name/Organization Comment(s) Response the need for green infrastructure to reduce runoff impacts associated with all forms of development. Across all land uses, SWM and green infrastructure needs should be recognized, tying them to the City’s Official Plan policies. Therefore, permissions / provisions for SWM facilities (including LIDs) should be included in the ZBL review in appropriate zones, recognizing that a more comprehensive treatment of SWM would occur within a review of the City’s Official Plan (OP). Mary-Ann Burns, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Discussion Paper #6, Figure 3.1 Page 20 – TRCA staff understand that the City is undertaking a rezoning of Frenchman's Bay West from Residential to Open Space. Suggest revising to reflect this change once approved. Agreed. Zoning By-law 7808/21 rezoned the Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park to an open space zone category is currently in its appeal period. Mary-Ann Burns, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Discussion Paper #6, Section 4.1 Any refining of Environmental Protection Zoning to capture connectivity and corridors (local and regional) would provide further benefit in protecting the City’s natural heritage system, recognizing that the zoning would have to conform to the OP. It appears the merging of environmental protection and open space areas is proposed and discussed at a high level. We recommend that any merged environmental protection zones ensure that no uses that would impact natural hazards or the natural heritage system be included in that zone. The merged zone should align with natural hazard and natural heritage objectives in both the Pickering and Durham Region OPs. Staff will have further conversations with TRCA regarding this comment. Mary-Ann Burns, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Discussion Paper #6, Section 4.2 This section provides an excellent overview of some of the options for zoning within the Natural Heritage System. The second bullet on Page 44 states: “However, the Conservation Authority’s regulation limit will not correspond to the Natural Heritage Staff will have further conversations with TRCA regarding this comment. - 262 - Name/Organization Comment(s) Response System, since the Natural Heritage System may include other features that are not reviewed by the Conservation Authority (e.g., woodlands). We note that in addition to this, the Natural Heritage System may not correspond with the regulation limit as there are areas of the City where the floodplain extends beyond the natural features, such as the Special Policy Area in the vicinity of Notion Road and other flood vulnerable areas. TRCA is in support of a hybrid methodology that refines the natural system to include hazards (steep slopes, floodplain etc.) as part of the natural heritage/environmental protection system. This refinement should additionally include using data sources to improve the accuracy and that more closely reflects the natural features and hazards on the landscape. TRCA has GIS data layers that can help support the City’s objectives as well align with the updates occurring as part of the Region’s OP review. Mary-Ann Burns, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Discussion Paper #6, Section 5 We agree that further consultation with the Province and CAs be undertaken to identify opportunities for the ZBL to help implement the Natural Heritage System. This should also apply to natural hazards since, as mentioned above; there are lands subject to natural hazards that lie outside the identified natural heritage system. A number of guidelines, studies and reports prepared by TRCA, Durham Region and the Province are available to characterize and address concerns for natural features, hazards and opportunities in order to protect and grow the natural heritage system within the City of Pickering. These include watershed plans, fisheries management plans, climate adaptation/mitigation plans, and development Noted. Staff will have further conversations with TRCA regarding this comment. - 263 - Name/Organization Comment(s) Response guidelines could be used to inform acceptable permitted uses within the Environmental Protection zones and Open Space zones, subject to directions from the OP. Language within the paper identifies criteria required for an Environmental Report and that minor development such as the “creation of a few lots” is not a trigger. We recommend reviewing the criteria for defining minor development to a finer scale. For example, the creation of even one new lot is not permitted within a natural hazard under the PPS. Lisa-Beth Bulford, Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority Thank you for contacting Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (CLOCA) within regard to the City of Pickering’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review Electronic Open House. CLOCA staff have reviewed Discussion Papers 1, 2 and 6 for consistency with the natural heritage and natural hazard policies within the Provincial Policy Statement and in the context of Ontario Regulation 42/06 of the Conservation Authorities Act and other applicable watershed management guidelines and policies. Since CLOCA is one of two governing Conservation Authorities within your municipality and being the one with the significantly smaller land area within our jurisdiction, we are providing a letter of support for the comments provided by Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) related to their review of these discussion papers instead of a separate comment letter of our own. We are satisfied that our interests in this particular review will be satisfied through the comments provided in the TRCA letter submitted to the City of Pickering on these Discussion Papers later today. Please continue to include CLOCA in the ongoing Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review process. We Noted. Staff will have further conversations with both CLOCA and TRCA regarding these consolidated comments. - 264 - Name/Organization Comment(s) Response look forward to reviewing the new draft Comprehensive Zoning By-law and may have more detailed comments related to the lands specifically within our jurisdiction at that time. Elizabeth Howson, Seaton Landowners Group Discussion Paper #1 Through our review, we have identified a serious and fundamental concern for the SLG with the approach identified in Section 1.1 of Discussion Paper #1, Guiding Principles and Parameter. That approach is the proposal to consolidate the six area specific Zoning By-laws, including the Seaton Urban Area Zoning By-law 7364/14, into one by-law. The rationale provided is as follows: • One by-law that conforms with recent updates to the City of Pickering’s Official Plan, 2018 (the Official Plan)” because “zoning is required to be brought into conformity with its corresponding Official Plan within three years of an Official Plan conformity exercise being completed, per Section 26(9) of the Planning Act”; and, • This Review represents a significant opportunity for modernization by making the zoning by-law accessible and available online, and by updating the City’s key framework for regulating the use of land, buildings and structures.” Discussion Paper #1 then goes on to outline what the new Zoning By-law will address as follows: 1. Achieve conformity with the Official Plan and implement the policies of the Official Plan in a single, streamlined and concise Zoning By-law and ensure the document is consistent with the PPS, 2020 and conforms with Provincial Plans as applicable; 2. Update standards, definitions, and regulations to reflect contemporary planning practice, market Staff and the City’s consultants are reviewing options for incorporating the Seaton Zoning By-law in to the new comprehensive by-law, including maintaining the Seaton By-law as a separate chapter. - 265 - Name/Organization Comment(s) Response and development trends and eliminate redundant and/or repetitive provisions; 3. Enhance the structure, format and usability of the document to ensure the document is readable by members of the public and not just planners and professions(sic); and 4. Produce an accessible document that has wayfinding elements, clear and simple text, illustrations, and graphics that supports the interpretation of the regulatory text. In reviewing the rationale presented for creation of a consolidated new Zoning By-law, there are in fact a number of significant reasons, in our opinion, for not including Zoning By-law 7364/14 for the Seaton Urban Area in such a consolidation, as outlined below: • Seaton is subject to a different planning regime than other areas of the City. Official Plan Amendment 22, which provides the policy direction for the Seaton Urban Area, was prepared in conformity with the Central Pickering Development Plan (CPDP) which is applicable to Seaton and which in turn implements the Planning and Development Act. The basis for the Amendment recognizes that the plan for the Seaton Urban Area was prepared under a different policy regime than the other areas of the City and also reflects the complexity of that process as follows: • The current standards, definitions and regulations were developed as a result of a lengthy process as a cohesive whole, and any changes can only be made after rigorous review and careful consideration of the implications for Seaton to ensure there are no unintended consequences. - 266 - Name/Organization Comment(s) Response The smallest change can have significant implications for development in Seaton. The process of developing the Seaton policy and regulatory regime took place over many years and involved close coordination between all the stakeholders. This included the Province, the City, the landowners, residents, the Region, agencies, and other stakeholders. The zoning bylaw was carefully calibrated to implement the policy directions and all aspects of the document are interrelated. In particular, changes to the regulations cannot be considered without understanding the definitions and the general regulations and how they are interrelated. The implications of any change in a definition or a regulation would have to be rigorously reviewed to ensure that there are no unintended consequences. For instance, the potential of making existing or planned uses legal non- conforming. The success of this process and the resulting by-law is reflected in the fact that, as reported in Discussion Paper #2, only two amendments have been made to the By-law since its adoption in 2013/2014. • The Seaton By-law reflects a current approach to regulation, and has been designed to maximize accessibility and readability. As noted in Discussion Paper #1, Zoning By-law 7364/14 was enacted relatively recently, unlike most of the other City Zoning By-laws. The By-law was carefully crafted by City staff and consultants to ensure that it was designed to be readable and accessible by all potential users including members of the public. This includes an introduction on “How to Read and Use this By-law”; clear and simple text, and the use of - 267 - Name/Organization Comment(s) Response tables that support clarity in the interpretation of the regulations. If the City wishes to add additional elements to further enhance accessibility this should be relatively easy to accomplish given the current format, while recognizing that it remains a regulatory document. It is not necessary to create a new zoning bylaw for the Seaton Urban Area to achieve the objective of accessibility. Therefore, we would request on behalf of the SLG and the individual owners of which it is composed, that Zoning By-law 7364/14 for the Seaton Urban Area be maintained as a separate by-law and that it not be considered for consolidation into a comprehensive City-wide Zoning By-law. Alan Jeffs, Resident Discussion Paper #5 At what stage in the process will recommendations be made as far as which particular areas fall into which particular future zoning classifications? The first draft by-law will be released in 2021. Alan Jeffs, Resident Discussion Paper #5 Who will be making this initial determination, the consultant? The Consultant will undertake a review of all parent and site specific zones and draft the new by-law. Alan Jeffs, Resident Discussion Paper #5 Just out of interest, which consulting firm is it who has the lead on this file? The City has hired WSP to complete the Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review. Glenn Brown, Resident Discussion Paper #3 As people's forms of social/residential associations change, the terms rooming, boarding, rooming, and lodging homes, and group homes should be abandoned. In order to meet financial constraints, need for socialization especially during health emergencies (including outside "pods"), and helpful associations to facilitate inter-generational support (whether or not within 'families"), the city should withdraw interest in who lives in an abode, and what their relationship is to the others, save to guard Noted. - 268 - Name/Organization Comment(s) Response against overcrowding, health, public safety, and criminal renting activities. Doug McLaughlin, Resident Discussion Paper #1 • Pg. 54 (PDF document Pg. 59). “With an expansive natural system in the City of Pickering, sustainability and climate change are important issues that can be addressed through the new Zoning By-law.” • Pg. 55 (PDF document Pg. 60). “A zoning by-law can include provisions that can support sustainability and address climate change…”. “The Review is an opportunity to modernize the Pickering Zoning By-law to address these emerging issues of sustainability and climate change and develop complete communities that are considerate of nature and our environment.” • Pg. 74 (PDF document Pg. 79). Guiding Principles and Recommendations - Addressing Emerging Issues. “Many emerging issues are not addressed in the existing Zoning By-laws including contemporary issues such as climate change and sustainability…”. A glaring omission in the current Pickering zoning by- laws is the issue of bird-collision deterrence and bird- friendly building design. Approximately 25 million birds are killed by colliding with buildings (glass or plastic glazing) in Canada annually (see endnote #1). Across the U.S., the estimated number of migrating birds killed annually in collisions with buildings ranges from 365 and 988 million (see endnote #2). In consideration of the fact that Earth’s biodiversity is in serious decline and is in the midst of a sixth mass extinction, every means possible should be pursued by the City of Pickering to minimize hazards, injury Noted. Staff request a bird strike study as part of high-rise developments. - 269 - Name/Organization Comment(s) Response and death to all species, including birds (see endnote #3). The Canadian Standards Association and the Standards Council of Canada have developed and issued CSA A460:19 Bird-Friendly Building Design standard to deter bird collisions. In order for the City of Pickering to meet its environmental, sustainability, biodiversity and considerate-of-nature goals, it should be mandatory for the City to fully comply with CSA A460:19 in regard to all structures and buildings (residential, commercial, industrial, retail, office, utility, etc.) including all new build, upgrades, retrofits and any existing structures that are prone to bird collisions. CSA A460:19 must apply across all zoning by-laws and any new over-arching by-law being considered by the zoning review project. Resident Discussion Paper #1 Please define, as-of-right; As-of-right means the use is permitted in the zoning. On page 44 of Discussion Paper #1, the sentence: “Specific zoning regulations and requirements in conformity with the official plan are developed for the identified area to allow for development to occur in accordance with the official plan as-of- right.” The zone will include performance standards that must be met and there are other requirements or approvals required under other legislation for example that site plan approval, conservation authority permits for regulated areas, and compliance with the Ontario Building Code. - 270 - Name/Organization Comment(s) Response Resident Discussion Paper #1 Since the Review represents a significant opportunity for modernization, the City of Pickering must include a limit on the time for which a development application can be active. I would suggest 5 years. For the past 2+ years there have been motions hearings, decisions, reversal of a decision and an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board, after that the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, with respect to a development application from 1990. This is a ridiculous situation. No development application should be allowed to sit dormant for decades and then be allowed to be resurrected and go forward based upon standards that are decades old. The Comprehensive Zoning By-law that will be developed through this review must contain a provision that specifies a development application has a limit of 5 years after which it must be considered to be expired; A comprehensive by-law cannot mandate the closing of development applications. An application can be closed if a recommendation is brought forward to Council or if the applicant agrees to withdraw/close the application. If an application has been inactive for a period of time the City does require a resubmission, since policies and standards are constantly being updated. Resident Discussion Paper #1 Regarding 4.1 Planning Act, in Figure 4.1 on page 13, in the box entitled City of Pickering Zoning By-law, after Municipal by-law that can be enforced, add the words “or not”. Alternatively, add the words “Property owner may have to take personal legal action”. Either will alert residents that they may not be able to rely on enforcement of Zoning By-laws; Your comment has been considered and it is not appropriate to add this language to the Discussion Paper. Resident Discussion Paper #1 For the above section on page 14, in the paragraph beginning “Zoning by-laws are …” add the following at the end of the last line, “Since City departments have limitations with enforcement, residents may find their situation becomes a civil matter and their only recourse is through the courts when dealing with persons whose property does not meet zoning by-law(s).” Again, this will help alert residents that Your comment has been considered and it is not appropriate to add this language to the Discussion Paper. - 271 - Name/Organization Comment(s) Response they may have to take personal legal action to resolve a zoning by-law non-conformance; Resident Discussion Paper #1 Regarding 4.6 Clean Water Act (2016), it provides some insights into probably the most important resource to us living in Rural Areas where we are responsible for providing our own water supply. It can not be overly stressed that the Act and local Source Protection Plans are designed to protect both the quality and quantity of water. When development is proposed within an area that relies upon well access to an aquifer, there is the possibility that the development will adversely affect either or both the quality and quantity of water that those accessing an aquifer, before the development occurred, might experience. After development is completed, should residents find the quality and/or the quantity of their water supply that existed from an aquifer, before the development, became adversely affected, the Ontario Ministry of Environment may conduct an investigation and ultimately, if the quality and/or the quantity of the residents water supply is found to be adversely affected, compel the Region of Durham to provide a municipal water supply by installing or extending a pipe line or installing communal wells. Currently, the Region of Durham charges, for an individual residence municipal water supply and connection, a minimum of $14215.75 + HST for the minimum 75 foot (22.86 meters) lot frontage in Rural Areas of the City of Pickering up to a maximum of $19010.50 + HST for the minimum 75 foot (22.86 meters) lot frontage, depending upon the size of pipe required and the time of year the installation and connections were made. After connection, the Region of Durham charges a monthly fee for water usage. And, often when installing a water supply, the Region of Durham This comment cannot be addressed through the Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review. For development applications in the rural area, studies are required to determine that proposals will not cause negative impact on water quality and quantity. The City has brought its Official Plan into conformity with the source water protection Plan. As part of this zoning review we will be identifying where zoning needs to address source water protection plans. - 272 - Name/Organization Comment(s) Response will install sewers, both sanitary and storm. Currently, the Region of Durham charges, for an individual residence sanitary sewer line and connection, a minimum of $15432.75 + HST for the minimum 75 foot (22.86 meters) lot frontage in Rural Areas of the City of Pickering up to a maximum of $19567.00 + HST for the minimum 75 foot (22.86 meters) lot frontage, depending upon the size of pipe required and the time of year the installation and connection were be made. Should there be an adverse effect to the water supply from an aquifer, residents will have to prove the actual quantity of water they have immediately before the development began by having their Well Record up-dated to include a current flow rate test which typically costs $600.00 + HST. And, residents will have to prove the actual quality of water they have immediately before the development. The Region of Durham will provide a no-cost bacteria test. Otherwise, the residents are on their own for water quality testing. Testing, by a provincially accredited laboratory, can range in cost from $180.00 + HST for tests reporting all items that the Region formally conducted for residents, without any charge, up to about $3,000.00 + HST for comprehensive water analyses which includes those items that were free at one time plus several other metals as well as insecticides, herbicides and other chemicals. A new comprehensive Zoning By-law must include, for any development proposing to use an aquifer as the water source, the requirement that all residents accessing the aquifer be supplied a document outlining the above costs at the time the development application is submitted to the City of Pickering; Resident Discussion Paper #1 Regarding 4.7 Central Pickering Development Plan (2012), for figure 4.2, in order that I might much better Please see figure 2.1 in Discussion Paper #2 (page 5). - 273 - Name/Organization Comment(s) Response understand this section, please provide me with an overlay of the figure showing the Dufferin Rouge Agricultural Preserve, Seaton and the 15 “compact urban neighbourhoods” with their boundaries; Resident Discussion Paper #1 Regarding 7.1 Affordable Housing, please explain how a by-law review might encourage the development of affordable housing available for low- and moderate-income families while the Ontario Government allows the operation of a property tax scheme that penalizes home owners and home renters in the City of Pickering to the tune of a greater than 80% higher total property tax bill as compared with an equivalently assessed Toronto property. Updated zoning by-laws that permit alternative housing forms, second units, garden suites, increased densities in targeted area and on under-utilized sites, and reduced parking requirements where appropriate (among other zoning provisions) can help to reduce the cost of delivering housing. Resident Discussion Paper #1 Regarding 7.1.1 Secondary Residential/Accessary Units, if a residence is converted to add a secondary residential/accessary unit, does the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation raise the assessment of the entire property? Please advise. Also, does the City of Pickering notify the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation of the one-time registration fee for secondary residential/accessory units? Please advise. Please define the term “garden suite”; The City sends MPAC a copy of the letter assigning an address to the accessory dwelling unit and building permit issuances. Garden suite means a dwelling unit that is accessory to the existing primary residential dwelling, and does not include a basement. Resident Discussion Paper #1 Regarding 7.1.2 Inclusionary Zoning, please define the term “payment in-lieu”; Inclusionary zoning requires developers who are delivering market rate housing units to provide a percentage of the housing at below market rates. Inclusionary zoning policies also permits to pay cash or in-lieu fees to the municipality as an alternative to building below market rate units on the subject lands. The money is then used to construct housing in another location. - 274 - Name/Organization Comment(s) Response Resident Discussion Paper #1 Regarding 7.2 Sustainability and Climate Control, to the list on page 55, please add the following: i) Require electrical vehicle charging systems at every new construction, ii) Require R20 minimum exterior wall insulation, R40 minimum roof insulation, Argon filled triple glazing and insulated exterior doors for all new residential construction, iii) Require a minimum 3 kilowatt solar electricity generating system on every roof of new residential construction and site location of buildings so as not to shade the solar panels of an adjacent building at any time pf the year and orientation of buildings on lots to approach a south facing of portion of the roof that will accommodate the solar system. With the advent of the law requiring vehicles to pass bicycles with a 1 metre spacing, regardless of whether or not there is a dedicated bicycle lane, if the facilities for active transportation includes bicycles and the bicycles will be using the same roadway as motor vehicles, roadways in newly constructed areas that are proposed to be arterial roads will have to be sufficiently wide to allow the 1 metre distance passing a bicycle without not having to drive a vehicle into oncoming traffic; Comment will be taken under consideration Comments regarding arterial road widths to accommodate 1 metre passing for bicycles cannot be addressed by the Zoning By-law Review. This is a matter more appropriately addressed through a Master Transportation Plan. Resident Discussion Paper #1 Regarding 7.5 Public Transportation and Active Transportation, please add to the list of major transportation corridors the following: a) To the list of Highways, add Highway 7, b) To the list of rail corridor, add CP mainline and the CP Havelock line, c) To the list of roads, add Brock Road; The Official Plan comment is out of scope for this project. Comment has been forwarded to the Department’s Policy & Geomatics for consideration as part of comments on the Durham Regional Official Plan Review, and for future review of the Pickering Official Plan. - 275 - Name/Organization Comment(s) Response Add to the Official Plan a section requiring that officials from the City encourage, at every opportunity, the Government of Canada to re-start the commuter service between Toronto and Havelock which was included in the last budget of The Honourable Jim Flaherty. And add the requirement for a Community Planning Permit System along that corridor in the Rural Areas; Resident Discussion Paper #1 Regarding 7.6 Agriculture and Rural Areas, if indeed “protection of prime agricultural land and rural land for a diversifying range of agricultural uses is a key component of the Official Plan and the PPS” and “the PPS strongly emphasizes the protection of prime agricultural land with non-agricultural uses being extremely limited and lot creation being discouraged”, why has the development along Taunton Road, roughly between Brock Road and Whites Road, proceeded? Please advise in order that I can better understand the Official Plan and PPS. This section has nothing to offer with regard to Rural Areas which are not involved with agriculture. It should be expanded to include non-agriculture aspects Seaton has been designated for Urban Development in the Region of Durham’s Official Plan since 1981. It remained agricultural until such time as the demand for additional urban areas occurred to accommodate population growth. The lands which you are referring to are part of Seaton. You can find the Central Pickering Development Plan and Pickering’s Official Plan Land Use Schedule on the City’s website. Resident Discussion Paper #1 Regarding 7.7 Cultivation and Production of Cannabis. A new By-law should probably include cannabis containing products. And, a new By-law should probably include how and where marketing of cannabis should be allowed, or not; Discussion Paper 8: Cannabis production facilities & retail businesses considers zoning provisions for cannabis cultivation and production. The retail sale of cannabis products is entirely controlled by the Provincial government, not municipal zoning. Resident Discussion Paper #1 Regarding 7.8 Employment Areas, the assertion that rural employment is limited indicates a lack of familiarity and a lack of understanding of the Rural Areas. Home businesses and home enterprises have been a feature or rural Pickering going back long Please note that all of the current Parent Zoning By-laws permit home-based businesses in residential zones. - 276 - Name/Organization Comment(s) Response before the incorporation of the Town. Carpenters, plumbers, electricians, masons and many other trades have operated their business typically with a home office for administration and client meetings along with an out building used for production and storage. There are warehousing businesses that have operated from out buildings and home for more than half a century supplying materials, parts and components to local and far away businesses, to farmers and to local residents. One of the premier sound studios in Canada is located in rural Pickering. Many consultants carry on business in the Rural Areas from home. COVID-19 has caused many to move to working from home to improve their safety and retain employment. Since home businesses continue to be prevalent in the Rural Areas, a new Zoning By-law should incorporate the entire range of existing home businesses/occupations into the Hamlet Employment category or in a separate category altogether. While the Discussion Paper indicates on page 62 that the Official Plan has 4 categories, a close examination of table 7 on page 66 of the Official Plan shows only the first 3 categories. Please advise exactly on which page in the Official Plan the category Hamlet Employment can be found; Page 276 of the Official Plan has a Table (Table 16) which includes the designation “Hamlet Employment”. Further, map 303 has a map of Claremont and identifies the Hamlet Employment areas. Resident Discussion Paper #1 Regarding 8 Zoning By-law Format, Layout and Structure and 8.2 Trends and Best Practice. One of the objectives of the Revised Zoning By-law should be to make it very easy for the untrained individual to locate on the City’s website. If it can not be easily found, all the progressive and user friendly approaches; all the images and illustrations will be for naught. Currently, when I search the City’s website for my area’s by-law using “copy of by-law 3037” there are 763 results. Frankly, I do not have the time Unfortunately, the current Parent Zoning By-laws are not available on the City’s website. One of the goals and objectives of this Review is to produce a user-friendly Comprehensive Zoning By-law that will be available on the City’s website. Comments will be taken under consideration regarding including a comprehensive definition section and explaining acronyms. - 277 - Name/Organization Comment(s) Response to scroll through and try to locate a copy of by-law 3037. You lost my attention. The revised Zoning By-law should contain at the beginning a Title, immediately following should be a detailed index, then a complete list of Definitions including acronyms such as OP, PPS, PSEZ, GIS and legal terms such as “as-of-right”, “payment in- lieu”. Do not use Latin, either for legal terms or anything else, anywhere. After Definitions, should appear Administration, then the meat and potatoes categories; Resident Discussion Paper #1 Regarding 8.2.1 to 8.2.6, they all have good suggestions to improve clarity and to help make the Revised Zoning By-law understandable by an untrained person. Perhaps the writers could follow a guide from newspapers which are written for an individual with grade 8 education to be to read and understand. Accordingly, it might be a good idea to have grade 9 students read the initial draft and consider their opinions of the draft’s clarity. The Revised Zoning By-law should be printed in 14 point or larger. Comment will be taken under consideration – Staff believe the recommendations in section 8.2.1 and 8.2.6 will assist the reader in interpreting the language. The required City corporate standard font size will be used (Arial, 12 pt. font size). Please note that you will have the ability to zoom in or zoom out of this future By-law. Resident Discussion Paper #3 Regarding 2.1.3 General Housing Policies, there are several references to “Sections” in the Pickering Official Plan. In looking for these references in the Official Plan, I cannot find any listing of Sections. There are however Chapter numbers that correspond with the Sections. For clarity, it would be best to refer to Chapters when listing references in the Official Plan as is done in this sub-section when reference is made to Chapter 11 and in 2.1.4 where Chapter 12 is referenced; Comment will be taken under consideration - 278 - Name/Organization Comment(s) Response Resident Discussion Paper #3 Regarding 2.1.4 Neighbourhood Policies and Guidelines, while I understand this Discussion Paper, even though it is titled Residential Areas, and in spite of the opening sentence in 1 Introduction, I would submit that the Settlements listed in the Pickering Official Plan should also be considered as neighbourhoods. They should be included in Figure 2.2. The Development Guidelines fail when developers or residents do not follow them and City staff finds that, as only guidelines, they can not be enforced. If they are important, they should be included into the Comprehensive Zoning By-law that can be enforced; The settlement areas are included in the Rural Areas Discussion Paper 6, as this discussion paper focuses on neighbourhoods in the rural area. More recently as we are preparing development guidelines, we are identifying which of those guidelines require a corresponding zoning provision within the Zoning By-laws. Resident Discussion Paper #3 Regarding 3.1 Official Plan and Zoning Relationship, there is a typographical error in second sentence of the first paragraph. There two categories listed but three are referenced; Thank you for catching this error. A correction will be made. Resident Discussion Paper #3 Regarding 4.3.1 Residential Accessory Uses and Structures plus 4.3.3 Garages, to reflect what actually occurs with both accessory buildings and garages, the Comprehensive Zoning By-law should be written to allow storage. In the case of a garage, in addition to a vehicle; and in the case of an accessory building, over and above the use to which the accessory building is currently allowed to be put. Comment will be taken under consideration. The current by-laws do not restrict garages to only parking. Currently the City does encourage developers to provide a garage that accommodates both vehicular parking and limited storage. Resident Discussion Paper #3 Regarding 4.3.4 Driveways, if the requirement from the Seaton By-law 7364/14 that garages are not permitted to be wider than the driveway, there will be a very large number of legal non-conforming properties created which seems to counter-productive to the objectives of this Review. Also, in the third bullet point of this sub-section, there is a Comment will be taken under consideration. Thank you for catching the mistake. A correction will be made. - 279 - Name/Organization Comment(s) Response typographical error listing 3027 as an existing Zoning By-law. While that may be a Zoning By-law, this Review is not concerned with that By-law. I suspect it should read 3037. Resident Discussion Paper #3 Regarding 4.3.5 Home-based Businesses, for Zoning By-law 3037, as you have indicated in third bullet point on page 50, this By-law details in Sub-Section 5.19 the requirements for a Home-Based Business. In addition, the same By-law defines in Section 2.64 Home Industry. In Section 5 – General Provisions for All Zones, which includes Sub-Section 5.19, is also included Sub-Section 5.37 Home Industry with its requirements and non-permitted items. And Section 6 – Rural Agricultural Zone A includes Sub-Section 6.1.1.1 Home Occupation with its suggestion for offices of practitioners that do not seem directly connected with Agriculture. For clarity all three should be combined in the Comprehensive Zoning By-law and if any of the other City Zoning By-laws contain such replication, they should be combined to a single section. The prohibition of storage in an accessory building shown in (7) of Sub-Section 5.19 followed by (8) the permitted limited storage in a garage, which may be an accessory building is silly. It is even more so when considering 5.37 Home Industry which permits in (b) the use of an accessory building and the business would require storage of both raw materials, goods in process and finished goods. All three Sub-Sections require some dramatic re-working to bring clarity and to make them current. The second to last paragraph on page 50 and the second paragraph on page 51 both make good points. The approach detailed in the last paragraph on page 50 and extending to the first paragraph on page 51 should be that in the Comprehensive Zoning By-law. Comments will be taken under consideration. Staff will review the Official Plan and Zoning By-law for consistency in the use of terminology. - 280 - Name/Organization Comment(s) Response There is some sort of typographical error in last line of the paragraph following the bullet points on page 50 Resident Discussion Paper #4 Regarding 1 Introduction, with the effects COVID-19 has had on the job/employment market, planners might be re-thinking the premise of the second sentence. There has been a dramatic growth in home-based businesses/home industry and work from home. From comments of employment consultants, employers and employment search firms, that trend is expected to continue which would mean that the entirety of residential properties in the City will become the area from which significant employment growth will occur, for which the City will have to be prepared and for which the Comprehensive Zoning By-law will have to reflect that change. My comments regarding the previous Draft Discussion Papers should be consulted for additional contextual information which I will not repeat in any of my additional comments for this Draft Discussion Paper; Thank you for your comment – Employment Lands are still essential for industrial and manufacturing businesses, which cannot shift to working from home. Although there has been an increase in working from home for other industries (such as consultants, financial workers, etc.), there are still industries which need large spaces and outdoor storage. Resident Discussion Paper #4 Regarding 2.1.1 Land Use Policies, I am confused. Zoning By-law 3037 in Section 4 – Zones lists C2, ORM-C2, C3, ORM-1, M1 and ORM-M1, that in my mind, refer to Employment. Each of these Zones are further defined under a separate Section which includes Permitted Uses. Except for i) accessory dwelling unit, in Zone ORM-C2, every Permitted Use would result in employment. Please clear-up my confusion by explaining why these are not included in this Sub-Section of the Draft Discussion Paper and why they do not appear on Figure 2.1. The concept, noted on page 4 of the Draft Discussion Paper, that some employment maybe allowed in an area to “serve the This discussion paper focuses on prime employment lands. The M1 zone is identified in this discussion paper. The Oak Ridges Moraine M1 is not captured in the discussion paper, as these lands in north Pickering are not designated as prime employment lands. In addition, all the lands with Commercial zones are not designated as prime employment lands. - 281 - Name/Organization Comment(s) Response area” is silly. When the area changes, as they always do, sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly, does that mean the business that was serving the area has to close when the business it was serving moves or closes? Or, what does a business owner do when the business set-up to serve an area has the opportunity to serve businesses outside the area? Is the owner supposed to refuse? Such a concept should not be carried forward into the Comprehensive Zoning By-law. While I understand this sub-section pertains to the manner in which the Official Plan handles Employment, I wanted to get my comments and questions in before the December 1, 2020 cut-off date, which allowed far too little time to obtain documents frequently referenced read all of the information provided at the Zoning By-law Review webpage and try to understand it; These zones may generate employment (i.e., retail store or professional office), however they are at a different intensity. For example, the M1 zone permits manufacturing uses such as a bindery (produce paper products). This use would not be permitted anywhere else in the City, except within employment areas. A professional office permitted in the C1 zone could be permitted almost anywhere in the city (on lands designated residential or mixed use). The term serving the area allows smaller scale commercial uses to open up in residential neighbourhoods. For instance, it allows an applicant to potentially open a convenience store in an area designated residential. Resident Discussion Paper #4 Regarding 2.2 Zoning, the fifth bullet point in this sub-section refers to “one small piece of land with a Prestige Employment designation.” in the Rural Area Zoning By-law 3037. In my copy of this By-law, received May 22, 2012, there is no reference to Prestige Employment in Section 2 – Definitions, nor in Section 3 – Schedule A, or B, or C, nor in Section 4 – Zones, nor in Section 5 – General Provisions for All Zones. Please advise when this By-law was amended to include this small piece of land with a Prestige Employment designation and where it is located as I do not see it in Figure 2.3. This property is located at the north side of Taunton Road West, at the intersection of Taunton Road and William Jackson Drive (1960 Taunton Road). Resident Discussion Paper #4 Regarding 3.1 Durham Region Official Plan, as with the City of Pickering website, searching the Durham Region website for the Official Plan yields thousands Links were provided to the resident. - 282 - Name/Organization Comment(s) Response of results. Please provide a link for the Durham Region Official Plan. And, if the complete Plan is not available from a single link, as is the case with the City of Pickering Official Plan, please provide all links is order that I might be able to access the complete Plan. Resident Discussion Paper #4 Regarding 3.3 Assessment of Zoning in the Employment Areas, this sub-section seems to indicate that having both Employment Areas and Zones where both have permitted uses is overly cumbersome. Would it not be clearer to have just 1 listing in which the permitted uses could be found? Please advise. The purpose of this analysis is to break down the permitted uses in the Official Plan designations and the existing zones. Resident Discussion Paper #6 Regarding 4.2 Natural Heritage System Implementation, the third bullet point, top of page 45, contains a reference to the Tree Protection By-law. A search of the city of Pickering website indicates this is By-law 6108/03. This By-law contains a reference to a Schedule ‘A’ which the text indicates is attached. However, the Schedule is not contained within the City’s webpage. Like the Official Plan, the series of Schedules and the Compendium Document are not attached to the Official Plan found on the City’s website. In order to be assured that residents have complete access to Zoning By-laws, the Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review should include a review of all Zoning By-laws posted on the City’s website to ensure all documents associated with each Zoning By-law are attached to the webpage for each By-law; Thank you for finding this error. The City will correct the Tree Protection By-law to include Schedule “A”. Resident Discussion Paper #6 Regarding 4.5 Outdoor Storage and Commercial Vehicle Parking, the sixth bullet point suggests that generally outdoor storage should not be permitted in When the discussion paper refers to outdoor storage, it means large objects such as commercial vehicles, trailers, large scraps, and - 283 - Name/Organization Comment(s) Response Rural Settlement Areas. Where would the author suggest that fuel for a back-up heating wood burning stove be kept while it seasons? Please advise. The last bullet point in this section makes good points for considering the outdoor storage of recreational equipment such as boat and trailer, snowmobile and trailer, 4-wheeler and trailer, motorhome, etc. but the definition of “larger rural residential lots” would need to be agreed upon and specified; not to smaller items such as extra fuel for a stove. Resident Discussion Paper #6 Regarding 4.6 Agriculture-Related and On-Farm Diversified Uses, based upon the discussion in the third paragraph, the Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review must specify whether or not businesses servicing farm operations are limited to servicing those operations within the area of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law. Or, can “primarily to the farming community”, as appears in Zoning By-law 3037, subsection 2.64 (b) Home Industry, and in the definition of Home Industry (b) in the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan Regulation 140/02, mean any farming community or farmer anywhere? Thank you for your comment and interpretation. Consideration will be made to provide clarity that the term “area” is not related to the geographical area of the By-law, but relates to the farming/agricultural community. Resident Discussion Paper #8 Regarding 2.1 Federal Legislation, in the second bullet point, the authors indicate there approximately 400 holders of a licence from Health Canada with respect to cultivation, processing and selling of cannabis. If the authors know, please provide the number of those licences that are currently held for the City of Pickering for each of the various classes and sub-classes of these activities and micro- activities. Health Canada website does identify the company’s which hold licences and which type of license, however it does not provide personal information or detailed location. Resident Discussion Paper #8 Regarding 2.2 Provincial Legislation and Policy, in the second bullet point the authors indicate retail operators selling cannabis require a licence. If the As the City has recently opted-in to permitting retail cannabis, we are not aware of any licences granted within Pickering at the time of writing this report. - 284 - Name/Organization Comment(s) Response authors know, please provide the number of those licences that are currently held for the City of Pickering. Resident Discussion Paper #8 Regarding 2.4.3 Council By-laws and Resolutions, if the authors know, please advise the number of licences that were issued by Health Canada in respect of the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations in the City of Pickering; Please contact Health Canada for this information. Resident Discussion Paper #8 Regarding 3.1.2 Township of King, there is no mention of Oak Ridges Moraine Zoning. Is there no mention in the Site Plan Control or Zoning By-laws that were passed? Or, did the authors not feel any mention was important? Please advise; The Township of King only updated the zoning for specific areas – Schomberg, Nobleton and King City Urban Areas. This is the reason the Oak Ridges Moraine wasn’t included in this section. Resident Discussion Paper #8 Regarding 3.3.1 Rural Area and 3.3.2 Urban Area and 4 Conclusions and Recommendations point 4.and point 5., regardless of setbacks, when the wind blows the odours from cannabis production and processing will extend out from the facility and with strong winds quite a substantial distance. Only high volume air filtration systems will ensure odours are not emitted from those facilities and must be made mandatory in the Comprehensive Zoning By-law regardless of the size of the facility. In addition, the Comprehensive Zoning By-law must make mandatory a monitoring system for every cannabis production and processing facility that constantly samples the air on at least 4 sides of the border of the property, is monitored within the facility and any odour detection above a pre-determined limit must cause a shut-down of the facility and a notification of local environmental authorities. Upon triggering of a shut-down, the plant could not re-start activities until the cause of the odour escape was determined, mitigation and Thank you for your comments. Please note that licences for cannabis cultivation and production are Federally regulated. - 285 - Name/Organization Comment(s) Response correction completed to the satisfaction of local environmental authorities. Resident Discussion Paper #8 For all but Draft Discussion Paper #1, there is no discussion of enforcement pertaining to reviews of existing Zoning By-laws or a Comprehensive Zoning By-law. Why not? Please advise. It is anticipated that the new Zoning By-law will be easier to understand, and may make compliance with the by-law easier and enable clarity in enforcement. - 286 - Report to Council Report Number: PLN 14-21 Date: March 22, 2021 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Environmental Registry Posting 019-3136 Response to consultation regarding growing the Provincial Greenbelt File: D-8000-007 Recommendation: 1.That the comments in Report PLN 14-21, on Environmental Registry Posting (ERO) 019-3136 regarding growing the Provincial Greenbelt, be endorsed; 2.That the Province maintain the current established Greenbelt boundary within the City of Pickering on the basis that: a.Any consideration or decision regarding expanding the Greenbelt in Pickering would be premature and not in the public interest, prior to the completion of the Region of Durham’s Municipal Comprehensive Review and in particular, prior to the completion of the Land Needs Assessment, updated Natural Heritage System mapping, and review and implementation of the Provincial Agricultural System, in order to fully understand the implications and determine appropriateness of growing the Greenbelt; b.All lands within Pickering are covered by the policies of A Place to Grow and the Greenbelt Plan, which were further strengthened through the most recent updates to the provincial plans, and the Provincial Policy Statement, and which together provide the highest level of protection for natural heritage and hydrologic features and areas, as well as agricultural areas; and c.The City, by Resolutions 140/19 and 173/19 affirmed its position that the lands in Northeast Pickering, be reserved to accommodate future urban development; 3.That in order to minimize competing interests and priorities, the Province should explore opportunities on the outer fringes of the existing Greenbelt for further expansion, rather than the areas closest to the existing built up urban areas which may be needed to accommodate future development within proximity to transit and other existing and planned infrastructure investments by municipalities and the Province; 4.That should the Province decide to consider growing the Greenbelt within the City of Pickering: a.Any additions to the Greenbelt Plan be considered in the context of the Region of Durham’s Municipal Comprehensive Review; - 287 - Report PLN 14-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: Environmental Registry Posting 019-3136 Page 2 b. The legislated public process for amendments to the Greenbelt be followed, including consultation with City of Pickering, the Region of Durham, Indigenous communities, and affected property owners, prior to any final decision being made; c. Any decision to expand the Greenbelt should not compromise the ability of the municipality to accommodate future urban growth; d. Criteria be established and implementation guidance be provided to guide refinement to the Greenbelt Natural Heritage System by municipalities, similar to the criteria and guidance that have been established for the Growth Plan Natural Heritage System; and 5. That staff be directed to respond to ERO Posting 019-3136 with a copy of Report PLN 14-21 and Council’s resolution thereon, and that a copy of Report PLN 14-21 be forwarded to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, MPP Peter Bethlenfalvy, the Regional Municipality of Durham, and other Durham area municipalities. Executive Summary: On February 22, 2021, Pickering City Council issued a directive for City staff to review and report back on Correspondence Item 14-21 from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing regarding the Province’s consultation on growing the Greenbelt. An Environmental Registry posting was published on February 17, 2021, for a 61-day commenting period, seeking feedback on ways to grow the Provincial Greenbelt. Comments are requested by April 19, 2021. In response to Council’s directive, City staff have prepared an overview and response on behalf of the City and are seeking Council’s endorsement of these comments. Financial Implications: No financial implications for the City in adopting the recommendations of this report. 1. Purpose The purpose of this report is two-fold. The first, is to provide further information to Council regarding Correspondence Item 14-21 from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) as it relates to an Environmental Registry Posting seeking feedback on the Province’s intent to Grow the Greenbelt. The second, is to obtain Council’s endorsement of staff’s comments to the Province on Environmental Registry of Ontario (ERO) posting 019-3136, regarding the Province’s desire to grow the Greenbelt. This report contains an assessment of possible implications and comments on the ERO posting. - 288 - Report PLN 14-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: Environmental Registry Posting 019-3136 Page 3 2. Background Established under the Greenbelt Act, 2005, the Greenbelt was established to: • protect against the loss and fragmentation of the agricultural land base and supports agriculture as the predominant land use; • give protection to the natural heritage and water resource systems that sustain ecological and human health and that form the environmental framework around which major urbanization in south-central Ontario will be organized; • provide for a diverse range of economic and social activities associated with rural communities, agriculture, tourism, recreation and resource uses; • build resilience to and mitigate climate change; and • allow critical new infrastructure and upgrades to existing infrastructure needed to serve the substantial growth projected for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, to be permitted subject to strong environmental conditions. Through the 10-year review of the Greenbelt Plan, mapping of urban river valleys and associated policies were added to the Greenbelt Plan, which apply to publically-owned lands. At that time, the City provided comments regarding the review and update of the Greenbelt Plan in Report PLN 15-16 on September 12, 2016. Within the City of Pickering, the Provincial Greenbelt covers approximately 11,050 hectares or 48 percent of the municipality. The current Greenbelt Boundary and Urban River Valleys are shown on Attachment #1 to this Report. Urban River Valleys that were added to the Greenbelt in Pickering through the 2017 Provincial Plan Update are the West Duffins Creek, Ganatsekiagon Creek, and Urfé Creek. The Rouge River Valley was added to the Greenbelt Protected Countryside through this update as well. Lands outside of the Greenbelt and the existing urban area are largely federally-owned and not subject to the provincial land use plans or are otherwise protected, with the exception of the lands in northeast Pickering. With regard to these lands, City Council, by Resolution 140/19 dated September 23, 2019, and Resolution 173/19 dated November 25, 2019 have taken a position that they will be needed for future growth. It should be noted that outside of the Greenbelt, the policies of A Place to Grow apply to all lands within the City of Pickering. In the Provincial Government’s 2020 budget, they pledged to expand the size of the Greenbelt, which is home to much of Ontario’s environmental, groundwater, and agricultural resources. 3. ERO Proposal 019-3136 On February 17, 2021, the MMAH posted a proposal on the ERO for a 61-day commenting period, to seek feedback on ways to grow the size and further enhance the quality of the Greenbelt, with a priority of: lands focused on the Paris Galt Moraine (not applicable to the City of Pickering); and ideas for adding, expanding and further protecting Urban River Valleys. Comments are requested by April 19, 2021. - 289 - Report PLN 14-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: Environmental Registry Posting 019-3136 Page 4 3.1 Principles for Growing the Greenbelt Expansions MMAH has outlined a number of guiding principles as it relates to consideration of Greenbelt Expansions through this exercise: • No consideration of removal requests or land exchanges. Through this proposal, the Province will not consider the removal of any lands from the Greenbelt. • No consideration of policy changes. Any potential expansions will be based on and subject to existing policies. The province will not reduce existing protections in the Greenbelt. • Supports Greenbelt Plan objectives, vision and goals. Lands to be considered for addition should support the Greenbelt Plan’s objectives, vision and goals of providing permanent protection to the agricultural land base and the ecological and hydrological features, areas and functions occurring on this landscape, and providing for the inclusion of publicly owned lands in urban river valleys. • Follows Existing Amendment Process. Amendments would be subject to the legislated public process set out in the Greenbelt Act, 2005. This would include requiring consultation with affected public bodies such as the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry and the Greenbelt Council, municipalities in the Greenbelt Area, Indigenous communities, and an opportunity for consultation with general public. This process would also ensure any proposed amendment does not reduce the total land area within the Greenbelt Plan. • Connects physically and/or functionally to the current Greenbelt. The Greenbelt is meant to be a continuous broad band of permanently protected land. Any expansions shall build upon the systems approach of the Greenbelt Plan and should be directly connected or have a strong functional connection through the Greenbelt’s natural heritage, water resource or agricultural systems. • Considers impacts on existing provincial priorities. Expansions to the Greenbelt must consider their effects on other key provincial priorities outlined in the Provincial Policy Statement and A Place to Grow. These include: • Growth Management; • Natural Heritage and Water Resource Systems; • Agriculture; and • Infrastructure. In particular, the Ministry is interested in hearing feedback with regard to: • the initial focus area of the Study Area of the Paris Galt Moraine; • considerations in moving from a Study Area to a more defined boundary of the Paris Galt Moraine; • the initial focus area of adding, expanding and further protecting Urban River Valleys; - 290 - Report PLN 14-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: Environmental Registry Posting 019-3136 Page 5 • suggestions for other potential areas to grow the Greenbelt; • how the Province should balance or prioritize any potential Greenbelt expansion with the other provincial priorities; and • whether there are other priorities that should be considered. 4. Staff Comments City staff have undertaken a detailed review of the ERO proposal and provide the following comments. Key issues, comments, and concerns are outlined below and form the recommendations of this report. City staff do not have any comments to provide as it relates to the Paris Galt Moraine since this is located west of the Greater Toronto Area. 4.1 Expanding and further protecting Urban River Valleys With regard to the initial focus area of adding, expanding and further protecting Urban River Valleys, staff generally support this initial focus area. However, it should be noted that the current policies within the Greenbelt Plan related to Urban River Valleys only apply to publically-owned lands. Further, due to their characteristics, urban river valleys are largely non-developable and protected through other means including the Provincial Policy Statement and A Place to Grow policies that address natural heritage and hydrologic features and areas. Additionally, most of these areas also fall within the regulated area under the Conservation Authorities Act. Within the City of Pickering, the limit of development has already been established for much of these lands. Consequently, the expansion of the Greenbelt to include these additional lands would not necessarily result in the protection of more lands from development. There may be a need to review and refine the boundary of Urban River Valleys though the Region’s Municipal Comprehensive Review (MCR) to ensure that all publically-owned lands are included, in particular, any lands that might have been acquired since the time urban river valleys were added to the Greenbelt Plan. 4.2 Considerations for Growing the Greenbelt and Balancing Provincial Priorities Although the Province is seeking suggestions for other potential areas to grow the Greenbelt through this consultation, staff notes that the Province itself acknowledges that there are a number of MCRs underway and that expansions need to be considered in the context of these growth management exercises, as discussed further in Section 4.2.1 of this Report. Staff are in agreement that any expansions to the Greenbelt within the City of Pickering should be considered in the context of Durham Region’s MCR. This will ensure that other provincial priorities including Growth Management, Natural Heritage and Water Resource Systems, and Agriculture are considered. To consider expanding the Greenbelt in advance of the outcome of the Land Needs Assessment, update of the Region’s Natural Heritage System mapping, and implementation of the Provincial Agricultural System, would not be in the public interest. - 291 - Report PLN 14-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: Environmental Registry Posting 019-3136 Page 6 It is important that the Province balance or prioritize any potential Greenbelt expansion with the other provincial priorities. Staff provide the following comments related to each of the provincial priorities that have been identified. 4.2.1 Growth Management The Greenbelt Plan broadly identifies where urbanization should not occur, and A Place to Grow directs the majority of growth to fully serviced settlement areas. Currently, upper and single-tier municipalities are working towards updating their official plans by 2022 to conform with the revised growth forecasts of A Place to Grow. Therefore, the Province has indicated that Greenbelt expansion needs to be considered in the context of these growth management exercises by municipalities. Staff are in agreement with this statement. The detailed Land Needs Assessment criteria established by the Province, considers and balances matters of provincial interest including natural heritage and water resource systems, agricultural systems, and infrastructure. Due to its location, existing and planned infrastructure, and other conditions, the City of Pickering is well suited to accommodate growth. Any decision to expand the Greenbelt within the City of Pickering should not compromise the municipality’s ability to accommodate future growth. To minimize competing interests and priorities, the Province should explore opportunities on the outer fringes of the existing Greenbelt for further expansion, rather than the areas closest to the existing built-up urban areas. In balancing provincial priorities, these lands may be the most appropriate and necessary to accommodate future urban development within proximity to transit and other existing and planned municipal and provincial infrastructure investments. 4.2.2 Natural Heritage and Water Resource Systems As noted by the Province, both the Greenbelt Plan and A Place to Grow policies provide a high degree of protection for natural heritage and water resource systems, features and areas, including habitat for endangered and threatened species. Both the Greenbelt Plan and A Place to Grow contain policies supporting and protecting a Natural Heritage System that is made up of these natural features and areas along with the linkages that connect them together. Similarly, policies in these plans protect water resource systems on a watershed basis, with the Greenbelt incorporating significant headwaters, river corridors, wetlands and other features. Further, where criteria and implementation guidance has been provided to allow for minor refinement by municipalities of the Growth Plan Natural Heritage System, no such criteria or guidance has been provided for the Greenbelt Natural Heritage System. It is recommended that the Province establish similar criteria for refinement of the Greenbelt Natural Heritage System to ensure that minor refinement, that is in keeping with the intent of the policies and plan, can be made. - 292 - Report PLN 14-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: Environmental Registry Posting 019-3136 Page 7 As both plans provide a similar level of protection, at this time, staff is of the opinion that there is an adequate level of protection of the natural environment within the City of Pickering. 4.2.3 Agriculture As noted by the Province, both the Greenbelt Plan and A Place to Grow have policies supporting and protecting an Agricultural System that comprises both an agricultural land base (prime agricultural areas, including specialty crop areas, and other productive lands that form a continuous land base for agriculture) and an agri-food network (infrastructure, services and assets that support the agri-food sector). The Region of Durham is currently in the process of implementing the Provincial Agricultural System within the Region and will be refining the existing agricultural land base and agri-food network in collaboration with area municipalities through the MCR. Until this exercise is completed, it is unclear which additional agricultural lands that currently lie outside of the Greenbelt, if any, might warrant inclusion within the Greenbelt Plan. Further, as both plans provide policy support for protection of the agricultural system, staff is of the opinion that there is an adequate level of protection for agricultural lands within the City of Pickering. 4.2.4 Infrastructure As noted by the Province, both the Greenbelt Plan and A Place to Grow recognize that new infrastructure and upgrades to existing infrastructure will be needed to serve the substantial growth projected for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Infrastructure, including highways to sewage and water treatment plants to corridors for transit and utilities, are permitted in these plans subject to certain conditions. Staff continue to support the development of necessary infrastructure in appropriate locations within the municipality. Attachment: 1. Greenbelt Boundary within the City of Pickering - 293 - Report PLN 14-21 March 22, 2021 Subject: Environmental Registry Posting 019-3136 Page 8 Prepared By: Original Signed By Kristy Kilbourne, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner, Policy Original Signed By Déan Jacobs, MCIP, RPP Manager, Policy & Geomatics Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Original Signed By Kyle Bentley, P. Eng. Director, City Development & CBO KK:DJ:ld Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 294 - Claremont Birchwood Estates Kinsale Spring Creek Balsam Greenwood BarclayEstates CherrywoodEastCherrywood CherrywoodWest Whitevale Green River StaxtonGlen Brougham ForestCreek EstatesLake Ridge RoadWh ites RoadLive rpoolRoadBrock RoadWh itesRoadBrock RoadBrock Roa d BrockRoadCe n t r a l S t r e e t Kingston RoadFift h Conc es sio n Road S e v e n t h C o n c e s s i o n R o a d Altona RoadWh itevaleRoad Finch Ave nue High w ay 7 ThirdConcession Road Ninth C o n c e s s i o n R o a d Bayly S t r e e t High way 7Wh itevale Road Taunton Road Ninth C o n c e s s i o n R o a d SalemRoadWe stne y Road High w ay 407 H i g h w a y 4 07 High w a y 4 0 1 Carrut hersCre ekKrosn o C r e e k UrféCreek Pett ico atC r eekCarruthersC r ee k Ganatseki ago n CreekBroughamCreek S p rin g Cre ekSpringCreekCarruth ersCreekCarruthersCreekPett ic o atCreek D uffinsCreekReesorCreekP e t ticoatCreek Wes tD u ffinsC r eekD u nbartonC r e e k Ga n a t s ekiago nCreek Ganatse k iago nCreek W estD uffins Cree k Ganatsekiag o nCreekPineCreekWixonCreek Little R ougeCreek Brougham CreekMichellCreek Majo r Cree kUrféCreekWixonCreekMi c hell CreekCarruthersCreek LittleRo ugeCre e k We s tDuffinsCreekLEGEND ¯ Inform ation Curre nt as of March 2021 © Th e Corporation of th e City of Picke ring Prod uce d (in part) und e r lice nse from : © Que e ns Printe r, Ontario Ministry of Natural Re source s. All righ ts re se rve d .;© He r Maje sty th e Que e n in Righ t of Canad a, De partm e nt of Natural Re source s. All righ ts re se rve d .;© Te rane t Ente rprise s Inc. and its supplie rs all righ ts re se rve d .;© Municipal Prope rty Asse ssm e nt Corporation and its supplie rs all righ ts re se rve d .;Contains inform ation lice nse d und e r th e Ope n Gove rnm e nt Lice nce – Ontario. Th is is Not a Plan of S urve y. Disclaim e r: Th is m ap h as be e n cre ate d from a varie ty of source s. Th e City of Picke ring d oe s not m akeany re pre se ntations conce rning th e accuracy, like ly re sults, or re liability of th e use of th em ate rials. Th e City h e re by d isclaim s all re pre se ntations and w arrantie s. Data S ources Oak Rid ge s Moraine Bound ary Gre e nbe lt Prote cted Countrysid e Gre e nbe lt - Urban Rive r Valle y Ex isting Urban Are a Frenchman's Bay Lake OntarioCity of TorontoTown of AjaxTown of Ajax Town of WhitbyTown of WhitbyTownship of Uxbridge City of MarkhamTown of Whitchurch-StouffvilleGrowing the Greenbelt ERO Posting Ex isting Gre e nbe lt Bound ary w ith in th e City of Picke ring 1:61,000 Attachment #1 to Report #PLN 14-21 - 295 - Memo To: Susan Cassel March 17, 2021 City Clerk From: Catherine Rose Chief Planner Copy: Manager, Development Review & Urban Design Subject: Amending By-law for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 12/18 Stuart Mark Golvin and JMPM Holdings Ltd. 1635 Bayly Street City of Pickering Amending By-law 7828/21 Statutory Public Meeting Date March 4, 2019 Planning & Development Committee Date March 1, 2021 Purpose and Effect of By-law To amend the existing site-specific zone to permit the following uses on the site: animal boarding establishment, auction and estate sales house, day care centre, and retail store. The Zoning By-law Amendment also amends certain changes to the existing special regulations for restaurants, retail stores and place of amusement/entertainment. Council Meeting Date March 22, 2021 Note Not applicable FC:ld J:\Documents\Development\D-3300\2018\A 12-18\By-law\By-law Chart Memo to Clerks.docx Attachment By-law Schedule I to By-law Original Signed By Catherine Ross - 296 - The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. 7828/21 Being a by-law to amend Zoning Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 2511, as amended, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham, on Part of Lot 19, Range 3, B.F.C., Part 1, 40R-8832 and Part 1, 40R-10527, in the City of Pickering. (A 12/18) Whereas the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering passed By-law 6974/09 amending By-law 2511 to broaden the range of employment uses in addition to the existing employment uses in Part of Lot 19, Range 3, B.F.C., Part 1, Plan 40R-8832 and, Part 1 on Plan 40R-10527, in the City of Pickering; Whereas the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering passed By-law 7519/16 amending By-law 6974/09 by removing the “(H)” Holding Symbol preceding the “MC-21” Zone designation on Part of Lot 19, Range 3, B.F.C., Part 1, 40R-8832 and Part 1, 40R-10527; And whereas the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering supports the further expansion of the list of permissible uses on the site; Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1. Schedule I Schedule I attached hereto with notations and references shown thereon are hereby declared to be part of this By-law. 2. Area Restricted The provisions of this By-law shall apply to those lands on Part of Lot 19, Range 3 B.F.C., Part 1, 40R-8832 and Part 1, 40R-10527 in the City of Pickering, designated “MC-21” on Schedule I attached hereto. 3. Text Amendment 1. Section 4. Definitions, of By-law 6974/09 is hereby amended by renumbering and re-alphabetizing this subsection in order to incorporate the new definitions as follows: (2) “Animal Boarding Establishment” shall mean a building, structure or part thereof, where dogs and cats and other domesticated animals, excluding livestock, are bred, raised, groomed, trained or kept or a fee on a temporary basis and may include outdoor facilities; - 297 - By-law No. 7828/21 Page 2 (3) “Auction and Estate Sales” shall mean a building or part of a building where auctions are conducted and may include a warehouse component wherein products are stored on the premises until such time that a public auction is held; (12) “Day Care Centre” shall mean indoor and outdoor premises where more than five children are provided with temporary care and/or guidance for a continuous period but does not provide overnight accommodation and are licensed in accordance with the applicable Provincial Act; (32) “Retail Store” shall mean a premises in which goods and merchandise are offered or kept for retail sale or rental to the public. 2. Section 5.(1) Uses Permitted (“MC-21”) of By-law 6974/09, is hereby repealed and replaced with the following permitted uses: Uses permitted in All Hatched Areas as illustrated in Schedule I attached hereto Uses permitted in only Diagonally and Horizontally Hatched Areas as illustrated in Schedule I attached hereto Uses permitted in only Cross Hatched Areas as illustrated in Schedule I attached hereto Uses permitted in only Horizontally Hatched Areas as illustrated in Schedule I attached hereto Animal boarding establishment Convenience store Banquet facility Day care centre Auction and estate sales house Dry cleaning depot Club Bakery Financial institution Commercial club Business office Personal service shop Commercial- recreational establishment Commercial school Restaurant – Type A Exhibition hall Dry cleaning establishment Retail store Place of amusement or entertainment Food preparation plant Place of assembly Light machinery and equipment supplier Light manufacturing plant Merchandise service shop Office-associated commercial establishment - 298 - By-law No. 7828/21 Page 3 Uses permitted in All Hatched Areas as illustrated in Schedule I attached hereto Uses permitted in only Diagonally and Horizontally Hatched Areas as illustrated in Schedule I attached hereto Uses permitted in only Cross Hatched Areas as illustrated in Schedule I attached hereto Uses permitted in only Horizontally Hatched Areas as illustrated in Schedule I attached hereto Printing establishment Professional office Rental establishment Sales outlet Scientific, medical or research laboratory Vehicle sales establishment Warehouse 3. Section 5.(2)(c)(ii) Parking Requirements of By-law 6974/09 is hereby repealed and replaced with the following provisions: 1.8 parking spaces per 100 square metres gross leasable floor area 2.5 parking spaces per 100 square metres gross leasable floor area 4.5 parking spaces per 100 square metres gross leasable floor area 5.5 parking spaces per 100 square metres gross leasable floor area 8.3 parking spaces per 100 square metres gross leasable floor area 10 parking spaces per 100 square metres gross leasable floor area Bakery Day care centre Animal boarding establishment Auction and estate sales house Banquet facility Exhibition hall Dry cleaning establishment Business office Club Food preparation plant Commercial club Commercial school Light machinery and equipment supplier Convenience store Commercial- recreational establishment Light manufacturing plant Dry cleaning depot Place of amusement or entertainment Printing establishment Financial institution Place of assembly - 299 - By-law No. 7828/21 Page 4 1.8 parking spaces per 100 square metres gross leasable floor area 2.5 parking spaces per 100 square metres gross leasable floor area 4.5 parking spaces per 100 square metres gross leasable floor area 5.5 parking spaces per 100 square metres gross leasable floor area 8.3 parking spaces per 100 square metres gross leasable floor area 10 parking spaces per 100 square metres gross leasable floor area Rental establishment Merchandise service shop Scientific, medical or research laboratory Office- associated commercial establishment Vehicle sales establishment Personal service shop Warehouse Professional office Retail store Sales outlet Restaurant – Type A 4. Section 5.(2)(d)(i) to 5.(2)(d)(iv) Special Regulations of By-law 6974/09 is hereby repealed and replaced with the following: (i) Sales outlet shall be permitted only if accessory to an auction and estate sales house, a bakery, a food preparation plant, a light manufacturing plant, a merchandise service shop, a manufacturing plant, a printing establishment, or a warehouse, provided the gross leasable area of the sales outlet does not exceed 25% of the gross leasable floor area of the auction and estate sales house, bakery, food preparation plant, light manufacturing plant, merchandise service shop, printing establishment, or warehouse; (ii) Notwithstanding Clause (i) above, a sales outlet may exceed 25% up to a maximum of 40% of the gross leasable floor area of the auction and estate sales house, bakery, food preparation plant, light manufacturing plant, merchandise service shop, printing establishment, or warehouse, provided the aggregate gross leasable floor area of all sales outlets in a building does not exceed 25% or the total gross leasable floor area in that building; (iii) A maximum of 6 Restaurants – Type A shall be permitted; (iv) The maximum aggregate gross leasable floor area for Restaurants – Type A shall be 1,300 square metres; - 300 - By-law No. 7828/21 Page 5 (v) In addition to a Place of Amusement or Entertainment being permitted in the Cross Hatched Areas, a maximum of one (1) Place of Amusement or Entertainment facility shall be permitted within the Diagonally or Horizontally Hatched Areas up to a maximum gross leasable floor area of 150 square metres. 4. Schedule I Amendment Schedule I to By-law 6974/09, as amended by By-law 7519/16, is hereby further amended by revising the existing hatching and adding a new hatching on Schedule 1, as amended By-law 7519/16, on Part of Lot 19, Range 3, B.F.C., Part 1, 40R-8832 and Part 1, 40R-10527, as set out on Schedule I attached hereto. 5. By-law 2511 By-law 2511, as amended, is hereby further amended only to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions of this By-law. Definitions and subject matters not specifically dealt with in this By-law shall be governed by relevant provisions of By-law 2511, as amended. 6. Effective Date This By-law shall come into force in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act. By-law passed this 22nd day of March, 2021. ________________________________ David Ryan, Mayor ________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 301 - MC-21 MC-21 MC-21 Bayly Street Dillingham RoadSalk RoadClerk Mayor i N31.0mSchedule I to By-Law 6974/09 Amended by By-Law 7519/16 Amended by By-Law 7828/21 Passed This 22nd Day of March 2021 45.0m 50.3m 116.3m 111.1m 213.0m 61.3m87.8m70.1m75.2m50.8m 39.6m - 302 - Memo To: Susan Cassel March 17, 2021 City Clerk From: Catherine Rose Chief Planner Copy: Manager, Development Review & Urban Design Subject: Amending By-law for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 04/17 1133373 Ontario Inc. and Lebovic Enterprises Limited Part of Lot 22, 23, 24 & 25 Concession 4 City of Pickering Amending By-law 7829/21 Statutory Public Meeting Date May 8, 2017 Planning & Development Committee Date March 1, 2021 Purpose and Effect of By-law The purpose of the amending zoning by-law is to permit the implementation of revisions to a draft approved plan of subdivision that addresses design modifications, and to add a remnant parcel into an approved subdivision. The majority of the subdivision remains unchanged. Council Meeting Date March 22, 2021 Note Not applicable RP:ld J:\Documents\Development\D-3300\2017\A 04-17\By-law\By-law Chart Memo to Clerks.docx Attachment By-law Schedules I and II to By-law Original Signed By Catherine Rose - 303 - The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. 7829/21 Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 7364/14, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham, for land at Part of Lot 22, 23, 24 & 25 Concession 4, City of Pickering (A 04/17) Whereas the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering received an application to rezone portions of the subject lands being Part of Lot 22, 23, 24 & 25 Concession 4, in the City of Pickering to permit revisions to a draft approved plan of subdivision; and And whereas an amendment to Zoning By-law 7364/14, is deemed necessary to permit the requested revisions; Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1. Schedule I and II Schedule I and II attached hereto with notations and references shown thereon are hereby declared to be part of this By-law. 2. Area Restricted The provisions of this By-law shall apply to those lands in Part of Lot 22, 23, 24 & 25, Concession 4, in the City of Pickering, designated “LD1, LD2, LD2-M, MD-DS, MD-M, MCC, CN, CU, OS, SWM” on Schedule I attached hereto. 3. General Provisions No building, structure, land or part thereof shall hereafter be used, occupied, erected, moved or structurally altered except in conformity with the provisions of this By-law. 4. By-law 7364/14 By-law 7364/14, is hereby further amended only to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions of this By-law as it applies to the area set out in Schedules I and II to this By-law. Definitions and subject matters not specifically dealt with in this By-law shall be governed by relevant provisions of By-law 7364/14. - 304 - By-law No. 7829/21 Page 2 5. Effective Date This By-law shall come into force in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act. By-law passed this 22nd day of March, 2021. ___________________________________ David Ryan, Mayor ___________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 305 - i Taunton Road N Sapphire DriveCU/LD1 CU/LD1-T CU/OS LD1 LD2 MD-M MCC OS LD2LD1 OS CU/LD1-TCU/LD1 CU-MD-M MD-DS MD-M MD-DS MD-M LD2-MLD1 OS CN-1 MD-DS LD-1 SWM MD-M LD1 OSLD2-M LD2 LD2-M LD2 LD1 OS MD-DS 7829/21 Schedule I t o By-Law Passed This 22nd Day of March 2021 Mayor Clerk - 306 - Whitevale Road LD1-5 OS MD-M CN SWM A A A A MD-M LD1-T MD-M LD1 LD1 A LD1 LN MD-M LD1 MD-DS LD1 CNCN-PP A A A SWM LD1-T MD-DS CU CU LD1 CN Clerk Mayor Schedule II to By-Law Passed This Day of i N7829/21 22nd March 2021 72.7m 104.9m105.3m81.5m - 307 - Memo To: Susan Cassel March 17, 2021 City Clerk From: Catherine Rose Chief Planner Copy: Manager, Development Review & Urban Design Planner II Subject: Amending By-law for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 01/19 Marshall Homes (Finch) Ltd. Part of Lots 31 and 32, Concession 2 South, Now Parts 2 to 4 and 6, 40R-29566 and Part 2, 40R-29965 (North side of Finch Avenue, west of Rosebank Road) Amending By-law 7830/21 for Zoning By-Amendment Application A 01/19 Statutory Public Meeting Date May 6, 2019 Planning & Development Committee Date June 15, 2020 Subject Lands Located north side of Finch Avenue, west of Rosebank Road and south of the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) corridor within the Rouge Park Neighbourhood (see Location Map) Purpose and Effect of Amending By-law 7830/21 To rezone the subject lands from “A” – Rural Agricultural Zone to “S4-20” and “S4-21” to facilitate a residential common-element condominium consisting of 42 lots for detached dwellings. The zoning by-law establishes appropriate performance standards including, but not limited to, provisions for minimum parking, maximum building heights, building setbacks and lot coverage. The by-law also permits accessory dwelling units and prescribes the maximum area of such unit and minimum parking requirements. Council Meeting Date for By-law March 22, 2021 - 308 - March 17, 2021 Page 2 of 2 By-law 7830/21 (A 01/19) Notes: On June 15, 2020, Council recommended that Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 01/19 be approved to facilitate a residential common-element condominium consisting of 42 detached dwellings. On August 10, 2020, the applicant submitted an application for site plan approval. Through the site plan review process, the applicant has been working with staff to further refine the proposal based on a detailed site design, architectural drawings, on-site grading and landscaping. The following refinements and additions have been made to the amending zoning by-law based on staff’s review of the site plan: •increased the maximum permitted encroachment of covered and uncovered porches and stairs within the front yard from 2.0 metres to 2.5 metres; •provided provisions to permit the encroachment of covered and uncovered porches and stairs into the required flankage yard; •increased the maximum permitted encroachment of uncovered decks and stairs into the rear yard from 2.0 metres to 2.5 metres; •provided provisions to permit the encroachment of second storey uncovered decks and balconies into the required rear yard; •provided a rear yard encroachment of 2.0 metres to allow for below grade stairs to allow access from basements; and •provided a maximum encroachment of 0.45 metres for eaves and eaves troughs. The applicant and their planning consultant have reviewed the attached zoning by-law amendment and concur with staff’s recommended changes. Original Signed By Catherine Rose CM:ld J:\Documents\Development\D-3200\2019\SP-2019-01, CP-2019-01 & A001-19\Memos\By-law Chart Memo to Clerks.docx Attachments Location Map By-law (Text & Schedule) - 309 - Finch Avenue Amberlea Road R o u g e w a lk D r iv e S p a rro w C irc l e MapleviewCourtRosebank RoadM aho g a n yCourtWildflower DriveAltona RoadSequin Park 1:5,000 SCALE: © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City Development Department Location MapFile:Applicant:Property Description: SP-2019-01, CP-2019-01, and A01/19 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Dec. 17, 2019 ¯EMarshall Homes (Finch) Ltd. Pt of Lt 31 & 32, Con 2 South, Now, Pts 2-6, 40R-29566 and Pt 2, 40R-29965 SubjectLands Hydro Corridor L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\SP\2019\SP-2019-01, CP-2019-01 & A001-19 Marshall Homes\SP-2019-01_LocationMap.mxd Hydro Corridor - 310 - The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. 7830/21 Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 3036, as amended, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham, Part of Lots 31 and 32, Concession 2 South, Now Parts 2 to 4 and 6, 40R-29566 and Part 2, 40R-29965, City of Pickering (A 01/19) Whereas the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering deems it desirable to permit a common element condominium consisting of detached dwellings on lands being Part of Lots 31 and 32, Concession 2 South, Now Parts 2 to 4 and 6, 40R-29566 and Part 2, 40R-29965, City of Pickering; And whereas an amendment to Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, is therefore deemed necessary; Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1. Schedules Schedule I and Schedule II to this By-law with notations and references shown thereon are hereby declared to be part of this By-law. 2. Area Restricted The provisions of this By-law shall apply to those lands being Part of Lots 31 and 32, Concession 2 South, Now Parts 2 to 4 and 6, 40R-29566 and Part 2, 40R- 29965, in the City of Pickering, designated “S4-20” and “S4-21” on Schedule I to this By-law. 3. General Provisions No building, structure, land or part thereof shall hereafter be used, occupied, erected, moved or structurally altered except in conformity with the provisions of this By-law. 4. Definitions In this By-law, (1) “Air Conditioner” shall mean any mechanical equipment which is required for residential domestic use and which must be installed outdoors including central air conditioning units, heat pumps, heat exchange units, emergency generators and other such equipment. (2) “Amenity Area” shall mean an outdoor area located anywhere on a lot, or the roof of a parking structure, private garage or any other building which includes landscape area, but which may also include areas of decking, decorative paving or other similar surface and includes a balcony, porch or deck and which has direct access from the interior of the dwelling unit. - 311 - By-law No. 7830/21 Page 2 (3) “Balcony” shall mean an attached covered or uncovered platform projecting from the face of an exterior wall, including above a porch, which is only directly accessible from within a building, usually surrounded by a balustrade or railing, and does not have direct exterior access to grade. (4) “Bay, Bow, Box Window” shall mean a window that protrudes from the main wall, usually bowed, canted, polygonal, segmental, semicircular or square sided with window on front face in plan; one or more storeys in height, which may or may not include a foundation; may or may not include a window seat; and may include a door. (5) “Condominium, Common Element” shall mean spaces and features owned in common by all shareholders in a condominium and may include private streets, walkways and parking an amenity areas. (6) (a) “Dwelling” shall mean a building or part of a building containing one or more dwelling units, but does not include a mobile home or trailer; (b) “Dwelling Unit” shall mean one or more habitable rooms occupied or capable of being occupied as a single, independent, and separate housekeeping unit containing a separate kitchen and sanitary facilities; (c) “Dwelling, Detached” shall mean a single dwelling which is freestanding, separate and detached from other main buildings or structures; (d) “Dwelling, Semi-Detached” shall mean a residential use building containing two attached principal dwelling units that are divided vertically, with each unit having frontage on a street, except where located within a planned unit development; (e) “Multiple Dwelling – Horizontal” shall mean a building containing three or more dwelling units attached horizontally by an above-grade wall or walls. (7) (a) “Floor Area – Residential” shall mean the area of the floor surface contained within the outside walls of a storey or part of a storey; (b) “Gross Floor Area – Residential” shall mean the aggregate of the floor areas of all storeys of a building or structure, or part thereof as the case may be, other than a private garage, an attic, or a cellar. (8) “Height, Building” shall mean the vertical distance between the Grade, at the front of the house, and in the case of a flat roof, the highest point of the roof surface or parapet wall, or in the case of a mansard roof the deck line, or in the case of a gabled, hip or gambrel roof, the mean height between eaves and ridge. (9) (a) “Lot” shall mean an area of land fronting on a street which is used or intended to be used as the site of a building, or group of buildings, as the case may be, together with any accessory buildings or structures, - 312 - By-law No. 7830/21 Page 3 or a public park or open space area, regardless of whether or not such lot constitutes the whole of a lot or block on a registered plan of subdivision; (b) “Lot Coverage” shall mean the combined areas of all the buildings on the lot measured at the level of the first floor and expressed as a percentage of the lot area; (c) “Lot Frontage” shall mean the width of a lot between the side lot lines measured along a line parallel to and 7.5 metres distant from the front lot line. (10) “Park, Private” means a park which is maintained by a condominium corporation. (11) “Private Garage” means an enclosed or partially enclosed structure for the storage of one or more vehicles, in which structure no business or service is conducted for profit or otherwise. (12) “Storey” means the portion of a building other than a basement, cellar or attic, included between the surface of any floor and the surface of the floor, roof deck or ridge above it. (13) (a) “Street” shall mean a public highway but does include a lane. Where a 0.3 metre reserve abuts a street, or where a daylight triangle abuts a street, for the purposes of determining setbacks the street shall be deemed to include the 0.3 metre reserve and/or the daylight triangle, however, nothing herein shall be interpreted as granting a public right of access over the 0.3 metre reserve or as an assumption of the 0.3 metre reserve as a public highway for maintenance purposes under the Municipal Act. (b) “Street, Private” means: i) a right-of-way or roadway that is used by vehicles and is maintained by a condominium corporation; ii) a private road condominium, which provides access to individual freehold lots; iii) a roadway maintained by a corporation to provide vehicular and pedestrian access to parking lots and individual retail/commercial units; iv) a private right-of-way over private property, that affords access to lots abutting the private street, but is not maintained by a public body and is not a lane. (14) “Tandem Parking Space” means two or more parking spaces abutting each other end to end with only one having access to an aisle. (15) “Water Meter Building” shall mean a building or structure that contains devices supplied by the Region of Durham which measure the quantity of water delivered to a property. - 313 - By-law No. 7830/21 Page 4 (16) (a) “Yard” shall mean an area of land which is appurtenant to and located on the same lot as a building or structure and is open, uncovered, and unoccupied above ground except for such accessory buildings, structures, or other uses as are specifically permitted thereon; (b) “Front Yard” shall mean a yard extending across the full width of a lot between the front lot line of the lot and the nearest wall of the nearest main building or structure on the lot; (c) “Front Yard Depth” shall mean the shortest horizontal dimension of a front yard of a lot between the front lot line and the nearest wall of the nearest main building or structure on the lot; (d) “Rear Yard” shall mean a yard extending across the full width of a lot between the rear lot line of the lot, or where there is no rear lot line, the junction point of the side lot lines, and the nearest wall of the nearest main building or structure on the lot; (e) “Rear Yard Depth” shall mean the shortest horizontal dimension of a rear yard of a lot between the rear lot line of the lot, or where there is no rear lot line, the junction point of the side lot lines, and the nearest wall of the nearest main building or structure on the lot; (f) “Side Yard” shall mean a yard of a lot extending from the front yard to the rear yard, and from the side lot line to the nearest wall of the nearest main building or structure on the lot; (g) “Side Yard Width” shall mean the shortest horizontal dimension of a side yard of a lot between the side lot line and the nearest wall of the nearest main building or structure on the lot; (h) “Flankage Side Yard” shall mean a side yard immediately adjoining a street or abutting on a reserve on the opposite side of which is a street; (i) “Flankage Side Yard Width” shall mean the shortest horizontal dimension of a flankage side yard of a lot between the lot line adjoining a street or abutting on a reserve on the opposite side of which is a street, and the nearest wall of the nearest main building or structure on the lot; (j) “Interior Side Yard” shall mean a side yard other than a flankage side yard. - 314 - By-law No. 7830/21 Page 5 5.Provisions ("S4-20” and “S4-21” Zones) (1)Uses Permitted (“S4-20” and “S4-21” Zones) (a)No person shall within the lands zoned “S4-20” and “S4-21” on Schedule I to this By-law, use any lot or erect, alter, or use any building or structure for any purpose except the following: (i)dwelling, detached (2)Zone Requirements “S4-20” and “S4-21” Zones) No person shall within the lands zoned “S4-20” and “S4-21” on Schedule I to this by-law, use any lot or erect, alter or use any building or structure except in accordance with the following provisions: “S4-20” Zone “S4-21” Zone (a) Number of Dwellings Maximum number of dwellings: 42 (b) Lot Frontage (minimum) 11.3 metres 10.5 metres (c) Lot Area (minimum) 300 square metres (d) Front Yard Depth (minimum) 4.5 metres (e) Side Yard Width (minimum) 1.2 metres on one side and 0.6 metres on the other side (f) Rear Yard Depth (minimum) (i)7.0 metres (ii)6.5 metres for a lot in the diagonally crossed area as shown on Schedule II (iii)5.0 metres for a lot in the crossed-hatched area as shown on Schedule II (g) Flankage Yard Width (minimum) 2.5 metres (h) Building Height (maximum) 11.0 metres - 315 - By-law No. 7830/21 Page 6 “S4-20” Zone “S4-21” Zone (i) Lot Coverage (maximum) 50 percent (j) Parking Requirements (minimum) 2.0 parking spaces per dwelling, plus an additional 1.0 parking space per accessory dwelling unit (k) Visitor Parking Requirements (minimum) 0.25 of a parking space per dwelling, which may be provided on a separate lot (l) Garage Requirements Minimum one private garage per lot attached to the main building, the vehicular entrance of which shall be located not less than 6.0 metres from the common element condominium street or sidewalk (m) Interior Garage Size (minimum) A private garage shall have a minimum width of 5.4 metres and a minimum depth of 5.9 metres provided, however, the width may include one interior step and the depth may include two interior steps (n) Driveway Width (maximum) 5.8 metres (o) Private Park Areas (minimum) 240 square metres (3) Obstruction of Yards (“S4-20” and “S4-21” Zones) (a) Projections such as window sills, chimney breasts, fireplaces, belt courses, cornices, pilasters, and other similar architectural features may be permitted in any required yard, provided that no such feature projects into the required yard more than 0.6 of a metre or half the distance of the required yard, whichever is less; (b) Eaves and eave troughs may be permitted in any yard, provided that no such feature projects into the required yard more than 0.45 of a metre; (c) An uncovered deck, covered or uncovered porch and associated stairs may encroach into any required front yard to a maximum of 2.5 metres; - 316 - By-law No. 7830/21 Page 7 (d)A covered or uncovered porch may encroach into any required flankage yard to a maximum of 2.0 metres or half the distance of the required yard, whichever is less; (e)Stairs to a covered or uncovered porch may encroach to within 0.6 of a metre of a flankage lot line; (f)An uncovered porch or uncovered deck, and uncovered stairs, may encroach a maximum of 2.5 metres into any required rear yard; (g)Stairs to an entrance may encroach to within 0.6 of a metre of a side lot line; (h)Uncovered decks, uncovered balconies and associated stairs having access from a second storey are not permitted, except: a.On lots within the diagonally crossed area and crossed-hatched area on Schedule II, where they are permitted to encroach a maximum of 3.0 metres into the required rear yard; or, b.Where a minimum setback of 7.0 metres can be maintained between the rear lot line and the nearest limit of the uncovered deck and associated stairs or uncovered balcony; (i)A bay, box or bow window, with or without foundation, having a maximum width of 4.0 metres may encroach into any required front, rear or flankage yard to a maximum of 0.6 of a metre or half the distance of the required yard, whichever is less; (j)Eaves or eaves troughs located on or as part of a permitted bay, box or bow window may encroach an additional 0.45 of a metre into the required yard; (k)Stairs to a below grade access are permitted to encroach a maximum of 2.0 metres into any required rear yard; (l)Air conditioners are permitted on a lot provided they are located in the rear yard or side yard. Such units shall not be located any closer than 0.6 of a metre to a side lot line and shall not be located on any easement in favour of the City. (4)Special Regulations (“S4-20” and “S4-21” Zones) (a)Despite the provisions of Section 5.6 of By-law 3036, as amended, the requirement for the frontage on a public street shall be satisfied by establishing frontage on a common element condominium street for the lands on Schedule I to this By-law; (b)A water meter building required by the Region of Durham for the purpose of measuring the quantity of water delivered shall be exempt from “S4-20” and “S4-21” zone use provisions and zone requirements; - 317 - By-law No. 7830/21 Page 8 (c) One accessory dwelling unit is permitted within each detached dwelling as permitted by Section 5(1)(a)(i) of this By-law, provided that such accessory dwelling unit does not exceed 150 square metres; (d) Section 5.22 of By-law 3036, as amended, shall not apply to the lands zoned “S4-20” and “S4-21” on Schedule I of this By-law. 6. Model Homes (1) Despite the provisions of Section 6.1 of By-law 3036, a maximum of four Model Homes with no fewer than two parking space per Model Home, may be constructed on the lands zoned “S4-20” and “S4-21” as set out in Schedule I to this By-law prior to the division of those lands by registration of a plan of subdivision or plan of condominium; and (2) For the purpose of this By-law, “Model Home” shall mean a dwelling unit which is not used for residential purposes, but which is used exclusively for sales, display and marketing purposes pursuant to an agreement with the City of Pickering. 7. By-law 3036 By-law 3036, as amended, is hereby further amended only to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions of this By-law as it applies to the area set out in Schedule I to this By-law. Definitions and subject matters not specifically dealt with in this By-law shall be governed by relevant provisions of By-law 3036, as amended. 8. Effective Date This By-law shall come into force in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act. By-law passed this 22nd day of March, 2021 ___________________________________ David Ryan, Mayor ___________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 318 - S4-20 S4-21 Finch Avenue Clerk Mayor Schedule I to By-Law Passed This Day of i N7830/2122nd March 2021 107.5m 72.5m185.1m73.3m51.5m 27.3m15.2m67.7m30.1m 76.9m68.1m31.8m 31.8m 28.9m29.2mCOMMON ELEMENT ROAD- 319 - Finch Avenue Clerk Mayor Schedule II to By-Law Passed This Day of i N7830/2122nd March 2021 31.8m 29.2mCOMMON ELEMENT ROAD145.3m 37.7m33.8m62.7m24.2m17.4m 23.4m25.2m 58.9m107.5m 15.2m- 320 - Memo To: Susan Cassel City Clerk March 17, 2021 From: Paul Bigioni Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor Copy: Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Request for Part Lot Control By-law - Owner: Madison Liverpool Limited - Block Q, Plan M-15 File: PLC.M-15-3 A portion of the above-mentioned block is being developed in accordance with the appropriate Agreements, Zoning By-law and Common Elements Condominium Plan in such a manner as to allow the construction of 67 dwelling units (parcels of tied lands). We have been advised that, due to a delay in the Owner’s construction schedule, the 67 units will not be completed and transferred into private ownership by June 24, 2021, which is the date Part Lot Control By-law 7703/19 expires. Accordingly, a further by-law is required, extending the expiry date to March 22, 2023. Attached is a location map and a draft by-law, enactment of which will exempt this Block from the part lot control provisions of the Planning Act. The draft by-law is attached for the consideration of City Council at its meeting scheduled for March 22, 2021. PB:ca Attachment Location Map Draft by-law - 321 - Liverpool RoadFoxglove Avenue Gull CrossingIlona Park Road Commerce Street Luna Court Hewson Drive1:1,500 SCALE: © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City Development Department Location MapFile:Applicant:Property Description: Part Lot Control THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Feb. 23, 2021 ¯ Madison Liverpool Limited Block Q, Plan M-15 L:\PLANNING\01-MapFiles\Legal\Part Lot Control\PartLotControl_40BlkQM15.mxd PN-6EBlock QPlan M15 - 322 - The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. 7831/21 Being a by-law to exempt Block Q, Plan M-15, Pickering, from the part lot control provisions of the Planning Act. Whereas pursuant to the provisions of section 50(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.13, as amended, the Council of a municipality may by by-law provide that section 50(5) of the Act does not apply to certain lands within a plan of subdivision designated in the by-law; And Whereas Madison Liverpool Limited, the owner of Block Q, Plan M-15, has registered a common elements condominium plan on the said lands; And Whereas the registered common elements condominium plan consists of 67 residential units; And Whereas it is intended that the owner or owners of each of the 67 dwelling units will own the parcel of tied land on which his, her or their dwelling is located, in fee simple and will also be a member or members of the common elements condominium corporation; And Whereas it is intended that the parcels of tied lands on which the 67 dwellings are to be constructed will be subdivided by means of an exemption from the part lot control provisions of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.13. Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1. Section 50(5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.13, shall cease to apply to Block Q, Plan M-15, upon: (a) registration of this By-law in the Land Registry Office for the Land Titles Division of Durham (No. 40); and (b) registration of a restriction, pursuant to Section 118 of the Land Titles Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter L.5, requiring the consent of the Solicitor for The Corporation of the City of Pickering to the registration of any transfer or charge of any portion of Block Q, Plan M-15, save and except for Parts 1 to 4, Plan 40R-29568 in the Land Registry Office for the Land Titles Division of Durham (No. 40). - 323 - By-law No. 7830/21 Page 2 2. This By-law shall remain in force and effect for a period of two years from the date of the passing of this By-law and shall expire on March 22, 2023. By-law passed this 22nd day of March, 2021. ________________________________ David Ryan, Mayor ________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 324 - Memo To: Susan Cassel City Clerk March 17, 2021 From: Paul Bigioni Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor Copy: Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Request for Part Lot Control By-law - Owner: Oak Ridges Seaton Inc. - Blocks 224 to 264, Plan 40M-2625 File: PLC.40M-2625.3 The above-mentioned blocks are being developed in accordance with the appropriate Subdivision Agreement in such a manner to allow for the construction of 183 townhouse dwelling units. We have been advised that, due to a delay in the Owner’s construction schedule, the 183 townhouse units will not be completed and transferred into private ownership by June 24, 2021, which is the date Part Lot Control By-law 7701/19 expires. Accordingly, a further by-law is required, extending the expiry date to March 22, 2023. Attached is a location map and a draft by-law, enactment of which will exempt these lands from the part lot control provisions of the Planning Act thus allowing the 183 townhouse dwelling units to be conveyed into private ownership. This draft by-law is attached for the consideration of City Council at its meeting scheduled for March 22, 2021. PB:ca Attachments Location Map Draft By-law - 325 - Sideline22Taunton Road Spindle MewsPeterMatthews DrEgan Mews Cactus CresBukholderDr SpindleMewsKeystoneMewsBronzeMewsCa r i n a Ter r Tangreen T r Chateau Crt Cit r i n e S t Hib iscus DrAngora StPurus PathAthena PathCerrise MnApricot LnSolstice MewsPelican TrailCameo St Dragonfly A v e Ca c t u s C r e s Orenda St Tige r l i l y T r Belcourt M e w sFall Harvest CresSe p i a S q En c h a n t e d C r e s Delphinium TrS a p p h i r e D r Aquarius TrAzalea Ave Skyridge Blvd Flo r e n t i n e P l Marathon Ave Hibiscus DrBurkholder DrPeter Matthews Dr1:6,500 SCALE: © The Corporation of the City of Pickering Produced (in part) under license from: © Queens Printer, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; © Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights reserved.; © Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and its suppliers all rights reserved.; City Development Department Location MapFile:Applicant:Property Description: Oak Ridges Seaton Inc. Part Lot Control Oak Ridges Seaton Inc. THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Date: Aug. 15, 2018 Legend Subject Lands Blocks 224 to 264, 40M-2625 - 326 - The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. 7832/21 Being a by-law to exempt Blocks 224 to 264, Plan 40M-2625, Pickering from the part lot control provisions of the Planning Act. Whereas pursuant to the provisions of section 50(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.13, as amended, the Council of a municipality may by by-law provide that section 50(5) of the Act does not apply to certain lands within a plan of subdivision designated in the by-law; Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1. Section 50(5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.13, as amended shall cease to apply to Blocks 224 to 264, Plan 40M-2625. 2. This by-law shall remain in force and effect for a period of two years from the date of the passing of this by-law and shall expire on March 22, 2023. By-law passed this 22nd day of March, 2021. ________________________________ David Ryan, Mayor ________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 327 -