The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMay 3, 2021Executive Committee Meeting Agenda May 3, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Butt Due to COVID-19 and the Premier’s Emergency Orders to limit gatherings and maintain physical distancing, the City of Pickering continues to hold electronic Council and Committee Meetings. Members of the public may observe the meeting proceedings by viewing the livestream. A recording of the meeting will also be available on the City’s website following the meeting. Page 1. Roll Call 2. Disclosure of Interest 3. Delegations Due to COVID-19 and the Premier’s Emergency Orders to limit gatherings and maintain physical distancing, members of the public looking to provide a verbal delegation to Members of the Executive Committee, may do so via audio connection into the electronic meeting. To register as a delegate, visit www.pickering.ca/delegation, and complete the on-line delegation form or email clerks@pickering.ca. Persons who wish to speak to an item that is on the agenda must register by 12:00 noon on the last business day before the meeting. All delegations for items not listed on the agenda shall register ten (10) days prior to the meeting date. The list of delegates who have registered to speak will be called upon one by one by the Chair and invited to join the m eeting 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. 4. Matters for Consideration 4.1 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report CLK 02-21 1 2022 Municipal Election - Approval of Voting Method and Changes to the Municipal Elections Act Recommendation: For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Executive Committee Meeting Agenda May 3, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Butt 1. That Report CLK 02-21, regarding the 2022 Municipal Election, Approval of Voting Method and Changes to the Municipal Elections Act be received; 2. That a hybrid solution including internet voting and paper ballots, using vote tabulation equipment, be approved as the voting method for the 2022 Municipal Election and any by-elections that may occur during t he 2022-2026 Term of Council; 3. That the draft By-law, included as Attachment #1, be forwarded to Council for enactment; 4. That the City Clerk be directed to proceed with a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the approved voting method and associated services and report back to Council to award the voting contract to the most appropriate vendor(s); and, 5. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 4.2 (Acting) Director, Community Services, Report CS 17-21 9 Quotation No. Q2021-40 - Supply and Delivery of 1 Ton Trucks Recommendation: 1. That each of the following bids be accepted under Quotation No. Q2021-40: a) East Court Ford Lincoln Sales Ltd. for Units A and B in the amounts of $134,890.74 (HST excluded) and $85,364.24 (HST excluded), respectively; b) Donway Ford Inc. for Unit C in the amount of $124,320.00 (HST excluded); and, c) Blue Mountain Chrysler for the Western Wideout-X Plow in the amount of $12,800.00 (HST excluded); For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Executive Committee Meeting Agenda May 3, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Butt 2. That the total gross quotation cost of $403,833.73 (HST included) and the total net project cost of $365,700.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved; 3. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the project as follows: a) The amount of $200,000.00 as approved in the 2021 Fleet Capital Budget to be funded from Development Charges Reserve Fund-Transportation Services be increased to $225,149.00, and be revised by a transfer from the Development Charges Reserve Fund-Other Services Related to a Highway; b) The sum of $127,526.00 as provided for in the 2021 Fleet Capital Budget by a transfer from the Vehicle Replacement Reserve; c) The sum of $13,025.00 as provided for in the 2021 Roads Equipment Capital Budget by a transfer from the Development Charges Reserve Fund-Other Services Related to a Highway; and, 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 4.3 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 06-21 15 Bridge Modification Term Sheet Agreement - Metrolinx GO Expansion Program – Granite Court Bridge Recommendation: 1. That the City of Pickering enter into a Bridge Modification Term Sheet Agreement with Metrolinx; 2. That the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute the Bridge Modification Term Sheet Agreement between the City of Pickering and Metrolinx for the purpose of affixing Metrolinx infrastructure to the bridge on Granite Court, in substantially the same form as attached to this report, subject to minor revisions satisfactory to the City Solicitor; and, For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Executive Committee Meeting Agenda May 3, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Butt 3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 4.4 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 11-21 61 Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park - Consulting Services for Final Phase of the Master Plan Implementation Recommendation: 1. That Council approve the hiring of The MBTW Group for Consulting and Professional Services for the preparation o f detailed design drawings and tender documents and for contract administration services for the final phase of the implementation of the Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park Master Plan, in accordance with Purchasing Policy Item 10.03 (c), as the assignment is above $50,000.00; 2. That the fee proposal submitted by The MBTW Group for Consulting and Professional Services for the preparation of detailed design drawings and tender documents and for contract administration services for the final phase of the implementation of the Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park Master Plan in the amount of $160,273.55 (HST included) be accepted; 3. That the total gross project cost of $176,301.00 (HST included), including t he fee amount and other associated costs, and the total net project cost of $158,765.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved; 4. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the total net project cost of $158,765.00 as follows: a) The sum of $79,382.00 to be funded by a transfer from the Development Charges – City’s Share; b) The sum of $79,383.00 to be funded by a transfer from the Development Charges Reserve Fund – Parks & Recreation Services; and, 5. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Executive Committee Meeting Agenda May 3, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Butt 4.5 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 12-21 67 Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park - Consulting Services for Proposed Park Washroom Facility Recommendation: 1. That Council approve the hiring of The MBTW Group for Consulting and Professional Services for the preparation o f detailed design drawings and tender documents and for contract administration services for a public washroom facility in Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park, in accordance with Purchasing Policy Item 10.03 (c), as the assignment is above $50,000.00; 2. That the fee proposal submitted by The MBTW Group for Consulting and Professional Services for the preparation of detailed design drawings and tender documents and for contract administration services for a public washroom facility in Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park in the amount of $148,453.75 (HST included) be accepted; 3. That the total gross project cost of $163,299.00 (HST included), including the fee amount and other associated costs, and the total net project cost of $147,056.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved; 4. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the total net project cost of $147,056.00 as follows: a) the sum of $73,528.00 to be funded by a transfer from Development Charges – City’s Share Reserve; b) the sum of $73,528.00 to be funded by a transfer from the Development Charges Reserve Fund – Parks & Recreation Services; and, 5. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 4.6 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 13-21 73 Amendments to Traffic and Parking By-law 6604/05 For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Executive Committee Meeting Agenda May 3, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Butt - Proposed All-way Stop, Rosebank Road at Highview Road/Summerpark Crescent - Proposed Community Safety Zone Extension & Speed Limit Reduction – Rosebank Road Recommendation: 1. That the attached draft by-law be enacted to amend Schedule "7", Stop Signs, to By-law 6604/05 to provide for the regulation of stop signs on highways or parts of highways under the jurisdiction of The Corporation of the City of Pickering, specifically to address the proposed installation of an all-way stop control at the intersection of Rosebank Road and Highview Road/Summerpark Crescent; 2. That the attached draft by-law be enacted to amend Schedule “14”, Community Safety Zones, to By-law 6604/05 to provide for the addition of community safety zones on highways or parts of highways under the jurisdiction of The Corporation of the City of Pickering, specifically to extend the existing Community Safety Zone on Rosebank Road from Foxwood Trail to Highview Road/Summerpark Crescent; 3. That the attached draft by-law be enacted to amend Schedule "9", Speed Limits, to By-law 6604/05 to provide for the regulation of speed limits on highways or parts of highways under the jurisdiction of The Corporation of the City of Pickering, specifically that that speed limit be reduced from 50 km/h to 40 km/h on Rosebank Road from Foxwood Trail to Highview Road/Summerpark Crescent; and, 4. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. 4.7 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 07-21 82 Commodity Price Hedging Agreements Report Recommendation: It is recommended that Report FIN 07-21 from the Director, Finance & Treasurer regarding commodity price hedging agreements be received for information. For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Executive Committee Meeting Agenda May 3, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Butt 4.8 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 08-21 86 2019 Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund Recommendation: It is recommended that Report FIN 08-21 from the Director, Finance & Treasurer regarding the 2019 Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund be received for information. 5. Other Business 6. Adjournment For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Report to Executive Commitee Report Number: CLK 02-21 Date: May 3, 2021 From: Paul Bigioni Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor Subject: 2022 Municipal Election -Approval of Voting Method and Changes to the Municipal Elections Act -File: A-1440 Recommendation: 1.That Report CLK 02-21, regarding the 2022 Municipal Election, Approval of Voting Method and Changes to the Municipal Elections Act be received; 2.That a hybrid solution including internet voting and paper ballots, using vote tabulation equipment, be approved as the voting method for the 2022 Municipal Election and any by-elections that may occur during the 2022-2026 Term of Council; 3.That the draft By-law, included as Attachment #1, be forwarded to Council for enactment; 4.That the City Clerk be directed to proceed with a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the approved voting method and associated services and report back to Council to award the voting contract to the most appropriate vendor(s); and, 5.That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Executive Summary: The 2022 Municipal Election will take place on Monday, October 24, 2022. Section 42 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, c. 32, (the ‘Act’), states that the council of a local municipality may pass by-laws, authorizing the use of voting and vote-counting equipment such as voting machines, voting recorders or optical scanning vote tabulators as well as authorizing electors to use an alternative voting method, such as voting by mail or by telephone, that does not require electors to attend a voting place in order to vote. For the 2018 Municipal Election, Pickering Council approved the use of Internet and Telephone Voting for the first time. This method of voting proved to be successful overall aside from a technical problem that occurred in the last remaining hours of voting on Voting Day, the last day of the 8 day voting period. The technical issue was a result of human error by a third party internet colocation provider, that placed a limit on incoming voting traffic, restricting bandwidth to one-tenth of the system’s needs, causing voters to experience slow response times and system timeouts. The issue impacted 51 municipalities across Ontario. Despite the unfortunate circumstances surrounding the bandwidth issue, there were no associated security concerns and no evidence of voter fraud or other issues that could have given cause for a controverted election. - 1 - CLK 02-21 May 3, 2021 Subject: 2022 Municipal Election -Approval of Voting Method and Changes to the Municipal Elections Act Page 2 The lessons learned from 2018 have provided an opportunity to effectively administer alternative voting methods, and raise these, and other technical concerns with vendors in upcoming elections to ensure that measures are taken to avoid technical problems in the next election. Clerks and IT Staff will review the systems, security and network infrastructure to ensure there is adequate capacity in place to deal with any performance issues. Given that internet voting in 2018 proved successful overall, it is being recommended once again for the 2022 Municipal Election for use during the entire voting period, including Election Day. In addition to the use of Internet Voting, a paper ballot component is also being recommended for the 2022 Pickering Municipal Election for Election Day only, being Monday, October 24, 2022. This hybrid approach will provide the convenience of internet voting for those who prefer using this method of voting, but will also provide for the more traditional in-person voting, using paper ballots and vote tabulators to compile the voting results, should some electors prefer this method. Additionally, the hybrid approach provides more options, given the unexpected challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on a number of election initiatives. To give effect to a hybrid approach, staff are proposing to have a limited number (no more than six) of “super” voting locations, which would be larger in size, and include more staff to facilitate the voting process. For the first 7 days of the voting period, when only internet voting would be offered, these voting locations will be open in a more limited capacity, to provide assistance to electors who may have difficulty using technology, did not receive a voter information package, or for those who do not have access to technology. On Election Day, these super voting locations will be more heavily staffed and will offer the paper ballot option in addition to internet voting. The voting period is proposed to be eight consecutive days beginning Monday, October 17 to Monday, October 24, 2022 inclusive. Financial Implications: It is anticipated that a hybrid method of internet voting and paper ballots, using vote tabulators, will cost approximately $190,000 to $200,000 for the software, hardware and support services. In addition to these costs, there will be costs incurred to design, print, and mail individual voter packages to each elector, printing of paper ballots, hiring of election staff to assist at designated Voting Centres, as well as a robust communication plan to educate voters on all aspects of the Election, including any changes that may occur with the final recommendations from the Ward Boundary Review. The Treasurer has indicated that there are sufficient funds to cover these costs and other unanticipated costs from the Election Reserve. Discussion: The City Clerk, as the Returning Officer for the City of Pickering under the Municipal Elections Act, has several criteria to consider before making a recommendation on vote-counting equipment and alternative voting methods. The first is whether a particular voting method upholds the principles of the Act and its Regulations. The guiding principles established by the case law are as follows: •the secrecy and confidentiality of the voting process is paramount; - 2 - CLK 02-21 May 3, 2021 Subject: 2022 Municipal Election -Approval of Voting Method and Changes to the Municipal Elections Act Page 3 •the election shall be fair and non-biased; •the election shall be accessible to voters; •the integrity of the voting process shall be maintained throughout the election; •there is to be certainty that the results of the election reflect the votes cast; •voters and candidates shall be treated fairly and consistently; and, •the proper majority vote governs by ensuring that valid votes are counted and invalid votes are rejected so far as reasonably possible. Since 1997, the City of Pickering has used paper ballots and vote tabulators to tabulate election results with the exception of the 2018 Municipal Election where internet and telephone voting were used for the first time. The number of eligible electors in 2018 was 68,494, and of those electors, 19,777 voted, resulting in a 28.8% turnout. Despite the technical issues that occurred in the final hours of voting in 2018, internet voting was well received overall by the majority of the electorate and 18,801, or 95% of electors who voted, used this voting method. Telephone voting was also offered as an alternative to internet voting in 2018 for electors who did not have access to the internet or who were uncomfortable with the technology. In contrast to the number of electors who used internet voting, only 976 voters, or 5% of electors who voted, used telephone voting. This may be partly due to the cumbersome process required for telephone voting. Telephone voting required electors to make selections using a recorded message by working through a very detailed phone tree. The process was long, the digital pronunciation of candidate’s names was at times difficult to understand, and it was difficult to return to previous selections to make changes prior to casting a ballot. With the proposed use of paper ballots (in addition to internet voting) for the 2022 Election, and the arduous process involved with telephone voting, it is recommended that telephone voting not be used in 2022. Voters preferring not to vote using the internet will have access to voting by paper ballot on Election Day. It is also possible that some of those voters who used telephone voting in 2018 may have since become more comfortable with internet voting. Various voting methods are used in municipal elections including traditional in-person voting with paper ballots, use of vote tabulating equipment, touchscreens, voting by mail, internet voting, and telephone voting. Of the various methods available, more and more municipalities are considering the use of internet voting. In 2003, approximately 12 municipalities used internet voting, and it has continued to become more and more popular over time. In 2018, 178 municipalities used internet voting. It is anticipated that the number of municipalities using internet voting will once again increase in 2022, especially in light of the physical restrictions imposed in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. In addition to the increased use of internet voting, some municipalities have successfully utilized the hybrid method of both internet and paper ballots. Aurora, Brantford, Burlington, Kingston, Markham, Newmarket, Peterborough, and Thunder Bay have all used the hybrid - 3 - CLK 02-21 May 3, 2021 Subject: 2022 Municipal Election -Approval of Voting Method and Changes to the Municipal Elections Act Page 4 method, and are all recommending the hybrid method again for their 2022 elections. In the Durham Region, the Town of Ajax has utilized internet and telephone voting for the last 2 elections, and the Municipality of Clarington has decided to use internet and telephone voting for the first time in 2022. Both of these municipalities are offering internet and telephone voting as the sole voting option with no paper ballot option. The northern Durham Region municipalities typically use vote by mail as their alternative voting method, although at the time of writing this report, they have not yet formally decided on their methods of voting. Oshawa and Whitby are using traditional in-person voting for their 2022 elections, with Whitby offering a special mail-in ballot as an alternative voting method in special circumstances. Internet Voting offers several benefits to electors including: •accessibility and the ability to access the ballot from different devices and from anywhere with an internet connection; •the ability for electors with disabilities to vote independently, from the location of their choice, using any accessible devices that they may be accustomed to using; •convenience for those less inclined to travel to a voting location to vote; •removal of the need for voting proxies, which is a cumbersome process for both the elector and the proxy; •faster tabulation of election results; •fewer voting centers and staff, with a resulting reduction in administrative costs; and, •more streamlined administrative processes. Given what has transpired with the global Covid-19 pandemic, another major benefit of internet voting is that it removes the need for voters to congregate in a voting location to cast their ballots. As has been seen over the past year, many businesses have moved to virtual platforms, and families and loved ones have pivoted to more regular use of technology to keep in contact with family and friends during mandated lockdowns. This has resulted in more people becoming comfortable with the use of technology and may in turn result in even more people using internet voting than before. Enabling voting from remote locations addresses public health concerns by providing a safe and effective means for electors to cast their ballot without risking exposure to the Covid virus in a public setting. Internet voting would also provide for the continuation of the voting process should public health measures dictate that voting locations cannot be open to the public. Internet voting would become the emergency back-up solution to allow the election to continue as planned should voting locations offering paper ballots not be allowed to open. In contrast, should internet voting not be available for any reason on Election Day, electors can attend a voting location to cast a paper ballot allowing the voting process to continue without any delays. With any alternative voting method, there is an associated level of risk. With internet voting, some of those risks include security, voter authentication, and reduced oversight of the casting - 4 - CLK 02-21 May 3, 2021 Subject: 2022 Municipal Election -Approval of Voting Method and Changes to the Municipal Elections Act Page 5 of a ballot by election administrators and scrutineers. Despite these concerns, there has not been a single example of voter fraud or a security breach in Pickering or any other Ontario municipality that has used internet voting. It should also be noted that as internet voting has evolved over time, so have the security measures that have been put in place, as well as best practices and lessons learned from municipalities that have used this voting method. Currently there are no Provincial regulations or standards applicable to internet voting. Until such regulations are put in place, staff will review best practices and lessons learned from other municipalities when preparing a Request for Proposal (RFP) for election services. Information Technology staff will also be directly involved in the drafting of the RFP and selection of the vendor, and will assist with ensuring that adequate security measures, including firewalls, encryption protocols and user authentication systems are in place. Testing and auditing will be performed throughout the various stages of implementation to ensure that the security of the system is maintained and that back up protocols will be in place in the event of a system failure. In addition to specific technical requirements in the RFP, the use of independent third-party cybersecurity audits will also be considered as another layer of due diligence to demonstrate and test the security measures within the voting system. In considering the various voting methods available, as well as the associated risks, the benefits of using internet voting, especially during the unpredictability of the current pandemic, outweigh those risks. The benefits of offering a paper ballot include: •the familiarity of the voting practice that electors have been accustomed to for many years in the City of Pickering; •the ability to physically touch and mark a ballot, which is important to some electors; •the symbolic significance (to some electors) of attending a voting location in person to perform their civic duty; and, •paper ballots and vote tabulators provide a streamlined, in-person process for electors who prefer this method of voting. One of the major success factors for voting is the quality and accuracy of the voters’ list. Historically, the voters’ list, provided by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) has not been highly accurate given that the data is based on property owners in the municipality. Through Bill 204, which received royal assent on October 1, 2020, effective January 1, 2024, MPAC will no longer prepare the preliminary list of electors, and this responsibility will be moved to the Chief Electoral Officer for Elections Ontario. This will provide for consistency between the Provincial and Municipal Voters’ Lists, and a more accurate list as Elections Ontario uses federal, provincial and municipal sources to form and update their voters’ list. Until we can move to this more reliable data source for the 2026 Municipal Election, a robust communication plan will be launched to encourage voters to use the MPAC Voter Lookup tool to check if they are on the list. Once the list has been provided to the City, staff will review options for a convenient, electronic means for voters to check if they are on the list, or request they be added or that their information be updated. In addition to electronic options, - 5 - CLK 02-21 May 3, 2021 Subject: 2022 Municipal Election -Approval of Voting Method and Changes to the Municipal Elections Act Page 6 voters will also be able to check if they are on the voters’ list by attending City Hall and any of the City’s Library branches. In addition to Bill 204, Bill 218, which received royal assent on November 20, 2020, amended the Municipal Elections Act to remove the framework for conducting ranked ballot elections. Bill 218 also changed Nomination Day from the fourth Friday in July to the third Friday in August resulting in August 19, 2022 being Nomination Day for the 2022 Municipal Election. Other changes under Bill 218 include a change to the deadline to pass a by-law for the use of vote counting equipment and alternative voting methods to May 1 in the year of the election. This provision was previously required by May 1 in the year prior to the year of the election. Despite this elongated period to pass such by-laws, due to the limited number of vendors and the planning that needs to occur in the year prior to the Election, staff seek Council’s approval of the method of voting as soon as possible in order that a vendor(s) may be secured. Lastly, Bill 218 changed the deadline for the Clerk to establish voting procedures from December 31st of the year prior to the election to before June 1st in the year of the election. This change will be beneficial to provide more time to include the necessary provisions into the procedures once a vendor is secured and the details of the voting process are established. Planning for the 2022 Municipal Election has commenced in the Clerk’s Office, and staff seek approval from Council for the voting method in order to continue the planning process. By employing a hybrid approach of internet and paper ballots with vote tabulators, the City will give electors the option to cast their ballot by their preferred voting method. It is therefore requested that Council approve the hybrid voting method as outlined in this Report for the 2022 Municipal Election. and for any by-elections that may occur in the 2022-2026 Term of Council. Attachments: 1.Draft By-law to approve alternative voting method and vote-counting equipment for the 2022 Municipal Election Prepared By: Prepared By: Susan Cassel Paul Bigioni City Clerk Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor Original Signed By:Original Signed By: - 6 - CLK 02-21 May 3, 2021 Subject: 2022 Municipal Election -Approval of Voting Method and Changes to the Municipal Elections Act Page 7 Approved/Endorsed By: Paul Bigioni Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor SC:sc Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer Original Signed By: Original Signed By: - 7 - The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. XXXX/21 Being a by-law to authorize the use of internet voting, paper ballots and vote tabulators for the 2022 Municipal Election Whereas Section 42 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, c. 32, provides that the council of a local municipality may pass by-laws, (a)authorizing the use of voting and vote-counting equipment such as voting machines, voting recorders or optical scanning vote tabulators; (b)authorizing electors to use an alternative voting method, such as voting by mail or by telephone that does not require electors to attend at a voting place in order to vote. And Whereas Council has approved the use of internet voting, paper ballots and vote tabulators for the 2022 Municipal Election and for any by-elections in the 2022-2026 Term of Council; And Whereas Section 42(5) of the Municipal Elections Act provides when a by-law authorizing the use of an alternative voting method is in effect, sections 43 (advance votes) and 44 (voting proxies) apply only if the by-law so specifies; Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1.That the use of internet voting, paper ballots and vote tabulators be authorized for the 2022 Municipal Election and for any by-elections in the 2022-2026 Term of Council; 2.That in accordance with the Municipal Elections Act, and due to the authorization of an alternative voting method, that proxy voting provisions not be applicable for the 2022 Municipal Election or for any by-elections in the 2022-2026 Term of Council; and, 3.That By-law 7549/17 is hereby repealed. By-law passed this 25th day of May, 2021. ________________________________ David Ryan, Mayor ________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 8 - Attachment #1 to Report #CLK 02-21 Report to Executive Committee Report Number: CS 17-21 Date: May 3, 2021 From: Brian Duffield (Acting) Director, Community Services Subject: Quotation No. Q2021-40 -Supply and Delivery of 1 Ton Trucks -File: A-1440 Recommendation: 1.That each of the following bids be accepted under Quotation No. Q2021-40: a)East Court Ford Lincoln Sales Ltd. for Units A and B in the amounts of $134,890.74 (HST excluded) and $85,364.24 (HST excluded), respectively; b) Donway Ford Inc. for Unit C in the amount of $124,320.00 (HST excluded); c)Blue Mountain Chrysler for the Western Wideout-X Plow in the amount of $12,800.00 (HST excluded); 2.That the total gross quotation cost of $403,833.73 (HST included) and the total net project cost of $365,700.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved; 3.That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the project as follows: a)The amount of $200,000.00 as approved in the 2021 Fleet Capital Budget to be funded from Development Charges Reserve Fund-Transportation Services be increased to $225,149.00, and be revised by a transfer from the Development Charges Reserve Fund-Other Services Related to a Highway; b)The sum of $127,526.00 as provided for in the 2021 Fleet Capital Budget by a transfer from the Vehicle Replacement Reserve; c)The sum of $13,025.00 as provided for in the 2021 Roads Equipment Capital Budget by a transfer from the Development Charges Reserve Fund-Other Services Related to a Highway; and, 4.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Executive Summary: Two new 1 Ton Trucks with Aluminum Body and Plow were approved in the 2021 Fleet Capital Budget to service new roads coming on stream in Seaton. One 1 Ton Truck with Utility Body was approved for replacement for unit #024, which is a 2012 Ford that has met or exceeded its scheduled replacement date and was approved for - 9 - CS17-21 May 3, 2021 Subject: Quotation No. Q2021-40 Page 2 replacement in the 2021 Fleet Capital Budget. One Front Plow and Wing Attachments is a new purchase which will be fitted to an existing unit in the City’s Fleet and is funded from the 2021 Roads Equipment Capital Budget. Quotation Q2020-40 was advertised on the City’s website on February 19, 2021 and four companies responded. In accordance with Purchasing Policy Item 06.11 (c), 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 over $250,000.00, the Manager may approve the award, subject to the approval of the Director, Treasurer, CAO and Council. Financial Implications: 1. Quotation Amount Quotation No. Q2021-40 HST (13%) $357,374.98 46,458.75 Total Gross Quotation Cost $403,833.73 2. Estimated Project Costing Summary Quotation No. Q2021-40: East Court Ford Lincoln Sales Donway Ford Inc. Blue Mountain Chrysler Ltd. Licence Fees Total project cost (excluding taxes) HST (13%) Gross Project Cost HST Rebate (11.24%) $220,255.00 124,320.00 12,800.00 2,000.00 $359,375.00 46,719.00 $406,094.00 (40,394.00) Total Net Project Cost $365,700.00 - 10 - CS17-21 May 3, 2021 Subject: Quotation No. Q2021-40 Page 3 3. Approved Source of Funds – 2021 Roads Equipment & Fleet Vehicle Capital Budget Description Account Code Source of Funds Available Budget Required (2) 1 Ton Dump Trucks with Aluminum Dump Body Plow and Salter 1 Ton Truck with Utility Body Replacement Front Plow and Wing Attachments 5319.2113.6458 5319.2112.6158 5319.2106.6478 DCRF- Transportation Services DCRF-Other Services Related to a Highway Reserve-Vehicle Replacement DC RC-Other Services Related to a Highway $200,000.00 0.00 130,000.00 40,000.00 $0.00 225,149.00 127,526.00 13,025.00 Total Funds $370,000.00 $365,700.00 Net Project Cost under (over) Approved Funds $4,300.00 Note that the two 1 Ton Dump Trucks with Aluminum Dump Body Plow and Salter, project account of 5319.2113.6458, as per the 2017 Development Charges Background Study are approved to be funded from the Development Charges Reserve Fund (DCRF) – Other Services Related to a Highway service category. As such, Table 3 above has been adjusted to reflect the appropriate DCRF service category accordingly. This same project has also exceeded the approved budget by more than 10 percent. As per Financial Control Policy, section 11.05, Council approval is required for any over-expenditure exceeding 10 percent of the approved budget. Council approval is being sought at this time in order to proceed with the project. Discussion: Two 1 Ton Trucks with Aluminum Body Plow and Salter were approved for purchase in the 2021 Fleet Capital Budget and will be new additions to the City’s Fleet. They are being purchased to meet the levels of service required for new roads coming on stream for Seaton in 2021. These are purpose built vehicles to maintain narrow laneways in newly established residential areas in Seaton. The purchase of a Front Plow and Wing Attachments was approved in the Roads Equipment Capital Budget and is being purchased for an existing unit in the City’s Fleet. The 1 Ton Truck with Utility Body is a replacement purchase for unit #024, a 2012 Ford which has met or exceeded its scheduled replacement date. This - 11 - CS17-21 May 3, 2021 Subject: Quotation No. Q2021-40 Page 4 replacement unit will be used by the Roads section to install culverts, repair catch basins and various other roads maintenance tasks. An Evaluation Committee consisting of Public Works staff have evaluated the quotation based on the rated criteria. It was determined that East Court Ford Lincoln Sales Ltd. is the top ranked respondent for Units A and B, Donway Ford Inc. is the top ranked respondent for Unit C, and Blue Mountain Chrysler Ltd. is the top ranked respondent for the Snow Plow and have met the requirements of the requested quotation. After careful review of the submissions received, Public Works staff recommends the acceptance of Quotation No. Q2021-40 submitted by the aforementioned vendors for two new 1 Ton Dump Trucks with Aluminum Body, Plow and Salter, one new 1 Ton Dump Truck with Utility Body, and one Snow Plow in the amount of $403,834.00 (HST included) and that the total net project cost of $365,700.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved. Attachments: 1.Supply & Services Memorandum April 6, 2021 Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Matt Currer Ray Rodrigues, CPPB Supervisor, Municipal Garage Manager, Supply & Services Brian Duffield Stan Karwowski, MBA, CPA, CMA (Acting) Director, Community Services Director, Finance & Treasurer MC:nw 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: - 12 - To: Brian Duffield Director, Community Services April 6, 2021 From: Lisa Chang Buyer, Supply & Services Copy: Administrative Assistant, Community Services Subject: Quotation No. Q2021-40 Supply & Delivery of 1 Ton Trucks Closing Date: March 16, 2021 at 12:00 Noon. File: F-5300-001 Quotation for Supply & Delivery of 1 Ton Trucks was advertised on the City’s website on February 19, 2021. Four companies have submitted a quotation. Stage I – Mandatory Submission Requirements – determines which submissions satisfy all the mandatory submission requirements and provides Respondents the opportunity to rectify deficiencies. Respondents were allowed to submit four submissions, one for each respective category. Two Respondents rectified deficiencies in their submission within the rectification period. Fourteen proposals proceed to Stage II – Evaluation. A summary of the Stage II and III evaluation results for each quotation is attached. East Court Ford Lincoln Sales Ltd. is the top ranked respondent for Units A and B with a submitted price of $134,890.74 (HST Excluded) and $85,364.24 (HST Excluded), respectively. Donway Ford Inc. is the top ranked respondent for the 1-Ton Truck with Utility Body with a submitted price of $124,320.00 (HST Excluded). Blue Mountain Chrysler Ltd. is the top ranked respondent for the Western Wideout-X with a submitted price of $12,800 (HST Excluded). A budget of $370,000 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. 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: Memo Attachment #1 to Report CS 17-21 - 13 - Page 2 of 2 (c) Over $250,000, the Manager may approve the award, subject to the approval of the Director, Treasurer, CAO and Council. Subject to receipt of approvals on Health & Safety and insurance documents, please provide your recommendation in report form. After receiving Council’s approval, an approved “on-line” requisition will be required to proceed. Please direct all enquiries to Supply & Services. Respondents will be advised in due course. If you require further information or assistance, do not hesitate to contact me or a member of Supply & Services. LC - 14 - Report to Executive Committee Report Number: ENG 06-21 Date: May 3, 2021 From: Richard Holborn Director, Engineering Services Subject: Bridge Modification Term Sheet Agreement -Metrolinx GO Expansion Program – Granite Court Bridge -File: A-1440 Recommendation: 1.That the City of Pickering enter into a Bridge Modification Term Sheet Agreement with Metrolinx; 2.That the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute the Bridge Modification Term Sheet Agreement between the City of Pickering and Metrolinx for the purpose of affixing Metrolinx infrastructure to the bridge on Granite Court, in substantially the same form as attached to this report, subject to minor revisions satisfactory to the City Solicitor; and, 3.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Executive Summary: Metrolinx is preparing to undertake the GO Expansion Program which involves electrification on the Lakeshore East GO Rail corridor. The electrification of this corridor will allow GO Transit to convert their locomotives from diesel to electric and will provide the public with a faster and more convenient way to move on this corridor. This will require the construction of overhead wires to supply electricity to the trains. Where the rail corridor crosses under a bridge, as is the case on Granite Court, Metrolinx requires bridge modifications to support the overhead wire system. The bridge modifications will include adding a protective barrier, flash plate attachments and overhead contact system supports. Metrolinx has identified that the Granite Court bridge is the only bridge under the jurisdiction of the City of Pickering that will require modifications. Financial Implications: There are no financial implications for the City of Pickering associated with the installation and maintenance of the protective barrier on the Granite Court bridge. Metrolinx (or their contractor) will be responsible for the installation, inspection and maintenance of the protective barrier, flash plate attachments and overhead contact support systems. - 15 - ENG 06-21 May 3, 2021 Subject: Bridge Modification Term Sheet Agreement Metrolinx GO Expansion Program – Granite Court Bridge Page 2 Discussion: The Metrolinx GO Expansion Program (formerly called Regional Express Rail Program) involves electrification on the Lakeshore East GO Rail corridor which will allow GO Transit to convert their locomotives from diesel to electric and will provide the public with a faster and more convenient way to move on this corridor. Electrification will require the construction of overhead wires along the railway corridor to supply electricity to the trains. Where the rail corridor crosses under a bridge, as is the case on Granite Court, Metrolinx requires bridge modifications to support the overhead wire system. The bridge modifications will include adding a protective barrier, flash plate attachments and overhead contact system supports. Granite Court Bridge Protective Barrier: Metrolinx has developed a standard base model barrier which will be installed across all bridges in Durham Region. A conceptual image was prepared by Metrolinx which shows the proposed protective barrier on the Granite Court Bridge (Attachment #1). The proposed protective barrier is intended to protect the public from the energized equipment that is being installed on the Lakeshore East Rail corridor. It will be a light grey, solid faced opaque barrier, having a minimum height of 2m above the standing surface. It will extend 3m beyond the overhead contact system supports that will be on the underside the bridge. The Town of Ajax and Region of Durham have both selected the same light grey opaque protective barrier type for their municipal bridges. Bridge Modification Agreement: As per the letter dated May 1, 2018 (Attachment #2), the City of Pickering required Metrolinx to formalize the agreed upon modifications, through an agreement. Metrolinx has provided the Bridge Modification Term Sheet Agreement (Attachment #3) that City staff have reviewed, and recommend the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute. Metrolinx has advised that the GO Expansion Project is scheduled to commence sometime in 2022. Attachments: 1.Granite Court Bridge Protective Barrier Rendering 2.Letter Issued to Metrolinx Dated May 1, 2018 3.Bridge Modification Term Sheet Agreement - 16 - ENG 06-21 May 3, 2021 Subject: Bridge Modification Term Sheet Agreement Metrolinx GO Expansion Program – Granite Court Bridge Page 3 Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Nadeem Zahoor, P.Eng., M.Eng. Richard Holborn, P. Eng. Transportation Engineer Director, Engineering Services NZ:mjh Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer Original signed by:Original signed by: Original signed by: - 17 - “BASE MODEL” PROPOSED DESIGN –OPAQUE BARRIER 10BRIDGE BARRIER Opaque Barrier Street View Attachment #1 to Report #ENG 06-21 - 18 - “BASE MODEL” CUSTOMIZABLE COMPONENTS 11BRIDGE BARRIER Opaque Barrier Street View Bottom frame + saddle plate (colour) Medallion (design) Bookend + top frame (colour) Intermediate glazing supports –Visible from exterior side (colour)Vertical Support Structures –Visible from exterior side (colour) - 19 - Attachment #2 to Report #ENG 06-21Engineering Services Department May 1, 2018 Constantin Urma Manager, Electrification Metrolinx 20 Bay Street, 18th Floor Toronto, ON M5J 2W3 Subject: Bridge Modifications for Metrolinx Electrification Project Granite Court File: T-2000-002 Following the Feb 7, 2018 meeting to discuss Metrolinx RER Electrification impacts on bridges under the jurisdiction of City of Pickering, this letter is a formal confirmation of the consensus reached between the City of Pickering and Metrolinx concerning all bridge modifications on the following bridge(s). ---~----··---····· ·------------------------· ---------------------------Bridge Name: Granite Court Structure ID: 4 ~1:Jbdivision ~ l\llil~~g~: . King§!_Q~ _:-f\/1L~_14_._~§ _____ ~~!Lg<>~~i~<>r: Lakeshore East The bridge modifications that the City of Pickering and Metrolinx Electrification have mutually agreed upon to be attached to the bridges are as follows: # 1. 2. 3. 4. Element Protective Barriers 1.1. Panels (type) 1.2. Frame colour -top and bookends 1.3. Frame colour -bottom bar and saddle plates 1 .4. Major fin colour -structural supports 1.5. Minor fin colour -intermediate 1.6. Medallion (design) Flash Plates Grounding and Bonding OCS attachments Specific Requirement Opaque Light grey colour Light grey colour Light grey colour Light grey colour Not required As required As required As required Pickering Civic Complex I One The Esplanade I Pickering, Ontario L 1 V 6K7 T. 905.420.4624 I F. 905.420.4650 I Toll Free 1.866.683.2760 I engser@pickering.ca I pickering.ca - 20 - Bridge Modifications -Metrolinx Electrification Project May 1, 2018 Page 2 of 2 The City of Pickering requires Metrolinx to formalize the aforementioned agreed upon modifications through an agreement, which the City will review prior to approval through our respective legal teams. Any deviations from the elements listed above will require further discussion. Authority to execute the agreement will come from City of Pickering Council. The agreed upon aesthetics and structural needs and requirements contained within this letter will remain in force until a formalized legal agreement is in place. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Nadeem Zahoor, Transportation Engineer at 905.420.4660 ext. 2213 or by email at nzahoor@pickering.ca. Yours truly Ri ar rn, P.Eng. irector, Engineering Services NZ:mjh Copy: Manager, Capital Projects & Infrastructure Transportation Engineer - 21 - TERM SHEET RE. MODIFICATIONS TO BRIDGE LOCATED IN THE CITY OF PICKERING This term sheet (Term Sheet) sets forth the terms of the agreement between Metrolinx and The Corporation of the City of Pickering regarding, among other matters, design, construction and maintenance obligations in connection with the modification of the “Bridge” outlined in Schedule “A” attached hereto (as such schedule may be amended, restated or otherwise modified from time to time), whereby such modifications are required in order to accommodate the GO Expansion Program. SUBJECT DESCRIPTION 1. Parties Metrolinx (MLX) The Corporation of the City of Pickering (the Road Authority) 2. Term This Term Sheet commences on the date it is executed by MLX and the Road Authority, and will terminate on the earlier of: (i) the date upon which the Bridge has been fully replaced and separate agreements that supersede this Term Sheet relating to such replacement have been entered into by MLX and the Road Authority, and (ii) the date upon which the Bridge is no longer required by MLX for the purpose of affixing the Electrification Infrastructure (the Term). In the event that an individual Bridge is replaced as described in (i) above or no longer required as described in (ii) above, such individual Bridge will be deleted from Schedule “A” and the rights and obligations of the parties hereto with respect to such Bridge will cease. 3. Modifications to Bridge MLX will construct, install and attach all Electrification Infrastructure and any ancillary or incidental works that MLX may deem necessary thereto, in its sole discretion (collectively, the Construction Work) in accordance with the Design Documents and Road Authority Work Permits applicable thereto. The Road Authority grants MLX permission to perform the Construction Work, and to operate and maintain the Electrification Infrastructure thereafter, provided that MLX (i) complies with the terms contained in Section 11 herein, and (ii) is otherwise not in default of the terms contained in this Term Sheet and related schedules. 4. Design of Construction Work MLX will design the bridge modifications and ancillary works (the Design and together with the Construction Work, collectively, the Work) and will perform the Construction Work in accordance with (i) the Design, (ii) the general terms of reference applicable to the Bridge, as set out in the Terms of Reference – General Schedule attached hereto as Schedule “B” (the Terms of Reference – General), and (iii) the specific terms of reference applicable to a particular Bridge, as set out in the Terms of Reference – Specific Schedule attached hereto as Schedule “C” (the Terms of Reference – Specific, and together with the Terms of Reference – General, collectively the Terms of Reference). MLX will submit all plans, specifications, conceptual and detailed designs DraftAttachment #3 to Report #ENG 06-21 - 22 - - 2 - for the Electrification Infrastructure (collectively, the Design Documents) to the Road Authority at 30% design and again at 100% final design. The Road Authority will, within 20 days of receipt of such Design Documents, provide comments to MLX as to the compliance of the Design Documents with the Terms of Reference. MLX agrees to review and respond to the Road Authority’s comments (if any) within a reasonable time period and will exercise commercially reasonable efforts to address such comments, having regard to impact on overall costs and schedule. 5. Completion of Barrier Work MLX will provide the Road Authority 30 days’ prior written notice of the expected completion date of the Construction Work pertaining to the electrification protective barriers only (the Barrier Work), and the Road Authority will have the right to attend with MLX at an inspection of the Barrier Work. If the Road Authority notifies MLX that the Barrier Work has not been constructed substantially in accordance with the Terms of Reference – Specific, the Road Authority shall provide detailed particulars of any such alleged non-compliance within fourteen (14) days of such inspection (the Notification Period). MLX will review and consider any comments provided by the Road Authority within the Notification Period, and will cause appropriate changes to be made to the Barrier Work, if necessary, to ensure construction in compliance with the Terms of Reference – Specific. In the event the Road Authority does not provide MLX with any comments within the Notification Period, the Barrier Work shall be deemed to have been constructed in accordance with the Terms of Reference – Specific. MLX’s sole obligation is to perform the Barrier Work substantially in accordance with the Terms of Reference – Specific, and provided that this has been achieved, no further consent or approval of the Road Authority is required. 6. Cost of the Work MLX will pay all costs relating to the Work, including without limitation, any and all costs relating to obtaining Third Party Permits and Approvals and utility relocations (if any), provided however, in the event the Road Authority requests that there be any changes to the Terms of Reference, then, if MLX agrees to such change (having regard to impact on costs and scheduling), the Road Authority will pay any incremental costs relating to the completion of any changes, including any incremental costs to MLX associated with any delay, compensation or any other claims made by any of MLX’s contractor(s). 7. Maintenance Obligations re. the Electrification Infrastructure For the purposes of this Term Sheet, the following capitalized terms will have the meanings ascribed as follows: “Electrification Infrastructure” means (i) any attachment(s) to a Bridge that is or are required to electrify the rail corridor including, without limitation, electrification protective barriers, fencing, grounding and bonding, overhead contact system supports and flash plate attachments, and (ii) any other infrastructure, attached or non-attached to a Bridge, that isDraft - 23 - - 3 - ancillary to the overhead contact system; and “Maintenance” means, collectively, inspection, maintenance, repair, minor and major rehabilitation and partial reconstruction and replacement, but excludes, for greater certainty, full replacement. MLX will be responsible, at its sole cost, for the Maintenance of the Electrification Infrastructure. Such Maintenance will be performed in accordance with any required Road Authority Work Permits and Third Party Permits and Approvals. MLX and the Road Authority will coordinate the scheduling of any Maintenance either party is responsible for that may interfere with road or rail operations, as the case may be, or that will require access to the rail corridor in order to perform such Maintenance. Subject to the notice requirements in Section 8 below, if the Road Authority needs to perform any Maintenance to a Bridge where the Electrification Infrastructure interferes (not insignificantly) with such Maintenance, MLX agrees to temporarily detach the Electrification Infrastructure, at its sole cost, for a reasonable amount of time based on the specifications of such Maintenance, as determined by MLX acting reasonably, in order for the Road Authority to perform such Maintenance. 8. Notice Requirements re. Maintenance In the future, MLX will deliver to the Road Authority an access plan (the Access Plan), which will be developed in accordance with the requirements set out in Schedule “F” attached hereto. The Access Plan will provide the Road Authority reasonable access to MLX’s rail corridors in order for the Road Authority to perform certain Maintenance, and will cover items such as visual and detailed bridge inspections (in both energized and de- energized environments), maintenance, repair and minor and major bridge rehabilitation. The Road Authority must perform any of its Maintenance that could impact the rail corridor, including the operation thereof, and/or the Electrification Infrastructure, in accordance with the Access Plan. If the Road Authority wishes to conduct Maintenance that is not contemplated in the Access Plan, it must notify MLX reasonably in advance. For greater certainty, the Road Authority will not be permitted to conduct any Maintenance that could impact the rail corridor, including the operations thereof, and/or the Electrification Infrastructure, outside of the access set forth in the Access Plan. Notwithstanding the foregoing, emergency events are not subject to the provisions set out in this Section 8, but will be governed by the emergency protocol established pursuant to Section 10 below. 9. Work Permits The parties will coordinate construction and Maintenance activities affecting the other party’s rail or road operations, as the case may be, so to (i) enable timely performance of the Construction Work and/or Maintenance, and (ii) minimally interfere with the rail and road operations,Draft- 24 - - 4 - as the case may be, to the extent reasonably possible. Prior to the commencement of any Maintenance by the Road Authority which could interfere with or impact rail operations or that requires access to the rail corridor, the Road Authority (and all of its contractors performing such Maintenance) must execute any work permit(s), which MLX (and/or its contractors) requires (the MLX Work Permit). Prior to the commencement of any Construction Work and/or Maintenance of the Electrification Infrastructure by MLX which could interfere with or impact road operations or that requires access to lands owned by the Road Authority, MLX (and all of its contractors performing such Construction Work and/or Maintenance) must execute the standard Road Authority work permits, which the Road Authority requires from all third parties prior to such third parties carrying out work on lands owned by the Road Authority (the Road Authority Work Permits). 10. Emergency Protocol MLX will develop a protocol for third party access, including the Road Authority, to MLX’s property in and around a Bridge in the event of an emergency. The Road Authority will be consulted during the development of such protocol. 11. Third Party Permits/ Applicable Laws / Standards MLX will, in the performance of any Construction Work and/or Maintenance of the Electrification Infrastructure: (i) comply with all laws binding on it (Applicable Laws), the Road Authority Work Permits, any required permits and approvals required from any third party having an interest in a Bridge or lands and/or railway (the Third Party Permits and Approvals) and those standards and codes applicable to MLX outlined in Schedule “D” attached hereto (the Work Standards), (ii) be responsible for obtaining any and all approvals, permits, permissions to enter or other authorizations required in connection with same, (iii) perform such Construction Work in a good and workmanlike manner, and (iv) promptly attend and report to the Road Authority the discharge of any lien or security interest registered against the Road Authority’s property claimed in connection with the Construction Work. Upon MLX’s request, the Road Authority will use commercially reasonable efforts to assist MLX in obtaining any such approvals, permits, permissions to enter or other authorizations, at no cost to the Road Authority. The Road Authority (and its contractors) will, in the performance of any Maintenance which could interfere with or impact rail operations or that requires access to the rail corridor, comply with all Applicable Laws, the MLX Work Permit and any Work Standards applicable to the Road Authority. 12. Access re. Work and Maintenance Each party grants the other party a non-exclusive license to enter onto its lands for the purposes of performing the Construction Work and/or the Maintenance, as the case may be, in accordance with the terms of this Term Sheet, including the requirements to obtain a work permit pursuant to Section 9. Draft- 25 - - 5 - 13. Ownership Notwithstanding any contribution by any party to the cost of the Works or Maintenance, or any degree of affixation of any improvements to the lands owned by either party, MLX and the Road Authority agree that MLX is the sole owner of the Electrification Infrastructure. 14. Indemnity MLX hereby indemnifies and holds the Road Authority, and it’s employees, agents, contractors and invitees, harmless from and against any loss, cost and expense incurred by the Road Authority because of any demand, action or claim brought against the Road Authority as a result of any breach of this Term Sheet by MLX (or anyone for whom in law MLX is responsible), or the loss of or damage to property, personal injury or death, or any other direct losses or damages, howsoever and whatsoever incurred, suffered or sustained by the Road Authority as a result of any act or omission of MLX (or anyone for whom in law MLX is responsible) in the performance of the Works and/or any Maintenance, save and except for those losses or damages which have been caused or contributed to by any negligence, negligent misrepresentation or breach of statutory duty on the part of the Road Authority (or on the part of anyone for whom the Road Authority is in law responsible), and the breach of any of the provisions of this Term Sheet by the Road Authority (or by anyone for whom in law the Road Authority is responsible), including, but not limited to, any negligent act, willful misconduct or omission of the Road Authority (or by anyone for whom in law the Road Authority is responsible), which causes or contributes to any such injury, damage or loss. The Road Authority is liable for and responsible to MLX for any breach of any terms of this Term Sheet and any damage to the Electrification Infrastructure caused by acts or omissions of the Road Authority (or by anyone for whom in law the Road Authority is responsible), and hereby indemnifies MLX, and it’s employees, agents, contractors and invitees, from and against any loss, cost and expense incurred by the MLX because of any demand, action or claim brought against MLX pertaining to such breach or damage caused, save and except for any damage which has been caused or contributed to by any negligence, negligent misrepresentation or breach of statutory duty on the part of MLX (or anyone for whom MLX is in law responsible), and the breach of any of the provisions of this Term Sheet by MLX (or by anyone for whom in law MLX is responsible), including, but not limited to, any negligent act, willful misconduct or omission of MLX (or by anyone for whom in law MLX is responsible), which causes or contributes to any such damage. 15. Future Replacement If at any time during the Term a Bridge is replaced, the terms associated therewith will be agreed to by the parties in a separate agreement, which agreement will then supersede this agreement per Section 2 herein. The Road Authority will notify MLX at least three (3) years in advance of such replacement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Road Authority agrees that MLX will be permitted to construct, install and attach the Electrification Infrastructure on such replaced Bridge. Draft- 26 - - 6 - 16. Agreement MLX and the Road Authority acknowledge and agree that this Term Sheet constitutes a legal, valid and binding agreement between MLX and the Road Authority, enforceable against both parties in accordance with the terms and conditions contained herein. This Term Sheet will enure to the benefit of, and be binding upon, the parties hereto and their respective successors and permitted assigns. 17. Assignment Subject to the following paragraph, neither MLX nor the Road Authority shall be entitled to assign this Term Sheet, in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of the other party, which consent will not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. MLX may, in its sole discretion, and without prior consent of the Road Authority, (i) assign any or all of MLX’s rights and obligations under this Term Sheet to the Government of Ontario or to a Crown Agency (as defined in the Crown Agencies Act (Ontario)) or to any third party contractor or sub-contractor of MLX (each, an “Assignee”); and (ii) require the Assignee to fully perform the obligations of MLX under the Term Sheet and to be fully liable to the Road Authority in all respects for all liabilities and obligations of MLX (including, for clarity, payment obligations) under the Term Sheet. The Road Authority shall, within a timeframe prescribed by MLX, acting reasonably, enter into any agreement that may be required by MLX to give effect to any assignment and assumption or novation contemplated under this paragraph, including any agreement with MLX and the Assignee that requires the Road Authority to consent to the applicable assignment and assumption or novation and to release MLX from the applicable obligations and liabilities under the Term Sheet, provided the terms and conditions of such agreement do not change or alter the terms and conditions of this Term Sheet. 18. Governing Law This Term Sheet will be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the Province of Ontario and the federal laws applicable therein. 19. Counterparts This Term Sheet may be executed in one or more counterparts, and any single counterpart or a set of counterparts executed, in either case, by all parties will constitute a full, original and binding agreement for all purposes. Counterparts may be executed either in original or electronic form, provided that the party providing its signature in electronic form will promptly forward to the other party an original signed copy of this Term Sheet which was so sent electronically. 20. Dispute Resolution Any dispute between the parties with respect to any matter arising out of this Term Sheet will be referred to dispute resolution in accordance with Schedule “E” attached hereto. 21. References to a Party For the purposes of this Term Sheet, all rights granted to a party hereunder will extend to that party’s contractor(s), and any obligation that a party is responsible for hereunder may be satisfied by that party’s contractor(s), provided that each of the Road Authority and MLX shall remain liable for its obligations contained hereunder. Draft- 27 - - 7 - SCHEDULES TO TERM SHEET DESCRIPTION Schedule “A” List of Bridges Schedule “B” Terms of Reference – General Schedule “C” Terms of Reference – Specific Schedule “D” Work Standards Schedule “E” Dispute Resolution Schedule “F” Access Plan [signature page follows] Draft- 28 - - 8 - IN WITNESS WHEREOF this Term Sheet has been duly executed by the parties hereto as of the ______ day of _______________, 2020. The Corporation of the City of Pickering Per: Name: Title: Per: Name: Title: I/We have the authority to bind the corporation. METROLINX Per: Name: Title: Per: Name: Title: I/We have the authority to bind the corporation. Draft- 29 - - 9 - SCHEDULE “A” LIST OF BRIDGES TO BE MODIFIED Bridge ID Rail Corridor Mileage Description of Location Description of Bridge Lakeshore East 314.95 Granite Court Overhead Bridge Draft- 30 - - 10 - SCHEDULE “B” TERMS OF REFERENCE – GENERAL With respect to the Works to be performed by MLX in accordance with this Term Sheet, MLX will: a) with respect to the Design Work: 1. validate or obtain all field data necessary for detailed design and perform any investigations, studies, tests and the like required in addition to the information supplied by the bridge owner or MLX to complete the Work associated with and as described in Schedule “C” (Terms of Reference – Specific) to the Term Sheet; 2. perform all design required in accordance with the design specifications defined in this Term Sheet and project specifications; 3. perform all work required to secure approval of any deviations from the requirements specified in this Term Sheet; 4. confirm locations of all utilities and be responsible for managing all scheduling impacts arising from utilities relocations. Any utility relocations shall be performed in accordance with a separate agreement with the appropriate utility company; 5. ensure that all final design, design reports, drawings, and calculations are sealed and signed by a professional engineer licensed to practice in the Province of Ontario. All final structural reports, structural drawings and foundation design reports shall be signed and sealed by two (2) professional engineer(s), licensed to practice in the province of Ontario, one (1) who performs the design and the other who checks such design; and 6. submit to the Road Authority the design submittals as listed in item 4 of the Term Sheet, and will follow the Road Authority’s typical design review process. Such submittals will be made prior to construction the relevant portion of the work b) with respect to the Construction Work: 7. be responsible for all construction means, methods, techniques and provisions for all aspects of the Work, including without limitation, labour, plant, equipment and materials required to undertake the Work; 8. ensure structural integrity and safety during all stages of construction and for the rehabilitated structure; 9. complete the work in accordance with Ontario Provincial Standard Specifications (OPSS), the project specifications and all government and agency authorizations and approval without outstanding infractions of laws and regulations; 10. comply with all quality inspection and testing of the work in accordance with the Project Quality Management Plan and project documents; 11. upon request, provide the Road Authority access to the Work, in accordance with the terms of the project agreement, for applicable testing, investigation, audit and the like and access to associated inspection records, test results and testing facilities; 12. ensure all the foundations and substructures of the Bridge is adequate to support the proposed modifications; 13. ensure that all products used for the Work are in accordance with the Road Authority requirements and has a minimum of 75 years’ service life; 14. provide products, materials, and associated submittals (shop drawings, certifications, etc.) as typically required by the Road Authority, and follow the Road Authority’s typical review process, in accordance with applicable codes, specifications and standards articulated by the Road Authority; 15. ensure the following specifications are applied to each of the electrification protective barriers: a. Solid-faced; b. minimum height of two (2) metres above standing surface (including bridge railings); and Draft- 31 - - 11 - c. extends horizontally (i) a minimum of three (3) metres beyond the overhead contact system electrified wires located under the Bridge and (ii) a minimum of five (5) metres beyond centerline of the electrified rail tracks, each being measured perpendicular to the wire/track; and 16. provide the Road Authority with “Record” drawings following completion of the Construction Work. Draft- 32 - - 12 - SCHEDULE “C” TERMS OF REFERENCE – SPECIFIC (see attached Specification Sheet for each Bridge) FORM OF SPECIFICATION SHEET Bridge Data Bridge Name Granite Court Bridge Type Concrete Rail Corridor Lakeshore East Subdivision Kingston Mileage 314.95 Bridge Owner City of Pickering Bridge ID 4 Bridge Barrier Aesthetics Physical Element Specific Requirement Panels (type) Opaque Frame color – top and bookends Light grey colour Frame color – bottom bar and saddle plates Light grey colour Major fin color – structural supports Light grey colour Minor fin color – intermediate Light grey colour Medallion (design) Not required New Bridge Attachments Item Specific Requirement Comments Protective Barrier Yes OCS As required Flash plate Yes Bonding and Grounding As required Rehabilitation Work 1. N/A Draft- 33 - - 13 - SCHEDULE “D” WORK STANDARDS AND CODES  Project Specific Output Specifications (PSOS)  Metrolinx, General Guidelines for Design of Railway Bridges and Structures  Structures subjected to roadway loading (Overhead Structures): a. Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code, CAN/CSA-S6-19 or superseded by the latest edition available b. Ministry of Transportation, Ontario, Bridge Design Manuals, latest edition: i. Structural Manual, MTO ii. Ontario Structure Inspection Manual, MTO iii. Structural Rehabilitation Manual, MTO iv. Structural Steel Coating Manual, MTO v. All other applicable Bridge Standards, Guidelines, Memorandums and Manuals, MTO  Structures subjected to railway loading (Subway Structures): a. CN – Engineering Specifications for Industrial Tracks b. CP – Requirements for the Design of Steel and Concrete Bridges Carrying Railway Traffic in Canada c. AREMA – American Railway Engineering of Maintenance-of Way Association, Manual for Railway Engineering 2018  Other Structures: a. Ontario Building Code (OBC), Building Code Act: O Reg. 332 – Building Code b. National Building Code of Canada (NBC) 2015 c. CAN/CSA-A23.3 - Design of Concrete Structures d. CAN/CSA-S16 - Design of Steel Structures  Ontario Provincial Specifications for Roads and Public Works, OPS Municipal, Provincial Common and Provincial-oriented  Structures subjected to various types of loadings shall be designed in accordance with all relevant codes and standards requirements  Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads, June 2017  Transport Canada, Guideline for Bridge Safety Management, February 2012 Draft- 34 - - 14 - SCHEDULE “E” DISPUTE RESOLUTION1 1. Upon the written notice of a party, senior representatives of the Road Authority and Metrolinx being the Manager Capital Projects and Infrastructure of the Road Authority and the Director, Electrification, RER, Capital Projects Group of Metrolinx shall meet to discuss and resolve the dispute set forth in the notice. 2. If the Manager Capital Projects and Infrastructure of the Road Authority and the Director, Electrification, RER, Capital Projects Group of Metrolinx do not resolve the dispute within fifteen (15) business days after such written notice, the parties shall further attempt to resolve their dispute informally, as follows: (a) the dispute shall be promptly referred for resolution to Metrolinx’s Vice President, RER, Implementation and the Road Authority’s Director, Engineering Services; (b) Metrolinx’s Vice President, RER, Implementation and the Road Authority’s Director, Engineering Services shall meet as often as the parties reasonably deem necessary in order to gather and furnish to the other all information with respect to the matter in issue which the parties believe to be appropriate and germane in connection with its resolution and upon which the parties intend to rely in resolving the dispute in question. Metrolinx’s Vice President, RER, Implementation and the Road Authority’s Director, Major Capital Infrastructure Coordination shall discuss the problem and negotiate in good faith in an effort to resolve the dispute without the necessity of any formal proceeding; (c) during the course of such discussions, all reasonable requests made by one party to the other for non-privileged information, reasonably related to the issue in dispute under this Term Sheet, shall be honored in order that each of the parties may be fully advised of the other’s position; and (d) the specific format for the discussions shall be left to the discretion of Metrolinx’s Vice President, RER, Implementation and the Road Authority’s Director, Engineering Services, but may include the preparation of agreed-upon statements of fact or written statements of position. 3. If the dispute cannot be resolved by Metrolinx’s Vice President, RER, Implementation and the Road Authority’s Director, Engineering Services pursuant to Section 2(b) within fifteen (15) business days or such other time period as has been agreed, then the matter shall be referred to the Chief Capital Officer of Metrolinx and the Road Authority’s Chief Administrative Officer for dispute resolution substantially in accordance with the foregoing. 4. If the Chief Capital Officer of Metrolinx and the Road Authority’s Chief Administrative Officer are not able to resolve the dispute within fifteen (15) business days or such other time period as has been agreed, then upon agreement between the Chief Capital Officer of Metrolinx and Road Authority’s Chief Administrative Officer, the matter shall be submitted to arbitration conducted in accordance with the Arbitration Act, 1991 (Ontario) (as amended from time to time, the 1 NTD: Schedule “E” is tentative. It may be updated during the procurement process. Draft- 35 - - 15 - “Arbitration Act”) in the City of Toronto by a single arbitrator with suitable expertise, to be agreed upon by the parties within fifteen (15) calendar days of the matter being submitted to arbitration (the “Arbitrator Election Period”). If the parties are not able to agree on a single arbitrator before the expiration of the Arbitrator Election Period, then either party shall be entitled to make application to the Superior Court of Ontario pursuant to the Arbitration Act for selection of the arbitrator, and the provisions of such Act shall govern such selection. In the event of the failure, refusal or inability of the arbitrator to act, or continue to act, a new arbitrator shall be appointed in his or her stead, which appointment shall be made in the same manner as hereinbefore provided. The decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties and not subject to appeal or challenge, except such limited relief provided under Section 45(1) (appeal on a question of law, with leave) or Section 46 (setting aside award) of the Arbitration Act. 5. None of the provisions in this Schedule “E” shall be construed so as to prevent a party from instituting (and a party is authorized to institute) litigation in a court of competent jurisdiction for equitable relief, but only if a party makes a good faith determination that the damages to such party (or to third parties) resulting from such continued non-resolution of the dispute in question shall be so immediate, so large or so severe, and so incapable of adequate redress after the fact, that a temporary restraining order or other immediate injunctive relief is the only adequate remedy. To the extent any such litigation is instituted the parties agree that Section 7 of the Arbitration Act shall not apply to such litigation, but only in respect of a claim for equitable relief. 6. Each party agrees to continue performing its obligations under the Term Sheet while any dispute is being resolved, to the extent performance is feasible prior to resolution of the dispute, unless and until such obligations are terminated by the termination or expiration of this Term Sheet. Any such performance by the parties shall be without prejudice to their positions in the dispute. Draft- 36 - SCHEDULE “F” ACCESS PLAN Prior to the Road Authority carrying out any Maintenance to a Bridge that requires access to a rail corridor in order to perform such Maintenance, the Road Authority shall comply with the following requirements: 1.The Road Authority shall submit to Metrolinx an application for access (an “Application for Access”), which shall include, without limitation, the following: a.a completed application for access form (an “Application for Access Form”), in the form attached hereto as Appendix “1”. Metrolinx reserves the right to amend, supplement, update or restate the Application for Access Form, from time to time; b.a detailed description of the scope of works (the “Scope of Works”) being performed by the Road Authority and a detailed work plan methodology for carrying out such works (a “Work Plan Methodology”), prepared in accordance with the requirements and timelines prescribed in the Work Plan Methodology user guide attached hereto as Appendix “2” (the “User Guide”). For clarity, the Road Authority shall use the form set out in the User Guide when preparing and submitting the Work Plan Methodology; c.a proposed schedule for the completion of the Scope of Works, which shall identify, at a minimum, the dates upon which the Road Authority intends to commence and complete the Scope of Works (the “Proposed Schedule”); d.a request for track protection confirmation (“Track Protection Confirmation”), as required by the GO Transit Track Worker Safety Instructions (which may be amended, supplemented or otherwise modified, from time to time), in respect of the Scope of Works. The Road Authority shall use the guiding principles set out in Appendix “3” to this Schedule when determining the type of track protection it requires; and e.any and all additional information as may be requested by Metrolinx, from time to time. 2.Metrolinx shall promptly notify the Road Authority of any deficiencies in its Application for Access and shall provide any comments Metrolinx has in relation thereto. The Road Authority shall re-submit the Application for Access once it has had the opportunity to review and address any and all such deficiencies and/or comments highlighted by Metrolinx. The Road Authority shall continue to re- submit the Application for Access until Metrolinx is satisfied, in its sole discretion, with such application. 3.In conjunction with its review of the Application for Access Form, Metrolinx will conduct a complexity assessment (each, a “Complexity Assessment”). During a Complexity Assessment, Metrolinx will review the Scope of Works in detail and designate such works as either “green” or “red” works, as such works are further described in the User Guide. 4.If, during the Complexity Assessment, the Scope of Works is designated “green work”, then the following provisions apply: a.the Road Authority shall subsequently submit, for review and approval by Metrolinx, all information and supporting documentation required pursuant to Appendix B to the User Guide for “green works”, in accordance with the timelines set forth in Appendix “2” to this Schedule; b.Metrolinx may, in its sole discretion, conduct its own task-specific risk assessment in respect of the Scope of Works if Metrolinx is not satisfied with the information or documentation submitted by the Road Authority in accordance with this Section 5. Metrolinx shall perform said assessment in accordance with the timelines set out in Appendix “2” to this Schedule. In the event that Metrolinx identifies areas of concern during its task-specific risk assessment,Draft- 37 - the Road Authority shall revise and resubmit its Work Plan Methodology to address such concerns, to the satisfaction of Metrolinx, in accordance with the timelines set out in Appendix “2” to this Schedule; and c.Metrolinx may impose certain conditions or obligations on the Road Authority based on the level of complexity identified during the Complexity Assessment. 5.If, during the Complexity Assessment, the Scope of Works is designated “red work”, then the following provisions apply: a.the Road Authority shall submit, for review and approval by Metrolinx, all information and supporting documentation required pursuant to Appendix B to the User Guide for “red works”, in accordance with the timelines set forth in Appendix “2” to this Schedule; b.in connection with the Proposed Schedule, the Road Authority shall include a minimum contingency of ten percent (10%) of the total estimated number of hours to complete the Scope of Works, which contingency shall be added to the last activity set forth in the Proposed Schedule. For clarity, the foregoing contingency (i) may include the two (2) hours reduction per rail corridor access that Metrolinx is entitled to make, and (ii) shall in no event extend the time granted to the Road Authority for access to the rail corridor pursuant to an Application for Access; c.the Road Authority shall organize and attend a series of meetings to take place at the work site with Metrolinx and the Road Authority’s contractors, if any, and any other third parties who are integral to the performance of the Scope of Works, to review and discuss the following: i.the description of the Scope of Works (and all activities related thereto) that will be performed under the Access Permit (as defined below); ii.the construction methods and construction equipment to be used by the Road Authority and its contractors while performing the Scope of Works; iii.the expected progress of the Scope of Works, including critical progress milestones, in accordance with the Proposed Schedule; iv.the names and roles of all contractors and subcontractors performing the Scope of Works; v.the location of all materials and equipment necessary to complete the Scope of Works; vi.loading and unloading procedures; vii.all safety compliance procedures; and viii.all other matters and information that will demonstrate to Metrolinx that the Road Authority and its contractors understand the Scope of Works to be performed and have the expertise to execute such works within an active rail corridor; and d.Metrolinx may impose certain conditions or obligations on the Road Authority based on the level of complexity identified during the Complexity Assessment. 6.If, as a result of the Complexity Assessment, the Application for Access has to be revised, amended or otherwise modified, the Road Authority shall prompt do so and re-submit such application to Metrolinx in accordance with the timelines set forth in Appendix “2” to this Schedule. 7. Following Metrolinx’s approval and satisfaction of an Application for Access and the corresponding Complexity Assessment, Metrolinx shall issue an access permit (an “Access Permit”) to the Road Authority to enter onto the rail corridor to perform the Scope of Works thereunder described, subject to the terms and conditions set forth therein. Each Access Permit shall identify, at a minimum, the following: a.the limited Scope of Works permitted to be performed thereunder; b. the designation of works being performed (either “green” or “red” works);Draft- 38 - c.the duration of the Access Permit; and d.any conditions or obligations to be satisfied by the Road Authority in respect of the access granted thereunder. For clarify, these conditions may include, without limitation, training requirements for parties performing the Scope of Works, compliance with certain work standards identified by Metrolinx, time restrictions for the performance of the Scope of Works, etc. 8.In conjunction with issuing an Access Permit, Metrolinx will confirm track protection for the Scope of Works contemplated thereunder. The Road Authority is required to submit a request for Track Protection Confirmation, in accordance with GO Transit Track Worker Safety Instructions, for the Scope of Works covered under an Access Permit on a weekly basis, irrespective of the time period for which the Access Permit applies. Each Track Protection Confirmation the Road Authority obtains from Metrolinx will only apply to the Scope of Works being performed during the seven (7) day period commencing on the fifteenth (15th) business day following the date upon which the Road Authority submits a request for Track Protection Confirmation to Metrolinx. Each Track Protection Confirmation is limited only to the duration specified therein, and the granting of Track Protection Confirmation by Metrolinx does not by itself, authorize the Road Authority to carry out the Scope of Works. For clarity, an Access Permit must be obtained, along with Track Protection Confirmation, for the Road Authority to conduct any Maintenance activities within a rail corridor. The Road Authority shall, in accordance with the timelines set out in Appendix “2” to this Schedule, submit to Metrolinx a track protection forecast on a quarterly basis in respect of each location in which the Road Authority anticipates it will be performing the Scope of Works in respect of the three (3) month period following the submission to Metrolinx of such forecast. 9.Metrolinx may, in its sole discretion, grant an Access Permit and/or Track Protection Confirmation for a single entry into a rail corridor or for multiple entries into a rail corridor covering a specified period of time, each depending on the Scope of Works to be performed under the applicable Access Permit or Track Protection Confirmation, as applicable. 10.Prior to the commencement of any works, the Road Authority shall display the applicable Access Permit in a highly visible area at the work site. 11.For clarity, the Road Authority acknowledges as follows: a.that it shall comply with the foregoing requirements each and every time it requires access to the rail corridor to perform (or facilitate the performance of) any Maintenance activities; and b.that the requirements set forth in this Schedule “F” only apply to rail corridors owned by Metrolinx. Any access to rail corridors owned by Canadian National Railway Company, Canadian Pacific Railway Company or any other third-party railway company shall be obtained through a separate process prescribed by the applicable railway company.Draft- 39 - APPENDIX “1” TO THIS SCHEDULE “F” – ACCESS PROTOCOL Draft- 40 - August 13, 2019 Rail Corridor Access Request Requests are due by 1200 Tuesday for the upcoming week (Mon – Sun) PROJECT AND CONTACT INFORMATION Oracle Task Code: Project #: Project Name: Permit #: Metrolinx Contact AND Phone: Business Unit: Consultant Name AND Phone: Company: Contractor Name AND Phone: Company: Date Submitted: Late Submission Business Critical / Safety Critical Justification: WORK INFORMATION Date OR Date Range Hours Track #(s)/ Min Distance from Rail (ft) Work Limits Miles/ Signals Scope of Work (Daily scope for each separated work group) List of Machinery # of Separated Work Groups # of Flagmen Flagging Contractor (RCAC Use only) Meeting Location Protection (RCAC Use Only) Additional Notes: Revision Notes: Draft- 41 - August 13, 2019 OPERATIONAL IMPACT/APPROVALS CHECKLIST Does Your Work Affect: Track Signals Crossings If you checked any of the above, have you submitted a work plan to Track COE and/or Corridor Maintenance? Yes No Are you working in an area where Metrolinx is Constructor? Yes No If Yes, have you submitted a work plan to CPG Health and Safety? Yes No 3 -WEEK FORECAST Date OR Date Range Hours Track(s)/ Min Distance from Track Work Limits Miles/ Signals Scope of Work (Daily scope for each separated work group) List of Machinery Draft- 42 - APPENDIX “2” TO THIS SCHEDULE “F” – ACCESS PROTOCOL Draft- 43 - CPG-PGM-MAN-278 Work Plan Methodology User Guide Prepared by Rail Corridor Access and Control Draft- 44 - Work Plan Methodology User Guide Purpose The purpose of this User Guide is to provide direction for completing a Work Plan Methodology in accordance with requirements established by Metrolinx. The procedure described in this user manual is designed to provide the Work Group requesting access to the rail corridor a common framework for developing and communicating work plan methodologies, and to provide Metrolinx with an understanding of their roles during the review and administration process. A completed and signed off Work Plan Methodology is required:  before access is granted to Metrolinx Rail Corridor or any Rail Corridor on behalf of Metrolinx;  for any work or activity in an active operational facility areas or public spaces; and,  for any work or activity that involves a high risk task. or has the potential to,  Impact normal train operations;  Affect the railway track structure;  Affect the railway signal system. Introduction The completed Work Plan Methodology allows the Work Group to demonstrate awareness of the risks associated with the work. It will indicate the method of working, mitigation to be used and the risks associated with the work including the impacts on affected parties. The Work Group responsible for the work will complete and revise the Work Plan Methodology as applicable to support the work activities and the identification and mitigation of risks associated with the work planned in a rail and construction environment. The Work Plan Methodology template has been developed to assist the Work Group to plan activities to be carried out in a safe and productive manner taking into consideration the impacts on operations, neighbours, infrastructure and the environment. The risks associated with the work to be described include, but not limited to:  Construction or Activity risk,  Site risks,  Risk to Personnel,  Risk to Infrastructure and Utilities,  Risk to Rail Operations,  Risk to Passengers,  Risk to Roads,  Risk to Environment, and  Risk to Public The Work Plan Methodology will also describe the disruption that may be incurred by Rail, Stations and Bus Operations or the public. Where the Work Group needs support to adequately develop the plan, Metrolinx will support the Work Group communication of proposed methodologies to relevant specialists during the development and review of the Work Plan Methodology. Draft- 45 - Work Plan Methodology User Guide The template and guide will be stored on the Metrolinx MyLinx site and will be issued to active workgroups after contract award and whenever the template or guide is revised. For non Metrolinx Groups, contact your Metrolinx contact to ensure correct template version. General Information Work plans must be site specific, detailing the maximum location limits for the activities. If needed, the work can be broken down into stages for additional clarity. The Work Event detail and subsequent protection provided for each shift and will be detailed in the publications and approvals for activities. All Work Plans will need to be signed off by 5 weeks prior to the event. Applications for Access, Published Work Events and Permits will reference the Work Plans that is associated with it. Track Protection Confirmation will not be issued until the Work Plan has been approved. Rail Corridor Access and Control (RCAC) will co-ordinate the distribution and sign-off of the Work Plan Methodology. The Work Groups Metrolinx contact will advise who can support the development of the Work Plan, unless otherwise stated in the guide. Work Complexity Assessment At the point of first Application for Access a provisional Work Complexity Assessment (WCA) is conducted by Metrolinx to define the risk of interruption to service. This information needs to be included in the cover page of the Work Plan. The Work Complexity Assessment is undertaken by Metrolinx and is used to assess the works and closures that present the risk of the work overrunning into the following service. A preliminary result, based on a scope and description of work, can be done prior to the Work Plan Methodology being submitted. The result of the Work Complexity Assessment defines work as RED or GREEN. Work Plan Type: A RED result will required an Event Work Plan and a GREEN result can be done in a General Work Plan. Sections that apply to an Event Work Plan are marked as MANDATORY for RED Activities. The Work Complexity Assessment will be reviewed based on the Work Plan Methodology submission; this should only change if the detail of the work plan reveals additional risk of overrun. This will be reviewed during the review stages of the Work Plan as more detailed information is provided. As a guide, activities that required a Major Closure will be RED activities, and activities undertaken in Track Protection Access must be GREEN. Work Plan Types The template is the same for all Work Plan Types. General Work Plans General Work Plans containing green activities can be valid for an extended period of time. Some sections are not required to be completed for green activities or events. Draft- 46 - Work Plan Methodology User Guide General Work Plans must undergo a review of the content every three months, to check the continued validity and potential need for revision. New revisions must highlight the changes in content for faster review. Revisions must be distributed to all relevant stakeholders through the RCAC team. General Work Plans are intended to reduce repetition and number of work plans, reviews and revisions. Event Work Plan (Major Track Closures and Red Activities) All Red activities need an Event Work Plan valid only for the event detailed and must complete additional sections, detailing the Work Schedule, GO / NO GO milestones and deadlines, and a robust contingency plan. Integrated Work Plan Where there is more than one unrelated activity the individual work plans, those activities are supported by an Integrated Work Plan, showing any risks and controls caused by the sharing access, include additional risks, required order of activity. The Integrated Work Plan Methodology will not repeat information provided by the individual Work Plan Methodologies but will reference them and detail any additional or altered: risk and control, contingency, mitigation, work schedule adjustments and dependencies between the groups. The Integrated Work Plan will be completed by the Constructor for the site or Metrolinx. Completing the Form The Work Group must fill out the Work Plan Methodology form. Any fields within the document that do not apply to the specific project or scope of work are not required to be filled out and must have an ‘N/A’ contained in the field. This step will ensure all components of the form have been reviewed and acknowledged. Sections marked in the template as MANDATORY for RED Activities and Events, must be completed. For GREEN activities the information can be omitted however it is recommended to provide the information. File naming Save the Work Plan Methodology by the unique reference number at the start of the file name. The Work Plan Methodology reference needs to be unique. Identifiers are separated by underscores, the first ID is the contract number and the last is the Revision number. The reference number is a combination of  the contract number,  the site or stage ref (optional),  a work plan number unique within the contract,  the revision number. ContractNumber_SiteREF_WP##_REV## Draft- 47 - Work Plan Methodology User Guide If your work does not have a contract number, consult the RCAC planning team to ensure you have a unique prefix for your documents. Work Plan Methodology Sections Work Plan Title A title that easily identifies the scope of the document and differentiates the Work Plan Methodology from others. Suggestion: Depending on the complexity of the Project, some combination of Project, Stage, Work and Location. SECTION 1 - WORK PLAN INFORMATION Section 1 describes the Work Plan Methodology and includes a Cover Page for the [work party] to identify the key components of the work to be performed. Competent Supervisor The Competent Supervisor shall be identified on the cover page of the Work Plan Methodology by the Work Group. A Competent Supervisor Declaration form must be appended to the Work Plan Methodology and a reference to the Competent Supervisor Declaration shall be made in Section 5.2 – Additional Required Procedures / Safety Plans. To identify more than one Competent Supervisor under this Work Plan Methodology, a list shall be provided and appended in Section 2.3 – Resources and a Competent Supervisor Declaration. The work groups site staff shall be coordinated and directed by the Competent Supervisor. They shall be briefed on the content of the Work Plan Methodology prior to the commencement of the work and be able to reference the Work Plan Methodology in the event of accident or incident occurrence. Major Work The Work shall be defined as Major Work if it has any of the following characteristics: •Track will require surfacing or destressing after the works have been completed; •A Temporary Slow Order (TSO) will be required on completion; •The signal system will be disrupted; •A risk of track settlement exists during or after completion of the work; •The track layout will be changed. SECTION 1.1 – WORK OVERVIEW General information about the project including work, dates and contacts. SECTION 1.2 – REVIEW AND APPROVAL History of the document, status and last sign off. Comments to be included indicating what was changed since last signature. SECTION 1.3 - CONSTRUCTOR INFORMATION Constructor information. Draft- 48 - Work Plan Methodology User Guide SECTION 1.4 – WORK COMPLEXITY ASSESSMENT (WCA) RESULT Record the details of the last Work Complexity Assessment that was completed by Metrolinx. SECTION 2 – WORK AND METHOD Section 2 describes the scope and tasks covered by the Work Plan Methodology and then the requirements to manage the risks associated with that work. The information in this section must provide enough detail to ensure work is completed in the allotted time with suitable arrangements for contingency. SECTION 2.1 – SCOPE OF WORK Description of the work, including all objectives that are to be accomplished and any multi-disciplinary involvement. SECTION 2.2 – DETAILED TASK DESCRIPTION Description of each task involved in the work. In the tables that refer back to the task list, it is permissible where the same item is common to multiple tasks to enter all relevant tasks in the one line item, repeat the resource where the other elements vary, such as quantity. This can be used to reduce the duplication. Example below based on the labour resource table. Task No Worker Company Quantity All Tasks Competent Supervisor Alpha 1 per shift 1-4 Flagman TBC 1 per shift 1-4 General Labour Beta 5 per shift 8-11 General Labour Beta 10 per shift 1, 4, 8 and 11 Excavator operator Delta 1 per shift 9 Crane Operator Charlie 1 per crane per shift If multiple tasks worked in same shift Sub Foreman TBC 1 per separated group per shift … … … … SECTION 2.3 – RESOURCES Specification of all critical Labour forces, Machinery, and Materials required for each task outlined in Section 2.2-Detailed Task Description. 2.3.1 Labour, list all labour and identify the quantity of a particular Worker Type for each task. 2.3.2 Machinery, list all machinery and identify if the owner/operator of the machinery is the Contractor (GC) or the Subcontractor (Sub). Availability of a mechanic and spare parts to be addressed. Draft- 49 - Work Plan Methodology User Guide 2.3.3 Materials, list materials to be used, if backup material is available and to which task the material corresponds with. SECTION 2.4 – SUPPORTING WORK GROUPS INVOLVED Identify the work groups required to be coordinated to support the core activities for the work (Contractor and Subcontractors) Where the supporting group(s) provide their own methodology, this must be referenced and available for review. SECTION 2.5 – EVENT MILESTONES & POINT OF NO RETURN Identify the planned start and end time of the event. Critical Milestones List critical milestones to be completed during the event referencing associated Task Numbers from Section 2.2 – Detailed Task Description. Describe the planned and latest start time for each activity milestones, and show the links between related milestones. The latest start time shows the flexibility of the schedule and triggers for Point Of No Return Decision . The Point Of No Return Decision is described in detailed in Section 2.9 – Contingency Plan, but the time the decision is triggered is shown against the relevant milestone. Provide the contingency period (no activities are permitted to be planned to end within the contingency period). Below is a simplistic example of a completed table. An appropriate level of detailed information regarding the milestones is required to support the Work. List outside influences that could potentially cause delays. Planned Time Milestones Related milestones Latest Start Time Point Of No Return Decision and contingency notes (detail Error! Reference source not found.) SAT 0900 Place Protection #1 Start SAT 1200 Cancel this and following activities and utilise event for alternative activities SAT 1000 Cut Track #2 Start SAT 1300 Cancel this and following activities and utilise event for alternative activities SAT 1100 Excavate #3 Start SAT 1400 Cancel this and following activities and utilise event for alternative activities SUN 0900 Install structure SUN 1200 Cancel this activity and backfill and reinstate SUN Backfill #3 End SUN Notify NOC of overrun risk Draft- 50 - Work Plan Methodology User Guide Planned Time Milestones Related milestones Latest Start Time Point Of No Return Decision and contingency notes (detail Error! Reference source not found.) 1100 1500 MON 1400 Stress, Weld Track and Pack #2 End SUN 2200 Notify NOC to initiate arrangements to manage overrun. SUN 2200 Contingency Period If working during this time Notify NOC. MON 0400 Lift Protection #1 End MON 0400 Notify NOC of estimated overrun period SECTION 2.6 – EVENT PLANNING and POINT OF NO RETURN DECISION (GO / NO GO) List critical milestones to be completed prior to the event including minimum prescribed milestones.  Go/NoGo meeting at T-6 weeks;  Site meeting 5 days prior to the event; and,  Staff conference 2 days prior to the event. Also include any milestones for the completion of critical pre-work. In the 5 days prior to the work describe the activities that need to be completed in twelve hour increments. How is the Decision Made? For the event planning milestones describe in detail who makes the decision on Go/No Go and when this decision will be made. Who from the Work Group will make the decision? Who from the stakeholders should be consulted? SECTION 2.7 – PRE-WORK Identify and describe the activities that are critical to the delivery of the work event. Identify the criticality, the timeline for completion and reference the documentation or Work Plan Methodology that covers these tasks. Examples include, but not limited to: daylighting of utilities, movement of materials and positioning of lighting. SECTION 2.8 – POST-WORK Identify any work that must be completed after the work event. Identify the timeline for completing the task and reference the documentation or Work Plan Methodology that covers these tasks. Indicate the criticality of completing any post work activities. Examples include, but not limited to: field welding, destressing, follow-up surfacing, installation of temporary crossing, restore public road crossing surface, temporary slow order (Rule 43), General Bulletin Order (GBO), test train, train observation, crossing deactivation, equipment removal and clean-up. Draft- 51 - Work Plan Methodology User Guide SECTION 2.9 – CONTINGENCY PLAN Identify the number of hours allocated to contingency. For all track closures a minimum of ten percent contingency time of the total protected hours is required. Provide a list of resources that will be utilized should the contingency plan need to be implemented. For each critical milestone describe the contingency plan associated and the Point Of No Return and who will make that decision associated Task Numbers from Section 2.2 – Detailed Task Description.  describe when the point of no return is reached in the schedule providing a date and time  describe in detail who is allowed to make the decision  which the stakeholders should be consult with and  describe the influences that trigger the point of no return For RED Activities and Events link these contingency plans to the table provided in SECTION 2.6 – Event Milestones & Point Of No Return. Point Of No Return is the point beyond which the task must be completed before the track can be returned to planned service. SECTION 2.10 – TRACK PROTECTION If required consult the Rail Corridor Access and Control Team for advice on the appropriate protection arrangements for the task. For each task in Section 2.2 – Detailed Task Description, identify the protection required, including  planned protection  tracks required  the total mileage requested (this may not be the mileage you are granted for an individual shift)  the Class of Access Note: The total protection listed here may not be provided in each event. For this information see publications and approvals. To Add SECTION 2.11 – IN-SERVICE INSPECTION Identify the specific inspections required to be completed prior to the infrastructure being returned to service, from the list below. List the Inspectors, along with their qualifications and which Company they represent. The Work is split into three categories: Track  Walking Detailed  Installed Turnout  Rail Flaw Detection  Switch Pressure Test - No. 22 Switch Stand  Track Geometry - Hand  Track Geometry - Vehicle Draft- 52 - Work Plan Methodology User Guide  Track In-Service Certificate Bridges and Structures  Bridge Span  Tunnel  Culvert  Retaining Wall  Grade Build-up for Track  Signal Bridge Structure Signals  Signals In-Service Certificate SECTION 2.12 – UTILITY IMPACT Identify if utility locates are required for the work and declare if locates are current and complete. The Work Group shall list any utility companies that are impacted by the work and append copies of locates and/or other supporting documentation regarding the protection of the utilities to the Work Plan Methodology, and reference them in Section 5 as attachments. Telecoms - Bell 360 (Fibre)  Telecoms - Telephone  Telecoms - Cable TV  Natural Gas  Hydro  TransCanada  Water Lines  Sanitary Sewer Lines  Storm Sewer Lines  CN/CP Utilities  CN/CP Signals Indicate any utility companies not previously identified. SECTION 3 – STAKEHOLDER CONSIDERATIONS Section 3 is used to detail what (if any impact) the work has on service and operations, the surrounding community and public or private property. Risks to operations, adjacent neighbors and the travelling public shall be identified in detail and included in Section 7 – Risk Assessment Matrix. 3.1 – SERVICE AND OPERATIONAL IMPACT Describe the impact on operations and service. Describe all mitigating measures to eliminate or reduce operational and passenger impacts. Consult Rail Corridor Access & Control for details if service needs to be altered. 3.2 – SURROUNDING COMMUNITY IMPACT Draft- 53 - Work Plan Methodology User Guide Describe the impact to the community in the surrounding area (such as noise, dust, lights, traffic control). Indicate if special signage for the work will be posted. Provide details as to where, which kind and who will provide the signage, etc. Direct all communications with the public through Metrolinx. 3.3 – ROADWAY AND PRIVATE PROPERTY IMPACT Describe any traffic control, road closures and private property encroachments that are required for the work. List all permits required for the work and confirm if they have been obtained. A traffic plan shall be appended and identified (if applicable) in Section 5 – Attachments and Personnel List. SECTION 4 - ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SIGNAL WORK Section 4 is completed if the scope of work includes a signal work component, the Signal Work methodology shall be described in detail in Section 2.2 – Detailed Task Description. SECTION 4.1 – TESTING DOCUMENTS List all Testing Documents required to support the by GO Transit Signal & Communication Standards and all GO Transit Signals & Communications Code of Practices and describe the track mileage where each test is required will be performed. Such as: GO Transit Signal & Communication Standards:  SCMI-301(b) Installation and Commissioning Tests  SCMI-301(a) Working with Approved Plans  SCMI-301(b)(1) Installation and Commissioning Tests (Conventional)  SCMI-301(b)(2) Installation and Commissioning Tests (Staged)  SCMI-301(c) Recording Circuit Wiring and Design Errors  SCMI-301(d) Performing Vital Circuit Revisions  SCMI-301(e) Signal Installation and Testing Documentation  SCMI-301(g) Maintenance of Vital Tools and Test Instruments  SCMI-301(g) Maintenance of Vital Tools and Test Instruments GO Transit Signals & Communications Code of Practices:  SCP-1 Location of Insulated Joints  SCP-2 Replacement Intervals for Railway Signal Lamps  SCP-3 Procedures to be followed by S&C Personnel in the Event of an Incident Involving a Signal System  SCP-4 Track ad – Track Circuit Adjustment  SCP-5 Exothermic Track Connections  SCP-6 Mechanical Track Connections  SCP-7 Bootlegs and Bond Strand  SCP-8 Inspection and Maintenance of Insulated Joints  SCP-8 JOB AID Job Aid Guideline for Identifying Insulated Joint Breakdown Draft- 54 - Work Plan Methodology User Guide  SCP-9 Switch Machine and Switch Helper Rod  SCP-10 Spring Switch Layout and Part List  SCP-11 Bonding and Fouling Turnouts  SCP-12 Wayside Signal Alignment Procedures SECTION 4.2 – DESIGN DOCUMENTATION AND SUPPLEMENTAL DRAWINGS Reference any additional relevant drawings or documents. SECTION 4.3 – CROSSING DEACTIVATION Identify any and all crossings that will be temporarily disabled to accommodate the anticipated works. SECTION 4.4 – SIGNAL TEST EQUIPMENT AND TOOLS Identify all specialized tools required for testing, as well as latest calibration date. SECTION 5 – ATTACHMENTS AND PERSONNEL LIST Identify on site staff and provide contact lists, ensuring the Contractor and Metrolinx have an established means of communications. SECTION 5.1 – OVERVIEW OF SITE List Diagrams / Documents to support the Work Plan Methodology and provide reference as to where the files are located. SECTION 5.2 – ADDITIONAL REQUIRED PROCEDURES / SAFETY PLANS Include both the Competent Supervisor Declaration Form and the Site Specific Emergency Plan (SSEP). If applicable, reference the proposed use of Temporary Rail Bypass Couplers (TRBC), and any other applicable plans or procedures listed. SECTION 5.3 – ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENTS Reference any additional documents that are attached to the Work Plan Methodology. SECTION 5.4 – WORKGROUP STAFF & SIGN OFF List key staff (direct and that of subcontractors) anticipated to be working on the task with responsibilities described within this document. Each person listed must ensure that a briefing containing the main elements of this Work Plan Methodology (including safety and emergency measures) takes place on site prior to the work commencing. Workers involved in task to sign-off on Work Plan Methodology prior to commencing work. SECTION 5.5 – PROJECT CONTACT LIST Identify and list the support staff such as the Contract Administrator or Technical Advisor, as well as the applicable Contract Maintenance Provider personnel. Draft- 55 - Work Plan Methodology User Guide SECTION 5.6 – METROLINX CONTACT LIST Identify and list the Metrolinx staff involved in the project, such as the Project Coordinator, Project Manager, as well as any applicable Specialist personnel. SECTION 5.7 – EMERGENCY CONTACT LIST Identify and list the applicable emergency contact information. SECTION 6 – SAFETY PERMITS AND PLANS Safety must always be the principle that guides all activities. Section 6 ensures all required safety components have been considered and documented. 6.1 – REQUIRED PERMITS Indicate which of the Metrolinx Constructor Work Permits are required for the work described within the Work Plan Methodology, and provide any necessary documentation. Where Metrolinx is not the Constructor, indicate if any of the Works fall within these categories and provide the necessary documentation. 6.2 – EMERGENCY RESCUE PLANS If the work involves activities requiring a rescue plan, the details of a Site Specific Emergency Rescue Plan must be provided. SECTION 7 – RISK ASSESSMENT MATRIX Assess the risk and controls for the site and each activity described in Section 2.2 – Detailed Task Description in the Risk Assessment Summary table. Complete the MX-SMS-W001 Risk Assessment Worksheet and insert here. For guidance use MX-SMS-G001 Risk Assessment Guide. Appendices Add appendices as needed. Submission and Review Submission Timelines Each Work Plan Methodology will be subject to Metrolinx stakeholder Acceptance. Metrolinx will ensure satisfaction of the fundamental objectives of safe execution while maintaining operational service in the review of the Work Plan Methodology. Rail Corridor Access and Control (RCAC) will co-ordinate the distribution and review schedule. Draft- 56 - Work Plan Methodology User Guide The Submission Process is: For GREEN Activities 1. Detailed Work Plan Methodology must be submitted by the Work Group to RCAC the Monday at least 7 weeks prior to the first planned event. 2. RCAC will receive the Work Plan Methodology. a. RCAC will distribute it to applicable internal stakeholders for their review, b. RCAC will collect comments from internal stakeholders, compile them using the Metrolinx Review Comments Worksheet; and, c. deliver the comments to the Work Group 3. As required RCAC will organise and host a review of the Work PlanMethodology by the Tuesday 6 weeks prior to the first planned event. 4. The Work Group will review comments and make applicable revisions to the Work Plan Methodology by the Monday 5 weeks prior to the first planned event. 5. The RCAC will confirm the status of the Work Plan signoff, by Friday 5 weeks prior to the first planned event. For RED Activities 1. Detailed Work Plan Methodology must be submitted by the Work Group to the RCAC the Monday at least 10 weeks prior to the event. 2. RCAC will receive the Work Plan Methodology. a. RCAC will distribute it to applicable internal stakeholders for their review, b. RCAC will collect comments from internal stakeholders, compile them using the Metrolinx Review Comments Worksheet; and, c. Deliver the comments to the Work Group . 3. RCAC will organise and host a review of the Work Plan by the Tuesday 9 weeks prior to the event. 4. The Work Group will review comments and make applicable revisions to the Work Plan Methodology by the Monday 8 weeks prior to the first planned event. 5. If required: 5.1. The last opportunity to submit a revision to the Work Plan Methodology Monday at least 7 weeks prior to the event. 5.2. RCAC will organise and host a review of the Work Plan by the Tuesday 6 weeks prior to the event. 5.3. The Work Group will review comments and make applicable revisions to the Work Plan Methodology by the Monday 5 weeks prior to the first planned event. 6. RCAC will confirm the status of the Work Plan signoff, by Friday 5 weeks prior to the first planned event. This is the Go/No Go for the work event. 7. A Pre-Block meeting shall be held by the Work Group 5 days prior to track block with all major support staff and stakeholders. 8. A Conference call shall be conducted by the Work Group within 48 hours of work block to ensure all contractors and support staff are aware of requirements within the Work Plan Methodology and to finalize any outstanding issues. Stakeholder Distribution and Review A) GENERAL In addition to the Work Plan Methodology status, the Stakeholder Distribution will be defined by the Work Groups] Metrolinx contact. A Review Log will be kept by RCAC and distribution will be managed and coordinated through RCAC. Draft- 57 - Work Plan Methodology User Guide B) REQUIREMENTS The Stakeholder conducting the review will indicate the revision number of the Work Plan Methodology, review/distribution date, their name and the status of their review. Upon receiving Metrolinx comments regarding a Work Plan Methodology submission, the Work Group shall update the Work Plan Methodology and return to RCAC to ensure appropriate version control is accomplished. A Work Plan Methodology will be returned with one of three 1. Draft 2. Final 3. Accepted The Work Group shall abide by the status as determined by Metrolinx. C) Stakeholder Distribution Stakeholders shall be identified by the Metrolinx contact. The Metrolinx Contact shall indicate if the Stakeholder receiving the Work Plan Methodology is expected to review the Work Plan Methodology (For Review) or if the Work Plan Methodology is distributed to the Stakeholder for their Information Only (For INFO). Draft- 58 - APPENDIX “3” TO THIS SCHEDULE “F” – ACCESS PROTOCOL GUIDING PRINCIPLES RE. TRACK PROTECTION The Road Authority shall use the following “hierarchy of protection” principles to determine the type of protection to be used, from most preferred and most utilized to least preferred and used sparingly. The hierarchy is as follows: (a)barrier protection with all construction equipment and activities without the potential of fouling the adjacent live main track; (b)barrier protection with the potential of construction equipment and activities fouling the adjacent live main track. CROR Rule 842 or TOP protection is required on the adjacent main track; (c)adjacent line closed (“ALC”) with no fouling in multi-track territory will use the inactive main track adjacent to the work location as a form of barrier protection. All construction equipment and activities will not foul past the ALC, thus allowing for continual work; Note: TOP should be used to protect the inactive adjacent main track as first option, CROR Rule 842 with routing instructions as the secondary option if TOP unavailable. (d)ALC with fouling in multi-track will use the inactive main track adjacent to the work location as a barrier with some construction equipment or activities fouling the nearest live main track. CROR Rule 842 is necessary for protection as train information is required. Routing instructions would ensure that the adjacent main track is inactive. All non-fouling construction equipment of the inactive adjacent main track would continue to work and fouling would be shut down when trains are passing. If a risk assessment indicates that due to construction equipment positioning or boom reach that inactive main track is an acceptable barrier, and then all Work may continue; (e)CROR Rule 842 Protection; (f)TOP Protection; (g)ALC in multi-track (more than two (2) main tracks) territory uses an inactive main track as a buffer in much the same manner as “Barrier Protection”. The Road Authority shall comply with all requirements set forth in Appendix C. The track must be positively protected by the flagman at all times through the continuous work zone. (h)ALC through routing instructions is applied in two (2) main track territory. The Road Authority will apply for the protection and ensure all the requirements set forth in Appendix C. The Road Authority may continue to work while trains are passing on the furthest main track from the works using the adjacent main track as a barrier. (i)The Road Authority shall comply with all requirements set forth in Appendix C for each rail corridor access. (j)As more particularly described in Appendix C, the Road Authority is required to obtain Rule 842s to perform the Scope of Works on the rail corridor, and, subject to the parameters set forth in Appendix C, the Road Authority shall not perform the Scope of Works under more than four (4) Rules 842s at any one time. The level of protection will defined by Metrolinx.Draft- 59 - (k)The Road Authority shall use flagging services in an economical and efficient manner. In the event the Road Authority fails to use flagging services in an economical and efficient manner, Metrolinx may, in its sole discretion, require the Road Authority to pay all flagging costs and expenses in excess of the flagging services that ought to have been used. (l)In the event of a cancellation of a Track Protection Confirmation by the Road Authority, the Road Authority shall provide Metrolinx with notice in writing of such cancellation no less than 96 hours before the scheduled start time noted in the Access Permit. (m)If the Road Authority has failed to give written notice of the cancellation, the Road Authority shall pay all costs and expenses for scheduled flagging services that the Road Authority fails to use. The Road Authority is not permitted to schedule flagging services to be used on a standby basis.Draft- 60 - Report to Executive Committee Report Number: ENG 11-21 Date: May 3, 2021 From: Richard Holborn Director, Engineering Services Subject: Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park - Consulting Services for Final Phase of the Master Plan Implementation - File: A-1440 Recommendation: 1. That Council approve the hiring of The MBTW Group for Consulting and Professional Services for the preparation of detailed design drawings and tender documents and for contract administration services for the final phase of the implementation of the Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park Master Plan, in accordance with Purchasing Policy Item 10.03 (c), as the assignment is above $50,000.00; 2. That the fee proposal submitted by The MBTW Group for Consulting and Professional Services for the preparation of detailed design drawings and tender documents and for contract administration services for the final phase of the implementation of the Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park Master Plan in the amount of $160,273.55 (HST included) be accepted; 3. That the total gross project cost of $176,301.00 (HST included), including the fee amount and other associated costs, and the total net project cost of $158,765.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved; 4. That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the total net project cost of $158,765.00 as follows: a) The sum of $79,382.00 to be funded by a transfer from the Development Charges – City’s Share; b) The sum of $79,383.00 to be funded by a transfer from the Development Charges Reserve Fund – Parks & Recreation Services; and 5. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Executive Summary: Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park (RFBWP), is owned by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) under Management Agreement by the City of Pickering. The park underwent the first phase of improvements in 2018. In response to the high water events experienced in 2017 and 2019, TRCA proposed a new 100-year static - 61 - ENG 11-21 May 3, 2021 Subject: Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park Page 2 Consulting Services for the Final Phase of the Master Plan Implementation lake level elevation. The current Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park Master Plan was revised and endorsed by Council in November 2020 (Report ENG 05-20, Resolution #465/20). As part of the 2021 Parks Capital Budget, $2 million was approved for the implementation of the balance of works in the RFBW Park Master Plan. This budget amount includes funds for design and contract administration consulting fees. The MBTW Group have provided consulting services for the first phase of construction, Park Master Plan revisions and the washroom study. In effort to provide continuity throughout the project, staff are recommending that The MBTW Group be retained to provide and coordinate the design and construction administration services for this project at a total cost of $160,273.55 (HST included). The total gross project cost which includes the consulting fees other associated costs, is estimated at $176,301.00 (HST included) and the total net project cost is estimated at $158,765.00 (net of HST rebate). Financial Implications: 1. Proposal Amount The MBTW Group Fee Proposal $141,835.00 HST (13%) 18,438.55 Total Gross Proposal Amount $160,273.55 2. Estimated Project Cost Summary The MBTW Group Fee Proposal $141,835.00 Associated Costs Contingency (10%) 14,184.00 Sub Total – Costs $156,019.00 HST (13%) 20,282.00 Total Gross Project Cost $176,301.00 HST Rebate (11.24%) (17,536.00) Total Net Project Costs $158,765.00 - 62 - ENG 11-21 May 3, 2021 Subject: Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park Page 3 Consulting Services for the Final Phase of the Master Plan Implementation 3. Approved Source of Funds – 2021 Parks Capital Budget Expense Code Source of Funds Budget Required 5780.2121.6129 Reserve – DC’s City’s Share DC Res Fund – Parks & Recreation Services $1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 $79,382.00 79,383.00 Total $2,000,000.00 $158,765.00 Net Project Cost under (over) Approved Funds $1,841,235.00 The costs for the consulting fees indicated in the tables above represents a portion of the overall project costs. Funds for the actual construction of the park features, permit fees, and geotechnical and materials testing and other associated project costs will come from this same source of funds and will be itemized in a future Report to Council to award the construction. Discussion: Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park (RFBWP) is located east of West Shore Boulevard and south of Sunrise Avenue and includes the west spit to the harbour entrance into Frenchman’s Bay as shown in Attachment #1. The park area was purchased by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) in the late 1960’s. In the early 1990’s, TRCA, with the assistance from the local community, developed a master plan for this area. The plan has been revised a number of times over the years. The 2012 version of the Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park Master Plan that was endorsed by Council (Report #CS 39-12, Resolution #140/12) was the basis for the 2018 work that was implemented as the first phase of the Master Plan. This work included the reconstruction of Beachpoint Promenade complete with lay-by parking, construction of a picnic area, interpretive area complete with a green roofed kiosk and construction of a section of the waterfront trail, taking it off-road through the park to West Shore Boulevard. Based on the high water events experienced in 2017 and 2019 and proposed new 100-year static lake level elevations, it was determined that some of the features in the updated 2017 version of the Master Plan were no longer be feasible. The west spit, including the boat launch and access to the Pickering Rouge Canoe Club (PRCC) were closed to public access due to unsafe conditions from the flooding for quite some time during these flood events. TRCA had also advised that their planning policies and the Provincial Policy Statement would no longer support the construction of a washroom/change room and a new facility for the PRCC on the west spit. PRCC were advised that they would be required to vacate their current site. They are currently in the process of seeking another site for their club facilities. The 2012 Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park Master Plan was revised to accommodate the newly established lake levels while being consistent with the objectives set out in the original and previous revisions to the park plan. The revised Master Plan was endorsed by Council in November 2020 (Report ENG 05-20, Resolution #465/20). - 63 - ENG 11-21 May 3, 2021 Subject: Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park Page 4 Consulting Services for the Final Phase of the Master Plan Implementation The proposed features shown in the Master Plan update that will form the second and final stage of implementation of the park plan include: • enhanced shoreline protection adjacent to the existing picnic area and interpretive kiosk; • park washroom facility and staff area north of the existing parking lot; • barrier free beachfront access in close proximity to the parking lot; • primary pedestrian trail and service road running east from the existing roundabout and drop-off area, to the harbour entrance; • accessible non-motorized boat launch area; • service vehicle turn-around and enhanced shoreline protection adjacent to the boat launch area; • elevated viewing/seating area with a shade structure east of the boat launch area; • beach Access Links located at various points along the main pedestrian trail; • passive waterfront recreation node in the area previously inhabited by the PRCC; and, • waterfront interpretive node adjacent to the harbour entrance. As part of the 2021 Parks Capital Budget, $2 million was approved for the implementation of the balance of works in the RFBW Park Master Plan. This budget amount includes funds for design and contract administration consulting fees. The MBTW Group provided consulting services for the RFBW Park Master Plan updates, phase 1 design and construction administration services and the RFBW Park Washroom Study. This consulting firm has provided the City of Pickering with excellent service at a good value. Their designs are creative and cost effective and they respond in a timely manner. In effort to provide continuity throughout the project, staff are recommending that The MBTW Group be retained to provide design development and contract documents, tendering and construction administration services, to implement the balance of the Master Plan features. In accordance with Purchasing Policy Item 10.03, the Manager may obtain the services of a particular consultant selected by the initiating Director without going through a competitive process. Where the funds are available in the approved budget and the project or annual cost of a consulting or professional service assignment is expected to be: (c) Above $50,000 is subject to the additional approval of Council. The initiating Director shall submit the Report to Council to obtain approval. The sum total cost of the assignment described herein is $160,273.55 (HST included) and falls within this level of approval. It is recommended that The MBTW Group be retained for the preparation of detailed design drawings and tender documents, and for contract administration services for this project. - 64 - ENG 11-21 May 3, 2021 Subject: Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park Page 5 Consulting Services for the Final Phase of the Master Plan Implementation Attachments: 1.Location Map – Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Arnold Mostert, OALA Richard Holborn, P.Eng. Manager, Landscape & Parks Development Director, Engineering Services Stan Karwowski, MBA, CPA, CMA Director, Finance & Treasurer Ray Rodrigues, CPPB Manager, Supply & Services AM:mjh 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: - 65 - BREEZYDRIVEOKLAHOMA DRIVE WEST SHORE BOULEVARDSURF AVENUE TULLO STREET CHIPMUNK STREETSUNRISE AVENUE BEACH P O I N T P R O M E N A D E MINK STREET SCALE: Engineering Services Department Rotary Frenchman's Bay West Park Apr 16, 2021 DATE: q 1:5,000 Frenchman's Bay Lake Ontario Proposed Shoreline Restoration Proposed Phase 2 Area Attachment #1 to Report # ENG 11-21 - 66 - Report to Executive Committee Report Number: ENG 12-21 Date: May 3, 2021 From: Richard Holborn Director, Engineering Services Subject: Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park -Consulting Services for Proposed Park Washroom Facility -File: A-1440 Recommendation: 1.That Council approve the hiring of The MBTW Group for Consulting and Professional Services for the preparation of detailed design drawings and tender documents and for contract administration services for a public washroom facility in Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park, in accordance with Purchasing Policy Item 10.03 (c), as the assignment is above$50,000.00; 2.That the fee proposal submitted by The MBTW Group for Consulting and Professional Services for the preparation of detailed design drawings and tender documents and for contract administration services for a public washroom facility in Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park in the amount of $148,453.75 (HST included) be accepted; 3.That the total gross project cost of $163,299.00 (HST included), including the fee amount and other associated costs, and the total net project cost of $147,056.00 (net of HST rebate) be approved; 4.That Council authorize the Director, Finance & Treasurer to finance the total net project cost of $147,056.00 as follows: a)the sum of $73,528.00 to be funded by a transfer from Development Charges – City’s Share Reserve; b)the sum of $73,528.00 to be funded by a transfer from the Development Charges Reserve Fund – Parks & Recreation Services; and, 5.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Executive Summary: Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park (RFBWP), which is owned by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and is under Management Agreement by the City of Pickering, underwent the first phase of improvements in 2018. In response to the high water events experienced in 2017 and 2019, TRCA proposed a new 100-year static lake level elevation. The Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park Master Plan was revised and endorsed by Council in November 2020 (Report ENG 05-20, Resolution #465/20). The original - 67 - ENG 12-21 May 3, 2021 Subject: Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park Page 2 Consulting Services for the Proposed Park Washroom Facility Master Plan included a park washroom in conjunction with a change room facility and storage building for the Pickering Rouge Canoe Club (PRCC), to be located adjacent to a small craft boat launch. With the high water levels, TRCA could no longer support a facility at this location. A washroom study has been completed and the washroom facility is now being proposed to be constructed along with a staff room and parks maintenance storage area, located north of the existing parking lot. As part of the 2021 Parks Capital Budget, $1 million was approved for construction of a washroom facility in RFBWP. This budget amount includes funds for design and contract administration consulting fees. The MBTW Group have provided consulting services for the first phase of construction, Park Master Plan revisions and the washroom study. In effort to provide continuity throughout the project, staff are recommending that The MBTW Group be retained to provide and coordinate the design and construction administration services for this project at a total cost of $148,453.75 (HST included). The total gross project cost which includes the consulting fees and other associated costs, is estimated at $163,299.00 (HST included) and the total net project cost is estimated at $147,056.00 (net of HST rebate). Financial Implications: 1.Proposal Amount The MBTW Group Fee Proposal $131,375.00 HST (13%) 17,078.75 Total Gross Proposal Amount $148,453.75 2.Estimated Project Cost Summary The MBTW Group Fee Proposal $131,375.00 Associated Costs Contingency (10%) 13,137.00 Sub Total – Costs $144,512.00 HST (13%) 18,787.00 Total Gross Project Cost $163,299.00 HST Rebate (11.24%) (16,243.00) Total Net Project Costs $147,056.00 - 68 - ENG 12-21 May 3, 2021 Subject: Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park Page 3 Consulting Services for the Proposed Park Washroom Facility 3.Approved Source of Funds – 2021 Parks Capital Budget Expense Code Source of Funds Budget Required 5780.2123.6129 Reserve-DC’s City’s Share DC Reserve Fund – Parks & Recreation Services $500,000.00 500,000.00 $73,528.00 73,528.00 Total $1,000,000.00 $147,056.00 Net Project Cost under (over) Approved Funds $852,944.00 The costs for the consulting fees indicated in the tables above represent only a portion of the overall project costs. Funds for the actual construction of the washroom facility, permit fees, geotechnical and materials testing and other associated project costs will come from the same source of funds and will be itemized in a future Report to Council to award the construction. Discussion: Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park (RFBWP), which is owned by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and is under Management Agreement by the City of Pickering, underwent the first phase of improvements in 2018. In response to the high water events experienced in 2017 and 2019, TRCA proposed a new 100-year static lake level elevation. The Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park Master Plan was revised and endorsed by Council in November 2020 (Report ENG 05-20, Resolution #465/20). The original Master Plan included a park washroom in conjunction with a change room facility and storage building for the Pickering Rouge Canoe Club (PRCC), to be located adjacent to a small craft boat launch. With the high water levels, and due to current planning policies and the Provincial Policy Statement, TRCA could no longer support a facility at this location. The alternate location for the park washroom was located north of the existing parking lot. The City of Pickering retained The MBTW Group in 2020, to prepare a Washroom Feasibility Study in consultation with the Engineering and Community Services Departments and TRCA planning staff. The proposed building program is to integrate public washrooms and space allocated to operations and maintenance staff for secure storage and staff activities. The following areas inside the building are recommended: •three universal, non-gendered, self-contained washrooms large enough to accommodate a user with a mobility aid accompanied by a caregiver (approximately 3m x 3m in area) and equipped with a sink and toilet; •secured storage for site Gator and other equipment (approximately 3m x 4m in area); •staff room (approximately 4m x 4m in area) equipped with a sink; and, •a seasonal hose bib and foot wash station to be provided on the exterior of the building. - 69 - ENG 12-21 May 3, 2021 Subject: Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park Page 4 Consulting Services for the Proposed Park Washroom Facility As part of the 2021 Parks Capital Budget, $1 million was approved for construction of a washroom facility in RFBWP. This budget amount includes funds for design and contract administration consulting fees. The MBTW Group provided consulting services for the RFBW Park Master Plan updates, phase 1 design and construction administration services, and the RFBW Park Washroom Study. This consulting firm has provided the City of Pickering with excellent service at good value. Their designs are creative and cost effective and they respond in a timely manner. In an effort to provide continuity throughout the project, staff are recommending that The MBTW Group be retained to coordinate the design development and contract documents, tendering and construction administration services. The full scope of proposed services is outlined in their fee proposal. Their team includes a variety of sub-consultants in areas of architecture, structural, mechanical, electrical, and site servicing. In accordance with Purchasing Policy Item 10.03, the Manager may obtain the services of a particular consultant selected by the initiating Director without going through a competitive process. Where the funds are available in the approved budget and the project or annual cost of a consulting or professional service assignment is expected to be: (c) above $50,000 is subject to the additional approval of Council. The initiating Director shall submit the Report to Council to obtain approval. The sum total cost of the assignment described herein is $148,453.75 (HST included) and falls within this level of approval. Note that the proposed consulting fee is an upset limit and that the City will only be invoiced for actual hours spent on the project, particularly as it pertains disbursements, the number of physical versus virtual meetings, and site inspections required. It is recommended that The MBTW Group be retained for the preparation of detailed design drawings and tender documents, and for contract administration services for this project. Attachments: 1.Location Map – Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park - 70 - ENG 12-21 May 3, 2021 Subject: Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park Page 5 Consulting Services for the Proposed Park Washroom Facility Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Arnold Mostert, OALA Richard Holborn, P.Eng. Manager, Landscape & Parks Development Director, Engineering Services Stan Karwowski, MBA, CPA, CMA Director, Finance & Treasurer Ray Rodrigues, CPPB Manager, Supply & Services AM:mjh 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: - 71 - WEST SHORE BOULEVARDSURF AVENUE TULLO STREET OKLAHOMADRIVE BREEZYDRIVECHIPMUNK STREETYEREMI STREETLEASIDE STREETSUNRISE AVENUE BEACH P O I N T P R O M E N A D E MINK STREET SCALE: Engineering Services Department Rotary Frenchman's Bay West Park Proposed WashroomApr 16, 2021 DATE: q 1:5,000 Frenchman's Bay Lake Ontario Proposed Washroom Attachment #1 to Report #ENG 12-21 - 72 - Report to Executive Committee Report Number: ENG 13-21 Date: May 3, 2021 From: Richard Holborn Director, Engineering Services Subject: Amendments to Traffic and Parking By-law 6604/05 -Proposed All-way Stop, Rosebank Road at Highview Road/Summerpark Crescent -Proposed Community Safety Zone Extension & Speed Limit Reduction – Rosebank Road -File: A-1440 Recommendation: 1.That the attached draft by-law be enacted to amend Schedule "7", Stop Signs, to By-law 6604/05 to provide for the regulation of stop signs on highways or parts of highways under the jurisdiction of The Corporation of the City of Pickering, specifically to address the proposed installation of an all-way stop control at the intersection of Rosebank Road and Highview Road/Summerpark Crescent; 2.That the attached draft by-law be enacted to amend Schedule “14”, Community Safety Zones, to By-law 6604/05 to provide for the addition of community safety zones on highways or parts of highways under the jurisdiction of The Corporation of the City of Pickering, specifically to extend the existing Community Safety Zone on Rosebank Road from Foxwood Trail to Highview Road/Summerpark Crescent; 3.That the attached draft by-law be enacted to amend Schedule "9", Speed Limits, to By- law 6604/05 to provide for the regulation of speed limits on highways or parts of highways under the jurisdiction of The Corporation of the City of Pickering, specifically that that speed limit be reduced from 50 km/h to 40 km/h on Rosebank Road from Foxwood Trail to Highview Road/Summerpark Crescent; and, 4.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report. Executive Summary: In response to the safety concerns from area residents, Engineering Services staff completed investigations and analysis related to increased vehicle volumes, vehicle speed, reduced sightlines, multiple collisions, and pedestrians having difficulty crossing at the intersection of Rosebank Road and Highview Road/Summerpark Crescent. Based on City staff’s review it is proposed that an all-way stop be installed at the intersection of Rosebank Road and Highview Road/Summerpark Crescent to facilitate a safe crossing point for pedestrians. - 73 - May 3, 2021 ENG 13-21 Subject: Amendments to Traffic and Parking By-law 6604/05 Proposed All-way Stop, Rosebank Road at Highview Road/Summerpark Crescent Proposed Community Safety Zone Extension & Speed Limit Reduction – Rosebank Road Page 2 In addition, staff reviewed the limits of the current Community Safety Zone (CSZ) on Rosebank Road which extends from Strouds Lane to the intersection of Woodsmere Crescent/Charnwood Court. With the proposed all-way stop at the intersection of Rosebank Road and Highview Road/Summerpark Crescent, it is recommended that the CSZ be extended north on Rosebank Road to the intersection of Highview Road/Summerpark Crescent and further south to Foxwood Trail, as many pedestrians and school age children travel to and from the schools and the parks within this area. It is also recommended, that the speed limit be reduced from 50 km/h to 40 km/h within the proposed new limits of the CSZ. Financial Implications: The installation of stop signs, advance warning signs, Community Safety Zone signs, 40 km/h speed limit signs, and the installation of stop bar and crosswalk pavement markings on Rosebank Road can be accommodated within the 2021 Roads Current Budget. Discussion: Area residents have expressed safety concerns with the intersection of Rosebank Road and Highview Road/Summerpark Crescent, with respect to increasing vehicle volume, vehicle speed, sightlines and pedestrians having difficulty crossing the street. Residents have also stated that there have been accidents at the intersection over the years, with speed and sightlines playing a role, and that an all-way stop could possibly reduce the number of collisions. In response to these concerns, Engineering Services staff completed a review of the intersection of Rosebank Road and Highview Road/Summerpark Crescent, which included the following: •collection of pedestrian and vehicle volumes, review of sightlines and collision data, and completion of the municipal all-way stop warrants; •review of speed and community safety zone limits; •observations of vehicle and pedestrian traffic; and, •review of existing signs and pavement markings. An all -way s top would not be recommended based on the City’s All -way Stop Warrant To determine if an all-way stop control is required at the intersection, an all-way stop warrant was completed at the intersection in accordance with the City's 2003 Safer Streets Traffic Management Strategy. The City's All-way Stop Warrant calculates whether an all-way stop control is required taking vehicle volumes, collision data and sightlines into consideration. - 74 - May 3, 2021 ENG 13-21 Subject: Amendments to Traffic and Parking By-law 6604/05 Proposed All-way Stop, Rosebank Road at Highview Road/Summerpark Crescent Proposed Community Safety Zone Extension & Speed Limit Reduction – Rosebank Road Page 3 The City’s All-way Stop Warrant was not met for the intersection of Rosebank Road and Highview Road/Summerpark Crescent, as the following conditions within the warrant were not achieved: •minimum traffic volume – as side street traffic was minimal throughout the day the intersection did not meet the minimum necessary traffic volume required to justify an all- way stop; •collision history – there have been 5 reported angle collisions at the intersection over the past five years, however, this does not satisfy the municipal All-way Stop W arrant, which states that there must be a minimum occurrence of 3 or more reportable right-angle collisions of a type correctible through the installation of an all-way stop in a 12 month period averaged over 3 years; and, •sightlines – upon review the sightlines at the intersection, especially for vehicles entering Rosebank Road from the side streets, it is determined that sightlines are acceptable (greater than 85 metres for a road with a design speed of 60 km/h and a posted maximum speed limit of 50 km/h). Therefore, an all-way stop is not recommended based on vehicle volumes, collision data and sightlines. An all-way stop is recommended at the intersection to allow for a safe pedestrian crossing point Engineering Services staff recognize that Rosebank Road has two schools in the area, Altona Forest Public School and St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic School, as such, has many pedestrians crossing the road to access the schools and adjacent Woodsmere Park. Although there is a school crossing guard at the intersection of Rosebank Road and Woodsmere Crescent/Charnwood Court, the need for an additional safe crossing point is recommended, especially during the hours when the crossing guard is not present. Aside from the crossing guard location at Woodsmere Crescent/Charnwood Court, Rosebank Road does not have a protected location to cross between Finch Avenue and Strouds Lane, which spans approximately 1.2 kilometres in length. Therefore, in order to facilitate a safe crossing point for pedestrians, Engineering Services staff is recommending that an all-way stop be placed at the intersection of Rosebank Road and Highview Road/Summerpark Crescent. In addition, to the proposal of an all-way stop being a safe crossing point for pedestrians, an all-way stop at this location will also assist with reducing angle collisions at the intersection. - 75 - May 3, 2021 ENG 13-21 Subject: Amendments to Traffic and Parking By-law 6604/05 Proposed All-way Stop, Rosebank Road at Highview Road/Summerpark Crescent Proposed Community Safety Zone Extension & Speed Limit Reduction – Rosebank Road Page 4 It is recommended that the community safety zone and 40 km/h speed limit area on Rosebank Road be expanded The current Community Safety Zone (CSZ) on Rosebank Road extends from Strouds Lane to the intersection of Woodsmere Crescent/Charnwood Court. With the proposed all-way stop at the intersection of Rosebank Road and Highview Road/Summerpark Crescent, City staff also recommend extending the CSZ north to the intersection. In addition, it is also recommended that the CSZ be extended further south to Foxwood Trail, as many pedestrians and school age children travel to the school from this area. The expanded CSZ will also include Amberlea Park. Within the proposed CSZ on Rosebank Road, Foxwood Trail to Highview Road/Summerpark Crescent. it is also recommended, by Engineering Services staff, that the speed limit be reduced from 50 km/h to 40 km/h. The standard speed limit within a CSZ on City of Pickering maintained roads 40 km/h. The proposed all-way stop control, CSZ extension and speed limit reduction to 40 km/h within the community safety zone on Rosebank Road is shown graphically in Attachment #1. The draft by-law amendment to Schedule “7”, Stop Signs, Schedule 9, Speed Limits, and Schedule 14, Community Safety Zones of By-law 6604/05 is provided in Attachment #2. Attachments: 1.Location Map – Proposed All-way Stop Control, Community Safety Zone and Speed Limit Changes – Rosebank Road 2.Draft By-law Amendments to Schedule “7”, Stop Signs, Schedule “9”, Speed Limits, and Schedule “14”, Community Safety Zones to By-law 6604/05 - 76 - May 3, 2021 ENG 13-21 Subject: Amendments to Traffic and Parking By-law 6604/05 Proposed All-way Stop, Rosebank Road at Highview Road/Summerpark Crescent Proposed Community Safety Zone Extension & Speed Limit Reduction – Rosebank Road Page 5 Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Nathan Emery Richard Holborn, P.Eng. Coordinator, Traffic Operations Director, Engineering Services Scott Booker Manager, Capital Projects & Infrastructure NE:mjh 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: - 77 - Highview RoadSummerpark Cres. Altona Forest Public School St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic School Highbush Public School Legend Existing Community Safety Zone 400m290m390m550m from Highview to Finch Proposed All-way Stop Existing Crossing Guard Existing Crossing Guard & All-way Stop Existing Crossing Guard & Traffic Signal Proposed Community Safety Zone Extension Existing 40 km/hProposed 40 km/h(Currently 50 km/h)Proposed 40 km/h(Currently 50 km/h)360m from Foxwood Trail to Sheppard Rosebank Road NTS April, 2021 Engineering Services Department N Proposed All-way Stop, Community Safety Zone and Speed Limit Changes Attachment #1 to Report #ENG 13-21 - 78 - The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. Being a by-law to amend By-law 6604/05 providing for the regulating of traffic and parking, standing and stopping on highways or parts of highways under the jurisdiction of the City of Pickering and on private and municipal property. Whereas By-law 6604/05, as amended, provides for the regulating of traffic and parking on highways, private property and municipal property within the City of Pickering; and Whereas, it is deemed expedient to amend Schedule 7, Schedule 9, and Schedule 14 to By-law 6604/05 to provide for the regulation of stop signs, speed limits and community safety zones on highways or parts of highways under the jurisdiction of the Corporation of the City of Pickering. Specifically, this by-law is to provide for the installation of an all-way stop at the intersection of Rosebank Road and Highview Road/Summerpark Crescent, and an extension to the 40 km/h speed limit zone and community safety zone on Rosebank Road. Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1. Schedule 7 to By-law 6604/05, as amended, is hereby further amended thereto by the following: Schedule 7 Stop Signs Column 1 Column 2 Highway Compulsory Stop Facing Traffic Add Rosebank Road @ Highview Road @ Summerpark Crescent Rosebank Road, northbound and southbound Attachment #2 to Report #ENG 13-21 - 79 - By-law No. Page 2 2. Schedule 9 to By-law 6604/05, as amended, is hereby further amended thereto by the following: Schedule 9 Speed Limits Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Highway Limits Speed Delete Rosebank Road Rodd Avenue to 100 metres north of Granite Court, 100 metres south of Kingston Road to Sheppard Avenue, Strouds Lane to Springview Drive, 80m south of Third Concession Road to 100 metres north of Third Concession Road 40 km/h Add Rosebank Road Rodd Avenue to 100 metres north of Granite Court 40 km/h Rosebank Road 100 metres south of Kingston Road to Sheppard Avenue 40 km/h Rosebank Road Foxwood Trail to Highview Road/Summerpark Crescent 40 km/h Rosebank Road 80m south of Third Concession Road to 100 metres north of Third Concession Road 40 km/h - 80 - By-law No. Page 3 3. Schedule 14 to By-law 6604/05, as amended, is hereby further amended thereto by the following: Schedule 14 Community Safety Zones Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Highway Limits (From/To) Prohibited Times or Days Delete Rosebank Road Strouds Lane to Anytime Charnwood Court Add Rosebank Road Foxwood Trail to Anytime Highview Road/ Summerpark Crescent By-law passed this 25th day of May, 2021. ____________________________ David Ryan, Mayor ________________________________ Susan Cassel, City Clerk - 81 - Report to Executive Committee Report Number: FIN 07-21 Date: May 3, 2021 From: Stan Karwowski Director, Finance & Treasurer Subject: Commodity Price Hedging Agreements Report - File: F-5000-001 Recommendation: It is recommended that Report FIN 07-21 from the Director, Finance & Treasurer regarding commodity price hedging agreements be received for information. Executive Summary: The primary purpose of a commodity price hedging agreement is to provide price stability and cost certainty by fixing some portion of future commodity prices. Using hedging allows for the option to lock in favourable pricing for commodity commitments when long-term contracts are not practical or available. The Commodity Price Hedging Policy FIN 060, approved by Council per Resolution #88/10, requires a Report to Council at least once each fiscal year with respect to any and all commodity price hedging agreements in place containing, at a minimum, all information required by Section 6(1) O. Reg. 653/05, as amended, as well as: 1. A statement about the status of the agreements during the period of the Report, including a comparison of the expected and actual results of using the agreements. 2. A statement by the Treasurer that all of the agreements entered during the period of the Report are consistent with the municipality’s statement of policies and goals relating to the use of Commodity Hedging Price Agreements; and 3. Such other information as Council may require. The City has entered into hedging agreements for the commodities of natural gas and electricity procurement through Local Authority Services Ltd. (LAS), which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO). Financial Implications: The LAS Hedge Procurement Program currently includes 133 municipalities. It buys energy commodities at varying percentages of their total volume through forward price hedge contracts, rather than being subject to 100 per cent of the price volatility through the spot market. The City has elected to continue with hedging 65 per cent of both the City’s natural gas and electricity requirements while the remaining 35 per cent is purchased at fluctuating spot market prices. - 82 - Report FIN 07-21 May 3, 2021 Subject: Commodity Price Hedge Agreements Report Page 2 Natural Gas The 2021 natural gas budget is $341,457. To protect the City’s budget plan, the City has entered into the LAS Natural Gas Procurement Program for the period November 1, 2020 to October 31, 2021 at the hedge price of 10.1¢/m3. Electricity The 2021 hydro budget for all City operations including streetlights is $2.14 million. To protect the City’s budget plan, the City has entered into the LAS Electricity Procurement Program hedged purchase price is $24.64/MW (program fees included), which equates to a per kWh contracted price of 2.464¢/kWh, for the period of January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2021. This results in an expected commodity cost of 14.243¢/kWh. Discussion: Volatile shifts in utility pricing create significant challenges in maintaining utility budgets. This uncertainty in energy pricing can impact decision making and cost controllability for the City. The LAS Hedge Procurement Program stabilizes energy pricing, which assists in maintaining the Council approved budget every year. The City has hedged 65 per cent of the City’s municipal natural gas and electricity requirements at the prices contained in this report with the remaining 35 per cent of the City’s energy consumption being purchased at spot market prices for the 2021 term. This spot market exposure provides cost savings opportunities to the City compared to the current Regulated Price Plan (RPP) for eligible accounts, in addition to the price stability provided by the hedge purchase price. LAS Natural Gas Hedge Procurement Program - Enrolled April 2006 Commodity Expenditure - 2020 (actuals) - $279,977 2021 Contract Price - November 1, 2020 - October 31, 2021 - 10.1¢/m3 Hedged Volume - 65% The LAS 2021 hedged purchase price for the purchase only portion of natural gas increased by 7.45 per cent (or 0.7¢/m3) from the 2020 rate. In October 2018, the Province cancelled its Cap & Trade program. In response, the Federal Government implemented a carbon pricing program in Ontario in 2019. As part of this program, a carbon charge applies to fossil fuels sold in Ontario, including natural gas. This charge will increase annually each April. In April 2021, this charge increased from 5.87 cents per cubic metre to 7.83 cents per cubic metre. The savings from the hedge purchase price partially offset the increase in the federal carbon price for natural gas. - 83 - Report FIN 07-21 May 3, 2021 Subject: Commodity Price Hedge Agreements Report Page 3 LAS Electricity Procurement Program - Enrolled January 2011 Commodity Expenditure - 2020 (actuals) - $1.75 million Current Contract Price - January 1, 2021 - December 31, 2021 - 2.464¢/kWh Total Average LAS 2021 Commodity Rate - 14.243¢/kWh which includes: 65% Hedge Price + 35% Average Hourly Ontario Energy Price + Average Global Adjustment The LAS 2021 hedged purchase price portion increased by 0.98 per cent (or 0.02¢/kWh) from the 2020 rate. It is estimated that a cost avoidance of 0.757¢/kWh should be realized, compared to the average Time of Use rates of 15.0¢/kWh. As of November 1, 2020, the LAS hedge price has increased by only 1 per cent compared to the Time of Use (TOU) rates which have increased 23 per cent during the same time period. Additionally, LAS hedged a block of off -peak power for municipal streetlight accounts that is expected to provide a rate of 13.251¢/kWh. However, due to an increase in the Global Adjustment Rate and decrease in the Ontario’s Average Hourly Energy pricing, an increase to the overall cost of electricity is expected of 4.69¢/kWh or 49.09 per cent compared to the 2020 all-inclusive rate. Treasurer’s Statement: The objectives of the LAS bulk hedging procurement programs are generally synonymous with our municipal objectives: 1. Facilitates Budgeting – purchasing blocks of energy commodities will produce stable prices for budgeting; 2. Competitive Pricing – provides savings on required purchases; and 3. Maximize Purchasing Power – pooling requirements with 133 municipalities and over 170 participating organizations can leverage better pricing than individual purchasing. The LAS Natural Gas and Electricity Procurement Program has provided the City with a sound commodity hedging strategy for its natural gas and electricity purchases. This benefits the City when prices fall and protects the City as much as possible when prices rise. Annual price stabilization and price benefits from bulk procurement along with individualized support, advice and consumption data reports, provides the City with a means to monitor its usage and more accurately forecast its annual utility budgets. - 84 - Report FIN 07-21 May 3, 2021 Subject: Commodity Price Hedge Agreements Report Page 4 Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By: Original Signed By: Ray Rodrigues, CPPB Stan Karwowski, MBA, CPA, CMA Manager, Supply & Services Director, Finance & Treasurer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer Original Signed By: - 85 - Report to Executive Committee Report Number: FIN 08-21 Date: May 3, 2021 From: Stan Karwowski Director, Finance & Treasurer Subject: 2019 Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund - File: F-4910-001 Recommendation: It is recommended that Report FIN 08-21 from the Director, Finance & Treasurer regarding the 2019 Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund be received for information. Executive Summary: Section 7(4) of the Building Code Act (the “Act”) requires the City to prepare an annual report of building permit and inspection fees and related administrative and enforcement costs. This report fulfills the requirements of Section 7(4) of the Act. This report also contains information about the City’s Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund. Financial Implications: This report contains information pertaining to the financial status of the Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund as at December 31, 2019. Discussion: In December 2005, Council approved report PD 41-05, which enacted a new building permit process and fees under the Act. The Act requires permit fees to be accounted for, and not used to subsidize City functions other than administration and enforcement of the Act and the Ontario Building Code. Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. was retained to undertake a comprehensive analysis of all Planning & Development costs, fees and legislative requirements and to develop an Activity Based Costing (ABC) model for the City. Using this information, Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. recommended an increase in building permit fees to provide for cost recovery. For the 2018 budget, Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. undertook a review of the Development Application Approval Process fees (DAAP). DAAP includes fees in Building, Planning and Engineering. The purpose of this review was to quantify the City’s full costs in processing application fees and building permit fees, assess the sufficiency of current development fees to recover these costs and recommend full cost recovery of development fees. The calculated full cost recovery fees were then adjusted after completing a market comparison to ensure the fees were in line with surrounding municipalities. As a result of the DAAP review, building permit fees were increased by 11 per cent in order to recover the shortfall in the Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund and to build a fund balance for years with decreased building activity. - 86 - Report FIN 08-21 May 3, 2021 Subject: 2019 Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund Page 2 The purpose of the Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund is to provide a source of funds for current operating budget costs during an economic downturn to offset lower building permit revenues. Without such a reserve fund, reduced growth and permit volumes during a downturn could result in severe budgetary pressures which could impair the City’s ability to enforce the Act and the Ontario Building Code. The Act requires that an annual report be prepared that includes total Building Permit fees collected in the previous 12 month period and a summary of directly and indirectly related administrative costs. In 2017 and 2018, Building Services had an excess of building permit revenues over costs. However, due to the relatively low rate of development since the Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund was established in 2006, the accumulated shortfall for this reserve fund as of December 31, 2019 was $2.65 million. In 2019, there was a small shortfall of building permit revenues over costs of ($104,206) as building permit revenues had declined from the prior year. Annual Report – Building Permit Fees for the year ended December 31, 2019 Building Permit Revenue $3,101,416 Costs: Direct Costs $ (2,695,403) Indirect Costs (458,219) Capital Costs (52,000) (3,205,622) Excess (Shortfall) Revenue Over Costs ($104,206) Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund Opening Balance, January 1, 2019 $ - 2019 Contribution - Closing Balance, December 31, 2019 $ - Transfers to the Rate Stabilization Reserve For the majority of municipalities, building permit revenues are sufficient to cover direct and indirect operating costs. In addition, many municipalities have excess funds that are transferred to their Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund and these funds are used to cover any future operating shortfall in their Building Services section . As stated earlier, Pickering has historically experienced a low level of construction activity that translated into lower building permit revenues. For most municipalities, the budgeted and actual cost of their Building Services section and/or department is fully funded from building permit revenues. Historically, the Building Services section required a financial subsidy from the Pickering taxpayer to fund their operations. As of December 31, 2019, the accumulated financial subsidy or deficit was $2.65 million. From a financial perspective, this subsidy was funded from the Rate Stabilization Reserve. The City’s financing strategy is to reduce this deficit (subsidy) over - 87 - Report FIN 08-21 May 3, 2021 Subject: 2019 Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund Page 3 time by transferring the Building Services operating surpluses to the Rate Stabilization Reserve. In 2017 and 2018, as the City’s development activity significantly increased, Building Services had operating surpluses of $83,440 and $2,061,582, respectively, which were transferred from the Building Permit Stabilization Reserve Fund to the Rate Stabilization Reserve which further reduced the deficit. 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: - 88 -