HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 7, 2021Executive Committee
Meeting Agenda
June 7, 2021
Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor McLean
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 and City Solicitor, Report AS 01-21 1
Dunmoore Park
- Conversion of Small Baseball Diamond to Leash Free Area
Recommendation:
For information related to accessibility requirements please contact:
Committee Coordinator
905.420.4611
clerks@pickering.ca
Executive Committee
Meeting Agenda
June 7, 2021
Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor McLean
1. That Report AS 01-21 regarding the conversion of the small
baseball diamond in Dunmoore Park to a leash free area be
received;
2. That Council endorse the creation of a leash free area in Dunmoore
Park; and,
3. That appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the
actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report.
4.2 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report CLK 03-21 13
Ward Boundary Review
- Final Report – Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Consultant Delegation
Jack Ammendolia, Managing Partner and Director, Education, Watson &
Associates Economists Ltd., and Dr. Robert J. Williams, Public Affairs
Consultant, on Report CLK 03-21
Recommendation:
1. That Report CLK 03-21, regarding the Ward Boundary Review Final
Report, from Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., be received;
2. That Final Option ____, as outlined in the 2020/2021 Ward
Boundary Review Final Report for the City of Pickering be
approved;
3. That the Clerk be directed to bring forward the applicable By-law to
change the ward boundaries at the June 28, 2021 Council Meeting
for enactment; and,
4. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take
the necessary actions as indicated in this report.
4.3 (Acting) Director, Community Services, Report CS 09-21 119
Community Association Lease Agreement
- Pickering Ajax Italian Social Club
Recommendation:
For information related to accessibility requirements please contact:
Committee Coordinator
905.420.4611
clerks@pickering.ca
Executive Committee
Meeting Agenda
June 7, 2021
Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor McLean
1. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the Lease
Agreement with the Pickering Ajax Italian Social Club as set out in
Attachment 1 to this report, subject to minor revisions as may be
required by the (Acting) Director, Community Services and the
Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor; and,
2. That the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the
necessary actions as indicated in this report.
4.4 (Acting) Director, Community Services, Report CS 23-21 132
Claremont Golden Age Seniors Club
- Lease Agreement
Recommendation:
1. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the Lease
Agreement with Claremont Golden Age Seniors Club set out in
Attachment 1 to this Report, subject to minor revisions as may be
required by the Director, Community Services and the Director,
Corporate Services & City Solicitor; and,
2. That the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the
necessary actions as indicated in this report.
4.5 (Acting) Director, Community Services, Report CS 25-21 154
Community Safety and Well-Being Plan
- Update
Recommendation:
1. That Council receive Report CS 25-21 for information regarding the
update on the City of Pickering’s Community Safety and Well-Being
Plan;
2. That Council endorse the City of Pickering’s application for
membership with the Canadian Municipal Network on Crime
Prevention and that the Mayor be authorized to execute and submit
the corresponding letter of support, as set out in Attachment 1; and,
For information related to accessibility requirements please contact:
Committee Coordinator
905.420.4611
clerks@pickering.ca
Executive Committee
Meeting Agenda
June 7, 2021
Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor McLean
3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized
to take necessary actions as indicated in this report.
4.6 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 14-21 160
Automated Speed Enforcement Implementation
- Status Update
Recommendation:
1. That Report ENG 14-21 regarding the status update of the
implementation of the Automated Speed Enforcement program, as
a follow-up to Report ENG 05-21 and in response to Resolution
#543/21, be received for information; and,
2. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized
to take the necessary actions as indicated in this report.
4.7 Director, Finance & Treasurer, Report FIN 10-21 177
Annual Indexing – Development Charges and Seaton Financial
Impacts Agreement
Recommendation:
1. That Report FIN 10-21 of the Director, Finance & Treasurer be
received;
2. That effective July 1, 2021 as provided for in By-law No. 7595/17,
as amended by By-laws No. 7727/19 and No. 7802/20, the
Development Charges referred to in Schedule “C” of that By-law be
increased by 3.1 per cent;
3. That effective July 1, 2021 the payments related to “10 per cent Soft
Services” as provided for by the Seaton Financial Impacts
Agreement dated November 26, 2015 be increased by 3.1 per cent;
and,
4. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials 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
June 7, 2021
Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor McLean
4.8 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 30-21 184
Local Enhancement and Appreciation of Forests (LEAF) Organization’s
Tree Planting Program Update
Recommendation:
1. That Report PLN 30-21 of the Director, City Development & CBO,
on the update of the Local Enhancement and A ppreciation of
Forests (LEAF) Organization’s Tree Planting Program, be received;
2. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute a 4-year
joint agreement between the Region of Durham, the Local
Enhancement and Appreciation of Forests (LEAF) organization and
participating municipalities to deliver the tree planting pr ogram from
July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2025, as set out in Attachment #1 of this
report, subject to minor revisions with terms and conditions
satisfactory to staff from a legal services and insurance perspective;
3. That the appropriate City staff be directed to take the necessary
actions as indicated in this report; and,
4. That staff be directed to report back with a summary of the results,
and if successful, consider continuing the program in subsequent
years pending budget approval.
5. Other Business
6. Adjournment
For information related to accessibility requirements please contact:
Committee Coordinator
905.420.4611
clerks@pickering.ca
Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: AS 01-21
Date: June 7, 2021
From: Paul Bigioni
Director, Corporate Services and City Solicitor
Subject: Dunmoore Park
-Conversion of Small Baseball Diamond to Leash Free Area
-File: A-1440
Recommendation:
1.That Report AS 01-21 regarding the conversion of the small baseball diamond in
Dunmoore Park to a leash free area be received;
2.That Council endorse the creation of a leash free area in Dunmoore Park; and
3.That appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to
implement the recommendations in this report.
Executive Summary: As part of building a healthy and vibrant community, activities that
include dogs have been reported to help reduce stress, anxiety and depression for not just the
pet owner but also for others that may become exposed. Animal Services recognizes the deep
connection people have with their pets, and the benefits that come from these types of bonds.
Designated Leash Free Areas provide a safe environment for dogs to run around freely, get
the exercise they need and mingle with other dogs. Leash free areas also provide dog owners
with the opportunity to socialize with one another, and an opportunity to meet new members of
our community.
In 2019, as part of an internal staff review of City parks and open spaces, Dunmoore Park was
selected as a potential site to create a new leash free area. Dunmoore Park is currently
comprised of three baseball diamonds, tennis courts, a soccer field and a children’s
playground area. The small baseball diamond currently located at the southeast end of the
park is the site proposed to be converted into a leash free area. This baseball diamond is
underutilized due to its odd configuration, with a very shallow right field area.
In October 2020, a virtual (online) public consultation process regarding the creation of a leash
free area at Dunmoore Park took place. A total of 342 people completed the online survey with
91 per cent of the respondents in favour of the creation of a leash free area within Dunmoore
Park.
Based on the positive feedback received through public consultation, funds for the design and
construction of this project were requested and approved in the 2021 Parks Capital Budget.
Staff are recommending that Council endorse the creation of a leash free area at Dunmoore
- 1 -
AS 01-21 June 7, 2021
Subject: Dunmoore Park
Conversion of Small Baseball Diamond to Leash Free Area Page 2
Park, and that the appropriate City staff be authorized to proceed with the design and tender
for construction of the leash free area in 2021.
Financial Implications: As part of the 2021 Parks Capital Budget, $120,000.00 is approved
for the conversion of the small baseball diamond within Dunmoore Park to a leash free area.
City staff are also actively looking for additional funding opportunities to offset some of the
budgeted costs and to allow for further enhancements to promote the connection between
people and dogs.
Discussion: In 2010, the City of Pickering opened its first leash free area located
within Grand Valley Park. Since its inception, this leash free area has been utilized by many
area residents as well as visitors from local municipalities. Although the leash free areas
located at Grand Valley Park are heavily used, residents are often enquiring about additional
locations that are more centralized as well as ones that are fully accessible for all types of
users.
In 2019, as part of an internal staff review of City parks and open spaces, Dunmoore Park was
selected as a potential site to create a new leash free area. The south half of Dunmoore Park
is owned by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) but is under Management
Agreement by the City of Pickering. TRCA staff have been consulted about converting the
south baseball diamond to a leash free area and are in full support of the idea. They have
advised that they often receive complaints of dogs running off leash in the Petticoat Creek
Conservation Area, and believe that this addition to Dunmoore Park would be a benefit to them
in this regard.
As part of the design implementation, the City will employ risk reduction strategies which
include:
• fully fenced in area with a corral area to ensure that dogs cannot accidently escape;
• signage located along the perimeter of the leash free area outlining specific leash free
rules;
• adequate garbage cans as well as the addition of a new dog waste diversion station; and
• obstacles and agility components for dogs to enjoy while ensuring adequate seating and
shade coverage for the dog owners.
In October 2020, a virtual (online) public consultation process regarding the creation of a leash
free area in Dunmoore Park took place. Marketing for the public consultation consisted of
direct mailings to area residents, community page advertisements and social media
promotions. A total of 342 surveys were received. The following is a summary of the key points
of interest from the survey:
- 2 -
AS 01-21 June 7, 2021
Subject: Dunmoore Park
Conversion of Small Baseball Diamond to Leash Free Area Page 3
• 91 per cent of respondents were in favour of the creation of a leash free area in Dunmoore
Park;
• of the 9 per cent who were not in support of the creation of a leash free area, 59 per cent
actually had no specific concerns;
• 30 per cent of the respondents indicated they would use the proposed leash free area daily
and 44 per cent would use it weekly;
• 53 per cent of the respondents either live next to the park or within walking distance of the
park; and
• 82 per cent of the respondents indicated they would also like to see obstacles installed in
the area, for dogs to play and interact with.
Residents were given the opportunity to provide suggestions for features that they would like to
see included in the leash free area. The following is a summary of some of the features
requested:
• things for dogs to climb, go around, go under;
• a bin for dog waste bags and a separate garbage cans for all other items;
• a light so the park can be used after dark;
• benches, seating and shelter from the elements;
• fully fenced in for safety;
• an area to separate small dogs from big dogs; and
• a drinking fountain for dogs.
A full description of the survey questions, responses, and comments received can be found in
Attachment #1.
The proposed leash free area will encompass most of the south baseball diamond and will be
fenced in its entirety with the access gate at the northwest corner, where the site grading
allows for a barrier free access point. A concept plan of the proposed leash free area that was
included as part of the survey can be found in Attachment #2. Detailed design plans of the
area will be prepared by Engineering Services, in consultation with Animal Services and
Community Services staff following endorsement of this location by Council. Staff anticipate
that the leash free area could be ready for public use as early as fall 2021.
Based on the positive feedback received through the public consultation process, staff are
recommending that Council endorse the creation of a leash free area in Dunmoore Park and
- 3 -
AS 01-21 June 7, 2021
Subject: Dunmoore Park
Conversion of Small Baseball Diamond to Leash Free Area Page 4
that the appropriate City staff be authorized to proceed with the design and tender for
construction of the leash free area in 2021.
Attachments:
1.Dunmoore Park – Leash Free Area Resident Survey Results
2. Concept Plan of Dunmoore Park Leash Free Area
3.Location Map – Dunmoore Park
- 4 -
AS 01-21 June 7, 2021
Subject: Dunmoore Park
Conversion of Small Baseball Diamond to Leash Free Area Page 5
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
Lindsey Narraway Paul Bigioni
Supervisor, Animal Services Director, Corporate Services and
City Solicitor
Arnold Mostert, OALA Richard Holborn, P. Eng.
Manager, Landscape & Parks Development Director, Engineering Services
LN: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:
- 5 -
Attachment #1 to Report # AS 01-21
Dunmoore Park – Leash Free Area Resident Survey Results
342 responses received – percentages shown are based on total responses out of 342
1.How close do you live to Dunmoore Park?
•Beside the park – 30 (9%)
•Within walking distance – 150 (44%)
•In Pickering but need to drive to the park – 152 (44%)
•Outside of Pickering – 10 (3%)
Beside the Park
9%
Walking
Distance
44%
In Pickering but
need to drive to
park
44%
Outside of
Pickering
3%
How close do you live to Dunmoore Park?
2.Does anyone in your household currently use Dunmoore Park?
•Yes – 177 (52%)
•No – 165 (48%)
If you answered yes, what activities do you do?
•Exercise – 80 (23%)
•Soccer – 36 (10%)
•Baseball – 32 (9%)
•Tennis – 26 (8%)
•Children‘s playground – 62 (18%)
•Dog-walking – 130 (38%)
•Other – 31 responses including walking, cycling and picnics
3.How many dogs do you own?
•1 – 191 (55%)
•2 – 82 (24%)
•More than 2 – 8 (2%)
•Do not own a dog – 59 (17%)- 6 -
P
4. Do you support the creation of a leash free area in Dunmoore Park?
•Yes – 310 (91%)
•No – 32 (9%)
Yes
91%
No
9%
Do you support the creation of a leash free area
in Dunmoore Park?
5. How often would you use a leash free area?
•Daily – 102 (30%)
•W eekly – 151 (44%)
•Monthly – 30 (9%)
•Never – 58 (17%)
Daily
30%
Weekly
44%
Monthly
9%
Never
17%
How often would you use this leash free area?
age 2 of 5 - 7 -
7. If you are not supportive of the creation of a leash free area, what are your main concerns?
•Cleanliness – 41 (12%)
•Parking – 20 (6%)
•Noise – 9 (3%)
•Conflict with others – 24 (7%)
•I have no concerns – 183 (54%)
•Other – 33 responses
Cleanliness
13%
Parking
6%
Noise
3%
Conflict with
others
8%
I have no
concerns
59%
Other
11%
If you are not supportive of the creation of a
leash free area, what are your main concerns?
8. If you are in support of creating a leash free area, are there any specific features that you
would like to see incorporated?
•260 responses received. Summary of comments are highlighted in the report. Full survey
responses can be shared if requested)
9.Would you like to see obstacles installed for the dogs to play with?
•Yes – 279 (82%)
•No – 51 (15%)
10.Additional comments
•178 responses received. Summary of comments are highlighted in the report. Full survey
responses can be shared if requested)
In Support
•Hopefully this happens. Looking forward to it
•We need an easily accessible dog park in Pickering& this is the perfect spot!! My husband has
mobility issues & that hill to get to the only other dog park is a killer & unsafe in the winter
Page 3 of 5 - 8 -
•I would support this off-leash proposal even though I am not a dog owner myself. Safety of
everyone should also be a concern and ensure the area is fully fenced off to the surrounding area.
Thanks.
•I personally think a dog park at Dunmoore Park would be a great idea as we currently live quite far
from the closest one as it is. We would bring our dog there weekly if there was a dog park less
than a 5-minute drive from our house!
•Having more off leash dog parks is a great way for dogs to learn how to socialize, which helps
them to be calmer when they interact with other people and dogs when on the street/on leash
areas.
•Great idea I hope this is approved!
•Pickering should have a dog park that is famous in the GTA dog owners community.
•Although I do not own a dog, I believe this is a great idea. I often see dogs being walked in the
soccer field area, & this location would help.
•I think it is a great idea to have a leash free park in this area. This neighbourhood needs one.
•Hopefully less people will let their dogs off leash to run in Petticoat Creek leaving the conservation
area for others to enjoy without fear of dogs attacking.
•Currently I walk my dog by the area being considered & I never see anyone using it as a playing
field so i am fully convinced this is a great idea, also considering almost 50% households in the
neighbourhood have dogs.
•If approved, then the city must monitor daily to inforce the bylaw not just the signs that are posted.
•More dog parks available in Pickering would potentially limit and issues that arise with dogs being
in regular parks.
•Pickering is doing great things, keep up the good work.
•South Pickering is in desperate need for a dog park. Right now I drive close to 20 minutes just to
get to the other park, which is ridiculous when I live right next door to a vast green space.
•Pickering is not a dog friendly city and should be given the number of dogs and residential areas.
We need dog parks near more residential areas to reduce the illegal use of non-dog parks for dog
play.
•I am very glad that Pickering is considering more off leash dog parks. This will allow people to
have a place to bring and release their dog legally. Valley Farm off leash dog park is a good
sample of the way the park should be set up!
Not In Support
•This sounds like a done deal already approved or in process which is disappointing. There are lots
of dog parks within the Durham region already and easily accessible. Making another one here,
addresses only a want identified by a certain group and will not address the behavioural and lack
of accountability issues.
Page 4 of 5 - 9 -
•Make sure if you plan to give up this green space in the park for an off leash park that you are
remembering the new development plans with more residents in the condos proposed for Whites
Rd/Kingston Rd area. The demand for more green space for families will no doubt increase.
•Petticoat is a very popular walking area for families and the parking lot is regularly full. Once you
have sporting events there is a serious shortage of parking spaces and people park on adjacent
streets so we routinely have to ask people not to block our driveway, a leash free area would only
increase the parking problem.
•Spend time, energy and money improving the public spaces for the community to use instead of
another dog park.
•The dog park in grand valley park is great because it is out of the way from a residential area and
provides a large space for the dogs to run around. Dunmore park is surrounded by homes and is
used frequently by children and families playing in the fields. I rarely ever see the dog park at
grand valley filled to capacity so I am not sure there is a need for another dog park.
•There is no such thing as a SAFE leash-free park. Too many dogs have been attacked by other
dogs who are not properly socialized/trained, or something sets them off and it's just part of their
nature (some dogs are not spayed/neutered and start fights due to this). There is no control over
who can use the park, and whether the owners are responsible for the actions of their pets, and
whether they clean up after their pets. I firmly believe dog owners should be 100% responsible for
their pets' exercise, and the cost of cleaning up. Taxpayers should not pay for this. If you don't
have enough property for your dog to play, if you don't have time or energy to walk your dog, if
you can't take your dog's waste back home with you to dispose of properly, then don't have a dog.
•This sucks that you are even considering lavish things like this when your property taxes are so
high.
Page 5 of 5 - 10 -
Attachment #2 to Report # AS 01-21
- 11 -
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!!!!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!
!
!!!
!!
!!!!WHITES ROADCREEKVIEW CIRCLEDOWNLANDDRIVE
B
R
O
A
D
G
R
E
E
N
S
T
R
E
E
TENGELCOURTCALLAHAN STREET
ATWOODCRESCENT
LAYTONCOURT
Petticoat Creek SCALE:
Engineering Services
Department Dunmoore Park
Proposed Off Leash Dog ParkMay. 04, 2021
DATE:
q
1:2,943
Proposed
Off Leash Dog Park
Attachment #3 to Report # AS 01-21
- 12 -
Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: CLK 03-21
Date: June 7, 2021
From: Paul Bigioni
Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor
Subject: Ward Boundary Review
- Final Report – Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
- File: A-1440
Recommendation:
1. That Report CLK 03-21, regarding the Ward Boundary Review Final Report, from Watson
& Associates Economists Ltd., be received;
2. That Final Option ____, as outlined in the 2020/2021 Ward Boundary Review Final
Report for the City of Pickering be approved;
3. That the Clerk be directed to bring forward the applicable By-law to change the ward
boundaries at the June 28, 2021 Council Meeting for enactment; and,
4. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary
actions as indicated in this report.
Executive Summary: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., in association with Dr.
Robert J. Williams, (the ‘Consultants’), were engaged to conduct an independent Ward
Boundary Review for the City of Pickering in November, 2017. The project was delayed due to
the announcement of a Regional Government Review that was undertaken by the Province of
Ontario in mid-2019. Once that review was complete, it posed no changes to the City’s
municipal boundaries, and the Ward Boundary Review resumed with the adoption of the
Project’s Terms of Reference at the December 16, 2019 Council Meeting. As plans began and
the project got underway, COVID-19 occurred in early 2020 and once again paused the
project.
On July 27, 2020, a revised Terms of Reference were presented and adopted by Council so
that the project could continue using virtual engagement platforms. This was necessary so that
any changes to the existing ward boundaries could be implemented by the legislated
timeframes prior to the 2022 Municipal Election. Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, the Review
continued through the latter part of 2020 and concluded with the final phase of public
consultation in March 2021. The Consultants have now reviewed all the data and are
presenting their findings and final report recommendations as outlined in Attachment #1 to
CLK 03-21.
- 13 -
CLK 03-21 June 7, 2021
Subject: Ward Boundary Review
Final Report – Watson & Associates Economists Ltd Page 2
Financial Implications: There are no financial implications associated with this Final Report
as funds for the project were previously approved by Council through the annual budget
process.
Discussion: At the Executive Committee Meeting of January 4, 2021, an Interim
Ward Boundary Report was presented to the Committee, which was subsequently presented
to Council, and was received for information. The report provided an overview of some
preliminary ward options based on the public feedback that had been received during Phase 1
of the Review. A summary of those preliminary options can be found in Attachment #2 to this
Report.
In February 2021, Phase 2 of public consultation was launched which included additional
virtual open houses, as well as an online survey where residents could choose their preferred
ward boundary option. The summary of those findings are contained in the Consultants’ Final
Report included as Attachment #1.
Recognizing the importance of obtaining feedback from the public, and due to the COVID-19
pandemic and resulting lockdowns and stay-at-home orders, Phase 2 of the community
engagement process included the use of various media to promote and engage the public.
This included a robust communication plan in addition to virtual open houses. The following
provides a list of the various media and efforts used to engage the public, and further details
are included in the Consultants’ Final Report (Attachment #1):
• Media release to kick-off Phase 2 of the Review (February 8, 2021);
• Email blasts to community groups through Corporate Communications (February 2021);
• Dedicated webpage advertised on all print and digital media and updated from Phase 1
to draw more attention to key messages;
• Whiteboard animation video to provide education on what a Ward Boundary Review
entails;
• Virtual public open houses – 4 held for Phase 2 on February 24 and March 3, 2021, at
3:00 pm and 7:00 pm;
• Community page advertisements on February 18 and 25, 2021;
• Display of large floor banners at City Hall and the Library;
• Use of webpage banners on the City’s website homepage;
• Regular posts and promotion on all City social media platforms including paid boost ads
(Facebook, Twitter, Instagram);
• Displays on all of the City’s digital signs for one full month; and,
• Distribution of rack cards in the January/February 2021 Interim Tax Bills.
Overall, as noted in the Consultants’ Final Report, the website and social media garnered good
participation which they have noted was higher than what has been experienced by other
municipalities undertaking similar reviews during the COVID-19 pandemic.
With the presentation of the Consultant’s Final Report, should Council decide on a change to
the ward boundaries, and a by-law is brought forward for approval in accordance with Section
- 14 -
CLK 03-21 June 7, 2021
Subject: Ward Boundary Review
Final Report – Watson & Associates Economists Ltd Page 3
222 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25 (the “Act”), within 15 days after a by-law is
passed to change the City’s wards, notice of the passing of the by-law must be given to the
public specifying the last date for filing a notice of appeal to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal
(LPAT). The appeal period is within 45 days of the by-law being passed. If there are no
appeals filed within the specified timelines, the by-law comes into force on the day the new
Council of the municipality is organized following the 2022 Municipal Election and in
accordance with the Act, the election shall be conducted as if the by-law was already in force.
Should the Committee provide direction on the recommended ward boundary option, a by-law
to change the ward boundaries would be presented to Council at its meeting on June 28, 2021.
Should that by-law be passed, the deadline for an appeal would be no later than August 12,
2021.
The Consultants’ Final Report provides 3 recommended options. Committee/Council may
choose to:
• Adopt one of those recommended options;
• Adopt one of the other preliminary options, presented in the Interim Report, not being
recommended by the Consultants. (Note: A summary of preliminary options from the
Interim Report – December 2020, are included as Attachment #2. To view the full
Interim Report visit https://corporate.pickering.ca/weblink/1/edoc/235044/CLK%2001-
21.pdf); or,
• Not adopt any of the Consultants’ recommendations and retain the current ward
boundary structure.
To provide Committee/Council with additional information regarding council composition and
the manner in which Members of Council are elected, Final Options 1 and 2, as contained in
the Consultants’ Final Report, both retain a 3 ward structure and therefore, could retain the
same number of City and Regional Councillors as are currently in place, resulting in no
changes to Council composition or the manner in which they are elected.
Final Option 3 (3 Wards), also retains a three ward structure with no impact to the number of
Councillors or how they are elected.
Final Option 3-B (4 Wards) compliments Final Option 3 (3 Wards) in that it could be
implemented in the future, once population numbers reach the thresholds and projected
forecasts. Option 3 provides a clean boundary line between Wards 1, 2 and 3, allowing for a
fourth Ward to be easily added at a later time should Council decide to do so. The boundaries
have already been provided by the Consultants and a change to the Ward Boundary By-law
could be done in the future without the need to undertake another ward boundary review.
Prior to the 2026 or 2030 Municipal Election, should the population numbers demonstrate the
need to have more Council representation, the additional Ward 4 could be created. This would
provide the ability to add an additional City Councillor who would be elected to the new Ward
4. The addition of another Regional Councillor would be determined by the Region of Durham
and if provided, would also allow the election of one Regional Councillor for the new Ward 4.
Alternatively, at the time that Council may wish to add in the new Ward 4, should an additional - 15 -
CLK 03-21 June 7, 2021
Subject: Ward Boundary Review
Final Report – Watson & Associates Economists Ltd Page 4
Regional Councillor not be allocated to the City of Pickering, consideration of electing Regional
Councillors at large for the 2026 or 2030 municipal election would be another viable option.
These changes to Council composition are permitted under Section 217 of the Act, and a staff
report and by-law would give effect thereto at the applicable time.
The findings presented in the Consultants’ Ward Boundary Review Final Report are provided
for Committee/Council consideration and staff seek Committee/Council’s direction in this
regard.
Attachments:
1.Final Report – City of Pickering Ward Boundary Review – Watson & Associates
Economists Ltd. – June 2021
2.Summary of Preliminary Options – Interim Ward Boundary Review Report – December
2020
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
Susan Cassel Paul Bigioni
City Clerk 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:
Original Signed By:
- 16 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
905-272-3600
June, 2021 info@watsonecon.ca
In association with: Dr. Robert J. Williams
2020/2021 Ward Boundary Review
City of Pickering
________________________
Final Report
Attachment #1 to CLK 03-21
- 17 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
Table of Contents
Page
1. Introduction and Study Objectives ................................................................... 1
2. Context ................................................................................................................ 1
3. Project Structure and Timeline .......................................................................... 3
4. Previous Reports ................................................................................................ 3
5. Existing Population and Forecast Growth in the City of Pickering ................ 4
5.1 Existing Population and Structure .............................................................. 5
5.2 Forecast Population Growth, 2020 to 2030 ................................................ 6
6. Public Engagement ............................................................................................ 7
6.1 Online Engagement ................................................................................... 8
6.1.1 Website ......................................................................................... 8
6.1.2 Surveys ......................................................................................... 8
6.1.3 Social Media Engagement .......................................................... 10
6.2 Public Consultation Sessions ................................................................... 10
6.3 Interviews and Direct Community Outreach ............................................. 11
7. Principles .......................................................................................................... 11
8. Pickering’s Existing Ward Structure ............................................................... 12
9. Recommended Options ................................................................................... 15
9.1 Composition of Council ............................................................................ 15
9.2 Final Option 1 .......................................................................................... 17
9.3 Final Option 2 .......................................................................................... 21
9.4 Final Option 3 .......................................................................................... 24
10. Next Steps & Council Decisions ..................................................................... 29
Appendix A Public Engagement ............................................................................. A-1
Appendix B Social Media Metrics ........................................................................... B-1
- 18 -
Table of Contents (Cont’d)
Page
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
https://watsonecon.sharepoint.com/sites/WardBoundaryReviews/Shared Documents/General/Pickering WBR/5_Reports/4_Final Report/Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review
- Final Report.docx
Appendix C Public Consultation Sessions ............................................................ C-1
Appendix D Public Engagement Survey Results .................................................. D-1
- 19 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A - 30
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
1. Introduction and Study Objectives
The City of Pickering has retained Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., in association
with Dr. Robert J. Williams, hereinafter referred to as the Consultant Team, to conduct a
comprehensive and independent Ward Boundary Review (W.B.R .) before the 2022
municipal election.
The primary purpose of the study is to prepare Pickering Council to make decisions on
whether to maintain the existing ward structure or to adopt an alternative. Other matters
are integral to a comprehensive review, including:
• Develop a clear understanding of the present ward system, including its origins
and operations as a system of representation .
• Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the present ward system based on
identified guiding principles.
• Conduct an appropriate consultation process in accordance with Pickering’s
public engagement practices during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) public
health emergency to ensure community support for the review and its outcome.
• Identify plausible modifications to the present ward structure including:
o What guiding principles will be observed in the design of the wards;
o Whether it is appropriate to consider changing the composition (size) of
Council as part of the same review; and
o Whether it is appropriate to consider dissolving the wards to elect
councillors at-large (in what the Municipal Act, 2001 calls a “general vote”
system).
• Deliver a report that will set out recommended alternative ward boundaries to
ensure effective and equitable electoral arrangements for Pickering based on the
principles identified.
This phase of the study provides Council with a final report and alternative ward
boundary structures for their consideration, as presented herein.
2. Context
The basic requirement for any electoral system in a representative democracy is to
establish measures to determine the people who will constitute the governmental body
that makes decisions on behalf of electors. Representation in Canada is organized
- 20 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
around geographic areas, units referred to as constituencies in the federal an d
provincial parliaments and typically as wards at the municipal level, as is the case in the
City of Pickering.
At present, Council is comprised of seven members, consisting of a Mayor, who is
elected at-large, and six councillors, two of whom (a Regional Councillor and a City
Councillor) are elected in each of the three wards. The existing ward structure is
presented in Figure 2-1.
Figure 2-1: Pickering Current Ward Structure
- 21 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
The wards in which councillors are elected in Pickering were established whe n the
municipality was created in 1982 with one exception, a minor adjustment in 2005 .
Population data from 2016 and 2020 indicate that the wards are unbalanced in
population.
When Pickering was created, the population was less than 40,000; in 2020 it is
approximately 92,000 and will grow by a further 58,000 by 2030, primarily in the present
Ward 3. Moreover, population growth has not been uniform across the City and future
growth will be concentrated in the northern part of the City.
3. Project Structure and Timeline
Council adopted the terms of reference for the W.B.R. in December 2019. Initial work
included research and data compilation plus interviews with all elected officials, the
Clerk’s office and other staff concerning this study. These interviews were initially
conducted in person in early 2020 but were suspended in March 2020 because of the
COVID-19 pandemic. Following public health guidelines on gatherings, the Consultant
Team conducted the two rounds of public consultation virtually.
In addition, the Consultant Team undertook:
• Population and growth forecasting and data modelling to 2030.
• Development of seven preliminary ward boundary alternatives.
• Public consultation on the existing ward structure and preliminary alternatives.
• A project update to Council (January 4, 2021).
• Development of final options and recommendations, and preparation of a Final
Report (this document constitutes the Final Report) that will be on the agenda of
Executive Committee on June 7, 2021.
4. Previous Reports
A Discussion Paper was released in October 2020, followed by an Interim Report dated
December 2020 that provided preliminary alternative ward options developed by the
Consultant Team. Both reports are available on the City’s website:
https://www.pickering.ca/en/city-hall/ward-boundary-review.aspx
- 22 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 4
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
These reports serve as a platform for the Final Report since they include:
• An explanation of the terms of reference and objectives for the W.B.R.
• An outline of the format and timeline for the project.
• The context and background for the W.B.R.
• A detailed discussion and explanation of the guiding principles that frame the
study.
• An analysis of the distribution of the present municipal population and a forecast
of population growth over the 2020 to 2030 period .
• An analysis and preliminary evaluation of the present wards within the context of
the guiding principles.
• Seven preliminary ward boundary options.
The Final Report does not explore the topics discussed in the Discussion Paper or the
Interim Report, except in summary form to provide context, and assumes that those
interested in the recommendations included herein have access to the documents.
5. Existing Population and Forecast Growth in the
City of Pickering
One of the basic premises of representative democracy in Canada is the belief that the
geographic areas used to elect a representative should be reasonably balanced with
one another in terms of population. Accordingly, a detailed population estimate for the
City of Pickering, including its constituent wards and communities, was prepared to
allow evaluation of the existing ward structure and subsequent alternatives in terms of
representation by population in the current year (2020).
The City of Pickering is forecast to experience significant and urbanized population
growth over the next decade and beyond, in both the South Urban Lands and Seaton
Lands. For this reason, it is important that this study assesses representation by
population for both existing and future year populations. In accordance with the study
terms of reference, the analysis considered representation by population over the next
three municipal elections through to 2030. A population and housing forecast for the
City for the 2020 to 2030 period was determined, and the results of this analysis are
discussed below.
- 23 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 5
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
5.1 Existing Population and Structure
Since the City’s existing wards were established in 1974, the population of Pickering
has increased by approximately 150%.
As mentioned, this study needs to look at the existing as well as future population
distribution. A mid-2020 population estimate was derived by utilizing the 2016 Census
and a review of building permit activity from 2016 through the end of 2019, with an
assumed six-month lag from issuance to occupancy. Pickering’s estimated 2020
population is 99,900.[1] The City’s 2020 total population is presented by area in Table
5-1. As shown, the South Urban Lands account for the majority of the population, that
is approximately 93% of the current population (93,000) and is anticipated to continue to
grow.
Table 5-1: 2020 Population by Community
Geographic Location 2020
Population[1]
South Urban Lands 93,000
Seaton Lands 2,500
Remaining Rural 4,400
Total 99,900
[1] Includes Census undercount of approximately 4.0%.
Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding.
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. 2020.
The 2020 base population was developed at a sub -municipal level, allowing the
Consultant Team to aggregate these blocks to determine populations for existing and
alternative ward options. As shown in Figure 5-1, one of the three existing wards is
home to about 47% of the City’s population and is approximately four times the area of
the other two wards combined. As addressed in the Discussion Paper and the Interim
Report, the wards do not represent Pickering in an equitable way, and as growth
continues to develop, these wards will continue to grow further out of parity.
[1] Reflects a mid-2020 population estimate and includes Census undercount of
approximately 4.0%.
- 24 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 6
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
Figure 5-1: 2020 Population Estimates
by Existing Ward Structure
5.2 Forecast Population Growth, 2020 to 2030
The Consultant Team prepared a City-wide population forecast for the 2020 to 2030
period that is consistent with the City of Pickering’s latest growth projections.[1]
Community level growth allocations were guided by a comprehensive review of
opportunities to accommodate future residential growth through plans of subdivision
(registered unbuilt, draft approved, and proposed), site plan applications, and
discussions with municipal planning staff.
By 2030, Pickering’s population is anticipated to grow by approximately 58,000, bringing
the total population (including undercount) to approximately 157,900, an increase of
approximately 58%. Most of this growth is anticipated to occur north of the current
urban lands and within the Seaton Lands south of Highway 407. Seaton is anticipating
a growth of over 13,000 units over the ten-year horizon, equating to growth of
[1] City of Pickering Detailed 20-Year Population Forecast (December 31, 2019).
Ward 1
30,440
30%
Ward 2
22,550
23%
Ward 3
46,940
47%
- 25 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 7
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
approximately 38,200 persons.[1] This accounts for 66% of the City’s growth, while the
remaining 33% is expected to occur within the current South Urban Lands (19,400
persons) with minimal growth anticipated in northern rural Pickering (400 persons) as
shown below in Table 5-2.
Table 5-2: Population Growth, 2020 to 2030
Geographic Location 2020
Population[1]
2030
Population[1]
2020-2030
Growth
South Urban Lands 93,000 112,400 19,400
Seaton Lands 2,500 40,700 38,200
Remaining Rural 4,400 4,800 400
Total 99,900 157,900 58,000
[1] Includes Census undercount of approximately 4.0%.
Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding.
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd., 2020.
The development of the Seaton Lands will change the landscape of Pickering from a
southern urbanized City with a sparse northern rural community to a fully developed
City south of Highway 407. Moreover, the growth in Seaton is anticipated to occur
rapidly over the next 10 years.
6. Public Engagement
The W.B.R. employed a comprehensive public engagement strategy, in which the
Consultant Team solicited feedback from staff, Council, and citizens of the City of
Pickering through a variety of methods:
• Online engagement through surveys, social media outreach, and a public-facing
website;
• Public consultation sessions (online virtual open houses); and
• Interviews with members of Council, the Mayor, and key members of staff.
Information on the W.B.R. process was communicated through the website, as well as
through social media posts on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, and additional notices
were posted on digital signs throughout both survey periods. A full list of the
[1] Includes Census undercount of approximately 4.0%.
- 26 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 8
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
engagements can be found in Appendix A with additional materials in Appendices B to
D.
The Consultant Team’s presentation and other information about the review , including
recordings of the Virtual Public Open Houses, are also available on the City’s website:
https://www.pickering.ca/en/city-hall/ward-boundary-review.aspx
The feedback and comments collected through the public consultation process are
reflected in the analysis presented below and have helped inform the final options to be
presented to Council. While public input from consultation provides valuable insight into
the review, it is not relied on exclusively. The Consultant Team utilized the public input
in conjunction with its professional expertise and experience in W.B.R.s, along with best
practices, to develop the preliminary options presented herein.
6.1 Online Engagement
6.1.1 Website
A public-facing webpage was established to raise awareness about the W.B.R., to
disseminate information about the process, and to give Pickering residents an
opportunity to provide feedback. Through this platform, residents could access the
online surveys, view recordings of the public engagement sessions, view proposed
ward boundary options, review background material, including the Interim Report, and
provide feedback directly to staff and the Consultant Team. A purpose-built Whiteboard
Animation Video was also posted on the webpage, which distilled some key information
about the W.B.R. into an accessible format.
Engagement with the City of Pickering’s W.B.R. website was excellent. As of April
2021, it had received 4,333 visitors, peaking at 1,996 in October 2020, and then at
1,377 in February 2021.
6.1.2 Surveys
Of those who visited the W.B.R. webpage, a significant number also opted to provide
feedback through the public survey. The surveys provided the Consultant Team with an
opportunity to gauge public preferences using both qualitative and quantitative
analytical techniques. Surveying was done at two different stages of the public
- 27 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 9
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
consultation process – an initial round (Phase 1) to evaluate public priorities and
perspectives on the existing ward structure, and a later survey (Phase 2) which asked
respondents to assess and rank a set of preliminary ward boundary options. The
Phase 1 survey was open from October 1 to November 2, 2020 and received 74
responses. Participants were given the opportunity to evaluate the existing ward
structure and to rank the guiding principles in terms of priority. In general, residents of
Pickering indicated that the overarching principle of Effective Representation should be
prioritized, but respondents differed on how they felt this would be best achieved.
Responses were quite balanced, with 45% of respondents ranking Representation by
Population as a “High Priority,” followed by 42% for Current and Future Population
Trends, 39% for Representation of Communities of Interest, and 34% for Physical
Features as Natural Boundaries. Respondents were split on whether the number of
wards should be increased, with just over half (54%) indicating they do not wish to see
an increase.
A follow-up survey was later opened from February 5 to March 7, 2021, which asked
participants to identify their preferred preliminary option. There was a much higher level
of engagement with the Phase 2 survey, with 656 participants, 311 of whom ranked the
preliminary ward boundary options from most to least favourite. The three-ward options
tended to be preferred, with 26% of respondents ranking Preliminary Option 1 as their
favourite, and 19% ranking Preliminary Option 3 as their favourite. Preliminary Option 2
was only ranked first by 15% of respondents but it was the most common second
favourite option, at 24%. The final three-ward option – Preliminary Option 3 – was less
commonly ranked as a top option, but it was a common “middle ground,” only being
chosen as least favourite by 6% of respondents. In fact, the four preliminary options
comprised of three wards were only ranked last by 32% of respondents combined,
compared to 68% for the remaining three preliminary options with greater numbers of
wards. Of these, Preliminary Option 5 – featuring six wards – was ranked least
favourite by 30% of respondents, followed by Preliminary Option 7 (four wards) at 26%.
Full survey results are reported in Appendix D.
Throughout both rounds of surveying, the open-form comments provided key insights
into public preferences and the issues in play. The Consultant Team evaluated these
comments for general themes and identified insightful responses that highlighted crucial
issues. Overall, these responses echoed the quantitative results, with many
participants expressing their view that the number of wards should not be increased,
- 28 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 10
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
while others expressed concerns over the development in north Pickering and the
consequent population imbalance it would produce. Comments along these lines
corroborate the findings reported above, that Representation by Population should be
prioritized over the other guiding principles, and that preliminary options involving three
wards should be preferred. Moreover, there was a strong rural voice, calling for careful
representation of rural areas and rural issues on City Council. There were in addition to
these pertinent remarks, numerous written responses commenting on issues of
governance that are not immediately applicable to this W.B.R. For example, th ere were
multiple remarks on other facets of the electoral framework such as term limits on
councillors, as well as other critiques on the lack of diversity on City Council. Others still
wrote about broader issues such as taxation and the protection of the natural
environment in the face of rapid development in areas such as Seaton. Many of these
are important issues, but it must be emphasized that this review is limited in scope to
the evaluation of ward boundaries, and so issues specific to any sitting council, or
broader issues of governance, must be addressed through other avenues.
6.1.3 Social Media Engagement
Social media proved an effective platform for disseminating information about the
W.B.R. to the public. For example, a short brain-teaser survey entitled “How Well Do
You Know Pickering?” was circulated through social media, which quizzed respondents
on their knowledge of their City. It was intended to be a fun method for informing the
public, which would hopefully generate excitement about the W.B.R., as well as direct
participants to the survey.
Notices were also posted on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, raising awareness and
directing the public to the feedback survey. In total, 20 posts were made on Twitter,
reaching over 18,000 people and generating nearly 50 likes or retweets; 19 posts were
made on Facebook, reaching almost 35,000 people and generating around 130 likes or
shares; and 14 posts or stories were posted on Instagram, reaching nearly 17,000
people and generating 142 shares, likes, saves, or profile visits.
6.2 Public Consultation Sessions
The Consultant Team also held a series of public consultation sessions with Pickering
residents. Following public health guidelines put in place due to the COVID-19
pandemic, eight, approximately one-hour long, public open houses were conducted
- 29 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 11
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
virtually – four during Phase 1 and four in Phase 2. Residents had the option of
participating either online through a video conferencing platform, or by calling in via
telephone. Feedback from these sessions was used to inform the recommendations
provided in this report. It should be highlighted that, while these public consultation
sessions had to be held virtually due to COVID-19, the eight sessions that occurred
outnumber the sessions that would have occurred under normal circumstances. Thus,
while gathering restrictions have posed some barriers to public engagement, such
additional measures helped to mitigate any disruption. The Consultant Team’s
presentation and other information about the review, including an audio of a Public
Open House, are available online at https://www.pickering.ca/en/city-hall/ward-
boundary-review.aspx. Further, the slides presented in the public consultation sessions
are also available in Appendix C of this document.
6.3 Interviews and Direct Community Outreach
In addition to the public engagement, it was crucial for the Consultant Team to benefit
from the perspectives of professionals in government and community organizations
throughout the City. A series of interviews were conducted with the Mayor and
members of Council, as well as with senior City staff.
The feedback and comments received through the consultation process are reflected in
the analysis and have helped inform the findings and recommendations. Whil e public
input from consultation provides valuable insight into the review, it is not relied on
exclusively. This is in part because only a subset of the population participated in the
W.B.R., which may not be representative of Pickering’s population as a whole. The
Consultant Team interpreted the public input using its professional expertise and
experience in W.B.R.s, along with knowledge of best practices, to develop the
recommended options.
7. Principles
The City of Pickering has established core principles and other directions for this
electoral review. The following principles will be referred to for guidance in the conduct
of the review:
• Representation by Population;
• Protection of Communities of Interest and Neighbourhoods;
- 30 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 12
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
• Current and Future Population Trends;
• Physical Features as Natural Boundaries; and
• Effective Representation.
These principles are discussed briefly in the Discussion Paper (pages 10 to 12) and at
greater length in Part 7 (pages 14 to 20) of the Interim Report so they will not be
addressed again in this Final Report. The Consultant Team has given a thorough
consideration of the importance of each principle and a considered evaluation of which
of the principles is most important for determining an appropriat e system of
representation for the 2022 municipal election in Pickering. We also collected
responses from the public about the priority they assigned to the guiding principles (see
the Interim Report, Part 6).
The principles contribute to a system that provides for equitable on-going access
between elected officials and residents, but they may conflict with one another in their
application. Accordingly, it is expected that effective representation will be the
overriding principle and can be used to arbitrate conflicts between principles. Any
deviation from the specific principles must be justified by other principles in a manner
that is more supportive of effective representation.
The priority attached to certain principles makes some options more desirable in the
eyes of different observers. Ultimately, the ward design adopted by Pickering’s Council
should be the one that best fulfills as many of the guiding principles as possible.
8. Pickering’s Existing Ward Structure
A preliminary evaluation of the existing ward structure in Pickering is found in Chapter 3
of the Preliminary Options Report. That discussion and our evaluation of the existing
wards are found in the Table 8-1 below.
Table 8-1: Present Pickering Ward Configuration Evaluation Summary
Principle
Does the Current
Ward Structure
Meet the
Respective
Principle?
Comment
Representation by
Population No Two of the three wards are outside
the acceptable range of variation.
- 31 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 13
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
Principle
Does the Current
Ward Structure
Meet the
Respective
Principle?
Comment
Protection of
Communities of Interest
and Neighbourhoods
No
None of the wards are coherent
electoral units because of limited
natural, social, or economic
connections within them.
Current and Future
Population Trends No All wards are outside the acceptable
range of variation.
Physical Features as
Natural Boundaries
Partially
successful
Most markers used as boundaries of
the wards are straightforward but are
not used consistently.
Effective Representation No
Effective representation is hindered
by uneven population distribution and
the inclusion of rural residents in a
ward with a predominantly urban
population.
Meets Requirements of Guiding Principle?
Yes Largely successful Partially successful No
The existing ward boundaries fail to meet two main challenges: providing for population
parity between wards and accommodating future population trends.
The objective of population parity (every councillor generally representing an equal
number of constituents within his or her respective ward) is the primary goal of an
electoral redistribution with some degree of variation acceptable in light of population
densities and demographic factors across the City. The indicator of success in a ward
design is the extent to which all the individual wards approach an “optimal” size.
Optimal size can be understood as a mid-point on a scale where the term “optimal” (O)
describes a ward with a population within 5% on either side of the calculated optimal
size. The classification “below/above optimal” (O + or O -) is applied to a ward with a
population between 6% and 25% on either side of the optimal size. A ward that is
labelled “outside the range” (OR + or OR -) indicates that its population is greater than
25% above or below the optimal ward size. The adoption of a 25% maximum variation
- 32 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 14
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
is based on federal redistribution legislation and is widely applied in municipalities like
Pickering that include both urban and rural areas.
Based on the municipal population estimates for 2020 of approximately 99,920, the
optimal population size for a local ward in a three-ward system in Pickering would be
33,307. This optimal ward population size increases to 52,653 by 2030 when the
population is projected to increase to approximately 157,900 (Table 8-2).
Table 8-2: Optimal Range for a Three-Ward System
Symbol Description Variance 2020 Population
Range
2030 Population
Range
OR+ Outside Range - High 25% >41,633 >65,817
O+ Above Optimal 5% 34,972 55,286
O Optimal Population Range - 33,307 52,653
O- Below Optimal -5% 31,641 50,021
OR- Outside Range - Low -25% <24,980 <39,490
Population data for 2020 suggests that two of the three wards are outside the
acceptable range of variance. The range in population amongst the wards is
approximately 24,000, between a low of 22,550 in Ward 2 and a high of 46,940 in Ward
3. While some variation is acceptable, especially with regard to the rural and urban
nature of Pickering, this variation is on the extreme side. Ironically, the ward that
includes all of rural Pickering is also the largest by population, almost as large as the
combined population of the two completely urban wards, and much of the City’s future
residential growth is expected to be largely concentrated in that same ward. Even the
population range in the two urban wards is considerable. Without any adjustment, the
disparities between the wards will continue.
Responses to the survey and participation in the public consultation sessions have
largely shown that Pickering residents also think that population parity and future
population trends should be prioritized in any alternative ward boundary system. The
consultation process also revealed that there continues to be strong rural and
agricultural interests and well-established hamlets and communities that should
somehow be represented on Council. It is clear that some of th ese communities have
- 33 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 15
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
interests that are distinct from the larger, more populated communities in the urban
area.
All told, analysis of the current and future population trends, along with feedback
received during the public consultation, leads to a recommendation that Council should
adopt an alternate ward configuration.
9. Recommended Options
9.1 Composition of Council
As mentioned in the Interim Report, Pickering, like many municipalities in Ontario,
provides a unique challenge when finding a suitable ward boundary system. Pickering
is a community with a large population concentration in the southern portion of the City
but also includes an extensive sparsely populated rural hinterland that is about to be
transformed by the Seaton developments. Clearly the Pickering of 1974 when the
wards were established is not the Pickering of 2021 nor of 2031.
A consideration of what the Municipal Act, 2001 calls the “composition” of council was
not included in the original directions to the Consultant Team but has arisen as the
implications of working in a three-ward system became clearer. As we noted in the
Interim Report (pages 34 to 37), within ten years Pickering will a bsorb new population
growth equivalent to its total population when the three wards were first established
(40,000), the bulk of it within a concentrated area in a single ward. Other municipalities
within Durham Region with a total population of 40,000 or less are themselves divided
into more than three wards.
The preliminary options addressed in the Interim Report began by working with the
guiding principles for the review, along with feedback from residents and the expertise
and experience of the Consultant Team to achieve an improvement on the now-familiar
three-ward configuration. In addition, the Consultant Team developed additional
alternative ward boundary configurations using four-, five- and six-ward formats to
discover whether the large geography and population concentration, present and future,
can be better represented in a larger number of wards.
Over the course of this review, and in particular in the viewpoints conveyed in some of
the responses to the Phase 2 survey, we have concluded that a three-ward system has
- 34 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 16
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
significant challenges in meeting the guiding principles set out for this review. When
incorporating projected population growth, those guiding principles become largely
unachievable under a three-ward system. That is, a three-ward system, designed when
the then-Town's population was less than 40,000, has been in place with only a minor
refinement for over forty-five years, during which time the municipality has grown by
150% and the three wards now make it difficult to provide fair and effective
representation to the residents of Pickering. During that time, the municipality has had
the authority to modify its ward boundaries and the composition of its Council to better
align representation to both the increase and distribution of population, but no Council
has done so. As a result, there is a perception among some residents that a three-ward
system in Pickering must always be maintained or cannot be modified in any significant
way.
Pickering is governed by a seven-member Council; however, a majority are also serving
on the Region of Durham Council. Put another way, there are only three councillors
whose primary responsibility is governing a City of about 100,000 people. Local
responsibilities have expanded, and population growth has been and is expected to be
significant; however, the number of local councillors has remained the same. It is
important to note that the four elected officials who sit on Regional Council also sit on
City Council and are available to respond to Pickering residents over local concerns.
They have dual responsibilities as members of both Councils and as such have a
division of responsibilities. This is not a comment on the way these individual
councillors perform their responsibilities but an observation on the fact that Pickering
has not adjusted its system of representation to recognize the changes in the
community and the growth in responsibilities that the City itself must address. There
are several much smaller municipalities in Ontario and Durham Region where there are
as many as seven local councillors in addition to the municipality’s upper-tier
representatives. We are in fact reviewing the electoral system in another municipality
where there are three lower-tier councillors – but its total population is just over 10,000.
One other hindrance to modifying the composition of council is the interlocking method
of election of Regional and City Councillors. That is, with three seats on Durham
Regional Council (excluding the Mayor), the same wards are used to fill both positions.
One way to modify the number of seats on Pickering City Council would be to elect the
Regional Councillors by general vote (that is, without reference to wards) and to add an
additional ward to elect an additional City Councillor. This idea of electing Regional
- 35 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 17
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
Councillors by general vote was briefly considered in Pickering in the early 1980s but
was never implemented; however, electing Regional Councillors by general vote was/is
used in other Ontario regions (such as York and Waterloo) and in Whitby (as well as in
Oshawa for a number of elections).
Now that all indications are that the projected population growth will occur over the next
five to ten years, the three-ward arrangement is a less plausible electoral system for
Pickering. Many respondents to the survey urge the adoption of a fair ward
arrangement that addresses both the present and future population distribution in
general and the growing population in what is now Ward 3 by splitting that ward or re-
dividing the municipality generally into more wards. These alternatives would mean an
increase in the number of City Councillors to provide more effective representation. On
the other hand, other respondents were adamant that the cost of additional Councillors
was grounds enough for continuing with a Council of the present size (or in some cases
even advocating to reduce it). From that point of view, enhanced representation is a
cost that may residents are not prepared to see as valid, even though Pickering’s
council composition appears to be frozen in the 1970s, obstructing the achievement of
fair and effective representation in the 2020s.
As discussed above, however, the Consultant Team does not recommend that
Pickering retain the current ward boundary system, whether for three wards or some
other number.
9.2 Final Option 1
This Final Option is based on Preliminary Option 1, a three-ward system that grows into
an acceptable population distribution in 2030 with minimal changes to the current three
wards. The proposed Wards 1 and 2 include most of the present urban areas, with the
downtown in a single ward. As at present, both of these proposed wards include areas
north and south of Highway 401, but a major regional road (Whites Road) is used as a
boundary between them instead of Fairport Road. A cleaner and consistent northern
boundary is used with the proposed Ward 3 along Concession Road 3. The proposed
Ward 3 encompasses the entire rural part of Pickering but still includes the Duffin
Heights and Brock Ridge urban neighbourhoods that contribute the bulk of the
population in 2020. By 2030, the population of that proposed ward is expected to triple
in size, primarily associated with Seaton.
- 36 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 18
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
The 2020 population distribution includes only one proposed ward (Ward 3) in the
optimal range, but the other two proposed wards are outside the acceptable 25%
variation. This would not meet the representation by population principle but, as Table
9-1 shows, it comes very close to meeting the future population principle with one
proposed ward in the optimal range and the other two within the margins of the
acceptable 25% variation.
In the shorter term, the proposed Ward 3 will include about two-thirds of the City’s land
mass but only approximately 20% of the population. It is already the case that it is
difficult to conclude that rural Pickering and its historic hamlets can claim effective
representation in the present Ward 3; those communities within Pickering w ill be even
less visible by the further transformation of rural Pickering.
This option, as shown in Figure 9-1, is included here because it is in several ways an
improvement on the present system and may be seen as a more palatable change than
other options in light of the 45-year history of the present system. A modest
improvement is a small step, but a step nevertheless.
- 37 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 19
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
Figure 9-1: Ward Map of Final Option 1
- 38 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 20
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
Table 9-1: Final Option 1 – Population by Ward
Ward
Number
2020
Population[1] Variance Optimal
Range
2030
Population[1] Variance Optimal
Range
Ward 1 34,770 1.04 O 39,750 0.75 O-
Ward 2 44,770 1.34 OR+ 53,760 1.02 O
Ward 3 20,380 0.61 OR- 64,450 1.22 O+
Total 99,920 - - 157,960 - -
Average 33,307 - - 52,653 - -
Note: Numbers have been rounded.
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Table 9-2: Final Option 1 Evaluation Summary
Principle
Does the Ward
Structure Meet
the Respective
Principle?
Comment
Representation by
Population No
Two of the three wards are outside
the acceptable range of variation but
will grow into better balance,
probably within five years.
Protection of
Communities of Interest
and Neighbourhoods
Largely
successful
Two of the wards are coherent
electoral units. Ward 3 continues to
be a mix of neighborhoods ranging
from suburban neighbourhoods to
sparsely populated rural areas and
hamlets as well as the forecast
Seaton development.
Current and Future
Population Trends
Largely
successful
All wards are within the acceptable
range of variation, although two are
near the margins.
Physical Features as
Natural Boundaries Yes
Most markers used as boundaries of
the wards are straightforward and
identifiable.
Effective Representation Largely
successful
Effective representation is hindered
by uneven population distribution and
the inclusion of rural residents in a
ward with predominantly urban
population.
- 39 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 21
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
9.3 Final Option 2
This Final Option, as presented in Figure 9-2, is a ward configuration that is forecast to
achieve population parity for the 2030 municipal election.
There are only two actual ward boundary lines in Preliminary Option 3: Concession
Road 3 and Dixie Road. Although establishing the northern boundary for the two
southern wards at Concession Road 3 means the 2020 population of proposed Ward 3
is well below the acceptable range of variation, councillors elected in that ward will need
to be engaged in the complex task of representing a brand new large urban community
in the heart of the ward.
As in some other preliminary options, population parity is not realistic in 2020, but the
dynamics of growth in Pickering point to a successful population balance in 2030. The
proposed Ward 1 begins as the ward with the largest population, but is largely built out
and likely to experience minimal growth. The proposed Ward 2 is the smallest by area
and population, but encompasses downtown Pickering and the associated
neighbourhoods, businesses, and extensive employment lands south of Highway 401 ,
as well as new neighbourhoods along the Brock Road corridor that are placed in Ward 3
in Final Option 1. As shown in Table 9-3, with removal of those neighbourhoods, the
population of the proposed Ward 3 is only about a quarter that of the other two wards in
2020, but grows by about 40,000 residents by 2030 and into the optimal range (that is,
within 5% of optimal).
If achieving population parity in a three-ward system over the next two or three elections
is Council’s priority, on balance Final Option 2 is a plausible alternative.
- 40 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 22
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
Figure 9-2: Ward Map of Final Option 2
- 41 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 23
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
Table 9-3: Final Option 2 – Population by Ward
Ward
Number
2020
Population[1] Variance Optimal
Range
2030
Population[1] Variance Optimal
Range
Ward 1 49,240 1.48 OR+ 54,960 1.04 O
Ward 2 39,200 1.18 O+ 48,640 0.92 O-
Ward 3 11,480 0.34 OR- 54,360 1.03 O
Total 99,920 - - 157,960 - -
Average 33,307 - - 52,653 - -
Note: Numbers have been rounded.
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Table 9-4: Final Option 2 Evaluation Summary
Principle
Does the Ward
Structure Meet
the Respective
Principle?
Comment
Representation by
Population No
Two of the three wards are outside
the acceptable range of variation but
will grow into better balance,
probably within five years.
Protection of
Communities of Interest
and Neighbourhoods
Yes
The two urban wards are coherent
collections of neighborhoods while
the third is largely rural today. The
ward will be transformed during the
next three election cycles.
Current and Future
Population Trends Yes
Successfully achieves the kind of
population balance sought in this
principle.
Physical Features as
Natural Boundaries Yes
Markers used as boundaries of the
wards are straightforward and
identifiable.
Effective Representation Yes
Effective representation is hindered
in the short term by uneven
population distribution but
accommodates demands on
councillors brought on by large-scale
development.
- 42 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 24
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
9.4 Final Option 3
Final Option 3 builds on two of the preliminary options to provide a way to align the
wards in a manner that achieves the representation by population principle for the 2022
municipal election, but also serves as the basis for an additional ward to accommodate
the future population growth in Seaton. In terms of community of interest, it places the
central business district, a significant concentration of employment and major cultural
institutions that are components of the urban fabric of Pickering, in a single ward along
with a number of well-established nearby neighbourhoods. It also locates all the
shoreline and other neighbourhoods south of Highway 401 in a single ward. The
common boundary of the proposed Wards 1 and 2 is Highway 401 from Ajax on the
east side of the City through to Whites Road, but it becomes less clear-cut north of
Highway 401 where it follows Sheppard Avenue and Rosebank Road.
To achieve better parity in 2020, the northern boundary of the two proposed urban
wards is Finch Avenue, effectively keeping several established neighbourhoods in
Liverpool and the growing Brock Ridge and Duffin Heights neighbourhoods in the same
ward as rural Pickering. Final Option 3 maintains a population balance over the next
three elections – but only in the two proposed southern wards. The drawback of this
option is that the population growth in proposed Ward 3 (forecast to be around 45,000)
pushes the proposed ward well over the acceptable range – while the proposed ward
also encompasses about 60% of the City’s land mass. This is not a desirable
combination, but it appears to be inevitable in a three-ward system in Pickering.
In other words, Final Option 3 (Figure 9-3) is premised on “catching up” with the
population growth since 1974 to arrive at population parity across three wards but not
on preparing for growth. This is where Preliminary Option 7 enters the picture: when
the population of Seaton pushes the proposed Ward 3 close to the upper limit of the
range of variation – whether before the 2026 municipal election or the 2030 municipal
election, the ward would be divided at Taunton Road (as included in Preliminary Option
7) resulting in all four wards within the acceptable range of variation.
We hasten to point out that the idea of a fourth ward is not part of the 2021 W.B.R. but
Final Option 3 can be readily – and successfully – adapted for that purpose, especially if
Pickering is assigned an additional seat on Durham Regional Council for the 2026
municipal election.
- 43 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 25
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
Figure 9-3, below, represents Final Option 3 which is to be adopted under the current
population conditions as presented in Table 9-5. When adequate population is reached
for an additional ward, Ward 3 is to be divided at Taunton Road, as outlined in Figure
9-4. The resulting solution would generate population distributions, as shown in Table
9-6, where there is a three-ward system in 2020 and a four-ward system in place by
2030 once the population of Ward 3 is significant enough to accommodate two wards.
Table 9-5: Final Option 3 – Population by Ward
Ward Number 2020
Population[1] Variance Optimal
Range
Ward 1 34,370 1.03 O
Ward 2 36,650 1.10 O+
Ward 3 28,900 0.87 O-
Total 99,920 - -
Average 33,307 - -
Note: Numbers have been rounded.
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Table 9-6: Final Option 3 + 3-B – Population by Ward
Ward
Number
2020
Population[1] Variance Optimal
Range
2030
Population[1] Variance Optimal
Range
Ward 1 34,370 1.03 O 41,560 1.05 O+
Ward 2 36,650 1.10 O+ 41,610 1.05 O+
Ward 3 28,900 0.87 O- 38,420 0.97 O
Ward 4 - - - 36,380 0.92 O-
Total 99,920 - - 157,960 - -
Average 33,307 - - 39,493 - -
Note: Numbers have been rounded
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
- 44 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 26
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
Figure 9-3: Ward Map of Final Option 3 – Three Wards
- 45 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 27
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
Figure 9-4: Ward Map of Final Option 3-B – Four Wards
- 46 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 28
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
Table 9-7: Final Option 3 Evaluation Summary
Principle
Does the Ward
Structure Meet
the Respective
Principle?
Comment
Representation by
Population Yes
Successfully achieves the kind of
population balance sought in this
principle.
Protection of
Communities of Interest
and Neighbourhoods
Largely
successful
Two of the wards are coherent
electoral units. Ward 3 continues to
be a mix of neighborhoods ranging
from suburban neighbourhoods to
sparsely populated rural areas and
hamlets as well as the forecast
Seaton development.
Current and Future
Population Trends No
The two urban wards are balanced
with one another, but Ward 3 is well
above the acceptable range of
variation.
Physical Features as
Natural Boundaries
Largely
successful
Most markers used as boundaries of
the wards are straightforward and
identifiable.
Effective Representation Largely
successful
Effective representation is hindered
by uneven population distribution and
the inclusion of rural residents in a
ward with predominantly urban
population.
- 47 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 29
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
10. Next Steps & Council Decisions
This report will be presented to the Executive Committee at a meeting scheduled for
June 7, 2021. During their deliberation, Council has a series of choices to make.
Should the wards be more reflective of existing population or of future population
projections? Is it appropriate to continue with a three-ward configuration for Pickering or
should Council look ahead to where the City will be within a very few years? How do
they want to see the rural area and communities outside urban Pickering represented ?
How important are clear and identifiable ward boundaries to the residents of Pickering?
Council must decide which of these core principles best represents the City’s
component communities and residents.
We also urge Council to appreciate that there is probably no “right” time to adjust the
wards but that choosing to postpone a decision, for example, until after the forecast
growth has taken place in Seaton, will perpetuate a system that is already unsound and
inequitable. It is difficult to justify maintaining a flawed system just because it has a
history.
It is probably also important for Council to consider adopting a Ward Boundary Review
Policy that commits the municipality to review its ward boundaries after three elections
or when population growth reaches a pre-determined threshold. Leaving such an
integral part of Pickering’s democratic system unaddressed for more than forty years
should be unacceptable to the residents of the City in the future; electoral reviews
should be proactive and routine not reactive and discretionary. The implementation of a
new ward boundary model as provided for in this report can be viewed as addressing
the distribution of population and communities as they exist in 2021 not 1974, but as the
municipality changes through population growth and new residential development, such
new conditions can be incorporated into the City’s electoral system within a relatively
short period of time. It is appropriate for the City to be prepared for this inevitable
change in the community.
One final course of action for Council is to take no action at all. Council may view the
current ward system as adequate and, by default, endorse it by not selecting an
alternative option. As we suggested in the Interim Report, however, one of our
purposes was to stimulate discussions in Pickering, to encourage residents and Council
to “think outside the box” of representation. If it declines to act, Council must clearly
understand that such a decision essentially indicates to the City’s residents that it
- 48 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 30
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report
believes retaining the 1974 ward system still serves Pickering well. The Consultant
Team has reached a different conclusion.
In that context it is also important to note that taking no action is a form of decision that
can still be appealed, albeit indirectly. Section 223 of the Municipal Act, 2001 indicates
that one per cent of the electors or 500 of the electors in the municipality, whichever is
less, may “present a petition to the council asking the council to pass a by-law dividing
or redividing the municipality into wards or dissolving the existing wards.” If Council
does not pass a by-law in accordance with such a petition within 90 days after receiving
the petition, any of the electors who signed the petition may apply to the Local Planning
Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) to have the municipality redivided into wards. In that event, the
Consultant Team – which has recommended that the present system not be maintained
– would not be in a position to act in support of Council’s decision to retain the present
system.
Within this report, the Consultant Team has highlighted some deficiencies in the current
ward boundary system in relation to the guiding principles. These deficiencies have led
the Consultant Team to conclude that the current ward boundary system no longe r
serves the residents of Pickering well and ought to be changed. The public
engagement efforts throughout this review have been largely consistent with this view.
Depending on Council’s decision related to the Final Options contained in this report,
ratification of a by-law to implement a preferred option is expected to occur before the
summer recess.
- 49 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-1
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Appendix A
Public Engagement
- 50 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-2
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Figure A-1: List of Public Engagement Methods
Tool Description
Pickering W.B.R.
Webpage
A dedicated engagement website was developed for the
Ward Boundary Review (W.B.R.) study at
https://www.pickering.ca/en/city-hall/ward-boundary-
review.aspx. The webpage included an informative
whiteboard video, links to public engagement sessions and
surveys, and up-to-date messaging to inform the public of the
status of the W.B.R.
Public Open
Houses
Eight open houses were held:
Phase 1
• October 7, 2020 x 2
• October 15, 2020 x 2
Phase 2
• February 24, 2021 x2
• March 3, 2021 x2
See Appendix C for additional Information.
Public
Engagement
Surveys
Two phases of surveys were posted on the W.B.R. webpage:
the first intended to discern which guiding principles were
prioritized by the community, and the second to discern
which preliminary option was preferred.
See Appendix D for a summary of the results.
Interviews with
members of
Council
Each member of Council was invited to participate in a one-
hour discussion with the consultant.
Social Media
20 notices were posted on Twitter:
• Reached 18,108
• 26 retweets
• 23 likes
19 notices were posted on Facebook:
• Reached 34,974
• 53 shares
- 51 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-3
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Tool Description
• 77 likes
14 notices were posted on Instagram:
• 10 posts reached 13,760
• Posts generated 9 shares, 121 likes, and 4 saves
• 4 stories reached 3,116
• Stories were shared twice and led to 6 profile visits
Full details of each post are provided in Appendix B.
Digital Billboards
Phase 1
The Ward Boundary Review designs were displayed on the
City’s four digital signs from September 15 until the survey
closed on October 30, 2020:
• Civic Complex
• Recreation Complex
• Centennial Park (Brock Road)
• Western Gateway (Kingston Road and Altona Road)
Phase 2
The Ward Boundary Review designs for Phase 2 were
displayed on the City’s digital signs:
• Civic Complex
• Recreation Complex
• Centennial Park (Brock Road)
• Western Gateway (Kingston Road and Altona Road)
• CN Bridge
- 52 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE B-1
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Appendix B
Social Media Metrics
- 53 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE B-2
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Phase 1
Twitter Stats
Post #1 – Published September 23
• 950 reached
• 1 retweet, 2 likes
Post #2 – Published September 25
• 877 reached
• 1 retweet
Post #3 – Published October 1
• 1,006 reached
• 2 retweets, 2 likes
Post #4 – Published October 5
• 1,824 reached
• 3 retweets, 5 likes
Post #5 – Published October 6
• 706 reached
• 1 retweet, 1 like
Post #6 – Published October 7
• 413 reached
• 2 retweets, 2 likes
Post #7 – Published October 9
• 858 reached
• 1 retweet
Post #8 – Published October 13
• 855 reached
• 2 retweets, 2 likes
Post #9 – Published October 14
• 1,015 reached
• 2 retweets
- 54 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE B-3
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Post #10 – Published October 23
• 1,015 reached
• 1 retweet
Post #11 – Published October 27
• 1,114 reached
• 2 retweets, 2 likes
Post #12 – Published October 29
• 901 reached
• 1 retweet, 2 likes
Post #13 – Published October 30
• 1,000 reached
• 2 retweets, 1 like
Facebook Stats
Post #1 – Published September 21
• 2,074 reached
• 5 likes, 4 shares
Post #2 – Published September 23
• 1,430 reached
• 6 likes, 4 shares
Post #3 – Published October 1
• 1,161 reached
• 6 likes
Post #4 – Published October 5 (Boosted Post)
• 6,022 reached
• 21 likes, 7 shares
• 198 link clicks
Post #5 – Published October 6
• 1,069 reached
• 2 likes, 1 share
- 55 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE B-4
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Post #6 – Published October 7
• 738 reached
• 2 shares, 2 likes
Post #7 – Published October 9
• 1,345 reached
• 1 share, 2 likes
Post #8 – Published October 13
• 1,528 reached
• 4 shares
Post #9 – Published October 14
• 1,129 reached
• 1 share
Post #10 – Published October 23
• 1,173 reached
• 1 like
Post #11 – Published October 27
• 1,211 reached
Post #12 – Published October 29
• 795 reached
• 1 like
Post #13 – Published October 30
• 861 reached
• 1 like, 1 share
Instagram Post Stats
Post #1 – Published September 21
• 1,554 reached
• 18 likes, 1 share, 3 saves
- 56 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE B-5
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Post #2 – Published September 25
• 1,372 reached
• 11 likes, 2 shares
Post #3 – Published October 2
• 1,010 reached
• 8 likes, 4 shares, 1 save
Post #4 – Published October 7
• 1,085 reached
• 9 likes
Post #5 – Published October 13
• 1,360 reached
• 8 likes
Instagram Story Stats
Story #1 – Published September 21
• 776 reached
• 1 share
Story #2 - Published September 23
• 599 reached
Story #3 – Published October 5
• 701 reached
• 1 share, 3 profile visits
Story #4 – Published October 13
• 1,040 reached
• 3 profile visit
- 57 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE B-6
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Phase 2
Twitter Stats
Post #1 – Published February 9
• 656 reached
Post #2 – Published February 12
• 681 reached
• 1 like
Post #3 – Published February 17
• 980 reached
• 1 retweet
Post #4 – Published February 22
• 887 reached1 retweet, 1 like
Post #5 – Published February 24
• 849 reached
• 2 retweets, 1 like
Post #6 – Published February 26
• 829 reached
• 1 retweet
Post #7 – Published March 4
• 692 reached
• 1 like
Facebook Stats
Post #1 – Published February 9 (BOOSTED POST)
• 10,044 reached
• 26 likes, 18 shares
Post #2 – Published February 12
• 983 reached
• 2 shares
- 58 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE B-7
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Post #3 – Published February 17
• 828 reached
• 1 like, 1 share
Post #4 – Published February 22
• 909 reached
• 4 shares
Post #5 – Published March 4
• 1,018 reached
• 3 likes, 3 shares
Post #6 – Published March 5
• 656 reached
Instagram Stats
Post #1 – Published February 9
• 1,382 reached
• 9 likes
Post #2 – Published February 17
• 1,333 reached
• 17 likes, 1 share
Post #3 – Published February 22
• 1,634 reached
• 15 likes, 1 share
Post #4 – Published March 2
• 1,309 reached
• 9 likes
Post #5 – Published March 5
• 1,721 reached
• 17 like
- 59 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-1
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Appendix C
Public Consultation Sessions
- 60 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-2
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx - 61 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-3
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx - 62 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-4
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx - 63 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-5
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx - 64 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-6
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx - 65 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-7
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx - 66 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-8
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx - 67 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-9
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx - 68 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-10
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx - 69 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-11
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx - 70 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-12
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx - 71 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-13
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx - 72 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-14
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx - 73 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-15
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx - 74 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-16
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx - 75 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-17
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx - 76 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-18
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx - 77 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-19
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx - 78 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-20
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx - 79 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-21
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
- 80 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-22
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx - 81 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-23
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx - 82 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-24
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx - 83 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-25
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx - 84 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-26
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx - 85 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-27
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx - 86 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-28
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx - 87 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-29
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx - 88 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-30
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx - 89 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-31
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx - 90 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-32
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx - 91 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-33
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx - 92 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-34
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx - 93 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-35
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx - 94 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-36
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx - 95 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-37
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx - 96 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-38
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx - 97 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE C-39
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
- 98 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE D-1
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
Appendix D
Public Engagement Survey
Results
- 99 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE D-2
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx - 100 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE D-3
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx - 101 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE D-4
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
- 102 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE D-5
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx - 103 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE D-6
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx - 104 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE D-7
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx - 105 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE D-8
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx - 106 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE D-9
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
82
22
60
20
43
38
46
48
76
53
37
19
45
33
53
51
74
44
31
17
41
38
54
51
108
29
13
18
32
28
36
55
49
40
71
22
48
25
29
48
118
21
36
32
12
18
92
40
81
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Preliminary Option 1 (3-Wards 1)
Preliminary Option 2 (3-Wards 2)
Preliminary Option 3 (3-Wards 3)
Preliminary Option 4 (3-Wards 4)
Preliminary Option 5 (6-Wards)
Preliminary Option 6 (5-Wards)
Preliminary Option 7 (4-Wards)
Preliminary Options Ranked (1 = Favourite, 7 =Least Favourite)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
- 107 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE D-10
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx - 108 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE D-11
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx - 109 -
Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE D-12
Pickering 2020 Ward Boundary Review - Final Report.docx
- 110 -
Preliminary
Option 1
(3-Ward Option 1)
Watson & Associates
Economists Ltd. in
association with
Dr. Robert Williams
Provides wards the ability to
grow into an acceptable
population distribution where
growth and development is
anticipated to occur.
Two wards are contained
entirely within the existing
urban community with Seaton
contained in the other.
Ward #2020
Population1 Variance Optimal
Range
2030
Population1 Variance Optimal
Range
Ward 1 34,770 1.04 O 39,750 0.75 O-
Ward 2 44,770 1.34 OR+ 53,760 1.02 O
Ward 3 20,380 0.61 OR- 64,450 1.22 O+
Total 99,920 157,960
Average 33,307 52,653
Preliminary Option 1
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Note: Numbers have been rounded
Summary of Preliminary Options - Interim Ward
Boundary Report (December 2020)
Attachment #2 to CLK 03-21
- 111 -
Preliminary
Option 2
(3-Ward Option 2)
Watson & Associates
Economists Ltd. in
association with
Dr. Robert Williams
Provides acceptable population
distributions in the existing
communities but as the
population grows, parity is
maintained in only the two
proposed southern wards.
Two wards are contained
entirely within the existing
urban community with Seaton
contained in the other.
Ward #2020
Population1 Variance Optimal
Range
2030
Population1 Variance Optimal
Range
Ward 1 34,370 1.03 O 41,560 0.79 O-
Ward 2 36,650 1.10 O+ 41,610 0.79 O-
Ward 3 28,900 0.87 O- 74,790 1.42 OR+
Total 99,920 157,960
Average 33,307 52,653
Preliminary Option 2
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Note: Numbers have been rounded
- 112 -
Preliminary
Option 3
(3-Ward Option 3)
Watson & Associates
Economists Ltd. in
association with
Dr. Robert Williams
Provides wards the ability to
grow into an acceptable
population distribution where
growth and development is
anticipated to occur.
Two wards are contained
entirely within the existing
urban community with Seaton
contained in the other. There
are only two actual ward
boundary lines in this option;
Concession Rd. 3 and Dixie
Road.
Ward #2020
Population1 Variance Optimal
Range
2030
Population1 Variance Optimal
Range
Ward 1 49,240 1.48 OR+ 54,960 1.04 O
Ward 2 39,200 1.18 O+ 48,640 0.92 O-
Ward 3 11,480 0.34 OR- 54,360 1.03 O
Total 99,920 157,960
Average 33,307 52,653
Preliminary Option 3
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Note: Numbers have been rounded
- 113 -
Preliminary
Option 4
(3-Ward Option 4)
Watson & Associates
Economists Ltd. in
association with
Dr. Robert Williams
Balances both existing and
future growth trends.
Two wards are contained
entirely within the existing
urban community with Seaton
contained in the other.
Preliminary
Option 4
(3-Ward Option 4)
Watson & Associates
Economists Ltd. in
association with
Dr. Robert Williams
Ward #2020
Population1 Variance Optimal
Range
2030
Population1 Variance Optimal
Range
Ward 1 44,400 1.33 OR+ 48,290 0.92 O-
Ward 2 35,530 1.07 O+ 44,970 0.85 O-
Ward 3 19,990 0.60 OR- 64,710 1.23 O+
Total 99,920 157,960
Average 33,307 52,653
Preliminary Option 4
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Note: Numbers have been rounded
- 114 -
Preliminary
Option 5
(6-Ward Option)
Watson & Associates
Economists Ltd. in
association with
Dr. Robert Williams
Doubles the current number of
wards.
Provides wards the ability to
grow into an acceptable
population distribution where
growth and development is
anticipated to occur.
Four wards are contained
entirely within the existing
urban community with Seaton
contained within two northern
wards.
Ward #2020
Population1 Variance Optimal
Range
2030
Population1 Variance Optimal
Range
Ward 1 18,160 1.09 O+ 23,360 0.89 O-
Ward 2 22,970 1.38 OR+ 27,440 1.04 O
Ward 3 22,250 1.34 OR+ 23,920 0.91 O-
Ward 4 24,730 1.48 OR+ 28,550 1.08 O+
Ward 5 7,860 0.47 OR- 32,100 1.22 O+
Ward 6 3,950 0.24 OR- 22,600 0.86 O-
Total 99,920 157,960
Average 16,653 26,327
Preliminary Option 5 - 6-Wards
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Note: Numbers have been rounded
- 115 -
Preliminary
Option 6
(5-Ward Option)
Watson & Associates
Economists Ltd. in
association with
Dr. Robert Williams
Increases the current number of
wards by two.
Provides wards the ability to
grow into an acceptable
population distribution where
growth and development is
anticipated to occur.
Four wards are contained
entirely within the existing
urban community with Seaton
contained in the other.
Ward #2020
Population1 Variance Optimal
Range
2030
Population1 Variance Optimal
Range
Ward 1 28,800 1.44 OR+ 33,770 1.07 O+
Ward 2 25,910 1.30 OR+ 30,680 0.97 O
Ward 3 23,370 1.17 O+ 27,590 0.87 O-
Ward 4 18,160 0.91 O- 29,540 0.94 O-
Ward 5 3,690 0.18 OR- 36,380 1.15 O+
Total 99,920 157,960
Average 19,984 31,592
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Note: Numbers have been rounded
Preliminary Option 6 - 5-Wards
- 116 -
Preliminary
Option 7
(4-Ward Option)
Watson & Associates
Economists Ltd. in
association with
Dr. Robert Williams
Increases the current number of
wards by one.
Provides wards the ability to
grow into an acceptable
population distribution where
growth and development is
anticipated to occur.
Four wards are contained
entirely within the existing
urban community with Seaton
contained in the other.
Ward #2020
Population1 Variance Optimal
Range
2030
Population1 Variance Optimal
Range
Ward 1 32,700 1.31 OR+ 39,030 0.99 O
Ward 2 38,320 1.53 OR+ 44,140 1.12 O+
Ward 3 25,210 1.01 O 38,420 0.97 O
Ward 4 3,690 0.15 OR- 36,380 0.92 O-
Total 99,920 157,960
Average 24,980 39,490
Preliminary Option 7 - 4-Wards
Source: Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.
Note: Numbers have been rounded
- 117 -
Preliminary
Option 4
(3-Ward Option 4)
Watson & Associates
Economists Ltd. in
association with
Dr. Robert Williams
Preliminary
Options
Watson & Associates
Economists Ltd. in
association with
Dr. Robert Williams - 118 -
p](KERJNG
Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: CS 09-21
Date: June 7, 2021
From: Brian Duffield
(Acting) Director, Community Services
Subject: Community Association Lease Agreement
-Pickering Ajax Italian Social Club
-File: A-1440
Recommendation:
1. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the Lease Agreement with the
Pickering Ajax Italian Social Club as set out in Attachment 1 to this report, subject to
minor revisions as may be required by the (Acting) Director, Community Services and
the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor; and,
2. That the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as
indicated in this report.
Executive Summary: On April 22, 2014, Council approved Resolution #224/14
authorizing staff to prepare written facility agreements with various community associations
regarding exclusive and/or regular use of City owned facilities; with each such agreement to
be brought back to Council for consideration and approval. As such, staff have prepared a
draft Lease Agreement with the Pickering Ajax Italian Social Club (the “Club”) for their
exclusive use of the four bocce courts, the kitchenette and an external storage room located
in the City owned washroom building, within Centennial Park, located at 2250 Brock Road,
in the City of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham.
The Community Services Department recommends that the draft Lease Agreement included
as Attachment 1 be initiated for a five year term beginning June 1, 2021 and ending May 31,
2026.
Financial Implications: The City of Pickering is responsible to fund the general operating
costs (such as utilities, garbage removal, maintenance and cleaning) of the courts within
Centennial Park which are reflected annually within the Community Services Department’s
Current Budget (Cost Centre 2718). The Current Budget does not reflect capital
expenditures that vary year-to-year depending on facility need.
The Pickering Ajax Italian Social Club is responsible to fund the day-to-day costs to operate
the Club, which includes program/office supplies, administrative and insurance costs. The
Club is also responsible to supply, maintain, repair and/or replace furniture, appliances and
equipment at its expense, in order to operate its activities. The Club shall pay annual
charges (subject to the Council approved Summary of Fees & Charges) to the City for the
- 119 -
CS 09-21 June 7, 2021
Subject: Pickering Ajax Italian Club Lease Agreement Page 2
bocce courts on site for hydro use. The club is the sole owner of the portable building on the
site and shall be responsible for all associated costs for its upkeep.
Discussion: The Pickering Ajax Italian Social Club was founded in 1992 with a focus on
inspiring community involvement. The Club brings the Italian community together and
creates positive social relationships. The Club has adopted Centennial Park under the City’s
Adopt-A-Park Program and take pride in being good stewards by hosting litter clean ups.
The Club has operated their activities at Centennial Park under a verbal agreement with the
City of Pickering up to the present. During this time, the Pickering Ajax Italian Social Club
has operated their activities in a diligent and conscientious manner that has satisfied the
City.
As per Council Resolution #224/14, City staff have prepared a written Lease Agreement to
document these longstanding verbal agreements. As per the terms and conditions of the
attached written agreement, the Club shall use the premises for non-profit, charity events or
non-commercial receptions of the Clubs, at their costs. The Club will also maintain
insurance in the amount of two million dollars. The City is responsible for all day-to-day
operating expenses of the respective parks including garbage removal and regular
maintenance. The City is also responsible for the capital replacement costs of the bocce
courts, pathways and the washroom building.
The Community Services Department recommends that the Lease Agreement included as
Attachment 1 be initiated for a five year term, beginning June 1, 2021 and ending May 31,
2026.
Attachments:
1. Draft Lease Agreement with Pickering Ajax Italian Social Club
2. Centennial Park Schedule A
- 120 -
CS 09-21 June 7, 2021
Subject: Pickering Ajax Italian Club Lease Agreement Page 3
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
Original Signed By: Original Signed By:
Rob Gagen Brian Duffield
Supervisor, Parks Operations (Acting) Director, Community Services
RG:nw
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City Council
Original Signed By:
Marisa Carpino, M.A.
Chief Administrative Officer
- 121 -
Attachment #1 to Report CS 09-21
Lease Agreement
This Lease is made as of the 1st day of June 1, 2021
Between:
The Corporation of the City of Pickering
(the "City")
-and -
Pickering Ajax Italian Social Club
(the "Club")
Article I
Interpretation
Definitions
1. In this Lease,
(a) "Commencement Date" means June 1, 2021
(b) "Lease" means this lease as it may be amended from time to time;
(c) "Premises" means that portion of the Centennial Park comprising of the
Portable building, the Kitchenette and external Storage Room; and, the
outdoor grounds which include 4 Bocce Courts as shown on Schedule “A”
attached hereto, located at 2250 Brock Road, in the City of Pickering,
Regional Municipality of Durham;
(d) "Rent" means the rent payable pursuant to Section 21; and
(e) "Term" means the term of this Lease as set out in Section 18.
Headings
2. The division of this Lease into articles, sections, subsections and schedules and
the insertion of headings are for convenience of reference only and shall not
affect the construction or interpretation of this Lease.
- 122 -
2
Schedule
3. Schedule “A” site map is incorporated into and forms part of this Lease.
Severability
4. All of the provisions of this Lease are to be construed as covenants even where
not expressed as such. If any such provision is held to be or rendered invalid,
unenforceable or illegal, then it shall be considered separate and severable from
this Lease and the remaining provisions of this Lease shall remain in force.
Number
5. Wherever a word importing the singular number only is used in this Lease, such
word shall include the plural. Words importing either gender or firms or
corporations shall include the other gender and individuals, firms or corporation
where the context so requires.
Governing Law
6. This Lease shall be governed by, and interpreted and enforced in accordance
with, the laws in force in the Province of Ontario.
Entire Agreement
7. This Lease constitutes the entire agreement between the parties concerning the
Premises and may only be amended or supplemented by an agreement in writing
signed by both parties.
Article II
Grant and Use
Grant
8. In consideration of the performance by the Club of its obligations under this
Lease, the City leases the Premises to the Club for its use during the Term.
Club Use of Premises
9. The Premises shall be used only for non-profit functions, charity events or non-
commercial receptions of the Club at its expense and for no other purpose
without the prior written consent of the City.
- 123 -
3
Nuisance
10. (a) The Club shall not carry on any activities, do, or suffer any act or thing that
constitutes a nuisance or which is offensive or an annoyance to the City.
(b) The Club may not sell, give away or in any manner dispense alcoholic
beverages to any person. No alcoholic beverages will be permitted on the
Premises.
City Use of Premises
11. Subject to section 11, the City shall have first right of refusal to use the Premises.
The Club shall not be entitled to any rental fees or other remuneration associated
with the use of the Premises by the City.
Assignment and Subletting
12. The Club shall not assign this Lease or sublet all or any portion of the Premises
without the prior written consent of the City.
Licences
13. The Club may not grant licences to use the Premises.
14. The Club shall submit an annual calendar (February 1 to January 31) of Club
activities to the City by February 1st of each year.
15. The Club shall submit their annual financial statement to the City by February 15th
of each year.
16. The Club shall submit a list of their Board of Directors and their contact
information to the City by February 15th of each year.
Article III
Term
Term
17. The term of this Lease shall be five (5) years from the Commencement Date to
May 31, 2026.
18. The City may terminate this Lease at any time for any reason provided it has
given the Club six (6) months prior notice.
- 124 -
4
Over holding
19. If the Club remains in possession of the Premises after the expiry of the Term,
there shall be no tacit renewal of this Lease or the Term, notwithstanding
statutory provisions or legal presumption to the contrary, and the Club shall be
deemed to be occupying the Premises from month to month upon the same
terms, covenants and conditions as are set forth in this Lease insofar as they are
applicable to a monthly tenancy.
Article IV
Rent
Rent
20. The Club shall pay to the City as rent for the entire the Term in lawful money of
Canada the sum of One (1) Dollar ($1.00).
Utilities
21. The club shall pay $200.00 plus HST in annual charges for the Bocce Courts
lighting hydro use. This amount shall be paid on or before April 1 in each year of
the Term. Annual charges are subject to the General Municipal Fees By-law.
Gross Lease
22. The City acknowledges that this is a gross lease and agrees to pay all charges,
impositions and outlays of every nature and kind relating to the Premises except
as expressly set out in this Lease.
Article V
Maintenance, Repairs and Alterations
Maintenance of Premises
23. The Club shall maintain and operate the Premises so that they shall always be of
good appearance and suitable for the proper operation of the Premises.
24. The club shall provide general maintenance services to the premises at its
expense and shall provide all necessary cleaning and maintenance supplies such
as cleaning products, related paper products and cleaning equipment related to
the portable building, the storage room, the kitchenette and to the area inside the
fence largely comprised of the Bocce courts.
- 125 -
5
25. The Club shall be responsible for the portable building in its entirety, at its
expense and shall keep it in good repair.
26. The club shall have use of the washrooms for its members for events held
between November 1 to April 30 each year and the club shall be responsible for
cleaning during this time.
27. The club shall be responsible for winter maintenance to the stairs, accessibility
ramp and the pathway from the parking lot to the Kitchenette and the Portable
building at their sole expense and liability when used by the club or its members
in the winter season from November 1 to April 30.
28. The City, or its designate, shall be responsible for all day-to-day operating
expenses including garbage removal, washroom maintenance from May 1 to
October 31, benches, fencing, plumbing, picnic shelter, asphalt pathways, parking
lot and the washroom building.
29. The City shall provide snow removal services for the parking lot only.
30. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the City shall be responsible for all inspections
and preventative maintenance with respect to the heating equipment,
plumbing, transformer, parking lot, lights, and exterior grass cutting and
landscaping.
(2) The Club shall be responsible for any damages or costs incurred due to
the misuse or negligence of the Club, its employees, invitees, servants,
agents, or others under its control and the Club shall pay to the City on
demand the expense of any repairs including the City’s reasonable
administration charge necessitated by such negligence or misuse.
31. The Club shall immediately notify the City of any unsafe conditions on the
Premises.
Security
32. The Club shall be responsible for the security of the Premises. The Club will
ensure that keys are provided to the City for maintenance and inspection access.
Alterations/Improvements to Premises
33. The Club shall only be permitted to make alterations and improvements to the
Premises that have been approved by the City.
- 126 -
6
Article VI
Insurance and Indemnity
Club's Insurance
34. The Club, at its sole cost and expense, shall take out and maintain,
(a) insurance upon property owned by it which is located on the Premises; and
(b) commercial general liability insurance pertaining to the Club's liability to
others in respect of injury, death or damage to property occurring upon, in
or about the Premises, and includes coverage for tenants’ legal liability.
Such insurance to be of an amount which is reasonable and sufficient
having regard to the scope of the risk and the current practice of prudent
owners of similar premises for the carrying on of similar businesses, but in
any event in an amount not less than five million dollars ($5,000,000.00)
for claims arising out of one occurrence. Such policy shall also name the
City as an additional named insured and may not be cancelled unless prior
notice by registered letter has been given to the City by the insurer 30 days
in advance of the expiry date.
35. Prior to the Commencement Date, the Club shall file with the City a Certificate of
Insurance in a form satisfactory to the City Treasurer, verifying that the
commercial general liability insurance policy is in effect and setting out the
essential terms and conditions of the insurance.
36. The provision of the insurance policy required by this section shall not relieve the
Club from liability for claims not covered by the policy or which exceed its limits, if
any, for which the Club may be held responsible.
Insurance Risks
37. The Club shall not do, omit to do, or permit to be done or omitted to be done upon
the Premises anything that may contravene or be prohibited by any of the City's
insurance policies in force from time to time covering or relevant to any part of the
Premises or which would prevent the City from procuring its policies with
companies acceptable to the City. If the conduct of business in the Premises or
any acts or omissions of the Club on the Premises causes or results in any
increase in premiums for any of the City's insurance policies, the Club shall pay
such increase to the City.
Indemnification
38. Each of the City and the Club shall indemnify and save harmless the other from
and against any and all actions, losses, damages, claims, costs and expenses
- 127 -
7
(including solicitors' fees on a solicitor and client basis) to which the party being
indemnified shall or may become liable by reason of any breach, violation or non-
performance by the party so indemnifying of any covenant, term or provision of
this Lease or by reason of any damage, injury or death occasioned to or suffered
by any person or persons including the City or the Club, as the case may be, or
any property by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the
party so indemnifying or any of those persons for whom it is in law responsible.
For greater certainty, the limitation of liability set out above in this section does
not extend to claims, losses or damages resulting in whole or in part from the
gross negligence or wilful misconduct of the party claiming indemnification, its
employees or those for whom it is in law responsible.
Article VII
Remedies on Default
City's Right to Re-Enter
39. If any amount payable to the City under this Lease shall remain unpaid for fifteen
(15) days after the Club has received notice thereof, then it shall be lawful for the
City at any time thereafter to re-enter the Premises.
City's Right to Remedy Default
40. In addition to all other remedies the City may have under this Lease and in law, if
the Club is in default of any of its obligations under this Lease, and such default
has continued for a period of ten (10) days after receipt of notice by the Club (or
such longer period as may be reasonably required in the circumstances to cure
such default, except in an emergency where the City will not be required to give
notice), the City, without prejudice to any other rights which it may have with
respect to such default, may remedy such default and the Club shall be
responsible for all such costs.
Waiver
41. No condoning, excusing or overlooking by the City of any default, breach or
non-observance by the Club at any time or times in respect of any covenant,
obligation or agreement under this Lease shall operate as a waiver of the City’s
rights hereunder in respect of any continuing or subsequent default, breach or
non-observance, or so as to defeat or affect in any way the rights of the City in
respect of any such continuing or subsequent default or breach, and no waiver
shall be inferred from or implied by anything done or omitted by the Club save
only an express waiver in writing.
- 128 -
8
Article VIII
Miscellaneous
Quiet Enjoyment
42. The City shall permit the Club to peaceably possess and enjoy the Premises
during the Term and during facility operating hours without any interference from
the City, or any person lawfully claiming by, from or under the City provided the
Club be not in default.
Right of Entry
43. The Club agrees to permit the City and authorized representatives of the City to
enter the Premises during normal business hours for the purpose of inspecting
the Premises. The City shall use its best efforts to minimize the disruption to the
Club's use of the Premises during any such entry.
Signs
44. The Club may only erect signs on the Premises with the City’s prior approval. All
such signs shall be removed from the Premises at the end of the Term.
Compliance with Laws
45. The Club, at its sole cost and expense, shall comply with all legal requirements
(including statutes, laws, by-laws, regulations, ordinances, orders, rules and
regulations of every governmental authority having jurisdiction) that relate to the
use of the Premises by the Club or the making of any improvements to the
Premises by the Club.
Notice
46. Any notice required to be given by the City to the Club under this Lease shall be in
writing and shall be delivered to the Premises or such other address of which the
Club has notified the City in writing, and any such notice delivered shall be
deemed good and sufficient notice under the terms of this Lease.
47. Any notice required to be given by the Club to the City under this Lease shall be
in writing and shall be delivered to The Corporation of the City of Pickering,
Pickering Civic Complex, One The Esplanade, Pickering, Ontario (Attention: City
Clerk) or such other address of which the City has notified the Club in writing, and
any such notice delivered shall be deemed good and sufficient notice under the
terms of this Lease.
- 129 -
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
9
Successors and Assigns
48. This Lease shall enure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties and their
respective successors (including any successor by reason of amalgamation or
statutory arrangement) and permitted assigns.
Schedules
49. Schedules “A” attached hereto form part of this Agreement.
In Witness Whereof, the parties have executed this Lease.
The Corporation of the City of Pickering
David Ryan, Mayor
Susan Cassel, City Clerk
Ajax Pickering Italian Social Club
Insert Name, Title
Insert Name, Title
- 130 -
1
I
I
I
I
\ I '
-r
t
T T I
I I
D
l
,
I
I
~.y J. DRIVEDUBERRY ROADBROCK PLAYGROUND BUILDING
WASHROOM BOCCEBUILDING (SEE COURTSENLARGEMENT)
PARKING
BASEBALL DIAMOND LOT
SCHEDULE "A"
TOILETS
SHELTER WASHROOM BUILDING
PORTABLE UTILITY TOILETS
KITCHENETTE
STORAGE
Attachment #2 to Report CS 09-21
PARK INFO.
CENTENNIAL PARK
P-008
- 131 -
Report to
p](KERJNG Executive Committee
Report Number: CS 23-21
Date: June 7, 2021
From: Brian Duffield
(Acting) Director, Community Services
Subject: Claremont Golden Age Seniors Club
-Lease Agreement
-File: A-1440
Recommendation:
1. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the Lease Agreement with
Claremont Golden Age Seniors Club set out in Attachment 1 to this Report, subject to
minor revisions as may be required by the Director, Community Services and the
Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor; and,
2. That the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the necessary actions as
indicated in this report.
Executive Summary: On June 27, 2016, Council approved Resolution #178/16,
authorizing the City of Pickering to enter into a Lease Agreement with Claremont Golden Age
Seniors Club for their exclusive use of an activity room and storage room at Dr. Nelson F.
Tomlinson Community Centre for a period of July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2021. Since that time,
the Claremont Golden Age Club has been operating subject the lease agreement to the
satisfaction of the City.
As such, the Community Services Department recommends that the Lease Agreement set out
in Attachment 1 of this report be initiated for a five year term beginning July 1, 2021 and
ending June 30, 2026.
Financial Implications: The City of Pickering is responsible to fund the general operating
costs (such as utilities, water treatment systems, septic systems) of the Dr. Nelson F.
Tomlinson Community Centre. The portion of operating costs attributed to the activity room
used exclusively by the Claremont Golden Age Seniors Club is nominal. Operating costs for
the Dr. Nelson F. Tomlinson Community Centre are reflected annually in the Community
Services Department Current Budgets and do not include capital expenditures that vary year-
to-year depending on facility need.
Claremont Golden Age Seniors Centre is responsible to fund the day-to-day costs to operate
and maintain the Club within the activity room, which includes program supplies, cleaning
supplies/services, administrative and insurance costs.
- 132 -
CS 23-21 June 7, 2021
Subject: Claremont Golden Age Seniors Club Lease Agreement Page 2
Discussion: For the past several years, the Claremont Golden Age Seniors Club have
operated their club activities exclusively from one activity room and storage room located at
the Dr. Nelson F. Tomlinson Centre (formerly the Claremont Community Centre) under an
agreement with the City of Pickering. During this time, the Claremont Golden Age Seniors Club
have maintained the premises and operated their activities in a diligent and conscientious
manner that has satisfied the City.
For a nominal annual membership fee of $10, Claremont Golden Age Seniors Club members
are offered a regular schedule of activities at their Seniors Centre that provide invaluable social
interaction and community connectedness. In exchange for the Club’s work to maintain the
premises and to coordinate, implement and fund these invaluable programs to the seniors’
community, the City of Pickering provides the Club with the exclusive use of the activity room
(their Seniors Centre) and storage room at no cost.
As per the terms and conditions of the attached written agreement, the Club is responsible to
provide general maintenance services for the premises at its own expense. The City is
responsible for all day-to-day operating expenses of the Dr. Nelson F. Tomlinson Community
Centre including utilities, snow removal and water treatment systems.
The Community Services Department recommends that the Lease Amendment Agreement
included as Attachment 1 to this Report be initiated for a five year term beginning July 1, 2021
and ending June 30, 2026.
Attachment:
1. Draft Lease Agreement
- 133 -
CS 23-21 June 7, 2021
Subject: Claremont Golden Age Seniors Club Lease Agreement Page 3
Prepared/Approved/Endorsed By:
Original Signed By:
Brian Duffield
(Acting) Director, Community Services
BD:sm
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City Council
Original Signed By:
Marisa Carpino, M.A.
Chief Administrative Officer
- 134 -
Attachment #1 to Report CS 23-21
Lease Agreement
This Lease is made as of the 1st day of July, 2021.
Between:
The Corporation of the City of Pickering
(the "City")
-and -
Claremont Golden Age Seniors Club
(the "Club")
Article I
Interpretation
Definitions
1. In this Lease,
(a) "Commencement Date" means July 1, 2021;
(b) "Lease" means this lease as it may be amended from time to time;
(c) "Premises" means that portion of the Claremont Community Centre
considered to be the Claremont Seniors Centre composed of the first floor
seniors activity room and storage room therein as shown on Schedule “A”
attached hereto, located at 4941 Old Brock Road, in the City of Pickering,
Regional Municipality of Durham;
(d) "Rent" means the rent payable pursuant to Section 21; and
(e) "Term" means the term of this Lease as set out in Section 18.
Headings
2. The division of this Lease into articles, sections, subsections and schedules and
the insertion of headings are for convenience of reference only and shall not
affect the construction or interpretation of this Lease.
- 135 -
2
Schedule
3. Schedule “B” (City’s Alcohol Management Policy) and Schedule “C” (City’s
Conditions of Agreement) are incorporated into and form part of this Lease.
Severability
4. All of the provisions of this Lease are to be construed as covenants even where
not expressed as such. If any such provision is held to be or rendered invalid,
unenforceable or illegal, then it shall be considered separate and severable from
this Lease and the remaining provisions of this Lease shall remain in force.
Number
5. Wherever a word importing the singular number only is used in this Lease, such
word shall include the plural. Words importing either gender or firms or
corporations shall include the other gender and individuals, firms or corporation
where the context so requires.
Governing Law
6. This Lease shall be governed by, and interpreted and enforced in accordance
with, the laws in force in the Province of Ontario.
Entire Agreement
7. This Lease constitutes the entire agreement between the parties concerning the
Premises and may only be amended or supplemented by an agreement in
writing signed by both parties and is a renewal of lease agreement for which the
previous term was from July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2021.
Article II
Grant and Use
Grant
8. In consideration of the performance by the Club of its obligations under this
Lease, the City leases the Premises to the Club for its use during the Term.
Club Use of Premises
9. The Premises shall be used only for non-profit functions, charity events or non-
commercial receptions of the Club at its expense and for no other purpose
without the prior written consent of the City.
- 136 -
3
10. The Club’s use of the Premises shall be in accordance with the City’s Alcohol
Management Policy (Schedule “B”) and Conditions of Agreement (Schedule “C”).
Nuisance
11. The Club shall not carry on any activities or do or suffer any act or thing that
constitutes a nuisance or which is offensive or an annoyance to the City.
City Use of Premises
12. Subject to section 9, the City shall have right of first refusal to use the Premises.
The Club shall not be entitled to any rental fees or other remuneration
associated with the use of the Premises by the City.
Assignment and Subletting
13. The Club shall not assign this Lease or sublet all or any portion of the Premises
without the prior written consent of the City.
Licences
14. The Club may not grant licences to use the Premises.
15. The Club shall submit their annual financial statement to the City by October 1st
of each year.
16. The Club shall submit an annual calendar of Club activities to the City by
December 1st of the previous year.
17. The Club shall submit a list of the Club Board of Directors to the City by October
1st of each year.
Article III
Term
Term
18. The term of this Lease shall be five (5) years from the Commencement Date to
June 30, 2026.
19. The City may terminate this Lease at any time for any reason provided it has
given the Club six (6) months prior notice.
- 137 -
4
Overholding
20. If the Club remains in possession of the Premises after the expiry of the Term,
there shall be no tacit renewal of this Lease or the Term, notwithstanding
statutory provisions or legal presumption to the contrary, and the Club shall be
deemed to be occupying the Premises from month to month upon the same
terms, covenants and conditions as are set forth in this Lease insofar as they are
applicable to a monthly tenancy.
Article IV
Rent
Rent
21. The Club shall pay to the City as rent for the entire the Term in lawful money of
Canada the sum of One (1) Dollar ($1.00).
Gross Lease
22. The City acknowledges that this is a gross lease and agrees to pay all charges,
impositions and outlays of every nature and kind relating to the Premises except
as expressly set out in this Lease.
Article V
Maintenance, Repairs and Alterations
Maintenance of Premises
23. The Club shall maintain and operate the Premises so that they shall always be of
good appearance and suitable for the proper operation of the Premises.
24. The Club shall provide general maintenance services to the Premises at its
expense and shall provide all necessary cleaning and maintenance supplies
such as cleaning products, related paper products and cleaning equipment.
25. The City, or its designate, shall be responsible for all day-to-day operating
expenses including garbage removal and furniture/appliance life cycle
replacement. The Club shall not be responsible for utilities.
26. The City, or its designate, shall provide snow removal services for the parking lot,
sidewalks, walkways and all other areas of pedestrian passage on the Premises.
- 138 -
5
27. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the City shall be responsible for all inspections
and preventative maintenance with respect to the heating equipment,
transformer, parking lot, lights and exterior grass cutting and landscaping.
(2) The Club shall be responsible for any damages or costs incurred due to
the misuse or negligence of the Club, its employees, invitees, servants,
agents, or others under its control and the Club shall pay to the City on
demand the expense of any repairs including the City’s reasonable
administration charge necessitated by such negligence or misuse.
28. The Club shall immediately notify the City of any unsafe conditions on the
Premises.
Security
29. The Club shall be responsible for the security of the Premises. The Club will
ensure that no copies of the keys to the Premises are made without the prior
written consent of the City.
Alterations/Improvements to Premises
30. The Club shall only be permitted to make alterations and improvements to the
Premises that have been approved by the City.
Article VI
Insurance and Indemnity
Club's Insurance
31. The Club, at its sole cost and expense, shall take out and maintain,
(a) insurance upon property owned by it which is located on the Premises;
and
(b) commercial general liability insurance pertaining to the Club's liability to
others in respect of injury, death or damage to property occurring upon, in
or about the Premises, and includes coverage for abuse and tenants legal
liability. Such insurance to be of an amount which is reasonable and
sufficient having regard to the scope of the risk and the current practice of
prudent owners of similar premises for the carrying on of similar
businesses, but in any event in an amount not less than two million dollars
($2,000,000.00) for claims arising out of one occurrence. Such policy
shall also name the City as an additional named insured and may not be
cancelled unless prior notice by registered letter has been given to the
City by the insurer 30 days in advance of the expiry date.
- 139 -
6
32. Prior to the Commencement Date, the Club shall file with the City a Certificate of
Insurance in a form satisfactory to the City Treasurer, verifying that the
commercial general liability insurance policy is in effect and setting out the
essential terms and conditions of the insurance.
33. The provision of the insurance policy required by this section shall not relieve the
Club from liability for claims not covered by the policy or which exceed its limits, if
any, for which the Club may be held responsible.
Insurance Risks
34. The Club shall not do, omit to do, or permit to be done or omitted to be done
upon the Premises anything that may contravene or be prohibited by any of the
City's insurance policies in force from time to time covering or relevant to any
part of the Premises or which would prevent the City from procuring its policies
with companies acceptable to the City. If the conduct of business in the
Premises or any acts or omissions of the Club on the Premises causes or results
in any increase in premiums for any of the City's insurance policies, the Club
shall pay such increase to the City.
Indemnification
35. Each of the City and the Club shall indemnify and save harmless the other from
and against any and all actions, losses, damages, claims, costs and expenses
(including solicitors' fees on a solicitor and client basis) to which the party being
indemnified shall or may become liable by reason of any breach, violation or
non-performance by the party so indemnifying of any covenant, term or provision
of this Lease or by reason of any damage, injury or death occasioned to or
suffered by any person or persons including the City or the Club, as the case
may be, or any property by reason of any wrongful act, neglect or default on the
part of the party so indemnifying or any of those persons for whom it is in law
responsible. For greater certainty, the limitation of liability set out above in this
section does not extend to claims, losses or damages resulting in whole or in
part from the gross negligence or wilful misconduct of the party claiming
indemnification, its employees or those for whom it is in law responsible.
Article VII
Remedies on Default
City's Right to Re-Enter
36. If any amount payable to the City under this Lease shall remain unpaid for fifteen
(15)days after the Club has received notice thereof, then it shall be lawful for the
City at any time thereafter to re-enter the Premises.
- 140 -
7
City's Right to Remedy Default
37. In addition to all other remedies the City may have under this Lease and in law, if
the Club is in default of any of its obligations under this Lease, and such default
has continued for a period of ten (10) days after receipt of notice by the Club (or
such longer period as may be reasonably required in the circumstances to cure
such default, except in an emergency where the City will not be required to give
notice), the City, without prejudice to any other rights which it may have with
respect to such default, may remedy such default and the Club shall be
responsible for all such costs.
Waiver
38. No condoning, excusing or overlooking by the City of any default, breach or
non-observance by the Club at any time or times in respect of any covenant,
obligation or agreement under this Lease shall operate as a waiver of the City’s
rights hereunder in respect of any continuing or subsequent default, breach or
non-observance, or so as to defeat or affect in any way the rights of the City in
respect of any such continuing or subsequent default or breach, and no waiver
shall be inferred from or implied by anything done or omitted by the Club save
only an express waiver in writing.
Article VIII
Miscellaneous
Quiet Enjoyment
39. The City shall permit the Club to peaceably possess and enjoy the Premises
during the Term without any interference from the City, or any person lawfully
claiming by, from or under the City provided the Club is not in default.
Right of Entry
40. The Club agrees to permit the City and authorized representatives of the City to
enter the Premises during normal business hours for the purpose of inspecting
the Premises. The City shall use its best efforts to minimize the disruption to the
Club's use of the Premises during any such entry.
Signs
41. The Club may only erect signs on the Premises with the City’s prior approval. All
such signs shall be removed from the Premises at the end of the Term.
- 141 -
________________________________
________________________________
8
Compliance with Laws
42. The Club, at its sole cost and expense, shall comply with all legal requirements
(including statutes, laws, by-laws, regulations, ordinances, orders, rules and
regulations of every governmental authority having jurisdiction) that relate to the
use of the Premises by the Club or the making of any improvements to the
Premises by the Club.
Notice
43. Any notice required to be given by the City to the Club under this Lease shall be
in writing and shall be delivered to the Premises or such other address of which
the Club has notified the City in writing, and any such notice delivered shall be
deemed good and sufficient notice under the terms of this Lease.
44. Any notice required to be given by the Club to the City under this Lease shall be
in writing and shall be delivered to The Corporation of the City of Pickering,
Pickering Civic Complex, One The Esplanade, Pickering, Ontario (Attention: City
Clerk) or such other address of which the City has notified the Club in writing,
and any such notice delivered shall be deemed good and sufficient notice under
the terms of this Lease.
Successors and Assigns
45. This Lease shall enure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties and their
respective successors (including any successor by reason of amalgamation or
statutory arrangement) and permitted assigns.
Schedules
46. Schedules “A”, “B” and “C” attached hereto form part of this Agreement.
In Witness Whereof the parties have executed this Lease.
The Corporation of the City of Pickering
David Ryan, Mayor
Susan Cassel, City Clerk
- 142 -
________________________________
________________________________
9
Claremont Golden Age Seniors Club
Linda Lusted, President
Barb Tran, Secretary
- 143 -
I 111 o_, 1711/L rrr=-~ i,,:z;.2:r~ ~ ,c,F I j I r= _J r,, I~ / MEETING ROOM STORAGE SENIOR'S CLUB FIRE STATION #4 MULTI-PURPOSE HALL LOBBY KITCHEN CHANGE ROOMS BRANCH LIBRARY SENIORS' CLUB LEASE SCHEDULE 'A' CLAREMONT COMMUNITY CENTRE NORTH GROUND FLOOR PLAN 50 10 METRES - 144 -
Schedule B
The Corporation of the City of Pickering
Community Services Department
MUNICIPAL ALCOHOL POLICY
February 2020
Purpose
The purpose of this policy is to endeavor to ensure the appropriate
management of the use and consumption of alcoholic beverages in
municipally owned facilities; to avoid related problems and to ensure the
safety and well being of all participants and to protect the Corporation, its
employees and volunteers.
1. Definitions
In this Policy, the term,
(a) “Licensed function” means a function for which a permit has been
issued by, or is otherwise licensed by, the Liquor License Board of
Ontario at which alcoholic beverages may be consumed;
(b) “Closed private licensed function” means a licensed function
determined by the Director of Community Services to be closed to
the general public and of a private nature;
(c) “Designated facility” means a City owned building, park, open
space and associated parking lot designated by this policy as
suitable for an indoor or outdoor licensed function;
(d) “User” means a person, group or association to whom the City has
granted written permission to use a designated facility for a
licensed function and;
(e) “Server” means any person serving alcohol
2. Designated Facilities
(1) The following are designated facilities for indoor licensed functions:
(a) Brougham Community Centre
(b) Dr. Nelson F. Tomlinson Community Centre
(c) Don Beer Sports Facility Community Centre
(d) East Shore Community Centre
(e) Green River Community Centre
(f) Greenwood Community Centre
(g) Mount Zion Community Centre
(h) Pickering Civic Complex
- 145 -
(i) Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex
(j) Seniors Activity Centre
(k) West Shore Community Centre
(l) Whitevale Community Centre
(m) George Ashe Community Centre
(n) Pickering Museum Village
(2) The following are designated facilities for outdoor licensed
functions:
(a) Dr. Nelson F. Tomlinson Community Park
(b) Dunmoore Park
(c) Kinsmen Park
(d) Pickering Museum Village
3. Alcohol Restrictions Within Designated Facilities
All designated facilities defined in this policy shall be deemed a “public
place” and as such, in accordance with Section 31 of the Liquor Licence
Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.L. 19, no person shall have or consume or sell liquor
in any designated facility unless a licence or permit is issued or unless
specifically covered by an L.L.B.O. permit.
4. Safe Transportation
(1) Only those users implementing a safe transportation strategy (e.g.,
a designated driver program, an alternate home transportation
option) to prevent intoxicated participants from driving will be
permitted to use designated facilities for licensed functions.
(2) The Director may require a potential user to demonstrate that such
a strategy will be implemented by the user if written permission to
use the designated facility for a licensed function is granted.
5. No Alcohol and Low Alcohol Drinks
(1) Only users offering a sufficient quantity of no alcohol and low
alcohol drinks will be permitted to use designated facilities for
licensed functions.
(2) The Director may require a potential user to demonstrate that such
a strategy will be implemented by the user if written permission to
use the designated facility for a licensed function is granted.
6. “Statement of Intoxication” Sign
(1) Users of designated facilities for licensed functions shall display
prominently in the facility a sign or signs indicating that it is illegal to
serve participants to a state of intoxication. Such signs shall read
as follows:
2 - 146 -
City of Pickering – Community Services Department.
Statement of Intoxication
It is contrary to the Liquor Licence Act of Ontario to serve persons
to intoxication. For this reason, servers in this facility are required
to obey the law and not serve anyone to intoxication. Should you
wish a no alcohol or low alcohol “breather” round, request a soft
drink, coffee or smaller than usual portion of alcohol.
(2) Signs shall be provided by the City to users for display by them in
the designated facility during the licensed function.
7. Participant Controls
(1) Only users providing sufficient controls to prevent underage,
intoxicated or rowdy persons from entering the designated facility,
to refuse service to such persons, and to remove such persons
from the designated facility will be permitted to use designated
facilities for licensed functions.
(2) Such controls shall include the following:
(a) Having a supervisor in charge of the licensed function present in
the designated facility at all times during the function.
(b) Having at least two monitors at each entrance to the licensed
function at all times during the function;
(c) Accepting only an age of majority card, a photo driver’s license
or a passport as identification for entry;
(d) Having a monitor or monitors (other than entrance monitor) in
the designated facility at all times during the function at least
one monitor for every 200 participants;
(e) Using monitors and servers who are 19 years of age or older;
(f) Using monitors and servers who do not consume alcohol during
the function; and
(g) Providing a list of the names of supervisors, monitors and
servers to the Director prior to the function.
(3) The Director may require a potential user to demonstrate that such
controls will be imposed by the user if written permission to use the
designated facility for a licensed function is granted.
3 - 147 -
8. Supervisor, Monitor, and Server Training
(1) Only users providing sufficient numbers of supervisors, monitors
and servers that have attended an appropriate training course in
server intervention will be permitted to use designated facilities for
licensed functions.
(2) Such training should utilize CAMH course material, and may be
provided, at a reasonable cost, through the Community Services
Department.
(3) The Director may require a potential user to demonstrate that
sufficient numbers of supervisors, monitors and servers that have
attended such a course will be provided by the user if written
permission to use the designated facility for a licensed function is
granted.
(4) Closed private licensed functions are exempt from this section of
the policy; however, users of designated facilities for closed private
licensed functions shall be encouraged to provide voluntarily
properly trained supervisors, monitors and servers since such users
are not exempt from responsibility for compliance with the law and
for the sobriety and safety of participants.
(5) All servers must be “Smart Serve Certified”
9. Insurance
(1) Liability Insurance is a mandatory requirement for all
individuals/community user groups utilizing city-owned or operated
facilities within the City of Pickering. All programs, meetings,
recreational events, cultural and social events require liability
insurance. Users groups can provide personal proof of insurance,
a minimum of $2 million insurance, naming the City of Pickering as
an additional insured, or purchase insurance through the City of
Pickering, Facility User Group Program. Rates for insurance
coverage will vary depending on risk factors, length of the activity,
the number of participants, among other factors at the event. Any
changes in activities by the user group must be reported to Facility
Booking Staff for possible adjustments to the permit. Insurance
information must be received and paid in full before the permit start
date. Liability Insurance covers from the time and date reflected on
the rental permit only. The extra fee for the liability insurance will be
added to the rental agreement with the applicable taxes.
(2) When a patron requests a facility/ice rental, facility booking staff
members will confirm the event/function required on the permit.
Facility staff will review the Liability Insurance User Group Rating
Schedule to determine the appropriate fee to be charged to the
individual/community user group.
4 - 148 -
(3) Only users having a minimum of $2,000,000 third party general
liability insurance coverage, naming the Corporation of the City of
Pickering as an additional insured, will be permitted to use
designated facilities for licensed functions.
10. Accountability
(1) Users of designated facilities for licensed functions shall display
prominently in the facility a sign or signs informing participants of
the following:
(a) The name, address and telephone number of the user;
(b) The name, address and telephone number of the
representative of the user responsible for the function;
(c) The address and telephone number of the nearest Police
Station;
(d) The address and telephone number of the Liquor License
Board of Ontario; and
(e) The address and telephone number of the Community
Services Department
(2) A user that contravenes any City policy or procedure or any
applicable law may be refused permission to use designated
facilities for licensed functions, at the Director’s discretion;
Indefinitely, or
(a) Until the user can demonstrate to the Director’s satisfaction
that a further contravention shall not occur.
11. Promoting the Policy
The Community Services Department shall design and implement, in
consultation with CAMH, a strategy to orient all potential users to the
requirements of this policy and to promote this policy to the community at
large.
5 - 149 -
Schedule C Facility Rental Application
Conditions of Agreement
1) The City reserves the right to cancel any permit temporarily or permanently, should
accommodation be required for special events, or in an emergency.
2) 50% of payment is due at time of booking. This is a non-refundable deposit. The remaining
50% is due in full, 90 days prior to the permit date of the event.
3) Applicants must be members of authority in the organization seeking accommodation. Permit
holders must be on site for the duration of the rental.
4) The facility is to be used only on the date(s) and time(s) specified, and only for the purpose
named. No teen dances/parties, stags or stagettes are permitted in our halls. This permit
is not transferrable.
5) The City will not be responsible for personal injury or damage or for the loss or theft of clothing
or equipment of the applicants, or anyone attending on the invitation of the applicant or any
persons contracted by the applicant.
6) The applicant shall be responsible for the conduct and supervision of all persons admitted to
the building(s) and grounds and shall see that all regulations contained herein are strictly
observed.
7) Unnecessary noise which disturbs the peace, quiet, or comfort of any person in any type of
residence, place of business, etc., in proximity to the facility shall not be permitted.
8) The exits must be kept free from obstruction in case of fire.
a) The applicant must pay all damages arising from the use of the property.
b) A damage/security deposit will be charged for all rentals, to be refunded at a later date, if
no damage, excessive maintenance costs are incurred as a result of the facility rental.
c) The applicant must pay such fees for extra work by custodians, etc., as the City may
determine.
9) Games of chance, lottery, or gambling in any forms, contrary to law is strictly forbidden.
10) It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to see that all persons admitted to the function
being held, have vacated the premises promptly by 2:00 am.
11) If liquor of any type is to be served, sold or available at the function, the applicant must obtain
all necessary permits and licenses and must adhere to the City of Pickering ‘Alcohol
Management Policy’. A copy of the liquor license must be posted on the wall during the
function.
12) The City of Pickering requires every event have a minimum of $2,000,000 third party general
liability insurance coverage. This insurance must be purchased as part of the rental process.
13) For all special occasion permits, only monitors and servers that possess a server intervention
program certificate will be permitted to use the designated facility. Information is available at
www.smartserve.org.
14) The licensor reserves the right to provide security personnel or Pay-Duty Police at the expense
of the licensee, should the Manager, Facility Programs and Administration deem it necessary.
15) Hall cancellations are subject to a $40.00 administration fee. - 150 -
Facility Rental Application
16) All cancellations must be received in writing ninety days prior to the function, or the entire
rental fee will be forfeited.
17) All rental rates are subject to increase. Post-dated cheques will not be accepted.
18) This contract is not valid unless it is signed and dated by the person renting the facility and
returned as soon as possible to the Facility Booking Clerk.
19) Recreation Complex Staff will set-up the tables and chairs ‘provided’ a diagram of the layout is
submitted one week preceding the function. You may obtain the diagrams at the Complex
Information Desk. Any materials/articles dropped off prior to the function, or left after the
function, must have prior approval from the Maintenance Department or designate.
20) If Complex Banquet Halls are rented, please use the outside entrance to Banquet Hall, do not
use main Complex doors.
Personal information contained on this form is collected pursuant to the Municipal Freedom of
Information and Protection of Privacy Act and will be used for the purpose of administering
facility rentals. Questions about this collection should be directed to the City Clerk, One the
Esplanade, Pickering, ON L1V 6K7, 905.420.4611.
HST applies to this Rental – Registration No. 108078593
- 151 -
Facility Rental Application
Facility Rules and Regulations
Failure to comply with the below will result in loss of damage deposits
A. All Facilities
• no confetti/rice is allowed in City facilities or parking lots
• facilities must be vacated by 2:00 am, ensuring that all decorations and function supplies
have been removed
• smoking of any type of tobacco product is not permitted in any City facility. All City
facilities are designated non-smoking (Durham Region By-law No. 66-2002)
• the City of Pickering cannot supply ladders or lift equipment to any permit holder. If this
service is required it must be arranged with and approved by the City of Pickering one
week prior to the event
• caterers, bartenders, disc jockeys, entertainers, liquor licenses, etc., are the renter’s
responsibility
• keys for West Shore Community Centre may be obtained at the Chestnut Hill
Developments Recreation Complex during regular operating hours. Please call
905.831.1711 for hours
• liquor license must be visible on the bar wall at all times during the function
• unnecessary noise, which disturbs the peace, quiet, or comfort of any person in any type
of residence, place of business, etc., in proximity to the facility is not permitted
• daytime rental keys must be returned immediately following the function to the Recreation
Complex
• evening rentals (those finishing after 9:00 pm) must be returned before 12:00 pm the
following day to the Recreation Complex
• decorating is the sole responsibility of the renter. Staples, tape, nails, glue, etc., are not
permitted. Helium balloons are permitted, provided they are securely anchored
• as per liquor regulations all bars must close at 1:00 am sharp
• set-up times for your event is as per your permit
B. West Shore Community Centre
• garbage must be placed in the garbage bin at the back of the building
• renters are responsible for their own set-up
• tables and chairs must be put neatly away in the storage room
• no live bands are permitted
• renters must supply their own mix
- 152 -
Facility Rental Application
C. George Ashe Community Centre
• the piano is the property of the Rouge Hill Senior Club. Please do not play
• renters must supply their own mix and ice
• City of Pickering staff will set-up the tables and chairs provided a diagram of the layout is
submitted on the Monday preceding the function. You may obtain the diagram at the
Recreation Complex Information Desk
Staples, tape, nails, glue, etc., are not permitted.
D. Don Beer Arena
• renters are responsible for their own set-up
• tables and chairs must be put neatly away in the storage room
• renters must supply their own mix and ice
E. Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex East/West Salons and O’Brien Meeting
Rooms
• Recreation Complex Staff will set-up the tables and chairs provided a diagram of the
layout is submitted on the Monday preceding the function
• you may obtain the diagram at the Recreation Complex Information Desk
F. East Shore Community Centre
• renters are responsible for their own set-up
• tables and chairs must be neatly away in the storage room
• renters must supply their own mix and ice
For complete regulations, please see Conditions of Agreement.
- 153 -
p](KERJNG
Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: CS 25-21
Date: June 7, 2021
From: Brian Duffield
(Acting) Director, Community Services
Subject: Community Safety and Well-Being Plan
-Update
-File: A-1440
Recommendation:
1. That Council receive Report CS 25-21 for information regarding the update on the City of
Pickering’s Community Safety and Well-Being Plan;
2. That Council endorse the City of Pickering’s application for membership with the
Canadian Municipal Network on Crime Prevention and that the Mayor be authorized to
execute and submit the corresponding letter of support, as set out in Attachment 1; and,
3. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take necessary
actions as indicated in this report.
Executive Summary: As per the Safer Ontario Act, 2018, S.O. 2018, c. 3 – Bill 175, the
Community Safety and Well-Being Plan (CSWB Plan) came into enactment in the current
Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.p15. Following an extension due to COVID-19, all
municipalities (except lower tier) are to create and by resolution adopt a CSWB Plan by July 1,
2021. In two tier municipalities, such as the Region of Durham, it is the responsibility of the
upper tier to develop the Plan and implement the Plan, through the creation of measurable
goals and objectives. Lower tier municipalities play an instrumental role to facilitate those
efforts.
On February 25, 2019, Community Services staff were directed by Council to begin work on
development of a CSWB Plan, as per Resolution #43/19. The City’s plan will identify strategies to
support and help implement the Region’s CSWB and other locally identified issues.
At the Council meeting held on January 25, 2021, per Corr. 02-21, a recommendation of a
motion was made to the (Acting) Director, Community Services, for inclusion in the City of
Pickering 2021 Community Safety Well-Being work plan with a report back no later than the
June 2021 Council Meeting. As such, Report CS 25-21 is staff’s mid-year update to Council.
Financial Implications: The development and implementation of the City’s CSWB Plan will
be significantly supported by the purchase of a membership to the Canadian Municipal
Network on Crime Prevention, at a cost of $900 for 2021, and $1,000 for 2022. The cost of
membership is based on population, and charged to account 2712.2395.0000.
- 154 -
CS 25-21 June 7, 2021
Subject: Community Safety and Well-Being Plan -Update Page 2
The Community Safety and Well-Being Coordinator position has been approved by Council in
the 2021 Current Budget with a start date of July 2021 in the amount of $36,300, charged to
account 2712.1100.0000.
Discussion: As part of the legislation, “municipalities are required to develop and adopt
community safety and well-being plans working in partnership with a multi-sectoral advisory
committee, comprised of representation from the police service board, and other local service
providers in health/mental health, education, community/social services, and children/youth
services.” (Community Safety and Well-Being Planning Framework, A Shared Commitment in
Ontario -Booklet 3, version 2). Accordingly, the Region of Durham has formed the Area
Municipal Working Group in order to ensure an integrated approach to identifying and
addressing local priorities. This group is made up of municipal CAO’s or delegates, and first
met in January 2020.
As a lower tier municipality, the City has worked on various tasks since that time to support the
development of the Regional CSWB Plan to ensure that local issues are identified and
considered. These include:
a. the preparation of an application to the Canadian Municipal Network on Crime
Prevention membership. Membership to this network will allow access to a national
network of municipalities including an internal distribution list, guest speakers,
legislative requirements webinar trainings and resources and documents specific to the
Community Safety and Well-Being Plan planning and implementation strategies;
b. community engagement project through the use of “Bang the Table”;
c. create the job description/budget for the dedicated position;
d. continue to work with Caremongers as a community partner; and,
e. the Manager, Recreation Services has completed the training on Community Safety
and Well-Being Planning, which included sessions on developing a community safety
and well-being planning framework.
The Region of Durham established a multi-sector Steering Committee, which is comprised of
20 system leaders (as per Attachment #2), to which a diversity equity and inclusion expert will
be added.
While engagement as the Area Municipal Working Group Area Municipal Working Group had
slowed in 2020 due to COVID-19, the City of Pickering attended the Area Municipal Working
Group meeting on April 9, 2021. At that time, Regional project updates were presented
including the creation of an internal working group and data sub-committee, who meet
regularly and are receiving regular updates from the Regional CAO and the Durham Region
Police Services Chief. Additionally, prior to COVID-19, the municipalities provided information
specific to municipal surveys, identifying elevated areas of risk including, Mental Health,
Substance Use, Homelessness and Basic Needs, Criminal Involvement, Victimization, and
Social Isolation.
- 155 -
CS 25-21 June 7, 2021
Subject: Community Safety and Well-Being Plan -Update Page 3
COVID-19 has brought to the forefront new areas of vulnerabilities within the communities,
including an increased risk to those suffering from mental health, addictions, or domestic
violence, increased social isolation, increased stress and anxiety, increased use of alcohol,
opioids, various negative effects on children, decreased access to community supports and
services, job loss that will affect the community overall, and the impacts of COVID-19 on the
family. Responding to these changes will require a full community effort, with all of our systems
identified and working together.
The Region of Durham had requested an extension to the CSWB Plan, and this request was
denied. Therefore, the deadline date of July 1, 2021 remains in effect. To meet this deadline,
the Region of Durham will continue to work on the CSWB Plan, with upcoming priorities to
include a new survey to better understand the shifting priorities within the communities,
continue to meet with the Steering Committee, host an engagement session with service
providers, develop a draft CSWB Plan and to the Steering Committee for review, and present
the draft plan to Regional Council on June 23, 2021. The Region of Durham has identified that
legislative requirements will be met, however, there is a need for further community
engagement. Therefore, a more comprehensive CSWB Plan will be submitted to the Province
in early 2022.
Following this work, the CSWB plan will be available to municipalities to begin their work to
support the implementation by working closely with community partners, stakeholders, and the
public. Due to the timing of the Region’s CSWB plan, the City will recruit a Coordinator,
Community Safety effective November 2021 to lead the CSWB Plan within the City. With this
dedicated staff resource, the City of Pickering will be well positioned to facilitate the
implementation of the CSWB Plan prepared by the Region of Durham.
Attachments:
1. Letter of Support
2. The Region of Durham Community Safety and Well-Being Plan Multi Sector Steering
Committee
- 156 -
CS 25-21 June 7, 2021
Subject: Community Safety and Well-Being Plan -Update Page 4
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
Original Signed By: Original Signed By:
Sharon Milton Brian Duffield
Manager, Recreation Services (Acting) Director, Community Services
SM:bd
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City Council
Original Signed By:
Marisa Carpino, M.A.
Chief Administrative Officer
- 157 -
-Cdt;of
PJ(KERJNG
Attachment #1 to Report CS 25-21
Office of the Mayor
Sent by email
June 8, 2021
Christy Parker
Program Administrator
Canadian Municipal Network on Crime Prevention
Subject: Canadian Municipal Network on Crime Prevention
-Letter of Support
Please accept this letter in support the City of Pickering’s application to become a member of the
Canadian Municipal Network on Crime Prevention (CMNCP).
The City of Pickering is one of eight municipalities that make up Durham Region, and has been
involved in the initial planning stages of the regional development of a Community Safety Plan. We
currently collaborate with many partners, including social agencies, youth organizations, and police,
to enhance our approach to crime prevention. Effective July 1, 2021, the Region of Durham will
release its Community Safety Plan. We see membership in this network as a good resource to assist
the City of Pickering in working towards completing the goals and objectives of the Community Safety
Plan.
As a member of CMNCP, the City of Pickering agrees to take an active role in activities and
initiatives, participate in meetings, share information, and work collaboratively to develop and
implement effective and safe community efforts.
Should you have any questions, please contact Sharon Milton, Manager, Recreation Services. She
can be reached at 905.420.4660 ext. 3601 or by email at smilton@pickering.ca
Yours truly
Dave Ryan
Mayor, City of Pickering
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Manager, Recreation Services
Pickering Civic Complex | One The Esplanade | Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7
T. 905.420.4600 | Toll Free 1.866.683.2760 | mayor@pickering.ca | pickering.ca - 158 -
Attachment #2 to Report CS 25-21
Region of Durham
Community Safety and Well Being Plan
Multi Sector Steering Committee
Chair Elaine Baxter-Trahair – Durham Region CAO
Mayor Dan Carter, Regional Council
Regional Chair, John Henry, Regional Council (alternate)
Mark Morissette, DRPS (Chief’s delegate)
Chief Kelly LaRocca, Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation
Troy Cheseboro, Chief of Paramedic Services
Bill Clancy, Police Services Board
Paul McGary, Lakeridge Health
Chris Bovie, Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Scien ces
Tracy Barill, Durham Catholic School Board
Steven Woodman, Durham Children’s Aid Society
Gary Crossdale, Durham District School Board
Lisa Kitchen, Lakeridge Health Ontario Health Team
Vivian Curl, Community Foundation of Durham
Cindy Murray, United Way
Rhonda Schwartz, Seniors Care Network
Dr. Robert Kyle, Region of Durham
Brian Bridgeman, Region of Durham
Stella Danos-Papaconstantinou, Region of Durham
Regional Staff – Human Trafficking, Local Immigration Partnership,
Broadband – ex-officio capacity
- 159 -
Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: ENG 14-21
Date: June 7, 2021
From: Richard Holborn
Director, Engineering Services
Subject: Automated Speed Enforcement Implementation
-Status Update
-File: A-1440
Recommendation:
1.That Report ENG 14-21 regarding the status update of the implementation of the
Automated Speed Enforcement program, as a follow-up to Report ENG 05-21 and in
response to Resolution #543/21, be received for information; and,
2.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary
actions as indicated in this report.
Executive Summary: As a follow-up to Report ENG 05-21 (Attachment #1) and Council
Resolution #543/21 (Attachment #2), staff were to report back to Council by the end of June
with the current status of the implementation of the Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE)
program as presented in Report ENG 05-21.
This status update covers the main components of the program which are: the three
agreements needed to implement the program, the creation of a camera rotation schedule, the
signage for the program, and the designation of City staff as Provincial Offences Officers.
All three agreements have been reviewed by Corporate Services and Engineering Services,
and are in the process of being executed as per Council Resolution #543/21.
1.City of Toronto (Joint Processing Centre)
Pickering has executed the agreement as of May 17, 2021 and the agreement has been
sent to Toronto as of May 18, 2021.
2.Ministry of Transportation (license plate retrieval information)
Engineering Services staff are currently finalizing this agreement to be executed by the
appropriate authorities.
3.Redflex Traffic Systems (Canada) Limited (vendor for the camera equipment)
Engineering Services staff are currently finalizing this agreement to be executed by the
appropriate authorities.
- 160 -
ENG 14-21 June 7, 2021
Subject: Automated Speed Enforcement Implementation
Status Update Page 2
The “Municipal Speed Camera Coming Soon” and “Municipal Speed Camera In Use” signs
have been received and will be installed according to the proposed camera rotation schedule
(Attachment #3). Coming Soon signs were installed on Liverpool Road and Oklahoma Drive,
the first two streets on the schedule, on May 21, 2021, with a proposed camera activation date
of August 19, 2021.
Financial Implications: There are no financial implications with regard to receiving this
status update report. Funds for the Automated Speed Enforcement program have been
approved in the 2021 Current Budget in the amount of $385,000.00 for the operation of two
cameras.
Discussion: As a follow-up to Report ENG 05-21 and Council Resolution #543/21, staff
were to report back to Council by the end of June with the current status of the implementation
of the Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE) program as presented in Report ENG 05-21.
This report is a status update which specifically contains information on the progress of:
• Required agreements with:
o City of Toronto (Joint Processing Centre);
o Ministry of Transportation (license plate information); and
o Redflex Traffic Systems (Canada) Limited (camera equipment);
• creation of a proposed camera rotation schedule with activation dates;
• the signage installation related to the program; and
• designation of City staff as Provincial Offences Officers.
Current Status of the Required Agreements
All agreements have been reviewed by Corporate Services and Engineering Services, and are
in the process of being executed as per the Council resolution:
City of Toronto (Joint Processing Centre)
• as the main administrative component of the program, the Joint Processing Centre (JPC)
coordinates the physical camera photos of speed violations and matches them to the
Provincial license database, then issues the tickets;
• this agreement was the highest priority and was the first to be signed;
• the City of Pickering has executed the agreement as of May 17, 2021 and the agreement
has been sent to the City of Toronto as of May 18, 2021;
- 161 -
ENG 14-21 June 7, 2021
Subject: Automated Speed Enforcement Implementation
Status Update Page 3
• additional site details including mapping of all 13 Community Safety Zones (CSZ) detailing
all street signage within the CSZ, photos of the signs (to illustrate their existing condition),
photos of the proposed camera sight lines, parking bylaws, existing vegetation, etc. for
each camera location are required by the JPC at a later date.
Ministry of Transportation (license plate retrieval information)
• as a component of the administrative process to issue tickets, the agreement authorizes
the JPC to retrieve license plate information on behalf of the City of Pickering;
• this agreement is the second one to be signed; and
• Engineering Services staff are currently finalizing this agreement to be executed by the
appropriate authorities.
Redflex Traffic Systems (Canada) Limited (vendor for the camera equipment)
• as the suppliers of camera equipment, Redflex is also responsible for the installation and
care of the equipment, and for moving the cameras as per the City’s camera rotation
schedule;
• this agreement is the last one to be signed;
• Engineering Services staff are currently finalizing this agreement to be executed by the
appropriate authorities; and,
• physical site details for each camera location such as maps for all 13 CSZ locations
including approximate location of where the camera should be located within each zone
has been sent for review.
Durham Region Court Services and Pickering Appointed Provincial Offences Officers
City staff have met with Region of Durham traffic staff and Durham Region Court staff to
review our requirements and the court system process. City staff advised the Courts that
approximately 5,000 charges are anticipated in the first year of the program.
The Ministry of Transportation must designate three City staff as Provincial Offences Officers
(one main officer and two backups) and these names have been submitted to the Ministry of
Transportation for approval. The process for designation could take up to two months,
however, this will not impact the implementation of the program.
- 162 -
ENG 14-21 June 7, 2021
Subject: Automated Speed Enforcement Implementation
Status Update Page 4
Automated Speed Enforcement Signage has been installed on Liverpool Road and on
Oklahoma Drive
Provincial legislation states that Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE) “Coming Soon” signs
must be installed a minimum of 90 days in advance of an ASE camera being deployed on a
street. Therefore, signs indicating that a municipal speed camera will be coming soon were
installed on May 21, 2021 at the first 2 locations, on Liverpool Road and on Oklahoma Drive.
Camera Rotation Schedule and Activation Dates
As the “Coming Soon” ASE signs were installed on Liverpool Road and on Oklahoma Drive on
May 21, 2021, with a proposed camera activation date of August 19, 2021. Based on the
above dates, a proposed camera rotation schedule has been created to cover all of Pickering’s
13 CSZ locations based on a 6 week rotation. The proposed camera rotation schedule can be
found in Attachment #3.
Attachments:
1. Report ENG 05-21 Automated Speed Enforcement Implementation
2. Council Resolution #543/21
3. Proposed Camera Rotation Schedule
- 163 -
ENG 14-21 June 7, 2021
Subject: Automated Speed Enforcement Implementation
Status Update Page 5
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
Scott Booker Richard Holborn, P. Eng.
Manager, Capital Projects & Infrastructure Director, Engineering Services
Nathan Emery
Coordinator, Traffic Operations
Nadeem Zahoor, P. Eng., M. Eng
Transportation Engineer
SB:NE: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:
Original signed by:
Original signed by:
- 164 -
Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: ENG 05-21
Date: March 1, 2021
From: Richard Holborn
Director, Engineering Services
Subject: Automated Speed Enforcement Implementation
-File: A-1440
Recommendation:
1.That the automated speed enforcement program as outlined in Report ENG 05-21 be
endorsed by Council for implementation in 2021 subject to budget approval;
2.That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute the required agreements for operation of
the program in a form satisfactory to the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, the
Director, Finance & Treasurer, and the parties, namely:
a)Redflex Traffic Systems (Canada) Limited;
b)The Ministry of Transportation, Ontario;
c)The City of Toronto;
3.That one automated speed enforcement mobile camera be installed in the Community
Safety Zone on Liverpool Road between Bayly Street and Wharf Street, consistent with
Resolution #364/20, as part of the initial rollout of the program and that additional mobile
cameras be added as approved funds permit;
4.That Council request the Province of Ontario to permit the use of an Administrative Monetary
Penalty System for offenses issued by Automated Speed Enforcement; and,
5.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary
actions as indicated in this report.
Executive Summary: Excessive speed continues to be a concern raised by residents and
Members of Council and negatively impacts our community and its safety. While Durham Regional
Police Services (DRPS) has been able to provide traditional speed enforcement both proactively
and reactively, resources are limited. DRPS presence will result in an increase in speed
compliance, but this compliance is only temporary. Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE) is a
relatively new technology, and is rapidly becoming a proven and effective way to enforce speed
limits and provide safer roads for our pedestrians, other motorists and cyclists.
On May 30, 2017, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario passed Bill 65, Safer School Zones Act
which amended the Ontario Highway Traffic Act to authorize the use of ASE technology in School
Zones and Community Safety Zones (CSZ) on roadways with posted speed limits less than 80
kilometres per hour.
Attachment #1 to Report # ENG 14-21
- 165 -
ENG 05-21 March 1, 2021
Subject: Automated Speed Enforcement Program Implementation Page 2
As defined in the regulation, an ASE program can only deploy a speed enforcement camera on
roads which have been designated a School Zone or CSZ. The road must also have a posted
speed less than 80km/h. There are total of 13 Community Safety Zones on roads under the
jurisdiction of the City of Pickering throughout the City. Staff recommend that the ASE program
operate in all 13 City of Pickering CSZs on a rotational basis.
Costs associated with the ASE program includes cost to Redflex Traffic Systems Canada (supply,
installation, operation, and maintenance of camera equipment); the City of Toronto (joint
processing centre), the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (licence plate information), as well as
court costs and municipal costs.
Upon receiving Council and budget approval to proceed, staff will undertake the following steps to
implement ASE in the City of Pickering:
• Enter into three legal agreements:
o Redflex Traffic Systems (Canada) Limited (camera equipment);
o Ministry of Transportation (licence plate information);
o City of Toronto (Joint Processing Centre).
• Provide Redflex with information regarding the 13 locations, including:
o a detailed map of all 13 CSZ locations including approximate location of where the
camera should be located within each zone;
o information on how long a camera stays at each location and the hours the camera will
operate at each location.
• Review and consultation with stakeholders – Durham Region Courts, and DRPS; and
• Communications and public awareness campaign through our Corporate Communications
team, including the installation of regulatory signs within each CSZ.
Financial Implications: The cost to operate an ASE program in the City of Pickering is being
recommended in the 2021 Current Budget and includes the following:
1. Cost to supply, install, operate and maintain the camera payable to Redflex Traffic
Systems (Canada) Limited (the vendor of choice for speed enforcement cameras)
Item Rate/Day Quantity Annual Cost
Redflex (Camera) $97.43 1 $36,000
Redflex Traffic Systems (Canada) will supply, install, operate and maintain the speed enforcement
camera for the ASE program. The cost includes one camera, set up and site rotation fees. The
City would be joining an existing City of Toronto contract, with fixed unit rates from the vendor.
- 166 -
ENG 05-21 March 1, 2021
Subject: Automated Speed Enforcement Program Implementation Page 3
2. Cost to access MTO vehicle ownership database, payable to MTO
Item Rate Estimated Annual Cost
Quantity
MTO (Licence Plate Database) $1.06 5,000 $5,300
MTO charges a per transaction fee every time that their vehicle ownership database is accessed
by the Joint Processing Centre. These fees are invoiced directly to the municipality on a quarterly
basis. The current MTO fee is $1.06 per transaction and the total cost will vary depending on the
number of tickets that are issued.
3. Cost to manage the Joint Processing Centre, payable to the City of Toronto
Item Rate Quantity Annual Cost
Joint Processing Centre Fee $20 5,000 $100,000
One time JPC Startup Cost 100,000 once 100,000
The City of Toronto operates the Automated Speed Enforcement – Joint Processing Centre on
behalf of all participating municipalities. There is a one-time joint processing centre startup cost (to
join the program). The City of Pickering will receive a rebate on this cost as more municipalities
join the ASE program. The City of Toronto Joint Processing Centre staff will review the images
from each site and determine whether or not a charge can be laid. The City of Toronto charges
back each municipality a fee of $20 per ticket issued, on a cost recovery basis. The charge back
includes both a portion of fixed costs (for the facility, equipment etc.) and per transaction costs.
4. Municipal costs associated with program
Municipal costs will include costs for administration responsibilities such as implementation,
planning, and communications of the ASE program.
Item Rate Quantity Annual Cost
Ticket Brochures $0.25 (per ticket) 5,000 $1,250
Signage $200 6 $1,200
5. Court costs associated with program
Item Rate Quantity Annual Cost
Court Processing Fee $5 (80% Uncontested) 4,000 $20,000
Court Processing Fee $65 (20% Contested) 1,000 $65,000
- 167 -
ENG 05-21 March 1, 2021
Subject: Automated Speed Enforcement Program Implementation Page 4
Court costs are one of the biggest unknowns in the program – the others being total violations
(tickets issued) and actual fine amounts (revenue). Court costs include costs to manage offences
and associated disputes. If the registered owner of the vehicle pays the fine with no contest, there
will be no court cost anticipated. In other cases, the registered owner can choose to proceed
through an ’early resolution’ dispute process or can also request a trial. Court costs are estimated
in the range of $5 to $65 per transaction.
The initial estimated cost of the ASE program consisting of one mobile camera, including the
onetime startup cost, is approximately $320,000 - $350,000 based on the above. Therefore, it is
recommended that $350,000 be allocated for the program for the deployment of an ASE camera
for first year (2021) of the program. Based on the same estimates used above, each additional
mobile camera would cost approximately $220,000 - $250,000.
Revenue generated by tickets issued falls under a revenue sharing agreement with the Region of
Durham. After all net costs incurred are paid, Pickering receives 60 per cent and the Region
receives 40 per cent. Revenue will partially offset expenses but will not be estimated and included
in the budget for the program in 2021.
Discussion: On May 30, 2017, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario passed Bill 65,
Safer School Zones Act which amended the Highway Traffic Act to authorize the use of
Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE) technology in School Zones and Community Safety Zones
(CSZ) on roadways with posted speed limits less than 80 kilometres per hour.
An ASE Program includes the deployment of a roadside speed measurement device and camera
in the road boulevard that can automatically detect the speed of a vehicle and take a photograph
of the rear license plate of speeding vehicles. The camera will be installed, operated and
maintained by Redflex Traffic Systems Limited who is a sole provider of these cameras in Ontario.
A detailed timeline of the implementation of the ASE program in Ontario is presented below.
Timelines of the Automated Speed Enforcement Program in Ontario
• November 2016 Safer School Act Tabled
• May 2017 Safer Schools Act receives Royal Ascent
• June 2017 Ontario Traffic Council establishes an ASE Steering Committee
• April 2019 Ontario municipalities issue cooperative Request for Proposal
• June 2019 Redflex is selected as the successful ASE vendor
• October 2019 Redflex and Toronto begin set-up of the Joint Processing Centre
• November 2019 Ontario regulation 389/19 filed, prescribing requirements for ASE
• February 2020 Toronto ASE program begins (warning letters only)
• July 2020 Toronto ASE program begins issuing tickets
- 168 -
ENG 05-21 March 1, 2021
Subject: Automated Speed Enforcement Program Implementation Page 5
School Zones and Community Safety Zones
According to the Highway Traffic Act, a municipality can designate, by by-law, any road or section
of road within 150 metres of a school, in either direction, as a school zone. The City of Pickering
currently does not by-law roads fronting schools as school zones, however, the City designates
roads where public safety is of special concern as a CSZ, many of which are on roads fronting
schools. In a CSZ, fines for speeding can be increased (doubled) through a special designation
under the Highway Traffic Act. Parking fines cannot be increased within a CSZ.
The Highway Traffic Act delegates authority to municipalities to designate a part of a highway
under its jurisdiction as a CSZ recognizing a special situation that warrants an increased
awareness of community activity adjacent to the road right-of-way. The Highway Traffic Act
requires the CSZ to be recognizable to the driver through the installation of regulatory signs.
A list of CSZs on roads that are under the jurisdiction of the City of Pickering are listed in Table 1.
Table 1: Existing Community Safety Zones on City of Pickering Roads
Street Limits Ward
1 Bushmill Street Liverpool Road to Maple Ridge Drive 2
2 Dixie Road Glenanna Road to Kitley Avenue 2
3 Glenanna Road Heathside Crescent to Huntsmill Drive 2
4 Glenanna Road Dixie Road to Listowell Crescent 2
5 Liverpool Road Bayly Street to Wharf Street 2
6 Major Oaks Road Middleton Street to Hollyhedge Drive 3
7 Oklahoma Drive 30 metres west of Eyer Drive to Leaside Street 1
8 Rosebank Road Strouds Lane to Charnwood Court 1,3
9 Rosebank Road Toynevale Road to Dahlia Crescent/Cowan Circle 1
10 Sheppard Avenue 135 metres east of Edmund Street to Whites Road 1
11 Strouds Lane Autumn Crescent to Alder Court 1,3
12 Toynevale Road Rougemount Drive to Rosebank Road 1
13 Twyn Rivers Drive Altona Road to 360 metres west of Ashwood Gate 1
- 169 -
ENG 05-21 March 1, 2021
Subject: Automated Speed Enforcement Program Implementation Page 6
Mobile Camera versus Fixed Camera Operations
Redflex offers the option of either a mobile or semi-fixed camera installation set up. The following
are pictures of the mobile and semi-fixed units.
Mobile Unit (Source: Redflex)
The mobile unit, which is the preferred option by the majority of municipalities, and is
recommended by staff, sits curbside and can easily relocated to different locations on a rotational
basis.
Semi-Fixed Unit (Source: Redflex)
The semi-fixed unit is an option to be deployed where ongoing safety concerns have been
received. Installation requires additional civil works, which includes a hard wired power source,
and installation of a post which includes the camera housing.
- 170 -
ENG 05-21 March 1, 2021
Subject: Automated Speed Enforcement Program Implementation Page 7
Regardless of the installation method employed, images taken are stored in the camera in an
internal hard drive until they are downloaded by Redflex staff and are sent to Toronto’s Joint
Processing Centre for processing. At the joint processing centre, the images are reviewed and it is
determined if a ticket is to be issued. For each ticket to be issued, access to the MTO vehicle
ownership database is requested, the necessary documentation is prepared, and a summons is
mailed to the registered owner of the vehicle as well as the court.
Anticipated number of charges
An extensive review was completed to estimate the potential number of charges using existing
traffic counts within the 13 CSZs. Based on the review, it is expected that approximately 5,000
tickets will be issued annually based on having one ASE camera. According to Redflex, and
based on experience in other municipalities, an immediate 30 per cent reduction in speed may
occur with just the placement of ‘municipal speed camera coming soon’ signs. Other municipalities
have reported higher than 30 per cent reductions in the operating speed.
Although the cameras can operate 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, municipalities in the program,
including the Region of Durham, are operating the cameras only during certain hours of the day,
mainly peak hours in order to keep the program cost effective, and to manage the burden on the
court system. It is recommended that the City of Pickering follow this example. The time of day
and number of hours that the camera operates will be specific to each location and will be
determined by City staff and will not be made available to the general public. The intent is to
leverage the presence of the camera (whether it is operating or not) in an effort to keep motorists
in compliance with the posted speed limit.
Proposed Change to Ticket Process in Ontario
Currently, all ASE tickets in Ontario are processed through the courts as notices under the
Provincial Offence Act (POA), which require significant staff resources. In the City of Pickering, we
rely on the Durham Region courts to process the charges. As mentioned, this program will
increase the burden on the existing court system. City staff will contact Durham Region courts and
discuss Pickering’s ASE proposal and their processing capacity. In support of Durham Regional
Council and the Ontario Traffic Council (OTC), it is recommended that Pickering Council request
that the Province permit the use of Administrative Monetary Penalty System (AMPS) for
automated enforcement offences. This process will allow municipalities to handle the ticket
process, and greatly reduce the encumbrance on the court system.
- 171 -
ENG 05-21 March 1, 2021
Subject: Automated Speed Enforcement Program Implementation Page 8
A Communications and Public Awareness Plan will be Required
Once Council approval to proceed is received, Engineering Services staff will work with the
Corporate Communications team to develop a public awareness plan, which could include the
following:
• Safety benefits of the program
• How the program works & the merits of utilizing the technology
• Support and commitment from community leaders
• Communications program
o Program branding
o Social media
o Printed material
o Web content
Implementation of the ASE Program in Pickering
Upon receiving Council and budget approval to proceed, staff will undertake the following steps to
implement ASE in the City of Pickering:
• Enter into three legal agreements:
o Redflex Traffic Systems (Canada) Limited (camera equipment)
o Ministry of Transportation (licence plate information)
o City of Toronto (Joint Processing Centre)
• Provide Redflex with information regarding the 13 locations, including:
o a detailed map of all 13 CSZ locations including approximate location of where the
camera should be located within each zone
o information on how long a camera stays at each location and the hours the camera will
operate at each location
• Review and consultation with stakeholders – Durham Region Courts, and DRPS
• Communications and public awareness campaign through our Corporate Communications
team, including the installation of regulatory signs within each CSZ
Attachments: None
- 172 -
ENG 05-21 March 1, 2021
Subject: Automated Speed Enforcement Program Implementation Page 9
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
Scott Booker Richard Holborn, P. Eng.
Manager, Capital Projects & Infrastructure Director, Engineering Services
Nathan Emery
Coordinator, Traffic Operations
Nadeem Zahoor, P.Eng., M.Eng
Transportation Engineer
SB:NE:NZ:mjh
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City Council
Marisa Carpino, M.A.
Chief Administrative Officer
- 173 -
Legislative Services Division
Clerk’s Office
Directive Memorandum
March 26, 2021
To: Richard Holborn
Director, Engineering Services
From: Susan Cassel
City Clerk
Subject: Direction as per Minutes of the Meeting of City Council held on
March 22, 2021
Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 05-21
Automated Speed Enforcement Implementation
Council Decision Resolution #543/21
1. That the automated speed enforcement program as outlined in Report ENG
05-21 be endorsed by Council for implementation in 2021 subject to budget
approval;
2. That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute the required agreements
for operation of the program in a form satisfactory to the Director, Corporate
Services & City Solicitor, the Director, Finance & Treasurer, and the parties,
namely:
a. Redflex Traffic Systems (Canada) Limited;
b. The Ministry of Transportation, Ontario; and,
c. The City of Toronto;
3. That one automated speed enforcement mobile camera be installed in the
Community Safety Zone on Liverpool Road between Bayly Street and Wharf
Street, consistent with Resolution #364/20, as part of the initial rollout of the
program and that additional mobile cameras be added as approved funds
permit;
4. That Council request the Province of Ontario to permit the use of an
Administrative Monetary Penalty System for offenses issued by Automated
Speed Enforcement;
5. That staff be directed to report back on the status of the Automated Speed
Enforcement Implementation program no later than the end of June, 2021; and,
6. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the
necessary actions as indicated in this report.
Please take any action deemed necessary.
Attachment #2 to Report # ENG 14-21
- 174 -
Susan Cassel
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Director, Finance & Treasurer
Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor
- 175 -
Proposed Camera Rotation Schedule
(2 Cameras - 6 week Camera Rotation)
Coming Soon Camera Directional
#Street Limits Camera # Signs Install Camera Install Removal Ward Camera Location Traffic
1 Liverpool Road Bayly Street to Wharf Street 1 21-May-21 19-Aug-21 30-Sep-21 2 Just south of Commerce Street Northbound
2 Oklahoma Drive 30 metres east of Eyer Drive to Leaside Street 2 21-May-21 19-Aug-21 30-Sep-21 1 Between Eyer and Hillcrest Eastbound
3 Rosebank Road Foxwood Trail to Highview Road / Summerpark Crescent 1 2-Jul-21 30-Sep-21 11-Nov-21 1 & 3 Between Woodsmere and Springview Southbound
4 Glenanna Road Dixie Road to Listowell Crescent 2 2-Jul-21 30-Sep-21 11-Nov-21 2 Just west of Listowell Crescent Westbound
5 Twyn Rivers Drive Altona Road to 360 metres west of Ashwood Gate 1 13-Aug-21 11-Nov-21 23-Dec-21 1 Just west of Ashwood Gate Eastbound
6 Major Oaks Road Middleton Street to Holly Hedge Drive 2 13-Aug-21 11-Nov-21 23-Dec-21 3 Between Wildwood Crescent and Holly Hedge Northbound
7 Dixie Road Glenanna Road to Kitley Avenue 1 24-Sep-21 23-Dec-21 3-Feb-22 2 Between Glenanna and Silverthorn Southbound
8 Sheppard Avenue 135 metres east of Edmund Street to Whites Road 2 24-Sep-21 23-Dec-21 3-Feb-22 1 Between Edmund and Whites Eastbound
9 Glenanna Road Heathside Crescent to Huntsmill Drive 1 5-Nov-21 3-Feb-22 17-Mar-22 2 Between Heathside and Brookshire Northbound
10 Toynevale Road Rougemount Drive to Rosebank Road 2 5-Nov-21 3-Feb-22 17-Mar-22 1 Between Oakwood and Chantilly Road Westbound
11 Strouds Lane Autumn Crescent to Alder Court 1 17-Dec-21 17-Mar-22 28-Apr-22 1 & 3 Between Broadoak and Broadoak Eastbound
12 Bushmill Street Liverpool Road to Maple Ridge Drive 2 17-Dec-21 17-Mar-22 28-Apr-22 2 Between Wheatsheaf and Fieldstone/Bridge Gate Eastbound
13 Rosebank Road Toynevale Road to Dahlia Crescent / Cowan Circle 1 28-Jan-22 28-Apr-22 9-Jun-22 1 By Rick Hull Memorial Park Northbound
Attachment #3 to Report # ENG 14-21
- 176 -
Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: FIN 10-21
Date: June 7, 2021
From: Stan Karwowski
Director, Finance & Treasurer
Subject: Annual Indexing – Development Charges and Seaton Financial Impacts
Agreement
- File: F-4920-001
Recommendation:
1. That Report FIN 10-21 of the Director, Finance & Treasurer be received;
2. That effective July 1, 2021 as provided for in By-law No. 7595/17, as amended by By-
laws No. 7727/19 and No. 7802/20, the Development Charges referred to in Schedule
“C” of that By-law be increased by 3.1 per cent;
3. That effective July 1, 2021 the payments related to “10 per cent Soft Services” as
provided for by the Seaton Financial Impacts Agreement dated November 26, 2015 be
increased by 3.1 per cent; and
4. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the necessary
actions as indicated in this report.
Executive Summary: The Development Charges Act 1997 and Ontario Regulation 82/98,
and By-law No. 7595/17, as amended by By-laws No. 7727/19 and No. 7802/20 provide for an
automatic annual adjustment to the City’s development charges (the “DCs”) based on the
Building Construction Price Index in order to keep development charges revenues current with
construction costs. The Building Construction Price Index for the non-residential buildings
construction for the annual period ending March 31, 2021 is 3.1 per cent.
Adoption of Recommendations 2 and 3 of this report will put into effect the higher rate for the
period of July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2022.
Attachment 1 provides the DCs by service category for the City-wide area in Pickering
excluding the Seaton lands with the new rates reflecting the annual indexing of 3.1 per cent.
Attachment 2 provides the DCs by service category for the Seaton lands, and the new rates
with the indexing of 3.1 per cent as well as additional charges applicable to development in
Seaton as approved in the Seaton Financial Impacts Agreement (FIA).
- 177 -
FIN 10-21 June 7, 2021
Subject: Annual Indexing and Development Charges for Page 2
City-Wide and Seaton Lands
Financial Implications: Increasing the development charges based on an increase in the
construction price index will assist in keeping the revenues generated in line with current
construction costs.
Discussion: As provided for in Ontario Reg. 82/98, s.7, and in section 16 of the City’s By-
law No. 7595/17, as amended by By-laws No. 7727/19 and No. 7802/20, the development
charges charged by the City for all types of development shall be indexed annually without
amending the By-law. Adoption of the recommendations contained in this report will allow that
increase to take effect July 1, 2021, thereby assisting in keeping revenues in line with the costs
that development charges fund.
Statistics Canada indicates that the non-residential buildings construction price index (an
indicator of our costs of construction) for the Toronto area has increased by 3.1 per cent for
the annual period from April 1, 2020 to March 31, 2021. The change is reflected in the tables
attached.
The 2017 DC Background Study was completed in December 2017, and further amended by
the 2019 DC Update Study and 2020 DC Update Study.
DC By-law No. 7595/17, section 16(1)(ii) provides that commencing on July 1, 2019, the rates
in Schedule “C” shall be adjusted annually in accordance with the change in the index for the
most recently available annual period ending March 31. Schedule “C” is applicable to the new
DCs rates effective on January 1, 2018 as a result of the 2017 DC Background Study, and as
amended by the 2019 and 2020 DC Update Studies.
Attachment 4 provides the change in rates in Schedule “C” from Dec. 15, 2020 to July 1, 2021
based on the 3.1 per cent indexing.
Continuing from previous years, City staff are including in the DCs annual indexing report,
additional charges applicable to development in Seaton lands as approved in the Seaton FIA.
Sections 4 - 6 of the FIA outline the DC-related financial terms of the agreement. Note that of
all the 3 services collectible based on the Seaton FIA, the “10 per cent Soft Services” is the
only service to be indexed. Attachment 3 provides further details on these charges with the 3.1
per cent indexing.
The Seaton DC rates are lower than the City-wide DC rates to reflect the fact that the Seaton
Landowner Group (SLG) is responsible to design, build and pay for the Seaton internal roads
network.
Upon Council’s approval of the recommendations contained in this report, the development
charges brochure will be updated to reflect the approved rates. The updated brochure will be
posted on the City’s website and made available at various counters throughout the Civic
Complex.
- 178 -
FIN 10-21 June 7, 2021
Subject: Annual Indexing and Development Charges for Page 2
City-Wide and Seaton Lands
Attachments:
1. City-Wide Development Charges (excludes Seaton Lands) – Effective July 1, 2021
2. Seaton Lands Development Charges and Financial Impacts Agreement (FIA) Charges –
Effective July 1, 2021
3. Seaton Lands – Financial Impacts Agreement (FIA) Charges, Section 5.1
4. Schedule “C” – City of Pickering Schedule of Development Charges
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
Original Signed By: Original Signed By:
Caryn Kong, CPA, CGA Stan Karwowski, CPA, CMA, MBA
Senior Financial Analyst – Capital & Director, Finance & Treasurer
Debt Management
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City Council
Original Signed By:
Marisa Carpino, M.A.
Chief Administrative Officer
- 179 -
Attachment #1 to Report # FIN 10-21
City of Pickering
City-Wide Development Charges (Excludes Seaton Lands)
Development Charges By-law No. 7595/17, as amended by By-law No. 7797/19 and By-law No. 7802/20
Effective July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2022
Per Residential Dwelling Unit By Type Non-Residential Charges
Service Category
Singles or Semi-
Detached
Apt Dwellings
with 2 or more
bdrms
Apt Dwellings
with less than
2 bdrms
Other
Dwellings
Non-Residential per
Sq. Ft of Total Floor
Area
Other Services Related to a
Highway $498 $315 $223 $403 $0.18
Protection Services 1,014 640 454 820 0.37
Parks and Recreation Services 7,720 4,877 3,456 6,231 0.60
Library Services 1,275 806 571 1,030 0.09
Administration Studies 338 214 151 274 0.12
Stormwater Management 326 206 146 264 0.11
Transportation 1 10,516 6,644 4,706 8,490 2.96
Total $21,687 $13,702 $9,707 $17,512 $4.43
1 Does not apply to Seaton Lands. Seaton Lands subject to a separate agreement outside of the Development Charges Act concerning
provision of the Transportation requirements in addition to other funding contributions.
- 180 -
Attachment #2 to Report # FIN 10-21
City of Pickering
Seaton Lands Development Charges and Financial Impacts Agreement (FIA) Charges
Development Charges (DC) By-law No. 7595/17, as amended by By-law No. 7727/19, By-law No. 7802/20 and FIA Article 5
Effective July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2022
DC By-law No. 7595/17, as amended by By-
law No. 7727/19 and By-law No. 7802/20 Per Residential Dwelling Unit By Type Non-Residential Charges
Service Category
Singles or Semi-
Detached
Apt
Dwellings
with 2 or
more bdrms
Apt Dwellings
with less than
2 bdrms
Other
Dwellings
Non-Residential per
Sq. Ft of Total Floor
Area 5
Prestige Employment
Land in Seaton (per
Net Hectare)
Other Services Related to a Highway $498 $315 $223 $403 $0.18 $6,168
Protection Services 1,014 640 454 820 0.37 13,039
Parks and Recreation Services 7,720 4,877 3,456 6,231 0.60 20,242
Library Services 1,275 806 571 1,030 0.09 3,048
Administration Studies 338 214 151 274 0.12 4,353
Stormwater Management 326 206 146 264 0.11 3,965
Transportation 1 0 0 0 0 0.00 0
Total DC By-law No.7595/17 (as
amended)$11,171 $7,058 $5,001 $9,022 $1.47 $50,815
SLG FIA
Per Sq. Ft of Total
Floor Area
10% Soft Services 2 $897 $409 $409 $710 $0.104 $0.104
Non Indexed
Municipal Buildings 3 189 86 86 150 n/a n/a
Community Uses 4 300 137 137 238 n/a n/a
Total SLG FIA $1,386 $632 $632 $1,098 $0.104 $0.104
Total Charges-Seaton Lands $12,557 $7,690 $5,633 $10,120 $1.574
$50,815/ha &
$0.104/sq. ft
1 Does not apply to Seaton Lands. Seaton Lands subject to a separate agreement outside of the Development Charges Act concerning
provision of the Transportation requirements in addition to other funding contributions.
2 Breakdown by service category is available upon request. Not applicable to lands owned by the Province. For residential development,
payment is due at subdivision registration except for mixed-use or multi-use or multi-residential development blocks subject to site plan approval.
For all other development, payment is due prior to building permit issuance. Subject to annual indexing.
3 Applicable to the first 11,280 S.D.Es built on SPL Lands, due prior to building permit issuance. No indexing
4 Applicable to the first 11,280 S.D.Es built on SPL Lands to a maximun payment of $3.3 million; due prior to building permit issuance. No indexing
5 Does not apply to prestige employment land in Seaton, as that development is subject to the per net Ha land area charge instead. Applies
to non-residential development in the non-prestige employment land in Seaton.
- 181 -
Attachment #3 to Report # FIN 10-21
City of Pickering
Seaton Lands - Financial Impacts Agreement (FIA) Charges, Section 5.1
Section 5.1: 10% Soft Services Contribution*
Effective July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2022
Per Residential Dwelling Unit By Type **Non-Residential Charges
Service Category
Singles or Semi-
Detached
Apt
Dwellings
with 2 or
more bdrms
Apt Dwellings with
less than 2 bdrms
Other
Dwellings
Non-Residential
per Sq. Ft of
Total Floor Area
Prestige
Employment Land
in Seaton (per Sq.
Ft)
Development-Related Studies 1 $4.78 $2.18 $2.18 $3.78 0.002 0.002
Parks Development & Trails 227.43 103.94 103.94 180.36 0.020 0.020
Indoor Recreation Facilities 474.48 215.91 215.91 374.95 0.039 0.039
Library 113.92 52.06 52.06 90.34 0.009 0.009
Operations Facilities & Vehicles 76.39 34.91 34.91 60.57 0.034 0.034
Total $897.00 $409.00 $409.00 $710.00 0.104 0.104
*This contribution is to be indexed with the construction price index prescribed by the DC Act.
**FIA version (October 28, 2013) subsection 5.1 and 5.2 permits the City to charge an additional DC to compensate for the
10% soft services deduction.
The calculation is based on the DC rate multiplied by 11.11% as stated in the FIA agreement subsection 5.2.
1 19.0% of the DC Recoverable share for the Development Related Studies is comprised of costs that are subject to the 10% deduction.
- 182 -
Attachment #4 to Report # FIN 10-21
Schedule "C"
City of Pickering Schedule of Developement Charges-DC By-law No. 7595/17, as amended by By-law No. 7727/19
and By-law No. 7802/20
Effective December 15, 2020
Per Residential Dwelling Unit By Type Non-Residential Charges
Service Category
Singles or
Semi-
Detached
Apt
Dwellings
with 2 or
more bdrms
Apt
Dwellings
with less
than 2
bdrms
Other
Dwellings
Non-
Residential
per Sq. Ft of
Total Floor
Area
Prestige
Employment
Land in
Seaton (per
Net Hectare)
Other Services Related to a Highwa $483 $306 $216 $391 $0.17 $5,983
Protection Services 983 621 440 795 0.36 12,647
Parks and Recreation Services 7,488 4,730 3,352 6,044 0.58 19,633
Library Services 1,237 782 554 999 0.09 2,956
Administration Studies 328 207 147 266 0.12 4,222
Stormwater Management 316 200 142 256 0.11 3,846
Total Municipal Wide Services $10,835 $6,846 $4,851 $8,751 $1.43 $49,287
Outside of Seaton Lands:
Transportation 1 10,200 6,444 4,565 8,235 2.87 0
Total Services Outside of
Seaton Lands $10,200 $6,444 $4,565 $8,235 $2.87 $0
Seaton $10,835 $6,846 $4,851 $8,751 $1.43 $49,287 A
Rest of Pickering-City wide $21,035 $13,290 $9,416 $16,986 $4.30 B
Effective July 1, 2021 Indexed at 3.1%
Per Residential Dwelling Unit By Type Non-Residential Charges
Service Category
Singles or
Semi-
Detached
Apt
Dwellings
with 2 or
more bdrms
Apt
Dwellings
with less
than 2
bdrms
Other
Dwellings
Non-
Residential
per Sq. Ft of
Total Floor
Area
Prestige
Employment
Land in
Seaton (per
Net Hectare)
Other Services Related to a Highwa $498 $315 $223 $403 $0.18 $6,168
Protection Services 1,014 640 454 820 0.37 13,039
Parks and Recreation Services 7,720 4,877 3,456 6,231 0.60 20,242
Library Services 1,275 806 571 1,030 0.09 3,048
Administration Studies 338 214 151 274 0.12 4,353
Stormwater Management 326 206 146 264 0.11 3,965
Total Municipal Wide Services $11,171 $7,058 $5,001 $9,022 $1.47 $50,815
Outside of Seaton Lands:
Transportation 1 10,516 6,644 4,706 8,490 2.96 0
Total Services Outside of
Seaton Lands $10,516 $6,644 $4,706 $8,490 $2.96 0
Seaton Lands $11,171 $7,058 $5,001 $9,022 $1.47 $50,815 C
Rest of Pickering-City wide $21,687 $13,702 $9,707 $17,512 $4.43 D
$ Increase - Seaton Lands $336 $212 $150 $271 $0.04 $1,528 A-C
$ Increase - Rest of Pickering-
City wide $652 $412 $291 $526 $0.13 N/A B-D
1. Does not apply to Seaton Lands. Seaton Lands subject to a separate agreement outside of the Development Charges Act concerning
provision of the Transportation requirements in addition to other funding contributions.
- 183 -
Report to
Executive Committee
Report Number: PLN 30-21
Date: June 7, 2021
From: Kyle Bentley
Director, City Development & CBO
Subject: Local Enhancement and Appreciation of Forests (LEAF) Organization’s Tree
Planting Program Update
- File: D-7300
Recommendation:
1. That Report PLN 30-21 of the Director, City Development & CBO, on the update of the
Local Enhancement and Appreciation of Forests (LEAF) Organization’s Tree Planting
Program, be received;
2. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute a 4-year joint agreement
between the Region of Durham, the Local Enhancement and Appreciation of Forests
(LEAF) organization and participating municipalities to deliver the tree planting program
from July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2025, as set out in Attachment #1 of this report, subject to
minor revisions with terms and conditions satisfactory to staff from a legal services and
insurance perspective;
3. That the appropriate City staff be directed to take the necessary actions as indicated in
this report; and
4. That staff be directed to report back with a summary of the results, and if successful,
consider continuing the program in subsequent years pending budget approval.
Executive Summary: Local Enhancement and Appreciation of Forests (LEAF) is a non-profit
organization, dedicated to the protection and enhancement of the urban forest. They offer
programs that help subsidize residents’ planting and caring for trees. In July of 2020, LEAF
partnered with municipalities across Durham Region, including the City of Pickering, Town of
Whitby, City of Oshawa, and the Township of Scugog, to successfully complete a pilot LEAF
Backyard Tree Planting Program.
LEAF’s Tree Planting Program offered residents a convenient, accessible, and affordable way
to obtain new trees and shrubs for their yard. Homeowners were able to purchase native trees
and shrubs at a subsidized cost, thereby reducing barriers to participation and enhancing the
city’s overall urban tree canopy.
In June 2020, Council authorized the execution of an agreement between the City of Pickering,
LEAF, Region of Durham, City of Oshawa, Town of Whitby and Township of Scugog to
participate in a pilot tree planting program for a year. The original planting goal for the inaugural
year was to work with 40 Pickering families to plant a minimum of 40 large caliper native trees.
The deciduous trees were 5 to 8 feet in height and the evergreens were 2 to 4 feet. Tree pots
- 184 -
Report PLN 30-21 June 7, 2021
Subject: LEAF Tree Planting Program Update Page 2
ranged from 7 to 15 gallon depending on the species. Shrubs were available for properties that
could not accommodate a tree (3 shrubs equal 1 tree). Due to demand, the tree planting goal
was increased to 50 trees. The additional trees were funded through the Region of Durham
and LEAF’s Ontario Trillium Foundation grant.
The goal for Pickering was reached by planting 43 large caliper trees and 27 shrubs, while
working with 33 property owners to raise awareness about the benefits of trees and how to
properly maintain them. Of those, 27 trees and 19 shrubs were planted in the fall of 2020 and
the remaining 16 trees and 8 shrubs are being planted in the spring of 2021.
Based on the success of the program, staff have completed the background work necessary
for Council to enter into a 4-year partnership agreement for the LEAF Backyard Tree Planting
Program with the Region of Durham and surrounding municipalities (see Attachment #1).
Annual participation will be contingent on budget approval, as well as the continued successful
program delivery and sustained community demand. As indicated in the draft agreement,
participating municipalities have the opportunity to opt-out of the program with 3 months’
notice. The partnership Agreement set out in Attachment #1 of this Report was reviewed by
staff in City Development, Legal Services, and Finance from an insurance coverage
perspective. It is recommended Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into this
agreement to renew this partnership.
Financial Implications: $15,000.00 for the LEAF Tree Planting program was included
under Consulting and Professional account 2620.2392.0000 of the approved 2021 Current
Budget. No additional financial resources will be required for this year.
Pickering, Whitby, Oshawa and Ajax are each investing $15,000.00 and Scugog is contributing
$8,000.00 for a lower participation level. The Region of Durham staff identified $80,000 in their
2021 budget to offset the balance of the cost.
Discussion: The Tree Planting Program complements the City of Pickering’s sustainability
and community planting efforts, represents an effective local measure to support the Climate
Change Emergency Declaration, and aligns with actions outlined in the Durham Community
Climate Change Local Action Plan that was endorsed by Pickering Council. The program also
supports the goals outlined in the Pickering Official Plan Policy 10.15 regarding urban forests
and their importance to maintaining a healthy ecosystem, managing stormwater, providing
wildlife habitat and community aesthetics, reducing the urban heat island effect, and improving
air quality.
Resident Feedback
According to post-planting satisfaction surveys conducted by LEAF, Pickering residents
reported an overall positive experience with the program. Residents indicated the LEAF tree
planting program provided the encouragement to plant more trees and shrubs in their yard,
which would not have been considered otherwise. As well, the program was found to be an
educational experience for residents, while helping them to identify ideal species for their yard.
Overall, participants enjoyed the incentives of the program, including the arborist consultation
and subsidized tree/shrub prices.
- 185 -
Report PLN 30-21 June 7, 2021
Subject: LEAF Tree Planting Program Update Page 3
Next Steps for the Backyard Tree Planting Program
Pending Council approval, the City of Pickering will partner with LEAF, the Region of Durham
and participating Durham municipalities to continue to offer the LEAF program through
2021-2025. Program delivery will continue to comply with current COVID-19 regulations and
recommendations. Similar to 2020, the goal for the second year of this program is to plant a
minimum of 40 large caliper trees in Pickering and engage with property owners to educate
them about tree care and the benefits of planting. For sites that cannot accommodate a tree,
native shrubs will once again be available at a reduced cost. Fourteen Pickering households
have already approached LEAF about participation for 2021. If interest is greater than
availability, LEAF will consult with the respective property owners. Pending program review
and approval in the subsequent year, those residents will be contacted and offered
opportunities for participation first the following spring.
Through LEAF's Tree Planting Program, applicants will once again receive the following:
1. Online pre-visit questionnaire to ensure that the property owner qualifies for the program,
has adequate space to plant, and is committed to long term tree care.
2. On-site consultation with a LEAF arborist to determine appropriate species and planting
location.
3. Full delivery and planting by LEAF professionals.
4. Follow-up questionnaire to assess participant satisfaction and/or follow-up visit to assess
tree health.
Community Tree Planting
Aside from the Backyard Program, LEAF was successful in receiving a grant from the Ontario
Trillium Foundation to support a planting initiative on public land. As a result, of the City’s
partnership on the Backyard Tree Planting Program, LEAF offered to use a portion of this grant
to plant 250 trees and shrubs in a public space in Pickering this fall. Staff have been working
with LEAF to identify and evaluate potential sites based on the criteria of their grant application.
Due to COVID-19, the planting will be completed by LEAF trained volunteers. This is a great
opportunity to further enhance Pickering’s urban forest canopy.
Attachment:
1. Draft Durham LEAF Program Agreement July 2021 to June 2025
- 186 -
Report PLN 30-21 June 7, 2021
Subject: LEAF Tree Planting Program Update Page 4
Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:
Original Signed By Original Signed By
Melanie Edmond, HBSc. Kyle Bentley, P. Eng.
Coordinator, Sustainability Director, City Development & CBO
Original Signed By
Chantal Whitaker, BESc (Hons), CSR-P
Supervisor, Sustainability
ME:CW:ld
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering City Council
Original Signed By
Marisa Carpino, M.A.
Chief Administrative Officer
- 187 -
Attachment #1 to Report #PLN 30-21Draft
LEAF BACKYARD TREE PLANTING PROGRAM AGREEMENT
Effective the 1st day of July, 2021
B E T W E E N:
Local Enhancement and Appreciation of Forests (“LEAF ”)
LEAF is a corporation without share capital, incorporated under the Ontario Corporations
Act
AND
The Regional Municipality of Durham
The Corporation of the City of Oshawa
The Corporation of the City of Pickering
The Corporation of the Town of Whitby
The Corporation of the Township of Scugog
The Corporation of the Town of Ajax
(with the foregoing collectively referred to as the “Municipal Partners”)
RECITALS
A.WHEREAS the Municipal Partners each have a mandate that includes the
stewardship and environmental enhancement on private land through tree planting;
B.AND WHEREAS the Municipal Partners wish to work cooperatively with LEAF in
programs which assist in the fulfillment of their mandates;
C.AND WHEREAS the parties have a mutual interest in private land stewardship and
tree planting;
D.AND WHEREAS LEAF offers a program which supports the various climate change
and urban forest strategies of the Municipal Partners;
E.AND WHEREAS the Municipal Partners approved an annual grant totaling $148,000
so LEAF can offer the Backyard Tree Planting Program (the “Program”) to residents
in an effort to increase urban tree planting.
NOW THEREFORE, for good consideration as provided for in this Agreement, the
parties hereby agree as follows:
- 188 -
Section 1: THE VISION
1a) LEAF and the Municipal Partners agree to cooperate in the implementation of
the Program, and to undertake the following activities:
I. To promote the Program to property owners through all available
channels;
II. To raise awareness of the environmental, social, and economic benefits
of the urban forest and canopy cover; and,
III. To facilitate the planting of trees and shrubs on private property.
Section 2: TERM OF AGREEMENT
2a) This Agreement shall commence on July 1, 2021 and terminate on June 30,
2025 (the “Term”). In the event that individual Municipal Partners are not able
to secure funds through their respective budget approval process, they may opt
out of the Agreement at any time with a minimum of 3 months’ notice to all
parties. In the event that LEAF can no longer deliver the Program effectively
with the resources available, they may opt out of the Agreement at any time
with a minimum of 30 days’ notice to all parties. The parties may extend the
Term of the Agreement at any time, by mutual agreement.
Section 3: RESPECTIVE ROLES OF LEAF AND MUNICIPAL PARTNERS
3a) LEAF covenants and agrees to do the following:
I. Recognize the Municipal Partners’ support of the Program through any
promotional material produced by LEAF as approved by the respective
Municipal Partner;
II. Use the funding provided by the Municipal Partners to support the
Program’s activities within the boundaries of the Region of Durham during
the Term of this Agreement;
III. Administer the Program by reviewing candidate properties for eligibility,
ensuring property owners understand they own and are responsible for
care of the trees, obtaining waivers of liability from each private property
owner to protect LEAF and the Municipal Partners, and by arranging and
implementing planting on private property accordingly;
IV. Sell trees and shrubs, as well as related consultation and delivery/planting
services through the Program to Region of Durham property owners at a
subsidized price;
V. Monitor the success of the Program and implement contingencies and/or
modify plans accordingly; and,
VI. Track and report to the Municipal Partners on the number of Program
participants and trees/shrubs planted.
- 189 -
3b) The Municipal Partners covenant and agree to do the following:
I. To support the Program by providing the financial contributions set out in
this Agreement; and,
II. To offer Program feedback and work collaboratively with LEAF to
ensure Program success.
Section 4: DELIVERABLES
4a) LEAF agrees to achieve, at a minimum, the following deliverables during the
Term of this Agreement:
I. plant at least 182 trees (3 shrubs equals 1 tree) annually according
to the distribution set out in Section 6a);
II. reach at least 500 residents annually through outreach/educational activities;
III. provide recognition for the Municipal Partners’ support on LEAF’s
website, print materials and through social media as approved by the
respective Municipal Partner; and,
IV. provide promotional content for the Municipal Partners’ use, as approved by
the respective Municipal Partner, including website content, brochures,
posters, advertisements, and social media content.
Section 5: ADMINISTRATION AND REPORTING
5a) LEAF and the Municipal Partners shall each appoint one representative who
shall be responsible for the management and administration of the terms of
this Agreement.
5b) The parties shall meet at least once during the Term of this Agreement for the
purpose of discussing the status of the Program.
5c) LEAF covenants and agrees to provide an Interim Report to the Municipal
Partners by December 15 of each year of the term, and a Final Report to the
Municipal Partners by July 15 of each year of the term, which will include the
following information:
I. List of addresses where trees/shrubs have been planted, including
numbers and species (conditional on property owner permission);
II. Summary of total annual plantings, including total number of trees and
shrubs planted; and,
III. Summary of promotional/outreach activities.
5d) The parties agree to communicate regularly and provide updates on the status of
the Program from time to time, as each party may require.
- 190 -
Section 6: FUNDING AND TARGETS
6a) The Municipal Partners covenant and agree to the following annual payment
schedule and LEAF agrees to complete the following tree targets during each
year of the Term of this Agreement:
Partner Annual
Funding Payable to
Annual
Payment
Deadline
Annual Tree
Target
Pickering $15,000 LEAF July 15 40
Whitby $15,000 LEAF July 15 40
Oshawa $15,000 LEAF July 15 40
Ajax $15,000 LEAF July 15 40
Scugog $8,000 LEAF July 15 22
Durham Region $80,000 LEAF July 15
Annual Totals $148,000 182
6b) LEAF covenants and agrees to administer the $148,000 provided by the
Municipal Partners in support of the Program (the “Grant”) as follows:
I. 10% of funds allocated to Program administration; and,
II. 90% of funds allocated for the cost of promoting and delivering the
Program and related education/communication activities.
6c) The parties may increase the funding and planting targets at any time, by
mutual agreement.
Section 7: OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE OF TREES
7a) The trees planted in connection with this Program are owned by the private
property owner. The Municipal Partners do not have any ownership or
jurisdiction over the trees at any time.
7b) Any maintenance of the trees is the responsibility of the private property
owner.
Section 8: INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE
8a) LEAF shall defend, indemnify and save harmless the Municipal Partners
and its elected officials, officers, employees and agents from and against all
claims of any nature, actions, causes of action, losses, expenses, fines,
costs, interest or damages of every nature and kind whatsoever, arising out
of or allegedly attributable to the negligent acts, errors, omissions,
misfeasance, nonfeasance, fraud or willful misconduct of LEAF, its
directors, officers, employees, agents, contractors and subcontractors, or
- 191 -
any of them, in connection with or in any way related to the delivery or
performance of this Agreement. This indemnity shall be in addition to and
not in lieu of any insurance to be provided by the LEAF in accordance with
this Agreement, and shall survive this Agreement.
8b) LEAF shall continuously maintain throughout the Term of the Agreement
and pay for Commercial General Liability insurance including personal
injury, broad form contractual liability, owners, and contractors protective,
completed operations, and non-owned automotive liability in an amount of
not less than two million dollars ($2,000,000.00) applying to all contracts for
claims arising out of one occurrence. The Commercial General Liability
policy shall include the Municipal Partners as additional insureds in respect
of all operations performed by or on behalf of LEAF in relation to the
Agreement requirements and be endorsed to provide the Municipal
Partners with not less than thirty (30) days written notice in advance of any
cancellation, change or amendment restricting coverage. LEAF shall
provide an updated Certificate of Insurance on the Region’s standard form,
or on a form acceptable to the Region of Durham and the Municipal
Partners.
Section 9: DEFAULT, TERMINATION AND REPAYMENT:
9a) If any of the following events occur, all of the Municipal Partners acting
unanimously shall be entitled to immediately terminate this Agreement upon
written notice to LEAF, and request the repayment of unspent funds associated
with the Grant:
I. LEAF breaches any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement;
II. LEAF ceases operating, ceases to operate as a non-profit organization,
winds up or dissolves, commences or has commenced against it any
proceedings in bankruptcy, or is adjudged a bankrupt; or,
III. LEAF uses the Grant for a purpose not approved by this Agreement.
Section 10: GENERAL
10a) This Agreement shall enure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties
hereto and their respective successors and assigns.
10b) Any notice, demand or acceptance required to be given hereunder in writing,
shall be deemed to be given if either personally delivered, emailed, or mailed by
registered mail, postage prepaid, (at any time other than during a general
discontinuance of postal services due to a strike, lockout, or otherwise) and
addressed to the parties as follows, or such change of address as the parties
have by written notification forwarded to each other:
- 192 -
LEAF – Local Enhancement and Appreciation of Forests
Artscape Wychwood Barns
601 Christie St, Suite 253
Toronto, ON M6G 4C7
Janet McKay, Executive Director
416-413-9244 | 1-888-453-6504
janet@yourleaf.org
The Regional Municipality of Durham
605 Rossland Rd. E.
Whitby, ON L1N 6A3
Ian McVey, Manager of Sustainability
905-668-7711 ext. 3803
Ian.McVey@durham.ca
The Corporation of the City of Oshawa
199 Wentworth St. E.,
Oshawa, ON L1H 3V6
Michelle Whitbread, Parks and Environmental Services Coordinator
905-436-3311 ext. 2811 | 1-800-667-4292
mwhitbread@oshawa.ca
The Corporation of the City of Pickering
One The Esplanade
Pickering, ON L1V 6K7
Chantal Whitaker
Supervisor, Sustainability, City Development
905-420-4660 ext. 2170 | 1-866-683-2760
cwhitaker@pickering.ca
The Corporation of the Town of Whitby
575 Rossland Road East
Whitby, ON L1N 2M8
Jade Schofield
Project Manager- Sustainability & Climate Change
Strategic Initiatives- Office of the CAO
905-444-3167
schofieldj@whitby.ca
Chris Harris
Town Clerk
905-668-5803
clerk@whitby.ca
- 193 -
The Corporation of the Township of Scugog
181 Perry Street
P.O. Box 780
Port Perry, ON L9L 1A7
Carol Coleman
Director, Public Works and Infrastructure
905-985-7346 ext.150
ccoleman@scugog.ca
The Corporation of the Town of Ajax
800 Salem Rd N
Ajax, ON L1Z 0J1
Craig Blencowe
Supervisor of Forestry & Horticulture, Operations & Environmental Services
905-619 2529 ext. 4210
Craig.Blencowe@ajax.ca
The duly authorized representatives of LEAF and the Municipal Partners, having
authority to bind their respective organizations and having read and understood the
terms and conditions of this Agreement, agree to the terms and conditions, and
execute this Agreement as of the date first written above.
LOCAL ENHANCEMENT AND APPRECIATION OF
FORESTS
Name:
Title:
Janet McKay
Executive Director
Signature:
Date:
- 194 -
THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM
Name: Sandra Austin
Title: Director, Strategic Initiatives
Signature:
Date:
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF OSHAWA
Name:
Title:
Signature:
Date:
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING
Name:
Title:
Signature:
Date:
- 195 -
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF WHITBY
Name: ______________________________________
Title: ________________________________________
Signature: _________________________________
Date:
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SCUGOG
Name:
Title:
Signature:
Date:
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF AJAX
Name:
Title: ______________________________________
Signature:
Date:
- 196 -