The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNovember 1, 2021Executive Committee Meeting Agenda November 1, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Due to COVID-19 and the Premier’s Emergency Orders to limit gatherings and maintain physical distancing, the City of Pickering continues to hold electronic Council and Committee Meetings. Members of the public may observe the meeting proceedings by viewing the livestream. A recording of the meeting will also be available on the City’s website following the meeting. Page 1.Roll Call 2.Disclosure of Interest 3.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 meeting via audio connection. A maximum of 10 minutes shall be allotted for each delegation. Please ensure you provide the phone number that you wish to be contacted on. Please be advised that your name and address will appear in the public record and will be posted on the City’s website as part of the meeting minutes. 4.Matters for Consideration 4.1 Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report BYL 02-21 1 Waterfront Parking -Current and Proposed Actions Recommendation: Executive Committee Meeting Agenda November 1, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 1.That Council approve the implementation of paid parking at the City’s waterfront parking lots (Liverpool Road, Beachpoint Promenade, and Progress Park), and paid permit parking on one side of waterfront area streets (see Attachment No. 1 – maps) from May 1st to October 1st annually; 2.That Council direct staff to communicate with residents on Park Crescent, Rodd Ave., and Bellavista Drive to determine if it is advisable to apply similar restrictions in these locations; 3.That Council approve a no charge permit for all Pickering residents who pre-register, which will allow use of the waterfront lots and on- street permit parking by City residents at no charge; 4.That Council approve an hourly parking rate for City waterfront parking lots, and on-street parking areas at a rate of $5.00 per hour, setting a maximum parking time of six hours; 5.That Council authorize staff to develop a permit system for each waterfront street household to accommodate guest parking; 6.That Council approve free parking for accessible parking permit holders and vehicles bearing veterans’ plates; 7.That the City continue to investigate options to create additional parking in the waterfront areas; 8.That Council provide pre-budget approval of $75,000.00 to award a procurement process yet to be conducted to solicit bids for software and hardware options; 9.That staff be directed to include in the draft 2022 current budget the additional staffing set out in this report to support the implementation and administration of the foregoing Recommendations; and, 10. 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 BYL 03-21 31 Deferral of Implementation of Accessible Service Supplement Fees Executive Committee Meeting Agenda November 1, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Vehicle for Hire By-law Recommendation: 1.That Report BYL 03-21 respecting a deferral of the implementation of the Accessible Service Supplement enacted in the Vehicle for Hire By-law 7739/20 be received; 2.That the implementation and collection of the Vehicle for Hire Accessible Service Supplement be deferred until January 1, 2023; and, 3.That appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. 4.3 Director, Community Services, Report CS 29-21 34 Community Association Lease Agreement -South Pickering Seniors Club Recommendation: 1.That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the Lease Agreement with the South Pickering 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. 4.4 Director, Engineering Services, Report ENG 23-21 53 Streetlighting on Regional Roads -Proposed Study of Current Policy/Practice Recommendation: 1.That Council endorse the Draft Terms of Reference for a study of the Region of Durham’s current policy/practice with respect to streetlighting on Regional roads; Executive Committee Meeting Agenda November 1, 2021 Electronic Meeting – 2:00 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca 2.That, through the Office of the CAO, appropriate City staff be selected to represent the City of Pickering on the study working group consisting of Regional and Local Area Municipality staff; 3.That staff report back on the results of the procurement of consulting services and seek Council authorization for a financial contribution to the study; and, 4.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions indicated in this reports. 5.Other Business 6.Adjournment Report to Executive Comittee Report Number: BYL 02-21 Date: November 1, 2021 From: Paul Bigioni Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor Subject: Waterfront Parking -Current and Proposed Actions -File: L-2000 Recommendation: 1.That Council approve the implementation of paid parking at the City’s waterfront parking lots (Liverpool Road, Beachpoint Promenade, and Progress Park), and paid permit parking on one side of waterfront area streets (see Attachment No. 1 – maps) from May 1st to October 1st annually; 2.That Council direct staff to communicate with residents on Park Crescent, Rodd Ave., and Bellavista Drive to determine if it is advisable to apply similar restrictions in these locations; 3.That Council approve a no charge permit for all Pickering residents who pre-register, which will allow use of the waterfront lots and on-street permit parking by City residents at no charge; 4.That Council approve an hourly parking rate for City waterfront parking lots, and on-street parking areas at a rate of $5.00 per hour, setting a maximum parking time of six hours; 5.That Council authorize staff to develop a permit system for each waterfront street household to accommodate guest parking; 6.That Council approve free parking for accessible parking permit holders and vehicles bearing veterans’ plates; 7.That the City continue to investigate options to create additional parking in the waterfront areas; 8.That Council provide pre-budget approval of $75,000.00 to award a procurement process yet to be conducted to solicit bids for software and hardware options; 9.That staff be directed to include in the draft 2022 current budget the additional staffing set out in this report to support the implementation and administration of the foregoing Recommendations; and, - 1 - BYL 02-21 November 1, 2021 Subject: Waterfront Parking Page 2 10. That appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. Executive Summary: As per Council Resolutions 636/21 and 637/21, staff have completed a public consultation to obtain feedback from residents regarding the adequacy of the City’s current parking measures and the proposal to implement paid permit parking, both on-street and at City waterfront parking lots. The Recommendations above have been formulated by City staff taking the results of the public consultation into account. This report contains the results of the public consultation, which was active from August 5 through September 12. The public consultation received 994 visits. Of these, 413 people completed the associated survey and 120 people completed the quick poll. There is substantial public support for introducing prohibited parking on one side of waterfront area streets, paid parking at the waterfront parking lots, on-street permit parking, and free permit parking for residents, accessible permit holders and veterans. It is noteworthy that 53.3% of the quick poll respondents access the waterfront by walking. The survey also included a question to determine if waterfront parks should close earlier than midnight from April 1st to September 30th. A majority of survey respondents (63.2%) were opposed to closing the parks earlier. In addition to the Waterfront Parking Public Consultation, City Development also conducted a separate Waterfront and Nautical Village Community Engagement Survey. Out of the 153 responses received, 74 mentioned parking as an issue. Staff considered all aspects of moving forward with this project at this point in time. While the waterfront area has seen an extraordinary increase in usage during the COVID pandemic, questions have been raised about the necessity of implementing long-term parking policies that may not be required when daily routines return to normal. Given the Town of Ajax decision to implement paid waterfront parking, however, staff anticipate that Pickering waterfront parking usage will continue at an increased level. Staff propose the implementation of the recommendations above to mitigate waterfront parking problems, however, the fundamental cause of these problems is insufficient parking space. The City must continue to search for additional parking areas to accommodate the needs of residents and visitors. Pickering’s waterfront areas are highly valued recreational amenities. As such, staff will continue to explore options to improve the waterfront experience of both visitors and area residents. Financial Implications: Implementation of the Recommendations in this report is expected to result in an increase in net parking revenues for the City by $290,625.00. That being said, the following matters will need to be provided for in the City’s budget, starting in 2022, to implement and administer paid and permit parking in accordance with the Recommendations: 1. Software and hardware: Parking management software and hardware acquisitions may be made by outright purchase, or on a fee per transaction basis. Staff will complete their review of the available options. Staff favour a combined approach that consists of - 2 - BYL 02-21 November 1, 2021 Subject: Waterfront Parking Page 3 leased software and purchased hardware (such as licence plate recognition equipment and physical kiosks), with cost recovery achieved through service fees. It is estimated that software/hardware system costs of approximately $75,000.00 will be required for the first year, with annual operating costs ranging from $5,000.00 to $10,000.00 depending on the operating system implemented. 2. Staffing: The number of Summer Enforcement Officers will need to be increased in order to enforce the new paid and permit parking system. This requires an enforcement presence seven days a week, from 9 am to 10 pm, including statutory holidays at an estimated cost of $68,000.00. A Supervisor, Parking Enforcement position should also be created to manage software, hardware, resident permits, all parking related operations, and other City enforcement initiatives, commencing May 1st, at an estimated cost of $61,340.00 for the first year, and $92,000.00 annually going forward. The cost of data entry for resident parking permits would be absorbed through existing staffing. 3. The estimated cost for associated signage will be $20,000.00. Initial calculations on projected revenue from waterfront parking lots and on-street permit parking estimates revenue will be $290,625.00. This will more than offset the costs of implementing and administering the paid and permit parking recommended in this report. The costs and revenues arising from the Recommendations in this report are as follows: Annual estimated cost to implement and administer: $224,340.00 Annual estimated revenue: $290,625.00 Net annual revenue: $ 66,285.00 Discussion: Pursuant to Council’s Resolutions 636/21 and 637/21, a public consultation was undertaken by staff and posted on the City’s website and social media accounts from August 5 to September 12, 2021. The information was viewed by over 994 visitors to the website, with 413 responses to the survey and 120 responses to the quick poll. Community engagement and communication efforts included: • Displayed on the City’s digital community signs for the same time period. Locations include: Civic Complex, Western Gateway (Kingston Rd. and Altona Rd.), Chestnut Hill Developments Recreation Complex, Centennial Park, CN Bridge, Kingston Road, west of Dixie Road • Issued a media release August 9, 2021 • Postal walk mailing to all waterfront community residences • Scheduled social media posts on all corporate channels as well as shared with Community Neighbourhood FB Groups (throughout time period noted) • Shared content pieces (image and copy) to Mayor and Council EAs for Mayor and Council social and newsletter consideration • Shared to City’s online corporate Newsletter (August 10) Information also appeared in three community page ads, directing the public to the City’s Let’s Talk Pickering feature to complete the survey and view the information provided. In addition, a - 3 - BYL 02-21 November 1, 2021 Subject: Waterfront Parking Page 4 number of residents chose to submit emails, letters or telephone calls to provide their comments and suggestions, support for proposed parking control measures, and suggestions on options that the City could investigate further. Highlights of the public comments follow the survey information outlined below. Staff prepared the survey questions (See Attachment 2 for full survey information) below, and a detailed map of waterfront area streets affected (See Attachment 1). The survey questions and responses were as follows: 1) Would you support prohibited parking on one side of all (waterfront) residential streets? Yes 81.3% 2) If paid parking was introduced, who should have access to no cost or low costing parking options? All Pickering residents -72.9% 3) If introduced, please select your preferred on-street permit parking time frame: Every day from May to October -35.6% 4) Should vehicles with Veterans’ Plates be provided with free parking? Yes 73.4% 5) Should vehicles with accessible parking permits be provided with free parking options? Yes 63.4% 6) Currently Pickering’s parks and waterfront areas close at midnight during April 1 to September 30, and 10:30 pm during October 1 to March 31. Would you like to see an earlier closing time for the April 1st to September 30th period? No 63.2% 7) If introduced, should on-street permit parking rates be: Hourly 55.8% 8) Should there be a maximum time limit that vehicles are permitted to park? Yes 64% 9) Are you in favour of allowing waterfront area residents to have non-paying street parking guests? Yes 60.8% 10) Please state your preferred option for guest vehicles of waterfront area properties: Provide 2 permits per household that are valid throughout the year for any guest vehicles. 63.6% Reduced # responses, 163 skipped - 4 - BYL 02-21 November 1, 2021 Subject: Waterfront Parking Page 5 11) Should the City implement paid parking at its waterfront parking lots? Yes 68% 12) Should residents be provided free parking in waterfront lots? Yes 72.9% 13) If residents are granted free parking in waterfront lots, a registration process will be required. Should there be a minimal registration fee to assist the City in recovering administrator costs? No 52.1% 14) Should there be a time limit vehicles can park at City waterfront lots, for both paid parking and residents with permits? Yes 58.2% Quick Poll: 120 responses How do you typically get to Pickering’s waterfront areas? Drive & Park 46.7% Walk 53.3% Comments Received Include: • Explore additional parking options along the east end of the waterfront. I would ask that the City explore how to expand on lakeshore access and parking via Sandy Beach Road and Alex Robertson Park • Offer discounted annual passes to those who need to be in the area multiple times per week • Offer small businesses the opportunity to purchase discount passes that can be distributed to staff and/or regular visitors • Create a shuttle system, using the auxiliary GO lot on Bayly, to shuttle back and forth to the waterfront • Agrees with prohibited parking on one side of all waterfront area streets, set a maximum time period for parked vehicles on city owned waterfront lots, provide residents with no cost/low cost permit option, disagrees with permit parking on Front St from Commerce to Annland as it would cause too much congestion • Put in angled parking Rotary Frenchman’s Bay West Park for 2-3 times the vehicles. Why do the walking paths cross the road multiple times? • Create more parking around the perimeter. Widen Westshore Blvd and Sunrise Avenue with shoulders on the park side • Build sidewalks allowing people to walk safely from greater distances • Plan is principally intended to protect existing residents from seeing parked cars. Unfriendly to all visitors, whether from Pickering or out of town - 5 - BYL 02-21 November 1, 2021 Subject: Waterfront Parking Page 6 • I feel that this situation will subside significantly once things open up and people go about their normal routines. My advice is grin and bear it for one more summer and re- visit later • Pleased to see the City considering paid parking and hope this program moves forward • Can residents of each street effectively hoard permitted parking spaces by coordinating guest permits throughout the year? • Would the City consider a revenue sharing program with the local streets near the Waterfront area to support street-cleaning, sidewalk repair, tree planting, street beautification programs, etc.? • Under a maximum time period model, wouldn’t users be less incentivized to park for shorter durations and instead use the full amount of their allotment • Waterfront area residents should be allowed to have non-paying street parking guests. • Is the City charging for parking only between May and October when parking demands are likely highest, and a demand management program (aka paid parking) is necessary? Operational Recommendations: The feedback received has brought forward valuable suggestions. City Staff from Economic Development, Engineering and Municipal Law Enforcement Services will work with businesses in the Nautical Village to develop a parking program for their customers. Staff will also consider whether a seasonal pass should be made available to those who access the waterfront areas on a regular basis, such as dragon boat paddlers. Feedback was also received regarding the need to permanently increase the number of accessible parking spaces in the lot at Liverpool Road. Engineering staff are reviewing accessible parking spaces in this location. In response to the feedback from the public, staff are recommending that accessible permit holders utilizing accessible spaces, and vehicles with Veteran’s plates be provided free parking. Alex Robertson park will not be designated as a paid parking lot at this point, due to the potential impact on Kinsmen Park users, however, staff will monitor parking activity in this location. In addition, on-street parking on Park Crescent, Rodd Avenue, and Bellavista Drive should also be considered as paid parking areas, and staff seek Council direction to expand the community consultation to these areas. Potential Costs: There are multiple options to manage paid and permit parking including pay per plate systems, digital parking systems, physical kiosks. Staff will undertake a full Request for Quotation process through Supply and Services with Council approval. While some aspects of parking management can be funded on a fee per service basis, others cannot. Specifically, physical hardware such as licence plate recognition software and kiosks may require an upfront expenditure to purchase and implement. Staff have received some preliminary proposals that support a 2022 budget provision of not more than $75,000.00 to implement paid waterfront parking. Implementation of paid parking necessitates a level of enforcement that cannot be provided by the current staff complement. It will be necessary to add parking enforcement coverage from 9 - 6 - BYL 02-21 November 1, 2021 Subject: Waterfront Parking Page 7 am through 10 pm daily from May through October 1st in order to enforce paid and permit parking restrictions at all times when parking is allowed. Staff propose increasing the number of term Summer Enforcement Officers to provide the needed extra coverage for parking and allow flexibility in staff duties to ensure coverage is always available. In addition, the creation of a Supervisor, Parking Enforcement is recommended to provide ongoing supervision and management of the software, hardware, staff, resident permit system, parking ticket review, court appearances, and administration. Cost/Revenue Analysis: At this point in time, a preliminary survey of all residential streets to determine the number of potential permit parking spaces has been completed. Staff estimate that there will be approximately 400 on-street permit parking spaces. (See Attachment 3). Revenue figures are based on existing waterfront parking lot spaces at Liverpool Road, Progress Park, and Beachpoint Promenade (parking lot and street spaces), and projected on-street spaces. In order to project the potential revenue generated, staff consulted Environics Inc. and received reports through their Mobilescapes program. The data provided by Environics indicated that from May 1 through August 1 of 2021, 21% of trips to the waterfront originated in Pickering, while the remaining 79% were from other municipalities. This information is required to determine the percentage of potential free Pickering resident permit holders, vs. the non-resident and un-registered users who will be required to pay for parking. The following chart gives a breakdown of visitors: Waterfront Parking Visitors Origin Pickering, 21% Toronto, 36.60% Ajax, 11.20% Markham, 6.69% Whitby, 4.90% Oshawa, 4.18% All Other, 15.28% Based on this information, staff have estimated that 25% of parking spaces in City parking lots will be used by resident permit holders at no charge. (Staff note that the Town of Ajax has issued a total of 7,100 free permits to residents.) - 7 - BYL 02-21 November 1, 2021 Subject: Waterfront Parking Page 8 Of the 167 permanent parking spaces in the Liverpool Road lot, Progress Park and Beachpoint Promenade (accessible parking spaces not included), subtracting 25% of the spaces for resident use leaves approximately 125 spaces that will be paid vehicle parking. If the waterfront lots were filled to capacity from 9 am – 10 pm daily, from May to October, after subtracting 25% for residents’ use, the maximum revenue that could be generated is approximately $1,243,125.00 (125 spaces X 13 hrs/day X 153 days X $5/hr). Given fluctuations in weather conditions, lower usage numbers during May/June and September/October, and the lack of statistical data regarding existing parking lot usage (including times of use and resident vs. non-resident use) staff conservatively project revenue from waterfront lots at 20% of the maximum, or $248,625.00. On-street permit parking is generally utilized only when waterfront parking lots are full. To account for this, staff estimated the use of on-street parking spaces (and the anticipated revenue from them) on the assumption that their use would be limited to weekends and statutory holidays between July and August, from 11 am to 6 pm. Estimating that 25% of on- street parking spaces would be used by residents at no charge, this leaves 300 spaces. 300 X 20 days x 7 hrs/day x $5.00/hr = $210,000.00 in potential revenue from on-street parking spaces. Projecting revenue more conservatively at 20% of that amount results in an estimate of $42,000.00 in annual on-street parking permit revenue. Based on the foregoing, the total projected revenue from the City’s parking lots and on-street parking spaces is $290,625.00. Cost vs Revenue Comparison: Annual estimated cost to implement and administer: $224,340.00 Annual estimated revenue: $290,625.00 Net annual revenue: $ 66,285.00 This net revenue can be applied against the City’s other waterfront enforcement costs. This reduces the tax burden of waterfront enforcement generally, which is appropriate given that 79% of visitors to the waterfront are not Pickering residents. Parking Management Subject to Council’s approval, staff will commence a procurement process in accordance with the City’s Purchasing Policy to determine the best type of parking management software to ensure ease of use, customer access and functionality to meet the needs of both waterfront visitors and City administration. There are a number of options available including pay by space, pay by plate, pay and display, as well as potential enforcement models incorporating licence plate recognition software. - 8 - BYL 02-21 November 1, 2021 Subject: Waterfront Parking Page 9 Continued Search for Additional Parking Areas: While the current review and implementation of waterfront parking strategies will better manage vehicular traffic at the waterfront and address some of the concerns of area residents, a key issue continues to be inadequate parking to accommodate large numbers of visitors. While expanding some on-street permit parking areas, such as Westshore Blvd and Sunrise Avenue, will add additional spaces, staff will continue to investigate additional parking options to alleviate the parking problems experienced in the City’s waterfront areas. Attachments: 1. Waterfront Street Map of Prohibited Areas & Permit Parking 2. Survey Summary 3. Calculation of permit parking spaces per street Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By: Original Signed By: Kimberly Thompson, Manager, Municipal Law Enforcement Services Paul Bigioni, Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor KT:ks Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By: Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 9 - Legend Existing parking and/or stopping restrictions Proposed Prohibited Parking Lay-by Parking Potential Permit Parking Existing Permit Parking Potential Permit Parking on Front Road (west side) from Commerce to Annland N P P P Engineering Services Department Potential Permit Parking Liverpool Road and Surrounding Area NTS July, 2021 Attachment #1 to Report BYL 02-21 - 10 - N 9pm-6am only south side Restrictions during school hours Restrictions during school hours P Stopping restrictions during school hours Legend Existing parking and/or stopping restrictions Lay-by Parking Proposed Prohibited Parking Potential Permit Parking Engineering Services Department Potential Permit Parking West Shore Boulevard and Surrounding Area NTS July, 2021 - 11 - Project Report 21 May 2021 - 13 September 2021 Let's Talk Pickering Waterfront Parking 750 Visitors Summary Highlights TOTAL MAX VISITORS PER VISITS DAY 998 142 NEW REGISTRATI ONS 500 134 250 ENGAGED VISITORS 16 Aug '21 30 Aug '21 13 Sep '21 423 Pageviews Visitors INFORMED AWARE VISITORS VISITORS 703 887 Aware Participants 887 Engaged Participants 423 Aware Actions Performed Participants Engaged Actions Performed Registered Unverified Anonymous Visited a Project or Tool Page 887 Informed Participants 703 Contributed on Forums Participated in Surveys Contributed to Newsfeeds Participated in Quick Polls Posted on Guestbooks Contributed to Stories Asked Questions Placed Pins on Places Contributed to Ideas 0 414 0 121 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Informed Actions Performed Participants Viewed a video Viewed a photo Downloaded a document Visited the Key Dates page Visited an FAQ list Page Visited Instagram Page Visited Multiple Project Pages Contributed to a tool (engaged) 0 0 112 0 0 0 228 423 Attachment #2 to Report BYL 02-21 - 12 - Let's Talk Pickering : Summary Report for 21 May 2021 to 13 September 2021 ENGAGEMENT TOOLS SUMMARY 0 FORUM TOPICS 1 SURVEYS 0 NEWS FEEDS 1 QUICK POLLS 0 GUEST BOOKS 0 STORIES 0 Q&A S 0 PLACES Tool Type Engagement Tool Name Tool Status Visitors Contributors Registered Unverified Anonymous Survey Tool Take our survey! Archived 584 414 0 0 Quick Poll How do you typically get to Pickering's waterfront areas? Archived 121 121 0 0 Page 2 of 18 - 13 - Let's Talk Pickering : Summary Report for 21 May 2021 to 13 September 2021 INFORMATION WIDGET SUMMARY 1 DOCUMENTS 0 PHOTOS 0 VIDEOS 0 FAQS 0 KEY DATES Widget Type Engagement Tool Name Visitors Views/Downloads Document Waterfront Parking Map 112 116 Page 3 of 18 - 14 - Let's Talk Pickering : Summary Report for 21 May 2021 to 13 September 2021 ENGAGEMENT TOOL: SURVEY TOOL Take our survey! Visitors 584 Contributors 414 CONTRIBUTIONS 414 Would you support prohibited parking on one side of residential streets? 331 (81.1%) 77 (18.9%) Question options Yes No Optional question (408 response(s), 6 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question Page 4 of 18 - 15 - Let's Talk Pickering : Summary Report for 21 May 2021 to 13 September 2021 If paid parking was introduced, who should have access to no cost or low cost parking options? 111 (27.1%) 299 (72.9%) Question options Residents of the waterfront-area streets only All Pickering residents Optional question (410 response(s), 4 skipped) Question type: Dropdown Question Page 5 of 18 - 16 - Let's Talk Pickering : Summary Report for 21 May 2021 to 13 September 2021 If introduced, please select your preferred on-street permit parking time frame: 121 (29.4%) 146 (35.5%) 144 (35.0%) Question options Year-round Every day from May through October Weekends only from May through October Optional question (411 response(s), 3 skipped) Question type: Dropdown Question Page 6 of 18 - 17 - Let's Talk Pickering : Summary Report for 21 May 2021 to 13 September 2021 Should vehicles with Veteran’s Plates be provided with free parking options? 303 (73.2%) 111 (26.8%) Question options Yes No Optional question (414 response(s), 0 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question Page 7 of 18 - 18 - Let's Talk Pickering : Summary Report for 21 May 2021 to 13 September 2021 Should vehicles with Accessible Parking Permits be provided with free parking options? 261 (63.5%) 150 (36.5%) Question options Yes No Optional question (411 response(s), 3 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question Page 8 of 18 - 19 - Let's Talk Pickering : Summary Report for 21 May 2021 to 13 September 2021 Currently, Pickering's parks and waterfront areas close at midnight during April 1 - September 20 and 10:30 pm during October 1 - March 31. Would you like to see an earlier closing time for the April 1 - September 20 period? 152 (36.7%) 262 (63.3%) Question options Yes No Optional question (414 response(s), 0 skipped) Question type: Dropdown Question Page 9 of 18 - 20 - If introduced, should on-street permit parking rates be: 250 225 200 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 227 187 Question options Hourly Flat rate Optional question (408 response(s), 6 skipped) Question type: Checkbox Question Let's Talk Pickering : Summary Report for 21 May 2021 to 13 September 2021 Page 10 of 18 - 21 - Should there be a maximum time limit that vehicles are permitted to park? 300 275 250 225 200 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 262 149 Question options Yes No Optional question (411 response(s), 3 skipped) Question type: Checkbox Question Let's Talk Pickering : Summary Report for 21 May 2021 to 13 September 2021 Page 11 of 18 - 22 - Let's Talk Pickering : Summary Report for 21 May 2021 to 13 September 2021 Are you in favour of allowing waterfront-area residents to have non-paying street parking guests? 252 (60.9%) 162 (39.1%) Question options Yes No Optional question (414 response(s), 0 skipped) Question type: Dropdown Question Page 12 of 18 - 23 - Let's Talk Pickering : Summary Report for 21 May 2021 to 13 September 2021 Please state your preferred option for guest vehicles of waterfront-area properties: 83 (33.1%) 159 (63.3%) 9 (3.6%) Question options Limit a household to a set number of guest vehicles at no charge per year Provide 2 permits per household that are valid throughout the year for any guest vehicles Option 3 Optional question (251 response(s), 163 skipped) Question type: Dropdown Question Page 13 of 18 - 24 - Should the City implement paid parking at its waterfront parking lots? 300 275 250 225 200 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 279 137 Question options Yes No Optional question (412 response(s), 2 skipped) Question type: Checkbox Question Let's Talk Pickering : Summary Report for 21 May 2021 to 13 September 2021 Page 14 of 18 - 25 - Should residents be provided free parking in waterfront lots? 325 300 275 250 225 200 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 302 54 69 Question options Yes No Yes, but with a limited number of free visits per resident vehicle Optional question (414 response(s), 0 skipped) Question type: Checkbox Question Let's Talk Pickering : Summary Report for 21 May 2021 to 13 September 2021 Page 15 of 18 - 26 - If residents are granted free parking in waterfront lots, a registration process will be required. Should there be a minimal registration fee to assist the City in recovering administrator costs? 250 225 200 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 216 130 69 Question options Yes No Undecided Optional question (413 response(s), 1 skipped) Question type: Checkbox Question Let's Talk Pickering : Summary Report for 21 May 2021 to 13 September 2021 Page 16 of 18 - 27 - Should there be a time limit vehicles can park at City waterfront lots, for both paid parking and residents with permits? 275 250 225 200 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 240 173 Question options Yes No Optional question (413 response(s), 1 skipped) Question type: Checkbox Question Let's Talk Pickering : Summary Report for 21 May 2021 to 13 September 2021 Page 17 of 18 - 28 - Let's Talk Pickering : Summary Report for 21 May 2021 to 13 September 2021 ENGAGEMENT TOOL: QUICK POLL How do you typically get to Pickering's waterfront areas? Visitors 121 Contributors 121 CONTRIBUTIONS 121 How do you typically get to Pickering's waterfront areas? 57 (47.1%) 64 (52.9%) Question options Drive and park Walk Mandatory Question (121 response(s)) Question type: Radio Button Question Page 18 of 18 - 29 - Attachment #3 to Report BYL 02-21 # Street Limits Estimated number of parking spaces East / North Side Estimated number of parking spaces West / South Side 1 Liverpool Road South of Wharf Street 18 29 2 Liverpool Road Wharf to Annland 4 8 3 Liverpool Road Annland to Broadview No Parking 5 4 Liverpool Road Broadview to Commerce No Parking 5 5 Wharf Street East of Liverpool Road 7 (marked) No Parking 6 Annland Street East of Liverpool to the start of the curve No Parking 14 7 Annland Street Broadview to Commerce No Parking 2-3 8 Pleasant Street Full limit Potential No Parking 7 9 Broadview Street Full limit 15-17 No Parking 10 Commerce Street East of Liverpool Road 20-23 No Parking 11 Commerce Street West of Liverpool (not in consultation) No Parking 13 12 Breezy Drive Oklahoma to Essa (not including the curve) 21 No Parking 13 Yeremi Street Full limit Potential No Parking 13 14 Leaside Street Full limit Potential No Parking 14 15 Oklahoma Drive As indicated on map in consultation 12 Potential No Parking 16 Mink Street Full limit (not in consultation map) 12 No Parking 17 Chipmunk Street Full Limit 9 Potential No Parking 18 Sunrise Avenue Full Limit Potential No Parking 45 19 West Shore Blvd. Sunrise to Beachpoint Promenade 45 No Parking 20 Marksbury Road Park Cres. to south limit 25 Potential No Parking 21 Tullo Street Full limit 7 No Parking 22 Surf Avenue Full limit 8 No Parking 23 Park Crescent Cliffview to Cliffview Potential No Parking 24 24 Park Crescent South of Cliffview No Parking 10 25 Cliffview Road Park Cres. To 507 Cliffview around bend Potential No Parking 9 - 30 - Report to Executive Committee Report Number: BYL 03-21 Date: November 1, 2021 From: Paul Bigioni Director, Corporate Services and City Solicitor Subject: Deferral of Implementation of Accessible Service Supplement Fees Vehicle for Hire By-law -File: L-2200-01-21 Recommendation: 1.That Report BYL 03-21 respecting a deferral of the implementation of the Accessible Service Supplement enacted in the Vehicle for Hire By-law 7739/20 be received; 2.That the implementation and collection of the Vehicle for Hire Accessible Service Supplement be deferred until January 1, 2023; and, 3.That appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the recommendations in this report. Executive Summary: The City’s Vehicle for Hire By-law was enacted on February 24, 2020. Included in the By-law is an Accessible Service Supplement to be paid by all vehicle for hire license holders that do not provide accessible service. The Accessible Service Supplement will be used to fund an Accessible Taxicab Incentive Program, outlined in Section 93 of the Vehicle for Hire By-law. Based on the current economic challenges faced by the Vehicle for Hire Industry caused by the COVID 19 Pandemic, staff recommend deferring collection of the Accessible Service Supplement until January 1, 2023. Financial Implications: The Accessible Service Supplement was not budgeted as revenue generated for the City. In the initial report to Council regarding the Vehicle for Hire By-law, staff estimated approximately $28,000.00 would be generated annually through the Accessible Service Supplement. This was based on a seven (7) cent per trip fee to be paid by Personal Transportation Companies, as well as Accessible Service Supplements applicable to Taxicab Brokerage fees of $2,500.00 and Taxicab Plates of $75.00 per plate. Deferring the collection of the Accessible Service Supplement will delay the implementation of the Accessible Taxicab Incentive Program. Notwithstanding that, the economic pressures currently facing the Vehicle for Hire industry call for some type of financial relief. - 31 - BYL 03-21 November 1, 2021 Subject: Deferral of Implementation of Accessible Service Page 2 Supplement Fees Vehicle for Hire By-law Discussion: The Vehicle for Hire Licensing By-law prescribes an Accessible Service Supplement fee to be applied to all vehicles for hire that do not provide accessible services. Fees charged in relation to the Accessible Service Supplement are as follows: 1.Personal Transportation Companies are subject to a seven (7) cent per trip fee. 2.Taxicab Brokerages that do not have at least ten percent (10%) of their fleet as accessible vehicles must pay $2,500.00 per year, and 3.Individual Taxicab Plate Licensees that are not affixed to an accessible vehicle must pay $75.00 annually. The funds raised through the Accessible Service Supplement are to be used to fund an Accessible Taxicab Incentive Program. Section 93 of the Vehicle for Hire By-law indicates that the Accessible Taxicab Incentive Program may include, but is not limited to: i)requirements for grant or incentive eligibility; ii)criteria for receiving any incentive or grant; iii)the amount and frequency of the disbursement of any incentive or grant, including pro-rated or discretionary amounts; iv)sanctions, including reductions in the amount of any incentive or grant for non- compliance with the conditions of the program; and, v)reporting or auditing requirements for brokerages, PTCs, and Taxicab Plate Licensees. The Accessibility Advisory Committee, City staff and the Vehicle for Hire Advisory Committee will be tasked with determining how the fund may be best utilized to improve accessible services provided to Pickering residents. Both the Personal Transportation Companies and the Taxicab Industry have seen a severe reduction in their business due to the COVID 19 Pandemic. In an effort to provide some financial relief to the Vehicle for Hire Industry, deferring the implementation of the Accessible Service Supplement is a reasonable measure to assist in mitigating the financial hardship being experienced. Prepared By: Original Signed By: Kimberly Thompson, CMM III, CPSO Manager, Municipal Law Enforcement Services Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By: Paul Bigioni Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor KT:kt - 32 - BYL 03-21 November 1, 2021 Subject: Deferral of Implementation of Accessible Service Page 3 Supplement Fees Vehicle for Hire By-law Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By: Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer - 33 - Report to Executive Committee Report Number: CS 29-21 Date: November 1, 2021 From: Sarah Douglas-Murray Director, Community Services Subject: Community Association Lease Agreement -South Pickering Seniors Club -File: A-1440 Recommendation: 1. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the Lease Agreement with the South Pickering 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: The City has an executed Lease Agreement with the South Pickering Seniors Club (SPSC) for their exclusive use of activity and storage rooms located at the East Shore Community Centre which expires on November 30, 2021. The Community Services Department recommends that the Lease Agreement included as Attachment 1 be initiated for a new five year term beginning December 1, 2021 and ending November 30, 2026. Financial Implications: The City of Pickering is responsible to fund the general operating costs (such as utilities, snow/garbage removal, maintenance and cleaning) of East Shore Community Centre which are reflected annually in the Community Services Department within the Current Budget (cost centre 2572). The Current Budget does not reflect capital expenditures that vary year-to-year depending on facility need. The South Pickering Seniors Club is responsible to fund the day-to-day costs to operate the club within the activity rooms, which includes program supplies, administrative and insurance costs. The SPSC is also responsible to supply, maintain, repair and/or replace furniture, appliances and equipment at its own expense, in order to operate club activities. Discussion: As per Council Resolution #227/16, the City entered into a Lease Agreement with the South Pickering Seniors Club (SPSC) for their exclusive use of the activity and storage rooms at East Shore Community Centre to operate their club activities. As per the agreement, the SPSC shall use the premises for non-profit, charity events or non- commercial receptions of the club, at their own cost. The SPSC will also maintain insurance in the amount of $5 million dollars. The City is responsible for all day-to-day operating expenses - 34 - Sarah Douglas-Murray CS 29-21 November 1, 2021 Subject: Community Association Lease Agreement Page 2 of the East Shore Community Centre including utilities, snow and garbage removal and regular maintenance. For a nominal annual membership fee of $20.00, South Pickering Seniors Club members are offered a regular schedule of activities at their Seniors Centre that provide invaluable social interaction and community connectedness. Serving over 850 members, the club’s annual activity schedule includes activities such as Billiards, Badminton, Shuffleboard, Euchre, Bingo, Computer Workshop, Darts, Pickleball, Fitness, Line Dancing, Bridge, Cribbage, Pinochle, Poker and Table Tennis, offered Monday to Saturday at a variety of times throughout the day. In exchange for the club’s work 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 Billiard Room, Computer Room, Boardroom, Millennium Room, Main Hall, Washrooms, Kitchen and three storage rooms, at no cost. The Community Services Department recommends that the Lease Agreement included as Attachment 1 be initiated for a new five year term beginning December 1, 2021 and ending November 30, 2026. Attachments: 1.Draft Lease Agreement with South Pickering Seniors Club. Prepared by: Approved/Endorsed By: For Jody Morris Jody Morris Manager, Community Services Administration SDM:jm Director, Community Services Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer Original Signed By:Original Signed By: Original Signed By: - 35 - Lease Agreement This Lease is made as of the 1st day of December, 2021. Between: The Corporation of the City of Pickering (the "City") -and - South Pickering Seniors Club (the "Club") Article I Interpretation Definitions 1.In this Lease, (a)"Commencement Date" means December 1, 2021; (b)"Lease" means this lease as it may be amended from time to time; (c)"Premises" means that portion of the East Shore Community Centre considered to be the Seniors Centre composed of the billiards room, seniors’ office, computer lab, main hall, millennium room, kitchen, barroom, washrooms and storage rooms therein as shown on Schedule “A” attached hereto, located at 910 Liverpool Road South, 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 19. 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. - 36 - Attachment #1 to Report #CS29-21 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. 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. - 37 - 3 10. The Association’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 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. 13. Provided it is not required by the City for any other use, the City shall provide the Club with the use of the East Shore Community Centre Gymnasium for Club activities on Mondays from 10 am to 3 pm, Wednesdays from 12 pm to 2:30 pm and Fridays from 12 pm to 2:30 pm from September to May annually at no cost to the Club. Assignment and Subletting 14. 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 15. The Club may not grant licences to use the Premises. 16. The Club s hall submit their annual financial statement to the City by February 1st of each year. 17. The Club shall submit a list of the Club Board of Directors to the City by February 1st of each year. 18. The Club shall submit an annual calendar of Club activities to the City by December 1st of the previous year. - 38 - 4 Article III Term Term 19. The term of this Lease shall be five (5) years from the Commencement Date to November 30, 2026. 20. The City may terminate this Lease at any time for any reason provided it has given the Club six (6) months prior notice. Overholding 21. 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 22. 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 23. 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 24. 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. 25. The Club shall be responsible to supply, maintain, repair and/or replace furniture, appliances and equipment at its expense in order to operate Club activities. - 39 - 5 26. The City 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. 27. The City shall be responsible for all day-to-day operating expenses including garbage removal. The Club shall not be responsible for utilities. 28. The City shall provide snow removal services for the parking lot, sidewalks, walkways and all other areas of pedestrian passage on the Premises. 29. (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, volunteers, 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. 30. The Club shall immediately notify the City of any unsafe conditions on the Premises. Security 31. The City shall be responsible for the security of the Premises. The Club is not permitted to use the premises without City personnel on site to perform this function. 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 32. The Club shall only be permitted to make alterations and improvements to the Premises that have been approved by the City. Articl e VI Insurance and Indemnity Club's Insurance 33. 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 - 40 - 6 (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 s cope 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. 34. 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. 35. 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 36. 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 37. 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 - 41 - 7 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 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 38. 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 39. 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 40. The City shall permit the Club to peaceably possess and enjoy the Premises during the Term and as per the facility operating hours without any interference from the City, or any person lawfully claiming by, from or under the City provided the Club is not in default. - 42 - 8 Right of Entry 41. 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 42. 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 43. 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 44. 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. 45. 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 46. 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 47. Schedules “A”, “B” and “C” attached hereto form part of this Agreement. In Witness Whereof the parties have executed this Lease. - 43 - ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ 9 The Corporation of the City of Pickering David Ryan, Mayor Susan Cassel, City Clerk South Pickering Seniors Club Ed Fry, President - 44 - NOTE: LOCATIONS OF WALLS AND FIXTURES MAY VARY 6FKHGXOH$ STORAGESSTTOOORRAAGAGGEE MECH MECH LIVERPOOL ROAD UPPER FLOOR PLAN ACTIVITY MULTI- ROOM PURPOSE MULTI- PURPOSE GYMNASIUM MULTI- PURPOSE SOUTH PICKERING SENIORS' CLUB SENIOR'S ROOM GAME ROOM LAWN BOWLING ROOM SCHEDULE 'A' EAST SHORE COMMUNITY CENTRE GROUND FLOOR PLAN NORTH 0 5 10 METERS STORAGE MAIN PARKING LOT & SHED LAWN BOWLING GREENS - 45 - Schedule B 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. - 46 - 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. 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 - 47 - Schedule C 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 - 48 - (h) Pickering Civic Complex (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 - 49 - 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 - 50 - 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 - 51 - (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 - 52 - Report to Executive Committe Report Number: ENG 23-21 Date: November 1, 2021 From: Richard Holborn Director, Engineering Services Subject: Streetlighting on Regional Roads -Proposed Study of Current Policy/Practice -File: A-1440 Recommendation: 1.That Council endorse the Draft Terms of Reference for a study of the Region of Durham’s current policy/practice with respect to streetlighting on Regional roads; 2.That, through the Office of the CAO, appropriate City staff be selected to represent the City of Pickering on the study working group consisting of Regional and Local Area Municipality staff; 3.That staff report back on the results of the procurement of consulting services and seek Council authorization for a financial contribution to the study; and, 4.That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions indicated in this reports. Executive Summary: The Regional Municipality of Durham has a policy in place that outlines the responsibility for the planning, design, construction, operation and maintenance of streetlights on Regional roads. The policy was first put into place in 1975, and was amended in 1991 and 1996, and last reviewed in 2017 with no changes recommended. The current policy is for local area municipalities to be responsible for streetlights on Regional roads. The local area municipalities have been requesting a review of the current policy and practices for several years. In response, Region of Durham staff have prepared a draft terms of reference to undertake a study and are requesting all local area municipalities within Durham Region to participate and cost share in the study. Report #2021-W-36 (Attachment #1) was endorsed at the Regional Works Committee meeting of October 6, 2021 and, as of the time of writing this report (ENG 23-21), is scheduled to be considered at the Regional Council meeting of October 26, 2021. City staff are recommending that the City of Pickering participate in the study of the current policy/practice for streetlighting on Regional roads and propose the appropriate funding representing the City’s share be considered in the 2022 Current Budget. - 53 - ENG 23-21 November 1, 2021 Subject: Streetlighting on Regional Roads Page 2 Financial Implications: In Report #2021-W-36, Region staff have indicated that the estimated cost of the study is in the range of $150,000.00 - $250,000.00. Actual costs incurred will be shared between the Region and local area municipalities with a cost sharing formula still to be determined. It is estimated that the City of Pickering’s share could be in the order of $40,000.00. Until the study is complete and recommendations are implemented, it is not known if there will be any cost savings to the City of Pickering from either a transfer of responsibilities or through efficiencies or economies of scale. Discussion: Region of Durham and local area municipality staff have been in discussion regarding the current policy and practices for streetlights on Regional roads. Currently, in accordance with the Region’s policy, the local area municipalities are primarily responsible for the planning, design, construction, operation (including energy costs) and maintenance of streetlights on Regional roads. The local area municipalities believe the Region needs to assume some level of responsibility since the illumination of the roadway caters solely to the users of the Regional road. There is also a concern amongst local area municipalities that ownership, risk and liability is not adequately addressed in the current policy. Report #2021-W-36 (Attachment #1) prepared by Regional staff provides significant background information and discussion on the matter, and the Draft Terms of Reference for a study of the current policy/practice with respect to streetlighting on Regional roads. The report recommends that each local area municipal Council endorse the Draft Terms of Reference by no later than December 10, 2021. The Draft Terms of Reference that are included in Report #2021-W-36 have been reviewed by City of Pickering staff and are deemed acceptable. A timeline for the study has also been provided in the Region’s report, and it is estimated that the study will be undertaken between June 2022 and December 2022, with changes to the current policy/practice to come into effect mid-2023 at the earliest. Should Pickering Council endorse the Draft Terms of Reference, City staff will recommend the required funds for Pickering’s share of the study in the 2022 Current Budget, or if required, pre- budget approval will be requested through a further report to Council. Once the Region has received endorsement from local area municipal Councils, Regional staff will report back on the status and will seek authorization for the Region’s financial contribution to the study. Attachments: 1. The Regional Municipality of Durham Report #2021-W-36 - 54 - ENG 23-21 November 1, 2021 Subject: Streetlighting on Regional Roads Page 3 Prepared By/Approved/Endorsed By: Richard Holborn, P.Eng. Director, Engineering Services RH:mjh Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Marisa Carpino, M.A. Chief Administrative Officer Original signed by: Original signed by: - 55 - Attachment #1 to Report # ENG 23-21 If this information is required in an accessible format, please contact 1-800-372-1102 ext. 3540. The Regional Municipality of Durham Report To: Works Committee From: Commissioner of Works Report: #2021-W-36 Date: October 6, 2021 Subject: Proposed Study of the Current Policy/Practice for Streetlighting on Regional Roads Recommendation: That the Works Committee recommends to Regional Council: A)That the Draft Terms of Reference outlined in this report for a Consultant Study of the Current Policy/Practice with respect to Streetlighting on Regional Roads, be circulated to the Durham Local Area Municipal Councils for endorsement no later than December 10, 2021; and B)That the Current Policy/Practice with respect to Streetlighting on Regional Roads (Attachment #1) continue to prevail until the proposed Consultant Study is completed and any changes on a consensus basis are approved and implemented. Report: 1. Purpose 1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide details of the Current Policy/Practice governing Streetlighting on Regional Roads (SLRR) and outline a Draft Study Terms of Reference for a review of the Policy/Practice. The report also seeks approval for the circulation of the Draft Terms of Reference to all Local Area Municipal (LAM) Councils for comments and endorsement no later than December 10, 2021. 46- 56 - Report #2021-W-36 Page 2 of 8 2. Background 2.1 The purpose of streetlighting on a roadway is to increase the visibility of roadway and sidewalk users during hours of darkness, including motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians, and thereby improve road safety. There is widespread industry consensus and statistical evidence that streetlighting substantially decreases night-time collision rates. Streetlighting is therefore a valuable countermeasure in achieving the Regional Municipality of Durham’s (Region) and LAM’s Vision Zero aspirations. 2.2 In Durham, as per Current Policy/Practice, LAMs are primarily responsible for SLRR. This includes the planning, design, operation, construction and maintenance of all related assets. The basis for the Current Policy/Practice is the original 1975 Regional policy, subsequently amended in 1991 and 1996 to introduce Regional cost-sharing and to clarify operating and maintenance responsibilities for SLRR installations in rural locations. An outline of the Current Policy/Practice is provided in Attachment #1. 2.3 In recent years, the LAMs have requested a review of the Current Policy/Practice and specifically for the Region to assume increased levels of responsibility for SLRR. The request is driven by the following perspectives: • Streetlighting is a benefit to all users of the Regional road, including motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians, leading to the notion that the Region should assume increased responsibility for SLRR. • Streetlighting assets on the Regional road allowance cater solely to users of the Regional roadway. • The growing public demand for streetlighting on all roads including Regional roads is causing increasing financial burden on the LAMs’ financial resources. 2.4 In response to LAM requests, as part of the 2017 Durham Transportation Master Plan (TMP) study, the Current Policy/Practice was reviewed albeit in a cursory manner. Specifically, the TMP study reviewed and compared municipal practices and jurisdiction for streetlighting on upper-tier roads throughout the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH). The review found that a majority of the lower-tier municipalities continued to maintain responsibility for streetlighting on their upper- tier roads, however, acknowledged that the practices were evolving and discussions under way to rationalize jurisdictional responsibilities. The TMP study concluded that there was no rationale at that time for considering any changes to the Region’s Current Policy/Practice. 47- 57 - Report #2021-W-36 Page 3 of 8 3. LAM Request for Review of the Current SLRR Policy/Practice 3.1 In early 2019, through the forum of Region/LAM Chief Administrative Officers (CAOs), there were further requests of the Region to review the Current Policy/Practice. In response, the Region advanced discussions with LAM staff to gain an understanding of the LAM inventory of SLRR and their areas of concern with the Current Policy/Practice. 3.2 Although not all LAMs were able to provide the same level of information with respect to SLRR, it is estimated that together they operate and maintain approximately 10,000 luminaires on Regional roads, in addition to the approximately 50,000 luminaries on their local roads. Approximately 80% of these luminaries are low-energy consuming LED fixtures. 3.3 To assess LAM requests, in 2019/20, a brief survey of the ten upper-tier municipalities in the GGH (Counties of Dufferin, Northumberland, Peterborough, Simcoe and Wellington, and the Regions of Halton, Peel, Niagara, Waterloo and York) was conducted about their practices pertaining to streetlighting on the upper-tier roads. The survey showed that all upper-tier municipalities in the GGH share responsibility for some aspect of streetlighting with their lower-tier jurisdictions. 3.4 Design is the responsibility most often shared by upper-tier municipalities, with about 75% of them dividing up the task and/or cost. This typically depends on which jurisdiction is leading the capital project. By contrast, only half of the upper- tier municipalities share responsibility for assessing need with their lower-tier jurisdictions. The construction of streetlighting is a shared responsibility in most two-tiered municipalities, although the lead agency and/or cost apportionment varies. The jurisdiction responsible for the capital project typically takes the lead, with the other municipality reimbursing for all or a portion of the cost. 3.5 Some of the GGH Regional Municipalities appear to have (Halton, Waterloo, and Peel) or are working towards (Niagara) assuming sole responsibility for streetlighting on their roads. Counties tend to share the responsibility more, likely due to the more isolated instances of streetlighting consistent with the rural character of their communities. 3.6 The Current Policy/Practice on streetlighting in place with the Region appears more detailed than others, with more specific provisions for cost sharing. 48- 58 - Report #2021-W-36 Page 4 of 8 4. Discussion 4.1 The Municipal Act does not define jurisdictional responsibility for streetlighting. Whereas, sidewalks, for example are defined as a lower-tier responsibility regardless of whether they are on an upper-tier or lower-tier road allowance, unless the municipalities agree otherwise. 4.2 There is no reliable estimate of the current SLRR asset inventory or its replacement value. Capital costs would depend on new streetlighting requirements, replacement needs and extent and locations of the Region’s road capital programs. This cost is estimated to be in the $3-5M range annually. Current annual operating and maintenance costs for SLRR appear to be in the $2-3M range depending on the confirmed size of inventory, their energy efficiencies and third-party (e.g. utility companies) cost obligations. Based on community requests for additional streetlighting and lagging investment history, there is conceivably a latent demand for additional SLRR which has the potential to further increase planning, capital, operating and maintenance cost obligations. 4.3 Primary LAM sources of current financing for SLRR include development charges (capital) and property taxes (capital, operations, maintenance). Transfer of all or any increased level of responsibility for SLRR to the Region would therefore result in financial, staffing and related logistics implications at the Regional level. Therefore, a decision to alter the Current Policy/Practice to any significant level requires careful due diligence. 5. Recommended Next Steps 5.1 Based on discussions between the Regional and the LAM CAOs, it is recommended that a Study of the Current Policy/Practice be undertaken to: • thoroughly examine the current jurisdictional responsibilities at the LAM and Regional levels, as per the Current Policy/Practice; • propose and document potential changes to the Current Policy/Practice based on larger community interest and the financial impact at the LAM and Regional levels; and • if appropriate, develop an implementation plan that provides for a transition from the Current Policy/Practice towards an updated “who does what” framework. 49- 59 - Report #2021-W-36 Page 5 of 8 5.2 The proposed Study shall examine the following alternatives: • Continuation of the Current Policy/Practice, which would result in further documentation as necessary to clarify the Regional and LAM roles, ownership, responsibilities, and obligations with respect to planning, design, construction, operations, maintenance, asset management, financing and risk management of liabilities associated with all aspects of SLRR; • Variations to the Regional and LAM roles as per the Current Policy/Practice; • Variations in delivery models and levels of service, taking into consideration the broader interest to avoid duplication of services between the Regional and LAM levels: (a) LAM delivery (status quo) (b) Regional delivery (in-house; outsourced to vendors; outsourced to LAMs; hybrid) (c) Other (e.g. outsource all); • Distinction in Regional and LAM roles for inside and outside the urban boundaries; or • Combinations of the above models 5.3 The proposed Draft Terms of Reference for the Study include: • Engagement of Regional and LAM staff to compile the necessary background SLRR data for the evaluation of alternatives, including but not limited to asset quantities and categories, replacement values, annual operating and maintenance costs, development charges or other funding set aside for SLRR, asset history, asset condition and estimates of current (latent) and future demands; • Based on a gap analysis, gathering and collection of missing data as necessary to effectively complete the analysis of alternatives; • Development and evaluation of potential alternatives through best practices review, and analysis of legal implications (Municipal Act, case law), financial implications, road user and safety impacts, risk management considerations, taxpayer impacts, cost-effectiveness, and business efficiencies; 50- 60 - Report #2021-W-36 Page 6 of 8 • Conducting interviews with Regional and LAM staff as required to evaluate the alternatives, including the assessment of business implications of related changes to the Current Policy/Practice; • Recommending the preferred alternative; and • Developing a plan for the implementation of the preferred alternative, including transition provisions as required. 5.4 It is recommended that the proposed next steps acknowledge and be guided by the following principles: • Any recommended changes to the Current Policy/Practice that could emerge from the Study should remain cost-neutral to the overall Regional tax base. • The estimated time for the completion of the proposed Study and implementation of any changes to the Current Policy/Practice is 1-2 years. It is anticipated that any substantive changes that may require significant realignment of the current Regional and/or LAM roles would get the timeframe closer to the upper end of this estimated duration. • The Study shall be led jointly by the Region and the eight LAMs. • The preferred alternative should emerge from this Study through an objective review. It is therefore recommended that an independent external consultant be engaged for the Study. • The consultant engagement should include expertise in legal/risk analysis, finance, management, and transportation/traffic engineering. • The estimated cost for the consultant Study is in the range of $150-200K. The actual cost will depend on the data gaps, and complexity (or simplicity) involved in the implementation of the preferred alternative. • The actual incurred cost of consulting services shall be shared between the agencies (Region and the LAMs), with adequate resources and Legal/Finance/Works staff representation committed to the Study from all agencies. • The Current Policy/Practice for SLRR will continue to be honoured until the Study is completed and any changes are approved and implemented on a consensus basis. • The Study will consider road rationalization (i.e., transfer of candidate road segments from/to the Region to/from LAMs, as per Attachment #2- Report #2018-INFO-138) as appropriate in the transition and implementation of the preferred alternative for SLRR. Notwithstanding the timing of the Study, 51- 61 - Report #2021-W-36 Page 7 of 8 discussions on road rationalization between the Region and LAMs would continue actively with a view to advancing priority road transfers. 6. Preliminary Timeline 6.1 Following is an estimated preliminary timeline for the completion of the proposed Study and the implementation of the preferred alternative: • Regional Council approval for circulation of this report to LAM Councils for comments and endorsement of the Terms of Reference (October 27, 2021) • Comments and endorsement provided to Regional Council from all LAM Councils (no later than December 10, 2021) • Establishment of a Regional/LAM Study Working Group (December 2021) • Procurement of consultant services (January 2022 – May 2022) • Consultant Study completion (June 2022 – December 2022) • Changes to Current Policy/Practice come into effect (mid-2023, earliest) 6.2 It should be noted that the estimated (targeted) mid-2023 timeframe for any changes in the Current Policy/Practice to come into effect is subject to the Study advancing and being able to inform and influence the 2023 Regional and LAM budget deliberations in a timely manner, including any Regional/LAM Council approvals as may be required, as well as addressing any Development Charges implications. 7. Financial Implications 7.1 The completion of the proposed Study would require engaging external consultant services at an estimated total Regional/LAM cost of $150-200K. 7.2 Once LAM Council comments/endorsement are received, staff will report back on the status and as necessary at that time seek authorization for the Region’s financial contribution to the Study. 8. Conclusion 8.1 The Current Policy/Practice assigns the responsibility for SLRR primarily to LAMs. In response to the LAMs’ request for a review of this Policy/Practice, this report outlines potential next steps and process towards the completion of an external and independent Consultant Study that would recommend a preferred option for future delivery of the SLRR function. 52- 62 - Report #2021-W-36 Page 8 of 8 8.2 This report outlines a Draft Terms of Reference and a process for the proposed Study. It is recommended that a copy of this report be circulated to all Durham LAMs for comments and endorsement back to the Region no later than December 10, 2021. 8.3 This report has been reviewed by the Legal Services – Corporate Services and the Finance Department. 8.4 For additional information, please contact Ramesh Jagannathan, Director, Transportation and Field Services, at 905-668-7711, ext. 2183. 9. Attachments Attachment #1: Streetlighting on Regional Roads – Current Policy/Practice Attachment #2: Report # 2018-INFO-138 (September 28, 2018 CIP) Respectfully submitted, Original signed by: Susan Siopis, P.Eng. Commissioner of Works Recommended for Presentation to Committee Original signed by: Elaine Baxter-Trahair Chief Administrative Officer 53- 63 - Attachment #1 to Report #2021-W-36 Streetlighting on Regional Roads – Outline of Current Policy/Practice 1. New Light Installations 1.1 All new light installations inside the Urban Boundary (as per the Regional Official Plan), excluding those mounted on Regional traffic signal poles, are 100 percent paid for by the Local Area Municipalities (LAM). 1.2 With respect to new light installations outside the Urban Boundary (i.e. Rural Areas, as per the Regional Official Plan): a. Installations on Regional approaches at intersections controlled by Regional traffic signals are 100 per cent paid for by the Regional Municipality of Durham (Region). Installations on LAM approaches at intersections controlled by Regional traffic signals are 100 per cent paid for by the LAM. At intersections controlled by LAM traffic signals, costs are 100 per cent paid for by the LAM. b. Installations along Regional roads are 100 per cent paid for by the Region at locations where the Regional Warrant criteria are satisfied (limited to partial lighting only). c. Installations along Regional roads at locations requested by LAMs that do not meet Regional Warrant criteria are 50 per cent cost-shared by the Region, subject to a proven safety benefit. 2. Light Replacements/Relocations 2.1 Replacements/Relocations due to the impacts of a road construction project initiated by the Region are cost shared at 50 per cent of labour and labour-saving devices as per the PSWHA. In essence, streetlighting assets on a Regional road allowance are treated like other third-party utilities on the Regional right-of-way. a. Replacements/Relocations due to the impacts of hydro pole replacements/relocations initiated by the utility company are 100 per cent paid for by the LAM. 54- 64 - Attachment #1 to Report #2021-W-36 3. Operating and Maintenance Costs 3.1 LAMs cover all operating and maintenance costs (with the exception of a few sites where the lights are mounted on Regional traffic signal poles that are powered with a metered service, in which case the Region pays for the streetlighting hydro consumption). 4. Other Implementation Elements 4.1 LED conversions are paid 100 per cent by the LAM. 4.2 On Regional Capital Projects, roadway lighting design is paid for by the Region as part of the design assignment, and the Region recovers 10% of the LAM’s share of capital construction cost to cover a portion of the design and contract administration costs. 55- 65 - If this information is required in an accessible format, please contact 1-800-372-1102 ext. 3540. From: Commissioner of Works Report: #2018-INFO-138 Date: September 28, 2018 Subject: Road Rationalization Discussions with Local Area Municipalities – Status Update Recommendation: Receive for information Report: 1. Background and Purpose 1.1 In March 2018, Information Report #2018-INFO-31 (Attachment #1) was issued to update Regional Municipality of Durham (Region) Council on the findings to date of the Region-wide Road Network Rationalization Study. On the basis of sound transportation planning principles, the report identified candidate road segments for jurisdictional transfer in the short -term (i.e. preliminary recommendation being “transfer candidate”) and highlighted segments recommended for future consideration (i.e. preliminary recommendation being “no transfer, reconsider in the future”). Candidates were identified in all Local Area Municipalities (LAM’s), with the exception of the Township of Uxbridge (Uxbridge). The report acknowledged that transfer opportunities in each LAM have unique considerations that will require further discussion. 1.2 Report #2018-INFO-31 had identified the transfer of Regional Road 7 (Island Road) to the Township of Scugog (Scugog) as the only candidate for the short- term. Discussing the Region’s report in May 2018, Scugog Council stated its opposition to this transfer and asked this be re-assessed in future road rationalization discussions. Considering potential changes in traffic volume levels and patterns due to the proposed expansion of the Great Blue Heron Casino which could influence the role of Island Road in the future, Regional staff deemed 56- 66 - Page 2 of 8 it reasonable to defer this to future road rationalization discussions. There were no candidates identified for transfer to the Region in the short term. 1.3 Over the last few months, Regional staff met and exchanged correspondence with staff representatives of the six impacted LAM’s to specifically discuss the feasibility, mutual interest and possible timing for the transfer of road candidates that Report #2018-INFO-31 identified for the short-term. At a high level, LAM staff expressed consensus with the short-term candidates, therefore the meetings and exchanges predominantly focused on implementation considerations. The purpose of this report is to update Regional Council on these meetings/exchanges and place on public record a summary of staff level views and consensus elements on the proposed short-term transfers. 2. Town of Ajax 2.1 Table 1 details the short-term candidates that were identified in the Town of Ajax (Ajax). Table 1: Ajax – Road Transfer Candidates Regional Road # Road From To Length (km) Lane (km) Urban/Rural Area Preliminary Recommendation 31 Westney Road Harwood Avenue Bayly Street 2.7 9.5 Urban Transfer Candidate Local to Regional Rossland Road Pickering/ Ajax Boundary Lake Ridge Road 7.2 14.3 Urban Transfer Candidate 2.2 To advance discussions, Ajax will be preparing a letter to the Region this fall proposing a framework and key milestones for the two proposed transfers. 3. Township of Brock 3.1 Table 2 describes the short-term candidates identified in the Township of Brock (Brock). 57- 67 - Page 3 of 8 Table 2: Brock – Road Transfer Candidates Regional Road Roads From To Length (km) Lane (km) Urban/Rural Area Preliminary Recommendation 47 Shoreline Road Mara Road Simcoe/Durham Boundary 2.1 4.3 Rural Transfer Candidate 50 Portage Road Highway #12 Regional Highway #48 4.3 8.8 Rural Transfer Candidate 51 Talbot Road Reg. Rd. #50 Simcoe/Durham Boundary 0.1 0.2 Rural Transfer Candidate Local to Regional Simcoe Street Brock Concession #14 Regional Highway #48 15.5 31 Rural Transfer Candidate Local to Regional Thorah Concession Road 1 Highway #12/48 Simcoe St. 6.8 13.7 Rural Transfer Candidate 3.2 Brock staff advised/reminded Regional staff of their current boundary road agreement for Simcoe Street with the City of Kawartha Lakes who would need to be engaged in related transfer discussions. 3.3 Brock staff also expressed specific concerns about implications to their road maintenance obligations in relation to Minimum Maintenance Standards (MMS). In order to advance the Township’s further consideration of the three Region-to- Local transfer candidates, the Region has provided additional information including Average Annual Daily Traffic volumes (AADT), MMS Service Class, Pavement Condition Index (PCI), structure conditions, and snow plow routes. 4. Municipality of Clarington 4.1 Table 3 describes the short-term candidates identified in the Municipality of Clarington (Clarington). Table 3: Clarington – Road Transfer Candidates Regional Road Road From To Length (km) Lane (km) Urban/Rural Area Preliminary Recommendation 17 Main Street Winter Road Taunton Road 3 6.6 Urban Transfer Candidate Local to Regional Holt Road Highway #401 Regional Highway #2 3.2 6.3 Rural Transfer Candidate 58- 68 - Page 4 of 8 Regional Road Road From To Length (km) Lane (km) Urban/Rural Area Preliminary Recommendation Local to Regional Boundary Road Highway #35 Highway #115 1.8 3.6 Rural Transfer Candidate 4.2 Clarington staff advised/reminded Regional staff of their current boundary road agreement for Boundary Road with the City of Kawartha Lakes who would need to be engaged in related transfer discussions. 4.3 The Region has provided additional information to Clarington for further consideration of the Main Street transfer, including AADT, MMS Service Class, PCI and structure conditions. Clarington staff will be reporting to their Council on their assessment of the proposed transfers. 5. City of Oshawa 5.1 Table 4 describes the short-term candidates identified in the City of Oshawa (Oshawa). 59- 69 - Page 5 of 8 Table 4: Oshawa – Road Transfer Candidates Regional Road Road From To Length (km) Lane (km) Urban/Rural Area Preliminary Recommendation 2 Simcoe St. Harbour Road Wentworth Street 1.0 3.6 Urban Transfer Candidate 3 Winchester Road East/ Grandview Street North Harmony Road Columbus Road 2.6 5.7 Urban Transfer Candidate 35 Wilson Road. Bloor Street Taunton Road 6.2 17.7 Urban Transfer Candidate 52 Boundary Road Wentworth Street W Philip Murray Avenue 0.9 2.5 Urban Transfer Candidate 54 Park Road Bloor Street Rossland Road 4.3 15.8 Urban Transfer Candidate Local to Regional Harmony / Columbus Road Winchester Road Grandview Street 2.6 5.2 Urban Transfer Candidate Local to Regional King Street (West) Oshawa/ Whitby Boundary Centre Street 2.7 11.3 Urban Transfer Candidate Local to Regional Bond Street (West) King Street Centre Street 1.8 6.1 Urban Transfer Candidate Local to Regional King Street (East) Ritson Road North Townline Road 3.4 14.3 Urban Transfer Candidate Local to Regional Bond St.(East) Ritson Road North King Street East 1.7 4.8 Urban Transfer Candidate 5.2 Oshawa staff advised they will be reporting to their Council acknowledging support in principle for the candidates identified for short-term transfer. It should be noted that as a correction the previously referenced candidate (Region-to- Local) of Townline Road South from Gord Vinson Avenue to Bloor Street (0.25 km in length) in Report #2018-INFO-31 was removed from further discussion as this segment is already in the City’s jurisdiction. 60- 70 - Page 6 of 8 6. City of Pickering 6.1 Table 5 describes the short-term candidates identified in the City of Pickering (Pickering). Table 5: Pickering – Road Transfer Candidates Regional Road # Road From To Length (km) Lane (km) Urban/Rur al Area Preliminary Recommendation Previously Reg. Rd. 1 Mowbray Street North limit of Highway #407 Brock Road 1.3 3.5 Urban Transfer Candidate Previously Reg. Rd. 5 9th Concession Regional Road 5 / Concession Road #9 Lake Ridge Road 0.1 0.2 Urban Transfer Candidate 24 Church Street Bayly Street Pickering/ Ajax Boundary 0.9 2 Urban Transfer Candidate 38 Whites Road 0.6 km South of Oklahoma Drive Bayly Street 0.9 2.6 Urban Transfer Candidate Local to Regional Third Concession Road Pickering/ Ajax Boundary West of Valley Farm Road 1.7 3.4 Urban Transfer Candidate Local to Regional Whitevale Road 200m West of Future Rossland Road Extension Brock Road 1.7 3.4 Urban Transfer Candidate Local to Regional Sideline 26 (South) Taunton Road Whitevale Road 2.1 4.1 Urban Transfer Candidate Local to Regional Sideline 26 (Middle) Whitevale Road Highway #7 - - Urban Transfer Candidate 6.2 The transfer of Sideline 26 (South) to the Region was approved by Pickering in June 2018. It was also noted that Pickering has drafted a Report to their Council regarding the transfer of Third Concession Road (as per above table) to the Region. To advance discussions, Pickering will be presenting a position paper early next year to the Region on the transfer candidates. 61- 71 - Page 7 of 8 7. Town of Whitby 7.1 Table 6 describes the short-term candidates identified in the Town of Whitby (Whitby). Table 6: Whitby – Road Transfer Candidates Regional Road # Road From To Length (km) Lane (km) Urban/Rural Area Preliminary Recommendation 22 Victoria Street (old alignment) 0.7 km West of Thickson 0.4 km West of Thickson Road 0.3 0.6 Urban Transfer Candidate2 43 Cochrane Street Dundas Street Rossland Road 2.1 6.1 Urban Transfer Candidate1 45 Henry Street Victoria Street Burns Street W 1.2 3.3 Urban Transfer Candidate1 45 Henry Street Burns Street W Dundas Street 0.9 2.6 Urban Transfer Candidate1 46 Brock Street Water Street Victoria Street 1.0 2.7 Urban Transfer Candidate1 46 Brock Street Victoria Street South Limit of Highway #401 0.3 1.5 Urban Transfer Candidate1 Former 23 Lake Ridge Road (North) Almond Avenue Cresser Avenue 0.3 0.6 Urban Transfer Candidate3 Former 23 Lake Ridge Road (South) 0.65 km N of Victoria Street 0.88 km N of Victoria Street 0.2 0.6 Urban Transfer Candidate3 Local to Regional Rossland Road Lake Ridge Road Cochrane Street 2.9 8.9 Urban Transfer Candidate1 Local to Regional Dundas Street Fothergill Court Cochrane Street 5.8 23.2 Urban Transfer Candidate1 Local to Regional Dundas Street Garden Street Whitby/ Oshawa Boundary 2.9 14.4 Urban Transfer Candidate2 1 candidates for first phase of transfers 2 candidates for second phase of transfers 3 segments are under MTO’s ownership/jurisdiction since 2012; to be dealt with through discussions with MTO 62- 72 - Page 8 of 8 7.2 A 2017 staff report to Council by Whitby staff on road rationalization interests provided good guidance for our meetings and discussions. Whitby staff have suggested the candidates identified in that report combined with a few other strategic candidates can be advanced as the first phase of transfers (see footnote 1 in above Table), leaving the other segments that are influenced by pending events (e.g. completion of Victoria Street realignment and planning studies for Bus Rapid Transit on Dundas Street) to a subsequent second phase. 7.3 It should be noted that Champlain Avenue from future Stellar Drive to the Whitby/Oshawa Boundary has been revised for reconsideration in the future to match the recommendation for Champlain Avenue in Oshawa. 8. Conclusion and Next Steps 8.1 At the staff level, Local Area Municipalities are generally in agreement with the candidates identified for transfer in the short-term in Report #2018-INFO-31. As anticipated, Local Area Municipal staff recognize and acknowledge that the timing for these transfers should take into consideration implementation considerations. 8.2 Upon receipt of comments from the participating Local Area Municipalities, specific to their candidates identified for transfer in the short-term, Regional staff will report back on a recommended implementation plan and timeline for the transfers. 9. Attachments Attachment #1: Information Report #2018-INFO-31 dated March 2, 2018 Respectfully submitted, Original signed by R. Jagannathan for: S. Siopis, P.Eng. Commissioner of Works 63- 73 - If this information is required in an accessible format, please contact 1-800-372-1102 ext. 3540. From: Commissioner of Works Report: #2018-INFO-31 Date: March 2, 2018 Subject: Road Rationalization – Interim Report Recommendation: Receive for information. Report: 1. Purpose In January 2016, Regional Council authorized staff to retain a consultant to work 1.1 with Regional and local area municipal staff to undertake a region-wide Road Network Rationalization Study (“Study”) and develop a comprehensive Road Network Rationalization Plan. The consulting firm of HDR was retained to complete the study with direction and oversight provided by means of a joint team consisting of staff from both the Works and Finance Departments. The purpose of this report is to update Regional Council on the Study findings to date and to promote further dialogue between the Region and the Local Area Municipalities with respect to the current status and next steps. 2. Background The Regional Municipality of Durham (Region) has been involved in road 2.1 rationalization reviews through inter-agency discussions since 1997 and the Who Does What (WDW) initiative in 2002. The WDW was a cooperative effort between the Region and Local Area Municipalities (LAMs) that identified roads and/or road sections suitable for transfer. Since the WDW initiative a limited number of transfers have been successfully 2.2 completed. 64- 74 - Page 2 of 23 The 2016 Transportation Servicing and Financing Study (S&F) identified a 2.3 preliminary list of Regional and local roads as potential transfer candidates and recommended the Study. This report details the objectives, methodology and findings of the Study to date. 2.4 3. Study Methodology The scope of the Study is outlined below: 3.1 • Review and confirm proposed road rationalization criteria as well as Regional and Local Area Municipal road transfer candidates. • Identify current and future capital as well as the maintenance and operational needs of transfer candidates and related cost estimates. • Establish a conditional schedule for transfers. Guiding principles for the Study were established to define the limitations and 3.2 assumptions to support the decision-making process. The following principles provided a framework for the study: • Establish criteria to evaluate the function and character of candidate roads for transfer. • Conduct a systematic and objective analysis based on 2031 planning and forecast conditions in anticipation of major regional growth. • Consult with the LAMs throughout the process. Collaboration between the Region and LAMs provided regular opportunities for 3.3 discussion on the Study process, evaluation criteria, potential candidate roads for transfer and draft Study findings. 65- 75 - Page 3 of 23 Table 1 summarizes the meetings with LAMs. Meetings were supplemented with 3.4 ongoing email and telephone communications. Table 1: Consultation Overview Local Area Municipality Date Purpose Town of Ajax 21-Apr-16 Initial discussions Town of Ajax 09-May-16 Discussion of preliminary results Township of Brock 05-May-16 Initial discussions Township of Brock 17-May-16 Discussion of preliminary results Municipality of Clarington 27-Apr-16 Initial discussions Municipality of Clarington 20-May-16 Discussion of preliminary results City of Oshawa 21-Apr-16 Initial discussions City of Oshawa 10-May-16 Discussion of preliminary results City of Pickering 18-Apr-16 Initial discussions City of Pickering 11-May-16 Discussion of preliminary results Township of Scugog 20-Apr-16 Initial discussions Township of Scugog 17-May-16 Discussion of preliminary results Township of Uxbridge 20-Apr-16 Initial discussions. Subsequently indicated no further interest in transfers Town of Whitby 26-Apr-16 Initial discussions Town of Whitby 06-May-16 Discussion of preliminary results 66- 76 - Page 4 of 23 An initial list of candidate roads for transfer from local to Regional jurisdiction and 3.5 from Regional to local jurisdiction was sourced from the 2016 Transportation S&F Study report. Through consultations with the LAMs, new road transfer candidates were identified and added to the list. The resulting road transfer candidates are discussed later in this report. 3.6 Information sources from the Region and LAMs included: • Official Plans and staff reports • Road characteristics and condition reports • Bridge and culvert inspection reports • Storm sewer network maps • Pavement management system bench mark costs • 2016 Transportation S&F Study report • Presentation from Regional Council education session on road rationalization (April, 2011) • Capital project and maintenance budgets • Life cycle cost estimates (where available) • Development charge background studies The Region’s Transportation Model was used to forecast future traffic volumes 3.7 and determine trip type attributed to the proposed road transfer candidates. 4. Criteria The road rationalization process is supported by a set of criteria that describe the 4.1 role and function of the road within the context of the overall network, growth management, and support for economic growth throughout the Region. These criteria, described below, were subsequently confirmed through the recent approval of the Transportation Master Plan (Section 6.4.3. – Regional Road Definition). Draft evaluation criteria were shared with the LAMs to obtain comments and 4.2 suggestions. Based on input received, the evaluation criteria were revised. Transfer candidates were evaluated on a scale from 0 to 10, with 0 representing complete local function and character and 10 representing complete regional function and character. Each criterion is discussed in more detail below. a) Road segment connects with provincial and/or inter-regional network • One of the most important functions of a Regional road is to provide regional and inter-regional connectivity. Therefore, the road transfer candidate’s connectivity to the provincial or inter-regional road network was considered to be an important criterion in assessing the road function. 67- 77 - Page 5 of 23 • The road transfer candidate’s level of connectivity to the current and future provincial/inter-regional highway networks (2031 conditions, considering the Highway 407 ETR extension project) formed the basis of scoring this criterion. b) Road segment carries high volume of inter-municipal and regional traffic • Another criterion relating to a road transfer candidate’s significance in providing regional connectivity is the extent and magnitude of inter- municipal and inter-regional travel that it accommodates. This was determined by running select link assignments for each road transfer candidate using the Durham Regional Transportation Model. c) Road segment attracts significantly higher volumes of traffic than adjacent roads • The relative volume of road transfer candidates to parallel roads (typically within 3 km) of similar character and/or function was also used as a criterion in the scoring system (using the Durham Regional Transportation Model). The logic behind this criterion relates to facilitating one route through an area to a regional standard (speed, volume, access control) and have local parallel roads serving local or intra-municipal traffic. d) Road segment’s level of access control • Considering that Regional roads tend to carry higher volumes and allow higher speed limits than local roads, they typically require higher levels of access control. A candidate road’s level of access control was considered to be another criterion in the scoring system. The Region’s Official Plan (OP) which outlines the network’s future road classifications was used to assess expected levels of access control. e) Road segment supports regional goods movement/aggregate hauling network • Another important function of Regional roads is the movement of goods, as goods movement travel tends to be of a regional and inter-regional nature. Whether a road segment is well-positioned to accommodate goods movement travel was considered to be a criterion in the scoring system. The Regional OP’s Strategic Goods Movement Network and the Regional Structure which indicates major employment areas was utilized for this assessment. f) Road segment supports major transit route and/or planned rapid transit route 68- 78 - Page 6 of 23 • In light of the Region’s Long Term Transit Strategy (LTTS) which aims to achieve a transportation system that is focused on rapid transit to provide excellent connections between the Region’s municipalities and neighboring municipalities, corridors were scored based on the level of support for these significant transit routes. g) Road segment supports region-wide economic and growth objectives • Roads providing access to regional and urban growth centres are expected to experience higher traffic volumes. The provision of access to such areas by road transfer candidates was also considered to be a criterion. h) Road segment affects corridor planning or planning of downtowns or mature urban areas • This criterion was identified as a result of consulting with LAMs. • During consultation sessions with LAMs, concerns were raised regarding the ability to plan and achieve a downtown vision should a road segment currently serving a downtown area be transferred to the Region. This applied in particular to Highway 2 in downtown Whitby, Oshawa, Bowmanville, and Newcastle. As a result this criterion was added. i) Road segment’s environmental and community impact due to change in road function • Similarly, this criterion was added to the list as a result of consultation with LAMs to reflect concerns of environmental and/or community impacts that could result from a local to Regional transfer. Such impacts might include higher traffic volumes, increased truck traffic, and/or the need for road widening (which can have negative impacts on existing homes and environmental features). 5. Road Transfer Candidate Evaluation The product of the criteria evaluations resulted in a final overall score between 0 5.1 and 10 for each road candidate. Overall scores in the low end of the range (for example, 0 to 3) represent roads with strong local function and character, while scores in the high end of the range represent roads with strong Regional function and character. 69- 79 - Page 7 of 23 The consultations with LAMs confirmed the need to distinguish road transfer 5.2 candidates between those in urban areas and those in rural areas of the Region. • Urban area road candidates – For roads in urban areas, all nine criteria apply, resulting in scores as high as 10 for those candidates with the highest potential as Regional roads. Strong local road candidates for transfer to the Region scored in the high end of the 0 to 10 range (for example, from 7 to 10). • Rural area road candidates – For roads in rural areas Criteria # 5, 6 and 7 generally do not apply resulting in scores for road transfer candidates being capped around 7. Scores for strong local rural road candidates for transfer to the Region, therefore, are in the high end of the 0 to 7 range (for example, 5 to 7). The above criteria and thresholds capture the technical aspects of a road’s 5.3 function and character. The results of the analysis are summarized below by LAM (in alphabetical order). The criteria and thresholds provide a good indication of candidates for jurisdictional transfer on the basis of sound transportation planning principles. It is however recognized that non-technical considerations (e.g. financial impacts, resource constraints, etc.) will influence the final recommendations and the timing of potential transfers. 6. Town of Ajax – Road Transfer Candidates 6.1 Table 2 details the road transfer candidates and preliminary recommendations in the Town of Ajax based on the evaluation. Table 2: Ajax – Evaluation of Road Transfer Candidates Regional Road # Road From To Length (km) Lane (km) Urban/Rural Area Preliminary Recommendation 31 Westney Road Harwood Avenue Bayly Street 2.7 9.5 Urban Transfer Candidate Local to Regional Rossland Road Ajax/ Pickering Boundary Ajax/ Whitby Boundary 7.2 14.3 Urban Transfer Candidate Local to Regional Salem Road Taunton Rd Ajax/ Pickering Boundary 2.1 4.2 Urban No transfer, reconsider in the future 70- 80 - Page 8 of 23 Region to Local Transfer 6.2 • Westney Road (Harwood Avenue to Bayly Street) – Recommended for transfer to Town of Ajax. This segment of Westney Road does not connect Regional roads and does not provide a Regional function. Local To Region Transfer 6.3 • Rossland Road (Ajax/Pickering boundary to Ajax/Whitby boundary) Recommended for transfer from the Town of Ajax to Regional jurisdiction. Rossland Road through Ajax is part of an important east-west arterial across southern Durham Region and, as such, functions as a key Regional east-west arterial road • Rossland Road is part of the Town’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan. Accommodation of future cycling facilities needs consideration if Rossland Road is transferred to the Region. • Salem Road (Taunton Road to Ajax/Pickering boundary) – Not recommended for transfer at this time from the Town of Ajax to the Region. The justification for transfer can be re-evaluated during a future road rationalization review and may be dependent on a future 407 interchange. 7. Brock Township – Road Transfer Candidates Table 3 details the road transfer candidates and preliminary recommendations in 7.1 the Township of Brock based on the evaluation. Table 3: Brock Township – Evaluation of Road Transfer Candidates Regional Road Roads From To Length (km) Lane (km) Urban/Rural Area Preliminary Recommendation 47 Shoreline Road 23-Mara Road Simcoe/ Durham Boundary 2.1 4.3 Rural Transfer Candidate 50 Portage Road Highway #12 76- Highway #48 4.3 8.8 Rural Transfer Candidate 51 Old Highway 12 50-Portage Road Simcoe/ Durham Boundary 0.1 0.2 Rural Transfer Candidate Local to Regional Simcoe Street Brock Concession 14 Regional Highway 48 15.5 31 Rural Transfer Candidate Local to Regional Thorah Concession Highway 12/48 Simcoe St. 6.8 13.7 Rural Transfer Candidate 71- 81 - Page 9 of 23 Regional Road Roads From To Length (km) Lane (km) Urban/Rural Area Preliminary Recommendation 1 Local to Regional River Road (extension) Highway 12 Highway 2 7.1 14.2 Rural No transfer Region To Local Transfer 7.2 • Shoreline Road (Regional Road 57 between Mara Road and Simcoe/Durham boundary) – Recommended for transfer from the Region to Brock Township, reflecting its local function. • Portage Road (Regional Road 50 between Highway 12 and Highway 48) – Recommended for transfer to Brock Township, reflecting its local function. • Old Highway 12 (Regional Road 51 between Portage Road and Simcoe/Durham boundary) – Recommended for transfer to Brock Township, reflecting its local function. The Township expressed concern with the maintenance and capital costs associated with any additional lane kilometres and made specific comment on the ability to deal with the capital needs of the structures within these road segments. Local To Region Transfer 7.3 • Simcoe Street (between Brock Concession 14 and Highway 48) – Recommended for transfer from Brock Township to the Region. Simcoe Street south of Concession 14 is already under Regional jurisdiction. The transfer of the segment of Simcoe Street between Concession 14 and Highway 48 would provide a continuous north-south Regional route to Highway 48. • Brock Township currently has a boundary agreement for Simcoe Street with Kawartha Lakes, and that Kawartha Lakes would therefore have to be part of the discussion if the Simcoe Street segment is to be transferred to the Region. • Thorah Concession 1 (between Highway 12/48 and Simcoe Street) – Recommended for transfer from Brock Township to the Region, either now or after a future road rationalization review. It is a candidate for transfer to Regional jurisdiction, as it is a continuation of Highway 48 to Simcoe Street, is classified as a Type B Arterial in the Regional Official Plan, and would provide an alternative route for traffic to bypass. There are significant costs associated with both Simcoe Street and Thorah Concession 1 to Regional standard. • River Road extension from Highway 12 to Simcoe Street – Not recommended for transfer from Brock Township to Regional jurisdiction, as its low score reflects a local function. 72- 82 - Page 10 of 23 8. Municipality of Clarington – Road Transfer Candidates Table 4 details the road transfer candidates and preliminary recommendations in 8.1 the Municipality of Clarington based on the evaluation. Table 4: Clarington – Evaluation of Road Transfer Candidates Regional Road Road From To Length (km) Lane (km) Urban/Rural Area Preliminary Recommendation 17 Main Street/ Manvers Street Winter Road 04-Taunton Road 3 6.6 Urban Transfer Candidate Local to Regional Pebblestone Road Townline Road Courtice Road 2.9 5.7 Urban No transfer, reconsider in the future Local to Regional Holt Road Highway 401 Regional Highway 2 3.2 6.3 Rural Transfer Candidate Local to Regional King Street (Bowmanville) Regional Road 57 Haines St. 3.1 12.4 Urban No transfer, reconsider in the future Local to Regional King Street (Newcastle) Baldwin Street Arthur St. 0.8 3.2 Urban No transfer Local to Regional Darlington Clarke Townline (#2) Taunton Road Future Highway 407 Interchange 2.0 4.0 Rural No transfer, reconsider in the future Local to Regional Boundary Road Highway 35 Highway 115 1.8 3.6 Rural Transfer Candidate Local to Regional Trulls Road Taunton Road Bloor St 6.4 12.8 Urban No transfer Region To Local Transfer 8.2 • Main Street / Manvers Street (Regional Road 17 from Winter Road to Taunton Road) – Recommended for transfer to the Municipality of Clarington. This road is serving a local function. Under local jurisdiction, there would be a greater ability to achieve a “downtown” vision. 73- 83 - Page 11 of 23 Local To Region Transfer 8.3 • Holt Road (from Highway 401 to Highway 2) – Recommended for transfer from the Municipality of Clarington to Regional jurisdiction. With its existing Highway 401 interchange, Holt Road serves a Regional function, connecting Highway 401 with Highway 2, as well as serving Darlington Nuclear Generating Station. • Boundary Road (between Highway 35 and Highway 115) – Recommended for transfer from the Municipality of Clarington to Regional jurisdiction. It has a Regional function in connecting these two provincial highways. The Municipality of Clarington currently has a boundary agreement for Boundary Road with Kawartha Lakes; Kawartha Lakes would therefore have to be part of the discussion if this road segment is to be transferred to the Region. • King Street in Bowmanville (between Regional Road 57 and Haines Street) – Not recommended for transfer at this time. The impetus for transfer to Regional jurisdiction may be future enhanced transit service on Highway 2 extending to downtown Bowmanville. Since enhanced transit is a long-term initiative, there is less need for transfer at this time. • The Municipality expressed concerns about transferring downtown King Street to the Region, considering the various streetscaping and visioning plans for the downtown, as well as seasonal road closures that the Municipality implements for community events. • In future road rationalization reviews, consideration should be given to segmenting this part of King Street to distinguish the downtown core (between Scugog Street and Liberty Street), so that future reviews can separately evaluate the portions of King Street west and east of downtown Bowmanville, as well as downtown Bowmanville. • Darlington-Clarke Townline (from Taunton Road to future Highway 407 interchange) – Not recommended for transfer at this time. It should be reconsidered during a future road rationalization review. The remaining candidates are not recommended for transfer from local to Regional jurisdiction. Future road rationalization reviews may revisit these and other candidates as needed. 74- 84 - Page 12 of 23 9.City of Oshawa – Road Transfer Candidates Table 5 details the road transfer candidates and preliminary recommendations in 9.1 the City of Oshawa based on the evaluation. Table 5: Oshawa – Evaluation of Road Transfer Candidates Regional Road Road From To Length (km) Lane (km) Urban/Rural Area Preliminary Recommendation 2 Simcoe St.Harbour Road 60 Wentworth Street 1.0 3.6 Urban Transfer Candidate 3 Winchester Road East/ Grandview Street North 33- Harmony Road Columbus Road 2.6 5.7 Urban Transfer Candidate 16 Ritson Road 60- Wentworth Street 22-Bloor Street 0.8 3.6 Urban No transfer, reconsider in the future 35 Wilson Road. 22-Bloor Street Taunton Road 6.2 17.7 Urban Transfer Candidate 54 Park Road 22-Bloor Street 28- Rossland Road 4.3 15.8 Urban Transfer Candidate 25 Champlain Avenue Oshawa/ Whitby Boundary Stevenson Road 1.3 2.6 Urban No transfer, reconsider in the future 52 Boundary Road Wentworth Street W Philip Murray Avenue 0.9 2.5 Urban Transfer Candidate 55 Townline Road South Gord Vinson Avenue Bloor Street 0.25 0.5 Urban Transfer Candidate Local to Regional Harmony / Columbus Road Winchester Road Grandview Street 2.6 5.2 Urban Transfer Candidate Local to Regional Adelaide Avenue Oshawa/ Whitby Boundary Thornton Road 0.01 0.1 Urban No transfer, reconsider in the future Local to Regional Rossland Road Harmony Road 300m East of Harmony 0.3 0.9 Urban No transfer, reconsider in the 75- 85 - Page 13 of 23 Regional Road Road From To Length (km) Lane (km) Urban/Rural Area Preliminary Recommendation Road future Local to Regional King Street (West) Oshawa/ Whitby Boundary Centre Street 2.7 11.3 Urban Transfer Candidate Local to Regional Bond Street (West) King Street Centre Street 1.8 6.1 Urban Transfer Candidate Local to Regional King Street (Middle) Centre Street Ritson Road North 1 4 Urban No transfer, reconsider in the future Local to Regional Bond Street (Middle) Centre Street Ritson Road North 1.1 4.1 Urban No transfer, reconsider in the future Local to Regional King Street (East) Ritson Road North Townline Road 3.4 14.3 Urban Transfer Candidate Local to Regional Bond St.(East) Ritson Road North King Street East 1.7 4.8 Urban Transfer Candidate Local to Regional Thornton Road (new alignment) Taunton Road Winchester Road 4.2 8.4 Urban No transfer, reconsider in the future Region To Local Transfers 9.2 • Simcoe Street (Regional Road 2 from Harbour Road to Wentworth Street) – Recommended for transfer to the City of Oshawa, reflecting its local function and character. • Winchester Road (Regional Road 3) and Grandview (from Harmony Road to Columbus Road) – Recommended for transfer to the City of Oshawa, reflecting their local function and character. This transfer from the Region to the City would mirror the transfer of Harmony Road and Columbus Road from the City to the Region. • Wilson Road (Regional Road 35 from Bloor Street to Taunton Road) – Recommended for transfer to the City of Oshawa, reflecting its local function and character. • Park Road (Regional Road 54 from Bloor Street to Rossland Road) – Recommended for transfer from the Region to the City of Oshawa, reflecting its local function since the deletion of the Highway 401 interchange. 76- 86 - Page 14 of 23 • Boundary Road (Regional Road 52 from Wentworth Street to Philip Murray Avenue) – Recommended for transfer to the City of Oshawa. This short stub does not serve a Regional function. If this road is transferred to local jurisdiction, then it may be subject to a boundary agreement between the City of Oshawa and the Town of Whitby. • Townline Road (Regional Road 55 from Gord Vinson Avenue to Bloor Street) – Recommended for transfer to the City of Oshawa, reflecting its local function, especially with the realignment of Bloor Street. If this road is transferred to local jurisdiction, then it may be subject to a boundary agreement between the City of Oshawa and the Municipality of Clarington. • Ritson Road (Regional Road 16 from Wentworth Street to Bloor Street) – Not recommended for transfer. Although it has received a relatively low evaluation score, Ritson Road provides the only grade- separated crossing of the CN mainline between Simcoe Street (Regional Road 2) and Farewell Street (Regional Road 56). It is recognized that the numerous driveways on this part of Ritson Road (similar to other parts of Ritson Road) detract from its Regional function. It can be reconsidered in the future as a candidate for transfer. • Champlain Avenue (Regional Road 25 from Whitby/Oshawa Boundary to Stevenson Road) – Not recommended for transfer but should be reconsidered during a future road rationalization review. Local To Region Transfers 9.3 • Harmony Road / Columbus Road (from Winchester Road to Grandview Street) – Recommended for transfer from the City of Oshawa to Regional jurisdiction. Despite its low score, this portion of Harmony Road is a continuation of Regional Road 33 and has an interchange with Highway 407, while Columbus Road is a continuation of Regional Road 3 connecting with Harmony Road. This transfer from the City to the Region would mirror the transfer of Winchester Road and Grandview Street from the Region to the City. • King Street and Bond Street – The City of Oshawa outlined its planning and urban design goals for King Street and Bond Street through downtown Oshawa, and its desire to lead the planning efforts for these two streets. From the Region’s perspective, King Street and Bond Street are an important part of the Long-Term Transit Strategy for Durham Region, as they are planned to support high order transit service. Through the consultation process with the City, King Street and Bond Street were divided into three segments for evaluation purposes: (a) King Street and Bond Street (from Whitby/Oshawa boundary to Centre Street) – Recommended for transfer from the City to Regional jurisdiction, reflecting their importance as east-west arterials and planned high order transit corridor. (b) King Street and Bond Street (from Centre Street to Ritson Road) – Not recommended for transfer from the City to the Region. Can be reconsidered in a future road rationalization review. 77- 87 - Page 15 of 23 (c) King Street and Bond Street (from Ritson Road to Townline Road) – Recommended for transfer from the City to Regional jurisdiction, reflecting their importance as important east-west arterials and planned high order transit routes. • Thornton Road (from Taunton Road to Winchester Road) – Not recommended for transfer but should be reconsidered during a future road rationalization review after the deferred 407ETR interchange is implemented. • Adelaide Avenue (from Oshawa/Whitby Boundary to Thornton Road) – Not recommended for transfer but should be reconsidered in conjunction with the construction of the Manning/Adelaide interconnection. • Rossland Road (from Harmony Road to 300 m east of Harmony Road) – Not recommended for transfer but should be reconsidered in conjunction with the construction of the Rossland Road extension to Townline Road. 10. City of Pickering – Road Transfer Candidates Table 6 details the road transfer candidates and preliminary recommendations in 10.1 the City of Pickering based on the evaluation. Table 6: Pickering – Evaluation of Road Transfer Candidates Regional Road # Road From To Length (km) Lane (km) Urban/Rur al Area Preliminary Recommendation Previously RR1 Mowbray Street North Limit of Highway 407 Brock Road 1.3 3.5 Urban Transfer Candidate 5 9th Concession Concession Road 9 Lake Ridge Road 0.1 0.2 Urban Transfer Candidate 24 Church Street 22-Bayly Street Ajax/ Pickering Boundary 0.9 2 Urban Transfer Candidate 38 Whites Road (South) 0.6 km South of Oklahoma Drive 22-Bayly Street 0.9 2.6 Urban Transfer Candidate 38 Whites Road (North) 300 m North of Third Concession Road Taunton Road 1.3 4.4 Urban No transfer, reconsider in the future 29 Liverpool Rd Highway 2 Finch Avenue 1.2 3.9 Urban No transfer 78- 88 - Page 16 of 23 Regional Road # Road From To Length (km) Lane (km) Urban/Rur al Area Preliminary Recommendation Local to Regional Third Concession Road Ajax/ Pickering Boundary West of Valley Farm Road 1.7 3.4 Urban Transfer Candidate Local to Regional Whitevale Road 200m West of Future Rossland Road Extension Brock Road 1.7 3.4 Urban Transfer Candidate Local to Regional Sideline 26 (South) Taunton Road Whitevale Road 2.1 4.1 Urban Transfer Candidate Local to Regional Sideline 26 (Middle) Whitevale Road Highway 7 - - Urban Transfer Candidate Local to Regional Sideline 26 (North) Highway 7 Concessio n Road 7 2.2 4.4 Urban No transfer Local to Regional Seventh Concession Rd. (East) Westney Road Lake Ridge Road 4 8 Urban No transfer, reconsider in the future Local to Regional Seventh Concession Rd. (West) Sideline 26 Brock Road 3.3 6.6 Urban No transfer Local to Regional Salem Road Fifth Concession Road Seventh Concessio n Road 5.2 10.4 Urban No transfer, reconsider in the future Region To Local Transfer 10.2 •Mowbray Street (from north limit of 407 to Brock Road) – Recommended for transfer from the Region to the City of Pickering. No longer part of Brock Road. •9th Concession (from 9th Concession to Lake Ridge Road) – Recommended for transfer to the City of Pickering. This short section is no longer part of Regional Road 5. 79- 89 - Page 17 of 23 •Church Street (Regional Road 24 from Bayly Street to Ajax/Pickering boundary) – Recommended for transfer to the City of Pickering. It has a local function and is only a short segment of Regional Road. Should the Durham Live proposal require a partial interchange at Highway 401, this could be reconsidered. •Whites Road (south) (Regional Road 38 from 600 m south of Oklahoma Drive to Bayly Street) – Recommended for transfer to the City of Pickering. It has a local function and terminates within a neighborhood. •Whites Road (north) (Regional Road 38 from 300 north of Third Concession to Taunton Road) – Not recommended for transfer to the City. After the new Whites Road is constructed, it may continue to function as a key route from south Pickering to Toronto and York Region. This segment may be a possible candidate for future road rationalization, contingent on lower traffic volumes. •Liverpool Road (Regional Road 29 from Highway 2 to Finch Avenue) – Not recommended for transfer to the City. Its Regional function is enhanced by its interchange with Highway 401 and its access to the Pickering Urban Growth Centre. Local To Region Transfer 10.3 •Third Concession (from west of Valley Farm Road to Ajax/Pickering boundary) – Recommended for transfer from the City of Pickering to the Region. Third Concession is the extension of Rossland Road and will be an important arterial to serve the Seaton Community. •Whitevale Road (from 200 west of future Rossland Road Extension to Brock Road) – Recommended for transfer from the City of Pickering to the Region. It will be an important east-west arterial serving the Seaton Community. •Sideline 26 (south) (from Taunton Road to Whitevale Road) – Recommended for transfer from the City of Pickering to the Region. It will be part of the future Whites Road extension (Regional Road 38) serving the Seaton Community. •Sideline 26 (middle) (from Whitevale Road to Highway 7) – Recommended for transfer from the City of Pickering to the Region. It will be part of the future Whites Road extension (Regional Road 38) serving the Seaton Community. This section is currently unopened road allowance. •Sideline 26 (north) (from Highway 7 to Concession Road 7) – Not recommended for transfer from the City to the Region. It is located in the future Pickering Airport lands. •Seventh Concession (from Westney Road to Lake Ridge Road) – Not recommended for transfer from the City of Pickering to the Region. Should be re-examined in a future road rationalization study, after the deferred 407ETR interchange is constructed. 80- 90 - REVISE THIS PAGE ONLY Page 18 of 23 •Seventh Concession (from Sideline 26 to Brock Road) – Not recommended for transfer from the City to the Region. It is located in the future Pickering Airport lands. •Salem Road (from Fifth Concession to Seventh Concession) – Not recommended for transfer at this time from the City to the Region. Should be re-examined in a future road rationalization study, after the deferred 407ETR interchange is constructed. 11.Township of Scugog – Road Transfer Candidates Table 7 details the road transfer candidates and preliminary recommendations in 11.1 the Township of Scugog based on the evaluation. Table 7: Scugog – Evaluation of Road Transfer Candidates 11.2 Regional Road Road From To Length (km) Lane (km) Urban/Rural Area Preliminary Recommendation 7 Island Road Highway #7A Carnegie Beach Road 11.6 24.1 Rural Transfer Candidate Local to Regional Scugog Line 12 23-Lake Ridge Road Simcoe Street 13.4 26.8 Rural No transfer Local to Regional Scugog Line 14 23-Lake Ridge Road Highway 7/12 6.7 13.4 Rural No transfer Local to Regional Ashburn Road Townline Road Scugog Line 4 5 10.1 Rural No transfer Local to Regional Marsh Hill Road Scugog Line 4 21- Goodwood Road 1.1 2.3 Rural No transfer Local to Regional Scugog Line 6 Highway 7A 23-Lake Ridge Road 9.6 19.2 Rural No transfer Local to Regional Scugog Line 2 Highway 7/12 Simcoe Street 3.6 7.2 Rural No transfer, reconsider in the future Region To Local Transfers 11.3 •Island Road (Regional Road 7 from Highway 7A to Carnegie Beach Road) – Recommended for transfer to the Township of Scugog. Island Road does not serve a Regional function. 81- 91 - Page 19 of 23 Similar to comments from other municipalities, Scugog staff expressed concern with the maintenance and capital costs associated with taking on additional lane kilometres. Local To Region Transfers 11.4 • There are no candidates recommended for transfer from the Township of Scugog to the Region. • Scugog Line 6 (from Highway 7A to Lake Ridge Road) has the potential to function as a Regional Road, however, it is adjacent to major Regional Roads on each side (Reach Street or Regional Road 8 and Goodwood Road or Regional Road 21), and it would therefore be redundant. • Scugog Line 2 (from Highway 7/12 to Simcoe Street) has the potential to be a continuation of Shirley Road (Regional Road 19) could be reconsidered as a candidate for transfer from the Township to the Region in a future road rationalization review. 12. Town of Whitby – Road Transfer Candidates Table 8 details the road transfer candidates and preliminary recommendations in 12.1 the Town of Whitby based on the evaluation. Table 8: Whitby – Evaluation of Road Transfer Candidates Regional Road # Road From To Length (km) Lane (km) Urban/Rural Area Preliminary Recommendation 22 Victoria Street (old alignment) 0.7 km West of 26-Thickson 0.4 km West of 26-Thickson Road 0.3 0.6 Urban Transfer Candidate 43 Cochrane Street Dundas Street 28-Rossland Road 2.1 6.1 Urban Transfer Candidate 45 Henry Street (South) 22-Victoria Street Burns Street W 1.2 3.3 Urban Transfer Candidate 45 Henry Street (North) Burns Street W Dundas Street 0.9 2.6 Urban Transfer Candidate 46 Brock Street (South) Water Street Victoria Street 1 2.7 Urban Transfer Candidate 46 Brock Street (North) Victoria Street South Limit of Highway 401 0.3 1.5 Urban Transfer Candidate Former 23 Lake Ridge Road (North) Almond Avenue Cresser Avenue 0.3 0.6 Urban Transfer Candidate 82- 92 - Page 20 of 23 Regional Road # Road From To Length (km) Lane (km) Urban/Rural Area Preliminary Recommendation Former 23 Lake Ridge Road (South) 0.65 km N of Victoria Street 0.880 km N of Victoria Street 0.2 0.6 Urban Transfer Candidate 36 Anderson/ Hopkins Street Rossland Road Consumers Drive 3.7 13.7 Urban No transfer 26 Thickson Road Victoria Street Wentworth St 0.9 3.3 Urban No transfer 60 Wentworth Street Thickson Road Whitby/ Oshawa Boundary 1.3 6 Urban No transfer 25 Champlain Avenue Future Champlain Ave. Whitby/Oshawa Boundary 1.3 3.1 Urban No transfer 58 Manning Road Brock Street Garrard Road 3.5 16 Urban No transfer, reconsider in the future Local to Regional Rossland Road Ajax/Whitby Boundary Cochrane Street 2.9 8.9 Urban Transfer Candidate Local to Regional Dundas Street (West) Fothergill Court Cochrane Street 5.8 23.2 Urban Transfer Candidate Local to Regional Dundas Street (Middle) Cochrane Street Garden Street 1.7 6.7 Urban No transfer, reconsider in the future Local to Regional Dundas Street (East) Garden Street Whitby/ Oshawa Boundary 2.9 14.4 Urban Transfer Candidate Local to Regional Columbus Road Whitby/Pickering Boundary Whitby/ Oshawa Boundary 7.4 14.7 Urban No transfer, reconsider in the future Local to Regional Hopkins Street (2031 road extension scenario) Consumers Drive North limit of Highway 401 1.8 4 Urban No transfer, reconsider in the future 83- 93 - Page 21 of 23 Region To Local Transfers 12.2 • Victoria Street (old alignment west of Thickson Road) – Recommended for transfer to the Town of Whitby, as it will be replaced by the new alignment of Victoria Street. • Cochrane Street (Regional Road 43 from Dundas Street to Rossland Road) – Recommended for transfer to the Town of Whitby, reflecting its local function and character. • Henry Street (Regional Road 45 from Victoria Street to Burns Street) – Recommended for transfer to the Town of Whitby. This short section of Regional road has a local function and character. • Henry Street (Regional Road 45 from Burns Street to Dundas Street) – Recommended for transfer to the Town of Whitby. This short section of Regional road has a local function and character. • Brock Street (Regional Road 46 from Water Street to Victoria Street) – Recommended for transfer to the Town of Whitby. This short section of Brock Street has a local function in the Port of Whitby area. • Brock Street (Regional Road 46 from Victoria Street to South Limit of Highway 401) – This is an extremely short segment of road and thus should be considered for transfer to the Town of W hitby for practical reasons if the transfer of the southern portion of Brock Street is implemented. • Former Lake Ridge Road (north and south segments; Almond Avenue to Cresser Avenue; north of Victoria Street) – Recommended for transfer to the Town of Whitby, as they have local function and character. • Manning Road (Regional Road 58 from Brock Street to Garrard Road) – This segment is not recommended for transfer to the Town of Whitby, but it should be re-examined in a future road rationalization study. No other roads are recommended for transfer from the Region to the Town of Whitby. Local To Region Transfers 12.3 • Rossland Road (from Ajax/Whitby boundary to Cochrane Street) – Recommended for transfer from the Town of Whitby to the Region. Rossland Road is an important east-west arterial serving southern Durham Region. • Dundas Street – The Town of Whitby has advanced planning and urban design goals for Dundas Street through downtown Whitby, and has expressed its desire to manage the planning and design efforts for Dundas Street. From the Region’s perspective, Dundas Street is an important part of the Long-Term Transit Strategy, as it is planned to support high order transit service. For the purpose of this analysis and based on consultation with the Town, Dundas Street was divided into three segments: 84- 94 - Page 22 of 23 (a) Dundas Street (from Fothergill Court to Cochrane Street) – Recommended for transfer from the Town of Whitby to the Region, reflecting its importance as an east-west arterial and high order transit corridor. (b) Dundas Street (from Cochrane Street to Garden Street) – Not recommended for transfer at this time, as the segment traverses Town’s downtown core. The transfer opportunity should be re- examined in a future road rationalization review. (c) Dundas Street (from Garden Street to Whitby/Oshawa boundary) Recommended for transfer from the Town of Whitby to the Region, reflecting its importance as an east-west arterial and high order transit corridor. 13. Current Status and Next Steps As noted earlier in this report, there were two rounds of meetings and ongoing 13.1 communications with the LAMs to facilitate the sharing of information, including: • refinement of the criteria; • preliminary evaluation results; • structure condition data; • confirmation of road condition data; and • annual maintenance costs and capital needs. Technical evaluations of road segments identified through discussions with the 13.2 LAMs using the criteria described earlier in this report have resulted in the list of roads for potential transfer. Several LAMs have expressed an interest in pursuing transfer opportunities for 13.3 specific road segments consistent with the candidates list developed through this process. However, the possible transfer opportunities in each municipality have unique considerations and will require further discussion to determine all of the specifics related to the possible transfer opportunities. It is recognized that the timing of potential transfers could be influenced by 13.4 resourcing implications. The allocation of staff, equipment and funding are all considerations that may impact the timing of a transfer. A phased in approach that allows for funding and resources to be allocated may be appropriate in specific situations. In other situations transfers in the near future may be appropriate. It is anticipated that each LAM will review and respond with comments, specific to 13.5 the preliminary recommendations for each of the road segments identified in the report to allow for focus on early transfer opportunities for transfers. Upon receipt of comments regarding the road transfer candidates from the LAMs, 13.6 staff will report back on progress made for potential near term transfers and next steps for a phased approach on future transfers. 85- 95 - Page 23 of 23 As a longer term principle, the list of potential road transfers will be reviewed on a 13.7 regular basis (i.e. every five years) recognizing that there will be changing conditions and circumstances such as future planning applications. 14. Conclusion To date, open dialogue with the LAMs has resulted in the sharing of detailed 14.1 information requesting potential road transfers, collaboration on evaluation criteria that respects the various and unique characteristics of some road segments and a mutual understanding of concerns in specific situations. The process to date has provided the basis for continued dialogue on specific near term transfers as well as the development of a plan for phasing in the longer term transfers. Respectfully submitted, Original signed by S. Siopis, P.Eng. Commissioner of Works Original signed by G.H. Cubitt, MSW Chief Administrative Officer 86- 96 -